The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About13.D.1. Update on C.R. 77 Trail Extension to T.H. 169 Bridge /3~ D. /, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Update on C.R. 77 Trail Extension to T.H. 169 Bridge DATE: August 8, 2007 INTRODUCTION: Attached to this m~mo is an e-mail and drawing from Victoria Nill, south area engineer with Mn/DOT in regard to the MN/DOT permit needed to extend the trail along C.R. 77. The purpose of this memo is to update the Council on the progress of extending the trail on c.R. 77, as previously authorized. BACKGROUND: At the July 3, 2007 City Council meeting, the Council approved a change order with Northwest Asphalt, who is doing the work for the 2007 Trail Improvement Project. The change approved was to extend the existing bituminous trail along C.R. 77 to just south of the T.H. 169 bridge. After getting Council authorization to install the trail, staff did submit a permit application to Mn/DOT to work in their right-of-way. Mn/DOT did review our request and the attached e-mail has indicated that if this pedestrian trail is to be extended, additional work will be needed on C.R. 77 bridge crossing over T.H. 169. Upon receiving this e-mail, staff has set a meeting with Mn/DOT officials as well as Scott County Public Works Director and the County Engineer to discuss the alternatives and options available to make this trail connection. This meeting will be held on August 7,2007 and staff can provide a verbal update to City Council on August 8th. The purpose of this agenda item is to update the City Council as to the progress of extending the trail along C.R. 77 to the T.H. 169 bridge. It appears to staff that it would be very difficult to prepare plans, receive Mn/DOT approval and construct any bridge improvements as well as extending the trail for this year's construction season. The best course of action may be to be to see what option for trail connection is best for the State, County and the City and bring that back later this winter for a possible bridge/trail extension project in 2008. Also, one of the options is for a separate trail bridge in which the City did apply for Federal funding and wait to see if that application qualifies for Federal funding in 2008. If Federal funds are obtained, the trail/bridge funding would be available in 2011-2012. AL TERNA TIVES: 1. Receive this update report and provide staff direction. 2. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that we coordinate a meeting with Mn/DOT, County and the City in order to decide on a preferred option for a trail connection on C.R. 77 over T.H. 169. At this time it does not seem possible for the trail to be extended unless there is work done on the bridge over T.H. 169, which would take additional time to accomplish. A bridge/trail extension could possibly done in 2008, if approvals are obtained from Mn/DOT. Scott County has indicated a willingness to participate in the funding in the bridge/trail improvements for 2008. ACTION REOUESTED: Receive the updated report and provide staff any further direction that Council desires. kLone . RB. Public Wor irector BUpmp ENGR/2007PROJECT/2007COUNCJL.MEMOS/C.R.77-TRAll. Bruce Loney From: Victoria NiII [Victoria.Nill@dot.state.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1 :38 PM To: Bruce Loney; Jeff Evens Cc: Lynn Clarkowski; Sheila Kauppi Subject: Highway 169/County Road 77 in Shakopee Attachments: br70012_rep. pdf ,. "'"~ br70012_rep.pdf (62 KB) Bruce, Thank you for your continued interest in working towards making the roadways safer for pedestrian, bicyclists and motorist alike. From our conversation today, I understand that the jurisdiction of County Road 77 in the vicinity of Highway 169 is going to change to the City of Shakopee and that the City is interested in making the bridge more pedestrian friendly. I still need to discuss this with our Traffic Department but have received the following guidance from our Bridge Department. Attached is a document showing two options that the City could do to accommodate the pedestrian trail without widening the bridge. Both options require realigning County Road 77 and reducing the shoulders to 6' (which is the minimum width based on ADT between 150-1999) . (1 ) At 55 MPH, barrier separation would be required. This is shown in the middle of the attached sketch. (2) At 35 MPH, an 8" barrier curb and sidewalk could be installed. This is shown at the bottom of the sketch. It appears to us that Option (1) with barrier-separated trail would be the best choice for any roadway speed. Option (2) may be more costly and more problematic in terms of the bridge retrofit details. If County Road 77 can't be realigned, either the bridge would need to be widened or a separate parallel pedestrian bridge would need to be built. If you'd like to discuss more specific details of the options, let me know. Thanks, Tori Nill South Area Engineer 651-234-7723 1 46'-2" (OUT TO OUT Of BRIDGE DECKl 1'-8" 9'-5" 12'-0" 12'-0" 9'-511 1'-8" SHOULOER SHOUL DER 2" 1'-6" 1'-6" 2" CO. RD. 77 PROfiLE GRADE S. CROWN -E- 2% - WEST SlOE EAST SIDE INPLACE TRANSVERSE SECTION 46'-2" (OUT TO OUT Of BRIDGE DECK) 1'-8" 6'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 6'-0" 1'-6" 6'-0" 1'-0" SHOULDER SHOULDER BIKE TRAIL 2" 1'-6" 3'-5" J~ .-- II CO. RD. 77 I :?~ <D-' z 2% ~ =< - x u WEST SIDE EAST SIDE PROPOSED TRANSVERSE SECTION (GREA TER THAN 40 MPH) 46'-2" lOUT TO OUT 0, BRIDCE DECK) 1'-8" 6'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 6'-0'1 8'-8" SHOULDER SHOULDER I 2" 1'-6" 3'-5" 7'-6" 1'-0' 2" BIKE TRAIL '? "" I u z ;:.., "" .-- II CO. RD. 77 ... I t ~ N -E- ~ ~ ~ WEST SIDE EAST SlOE PROPOSED TRANSVERSE SECTION (LESS THAN 40 MPHl TITLE. DES. - --- DR. RWS APPROVED. CERTIFIED BY PROPOSED CHK. CHK, TCS BRIDGE NO. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ----- REG. NO. 20 TRANSVERSE SECTION SHEET NO. 1 OF 1 SHEETS 70012