HomeMy WebLinkAbout2. Presentation from the SCALE Transportation Task Force
SCALE
July 9,2008
Your community is an active member of SCALE, and throughout the past few years, SCALE has
made transportation one if its highest priorities. In 2007, SCALE members formed the
Transportation Task Force, which consists of city, county, tribal, and business community
representatives. I have enclosed for you the January 2008 Findings and Recommendations
from the Transportation Task Force to Improve the Regional Transportation Network and
Preserve Critical Regional Corridors.
Based on recommendations in that report, throughout 2008 the SCALE Transportation Task
Force will be meeting with all of the local stakeholders to discuss and emphasize the shared
responsibility of transportation and land use planning. These sessions have been developed to
support SCALE's priorities: Livable, secure communities; safe, effective infrastructure; healthy,
successful citizens; and robust, sustainable economy. The Transportation Task Force and
SCALE believe that conducting these discussion forums is a critical first step in developing a
unified transportation and land use planning process that will effectively address our county's
most critical needs involving safety and mobility of our transportation netw~:>rk as well as
promoting desirable economic growth.
On behalf of SCALE, I would like to invite you to attend a discussion forum on Tuesday, July 22
from 7:00 - 9:00 pm at City Hall. This forum will include members of the Shako pee City
Council, Planning Commission, and City staff.
Thank you for your willingness to participate in this important discussion.
Sincerely,
JL nj ~"
\, ",::' ',,?J- / I :::!/l.4tLL/U
i{ t/
John J. Schmitt
SCALE Chair
-"---
B,
;f
,
,
~
I'!I
oF
,
~
, Transportation Planning Principles Driving the
,
, Work of the SCALE Transportation Task Force:
~
,
~ //To focus on the movement of people and good~ rather
~
, than on the movement of automobile~ in transportation
~ planning and to maximize the efficient use of the
~
~ transportation infrastructure by increasing the availability
~ and use of appropriate public transit. . . //
~
~ . Minnesota Legislature
~ Community Based Planning Act of 1997
~ (M.S. 4A.07)
~
~
~ //You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by
~ evading It today. //
~ Abraham Lincoln, circa 1863
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ -# Bonestroo
~,
~
,
I
,
,
, SCALE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE - PHASE 2 REPORT
Acknowledgements
,
,
t The authors of this report wish to thank all of the participants who contributed their time and insights to
, this project.
t
~ SCALE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE MEMBERS
~ Richard Ames - Ames Construction
~ Fred Corrigan - Bonestroo
Mayor Jack Haugen - City of Prior lake
~ Bruce Malkerson - Malkerson Gilliland Martin lLP
~ Council Member Jason Ponsonby - City of Elko New Market
~ Senator Claire Robling - Minnesota Senate District 35
Bill Rudnicki - Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
~ Randy Sampson - Canterbury Park
~ Commissioner Jon Ulrich - Scott County District 5
~ Ad Hoc Members:
Dave Unmacht - Scott County
~
Lezlie Vermillion - Scott County
~ Dan McNamara - Scott County
~
~ LOCAL OFFICIAL ADVISORY GROUP
~ Belle Plaine: Savage:
. David Murphy - City Administrator Barry Stock - City Administrator
Trisha Rosenfeld - Community Development Director Bryan Tucker - City Planner
b Joe Duncan - Cfty Engineer John Powell- Public Works Director
.
. Elko New Market: Shakopee:
Thomas Terry - City Administrator Mark McNeil - City Administrator
I Rich Revring - City Engineer Michael Leek - Community Development Director
I Bruce Loney - Public Works Director
\ Jordan:
I Ed Shukle - City Administrator Scott County:
Joe Janish - City Planner David Unmacht - County Administrator
, Carol Caron - City Engineer Lezlie Vermillion - Public Works Director
I Michael Sobota - Community Dev. Director
New Prague: Mary Keen - Public Works Technician
Jerry Bohnsack - City Administrator Mitch Rasmussen - County Engineer
Renee Christianson - City Planner Craig Jenson - Public Works Planner
Brad Davis - Community Development Planner
Prior Lake: Tracy Cervenka - County Administration
Frank Boyles - City Administrator
Steve Albrecht - Public Works Director
Jane Kansier - Planning Director
-# Bonestroo
~
~
~
.
. SCALE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORC;E - PHASE 2 REPORT
Table of Contents
.
.
. Key Findings and Recommendations ................................................................ .......... ......... ........ ......... 1
. Project Background .,. ......... .................. .................... ............ ................. .................. ............. .................... 1
~ Key Task Force Findings .......................................................................................................:................... 2
I Task Force Recommendations ..................... ................... ........ ........... .,................ ....... ........... .......... .......... 3
I I. Regional Corridor Management Planning Process ....................................................................... 3
II. Coalition and Corridors ...... ............ ..................... ............................. ........................... ........ ......... 4
I III. Transit......... ......... ..................... ............... ............................ ......:.. ..................... ,...................... 6
. IV. Project Funding. ...................... ................................ ............. ...................... ....................... ......... 6
I V. County Wide Transporation Improvement Program ..................................................................... 7
I VI. Management/Staff Support to the SCALE Transportation Task Force ........................................... 7
I I. Introduction/Project Goals .................... ........................... .................. .......... .......... .................. 8
I Background .......... ........................................ .............. ............... .................... ............. ............ ................. 8
I Needs . .. .......... .......... . .. . . . . ...... . . .......... . . .... .............. . .. . .. ......... . .. '" . . ... .. ........ . '" ........... ....... ... ........ . . . ... .,. ... 8
Opportunities .......... ................ ............... .............. ..... .... ...... ....... .............. ..... ......... .... .... .... ........... ...... .... 9
I
I II. Needs - Sizing Up the Challenge .........:................................................................................. 10
I Priority 1 Needs ........ ..... ...... .................. .............................. ....... ......... ......... ............ ............. ........ ........ 10
I Priority 2 Needs ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Priority 3 Needs ..................................................................................................................................... 11
I
I III. Opportunities -Implementing a "Regional Corridor Management Plan" ............................. 14
A. Regional Corridor Management Planning Process in Scott County.................................................... 15
Twin Cities Metropolitan Council ............................................"......................................................... 15
I SCALE ............................................................................................................................................ 16
I Scott County...............; ........ ...... ................... ....... .......... ....... ........ ..... ................. ........... ................. 17
I Municipals and Township Governments .......................................................................................... 17
B. Strategies to Preserve and Acquire Key Corridors .............................................................................. 18
Planning and Zoning Authority ........................................................................................................ 18
Developer Payments and Contributions ............................................................................................ 22
Developer Inducements and Other Agreements ............................................................................... 24
Acquisition ............................................................................................................................... ...... 25
Financing Tools for Corridor Preservation ........................................................................................ 26
Appendix A: Official Mapping ............. .... ....... ...................... .................. ............ n....... ................. ...... 32
Appendix B: Project List ..................................................... ....... ...................... ........... ........ ................ 36
MAPS
Priority 1 and Priority 2 Project Needs .................................................................................................................. 12
All Project Needs .......... ............... ..... ..... ........................... ........ .......... ..... ............. ....... ......... ................ ............... 13
SCALE Transportation Task Force -#- Bonestroo Project No: 569-07- 105
DRAFT Phase 2 Report
t
.
~
.
SCALE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE - PHASE 2 REPORT
. Key Findings and Recommendations
.
.
. PROJECT BACKGROUND
. This report is the second in a series prepared for the Scott County Association for Leadership and Efficiency
. (SCALE) to identify the County's regionally significant transportation infrastructure needs and to propose a
. Scott County Corridor Management Plan that will enable SCALE, Scott County, its municipalities and
~ townships, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and private sector partners located within the
County to achieve their transportation vision for the year 2020 and beyond. This report builds on the findings
~ and recommendations advanced in the initial ("Phase 1") report called "Managing Growth in Scott County:
. Challenge or Opportunity?" That report contained a list - generated from direct input from the County and its
. eight municipal governments - of approximately 80 critical transportation project needs that should be
completed within the next 10 or 15 years (and some sooner than that) for the transportation network to be
t able to safely and efficiently handle the level of growth in population and economic development that is
. projected for the County.
. One of the principal recommendations of the Phase 1 report was the creation of a Transportation Task Force
. to advise SCALE on issues related to regional transportation needs. (See the" Acknowledgements" page for a
~ list of Task Force members.) The Task Force was convened in early 2007 and immediately established the
. following mission, which also accurately expresses the fundamental purpose of this report:
~ "To address the impact on rapid growth in the County, and identify the
~ means and strategies to get ahead of the growth trends, particularly with
respect to land acquisition and the County's right-ot-way needs."
. SCALE Transportation Task Force,
. February 23, 2007
. The Task Force met nine times in 2007, and discussed a wide variety of issues related to identifying and
. implementing effective transportation and land use planning strategies in the face of the County's rapid
~ population and economic growth. In general, the Task Force meeting agendas typically involved the following
. general broad topic areas:
. . Identification of specific regional and multi-modal transportation needs throughout Scott County;
. . Identification of strategies to fund, manage, and preserve critical right-of-way;
t . Discussion of procedural strategies to more effectively leverage resources of the federal, state and
. regional governments; and
. . Discussion of strategies to enhance and optimize collaboration and cooperation among the County, local
jurisdictions, and other stakeholders.
.
~ The following discussion provides a summary of the work of theTask Force articulated in the form of key
. findings and recommendations.
~
.
.
.
, SCALE Transportation Task Force * Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
. DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 1
~
~
~
~
~
~ KEY TASK FORCE FINDINGS
~ The list below offers an overview of key SCALE Transportation Task Force findings. These are the critical
. factors that were considered in developing the list of recommendations following this section.
1. SCALE and its member organizations have successfully addressed challenges associated
. with rapid regional growth and development in the past, and they remain committed to
. working collaboratively, energetically, and creatively to solve future challenges.
. 2. A coordinated countywide transportation and land use planning efforfwill support long
~ range regional objectives identified in the County and City 2030 Comprehensive Plans
. including preservation of green space, promoting economic development, and job creation
along the County's major transportation corridors. The County Comprehensive Plan identifies U.S.
. 169,1-35, TH 13, and TH 182 as corridors that should be emphasized as potential sites for new economic
. development that provides job opportunities for County residents.
. 3. The current regional transportation network is not adequate to handle present or future
~ demands resulting from rapid growth in the region. For a wide variety of reasons, Scott County is
and will continue to be a place where more and more people choose to live and work. Population will
~ increase from 118,000 in 2006 to 221,000 in 2030. U.S. Census data indicates that the County ranks
. 11th nationally in terms of the percentage of its population commuting to work each day to a different
~ county, and while long range plans envision increasing employment opportunities within the County, high
levels of peak period commuter traffic will continue to be a significant challenge for County and municipal
, planners.
~ 4. The fundamental objective in addressing the transportation needs of the region over the
~ next 20 to 30 years and beyond must be focused on moving people, and not simply building
~ more infrastructure. Providing additional transit options will be a critical component of
achieving that vision.
~ 5. Compared to both current regional transportation service policies and standards identified by Mn/DOT,
~ and to historical development patterns vis-a-vis major transportation infrastructure such as river crossings
~ and principal arterial roadways throughout much of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, there is an
~ inadequate network of principal arterials, regional river crossings, and transit facilities in
Scott County. The lack of these critical transportation facilities is costly for businesses and residents who
. pay for congestion in lost time, fuel, etc.
~ 6. SCALE and its member organizations must continue to develop and strengthen pa~tnerships
~ with regional, state, and federal authorities in order to most effectively and affordably achieve 'its
. regional transportation vision. The Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan
Council, in particular, should be key partners with SCALE in developing strategies that utilize our regional
t planning tools in a more efficient and comprehensive way.
~ 7. Achieving the vision for a safe and effective regional transportation network will require
~ immediate progress on specific unfunded project needs, as well as sustained progress on
~ current opportunities as they arise to address longer term demands on the regional
transportation network. First, critical project needs must be identified and action taken to secure the
. funding to deliver these projects on a timely basis. Second, recognizing the implications of rapid growth
. opportunities must be seized that ensure optimal management and preservation of critical transportation
~ corridors.
.
~
~
, SCALE Transportation Task Force -# Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
~ DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 2
.
.
.
~
~
~ 8. Better coordination between regional land use planning and transportation planning will
~ reduce costs. The existing "disconnect" between land use planning and transportation planning on a
~ regional level inhibits efficiency and increases costs significantly, including land acquisition, mitigation,
and" externalities" such as environmental and social costs. Costs savings generated from a more
~ coordinated, regionally focused process could be reinvested in projects that will improve the regional
~ transportation network.
~ 9. The focus of SCALE and its member organizations in the short run should be on addressing
21 high priority regional projects ("Priority 1 and 2 Needs") identified in this report. A
~ comprehensive analysis incorporating the input of local public works and planning officials initiated in
~ Phase 1 and concluded during this study period identified approximately 80 specific road, bridge, and
~ transit projects throughout the County that should be programmed between now and 2030. This list was
~ pared down to 21 projects on the current or future principal arterial system.
10. Multi-jurisdictional land use and corridor management planning initiatives focusing on
. regional priorities provide a clear public benefit. Effective implementation will generate economic
~ benefits and generally enhance the quality of life of citizens and communities throughout the entire
~ region.
~ 11. To achieve the greatest return on taxpayer investments in transportation infrastructure, the
application of additional tools will be necessary. A variety of strategic tools and funding sources
~ are available and have been utilized in the past to manage and preserve critical regional transportation
~ corridors. Unfortunately - and contrary to conventional wisdom - financing transportation corridor
~ preservation and infrastructure construction entirely from contributions from 'new residential and
commercial development falls far short of providing sufficient resources to address existing needs. This
~ report identifies best practices from other areas of the country, as well as proposing entirely new
, strategies - some of which are more easily implemented, and others that will require the approval from
~ metro, state, and federal authorities.
~ TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
~ The SCALE Transportation Task Force has developed the following list of 36 recommendations which should
~ be addressed beginning in 2008. These recommendations are classified in the following six categories:
, I. Regional Corridor Management Planning Process
t II. Coalitions and Corridors
III. Transit
~ IV, Project Funding
~ V. County Wide Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
~ VI. Management/Staff Support to the SCALE Transportation Task Force
~ I. Regional Corridor Management Planning Process
~ OVERVIEW
~ The vast majority of the Task Force's time and energy was spent considering ways in which the County and its
~ municipal partners could work in collaboration to secure right-of-way in the most cost efficient process
possible. The fundamental belief that was shared universally by all Task Force members was that there is a
~ great deal of potential benefit, economic and otherwise, to SCALE and its member organizations if a more
~ efficient land planning and corridor preservation process was established, and that additional resources and
~ tools mustbe made available which would promote corridor preservation and land acquisition for critical
regional transportation corridors.
.
~
, SCALE Transportation Task Force -# Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
~ DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 3
~
~
~
.
~
. The Task Force offers the following recommendations that would contribute to a more collaborative, and
therefore more efficient and cost-effective corridor preservation process.
~
~ RECOMMENDATIONS
t 1. Support and promote a coordinated countywide transportation and land use planning effort to achieve job
I creation objectives identified in the County's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, particularly along major
'1 transportation corridors, Le.,U.S. 169,1-35, TH 13, and TH 282.
~
2. Support efforts to engage the County and local units of government in a dialogue on corridor
~ management and preservation" cost share" policies.
, 3. Support continued public dialogue to use local bonding authority for right-of-way acquisition.
/
~ 4. Support efforts by SCALE to sponsor additional analysis on right-of-way acquisition and cost issues (Le.,
~ consider impact of variables such as timing of acquisition, functional classification of roadway, ownership
~ of prope~y, etc.)
~ 5. Support creation of a County "right-of-way acquisition fund" to preserve identified corridors, and identify
financing alternatives to capitalize the fund.
~
6. Support development of official mapping strategy including review of existing authority and process.
, 7. Support development and implementation of a "training module" to be delivered during the spring of
~ 2008 to all local stakeholders, including the County and all its local municipalities and townships that
, emphasizes the nature of transportation and land use planning as a shared responsibility that can benefit
," all stakeholders when it effectively addresses regional needs.
~
~ 8. Support efforts to identify optimal right-of-way acquisition strategies for each of the priority projects
requiring right-of-way preservation.
~
9. Support ongoing staff/consultant activities to implement a Scott County Regional Corridor Management
~ Plan including development of a multi-jurisdictional process for preserving and acquiring key regional
~ corridors through existing and new corridor management strategies.
~ 10. Support creation of an additional staff position to coordinate and manage the Scott County Regional
~ Corridor Management Planning process.
0<
~ 11. Support submittal of grant application for McKnight "Region and Communities" grant to work with public
and private stakeholders to develop and implement a multi-jurisdictional comprehensive planning process
~ that locates and preserves land in both conservation corridors and transportation corridors leading to
~ more desirable development patterns and substantial cost savings. (The McKnight application would
~ address elements of Recommendations 5 through 9.)
~ Expected 2008 Outcomes: To be determined by the SCALE Transportation Task Force.
~ II. Coalitions and Corridors
~ OVERVIEW
~ The SCALE Transportation Task Force has overseen the establishment and preliminary work of two newly
~ created corridor coalitions: the TH 13 Ports of Savage Corridor Coalition and the Minnesota Regional River
~ Crossing Coalition. In addition, the Task Force has identified additional high priority corridors and their related
~ project needs and will undertake future activities aimed at securing funding and improving these corridors.
~
~
~
~ SCALE Transportation Task Force 4- Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
~ DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 4
~
.
~
.
.
. RECOMMENDATIONS
. A. TH 13/Ports of Savage Coalition
, 12. Support efforts of the SCALE Transportation Task Force to develop evaluation criteria on various corridor
. projects which will be submitted to SCALE and the County Board.
, 13. Support the use of County wheelage tax revenues to finance bonding for the construction of the TH 13/
CR 101 Interchange. ...--... "
.
14. Support Coalition efforts to secure additional state and federal funding to complete TH 13 improvements
. from TH 169 to 1-35W.
, 15. Support contribution of up to $10,000 from SCALE for" start-up" costs of the Coalition, financed from
, existing budgeted funds.
. 16. Delegate the SCALE Transportation consultant to provide staff support to the Coalition.
.
. B. Regional Minnesota River Crossing Coalition
. 17. Support measures to accelerate construction date of regional Minnesota River crossing to 2015.
, 18. Support evaluation of benefits of developing a regional Minnesota River crossing as a joint Scott
. County/Carver County bridge project, to be led by County officials in partnership with state and regional
agencies.
, 19. Support working in cooperation with Carver County to consider development of Minnesota River Crossing
t once final corridor alignment selection is complete.
t 20. Support efforts to investigate options for establishing a pilot public/private partnership or "3P" initiative
t (if initiated by local government) for design, construction, and operation of the Minnesota River Crossing
and other major projects. The Task Force further supports efforts to secure funding for technical assistance
t and educational support to implement the 3P initiative, and funding for a limited pilot program.
t 21. Support contribution of up to $10,000 from SCALE for "start-up" costs of the Coalition, financed from
~ existing budgeted funds.
~ 22. Delegate the SCALE Transportation consultant to provide staff support to Coalition.
t C. TH 169 Corridor Improvements
.
.-' 23. Support efforts to program and fund construction of TH 169/1-494 Interchange in Bloomington, e.g.,
~ inclusion of the project in the state legislature's 2008 capital investment "bonding" bill and the
~ Metropolitan Council's 5-year Transportation Improvement Program.
~ 24. Support engineering study and implementation of traffic congestion mitigation projects on TH 169
. between TH 41 and Old Shakopee Road in Bloomington, including construction of stacking lane at TH
~ 169 east of County Road 83 and the construction of bus only shoulders where appropriate.
~ D. Additional Regional Minnesota River Crossings
~ 25. Support project feasibility (including financing options) and engi~eering study of additional crossings in
~ Jordan, $hakopee, and Savage, including transit, High Occupancy Vehicle, MnPASS, and bike/pedestrian
facility at existing rail crossing in Savage.
~
~ Expected 2008 Outcomes: To be determined by the SCALE Transportation Task force.
~
~
~ SCALE Transportation Task Force #' Bonestroo Project No: 569-07- 105
~ DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 5
~
~
..
J
~
~
/
~ III. Transit
~ OVERVIEW
Population growth, new economic development, and the expansion of the urban service area will all
~ contribute significantly to greater travel demands on the road and bridge network. In order to sustain and
.~ ~nhance the quality of life in the region, alternative modes of travel must be available for commuters and
. others traveling within the County. New transit options, including both rail and bus service must be a
j component of the region's transportation network to support these added future demands.
~
J
~ RECOMMENDATIONS
~ 26. Support collaborative efforts with the Metropolitan Council and neighboring jurisdictions to identify
~ program efficiencies and promote additional funding sources for transit service that will achieve greater
~ consistency and reliability for transit planners and providers.
~. 27. Support regional planning authority for the development of new and expanded transit service in the
southwest metro region, including: 1) evaluation of commuter rail along the Dan Patch corridor, 2)
~ coordination of light rail transit and bus rapid transit along the U.S. 169 Corridor with Hennepin County
~ consistent with the Southwest Corridor Study; and 3) development of bus rapid transit along the 1-35
~ Corridor.
~ 28. Support specific "transit advantages" where appropriate, including bus-only shoulder facilities on river
.~ c!ossings.
.29. .S'upport efforts to construct a new park-and-ride facility at TH 21 and TH 16.
, ::;.
~ ExpeCted 2008 Outcomes: To be determined by the SCALE Transportation Task Force.
~ IV. Project Funding
~ OVERVIEW
~ Existing, traditional resources for corridor management and preservation such as developer contributions, state
~ aid, and - most importantly - property taxes are simply not sufficient to finance the needs of a rapidly growing
, County such as Scott County. The following recommendation addresses the Task Force's intention of
continuing to review and when appropriate, advocate for specific funding sources, both existing and those
, requiring new authority.
~ RECOMMENDATIONS
~
30. Support efforts to persuade the Metropolitan Council's Transportation Advisory Board to consider an
~ amendment to the 2030 Regional Development framework that would more directly acknowledge and
~ reward project proposals that preserve key transportation corridors.
~ 31. Support SCALE's continued participation in monitoring and promoting additional funding opportunities.
~ a. Federal (STP, CMAQ, TE) appropriations
b. Federal SAFETEA-LU reauthorization
~ c. State funding for regional corridors, and corridor management
~ d. Mn/DOT and Met Council opportunities
. e. PublidPrivate Partnerships
f. Innovative local funding
.
~ Expected 2008 Outcomes: To be determined by the SCALE Transportation Task Force.
~
~
. SCALE Transportation Task force -# Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
. DRAfT Phase 2 Report Page 6
~
l
~
,
\
\ V. Countywide Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
OVERVIEW
~ The Task Force believes that ultimately, the County and its local units of government would benefit from
, producing a combined Transportation Improvement Program that would provide consistency from community
, to community in terms of the regional goals and project needs for all communities. The following
. recommendations are intended to promote the idea of enhancing the existing County TIP to a more formalized
I program that would be adopted by the County and all its jurisdictions.
\
~ RECOMMENDATIONS
- 32. Support development and implementation of a countywide, multi-jurisdictional Transportation
~ Improvement Program addressing local and regional transportation needs by 2010. ,
. 33. Support efforts to integrate the goal of a multi-jurisdictional countywide TIP into all work done on behalf
of the SCALE Transportation Task Force.
~
, Expected 2008 Outcomes: To be determined by the SCALE Transportation Task force.
~ VI. Management/Staff Support to the SCALE Transportation Task Force
~ OVERVIEW
~ The SCALE Transportation Task Force was established in January of 2007 at the recommendation of the Phase
~ 1 report "Managing Growth in Scott County: Challenge or Opportunity?". The findings and recommendations
f of the Task Force are the subject of this report. The following recommendation.s involve specific administ.rative
.
J functions that would be overseen by the Task Force in the upcoming year.
~
~ RECOMMENDATIONS
~ 34. Support continuing SCALE Transportation Task Force through 2008.
~ 35. Support staff/consultant support of TH 13/Ports of Savage Coalition and Regional River Crossing
~ Coalition.
36. Support increased public forums and events displaying Task Force activities and recommendations,
. including media events, legislative and congressional forums, and other public events.
~
~ Expected 2008 Outcomes: To be determined by the SCALE Transportation Task force.
~
.
.
t
~
~
~
~
.
~
~
~
~ SCALE Transportation Task Force -#" Bonestroo Project No: 569-07- J 05
. DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 7
~
.
J
-
.
~
~ SCALE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE - PHASE 2 REPORT
I. Introduction/Project Goals
.
/
.
.
, BACKGROUND
~ In 2005, the Scott County Association for leadership and Efficiency (SCALE) undertook an ambitious initiative
to identify key transportation corridor and project improvement needs that must be addressed if the County
~ and its local government and private partners are to achieve the long-range, regional transportation vision for
~ Scott County. The initial "Phase 1" 2006 "To address the impact on rapid growth in the
. report to SCALE - called" Managing Growth County, and identify the means and strategies to
. in Scott County: Challenge or Opportunity?" get ahead of the growth trends, particularly with
listed approximately 80 key unfunded respect to land acquisition and the county's right-
~ transportation project needs that were of-way needs. "
, identified in a series of meetings with
. County and municipal officials. The list was Mission of the SCALE Transportation Task Force
established to identify the most important
~ and regionally significant projects that all municipal and County officials could agree represent the most critical
, project needs that must be addressed over the next 10 to 20 years if the county transportation network is to
l meet the travel demands of citizens and business in this growing county. The report also recommended the
I establishment of a SCALE Transportation Task Force responsible for making recommendations to the full
SCALE membership to identify and undertake strategies intended to implement the most important regional
I projects.
l
I Achieving the County's Transportation Vision: "Needs" and "Opportunities"
The SCALE Transportation Task Force understood from the outset that achieving the vision for an effective and
, safe regional transportation network articulated by SCALE and its member organizations would require
I progress on two fronts. The SCALE Transportation Task Force characterized these two fundamental objectives
I - which are the primary focus of this report - as "needs" (Section II of the report) and "opportunities"
I (Section III of the report).
I NEEDS
I Section II of this report identifies and describes the unfunded project needs which must continue to be a top
I priority of the County, its municipal and private partners, as well as partners at the federal, state, and regional
I levels of government who will be relied upon to contribute a share of the funding for many of these regionally
I significant projects.
I This section identifies and describes unfunded needs on two levels. First, the Task Force identified a handful of
broad transportation project needs that could be fairly characterized as the most fundamental and deep-
seated challenges for the countywide transportation network over the next 20 to 30 years. Section II begins
with a discussion on these highest priority transportation infrastructure challenges (called " Priority 1 Needs),
and progress that has been made to date:
. TH 13/Ports of Savage .. 1-494/US 169 Interchange Traffic Congestion
. Minnesota River Regional River Crossing . (Bloomington)
. U.S. 169/TH 101 Traffic Congestion . Countywide Transit System
SCALE Transportation Task Force -# Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 8
~
~
~
~
~ Second, the Task Force has reviewed work that was initiated in the Phase 1 report involving identification of
~ approximately 80 regionally significant projects identified by the local Official Advisory Group. Identification of
these secondary project needs are important because these projects will continue to be considered for
~ programming (for both corridor preservation and construction) during implementation of the Regional Corridor
. Management Planning Process, described in SectIon III of this report.
., The Task Force fully recognizes the importance of these projects in the development of a safe and efficient
- ..-
~ regional transportation network, and is committed to focusing first on approximately 20 of the 80 projects
. identified in Phase 1. These 20 projects were identified as the highest priority projects among the original list
of 80 projects based on feedback by the local Official Advisory Group and an analysis of project significance.
. In the end, all of the 20 projects selected involve improvements to an existing or planned system of pri~cipal
. arterial highways. (These 20 projects are identified as IIPriority 2 Needs" in this report.) The Task Force will
. continue efforts to promote land preservation and completion of these transportation infrastructure projects
that SCALE and its members have identified as important in terms of providing safety, economic vitality, and
. livability of the County.
.
. OPPORTUNITIES
. The main priority of the SCALE Transportation Task Force - and the primary subject of this report - addresses
how best to respond to the current opportunities that will ultimately determine the type of transportation
. network that will be left as a legacy for future generations. Section III of the report focuses on those shorter
., term opportunities that will require action by SCALE, and its member organizations, including the County, its
. municipalities, townships, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, and key private partners.
., Fundamentally, these opportunities involve taking advantage of existing and new tools that will promote and
enable local authorities to preserve critical transportation corridors, resulting in significant cost savings: Some
. of the opportunities identified in this section do not require changes in current planning processes, funding
. sources, or other factors, and so taking advantage of those opportunities means simply working smarter to
~ take better advantages of those existing tools. On the other hand, this report also identifies a number of new
opportunities that will require a change in the status quo as it relates to developing relations with federal,
~ state, regional, and local partners; developing and implementing new and improved ways of doing business;
~ or promoting new or expanded sources of funding.
.:
/ The discussion on opportunities in Section III focuses on three distinct areas, each a component of a process
.1
that is intended to equip SCALE and its member organizations with the tools to more proactively manage and
.) preserve critical transportation corridors and to complete regionally significant transportation projects in a
~! timely fashion. This section includes 1) a recommendation for a multi-jurisdictional Scott County Corridor
.: Management planning process; 2) a review of strategies that can be used to manage and preserve
. transportation corridors, and 3) a review of existing and prospective funding sources to finance corridor
) management and preservation activities.
.
/
.
/
.;
,
.:
.;
/
.
.
, SCALE Transportation Task Force ~ Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
, DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 9
,
\
1\
t
,\ SCALE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE - PHASE 2 REPORT
~, II. Needs - Sizing Up the Challenge
.
~.
. In 2006, a series of meetings were conducted independently with administrators and public works officials
~ from the County and each of the eight (now seven, with the merger of Elko New Market) municipal
. governments, a group referred to as the "local Officials Advisory Group". (See the Acknowledgements page
for a roster of group participants.) These meetings identified approximately 80 regionally significant project
~ needs in the County. From these projects, three separate priority lists were generated: Priority 1 Needs, Priority
. 2 Needs, and Priority 3 Needs. These project lists are identified and described below:
.
PRIORITY 1 NEEDS
.
. From the list of the initial 80 projects identified in Phase 1, and based on additional input from the Local
Officials Advisory Group, the SCALE Transportation Task Force identified a handful of broad project needs that
. represent the most critical and immediate impediments to the County's transportation network. The County
- and its local partners, along with partners in the private sector have been dedicating significant resources and
~ energy to promote the needs of these projects for a number of years, long before the establishment of the
SCALE and the SCALE Transportation Task Force. The Task Force supports continued emphasis of these
~ initiatives including continued promotion of efforts to seek financial support for these costly projects from
~ federal, state, and regional partners.
~
, A status report of these projects is provided below:
. TH 13/Ports of Savage - The TH 13/Ports of Savage corridor remains a top priority of SCALE and the
,
/ county due to its significance as a multimodal corridor serving not only local travel, but as a critical
~ corridor to the economy of the entire state and indeed the upper Midwest. This corridor has long been
~ one of the most heavily traveled corridors among trucks in the state, and many of the key intersections
~ along the corridor are moving higher on Mn/DOT's list of the worst traffic intersections in terms of crash
rates.
~ One of the key recommendations containedin the Phase 1 report was to establish a corridor coalition for
~ the TH 13/Ports of Savage corridor. That coalition was established early in 2007 and has been active in
~ pursuing federal funding through the Metropolitan Council's regional solicitation of federal funding that is
. effective for the year 2011. Prior to establishment of the Coalition, the County and its local partners
. successfully secured federal funding for elements of the overall project, including construction of service
roads in Savage. The Coalition, including the County and local partners are currently working to secure
. additional federal funding for interchanges and other improvements along the corridor.
i?
~ . Regional Minnesota River Crossing - The Phase I report to SCALE also recommended the establishment of
. a coalition called the Regional River Crossing Corridor Coalition. This Coalition, which includes
. representation from both Scott and Carver County and municipal officials, has met three times to identify
. preliminary goals and objectives, but will probably not become fully operational until Mn/DOT selects the
preferred alignment of the Minnesota River crossing, which is expected to occur sometime in early 2008.
~ Once the alignment is selected, the Coalition will be better positioned to identify project needs and
~ pursue state and federal funding.
. . U.S. 169/TH 101 Traffic Congestion (from existing River Crossing at TH 41 to the north side of the
~ Bloomington Ferry Bridge) - The US 169 and TH 101 corridors between the existing TH 41 Minnesota
. River crossing and the Bloomington Ferry bridge is one of the worst bottle necks in the metro area and is
~ SCALE Transportation Task Force .,t; Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
. DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 10
~
.
,
,
,
.
. currently at capacity during peak periods. The corridor is critical to traffic flow in the region because it
serves three of the main tourist attractions in the metro area: Valley Fair, Mystic Lake Casino, and
. Canterbury Downs. Task Force members have identified potential low cost solutions to the traffic
. bottlenecks through this area and the Task Force has recommended that these solutions be considered
. during the coming year.
~ . 1-494/U.S. 169 Interchange Traffic Congestion (in Bloomington) -Ironically, one of the most critical
challenges facing travelers moving in and out of Scott County involves a project in Hennepin County - the
~ 1-94/U.S. 169 interchange. (This project is perhaps the best example of how" regionalized" many of the
~ most important and challenging transportation issues have become, and how solving these problems will
. require a regional solution.) This interchange project was initially programmed for construction in the
. Governor's 2003 Bond Allocation Program, but ultimately the project was deferred due to limited funds.
The project needs to be moved back into the regional Transportation Improvement Program.
. Countywide Transit System (Dan Patch, Southwest Corridor, US 169 Express Commuter Bus service, I-
.
. 35W Bus Rapid Transit) - As indicated earlier, SCALE and its member organizations are committed to
. creating a transportation network that safely and efficiently moves people, not just automobiles. The
. focus of this entire effort is to put a system in place that provides modal options and allows citizens,
, visitors, and businesses to move through and around the County in a safe and efficient manner.
Although many of the transit needs identified in this report represent projects that may not be completed
. for some time, it is instructive to know that one of the transit related projects identified in the Phase 1
, report in the summer of 2006 has already been completed. The Park & Ride facility at U.S. 169 and CSAH
, 18 has been operational since the July of 2007 and is currently serving about 250 riders per day.
, PRIORITY 2 NEEDS
. After the 80 projects were identified in Phase 1, project consultants worked with the Local Officials Advisory
. Group and the SCALE Transportation Task force to pare the list down to a more manageable number of
~ projects. It was determined that it would not be reasonable to expect to immediately address all 80 identified
~ project needs given the limited resources that are currently available, so the project consultants developed a
" prioritizing methodology that examined criteria such as existing functional classification and regional
significance to identify those projects that merited ahigher priority. Project consultants have maintained a
, database of all 80 projects, including the "scoring criteria" collected from the Local Official Advisory Group
~ which the Task Force believes will also be useful in the future as a tool to be used to provide guidance on
~ evaluating the relative merits of competing projects and to help identify optimal funding strategies for corridor
~ preservation or project construction.
~ In the end, the list of Priority 1 projects (identified and described above) and Priority 2 projects totals 20
~ projects in Scott County, and one project in Hennepin County. Projects that were selected as Priority 1 and
-- Priority 2 projects all involve improvements or expansion of roadway or transit along existing or future
~ principal arterials. This criteria was proposed and adopted by the local Officials Advisory Group in a meeting
~ conducted on October 24, 2007.
~
~ Priority 1 and 2 projects are presented in the fold out map following this page. (The 1-494/US 169 interchange
~ project is not located in the county and is not shown on the project map.)
~ PRIORITY 3 NEEDS
"",-
~ Priority 3 needs are all of the remaining projects identified in the Phase 1 report, as well as additional projects
~ identified in subsequent discussions with local officials and the SCALE Transportation Task Force.
~ SCALE Transportation Task Force . # Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
~ ORAFT Phase 2 Report Page JJ
~
~
,
" .. .,~ '~..,...,. . ".... ',.:..... ,r:2~:; <''':''''''''',;:'':',...'1, , . .,....' '.,1;.
" :...' r.:;::"':'"/:';} b ",Mr'" "-\'f~':';~;':'::,~, , ", " "VIctoria' "';,:-';', /,:,'-'i,';r.. f'" ""~'g:;'j,~'ilfA. ,,_ ,'t,,'
. , 4l:l~1<;*" . ...."':'~6.~i~,,~ "'p",~'y:;a !;;:(;J)r.~:-",l~!:l(' r \j' . ~" ".. . ,,' . ' ,;.,' ".,;. "'AH1<''''','!'!1J';'''''l',:; 'f-" .. , '.,.
. ",\'i',..".., ":\;:',:: j:~~' l:.I , '. ,,' , 'i~: 'j '...,.i:'J..,..,...!.. 'I" "
I 'K-i'!Y~~9Qla '":.~;~ -I" ,~f <$ M~ ~ '. .W~';r.'<":' , ~'t"'';';':~' '';'A', ".,....,"'-~.~iJ5.,~.',.! "
-. ',.i~,~~,,:.i: ~< 1:- . ,"";;",.j. ;" . 'IE'>. ,~ i ~ @~.'t1...l}' 0 - , fJ,'.~ /) '"",~:1;;1. <, ,,;:.,'..:.:'.,..-, .,
L d ,":,--:-,~-,; '.1 ,..,t'-:..l.iZ"1, fl.' ;', ' .- ,. '.' '. '. . l ", .,,' '.' '0(' ,,+;:c-'.,,~",c,:"L~''!,'"
. egen . i."::';' ~ " . "~ . , ",-:;;, "pc'.' . ." , ; "",. /' ;;j:;/;f-:'jg~/
I) .... .':"'. . ." -:: "), ,.< .;r' ,,;:\ , .,'!~{):ji,'L:" ,~;t~~;:'~?c~~~a~~i~~al{,' .':: 5 tt C t
' .' Current Functional Classification V.':' ':.:. .' ,;.'! ~';i:1 ", f. . ,.\ , .;:- ~ '; J . \. 7- '~il7'f-J'Ni!{ffft.WfI~ " , CO 0 u n Y
I' .'..L.. . I " ".'.t. ~~"'.~ ,;.... . -" ., : j ,.~~'i:~~~~In .
,...:. Prmclpal Artena ~' ~., ,,' .:. . .' .' ','. ';"', ;' '. . .. .: " : . A~~S;':""~:"r'i\"~I;:K'"v R>,; ;..,.. ,
:', ...t... · . .,....,.;;~ .~:) '- ......-l. . ,.". r <' ",. ,.' , ). '.-:1 ;i'X;!>!'''' " ,. . ,
) M'n r ander . ," " >";,"< '. '. .'." .' . '.i:);) '. " . ..'.. . . ':~"F' .. ,> , ,
I 1~..Jl.A ~OEXP I... .."'.':,'; /. -/):L ....' . <"';., '. ,,;~j!; ",'.""10;'" PRIORITY 1 & PRIORITY 2
.' I. ..!..AMlnorconnector 1.:....::...,..,,':I'.~1\'" . .'.. ,<:" .. : J--I,.' /~. " ' ',{y,. ,I..': . '" Ful.. " " PROJECT NEEDS
" Ii . ~--, :... ' "J.. r " ,. ;.' ~.~/;' , -...-J" . ' ",' ,~ ",''>.' , .
.' Minor Collector 1 .. '. ({'~'i ,:.:,..," ',;' . '," , ,'.. " ..-, j". ,~.,,-' . ~~ ' . '. '.. ;..." " .
I) ,.. . " ."';;.:::'~: ',': "~'" 'J' ...... .,..},.... .,.. ',s7/':;"" j' (1.'. ,> ' ",/.
( RoadSystem ,:', "', :; .." ,/:' ',~ >.. ,'~ \, ,,::'" ;.,;. _ ',.. ":", I 1'11"1;,, .. "'''''Jell,' ;~.;;::.~;' I ' '.- J.,.' , .
. F: ,,:/':;:,/j'i:<';'" , ,. ., -":. 'i!iii7" ,'. .. 'h'" '7""'.r=,~,y.;;',?B -....,. .,....'.... '\': "
Ii 1: ~ Interstate Hwy .....,.,.., i-';~"::l .,'. , ,.....:.. " " .. . ;~ . , . . " .. ' '.. ' ,
, I, ;<.;.., ~"'''J I' '>--'.'", M - I- ,'<'~ ~",,#ilfJ./;fi!{''' 'n:.';;5:<.; ,,~:);; ~ ~. 1 169 \. '4 -1)
r.~ i -: ~".,; /r; , ~l I- '_:-:' ~.'f) .'4 ~c;~'~'~%f :1> ~"--,jifi' e < 1 < "g!;' ^ ~. .
\) 1~:...@1...USTrunkHwy ~. "'IiJ,.:."'tii;"';i -/', ." .l". ' """':;";, "'~l3:y~;"",,,,;.~llll!~_,, ~);I ,;. ./Sn~Kape::" '" ,r; . 13. " Potential ProJect
, I:;:' :--... ""1<<" ",. '. ,. ~"'-'. .0":;;......: i ~;,j;~r;@'; , 0- ~,<\., It X en, ,,; ''': ' ' ~,,)\ 'J( . ..
1:-:- ......@]-StateTrunkHwy,_... ,j)~..c,;j~~?" I {, :,..' .,,~ ...., ' /. . ~';".,;:j . / ~~'~}~i.f~ f;':"..< :~~r ~'":(:i": 17 .. " ." :.f'ff1'l'';9 ROW AcqUISition Needs
, It-: "-;;:'"'~I,;'>:':":~irk~~@!~f~j L.5 .'-)_:::~t':'~~'>_:::':',':':l': :\.' "',:,-/:y ';r.,~_~.J$f,:",,?, i~~~~:I':' ~~ '" ,.._....I<i,~., ~..'if,,< 83 ,13 '>;;'~-;;;><'Ji:::;~'~ <:\!"i,'~-",)1~i' f'l
1l'-G)--CountyStateAidHwy & ""."":'~J,;,,'l...:, 'L/ '1::?f:\' :.;..-J'.J..'~'\ i \J,,'''7'l'((T~~l~if;. ,<<I ,'c:;', 78 ." : ' ," ~.. "":'."
'\ _..n....r0_"i;.-il:i:;S:;.~J .;" . ,~ ' ' ", j>>~r.Y'''' .. <}" " '.J,,!~.ifc })t1/J ~ .~~t' rr-- , , '.! .' ., ( .. ,
l'o ~",;,;'",;~,;;~~-r::," ,,':"" i" ~% J' "'\,ir{it:srver. ""'lifP '" ~ '>,h. r,"" \ _ ~I~ 7 ~ '~_ ,
, - CountyRd ....' ."; :-:.~,:.:~~,\~... ' ,,', ,," ,.i~. '\,.)\\ ,~ ! "'. ", ~ ' ",.:. " "~Buin'sV;rI;;~"'q"'~~:i'
, . .".. '\ J?- .' ~ "'- '. "'.;: -:';''1' L ' "11 ' <-.. r:,.,' _, qJf J":~!':;k:4 ': ~u
f:' .' .:, ~/... "~\"..,,, ')' )) ~:;:,::;;:,;... . /169 '. , '., '," ",. "\'/',?~"cII~".;, ""'~
~,- LocaIRd',",,-:,~,J(" " ..,.. "'.-<' , )~i.'r. J}' 'ii~'~?,;.,.U~;i\;,,~:;i- ,..\. \..... ." 18. . ~ . re, '~:i\~~~;,"':_*,~ ".~\/
if"""""'l' '. '.. ',". '( '. ',. ".... 1(., "",,,\\ I,' ':.\. '~I''';,' "fiNi7i-': '" 42 Ie 18 J?.Jt:j' '. ."
t ,~ County Boundary , ?>.J " .... " .' '., ....' I ~ ... . -. . >"0: '.j Jr,:.,' . .'~'''l if:.. \, ' '..'." " , ' t:;i!~11~"WJi'v >~,.rlff~~rj::;,ii I ;..~ "''''. ' ," . , ",:~
-s', ' ..' /,.' '.. '. . I .;" '; ,'. . . ~'~i' ~ ~b \" . ~ .,l~" -'v,.:Io/:, ",.,
~ Railway , .. . , '.' - . ,~:' ." , " ~/I' IxW\, " . -' Ji ,; " 4--;~- ,~ a r:;:,.t.f'~f:"~" 'c:~::{!'i;f' (j,~,p,,~" :~ 13. j .
. _Lakes ~ ~-../,.,'./ . "l. .... i~r't~ ..,,'. '/Z:" ii!l::.:'....t.,. L~,,;,UO~.,?;~ '."", r,i; I (J>' . . +~t~;Z~~~~-~ .. . 'r , f:k. .
.- .' /~-. .... . ' '.'-.r(;J:~' .'.;....1 I>> ~,~~.~""'" i '",,' I ;:;r,~ (fj . .. , I.. ,;\1;~~;iLh '%':'\I;~.. , ..J ,o/~!!qt
. '. -Waterways I': .' ""'/;~..'..'.' ~ .;...j,;'. "~~:"\')~".' .~:. .'. ~D)~~., ~,:~~~ ~ ,Jj.,.. . 'I>~~ >'" d' . .;f:;~~'~;~~~a~~:r' ~<~_' " 'v'. z',~t
I '.of' ./""1 /., . ,....,,~""..' ..r: ~.. .,' :. '. ~ .1 PI 1 ' 82~".,:;:t;:.Y1tS...""" " .. II
~..r::::JCityBoundaries ,.'. L'.' I. .- ....'.. '..l)}")' .@@<'", '/" "i~~~'1 . I j'I<::r,~ ' """~';;',)i"" _,,',,'7;,- .l"J.:113.~ .. 'r' ~
' Z:;:i;\:<<~"_-'i: <~j\,j~:cEjk::', ,,,>- :,.::-,:::;:-:,:/" fi' :~.:.: / J C." ":::', l ' ,~~~:<', ' ,'" ~~4)f ~~ '1' '1:iJfFJ):iiJI!!(:' \\~\' i! .
.' ..t<. ,'. .>,....;........;..,. .":::;<~C~., i.,;" ..l',\IJJ ~/jf,..'-,7.' !'r'J1' '::Yrf:i,;~i.._..JL~. -:.~":'~~"'~1J!!1f,,;~'21~/~~1 '.itY' ~;''''\~~i~f .~~:"~
~ ..'.. .... " . , .." . ... .(P '/ -, ,. 1!;[' ... '\' ",'!! f /' ~_ -, " "" ..: l'" '~":fi;''5l!)J ,'i!J" ,,;,,1.,,, .. ~ f'.,1i. " ,..X,
, "_\,-' ,':::;:l.:>:;-': ':::. 'I f,:,:,,::_;,,:;,i"'I~J;:;d ~ /1:6:'-:'- ~l,~ ,',..,: :"f; <..(':_,~',~..;...... ,"e',':;-';"':':,': r ~\J'"'o"-I"', ;,if':;; 1"0' ~-:,~ ,r -g- , .,~'..;:"';:.> ~...o ,~~ '''''7 'V ~),"r<" r-
, .' ;;-, .(' ":-' . );,: .~ ~f ' .'. 1\,~;' )i( C. .." I 'f:i;~~J' 110'1 '2 EIt!I: ", , ,.,j'jr't.1'~~~i:rin - :-;, , ,V ;~. ,I >-
t ~.' ''"1 .'. , .', J I..... .....< .'" '.' -:..' " '..,;;;,," , -.:/ij........~?(:~&:. ~~il!Jil~.)~i ~...~1:3,;;,ll/I-I. , " "'~'~, Sp",~, ,,"17f' ...."~~!r;lci.~:['r21YIt:::'-:-,,: ,"~.' '~'." ,;;Jt~ IT 11
.,...5 fif............-r '.' ., i . --;- '-< " .' , ..'...,< .. ." ~ .' ',' .. .)f'1~(!,~:_;[~r---__Jr '.' /_:.." ,'- -"' . ~. :- I ::J ,"w..~," ~~,~ . ~'~: . '0"" ,tie. ~ I~" )ScattCaun<y/
i 'I~ . '.', . '. " .'."" ".:::: ,.'.,...;,.':, '"p ~ #11 "%I'll"'" ,.- r;";'; ~ ....\. ..- ' \. 13 1" 23 L..i~~-;r r ~~ ',_), ,I J; ;' ," ::;::..""~ '),....
. 'I' . :,... .."'." '\ ....".. _.' '~<I> '.}.. - '~".,' ,.' .J'C.. ~ !'\j , .' _'''' 'Ig ...i Ir't<;.l~
. ' , ;r...... ,.....,..:.,: '.' '.' '~~..., .'. > {J1";jJ-~.:;}:::-.~"t-'ffJ'J ,.-:\ .Y CV ~'5'!"'~Y;"'I-/.-J-: A...,~.\ r /~, ' .... w':(i::l .' ~ ;1'1" 1~ , ['f }.J r I 1 "
. " ..'... /,: '..;.' :'\ ..,.,,:'r'f:,,/" lj,';/' '-'-'" .1 ~).Y;.,' ,.J , . 282 I ,/, C' f--\,,'~", ......'ijlI' "Iii, ~~':( J21'- ' ,., .J. I I
· 1<' \ ..........'..'/:....'...,../~,;~'.:;i.'lo 'P...,;-'.' \":';:'.",'.;1',' r ~r!.'ln"~, .1 .Ii, 'i'l, "
'. ~},I.L.;~ ~.,'1 ~""""'" '\ ' ... ,g." ' ,'I:
~ I', " .' ,f :.~" --.c:, i?-f/'.- . Y ,.,. .'. ,\"., "i~.."I."...~ . I '. - y--.:. " I" . I~,. I:' '..u ~'.' )~..,"
1:- .'. . . , . ,'. " ;.;;'1 .... 1951h' ..'''Jaman' .' _. ' : I /. _ I' " I.., ~ " .
. I: " "... -... . '...~,' c~.. ",,:_"'''^-';~;l~/' ,. !\"'.. r .;("J~)~I/ j ,~I . ~_.~ . v--::. .;;: . ,~ 1, i
I ...'..." '~'@ ", ". . .... ";./\/ ..fl~' ).F ( .' ' . .(. ,'.. I, ~r ,I~f.' . <. I 1( . f~6';: ,if' . f-.. ..'~. ' . 23 ~ :g; .!..' .~ ".
. I, , , -,. . ,.'. \-!;;.\;!;.J4r~"': ?;/ -~ . / r" ;~jj'\r\:, , ,';:'f'~;J .' .'" . (, '.. 1 ~ ~l <$J-..::; I ~ .;" 1 ,<"" S'~m' ':S~"b"m. '''''''-l.''~''''~)
. I~" '.! '" v.' .. ,,:'., ,)' ;..'":~,~~:.~~.i#~/,~'~~,r~~~';-~l;~'",:~~~Jl~~: .~ft I" '.. "c~: \';- " I '. .!~I'~~IX ~ @"\' ':"~':J I~; , , M~~'w~~">3:fl~
rv-,L~(,,;;/:, .. .' '.~ 'If." .:);", '(V;i~ '1;6'~1 , l&'~ .02 ".' ~" .. A "~,fD~ . i ',':~'X.'= ;", '-'-l~" :;. \.' /j , \11 < ~',-Soon / '\ ,,', ,.',' :';", ~~~'W{"'_'
. . ...:.:/;,.~\. I;.pJ!lft- :,..'~,/..~#"<J":.~~...!..:L~:. ..:. \,,,; ;;-:.~ I':\"~:':-~ [13 ,', ;~"..~,..J~. '" ,I'> \>-(,K.:;....~i~~...;,:;.Ne,.';::;:i"
.( """.~f.J ., , ."", ,...... ; ';I'( !).,;~~/. . .. , "'. .' -:, ". ' . '. ., !i.'... ,.. "" ~ , ,I . " '.. ".' I" , .' .
.,' /j.~;:ii;/h~.'/i:f~.. ,,,' ',"':<,,::,.. 7'Q,.Jr~(;",)"~,r'J",;.".. ~".,.. rH.'~' ;'8"I:~:(//.~, ..., ':;}8~- ~I""~" I " ~ ~"".." ~:b1"Y" "". O'k~"~
~ '('...'/ ..,o,J(~~~{mJ ~j\i~\'~ ;,'~~~":';~V "3'~ ,-}. .':~P~I~~gg~\a '. :::y!:,::,:~{~, L-:t'. .:<: '. .'- :.... ,\~<' i; -rl" I .1;:,.. ,'-;- ,'.,\ ~.,'~ ~ r . ,d? ~~~,; ~'.q~ ." 'L ,: i. ~'l'S"."J:~ "G'~~:'..
, --I' /",.;( 0 '..,.~. Bell..a'n.~". I'" '1).,..: ',' ',' ,'1 Gl' '(;..",~j '. I'" "..J".....;A 'I. "','"'" . ."",.., " ~ foC-, '"1,....... I'';
...,;~~i~~ ". ,.'.:.~;,...'./I>r>~(:';~~~,~:;1::~,.:, ~;f~ ':c ~..!:~23~~~~~;.I.,~O~(C:~)...O'(230.i:~64I. '.L ,~....,,~,>~~/~, '~: -..~">'~'/;'/ ,.... j "l~:trt;:~~:~.." ."-;'.J"~'I:;o~ r:zt~~\~~~~~~i;-OOd:.'-
.;;,}.;".....:w;P...",..~~,. },' ,)'..:.,p: '~.'~ .' i,t~ "Yl ....:, '''.1, .';'. .'J I,' ",'./. ~~"." ,'. I. ....!.- ..... " .... ~ .. ..' ''\ '0",,<0.. ........'; .. tib:" ~(,~ '}H<.I~.-lJ I.IOT
~ ;J-;:>;,,~::,;:" JJfI!n' ,.. \.(I{r't,:j~: j' ". .-,.': ~'.!'I;:~::;:'f\ :. ,,:'. :""" ~,,;:.: > -'.7' .-"Wff!!jjfI ",' ;,:'7'''<,'.''';'''''''..:f-/~' ,t... I ,.1 :'~'.'.,'" i " " ';","" M.."..,,,",, "~bom M,",,'
, (.<-:.",;d',;}..,..r: Q ,....~,> :1': .' ~,,' ,":r' .t'..!P;'cJ(;'ll 11):' , '\.. " ""',~ . Li!1tf:-'" !'\I;\\"" ",:'" .= ~ " "';.'.. "" "
\~ t.' - , " " ~;;;'::,>~ . " ',:',', ~ ',::<, -. r ..":',,:,?~:/;,;, I' ~a-~, '" ,,_ {._'," ! :;1'_,::, '+"' ,\ ,
:~~~~..?r,.., 'r~l(.~" ~,~.:,'!"<'-"I'. ,./.:Y'j[J,,' .~:'i '., ...., 5:',,1 .>""" . "~;,v L.'~ <:;iI 'G :\..'.'. 4O(82I~~f.",.. .'!jc:.,
'-j,',}' ;r I' 'I:'A, ,.;;.1- l.,..,~'f:: '\'1 ", " . ..,., _.I' . .' _ ,---", . ," .... .:>,:"
· f"'" . i'" '1'~~ \,):)"-j';' '..., . J{i;.l'/;', ,~"i'.:-.j", ." . .., . , ,/, ' - i, . :1: '. ,. /:'1 ..;~ .!.2 ;" .,,' 0:. , ,".", ..' B,:."l~ 'Lf !1 .:/' i.,,' I::',t .... '.,. " . ,:
~ ,.".'1',/:)../ '1:,/',.., , ...',,'.':' "", I'." ,"," .' '.' .' ..,.,. ',f~' . .'. .~I~ ,. ;....:,".!, f..t ~...... ..'", "S",CR . f
, ;.' /.;"~~"].1.:;;~...'., ''-i~'4....., 'f",: :.'" .... ,,,,,"'( '".';0,:" .' '~<':.I.'. ~~,_1,'~", "~~)':\ .~. I ':';~il]"lII'lI' ."., '.":',.':/:'.
.. '/'ff ~ ,...:OJ'..,. "'. . ii.(" 3, 'f',,;,,,':, .: '\' .... ',;.-' I,".: ''';'1 /' (" '21 "" ......~ .,7. ,@ ~:l",.,':.: . "'. '1,./ Q,', 2~O"t.. ..,. <l! ,',; '...L
~ 01"'1) ( .p- . .' '1 '5 "", 1 . : '. ~' . ",.. . ... . , '. ,
~ 'l'.'--';'~A,,' f..\'f .' 5 ,~" ...J.., f'" ~ , S I ..,.. . ':;':~" ~ @. -~f""'J:~~~ ;rl.-=::. ,~ ~..1[5~rr~ :,.' 9\.1"'~.', '.. N
~ ,,);.t~:~~,J "'i'L- ):':\'.' I ....,..,..... ......,..-' '.' ,'/" · :\ '; ,...... .g.'" ,::!'.~. ,./I~~~I.?~'.. Bkal~ew~?rl<e:,..,~it1'i::;i:i~~ ",,"', .1' W~E
i",. r;r:-~;j...) '.' f.' ~,L.- '-, .) 'i1 , I.'.Y' 1.'... .... ':o.:.::..:.l/'" ,...., "7 \ ~ ",' ~ ".1 .'. I (A~: 2 ,IA I T, l ~,;:~~:~.~;~~,. ",.',,;,>, ,'" I > ..,.. ~
/,~I' .'1,.;", -' CI,," I{ff, ~ ..." 'J' . , .' '. /_ 1 " '. .. . ..d'. '. I') , ,"",. "'"" "'r';~:~' f., ,:;i.,:~,i:"''1'' / S
~ I',,,; J' ~' ; " c "", ", Ai,,,:, =~ ,.' ,:~ III ' fi- t - :- T:'\,': · -.; 'f.-..' ,Ii ~ l;:( 'I' , . 2;} \~~~i,f~(~~~~~~~~~i~l .' > ......,':. .
~ ,"....,~~-1--"::'. 169 ""',1'; < ,n.. +~''!'1.' w~';.'.~\ '"1' ._~ ,:,' .....,lrLd:"'/~2~. ,"':.'i~J:i::~l.;:(~;i:,jt~;s9.?~~:'td..' 1 0.50 1 2
r;'>;"':(rr:" " .'.. .,.,. .' '".:,. .";, . ,'1" "\ .- ~~' "'~~' "'. ", J ..' ..." >: i.-:.,'.:....:.,~,I!I ',0 .' !""Ti:':i": ~;Ff~~i~)0"'':;"''!'<l!, _ _ I
. Oil ,; ~- 'J' . .". I. . "pr ".:' . '.' . '.' '. A ..i, I' 'f' ~.;/;. ~'. , ".' '. : ,/ .) ('~~L 'fP'. ;~ /, ~ " ':, ':. .. ~'v. ','( ~::;:::~j~:;:'i " ;... Miles
~ 11'i~t~""}~ I .,..,~} :':"","., "'.':"... ..."..... 'i', J, I/\"~~' ~,,<,J~~ :;'';', .~-':' ~~,,",,;<'~',:'.
III I'I,';:'.~..,.I ,". . (-.." ' . ,..f.:'~, )'.' V, .'>4"" . " t :... ,T'"'b, ' ~'1"I" I _ J. '\ ',>: J,.. I " ',..' "
, l,L ,.',>: ;;,.:<-:.' _ 19 . _ ~:.;~~,,_, _
III '.'(1,\....' '," . /' .... ';'. /) '/',0" ) . ~r . ...... ....,.\.. . . ';' .., Ifj. l,:." ~1';:',:" :" ""~,:" ,. ,
, "\lV"",' ;,:;) " ..,'./.. , ..' . j ~. ' ." . , . i.,.' .n)' l ..' '.,' ),. ''', ).....!:., ':~ \ .
~ . \ '.r.,.-;)';', , /' " ,... ~I.'. ' . , . ,. i ' , .,.... "fir, A...."; "
~ tV' ~1.- '. " . . '. .' - . u , .' .. . . .' . .; , "'.. ,', i ' C;. '-... .' '. '0:
'''-.'';'';;' if -- . , . Ii, 5 /', " . ; ,. ' '. _ , ~;,;,./ .,' _
~ v. v:'. I';;'. ' , . , , 'iO J, . ';J ;'" , C r~' '~f:jc,.; ;,~'.., ' ~
",Jl.~',.y " ". ."j'. @ " '" '. ,i," ':..',
t ':f,.l . . . ,~\ . ~A of ' _A' a" '\:'\ ;. , . . .. '%~" '0 "" J'"~~11.'OO8...."
R:\569\5690500 l\cad\GIS\ScottCountyMap.RlteredProJects.mxd
.
I
~ c ~..... ~ <if , '~", " ., ""'It' ~ """ '"~,~ ""0 ,;"';::.'~;~;? ii'.\'l!f('t(,o;J ::,\'iti:;;:~.:~,;~:,-<...Iti JJ::..~ ~l"~::S:':!,,~)r.->lf{n""~~"""" ..;f....~ ~....'t'.~.:,";'; ~:"'.. 'i'Ii<J"};~~(~~:" '
, , .. -" ";.<~.' --, .~, / ^( ""'.,,nu;,,'r "'~"~'>:;:;"". '&':"'"'1;;' h' ~";;:';N""~':'"'~" ,. t, !'>f;","'J:.,"":i4P':'7'.<d,,/r'fr' ~, @11#,,;:jr:>'~f
~ ~, '---.J I,' ;~~_';-. :-;.;,:.-. '.... 'I<'i<'l-,', - /{j:' ; - :qf~ *t~5MJ'" ',- ~ > '~I~l'; ~:;,;iW~,~;:~\:\(.j',}i:: l.o' , u~, ~J Q t':3 j..II~'b
I \ .' "\1,. '~:-'.,,\.":W"aCCO~:'~..iia:M"" ,'1 .,".' .\ "@/,,:',,,,"' " -,g:!J;:t<~'0j;~ ,{f(1(:".:':,;.4:;:~, ~::r:,(;{(''''ttf,.;;"~;,.f,_'' ',; ;:"~ij' "Ed;rJfip.~dtf:rft.:...t~ ,,il J:./'!!>,\ """ ,
. .'~~ ":')' .--~:;", -:.' ., ~ ~_;,:r~::",:~;~.,,>,: :~'~tAE;;:{,~t"~'\I\.V::t;;~z~rf< t'~;;"~!;..1;.G'fk.{J)j:i",,~~;,...ti.~~\i:~rji""rr~,.J~-t2~t - ~?r~lne"i1fff!!it-fJi. "if,. ~
]: , ", ',. . :...., ,.", .' " '~'. "', " .. \ - '! ~ ,t"i. t,,:I":.':1",;;'" .. h\'~".<",., ,'~,\'" ,if',' " .if ' ", ''"' -"" C,=. , ", '
~ \ legend . .~.' .:/ .. 0;//'~:: 'i._I." ','.' '.',~ ':, !'C::;-::\',\:':~U9.0I;C<(/}!~~,;;f~"""V~ ~nhassen,~,,;;, l~" Scott County
l . V ',J:i,;'<r'i"'"'' -'-, ,,:/ :.. 1;.');,;,,,;;r'i'6"';,",!I"'K"i<!t'7;:.:~r3~, ;/" , I .
~ ,. Current Functional Classification ~r..': ....'.,,; ,;."""':'~y!'.,,,:.'7";1't:""'" ;',',' . ;-'~~~.i"l~W ,,' _,'. .~ "'"' ",,':"
{' - \ ,il.., ":i," ,:' .' \ :; t,~;: ";, ~' I '.' 'Jg~.~~; l~""" . .i.ii:i1i'ii>: ' , .. " . ALL PROJECT NEEDS
I . --- Principal Arterial ~,.'.,:;';/,', '. "J:":" ,:"', ": ,;', ", ' ' .,' '. ~.",<'.L).- "".', , A'.y.. .. \;$"','". '. "''''~[~~iJ "i.(".#fl;'I,.~\(,!.". .1~':-''';;' . F '
, " 1 , ,'.: ".~:/... ',I ^ .. . ":"':'/;;:-<-,' 'I ~-:,',;:-_-:~,- .~'\-~',.'Z''--'''''I'J.'n~ "':ll:5t~,' ~~~-;" ~, ~
,., .L A Minor Reliever " :'j ." .""'--,-~):,l.:f~'("")' "',t .'; l.;)." ~>'U~': >,}~~",.,.,.-" 'Jl~t~~ii1f~~~fji~fi' .'~' >, . , .,. ' """""':,: . \", " (PRIORITY 1, PRIORITY 2
I "..L, . '1'.<:':i1\ ~., ..,.,''''r ','" " "rI\..' ;."''L,' . ,',-,"."" ':;;~'i'5'!)/Y;'t',,;-iiii(;~.., 110' ~; .~~,," .",;~, , . ,,"c, '; .~. I." " & PRIORITY 3)
, l- A Mmor Expander , ,': ';""':.)i, '," '.. ,'.' J :.~ i" ."" :,,~ . ,fJ,,'p ";'.,,', , '_~, ),., ';, ',.
r,l ., , : .,'" ~I " '. '. "",,> , '''-'~': ~t! "fVA ',1fiP. ' ;" ~'., ,.. ji" "., ,:1' ._....."...
I ,1x - A Minor Connector I .' '... .. ,;),: ;~'J: ...': " ' "'-::~"I .;;;... . ~ , ~:.{~))i';:'<9'''',4. "o'., . ". >, w'O ' .. 'I ' .:
' ~ I:. . '-7, i-;'?'~ ,,' ,. '" ". c,;> """." ...!,!, "', " . :" '.. , " ' , .. ,,, .'
~ ..L B Minor " .', r;~Fi;f{fl ,/,.., '~" '!'<5:~,,&!~~,..,"':" ~ 'JF, ~"'_ :~' ',;, ::. "",.:'
',:E ". ..c;"t~ ,. /- '.,' , " ":,' t . ,,", '>~;;~"Y",' " "",' 41 ,,<' .~,'. _', ....(ly. 'F;: 13 .. '...;,' "',~7J ..
· I~~ ..... Major Collector ..~ ~:ii~~~,-!,,;~' ./ . ~,;." " / , :"0 :Ei';,::},~l,~~~,~it)o,~1l;{k,':I""" Xl/: . (F~"J'!.';f';::(,;:\' ':~.' i; 'c. ;iii"''( Potential Project
'"~ · ' ...:;x.J~"':i~~~ii~L I \ :'~. "'1.'.'..." / " ':'";if '", '.. 1~,/!!l:l~""'rIk;St/,{(;.:<,:'iJtp /'r ,. 11, '. "';/Cf,- , ~~"'.,
· ') -. Minor Collector ...~ ._, ,'>.~~~~.~:i~:;"i '-:":', '~", ," Y~)~'. r ")')Ji~:,,~~1' ' 'j~~.';f\ ;J;~I:~t.:"''.::':.' .fJfI r:,.'b,:".J!i~ L;~~r13 ,,"', lrfil;n~ ROW Acquisition Needs
.. ii/,~";;; ;\I";'~",~~ ,:?~" :C:~I;';'*!-' , ; I , , ~~.~;. ,''':'' w F\;" 'd~,;-: ~<< ' 1-. (/ ,"' .,' '^'!.L~:r' ."... '~"' "', ".A:~' II;.. "t:& ,i
~ 1 -Local ~;;;j(",,,,l ~,,"fA',~~;Pi .'. ,";.;:.J ,c; '~~("J y~,j,,~,\,,},;;~{. 'J:l:',ea~pr" CifJ.,.} 'II.~ I" .' .. "'",' . ",. "c e,~
' ~o @ I' ",:~..I'-:~.~":lI""7-'-;~~.. . ,: '., , ' ,,"J( \', . \..,,",,t1 ,.~<illi; ..' <:: ',~.:~(. H. . c"",Mlj I . 'W~NlJlsyill~ .3
j -. Transit I"'~:" ,'. :...'JV'4....) '-:!;~ " ,'~ " .' x/'J' . ,\,/ ',> L,') ; "<?"":~ ~ '.C /:~;, ,:;:
~ ' T 'I tf..;~: y '.~,.;" ,..../h;~.. "'V~f(" ;;A, Y,. ., ';'! ~. ."J,: .1:,iJ!....ir"~;; ,21 , ' "i " .. "
, I~ -. ral s I, '>, / fJ"\ " ,.-~ ,,;r ',.:( ;" ' , "D. \ lIlIIl!i!IR!!!I , 17 '11'1>"''')'''".<: I .. s.,n~.,,"'~, 18 " . ,..,,,",,,ot. ~"f''''.Y^~'
I . , ' " '. . . ',-, ",,'. ,-', m' ~ ~ 42 " , '"' _, "~ ',' ". , ,". , s" ,
~ 1 - N/A L..' . ". ',' " "c '.L ~ .~ '. _ . " d" .~ '-: ,.:ie,,'" '.,. 1& .;;;, '> "
Road System ~ '"... ,/, " . .... ". "{d' p', . ,; ".' . i-_/"'~ i\ 13 ,
~'.'-"'",: ;)l .'.. -.....::; Vi.... ,,,,,".,,,,,,, "'. ~ "~l:"i!!'
· ..... Interstate Hwy ~ . " "',' J,: , ~.,) " ,'.. j'. "', ''''''''',I/.s,,, I@l · - : ;',::,. Y , 14 . i:<i.'" "", ' /; ~g.j
~ " .' '.:--: .',;.-1 ", .~'?t;/~~, ,';", ,.' " .:'~;.. ~ ,r,' ' , ,',f,'
, ~ USTrunkHwy '. ',' ",';I';~,' '.... ,,'~I >'-:3,.~:,~,;,," ''>~'' . ',;01'" . J)'<r '-"', '''::i'~~t.
' ' '.." ~". ~' . '" .. ''': '~(~ii' ." c. ~ {'" i' "" .1 iF''/':' J., ',. '13 '!;:":j(~
~ .....[ill- State Trunk Hwy . ~.' ',AJ . "".9., . . " '...: ,. ~ '-f,~' ,,,/., ~:.... . -" ,/'0,..1-/'1' ',; ,'. ,'. , . ""~".. . "_ . ," ': ___ _
' ,." : ", .;..... ", '''6--'' 'Ii" ,; \,.... , . ,~, "0.' .' tt . t ,..' " """. "a' , .,~ J ~ "- ,
. , ' ,'. , '-':\-.-:;;:;;' .!t.,!:/' :."-J , '[/,;' .._..' 4 ' ',_ " v./:;r J. ;.><" "', \r\." A"\
· ;; -0- COO"~S"te""'Hwy ': ',,;": ' , ~/:"" ,fe,' ,,' , ~'~ ,'"~"",, ,Ii ',.,,, --, . " _"...,.., ' .. ~J----~
' ....:, '" .,.,..., ,'.:.'.' ,,:,':.:",:i>,f;~ :'~.:7"".., " .J '11>;;-,' : .'/ '.' " ~ ." ',~~ "....;Jii;,.. ". -'-'\,
, - County Rd; ,,'.', '-:,;:;;:;;l~""_ ""_.. l,i..~(f;:t ~. .:;:i", (\4(-fr' ..... 18, ... ,- if; 17,,'_' ';';r,.;;:, ' In ~lt!J '\i'l ,-~:' I-
' - ,:,..: :.....,:'...'..rc-' ,:,:.'.,j:-:;' ,..:.:.'Jj.,>.............,,;-'tNt~.':-", IA'))I/'- /1'... ", 12 "", 2' '''', ~. ,l--'i
- LocalRd "....;. ',." ".' ," "". ......."','~- '" ~F.... '-.' If", /"1 ( '0..' .~, .,'. . Ii-
~, . ',,', . ..' '" . '1. ,',' .... , . . . , . . ~'\...' ,( '. '.". . ',! ~ r-r- '/
' c::JCountyBoundary ,~/.' :' . J. . ...""::'."",,..'-'.:";, ,"'..:l"o'r;.::J/.,' ',.' r:,.' "~ ,.,~< 1,;.1.' 13,\ Nc, 23!. .C,"," ,CI=~" ".,,_ ~ -L 's:: '; ) Scott County I
. ;'. . . ':.. .' , ' "'.. 1/1,.'.' r ,.' . "~ ' '/;Jf'~ . '0- "';:-I,CI'
· - Railway :. . '.. ",' .'. ' '.' . 4 r, .' ':-1>" ,~j ?~, Iiiil\ ~,~" " . ,'. jw",: .<12! ~;.' f' J'LI-( " , \. r=r;s:::~:i'-.
.:', ',;..,,:..: ; ".' " ' , ," ,';:-J. : 'R" . ~ ". /' "~..' -::';; ""Q 'J. " ILl'.. , ,'~" 21 I-W..,f"): --1':":1
-_Lakes I"'" , ~:", . . ,.".,."."':;"',, :':f,#fi~"'" . ~,iI?:~i:"." 282, c' ':)':'" i'i,,"'!,.' "',: .'.' "., ./ "..:,:, I?
· -Waterways I",Y~"" ,,: i>~?>>...,~}~~t. .,.,.,..: ,:;?:~~' .,.::1, , ,"" . . '.' :'-.,-'Ye", ,,": "', ...~~ <'W;E "'" U
· r- \ " '. ..' , :,;' , " ,'~'" ,- , '.1':, '.,L. :';"" " ".'. '4'~ ,,'. '". "y'" ~_ ; "", ..'I" :\I~t ,'"."
1 \, . CIty Boundanes 'd" .C'" .:', . ..",'" ". ,,,'!.. .",t'ilIlIi>--'-',d" " . ,'.'. ff.'n,-,I' IiiW ,,' ''''('': "
I'" -... '....!tliIW.'..., ,," ,"', ,", .,",. ':' " '!...~ 'V] "",' .), \' ',c, .' , 1"/ ." ," '''''. ~
' I...'.. .....:....' ". ..:." ..,;"',', '" ",'" ..1"....';', ",<" ,:.... .::::::::::. .,"", .:. '..r:,:~~::"i'j':.' '~.,",".".!R' ",',. "', ,,' (" ,)" , t1J ~~.;'. '~6/;:' .~~
' . ,.... 'c, ' . '.. . ' , . ',~' ' , ", ' ," I,.,"". __. ' l' .'.. ,;. I. ,', ' ' ./ "/ ~ '". .
I '.:. '; .... .:~.~".: ':" c" ,,' c'. "" . , ":1, ' ' ......'.. ""'" .,J" '....,.c I. Ka~' '" ':1"" ''':1
. I:: '" ".,> ", ,;,..,' ,...: " c. '.:," . ',"'. .' , .." " .. ". ( }JJ ",' I. ' 10 . ......"-'. .. '-y" 23 i:'. "I. , , --:_ ,,:' . ' ( . i1'
,. ,,' "':',' ."".f" "l!>" . .........'......;: ,- " = --;c-. ". '''' 'r' , I' /W>;;;;";') , .. '~ : .,:' "", l
' ,," ." . "', /_~\, ,l:e' ,'V'...-- . -' ",,'. , 'LIiO' '" ., ' '.' ,,j;, ',: ,,'; I ,I"":. ~
' " .. , " f '/" , . Fol, ' ,~ , ,. '''' . , I~""
Il I.... ''', '. ....,. . .:... .,. .' ". ii..~f./ ':'~?:i },1;7:~ ~ . "'''0 . (', C. '/" .' . ,. ~..' ;;: : l<!, ':~.. ':_: p<> ' S\~m' Sh,,,"um. Ch'~g'
J '.' . ,<"."-:,, . ';.~~fhdH;;f.~ f'i!! '", li.':;'.El ",,",,: i/' '" '0 ,,',\,' "', An,",
. ~'n: ,,,,,l..:;.t." :J;""~":" ';"d~;~r/liJI~ o~""'/ I': "'__ I, I """l\1l ': . ."."",0...:;. "'" . ". "s"'" / ,''1[', "I',., Mook8, Wrl,hi "'c' .
-!., v ._r, ',.,. "'.. \ . J "I". , , " , . , .. '" .
. !:::Ii(" <.;,1. .,.).:..,'~''',.',. . ,,,,,;',, 'I'[\';"/. '>/','" ,., .7I?,"'C. 13J. r;I!J", , : '-'pc;.. '..,",7:,W..hm""
Il .' , """~ ", ' , .' !lIf"_. Jt';,:" . .::' '. ,,'....... c," " ,.' '., s". " ~ .,' ";fI 'iii" ' I"".:'. . MoL... ~Ne" "'.
J .' . i '.o' ,,"" /''' , ,. . . ',~. '" ft,'I-','':''! '.., :S,' . ",'C,: .....: .,' ..'(. ';;",' "i'" ':'1.,: "G;.'" "," ..r,', ; I' ...' , i{;!;;:1"..11 -'8' ,,_ f.. " ' .:'~ ~ " " , . ,.." ::, 'I:' ; ,'-/,'" n """ .. o.~..''}.
~ --:- ..,/ :'1:bJ:'~)~ .. ,'1< 1JF' "4"0.'.....,",.. ../ . 1 ( C , :" ~ ~ " ' " ", ;T, '.',' .,' "I. ,"'~;t-'W." .. r .'. " " I r', "S,ble, . ~~'r.
.. ",Q,.. .' ~ .',:., /' "J'" 'r'~...." ~ ~ ..., :t-. o' & ' .' ',,"') " "I. I" ,~.
;." '" '"f,'~ "d,,,,",,' "'.'''', '., ",,'( .,'"{.,', .', :'''';: ;'. , I.,.: r, '. .,' " .' ''',.. , " ' '., ;;:]. "":1""""" oo"h"
. " . '-',\vs:~~ u. ;(1'i> - ""'i '-\..' ~. ' I'::'>.. ";;rnhl'CR64 ...; ~,. .~,.. .' '.., , , '- " ., '" - ;~"::",:-'<>:t~' ., "i.... '::;."",::: " _N'~" LBSUeU: ~~8, G .C,:
' '. r"" :"" ~. ,0:{ .', ,....,..1" I'" ','). ..'.~,,,.': , 1:.:"""""""'-' '.r:;,:'~\~". 1"'0.',"",
~ 1".-f~1:''''' ~ '," t,r,,:,:...:...... 2300 (CR64)' 2,.. (CR 84) ;'~',,~' .~<,~""',' \"';;"~,,,:. B~>i':'" ,b~ .
~ . ..;'j::i::';''ij)f;~, C'/' \.." ;~,;'.':''': C";~II:t~I\ii~e;;7iT',i,' ....." .'. ,c" I,..... ".) ~. ,'"';:::' '~"" ...,...~, .,' . ",;,,>.-~, t';~";'::;", iGr>-~.'~., 'BI';'''rth'~e''''''Sle~I;:.O;;''g.
, l., /1:r!,7'f' 'j ;.""~'>'-;31"c ;'. r,.':::;:)''\ . ." ' ,I '., lo..., -'-: "';. " : ",.:..:,'. ':;::'--:-:-1!!Y ~ ~ ," \" ',:' ",', " '.. " ~,..~,,,~~, ..~. .~
,;~"",l>,i.,,'" ,._~ ... S '. ','ii: i:Ji.:'" ,}<';":'''''::;;' ::"', .. " I.' '....,.' , ' ,ill C',.. ,". 40 ("62\ ' .c. ;. .; ":f-
Il .',r"":,-"....,p".........,,. ~~ 1q,,,-,,_ " " I ?/:'C.. .~'. ,,', ,"--- " "_' : '.....:. ' ,~ ' .r"', ' , ",' _.
' ,,:,";~;J,. '" "'.' ,( ,.1'1\.. '" -,pi,. "','" ..' ,', ,""" , . .,' ,".-'. ..' " . . ..' .' ., , " , ,I
;;,." ,: .' ,!i!'i"'",/" ".. . ',:., " . c":"""" ' " , ,r- CO ", ',-,'. . y...: .~ .
. I~;':..' ,i" ;,I,r'.:'~: '.Vi. ". ,...4("'" .'~ . " -c::r'. \. . . ' I. . ,coo.".J) J\ '\<1Y _ . ' < (
I;'.,,,. '::' '.' :""'~",,:'''.' ,".. "', [.:. '.' ,',18 'L .;" .. ,I,:...." ., @ ,~'" I:' ,
. ..r.;.,' .'i':"", '..3 "..,.;', ..-.... ." ["'.. '~""'./' ,,,.,.',,' ".,21.:"'"""",_" ",',"I'llID',':'~Iw...,J' ~ :..J.:!V,J.
. "'.Yi"'", ..',.' ',"',l,;,".?:',' ':,..,,','..~;. "'''':'''~'''... " ',' "'~" !~',... '.."", ,,_.\'y ,;. ,,"81'
· .f' 'I(' 1,IC: ;;;;.' "'" '. y';, , , . .,.\ J':.~' '; . c:4' , ,j It ~'" " ", l' ", ... !c ;,:' '!;J,' ,;;,.>/ l.l- . ~'... ., ;: :..~ g,,: :'''1'' , . .' ,
~ (.. tJ,,,.,,yjl''''';'G''',t.,.) 'j:' .,... .,.~..)... ',., ~.! 7)( ,./ ': '. ,,,'.h: ~ "f":;'(,/,.:.ltlJ';-r'/IIJ.."" ;1"", {~ll~':i_~i,' , ',' ,I:j. .
" I',' "~\';:;':;;i:.;", .::. ", ."'i".' ~: )"'.'.""," ,;,; 'i/..:' """~" " ......",' "";""~?'\"'~' : ":;:>'?,-.r.~',',,'\:J""..(2). \.!~;;.''';hJi. '.' ,,,,-,..,, ',",:', ~'E
. I. "<,"'/""',"1. ". '" ,':., ..'., Ix".. I, , . ..' I," " , - :x~ ..c'\'..,! .~' '/ 2 j..!.- 0 .. 1"oU" 'J W
. ~, ;J1,-'~~"1/"r -, ' . -..,_:., .", ',"r 2 '. .", 'ct: c;--' I',. . '::c; ,:; ., . ,J, ~~-.J;(i;r;; ~ .
r ;:;;..I:~()..J" '. -'" :"CIM",,:, '. ". I,'."'..,..;.: , Y'," J..:..: " , '.' ':'.'.,..", '/:\ " :..&~i.;M.,,',,:...... :.': ".,.""'" )/!":;:Iv'" c"; (> " \i:'~~',;:,;~ '. 7," 'S'
' ',d -. ""''')<1 '. '.'," 7'" -~":... .,'. . . I ,," V .' ," 27 ""'-"~;"n"-' ",
ry:' 'Fr,: ,,' ", ."', I:'I~' .... ..' " ',." '. ", ... .::.. ..., ' -' ), _ ' -'--- ,....,'.',. ) , .,,' I'~;;.~~, ,', If'
· '~~"...::.,i/,_(::k]<;;;'...;,..'..::l;\-:-;::...,....~'; . :r-'".}'W1',,:,,:, ., """'_"~'~~"""""" ~t/..i2,,,_f~~~~!,,,,t~. J .' "5'1;1,;.1{1];",;. :.."r,C-
~,-" . ".. .::., " ,', '. ,..".:",,,.. .., .--. I,' 1"":>"';','" ~ , '. , \, ", ," 1 050 1 2
t1t'~F : ,", " . . . " , . . ".,., '\ I:' .}::;H "~" "''j' . . . . .'c" , ~ &) ,,' ;; \' ') , .. '> .,,' ..",: .
: . ',; f '., .1' ';.' I" ." \.,'.' " ~?. ' '. :.':l(:i: ...,;.!;,,;!':;./ii....... , L': , , _ .. .~ , . . , ',46: _ _ I
· - :'" ;' 47r, " ':, ,,,',, , .... .... ,'.. " .. '''''..,' '..' ','.. ": , " " ! tJ.~ ~'li' L. ~ ~ '~'""'. '.. f L ' "'. . . ,?;.', ';":' ..;: .- M'~
. q,,,~{;,;:.. ,'; r .' Iy' '," :', I .....;; ~): " , or)H ..)!r!i1~ .~I t:.;.., , ,J"':-t,~ ~/~ , . . '\ '.' @,jI ~;: : '\ . , :. '.. ,I
~I "I'~' (It''~~,, . .........,yC',J ~.'~ '. "". .',' <'/,' ...'... ..;;....'" ""( \ .> f\,,:- ." ,.,..:'i "'J' "~,","~~:2";::' ~'l.;:\c" H
. 'VJ,t';Y'.':... ...... ,V ...'........ ~'I ). .' .,'. '" ...' ..' J' ..'......~ \.', " ::~".'r;'-~, .. > L'
,\ t,~' '," .' :,...;1'" "-1'... '- . .'" ''', 5, ' r '. /", ", ,1-""'"
III J~J'-'" ' y y-J. . ~ . . " ~}'J ~ , ' 'I~" :.' ..' .' . . , ' :~" . i":, ':',. .c':"~
. I :. rX_<< ..' . ~ . ~ @ "".. , ,,' '" . . ",;, ," , "
' ' ,., \-':'-" . · , , . " . I '. , " ' , ' '. " . , I
" . )., i '. " . <::> G~I.~~l ''if . "'..' "./ ,'" ' " '-. .'.' " :", ::1 '1,("1'; r;::'
· l"~' ,.,.1 "d,. "l J" ~ ,:;Jj,4t'h,,,.., 4 ,', ",' . ' , ' ,":: '.. . " " .. ,,' -/ " J,,",~11,2008 _13
. ., B " .\.:.': ~;-/ , -", ." . R:\S69\S690S00 llcad\GISlScottCountyMap.mxd
.
.
.
~
t
.
. SCALE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE - PHASE 2 REPORT
III. Opportunities - Implementing a /I Regional Corridor
.
. Management Plan 11
.
.
. Now that key projects needs have been identified, the next step is to develop an implementation plan that
. will allow SCALE and its members and partners to actually implement them. That process :- and the
emphasis of this study - starts with identifying the steps necessary to preserve right-of-way. Our
. effectiveness in identifying and successfully implementing the corridor preservation strategies outlined in
. this section of the report will ultimately affect the safety of our highways, the amount of time we spend
. stuck in traffic, and the very shape and feel of our communities.
. Why is corridor preservation so critical? First, the
. rapid rate of population growth and forridorPreservatiofl/11eanf"the.",. .." ".....',. .',.,""...',
~ development projected in Scott County over the coordinated application ofKario~s lT1eaf~res
next 20 years means that the demands on the ~o,?btail1 fO'!tr,?IBfo( otherwise protect the
. transportation network will continue to grow. right-ol-way for a plannedtransportation
~ According to recent Census data, the County's faCility. "
-;'.. '~'-';;-.:;-\' -.. -.::-, i::_ :::_:,;~ ':: -~"-, :ci:-_ :;:::::'_:_::'-~_,,/:-i,. ":':':' ,:, ::< .', .'-,. "-' :_: :'.,:, ;'.;',: ,'" /"~":,;::,-\':_\i',:_ -, ,':', - ':~.r-
',',-.",_:,,-,,"'.", "':':--<-'-";- >. -," -, -': ':"'-';-'" '" "',' ---- '-,-, ".-';,:,- ,'-,.'.- ,','-.,'-- ;'.:"", ""':" ,,', -.:.''': ,>' .-..
. population will increase from 118,000 people in ......... Th~.A.I1l~ri.i~hi~~k~~i~ti..()I1....of~t~~e....H'ig'h'Nay
. 2006 to 221,000 people by the year 2030, an . an~Transportation Officials
increase of nearly 90%! U.S. Census data
. indicates that the County ranks 11th nationally in
. terms of the percentage of its population that commutes to work each day to a different county, and while
t long range plans envision increasing employment opportunities within the County, high levels of peak
. period commuter traffic will continue to be a significant challenge for County and municipal planners.
. Second, that developable land available for public purposes - roads, bridges, transit facilities, and trails -
. will be increasingly scarce, so acquisition will be increasingly more expensive, crowding out resources
. available for project development. It is increasingly common for land acquisition to be the most costly
. element of project construction.
. Third, most public agencies have taken a conventional approach to right-of-way preservation focusing on
. traditional methods of land acquisition such as fee simple purchase or developer dedication through the
platting process for local roadways. This "patchwork" method of preserving right-of-way addresses some
. limited local needs, but does not provide for a coordinated transportation network. And in some
. circumstances, inconsistencies between the state, regional, and local government transportation planning
. process can also restrict public flexibility in preserving needed right-of-way.
. There are, however, a variety of strategies, tools, and funding sources that are available to preserve right-
. of-way and mitigate hardship on property owners. This section identifies three methods that can be
, considered for implementation that would support the development of key transportation corridors
throughout the County. The first subsection describes a proposed regional corridor management planning
- process in which continued collaboration and land preservation directed at improving the regional
, transportation system is emphasized. The second subsection identifies and describes a variety of corridor
~ preservation "best practices", some of which can be immediately implemented, and others which will
~
t SCALE Transportation Task Force -# Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
~ DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 14
.
,
.
.
~
. require additional state or local authority. The third subsection identifies and discusses specific financing
strategies - some existing and some new - that could be applied to raise revenue to finance corridor
~ preservation in the County.
~
. A. REGIONAL CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS IN SCOTT COUNTY
~ Scott County and its municipal governments recognize the importance of developing land use and
transportation plans that are consistent from community to community. The existence of SCALE is itself
. evidence of a commitment on the part of County and municipal governments to collaborate in the best
~ interests of all the citizens of the County.
~ What is lacking, however, is a systematic program for preserving right-of-way and managing access on
. regionally significant corridors that takes advantage of the full range of governmental powers and tools to
. their maximum advantage. In order to implement the strategies and funding sources to effectively preserve
. right-of-way (these best practices are discussed later in this section) a first priority is to establish a process
in which all stakeholders are united in their efforts to identify and preserve the most critical transportation
. corridors for the good of the regional system. (It should be noted that SCALE is preparing an application to
. the McKnight Foundation Region and Communities Grant program to implement a more regionally focused,
. multi-jurisdictional transportation and land use planning process in Scott County.)
. There are several reasons for optimism: First, in meetings with local officials to identify and prioritize
. projects, many of the project needs discussed involved projects of regional significance. Second, as
. indicated earlier, SCALE and its member municipalities have already demonstrated that they fully
understand the benefit of working together collaboratively and there is an existing culture within the
. County of successful collaboration. Third, while different municipalities and the County certainly have there
. own priorities, the different units of government are more united in their similarities than they are divided
. by their differences. As a result, there are a number of projects and transportation system objectives that
. are shared by all. These factors all lead to the conclusion that the cities and counties will all benefit if they
continue to work together to develop and establish a countywide land planning and corridor preservation
. strategy. This process would encourage land planning that focuses on regional goals such as safety and
. congestion relief through countywide access management guidelines, expansion of public transit options,
. and renewed emphasis on II green II corridor preservation, conservation and staged development.
. Implementation of a more regionally focused planning process will require a commitment of all involved
. jurisdictions. The Twin Cities Metropolitan Council, the County, and municipal governments will all have a
~ role to play in implementing this process, as discussed below.
. TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
. The Metropolitan Council is Th~..co~~lci{is.$.t;i~ihg.~t~..,!~II~J()pitlb~ef.W~;k/ngiii.(..............,
, authorized by state law to establish '.';e'ation{hip~./Alith'.:~1~/ait~groiy.~ng'~~~f1t{es..~~...i>....i.(....'
and oversee the implementation of
.. planning and development . ,groli1l~1~re{C!t~~i{S~~s..lar1Jvefl' in~~{e{te{(i~a~idea i,
. guidelines. For transportation ...... th~telfJerge~~~gf'~Re!ti~n~{I!BI{CJ[C'~f1(e~~nce;m~
jdeC!lflortheCouncilto p'ayaTmore~ctiveroleasa
. planning purposes, the Council's . ...!lc()n.v~n~r.I'e~~isc~S;~i0f1s;,..{}n/egioll~?p"ok'e"Js.t1at.,.,. ."'.
2030 Regional Development
~ Framework and 2030 Transportation .l11ightpotfa!'.witkin tl1~Counf{'ttrclt!itiopaI i1.reC!S;Q(
. Policy Plan are the primary jespg~(bi!ity.' >'It%~t~ttftttlr~~hfl~{t~',!!~~!!!li~~i,llr;!;i0!#
. documents articulating the regional
transportation goals and objectives. Council Chair Peter Bell. Auaust 2007
~
~ SCALE Transportation Task Force ~ Bonestroo Project No: 569-01- 105
~ DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page J 5
.
,
.
.
~
~ A fundamental theme of the Council's development framework is that the fastest growing areas in the Twin
Cities region must absorb higher density development along key transportation corridors in order to support
. the level of population growth and economic development that is projected. The SCALE Transportation Task
~ Force concurs that higher density development served by adequate, multimodal transportation infrastructure
. most certainly is both desirable and critical, but that implementing such a system will require greater levels
of participation from state and federal funding sources. The Task Force believes that given the extent of the
. growth that is projected throughout the County, the traditional means of funding transportation
. infrastructure (e.g., developer exactions, state aid, etc.) will contribute a diminishing share of funding
. necessary to provide the kind of regional transportation network envisioned in the Metropolitan Council's
long range planning documents.
.
~ The Metropolitan Council's statutory authority means that the Council can be a strong and effective
advocate and promoter of SCALE's efforts to coordinate right-of-way preservation efforts in the County. The
. Task Force recommends that SCALE and its member organizations engage the Metropolitan Council and
~ seek an amendment to the 2030 Regional Development Framework that would more directly acknowledge
. and reward the preservation of key transportation corridors. Such an amendment would provide fast
growing areas within the seven-county metro area with an acknowledgment that the protection of future
. roadway corridors is a matter of regional significance.
.
. SCALE
~ SCALE, in its capacity as a broad policy oversight committee representing all stakeholders in the County, is
best positioned to provide direction on how information should be shared and distributed among its
. member organizations. SCALE's primary responsibility is to work with its members to establish a workable
. transportation planning and land acquisition process that represents all local jurisdictions within the County
. and addresses the most pressing regional transportation needs. We recommend that the SCALE
Transportation Task Force remain in place as an advisory panel to the full SCALE Committee.
.
. SCALE would work closely with its member organizations to initiate the more formalized regional corridor
. management process. In the first year, establishment of the process will require the following tasks:
1. SCALE will communicate to all of its member organizations the purpose and public benefit associated
. with the regional corridor management planning process. SCALE will articulate clear goals to be
. achieved through the implementation of this process, the roles and responsibilities of all of the
. participants, and the timing of required actions.
. 2. SCALE should oversee the distribution of all of the necessary background information related to priority
~ projects and acquisition strategies contained in this and other reports to each of its member local units
of government.
. 3. SCALE should develop methods that provide guidance ensuring that all key information is consistently
. presented within each organization's respective plans. For example, all local plans should include a
. map of these corridors reflecting consistency in their functional classifications.
. 4. SCALE should develop and distribute materials on planning and designing designated priority corridor
improvements, including information about access limitations and spacing guidelines. Also, the "full
. build" plan should include broad based rules on access, density of development, and functional
. capacity of roads.
~ 5. SCALE should encourage and support its member organizations in their efforts to prepare local land
~ use plans in a manner that compliments the transportation corridors and projects, including an
emphasis on parks and trails (i.e., "green infrastructure"). Utilizing resources such as the Metropolitan
~ Council's Minnesota Land Cover Classification System, Scott County's "Natural Resources Inventory
~
~ SCALE Transportation Task Force -#' Bonestroo Project No: 569-07- 105
. DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 16
.
.
~
~
~
t and Assessment" and the County Parks and Open Space Plan, the planning process will promote
. appropriate alignment of transportation corridors that preserve the County's park and trail amenities.
. SCOTT COUNTY
t Scott County will also play an important role in coordinating the development of local plans within the
. County. While the County role will likely include many additional responsibilities, we specifically recommend
the following:
~ 1. The County Transportation Plan should contain an implementation section that includes a step-by-step
~ process for effectuating the regional corridor planning process. This section could include a variety of
.' information, including a description of local technical assistance that would be available, potential
~, funding source information, etc.
. 2. Whenever appropriate, the County should officially map all of the future roadway corridors. The map
designates the corridor for preservation and is included in the local comprehensive plan.
t
~ MUNICIPAL AND TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENTS
. In determining the validity of local regulatory actions involving land acquisition for transportation
~ infrastructure improvements, courts will review whether the action is consistent with a local comprehensive
plan. Therefore, it is essential that the regional corridor management planning process have a strong
. foundation in the local comprehensive plans.
. 1. Using the detailed map of priority project needs, each of the County's local governments. should
~ prepare and adopt local comprehensive plans, including Transportation plans that all acknowledge and
.1 map the same project corridor needs and identify each project with the same functional classification
~ system designation. In addition, the plans should be consistent in their traffic projections and project
broad implementation strategy (timelines).
~
2. Each of the local plans should include background information about the need for right-of-way
. preservation on key projects, and detailed information about the specific regional and state
~ transportation projects that affect their jurisdiction. This information should be consistent in content
. and intent with all of the other jurisdictions and it should establish the public purposes to be achieved
through the implementation of the program.
. 3. Each of the local city and township plans should also include both goals that support the broader,
, countywide program and identify their own local aspirations for the successful implementation of the
. program. They should include goals to match each of the potential implementation strategies that they
~ intend to pursue.
~ 4. Every one of the goals should be directly tied to one or more policies. These policies should establish
how the goals will be accomplished, specific roles and responsibilities, programming and construction
I schedule, and funding plan. Of particular importance would be any flexible zoning techniques, such as
. a Planned Unit Development, density transfer, or similar tools that the local unit chooses to utilize.
. 5. The implementation chapters in each of the local plans should be essentially consistent with each
. other. It should describe the working relationship between the city, township, adjacent communities,
and the County. Particular detail should be included to describe the actions that the city or township
. commits to taking when development, and/or subdivision requests threaten future roadway corridors,
. and/or transportation projects.
. 6. The local units should officially map local roadways that are essential to accomplish their local land use
. plans and support the County and regional roadway corridors.
.
. SCALE Transportation Task Force #' Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
t DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 17
.
,
.
.
t
, B. STRATEGIES TO PRESERVE AND ACQUIRE KEY CORRIDORS
, A fundamental objective of this report is to provide SCALE and its member organizations with information
, on available tools to implement the Regional Corridor Management Planning process. Effective application
of these tools and strategies will allow the County, municipalities, and townships in Scott County to
. preserve future transportation corridors and to facilitate their acquisition by means that are both
~ constitutional and affordable.
t The strategies and tools identified below have been classified into three separate categories:
~ Category 1: Planning and zoning authority- These strategies focus on preservfng corridors and
I are intended to be pre-emptive, enabling the public jurisdiction to preserve right-of-way
. by limiting or prohibiting private development.
. Category 2: Developer payments and contributions- These strategies focus on methods of
. preserving corridors prior to construction of a specific development, and are intended to
provide incentives to the developer to preserve right-of-way as a component of the
. project.
I Category 3: Acquisition- These strategies focus on specific methods of purchasing or otherwise
. acquiring right-of-way in which the owner mayor may not be a willing seller.
I
. PLANNING AND ZONING AUTHORITY
The previous section recommended an integrated regional corridor management planning process involving
I the Metropolitan Council, SCALE, and Scott County and its municipalities and townships. Fundamentally,
. this process includes the following core functions:
I . identifying and locating future, regionally significant transportation corridor right-of-way needs;
I . preparing and adopting coordinated plans at the County, city, and township level;
. . official mapping of "appropriate" corridors.
.
. The proposed regional corridor management planning process is intended to provide the framework for a
t more systematic, proactive approach to corridor management and preservation grounded in local
comprehensive plans and codes. Successful implementation of this process will result in alleviating the need
. to rely on many of the more complex and extreme corridor preservation strategies described below, saving
, the County and its local governments significant resources and identifying key corridor management
I opportunities.
~ ENACT NEW OR EXPANDED LAND USE AND ZONING ORDINANCES
, Successfully implementing a local transportation plan, especially in rapidly growing communities, generally
I requires that the local government adopt ordinances designed to manage development within the planned
.' transportation corridor. These ordinances are generally intended to prohibit or otherwise restrict
I development in the path of a planned transportation improvement, and/or to manage roadway access as
development occurs.
.
. Provisions traditionally found in local zoning ordinances can include the following: (Some of these tools are
. also described separately as independent corridor management strategies.)
~
.
. SCALE Transportation Task force -# Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
. DRAfT Phase 2 Report Page '8
.
,
.
~
j
. Corridor Preservation Provisions
. . Restrictions on construction or other development in the right-of-way of a mapped transportation
. facility;
, . Criteria for right-of-way exactions, and procedure for deriving appropriate level of right-of-way
dedication proportionate to the impact of the proposed development;
, . Allowing more flexible site design options (e.g., reducing setback requirements) that preserves right-of-
. way;
. . Permitting temporary or transitional use of right-of-way through agreements with land owners for uses
. that can easily be removed or relocated when the land is required for the transportation facility;
I. . Allowances for increasing development densities in order to preserve the right-of-way;
. . Allowances for impact fee credits to developers who dedicate sufficient right-of-way;
. . Procedures for notifying County, regional, or state authorities of development proposals that would
~ threaten the viability of a future transportation corridor.
. Corridor Access Management Provisions
l . Access spacing standards for each road by functional classification;
. . Requirements for joint and cross access, driveway consolidation, interparcel connections, and unified
. access and circulation plans;
l . Driveway location and design policies and guidelines;
~ . Median (non-traversable and open) policies and guidelines;
l . Guidelines on access management near freeway interchanges;
~ . Traffic impact assessment requirements and procedures.
~
~
~ From Policy to Reality: Model Ordinances for Sustainable Development
~ (Minnesota Planning Environmental Quality Board - September 2000)
t Minnesota Statutes, Section 4A.07(3) directs Minnesota Planning (the Office of Strategic and Long Range
l Planning) to prepare, in consultation with appropriate and affected parties, a model ordinance to guide
, sustainable development. This 300-page guide contains model ordinances relating to the following seven
broad topic areas:
, 1. Citizen Participation
! 2. Growth Management
t 3. Managing Community Resources
4. Neighborhood Design
, 5. Infrastructure
I 6. Resource Efficient Buildings
, 7. Economic Development
I
,
,
,
I SCALE Transportation Task force # Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-!O5
DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page J 9
r
,
,
.
t
~
. Although there may be relevant model ordinances in any of the aforementioned topic areas, the specific
. model ordinances included under the "Growth Management" topic area would appear to have the most
relevance to SCALE's efforts relating to corridor management and preservation. Specific model ordinances
. contained in this section include the following:
, . Urban growth boundary . Transfer of development rights
. . Agricultural and forest protection district . Orderly annexation agreement
. Conservation subdivision . General subdivision standards
. . Purchase of development rights
~
. Web link: http://www. gda.state. mn. us/pdf/2000/eqb/ModeIOrdWhole. pdf
. ENACT NEW LOCAL PLAT OR SITE PLAN REVIEW AUTHORITY
. Under broad planning and zoning authority, local units of government are authorized by law to plat new
~ subdivisions, showing the location of lots, alleys, and streets. The platting process is also an important tool
J for right-of-way preservation because it allows the municipality to designate location and dimension of local
. access roads that are required to be constructed by the developer under the terms of a development
agreement.
.
.
. Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance
~. (Dakota County Board of Commissioners - Amended August, 2006)
. During the 2004 M~nnesota legislative session, city and county representatives developed a proposal for a
J plat review process which would have provided all counties with the authority to conduct a review of
J ingress and egress, drainage, safety, rights"of-way, integration, and impact on the countywide system prior
. to the city's statutory plat review process. Under current law, only Dakota County has that statutory
authority.
~.
. Web link: http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/NR/rdonlyres/2BF7960A-F4 7 5-4C E2 -8268-
~ 1 A260868DB04/0/PlatOrdinance.pdf
. AUTHORIZE MORE RESTRICTIVE SETBACK REGULATIONS
. Setback regulations in land use or zoning ordinances restrict or prohibit new construction or improvements
. within a specified distance from the property line. Setback requirements have been found to be .
. unconstitutional (i.e., "taking" without just compensation) if they are used solely for the purpose of
preserving right-of-way for future expansion in order to avoid land acquisition costs. Setback requirements
I are more traditionally used to allow safety improvements, such as improving sightlines.
.
.
.
.
J
.
.
.
, SCALE Transportation Task Force -# Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
. DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 20
.
~
.
~
~
~
~ Kanakee County, Illinois Corridor Preservation Draft Concept Document
. (Kanakee County Planning Department - July 2003)
. Kanakee County, Illinois is preserving transportation corridors through the use of setbacks regulations in its
. zoning code. The County developed a process to rank and classify county roads to determine what setbacks
t are needed and is implementing the regulations when a property owner applies for a building permit,
~ subdivision development permit, or conditional use permit, or when an area is to be rezoned.
~ Web Link: http://planning.k3county.net/pdf/cor-pres.pdf .'
.
. IMPOSE RESTRICTIVE ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Access Management is the planning, design, and implementation of land use and transportation strategies
. that manage the flow of traffic between the road and surrounding land. Appropriate spacing and design of
. public street intersections and private access to higher volume roadways such as the state trunk highway
, system or high volume local arterials is necessary to ensure the safety and mobility of the roadways while
accommodating the access and accessibility needs of local communities.
.
.
. "Appendix A: Access Category System and Spacing Guidelines"
. (Minnesota Department of Transportation - 2002)
. This Mn/DOT report defines a system of access categories for the state trunk highways with associated
. guidelines for the spacing and design of public and private access. Adoption of these guidelines is intended
. to streamline decision making while promoting statewide consistency and best practices in the planning,
. design, and regulation of access to the Trunk Highway System. Mn/DOT personnel and consultants will
reference these guidelines during the development of corridor plans, highway development, safety
. improvement projects, local development reviews (e.g., comprehensive plans, plats, and site plans), and
. access permit reviews.
. Web Link: http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us/access/pdfs/Mn DOT AccessGuidelines. pdf
.
. ISSUE CONDITIONAL USE/INTERIM USE PERMITS
~ Conditional/Interim Use Permits allow landowners to obtain permits for low-intensity uses for a limited
~ time. This method is most appropriate for areas where construction is several years away. This method
allows the land to be used before construction begins, but in a low-cost manner that will be relatively easy
t to remove. Conditions defining low-intensity should be clear. The cooperation of the landowner must also
~ be secured. Some compensation may be necessary if the land has not already been set aside for highway
. purposes.
.
. IDENTIFY ROW NEEDS IN ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS
Through the orderly annexation process, cities and townships are better positioned to plan for future
. transportation corridor needs and identify potential funding sources. The orderly annexation agreement
. should identify future transportation right-of-way needs and restrict development in these areas.
.
.
, SCALE Transportation Task Force 4- Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
. . DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 2 I
.
.
.
~
~
. DEVELOPMENT MORATORIA
. Development moratoria, established through a local law or ordinance, can be used to suspend
. property owner rights to obtain development approvals, granting a municipality time to address a
problem, develop and adopt a plan, or create new rules for the area. A moratorium may be applied
, to a specific geographic area, such as a transportation corridor, or a specific type of permit or
. approval. This option should be considered carefully, and used only when absolutely necessary. If
. legally challenged, a municipality must be able demonstrate a specific and legitimate basis, as well
. as a reasonable time table, for the moratorium.
. REQUIRE AN ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR)
. In general terms, an AUAR is similar to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in that its key purpose is to
. identify and assess the anticipated environmental effects from a specific future development. AUARs are
. sometimes required when the proposed development is planned for a very broad geographic area, and/or
when the project has a multitude of components whose environmental impacts are cumulative and difficult
. to analyze independently of one another.
. The notion suggested here is that SCALE or the County could seek legislative authorization to require an
. AUAR for a very large geographic zone on future developments that could obstruct key transportation
. corridors. The AUAR would be required to include a detailed mitigation planthat would represent a
. commitment by the developer or property owner to prevent potentially significant adverse impacts from
occurring because of the proposed development. After the AUAR and its mitigation plan are considered, the
. County or another public authority would be responsible for adopting the mitigation plan, which would
~. legally bind the developer to develop the property in compliance with the mitigation plan.
. It is likely that Mn/DOT and the Metropolitan Council would be receptive to a proposal such as this,
. because it would provide a tool to enable those agencies to achieve objectives identified in their long range
. plans.
.
.
. Recommended content and format for an Alternative Urban Areawide Review
. (AUAR) Document (Minnesota Environmental Quality Board - April 2005)
. This guidance has been prepared by the State Environmental Quality Board (EQB) staff to assist in the
. preparation of AUAR documents. It is based on provisions in Minnesota Rules (4410.3610, subp. 4) that ..
t lithe content and format [of an AUAR document] must be similar to that of an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW), but must provide for a level of analysis comparable to that of an Environmental Impact
t Statement (EIS) for impacts typical of urban residential, commercial warehousing, and light industrial
t development and associated infrastructure."
. Web. Link: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/pdf/AUARFormatrev4-05. pdf
.
J DEVELOPER PAYMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
. Most often, the tools discussed above under the" Planning and Zoning Authority" category are applied in
. cases in which a large tract of land is targeted for right-of-way preservation. In many cases, however, it is
only practical, possible, or necessary to acquire a smaller land area. The following tools involve inducements
~ and agreements made with property owners, and are typically utilized to acquire smaller tracts of land when
~ exercising planning and zoning powers or when simple acquisition alone cannot achieve the desired results.
, SCALE Transportation Task force -# Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
. DRAfT Phase 2 Report Page 22
.
,
.
.
.
. EXACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
. Exactions are any contribution by a developer to the County or local government in return for subdivision
~ approval or any other land use approval or permit needed by the development. Exactions can be used to
obtain land within the designated right-of-way for transportation infrastructure. Property exactions should
. be used only when there are clear and direct connections between the exaction and the government's
. interest, known as "nexus". If the developer does not receive a benefit equal to the value of the exaction,
t, then the exaction can constitute a regulatory taking of the easement.
. Local government impact fees are one-time charges on new real estate development as compensation for
. the higher incremental cost of off-site capital improvements. As with on-site dedications, impact fees shift
. the infrastructure costs of new development back on land owners, builders, and/or the final property owner.
. Fees may be used for a variety of uses, and roadway design and construction costs are commonly included
. in deriving the amount of the fee.
~ Although development impact fees are common in many cities around the country, they have not caught on
. with local governments in Minnesota. This may be attributable to the fact that Minnesota state law neither
. expressly allows nor prohibits their use, so local governments are uncertain as to their legal implications.
.
. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) from Riverside County in
. California (Western Riverside Council of Governments - Adopted March 6, 2006) . ...
.
, Like Scott County, the Riverside, California regional transportation system needs to be expanded to
accommodate anticipated future growth; current funds are inadequate to construct the regional system
t needed to avoid the unacceptable levels of traffic congestion and related adverse impacts. The TUMF
. Program has been implemented to provide significant additional funds from new development to make
. improvements to the system, complementing funds generated local transportation fee programs, and other
funding sources. By establishing a fee on new development in the area, local agencies can generate
. revenues from developers who contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the regional transportation
~ system.
~ Web Link: http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/TadMarch2006/TUMFAdminPlan. pdf
~
.
t Spring Lake Infrastructure Fee Nexus Study
. (City of Woodland, California - June 2004)
. The City of Woodland, California implemented a Spring lake Infrastructure Fee (SlIF) designed to fund
. backbone infrastructure and other public facilities required to serve new development planned in the Spring
. lake SpecificPlan (SLSP) area. The Fee Program allocates the costs to benefiting land uses. The Fee
.' Program will be implemented through the City's adoption of an ordinance, a resolution, and a Nexus Study.
. Web Link: http://www.epsys.com/Client Site/12598SpringLake/12598final 6.29.04.pdf
.
.
.
~ SCALE Transportation Task Force -# Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
. DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 23
~,
,
.
a
.
t
. Model Ordinance for Proportionate Fair-Share Mitigation of Development
. Impacts on Transportation Corridors (State of Florida - December 2005)
. In 2005, the Florida Legislature amended the state's growth management legislation, directing local
~ governments to enact" concurrency management" ordinances that allowfor proportionate share
. contributions from developers toward concurrency requirements. Concurrency is a growth management
concept intended to ensure that the necessary public facilities and services available are" concurrent" with
. the impacts of development.
.
t To carry out transportation concurrency, local governments must define what constitutes an adequate level
of service and measure whether the service needs of a new development exceed existing capacity and any
. scheduled improvements in an adopted capital improvement program. If adequate capacity is not available,
. the local government cannot permit development unless certain conditions specified in law apply (e.g.,
. developments with very minor impacts, "infill" or redevelopment projects).
. Web Link: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/gm/pfso/draft120 1 05.pdf
J
. DEVELOPER INDUCEMENTS AND OTHER AGREEMENTS
. While an exaction suggests a required" contribution" on the part of a property owner, more flexible
"inducements" can also be used effectively to preserve transportation corridors. Inducements can include
. tools such as tax abatement, transferable development rights and density transfers, and impact fee credits.
. Transferable development rights and density transfers can be used together or separately depending upon
. the situation.
. A transferable development right is a government-created right to develop land. A property owner who has
. land within a right-of-way may sell or relinquish rights to develop the land in exchange for monetary
. compensation or the ability to develop a separate piece of property at the same density outside of the
. corridor.
. A density transfer is very similar to a transferable development right in the sense that a property owner may
~ agree to leave land vacant for highway purposes in exchange for clustering development to achieve a
~ higher than normally allowed density of development on another appropriate property. This tool is helpful in
. removing development rights from a site to be preserved for future right-of-way by providing the developer
. an incentive that allows the same number of housing units or square footage of development.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
. SCALE Transportation Task Force ~ Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
. DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 24
.
~
.
~
~
t
. Scott County "Public Value Density Credits Program."
~ This program provides flexibility in subdivision design (which may include density bonuses) in exchange for
, creating or dedicating public values that promote varied housing options, improve public infrastructure
. systems (roadways, parks, trails, drainageways), and/or encourage natural resource protection. In 1997, the
t Minnesota legislature passed enabling legislation to explicitly allow local units of government to develop
and utilize transfer development rights programs. Specifically, chapters 394.25 and 462.357 of the.
. Minnesota Statutes provide for the transfer of development rights for the purpose of preserving areas
~ considered desirable by local zoning boards and the transfer of development rights from those areas to
. areas the governing body considers more appropriate for development. ..
.
t Chisago County Green Corridor Project
.
t The Green Corridor Project developed Minnesota's first formal Transfer of Development Rights program in
. Chisago County. Many other counties ana cities in Minnesota have since adopted ordinances and put them
into use.
.
.
. Whatcom County, Washington Code: Density Transfer Procedure (Ch. 20.89)
.
. The purpose of this chapter of Washington State law is to establish procedures for the transfer of
t development rights from one property to another. Where the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and
an appropriate overlay zone or zoning map designation provide the option for Transfer of Development
. Rights (TORs), the rights shall be transferred consistent with the requirements of state law.
. Web Link: http://www.mrsc.org/mc/whatcom/whatc020/whatc02089.html
.
. ACQUISITION
~ When the circumstances are right, the County and its municipal governments have been able to successfully
. advance acquisition and contain right-of-way acquisition costs. Advanced acquisition of properties located
within an officially mapped corridor is utilized when the acquisition is determined to be in the public interest
. to protect the designated corridor from development (authorized under "eminent domain"), or when the
. mapped corridor designation creates an undue hardship on the property owner.
t Scott County and its municipal governments should continue to utilize these tools.
.
. FEE SIMPLE ACQUISITIONS
~ One of the most commonly used methods of corridor preservation is simply to purchase or acquire key
. parcels of land along a corridor through eminent domain. By acquiring fee title to the property, the local
. government has complete control over the future use of the land. This option is preferable when the land
can be acquired early in the process (long before actual development) when the land is still relatively cheap.
.
.
.
. SCALE Transportation Task Force #' Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
.. DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 25
.
,
.
~
.
. EASEMENTS
. Easements (both temporary and permanent) are another method of acquisition and allow a property owner
. to retain most rights to the property in exchange for the loss of the use of a portion of the property on a
temporary or permanent basis. Easements have an advantage over outright acquisition in that the property
. remains privately owned and so it remains on the tax rolls. Acquiring property through an easement is
. generally more cost effective when the property is not acquired in advance, but rather at the time that the
. new development seeks approval from the County or local government.
~
. Model Trail Easement Agreement
.
t Web Link: http://conserveland.org/model documents/Trail Ease loza 06apr20.pdf
t
.
. Model Conservation Easement
. Web Link: http://conserveland.org/model documents/ModeICE06apr20.pdf
.
. PURCHASE OPTION OR RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
. If it is not feasible to purchase property in fee title or to obtain an easement over the property, a purchase
. option is another available tool to control property within a future transportation corridor. An option to
. purchase, sometimes referred to as a right of first refusal, is a contract in which the right to purchase
property is provided under specified conditions and within a certain timeframe. An option to purchase
. establishes purchase terms in advance of a County or local government needing title to the property for
. transportation use. In exchange for the option, the property owner receives consideration in an amount
. equal to a percentage of the purchase price for tying up the property.
. A key advantage in securing an option is that the unit of government can secure a purchase price for the
. property in a rising market without the up front capital costs of acquisition. This leaves the property on the
~ tax rolls and responsibility for the maintenance of the property with the property owner until [t is ultimately
. purchased.
. FINANCING TOOLS FOR CORRIDOR PRESERVATION
. Existing resources are not sufficient to fund corridor preservation and acquisition in Scott County. The
~ SCALE Transportation Task Force has concluded that establishment of a dedicated funding source for
~ . corridor preservation and acquisition is essential to avoid the adverse effects associated with continuously
. escalating land prices. Identifying new sources of revenue to capitalize a "Right-of-way Preservation Fund"
is one means of helping the County preserve and acquire right-of-way for regionally significant
. transportation improvement projects in Scott County.
l
. NEW LOCAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION LOAN FUND
. SCALE should consider establishing its own countywide Rightcof-Acquisition Loan Fund (RAlF). The fund
could be capitalized by a variety of sources (these are described in greater detail, below) and would offer
. loans and other types of financial assistance to acquire properties identified by SCALE and its member
~
~ SCALE Transportation Task Force #' Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
~ - DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 26
.
,
.
.
~. organizations. As loans are repaid to the fund, they would recapitalize the fund to finance another set of
. projects, in theory, creating a continually expanding pool of money for transportation corridor acquisition.
.
. ~
. State of Washington has established a "City and County Advance Right-of-Way
. Revolving Fund"
. This fund is administered by a board of directors representing local governments throughout the state.
.
. Web link: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=47.26.330
. LOCAL BONDING AUTHORITY
.
Public
. Hypothetical Bonding Scenario: Bond Proceeds and Annual Debt Service Needs
transportation
. infrastructure is 1_ Bond A"oceeds -+- Annual Debt Service I
t generally financed $1,200
using a balance of
. II pay-as-you-go II $1,000
~ financing and $800
. bond financing. '"
Bond financing 1? $600
~
. can be an effective 0
~ $400
. tool to provide
funding up front to $200
~ acquire necessary $-
. right-of-way. It Yr1 Vr 'Yr Yr- Yr Yr Yr Vr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr
2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 '011 12 13 14 '6 13 17 '8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
. can also result in
construction cost savings by permitting work to begin and end earlier than otherwise possible, thereby
. reducing the inflationary costs associated with labor and construction materials. However, it must be
. understood that bond proceeds are not a new, ongoing source of revenue. Instead, bond proceeds
t represent an advance on future revenues that must be reimbursed, including interest. This means that as
debt levels climb by issuing more bonds, additional current resources must be committed to repaying the
~ loans, which leaves less resources available for existing and newly developing transportation needs,
. Bonestroo has created an automated model that allows the user to run any hypothetical bond program,
. assuming that the bonds are issued in a ten year time frame. (One hypothetical bonding scenario is
illustrated in the diagram, above.) The purpose of the model is to derive an estimate, based on the amount
. and timing of the bond sale and the applicable interest rate, of the resulting debt service costs. The graphic
t shows an estimate of debt service on a $1 million per year, 1 a-year bond sale.
. WHEELAGE FEE
. Scott County recently enacted a $5.00 per vehicle wheelage fee that is paid when County residents renew
. their license plate tabs each year. Revenue projections indicate that the fee will generate about $370,000
t of additional revenue for the County's roads and bridges per year. The County could consider a number of
. strategies involving the wheelage fee to improve identified transportation needs in the County, including
increasing the fee, using revenues from the fee to issue bonds, and/or designating a portion of the revenues
. generated from the fee for corridor preservation.
.
.
. SCALE Transportation Task Force -# Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
. DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 27
.
,
t
.
.
. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
. Special assessments are a common means of generating local revenues in Minnesota cities within
. designated JJ special assessment districts" in which a specific benefit will result from an improvement. The
taxation can be consistent across the district or vary based on the benefit received from the improvement.
. Property owners must not be required to pay more than they will receive in special benefits.
.
. Special assessments are not typically used to preserve right-of-way, because a specific benefit to local'"
. residents must be determined to be the effect of the improvement. It is difficult to demonstrate or quantify
benefit resulting from preserving right-of-way. Counties typically have not used special assessments to .
. finance roadway improvements on the County systems, in large part because improvements to those higher
. volume systems tend to provide benefits to users well beyond the area of the improvement.
.
. MINNESOTA AGGREGATE MATERIALS TAX
~ Scott County is authorized to levy an aggregate materials tax. State law provides that proceeds from the tax
must be dedicated to County road and bridge funds for the maintenance, and construction and
. reconstruction of roads, highways, and bridges.
.
. TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY SYSTEM PRESERVATION PILOT PROGRAM (TCSP)
. This federal program was enacted in SAFETEA-lU and provides funding for planning, developing, and
. implementing strategies to integrate transportation and community and system preservation plans and
practices. The allocations are available for any project relating to transportation and system preservation.
. The federal share for eligible projects under this program is up to 80 percent.
~
. Federal funds from the TCSP program are intended to:
. . Improve the efficiency of the transportation system;
. . Reduce impacts of transportation on the environment;
. . Reduce the need for costly future investments in public infrastructure;
. . Provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade;
. . Examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development
. patterns which achieve the goals above.
.
. The South Carolina Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot
I
. Program (SC TCSP).
. With funding from the TCSP grant program through the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), the
. program works with five Regional Councils of Government in South Carolina to develop and evaluate a pilot
. planning model that integrates the state's key infrastructure planning activities into one plan and process at
the regional level. (This program has many parallels to the Regional Corridor Management Planning process
. described in Section III of this report.)
.
.
~
. SCALE Transportation Task Force #' Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
. DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 28
~
I The objective of the SC TCSP is to achieve consistency among state, regionat and local infrastructure
planning efforts. Often, state planning is conducted in relative isolation and with little coordination by
i different agencies with related responsibilities. These individual planning efforts are even further removed
from regional and local infrastructure planning activities. This project will allow the selected Councils of
I Government to examine separate infrastructure areas of statewide interest and to develop a regional plan
that links state and regional infrastructure and economic policies.
I
TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEE
I Transportation Utility Fees (also referred to as road user fees or street utility fees) have become more
I popular in recent years as a means of funding local transportation system needs by treating streets as a
l public utility - much in the same way that a water utility or a street lighting utility functions - to be funded
through user fees. Revenues generated are used for annual operating and maintenance or capital
! improvements.
I
I Local governments in Oregon seem to be ahead of the rest of the country in establishing transportation
, utility fees. These transportation utilities typically operate by first determining the annual amount of revenue
they wish to collect, calculating the total number of trips to be assessed against the fee, and then allocating
, a fee per trip to each user. Other Transportation Utility Fee models allocate costs based on lot area, building
I area, and/or parking stalls.
~ In Minnesota, the League of Minnesota Cities in partnership with the City Engineers Association of
I Minnesota (CEAM) and the Minnesota Public Works Association (MPWA), proposed a street utility fee in
~ January, 2005. A bill was introduced in both the House and the Senate giving cities the authority to use trip
I generation rates to establish street utility fee programs for street reconstruction, maintenance, and facility
I upgrades such as traffic signals and turn lanes, but the bill was never enacted by the full legislature.
~ BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
t A benefit assessment district is a quasi-municipal corporation and independent taxing district created for
~ the sole purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding transportation improvements
~ within the district. Benefit assessment districts are used to assess a defined constituency for benefits
~ provided specifically to those residents, such as roads, water, parks, and recreational facilities. These
districts levy properties in a manner such that the benefit is comparable to the assessment. (Benefit
~ Assessment Districts have much in common with Special Assessment Districts - the primary distinction
~ being that a Benefit Assessment District suggests that the district can be kept in place to finance operation
~ and maintenance costs of an improvement and special assessment districts typically finance only the initial
construction of an improvement.)
~
~
. Washington State Legislation on Benefit Assessment Districts
.
t Examples of benefit assessment districts can be found in many states, including California (See County of
Riverside Road and Bridge Benefit Districts), and Washington State (See Puget Sound Regional
. Transportation Improvement Districts). These states have enacted enabling legislation allowing residents the
. option of assessing themselves to pay for transportation infrastructure.
. Web Link: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.73
.
~ SCALE Transportation Task force ~ Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
. DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 29
.
,
.
.
~
. LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX
. Local sales taxes are levies on the value of taxable purchases such as food, lodging, liquor, or
. entertainment. In Minnesota, only a few cities and one county have enacted a local sales tax (which
requires special legislative approval), including the cities of Duluth, Minneapolis, Rochester, St. Cloud,
~ Hermantown, Two Harbors, Mankato, New Ulm, Proctor, Winona and Cook County. Typically, a local levy
~ referendum or council vote is required to authorize a local sales tax. Tax revenue can be used for road
. projects, but is often dedicated to other capital improvement projects. Local governments in Wisconsin can
earmark up to a 1 percent sales tax for transportation projects.
.
. NEW STATE PLANNING GRANT INITIATIVE
. In Illinois, a new program called the Corridor Planning Grant Program was created to help local
. governments develop land use and infrastructure plans that promote the efficient use of transportation
a facilities. A similar initiative could be promoted here in Minnesota, one in which funding could be provided
tp support efforts to implement a bold, coordinated approach to balanced growth for communities
. throughout the state. The Illinois program promotes voluntary state/local partnerships and focuses on state
. programs that invest in existing communities.
.
.
. "Illinois Tomorrow" Corridor Planning Grant Program
. In 2000, the State of Illinois enacted an initiative called "Illinois Tomorrow Corridor Planning Grant Program
. which provides funding for local governments to support planning activities that promote the integration of
. land use, transportation and infrastructure facility planning in transportation corridors in Illinois". "Illinois
. Tomorrow" is a comprehensive effort guided by the core principles of reducing traffic congestion, preserving
~ open space, encouraging reinvestment and redevelopment, enhancing the quality of life, and encouraging
local government partnership. The goals of the program are very consistent with the goals that have been
. articulated by SCALE and its member organizations, including:
. . To promote land use and transportation options to reduce the growth of trafficcongestion;
. . To connect infrastructure and development decisions;
. . To promote balanced economic development to reduce infrastructure costs;
. . To promote intergovernmental cooperation;
. . To promote public-private partnerships and coalitions;
. . To promote collaboration among local governments, the development industry, labor and
~ environmental organizations;
. . To minimize the cost to taxpayers for infrastructure and maximize the use of existing infrastructure.
. In Illinois, grants ranging from $20,000 to $200,000 have been provided for planning activities such as the
. following:
t . Creation of transit oriented/mixed use development plans to increase transportation options, AND
. improve walkability and enhance access to transit.
. . Development of intergovernmental agreements that provide for multi-jurisdictional planning of land
. use, zoning and developmental decisions.
.
. SCALE Transportation Task force 4- Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
. DRAfT Phase 2 Report Page 30
.
.
.
~
~
. . Development of public-private plans and agreements that provide for and encourage affordable
. housing for workers that is convenient to employment centers.
. . Creation of multi-community corridor plans to develop efficient transportation facilities and land uses.
. Web Link: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/landuse/illinoiscs.htm
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
~
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. SCALE Transportation Task Force #' Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
~ DRAfT Phase 2 Report Page 31
.
~
I
.
I
SCALE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE - DRAFT PHASE 2 REPORT
I Appendix A: Official Mapping
i
I
I
, Over the last year, probably the most technical issue that the Task Force addressed that involved how to
structure and implement the Regional Corridor Management Planning Process was the subject of II official
mapping". Official mapping is a component of the corridor preservation process that provides a window of
opportunity for a public entity to acquire land for future corridor development. The concept is complex, in
that Minnesota law lays out a variety of provisions governing who has authority to officially map, and what
are the rules on official mapping in terms of balancing the rights of land owners with the public interest.
This appendix provides baseline information on official mapping and is intended to provide a starting point
for future analysis of the specific requirements and authorization granted by existing state law on official
mapping. It provides answers to the most frequently asked questions and where relevant, it provides the
citation in which the statutory language on the subject is found in Minnesota state law.
1. What is "official mapping"?
Cities and counties are authorized by the State of Minnesota to prepare official maps identifying future
improvements after the adoption of transportation and public facilities plans. An official map shows areas in
the community where land is needed for future streets or road widening, or other public facilities such as
parks. Official mapping notifies property owners and developers where future improvements are planned.
Official mapping can be used to prevent or delay the construction of buildings or other private
improvements on designated lands, saving the public expense of paying for buildings and improvements in
designated corridors. By notifying property owners and developers of the location of future improvements,
official mapping allows interested parties to plan accordingly. Several local jurisdictions within Minnesota
have used official mapping to preserve land for future public improvements. Washington County has
officially mapped portions of the Big Marine Regional Park. The City of Lakeville, in partnership with
Mn/DOT, has officially mapped several interchanges along 1-35W.
2. Do counties have the authority to officially map roadway corridors? What are the limits
and requirements associated with this authority?
Counties have official mapping authority, subject to statutory limitations and procedures:
Minnesota Statute 394.25, Subd. 4, authorizes counties to adopt official maps, defined in MS 394.22 as
maps "which may show existing county roads and county state-aid highways, proposed future county roads
and highways, ...and future state trunk highway rights-of-way."
A public hearing must be held on proposed official maps and amendments thereto. The official map is
adopted and amended by ordinance by the board of county commissioners. (M.S. 394.361)
SCALE Transportation Task Force .tt Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 32
~
~
.
~
~ CITATION: M.S.394.361 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT, ZONING; OFFICIAL MAP (COUNTY)
t KEY POINTS:
, . "Subd. 1. Future public uses. II (This section provides the policy rationale for official mapping.)
~ . "Identification on official maps of land needed for future public uses permits both the public and
private property owners to adjust their building plans equitably and conveniently before investments
t are made that will make adjustments difficult to accomplish."
t . "Subd. 3. Effect. ... The adoption of official maps does not give the county any right, title or interest in
, areas identified for public purposes thereon, but the adoption of a map does authorize the county to
, acquire these interests without paying compensation for buildings or structures erected in those areas
I without a permit or approval or in violation of the conditions of a permit or approval."
I CITATION: M.S. 160.08S ROADS - GENERAL PROVISIONS; RECORDING PROPOSED
I ACQUISITION FOR ROADS
, KEY POINTS:
I . "Subd 1: Recording map or plat; certification. (a) In order to facilitate the acquisition of right-of-way
, required for highways, state and county road authorities may file for record in the office of the county
, recorder... such orders or resolutions required by law in the form of maps or plats showing right-of-
way by course distance, bearing and arc length, and other rights or interests in land to be acquired by
~ as the road authority determines necessary."
, . "Subd 3: Description may refer to Map or plat. (a) Land acquisition by the road authority for highway
, purposes by instrument of conveyance or by eminent domain proceedings may refer to the map or plat
, and parcel number, together with delineation of the parcel, as the only manner of description
~ necessary for the acquisition. "
t CITATION: M.S. 117.0S5 EMINENT DOMAIN; PETITION AND NOTICE
, KEY POINTS:
, . This provision prOVides details on the required elements of the notice to land owners required during
, the eminent domain process.
, CITATION: M.S. 163.11 COUNTY HIGHWAYS; POWERS RELATING TO HIGHWAYS
I KEY POINTS:
I This provision deals with the authority of the county to acquire local roads and other issues related to
.
I the process of transferring ownership of roads.
,
~ 3. Do townships have the authority to adopt official maps? What are the limits and
requirements associated with this authority?
I
I Municipalities also have official mapping authority, subject to statutory limitations and procedures.
I MS 462.359, Subd. 2 authorizes municipalities to adopt and amend official maps, after holding a public
I hearing. "Official map" is defined as that "which may show existing and proposed future streets, roads,
~ highways and airports of the municipality and county, ...and existing and future county state aid highways
, and state trunk highway rights-of-way."
I
I SCALE Transportation Task Force -# Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
ORAFT Phase 2 Report Page 33
I
,
'----"'---~~".-.,
I
I
,
i
t CITATION: M.S. 164.06 TOWN ROADS; POWERS REGARDING TOWN ROADS
I KEY POINTS:
I . A town board may "establish, alter, or vacate a town road, .. .and may acquire the right-of-way as
may be necessary for the road by gift, purchase.... "
I
I 4. Can cities and towns officially map future county roads?
Cities and towns have the authority to officially map future county roads. (MS 462.352, Subd. 10) .'
CITATION: M.S.462.359 HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING; PROCEDURE TO
EFFECT PLAN: OFFICIAL MAPS (MUNICIPAL GOV'T)
KEY POINTS:
. "Subd.1. (Same rationale for official mapping as M.S.394.361.)
. "Subd. 2. Adoption. After the planning agency has adopted a thoroughfare plan and community
facilities plan, it may... prepare and recommend to the governing a proposed official map covering the
entire municipality or a portion thereof."
. "Subdivision 3 - Effect" (Virtually the same as county provision in MS 394.361) "The adoption of
official maps does not give the municipality any right, title or interest in areas identified for public
purposes thereon, but the adoption of a map does authorize the municipality to acquire these interests
without paying compensation for buildings or structures erected in those areas without a permit or in
violation of the conditions of a permit."
5. What are the financial implications associated with official mapping? When does the
right-of-way for property - beyond the local street requirements - need to be
purchased?
Once an official map has been adopted by a county or municipality, the land identified therein as necessary
for future street purposes will face limitations on its land use or zoning or building permits. This may have
financial implications for the tax base of the locality.
The governing body is under no time restriction as to the purchase of right-of-way associated with the
planning of future roadway corridors, with one exception.
According to MS 394.361, Subd. 4, regarding counties and MS 462.359, Subd. 4, regarding municipalities,
if a land use or zoning or building permit is denied for land identified in an official map, the landowner may
file an appeal with the board of appeal or board of adjustments. If certain conditions are met and the
appeal is granted, the governing body has six months to begin acquiring the land.
CITATION: M.S. 163.12 COUNTY HIGHWAYS; ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES FOR ACQUISITION
KEY POINTS:
A county" may adoptthe procedure hereinafter set forth for the acquisition of lands or properties needed
for the acquisition or alteration of a county highway and county state aid highways."
. Pass resolution identifying land needs
. File petition with district court
. Furnish land owners with ROW map
. Court hears evidence on "finding of necessity" to take land
SCALE Transportation Task force -# Bonestroo Project No: 569.07. J 05
DRAfT Phase 2 Report Page 34
. If the taking is determined to be necessary, a hearing is conducted to determine monetary" damages"
from taking
. County Board determines damages
. Awards filed
. Appeals are allowed, but cannot delay improvement
6. Are there other growth management tools that might protect future r_oadway corridors
and forestall the need for official mapping?
Growth management tools include zoning, land acquisition, and planning. Localities have the right to
implement zoning ordinances which limit the use of land, including but not limited to: location, size and
uses of buildings; and setback from existing roads and highways.
CITATION: M.S. 473.167 METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT; HIGHWAY PROJECTS
KEY POINTS:
. "Subd. 2. Loans for Acquisition. (a) The [Metropolitan] Council may make loans to counties, towns
and... cities within the metropolitan area for purchase of property within the right-of-way of a state
trunk highway shown on an official map adopted pursuant to 394.361 or 462.359 or for the purchase
of property within the proposed right-of-way of a principal or intermediate arterial highway designated
by the council as part of the metropolitan highway system plan and approved by the council pursuant
to section 473.166. The loans shall be made by the council, from the fund established pursuant to this
subdivision, for purchases approved by the council. The loans shall bear no interest."
. The language identifies criteria used to evaluate the merit of a loan proposal, including:
0 "to accelerate the acquisition of primarily undeveloped property when there is a reasonable
probability that the property will increase in value before highway construction."
0 "to avert imminent conversion of the granting of approvals which would allow the conversion of
properties to uses which jeopardize its availability for highway construction."
0 "to advance planning and environmental activities on the highest priority major metropolitan river
crossing projects... "
SCALE Transportation Task Force ~ Bonestroo Project No: 569-07-105
DRAFT Phase 2 Report Page 35
!
I
I
)
I
I
SCALE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE - DRAFT PHASE 2 REPORT
I Appendix B: Project List
SCALE Transportation Task force # Bonestroo Project No: 569.07-105
DRAfT Phase 2 Report Page 36
~
~
~
~ Regionally Significant Transportation Needs [n Scott County: Project Worksheet
I
Estimated Unfunded ROW
~ Needs - Include Public end
Non-publlc costs (beyond
Pro)""I# Route Ownership Functional Class Oescriptlon Identified sources) Notes:
, i' _U.~~" = ~ )...._~ "~!'L...JllfL' - ~L,:...' r. -. .~. @ ,
" - ~". , ..
I Construction and upgrade of realigned TH 13 This project was split into 5 distinct projects In which the County
TH 13/ /Qentln Ave Intersection and construction of Is requesting federal funds. (5A,58, 5C, 50, 5E) This Is 'old'
I 005A Quentin Ave City / State Principal Arterial frontage road northeast of the intersection $750,000 ro'ect21.
County iState Construct grade separated interchange at TH This project was split into 5 distinct projects In which the County
I 0058 TH13/CR5 Princioal Arterial 13/CR 5 $7.000,000 Is requestlnq federal funds. (5A.58, 5C, 50, 5E)
Construct at-grade interchange at TH 13/TH IS project was spllllmo " mstlnct projects In WOlcn tne ""unty
TH 13/TH Is requesting federal funds. (5A,58, 5C. 50, 5E) This is 'old'
I 005C 101 State Principal Arterial 101 $0 project 27.
TH 13/
Chowen- Complete signalized intersection at Chowen I
Glenhurst Glenhurst Ave and TH 13, Including frontage This project was split into 5 distinct projects in which the County
0050 Ave City / State Principal Arterial road construction $1,500,000 is requesting federal funds. (5A.58, 5C, 50, 5E)
omplele slgrnUlzea In ersecnon at ua~o a This project was split into 5 distinct projects in which the County
TH 13/ Ave and TH 13. Including frontage road
005E Dakota Ave Princioal Arterial construction $500.000 is reauestlna federal funds. (5A,58, 5C, 50, 5E)
This project is Included In the CSAH 17/TH 101 Study. Also.
Shako pee noted that the City and County have different plans
for improvements to this location. County would like to preserve
it for future principal arterial designation. City suggests that
County and City should coordinate tI1eir plans, Shakopee
A Minor Upgrade CSAH 17 from 17th Ave to CSAH42 Indicated that the County has designated funding for this project
009A CSAH17 County Connector Study and In TIP for 2012 for the year 2013,
A Minor Improve CSAH 17 from TH 42 to CR 12
0098 CSAH 17 Connector 170tl1 Street E.)
Minnesota Proposed New River Crossing; no site Shakopee staff raised the point tI1at a report by 8arr
River finalized; Interchange could get done before Engineering prepared a report indicating that the 'No 8uild'
010 Crossing State Princloal Arterial bridge. (ROW Preservation) ootlon will contribute to the dearadatlonof the Fen.
ntercnange at IH 169 ana ""'AH 3 ~~endlan
St.); Interchange mapped but not on 10-yr
US 169/ plan. Need additional ROW on north and Some of the ROW for tI1is project has been acquired by tI1e Mel
013 CSAH 3 State Princloal Arterial south sides. Council RALF fund
County Upgrade to 6 lanes (Segment 8) Glendale Rd.
018 CSAH 42 Princioal Arterial to CR Sin 8umsvllle PROJECT COMPLETE
TH 169/ ROW acquisition for TH 169/CSAH 59
019 CSAH 59 County/State Princioal Arterial Interchange
US 169/TH ROW acquisition for the TH 169/TH 282/CR9
020 282 CountvlState Principal Arterial Interchanae
CSAH 86/1- A Minor Improvements to CSAH 86, Including new
025 35 CountvlState Connector interchanae at 1-35
Improve Capacity from Louisiana Ave
030 CSAH 42 County Princioal Arterial eastward to Scott Countv Border
111 41 to "naSKa Trom 1111~" to tne county
existing TH A Minor border (1 mile); expand from 2 to 4 lane
035 41 State Exoander divided Safety and conoestlon Issues at 169/ 41 Intersection
CR 64/ CR 66: Need for east-west arterial
roadway connecting access to CSAH 25 river
crossing and TH 169 (from CR 64
A Minor Interchange) and 1-35. (Upgrade CSAH 8to 4
043 CSAH 8 County Connector lanes) .
County Princloal Arterial Upgrade to 6 lanes from Louisiana Ave to
047 CSAH 42 800ne Ave.
Improve TH 13 from CSAH 23 to TH 13/TH
A Minor 101 Intersection through Prior Lake and
052 TH13 State Exoander Savage Possible tumback swapping with CSAH 17
TH 169 at Interchange at TH 169-MnOOT approved In
053 173rd St Citv/State Princloal Arterial Corridor Studv.
On Rice County border, better connection
A Minor between TH 169 and TH 52 than TH 19 -
059 CSAH 86 County Connector Study Needed To be studied.
TH 101/US Continuation ofTH 101/ US 169 soutl1bound
079 169 State Princioal Arterial merae lane to CSAH 83
080 TH 169 State Princioal Arterial Interchanoe at County Road 69 and TH 169.
081 TH 169 State Prlncloal Arterial Intechange at County Road 14 and TH 169
Improvements to CSAH 2, including new
082 CSAH 2/1-35 State / County Principal Arterial Interchange at '-35
I
I
I
I Regionally Significant Transportation Needs in Scott County: Project Worksheet
I Eotlmated Unfunded ROW
Needs. Include Public and
I Non-public cos's (beyond
Project # Route OWnership Functional Class Description identified sources) Notes:
I ",J,'Q1,' _ . ..~L ::~. " ,
'- -- -- - ",--,.~ .- _. --
Extension of CSAH 21 north from CSAH 42 to
I A Minor CSAH 18; Programmed In County Capital Scored by Scott. PL and SH; Scott and SH rated safety and
001 CSAH 21 County Expander Improvement Plan ICIP) $800,000 conoestion concerns higher than PL.
I New alignment of CSAH 5. Tumback segment
002 CSAH 5 Citv/Countv Minor Collector of existing CSAH 5. Studv needed
I ...,-
"
I 003 1-35 BRT Transit Provider Transit Bus Rapid Transit along 1-35 Corridor Long haul TRB study
I Provide shoulder access to buses.on TH 13
between CSAH 18 and Bumsvllle Station,
I 004 TH 13 Transit Provider Principal Arterial Iparticularly eastbound
, TH 169 River crossing underutillzed as a
transit corridor Note: Provide bus shoulders No ROW or other land acquisition Is necessary for this project.
006A TH 169 State Prtncipal Arterial or LRT on Ferry brlCloe Onlv work rSQulred is to restrlpe the bridge deck.
I New -Bus Advantages Aamp. ramp from
0068 TH 16e Pnnclpal Artenal Stagecoach Road to TH 169 brtdoe. No ROW or other land acqUisition Is necessary for this projecl
I
County New Alignment of a segment of CSAH 7 to
008 CSAH 7 B Minor connect to CR 64. Local connector
I CR89 Realign CR 89 (Redwlng Ave) to be on same
(Redwlng County alignment as Le Sueur CR 164 (141st Ave) at Safety improvement for TH 19
, 011 Ave) Minor Collector TH 19
A Minor
012 CSAH 21 County Expander Reconstruct from CSAH 82 to TH 13
I
A Minor Upgrade CSAH 27 to 4-lane north of CSAH
014 CSAH 27 Countv Connector 21 to CSAH 44
Southwest ......". .^" -
UghtRall .
016 Transit Une Transit Provider Transit Continue to olan for new LRT line., .. NOT SCORED. LONG RANGE PROJECT,
J A Minor Improve roadway ndrth of CSAH 16 to Tit 13 "
017 CSAH 27 County Exoander Savaoe Fen) ~. -
I A system of frontage and backage roads
along the south side of US 169 between
J US 169 CSAH 3 (Mertdlan Sl) and South Sl and also
022 frontaoe Citv/State Local Enterorise Dr. extension to CR 64.
I Shakopee suggested that the County staff should score the
project, but that the issue Is really with backup problems at the Y
A Minor Upgrade from Minnesota River Brtdge to 212 intersection, and that the TH 101 Corrtdor Study also Is
023 CSAH 101 Countv Expander In Carver County examinlno this proiect
CSAH 101 from CSAH 69 to CSAH 17 (1
mile); expand to 4 lane divided (portIon In built
A Minor up area of Shakopee); May require alternative Shakopee Indicated that this project does not In fact have a high
024 CSAH 101 CounlV Reliever route If ROW acaulsition unsuccessful.) ROW need, and also that the proiect Is under study.
1-35/ CSAH A Minor Interchange needed at CSAH 2; Also a safety
026 2 County/Slale Connector Issue with narrow brtdoa-studv -
Re-allgn 250th Si (CR 56) just west of CR
250th Street 91to connect with CSAH 62 east of CR 91.
(CR 56) I CR (To better utilize existing CSAH 62 overpass
02BA 62 County Local of 1-35.
250th Street . -
(CR 56) / CR
028B 62 Local Upgrade to 4 lane from CR'23 to CR 27
I Reailgn Scott CSAH 27 with Rice CSAH 3
(currentiy 1/6 mile offset at county border.
CounlV A Minor CSAH 86) to achieve better N-S Inter-county Issue raised: could this project be incorporated Into
029 CR27 Connector connectivity. Improvements on CSAH B6?
Upgrade CSAH 16 between CSAH 1 a and TH
A Minor 13 N-S to 3 lanes; Intersection improvements
031 CSAH16 CounlV Reliever atTH 13.
Highest prtortty N-S conidor. including
Intersection at US 169 INote: This needs
A Minor clarification as to /ntent--tumback of TH 13
032 CSAH17 County/State Connector corridor In Prior ntv? This proiect Is included in the CSAH 17 I TH 101 Studv
A Minor Upgrade from St. Francis Ave to CSAH 42
033 CSAH17 County Connector (Study. 2012) Included In project 9
Estimated Unfunded ROW
N..... -Include Public and
ProJact # OWnarshlp Non-public cos.. (beyond
Routa Functional C.... DescripUon 1dentHIed sources) Note.:
2
)
~
~
I nificant Transportation Needs in Scott County: Project Worksheet
~ 1__:..__L_,____1..Q"__.;_".._~.
East-west major collector (given current and
I planned development on south side of the
City.) Aside.l(om TH 189, no major collector
I or arterial roadway linking CSAH 3 with CSAH
034 Local 5, southeast of TH 189.
Connect 2 segments of 270th St. study of
I collector road connection to CSAH 46, and
036 Local construct over ass at 1-35 Locai connector I su ortive road s stem
I Realignment of CSAH 15 slightiy eastward,
connect to Alton Street. and ultimately
connneclto Le Sueur CSAH 144 south of TH
037 CSAH15 Coun 8 Minor 19.
Dan Patch Utilize Dan Patch rail line as an extension of
038 Rail Line Transit Provider Transit Southwest Corrtdor commuter rail.
Undetennlne Support for LRT In County (EAST-WEST
039 d Transit Provider Transit CORRIDOR Stud ? NOT RATED - STUDY
A Minor CSAH 83 from CSAH 16 to CSAH 42 (1.7
040A CSAH 83 Coun Connector miles ; ex and from 2 10 4 lane divided Ma be artlall funded b the Mdewaka,nton Sioux Communi
A Minor CSAH 83 from CSAH 42 to CSAH 82 (1.0
0408 CSAH 83 Connector miles; ex and from 2 to 4 lane divided . the Mdewakanton Sioux Communit
A Minor Safety Improvements needed along CSAH 18 PROJECT COMPLETE; NO ROW NEEDED: County has plan
042 CSAH 18 Coun Reliever near intersection of CSAH 18 to reslriclleft hand turn lanes at this intersection.
US 1891 County has Identified this site for a future
044 CSAH18 Transit Provider Transit ma or transit hub. PROJECT COMPLETE
CR 88tennlnates at TH 21. Extension of CR
68 east to CSAH 10 would provide an
045 CR88 Coun Minor Collector alternative to TH 282 for east west traffic.
Connect CSAH 16 to TH 13 from current
CSAH 16/ Lynn Rd intersection north and
046 CSAH 18 Coun 8 Minor easteri to TH 13
.
Upgrade and extension of CSAH 911 CR 91
N-S corridor; especially CR 91 between
CSAH 911 CSAH 88 and CSAH 2. and on to Webster
048 CR91 Rice Coun
A new alignment of TH 21 north of the
Intersection with CSAH 11 would veer
eastward (further from the city) and connect to
US 189 near the new 173rd Street overpass
A Minor of US 189. New alignment will alieviate
049 TH21 State Connector downtown ca aci constraints. Stud needed
A- new alignment of TH 282 west of Pueblo
A MInor Ave. beartng north and crossing US 169 with
050 TH 282 State Connector a new ove ass, south of 173rd St. STUDY Stud needed
the land to be acquired may be available by platting; there is an
A Minor CSAH 18 between CSAH 16 and CSAH 83 (3 offer out to purChase the property. Project scored by Scott
051 CSAH18 Coun Reliever miles ; ex and from 2 to 4 lane divided Coun
CR64/CR Realignment of CR 64 (228th St) slightiy
054A 68 Coun Minor Collector southward ustwest ofCR 59 to remove "0 '. Result of CR 8 Stud
CR 64/CR Complete 'missing' segment of CR 64
0548 86 Coun Minor Collector between CR 81 and CR 11. Result of CR 8 Stud
CSAH 15 continuous alignment/corridor study
to identify future alignment options to alleviate
055 CSAH15 Coun 8 Minor traffic demands on TH 21. STUDY NOT REVIEWED - TO BE STUDIED
CSAH 59 originating north of Minnesota River on
(Delaware) Carver CSAH 451Scott CSAH 9 to access
and 185th commercial area of TH 189/CSAH 59
058 SI. Coun 8 Minor Interchan e Su ortive road s stem.
Corridor between CSAH 59 and CR 61, from
195th Street on the north (inclUding future
overpass of TH 189 Ml mile northeast of
CSAH 59) and connecting to Intersection of
057 Local 230th Street and CR 61.
Upgrade Vaiiey View Rd. (gravel) as
Valley View connector to CSAH 9 river crossing;connect
058 Rd Clty/State Locai to proposed US 169 interchange at 173rd SI. Conduct Jordan by-pass study
,
Regionally Significant Transportation Needs in Scott County: Project Worksheet
estimated Unfunded ROW
Needs ..Include Public and
Non-public. costs (beyond
Functional Class Description Identified sources) Notes:
060
061 '
CR 85/CR Improve N.S continuity between CR 85 and
062 87 Coun Minor Collector CR87, Irom CSAH 2 10 CR 56
063 CSAH15 Coun B Minor
A Minor
064 CSAH 2 Coun Connector
065 CR 68 Coun
CR70-
066 170th Street Coun Reali n from TH 169 to CSAH 17/CR 12
Trail connection from Hanrahan Lake, MUrphy
067 N/A Lake, and Clea Lake Trali pro eet; not identified lor ROW needs
A Minor
068 CSAH 27 Coun Connector CSAH 68 to CSAH 21
Extend 150th St east 01 CSAH 27 and
southward to 154th Street. CSAH 14,
(improvement currently under study - 3 lane
069 150th SI Local ROW sou hI.
Improve continuity Irom TH 13 to points west _
070 CR68 Coun Stud Needed Stud Needed
US 169/
071 Creek La State Trails Pedestrian crossin lacili aoross US 169 '.
County has established an Interim county
wide trali system and Is the regional trall
administrator In the county. II works with
townships, cities, metro councli, and the
Three Rivers Park to construct trails along
072 Trails Coun Trails coun roads
E-W Collector w/ disconnect at CSAH 91, CR
073 CR62 Cou Minor Collector 56/250th SI. eliminates 1/2 mi.
A Minor Umited capacity through downlown New
074 CSAH 2 Coun Connector Market
Extension of CR 53 to Stoppleman Blvd. via
075 CR53 Minor Collector unde ass or ove ass, of US 169,
An offer has been made to purchase the ROWan this site;
CSAH 16/ Park and ride laclJJty near Intersection of Federal STP funding Is a reasonable funding Source lor this
076 CSAH 21 Princl al Arterial CSAH 16 and CSAH 21 ro'ect.
CSAH Upgrade from 154th Street to westward to
077 27/CSAH 44 8 Minor Prior Lake ci line. In TIP
Not
078 determined HOV River Crossing In Savage
.