Minutes 01-05-04Richfield Transportation Committee
Minutes
January 5, 2004
Committee members in attendance: Steve Lindgren and Barb Kritzman (Co-chairs), Bob Shotwell, Lezlie Vermillion, Bob Elliott, Don Anderson, Gary Ness, Bill Kilian, and Suzann Sandahl.
Others in attendance: Ken Meter, Judy Goebel, Bill and Lois Andersen, Gordon Maenke, Kim Carlson, Ginger Bohr, Dan Casey, and Larry Wozniczka. Richfield staff: Tom Foley and Mike Eastling.
MnDOT staff: Alana Getty and Chris Roy. WSB staff: Tony Heppelmann and Nancy Hanzlik.
Steve Lindgren served as Chair for the meeting.
Staff Updates Tom Foley reported that MnDOT will be at the Richfield Remodeling Fair on January 24, 2004. Mike Eastling explained that there will be an Open House format from 10:00 a.m.
to 2:00 p.m. where residents can drop in and ask questions about the proposed design of the 35W/62 Crosstown Commons section.
Tom said that the layout for the 35W/62 Crosstown Commons section will be submitted to the City Council in late February 2004, a one-month delay from the initial schedule. The Council
will then have a certain length of time to hold a public hearing and provide its written comments on the proposed design to MnDOT. No date for the hearing has been set. A question was
raised about the design including revisions to address Richfield’s concern for improved access to westbound Highway 62. Tom responded that a meeting on January 7, 2004 would address
that issue.
Tom Foley announced that in the future minutes and agendas of Committee meetings will be posted on the City’s web site. The proposed layouts for the 76th Street ramp alternatives will
also be available on the city’s web site.
Consideration of Changing the Meeting Date Steve Lindgren brought up the fact that Todd Nollenberger, as a new School Board member, has a conflict on the first Monday of each month.
In order to retain Todd as a member of this committee, Steve asked Committee members if Wednesdays were acceptable as an alternative day for meetings. After some discussion the committee
chose the second Wednesday of each month as their regular meeting date.
Additional Refinements to Shift Alignments Further to the West Tony Heppelmann explained that it would be very complicated to try to make refinements in alignment shifts to all 22 alternatives.
A shift to the west causes different impacts for different alternatives. He would prefer to shift only a few alternatives that merit further study according to the Committee’s evaluation
factors. Tony also said that the level of analysis in the early stages of alternatives does not provide enough information to answer specific questions about the impact on individual
properties. He has tried to be conservative in his estimate of right of way impacts. That means that he has tried to show all properties that may be impacted. As the committee narrows
its focus on fewer
alternatives, the level of analysis will increase so impacts on individual parcels can be better defined.
Tony pointed out that the layout prepared for alternative 5, the Northbound Loop, did not show the right of way impact on the Minnesota School of Business, but it should have. The School
Business parcel would have to acquired for alternative 5.
Discussion by residents and committee members led to requests that Tony Heppelmann show two alternatives for the west frontage road with the shifted alignment.:
The west frontage road retained as one option. This would require taking parkland. (Lezlie Vermillion was concerned that closing the frontage road would be too disruptive to the neighborhood
west of 35W. Traffic would be diverted to other streets in the neighborhood.)
The west frontage road is shut off at Donaldson Park. Current traffic on Humboldt Avenue at 76th Street is down to 900 vehicles per day. It was 1,200 vehicles per day when cars were
allowed to make left turns in and out of Humboldt Avenue at 76th Street.
Discussion of Evaluation Factors #1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 Tony Heppelmann reviewed information gathered on the remaining five evaluation factors: Factor 1-Cost Effectiveness, 2-Business Impacts,
5-City Traffic Impacts, 6-Traffic Flow on Regional System, and, 7-Provide Convenient Access to Freeways For City of Richfield Residents. (See attached memo.)
On Factor 1- Cost Effectiveness, Tony Heppelmann explained his assumptions on the cost of right of way acquisition. His cost estimates are tied to the color-coded scheme he used on the
layouts of the 22 alternatives.
Green parcels were calculated at 5% of Estimated market value as shown on county tax records.
Blue parcels were calculated at 10% of Estimated market value as shown on county tax records.
Orange parcels were calculated at 100% of Estimated Market Value as shown on county tax records.
Red parcels were calculated at 200% of Estimated market value as shown on county tax records. Tony assumed that the orange and red parcels need to be acquired in total and the cost of
relocating the residents is included in the acquisition of the parcels.
These are only rough assumptions. Some parcels on the west side of 35W that involve large apartment buildings may involve much higher costs than he has assumed. Tony noted that for
some of the alternatives where the construction cost was high, the right-of-way costs were less so that the total cost of the alternative was equal to or less than alternatives that
had lower construction costs.
On Factor 2- Business Impacts, Tony Heppelmann said it would be good to arrange to meet with businesses to get their comments on the different alternatives. The Committee suggested a
letter inviting businesses to attend a presentation by Tony. Those who do not attend can be contacted one-on-one after the meeting. Tony would try to gather this information before
the next committee meeting.
On Factor 5- City Traffic Impacts, Tony Heppelmann reviewed his analysis of traffic operations at local intersections. One alternative, the No Ramp alternative shifted traffic to other
routes and was analyzed separately. By diverting traffic to other routes it was found that 66th Street and Penn Ave. intersection would fail (Level of Service F.) Other intersections
had individual turning movements that experienced long delays but they had low traffic volumes that could be handled by adjusting signal timing. Tony analyzed each intersection to achieve
the lowest overall delay. Although there are some movements that may have a lower level of service than the average for the intersection there were no individual turning movements
that failed.
A detailed operation analysis was also conducted for 76th Street from Penn Avenue to Meridian Crossings for each of the ramp alternatives. The analysis shows that the other alternatives
did not have major differences amongst them from a traffic standpoint. The only major concern was traffic queues on 76th Street, particulary for Alternative 4. Fly Over Ramp. His analysis
showed that there would be adequate space to store eastbound cars on 76th Street wanting to turn left to go northbound on I-35W. He was concerned that the left turning cars may not
have adequate room to enter the left turn lanes without being blocked by the heavy volume of through vehicles on 76th Street.
Ken Meter asked if the No Ramps alternative improved traffic flow on 76th Street by reducing the number of left turners on 76th Street. Tony said he would (??) look at that but that
the reduced traffic on 76th Street has shifted traffic to other streets. Lezlie Vermillion pointed out that the critical intersections on 76th Street were at Penn Avenue and Lyndale
Avenue and that the intersections in between that might have lower traffic volumes with the No Ramps alternative are forecast to operate at level of service “B” or “C” and therefore
there is no real benefit to shifting traffic away from these intersections.
Factor 6- Traffic Flow on Regional System None of the alternatives has a significant impact on regional traffic operations. Providing access to 35W by 76th Street is acceptable because
the freeway is not congested at this point.
Factor 7- Provide Convenient Access to Freeways for city of Richfield Residents. Tony reviewed the results of his analysis in a table that showed the additional miles and hours traveled
daily if the ramps are closed versus retaining the ramps as well as the additional time it would take to get from specific points near 76th Street and I-35W to selected locations on
the regional highway system.
Business Involvement It would be good to arrange to meet with businesses to get their comments on the different alternatives. The Committee suggested a letter inviting businesses to
attend a meeting with a presentation given by Tony. Those who do not attend the meeting can be contacted one-on-one after the meeting. Tony would try to gather this information before
the next committee meeting.
Residents West of 35W Involvement The City will send a letter to residents living between 76th Street and 66th Street and between Penn Avenue and 35W. The letter would invite them to
comment on the alternatives. Ken Meter wants to attend meetings with residents to explain his neighborhood’s position. Gary Ness has already spoken with 7 of the ten homeowners west
of 35W that could be affected by the 76th Street ramp study. None of them has attended the Transportation Committee’s meetings.
Commissions Involvement City staff intend to present the study to the community Services Commission on January 20th and the Plannning Commission on February 9th. City staff will report
back to the committee at the next meeting on February 11th.
Lezlie Vermillion made a motion (1) to send a letter to residents living between 76th Street and 66th Street and between 35W and Penn Avenue inviting them to a public open house on the
76th Street Ramp Study; and, (2) to send a letter to businesses inviting them to a public meeting on the 76th Street Ramp Study. Staff will meet one-on-one with the business people,
if they can not attend. Motion passed.
Bill Killian asked that at the next meeting traffic counts for HOV vehicles on the 76th Street ramp be provided.
Steve Lindgren asked that a written response to a letter from Robert D. Nelson about the ramp study be prepared by City staff.
Larry Wozniczka asked when the City took a position on limiting access to 35W from Penn Avenue and Lyndale Avenue on I-494. Staff will respond to this question.
Agenda for the Next Meeting- Tony Heppelmann suggested that next month the Committee should hear from the business community and residents west of 35W. Also, the Committee would be asked
to reduce the number of alternatives to a few for further study. At the March meeting refinements to the remaining few alternatives would be evaluated.
Item – Request to City Council for Guidance At the Committee’s direction, Mike Eastling drafted a letter for the Chairs of the Committee to review. The letter asked for guidance from
the City Council on the Committee’s use of ten evaluation criteria, particularly as they relate to the City Council’s Sept. 24, 2002 resolution to not acquire homes for the 35W Project.
A recent petition by residents also has questioned the Committee’s approach to reviewing alternative designs.
The Committee thanked Tony for his presentation.
New Date for Next Committee Meeting The next regular Committee meeting will be on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at Richfield City Hall.
Don Anderson moved and Lezlie Vermillion seconded a motion to adjourn. Meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Attachments
Anthony Heppelmann’s memo dated January 5, 2004 to Richfield Transportation Committee on Evaluation of 76th/I-35W Interchange Alternatives Relative to Evaluation Criteria