HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8A, Update on Interstate 694, Hwy 10, and CR 96
~
0\~HILLS
Request for Council Action
.
Prepared By: Kristine Giga
Council Meeting Date: May 27,2008
Update on Items related to the Interstate 694, Highway 10 and County Road 96
Preliminary Design Issues and Position Paper- Local Access Interchange Phasing
Budgeted Amount:
N/A
Actual Amount:
NlA
Funding Source:
NlA
Recommendation:
Additional analysis for phasing of the local access interchange and access to Scherer Brothers was
completed by SEH, Inc. Chris Chromy, Bolton & Menk, will be present at the meeting for this discussion.
At the June 9, 2008 City Council meeting, the City Council will be asked to approve a concept plan. Once
this action occurs, the Developer can proceed with preliminary design for a full local access interchange
along Highway 10. The final location of the interchange would be determined during this preliminary
design process to minimize impacts to Arden Manor.
Supporting Documents:
1. Memorandum dated May 21,2008 from City Staff
2. Memorandum dated May 20,2008 from Mark Benson, SEH
3. Memorandum dated May 21,2008 from Chris Chromy, Bolton & Menk.
4. Position Paper, approved by the City Council March 31,2008.
5. Memorandum dated May 8, 2008 from Interim City Administrator Jim Willis
6. Project costs and funding breakdown dated January 22, 2008
~
~
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
May 22, 2008
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Ron Moorsc, City Administrator
FROM:
Kristinc Giga, Civil Engincer
Deb Bloom, City Engineer
Greg Hoag, Public Works Director
SUBJECT:
lJpdate on Items related to the Interstate 694, Highway 10 and County
Road 96 Preliminar'y Design Issues and Position Paper
BACKGROUND
'fhe City Council approved the Interstate 694, Highway 10 and County Road 96 Preliminary
Design Issues and Position Paper ("Position Paper") at the March 3],2008 City Council
meeting. Per the City Council's approval, also at the March 31,2008 City Council meeting, City
staff has retained Bolton & Menk, Inc., to assist the City in providing technical support for these
transportation related projects. City stall along with Bolton & Menk, has worked with
Mn/DOT, Ramsey County and the Developer's engineer to obtain additional infill'll1ation and
complete additional analysis of the items listed in the Position Paper.
The following is a summary ofthc information that has been obtained and provided to the City
since the Position Paper was approved.
DISCUSSION
I. Mn/DOT Project: Interstate 694- I 35E to 35W Project
Desi!.!1l Constraint 111- Review noise impacts
Mn/DOT completed the additionalnoisc study that was requcsted by the City during
thc initial review of the Project Environmental Asscssmcnt (EA); this was prcscntcd
to the City Council at thc April 14,2008 mccting. Bolton & Menk reviewed the
results on behalf of the City and were present for the discussion.
\11.'Irn-i lll'l.usardcnhi II:-; J'R&PW ..EJlginl.'l'ri ng200XCounciI..'\\:tions5-27 -OS1\1 ClllO_._ PositionPapl'J'Uptbll'.doc
5/22/2008
Page 2
The results of the study indicate that noise walls do not meet Mn/DOT's three criteria
of being warranted, feasible and reasonable. Interim City Administrator Jim Willis
summarized the findings and potential costs l(lt- noise walls in a memorandum to the
City Council dated May 8, 2008,
StalTverified the f(lllowing bascd on concerns expressed by residents at the May ]2,
2008, City Council meeting about no lield work bcing completed as a part of the
noise study. Noise Icvel monitoring in the field is commonly performed during a
noise study to document existing noise levels, and was done as a part of this study,
Future noise levels arc projected with computcr models, based on projectcd trat1ie
volumcs. Noise levels under existing conditions arc monitored and arc compared to
the modeled existing conditions to validate the computer modeling techniques and
results. Existing noisc levels wcre monitorcd at eight (8) locations along the 1-694
corridor to represent arcas of nonl1al outdoor activity. The monitoring timeli-ames
werc J(lr both thc carly morning and af1ernoon.
II. Grade Separation of Highway 10 and County Road 96
Dcsign Constraints II 1-6
Ramscy County providcd a rcsponsc, which was prcscnted and discussed at thc May
12,2008 City Council mceting.
Since the May 12,2008, mceting, City staff contact cd Ramscy County pcr thc City
Council's rcquest and conlirmcd the following:
. -rhc prc-dcsign proccss will ineludc several opcn housc-typc public mcctings; thc
iirst is anticipated to occur latc summcr 2008. The County will also work elosely
with thc City and City stan' on working through thc dcsign elcmcnts ofthc projcct
. The County docs not nccd thc dcsign paramcters, such as median width, trail
locations, ctc_, {i-om thc City prior to thc preliminary dcsign process. Thc
inf()J'Jl1ation thc County docs nccd fi-om the City as they cnter preliminary dcsign
is thc commitmcnt to a concept (i.c. commitmcnt to build a lull access
intcrchangc), so that the County can cstablish its projcct to complemcnt any
proposcd City projects involving local acecss onto Highway] 0_
. Attachcd is a spreadshcct idcntifying projcct costs and funding brcakdown lor thc
J-Iwy IO/CR 96 intcrsection improvcmcnts, J-Iwy 10 Local Access Interchangc,
and CR H/35W Intcrchangc.
III, Preservc full TH IO/Local Access Interchange
Design Constraint II 1- At grade signalizcd intcrscction
Mn/DOT scnt a Ictter to the City on April 9, 2008, indicating that Mn/DOT will not
support an at grade signalizcd intcrsection.
5/22/200S
Page 3
Dcsign Constraints 112-3- Revicw phasing options, acecss to Scherer Brothers
Additional analysis for cach of these constraints was eomplcted by SEJ-I, Ine, Their
findings arc summarizcd in thc attachcd memorandum, Bolton & Mcnk reviewcd the
rcsults on behalf ofthc City: thcir rcvicw memo is also attaehcd.
Chris Chromy, Bolton & Mcnk, will prcsent a summary of the findings ofthc
additional study at the City Couneilmecting.
Dcsign Constraint #4- Rcview cost associated with rcaligning Higl1\vav 10 and the
interchangc furthcr north cast
SEI-1, Inc. cvaluatcd alternativc alignmcnts f(lr Highway 10 and associated costs and
impacts i(lr cach altcrnative. Bolton & Menk revicwcd the rcsults on bcha!fofthe
City, which werc prcsentcd and diseusscd at thc April 14, 2008 City Council mecting.
The City Council approvcd a motion to proeced with Altcrnativc III to revicw
phasing options i(lr cost cffcctivcncss, viability, nccd, etc. to scc ifall l(lur
cntrance/cxit ramps on a ncw diamond interchangc arc necdcd and providc timing and
phasing of projcet.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
At the Junc 9, 2008 City Council meeting, thc City Council will bc askcd to approve a cone cpt
plan. Onec this action occurs, Ramsey County will bc infonncd of the City's intcnt to pursuc
this project. so that thcy may proeccd with thcir preliminary dcsign ofthc Highway] O/County
Road 96 intcrsection improvcments_ In addition, the City and the Dcveloper can proeecd with
preliminary dcsign for a f~Iillocal acccss intcrehange along Highway J O. Thc final location of
the intcrchangc would bc dctermined during this prcliminary dcsign proecss to minimizc impacts
to Arden Manor.
Jt..
SEH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council of Arden I-lills
FROM:
Mark Benson
DATE:
May 20, 2008
RE:
Evaluation of Phasing Options for Highway 10 Local Access Interchange
SEI-I No. 101752
Scope of Work
In response to the City Council position paper dated March 31, 2008, SEI-I has been requested to evaluate
phasing options for the proposed new local access interchange along Highway 10. This was requested as
part of the City Project - Design Constraint if 2 within the position paper. The purpose of the phasing
analysis is to determine if the new local access interchange can adequately serve the regional and local
traffic if it is not built with all four ramps on day of opening of the interchange.
The City requested that the follO\ving be reviewed as part of the evaluation: timing of \vhen the
southbound exit ramp would be needed and a cost/financial plan to ascertain if phasing would be cost
effective.
In addition, this study provided the opportunity to address the other remaining design constraint from the
position paper; Design Constraint # 3 - How safe access can be provided to Scherer Brothers in the
interim based upon a phasing plan for the interchange.
Finally, at a previous city council meeting a question was raised regarding the location of the local access
interchange along Highway 10. This study responds to the range of suitable locations for the interchange
along Highway 10.
Phasing Options
\\forking with city staff, various phasing alternatives were considered but eliminated from this analysis:
1. Right-in/right-out for TCAAP. This alternative was not considered since the developer has
planned for interchange ramps and a bridge on the TCAAP property. Therefore, any phasing
option should include both ramps on the east side ofl-lighway 10.
2. Signalized intersection for TCAAP. Previous correspondence from Mn/DOT has eliminated the
signalized intersection as an alternative that they would allow to be constructed. Therefore, this
option was not analyzed.
3. No ramp in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. Since this ramp docs not impact any
manufactured homes, it was felt that this ramp should be provided as part oCthe initial
interchange construction. Therefore, any phasing option should include this ramp. The six stick
built homes cannot be avoided as part of building this ramp.
Based on the above discussion, along with the goal of avoiding impacts to Arden Manor, it was
determined that the base phasing option that should be analyzed is an interchange with three ramps (no
southbound exit ramp) and no west frontage road along Highway 10. Therefore, the analysis was
conducted to determine if the construction of that ramp could be delayed to provide additional time to
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive. SL Paul. MN 55110-5196
$EH is an equal opportunity employer! www.sehlnc.com I 651.490.2000 I 800,325.2055 I 651.490.2150 fax
Evaluation of Phasing Options for Highway 10
May 20, 2008
Page 2
address the relocation of the manufactured homes. The analysis was done with and without the ramp to
understand the traffic impacts on several key intersections (both local and regional) in the study area as
listed below and shown on Figure A:
CR H/CR 10 Interscetion
CR H/l-35W East Ramp
CR H/l-35W West Ramp
CR 96/0Id Highway 8 Intersection
CR 96/l-35W West Ramp
CR 96/l-35W East Ramp
CR 96/Round Lake Boulevard
CR 96/0Id Highway 10
CR 96/Highway 10
CR 96/Rice Creek Parkway
CR 96/Hamline
Prior Ave/Highway 10 West Ramp
Prior Ave/Highway 10 East Ramp
,2
;,\
iJi
Figure A - Study Area Intersections
C~unb' REL________.__.___________
I '
, I
, ,
I
i
,
I
COlinl;.'
if)
'-j
ps;:)n Dr %'
'?->
o
'\
,
1
,
I .
.,~\.e
;'j
::1
,
!
,
I
13tS1
,
j
,
e;;J
J
(
I
I
I
TZingl(;'
o
.
I
County Road! I
.1
. '
/ I
\r. I
-:t: I
7, I
-;,-.1
'01
'-_____.21.."'\..
"';"""",",,, ()j:,' \,;,
. ',I "".~ .. '
<1
(,;;
,
I
,
17"
l~-
.^'
l,,'t
,-
!~,
c
\'~COl-,nty Rc
,""-, t ,..-."...1.....1
,'.' \/)un y r"(._) i-I
I
I
!
IOt!)'::;'\.Ll'N
j.6U.l
:""
Z
A.rden
Hilt,
lh SIN',,\!
,1'
:.
Assumptions
Evaluation of Phasing Options for Highway 10
May 20, 2008
Page 3
In order to conduct the analysis, the interchange type, size and location along Highway 10 was based on
the April 9, 2008 interchange concept plan (Alternative I) that was analyzed in the previous
memorandum that discussed Highway 10 alignments. The interchange location shown on phasing
figures represents the furthest north location the interchange can be built to still work with the ramp
design for 1-35W_
To develop the traffic forecasts the following modeling assumptions were used:
I. The existing (2005) Twin Cities Regional Model was used as the base.
2, The design year that was modeled is 2012 to coincide with the completion of the Highway 10/
County 96 grade separation along with the initial opening of development on TCAAP_
3. Background traffic was increased to the year 2012.
4. TCAAP traffic was projected based on an initial development phasing plan provided by Ryan
Companies.
5. The existing roadway network was used to distribute the traffic with the following modifications:
. Completion of the 1-694/1-35E "Unweave the Weave" project (proposed completion 2008).
. Completion of the full access CR H/I-35W interchange (proposed completion 2011).
. Completion of Rice Creek Parkway between CR I-I and CR 96 (proposed completion 2010).
. Completion of the Highway 10/ County 96 grade separation (proposed completion 2012).
6. The traffic operational modeling was perfonned for four alternatives to detennine the effect of
losing the southbound exit ramp:
3. Current Conditions - No Highway 10 grade separation or local access interchange
b, 2012 - Highway 10 grade separation and local access interchange without southbound
exit and no west frontage road
c. 2012 - Highway 10 grade separation and full local access interchange with no west
frontage road
d. 2012 - Highway 10 grade separation and full local access interchange with west frontage
road
Synchro Analysis
Synchro traffic modeling software was used to perform traffic operational analysis. The capacity analysis
results are indicated by Level of Sevice (LOS) based on a comparison of model delays against delay
thresholds defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). LOS indicates how well an intersection is
operating. Intersections are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the best traffic
operation and LOS F indicates the worst. LOS A-D is generally considered acceptable by Ramsey County
and MnJDOT and is used as the threshold for this analysis. The detailed results of this analysis are shown
in the tables attached to this memorandum.
Findings
Due to background growth in traffic, the additional traffic projected from TCAAP, and with the traffic
changes associated with grade separating County 96/Highway 10, a number of intersection deficiencies
were revealed. The following intersections will have operational problems that require signalization in
2012 to achieve acceptable LOS under any scenario:
. County 96/0Id Highway 8
. County 96/1-35W west ramp
. County 96/1-35W east ramp
. County 96/OId Highway 10
Evaluation of Phasing Options for Highway 10
May 20, 2008
Page 4
In order to provide the 1110st favorable assessment of potential phasing scenarios, these intersections were
all assumed to be signalized in 2012 when the new Highway 10 interchange is completed.
Table I provides an overall summary of intersection LOS for both the morning and afternoon peak hours
for each of the phasing scenarios along with existing conditions. The existing conditions were modeled
as a basis for comparison. Overall under existing conditions most intersections operate well. The
exception is the current Highway 10/County 96 signalized intersection which is operating at a LOS F
during both the morning and afternoon peak hours.
Table I - Intersection Level of Service
Intersection Current 2012 - Build 2012 - Build 2012 - Build
Conditons CR 96 grade CR 96 grade CR 96 grade
separation and separation and separation and
~ interchange full interchange full interchange
along Highway along Highway along Highway
10 with no west 10 with no west 10 with west
fronta)!e road [rontage road frontage road
am pm am pm am pm am pm
CR H/CR 10 Intersection C C C C C C C C
CR H/I-35W East Ramp A A B B B B B B
CR H/I-35W West Ramp A A B B B B B B
CR 96/0Id TH 8 E F C C C C C C
Intersection
CR 96/1-35W West Ramp B A D E C E C C
CR 96/1-35W East Ramp A B C B A B A B
CR 96/Round Lake A B B B B B A B
Boulevard
CR 96/0Id Highwav 10 A A A A A A B C
CR 96/Hiehwav 10 F F N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
CR 96/Rice Creek N/A N/A D C C C C B
Parkwav
CR 96/Hamline C D C D C D C D
Prior Ave/Highway 10 N/A N/A A A B A C C
West Ramo
Prior Ave/Highway 10 N/A N/A A B A B A A
East Ramo
The first scenario that was modeled is shown as Figure I which includes the Highway 10/County 96
grade separation and the new local access interchange without the southbound exit and no west frontage
road. Operational modeling shows that, without the Highway 10 southbound exit ramp, the west County
96/1-35W ramp will experience an overall LOS E in the pm peak period (see Table I). The southbound
move itself will operate at LOS F. This result leads to the conclusion that phasing the new Highway 10
local access interchange is not feasible and would result in traffic operational problems with the County
96/1-35W interchange.
Evaluation of Phasing Options for Highway 10
May 20, 2008
Page 5
The second scenario that was modeled is shown as Figure 2 and includes the Highway 10/County 96
grade separation and the new local access interchange with the southbound exit, an access road to Scherer
Brothers, and no west frontage road connection to County 96. Operational modeling shows that without
the west frontage road, the County 96/1-35W ramp will still experience an overall LOS E in the pm peak
period (see Table 1). This result leads to the conclusion that phasing the west frontage road along
Highway 10 is not feasible and will result in traffic operational problems with the County 96/1-35W
interchange.
The final scenario that was modeled is shown as Figure 3 and includes the Highway 10/County 96 grade
separation and the new local access interchange with the southbound exit and west frontage road from
Scherer Brothers to County 96. Operational modeling shows all intersections in the study area will
operate at LOS D or better if the complete interchange is built with the west frontage road (see Table I).
Conclusion
The southbound Highway 10 exit ramp for the proposed new local access interchange provides a key
movement for traffic to go east on County 96. This movement is currently handled by the signalized
County 96/Highway 10 intersection. The proposed grade separation project will reallocate those trips to
other intersections and will require mitigation to ensure acceptable traffic operations and to prevent
further degradation of the 1-35W corridor. Therefore, it is recommended that, in conjunction with the
Highway 1 O/County 96 grade separation project, a new full access interchange be built along Highway 10
with a west frontage road connection to County 96.
Furthermore, since phasing the interchange and frontage road will not work from a traffic operations
perspective, no further cost-benefit analysis or study of phasing was conducted for the interchange or the
Scherer Brothers access.
Next Steps
It is recommended that the preliminary design process be initiated for the full access interchange as
shown on Figure 3. This work will allow the County's grade separation project and the interchange
design to go hand in hand in order to optimize the design and resolve remaining neighborhood concerns.
The first steps in the preliminary design process will be to finalize the location of the interchange and to
detemline the width of the new bridge while making every effort to reduce the impacts to Arden Manor
through the design of the roadways and ramps.
mdb
Attachments
. Phasing Figures
. Peak hour volume and LOS tables
c: Stacie Kvilvang
Chris Chromy
Greg Hoag
Kris Giga
Gen McJilton
s\pI\r\ryaco',101752'.phJ.\ingn:port'phasing memorandum &:x
"'>,,!,
~: ~~~~~~
DISTtNGRlatTOfUT
....~
,
~
~
~ 1).
A
P1lCf'OSEllIll).ADUT
J>1lOl>O<.Etl~p~vtD
R1&DIoCI!AI6.CUllIS
8IClOC:UIRtTlD<lI<C./J..U
I'llO"O$Ell ~lau.t~
l"llOPOS(l) ~rocv~u . TIUJI.
HOll[S W'AtlOl
WSllU.stS W'AtTOl
II.I.I4.I'~CTlJW) IOI(~ P1PM;IUl
""
T
foot
.,
Jf
~
r;
it;,.
:'':'''>.,--
--->'-"._,,~
FIGURE 1 MAY 12, 2008
HIGHWAY 10 GRADE SEPARATION WITH
NO SB EXIT RAMP AND NO WEST FRONTAGE ROAD
euyoCArdcDHl!b,MN
1'\,"-.,\;"
\'"
\'\i)
, ,',')',':t
~:
'",~'
\ \'~\
\~\,
I ,'"
"s'- \
l,~ ,'~,.
;C "'-'\>, 4,
+- ,,~,,\ V
~ 'f!) !
o ~At> J! ~1
~? , ; \\, ",' l
~ f:~,:;l,1 ',j
U.j f
c J
~f1
o -\.'1
g tliJ
! ~~.,
0,1
~ I
~ I
~
~
/
o
C
;;;
o
<
o
/
C
o
;;
o
o
~
~ I'>:'
<5 .~
"
3 ..
o
~
~
~
~
~
~
OlSl~RI(;HrOfUT
""'"~
I'IlOPOSUlIlOUl.U
~I'IlO"C&O:5>tOO..Otll.'AY[O
~PJ.lSUlI.f.lllJJ<S.WlllS
~1lIl1IlC(5.IR(T~.AU.S
I'IlOPOSUISIGW..5
~sU:(W.IU~rlUll.
-~~
!:;';:j'W; WSll<(!>S(S !lof',l(;ftl)
W-lI'U'ACT1..Ilfil IOoIES lWPurm
,
""
T
feot
.,
Jo'
~
,
r:'
FIGURE 2 MAY 12, 2008
HIGHWAY 10 GRADE SEPARATION WITH
SB EXIT RAMP AND NO WEST FRONTAGE ROAD
CityDrArdcaHllll,MN
\,
\l~"
'\ ". 0.>
"'\'<.1' \"
~"
,'. I
'\"",
t :\ '"I;,
o
j.;- It
! k~~'\ 1
o fIr I 1,
iilr
f!,.j 1
o ,j
.~
g, I
g *'}'
0; ',~.
o ,<,
: ;~~
r- ",
~ I
>
"
/
D
,
"
o
<
a
/
,
D
..
o
~ ~ ~
i~ ~
:=; {~\
~ "',\
"
/
~
,-': >.,~
^""- "',~!,;';,~
'-
" ~;,;;,~<~~~~}
UISTIllC ~ICHT IS IAT
...~
,
<
~
N ~,~
~
o
~
P'llCI'OSalRO.<OlAr
PftCf'OSUI~PAVIll
RA1SUlILllWlS.tlIllIS
aRll>Cf.SJ'R(T.llloJN(;'.o.u.s
~SII;H.<l..S
PIl(lP(lS(()SlOCV.lU.TlUJl.
~I>of'A.CTtD
~~_:,:i.";",;:;!~:7, BUSl>€iSES l:t.f'!.CltD
. ,oJ"'
IU~..nCIl.R(l)I<<;lY<S lWPloCTtIl
/i
j
/~
'''''';
'''''
I
llcolo 100
200
'f
feot
I
t
r
FIGURE 3 MAY 12, 2008
HIGHWAY 10 GRADE SEPARATION WITH
SB EXIT RAMP AND WEST FRONTAGE ROAD
CUyofAn1caHlIlll.MN
Attachment 1-1
TH 10/CR 96 Phasing Traffic Study MOE Table (2012 AM, No SB Ramp & No Frontage Rd/Mitigated Option', HCS)
Demand Volumes LOS By Approach LOS By Intersection
Intersection ~.,_.~ ...~,-~"_.. _.,,-~~--- ----- ---- ---
Approach
L T R Total Delay !.OS Delay LOS
(SNeh) (SNeh)
CR H@CR 10 (Signal) N8 160 570 30 760 22 C
1'"20'---' "1"1'1'6 ' u6~20 .. ..m2'8'-~-' ....'G-
S8 ._3.8-5'6
,-- "E"S -- --~_.~_. ..... --~--
80 170 180 430 11 8 23.9 C
-V;J"S'-- -'--jo-~ --~-200'~ - ~--- ~i'O"
60 290 20
:I: CR H@I-35WWest Ramp (Signal) S8 240 0 170 410 19 8
'" E8 0 - '31'i)""'- ---'f6u - - ... -, ,,-,-,~ - --g-- 8
" 320 12 13.9
--.---.. ..----------- -1'20-- - -'240-- --'-8~- .M'T-
WB 120 0
CR H@1-35W East Ramp (Signal) N8 10 0 140 150 18 B
-Ell --140- ---410"'-- '------6"- --- --550-'" 10 '---'8-"-'''' 13.1 8
,w"WS -0-"- '---'"2:3'0'--- "9-6 ..--.- -.-- -----16-- -- ------s--
320
CR 96@Old US8 (Signal) N8 0 100 200 300 39 0
---- 88----- 160 "680 ---6 - - ".. '84Cf"" ., -- ---0-"'- 31.7 c
46
wff -- -3"5-ij- - ----.---- ------ ---570- -7'--- ~-A-----
0 220
CR 96@1-35WWestRamp (Signal) S8 610 0 40 650 55 E
~ -- ---
E8 ---6- ----330 --30~ -360-- 47 0 40.2 0
W8 370 530 0 900 26 C
CR 96@1-35WEast Ramp (Signal) N8 160 0 300 460 18 8
-- --ES--- ------'--1'0-- 830 --- ----.--6--- - -9-40---- --1"3----- ---~-B'~-'- 20.5 c
~--WS ---0.--- ----iSo.-.- ---- ------ --- {3-70- " -- --27"------ ---C---
620
CR 96@Round Lake Road {Signal} NB 120 0 30 150 40 0
----$-8----- ----- ':;-6----- --6 m_ --""''40 _0" ---" 50 N~_ .m_ 4"5" .., ----0--
w -- ES-- 10 850 ---270" {';'3D -25 C 19.6 8
~
'" --W'S -----140 --'-210--- ----10 --- ---1,360'-- ----'-'2-- -------.s ,-
"
CR 96@ OLDCR 10 (Signal) N8 30 0 60 90 48 0
EB '0 680 210 - -'890"'-- ----6----- -----p:-- 4.4 A
---Wa-- ---'-'2'00'- .--.--.-;330----- ..-~...6.--"- "'''-i']3-6-- 1 -"----7\'-
CR96@ Rice Creek Pkwy (Signal) N8 10 10 10 30 46 0
SB -16 ---- ------'-6--- -----40---- --;2()- - -"--'34--- ---'c----
_nEB iij 6'66' 10 740 5 A 40.4 0
wa- 10 1480 190 1,680 56 --E~
CR 96@HamlineAve (Signal) N8 270 20 80 370 42 0
" ~S'8 ':;-6 -- --",-6-- 10 30 ---- 41 -",,- -6"'--
E8 10 470 210 690 35 0 29.6 C
----.ws.".-.- -840 -----1'j.2'C) -, -----.10"- M'~2'::;-jb ~ --~2'5 '-'c ,,~
~ 0 Prior Ave@TH10WestRamp WB 50 0 0 50 7 A 72 A
'C > Prior Ave@TH10 East Ramp N8 0 0 90 90 7 A
0. " WB 6 56 "20 -----:;'7'6." -f"
A 6,5 A
. Signalization for CR 96/01d US 8, CR 96/01d CR 10, 1-35WJCR 96 West Ramp and East Ramp
SEH Jnc.
5/15/2008
Attachment 1 w2
TH 10fCR 96 Phasing Traffic Study MOE Table (2012 PM, No S8 Ramp & No Frontage RdfMitigated Option " HCS)
Demand Volumes LOS By Approach LOS By Intersection
-- -.------- ----_..,- -----
Intersection Approach Delay Delay
!. T R Tolal {SNeh) LOS (SNeh) !.OS
CR H@CR 10 (Signal) NB 180 1270 10 1,460 40 0
-sS- ~- --260~-- '~"990~"- .~,~.__. -~C-
110 620 21
~ -~-- ---~ 1,070 18 B 27.5 C
EB 120 580 370
~ ~ ~~ -120- --380- 25 C
:l: CR H@I-35WWest Ramp (Signal} SB 220 0 140 360 21 C
'" ----6-90----- ------'1"6'-. 'M"'Yoij"--- -_._~--- --~~
" EB 0 A 11,2 B
--'we- ---.------ ---510-'-"- ~"'''~10 ".~,- '--"-8'''--
270 240 0
CR H@I-35W East Ramp {Signal) NB 10 0 280 290 21 C
~-- --476- --440-- .. ----9'10'" ..~....~.mm._ -
0 9 A 17.4 B
----WB 0 '5-1-6 -- -320"- 830 26 C
CR 96@Old US 8 (Signal) NB 0 500 590 1,090 33 C
-----SEf' " f70-" "24'0- if ',1"1'6" ---- -- ---C---- 26.9 C
24
WS---- -1-56--- 0 --- ------.-,- - --'360"- ""-12" "...~.- B ......,,,
210
CR 96@1-35WWestRamp{Signal) SB 480 0 50 530 84
EB 0 .--- ----6-20 150 770 --.. 59 - E 62.0 E
WB 400 310 0 710 49 0
CR 96@1-35WEast Ramp (Signal) NB 190 0 260 450 18 B
Et3" 3'iej' ----730--- -- --if'--- -{'iDo ---i'if'" ""~-"B~"" 14.6 B
" "ws , "6 --sir)'" 330 - ---S50 ---'1'a""- -'mS
CR 96@Round Lake Road (Signal) NB 250 0 130 380 31 C
---S-8---- ------20--- -- --'0'" - "'''4''b-----'' ---"'60--"" 36 '--'-""0---
~ E-S--- 60"- 796 1-40 990--'- 13 ----- -----8-- 16.4 B
m
'" ws-- ------40-- - ----- ---,,- --.20---- --'-'630'--~ '~"'12-"'. ''''''--g---'
" 570
CR 96@ OLD CR 10 (Signal) NB 90 0 220 310 37 0
-E-S 0 850 8-6 -- --930 m - ---2-- --------;;:-- 8,8 A
'VIis-- -----80----- ------s;f6m.- -cfmn.- ------620- ----,,, -5 "u'" """"A
CR 96@ Rice Creek Pkwy (Signal) NB 10 10 10 30 34 C
SB 190 -1-e)' -eo- --- -----280--- - ----28--m--- m-.'c-~~-
-E-S--- - 70 1000- 10 1.080 '15- B 22.7 C
'WB 10 540 550 10C 28 C
CR 96@Hamline Ave (Signal) NB 300 10 810 1,120 78 E
"sa'" "10' m 20-- '--2i)" .. --50--- 26 ...---c---
EB 10 1000 200 1.210 55 E 52.6 0
----iN-s---- 110 - ---760 - "1"6 n , '---ss'O''''' "f9 -"8---
~ Prior Ave@TH10WestRamp WB 90 0 0 90 8 A 7,6 A
0
'0 > Prior Ave@TH10EastRamp NB 0 0 70 70 8 A
a. '" 'WB 6 90 sio 660 15--- -Ei--
13.9 B
~ Signalization for CR 96/0Jd US 8, CR 96/0ld CR 10,1-35W/CR 96 West Ramp and East Ramp
SEH Inc_
5/15/2008
Attachment 2-1
TH 10lCR 96 Phasing Traffic Study MOE Table (2012 AM, SB Exit Ramp & No Frontage Rd/Miligated Option', HCS)
Demand Volumes !.OS By Approach LOS By Intersection
---~_._-- -,---...------ - - -- - ---- ----~~--
Intersection Approach Delay Delay
L T R Total (SNeh) LOS (SNeh) LOS
CR H@CR 10 (Signal) N8 200 570 30 800 24 C
----sEf.- -- 500-- --1~850 _....~,~~,,~ -- -(5--
90 - - 1260 28
Eil-- -- -- ----150~- -~"196'--'~ -,,-,- 420 22 c 25.7 C
~'WB-'- _"~9_._. ------2:20----- -.------ --32'6"''''-~ ----e-
40 60 21
:r CR H@I.35WWest Ramp (Signal) S8 160 0 180 340 21 C
" 'ES- -- ~._- _~"._._m ~---- -~-------- --~-- 12.4 8
<.l 0 270 10 280 6 A
-wa"'-'- -.-.-- --- ----0- ---. 230-"~ -,--_.~
110 120 8 A
CR H@I-35WEast Ramp (Signal) NB 10 0 150 160 21 C
"'-~EB-""- -.-,,--. .-,------. --------------- -------.0-.-- -----'^,f2'O-- -----..- 17.4 8
140 280 13
----~ ----.0------ -- "'ijom,^. -'^----g6'- ,-- -'-320 22 -- -- T
CR 96@Old US 8 (Signal) N8 0 100 200 300 33 C
------ - -'-"''580--- -..-'-~"o~--''''- -- ---730""- --jj---- C
S8 ----150 44 29.3
- -Ws'u- -4'50 0 170 ----- 620 11 ---8 .----
CR 96@1-35W West Ramp (Signal) SB 440 0 140 580 49 D
---- ----~.. mn"6 "320 ..--:3"0------ --- --350--- - 3'2'- - me --- 32,8 C
E8
W8 350 490 0 840 22 C
CR 96@!-35W East Ramp (Signal) N8 150 0 300 450 18 8
-'-.'ES"-- :;-:;0 -if-- 770 -------- 8 ----- 8,5 A
660 10
WB -0-- - --eif6-- -- " - sifij-- - 1)"60--' 4 A
CR 96@Round Lake Road (Signal) N8 120 0 , 30 150 38 D
s-s- 4'0-- - 50 46 ----- ----j"---
10
~ E8 ----:;0 680 i70 9'50 18 '13 13.1 B
m
" -------W'f3 --:;-40 1110 10 ----{'260 -5- ----- - --A--
<.l
CR 96@ OLD CR 10 (Signal) N8 30 0 60 90 17 8
----E-S---- -------- ---"510 -2'6'0 --- -'----1"1'0- 1 7;"" 58 A
0
'ws ----'2IYO --0 -{430 8 ---- ------ -------
1230 A
CR 96@ Rice Creek Pkwy (Signal) NB 10 10 10 30 46 D
-----.-s--Ef -210 -'--:;'0 40 ---2-60 40- ------.0------
E8 70 500 10 5-80 -1'8 ---,-- a .__m 27.3 C
W8 10 1380 240 "1':6'3'6" 28 -c-
CR 96@Hamline Ave (Signal) NB 270 20 80 370 42 D
SB 10 10 ---- -1-if ----3-6".. 41 ---0-
E8 10 470 180 660 44 D 31,6 C
\!VB 1270 10 2-:-1)0-- - --2-6 -----C----
840
Prior Ave@TH10WestRamp SB 270 0 10 280 11 8
"--"ES'" -6 10 10 20 7 -- - -A--- 10.1 8
0
> ---- -so-- s'" A'--
" WB 50 10 0
.. Prior Ave@TH10EastRamp NB 10 0 90 100 8 A
0: -EB I ", 270 " -27'0 --- ------fif---- -----S--- 8,8 A
WB -() ----St)" -- 170 '22'i:i"'" ., --8" A
. Signalization forCR 96/01d us 8, CR 96/01d CR 10, J.35W/CR 96 West Ramp and East Ramp
SEH lnc
5/15/2008
Attachment 2.2
TH 10/CR 96 Phasing Traffic Study MaE Table (2012 PM, SB Exit Ramp & No Frontage Rd/Mitigated Option', HCS)
Demand Volumes LOS By Approach LOS By Intersection
----,.._~ , ~ .~,._,_.- - -_...~ ..-- -.-...-----,-- _._~"_. ------- ---.- ----
Intersection Approach
L T R Total Delay !.OS Delay !.OS
(SNeh) (SNeh)
CR H@CR 10 (Signal) N8 180 1270 10 1,460 40 0
S8 100 640 250 990 21 C
----EB-- -- -120--- ------ -- 4(io~'" - - -
570 _~'6fi6-" 18 8 27.3 C
------- -------- -- -c-
W8 30 230 120 380 24
I CR H@I-35WWestRamp(Signal) S8 220 0 140 360 21 C
'" E8 0 ~{} ~~ -sao- --7-- -p:-- 11.0 8
() -".--- - -- -- --
W8 270 240 0 510 10 A
CR H@I-35WEastRamp (Signal) N8 10 0 280 290 21 C
----.------- ----9---- ..------
E8 460 420 0 880 A 17.9 8
--wa---- _"o-n -"""'510'" --- 320'-- ~'--830-- - '26~'-- -'''-c'''--'~
CR 96@Old us 8 (Signal) N8 0 510 590 1,100 37 0
~ "-'170-- ---240-- __"_0"__ ---;f1-o- - "21"~"'- ---c-- 28.7 C
M'WS 150 0 210 360 --14---- -- -----8--
CR 96@1-35WWestRamp (Signal) S8 470 0 50 520 79 E
nEB ~-,- -- , '0.-- '61'0 " --'-150"'-'- ....'76.0". -"i:Ef"-' E 57.7 E
W8 390 310 0 700 44 0
CR 96@1-35W East Ramp (Signal) N8 190 0 260 450 20 C
-f-S---- - 370 --------- -- s'-- 13,7 8
710 0 1.080 12
----iliif- - -6------ - --5'60--- - ---53if ----- '--aSa--- ---'12--'-- ----------s --
CR 96@RoundLakeRoad (Signal) N8 250 0 130 380 35 C
S"S 20 0 40 60 41 -'-'--15----.
~ -----'-f-S ----6'0' - 'is6' ., 1':1'0 - -.'g'8'O' .-- ~- 14,7 8
m 11 8
'" WB-- 40 -560 20 620 6 A
()
CR 96@OLO CR 10 (Signal) N8 80 0 220 300 14 8
- , -E'Er' -- -OM~' 84-6 '-s6 " ,,~ '-920- ~ ------,. .-----A------ 7,1 A
4
- 'Wa--- 80 -- --5'30 0 "6'1'6"-- '9 '--/(
CR 96@ Rice Creek Pkwy (Signal) N8 10 10 10 30 40 0
--$'i3"" -'--'20-0 10--- -YO"" " '-'-ie-6-"-- ---- -'34---'. -....-.c--~.
E8 70 990 10 1,070 19 8 23.1 C
--WB 10 54'6 --550 1,100 24 -------t---
CR 96@HamlineAve(Signal) N8 300 10 810 1,120 78 E
-S8 ---- ----. 10 -20-- ----it)' . -------50------ -----26 - - -'-"c-~
E8 10 1000 200 1,210 55 E 52.6 0
W8 110 760 10 880 19 --'---8-----
Prior Ave@TH10WestRamp S8 60 0 20 80 ! A
0 ., -EEl 0 20 20 40 6 A 7.4 A
> V'is 90
" 10 0 100 8 A
.2 Prior Ave@TH10EastRamp N8 10 0 70 80 8 A
Ii. E8 30 50 0 80 8 A 14.3 8
-WS---- -----1'60--- ------ - -(fja---- --~16------- ----t----
0 570
. SlgnallzalJOn for CR 96/01d US 8. CR 96/01d CR 10, J.35W/CR 96 West Ramp and East Ramp
SEH InC.
5/15/2008
Attachment 3,1
TH 10lCR 96 Phasing Traffic Study MaE Table (2012 AM, S6 Exit Ramp&Frontage Rd/Mitigated Option', HCS)
Demand Volumes !.OS By Approach LOS By Intersection
----- -- -- -- - .__.,_.,_...~- ,-,~--- .-.- --- - ..w~ ------"-
Intersectlon Approach Delay Delay
L T R Total (SNeh) LOS (SNeh) LOS
CR H@CR 10 (Signal) N8 160 - 570 30 760 23 C
--513--- ---90-- --------- - --:'-,-8-50- ---, 27 ., :_~f.=--
1140 620
--------- -------- -~--- ----430""-
E8 80 150 14 8 23.6 C
W8 20 200 60 -280--- -- 19 -- 8
:r CR H@I-35WWestRamp(Signal) 58 .!..6i!.__._. 0 170 330 21 C
'" ~- - -----280-- ,.-.--- ---.:-
" 0 270 10 -- 7 12.9 8
---wa- ~30'-- 110 0 - -- -'24'0--- --"9""" A
CR H@1-35W East Ramp (Signal) N8 10 0 150 160 21 C
-------------- ---4-20-"- ,- 17.5 8
E8 140 280 0 ,.. - 13 8
-WS'-- 230 --90--.n 320 22 C
CR 96@Old US 8 (Signal) N8 0 100 200 300 39 D
---8-8"-- - '1'30 " - -'-6-eLf .., -.------ if10 .---~fi--- -0'-" 34.8 C
0
we 350 0 "2i5if ---550 --'1"5'- --"-'B'---
CR 96@1-35WWestRamp (Signal) 58 140 0 40 180 50 0
-- EB- "-6- 310 - 30 .-- --:f4-0 - -'-1j~'~- -r - 22.5 C
W8 320 520 0 840 19 8
CR 96@1-35WEast Ramp (Signal) N8 140 0 300 440 17 8
--ES-- 110 340 --- -- ---0-- '"4'5'6"- 14 .., -S--- 7,6 A
-WB-- -- "0- -69-0 --54-0 --{'i30 "i-- ------A---
CR 96@Round Lake Road (Signal) N8 70 0 90 160 43 D
58 '--20 ----- ---- -6----- 20 ~'--40 52 -'~i5-'~-
E'S'--- 1'0 370 260 '('54-b--- 6--- m~ Am 90 A
~
m \/;/S 150 1150 1-0 -----1".'3,-6---- ---'''--if'', - --A--
'"
" CR 96@ OLD CR 10 (Signal) N8 30 10 60 100 36 0
-'S8 ---"42'0 170 20 610 ----- -----'4'6---_.. ---0-----
---E8 90 340 ----- - ---50 -~48if--' ------''':f'---- -------13--'-- 19,6 8
----W8 - -- -190 '-"- -----"26'0' 20 -- ----'-,470 "-0 .. ------8-----
CR 96@ Rice Creek Pkwy (Signal) N8 10 10 10 30 46 I D
SOB 5-')" ,-6 40 'j-OC) 33
EB ,. ... 70 -740 10 820 -1"j -- -------8-. 25.6 C
we 10 '-4-io -200 '(630 -'29-- C
CR 96@HamlineAve (Signal) NB 260 20 80 360 44 0
58 10 10 10 30 41 0
E8 10 m K20---- ------2',-if ..~i4-0" ----ji--- 6' 29,2 C
w'E3---- 7~io 1-28-0 10 2,080 24 .. ------C--
Prior Ave@TH10WestRamp 58 120 0 580 700 22 C
. -EEI--- -0- 10 ",1~0 110 A 19.6 C
> 'W8 C
" 40 20 60 18
0 Prior Ave@TH10EastRamp N8 10 0 90 100 26 D
'C
Q, ------E-8 -'0 120 0 --1-30- -'2'-- ~-A~- 8,3 A
W8 6 50 -1-20 -'170 -OJ --j"
. Slgnallzalion lorCR 96/01d US 8, CR 96/01d CR 10, 1-35W/CR 96 West Ramp and East Ramp
SEH Inc,
5/1512008
Attachment 3,2
TH 10fCR 96 Phasing Traffic Study MaE Table (2012 PM, S6 Exit Ramp&Frontage RdfMitigated Option', HCS)
Demand Volumes LOS By Approach LOS By Intersection
--- ----- ..------------- ----,~ " ...--- -~ -- --~---
Intorsocllon Approach Delay Delay
L T R Total (SNeh) LOS (SNeh) !.OS
CR H@CR 10 (Signal) NB 160 1280 40 1,480 32 C
--"-"88 -- ------100 "'700 190 -~ ~:~'~~]Q~-= ------e..-
----
--'ES -- 110 490 440 ----~f;J! 20 -C" 25.2 C
----wa- --- .---,,- ---- - -- --24' -----C-
40 230 120
:z: CR H@I-35WWestRamp (Signal) SB 220 0 140 360 20 C
0: '0 ----- ------ -630~ .....-.--...-.-.. 13.9 B
" EB 620 10 14 B
~-"wff--' ----- 240'''' -----510 --------g--- .--.--
270 0 A
CR H@1-35W East Ramp (Signal) NB 10 0 250 260 21 C
------ -- 390 -- -"--45'6 '-840" -'---:;'if
. - -EB 0 A 17.2 B
WB '0 510 390 - gOO '2'3
CR 96@Old us 8 (Signal) NB 0 420 680 1,100 33 C
'-s's-- 60 '250 -----0 ------- -310 .. '22--' _M'_ t ------ 28.3 C
WS ------150 --- "---b- .m.__ ----23'0 -380 19 '8
CR 96@1-35WWest Ramp (Signal) SB 150 0 50 200 39 0
EB "-6--- ---'B06- --130m M~"'_~" --"'-'2'3 ---- ....-C-~ 23.6 C
730
WB 350 330 0 680 20 B
CR 96@1.35W East Ramp (Signal) NB 220 0 250 470 20 C
- --E"E.~ -- 4s"6--m- w~"-29i5'---' , --'--7f- ---740 .. '-1'C} ---us ----- 17.5 B
wa- 0 460 360 ,.. -----if2-0-- 22 ,m,,, C
CR 96@RoundlakeRoad{Signal) NB 150 0 230 380 30 C
---- 'S'l3"" "~~'2'6 0 ---- ------31)" -50- --- 40 .. --0-
'EB -SO ---- 340 ------,'4'6' '54'Q--~ 18 ----'-i'3--- 15.1 B
~
m ---WEf 40 "6"50 -20 710 4 ---7;,---
0:
" CR 96@ OLD CR 10 (Signal} NB 70 30 210 310 26 C
SB --- ------420 80w '-'"-'''0---' --.-sT6----- 51 -"6'-
ES" "140 ------;i"so--- '10 600 17 -- ----- "S"m_-- 23.5 C
WB 80 630 60 f7G " "9" A
CR 96@ Rice Creek Pkwy (Signal) NB 10 10 10 30 34 C
"sa 190 10 90 290---- 2S---- c
EB 30 1040 10 ~~:~ 21 C 18.7 B
WB 10 670 480 14 B
CR 96@Hamlin€Ave (Signal) NB 150 10 810 970 79 E
SB 10 10 30 T~if 31 c
'EB 10 1030 210 --'54--- 6'" 51.7 0
WB 110 960 10 '26"- -c'-
Prior Ave@TH10WestRamp SB 50 0 510 560 23 C
0 EB 0 70 160 .. --23-6----- ------i' .....,.~.,.,.,. 18.2 C
> '60
'" WB 50 10 0 19
.. Prior Ave@TH10EastRamp NB 0 0 80 80 27 0
a. EB 90 '4-b ---6-- .. ---130'-- 14 --,,---. '-if " 9,8 A
wa------ -----0.- K6'" 430 480 6-- A
. Signalizallon for CR 96/01d US 8, CR 96fOld CR 10, 1.35WfCR 96 Wesl Ramp and East Ramp
SEH Inc.
5/15/2008
1~
SOLTON &. I"v1ENK,
Consulting Engineers & Surveyors
1960 Premier Drive. Monkoto, MN 56001-5900
Phone (507) 625-4171 . FAX (507) 625-4177
MEMORANDUM
INC.
Date:
May 21, 2008
To:
Kristine Giga, P.E. - Civil Engineer
Greg Hoag - Public Works Director
City of Arden Hills
From:
Christopher S. Chromy, P.E., P.T.ON ~\
Bolton & Menk, Inc_ L'2l:---
RE:
Highway 10 Local Access Interchange
Evaluation of Phasing Options and Associated Traffic Operations
BMI Project No. '1'42_22335
011 behalf of the City of Arden Hills, I have reviewed and summarized the phasing and traffic analysis
completed by S.E.I-1. for the referenced project. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate the potential
phasing of interchange constmclion in an effort to delay impacts to Arden Manor. The analysis indicates
that traffic operations would not be maintained to acceptable levels without full construction oCthe
interchange and west frontage road to CR 96. Changes in travel pattems and levels associated with the
initial phase of the TCAAP development and grade separation ofTI-j I O/CR 96 necessitate the need for
full access at the TJ-l 10 Local Access Interchange in 2012_
The Minnesota Department ofTmnsportation and Ramsey County Public Works have reviewed the
phasing and traffic analysis and concur with these findings.
Study Procedures and Finditu!s
The traffic analysis was completed with the foli<.w.:ing conditions accounted fix:
. Transportation improvements:
o Completion of the I-694/1-35E "Unweave the Weave" Project,
o Full Access at CR H11-35W,
o Rice Creek Parkway between CR I-j and CR 96,
o Grade Separation of 'I'll 10 and CR 96.
o Signolization of CR 96 intersections at Old IIwy 8, 1-35W Ramps, and old I-Iwy 10_
. Traffic Demands in the Year 2012:
o Historic Growth in Volumes,
o New Trips generated from initial phase ofTCAAP.
M!\f\JKATO, fv1f\ 6 F/,Il<MOI\JT, ~/iN 6 SLEt":PY EYE. Mf\J 0 f3URNSVILLE, MN 0 CHASK/\ Mi'~
WILLiV1Af<, fvlN 6 1~/\rV1S!:.Y fv1t\! 0 MvlES.I/\
',',' ,vv/,l::,o!ton.nlcnk.com
An Equoi Oppo.'iunify i:mpfoy~':
City or Arden Hills
May 21,2008
Page 2 of2
Phasing or the TH 10 Local Access Interchange considered postponing construction or the southbound
exit ramp and west frontage road connection to CR 96. These phasing options would delay impacts to
Arden Manor properties.
Under this analysis, peak hour tramc conditions would become problematic at the 1-35W/CR 96
interchange wi!.h a partial build of the 'I'll 10 Local Access Interchange. TroDie flow that currently
travels south on '1'1-110 to east on CR 96 would necd to divert to the 1-35W/CR 96 interchange or othcr
local routes. Growth in background traffic and new trips associated with the TCAAP site would increase
travel demand for this critical movement. Even with signalization orIhe ramp intersections, unacceptable
delays would be experienced for traffic exiting southbound 1-35W at CR 96. The southbound TH ] 0 exit
to the Local Access interchange, along with the west frontage road connection to CR 96, arc critical
clements necessary to maintain acceptable traffic operations.
H.ccommendations
We reeolllmend the City of Arden I-Jills endorse the rull constnletion or the TH 10 Local Access
Interchange and West Frontage Road to CSAI-I 96 by 2012 with initial phase of the TCAAP development
and grode separation ofTH 10/CSAH 96. Phasing of access at this location would result in unacceptable
traffic operations at nearby intersections. This may require temporary improvements to mitigate
unacceptable traffic operations and result in higher project costs.
Arden Hills
Interstate 694, Highway 10 and County Road 96
Preliminary Design Issues and Position
There arc Ihree separatc roadway projects Ihal arc being slUdicd In Ihe Cily that havc potential
impacts on residellts:
1_ Jlllerstale 694, 35E to 35\V - Mn])OT Projcct
o
Grade scparalion or Highway 10 and Counly Road 96 - Ramsey County project
3, Preservation of full ~ICCCSS for residents and businesses between Highway 10 and County
Road 96 through development of an interchange that includes access to TCAAP from
Highway 10 - Cily project
Projects #2 and in above arc intertwined due to issues or continuing to provide local access to
residellts between two major roadways. In order to progress these two (2) projects further to
preliminary design. the C'jty \vants 10 provide guidance to the appropriate entities that arc
1Illlkn;lking the design process to assure that the City's issues and concerns arc addressed. It should
be lloted that the design constraints listed under each project arc in no particular order of priority
and as stich should not be construed in that way. In addition. the City wants to be assured that noise
issues will be reviewed and mitigation plans prepared to address all three projects.
MNDOT PROJECT
I. INTERST ATE 694 - 35E TO 35W PROJECT
rvInDOT is undertakin!.! a study 1'01' widening Interstate 694 into a six (6) lane freeway
bel ween 35E and 35W. The design constraints and city pcrspeclive noted below DO NOT
fencet the City's COmll1CiHS on the cntire project since the City has not reviewed the project
in iL<.i. cntin:ly and only' rellec! cOllcerns regarding increased noise.
u DESIGN CONSTRAINT #1
Review noise impacts to residential areas located south or County Road 96 and
provide Illitigation options and costs.
u CITY PERSPECTIVE
The City is concerned that noise levels may increase for these neighborhoods over
time_ The Cily understands Ihall'vln])OT is undertaking a noise study ror Ihis arca as
an extension or thc Inlerstate 694 SlU(!v. The Cilv would like to review MnDOT's
~ ' ~
mitigation measures and costs to see if noise can be reduced through noise walls.
landscaping and/or paving malcrials. In addilion, the Cily anticipales Ihat MnDOT
will pay ror any mitigation required as a result or the noisc study.
1-694 and Highway 10 and CDum)' Road ()6 Preliminary Design Position Paper
RAMSEY COUNTY PROJECT
II. Grade separation of Highway 10 and County Road 96
The City understands that grade separation or these two roadways is proposed to address
safety and traffic operational issues. Due to these improvements. some properties may be
negatively impacted and the City wants to assure that all measures to reduce the impacts arc
undertaken.
u DESIGN CONSTRAINT #1
Mitigate noise impacts 10 residCnlial arcas locatcd south of County Road 96.
u CITY PERSPECTIVE
Due to grade separation. the City is concerned that noise levels Illay increase for these
residential areas. The City would like to review mitigation measures and costs to see if
noise call be reduced through noise walls. landscaping and/or paving and views that cost
of noise mitigation is the responsihility of MnDOT and Ramscy County.
u DESIGN CONSTRAINT #2
Review need to provide an exit ramp from north bound Highway J 0 onto cast bound
COUnly Road 96_
u CITY PERSPECTIVE
City would likc to provide bCller local acccss onto Coumy Road 96, ir it makes rinancial
sense, due to the proposed elimination or Interstaw 694 cxit omo Hamline Avcnuc.
u DESIGN CONSTRAINT #3
rVlinimize impacts 10 Arden rvlanor by c()Jlsidcring III III I 1l11ZII1g median. shoulder.
boulevard. sidcwalk and trail widths onnonh and south side or Coumy Road 96.
u CITY PERSPECTIVE
City would like to preserve as many homes along County Road 96 as possible and local
decisions on medians, shoulders. boulcvan.ls. sidewalk and trail widths and location of
trail(s) on olle or both sides or the roadway Illay be ways to assist in meeting this goal.
The City also understands that appropriate turn lanes. alignments with bridges and other
traffic flow and safety issues need 10 be adequately addressed in the design and may
dictate cenain clements of the road layout.
u DESIGN CONSTRAINT #4
Utilize existing southern edge or COllnty Road 96 as future edge of a]] improvemellts
and for future alignment of Interstate Highway 35 bridge expansion.
u CITY PERSPECTIVE
City would like to preserve as many homcs along County Road 96 as possible and if the
alignmcnt can mcet enginecring standards by having County Road 96 locatcd as far
south as possible. that would bc prcferred_
1-694 and Highway 10 and COHnl)' Road 96 Prdiminary Design Position Paper
2
o DESIGN CONSTRAINT #5
Provide pedestrian crossing over or under COllll1y Road 96 between Highway 10 and the
access point cast or North Heights Lutheran Church.
o CITY PERSPECTIVE
City would like to provide safe access to pedestrians to cross County Road 96 to access
trails, etc.
o DESIGN CONSTRAINT #6
Any bridgc{s) constructed should provide safe pedestrian crossing/access.
o CITY PERSPECTIVE
The Cily \vants to assure there are safe pedestrian connections to its trail system and any
crossing over or under Highway 10 or County Road 96 needs to be wide enough to
accommodate such access.
CITY PROJECT
III. Preserve full access for residents and businesses between
Highway 10 and County Road 96 through development of an
interchange that includes access to TCAAP from Highway 10
]'hc City supports providing full access for residents and businesses between these roadways
and access to the TCAAP site rrom Highway 10. However. thc City is or the opinion that
the following four aspects need to be further resolved:
]. Determine if an at-grade signalized inlersection can be constructed to provide access to
the TCA/\P site on a temporary or permanent basis
Number of entrance/exit ramps that need to be constructed for the interchange and \vhen
3. How to provide safe access for Scherer Brothers
4. Can or should Highway lObe realigned to move the interchange further northeast
o
The City understands that construction or a full interchange/intersection \\"ill need to be
shown 011 the plans but would like the ability to review timing and phasing options for the
prDject.
o DESIGN CONSTRAINT #1
Review l\1nDOT model to determine if an at-grade signalized intersection at Highway
I (J into. the TCAAI' site can be constructed.
o CITY PERSPECTIVE
City is of the opinion that this is a viable option as a temporary or permanent solution
and would like to review timing. phasing options and costs.
]-694 <lnd Highway 10 and COLI Illy Road 96 Preliminary Design Position Paper
3
o DESIGN CONSTRAINT #2
Review all phasing options for cost effectiveness. viability. need. ele. 10 see if all four
entrance/exit ramps on a new diamond interchange are needed and provide timing and
phasing of project.
o CITY PERSPECTIVE
City would like 10 preserve local access for residellts while minimizing impacts to the
residential and business community located within the "triangle" area. The City would
like to review timing of when the sOllth bound Highway 10 exit ramp into TCAAP
would be nccded. if at all. In addition. a cosl/financial plan nceds to be provided to
ascertain if phasing is or will be cost clTcClivc.
o DESIGN CONSTRAINT #3
Review 10 determine how safe access for Scherer Brothers can be provided in the interim
and long-term based upon phasing plan for the interchange.
o CITY PERSPECTIVE
City would like to provide safe access while minimizing impacts to Arden ivlanor. This
could include interim solution of direct access 1I11lil the exit ramp is possibly needed
(right in. right out). moving the access road closer to Highway 10 if the south bound exit
ramp is not needed initially and moving the access road which leads onlO the new diamond
interchange as far northeast towards the southbound Highway 10 exit ramp as possible.
o DESIGN CONSTRAINT #4
Review costs associated \vith realigning Highway 10 and the interchange further
northeast.
o CITY PERSPECTIVE
City would like to minimize impacts to Arden rvlanor. but needs to he assured project
solution is cost ellective. City! would like to review costs or realignlllent. beginning and
terminus of realignlllellt. impacts to property further south of COllnty Road 96 and
quality of existing roads to determine if they are in need of replacement. Realignment
could include a few options slIch as moving the south lane further north, moving both
lanes furthcr north (but within tvlnDOT ROW) or moving both lanes further north onto
the TCAAP site. If the quality of the road bed is in floor eondilion and in nced of
replacement. then that cost should be subtracted from the realignment options being
considered.
1-694 and Highway] 0 and County Road 96 Preliminary Design Position Paper
4
~
~~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
May 8, 2008
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Jim Willis, Interim City Administrator 6
Noise Walls
Thc Council has indicatcd that addressing noise issucs for residcntial properties impactcd by the TH
IO/CR96 projcet is a major issuc rclated to thc TCAAP dcvelopment and TH 1 O-CR 96 transportation
improvements.
This issue ariscs, in part, from an carlier study conducted for MnDOT rclating to the I 694 35E to
35W project. The Environmental Assessment for that projcct examined noise impacts upon residential
properties in Arden Hills gcncrally from the area west of Hamline along the northcrly side of 1694 and
TH 10 to the end of their projcet limits. Their study indicated that the noisc impacts upon the
rcsidcntial propcrties within the study area did not mcet all three eritcria required lor noise walls to bc
installed with thc project. Thus whilc noise Icvels might increase as a rcsult of thc growth of
additional traffic, the cost/benefit threshold for thc installation of noise walls was not reached Jlcr
MnDOT policy.
Thc City requested the MnDOT examinc noise impacts northerly of the f (,94 project limits to CR96.
MnDOT agrced. SEH was givcn the task. Thc March 18 SEH 'THIO Barrier Study" addrcssed this
matter as it relates to rcsidcntial propcrties on both the cast and west sides ofTH 10 north of I ()<)4 to
CR96. This rep0l1 was and submitted to the City Council at your April 14 Work Session.
The SEH study reached the same conclusion as the early noisc study: residential propcrtics within the
study arca did not meet all three criteria required for the installation of noise walls.
Somc have suggested that if MnDOT can not be persuaded to construct appropriate noise walls, thc
City should do so to protect the affcctcd residents,
The Council has the authority to spend public funds for such improvements. Thc 2007 estimatcd cost
for 20 foot high wooden noise walls is about $300 per lincal foot, or $1,600,000 pcr mile, [SEH
"THIO Barrier Study", pagc 5].
On the attachcd map I have highlighted in yellow thc approximate limits of the earlier MnDOT noise
study for the I 694 project and the more recent SEH noise study in pink. Assuming 20 foot noise walls
were constructed the full length of the study area, nearly 12,500 fcct, the cost would be approximately
$3,800,000,
1
i
i
r
;
I.
i
I
l\b=tr'~""~;::"1':;'-'n'"~~:~1t= Hl~ - -JLl'J--- [ '," ~ III '<Ldl_-ldL dJl
\ ".,,',~
\ lie:,> 1 \:. i f!h 1f- dlllJ~ ~ !fL..fJJ ~ Il'l ~I " \)\\~€ ~ P ~ <0_ 2:" '<I t-
i _"""'=, ' ~,o~ rJi] Q, ~ ..::. '" ~; ~~::;/'" ~:- Qoo I~~
I GKJ r'irgj '0 <l ' li~1 fJID \ffiI tll!l mll Qi3!f? ~.J50l~ ~/\ ~ II ::J <311~f /0
If: ,', Y2i,,_;,':;,;; I ~: "- '--1] lIf'o -~ ~ "7 M' i!jij, "~lS" ';ji'b~ "."', 'j-ef;,
!Ii! "",;,})-C'.;.-' ',0 F,;'-- I , .0 ~ '" ' ,., - ~1iI \j' "" Ul :![fI~'Ji'B~~~- ~ ~ 0&
:',,};), \) C>o::/~ ~ q"Ojc </ D'" [) ".. ~~ ~~ . 'D' :'iD' ..'=t,{' 0 ~ '7>,,,,, '% ~'O CJ I.
I~I '}'>.> ~ \\ Vn '~c Trl ;\&f 't .. ~ t-~"i'Q <S ~ ,::J;:;I..D r r :!!!::lr:a ~o -c.,. 9< 0 I
I LJ 1. J \'''';Y:,:9''-':~ _.'x,,Ro)'a/ .. nO '\ \1~'" -0 IBI 4@ 1i> '" \lI2 '" . ':i'" ,
i c.-. "':~';;H,.::: /,} ~:;'NJiiIl, b, Al",->..:(c:JI['?~; ~ ~~ ~ "" ~l"3JQg~l<{]k-'iDlcol ~ '<:/":"":)' ,
Ix..+;:'tr{i~?' () .. T{(Jrli [- "~~ ~>,J." T') 'Ji f1l~~~W i--'l: ~ .J' 0 j J I "''-''\1'.. \>
I D= 1;',3. 0\ ',;,; jL " V,~~ ;: ~DD Idp)2 \);dl';"'~~;- \), ~~", ~~llIIi-Il\1l~\~~, -;;, Q,,;~iiJ~~~~c:oJ~4 0 0 cu,,)fimt;g<<:",,~
I T'.J.,..", if .--.Q,,'N ,,\~"~ '" ' Jl.() mrJmm~~ ~ -'L{d6~f,:J" "'I--f'b,:T:) PaW ~
i ~..;,;;.; Jf:u, ?/!~ ?/,../--.) ~~ II ',/ J2_S'0. \ ('; Orr '" <0/ .n . '... ')' q' () i\'~ r,}c;) I~ \!>~ J ~
' ~"/'; 'C/.;.,." L~I'-llll ,/ n-j-:J . ,'Tl~:rT'rrTrJ7 oF. "='l ,--1 \__....I...L ~__.)..J ._..o.__..~._.._...._ ;
I ,. Vi ,--; J __ " 19___""idl=~\'\,. ~<:j~ <0.9'31~":*~~~b:::.. I]! (l \J 'Q J CJ ", ..c..---
I I>[-'di?';"]
I
; -- f, ii'. .0 i', ~\\l'V\ ;;>;-;) <) s l ' ~'\.;., ~-- ,..,' . ", . ' <3, " '. 'l~ I.,] t,j 1\,
! @:., (j;''S,<Y/1'-h G i,j ""/';\ ""/DD {) 0 . 'q<:)~--~ ......:11-_______='-' U
4 "I' \1( \0 <i),t'-:- . , C:,J ..I... - ~ .' l? flt~ .,;,-. ':':
<\0 '., g}; --: 0> '\J " 0 5/=",-"') ~_" .
I \ /'" J' \\ ,., ,;' E () .- . '0. [j--- "i ~J ',.;
V,"" \5 --... 0_. 'JG~-. ) \_.\73.lJ.->P . "'''''0 FI '", ."-,,~.,,,; - ' \ [~r "J :
L ~~i).. . \\,. ! 0 (? I !~~]"- /,0 ll]v~ ' = =--1 ~, ~,P:o ',.01 eO p;r,rZI I~ji ; , ~~~ C\',---) , ',' 'c>~'" ,:~r.~1Ji,J .
---.-- j ! (.~ Cj ...-,' ~~ ~o ,", "',
--=-.....- --:-:--- =------::----:==---:-~ .==--..---::->------::.:::.--=--. -.....::.::.:... .1....1..__. :"!' _---.J {l .~ '" 0 0 Do';" . 0 ; '1 '~\' ,;..~. ',:.....~1--..-
.____====_=-==-~~----c:===:;:=.-::.,--:.-. -==:;:;:~=~__. ~c=-------===:____ A~ ' &..~ ~~"~CJI~<pI' "--~ y1','".'.,..,'..,,"-=. ~_,_. ._====
/ OF] . ~~-.....T " ~1 ~' . --;, {J 0 (I,'~ -::-y.L ., l d'l .
", ~ltt}:10}flJ,'j '45'(j~ \ ", ~'~:"Ho:~'~ r\;~IJ q ~ r~-jl0--
o ~ .. _ _.
., r I-J\.. .' ,
",',' ~y c?' IfJ"'P'WT-"'Q"'~
^!!1 \ A~,!~:>--:'cV;/ I ' ~ ,)
cJcJcJ
DQ
o
'<i,
!l~
'--------
'....._,
---.
---
City of Arden Hills
Hwy 10 & 96 Grade Separation, Hwy 10 Local Access and County Road H Interchange Project Costs
22,Jan,OB
H 10 and Hwy 96 Grade Separation
Project Cost Funding Sources Amount Funds
Committed
Hwy 10 & 96 Grade Separation (Construction- Federal Funds $ 7,000.000 Yes
grade separation. bridges, Hwy 10 reconstruction) $ 11.400.000 'County Turn back Funds $ 4.400.000 Yes
MNDOT (Design and Approximately
Hwy 10 & 96 Grade Separation (Project Delivery - possible coordination of $2.400.000 Yes
preliminary & final design, environmental. ROW acauisilian \
coordination of ROW acquisition, $ 2.850,000
project/construction management) County Turn back Funds $ 450,000 No
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 14,250,000 N/A $ 14,250,000 N/A
Note: County owes City some reimbursement funds from a previous ponding project and these funds may be adequate to
cover local aesthetic requirements
Doesn't include costs for landscaping or local aesthetic
requirements, ROW along Hwy 10 (included in next
table) or possible signals
Approximately 25% of project
construction costs
H 10 Local Access Interchan e
Project Cost Funding Sources Amount Funds
Committed
Local Access Interchanoe (Construction) $ 11,500.000 "Slate Funds (bandinQ bill) $ 11,500.000 No
ROW ACfluisition $ 5.400,000 Slate Funds (bandinQ bill) $ 5.400,000 No
/'
Local Access Interchange (Project delivery. / State Funds (bonding bill) No
Preliminary & final design, environmental, S 3,850,000 $ 3,850,000
coordination of ROW acquisition. MNDOT (Design and
projecUconslruc!ion management) possible coordination of No
ROW acquisition 1
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ / 20,750.000 N/A $ 20,750.000 N/A
\
Doesn't include costs for
landscaping or local aesthetic
reauirements
Approximately 25% of project construction
costs (excludes ROW acquisition)
Coun Road H
Project Cost Funding Sources Amount Funds
Committed
Only $400.000
Federal Funds (80% of $ 20,000.000 by Ryan far
New Interchange at County Road H $ 25.000.000 project casls) preliminary
des ion
State Funds (20% of $ 5,000,000 No
proiect casts 1
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 25,000,000 N/A $ 25,000,000 N/A