HomeMy WebLinkAbout7B, 10-96 Update on Position Paper
~
~HILLS
City Council
Agenda Packet Item:
Update on Items Related to the 1-694, Highway 10, and County Road 96 Position
Paper
1. Mn/DOT Noise Study
2. Highway 10 Alignment Alternatives
April 14,2008
~
~~HILLS
Request for Council Action
Prepared By:
Depl.:
Kristine Giga
Engineering
Council Mlg. Date:
Final Action Needed By:
4/14/08
Update on Items related to the Interstate 694, Highway 10 and County Road 96
Preliminary Design Issues and Position Paper
Budgeted Amount
Actual Amount:
Funding Source:
Council Action Request:
Highway 10 Noise Barrier Study:
Accept report
Discuss options
Provide direction to staff
Highway 10 Alignment Alternatives:
Accept report
Discuss alignment alternatives
Select an alignment alternative for the purpose of facilitating discussions on Design Constraints #2 and #3
Staff Recommendation:
Highway 10 Noise Barrier Study:
Accept report
Discuss options
Provide direction to staff
Highway 10 Alignment Alternatives:
Accept report
Discuss alignment alternatives
Select an alignment alternative for the purpose of facilitating discussions on Design Constraints #2 and #3
Advisory Commission Action:
Commission
Date
Action
Planning:
PTRC:
Supporting Documents: (attached)
x Merno/Leller:
Memo From City Staff dated April 1 0, 2008
TH 10 Noise Barrier Study dated March 18, 2008
Memo From Chris Chromy, Overview of TH 10 Barrier Study dated April 9, 2008
Letter from MnlDOT dated April 9, 2008
Memo From Mark Benson, Evaluation of Alternative Highway 10 alignments dated April 9, 2008
Memo From Chris Chromy, Overview of TH 10 Alternative Alignments dated April 1 0, 2008
Resolution No.:
Ordinance No.:
Engineering Recommendation:
Attorney Recommendation:
Other:
FinanciallmpJicallons:
Administrator/Staff Comments;
~
~
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
April 10. 2008
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Kristine GigtL Civil Engineer
Dcb Bloom. City Engincer
Greg Hoag. Public Works Director
Jim Willis. Interim City Administrator
SUB.JECT:
Update on Items related to the Interstate 694, Highway 10 and COllnty
Road 96 Preliminary Design Isslles and Position Paper
BACKGROUND
The City Council approved the Interstate 694. Highway 10 and County Road 96 Preliminary
I ksign Issues and Position Paper ("Position Paper") at the "'larch 3 1.2008 City Council
mecting. City staff has provided the document to Mn/DOT and Ramsey County. Per the City
Council" s approval, also at the March 3 L 2008 City Council meeting, City staff has retained
Bolton 8: Menk. Inc.. to assist the City in providing technical support fl.lr these transp0l1ation
related projects.
In an em>rt to keep the City Council intill"ll1ed and the projects on schedule. City staff and
consultants will provide new inlill"ll1ation and any responses regarding the Position Paper to the
City Council as it is received.
DISCUSSION
City staff met with Ramsey County and Mn/DOT on April 4. 2008, to provide them the approved
Position Paper and request a response. At the meeting, we discussed the process tilr developing
a federally funded highway project and what steps arc necessary to move the project jilrlvard. It
is our understanding that Ramsey County will be proceeding with preliminary design on the
grade separation of Highway 10/ County Road 96 in early June 2008.
I. i\lnIDOT Pro.iect: Interstate 694- I 35E to 35W Pro.iect
Design Constraint II 1- Review noise impacts
Mn/DOT has completed the additional noise study that was requested by the City
during the initial review of the Project Environmental Assessment (EA) and provided
;\ l~'lll) -ilh.:l, us ;Jnll'lll1iJ IsPR& pw.. Ellgjlll'l'J'int~2{)()S (\)Ullci 1__ \cl iOlls'l- I ,t-OSi\-IClllll... Ilnsil 111l1PapCl'Updak'.du(
4/ I 0/2008
Page 2
a copy to the City: the report is ineludcd in this packet. Bolton & Mcnk rcvicwed thc
results on bchalf ofthc City: thcir revicw mcmo is also attaehcd.
Chris Chromy, Bolton & Menk, will prescnt a summary of the findings of the
additional study at thc City Councilmccting.
II. Grade Separation of Highway 10 and County Road 96
Dcsign Constraints #1-6
City staffhas requested infclrIllation Irom Ramsey County relating to tbese design
constraints. Their rcsponse will be brought to the City Council once it is received.
III. Preserve full 'I'll IOILocal Access Interchange
Design Constraint III - At grade signalized intersection
City staff has requested inlclrIllation li.om Mn/DOT relating to these design
constraints. We have received a response; it is attached.
J)csjg!lS'onstraints #2-3
Additional analysis for each of these constraints will occur once direction is received
1i"om the City Council Ic)llowing discussions of Design Constraint #4; phasing will be
dependent on the alignment selected by the City.
Design Constraint 114- Review cost associated with realigning Hig!nvav 10 and the
interchange further northeast
SEll. Inc. has evaluated alternative alignments. and has summarized their findings in
the attaehcd mcmo. Bolton & Menk rcvicwcd the rcsults on behalf ofthc City: tbcir
review mcmo is also attachcd.
Chris Chromy. Bolton & Mcnk. will prcscnt a summary ofthc lindings of the
additional study at the City Councilmecting.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
City stalfrccommends thc Ic)llowing:
Iliglnvav 10 Noise Barricr Studv:
. Accept report
. Discuss options
. Provide direction to staff
Highv"av I 0 Alignment Alternatives:
. Accept report
. Discuss alignmellt alternatives
. Selcct an alignment alternative fClr the purpose of lileilitating discussions on Design
Constraints #2 and if3
TH10 Barrier Study
SEH
March 18, 2008
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 Project Scope and Description .....................................................................2
1.1 State and Federal Noise Abatement Criteria ...........................................2
2.0 MINNOISE Model Results ..............................................................................3
3.0 Noise Barrier Mitigation Analysis, Round Lake ..........................................4
3.1 Round Lake Noise Barrier 1.....................................................................5
3.2 Round Lake Noise Barrier 2.....................................................................6
3.3 Round Lake Noise Barrier 2.....................................................................8
4.0 Noise Barrier East of Hwy 10......................................................................10
5.0 Noise Analysis Conclusion and Summary ................................................11
Appendix A "Receptor and Noise Barrier Locations"
Noise Barrier Analysis Page i
Highway 10
1.0 Project Scope and Description
SEH has been asked to perform an environmental noise analysis along Highway 10 between
1-694 and County Road 96. This analysis is being performed to gauge the effectiveness of
potential noise barriers.
This environmental noise analysis is being performed according to Federal Highway
Administration (FHW A), Mn/DOT, and MPCA guidelines with regards to noise in and
around proposed neighborhoods affected by increased traffic levels in their existing
condition, and those modeled for 2030.
1.1 State and Federal Noise Abatement Criteria
The methods used are in accordance with State and Federal mandated noise simulation
methods and on-site measurement. Specifically, the MINNOISE model was used as a basis
for identifying potential noise impacts along the Highway 10 corridor and at residential
locations along the east shore of Round Lake, and also at 3 additional homes east of Highway
10. The modeled sites include areas of existing residential housing and common use areas
regarded by the Federal standards as Federal Activity Category B. For reference, FHW A
Noise Abatement Criteria is listed in Figure 2.
fahll' 5: \ul\\' ,\II:lll'llll'1Il Crlil'rla(\,\Cj
lIourly .\.Wd~hll'lI Sound I.~'\d llllkt'ihl'I~ldll,\)'"'
,\,Ii\il~ J '-'1l))) LI.,illl 11..:;clIpliL.n\d:\rti\itYC:ill.'J;,)ry
( ';llc'.~"f>
.\ ,- (.Ii I ,;llhh ,.n \\l1id\ ~'~l\'nll;.' and quid ;u-~ M.'\lr;wrdin;lry' sl~nirIL'alk\.'
11:\k'n'-'IJ Il','\I,'rJ,\11 :lIld ~,'I\': ,lll 1111 JlI'1l ~III t puhllc n,','d ;Uld '.\11\.'1': Hh.' l'll'"..'nali,'l1 ,11
Ilic"""'iU:llillc';.1;.6;'C'llli:dil th,':II<:;1 l',t,)n'IlIUHklpSd\,,'ll...
inlc'lhkd jlllqW.'c'.
Il 1',; - " Pil"IlI,' ;l1>\h. rCclc';llj"1l ;11";\\, pLl;..!,'Il;lllld-., Jrli\.' ~ll<lrh ;lrl';I~.
ll:,\k'ri.\rl il-:\I.'li,\l) I\;ll~". r~'sid.'Jl~','s. m"t-'b, h"h:I~. S~'h,h,h. dHlrdw..., lit'I;1I1.".:lIld
h().'j11t;d~
( "' -) 1)"1,'10'1'":.1 1:lIld"'.l'h-1,.'rli.''';, or ;1.:li\ill,''- n,,1 ilwllhkd Ill{;lk~"li,',
(1'.\k!l'\iJ IL\kfh'li '\"1 1\;\110.\.:
" -- -- 1_'n,lc'\~'I';r.:d 1:llhl...
L <, )) Iksld"IK,", 1ll"1,'I,,, h"",!>;, puhlk' Ilh'<.'IIllJ:: h":lll\. ",-'h,~'I",
Ilnkli"'1'j 1 ll\ldh\l I ,lllll\'lk\, II hr;u 1<.'", Il""P i l;il ~, ~Ill d ;llI<h 1 <'Ii 111\1"
1:1\\h'll "111l) ,,1' Lli/hi lhulll"l tWIll; m;l\ h' \h':c1 ,'11;1 Ph'.!,'.:l
Fig. 2, Federal Noise Abatement Criteria ("'Highway Trallie Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guid~U1cc" US Dcpt. or
Transportation, June 1995),
In accordance with FHW A requirements, Mn/DOT has adopted a statewide noise policy that
clarifies the FHW A terminologies of noise impacts. "Mn/DOT Noise Policy for Type I and
Type II Federal-aid Projects as per 23 CFR 772" includes the following descriptions:
Noise Level Approaching the NAC; MnJDOT defines a level as "approaching" the criterion
level when it is I dBA, or less, below the criterion level. For example, 69 dBA is considered
"approaching" the FI-IW A NAC category B level of 70 dBA.
Substantial Increase in Noise; The receptors shall have predicted future noise levels which
exceed the levels in Figure 2 or exceed existing noise levels by 5 dBA or more.
Substantial Noise Reduction; Mn/DOT identifies feasibility requirements for the use of
abatement procedures such as noise barriers and their associated costs. These requirements
Noise Barrier Anaiysis
Highway 10
Page 2
require that every reasonable effort be made to obtain a substantial noise reduction. Mn/DOT
defines a substantial noise reduction as 5dBA or more from a noise impact.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has also established guidelines for both residential
and industrial zones and acceptable SPL maximums for both.
These guidelines, measured in dBA, are stipulated in the form of LID and Lso. Simply stated,
LID means that the measured SPL (in dB A) must not exceed a certain threshold more than
10% of the time (for a one hour survey), and Lso, being a level, which must not be, exceeded
more than 50% of the time (again, for a one hour survey).
These thresholds are listed as SPL (dBA) maximums by the MPCA for residential areas, as
follows:
7030.0050 Noise Area Classification (NAC)l (Household Units including Farm Houses)1
Daytime
L5D
LID
60dBA
65dBA
Nighttime
LSD
LID
(1 0:00PM-7:00AM) 50dBA
55dBA
1,,/\ Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota", Brian Timcrson, MPeA
2.0 MINNOISE Model Results
As stated in Section 3.0 "Evaluation and Process", the augmented FHW A noise prediction
software MINNOISE was used to predict noise levels at 20 virtual receptor sites along the
study corridor.
MINNOISE calculates the amount of potential noise directly related to traffic speeds, traffic
mix (% cars, trucks, heavy trucks) and peak hour percentages of predicted future traffic
(2030). Traffic volumes were taken from a traffic analysis perfoffi1ed in 2007 as part of the
original EA.
Speed assumptions were based on posted speeds and adjusted for traffic approach speeds
during higher volumes (rush hours).
FHW A and MnlDOT procedures allow for only one descriptor to be used in modeling and
projecting future noise results. In this instance predicted results will be deteffi1ined using the
Llo descriptor only.
The existing and 2030 projected LID noise levels at the 20-receptors are presented in figure 3.
Please refer to Appendix A for baITier and receptor locations.
NOise Barrier Analysis
Highway 10
Page 3
1 2.1
1 2.1
C 1 2 2.1
D 1 2 2.1
E 1 1.9 2.1
F 1 1.9 2.1
G 1 1.9 2.2
H 4 2.6 2.1
I 2 2.1 2.8
J 3 1.5 1.5
K 1 2.1 2.6
L 1 2.1 2.7
M 2 2.2 2.6
N 1 1.9 2.1
0 1 1.9 2.1
P 3 1.9 2.2
Q 3 1.9 2.2
R 2 2 2.2
S 2 1.9 2.1
T 2 2 2.3
Fig.3, bisting and 30 year predicted noise al receptors, AM and PM. Shaded values represent those locations exceeding
the SWlc noise standards. Bold levels approach or exceed the FI-lW A Criteria of 69dBA. Bold and italicized levels meet or exceed the
FHW A NAC Category B level of 70dBA.
Figure 3 indicates that there are noise impacts identified at all of the receptors including
those along Round Lake (A-J and N-T) and those to the east of Highway 10 (K-M). When
noise impacts are identified, a noise balTier mitigation analysis must be perfoffi1ed.
3.0 Noise Barrier Mitigation Analysis, Round Lake
With noise levels at the receptors on the east shore of Round Lake (A-J and N-T) exceeding
Federal NAC, a mitigation analysis is required to detennine if measures, such as a nOise
barrier, are reasonable and effective in attenuating the noise at those locations.
To consider a noise barrier, one of the following factors must exist:
~ The noise standards are presently in excess of state noise standards.
;;- The predicted noise levels are expected to be in excess of the state noise standards for
the design year of the project.
y The noise levels are predicted to be "substantially" above current noise levels in the
project design year. "Substantial" is defined as a 5dBA or greater increase in noise.
~ The predicted noise level for the design year approaches or exceeds the acceptable
limit. "Approaching" is defined as noise levels being within IdBA of the FHWA
Noise Barrier Analysis
Highway 10
Page 4
NAC. In this instance, levels predicted as 69dBA are considered approaching the
FHW A NAC of 70dBA.
If one or more of the above conditions are met, noise barriers need to be considered based
upon cost reasonableness and noise barrier feasibility.
"Cost reasonableness" defines a ratio of cost per square foot to effectiveness of attenuation.
This is detennined by dividing the total cost of a barrier (Mn/DOT currently uses $15 per
square foot) by the total decibel reduction for residences that are predicted to have a >5dBA
reduction in noise. A "reasonable" cost is defined as equal to or less than
$3250/dBA/residence. "Feasibility" is defined as whether a noise barrier may be built
considering proper setback, sight lines, and location.
3 separate 20 and 10 foot high noise barriers (Mn/DOT maximum) were placed within the
MINNOISE model to gauge effectiveness during that of the "daytime" or PM time frame.
These noise barriers are located between Highway 10 and the access road to the homes on the
east shore of Round Lake. For the purposes of this report, the noise barrier at the north end
of Round Lake will be labeled "RL Noise Barrier 1 ", the noise barrier at the midway point
"RL Noise Barrier 2", and a south em extension to "RL Noise Barrier 2" labeled "RL Noise
Barrier 2ext".
3.1 Round Lake Noise Barrier 1
Figure 4 and 5 illustrate the complete noise impact survey including design year levels
(2030), MINNOISE modeled noise figures, resulting differences and noise barrier attenuation
figures for both a 20' and 10' barrier at the "RL Noise Barrier I" location. This location
shields 5 homes (Receptors I and J) in the southwest quadrant ofHwy 96 and 10 and is 870'
long.
Total Length of
Barrier :870'
Total Attenuation
Cost of 20' Barrier (@$15/sq.ft)=$261.000/44.7 decibel reduction
55,839
Figure 4. 20' Noise Barrier Feasibility Table, RL Noise Barrier I.
Noise Barrier Analysis
Highway 10
Page 5
Total Length of
Barrier :870'
Total Attenuation
Cost of 10' Barrier (@S15/sq.ft) ~S130,500/12 decibel reduction
$10,875
Figure 5, 10' Noise Barrier Feasibility Table, RL Noise Barrier I
A 20' noise barrier placed within the model to maximize decibel reduction at the receptors on
the north end of Round Lake does not meet the Mn/DOT minimum criteria of $3,250 per
residence, per decibel reduced.
The price per decibel reduction for a 20' barrier is $5,839.
For a 10' barrier in the same location, the Mn/DOT minimum criterion of $3,250 is not met
with a price per decibel reduction of$10,875.
3.2 Round Lake Noise Barrier 2
The second noise barrier analyzed for this report is labeled "RL Noise Barrier 2" and begins
900 feet south of the Hwy 96 and 10 intersection on the west side of 10, is 2000' long and
shields 11 homes which reside on the eastem shore of Round Lake (receptors A-H). Figures
6 and 7 illustrate the complete noise impact survey including design year levels (2030),
MINNOISE modeled noise figures, resulting differences and noise barrier attenuation figures
for both a 20' and 10' barrier at the "RL Noise Barrier 2" location.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
4
71.1
73
72.9
72.4
72.7
72.3
72.1
73.2
66.1
62.5
62.3
61.7
63.3
61.6
61
60.9
5.4
10.7
10.5
10.5
9
10.5
10.9
11.5
5.4
10.7
10.5
10.5
9
10.5
10.9
46
103.5
$5,797
Total Length of
Barrier :2,000
Total Attenuation
Cost of 20' Barrier (@S15/sq.ft) ~S600.000/103.5 decibel reduction
Figurc 6, 20' Noisc Barrier Feasibility Table, RL Noise Barricr 2
Noise Barrier Analysis
Highway 10
Page 6
A 71.1 69.9 <5 0
B 73 68.6 <5 0
C 72.9 68.7 <5 0
0 72.4 67.9 <5 0
E 72.7 69.9 <5 0
F 72.3 67.9 <5 0
G 1 72.1 66.9 5.2 5.2
H 4 73.2 66.2 6.6 26.4
Total Attenuation 31.6
Total Length of Cost of 10' Barrier (@S15/sq.ft) =S300,000/31.6 decibel reduction 9.494
Barrier :2,000
Figure 7. 10' Noise Barrier Feasibility Table, RL Noise Bamer 2
A 20' noise barrier placed within the model to maximize decibel reduction at the receptors on
the north end of Round Lake does not meet the Mn/DOT minimum criteria of $3,250,00 per
residence, per decibel reduced.
The price per decibel reduction for a 20' barrier is $5,797,
For a 10' barrier in the same location, there is not enough attenuation provided at a majority
of the receptors to provide a cost feasibility ratio as those reductions that receive less than a
5dBA reduction are not included within the overall per MnlDOT policy], There are two
exceptions, that ofreceptor H which represents 4 residences, and receptor G which represents
I residence, Total decibel reduction at these receptors is 31.6dBA.
This reduction, divided by the cost of the barrier, results in a decibel reduction cost ratio of
$9.494, which does not meet the MnDOT criteria of$3,250.
3.3 Round Lake Noise Barrier 2 Extension
In and attempt to detenlline whether further shielding, in the form of a southern extension to
RL Noise Barrier 2, would supply additional noise attenuation to more homes south of
Round Lake, and thereby increase cost reasonableness, 7 more receptors, representing 10
homes were added to the over-all RL Noise Ban'ier 2 analysis. This extension is an additional
1400' long extending to the south and ternlinates 825' before Hwy 10 merges onto 694, This
extension is labeled "RL Noise Barrier 2ext" and results in a combined total noise barrier
distance along Hwy 10 of3400', The results of 10' and 20' barriers in this configuration, and
including 7 new receptors (N- T) are presented here in figures 8 and 9;
Noise Barrier Analysis
Highway 10
Page 7
A 71.1 64.9 6.2 6.2
B 1 73 62.1 10.9 10.9
C 1 72.9 62.3 10.6 10.6
D 1 72.4 61.8 10.6 10.6
E 1 72.7 63.7 9 9
F 1 72.3 61.9 10.4 10.4
G 1 72.1 61.2 10.9 10.9
H 4 70.9 61.0 9.9 39.6
N 1 70.2 63.7 6.5 6.5
0 69.4 60.8 8.6 8.6
P 67.5 58.5 9 9
Q 66.4 57.9 8.5 8.5
R 2 64.1 56.9 7.2 14.4
S 2 69.2 59.5 9.7 19.4
T 2 61.3 57.6 <5 0
Total Attenuation 174.6
Total Length of Cost of 20' Barrier (@$15/sq.ft) "$1,020,000/174.6 decibel $5,842
Barriers :3,400 reduction
Figure 8, 20' Noise Ban"icT Feasibility Table, RL Noise Barrier 2cxt
Noise Barrier Analysis
Highway 10
Page 8
A 1 71.1 69.9 <5 0
B 1 73 68.7 <5 0
C 1 72.9 69 <5 0
D 1 72.4 68.4 <5 0
E 1 72.7 70.3 <5 0
F 1 72.3 68.4 <5 0
G 1 72.1 67.4 <5 0
H 4 70.9 66.5 <5 0
N 1 70.2 69.3 <5 0
0 1 69.4 67.4 <5 0
P 1 67.5 64.8 <5 0
Q 1 66.4 63.9 <5 0
R 2 64.1 61.8 <5 0
S 2 69.2 66.0 <5 0
T 2 61.3 60.3 <5 0
Total Attenuation 0
T olal Length of Cost of 10' Barrier (@S15/sq.ft)=$510,000/0decibel reduction NA
Barriers :3,400
Figure 9, 10' Noise B~TTicr Feasibility Table, RL Noise Barrier 2cxt
A 20' noise barrier placed within the model to maximize decibel reduction at the receptors on
the north end of Round Lake does not meet the Mn/DOT minimum criteria of $3,250.00 per
residence, per decibel reduced.
The price per decibel reduction for a 20' barrier is $5,842. Therefore, a 20' noise barrier
including the south em extension is not cost effective.
For a 10' barrier in the same location, there is not enough attenuation provided at any of the
receptors to make the barrier acoustically effective. Receptors that receive less than a 5dBA
reduction are not included within the overall (per Mn/DOT policy]) A 10' noise barrier,
including the southerly extension, does not achieve enough acoustic reduction therefore is
considered not effective.
Noise Barrier Analysis
Highway 10
Page 9
4.0 Noise Barrier East of Hwy 10
As part of the noise exemption request for 1-694 between 1-35E and I-35W, a noise barrier
along 1-694 was previously evaluated and detennined not to be cost effective. A new noise
barrier was analyzed to detemline if homes north of Briar Knoll Drive would receive any
acoustic benefits.
Both 20' and 10' noise barriers were analyzed at this location shielding receptors K-M. If
these receptors achieve a substantial reduction in noise (>5dBA), then they would be
analyzed to determine cost effectiveness. Figures 10 and 11 detail noise level attenuation and
a cost effectiveness analysis for receptors K-M located on the east side of Highway 10.
K 1 63.6 59.8 <5
L 1 66.1 60.8 5.3
M 2 66.9 60.3 6.6
Total Attenuation
Total Length of
Barrier :984'
Cost of 20' Barrier (@$15/sq.ft) ;$295,200/18.5 decibel reduction
o
5.3
13.2
18.5
$15,597
Figure 10, Noise Barrier Attenuation Analysis of20' Barrier
K
L
M
63.6 62.6 <5
66.1 64.7 <5
2 66.9 64.3 <5
Total Attenuation
o
o
o
o
NA
Total Length of
Barrier :984'
Cost of 20' Barrier (@S15/sq.ft);S147,600/0 decibel reduction
Figure 11, Noise Barrier Attenuation Analysis of 10' Barrier
A 20' noise barrier to the north of Briar Knoll Drive does create acoustic benefits greater
than 5dB. However the cost effectiveness ratio of $15,587 for a 20' barrier does not meet the
MnDOT criteria of$3,250 and is therefore not cost effective.
For a 10' barrier in the same location, there is not enough attenuation provided at any of the
receptors to make the barrier acoustically effective. Therefore, a 10' noise barrier is not cost
effective.
Noise Barrier Analysis
Highway 10
Page 10
5.0 Noise Analysis Conclusion and Summary
Traffic noise impacts occur when traffic noise levels approach or exceed the FHW A NAC-l
(70dBA) level by one decibel or when impacts are modeled exceeding state noise standards,
or those for which the project increase the existing levels by more than 5 dBA.
Impacts were registered at 20 virtual (MINNOISE) receptors. 10 of these receptors also
registered levels approaching and exceeding FHW A guidelines (PM 2030).
A mitigation analysis was performed to gauge the effectiveness of 20' and 10' noise barriers
placed to shield receptors I-J on the north side of Round Lake. This noise barrier, or "RL
Noise Barrier 1", revealed that noise barriers are not cost effective or economically feasible.
Further; "Noise Barrier 2" and "Noise Barrier 2ext" along the east shore of Round Lake are
not cost effective or economically feasible and therefore should not be considered for design
and construction in this configuration.
And finally, those receptors (K-M) which are shielded by a new noise barrier north of Briar
Knoll Drive and on the east side of Highway 10 did not receive a substantial noise
attenuation benefit greater than 5dBA with a 10' noise batTier.
However, a 20' noise barrier at this location does create acoustic benefits greater than 5dBA
at three residences (receptors Land M). However, there are not enough protected residences
at this location to meet the MnDOT cost per decibel reduction of $3,250 and is therefore not
cost effective.
I Mn/DOT Noise Policy for Type I and Type II Federal-aid Projects as per 23 eFR 772
Authority: 23 U.S.c. 109(h), J 09(1): 42 U.S.c. 4331,4332; and 49 CFR 1,48(b).
Noise Barrier Analysis
Highway 10
Page 11
~
.
w 0 0
- 0 0
" "
< ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ . " ~ '"
w " W
:; ~ ~ ~ '"
0 .... ,0 :::>
" ~ 0 . CO
Z < H
W 0 ~ " ., "-
CO 0 :; "
W ;: ~ ~
~
W <
~ < 0
< <
'"
I-
%,:',(;4'
\--y':;v.;.;,'.;,
:,:-,:~'~
"9>'
.,'
'-~',:>::.-";P:f .
z,:
'~;-
," ~~..
.[, '.
h-
'i;;-'~
'p
Ie"
~''''~'
'"
W
0:
'"
o
H
:I:
.-:
j
,.{Of
_ 1. ,. ~
~Sll.(I'";''''I~ev>''''''''''''' ,~ ~~
Jl_\OO';lt<J\J,()(HI'\II'\(ll'\'S
1'\.111\
li\
t
SOLTON &. ~ENK,
Consulting Engineers & Surveyors
12224 Nicollet Avenue. Burnsville, MN 55337-1649
Phone (952) 890-0509. FAX (952) 890-8065
INC.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
Apr; I 9, 200S
To;
Kristine Giga, P.E. ~ Civil Engineer
Greg IIoag - Public \Vorks Director
City of Arden Hills
From:
rirA
Christopher S. Chromy. 1'.10., 1'.T.O.E.l"cL/
Dale Maul, M.S. - Environmental PI(lIlncFt:/~---
Bolton & Mcnk, Inc. -
RIO;
Overview ofTIIIO Borrier Study. t<.tareh IS, 200S
1-694 Environmental Assessment
BMll'rojeet No. T42.22335
On behalf or the City of Arden Hills, we have reviewed and summarized the referenced Mn/DOT study
prepared by S.E.H. The purpose oflhc study was to document existing noise levels and Inodcl future
noise levels with estimated 2030 traflie volumes along Till 0 between 1-694 and CSAH 96.
Backe.round
Noise created hy vehicular traffic 011 highways is rated nn a decibel scale. This scale \Vas designed to
match our hearing mechanisms and docs not work the sallle ,15 most other I~lmiliar scales. ^ sound that
increases by ] 0 decibels is said 10 tkHlb1c in loudncs:;. Thercftm::, a source will sound twice as loud ifits
level increases rrom 60 to 70 decibels. However, a 3~decibcl change is barely noticeable to most people.
To betlcr understand the /\-weighted decibel scale used for highway traftie noise, the following
comparisons arc provided:
J 0 dB(A) Normal breathing
20 dB(A) Whisper
30 dB(A) Library, Secluded Woods
40 dB(A) Refrigerator
50 dB(A) Clothes dryer, Railll,dl
60 dB(A) /\ir Conditioning Unit, Normal Conversation
70 dB(A) Piek up Inlek ('.Ii 50 mph, Business Offiee
XO dB(A) Heavy Truek Tranie
90 dB(A) Lawnlllowcr, Chainsaw. Hair Dryer
Thc sOllnd of a train horn sOllnding at railroad crossings can be over] 10 dB/\ :1t 100 feet. Audible
cOllllllunication usually ceases whelllhc hackground noise exceeds 90 dBA. (American Public \Vorks
Administration alld lilt Federal I\,til Administration, FRA)
MANKATO, MN . FAIRMONl. MN . SLEEPY EYE. MN . BURNSVlllE. MN . CHASKA. MN
WlllMAR. MN. RAMSEY, MN . AMES, IA
\t/\w/.bolton.menk:.com
An [quo! Opporl"nity Employer
City of Arden Hills
Apri I 9. 2008
Page 2 01'3
Study Procedures and Findin!!s
Noise levels with existing and future (2030) tr<lflic volumes were modeled at 20 locations adjacent to 30
homes along '1'1110 between Coullty Road 96 and 1-694. Noise modeling calculates the amount of
potential noise directly related 10 lrnf'lic speeds, traffic mix (vchicle types), <lnd traffic volullles. Future
traffic conditions used for noise analysis include growth and development of the Twill Cities region as
well as growth within the City of Arden Hills and development of the TCAAP site. Future traffic
conditions also incluuc planned rcgionallransporlatioll improvements including 1-694 between I-35W and
J-35E.
The noise analysis was prepared to evaluate whether noise balTicrs arc warraJlled,fem;ib/e, and
reasoJlable. The noise modeling and analysis was performed according to Federal Highway
Administration (FIlW A), Minnesota Department ofTrallsp0l1ation (Mn/DOT), and Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) guidelines. This evaluation followed a reasonable planning process and
provides realistic noise conditions. Noise barriers, 10' and 20' tall, were considered and evaluated at the
folImvjng loc<llions:
R.I.. Noise Barrier I -.- 870' long barrier near 5 homes in southwest corner ofTH I O/CR 96
RL Noise Ilarrier 2 2000' long barrier near 11 homes west ofTII ]0
RL Noise Barrier 2EX'!' Barrier 2 extended 1400' soutb near 10 homes sO\lth of Round Lake
BKD Noise Barrier - 984' long barrier near 4 homes north of Briarknoll Drive
Existing Conditions - Noise levels today vary betwccn59 dB(A) and 72 dB(A) along TH 10 during the
AM and PiV'l rush hours. AI locations wherc noise barriers were considered, existing traffic volumes
result in the following noise levels:
RL Noise Barrier 1 70 to 72 tlB(A)
RL Noise Barrier 2 69to 71 tlll(A)
RL Noise Harrier 2EX'!' ... 59 to 69 dll(A)
BKD Noise Harrier 6t to 64 dB(J\)
Future Conditions - Noise levels in the future arc expected to vary between 61 tiB(A) and 74 dB(A) along
TH lO with anticipated AM and PM rush hour traffic in the year 2030. At locations where noise barriers
were considered, future traffic volumes result in the following Jllticipalcd noise levels \vilh and without
barriers:
RL Noise Barrier
RL Noise Barrier 2
RL Noise Barrier 2EX'!'
BK]) Noise Barrier-
NQ___H,',\,!Ti.~I
71-73 dB(J\)
71-73 dB(J\)
61-70 dB(A)
64-67 dll(A)
2Q~JJ<lrr.iGr.
62-63 dH(A)
61-66 dB(A)
57-64 dB(A)
60-61 dB(A)
JQ'_Barrier
66 dB(A)
66-70 dH(A)
60-69 dI3(A)
63-65 dB(A)
Noise levels arc anticipated to increase by I to 3 dB(A) as traffic VO!UI11CS increase over the next 20 years.
\Vhile this incrc<1sc would not he Iloliceable by most people, the existing and anticipated noise levels
exceed noise abatemenl criterioll. The FH\\/;\ and !'vIll/DOT criterion levels for noise abatement arc 70
dI3(A) and 69 dB(l\), respectively. As a result, cOllsider;ltions for noise barriers arc warranted at the
locations wesl ofTlI 10. Existing and future noise levels at residences 11011h of Briarknoil Drive and cas!
01'1'1-110 do not meet criterion levels and therefore consideration of noise barriers is not \\'arrantcd.
Cily of Arden Hilb
April 9, 2008
Page 3 of]
Construction of 20' ;md 10' noise hllrricrs along the west side ofTH 10 could decrease highway noise
levels by 41010 dB(A) and I 105 d13(A). respeelively_ Tbe FHWA criteria to delell11ine ifnoise barriers
are feasible is that a 5 dB(A) or greater reduction in noise is achieved. As a result, considerations of noise
barriers arcfeasible at the locations west ofTII 10.
When noise barriers arc considered warranted and fC<Jsible, the next step in the decision-making process is
to determine whether or not the barrier is l'ell,fwllab/e, or cost-effective for construction. Cost
reasonableness is defined by the ratio of construction cost of the noise batTier relative to the reduction in
highway noise achieved and number of benefiting residences. To be considered reasonable and remain
eligible for trunk highway funding, a noise batTier can not exceed $3250 per dB(A) reduction per
residence. The cost-effectiveness for the noise halTiers along the west side ofTH 10 is summarized
below:
RL Noise Barrier I -
RL Noise Barricr 2 .-
RL Noise l3an-icr 2EXT-
20'_J1<!fIi.~r
$5,839/dB(A)
$5)97/dB(A)
$5,842/d13(/\)
l<LHnrrier
$10,875/dl3(/\)
$9.494/dl3(A)
Not Feasible
Based on the Mn/DOT cost-effectiveness critcrion, the cost to construct noise barriers relative to the noise
reduction achieved and the number of benefiting residcnces is not reasol1able and thercfore can not be
constructed with trunk highway funding.
Recommendations
Based on Mn/DOT's cost panicipatioll policy, the City of Ardcn Hills has two options to consider while
reviewing the findings and recommendations oCthe 'I'll 10 Noise IblTier study. First, the City can accept
the findings that highway traffic noise at residences along 'Ill 10 will increase only slightly between now
and 2030 without thc inSlallatioll of noise barriers. Changes in noise levels would not be noticeable by
most people.
Since costs are not considered reasonable relative to the reduction in noise and number of benefiting
residences, the noise barriers are not eligible lor trunk highway funding. A second option the City can
consider is to fund for the construction of noise barriers. The estimated construction cost for c..'lch of the
noise barriers considered is summarized below:
RL Noise Barrier I (870')-
RL Noise Barrier 2 (2000')
RL Noise Barr 2EXT (1400') ---
BKD Noise Barrier (984')
TOTAL
2(1.:. Barrit;;[
$26 I .000
$600,000
$420,000
i295.200
$1.576,200
lJr.!~arrier
$130.500
$300,000
$210,000
$147.600
$788,100
Benefiting
R~_$.i~i.GI1ces
5
11
10
_-'L_
30
Estimated eOlls{l11ction cost is b.lscd Oil all averagc unit cost of$15 per square root and is subject to
change based Oil material and labor costs.
Apl.l0. 2008 2:51PM
No.0126 P. 2
'0'
\tJI
Minnesota Department of Transportatloll
MetrolUllltall District
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville MN 55113-3174
April 9, 2008
Mayor Stan Harpstead
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112-5743
Re: TH 10 diagonal
Signalized intersection
Dear Mayor Harpstead:
Recent traffic studies for the improvement of 1-694 show the need for a high volume
regional transportation corridor to support the interchange at 1-694 and 1-35W. This
corridor is the Trunk Highway 10 diagonal. In order to meet the volume needs, all of the
at grade intersections should be removed along the Trunk Highway 10 diagonal. This has
been the Minnesota Department's ofTransportation position for the last decade and has
been supported by Metro District Traffic, the Regional Transportation Management
Center, as well as Area Management. This was the concept used to support the TeAAP
redevelopment plan.
Alternate scenarios that limit the capacity of the TH 10 diagonal (signalized intersections)
have been proposed and discussed with Minnesota Department of Transportation district
staff. Cursory analysis of this intersection requires significant increase in the right of way
of the 1-694 and 1-35W interchange area to accommodate the increase in diverted traffic
due to this proposed intersection on the TH 10 diagonal when the 1-694 and 1-35W
interchange is rebuilt.
Safety of the traveling public is the top priority of Minnesota Department of
Transportation. This intersection ranks in the top quartile of our Top 200 High Crash
Cost Intersections. That is why Minnesota Department of Transportation fully supports
Ramsey County and their project to grade separate the current TH 10 and CSAH 96
intersection. By allowing a signalized intersection (temporary or permanent) to the north
of the current intersection, most of the current crash problems would also move north.
Spending millions of dollars to remove a signal system, then allow another signal system
to be installed would negate the benefits of increased safety and mobility of the Ramsey
County project. This would be a grave disservice to the traveling public.
Apr,10, 2008 2:5',PM
No,om c, j
For these reasons, Minnesota Department of Transportation will not support a signalized
intersection as the accesS to the TCAAP redevelopment site.
Sincerely,
r~c!:
CC: David Grant, Councilmember
Brenda Holden, Councilmember .
Fran Holmes, Councilmember
David McClung, Councilmember
Greg Haag, Public Works Director
Debra Bloom/Kristine Giga, City Engineer
~
SEH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council of Arden Hills
FROM:
Mark Benson
DATE:
April 9, 2008
RE:
Evaluation of Altemative Highway 10 alignments
SEHNo.101752
Scope of Work
In response to the city council position paper dated March 31, 2008, SEH has been requested to evaluate
altemative alignments for Highway 10 as part of preserving full access for residents and business between
Highway 10 and County Road 96 through development of an interchange that includes access to TCAAP
from Highway 10. This was requested as part of the City Project - Design Constraint # 4 within the
position paper.
The City requested the following be reviewed as part of the evaluation: costs of realignment options,
beginning and tenninus of realignment, impacts to property further south of County Road 96 and quality
of tile existing road. The goal of this study was to dctcnnine the cost implications of moving the roadway
east to minimize impacts to the Arden Manor area.
Alternatives
\Vorking with city staff, a range of four altematives were developed and analyzed (see attached exhibits):
Altemative I - Utilize the existing Highway 10 alignment. This is the base altemative for comparison
purposes. The total length ofconstruetion along Highway 10 is 4200 feet (0.8 miles).
Altemative 2 -- Shift eastbound Highway 10 lanes 23 feet east within the median area and use an urban
road section (ditch is replaced with median barrier and curbs) to reduce impacts. Highway 10 requires
full reconstruction to accommodate urban section. The totallength of constluction along Highway 10 is
5400 feet (1.02 miles).
Altcmativc 3 .- Shin all of Highway 10 to the east 41 feet within the existing right-of-way and use an
urban section to reduee impacts. The total length of construction along Highway 10 is 6000 feet (1.14
miles).
Altemative 4 - Using the same rural Highway 10 centerline as Alternative I, shift all of Highway 10 east
onto TCAAP property 217 feet so that all impaets to the land uses west of Highway 10 would be avoided.
The totallcngth ofconstruetion along Highway 10 is 7800 feet (1.48 miles).
An important observation was made when reviewing the altematives, shifting Highway 10 east affects the
County Road 96 grade separation project (CR 96 Project) which is antieipated to start design May 2008.
Altemative I can be eonstructed independent of the CR 96 Projeet. However. if Alternative 2, 3 or 4 is
seleeted, the City will need to coordinate closely with Ramsey County as the location of the grade
separation bridges would change depending on the alignment of Highway 10. This would require the two
projects to become tied together and occur in conjunction with each other.
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive. SI. Paul, MN 55110.5196
SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc,com ! 651,490.2000 I 800.325.2055 I 651,490.2150 fax
Evaluation of Alternative Highway 10 alignments
April 9, 2008
Page 2
Assumptions
In order to ensure consistent comparisons between the alternatives, several assumptions were used:
J. The interchange type, size and location along Highway 10 was based on the February 4, 2008
concept.
2. The approximate construction/right-of-way limits were based on the assumption that graded
slopes would be used on the outside of the roadways, not retaining walls. However, retaining
walls were used bet\veen the mainline and ramp areas to accommodate the compressed roadway
section.
3. All roadways that are colored on the concept plan exhibits were included in the cost estimates.
4. The Highway 10 bridges over Highway 96 were included in the estimates since Alternative 2,3
and 4 all impact their size and location.
5. Mn/DOTs L WD (length, width. depth methodology) cost estimating tool was used to develop
the construction cost estimates (2007 dollars).
6. Highway 10, under Alternative I, was not considered reconstructed in the areas where the
elevation of the road was not changed.
7. The costs for right-of-way acquisition were developed by Stacie K vilvang of Ehlers and
Associates using current market valuations.
8. The groundwater treatment system wells were considered impacted if they fell within the
roadway reconstruction area. The degree to which the well system is impacted is also dependent
on the location of Highway 10. If Highway 10 is located over piping system. it would likely
result in the relocation of the piping system to allow for future access and repairs as needed.
Findings
The study findings have been summarized on two tables. Table I is an overall comparison summary of
the key differences between the four alternatives. Table 2 is feasibility study cost comparison showing
total costs for right-of-way acquisition and construction.
In summary, the overall project costs (construction and right-of-way) increase significantly as you move
Highway 10 east to minimize impacts to Arden Manor.
mdb
Attachments
. Altematives I - 4
. Table I Comparison Summary
. Table 2 Cost Comparison
c: Stacie Kvilvang
Kris Giga
Gen Mclilton
~:pl 'J)~,\),lOJ 75~fC;l\il1i1ily '<"j"nJ\ifh\\'JY 10 JCJ-,ibiliIY mCI\\i!IJndum !;n~1 (~I.09.IlS.d;,.:
.9 0
Ui c:
'" "
.".w.l2:
""
.2: (g
So::
E u
~ -
<r.iJ
o
5~g
"Ego
~~~
~ ,~
< M
" ""
G:: '0
>
Ui<
~
"
WJ
;>,
'"
"
E
~
==
::
VJ
==
o
~
.;:
"
Q..
E
o
U
~
l'"..... 13 :s
"en 0
.::'"'00::::
~ (g
t:o::
2 :E
<0::;:
en
G::
ifJ
c;
'"
"
;;.
o
I
~
"
"
..J
~5
.::. c
~cn
~
< C
ifJ
<:::
ifJ
-
"
;;;;
"
f-<
.- g
" c
> .!:!J
~<
~ ~fJ
< ~
x
WJ
...::.
6
o
o
o
C
o
,~
c;
'"
""
o
o
o
C
o
'"
00
'"
""
o
o
o
C
o
'l;
M
""
-
~
8
"
o
r-
cccc
c-
lr,.-\O~
.".
:::_\000
M
.".
~-\OO:'
.".
~
"
=
~ 0
:;::c
e-"E
- -
.:: =:
~ U
22'S
~ C5
Ji2:
~ ~
" "
~
g]
.~
en.D
~
~
(J
u
"
~
-
s::
a
t;2:
U} ~
"
-
<
-
~
"
~
>,
.D
'"
"
-
'"
"
:D ~
c- '" -
~ g-g~
'-~r--r-:
M>oo
~~
~
"
"
-0
"
'"
>,
.D
"
"
-
"
"
:D-;;;
'" "
~2gc
r--~:!
"
" M
~
"
"
-0
~
'"
00 0
.".
""
oc 0
.".
~
~
(J
u
:: (:l
"
&"-
=::2
-l.i
~r-
lE
CfJ
~
-
o
Z
~
Cii
-
v.
'"
tol
<:::
.9
~t;;
-0
~ ~
23 ~
oCi:
"-:r;
<
z
<
z
<
z
~
~
"
-
u
-S
v.
-
"
"
Q..
E
-
"
~
'0
z
"0
'"
~
'"
'"
.;:
=
u
~ E
~ c:
2 ef
g~
oj) ::
~.:: 2
" - ~
3: 0 ~'13
,.... - t1.l'0
.2 s::.:: "'
'0 c c. ;::
~ S'o...::
xC-~]
<V x -:;:: -a
...-..,- -a _
::::- ~ c =:
o"'~
~5.0 ~
i..i3.:::~
- 3:
~01)
ro .S 13
~ 1--
C3 .9 g
::::';::: c.
8 ~
u
r;:
x
"
"
"
o
~
N
o
m
""
:;;
w w
m
~
.; ~
~
o
~ N
~ .,;
Z N
~ ci
"S 0
o ~
c-
Ui 0
~. g
> N
~ g
OJ '<to
o ~
. w
U
.
..
c E
~ 0
o 0
> U
~ c
~ :c
M .
U ~.
E
c
o
.
~
.g ~
~ "
C "ii
:1: E
" .
g .f
w 0
" 15
o ~
~ ~
'" 0
"
o
cr
.
C
o
.
~
.".
~
'=
i5
"-
"
E~
~-=
i5
B ~
c~
~o
<:J :::
~
;;e
C5~
~o'"O
'0?:: <:J
:::: I:JJ t>
,.... c ;Q
.2'~ E
t>.-::: <:..l
~ (3..n
x ::2
,,~
N'\O C
'-';.':::
~ 'if..
r:::
;;e
C5~
~o'"O
'03: <:J
3: oI; U
- "
_.::: c.
.2 I-
wE
~ (32
xE-a
u...-.. _
...-.. \0 C
C-'-"?::
o x
::.- .;:;:;
r:::
I
W
'"
-
'"
"
E
"
"
...
r-
...
"
-
"
..
~
"0
::
o
...
"
E
~
~
>.
if)
~
,.
"
\; '~i
~
~
~.,
I
j
I~
'"
I
,~.,
f
,'\ii"
~ ,
~ I
j,
"
'J
'I-
1
,%
. <1
,
\
",.,"" ,
EXISTlHG RIGltT Of WAY
N(1lR/W
TC.u.PIlC(.Kl.I.RY
f
f'MPOSEDROIJl....r
PROPOSEOSllOUlOER,PAVED
R"'ISWt.EOlolHS,aJRBS
BRIDCES
S PROfIOSEDSlQUl..S
PROPOSEO SIDEWALK &. mAll
~OUES IlolPACTED
i2&l?;;mr'C'J]ri BUSIHESS[S Il.PACTEO
I.WIlFACTURroflOUESllof'ACTED
@
@
.
EXISTI/oIGEXTRACTlO/lIltLL
f,
EXISTlHGOBSffiVATlONWELL
R8.1OVEEXTRACTlOH I 06SEIlVATlONWELL
'i
J
~?~
0:1$100 IllQiI Of WAY
...~
It.UP8Ol.NJ/JIT
Pf\OP'O:S(ORO.lOWAY
~5l<OU.(l(ll,pn'Ul
R.l1$WlCIlJJl$.tI.flllS 1
~
PllOPOS(DSICl<.ll.S
P!lOPOS(ll SIDE.AU" TllAlI.
~-"""
OOSIl6SESIWP.lCTUl
1LI./oU".LCl\Jl(l) I'OW(:; lloI'A~!ro
@ DISlOO DTR.lCTICt< I'EU.
@ OOST1."I; OOSllNAllOH I'Ul
(I II!J.o:JvED:TIU.CT1COl/oasrRYATlCOII'Ul
"
,
'"'
"11"'
'ii'
'.,!le'"
"
:~
~ ~""';
">1
~:~,)!
'',,<
,I i
;k< ,
:"i"~'~ "
<.'~
~t
'"
,4_
",:ui,
;tJ;~;i
"VtY",~ a
;;.
''''. -',',:;.c'200
" ,
.....::;i;:
:.1 "
~
[it
'-':1;'>>
,
<-:'~ ~_,_~ ~ ~ t
, ,'m 'H1:'~
'_100 ~;l ' 1. ,: - teet; ~
~7_,,\iJ:f<~~",;_ -,
'fi"\' J ~:' _~'
,~[} ~!~ F-tl h
';, ~;:~:~~
!<
~
P-'
I..
.,
;f;:
-.-:";';"
"1,1
,-'-!"
j f
,;~ .
"o;.t~',~--,- ,
"!'';:' '
__.'.<<',:"_,t.~.
,~1....:- '
'-~;~:~, . . . '" - 't.:
,
~+..
>
~%~~:r;~~2l, '
~I,!~,I ::- r;,.~
'-'-":~_"?""_~' 'h.:"II'N
t~~~r!~~f~~:~~?~ {'~:'hs"
, . ~,....~... .1'<4' J'l::.! ifi - ''';''',1 .
'.- __,_t _ 1 J ~~-,i~_-,.,,,-
'r:::: -.: ~ ':I,. ., ,~~ C, !~.
FI" \;\' III '.r-r:'"II'-11 ,,=; ;, .
,d d, . r.f _ ~___: ~}. ,-"._.__, :r1:1..,_ ~._._..... . If
"t. -"l -;;\ ': ., 'r'~~ f~- '~...~~
i.i.t:.! ,,:..,- - ..~; - ',~'l ~.:. . ~ .1
,~,,,_;.~l_ t";;'.. :~......"~.,_:,,~-:, - '\1tJ. ""."
,: - :~;~-;{:;'::' - '~-, ~ ~:;-~--j ~,~~;,,:},;..,
- ~.,"
OISTlN;IlIQlfQEWAY
...",
rt.u.P6CUI:I1.RJ
~R'O.lOlU.r
PllQ>OS(DSlfOUlOOl,PA\'Ul
JU.l5(tlIol(llIAl!S.~
~,
PIlOP'OSUlSIClW,.S
PltCPOS(l)Sl:lXWIJ,.Jl..rn.":l
lO.6 lloI'ACrro
IlUSOCSstSIWP~l((l
14I....JOc-ru:lEDl<OloClI.Pl..Cn:t1
@
@
.
EXISTnoo::;EXTllI..CT1CflllQJ.
O:IST~OOSVlVArrOHlIO..L
..-
J"'::"f':I'o
-~.. ~~
,
','. .--::
-,
;.,~ ~,
::~,l
RD.tO'o'tEXTR.lCT1Cfl/OB'SERYAtJOfolwD.l.
-:'-'1'-,-,'
~ .
:-i....
<::",
,>/:--:--~\
-~.> ", \
, \
j
I
!'
~\ ,.",
'~:: ~'~:J.~~'
,--:,;~~\
f ~.\ '
.~ "%;"",i;<-,,,"':"',
I r'c.....: \
. .. ' j, i
'I <-'f'/\'
" !ii"" ~. /'
. i~j'" t.o~ "
! ..~, t-,1: }
; <if !-<!.. 1
P'1 l :1"1:1
'(r ;'......-.:..\ I!"
...... ....:.....-*'~ -, 4:: ~
,_ _l41
.,.,..,;'~";,,',,;::~';;:.' .~
rlqrrr ~;': --[j--
?!! ,) _'I ! :,,:j,,'
~?,j-'", 'II 1 I-
, J.~o i Fl-" -;'1':;;"{''/'
~~~! ';:;'~!p:-ft~i(
r:~ '::-...,jI I
-""",., ~li;".;,"-~ ,,~.::.: 1
...",'~~-,:"," ":7(
<~~rli~" -~),. ; ;
>;-..t.:k1'"
"
,
'. "~
,<'.; ::;.--
-.,-?:~~\\
:':'1.. . ."-,,,.
'.7."~"""
<"9~~~"'1
-......~k1'
(J
'-.;
: ':\
,,"', ..,."'. .
~~..;o'....~~,.,,_..
."""'!',!":"'.ll,.....,'_ ,"-""'k
...."''"._....-.'""'~;:;;{'
K,
'f'
~~.. "~-........"... ~,_... .:
$f",
t% ' ,
{~,.~ .=.j~
~ril
i.-r.:'
q"
t"
.;1
~.l _ ~
#1~ '~,
....i~....<~i.. \:;.,,'- '.
," .-:~~> I'
','- '"l
-'.~,;: ~j'
"
~
;
'0,'''-
,
- {,-,
r-
\ ,
",\.,;~.:,--..;
'J:cli':!'!'"",
. " " ;'>':-
~,~"', \, ~':'\' '.', -j ;;#:f',~.
!~or-; J1;t",~,,,,, ~:;O' ','f' ~~.,
<1 ',',. , ,. co" ~ " ,
!
April 9, 2008
Table 2 - Highway 10 Alignment Feasibility Study - Cost Comparison
EACH $65,000 15 $975,000 10 $650,000 5 $325,000
ACRE $200,000 4.94 $988,000 3.84 $768,000 1.69 $338,000
EACH $800,000 1 $800,000 1 $800,000 1 $800,000
EACH $221,500 6 $1,329,000 6 $1,329,000 6 $1,329,000
West RIW Subtotal $4,092,000 $3,547,000 $2,792,000
CAAP RIW 1m acts ACRE $200,000 4.82 $963,714 4.82 $963,714 7.96 $1,592,277
dditional East side RIW Impacts ACRE $200,000 0.00 $0 0.00 $0 0.00 $0
East RIW subtotal $963,714 $963,714 $1,592,277
Groundwater monitorin s stem wells LS 1 $563,520 1 $563,520 1 $1,182,240
Construction Cost N/A N/A $15,750,000 $23,083,000 $23,733,000
Total Cost $21,400,000 $28,200,000 $29,300,000
Alternate 1
Existing Alignment
Alternate 2
Shift South Bound Lanes Only
(Urban Road Section)
Alternate 3
Shift Both Road Beds East Within
ROW (Urban Road Section)
Alternate 4
Shift Entire Road East to Avoid All
Arden Manor Impacts (Rural Road
Section)
Number of Units Total Cost
Affected
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
$0
21.69 $4,337,071
7.19 $1,438,264
$5,775,335
1 $2,252,160
$25,418,000
$33,400,000
Notes:
1. All numbers are estimates at this time and will be updated based upon actual costs determined at the time the project is undertaken
2. Unit Costs for manufactured homes includes acquisition/relocation of home and residents and reestablishment fees
3. Unit cost for single-family homes and Big Ten include acquistion, relocation demolition and soft costs
4. If it is determined in the future that the exisiting Highway 10 pavement will require an overlay, the cost is $ 1 million per mile for a 4-lane road
5. No cost has been assumed for RIW acquisition associated with stormwater ponding
6. Includes cost of the Highway 10 bridges over Highway 96
7. The additonal taking of TCAAP land in Alternates 3 and 4 will reduce the development program effecting the amount of commerical development at TCAAP and has not been quantified in this estimate.
1~
BOLTON & I'./IENK/
Consulting Engineers & Surveyors
12224 Nicollet Avenue' Burnsville, MN 55337-1649
Phone (952) 890-0509' FAX (952) 890-8065
INC.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
April 10, 2008
To:
Kristine (]iga, r.E. - Civil Engineer
Greg Hoag.- Public Works Director
City of Arden Hills
Front
Christopher S. Chromy, P.r:.. P.T.O.E.
Bolion & Menk, Inc.
RE:
Overview ofTHIO Altemative Alignments - April 9, 2008
T!I 10 Local Access Interchange (TCAAP/Arden Manor)
BMI Project No. T42.22335
On bchalrofthc City of Arden Hills, \VC have rcvic\vcd and summarized the referenced study completed
hy S.E.H. The purpose or the study was 10 develop and evaluate alternative alignments ror Tll 10 to
Jessen impacts to Arden Manor residential units associated with the Local Access Interchange on TH 10.
The study followed a rC<lsonablc plmming approach to evaluate potential alternatives relative to project
costs and propcliy impacts. The alternatives were designed consistent with applicable Mn/DOT design
standards. Planning-level construction costs estimates were prepared using Mn/DOT's Length Width
Depth (L\VD) method. This method estimates cOl1stmction costs based on the volullle of pavement
anticipated for the project and a cost multiplier developed Crom similar-type projects across the metro
area. Propel1y costs estimates were prepared using current market valuation. 'rhe alternatives were
prepared using sOllnd planning ,lIld engineering principles and provide a solid comparison ofthe costs
associated with each.
Studv Findifl!!s
Four (4) TH 10 alignment alternatives were developed and evaluated. Each altemative had a different
amount of alignment shin north and east of the existing location. Table I .- Overall Comparison
Summary from the rep0I1 is attached as a reference 10 study findings. III general, the more change in
alignment to the nOl1h and east results in less impact to Arden j\,'fallor and higher project costs. The
additiollill cost associated wilh reduced impact 10 residences west ofTI-I ]0 is summarized below:
/\IJ~rmlJLY_G IQtnLCost ge~l~J~n~~,?_11J)120ctg~1 ,6sttljJ.iQ!,H~_U:Joicct C..ps!
$2IAM 21 $0
2 $28.2M 16 $6.8M ($1.36Mlresidcl1ce)
3 $29.3M II $7.9M ($790Klrcsidcl1cc)
,1 $33.4M 0 S12.0M (S570KJresidel1cc)
MANKATO, MN . FAIRMONl MN . SLEEPY EYE, MN . BURNSVtLLE, MN . CHASKA, MN
WtLLMAR. MN . RAMSEY, MN . AMES. IA
wv/v-./.bollon.menk.com
An Equal Opportunity [mpfover
City of Arden Hilis
April 10, 2008
Page 2 of2
Since each of the potentially impacted residences arc valued at approximately $221 ,son or less and the
additional projc<.:t costs arc cstimnted at $S70K or more per residence avoid; it is 110t cost effective to
consider realignment alternatives to avoid the residences west ofTH 10.
H.ecomlUcndations
Alternative 1 is the most cost-effective alternative. 11 achieves the project objectives with the least
investment of tax payer dollars. Altcmativcs 2, 3, and 4 have 32%, 37%, and 54% higher project costs,
respectively, while achieving the same access, mobility, and safety objectives. W11ile impacts to Arden
Manor residences arc difficult to accept, the costs associated with purchasing and relocating those
residenccs are substantially lower lhanlhc cost to avoid the impacl. 'rhese impacted residents will be
fairly compensated fi.)f their property, provided relocation assistance, and assured comparable housing is
available. Property ncquisition and relocation will be conducted according 10 the Uniform Relocation and
Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970.
;;...
....
"
E
:::
a
rfJ
>, "" cD ~
.0 ..'i )1
" ~ '" " .5
Vi ;2 " S! u; " ~ ~
@ ~ " .g ~, "
'" '" -0 ~
.". W :;:0 0 " ~ ~ ~ .s cn 10
" "0 0 :0 ~ " " o " 9
0:; " E:e. E
>- '" '" o. '" ~ ~ ~ 10
0 "0 " C> 0- " C> "'.S!
1!i e<: ~ ~ 0 '" '" o ._ '" G' 0..._
0 0 0 0 0 0 - ~ OJ -"
C " ""; - " r- ....: .5 :< ~, ~ "
l! ~ N >- 00 0 " ~"" .0
:;:.::: ,~ " :< "0
~ ,~ '" ~ " ~.- ;2
< oil "" "0 - e ~ "3
"0 ~ - '" , @ 0
"" '0 " " " ~ >, "
" .8..!: " ,;
>- " en " -
CIi < "0 0 eJ iil 2: "
" Co. :r:
~ "
~
>, "0
~ .0 " gf-o
'" '" '" "
w 2 -'" 'C 10
~ '" " " '"
,~ "0 :>: " " " 0-
" 0 ~ .~
" 01 0 0 :0 ~ " E
.::: 0 '" " .2
"0 e<: 0 C> '" 0- ~ ::: "
1!i '" " ~.o
0 0 on - '" '" C> 0 '" 0 10 !::::"O
c e<: ,e. - ....: " .". Z '"
~ ~"3
l! 0: >- - X
N " " 0
< 0 :>: "" "0 ,~ " " "
01 ~ :;j:' g
" ~
"" " ~ 0:; -
-0 :: >- "
" " "
C/J " ~
.::. "-
~ ;2
S! @ -'"
@ -'" " "0
..l " " "
N ] 0 " f!' 10
" 0 ~
.::: 0 .S
" ~ 0 .". <', ::: .9
'@ 01 0 0 - '" "" "" 0 10
(5 q - ,~ .". Z '" "
~ ~ 0 .0
~ 00 X
" N E :g
< "" " ~
C/J S~ "
"" "
0 :<
CIi " 'Vi
,....
;2
@ -'"
-'" " "0
g " " "
- 0 " .gJ 10
" 0 "
>- .~ 0 " 0-
0 .". <', ::: .2 .~ .~
g < 0 on - '" '" 00 0 1:3
c ""; - .". .,,: Z " "
gp ~ 0 .0
l! - X E :g
N
< .'" &') " ~
:< ~~ "
W "
0 :<
" 'Vi
I-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
g " " ~ ~ ~ ~
~ E " " " u
~ ~ ~ ~ =
~ 0 g ] " ~ " " '"
U :r: " ~ " 0- "
~ .~ ~ " ~ c C
"0 ~ ~ ^ ~
~ ;2 < - ';;
o:l ..5 @ eo " "
- < ~ ...
1:3 "" :;:0 - ~ :$ '0 I-
~ ~ .~ ~ - ;z: ....
Vi 0:; "
"0 t C -
- @ ~ '"
~ " 0 "
0 "0 :;:0 < " z c
U (ij "0 ::e: "0
(ij C C
-;; - - ... :I ~
~ '" 0
- " ~ .;: ~
0 ~ .. ... ...
I-- '" o:l '" C/J
x
"
0
~
N
<0
m
.,
:;;
w w
m
:;;
" ~
~
:;; 0
N
~ '"
Z N
" M
<0
"5 0
ro w
a.
"' 0
oi 0
0
.~ N
0 <0
m
0 .,
" :;;
" w
"
"
. E
c
~ 0
0 u
>- U
~ C
M :c
~
M "
u i
E
c
0
"
~
." 0
;; ~
0
c "1i
"
'" E
"
~ '"
2
W 0
t
~ 0
0 a.
~ a.
~ 0
ro
0
~
.
c
ro
"
I
ill
<n
-
:;
~
.;:
"
""
E
o
U
(;j
....
"
:-
o
I
-
"
:E
"
I--