Loading...
3. TH 101 Update CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Cìry' C'illCI Dril'" PO Bo.\' 1 i- ClI,/ldl¡l.íjl'il. ;\f/¡/!/(jO{'¡ 5531"" ¡¡ilil!IC 61.!.9.F ¡YOO (;til('i;¡f f:¡.\" (¡) l. 9,) -,_::;-39 Eug;u¡'(l"ing r;¡x 612. 9.F. 915: Pi);:'.:, !-,i'\ (¡i]. 1/1-1.]::;;-1 11';·1'1; Tire Cit ' o(Oli7l1hllSSI'II. :! X·¡C,'·' -3 MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Botcher, City Manager Anita Benson, City Engineer ~ December I, 1999 FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Highway 101 Update - Project No, 97-12 The primary objectives of this work session are to: · provide an update on the jurisdictional status of Highway 101 as it relates to the Carver County tumback · Provide an update on the tumback funding status for the proposed Highway 101 project. · Discuss the record of meeting minutes from both the Chanhassen and Eden Prairie open houses which include written comments submitted to Hennepin County, · Discuss the Highway 101 memorandum responding to issues raised which is proposed to be sent to all persons on the Highway 101 mailing list. · Identify Concepts 2, 3 and 4 for further consideration and eliminate Concepts I, 5 and 6 from consideration as viable options, Both Jim Grube, Hennepin County Transportation Director, and Roger Gustafson, Carver County Public Works Director, wi1l be in attendance to provide Councilmembers with an update on the jurisdictional tumback status for Carver County and the overall tumback funding status for the project. State Representative, Tom Workman, was invited to the meeting, however, due to a prior commitment, he is unable to attend, The Highway 101 Project Management Team presented six concepts at the public open house ranging from an overlay of the existing roadway with construction of a trail to a four- lane divided roadway section. Taking into consideration all comments received to date and professional engineering judgement, the Project Management Team requests the City Councils of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie narrow the concepts to be further considered to Concepts 2, 3 and 4. Some of the rationale behind eliminating Concepts 1, 5 and 6 from further consideration are as follows: . Concept I would provide a short-term solution to the current rough road surface and would provide no capacity or safety benefits for road users. It is recognized that construction of a trail would increase the safety of pedestrians. . Concepts 5 and 6 would provide a safer roadway, however, the capacity for both concepts is not anticipated to be reached in the next 20 years based on projected traffic volumes and these two concepts would have the most significant negative impact to residents located along the corridor. '1,-' ! ' J"':"!!.'liii'.li. r./"·irii.':T/'¡ "¡d"- " ;;t" , "",,' ,-;.'ili¡( ~-- ",-:':,/..11' IF Scott Botcher, City Manager December I, 1999 Page 2 By eliminating Concepts I, 5 and 6 from further consideration, all persons involved wi1l be able to focus on Concepts 2, 3 and 4 to further analyze the desirability of the remaining three concepts. Certainly the merits of Concepts 2, 3 and 4 will be debated during neighborhood meetings and the public hearings to OCcur over the next few months. However, I believe all persons involved wi1l need to consider the following fundamental questions in their evaluation of the concepts. . What are the impacts (positive or negative) to property owners located along the Highway 101 corridor? What mitigation measures can be utilized to minimize negative impacts. . What level of service (capacity, safety, etc.) does the traveling public expect/deserve? · What credence is to be given to the traffic projections made by the professional engineers? . If Concept 2 or 3 is constructed, what will the impact to the public be when traffic levels exceed the safe capacity of Concept 2 or Concept 3 and the highway needs to be upgraded to Concept 4? The above questions are by no means an attempt to define all questions which will need to be answered as consideration of Concepts 2, 3 and 4 proceed. However, these questions must be answered for elected officials to make an informed decision on which concept to Support. Throughout the process of conducting neighborhood meetings, residents will be asked to assist in identifying the impacts and benefits to their specific property. Additionally, I recommend the two City Councils hold at least one joint work session to discuss Highway 10 I issues and concerns. SUMMARY The successful reconstruction of Highway 10 I will require all agencies involved to create a long-term balance between the needs, safety, and acceptable level of service for motorists and pedestrians and the impacts to the adjacent properties located along the corridor. jms Attachments: I. SRF Memorandum dated November 30, 1999. 2. Highway 101 Reconstruction Project Flow Chart. 3. Statute 161 Appeal Process Flow Chart. 4. Letter from John Schevenius dated November 8, 1999. 5. Letter from Bob Generous dated November 30, 1999. 6. Public Open House Record of Meetings. c: Roger Gustafson, Carver County Public Works (w/Attachments 1-5) Gene Dietz, Eden Prairie Public Works Director (w/Attachments 1-5) Jim Grube, Hennepin County Transportation Director (w/Attachments 1-5) Tim Phenow, SRF (wi Attachments 1-5) \\crs I \voI2\eng\public\97_] 2\project update.doc A+\-o..c..~eV\.+ 1 CONSULTING GROUP, I N C. Transportation' Civil' Structural' Environmental' Planning' Traffic' Landscape Architecture' Parking SRF No. 0972786 MEMORANDUM TO: Highway 101 Project PMT (see Distribution List below) FROM: David J. Juliff, P.E., Associate Carole W. Peter, Senior Environmental Planner DATE: November 30,1999 SUBJECT: Questions/Comments Memorandum and Reformatted Table Enclosed are copies of the Questions/Comments Memorandum and a reformatted Comparison of Concepts table. The memorandum summarizes the primary issues of concern to the public identified at the September Open House· meetings, and was prepared for use at upcoming Council and Board meetings. Preparation of the reformatted table was requested by Anita Benson of the City of Chanhassen for use at the December Chanhassen City Council meeting. The table shows comparative information for Concepts 2, 3 and 4 on one page. At the last PMT meeting, we discussed the use of the Questions/Comments Memorandum in the next public newsletter. We suggest that the timing and contents of the next newsletter be discussed at a future PMT meeting. If additional information is needed for the upcoming Board and Council meetings, please let us know how we may assist you. PMT Distribution List Chanhassen: Anita Benson Hennepin Countv: Jim Grube Bruce Polaczyk Craig Twinem Eden Prairie: Gene Dietz Rod Rue Carver Countv: Roger Gustafson DJJlCWP/smf Enclosures One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 Telephone (612) 475-0010 . Fax (612) 475-2429 . http://www.srfconsulting.com An Eqlml Opportunity Employer iD' MEMORANDUM TO: Highway 101 Reconstruction Project Mailing List Concerned Citizens FROM: Highway 101 Project Management Team DATE: November 30,1999 SUBJECT: QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM INFORMATIONAL OPEN HOUSE MEETINGS FOR HIGHWAY 101 Public infonnational meetings were held jointly by Hennepin County, Carver County, Eden Prairie and Chanhassen on September 28 and 29, 1999 at the Chanhassen Recreation Center and the Eden Prairie City Center, respectively, to present to the public the conceptual designs being considered for Highway 101 and to receive input/comments on the concepts. The pwpose of this memorandum is to provide you with a summary of questions/comments that were received during and after the infonnational meetings, and the responses from the four govemmental agencies involved. The following is a summary of the most rrequently asked questions/comments of a general nature (i.e., not specific to an individual's property) that were raised at the infonnational meetings and in the written comments received during and following the meeting. The staff of the four agencies and the consultant answered many questions individually for residents and meeting attendees: this summary does not attempt to present or answer all of the questions asked, but rather concentrates on the more general and more often-repeated questions. The questions are presented in bold, with the responses in regular-face type. 1. Why is a widened road needed in this area, and in particular on Highway 101? The deteriorated roadway condition and poor roadside drainage require attention. If action is to be taken, we need to respond to existing and projected traffic volumes as we consider our options. Today, the traffic on the roadway exceeds the safe capacity of the road, and the road does not meet the needs of the area it serves. Ordinarily, the agency responsible for the maintenance of a road would begin by including improvements in a planning budget for reconstruction, and base the date for construction on funding possibilities and limitations. The Highway 101 circumstances, however, are not ordinary. The circumstances of the roadway ownership (having been reverted rrom Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnlDOT) to Hennepin County, and also potentially being Highway 101 Project Question/Comment Memorandum -2- November 30, 1999 reverted to Carver County) allows for the consideration of the needed improvements concurrent with a potential ownership change. The ownership change would provide for a funding source not usually available under ordinary circumstances. Since local governments will become the owners, the primary question to consider is: In what condition shall we accept the facility? The responsible answer can be arrived at through a comprehensive review of the existing and future (20 years) transportation needs that also considers the specific deficiencies of Highway 101 - drainage, sight distance, accident history and capacity. (In order to prevent planned obsolescence, public agencies design roadways using a systematic review of conditions anticipated for the next 20-year period). As mentioned previously, traffic volumes and the road condition warrant widening of the road. The current average daily traffic on Highway 101 is approximately 13,000 vehicles per day, exceeding the normal safe capacity of a two-lane rural road (approximately 12,000 vehicles per day). The current accident rate of 2.69 accidents per million vehicle miles traveled is double the average accident rates that HelUlepin County has experienced on similar roadways. With a projected 2020 traffic volume of 21,000 vehicles per day, an already high accident rate will increase to an unacceptable level unless action is taken. Widening the road and introducing wider shoulders and improved sight lines will make the road safer for the motorist and neighbors living along the road. Highway 101 is designated as a minor arterial roadway in the comprehensive transportation plans of HelUlepin and Carver counties and the cities of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. The function of a minor arterial roadway in a transportation system is to provide higher mobility with less direct access, and to cOlUlect local streets to more major roadways. As a two-lane rural roadway with no or narrow shoulders, poor sight-lines, a deteriorating road surface and high traffic volumes, Highway 101 cannot serve its designated purpose without widening and other improvements. While it has been suggested that Dell Road could be an alternative route for Highway 101, Dell Road was plalUled as a residential collector with emphasis on access to adjacent neighborhoods at lower speeds and lower capacity. Eden Prairie made this decision regarding the function of Dell Road with the knowledge that Highway 101 has served and will continue to serve as a minor arterial. 2. Why must the residents along Highway 101 be penalized for development in suburbs further west? The two counties and two cities have designated Highway 101 as a minor arterial roadway in their respective comprehensive transportation plans. (As stated in the response to Question #1, minor arterial roadways generally carry higher traffic volumes, emphasize mobility rather than access, and serve more regional traffic than local streets.) In addition, Highway 101 has been designated as a Trunk Highway (TH) for many years, which is a long-standing testimonial to its importance in the overall transportation system. Carver County and HelUlepin County residents alike have contributed to the roadway system needs and demands over the years. New residents of western Eden Prairie and eastern Chanhassen were the catalysts for improvements to County State Aid Highway Highway 101 Project Question/Comment Memorandum - 3 - November 30, 1999 (CSAH) 62, TH 5, TH 7 and Excelsior Boulevard. Highway 101 capacity improvements have been a planned need, necessary as development continues in Chanhassen and eastern Carver County. Additionally, due to natural barriers such as Lake MiImetonka, Christmas Lake, the Minnesota River, etc., there simply are no feasible alternatives to the 101 corridor. Therefore, the challenge and commitment from all agencies involved in planning the improvement is to minimize the impacts to adjacent property owners within the context of meeting the transportation needs and providing a well designed and safe roadway facility. 3. Isn't the availability of state funding the onlv reason this project is being considered now? It would be a disservice to the many individuals who have been involved in accidents on the road to simply equate availability of funds with need. As described in the response to Question #1, the potential ownership change of the road could include a funding source for improvements that are needed regardless of ownership. We recognize that the road and roadside condition warrant action. If action is to be taken, it is prudent to address the accident, capacity and road condition issues and to and prepare for the future. Inaction would result in continued road deterioration and could contribute to an increased accident rate. The responsibility of MnlDOT to provide adequate funds to restore the safe function of the roadway creates an opportunity for improvement at a time earlier than would otherwise be possible. 4. Won't widening create more traffic? Traffic forecasts are based on growth trends and rates developed through many years of research. The traffic models are commonly used to project future traffic and are accepted by MnlDOT and the Metropolitan Council. It has been shown in previous projects that traffic volumes will increase on a given facility in proportion with growth and travel patterns, regardless of the number of lanes or condition of a facility. Therefore, it is not the improvements to a facility that create additional traffic, but the growth and origin/destination patterns of the road users. 5. Why widen this isolated segment of Highway 101? It joins to two-lane sections on the north and south. This segment of Highway 101 actually connects Highway 5 to two important minor arterial roadways, Highway 101 north of Townline Road and Townline Road east of Highway 101. Townline Road is already improved to a four-lane facility. Both Carver County and Hennepin Counties are working with the cities through which Highway 101 traverses to improve Highway 101. Carver County and Chanhassen are discussing how to improve Highway 101 between the Minnesota River and Highway 5. Hennepin County is working with Plymouth on the upgrading of Highway 101 between Highway 55 and County < Highway 101 Project Question/Comment Memorandum -4- November 30,1999 Road 24 in the year 2000. The Hennepin County Capital Improvement Program also includes the upgrading of Highway 101 between County Road 6 and County Road 24 in Plymouth, and between Highway 7 and Minnetonka Boulevard in Minnetonka. 6. Why don't the Counties/Cities consider the impacts to the residents' quality of life more important than the benefits of expansion? The impacts to the adjacent residents, road travelers, the natural envirorunent and the human envirorunent will be considered in the envirorunental documentation that will be prepared for the project. The documentation will attempt to identify all impacts. "Quality of life" is a subjective and debatable issue with many diverse facets, all dependent upon individual preferences and points-of-view. The impacts to the residents' quality of life will be addressed in the envirorunental documentation through the analysis of noise changes, socioeconomic impacts, impacts on air quality, wetlands, water quality, traffic, aesthetics, land use, access, soils, vegetation, fish and wildlife, etc. 7. Will homeowners be compensated for property value decreases? Property owners from whom property or easements will be acquired, will be compensated for those acquisitions. If no property or easements are acquired, no compensation payments will be made. 8. Why are trails proposed for both sides of the road? One trail is all that is needed, especially because two trails would increase the need for right-of-way acquisition. The trail shown in the conceptual design layouts on the west side of the highway is a proposed regional trail for Carver County and is included in the conceptual plans in accordance with the draft Carver County Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Eden Prairie Trail Plan includes a trail on the east side of Highway 101. For reasons similar to those of Chanhassen, Eden Prairie would like to provide a safe trail amenity for its residents. Further discussions will be held regarding the trail on the east side of Highway 101 to determine if a trail here is warranted/needed. 9. Could a trail be constructed now without the road improvements? A trail for pedestrian and bicycle use has long been planned for the Highway 101 corridor. Because of the significant amount of study and effort that has gone into developing the roadway concepts and preparing for an envirorunental review of a selected alternative, the counties and cities prefer to postpone any construction in the corridor until the preferred alternative for the roadway design is known. tii' Highway 101 Project Question/Comment Memorandum - 5 - November 30, 1999 10. Will the Counties/Cities consider mOdifYing access to Highway 101 from Kristie Lane, Duck Lake Trail, Fox Hollow, and Debbie Lane? Several intersection configuration changes were suggested by the public. The counties and cities will consider the feasibility and desirability (fTom an engineering, transportation, safety and planning perspective) of implementing these suggested modifications. 11. Will/when will the intersections be signalized? It is anticipated that signals will soon be warranted at the Valley View Road and Pleasant View Road intersections. As the final design is developed, the intersections will be examined to determine if the signals are warranted and justified. 12. What will the new speed Iimit(s) be? The design speed for this project is 45 miles per hour (mph), which is also the current posted speed limit for this roadway. If either of Concept Alternatives 2 through 6 is constructed, a speed study will be completed to determine the appropriate speed limit. All speed limits ÎD the State of Minnesota are set by the Commissioner of Transportation. 13. Noise levels are already high - wouldn't adding travel lanes make it worse? What noise studies have been done? What types of sound barriers/visual buffering will be used? Will they be similar to what is on Town Line Road? Noise analyses will be conducted in conjunction with the development of Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for the project. Although the counties are not required to mitigate excessive noise levels, the counties and cities will attempt to incorporate noise reduction measures into the final design wherever possible and warranted. 14. Can truck traffic or weight limits be implemented to reduce vibration/noise? Highway 101 is functionally classified as a minor arterial, which means that it is intended to carry higher traffic volumes as well as heavier vehicles than local streets. Under county jurisdiction, Highway 101 would be part of the County State Aid Highway System. The counties do not place limitations on the types of vehicles allowed on these types of roadways. 15. Some of the concepts would result in great amounts of land acquisition, destruction oftrees, and far-reaching construction limits. Can this be avoided? Easements for slope construction and right-of-way acquisition for road and trail construction would be necessary with all concepts. The concept design attempted to balance the land impacts on both sides of the roadway and to minimize overall impacts, except for Concept 6, which shifts the road east and west throughout the corridor. Where possible, land and trees wiIl be saved with the implementation of retaining walls or other methods. Property owners will be compensated for the loss of private property, including trees and fences. Highway 101 Project Question/Comment Memorandum - 6 - November 30,1999 16. Will mature buffer vegetation be replaced? The counties will work with the cities to develop a tree replacement plan for the project with input from the public. 17. Will the Counties/Cites improve the existing stormwater run-offsituation? Will the water quality of Purgatory CreekILotus Lake be impacted? The stormwater runoff management that will be implemented for the project will likely include ponds for particle settling and treatment of water generated by the impervious road surface and will likely increase the quality of water discharged into Lotus Lake and Purgatory Creek. Applicable state and local standards will be adhered to during construction and operation to minimize runoff and discharges. 18. Will the public be able to vote on the design of the road? The officials elected by the public (County Boards, City Councils) will vote on the design of the road. The comments from open houses and neighborhood meetings will be provided to each agency and will be considered by the boards and councils as they examine the roadway options. 19. Will we be notified offuture meetings? Yes. The Highway 101 mailing list for meeting announcements includes over 1,000 individuals and concerned citizens. 20, Will information specific to the impacts on my property be provided? At neighborhood meetings and future open houses, the public will have additional opportunities to review concept layouts and speak with staff about impacts to their properties. As the field of alternatives is narrowed, you may expect that more detail will be forthcoming. 21. What happens next? The Counties and Cities will continue to meet with the public, collect comments and input, and provide that input back to the County Boards and City Councils in an effort to arrive at one alternative for consideration in the environmental documentation (an Environmental Assessment Worksheet or EA W) for the Highway 101 project. Without a consensus from the four government units, the environmental documentation could be prepared to examine more than one alternative. This is cumbersome in an EA W, which has the purpose of determining if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed. The Counties and Cities will therefore continue to work toward identification of a suitable and acceptable alternative. PREPARED BY SRFCDNSULTlNG GRDUP, INC. CDMPARISDN DF CDNCEPTS 2, 3 and 4 FDR HIGHWAY 101 CAPACITY AND SAFETY IMPACTS CDSTS AND RIGHT DF WAY H:\CIVIL\008\27S6\EXCEL\AL T -MA TAIX.REV.XLS 11/29/1999 CONCEPT 2 CONCEPT 3 CONCEPT 4 Description: 2- Lane Section wJth left and 3· lane Section with a Continou$ 4 Lane Undivided Section With Right Turn Lanes, Medians Center left Turn Lane. Medians Medians at Signalized at Signalized Intersections, and at Signalized Intersections, and Intersections and Centered in the Righi of Way Centered in the RighI of Way Centered in the RighI of Way 10.0 Ft. Trail on West Side 10.0 FI. Trail on West Side 10.0 Ft. Trail on West Side B.O Ft. Trail on East Side B.O FI. Trail on East Side 8.0 FI. Trail on East Side Capacity: Less Than 15.000 15,000 less Than 25,000 (Vehicles Per Day) Currant Vorume = 13,000 I ProJected Volume. 21,000 Safety: - .,- .1- 1994 -1996 Avg. Accident Rate Hennepin County Hennepin County Hennepin County 2.69 (Accklents I Million Vehicle Miles) Average Accident Rate Average Accident Rate Average Accident Rate For 2 . Lane For Center Left For 4 - Lane Urban Roadwav = 1.44 Turn Lane Roadwall = 2.50 Undivided Roadwav = 2.12 Are Current State Aid Design Standards Met? No No V., Meets Requirements for Meets RequIrements for Today's TraffIc Today's Traffic But Does Not But Does Not ProvIde Capacity Provide Capacity For Projected TraffIc For Projected Traffic (Meets Tumback Fundina Reauiremenn Typical Pavement Width I Pavement Surface Area: 40 Feet 1667,000 Square Feet 54 Feet/674,OOO Square Feet 52 Feel 1 682,000 Square Feet Impact Area: 1,210,000 Square Feet 1,257,000 Square Feet 1,229,000 Square Feet Vegetation Loss: Moderate 1 High Moderate 1 High Moderate / High Wetland Impacts: Moderate Moderate Moderate Noise: NoIse Levels Remain the Same Noise Levels Remain the Same Noise Levels Sliohtlv Greater Private Driveway Access: - .1- .1- No Exclusive Lane Exclusive Lane Available No Exclusive Lane for Left for Left Turning Traffic for Left Turning Traffic or Right Turning Vehicles Shoulder Available for Right Shoulder Available Additional Through Lane Mows Turning Traffic for Right for bypass of TurnIng Tumina Traffic Vehicles bv Throuoh Traffic. Estimated Number of Total Parcels to be Acquired City of Eden Prairie 2 2 2 City of Chanhassen --º-- --º-- --º-- Throughout the Corridor·· 2 2 2 Estimated Right of Way I Easement Costs State Turnback Funds $ 2.58 Mimon $ 2.60 Million $ 2.60 MiUion City I County Funds 5;0 $0 SO Subtotal: Right or Way I Easement Cosls $ 2.58 Million $ 2.60 Million $ 2.60 Million Estimated Current Construction Costs State Tumback Funds $6.15 Million $ 6.18 Million $ 6.23 Million City I County Funds .I 0.47 Million $ 0.47 MiJJion $ 0 48 MiUion Subtotal: Current Construction Costs $ 6.62 MIJJion $ 6.65 Million $ 6.71 Million City I County Costs To Upgrade To CONCEPT 4 (4 Lane Undivided) in Future Additional Righi of Way I Easement Costs $ 0.2 MjJ ion $0 SO Additional Construction Costs $ 0.5 Million $ 0.1 Million }Q Subtotal: Future Costs (Estimated) . 0.7 Million $ 0.1 MiUion $0 Total Project Costs Construction and Righi of Way (Estlmaled) . $ 9.9 MiJJion $ 9.35 MiUion $ 9.31 MiJllon . No adjustment made 10 project cosls for inflation. .. Comparison of roadway and trail construction only. Does not include needs for storm water ponding. Ai\-,^c, '^ W\~O'\.t '2.. Highway 101 Reconstruction Project Flow Chart* . Data Collection Early Coordination *This sequence requires city and county consensus on an alternative for the EAW. Develop Conceptual Designs Identify Concepts for Further Consideration Opportunity for Public Involvement Public Open Houses (Present concepts to public and receive input) Neighborhood Meetings (Receive additional public input) Opportunity for Council Workshops! Joint Meetings Cities/Counties Review Concepts and Consider Public Input Refine Concepts Cities and Counties Select Preferred Concept County Prepares Prelimmary Layout Mediation Continue (Voluntary Discussion Statute 161 Process End Project City Councils Approve Layout -----, I Opportunity for ~ Council Workshops! Joint Meetings EIS Needed (2-3 Year Process) Includes Council Workshops, E- - - Joint Meetings, Public Involvement Throughout City Council Approval of Final Construction Plans and Construction Cooperative Agreement Opportunity for Public Involvement Bid Letting Construction SRF Consulting Group, Inc, October 28, 1999 F· A it tÆ C. k \lV\ell(:f- ~ Mn/DOT (or County acting as Mn/DOT's agent) Prepares Report On Alternatives Statute 161 Appeal Process Statement to Cities Accepting or Rejecting Cities' Changes Section 161.172 states 'No state trunk highway or any part thereof, located within the corporate limits of any municipality shall be constructed or improved in the manner specified in this section without the consent of the governing body of such municipality, unless the procedures prescribed by sections 161.172 to 161.177 shall have been followed by the commissioner of transportation." Mn/DOT Selects Preferred Option and Prepares layout Plan Send layout Plan to Cities, Counties, Region for Approval 90·120 DAYS Pubiic Hearing (Layout Plan) 180 DAYS (MAX) Mn/DOT Adopts layout Plan and Explains Changes Construction Mn/DOT Ooes Not Modify layout Plan Send layout Plan to Cities, Counties. Region for Approval YES 120 DAYS Approve layout Plan Do Not Approve Plan Proceed With Final Plans and RIW Acquisition JfNoAgreement, Supreme Court Appoints 1 Member Testimony Issue Order Approving Layout Or One Of The Alternatives BDDAYS May Request Appeai Board If Plans Not Same As Ordered Plans Revised To Comply With Appear Board Appeal Board Reviews and OKs Plan Changes Board Issues Order To Revise layout/Withhold Bid Requests SRF Consultina Groua, Inc. ni"tnhor?A 1 QQQ Dear Mr. Polaczyk: ENGINi::¡::¡¡,,',C. ;;í2;')T. þ.,~CÀt kyVlf'Vl +4 570 Pleasant View Rd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Nov. 8, 1999 Mr. Bruce Polaczcyk, P.E. Design Engineer Hennepin County Transportation Department 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, Mn 55340-5421 CITY OF CHAN W','C,T".:. .I1ASSEN ~-'" ~.'.s _: _:i :.<:~I NOV 1 0 1999 This letter is very late in coming, but it still may be of interest. I. Concepts I attended the September 28 Highway 101 Infonnation Meeting in Chanhassen. I have not yet studied all the alternatives because of other work, but I would like to make a few comments at this time on Concept 1. A. Simply overlaying the existing highway would be a bad mistake. When the work was done on the 101-62 intersection I observed that there was really no subgrade under the existing 101. An overlay would break down rather rapidlY, consequently, and we would be back again to where we are now, with a poor surface. B. No work should be done without correcting the poor sight distances. It is dangerous now, and with increased traffic in the future it will be a lot worse. C. I am pleased with the trail idea. The present roadway and shoulders are so narrow that it is almost impossible to bicycle along the road. I tried it - once! Never again. D. I believe that Eden Prairie will want something substantial done to 101. Otherwise some people will peel off to Dell Road. I confess I have done it already when 101 has been crowded. It is slower, but it is wide, and the sight distances are good. II. Task Force Committees I started out after graduation from the U ofM as a highway engineer, and I suppose I am one of the last to hold registration as both a highway and a civil engineer. After six years of that, my wife and I went to Africa for twenty years, and I eventually ended up as an engineer with General Mills, Inc. When 1-394 was being planned, as a representative of Golden Valley, I became chainnan ofthe Task Force planning what is now the intersection ofI-394 and TH 169. On our committee there were representatives from Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, Plymouth, MNDOT and Hennepin County. As a retiree I would be happy to be considered for a position on any planning committee or task force that might be fonned. There are many things to consider, but certainly a significant improvement is warranted, lest the corridor is overwhelmed in the future. With the advent of an improved County Road 62, traffic has increased greatly on 101. We certainly see this where we live on Pleasant View Road. One evening I followed a car on Pleasant View Road right on into Excelsior! Best wishes to you as you continue with this important project. Sincerely, John T Schevenius, P.E. cc. Anita Benson, P.E., Chanhassen City Engineer en'l' c;i: ~. ." . A+f-{Å(.~vvtev\'+ s ,'~'i " " ì"j"Q \~~) '.,; ;; V ,,) J Et;G\~~L.C¡:;'.'\G QZPI November 30, 1999 Mr. Bruce Polaczyk Hennepin County Public Works 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340-5421 Re: Highway 101 Upgrade - Highway 62 to T.H. 5 Dear Mr. Polaczyk: As a resident of Hennepin County and a employee in Chanhassen, I am interested in the proposed upgrade to Highway 101. Daily, 1 drive along this roadway on my way home from work. Often, 1 see cars waiting at intersections to make left tums. Even more often, I notice vehicles on side streets waiting seemingly endlessly for a string of cars to pass single file before they may enter onto the highway. I believe that because of the growth in traffic on Highway 101 and the future growth that will take place in suburban communities, that the roadway profile for Highway 101 should be a four lane cross section with turning lanes and pedestrian trails. This design will provide the greatest safety for motorists and pedestrians. It will effectively permit travel between suburban communities far in the future and reduce delays and traffic conflicts for residents who want to enter and exit the roadway. Thank you for your consideration. .Sincerc;ly, '/J /p " l~k,:J ;J,..,., , "~ L- (. 'Y"y.:J.- ---_.. Robert Generous 3906 Aldrich Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55412 c: Anita Benson, City of Chanhassen Engineer .~, h;