The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About[07a] APO TAC Meeting UpdateC[TY qF tiT. J(liti'N NH Council Agenda Item 7 a MEETING DATE: September 3, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: APO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting Update SUBMITTED BY: Randy Sabart, City Engineer BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The APO TAC met on Thursday, August 6, 2009, and reviewed the following items: 1. Presentation of Draft 2035 St. Cloud Metro Transportation Plan: APO Staff, Cathryn Hanson, presented the elements of the draft Non-Motorized Transportation chapter of the Draft 2035 Transportation Plan. The APO established a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee comprised of staff representing state, regional, and local jurisdictions; business owners, professional, commuter, and recreational cyclists, avid walkers, and other interested citizens. The Advisory Committee in collaboration with APO staff drafted the following vision statement which is intended to guide bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts for the St. Cloud Area. "The St. Cloud Metropolitan Area is a place where people will choose to bicycle and walk for everyday transportation and recreational purposes. Residents and visitors will be able to walk and bike safely, conveniently, and pleasurably on swell-designed, maintained, and connected system of sidewalks and bikeways." Over the last several months, APO staff and the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee have collaborated to develop and refine a set of goals, objectives, and policies that will complement the vision statement and provide a framework for future development of non-motorized transportation planning initiatives. The 2035 Non-IVlotorized Transportation Plan elements include goals, policies, and objectives, accompanied by an updated narrative covering existing and desired infrastructure, trip generators, trip barriers, crash data and recommended safety improvements. In addition to the narrative, mapping has been developed for each of these plan elements and will be incorporated in the Plan. 2. 2035 St. Cloud Metro Transportation Plan -Investment Options for Bike, Pedestrian, Expansion, Operations, Preservation, Safety & Transit: APO staff discussed three federal formula fund investment options for project categories for the 2035 Plan. All three options, as previously recommended by the TAC, include 50% of the federal money being set aside for roadway and bridge expansion projects. The first option identified the F:\USERSUUDY\my documents\Council Correspondence\2009 Request for Council Action\RCA 082509 TAC Meeting Report.doc remaining 50% as a flexible spending pot to be prioritized from year-to-year however the TAC and Board deemed necessary, not including expansion projects. The second option split the remaining 50% into two different funding categories: 40% for maintenance, operations, and safety projects while the other 10% would be for bike/pedestrian and transit projects. The last option split the remaining 50% into the same two funding categories but with different percentages: 30% for maintenance, operations and safety and 20% for bike/pedestrian and transit. The TAC tabled a recommendation on an investment option until the October TAC meeting. 3. Brainstorm on Ideas for the TIP Project Prioritization and Scoring for Bike & Pedestrian, Expansion, Operations, Preservation, Safety and Transit: APO staff distributed sample scoring and prioritization criteria used by several different MPO's. Because of the decision to table an investment option until the October TAC meeting, staff asked that TAC members look over the sample criteria and be prepared to discuss further at the next meeting. The TAC tabled further discussion or a recommendation on this item until the October TAC meeting. 4. Update on State Rail Plan Information Development: APO staff provided an update on the State Rail Plan. The State of Minnesota has initiated a comprehensive study to (1) examine existing and future demand for freight and passenger rail services; (2) identify infrastructure and other improvements needed to expand rail service; (3) explore funding options; and, (4) recommend policy guidelines for state investment and public/private partnerships. The current study and resulting Plan is intended to identify a vision for freight and passenger rail in Minnesota as part of the State's overall transportation network. Technical Memo #3 was released on July 17, 2009, and provides comprehensive detail on the passenger rail network. Analysis of projected 2030 Rail Demand to and from the Twin Cities under current service conditions indicates travel to St. Cloud to have the highest demand, followed by the route to Chicago, IL. The consultant also completed a corridor analysis using an assumption of significantly improved corridors and operating conditions that would provide for high speed rail service, with routes operating between 79 mph and 110 mph. Under this scenario, travel demand to St. Cloud continues to demonstrate robust potential with the strongest rider ship and rail mode share. The St. Cloud area continues to demonstrate strong rider ship potential for both commuter and intercity passenger rail connections and this is well reflected in the State Rail Plan. Based on the forecasted data, expanding passenger rail service to St. Cloud and perhaps extension of an intercity passenger rail route to Fargo and/or Grand Forks and points west has the potential to serve as a valuable complement to the existing transportation network. This plan will provide the framework for guiding freight and passenger rail priorities throughout Minnesota; positioning this region well for increased multimodal and intermodal transportation choices in the future. The State Passenger & Freight Rail Advisory Committees will be meeting in August with public open houses expected to be held in October. Following the public open houses and final review by the Advisory Committees and Mn/DOT the plan is on-schedule to be completed by the end of 2009. S. Presentation on 2034 St. Cloud Metro Transportation Plan Survey Results: F:\USERSUUDY\my documents\Counci] Correspondence\2009 Request for Council Action\RCA 082509 TAC Meeting Report.doc APO staff presented individual question results from the APO's "non-scientific" 2035 Transportation Plan survey. Hard copies of the survey were sent out to every jurisdiction in the St. Cloud metropolitan area. Individuals could also access a .pdf version of the survey via the APO's website or complete an electronic version of the survey on www.surveymonkey.com. Approximately 150 surveys were completed and below is a brief summary of the top results for each survey question. • Age of surveyors - 459~o between 35-54; 24°Yo between 55-64 • Ethnic background of surveyors - 979'o Caucasian/white; 1.5% African American/black • Residence of surveyors - 5196 St. Cloud; 169'o adjacent rural areas • Work location of surveyors - 47% work in St. Cloud; 12% retired, not employed, unemployed or full-time student • Primary mode of transportation of surveyors - 829~o drive (alone) • Top priorities of APO through 2035 -maintaining existing bridges/roads (4.12); adding bicycle/pedestrian facilities (3.69) • Most significant transportation challenges of APO through 2035 - increasing traffic congestion/delays (4.01); aging/deteriorating transportation system (3.98) • Importance of elements for a livable community/region -employment opportunities (4.13); schools (3.99); bridges/roads (3.99) • Importance of land use strategies -open space/farm preservation (3.62); development along existing transportation facilities (3.57); more greenways/parks (3.54) • Willingness to support funding increases for transportation -gas tax (3.9); license tab fees (3.76) 6. Other Business: Tiger Recaa -What's Next APO staff mentioned that five (5) project letters were submitted to Mn/DOT last month for consideration of letters of support. Applications for TIGER submittals are due September 15, 2009. Stimulus Protect Uadate TAC members provided brief updates on the Pinecone Road, 28`h Avenue, and Metro Bus transit stimulus projects. Mr. Cruikshank of MetroBus mentioned that most, if not all purchase orders have been completed for their transit stimulus projects. The only problem with the bus purchases is that bus manufacturers have a considerable backlog for deliverabitity. The Pinecone Road project should start construction in the next few weeks and be substantially complete by fall. Grading and construction activities on 28`h Avenue in Waite Park will begin this fall and carry over into summer/fa112010. District 3 Fundine Epuity UDdate Steve Voss of MnDOT provided an update on D3 funding equity. He mentioned that D3 representatives met with Mn/DOT Central Office staff and were presented with three to four options for providing D3 with additional funding including programming of additional state Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding, other key opportunities, such as the recent greater Minnesota interchange program, to fund key projects such as TH 210, 6-lane of I-94 from Rogers to Clearwater, additional innovative financing techniques with potential contractors to stretch current funding, and an assessment of current management process through an ACEC study. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS: REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: None. Informational. ST. CLOUD AREA PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) Thursday, August 6, 2009 9:00 a.m. -11:00 a.m. MnIDOT District 3 Offices The Cove IOId Mn/DOT Lunch Room Upstairs) 3725 12 Street North St. Cloud AGENDA 9:00 a.m. 1. Consideration of TAC Minutes from July 9, 2009 (Attachment A). Requested Action: Approval. 9:02 a.m. 2. Presentation on Draft 2035 St. Cloud Metropolitan Transportation Plan: Non-Motorized Transportation (Attachment B). Requested Action: Recommend Preliminary Approval. 9:12 a.m. 3. Update on State Rail Plan Information Development (Attachment C). Requested Action: Information. H:22 a.m. 4. 2035 St. Cloud Metropolitan Transportation Plan: Investment Options for Bike 8 Pedestrian, Expansion, Operations, Preservation, Safety 8 Transit (Attachment D). Requested Action: Discussion 8 Recommendation. 9:52 a.m. 5. Presentation on 2035 St. Cloud Metropolitan Transportation Plan Survey ResuRs. Requested Action: Information. ,10:07 a.m. 6. Brainstorm on Ideas for TIP Project Prioritization & Scoring for Bike & Pedestrian, Expansion, Operations, Preservation 8 Transit (Attachment E). Requested Action: Discussion. 10:52. a.m. 7. Other Business. • TIGER Recap -What's Next • Stimulus Projects Update 11:00 a.m. 8. Adjournment. St. Cloud Area Planning Organization (320) 252-7568 admin(a~stclouda~o.org St. Cloud Area Planning Organization TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES A regular meeting of the Si. Cloud Area Planning Organization's (APO) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was held on Thursday, July 9, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. Kirby Becker presided, with the following members present: Luci Botzek Sherburne County Dave Broxmeyer City of St. Cloud Tom Cruikshank St. Cloud Metro Bus Steve Foss City of St. Cloud Bill McCabe City of St. Augusta Anita Rasmussen City of Sartell Randy Sabart City of St. Joseph (SEH) Steve Voss Mn/DOT District 3 Also Present: Cathryn Hanson St. Cloud APO Kelvin Howieson Mn/DOT District 3 Kate Miner WSB Mary Safgren Mn/DOT District 3 Dave Then St. Cloud APO CONSIDERATION OF TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES FROM MAY 7, 2009: Mr. McCabe moved. Ms. Rasmussen seconded to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried. UPDATE ON BIKEIPEDESTRIAN COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES: Ms. Hanson provided an update on bike/pedestrian committee activities. The committee has been working on updating the 2035 Transportation Plan: Non-Motorized Transportation chapter, a public awareness campaign, mapping of bicycle and pedestrian routes in the metropolitan area and working on assessing crash data. The next committee meeting will be during the last week of July. FEDERAL STIMULUS TIGER DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM: Mr. Becker discussed the TIGER grant program and the key elements and criteria for submitting an application. Eligible applicants include state and local governments, including U.S. territories, tribal governments, transit agencies, port authorities, other political subdivisions of state or local govemments, and multi-state or mufti- jurisdictional applicants. Eligible projects include highway or bridge projects, public transportation projects, passenger and freight rail transportation projects, and port infrastructure investments. The USDOT will use primary and secondary selection criteria to evaluate application and award funding. USDOT will give priority according to several other criteria such as substantial project completion by February 17, 2012 and projects that use funding to complete an overall financing package. Grant awards may be no less than $20 million and no greater than $300 million. However, USDOT does have discretion to waive the $20 million minimum for significant projects in smaller cities, regions or states. Mr. Becker also shared common questions and responses about the program. The TAC discussed and recommended five (5) projects that meet project development requirements, cost thresholds and will compete well with the selection criteria. The five recommended projects include the TH 15/33rd interchange, University bridge & 10th Street 4-lane expansion to 15th Avenue, City of Sartell system-wide transportation improvements, Northstar commuter rail phase II rail stations & extension, and the Metro Bus compressed natural gas fleet replacement 8 fueling station. Mr. McCabe moved. Mr. Cruikshank seconded to approve the TAC recommendation of local TIGER project submittals. Motion carried. ROADWAY DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS FOR 2009 TSM REPORT: Mr. Then presented the roadway deficiency analysis and discussed all intersections with the deficiency rating at 4.0 and above. The TAC discussed each location, whether steps have been taken to try and address intersection deficiencies. If not, intersections were added to the list of intersections to be monitored. O drive/Administrative/Committees/TAC/TAC Minutes 07.09.09 Ms. Rasmussen moved. Mr. McCabe seconded to include the identified intersections in the 2009 TSM Report and further monitor identified intersections. TOWNLINE ROAD FUNCTIONAL CLASS REDESIGNATION: Mr. Becker presented the State MPO functional classification change process, change justification criteria, and a breakdown of functional class facilities in the APO planning area. Ms. Rasmussen moved. Mr. Sabart seconded to approve the functional class redesignation with the condition that redesignation occur only if ownership is agreed upon and assumed by the County. AMENDMENT TO 2035 TAC RECOMMENDED ROADWAY PLAN SCENARIO: Mr. Becker presented several changes to the 2035 Roadway Plan. Changes include: t'~ removing right-of-way and construction of Stearns CR 138 from Knights of Columbus Park to BNSF railroad; t2> removing construction of 40th Street South from Cooper Avenue to Stearns CSAH 75; t3> removing construction of 33rd Street west expansion from Granite View Road to CR 137; t'i removing right-of-way for Sherburne CSAH 7 west of the airport from Del Tone Road to Sherburne CSAH 3; and (5) adding right-of-way and construction of TH 15/33rd Street South interchange. Mr. Foss moved. Ms. Rasmussen seconded to recommend approval of the revised 2035 Roadway Plan scenario 2010-2013 ST. CLOUD APO TIP 8 MN/DOT D3 ATIP UPDATE: Mr. Becker gave a quick update on projects for the 2010-2013 TIP and discussed the new approach to analyzing financial capacity for agencies and jurisdictions. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Hanson mentioned that the St. Cloud APO will be hosting the 2009 Minnesota MPO conference the second week of August. On Monday, August 10"' there will be a Complete Streets Workshop sponsored by BlueCross BlueShield on Minnesota. Several international and nationally known complete streets advocates/speakers will be presenting at the workshop. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. McCabe moved. Mr. Foss seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:58 a. m. O drive/Administrative/CommitteeslTAClfAC Minutes 07.09.09 ~• .~:~ii~~ /Yalyd ~ s s s ~~~ IO~i0 (:uunt~• Rua , tit. (acnul,,v1N i(i3O3-O(t~j (i2l)) 2~?~5(it3 • (i2U) ?52-(~5~- (FAQ) • 1-mail:atintin~'stcl~~u~lalx-.or}(• w~~~~~~.stcl~iuclapu.iir}; TO: APO TAC FROM: Cathryn Hanson DATE: July 31, 2009 SUBJECT: Draft 2035 Non-Motorized (Bicycle & Pedestrian) Plan Elements ACTION: Recommend Preliminary Approval Background The St. Cloud Area Planning Organization established a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee comprised of staff representing state, regional, and local jurisdictions; business owners, professional, commuter, and recreational cyclists, avid walkers, and other interested citizens. The Advisory Committee in collaboration with APO staff drafted the following vision statement which is intended to guide bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts for the St. Cloud Area. The St. Cloud Metropolitan Area is a place where people will choose to bicycle and walk for everyday transportation and recreational purposes. Residents and visitors will be able to walk and bike safely, conveniently, and pleasurably on swell-designed, maintained, and connected system of sidewalks and bikeways. Progress Over the last several months, staff and the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee have collaborated to develop and refine a set of goals, objectives, and policies that will complement the vision statement and provide a framework for future development of non-motorized transportation planning initiatives. Draft 2035 Plan Components The 2035 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan elements include the attached goals, policies, and objectives, accompanied by updated narrative covering existing and desired infrastructure, trip generators, trip barriers, crash data and recommended safety improvements. In addition to the narrative, mapping has been developed for each of these plan elements and will be incorporated in the Plan. Action Recommend Approval of Draft 2035 Non Motorized Transportation Plan '~ ~~ , r r = ~. , GOAL # 1 GOAL # 2 as Q , ~ 4 ~x GOAL # 3 ~ _~~, ' Safety, Education & Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities - Promotionr&'Social" ~~- ~ ' Enforcement & Infrastructure ` ' Support ,- . ~, ,_ Design and maintain complete Empower people to bike and Maximize opportunities for safe, streets that accommodate all walk; and to create the social convenient, and pleasant travel modes of transportation through and economic environments for bicyclists and pedestrians. a functional network. which support the choice of these modes. Ob'ective A: Ob'ective A: , s~;: a a ecth~ey"A: Develop awareness of the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists and pedestrians within the Facilitate safe and convenient Creation of a bicycle and transportation network; access to services and pedestrian network map that including awareness on the destinations via an is readily available to the appropriate interactions between interconnected bicycle and public. motorized and non-motorized pedestrian network. users of the transportation network. Ob'ective B: Ob'ective"B Collaborate with law Increase connectivity of the Promote and advocate for enforcement agencies to enforce existing bicycle and pedestrian bicycle and pedestrian safe and legal biking and network through regional transportation through public walking practices. coordination and collaborative awazeness campaigns and planning. activities. Poli # 1 Poli " # 1 The APO will collaborate with Local cities and counties are Encourage local jurisdictions local school districts to encouraged to adopt the and business owners to coordinate Safe Routes to standards outlined in the actively support campaigns School (SRTS) programs and MnDOT Bicycle Facilities such as National Bike Month funding opportunities. Design Manual (MnDOT, 2005) (May), Walk to Work Day, etc. Polic # 2 Poli # 2 - Local cities and counties Promote visible signage for Encourage local law preserve and utilize abandoned bicycle and pedestrian enforcement agencies to railroad corridors, parks, facilities; including bike establish and/or maintain bicycle greenways, and other public lanes, multi-use paths, and patrol efforts within the region. access lands for locating future share the road facilities. bic cle and edestrian athwa s. Poli # 3 Poli M# 3 - ~~, ~ . The APO will maintain a Encourage transit operators to Coordinate database of crashes that involve provide bicycle racks to multi jurisdictional planning bicyclists and pedestrians; this facilitate intermodal trips. efforts to increase data will be provided on an connectivity of non- annual basis to local cities and motorized transportation counties for targeted safety options. im rovements when ossible. ,frin/ /%ond area Planning Qrganization I OO Ccxuin• Read ~i, St. (auucl, A~1N 5(i3O~-l)h4~ (i2U) 2j2-?SIiH • (32U) 252-(i»7 (PAX) • li-mail: a~lminC'strl~x«lah~~.<~r); • www.aclnu~l:~h~~.i>ri; TO: APO TAC FROM: Cathryn Hanson DATE: July 29, 2009 SUBJECT: Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight & Passenger Rail Plan-Update ACTION: Information/Discussion Background The State of Minnesota has initiated a comprehensive study to examine the following issues: 1. Fadsting and future demand for freight and passenger rail services; 2. Identification of infrastructure and other improvements needed to expand rail service; 3. Explore funding options; 4. Recommend policy guidelines for state investment and public/private partnerships. Objective The current study and resulting Plan is intended to identify a vision for freight and passenger rail in Minnesota as part of the State's overall transportation network. Progress Technical Memo # 3 was released on July 17, 2009 and provides comprehensive detail on the passenger rail network. Analysis of projected 2030 Rail Demand to and from the Twin Cities under current service conditions indicates travel to St. Cloud to have the highest demand, followed by the route to Chicago, IL. *Current service conditions: one (1) round-trip train per day, operating speed of 79 mph. Results follow in Table 5.2 Table 5.2 Projected 2030 Rail Demand to/from Tv~in Cifies under Current Service Conditions Modeled Results.: 2030 Rail RidersLi r Projected Demand Rail Stare ~~•1>la~ou 93,sao ii,sozA o o os% ~. ~y y , s~.~~ ~~ ~ ~ col u m b u s , ssc w onsin 0 5 0 4 61 ~ 0 1 % ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'b~,~e _iM Yn~~L;jA.lS~iiY.4t S. J' ~ ~A: ! , r, ~ ~ ,~ , _~.t~.. 9'tt.:na,.; ~ ' c C y , ,y ~ ~ N'6fkA`.i~i'. 3a~~~x~.~1~~~'~T.~3m~~;V~L#,l~iv+~+i~L. •`: la Qosse, wisconsui 13,000 3,236,000 0.4% Red titi9r-g, Mi<meaota 14,500 1,119,000 13% sc Cjoud, ~. ` ~ ia,9s2,ooo,' ,..~ ~' i.~lx y a ;` Detroit Lakes, Mirmesota 7,000 796A~ 0.9% Pazgo South Dakota: 21r'f00 3,9619000, . ' ` 0.31E •; Grand Forks, Sonrth Dakota 7,000 2,44ti,300 09% The consultant also completed corridor analysis using an assumption of significantly improved corridors and operating conditions that would provide for high speed rail service, with routes operating between 79 mph and 110 mph. Under this scenario, travel demand to St. Cloud continues to demonstrate robust potential with the strongest ridership and rail mode share. *1lpgraded service conditions: eight (8) round-trip trains per day, operating at corridor-dependent speeds of 79-I10 mph. Results follow in Table 5.4 Table 5.4 Projected 2030 Rail Demand to/front T~~ in Cities w ith Higher Serti ice Standards 20190 Forecasts: Expanded Service Service Rail Projected Rai] bevel Ridership Denuod Siure QucaRo, Illa+ois ]iSR• 299,000 11,302,000 2_bA Mlovankee,Vlbsegosin H4i• 16,500 :'. 4,b63,500 '.0.4'X Coles, lATiscvnsm IiSR• 2,500 431,000 OS~ Tomatti Wsca~sii'.: ` F14t~ 15~D0 ~ 1,155,500 '`1391 . V Crosse, -4'isca,sn 13SR• 42,500 3,236,000 13`J~ Wmaa_vs. :. ~. ~6r3D0 789j000 'a 1'33'. c - Red l1'aig Mumesota HSR• 63,000 1,119,000 5.691 ,:e,•. _ . ..~ , . .: Detroit lakes, ):' 11500 796,000 1 4g -a: aMr w.--a ~ `F~o.NarfhDaloot.,,~ ,. ; _ ~, .T":`~ ` „~.r ~?! '.. , ,S6;5D0 n ;~;i;3?G~:~ ~099r: ,r ~:a~s' { , , . d a, S~iocth Dakota Gc~ F aad Et 1+1JD00 ., , ._ 2,4f6.500 0.69` _ , _ y ,~ ~ '~u ~VViseonsm ~ ~ ~ ~ a2,57,D00 ' w~iS1I?.300s ~ "., ~n~~;~ M~as~ w>s~gn 1? s3,ooo a,~is o00 17'A _ , Duda/R3dnelvder,115scocnu~ F 12,SOp 1586,500 OB`J. ~.. iVil1Q~ Ma~nesota L ~..~ 1 y`!Y` E` 4J r~Y ~ 1 53500 *"'. 664 1 X000 3e~3~+A~ -`~~~/•~~ ILJ~AlT.. ~. }~1 ^~'~ 2Mua~~ofa IaSY,.^ ~~~~ ~ t ~p ~ ~ :,l'.'Bt y2/2~A,500 1V1~ 6,487 l~j. H~3~/.(5~`A. .. ~,^~,~`j:'~:bfl4'6~.'~~•~jTY, 1'Iindciey; MSIRIlSOta LT 283,000 6,48700 !14!` Rorl~estQ (A~ L~el H9t• 2,500 6,064,500 3.7A ..,,~„~..~• pmt... ~~ •-• ~-.~ . .-,~-~ _ ~ ~ Mankato, Minr+esota E~ Z28 000 4,041,000 5.6g - :. ~ _ . ; L's' ... , . , 9.!9D0 .._ "~~-.-., ~~~ ~ . ~:-tom ~1.TK -; ., Northfield, ~ E~ 110,500 2,006,500 55R .,.., ,~,,_F_~ _.,.» .,. ~li~ NvQT~, ~ 2 f }°~ ~ vi~::' ., .; n -~'-: ~3 i 4 . _.'Sl~i~•~l~i.n v~k+y~ t~YY~Y~-b . ~l~J '''~ a~ r '~' , _, Sionx Falls, South Dakota E* 18,000 1,504000 1291 Summary The St. Cloud area continues to demonstrate strong ridership potential for both commuter and intercity passenger rail connections and this is well reflected in the State Rail Plan. Based on the forecasted data, expanding passenger rail service to St. Cloud and perhaps extension of an intercity passenger rail route to Fargo and/or Grand Forks and points west has the potential to serve as a valuable complement to the existing transportation network. This plan will provide the framework for guiding freight and passenger rail priorities throughout Minnesota; positioning this region well for increased multimodal and intermodal transportation choices in the future. Moving Forward The State Passenger & Freight Rail Advisory Committees will be meeting in August with public open houses expected to be held in October. Following the public open houses and final review by the Advisory Committees and Mn/DOT the plan is on-schedule to be completed by the end of CY 2009. 2035 St. Cloud Metropolitan Transportation Plan: Investments Options for Federal Formula Funds Pro'ect Fundin Area Percent Actual Fundin 1. Roadwa Ex ansion 50% $950,000.00 2. Flexible 50% $796,025.00 Bike 8 Pedestrian Scenario A Maintenance/Preservation Operations Safety 5153,975.00 Studies 1F-~V:::.#!'t5,'i.`~`+ w `+aMa6 Transit Capital :'~$?i~~:W~YAk!E,~.AA !. ,.. ....~ .. ~ _ _ ~. 1. Roadwa Ex ansion 50% $950,000.00 2. M80 40% 606,025.00 Maintenance/Preservation Operations Scenario B safety s+x3.975.00 3. Multi-Modal 10% 190,000.00 Bike 8 Pedestrian Transit Capital Studies 1. Roadwa Ex ansion 50% 950,000.00 2. M80 30% 416,025.00 MaintenancelPreservation Operations Scenario C Safety E153,97x.00 3. Multi-Modal 20% 380,000.00 Bike 8 Pedestrian Transit Capital Studies Total $ $1,900,000.00 Total $ $1,900,000.00 Total $ $1,900,000.00 • Total funding available after HSIP taken ofi the top is 51.90 million/yr. Funding ATP 3 Base Level $40 Breakdown ATP 3 HSIP Set-A-Side $2.99 (of which $1.87 millon is local) ATP 3 Discretionary Formula $37.01 MnIDOT Portion (7596) $27.76 Local Portion (25°~) $9.25 APO Portion of Local (20.53%) $1.90 ,~~..1 citJ~d ~~ ~~~~ ~~ 1040 Counn• Road -~. 5i. Cloud, A1N SGiO~-0h33 (320) 252-?5Cii3 • (3201 25255 ~ (FAX) • E-mail: admin~+strluuctart~.urg • ~w~wstctoudapo.ori; FY 2012-13 APO Federal Trans ortation Pro'ect Checklist Project applications must completely address all checklist items na 'or to the January, 2008 submittal deadline to be eligible. 1. Minimum ADT Projed meets minimum ADT requirements. (2,000 existing urban, 3,000 non-existing urban) (200 existing rural, 400 non-existing rural) 2. Minimum Functional Classiflcatlon Project is identified on the Mn/DOT Functional Classification Map and has the minimum functional class cation. (urban projects: collector or above) (rural projects: minor coUedor or above) 3. Permanent Impovement Project is a permanent improvement. 4_. Minimum Fsdaral Funds Rocuested The minimum 3200,000 federal funding amount is being requested. (Minimum 350,000 for right-oi way of project development studies) 5. Capital Improvement Program The project is included in an adopted City or County Capital Improvement Program. 5. APO Lona-Rance TransuoAatlon Plan The project is tonslstent with the APO Long-Range Transportation Plan. (New alignment roadway, adding a lane(s) to existing alignment, right-of-way or studies) 7. Assured Coordlnatlon with all Jurlsdietions A lerier or resolution of support for the project has been obtained firorn other roadway jurisdictions directly impacted by the project (sample resolution attached). e, Assured Local Match by Aoalicant A resolution from the implementing agency has been approved assuring Thal the necessary local matching funds will be provided for the project (sample resolution attached). 9. Movement of People and Goods The project provides for or improves the rnovemenl of people and goods. 10. 20 Year ADT S1. Cloud APO 20 year forecasted ADT has been used in the Project Ranking Worksheet. 11. Protect Cost Breakdown Federal, local and total construction costs are itemized in the project description text. 12. Project Location Mao A project location map has been prepared. 13. Public Information Meeting A resdution has been adopted Dy the implementing agenty documenting that a specific Public Information Meeting has been held on the project (optional -sample resolution ariached) Xepre.~e•nrirr~~ rhrl•i,lfr~ai~r,~,lurradicliners Iirnle~n Cnunl} Iia~en T~~~rnshih • Le~;wk Tin+•nship + ti[. Au~usla tit. tauud ti(. 1~~~rhh tit. 1r.~~c'Ph'1<m•n,hip ~:~n~ll Sauk Raridti .ti17r~i~urnr ('~nuit) titrauti~ C~niul~ \Cait~• Park QUALIFYING CRITERIA Qualify criteria are to be used by the potential proposers and the APO to screen projects prior to going through project ranking and selection. This screening process is designed to assist applicants in determining whether their proposed transportation project is eligible to receive federal funds. Appl'~cants must meet all aoolicable gualiNina criteria prior to the submission of their application. Applications received that do not meet these criteria will not be considered for federal transportation funding Applicants are encouraged to contact their county or city engineer or the APO should they have questions concerning project eligibility or require assistance in completing their application. Nine qualifying criteria have been developed by the ATPIAPO to allow applicants to pre-screen their projects. Eligible project categories within the APO Area include: roadway construction, bridge construction, safety, transit, roadway project deveopment studies and transportation enhancements. Refer to Figure 9 to determine the qualifying criteria pertaining to your project. Definitions of qualifying criteria items are as follows: 1) Existing ADT -This is the average daily traffic (ADT) computed for the most recent count for the roadway. Estimated ADT is used for non-existent roadways. 2) Minimum Functional Class -This is the minimum functional classification for a roadway in order for it to receive federal funds. 3) Permanent Improvement -Proposed project must be a permanent improvement. The acquisition of buses is a capital improvement and considered a permanent improvement. 4) Minimum Federal Fund Request -This is the minimum amount of federal funds that may be requested for the project. Projects receiving federal funding require extensive amounts of documentation and investigation during project development. Therefore, projects should be of a certain magnitude to effectively optimize the use of federal funds. Otherwise, the administration and development costs may exceed the benefit of the federal funds that are being requested for the project. 5) Protect in Existinsr Prociram -Project must be included in an existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) of a county, city, or some other government unitlagency. This is to ensure the proposed project is consistent with local andlor state planning processes. There must be an official action approving the proposed project by the local unit of government. 6) Proiect Consistent with APO 2030 Financially Constrained Roadway Plan -Project must be consistent with the St. Cbud Metropolitan Area Financially Constrained 2030 Roadway Plan, pertinent State long-range plans, and any corridor plans or studies prepared by the APO. (New APO t3oard Policy subject to approval as part of 2030 Transportation Plan December 8, 2005). . 7) Assured Coordination within all Jurisdictions -Applications involving projects that cross multiple local govemment units must be accompanied by a letter andlor official action indicating all affected local units of govemmenl are in agreement with the concept of the proposed project. This is to make sure that projects have the support of the local units of government, which potentially have a veto power over that project. B) Assured Local Match Fundincr Availability -Applicant must document to the APO they have secured the necessary local match for their project before receiving federal funds. The local match is a minimum of 20 percent of the total project cost for which federal funds are being requested unless otherwise noted in Figure 1. Since it is extremely important that federal funds are utilized on all selected projects, applicants must assure the APO of their commitment to provide local matching funds. Without this commitment, no federal funds will be released to the applicant. 9) Movement of People Goods Services -Project must provide for or improve the movement of people goods and services. This is not required under enhancement projects. Items for which "N.A.° appears in Figure 1 means the minimum requirement does not apply. p:lnunn 1 ranlplanning\STIPlqualcrit ~;,tr may} 41 Z G ~~ Q Z Q Z d ? ~ o m ~ d } d Y ayi Y Q Z ~1~ W +r3 ;~ ~r Z d a Q z Q z d Y ~ N > h i Yl y b N > Y r ~ ~ ~ o o W N U i O ~ C~ ~ } } Y y N ~ U ~m m 1(1 uy ' A y 61 YY N 1A Ip Vl N W Q.~ ~~ - te ~ Z o$ G U~ o Y o~ } } } } } a , ~ c .~ u i m ~ ~~ S ~v d h N ~ m ~ O n } Y ~ b } h } a } w } ~ } ~ a~ K o `o '$ y Y p q b n i °a ~ ~ > °o } } } T n } °z u N ~ po `o ZS °° YY ~ K X N T2 O } 8 ~ } } } } 3 u+ U D O i 0 ~ ~ °' ~'! O } ° N ~ > } > ~ 2 U ~ o y n „ W („) a a m a o~ ~~ ie A a ~ ~ 'a ~ in ~ g E ~ c J % e ' ~ U m ~ t ~ .LL .. U ~ E ~ a '~ o = n $ ~ D • 8 ~ a_ O Q lL C ~ W ~ C u J ~ ~ c a ~ ~ c m ~ c U 4 ~, t` ~ E ~ N ~ C E ~ a' S 9 ~,~ y O w ~ a° ~ a` a` a ~ a ~ N ~ v ~ ~o n ~ m r O u m N .9 h A m A d r 3 L V A E s A m ~' O 4 r E c m 3 v 'o n 0 0 'm O V E .~ d m r 0 a a 0 u Eqq b~ Wo 0 ~~ 'S m 0 na E$ N~ c ~ c_Wi ~ aE 'c of f9 a~ m m ? N O O ~~ '~ o w .~ d c c_ ~ EE ~~ A (E~ o W y O a`d c a d N t C u o, aui ~Q ~ a~ _O C F C L - V t R V ~` ~ v f o ~ ~ .~ ~ ~~ w ~ h •~ ~ a a~ ~~ e N c0 ~~ e ~~ do ~~ 01L a ~ m rn'~ t~ w EE _~ ~ ~ Q r, o. ua d~ a= a' ~ „ Y E~ P~ ~~ a '° m~ m a ~° m ~~ Q' T ~~ ~ ~ L a m ~ d J WW 7 W Q QO ~~ N t+l RECOMMENDATIONS ON ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES FOR FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT FEDERAL laws and regulations are a basis for decision making as to what activities federal funds should be utilized for. States have the ability to establish more stringent rules. For all of the following discussion on how to utilize federal funds it should be understood that there are exceptions to every rule. Special funding sources (demonstration projects, "non-formula" funds] may include funding for activities that normally are not federally funded. Right of Way (R/VII): MnlDOT discourages ATPs from considering these for reimbursement as it feels there are more economical and optimal uses of SAFETEA-LU funds. An exception to this policy pertains to the enhancement provision that allows acquisition of easements, abandoned railroad corridors and scenic and historic sites. However, the partnership has adopted a policy that allows each region to determine if R/VV is eligible for federal funding. Preliminary and Final Design Engineering: Although eligible for federal funding, these activities are not considered economical uses of SAFETEA-LU funds. Therefore, the ATP has adopted a policy excluding these activities from being eligible for federal reimbursement. Construction Engineering: This activity is not eligible for federal reimbursement under State Aid. Mn/DOT collects reimbursement for contract administration on trunk highway projects. This is being discussed at top management levels within Mn/DOT. Plan DevelopmenUCorridor Preservation: Corridor preservation is recognized under SAFETEA-LU as an eligible activity for federal funding. However, the Partnership has adopted a policy that allows each Region to determine ii Project DevelopmenUCorridor Preservation activities are eligible. Supplemental Agreements and Cost Overruns: The federal law stipulates that once the percentage of participation is established for a project, that percentage is to be carried through the I'rfe of the project. The MnlDOT District Offices are responsible for managing their regional portion of the STIP. Mn/DOT District 3, in consultation with the ATP, has established policies for managing supplemental agreements and cost overrun projects in its portion of the STIP. Projects affected by these policies will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. However, recipients of SAFETEA-LU funding are reminded that the ATP is responsible for maintaining afiscally- constrained transportation program, and changes in project scope and costs can adversely impact the entire program. FIGURE 2 Federal Reimbursement Policies for Miscellaneous Activities W .r' O V V • ~I ~.~/ •~ r•w .O V ~~ ^^~- 1~ O a m ~ .~ p a ° a i ~~ a ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ d ~ H e 8 }+ O e O ~" C ~ v e p b .~ w ~ ~", ~ a ~' "' s ~ ~~ ~ a ,. ~ $~ z ~ ~ ~ , a°:S .~ "" g ~~ ~ ., e 3 ~ ~ QQ~ V ~ ~ a ~ 1 it ~ , '~i ~ V ~ _ ~! ~ ~ ~ ~.+ ~ ~ ~ f _ u. ~ ~ ~' ~.. v~ Q. ~ O O w w ~ ., ~ .-, ~ ~ ' ~ ~ a ~ O t ~ ~ ~ q U -~ Q R~ Y ~ M~ ~ 3 ~~ pG ~ ~ ~ o o ~ _ y ~ ~ o -w ' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i /' ~ ~ I ~' ~ ~ ~y~ ' F~1 O H ~. ~. ~~y v y O r ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ a O ~ ~ c ~ :: ~ • 1~ ~ E ~ ' V ~ j ~" $ ~ . ~t ~°` r ~ U U o ~ $ U ~ +~~ .. ~ d o ~ ~ ~~,, '~,' rn ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~p ~ ~ ~ ~E~~- o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q '~i ~ y a ~' ~~ ~ 8 a. . q; q ~ w ~ q m z 2 , . " ' fi 0. M~ ~ ~~ n . ?~~;~ i ., ~ V ~ ~~ O ~~. , ~ ~ ~ h ~ ` ~ ~ ~ U q U U V Q rn w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q B D Revised 10.%22/07 ~:'• 1 II'•, I IP Sohcrtanon'~t~ Y 2W8 A1'P Steve Voss archive\10-22-07 Att D_Fed. Brid~~e Ranking.xls ATTACHMENT B Project Ranking Worksheet Bridge Mn!DOT State Aid Dist. Agency R DC!M PO _ Date Route No. Construction Tvpe Functional Classification 1. Existing Bridge Sufficiency Rating Ratin Scale A. What is the existing suff iciency rating? B. What is the proposed sufficiency rating? (must enter value. usually 100) 11. Existin Traffic Volumes ADT Sc^ale L-~ 111. Detour Length Miles Scale Length in Miles or Dead End. ~ ~~ IV. Cost Effectiveness (70 Pts. Max.) A. OSR =Proposed Sufficiency Rating -Existing Sut~iciency Rating. B. Design Year AD1' (20 years front proposed construction year). C. Total Cost in S 1000's. D. Cnst Effectiveness ~ DesignYr. ADT x ASR x 0.25rfotal Cost in $1000's. Total Ranking Points (I.A + 11. + 111, + IV.D.) SL~...~J Kevised 10%??-U7 1):~. I IF"~ I IN Jollcilnuon',FY 2UU8 A I I' Sieve Voss archive', IU-?2-U7 Alt B_Fed. Bridge SCales.xls ATTACHivIGNT B Bridge Scales I. Bridgc Sufficiency 12sting Sufficiency Racing Scale I I. Existing Traffic Volumes A DT Scale 0-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 70+ 60.50 49-40 39-30 39-20 19-10 9-0 0 5000+ 1001-x999 SOI-1000 101-500 0-100 35 ?5-35 15-25 10-IS 0-10 III, Detour Length Length in miles or dead end Dead End 10+ 1-10 <1 Scale 35 30 2-20 0 Hc~ i~cd IIL'2? Q7 Mn'DOT State Aid Dist. R DC. M PO __ Route No. Functional Classification Project Ranking Worksheet Urban Is project on a new road ur alignment? (Y or N) Agency Date Construction Type Ii No Complete Sections I. - I11. If Yes Complete Sections IV - V. I. Road+vay Condition for Project on Existing Road (100Pts.Maa.) Existing Scale Pro osed Scale A. Surface Condition {use proposed construction year as base) I . Age since last surfacing {bituminous road). 2. A~;e since last suriacim~ {concrete road). B. Structural Capacity I. Standard design in tons. 2. Existing design in tons. 3. Existing deficiency in tons. C~ a. Project design in tons. 5. Ucficiency in tons after project. U C. Roadway Curb to Curb Width 1. Standard curb to curb width in feet. 2. Existing curb to curb +vidth in feet. 3. Existing defiency in feet. a. Proposed curb to curb width in feel. S. Deficienc~~ in feet after project. D. Design Speed I. Does the horizontal/vertical alignment meet the rules for the roadway's design speed? (Y or N) 2. V1'ill the horizontallvcrtical alignment meet the rules for the roadway's desisrt speed after the project? {Y or N) ~ ~~ E. Turn Lanes I. Does road segment have right turn lanes where warranted? (Y, N, NA) 2. Will road seE'ment have right turn lanes +vhere +vturanted after the project? (Y, N, NA) 3. Does road segment have left rum lanes where warranted? (Y, N, NA) ~ L~ 4. Will road seement have left tum lanes where warranted after the project? (Y. N, NA) ~ ~~ F. Drainage 1. Rainfall event in years for +vhich the road is designed. (0, S, or lo) ?. Rainfall event in years for which the road ++•ill be designed after the project. (0, 5, or 10) ~ C~ G. Traffic Controls 1. Are there traffic signals +vhere warranted? {Y, N. NA) U ~_~ 2. Will the road have traffic signals +vhere warranted after the project? (Y, N, NA) 3. Are there street lights where warranted? (Y, N, NA) 4. 1lrill the road have street lights where warranted after the project? { Y, N, NA) S. Are all railroad crossings to standards? (Y, N, NA) 6. Are crossin_ improvements included with prj.?(Y, N, NA ) li. ~ Sufficiency Rating I. Existing Sufficiency Rating (ESR). 2, Proposed Sufficiency Rating (PSR). u Score 3, :~ Sufficiency Rating {A SR) = ESR - PSR. ll:~, I II'~ I IP 5olicilationV~1' 2(H)K .~ 1'P Steve Voss archive', t(1-??-(J7 :'1tt Il_1'ed. l ~rhan Ranking SA Revised..~ls Al'1'ACHMENI' B Sheet I of 2 Mn~DOT State Aid Dist. R DC/M PO Route No. m•,t Y =UUn n I N .1tc~r Voss arrhi~~c+.10-:~-U7 ;\tt li_fed. tlrhan Ranking SA N~~iscd.~ls ATTACHMENT B Project Ranking Worksheet Urban Sheet 2 of 2 Functional Classification Agency Date Construction Type I1. Coal ERrcti~•eness (70 Pls. Max.) Score A. Design year ADT {?0 )'ear ADT). B. Cost in $l,000's per mile. C. Cost E(I'ecliveness=Drs. Yr. ADT a J SR x 0.16/Cost (S I.000's) per mile. u II1. Safety (30 ts. Max.) Score A. Number of Crashes per million miles of vehicle travel B. t~ Crashes/million vehicle miles) x 3.333 Total Ranking Points for Reconstruction of Existing Road 0.00 IV. Project on Non-existing Road (7 ls.j Score Is this project on anon-existing road? (Y or N) 0 ASR = ~~ V. oat ectivenesa ( ax.) core A. Design year ADT (20 year ADT). _- l_-_.~ Total Ranking Points for Project on iVon-existing Rosd 0.00 8. Cost in S 1,000's per mile. C Cost Ef~l'ectivcness=Des. Yr. ADT x 75 a 0.16rCost {S 1,000's) per mile Revised 10~2?!U7 u:~,-tN+! IN Jolicnauon~}Y ~UUti A 11' Steve Voss archrve'~,tU-2?-07 Att B_Fed, Llrbnn Scalcs.~ls Anachmeni t3 Urban Scales A. Surface Condition Age in yrs.of bit. since last surfacinz~, Aee in +•rs.of Concsince last surf Scale Age in yrs.of bit. since last surfacing. Age in yrs.o}' Concsince last surf. Scale Ase in vrs.of bit. since lass surfacing A~~e in yrs.of Conc.since last surf Scale Age in ~~rs.of bit. since last surfacing Age in yrs.af Conc.since last surf Scale Age in yrs.of bit. since last surfacing Age in yrs.of Conc.since last surf Scale B. Structural Capacity Deficiency in tons. Scale 20 19 18 I7 40 39 38 37 3h 35 34 33 32 31 IS 14.625 la ?S 14 13.875 13.5 13.125 13 12.75 12.375 12 11.625 Ib IS Iq 13 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 33 22 11.25 I1 10.875 10.5 )0.125 ]0 9.75 9.375 9 8.635 8.25 8 12 11 10 9 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 7.875 7.5 7.125 7 b.7S 6.375 6 5.625 5.25 S 4.875 4.5 8 7 6 S 4 3 I1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 4.125 4 3.75 3.5 3.375 3 2.625 2.5 2.25 2 1.875 1.5 2 1 0 0 3 2 1 0 1.125 1 0.75 O.S 0.375 0 0 I 2 3 =>4 0 S 10 15 20 C. Roadway Curb to Curb Width Deficiency in feet. 0-20 Scale 0-20 D. Design Speed Meets rules? Y N Scale 0 10 E. Turn Lanes Right tum lane warrants met? Y N Scale 0 5 Left tum lane v-•arrants tnet? Y N Scaie 0 S F. Drainage Storm event in year Scale G. Traffic Controls Traffic signals where Scale Street lights where +vatranted'? Scale Railroad crossings to standards? Sca)e 0 5 !0 10 S 0 Y N 0 S Y N 0 S Y N 0 5 Re~•ised 10`?2i07 U:~TIP`~TIP Solicilation~FY 20013 ATP Steve Voss archive110-22-07 Att B_Fed. Rural Ranking.xls ATTACHMENT B Mn'DOT Stntc Aid Dist. RDCiMPO Rouic No. _ Functional Classification Project Ranking Worksheet Rural Agency Date __ Construction l'ypc Sheet 1 of 2 Is project nn a neN~ road or alignment? (Y or N) ~+~ ff No Complete Sections 1. -Ili. !f Yes Complete Seelions IV - V. 1. Roadway Condition for Project on Existin Road (100Pts. Max.) Existing Scale Pro osed Seale A. Surface Condition in proposed construction ~•ear as base) I. Age since last surfacing (bituminous road). 2, Age since last Surfacing (concrete rood). 3. Is the existing road surface gravel? (Y or N) B. Structural Capacit;• 1. Standard desi},+n in tons. ?. Fa;istine design in tons. 3. Existing deficiency in tons. 0 4. Project design in tons. S. Deficiency in tons after project. U C. Surface Lane Width 1. Standard lane width in feet. 2. Existing lane width in feel. 3. Existing defiency in feet. 4. Proposed lane width in feet. 5, Deficiency in feet after project. D. Roadbed Grading Width 1. Standazd grading width in feet. 2. Existing grading width in feet. 3. Existing deficiency in feet. d. Proposed grading width in feet. 5. Deficiency in Feet after project. E. Design Speed 1. Standard Speed in MPH. ?. Existing design speed in MPH. 3. Deficiency in MPH. 4. Proposed design speed in MPH. 5. Deficiency in MPH after project. L~_~ F. Tum and Bypass lanes I. Dces road segment have right turn, left turn. and bypass lanes where warranted? (Y, N. NA) ~~ 2. Will road segment have right tom, left tune, and bypass lanes where warranted after the proj.? {Y, N. NA) G. Recovery Area 1, Do the existing inslopes meet standards'.' {Y or N) ~-~ 2. Will inslopes meet Standards after the projrct? (Y or N) l~_~ 3. Is the recovery area hazard free? (Y or N) A. VJil1 the recovery area be hazard free or hazard protected after the project? (Y or N) ~ U H. ~ Sufficiency Rating I. Existing Sufficiency Rating (ESR). ~~ 2. Proposed Sufficiency Rating (PSR). ~U~ Score 3. A Sufficiency Rating (:~ SR) - ESR - PSR. Revised lU:'22~07 U:11II''~I IN Sol~citauoml'Y ?U08 ATP Steve Voss archive',10-23-07 Att B_Fed. Rural Ranking.xls ATTACHMENT B Project Ranking Worksheet Rural Sheet 2 of 2 Mn/DOT Statc Aid Dist. R DC,'M PO Route i\'o. Functional Classification Agent}~ Date Construction Type Il. Cost Effectiveness (7U Pts. INax.) Score A. Design year ADT (30 year AD7~. f3. Cost in S I,000's per mile. C. Cost Effectiveness=Des. Yr. ADT x ~'- SR x 0.081Cost (51.000's) per stile. 111, Safety (30 Pts. Max.) Score A. Number of Crashes per million milts of vehicle travel. B. (3f Crashes/million vehicle miles) x 5.555 Total Ranking Points for Reconstruction of Existing Road 0.00 IV, Project on Ne~v Road or Alignment (75 Pts.} Score Is this project on anon-existing road? (Y or N} ~-~ ASR = V. Cost Effectiveness (70 Pts. Max.) Score A. Design year ADT (20 year ADT). B. Cost in $I,000's per mile. C. Cost Effectiveness=Des. Yr. ADT a A SR x 0.08/Cost (51,000's) per mile. Total Ranking Points for Protect on Non-cxistinR Road 0.00 K~~ iud It1"2-U7 I)^, I IP`,l II' Soli~i~alinn'.F1' ?{f(18 ATP St~~ ~ Voss archi~r'~•10-~2-07 :111 l3 1=cJ. Rural Scalrs.xls Attachment B Rura! Scales A. Surface Condition Age in )•rs.of bit. since last surfacin=, Age in yrs.of Conc.since last surf. Scale Age in yrs.of'bit. since last surfacing Age in yrs.of Concsince last surf Scale Age in yrs.of bit. since last surfacing. Age in yrs.of Conc.since last surf. Scale Age in yrs.of bit. since last surfacing Age in yrs.of Conc.since last surf Scale AFe in yrs.of bit. since last surfacing Age in yrs.of Conc.since last surf Scale 20 19 IS 17 40 39 38 37 3G 3S 34 33 32 31 IS 14.625 14.25 14 1;,875 13.5 13.135 13 12.75 12.375 12 11.65 16 IS 14 13 30 29 28 27 26 25 2a 23 22 11:?S I i 10.875 10.5 10.125 10 9.75 9.375 9 8.625 8?S 8 12 it 10 9 21 20 19 18 17 !6 15 I~1 13 12 7.875 7.S 7.125 7 6.75 6.375 6 5.625 5.25 5 4.875 4.5 8 7 6 5 4 3 11 10 9 8 7 6 S 4 4.125 4 3.75 3.5 3.375 3 2.625 2.5 2?S 2 1.875 1.5 2 1 0 0 3 2 1 0 1.125 1 0.75 O.S 0.375 0 Existine Pro osed Gravel Scale IS IS B. Structural Capacity Deficiency in tons, Scale 0 1 2 3 =>4 0 S 10 15 20 C. Surface Lane Width Deficiency in feet. 0 1 =>2 Scale 0 S 10 D. Roadbed Grading ~4'(dth Deficiency in feet - Scale 0 1-2 3-4 =>$ 0 S 10 15 E. Design Speecl Deficiency in MPH. 0-13 ~>16 Scale 0-15 30 F. 'Turn Lanes Warrants met? Y N Scale 0 b C. Recovery Area Do inslopes rnect standards? Y N Scale 0 7 Is recovery area hazard free? Y N Scale 0 7 Transportation ~;n~ancement Funding Part B -- Project Application Applicant: Project Name: Central iinnesota Area Transportation Partnership c/o Minnesota Department of Transportation 7694 Industrial Park Road Baxter, MN 56425-6096 (218) 828-5779 Application Deadline: Friday, January 11, Y008 1. is your project identified in a statewide, regional, or local plan, which has been adopted by federal, state, regional, or local agencies? 0-25 POINTS ^ Yes ^ No 2. Describe how your project completes a larger project, concept, or plan. 0-25 POINTS 3 4 5 Explain the degree to which a project addresses issues/needs in one, two, or three of the three groupings (Section 2 -Eligibility) established for Minnesota's process. Historic Grouaina 0-5 POINTS Scenic Environmental Grousing 0-5 POINTS Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities GrOUDInQ 0.5 POINTS Describe adjacent land use and the relationship to the proposed project. 0-10 POINTS Explain the project's relationship to transportation system (e.g. function, proximity, impact) 0-25 POINTS TOTAL POINTS. 0-100 POINTS D1 Projects will be scored based on the responses provided the following five criteria. (Refer to Evaluation Criteria Instruction at Appendix t31 for assistance in completing this section.)