APPENDIX D. May 22, 2002 Open House Summary and Materials

Transcription

1 APPENDIX D May 22, 2002 Open House Summary and Materials

2 TH 36 Partnership Study Open House May 22, 2002 Summary of Survey Responses 1. If no new crossing of the St. Croix River is built (e.g. the existing bridge remains as a vehicular crossing), which of the future concepts do you believe is most appropriate? Concept A 6-lane express-way Concept B 6-lane express-way (Norell/Washington overpass) Concept C 4-lane parkway, 45 mph Concept D Single interchange at Osgood Concept E Single interchange at Greeley Concept F Buttonhooks east of Norell and west of Osgood Concept G Split interchanges at Osgood and Oakgreen/ Greeley Why? No Build avoid increased traffic and sprawl, give people a reason to use public transit No Build Any improvement in TH 36 would be constrained by 2 lane bridge and existing TH 36 west of Route 5 Parkway No new bridge will result in massive bottleneck Parkway is a good first step to a slow speed multi-way boulevard I don t think it needs to be made into a freeway Parkway would be least disruptive to the community Parkway would give a sense of calm rather than hellish speed Native landscaping would improve air/water quality 2. If a new St. Croix River crossing is constructed, which of the future concepts do you believe is most appropriate? Concept A 6-lane expressway Concept B 6-lane express-way (Norell/Washington overpass) Concept C 4-lane parkway, 45 mph Concept D Single interchange at Osgood Concept E Single interchange at Greeley Concept F Buttonhooks east of Norell and west of Osgood Concept G Split interchanges at Osgood and Oakgreen/ Greeley No-Build Why? No Build Don t encourage more traffic flow through the area Concept F would make it difficult to access the hospital Parkway Slower speeds Concept F modified with split diamond interchanges at Osgood and Washington Parkway would let people enjoy the beauty of the TH 36 corridor 3. Which concept or what specific improvements, if any, do you believe are the most appropriate for the short term (next 5-10 years), prior to the implementation of 1 or 2 above? No- Build

3 No new construction Concept E provides for immediate and future travel needs. Concept E provides efficient access to the hospital Add more cross streets Parking on frontage roads Regional and local circulation transit Landscaping Pedestrian/Bicycle safety measures Eliminate on and off ramp at Omaha Build a new bridge with an interchange to 95 Signs to route people to Hudson Crossing Multi-way boulevard None Frontage roads Build a light rail line Slower speed 4. How often (a), and when (b), do you typically travel this segment of TH 36? (a) 1-2 times a week or less 1-2 times per day More than twice daily 3-5 times a week or less (b) Most trips during peak Most trips during noncommuting 50/50 No response commuting hours hours *3 *one non-responder said they took the bus to St. Paul everyday 5. Of the concepts that include at-grade intersections (non-freeway), which do you believe is preferable? Concept A 6-lane express-way Concept B 6-lane express-way (Norell/Washington overpass) Concept C 4-lane parkway, 45 mph No-Build No Response Why? It is foolish to build anything until the bridge question is settled Parkway This corridor should serve community needs first and interregional needs second Until new bridge is built and road to North St. Paul improved, existing intersections are adequate There needs to be an interchange between 36 & Of the grade separated concept alternatives, which do you believe would be preferable if future traffic volumes make a freeway design unnecessary? Concept D Single interchange at Osgood Concept E Single interchange at Greeley Concept F Buttonhooks east of Norell and west of Osgood Concept G Split interchanges at Osgood and Oakgreen/ No-Build None

4 Greeley Why? Freeways are not necessary I want a parkway. I believe roads should bring towns of Stillwater and Oak Park together, not divide Modified Concept F Future traffic can only be handled with grade separation type interchanges Interchange to Greeley Street is important for hospital access Concept E would stop traffic on 3 rd and 4 th None Build a train I hope Mn/DOT and SRF will start to think outside the box and develop Hwy 36 as a Main Street/Boulevard 7. Landscaping and other aesthetic considerations (such as lighting, railing design, etc.) are part of any major highway project. For this segment of TH 36, these factors are: Not important Somewhat Very important Essential No response important Comments: No additional lighting Light pollution is already rampant along Hwy 36 Expansion should occur within the personality and flavor of the community Use native plants I want a lowered speed, a parkway with pedestrian paths 8. Would it be acceptable for local taxes to be used to pay for and maintain roadway plantings and other aesthetics? YES NO Maybe No Response Would you personally be willing to pay $10 every year to install and maintain plantings and other aesthetics? YES NO No Response Consideration of pedestrians and bicyclists needs are part of any major highway project. For this segment of TH 36, these factors are: Not important Somewhat Very important Essential No response important Comments:

5 Build parkway, but include bike/pedestrian way to get out of Stillwater These factors are essential for a place where people may use other forms of transportation Do not use 36 as a freeway These are public roadways aren t they? Transit should begin to look towards walking and bikes for health and to ease congestion Pedestrians and bicyclists can only be accommodated with a depressed freeway 10. If there were paths along TH 36 or its frontage roads would you use them for walking or bicycling? YES NO No Response If no, why? Plenty of other paths to walk This is out of my home territory Too far from my home Air quality If yes, would you use them primarily for: Shopping Exercise/Recreation Other *1 3 **2 *Respondent also answered exercise/recreation **One respondent answered exercise/recreation as well as other (visiting family) If yes, how often would you use them: A few times/year 1-2 times/week 3 or more times/week No response Would you use these facilities in the winter? YES NO No Response Comments: Probably wouldn t use it for biking in the winter without proper maintenance. Ice would make it unsafe. I walk year round 11. During the morning or afternoon rush hour would you be willing to wait at traffic signals or otherwise delayed for more than 10 minutes to travel on TH 36 between TH 5 and TH 95? YES NO No Response 7 2 1

6 12. During the morning or afternoon rush hour would you be willing to wait at traffic signals for more than 2 minutes to get across TH 36 or to get on TH 36 from a local street? YES NO No Response Other comments: Building new larger highways encourages a car culture complete with sprawl, pollution, noise, dependence on foreign or arctic oil and adds to the hectic pace of a fastpaced society. No more studies and plans until Mn/DOT has the money to build something Advertise open house more. No one I know was area of it. Use Hudson 94 freeway to go quickly though to Twin Cities or Wisconsin Protect neighborhoods. People, children, and families don t need the freeway concepts. We need a transit hub We need bus stops in dedicated shoulders Thank you for helping the communities find a solution everyone can live with This study is totally unacceptable to me. Why wasn t alternative transit included in the analysis? You did not address any issues regarding increased water pollution due to storm water runoff. Re-do analysis and include light rail alternative. Thank you for the handouts that included the copies of your presentation boards.

7 Trunk Highway 36 Partnership Study Public Open House The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) for the TH 36 Partnership Study invites you to participate in a public open house: Wednesday, May 22, :30 7:30 p.m. Stillwater Area High School Cafeteria 5701 Stillwater Blvd. N., Stillwater MN The purpose of the study is to plan for long-term TH 36 improvements between TH 5 and TH 95 given a range of future conditions for the Stillwater-Oak Park Heights area. The study will examine alternative designs of intersections (including possible construction of interchanges) as well as modifications for TH 36 itself (expansion to six-lanes, conversion to a parkway or to a freeway) under both future conditions with no new bridge and with a new bridge. A Policy Advisory Committee consisting of representatives from Stillwater, Oak Park Heights and Washington County has been set up to guide the study. These study partners and the Minnesota Department of Transportation are sponsoring the partnership study. The open house will provide information on the possible alternatives listed below. The Policy Advisory Committee seeks public input and comments on community priorities and the presented alternatives. The PAC has selected Alternatives B, E and F to represent the range of alternatives for detailed traffic operations analysis, but none of the alternatives have been rejected. Information presented at the open house will include: future traffic volumes and traffic operations, cost estimates, safety concerns, pedestrian and bicycle connections, and roadway aesthetics. TH 36 Concept Alternatives Please note that these alternative descriptions focus only on the functional description of the roadway system itself. More detailed design of any of the concepts could include pedestrian and bicycle facilities, aesthetic improvements, such as lighting or parkway-type plantings or other amenities as desired by the community and as agreed to by the funding agencies. Specific right-of-way impacts are not available at this time. L E G E N D Existing Frontage Road Improved Frontage Road Proposed New River Crossing and TH 36/TH 95 Interchange At-Grade Intersection Overpass Concept A: Expansion of TH 36 to six-lanes; preservation of all three at-grade intersections HWY 5 WASHINGTON GREELEY OSGOOD HWY 95 HWY 36/64 Additional TH 36 capacity provided by expansion to 6-lanes Access to TH 36 provided at Norell/Washington, Oakgreen/Greeley, and Osgood HWY 36 Frontage roads improved HWY 5 NORELL OAKGREEN OSGOOD HWY 95 Concept B: Expansion of TH 36 to six lanes; preservation of two at-grade intersections with Norell-Washington intersection converted to an overpass HWY 5 WASHINGTON GREELEY OSGOOD HWY 95 HWY 36/6 Additional TH 36 capacity provided by expansion to 6-lanes Access to TH 36 provided at Oakgreen/Greeley and Osgood only HWY 36 Overpass provided at Norell/Washington; no direct access to TH 36 HWY 5 NORELL OAKGREEN OSGOOD HWY 95 Frontage roads improved

8 TH 36 Concept Alternatives (cont.) Concept C: Parkway concept TH 36 remains 4-lanes; posted speed reduced to 45 mph; preservation of all three at-grade intersections HWY 5 WASHINGTON GREELEY OSGOOD HWY 95 HWY 36/64 Access to TH 36 provided at Norell/Washington, Oakgreen/Greeley, and Osgood Frontage roads improved HWY 36 Posted speed reduced from currently posted 50 mph to 45 mph HWY 5 NORELL OAKGREEN OSGOOD HWY 95 Assumes aesthetic improvements to corridor Concept D: Single interchange at Osgood HWY 5 WASHINGTON GREELEY OSGOOD HWY 95 HWY 36/64 Additional TH 36 capacity provided by conversion of this segment to a freeway; TH 36 remains 4 lanes HWY 36 Access to TH 36 provided at Osgood in addition to TH 5 and TH 95 Overpasses provided at Norell/Washington and Oakgreen/Greeley; no direct access to TH 36 HWY 5 NORELL OAKGREEN OSGOOD HWY 95 Frontage roads improved Concept E: HWY 36 HWY 5 Single interchange at Oakgreen/Greeley HWY 5 NORELL WASHINGTON OAKGREEN GREELEY OSGOOD OSGOOD HWY 95 HWY 36/64 HWY 95 Additional TH 36 capacity provided by conversion of this segment to a freeway; TH 36 remains 4 lanes Access to TH 36 provided at Oakgreen/Greeley in addition to TH 5 and TH 95 Overpasses provided at Norell/Washington and Osgood; no direct access to TH 36 Frontage roads improved Concept F: Buttonhook Interchanges at Osgood and Norell/Washington Additional TH 36 capacity provided by HWY 95 HWY 36/64 HWY 5 conversion of this segment to a freeway; Th 36 remains 4 lanes Access to TH 36 provided to/from frontage roads at locations west of at Osgood and east of HWY 36 Norell/Washington; no other access to TH 36 Overpass provided at Oakgreen/Greeley; Osgood and Norell/Washington HWY 95 HWY 5 Frontage roads improved HWY 5 NORELL NORELL WASHINGTON WASHINGTON OAKGREEN OAKGREEN GREELEY GREELEY OSGOOD OSGOOD Concept G: Split Interchanges at Osgood and Oakgreen/Greeley HWY 95 HWY 36/64 Additional TH 36 capacity provided by HWY 5 conversion of this segment to a freeway; TH 36 remains 4 lanes Access split between Osgood and Oakgreen/Greeley HWY 36 Overpass provided at Norell/Washington; no direct access to T 36 HWY 95 Frontage roads improved OSGOOD OSGOOD For more information about the TH 36 Partnership Study, please contact Lynne Bly, Mn/DOT Project Manager, at

9 Trunk Highway 36 Partnership Study Open House Project Information Sheet May 22, 2002 Recent examinations of future traffic volumes on Highway 36 during planning for a new St. Croix River Crossing and the more recent Highway 36 Corridor Management Plan have raised concerns about the ability of the existing roadway to adequately handle traffic in future years. Discussions with local leaders have revealed many different visions for the future of Highway 36 freeway, parkway, interchanges, at-grade intersections. These discussions also raised concerns regarding the condition and safety of the existing roadway and frontage roads. The current suspension of the St. Croix River Crossing project provides an opportunity to examine the range of options for the Stillwater-Oak Park Heights segment of Highway 36 and develop consensus about the future of this roadway. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has teamed with its local partners the City of Stillwater, the City of Oak Park Heights, and Washington County - to analyze various configurations of grade-separated or at-grade intersections in this segment of Highway 36 and determine which options best meet local as well as state highway needs, both long-term and as interim measures. A committee representing these partners the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) - has been established to help ensure that the study accurately reflects local concerns, to identify relevant issues and potential alternatives, to evaluate study findings, and to make recommendations to Mn/DOT regarding potential future roadway and intersection designs. Study Process Previous design alternatives identified for this segment of TH 36 are represented by the seven concepts alternatives presented at this open house. The Policy Advisory Committee has chosen three representative concepts for more detailed traffic operations analysis. These three alternatives, when considered with the No Build Alternative (no future improvements to the roadways), provide information about the operations of all the alternatives. The Policy Advisory Committee will consider this information, and your input, as they make their recommendations. The study is scheduled for completion in July of Variable Conditions Because no decision has been made regarding the proposed St. Croix River Crossing, the study analysis has been conducted under both new bridge and no new bridge conditions. Other variables, such as local decisions regarding the location and intensity of new development, will affect the degree and timing of impacts to the roadway system. Given these variables, an outcome of the study may not be a recommendation for only one alternative. It is hoped that the Policy Advisory Committee can reach consensus about the benefits and limitations of the alternatives considered and indicate under what circumstances each is best suited. Final recommendations may likely have an If then format, identifying alternatives that either allow for incremental upgrades and/or flexibility in their implementation. (over)

10 Information presented at tonight s open house The information presented at tonight s open house includes: A map of the existing transportation system Land use plans for the Cities of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights A map of identified issues Concept Alternatives for the future development of TH 36 Representative layouts of these concept alternatives 2020 operational characteristics for 3 concept alternatives and the No Build condition Travel time analysis for 3 concept alternatives and the No Build condition Impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists Illustrated cross sections and perspective sketches of the parkway and freeway alternatives Your Input Written comments received at tonight s meeting will be used by the Policy Advisory Committee in determining their recommendations for the study. Please review the information presented tonight and complete a comment sheet and return it to project staff before you leave. We would prefer that all comment sheets be returned tonight as the Committee will be meeting next Wednesday, May 29, to review your input. If you have questions regarding the information presented, several project staff and Policy Advisory Committee members will be available to answer your questions. For additional information, please contact: Lynne Bly, Senior Transportation Planner Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Water s Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN (651) lynne.bly@dot.state.mn.us

11 Purpose of this Study

12 Transportation System

13 Land Use - Stillwater

14 Land Use -Oak Park Heights

15 Issues map

16 Concept Alts

17 No Build Alternative

18 Concept B

19 Concept E

20 Concept F

21 Tavel Times

22 Primary Ped and Bike

23 Concept Illustration

24 Summary of Alternatives

25 COMMENT SHEET TH36 PARTNERSHIP STUDY From Highway 5 to TH 95 in Stillwater and Oak Park Heights Open House Wednesday, May 22, 2002 Name: Address: Phone: The Policy Advisory Committee will consider a variety of conditions when making their final recommendations for roadway improvements that probably will not be made to years. The committee would appreciate your comments about the following questions: 1. If no new crossing of the St. Croix River is built (e.g. the existing bridge remains as a vehicular crossing), which of the future concepts do you believe is most appropriate? Concept: A B C D E F G No Build Why? 2. If a new St. Croix River crossing is constructed, which of the future concepts do you believe is most appropriate? Concept: A B C D E F G No Build Why? 3. Which concept or what specific improvements, if any, do you believe are most appropriate for the short term (next 5 10) years, prior to the implementation of 1 or 2 above? 4. How often (a), and when (b), do you typically travel this segment of TH 36? a. 1-2 times a week or less 1-2 times per day more than twice daily b. most trips during peak commuting hours most trips during non-commuting hours 5. Of the concepts that include at-grade intersections (non-freeway), which do you believe is preferable? Concept: A B C No Build Why? 6. Of the grade-separated concept alternatives, which do you believe would be preferable if future traffic volumes make a freeway design necessary? Concept: D E F G Why?

26 7. Landscaping and other aesthetic considerations (such as lighting, railing design, etc.) are part of any major highway project. For this segment of TH 36, these factors are: (circle one) Not important Somewhat important Very important Essential Comments: 8. Would it be acceptable for local taxes to be used to pay for and maintain roadway plantings and other aesthetics? (circle one) Yes No Would you personally be willing to pay $10 every year to install and maintain plantings and other aesthetics? (circle one) Yes No 9. Consideration of pedestrians and bicyclists needs are part of any major highway project. For this segment of TH 36, these factors are: (circle one) Not important Somewhat important Very important Essential Comments: 10. If there were paths along TH 36 or its frontage roads would you use them for walking or bicycling? (circle one) Yes No If no, why? If yes, would you use them primarily for (circle one): shopping exercise/recreation other If yes, how often would you use them (circle one): a few times/yr. 1-2 times/wk. 3 or more times/wk. Would you use these facilities in the winter? Yes No Comments: 11. During the morning or afternoon rush hour would you be willing to wait at traffic signals or otherwise delayed for more than 10 minutes to travel on TH 36 between TH 5 and TH 95? (circle one) Yes No 12. During the morning or afternoon rush hour would you be willing to wait at traffic signals for more than 2 minutes to get across TH 36 or to get on TH 36 from a local street? (circle one) Yes No Other comments:

27

28