Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
08-24-2021 Special City Council Meeting
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 4. STAFF REPORT NO. 125 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 8/24/2021 REPORT PREPARED BY: Scott Kulzer, Administrative Aide/Analyst DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 8/19/2021 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 8/19/2021 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider the Transportation Commission's request for a joint meeting to discuss concerns about the Minnesota Department of Transportation's plans for the I-494 and Penn Avenue Interchange as related to the I-494: Airport to 169 Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the August 11, 2021 Transportation Commission meeting, the I-494: Airport to 169 project was not a specific item for discussion. However, Commissioner Ken Severson reiterated many of his previously voiced concerns related to the future design of the I-494/35W interchange and its related changes to Penn Avenue access at I-494. Following the group's discussion of the subject, a motion was made requesting a joint meeting with the City Council to address continued concerns about MnDOT's plans for the I-494 and Penn Avenue Interchange. Of the 6 Commissioners present, 5 voted in favor of the request for the joint meeting and 1 abstained from voting. Unfortunately, no City Council liaison was present at the meeting. Discussion included the desire to have a MnDOT representative attend the meeting if the City Council accepts the request to have a joint meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept or decline the Transportation Commission's request for a joint meeting to discuss concerns about the Minnesota Department of Transportation's plans for the I-494 and Penn Avenue Interchange as related to the I-494: Airport to 169 Project. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT The I-494: Airport to 169 Project has been a topic before the Transportation Commission (TC) on many occasions, even if only as a brief project update. As far back as the January 8th, 2020 TC meeting, the group discussed the merits of the “I-494 Vision” and in particular their concerns with the proposed changes at the I-494/35W interchange (1/8/2020 TC minutes attached). Following that meeting, staff compiled the TC’s concerns and questions and sent them to MnDOT for feedback. MnDOT responded to the concerns raised by the TC and the responses were covered at the August 5, 2020 TC meeting (TC questions/MnDOT responses & 8/5/2020 TC minutes attached). At the 2/24/2020 I-494 Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting, the PAC approved the turbine interchange at I-494/35W, including the Penn Ave changes as part of the project vision unanimously (2/24/2020 PAC minutes attached). At the 2/23/2021 meeting, the PAC approved the Vision Implementation Plan. The Vision Implementation Plan lays out the general sequence of projects that comprise the I-494 Vision. Following the 8/5/2020 meeting, the TC didn’t focus specifically on the I-494/35W interchange until MnDOT held their listening sessions in April 2021. Concerns were again raised about the I-494/35W interchange during those virtual meetings but some Commissioners feel their comments weren’t genuinely considered. In Late July 2021, Commissioner Ken Severson reached out directly to the MnDOT project team with his specific concerns about the I-494/35W interchange and MnDOT responded to the questions and provided a document further explaining the logic behind the Penn Ave preferred design (MnDOT response to Commissioner Severson & Penn Ave document attached). B.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc): None C.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The design elements and features of "Project 1" have largely been decided, however, the City Council will be tasked with approving the project via municipal consent in late 2021. Environmental review for the project as designed is underway and will continue through 2022. Any changes to the I-494/3W interchange design as proposed would very likely delay the project which is currently expected to break ground in late summer 2023. If the Council chooses to hold a special meeting with the Transportation Commission, the Wednesday, September 1st regular meeting time is available, but the TC is amenable to meeting at another time. D.FINANCIAL IMPACT: A redesign of the I-494/35W interchange to accommodate access to Penn from 35W NB and 35W SB would add costs related to design changes and right-of-way acquisition. E.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: None as it pertains to the consideration of a joint meeting with the Transportation Commission. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Various Transportation Commissioners may be present. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 1-8-2020 TC Minutes Exhibit MnDOT Responses to Bloomington and Richfield Concerns Exhibit 8-5-2020 TC Minutes Exhibit 2-24-2020 PAC Minutes Exhibit 2-23-2021 PAC Minutes Exhibit MnDOT Response to Severson Email Exhibit Penn Ave Access document Exhibit Richfield Transportation Commission Attachment #1 January 8th, 2020 - Meeting Minutes 7:00 p.m. | Richfield Municipal Center – Bartholomew Room Commission members: Wes Dunser (chair), Ted Weidenbach, Paul Chillman, Ken Severson, Dan Edgerton, Jeffrey Walz, Husniyah Bradley Commission members not in attendance: Gerry Charnitz Liaisons: Sean Hayford Oleary, Mary Supple Liaisons not in attendance: Sarah Musgrave, Art Felgate City Staff Liaison: Jack Broz Other City Staff: Joe Powers, Scott Kulzer I. Call meeting to Order Commissioner Dunser called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm. II. Approval of Agenda Motion by Commissioner Weidenbach to approve the agenda, s/Severson. Motion carried. III. Review & Approve minutes for December 4th, 2019 meeting Commissioner Edgerton and Commissioner Bradley requested two technical amendments to the minutes. Motion made by Commissioner Chillman to approve the amended December 4th, 2019 meeting minutes, s/Weidenbach. Motion carried. IV. I-494/I-35W Interchange Vision & History Staff Liaison/Richfield Transportation Engineer Jack Broz presented the I-494/I-35W Interchange Vision & History. Broz detailed MnDOT’s three-phase process as it relates to the I-494 corridor “Vision” and the future actual funded I-494 corridor projects. Broz noted how we are presently at the mid-point of phase two, evaluating the I-494/I-35W interchange alternatives. Broz presented the “base” and “full” interchange alternatives. The “base” alternative would not change the cloverleaf interchange but would add a MnPass lane in each direction on 494. The “full” alternative would redesign the interchange into a “turbine” model with a MnPass lane in each direction and would restrict access in certain directions. Broz then went on to highlight the various criteria the MnDOT used to evaluate each alternative. Following Broz’ presentation the commissioners shared their comments and thoughts on the interchange alternatives. Commissioner Weidenbach noted that the “full” alternative seemed like it would increase traffic on the local streets. Broz agreed that would be the case to an extent and reminded the commission MnDOT is evaluating this from the perspective of fixing the I-494/35W interchange. Commissioner Edgerton mentioned his concern about this alternative helping regional traffic users/the interchange at the expense of local traffic users and surrounding businesses and employers in “the Box”. Commissioner Walz raised concerns with environmental impacts and said it seemed like the “full” alternative meant more cars on local streets sitting at stoplights idling and polluting in Richfield and Bloomington. Commissioner Bradley questioned the merits of a MNpass lane altogether suggesting it makes congestion worse for most while benefitting the few. Commissioner Weidenbach asked how Best Buy feels about this proposal as it would make access to their site more difficult. Commissioner Severson raised concerns with the design and provided some suggestions he thought could improve its impact to the local traffic in “the Box” and also noted his concern that the local traffic impacts would stretch beyond “the Box” onto other critical streets in Richfield and Bloomington as people work to avoid that area. Chair Dunser expressed general frustration with both this “full” design alternative and the MnDOT process as a whole related to this project. Broz noted the I-494 Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) would be voting to move forward with one of the interchange alternatives at its February 2020 meeting (date TBD). Mayor Regan Gonzalez and Councilmember Trautmann are voting members on the PAC. Broz stated staff would draft up the comments expressed and would be providing them to MnDOT and the City Council at the forthcoming January 14th I-494 Work Session. V. Portland Ave Bike Gap & Roundabout Restripe Broz provided the commission an update on the Hennepin County proposal to modify the lanes with striping at the Roundabout at 66th Street and Portland Avenue. The changes are intended to improve safety for pedestrians and vehicles by reducing the number of lanes in the roundabout with their mill and overlay project. The southbound lanes on Portland will remain unchanged from their present layout. The other three legs will still have two lanes entering the roundabout, except the right lane can only turn right, and the inside lane will be for straight or left vehicle movement. The project will also convert Portland from 4-lanes to 3-lanes from 67th Street to Highway 62. Hennepin County is anticipating construction to begin later in 2020 and will be completed in 2021. VI. Updates Broz gave a brief update on the Lyndale project. Chair Dunser asked what staff has been hearing regarding Lyndale now that it has been open for a while. Broz and Kulzer stated it has been surprising quiet lately now that people seem to have experienced the new road layout and had time to interact with it. Broz shared that the grant funded Safe Routes to School coordinator was getting settled in the new role, pursuing other grant opportunities for the City and to expect more on this in the future. VII. Thank you to outgoing commissioners! Commissioners were thanked for their service. Those with terms expiring were going to reapply and were expected to be reappointed. VIII. Upcoming events/meeting(s) The next scheduled commission meeting is February 5th, 2020. IX. Adjournment Motion made by Chair Dunser to adjourn meeting, s/Walz. Motion carried. Adjourned at 8:45 pm. MnDOT Responses to Bloomington and Richfield 043020_v8.docx 1 SP 2785-424 I494: US 169 to Airport Responses to Cities of Bloomington and Richfield This document contains the responses to questions asked by the Bloomington City Council in January 2020 as well as the Richfield Transportation Commission in January 2020. The questions and responses are categorized by subject. Turbine Interchange and Box Interstate Access within Box Question 1: Look at adding an exit from turbine to Penn in the WB direction on 494. Is this a practical option? Question 2: Look at access from NB 35W to 76th Street. Is there a viable way to add a freeway exit here for NB traffic? Question 3: Suggest the NE cloverleaf remain as a ramp solely for access to Penn Avenue from Northbound I- 35W (similar to the NB77 to WB I-494/12th/Portland). Allowing this movement will limit the impacts to local routes in the “Box”. Question 4: Could the I-494 EB On-ramp from Penn split into 2 ramps providing access to I-494 EB and the I-35W SB ramp which would also serve to alleviate traffic going all the way down Penn to 82nd minimizing local impacts. Response 1, 2, 3, 4: The cities’ council members and commissions will have access to all of the information through their TAC and PAC representatives. MnDOT Responses to Bloomington and Richfield 043020_v8.docx 2 The primary goals of the current corridor study is to recommend solutions that reduce congestion, improve safety and improve travel time reliability on this stretch of highway. The safety analysis and traffic operations studies performed to date are showing the major causes of poor operations in this corridor are the freeway entrance and exit weave sections in a couple of areas including the on and off ramps at 35W/494 interchange area, Penn Avenue, etc. The proposed directional ramp, which is part of the turbine design, removes the weave sections. This will reduce bottlenecks and backups which reduces the risk of crashes and thus improves safety, reduces congestion and improves travel times. Adding an exit from the turbine to Penn from WB 494; geometrically, this option can be attained and has been considered in previous studies (2001 FEIS, 2010 & 2014 Interchange studies). Some of the key reasons why it was dropped from further consideration are: this alternative would reintroduce/shift poor traffic operations to the new ramp, this alternative adds to right of way impacts on Best Buy’s property, the proposed capacity increase on mainline will improve operations on the arterial system, ‘the box’, and therefore patrons to the businesses at Penn Avenue will realize faster travel times to their destinations via the local system. Adding a new exit from NB I35W to 76th Street has quite a few trade-offs. A portion of the Seven Hills Preparatory Academy property and building will need to be acquired to accommodate the exit ramp to 76th Street which would require the school to move. The new exit ramp to 76th Street from NB I35W and the existing NB 76th Street ramp to NB I35W will need to be shifted so that both ramps align at one intersection. The new exit ramp from NB I35W to 76th Street will also need to be grade separated from the existing WB 494 to NB I35W ramp. Other impacts will need to be analyzed at this location including social, environmental, economic, constructability, staging, etc. MnDOT Responses to Bloomington and Richfield 043020_v8.docx 3 Similar to adding a Penn Avenue slip ramp from the new directional ramp, keeping the loop in the NE quadrant of the I494/I35W interchange does have trade-offs. This will re-introduce two weave segments (between NB I35W to WB I494 and WB I494 to SB I35W) and will increase congestion in the area which will reduce the level of service of operations, thereby increasing the risk of crashes The 2001 FEIS removed the NE cloverleaf movement to improve mobility, reduce congestion, and improve safety. Re-introducing the movement to allow vehicles to access SB I35W from Penn will result in a merge condition that isn’t in the current draft layout. This ramp will have to be evaluated for right of way impacts and will influence the current design of the EB to SB ramp. Traffic Impacts on Local System Question 5: What is the traffic volume from NB 35W to 82nd to Penn in the AM peak heading to Best Buy? This will help quantify the issue. Question 6: What are the impacts to the ring road including the volumes and level of service with the access changes? Question 7: Concerns about the local impacts the “Box” would have for residents and businesses in both Richfield and Bloomington due to increased volumes. Struggles with the idea of being a good neighbor vs. being a good regional partner—the City’s priority is the former. Question 8: It appears the area along Penn to 82nd and then to I-35W looked like it would become untenable or a nightmare traffic-wise, suggesting it’s already terrible to get around in that area. They suggested this area might be most negatively affected. Question 9: Concerns that increased traffic volumes in the “Box” might cause more traffic to seep out and further onto local streets. Question 10: The intersection analysis for the “Box” only indicates 12 of the 19 signalized intersections along those roadways. Much discussion, concern, and confusion as to the reasoning why they all weren’t included. Response 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: During the process of selecting the recommended corridor vision, MnDOT had to consider all viable alternatives and compare/weigh them against each other on how each affected traffic operations including safety on the local system, impacts to commercial and residential right of way, effects to social, economic and environmental impacts, and then capital costs for each of the alternatives. The traffic modeling completed to date shows the local system will realize a benefit in traffic operations due to the capacity increase on mainline 494. More traffic is projected to remain on the highway versus using the arterial system. With the reduction in volumes on the local system, both vehicular and pedestrian safety is improved, and travel delays are reduced. For reference are Level of Service (LOS) and traffic diversion volume maps that were developed and have been used in the stakeholder engagement efforts. MnDOT Responses to Bloomington and Richfield 043020_v8.docx 4 MnDOT pulled an excerpt of travel time runs from the 2040 VISSIM model comparing Full Vision to No Build on the box for Northbound AM and Southbound PM. In both cases, the Build condition is faster, by over 3 minutes in AM and my almost 1 minute in the PM. This demonstrates that even having to use the arterial system in the Build condition is faster than taking the congested freeway under a No Build condition. The only condition that isn’t faster in the Build condition is trying to go Southbound in the AM. This makes a lot of sense as the signals are giving priority to the other direction, and SB I-35W doesn’t have congestion in the AM. 76th Street Question 11: Concerns that the 76th Street intersection with the ramp to Northbound I-35W has been dropped entirely from the vision of the corridor. This intersection is a safety concern for the TRPD regional trail, school access, Orange Line BRT operations, operations of the “Box”, operations of the “Ring Route” and local traffic mobility. Response 11: Subsequent area studies including the 2001 FEIS, 2010 & 2014 interchange studies, multi- modal planning, and traffic modeling revised the highway corridor vision of this area. The biggest driver of the flyover ramp vision from 76th St to NB 35W was an inline Buss Rapid Transit station on 35W and 76th St. This would have been similar to the one on 35W & 46th St or the 35W & Lake St station under construction. In the 2014 Interchange study, Metro Transit revised their Orange Line BRT station to an offline concept and it’s currently under construction at Knox Avenue by Best Buy Campus. This eliminated the flyover ramp vision from 76th St to NB 35W. In studying current traffic operations levels at this location, MnDOT freeway operations unit reviewed crash data safety between 2015 and 2019. See table below for reference. There has been one bicycle and one pedestrian minor injury crashes on 76 St east of 35W in the past 5 years. Bicycle Crash (right on red from NB Girard to EB 76th St Ave) On 6-6-2017 at 2118hrs, Unit #1 had just left the Minnesota School of Business at 1401 W. 76th Street and pulled up to the intersection of 76th and Girard at the red light waiting to make a right hand turn onto 76th street...as Unit #1 was looking to the left to make sure it was safe to make the right hand turn, the driver of Unit #1 pulled slightly ahead, not looking to the right, and at that time struck a bicyclist who was travelling westbound legally through the crosswalk. Both person(s) involved in the crash drove to the Richfield Police station to file a MN crash report. The bicyclist reported minor injuries to his legs and approximately $500-$700 damage to his 15 speed Nishika bicycle. No injuries to the driver of Unit #1. Pedestrian Crash (right on red from EB 76th St to SB Girard Ave): MnDOT Responses to Bloomington and Richfield 043020_v8.docx 5 Unit 1 was traveling eastbound on 76th approaching Girard Ave S. Unit 2 was working as a cross guard standing on the southwest corner of the intersection at 76th St W and Girard Ave S. Unit 2 stepped into the crosswalk with his flag to allow other students to walk across Girard. As Unit 2 stepped into the crosswalk, Unit 1 collided with Unit 2 as Unit 1 began to turn right to go southbound of Girard. Unit 1 made contact with the left side of Unit 2s body. Unit 2 dropped to the ground later causing pain to his right knee. In promoting bicycle and pedestrian safety at this location; MnDOT has a project this summer that will add Actuated Pedestrian Signals (APS) at Gerald Avenue, replace the ADA ramps, reconstruct the curb median on the west bound movement on 76th St, to calm/reduce traffic speeds to the NB on ramp to 35W. These measures will improve safety for the regional trail users. Engagement Question 12: Meet with businesses and residents in the area that will have access modifications with the Turbine design. There was no public involvement process with the 2014 revisions so information and input is important at this stage. Question 13: Concerns about Best Buy and how they might feel about this proposal noting they are a huge employer in the area and need easy access for employees and business clients that fly in from around the world. In 2014 Best Buy was not pleased with this idea locally, but understood the bigger picture of the project regionally. Question 14: There is interest in hearing from businesses in this area, specifically Best Buy and Target, about their opinions and acceptance of the proposed traffic changes. Response 12, 13, 14: MnDOT conducted public engagement during the 2014 study similarly to the current study process. MnDOT agrees that input in the process is very important. MnDOT will be meeting with Best Buy and other businesses at a business listening session for the businesses in the area to comment on the access changes of the turbine design. Also MnDOT will be meeting with Best Buy, Target, and other interested businesses separately and will continue to engage them throughout the study and into vision implementation. There will also be more outreach this spring to businesses and residents to educate them and get feedback on the turbine design. The TAC and PAC will be presented with all public engagement input when available. The cities’ council members and commissions will have access to all of the information through their TAC and PAC representatives. Please visit the project website for more information on the turbine design and access modifications: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/i494-airport-hwy169/ Environmental Impacts Question 15: Concerns with environmental impacts, namely, more cars on local routes, more cars idling at stop lights in the “Box” vs. moving (however slowly) on the highways. Also concerns that those that would bear the brunt of these impacts could very likely be low-income/minority as identified in the “environmental justice” slide from the TAC presentation. MnDOT Responses to Bloomington and Richfield 043020_v8.docx 6 Response 15: As part of the I-494 project, an in-depth air quality analysis will occur during the environmental process. Detailed modeling will be performed to verify that air quality standards are not exceeded. In Minnesota (and all other States) there are maximum concentrations of different pollutants that are set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). MnDOT is also committed to working with other state and local agencies to address concerns about localized air pollution and carbon emissions, especially when our roadways are within low-income/minority communities. MnDOT has created the Office of Sustainability and Health and a Sustainable Transportation Advisory Council to make recommendations that will help the agency reduce pollution from the transportation sector. More information about this work can be found at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/sustainability/. A full environmental justice analysis is being conducted to determine if disproportionate impacts will be borne by environmental justice populations. Vision/Implementation Question 16: What are the dollar amounts in the vision estimate for the asset preservation items? Response 16: Asset preservation items include bridge replacements and rehabilitation, pavement replacement and rehabilitation, and drainage infrastructure. All asset preservation includes long term fixes and improvements to bring the assets in compliance with current standards. All approximate construction costs below include 10% contingency and inflation. Cost estimates were done in December 2019 and are updated as information changes. The asset preservation items below are not programmed in MnDOT’s State Transportation Improvement Program or in MnDOT’s Capital Highway Investment Plan. Asset Cost Estimate Bridges $50 million Pavement $35 million Drainage Infrastructure $90 million Question 17: Bloomington wanted confirmation that when an actual project is scoped that the I35W/I494 turbine is the 1st priority. Response 17: MnDOT continues to identify the I494/I35W interchange as a high priority. The first construction project to implement a portion of the vision is focusing on this interchange, however, MnDOT would like to make that determination by June 2020. Question 18: Questioned the merits of a MNPASS lane altogether, noting that congestion seems to remain unchanged or even worsen for the non-MNPASS users (low income citizens?). Meanwhile, those that can afford to use the MnPASS lane with less congestion do so at everyone’s collective expense. Response 18: MnPASS lanes offer a faster, more reliable choice for transit, carpoolers and solo motorists, and enable a freeway to carry more people during peak weekday travel times. They are used MnDOT Responses to Bloomington and Richfield 043020_v8.docx 7 by all income levels during peak times and are available for everyone to use during off-peak times. Adding MnPASS lanes on I494 will immediately reduce congestion for all corridor users and slow the growth of congestion in the corridor for years to come. MnDOT is also considering options to make it easier for low income individuals to make greater use of the lanes. Question 19: Concerns were expressed that the vision analysis did not address the clear social and environmental issues with substantive analysis. Deep frustrations were expressed with where this was heading. Response 19: Social, economic, and environmental criteria were used in both Phases 1 & 2 of the screening analysis, which was determined to be non-differentiating in weighing alternatives. Question 20: Concerns about the access during construction, especially for pedestrian and transit dependent minority/low-income citizens that need to get to jobs, food, and shopping. How are they going to be accommodated during construction when bridges are removed? Response 20: MnDOT has not identified staging or temporary access changes during construction as that is a future phase in the delivery of the project. That information will be forthcoming. MnDOT will work with the cities before and during construction to limit the impacts to minority/low-income citizens as much as possible. One strategy that has been used on previous projects is to phase or alternate construction of bridge crossings. Question 21: Concerns were expressed about potential right of way impacts (total or partial acquisitions) and the hope is that they become clearer for the City Council, property owners, and the public going forward. Response 21: MnDOT is optimizing the concept design during the geometric layout development to look for ways to reduce right of way impacts. These optimizations will be shared with the cities, property owners, and the public. Access Reconfiguration Question 22: Be explicit on the meeting invite for the access reconfiguration identifying the planned closures for Nicollet and 12th access to I494. Response 22: MnDOT has and will continue to do so. Richfield Transportation Commission Attachment #1 August 5, 2020 - Meeting Minutes 7:00 p.m. | WebEx Virtual Commission Meeting Commission members: Wes Dunser (Chair), Ken Severson (Vice Chair), Paul Chillman, Husniyah Bradley, Kyle Schmidt, Dan Edgerton, Jeffrey Walz, Louis Dzierzak Commission members not in attendance: Mollie O’Howard Liaisons: Sean Hayford Oleary Liaisons not in attendance: Kevin Wendt, Councilmember Trautmann City Staff Liaison: Jack Broz Other City Staff: Scott Kulzer, Olivia Wycklendt I. Call meeting to Order Chair Dunser called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. II. Approval of Agenda Motion by Commissioner Severson to approve the agenda, s/Walz. Motion carried. III. Review & Approve Minutes for July 8th, 2020 Meeting Motion by Commissioner Severson to approve the July 8th, 2020 meeting minutes, s/Chillman. Motion carried. IV. I-494 Vision: MnDOT’s response to City comments/questions Staff Liaison Broz gave a brief background on the “494 Vision” and reminded commissioners that the Vision is a corridor wide plan and is separate from any specific 494 project at this time. Future projects will work towards realizing that larger vision. The commissioners then discussed MnDOT’s responses to questions and concerns that were raised by both Bloomington and Richfield regarding the vision for the I-494/35W interchange. Commissioner Severson reiterated his view that 35W to WB494 should be able to access Penn Avenue, and this was a major sticking point for him. MnDOT stated that access to Penn from the turbine was possible and considered but was dropped due to ROW impacts, reintroduction of another weave, and easier travel on via local routes 76th/82nd. Discussion related to the interchange was unified in the idea that the project seemed rushed, poorly thought out, and ill-designed to serve as the solution to the interchange problems for the next half century. Chair Dunser and Liaison Hayford Oleary wanted to know if MnDOT was seeking an endorsement of Project A or if they were just sending an FYI. Broz stated it was more the latter, that this was a “vision” of a cost effective project A that was a step towards implementing the full turbine design. This N to W flyover turbine would have the most benefit as opposed to the other 3 at this time. Following more discussion of the interchange and other potential impacts to Richfield at the Portland interchange, Commissioner Severson made a motion to formally express to City Council the Transportation Commission’s dissatisfaction with MnDOT’s response to the Richfield and Bloomington questions about the 494 Vision, and in particular the Penn Avenue changes generally and the ROW and traffic impacts specifically at Portland Ave/494. The motion was seconded by Louis Dzierzak and a roll call vote was called. The motion carried unanimously with the exception of Commissioner Edgerton who abstained from voting due to his work on the Penn Ave Corridor Study. V. Penn Avenue Study- Dan Edgerton, Zan Associates Dan Edgerton, acting in his capacity as City/County Consultant for the Penn Avenue Corridor Study, provided background and an update on the project. Edgerton recapped the goals and findings of Open House #1 & #2 and detailed what the future Open House #3 would entail. In an effort to pin down what the study would bring forward as recommendations, the commissioners viewed a series of cross sections of Penn avenue that utilized various design tools. As an activity, the group was asked to rank how well these certain design tools would address the specific goals that came out of OH#2. The goals were walking, biking, driving (both to Penn and through), community revitalization and improving greenspace/landscaping/boulevards. Edgerton reiterated that the product of this Penn Corridor Study exercise would be a Penn “Vision” that would be unfortunately be implemented in piecemeal phases since at this point the county simply planned to resurface Penn. Edgerton noted that the commissions feedback was helpful and to expect to see information about Open House #3 sometime in the Fall. VI. Project Updates Broz gave a brief update on the Lyndale project, which has effectively been completed. Kulzer noted the 77th Underpass project was still on track for 2021 construction and staff and our legislators were still working on getting bonding dollars to finalize the funding package during future special sessions. Kulzer noted that he had heard from the City’s lobbyist that a bonding bill before the election was looking less likely since the Legislature is in full-on campaign mode. VII. Work Plan Review/Next Steps The next Penn Open House is planned for Fall 2020. VIII. Upcoming events/meeting(s) The next Transportation Commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 2nd, 2020. IX. Adjournment Motion made by Commissioner Dunser to adjourn meeting, s/Walz. Motion carried. Adjourned at 9:28 pm. City Council Memorandum Date: September 16, 2020 Item No. To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Kristin Asher, Public Works Director/City Engineer CC: Jack Broz, Transportation Engineer Subject: I-494: Airport to Highway 169 September Project Update The meeting of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) held on June 22, 2020 raised several questions related to the first phase of the project – “Project A”. The major concerns are as follows: Freeway operations of Eastbound 494 in the evening will not improve with Project A Equity considerations and performance measures are unclear or nonexistent with Project A Eligibility of the funding sources for Project A’s scope needed to be verified Since that June PAC meeting, MnDOT has made a commitment to a new process to identify a new scope for the first phase of construction that will address the concerns raised on the initial Project A. A key part of this new process is the methodology to develop an implementation plan for the corridor. The new implementation plan will use the following Evaluation Criteria (Draft from 8/31/2020): Constructability Political Support Equity Asset Management Funding Sources Cost/Budget Traffic Operations In addition to the above criteria, MnDOT has mapped areas of the project that will have higher equity considerations along with other project benefits/impacts. This map will allow the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to identify the benefits/impacts of a phased project compared to the benefits/impacts of the full Vision Project. MnDOT has begun bi-weekly, (formerly monthly), TAC meetings to develop and review this new process. In addition to the TAC meetings, MnDOT is meeting bi-weekly with the Cities of Richfield and Bloomington and Hennepin County to better understand the local perspectives. The recent actions have been leading to a better process, but we have yet to begin the hard discussions related to development of a new first phase of construction—a new Project A. We anticipate the discussion of project elements leading to a new Project A will occur during the next few months and the next PAC meeting will be scheduled for later this Fall. Transportation Commission review of MnDOT responses to 494 Vision Questions At the August 5, 2020 meeting, the Transportation Commission reviewed and discussed at length the MnDOT responses to Richfield and Bloomington concerns with the 494 Vision (attached). The Transportation Commission was generally displeased with the responses provided by MnDOT. The Commissioners reiterated frustration that access to Penn was going to be eliminated from those travelling 35W to WB494 and were not satisfied with the explanation given by MnDOT. The Commission made a motion to express to City Council their dissatisfaction with MnDOT’s responses to the Richfield and Bloomington questions about the 494 Vision, and in particular the Penn Avenue changes generally and the right-of-way (ROW) impacts specifically at Portland Ave/494. The motion carried unanimously. Please contact me at kasher@richfieldmn.gov or 612-861-9795 with any questions. KA/jb Meeting Minutes: I-494: Airport to Hwy 169 – Policy Advisory Committee Date: 2/24/2020 Minutes prepared by: Amber Blanchard and Erik Baxstrom Location: Bloomington City Hall , Haeg Conference Room Attendance Molly Cummings Mary Brindle Andrew Lutaya Erik Baxstrom Tony Fischer Simon Trautmann Jack Broz Anna Varney Nikki Farrington Josh Potter Amber Blanchard Karl Keel Debbie Goettel Jack Baloga Brad Aho Amy Marohn April Crockett Deb Barber Jason Staebel Brian Kary Mike Barnes Maria Gonzalez Derek Berube Gina Mitteco Decisions Made Decision: Turbine Interchange as part of vision. o All in favor Action Items Provide the traffic information data for the access reconfiguration to the PAC. Reach out to Councilmember Whalen and the Landlords Association to engage with land owners in Richfield. Send 494/35W interchange business listening session to TAC and PAC. I494 Corridor Commission has a legislative briefer that they prepare and could use some help from MnDOT. Will look into volumes and travel times of Best Buy commuters from I35W SB. Status of investigation to add exit at Penn for those coming from NB 35W. The City of Edina has offered to host the next PAC. The Project Team will work with the city on logistics. Meeting Notes from Agenda 1. Mike Barnes welcomed everyone and opened up the meeting with introductions. 2. Mike Barnes recapped the 12-19-19 meeting and opened it up for comments. a. The question was asked what options can be looked at to add an exit for those traveling on NB 35W to WB 494 to Penn Ave. The project team is still looking into this. 3. Brian Kary presented on smart technology. Highlights include: a. CAVX is leading the effort of signal phase and timing data from signals to vehicles b. Intelligent work zones will have temporary infrastructure to maintain data during construction (e.g.: delays, travel time, etc.) - 1/3 of MnDOT’s system has been upgraded to the pole mounted radar sensors. c. Some data may be broadcast to cars to appear on dashboards instead of dynamic message signs d. Discussed some of the pilot items going in on TH 55 e. Enhanced pavement markings for machine vision technology (lane departure assist, autopilot driving, etc.) f. Questions asked: Since there is a lot of information being collected, what will the data be used for? Many companies are moving to cell phone-based data. The data will be used for traffic management, queue warnings (especially in work zones) and ramp meters; can look at real time traffic data and adjust their cycle lengths. What about markings covered in snow? The industry doesn't have a good answer for this yet. Testing is taking place in Michigan and Minnesota. A follow up question of where are we going to store all of the data was asked. MnDOT has a project with the University of Minnesota to determine the amount of data and how to combine it. Why build the infrastructure if we can get the data from cell phones and what is the cost benefit analysis? We can get good speed data from cell phones, but not good volume data and cell phone data can’t help with ramp metering or signal timing. Traffic sensors are inexpensive. 4. Both Amber Blanchard and Andrew Lutaya talked about traffic operations on the arterial network and the expectation based on traffic modeling indicates the local network will see less traffic and equal or better level of service of operations. a. Why do the interchanges not affect the traffic operations on the local system outside of American and 77th and is that an assumption? Based on year 2040 traffic modeling data that assumes MnPASS on 494, there aren’t large impacts to the local system. b. Does Portland Ave has an impact on 82nd St? The response was no, it does not. 5. Erik Baxstrom went through the feedback from the Portland Interchange Business Listening Session in January. Key themes include frontage roads (loss of access, straighter alignments, and drainage improvements), construction, impacts to businesses during construction, and design options. Key themes about design options include the fatal flaws of the roundabout and diverging diamond interchanges well understood, texas u-turn was well received due to traffic operations, but there are concerns about access removal, and the single point urban and tight diamond interchanges are consistent within the region. What engagement has taken place with residents? Three distinct phases of engagement have taken place, beginning in the summer of 2018: Survey and in-person events to gather input on the purpose and need; targeted engagement of businesses and the public on access changes to Nicollet Avenue, Portland Avenue and 12th Avenue including events, open houses and surveys; sharing the purpose and need along with further engagement with businesses on access changes. The location of events have included open houses, pop-ups at public gatherings, listening sessions, Walmart, and door-to- door communication (for businesses). Media has included earned media via local television news and newspapers, city newsletters, emails to project email list, targeted social media, and fliers at businesses and large apartment buildings. The project team received guidance from Councilmember Trautmann and Mayor Regan-Gonzalez to talk with Councilmember Whalen and the Landlords Association to connect with land owners in Richfield. o RAMA Landlord Group via Richfield staff Lynette Chambers o Season’s Park and Richfield Towers apartments o Affordable Housing Task Force – Councilmember Ben Whalen 6. Amber Blanchard and Andrew Lutaya discussed the last remaining key decision to be agreed to by the PAC (the turbine interchange). Discussion of the interchange ensued with the following questions/comments and responses: o Are you still looking at the NB 35W to exit at Penn? Yes, still are. o Good signage will be important with these changes and will keep people off of the local system. o Natural environment' o What will be the impact to Best Buy commuters from I35W SB? Will look into volumes and travel times. o We are only voting on vision and not the interchange design? Yes, just the vision. o How much improvement will occur on other interchange movements (not 35W NB to 494 WB)? Bridge braids provide improvements to 494 EB and WB by removing weave areas. Also, the 494 WB to 35W SB operations will improve with the directional ramp. o Are you thinking about how flooding could affect the feasibility of the directional ramp going under 494 and issues around drainage? Yes, it will be looked at as part of a geotechnical investigation and with further discussion and information exchanges with FHWA. o Is the interchange an easier component of the project? We don't know yet until we complete a benefit cost analysis, which is forthcoming. The PAC was all in favor of the turbine interchange as part of the I494 vision. 7. Amber Blanchard and Andrew Lutaya talked about the vision implementation will be done in phases due to fiscal and project constraints. Also there is ongoing work to identify the initial phase of the corridor vision implementation (Project A) and there are many possible scope scenarios. A discussion followed that included comments and questions/responses: What can be done with congestion on I494? Vision is big improvement. Want to know the funding gap and if there should be an ask to the legislature. Would be upset about a drawn out implementation plan especially if we use stop gap measures like mill and overlays. I494 is a statewide benefit. Need to talk with legislators to make the vision work and implement it in a way that is cost effective. Is the state really committed to getting this done? 8. What are you hearing? (all) – didn’t get to agenda item as ran out of time 9. Next Steps (Mike Barnes) – didn’t get to agenda item as ran out of time Supplemental Materials I-494_022420_PAC_v3.pptx LOS access.pptx Preparing for Future CAV 494.docx Next Meeting Date: April 27, 2020 Time: 1 – 3 pm Location: Braemar Golf Course, Edina I-494: Airport to US 169 Policy Advisory Committee Date: 02/23/2021 Location: Virtual Invited Members and Staff: State of Minnesota: Sen. Melissa Franzen; Sen. Melissa Halvorson Wiklund; Sen. Patricia Torres Ray; Rep. Emma Greenman; Rep. Steve Elkins; Rep. Michael Howard Hennepin County: Commissioner Angel Conley; Commissioner Debbie Goettel Metropolitan Council: Councilmember Molly Cummings; Councilmember Chris Ferguson; Councilmember Deb Barber Metropolitan Airports Commission: Bridget Rief City of Richfield: Mayor Maria Regan Gonzalez; Councilmember Simon Trautmann City of Eden Prairie: Councilmember Mike Freiberg City of Bloomington: Councilmember Jack Baloga City of Edina: Councilmember Ron Anderson; Councilmember James Pierce; Councilmember Mike Fischer; Councilmember Kevin Staunton FHWA: Dave Scott MnDOT: Mike Barnes Meeting Introductions and Welcome Introductions and roll call were performed. Mike Barnes then reviewed the meeting summary from December 8, 2020. Vision Implementation Plan Development Next Amber Blanchard and Andrew Lutaya then presented the Vision Implementation Plan Development including the process, outcomes, and TAC recommendations. An important outcome is the constructability of the project. One the topic of community support, the PAC would like to see it broken down by communities and coalition preferences and priorities for how the implementation should be sequenced. When each project element should be constructed. There was a comment that the project should be prepared to seek out Federal transportation funds when appropriate. There was another comment on working with “Street Suites” for engagement in Richfield. A comment was made about stormwater management and that concurrence on the plan today should not be viewed as an agreement on where the stormwater storage locations are constructed. The project team then discussed the TACs recommendation. Concurrence was reach by all TAC members on the Vision Implementation Plan Development ACTION: Concurrence from PAC to move forward with recommended implementation plan and begin development of first project. 1 Scott Kulzer From:Joe Powers Sent:Friday, August 13, 2021 12:11 PM To:Scott Kulzer Subject:FW: I494 Ramp Connection Suggestions Attachments:Penn Ave Access v3.docx From: Blanchard, Amber (DOT) [mailto:amber.blanchard@state.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 7:03 AM To: Ken Severson; Barnes, Michael (DOT); Lutaya, Andrew (DOT) Cc: Sean Hayford Oleary; Kristin Asher; Joe Powers; Wes Dunser Subject: RE: I494 Ramp Connection Suggestions Good morning Ken! Thank you for sending your ideas pertaining to the I494/I35W interchange. We really do appreciate all of the feedback we get. Please see my responses in italics below to your bulleted suggestions. I have also included an attachment that explains the access at Penn Ave a bit further and why we are continuing with the current configuration. We agree these types of projects don’t come around very often and will last a long time and are doing everything we can to meet the goals of the project related to improved mobility and safety. If you have any follow up questions, please let me know as I am happy to answer them. Kind Regards, Amber Amber Blanchard, P.E. (MN) (pronouns: she/her/hers) Major Projects Manager | Metro District I494 Corridor Director Stone Arch Bridge Project Director Minnesota Department of Transportation 1500 W. County Road B‐2 Roseville, MN 55113 Direct: 651‐234‐7770 amber.blanchard@state.mn.us From: Ken Severson <Kenneth.Severson@suncountry.com> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 9:19 AM 2 To: Blanchard, Amber (DOT) <amber.blanchard@state.mn.us>; Barnes, Michael (DOT) <michael.barnes@state.mn.us>; Lutaya, Andrew (DOT) <andrew.lutaya@state.mn.us> Cc: Sean Hayford Oleary <sdho@sdho.org>; Kristin Asher <KAsher@richfieldmn.gov>; Joe Powers <JPowers@richfieldmn.gov>; Wes Dunser <wes.dunser@gmail.com> Subject: RE: I494 Ramp Connection Suggestions Amber, I’m sorry I missed your call last Friday morning. Thank you for reaching out to me as promised. (Things got crazy on my end.) Rather than try to simply verbalize my concerns and suggested improvements, using a portion of the project drawing “SP2785‐424_Full‐Vision‐Project‐Layout_06‐09‐2020.pdf”, I have attached marked up copies of that drawing to show what I think are viable alternatives to the current MnDOT proposal that would permit full access to Penn Ave from I‐35W and to SB I‐35W from Penn Ave. These are my concerns as well as my proposals: 1. As proposed by MnDOT, neither northbound or southbound I‐35W traffic may exit at Penn Ave. When I asked why this was the case I was told there is “insufficient space available” to permit the traffic weave that would be required. I am going to throw down the NFL red challenge flag on that one. Based on the attached “I‐35W‐to‐ 494 Proposal”, one would have anywhere from 841 to 1,450 feet to perform any merging/weaving to exit at Penn. This is at a minimum four times longer than the 210 feet one has when going NB on Hwy 77 to WB I‐494. See the attachments where I derived my measurements. Response: Not sure where the "insufficient space available" reason came from, but the reason the access is changing at Penn is due to safety and traffic operations in the I494/I35W interchange area. Penn Ave and the I494/I35W interchange area are only 0.5 miles apart. This, in turn with the amount of traffic in this area (197,000 vehicles per day in 2017), contribute to the amount of congestion and delay we see there now. The 2001 Final Environmental Impact Statement first talked about the access changes at Penn and the I494/I35W interchange as well as the "box" network of local streets that would carry the local traffic. Subsequent studies in 2010 and 2014 continued those discussions as the best way to reduce congestion and improve safety. We have done a more detailed analysis looking at the different aspects of a slip ramp from the I35W NB to I494 WB directional ramp to Penn Ave which explains our support of the current configuration in the vision and Project 1. I have attached that for your information. 2. If the above proposal will not work, another alternative for NB I‐35W traffic is to simply leave the existing NE cloverleaf in place rather than spending the money to remove it, and then designate it for Penn Ave. traffic only. This would be similar to the existing NE cloverleaf at I‐494 & Hwy 77 which is limited to carpool/HOV traffic only. This option would eliminate the need to exit at 82nd St and drive through the revitalized PennAmerican neighborhood and eight traffic lights just to get to Best Buy and other areas north of I‐494. This option is basically free as you would only need to add new signage. It has been stated by MnDOT personnel this area is needed for stormwater management, but I question why a stormwater pond would drive the need to remove the cloverleaf. The plans for this interchange already show a stormwater pond within the SE cloverleaf, and numerous other interchanges in the metro area have stormwater ponds as well. Most notable is the I‐ 494/US 169 interchange with nine stormwater ponds. Response: While it is true this area is needed for stormwater treatment, the current configuration of removing the NE loop ramp is being done for the same reasons I mentioned in the response to your first bullet, to reduce congestion and improve safety. Only 200 vehicles per day are forecasted to want to use the NE loop ramp to exit at Penn Ave in 2040. By comparison, a total of 5000 vehicles will use the ramps from NB and SB I35W. See the attached document for more information. This message may be from an external email source. Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center. 3 3. As proposed by MnDOT, one will not be able to access SB I‐35W from Penn, but will have to go to 82nd St. for access. Based on the attached “Penn‐to‐I‐35W Proposals”, I see two options for providing access to SB I‐35W from Penn Ave. The first one is based on the interchange at East Bush Lake Road where one has the immediate choice of staying left to WB on I‐494 or keeping to the right to proceed EB on I‐494. The second option is to simply provide an exit slip ramp further east. In both cases, these would only require a simple one‐direction merging of traffic, there would not be any two‐way “weaving” of traffic. Response: While we didn't do the amount of analysis for the EB I494 ramp from Penn as we did in the WB direction, the same reasons apply. You are correct, weaving of traffic will not take place, but merging traffic will. The first option you proposed will likely not work without a significant investment in acquiring right of way as we have made every effort to stay within the existing MnDOT right of way. Also a few other issues pop up here including an access road needed to get to our existing lift station from the ramp (not shown in your drawing, but needed since we can't access it from private property), avoiding retaining walls, and the elevation differences between the slip ramp and the I494 EB to I35W SB ramp (not enough distance to connect the ramps at the right grades). The second option you proposed has issues too. The Penn Ave to EB I494 ramp will be metered and will be backed up during peak hours. We typically like to have a minimum of 600 feet from ramp nose to ramp nose, which would require us to move the Penn Ave to EB 494 nose to the east and then it gets too close to the loop ramp from I35W SB to 494 EB. I have included a screen shot of our current geometric design to give you a better idea of the complexities in this area. Please look over these suggestions and if you have any questions feel free to contact me. As this is a once every 50 year type of project, let’s get it right. I am a member of the Richfield Transportation Commission and have typically expressed my concerns at those meetings, but unfortunately due to Covid‐19 and staff illness we have not had any meetings recently. For that reason I am cc’ing some Richfield staff and officials for whom I have email addresses. Feel free to share this email with anybody you wish. Thank you. Ken Severson Structures/Interiors Engineer Sun Country Airlines 7201 Longfellow Avenue S. Minneapolis, MN 55450 o: 651‐389‐9590 m: 651‐724‐0631 From: Blanchard, Amber (DOT) <amber.blanchard@state.mn.us> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 4:39 PM To: Barnes, Michael (DOT) <michael.barnes@state.mn.us>; Lutaya, Andrew (DOT) <andrew.lutaya@state.mn.us> Cc: Ken Severson <Kenneth.Severson@suncountry.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: I494 Ramp Connection Suggestions Thanks Mike! Ken – Are you available for a call sometime tomorrow morning? Amber Amber Blanchard, P.E. (MN) (pronouns: she/her/hers) Major Projects Manager | Metro District I494 Corridor Director 4 Stone Arch Bridge Project Director Minnesota Department of Transportation 1500 W. County Road B‐2 Roseville, MN 55113 Direct: 651‐234‐7770 amber.blanchard@state.mn.us From: Barnes, Michael (DOT) <michael.barnes@state.mn.us> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 4:29 PM To: Blanchard, Amber (DOT) <amber.blanchard@state.mn.us>; Lutaya, Andrew (DOT) <andrew.lutaya@state.mn.us> Cc: Kenneth.Severson@suncountry.com Subject: I494 Ramp Connection Suggestions Amber & Andrew, I attended the TH 77 Underpass Ribbon Cutting this afternoon. After the ceremony, Ken Severson talked to me about some potential options for northbound I35W traffic to be able to exit to Penn Ave and also eastbound Penn traffic to access I35W southbound. He has some additional questions and input in the area also, so please give him a call or let him know when the next meeting will be in the area so he can meet to discuss. I’ve cc:d him on this email and also put his contact info below. Thanks! Ken Severson Structures/Interiors Engineer Sun Country Airlines 7201 Longfellow Avenue S. Minneapolis, MN 55450 o: 651‐389‐9590 m: 651‐724‐0631 7/16/2021 Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8626224,-93.3043678,358m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en 1/1 Imagery ©2021 Maxar Technologies, U.S. Geological Survey, USDA Farm Service Agency, Map data ©2021 100 ft Total distance: 1,450.56 ft (442.13 m) Measure distance 7/16/2021 Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8626406,-93.3034207,358m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en 1/1 Imagery ©2021 Maxar Technologies, U.S. Geological Survey, USDA Farm Service Agency, Map data ©2021 Google 100 ft Total distance: 841.32 ft (256.43 m) Measure distance October 29, 2020 1 Penn Avenue Access MnDOT and stakeholders have developed a vision for the I494 corridor between US 169 and the airport. This vision includes restricting access to Penn Ave from westbound I494 for those coming from northbound and southbound I35W. As project development progresses, a question has been raised regarding the potential to allow full access at Penn Avenue and if the benefits of full access justify additional cost and safety concerns. MnDOT has concerns about including an access to Penn Ave for those coming from northbound and southbound I35W. These include: Safety: The crash rate along I494 at the Penn Ave interchange is greater than the critical crash rate (based on 2015-2017 data). This indicates a need for improved safety. Reducing congestion leads to a lower risk of crashes. MnDOT undertook a more detailed analysis to look at the number of crashes predicted with a slip ramp from the I35W NB to I494 WB directional ramp to Penn Ave. The predictive safety analysis is below. Scenario Location 2040 Predicted Crashes Property Damage Only (PDO) Fatal + Injury (FI) Total Base Condition (No Slip Ramp) Arterial 59.5 43.9 103.5 Flyover 8.5 5.9 14.3 Total 68.0 49.8 117.8 With Slip Ramp Arterial 57.2 41.7 98.9 Flyover 11.2 8.9 20.0 Total 68.4 50.6 118.9 Change with Slip Ramp Arterial -2.3 -2.2 -4.6 Flyover 2.7 3.0 5.7 Total 0.4 0.8 1.2 Total Percent Change 0.5% 1.6% 1.0% Overall, the analysis shows there are more predicted crashes with the slip ramp compared to without. You can mainly focus on the cells highlighted in yellow, which show the change in safety performance is relatively small, with 0.8 more fatal/injury crashes and 1.2 more total crashes predicted in 2040 with the October 29, 2020 2 slip ramp. Of note, the fatal and injury crashes accounts for all level of injury crashes and not just the severe ones. These results correspond with what traffic experts expect, crashes on the arterial system decrease with the direction ramp, but the decrease is smaller than the increase in crashes on the directional ramp due to the additional access point and weave segment added, along with weaving traffic between the slip ramp and westbound Penn Avenue off-ramp. Weaving: Short weave sections increase congestion. An access at Penn Ave will add a 1400 foot section on the directional ramp where, daily, 450 vehicles will have to move right to exit and weave with those destined for westbound I494 (450 vehicles from northbound I35W – 275 in the AM peak and 175 in the PM peak based on 2040 vision forecast data). There are many factors to take into consideration when eliminating weaves, including length of weave, the freeway to freeway volume in the weave segment (overall volume entering the weave segment), and ramp to ramp volumes. Users: A total of 650 out of 5000 vehicles are forecasted to use an access to Penn Ave from northbound and southbound I35W in 2040 every day. This is only 13% of the forecasted traffic. Cost and Impacts: This access would add another $1.5 to $2.2 million to the corridor cost estimate. Included in the amount is between $400,000 and $500,000 for right of way purchase of property owned by Best Buy. See below for more information on cost and impacts. Travel Time: In 2040, it will take vehicles approximately 8.6 minutes to get to Best Buy from I35W via Penn Ave and 82nd Street in the morning peak hours compared to approximately 7.0 minutes with this access via the freeway. In the afternoon peak hours, it will take vehicles approximately 6.6 minutes to get to 35W from Best Buy via Penn Ave and 82nd Street compared to approximately 5.6 minutes via the freeway. The freeway will be faster in the morning by only 1.6 minutes and in the afternoon by only 1 minute. The small differences in travel times do not warrant increased access. In summary, the benefits of access are small time savings for users (relatively small number of users – 650 of 5000 vehicles, or 13%) when compared to the 82nd Street/Penn Avenue access alternative contained in the vision layout. Costs include an additional $1.5M to $2.2M in construction cost and the continuance of a weave condition that is not considered safe by widely accepted highway design standards. Weighing the cost and benefits, MnDOT does not support changes to the vision layout to provide access at Penn Ave for those coming from northbound and southbound I35W. Additional Information Forecasted Traffic Volumes The 2040 forecasted traffic volumes are listed below between Penn Ave and I35W. October 29, 2020 3 The 2040 forecasted traffic volumes for those looking to exit at Penn Ave from NB and SB I35W are: AM from NB I-35W – 275 AM from SB I-35W – 100 PM from NB I-35W – 175 PM from SB I-35W – 100 The 2040 forecasted traffic volumes for those looking to exit at I35W SB from Penn Ave are: AM – 125 PM – 295 Cost range and additional impacts: Adding a slip ramp from the I35W to WB I494 directional ramp has additional costs and impacts to the vision layout. Construction cost (additional pavement, retaining walls, grading, etc.) = $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 Right of Way acquisition (from Best Buy) = $400,000 to $500,000 10% added for risk = $140,000 to $200,000 Total cost: $1,540,000 to $2,200,000 Assumes the roadway on the Best Buy property to Knox Ave is eliminated. Utility conflicts are still unknown in this area. No inflation included. October 29, 2020 4