Prepared for - WordPress.com€¦ · Minnesota, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization do not...

Washington st. Corridor study

Prepared for Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization

Prepared byKadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc.

Final Report


Grand Forks Washington St. Corridor Study

Prepared By:

With Assistance From:

On Behalf of the:

January 2012

The preparation of this document was funded in part by the United States Department of Transportation with funding administered through the North Dakota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration. Additional funding was provided through local contributions from the governments of Grand Forks, East

Grand Forks, Grand Forks County and Polk County. The United States Government and the State of North Dakota assume no liability for the contents or use thereof.

The document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government, the States of North Dakota and Minnesota, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear

herein only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

The contents of the document reflect views of the authors, who are responsible for facts and accuracy of data presented herein.Contents do not necessarily reflect policies of the States and Federal Department of Transportation

Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.4050 Garden View Drive, Suite 200

Grand Forks, ND 58201 Phone: 701 746 8087

Fax: 701 746 0370Website: ae2s.com

Braun Intertec Corporation526 10th Street NE, Suite 300

West Fargo, ND 58078 Phone: 701 232 8701

Fax: 701 232 7817Website: brauncorp.com

Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

Grand Forks, ND225 N 4th Street

Grand Forks, ND 58206Phone: 701 746 2660

East Grand Forks, MN600 DeMers Avenue

East Grand Forks, MN 56721Phone: 218 773 0124

Website: theforksmpo.org

Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson128 Soo Line Drive

Bismarck, ND 58501Phone: 701 355 8400

Fax: 701 355 8781Website: kljeng.com


Acknowledgements

Washington Street Corridor Study Steering Committee

Stephanie Hickman, Federal Highway Administration North Dakota Division

Ardin Striefel, North Dakota Department of Transportation Local Government

Les Noehre, North Dakota Department of Transportation Grand Forks District

Craig Amiot, 5-Star Collision

Terry Bjerke, Grand Forks City Council

Gary Malm, Grand Forks County

Lynn Leibfried, Burlington Northern Santa Fe

Staff to Steering Committee

Earl Haugen, Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization

Jane Williams, City of Grand Forks Engineering Department

Dale Bergman, Grand Forks Cities Area Transit

Pete O’Neill, City of Grand Forks Fire Department

Mark Aubol, City of Grand Forks Street Department

Barry Wilfahrt, Grand Forks - East Grand Forks Chamber of Commerce

Brad Gengler, Grand Forks Planning Department

Grand Forks East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee

Earl Haugen (Chair), Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization

Stacey Hanson, North Dakota Department of Transportation Transit Division

Michael Johnson, North Dakota Department of Transportation

Bobbi Retzlaff, Minnesota Department of Transportation Regional Development Commission

Brad Bail, East Grand Forks City Engineering

Greg Boppre, East Grand Forks City Engineering

Les Noehre, North Dakota Department of Transportation Grand Forks District

Dustin Lang, North Dakota Department of Transportation Grand Forks District

Joe McKinnon, Minnesota Department of Transportation (Bemidji)

Kent Ehrenstrom, Minnesota Department of Transportation (Bemidji)

Richard Onstad, Grand Forks County Engineering

Rich Sanders, Polk County Engineering

Lane Magnuson, Grand Forks County Planning

Jane Williams, City of Grand Forks Engineering Department

Brad Gengler, Grand Forks City Planning

Nancy Ellis, East Grand Forks City Planning

Dale Bergman, Grand Forks Cities Area Transit


Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................. 1Planning Process .................................................................. 19Existing and Forecasted Conditions ....................................... 22Previous Studies ................................................................... 52Environmental Considerations .............................................. 56Public Input .......................................................................... 60Recommended Alternatives ................................................... 62Implementation .................................................................. 110Appendix A – Cost Estimates

FIGURE 1.1 – Washington Street Corridor Study Planning Process ................................................... 2FIGURE 1.2 – Proposed DeMers Avenue Intersection Improvements ................................................. 3FIGURE 1.3 – Proposed BNSF Railway Underpass Improvements (Sloped Sections Alternative) ............................................................................................................ 3FIGURE 1.4 – Proposed BNSF Railway Underpass Improvements (Sloped Sections/Retaining Wall Combination Alternative) .......................................... 4FIGURE 1.5 A – Corridor Improvement Plan .................................................................................. 5FIGURE 1.5 B – Corridor Improvement Plan .................................................................................. 6FIGURE 1.5 C – Corridor Improvement Plan.................................................................................. 7FIGURE 1.5 D – Corridor Improvement Plan .................................................................................. 8FIGURE 1.5 E – Corridor Improvement Plan .................................................................................. 9FIGURE 1.5 F – Corridor Improvement Plan ................................................................................ 10FIGURE 1.6 – Looking North at Newly Completed Underpass, August 1937 .................................. 16FIGURE 1.7 – Congested Traffic Operations at DeMers Avenue Intersection ................................... 16FIGURE 1.8 – Dense Business Access Point Spacing in Congested Corridor .................................... 17FIGURE 1.9 – Competing Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic Demand at the Intersection of Washington Street and DeMers Avenue .............................................................. 18FIGURE 2.1 – Planning Process for the Washington Street Corridor Study ....................................... 20FIGURE 3.1– Existing Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 24FIGURE 3.2 – Forecasted 2035 Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................... 25FIGURE 3.3 – Existing BNSF Railway Underpass on Washington Street ........................................... 26FIGURE 3.4 – Water Leakage at Retaining Wall Expansion Joint .................................................... 27FIGURE 3.5 – South Pier Column Showing Original Construction and 1964 Addition ..................... 28FIGURE 3.6 – Proposed Construction Segments ........................................................................... 29FIGURE 3.7 – Lift Station #183 Adjacent to Washington Street Underpass ..................................... 31FIGURE 3.8 – 5th Avenue North Signalized Intersection ................................................................ 32FIGURE 3.9 – At-Grade View of North Washington Street and 8th Avenue North Intersection .......... 32FIGURE 3.10 – Radio Interconnect at the Intersection of South Washington .................................... 33

Figures


FIGURE 3.11 – Example of Access Density Along the Washington Street CorridorHigh Hazard Crash Locations ........................................................................................................... 35FIGURE 3.12 – Porkchop Island At DeMers Avenue Intersection .................................................... 36FIGURE 3.13 – Westbound Approach of the Intersection of South Washington Street with 10th Avenue South ........................................................................................... 37FIGURE 3.14 – At-Grade View of Midblock Marked Crosswalk at 9th Avenue North ....................... 38FIGURE 3.15 – Example of Head-On Conflict Point Between Offset Intersections ............................ 39FIGURE 3.16 – Example of Poor Sidewalk Conditions Along the Corridor ...................................... 39FIGURE 3.17 – Sidewalk Obstacles ............................................................................................ 40FIGURE 3.18 – Example of Driveway Apron in the Pedestrian Walkway .......................................... 40FIGURE 3.19 – Pedestrian Crossing Washington Street at 8th Avenue South ................................... 41FIGURE 3.20 – Bike Route North of 8th Avenue North ................................................................. 42FIGURE 3.21 – Current Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Under Railroad Bridge .................................... 42FIGURE 3.22 – Bus Turn-Out North of 17th Avenue South............................................................ 43FIGURE 3.33 –Traffic Congestion Caused by Corridor Access Points .............................................. 44FIGURE 3.34 – Existing AM Peak-Hour Capacity Analysis.............................................................. 46FIGURE 3.35 – Existing Peak-Hour Capacity Analysis.................................................................... 48FIGURE 3.36 – Forecasted Peak-Hour Capacity Analysis............................................................... 50FIGURE 4.1 – Eastbound Approach of 17th Avenue South at Washington Street ............................. 54FIGURE 7.1 – Illustration of Negative, No and Positive Offset Left-Turn Lanes .................................. 64FIGURE 7.2 A – Access Management Plan .................................................................................. 65FIGURE 7.2 B – Access Management Plan .................................................................................. 66FIGURE 7.2 C – Access Management Plan .................................................................................. 67FIGURE 7.3 – Example of Conflict Elimination Through Median Control ........................................ 70FIGURE 7.4 – Corridor-Wide Traffic Signal and Video Monitoring Interconnection .......................... 71FIGURE 7.5 – 17th Avenue South Southbound Full-Width Turn-Lane Extensions .............................. 72FIGURE 7.6 – 15th Avenue South Intersection Eastbound and Westbound Lane Reconfiguration .................................................................................................... 73FIGURE 7.7 – 14th Avenue South Realignment ............................................................................ 74FIGURE 7.8 – 10th Avenue South Realignment ............................................................................ 74FIGURE 7.9 – 8th Avenue South Realignment .............................................................................. 75FIGURE 7.10 – Marked Southbound 7th Avenue South Left-Turn Lane ............................................ 76FIGURE 7.11 – Restricted Access to 7th Avenue South (Discarded) ................................................ 77FIGURE 7.12 – Proposed Continuous Flow Intersection Configuration ........................................... 80FIGURE 7.13 – 4th and 5th Avenue South Access Reconfiguration ................................................ 81FIGURE 7.14 – Proposed BNSF Railway Underpass Improvements (Sloped Section Alternative) ........................................................................................................ 84FIGURE 7.15 – Proposed BNSF Railway Underpass Improvements (Sloped Sections Retaining Wall Combination Alternative) .............................................................. 84FIGURE 7.16 – Bridge Replacement Options ............................................................................... 85FIGURE 7.17 – Bridge Alternatives - Cross Sections...................................................................... 86FIGURE 7.18 – Signal Removal At 2nd Avenue North Intersection ................................................. 88FIGURE 7.19 – Northbound and Southbound Protected/Permitted Left-Turn Movement with Flashing Yellow Arrow ..................................................... 89FIGURE 7.20 – Northbound and Southbound Protected Left-Turn Phase at the University Avenue Intersection (Discarded) ...................................................................................... 90FIGURE 7.21 – Traffic Signal Implementation at 8th Avenue North Intersection ............................... 91FIGURE 7.22 – Corridor Improvement Plan Cross Sections ........................................................... 93FIGURE 7.23 – 9th Avenue South Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon ......................................................... 95FIGURE 7.24 – 9th Avenue South Pedestrian Beacon (Discarded) .................................................. 96FIGURE 7.25 – North Approach of 14th Street North at the Intersection of 1st Avenue North ........... 97FIGURE 7.26 – Dyke Avenue Approach to Washington Street ........................................................ 98FIGURE 7.27 – Pedestrian Beacon at the Intersection of University Avenue and 15th Street North ..... 99FIGURE 7.28 – Bicycle Improvement Plan.................................................................................. 100


FIGURE 7.29 – Transit Improvement Plan .................................................................................. 102FIGURE 7.30 – Bus Shelters and Benches (Discarded) ................................................................ 103FIGURE 7.31 A – Corridor Improvement Plan ............................................................................ 104FIGURE 7.31 B – Corridor Improvement Plan ............................................................................ 105FIGURE 7.31 C – Corridor Improvement Plan............................................................................ 106FIGURE 7.31 D – Corridor Improvement Plan ............................................................................ 107FIGURE 7.31 E – Corridor Improvement Plan ............................................................................ 108FIGURE 7.31 F – Corridor Improvement Plan ............................................................................ 109FIGURE 8.1 – Corridor Improvement Plan Proposed Construction Segments................................. 112FIGURE 8.2 – Corridor Needs Matrix ........................................................................................ 113

TABLE 1.1 – Full Reconstruction Project Priority ............................................................................. 11TABLE 1.2 – Standalone Project Priority ........................................................................................ 12TABLE 1.3 – Implementation Plan with Regional Considerations..................................................... 13TABLE 3.1 – Intersection Crash Data ........................................................................................... 34TABLE 3.2 – Link Crash Data ...................................................................................................... 34TABLE 3.3 – Corridor Access Point Inventory ................................................................................ 36TABLE 4.1 – Previous Washington Street and DeMers Avenue Study Results ..................................... 53TABLE 4.2 – Summary of Currently Recommended Improvements .................................................. 55TABLE 5.1 – Environmental Impact Categories ............................................................................. 57TABLE 7.1 A – Access Management Plan ..................................................................................... 68TABLE 7.1 B – Access Management Plan ..................................................................................... 69TABLE 7.2 – DeMers Intersection Analysis .................................................................................... 78TABLE 8.1 – Corridor Needs Assessment ................................................................................... 111TABLE 8.2 – Full Reconstruction Project Priority ........................................................................... 115TABLE 8.3 – Standalone Project Priority ...................................................................................... 116TABLE 8.4 – Implementation Plan with Regional Considerations................................................... 118

Tables


Executive Summary 1

Executive Summary


Executive Summary 2

Executive SummaryThe Washington Street Corridor Study identifies strategies for improving all transportation modes through the year 2035. Strategies were developed in collaboration with government agencies, property owners and the public. The study was driven by competing issues such as improving deteriorating infrastructure, congestion, crashes and inadequate multimodal facilities while limiting impacts to businesses.

The five-step planning process for the study included identification of corridor needs and deficiencies, solution development, solution evaluation, recommendation formulation and implementation strategy development. The recommendations identify alternatives that most effectively meet the study goal. Recommendations are subject to change based upon new or varied information uncovered during project development. Additionally, as denoted in FIGURE 1.1, public and steering committee input was obtained during each step of the planning process.

FIGURE 1.1 – Washington Street Corridor Study Planning Process

The proposed Washington Street Corridor Study vision included the following improvement strategies (refer to FIGURES 1.5 A - 1.5 F for graphic representation of the strategies):

Vehicle Improvements

• Replace the deteriorating BNSF Railway Bridge with a new longer structure that meets the corridor needs for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

• Install a continuous flow intersection (CFI) at the DeMers Avenue intersection. A CFI with additional eastbound and westbound through lanes is anticipated to reduce delays by more than 8.5 times compared to the existing configuration under forecasted traffic volumes.

• Reconstruct Washington Street in multiple phases with the five-lane concrete section with revised dimensions.

• Consolidate, relocate and remove access points along the corridor to reduce crashes and conflicts. • Install new traffic signal interconnection hardwire throughout the corridor to provide improved signal

coordination and traffic flow. • Periodically update signal timing as future developments affect traffic patterns. • Revise intersection traffic control and turn-lane geometry throughout the corridor to reduce congestion and

conflicts.• Realign negatively offset intersections of 8th Avenue South, 10th Avenue South and 14th Avenue South

to eliminate head-on crash conflict points in the two-way left-turn lane between the two offset approaches and reduce overall motorist delay at the intersection.

• Remove the traffic signal at the intersection of 2nd Avenue North pending public, political and institutional buy-in.

• Install a new traffic control signal with railroad preemption at the 8th Avenue North intersection to minimize potential for westbound vehicles to be queued across the railroad crossing.

Public and Steering Committee Input

Identify Corridor Deficiencies

Develop Corridor

Improvement Alternatives

Evaluate and Refine

Improvement Alternatives

Formulate Recommendations

Develop Implementation

Strategy


Executive Summary 3

FIGURE 1.2 – Proposed DeMers Avenue Intersection Improvements

Pedestrian Improvements

• Expand sidewalks to provide a buffer from Washington Street traffic. These improvements can be made generally within the existing right-of-way (ROW).

• Relocate utilities currently located within the footprint of the sidewalk, where feasible, to improve pedestrian mobility and accessibility. Utility relocation would require acquisition of individual ROW easements.

• Install a pedestrian hybrid beacon south of 9th Avenue South to improve the pedestrian crossing of Washington Street. In this scenario, the eastbound approach of 9th Avenue South would be closed as part of the proposed 10th Avenue South realignment.

Bicycle Improvements• Develop an alternate bicycle route on 14th Street to avoid high traffic volumes, 35 mph speeds and

potential driveway conflicts present on Washington Street. The alternative bicycle route would consist of shared lanes between motorists and bicyclists on the low volume and 25 mph speeds of 14th Street. The bicycle route would cross under the railroad tracks on Washington Street.

FIGURE 1.3 – Proposed BNSF Railway Underpass Improvements (Sloped Sections Alternative)


Executive Summary 4

FIGURE 1.4 – Proposed BNSF Railway Underpass Improvements (Sloped Sections/Retaining Wall Combination Alternative)

Transit Improvements• Install bus turn-outs and restrict bus pick-ups and drop-offs to turn-out locations only.

Implementation StrategyTwo implementation plans were developed as part of the Washington Street Corridor Study. The first was a prioritization based plan that looked at the corridor in isolation and ranked projects based strictly on need with no consideration to overall regional needs or funding (refer to TABLES 1.1 and 1.2). The second plan was developed in conjunction with NDDOT and City staff based upon regional needs and available funding (refer to TABLE 1.3). Anticipated completion terms and term costs were developed for programming purposes.

5Executive Summary

Washington st. Corridor studyWashington st. Corridor study

FIGURE 1.5 A – Corridor Improvement Plan

Washington St. Corridor StudyGrand Forks - East Grand Forks MPON S

EW

Corridor Improvement PlanLEGEND

ExistingRight-Of-Way

Existing RoadwayWidth

Removed Access

Remaining Access

Consolidated Access

Existing Side Path

Proposed SharedLanes

Proposed Side Path

Proposed ROWAcquisition

6Executive Summary


FIGURE 1.5 B – Corridor Improvement Plan


EW




Removed Access

Remaining Access

Consolidated Access

Existing Side Path


Proposed Side Path


7Executive Summary


FIGURE 1.5 C – Corridor Improvement Plan


EW




Removed Access

Remaining Access

Consolidated Access

Existing Side Path


Proposed Side Path


8Executive Summary


FIGURE 1.5 D – Corridor Improvement Plan

9Executive Summary


FIGURE 1.5 E – Corridor Improvement Plan


EW




Removed Access

Remaining Access

Consolidated Access

Existing Side Path


Proposed Side Path


10Executive Summary


FIGURE 1.5 F – Corridor Improvement Plan


EW




Removed Access

Remaining Access

Consolidated Access

Existing Side Path


Proposed Side Path



Executive Summary 11

TABLE 1.1 – Full Reconstruction Project Priority

Full Reconstruction Project Priority 2011 Cost

1st Avenue North to 5th Avenue South Full Reconstruct¹•BurlingtonNorthernSanteFeRailwaybridgereconstruction•Right-Of-Wayacquisition•Stormsewerliftstation#183upgradeandreplacement

•Fullpavementreconstruction•Signageandpavementmarkings•Utilitiesadjustments

•Reconstructpedestrianandbicyclefacilities• Lightingrehabilitation

$11,891,000

Federal$9,512,800State$1,189,100Local$1,189,100

5th Avenue South to 7th Avenue South Full Reconstruct•ContinuousflowintersectionatWashingtonStreetandDeMersAvenueIntersection• Installationofnewtrafficsignalandlightingsystems•Overheadsignage,atgradesignageandpavementmarkings•Right-Of-Wayacquisition•FireStationreconfiguration•4thAvenueSouth/5thAvenueSouthDeMersAccessReconfiguration

•Fullpavementreconstruction•Accessmanagementanddrivewaymodifications•Signageandpavementmarkings•Utilitiesadjustmentsandimprovements

•Reconstructpedestrianfacilities•Relocateutilitiesoutsidesidewalkfootprint

$11,716,269

Federal$9,373,015State$1,171,627Local$1,171,627

7th Avenue South to Hammerling Avenue Full Reconstruct•Fullpavementreconstruction•Accessmanagementanddrivewaymodifications•Signageandpavementmarkings•Utilitiesadjustments•8th,10thand14thAvenueSouthrealignments

•Pedestrianbeaconsouthof9thAvenueSouth•Reconstructpedestrianfacilities•Relocateutilitiesoutsidesidewalkfootprint

•Busturn-outs•Trafficsignalandlightingrehabilitation

$6,456,000

Federal$5,164,800State$645,600Local$645,600

8th Avenue North to 1st Avenue North Full Reconstruct•Fullpavementreconstruction•Accessmanagementanddrivewaymodifications•Signageandpavementmarkings•Utilitiesadjustments

•Reconstructpedestrianfacilities•Relocateutilitiesoutsidesidewalkfootprint

•Trafficsignalandlightingrehabilitation

$5,008,000

Federal$4,006,400State$500,800Local$500,800

Hammerling Avenue to 17th Avenue Full Reconstruct•Allprojectswithinthissegmentofthecorridorshallbeaddressedasstandaloneprojects

Outside Study Horizon

¹Costconservativelyrepresentsthehighestcostbridgealternative.Thisalternativeincludesfullbridgereplacementwithslopedsides.

Year

2016

2035



TABLE 1.2 – Standalone Project Priority

Standalone Project Priority 2011 Cost

2nd Avenue North Intersection Signal Replacement with Two-Way Stop Control

$72,000

Federal $57,600State $7,200Local $7,200

8th Avenue North Traffic Signal Installation

$312,000


University Avenue Northbound and Southbound Left-Turn Improvements¹

$19,000


Alternate Bicycle Route Adjacent to Corridor²

$173,000


Traffic Signal Fiber Optic Interconnect

$685,000


15th Avenue South Right Turn-Lane Installation

$85,000


17th Avenue South Turn-Lane Modifications

$97,000


¹Cost is based upon the assumption that the existing mast arms are able to withstand new wind loading resulting from replacing the existing 3-section signal heads with 4-section traffic signal heads. ²Cost assumes that roadway widening is not required to implement an alternate bicycle route adjacent to the corridor. Additionally the cost assumes that the pedestrian hybrid beacon at the intersection of North 15th Sreet and University is relocated to the North 14th Street and University. This improvement is pending Winship Elementary School acceptance.

Year

20

16

20

35



TABLE 1.3 – Implementation Plan with Regional Considerations

Implementation Plan with Regional Considerations

Planning Term

Programming Cost

(1st Year of Term)

Programming Cost

(Mid-Term Year)

Programming Cost (Last Year of Term)

32nd Avenue South to Hammerling Avenue

Preventive Maintenance¹

Mid-Term2016-2022

$2,281,224

Federal $1,824,979State $228,122Local $228,122

$2,566,067


$2,886,476


1st Avenue North to 5th Avenue South Full Reconstruct (Include

Underpass Improvements)²

Mid-Term2016-2022

$14,466,859

Federal $11,573,487State $1,446,686Local $1,446,686

$16,273,248


$18,305,191


Alternate Bicycle Route Adjacent to Corridor³

Mid-Term2016-2022

$210,286


$236,543


$266,079


8th Avenue North to 1st Avenue North Full Reconstruct

Long-Term2023-2035

$8,017,637


$10,144,869


$12,836,495


7th Avenue South to Hammerling Avenue Full

Reconstruct

Long-Term2023-2035

$10,336,000


$13,078,337


$16,548,269


Alternate Bicycle Route Adjacent to Corridor²

Long-Term2023-2035

$276,722


$350,142


$443,041


Traffic Signal Fiber Optic Interconnect

Long-Term2023-2035

$1,097,052


$1,388,121


$1,756,416


5th Avenue South to 7th Avenue South Full Reconstruct

(Include DeMers Avenue Intersection Improvements)

Long-Term2023-2035

$18,758,124


$23,735,011


$30,032,361


2nd Avenue North Intersection Signal Replacement with

Two-Way Stop Control, 8th Avenue North Traffic Signal

Installation, University Avenue Northbound and Southbound Left-Turn Improvements, 15th Avenue South Right Turn-Lane

Installation & 17th Avenue South Turn-Lane Modifications

Part of Another Priority




¹The majority of this project is beyond the project limits and scope of this study. This cost represents an NDDOT estimate and is not included in the Appendix.²Cost conservatively represents the highest cost bridge alternative. This alternative includes full bridge replacement with sloped sections.³Cost assumes that roadway widening is not required to implement an alternate bicycle route adjacent to the corridor. Additionally the cost assumes that the pedestrian beacon at the intersection of North 15th Sreet and University is relocated to the North 14th Street and University. This improvement is pending Winship Elementary School acceptance.

Year

2016

2035



Introduction



IntroductionGoalThe overall goal of the study is to create a safe, efficient and synchronized transportation environment for all road users. However, the goal needs to be balanced with the competing goal of limiting business impacts. To achieve the goal, the Washington Street Corridor Study focused on developing and documenting relevant and accurate information that lead to decisions made within the corridor. This included comprehensively addressing future transportation needs, considering multimodal transportation requirements, prioritizing transportation projects and promoting active public participation in the planning process.

Purpose Although transportation planning can occur at various application scales, the corridor level is one of the most important. Corridor planning allows planners to focus on specific transportation problems that affect mobility and accessibility, thus identifying problem-specific solutions. The Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (GF-EGF MPO) uses corridor plans as a way to identify projects for their overall transportation plan. Additionally, the plan will assist the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) and City of Grand Forks identify infrastructure, safety, multimodal, capacity and operations improvements at the city, regional or statewide level. A corridor study conducted at the right time and with clear objectives can provide important information to transportation investment decision-making process and regional transportation plan update. Decisions resulting from a corridor plan may lead directly to a project definition and design process and require a degree of detail that may be absent from a broader planning process. The plan is a collaborative effort with the GF-EGF MPO alongside the NDDOT and the City of Grand Forks to determine the Washington Street study corridor’s transportation needs and develop strategies to address the needs through the study horizon of 2035.

NeedWashington Street (US Business 81) is functionally classified as a principal arterial serving as one of the few connecting streets between north and south Grand Forks. This Washington Street Corridor Study extends from 17th Avenue South to 8th Avenue North. The title Washington Street Corridor will imply these specific study limits when used in context of the report. In addition to being a primary regional road for the City of Grand Forks, the corridor also serves as one of the primary commercial corridors within the metropolitan area generating a significant number of trip ends. The situation creates conflicts between high volumes of through traffic and traffic accessing adjacent properties.

The Washington Street Corridor Study was driven by current corridor concerns identified by GF-EGF MPO, NDDOT and the City of Grand Forks. Concerns included condition of the BNSF underpass structure north of DeMers Avenue, aging pavement along the corridor, congestion at the DeMers Avenue intersection, access management throughout the corridor and multimodal user needs. This corridor planning effort identified solutions to the aforementioned problems within the corridor as well as all other transportation related needs uncovered during the study.

The BNSF Railway Bridge north of the DeMers Avenue intersection was originally constructed in 1937 (refer to FIGURE 1.6). The original bridge was built to facilitate two lanes of traffic. The bridge was lengthened in 1964 to accommodate two additional lanes of traffic on Washington Street. In addition to the four lanes of traffic currently in place today, five-foot pedestrian/one-way bicycle paths are maintained on both the east and west sides of Washington Street. The bridge’s superstructure currently accommodates three railroad tracks with room for an additional track. The structure has noticeable deterioration on the superstructure, substructure and retaining walls. Additionally, vertical clearance constraints underneath the BNSF Railway Bridge have eliminated asphalt overlays as improvement options, leaving the pavement reconstruction as the only option.



FIGURE 1.6 – Looking North at Newly Completed Underpass, August 1937

The corridor study includes DeMers Avenue intersection (refer to Figure 1.7). According to the GF-EGF MPO, Washington Street and DeMers Avenue intersection has the highest level of traffic and travel delay in the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks metropolitan area. The intersection has been identified for improvements since the Grand Forks-East Grand Forks 1969 Urban Area Study. For decades the Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTP) repeatedly recommended an urban interchange coupled with a new river crossing reliever route as a solution. However, a new river crossing has not been constructed and interchange construction has been cancelled due to unacceptable right-of-way (ROW) and business impacts, and increased traffic volumes have resulted in compounded traffic congestion.

FIGURE 1.7 – Congested Traffic Operations at DeMers Avenue Intersection



The Washington Street Corridor is home to dozens of businesses and serves as one of the main commercial corridors within the city (refer to FIGURE 1.8). Developed before access management codes were in effect, the corridor has driveway densities well above City and NDDOT restrictions. Access management codes allow development of a corridor, while maintaining traffic operations and safe and convenient access to businesses. The high density access points introduce conflicts and friction into the traffic stream. This scenario is particularly problematic between DeMers Avenue and Hammerling Avenue. The uncontrolled environment experiences crash rates well above state and county averages.

FIGURE 1.8 – Dense Business Access Point Spacing in Congested Corridor



Finally, the corridor provides travel opportunities for many types of travelers and serves a variety of purposes (refer to FIGURE 1.9). Current corridor design is primarily auto-centric and offers many challenges for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit. A large portion of the corridor’s sidewalks are in poor condition. Furthermore, sidewalk obstacles and sharp driveway side-slopes make pedestrian travel for the physically impaired exceedingly difficult. Currently, the majority of the corridor does not have any bicycle specific routes. The high speeds and volumes along Washington Street compounded by the high density of access points makes bicycling along the corridor potentially unattractive to even the most skilled bicyclists. Finally, throughout the majority of the corridor, transit is forced to stop within the traffic stream to pick-up or drop-off bus patrons. The scenario has negative effects on traffic operations and may interfere with motorist expectance. Making alternate travel choices more convenient, attractive and safe means people do not need to rely solely on automobiles. Alternate travel methods can replace congested vehicle trips with bus rides or environment friendly, economical and healthy pedestrian or bicycle trips.

FIGURE 1.9 – Competing Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic Demand at the Intersection of

Washington Street and DeMers Avenue

Prepared for - WordPress.com€¦ · Minnesota, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization do not...

Documents

Transcript of Prepared for - WordPress.com€¦ · Minnesota, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization do not...