first look at long range highway system plan for chapter

Olmsted County Planning Department, 2122 Campus Drive SE, Rochester, MN 55904 | 507-328-7100

NOTICE

You are hereby notified of the Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments meeting to be held on Friday, July 19, 2019

at 12:00 PM in Conference Room A located at Olmsted County Planning Department, 2122 Campus Drive SE,

Rochester, MN 55904.

I. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS

1. Call the meeting to order

2. Approve the minutes of June 11, 2019 meeting

3. Approve Gene Peters for 2nd Term as Resident Representative

II. AGENDA ITEMS

1. Relationship of Financial Planning in the Long Range Plan and Project Programming / Selection in

the Transportation Improvement Program

2. Supporting information on the TH 14 / CR 104 Interchange project

3. Draft Street / Highway Projects for 2045 Long Range Plan (Action Item)

4. First Look at Long Range Highway System Plan for Chapter 11- Street & Highway Plan

III. OTHER BUSINESS

1. As may be brought up by others

IV. ADJOURNMENT

AGENDA

DRAFT

Minutes of the regular meeting of the Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments held at 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 11, 2019 in Conference Rooms A located at 2122 Campus Drive S.E., Rochester, MN 55904.

Members Present: Mr. Mark Thein (Chair), County Commissioner Mr. Leonard Laures (Vice-Chair), Townships Mr. Mark Bilderback, Rochester City Council Mr. Randy Staver, Rochester City Council Mr. Shaun Palmer, Rochester City Council Mr. Ken Brown, County Commissioner Mr. Greg Wright, County Commissioner Mr. Mary Blair-Hoeft, Small Cities Mr. John Johnson, Townships Mr. Jeff Kappers, School District #535 Ms. Kim Norton, Mayor, City of Rochester Mr. Bill Schimmel, Small Cities

Members Absent: Mr. Michael Wojcik, Rochester City Council Ms. Kelly Leibold, Small Cities Ms. Regina Mustafa, Resident Representative Mr. Gene Peters, Resident Representative

Staff Present: Mr. Ben Griffith, Planning Director Mr. Dave Pesch, Transportation Planning Coordinator Mr. Bryan Law, Principal Transportation Planner Mr. Muhammad Khan, Principal Transportation Planner Ms. Jennifer Garness, Executive Support Supervisor Mr. Charlie Reiter, Principal Transportation Planner (via Skype) Ms. Sandi Goslee, Principal Planner Mr. Jeff Ellerbusch, Planning Policy and Analysis Supervisor

Others Present: Mr. Michael Sheehan, Deputy County Administrator Ms. Kaye Bieniek, Director of Olmsted County Public Works Ms. Heather Lukes, MnDOT District 6 Planning Director Mr. Ben Johnson, Olmsted County Project Engineer Mr. Chris Petree, Rochester Public Works Director Mr. Dillon Dombrovski, Rochester City Engineer Ms. Ia Xiong, Physical Development Manager

1.2

Packet Pg. 2

DRAFTRochester-Olmsted Council of Governments June 11, 2019 Page 2

2

Mr. Randy Petersen, Rochester Post Bulletin Mayor Eichhorst, City of Oronoco Mr. Kenneth Bush, Olmsted County Planning Advisory Commission

ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS:

Mr. Thein, Chair, called the meeting to order at 12:00 pm.

Mr. Staver moved to approve the minutes of April 26, 2019. Mr. Wright seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

AGENDA ITEMS:

1. Approve 2019 Public Involvement Policy (resolution)

Mr. Pesch presented his June 11, 2019 memo which is on-file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department. He explained that this had been discussed and under review since last winter and there was also a 45-day comment period. The only comments received were from the MnDOT Central Office which were incorporated into the final document. The final document will be posted on ROCOG’s web site.

Mr. Brown moved to approve Resolution 2019-04 approving the 2019 Public Involvement Policy of ROCOG. Mr. Palmer seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

2. Draft Transit Modal Elements

Mr. Pesch and Mr. Law presented the June 11, 2019 staff report and provided a PowerPoint presentation as described below. These are on-file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department. The following was discussed:

• Status of transit chapter of the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) • Describing different modes in the 2045 LRTP • Map showing current Rochester Public Transit fixed route network and future routes in

relation to future land uses • Map showing the areas of land planned for city expansion in next 25 years

o Discussion ensued regarding location of suburban development and location of possible Rochester ISD 535 school site and issues related to sewer connection and capacity that affect the proposed site.

• Map showing proposed Primary Transit Network (PTN) system plan, highlighting what full buildout would look like and that it would be served by Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

• Map showing 2045 PTN network with transit-oriented development areas highlighted o Discussion ensued regarding whether transit is created first or if the zoning/land use

and number of riders need to be there first. • Short range PTN anticipated by 2030

o Mr. Schimmel entered the meeting.

1.2

Packet Pg. 3


3

• Future transit and relation to park and ride sites o DMC Master Plan shows new parking needs of 16,800 spaces. o 8,200 spaces are within the DMC district (primarily for visitors, events, patients,

people living there, etc.) and 8,600 spaces outside of the district (primarily for employees within DMC District). The 8,600 spaces for commuters are what is being addressed by the ROCOG Plan.

• Permanent non-DMC park and ride sites within the Rochester urban area o A set of sites located around edge of urban area on primary commuter routes will

help meet DMC vision with 4,190 new parking spaces planned. o Two central area sites southeast and west of downtown linked by a downtown

circulator system with approximately 4500new parking spaces. • Map showing Current Rochester public transit park and ride leased sites (2,710 parking

spaces) • Map showing sites that support DMC vision of additional parking spaces

o Mr. Pesch explained that the circled area showing 900 spaces in the vicinity of 48th Street NE and North Broadway should be shifted south on the map.

o Mr. Staver stated that there is a project located involving CR 104 and Hwy 14. He questioned if a transit location could be located near that. Ms. Bieniek responded yes.

o Discussion ensued regarding why City of Rochester would benefit from owning the park and ride facilities. The benefit from controlling the sites would be due primarily to not facing the risk of land owners deciding they don’t want to the lease property any longer to the City and putting the City in the position of having to find another strategic location in limited amount of time (30-60 days).

o Service for the Park and Ride facilities and the PTN would be branded separately (but still as part of Rochester Public Transit) to help users understand service is different than regular bus system.

o Discussion regarding downtown bus circulators being branded separately so public doesn’t expect to reach other locations via the regular bus system.

• Implementation considerations • Expectation that potential Rochester public transit park and ride system will be funded

partially through FTA • Regional Olmsted County current park and ride service map (180 spaces)

o Mayor Norton entered the meeting. • Map showing a future scenario for a park and ride system plan in Pine Island, Byron,

Stewartville, Chatfield and Eyota (455 total spaces) o Mr. Bilderback stated that this affects outside region and should go beyond

boundaries of Olmsted County. o Ms. Goslee stated that staff is finishing phase I of a regional transportation

coordinating council grant for entire 11 county area. This work will include looking at ways to improve transit and ride share. Phase II of the grant application will occur this Fall and staff will be asking County Board for approval to administer the program.

1.2

Packet Pg. 4


4

Mr. Pesch explained that ROCOG is being asked to amend the current 2040 LRTP to include the Downtown/DMC Circulator to include the locally preferred alternative to facilitate the City’s submittal of a request to FTA to enter the Small Starts Capital Investment Program which is planned to occur in 2020. Due to staff commitments to the 2045 Plan update work, this will not be brought before ROCOG until late fall or early winter.

3. Pedestrian Modal Element supporting Transit Oriented Development

Mr. Reiter presented his June 3, 2019 report and PowerPoint. These are on-file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department. 11 x 17 copies of the maps from the report were handed out. He provided the below information:

• Federal funding opportunities to support pedestrian infrastructure – there are a series of U.S.DOT transit, highway and safety funds that can help fund pedestrian improvements

• Active transportation objectives supporting goals of the 2045 LRTP • Results from a community transportation survey were reviewed to highlighted issues the

public has identified • A review of key features affecting pedestrian infrastructure needs and priorities • Discussed differences between stations, bus stops, and crossing infrastructures as it

relates to pedestrian infrastructure needed to support PTN o PTN stations would likely be located about every ½ mile on average to minimize

number of stops (this would result in approximately 40 stations being developed). o Approximately 7-8 miles that would need to be filled in along primary transit

network. • Pedestrian infrastructure needs and major street network gaps (45 miles of future

sidewalk needs were identified)

4. Memo on Transportation – Land Use Connection

Mr. Thein stated that a memo by Ms. Goslee dated June 3, 2019 regarding Chapter 5 of the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) describing interdependence of land use and transportation was located in the meeting packet. He asked if anyone had questions about the information in the memo. No questions were asked.

OTHER BUSINESS:

1. Streaming and Recording of ROCOG Meetings

Mr. Griffith explained that the City of Rochester Administrator, Steve Rymer, sent an email requesting that ROCOG consider streaming and recording meetings. Beginning in July, the City of Rochester will be streaming and recording all City public meetings. They will have portable equipment for off-site meetings and indicated that it could be used by ROCOG.

1.2

Packet Pg. 5


5

Mr. Griffith asked if members wanted to follow along in this process considering there are City Council members as part of ROCOG. Mr. Brown made motion to politely decline streaming and recording ROCOG meetings. Mr. Wright seconded the motion.. Mr. Staver expressed concern of the cost/benefit of doing this for this board, along with logistics of equipment, considering experience with equipment problems with the Council/Board Chambers. He pointed out that minutes are created and posted on the public web site as well as the meeting dates and packets. Also, all meetings are open to the public to attend. He indicated that he did not think there were was “a burning desire” for people to watch the meetings. Mr. Thein expressed concern how the presence of recording equipment would impact members’ participation in meetings. He worried it would affect the effectiveness of the board. The motion carried 8-4, with Mr. Palmer, Mr. Bilderback, Mayor Norton, and Mr. Schimmel voting nay.

Mr. Palmer asked if someone attending the meeting could record the meeting on Facebook Live.

Mr. Brown confirmed that anyone could film, record, or take pictures of the meeting as it is an open public meeting.

As may be brought up by others

The next ROCOG meeting is scheduled for Friday, July 19, 2019 at 12:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mr. Brown moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Bilderback seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 1:17 pm.

__________________________________ Mark Thein, ROCOG Chair

__________________________________ Ben Griffith, ROCOG Executive Director

jlg

1.2

Packet Pg. 6

2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100, Rochester MN 55904 507 328-7100

www.co.olmsted.mn.us/planning/rocog 1

Memo Date: July 19, 2019 To: ROCOG From: Dave Pesch, Transportation Planning Coordinator Subject: Approve 2nd Resident Representative Term for Gene Peters

Summary

ROCOG Articles of Agreement include two Resident Representatives in the make-up of the Board. The By-Laws state that up to 2 terms of 3 years are available for Representatives if they so choose. Gene Peters first term began in 2016, and has ended, and Gene has opted to stay for a 2nd term. By way of background a Bylaw excerpt is included in this memo that describe more on procedures. Note that the term “Citizen Representative” was changed to Resident Representative by ROCOG about a year ago.

Action Requested

The action is a motion to approve a second 3-year term as Resident Representative for Gene Peters.

1.3

Packet Pg. 7



1.3

Packet Pg. 8



Memo Date: July 14, 2019 To: ROCOG Policy Board From: Charlie Reiter / Principal Transportation Planner Subject: Relationship of Financial Planning in the Long Range Plan and Project

Programming / Selection in the Transportation Improvement Program Action: No Action / this is Background information for the Long Range Plan

Summary of Memo Highlights

• ROCOG adopted a policy in 2017 on how projects would be selected for federal funding that ROCOG programs in the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

o The selection policy relies on the creation and periodic updating of a slate of projects (referred to as the “ROCOG-ATP1 Project List”) developed by ROCOG and the jurisdictions eligible to receive federal funding.

o ROCOG has responsibility to program $2.3 million dollars of federal Surface Transportation Program Block Grant funding annually out of an average of approximately $14 million in federal funding2 that has been annually programmed in the TIP over the last 10 years.

o This federal funding represents about 25% of the average annual investment by MNDOT, Olmsted County and Rochester in roadways in Olmsted County over the last 10 years.3

1 “ATP” refers to the MNDOT District 6 Area Transportation Partnership, a multi-jurisdictional committee convened by MNDOT for the purpose of coordinating state and federal transportation investment. 2 Based on analysis of the annual ROCOG TIP’s for fiscal years 2009 through 2019 3 Based on data included in Chapter 15 of the 2015 ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan and analysis

2.1

Packet Pg. 9



• At the time the policy was adopted it was stipulated that an interim Project List would be developed for 2019 and 2020 project selection, and during the update of the Long Range Plan (LRTP) the ROCOG – ATP Project List would be updated and synched with the financial plan included in the LRTP for use until the next plan update in 2025.

• Under federal regulations4 that guide metropolitan area transportation planning “project

selection” and “prioritization” are actions that occur during the annual TIP process. Prioritization is not referenced as an action or activity required during the LRTP process.

o The LRTP, however, is to include a financial plan that discusses system-level estimates of revenues anticipated to be available for investment and the cost of potential programs or projects. This information forms the basis of an analysis leading to definition of a “Fiscally Constrained Plan” that demonstrates the amount of investment (grouped by categories) that can be supported by historically available funding or potential new revenue sources for which there is high certainty of availability in the future.

o Projects subsequently programmed for federal funding in the TIP must be consistent with the described Fiscally Constrained Plan.

o In addition, the LRTP can include a supplemental list of “Illustrative Projects” that could be completed if additional funding can be secured.

• Given that ROCOG only programs a limited share of federal highway funding ($2.3

million) out of an average of $14 million annually programmed, and MNDOT, Olmsted County and Rochester invest on average $40 million dollars annually above this level of federal funding 5, it is incumbent on ROCOG to facilitate collaborative discussion among these entities to what is feasible within a fiscally constrained plan while respecting the priorities of the agencies and jurisdictions responsible for project implementation.

The ROCOG-ATP Project List

The July 19th agenda for ROCOG includes continuing discussion related to the identification of a draft ROCOG-ATP Project List which will identify a slate of projects which can be considered for future federal funding in the ROCOG Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.). Development of the project list is part of a Project Selection policy adopted by ROCOG in 2017.

4 Metropolitan area transportation planning is guided by 23 U.S. Code § 134 and 23 CFR Title 23 Part 450

5 Based on data included in Chapter 15 of the 2015 ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan

2.1

Packet Pg. 10



The ROCOG-ATP Project List is intended to serve as bridge between the larger list of preservation and improvement programs or projects that will be identified in the LRTP and the projects ultimately selected for possible federal funding by ROCOG during the annual development of the T.I.P. The federal funding target for which ROCOG has project selection authority is currently (and for foreseeable future years) $2.3 million dollars annually. Note that this represents an estimated 16% of federal highway funds that flow into the ROCOG planning area on an annual basis based on the last 10 years of experience.

The $2.3 million dollars reflects ROCOG’s 30% share of federal Surface Transportation Program Block Grant (STPBG) program funds that are allocated to District 6 of MNDOT. STPBG funds are not the only federal transportation funds that flow to the ROCOG area; however, they are the only federal funds for which ROCOG has project selection responsibility. Appendix A provides a table highlighting who is responsible for prioritizing and selection of projects that will receive federal funding. Among the authorities that have responsibility for programming federal transportation funds include:

• ROCOG • District 6 Area Transportation Partnership, • MNDOT Transit Office • MNDOT Office of Planning and Programming • MNDOT State Aid Office • MNDOT Office of Traffic Engineering • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration

Prioritization of projects

“Prioritization” of projects is recognized in federal MPO planning regulations inreference to the action of an MPO Policy Board (such as ROCOG) or state department of transportation when it is acting to select projects for inclusion in the 4-year Transportation Improvement Program. The definition of the Transportation Improvement Program found in the federal Code of Regulations Chapter 450 is:

“Transportation improvement program (TIP) means a prioritized listing/program of transportation projects covering a period of 4 years that is developed and formally adopted by an MPO as part of the metropolitan transportation planning process, consistent with the metropolitan transportation plan, and required for projects to be eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C. and title 49 U.S.C. chapter 53”.

Prioritization is further described as “the cooperative process among States, MPOs, and transit agencies for identifying projects and strategies from the MTP that are of sufficiently high priority as to be included in the TIP.”

2.1

Packet Pg. 11



The definition of the TIP contrasts with the description of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) that ” means the official multimodal transportation plan addressing no less than a 20-year planning horizon that the MPO develops, adopts, and updates through the metropolitan transportation planning process”. While the MTP provides strategic investment direction, it is the programming and selection of projects in the TIP that advances the goals and implement strategies first presented in the MTP.

So, while ROCOG does not select and prioritize projects for the majority of federal or state transportation funds that flow into the area, ROCOG does have a strategic role in that projects selected for inclusion in the TIP need to reflect goals and strategies first identified in the LRTP which have been found in the LRTP to be generally consistent with the level of fiscal resources available for implementation.

Financial Planning in the LRTP

A financial planning element in the LRTP is required to establish the reasonableness and credibility of the long range plan. The LRTP, which has a 20-year planning horizon, must include a financial plan that estimates how much funding will be needed to implement identified programs or improvements, as well as operate and maintain the transportation system, over the life of the plan. Relative to the TIP, projects which are selected and programmed for funding need to be consistent with recommendations of a “Fiscally Constrained” long range plan. Fiscal constraint is defined in federal guidelines as follows:

“Financially constrained or Fiscal constraint means that the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and STIP includes sufficient financial information for demonstrating that projects in the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and STIP can be implemented using committed, available, or reasonably available revenue sources, with reasonable assurance that the federally supported transportation system is being adequately operated and maintained.”

This will include information on the funding sources and anticipated level of revenue the MPO can reasonably expect to be available. It will include revenues from FHWA and FTA, state government, local or regional government or semi-public entities, the private sector, and user charges. An MTP must demonstrate that there is a balance between the expected revenue sources for transportation investments and the estimated costs of the projects and programs described in the plan.

The planning regulations provide for the accommodation of projects which may be considered beyond the ability of existing revenue streams to fund by allowing for the identification of an “Illustrative” project list. Illustrative projects are defined to mean “additional transportation projects that may be included in a financial plan for a metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP if reasonable additional resources were to become available.” Many competitive grant programs, such as federal Small Starts or BUILD grants, or state programs such as Corridors of Commerce or MNDOT Transportation – Economic Development (TED) grants, are examples

2.1

Packet Pg. 12



of additional resources that could be referenced to support the inclusion of projects as Illustrative projects in the LRTP.

Closing

The ROCOG-ATP Project List being developed in parallel with the Long Range Plan update will identify a slate of local projects from which projects will be selected for federal funding in the TIP over the next 5 years (until the next LRTP update when the list will be updated). The project list is being developed under the working assumption that the projects included on the short range list are of high enough priority based on discussions with TTAC that they will occur in the near term future and funding needs to be reserved in the Fiscally Constrained scenario of the LRTP to support this work.

To provide some initial context on whether the Fiscally Constrain Scenario of the LRTP can support these projects, we can compare the preliminary costs associated with the proposed short range list, interim safety projects on the National Highway System and DMC projects against the revenues for Street & Highway improvements that had been estimated for the 2015 Plan update. From this back of the envelope analysis we find

• The high level cost estimate for the proposed short range projects is approximately $135 million;

• In the 2015 LRTP it was estimated that 1/3rd of available revenues (approximately $425 million dollars) would be available over 25 years to improve the roadway system, with the other 2/3rd of the revenue devoted to system maintenance and operation.

• Anticipating that $425 million for improvements is a number comparable to what will be identified in the 2020 plan, there appears to be sufficient cushion in the program to accommodate the short range projects identified.

The challenge as the LRTP moves through the development and adoption process will be to answer the question of how remaining improvement revenues (not just federal funds) that may be on the order of $290 million dollars should be allocated towards:

1. projects on the initial ATP project list that end up not receiving federal funds, 2. high cost projects on the NHS system such as the TH 14/52 Interchange upgrade; 3. other major street and highway projects not identified as suitable candidates for federal

funding that still to be considered as part of the overall plan.

2.1

Packet Pg. 13



APPENDIX A:

FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AND AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR PROJECT SELECTION

Entity Annual Ave $$

Who Submits / Identifies Projects

Who selects Projects

ROCOG

Surface Transportation Block Grant Program $2.3 m Olmsted Co, Rochester, Byron,

Stewartville ROCOG

District 6 Area Transportation Partnership

Transportation Alternatives $400,000 Jurisdictions throughout District 6 ATP-6

MNDOT District 6

State Trunk Highways on National Highway System

(NHS)

$4.6 m

(2010-2019 Ave) District 6 identifies projects Central Office selects

projects

State Trunk Highways on non-NHS System

$7.4 m

(2010-2019 Ave) District 6 identifies projects District 6 selects

projects

MNDOT Central Office

Off-System Bridges $2.4 m

(2010-2019 Ave) District 6 provides input Central Office selects

projects

National Highway Freight Program

*$20 million Statewide

Central Office of Transportation System Management / Central

Office of Freight Same

Highway Safety Improvement Program

$8-$12 million Statewide

Solicited Statewide by Central Office annually

Central Office selects projects

Transit

(Capital only)

$9.2 m

(2010-2019 Ave)

Office of Transit (Central Office) cooperatively with Transit

provides

Central Office / Office of Transit

2.1

Packet Pg. 14



Entity Annual Ave $$

Who Submits / Identifies Projects

Who selects Projects

U.S. Department of Transportation

BUILD ( Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage

Development) None to date Nationwide Solicitation USDOT

Minnesota Statewide Competitive Programs

Corridors of Commerce * $25 -$200 million

statewide

Statewide Solicitation from public sector partners, private stakeholders and interested

citizens Central Office

Transportation Economic Development Program

*$8-$12 million Statewide biannually

(Airport Interchange

Partial Funding)

Statewide Solicitation of government entities Central Office

2.1

Packet Pg. 15

Presentation Materials Presentation materials discussed and shown during meeting.

2.1

Packet Pg. 16

Metropolitan Planning Process

Long Range Transportation Plan

(LRTP)

Analysis of Needs

Strategic Direction

Financial Planning

Guided by Federal Regulations

3c Process Continuing

Cooperative Comprehensive

Integrated with goals-objectives of other

system plans (State Plan, TDP)

Transportation Improvement Program

(TIP)

Project Selection

Financial Plan

Fed/State/MPO Year 1 Prioritization

2.1

Packet Pg. 17

plajgarn

Stamp

plajgarn

Sticky Note

This document is not fully ADA accessible. For assistance, please contact the Olmsted County Planning Department at 507 328-7100.

LRTP Requirements

STRATEGIC DIRECTION

Provide direction regardingdevelopment and integrated management of transportation system ◦ Integration can be across modes ◦ Integration can be across jurisdictions

Emphasize facilities that serveimportant national and regionaltransportation functions

Identify both long range and shortrange strategies & actions to support integrated & multimodal system

Maintain a 20 Year horizon

FINANCIAL PLAN

◦ System-level estimate of revenues reasonably anticipated to be availableto support LRTP implementation

◦ Estimated implementation costsaccounting for at a minimum allprojects that may be supported byfederal funding

◦ Revenue & Cost projections adjustedfor inflation

◦ “Fiscally Constrained Scenario” thatdemonstrates the level of investment that can be supported by reasonablyanticipated revenues

◦ “Illustrative” Project List that identifies(typically high cost) projects for whichfunding is uncertain

2.1

Packet Pg. 18

TIP Requirements

PROJECT SELECTION

4 Year Time Horizon

Shall identify (“Project Selection”) all capital and non-capital projectsproposed for federal funding

Also identify projects not funded byfederal $$ but which require sometype of federal action (Interstate orNHS access permit, federalenvironmental review, etc)

“Prioritization” involves the action of moving projects from later years of a TIP forward to replace another project

Projects shall be consistent with theLRTP

FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT

TIP includes a financial plan thatdemonstrates how projects can beimplemented with resources expectedto be available

Project can be included only if fullfunding can be anticipated to beavailable in time frame anticipated

Identifies any additional financialstrategies that will be used toimplement projects

2.1

Packet Pg. 19

The 2017 ROCOG Project Selection Policy

THE BRIDGE FROM THE LRTP TO THE TIP

Long Range Transportation Plan

• Goals • Needs at the

• Program Level • EX: Pavement

Preservation • Major Project

• EX: 55th ST • Strategies & A ctions • Financial Plan

• How to allocate use of $1.3b over 25 yrs

• Illustrative Projects

ROCOG-ATP Project List

• A Slate of Projects identifying candidates for federal funding

• Supports programming of $10-15m over 4-5 yrs

• Focus on City & County Projects

• Assessed for consistency with LRTP Objectives • Mix of Qualitative &

Quantitative • Reviewed with

Agencies

Transportation Improvement

Program

• 4 Year list of Projects • New project(s) selected

annually for 4th year • Currently $2.3m

available to program annually

• Flexibility exists to “prioritize” 2nd / 3rd / 4th

year projects in first year if conditions change

2.1

Packet Pg. 20

Guidance Data for Rating LOCAL Street and Highway Projects

Selecting Projects for the ROCOG-ATP Project List

Guidance Criteria for Assessing consistency withinvestment objectives of

LRTP

Weight Relative

Score High Medium Low

5 3 1

System Importance / Development / Benefit

2 5 3 1

Crash rate

2 5 3 1

2 5 3 1

1 0 0 0

2 5 3 1

1 5 3 1

1 5 3 1

1 5 3 1

Will advance the Regional Transit Vision

1 5 3 1

Investment Objective

0 Project corridor is part of PTN or access to Park & Ride site

Project corridor serves multiple non-PTN transit routes

Project corridor plays minor role in regional transit vision

Factors used to Assess Consistency with Investment Objectives

Safety/Risk Mitigation

Asset Management / state of good repair

Upgrades structural condition and extends service life

0

0

Project provides improved safety at location with observed critical crash ratio over 1.5


Project provides improved safety at location with observed critical crash ratio below 1.0

Improve vehicular travel safety

Project will Improve road structure with existing Poor Condition Rating or bridge structure with critical deficiency

Project will improve road structure with Fair condition rating or bridge Structure with poor Sufficiency Rating

Project involves road or bridge structure with existing good condition ratings

Mobility / Congestion

Support Community Vision

Multi-Modal Travel

Improve Regional Mobility by addressing capacity bottleneck or

deficiency 0

Addresses existing capacity bottleneck or congestion deficiency

Addresses projected capacity bottleneck or congestion deficiency

Project area not impacted by existing or future congestion

Improve Reliability of Community Area or Development SubArea

Access 0

Will improve system access by addressing high risk access conflict

Will improve system by addressing moderate risk access conflict

Project is not in a location where high or moderate access present or projected

Consistent with and supports Regional Growth Management

Planning

Function of road on ROCOG Functional Designation System

Project provides mobility, access or safety improvement that benefits an Interregional or Strategic Arterial corridor

Project provides mobility, access or safety improvement that benefits a Major Arterial corridor

Project provides mobility, access or safety improvement that benefits a Secondary Arterial or Major Collector corridor

0

Projects will support future travel needs in planned growth area

Project primarily serves travel needs in area of low demand

Supports Regional Economic Vision

0

Projects provides 9 or 10 Access or improves structural condition of a arterial truck route AND benefits commuter access to major employment center

Project improves structural conditon of non-arterial 9 or 10 Ton truck route OR benefits commuter travel

Project provides minor benefit to truck route network or commuter travel

2

Project provides for expansion or upgrade the Active Transportation

Walkway Network

Project provides opportunity to improve significant Active Transportation Walkway network gap

Project provides opportunity to improve existing Active Transportation Walkway infrastructure

0

Project corridor plays minor role in regional Active Transportation Walkway Network

Project provides for expansion or upgrade the Active Transportation

Bikeway Network 0

Project provides opportunity to improve significant Active Transportation Bikeway network gap

Project provides opportunity to improve existing Active Transportation Bikeway infrastructure

Project corridor plays minor role in regional Active Transportation Bikeway Network

0 Project will improve travel in an established urban area

2.1

Packet Pg. 21

� - I I • - � - I I - • I I v ~ c.,'-<v 4~ 4~ 4'-, X'<t:J q,q}:- '-,~ 4~ c.,'-<v ... ~ c.,'-

&"I, " 9,~ ~"?" "?" "?" cl c.,'- ';>' °>~ " i§ 9,~ <o<§ ~~ ~~ <o"'>~ <:)~ ~~ °>~ ~ ~ (d ", ~ (d I); ~ ",

•- •- •- • • • •

I

Local System Projects - Cost per Vehicle Mile of Travel Served

NHS Projects - Cost per Entering Vehicle

DMC Area Projects - Cost per VMT

Cost Effectiveness Scoring

$4,706

I <:)"I,

&~

$2,667 $1,500

$10,227 $7,333

$2,222 $690 $1,846 $3,000 $245 $1,393

$11,800 $8,125

$239

$18,800

$1,839

$27,308

$2,222 $4,706

$8,333

$-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$955

$1,270 $1,077

$1,556

$1,256

$284

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

TH 52 / I-90 TH 14 / CR 104

TH 14/52 TH 14/22 Byron Interchange

TH 14 / CSAH 3

$563

$835

$1,067 $1,031

$661

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

Civic Center Dr Brdwy to 16 Ave

Broadway CBD 6th S to 9th S

Broadway CBD 2nd S to 6th S

Broadway CBD Civ Cntr to 2nd S

Broadway South 9th S to 16th S

2.1

Packet Pg. 22

Project Selection / Federal Funds Highways

10yr Average of Federal Funds Programmed -

$14m Annually

ROCOG • Responsible for

programming $2.3 million annually

Area Transportation Partnership • Does not program

money in ROCOG area

MNDOT • Programs ~ $11-$12

million annually • National Highway

System Programs • Off System Bridges • HSIP

Transit Capital 10 yr Average

$9.2m Annually

RPT-City / MNDOT Transit Office • Transit Capital

Central Office / ATP • Fed Highway Program

Transfers

Transportation Alternatives

10yr Annual Average $400K

Area Transportation Partnership • $400K Annual Average

Discretionary Limited Funds thru

Competitive Programs

FHWA/FTA • EX) BUILD (TIGER) • EX) Small Starts

MNDOT • Corridors of

Commerce • Transportation &

Economic Development (TED)

MNDOT, Olmsted County, Rochester directly program another $40-$50 million of state and local funds for highway preservation and improvement annually

2.1

Packet Pg. 23



Memo Date: June 3, 2019 To: ROCOG Policy Board From: Charlie Reiter / Principal Transportation Planner Subject: Agenda Item 2: Supporting information on the TH 14 / CR 104 Interchange project At the April meeting of ROCOG discussion of the draft ROCOG-ATP Project List raised some questions regarding the importance of the proposed TH 14 / CR 104 Interchange project. Staff was requested to provide additional information on this project related to factors that were considered in choosing to include construction of a full interchange at this location on the project list. The attached presentation materials will be reviewed at the ROCOG meeting on Friday. It includes review of some of the historical information from the 2008 CR 104 / 60th Ave Corridor Study as well as current traffic conditions and information that has been developed for recent funding requests (such as for the Corridors of Commerce program) and the Long Range Plan.

2.2

Packet Pg. 24

http://www.co.olmsted.mn.us/planning/rocog

2045 ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan

TH 14 / CR 104 Interchange Background Information

2.2

Packet Pg. 25

plajgarn

Sticky Note

This document is not fully ADA accessible. For assistance, please contact the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department at 507 328-7100.


Historic Change in Traffic

Average Daily Traffic Growth

Change in Annual Average Daily Traffic

2000 2007 2011 2018TH 14 16,000 19,300 20,300 26,000

CR 104 North 1,800 2,700 2,700 3,600 CR 104 South 750 990 1,100 1,200

Annual Growth in Traffic ( Vehicles per Day)2000-2007

2007-2011

2011-2018

TH 14 470 250 810 CR 104 North 130 0 130 CR 104 South 30 30 10

Growth Rate

2.9%

7.1%

4.6%

1.3%

0.0%

2.8%

4.0%

4.8%

1.3%

TH 14 CR 104 North CR 104 South

Annual Percentage Growth Rate

2000-2007 2007-2011 2011-2018

2.2

Packet Pg. 26


Traffic Conditions Strong Evidence that Certain Motorists (Southbound) Avoiding Intersection Likely Diversion probably to West Circle Drive Interchange

Right Thru LeftLeft 295 193 83 130 378 RightThru 4909 4554 Thru

Right 20 15 61 119 86 Left Left Thru Right

TH 14 WestboundCombined Peak Periods

CR 104 Northbound

CR 104 Southbound

TH 14 Eastbound

2.2

Packet Pg. 27


West Circle Dr Interchange Operations

Existing (2015) Conditions

Southbound left turn onto TH 14 Eastbound exhibiting queuing issues at West Circle Dr Interchange

Diversion of southbound traffic from CR 104 likely to directly impact queuing issue at South Ramp of West Circle Dr interchange

2.2

Packet Pg. 28


Crash Experience at Intersection

2011-2015 data 2016-April 2019 data

Intersection:

Crash Data, 2013-2015.

0

0

5

4

15

24

=

Urban Thru / Stop

0.71 0.00

0.19 0.36

0.39 3.14

1.82 0.00

Intersection Safety ScreeningTH 14 and County Road 104

Crashes by Crash Severity Intersection Characteristics

Fatal Entering Volume 31,050

Incapacitating Injury Traffic Control Thru / stop

Non-incapacitating Injury Environment Suburban

Possible Injury Speed Limit 55 mph

Observed Observed

Property Damage

Total Crashes

Annual crash cost $432,000

Statewide Comparison

Total Crash Rate Fatal & Serious Injury Crash Rate

Statewide Average Statewide Average

Critical Rate Critical Rate

Critical Index Critical Index

An observed crash rate greater than the critical rate indicates an intersection operating outside the expected normal range. The Critical Index reports the magnitude of the difference

The Critical Index for the TH 14 / CR 104 intersection was lower than the rate for at-grade crossovers at the TH 14/52 interchange, but higher than at-grade left turn crossovers at I-90/TH 52, the ramp intersections at the West Circle Drive interchange, and signalized intersections in Byron on TH 14. However, I-90, West Circle Dr and 14/52 interchanges have experienced crashes involving serious injuries which has not occurred at TH 14/104

2.2

Packet Pg. 29


Traffic Operations VideoDouble-click link address in back border area to access short 2 minute Youtube video of AM peak hour operations. It will take a few seconds to access the video; click on arrow to start. A longer 9 to 10 minute video available at link below the photo

URL for longer 9 minute video: https://youtu.be/cjydSAapE84

URL for longer 2 minute video can be accessed here: https://youtu.be/8Cc07__4LfI

2.2

Packet Pg. 30

https://youtu.be/cjydSAapE84

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://youtu.be/8Cc07__4LfI?fbclid%3DIwAR32QWHRmjfaQLNAn-IOG4gZjliAyW5eOpRU80uXnnhuLwT0-QMSz7qDobE&h=AT17y2_BNI-8pTuG4rAWeiKtUzTmX6mKRPYn_cmYbIZVK9_n34_mg0Eofsw2OY0Wvhc1zo5c_1F0yBeBH6Gb6ESxtNg8Dj0FRawB0t6UEQypKY1UY_Jl0Y3VW2k26otbpxKe59GoSZ3VKy7y8jBW1mgRq7qQmhvEMxph43i4OWK3c1Sneq2AIwdn7melSSk1N3MhTbMQOuFG5fEPUItVX5M2mEi3JNUMndKi9-PxRWLYaMe1LZ4CjR-QXxPc6VsM9Etw1gnkU-AUpdQAUvzFs0JjD07RQrwK0F2OnWdyncivhFn7tNgteSozkDUUeUiJ6g3lLKXpjNkDHbFOpl6CKafQnRJOyFRWzTgNWn586wTcK1MXojnBu0Aw1pGQTjbfBs_f-H0-sCoILnWi0Svin2vgaEuE0FM3g8OQbQozl8iHvf5Ia2-T2Y62tCkAjRiIEs40iWGKCyPSS1SupgSh2t_LRyPt4_0YfNmXZWgrNXYlGiOk92Q0emiOGmGrhq2XdToGr-o-eTB-pyDiTtIOrL4Z1jwDeh_uj21pyLtM_4XVu9dhQP5HxeMJqZBt7TNR8Nok1DL79wejJhM19w9QLmWIJQ-7OLlqAnZZeaeDr9JcvlvreGJXOKuochvtsqQZ8g


Traffic Risk Rating 2.2

Packet Pg. 31


2008 CORRIDOR PROTECTION STUDYCorridor Study / Environmental Assessment / Official Map

2.2

Packet Pg. 32


Planning Assumptions 2006-2008 Corridor Study

Land Use 2040 Traffic Projections

2.2

Packet Pg. 33


2006-2008 Corridor Study Interchange Layout Recommendation

Layout recommended to minimize impact to residential area / achieve

needed rail line clearance / minimize impact to wetland-stormwater control

pondResults in added project costs

2.2

Packet Pg. 34


Planning Assumptions 2017Land Use Traffic Projections

2.2

Packet Pg. 35


Other Considerations Potential Impact from future West Side Park and

Ride Sites

Up to 900 Spacesat a new west side

Park & Ride

Up to 2600 Spacesat new west side

Transit Village

2nd St

CR104

Broa

dway

2.2

Packet Pg. 36


Interchange Experience on NHS Highways in District 6

Mapping of Interchange Locations in District 6 on

Interstate and National Highway Systems

(TH 14/52/63/61/218)

Scatterplot comparing NHS volume to

Intersecting road Volumes at

Interchange Locations

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000Inte

rsec

ting

Road

Vol

umes

NHS Roadway Volume (Non-Interstates)

Intersecting Traffic Volumes at Interchanges in District 6

Locations with similar low level

of intersecting traffic but lower

TH traffic

TH 14 / CR 104

2.2

Packet Pg. 37


PROGRAMMING CONSIDERATIONS

2.2

Packet Pg. 38


2018 Corridors of Commerce EvaluationFour highest rated projects in District 6 (highlighted in yellow) were awarded funding as part of comprehensive

TH 14 Dodge Center to Owatonna project

TH 14 / CR 104 highest rated non-funded project in District 6 along with TH 14/52 interchange

District Highway Description Cost Total Points6 14 Owatonna to Dodge Center construct 2 to 4 lane conversion $160,410,000 5256 14 CR 16 to Dodge Center construct 2 to 4 lane conversion $138,610,000 5106 14 54th Ave to CR 3 construct 2 to 4 lane conversion $100,060,000 4856 14 CR 3 to Dodge Center construct 2 to 4 lane conversion $85,850,000 4856 14 Jct CR 104 construct an interchange $39,180,000 4656 52 Jct TH 14/52 capacity improvements $34,140,000 4656 14 56th Ave to CR 16 construct 2 to 4 lane conversion $28,900,000 4456 14 Construct Byron Interchange Option 1 $17,190,000 4456 14 Construct Byron Interchange Opt2 $16,500,000 4456 14 Construct Byron Interchange Option 3 $24,780,000 4456 52 Jct TH 57 construct interchange $10,590,000 430

MnDOT Office of Transportation System Management - April 30, 2018

TH 14 / CR 104 - 11th rated non-funded project statewide (out of 85 projects)District Highway Description Cost Total Points

3 169 TH101 to 197th 01 partial freeway conversion $92,040,000 5753 I-94 St. Michael to Albertville - construct 4 to 6 lane conversion $77,800,000 570

3 / 8 23 Willmar to St. Cloud - construct 2 to 4 lane conversion $105,070,000 5201 I-35 21st Ave to Garfield Avenue - TPP #2 $270,570,000 5153 I-94 Albertville to Clearwater construct 4 to 6 lane conversion $179,540,000 5103 10 Wadena construct 2 to 4 lane conversion $39,210,000 4907 14 New Ulm to Nicollet construct 2 to 4 lane conversion $79,200,000 485

Metro / 8 212 Granite Falls to Chaska construct 2 to 4 lane conversion $398,660,000 4853 371 Jenkins to Pine River construct 2 to 4 lane conversion $48,020,000 4853 371 Jct of TH 210 construct interchange $43,040,000 4806 14 Jct CR 104 construct an interchange $39,180,000 465

2.2

Packet Pg. 39


Qualitative Project Review

Staff screened local projects to assess how well they met the goals / objectives of the plan

Information was used as part of internal agency reviews to assist in slotting projects into Near Term or Long term bin of candidate TIP Projects

LRTP Goal Investment Objective WeightRelative

Score5 Points 3 Points 1 point

5 3 1

System Importance / Development / Benefit

2 5 3 1

Crash rate

2 5 3 1

1 5 3 1

3 5 3 1

2 0 0 0

3 5 3 1

2 5 3 1

1 5 3 1

1 5 3 1

3

Will advance the Regional Transit Vision Project corridor is part of PTN

or access to Park & Ride site

Project corridor serves multiple non-PTN transit routes

0Project corridor plays minor role in regional transit vision

Project will expand or upgrade the Active Transportation

network0

Project provides opportunity to improve significant Active Transportation network gap

Project provides opportunity to improve existing Active Transportation infrastructure

Project corridor plays minor role in regional Active Transportation Network

0Project will improve travel in an established urban area

Projects will support future travel needs in planned growth area

Project primarily serves travel needs in area of low demand

Supports Regional Economic Vision

0

Projects provides 9 or 10 Access or improves structural condition of a arterial truck route AND benefits commuter access to major employment center

Project improves structural conditon of non-arterial 9 or 10 Ton truck route OR benefits commuter travel

Project provides minor benefit to truck route network or commuter travel

Will Improve multi modal travel safety and comfort Improves access or

connections to places with high demand for walking, biking or transit access

Will increase Active Transportaiton Capacity AND provide facility comfortable for All Ages & Abilities

Project provides only for preservation or constructon of basic Active Transportation infrastructure

Project supports Growth Management concept and

importance of road function

Project provides mobility, access or safety improvement that benefits an Interregional or Strategic Arterial corridor

Project provides mobility, access or safety improvement that benefits a Major Arterial corridor

Project provides mobility, access or safety improvement that benefits a Secondary Arterial or Major Collector corridor

0

0

Project involves road or bridge structure with existing good condition ratings

Mobility / Congestion

Support Community Vision

Multi-Modal Travel

Improve Regional Mobility by addressing capacity bottleneck or

deficiency 0Addresses existing capacity bottleneck or congestion deficiency

Addresses projected capacity bottleneck or congestion deficiency

Project area not impacted by existing or future congestion

Improve Reliability of Community Area or Development SubArea

Access 0Will improve system access by addressing high risk access conflict

Will improve system by addressing moderate risk access conflict

Project is not in a location where high or moderate access present or projected

Consistent with and supports Regional Growth Management

Planning

Factors used to assign Points

Safety/Risk Mitigation

Asset Management / state of good repairUpgrades structural condition and

extends service life0

0



Project provides improved safety at location with observed critical crash ratio below 1.0

Improve vehicular travel safety

Project will Improve road structure with existing Poor Condition Rating or bridge structure with critical deficiency

Project will improve road structure with Fair condition rating or bridge Structure with poor Sufficiency Rating

2.2

Packet Pg. 40


Cost Effectiveness Analysis

A high level evaluation tool assessing cost of project per user For intersections, Estimated Cost is divided by total number of vehicles entering the intersection For road segments, Estimated Cost is divided by total vehicle travel

Cost Effectiveness shown is based on existing traffic levels only

$955 $1,270

$1,077

$1,556

$1,256

$284

$4,706 $2,667

$1,500

$10,227

$7,333

$2,222 $690

$1,846 $3,000

$245 $1,393

$11,800

$8,125

$239

$18,800

$1,839

$27,308

$2,222

$4,706

$8,333

$563 $355 $579 $-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

Construction Cost per Existing User

NHS Projects Local Projects

Local Projects show great variability in results / Tool is somewhat problematic due to: - Which time frame should be used? Projects in future growth areas exhibit high cost per user due to low level of

existing use- Accounting for scale of project, ie, Project length affect costs which affects relative results

2.2

Packet Pg. 41

July 19 ROCOG Meeting: Street / Highway Memo



Memo

Date: July 19, 2019 To: ROCOG Policy Board From: Dave Pesch, Transportation Planning Coordinator Subject: Draft Street / Highway Projects for 2045 Long Range Plan

Action Requested: Motion to approve Draft Street/ Highw ay Projects for Public Review / Outreach

Plan Update status: the graphic below shows we are nearing the conclusion of the draft modal plans.

2.3

Packet Pg. 42





I. Overview of Memo: to review and find consensus on draft street / highway modal project information that will go forward into the public comment period for the Draft Modal Plans of the updated Long Range Plan. During previous meetings, other modal plans were reviewed to include most of the Active Transportation Projects & System Maps and the same for the Transit Mode. Also covered during this July ROCOG meeting with Agenda Item 4 is the long range system map for Street / Highways (that extends past the year 2045). This is important since it provides the larger view for the street/highway system whereas this memo includes a number of projects that will implement the system plan during the next 25 years.

Most information herein has been reviewed previously during ROCOG meetings as recommended by TTAC. The new information is comprised of the Project List for using ROCOG-ATP annual federal funds (Area-wide Transportation Partnership of MnDOT District 6). Additional new information is the change in time-range designations of a number of projects on the NHS (National Highway System) resulting from a review of these projects at a previous ROCOG meeting.

II. Review of ROCOG Policy on Using ATP Federal Funds: This information consists of a large excerpt from the Policy as adopted by ROCOG on Oct 2, 2017 after many meetings by both TTAC and ROCOG. Note that discussion of the concept of using prioritization criteria was a main topic for the several of the meetings. After some time, it was clear to both TTAC and ROCOG and by choosing a set of criteria in effect results in choosing the projects, so criteria become main discussion topics rather than the projects themselves. The overall final agreement was to keep flexibility in project selection to allow ROCOG (with TTAC’s input) to respond to year to year changing conditions and some level of distribution via geographic/road authority for ROCOG-ATP funding. Additional clarification was that ROCOG neither directs road authorities as to when to construct their own groups of projects or whether to use federal funds on a particular project. It was also agreed that including projects in a plan group makes projects potentially able to use federal funds but does not guarantee such funds. This concept was also carried into the development of this Long Range Plan update.

This information below is for ready reference and has also been in view during the last 2 TTAC meetings where street-highway projects were discussed in providing recommendations to ROCOG.

2.3

Packet Pg. 43





Excerpt for Project Selection Using MnDOT District 6 ATP Funding

Limits for Use of ATP Funds:

(as set by U.S. DOT or District 6 ATP)

a) No funding for Right-of-Way b) No funding for project engineering c) No funding for project planning d) Project must be on, or eligible for inclusion on the Federal Functional Classification System.

ROCOG ATP Funding Policies:

e) Project must conform to the current ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). f) Project must be on a minor arterial or above on the ROCOG Functional Designation Map if it is a road or bridge

project. g) Funding may be contributed to a MnDOT project (e.g. an interchange or park & ride facility). h) Funding may be used as a required contribution from a small city to a MnDOT project within that city’s limits. i) Funding may be used for an eligible park & ride facility outside of the Rochester Public Transit service area. j) Project must be taken from the current ROCOG – ATP Project List (a list of several potential projects as

approved by ROCOG). k) Projects placed on ATP Project List will have consideration and some level of impact on ROCOG Performance

Planning if possible.

2.3

Packet Pg. 44





Annual Project Recommendation/Selection Process:

As shown in the figure above, a phasing process is recommended to reach the point where the ROCOG Long Range Plan is formally tied to the programming of ROCOG-ATP federal funds for projects.

Development of the ATP Project List, and Map:

Candidate projects are identified TTAC by with input from small city representatives. Besides the Limits for Use of Funds and ROCOG ATP Funding Policies listed above, representatives of units of government on TTAC should use their jurisdictional guidance in recommending projects as a road authority for inclusion on this List.

1. Once TTAC develops a draft ATP Project List/Map, it will be sent to ROCOG for approval. It is recognized that there are many factors used by road authorities and others in recommending projects for a given year of construction that are often not apparent several years prior, making it difficult to prioritize a list of projects and keep to that prioritization over a multi-year time frame. Therefore, the list may or may not be in order of TTAC or ROCOG priority.

2. Once approved by ROCOG, it will be used by TTAC to recommend annual projects to ROCOG for submission to the District 6 ATP. The ATP Project List/Map may be updated as needed either as a product of a formal Long-Range Plan development process, or outside the process as needed. Initiation of an update outside the formal Long-

2.3

Packet Pg. 45





Range Plan development process may be recommended/initiated by either TTAC or ROCOG, but only ROCOG may approve this action.

Annual Project Selection:

ROCOG selects project(s) based on TTAC recommendation. (Note from DP: ROCOG may differ from the recommendation, though this has not happened).

Annual ((February) notification to District 6 ATP:

ROCOG staff notifies ATP staff of the project(s) recommended for ROCOG’s federal funding.

District 6 ATP approves the project.

The project is included in the Draft STIP and in the Draft ROCOG TIP.

III. Altering of NHS – MnDOT projects to an “open” time frame. As a result of discussions at a previous ROCOG meeting, these projects have been re-designated as shown here in Red.

Proj # match those on map

Project Name on the National Highway System

Potential Years 2021 – 2045. Current Status of project sites.

Draft Build Cost (no ROW)

Proj Description Road Authority

Projects may be Short or Long Range depending on when Funds are secured.

2 TH 14 & CR 104 Interchange/roads from 19 St NW south to St Marys Dr

Need is now present $38,850,000 New Interchange: Includes 7th St. Flyover & 4 crossings of RR

MnDOT-Olm-Roch

4 TH 14 & TH 52 Interchange, Long-term

Interim steps will delay need

$35,000,000 Reconfiguration of interchange based on operational improvements

MnDOT-Roch

2.3

Packet Pg. 46





6 TH 14 & West Circle Dr Interchange/surface streets, Long-term

Interim and/or 104 interchange delays need

$42,000,000 Rebuild Interchange MnDOT-Olm

7 TH 14 New Interchange serving Byron

Current intersections controlled by traffic signals

$27,500,000 New Interchange, location TBD, corridor assessment under way.

MnDOT-Local

8 TH 14 West Overpass (likely @ CSAH 3)

Occurs with new Byron area interchange

$7,000,000 New Overpass (including costs over RR)

Olm-MnDOT

IV. Recent projects using ROCOG-ATP annual funds. Before moving to the recommended Draft ROCOG - ATP projects list, the table below shows the list of recent projects using ROCOG-ATP annual funds.

Route Project # Year Agency Description TIP Total FHWA Local

CSAH 9 055-609-019 2019 Olm COLLEGE VIEW ROAD (CSAH 9) FROM 19TH AVE SE TO EAST CIRCLE DRIVE (CSAH 22)

5,524,200 2,350,204 3,173,996

LOCAL 055-622-062 2020 Olm/Roch CONSTRUCTION: MEMBERS PARKWAY EXTENSION AND PUBLIC STREET - TIED WITH S.P. 159-080-020

3,200,000 2,515,000 685,000

2nd St SW

159-106-020 2021 Roch 2nd St SW: 16TH AVE SW TO 11TH AVE SW: RECONSTRUCTION

3,570,000 2,370,000 1,200,000

CSAH 4 055-604-018 2022 Olm CSAH 4 AND CR 104/60TH AVENUE NW REBUILD - FROM JCT CSAH 3 N TO 0.5 MI W OF JCT 50 AVE NW (AC project)

4,500,000 2,370,000 2,130,000

CSAH 4 055-604-018 2023 Olm CSAH 4 AND CR 104/60TH AVENUE NW REBUILD - FROM JCT CSAH 3 N TO 0.5 MI W OF JCT 50 AVE NW (AC project pay-back)

4,500,000 2,370,000 2,130,000

2.3

Packet Pg. 47





Annual Project recommended from ATP Project List in 2045 Plan

2024 TBD

2025

TBD

2026

TBD

2027

TBD

2028

TBD

2029 TBD

V. Recommended Draft ROCOG - ATP projects list. The table below shows TTAC-recommended project list to draw projects from over the next 6 years beginning with year 2020. These consist of those non-NHS (i.e. MnDOT) and non-DMC projects showing in the overall short range group. The current ROCOG policy will be used annually to determine project(s). The Policy calls for a list and a map (both follow). The map highlights projects in either red or green with the green projects in the last map. The red projects correspond to the first 8 projects shown below and the 3 projects below them are highlighted in green. Projects are simply ordered by the number that corresponds to ID maps that have been used over the last many months and will show in Story Maps later during public outreach.

2.3

Packet Pg. 48





Proj # match those on

map Project List for Potential Use of ROCOG-ATP Funds (years

2024 - 2029) Draft Build Cost (no

ROW) Proj Description Road

Authority

9 CR 101: CSAH 20 to CSAH 1 $4,000,000 Upgrade to 2lane Express Olmsted

12 48 St NE: Hadley Valley Rd to CSAH 11 $4,500,000 Reconstruct 2 lane Olmsted

18 65 St NW: TH 52 W. Front Rd to 50 Av NW $8,500,000 Reconstruct Rochester

22 14 St NE Intersection w/North Broadway $7,100,000 Rebuild, inc improvements to bike/ped movements Rochester

28 20 St SW: Broadway to CR 125 $8,000,000 Reconstruct street & Intersection with CR 125 Rochester

31 50 Av NW: 19 St to CSAH 4 $7,100,000 Construct arterial connection Rochester

32 19 St NW: Ashland Dr to 50 Av $4,000,000 Reconstruct Rochester

33 19 St NW: 50 Av to 60 Av $8,000,000 Reconstruct Rochester

Added Projects to above List at Point where CR 104 / TH 14 Interchange is Funded

13 60 Av NW: 65 St to 75 St and over to TH 52 $5,500,000 Construct first 2 lanes of Expressway Olmsted

14 60 Av NW: 55 St to 65 St $2,000,000 Construct first 2 lanes of Expressway Olmsted

15 60 Av NW (CR 104): 19 St to CSAH 4 $2,000,000 Construct first 2 lanes of Expressway Olmsted

2.3

Packet Pg. 49





2.3

Packet Pg. 50





2.3

Packet Pg. 51





2.3

Packet Pg. 52





VI. Background Information. Information on the remaining pages has been previously reviewed by ROCOG and is included here for reference.

Guidance Criteria used by staff and TTAC to place non-NHS (MnDOT) projects into Short or Long Range groups.

2.3

Packet Pg. 53





Proj # match

those on ID map

Long Range: 2030 to 2045 Project Name Proj Description

Road Authority

1a I-90 & TH 52 Interchange Phase II Ramps Rebuild MnDOT

10 CR 117: 60 Av SW to CSAH 8 Construct Rural 2 Express Olmsted

11 48 St NE (CR 124): 4ln to Hadley Valley Rd Improve to 4 Lane or other capacity increase Olmsted

16 CSAH 8: 40 St SW to Bamber Valley School adjust curves, and up to 4 lanes (depends on future development) Olmsted

17 CR 147: 40 St SW to CSAH 125 Reconstruct Olmsted

20 55 St NW: Relocate E. Frontage Rd intersection Relocate E. Frontage Rd to East of McDonalds Olmsted / Roch

19 65 St NW: 50 Av to 60 Av Reconstruct Rochester

21 East River Rd: Roch Sand/Gravel to NE. of 55 St Improve to Industrial Collector Rochester

23 Silver Creek Rd: East Circle Dr to approx 40 Av NE Improve to 2Ln Urban Collector Rochester

29 Extend Commercial Dr SW Construct new street btwn 40 St SW & Commercial Dr Frontage Rd (west of TH 63) Rochester

30 Street in IBM sub-area Construct/upgrade new street thru former IBM site: 37th St to Valleyhigh Dr Rochester

34 40 St SW fr CSAH 8 to 18 Ave (CR 147) Reconstruct Rochester

2.3

Packet Pg. 54






map Short Range: 2021 to 2029

Project Name Ext. Costs w/o

ROW Project Type Road Authority Note: in DMC means fully or partially within their boundary

1 I-90 & TH 52 Interchange Phase I $6,000,000 Bridge Replacements MnDOT

3 TH 14 & TH 52 Interchange at-grade cross-overs, Interim $1,500,000 Safety & Operation Improvements MnDOT

5 TH 14 & West Circle Dr ramps/streets, Interim $1,500,000 Safety & Operation Improvements MnDOT/Olm

Not on Possible 3rd Ave SE: 2nd St South to 12St SE for Circulator In DMC N/A

Accommodate Transit Circulator Rochester/DMC

Map yet Possible 2nd St: from Civic Center west to current Mayo Park & Ride In DMC N/A

Accommodate Transit Circulator Rochester/DMC


map Short or Long Range TBD

Project Name Ext. Costs w/o

ROW Project Type Road Authority Note: in DMC means within their boundary

35 Civic Center Dr Not showing in DMC at this time $18,000,000 Reconstruct to 6 lanes fr TH 52 to Broadway Rochester/DMC

24 Ph 1 of Broadway: Civic Cntr Dr to 9 St SE In DMC $7,000,000 Reconstruct Rochester/DMC



27 Broadway: 9 St SE to 16 St SE (9th to 12th In DMC) $13,600,000 Reconstruct Rochester/DMC

2.3

Packet Pg. 55




Memo Date: June 3, 2019 To: ROCOG Policy Board From: Charlie Reiter / Principal Transportation Planner Subject: First Look at Long Range Highway System Plan for Chapter 11- Street & Highway Plan

Introduction

As the key transportation network for serving both local and regional travel needs, the major street & highway system plays an important role in achieving the economic, development and livability goals of the community and region. The street & highway network plan seeks to further these goals by identifying policies to guide the development of the major street system, relying on the mapping of street classifications for both existing and planned non-local roadways with associated guidelines to define the character of different roadway types. The benefit of classification and guidelines is to provide a level of certainty as far as the function and design of the roadway infrastructure when parties, whether public or private, plan investments in new development or other public or private improvements.

Historically the ROCOG Street Classification has relied on a dual sets of maps, referred to as the “Functional Designation” Map and “Street Design Classification” maps (see Appendix A on page 9 for current maps of the Rochester Urban Area).

o The Functional Designation Map describes the role of roadways in the network in terms of level of desired mobility, land access and the types of trips served. Typical classifications on this map include various types of Arterial (Strategic, Major, Secondary) and Collector (Primary, Local) roadways.

2.4

Packet Pg. 56




o The Street Design Classification Map focuses on the physical features of roadways, establishing expectations about number of travel lanes, types of stormwater management, and how the median will be managed, which in turn influence right of way width and what a typical cross section will look like. Typical classifications on this map include freeways, expressways, various types of “urban streets” and “rural roadways”.

In thinking about updating the Street Classification system for this update of the Long Range Plan, there are four factors that have influenced the thinking of TTAC & staff in discussion of updating the classification system. These are:

1. ROCOG street classification should focus on roadways that serve regional and longer distance urban travel which ROCOG has a role in potentially funding and which are part of the system of interconnected major streets. ROCOG as a governing entity does not have a role in planning or policy in regards to local streets (such as neighborhood residential streets, neighborhood collector streets or commercial or industrial access roads), but the ROCOG plan in the past included local street development policy since it also served as the adopted transportation plan for the city and county. With the city’s local street policy now incorporated in the recent update of the Rochester Comprehensive Plan, and many townships having adopted zoning and subdivision requirements, the need to address residential or non-residential street policy no longer exists in the ROCOG plan.

2. It is important to note that major street and highway classification information included in the ROCOG Plan is used for varied purposes and not simply in the programming of projects. Street and highway policies play a role in work as varied as corridors and subarea studies, the planning of private development and other public infrastructure, and managing the operations of major street and highway corridors. Figure 1 on the next page illustrates that street classification helps to define factors such as level of access, Level of Service, typical right of way needs and minimum street design elements and features.

3. ROCOG Functional Designation of roadways is not the same as the Federal Functional Classification of roads which controls which roadways are eligible for federal funding and is often referred to during the TIP development process. The federal map classifies roads based on current or near term function of a road; it’s future horizon is 4-5 years out. The ROCOG Functional Designation Map has a horizon of 20-25+ years and is focused on ultimate corridor function.

2.4

Packet Pg. 57




4. Based on discussions with TTAC, two goals were identified relative to updating the Street Classification system:

a. Simplify the classification system if possible to only include only one reference map, and b. Simplify the planning guidance associated with roadway classifications to be less prescriptive and provide more

flexibility for meeting policy goals. Doing so would recognize that in most instances some level of corridor engineering evaluation is needed / completed before major design elements are ultimately defined.

The next section of the memo will highlight the proposed (draft) street classification mapping which is being developed to achieve these goals.

FIGURE 1: Street Development Policy related to Street Classification

Functional Designation Map

Access Management

Level of Service Guidelines

Planning Areas / Corridor

Preservation

Street Design Map

Typical Right of Way

RequirementsTypical Cross

SectionStreet Design

Features

2.4

Packet Pg. 58




Proposed Street Classification System and Policy Guidance

The proposed roadway classification system for the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan is proposed to consist of one map with two primary pieces of information:

1) Roadway corridors will be classified according to a simplified functional designation system based on the previous system but slimmed down to include less than half as many categories.

The existing map differentiates between regional and urban highways and included three subclasses for each functional type of roadway (Existing / Upgrade / Future).

The proposed system eliminates the urban / regional distinction (more on that in #2 below) and uses only two subclasses (Maintain / Improve). Roads assigned a subclass of “Maintain” are anticipated not to change significantly over the 20 year horizon of the plan and the principal work associated with these roads will be preservation; roads assigned to a subclass of “Enhance” are expected to see future changes which may include major safety or operational improvements, capacity improvements or significant multi-modal improvements, any of which are significant enough to require some level of construction activity (as opposed to pavement maintenance related activities).

Figure 2: Modified Functional Designation System

2.4

Packet Pg. 59




2) In lieu of the existing Street Design Map it is proposed to add an underlying Land Use Context designation to the Functional Designation Map to define the character of the area which a roadway traverses. In combination with the Functional Designation, the land use context will serve to establish the broad design parameters for a given roadway by which policy guidelines for factors such as access management, right of way needs, cross – section elements and modal accommodations will be established.

Figure 3 highlights the legend of the current Street Design map which will be replaced by the Land Use Context, which when combined with the Functional Designation will provide a framework for defined restructured policy guidance on roadway development. Figure 4 on the next page is an example of how policy guidance will be structured; functional classification across the top combines with land use context down the left side to establish a matrix of various roadway/land use contexts for which policy can be established. Much of the information conveyed by the current street design (such as “Exp-4SU” which stands for Expressway – 4 lane - curb & gutter – undivided) will be translated into the new policy framework that describe expectations, for example, for a Major Arterial in a Suburban Land Use Area.

Figures 5 and 6 found on page 7 & 8 illustrate the draft urban and regional Highway System Maps.

Figure 3: Street Design / Land Use Context Comparison

2.4

Packet Pg. 60




Figure 4: Illustrative Example of how Roadway Development Policy will be Structured

2.4

Packet Pg. 61




Figure 5 Draft Functional Designation Map for Urban Area

Note that most of corridors identified as (I)mprovement Corridors correspond to Short and Long Term ROCOG-ATP Project List

2.4

Packet Pg. 62




Figure 6 Draft Functional Designation Map for Regional Area

2.4

Packet Pg. 63




APPENDIX A: CURRENT FUNCTIONAL DESIGNATION AND STREET DESIGN MAPS

2.4

Packet Pg. 64




Appendix A (Continued) Current Urban Area Street Design Classification Map

2.4

Packet Pg. 65


first look at long range highway system plan for chapter

Documents