HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-03-28 MNDot Fax to NAC Re TH 36 Interchange Study Oalida c . -',.: 4.-....-y , : .;:,)1 (
- '
Minnesota .Deott :f ,. i Ttaftlortstion
A etropolitan District
Transportation auilding
St. Paul, Minnesota 5018b
Oakdale Office, 3485 }lac l'el. . le North, 063C.; ralesota
.,-,Arie Valley Office, 7 ,'' Non). Dri , Gok;
• MAIDATLIAMULUALTRA ?MIT T AL
I OIL:Lb 111AILATTINTIOP .:::
, - EAMA 1 AZ 14.011111_11.12=711E-1.0211.
_ . .,.. , ■.4 ..,
TINE, LA% _ , INITIAL.
NAME J.,,2.544t.-ALigin_ _ ,- .-
- ,,CXTION Ai, W _,..4550.C.— ._Q2/1.5-. FM
,
.. _... _.
Locat- on 44 a42,41 - (l L
c r--tel ,
, . .._. ______ ...________ _....._ .,......... ....... „,_,...
...I:
..., .-. .,: - _...., # ......,i ... ......._ . , .
0 6-0,-,-,,,,,,,,
4 / - - - . --: ' ' _.(14,311d41.2rtittik ,eieleldopZ-RA
4; 7
rilci .1-t:4-...,..._, AV-e- / "71404. WI/
, Ar
,,. •
,.. ' r
.Pait_fuJ, '
• -.,..,--... .3._.,, ,. „or ' i f ..,' / tle
.. . ,• ,„„, . . ...,.. .., .... .,
WaSibie, Pitate
reee - f‘ \ing 1 t- ,.
t. ra.r: . ar inrslon, -, •:i • eatw L., ; * i :
M•■•■IIII■1l•■•l■■•■■■=e
::--: I , , i .a.,t-T c: L7_ ..„„. hiCYLL TONI R i V E Fi C R - 0 55: 61 G
.._,
k 1..,:v ,,. t 1,..... 1 i _
,... , - .
TT
CORRIDOR LiEVELOPMENT c3
DECEMBER, 1990
c:...
f la,
STILLIMTER =0, 040 wrow '-' NOULTON
—
t35 ....,
I
Imo"- #i■lo,iP1N
f
1 o I*
I 10–..wormsoms 64 (---,,
/ t r - - - - - - -
r.,
"APROWinow 1.)
411011VOMPPA.. 00
e... ,0.
1 co
--•
. . .
f —
li
r:R -4 P_fr
..... ,. 1 r-
i fl 2 .. „„,... ,, ......,
,..
95
i 4 it 1 --- U.1 / ofillowillivil"..„
1 I " i i :
r
0 z Bir,•,..
co* a 1 • , 0 ,...." 1
' ! cf
-± ,,
/ L.
t 2 ---, 1
...,,
-.....
u). 1 0 _ 1
_
1 / < I I 1 I 0 c,
1 _1
I .
i 4.:is.ftt.. 1- , - .. i
1 . / 7
I .A.
...:„...„--,.„„..„.......
1
.............rass— . . .,,,,,:,,..., _ -... anommallill•■••••••••••:. •I --.+14
""."11111111 ,
.........- ,-.•
..1
, , , , 4., ,,,..-„, assarg —Rik 0 A ..,- ' • ' " _
•:-!:.."Y-4x.-'>,,,, .....--........ ,.
c3
.L,-, 1
r-
rn
BAYTOWN TH 36 7OWNSIIIP N4.1 ', ---t J.
LO,
a M .
Z C24K PARK HEIGHT tr
111 ., .,
0.1
CC
(.5
•k$-...r.
...t..
INTERCHANGE LOCATION STUDIES
0
_.
It
,-,
Y!MN -DOT Oakdale ( 3 -28 -91 ;10 :29AM ; MN /DOTI ;DALE4 ;# 3
TB 36 BUSINESS TASK FORCE
INTERCHANGE DESIGN STUDIES
Progress Report
March 28, 1991
ALL ALTERNATIVES HAVE THE FOLLOWING FEATURES IN COMMON:
1.) TH 38 Interchange with TN 95.
2.) TH 36 Interchange with TH 5 /Co. Rd. 5
3.) Grade separation at Washington Street
ALT. #1-- Vi * YtA ■ V.; oh i. .4
This alternative has the following additional features:
1.) Grade separation at Osgood Avenue, and possibly at
Beach Road.
2.) Continuous two -way frontage roads on the south
side of TH 38 from TH 5 /Co. Rd. 5 to TH 95.
3.) Two -way frontage roads on the north side of TH 38,
from TH 5 /Co. Rd. 5 to TH 95, with a possible jog
at Greeley Street to a void ponding area.
** *THIS ALTERNATIVE REMAINS UNDER STUDY * **
#2 - -OS. O011 A3 >F D1'AM_QN TLTNIERCH GE
This alternative has the following additional features
1.) Grade separation at Greeley Street, and poeeibly
at Beach Road.
2.) Continuous two-way frontage roads on both sides of
TH 38, from TH 5 /Co. Rd. 5 to TH 95.
** *THIS ALT:RNATIVE HAS BEEN DISMISSED --SEE ALTS. #2A, 8 C
Reasons for dismissal:
a.) Ramp grades too steep (NE =7.2°, SE S%).
b.) Insufficient traffic weave distance,.
c.) Exceeds Met. Council interchange p c t '
criteria.
ALT, #.-- QiiM.. ..NVLIQW,FI ..ONL_.N.:ECHMGF
k ame add3tr:taa1 features as ALT. #2. Design variation
avoids st`=`sp ramp grades, and provides sufficient weave
elistances.. However, it still exceeds Met. Council
interchange criteria.
** *THIS ALTERNATIVE Rte. DNS UNDER STUDY***
ANT BY : MN -DOT Oakdale ( 3 -28 -91 ;10 : 30AM ; MN /DOT ; ;DALE-► # 4
ALT- #2B--QSGOODASTRIBUME-1.461)__NITEL.M.245
Same additional features as ALT. #2. Design variation
avoids steep ramp grades, and provides sufficient weave
distances.
** *THIS ALTERNATIVE IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT * **
ALT. #2C--- oSGOOD AV NTTR SINGLE _PAINT C/"D WITH` TH 95
Same additional features as ALT. #2. Design variation
avoids steep ramp grades, and provides sufficient weave
distances.
** *THIS ALTERNATIVE IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT * **
ALT. #3-- GRE.rLEY ST? EET 1Nl? SZ ;�f x T 1 R(:HANGRS
This alternative has the following additional features:
IL) Possible grade separation at Beach Road.
2.) Continuous two -way frontage roads on the south
side of TH 36, from TH 5 /Co. Rd. 5 to TH 95.
3.) Two -way frontage roads on the north side of TH 36,
from TH 5 /Co. Rd_ 5 to TH 95, with a possible ,$o
at Greeley Street.
** *THIS ALTERNATIVE HAS BEEN DISMISSED - -.SEE ALT.. #3B***
Reasons for dismissal:
a.) Greeley wetland /pondi.ng area impact.
b.) Insufficient weave distances —Greeley to
Osgood, and Osgood to TH 95.
c.) Ramp grades too steep (NE =7.2%, SR =S %)
d.) Exceeds Met. Council interchange spacing
criteria.
ALT. #3A-•- GREELRY ST- AND OMOOD AVE T LDE ..DIAMOD —IN ERC - s
Same additional features as ALT. #3. Design variations
provide sufficient weaving distances, and avoids step ram
grades.
** *THIS ALTERNATIVE HAS BEEN DISMISSED- -SEE ALT. #3B * **
Reasons for dismissal:
a,) Wetl and/pond rig area impact.
b.) Exceeds Met. Council interchange spacing
criteria
FONT MN -DOT Oakdale ( 3 -28 -51 ;10:31AM ; MN /DOT( ;DALE- ;# 5
ALT. 03B - -GR++ 1./2 DIAMON & O SGOOD AVE. FOLDED DIAMOND
INTERCHANGES
Same additional features as ALT. 43. Design variations
minimize wetland /ponding area impact, provide sufficient
weaving distances, and avoids steep ramp grades. However,
it still exceeds Met. Council interchange spacing criteria,
and does not provide full traffic movements at Greeley.
** *THIS ALTERNATIVE REMAINS UNDER STUDY * **
ALT. 44 -- ,.. ;JO A*, % [011 y LO
FRONTAGE _ROADS1
This alternative has the following additional features:
1.) Possible grade separation at Beach Road.
2.) Ramps integrated with one -way frontage roads from
Washington Street to Beach Road.
3.) Two -way frontage roads from TH 5/Co . Rd. 5 to
Washington Street, and from Beach Road to TH 95.
** *THIS ALTERNATIVE HAS BEEN DISMISSED--SEE ALTS. 42B &C * **
Reasons for dismissal:
a.) Osgood ramps too steep (NE= 7.2 %, SE =6 %).
b.) Insufficient weave distance, Osgood to TH 95.
c.) Exceeds Met. Council interchange spacing
criteria.
ALT . 0t55 -- :: _ D 40 • A0 'LIT INTERCHANGE_.. (WITH SE2AEATEt
FR . TAC1~ ROADS 1
This alternative has the following additional features-
1.) Possible grade separation at Beach Road.
2.) Two -way frontage roads from TH 5 /Co_ Rd. 5 Y ..
95.
** *THIS ALTERNATIVE HAS BEEN DISMISSED - -SEE ALTS. # 2B & 0
Reasons for dismissal same as Alt. 44.
ACT 1 ? ...,.T!ilit__ALITE IIVRS ARE:
1 ALT. 41: DIAMOND AT GREELEY STREET.
2.) ALT. 42A: FOLDED DIAMOND AT OSGOOD AVENUE.
3.) ALT. 42B: C/D BETWEEN OSGOOD AND TH 95.
4.) .ALT. $32C:; SINGLE POINT C/D BETWEEN OSGOOD AND TH 95
5.) ALT. ti3B: 1/2 DIAMOND AT GREELEY AND FOLDED DIAMOND AI
OSGOOD ..