ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING PROJECT 2004 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM SUPPLEMENT FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTS May 12, 2005 Prepared for Minnesota Department of Transportation Prepared by SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. SRF No. 0044686
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION The St. Croix River Crossing Preferred Alternative includes reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 36 in Minnesota, a new river crossing, and new State Trunk Highway (STH) 64 construction in Wisconsin. The total length of this construction/reconstruction is approximately 6.0 miles and includes: approximately 1.8 miles of approach roadway (TH 36) in Minnesota; 4,950-foot bridge between Minnesota and Wisconsin (2,840-foot bridge crossing over the St. Croix River); and approximately 3.3 miles of approach roadway (STH 64) in Wisconsin. In Minnesota, TH 36, the TH 36 frontage roads, and cross streets (Oakgreen/Greeley and Osgood) will be reconstructed from east of Washington/Norell to Osgood Avenue. The intersections of TH 36 and local streets will remain as at-grade intersections. Frontage roads at Oakgreen/Greeley will be pulled back away from TH 36; frontage roads at Osgood will remain in place. East of Osgood Avenue, TH 36 will be reconstructed and a new TH 36/95 diamond interchange will be constructed along with corresponding improvements to TH 95. The new bridge is located approximately 7,550 feet south of the Lift Bridge along the Minnesota shoreline and approximately 6,450 feet south of the Lift Bridge along the Wisconsin shoreline. The extradosed bridge type design was selected for the Preferred Alternative bridge. Under the Preferred Alternative, the Lift Bridge will be converted to a pedestrian/bicycle facility. In Wisconsin, a new STH 64 roadway using a freeway design will be constructed from the new bridge to 150th Street, and includes construction of a new diamond interchange with relocated CTH E and a new STH 35 roadway between the interchange and existing STH 35. TRAVEL DEMAND FORECAST RESULTS Travel demand forecasts for the preferred alternative were developed using a modified version of the twin cities metropolitan council regional travel demand model. The process, inputs, and assumptions for the model are described in a separate technical memorandum (St. Croix River Crossing Project 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Technical Memorandum Travel Demand Forecasts, June 17, 2004). The results for other alternatives are described in that memorandum and are not duplicated in this amendment. The Preferred Alternative is similar to the previously studied Alternative B-1a, differing only in that Alternative B-1a assumed a freeway-style design between TH 5 and TH 95. Table 1 shows that the convergence of the model for the preferred alternative is comparable to that off the previously modeled alternatives. The low gap measure indicates that the model has achieved a stable condition, thus permitting valid comparisons among alternatives. Page 2
Table 1 2030 Model Convergence by Alternative (Updated Technical Memorandum Table 14) Percent Gap (RMSE of link volumes between final model loop and previous loop) AM Peak Offpeak No Build 0.19% 1.14% Alt A1 0.19% 1.14% Alt A2 0.19% 1.14% Alt A3 0.19% 1.15% Alt B 0.16% 1.14% Alt C 0.16% 1.14% Alt D 0.16% 1.14% Alt E 0.16% 1.14% Preferred Alternative 0.16% 1.16% Table 2 shows the 2030 forecast daily vehicle traffic for the various St. Croix River bridges. The overall river crossing screenline shows a 200 vehicle reduction for the preferred alternative compared to Alternative B-1a and a 3,000 ADT increase compared to the No Build. The volume crossing at Stillwater is approximately 2,100 vehicles per day lower for the Preferred Alternative than for Alternative B-1a, it is still comparable (within 10 percent) of other major build alternatives ( B, C, and D ). It is 14,000 vehicles per day higher than Alternative E. Figures 1 and 2 show the forecast 2030 average daily traffic volumes for the Preferred Alternative. The average daily traffic volume for TH 36 between TH 5 and TH 95 ranges from 45,000 to 55,000 vehicles, compared to 30,000 and 47,000 vehicles for the No Build and 71,000 to 81,000 vehicles for Alternative B-1a. Page 3
Table 2 Existing and 2030 Average Daily Vehicle Crossings for St. Croix River Crossings (1) (Updated Technical Memorandum Table 15) TH 36/STH 64 - US 8 - Taylors STH 243 - Stillwater New I-94 - Alternative Falls Osceola Lift Bridge Bridge Hudson TOTAL Existing 2 14,900 4,400 16,300 (2000) 77,000 112,600 2030 No 2 23,500 9,500 21,700 Build 140,700 195,400 2030 Alt A-1 1 23,600 9,300 21,200 2 139,100 193,200 2030 Alt A-2 1 23,400 8,700 16,300 2 137,500 185,900 2030 Alt A-3 1 24,800 7,700 15,700 2 135,300 183,500 2030 Alt B-1 a 21,700 6,600 3 50,100 120,200 198,600 2030 Alt B-1 b 21,600 6,400 8,300 43,300 119,300 198,900 2030 Alt C 21,300 6,400 3 52,400 119,400 199,500 2030 Alt D 21,300 6,200 3 51,000 119,000 197,500 2030 Alt E 22,800 8,000 12,000 22,000 131,600 196,900 2030 Preferred Alternative 22,500 6,900 3 48,000 121,000 198,400 Notes: 1 2 3 Includes alternatives not carried through the SEIS and revisions to alternatives following final scoping decision document. There is no new bridge in the existing condition, 2030 No Build Alternative or Alternative A. The Lift Bridge is not used to carry motor vehicular traffic in these alternatives. Page 4
Woodbury Dr Radio Dr Lake Elmo Ave N Osgood Ave N Olinda Tr N "`$ Chisago City 10900 Taylors Falls )l 14400 St. Croix Falls )l 22500 14500 16600 10600 11600 J:\maps\4686\mxd\fcast\figure01.mxd 4th Ave )s 28000 23000 Forest Lake 170th St N Hugo 137th St N %&h( Military Rd 6200 10th St N 130th St N 18300 14300 17800 52000 75th St N?ÇA@ Grant 18800 Lake Elmo "b$ Woodbury Manning Tr N Manning Tr N 122nd St N? A@ 19000?øA@ Stillwater Marine on St. Croix 9000 16800 18000 11500?öA@ 11700 6900 10900 11000 32000 20800 22300 23000 121000 Hudson 23000 39000 16000 109000 108000 36000 Manning Ave N Lofton Ave N Manning Ave N Bailey Rd 40th St N Stagecoach Tr S Paul Ave N Afton Blvd S 6500 5100 4500 9300 9800 6100 18000 23000 Somerset 35000 42000 13600 New Richmond 3000 12900 6100 5100 6100 4600 5100 23000 10100 10300?öA@?¼ Saint Croix Tr N?¼ Osceola?¼ River Falls 6100 79000 17000 20000?Ô 13800 "b$?ô Star Prairie Ij 83000?Ó 4900 Hammond Preferred Alternative Average Daily Traffic Volumes (2030) St. Croix River Crossing Project Source: 2000 Wis/DOT, 2002 Mn/DOT Amery Baldwin Iy 15200 12400 Figure 1 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Travel Demand Forecast Technical Memorandum
4th Ave S Main Anderson Scout Camp Norell Ave N 87th St N Marylane Ave N 9700 Mckusick Rd N Neal Ave N Oak Glen Tr Mckusick Rd Oak Hill Ave N 12300? A@ 5700 Boom Rd E Willow St Somerset?Ó 38000?¼ 80th St N 1500 77th St N Boutwell Rd N N 2nd St 3600 10900 County Highway E 75th St N Stillwater N 4th St 17500 8300 14900 9300 W Pine St 11900 8500 10300 3400 4300 Manning Ave N 62nd St N 60th St N 16000 12100 6300 6300 12700 3100 21600 18000 9100 12900 18100 52000 55000 54000 57000 6000?ÇA@ 8100 21000 7400 22000? A@ Lake Elmo 53rd St N Stillwater Blvd N W Orleans St Curve Crest Blvd Oak Park Heights 51st St N Osgood Ave N S 3rd St St. Joseph J:\maps\4686\mxd\fcast\figure02.mxd Preferred Alternative Average Daily Traffic Volumes (2030) St. Croix River Crossing Project Stagecoach Tr N 48000?öA@?¼ St. Croix River 6th St N Bayport 5200 County Highway V 115th Figure 2 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Travel Demand Forecast Technical Memorandum
Figure 3 shows Preferred Alternative reduces vehicle hours traveled by 25,000 vehicle hours per day compared to the No Build. This reduction is comparable to, but slightly lower than, other major build alternatives, and 10,000 hours per day higher than Alternative E. Figure 3 Reduction in 2030 Regional Daily Vehicle Hours Traveled Compared With No Build (Updated Technical Memorandum Figure 29) 0 A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1a B-1b C D E Preferred -5-8 Thousand Vehicle Hours Per Day (Change in Vehicle Hours Compared to No Build) -10-15 -20-25 -30-25 -33-30 -32-26 -29-15 -25-35 Build Alternative Page 7
Figure 4 shows Preferred Alternative reduces vehicle miles traveled by 25,000 vehicle miles per day compared to the No Build. This reduction is lower than, other major build alternatives, and 94,000 miles per day higher than Alternative E. Figure 5 shows this statistic, but for heavily congested roadways. The lower reduction comes in part to increased congestion on TH 36 between TH 5 and TH 95. Figure 4 Difference In 2030 Regional Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Compared With No Build (Updated Technical Memorandum Figure 30) 50 A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1a B-1b C D E Preferred Thousand Vehicle Miles Per Day (Change in Vehicle Miles Compared to No Build) 0-50 -100-150 -9-177 -186-90 -137-102 -115 11-83 -200 Build Alternative Page 8
Figure 5 Difference in 2030 Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled With Congested Conditions (Los E or F) Compared With No Build (1) (Updated Technical Memorandum Figure 31) 0 A-1 A-2 A-3 B C D E Preferred -53 VMT under congested conditions (thousands of daily vehicle miles) -50-100 -150-200 -250-245 -204-233 -239-251 -116-189 -300 (1) Reflects congestion as measured in the Twin Cities Regional Travel Demand Model only. Refined analysis of traffic operations (including delay and congestion) by traffic operation models will be included in the SDEIS. The Preferred Alternative reduces traffic volumes expected in downtown by 28 percent compared to the No Build. The reduction is slightly lower than that for other build alternatives with no traffic on the existing bridge. Page 9
Figure 6 Change In 2030 Downtown Stillwater Traffic Volumes Compared With Existing Volumes (Updated Technical Memorandum Figure 32) Change in Downtown Stillwater Traffic Volumes (ADT) Compared to Existing 50% 40% 30% 8% HOV Bypass 20% 42% 10% 25% 8% 7% 11% 12% 0% -17% -2% -10% -35% -20% -36% -34% -28% -30% -40% No Build Alternative A1 Alternative A2 Alternative A3 Alternative B Alternative B1-B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Preferred Alternative As shown in Table 3, the Preferred Alternative shows a demand of 1755 vehicles per lane on the new bridge, which is lower than those for Alternative B-1a, C and D. This value is lower than other build alternatives due to the restricted throughput on TH 36 between TH 95 and TH 5. The forecast demand on the bridge is lower than its capacity of approximately 2000 vehicles per lane. However, the at-grade segment of TH 36 between TH 5 and TH 95 is expected to experience congestion for three or more hours per day by the year 2030 under the Preferred Alternative. This conclusion is based on a review of the p.m. peak hour traffic operations analysis (addressed in a separate review) combined with sketch-planning level analysis using the travel demand model for peak hours. Page 10
Table 3 Daily Hours of Congestion on St. Croix River Crossing Bridge By Alternative (1) (Updated Technical Memorandum Table 21) Alternative EB PM Peak Hour 1 Capacity 2 veh/ln/hr 3 veh/ln/hr 3 Daily Hours of Congestion 4 Year 2000 960 600 3+ 2030 No Build 1,235 600 6+ 2030 Alternative A 1,235 600 6+ 2030 Alternative B-1 a 1,875 1,950 0 2030 Alternative B-1 b New Bridge 1,655 1,950 0 Lift Bridge 595 600 <1 2030 Alternative C 1,930 1,950 <1 2030 Alternative D 1,925 1,950 <1 2030 Alternative E New Bridge 1,540 1,950 <1 2030 Preferred Alternative 1,755 1,950 0 1 Eastbound (EB) volumes only 2 Capacity is defined as daily volume with minimal congestion on bridge. 3 Vehicles per lane per hour (veh/ln/hr) 4 Due to geometric constraints, such as steep grades, slow-moving trucks may cause increased congestion not represented in this analysis; also does not include congestion caused when Lift Bridge is raised. Table 4 shows the estimated 2010 river crossing average daily traffic volumes. The Preferred Alternative is not significantly different from Alternative B-1a in terms of total crossings or crossings at Stillwater. Page 11
Table 4 2010 Average Daily Vehicle Crossings for St. Croix River Crossings (Updated Technical Memorandum Table 22) Alternative US 8 - Taylors Falls STH 243 - Osceola TH 36/STH 64 - Stillwater New Lift Bridge Bridge I-94 - Hudson Total Year 2000 14,900 4,400 16,300 69,000 105,000 2010 No Build 16,300 5,200 18,800 94,300 134,600 2010 Alt B-1 a 16,900 3,700 36,200 78,200 135,000 2010 Alt B-1 b 16,900 3,700 6,600 30,500 77,600 135,300 2010 Alt C 16,600 3,800 38,300 81,000 139,700 2010 Alt D 16,400 3,700 35,800 82,600 138,500 2010 Alt E 16,500 3,800 9,000 13,500 92,300 135,100 2010 Preferred Alternative 16,600 3,900 34,700 79,700 134,900 Page 12