Police Advisory Commission Minutes 12/14/2001I-94 Interregional Corridor (IRC) Study
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting #3
Thursday, December 14, 2001, 6:30 PM
Monticello Community Center
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
PAC Attendees:
Name
Orjzanization
Phone Number
Sonja Berg
St. Cloud APO
320-253-5437
Don Dorf
Silver Creek Township
763-878-2246
Kate Drewry
Minnesota DNR
651.772.7946
Rick Holman
Lynden Township
320-558-2980
Jim McCarthy
FHWA
651-291-6112
Russell Nelson
Silver Creek Township
763-878-2260
Dick Rieder
Clearwater Township
320-558-2434
Ken Scadden
Monticello Township
763-295-5269
Others in Attendance:
Name
Organization
Phone Number
Terry Humbert
Mn/DOT
320-654-5520
Lynne Bly
Mn/DOT
651-582-1235
Jack Forslund
URS Corporation
612-373-6512
Loren Polonsky
URS Corporation
612-373-6441
John Crawford
URS Corporation
612-373-6871
At approximately 6:30 PM, Terry Humbert of Mn/DOT called the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance. After re -introductions, Jack Forslund of URS
Corporation provided an overview of the I-94 IRC Study process and schedule through the end of January,
2002. Jack said the Project Team would produce a draft report on January 31 which will among other
things:
■ Evaluate the transportation alternatives for I-94;
■ Determine the impacts the proposed interchanges will have on the roadway system; and
■ Estimate the costs of the roadway improvement measures.
Jack said the Project Team will meet twice each with the Technical Advisory Committees for their
comments and review leading up to the end of January.
With respect to the land use issue, Jack said the Project Team plans to revisit the land use associated with
the potential interchanges examined previously in the study to ensure that those interchanges meet long-
term mobility needs.
TA3270715APUBLIC INVOLVEMENTPAC meetings\PAC Meeting No 3 Minutes 12-14-01.doc
Jack next discussed the 2025 operational characteristics of the I-94 IRC transportation alternatives
(distributed in memo) with PAC members. Those alternatives include:
■ Base Network: Existing (E) plus Committed (C) Transportation Improvements,
■ Alternative 1: Improved Local Arterial System
■ Alternative 2: Expansion of I-94 to 8-lanes between I-494/694 and TH 241
■ Alternative 3: Improved Local Arterial System (Alt. 1) plus I-94 Expansion to 8-lanes (Alt. 2)
■ Alternative 4: Improved Local Arterial System (Alt. 1) plus I-94 Expansion to 10-lanes (limits of
expansion)
Jack introduced a map displaying the 25 arterial improvement projects that TAC and PAC indicated would
occur through the Year 2025. That information was included in the model for Alternatives 1, 2 and 4. Jack
also discussed the results of the Project Team's analysis with respect to the performance of the four
alternatives-- looking at such measures as level of service (LOS), projected travel speeds and the
congestion index. In summary, Jack indicated that the arterial improvement projects, which were identified
in coordination with the TAC members, are expected to have a considerable impact on the supporting
transportation network of I-94. Other conclusions from the model include:
■ Although the transportation improvements to the Local Arterial System, as designated for Alternative
1, will provide considerable opportunities for improved mobility in the region, it is not expected to
attain the IRC goal of 60 mph independently.
■ Alternative 2, which includes the expansion of 1-94 to 8-lanes between I-494/694 and TH 241 but no
improvements to the local arterial system, is not expected attain the speed goals as found in the speed
prediction analysis.
■ Alternative 4, which included an expansion of I-94 to 10-lanes between I-494/694 and TH 241, may be
excessive because of its projected impacts on daily traffic.
■ Alternative 3, which incorporates the improved local arterial system (Alternative 1) with the expansion
of I-94 to 8 travel lanes (Alternative 2), appears to be the best of the four evaluated alternatives. This
alternative meets the guidelines set by the IRC program, has the highest system -wide average speed of
35.05 mph, and seems the most feasible option for attaining the corridor travel speed goal of at least
60-mph.
One committee member suggested the 2001 base travel speed for Segment 1 (I-494 to TH 101) appeared
too low. Terry said the 67.5 miles per hour represented the peak period traffic only.
With respect to the alternatives, Terry asked the Project Team to evaluate and model a fifth alternative that
would comprise the I-94 expansion of eight lanes to Monticello and six lanes from Monticello to TH 24 in
Clearwater. Jack agreed to this request. -
Jack asked committee members whether there were any other arterial improvements anticipated for the
region. One committee member indicated that another 80 acres of parkland is being considered near the
intersection of CSAH 44 and CSAH 8 near Lynden and Clearwater Townships.
Another committee member asked the Project Team whether the model included the Northstar Corridor
commuter rail line's impact on congestion along I-94. John Crawford of URS Corporation responded that
Northstar ridership is projected to have only 10,000 riders per day which will only pull a limited number of
commuters off of I-94. Jack responded that the Northstar Corridor would have the greatest impact on
traffic on the east side of the Mississippi River along Highway 10.
TA3270715APUBLIC INVOLVEMENRPAC meetings\PAC Meeting No 3 Minutes 1244-01.doc
Another committee member asked if the proposed Dayton -Ramsey river crossing was included in the
model. Terry responded that neither Dayton/Ramsey nor the D3 potential river crossing were included in
this particular model. Lynne Bly pointed out that if a river crossing moves forward, construction will be
beyond the planning horizon for the I-94 study.
Jack indicated that the next meeting would focus on the costs associated with each of the alternatives and
the impact of additional access or interchanges on each alternative's performance. This information will be
reported in a memorandum that will be distributed in mid -January, 2002.
One committee member asked the Project Team if the results of the study would encourage individuals to
further Iive and work outside of the Twin Cities. Jack answered that the purpose of the study is not to
shape land use decisions but to show residents along the corridor what the transportation system will look
like in the future and what actions can be taken to improve mobility and accessibility along I-94.
Another committee member asked the Project Team how the new interchanges are being funded. Terry
responded that Mn/DOT is not currently funding any new interchanges along I-94 with the exception of
one in St. Cloud that is funded partially by Mn/DOT with the bulk of funding coming from the City and
County. Terry also said that a new D3 river crossing would induce a new interchange along I-94.
The Project Team and PAC agreed to meet next on Thursday, January 17, 2002 at 6:30 PM at the
Monticello Community Center.
The Policy Advisory Committee meeting concluded at approximately 8:00 PM.
For those PAC members unable to attend the December 14, 2001 meeting, Mn/DOT requested the Project
Team mail out all materials distributed to attending members. Mn/DOT also asked the Project Team to
mail a notice of the 1/17102 meeting along with the minutes of the 12114101 meeting to all PAC members
following the Christmas Holiday with a follow-up call reminding them of the January 17, 2002 PAC
meeting.
T.-\32707154\PUBLIC INVOLVEMENRPAC meetings\PAC Meeting No 3 Minutes 12-14-01 _doc