HomeMy WebLinkAbout16.A. Update of CR 21 Project and Project Issues
Jb.fJ,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Update ofC.R. 21 Project and Discussion of Project Issues
DATE: July 1, 2008
INTRODUCTION:
This memorandum is intended to update the City Council on the C.R. 21 design, from
CSAH 42 to CSAH 18 and discussion of the issues on the project.
BACKGROUND:
City staff has been meeting with the County and their consultant on the C.R. 21 design
for the past year. Much of the preliminary design is complete and the County will be
asking the City for approval of the geometries, lane configuration and access locations
before obtaining the necessary right-of-way.
C.R. 21, from CSAH 42 to CSAH 18, has had a EIS completed and this process
determined that a four-lane roadway with turn lanes should be constructed. Staff will
present a brief overview of the design at the meeting before discussions of the major
Issues.
From the preliminary design, staff has identified the following items for discussion with
the Council:
. C.R. 21 Access to Hansen A venue and Shakopee Crossings Commercial District
. Tree Removal and Tree Replacement
. Parcel 75/Fire Station Location
. Park and Trail Issues
. Project Cost
. Transit Site Location (Separate Memo from Michael Leek)
. Preliminary Approval of Geometries, Lane Configuration and Access Locations
C.R. 21 Access to Hansen Avenue
Attached is a Work Scope Proposal from CH2MHill, County consultant, on a study of
three concepts for better access to the areas east of C.R. 21 for the Cities of Shakopee and
Savage. Also attached is the City's response letter to the Work Scope Proposal. In
general, this study has not been ordered by the County and will take up to three months to
complete once ordered. The County believes this access issue is separate from the C.R.
21 project, however, agrees that a study should be done and will be asking for a cost
share from the City of Shakopee. Council can discuss this proposal and weigh in on the
study content, timeline and cost sharing in the study.
Tree Removal and Tree Replacement
In the City of Shakopee, a total of 1,801 trees are proposed to be removed, thus a total of
819 trees are to be replaced, per City Ordinance. The County agreed to follow the City's
Ordinance during the EIS process. This item is more an informational item, however, the
County will need to prepare a tree replacement plan and will be working with staff on the
plan. Attached is the calculation sheet on the tree removal and replacement.
Parcel 75/Fire Station Location
The City is still trying to acquire Parcel 75 with the assistance of the County who is
working with Mn/DOT to facilitate the transaction. Staff has met with the Fire Station
Building Committee and a fire station located on Parcel 75 is desired than the site at C.R.
21 and Pike Lake Road. Attached is a concept drawing showing how the fire station
could fit on Parcel 75. Council should discuss the proposal of relocating the fire station
site to Parcel 75 and provide direction. The County can use the site on Pike Lake Road
for wetland mitigation and ponding. Negotiations, so far, have been for the County to
accept the Holmes Street bridge, City obtain Parcel 75, County to receive funds from City
for Mn/DOT pond construction and land for wetland mitigation and ponding. To date
there is no agreement with Mn/Dot.
Park and Trail Issues
C.R. 21 will be located next to Shutrop Park. The County has agreed to construct an
underground pedestrian tunnel to connect residential property with the park. The PRAB
has reviewed alternatives for the pedestrian crossing particularly the flume end treatments
and fencing design. The PRAB recommends a standard flume end treatment and
ornamental fencing by the flume ends. The higher quality fencing would be at the City's
cost and at an estimated amount of $9,000.00. The County is requesting a letter of
support to construct the trail outside of C.R. 21 right-of-way. The cost of the trail and
underpass is by the County.
Other park issues are the removal of trees and easements needed to construct C.R. 21 and
sanitary sewer and water lines and access to the park. Staff will address these issues at
the meeting.
Proiect Cost
The current estimate has the City paying $1,700,000 towards the project. The cost is to
be paid by Capital Improvement Funds and State Aid Funds. The City's cost is for ~ of
curb & gutter, storm sewer, bituminous trail and traffic control signal. Previously, the
City asked the County to utilize Federal funds to lower the cost of the project for both the
City and the County.
The Federal funds that can be applied to the City's costs is estimated at $562,900.00.
Utilities for Shutrop Park is estimated at $73,000.00 and to be paid by Park Reserve
Funds. The remainder of the project cost to the City is $1,035,850.00, based on Federal
Funding applied to City cost items.
Transit Site Cost and Location
Michael Leek has a separate memo addressing this issue.
Preliminary Ap-proval of Geometries. Lane Confi!!uration and Access
Locations
Scott County Highway staff has started a new procedure in which municipal jurisdictions
are asked for preliminary approval on major projects before proceeding to obtain right-of-
way. In the case of C.R. 21 in Shakopee, most of the right-of-way has been purchased
except south of CSAH 16. This land is currently owned by Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community and the County is in negotiations for this land. Staff s opinion is that
the Council give direction on the project and decide whether or not to grant preliminary
approval until all the issues have been addressed. County staff would request from the
City Council, a preliminary approval resolution in August.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Discuss the project issues and provide staff direction on this project.
4ey,p,'
Public Works Hector
BUpmp
ENGR/2008-PROJECTS/2008-COUNCILICSAH21-1SSUES
"
"
"
SHAKOPEE
June 20, 2008
Lezlie Vennillion, Public Works Director
Scott County Highway Department
600 Country Trail East
Jordan,:MN 55352
RE: Scott County - THl69, TH13, and CHl8/2l Interchange Area Concept Development
City of Shakopee Comments.
Dear Lezlie:
Thank. you for the opportunity to comment on the Work Scope for the TH169, TH13, and
CH18/21 Interchange area concept development study. We also appreciate the opportunity to
have met with Howard Preston of CH2:MHill before fmalizing our comments.
In general, we believe the following comments are important for a study to meet expectations
and for fmding a solution:
l) Inclusion for analysis of a concept for either a % intersection or right in right out
intersection of CR21 and Hansen A venue with signalization for the northbound lanes of
CH21. Modification ofthe TH13 ramps to CH21 may be necessary.
2) We agree that getting traffic counts information on the TH13 ramp from CH21 is
important, and that relocating this ramp is another good concept to consider and analyze
as a part of this study.
3) In analyzing the concepts, there should be consideration of both the short term and long
term roadway functioning and impacts ofthe concepts to be analyzed of the area east of
CH 18 and north of Crossings Blvd..
4) An agreement on where the freeway ends/begins is important on analyzing each concept.
It is the City's belief that the designation of freeway should begin at the ramps to TH 169
and 13.
5) The study should assume the land use guiding currently in place for undeveloped land
and attendant traffic generation at full development.
On the specification tasks, our comments are as follows:
Task 1: Data Gathering
A) Gathering data on the TH13 ramps is very important to this study.
B) Task 1.4 - How will this identification of a preliminary set of goals and adjustments be
[Type text]
COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857
129 Holmes Street South' Shakopee, Minnesota. 55379-1351 . 952-233-9300 . FAX 952-233-3801 . www,cLshakopee.mn.us
"
'"
done? Will they be discussed at the kick~offPMT meeting?
C) The initial kick-offPMT meeting will be an important meeting for all stakeholders to
attend.
Task 2: Preliminary Sketch Layout Development & Technical Analysis
A) Should the intersection of CH2l/Hansen A venue be analyzed with SYNCHRO vs.
CORSIM? Is one better than the other for intersection analysis?
Task 3: Find Sketch Layouts and Proiect Report
, A) The initial Draft Project Report should be submitted to all project partners prior to
drafting of the fInal draft report and before fmal PMT meeting in the report.
Task 4: Proiect Management
A) Need a project tinieline for completion on the study once approved.
B) A cost share needs to be determined soon in order for the City to agree on the study and
get Council approval.
From tbis scope, it is a goal of the City to determine the necessary improvements
(implementation plan) in order to provide greater local access for tbis area of Shakopee and
Savage. We again appreciate the opportunity to review the scope, and look forward in
participating on tbis important study for the City of Shakopee.
Sincerely,
~~
Bruce Loney, P.E
Public Works Director
cc: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Michael Leek, Community Development Director
Barry Stock, City of Savage
J olm Powell, City of Savage
BL/llj
[Type text]
Scott County - TH 169, TH 13 and CH 18/21 Interchange Area Concept Development
WORK SCOPE
Task 1. Data Gathering
1.1 Obtain current AM, PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes on TH 169, TH
13, CH 18/21, interchange ramps, Crossings Boulevard and Stagecoach Trail.
1.2 Based on the availability of current traffic count information, collect new
volume information as necessary (assume four tube count locations).
1.3 Obtain forecasts of future AM, PM and daily traffic volumes on the roadways
in the vicinity of the interchange area. Project level forecasts will be
determined based on a review of volumes from both the County's 2030
Model and the Met Council's Regional Travel Model, with minor
adjustments as necessary to account for specific development in the
immediate Interchange Area.
1.4 Identify a preliminary set of goals and objectives associated with enhancing
local access to the regional highway system and to generate three initial
concept alternatives (hand drawn on aerial photo base). The original
Interchange Workshop documents will be used as a reference for generating
the preliminary goals and objectives and the initial concept alternatives.
1.5 Participate in a kick-off Project Management Team (PMT) meeting. Provide
County staff with assistance relative to preparing the agenda,
exhibits/handout material and a meeting summary. The expected Agenda
includes:
. Introductions/Opening Remarks
. Review of Background Material
. Review Preliminary Goals and Objectives
. Identify Performance Measures
. Review Initial Concept Alternatives
. Refine Concept Alternatives
. Confirm Three Concept Alternatives for Sketch Layout Development
. Review Planned Work Tasks
Task 2. Preliminary Sketch Layout Development & Technical Analysis
2.1 Prepare preliminary sketch layouts for the three selected Concept
Alternatives - the sketch layouts will be prepared on an aerial photo base and
will document the following features: \
. Horizontal Alignment
. Basic Number of Lanes
. Intersection/ Access Locations
. Estimated R/W Limits
6/23/2008 1
2.2 Conduct a traffic operations analysis of the three concept alternatives. The
analysis will use the CORSIM software package to evaluate the effects of
existing and future traffic volume characteristics and the proposed design
features on mainline and ramp operations.
2.3 Conduct a traffic safety analysis of the three concept alternatives. The
analysis will identify existing crash characteristics at key locations in the
interchange area and will provide an overview of the potential safety issues
associated with each of the concepts.
2.4 Meet with County staff to review the preliminary sketch layouts and the
results of the technical analyses.
2.5 Participate in an interim PMT meeting. Provide County staff with assistance
relative to preparing the agenda, exhibits/handout material and a meeting
summary. The expected Agenda includes:
. Introductions/ Opening Remarks
. Review Preliminary Sketch Layouts for the Three Concept
Alternatives
. Review Results of Traffic Operations and Safety Analyses
. Review Planned Work Tasks
Task 3. Final Sketch Layouts and Project Report
3.1 Based on comments received from County staff and the PMT, revise the
preliminary sketch layouts as necessary and produce the final sketch layouts.
3.2 Prepare an initial draft Project Report documenting goals, objectives,
performance measures, development of concept alternatives, preparation of
the sketch layouts, results of the operational and safety analyses and concept
level construction cost estimates.
3.3 Submit the initial draft Project Report to County staff for review. Revise the
initial draft Report as necessary based on comments received and produce a
final draft Report.
3.4 Participate in the final PMT meeting. Provide County staff with assistance
relative to preparing the agenda, exhibits/handout material and a meeting
summary. The expected Agenda includes:
. Introductions/ Opening Remarks
. Review Final Sketch Layouts for the Three Concept Alternatives
. Review Draft Project Report
. Future Considerations/Follow Up
3.5 Prepare the final project Report based on comments from the PMT.
3.6 Participate/ attend three additional meetings, as requested by County staff.
6/23/2008 2
Task 4. Project Management
4.1 Prepare monthly progress reports and invoices.
Deliverables: Meeting Agendas, Meeting Exhibits/Handout Materials, Current & Forecast
Traffic Volumes in the Interchange Area, CORSIM Analyses, Preliminary and Final Sketch
Layouts (3 Concepts), Draft & Final Project Report, Progress Reports
BUDGET ESTIMATE
Employee Classification
Task PM Proj. Engr. Staff Engr. Admin. Asst. Total
1. 8 16 0 4 28
2. 24 64 64 4 156
3. 24 32 32 6 94
4. 4 8 0 12 24
Hours 60 120 96 26 302
Hourly Rate $205 $125 $100 $65
Labor Subtotal $12,300 $15,000 $9,600 $1,690 $38,590
Expenses Traffic Counts $ 2,500
Mileage $ 110
Total Est. Cost $41,200
6/23/2008 3
CITY OF SHAKOPEE TOTALS
PID OR STATION GOOD (UNCLASSIFIED) GOOD .. . . ....... BETTER .:.:> .. . >. :::> ... BEST . >:
4"-6" 6"-12" 12"-18" 18"-24" 24"-36" 4"-6" 6"-12" ..12".18"> 18"-24" 24"-36" 36"& UP 4"-6" .: 6"-12" 12"-18" 18"~24" 24"-36" 4"_6" 6"-12" 12"-18" 18"-24" 24"-36"
279220020 0 5 1 0 0 0 403 41 12 7 2 0 171 13 5 3 0 0 0 0 0
279230011 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 29 5 0 0 0 16 4 0 1
279140171 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
279140172 0 7 0 0 1 4 90 7 1 2 0 2 174 27 7 6 0 22 3 5 1
STA 239+00 TO END 2 69 14 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST A 221 +00 TO ST A 239+( 0 11 2 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 10 3 2 0 0 11 6 7 1
STA 195+00 TO STA 221+( 0 5 2 1 1 10 448 79 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ST A 180+50 TO ST A 195+( 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 3 100 20 4 3 14 943 136 23 11 2 3 391 48 14 9 0 49 13 12 3
130 1129 465 77
1801
NOTES: STA 180+50 TO STA 195+00 CONTAINS 233 TREES WITH UNKNOWN ATTRIBUTES
AN ADDITIONAL 30 TO 40 TREES REMAIN UNCOUNTED AT THE PIKE LAKE ROAD INTERSECTION, THE TRANSIT SITE, AND THE CSAH 16 INTERSECTION
REPLACEMENT RATIO 1 TO 3 1 T03 1 T02 1 TO 1
43 376 233 77
90 ASSSUMES 270 TREES WITH UNKNOWN ATTRIBUTES THAT ARE IN THE GOOD REGION
TOTAL NUMBER 819
OF REPLACEMENT
TREES
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
From: Jamie Polley, Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Director
Meeting Date: May 12, 2008
Subject: CSAH 21 Trail Connection
INTRODUCTION
The Advisory Board is asked to provide a recommendation to the City Council on the
design of the pedestrian underpass headwall treatment on the tunnel used to connect a
trail under the new CSAH 21 to Shutrop Park.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The design of the new CSAH 21 connection has begun. Grading of the corridor for the
highway will begin in 2009. The road is anticipated to be constructed in 2010 and 2011.
The CSAH 21 project includes the construction of a culvert tunnel under CSAH 21 to
connect the established trail east of the highway to Shutrop Park which will be directly
west of the highway.
The County is receiving federal funding to construct the culvert tunnel. The County will
also construct and fund the trail connection from the tunnel back to the trail along CSAH
21. A map of this area illustrates the location of the tunnel and trail connection
Attachment A. The pedestrian underpass headwall treatment that is included on the
tunnel funded by the County is Option No.1 on Attachment A. The cost of this
underpass with the precast headwall and black coated chain link fence is $29,500.00. If
the City desires ornamental fencing and/or a cast-in-place headwall with or without
treatment the City would be responsible for the additional cost.
The cast-in-place headwall with no architectural treatment and black coated chain link
fence would cost the City an additional $70,780.00. The cast-in-place headwall with
architectural treatment and black coated chain link fence would cost the City an
additional $78,508.00. The additional costs of the different options are illustrated in
Attachment B. The City also has the option to keep the precast headwall on one side
of the highway and a cast-in-place headwall on the other side of the highway. The
additional costs to the City would then be half of the $70,780.00 or $78,508.00.
BUDGET
The City has not allocated additional funds to the CSAH 21 project for the tunnel. If the
Advisory Board chooses to recommend an option different then the precast headwall
with black coated chain link fencing in which the County is funding the board would have
to reprioritize the 2008-2012 Park Reserve CIP to allocate funding for the CSAH 21
tunnel project. Funding from the City would be required no earlier the 2009. The adopted
2008-2012 Park Reserve CIP is Attachment C.
REQUESTED ACTION
The Advisory Board is asked to provide a recommendation on the design of the headwall
entrance and exit of the CSAH 21 tunnel to the City Council for authorization. If required,
the Advisory Board is also asked to make a recommendation to the City Council
reprioritizing the 2008-2012 Park Reserve CIP allocating the necessary funding to
upgrade the headwalls of the CSAH 21 tunnel.
, PEDESTRIAN HEADW ALL OPTIONS
CSAH 21
Item Unit Estimated Estimated
Number Descrintion Unit Price Ouantitv Cost
OPTION 1 - STANDARD HEADWALL
STANDARD HEADWALL SECTION & CHAINLINK FENCE
2412.512 12' x 10' PRECAST CONC BOX CULVERT END SECTION EACH $13,000.00 2 $26,000.00
2557.501 WIRE FENCE DESIGN SPECIAL VINYL COATED LIN FT $35.00 100 $3,500.00
SUBTOTAL OPTION lA $29,500.00
STANDARD HEADWALL SECTION & ORNAMENTAL RAILING
2412.512 12' x 10' PRECAST CONC BOX CULVERT END SECTION EACH $13,000.00 2 $26,000.00
2402.583 ORNAMENTAL METAL RAILING TYPE 1 UN FT $125.00 100 $12,500,00
SUBTOTAL OPTION IB $38,500~00
OPTION 2 - CAST-IN-PLACE HEADWALL
CAST -IN-PLACE HEADWALL & CHAINLINK FENCE
2401.501 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3Y43) CUYD $450.00 105 $47,250.00
2557.501 WIRE FENCE DESIGN SPECIAL VINYL COATED UN FT $35.00 128 $4,480.00
SUBTOTAL OPTION 2A $51,730.00
CAST-IN-PLACE HEADWALL & ORNAMENTAL RAILING
2401.501 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3Y43) CUYD $450.00 105 $47,250.00
2402.583 ORNAMENTAL METAL RAILING TYPE 1 UN FT $125.00 128 $16,000.00
SUBTOTAL OPTION 2B $63,250.00
OPTION 3 - CAST-IN-PLACE HEADWALL WITH ARCH TREATMENT
CAST -IN-PLACE HEADWALL WITH ARCH TREATMENT & CHAINLINK FENCE
2401.501 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3Y43) CUYD $450.00 105 $47,250.00
2557.501 WIRE FENCE DESIGN SPECIAL VINYL COATED UN FT $35.00 128 $4,480.00
2411.618 ARCHITECTURAL SURFACE TEXTURE (STONE) SQFT $7.50 672 $5,040.00
2411.618 ARCHITECTURAL SURF ACE FINISH (SINGLE COLOR) SQFT . $2.00 672 $1,344.00
SUBTOTAL OPTION 3A $58,114.00
CAST-IN-PLACE HEADWALL WITH ARCH TREATMENT & ORNAMENTAL RAILING
2401.501 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3Y43) CUYD $450.00 105 $47,250.00
2402.583 ORNAMENTAL METAL RAILING TYPE 1 UN FT $125.00 128 $16,000.00
2411.618 ARCHITECTURAL SURFACE TEXTURE (STONE) SQFT $7.50 672 $5,040.00
2411.618 ARCHITECTURAL SURF ACE FINISH (SINGLE COLOR) SQFT $2.00 672 $1,344.00
SUBTOTAL OPTION 3B $69,634.00
Pedestrian Box Options 1 4/15/2008
- - - - - - - - --- --- --
......CO
(.)........,
~ Q) 0
~ . ...... en
s 0
~ L.. Q)
L ~ a.. c
~ c
~ ..c:.-
~ t= ~
~ 0 ~
~ :z ~
<0 ........,
:1! C
Ql .
, ~ ~
Q U)
.s ...... 0
'-' a c: U
tJ) C") Q)........,
s::: 0 E -+--'
: 0 z 0
I .- t: Q) U
...... 0 >
I ~ ~ (f)
! 0 Co 0
! 0 ~
C a.
(J.) ~ E
E s
~ -
...... ~
n:s ~ ~
(J.) ~ ~.
L- .l!! ~...
I- ~ ......
= ~ -'-<(
n:s oS
:s: '~
"C ~ U)
n:s ~ 0
(J.) ~
:I: ~
tJ) ~
il'l tJ) a
. _.' n:s
~ N
L- 0
(J.) z
"'C t:
c:: .52
::J 15.
c:: 0
n:s
~ IS :s
-J ~
i
I
\ ~
~
"
<0
<0
::r::
Vi
~ ........
~ .........
: ". ~ i ~
.2 ,\.J
, , - ~
~~'., ~
",' I ,- 0
j;' :i; ..
I
I
!
Bruce Loney
From: Jamie Polley
Sent: Thursday, June 26,20082:11 PM
To: Bruce Loney
Subject: FW: Scanned from gvtoshiba3 05/08/200812:07
Attachments: DOC050808. pdf
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Sterna [mailto:DSterna@Wsbeng.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 88, 2888 12:16 PM
To: Jamie Polley
Cc: gfelt@co.scott.mn.usj Bruce Loney
Subject: FW: Scanned from gvtoshiba3 85/88/2888 12:87
Hi Jamie
Attached is the last letter of support that we used for constructing trails on City lands. I
will need some type of a letter to the County supporting the construction of the trails on
City property outside of the CSAH 21 R/W. Let me know if you need any help writing the
letter.
The letter should come from the City Parks Department. Thanks Don
Don Sterna, PE I Vice President I WSB & Associates, Inc.
781 Xenia Ave. S., Suite 388 I Minneapolis, MN 55416
Direct: 763-287-7189 I Fax: 763-541-1788 I Cell: 612-368-1289 www.wsbeng.com
--------------------------------------------------------
This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee or received this email in error, you
should permanently delete this email from your system. Any use, dissemination, printing, or
copying of this email by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. Because electronic
files may deteriorate or be inadvertently modified, WSB & Associates, Inc. does not accept
liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this message which arise as a result
of electronic transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy.
-----Original Message-----
From: Golden Valley Toshiba 3
Sent: Thursday, May 88, 2888 12:88 PM
To: Don Sterna
Subject: Scanned from gvtoshiba3 85/88/2888 12:87
Scanned from gvtoshiba3.
Date: 85/88/2888 12:87
Pages:1
Resolution:300x300 DPI
----------------------------------------
Golden Valley Toshiba 3
Extension:
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
illiIlllllllll~1ll1 n.r~nW.IJJ:Iil!JIII!MRll~.mIl~Il!lIlJm'llilllll'llIlIil~_I!Il~~!~~~~~~~I?IIl~~~~~iIm~llIl1lIll1lilll!_"IiIlIl'BIlilI!FIII~flUIEJl~IlIm.nml'llllllllnt!1l1ll0J~
CSAH 21
Shakopee & Prior Lake, Scott County MN
1783-00
6/2/2008
Project Total PHASE lA PHASE IB PHASE 2A PHASE 2B
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Esilinated Estimated Estimated
Descri:otion Onanti1v Cost Onantity Cost Ouantity Cost Onanti1v Cost Quantity Cost
COST PARTICIPATION SUMMARY
SCOTT COUNTY
CSAH 21 & SIDE STREETS $16,974,692.68 $2,260,335.55 $2,338,116.60 $7,474,012.21 $4,902,228.32
STORM SEWER SO/50 $1,087,819.28 $385,227.70 $395,279.00 $168,277.52 $139,035.06
NORTH BRIDGE $594,313.25 $594,313.25
SOUTH BRIDGE $1,129,740.30 $1,129,740.30
GAS MAIN LOWERING $100,000.00 $100,000.00
SCOTT COUNTY TOTAL $19,886,565.51 $3,339,876.50 $3,863,135.90 $7,642,289.73 $5,041,263.38
TRANSIT FAClLITlES
TRANSIT SITE $1,970,298.96 $196,847.75 $1,773,451.21
BUS RAMP $1,439,759.70 $1,439,759.70
TRANSIT FAClLITlES TOTAL $3,410,058.66 $196,847.75 $1,439,759.70 $1,773,451.21
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
CSAH 21 & SIDE STREETS $419,291.97 $326,047.84 $93,244.13
WATERMAlN / SANITARY SEWER $62,430.75 $62,430.75
STORM SEWER (SO/50 NORTH OF CSAH 16 & 50/33/17 SOUTH) $906,152.50 $385,227.70 $260,884.14 $168,277.52 $91,763.14
TRAIL ON CSAH 18 $28,875.00 $28,875.00
CITY OF SHAKOPEE TOTAL $1,416,750.22 $447,658,45 $260,884.14 $523,200.36 $185,007.26
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
CSAH21 & SIDE STREETS $118,750.48 $118,750.48
WATERMAlN / SANITARY SEWER $471,004.30 $471,004.30
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER 50/33/17 $181,666.78 $134,394.86 $47,271.92
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE TOTAL $771,421.56 $605,399.16 $166,022.40
SPUC
WATERMAlN / SANITARY SEWER $55,076.75 $55,076.75
SPUC TOTAL $55,076.75 $55,076.75
TOTAL PER PHASE/SEGMENT $ 25,539,872.69 $ 4,039,459.45 $ 6,169,178.90 $ 9,938,941.30 $ 5,392,293.04
Project Total PHASE I PHASE II
FEDERAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $4984,916.00 $6,500,000.00
FEDERAL FUNDS APPLIED TO TRANSIT FACILITIES
80% OF TOTAL
TRANSIT SITE I I $1,576,239.171 I $157,478.2011 J I $1,418,760.9711 I I
BUS RAMP $1,151,807.76 I JL I $1,151,807.76 I
REMAINING FEDERAL FUNDS TO APPLY
TO PHASE I AND PHASE II $3 675 630.04 $5 081 239.03
PROJECT TOTALS NOT INCLUDING NON-PARTICIPATING $21,541,302.23 $3,725,104.20 $4,258,414.90 $8,165,490.10 $5,392,293.04
PERCENTAGE OF FEDERAL PARTICIPATION 0.46 Federal 0.37 Federal
0.54 Local 0.63 Local
Engineers_Est 1 6/26/2008
I
[
I
I
I ~ 't;J'-j,;-'-- ~ - - - " -
\ ", 1
\ ..."""- " -
j '..
I
[
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
i i
I
[
I
I
I ~
I ~
I
I CSAH 21 PHASE 2- ROADWAY !
\ I
I Construction 2010-2011
i
[
I - Construct Proposed CSAH 21
[
I - Expand Left Turn Lanes on CSAH 42
[
I - Reconstruct & Widen CSAH 16
!
[ - Reconstruct Pike Lk Rd / Southbridge Pkwy I
I I
I
[ - Reconstruct CSAH 18 I
I I
I - Construct Proposed Transit Station I
I
I !
[ - SPUC Substation Constructed by Others \
I \
I - Construct Signal Systems I
I
I - Construct Storm Sewer I
1 !
I ~'" I
[ - Construct Pond 9 I
! I
I - Construct Trails ,... I !
I 0 500 FT 1000 F T
I
I May 15, 2008 I
1
I I
.........,ac. CSAH 21 - Project Staging Map I
I
i Scott Scott County, Minnesota
I
I
[
I
~
- ---- -- - --- -~-- -- -----~.-- --- -------~ -----.- -- --~--- -~--- -------~ -~---~-----
-^~_._-- ~- --~ .~---
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
CSAH 21 PHASE 1 - GRADING
Construction 2009-2010
I - Grade Proposed Roadway
I - Grade Proposed Ponds
I - Grade Proposed Transit Station
- Grade Proposed SPUC Substation
- Construct Trunk Storm Sewer
- Construct Pond Outlets I
- Construct Pedestrian Underpass
- Construct Wildlife Crossing
- Construct TH 169 Bus Ramp
- Extend City Sewer & Water ~'"
~ I
0 500 FT 1000 F T
May 15, 2008
~ CSAH 21 - Project Staging Map
1""'--
Scott Scott County, Minnesota
-_._~-- ---.. --
,
I
.
I
- GRADING
- Grade Proposed Roadway
- Grade Proposed Ponds
- Grade Proposed Transit Station
- Grade Proposed SPUC Substation
- Construct Trunk Storm Sewer
- Construct Pond Outlets
- Construct Pedestrian Underpass
- Construct Wildlife Crossing
- Construct TH 169 Bus Ramp
- Extend City Sewer & Water ~'"
I_ i
-
0 500 ~ T 1000 F T
June 30,2008
...-&&. CSAH 21 - Project Staging Map
Scott
Scott County, Minnesota
----',-' -- -,,--,_._-,-,.- -- _______.'_,_ -._ _'_.-.-_ '_n"____
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
, I
!
I
.. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I - Construct Proposed CSAH 21
I
I - Expand Left Turn Lanes on CSAH 42
I
I
I - Reconstruct & Widen CSAH 16
I
I
I
! - Reconstruct Pike Lk Rd / Southbridge Pkwy
- Reconstruct CSAH 18
- Construct Proposed Transit Station
- SPUC Substation Constructed by Others
- Construct Signal Systems
- Construct Storm Sewer
- Construct Pond 9 ~n
- Construct Trails "..- I
0 500 F1 1000 n
June 30, 2008
...-&&. CSAH 21 - Project Staging Map
Scott
Scott County, Minnesota
-- '---'---, --
--- -
-------
.
~r-~- " J
f; ,,; ", . ~:. ~ ,
, i ("~-r.. 'W; .~
,f .~':- "fJ""
I !~.~.: \'*~. ;)~, ~ -:; ~ :
,.' . "1~.... ~ I
, I~. ,.. "" ..
I I._ ~'.."
, , ,~ ' ~.. I
I I ' '
, \ . ......\, 1
. I!:~ '~. ':".~ ~. I
! I :: ~ ~ r:"'1~V /.,~ 1
I ~~' ~ . .
,iJ.' r: I
" IJ:II ~t ,., I .,.".........
I I'.'. ~.. {~~~ - ~':rJ~ I
, ~ I ~.
!, ~.:, ~ 'r'~~"/- ( I
I.t 1!l::II[_~ . ~ ..(~~ I
" ~. ~~ .~,
I ':.' . , ~r'''' .. , 1
. 1>/" ~I ~
~', \.rJ . ,. I 1
..' . """.. l.' 1
. . "1"
: _ " .''-'. ~- :!. J/' I
I . _r~ .
'. . 1
I ".EO ~ I
! / ~... wi" ., ~ · I
I I ", ,~ .
I . . ~ I
J . r
! :: "t" ) ?-"'''''' ....1 I
I ' ~ .
~ r
I
I I r I I
I ,., · . J
, , I
I " \j
, i [ ; I
Ii' -'I
j. ~ ' !, ,,//..1 I
"" I Ii . " ~ I:'~' ,.1 I
I . '" .., , , .. ,.' r I
I ,'/ ~ I, I I ' ~.h \.) I
... II ./ J' , } t!' ,,,. ~
I 4 / <( I. I I III. ~'~4il
." , I J~ . I') I
I ~ # #', · ,: # ,. j i.. , · /, " ".J
, "'..... ".. ~1 J ". ,r... I
'\ ~/", ( f' ~ i'"
I .jJ , ~...../ ., /, ' " "..," . '~ " J~ J J ~ . .' I
I ".;; "~., ~ ,,'" / /. ~, f
.J ,,' .... -:.., "r-,."'.' r jO \.! I
""[ ./.... *.," ~, / / fl'~l' .' -.....
7 ~ , ;' :1/.. ..
I \ \. '" .., ~,.;'~. ,'. ~ .~," . J I
I ~. 'to. '" ' . ,,'\ . I / / l~ ~l " . : I
. "...~ ......, ~ "II , . I
,. ~....." / / " . I
I ... r 4 '" '. -........- ~ ~'"
~ ""IIij , , ,. .I + ..111
~ _ ....., ,JJPt ~ ,J . III / / ,-- --- '. ...
I ~'\1' - ~.~..' ,'..... -; , , '~.;;I I
r; -- ~ '!: / / .. . -.j' ,
"" ~t I'.~"'-
, 'I' 1 '~
I ~ .!> ".' '- '" . ."
I .- II 'J' ~ I" ~ I
.~ " " '
. ... " / ! . '.' "" ~ , . ,..
I ' , /)' I 1'Sr ~I " , ~ I
I 10:' ~ '" [ ~'f. ...
1:1 ;/ /. '" t , 'r. ·
I ../ - .:' ;' ...~. ~.' .: I: ~ I
..J ~ /. ,,~ ,,~. " ~ ',' .
I . ......." I . /. - ,,:-.. '\ .. ~... --- 1
.... . /. ' . , '
.' . ~. . /." -
. .,.." /. . ,'., " .,
I '. . _.'f ,,,~., .,. '/ . . /. \ 1:0: "'-: 'l.. I
I ,~..;;!.<I!j l' , .# ... . /. ' \... - . , .
..,~r~ ~ .-.,_.' ./ . \ .' . I
.",;rr"" :.. /"" ./ \. 4 Il:I -".
I ;J.. I':: ~. " ' - .' I
~. ~ '. "/ .. ,. . ~ ~ \ "f!!,j ... _ ~... ~
.. ......,..... ." ,
:~. '. '," .. .' ~... /1 /"."'" ~ \' .' ~., ~ '. ..' . I
I,.. III' ,/ ... ... , .9 .- -t..~ ,~ ,
_ .' ~-': /:,-:~;,/'~ .~."''\;,;~> ~ ~~ f ~ \' :.'~ :,,,'fl; ~~~~~t I
I Q ,/' . ~ i , ' .... .~ <r
, .,/....' ~~.
. ,'/ ..-- . __~ ~ ~ ..-: \ ., - , ',' ~. I
....,/ '~ . ,J .' ". " ~.. ~"'Ii .
~ ,'/ ~~ ~~~. r ,~,!/ ;;;.r,. - ~
I ..... r ,/':~'/. ___, ~". \ ,.~,., '-*-..ii '-p I /
r' ,'/,/'/ '" , ~ ", . ~ I'" 'l..r.,-I' iI':"":' ~ .J!j' .-.,
I ~6 .; ~ ,/ /":, ,/ , ... '-:.. ~ ~ "'~1" --""",,,~' \ ~ .~. ' >, > ' '.~ I
. './ ~, . '""""...,....,..- . ~..... , _~.., l
I r ~tI .:.. .,/. --:./' '" ~ ""'. :;;jI':ii ~ ~ l:I _It......~'''''1. ~;:~~~ q. f . i B' l I 't"',~ · .:.A I
~ ../, ....- --? -)~; . . ,;l' ~ \ I ' -f 'i:d .:4 J' .:1
I' . <:.. "'// \. ,,:. .~~ 0), J. ]~') .::....1 i,),J..' " : ~ 'QJ., L "~"',.. J l I
I "' //// . ,~". ~~J"l'. . 1" i! .r,';:~' [' "(-"( j I'
. ./;..' /.: 1 rJ' -.. f--j r I . ~ ~ ...~ ",
j . (J / . n ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ -;..... ~. .../ >I'.f- =. ]" l\ I 1!1i' ,1fi~" J\; ~- ':I'J I
. / ' _.... .... 1:1 f' 1 I 'n . -, :>.....
.. .... '" .... ._ . I -, J . . CoI' .......
I ll' tA I' ... lib... J. i' J ...:$ I
, 1""...',.' ...... - ;t ,\.,", rfr'
I . . ,......, ,'. I ... , .I', ,'..' fGJ ~
.... " _. "';" ....". ",'lit' -":1 JI;',..' .
I r , ,\ _ :. # _ ~ - ~: - , ~J t 1;;'~ 1t....".~1 ~r " 1loo... -%'. I
, \.., ___ . ~... -- .... _ - '. . II ~", :il( ..' ~~I I
.... __ ~ ""V"' ,"" ,,-' f "
.' , ) ,~OJ... 1 ,. .
,,.7-' \., .~ ~' . . I." -: -~ - ~ ~ ! i~1 ! I..;~"t ,'\ ~. '." .
"Po .. - " .I .I ....,. I
. . I^", It' -, 1<4 '. ... ~
." j ---i ' t I I Y ..............,~~. ~ I
, \ ". 4' .;")
, .J · ~ :' J t Ii i~ . -{rJJ /ll..:~ I
. .. . ',' .. ~ 't.(1 f (;.
, '.' "'1 . i. ~ ' . " ) '--.d ',Jill. t~l. ?~.'~." ~:I I
~./ _ or _ j ..; I I' ,. ," · fJ
I ... .(.' ,. ClI~' ... ~ :- - - - - w ~-. ~" . ::_~- -. ;:r~'.iil/ I J~:. j" I
.. \._ Il .f..
. - 1: I
;irf .J,,, .r
I .' . j .. - .... -~ ' ."
",___ .. os - ~~ "..-- ..- ..... C
... ~~ ",' .'. \ . II k -- .. - -...., ~ -. \ I
. ~~ . \. . 'If" ' . f' i ~ ~
I .. ." If "Ir~~.'" r,."....... '.., >11. -,,'" t I · '~ I
, , i" f '" .. r'"
~ · \ ... . - '0 .,.J, . '.. \,
-f....f. ~\..." _ III I
..~r ~ tIfII , j." i" .'"
~ ,,'" . \., ~"" ""-:,. .'" - \ I
.' . ~of;-'" ~ ~.:.., " ~' -v' .. I
~;o r'~'. 7....' V ,.~-
r ? . ~ .' ~'. " '1. '\....., ~# '. · ... /'
f'. , .' .. ~'." --~,/ ... .. I
I .... ~j' , ,. <lfr. J./ \ #...,.. '" .
[~ ~ ~' . ~.(J ""':;.. .7. ;/.~. ..... ~..'.M .."~'" ~~ ~ \ .... I
J ~".' ""'.'. It ".~ ','''' "~ .--",
__ 'h. ~ riJ~._ ~. ' . r I
.' ~ t..-:s J~rI "f:i'-'r~ "Iffmj .'\. , # f; / _ ~ : \ a' '
\ or .. ~ :. fJJ .....t: ' to #' . .
I r ~" -1 'j I( r::"'~ ~"l;"#j~~. ".', ~ '., /;. :/ ~. ~ \ \, ~ .~....;::o I
.... ..._....\.-. ,~ tl ~ .-A,VI !:l ~';' , t, . ;f.o!j.~/'''1' .\. ... - -.......- I
, . '-_!...t ,/ ..l " L' ..-""- .'i.~'
... ...r- ,~.t'f':r ;.':'..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! ~.~~
I i~ ~.. ).~': ,.'~
: ' ~.\, i :: "I
. ~; Iii;" ~<td..'
iJ..., ~~*, '",l.l..4
r,b: t'l... ~.."
~ ,,~.
Ii ' ' it
'!- ' IIIJ
'I .~ .'
. ~~
' \
. " . -
: :: '. .:' ~l
: ~. .... ....:)~
, I" ..... ' ,
III ,e r" {,.,.,.. f~'
_ f~ >>. ~.;:-- .
~ " ',' ';."
L u.[~ ,~ ."",~.
. If. =!\;..> ,.,:{(7: I
. .' _<:..Il <i' ~
,,' ., 'i"
/ " ' ~..t1.,. ' , .-
~"" ...../Jr V ~
.......' " . ~
11, ' ,.,' 'If .A~
~ " ~~~'
~. '!'-
~:r- ~.....~ ~
. .
.~ I
~I
" "". . I
'~_ {T I
~. .1
J ::..~}~ I
, ' ' ~ 1
I ~j'
.4" .
~ .
/ ~ ;~j
- ',. 1/. , '
'. " ' ,
../, . I ' 'f."
. / " ,,'
... >' .' "
~ .. #' .' {I' ,,')
" / . ' { ~.I I
, "'''' " .-
, > ~ ~/ ,,1 '1""'" .... I
"'''. ." /. ,.. ,. " /" 1..J ~ I
~ ." ~. . ,,',' . .~ J~ I'
" ' ' . '1
, ..' . · l I " - I
- ' ,/' ... . ,- . '
" . '\, t' . '.. 1-{ . . ~..' . ! I Je \.I. ". 1
_ ~ ,. .., ~ ( 11 'J' '., I
.. ""'""-. ~.-u'I .~ ) '. .,.... .,' ~
~ ~ '. ' " I I
_.>' ~ '
,. ~ -r-- ~ . I
~ .. .I'--~'
? ' - " :.
./ I : I, c.,A :
. . ,.' " . ' ,: >iI. ·
; . -.J . . . ".
;,IP" r .' " ,'"
,"N'" - - , ,
;\1,' ," I
II . .
"" . "
, . - . , ".
. -' " .' :,
. , " '
r · ' .
.... H.
, ; . " .,,'
. .. ~.'
~ ".
. '
. " . . '
.I " ' '
I
1
. I
.' I
I
I
. I
. I
. ~ .
t, II. ~ '
~ -. ..;,-... \
. .\. . " I
; . -.~:;'" . -
.' .o~' _.-
\. .,,-' . :; . - .......;:: ::
.. . ~.
~ . ~:.:.." J -
. ' '-N .,--
. .' ,-... I' '"
, ' .--" ..- J" .
. >' '
. ~. .', . I
,. " . .. . I
.:,. . .' '
.' . _, _ - 1 I
..' .- - .
, .' - . . .
" ,.' - - ..
" I
\
~"... #fA
.......... \' ..
. ~ . __ ' - - - I
, A!fI ,,' '
dr~ ..... . . ~....' .. --
..... \.~ cJ " ,. ' z
. ' " ' . . " . , .. '. . , r I
...r " ~\.'" .. -..
I ..... · -' ," -- I ' .- .
I ' ,.. .' · -<-," .'
I "... ' ,,~." - · - " .
.' .' tJ:~,.,l4.~ ~ ..' ~ .'\ '.,' -1 ..'" ," ... to ,". t .~I .
r ~ r "t;.~~.......'.... . . ·
, ''''". " ..,,' " v,-- , -, I I
I · ., . . . - . ~
. .. ,.' ....' ,~~ ,..,... -:" I
. ,. ~. i' , · ' -. '"~ ' ·
I .. ,,' . ~ I{';' ....' I .,,' ... · · I I
. / >, "'" ,........ " . .." . I
~.. I ~ . J ~~<$ - . ~_ '1".. ~. ,.....' ,,' '-' \ 1
.- " "..' -- ~' .. ~
'.__' _'" ...,. i-'lf"- -.... ~ · ~ ."
~. o' ''!\r · . ' -.
~'q;: :!:.~~' l>'~~.". ~" .' /~. ~ ~ ~I
.. .. ',vi ,,~ ",' ' I....
'. ~~ <...<.~ //' .' ;~\~. \ \.
, . J · ,;\ ,.
~ --;,..
_ ,-.:.. ~, . .ji'/' I
- _. I
I
I
I
~. ,'. ~._~~..:::. ~~ "\: \\~';. " r r ~</ /' if'" n . ~~ ~'Y' \ . - ~~!bt.' "Q ~~~'!II&~~~~~v-r- .' I ~.7 -'1
"':.!'. _ , I. <: / " ~. '." ~~ tI. -, '~'S"l1~ ~
" . . · ,. ~- '/ / ' ,~ '($" ~ ';giJJ'. j, '" ~
, I ~-l . /' ,," ';';;'-lJ ''t:HJ ~.~ I I
'~"....-l ; ...! ~ ,'( ~ t,......?i.'.J~ I
I ' ~ . ... '',. , ~-"... . .It..~,. .'"
... l' S - J-,' '\.' " r"1i> . ,0;.' I) It .,. · I
l ,. /~ ,. ". ..' '. I
,.' - ~... . I
. . j, ::.. ... . ,,> < "'.!~ '. .~.. I' /~~
~ P - -'*~ r' "- · ..~. ' .1
i. ./- .' 1'\.J- , "." .<
, . ... . ,...,.- ." ," , I
\". ,...... I \ ...
Q I \ n', .. 'J.' ~. ~.\ \ ~ '
I' . "" ".. ,. \ I
I I ,..~- ..... "'~ .... '<,,~ ,",-~~),1 ,. '" I I
, \ . '-, .JJ...' ~, ,. ~ ~ I
~ .. 'II ~~
,,~- - - ) J c6-:I. - ... -' -":-' I
_... . _ r. ~ ;if'
. ~ I
~;.. \ . a .,>., I
./ i.,
-'- ~...
- .
t! - ,- r:... ii'~ _ - 'i, II "," /
. r ,J 4 . ;.. ~/'
" · r' . '- ,
t /
" "
I ..' I" / /
-' ~ ..
" ^' I /. ,/ c:JI ,/ I
· . ....... ~,/,f / J
!'J, /'
, :I 10.(" .,:]}. _ ' ,/
- - -. / -;/!'
I ~ . , '7
f .... . ,. '/" c'" ,. ....
I " . . :::..- - ..... - ... . < ,," , /'
.' C' _ 1ft _... #, ",/.' "L
1_' r ...... ,. " .... .. r" / /
V ' '.'. it ..... I \. '<";: \ ...... - /
I . r fl' -...... . r
I or. \li. ~ " / .'
.. i:~."" A. /' ~
I f; t -: - ..:~ -;- :;t.
I -p.r'" ~-. ~t ~ ~ ~ ' \- '
;,~ ..
I ~:, ~. r r. r
... .' .;. r (.~_ .
.. .. ;, -'. t.~~J ~ r. 't, Gi '" "":' r 11
"- "~l ~,~..;---- . -"'~:=;..- II ~ .
~ .....~ t;lI!lI
a,~"~ r ~--' ,--
n,:""- __ '\
,-- .---
~-::--'--' ." .
- - - - ~' --- . ,> ~ , '#'
---- -- ~,.
- - r ~r I'JI r j I
.- ~.,.;. , . -
_ . ':" ,... ~ _ ' ~" J
, " ______ D ,.c,
I . . <.~,~, """ /I- '''''
. ' _". I ,. ~ <ill
. ..... "-~.... _~ p ,~ ~ CiI v
.....:,' _ '. "~ .", rJ..;)or~-I/
._ '_. .' ..:1" , ,t. " ""., . I....J~.' '.~ ;d;:/
>" ,-. _ " ." .. ,.' ;if...'., r'. .
. .. 'II1II l ~ U.. '.'
t. 6\ ., " .,. .
; . '.... ",; ~,,"\{
. r . I ." I .r'"
I " - - ...,. .... r/
~ . Sl /
~~ 1, . a
I '^~. II
.... :.'( .
" ' ' .\~ ;' f, ~
" I ..,'
. ~ ,
.... ~ '. .. ,..r
- ,,-," r', ...
I", 'i,I ~ 'I ,.. ~~
~ w -': J.' /' . ~ I~ ~.. ~
.. _ _ "" f '!o... -'1I "", ~
I\'; '. . · ~.. oM "'" .... ., .. .l ~
, . . ." ., .~ ,.~' >' ;
· , 'i! ,,\..-,..
I ,I "i,o ,,,..' . ~ ' "...., ,. -,,'" ,; "
10 .,.. ,)<; It oJ'
I ~., . I' " t ~ .. i>.... ,.. ,... /;'#,
I .'. fj" J II;' ",... ~ '" ~ I". ",,,,,
,'" i I ~~,. '. ,."...."" ..
"( , . ,. .. ',' , #:t -...
I )' (, l t. .. ~.~ ~
t,-' .... r :" ' i' ,,'.. :,. , i# ".....~' ,. ~
1 9 ,. ." "1
. . I ,. "
i *' "".i i....". f" ....
I (" If ' ',. "..
I I'" 0":' ~ l.c '-"
,. . ~ ,~ ."
I '.' /,;;," 11-.
' ,., I"
, ' I'
I ~ . j;,
I r .. It I , ,-
. .. r.~
J l' II)
I
I _,4 · ..J!oJ :~ """.
". ' .. , , w ...
4 ~ 'd!" ~ "T .. I
~ '. ~ I:l. If: , !"J~ ,..-
~ ~- ( ~,~
~ ~ I
~ ~J ...............t I
~ - '.- "'.-.....
rt ...., "~' ~
t-t ' \~' J'" ~ '", 'j1..,;
r~ ' ' ~ "~ ) II '! I
~ 71?J1.. ...~J J r II I I
~ "'~"~. 'f~ ~ I I
l~ ~ r-1~lj.~./ ,~~ ~f.. I
- '.... ,!l ~. I I
LlI '.
:.. ~. 'j
,.,~ " "" ~~ ;,
~,'l .,~, ".' . 'j '.'~ _. I
.........,. '" I
'.. '.
.. .ft" 1: :
h... "" \.. ~ "'j: I
~ ... '10'" . .
t..~ '0~,~~ ~~~ I
}PJ'\" 11~ .~
. , , Ioc ".......~ : I
[' l' :r~, J'
.., ,;00-,;
. ..~. ..<<~~ .,..J '
· Jl -~ ~<L , J-i
~--'- --~---' - l
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality I
. .. Good
CJ Better I
Best
[~_J Construction Limits I
0 Trees
----~. City Limits I
----- Permanent Easement I
----- Temporary Easement
I
I
Sections I
--
K'\01783.00\GIS\Ma s\Ali nment Pro'ect 11x17a.mxd 61271200810:22:29AM I
. () N Tft f3 1.. e.
.. ItA
Bruce Loney
From: Vermillion, Lezlie [LVermillion@co.scott.mn,us]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 1 :40 PM
To: Lynn Clarkowski; Bruce Loney; jpowell@cLsavage.mn.us; jodLruehle@tinklenberggroup.com
Cc: Freese, Lisa; Rasmussen, Mitch; Jenson, Craig; Gustafson, Joseph;
Nicole,Farrington@CH2M.com; howard.preston@ch2m.com; Unmacht, David; Michael Leek;
bstock@ci.savage.mn,us; Mark McNeill
Subject: FW: Study Scope
Attachments: ScottCol ntercAreaConcptDevScope06 2008.doc
Bruce, John, Jodi and Lynn,
Attached is the revised scope of services trying to include all of the comments we received.
The fIrst meeting is clearly a brainstorming meeting to discuss the three alternatives to be evaluated and come to
agreement on those. It will clearly include an invite to geometric staff and all others who are appropriate to
attend that meeting.
We have added additional tube counts (up to 20) and extended the modeling limits to include what was
requested. We are not going to re-run the regional model. That is an issue well beyond the scope of this study
and we never intended to go there. The change in land use from the recent sales of land along CSAH 21 south
of this study area will not signifIcantly change the regional model. If the demand was to come to Scott County
it will continue to be allocated over the system. The Southbridge area will include using land use as guided and
modeled in the earlier work.
We have changed the modeling to include corsim for ramp and weave movements and synchro for at grade
intersections such as CSAH 21 and CSAH 18. Those details can be discussed at the fIrst PMT.
At this point I see no reason to include an implementation plan as part of the consultant's work, but a item at
one of the fInal meetings to be discussed by all agencies. We were very successful in moving ahead two ofthe
three previous recommendations.
I think this addressed most of the major concerns. Please review and get back to me withyour comments. We
would like to begin moving this study forward. I am proposing at this point that the County and City of
Shakopee share in the cost 50-50. We are looking for MnlDOT to provide some of the modeling they
committed to and Savage to provide their comprehensive plan work.
Bruce let me know if you need anything else for this evenings workshop.
Sincerely,
Lezlie A. Vermillion
Scott County Public Works Director
952-496-8062
1
,
\
/tr ,4 ~
Scott County - TH 169, TH 13 and CH 18/21 System Analysis
STUDY AREA
The Study Area includes_TH 169 from the Canterbury Road interchange to Old Shakopee
Road interchange including the TH 169 interchanges with CSAH 18/21 and TH 101/13. The
Study Area also includes the TH 101/TH 13 intersection and CSAH 18/21 intersections with
Crossings Boulevard and Preserve Trail.
WORK SCOPE
Task 1. Data Gathering
1.1 Obtain current AM, PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes on TH 169, TH
13, CH 18/21, interchange ramps, Crossings Boulevard and Stagecoach Trail.
1.2 Based on the availability of current traffic count information, collect new
volume information as necessary (assume up to twenty tube count locations).
1.3 Obtain forecasts of future AM, PM and daily traffic volumes on the roadways
in the vicinity of the interchange area. Project level forecasts for background
traffic will be determined based on a review of volumes from both the
County's 2030 Model and the Met Council's Regional Travel Model, with
minor adjustments as necessary to account for specific development in the
immediate Interchange Area. AM and PM peak hour forecasts associated
with the Southbridge Crossings Development Area will be based on volumes
generated in previous studies and then modified if necessary to account for
any planned revisions to the land use.
1.4 Identify a preliminary set of goals and objectives associated with enhancing
local access to the regional highway system and to generate three initial
concept alternatives (hand drawn on aerial photo base). The original
Interchange Workshop documents will be used as a reference for generating
the preliminary goals and objectives and the initial concept alternatives.
1.5 Participate in a kick-off/brainstorming Project Management Team (PMT)
meeting. Provide Project Manager with assistance relative to preparing the
agenda, exhibits/handout material and a meeting summary. The expected
Agenda includes:
. Introductions/Opening Remarks
. Review of Background Material
. Review & Discuss Preliminary Goals and Objectives
. Identify Performance Measures
. Review & Discuss Initial Concept Alternatives
. Brainstorm refinements of Concept Alternatives (includes
participation of :MnDOT geometric staff)
. Confirm Three Concept Alternatives for Sketch Layout Development
. Review Planned Work Tasks
7/1/2008 1
.
.
Task 2. Preliminary Sketch Layout Development & Technical Analysis
2.1 Prepare preliminary sketch layouts for the three selected Concept
Alternatives - the sketch layouts will be prepared on an aerial photo base and
will document the following features:
. Horizontal Alignment
. Basic Number of Lanes
. Intersection/ Access Locations
. Estimated R/W Limits
2.2 Conduct a traffic operations analysis of the three concept alternatives. The
analysis will use the CORSIM software package following procedures
documented in MnDOT's Advanced CORSIM Manual, to evaluate the effects
of existing and future traffic volume characteristics and the proposed design
features on mainline and ramp operations. SYNCHRO will be used to
evaluate the traffic operations at at-grade intersections.
2.3 Conduct a traffic safety overview of the three concept alternatives. The
overview will identify existing crash characteristics at key locations along the
system of roadways in the study area using available crash data and statistics
and will provide a qualitative overview of the potential safety issues
associated with each of the concepts, including safety issues of any possible
design exceptions, based on research results in published literature including
MnDOT's Safety Fundamentals Handbook.
2.4 Meet with project manager to prepare for upcoming PMT meeting.
2.5 Participate in an interim PMT meeting. Provide Project Manager with
assistance relative to preparing the agenda, exhibits/handout material and a
meeting summary. The expected Agenda includes:
. Introductions/Opening Remarks
. Review & Discuss Preliminary Sketch Layouts for the Three Concept
Alternatives
. Review & Discuss Results of Traffic Operations and Safety Analyses
. Review Planned Work Tasks
Task 3. Final Sketch Layouts and Project Report
3.1 Based on comments received from study partners, revise the preliminary
sketch layouts as necessary and produce the final sketch layouts.
3.2 Prepare an initial draft Project Report documenting goals, objectives,
performance measures, development of concept alternatives, preparation of
the sketch layouts, results of the operational and safety analyses and concept
level construction cost estimates.
3.3 Submit the initial draft Project Report to Project Manager for review, then
distribute to all study partners for review and comments. Revise the initial
7/1/2008 2
.
",
.
draft Report as necessary based on comments received and produce a final
draft Report.
3.4 Participate in the final PMT meeting. Provide Project Manager with
assistance relative to preparing the agenda, exhibits/handout material and a
meeting summary. The expected Agenda includes:
. Introductions/Opening Remarks
. Review & Discuss Final Sketch Layouts for the Three Concept
Alternatives
. Review & Discuss Draft Project Report
. Future Considerations/Follow Up
3.5 Prepare the final project Report based on comments from the PMT.
3.6 Participate/attend three additional meetings, as requested by Project
Manager.
Task 4. Pr~ectManagement
4.1 Prepare monthly progress reports and invoices.
Oeliverables
Meeting Agendas, Meeting Exhibits/Handout Materials, Current & Forecast AM and PM
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, CORSIM & SYNCHRO Analyses, Preliminary and Final Sketch
Layouts (3 Concepts), Draft & Final Project Report, Progress Reports
7/1/2008 3
.
''1'.
BUDGET ESTIMATE
Employee Classification
Task PM Proj. Engr. Staff Engr. Admin. Asst. Total
1. 8 16 0 4 28
2. 24 74 64 4 156
3. 24 32 32 6 94
4. 4 8 0 12 24
Hours 60 130 96 26 302
Hourly Rate $205 $125 $100 $65
Labor Subtotal $12,300 $16,250 $9,600 $1,690 $39,840
Expenses Traffic Counts $ 4,500
Mileage $ 110
Total Est. Cost $44,340
SCHEDULE
The project schedule will be three months from the notice to proceed.
Meeting/Deliverables Schedule
PMT Kickoff/Brainstorming Session Week 2
Interim PMT Meeting Week 6
Final PMT Meeting Week 10
Final Report Distributed Week 12
7/1/2008 4
I ft, r+
Carmela Nascene r>rJ 1ft 131 e:
From: Mark McNeill
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 3:40 PM
To: Carmela Nascene
Subject: FW: Study Scope
Attachments: ScottColntercAreaConcptDevScope06 2008.doc
From: Vermillion, Lezlie [mailto:LVermillion@co.scott.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 1:40 PM
To: Lynn C1arkowski; Bruce Loney; jpbwell@ci.savage.mn.us; jodi.ruehle@tinklenberggroup.com
Cc: Freese, Lisa; Rasmussen, Mitch; Jenson, Craig; Gustafson, Joseph; Nicole.Farrington@CH2M.com;
howard.preston@ch2m.com; Unmacht, David; Michael Leek; bstock@cLsavage.mn.us; Mark McNeill
Subject: FW: Study Scope
Bruce, John, Jodi and Lynn,
Attached is the revised scope of services trying to include all of the comments we received.
The first meeting is clearly a brainstorming meeting to discuss the three alternatives to be evaluated and come to
agreement on those. It will clearly include an invite to geometric staff and all others who are appropriate to
attend that meeting.
We have added additional tube counts (up to 20) and extended the modeling limits to include what was
requested. Weare not going to re-run the regional model. That is an issue well beyond the scope of this study
and we never intended to go there. The change in land use from the recent sales ofland along CSAH 21 south
of this study area will not significantly change the regional model. If the demand was to come to Scott County
it will continue to be allocated over the system. The Southbridge area will include using land use as guided and
modeled in the earlier work.
We have changed the modeling to include corsim for ramp and weave movements and synchro for at grade
intersections such as CSAH 21 and CSAH 18. Those details can be discussed at the first PMT.
At this point I see no reason to include an implementationplan as part of the consultant's work, but a item at
one of the final meetings to be discussed by all agencies. We were very successful in moving ahead two ofthe
three previous recommendations.
I think this addressed most of the major concerns. Please review and get back to me with your comments. We
would like to begin moving this study forward. I am proposing at this point that the County and City of
Shakopee share in the cost 50-50. Weare looking for MnJDOT to provide some of the modeling they
committed to and Savage to provide their comprehensive plan work.
Bruce let me know if you need anything else for this evenings workshop.
Sincerely,
Lezlie A. Vermillion
Scott County Public Works Director
952-496-8062
1
Scott County - TH 169, TH 13 and CH 18/21 System Analysis
STUDY AREA
The Study Area includes_TH 169 from the Canterbury Road interchange to Old Shakopee
Road interchange including the TH 169 interchanges with CSAH 18/21 and TH 101/13. The
Study Area also includes the TH 101/TH 13 intersection and CSAH 18/21 intersections with
Crossings Boulevard and Preserve Trail.
WORK SCOPE
Task 1. Data Gathering
1.1 Obtain current AM, PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes on TH 169, TH
13, CH 18/21, interchange ramps, Crossings Boulevard and Stagecoach Trail.
1.2 Based on the availability of current traffic count information, collect new
volume information as necessary (assume up to twenty tube count locations).
1.3 Obtain forecasts of future AM, PM and daily traffic volumes on the roadways
in the vicinity of the interchange area. Project level forecasts for background
traffic will be determined based on a review of volumes from both the
County's 2030 Model and the Met Council's Regional Travel Model, with
minor adjustments as necessary to account for specific development in the
immediate Interchange Area. AM and PM peak hour forecasts associated
with the Southbridge Crossings Development Area will be based on volumes
generated in previous studies and then modified if necessary to account for
any planned revisions to the land use.
1.4 Identify a preliminary set of goals and objectives associated with enhancing
local access to the regional highway system and to generate three initial
concept alternatives (hand drawn on aerial photo base). The original
Interchange Workshop documents will be used as a reference for generating
the preliminary goals and objectives and the initial concept alternatives.
1.5 Participate in a kick-off/brainstorming Project Management Team (PMT)
meeting. Provide Project Managerwith assistance relative to preparing the
agenda, exhibits/handout material and a meeting summary. The expected
Agenda includes:
. Introductions/Opening Remarks
. Review of Background Material
. Review & Discuss Preliminary Goals and Objectives
. Identify Performance Measures
. Review & Discuss Initial Concept Alternatives
. Brainstorm refinements of Concept Alternatives (includes
participation of MnDOT geometric staff)
. Confirm Three Concept Alternatives for Sketch Layout Development
. Review Planned Work Tasks
7/1/2008 1
Task 2. Preliminary Sketch Layout Development & Technical Analysis
2.1 Prepare preliminary sketch layouts for the three selected Concept
Alternatives - the sketch layouts will be prepared on an aerial photo base and
will document the following features:
. Horizontal Alignment
. Basic Number of Lanes
. Intersection/ Access Locations
. Estimated R/W Limits
2.2 Conduct a traffic operations analysis of the three concept alternatives. The
analysis will use the CORSIM software package following procedures
documented in MnDOT's Advanced CORSIM Manual, to evaluate the effects
of existing and future traffic volume characteristics and the proposed design
features on mainline and ramp operations. SYNCHRO will be used to
evaluate the traffic operations at at-grade intersections.
2.3 Conduct a traffic safety overview of the three concept alternatives. The
overview will identify existing crash characteristics at key locations along the
system of roadways in the study area using available crash data and statistics
and will provide a qualitative overview of the potential safety issues
associated with each of the concepts, including safety issues of any possible
design exceptions, based on research results in published literature including
MnDOT's Safety Fundamentals Handbook.
2.4 Meet with project manager to prepare for upcoming PMT meeting.
2.5 Participate in an interim PMT meeting. Provide Project Manager with
assistance relative to preparing the agenda, exhibits/handout material and a
meeting summary. The expected Agenda includes:
. Introductions/Opening Remarks
. Review & Discuss Preliminary Sketch Layouts for the Three Concept
Alternatives
. Review & Discuss Results of Traffic Operations and Safety Analyses
. Review Planned Work Tasks
Task 3. Final Sketch Layouts and Project Report
3.1 Based on comments received from study partners, revise the preliminary
sketch layouts as necessary and produce the final sketch layouts.
3.2 Prepare an initial draft Project Report documenting goals, objectives,
performance measures, development of concept alternatives, preparation of
the sketch layouts, results of the operational and safety analyses and concept
level construction cost estimates.
3.3 Submit the initial draft Project Report to Project Manager for review, then
distribute to all study partners for review and comments. Revise the initial
7/1/2008 2
draft Report as necessary based on comments received and produce a final
draft Report.
3.4 Participate in the final PMT meeting. Provide Project Manager with
assistance relative to preparing the agenda, exhibits/handout material and a
meeting summary. The expected Agenda includes:
. Introductions/ Opening Remarks
. Review & Discuss Final Sketch Layouts for the Three Concept
Alternatives
. Review & Discuss Draft Project Report
. Future Considerations/Follow Up
3.5 Prepare the final project Report based on comments from the PMT.
3.6 Participate/ attend three additional meetings, as requested by Project
Manager.
Task 4. Project Management
4.1 Prepare monthly progress reports and invoices.
Deliverables
Meeting Agendas, Meeting Exhibits/Handout Materials, Current & Forecast AM and PM
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, CORSIM & SYNCHRO Analyses, Preliminary and Final Sketch
Layouts (3 Concepts), Draft & Final Project Report, Progress Reports
7/1/2008 , 3
BUDGET ESTIMATE
Employee Classification
Task PM Proj. Engr. Staff Engr. Admin. Asst. Total
1. 8 16 0 4 28
2. 24 74 64 4 156
3. 24 32 32 6 94
4. 4 8 0 12 24
Hours 60 130 96 26 302
Hourly Rate $205 $125 $100 $65
Labor Subtotal $12,300 $16,250 $9,600 $1,690 $39,840
Expenses Traffic Counts $ 4,500
Mileage $ 110
Total Est. Cost $44,340
SCHEDULE
The project schedule will be three months from the notice to proceed.
Meeting/Deliverables Schedule
PMT Kickoff/Brainstorming Session Week 2
Interim PMT Meeting Week 6
Final PMT Meeting Week 10
Final Report Distributed Week 12
7/1/2008 4