Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout#01 - TH36-Lake Elmo Ave Intersection ImprovementsTHE CITY OF LAKE ELMO STAFF REPORT DATE: March 12, 2024 DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM: Trunk Highway 36 and Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) Intersection Improvements SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer REVIEWED BY: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator BACKGROUND: Washington County is leading an intersection improvement project at TH36 and Lake Elmo Avenue to improve safety, capacity, and operation of the intersection and surrounding area. The project is planned to begin construction in March/April 2026. The County is working through a comprehensive agency and public engagement process to achieve community acceptance and meet the long-term transportation goals of MnDOT, Washington County, and the Cities of Lake Elmo and Grant. The County has completed initial stakeholder goalsetting/online engagement meetings, prepared a project Purpose and Need Study, held multiple open houses for public input, and has worked through a three -step alternatives evaluation process to identify and select the 3 most viable alternatives, with one of these alternatives to be advanced into final design. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should staff bring this issue before a future council meeting with recommendations for adopting a Resolution of Municipal Support? PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Washington County will be in attendance to make a presentation on the project and the remaining alternatives for consideration. To keep the project schedule on track the County is seeking feedback and support from Lake Elmo on the recommended alternative and is hoping to obtain a Resolution of Municipal Support for the preferred alternative no later than the April 16, 2024 council meeting. OPTIONS: 1) Direct staff to bring this issue before a future council meeting with recommendations for adopting a Resolution of Support for A Preferred Alternative. 2) Direct staff to bring this issue before a future council meeting with recommendations for adopting a Resolution of Support for A Preferred Alternative with conditions as directed and outlined by council. 3) Direct staff to take no action and to schedule a future workshop for additional and continuation of council discussion. ATTACHMENTS: • None. Table 9. Step 3 Evaluation Matrix Alternative ID Primary Transportation Needs Vehicle Safe I SSI Score Vehicle Mobility Ratir? TotalNetwork Delay (96 Network I change from No Build)D0 Rating TH 36 Average Travel Time (% Travel change from No Build) Time Rating CSAH 17 Average Travel Time (96 Travel change from No Buildl Time I Rating TH 36 I Maximum Queue Length N/A No Build 5 Overpass With Buttonhook Ramps 55 Tight Diamond Interchange (Conventional Intersections) 57 Tight Diamond Interchange (Roundabouts) 66 Poor Good Good Good -5796 -59'% -61% Poor Good Good Good 0 -14% -14% -14% Poor Good Good Good Exit Ramp Queue Spillback Rating Secondary Transportation Needs MMLOS (% design criteria with no flags) _ Rating Additional Consi erations & SEE Impacts Walkability/ Bikeabitity Future Local Roadways Access Management Guidelines 2040 TPP Appendix F Property Impacts Maximum Out of Direction Travel Wetlands Does/does not preclude Ratijre Intersections Added on CSAH 17 Rating Criteria met Rating Relocations 0 Rating Out of direction travel to access TH 36 or CSAH 17 0 (mil Ratin�gg aci s s 0 Poor N /A 58% Fair _ g Environmental Impacts Justice" Rating Threatened & Endangered Impacts Species Rating Does not Good N/A N/A N/A N/A Good -84% -82% -77% Good No Good 83% Good Does not Good 0 Good 5 criteria Good 1 relocation Fair 0.5 rule Good No Good 86% Good Does not Good 2 Poor 5 criteria Good 2 relocations Poor 0 Good No Good 91% Good Does not Good 1 Fair 5 criteria Good 2 relocations Poor 0 Good Fair Good Good? None Good �yNoo� I(iood No impact Good 0.24 acres Fair No I(iood Good 59 acre project footprint Fair 0.02 acres Fair No Impact Good 62 acre project footprint Fair 0.02 acres Fair No Impact Good 62 acre project footprint Fair