Appendix G: Future Conditions Traffic Analysis Memorandum

Transcription

1 ppendix G: Future Conditions Traffic nalysis Memorandum Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Riverfront Drive Corridor Study ǀ T ppendix

2 MEMORNDUM Date: pril, 27 To: Paul Vogel From: Ross B. Tillman, P.E. Kelsey E. Retherford, E.I.T. Subject: Future Traffic nalysis Riverfront Drive Corridor Study Mankato/North Mankato rea Planning Organization Project No.: T Introduction The Mankato/North Mankato rea Planning Organization in cooperation with the City of Mankato have requested a corridor study along Riverfront Drive from TH 4 to Woodland venue. Riverfront Drive is located along the western edge of the City of Mankato. This memorandum provides a summary of the future conditions and potential solutions. Traffic Forecasting Future traffic volumes for 24 (25yr forecast) were developed using historical data and the Mankato/North Mankato rea Planning Organization (MPO) 245 Long Range Transportation Plan while recognizing population growth trends in the area, which are likely to affect traffic volumes. The historical growth rates (99723) along Riverfront Drive were all calculated to be between.2 and.9 percent. n analysis was also completed using only the last years of data but, the growth rates were all found to be negative. The MPO 245 Long Range Transportation Plan indicated future growth rates to be between.9 and.65 percent. Population growth trends have been between.5 percent per year and.5 percent per year on average depending on which time period is analyzed. Traffic growth was compared using trend lines from various data sources and a % straight line growth value. These graphics are shown in Figures through 4 in ppendix. In general, the % line falls within a similar range of the 245 Long Range Transportation Plan and the fullhistory trend and would appear to provide a reasonable growth rate for the corridor. This assumption is meant to be all encompassing of background growth as well as spot redevelopment in areas nearby. The historical growth rates for side streets with data available were also calculated. Data was available from 997 to 23 for the side streets, leading to historical growth rates ranging from 2.9 to 3 percent. The MPO 245 Long Range Transportation Plan had analysis at Cherry Street, Main Street and Madison venue east of Riverfront Drive. The growth rates were found to be between and.9 percent in the Transportation Plan, however using the historical data growth rates at these intersections were between 2.9 and.5%. The historical side street data includes periods of time when streets were converted from oneway to twoway traffic and the reconstruction of 2 nd Street and Mulberry Street H:\MPO_MU\T42867\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\Future Conditions Memo\Future Conditions Traffic nalysis Memo.docx

3 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: 2 occurred. These major circulation changes result in data patterns with no natural trends and essentially provide meaningless data. lthough the majority of analyzed side streets along the corridor are fully developed, they provide connectivity to other parts of the city that may experience development and growth. For this reason, a % per year growth rate was also applied to these approaches recognizing the potential for future growth in other areas and also the need to feed and receive a certain amount of traffic from Riverfront Drive. Parallel routes to Riverfront Drive were also analyzed for spare capacity. TH 69 was projected to have 27, vehicles per day in 245 as part of the Long Range Transportation Plan which is well under capacity for a 4lane freeway. 2 nd Street currently carries between 8, and,9 vehicles per day downtown, which if using the same growth rate as Riverfront Drive will also be under capacity in 24. Future Operations nalysis level of service (LOS) analysis of the peak hours was completed using the forecasted turning movement counts in SimTraffic. Tables through 4 show the results of the 24 no build traffic analysis for Segments through 4, respectively. Segment Woodland venue to Sibley Parkway Table 24 Existing Geometry (No Build) Traffic Operations nalysis Peak Hour Limiting Maximum Movement Delay* LOS Delay LOS** *** Direction Max pproach Queue verage Queue (ft) Peak Hour delay has failing LOS at the intersections of Riverfront Drive with the NB TH 69 Ramp and Stoltzman Road. The limiting movement operates with LOS F at the following intersections: o TH 69 North Ramp at Riverfront Drive o Poplar StreetWest Mankato High School at Riverfront Drive Max Queue (ft) Riverfront Dr & Woodland ve 2 7 NBT NBL/T/R 25 Stop Controlled 3 7 SBT SBL/T/R 5 5 Riverfront Dr & Sibley St 6 4 E NBT WBL/T 75 2 Stop Controlled 7 32 D NBL WBL/T SB TH 69 Ramp/Owatonna St & Riverfront Dr 49 D 75 E SBL SBL/T Signalized 32 C 56 E SBT SBL/T NB TH 69 Ramp & Riverfront Dr 62 F 949 F NBL NBR Stop Controlled 24 C 27 F NBR NBR 375 Mankato West HS/Poplar St & Riverfront Dr 79 E 35 F WBR WBT/R 6 8 Signalized 5 D 62 F NBT WBT/R Riverfront Dr & Stoltzman Rd 89 F 32 F NBL NBL 8 3 Signalized 44 D 56 F NBT NBL/T Riverfront Dr & Marshall St 75 E 82 F WBT WBT Signalized 5 B 4 D NBL WBT 25 4 *Delay in seconds per vehicle **Maximum delay and LOS on any approach and/or movement ***Limiting Movement is the highest delay movement.

4 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: 3 o o Stoltzman Road at Riverfront Drive Marshall Street at Riverfront Drive Peak Hour delay is acceptable with LOS D or better at all of the intersections. The limiting movement operates with LOS F at the following intersections: o TH 69 North Ramp at Riverfront Drive o Poplar StreetWest Mankato High School at Riverfront Drive o Stoltzman Road at Riverfront Drive Tables B and B2 in ppendix B show the delay and queue lengths for each movement at all of the intersections in Segment. Segment 2 Sibley Parkway to Veterans Memorial Bridge Table 2 24 Existing Geometry (No Build) Traffic Operations nalysis Peak Hour Limiting Maximum Movement Delay* LOS Delay LOS** *** Direction Peak Hour delay is acceptable with LOS D or better at all of the intersections. The limiting movement operates with LOS F at the intersection of Sibley Parkway and Riverfront Drive. Peak Hour delay is acceptable with LOS or B at all of the intersections. The limiting movement operates with LOS E at the intersections of Minnesota StreetCherry St and Riverfront Drive Tables B3 and B4 in ppendix B show the delay and queue lengths for each movement at all of the intersections in Segment 2. Max pproach Queue verage Queue (ft) Max Queue (ft) Riverfront Dr & Sibley Pkwy 38 D 84 F WBR WBT Signalized 5 4 D EBL WBT 5 5 Riverfront Dr & Poplar St/Warren St 4 B 32 C WBL NBT/R 275 Signalized 8 B 3 C EBL SBT/R 5 35 Riverfront Dr & Minnesota St/Cherry St B 32 C WBT SBT Signalized 9 B 56 E SBL WBL/T Riverfront Dr & Main St 8 26 C WBL NBT 5 5 Signalized 3 B 3 C EBL NBT 25 *Delay in seconds per vehicle **Maximum delay and LOS on any approach and/or movement ***Limiting Movement is the highest delay movement.

5 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: 4 Segment 3 Veterans Memorial Bridge to Madison venue Table 3 24 Existing Geometry (No Build) Traffic Operations nalysis Peak Hour delay is acceptable with LOS or B at all of the intersections. The limiting movement is acceptable with LOS C or better at all of the intersections. Peak Hour delay is acceptable with LOS or B at all of the intersections. The limiting movement is acceptable with LOS D or better at all of the intersections. Tables B5 and B6 in ppendix B show the delay and queue lengths for each movement at all of the intersections in Segment 3. Segment 4 Madison venue to TH 4 Peak Hour Limiting Maximum Movement Delay* LOS Delay LOS** *** Table 4 24 Existing Geometry (No Build) Traffic Operations nalysis Peak Hour delay is acceptable with LOS D or better at all of the intersections. Direction Max pproach Queue verage Queue (ft) Max Queue (ft) Riverfront Dr & Plum St 4 23 C WBL NBT 5 75 Signalized 5 28 C WBL NBT 5 75 Riverfront Dr & Elm St 4 B WBL NBL/T 5 25 Signalized 6 22 C EBL SBL/T Riverfront Dr & Madison ve 2 B 24 C WBL NBT/R 25 3 Signalized 7 B 49 D WBT NBT/R *Delay in seconds per vehicle **Maximum delay and LOS on any approach and/or movement ***Limiting Movement is the highest delay movement. Peak Hour Limiting Maximum Movement Delay* LOS Delay LOS** *** Direction Max pproach Queue verage Queue (ft) Max Queue (ft) Riverfront Dr & 3rd ve/lafayette St 5 57 F EBL EBR Stop Controlled 6 48 E EBT EBR 275 Riverfront Dr & May St 6 C WBL WBL/R Stop Controlled 3 23 C WBL WBL/R 5 Riverfront Dr & TH 4 EB Ramp 5 22 C EBL EBR 25 Stop Controlled 6 39 E EBL EBL Riverfront Dr & TH 4 WB Ramp 28 D 97 F WBL WBL/T Stop Controlled 56 F 374 F WBL WBL/T *Delay in seconds per vehicle **Maximum delay and LOS on any approach and/or movement ***Limiting Movement is the highest delay movement.

6 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: 5 The limiting movement operates with LOS F at the following intersections: o 3 rd venue/lafayette Street at Riverfront Drive o TH 4 Westbound Ramp at Riverfront Drive Peak Hour delay and the limiting movement have failing LOS at the intersection of the TH 4 Westbound Ramp and Riverfront Drive. The intersection delay is LOS for all other intersections. The limiting movement is LOS E at 3 rd venue/lafayette Street and the TH 4 Eastbound Ramp. The limiting movement is LOS C at May Street. Tables B7 and B8 in ppendix B show the delay and queue lengths for each movement at all of the intersections in Segment 4. lternative Concepts Segment Woodland venue to Sibley Parkway There were six alternatives analyzed for Segment. These options are detailed below with snapshots of each. Option : Traditional Signalized Corridor with Capacity and Pedestrian Enhancements Option Triple left turn from southbound TH 69, additional on ramp lane for northbound TH 69, Poplar Street remains signalized, turn lane additional and signal phasing improvement at Stoltzman Road, and signalized pedestrian crossings at Stoltzman Road and Poplar Street. Option

7 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: 6 Option B No changes to the Southbound TH 69 Ramp, additional on ramp lane for northbound TH 69, partial signalization at Poplar Street with all left turns removed except the westbound left into Mankato West High School, turn lane additional and signal phasing improvement at Stoltzman Road, roadway expansion at Stoltzman Road through Cub Foods parking lot from Riverfront Drive to Sibley Parkway, and signalized pedestrian crossings at Stoltzman Road and Poplar Street. Option B Option 2: Roundabout Corridor with ccess and Pedestrian Enhancements Option 2 Roundabouts at TH 69 Ramps and Stoltzman Road, rightin/rightout at Poplar Street, and roadway expansion at Stoltzman Road through Cub Foods parking lot from Riverfront Drive to Sibley Parkway. Option 2

8 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: 7 Option 2B Roundabouts at the Southbound TH 69 Ramp and Stoltzman Road, combined tear drop roundabout at the Northbound TH 69 Ramp and Poplar Street, and roadway expansion at Stoltzman Road through Cub Foods parking lot from Riverfront Drive to Sibley Parkway. Option 2B Option 3: Interchange Modifications with Signal at Stoltzman Road Option 3 Diverging diamond at TH 69 Ramps, rightin/rightout at Poplar Street, additional on ramp lane for northbound TH 69, Mankato West High School entrance road shifted east and partially signalized, roadway extension at Stoltzman Road through Cub Foods parking lot from Riverfront Drive to Sibley Parkway, and turn lane additional and signal phasing improvement at Stoltzman Road. Option 3

9 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: 8 Option 3B Loop ramp from southbound TH 69 eliminating access of Hubbell venue onto Riverfront Road, roadway extension of 2 nd Street from Owatonna Street to Hubbell venue and 3 rd Street between Sibley Street and Hubbell venue, additional on ramp lane for northbound TH 69, and turn lane additional and signal phasing improvement at Stoltzman Road. Option 3B

10 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: 9 Segment 2 Sibley Parkway to Veterans Memorial Bridge There were three alternatives analyzed for Segment 2. These options are detailed below with snapshots of each. Option : Four Lane Roadway with Spot Safety and Pedestrian Enhancements Option The median is narrowed by eight feet to allow for a sidewalk on the east side of Riverfront Drive, west curb line remains in place, and atgrade pedestrian crossings are adjusted. Option B The west curb line between Cherry Street and Plum Street is shifted further west to provide a sidewalk on east side of Riverfront Drive. Option Option B Option 2: Three Lane Roadway with Spot Safety and Pedestrian Enhancements Northbound through lane is removed starting 5 feet north of Cherry Street to provide a sidewalk on the east side and atgrade pedestrian crossings are adjusted. Option 2

11 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: Segment 3 Veterans Memorial Bridge to Madison venue There were eight alternatives analyzed for Segment 3. These options are detailed below with snapshots of each. Option : Four Lane Roadway with Spot Safety and Pedestrian Enhancements Option Primary vehicle intersections at Plum Street & Elm Street and enhanced pedestrian corridor on Rock Street. dd bumpouts at Washington Street, Rock Street, and Vine Street. Option Option B Primary vehicle intersections at Plum Street & Rock Street and enhanced pedestrian corridor on Elm Street. Option B Option 2: Three Lane Roadway with Parking on South Side, Spot Safety and Pedestrian Enhancements Option 2 Primary vehicle intersections at Plum Street & Elm Street and enhanced pedestrian corridor on Rock Street. Option 2

12 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: Option 2B Primary vehicle intersections at Plum Street & Rock Street and enhanced pedestrian corridor on Elm Street. Option 2B Option 3: Three Lane Roadway with Parking on Both Sides, Left Turn Lanes between Washington Street and Rock Street, Spot Safety and Pedestrian Enhancements Option 3 Primary vehicle intersections at Plum Street & Elm Street, enhanced pedestrian corridor on Rock Street and median refuge for pedestrians crossing Riverfront Drive. Option 3 Option 3B Primary vehicle intersections at Plum Street & Rock Street, enhanced pedestrian corridor on Elm Street and median refuge for pedestrians crossing Riverfront Drive. Option 3B

13 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: 2 Option 4: Three Lane Roadway with Parking on South Side, Medians and Left Turn Lanes between Washington Street and Rock Street, Spot Safety and Pedestrian Enhancements Option 4 Primary vehicle intersections at Plum Street & Elm Street and enhanced pedestrian corridor on Rock Street. Option 4 Option 4B Primary vehicle intersections at Plum Street & Rock Street and enhanced pedestrian corridor on Elm Street. Option 4B Segment 4 Madison venue to Good Council Drive For analysis purposes TH 4 was analyzed separately as its own segment and Segment 4 was analyzed from Madison venue to Good Council Drive. There were three alternatives analyzed for Segment 4. These options are detailed below with snapshots of each. Option : Primary Vehicle s at Madison venue, dams Street, May Street, and Good Council Drive 3 rd venue is closed at Riverfront Drive, Madison venue is extended into current mining property and dams Street is extended to the Madison venue extension. 3 rd venue ties into dams Street extension. Secondary intersections are converted to rightin/rightout. Pedestrian crossings at 3 rd venue/lafayette Street and Good Council Drive.

14 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: 3 Option : Option : Part Madison venue to Maxfield Street Option : Part 2 Maxfield Street to Ruth Street Option : Part 3 Ruth Street to Good Counsel Drive

15 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: 4 Option 2: Primary Vehicle s at Madison venue, Chestnut Street/nn Street, and Good Council Drive 3 rd venue is converted to rightin/rightout. Chestnut Street is realigned and tied into nn Street. Secondary intersections are converted to rightin/rightout. Pedestrian crossings at 3 rd venue/lafayette Street and Good Council Drive. Option 2: Part Madison venue to Maxfield Street Option 2: Part 2 Maxfield Street to Ruth Street Option 2: Part 3 Ruth Street to Good Counsel Drive

16 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: 5 Option 3: Primary Vehicle s at Madison venue, Maxfield Street, May Street, and Good Council Drive, realignment of 3rd venue to Madison venue Extension 3 rd venue is realigned to tie into Madison venue, Maxfield Street is realigned to eliminate skewed intersection and May Street is upgraded as a primary intersection. Pedestrian crossings at 3 rd venue/lafayette Street and Good Council Drive. Option 3: Part Madison venue to Maxfield Street Option 3: Part 2 Maxfield Street to Ruth Street Option 3: Part 3 Ruth Street to Good Counsel Drive

17 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: 6 dditionally with each of the Segment 4 options there would be the option to keep the existing five lane section as shown in the snapshots, reduce the roadway to a three lane section with a center turn lane throughout the corridor or reduce the roadway to a two lane section with a median. Segment 5 TH 4 Ramps There were two alternatives analyzed for Segment 5. These options are detailed below with snapshots of each. Option : Roundabouts at TH 4 Ramps Option 2: Diverging Diamond Interchange at TH 4

18 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: 7 Performance Measure Vehicle Delay on Riverfront (sec/veh) Vehicle Delay on Side Streets (sec/veh) Segment Delay (veh hr) lternative Operations nalysis traffic operational analysis was completed using the forecasted turning movement counts in SimTraffic for each option. Tables 5 through 9 show the results of the 24 no build traffic analysis compared to each option considered along each segment. Segment Woodland venue to Sibley Parkway Table 5. Segment Traffic Operations nalysis Traditional Signalized Corridor Roundabout Corridor Interchange Modifications Net Change in Eastbound Travel Time (minutes) Net Change in Westbound Travel Time (minutes) Capacity Utilization Maximum Volume to Capacity Ratio No Build Option Triple Lefts Option B Double Lefts Option 2 Three Roundabouts Option 2B Four Roundabout Option 3 Diverging Diamond Option 3B Loop Ramp 44 D B 3 B 9 2 B 6 3 C 6 B 23 C 9 B 4 B 9 9 B 2 F 24 C 33 C 28 C 4 B 2 C 9 B 66 E 34 C 4 D 57 E 27 C 29 C 33 C (baseline) 3.2 (baseline) 3 (baseline) 4.4 (baseline) Table 5 shows that vehicle delay and segment delay is decreased overall for each option analyzed compared to the 24 no build analysis. Travel time is increased by less than one minute during the peak hour for eastbound traffic in Options B and 3B and westbound in Option 2 and decreased for all other options. The intersection capacity utilization and maximum volume to capacity ratio is greater than one for the roundabout corridor options, but less than one for all other options. Tables C C2 in ppendix C show the detailed delay and queue lengths for each option at all of the intersections in Segment.

19 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: 8 Segment 2 Sibley Parkway to Veterans Memorial Bridge Table 6. Segment 2 Traffic Operations nalysis Performance Measure Vehicle Delay on Riverfront (sec/veh) Vehicle Delay on Side Streets (sec/veh) No Build Option 4 Lane Narrow Median Table 6 shows that operations are acceptable and the same as the existing no build analysis for Option and Option B as no geometric changes were made at the intersections. With Option 2 vehicle delay increases, but remains acceptable at LOS C or better during both peak hours. Northbound queuing is problematic during the peak hours, however most vehicles do not wait more than one cycle. Delay is acceptable with LOS C or better at Minnesota Street/Cherry Street and Main Street and LOS D at Poplar Street/Warren Street. The intersection capacity utilization and maximum volume to capacity ratio is less than one for all options. Tables C3 C4 in ppendix C show the detailed delay and queue lengths at all of the intersections in Segment 2 for Option 2. Segment 3 Veterans Memorial Bridge to Madison venue Option B 4 Lane Shifted Roadway Option 2 3 Lane 4 B 4 B 4 B 3 B 3 B 3 B 3 B 9 B 4 B 4 B 4 B 28 C 8 B 8 B 8 B 32 C Maximum Queue (ft) Poplar St/Warren St Minnesota St/Cherry St Main St NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT NBT Capacity Utilization Maximum Volume to Capacity Ratio Table 7. Segment 3 Traffic Operations nalysis Performance Measure No Build Option Elm Primary Four Lane Option B Rock Primary Three Lane Parking Both Sides Option 2 Elm Primary Option 2B Rock Primary Three Lane Parking Both Sides & Left Turn Lanes Option 3 Elm Primary Option 3B Rock Primary Three Lane Parking South Side, Full Medians & Left Turn Lanes Option 4 Elm Primary Option 4B Rock Primary Vehicle Delay on Riverfront (sec/veh) Vehicle Delay on Side Streets (sec/veh) Capacity Utilization Maximum Volume to Capacity Ratio B 5 B 5 B 5 B 5 B 5 B 4 B 4 B 4 B 2 C 2 B 2 C 2 B 2 C 2 B 8 B 8 B 8 B 3 C 3 C 3 C 3 C 3 C 3 C

20 Name: Future Traffic nalysis Date: pril 27 Page: 9 Table 7 shows that vehicle delay is acceptable for all options with LOS C or better. The intersection capacity utilization is less than one for all options. The maximum volume to capacity ratio is greater than one for the three lane options and less than one for the four lane option. Tables C5 and C6 in ppendix C show the detailed delay and queue lengths at all of the intersections in the three lane options with Elm Street as a primary intersection. Tables C7 and C8 in ppendix C show the detailed delay and queue lengths at all of the intersections in the three lane options with Rock Street as a primary intersection. Madison venue at Riverfront Drive was also analyzed as a roundabout to determine if the three lane section could begin north of Madison venue however the volumes were too high in this area for a single lane roundabout to function with acceptable delay. dditionally, analysis was completed to determine if the free northbound right turn could be eliminated at Plum Street. The movement delay was found to be 4.5 seconds with the free right and 4.7 seconds without the free right so it is recommended that the free right be removed to improve pedestrian safety. Segment 4 Madison venue to Good Council Drive Traffic operations were not analyzed for the alternatives discussed along Segment 4. Due to the lower traffic volumes it was assumed that operations would be comparable between all of the options. Instead these options were analyzed with the goals of how to provide efficient vehicle and freight mobility and access, safety for all users, infrastructure improvements compatible with the historic and natural environment and how to enhance the community identity. Details on how each option is able to meet these goals is described in the Final Study Report. Segment 5 TH 4 Ramps Table 9. Segment 5 Traffic Operations nalysis Performance Measure No Build Option Roundabouts Option 2 Diverging Diamond Vehicle Delay on Riverfront (sec/veh) Vehicle Delay on Ramps (sec/veh) Capacity Utilization Maximum Volume to Capacity Ratio 2 23 C C 9 99 F 2 C 5 93 F 2 C Table 9 shows that with roundabouts at both ramps in Option the vehicle delay on Riverfront Drive increases, but remains acceptable at LOS C. With the diverging diamond in Option 2 the vehicle delay on Riverfront Drive remains LOS. The vehicle delay on the ramps is significantly less for both options compared to 24 no build analysis. The intersection capacity utilization is greater than one for Option and remains less than one for Option 2. The maximum volume to capacity ratio is greatly reduced and less than one for both options.

21 ppendix : Traffic Forecasting Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Riverfront Drive Corridor Study ǀ T42.867

22 Figure. Traffic Growth at Riverfront Drive West of Stoltzman Road DT ll Historical Data (.5%) Last years of Data (.5%) 5 MPO (.3%) % Year Figure 2. Traffic Growth at Riverfront Drive South of Minnesota StreetCherry Street DT 5 23 ll Historical Data (.9%) Last years of Data (4.3%) 5 MPO (.5%) % Year

23 Figure 3. Traffic Growth at Riverfront Drive South of Lafayette Street3 rd venue DT ll Historical Data (.7%) Last years of Data (.3%) 5 MPO (.5%) % Year Figure 4. Traffic Growth at Riverfront Drive North of TH 4 Westbound Ramp DT ll Historical Data (2.9%) Last years of Data (.3%) MPO (.9%) % Year

24 ppendix B: 24 No Build Traffic Operational nalysis Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Riverfront Drive Corridor Study ǀ T42.867

25 Table B: 24 Segment Existing Geometry Traffic Operations nalysis Riverfront Drive Corridor Study Peak Movement Delay (sec/veh) Hour Delay* LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Riverfront Dr & Woodland ve Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & Sibley St D 4 E 4 6 C 5 C 7 Stop Controlled D 27 D 2 25 D 9 C 8 SB TH 69 Ramp/Owatonna St & Riverfront Dr 49 D 4 B 34 C 22 C 7 B 2 75 E 4 D Signalized 32 C 8 43 D 33 C 26 C 6 B 3 43 D 56 E 6 B NB TH 69 Ramp & Riverfront Dr 62 F 7 4 B 4 B 37 E 949 F 54 F 748 F Stop Controlled 24 C 24 C C 77 F 27 F Mankato West HS/Poplar St & Riverfront Dr 79 E B 9 B 22 C 59 E 56 F 35 F 26 F 253 F 53 F 78 E 86 F F Signalized 5 D 22 C 8 B 9 B 62 E 69 E 3 F 34 F 62 F 65 E 73 E 6 E 6 E Riverfront Dr & Stoltzman Rd 89 F 6 B 6 B 2 B 9 B 83 F 6 B 32 F 268 F 69 E 6 B 26 C 44 D Signalized 44 D 46 D 32 C 5 B 42 D 39 D B 7 F 56 F 9 B 26 C 37 D 24 C Riverfront Dr & Marshall St 75 E F 82 F 76 F Signalized 5 B C 8 B 4 D *Delay in seconds per vehicle **Maximum delay and LOS on any approach and/or movement ***Limiting Movement is the highest delay movement. Table B2: 24 Segment Existing Geometry Peak Hour Queues By Movement Peak Hour Queue Lengths EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max Riverfront Dr & Woodland ve Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & Sibley St Stop Controlled SB TH 69 Ramp/Owatonna St & Riverfront Dr Signalized NB TH 69 Ramp & Riverfront Dr Stop Controlled Mankato West HS/Poplar St & Riverfront Dr Signalized Riverfront Dr & Stoltzman Rd Signalized Riverfront Dr & Marshall St Signalized

26 Table B3: 24 Segment 2 Existing Geometry Traffic Operations nalysis Riverfront Drive Corridor Study Peak Movement Delay (sec/veh) Hour Delay* LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Riverfront Dr & Sibley Pkwy 38 D 39 D 3 74 E 84 F 33 C 48 D Signalized 5 4 D C 7 Riverfront Dr & Poplar St/Warren St 4 B 3 C 26 C 2 C 32 C 24 C B B B 9 9 B 2 B B Signalized 8 B 3 C 3 C 22 C 29 C 25 C B 28 C 5 B 3 B 24 C 5 B 2 B Riverfront Dr & Minnesota St/Cherry St B 28 C 3 C 3 B 3 C 32 C 2 B C B 6 Signalized 9 B 25 C 2 C B 3 C 29 C 3 27 C 3 B B 56 E 8 B 9 Riverfront Dr & Main St 8 26 C 26 C B 5 5 Signalized 3 B 3 C 8 26 C 8 B 9 7 B 3 B 9 23 C 9 *Delay in seconds per vehicle **Maximum delay and LOS on any approach and/or movement ***Limiting Movement is the highest delay movement. Table B4: 24 Segment 2 Existing Geometry Peak Hour Queues By Movement Queue Lengths Peak EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Hour vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max Riverfront Dr & Sibley Pkwy Signalized Riverfront Dr & Poplar St/Warren St Signalized Riverfront Dr & Minnesota St/Cherry St Signalized Riverfront Dr & Main St Signalized

27 Table B5: 24 Segment 3 Existing Geometry Traffic Operations nalysis Riverfront Drive Corridor Study Peak Movement Delay (sec/veh) Hour Delay* LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Riverfront Dr & Plum St 4 23 C 7 5 B Signalized 5 B 28 C B 3 Riverfront Dr & Elm St 4 B 6 4 B 6 B Signalized 6 22 C 2 C 9 8 B 7 4 B B 6 4 Riverfront Dr & Madison ve 2 B 24 C B 4 B 8 22 C 6 Signalized 7 B 26 C 49 D 2 B 25 C 4 B 22 C 8 9 *Delay in seconds per vehicle **Maximum delay and LOS on any approach and/or movement ***Limiting Movement is the highest delay movement. Table B6: 24 Segment 3 Existing Geometry Peak Hour Queues By Movement Queue Lengths Peak EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Hour vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max Riverfront Dr & Plum St Signalized Riverfront Dr & Elm St Signalized Riverfront Dr & Madison ve Signalized

28 Table B7: 24 Segment 4 Existing Geometry Traffic Operations nalysis Riverfront Drive Corridor Study Peak Movement Delay (sec/veh) Hour Delay* LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Riverfront Dr & 3rd ve/lafayette St 5 57 F 25 D 5 C 45 E 2 B B Stop Controlled 6 48 E 48 E 7 C Riverfront Dr & May St 6 C Stop Controlled 3 23 C B Riverfront Dr & TH 4 EB Ramp 5 22 C 3 B 2 5 Stop Controlled 6 39 E B Riverfront Dr & TH 4 WB Ramp 28 D 97 F 8 F B Stop Controlled 56 F 374 F 242 F 6 *Delay in seconds per vehicle **Maximum delay and LOS on any approach and/or movement ***Limiting Movement is the highest delay movement. Table B8: 24 Segment 4 Existing Geometry Peak Hour Queues By Movement Queue Lengths Peak EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Hour vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max Riverfront Dr & 3rd ve/lafayette St Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & May St Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & TH 4 EB Ramp Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & TH 4 WB Ramp Stop Controlled

29 ppendix C: 24 lternative Traffic Operational nalysis Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Riverfront Drive Corridor Study ǀ T42.867

30 Table C: 24 Segment Option Traffic Operations nalysis Peak Hour Delay* LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Movement Delay (sec/veh) NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Riverfront Dr & Woodland ve Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & Sibley St B 2 68 F 66 F 7 24 C 7 C B Stop Controlled B E 29 D 2 32 D 26 D 3 B Riverfront Dr & SB TH 69 Ramps/Owatonna St 27 C 3 B 3 C 24 C 2 B 2 33 C 3 B Signalized 32 C 34 C 46 D 4 D 29 C 5 B 3 42 D 43 D 2 B Riverfront Dr & NB TH 69 Ramps F 23 C 36 E Stop Controlled 2 B 24 C E 64 F Mankato West HS/Poplar St & Riverfront Dr 22 C 8 B 4 B 6 54 D 6 B 6 B 62 E 59 E 4 D 32 C 28 C 2 C Signalized 25 C 29 C 4 B 3 58 E 23 C 2 C 62 E 63 E 28 C 54 D 46 D 42 D Riverfront Dr & Stoltzman Rd 6 B 6 B 7 B 7 B 6 B 2 B 3 22 C 9 B 9 8 B 27 C 8 Signalized 28 C 42 D 29 C 6 B 36 D 27 C 7 36 D 38 D B 34 C 49 D 2 C Riverfront Dr & Marshall St B 4 3 B Signalized B C 9 4 D *Delay in seconds per vehicle Table C2: 24 Segment Option Peak Hour Queues By Movement Peak Hour Queue Lengths (ft) EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max Riverfront Dr & Woodland ve Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & Sibley St Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & SB TH 69 Ramps/Owatonna St Signalized Riverfront Dr & NB TH 69 Ramps Stop Controlled Mankato West HS/Poplar St & Riverfront Dr Signalized Riverfront Dr & Stoltzman Rd Signalized Riverfront Dr & Marshall St Signalized ppendix C

31 Table C3: 24 Segment Option B Traffic Operations nalysis Peak Hour Delay* LOS EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT Movement Delay (sec/veh) WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Riverfront Dr & Woodland ve Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & Sibley St E 46 E 5 9 C 7 C B Stop Controlled B 2 29 D 24 C 2 25 D 23 C B Riverfront Dr & SB TH 69 Ramps/Owatonna St 42 D 6 B 33 C 22 C 26 C E 34 C Signalized 34 C 9 B 44 D 6 B 3 C 3 B 4 46 D 6 B Riverfront Dr & NB TH 69 Ramps B 9 3 B C 66 E 28 C Signalized 4 B 6 B B 4 B 4 44 D 42 D 35 D Mankato West HS/Poplar St & Riverfront Dr 6 B 6 B 9 23 C D 55 E Signalized 22 C 4 B 5 38 D 5 B 8 B 65 E 5 D Riverfront Dr & Stoltzman Rd 2 C 28 C 3 C 7 B 4 B 2 C 25 C 5 33 C 22 C 9 4 D 42 D 4 B Signalized 42 D 97 F 8 F 33 C 4 B 38 D 55 E 8 B 7 E 38 D 9 54 D 5 D 24 C Riverfront Dr & Marshall St B 4 37 D Signalized 2 C 4 B 6 37 D 48 D 85 F *Delay in seconds per vehicle Table C4: 24 Segment Option B Peak Hour Queues By Movement Queue Lengths (ft) Peak EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Hour vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max Riverfront Dr & Woodland ve Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & Sibley St Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & SB TH 69 Ramps/Owatonna St Signalized Riverfront Dr & NB TH 69 Ramps Signalized Mankato West HS/Poplar St & Riverfront Dr Signalized Riverfront Dr & Stoltzman Rd Signalized Riverfront Dr & Marshall St Signalized ppendix C

32 Table C5: 24 Segment Option 2 Traffic Operations nalysis Peak Hour Delay* LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Movement Delay (sec/veh) NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Riverfront Dr & Woodland ve Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & Sibley St E 47 E 6 2 C 4 B 4 Stop Controlled D 26 D 2 3 D 33 D 2 B Mankato West HS/Poplar St & Riverfront Dr 34 D F 78 F Signalized 37 E B 9 5 F 32 F Riverfront Dr & Marshall St B 4 3 B Signalized 57 E C 9 5 D EBL/T EBT/R WBL WBT/R SBL SBL/T/R Riverfront Dr & SB TH 69 Ramps/Owatonna St 4 B 23 C 22 C B B Signalized 2 C 8 C 7 C E 22 C EBL/T EBT WBU/L/T WBR NBL/T/R NBR Riverfront Dr & NB TH 69 Ramps 2 B 9 B 8 6 C 2 C 8 C Signalized 2 B C 4 B 6 C 5 C EBU/L/T EBT/R WBL/T WBT/R NBL NBL/T/R SBL/T SBT/R Riverfront Dr & Stoltzman Rd 5 C 3 B 5 C B B 25 D 7 C 9 8 Signalized 5 E 43 E 55 F 6 F 64 F 56 F 29 D 36 E 3 D *Delay in seconds per vehicle Table C6: 24 Segment Option 2 Peak Hour Queues By Movement Queue Lengths (ft) Peak EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Hour vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max Riverfront Dr & Woodland ve Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & Sibley St Stop Controlled Mankato West HS/Poplar St & Riverfront Dr Signalized Riverfront Dr & Marshall St Signalized EBL/T EBT/R WBL WBT/R SBL SBL/T/R Riverfront Dr & SB TH 69 Ramps/Owatonna St Signalized EBL/T EBT WBU/L/T WBR NBL/T/R NBR Riverfront Dr & NB TH 69 Ramps Signalized EBU/L/T EBT/R WBL/T WBT/R NBL NBL/T/R SBL/T SBT/R Riverfront Dr & Stoltzman Rd Signalized ppendix C

33 Table C7: 24 Segment Option 2 Traffic Operations nalysis Peak Hour Delay* LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Movement Delay (sec/veh) NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Riverfront Dr & Woodland ve Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & Sibley St E 47 E 6 2 C 4 B 4 Stop Controlled D 26 D 2 3 D 33 D 2 B Riverfront Dr & Marshall St B 4 3 B Signalized 57 E C 9 5 D EBL/T EBT/R WBL WBT/R SBL SBL/T/R Riverfront Dr & SB TH 69 Ramps/Owatonna St 4 B 23 C 22 C B B Roundabout 2 C 8 C 7 C E 22 C EBL/T EBT/R WBL/T WBR NBL/T NBR Riverfront Dr & NB TH 69 Ramps 3 B 2 B 5 C 6 5 C 26 D 22 C Roundabout 2 B B 3 B 2 C 8 C EBL/T EBT/R WBL/T WBT/R NBL NBL/T/R SBR Mankato West HS/Poplar St & Riverfront Dr 6 C B 4 B 6 C 9 C 3 D 2 C 6 C Roundabout 8 C 9 B 7 C 23 C 23 C 3 B 55 F EBL/T EBT/R WBL/T WBT/R NBL NBL/T/R SBL/T SBT/R Riverfront Dr & Stoltzman Rd B C 2 B 8 7 Roundabout 27 D 9 C 2 C 34 D 37 E 29 D 9 C 3 D 26 D *Delay in seconds per vehicle **Maximum delay and LOS on any approach and/or movement ***Limiting Movement is the highest delay movement. Table C8: 24 Segment Option 2 Peak Hour Queues By Movement Queue Lengths (ft) Peak EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Hour vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max Riverfront Dr & Woodland ve Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & Sibley St Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & Marshall St Signalized EBL/T EBT/R WBL WBT/R SBL SBL/T/R Riverfront Dr & SB TH 69 Ramps/Owatonna St Signalized EBL/T EBT WBU/L/T WBR NBL/T/R NBR Riverfront Dr & NB TH 69 Ramps Signalized EBL/T EBT/R WBL/T WBT/R NBL NBL/T/R SBR Mankato West HS/Poplar St & Riverfront Dr Roundabout EBU/L/T EBT/R WBL/T WBT/R NBL NBL/T/R SBL/T SBT/R Riverfront Dr & Stoltzman Rd Signalized ppendix C

34 Table C9: 24 Segment Option 3 Traffic Operations nalysis Peak Hour Delay* LOS Movement Delay (sec/veh) EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SB TH 69 (Crossover) 5 B 6 B 2 B Signalized 3 B 7 B 3 8 SB TH 69 SBL off Ramp 4 B 3 22 C Signalized 3 B 3 9 B NB TH 69 (Crossover) 7 7 B Signalized SB TH 69 WBL onto Ramp SB TH 69 SBR off Ramp SB TH 69 (Off Ramp) SB TH 69 (On Ramp) NB TH 69 WBR onto Ramp NB TH 69 NBR off Ramp NB TH 69 (On Ramp) NB TH 69 EBL onto Ramp B B B B NB TH 69 NBL off Ramp C Signalized B NB TH 69 NBR off Ramp Riverfront Dr & Poplar St 2 5 C Stop Controlled 4 B 2 85 F Mankato West HS & Riverfront Dr C 27 D Signalized C 2 53 F Riverfront Dr & Stoltzman Rd 9 B 22 C 22 C 5 B 8 9 B 2 C 5 37 D 28 C B 49 D 48 D 5 B Signalized 38 D 45 D 53 D 3 C B 47 D 54 D 8 B 5 D 3 C B 55 E 5 D 25 C Riverfront Dr & Marshall St B 3 47 D Signalized 26 C C 8 B 74 F 3 Riverfront Dr & Sibley St 29 D F 79 F 64 F 7 C 5 Stop Controlled E 48 E 2 C 28 D 2 C 9 *Delay in seconds per vehicle

35 Table C: 24 Segment Option 3 Peak Hour Queues By Movement Queue Lengths (ft) Peak EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Hour vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max SB TH 69 (Crossover) Signalized SB TH 69 SBL off Ramp Signalized NB TH 69 (Crossover) Signalized SB TH 69 WBL onto Ramp SB TH 69 SBR off Ramp SB TH 69 (Off Ramp) SB TH 69 (On Ramp) NB TH 69 WBR onto Ramp NB TH 69 NBR off Ramp NB TH 69 (On Ramp) NB TH 69 EBL onto Ramp NB TH 69 NBL off Ramp 25 Signalized NB TH 69 NBR off Ramp Riverfront Dr & Poplar St Stop Controlled Mankato West HS & Riverfront Dr Signalized Riverfront Dr & Stoltzman Rd Signalized Riverfront Dr & Marshall St Signalized Riverfront Dr & Sibley St Stop Controlled

36 Table C: 24 Segment Option 3B Traffic Operations nalysis Peak Hour Delay* LOS Movement Delay (sec/veh) EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Riverfront Dr & Woodland ve Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & Sibley St B 35 E 43 E 7 2 C 6 C B Stop Controlled D 24 C 2 23 C 27 D 9 Riverfront Dr & TH 69 SB Ramp 9 B 2 C 8 25 C 3 5 D 3 B Signalized 32 C 49 D 8 57 E 24 C 36 D 7 Riverfront Dr & Owatonna St C 4 Stop Controlled B 3 D F B Riverfront Dr & NB TH 69 Ramps C 8 B 5 Signalized 9 B 22 C 6 B 2 B 4 66 E 2 C 72 E Riverfront Dr & Mankato West HS/Poplar St 2 C 7 B 9 B 6 B 6 E 4 B 3 B 35 D 34 C 6 B 35 D 33 C 9 B Signalized 3 C 36 D 7 B 7 B 59 E 29 C 3 C 92 F 9 F 42 D 59 E 6 E 48 D Riverfront Dr & Stoltzman Rd 8 B 7 B 7 B B 6 B 2 B 3 33 C 29 C B 3 C 42 D 9 Signalized 29 C 4 D 32 C 5 B 35 D 3 C B 37 D 36 D B 3 C 5 D 23 C Riverfront Dr & Marshall St D Signalized 2 B B B 45 D *Delay in seconds per vehicle Table C2: 24 Segment Option 3B Peak Hour Queues By Movement Queue Lengths (ft) Peak Hour EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max Riverfront Dr & Woodland ve Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & Sibley St Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & TH 69 SB Ramp Signalized Riverfront Dr & Owatonna St Stop Controlled Riverfront Dr & NB TH 69 Ramps Signalized Riverfront Dr & Mankato West HS/Poplar St Signalized Riverfront Dr & Stoltzman Rd Signalized Riverfront Dr & Marshall St Signalized ppendix C

37 Table C3: 24 Segment 2 Option 2 Traffic Operations nalysis Peak Hour Delay* LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL Movement Delay (sec/veh) WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Riverfront Dr & Sibley Pkwy 2 24 C C 5 Signalized 5 39 D C 7 Riverfront Dr & Poplar St/Warren St 26 C 4 D 44 D 8 B 33 C 4 D 4 B 34 C 37 D 9 B 26 C 8 7 Signalized 3 C 54 D 46 D 29 C 34 C 44 D 22 C 46 D 49 D 9 B 3 C 7 B 5 B Riverfront Dr & Minnesota St/Cherry St 5 B 4 D 36 D 4 B 4 D 45 D 2 5 B 4 B 3 46 D 5 2 Signalized 2 C 3 C 22 C 5 B 37 D 35 D 2 33 C 28 C 4 38 D 5 B 7 Riverfront Dr & Main St 4 B 36 D 29 C 6 B B 6 B 8 28 C 6 2 Signalized 23 C 6 E 9 46 D 57 E 34 C 23 C 3 C 5 B 36 D 9 *Delay in seconds per vehicle Table C4: 24 Segment 2 Option 2 Peak Hour Queues By Movement Queue Lengths (ft) Peak Hour EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max Riverfront Dr & Sibley Pkwy Signalized Riverfront Dr & Poplar St/Warren St Signalized Riverfront Dr & Minnesota St/Cherry St Signalized Riverfront Dr & Main St Signalized ppendix C

38 Table C5: 24 Segment 3 Options 2, 3 and 4 Traffic Operations nalysis Peak Hour Delay* LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Movement Delay (sec/veh) NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Riverfront Dr & Plum St B 3 C 7 B B 2 B 6 7 B 5 3 Signalized 3 B 4 D 38 D 23 C 6 B B 27 C 8 Riverfront Dr & Elm St 6 24 C 34 C 9 25 C B 4 B C 3 3 Signalized B 47 D 53 D 27 C 49 D 39 D 26 C 38 D B 9 29 C 7 6 Riverfront Dr & Madison ve 4 B 39 D 47 D 6 4 D 37 D 9 5 B B 5 3 B 2 B 4 Signalized 24 C 6 E 57 E 8 44 D 38 D B 22 C 24 C 2 B 23 C 24 C 5 *Delay in seconds per vehicle Table C6: 24 Segment 3 Options 2, 3 and 4 Peak Hour Queues By Movement Queue Lengths (ft) Peak Hour EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max Riverfront Dr & Plum St Signalized Riverfront Dr & Elm St Signalized Riverfront Dr & Madison ve Signalized ppendix C

39 Table C7: 24 Segment 3 Options 2B, 3B and 4B Traffic Operations nalysis Peak Hour Delay* LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Movement Delay (sec/veh) NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Riverfront Dr & Plum St 9 35 D 7 B 6 B 6 8 B 5 4 Signalized 4 B 38 D 4 D 22 C 6 B B 28 C 8 Riverfront Dr & Rock St 6 2 C 2 C B 27 C 3 B 6 B C 2 2 Signalized 9 5 D 45 D 33 C 53 D 4 D 22 C 37 D 2 B B 3 C 4 2 Riverfront Dr & Madison ve 4 B 44 D 48 D 6 4 D 36 D 8 4 B B 5 4 B 2 B 4 Signalized 24 C 73 E 59 E 8 43 D 37 D B 24 C 24 C 4 B 25 C 24 C 9 *Delay in seconds per vehicle Table C8: 24 Segment 3 Options 2B, 3B and 4B Peak Hour Queues By Movement Queue Lengths (ft) Peak Hour EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max Riverfront Dr & Plum St Signalized Riverfront Dr & Rock St Signalized Riverfront Dr & Madison ve Signalized ppendix C

40 Table C9: 24 Segment 5 Option Traffic Operations nalysis Peak Hour Delay* LOS Movement Delay (sec/veh) EBL/T/R NBT NBR SBL/T Riverfront Dr & TH 4 EB Ramp 4 B 28 D 9 7 B Roundabout 4 B 7 C 2 C 9 8 WBL/T/R NBL/T SBT SBR Riverfront Dr & TH 4 WB Ramp 3 B 3 B 9 2 C 9 Roundabout 7 C 4 B 2 C B 7 *Delay in seconds per vehicle Table C2: 24 Segment 5 Option Peak Hour Queues By Movement Riverfront Dr & TH 4 EB Ramp Roundabout Riverfront Dr & TH 4 WB Ramp Roundabout Peak Hour Maximum Queue Lengths (ft) EBL/T/R NBT NBR SBL/T WBL/T/R NBL/T SBT SBR ppendix C

41 Table C2: 24 Segment 5 Option 2 Traffic Operations nalysis Peak Movement Delay (sec/veh) Hour Delay* LOS EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT EB TH 4 (Crossover) Signalized EB TH 4 SBL off Ramp Signalized WB TH 4 (Crossover) Signalized EB TH 4 WBL onto Ramp EB TH 4 SBR off Ramp EB TH 4 (Off Ramp) EB TH 4 (On Ramp) WB TH 4 WBR onto Ramp WB TH 4 NBR off Ramp WB TH 4 (On Ramp) WB TH 4 EBL onto Ramp WB TH 4 NBL off Ramp Signalized WB TH 4 NBR off Ramp *Delay in seconds per vehicle 3 B 5 B 6 6 B 7 B 6 B 7 28 C 6 9 B B 2 B 2 B B 8 7 B B 2 4 B C 2 B 9 B 4 SBR

42 Table C22: 24 Segment 5 Option 2 Peak Hour Queues By Movement EB TH 4 (Crossover) Signalized EB TH 4 SBL off Ramp Signalized WB TH 4 (Crossover) Signalized EB TH 4 WBL onto Ramp EB TH 4 SBR off Ramp EB TH 4 (Off Ramp) EB TH 4 (On Ramp) WB TH 4 WBR onto Ramp WB TH 4 NBR off Ramp WB TH 4 (On Ramp) WB TH 4 EBL onto Ramp WB TH 4 NBL off Ramp Signalized WB TH 4 NBR off Ramp Queue Lengths (ft) Peak EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Hour vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max vg Max

43 ppendix H: Evaluation Matrices Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Riverfront Drive Corridor Study ǀ T ppendix

44 Evaluation Matrix Riverfront Drive Corridor Study January 27 Segment Woodland venue to Sibley Parkway Traditional Signalized Corridor Roundabout Corridor Interchange Modifications Option 3 Goal Objectives Performance Measure No Build Option Option B Option 2 Three Option 2B Four Option 3B Loop Diverging Triple Lefts Double Lefts Roundabouts Roundabout Ramp Diamond Notes 44 D B 3 B 9 2 B 6 Vehicle Delay on Riverfront 3 C 6 B 23 C 8 B 4 B 9 9 B Goal : Provide efficient vehicle and freight mobility and access. ddress peak hour backups at Poplar Street and between Owatonna St and Marshall St. Ensure mobility and reliability on Riverfront Drive and to Stoltzman Road and Hwy 69/6. Provide reasonable and responsible access. Ensure freight mobility and access. Delay by Type: Private Drive (YMC/School Driveway, Cub) Interchange Ramp Public Street (Woodland, Sibley, Poplar, Stotlzman, Marshall) Segment Delay (veh hr) Travel Time (Eastbound) Travel Time (Westbound) verage Travel Speeds (Eastbound) Vehicle Delay on Side Streets Number of ccess Points on Riverfront by Type: Full ccess 3/4 ccess Right In/Right Outs Roundabouts Score verage Travel Speeds (Westbound) Score Provides reasonable access to existing businesses Score ccommodates Truck Staging Needs Score Goal Score ( Points Total) 94 F 49 D 38 D 85 F 23 C 28 C 26 C 47 D 4 D 5 D 66 F 26 C 45 D 47 D 7 F 3 C 53 D 3 B 23 C 8 B 48 D 4 D 37 D 3 C 29 C 6 3 C 48 D 2 B 3 B 4 B 9 B 39 D 7 B 25 C 25 C 4 B 3 B 2 B F 24 C 33 C 37 D 4 B 2 C 9 B 66 E 34 C 4 D 56 E 27 C 29 C 33 C Good 3 Good 83 Fair 3/4 Poplar (U turns at Signal) US 69 Interchange to Stoltzman Road Options Fair RBs facilitate U turns Fair RBs facilitate U turns Poor Requires school site reconfiguration Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Poor Requires new connection between Hubbell and Owatonna 5 Yes 7 Not a differentiator for this segment. Study opportunities to address crash issues. Crash Rate Reduction (Cumulative) Vehicle to vehicle conflict points Vehicle to pedestrian conflict points Goal B: Score Safely accommodate Study opportunities to all users. address vehicles Roadway design provides traffic calming effect traveling above posted speed limits. Score Goal B Score ( Points Total) Goal C: Provide an inviting and safe pedestrian environment both along and across Riverfront Drive. Provide safe pedestrian crossings near Sibley St, Poplar St, and Stoltzman Road. Number of lanes to cross in single stage: US 69 SB Ramp/Owatonna Street Poplar Street Stoltzman Road Mankato West to Cub Foods Distance to cross Riverfront Drive: US 69 SB Ramp/Owatonna Street US 69 NB Ramp Poplar Street Stoltzman Road Mankato West to Cub Foods Sidewalk width under 69/6 Bridge Boulevard under 69/6 Bridge Mid Block Median Width (School to Cub) Ped. LOS Mid Block Crossing: School to Cub Crosswalk Markings and Signage Only: verage Pedestrian Delay (sec/ped) Level of Service ( F) 48% 52% 6% 58% 62% 56% Poor Poor Fair Good Good Good Poor N/ ' 98' 98' 28' & 24' 28' & 24' 24' & 32' 27' & 39' 27' & 28' 24' & 24' 7' 79' 36' & 25' 27' & 28' 7' 9' 9' 9' 27' & 28' 27' & 28' 97' 9' N/ 24' & 23' 24' & 23' 24' & 24' 24' & 24' 24' & 36' 24' & 23' 6'/6' 8'/6' 8'/' 6'/6' 6'/6' 6'/6' 8'/' Yes 7' Yes 7'/5' Yes 7' both Yes ' both Yes ' both Yes 5' one side Yes 7' both N/ 4' 4' 2' 2' 23' 4' * 22 F F F F F F* F single stage of crossing is the distance pedestrians need to cross to access the other side of the roadway or pedestrian refuge such as central median. ll lanes were included if intersection is signal controlled. Not a differentiator LOS F Delay exceeds tolerance level, high chance of risk taking. Evaluation assumes the application of crosswalk markings and signage only. *Only north side of Riverfront Drive Evaluated. South side is signal controlled intersection. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon: verage Pedestrian Delay (sec/ped) Level of Service ( F) 9.3 B 9.2 B 8.3 B 8.6 B 9.3 B 4.9* *.2 C Score Goal C Score ( Points Total) LOS B Occasionally some delay due to conflicting traffic. LOS C Delay noticeable to pedestrians, but not inconvienencing. Evaluation assumes the application of a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon. *Only north side of Riverfront Drive Evaluated. South side is signal controlled intersection. Goal D: Support bicycle connections across Riverfront Drive to designated parallel bike routes and regional trails. ccommodate connections to Minneopa Trail/West Mankato Trail crossing. ccommodates bicycles at primary crossings: Woodland venue Poplar Street Score Goal D Score ( Points Total) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not a differentiator for this segment. ll options could be work with a grade separation of the West Mankato Trail. Goal E: Supports future land use and redevelopment plans. Supports future land use Provides a future street connection through the Cub Foods retail complex to support future redevelopment opportunities between Sibley Pkwy and Linder ve Impacts to Developable Sites on Cub Retail Complex property No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No None Low Low High High Low Low The future road connection through Cub is not required with Options and 3B since Poplar ve remains full access with these options. Score Goal E Score ( Points Total) Number of cquisitions (full partial) /6 /4 4/ 5/ 2/5 / Goal F: Provide infrastructure improvements compatible with the historic and natural environment. void property impacts and impacts to historic/cultural and natural resources. Risk of Impacts to Historic/Cultural Resources Risk of Impacts to Natural Resources Low N/ Medium Impacts to City street network west of Hwy 69 (Hubbell/Owatonna St) No No No No No Yes Owatonna Yes Hubbell Score Minimize Cost. Estimated Cost $7, $,, $5,, $6,4, $4,5, $4,3, Score Enhance Community Yes median and Yes median and Provide additional space for streetscape elements. N/ No Yes median Identity. roundabouts roundabouts Yes median No Level of Community Level of community familiarity/acceptance N/ Medium High High High Low High Familiarity/cceptan Minimize Long Term Maintenance Costs. Level of long term maintenance costs. N/ Medium 5 signals Medium 6 signals Low 2 signals Low 2 signals High 8 signals Medium 6 signals Score Goal F Score ( Points Total) Low Low Low High Low High Low Medium Low Medium Low Not a differentiator.

45 Evaluation Matrix Riverfront Drive Corridor Study February 27 Segment 2 Sibley Parkway to Veteran's Memorial Bridge Option Narrow Option B Option 2 Lane Goal Objectives Performance Measure No Build Notes Median Hyvee Expansion Reduction Goal : Provide efficient vehicle and freight mobility and access. Maximum Queue ddress peak hour backups at Warren St, Poplar St/Warren St Cherry St, & Main St. Minnesota St/Cherry St Provide reasonable and responsible access. Vehicle Delay on Riverfront Main St Vehicle Delay on Side Streets 4 B 4 B 4 B 4 B 3 B 3 B 3 B 24 C NBT 275 NBT 275 NBT 275 NBT 8 NBT 275 NBT 275 NBT 275 NBT 95 NBT 225 NBT 225 NBT 225 NBT 375 NBT 3 NBT 3 NBT 3 NBT 375 NBT 5 NBT 5 NBT 5 NBT 5 NBT 25 NBT 25 NBT 25 NBT 8 Score Number of ccess Points on Riverfront by Type: Full ccess 3/4 ccess Right In/Right Outs Roundabouts 4Lane with Spot Safety and Pedestrian Enhancements 3Lane with Spot Safety and Pedestrian 4 B 4 B 4 B 28 C 8 B 8 B 8 B 34 C Provides reasonable access to existing businesses Good Good Fair Fair Ensure freight mobility and access. Score ccommodates Truck Staging Needs Yes Yes Yes Yes Score Goal Score ( Points Total) Not a Determining Factor Goal B: Safely accommodate all users. Study opportunities to address travel speeds above the posted speed limits. Roadway design provides traffic calming effect Score Goal B Score ( Points Total) N/ No No Yes* 7 7 *Reduction to one northbound lane may encourage slower speeds. Goal C: Support an inviting and safe pedestrian environment both along and across Riverfront Drive Provide safe pedestrian crossings near Warren, Cherry, Hy Vee and the Civic Center. Provides Pedestrian Refuge at Primary Crossings Warren Street Cherry Street Civic Center Drive Mid Block to Civic Center Front Door Main Street Distance to Cross at Riverfront Drive (ft) Warren Street Cherry Street Civic Center Main Street Provides Pedestrian facilities in missing areas: Between Main and Walnut Between Civic Center Dr and Cherry St Yes 7' Yes 7' Yes 7' Yes 7' Yes 7' No Yes 7' Yes 7' Yes 5' Yes 7' No 4' No 4' Yes 7' No No 4' No 4' Yes <5' No No Yes* Yes 8' W, 6' Blvd Yes 8' W, ' Blvd No Yes 8' W, 4' Blvd Yes 8' W, 6' Blvd Yes 8' W, 7' Blvd Number of Lanes to Cross in a Single Stage Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Warren Street * 57* 74* 79* 7* Score Yes Yes 8' W, 6' Blvd 6 8* *Need to relocate refuge crossing to the north. Would not line up with Civic Center front door. *Single stage crossing (no refuge) *Single stage crossing (no refuge) *Single stage crossing (no refuge) Not a Differentiator Improve Walkability along and across the corridor. Cherry Street Civic Center Main Street Pedestrian LOS Score for Segment Goal D: Support bicycle connections across Riverfront Drive to designated parallel bike routes and Goal E: Supports future land use and redevelopment plans. Cherry to Civic Center Plaza (South Side) Score Goal C Score ( Points Total) ccommodate on street ccommodates facilities at Cherry Street bicycle connections Supports future land use Score Goal D Score ( Points Total) Supports Hy Vee Redevelopment Plans N/ C C D Impacts to Developable Space on Hy Vee Property N/ No Yes* No Score Yes Yes Yes Yes Goal E Score ( Points Total) Factors effecting results include number of adjacent thru lanes, proportion of sidewalk adjacent to buildings, sidewalk width, etc. No changes affect on street bicycle facilities on Cherry Street across Riverfront Drive. Unknown until we meet with Hy Vee *Road ROW enxroaches onto the Hy Vee property pushing sidewalks further onto the property. Goal F: Provide infrastructure improvements compatible with the historic and natural environment. void property impacts and impacts to historic/cultural and natural resources. Minimize Cost. Number of Partial cquisitions Risk of Impacts to Historic/Cultural Resources N/ Low High* Low Risk of Impacts to Natural Resources N/ Low Low Low Score 4 Estimated Cost $,75, $2,35, $45, Score Goal F Score ( Points Total) *Option B encroaches on the Union Depot Property. The Union Depot is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places. There is no potential for impacts to natural resources Goal G: Enhance Community Identity Enhance Community Identity. Minimize Long Term Maintenance Costs. Provides space for streetscape elements. Level of long term maintenance costs. Fair Poor Poor Poor Medium Low Low Low Score Goal G Score ( Points Total) Medians reduced in all build options.

46 Evaluation Matrix Riverfront Drive Corridor Study February 27 Segment 3 Veteran's Memorial Bridge to Madison venue 4Lane with Spot Safety and Pedestrian Enhancements 3Lane with Spot Safety and Pedestrian Enhancements 3Lane with Medians and Parking both Sides 3Lane Medians and turn lanes Goal Objectives Performance Measure No Build Primary Int. Primary Int. Primary Int. Primary Int. Primary Int. Primary Int. Primary Int. Primary Int. Notes Plum & Elm Plum & Rock Plum & Elm Plum & Rock Plum & Elm Plum & Rock Plum & Elm Plum & Rock Provide adequate mobility on Riverfront Vehicle Delay on Riverfront Drive. 5 B 6 B 5 B 6 B 5 B 6 B Score Goal : Provide efficient vehicle and freight mobility and access. Goal B: Safely accommodate all users (vehicles, freight, transit, pedestrians, bicycles) Option 4 B 4 B 4 B 9 B 9 B 9 B 9 B 9 B 9 B Vehicle Delay on Side Streets 8 B 8 B 8 B 29 C 3 C 29 C 3 C 29 C 3 C Provide reasonable and responsible access. Maintains Left Turn ccess to Businesses/Parking Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No North Number of Left Turn ccess to Businesses/Parking South Score ccommodates Truck Staging Needs Ensure freight mobility and access. Maintains trucks ability to stage on Riverfront Dr.* Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Score Goal Score ( Points Total) Study opportunities to Crash Rate Reduction (Cumulative) % % 47% 47% 47% 47% 47% 47% address crash issues. Minimizes parallel parking maneuvers conflicting with thru traffic Good Good Good Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Fair Score Study opportunities to Roadway design provides traffic calming effect No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes address travel speeds Reduced Number of Lanes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes above the posted speed limits. Option B Bumpouts into Riverfront/Medians Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/Yes Yes/Yes Yes/Yes Yes/Yes Score Goal B Score ( Points Total) Option 2 Option 2B Option 3 Option 3B Option 4 Option 4B *Trucks have been observed staging in lanes on Riverfront Drive. The ability for trucks to perform this illegal movement is reduced in some options. Provides Pedestrian Refuge at Primary Crossings No No No No No Yes 3' Yes 3' No 4' No 4' Number of Lanes to Cross in a Single Stage (West/East) Rock Street Elm Street Plum Street Crossing Distance Decreased (Y/N) / New Distance (ft) Rock Street N/ 5 No 5 No 5 Yes 38 Yes 38 Yes 38 Yes 38 Yes 46 Yes 46 Elm Street N/ 5 No 5 No 5 Yes 38 Yes 38 Yes 38 Yes 38 Yes 46 Yes 46 Plum Street N/ 55 No 75 No 75 Yes 5 Yes 5 Yes 5 Yes 5 Yes 5 Yes 5 ccommodates pedestrian Width of Sidewalks ' ' ' 6' 6' 2' 2' 2' 2' crossings at Rock Street or Pedestrian LOS Score for Segment South North South North South North South North South North South North South North South North South North other alternative for events and between public parking lots on both sides Elm to Rock C C C C C C D D D D D C D C B C B C Goal C: of Riverfront. Support an inviting and safe pedestrian environment both Unsignalized Crossing LOS: Elm/Rock along and across Crosswalk Markings and Signage Only: Riverfront Drive Level of Service ( F) F F F F F E E F F Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon: Level of Service ( F) B B Score Unsignalized Crossing LOS Thresholds: 5s (Delay)_Usually no conflicting Traffic B 5 s _Occasionally some delay C 2s_Delay noticeable to peds, but not inconveniencing D 2 3s_Delay noticeable/irritating, increased change of risk taking E 3 45s_Delay approaches tolerance level, risk taking likely F >45s_Delay exceeds tolerance level, high chance of risk taking Provides On Street Parking: ssess need for additional on street parking and accessibility One / Both Sides One One One One One to available off street public parking areas. Number of On Street Parking Spaces Maintains full access to public parking lots Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Score Goal C Score ( Points Total) Both Both One One No No No No Goal D: Support bicycle connections across Riverfront Drive to designated parallel bike routes and regional trails. ccommodate future onstreet bicycle facility ccommodates future on street bicycle crossing at Elm Street crossing at Elm Street or other lternatives. Poor Fair Poor Good Score Goal D Score ( Points Total) Fair Good Fair Good Fair Options with a signal at Elm rated higher along with those with fewer traffic lanes to cross. Goal E: Supports future land use and redevelopment Support Old Town redevelopment strategies. Supports Redevelopment Plans Poor Fair Fair Good Impacts to Developable Space No No No No Score Goal E Score ( Points Total) Good No 9 9 Good Good Good Good No No No No Not a differentiator No Impacts to Developable Space. Goal F: Provide infrastructure improvements compatible with the historic and natural environment. void property impacts and impacts to historic/cultural properties in Old Town and Zonta Gardens. Minimize Cost. Number of cquisitions (full partial) Risk of Impacts to Historic/Cultural Resources Risk of Impacts to Natural Resources None None None None Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Score Estimated Cost $325, $575, $55, $8, $55, $8, $525, $775, Score Goal F Score ( Points Total) None Low Low None None None None Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low No Impacts to Properties. Proposed Construction is within ROW. No Impacts to Historical/Cultural Resources. Proposed Construction is within ROW. No Impacts to Natural Resources. Proposed Construction is within ROW. Not a differentiator Provides dditional Space for Streetscape Elements. Poor Poor Poor Good Good Good Good Fair Fair rating of good was given if there was additional sidewalk space, medians and bumpouts for streetscape amenities. Support Identity of Goal G: Old Town District Enhance Community Identity ccommodates Events/Public Gathering Spaces Level of community familiarity/acceptance Poor Poor Poor Good N/ N/ N/ N/ Good Fair Fair Fair Fair N/ N/ N/ N/ N/ Level of long term maintenance costs. Low Low Low Low Score Goal G Score ( Points Total) Low Medium Medium Medium Medium

47 Evaluation Matrix Riverfront Drive Corridor Study February 27 Segment 4 Madison venue to Good Council Drive Goal Objectives Performance Measure No Build Option Option 2 Option 3 3rd ve Realigned to dams Street 3rd ve RI/RO, Realigned Chestnut St Madison ve/3rd ve Connection Notes Number of ccess Points on Riverfront by Type: Provide reasonable and responsible access. Full ccess Right In/Right Out Provides reasonable access to existing businesses 4 Good 9 6 Fair some full accesses converted to right in / right out access 9 6 Fair some full accesses converted to right in / right out access 9 5 Fair some full accesses converted to right in / right out access Score Goal : Provide efficient vehicle and freight mobility and access. Ensure freight mobility and access & consider network connectivity options between Madison/3rd ve ccommodates truck movements from 3rd ve to Riverfront Dr Good Fair relocation to dams St or Madison ve Poor shift to Maxfield or Chestnut for full access Good closest to today's movements Score Goal Score ( Points Total) Riverfront Crossing at Lafayette St / 3rd ve No Build Option (On Layout) Option (With Median) Option B (With Median) Option C Option 2 (On Layout) Option (With Median) Option B (With Median) Option C Option 3 (On Layout) Option (With Median) Option B (With Median) Option C Goal B: Safely accommodate all users (vehicles, freight, transit, pedestrians, bicycles) Provides Pedestrian Crossing Opportunities, Particularly Near Schools. Ensure Compatibility with Transit Development Plan Improves Pedestrian Crossings Provides Pedestrian Refuge Number of Lanes to Cross in a Single Stage Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Distance to Cross Riverfront (Per Stage) (ft) Score ccommodates bus transit access on designated routes N/ Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 9' Median 3' Median 3' Median 5' Median 9' Median Yes No Right in / right out (medians) access will reroute transit route 3 entering Riverfront from Lime St. 3' Median 3' Median 5' Median 9' Median 3' Median 3' Median No Right in / right out (medians) access will reroute transit route 3 entering Riverfront from Lime St. Yes Yes Yes Yes No Right in / right out (medians) access will reroute transit route 3 entering Riverfront from Lime St. Score Study opportunities to address vehicles Roadway design provides traffic calming effect traveling above posted speed limits. Poor Poor Fair Good Good Poor Fair Good Good Poor Fair Good Good Score Goal B Score ( Points Total) ' Median Bus route 3 traverses from Madison venue to Lime St. void impacts to Goal F: property and Provide historic/natural infrastructure resources. improvements compatible with the historic and natural Minimize Costs environment. Number of cquisitions (full partial) Parcel cquisition Costs (Sum) 2 full 4 partial N/ $4, $6, $67, Score Goal F Score ( Points Total) full 3 full partial Goal G: Enhance Community Identity Enhance the community /corridor Provide additional space for streetscape elements. No 9' Median, No Blvd 3' Median, No Blvd 3' Median, 9' Blvd 3'Median, 6' Blvd 9' Median, No Blvd 3' Median, No Blvd 3' Median, 9' Blvd 3'Median, 6' Blvd 9' Median, No Blvd 3' Median, No Blvd 3' Median, 9' Blvd 3'Median, 6' Blvd identity in ways Level of long term maintenance costs. Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium compatible with Score Goal F Score ( Points Total)

48 Evaluation Matrix Riverfront Drive Corridor Study January 26 Segment 5 Highway 4 Interchange Hwy 4 Options Goal Objectives Performance Measure No Build Option 2 Option Diverging Roundabouts Diamond Notes 2 23 C 6 ddress peak hour backups at Highway 4 ramp Vehicle Delay on Riverfront 2 6 C 9 99 F 2 C 5 intersections. Vehicle Delay on Ramps 93 F 2 C 5 Goal : Provide efficient vehicle and freight mobility and access. Goal B: Safely accommodate all users. Goal C: Provide an inviting and safe pedestrian environment both along and across Riverfront Drive. Ensure mobility and reliability on Riverfront Drive and to Highway Provide reasonable and responsible access. Ensure freight mobility and access. Study opportunities to address crash issues. Maximum Capacity Utilization Maximum Volume to Capacity Ratio Number of ccess Points on Riverfront by Type: Full ccess 3/4 ccess Right In/Right Outs Roundabouts ccommodates Truck Staging Needs Crash Rate Reduction (Cumulative) Vehicle to vehicle conflict points Vehicle to pedestrian conflict points Study opportunities to address vehicles Roadway design provides traffic calming effect traveling above posted speed limits. Provide safe pedestrian crossings particularly near schools. Number of lanes to cross in single stage: Good Counsel Drive TH 4 EB Distance to cross Riverfront Drive: Good Counsel Drive TH4 EB Sidewalk width Score 9 Score Score North/South side at Good Counsel Drive North/South side at TH 4 WB Boulevard Width Under Bridge Score N/ N/ N/ Goal Score ( Points Total) 75 Goal C Score ( Points Total) 9 67% 57% Score 9 8 No Yes Yes Score 9 Goal B Score ( Points Total) ' 72' 72' 83' 3 Stage 6', 22', 8' 4 Stage 6',6',6',26' 6' 6' 6' 8' 8' 8' N/ 8' 5' Score Not a differentiator for this segment. Not a differentiator for this segment. Not a differentiator for this segment. single stage of crossing is the distance pedestrians need to cross to access the other side of the roadway or pedestrian refuge such as central median. ll lanes were included if intersection is signal controlled. Provides buffer from traffic. Goal D: Support bicycle connections across Riverfront Drive to designated parallel bike routes and ccommodate future trail crossing to Minnesota River Trail. ccommodates bicycles at primary crossings: To Minnesota River Trail Score Goal D Score ( Points Total) No Yes Yes Goal E: Supports future land use and redevelopment plans. Supports future land use Consitent with future land use plans Score Goal E Score ( Points Total) Yes Yes Yes Not a differentiator for this segment. Number of cquisitions (full partial) Goal F: Provide infrastructure improvements compatible with community and the historic and natural environment. void impacts to historic properties and natural resources. Minimize Cost. Enhance Community Identity. Level of Community Familiarity/cceptance Risk of Impacts to Historic/Cultural Resources Risk of Impacts to Natural Resources Score Estimated Cost $,3, $,6, Score 8 7 Provides space for additional streetscape elements. Level of community familiarity/acceptance. None None None None None None No Yes Yes N/ High Low Not a differentiator for this segment. Roundabouts are familiar and accepted in community. Diverging diamond is a new concept. Minimize long term maintenance costs. Level of long term maintenance costs. N/ Low High 2 signal systems with diverging diamond option. Score 7 Goal F Score ( Points Total)

49 ppendix I: Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossings at the West Mankato Trail Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Riverfront Drive Corridor Study ǀ T ppendix

50 RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF PERIMETER = 3 RE = 5 SQ REM = 48 SQ S RIVERFRONT DR RE = 5 SQ REM = 48 SQ PERIMETER = 3 RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT PERIMETER 3 FT PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF RE 5 SF TWO BOX CULVERTS OPTION US 69 YMC EDWRD S RIVERFRONT DR JONES / CLDWELL BNKER POPLR ST BURGER KING LEGEND SIDEWLK FUTURE RIGHT OF WY MNKTO WEST HIGH SCHOOL CUB BOX CULVERT PRCELS FOODS LNDSCPING STIRS RETINING WLL 8 NOTE: 2 FT CONTOUR INTERVLS SCLE IN FEET

51 RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF PERIMETER = 3 RE = 5 SQ REM = 48 SQ S RIVERFRONT DR RE = 5 SQ REM = 48 SQ PERIMETER = 3 RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT PERIMETER 3 FT PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF RE 5 SF ONE BOX CULVERT OPTION 2 US 69 YMC EDWRD S RIVERFRONT DR JONES / CLDWELL BNKER 25 POPLR ST BURGER KING LEGEND SIDEWLK FUTURE RIGHT OF WY MNKTO WEST HIGH SCHOOL CUB BOX CULVERT PRCELS FOODS LNDSCPING STIRS RETINING WLL 8 NOTE: 2 FT CONTOUR INTERVLS SCLE IN FEET

52 RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF PERIMETER = 3 RE = 5 SQ REM = 48 SQ S RIVERFRONT DR RE = 5 SQ REM = 48 SQ PERIMETER = 3 RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF PERIMETER 3 FT PERIMETER 3 FT PERIMETER 3 FT RE 5 SF RE 5 SF OVERPSS OPTION 3 US 69 YMC EDWRD S RIVERFRONT DR JONES / CLDWELL BNKER POPLR ST BURGER KING LEGEND SIDEWLK FUTURE RIGHT OF WY MNKTO WEST HIGH SCHOOL CUB BOX CULVERT PRCELS FOODS LNDSCPING STIRS RETINING WLL 8 NOTE: 2 FT CONTOUR INTERVLS SCLE IN FEET

53 ppendix J: Implementation Table with Public Prioritization Results Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Riverfront Drive Corridor Study ǀ T ppendix

54 Implementation Priorities Input from pril 2, 27 Open House