PUBLIC INPUT MEETING. WHEN? December 15, 2011 Open House: 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (CDT) Formal Presentation at 7:30 p.m.

Transcription

1 PUBLIC INPUT MEETING WHY? To identify public issues and discuss potential improvements to be considered in the Washington Street Corridor Study in Grand Forks, ND. The study area includes Washington Street from 17 th Ave. S. to 8 th Ave. N. including improvement alternatives for the railroad underpass and the intersection of Washington St. & Demers Ave. WHEN? December 15, 2011 Open House: 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (CDT) Formal Presentation at 7:30 p.m. WHERE? Grand Forks City Hall Council Chambers 255 North Fourth Street Grand Forks, ND OPEN HOUSE CONDUCTED BY Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc. Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (GF-EGFMPO), and the City of Grand Forks Representatives from Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc., the GF-EGFMPO, and the City of Grand Forks will be on hand to answer your questions and discuss your concerns. WRITTEN STATEMENTS or comments about this project must be mailed or ed by December 30, 2011 to: Jon Markusen, PE Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc Gateway Drive Suite F Grand Forks, ND jon.markusen@kljeng.com Note Public Input Meeting in subject heading. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc. and the GF-EGFMPO will make every reasonable accommodation to provide an accessible meeting facility for all persons. Appropriate provisions for the hearing and visually challenged or persons with limited English Proficiency (LEP) will be made if the meeting conductors are notified 5 days prior to the meeting date, if possible. To request language interpretation, an auxiliary aid or service (i.e., sign language interpreter, accessible parking, or materials in alternative format) contact Earl Haugen of GF-EGFMPO at TTY users may use Relay North Dakota 711 or Materials can be provided in alternative formats: large print, Braille, cassette tape, or on computer disk for people with disabilities or with LEP by Earl Haugen of GF-EGFMPO at TTY users may use Relay North Dakota 711 or

2 For more information contact: Jon Markusen, P.E. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc Public Input Meeting to be held on December 15, 2011 to discuss Washington Street Corridor Study in Grand Forks, ND. A Public Input Meeting will be held from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (CDT) on December 15, 2011 at the Grand Forks City Hall Council Chambers Room, 255 North 4th Street. The Public Input Meeting will utilize an open house format with a formal presentation at 7:30 p.m. (CDT). The purpose of the Public Input Meeting is to present the recommendations for improvements to the corridor, implementation plans and the draft report. The study area includes Washington Street from 17th Ave South to 8th Ave North. The Public Input Meeting will provide the opportunity for public input. Representatives from Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc., Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (GF-EGFMPO), NDDOT and the City of Grand Forks will be on hand to answer your questions and discuss your concerns. If unable to attend the Public Input Meeting, written statements or comments must be mailed by December 30, 2011 to Jon Markusen, P.E., Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc., 2750 Gateway Drive Suite F, Grand Forks, ND or jon.markusen@kljeng.com with Public Input Meeting in the subject heading. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc. and GF-EGFMPO will make every reasonable accommodation to provide an accessible meeting facility for all persons. Appropriate provisions for the hearing and visually challenged or persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) will be made if the Department is notified 5 days prior to the meeting date, if possible. To request language interpretation, an auxiliary aid or service (i.e., sign language interpreter, accessible parking, or materials in alternative format) contact Earl Haugen of GF-EGFMPO, at TTY users may use Relay North Dakota 711 or Materials can be provided in alternative formats: large print, Braille, cassette tape, or on computer disk for people with disabilities or with LEP by contacting Earl Haugen of GF- EGFMPO, at TTY users may use Relay North Dakota 711 or

3 ###

4 Public Input M eeting Washington Street Corridor Study and Underpass Evaluation Report Why? To identify public issues and discuss potential improvements to be considered in the Washington Street Corridor Study in Grand Forks, ND. The study area includes Washington Street from 17th Ave. S. to 8th Ave. N. including improvement alternatives for the railroad underpass and the intersection of Washington St. and Demers Ave. Public Input M eeting Washington Street Corridor Study and Underpass Evaluation Report Why? To identify public issues and discuss potential improvements to be considered in the Washington Street Corridor Study in Grand Forks, ND. The study area includes Washington Street from 17th Ave. S. to 8th Ave. N. including improvement alternatives for the railroad underpass and the intersection of Washington St. and Demers Ave. When and Where? Thursday, December 15, 2011 Open House: 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm (CDT) Formal Presentation at 7:30 pm Grand Forks City Hall - Council Chambers 255 North Fourth Street Grand Forks, ND When and Where? Thursday, December 15, 2011 Open House: 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm (CDT) Formal Presentation at 7:30 pm Grand Forks City Hall - Council Chambers 255 North Fourth Street Grand Forks, ND Public Input M eeting Washington Street Corridor Study and Underpass Evaluation Report Why? To identify public issues and discuss potential improvements to be considered in the Washington Street Corridor Study in Grand Forks, ND. The study area includes Washington Street from 17th Ave. S. to 8th Ave. N. including improvement alternatives for the railroad underpass and the intersection of Washington St. and Demers Ave. Public Input M eeting Washington Street Corridor Study and Underpass Evaluation Report Why? To identify public issues and discuss potential improvements to be considered in the Washington Street Corridor Study in Grand Forks, ND. The study area includes Washington Street from 17th Ave. S. to 8th Ave. N. including improvement alternatives for the railroad underpass and the intersection of Washington St. and Demers Ave. When and Where? Thursday, December 15, 2011 Open House: 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm (CDT) Formal Presentation at 7:30 pm Grand Forks City Hall - Council Chambers 255 North Fourth Street Grand Forks, ND When and Where? Thursday, December 15, 2011 Open House: 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm (CDT) Formal Presentation at 7:30 pm Grand Forks City Hall - Council Chambers 255 North Fourth Street Grand Forks, ND

5 Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson 2750 Gateway Drive Suite F, Grand Forks, ND Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson and the GF-EGFMPO will make every reasonable accommodation to provide an accessible meeting facility for all persons. Appropriate provisions for the hearing and visually challenged or persons with limited English proficiency will be made if notification is provided five days prior to the meeting date, if possible. To request language interpretation, an auxiliary aid or service (i.e., sign language interpreter, accessible parking, or materials in alternative format) contact Earl Haugen of GF-EGFMPO, at TTY users may use Relay North Dakota 711 or If unable to attend the meeting, written statements or comments about this project must be mailed or ed by December 30, 2011 to Jon Markusen, PE, Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc., 2750 Gateway Drive Suite F, Grand Forks, ND or Jon at com, note Public Input Meeting in subject heading. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson 2750 Gateway Drive Suite F, Grand Forks, ND Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson and the GF-EGFMPO will make every reasonable accommodation to provide an accessible meeting facility for all persons. Appropriate provisions for the hearing and visually challenged or persons with limited English proficiency will be made if notification is provided five days prior to the meeting date, if possible. To request language interpretation, an auxiliary aid or service (i.e., sign language interpreter, accessible parking, or materials in alternative format) contact Earl Haugen of GF-EGFMPO, at TTY users may use Relay North Dakota 711 or If unable to attend the meeting, written statements or comments about this project must be mailed or ed by December 30, 2011 to Jon Markusen, PE, Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc., 2750 Gateway Drive Suite F, Grand Forks, ND or Jon at com, note Public Input Meeting in subject heading. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson 2750 Gateway Drive Suite F, Grand Forks, ND Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson and the GF-EGFMPO will make every reasonable accommodation to provide an accessible meeting facility for all persons. Appropriate provisions for the hearing and visually challenged or persons with limited English proficiency will be made if notification is provided five days prior to the meeting date, if possible. To request language interpretation, an auxiliary aid or service (i.e., sign language interpreter, accessible parking, or materials in alternative format) contact Earl Haugen of GF-EGFMPO, at TTY users may use Relay North Dakota 711 or If unable to attend the meeting, written statements or comments about this project must be mailed or ed by December 30, 2011 to Jon Markusen, PE, Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc., 2750 Gateway Drive Suite F, Grand Forks, ND or Jon at com, note Public Input Meeting in subject heading. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson 2750 Gateway Drive Suite F, Grand Forks, ND Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson and the GF-EGFMPO will make every reasonable accommodation to provide an accessible meeting facility for all persons. Appropriate provisions for the hearing and visually challenged or persons with limited English proficiency will be made if notification is provided five days prior to the meeting date, if possible. To request language interpretation, an auxiliary aid or service (i.e., sign language interpreter, accessible parking, or materials in alternative format) contact Earl Haugen of GF-EGFMPO, at TTY users may use Relay North Dakota 711 or If unable to attend the meeting, written statements or comments about this project must be mailed or ed by December 30, 2011 to Jon Markusen, PE, Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc., 2750 Gateway Drive Suite F, Grand Forks, ND or Jon at com, note Public Input Meeting in subject heading.

6 Attendee Ardin Strifel Brad Towers Craig Amiot Dan Sampson Greg Nelson Jerry Baker Jon Markusen Ken Towers Leonard Bina Matt Walkowiak Michael Johnson Mike Bittner Sharon Shauer Sia-Anvarinia Title/Representing North Dakota Department of Transportation - Local Government Italian Moon 5-Star Collision Omega Properties B&N Oil Co. Did Not Specify Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Italian Moon Property Owner Paradiso Mexican Restaurant North Dakota Department of Transportation - Local Government Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Property Owner Paradiso Mexican Restaurant

7 Washington Street Corridor Study Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization Public Input Meeting Number 4 December 15 th,2011

8 Presentation Outline Public Input Meeting Review Underpass Review and Recommendations Study Recommendations Vehicular Improvements Pedestrian Improvements Bicycle Improvements Transit Improvements Right-Of-Way Impacts Implementation Schedule Next Steps

9 PUBLIC INPUT MEETING REVIEW

10 Public Input Meeting Review Public Input Meeting 1 Project Overview Review of corridor study objectives Discussion of traffic issues and public concerns Access Management Previous Studies Structure update Public Input Meeting 2 Briefing on Study Results Structure Analysis Summary of Traffic Analysis Results: Traffic Flow and Levels of Service Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety and Accessibility Public Transportation

11 Public Input Meeting Review Public Input Meeting 3 Review of Access Management and Multimodal Improvement Alternatives Discussion of alternatives for access control, pedestrian, bicycle and transit provisions DeMers Avenue intersection update Morning meeting designated for businesses north of DeMers Avenue Afternoon meeting designated for businesses north of DeMers Avenue Evening presentation designated for all public

12 UNDERPASS REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13 Underpass Evaluation Review Widespread cracking present in the portion of the bridge constructed in 1937 Caused by irreversible alkali-carbonate reaction (ACR) and alkali-silica reaction (ASR) ACR and ASR not found in the east bridge span built in 1964

14 Underpass Evaluation Review Superstructure and retaining walls also exhibit deterioration Pavement underneath the bridge at or near the end of useful life Lift station #183 adjacent to underpass currently undersized Bicycle accommodations underneath the bridge do not meet AASHTO design guidelines

15 Underpass Evaluation Review

16 Underpass Recommendation Deficiency: Bridge deterioration in west bridge span Recommendation: Full bridge replacement Existing lane configuration Expanded bicycle facility on west side of underpass Replace Lift Station #183 Expand bridge width (BNSF request) Discarded Alternatives: Short-term repair Partial bridge replacement Expanded bridge with additional NB/SB lanes

17

18

19

20

21 Underpass Alternatives Underpass alternatives (2011 cost): Sloped Sections: $4,843,000 Retaining Walls: $4,069,000 Combination Sloped Sections/Retaining Walls: $4,812,000 Shoo-fly cost: $1,704,000 (2011 cost) Most expensive alternative: north side shoo-fly

22 RECOMMENDATIONS VEHICULAR IMPROVEMENTS

23 Corridor Pavement Deficiency: Pavement North of Hammerling at or near the end of useful life Recommendation: Reconstruct Corridor North of Hammerling Avenue Existing basic lane configuration Narrow lanes to 12 (allows widening sidewalk 2 on each side) South of Hammerling only requires rehabilitation Discarded Alternatives: Expanded roadway geometry Positively Offset Turn Lanes

24 Access Management Deficiency: Crash and traffic flow concerns related to dense driveway spacing Up to 3.8 times Average State and County crash rates Recommendation: Implement Access Management Plan Discarded Alternatives: Raised Medians

25

26

27

28 Access Management Access Management Plan may vary during project development Project development is not anticipated for several years Final access management plan should strike balance between motor vehicle crash susceptibility and business access and functionality Studies have found that as the number of access points per mile increase, the accident rate also increases

29 Signal Network Deficiency: Current signal system incapable of desired communication/data transfer Recommendation: Install new traffic signal interconnection hardwire throughout the corridor

30 17 th Avenue South Deficiency: SB through lane queue lengths are anticipated to exceed existing full-width turnlane lengths. Recommendation: Extend turn-lanes

31 15 th Avenue South Deficiency: Intersection delays reach unacceptable levels by 2035 Recommendation: Install right-turn lanes on 15 th Avenue South Approaches Discarded Alternative: Side-street realignment

32 15 th Avenue South

33 14 th,10 th & 8 th Avenues South Deficiency: Negatively offset intersections cause crash and traffic operations concerns Recommendation: Realign 14 th, 10 th and 8 th Avenues South (WB approaches) Discarded Alternatives: Realign eastbound approaches Install additional turn-lanes on minor approaches

34 14 th Avenue South

35 10 th Avenue South

36 8 th Avenue South

37 7 th Avenue South Deficiency: Crash and operational concerns related to combination left/through lane on SB 7 th Avenue South Crashes related to NB DeMers Avenue spillback across 7 th Avenue South intersection Recommendation: Stripe SB left-turn lane at 7 th Avenue South Discarded Alternative: Restricted 7 th Avenue South access

38 7 th Avenue South

39 DeMers Avenue Deficiency: Capacity and operational deficiencies Crash concerns at the intersection Spillback causing crash and operation concerns at adjacent intersections Recommendation: Continuous flow intersection with additional EB and WB through lane With or without new south river crossing

40 DeMers Avenue Discarded Alternatives: Interchange Roundabout Jughandle Fly-Over NB and SB Lane Expansion Improvements to complimentary corridors

41 DeMers Intersection

42 DeMers Avenue Intersection

43 DeMers Avenue Intersection Benefits versus existing configuration: *90% reduction in motorist delay *75% reduction in fuel consumption *35-50% reduction in vehicle emissions *70% and *85% queue length reduction on Washington Street and DeMers Avenue respectively Reduced pedestrian exposure Controlled channelized right-turn movements Potential rear-end crash reduction at 4 th Avenue South On-Ramp to DeMers Avenue *Data specific to 2035 Peak-Hour Traffic Conditions with 32 nd Avenue River Crossing

44 2 nd Avenue North Deficiency: Traffic signal unwarranted through study horizon Signal removal offers operations and crash reduction benefits Recommendation: Replace traffic control signal with two-way stop control

45 2nd Avenue North

46 University Avenue Deficiency: NB and SB left-turn crash rate higher than expected when compared to the remaining corridor Recommendation: Install NB and SB protected/permissive left-turn phasing with flashing yellow arrow Discarded Alternative: Install NB and SB exclusive protected left-turn phase

47 University Avenue

48 8 th Avenue North Deficiency: Intersection meets MUTCD Warrant 9 (Intersection Near a Grade Crossing) Potential for vehicles queuing across tracks during peak hours of the day Past public requests for improved pedestrian crossing across Washington at this location Recommendation: Install traffic control signal with railroad preemption

49 8th Avenue North

50 RECOMMENDATIONS PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS

51 Pedestrian Improvements Deficiencies: Sidewalks do not meet ADA side-slope standards across private driveways and alleyways Sidewalks are adjacent to vehicle activity along Washington Street Utilities currently within sidewalk do not meet ADA width requirements and act as obstacles for snow removal

52 Pedestrian Improvements Recommendations: Install 5 foot sidewalk with 2 feet of stamped concrete Route sidewalks around driveway and alleyway aprons Requires 5 feet of ROW acquisition at driveway locations Relocate utilities outside of sidewalk footprint where feasible Discarded Alternative: Boulevards

53

54 9 th Avenue South Deficiency: Pedestrian mobility gap across Washington Street between DeMers & 13 th Avenue South (1/2 Mile) High Transit Usage Potential vehicle-pedestrian crashes and conflicts at existing crosswalk markings

55 9 th Avenue South Recommendation: Install Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon South of 9 th Avenue South Pending 9 th Avenue South WB Approach closure Discarded Alternative: Flashing beacon (unless 9 th Avenue approach not closed) Traffic signal

56 9 th Avenue South

57 RECOMMENDATIONS BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS

58 Bicycle Improvements Deficiencies: No off-street bicycle facilities exist between Hammerling Avenue and 8 th Avenue North Sharing the roadway with vehicles on Washington Street may be undesirable Recommendation: Implement Alternate Bicycle Route on 14 th Street Shared lanes on 14 th Street Relocate Pedestrian Beacon at University/North 15 th Street to University/North 14 th Street Expand multi-purpose facility underneath Washington Street Underpass to accommodate twoway bicycle activity

59

60 Bicycle Improvements

61 Bicycle Improvements Discarded Alternatives: Off-street bicycle facility along Washington Street Side Path or Bike Lane along alternate bicycle route Dyke Avenue Side Path Side Paths along University Avenue between 14th and Washington Street

62 RECOMMENDATIONS TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS

63 Transit Improvements Deficiency: Bus stops along corridor causes traffic congestion Recommendations: Install bus turn-outs at specific locations throughout the corridor Restrict bus pick-ups/drop-offs to turn-out locations Discarded Alternatives: Bus Shelters

64

65 RECOMMENDATIONS Right-Of-Way Impacts

66 Right-Of-Way Impacts Bridge Improvement Shoo-Fly Impacts to buildings either to the north or south Minor ROW acquisition for bridge with sloped sections Roadway Improvements NW Quadrant of DeMers Avenue Intersection Central Fire Station Remodel Xcel Energy Storage Area 8 th & 10 th Avenue South Realignments

67 Right-Of-Way Impacts Pedestrian Improvements 5 at all driveways with access to Washington St. Utility easements at locations where utilities are relocated outside of the sidewalk Bicycle Improvements Minor ROW acquisition to expand bicycle facility under the railroad bridge structure Transit Improvements ROW acquisition required at 3 of the 4 bus turnout locations

68 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

69 Implementation Schedule Two implementation strategies used: 1. Prioritization based strategy a) Based solely upon the needs of the corridor b) Does not account for regional improvement and financial constraints c) Assumes proper maintenance of the existing and proposed infrastructure d) Segregates reconstruction projects and standalone projects e) All improvement costs represent 2011 values for comparative purposes

70 ¹Cost conservatively represents the highest cost bridge alternative. This alternative includes full bridge replacement with sloped sections. Full Reconstruction Project Priority 2011 Cost 1 st Avenue North to 5 th Avenue South Full Reconstruct¹ Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway bridge reconstruction o Right-Of-Way acquisition o Storm sewer lift station #183 upgrade and replacement Full pavement reconstruction o Signage and pavement markings o Utilities adjustments Reconstruct pedestrian and bicycle facilities Lighting rehabilitation $11,891,000 Federal $9,512,800 State $1,189,100 Local $1,189,100 5 th Avenue South to 7 th Avenue South Full Reconstruct Continuous flow intersection at Washington Street and DeMers Avenue Intersection o Installation of new traffic signal and lighting systems o Overhead signage, at grade signage and pavement markings o Right-Of-Way acquisition o Fire Station reconfiguration o 4th Avenue South/5th Avenue South DeMers Access Reconfiguration Full pavement reconstruction o Access management and driveway modifications o Signage and pavement markings o Utilities adjustments and improvements Reconstruct pedestrian facilities o Relocate utilities outside sidewalk footprint $11,716,269 Federal $9,373,015 State $1,171,627 Local $1,171,627 7 th Avenue South to Hammerling Avenue Full Reconstruct Full pavement reconstruction o Access management and driveway modifications o Signage and pavement markings o Utilities adjustments o 8th, 10th and 14th Avenue South realignments Pedestrian beacon south of 9th Avenue South Reconstruct pedestrian facilities o Relocate utilities outside sidewalk footprint Bus turn-outs Traffic signal and lighting rehabilitation $6,456,000 Federal $5,164,800 State $645,600 Local $645,600

71 Full Reconstruction Project Priority 2011 Cost 8 th Avenue North to 1 st Avenue North Full Reconstruct Full pavement reconstruction o Access management and driveway modifications o Signage and pavement markings o Utilities adjustments Reconstruct pedestrian facilities o Relocate utilities outside sidewalk footprint Traffic signal and lighting rehabilitation $5,008,000 Federal $4,006,400 State $500,800 Local $500,800 Hammerling Avenue to 17 th Avenue Full Reconstruct All projects within this segment of the corridor shall be addressed as standalone projects Outside Study Horizon

72 ¹Cost is based upon the assumption that the existing mast arms are able to withstand new wind loading resulting from replacing the existing 3-section signal heads with 4-section traffic signal heads. ²Cost assumes that roadway widening is not required to implement an alternate bicycle route adjacent to the corridor. Standalone Project Priority 2011 Cost 2 nd Avenue North Intersection Signal Replacement with Two-Way Stop Control 8 th Avenue North Traffic Signal Installation University Avenue Northbound and Southbound Left- Turn Improvements ¹ Alternate Bicycle Route Adjacent to Corridor ² Traffic Signal Fiber Optic Interconnect 15 th Avenue South Right Turn-Lane Installation 17 th Avenue South Turn-Lane Modifications $72,000 Federal $57,600 State $7,200 Local $7,200 $312,000 Federal $249,600 State $31,200 Local $31,200 $19,000 Federal $15,200 State $1,900 Local $1,900 $173,000 Federal $138,400 State $17,300 Local $17,300 $685,000 Federal $548,000 State $68,500 Local $68,500 $85,000 Federal $68,000 State $8,500 Local $8,500 $97,000 Federal $77,600 State $9,700 Local $9,700

73 Implementation Schedule 2. Strategy with Regional Considerations a) Based upon coordination with NDDOT and the City of Grand Forks b) Considers full reconstruction, standalone and rehabilitation projects c) Costs forecasted to projected planning term a) Terms based upon existing LRTP terms and TIP applicability d) Future costs are inflated using the Grand Forks East Grand Forks MPO standard rate of 4% compounded annually

74 Implementation Plan with Regional Considerations Planning Term Programming Cost (1st Year of Term) Programming Cost (Mid-Term Year) Programming Cost (Last Year of Term) 32nd Avenue South to Hammerling Avenue Preventive Maintenance ¹ Mid- Term $2,281,224 $2,566,067 $2,886,476 Federal $1,824,979 Federal $2,052,854 Federal $2,309,181 State $228,122 State $256,607 State $288,648 Local $228,122 Local $256,607 Local $288,648 1st Avenue North to 5th Avenue South Full Reconstruct (Include Underpass Improvements) ² Mid- Term $14,466,859 $16,273,248 $18,305,191 Federal $11,573,487 Federal $13,018,599 Federal $14,644,153 State $1,446,686 State $1,627,325 State $1,830,519 Local $1,446,686 Local $1,627,325 Local $1,830,519 8th Avenue North to 1st Avenue North Full Reconstruct Long- Term $8,017,637 $10,144,869 $12,836,495 Federal $6,414,110 Federal $8,115,895 Federal $10,269,196 State $801,764 State $1,014,487 State $1,283,650 Local $801,764 Local $1,014,487 Local $1,283,650 7th Avenue South to Hammerling Avenue Full Reconstruct Long- Term $10,336,000 $13,078,337 $16,548,269 Federal $8,268,800 Federal $10,462,670 Federal $13,238,615 State $1,033,600 State $1,307,834 State $1,654,827 Local $1,033,600 Local $1,307,834 Local $1,654,827 ¹The majority of this project is beyond the project limits and scope of this study. This cost represents an NDDOT estimate and is not included in the Appendix. ²Cost conservatively represents the highest cost bridge alternative. This alternative includes full bridge replacement with sloped sections.

75 Implementation Plan with Regional Considerations Planning Term Programming Cost (1st Year of Term) Programming Cost (Mid-Term Year) Programming Cost (Last Year of Term) Alternate Bicycle Route Adjacent to Corridor ² Long- Term $276,722 $350,142 $443,041 Federal $221,378 Federal $280,114 Federal $354,433 State $27,672 State $35,014 State $44,304 Local $27,672 Local $35,014 Local $44,304 Traffic Signal Fiber Optic Interconnect Long- Term $1,097,052 $1,388,121 $1,756,416 Federal $877,642 Federal $1,110,497 Federal $1,405,133 State $109,705 State $138,812 State $175,642 Local $109,705 Local $138,812 Local $175,642 5th Avenue South to 7th Avenue South Full Reconstruct (Include DeMers Avenue Intersection Improvements) Long- Term $18,758,124 $23,735,011 $30,032,361 Federal $15,006,499 Federal $18,988,009 Federal $24,025,889 State $1,875,812 State $2,373,501 State $3,003,236 Local $1,875,812 Local $2,373,501 Local $3,003,236 2 nd Avenue North Intersection Signal Replacement with Two- Way Stop Control, 8th Avenue North Traffic Signal Installation, University Avenue Northbound and Southbound Left-Turn Improvements, 15th Avenue South Right Turn-Lane Installation & 17th Avenue South Turn-Lane Modifications Part of Another Priority Part of Another Priority Part of Another Priority ³Cost assumes that roadway widening is not required to implement an alternate bicycle route adjacent to the corridor. Part of Another Priority

76 NEXT STEPS

77 Next Steps Make revisions to draft report Final Report presentation at Safety Service Meeting

78 X elenergy Real Estate Services 1800 Larimer Street Suite900 Denver, O December 14, 2011 CERTIFIED MAIL # RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Grand Forks - East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization P.O. Box 5200 Grand Forks, ND Re: Washington Street Corridor Study, Bridge Replacement Options Dear Sir/Madam: On behalf of Northern States Power Company-Minnesota, an Xcel Energy Company (NSPM), I am contacting you to convey NSPM s comments regarding the proposed options for the abovereferenced bridge replacement project. As you know, NSPM owns property and facilities located at th Avenue South that may be affected by this project. After an analysis of the proposed options, NSPM has determined that the northern Shoo-Fly will have the least impact on the NSPM operations for the following reasons: The southern Shoo-Fly, as currently configured, would negatively impact material storage areas presently in use. The southern Shoo-Fly would require the demolition and reconfiguration of the northern exterior wall of our facility. This demolition and reconstruction would diminish our warehouse space and be disruptive to our workforce. The financial impacts of this demolition and reconstruction has not yet been determined. The southern Shoo-Fly and resultant proximity of rail traffic would result in additional vibration, noise, and potential impacts on indoor air quality, which present safety, health and security concerns. Thank you forthe opportunity to provide our comments on this major improvement issue. Sincerely, Terr~; L. Laudick Real Estate Asset & Portfolio Manager

79

80

81

82

83

84 January 12, 2011 Paradiso Mexican Restaurant 905 South Washington Street Grand Forks, ND Re: Washington Street Corridor Study Comments Dear Paradiso Mexican Restaurant: We appreciate your input and understand your concerns. Public input is a crucial part of the planning process. All of the public input we have received regarding this study has been documented in the report which will be available to the public soon. There is a considerable balancing act between limiting business impacts and promoting safe and efficient traffic flow. Although, it is highly unlikely that nothing will change along the corridor, we are fully confident that a solution that is satisfactory at meeting both goals can be achieved during the project development phase. The purpose of this study is to provide insight into the possible impacts related to roadway safety and traffic operation improvements when/if a project proceeds. Regarding your concern over losing parking spaces, we would like to expand upon your initial analysis: nd AveSSuite201 PO Box 9767 Fargo, ND Fax kljeng.com The lost parking spaces resulting from the new driveway proposed to be shared with Cenex would result in half as many parking spaces lost as anticipated due to the proposed location of this driveway. This driveway is planned to be located approximately half on the Paradiso property and half on the Cenex property. Based upon the data you provided for your parking loss for a new driveway (4 lost parking spots), conversely the two removed driveways onto Washington Street would result in approximately 8 gained parking spots. Currently parking is prohibited throughout the majority of 10 th Avenue South adjacent to your establishment. When the 10 th Avenue South roadway is reconstructed, it could be designed to provide similar parallel parking opportunities that are present on 9 th Avenue South. As you have noted in your message, the main entrance is the only entrance that is handicap accessible. Our preliminary measurements indicate that the parallel parking spaces currently located on 9 th Avenue South are approximately the same distance away from the front door as the proposed parallel parking spaces located on the realigned 10 th Avenue South roadway. This results in an almost negligible change to parallel parking.

85 The proposed access point on 10 th Avenue South is an approximate location and will be appropriately located as to not interfere with the existing parking layout of your property during project development. Based upon your original analysis you anticipated a reduction in 36 spaces. Refining your original data to reflect the analysis documented above, one would anticipate the following changes (It is important to note that actual parking losses and gains cannot be fully projected until project development): 10 th Avenue South Realignment: -21 Spaces Bus Turn-Out: -6 Spaces Shared Cenex Driveway: -2 Spaces Removed Driveways: +8 Spaces Lost Parallel Parking on 9 th Avenue South: -22 Spaces* Gained Parallel Parking on 10 th Avenue South: +22 Spaces* Parking Lot Development on Abandoned 9 th Avenue: +25 Spaces Net Parking Loss: +4 Spaces *Preliminary analysis by KLJ indicates that these estimates may be high but result in negligible impact to overall parking. The following bullets related to your proposed business mitigation options: Relocate the Bus Turn-Out: Our analysis indicated similar bus turn-out impacts to all of the businesses north and south of your property. This location was selected based upon existing transit pick-up and drop-off data combined with pedestrian-vehicle crash data and proximity to adjacent signalized intersections. It is important to note that this location may vary during project development. Award the Vacated Section of 10 th Avenue South to Paradiso Mexican Restaurant for parking: The use of this vacated area shall be determined by the City of Grand Forks. We will pass along your interest for this section of land to the appropriate decision maker. Award the House Located at 908 South 12 th Street and Buy the House at 908 South 12 th Street for the Purpose of Providing Additional Paradiso Mexican Restaurant Parking: The house located at 908 South 12 th Street was sold by the City to a family as part of the City's Neighborhood Stabilization Program with certain resale restrictions. In regards to your concern over losing your southern-most Washington Street access: if it is determined during project development that your business could not properly function without this access, several provisions could be made ranging from additional signage to right-in only access point. In regards to your concern regarding raised medians, the access management plan we have developed has limited the number of non-intersection access locations to the point that a raised median has been deemed unnecessary. If a relaxed access Page 2 of 3

86 management plan is ultimately implemented, a raised median concept may be reanalyzed during project development. Finally, we would like to thank you for your input. We encourage you to stay involved with this study and into project development. Your comments have been incorporated into the draft report. Sincerely, Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc. Jon Markusen, PE Project Manager CC: Earl Haugen Executive Director Grand Forks East Grand Forks MPO Page 3 of 3