HomeMy WebLinkAbout10B - County Highway 42 Corridor Study
s Xu
, I
\ .~{ \ \
\i.B<\\( X ~
Y \0') ~,J~' ( \
AGENDA ITEM:
JANUARY 4,1999
10B
GREG ILKKA, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY
ENGINEER
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF REPORT ON COUNTY
HIGHWAY (CH) 42 CORRIDOR STUDY.
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
DISCUSSION:
HISTORY
In May of 1997, Scott and Dakota Counties in conjunction
with MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council began a Corridor
Study of County Highway (CH) 42. The study area entailed.
the length of CH 42 from TH 169 in Shakopee on the
western end to TH 55 in Rosemount on the eastern end.
The impetus for the Corridor Study was the increasing
pressure on the counties from the cities to provide increased
access directly to CH 42. The report was presented at the
joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting.. on
November 30, 1998.
The participants in the Corridor Study include Dakota and
Scott Counties; the cities of Shakopee, Prior Lake, Savage,
Burnsville, Apple Valley, and Rosemount; MnDOT; the
Metropolitan Council; and the consulting firm BRW.
The final draft study contains eight chapters as follows:
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. Public Participation
4. Preliminary Technical Analysis
5. Systematic Development of Solutions
6. Detailed Traffic Operations Analysis
7. Environmental Overview
8. Recommended Corridor Implementation Plan
The Executive Summary, copy attached, briefly provides
further information about each chapter.
In general, the following steps were conducted in the
process of the study: conduct technical and operational
analyses of the corridor; achieve consensus about findings
of fact from these analyses' achieve consensus about the
16200~ Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
analyses of the corridor; achieve consensus about findings
of fact from these analyses; achieve consensus about the
deficiencies identified from the findings of fact; given the
deficiencies, achieve consensus about the goals and
objectives of the study; develop and test solutions to the
deficiencies; and achieve consensus on solutions to be
recommended in the final report.
The goal stated in the study is to "Improve the operation of
CH 42 as a regional highway in balance with existing and
planned developments".
CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES
Tr~~onsultant has finished a draft final report and submitted
it fo'th~ counties. The counties have requested commeRts
from each of the cities on the draft final report.
The report includes a number of recommendations which.
are included in Chapter 8, Recommended Corridor
Implementation Plan (summarized in the Executive
Summary). The recommendations address the key land
usearld transportation deficiencies that were docum~nted
during the study process. The key elements of the
Recommended Plan are summarized below:
\IItI. ;.".:....;~,U.'c:!o~.
~ -'!I!ft..;,'[.,.,- -'..J.:.; ~'^
, .i;~M;;j,!
Cities should amend their comprehensive plans to
provide the policy framework for access management,
reductions in travel demand and to establish supporting
roadway connections.
The Counties should develop a model land use and
access management ordinance to be implemented by
the Cities for access management and reductions in
travel demand.
Dakota and Scott Counties should continue to cooperate
and a corridor committee should be formed that has
advisory status with the two County Boards.
The establishment of Critical Principal Arterial Corridor
legislation should be initiated which would establish a
Corridor Commission with the power to coordinate the
development of critical corridors, plan for improvements,
and generate funding from within the corridor.
CSAH42,DOC
- A South Metro Corridor Coalition should be established.
Formal variance procedures for access management
should be established.
,",",-,!I."f:YNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
The present Non-Freeway Principal Arterial functional
classification of CH 42 should be maintained.
Planning efforts should be initiated for developing an
alignment and preserving the right-of-way for a new
Principal Arterial roadway approximately 4 to 6 miles
south of CH 42. (See Figure 8-1 in Executive Summary).
Consideration should be given to designating all of the
Supporting Roadways as A-Minor Arterials.
III. ACCESS SPACING
The Counties and Cities should adopt consistent access
spacing guidelines for the entire corridor that have the
following major provisions:
1. A target of one-half mile average spacing between
full access signalized intersections.
2. Partial access (left-in and/or right-in/out) at
intermediate locations.
3. No private driveway access to CH 42.
4. A hierarchy of access (driveways connecting to
local streets and collectors, collectors to minor
arterials and minor arterials to principal arterials.
5. A formalized variance process.
6. A joint powers variance review committee.
The Counties should also adopt a prioritized plan for
revising existing access points, consistent with the
recommended guidelines, that is coordinated with the
development/redevelopment of individual parcels and
with the implementation of alternative access to the
local/supporting street system.
IV. RAILROAD CROSSINGS
The Counties should adopt a policy requiring that all
railroad crossings be grade separated.
CSAH42.DOC
~.
v. . TRANSIT
~,.,."",~,.
The Counties and Cities should consult with the transit
authorities on all major infrastructure improvements prior
to plan completion. Early in the project development
process, any needed transit improvements (bus pullouts,
corner radii improvements, shoulder strengthening, etc.)
should be identified.
VI. PEDESTRIANS/BICYCLES
The Counties and Cities should adopt a policy to
promote pedestrian/bicycle usage in the CH 42 corridor
by providing a continuous system of trails parallel to the
roadway and a series of strategically placed grade
separated crossings of the corridor.
VII.ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
- An enhanced system of supporting roadways should be
provided in order to improve mobility in the CH 42
corridor. (See Figure 8-2 in the Executive Summary)
- An enhanced system of local streets should be provided
in order to reduce the need for direct driveway access to
CH 42. Existing commercial, institutional, and residential
driveways should be realigned to connect with the
enhanced local street system as opportunities arise.
Full access signalized intersections should be provided
at an average spacing of approximately one-half mile. (It
should be noted that the new traffic signals should be
installed only after a detailed traffic engineering analysis
suggests that the installation would be consistent with
the guidelines in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform
Control Devices.)
Present intermediate full access intersections (Figure 6-
5) should be converted to partial access intersections
based on one-quarter mile spacing for the three-quarter
access design (Figure 6-6) and one-eighth mile spacing
for the right-in/out design (Figure 6-8).
-
- A minimum of two lanes should be provided on all minor
street approaches to signalized intersections.
CSAH42.DOC
- Auxiliary lanes should be provided at signalized
intersections, where feasible, including right-turn lanes
and single or dual left-turn lanes.
Revised traffic signal operations should be considered,
including the extension of coordinated systems, the
elimination of split phasing, the addition of right-turn
overlaps and the addition of exclusive/permitted phases
where feasible.
- The existing six-lane segments of CH 42 should be
extended west through the intersection at Burnsville
Parkway and to the east through the CR 11 intersection
in order to accommodate future traffic volumes.
- The existing four-lane segment of CH 42 between CH 23
(Cedar Ave.) and CH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) should be
widened to six-lanes in order to accommodate future
traffic volumes.
Consideration should be given to revIsing the existing
interchange at 1-35E and providing new grade
separations at Aldrich Avenue, CH 23, and at the railroad
tracks east of TH 3.
Tnestudy is intended to provide an overall blueprint to guide
future planning for roadway improvements in the CH 42
Corridor. Specific projects mayor may not be undertaken.
Projects that are proposed will be evaluated based on their
ability to meet the identified mobility, safety, and access
goals identified in the study.
ISSUES
The functional classification of CH 42 as a Principal Arterial
will have an impact on development along CH 42 in Prior
Lake.
One of the guidelines for a Principal Arterial is that the
roadway should maintain at least 40 mph average speed
during peak traffic periods. A satisfactory guideline to both
the Metropolitan Council and MnDOT is that a speed
objective should be to maintain and average speed of 40
mph along significant segments of the CH 42 corridor. It is
expected that some portions of the corridor, where
development is currently more intense, will operate at
speeds less than 40 mph. Therefore, in other areas of less
CSAH42.DOC
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
CSAH42.DOC
intense development they will expect speeds in excess of 40
mph to achieve the 40 mph average. For instance, while the
study recommends that the target speed between TH 13
and CH 21 be 40 mph it also recommends that west of CH
21 the target speed be 50 mph.
In order to achieve the speed guideline for a Non-Freeway
Principal Arterial it will be critical to control access to CH 42.
It is anticipated that the County will adopt the recommended
access spacing outlined in the study. The City will need to
address the land use within the corridor in the context of the
study recommendations.
CONCLUSION
The Council should decide if the recommendations from the
draft final study are acceptable or not. Based on the
discussion and decision at the Council meeting staff will
prepare a response to the Counties outlining the City's
position with respect to the draft final report. In any case,
the comments made by Prior Lake should be subject to tne
review and proposed revision of the Comprehensive Plan
presently underway.
The recommendations in the study if adopted by Scott
County will influence the development of property in the CH
42 corridor within Prior Lake. This influence could affect
future revenues to the City from property taxes. There is no
way at this time to quantify this influence.
The Council should discuss the recommendations in the
draft final report and decide if they are acceptable or not and
provide staff direction on formulating a response to Scott
and Dakota Counties.
A motion and second to accept the report and direct staff to
forward the appropriate comments, based on Council
discussion, to Scott and akota Counties.
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction (Chapter 2.0)
County Highway (CH) 42, in Dakota and Scott Counties, is basically a multi-lane urban arterial
roadway that is an integral component of the Regional road system. CH 42 serves a variety of
functions, including:
· it is the only continuous east-west roadway serving travel across central Dakota and northern
Scott Counties
· it provides direct connections to all of the major north-south freeways in the area
· it provides access to a number of major regional commercial nodes and to a variety of retail
land uses
CH 42 is functionally classified as a non-freeway principal arterial roadway. And given this
classification, it is clear that the primary function of the roadway is to accommodate the
movement of through traffic (traffic that is using the roadway to get to a destination somewhere
outside of the corridor). However, the intensity of the adjacent commercial development has
created a demand for land access and controlled intersections to facilitate ingress and egress.
This level of commercial development has generated large traffic volumes that have resulted in
concerns regarding traffic operations characteristics (average travel speed and intersection delay)
and the frequency of access has resulted in concerns relative to motorist safety.
The conflict between the competing functions of CH 42 has created a dilemma for the road
authorities responsible for operations and safety along the roadway and the local units of
government who are responsible for regulating development. There is often pressure to provide
high levels of accessibility to the roadway in order to support area business development.
However, there is a wealth of research that indicates high levels of accessibility are directly
related to inefficient traffic operations and increased crash rates.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to take a comprehensive look at both traffic and land
development characteristics in the corridor and actively involve area residents and .
representatives of the business community to better understand the key issues facing the corridor.
Then, after reaching a general agreement with the study participants relative to the deficiencies
in the corridor, develop an over!lll plan for the corridor that balances the 'need for mobility and
safety with the need to maintain a reasonable level of accessibility to support area businesses and
residents.
It should be noted that this document is intended to provide an overall blueprint to guide future
planning for roadway improvements in the CH 42 Corridor.' As individual projects are
considered in the future for implementation by state, county or local jurisdictions, the results of
this study will likely be supplemented with additional data and analysis to support detailed
project planning and design as needed. During project development, new alternatives may be
identified. However, all options being considered will be evaluated based on their ability to meet
the identified mobility, safety and access goals. As specific projects move through the
development process, opportunities will be provided for public and local agency review.
COllnry Road 42 Corridor Study
Final Report
J-J
Execwive Summary
September JO, J998
The sections that folfdw document the extensive public involvement process, the results of the
analyses of both traffic and land use issues, the approach to systematically developing agreement
regarding corridor deficiencies and potential solutions and finally the recommended blueprint for
the Corridor.
Public Participation (Chapter 3.0)
The public participation program for the CH 42 Corridor Study involved all of the key agency
and public stakeholders in the study area. The program included both a Technical and an
Advisory Committee, Public Information Open Houses, newsletters, public outreach, a web page
and many opportunities for public input.
As the Study progressed, the scope of work was expanded to include both additional technical
analysis and an expanded Public Participation program. This resulted in not only more
Technical and Advisory Committee meetings (for a total of 17 and 12, respectively) but also an
iterative process where the results of each analysis was reviewed by the Committees prior to
moving on to the next phase of the Study.
Participants on the Technical Committee included engineering and planning professionals from
Dakota and Scott Counties; the Cities in the Study Area; the Metropolitan Council; Mn/DOT and
the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority. Participants on the Advisory Committee included
residents and representatives of the business community in Dakota and Scott Counties and the
Cities in the Study Area. The role of these Committees was to provide input into the planning
pTocess and to provide two-way communication between the Project Team and the Committee
participants various constituencies.
The participants on the Committees and their role in the Study process are illustrated in the
following figures.
Additional opportunities for public participation included three Public Information Open Houses,
presentations to various business and civic groups and the distribution of five ~ewsletters.
Preliminary Technical Analysis (Chapter 4.0)
The preliminary technical analysis consisted of identifying and then documenting the key results
of investigations relative to six issue areas in a series of Technical Memorandums. The six issue
areas and a summary of the key conclusions are documented below:
Technical Memorandum #1 - Literature Search
· Access management is a legitimate public safety issue and access management strategies can
reduce crash frequencies and increase the operational efficiency of urban arterial roadways.
COUflt)" Road 42 Corridor Study
Filial Report
1-2
Executive Summary
September 10, 1998
Public Participation
Advisory ai1d Technical Committee Representation
Savage
Technical Committee
David Hutton
Advisory Committee
Don Egan, Re5ident
Ray Connelly, Busine55
AI Webb, Re5ident
Shako~
Technical Committee
Bruce Loney
Advisory Committee
Micheal Beard, Re5ident
Minnesota Valley Transit
T.;chnical Committee
Beverley Miller
Scott County
Technical Committee
Brad Lar50n
Gcol-l- Merkley (All.cl"Illlt.C)
Advisory Committee
.11111 A'\Jhloml, 1~1I1l111r.'ifj
"011 Ames, BU5iness
frr-c1 Cm'i(lM, MN Tn1lwr(lrtfll i(lll Alli<ll1((,
I~ill Rut:lnidl. 5MSC
County Road 42
Prior Lake
Technical Committee
'Greg IIkka
Sue McDermott
(Alternate)
Advisory Committee
Jim Sttlnton, Business
Bob Bar5ness, Re5ident
Herb Wen5mann, Business;
Burnsville
Technical Committee
Chuck Ahl
Barb Anderson
(Alternate)
Advisory Committee
Jim Dimond, Business
Tom Hi1l1son, Business
Wendy Thompson, Business ;
Laurie Stern, BU5iness :
, Anne Voels, Resident '
John Young, Business
Corridor Study
Lakeville
Technical Committee
Keith Nelson
Advisory Committee
Karl Drotning, Business
Mary Liz Holberg, Resident
Metropolitan Council I
Technical Committee
Ann l~rllfJ':n .
Advisory Commletee
Elall1e L~lllJel'. Apple Vvlley f.:r.!;lclcl1l.
Minnesota Department \
of Transportation ~
Technical Committee
Sherry N.i1rusicwicz, tvietro (}ivi!'>iun
Advisory Committee
Nflnr;v Mr.lvin, Mr.t.rn Divir,inl1
~Ie Valley
Technical Committee
Rick Kelley
Dennis Miranow5\c:i
(Alternate)
Advisory Committee
Karen Edgeton, Busines5
Dave Ericksmoen. Busine5s
Liza Robson, Business
Bart Winkler, Business
Rosemount
Technical Committee
Bud Osmundson
Advisory Committee
Rich Carlson, Business
Mark DeBeWgnies,
Planning Commission
Steve Kopel, Business
John Stefani, Resident
Jay Tentinger,
Planning Commission
Da kota COU nty
Technical Committee
Pete Sorenson
Advisory Committee
Bruu: Ar..Iflmc,. r~llrn<;vill(: f'r..,irJr:nt
Jerry 13ruwn, I\ppll: Vall,:y f:,:"idt:nl-
Rose 0150n, MVrA Rirfr.r, "rial' IlIke Resident.
IlnwJ r~ivr.r'\, Apt...'" V."II,'\/ r ,',",jll,'n'
Input Data I
Ten Asencle" j Gatherln.S.1
.
County Road 42 Corridor Study
Process Diagra111
Technical Memo" 1 . 4
-------
-------
TechnIcal Memo" 5 & 6
Deflclencle"
Goal" & OI>Jectlve"
-----------
-----------
Develop and Te"t Solution"
"..
Draft
Corridor
Study
Report
""'""ntlltlon of
Study to Each
Government
. AG"ncy
Final
Report
~
III
" '"
c
.. '"
" .. -. Ol ..
Ol III .. 't: ... III
Ol J:l .. III III . ~ J:l ..
J:l J:l ~
... - E III E E III .. E III
.. III J:l III 2 .c .. III J:l
III :l Q. 0 III III " ~ 1: III ,., " Q. .g
c ,., Cl U > u C J:l ,., C CI
" '3 :l III 0 III .. III .. C. III " '3 " III U
-. -, < In 0 Z 0 -. II. :e < :e -, -. < In 0
}
· A series of case studies of retail corridors where access management strategies have been
implemented found impacts to some businesses, however, the overall business climate of the
corridors was not adversely affected.
Technical Memorandum #2- Land Use Analysis
· All of the Cities in the Study Area rely on the Counties for addressing access management
issues on County Highways.
· . Access spacing guidelines must be flexible enough, particularly in commercial areas, to
maintain a reasonable level of accessibility in order to support area businesses.
· The Metropolitan Council and Mn/DOT suggested that the mobility objective should be
based on maintaining an average speed of 40 miles per hour (MPH) across the corridor. This
infers that some segments of the Corridor will be expected to operate at speeds greater than
40 MPH (basically the more rural areas at the ends of the Corridor) and the more densely
developed areas (primarily in Apple Valley and Burnsville) will be expected to operate at
speeds in the range of 20 to 30 MPH.
· Mn/DOT and the Metropolitan Council acknowledged that flexibility in the application of
access spacing guidelines would likely be required in densely developed areas. However,
they also encouraged the adoption of an overall blueprint for the corridor in order to guide
future planning of roadway improvements, that could be implemented in conjunction with
development or redevelopment projects.
Technical Memorandum #3 - Functional Classification
· CH 42 is fun.ctionally classified as a non-freeway principal arterial, roadway and is on the
National Highway System. If CH 42 were to be reclassified as a minor arterial, a potential
source of federal highway funds would be lost.
· A principal arterial roadway in the CH 42 Corridor is consistent with regional policies and
guidelines.
Technical Memorandum #4 - Vehicle Trace Survey
· The average trip length along CH 42 is greater than three miles and most trips along the '-'
corridor are considered through traffic (traffic that is using the roadway to get to a destiriation
somewhere outside of the corridor).
Technical Memorandum #5 - Traffic Forecasting
· Current local land use plans suggest that substantial growth is expected to occur in the travel
shed of the CH 42 corridor and, as a result, traffic demand is expected to increase by a
minimum of 20% to more than 100%.
COllnry Road 42 Corridor StlIdy
Filial Report
1-3
Executive Summary
September 10, 1998
Technical Memorandum #6 - Traffic Engineering Analysis
"':>
. The CH 42 corridor experiences a moderate level of peak period congestion under existing
conditions, and the projected growth in traffic demand will result in more severe and
extensive congestion under the Year 2020 No-Build Scenario.
Systematic Development of Solutions (Chapter 5.0)
During the initial information gathering, public participation and analytical steps in the CH 42
Corridor Study, it became apparent that there was no consensus as to the magnitude of the
problems facing the corridor, and therefore no agreement as to how to address corridor issues
and develop a corridor blueprint. As a result, the Project Team created and initiated an
interactive and iterative process to systematically develop a general description of potential
solutions. The process involved documenting the following issues:
. Findings of Fact
. Goals and Objectives
. Identification and Prioritization of Deficiencies
. General Description of Potential Solutions
The results of each step were submitted to the Committees for review and discussion and then
revised as necessary prior to moving on the next step in the process. This process generated
general agreement with the results of each effort on the part of both the Technical and Advisory
Committees.
The key Findings of Fact were documented in the six Technical Memorandums. The basic Goal
involves.improving traffic operations of CH 42 as a regional roadway in balance with existing
and planned development. Objectives were identified dealing ,with safety, economic
developmentlland use, supporting roadways, access and mobility. The general description of
potential solutions included the following basic items:
· Safety
Provide additional 'turning lanes.
Implement turn restrictions/median modifications.
· Economic Development/Land Use
Identify more compatible land. use patterns.
Develop model land use and zoning regulations.
. Supporting Roadways
Extend existing roadways that are parallel to CH 42 in order to provide new connections
among neighborhoods, commercial areas and communities.
Identify a search area for a new east-west principal arterial roadway south of CH 42.
Provide new connections and directional signage in order to divert through and local
traffic to available alternative routes.
County Road 42 Corridor Swdy
Filial Report
1-4
Executive Summary
September 10. 1998
. Access
Develop land use-based guidelines that include a hierarchy of access, i.e.:
private driveways connect to local streets and collectors,
collectors connect to minor arterials,
minor arterials connect to principal arterials.
Develop a formal access variance process consistent in both Dakota and Scott Counties.
. Mobility
Increase capacity by providing additional auxiliary turning lanes and/or through lanes
Increase capacity by improving the efficiency of the existing roadway through access
modification/limitations and improved signal coordination.
Detailed Traffic Operations Analysis (Chapter 6.0)
The detailed technical analysis of future (Year 2020) traffic operations considered eight different
scenarios that included various combinations of signal phasing, roadway geometry, signal
removal and supporting roadway improvements. Each scenario was modeled using traffic
simulation software. Development of the recommended mitigation scenario was an iterative
process, with each scenario building on the scenario that preceded it. The analytical process is
illustrated in Figure 6-1, and shows how the analysis was structured and how each scenario
relates to the others. The basic roadway scenarios can be described as follows:
.
No-Build Scenario - Includes traffic signal build out and committed geometry
improvements.
.
Suppor.ting Roadway Scenario - Includes adjusted traffic forecasts dueto diversions
associated with implementing improvements to supporting roadways.
.
Scenario'} - Includes Low Co'st Improvements generally co~sisting of traffic signal
modifications and the addition of auxiliary lanes on the minor street approaches to signalized
intersection.
.
Scenario 2 - Includes Moderaie Cost Improvements generally consisting of CH 42
geometric improvements or the removal of traffic signals to achieve optimum traffic signal
efficiency.
.. Scenario 3 - Includes High Cost Improvements generally consisting of-grade s:eparated '
interchanges at the higher volume intersections.
· Scenario 4 - Includes the Supporting Roadways, the LowCostlmprovements and the most
feasible combination of Moderate and High Cost Improvements.
. Recommended Scenario - Includes all Recommended Improvements.
The key measures of effectiveness for traffic operations are either intersection delay or arterial
speed. The results of the operations analyses are reported as the Level of Service (LOS), with
COllllty Road 42 Corridor Stlldy
Final Report
1-5
Executive Summary
September 10. 1998
l Existing Conditions . -1-
~t
-,
No-Build Scenario
(Includes signal bulld-out and
committed geometry improvements)
~ t
Supporting Roadway Scenario
(Adjusted forecast vofUmes due to supporting roadways)
,
Scenario 1
(Includes low cost improvements)
~ ,
Scenario 2A
(Includes geometry
improvements )
~ t
Scenario 28.1
(Signal removal
with diversion)
~ t
Scenario 28.2
(Signal removal
with no diversion)
:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
'----
..
. .../
Scenario 3
(Includes grade separation
and special projects)
01
Scenario 4
(Most feasible combination
of scenario 2A and 3)
.
.
l
l
-----'
Recommentied Scenario
(Includes all improvements)
CSAH 42
Corridor Study
August 1998
Figure 6-1
Technical Analysis
Process
I~~--
r:\33970\33970005\layoul\analys's.1I15 8-27-98
Tahle (j-4
P/'vl Pcak Hour Inl('rsc(.tion I,('vel-or-Scrvin'
('1/11111.1' HI/nt/,n ('I/rridl/r SllIdy
SUrrORTlNG
IY9~ I,XISTINCl 111111~'hIIIUI ROA\lW A V 1111CllOIV.COST 111111 MOllRRA TE
CONllITIONS seE ARlO' SCENARIO' MITIGATIO/t COST GEOMIITRY
INTERSECTION \lEl.A Vi LOS OELAV' O[LA Vi I.OS \lEl.AV' LOS 11ELAyl LOS
(...,..h) ts.dnh) (,<</nh) (so"..h) (.edyth)
l'Ill7/("1l1X I~ 1\ 2~ ~1I (' 1.1 11 1.\ 1\
('Il XlI("Il.I~ 43 IJ 71 ro F )1 II ~n ('
('11 ~ II ('II .I~ (, 11 .In II " (' )\ (' ~.I ('
('II IX I ('II ~~ i(, (" ~~ (' 1'/ (' ~.I l' ~.I ('
TIII"('II~~ 2(, II 81 r 1.1 II .11 II 1.\ ('
('II n/('II~~ I~ II 1'1 (' IX (' IX (" 11 ('
V"'IIIlIIl/('II.I~ 1.\ II J.I II 1.1 II ~ ^ ~ ^
Ollawa I ('II .l~ I~ II I.l 11 1.\ II X II X II
('Il 311 ('II ,I~ I.l II 1'/ (' 110 (' I.~ (' i(, ('
1I1I1IIinVhllll ('II .I! 1\ III 11 III II III 11 11
Snlllh"'l'IlSS/('II-I! III II II X 11 II
('II ~ /('II.I~ ,IX I) 149 I' 101 F 9<l I' :!.\ l'
^"llidl/('1I.1~ ~~ (" ,\~ I. !II II :!I) II D ('
I .I~\V \V \l'''''I'' ("II ~~ n II ,95 I' ('.1 91 .111 II
1..1~W ,: Ilallll' I ("II .I~ '4 ^ ~ 11 ,\ ^ 1 ^
Nin.I"'I/('II,I~ !I. 11 .\~ II :!fl II 20 ('
1..1~E \\' Ilallll' I ('II.I~ I ~ II lItl P 102 F 22 ('
1..1.~H H 1l'''lIl,/('II.I~ 1.1 II " 1\ II " 11 III II
1',"lhll,,'/('11.11 I.l II 1t) II 2.' (' I') (" " 1\
('Il III ('II.I~ ~ I (' 129 P 12N F 65 P::~'~ 20 ('
SOlllhl,.'IU~~ /( 'II -12 1.\ II 1,1 1\ III II X 11 K 11
(bnh,'1I Vil'W I ('II .12 !O .(' 124 P 120 F !.1 (' I.l 11
1','lIIl1",k I ("1I4~ 11 (' .\IJ '11 .1.1 II .111 II ~ I ('
("112.\ I ('11 ~~ !X II I1Y F INO I' 180 P 143 ""'F":";
1Sii-~p- -~--- --....._-
nOlI.uti..-1 ("II .I~ ~! (' 78 F 72 P ~,' ('
('11-''' ('II ~~ ~.! (' ~.~-"- 96 F 91 ..1'... 2~ Il
{"1I11'1',....d..ld ('II ~~ 110 C 15J F' 149 I' 2.\ (' 2X II
TII.l/{"II42 I~ (' 110 F 104 " F 21 II ~ 1 C
liS ~2 \V R,,,,,I' I ('II ,I! 1 A IX C ' ~.\ (' n (' 14 II
lI,~ ~2 Ii llall1l' I ('II 4! $ A.. 1.1 II 1.1 II I~ II II II
II
II
22 ('
~4 ('
JI II
11 ('
.1 A
II
~2 ('
20211 SIGNAL PRELIMINARY:
REMOVAL Z020 IIIOtI COSl: ZOW COMPINJ!D '.RECOMMENDEQ
NO DIVERSION' ; MITIGATION'i MmOATJ()N';" MITIOATJON ;
DELAY" . ;'. \lELAY':' ,. "'Dll.LAy~:,.'tO..'i!DKLAY~:"f'd
(m/nhl LO.'1 (."'''h)' LOS '(.eeInh)('.~,;::i'(.""th';;,~OS.1
I~ 1\ 12 II 12 II
21 II 211 C 211 C
D C 23 (' 23 C
24 C 24 C 24 C
.11 II 2J C 23 C
IX (' 11 (' 17 C
4 ^ 4 ^ 4 ^
II X II II II
H, (' 21 C' 21 (' 2~ Il
13 II
J~ D
2K D
24 C
JI I>
[jr[%~~~=J!
II II
311 Il
2') Il
32 D
J~ D
II 0
JJ
3$
2X
2.1
2')
2~
I~
2')
311
21
2~
23
2~
211
D
II
Il
('
lJ
Il
C
D
I>
I>
I>
C
Il
C
II
22
2')
C
Il
df ....'"p..;'1 ~"'.iill"~-:' "':jicr--
.1~ II 2(. D
"""9 i .....----.p.--.. r.-~9I-..--:::.}'~."1
4 ^ II
2.~ Il D D
104....."".j~~..~~ Lj..o.C:..:lf.~~l
IX (' III n
'-'4f"---'F~ 11 C
'::,.',61- . p,,,! r-~)f7='~;:f.~~?
II 1\ If, ('
3~ II 27 I>
3~ D 311 D
;~'j84:,F'::':.'p"-::~ 179"" ..) 1'1'1
i'; 110'.':.;1':; 1;:;~'~;~J;:~;
:',.~~"i:: :i_'P.:~;,.l !,L.~:':':Ld.~jhp.;:J.l
24 (' 24' C
21 (' 21 lJ
22 C 22 ('
14 II 14 II
24
f,
.12
('
II
Il
2.1
('
2J
211
14
2')
311
27
2~
2J
U
111
C
('
n
D
I>
Il
II
C
D
C
II
I Awn'I!" v,,'hi,,'uI1l111l'1:1Y III illh'I_\",,,'lillllllll';I\lIH'11 ill SI,'rullll.. 111.'1 \'\'lllrk.
~!n.2lJ Nn-nuihl VllhllJ1l'S ~Ihl rl'l1l1ll'hy.
'1U~n SUI'lltlllin}! KII;ulw:IY Sl"'lI:lIi1, \'"llIlHl'S _tlHI NI,.I'"ihl ~I.'IIIllI.'11 y.
:l.uwoCUSI Milil!ilti"ns hi SUI'l'llllinv RIl;uhv;,y Sl'l'n;lrio (SitS + I.OW).
Mud"'f;lll' ellst (il'oUll'Uy MiliV:ltiol1S tlll.uw.ensl Sl'l'n:uill (SRS' + I.OW + MOIHiEO).
"MI"ll'III'''' C"u\1 Sil'n"llh'uuI"ill ~tilil-'alill"S hi I.ow.nlsl Sn'lliltilt willi \.'lhlll1'" t1iVl.'lIl't111l :Ulj;u'l'llI .r;il'n;llli fSHS.. I.OW.. MODSlCi IIIC ill).
'Ml"h,'ritl,,' (''':\1 Si~n:11 Rl'nulval MitiV:dilll1S hII.IlW.( 'llsl Sl'l.'nari" wilh 1111 \'lIhllll'" tli\'l,'ISlllU' (SitS t l.OW .. MODSI( i I.OW).
'lIi~I1-l''''1 Mil;~al;"'" ,.. Sif"alll\'m",'a' I\villl ,li\'o"lSj.."'1 Sr,'",ni.. (SIlS I 1.0W , MOIlSlti II II ill . I IICilll.
i'M\\', .....
^"~II'1 ,III. 1'1"11
Tahle 6-5
^ rll'rial SI'~Il\I'lIt 1,I'\'l'I-IIf'-SI,,'\'in'
(''''''''Y 11"",1,/2 (',,,",.i,I,,,-S,,,,,.\'
CORRII)()R
SEClMfm
ItS If." hi ("1117
TARGET
SPEED
(Ill h)
'II
('I{ 7M 10, ("I{ .I!
.1 ('1111,,, ('II K'
('R K\hd'll ~I
1'1I21h.TIII.I
" lUU lid 'II ~7
('II 27,,, ('1{ .II
('R .'1 hi h\'iu}!
'I In';nrhll-.\o1iW
In 1.\"iW I" ..\<<iF
II 1..l'l\E ,,, SIIUlhnil\\
11 SnUllh:IIl\'i III JI,'lllllld..
1.1 1\'I1I"....'L III ('II J I
I~ ('11,1110,'1'11.\
I~ 'n! .11" liS ~1
II, liS ~11" TII ~~
\\'t"I~II.t"C1 ,\\'"rlll:'"
1996 EXISTING
CONllITlONS
SPEEO'
(n, Il) LOS
<<ill ,\
'II
'I
^
SlIl'PORTINl)
ROAJ)\VA V
SCENARIO'
SPIiEIl'
(Ill Il)
.11 ,\
2010 i.OW.COST
MITIGATION'
SPEED'
mh)
.1.1 ^
,II
,\
.1!
,\
.11
^
.IM
^
^
^
^
^
^
II
II
p
II
^
^
2020 MODERATE
COST GEOMETRY'.
SPEED' La!! .
hI 10)
,1(. ^
.IM
.I:!
.1\
.12
,Ill
.111
!M
1M
1M
.11
.'2
10
.1~
.111
\,1
.\6
201U SIGNAL
REMOVAL
. J)JVERSioN"
SPEED', . LOS.,
(n, h .
~., ^
^
^
^
,1M
-s!
~,
2UlOSIGNAL. . , _,> .PREUMINARV.
REMOVAL 2010 In 011 COST. 1010 COMBINED., RECOMMENDED
NODIVE1l.~ION"i,' MmOATloN" ';;i:; MfTIOATlON'. ;;' MfTiOATIONi
SPEED" . : SPEED',,' :' ,," SI'EItD' . ,", SI'EItD' : .' I
m 10 ,LOS,. " m h ' LOS::,}\ m '. ,.,.1.08\.,':, m h .::LOS:l
4~ ^ 41. ^ 41. ^
^
,1M
^
4M
4,1
4~
42
411
411
2')
22
1M
2(,
.1.1
JII
H
4')
~J
37
^
^
^
^
^
^
II
l'
II
('
n
n
n
^
^
4H
4.1
4~
^
^
^
^
^
^
II
("
I'
'II
,Ill
,\
.'1'
^
\"
A
,II
^
41
^
^
^
^
^
Il
~!
^
42
411
411
JI
2(.
17
2M
D
n
II
n
n
^
^
~II
.In
^
'M
,\
.111
^
.,1\
^
.1M
4~
^
^
^
^
II
JII
J
J4
4')
~J
.\7
III
.If.
,\
11'
II
."
^
II
.1Il
.l1
I ^\'I.'ri'r~ '\\'n.w",)' I"'i,~.hl'"r lnlwl "I"~'llllll Sl'l!l1h'nl. indllllinr ,Il'lay ;1111.1.\11111,.
l.Jfl2n Nit. nnihl \'uhll1"'s :1II11 f"tllIl,'1I Y
12112f1 SU(l[l"f1illl! l(u:lIlw:t)' Sn',,,,riu \'ldUIIII'S .111,1 Nil- IJlIiM r,'unu'lry.
fI.IIW'("UM Mili~;lliuns III SUI'fhlrtinv 1(,.all\\':I)' S~'I.'l1iuiii(SUS t I.owi:
'M''Il.k'rilh.' CIl~1 Ol'Il11h'Iry Milir:flilllls h' I.II\\'('U\I S(-,'-u:uiutS't-t'i .1J.iWf~tf)1 ,(a:'<<}l
"M,,,I..'r:lh' (\1'1 Si~~;,1 Mo,'III"".11 Milir:llitll1S hll.lI'~'.'("'l\1 S.."l'I\:lrill wfhi \'I~~I-II;U"\ ,li.nlh'tl h' :uli;ln'ni\i~tl;lh (SRS . I.OW'" M( U )SIO IIICilll
'M."I,'raIL' ('II" SifllOlI M,>tn'Will Mitir;llinns lu ",UW,('IIM S\'\'u:ui" Wtlhi~t.\-lIhlllll' ,IiWf,iall'-li fSHS i I,()W . MfU)SICi I.OW).
Illil!h.('I"I.Mili~OlliUIl\ III SiVn;,llh.ltlu\';,1 (wilh ,1I\.l...."'i,,"Oi) Sl'l'narill fSI{S + IJ}W . ~f(II}SICj lll(ilf t IIICill)
PNW.I,,'.
..,
~II
17
III
,III
.III
11}
~o
n
~II
1"
HI
.111
111
\1
.111
II
411
,17
~II
~!
~II
~~
.17
.17
,\
JII
,\
I.~
II
('
II
^
I'
17
r
14
I'
II P II P
F 9 P
--~"-'..._-..-._-_.,...._--
14 E 14 E
II
II
15 E
---_...
7 P
I) Il
II
^
^
^
41
~~
2Z
17
^
,1.1
.'.\
"
16
^
.11
n
:m
i2 I'
----
9 P
22 ("
I'
21)
P
Il
10
,\4
^
4(.
^
~,1
31
^
n
~II
1M
'Ili;;)'p:"'~l r!.']3'~F'};:'li'.:-';
I>
II
':, ..:, \. '.' P
II
22 ('
.111
Il
II
^
^
JJ
41,
~.1
.11
.12
,IH
.1/1
21
,1.1
2/1
1M
II.
Il
II
II
!,~:;;:&3.~ ~;::1
2J ('
.12 II
!~~ERI!ir[:~m
34 n
('
22
{"
II
.1.1
2~
II
^
^
41,
^
^
~J
32
N^
AII'I!>1 :11.1"'111
letter grades A through F. The letter A represents_conditions with no congestion, C represents
average levels of congestion and F represents severe congestion. For the purposes of this Study
the LOS DIE boundary represents the on set of unacceptable congestion.
The results of the operations analyses are documented in Tables 6-4 and 6-5 and summarized
below:
· There is little recurring congestion today and all of the key intersections and roadway
segments meet the delay, speed and LOS objectives for the Corridor.
· The 2020 No-Build Scenario results in significant congestion along major segments of the
Corridor.
· The addition of the Supporting Roadway System would improve conditions slightly, but not
to the point where delay, speed and LOS objectives would be achieved.
· The addition of Low Cost Improvements would improve conditions slightly, but not to the
point where delay, speed and LOS objectives would be achieved.
· The Moderate Cost geometric improvements would improve conditions to the point where all
LOS objectives are achieved, with one exception, the intersection of CH 42 and CH 23
(Cedar Avenue).
· The Moderate Cost signal removals provide about the same LOS as the Low Cost scenario,
and therefore do not achieve the LOS objective.
· The H~gh Cost Improvements would achieve the LOS objective at all of the locations where
they were implemented.
· The Recommended Mitigation Scenario meets all of the delay, speed and LOS objectives.
Environmental Overview (Chapter 7.0)
A preliminary review was conducted of cultural, natural and comrTiuility resources in the CH 42
Corridor. The purpose of this review was to document know resources in a'one-haIf mile wide
area centered on ci-I 42 and to make a preliminary assessment ofthe:potential for enviPOnmental
impacts associated with the implementation of any of the recommended roadway improvements.
The results of this environmental overview are documented below:
· Cultural Resources - A review of the Minnesota Standing Structure and Archaeological
Site database found a total of 51 properties in the CH 42 Corridor. However, it was
determined that the various roadway improvements would have a very low probability of
impacting any of these properties.
· Natural Resources - A variety of natural resource databases were reviewed in order to
document the presence of floodplains, farmlands, wetlands and any other unique
COllnty Road 42 Corridor Study
Final Report
1-6
Executive Summary
September 10, 1998
environmental features. The review found a number of areas where the recommended
roadway improvements would likely impact floodplains, prime farmlands and/or wetlands.
These areas will require further and more detailed study, in the future, during the project
development phase of any of the individual roadway improvements. However, at this time it
appears that any potential impact could be adequately mitigated and therefore would not
prevent the implementation of any of the roadway improvements.
. Community Resources - A GIS database was reviewed and 40 community resources
(public buildings, parks, churches, etc.) were identified. It was determined that most of these
facilities are not located adjacent to CH 42 and therefore would not likely be directly affected
by any of the roadway improvements. However, a number of these facilities could be
impacted by changes in access and as a result, will require further and more detailed study,
in the future, during the project development phase of any of the individual roadway
improvements.
. Air Quality - Air quality is primarily a function of the level of traffic operations in a
roadway corridor. Therefore, if traffic volumes increase as forecast and no improvements are
implemented, congestion could reach sever levels which would result in the degradation of
air quality and concentrations of carbon monoxide approaching air quality standards.
Implementation of the recommended roadway improvements would resolve any potential air
quality concerns.
· Land Use - The potential impacts on both existing and future land uses associated with the
various roadway improvement scenarios was assessed. The assessment was based on
information gained through a series of meetings with the planning staffs in each of the cities
in the corridor, interaction with members of the Advisory Committee, a review of the case
law regarding the legal definition of compensable right of access, recent research studies and
a thorough in field review of the corridor. The key conclusions of the assessment are as
follows:
Doing nothing is not an acceptable alternative and would have a significant adverse affect
on the overall business vitality of the corridor.
The low cost roadway improvements (basically signal modifications and cross street
auxiliary lanes) would have minimal impact on land uses.,
The moderate cost roadway improvements that revise access to ,and from CH 42 (the
removal of private driveways and the conversion of full access to partial access
intersections) have the potential to favorably affect mobility but could have a greater
adverse impact on some specific businesses that are not destination oriented. The
changes in access should not affect the overall business vitality of the CH 42 corridor and
co,-!ld be mitigated if they are timed to coincide with development and/or redevelopment
projects and if new connections are provided (via new frontage roads, backage roads or
easements across existing parking areas) to the remaining full access intersections.
County Road 42 Corridor Study
Filial Report
]-7
Executive Summary
September ]0, ]998
Recommended Corridor Implementation Plan (Chapter 8.0)
-,
The blueprint that identifies a plan for the future of CH 42 addresses the key land use and
transportation deficiencies that were documented during the study process. The land use
recommendations primarily deal with the development process and the interaction with the
supporting transportation infrastructure. The transportation recommendations are multi-modal in
nature but focus on functional classification, access spacing and a variety of roadway geometry
and traffic signal system improvements. The key elements of the Recommended Plan are
summarized below:
· Land Use
Cities should amend their comprehensive plans to provide the policy framework for
access management, reductions in travel demand and to establish supporting roadway
connections.
The Counties should develop a model land use and access management ordinance to be
implemented by the Cities for access management and reductions in travel demand.
Dakota and Scott Counties should continue to cooperate and a corridor committee should
be formed that has advisory status with the two County Boards.
The establishment of Critical Principal Arterial Corridof'legislation should be initiated
which would establish a Corridor Commission with the power to coordinate the
development of critical corridors, plan for improvements anti generate funding from
within the corridor.
A South Metro Corridor Coalition should be established.
Formal variance procedures for access management should be established.
· Functional Classification
'"
The present Non-Freeway Principal Arterial functional classification of CH 42shouldbe
maintained..
..
Planning efforts should be initiated for developing an alignm-ent and preserving the right-
of-way for a new Principal Arterial roadway approximately 4 to 6 miles south of CH 42.
(See Figure 8-1.)
Consideration should be given to designating all of the Supporting Roadways as A-Minor
Arterials.
COl/llty Road 42 Corridor Study
Fina! Report
1-8
Executive Summary
September 10. 1998
--~.
-'.:-.'-f<f,
--~.__.-......,
:_"""'--,,-
?
!......
~
;"''--_O:::=::::C:lt:f~-=, __ / -j -1:'-
;.2 ~~_-~:~~~_ ~~~~::;~:t:~~~-
.L\
/ '--i-,-,c-~'c
. . 'f' :
....-. ,....
t i
~d-+.__"_
__.~i.:::._. '-'.-..1-
;. i
--ti-~:::j~::_~,,:_:j
'"
)"
.-
""
~
:~-:-...-~'. .-..--....
-":.. \._m___...__
, \"~~.,-.',,--- '-'
'.,
....;...
;:.,
~ :; ~
-,
w" ---"--"~.-:r-::::;:_--~:;~~~_. ;~}~
~~C-l~c
......_'~':/.
.. .........~-:---....
.~;;~:~:
---~<:
....---- ---:
"~-- ^~
h
~'----
;. :.......:',.._~
..;..._._...
i \
,Y- ;;!;
e
:>
co
u..
II>CI)
--1II
:JII>
'5<
1L
ii'fi
---
-II
CII>
.!cn
0_
D..1II
-.::
II>
~
ii
a.
'i)
C
-.::
D..
I
I
! ~!
Iii
~
~
~
I
~Z ~ ~
~
~
=
...
r:I'1
M '-
~ Q
~
=.-
-< t:
00 Q
UU
--.-
· Access Spacing
The Counties and Cities should adopt consistent access spacing guidelines for the entire
corridor that have the following major provisions:
I. a target of one-half mile average spacing between full access signalized intersections
2. partial access (left in and lor right in/out) at intermediate locations
3. no private driveway access to CH 42
4. a hierarchy of access (driveways connecting to local streets and collectors, collectors
to minor arterials and minor arterials to principal arterials
5. a formalized variance proc.ess
6. a joint powers variance review committee
The Counties should also adopt a prioritized plan for revising existing access points,
consistent with the recommended guidelines, that is coordinated with the
development/redevelopment of individual parcels and with the implementation of
alternative access to the 10caVsupporting street system.
· Railroad Crossings
The Counties should adopt a policy requiring that all railroad crossings be grade
separated.
· Transit
,
The Counties and Cities should consult with the transit authorities on all major
infrastructure improvements prior to plan completion. Early in the project development
process, any needed transit improvements (bus pullouts, comer radii improveme'nts,
shoulder strengthening, etc.) should be identified.
· Pedestrians/BicycIes
The Counties and Cities should adopt a policy to promote pedestrian/bicycle usage in the
CH 42 corridorby providing a continuous system of trails parallel tothe roadway and a
series of strategically placed grade separated crossings of-the corridor.
· RoadwayJrnprovements
An enhanced system of supporting roadways should be provided in order to im'prove
mobility in the CH 42 corridor. (See Figure 8-2.) .
An enhanced system of local streets should be provided in order to reduce the need for
direct driveway access to CH 42. Existing commercial, institutional and residential
driveways should be realigned to connect with the enhanced local street system as
opportunities arise.
COl/nty Road 42 Corridor Study
Fillal Report
1-9
Executive Summary
September 10,1998
------.---------------------.-..---.-....---.--- .-.---.--..--.----..--
.Jo.:....~~~~ ")
"J;'F~ -..;.
~':fp~;:~~[~'
i
I
I
J
'. !
"':.\
{..I
'I;
J~.'
r
~ \
II
_I II
,-"'\
~f
'~
I
..1
i
!
............1....
140TH ST EXTENSION EAST
FROM SHANNON PKWY TO
; tS!:'
,
,
...f"', : ".
'..;
.L
147TH ST EXTENSION - GAIAXIE RD
TO CSAH 31
153RD ST EXTENSION - GALAXIE RD
TO DODD RD.
TH 55 REROUTE SOUTH ON TH 52 AND EAST
ON CSAH 42. TURNBACK COURTHOUSE BLVD.
i
:.\
~".~.-'"
-'.i
l:J;;sl
, ,
'~.. i;
"(1\
i
~
..1
'.:tJ .......1.....
:"' i
"
..('. --1'(\ .
'\I'~
-'1 .
........,..-.
i
I
,
....L.
1")1':../(.1)
..1 ..___......~..n.('[. .~i,
i I}!
II I
...........1.
......-... ....
.. ....,.-
t...
;
...........)
,..~.~ .>
!
\..'
...-....1'
"
,
r
.I'"
\! b~
Q" I
""::, '" , I
;, ~,,,,. :
- ? ,
, : '~ ,
, . 1- "
i' I t"l;.:{ ,;:'
:J'? I
, f' ~'O~,..
!
I
,
.. !
'. !
\! ....~....
OJ\..
Legend:
- CSAH 42 Conldor
Supporting Ro.dw.ya R.comm.nded for Short- T.rm Implementation
Supporting Ro.dw.ya Recommend.d for Long-Term Implementation
. ..... , Supporting Ro.dw.ya Not Recommended for Implementatlon
,
1.\1
Ii
,,/
CSAH 42
Corridor Study
~
to.ooo
20.000 fEET
AuguI11998
Flgurll 8-2
Recommended Supporting
Roadway Implementation
.....
10,000 METERS
.~~--
..21....
Full access signalized intersections should be provided at an average spacing of
approximately one-half mile. (It should be noted that new traffic signals should be
installed only after a detailed traffic engineering analysis suggests that the installation
would be consistent with the guidelines in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices.)
Present intermediate full access intersections (Figure 6-5) should be converted to partial
access intersections based on one-quarter mile spacing for the three-quarter access design
(Figure 6-6) and one-eight mile spacing for the right in/out design (figure 6-8). (It should
be noted that if all of the recommended access revisions are implemented, the total
number of accesses in the corridor would be reduced by less than 10 percent, from 406 to
370, and that the average access density would decrease by only one access per mile. See
Table 8-3.)
A minimum of two lanes should be provided on all minor street approaches to signalized
intersections.
Auxiliary lanes should be provided at signalized intersections, where feasible, including
right-turn lanes and single or dual left-turn lanes.
Revised traffic signal operations should be considered, including the extension of
coordinated systems, the elimination of split phasing, the addition of right-turn overlaps
and the addition of exclusive/permitted phases where feasible.
The existing six-lane segments of CH 42 should be extended to the west through the
intersection at Burnsville Parkway and to the east through the CR II intersection in order
to accommodate future traffic volumes.
The existing four-lane segment of CH 42 between CH 23 (Cedar Avenue) and CH 31
(Pilot Knob Road) should be widened to six-lanes in order to accommodate future traffic
volumes.
Consideration should be given to revising the existing interchange arI-35E and providing
new grade separations at Aldrich A venue, CH 23 and at the railroad tracks east of TH 3.
Coullty Road -/2 Corridor Study
Final Report
1-10
Executive Summary
September 10, 1998
. Intersection Conflict Points
\
Merging Conllict Points
Diverging Conlliel Points
Turning Conllict Points
Through Conlliet Poinls
Tolal
x
X
12
4
J2Jll
CSAH 42
~orridor Study
.
11(
August 1998
fi ~OM~~""~
Figure 6-5
Full Access
Intersection Configuration
. Intersection Conniet Points
Merging Connicl Points 3
Diverging Conlliell'oinls 3
Turning Conniet Points 1
Through Conniel Points ()
Tolal 7
\
~
\
;:,'., >1:",
\
CSAH 42
C.orridor Study
r
August 1998
FJJ~R!y=.__
g.~,-~~
Figure 6-6
3/4 Intersection Access
One Approach
Intersection Configuration
<.~
<
~.<
>.~
)
7)
. Inlerseelion Conlliel Poinls
Merging Ctinllict (loinls 2
Diverging Conlliel Poinls 2
Turning Conlliel Poinls 0
Through Conlliel (loints 0
Total 4
J
.....
-------------------
....
~
--- ----------
~
~
r
CSAH 42
Corridor- Study
August 1998
~~!!W _____
t!iIII..OIifr4II......., ~
----
Figure 6-8
Right In/Right Out Access
Intersection Configuration
Table 8-3
Existing and Recommended Access Density
County Road 42 Corridor Study
~>
;;~~~i~t~.t5~===fii~j~1Irpil
1 US 169 to CH 17 12 0 34 0 46 3.7 12.4
2 CR 78 to CR 42 7 0 14 0 21 1.1 19.1
--- 2 0 16 18 1.6 11.3
3 CH 17 to CR 83 0
4 eR83 to CH 21 4 0- 9 0 13 1.4 9.3
5 CH 21 to TH 13 17 0 16 10 43 3.0 14.3
--. 0 15.0
6 TH 13 to CH 27 5 1 9 15 1.0
-..-----
7 CH 27 to CR 31 9 1 5 8 23 1.2 19.2
8 CR 31 to Irving 16 0 0 5 21 1.7 12.4
9 Irving to I-35W 6 3 0 6 15 0.7 21.4
---------~_._-
10 I-35W to I-35E 7 0 0 0 7 0.4 I7.5
- .-------- - .
11 I-35E to Southcross 11 3 2 4 20 1.4 14.3
12 Southcross to Pennock 11 3 0 1 15 1.4 10.7
-.---- --.-------- ----'--,--
13 Pennock to CH 31 11 3 8 11 33 2.3 14.3
-..-.--------- "--------.__....---
14 CH 31 to TH 3 12 0 4 5 21 2.4 8.8
------ .----- ".-.---
15 TH 3 to US 52 20 0 27 17 64 4.9 13.1
_n..__ -'-----.-- --
16 US 52 to TH 55 5 0 26 0 31 2.3 13.5
Total 155 14 161 76 406 30.5 13.3
CORRIDOR SEGMENT
] liS 169 to CH 17
_ .d_ .__.
.., CR 78 to CR 42
.' CH 17 to CR 83
~ CR 83 10 CH 21
5 CH 21 10 TH 13
,;" 6 TH]3 10 CH 27
7 CH 27 to CR 31
::; CR 31 10 In.jng
l.) hing to 1-35\\'
10 1-35\\' 10 I-:35E
II I-35E to Southcross
12 Soulhcross to Pennock
1:3 Pennock to CH 31
14 CH 31 to TH 3
15 TH:3 to US 52
-.- . - . - ...
16 US52toTH55
Total
2020 RECOMl\1ENDED ACCESS POINTS:! ;,:; ~ -
INTERSECTIONS DRIVEWAYS. -.:_+ n_
c;-..~ l<-;~:':...::"a. ~
FULL
12
-.-.------- -_.-
7
6
6
14
4
6
6
2
5
6
4
10
10
14
117
PARTIAL FULL' PARTIAL - TOTAL
o 34 0 46
-------..- -
o 14 0 21
. --..------. - .._ .____ - ____0__.
18 0 0 24
.--18----- - 0 --0.--- n-24---
. - -.--- - _.H__,. ____.___.___...
34 0 0 ' 48
...... .- .. . ._-. -
l~ Q _ _Hq __..~m
5 0 0 II
. .-. - - ._- -----------..
o 0 18
...-._--
007
_. ... - . - ----- --- .
005
---.---.-
o _ _ 9 _ _... _24_
o ~ 16
... 0- ."".____._n_" .______..
o 0 - 36
.- ....-.--.- .-------.--.--.
o 0 ' 19
-_0-__.__-- .. _ ._.._._ _. _.__ _._._ _
o 0 44
. .___ __d..__ _.. _.._ ______
o 0 II
48 0 370
12
5
5
o
18
12
26
9
30
___.u_.,._... _
6
205
; ~... : ' ~, ;
LENGTH
(miles) -
3.7
-- -- ----- - -
1.1
1.6
L4
3.0
1.0
1.2
1.7
0.7
0.4
1.4
1.4
-., -----_. -
2.3
2.4
--- ---.....
4.9
----...
2.3
30.5
ACCESS -
,>,' :~:~~:...:.;. - "0.
POINTS'"
~:..' ::":~.~'::.,,,,'.: ';-'
PER MiLE
12.4
19.1
-'---
15.0
.----
17;\
---.-
16.0
----..
16.0
-9~
"----.
10.6
10.0
---- ..
12.5
.------
17.1
-----
11.4
."'----
15.7
-._---
7.9
-------
9.0
----
4.8
12.1
BRW.ln.:
August 28. 1998
-,
County Highway 42
.>.._,-~.-.__..^.- '-0:;; -~- -. - ''''''''-~~.,..
Corridor Study
Confl ict Between
---- -_.,~; -;0---'"'" - '~- ,.
. Land Use & Transportation
City makes land use decisions relative
to development along the corridor
County provides for safe and
efficient travel through the corridor
Study Process:
~ -
"'""""'...."!-....-;~.
. Participants
. Input Opportunities
. Scope
. Data Collection
Study Outline:
. Problem
. Process
. Findings
. Objectives
. Recommendations
-~
Mobility vs. Access
.
~
:is
o
==
en
s::
.~
L-
V
s::
1-1
110BILITY
1cCEss
Increasing Access ..
......,--
Freeway
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local
~~cft\\lt~-.l~fI\ "*'
':J~~~fiO~'( ~~~L ~~~~~.
AAIJTA f --:. ~ll),
~/~~ .~t
~-j~'(~~<: \,~t~\'\ i I, I: , '., '
L__.._._ 1 ~
M~t C@~~d~ L-.J AAwDOT
1
'."
-,
Input ,?pportun,ities:
. Technical Committee
. Advisory Committee
. Three Public Open Houses
. Study Newsletters
. Website
. Presentations to Chamber, Rotary, and
Business Association
Study Findings:
'-~r:
, Findings of Fact (FOF)
. Prioritization of Deficiencies
. Goal and Objectives
. Potential Solutions
FOF: Traffic Forecasting
~-.,:"~,: v:.,,""
70
60
50
1 40
8
~ 30
.
20
10
0
. h j !~
J i I 5
1 ~ ~'-i ~~ ~
di ~" ~ ~. j
Study.~~ope :
=~",""..~.,...-....
, Participating agencies jointly
determined elements of the study
--' ~-
_-~- I --,
.///' ~ ~/""'"""""
" ~ ..=' -...;..' ".,
/~,~,-:J~},::-~~;' ~.,
,', ~\,;J --=, -, -<1 ~~,,)
~":\ ~-?-'~ -<" ,;' ~<T"" /
Y' )/:.:-:",:.- ~--<. ....... ,/
/ ""
""j'
Findings Of Fact:
-.-...,...,.-
. Land Use
. Functional Class
. Vehicle Trace
. Traffic Forecasting
. Traffic Engineering
FOF ::_,!r.affic Engineering
. Region defines congestion at LOS "DIE"
. Congested Conditions:
1996: 2 intersections 0.6 mile
2020: 14 intersections 4.6 miles
. Parallel routes have little or no excess
capacity in 2020
1..
~>
-,7
..
Prioritization of Deficiencies
. Adv. Tech.
1 1
2
2
3(ti<) 3
3(ti<) 4
4 5
Deficiencies:
Minor arterials & collectors
not supported by land patterns
Lack of access points
Lack of principal arterial
Lack of parallel roads
Access guidelines not function
land use
Too much access, close spacing
Objectives:
-:--y:-
, Safety
. Economic Development/Land Use
. Supporti ng Roadways
, Access
. Mobility
System of Solutions:
_ ,...-.............'C,ll1' ---~-,..~.
. Analysis & Testing (Modeling)
. Overview
. Recommendations
Goal:
-~:W-"'~
. Improve Operations of CH 42
as a Regional Highway in balance
with existing and planned
developments
Objectives:
, . "-""-'--;,.---= -:- :-:
-.-.;;i.....-:...
. Mobility
Segment
TH 169 - CH 21
CH 21 - CH 27
CH 27 - CH 5
CH 5 - I 35E
I 35E - CH 31
CH 31- Biscayne
Biscayne - TH 55
Speed (MPH)
50
40
30
20
30
40
50~
~-~
Oper~!~on_~_~nalysis :
.-.. ~ ~..,.,
Cost Mitigations
derate Cost Mitigations
w Cost Mitigations
porting Roadway Scenario
20 No Build Scenario
isting Conditions
3
-,
Recommendation:
~. ~W-:-."lf"';' .
Land Use
Functional Class
Access Spacing
. Roadway Improvements
. Transit
. Pedestrian / Bike
3/4 Access
-
-.--.
'- ., j iJ
~~~-
--+
..--
.- ....J:'~
CH 42 in Prior Lake
~
~'J.- l~-
II liJ .
~I
i~
'9'e.'919.~t9'
~"..>
Full Access
-~
...-
----r--
_M
--
P-: --
. --'~.~.
CH 42 in Prior Lake
~~
1--:. u++-+-~ "
- . . . '..
.eISie. e .ela.
-
~CSAH~~ _-.'
""----~ --....- =-z:
.. C.rridur Stud)' ~ ~ 17'1:'::._
'.
CH 42 in Prior Lake
I .
II . . I' !", t .11' .
~--'-
....... . . .
-- . . .
--
.9 . e I!iI e 'e' e t_ e .' 13 . e I $ i e T ,_,,:~, e "
..'
1- ::~ .'_
~ CSAH~ Z= x=.,. __ _=
~ CorriclerShldy ~ ---=-Jt~..
,
I
1
-I
I
I
I
4
What's next?
-:--- -
-"'~'",= ~".
. CH 42 Study Report is an overall
blueprint to guide future roadway and
development improvements along the
corridor
. Cities and Counties adopt the Study as
a "blueprint"
What's next?
._-,~-
'"""-~"-.;r'-
. Implementing recommended solutions
. Meets mobility objective
. Provides access for development
, Provides parallel alternatives
. Promotes safe facility
5
-.
Full
Access
Partial
Access
Intersection
2
16
18
Driveway
Total
"
:'
.'
.'
;ii
.. .'
.. .::
Full Partial
Access Access Total
Intersection 6 18 24
Driveway 0 0 0
Total 6 18 24
.'
; " '.\
! ,', . f'- . I ~
"j '-', '.' , , , :...
. .'"
....','..... . ,
if
j,!
I.. 'f'
.~.: ~ ./
i:.: .
: .--: "':
",...
'::~'.: ~:'4
1.
..", ~
".'JJ~10'JJq70005'LnYOU"S[G.0J.OGN
Total
2
16
18
'q.
~
o
~
i I ~ c
I.,'
, "
;
..q.
....~
'~..<>l/+ 0
.";' ....
,
,
.:;'; ',l!.i t:
.,','
k
I
,
,.1.......
2-LANE
I,
I
/"
r;
I','. W';'^ '1
;:t" (
",;', ",,;
" ,/
I
V
1
/
~,
EXISTING )
f: .',1',
C;l"
I
o
O~
4-LANE
DIVIDED
"
"f'
LEGEND
~
C SAIl 42 $ T..rnc Signal
o Un.lgnalllad
Corridor Study
0-26''10
o
Pa'llal Acea..
. ~ Ace.'1
RlghHnfllghl-Out
I
(
'I
/1
I
P.
'1
(
~ ,'J If ~~,.:. ':~ to i,- . 1.__
r.~~.;~',""" (Y l"'h1 "(JI'. :1.':;'.
:'\;:;~~~';;';:~~::'.) .;,~.~
. /;0.. '.;;\, ......~/
/": \";'
. '/'" '.J "';-.
.(
'.'ll ! i:.,
I
I
~I
51
I
I
~
I
I
I
)1' :.;,....
.c ',I
I' i''.i;';', ....~... y. ".:',>;
.. ..'::::::<'~"~~."
/;) ~.....,..
, ;~ / 'i;;;",g:~:,:::
-;.' " I L I "',.."
If 1<1; O:!f 'I
.. ~'.j-,
"
" ,~.:
''''''''1 ..,,,...
I
'''-
I"l
ro
0::
U
~ "i.; l. 1'0",'; )'. ,
.. '. I \:.,~.u , l
! <'.;..
..' .J "':.:~' .
"I.:.
p( i,jf'
I.nl'.," .
He ".;.:".r' '~":Il !~H!
,
r
Iii
,:/
Iii
\\\.
(((:\/;
.'. . .:~,I:~.',)\
PIUOg
,.,
;./ I"
~/.
\...
"
, .
1'-. h,:71-:'
'S',. :1' ',I',
T~. (.,\-:;O:tr
LAK
, ./....
'': "
l~. .1f'j...:.J. ..'1. :. f . '",:, -..
': O;"'lr;~ ,;; ':!':''''''I' 1.1".
.,.1;.:....
, {.:.
'i "f";',,
i'!lt, .
...... ,.:" ~.
~i/i[r.,1 (.n:.. !'.:,
[nUiOll I?,.::.:cr"vntj(lll
PI' ;f.'" L(]h:;
I -1'>
O+Oj
)
I ""1'"
~" , ; I I '~~
j :.l:~ ;r :'. ;It!' ~
I ~;;."., ."::;:':;::: ::~',"
I . f;:!' \"'\.,
/ I:' "/ ....',~.'; :,~::...::~~';
/ /) , , "
--+-
I.
1// ... /', .,
\:\'.: \ f(;';.:)'
'. "" J)
'.; rJ~ '\~' r,\',. '. ,:-:.
, ," .)~)'.. " '.'
I. ,;\)~ !",!;,'
. 'v' ;r...", .
~\(-S;i:-'~>!) ~,~
.) . ~;'.
I.::: '~'"',,
I'P.IOR
1')'.1'- ",1!
,
. ;,
(...
I.. Ira'
", .'
,~? '
I:: '.'
t,t. ,~I
<"'. 'ii'!'. I
'PJ. (,I':~,";
~/I. ,'.&,:.1:,.',
LAI\
, .
).
I:.t, hi-...\ ~
,:lljl.i
~;,l"" ~
J
('i
,
~
J
t'
d,
~
. ;1
':RECOMMENDED ~
Figure 8-7
August 1998
Recommended Roadway
Improvements Segment 3:
CH 17 To CR 83
~~~w,...__
IiiiiI A.......... CIII]II~
Segment 4: CR 83 to CH 21
Proposed speed objective:
No improvements, estimated speed:
After recommended improvements,estimated speed:
Immediate Implementation -
· Modify the CH 42/CR 83 traffic signal phasing.
Short-Term Implementation - .
· Add a through lane to CR 83 and dual left-turn lanes to CH 42 at the CH 42/CR 83 interse~tion
Long-Term Implementation -
· When warranted, provide a traffic signal at the following intersection:
CH 42 between CH 83 and CH 21
· Provide a coordinated signal system when applicable.
50 mph
38 mph
45 mph
" '-I
..,',
/;,
"
/, J
./
/
Full Partial
Access Access Total
Intersection 4 - 4
Driveway 9 - 9
Total 13 - 13
;/
.0 ,,-, .'.
!
/
n
;/ :1
,
.,"" /. U
//-
("
.. :(
y
,
"
'/
Full Partial
Access Access Total
Intersection 6 18 24
Driveway 0 0 0
Total 6 18 24
(
n
lXI.
a:
U
1:,',1
i.
I'
".
,
,"
,.~ :oL',
"\!Ii'~..
'. .... i li .
..'. "J ' ,". "i.,l"I.,1
',~~,;~~ (~\~:/!; " ..':
lilll,; <./ ,.;.
\::~. . ,: ~{\ . ':'/'':..:/;
.~~/ "
~ \
~, .'
'.'1..
II!'-..,!,:,' v,
f ~i
; 'Ii.,
;" 'I,
\
I
I
.\ ,.'
I: i I\':~: .
. I" . ....
:, ' ..'
, I:',
,,' ,1
.,~
'\:
1:'/
"
,
,
1.1t) I', ,1,
\.
"
i';
,1
2-LANE
, .
\I\"
'I.'. '.tt~ It) _! I!I' ,: I ~
'j' -, ::Ilt ~ "J,1l \ f,. I
n'_'..~'I~'E I. ... " )\
i .~.:. I':,
)J~,., NI "I
' .... ,'. '. :r:, '.
\'\ \'.:'", U\->::/:.:.,(. : :.:~ I::;~' " ".{
':;}\\~,~\,4;" 3;;::( :,;~! t,\::,:': ;J,',.
/ .' . .
. ,'i .....
"
,
.
I~IUOE
<
':;
. ~, "
":,.." I '. I~ .
;, ,r ~ l~' . ( ,
~ ; . ~ : f 1
, ! : , ~ . t.: ~ \: ~ J Ii:.. r I
<
I
,..
..' ,
':"
''1.;
,':;
..... :"",
l .
:' .",~
", :
.'-.
/ ~~ ~-~ ....:: ,.
,'.~.: .,
RECOMMENDED
Figure 8-8
" .'~
fun Acc...
C SAI-I 42 ~ f,ornc Slgno'
o Un.lgnolllod
Corridor Study
R.\JJ'Ill!\J~
\LAYOU'\SEG'1!4.0GN
0.16''10
. :!
I
,
i./'.
1"'::.1 1'1.", II..H:.....
I";;'. .::::.~",,,. .::.:)
'i
m.' 1II"If,:::r 'X?;':,:'" ,",
,~ l. '(",' I ,: ...~~. .:
", ~.
(
'.
,
~~. .
;>':
EXISTING
(,
I,' . .,.,."11.",.)/.,
", / '.. ",
\>
1~~.~
., ,.~~.\,.
"'".
.,
CPt.
\..':-. /."//.'-' \::-'~:::::;~:"I'::I)1
// . i / !.<.'~.:~f.' )') i ' I
:' ,..., ',' ....., \ 'I} I i I
"{~(" j':\"'\:'\';"b) il!!
,~..(. lll:f.:~":"',/;:~'
<:. '.\'.~ '-.;" /
~ ''1\//
~ 1/ '''''' ';'
"
f,I.?}
1.
,.-)
n.
~;
;.
"
f.
I
,
j,:
.,
4-LANE
DIVIDED
1:1 ;,IOH
~P. r.i I il': I 'll )',;' ~.. '.
',~,. ~.I tl :i : "1.1 I I!..
,;'1 . :,ll'! .~~.I !. I.
.,',
f' l'lill ',.\H.
! \{
~;.
"".'~( ......
.'
.'
>.
"'I
.,
,.
. '-;'
(,;:'
n.tj\K]~ .,(\
(I.,f.j N \
I :(J", '1.'lhZ I!'...
(:..,.....,"/..'.'\\ [3 _'
\\\; \\'\ I. - .~' .: r '.1'''' ....~;;. OIl: ; "~I'
,. ':,' -f<' . . ..... r" ."
. ,.:'::::'.':'.. ,,- ....t:.. ".. u";' ~ (I.', Ie!..'
p ( J-" ).10 !,"~.l: .;:. 1-"'-' I . .
'.' I .", (' . ' ~
..:j,' ::()!.!~. f.~: l\\.:~;i" !.
.1' . ': !.<
I,',."
, '
'.:./
.
:-<r' . / .,..../:,
" .
"',.'
I. ~
:" ';'11' : !,; (~rll'
/...... \\ ".
:~. \\"\ \,\
\. 1\, (::
LEGEND
ro,lIor Acco..
. 3-'1 Acco..
Rlghl-lrtfllghl..{Jul
August 1990
Recommended Roadway
Improvements Segment 4:
CR 83 To CH 21
I~.~~--........
A..-s.1IIXIII: 0lIU'~
I Segment 5: CH 21 to TH 13
I
Proposed speed objective:
No improvements, estimated speed:
After recommended improvements, estimated speed:
Immediate Implementation -
· Modify the CH 42/CH 21 traffic signal phasing.
Short-Term Implementation-
· None
Long-Term Implementation-
· When warranted, provide traffic signals at the following intersections:
CH 42/Pike Lake Trail
CH 42 between Pike Lake Trail and CH 18
CH 42/Rutgers Street
· Provide a coordinated signal system when applicable.
40 mph
29 mph
42 mph.
I
,
~
... I. I:
Nj
I
U
<
Full
Access
Intersection
17
16
33
Drivewey
Totel
.. ~ ':
.\ I'~ l~
I \
, i: . ~
N,:"
I'
ul
1<
Full
Access
Intersection
14
o
14
Driveway
Totel
-,'.
Partial
Access
10
10
/
./
Partial
Access
34
o
34
n.\JJQ10\JJQ10005\lnrOUI\SEG'05.0GN
,,"
'.,
,J::
-,I t.;.,
. ... j .".. i ~ ~j .
U.i:.ri,1l I'
1"" ""
I ..., "
....~ .. ~~:>:
.;:
Y'
f'~ Ii;:. 1,luY. 1"11 ,,,,
;,~ ''';' ,"-'-
V (, ":"".
r/ "':'}~~, 'l'.~.~...::,/...~.
\o. l;th;1
~L~,'i~~..,...ti~~ (~~.)
'~':'~':~"~/
~l.
I:;
t-- : i
.,.
t,: I. ','.:
ro
1': I.
I'.
I ',hi
,"
I
U
..0:: 'J
'" I;
". ...
i';l
.~.... .~. .
;,'
" ".
I ,;. " I " .' <:/~:,:'~:/:-'Dj.. ::,' .'
........ I;... ':i~" ;." l"l t:l'(I' .,' t.. .... . '......(1 .1 ._,
".'..; > /,~.: .::~:.i '''. ,,;;';;:,.>;',.r ';~';:~",,:.~~'t::i:.'! ~;.>
" ',' :..../, .. / ?:
.,' 4-LANE DIVIDED . :!(, \." ',"', "J .1
'. ~ \ ~ ( '. ,.' 1 , -' " '!. .'
\\\ \ ,.r,. :;'/1 r~ /oCI:..) I'. \,"~.> (,.I,~:""< '~'il
(~.i.ll \.! 1.1~...'I' ~"I,','.' -I"~' ,:1. . . ;.~Ji.:;;,.
'.',' .1 ' . ..1'. .,,- ) 1.11.. ....../. :....
'..",",. ; ,':' ,':',,:.. ",' . J
".' . / l::. ',.1 ..11 !;\;o'. I I. - l / .._1""'>'
,',,/ , 1. ," .1...... ",,:,;, ,'".'. .......~..:..:~ I" ",:',r':' ..:.:' -
'/'.' ,......J.I!..'.;I"r:I'~. ~1,.\II~;~.II,.1 -':1;. :/.'
. .. :' i" ; r';:' ,',. i'J. ill'
~:: }:,(Di::::'". /I{t.:,.:.)::,\.; ~:~" i
,~; / p,\\.. ",> /-'! ': I
2-lANE
:11
"
, -,
)k,'
:-
'jl::""...:.~. .
~'-.'
"
. j
I , '... ~ ,
Totel
17
26
43
'-I
I' .!I i
I I
'i
I,'
~.; I ~ , I
...~. ~
.j;" ..-
" ,
"'1'..
f.."...;
./
EXISTING
. . t! iJl.1 :,', , ".f!
:.j I~ i :!: II.\': . J ' i.'d.
/.
.!-! .~;I't.:'" \.'
'~'jl ilj l.~ :: ,.... ::~.
, \l"fN: I f ~ t' ;~:
! .:J,,: ,;d '~'
'.,'\ .~.:~...~~.; ::
)';,n;i;:';('~:11 'f,.
',,~.- ..~
./';> :<;,r'
~ I I' - I~ " f
. "\
ill. r......~'f! !'.~;!'~ ~:.~.
~f'I.,"I..'<I, Hit II.
'-'.
..... (I:!!.llt'i 1,;1 (
;'1. 1::.1'\\':::: i I.
,t. I. .1'.:1\\ 'I,'
" ,r.
ro
~ d, ,;" .f. '. I !' . I
I. ... ' '. ;.' ~ ; . , ,I
~. ,:! 'j
I:'
,. 't.,
-,j;':
:'i/rt"'..
',-1
';,
I. ":1 . h";.:;jll);il f: I ..... ".
. _1',. \" .., 1 I 'l~'If..' ",'~j~'::' \~""''4:''-.~~ .:l~' ...;,:/1..:" 'I'Jrl~....:' )';'.1 f~ II ,,' I J ~!I/
"I "1 ,.J' .... ..... " ".,. . .." "I ,.). ';"'I""~' ..' t ,..-:. ..\;,.". ,. "'/'. '..... V
':!I (" ': :;. fl ,...._~.;.\.....l-..'.. ~....!!/', r"J-,.;~~t r: t tcX(I::~.... ...~.~.>. ..::.-..-.( '1,:~:):;.....\ ;"J...."'\ .~~..., ;; 1'1
'. .. ',' I <. .., I"" \'/'; I. I, ,,,I ./..... ' ....~' ,; ~';I,:\r<:..! ~i ;' I .,;;. if.
; · ~~~~:,~'~DE:;;,:,,;}:~\,:,?::':i:f,,~:>\~~~:;~'!;> ;,('1: ~::
;,..',;;il:~.~1 l .j,.,.' '._tjll'I.O(I1!f.I';I~'~tl. .'..;/'"..... :P".'!.jr~')I.
.'",:11.,1..,. l/" ',_;.'.Il.r.'~.UIt. :~-:;. .;~: .::>
,/' ",,", .... ~ ',1 I~: "';~:. ! !:<. , . I ( .....
<:/' . :;Oi':i~i:f:,;t~'~')I~,~f :\\, ,\;;'(~,~~::;,;~/;
'..' ......
;,.j
Total
"'0(-',1.
(;
I'
....
48
o
48
..,;"
'; .
, ;: .~ ...! . . 'i :t.
,'I 'I.;! ,',': I ':1 r ;,.
j
RECOMMENDED
~:
~,~ i q",
,,:.)-
/.
.:.~./
: .>.~.~
..I':.l:
LEGEND
~
P.rtlel AceD"
. 3-4 Ace,sl
Rlghl-lll'fllghl-Oul
August 1998
Recommended Roadway
Improvements Segment 5:
CH 21 To TH 13
CSAI-I 42
Corridor Study
$ f,.lIie Sign.'
o Unllgn.llz.d
~BRW
Iii'iiI A.w.-."..... r...o,~
8.2G.QU
(''<'
i. '::"=1
.1 !
I,~: .
\, \\
. ;
!i'!
:';'
:'j
,I,'l',
.1
'..
"''',..
. ' ~. "
,.
..; ~ .'
, .
--,
, . ~.: .:"
i
~; i ,: .\
;';:,':;';\
": .\
\
\'!",.
,.
i
::j
:;'1
. ~ I
; 1~.t.:
, ,
I ' :,'.;
~.-t- ......
1:1 J
; ';
Figure 8-9