8.f) 2015 02 04 Quad 35_Joint City Council Workshop_Bridge ProjectTonight's Presentation
Study Overview
Revisit Study Goals/Outcome
Update on Recent Activity
Coordination with MnDOT
Interchange Analysis and Recommendations
Construction and Cost Considerations
Next Steps
Study Overview
Study Area
Transportation Study
Goals:
• Engage key agencies
• Identify local and regional
transportation issues
• Develop a strategy to
address transportation
needs and safety concerns
• Help guide future growth
and development
• Involve stakeholders early
3
Study Overview
Key Considerations:
• Link between safe and
efficient transportation and
economic vitality
• Roadway location/ function
and regional connectivity
Study Overview
I<ey Considerations
Minimize impacts
Protect natural resources
Improve quality of life
Study Findings
Study Findings
Issues Identification:
• Congestion/backups
• Driver frustration
• High crash rates
• Multimodal considerations
• Bridge Issues
Study Findings
Previously identified four concept interchange
types that would:
Address current and future traffic capacity demands
Improve safety and operational issues
Fit well within existing MnDOT Right -of -Way
Minimize impacts to the natural environment
Allow for flexibility in redevelopment
Interchange Area
Four concept
interchange types 71 --
identified that ,
meet the goals and
fit in Right of Way
�v� o
u 1J . tlr U
All require
realignment of
CSAH 54 and
P
adjacent local LX
roads
M
All require -1V
widening and.
raising of CSAR
W
e � L
23/TH 97 near the
3• N n'c. ¢
interchange
G
Key Points of Study
Preferred interchange concept would be chosen as
funding is identified
Pursue local and county road realignments near
interchange
Consider construction phasing scenarios
Continue coordination between City of Columbus,
Anoka County, MnDOT, FHWA, Forest Lake, and
Washington County
Recent Activity/Opportunity
11
Recent Activity
MnDOT maintenance plans
on 1-35 (2017/2oi8):
g" Concrete overlay
I-35 Split to TH 8
Results in raising I-35 by 4"
Bridge maintenance (re-
decking
vs. replacement)
12
Opportunity!
Take advantage of MnDOT work/funding
Integrate improvements identified in study
New interchange requires little right-of-way
Minimize construction impacts/delays
Project partners are committed to project
success
Recent Activity
Reassemble project team to:
Identify optimum interchange
type that addresses;
Operations and safety
Maintenance issues
Future development/growth
Fiscal responsibility
Analyze impacts and
constructability issues
Explore implementation and
funding strategies
14
Standard
Diamond:
• Can accommodate
traffic demands
• Easy for drivers to
understand and
navigate
• Allows flexibility
for development
• Re quires wide
bridge with
multiple turn
lanes
• Easiest to
construct
INV P.�.
Divergin
Diamon •
• Ability to
accommodate high
turning traffic
volumes to/from
freeway
• Minimizes conflicts
at intersections.
• Allows flexibility for
development.
• Slightly lly-LLw�
g Y smaer
bridge
• Drivers not as
familiarh althou
� g
simple to use)
.e
• More complex to
construct
16
Outcome:
Diverging Diamond Recommended
Why?
• Additional Operations and Safety Benefits over Standard
Diamond
• Cost/impact is relatively similar
• Works well with predominant traffic movements to/from
freeway
However,
• Slightly more challenging to implement...
17
Diverging Diamond Interchange
"" �:
NO
Example
to �fivea
�Q lnterchange
pivergin� piamond 0
Q a�
41"•
Sartell
4` �3
•
St. Cloud
- `►
cow
N
1�
r0
Pedestrians ® Motorists
Access a center pedestrian island in f Proceed through the first traffic signal, and simply follow
the middle of the bridge. The walkway f %r their lane to the opposite side of the roadway. Drivers
is protected with concrete barriers, accessing Highway 15 will turn left at the ramps without
stopping or waiting for traffic to pass. Through traffic
proceeds to a traffic signal and follows their lane back
to the right side of the roadway,
■ Westbound ■ Eastbound Pedestrian
19
Example
20
Diverging Diamond Interchange
t4N RAW=
4 TH-35 I
I
21
Construction Considerations
22
Construction Considerations
Explore Options:
Bridge maintenance only
Replace bridge "in kind"
Partial interchange
construction
Full interchange construction
How do these options
respond to CSAH23/TH 97
project goals?
What is public perception o
these options?
23
Project Goals Summary
Capacity
No
No
No
Yes
Operations
No
No
No
Yes
Safety
No
Some
Some
Yes
Maintenance
Some
Yes
Yes
Yes
Expandable
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cost
Lowest
Modest
Highest
High
24
Existing vs. Proposed
PRELIMINARY
_ I
/ �
12/19/2014 {�� � 1 � ,� I {� �? w
� � J/' / � f SCAHOYA TRASL lTfl 971 -
-- LAKE ORI9E (C.S.A.H. 23)-
om �
LAKE DR. NE r l
-0- EXISTING BRIDGE '
o
�, a
Llr\ � QUAD 35' DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGE - g*5ITrN[ c OM,lk ccr� i
®�A Working Graphic Figura 1
1,11
Columbus. MN
5
CSAH 23/TH 97 Bridge
In ��
�;.7jk I
14'L 15--c"
WB Lane ES Lane
Existing Bridge Cross Section
z
3
No
4
36"
16'-4,7
No
Proposed Bridge Cross Section
Traffic lanes 4
Shoulder io'
Walkway 10
Spans Z
Bridge beam thickness 54"
Critical clearance 16'-4"
Future expandability Yes
26
27
Next Steps
Identify Funding for new Interchange (2015)
Preliminary Design/ Environmental
Documentation (2015/2oi6)
Right -of Way/Permits/Final Design (2017)
Construction (2oi8/2019)
(project dates include many assumptions and is
subject to change)
9.3
bets continue to build on
project momentum!
29
Thank You!
30