Loading...
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