8.0 RECOMMENDED CORRIDOR MITIGATION STRATEGIES by akt14893

VIEWS: 9 PAGES: 30

									8.0 RECOMMENDED CORRIDOR MITIGATION
    STRATEGIES

The recommended mitigation strategies for the CH 42 corridor are comprehensive in scope and
addresses the key land use and transportation deficiencies that were identified 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.

8.1      LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS

Land Use and Implementation Recommendations

The Technical and Advisory Committees have agreed that the goal of this study should be to balance
mobility with economic development. After all, CH 42 is Scott and Dakota Counties’ primary
business street and a street that must also to carry a significant amount of non-business traffic. The
purpose of this section, then, is to recommend a palette of solutions that should be explored to satisfy
this goal and to recommend measures that will encourage/mandate cooperation in the implementation
of corridor recommendations.

CH 42 will never be a freeway because there is neither enough money nor the political will to make
it such. Building a freeway would significantly impact land use in the corridor and many businesses
and homes would be lost. Doing nothing to mitigate the identified operational deficiencies is not a
solution because the impending growth in severe levels of congestion throughout much of the
Burnsville and Apple Valley segments of CH 42, thus having a significant adverse impact on existing
businesses and the development potential of existing vacant lands.

No single strategy will provide a lasting solution to the problems currently confronting CH 42. We
can no longer expect to fund and build unlimited highway capacity unless we are eager to commit
more and more land and funding resources to accommodate automobiles. Altering land use patterns
is a long-term strategy that could have a significant impact several years in the future. Other options
like design for transit and travel demand management (TDM) are generally not well accepted but
must play a role in shaping the new land use paradigm.

So how do we solve this problem? We can either let congestion shape the environment or we can
employ a multi-dimensional approach which is sustainable over at least the next twenty-years. Such
an approach would necessarily employ: 1) altering land use patterns/reducing travel demand, 2)
providing alternatives and making the road function better, 3) integrating funding
opportunities/defining a new corridor paradigm and, 4) improving coordination, cooperation, and
communications and improving flexibility. Each of these will be discussed in the following sections.



CH 42 Corridor Study                                           Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                      8-1                                February 18, 1999
#25188
Altering Land Use Patterns/Reducing Travel Demand

The land use pattern that has evolved over nearly four-decades is based on automobile access alone.
 It is difficult to get to most places within the CH 42 corridor using public transit, walking, or biking.
 It is not a pedestrian friendly environment. The County Highway 42 corridor was designed and built
for automobiles and it is like defying gravity to find a solution and develop a land use pattern which
counters the powerful force of the automobile. The tail truly wags the dog and it will be difficult to
alter this trend because the suburban development pattern is self-perpetuating. The pattern must
change.

Mixed-Use. Because land use in the heart of the corridor is already established (in Burnsville and
Apple Valley), this represents the land use pattern that is likely to be repeated elsewhere. Developers
believe this is a viable pattern, if not sustainable, and financial institutions support arrangements that
are known to “work”, even if only in the short-term. Very few members of these organizations are
willing to take the risks necessary to foment mixed land use patterns that are conducive to reducing
travel demand.

Fine-grained mixed-use, as referred to in this report, is higher density, transit friendly development
that mixes and integrates places to live, work, shop and play. Land use can be integrated vertically
with residential and office uses above retail or horizontally with places to work in close proximity to
housing and retail. The opposite of fine-grained mixed use is auto-dependent low-density
development that involves very large acreages consisting entirely of the same use.

The value and beauty of fine-grained mixed-use development, is that it creates opportunities to both
live and work in the same community and/or to both send and receive transit patrons rather than have
buses run empty in one-direction. Mixed-use is less consumptive of land in that it provides, in its best
form, for shared parking and, therefore, shared roadway use. Perhaps even more importantly, it has
the potential to create a sense of place that is memorable and recognizable, making residents and
businesspeople proud to be part of it.

Fine-grained mixed-use development cannot occur just anywhere in the CH 42 corridor because a
substantial part, that part where most of the traffic problems exist, is already developed. There are,
however, significant areas of vacant land still remaining where mixed-use could have application. Of
greatest importance will be the gravel pit area of Apple Valley where delays in development
attributable to gravel mining will provide opportunities for mixed land use in the future when it will,
perhaps, be better accepted.

Mixed land use is not likely to be accomplished unless there is the convergence of complimentary
visions. Mixed-use tends to slow development because there is a need to select just the right
complementary uses. Many developers put themselves at risk when they advocate such development.
 Cities must have a vision of its own which is complementary to that of the developer if mixed-use
projects are to become reality. Centennial Lakes and Edinbourgh in Edina are examples of the
convergence of public and private visions. Without a public/private partnership, these two-


CH 42 Corridor Study                                            Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                       8-2                                February 18, 1999
#25188
developments would not exist today. Incidentally, one of the reasons they were able to be
implemented was that most of the area south of Southdale originally consisted of gravel pit
                                                      s
operations. The same potential exists in Apple Valley’ gravel mining areas.

Areas that are already developed within the CH 42 corridor are not going to change in the foreseeable
future. Only when redevelopment is imminent can we expect to see land use patterns altered to better
balance development with mobility. The pattern needs to be established now for how future
redevelopment will occur within already developed portions of the CH 42 corridor. Every large
development should employ mixed-use, TDM, design for transit and supporting roadway connections
as means to reduce traffic congestion on CH 42.

Because mixed-use will not occur on its own and its viability must still be demonstrated in suburban
settings, it will be important to form public/private partnerships to reshape the fabric of the CH 42
corridor. Unless we believe we can build our way out of congestion or that it will somehow
disappear in time, there is no choice for progressive Cities. They must be proactive in generating
ideas, establishing the framework, and partnering with those who can carry them out.

Design for Transit. Though we may wish to overlay transit on this automobile forged pattern of land
use, it (transit) primarily serves those who have no other options (the transit dependent). However,
existing land use patterns are not supportive of transit ridership. Densities are too low and buildings
are set far from streets, making long walks mandatory parts of riding the bus. Can we change the
pattern of use over time to accommodate transit and reduce congestion?

Though it must be a long-term evolutionary strategy, there are numerous things that can be done over
time to alter the pattern of land use to be supportive of transit. Where streets and cars tend to drive
uses apart, land use patterns that are supportive of transit are much more compact. Measures that
should be employed include the establishment of future transit routes and the development of land
use patterns that support transit use. Specific tactics include orienting building entrances to streets,
reducing building setbacks from transitways to minimize walking distances, constructing parking and
service areas farthest from streets, designing roadways to accommodate transit, giving priority
treatment to transit vehicles at traffic signals (employing signal preemption devices), providing safe
and secure passenger waiting areas, providing direct sidewalk access from buildings to bus stops, and
giving transit extraordinarily high visibility. Not many of these will have application to CH 42 but
they could all be applied to supporting roadways in, as yet, undeveloped territory. The environs of
major supporting roadways and roadways that are significant transit routes to employment and
shopping centers north of the Minnesota River should be required to employ design for transit
principles.

In addition, there will be the need to continue to develop major park-and-ride facilities which are
supported by mixed-use developments including high-density housing and convenience retail shops.
 In the short-term, getting people to employment centers north of the Minnesota River will be
extremely important. In the longer term making it possible for people to have transit choices will be
even more important.



CH 42 Corridor Study                                           Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                      8-3                                February 18, 1999
#25188
Travel Demand Management (TDM). During the course of this study, TDM has not been very well
accepted, though Cities in the metropolitan region are required to address TDM as part of their
comprehensive plan updates. The Metropolitan Council suggests that TDM measures target a 10%
reduction in travel demand employing a host of measures.

Travel demand management is not well enough accepted or economically motivated to produce
immediate relief to CH 42. On the other hand, not every measure needs to be in place in the near-
term to constitute a solution. Since mandated TDM measures are not well accepted, an incentive-
based approach should be pursued which supports businesses in reducing travel demand. Incentives
could be offered for car and van pooling, priority parking for ride-sharing, and subsidized bus passes.
 In addition, businesses could employ staggered/flexible work hours, telecommuting opportunities,
covered and secure bike storage, and on-site showers and lockers. Larger developments in excess
of 100,000 square feet should be targeted for TDM planning. Programs should be developed in
conjunction with the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority, the logical partner in implementing travel
demand management strategies. The Counties could play a lead role by adopting their own travel
demand reduction programs.

Regulation/Coordination. One approach for dealing with land use is to establish a mutually
acceptable land use concept plan, plus supporting policies, for future development of the corridor
which establishes patterns and intensities of use that are able to be supported by the future capacity
of roadways and can be incorporated with the Cities’ comprehensive plans. An on-going Joint
Powers Agreement would provide for the cooperation, coordination, and monitoring of development
(probably requires special legislation). At a minimum, this should be employed within Dakota and
Scott Counties. There is an ever-growing need for municipalities and counties to work more closely
in seeking and monitoring joint solutions.

A second approach would be to create a model ordinance that could apply throughout the corridor
                               s
and would overlay each City’ current zoning. It could mandate extraordinary land use standards
(such as design for transit) and require mixed-use or it could provide incentives for transit friendly
design, reductions in travel demand, etc. This is the preferred approach of the Cities and business
persons interviewed during the corridor study.

Other elements of land use regulation could include mandatory supporting roadway connections,
though this is likely to be unacceptable to Cities. This would require that Counties provide regulatory
guidance and/or that Cities impose this requirement on themselves. An incentive approach is likely
to be more acceptable to all parties. Finally, the model ordinance could deal with travel demand
management and access management. In particular it should overlay access spacing, corner
clearance, driveway design, private parking lot and driveway connections, cross easements and
support a hierarchy of access (private driveways should connect to local streets and collectors,
collectors should connect to minor arterials and minor arterials should connect to principal arterials).
 These regulations should likely be implemented by the individual Cities or a Corridor Commission
(see below).




CH 42 Corridor Study                                           Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                      8-4                                February 18, 1999
#25188
Providing Alternatives/Making the Road Function Better

The development of supporting roadway connections throughout the corridor will be essential to
balancing mobility and economic development as demonstrated by modeling. Major parallel roads
have significant potential to relieve traffic on CH 42. Lesser connections to support businesses will
allow for reductions in the number of traffic signals thus improving the quality of traffic operations
on CH 42.

All areas of new development should be required to provide either frontage or backage roads in lieu
of direct access to CH 42. The Cities comprehensive plans should establish the general alignments
for supporting roadways and include policies and programs for their implementation. Even in
developed areas, supporting roadways should be delineated so they can be established when
redevelopment occurs.

Along the CH 42 corridor, the two Counties or a Corridor Commission should control access
spacing. There is, however, a significant role for Cities to play in access management, most notably
providing adequate corner clearances at local streets, requiring parking lot connections and cross
easements, mandating frontage and backage roads, ensuring proper driveway design and establishing
land use patterns and street designs which support transit use. Only with a high level of cooperation
will CH 42 be able to balance mobility and economic development.

Integrating Funding Opportunities/A New Corridor Paradigm

One of the major difficulties uncovered as part of the CH 42 Study was that of funding supporting
roadway improvements to relieve identified future congestion. The reason supporting roadways
currently offer little in the way of traffic relief is that there is minimal funding for their improvement
unless they are part of a development project. Much of the financial burden falls on the City to
provide such connecting roadways.

Since there is limited funding available for supporting roadway construction on a timely basis, the
least cost alternative is to request signals and accesses to CH 42. This is an easy choice to make for
Cities and developers who may recognize the importance of alternative accesses but cannot always
generate the dollars needed to build them.

We can no longer look only at the area between right-of-way lines as the limits for highway
improvements. We must think of the project corridor as something that is between one and two-miles
wide and consists of a supporting roadway network which is capable of relieving traffic on county
and state highways. We must also establish methods for funding “corridor” improvements rather than
“highway” improvements.

In order to look at corridors in this fashion and seek funding cooperatively, it will be important that
state enabling legislation be developed which creates Critical Principal Arterial Corridors. These are


CH 42 Corridor Study                                            Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                       8-5                                February 18, 1999
#25188
non-freeway corridors where business and traffic interests compete for the same roadway capacity
and economic development and mobility must be balanced. Within such corridors, the state would
establish Critical Principal Arterial Corridors and identify travel reduction funding programs that
would enable the establishment of wide corridors; spending of money on county/state aid highways
and supporting roadway improvements; selling bonds and levying impact fees; and, as appropriate,
raising property taxes to cover the cost of improvements; establishing multi-jurisdictional corridor
commissions having city, county, transit authority, business, MnDOT, and Metropolitan Council
representation; adopting ordinances and funding demonstration grants for projects which reduce
travel demand; enhancing access management; improving supporting roadways and facilitating transit
development. The State of Minnesota could offer grant monies, like the Community-based Planning
Act, as incentives for plan implementation. The objectives of the Corridor Commission would be to
improve corridor mobility, reduce travel demand, ensure corridor preservation, encourage innovation
in development patterns, and facilitate due process.

Improving Coordination, Cooperation, and Communications and Improving
Flexibility

Based on discussions with the City and County staffs, the process of reviewing subdivision plats and
approving accesses is not working as well as it could. Dakota County has jurisdiction only over plats
which are contiguous to a county highway. Scott County has no such authority. In situations where
                                                                            s
land is already platted, the use can change without Dakota County’ review and approval.
Furthermore, the Cities believe the Counties are inflexible in enforcing access standards. How can
we make this process work so that it benefits all jurisdictions while balancing mobility and economic
development?

There are at least three different structural arrangements that would foster improved coordination and
cooperation within the County Highway 42 Corridor. At a minimum, there is the need for the two
counties and/or six cities to continue to meet and communicate. This could be done rather informally
by committee or the Cities could enter into a joint powers agreement as a means to formalize the
 relationship. This structure could be established to permit the Cities to do collectively within the
corridor anything that the Cities are authorized by law to do individually. While it is unlikely that any
of the Cities would want to create another level of authority in decision making within the corridor,
variances from access spacing requirements, plat and PUD review may be cooperative roles that
Cities could accept in the interest of carrying out corridor objectives.

In either scenario, the Dakota County Plat Commission could be retained and the contiguous plat
ordinance amended to clarify concept plan review and formalize variance procedures. While the
current ordinance requires “Initial Filing”, the Commission seldom gets involved until the preliminary
plat is filed and the development pattern is already established. While there is no ordinance in Scott
County, the problem is similar. In order to correct this problem it is recommended that the
Contiguous Plat Ordinance be amended to clarify that any development which will ultimately have
to be platted, and will seek approval from the County, should have a concept plan approved by the
Plat Review Commission.



CH 42 Corridor Study                                            Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                      8-6                                 February 18, 1999
#25188
A third approach to cooperation would involve the creation of a Critical Principal Arterial Corridor
Commission. Such a structure would be headed by a Corridor Commission and would require
general or special State Legislation. This approach may only be appropriate if funding from state
sources could be tied to the designation.

If a Critical Principal Arterial Corridor Commission were to be enabled by the legislature to include
both Counties, one possibility would be to roll the Dakota County Plat Review Commission into the
                                                    s
 Corridor Commission and expand the Commission’ responsibilities to include transit, TDM, corridor
right-of-way preservation, reduction in travel demand, access management, plat review, and access
spacing variances/appeals. This would provide for a more integrated and broad brush approach and
would apply corridor-wide. The Plat Review Commission would no longer have jurisdiction over
CH 42, but would continue to preserve right-of-way, approve plats, and consider variances for other
county highways.

Dakota County has no formal variance procedure and Scott County has no variance process or even
the authority to institute such a process. The Cities perceive both to be inflexible in their enforcement
of access standards and their consideration of variances.

A two-tiered variance procedure is recommended with differing sets of findings. For the movement
of an access where access spacing results in less than one-half mile spacing but where the resulting
access will average one-half mile, there would be a lesser need for information and less significant
findings. In the second tier, a request for a new access, proponents would have to demonstrate the
“need” for the additional access, the impacts on traffic operations (a traffic study would be required),
and mitigating measures that are proposed to minimize congestion. The Corridor Commission or the
County would be required to make findings, not unlike a zoning board of adjustment, based on the
                                                                                  s
degree to which the request either meets or fails to meet the Commission’ criteria. Checklists,
information requirements, and criteria should be provided for each variance type to ensure
consistency. At a minimum, the Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance should be amended to
include variance and appeals procedures.

Another way for counties and cities to communicate and cooperate would be to create a South Metro
Transportation Coalition, as recommended by the Advisory Committee, whose purpose it will be to
identify needs and lobby for project funding. Another important role for the coalition will be to
increase public awareness and help educate the public regarding transportation needs (streets,
highways and transit). This approach has been very successful elsewhere in the metropolitan area in
generating funding for major projects like the Cedar Avenue and Highway 610 River Crossings and
the Highway 169 Bridge/Shakopee Bypass.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 •       Cities should amend their comprehensive plans to provide the policy framework for access
         management and reductions in travel demand and to establish supporting roadway
         connections. They should work cooperatively with the Counties and the State to seek
         funding for supporting roadways.


CH 42 Corridor Study                                            Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                      8-7                                 February 18, 1999
#25188
 •       The Counties and Cities should develop a model land use and access management ordinance
         to be implemented by the Cities for access management and reductions in travel demand.
 •       The Counties and Cities should continue to communicate and cooperate along the CH 42
         corridor. Three levels of cooperation should be evaluated:
         1.      The Cities and Counties should continue to cooperate informally in plan
                 implementation stages.
         2.      The Cities could enter into a Joint Powers Agreement (to formalize the relationship)
                 with authority for considering access management variances and plat and PUD
                 reviews.
         3.      The pursuit of some form of Critical Principal Arterial Corridor legislation should be
                 considered if it can prove to be advantageous in generating funding for corridor
                 highway and supporting roadway improvements. This structure would be headed by
                 a Corridor Commission.
 •       A South Metro Corridor Coalition should be established to identify transportation needs and
         funding sources for street and highway improvements and to help educate the public
         regarding transportation needs.


8.2      HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Functional Classification

The key question to be resolved is whether CH 42 should remain classified as a Principal Arterial
(PA) roadway or if the classification should be changed to a Minor Arterial (MA).

A review of the history of the corridor indicates that CH 42 was previously classified as either a
Minor or County Arterial and Dakota and Scott Counties initiated the change to Principal Arterial
in 1993. Early in this study it was suggested by some representatives of local government and the
business community that the functional classification should be changed back to Minor Arterial. The
rationale behind the suggestion was based on the perception that complying with the Metropolitan
Council criteria for Principal Arterials (particularly trip length, peak hour operating speed and access
spacing) would likely result in unacceptable impacts to abutting properties. In addition, it was also
suggested that the affected communities were not adequately informed of the proposed change.

The analysis of the functional classification issue considered conformance with the Metropolitan
Council criteria, the notification process, along with the following additional items:

  •      regional trends
  •      potential alternative locations for a Principal Arterial
  •      funding
  •      future considerations

The key Metropolitan Council criteria for non-freeway Principal Arterials includes the following:


CH 42 Corridor Study                                                Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                       8-8                                    February 18, 1999
#25188
  •      Spacing from other Arterials – 3 to 6 miles in developing areas
  •      Access spacing – one-half mile minimum
  •      Trip length – 8 miles with 5 continuous miles on PA’ s
  •      Operating speed – 40 mph average during peak traffic periods

A review of CH 42 location, design and operating characteristics indicates that the roadway is
consistent with the spacing from other arterials and trip length criteria. CH 42 is approximately 2.5
miles from TH 13 in Scott County and approximately 9 miles from I-494 in Dakota County. Trip
lengths are estimated to be in the range of 3 to 3.5 miles on CH 42 with total trip lengths of
approximately 9+ miles. (It should be noted that the only other documented trip lengths in the
Metropolitan Area are the result of computer modeling on I-494 and indicate average trip lengths of
slightly over 2 miles.)

However, CH 42 is not consistent with either the access spacing or operating speed criteria. Average
access spacing across the corridor, for both public and private access, is approximately one-tenth mile
intervals. Average peak period operating speeds across the corridor currently range from 33 to 43
mph with a weighted average of approximately 37 mph. However, conversations with Metropolitan
Council and Mn/DOT staff suggest that if a weighted average operating speed of approximately 40
mph across the corridor could be achieved as a result of implementing the improvements identified
in the Corridor Plan, the actual access spacing would be of less concern.

The issue of notification of local units of government relative to the proposed change in functional
classification was investigated. There is ample evidence to suggest that the local units of government
were informed of the proposed change. However, there is nothing to indicate to what degree the local
officials understood the significance or consequences of the change.

Early in the study, representatives of the business community expressed concern that the change of
classification to Principal Arterial also required the conversion of CH 42 to a freeway. Discussions
with Metropolitan Council and Mn/DOT staff revealed that in previous regional plans, all of the
Principal Arterials had been freeways. However, the current plan includes several non-freeway
Principal Arterials. This is an acknowledgement of the regional trend away from building new
freeways due to very high implementation costs and social, economic and environmental impacts,
which places a greater reliance for mobility on conventional roadways. Therefore, change in
classification is in fact consistent with regional trends and in no way infers a requirement that CH 42
be converted to a freeway.

A number of potential alternative locations for rerouting the Principal Arterial roadway designation
were investigated. These alternative locations included TH 13, CH 32 (Cliff Road), CH 30 (Diffley
Road), CH 38 (McAndrews Road), CR 46 (160th Street) and a new alignment approximately 4 to 6
miles south of CH 42. These roadways were identified as potential candidates for the Principal
Arterial designation because, with the exception of the new south alignment, each at some time in the
past had carried the Principal Arterial classification. Each of these alternatives was reviewed based
on Metropolitan Council criteria, including, route continuity, system connectivity and operating
characteristics. The review found that none of these existing roadways provided as great a degree of


CH 42 Corridor Study                                          Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                     8-9                                February 18, 1999
#25188
consistency with the Metropolitan Council guidelines as CH 42 and, therefore, none are as good a
candidate for the Principal Arterial designation as CH 42. The new south alignment was also dropped
from consideration as a viable alternative to CH 42 because it is outside of the present Metropolitan
Urban Services Area (MUSA) boundary and, therefore, not eligible for consideration at this time.

CH 42, as a result of the Principal Arterial designation, is also part of the National Highway System
(NHS) and is therefore eligible for the federal funding that is set aside for NHS roadways. These
funds have not previously been used on CH 42 and therefore represent a new source of dollars to
fund improvements. If the Principal Arterial designation were changed to Minor Arterial, the NHS
designation would also be removed and the new source of funds for CH 42 improvements would be
lost.

The final functional classification issue involves future planning. Current Metropolitan Council
guidelines restrict designating Principal Arterial roadways to the area within the MUSA. However,
one of the most significant involves expressed by the business community concerns the potential
impacts on existing development associated with retrofitting CH 42 in order to maintain present levels
of mobility in the face of the future build out of land uses in the corridor. In order to minimize these
types of impacts in the future, it appears logical to designate a new Principal Arterial corridor and
protect the right-of-way before the corridor is intensely developed. As a result, consideration should
be given to developing a new Principal Arterial alignment across the southern part of the
Metropolitan Area. A potential search area could be defined as extending from the TH 61/316
junction near the Dakota/Goodhue County line, crossing TH 52 near Hampton, then crossing I-35
at either of the existing interchanges at 185th Street or CH 70 in Lakeville and then terminate at TH
169 in Scott County. This potential search area is shown in Figure 8-1.

On a related note, the importance of developing and/or enhancing a roadway system to support
CH 42 cannot be over emphasized. In order to assist the agencies responsible for these roadways
with any necessary improvements, consideration should be given to having all of those supporting
roadways functionally classified as A-Minor Arterials. This will acknowledge the regional
significance of the supporting function and make any roadway improvements eligible for regional
highway funds.

One final thought relative to functional classification. It appears that planned land development/
redevelopment in the CH 42 travelshed will increase traffic volume and congestion out through the
Year 2020 planning horizon. In addition, it appears likely that this process and the implementation
of necessary mitigations are independent of the functional classification of CH 42. In other words,
it is very likely that congestion will increase across the corridor and consideration will have to be
given to implementing mitigative roadway improvements, including access management, no matter
what functional classification may be assigned to CH 42.

RECOMMENDATION:

  •      Maintain the present Principal Arterial designation on CH 42 and begin the planning effort
         associated with developing and preserving the right-of-way for a new Principal Arterial
         alignment approximately 4 to 6 miles south of CH 42.

CH 42 Corridor Study                                           Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                     8-10                                February 18, 1999
#25188
  •      Functionally classify the supporting roadway system an A-Minor Arterials.

Access Spacing

Dakota and Scott Counties currently have access spacing guidelines in place for CH 42. Dakota
        s
County’ guidelines limit full access to one-half mile intervals with intermediate partial access based
                                                               s
on either three-quarter or right-in/out designs. Scott County’ guidelines are similar, but permit full
access at one-quarter mile intervals.

The key question to be resolved is what access spacing is the most reasonable given the Counties’
desire to optimize both operational efficiency and traffic safety and the need to provide reasonable
ingress and egress to adjacent properties.

The analysis of this issue considered both technical and procedural aspects, including the following:

  •      Results documented in published research reports
  •      Results of current traffic safety research
  •      Results of current computer modeling efforts (along the CH 42 Corridor)
  •      Comments provided by local units of government and the business community

Summaries of previously published research are provided in Technical Memo Number 1 and Chapter
4.0 of this document. The most relevant information suggests that, from a pure traffic operations
perspective, one-half mile spacing of full access/signalized intersections is superior to one-quarter
mile spacing. The various measures of operational efficiency (vehicle speeds and delay) were reported
to improve by more than 50% when the spacing of the signalized intersections was extended to one-
half mile. In addition, case studies of a number of access management related projects (driveway
consolidation/closure, median construction, local access roads, etc.) in Iowa found that, in general,
reducing the number of conflict points did not result in significant adverse impacts to the business
climate of the involved roadway corridors.

The results of current traffic safety research being conducted for Mn/DOT have established a
statistically significant, direct correlation between the level of accessibility to a roadway and the crash
rate on the roadway. This suggests that for every additional access point provided along a roadway,
an increase in crash rate can be expected and for every access point eliminated, a reduction in crash
rate can be expected. This relationship between access density and crash rate probably helps explain
why CH 42, with an average of approximately 8 to 15 accesses per mile, has a lower crash rate than
comparable urban, state trunk highways that average over 30 accesses per mile. However, the results
also suggest that even though crash rates on CH 42 are already low, a further reduction in crash rates
is probably still likely based on the elimination of some full access intersections and the conversion
of others to a partial access design. A recent review of two partial access intersections (three-quarter
designs in the vicinity of Burnsville Center) support this contention. A study of four years of crash
data found that the partial access intersections had a crash rate of 70 percent lower than comparable
unsignalized full access intersections.



CH 42 Corridor Study                                             Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                       8-11                                February 18, 1999
#25188
The results of the computer modeling for CH 42 also suggest that there are benefits associated with
having the signalized intersections spaced at one-half mile intervals. However, the benefits do not
appear to be as large as indicated in the research reports and this may be due to the degree to which
the Counties have already implemented access management strategies. Analysis of alternative traffic
signal deployment strategies across the more heavily developed segments of the corridor (basically
comparing average signal spacing of approximately one-quarter mile versus one-half mile) indicate
that just increasing the signal spacing has the following affects on operational efficiency:

  •      Up to 10% increase in average operating speed
  •      Up to 30% decrease in vehicular delay at intersections
  •      Up to 40% decrease in the number of stops
  •      Up to 15% decrease in fuel consumption

It should also be noted that the results of modeling a combination of traffic signal spacing
improvements and a variety of roadway improvements produced measures of effectiveness similar
to those cited in the literature, with improvements ranging from 30% to 60%.

Regardless of the operational and safety benefits associated with access management strategies,
concerns about regulating access were frequently mentioned during private conversations with local
government staff and representatives of the business community, primarily directed at Dakota
       s
County’ process. The basic concerns can be summarized as follows:

  •      An inflexible application of the guidelines
  •      The lack of a documented (and easily understandable) variance process
  •      Requests for variances being dealt with by the same staff that denied the initial requests
  •      Differences between Dakota and Scott County guidelines

In order to address these concerns, a variety of procedural and organizational mitigations were
developed and evaluated. Those considered to be the most feasible are listed below:

  •                                      s
         Given the Metropolitan Council’ stated flexibility regarding conformance with their criteria
         for non-freeway Principal Arterials, the access spacing guidelines for the CH 42 corridor
         should attempt to achieve an average signal spacing of one-half mile along the corridor.

  •      The process and procedures for requesting a variance from the spacing guidelines should be
         documented. Included in the documentation should be the definition of the conditions when
         a request for a variance would be considered. For example, local governments will often allow
         requests for variances from zoning ordinance guidelines when social, community or
         environmental hardships are encountered, but not for any type of economic or financial
         hardship. In addition, a process could also be described that identifies all of the information
         (site conditions, land use, traffic generation, estimated affect on traffic operations,
         identification and evaluation of potential mitigative measures, funding commitments for the
         mitigation, etc.) that is required as part of the variance request.



CH 42 Corridor Study                                           Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                      8-12                               February 18, 1999
#25188
  •      The establishment of a variance review committee that reflects the regional significance of the
         CH 42 corridor. For example, the review committee could be composed of staff from Dakota
         County, Scott County and from one of the local units of government along the corridor not
         involved in the particular variance request.

  •      Develop one set of access guidelines for the entire corridor that can be adopted by both
         Dakota and Scott Counties.

RECOMMENDATION: The Counties and Cities should adopt consistent access spacing guidelines
for the entire corridor that have the following major provisions:

  •      A target of one-half mile average spacing between full-access signalized intersections

  •      Partial access at intermediate locations: three-quarter access at one-quarter mile spacing and
         right in/out access at one-eighth mile spacing

  •      A hierarchy of access (driveways should connect to Local Streets and Collectors, Collectors
         to Minor Arterials and Minor Arterials to Principal Arterials)

  •      A formalized variance process

  •      A joint powers variance review committee

  •      A prioritized plan for revising existing access points, consistent with the recommended
         guidelines, that is coordinated with development/ redevelopment of individual parcels and
         with the implementation of alternative access to the local/supporting street system.

Railroad Crossings

The question to be resolved is whether railroad crossings along Principal Arterials should be at-grade
or grade separated. The issues that were considered include traffic operations, traffic safety and
consistency with regional policies.

Computer modeling of railroad grade crossings has often proven to be of limited value when
attempting to establish corridor or area wide policies. The models regularly show that the affect of
an at-grade crossing on traffic operations is primarily a function of the number and the timing of the
trains. If large numbers of trains are present during the peak traffic periods, traffic operations will
suffer. However, there is no reliable way of accurately predicting the number of trains that may in fact
be present at a particular crossing because of the wide variation in most freight railroad scheduling.

There is no data to suggest that auto/train crashes are a problem in the CH 42 corridor, however, a
review of the safety literature suggests that there are safety benefits associated with grade separated
rail crossings.


CH 42 Corridor Study                                           Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                      8-13                               February 18, 1999
#25188
A review of regional policies regarding auto/rail interaction on non-freeway Principal Arterials found
no specific guidance. However, the policies are very clear in establishing that mobility is a very high
priority on these facilities.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a policy requiring all railroad grade crossings be grade separated.


Roadway Improvements

The purpose of this section is to summarize the recommended roadway improvements in the CH 42
Corridor and to outline a schedule for the deployment of the various strategies. This schedule is
primarily based on estimating when congestion is likely to reach the point where mitigation would
be appropriate. The preliminary recommended improvements were identified in Chapter 6.0 and
evaluated in Chapter 7.0.

The development and evaluation of the recommended roadway improvements were based on
projected land use and traffic conditions for the Year 2020. The proposed objectives for the CH 42
Corridor include an average speed of approximately 40 mph and peak hour intersection operations
of LOS D or better. For comparison purposes, the capacity analysis results for the Corridor are
summarized in Table 8-1 (arterial roadway segments) and in Table 8-2 (signalized intersections). The
results from Chapter 6.0 suggest that under the No-Build scenario, the estimated average speed
across the corridor is 22 mph and 12 signalized intersections are at LOS E or worse. With the
recommended improvements, the estimated average speed is 37 mph, all signalized intersections are
at LOS D or better and the Corridor objectives would largely be achieved by Year 2020.

The final recommended roadway improvements include a combination of supporting roadway
enhancements, CH 42 intersection improvements, and CH 42 roadway modifications. Figure 8-2
identifies the recommended components of the supporting roadway scenario, as described in Chapter
6.0. In addition to the major supporting roadway improvements shown in Figure 8-2, the
recommended mitigation scenario assumes that the local roadway network is enhanced to provide
appropriate access to existing and future land uses. Figure 8-3 shows the recommended intersection
and traffic signal changes, and Figure 8-4 shows the recommended roadway improvements along CH
42. Finally, Table 8-3 provides a summary of the existing and recommended access points by corridor
segment.

In addition to the selected elements of the supporting roadway scenario, the final recommended
roadway improvements for the CH 42 Corridor consist of the following:

  •      Provide/enhance a system of roadways to support mobility in the CH 42 corridor.

  •      Enhance the local roadway system to reduce the need for direct access to CH 42, and realign
         existing commercial, institutional and residential driveways to connect with the enhanced local
         roadway system as opportunities arise.




CH 42 Corridor Study                                           Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                      8-14                               February 18, 1999
#25188
  •      Provide full-access signalized intersections at an average spacing of approximately one-half
         mile. However, new traffic signals should be implemented only when warranted. The
         recommended traffic signal spacing for each segment is summarized in Table 8-4.

  •      Provide three-quarter access unsignalized intersections at an average spacing of one-quarter
         mile.

  •      Provide right-in/right-out unsignalized intersections with an average spacing of one-eighth
         mile.

  •      Provide a minimum of two lanes on all approaches to signalized intersections, including minor
         cross-streets.

  •      Provide auxiliary lanes at signalized intersections where feasible, including right-turn lanes and
         single or dual left-turn lanes.

  •      Revise phasing at signalized intersections, including the elimination of split phases, the
         addition of right-turn overlaps, and the addition of left-turn phases where feasible.

  •      Coordinate the timing of signalized intersections that are located within one-half mile of each
         other.

  •      Develop and initiate a new traffic signal timing strategy across the corridor that emphasizes
         the priority placed on mainline mobility. This strategy would involve assigning higher
         percentages of the signal cycle to CH 42 traffic in order to offset forecast increases in traffic
         volumes and congestion. The ultimate extension of this strategy would be to, where
         necessary, effectively assign 100 percent of the cycle to CH 42 by removing some traffic
         signals from operation.

  •      Extend the existing six-lane divided segment of CH 42 west through Burnsville Parkway and
         east through CR 11 to accommodate projected traffic volumes.

  •      Widen the existing four-lane divided portion of CH 42 to six lanes from east of CH 23 (Cedar
         Avenue) through CH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) to accommodate projected traffic volumes.

  •      Implement or modify grade-separated interchanges at Aldrich Avenue, I-35E, CH 23, and the
         existing railroad tracks east of TH 3.

A primary objective of the CH 42 Corridor Study is to develop an overall plan for roadway
improvements in the corridor. As individual projects are considered for implementation by state,
county or local jurisdictions, the results of this study should be supplemented with additional data and
analysis to support detailed project planning and design as needed.




CH 42 Corridor Study                                             Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                       8-15                                February 18, 1999
#25188
The proposed implementation schedule for the roadway improvements is a means of prioritizing the
recommended actions according to their need, their anticipated costs and impacts, and opportunities
for implementation. Some of the recommended improvements— such as signal timing modifications—
would produce immediate benefits and could be implemented with minimal impacts. Those types of
mitigation measures are proposed for Immediate Implementation (1–2 years). Other recommended
roadway improvements— such as adding cross-street auxiliary lanes— may not be justified
immediately, or they have moderate costs and/or impacts that need to be addressed. Those types of
improvements are typically proposed for Short-Term Implementation (3–5 years). Finally, many of
the recommended roadway improvements would have potentially significant costs and/or impacts to
the corridor. Those particular projects, such as roadway widening and grade separations, are
proposed for Long-Term Implementation (6+ years).

The implementation plan for the roadway improvements is provided below, including the
recommended elements of the supporting roadway system and recommended mitigation measures for
each of the sixteen segments along the CH 42 Corridor. Recommended improvements at intersections
that divide two adjacent corridor segments are included in the description of the latter segment.

Supporting Roadway System

As described in Chapter 6.0, the supporting roadway system represents a set of assumed changes to
other roadways within or adjacent to the CH 42 Corridor. Selection of the final supporting roadway
scenario components was based upon their ability to provide continuity between City street systems,
divert traffic from CH 42 and a qualitative assessment of their feasibility of implementation within the
Year 2020 planning horizon. Two examples of this selection process include the following:

1.       147th Street and 153rd Street (in Apple Valley) - These roadways were determined to have
         a high probability of diverting traffic from CH 42 (up to 9,000 vehicles per day) and a high
         probability of implementation by Year 2020. Therefore, these roadways were included in the
         recommended supporting roadways system.

2.       Extension of CR 46 (through Murphy-Hanrehan Regional Park) - This roadway was
         determined to have a high probability of diverting traffic from CH 42 (up to 6,800 vehicles
         per day). However, it was determined to have a low probability of implementation prior to
         Year 2020 because of potential environmental impacts in the Park and because of opposition
         to the project by several governmental agencies and adjacent landowners. Therefore, this
         roadway was not considered to be part of the supporting roadway system.

The proposed implementation schedule for the recommended supporting roadway elements is as
follows:

Immediate Implementation (1 to 2 years) – None of the supporting roadway scenario projects are
expected to be implemented during the 1–2 year time frame.




CH 42 Corridor Study                                           Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                     8-16                                February 18, 1999
#25188
Short-Term Implementation (3 to 5 years) – The supporting roadway projects recommended for
short-term implementation would provide relief to the most congested segments of CH 42 in the
commercial areas of Burnsville and Apple Valley. These projects include the following:

  •      Construct a new half-diamond interchange to the north on I-35W at CH 38 (McAndrews
         Road), and extend the third lane of southbound I-35W through the new interchange.
  •      Extend CH 38 (McAndrews Road) west from CH 5 to Burnsville Parkway and upgrade
         Southcross Drive west from CH 5 to CH 42.

  •      Extend 147th Street east from Galaxie Avenue to Pilot Knob Road.

Long-Term Implementation (6+ years) – The supporting roadway scenario projects recommended
for long-term implementation are intended to relieve future congestion on CH 42 due to anticipated
development in the region. These projects include the following:

  •      Extend 150th Street west from CH 5 to Burnsville Parkway.

  •      Extend Connelly Parkway west from CH 27 to the CH 17/CR 78 intersection.

  •      Extend 140th Street east from Shannon Parkway to CH 71.

  •      Reroute TH 55 south on TH 52 and east on CH 42, turn-back existing TH 55 (Courthouse
         Road) to the City of Rosemount, and realign and extend Courthouse Road north to Cliff
         Road. As described in Chapter 6.0, this would include a new TH 52/CH 42 interchange and
         extension of the four-lane divided section of CH 42 east from TH 52 to Courthouse Road.

  •      Extend CH 21 north from CH 42 to CH 18.

  •      Extend 153rd Street east from Galaxie Avenue to Dodd Boulevard.

Other

  •      Extend 143rd Street west to Judicial Road.

County Highway 42 Corridor by Segment

Segment 1: TH 169 to CH 17

The proposed speed objective for Corridor Segment 1 is 50 mph. As indicated in Chapter 6.0,
implementation of the recommended improvements in this segment would result in an estimated speed
of 46 mph.

The recommended roadway improvements for Corridor Segment 1 are illustrated in Figure 8-5, and
the proposed implementation schedule is as follows:

CH 42 Corridor Study                                       Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                    8-17                             February 18, 1999
#25188
Immediate Implementation – None of the recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation during the 1–2 year time frame.

Short-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation during the 3–5 year time frame.

  •      Add a through lane to CR 78 and revise the signal phasing at the CR 78/TH 169 intersection.

Long-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation in the 6+ year time frame:

  •      When warranted, provide traffic signals at the following intersections:
         CR 78/CH 15
         CR 78/CR 79

Segment 2: CR 78 to CR 42

The proposed speed objective for Corridor Segment 2 is 50 mph, and implementation of the
recommended improvements in this segment would result in an estimated speed of 48 mph.

The recommended roadway improvements for Corridor Segment 2 are illustrated in Figure 8-6, and
the proposed implementation schedule is as follows:

Immediate Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 1–2 year time frame:

  •      Modify the CH 17/CR 78 traffic signal phasing.

Short-Term Implementation – None of the recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation during the 3–5 year time frame.

Long-Term Implementation – None of the recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation during the 6+ year time frame.

Segment 3: CH 17 to CR 83

The proposed speed objective for Corridor Segment 3 is 50 mph, and implementation of the
recommended improvements in this segment would result in an estimated speed of 43 mph.

The recommended roadway improvements for Corridor Segment 3 are illustrated in Figure 8-7, and
the proposed implementation schedule is as follows:




CH 42 Corridor Study                                          Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                     8-18                               February 18, 1999
#25188
Immediate Implementation – None of the recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation during the 1–2 year time frame.

Short-Term Implementation – None of the recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation during the 3–5 year time frame.

Long-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation in the 6+ year time frame:

  •      When warranted, provide traffic signals at the following intersections:
         CH 42/CH 17
         CH 42 between CH 17 and CR 83

  •      Provide a coordinated signal system when applicable.

Segment 4: CR 83 to CH 21

The proposed speed objective for Corridor Segment 4 is 50 mph, and implementation of the
recommended improvements in this segment would result in an estimated speed of 45 mph.

The recommended roadway improvements for Corridor Segment 4 are illustrated in Figure 8-8, and
the proposed implementation schedule is as follows:

Immediate Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 1–2 year time frame:

  •      Modify the CH 42/CR 83 traffic signal phasing.

Short-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation during the 3–5 year time frame.

  •      Add a through lane to CR 83 and dual left-turn lanes to CH 42 at the CH 42/CR 83
         intersection.

Long-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation in the 6+ year time frame:

  •      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.

Segment 5: CH 21 to TH 13



CH 42 Corridor Study                                          Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                     8-19                               February 18, 1999
#25188
The proposed speed objective for Corridor Segment 5 is 40 mph, and implementation of the
recommended improvements in this segment would result in an estimated speed of 42 mph.

The recommended roadway improvements for Corridor Segment 5 are illustrated in Figure 8-9, and
the proposed implementation schedule is as follows:

Immediate Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 1–2 year time frame:

  • Modify the CH 42/CH 21 traffic signal phasing.
Short-Term Implementation – None of the recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation during the 3–5 year time frame.

Long-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation in the 6+ year time frame:

  •      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.

Segment 6: TH 13 to CH 27

The proposed speed objective for Corridor Segment 6 is 40 mph, and implementation of the
recommended improvements in this segment would result in an estimated speed of 40 mph.

The recommended roadway improvements for Corridor Segment 6 are illustrated in Figure 8-10, and
the proposed implementation schedule is as follows:

Immediate Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 1–2 year time frame:

  •      Modify the CH 42/TH 13 traffic signal phasing.

Short-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation during the 3–5 year time frame.

  •      Add one through lane to TH 13 and dual left-turn lanes to all approaches at the CH 42/TH
         13 intersection.

Long-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation in the 6+ year time frame:


CH 42 Corridor Study                                          Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                     8-20                               February 18, 1999
#25188
  •      When warranted, provide a traffic signal at the following intersection:
         CH 42 between TH 13 and CH 26

  •      Provide a coordinated signal system when applicable.

Segment 7: CH 27 to Scott CR 31

The proposed speed objective for Corridor Segment 7 is 30 mph, and implementation of the
recommended improvements in this segment would result in an estimated speed of 40 mph.

The recommended roadway improvements for Corridor Segment 7 are illustrated in Figure 8-11, and
the proposed implementation schedule is as follows:

Immediate Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 1–2 year time frame:

  •      Modify the CH 42/Ottawa Avenue traffic signal phasing.

  •      Provide a coordinated signal system for existing signals.

Short-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 3-5 year time frame:

  •      Add auxiliary lanes to Ottawa Avenue at the CH 42/Ottawa Avenue intersection.

Long-Term Implementation – None of the recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation during the 6+ year time frame.

Segment 8: Scott CR 31 to Irving Avenue

The proposed speed objective for Corridor Segment 8 is 30 mph, and implementation of the
recommended improvements in this segment would result in an estimated speed of 31 mph.

The recommended roadway improvements for Corridor Segment 8 are illustrated in Figure 8-12, and
the proposed implementation schedule is as follows:

Immediate Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation during the 1–2 year time frame.

  •      Provide a coordinated signal system for existing signals.

Short-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 3-5 year time frame:


CH 42 Corridor Study                                          Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                     8-21                               February 18, 1999
#25188
  •      Remove the existing traffic signal at CH 42/Huntington Avenue and modify the intersection
         to provide three-quarter access to both the north (at Huntington Avenue) and the south (at
         Ewing Avenue). This will require local roadway improvements to provide reasonable
         accessibility.

  •      Extend Newton Avenue north to CH 42, and provide three-quarter access at the CH 42
         intersection (to both the north and south sides of CH 42). Extend the north frontage road
         west to Newton Avenue and provide three-quarter access to the south at Morgan Avenue.

  •      Modify the existing CH 42/Southcross Drive intersection to provide a three-quarter access
          to both the north and south. This will require local roadway improvements to provide
         reasonable accessibility.

  •      Extend the six-lane divided section west from Irving Avenue through Newton Avenue.

  •      Add dual lefts to all approaches of the CH 42/CH 5 intersection.

Long-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation in the 6+ year time frame:

  •      Extend the six-lane divided section west from Newton Avenue to Burnsville Parkway.

Segment 9: Irving Avenue to I-35W

The proposed speed objective for Corridor Segment 9 is 20 mph, and implementation of the
recommended improvements in this segment would result in an estimated speed of 26 mph.

The recommended roadway improvements for Corridor Segment 9 are illustrated in Figure 8-13, and
the proposed implementation schedule is as follows:

Immediate Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 1–2 year time frame:

  •      Modify the CH 42/Burnhaven Drive signal phasing.

  •      Modify the CH 42/Aldrich Avenue signal phasing.

Short-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 3-5 year time frame:

  •      Add auxiliary lanes to Burnhaven Drive at the CH 42/Burnhaven Drive intersection.




CH 42 Corridor Study                                         Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                    8-22                               February 18, 1999
#25188
Long-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation in the 6+ year time frame:

  •      Remove the existing traffic signal at CH 42/Irving Avenue and modify the intersection to
         provide three-quarter access to both the north and south sides of CH 42. This will require
         local roadway improvements to provide reasonable accessibility.

  •      Provide a grade-separated interchange at Aldrich Avenue/CH 42. (The implementation of this
         project should be timed to coincide with future redevelopment of the adjacent commercial
         land uses.)


Segment 10: I-35W to I-35E

The proposed speed objective for Corridor Segment 10 is 20 mph, and implementation of the
recommended improvements in this segment would result in an estimated speed of 17 mph.

The recommended roadway improvements for Corridor Segment 10 are illustrated in Figure 8-14,
and the proposed implementation schedule is as follows:

Immediate Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 1–2 year time frame:

  •      Modify the CH 42/Nicollet Avenue signal phasing.

Short-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation during the 3–5 year time frame.

  •      Add an auxiliary lane to north approach of the CH 42/I-35W West Ramp intersection and
         revise the signal phasing.

Long-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation in the 6+ year time frame:

  •      Measures to permit removal of the existing traffic signal at the I-35W East Ramp were
         evaluated and rejected. This included construction of a loop ramp from southbound I-35E to
         northbound I-35W.

  •      Replace the existing CH 42/I-35E diamond interchange with a single-point urban interchange.
         A single-point urban interchange can accommodate higher traffic volumes and eliminates one
         existing traffic signal on CH 42.

Segment 11: I-35E to Southcross Drive



CH 42 Corridor Study                                         Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                    8-23                               February 18, 1999
#25188
The proposed speed objective for Corridor Segment 11 is 30 mph, and implementation of the
recommended improvements in this segment would result in an estimated speed of 28 mph.

The recommended roadway improvements for Corridor Segment 11 are illustrated in Figure 8-15,
and the proposed implementation schedule is as follows:

Immediate Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 1–2 year time frame:

  •      Modify the CH 42/CR 11 signal phasing.

Short-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 3-5 year time frame:
  • Add through lanes and auxiliary lanes to Portland Avenue at the CH 42/Portland Avenue
        intersection.

  •      Remove the existing traffic signal at CH 42/Plymouth Avenue and modify the intersection to
         provide three-quarter access in both the north and south directions. This will require local
         roadway improvements to provide reasonable accessibility.

Long-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation in the 6+ year time frame:

  •      Extend the six-lane divided section of CH 42 east from Portland Avenue through CR 11.

Segment 12: Southcross Drive to Pennock Avenue

The proposed speed objective for Corridor Segment 12 is 30 mph, and implementation of the
recommended improvements in this segment would result in an estimated speed of 33 mph.

The recommended roadway improvements for Corridor Segment 12 are illustrated in Figure 8-16,
and the proposed implementation schedule is as follows:

Immediate Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 1–2 year time frame:

  •      Modify the CH 42/Southcross Drive signal phasing.

Short-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 3-5 year time frame:

  •      Add cross-street and mainline auxiliary lanes at the CH 42/Southcross Drive intersection.

  •      Add auxiliary lanes to Garden View Drive at the CH 42/Garden View Drive intersection.

CH 42 Corridor Study                                          Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                     8-24                               February 18, 1999
#25188
  •      Remove the existing traffic signal at CH 42/Elm Drive and modify the intersection to provide
         three-quarter access in both the north and south directions. This may require local roadway
         improvements to maintain existing mobility.

  •      Remove the existing traffic signal at CH 42/Hayes Road and modify the intersection to
         provide three-quarter access. This may require local roadway improvements to maintain
         existing mobility.

  •      Extension of the six-lane divided section of CH 42 was evaluated and rejected in lieu of the
         signal removals at Elm Drive and Hayes Road.

Long-Term Implementation – None of the recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation during the 6+ year time frame.
Segment 13: Pennock Avenue to Dakota CH 31 (Pilot Knob Road)

The proposed speed objective for Corridor Segment 13 is 30 mph, and implementation of the
recommended improvements in this segment would result in an estimated speed of 30 mph.

The recommended roadway improvements for Corridor Segment 13 are illustrated in Figure 8-17,
and the proposed implementation schedule is as follows:

Immediate Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 1–2 year time frame:

  •      Modify the CH 42/Galaxie Avenue traffic signal phasing.

  •      Modify the CH 42/Johnny Cake traffic signal phasing.

Short-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 3-5 year time frame:

  •      Add auxiliary lanes to Pennock Avenue at the CH 42/Pennock Avenue intersection.

  •      Modify the CH 42/Pennock Avenue traffic signal phasing.

  •      Remove the existing traffic signal at CH 42/Garrett Avenue and modify the intersection to
         provide three-quarter access to both the north and south sides of CH 42. This will require
         local roadway improvements to provide reasonable accessibility.

  •      When warranted, provide a traffic signal at the following intersection:
         CH 42 between Foliage Avenue and Johnny Cake Ridge.

  •      Extend the coordinated signal system when applicable.

CH 42 Corridor Study                                          Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                     8-25                               February 18, 1999
#25188
Long-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation in the 6+ year time frame:

  •      Widen CH 42 to a six-lane divided arterial from east of CH 23 through CH 31 (Pilot Knob
         Road).

  •      Replace the CH 42/CH 23 intersection with a single-point urban interchange. Widening CH
         23 to accommodate projected traffic demand was evaluated as an alternative and determined
         to be infeasible.

  •      Add cross-street and mainline auxiliary lanes at the CH 42/Galaxie Avenue intersection.

  •      Add auxiliary lanes to Johnny Cake Ridge at the CH 42/Johnny Cake intersection.

Segment 14: Dakota CH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) to TH 3

The proposed speed objective for Corridor Segment 14 is 40 mph, and implementation of the
recommended improvements in this segment would result in an estimated speed of 34 mph.

The recommended roadway improvements for Corridor Segment 14 are illustrated in Figure 8-18,
and the proposed implementation schedule is as follows:

Immediate Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 1–2 year time frame:

  •      Modify the CH 42/CH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) traffic signal phasing.

  •      Provide a coordinated signal system for the existing signalized intersection.

Short-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 3-5 year time frame:

  •      Add cross-street and mainline auxiliary lanes at the CH 42/CH 9 (Dodd Blvd) intersection.

  •      Add cross-street and mainline auxiliary lanes at the CH 42/Chippendale Avenue intersection.

  •      Modify the CH 42/Chippendale Avenue traffic signal phasing.

Long-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation during the 6+ year time frame.

  •      Add dual left-turn lanes to CH 42 at the CH 42/CH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) intersection.
         Although an interchange at the CH 42/CH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) intersection was evaluated,

CH 42 Corridor Study                                          Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                     8-26                               February 18, 1999
#25188
         the widening of CH 42 to a six-lane divided cross section provided sufficient mitigation at that
         location.

Corridor Segment 15: TH 3 to TH 52

The proposed speed objective for Corridor Segment 15 is 50 mph, and implementation of the
recommended improvements in this segment would result in an estimated speed of 49 mph.

The recommended roadway improvements for Corridor Segment 15 are illustrated in Figure 8-19,
and the proposed implementation schedule is as follows:

Immediate Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 1–2 year time frame:

  •      Modify the CH 42/TH 3 traffic signal phasing.

Short-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
the 3-5 year time frame:

  •      Add auxiliary lanes to CH 42 at the CH 42/TH 3 intersection.

  •      Add cross-street and mainline auxiliary lanes at the CH 42/Biscayne Avenue intersection.

Long-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation in the 6+ year time frame:

  •      When warranted, provide traffic signals at the following intersections:
         CH 42/Biscayne Avenue
         CH 42/145th Street

  •      Provide a grade-separated crossing of the existing railroad tracks east of the CH 42/TH 3
         intersection. (This grade-separated rail crossing may also require a new CH 42/TH 3
         interchange.)

Segment 16: TH 52 to TH 55

The proposed speed objective for Corridor Segment 16 is 50 mph, and implementation of the
recommended improvements in this segment would result in an estimated speed of 53 mph.

The recommended roadway improvements for Corridor Segment 16 are illustrated in Figure 8-20,
and the proposed implementation schedule is as follows:

Immediate Implementation – None of the recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation during the 1–2 year time frame.


CH 42 Corridor Study                                            Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                      8-27                                February 18, 1999
#25188
Short-Term Implementation – None of the recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation during the 3–5 year time frame.
Long-Term Implementation – The following recommended roadway improvements are proposed for
implementation in the 6+ year time frame:

  •      As described in the supporting roadway scenario recommendations, rerouting TH 55 onto TH
         52 and CH 42 would include an extension of the four-lane divided section of CH 42 east from
         TH 52 to Courthouse Road, and a new single-point urban interchange at CH 42 and TH 52.




Transit

Introduction

The development and site design of property within the MVTA service area directly affects the ability
of MVTA to provide effective and efficient transit services. The MVTA has learned that given the
opportunity, land development and site design can be modified to allow for better delivery of transit
services. Under certain conditions, it would be advisable for MVTA to become a reviewing agency
for each of the six cities in the MVTA service area. MVTA would then have the right to review
projects for transit serviceability and proximity to current routes and determine if modifications can
be made both in the site plan and their routes which will enhance transit.

The following types of developments could trigger MVTA review and consultation:

  •      Subsidized Housing Complexes
  •      Senior High Rise Projects
  •      Industrial/Commercial Developments from 50 to 100 Acres
  •      Developments Along Existing Transit Routes
  •      Projects in Developing Travel Corridors (Design for Future Service)
  •      Construction Major Roadway/Bridges Affect Travel Patterns
  •      Mixed Use Development
  •      Projects Adjacent to Future Park/Ride Sites as Identified in Study
  •      Change in MUSA Line
  •      Larger Scale 200 Unit Residential Townhouses/Apartments

A letter has been prepared requesting that MVTA be added to the list of review agencies for land
development and roadway projects submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council.


CH 42 Corridor Study                                          Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                    8-28                                February 18, 1999
#25188
RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.       Cities and Counties should consult on major infrastructure improvements prior to plan
         completion. Early in conceptual planning, identify any needed transit improvements such as
         bus pullouts, turnlane widening, built up shoulders. CH 42 could benefit from bus pullouts
         in several areas consistent with the safety objective for the Study.

2.       MVTA has placed their transit hubs at the major confluence of north/south and east/west
         highways. For example, TH 13/I-35W, CR 28 and I-35E, CH 23 and CH 42. Cities and
         Counties should work with the developing areas to preserve adequate right-of-way near the
         developing north/south corridors for future transit stations in these developing areas,
         especially Western Savage, Prior Lake, Eastern Apple Valley and Rosemount.

3.       Consistent with the Land Use Analysis, it is difficult to serve local trips on CH 42. The lack
         of supporting roadways makes it even more difficult. MVTA supports the need for a better
         supporting roadway system. This would permit streets like 147th to carry transit, closer to
         buildings, easier pedestrian access. Early coordination is the key, when sites are being
         planned, acknowledge the need for transit and plan for transit in the concept plans. An
         example is the Fischer Market Place development in Apple Valley, which demonstrates how
         transit can function as part of the development. Supporting roadways are critical to being
         able to provide circulator services.

4.       Encourage the cities and counties to follow the checklist of project types needing transit
         review when development or redevelopment is being considered. This would allow the cities
         and county to look at MVTA as one of the departments to which plans are circulated for
         review.

5.       If opportunities for redevelopment occur along the corridor, specifically in the Burnsville area,
         there may be an opportunity for a transit hub within that site or at a minimum include transit
         facilities in the redevelopment plan.

Pedestrian/Bicycles

There are no designated regional trails along or across CH 42, however, there are local trails and a
significant number of other attractions for pedestrians and bicyclists, including shopping areas, parks,
schools, etc. There also are significant impediments to pedestrian and bicycle travel such as freeways,
railroads and very wide multi-lane urban arterial roadways.

Providing a system of continuous trails parallel to and on both sides of CH 42 combined with a
limited number of grade-separated crossings of the corridor would facilitate pedestrian and bicycle
usage in the corridor.




CH 42 Corridor Study                                             Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                       8-29                                February 18, 1999
#25188
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a policy of cooperating with local units of government 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.




CH 42 Corridor Study                                         Recommended Corridor Mitigation Strategies
Final Report                                    8-30                               February 18, 1999
#25188

								
To top