Corridor Investment Management Strategy Rochester Meeting Summary 5/22/2012

Transcription

1 Corridor Investment Management Strategy Rochester Meeting Summary 5/22/2012 The Minnesota Department of Transportation s Corridor Investment Management Strategy (CIMS) is a corridor-based initiative that brings MnDOT together with its local, modal and state partners to identify opportunities for collaborative and innovative investment. It offers a means to share information and identify opportunities to apply MnDOT s suite of lower cost, high benefit investment strategies that address safety, access and mobility. The following summary conveys key themes and specific comments recorded by MnDOT staff during facilitated discussions at the CIMS outreach meeting on May 22, 2012 in Rochester, as well as written comments submitted by participants via completed participant guides and follow-up s. As part of an ongoing, collaborative initiative between MnDOT and its partners, CIMS meeting summaries are intended to document what MnDOT has heard to this point in the CIMS process and offer potential starting points for further discussions around regional/local priorities and opportunities for lower-cost, high-benefit investments. Meeting Overview The CIMS meeting began with a short introduction from MnDOT District Engineer Nelrae Succio, followed by a presentation from MnDOT staff members Brad Utecht and Mark Schoenfelder that described the CIMS initiative, the condition of the trunk highway system, MnDOT s fiscal outlook, and the approaches that MnDOT is taking to advance objectives in the areas of preservation, safety, mobility and regional/local priorities (Click here to review the full presentation). The presentation was followed by a discussion of MnDOT s recent investments, programmed investments, and anticipated investment needs on four corridors: I-90 (from Albert Lea to Wisconsin) US 14 (from Mankato to Rochester) US 52 (from Rochester to the Twin Cities) US 63 (from Rochester to Iowa) Each corridor was discussed at workstation where MnDOT staff walked participants through a series of maps that displayed information relating to MnDOT s investment program. All map series are available for download on the CIMS website. After reviewing the maps, meeting participants were asked to describe their regional/community priorities and the needs, issues, and opportunities they see on the corridor. Examples of the questions posed include: What are your regional/community goals relating to economic vitality and quality of life?

2 What community/economic development strategies is your city or county pursuing, and how could corridor improvements or system management strategies help advance them? Among the investments MnDOT needs to make in the years beyond the STIP to keep the system in a safe and sound condition, which are your highest priorities? Are there local system improvements or development plans that could be coordinated with MnDOT investments? As MnDOT develops improvements to keep the system in a safe and sound condition, what additional needs/issues/opportunities should MnDOT consider in project scope and design? What are the most critical issues on the corridor that may require investment beyond MnDOT s planned improvements? Stakeholder Input US 14 The discussion on US 14 focused on expanding the two lane section east of Owatonna. Due to local economic activity and projected future growth in the area, participants felt that the four lane expansion was justified and deserving of funds. Participants stated that the region is expected grow. Mayo is planning to expand greatly and population in the area is projected to increase. Highway 14 serves as the main East-West road in the area as I-90 is too far south to be useful. Because of this, it was thought that US 14 will likely see additional traffic in the future. Participants stated that expanding this section of US 14 should be the highest priority for the district. Much of the discussion focused on how best to move forward with the expansion project given current and projected financial constraints. Participants questioned how, given MnDOT s large annual budget, the department is unable to fund the Highway 14 expansion. Also, participants were concerned that the project would not be included in the 20- year Highway Investment Plan. Participants felt that even if unfunded, the project should be included in the plan. Spot issues or critical priorities cited by participants City of Owatonna: complete the 4-lane to Dodge Center. This will make the road safer. Do it even if it must be staged. Locals will help secure related federal funding. Mayo Clinic concurs with priority for the Owatonna to Dodge Center 4-lane conversion. There is a tension, given limited resources, between the efforts to complete grade separations on US 52 and the desire to make improvements for US 14. But these two efforts (and perhaps the Dresbach bridge) should be the only high priority focus for the district. Coordination opportunities cited by participants Byron will be implementing an interchange at 10 th Avenue and frontage road investments next year Other Comments Owatonna wants to see completion of the 4-lane to Dodge Center. This is a key route for southern MN. Owatonna is a significant regional trade center. This improvement is needed for quality of life, safety, and CIMS Meeting Summary Rochester 5/22/12 2

3 the economy of the region and the state. How could this not be a highest priority for funding? Even when funding is limited, don t forget the big projects that have already been started. This needs to be finished. This area is an economic engine for the state and the area is growing needs will only increase. The corridor has been identified as critical for years and the planning investment has already been made. Don t throw this away to experiment with something different. The most recent long-range plan for the Rochester area concluded that MnDOT would have no more than 30 percent of the resources needed for their facilities. Owatonna has experienced companies who consider the area but conclude that the roadway system is a barrier. On the other hand, Coke did locate there due to accessibility of I-35 and the Mayo Clinic. The city also has a business incubator approach for growing existing local businesses. Mayo Clinic is the region s Tier 1 emergency facility, and all service can t be by helicopter. Reliable access along the corridor is needed. Mayo expects to add 10,000 over the next 10 years. This will increase demand on the transportation system both the highway and transit. If the cost for completing the Owatonna to Dodge Center segment will be similar to the new alignment project now underway, it would seem that out of a transportation bi-annual budget in the order of $1.3 billion that this project should be possible to complete over the next ten years. While the legislature does not earmark projects, it could start an inquiry about how decisions are made and how this situation compares with other parts of the state. Could the remaining conversion to 4-lane be accelerated if it was pursued as at-grade rather than gradeseparated? This might be one way to phase the project, however others voiced concern about difficulties this would create with transition between design types and further delay for full conversion. There have been some missed opportunities where bridges have been improved without bike/pedestrian accommodations. It s lower cost to do this up front rather than pay to retrofit or build separate facilities. This should be coordinated at the planning stage. Are the performance targets too ambitious? Could they be changed and either not impair conditions or with only minor impact? While this may be reasonable to evaluate, it s important that overall lifecycle costs be taken into account so that we don t just push higher costs forward to future years, increasing generational debt. If part of the funding constraint is a result of increased vehicle efficiency and use of electric vehicles, propane, and other alternate fuels, there should be a push for requiring fair share payments. ROCOG s recommendation as highest priority is to find a way to increase revenues I-90 A smaller group participated in a discussion around MnDOT s programmed investments and anticipated investment needs on I-90. The majority of the discussion on I-90 focused on potential bike improvements in the area near La Crescent. These potential bike improvements were advocated for in order to grow tourism in the area. In particular discussion centered on bike accommodations for the Dresbach bridge. Participants also proposed many potential CIMS Meeting Summary Rochester 5/22/12 3

4 collaboration opportunities between state agencies particularly between DNR and MnDOT. The following comments from both discussion groups were recorded: Spot issues or critical priorities cited by participants Bike-ped consideration in all projects to promote tourism, particularly: o Dresbach Bridge o Root River Trail connection in La Crescent o US 61 Mississippi River Trail Improvements o Wagon Wheel Trail to connect Minnesota to Wisconsin o Various bridges needing replacement along I-90 Private railroad crossings between Dresbach and Winona Partnering with other agencies for asset preservation Coordination opportunities cited by participants Coordinate I-90, US 61, US 14 improvements with Bill Waller at City of La Crescent A Twilight Redevelopment project in the city of La Crescent may provide opportunity to partner on a safety priority intersection. The safety priority intersection is located on the east end of the twilight redevelopment. (US 61/US 14/Shore Acres Rd/Strupp Ave). Blazing Star Trail Looking for opportunities to create the route between Albert Lea and Austin DNR has opportunities to coordinate with MnDOT on road projects to get right of way, designate bike lanes on shoulders, bridges, etc. (particularly on bridges over I-90, I-35, and other trunk highways). Partnering could occur both on visioning and project funding. DNR could coordinate its state trail planning process with MnDOT and local agency planning processes to assist each other with their expertise. DNR would like to build a trail between US 218 and the RR right of way near Austin, DOT partnering opportunities here In Albert Lea at Pickerel Lake Wayside Rest Area (TH 69), DNR would like a turn lane. DNR could possibly partner with MnDOT and leverage public water access dollars as MnDOT scopes current mill & overlay. Other comments As MnDOT does projects near state parks, trails, water access, they could partner with the DNR for bikeped improvements and potentially leverage DNR dollars If MnDOT repaves US 61 north of US 14, take into consideration the Mississippi River Trail to make shoulders better for bikes Coordinate large projects like Dresbach Bridge with Bike-Ped improvements As MnDOT builds Dresbach Bridge, make it ready for a suspended bike trail o Future projects of high magnitude like Dresbach should also have this type of multimodal planning foresight DNR: Corridor acquisition for the Albert Lea-Austin connection CIMS Meeting Summary Rochester 5/22/12 4

5 US 52 The discussion on US 52 focused on safety issues on the corridor and its future conversion to a freeway. The safety discussion was wide ranging. Participants noted that land use changes and development can cause safety issues faster than can be addressed and improvements on the corridor can push safety issues elsewhere. Skewed intersections and restricted sight distances were also raised as safety issues on the corridor. The ultimate goal for the participants was conversion of the corridor to a freeway but it was acknowledged that this will not happen in the near term. Participants emphasized planning for future improvements to make US 52 a freeway even if money is not available. Then, when money is available, the projects are ready to go. Participants also urged MnDOT to fix pavements now in order to get ahead of the curve on pavement preservation. It was also suggested that MnDOT base its pavement investments on life cycle costing. Spot issues or critical priorities cited by participants Freeway to St. Paul (Know it s a long way off) 65 th Street o Needs to be done tomorrow for economic development benefit o MnDOT priority to get more freeway done Safety issues Stoplights in Cannon Falls, CSAH 9, at grade intersections, 65 th St Scoping and design for bikes and pedestrians ( complete streets ) o o o In Rochester, bridges across US 52, interchanges, and other places Signals and signs, paths and sidewalks Increased emphasis, use by non-motorized modes Coordination opportunities cited by participants 65 th Street Any chance for state money for an interchange? Intergovernmental agreements such as park and rides/transit o Encourage transit/park and ride partnerships o Shared parking o Leverage and use businesses US 63 A small group met to discuss the US 63 corridor south of Rochester. The discussion focused on the economic role the corridor plays in the region particularly the role of the Rochester International Airport. Participants felt that the corridor needs to support/foster continued growth in the region and at the airport. The biggest issue for participants CIMS Meeting Summary Rochester 5/22/12 5

6 was access to the airport. The County Road 16 interchange was viewed as insufficient given planned airport improvements. Participants also favor eliminating the at-grade intersection at MN 30. Ultimately, participants advocated for controlled access on the corridor to support increased traffic and a new FedEx facility. Spot issues or critical priorities cited by participants County Road 16 Interchange MN 30 Intersection removal Controlled access of US 63 Coordination opportunities cited by participants Arterial improvements on County Road 16 New FedEx facility Other Comments Provide opportunity for multi-modal solutions from airport, light rail, commuter rail, BRT Iowa is working on four lane to border, is coordination happening? Next Steps MnDOT will soon be developing a new 20-year Minnesota State Highway Investment Plan (MnSHIP) for the purpose of guiding future capital improvements on the trunk highway system. CIMS meeting summaries are one of many inputs to MnSHIP (click here to learn more about the process for developing MnSHIP and the various ways in which you can participate). Broadly speaking, the role of CIMS in the development of MnSHIP is twofold: 1. Promote the consideration of regional and community priorities and state/local collaboration opportunities in MnDOT s performance-based planning process. Through MnSHIP, MnDOT districts will develop a universe of highway improvements necessary to meet and maintain system performance targets over the next 10 years. Information obtained through CIMS outreach will help MnDOT districts identify and prioritize performance-based investments with the potential to address local concerns and advance objectives relating to quality of life, economic competitiveness, and environmental health. 2. Provide a transparent, systematic, and collaborative approach to identifying and prioritizing regional/community improvement priorities not tied to system performance targets. Such an approach will help MnDOT and its external partners consider tradeoffs and balance spending levels across regional/community improvement priorities (RCIPs) and other key investment categories in the MnSHIP investment framework (traveler safety, asset management, and critical connections.) MnDOT will also soon be developing a competitive solicitation as part of the CIMS initiative. MnDOT anticipates releasing proposed criteria and details on the application process in fall 2012 with a first round of applications due in early An additional next step is the development of 10-year Corridor Outlooks for all of the corridors that were covered in this initial round of CIMS meetings. As presently conceived, corridor outlooks will function as snapshots of CIMS Meeting Summary Rochester 5/22/12 6

7 programmed and planned investments, anticipated investment needs, and ongoing planning efforts on corridors over a 10-year period. These outlooks are intended to be short, easy to digest, and regularly updated. Under the current schedule, outlooks for corridors covered in the initial round of CIMS meetings will be rolled out with the adopted version of MnSHIP in spring The outlooks will display what the new investment plan means at the corridor level. The outlooks will also be an opportunity for MnDOT to highlight CIMS-identified needs that are being addressed via a planned project, management strategy, a planning study, or an ongoing discussion between MnDOT and its partners. Meeting Attendees MnDOT Peter Dahlberg Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicles Bob Hutton District 6 Kristin Kammueller District 6 Tim Mitchell Office of Transit Greg Pates District 6 Greg Paulsen District 6 Tracy Schnell District 6 Mark Schoenfelder District 6 Lynne Bly Office of Statewide Multimodal Planning Nelrae Succio District 6 Brad Utecht Office of Capital Programs and Performance Measures Non-MnDOT Les Abraham Abraham Algadi Tim Arvidson Mike Benson Angie Bersaw Bob Busch Kris Busse Tom Faella Tim Geisler Doug Haeder Greg Isaakson Muhammad Khan Guy Kohlnofer City of Owatonna City of Pine Island Stonebrooke Engineering MN House of Representatives Bolton-Menk Engineering Widseth, Smith, Nolting City of Owatonna La Crosse Area Planning Committee Mayo Clinic Stonebrooke Engineering Goodhue County Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments Dodge County CIMS Meeting Summary Rochester 5/22/12 7

8 Steve Leqve Dave Pesch Greg Rud Dave Senjem Michael Sheehan Joel Wagar Phil Wheeler Michael Wojcik Rochester International Airport Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments City of Byron Minnesota Senate Olmsted County Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments Rochester City Council Click here to provide corrections, clarifications, or additional comments to the meeting summary. CIMS Meeting Summary Rochester 5/22/12 8