Hi-Lake Interchange Study - Star Interchange+Study_Final.pdfHi-Lake Interchange Study Hi-Lake...

download Hi-Lake Interchange Study - Star Interchange+Study_Final.pdfHi-Lake Interchange Study Hi-Lake Interchange Study 1 February 2016 | FINAL 1.0 OVERVIEW OF STUDY 1.1. Need The Hiawatha-Lake

of 53

  • date post

    26-May-2018
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    215
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Hi-Lake Interchange Study - Star Interchange+Study_Final.pdfHi-Lake Interchange Study Hi-Lake...

  • Hi-Lake Interchange Study

    February 2016

  • Hi-Lake Interchange Study

    Hi-Lake Interchange Study i February 2016 | FINAL

    Project Management Team

    Simon Blenski, City of Minneapolis

    Allan Klugman, City of Minneapolis

    Bob Byers, Hennepin County

    Kelley Yemen, Hennepin County

    Tony Drollinger, Metro Transit

    Scott Janowiak, Metro Transit

    Carol Hejl, Metro Transit

    Bruce Otiso, Metro Transit

    Gina Mitteco, MnDOT

    Ron Rauchle, MnDOT

    JoNette Kunhau, Kimley-Horn

    John Horn, Kimley-Horn,

    Chadd Larson, Kimley-Horn

    William Reynolds, Kimley-Horn

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOz9az2P_JAhXFTSYKHaU2BAIQjRwIBw&url=http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo_for_city_of_minneapolis_done_in-house.php&psig=AFQjCNHjTwpURxqU1p2tfPgQNjp34AMquQ&ust=1451431113447296

  • Hi-Lake Interchange Study

    ii Hi-Lake Interchange Study

    February 2016 | FINAL

  • Hi-Lake Interchange Study

    Hi-Lake Interchange Study iii February 2016 | FINAL

    Contents

    1.0 OVERVIEW OF STUDY ................................................................................................................................. 1

    1.1. NEED ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

    1.2. PURPOSE........................................................................................................................................................... 1

    1.3. PREVIOUS STUDIES .............................................................................................................................................. 2

    1.4. STUDY PROCESS ................................................................................................................................................. 2

    2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 3

    2.1. OPERATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

    2.2. GEOMETRY ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

    2.3. DEMAND ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

    2.4. KEY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 10

    3.0 EVALUATION MEASURES .......................................................................................................................... 15

    3.1. DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................................. 15

    3.2. BASE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 15

    4.0 TIER I IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 18

    4.1. OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................................... 18

    4.2. IMPROVEMENT TYPES ........................................................................................................................................ 18

    4.3. COSTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 24

    4.4. EXPECTED OUTCOMES ....................................................................................................................................... 25

    5.0 TIER II IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 26

    5.1. OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................................... 26

    5.2. IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS .................................................................................................................................... 27

    5.3. COSTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 31

    5.4. EXPECTED OUTCOMES ....................................................................................................................................... 32

    6.0 TIER III IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 33

    6.1. OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................................... 33

    6.2. MODIFIED SPUI ............................................................................................................................................... 34

    6.3. TIGHT DIAMOND .............................................................................................................................................. 36

    6.4. HALF-DIAMOND WITH PROMENADE ..................................................................................................................... 39

    6.5. TWO-WAY RAMPS ............................................................................................................................................ 41

    6.6. DIAMOND WITH TWO-WAY RAMPS ..................................................................................................................... 44

    6.7. SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................... 46

    7.0 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................. 47

    7.1. APPENDIX A: EXISTING, TIER II, AND TIER III CONCEPT LAYOUTS ................................................................................ 47

    7.2. APPENDIX B: TIER III EVALUATION MATRIX ........................................................................................................... 47

    7.3. APPENDIX C: DETAILED EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 47

    7.4. APPENDIX D: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 47

    7.5. APPENDIX E: TIER II AND III COST ESTIMATES ......................................................................................................... 47

    7.6. APPENDIX F: TRAFFIC COUNTS BY MODE ............................................................................................................... 47

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOz9az2P_JAhXFTSYKHaU2BAIQjRwIBw&url=http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo_for_city_of_minneapolis_done_in-house.php&psig=AFQjCNHjTwpURxqU1p2tfPgQNjp34AMquQ&ust=1451431113447296

  • Hi-Lake Interchange Study

    iv Hi-Lake Interchange Study

    February 2016 | FINAL

  • Hi-Lake Interchange Study

    Hi-Lake Interchange Study 1 February 2016 | FINAL

    1.0 OVERVIEW OF STUDY

    1.1. Need The Hiawatha-Lake (Hi-Lake) interchange serves approximately 34,000 vehicles, 2,500 pedestrians and

    bikes, 350 Metro Transit buses, and 5 freight trains per day. An additional 220 light rail trains and 37,000

    vehicles per day travel overhead on Hiawatha Avenue (Trunk Highway 55). Serving all of these modes

    and improving the pedestrian and bicycling environment through the area has been a growing priority,

    particularly given the significant investments in transit and transit-oriented development over the last

    decade.

    In response to recent constituent concerns, a group of policy makers from the City of Minneapolis,

    Hennepin County, and MnDOT visited the interchange and met with neighborhood residents to discuss

    the pedestrian and bicycle environment. The group agreed that while the pedestrian environment clearly

    needs improvement, there is no simple or obvious solution to do so. The intersection is busy, large, and

    currently auto-oriented, despite good transit connectivity and high pedestrian volumes. All modes need to

    be considered as various improvements are evaluated.

    1.2. Purpose The purpose of this study is to develop potential solutions to improve the pedestrian and bicycle

    environment of the Hi-Lake interchange while maintaining vehicle operations on Lake Street and

    Hiawatha Avenue. Although the study is being led by the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County,

    Metro Transit and the Minnesota Department of Transportation also played crucial roles providing insight

    on the potential improvement alternatives. At the time of this s