Unformatted text preview:

I-35W/Highway 62 Crosstown Commons ReconstructionBackgroundLocation of CrosstownCurrent StatusLocation of ProjectNeed for reconstructionProject GoalsTimelineNeed BenefitsGoalsStakeholdersProjected TimelineExisting Conditions2002 ConceptI-35 and Hwy 62 West InterchangeI-35 and Hwy 62 East InterchangeLimiting FactorsExternalitiesReasons for Municipal Consent DenialMinneapolis Modification RequestsPrevious Alternative PlansQuestionsI-35W/Highway 62 Crosstown I-35W/Highway 62 Crosstown Commons ReconstructionCommons ReconstructionNathan Aul, Bob Krussow, and Michael Nathan Aul, Bob Krussow, and Michael MartinMartinBackgroundBackgroundHighway 62/Crosstown HighwayHighway 62/Crosstown HighwayBuilt in the 1960s by Hennepin CountyBuilt in the 1960s by Hennepin CountyCurrent alignment and design was decided in the Current alignment and design was decided in the 1950s and 1960s and were made to avoid land 1950s and 1960s and were made to avoid land acquisitions and other impactsacquisitions and other impactsWas one of only a few county operated highways Was one of only a few county operated highways in the United Statesin the United StatesOperation was switched to the State of Minnesota Operation was switched to the State of Minnesota in 1988in 1988Runs from I-494 to MN-55 through the cities of Runs from I-494 to MN-55 through the cities of Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Edina, Richfield and Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Edina, Richfield and MinneapolisMinneapolisLocation of CrosstownLocation of CrosstownCurrent StatusCurrent StatusInterchange between I-35W and MN-62 is one Interchange between I-35W and MN-62 is one of the most traveled and congested points in of the most traveled and congested points in the Twin Citiesthe Twin CitiesI-35W is the major north-south freeway in the I-35W is the major north-south freeway in the region and has the largest transit ridership of region and has the largest transit ridership of any segment in the areaany segment in the areaMN-62 serves as a major access route to both MN-62 serves as a major access route to both downtowns and the airportdowntowns and the airportCapacity in the area is exhausted during the Capacity in the area is exhausted during the morning and afternoon peaksmorning and afternoon peaksCongestion typical throughout the dayCongestion typical throughout the dayLocation of ProjectLocation of ProjectNeed for reconstructionNeed for reconstructionOn average 553 accidents occur yearly in the On average 553 accidents occur yearly in the area, which is nearly five times higher than area, which is nearly five times higher than the average for metropolitan urban freewaysthe average for metropolitan urban freewaysAs congestion builds on the Commons drivers As congestion builds on the Commons drivers use local streets causing more congestion on use local streets causing more congestion on the local networkthe local networkWhen I-35W and MN-62 merge into a 6-lane When I-35W and MN-62 merge into a 6-lane freeway significant weaving movements are freeway significant weaving movements are requiredrequiredProject GoalsProject GoalsImprove safety and capacity needs in Improve safety and capacity needs in the Commons areathe Commons areaProposal will address needs identified Proposal will address needs identified in the Metropolitan Council in the Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy PlanTransportation Policy PlanWill decrease demand and congestion Will decrease demand and congestion of local networksof local networksIncrease capacity on MN-62Increase capacity on MN-62TimelineTimelineFinal design and right of way Final design and right of way acquisition - 2004-2005acquisition - 2004-2005Contract letting - November 2005Contract letting - November 2005Begin construction - 2005-2006Begin construction - 2005-2006Complete construction - 2009Complete construction - 2009Schedule on hold due to Minneapolis’ Schedule on hold due to Minneapolis’ refusal to give Municipal Consentrefusal to give Municipal ConsentNeed BenefitsNeed BenefitsTraffic Volume of Traffic Volume of 240,000 vehicles/day240,000 vehicles/dayCongestion on some Congestion on some places for up to 13 places for up to 13 hours/dayhours/dayAccident rate nearly Accident rate nearly five times the metro five times the metro averageaverageDrivers using local Drivers using local streets during streets during congestioncongestionAdd transit advantage Add transit advantage on I-35Won I-35WAdditional highway Additional highway capacitycapacitySeparate traffic Separate traffic between highwaysbetween highwaysRemove left exits, Remove left exits, replace with right exitsreplace with right exitsMeet current design Meet current design standardsstandardsGoalsGoalsLimit temporary highway closures Limit temporary highway closures during constructionduring constructionIncrease Highway CapacityIncrease Highway CapacityMinimize Right of Way acquisitionMinimize Right of Way acquisitionProvide advantages for bus transit and Provide advantages for bus transit and HOVsHOVsReconstruct aging highway facilityReconstruct aging highway facilityStakeholdersStakeholdersState LegislatureState LegislatureMet Council/Metro TransitMet Council/Metro TransitHennepin CountyHennepin CountyCities of Minneapolis and RichfieldCities of Minneapolis and RichfieldFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Highway AdministrationDepartment of TransportationDepartment of TransportationMinnehaha Creek Watershed DistrictMinnehaha Creek Watershed DistrictU.S. Army Corps of EngineersU.S. Army Corps of EngineersDepartment of Natural ResourcesDepartment of Natural ResourcesProperty ownersProperty ownersNeighborhood groupsNeighborhood groupsLocal businessesLocal businessesMetro area transit and highway usersMetro area transit and highway usersProjected TimelineProjected Timeline2002-2003 Refine Design Concept2002-2003 Refine Design ConceptSubmit for agency and public reviewSubmit for agency and public reviewRespond to agency and public commentsRespond to agency and public comments2003-2004 Environmental Documentation2003-2004 Environmental DocumentationEnvironmental Impact StatementEnvironmental Impact StatementBRT studyBRT study2004-2005 Final Design2004-2005 Final DesignFinal design plan and specificationsFinal design plan and specificationsProperty acquisition


View Full Document

U of M CE 5212 - Crosstown Commons Reconstruction

Documents in this Course
Ethanol

Ethanol

32 pages

History

History

41 pages

Case

Case

13 pages

Load more
Download Crosstown Commons Reconstruction
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Crosstown Commons Reconstruction and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Crosstown Commons Reconstruction 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?