Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[05a] APO TAC Meeting Updateci'r1° C1F s7: JC1r~F 1-H Council Agenda Item 5a MEETING DATE: November 5, 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, October 8, 2009, and on October 12, 2009, and reviewed the following items: 1. Presentation of Mn/DOT Statewide & District 3 Transportation Policy Plan: Mark Nelson from Mn/DOT central office reviewed highlights (primarily the executive summary) of the 2009-2029 Statewide Transportation Policy Plan. Steve Voss, Mn/DOT District 3, reviewed highlights of District 3's investment plan for the same period. (See attachments) 2. APO 2010 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP): APO staff hours available for member technical assistance (Attachment B) The APO's draft planning program for 2010 contains approximately 500 hours for APO staff to provide technical assistance to member agencies. While the type of technical assistance envisioned wasn't specifically identified, the TAC generally believed that APO staffs time should be focused on "regionally significant issues" and not local planning matters such as land use plans, plat/site reviews. The TAC previously discussed a traiUsidewalk inventory (safe routes to school) as a possible activity for APO staff. 3. Presentation on Draft 2035 St. Cloud Metropolitan Transportation Plan: Plan Summary (No handout) APO staff briefly reviewed a summary of the chapters of the transportation plan. (See Attachment C) 4. Continued discussion on 2035 St. Cloud Metropolitan Transportation Plan: Investment Options for Bike & Pedestrian, Expansion, Operations, Preservation, Safety and Transit: APO staff and the TAC continued the discussion regarding several federal formula fund investment options for the 2035 Plan. All three options include 50% of the federal money being set aside for roadway and bridge ex ap nsion projects. The remaining 50% in each of the three options could be identified as a flexible spending pot to be prioritized from year-to-year with 30% or 40% targeted to preservation projects and 10% or 20% going to multi-model (bike & pedestrian, transit) projects. Despite a hardy debate, the TAC tabled a recommendation on an investment option and scheduled an impromptu meeting for October 12 to finalize the recommendation. At the supplemental meeting, the C:\Documents and Settings\sbialke\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.0utlook\J454UJD9\RCA 100809 TAC Meeting Report.doc TAC voted to recommend an investment option that included 50% of the federal money being set aside for roadway and bridge expansion projects, and 50% toward preservation projects with 10% being targeted for multi-model projects over a 5 year time frame. 5. Continued Brainstorm on Ideas for the TIP Project Prioritization and Scoring for Bike & Pedestrian, Expansion, Operations, Preservation, Safety and Transit: APO staff distributed a sample scoring sheet by project type sample and questioned whether or not the TAC was receptive to the presented criterialquestions. (See attachment) 6. Other Business: Deferred BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS: REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: None. Informational. C:\Documents and Settings\sbialke\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.0utlook\J454UJD9\RCA 100809 TAC Meeting Report.doc ST. CLOUD AREA PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) Thursday, October 8, 2009 9:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. Mn/DOT District 3 Offices Lewis North 3725 12 Street North St. Cloud AGENDA 9:00 a.m. 1. Consideration of TAC Minutes from August 6, 2009 (Attachment A). Requested Action: Approval. 9:02 a.m. 2~ Update on Statewide & District 3 Plan Development. Requested Action: Information. 9:47 a.m. 3. APO 2010 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP): Staff Hours Available for Member Technical Assistance (Attachment B). Requested Action: Discussion. 9:57 a.m. 4. Presentation on Draft 2035 St. Cloud Metropolitan Transportation Plan: Plan Summary (Attachment C). Requested Action: Information. 10:12 a.m. 5. Continued Discussion on 2035 St. Cloud Metropolitan Transportation Plan: Investment Options for Bike & Pedestrian, Expansion, Operations, Preservation, Safety & Transit (Attachment D). Requested Action: Discussion & Recommendation. 10:32 a.m. 6. Continued Brainstorm on Ideas for TIP Project Prioritization & Scoring for Bike & Pedestrian, Expansion, Operations, Preservation & Transit (Attachment E). Requested Action: Discussion. 10:52 a.m. 7. Other Business. ^ Tentative 2010 APO TAC Meetings ^ TLRF Loan Fund 11:00 a.m. g. Adjournment. St. Cloud Area Planning Organization (320) 252-7568 adrnin(a~stcloudapo.org ATTACHMENT A St. Cloud Area Planning Organization TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES A regular meeting of the St. Cloud Area Planning Organization's (APO) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was held on Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. Kirby Becker presided, with the following members present: Tom Cruikshank St. Cloud Metro Bus Matt Glaesman City of St. Cloud Bob Kozel Benton County Bill McCabe City of St. Augusta Anita Rasmussen City of Sartell Randy Sabart City of St. Joseph (SEH) Bill Schleunz City of Waite Park Jim Vierzba St. Cloud Area Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee Steve Voss Mn/DOT District 3 Also Present: Brandon Buese Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann Cathryn Hanson St. Cloud APO Michelle Musser-Pooler St. Cloud APO Lowell Olson St. Cloud Area Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee Deb Steiskal Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann Charlotte Stephens St. Cloud Area Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee CONSIDERATION OF TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES FROM JULY 9, 2009: Mr. Cruikshank moved. Ms. Rasmussen seconded to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried. PRESENTATION ON DRAFT 2035 ST. CLOUD METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN: NON- MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION: Ms. Hanson presented the elements of the draft Non-Motorized Transportation chapter. 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, 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-Motorized 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. Mr. Kozel asked if the committee/staff included any bicycle/pedestrian counts in the draft chapter, and if not, asked if the committee could assist with gathering counts on several facilities. APO staff will discuss the viability of this request internally and with the committee. Mr. Glaesman indicated that counts would be useful for CIP's. Ms. Rasmussen mentioned that (lower) counts might be interpreted negatively by public tax payers if they looked at the assessments for projects in relation to the number of measured users. Mr. McCabe moved. Ms. Rasmussen seconded to recommend approval of the draft Non-Motorized Transportation chapter elements. Motion carried. Odrive/Administrative/Committees/TAC/TAC Minutes 08.06.09 2035 ST. CLOUD METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN: INVESTMENT OPTIONS FOR BIKE & PEDESTRIAN, EXPANSION, OPERATIONS, PRESERVATION, SAFETY & TRANSIT: Mr. Becker 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 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. Mr. Kozel mentioned that he still thought the 50% flexible spending would be the best approach because on any given year there might be a larger project and a flexible pot allows for larger projects to be funded. There is no need for additional sub-targets if the APO is already exceeding the 10% federal guideline for bike/pedestrian project funding. He also stated that if the TAC recommends the flexible pot sort of guideline or policy could be included in the Plan for funding specific projects categories. Mr. Glaesman and Mr. Cruikshank concurred. Mr. Cruikshank stated if the APO created a 10% sub-target for bike/pedestrian and transit projects that it may not be enough money for the purchase of a large bus in future programming years with inflation. Mr. Voss indicated that it would be better for non-roadway/bridge specific funding categories to have a specific sub- target but if the TAC recommends a 50% flexible pot then guidelines or policies should be included in the Plan. Mr. Vierzba agreed with Mr. Voss about creating sub-targets for maintenance, operations and safety and bike/pedestrian and transit. He also mentioned that guidelines or policies with no dedicated funding would create false expections. The TAC tabled a recommendation on an investment option until the September TAC meeting. BRAINSTORM ON IDEAS FOR TIP PROJECT PRIORITIZATION 8 SCORING FOR BIKE 8~ PEDESTRIAN, EXPANSION, OPERATIONS, PRESERVATION, SAFETY ~ TRANSIT: Mr. Becker distributed sample scoring and prioritization criteria used by several different MPO's. Because of the decision to table an investment option until the September TAC meeting, he asked that TAC members to look over the sample criteria and be prepared to discuss further at the September TAC meeting. The TAC tabled further discussion or a recommendation on this item until the September TAC meeting. UPDATE ON STATE RAIL PLAN INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT: Ms. Hanson provided an update on the State Rail Plan. The State of Minnesota has initiated a comprehensive study to ~'~examine existing and future demand for freight and passenger rail services; iZ~identify infrastructure and other improvements needed to expand rail service; t3~explore funding options; and, i4~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 ridership and rail mode share. 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. Odrive/Administrative/Committees/TAC/TAC Minutes 08.06.09 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. PRESENTATION ON 2035 ST. CLOUD METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN SURVEY RESULTS: Mr. Becker 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.cgm. Approximately 150 surveys were completed and below is a brief summary of the top results for each survey question. • Age of surveyors - 45% between 35-54; 24% between 55-64 • Ethnic background of surveyors - 97% Caucasian/white; 1.5% African American/black • Residence of surveyors - 51 % St. Cloud; 16% 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 - 82% 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) OTHER BUSINESS: TIGER Recap -What's Next Mr. Becker 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. He mentioned to please let APO staff know if there is data (traffic volumes, trip generation, land use, etc.) that the APO can provide to assist with grant applications. Stimulus Protect Update Mr. Cruikshank, Mr. Glaesman and Mr. Becker provided brief updates on the Pinecone Road, 28~h Avenue, and Metro Bus transit stimulus projects. Mr. Cruikshank 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 deliverability. The Pinecone Road project should start construction in the next few weeks and be substantially complete by fall. Grading and construction activities on 28"' Avenue in Waite Park will begin this fall and carry over into summer/fall 2010. D3 Funding Equity Update Mr. Voss 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. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Kozel moved. Ms. Rasmussen seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:58 a.m. O drive/Administrative/CommitteeslTAC/TAC Minutes 08.06.09 ATTACHMENT B ~~/i~ll /%i~e~- re ~~~~ ~ a~l~a 1 I1 as o ~, -y . r IU i1) (:uunt~ Il~~a~l .tit. (:I~nicl.:\1\ 7hi11;-11(~~~ (i ~(-) ?5?--5(iti (~?(I) _'~?-(~55- (I :\\ J I': m;iil::ulmim~~ slrlc~u~lahu.ui,~ ~~ ~~ ~~.~~cl~ni~lahu ~~r~ September 30, 2009 TO: St. Cloud APO TAC FROM: Kirby Becker SUBJECT: APO 2010-2011 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP): Staff Hours Available for Member Technical Assistance ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion During the summer APO staff put together a draft 2010-2011 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The overall objective of the UPWP is to provide for efficient work and financial management of the APO's planning program. The Program is organized according to twelve major functional categories. Within each category are sub-categories that describe specific work items to be undertaken, which provide for easy review and monitoring of the planning process. Activities are developed with specific objectives in mind. In draft form, there are approximately 500 hours available for member technical assistance next year. Below are several ideas where APO staff could assist in providing technical assistance to member jurisdictions. • Update Le Sauk Land Use Plan • Update Sauk Rapids Land Use Plan • Jurisdiction or school specific crosswalk inventory • Bicycle/pedestrian planning activities • Update Jurisdiction Transportation Plan • Site plan review(s) • Plat review Please review and discuss the above ideas with your staff and come prepared to discuss these or any new ideas at the Thursday, October 8, 2009 APO TAC meeting. `~,,,/ ~//l!/!~ ATTACHMENT C ,~f ~ _ ~ x hQ~ x,1111:1.11 ~ 111Z~ -1011 1t)~il) (:c~unt~~ R~rtc1 ~~. tit. (a~~u~1. ~1N 5(~~0~-OC~~~ ( i?l)) ?5?--Shti (i?O) _'~_'fi~i~ (I~:~\) 1:-mail: a~lntin ~~ titi luu~lahu.uis~ • ~~ ~~ ~~.~t~'I<ru~lal~~~.c~i;~ September 30, 2009 TO: St. Cloud APO TAC FROM: Kirby Becker SUBJECT: Draft 2035 St. Cloud Metropolitan Transportation Plan: Summary ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion The St. Cloud Area Planning Organization (APO) has been updating its' long-range transportation plan since early 2008 and is expected to be complete by the end of the year. The Plan is required to be updated at least every four years for the St. Cloud Metro Area to continue to receive federal transportation funding. It was developed with a primary focus on roadway infrastructure yet includes a more balanced multi-modal financial approach. Several new chapters focusing on policies and management & operations have been added and existing chapters have been updated with new information. Below is a brief summary of each of the Plan chapters. There will be a short presentation summarizing the main elements at the October TAC meeting. ~ The Plan has thirteen (13) chapters: o Plan Overview (Introduction) o Community Engagement (Public Involvement) o Transportation Planning Blueprint (Plan Policies & Strategies) o Land Use o Management & Operations (Access Management & ITS) o Financial Understanding o Roadway Transportation o Transit Services o Regional Airport Transportation o Non-Motorized Transportation (Bicycle & Pedestrian) o Freight Transportation o Regional Safety & Security o Recommendations & Next Steps o Air Quality, Environmental Mitigation & Environmental Justice are in an appendix Planning Blueprint D Main policies include: maximize transportation investments; improve access & mobility; promote system preservation; improve safety; promote multi-modalism; and minimize social, economic & environmental impacts Land Use ~ Growth statistics from 2005-2035: +24% urban development; +31% population growth; +46% households ~ Population increase of 38,681 from 2005-2035 D Urban development increase of 24+ square miles from 2005-2035 Management & Operations ~ Outlines strategies aimed at increasing the efficiency of the network via principles of congestion management and access management D Includes identification of strategies to address travel demand management (TDM), intelligent transportation systems (ITS), transportation system management (TSM) and identification of functional class, facility characteristics and urbanization levels D Focus on public transit, non-motorized transportation, and carpooling, telecommuting and flexible work schedules for TDM strategies; advanced public transportation systems, transit signal priority, railroad warning systems, emergency vehicle response and traffic management systems for ITS; and signal coordination, intersection safety improvements and management of network access points for TSM Draft 2035 St. Cloud Metropolitan Transportation Plan: Summary September 30, 2009 Page 2 Financial D Proposed local constrained forecast: $29 million for short-range (2014-2020); $34 million for mid-range (2020- 2028); and $29 million for long-range (2029-2035); total: $92 million D Proposed local forecast includes local (APO) federal formula funding with 35% local match, including Mn/DOT 1.6% growth factor D 35% local match was historical funding split for federally funded projects over last three surface transportation bills 8 Proposed local constrained illustrative forecast: $65 million D Proposed local constrained illustrative forecast includes $1.5 million annual historical earmark average with 50% local match Roadway D Growth statistics from 2005-2035: +98% VMT/day; and +170% VHT/day ~ Congested lane miles from 2005-2035: 30 to 315 (1000+% increase) ~ Roadway Plan includes thirteen (13) constrained projects and eleven (11) constrained illustrative projects D Projects were selected by balancing funding between/within timeframes: short-range, mid-range, long-range and total; balancing overall funding by constrained and illustrative constrained categories; whether project development has been planned, started or completed; maintaining jurisdiction equity; working with local historical match to allow for funding flexibility; considering projects of regional significance for a balanced metro-wide approach; and considering priorities of member jurisdictions Transit Services ~ Plan includes discussion of both urban and rural public transit providers, private/non-profit agencies and private/for-hire carriers -different from past APO Plans that only discussed Metro Bus ~ Section 5310 providers -private &non-profit agencies that primarily serve the elderly & disabled community - examples: Good Shepherd Luth. Home & Indep. Center (Approx. 100,000 annual trips) ~ Section 5307 & 5311 providers -publicly funded agencies that serve residents in the APO planning area, and beyond -examples: Metro Bus, RiverRider &Tri-CAP (Approx. 2.5 million annual trips) D Plan includes discussion of both urban and rural public transit providers, private/non-profit agencies and private/for-hire carriers -different from past APO Plans that only discussed Metro Bus 0 St. Cloud Area Ridership: Metro Bus fixed route 85%, Metro Bus dial-a-ride 5%, 5310's 5%, RiverRider 3%, and Tri-CAP 3% D Amtrak -currently provides one daily arrival & departure in St. Cloud; Northstar Commuter Coach -operation begins November 2009 Non-Motorized Transportation ~ Three primary goals: Safety, Education & Enforcement; Bicycle & Pedestrian (BP) Facilities & Infrastructure; and, Promotion & Social Support o Maximize opportunity for safe, convenient and pleasant travel for BP o Design and maintain complete streets that accommodate all modes of transportation through a functional network o Empower people to bike and walk, and to create the social and economic environments which support the choice of these modes o Includes analysis of existing BP facilities, crosswalk & BP facilities inventory o Complete streets initiative, focus on promoting TOD & a regional BP network map St. Cloud Metropolitan Area 2035 Roadway Plan Project Involved Agencies Facility Project Description 2035 Plan 2035 Running Investment IDff Cost Cost Time Frame Stearns County, City of St. 33rd Street Construction to add capacity from Granite View 1 Cloud, Cit of Waite Park So. Road in Waite Park to Cooper Avenue in St. Cloud $9,084,375 $9,084,375 Construction of new alignment from Westwood City of St. Joseph, City of St. Joseph Parkway in St. Cloud to Stearns CR 133 in St. 2 St. Cloud No. Corridor Joseph $5,578,125 $14,662,500 2014-2020 3 Cit of Sartell Sartell Brid a Restripe brid e to 4 lanes $0 $14,662,500 Road/Bridge maintenance & operations, safety, 4 St. Cloud Metro Area Flexible Pot bike/pedestrian, transit capital $14,662,500 $29,325,000 Benton County, City of Benton Construction to add capacity and remove parking 5 Sauk Rapids CSAH 3 from 3rd Avenue to TH 10 $4,125,000 $33,450,000 Benton Construction for new alignment from CSAH 1 to 6 Benton Count CSAH 29 CSAH 8 $6,703,085 $40,153,085 Right-0f-way for new alignment from Westwood City of St. Joseph, City of St. Joseph Parkway in St. Cloud to Stearns CR 133 in St. 2021-2028 7 St. Cloud No. Corridor Joseph $4,331,250 $44,484,335 40th Street Right-of-way for new roadway alignment from 8 Cit of St. Cloud So. Cooper Avenue to Stearns CSAH 75 $1,608,750 $46,093,085 Road/Bridge maintenance & operations, safety, 9 St. Cloud Metro Area Flexible Pot bike/pedestrian, transit capital $16,768,085 $62,861,170 Stearns County, City of St. Opportunity Construction of new alignment from I-94 to 10 Au usta, Ci of St. Cloud Drive Stearns CSAH 7 $3,331,250 $66,192,420 Stearns County, City of St. 33rd Street Right-of-way 8 construction to add capacity from 11 Cloud So. Coo er Avenue to Stearns CSAH 75 $7,405,625 $73,598,045 2029-2035 Right-of-way for new alignment from Pinecone Rd. 12 Cit of Sartell Roberts Road to Stearns CSAH 4 at 322nd Street $3,627,504 $77,225,549 Road/Bridge maintenance & operations, safety, 13 St. Cloud Metro Area Flexible Pot bike/pedestrian, transit capital $14,364,379 $91,589,928 Benton County, City of Benton Right-of-way for capacity expansion from 3rd 14 Sauk Rapids CSAH 3 Avenue to TH 10 $2,250,000 $93,839,928 University Construction to expand bridge and approaches to 15 Cit of St. Cloud Bride 4 lanes $13,050,000 $104,639,928 Stearns County, City of St. TH 15/33rd Right-of-way 8 construction for TH 15/33rd Street 16 Cloud, Ci of Waite Park Street So. South Interchan e $15,750,000 $120,389,928 Benton Right-of-way for new alignment from CSAH 1 to 17 Benton Count CSAH 29 CSAH 8 $7,312,458 $127,702,386 Stearns County, City of St. 33rd Street Right-of-way from Granite View Road in Waite 18 Cloud, Ci of Waite Park So. Park to Cooper Avenue in St. Cloud $5,568,750 $133,271,136 33rd Street Stearns County, City of So. Right-of-way for new alignment from Granite View 19 Waite Park SW Beltwa Road to CR 137 $4,500,000 $137,771,136 Right-of-way 8 construction for new alignment 2014-2035 from Heritage Drive to south of 2nd Street South and realign 50th Avenue north of Stearns CSAH 20 Cit of Sartell 50th Avenue 120 in Sartell $6,000,000 $143,771,136 Stearns County, City of St. Opportunity Right-of-way for new alignment from I-94 to 21 Au usta, Ci of St. Cloud Drive Stearns CSAH 7 $2,925,000 $146,696,136 Sherburne County, City of Sherburne Construction of realignment west of airport from 22 St. Cloud CSAH 7 Del Tone Road to Sherburne CSAH 3 $3,750,000 $150,446,136 Construction for new alignment from Pinecone Rd. 23 Cit of Sartell Roberts Road to Stearns CSAH 4 at 322nd Street $4,495,017 $154,941,153 Right-of-way 8 construction for new 4 lane divided urban section along Stearns CR 134 from Stearns Pinecone Road/Stearns CR 134 to West Oakes 24 Cit of St Cloud CSAH 134 Drive $2,100,000 $157,041,153 Note: Cost estimates do not include final design or contingences. :S5% local match assumetl for short, medium and long range investments; 5U% local match assumed for Illustrative projects. ATTACHMENT D 2035 St. Cloud Metropolitan Transportation Plan: Investments Options for Federal Formula Funds Pro'ect Fundin Area Percent Actual Fundin 1. Roadwa Expansion 50% $950,000.00 2. Flexible 50% $950,000.00 Bike & Pedestrian i S A Maintenance/Preservation cenar o Operations Safety $383,911.00 Studies Transit Capital 1. Roadwa Expansion 50% $950,000.00 2. M&O 40% $760,000.00 Maintenance/Preservation Operations Scenario B Safety $383,911.00 3. Multi-Modal 10% 190,000.00 Bike 8 Pedestrian Transit Capital Studies 1. Roadwa Ex ansion 50% 950,000.00 2. M&O 30% 570,000.00 Mai ntenance/Preservation Operations Scenario C Safety $383,911.00 3. Multi-Modal 20% 380,000.00 Bike 8 Pedestrian Transit Capital Studies Total $ $1,900,000.00 Set-a-Side Taken Off the Top; 16.8 % investment Total $ $1,900,000.00 Seta-Side Taken OH the Top; 16B % investment Total $ $1,900,000.00 Seta~Side Taken Off the Top; 16.8% investment `Total funding available after HSIP taken off the top is $1.90 million/yr. FUnding ATP 3 Base Level $40 Breakdown ATP 3 HSIP Set-A-Side $2.99 $1,870,000 (local share) x 20.53% _ $383,911 ATP 3 Adjusted Federal Target $37.01 Mn/DOT Portion (75%) $27.76 Local Portion (25%) $9.25 APO Portion of Local (20.53%) $1.90 (+ 383,911 = $2,283,911 x 1.6% growth rate) Sample Investment Guidance/Target Language (if 50/50 investment split recommended; A 5-year, short-range, running investment guidance of percent for bicycle & pedestrian and transit capital projects was recommended based upon the approved investment approach for transportation projects in the 2035 Transportation Plan. A percent investment guidance would equate to about $ million over 5-years. m O ~q N C fh O O ~ N C LL ... o ~ ~ m ~ s ~ a € „ a m ~ 8 ~ ~ _ m o m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ n ° s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < 8 ~ e ° ~ o ~ R ~ ~ ~ m m 8 ~ a ~ m ~ ~ ~ 8 o ~ ~ R ~ ~ B o ~ o ~ 8 ~ e A ~ m 8 ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e 8 ' ~ 8 ~ e < 8 m ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ o ~ e s g ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ N ~ ~ o ~ > 8 ~ °' ~ e ~ ~ ~ 5 ° 8 ~ m 8 `= x ~ ~ ~ m 8 m ~ 8 ~ n ° ~ ~ S ~ ~ 8 m ~ ug N ~ ~ m m ~ a N o r ~ e ~ ~n ~ ~ N V. ~n ~ $ ~ u~ " " N ~ ~n ~n ° 8 n ° 8 ~ R 8 8 < ~ ~ °< 8 d ffi 8 ~ m 8 ~ » R ~ 3 ~ ' ~ R ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ 5 8 8 ¢ 8 8 b 8 m m ~ ~ ~ E a` v e ° ~ m ? ~ ~ v° LL ~ ~ a a 3 ot $ Q a ~ ~ ~ a x a ~ - - - _ _ a' e Q ° a' n E ~ N ` E < A a " - e x ~°- ~ $ `a a I d a $ a E E 4~ $' } U O ~a Z Z Z Q d W F d Q U J J - - c~3 _ C. - - ~ ~ .. ;J G r- _ j 'J ~ ~- J: ~ ~ _ - o ~- J ':J G ', ~ .J _ U ,:J - _ .a O =~ - G ~ - «~+ J - Y =~J J "_.+ ~- J C :C ... ~~+ - - ~ ':7 - :J C C J v _ ~ ~ o v v __ ~ .c L„ _ ~ .~ >. - '~ J '/: - . ~ J ~~ U V '~ - ,~ C C'. o • • C b0 G .~. ~' T ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ N N [- F F" • • J G U C O :- ~ ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ X ~ y U ~ d ~ v ~, ~ ,~ _~ ~' ~ ~ .~ • • • l U_ - •LI J i~ Y ~.J b.1 O bli G Z C1 T. y T ~ ~ C ~' C O ~ _ v h ~ • f • Y U L~ • , O t~ C. ~ Z =~ J ~ a - ~ c C j, ~ --. ` ~ 0. '~ G r . U '~ ~ v, x -° ° ~ ~L • n 0] • • V ~O V R CC L C U V •L C C O ti a M ^~ ^^++ W ^ W L V ~ ~{ ~ ~ • ~ ' O ~ ~ O >+ .C ' p t/1 O '''' C ~~ ~ O ~ d p~ ~ C m O ~ C :a:. N ~ . O ~ ~^ O V ~ ~ V ~ V ~ C ~ ~ = . ~ ~ Ln _ j d. V '+~~.. d~ ~ ~ C d~ O Q p ~ Qu' °' C ~ ,~ a ~~ ~ N 3 1N3WH~b~llt/ i j'r'i/l/~ LIOl/lI ., } s 6 • ~ • r~ e a~n~~ r ~~1~~ 10~ •. 10~i~ Countti• Road -~, S[. Cloud, I~9N 5631)3-O6-i3 (32U) Z~?"5(i8 • (320) 25?~i55 (FAQ) • E-mail: admin~~stcluudapo.org • ~'n~•.stdt~udapt~.orp FY 2012-13 APO Federal Transportation Project Checklist Project applications must completely address all checklist items rip or to the January, 2008 submittal deadline to be eligible. 1. Minimum ADT Project meets minimum ADT requirements. (2,000 existing urban, 3,000 non-existing urban) (200 existing rural, 400 non-existing rural) 2. Minimum Functional Classification Project is identified on the Mn/DOT Functional Classification Map and has the minimum functional classification. (urban projects: collector or above) {rural projects: minor collector or above) 3. Permanent Improvement Project is a permanent improvement. 4. Minimum Federal Funds Requested The minimum $200,000 federal funding amount is being requested. (Minimum $50,000 for right-of-way or project development studies) 5. Capital Improvement Program The project is included in an adopted City or County Capital Improvement Program. 6. APO Long-Range Transportation Plan The project is consistent with the APO Long-Range Transportation Plan. (tJew alignment roadway, adding a lane(s) to existing alignment, right-of-way or studies) 7. Assured Coordination with all Jurisdictions A letter or resolution of support for the project has been obtained from ocher roadway jurisdictions directly impacted by the project (sample resolution attached}. 8. Assured Local Match by Applicant A resolution from the implementing agency has been approved assuring that 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 movement of people and goods. 10. 20 Year ADT St. Cloud APO 20 year forecasted ADT has been used in the Project Ranking Worksheet. 17. Project Cost Breakdown Federal, local and total construction costs are itemized in the project description text. 12. Protect Location Map A project location map has been prepared. 13. Public Information Meeting A resolution has been adopted by the implementing agency documenting that a specific Public Information Meeting has been held on the project (optional -sample resolution attached) XrOresNn7in,Cj Ihr• 1'u!lnrr•i~rg Jurisdi~li~,rrs Brnhm Ccwnt~ Ha~t•n Tu~~nshiP • Letiauk "I~trn•n•hij, • tit. Augusta tit. Cl~,u~i tit. ]~~srhlt tit. i~>srPh Tc,cti•n5hi1~ • ;artrll tiauk ]~af~idti .til~rrhurnr Cuunc~ titrarn. C„un,~ \~;~it~• Palk 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. Applicants must meet all applicable qualifying 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 development studies and transportation enhancements. Refer to Figure 1 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) Project in Existing Program -Project must be included in an existing Capital Improvement Program {CIP) of a county, city, or some other government unit/agency. This is to ensure the proposed project is consistent with local and/or state planning processes. There must be an official action approving the proposed project by the local unit of government. 6) Protect Consistent with APO 2030 Financially Constrained Roadway Plan -Project must be consistent with the St. Cloud Metropolitan Area Financially Constrained 2030 Roadway Plan, pertinent State long-range plans, and any corridor plans or studies prepared by the APO. (New APO Board 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 government units must be accompanied by a letter and/or official action indicating all affected local units of government 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. 8) Assured Local Match Funding 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 Peoale 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 ranlplanninglSTl Plqualcrit W U F ZQ w _~ Q z Q z ai r o W v r aNi r ayi r ai r Q z ~ z w F z a Z d Z ~ } r ~ ~, } ~ Y ~ Y y T ~, ~ H ^ ~ ~ 7 _ °o ~ o U ~ aNi Y '- ° U ai a"i v aNi a~ ~ N to v } om } r r } r ~ ~ V N ~~ a~ ~n ~ Y ~ N ~ v, r H r w > w r ~ w ~ ~~ ~ O 'C y 11 ~ C C_ 2~n ', m ~ ~ /VyJ {~ W W (.l ~ U ~ ~ N [ H N I N 1 z W N d ~ } ~ } ~ } } } 1.{.. ~ y O Y ° z z °v m ~ g o } o N } } } } } O L r z U ~ a ~ Z Q O O U N Y N N b In N } 7 ~ N ~ O } N } } } } } j a i ~ ~ w U j (n O a Z o ~ ~ ~ O ~ Y L Z 0 ~ } O } } } } } f'- ~, ~ z (7 O U N ~ = ° o U c " y y m F i a w r a i r a i r ai r a i } ~ } j X w N O U N C ~ A N N OI > U _ a Z a , ~ a ~ Cn ~ w ~i E C C L C O w ~ l9 C m ~ ~ W o J r ~ ~ u O C7 U U m aEi ~ a 3 g v ?' ~ ~ ~ ~ N C ~ N ! ~- ~ E ~ .N N v a O J ~ a ~ C V- w O O C U o O J c v u C7 ~ E _ € E LL7 ~ N ' j N • 7 N .X w C ~ ~ a C ~ O a p a ~ N a~ N a ~ ~ r N C7 '7 In ID I~ a0 01 L_ O U N N E ~a m 0 a a v r _o G1 9 0 E c A u W 'o n `o N O m 0 d m E N d L ~'a O N N d ~a 0 r m~ E o O N A f0 N ~ 'j R O N $ .~ ~ ~ E ~ N G f` ro m O ,O a N Q E 7 o E ~ C o E o y ~t H ~ to ~ d .7 ~ o O O N C O O U ~ V ?~ 'a f0 ~ N C v 7 a Ea C N E E l0 7 a~ E ~ C t E 7 L y O U N a~ N 'o °~ a` a~ C_ O N U W a N T 3 of 61 U c a .~ N p~ v 07 c O ~ a~ ai ~ ca d ~ T d~ ~a d ~ O ~ .D ~ C p ~~ V N ~ ~ O f0 "' N M U N ~ O o. o ~, n y n. m m ,~ ~~ °7 O N ~ C O U O C .a O ~ a ~ N ~ C 3 w t b m ~ n ~ ~ m ~ o E (p N v ao R ~ N Q U d ~~ a ~ n~ a ~ UI ~ N = U _. y E /~6 O ~ d y N L ip O {p f`9 ~ T ~~ x N y r ~ o~ fO ~ ~ J U W ~ ~-- ~ w~ a ~ (n C N r'7 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/W): Mn/DOT discourages ATPs from considering these for reimbursement as it fees 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 RNV 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 Development/Corridor 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 if 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 life of the project. The Mn/DOT 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 Item i Yes No _ ~' Right-of-Way APO I State Project DevelopmenUFinal Design Engineering APO State Construction Engineering State APO Supplemental Agreements State APO Cost Overruns State/ APO Corridor Preservation/Official Mapping APO State A~A' ~I~I ,.ma~.yy ~I 0 V •~ •~ r••r •O ~~ V •~ a 1~'~1 0 a q~q~ ~--I ~ a C 'o v~ C ~ a v ~ ., p 4) ~ _ a~ G ~ 4 ~ ~ fr ~ 9 ~ ~ t+ ~ O ~G p `rS G ~ ~ ti ~ y 4" O ~ C [ ~ ~ CL _~ ~ ~' E ~ '~ ~ a' ~ ~ G) a = ~ . ~ ~ ~ • ~5 o, ` v C ~ ; .~ •u p ,s a ~ ! p O ~ ~ ~C .. ~ fij .., ,~ 3 F. ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ p ~ p te " ~ ~+ 'C! o C F-I ~ '" L1. ~ E ,~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~' o °~ ~ N U i3 ~ ~ O ~ .° '^p v U ~ ~ ?•+ ~ _ _ on ~*, 0. ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~w ~ ~ ~.~ _ S ~ c '~ c~ .t- ti C '3 0 '~ ~ U ~ ~ U N L J 60 'b ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ c~ .Y ~ "3 .~ ~ o 0a ~ • ~ w o V ~ ~ 0~ ~ _ ~ T n; ~ ,~' G [ .y. '~ ~ Ol .y ° U ^ ~ •~' ~ ~_ U. x ~ Ly L '~ w 41 Q o o b a7 ~ U °o .~ U i3 '~ Oa ~ U ca ~ ~ w 7 C ~ C.~ :J ~ O U ~ o ~ w ~ :. ~ ~ G ~ ~ I~ G~ a o ~ ~ U = ~ H r.~ ~ d ~ ti ti ~ R ai r! F4 z n n ~ O A A A ~ ~ n A n ~~ n n /~ ~~ o~ v ,, ~ n n ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~oa d~ ~ ~ :1 ~ o ~ Q W U A W '~ ~ c~ ~ ~ C7 t7 C7 C7 c7 Tentative APO TAC Meetings Dates for 2010: 9:44a. m. -Noon January 7tn February 4tn March 4tn April 15t June 3r u~~~~~ ~~'`'~~rs~~ rte *,Moved 'to 2"d 1'hursday.because'bf. Irx~ependen~e`D~y August Stn October 7tn November 4tn December 2nd Created 06.27.09 ~"'°~~ -~-+ C ~CC ~ G 1 ~ _~ ~ O ~ U rV N _/ ~ w ^~^ L ~w=+ H W do C a~ N Ql c O ly a~ oa T~ N N P X17 M O .. rl M O 'C{ / r N ~j ~- ~ VV O N~ n~cl°ri b M Q H . + N N J ~ M .. N ~ y' 00 N ~ . . .w N bv~MO n f/) .-~ N N 0 „~ ~7' ~w pp v~ r } .~ .~ N N u M o t` •t .~ ~ ~ r+ '+ N M V ~ ~ N O+ ~C9 M 1? C G w N M O •-~ 00 V1 N 01 e.' ~r N rJ F+ .y 00 o ..r1N t ~ M f/) • i N N F~ Y1 N O. b W -+ •~ rl O r ~ .~ OD Y'f Q ~ .•~ N N M O n "f W .+N IE N O~ ^ N H d fi ~ ~ ~ i V, . r N ! + n t ... I>o ~ y .ti N N rJ IT ~ N m ~ ~ ~ W ~ N N ~ r _ n % ~ O N l N W ~ t$ "' rl rQ C H 41 ti .Pr b K .r o0 V1 w w N 7 M O ~ r l M pan t~ 00 (~ w rl rJ O F V oy N u .t w co h ~~en On ~.~ .+ .+ ri M orlo,~oMo ~-+ N M ~ .-~ oq V1 N IT f/) r+ N r) rt M O n ~ .-~ VI .~+ .+ N M R4 N P b N M N ~~ r f7 ~ J t" VVV n ~ M N ?~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~ H N O 4'S rl IT ~O .+ w N ~ -t ~ tl0 v~ to •+ .~ N R% M M ~ N 4 a} ~-+ 00 V5 W w .+ rl ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~r N N Q +O M O ~ .~+ rl M a c ~ 7 .~+ 00 vt rl a f .-~ N rl n fi . r N N n n ~O ~ ° r + r r v U) ~ ~ ~ N N Nr n .~~. N N ~o~ on O~ N r) r ~ V wt N JT ~O ~H ~~~~ M .+ r I a M O ~ r) Ki N P ~O M O r+ N M ~-r-•~o~ V! .ti .r r] W M O .n- dl to N V ~ u w ` 00 ~ N IT Q ~t rJ rl m 17 `o ~ oN ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ev~on V! N N O 44 V1 CI Q1 N ~ ~ M O n N la ~ N A .Or M m `~ p w 00 ~ ~ p~ ~ h ~f' ~-'~ 00 Vj '. N N V) N POi N M •-~ N N O ~ ~i h rJ W N ~' ° ~~ i ~ m r J r ~ , ^ V! N 01 ~O V E'" '" N O O ~ ~-+ d0 v1 ~ -~ ~-+ ry J M ~n N f r 0 ~ M O .n. N r N w N M ~ a7 .. 00 ~n N d+ ;? w rl rl ~ F~ n ^ C tq a N o 'O M J7 1`~ ~+ N N i v~ N O~ ~O V: «+ N w ~ r. m In h ~ O N t~ O I Q O N ~ ~ ~ O C7 N U Qi M /,V~~ ~ L ~ ~- a ~ ;~ U .~ w 0 N_ C c~ m Q C C ~ c"7 ~ C O L ~ ~ M O ao~oQ' ~~+Za Q c ~ O ~ /O~ ~ U O ~/ O N U ~ U ~ ~ ~ r ~E t6 ~~~`NN ~ So~~2o a ~ ~ TRANSPORTATION REVOLVING LOAN FUND (TREE) ~~ Q© 2009-2010 Solicitation Announcement ~'T~~ l'Rp`~~ Please be advised that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) is soliciting candidate projects for funding through the Transportation Revolving Loan Fund (TREE). For those unfamiliar with the TRLF program, the TRLF operates much like a commercial bank, providing low-interest loans and other types of financial assistance on a competitive basis to the state, counties, cities, and other governmental entities for eligible transportation projects. Although private entities are not currently eligible for TRLF financing, they may be able to enter into agreements with eligible borrowers to finance eligible transportation projects. Type of Eligible Projects • Road and Bridge Projects -Approximately $13.4 million is available (un-leveraged) in the Highway Account and $1.3 million is available in the Trunk Highway Account. • Transit Projects -Approximately $1.4 million is available in the Transit Account. Candidate projects must be eligible under Title 23 or Title 49 of the United States Code and Mnn. Stat. 446A.085, subd. 2 (1998) to apply. Projects must also be ready to start using the loan proceeds before the end of calendar year 2010. Selected projects will be required to follow project development requirements. Additional funding may be available subject to the scope, number of applications and financial needs of the applications received through the solicitation process. Tentative schedule for selecting candidate projects will be as follows: • September 2009: Solicitation announcement distributed • October -November 2009: District/ATP's receive, approve, and prioritize applications • December 2009: Mn/DOT evaluates applications and selects projects • January -February 2010: MN Public Facilities Authority approves loans and enters into loan agreements Each District/ATP has a TRLF Coordinator to answer specific questions and to provide application, application due date, and information packets. Please contact the applicable TRLF Coordinator listed on the reverse side of this sheet if you are interested in the program. For further information about TRLF loan and application, please visit our website at: httn://www.dot.state.mn.us/alanning/grogram/trlf.html ti ° ~ c ~ .~ tf~ ~,, ~ ..~t .~ [~. ~ .' ~ T~~ 1 } ~ n ~.. ``~ '-K- TRANSPORTATION REVOLVING LOAN FUND (TREE) Contact List Please direct TRLF questions to your applicable District/ATP TRLF Coordinator listed below: District/ATPl Gus Peterson 1123 Mesaba Avenue Duluth, MN 55811 218/725-2796 Fax: 218/725-2800 gus.peterson na,dot.state.mn.u s District/ATP4 Shiloh Wahl, PE 1000 Trunk Highway 10 West Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 218/846-3630 Fax: 218/846-7988 s hiloh.wah 1(a~ dot.state.m n.u s District/ATP8 Patrick Weidemann P.O. Box 768 2505 Transportation Road Willmar, MN 56201 320/214-6365 Fax: 320/214-6305 patrick.weidemann na,dot.state.mn.us District/ATP2 Joseph McKinnon 3920 Highway 2 West Bemidji, MN 56601 218/755-6554 Fax: 218/775-6512 ioseph.mckinnonna,dotstate.mn.us District/ATP6 Greg Paulson 2900 48"' Street N.W. Rochester, MN 55901 507/286-7502 Fax: 507/285-7780 greg.paulson(u dotstate.mn.us District/ATP3 Steve Voss 7694 Industrial Park Road Baxter, MN 56425 218/828-5779 Fax: 218/828-5815 steve.voss(a~dot.state.mn.us District/ATP7 Lisa Bigham 501 S. Victory Drive P.O. Box 4039 Mankato, MN 56002-4039 507/304-6195 Fax: 507/304-6119 lisa.bigham(a)dot.state.mn.us Metro Mike Sobolewski Waters Edge Bldg. 1500 W. County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 651/234-7795 Fax: 651/234-7786 mike.sobolweskina,dot.state.mn.us For questions specifically related to proiect eligibility, please contact: Sue Thompson Mn/DOT, Office of Investment Mgmt Transportation Building, 3`a Floor, MS440 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 651/366-3785 Fax: 651/366-3790 susan.thompson(a~dot.state.mn.us Trang Chu Mn/DOT, Office of Investment Mgmt Transportation Building, 3`d Floor, MS440 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 651/366-3782 Fax: 651/366-3790 trang.chuna,dot.state.mn.us For questions specifically related to financing and loan approval, please contact: Jeff Freeman Public Facilities Authority 151 National Bank Bldg. Suite E200 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 651/296-2838 Fax: 651/296-8833 i effrey.freem a n (a~ d ot.state. mn.u s Steve La Fontaine Public Facilities Authority 151 National Bank Bldg. Suite E200 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 651/259-7471 Fax: 651/296-8833 stephen.l afontaine(a~dotstate.mn.us The TRLF web site can be found at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/program/trlf.html Version 09022009 Chapter 1: Executive Summary ~-r-M - ,~_--,~..--.,,,'--,, r-----,~-~_ Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plana 2009-2028 r" ~~ ',~ ~~:~~ ~~~ ~ f-f Transportation is critical in supporting economic vitality and quality of life in Minnesota, For families and individuals, transportation puts goods on store shelves; transports us to work, health care, school and recreational activities; and takes us across the nation and around the world for business and leisure. In addition, transportation is essential for the thousands of manufacturing, retail, wholesale and agricultural businesses in Minnesota. It acts as a lifeline for moving raw materials to manufacturing facilities, farm produce to processing facilities and markets, and finished products to distributors or customers. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has been developed this plan in cooperation and consultation with its partner transportation providers, both public and private, stakeholders and the general public, It results from work and discussions during a period marked by significant shifts in the focus of the public's transportation concerns, coupled with dra- matic changes in the state and national economic outlook. The process began in the spring 2007 with a series of outreach meetings held throughout the state. Travel trends and system conditions were discussed and stakeholders identified key issues that needed to be addressed, A Steering Committee composed of state and local government representatives began working through potential approaches to the issues. Work on the plan was postponed in late summer to address the pressing issues related to the Interstate 35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis. Reconvening in January 2008, the committee soon had to factor into the plan a major state funding increase for transportation and legislative directive on bridge rehabilitation. A second round of outreach meetings was held in July 2008 to share the Steering Committee's work and to discuss the implications of the Chapter 152 transportation funding bill enacted during the 2008 legislative session. Based on this additional stakeholder input, the policies and investment priorities were further developed and refined into the proposed draft plan. In January 2009, the draft plan was posted for public review on MnIDOT's Web site and discussed with stakeholders at a series of open houses held statewide. Formal public hearings were held in St. Paul at the end of March, with videoconference links to each of Mn/DOT's eight district offices to provide greater accessibility for public comment. In June 2009, the Steering Committee reviewed a summary of all the comments received along with recommended responses and final revisions leading to this Statewide Transportation Policy Plan and accompanying Statewide Highway Investment Plan. Minnesota Statewide Transportation Potiry Plana 2009-2028 i•2 ` ~` Vision: A Safe, Efficient and Sustainable Transportation System A long-range vision for transportation in Minnesota began to emerge as trends and issues were discussed with stakeholders around the state. Stakeholders identified a range of desired system improvements, additions and enhancements to transportation necessary to create a safe, efficient and sustainable transportation system for the future. Key components of this vision include: • Superior highway connections to adjacent states and Canada • Active ports in Duluth and along the Mississippi River • Strong connections to a national high-speed passenger rail network • Cost-competitive national freight rail connections supported by a network of regional freight rail corridors and intermodal terminals • Vibrant Twin Cities International Airport "Hub" and secondary supporting airports throughout the state • Upgraded highways and expanded transit service connecting the regional trade centers throughout the state • Reliable mobility in the Twin Cities through innovative highway capacity improvements and expanded transitways • Reliable mobility in Greater Minnesota metropolitan areas through expansion of both the highway network and transit systems • Additional transit options throughout the state with A+ p ~~ g~ a~F3 improved connectivity between services and modes • Safe travel throughout the state, with a goal toward zero deaths • Expanded networks for safe biking and walking • Infrastructure maintained in safe and structurally sound condition The vision is broad and far-reaching, and may take the next 50 years to fully realize. But the vision speaks to transportation as a critical ingredient for the continued economic vitality of the entire state and the livability of its communities. Mn/DOT plays a unique leadership role in upholding the vision and policies presented in this draft plan. As the state's transportation leader, MnIDOT will; • Promote a safe, reliable and modern transportation system • Improve access and enhance the movement of people and freight • Promote a culture of innovation in the organization • Become the state transportation leader and employer of choice for Minnesota's diverse population • Build public trust in the department Your destination is our priority and Mn/DOT will follow these directions to create a safe, efficient and sustainable transportation system for Minnesota, ~-3 Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan; 2009-2028 .~~~,~.. Figure 1.1 Distribution of projected 1.3 million new residents expected by 2035 (2005 base year] Moving Toward the Vision: Challenges and Opportunities To move Minnesota toward its long-range vision for transportation, there are many challenges to address as well as opportunities to seize. Following are some of the key challenges and opportunities that the Steering Committee considered in developing the policies and strategies put forth in this plan. Challenges Growing, Aging and More Diversified Population: Minnesota's population is expected to grow by 1.3 million during the next 25 years. Much of the growth will be concentrated in Rochester-Twin Cities-St. Cloud metropolitan areas. The population is also aging. By 2030, about 20 percent will be over age 65 and 6 percent will be over age 80. Providing a safe driving environment and transit options will be critical in meeting the mobility needs of these citizens. Increasing Global Competition: Major changes in the global economy during the past decade have greatly affected goods movements and connections to global markets. These trade Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan: 2009-2028 1-4 Northeast ~ Northwest ~ Central `Southwest ~ Seven-county metro area ~ Southeast connections continue to shift in response to global economic demands and changing markets. Aging Infrastructure and Declining Physical Conditions: Much of Minnesota's transportation infrastructure will require significant rehabilitation or reconstruction during the next 20 years. This is particularly true for much of the state highway "baby boom" bridges constructed in the 1950s and 1960s as part of the federal interstate program. State highway pavement conditions have also declined during the past decade. Other elements of the transportation system -from rail lines and port facilities to highway rest areas and drainage facilities -are also in need of major reinvestment to maintain existing service levels. Concern with Energy and the Environment: While cleaner fuels and emission standards have significantly reduced air pollutants such as particulates and carbon monoxide, energy _~ consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with ,~,o transportation have emerged as leading concerns. In 2007, ^~°~ the Minnesota Legislature established goals calling for a carbon ~ dioxide emission reduction of 15 percent by 2015, 30 percent 2Q~3 ~~,Qcwi by 2025 and 80 percent by 2050. Transportation contributes 34 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions in the state and is one of the primary sources to be addressed to meet these goals. Volatile Revenues and Costs: The steady increase in statewide vehicle miles traveled since the 1970s began to level off in 2004 and actually declined in 2008. The travel reduction coupled with increased vehicle fuel efficiency has led to reductions in federal and state motor fuel tax revenues. General economic conditions since 2001 have also spurred a decline in automobile sales, resulting in lower than expected revenues from the motor vehicle sales tax and license fees. Meanwhile, construction costs have increased dramatically between 2004 and 2008 due to increased worldwide demand for oil, concrete and steel. The current economic recession could lead to lower construction costs but also declining revenues. The volatility in revenues and costs creates a challenging framework for planning improvements to the system during both the short- and long-term, and requires careful attention to risk management. i-5 Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plana 2009-2028 Opportunities New Approaches to Safety and Congestion: Mn/DOT is pursuing systematic, data-driven solutions to safety and congestion problems. The approach gives greater priority to low-cost, high-benefit projects that incorporate innovative solutions. Problems are evaluated on a systemwide basis, and solutions implemented in a shorter timeframe than more traditional projects. Examples of these include rumble stripes, cable-median barriers, High Occupancy Toll lanes, capacity additions through shoulder conversions and lane re-markings within existing rights of way. Increased Interest in Multimodal Solutions: In 2004, Minnesota's first Light Rail Transit line -the Hiawatha LRT - opened connecting the Mall of America in Bloomington and downtown Minneapolis. The Northstar Commuter Rail line between downtown Minneapolis and the city of Big Lake is on schedule to open in 2009. There is a growing interest in having alternatives to the highway system to move both people and freight. Several studies are underway to examine the potential for expanding transit, passenger and freight rail, bicycling and pedestrian systems, as well as designing complete streets to accommodate multiple modes. Increased State Funding and Legislative Direction: The Minnesota Legislature approved a significant increase in transportation funding in 2008. This funding included bonding for state highway improvements supported by the first increase in the motor vehicle fuel tax since 1988 and an optional quarter-cent county sales tax to develop and operate transitways in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and in Greater Minnesota. The legislation also directed Mn/DOT to develop and carry out, by 2018, a major repair and replacement program for fracture critical and structurally deficient state highway bridges throughout the state. Potential New Directions in Federal Transportation Funding: The future focus and structure of federal transporta- tion funding is currently under debate as policymakers and stakeholders across the country look to the next authorization bill slated for 2010, In the near term, Congress enacted the Minnesota Statewide ~~ansportafion Policy Plan.• 20D9-2028 ~.6 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 providing more than $500 million to address transportation needs in Minnesota during the next two years. New Expectations for Mn/DOTLeadership and Accountability: The tragic collapse of the Interstate 35W Bridge in Minneapolis on Aug, 1, 2007, focused the public's attention on transportation and prompted a closer look into the condition and needs of the system. The ensuing months of inquiry and discussion led to a growing recognition among policy leaders, legislators and the general public that a vital, multimodal transportation system is essential to Minnesota's economy and quality of life. Through legislative hearings, partner consultations and public outreach, MnIDOT has been asked to play a stronger role as a leader and advocate for Minnesota's transportation system. Policymakers and stakeholders alike want Mn/DOT to provide a clear picture of system needs and priorities for future investments. In addition, they want to better understand how spending decisions are made and the system conditions that will result. f-7 Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan.• 2009-2028 Moving Toward the Vision: Plan Approach and Guiding Principles This plan is intended to move Minnesota toward the long-range transportation vision, recognizing the challenges and opportunities involved. The following key principles frame the plan approach and are reflected throughout the policies and strategies. 1. Continue perFormance•based planning and investment management: This plan continues the commitment to performance-based planning established in the 2003 Statewide Transportation Plan. This plan further suggests that performance measures be devel- oped and applied to all modes and jurisdictions as a way to measure progress and the effectiveness of policies and strategies. 2. Articulate a more multimodal and multi- jurisdictional approach to transportation: The 2003 plan was primarily a plan for MnIDOT and focused on the highway system as the backbone of the transportation system. While this plan continues to acknowledge the importance of the highway system, it also recognizes that a more multimodal and multi- jurisdictional approach to transportation is needed to achieve major goals, including maintaining Minnesota's economic competitiveness, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing modal choices for consumers. 3. Build on existing plans: Since 2003, several major modal and specialty plans and studies have been completed related to aeronautics, freight, bicycles and safety. Metropolitan Plans have been updated around the state. The policies and strategies in this Statewide Transportation Policy Plan build upon these plans and Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plana 2009-2028 1.8 studies and, in many instances, identify issues and tion service delivery, from how revenues are generated, strategies that need to be examined further in the future. services are contracted and projects are constructed, to how existing capacity and rights of way are managed. 4. Concurrently update the 20-year Statewide Highway Investment Plan: MnIDOT develops its long-range statewide highway investment plan in a decentralized manner through the preparation of plans by each of its eight districts. The last update occured in 2004 after the Statewide Transportation Plan was adopted. To provide stakeholders with a clearer picture of the link between the policy and the investment program, the 20-year Statewide Highway Investment Plan has been updated in tandem with the polity plan process. 5. Emphasize importance of partnerships: Minnesota's transportation system is a complex network of inter-connected modes, owned and managed by a variety of government jurisdictions and private companies. To operate effectively, coordination across modes and jurisdictions is essential. Toward this end, the plan identifies key issues and strategies for consideration by Mn/DOT's partners, who provide key components of the statewide system. The plan begins to set a framework for enhanced coordination and stronger collaboration among Minnesota's transportation partners. 6. Commit to innovation: With all the challenges facing Minnesota's transportation system in both the near- and 7. Seek cost-effective and context-appropriate solutions: Given limited financial resources, it is essential that cost-effective and context-appropriate solutions are implemented so that resources can be stretched to provide benefits to the greatest number of users. 8. Maintain a flexible and opportunistic approach: This plan has been developed during a time of significant change, bringing both challenges and opportunities for the future of transportation in Minnesota. The Minnesota Legislature approved increased funding for transporta- tion and directed investments toward a major bridge rehabilitation program. When gas prices peaked in July 2008 at more than $4 per gallon, Minnesotans drove fewer miles, transit ridership increased, and transporta- tion revenues declined. As of this writing, gas prices have plummeted, the national economy is in serious recession and Congress has approved an economic stimulus bill, a component of which was a major infrastructure invest- ment program. Clearly, the policies and strategies set forth in this policy plan and the highway investment plan may need to be revisited to respond to the evolving challenges and opportunities. 1-9 Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan: 2009-2028 longer-term, innovation is imperative. Creativity and innovation need to permeate every aspect of transporta- ~' l,____ Moving Toward the Vision: Policies_., Strategies and Performance Measures The policies, strategies, performance measures and targets presented in this plan provide guidance to Mn/DOT for the state highway system and, where appropriate, to other transportation providers responsible for local roads and other modes. As such, this plan seeks to provide a more comprehensive framework to coordinate and integrate the multimodal, multi Jurisdictional networks that compose Minnesota's transportation system. Policy 1-Traveler Safety Reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries for all travel modes. MnIDOT will continue to support the Toward Zero Deaths initiative and, in cooperation with its partners, pursue a comprehensive "four E" approach to highway safety: Education, Enforcement, Engineering and Emergency medical services. Engineering improvements will focus on systemwide, cost-effective safety investments on both the state and local roads, Mn/DOT will also continue to monitor air travel safety and will work with the Federal Railroad Administration to monitor and report rail safety Policy 2-Infrastructure Preservation Ensure the structural integrity of the transportation systems serving people and freight. Consistent with the directives of the 2008 Minnesota Legislature, MnIDOT will carry out an investment program to repair and replace fracture critical and structurally deficient state trunk highway bridges I-10 Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan: 2009-2028 while continuing to work toward achieving condition targets for all state bridges, pavements and other infrastructure. However, given the outlook for future revenues and other competing needs, it is unlikely that all infrastructure condition targets will be achieved for the entire state trunk highway system. Mn/DOT will apply cost-effective strategies, such as preventive maintenance, pavement reclamation and innovative contracting methods, to maximize available resources and reduce or stem increases in costs. Mn/DOT will also work with other public and private transportation systems of statewide importance to monitor the condition of their physical assets and provide technical assistance where appropriate. Policy 3-Maintenance and Security Maintain and operate the statewide transportation system in an efficient, cost-effective and secure manner. Mn/DOT will use the increase in operating funds provided through the 2008 Legislature to address high priority maintenance needs, including snow and ice removal; bridge, pavement and drainage maintenance; and safety and traffic operations. Mn/DOT will revamp its bridge inspection process to meet new federal requirements, document follow-up procedures to improve the effectiveness of the bridge inspection program, and emphasize preventive maintenance to ensure public safety and extend bridge life. Mn/DOT will continue to pursue a wide range of opportunities to share costs, resources and best practices with its transportation partners and thereby achieve efficiencies across systems. Policy 4-National and Global Connections Maintain and strengthen Minnesota's strategic multimodal connections to the Upper Midwest, the nation and the world. During the past 15 years, Minnesota's economy has become more global. Maintaining viable multimodal transportation connections to and from adjacent states, as well as gateways to the rest of the world, has become critical to the state's economic future. Because these connections rely on infrastructure beyond Minnesota's borders, Mn/DOT will continue to work with neighboring states and federal agencies to maintain and improve national and international transportation linkages that are important to Minnesota. MnIDOT will also continue to work with private industry providers, such as air, rail and waterway transport, to identify approaches that will support maintaining strong national and international transportation connections to Minnesota for people and freight. 1.11 Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan.• 2009-2028 Policy 5-Statewide Connections Enhance the movement of people and freight between regional trade centers within Minnesota by providing efficient, multimodal transportation connections. Travel between regional trade centers is important for citizens and businesses throughout the state. Strong transportation connections link workers with jobs, raw materials with manufacturers, and recreational users with parks and natural resource areas, In 2000, Mn/DOT created the Interregional Corridor system with the goal of enhancing the economic vitality of the state by providing safe, timely and efficient highway connections between key economic centers throughout the state. Mn/DOT will continue to work with its partners to maintain safety and mobility on these interregional corridors and will identify strategic, cost-effective modal options for statewide travel, such as intercity bus service, high-speed passenger rail, regional freight rail and air service for both passengers and freight. Policy 6-Twin Cities Mobility Provide mobility and address congestion in the Twin Cities by optimizing use of the existing system and making strategic capacity investments in both high- ways and transit. This plan moves the region away from its long-held and historical approach of attempting to build its way out of congestion by adding more highway lanes -one major project at a time - to a more innovative, balanced and may be mitigated but not eliminated. It also emphasizes lower cost, systemwide improvements that optimize use of existing highway capacity and rights of way and provide advantages for transit, Examples include improvements in lane continuity, use of shoulders during peak hours, incident clearance and signal timing. Managing demand through metering, traveler informa- tion, telework initiatives and potential expansion of pricing is also envisioned. Improvements to expand capacity andlor access will be part of the approach, but these inveskments will be focused on strategic improvement to both the highway and transit systems. This vision for mobility in the Twin Cities will be more fully articulated through a joint study led by MnIDOT and the Metropolitan Council beginning in 2009. The findings will be incorporated into the Metropolitan Transportation Policy Plan in 2010 through a formal amendment. Policy 7-Greater Minnesota Metropolitan and Regional Mobility Provide for the changing transportation needs of peo- ple and freight within Greater Minnesota regions and metropolitan areas by planning regionally for critical investments and improving coordination across modes and jurisdictions. A growing and aging population combined with shifts in the economy will put new demands on the transportation system in Greater Minnesota. To address these changes, Mn/DOT will continue to work with the Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Regional Development Commissions and other partners at the local and regional level to identify issues and opportunities for coordinated roadway, transit, bicycle-pedestrian and freight system improvements. Of particular importance will be the joint efforts to examine the changing needs for both transit and freight. Policy 8-Community Development and Transportation Support local efforts to increase jobs, expand housing, and improve community livability through more coordinated planning, complementary design, and timely communication among land use and transportation authorities. Transportation is a key Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan; 2009-2028 1. ~Z financially realistic approach to address regional mobility needs. This new approach reflects an understanding that congestion development. Local governments must carefully consider and address the transportation needs and implications of their land use and community development decisions. Mn/DOT will work with regional and local partners as well as state agencies to promote the planning and development of local transportation systems that are sensitive to the community context, support local development goals and conform to regional system plans. Policy 9-Energy and the Environment Improve the energy efficiency and environmental sustainability of Minnesota's transportation system. Mn/DOT and other transportation agencies will continue to protect and enhance the environment by integrating environmental stewardship in the planning, development and construction phases of transportation projects as well as in system operations. Working in close coordination with other transportation system providers, Mn/DOT will also strive to reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency through the emission vehicles, increased use of alternative fuels and adoption of property and right of way management practices that offset greenhouse gas emissions, Policy 10-Accountability and Transparency Strengthen accountability and transparency in the delivery of Minnesota's transportation system. To strengthen accountability and transparency in its decision- making, Mn/DOT will set clear and measurable objectives, track progress toward meeting objectives and report results on a regular basis to policymakers and the traveling public. Mn/DOT will develop new approaches and venues to proactively and regularly engage partners and stakeholders in the decision- making process at both the project and broader system levels. A new project scoping, cost estimating and cost management process will improve Mn/DOT's ability to deliver projects on time and within budget. 1-13 Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan: 2009-2028 ingredient to community livability and local economic promotion of travel modes with high occupancy andJor low Moving Toward the Vision: Mn/DOT Statewide 20-year Highway Investment Plan 2009-2028 Mn/DOT's Planning and Programming Process ~~ {, ~._, ..' :~~~ a Concurrent with the Statewide Transportation Policy Plan update, Mn/DOT updated its Statewide Highway Investment Plan, This 20-year plan, last updated in 2004, provides the link between the policies and strategies established in the Statewide Transportation Policy Plan and the capital improvements that are made to the state highway system. The Statewide Highway Investment Plan 2009-2028 is a compilation of eight individual district highway investment plans. Mn/DOT established afive-step process and guidelines to ensure that the individual district plans would be developed in a consistent, objective manner and that planned improvements would address statewide goals and investment priorities. Step t-Identify Investment Needs Investment needs fall into two categories: improvements to address system performance and improvements to address regional and community priorities. Performance-based needs include investments to meet established system performance targets related to traveler safety, infrastructure preservation, interregional corridor mobility, Twin Cities mobility and Greater Minnesota Regional and Metro mobility The analytical models and methodologies used to calculate the investments to meet these system performance targets are described more fully in the 20-year Statewide Highway Investment Plan Regional and community priorities +rt1PA,v include a wide range of highway improvements to support local business or community development goals, from major highway expansions and new interchanges to intersection modifications, trails and sidewalks. Statewide, investments to meet system performance targets during the 20-year period are estimated at approximately $62 billion. Mobility needs related to interregional corridors and congestion mitigation in the Twin Cities and Greater Minnesota urban areas represent the largest proportion, about $43 billion, or 69 percent, of the total. For now, congestion mitigation needs in the Twin Cities have been estimated based on previously identified needs from the 2004 Metro District Plan, The approach to mobility and congestion mitigation will be further examined in 2009 and will likely result in a revised estimate of need. Infrastructure preservation accounts for about $16 billion, or 26 percent, :~~-- and roadway improvements targeted ~"'_ `; ~~ ~ - toward safety total about $3 billion, _. ~, ~~~~.~~~~~:= or 5 percent of the total needs. An additional $3 billion to $5 billion is needed to address regional and community improvement priorities. This estimate reflects the sum of each district's understanding of local concerns expressed during the past Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan: 2009-2028 1.i4 Mn/DOT Highway Investment Plan Development Process ;Statewide Highway Investment Needs 2009-2028 Tnr~N~ ~- A Investments to Meot Portorm~nce Targets p S62 8 several years and, as such, does not represent a comprehen- sive assessment of every potential local request. It does illustrate, however, that there are many demands on available transportation funding beyond the investments needed to meet established statewide performance targets. Step 2-Project Future Revenue Next, revenues were projected based on the trends in state and federal revenue sources for state highway construction. No new sources of revenue were assumed but the increased bond funding for trunk highways enacted by the 2008 Legislature was factored into the projection. Construction cost trends were also analyzed and projected so that investment needs and expenditures could be estimated in year-of-construction dollars. A more complete description of revenue and cost trends and projections is provided in Chapter 5 of the Statewide Transportation Policy Plan. Given the volatility in both costs and revenues and the current discussion of increased funding in the next Federal Transportation Act, the projections assumed in this plan represent a snapshot in time. They will need to be updated annually as long-range investments become pro- grammed in the four-year State Transportation Improvement Program. ' Step 3-Set Investment Goals The investment priorities reflected in this update of the Statewide Highway Investment Plan differ significantly from the 2004 plan. At that time, MnIDOT identified infrastructure preservation as its top priority and districts were directed to fully fund preservation needs before other priorities, including safety, mobility and local community priorities. The revenue and costs outlook in 2004 projected sufficient long-term funding to meet not only preservation needs, but other areas of need as well, Since 2004, revenues have not grown as anticipated and con- struction costs have increased dramatically. Even with the increased transportation revenues provided through Minnesota Law 2008, Chapter 152, the costs to fully preserve bridges, pavements and other roadway infrastructure during the next 20 years will exceed projected funding. The investment goals for this update of the Statewide Highway Investment Plan reflect Chapter 152 legislative direction, con- sideration of system performance trends and stakeholder input. While infrastructure preservation continues to be an important priority for Mn/DOT, it cannot be the exclusive priority The goal for the 2009 plan is to lay out a balanced program of invest- ments that: • Supports the continued development of the statewide economy and livability of Minnesota communities; • Optimizes the allocation of projected revenues towards four strategic investment priorities of traveler safety, mobil- ity, infrastructure preservation and regional and communi- ty improvements; and • Results in a consistent level of investment effort across districts toward statewide system performance targets, including the investment directions established in Chapter 152 for the rehabilitation or replacement of fracture critical and structurally deficient bridges and other highway improvements. 1 • f5 Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan: 2009-ZOZS Statewide Highway IBVeatment Plt+n't089.2028: ~St 9 B (year of coaatrpttion) Tra Sob St. 9'b olier s.+ e z~ BpPs S.8 B ~% Mob 51:1 Th Step Develop Investment Plan About $15 billion is projected to be invested statewide over the next 20 years, from 2009-2028, Costs are expressed in projected year-of-construction dollars, Investments to preserve pavements, bridges and other infrastructure average 78 percent of the total for the 20 years, Roadway enhancements and capacity improvements for safety account for 9 percent of the total, with 7 percent planned to improve mobility and 4 percent to address regional and community improvement needs. As a result of planned investments, Mn/DOT anticipates the repair or replacement of 120 fracture critical or structurally deficient bridges by 2018, consistent with the Chapter 152 legislative direction, In addition, the other 4,000 state highway bridges will receive needed repairs or reconstruction. The number of state highway miles with pavement in good condition will be maintained; however, the number of miles with poor pavement condition will nearly triple, from about 600 miles today to 1,600 miles by 2018. To improve traveler safety, the planned investments in the first 10 years focus on both systemwide safety enhancements, such as median cable barriers and edge treatments, as well as a few safety/capacity improvements. Other investments for mobility and regional and community priorities are summarized in the 20-year Statewide Highway Investment Plan. Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan: 2009-2028 ~, f6 Step 5-Identify High Priority Investment Options for Potential Additional Funding With a total estimated investment need exceeding $65 billion during the next 20 years, and projected revenues of about $15 billion, this analysis indicates that almost $50 billion remains in "unmet needs." To place this level of funding in perspective, every 5 cents on the motor vehicle fuel tax in Minnesota provides just under $100 million per year to the State Road Construction fund. To meet five percent of the $50 billion gap, or $2.5 billion, over the next 10 years would require the equivalent of a 12.5-cent increase in the motor vehicle fuel tax. It is unlikely that future transportation funding will increase sufficiently to meet almost $50 billion in "unmet need." This plan's policies and strategies, therefore, emphasize a new approach to meeting system improvement needs through stronger partnerships and innovation. This is especially evident in the plan's vision for mobility in the Twin Cities, calling for a more comprehensive and fiscally realistic approach to congestion mitigation. This plan also stresses the need to set priorities. Toward this end, Mn/DOT has identified 5 percent of the "unmet needs" as high priority investment options should additional revenue be available during the next 10 years. Additional funding, such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Ad, would likely carry specific eligibility criteria or investment direction. For this reason, the identified high priority unfunded investments are distributed across all four strategic investment categories. High Priority Unfunded Investment Options Enhance Traveler j $3a5 iM 15% Safety -~ .~,` ~. Improve Mobiiity on IRCs and $1;030 M 41% Twin Cities ~ ~ 9. Freeways ,~ _ ,~ Preserve $97 0 ,M 39% Infrastructure . Regional '~~ Community $1.1{5 M 5% Priorities ~ r , ; , These priorities were identified because they would provide the opportunity to enhance traveler safety on rural roads across the state as well as Twin Cities metro freeways, upgrade under performing Interregional Corridors, fund aloes-cost/high-benefit congestion management program as well as some key capacity expansion projects in the Twin Cities, preserve pavement and bridges, and support partnership projects for local economic development efforts throughout Minnesota. f-f7 Minnesota Statewide transportation Policy Plan: 2009-2028 Many issues and proposed strategies outlined in this plan will require further in-depth analysis and consultation among the partners, stakeholders and policymakers. Several key studies and investment plans are currently underway or will be initiated soon to evaluate and expand upon the policies and strategies of this plan, The major policies and investment priorities identified in these plans and studies will be incorporated into the Statewide Transportation Policy Plan through an amendment, anticipated in 2010. Greater Minnesota Transit Plan The update of the 2001 Greater Minnesota Transit Plan is scheduled for completion in 2009. The plan will define the future vision for public transportation across Greater Minnesota and focus on the needs of four target market groups. It will identify strategies to guide investments to both maintain and expand current transit services across the state. In 2008, the Minnesota Legislature directed Mn/DOT to develop a transit implementation plan that included an analysis of ridership and transit service needs throughout greater Minnesota; a calculation of unmet needs; an assessment of the level and type of service required to meet unmet needs; an analysis of costs and revenue options; and a plan to reduce unmet transit service needs. The plan, to be completed in 2009, will specifically address special transportation service ridership and needs. Intercity Bus Study In 2009, Mn/DOT will update the Intercity Bus Study, last updated in 1997. The study's primary objectives include: enhanced coordination and connectivity between public and private sector services; identification of service gaps; formulation of strategies to meet service needs; and improved interface between transportation modes, The results of this study, scheduled for completion in mid-2009, will be incorporated into the Statewide Transportation Policy Plan through an amendment, anticipated in 2010, Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy P/anr 2009-2028 f-18 Moving Toward the Vision: Future Plans Greater Minnesota Transit Implementation/Investment and Studies Plan Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan The Minnesota Statewide Comprehensive freight and Passenger Rail Plan was mandated by the 2008 Minnesota Legislature and is scheduled for completion in late 2009. The plan will create a vision for both passenger and freight rail services in Minnesota; establish investment needs; identify a potential passenger system network; determine the role of private and public sector entities; set parameters for corridor priorities; and identify potential funding sources. The plan will comply with expected federal state rail plan guidelines and requirements in order to expedite development and funding for proposed and future projects. Metro Highway System Investment Study During the next 12 months, Mn/DOT and the Metropolitan Council will work with other transportation partners to evaluate the metropolitan highway system. The study's goal is to define the long-term (40- to 50-year) vision for the Twin Cities metropolitan area's transportation system. The Metro Highway System Investment Study will guide overall mobility decisions by giving direction to fully use all highway and modal investments in a coordinated manner. Regional Freight Studies The Northern Minnesota/Northwest Wisconsin Freight Study and the Western Minnesota Freight Study will be multimodal and include highway (commercial vehicle operations), rail, waterway, air cargo and intermodal transportation. The studies will examine regional and local issues not captured in previous freight transportation studies and plans; document the existing freight transportation systems; identify industry and region-specific issues and trends as they relate to freight transportation; and identify potential system improvements for freight movement in these regions. Long-Range Transportation Funding Options The 2008 Minnesota Legislature directed that Mn/DOT evaluate the 20-year needs to maintain and improve the state's highways, bridges and transit as well as various funding options to meet those needs. The analysis will be conducted in consultation with other state agencies and stakeholders and will consider the implications of increased fuel economy, availability of alternative modes, and fuel price volatility on various revenue options. The study, due in November 2009, will also look into the potential of road pricing and other alternative funding mechanisms with particular consideration of their envi- ronmental impacts and implementation feasibility. i-19 Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan, 2009-2028 Innovative Finance Initiative Mn/DOT is working with its transportation partners and stakeholders to explore innovative finance concepts and options for maximizing limited transportation dollars. Through this initiative, Mn/DOT will seek to align user benefits with costs and deliver a greater number of transportation projects more quickly. Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan The Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan will identify physical obstacles in Mn1DOT facilities, describe the methods that will be used to make the facilities accessible, specify the schedule for the taking action, and identify the responsible official. Upon completion, the plan will assist Mn/DOT in meeting ADA requirements. Complete Streets Feasibility Study Complete streets are defined as roadways designed and operated to enable safe, attractive and comfortable access and travel for all users: pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transport users of all ages and abilities. Mn/DOT and its partners are assessing the benefits, cost and feasibility of establishing a complete streets policy in Minnesota. Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan; 2009-2028 ~.tp August 2009 Mn/DOT District 3 20-year Highway Investment Plan 2009-2028 Mn/D0T Dislricl 3 20-veer Highx~av Investment Plan August 2009 Transportation System Profile • Eight major Interregional Corridors (IRCs) providing critical connections to important regional trade centers around the state, including Interstate 94; U.S. Highways 10 and 169; and MN Highways 23, 24 (Clearwater to Clear Lake), 34 (Hubbard-Cass Co. Line to Walker), 210 (Motley to Highway 169 Aitkin), and 371 (Little Falls to Cass Lake). • 3,995 total lane miles (the greatest number of lane miles for all districts, including the Metro District). • 1,961 total lane miles on the IRC system. • 23 airports (regional airports located in Brainerd and St. Cloud). • Eight urban and rural public transit systems providing service to ] 0 of the 12 counties in the District. • Five major rail lines and one short line constituting 367 rail line miles. • Seven Class I Safety Rest Areas, including: ^ I-94 -Enfield, Fuller, Big Spunk, and Middle Spunk ^ TH ] 0 - St. Cloud Travel Information Center ^ TH 169 -Rum River ^ TH 371 -Brainerd Lakes Area Welcome Center • Home to Minnesota's first commuter rail corridor, the Northstar Commuter Rail, which will become operational in late 2009 and provide services to commuters traveling between Minneapolis and Big Lake (District 3 stations located in Elk River and Big Lake). Transportation Issues and Trends • 288 highway-related fatalities during the 2004 to 2007 timefi~ame, which is the highest number of fatal and incapacitating crashes among the seven Greater Minnesota Mn/DOT districts. • Nearly 178 miles of rural two-lane highways wan~ant conversion to four-lane expressways by 2028; today, several corridors carry 15,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day. • An estimated 249 miles of IRCs will perform below target performance by 2028 without planned investments; District 3 is the only Greater Minnesota district predicted to have underperforming IRCs in the 20-year planning timeframe. • Traffic on virtually every highway passing through the 12 Regional Trade Centers (RTCs) will be congested. • High seasonal and recreational travel peaks are experienced; virtually all major roads heading north and west out of the Twin Cities Meri-opolitan Area, except Interstate 35, pass through District 3. • Transportation road and bridge infrastructure is aging. • There will be moderate pavement preservation needs during the mid-range planning period, 2013-2018, with considerably higher pavement needs in the long-range planning period, 2019-2028. Mn/DOT Dish•ict 3 20 year Hrghwav investment Plnn August 2009 Development of the Highway Investment Plan The District 3 20-year Highway Investment Plan 2009-2028 has been developed within the context of Mn/DOT's decentralized planning and programming process. This process begins with policies, strategies, performance measures, and performance targets set in Chapter 7 of the Statewide Transportation Policy Plan. Five of the ten policies list performance measures and targets that can be directly affected by capital investments in the highway system. This plan identifies capital investment needs within the framework of four strategic investment priorities: Traveler Safety, Infrastructure Preservation, Mobility, and Regional and Community Improvements. The process culminates in highway system construction projects (Figure 1). Issues and trends discussed previously enter the planning process at all levels, influencing policy, plans, programs, and project design. Statewide guidelines have been established to ensure the District 3 plan has been created in a consistent, objective manner similar to the other seven Mn/DOT district plans. The District 3 20-year Highway Investment Plan 2009-2028 covers three planning periods: 2009 to 2072 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): Updated annually, planned spending in these four years includes specific projects identified in the current four-year STIP plus additional improvements that will be funded by Chapter 152 bonds in years 2011 and 2012 but have not yet been included in the STIP. Projects are generally considered commitments with well- developed scopes, cost estimates, and planned year of construction; however, if projected revenues are not realized, the timing of planned investments may change. 2013 to 2018 Mid-Range Highway Investment Plan (Mid-Range HIP): Investments identified in these six years remain in the planning stage and represent a general spending plan but not a commitment. Major projects under development are given an estimated cost range and construction year but both are subject to change as project development proceeds. Much of the spending plan is comprised of funding allocations within the four strategic investment priority areas, such as roadway safety enhancements and pavement preservation. Specific projects for these funding allocations are generally not identified or fully scoped until the annual development of the STIP. The Mid-Range HIP is also updated annually 2019 to 2028 Long-Range Highway Investment Plan (Long-Range HIP): Planned spending in this 10-year planning period represents a very rough, long- term outlook on revenues and investment priorities. The Long-Range H1P intends to provide a general comparison of projected revenues, given current trends and conditions, with long-term needs. Planned investments are associated with broad investment categories within the four strategic priorities. The final 10 years of the plan include only a very general outlook of investment estimates due to the high level of uncertainty associated with both revenue and costs in this period. Mn/DOT District 3 20 year Highway Investnsent Plan August 2009 Step 1: Identify Investment Needs District 3's investment needs for the four strategic priority areas fall into two categories: investments to meet performance targets and improvements to support Regional and Community Improvement Priorities (RCIPs). Investments to Meet Performance Targets For District 3, four of the ten policies discussed in Chapter 7 of the Statewide Transportation Policy Plan address system performance that can be directly affected by capital investment in the highway system. These policies are Policy 1: Traveler Safety, Policy 2: Infrastructure Preservation, Policy 5: Statewide Connections, and Policy 7: Greater Minnesota Metropolitan and Regional Mobility. The Statewide 20- year Highway Investment Plan sets investment direction, performance measures, and performance targets as well as details methodology for determining investment needs. In migrating from policies to investment needs a broad range of improvements were identified. While any specific improvement would likely address issues and trends associated within several policies, the improvements were categorized into specific policies for the purpose of defining needs. Table 1 identifies investment needs to meet these performance targets by 2018 and maintain them thereafter. An investment need identified in the planning period `2009-2018' or `2019-2028' signifies a need to meet performance targets within that period. Policy 1: Traveler Safety Policy 1 guides investments that reduce the number oftraffic-related deaths and serious injuries and has two broad categories: • Roadway Enhancements are proactive, lower-cost strategies applied system- wide to highways generally in conjunction with other types of highway projects. • Capacity Improvements are higher-cost strategies most often initiated as stand alone projects. Performance-based Investment Needs Roadway Enhancements associated with Traveler Safety represent lower-cost, high- benefit systematic strategies to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes. These strategies were developed as part of the Minnesota Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and represent safety improvements that can be included in preservation projects or constructed as stand alone projects. Within this plan, the investment needs are quantified using the forecasted traffic volumes in 2018 and 2028 for the following strategies: • Edge Treatments • Centerline Rumble Strips • Rural Intersection Enhancements • Right-turn LanesBypass Lanes • Left-turn Lanes • Passing Lanes • Full Standard Shoulders • Geometric Intersection Changes/Access Management Mn/DOT District 3 20 year Highway Investment Plan August 2009 TH 23 Paynesville to Riclunond (10.7 miles) TH 24 Wright CSAH 6 to I-94 (Clearwater) (9.9 miles) TH 47 St Francis to Isanti CSAH 8 (2.0 miles) TH 55 Wright CSAH 3 to Annandale (2,7 miles) TH 65 TH 70 to Mora (4.5 miles) TH 95 Mille Lacs CSAH 5 to Mille Lacs-Isanti County Line (Princeton Area) (5.7 miles) TH 210 Pillager to Baxter (8.7 miles) TH 371 Jenkins to Pine River (3.0 miles) TH 371 Hackensack to Cass CSAH 6 (3.1 miles) * Indicates that the corridor extends into an adjacent district Policy 2: Infrastructure Preservation Policy 2 guides investments that ensure the structural integrity of the highway transportation system. Performance-based Investment Needs The investment needs for Infrastructure Preservation were developed in four categories: Chapter 1 S2 Bridge includes rehabilitation and replacement of 120 structurally deficient and fracture critical bridges statewide as outlined in Minnesota Laws 2008, Chapter 152. Structurally deficient bridges meet a specific condition rating for the bridge deck, superstructure, and substructure or culvert. Fracture critical bridges are those with a steel superstructure whose members are arranged in a manner in which if one fails, the bridge would collapse. Note, the classification of structurally deficient or fracture critical does not imply the bridge is inherently unsafe. Each of the 120 bridges was reviewed and a cost estimate for either rehabilitation or replacement was developed. • Other Bridge includes rehabilitation and replacement of bridges not included in Minnesota Laws 2008, Chapter 152. Investment needs include bridge and large culvert replacement, redecking, deck overlay, and preventative maintenance activities (e.g., painting). • Pavement reflects a model that optimizes cost-effective improvements for the entire highway system. Investment needs include crack sealing, pavement mill and overlay, and full reconstruction. • Other Infrastructure includes cost-effective replacement of signs, lighting, traffic signals, intelligent transportation systems, safety rest areas, and drainage infrastructure. Investment needs for signs, lighting, and traffic signals are based on the life-cycle replacements. Investment needs for intelligent transportation systems, safety rest areas, and drainage are based on a review of existing conditions and replacement costs. Mn/DOT District 3 20 year Highway Investment Plan August 2009 Policy 7: Greater Minnesota Metropolitan and Regional Mobility Policy 7 guides investments for preserving mobility within Greater Minnesota Trade Centers that are linked to Interregional Corridors. Performance-based Investment Needs The investment needs for Greater Minnesota Metropolitan and Regional Mobility address high-volume highway corridors in Greater Minnesota Trade Centers. These investment needs are quantified for urban highway corridors where the future Level of Service falls below D by 2018 or 2028. Within this plan, the threshold for Levei of Service D/E corresponds to the following criteria: • An existing 2-lane arterial with a forecasted AADT > 15,000; • An existing 4-lane arterial with a forecasted AADT > 30,000; or • An existing 4-lane freeway with a forecasted AADT > 75,000. If a corridor meets the above criteria, an average cost is assigned based on a broad range of potential strategies and improvements. The specific improvement and cost will not be clearly defined until the project has gone through the scoping process to identify the appropriate and context sensitive solution and it is programmed in a future STIP. Potential strategies and improvements may include, but are not limited to signal retiming, intersection modification, lane extensions, access management, interchange conversion or expansion. Based on the criteria above, the following corridors warrant consideration under Greater Minnesota Metropolitan and Regional Mobility (corridor length): 2009 to 2018 (Total Needs $51 M) TH 10 in Big Lake (0.7 miles) TH 10 in Elk River (0.9 miles) TH 12 in Waverly/Montrose (3.4 miles) TH 12 in Delano (1.9 miles) TH 15 in St Cloud/Sauk Rapids (5.3 miles) TH 23 in Waite Park/St Cloud (7.2 miles) TH 25 in Buffalo (1.9 miles) TH 25 in Big Lake (0.8 miles) TH SS in Buffalo (3.2 miles) TH 95 in Cambridge (1.2 miles) 2019 to 2028 (Total Needs $30 M) TH 10 in Wadena(0.9 miles) TH 101 in Otsego (4.6 miles) TH 25 in Monticello (2.1 miles) TH 27 in Little Falls (1.6 miles) TH 65 in Isanti (1.5 miles) TH 371 in Baxter (1.2 miles) TH 12 in Howard Lake (1.2 miles) TH 210 in Brainerd (2.9 miles) Investments to Meet Pertormance Targets Summary District 3's 20-year investments to meet performance targets are approximated at $5.9 billion (Table 1). This is nearly one-third of the total performance-based needs in Greater Minnesota. Mobility, both IRCs and Greater Minnesota Metropolitan and Regional Mobility, accounts for the single largest performance-based need, about $3.7 billion, over the 20-year planning period. This area alone accounts for over 62 percent of the District's total performance-based needs and an astonishing 95 percent of the total mobility needs in Greater Minnesota. Infrastructure preservation, Mn/DOT District 3 20 year Highway Inveslment Plan August 2009 Table 2 -District 3 Regional and Community Improvement Priorities TH Project Notes 10 TH 10 Interchange at Benton CSAH 13 Previously identified as an IRC Mobility need in the 2004 Plan 10 TH 10 Interchange at Benton CSAH 4 Previously identified as an IRC Mobili need in the 2004 Plan TH l0 Interchange at Sherburne CSAH 1 l /SE of Previously identified as a Safety need 10 Becker in the 2004 Plan 10 TH 10 Interchange at Morrison CSAH 14 in Randall RCIP 15 TH 15 Interchange at 18t° St. in Sauk Rapids RCIP I S TH 15 Interchange at Benton CSAH 29 in Sauk Rapids Previously identifted as a Safety need in the 2004 Plan 15 TH 15 Interchange at Stearns CR 120 RCIP 65 TH 65 Interchange at Isanti CSAH 5 in Isanti Previously identified as a Safety need in the 2004 Plan 65 TH 65 Interchange at Isanti CSAH 30 south of RCIP Cambrid e 65 TH 65 Interchange at TH 107 south of Braham RCIP 71 TH 71 Reconstruction in Sauk Centre Reconstruction to address preservation need 95 TH 95 Reconstruction in Cambridge Part of the Corridor Vision 169 TH 169 Interchange at Mille Lacs CSAH 1 l north of Previously identifted as a Safety need Milaca in the 2004 Plan 227 TH 227 Reconstruction and shoulder widening from Future Turnback TH 71 to Wadena CSAH 14 in Nimrod 293 TH 293 Reconstruction from TH 95 to Main Street in Future Turnback Cambrid e 371 TH 37l Interchange at Crow Wing CSAH 48 in Part of the Corridor Vision Baxter Includin bic cle/ edestrian crossin 371B TH 371B Reconstruction from Crow Wing CR Reconstruction to address 117/Buffalo Hills Lane to TH 210 in Brainerd . Preservation * Criteria for performance-based needs changed since the 2004 Plan. Mn/DOT District 3 20 year Highway Invesb~2ent Plan 13 August 2009 2009 Statewide Invesfinenf Goals The investment goals in this plan update reflect Chapter 152 legislative direction, consideration of system performance trends, and stakeholder input. While infrastructure preservation continues to be an important investment priority for Mn/DOT, it cannot be the exclusive priority. The statewide investment goals for a balanced program are as follows: 1. Fully fund all Chapter 152 bridges by 2018; 2. Fund at least 85 percent of all other bridge preservation needs; 3. Fund at least three times the district's Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) goal; 4. Use at least 70 percent of the remaining available revenues to fund pavement preservation (District 3 and Metro District: Fully fund pavement preservation needs);, 5. Identify some level of investment in other infrastructure preservation; and 6. Remaining funds may be invested at the district's discretion. District Goals District 3 remains committed to Mn/DOT's "preservation first" investment strategy that was emphasized in past plan update cycles. For that reason, the present pavement conditions in District 3 are in better overall shape compared to several other Districts around the state. Similarly, the physical condition of the District's inventory of bridges is also relatively sound with only a few structurally deficient structures requiring immediate attention. With a large share of the state's high- volumes highways and a historically high number of severe crashes, the District has also been a leader in the implementation of low-cost safety improvements, such as edge and centerline rumble strips and median cable guardrail projects that are designed to reduce the number ofrun-off-the-road and cross-over-the-median crashes. The District's past investment priorities have made a positive difference toward ensuring the development of a safe and sound transportation. However, limited funding and inflationary increases to existing projects in the STIP and Mid-Range HIP have forced the delay of important two- to four-lane safety expansion projects and several longer-range IRC mobility projects by five or more years. A number of these projects with significant planning and environmental review work already completed were removed entirely from the plan simply because the prospect of funding them was so unlikely given the revenues anticipated over the next 20 years and beyond. Maintaining the existing system is a key objective for Mn/DOT. At the same time, the Statewide Transportation Policy Plan recognizes the need for a more balanced investment approach that incorporates investments across all areas of need (e.g., infrastructure preservation, traveler safety, and mobility) and carefully weighs the impacts/tradeoffs made between various investments options. To that end, District 3, in developing its 20-year Highway Investment Plan, challenged itself to continue investing in needed preservation and low-cost safety improvements while at the same time making a firm commitment to implement the major safety expansion projects identified in its present 10-year highway investment program to the extent Mn/DOT District 3 20 year Highway Investment Plan ~ 5 August 2009 Table 3 -District 3 Highway Investment Plan 2009-2028 ($ in millions, year of construction) -.. .- • Traveler Safety 40 12`,io 121 3:~'>z 135 18~:. 296 29% Roadway Enhancements 75 2t at 78 Capacity Improvements 25 100 94 218 Infrastructure Preservation 231 72% 248 67°i 594 81°%, 1,072 75% Chapter 152 Bridge Program 48 - - 48 Other Bridge 23 69 108 199 Pavement 154 t52 a70 776 Other Infrastructure 7 27 75 49 Mobility 12 4% - - - 12 1'Yo. Interregional Corridors 12 - - 12 Greater MN Trade Centers - - - - Regionaland Community _ _ _ _ _ _ Im rovement Priorities _ - Right of Way, Consultants, 36 ~ 1 % NA NA 36 3% Sri ~ ~emenfal Agrer-~~;r~~!~ i : ~I , - ~tr~ iK ~ i Infrastructure preservation comprises the single largest proportion of District 3's total investments over the 20-year life of this Plan. Table 3 reports the District will commit an estimated $1.1 billion (75 percent) of its total revenues toward projects that improve the condition of its roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. Traveler Safety represents the second highest investment priority for District 3. Here, the District plans to invest more than $296 million (21 percent) of its forecasted budget toward projects to improve Traveler Safety necessary for supporting the State's Toward Zero Death (TLD) goals. The final investment category is reserved for projects designed to enhance regional and statewide mobility. District 3 has more than $3.7 billion in documented mobility needs within its regional trade centers and on its designated IRC system as depicted previously in Table 1 of this Plan. Despite this enormous level of need, the District only is able to commit $12 million in the current STIP for this purpose. This relatively small amount of funding is being used for the payback of bonds received for the construction of four new interchanges on TH 101 in Otsego. This project was completed fa112008. Beyond the STIP, no other funds have been committed in either the Mid- or Long-Range HIP toward meeting the IRC or RTC performance targets recommended in the State Plan. Anticipated Projects 2009-2018 The following is a list of anticipated major projects in the strategic investment priority areas of Traveler Safety, Mobility, Infrastructure Preservation, and Regional and Community Improvement Priorities. Anticipated projects address only the first planning period, 2009 to 2018, comprised of the STIP and Mid-Range H1P. The timing of investments is better known in 2009 to 2018 relative to 2019 to 2028; the latter period having a high level of uncertainty associated with both revenue and costs. Mn/DOT examines the STIP and Mid-Range HIP together as both update annually in succession, STIP then Mid-Range HIP, as the new construction cycle begins. Mn/DOT District 3 20 yenr Highway Investment Plan l7 Angus: zoov STIP Anticipated Projects' Traveler Safety M Mobility ~ Infrastrudure Preservation ^~-'_~-' Regional and Communirylmprovement ~ Chapter 152 Bridge (v Roads n Interstate N U.S. Highway 'Anticipated projects are generalty Wer$5 Million State Highway In total project cost Mlles 0 10 20 AO OTTER TAIL GRAIIT DOUGLAS AltaaudUa STEVEIIS POPE WADEIIA STEARIIS i SWIFT --- I ~''~ 11 KAIIDIYOHI WiMmv hEEKER LKt1AlNtl GRIPPE WA =~;i_ Nloltevideo MCLE 11~ Figure 3 -District 3 Anticipated Projects for the STIP 2009 to 2012 Hgbing i 'I ITASCA I Gralxl RalMils ~ SAll1T LOUIS i, A17K111 CARLT011 l.ACS ~~ ~~ ~o Al10KA Saint Mc n_,i.. WASHNIGT011 R f 1111 F P 111 RAMSE Y Mn/DOT Disb~icl 3 20 ~~ear Highway Investment Plan 19 Atigt~st 2009 Step 5: Identify High Priority Investment Options for Potential Additional Funding With a total estimated statewide investment need exceeding $65 billion over the next 20 years, and projected investments of about $15 billion, almost $SO billion remains in unfunded needs. It is unlikely that future transportation funding will ever be increased to meet this degree of unmet need. Mn/DOT's policies and strategies, therefore, emphasize a new approach to meeting system improvement needs through stronger partnerships and innovation. To place this level of funding in perspective, every 5 cents on the motor vehicle fuel tax in Minnesota increases total revenues by $150 million per year and provides just under $100 million per year to the State Road Construction fund. To generate an additional $2.5 billion in revenue over 10 years would require the equivalent of a 12.5-cent increase in the motor vehicle fuel tax. District Unfunded Investment Needs District 3's unfunded iuvestment needs total $4.9 billion and are distributed across the four strategic priorities as follows: • 10 Percent -Improve Traveler Safety • 74 Percent -Improve Mobility • Seven Percent -Preserve Infrastructure in Safe and Sound Condition • Nine Percent -Support Regional and Community Improvement Priorities Statewide High Priority Investment Options for Potential Additional Funding Given the magnitude of unfunded investment needs each district prepared an approach to high priority investment options should additional funding become available. District 3 emphasized investments in Traveler Safety -Capacity Improvements and Statewide Connections. Mn/DOT's Transportation Program Committee used the information provided by the districts to develop a statewide approach. The statewide approach identified five percent (or $2.5 billion) of the total unfunded investment needs as high priority should additional revenue be available during the next 10 years. Since additional funding, such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, would likely carry specific eligibility criteria or investment direction, the statewide approach is distributed across all four strategic investment categories. Mn/DOT District 3 20 year Highway Irivesbnent Plnn 21 August 2009 System Performance and Anticipated Outcomes The District 3 20-year Ilighway Investment Plan 2009-2028 was developed as a planning document that links the policies and~~ strategies established in the Statewide Transportation Policy Plan and the capital improvements that arc made to the state highway system. District 3 has approximately $5.9 billion in investment needs and $1.4 billion in total investments over the 20-year planning period, resulting in $4.5 billion of unfunded investment needs. The plan, however, is a snapshot in time. Anticipated project timing and expected highway system performance will change as revenues are realized and construction costs change. Highway system needs change continuously as District 3 completes its annual STIP/Mid-Kange I IIP update. As part of this process, District 3 tracks investments using system performance targets and responds with appropriate changes to its investment plan on an annual basis. This section focuses on the first planning period, 2009 to 2018, comprised of the STIP and Mid-Range HIP. The timing of investments, and therefore the accuracy of outcomes and system performance, is better known in 2009 to 2018 relative to 2019 to 2028. 2009-2018 STIP/Mid-Range HIP Outlook Traveler Safety District 3 will provide modest levels of funding for lower-cost safety improvements including edge treatments, centerline rumble strips, cable median barrier, turn lanes, etc. Under the higher cost spectrum of safety improvements, the District plans to acquire the necessary right-of--way for and construct three projects warranting conversion from two-lane to four-lane. As a result of these investments, District 3 anticipates: • A decrease in the number of fatalities and serious injury crashes on state highways. Following a trend of generally increasing fatalities tlu•ough 2005, District 3 has since realized a reduction in fatalities (Figure 5). Lower-cost safety investments have been shown to address run-off-the-road, head-on, cross- median, and intersection related crashes. These crashes are typical of those on rural highways where 70 percent of Minnesota's fatal crashes occur. • A reduction in the number highway miles warranting 2- to 4- lane expansion. With the completion of the tlu-ee capacity improvement projects, the District will fund approximately 28 miles (about 30 percent) of the 92 miles of rural highways warranting four-lane expansion in 2018. These projects may further help to reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes on state highways. Mn/D0T D1SlYI{I 3 20-year High~~ny Inveslmenl Plnn 23 August 2009 ~~ n ., 7 ._. .. Greater Minnesota IRC Mobility Performance,~2418 Forecas~ With improvements through the 2009-2012 STIP and 2013-`2018 Fllfs Regional Trade Centers p Primary ^ Secondary O Shopping l~ Corridor break Greater Minnesota IRC rrabllRy perfom-ance NNLES • -, Above' 2.049 (78%) Nearr 541 (20°,b) ~ Belowt 99 (4%) Subtotal 2,690 (100%) • shove target by more than 2 MPH t within 22 MPH of forget = bebw target by more than 2 MPH Urban IRC tracked try Metro or other rrtoblltty measure 249 miles IRC system total 2,939 mites Minnesota Department of Transportation Otfioe of Irnestment Management and Performance Measures March 10, 2009 JL~ Figure 6 -Interregional Corridor Performance in 2018 Based on Planned Improvements through the STIP and Mid-Range HIP 2009 to 2018 Source: Mn/DOT Office of Investment Management Mn/DOT Distric! 3 20-year Highway Investment Plan 25 August 2009 a eti Predicted "Poor" Ride Quality Index (miles with RQI <- 2.0) ATP-3 Only 30'/0 26% Prodictod condition based on 2009.2012 STIP, Bonding Projects, and anticipated 2013-2018 pavomont prosorvntion sponding ~ 20% Y ur ~'' 1 S•/. N O U 10%4--- -- -- - -- ~-- ~ ----'-----'----- -- ~- ---I ` 1, d ~ a 2008 ~ 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 I 2017 2018 ONOn•Prlnc. Artorlall 2.9% ~ 3.1•/. 0.7% ~ 1.1 N. 0.9% 1.3% 1.5% 2.7% 4.1% I 1.9% i 5.7•/. Principal Arterial Target = 2 % or less Non-Principal Arterial Target = 3°~ or less Figure 8 -Predicted "Poor" Quality Ride Index for District 1 Source: Mn/DOT Office of Materials Services Other Infrastructure Preservation Begin to systematically fund other infrastructure. Additional outcomes and system performance will be known in the future as measures and targets in this area develop. Long-Range HIP 2019-2028 Outlook Infrastructure Preservation 1n the long-range years of this plan, District 3's pavement preservation needs will be considerably higher, approximately equal to the total revenues for the District. It is anticipated that the District will only be able fund half of its pavement needs in the last 10 years of this plan. Mobility and Traveler Safety District 3 will be the only Grcatcr Minnesota district that is predicted to have underperfolzning IRCs in the 20-year planning time frame. It is estimated that without planned investments, there will be over 249 miles of "at-risk" IRCs by 2028. District 3 will have an additional 86 miles of rural highway segments warranting consideration for 2-to-4 lane expansion by 2028. Unfortunately, due to the substantial increase in infrastructure preservation needs, it is anticipated that the District will not be able to fund any IRC or regional mobility project and will only have sufficient revenues to fund one major safety capacity i>nprove>nent project (e.g., TH 55 -Buffalo and Rockford) within the last 10 years of the plan. Mn/DOI' District 3 20-year Highway Investment Plar! 27 APO Regional Si nificance TIP Scorin b Pro'ect Type (Sample Alternative) Maximum 100 ts. Pro'ect T e Potential Criteria S stem Ex ansion S stem Preservation Multi-Modal Metro Vision/ Land Use Environ- Cost BiC cle & Pedestrian Project Readiness Congestion Reli fl U Safety B fi System C i Accomodation/ Regional Accomodation/ Local mental Effective- Transit Ca Ital (10pts) e sage (10pts) ene t (10pts ) ont nuity (10pts) Benefit Significance Benefit Support (10 ts ) Benefit Hess O erational Im rovements . (10pts.) (1Opts) (10pts.) p (10pts) (10pts ) Studies .~ Potential Scoring Questions ~ p ,Lt,~p ~.i t_Q '' Project Readiness: NEPA Project Development started, ongoing, or complete? 10 pts. Corridor Study started, ongoing, or complete? 5 pts. i~ No study started, ongoing, or complete? 0 pts. Congestion Relief/Usage: Provides •~ i Safety Benefit: Accomodates an area where a fatality or fatalities have occurred. 10 pts. ~~ Accomodates an area where a personal injury or injuries have occurred. 7 pts. Accomodates an area where non-fatal or non-injury crashes have occurred. 5 pts. No crashes have occurred. 0 pts. System Continuity: Facility provides ~( Multi-Modal AccomodationlBenefit: Y Metro VisionlRegional Significance: ~/ Land Use Accomodation/Benefit: Qvv,L.tT'Y OF~ ~ 11= E Local Support: Project is included in APO LRTP, City/County Comprehensive or Transportation 10 pts Project is included in APO LRTP & City/County Comprehensive/Transportation P 7 pts Project is only included in APO LRTP 5 pts. Project is not identified in any specific plan 0 pts. Environmental Benefit: Project improves air quality by reducing VMT/VHT, avoids environmental sensitive areas & provides benefits or reduces burden to environmental justice populations 10 pts. Project meets 2 of 3: improves air quality by reducing VMT/VHT, avoids environmental sensitive areas & provides benefits or reduces burden to environmental justice populations 7pts. Project meets 1 or 3 improves air quality by reducing VMT/VHT, avoids environmental sensitive areas & provides benefits or reduces burden to environmental justice populations 5 pts. Projects meets none 0 pts. Cost Effectiveness: ~~ MnQ~ 1hJCLIh,1LD -~ ~ ~ ~ ~~a E ot= r- MC, BR, RC, RD, and RS PROJECTS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2010 AND 2011 BY PROGRAM AND LET DATE Program District Project Number Hwy Description LeCDate Cost Estimate BR 7 1705-11 71 *"ELLA** REPLACE BR 6889, LOCATED 1.0 MI SE OF JCT TH 60 OVER DES 01/22/10 2 192 000 MOINES RIVER AT WINDOM. , , BR 6 7907-13 63 '*ELLA** REPLACE BRIDGE 4342 OVER STREAM (ZUMBRO FALLS) 01/22/10 500,000 BR 1 5880-179 35 REPLACE BRIDGE 9782 (NEW BR 58819) 2.7 MILES SOUTH OF HINCKLEY UNDER 02112/10 3 050 000 TH 23 CONNECTION , , OVER THE BNSF RAILROAD IN GEM LAKE -BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND BR M 6222-160 61 REALIGN APPROACH ROADWAYS FOR APROX 600' ON BOTH ENDS OF BRIDGE 02/12/10 8,330,000 *U-R* BR 6 2510-37 58 REPLACE BRIDGE 5188 (NEW BRIDGE 25025) AND BOX CULVERT OVER N FORK 02/26/10 1 768 000 ZUMBRO RIVER IN ZUMBROTA , , BR 6 5007-25 105 REPLACE BRIDGE 4867 OVER WOODBURY CREEK (0.7 MI N OF S STATE LINE) 02126/10 1,240,000 IN DULUTH BETWEEN BOUNDARY AVE b 26TH AVE E, REPL BR 69831, 69832 & BR 1 6982-290 35 69880, REPL CRCP PAVEMENT, REMOVE BR 69835 & 69828 NEAR 25TH & 37TH 02/26/10 40,263,701 AVE W, BR REPAIR BR 3 4810-17 95 REPLACE BR 5822 OVER THE RUM RIVER IN PRINCETON, INCLUDES 03/26/10 720 2 000 ROUNDABOUT AT JCT CSAH 29. , , BR 2 5409-28 75 0.5 MI S OF SHELLY, REPLACE BR 6734 (NEW BR 54010) 03/26110 1,600,000 BR M 1913-64 61 HASTINGS BRIDGE OVER MISSISSIPPI RIVER-BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 8 04/16/1 265 000 000 APPROACHES , , BR M 6244-30 52 PLATO BLVD TO 194 -REPLACE LAFAYETTE BRIDGE (BR 9800) AND 10/22/10 189 100 000 APPROACHES , , BR 2 5410-19 9 0.6 MI S OF BORUP, REPLACE BR 8413 (NEW BR 54X08) 11/19/10 324,000 BR 1 6917-133 53 14.3 MI S OF THE JCT TH 37 OVER THE PALEFACE RIVER, REPLACE BR 6603 11/19/10 950,000 BR 7 0801-31 4 APPROACH GRADING AND SURFACING AND REPLACE BR 6749 OVER LITTLE 01/28/11 2 220 000 COTTONWOOD RIVER , , BR 6 2308-25 44 REPLACE 7 BOX CULVERTS - BRIDGES 4148, 4149, 4150, 4151, 8158, 8163 AND 01/28/11 2 800 000 8399 FROM 0.2 MILES W OF JCT TH 52 TO 2.8 MILES NE OF N JCT OF TH 76 , , BR 6 2513-70 61 REPLACE BRIDGE 6773 OVER GILBERT CREEK 1.6 MI. NW OF JCT. T.H. 63 (IN 01/28/11 3 250 000 LAKE CITY) , , BR 6 7903-41 60 REPLACE BRIDGE 9798 (NEW BRIDGE 79014) AND APPROACH WORK - 0.6 MI W 01/28/11 1 425 600 OF JCT CSAH 32 OVER STREAM , , BR 3 8007-11 227 REPLACE BR 3038 OVER THE CAT RIVER 6.5 MILES E OF SEBEKA 02125/11 418,900 BR 7 1702-10 30 '*ELLA"' REPLACE BR 5834 (BOX CULVERTS) WITH BR #17X01, LOCATED 8.7 MI 03125111 910 000 E JCT TH 710VER WATONWAN RIVER, W OF DARFUR. , BR 3 4907-05 28 REPLACE BR 4715 OVER THE SWAN RIVER AT 1.0 MILE NW OF THE NORTH 04/22111 731 600 LIMITS OF SWANVILLE , BR 7 6706-13 270 **ELLA`* REPLACE BR 6821 1.2 MI E. OF HILLS OVER MUD CREEK 04/22/11 1,070,000 BR 1 6916-103 53 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT -BRIDGE 69029 AT THE JCT TH 33 11/18111 2,700,000 BR 7 8302-33 4 REPLACE BRIDGES 8832, 6762& 6786, LOCATED 7.2 MI N OF ST. JAMES OVER 12116111 2 340 000 WATONWAN RIVER & 5.9 MI N OF ST. JAMES OVER DITCH , , BR 7 0809-12 258 REPLACE BR 6535 8.5 MILES NORTH OF COMFREY 12/16/11 2,530,000 BR 6 79040 61 REPLACE BRIDGE 6461 OVER EAST INDIAN CREEK -LOCATED 1.3 MI. NW OF 12116/11 1 378 000 JCT TH 74 , , BR 1 0916-11 210 1.0 MI E OF THE JCT TH 45, REPLACE BR 09001 (NEW BR 09014) 12/16/11 6,193,294 CSAH 9 (SOUTH PLANTAGENET RD) TO N END OF BR 04012, OVER TH 2, & ON MC 2 0409-12 71 TH 197, N END OF BR 04012 TO 7TH ST, (LUEKENS STORE AREA), ADD NEW 02/26/10 20,500,000 BRIDGE 04016 OVER TH 2 & REHAB BR 04012 MC 7 5305-56 60 **ELLA** RECONSTRUCT AS 4-LANE EXPRESSWAY FROM 2400' NE OF CSAH 4 03/26/10 30 000 000 TO PAUL AVE IN WORTHINGTON , , October 19, 2009 MC, BR, RC, RD, and RS PROJECTS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2010 AND 2011 BY PROGRAM AND LET DATE Program District Project Hwy Description Let Date Cost Estimate Number EB - 0.2 MI W OF CSAH 9 IN CROOKSTON TO 6.8 MI W OF CSAH 44 (2.6 MI) & WB - MC 2 6002-69 2 0.2 MI W OF CSAH 9 IN CROOKSTON TO 0.8 MI E OF CSAH 44 (10.1 MI) & ON TH 9 03/26/10 5,699,920 OLMSTED CSAH 12 (ANTLER'S CROSSING) INTERCHANGE IN THE VICINITY OF MC 6 2505-48 52 520TH STREET AND COUNTY ROAD 31 PLUS REPLACE BOX CULVERT 97287 04130/10 35,600,000 (NEW BOX CULVERT 25X03) CONSTRUCT AS 4-LANE EXPRESSWAY FROM PAUL AVE T01100' PAST CSAH MC 7 5305-58 60 35 12117/10. 30,000,000 MC 3 0503-75 23 "`FLEA'" CONSTRUCT 4-LANE FROM JCT TH 95 TO JCT TH 25 IN FOLEY 02/25/11 28,520,000 EKE DRIVE TO 95TH AVE IN BLAINE -CONSTRUCTION OF AN AUXILARY LANE MC M 0280-66 35W ON I-35W 06110/11 1,055,555 MC 1 6920-48 53 4.5 MILES S OF S JCT TH 1 TO S LIMITS OF COOK, 4-LANE EXPANSION 09/23/11 45,800,000 RECONSTRUCT AS 4-LANE EXPRESSWAY FROM 1100' PAST CSAH 35 TO 190 IN MC 7 5305-59 60 WORTHINGTON 12/16/11 40,000,000 RC 4 1480-142 94 JCT TH 336 TO DOWNER, UNBONDED OVERLAY WB 01/22/10 9,585,000 SOUTH LIMITS OF PIERZ TO 4TH AVENUE NORTH -RECONSTRUCT ROADWAY, RC 3 4911-14 25 REPLACE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK, ADD STORM SEWER, UPGRADE CITY 01/22/10 2,633,227 UTILITIES AND INSTALL DECORATIVE LIGHTING. TH 10 TO ST. PAUL PARK RD IN COTTAGE GROVE AND ST. PAUL PARK- RC M 8205-111 61 CONCRETE OVERLAY 01/22/10 24,000,000 0.9 MI S OF LAKE RD IN MAPLEWOOD TO 194 IN WDBRY-UNBONDED CONCRETE RC M 8285-94 494 O'LAY & CONNECT EXISTING AUX LNES TO MAKE CONTINUOUS 6-LANE SECT. 01/22/10 22,000,000 PROJ PART 2 OF 2: UNBONDED CONCRETE OVERLAY'U-R' UNBONDED CONCRETE OVERLAY FROM 2.2 MI. E. T.H. 74 TO 0.5 MI. W. OF W. RC 6 8580-156 90 JCT. T.H. 43 - EB LANES -INCLUDES BRIDGE JOINT WORK ON BR 85820 AND 01/22/10 18,000,000 BRIDGE RAILING WORK ON BR 85824 TH 169 T01000' EAST OF LOUISIANA AVE IN SAVAGE -CONSTRUCT RC M 7001-103 13 INTERCHANGE 02/01/10 5,785,000 RECONSTRUCT FROM SPLIT ROCK RIVER TO CHAPINS CURVE, (BR 8285, 38015, RC 1 3806-60 61 38X06, 38X05, REPAIR BR 9405) 02/12/10 13,800,000 *"ELLA*' FRONTAGE ROAD ALIGNMENT AND SIGNAL AT TH 59 & RYAN'S ROAD RC 7 5304-33 59 IN WORTHINGTON 03115/10 1,010,000 y~ 700 FEET W OF 15TH AVENUE SE INST. CLOUD TO 0.2 MILES E OF JCT TH 24 IN RC (3 \ 7103-51 10 CLEAR LAKE. PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT ON WB LANES, PLUS INTERSECTION 03/26/10 16,920,000 ~J RECONSTRUCTION AT 15TH AVE SE AND TH 24 1 MI N OF HINCKLEY TO 0.9 MI N OF JCT CSAH 33 (SB), UNBONDED RC 1 5880-177 35 CONCRETE/THICK BITUMINOUS OVERLAY 11/19/10 17,655,556 UNBONDED CONCRETE OVERLAY -FROM .5 MI W OF W JCT TH 43 TO 0.8 MI W RC 6 8580-152 90 TH 76 - EB LANES 01/28/11 10,218,935 "FLEA" US FOREST ROUTE 553 TO US FOREST ROUTE 424 (NEW TOMAHAWK RC 1 3801-18 1 ROAD) -PHASE 2 RECONSTRUCTION 03/25/11 5,500,000 NB ONLY -135E/35W SPLIT TO BURNSVILLE PKWY (TIE INTO EXISTING HOV RC M 1981-120 35W LANE) IN BURNSVILLE-CONSTRUCT HOT LANE IN MEDIAN & CONVERT RURAL 06110111 15,000,000 MEDIAN TO URBAN AND CONSTRUCT MEDIAN BARRIER RC M 1301-98 8 SHOOUIST TO E OF CSAH 25 IN LINDSTROM -ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION 07/22111 $,754,696 IN MAPLE PLAIN - E OF CORD 83 TO WEST OF BOUNDARY AVE.-INTERSECTION RC M 2713-88 12 RECONSTRUCTION/SIGNALIZATION BUDD AVE. 11/18/11 1,900,000 October 19, 2009 MC, BR, RC, RD, and RS PROJECTS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2010 AND 2011 BY PROGRAM AND LET DATE Program District Project Number Hwy Description Let Date Cost Estimate RC 1 3115-51 169 POKEGAMA AVENUE, 1ST T010TH ST, GRAND RAPIDS WIDEN, TURN LANES, 12/16/11 4 840 000 ACCESS MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS , , RD M 1923-11 ~ **ELLA**AT INTERSECTION OF TH 50 AND TH 20 IN DOUGLAS TOWNSHIP - 01122110 372 000 REPAIR PIPE AND VAULT , RD 6 2801-80 16 RECLAMATION -FROM HOUSTON (BRIDGE 95111- 0.091 MI. E. OF JCT. T.H. 76) 0182/10 000 5 300 TO HOKAH (0.173 MI. W. OF JCT. T.H. 44) , , RD 2 3604-69 11 200' E OF KOOCH CSAH 4 (FRONTIER) TO CR 83 (WEST OF INDUS) & REPLACE 0182/10 12 000 600 BR 8020; BR 88836 & BR 6316 (3 BOX S) , , RD 1 3116-132 169 0.23 MILES SW OF ITASCA CO CSAH 15 TO 2.8 MILES EAST OF NASHWAUK, 02126110 11 000 210 PAVEMENT RECLAMATION, MILL & OVERLAY , , RD 1 3112-34 65 N LIMITS OF NASHWAUK TO JCT TH 1, PAVEMENT RECLAMATION 0386/10 13,230,000 RD M 7003-12 25 *'ELLA** E FOREST STREET N TO RR TRACKS 1N BELLE PLAINS -EROSION 0386/10 640 000 REPAIR AND RETAINING WALL ON EAST AND WEST SIDE OF TH 25 *U-R* , RD M 1917.40 149 BETWEEN WENTWORTH AND EMERSON AVE IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS -CULVERT 0483/10 275 000 REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT, REPAIR EROSION, CURB AND GUTTER , RD 7 0711-26 83 **ELLA'* RECLAIM & MILL AND OVERLAY FROM TH 30 TO TH 22 (REMOVE 12117110 510 000 8 GUARDRAIL) , , RD 2 3611-34 71 NORTHOME TO MARGIE, RECLAIM 12117/10 6,250,000 RD 2 .6010-26 g "FLEA'" NORMAN/POLK COUNTY LINE TO TH 2, E OF CROOKSTON - 12117110 5 500 000 RESURFACING (BITUMINOUS RECLAIM) , , RD 2 3902-25 11 E JCT TH 72 E OF BAUDETTE TO W LIMITS OF CLEMENTSON 0188/11 7,500,000 RD 4 75010 g 3l4 MI. NORTH OF THE POPEISTEVENS COUNTY LINE TO MORRIS, MILLING AND 0128/11 5 111 200 BIT. SURFACING (TH 329, 2" OVERLAY, SHOULDER PAVING) , , RD 7 0705-19 30 **ELLA** CONCRETE PAVEMENT REHAB FROM BLUE EARTH COUNTY LINE TO 02/25111 1 400 000 BLUE EARTH RIVER , , RD 7 0708-34 60 **ELLA`" CONCRETE PAVEMENT REHAB (MINOR). FROM 0.4 MI W OF S JCT CSAH 0285/11 780 000 20 TO 0.3 MI E OF N JCT CSAH 20 (ALL 4 LANES) , RD 2 2902-39 34 JCT CSAH 4 (E. OF PARK RAPIDS), TO E JCT TH 64 (INCLUDES NEVIS & AKELEY) 0285/11 7 867 500 & ON TH 226 FROM TH 34 TO HUBBARD CSAH 7 (1.5 MI) (DORSET) , , F2D 1 3310-11 70 JCT TH 107 TO JCT TH 361, PAVEMENT RECLAMATION 0285/11 .3,999,149 RD 1 5802-22 123 TH 123 TURNS LEFT TO N JCT TH 23, GRADE RAISE, RECLAIM 0385/11 1,686,000 RD O 0502-103 10 **ELLA** 0.2 MILES S OF CR 33 TO 0.2 MI W OF RR CROSSING IN ST CLOUD (EBL 0580!11 1 043 057 & WBL) DIAMOND GRIND THE ROADWAY SURFACE , , RD 1 5880-173 35 1.0 MILES NORTH OF HINCKLEY TO 0.9 MILES NORTH OF PINE CSAH 33 (NB) - 0983111 9 200 000 THICK BITUMINOUS OVERLAY, CULVERT REPL , , BLACKDOG ROAD TO 1494 IN THE CITY OFBLOOMINGTON - RD M 2782-300 35W REHABILITATIONIREPLACEMENT OF ABOUT 21 DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND 0983111 325,000 CLEANING OF STORMWATER POND *U-R* BETWEEN 194TH ST W (TWP 42) IN EMPIRE TWP AND CANADIAN PACIFIC RR RD M 1921$7 3 BRIDGE NEAR SOUTH LIMITS OF ROSEMOUNT -REPLACE DETERIORATED 11/18/11 240,000 DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE RD 2 0413-33 72 *'ELLA*' WASKISH T011.4 MI N, BITUMINOUS RECLAIM 12/16!11 3,990,000 RD M 2770-01 952,q ON THE 3RD AVE RAMP IN MPLS FROM THE NW END OF BR 27816 N TO JCT OF 12116/11 1 115 000 194 AND WB RAMP FROM WASHINGTON AVE -BUS SHOULDER REPLACEMENT , , RD 8 5105-21 59 MILL & OVERLAY WITH WIDENING BLOCK PLUS FIX "S"CURVE FROM 0.06 MI. N. 12/16/11 4 104 000 OF S. JCT. TH 30 (SLAYTON) TO 0.02 MI S. OF N. JCT. TH 30. , , RS 8 1211-18 212 CONCRETE REHAB FROM W. JCT. TH 23 TO 2.3 MI. E. OF E. JCT. TH 23. 0182/10 927,000 October 19, 2009 MC, BR, RC, RD, and RS PROJECTS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2010 AND 2011 BY PROGRAM AND LET DATE Program District Project ..Number Hwy Description Let Date Cost Estimate RS 6 2005 24 56 BITUMINOUS MILL 8 OVERLAY FROM S. CITY LIMITS OF BROWNSDALE TO 0.35 - MI N CSAH 10 (DODGE CENTER) 01/22/10 5,584,376 RS 6 2006-26 56 WHITETOPPING FROM CSAH 34 TO 0.13 MI. N. OF S. LIMITS OF WEST CONCORD 01122/10. .5,900,000 RS 6 2317 10 74 "ELLA'* BITUMINOUS MILL & OVERLAY FROM JCT T.H. 52 TO CSAH 35 LT. AND - CSAH 35 LT. TO E JCT TH 14 01/22/10 3,382,737 RS 6 2401-38 13 "FLEA'" BITUMINOUS MILL & OVERLAY FROM 0.4 MI. N. I-90 TO T.H. 30 01122/10 3,694,720 RS M 6282-187 94 TH 280 TO WESTERN AVE. IN 5T. PAUL - M/0, DRAINAGE, SHOULDER RECONSTRUCTION, ETC'U-R' 01/22/10 12,000,000 BIT MILL & OVERLAY - FR JCT. T.H. 13 TO 3RD AVE. S.E: (LONSDALE) AND FROM RS 6 6602-25 19 I-35 SB RAMPS TO ARMSTRONG RD. (NORTHFIELD) 8 OVERLAY AND TWO-WAY 01/22/10 5,484,520 TURN LANES AT I-35 AND SIGNAL AT WEST RAMP RS 6 7480-114 35 BITUMINOUS OVERLAY FROM 0.5 MI. N. T.H. 30 T01.13 MI. N. BRIDGE 74804 - SB LANES 01122/10 3,328,000 RS 6 8504 68 61 "FLEA" MEDIUM BITUMINOUS MILL & OVERLAY FROM CSAH 15 LT (HOMER) TO - 0.243 MI S TH 14 (WINONA) 01/22/10 3,520,000 S. ROSELAWN TO WHITE BEAR AVE IN MAPLEWOOD,GEM LK, WHITE BEAR RS M 6222-161 61 LAKE-CONCRETE PAVEMENT REPAIR OR OVERLAY,SHOULDER REHABILITATION, TURN LANE EXTENSIONS, BUS SHOULDERS, ACCESS 02112/10 8,080,000 CLOSURES & SIGNAL REBUILD RS 3 1110 10 84 JCT. TH 371 IN PINE RIVER TO CSAH 2 IN PINE RIVER. MILL & OVERLAY, - UPGRADE PED RAMPS 02/26/10 401,245 RS 8 3402 19 7 3"MILL & OVERLAY, SHOULDERING, AND SAG CORRECTION FROM JCT. TH 71 - TO JCT. TH 4 IN COSMOS. 02/26/10 3,465,000 RS 1 0980-137 35 N END OF BR 09836 OVER TH 27 TO 2.6 MI S OF CSAH 4 (NB), CONCRETE PAVEMENT REPAIR 03/26/10 2,660,000 1.8 MI S OF N PINE CO LINE TO PINE CO LINE (NB & SB) & PINE CO LINE TO THE RS 1 0980-138 35 S END OF BR 69037 OVER TH 27 (NB) & PINE CO LINE TO 2.6 MI S OF CSAH 4 (SB 03126/10 22,430,000 UNBONDED CONCRETE OVERLAY RS 4 1401 137 10 TH 75 TO THE EAST LIMITS OF DILWORTH, MILLING AND BIT. SURFACING (EB - AND WB) (INCLUDES DILWORTH) 03/26/10 4,358,500 RS 1 3116 133 169 "FLEA'" 9TH AVENUE NE IN GRAND RAPIDS TO SOUTH LIMITS OF COLERAINE, - MILL & OVERLAY 03/26/10 2,225,000 BIT MILL & OVERLAY - JCT TH 52 TO MARION RD (15TH AVE SE) IN ROCHESTER RS 6 5502-73 14 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF TH 14 AND CSAH 36 03/26/10 3,200,000 (MARION ROAD); REVISE SIGNALS AT 3RD AV SE RS 4 6101-03 g BENSON TO 3l4 MI. N. OF POPE/STEVENS COUNTY LINE (MILL TO CONCRETE AND 0/L) 03/26/10 4,803,900 RS 3 0115-40 169 FELLA" 1.2 MI N OF GARRISON TO TH 47 IN AITKIN, AND TH 169/TH 210 IN AITKIN. MILL AND OVERLAY, PAVE SHOULDERS. 04/23110 4,959,750 RS 7 3204-64 60 "ELLA"MILL AND OVERLAY FROM 190 TO WILDER 04/23/10 5,520,000 RS M 6225-10 96 *'ELLA*" TH 61 TO TH 95 IN WHITE BEAR LAKE AND STILLWATER -BITUMINOUS MILL AND OVERLAY 04/23/10 5,170,000 RS 2 4511-17 - 220 "fLLA "* 0.14 MI N CSAH 19 (N OF EGF) TO TH 1, (MILL 1.5" AND OVERLAY 3") 05121/10 3,800,000 RS ~ 7102-120 10 "'FLEA"" 0.2 MILES E OF W LIMITS BIG LAKE TO NORFOLK AVENUE IN ELK RIVER. (EB & WB) MILL & OVERLAY, PAVE SHOULDERS, UPGRADE PED RAMPS. 05128/10 6,769,664 October 19, 2009 MC, BR, RC, RD, and RS PROJECTS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2010 AND 2011 BY PROGRAM AND LET DATE Program -.District Pr°~ect Number H~ Description Let Date Cost Estimate RS 3 8605-48 25 FROM BR 86803 AT JCT I-94 TO BR 71012 OVER MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN 07/25/10 848 423 MONTICELLO (NB 8 SB). MILL & OVERLAY, REPLACE DETERIORATED C&G , RS M 1901-154 13 0.2 MILES SOUTH OF 1494 TO 1494 IN EAGAN -MILL AND OVERLAY, GUARDRAIL AND DRAINAGE 10/22/10 290,000 RS 2 4501-40 1 0.8 MI EAST OF BR 9100 (NEAR OSLO) TO WARREN -RESURFACING (1.5' MILL & 3"BIT OVERLAY) 10/22/10 3,000,000 RS 4 1410-15 g MILL AND OVERLAY FROM TH10 TO THE NORTH CLAY COUNTY LINE, INCLUDING BRIDGES 6415, 6416, 6417 11/19/10 12,146,500 RS M 2781-415 94 NICOLLET AVENUE TO THE HENNEPIN/RAMSEY COUNTY LINE -MILL AND 11/19/10 715 5 000 OVERLAY, DRAINAGE, ETC , , RS 3 3311-09 107 ISANTI/KANABEC CO. LINE TO TH 23. MILL AND OVERLAY, PAVE SHOULDERS. 11/19/10 3 275 468 ATP 3 FUNDING FROM KANABECIPINE CO. LINE TO TH 23. , , RS 8 4209-24 59 1.5" OVERLAY FROM LYON CSAH 33 TO YELLOW MEDICINE CSAH 3. 11/19/10 2,126,925 RS 8 6511-38 212 MILL & OVERLAY FROM JCT. CSAH 16 TO JCT CSAH 8 (BUFFALO LAKE). 12117110 5,292,000 RS 3 7380-222 94 MILL & OVERLAY, PAVE SHOULDERS FROM 0.7 MILES EAST OF ALBANY TO CR ' 12/17/10 4 307 520 159 AT ST. JOHN S (EB & WB) , , RS M 1002-89 5 0.2 MI W OF CARVER CSAH 11 IN VICTORIA TO 0.1 MI E OF TH 41 IN 0128/11 4 350 000 CHANHASSEN -BITUMINOUS MILL & OVERLAY, ADD TURN LANES, ETC *U-R* , , RS 3 1810-95 371 DESIGN DRIVE IN BAXTER TO NISSWA (NB & SB). MILL & OVERLAY, PAVE 0128/11 10 553 580 SHOULDERS, CONSTRUCT LEFT TURN LANES , , RS 6 2307-18 43 BITUMINOUS MILL 8 OVERLAY FROM N. END BR. 23022 (RUSHFORD) TO W. JCT. I-90 0128/11 1,843,925 RS 6 2803-29 44 BITUMINOUS MILL 8 OVERLAY FROM E. CITY LIMITS OF SPRING GROVE TO 0128/11 2 970 000 CSAH 12 (CALEDONIA) , , RS 6 2807-18 76 *' ELLA'* BITUMINOUS MILL 8 OVERLAY FROM N. JCT. T.H. 44 TO E. JCT. T.H. 16 0128/11 2,280,399 RS 6 5008-30 218 90 LLA'* BITUMINOUS MILL 8 OVERLAY FROM IOWAIMN STATE LINE TO E. JCT I- 0128/11 3 800 000 , , RS 6 5580 86 90 "" ELLA'" BITUMINOUS MILL & OVERLAY FROM 1.0 MI. E. OF JCT. T.H. 63 T01.7 - MI. E. CSAH 19 (SE OF EYOTA) - WB LANES 0128111 3,200,000 RS M 6215-91 51 "'ELLA** WEST 7TH STREET TO DAYTON AVENUE IN ST. PAUL -BITUMINOUS MILL AND OVERLAY *U-R* 0128/11 1,335,000 RS ~ (3 1 7306-95 2g NORTH JCT. TH 15 T0191/2 ST IN ST. CLOUD. EB & WB. MILL AND OVERLAY. 01/28/11 1 086 824 U NIGHT WORK ONLY , , RS 8 3403-67 12 MILL TO CONCRETE & 2" OVERLAY FROM 6TH ST. E. IN WILLMAR TO W. OF JCT. TH 71 (BEG. OF CONC.). 0225/11 432,000 RS 2 3513-11 220 **ELLA'* ON TH 220 FROM TH 1 TO THE JCT TH 11 (2" MILL & INLAY) & ON TH 317 0225/11 5 600 000 FROM E END BR 5872 TO TH 220 , , RS 3 4901-74 10 BEG. LITTLE FALLS BYPASS TO END LITTLE FALLS BYPASS. MILL & OVERLAY, PAVE SHOULDERS. EB & WB LANES. 0225111 3,426,935 RS o3 4902-59 10 4.5 MI N OF TH 115 S OF GUSHING TO 2.7 MI W OF TH 371 AT LITTLE FALLS 02/25111 383 191 7 BYPASS. MILL & OVERLAY, PAVE SHOULDERS, INSTALL RUMBLE STRIPS. , , RS 1 6917-127 53 *"ELLA** NB FROM 1.1 MI SOUTH OF JCT CSAH 52 TO PALEFACE RIVER BRIDGE 0225/11 056 000 1 69019 NORTH OF COTTON, THICK BITUMINOUS OVERLAY , , RS 8 3407-22 9 3" M&0 FROM JCT. TH 23 T01 ST AVE NW IN NEW LONDON. 0325/11 324,000 5 October 19, 2009 MC, BR, RC, RD, and RS PROJECTS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2010 AND 2011 BY PROGRAM AND LET DATE Program District Protect Number Hwy Description Let Date Cost Estimate "'FLEA"' N END OF BR 60021 (N OF CLIMAX) TO CROOKSTON, (1.5" MILL & 3.0" RS 2 6012-44 75 OVERLAY) 03125/11 3,100,000 CR 661181 IN PAYNESVILLE TO 0.4 MI. WEST OF E JCT. TH 4. BITUMINOUS RS 7314-34 55 OVERLAY. 03/25/11 1,192,294 RS 4 2604-06 27 HERMAN TO HOFFMAN, BIT. SURFACING 03/26/11 5,668,200 RS 7 4306-15 22 MILL AND OVERLAY FROM N END OF GAYLORD TO TH 212 (PRESERVE 04/22/11 2 850 000 GUARDRAIL) , , ""FLEA"" PIERCE BUTLER ROUTE IN ST PAUL TO TH 36 IN ROSEVILLE - RS M 6215-90 51 CONCRETE PAVEMENT REHAB, DRAINAGE 04/22/11 1,700,000 135W TO 1694 IN ARDEN HILLS AND MOUNDS VIEW -MILL AND OVERLAY, RS M 6205-37 10 DRAINAGE'U-R" 06/10/11 2,700,000 ON TH888A (OLD TH8) FROM COUNTY ROAD D AND THE JCT 135W IN NEW RS M 6284-145 35W BRIGHTON - BOC OVERLAY 10/28/11 560,000 AT INTERSECTION OF TH 110 AND 135E IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS -CONCRETE RS M 1918-102 110 PAVEMENT REPAIR, MILL 8 OVERLAY, DRAINAGE, GUARDRAIL, BRIDGE DECK 10/28/11 1,100,000 REPAIR ON 9537 & 9538 E JCT 494 IN BLOOMINGTON TO WHEELER AVE INST. PAUL -MAINLINE RS M 2732-93 5 CONCRETE PAVEMENT REHAB, BIT M/0 RAMPS/SHOULDERS, BRIDGE REPAIR 10/28/11 2,420,000 ON 9155, 9300, 9489-91, 27027, DRAINAGE, GUARDRAIL RS 4 5601-31 210 TH 75 T01.8 MI. E. OF THE E. WILKIN CO. LINE (MILL AND BITUMINOUS 11/18111 5 528 200 SURFACING) , , 0.2 MILES SOUTH OF LONE OAK RD TO RAMSEY COUNTY LINE IN ST. PAUL, RS M 1982-150 35E EAGAN, MENDOTA HTS AND LILYDALE - 4" OVERLAY AND CONCRETE 11/18/11 7,720,000 PAVEMENT REPAIR WASHINGTON AVE TO 53RD AVE N (NOT INCLUDING AREA FROM 27TH TO 37TH RS M 0207-95 65 AVE) - 2"MILL AND OVERLAY 11/18/11 5,250,000 MILL & OVERLAY WITH 4.5" FROM GRANT ST. IN MINNEOTA TO W. JCT. TH 59 RS 8 42100 68 (MARSHALL). 11/18111 4,104,000 RS 4 1403-24 32 TH 10 TO THE NORTH CLAY COUNTY LINE (MILL AND OVERLAY) 12/16/11 5,100,900 BR BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT MC MAJOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT RC RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT RD RECONDITION PROJECT RS RESURFACE PROJECT ELLA EARLY LET -LATE AWARD (AWARDED AFTER JUNE 30TH) AC ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 6 Ocfober 79, 2009 Project Location Project Qualifying Criteria 1. 2. Is the project INlth the mealmum consistent with coMrlbutlon at 520 Cordrlbutlon from sources besides MNDOT adopted regional, million from Non-Mn/DOT county, and LGUleconomlc Chapter162 and Chapter 36 funding, Requestetl tlollar contributlon Total project cost Proposed project location developmerd plans, are the remalnlnp amount (millions) (millions). (millions) Resuh: 1 D3 I-94 at Wright CSAH 19 Yes Yes $5.44 $4.03 $9.47 Funded: $5.44 , and CSAH 37 (Albertville) million This is a proposal to modify existing interchanges and wnstruct a colleetorvdistributor '1 D3 TH10/169at167th Yes No: Thawl"at'°nCommmeedet®mtinedavaluahonottn~sapplranonshoutdrmt t Th go 2 6 Is not sa e epp ca n isfied. emceed i>ecauee Project Oualifging Gritenon Avenue NW (Elk River) No dose not indicate commitments have been made to fund the remaining portions Not Funded commitments °' me pr°ie~ - - -- 3 D3 TH 15 at 33rd Street S Yes Yes $10.00 $6.90 $16.90 Not Funded (Saint Cloud-Waite Park) 4 D3 TH 15 at Steams CSAH Yes Yes $10.00 $3.00 $17.50 Funded: $10 million 120 (Saint Cloud-Sartell) 5. D4 TH 10 at Otter Tail Yes Yes $5.40 $0.26 $6.64 Not Funded CSAH 34 (1 mile west of Perham) 6 D4 TH 29 at 50th Avenue ? Yes '>'+~ Evamatron Commjtteadetermh+ed avaluaeonor irns appticecion should noc t Not Funded l t 'F' c o u a (Alexandria) ntena oa e ro~ectouaiirymo esnot#nd sethe oWicatrontf Ar+soeadeeca and a ere 5ena~d and ~~eSE,n~z .9 n°t a pmposai to oonrr°ot an interchange ~ D6 TH 52 at 65th Street NW Yes Yes $10.00 $12.75 $22.75 Not Funded (Rochester) 8 D6 TH 52 at Olmsted CSAH Yes Yes $20.00 $14.77 $50.35 Funded, but for 12 (Pine Island) $14.56 million 9 D6 TH 52 at Goodhue CSAH Yes Yes $20.00 $6.90 $27.90 Not Funded 24 (Cannon Falls) 10 D7 TH 14 at Nicollet CSAH YQS NO: The Evaluatwn Commitlea tletertmned evaluattpn of this appllcabon shouli3ndt I n fi d Th i ~ i i ' 41 (0.5 mile west of North Requesting s ot saus a e rema n ng r tanon 2 prnc®ed because ProlecTOuahfemg funding tlepends on a request for HPP funds. ~ Not Funded Mankato) HPP 11. D7 TH 14 at Blue Earth Yes Yes $15.00 $6.40 $21.40 Not Funded CSAH 12 (East limit Mankato) 12 D7 TH 169 at Le Sueur Yes Yes $3.96 $2.08 $6.03 Not Funded CSAH 28 /Pumpkin Hill Road (Le Sueur) 13. D8 TH 23 at Kandiyohi CSAH Yes Yes $10.90 $0.00 $12.94 Not Funded 5 (1.5 mi. SW of Willmar) Chapter 152 Greater Minnesota Interchange Program 1 of 1 June 25, 2009