8.1. SR 05-04-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MnDOT Contract No. 1028386 Work Order No. 1 Exhibit B Detailed Scope of Work and Deliverables 15 Connecting Roadways and Subarea Transportation Infrastructure (Future Considerations) The connecting roadways and subarea intersections where detailed turning movement data is collected will be reviewed under future conditions as well to determine if significant changes are anticipated due to access modifications and travel pattern shifts within the area. If it is determined that substantive travel pattern shifts will negatively affect these intersections, appropriate system improvements or intersection geometric modifications will be recommended. A technical memorandum will be prepared documenting the existing, year 2025, 2035, and year 2045 operations analysis, traffic, and recommended intersection improvements. This document will provide all the needed information that an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) needs, but since this is a planning study, ICE reports are not needed at this time. TASK 7 – CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT, ANALYSIS AND SCREENING/ EVALUATION Corridor Alternatives Development Based upon the identified issues, safety and operational analysis, SEE analysis, stakeholder input, land use options and overall corridor goals, we will develop a range of alternatives. The consultant team will take into account the upstream and downstream corridor concepts and ensure that the range of solutions considered under this effort align with the overall corridor goals and are consistent with driver expectations. At this point in the concept development process a reasonable number of alternatives will be developed and reviewed. The consultant team will categorize the options in four key categories, although we are open to discussion with the PMT on our strategy. These include: 1. No build – limited to no investment: “understand what issues occur if no investment is done” 2. Lower-cost (shorter term) solutions – modification of at-grade options (Rcuts, refined signalization, super street) 3. Moderate cost (mid-term) solutions – frontage and backage roads in combination with buttonhooks and overpasses 4. Higher cost (long-term) solutions – frontage and backage roads with full freeway type standards In order to minimize effort and streamline the screening process, the preliminary multimodal corridor concept alternatives will be screened prior to laying out full plan view layouts of the access alternatives and potential system improvements. The preliminary access configurations and local transportation system concepts will be screened down to two to three select multimodal corridor concept alternative layouts based on the corridor vision and identified issues. These select concepts will prepared in ConceptStation/Infraworks, which provides preliminary construction limits and a visualization of the concept. These visualizations can also be presented at various stakeholder and public meetings. From ConceptStation/Infraworks, it is an efficient transition to preliminary engineering, modeling, and further development of State’s Level 1 layout(s) for the select alternative. The consultant team will coordinate with State’s Metro Layout Approval Committee (LAC) and Geometric design Support Unit (GDSU) to review these alternative layouts. The consultant teams conceptual layouts will be prepared consistent with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines (i.e., first seek to avoid, then minimize, then mitigate). In addition, order of magnitude cost estimates will be prepared. Throughout this process, the consultant team will work with local planners and engineers to coordinate the alignments with future land use plans and to identify access or traffic operational issues and development opportunities/conflicts. The concept layouts will document each alternatives relationship to existing roadways, wetlands, floodplains, waterways/ditches, major utilities, buildings, and other known features. The layouts will identify horizontal alignments (design speed, sight distance, and superelevation), vertical alignments (stopping sight distance on crest curves, drainage issues on sag curves), typical cross sections, stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs), utilities, and ROW width in accordance with State specifications (see Major Design Considerations on page 18). These features represent the basic factors that must be understood by the various stakeholders so they can ascertain right-of-way acquisition needs, impacts to structures, and general effects on federal and state locational factors.