Welcome []...2006 2007 2008 Overall Process † Traffic Analysis/Forecast † Review Previous Data & Assemble Additional Data † Develop Project Purpose & Need † Identify Key Project

Highway 169 Interchange & Frontage Road Study:

Chamber of Commerce Meeting 3:30 - 4:30 p.m.Public Open House 4:30 - 7:30 p.m.

Elk River to Zimmerman

Welcome

ST46

UV4

169

169

ST45ST46

UV19

UV25

RecentlyRecentlyDevelopedDevelopedAreaArea

Proposed NewProposed NewDevelopmentDevelopment

GramsGramsRegionalRegionalParkPark

GardeniaGardeniaParkPark

LionsLionsParkPark

FreemontFreemontWMAWMA

Huntington Huntington ParkPark

273rd Ave273rd Ave

277th Ave277th Ave

269th Ave269th Ave

253rd Ave253rd Ave

249th Ave249th Ave

117t

h Av

e11

7th

Ave

239th Ave239th Ave

136t

h St

reet

136t

h St

reet

DorotheaPark

Proposed NewDevelopment

Future High SchoolFuture High SchoolFuture High School

GramsRegionalPark

GardeniaPark

LionsPark

Fireman’sFireman’sParkParkFireman’sPark

FreemontWMA

Elem.SchoolElem.School

RecentlyDevelopedArea


Junior High/Junior High/High SchoolHigh SchoolJunior High/High School

Future Future BusinessBusinessParkPark

Future BusinessPark

Huntington Park

Fremont Lake

273rd Ave

277th Ave

269th Ave

253rd Ave City of ZimmermanCity of Zimmerman

City of ZimmermanCity of Zimmerman

Livonia TownshipLivonia Township

City of Zimmerman

249th Ave

117t

h Av

e

239th Ave

136t

h St

reet

City of Zimmerman

Livonia Township

Main Street

Main Street

Main Street

DNR Wildlife Management Area

Parks

Wetlands

Boundary of Planned Future Developed Area

Air Photo: USDA, Farm Service Agency, 2003

0 500 1000 2000Feet´


Minnesota Department of Transportation


Study Background1. Why do we need a study?Traffic volumes in the Highway 169 corridor are growing and are expected to continuegrowing. This growth combined with the presence of at-grade intersections and a mixof vehicle types (commuter, trucks, SUVs pulling boats/campers, RVs) results in delay,longer travel times, and an increasing number of crashes. The study will identifyimprovements for the Highway 169 corridor that will improve safety and mobility.

2. Where is the study focused?The Highway 169 Zimmerman Interchange and Frontage Road Study is focused on theHighway 169 corridor from County Highway 25/19 at the south end to 277th Avenueat the north end.

** The study area was recently extended to Highway 10 in Elk River. Watch for moreinformation soon!

3. What improvements will the study recommend?The study will recommend ways to convert Highway 169 to a safer, more mobilefreeway. That means the study will recommend a system of grade-separatedinterchanges and frontage/backage roads to provide access, eliminating the need forless safe at-grade access to Highway 169.

4. When will the Preferred Alternative be built?The Highway 169 interchange at County Highway 4 is currently scheduled forconstruction in 2014. However, adequate funding is not available for this project basedon cost estimates. The timing of construction is dependent on resolving fundingissues. Other recommended improvements will be constructed in phases after 2014,as additional funding becomes available.

20082006 2007

Over

all P

roce

ss

• Traffic Analysis/Forecast

• Review Previous Data & Assemble Additional Data

• Develop Project Purpose & Need

• Identify Key Project Goals & Objectives

• Identify Range of Alternatives and Evaluate

• Identify Key Social, Environmental, and Economic Issues of Concern

• Can a Preferred Alternative be Identified without Extensive Study?

• Determine Appropriate Environmental Process

• Refine Design for Alternative(s)

• Complete Environmental Documentation







Apr 2006 – Feb 2007Zimmerman Alternative Identification and Evaluation

Sep 2007 – March 2008Project Evaluation and Environmental Documentation - Elk River to Zimmerman

Nov 2006 – Aug 2007Elk River Alternative Identification and Evaluation




What Does the Study Include and When Will Tasks be Completed?

ProjectManagementTeam (PMT)

Open House

Meetings

AgencyStakeholder

Contacts

LocalStakeholder

Contacts

LocalAdvisory

Committee(LAC)

Group Members (Zimmerman) Members (Elk River) Purpose

Project Management Team

- MnDOT Representatives- SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Staff

- Affected property owners- General public

Important stakeholders from the study area with direct interest in corridor planning results:- Sherburne County Commissioners- Zimmerman City Council- Livonia Township Board- Baldwin Township Board- Zimmerman Chamber of Commerce

Federal and State Permitting Agencies and Major Local Stakeholders:- Department of Natural Resources (DNR)- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)- Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)- MnDOT- State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

- MnDOT Representatives- Sherburne County Engineer, Traffic Engineer, and Planner- City of Zimmerman Administrator, Planner/Coordinator, and Engineer- Livonia Township Clerk- Baldwin Township Representatives- SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Staff

Same Provide contract administration and review

Local Advisory Committee (LAC)

Local Stakeholder Contacts

Agency Stakeholder Contacts

Open House Meetings

- MnDOT Representatives- Sherburne, Engineer, Traffic Engineer, and Planner- City of Elk River Engineer and Community Development Director- Livonia Township Clerk- SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Staff

- Guide the overall study process - Digest input; - Participate in technical analysis; - Make study recommendations

Important stakeholders from the study area with direct interest in corridor planning results:- Sherburne County Commissioners- Elk River City Council- Livonia Township Board- Elk River Chamber of Commerce- Elk River Neighborhood Groups and Schools

- Provide direct stakeholder input on study issues and opportunities- Provide feedback on alternative evaluation process

Same - Establish project understanding and support among review agencies

Same - Provide an opportunity for the public to participate in the corridor planning process, and for specific interest groups and review agencies to further their involvement. Open house input will be recorded and providedto the LAC at critical study milestones




Who is Advising the Study Process?Zimmerman Local Advisory Committee

– Craig Robinson, MnDOT

– Jim Hallgren, MnDOT

– Rhonda Lewis, Sherburne County Engineer

– Dick Corbin, Sherburne County Traffic Engineer

– Jon Sevald, Sherburne County Planner

– Greg LaFond, Zimmerman City Administrator

– Randy Piasecki, Zimmerman City Planner/Coordinator

– Scott Young, Zimmerman City Engineer (EarthTech)

– Lila Spencer, Livonia Township Clerk

– Jess Hall, Baldwin Township Board Member

Questions or Comments? Contact Us!Jim Hallgren, MnDOT District 3

218-828-5797

[email protected]

Identify Preferred Access Alternative

Select preferred access alternative (along with no-build option) for further environmental analysis.

Complete Environmental Documentation

Based on the preferred access alternative, determine the appropriate environmental review and documentation (e.g., Environmental Assessment - EA - or Environmental Impact Statement - EIS).

Document Issues and Needs

TH 169 is a principal arterial and High Priority Interregional Corridor that carries substantial volumes of regional traffic145 crashes occurred on TH 169 from CSAH 25 to 273rd Avenue from 2003 to 2005; 4 involved fatalities, 39 involved injuriesSegment crash rate and severity rate on TH 169 from CSAH 25 to 273rd Avenue is higher than statewide averageIntersection crash rate and severity rate at TH 169/CSAH 4 junction is significantly higher than statewide averageTH 169/CSAH 4 intersection volumes are nearing capacity during weekday peak hours and exceeds capacity during weekend/holiday peak hours, which compromises access to/from Zimmerman AreaStudy area includes 21 at-grade access points in 4.5 mile section of roadway, including signalized TH 169/CSAH 4 intersectionTH 169 traffic volumes have been growing at a rate of 3.3 percent per year; this trend is anticipated to continueCSAH 4 is an important regional route connecting eastern Sherburne County and TH 169 to Interstate 35 at CSAH 17 in Chisago CountyWest of TH 169 many driveways and roadways intersect CSAH 4 at close intervals; on-street parking is also allowed and there is little building set backThe area has few local east-west roadways complementing CSAH 4; Main Street and CSAH 25/19 serve as important alternate routesCSAH 25/19 currently lacks east-west continuityFew opportunities exist to develop additional, continuous east-west local roadways because of extensive wetlands and public land2004 traffic counts show trucks make up 6 percent of daily TH 169 traffic volumes (approximately 2,000 trucks per day)TH 169 is a key aggregate hauling corridorTH 169 is a key recreational travel corridor with many vehicles and motor homes pulling trailersAbandoned Burlington Northern railroad runs parallel to TH 169 through study area and has been identified as a future transit and/or bicycle/pedestrian trail corridorA park-and-pool lot is located in the southwest quadrant of the TH 169/CSAH 4 intersection. This lot should be maintained and access to it preserved.TH 169 presents a barrier to safe bicycle/pedestrian movement between east and west Zimmerman and Livonia Township.Forecasting done for the Sherburne County Transportation Plan shows the following growth anticipated by 2030:

200 percent increase in population240 percent increase in employment105 percent increase in travel demand

By 2030, Livonia Township and the City of Zimmerman together anticipate:

300 percent increase in population190 percent increase in employment150 percent increase in travel demand

The TH 101/TH 169 Corridor Management Plan, City of Zimmerman Comprehensive Plan, and Livonia Township Transportation Plan identify TH 169 as a future freewayZimmerman plans to continue developing a commercial area contiguous to TH 169Zimmerman plans to redevelop its existing downtown along CSAH 4 located just west of TH 169With the forecast growth, TH 169 will become more congested and existing traffic problems are projected to grow considerably worse if no improvements are made.

Identify Goals and Objectives

1. ENHANCE SAFETY AND MOBILITY ON TH 169.Eliminate all direct private access to TH 169Replace at-grade TH 169 access with full access interchanges and a frontage/backage road system.Plan interchanges with adequate capacity to accommodate forecast 2030 traffic volumes.Space the first local road intersection a minimum of 750 feet from any interchange ramp intersection.

2. ENSURE SAFE AND EFFICIENT MOBILITY FOR THE TRAVELING PUBLIC IN AREAS SURROUNDING TH 169.

Place interchanges at areas of high local economic activity to better serve traffic desiring to access TH 169 and to decrease potential impacts to local roadway system due to increased circuity.Minimize overloading of transportation system elements and balance demand through capacity, access, and facility spacing.Plan interchanges that accommodate multi-modal transportation (e.g., freight, transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel)Plan for reasonable traffic circulation to current and future land uses (e.g., frontage/backage road systems. The location of these systems will be, as much as possible, consistent with associated Township and City Plans.)Utilize existing and future roadway system continuity and connectivity throughout Sherburne County.

3. AVOID OR MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, IDENTIFY ANY REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES, AND POSSIBLY ENHANCE CURRENT ELEMENTS, INCLUDING:

High and adverse effects on minority or low income populations (Environmental Justice)Threatened & Endangered SpeciesSection 106 Cultural Resources (archeological and historical)Section 404 WetlandsSection 4(f) Parks, Recreation Areas, Historic Sites, or Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuge AreasSection 6(f) Recreation AreasOther Unique Environmental Resources

4. MINIMIZE SOCIAL COSTS OR EXPECTED FUTURE PUBLIC EXPENDITURES FOR ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT.

Minimize property impacts, severances, and relocationsMinimize right-of-way and construction costsUtilize other infrastructure improvements (utilities, bicycle/pedestrian facilities)

5. COORDINATE STUDY DECISIONS WITH LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND STATE PLANS.

Plan route to be compatible with future land use.Consider recommendations in regional and local plans – TH 169 Corridor Management Plan, Sherburne County Transportation Plan, City of Zimmerman Comprehensive Plan, Livonia Township Transportation Plan

6. ENCOURAGE STRONG AGENCY AND INTERJURISDICTIONAL PARTICIPATION AND SEEK CONSENSUS ON PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE.

Coordinate with regulatory agencies including:Mn/DOT Environmental Services and Cultural Resource DivisionsDepartment of Natural Resources (DNR)U.S. Army Corps of EngineersMinnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)Sherburne County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)

Coordinate with jurisdictions including:Sherburne CountyCity of ZimmermanLivonia TownshipBaldwin TownshipMn/DOT

Identify Evaluation Criteria and Evaluate Alternatives

To the extent appropriate for the level of study, quantify the impacts/enhancements of each proposed alternative alignment in terms of the following:

1.Environment CriteriaThreatened & Endangered Species (in vicinity)Section 106 Cultural Resources (no. of sites)Section 404 Wetlands (acres)Section 4(f) Properties (acres)Other Environmental Issues (in vicinity)

2.Transportation CriteriaSpecific Criteria To Be Determined

3.Social CriteriaSpecific Criteria To Be Determined

4.Public and Agency Input

Develop Access Alternatives

Identify access alternatives for further analysis (including no-build option) that generally satisfy purpose and need and study goals and objectives.

TH 169 Zimmerman Interchange Study Decision Making Process

Develop Purpose and Need Statement

The purpose of the TH 169 Zimmerman Interchange Project is to provide safe, reliable, and efficient mobility for both motorized and non-motorized travel along TH 169 in and around the Zimmerman area. Primary needs supporting this project include TH 169 safety, existing and future regional mobility, and consistency with state and local highway plans. The project aims to improve the transportation system in a cost-efficient manner while avoiding or minimizing and mitigating unavoidable impacts to the area’s social, economic, cultural, and natural environment.

TH

169

Co

nd

itio

ns

Fo

reca

st G

row

thP

lan

s an

d D

evel

op

men

t P

ress

ure

Mu

lti-

Mo

dal

Lo

cal R

oad

Co

nd

itio

ns




How Will Decisions be Made?

ST46

UV4

169

169

ST74

ST45ST46

UV19

UV25




LionsLionsParkPark



273rd Ave273rd Ave

277th Ave277th Ave

269th Ave269th Ave

253rd Ave253rd Ave

249th Ave249th Ave

117t

h Av

e11

7th

Ave

239th Ave239th Ave

136t

h St

reet

136t

h St

reet

DorotheaPark



GramsRegionalPark

GardeniaPark

LionsPark


FreemontWMA








Future BusinessPark

AmericanLegionMemorial

Huntington Park

Fremont Lake

273rd Ave

277th Ave

269th Ave




City of Zimmerman

249th Ave

117t

h Av

e

239th Ave

136t

h St

reet

Many Driveway and Road Access Points

Identified Native Plant Community(Oak Forest)

Many Driveway and Road Access Points, Safety and Congestion Problems

Site of High Biodiversity

Existing DowntownZimmerman

Safety Problem, Signalized Intersection

Boundary of Planned, Future Developed Area

2 Business3 Residential Driveways

Key Alternate Route, Safety Problem, Unsignalized Intersection

Key Alternate Routes, Roads Lack East-West Continuity

Abandoned Railroad Corridor


City of Zimmerman

Livonia Township


Part of Important Regional Route Connecting TH 169 / East Sherburne County to I-35 at I-35 / Chisago CSAH 17 Interchange (Under Construction)

Main Street

Main Street

Main Street

2,370

4,570

2,040

13,920

29,900

21

,30

0

1,860

Vision of 169 as a Freeway

Majority of Severe TH 169 Crashes Related to At-Grade Access

Growing Traffic Volumes

Large Recreational Traffic Volumes

Key Gravel Hauling Corridor

Limited Number of Supporting Local Roadways

Large Amounts of Wetlands

Large Amount of Public Land and Parks

Identified Threatened and/or Endangered Species Habitat (Bald Eagle and Blanding’s Turtle)

CSAH/County Road Access

Local Road Access

Private Access (Business or Residence)

Planned Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail Crossing


Parks

Wetlands


Developing Business District

Daily Traffic Volumes (2006, Unadjusted)


0 500 1000 2000Feet´

x,xxx

What Has Been Done to Date? Identified Issues and Needs







What Has Been Done To Date? Identified & Evaluated System Concepts

ST46

UV4

169

169

ST45

ST45

ST46

ST39

UV19

UV25





LionsLionsParkPark



273rd Ave273rd Ave

277th Ave277th Ave

269th Ave269th Ave

253rd Ave253rd Ave

249th Ave249th Ave

117t

h Av

e11

7th

Ave

239th Ave

136t

h St

reet

136t

h St

reet

DorotheaDorotheaParkPark



GramsRegionalPark

GardeniaPark

LionsPark


FreemontWMA






Future BusinessPark

Huntington Park

Fremont Lake

273rd Ave

277th Ave

269th Ave




City of Zimmerman

249th Ave

117t

h Av

e

136t

h St

reet

DorotheaPark

City of Zimmerman

Livonia Township

Main Street

Main Street

Main Street


Parks

Wetlands



0 500 1000 2000Feet´

The Local Advisory Committee used a high-level screening process to evaluatepotential highway and interchange location alternatives (i.e., system concepts).Based on results from the screening and input from your local elected officials, theLocal Advisory Committee advanced or dismissed the following alternatives:

Key Benefits of Alternatives 1 and 3:- Consistent with regional and local transportation plans

- Provide connectivity and continuity between key transportation corridors

- Include a system of local arterial and collector routes that provide reasonableaccess to existing and future land uses

- Place the Zimmerman interchange at an existing location of heavy economicactivity

- Roadway alignments minimize impacts on the community and environment

Rationale for Dismissing Alternatives 2, 4, and 5:- Alternative is not consistent with the Highway 101/169 Corridor Management

Plan (published 2002) which calls for improvements largely on the existingHighway 169 alignment

- Alternative does not enhance connectivity and continuity of existing, keytransportation corridors

- Interchange location proposed in alternative is not an existing area of heavylocal economic activity

- Roadway alignments impact large areas of the community and environment

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Alternative 5

ZimmermanAccess Interchange

Highway 25/19Access Interchange*

*All Alternatives include an interchange at Highway 25/19

Alternative

Notes

(1) Alternative advanced for further design development and additional evaluation.

Advanced (1) Dismissed

1

2

3

4

5

✓

✓

✓

✓✓

✓

✓

✓

✓✓




What Has Been Done To Date?Identified & Evaluated County Highway 4 Concepts

Alternative 1B (ADVANCED)

Alternative 3B (ADVANCED)

Alternative 1A (DISMISSED)

Alternative 3A (DISMISSED)

Alternative 3C: Fly-Over Ramps(DISMISSED)

The Local Advisory Committee used a more detailed screening processto evaluate interchange and frontage road sub-alternatives. Based onresults from the screening and input from your local elected officials,the Local Advisory Committee advanced or dismissed the followingalternatives from each grouping:

Key Benefits of Alternatives 1B and 3B:- Provide a range of distinct alternatives for additional evaluation

- Provides more transportation benefit as compared to sub-alternatives in its group and minimizes impacts. Examples ofminimized impacts include requiring less right-of-way, having lowerconstruction cost, having lower impacts on wetlands, and/orrequiring fewer relocations.

Rationale for Dismissing Alternatives 1A, 3A,and 3C:The Local Advisory Committee dismissed these alternatives becausethey do not provide additional transportation benefit compared to sub-alternatives in its group and they involve slightly higher impacts.Examples of higher impacts include requiring more right-of-way, having ahigher construction cost, having higher impacts on wetlands, andrequiring more relocations.

Sub-Alternative

Alternative 1

Notes: (1) Alternative advanced for further design development and additional evaluation.

Advanced (1) Dismissed

1A

1B✓✓

✓✓

Sub-Alternative

Alternative 3

Advanced (1)

3A

3B

3C✓✓

Dismissed

✓✓

✓✓

The Local Advisory Committee performed aTechnical Evaluation based on 36 factors, including:

Key Findings from the Technical Evaluation• Alternative 1B: Compressed Diamond Interchange System

- Greater impacts to businesses and existing downtown- More difficult to stage construction- Highway 169 would be raised over 20 feet above County Highway 4- 40 to 50% higher construction cost than the Hybrid Diamond (Alt. 3B)

• Alternative 3B: Hybrid Diamond Interchange System

- Greater impacts to residential area- Shifts Highway 169 closer to some residents- Requires more right-of-way (acres)- Creates potential to turn back some existing MnDOT right-of-way- May include larger impact to wetlands – needs more study- County Highway 4 would be raised over 20 feet above Highway 169

• Alternatives are comparable in other areas considered




What Has Been Done To Date?Refinement & Evaluation of County Highway 4 Concepts

169

169

Alternative 1B: Compressed Diamond Interchangeon Existing Alignment

Alternative 3B: Hybrid Diamond Interchange withShifted TH 169 Alignment

Legend

Mainline

Ramps

Local Roads

Access Closed

Bridge

Right-In/Right-Out

Transportation Factors• Safety• Roadway and interchange capacity• Connections to existing local road

system• Traffic impacts during construction• Affects on transit, freight, bicycling,

and pedestrians• Amount of right-of-way needed (acres)• Construction cost• Construction staging

Environmental Factors• Affects on threatened and endangered

species• Wetland impacts• Affects on woodlands, streams and

designated biodiversity areas• Affects on historic properties• Affects on archaeological resources• Affects on parks

Social Factors• Maintenance of a cohesive business

district in Zimmerman• Degree of residential relocation• Degree of business relocation• Degree of access disruption

(residential and business)• Affect on local traffic circulation during

construction• Farmland impacts• Visual impacts• Affect on low income or minority

populations

Comments?MnDOT has not selected a Preferred Alternative. Is there something we didn't consider?Please tell us or fill out a comment form. The Local Advisory Committee will consider yourcomments along with the technical findings as it advises MnDOT in the selection of aPreferred Alternative.




What Has Been Done To Date? Refinement & Evaluation of County Highway 25/19 Concepts

Like the process used for County Highway 4 alternatives, the Local AdvisoryCommittee evaluated the County Highway 25/19 interchange and frontage roadconcepts based on 33 specific factors. Based on results from the evaluation andinput from your local elected officials, the Local Advisory Committee proposesadvancing or dismissing the following alternatives:

Key Benefits of Alternative D:- Provides best frontage road connectivity - Minimizes the amount of right-of-way needed- Minimizes the number of residential relocations- Comparable in other areas considered

Rationale for Dismissing Alternatives A, B, and C:- Does not enhance connectivity between the interchange and frontage road

system- Higher right-of-way needs (acres)- Higher social costs due to property acquisitions

COMMENTS?MnDOT has not officially selected a Preferred Alternative. Is there something wedidn't consider? Please tell us or fill out a comment form. The Local AdvisoryCommittee will consider your comments along with the technical findings as itadvises MnDOT in the selection of a Preferred Alternative.

25 19

169

169

Alternative D: Folded Diamond Interchange with Ramps inthe Northwest and Southeast Quadrants

2519

Alternative A: Diamond Interchange

2519

Alternative B: Folded Diamond Interchange withRamps to the North

25 19

Alternative C: Folded Diamond Interchange withRamps to the South

Alternative

Notes:(1) Alternative advanced for further design development and additional evaluation.

Advance (1) Dismiss

A

B

C

D ✓

✓✓✓

✓

✓✓✓




What is Left to Do in the Study?

•Select a Preferred Alternative – Your Feedback Matters! Fill out a comment sheet and drop it in the box below.

•Perform the Elk River Portion of the Study and Select a Preferred Alternative

•Complete a more detailed evaluation of the Preferred Alternative as part ofthe official environmental documentation process. (Highway 10 in Elk Riverto north of Lake Fremont in Zimmerman)

20082006 2007

Over

all P

roce

ss







• Can a Preferred Alternative be Identified without Extensive Study?

• Determine Appropriate Environmental Process

• Refine Design for Alternative(s)

• Complete Environmental Documentation







Apr 2006 – Feb 2007Zimmerman Alternative Identification and Evaluation

Sep 2007 – March 2008Project Evaluation and Environmental Documentation - Elk River to Zimmerman

Nov 2006 – Aug 2007Elk River Alternative Identification and Evaluation

Documents

Welcome []...2006 2007 2008 Overall Process † Traffic Analysis/Forecast † Review Previous Data & Assemble Additional Data † Develop Project Purpose & Need † Identify Key Project