final report for rosemount / empire / umore area ......final report for rosemount / empire / umore...

Final Report for

Rosemount / Empire / Umore AreaTransportation System Study

In Collaboration with

Dakota County, Rosemount, Empire Township, University of Minnesota&

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

June 2010

Prepared by:

ROROROROROROROOROOOROROOROOORORORORORROSESESESESESESESESESESESEESEEEEEEEEEEEESEEEMOMOMOMOMOMOMOMOMOOMOMMOMMMOMOMOMOMOMOMOMOMOMOMMOMMOMOMMOMOMMMMOMOMOMMMMMMOMOOMOMOOMM UNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUUUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNNUNUUU TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

TBG113009192205MKE

UmUmUmUmUmUmUmmUUmUUmUUmUmmorororrrororooo e eeeee ee PaPPaPaPaPaaPaaaPaaaaaPaPaPaPaaaarkrkrkrkrkrkrkkrkkkrkrkrkrkrkrkrrkkrkrkrkrkrkrrkrkrkkrkrkrkrkrkrkUmUmUU orroreeeee aPaaPaPPaPaPPaPaParrrkrrkrkrkrkrrrrkr

PrPrPrPrPrPrPPrPPrroopopopopopopopppppopopppppopppppppposososoososososososososososooosssssedededededededededededdedededededeeedeedeeedededeRRRReReReReReReReReRRReReeeeeR gigigigigigigigigigigigiigigigigiiiiiiiigggg ononononononnonnoononoononnonnonoonono alalalalalalaaalalalaaaaala

PaPaPaPaPaPaPPaPaPaP rkrkrkrkrkrkkkrkrkkkkkrrkrkrkkrkkrr

EMEMEMEMEMEMEMEEEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMMEMEMEMEMEMMMPPPPPPIPIPIPIPPPIPIPIPIPIPPPIPPIP REREREREREREREREREREREREREEREREEEEREEERREEEREEEEETWTWTWTWTWTTWTWTWTWTWTWWWWTWTWWTWWWWTWWTWWWTWWWWWWWWWWT PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

VeVeVeVeVeVVeVeVeVeVeVVeVeVeVeVeVeVeVVeVVeV rmrmrmrmrmrmrmrmmrmrmrmrmrmrmrmrmrmmmililililillililililllillillililllllllllllililililillllllililllllililililililililililililililililililililililliiilliililioooooooonoonononononononooonononooonnoonoooonnoononononnonnoonnonnoon H H HHHHHHH HHH H HHH HH HHHHHH HHHHHH HHHHHHHHH Higigigigigigiggigigigigigigiggigigigigigigigggggggigggiggigggggggghlhlhlhlhlhlhlhhlhlhlhlhlhlhlhlhlhlhllhlhhlhlhlhlhlhhlhlhlhlhhhlanananananaanananananannanananananannnananananannanananannananananannanannnananananaaana dsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdsdddddsdssdsddsdddsdd

ROSEMOUNT/EMPIRE/UMORE AREA TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STUDY REPORT

Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................I 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Study Area.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Study Background................................................................................................................. 1

1.2.1 Purpose of Study and Anticipated Study Outcomes ............................................. 1 1.2.2 Relation to Other Studies & Development Planned within Study Area.............. 3 1.2.3 Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes and Regional Transportation System Needs .................................................................. 3

1.3 Supporting Roadway Network ........................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Roadway Functional Classification Guidelines ...................................................... 5 1.3.2 Existing Roadway Network Functional Classification .......................................... 5 1.3.3 Recommended General Transportation System (Not Specific Corridor Alignments) ................................................................................... 7

2.0 Study Phases, Schedule, and Stakeholder Involvement .......................................................... 9

2.1 Study Phases and Schedule.................................................................................................. 9 2.2 Study Team and Public Involvement ................................................................................. 9

2.2.1 Project Management Team (PMT) ............................................................................ 9 2.2.2 Public Involvement..................................................................................................... 9

3.0 Corridor Option Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................ 12 4.0 Development of Transportation Corridor Options ................................................................ 12

4.1 Initial Universe of East-West Corridor Options.............................................................. 13 4.2 Initial Universe of North-South Corridor Options ......................................................... 15

5.0 Alignment Option Evaluation and Refinement ...................................................................... 17 5.1 Step 1: “Fatal Flaw” Alignment Option Evaluation ....................................................... 17 5.2 Step 2: Corridor Level Evaluation and Continued Alignment Refinement................ 18 5.3 Step 3: System Level Evaluation........................................................................................ 27

6.0 Final Corridor Alignment Recommendations and Roadway Characteristics .................... 27 7.0 Activities to Implement Recommended Alignments ............................................................. 34

7.1 Activities and Timing to Implement Recommendations............................................... 34 7.2 Right-of-Way Acquisition .................................................................................................. 34 7.3 Context-Sensitive Solution Considerations ..................................................................... 34

8.0 Other Transportation Considerations....................................................................................... 35 8.1 Supporting Local Road System, Intersection Spacing, and Other Possible Roadway Projects............................................................................................ 35 8.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ....................................................................................... 37 8.3 Future Transit Service......................................................................................................... 37

TABLE OF CONTENTS – PAGE 1 OF 2

ROSEMOUNT/EMPIRE/UMORE AREA TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STUDY REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS – PAGE 2 OF 2

TablesTable 1—Spacing Guidelines for Functionally Classified Roads.................................................. 5 Table 2—Recommended Transportation System Summary ......................................................... 7 Table 3—Open House Dates and Key Objectives ........................................................................... 9 Table 4—Evaluation Categories and Criteria ................................................................................ 12 Table 5—Fatal Flaw Analysis—Findings and Corridors Eliminated from Further Consideration ...................................................................... 17 Table 6—Corridor Level Evaluation—Findings ........................................................................... 23 Table 7—Final Corridor Evaluation—Findings ............................................................................ 31

FiguresSummary of Recommended Regional Arterial Corridors ........................................................... III Figure 1, Study Area Location ........................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2, Study Area Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................................................... 4 Figure 3, Functionally Classified Roadway System ....................................................................... 6 Figure 4, Recommended Transportation System............................................................................ 8 Figure 5, Study Schedule .................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 6, PMT Member Roles and Responsibilities...................................................................... 11 Figure 7, Universe of Alternatives, East/West Corridor Options .............................................. 14 Figure 8, Universe of Alternatives, North/South Corridor Options ......................................... 16 Figure 9, East-West Corridor Options Remaining after First Level Evaluation ....................... 19 Figure 10, North-South Corridor Options Remaining after First Level Evaluation ................ 20 Figure 11, Remaining & Refined Regional, Arterial Corridor Options, Engineered to Defined Design Criteria ............................................................................. 21 Figure 12, Known Plant and Animal Resources ........................................................................... 25 Figure 13, Hydric Soils...................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 14, East-West Regional Arterial Corridor Options Final Evaluation Results ............... 28 Figure 15, North-South Arterial Corridor Options Final Evaluation Results........................... 29 Figure 16, Recommended Regional Arterial Corridors ............................................................... 30 Figure 17, Representative 2-land and 4-lane Cross-Sections....................................................... 33 Figure 18, Context Sensitive Opportunities for Future Consideration ...................................... 36

AttachmentsAttachment A: Purpose/Need for a Study and Expected Study Outcomes Attachment B: Public Open House Summaries and Select Comments Attachment C: Evaluation Criteria Back-up Information

Executive Summary

Dakota County, the City of Rosemount, Empire Township, the University of Minnesota, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) have spent several months planning for the future transportation needs for a study area that includes UMore Park, Vermillion Highlands, and a new regional park. The end result is a recommended transportation system that will meet the needs of the travelling public into the future and allow for phased implementation, in response to future development.

Prior to implementation, this study will serve as a planning tool for communities and agencies with interests in the area. The recommendations will assist Dakota County, the City of Rosemount, Empire Township, the University of Minnesota, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Mn/DNR) with prioritizing future improvements, coordinating roadway system needs with development and land use needs, and with right-of-way preservation.

The recommendations of this study include:

The regional arterial road network as shown on the Recommended Regional Arterial Corridors map will serve as a planning tool for this area as it develops. This recommended system will be used by study partners and surrounding communities as land use and transportation plans are implemented.

The roadway system recommended in this study will form a “back bone” arterial network. This network was developed using the best information available for a long-term corridor planning study. The recommended corridors may be refined in response to changing circumstances and new information. Any refined corridors would undergo the same level of evaluation as was completed for the recommended corridors.

Each of the agencies involved should update comprehensive and/or transportation plans to properly reflect the study recommendations and subsequent planning activities. This includes the Concept Plan for UMore Park.

Implementation of the recommended regional arterial corridors in the study area will be coordinated with development as it occurs. Any activities/changes made within Vermillion Highlands should also take the recommended regional arterial corridors into account. Through these processes, the following Transportation System Summary recommendations should be considered:

ROSEMOUNT/EMPIRE/UMORE AREA TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STUDY REPORT JUNE 2010

I

Recommended Transportation System Summary

Corridor Existing # of Regional Lanes

Recommended # of Regional Lanes

Required # of New Lanes

East/West Corridors 6- to 8-Lanes

CSAH 42 4-lanes 4- to 6-lanes 0- to 2-lanes

CSAH 46 2-lanes 4- to 6-lanes 2- to 4-lanes

CSAH 66/200th St. 2-lanes 2-lanes None

Hwy. 50 2-lanes 2-lanes None

North/South Corridors 4- to 6-Lanes

Hwy. 3 2-lanes 2-lanes None

Biscayne Ave. & CR 73/Akron Ave.

N/A (not a regional road)

2- to 4-lanes 0- to 2-lanes

Blaine Ave. & CR 81/Clayton Ave.


2-lanes, possible 4-lanes where needed

0- to 2-lanes

In future months and years, this study’s team should continue to address transportation network needs for this area; including a local road network, future greenway and bicycle/pedestrian connections, and transit connections. As a complete transportation network for this area continues to be developed, the study team will continue to use a stakeholder based approach to develop a complete transportation system; this includes working with additional partners as appropriate.


II

Farmington

CastleRock Township

Empire Township

Hampton

Township

Coates

Rosemount

Vermi llion

River

UMore Park

WastewaterTreatment

Fac.

WMA

VermillionHighlands

AMA

42C

hil

i A

ve

Alb

atross C

ir

Co

lora

do

Ave

An

ne

tte

Av

e

Berr

ing

Ave

170th St E

202nd St W

Ca

mb

od

ia A

ve

197th St W

Ah

ern

Blv

d

199th St

Sta

tion Tr

170th St W

An

ne

tte

Av

e

205th St W

203rd St W

Bis

ca

yn

e A

ve

190th St W

Highland Cir

Ch

ev

ell

e A

ve

200th St W

194th St W

209th St W

201st St W

50

3

3

52

3

150th St W

200th St W

210th St E

160th St E

Cla

yto

n A

ve

Akro

n A

ve

Elm St

Bla

ine

Av

e E

210th St W

160th St W

145th St E

200th St E

170th St W

Vermilli

on River Tr

213th St W

145th St W

81

62

79

7342

71

46

66

74

52

Rosemount/UMore/Empire Area Transportation System Study

0 10.5 Miles

Regional Park

Study Area

Summary of Recommended Regional Arterial Corridors

CSAH 46 - Use existing

alignment; expand to

4- to 6-lanes.

CSAH 42 - Use existing

alignment; consider

expanding to 6-lanes

Blaine & CR 81/Clayton Ave -

Provide connection from

Blaine Ave. to Clayton Ave.

For north-south and east-west corridors, connections to roads outside of the study area will be determined in later studies.

Biscayne Ave./Akron Ave. -

Connect Biscayne to Akron

Ave. via a 2- to 4-lane road.

Option A

Option B

Hwy. 3 - Use

existing road.175th St. Extension -

Provide connection

from Hwy. 3 to

new Biscayne Ave./

Akron. Ave. alignment.

CSAH 66/200th St. - Provide two

new connections from Hwy. 3 via

190th St. and Biscayne Ave.; and

a re-aligned Vermillion River Trail.

Recommended, Regional Corridors

Previously Planned County Corridor

Study Boundary

Build one of two possible connections between CR 81/Clayton Ave. to CSAH 71/Blaine Ave.

Option A is the preferred option. Adjacent to Vermillion Highlands, the location of the corridor will be based on the location of the powerline that currently runs between the WMA's eastern border WMA and private property.

Option B would occur if Mn/DNR expands Vermillion Highland boun-daries by purchasing land from willing owners and receives necessary County and Township approvals. (Note: Mn/DNR's practice is to acquire land from willing land owners; the agency has not typically used condemnation).

Hwy. 50 - Use

existing road.

Blaine & CR 81/Clayton Ave -

Use existing alignment between

CSAH 42 and CSAH 42.

2-lanes are planned; 4-lanes

will be considered based on

future traffic needs.


1

1.0 Introduction This report documents the process completed by the Rosemount/Empire/UMore Area Transportation System Study (the study) Project Management Team (PMT) to plan for the future transportation needs of the study area, which includes the future UMore Park and Vermillion Highlands. The end result is a recommended transportation system that will meet the needs of the travelling public into the future and allow for phased implementation, in response to future development.

Prior to implementation, this study will serve as a planning tool for communities and agencies with interests in the area. The recommendations contained in this report will assist Dakota County, the City of Rosemount, Empire Township, the University of Minnesota, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Mn/DNR) with prioritizing future improvements, coordinating roadway system needs with development and land use needs, and also facilitate right-of-way preservation.

1.1 Study Area Figure 1 shows the study area and its regional orientation. Located within southern Dakota County, this area is now on the edge of suburban development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Parts of Rosemount and Empire Township are within the study area. The Metropolitan Council forecasts that the population of these two communities will reach a combined 45,000 by 2030, up from 16,500 in 2000. Much of this growth will come from the 5,000-acre UMore Park development, planned to be completed in 25 to30 years.

The growing communities of Farmington, Lakeville, and Apple Valley are north and west of the study area; the communities of Hastings, Northfield, and Cottage Grove, which have recently experienced substantial population growth, are located to the south and east. Given these circumstances and future land use plans at UMore Park, this area is located within an expanded Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, despite the current predominance of rural agricultural land uses and undisturbed natural areas.

1.2 Study Background 1.2.1 Purpose of Study and Anticipated Study Outcomes Prior to starting this study, the PMT developed a Purpose/Need for a Study. In summary, this document notes that it is timely for the PMT and the general public to:

…develop a plan that addresses transportation issues in this area of Dakota County in a coordinated and balanced manner with area land use development plans. Such a plan will allow these agencies to develop a transportation system together over time that will result in safe and efficient travel in the area as cost-effectively as possible, while at the same time developing land use plans in the area that will accomplish the objectives of the City of Rosemount, Empire Township, the University of Minnesota, the Department of Natural Resources, and Dakota County.

The Purpose/Need for a Study and the Expected Study Outcomes documents, which were developed by the PMT, are included in Attachment A.

AMA

AMA

Rosemount

InverGrove

Heights

Bloomington

Lakeville

Burnsville

AppleValley

EurekaTwp.

Farmington

CastleRockTwp.

EmpireTwp.

Nininger

CottageGrove

HamptonTwp.

VermillionTwp.

St.Paul Park

Eagan

UMore Park

VermillionHighlands

Lewiston Blvd

Aher

n Bl

vd180th St E

150th St E

Denm

ark A

ve

245th St W

170th St E

Fisc

her A

ve

Hoga

n Ave

222nd St E225th St W

Bisc

ayne

Ave

250th St E

Ipav

a Ave

250th St E

270th St E265th St W

215th St E

Inga

Ave

170th St E

Bisc

ayne

Ave

190th St W

230th St W

Cliff Rd

150th St W

160th St E

125th St W

Ceda

r Ave

Pilo

t Kno

b Rd

200th St E

McAndrews Rd

150th St W

160th St W 160th St W

Coun

ty Hw

y 11

Cliff Rd

Keat

s Ave

S

240th St E

Diamond

Path

280th St W

212th St W

Northfi

eld Blvd

Blain

e Ave

210th St W

Dodd

B lvd

280th St W

Dodd Blvd

245th St E

145th St E

280th St E

Donn

elly

Ave

Good

win

Ave

190th St E

255th St WHo

gan

Ave

Galax

ie Av

e 260th St E

135th St E

280th St E

170th St W

Clay

ton

Ave

32

42

35E

6647

56

30

23

85

31

31

28

42

46

86

38

31 66

46

9

42

38

86

11

47

9

85

42

86

32

63

80

23

71

9

80

43

73

46

2350

32

62

71

46

30

70

83

87

17

31

7889

79

73

33

81

51

53

53N

83

81

27

81

28

75

84

64

79

19

62

80S

82

38

78

56

613

13

50

50

77

77

55

55

52

3

55

13

35E

52

3

52

35E

3

149

52

3

55

52

61

State Highway

County State Aid Highway (CSAH)

County Road

0 2.5 51.25 Miles

Study Area

Rosemount/UMore/Empire AreaTransportation System Study

Figure 1Study Area Location

ROSEMOUNT/EMPIRE/UMORE AREA TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STUDY REPORTJUNE 2010

3

1.2.2 Relation to Other Studies & Development Planned within Study Area The study area is currently the subject of a great deal of land use and preservation planning. The intensity of development proposed for this land ranges from large tracts of open spaces within Vermillion Highlands and Dakota County’s Regional Park to relatively dense planned urban development within UMore Park and existing and future development in City of Rosemount and Empire Township. As such, this study was developed with consideration of the transportation and land use elements of the following documents (listed chronologically):

Dakota County 2025 Transportation Plan (July 2004)

Creating Common Ground, A report to the Minnesota Legislature (January 2007)

Dakota County Parks, Lakes, Trails and Greenways Vision, 2030 (2007)

Draft Rosemount Transportation Plan (April 2008)

Draft of Concept Master Plan for Vermillion Highlands (June 2008)

City of Rosemount Draft 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (August 2008)

Empire Township 2030 Future Land Use Map and data (March 2009) and Sewer Staging (June 2008)

Concept Master Plan for the University of Minnesota’s New Sustainable Community at UMore Park (January 2009)

It is noteworthy that the Dakota County 2025 Transportation Plan (see Figure T-6 Dakota County Highway Capacity Deficiencies, 2025) currently includes a direct connection between CR 79 and CSAH 71 via Blaine Avenue. This connection was planned before the creation of Vermillion Highlands. This study was undertaken in part to re-consider this alignment as it would bisect the newly created Vermillion Highlands.

1.2.3 Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes and Regional Transportation System Needs Figure 2 shows existing and future (year 2025 or 2030, depending on the data sources noted on the figure) daily traffic volumes for roadways in the study area. Much of the growth in traffic is anticipated to come from planned development within UMore Park and the City of Rosemount.

Traffic forecasts show that future demand for north-south roads will be 50,500 vehicles per day, which will require six- to eight-lanes on regional roads.1 An additional four to six north-south lanes are needed within the study area to meet future traffic demand.2 Currently, this area includes one regional, north-south roadway—Highway 3—which has two to three lanes depending on location. Based on anticipated traffic, an additional four to six north-south regional highway lanes are needed to meet future demand.

1 The number of lanes needed to accommodate future traffic volumes in both the north-south and east-west directions are based on the assumption that regional, arterial roadways would accommodate an average of 7,000-8,000 vehicles per lane per day. These volumes are consistent with the average, daily capacities for arterials assumed in the UMore Park Development Study. Design capacities are determined based on the relationship between level of service and average daily traffic volumes. Assumptions for this analysis include a maximum flow rate of 800 vehicles/hour/lane and LOS D for arterials. 2 A range of the number of north-south and east-west lanes on regional roadways are based on planning level traffic forecasts (versus design level forecasts). This range allows for flexibility in responding to traffic needs as land use planning for this area evolves and is implemented.

Regional Park

UMore Park

WastewaterTreatment

Fac. WMA

Vermillion Highlands

AMA

Farmington

Castle RockTownship

Empire

Township

Hampton

Township

VermillionTownship

Coates

Rosemount42

66

50

46

46

71

74

79

72

62

73

81

81

42

52

Ah

ern

Blv

d

Station Tr

190th St W

197th St W

Calg

ary

Tr

Bis

cayn

e A

ve

Be

au

mo

nt

Ave

255th St W

170th St E

Bis

cayn

e A

ve

Be

rrin

g A

ve

230th St E230th St W

An

nett

e A

ve

50

52

3

3

52

Elm St

160th St E

Ash St

210th St W

Vermill

ion

River Tr

Cla

yt o

n A

ve

Dars

on

Av

e

Akro

n A

ve

170th St W

150th St W

190th St E

160th St W

Bla

ine

Av

e E

213th St W

200th St E

County Hwy 46

145th St W

200th St W

210th St E

145th St E

Bla

ine

Ave

E

Rosemount/Empire/UMore Area

Transportation System Study

08-24-09

Study Area Daily Traffic Volumes

Study Boundary

0 3,000 6,0001,500 Feet

Legend

Future CSAH 42 Access

3/4 Access

Interchange

Traffic Signal

Unsignalized

10,90028,00029,100

9,00014,200

26,000

15,30028,00044,400

13,20031,00041,300

30

010

,00

016

,00

0

1,5

00

6,0

00

10

,60

0

75

01,0

00

7,7

00

18,00015,00040,600

4,3007,0008,900

5901,000

13,600

5,90012,0009,100

0 NA

10

,50

0

55

01,0

00

3,5

00

2,4006,4009,000

2,4005,000

NA

3,3006,8009,000

15

040

08,9

00

38

080

0N

A

48

580

0N

A

35

51,0

00

NA

66

01,0

00

NA

80900NA

44

01,0

00

NA

10,4

00

NA

23,9

00

10

,40

0N

A27

,60

0

14

,00

026

,50

012

,80

0

9,6

00

19

,00

014

,70

0

Figure 2

State Highway

County State Aid Highway (CSAH)

County Road

AMA

1,234

1,234

1,234

Existing Daily Traffic Volumes

Forecasted Daily Traffic Volumes

(MnDOT 2007 Volume Maps)

(North of 46 - Rosemount 2030 Tran Plan South of 46 - Dakota Co 2025 Tran Plan)

Forecasted Daily Traffic Volumes(UMORE Park Development Study)


5

Traffic forecasts show that in the future, east-west roadways will be used by over 100,000 vehicles per day, which would require 12-14 lanes on regional roadways. The study area now includes three regional roadways: CSAH 42 (4-lanes), CSAH 46 (2-lanes), and Highway 50 (2 lanes); for a total of eight existing east-west, regional roadway lanes. An additional four to six east-west regional highway lanes are needed to meet future demand.

1.3 Supporting Roadway Network 1.3.1 Roadway Functional Classification Guidelines Developed areas are best served with a classified system of roads where a small fraction provides high mobility and the majority of the roads provide access to adjacent land. All roads can be categorized into one of these categories:

Principal Arterials—Primarily provide mobility and speed for the long, uninterrupted distances with controlled access.

Minor Arterials—Provide a combination of mobility and access with reasonable speed for some extended distance, with some access control.

Collectors—Collect traffic from local roads, and providing connection to land with little or no through movements; usually function at lower speeds and for shorter distances.

Local Streets—Provide access to land with little or no through movement; includes all roads not classified as arterials or collectors.

Table 1 provides the Metropolitan Council’s roadway spacing guidelines, which aid in the planning of future transportation systems within developed and developing areas.

TABLE 1 Spacing Guidelines for Functionally Classified Roads

Land Use Characteristics

Principal Arterials Minor Arterials Collectors Local Streets

Developed Areas 2 to 3 miles ¼ to ½ mile ⅛ to ½ mile As needed to access land uses Developing Areas 3 to 6 miles 1 to 2 miles ½ to 1 mile

Rural Areas 6 to 12 miles 4+ miles As needed to access land uses

Source: Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Development Guide, Appendix F and Federal Highway Administration, Highway Functional Classification

1.3.2 Existing Roadway Network Functional Classification Figure 3 shows the location, spacing, and functional classification of highways in the study area. The existing road system, with highways spaced at intervals of one-mile or more, provides adequate levels of mobility for existing rural land uses and relatively low levels of commuting. The study area includes three east-west arterials (CSAH 42, CSAH 46, and Highway 50) and one north-south arterial (Highway 3). The Metropolitan Council’s guidelines for a functionally classified road system indicate that the study area would include a total of five east-west and four north-south arterials. This means there is currently is a shortage of roadways to meet future demand in this developing area.

08/09/2009

Rosemount/UMore/Empire Area Transportation System Study Functionally Classified

Roadway System

Figure 3

over 5 miles between TH 3 and TH 52

over

6 m

iles

betw

een

TH 5

0 an

d C

SAH

42

Within the study area a roadway system based on the Metropolitan Council’s Spacing Guidelines for Functionally Classified Roads would include:

EAST/WEST2 Principal Arterials3 Minor Arterials

NORTH/SOUTH1 Principal Arterial3 Minor Arterials


7

The existing rural system is not robust enough to reasonably serve the trips that would be generated by the higher density urban development planned in UMore Park, Rosemount, and Farmington, or other nearby areas. The existing transportation system will need to be upgraded to accommodate development, population growth, and increased commuting levels between this area and employment centers within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The likely consequence of an under built transportation system will be substantial increases in traffic on the few available roads.

1.3.3 Recommended General Regional Transportation System (Not Specific Corridor Alignments)

As noted above, a regional road system based on the Metropolitan Council’s roadway spacing guidelines would include:

East/West Roadways: two principal arterials and three minor arterials North/South Roadways: one principal arterial and three minor arterials

Based on these basic traffic capacity needs, the PMT developed a recommended transportation system—package of corridors (not specific alignments). Figure 4 shows these corridors and the number of lanes that would meet anticipated future traffic needs. This recommended system would enhance the arterial network by providing corridors that connect to the regional network. Table 2 describes what would be included in the regional transportation system.

TABLE 2 Recommended Transportation System Summary

Corridor New Right-of-Way (ROW)Required?

Existing # ofRegional

Lanes

Recommended # of Regional Lanes

Required # of New Lanes

East/West Corridors 6- to 8-Lanes

CSAH 42 Possible—Existing CSAH 42 includes 150’ ROW; more ROW needed if lanes are added

4-lanes 4- to 6-lanes 0- to 2-lanes

CSAH 46 Yes—Existing CSAH 46 includes approx. 66’ ROW

2-lanes 4- to 6-lanes 2- to 4-lanes

CSAH 66/200th St.

Yes—Existing CSAH 66 includes approx. 66’ ROW

2-lanes 2-lanes None

Hwy. 50 No—Currently a Mn/DOT highway; no jurisdictional change anticipated


North/South Corridors 4- to 6-Lanes

Hwy. 3 No—Currently a Mn/DOT highway; no jurisdictional change anticipated


Biscayne & Akron Aves.

Yes— Existing CRs include 66’ ROW


2- to 4-lanes 0- to 2-lanes

Blaine Ave. and/or CR 81/Clayton Ave.

Yes— Existing CRs include 66’ ROW


2-lanes, consider 4-lanes where needed

0- to 2-lanes

22--LanesLanes

22 --La

nes

Lane

s

44--LaneLane = existing regional road and # of lanes

44--LaneLane = potential future regional road and # of lanes

Future traffic volumes indicate that the study area will need 6-8 north-south lanes and 12 to 14 east12 to 14 east--west west laneslanes to operate at an acceptable level (LOS D/E). This graphic shows the system that has been recommended to achieve lane these capacity goals.

44--LanesLanes

10/30/2009

Rosemount/UMore/Empire Area Transportation System Study Recommended Transportation System

Study Area Boundary

4 N

ew L

anes

4 N

ew L

anes

2 N

ew L

anes

2 N

ew L

anes

22--LanesLanes

2 New Lanes2 New Lanes22--LanesLanes

Note: Lines representing lanes do not infer any particular alignment.Figure 4

Additional 2 New Lanes on Either CSAH 42 or CSAH 46, TBDAdditional 2 New Lanes on Either CSAH 42 or CSAH 46, TBD


9

2.0Study Phases, Schedule, and Stakeholder Involvement 2.1 Study Phases and Schedule The study began in January 2009 and ended in December 2009; it was divided into phases, which are shown on the study schedule (Figure 5) along with the timing of decision points, key meetings, and open houses.

2.2 Study Team and Public Involvement 2.2.1 Project Management Team (PMT) Figure 6 shows the communities and agencies that served on the PMT and the group’s responsibilities. This group developed the recommended transportation system. Throughout the course of this study, the full PMT met ten times, as shown on the project schedule.

2.2.2 Public Involvement Three public open houses were held during which the latest study developments were shared and input was obtained from the public. All open houses were held during the late afternoon and early evening at the Rosemount Community Center. Table 3 provides the dates and key objectives of each open house:

TABLE 3 Open House Dates and Key Objectives

Open House Date Key Objectives

1. April 1, 2009 Develop universe of transportation corridor options and identify issues to assist with developing evaluation criteria

2. June 29, 2009 Review universe of corridor options and evaluation criteria

3. November 12, 2009 Review recommended regional roadway system and identify any implementation issues

Comments received at open houses and throughout the duration of the study help the PMT identify community values and goals, develop a range of alternatives, and evaluate alternatives. Summaries of comments and select representative comments received from the public are included in Attachment B.

Phase I – Existing Conditions & Stakeholder Goals Technical Tasks

1.1 Data Gathering

1.2 Document Existing & Future Conditions

1.3 Confirm Problems & Needs

1.4 Identify Stakeholder Visions and Goals (Performance Criteria)

1.5 Develop Matrix Methodology for Evaluation

Outreach & Coordination1.6 PMT Meetings (#1 - 3)

1.6 Public Open House #1

Phase II – Develop AlternativesTechnical Tasks

2.1 Develop Future Alignment Options & Alternatives

Outreach & Coordination2.2 PMT Meetings (#4 – 6)


Phase III – Apply Methodology to Evaluate AlternativesTechnical Tasks

3.1 Apply Evaluation Criteria and Refine Alternatives

3.2 Identify Transportation System Recommendations

3.3 Prepare Draft Study Report

Outreach & Coordination3.4 PMT Meetings (#7 – 9)


Phase IV – Implementation & Stakeholder RolesTechnical Tasks

4.1 Community Presentations & Stakeholder Implementation Roles

4.2 Final Study Report

Outreach & Coordination4.3 PMT Meeting (#10)

January February March April May June July August September October November December

2009

Opportunity to Provide Input



10/30/2009

Rosemount/UMore/Empire Area Transportation System Study Study Schedule

Figure 5

08/09/2009

Rosemount/UMore/Empire Area Transportation System Study Project Management Team (PMT)

Member Roles & Responsibilities

Figure 6

Rosemount/Rosemount/Empire/UMore AreaEmpire/UMore Area

Transportation System Transportation System StudyStudy

PublicPublic

Project Management TeamProject Management Team

Project Management Team includes:Project Management Team includes:

•Dakota County (Project Lead)•Rosemount•Empire Township•UMore Park/U of MN•Minnesota DNR

- Review and comment on the study

ConsultantConsultant –– CH2MCH2M HILL HILL - Engage in exchange of information with the PMT

- Facilitate development and evaluation of alternatives

- Complete final report

- Act as liaison between PMT and elected/appointed officials and the public

- Provide input for these key tasks: 1. Identify of opportunities & constraints

2. Develop evaluation criteria and transportation system alternatives

3. Identify preferred transportation system

4. Implement decisions into Comprehensive/Master Plans

5. Preserve right-of-way for future transportation system (as applicable)


12

3.0 Corridor Option Evaluation Criteria Based on input from the PMT and the public during Open House #1, evaluation criteria were developed to compare transportation corridor options. Table 4 shows these criteria, which are grouped into three categories; this table also shows which criteria were used during each of the three levels of evaluation.

TABLE 4 Evaluation Categories and Criteria

3 Levels of Evaluation

Community Planning & Identity

Natural Resources & Environment

Transportation

I. Fatal Flaw Screening

Is the alignment consistent with transportation and land use elements of area plans?

Does the corridor support opportunities to manage and expand recreational and natural areas?

Does the corridor provide direct connections to the County transportation system?

II. Corridor Screening

Can the corridor be implemented along with planned development?

Does the corridor avoid severances of recreational and natural areas? Private farms?

Is the alignment consistent with County design guidelines?

Does the corridor allow for future development beyond the study area?

Does the corridor avoid right-of-way impacts?

Does the corridor provide access consistent with plans and guidelines?

Does the corridor avoid wetland impacts?

Does the corridor provide opportunities for cost-effective implementation (e.g., re-use of existing right-of-way, roads, and bridges)?

Does the corridor avoid impacts to threatened and endangered species, and/or cultural resources?

Would the corridor divert regional trips from local roads?

III. System Screening

Do the County roads provide adequate access to communities?

Does the County road network provide adequate access to recreational and natural areas?

Would the corridor allow for development of a multi-modal system (integration of roads with transit, trails, greenways, and wildlife corridors)?

Does the system accommodate land use plans, including aggregate mining activities?

Would the corridor provide sufficient spacing and capacity of north/south and east/west roads to meet future demand?

Does the system allow for development of local road network?

Would the corridor result in a significant change in travel time for re-routed alignments?

4.0 Development of Transportation Corridor Options The initial universe of transportation corridor options was developed based on PMT input and comments received during the first public open house. The following statement from the PMT’s vision was also used as a starting point: The road network provides connectivity and


13

functional capacity reflective of the demand for transportation services in both the north-south and east-west directions.

4.1 Initial Universe of East-West Corridor Options The universe of east-west corridor options initially developed for this study is shown on Figure 7 and summarized below.

CSAH 42 Option A. CSAH 42—Upgrade CSAH 42 as planned and documented in the County Transportation

Plan and County Plat Map (which reflects the CSAH 42 Final Study and Amendment, and studies completed by Rosemount).

CSAH 46 Options B. CSAH 46—Use existing CSAH 46 alignment

C. CSAH 46, UMore Concept—Realign CSAH 46 based on the alignment shown in the UMore Park Concept Master Plan

D. CSAH 46 via 170th St.—Realign CSAH 46 onto new alignment and 170th St. through UMore Park (in-between Hwy. 3 and CR 81/Clayton Ave.)

170th St. Options E. 170th St.—Use 170th St. alignment (per public comment), extend 170th St. east of CR

79/Blaine Ave.

F. 170th St. with Extension to Future County Hwy. and CR 81/Clayton Ave.—Extend future east-west County highway (just south of existing 170th St.) to CR 81/Clayton Ave. (near Hwy. 52/CSAH 46 intersection), via 170th St. through UMore

180th St. Option G. 180th St. Extension to Future County Hwy., through Park, Vermillion Highlands—Extend

future east-west County highway (just south of 170th St.) to Hwy. 52 via new 180th St. alignment through County Park and Vermillion Highlands

CR 62/190th St. Option H. 190th St. Extension—Use 190th St. alignment, including new connection between Hwy.

3 and Biscayne Ave.

CSAH 66/200th St. Option I. 200th St.—Extend future east-west County highway (along 190th St. alignment) from

Hwy. 3 to CSAH 66/200th St.; includes a new Vermillion River Bridge

210th St. Option J. 210th St.—Use 210th St. alignment

Hwy. 50 Option K. Hwy. 50—Use Hwy. 50 alignment

10/05/2009

Rosemount/UMore/Empire Area Transportation System Study Universe of Alternatives

East/West Corridor Options

Figure 7

Option K

Option A

Option C

Option E

Option H

Option I

Option B

Option D

Option F

Option G

Option J


15

4.2 Initial Universe of North-South Corridor Options The universe of north-south corridor options initially developed for this study is shown on Figure 8; each option is summarized below.

Hwy. 3 Options 1. Hwy. 3 through Rosemount—Use Hwy. 3 alignment

2. Hwy. 3 to CR 73/Akron Ave.—Use Hwy. 3 alignment; connect to CR 73/Akron Ave. at CSAH 42

Biscayne Ave. Options 3. Hwy. 3 to Biscayne Ave.—Use Hwy. 3 alignment through Farmington; connect and use

Biscayne Ave. up to CSAH 42

4. Hwy. 3 to Biscayne Ave. to CR 73/Akron Ave.—Use Hwy. 3 alignment through Farmington; connect to and use Biscayne Ave. alignment to just north of CSAH 46; connect to CR 73/Akron Ave.

5. Biscayne Ave. to CR 73/Akron Ave.—Extend Biscayne Ave. to Hwy. 50; use Biscayne Ave. corridor to just south of 170th St.; connect to CR 73/Akron Ave. via new alignment

CR 73/Akron Ave. Options 6. West Park/WMA Boundary to CR 73/Akron. Ave.—Extend CR 73/Akron Ave. south from

CSAH 42 to Hwy. 50, passing along western border of new County Park and WMA/AMA.

7. Annette Ave. to CR 73/Akron Ave.—Extend CR 73/Akron Ave. south from CSAH 42 to Hwy. 50, passing along Annette Ave. and eastern border of new County Park and WMA/AMA, and through part of Vermillion Highlands

CR 79/CSAH 71/Blaine Ave. Options 8. CR 79 to CSAH 71 via direct Blaine Ave. Connection—Directly connect CR 79 to CSAH

71 via Blaine Ave. (in County’s current 2025 Transportation Plan)

9. CR 79 to CSAH 71 via New Connection—Use existing CR 79/Blaine Ave. alignment and Vermillion River crossing; connect to CSAH 71 via new alignment.

CR 81/Clayton Ave. Options 10. CR 79 to CSAH 71 via CR 81/Clayton Ave. (190th St. to 170th St.)—Use existing CR

79/Blaine Ave. alignment and Vermillion River crossing; connect to CR 81/Clayton Ave.; connect to CSAH 71 via new alignment

11. CR 79 to CSAH 71 via CR 81/Clayton Ave. (210th St. to north of 190th St.)—Connect to and upgrade CR 81/Clayton Ave., including possible construction of a new Vermillion River bridge (public comments at Open House #1 recommended upgrading CR 81)

12. CR 79 to TH 52/CSAH 46 via CR 81/Clayton Ave.—Connect to and upgrade CR 81/Clayton Ave., including possible construction of a new Vermillion River bridge, terminating at CSAH 46.

Universe of AlternativesUniverse of AlternativesNorth/South Corridor OptionsNorth/South Corridor Options

10/05/2009

Rosemount/UMore/Empire Area Transportation System Study Universe of Alternatives

North/South Corridor Options

Figure 8

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Option 5

Option 6

Option 7

Option 8

Option 9

Option 12

Connection from Hwy 50 to south of Farmington would be determined in later study

Connection from Hwy 50to south would be

determined in later study

Option 1

Option 10

Option 11



17

5.0 Alignment Option Evaluation and Refinement The screening process was divided into three levels of evaluation as shown in Table 5. As part of a “Context Sensitive Solutions” (CSS) process (described more fully in Section 7.3), a fundamental component of alignment option evaluation was the initial determination of criteria. These criteria were set prior to the development of options to place priority on the stated goals and objectives of project team members. The integrity of a CSS process relies on it being driven by the priorities and objectives of all project participants.

5.1 Step 1: “Fatal Flaw” Alignment Option Evaluation Table 5 below documents the corridors recommended for elimination from the universe of options during the first evaluation—the fatal flaw evaluation. Corridors with a “fatal flaw” were considered to be in direct conflict with key criteria identified by the project team in one of three categories: 1) community planning and identity; 2) natural resources and environment; or 3) transportation network design and function. Attachment C includes a complete description of the Fatal Flaw Analysis methodology and a table that documents the PMT’s discussion during this step—including consideration of opportunities lost by alignment dismissal, and any potential to use dismissed corridors as local roads.

TABLE 5 Fatal Flaw Analysis—Findings and Corridors Eliminated from Further Consideration



Transportation Network Design & Function

Corridors Recommended for Elimination from Universe Options




North/South Corridors

1. Hwy. 3 through Rosemount Improvements

No—Inconsistent with Rosemount’s Land Use and Transportation Plans.

3. Hwy. 3 to Biscayne Ave.—Inconsistent with

No—Inconsistent with Rosemount’s Land Use and Transportation Plans

7. Annette Ave. to CR 73/Akron Ave.

No—Inconsistent with UMore and Vermillion Highlands Plans.

No—Presents management challenges within Vermillion Highlands.

8. CR 79 to CSAH 71 via direct Blaine Ave. connection

No—Inconsistent with UMore and Vermillion Highlands Plans Yes—Consistent with Dakota County 2025 Transportation Plan

No—Presents management challenges within Vermillion Highlands.

12. CR 79 to Hwy. 52/CSAH 46 via CR 81/Clayton Ave.

No—Doesn’t provide adequate connection to County road system.


18

TABLE 5 Fatal Flaw Analysis—Findings and Corridors Eliminated from Further Consideration



Transportation Network Design & Function

Corridors Recommended for Elimination from Universe Options




East/West Corridors

E. 170th St. No—Doesn’t provide necessary level of connectivity to County System.

G. New alignment (extension of 180th St. alignment) through Park, Vermillion Highlands

No—Inconsistent with UMore and Vermillion Highlands Plans.

No—Impedes long-term plans for Vermillion Highlands expansion to River.

H. 190th St. No—Corridor is inconsistent with County, UMore, and Vermillion Highlands Plans.

No—Impedes long-term plans for Vermillion Highlands expansion to River.

J. 210th St. No—Inconsistent with Dakota County Plans.

No—Doesn’t provide necessary level of connectivity to County System.

The fatal flaw analysis resulted in dismissing five north-south corridors and four east-west corridors from further consideration (see Figures 9 and 10). Corridors of note that were eliminated include all north-south and east-west options that bisect Vermillion Highlands in half. The remaining corridors were carried forward into the next level of evaluation, discussed below.

5.2 Step 2: Corridor Level Evaluation and Continued Alignment Refinement For the second, corridor level evaluation, more defined alignments were developed for each of the remaining corridors. These alignments, shown in Figure 11, were developed for these corridors using the following design features:

60 mile per hour design speed3,

1,500 minimum curve radius, and

150 foot right-of-way (which would accommodate both 2-lane and 4-lane rural roadways).

3 The 60 mph design speed does not infer that the speed limit would be 60 mph; the statutory speed limit on rural roads is 55 mph. Speed studies may be necessary to determine whether the speed limit should be higher, lower, or that there should be no change from the statutory speed limits.

10/05/2009

Rosemount/UMore/Empire Area Transportation System Study East-West Corridor Options Remaining

after First Level (Fatal Flaw) Evaluation

Figure 9

Option A

Option C

Option B

Option D

Option F

Option K

Option E: Lacksadequate connectivity to County system

Option G: Inconsistent with Plans; Impedes expansion of area

Option H: Inconsistent with Plans; Impedes expansion of area

Option J: Inconsistent with Plans; Lacks adequate connectivity to County System

Option I

Option 6



Connection from Hwy 50to south would be

determined in later study

Option 1: Inconsistent with Plans

Option 2

Option 3: Inconsistent with Plans

Option 4

Option 5

Option 7: Inconsistent with Plans; presents land manageme nt challenges

Option 8: Inconsistent with Plans; presents land manageme nt challenges

Option 9

Option 10

Option 11

Option 12: Lacksadequate connectivity to County system

Rosemount/UMore/Empire Area Transportation System Study North-South Corridor Options

Remaining after First Level (Fatal Flaw) Evaluation

Figure 10

AMA

Regional Park

ÉÉ52

ÉÉ3

ÉÉ50

ÉÉ3 ÉÉ52

ÉÉ3

ÉÉ3

!(79

!(79

!(81

!(81

!(72

!(73

!(81

!(81

!(81

!(62

£¤52

Û450

Û446

Û474

Û471

Û446 Û446

Û442

Û466 Û466

Û442

Û446

!(42

WastewaterTreatment

Fac.

WMA

VermillionHighlands

AMA

UMorePark

Elm St

210th St W

Ver

mill

ion River Tr

150t

h St W

160th St W

190th St E

160th St E

145th St E

Bla

ine

Av

e E

Ash St

200th St E

170th St W

145th St W

200th St W

210th St E

Cla

yto

n A

ve

± Æÿ State Highway

Û4 County State Aid Highway (CSAH)

!( County Road

11/05/2009

0 3,000 6,0001,500 Feet Numbered transportation corridors representnorth/south options; lettered corridors represent east/west options.

Option A

Option 4

Option B

Option C1

Option 9A

Option 10A

Option 11

Option I

Option K

Corridors were developed based on the following design criteria: - 60 mile per hour design speed - 1,500 minimum curve radius - 150 right-of-way corridor, which could accommodate up to a 4-lane road

For all remaining north-south corridor options, connections from Hwy. 50 to south of Farmington would be determined in later studies.

For all remaining north-south corridor options, connections to other roads north of CSAH 42 would be determined in later studies.

Option 9C

Option 9B

Option C2

Option 10B

Option 5

Option 6

Option D

Option F

Option 11A

Option 11B

Common PortionOptions 9, 10, & 11

Rosemount/UMore/Empire Area


Exhibit 11Remaining & Refined Regional,

Arterial Corridor Options Engineered

to Defined Design Criteria


22

These corridors were then evaluated based on the criteria that had been identified for the second level of evaluation (see Table 3). The results of this evaluation are shown in Table 6. The PMT opted not to dismiss any corridor options during the second phase of evaluation. As a result, all corridor options were brought into the system level evaluation, discussed below.

This evaluation included a high level environmental resource scan that reviewed existing data related to wetlands and hydric soils; rare plants and animals; and historical and archaeological features (results shown on Table 6). Initially, this data was used to develop and then refine corridor alignments. Where reasonable, alignments were shifted to avoid known occurrences of rare plants and animals (see Figure 12) and to avoid wetlands and hydric soils (see Figure 13). As mentioned above, this evaluation relied on existing information. As project development progresses for any recommended corridor, more in-depth impact reviews—including more detailed review of contaminated properties—will be completed by responsible communities and agencies.

ROSEMOUNT/EMPIRE/UMORE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STUDY JUNE 2010

23

TABLE 6Corridor Level Evaluation—Findings

Implement with Development

How much of the corridor be implemented with planned development (from Rosemount and Empire Twp. 2030 land use plans and UMore Park Concept Plan)? (Length and % of alignment in area identified for future development)

Land Severance

How many recreational areas and private parcels would the corridor sever? (# of parcels severed)

Right-of-Way

Would the corridor require right-of-way acquisition? (# of parcels affected & acres of right-of-way needed)

Wetlands

How many acres of wetlands would the corridor impact? (acres of wetland affected)

Rare Plants & Animals

Is the corridor near important plant and animal habitat locations?

Historic and Archaeological Features

Is the corridor near known historic (farms and GOW) or archaeological sites? Are sites avoidable?

Cost-effective Implementation

What is the potential for cost effective implementation (e.g., re-use of existing right-of-way, roads, and bridges)? (high, medium, low)

Diversion of RegionalTrips What is the potential that the corridor would divert regional trips from local roads? (high, medium, low)

NORTH/SOUTH-BOUND CORRIDORS OPTIONS

Rec./Natr’l. Private

Hwy.

3, Bi

scay

ne, A

ve., a

nd C

R 73

/Akr

on A

ve. Option 2: Hwy. 3 to CR 73

7.6 miles 2.6 miles

34%

0 4 43 parcels affected

99 acres right-of-way needed

3.2 acres No Yes, sites are likely avoidable Medium—Amt. of corridor using: --existing alignment = 65% --existing ROW = 29% Potential to use bridge—Yes

High

Option 4: Hwy. 3 to Biscayne Ave. to CR 73

8.0 miles

4.4 miles

55%



3.9 acres No Yes, sites are likely avoidable High—Amt. of corridor using: --existing alignment = 71% --existing ROW = 31% Potential to use bridge—Yes

High

Option 5: Biscayne Ave. to CR 73

8.0 miles

4.1 miles

51%

0

5 20 parcels affected


8.0 acres No No Low-existing alignment = 42%--existing ROW = 19% Potential to use bridge—Yes

High

Option 6: West Park/WMA Boundary to CR 73

7.7 miles

2.5 miles

32%

1 to Dakota. Co. Park; 11 acres (2.4%)



41.0 acres Yes No Low—Amt. of corridor using: --existing alignment = 21% --existing ROW = 9% Potential to use bridge—No

Medium

CR 79

/CSA

H 71

/Blai

ne A

ve. a

nd C

R 81

/Clay

ton

Ave.

Option 9A: CR 79 to CSAH 71 via new connection

8.0 miles

1.9 miles

24%

2 to WMA; 347 acres (12.2 %)

1 to Dakota Co. Parcel 25 acres (20%)



6.6 acres Yes Yes, sites are likely avoidable Low—Amt. of corridor using: --existing alignment = 54% --existing ROW = 24% Potential to use bridge—No

Low

Option 9B:

8.2 miles

1.9 miles

23%

2 to WMA; 16+190=206 acres (7.2%)

1 to Dakota Co. Parcel; 25 acres (20%)



5.4 acres Yes Yes, sites are likely avoidable Low—Amt. of corridor using: --existing alignment = 50% --existing ROW = 22% Potential to use bridge—No

Low

Option 9C:

8.8 miles

1.9 miles

22%

3 to WMA; 16+4+73 =93 acres (3.3%)




5.2 acres Yes Yes, sites are likely avoidable Medium—Amt. of corridor using: --existing alignment = 68% --existing ROW = 30% Potential to use bridge—No

Low

Option 10A: CR 79 to CSAH 71 via CR 81

8.8 miles

1.9 miles

22%

1 to WMA; 59 acres (2.1%)




5.3 acres Yes Yes, sites are likely avoidable Low—Amt. corridor using: --existing alignment = 53% --existing ROW = 23% Potential to use bridge—No

Low

Option 10B:

8.8 miles

1.9 miles

22%

1 to WMA; 4 acres (0.1%)




5.2 acres Yes Yes, sites are likely avoidable High—Amt. of corridor using: --existing alignment = 64% --existing ROW = 28% Potential to use bridge—No

Low

ROSEMOUNT/EMPIRE/UMORE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STUDY JUNE 2010

24

TABLE 6Corridor Level Evaluation—Findings

Implement with Development

How much of the corridor be implemented with planned development (from Rosemount and Empire Twp. 2030 land use plans and UMore Park Concept Plan)? (Length and % of alignment in area identified for future development)

Land Severance

How many recreational areas and private parcels would the corridor sever? (# of parcels severed)

Right-of-Way

Would the corridor require right-of-way acquisition? (# of parcels affected & acres of right-of-way needed)

Wetlands

How many acres of wetlands would the corridor impact? (acres of wetland affected)

Rare Plants & Animals

Is the corridor near important plant and animal habitat locations?

Historic and Archaeological Features

Is the corridor near known historic (farms and GOW) or archaeological sites? Are sites avoidable?

Cost-effective Implementation

What is the potential for cost effective implementation (e.g., re-use of existing right-of-way, roads, and bridges)? (high, medium, low)

Diversion of RegionalTrips What is the potential that the corridor would divert regional trips from local roads? (high, medium, low)

Option 11A: CR 79 to CSAH 71 via CR 81

8.2 miles

1.9 miles

23%

2 to WMA; 182 acres (6.4%)




2.7 acres Yes Yes, sites are likely avoidable Medium—Amt. of corridor using: --existing alignment = 49% --existing ROW = 21% Potential to use bridge—Yes

Low

Option 11B

8.3 miles 1.9 miles

23%

2 to WMA; 98+38=136 acres (4.8%)

1 to Dakota Co. Parcel; 12 acres (9.8%)



2.7 acres Yes Yes, sites are likely avoidable Medium—Amt. of corridor using: --existing alignment = 52% --existing ROW = 23% Potential to use bridge—Yes

Low

EAST/WEST-BOUND CORRIDOR OPTIONS Rec./Natr’l. Private

CSAH

42 Option A: CSAH 42

4.7 miles N/A no new right-of-way required



* ROW may be needed if CSAH 42 is expanded to 6-lanes

0 acres Yes No High— Amt. of corridor using:

--existing alignment = 100%

--existing ROW = 100%

High

CSAH

46

Option B: CSAH 42

4.8 miles 3.9 miles

81%



0.1 acres Yes No Medium— Amt. of corridor using:

--existing alignment = 100% --existing ROW = 44%

High

Option C1: CSAH 46, UMore Concept

5.2 miles

3.6 miles

70%



0 acres Yes No Low—Amt. of corridor using:


High

Option C2

4.8 miles 3.3 miles

69%




0 acres Yes No Low—Amt. of corridor using:

--existing alignment = 12%

--existing ROW = 5%

High

Option D: CSAH 46 via 170th St.

5.2 miles

2.5 miles

48%

1 to WMA; 163 acres (5.8%)



0 acres Yes No Medium— Amt. of corridor using:


High

Option F: 170th St. with Extension to Future County Hwy. and CR 81/Clayton Ave. 5.5 miles

1.9 miles

34%

1 to WMA; 253 acres (8.9%)



0 acres Yes No Medium— Amt. of corridor using:


Low

CSAH 66

Option I

6.9 miles

1.4 miles

20%



12.4 acres No Yes, sites are likely avoidable. Medium— Amt. of corridor using:


Medium

Hwy.

50

Option K 5.7 miles 0 miles

0%



11.1 acres No No Medium— Amt. of corridor using:


High

AMA

Regional Park

52

4646

42

66

46

71

42

46

66

74

42

50

WastewaterTreatment

Fac.

WMA

VermillionHighlands

AMA

UMorePark

3

3

3

3

50

52

52

81

72

73

81

81

62

79

81

81

79

42

Ash St

210th St W

150t

h St W

160th St W

190th St E

145th St E

Elm St

Bla

ine

Ave

E

160th St E

200th St E

170th St W

Ver

mill

ion River Tr

145th St W

200th St W

210th St E

Cla

yto

n A

ve

12/09/2009

0 3,000 6,0001,500 Feet

Option A

Option 4

Option B

Option C1

Option 9A

Option 10A

Option 11

Option I

Option K

Option 9C

Option 9B

Option C2

Option 10B

Option 5

Option 6

Option D

Option F

Option 11A

Option 11B




Figure 12

Known Plant and

Animal Resources

Rare Plant or Animal Species General Locations

Sites State-wide Biodiversity Significance

Regionally Significant Ecological Areas

Ecological Score

Moderate

High

Outstanding

Copyright 2009 State of Minnesota, Department of Natural ResourcesData included here were provided by the Division of Ecological Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and were current as of June 12, 2009. These data are not based on an exhaustive inventory of the state. The lack of data for any geographic area shall not be construed to mean that no significant features are present.

AMA

Regional Park

6666

42

50

4646

4646

74

42

71

Ver

mill

ion River Tr

160th St E

Ash St

150t

h St W

Elm St

210th St W

160th St W

190th St E

145th St E

Bla

ine

Av

e E

200th St E

170th St W

145th St W

200th St W

210th St E

Cla

yto

n A

ve

WMA

UMorePark

VermillionHighlands

AMA

WastewaterTreatment

Fac.

3

50

52

3

3

3

52

42

79

81

81

62

79

73

81

72

81

81

52

12/09/2009

0 3,000 6,0001,500 Feet

Option A

Option 4

Option B

Option C1

Option 9A

Option 10A

Option 11

Option I

Option K

The nature of hydric soils makes road constuction through these areas difficult. Also, hydric soils often indicatethe presence of wetlands, which are also usually avoided.

For Option 11, the curve from CR 79/Blaine Ave. to CR 81/Clayton Ave. shows a refinement made upon learningthat hydric soils were present. The alignment now skirts to the south of these soils

Option 9C

Option 9B

Option C2

Option 10B

Option 5

Option 6

Option D

Option F

Option 11A

Option 11B




Figure 13

Hydric Soils

Hydric Soils


27

5.3 Step 3: System Level Evaluation This phase of evaluation moved beyond individual corridors and assessed how remaining options would function as part of a regional transportation system. Referencing back to Figure 4, the PMT agreed to identify a regional roadway system that would generally provide roadway capacity in the areas identified during the earlier phases of this study. Table 7 and Figures 14 and 15 capture the recommendations developed by the PMT over a series of PMT meetings during the summer and fall of 2009.

6.0 Final Corridor Alignment Recommendations and Roadway Characteristics

Figure 16 shows the recommended transportation system developed by the PMT. The recommendations of this study include:

The regional arterial road network as shown on the Recommended Regional Arterial Corridors map will serve as a planning tool for this area as it develops. This recommended system will be used by study partners and surrounding communities as land use and transportation plans are implemented.

The roadway system recommended in this study will form a “back bone” arterial network. This network was developed using the best information available for a long-term corridor planning study. The recommended corridors may be refined in response to changing circumstances and new information. Any refined corridors would undergo the same level of evaluation as was completed for the recommended corridors.

The unshaded rows in Table 7 describe the recommended number of lanes and the recommended functional classification system for each alignment. The combination of corridors composing the recommended regional road system for the study area is not consistent with spacing guidelines, but represents a compromise that provides:

Reasonable spacing and connectivity,

Consistency with and support for local plans, and

Minimum impact to area resources.

When Dakota County constructs or re-constructs any of the regional roadways recommended in this study, it is anticipated that the County would use either two-lane or four-lane cross-sections, as shown in Figure 17, based on an assessment of the forecast volume of traffic in each of the corridors. Details, such as whether or not four-lane cross-sections will be divided will be determined during subsequent phases of project development. This study assumed a 150 foot right-of-way to initially assess corridor impacts; this width would accommodate both 2-lane and 4-lane rural roadways.

AMA

Regional Park

160th St E

190th St E

145th St E

Bla

ine

Av

e E

200th St E

Elm St

170th St W

Ash St

145th St W

210th St W

200th St W

210th St E

Ver

mill

ion River Tr

Cla

yto

n A

ve

150t

h St W

160th St W

42

46

71

50

74

46

66

46

66

42 42

46

WastewaterTreatment

Fac.

WMA

VermillionHighlands

AMA

UMorePark

52

42

81

79

62

79

81

81

81

72

73

81

3

3 52

52

3

3

50

52

10/30/2009

Option K - Continue to useexisting Hwy. 50; no new lanes.

0 3,000 6,0001,500 Feet



Figure 14East-West Regional

Arterial Corridor Options

Final Evaluation Results

175th St. Extension,Implement with previously plannedCounty Road; Tie-intoBiscayne Ave. alignment

CS

AH

42

Co

rrid

or

Option A, Implement Previously Planned Intersections Improvements; Consider expanding to 6-lanes

Option B, ImplementExpansion to 4-lanes;Consider expansion to 6-lanes

Option C1,Eliminate

Option K

Option C2, Eliminate

Option D,Eliminate

Option I - Continue to useexisting CSAH 66; no new lanes.

Option I, Implement Planned County Road along with Biscayne Ave. alignment to con-nect to CSAH 66

Eliminate Diagonal; re-consider direct connection in future if required by increasing traffic

CS

AH

46

& 1

70

th S

t. C

orr

ido

rsC

SA

H 6

6.2

00

th S

t. C

orr

ido

rH

wy.

50

. C

orr

ido

r

AMA

Regional Park

UMorePark

WastewaterTreatment

Fac.

WMA

VermillionHighlands

AMA

42

200th St E

160th St E

170th St W

Elm St

145th St W

Ash St

200th St W

210th St W 210th St E

Cla

yto

n A

ve

Ver

mill

ion River Tr

150t

h St W

160th St W

190th St E

145th St E

Bla

ine

Av

e E

52

42

46

71

50

74

46

66 66

42 42

4646

81

79

62

79

81

81

81

72

73

81

3

3 52

52

3

3

50

52

10/07/2009

Option 2, Eliminate

Option 9A, Eliminate

Option 10A,Eliminate

Option 11,Implement

Option 10B,Eliminate

Option 1 - Continue to useexisting Hwy. 3; no new lanes.

0 3,000 6,0001,500 Feet



Figure 15North-South Regional

Arterial Corridor Options

Final Evaluation Results

Option 4

Options 9, 10, 11Common Alignment,Implement

Option 5, Implement

Option 6, Eliminate

Option 9B, Eliminate

Option 9C, Eliminate

Option 11B, Implement thisor Option 11A

Option 11A, Implement thisor Option 11B

Hwy. 3 Corridor Biscayne Ave. & Akron Ave. Corridor Blaine Ave. & CR 81/Clayton Ave. Corridor

AMA

Regional Park

Dako

ta C

ou

nty

T1

30

4

UMorePark

WastewaterTreatment

Fac.

WMA

VermillionHighlands

AMA

74

46

50

71

46

42

42

66 66

46

42

81

81

72

62

81

73

81

79

81

79

42

170th St E

197th St W

Ah

ern

Blv

d

Statio

n Tr

170th St W

An

ne

tte

Ave

Bis

cayn

e A

ve

190th St W

52

Ash St

210th St W

Elm St

145th St W

210th St E

150t

h St W

190th St E

Cla

yto

n A

ve

160th St W

200th St W

160th St E

145th St E

Bla

ine

Av

e E

Ver

mill

ion River Tr

200th St E

3

52

52

50

3

3

3

12/10/2009

0 3,000 6,0001,500 Feet

Option A

Option B

Option 11

Option K

For north-south and east-west corridors, connections to roads outside of the study area will be determined in later studies.

Option 5

Option I

Option I

Option 11

Option 11A

Option 11B

County Park

Hwy. 3

Planned Dakota County Highways

Recommended, Regional Arterial Corridors

175th St Extension



Figure 16

Recommended Regional

Arterial Corridors

Option 11A is the preferred option. Adjacent to Vermillion Highlands,the location of the corridor will bebased on the location of the powerlinethat currently runs between the WMA's eastern border WMA and private property.

Option 11B would occur if Mn/DNR expands Vermillion Highland boun-daries by purchasing land from willing owners and receives necessary County and Township approvals. (Note: Mn/DNR's practice is to acquire land from willing land owners; the agency has not typically used condemnatio

n).

ROSEMOUNT/EMPIRE/UMORE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STUDY - JUNE 2010

31

TABLE 7 Final Corridor Evaluation—Findings

Recommendation Number of Lanes Functional Classification Date of PMT Concurrence

Note: Shaded cells indicate a recommendation to eliminate a transportation corridor option; unshaded cells indicate a recommended option. Refer to the map, “Remaining & Refined Regional, Arterial Corridor Options”

NORTH/SOUTH-BOUND CORRIDORS OPTIONS

Hwy.

3

Option 1 Continue to use existing Hwy. 3 between Hwy. 50 and CSAH 42. Hwy. 3 won’t be expanded because Mn/DOT has no plans or funding and because of limited opportunity to expand through Rosemount.

No change—3-lanes through Rosemount; 2-lanes through rest

A-Minor Arterial (no change)

08/03/09 Option 2 Eliminate Option 2 given the limited opportunity to expand Hwy. 3 and

Rosemount’s lack of support. Identify an additional north-south roadway in close proximity to Hwy. 3 (see the Biscayne Ave. Corridor).

N/A N/A

Bisc

ayne

Ave

.

Option 4 Eliminate due to inconsistencies with City of Rosemount land use plans. N/A N/A

09/17/09

Option 5 Implement Option 5 along Biscayne Ave. in the south and connecting to Akron Ave. in the north.

4-lanes: CSAH 42 to 170th Street; 2-lanes: 170th Street to Hwy. 50 (with possible 4-lanes)

A-Minor Arterial (Hwy. 3, no change; Biscayne Ave. upgrade)

Option 6 Dismiss Options 6 because of potential environmental impacts and diminished ability to serve future demand, compared to Option 5. N/A

CR 79

/CSA

H 71

/Blai

ne A

ve.

Option 9A Eliminate Options 9A, 9B, and 9C due to impacts to Vermillion Highlands and natural resources within.

N/A N/A

10/15/2009

Option 9B

Option 9C

Option 10A Eliminate due to lack of regional transportation advantage and because of engineering challenges presented by Little Lone Rock. Option 10B

Option 11A

Implement Option 11. Near Vermillion Highlands, Option 11A is the preferred option. Option 11B would occur if Mn/DNR expands Vermillion Highland boundaries by purchasing land from willing owners and receiving necessary County and Township approvals.

2-lanes on new north-south alignment

Minor Arterial (new regional road) Option 11B

ROSEMOUNT/EMPIRE/UMORE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STUDY - JUNE 2010

32

TABLE 7 Final Corridor Evaluation—Findings

Recommendation Number of Lanes Functional Classification Date of PMT Concurrence

Note: Shaded cells indicate a recommendation to eliminate a transportation corridor option; unshaded cells indicate a recommended option. Refer to the map, “Remaining & Refined Regional, Arterial Corridor Options”

EAST/WEST-BOUND CORRIDOR OPTIONS

CSAH

42 Option A Use existing CSAH 42 as planned and documented in the CH 42 Final Study, including planned access management. (Attachment A: Updated Recommended Roadway Improvements Segment 15: TH 3 to TH 52, 2007).

4-lanes (no change from existing; consider future 6-lanes)

Principal Arterial (no change) 08/03/2009

CSAH

46 &

170th

St.

Option B Expand existing CSAH 46 alignment by 2- to 4-lanes.

4- to 6-lanes (expand by 2- to 4-lanes)

A-Minor Arterial (no change)

9/17/09

Option C1 Eliminate Options C1 and C2 as these would not best meet regional transportation needs, or the transportation needs of Rosemount and Empire Township.

N/A N/A

Option C2

Option D Eliminate as regional roadway option because of incompatibility with UMore Park planned development.

Option F Eliminate as regional roadway option because of incompatibility with UMore Park planned development.

CSAH

66 Option I Use phased approach to implement a connection between Hwy. 3 and

CSAH 66/200th Street. Initially, use 190th Street alignment to Biscayne Ave.; use Biscayne Ave. south to connect to CSAH 66/200th St. Reconsider a direct connection (similar to diagonal shown on Figure 12) from Hwy. 3 to CSAH 66 if traffic levels warrant in the future.

2-lanes (no change)

Hwy.

50 Option K Continue to use existing Hwy. 50; no changes in function or geometry

recommended. 2-lanes (no change) A-Minor Arterial (no change) 08/03/09

08/09/2009

Representative 2-lane and 4-lane Cross-Sections

Figure 17

ThroughLane

ThroughLane

Shoulder Shoulder

150 ftRight-of-Way

ThroughLane

Shoulder ShoulderThroughLane

Median ThroughLane

ThroughLane

Divided Urban 4Divided Urban 4--Lane CrossLane Cross--SectionSection

Rural 2Rural 2--Lane CrossLane Cross--SectionSection

Alternative Concept Design CriteriaAlternative Concept Design Criteria

Sidewalk/Trail

Sidewalk/Trail

150 ftRight-of-Way

• Assumed a 60 mph design speed

• 1,500 feet minimum curve radius (Source: Mn/DOT Road Design Manual – minimum for 60 mph is 1,349 feet with full superelevation)

• 150-foot Right-of-Way to accommodate a divided 4-lane roadway

(Source: Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance)


34

7.0 Activities to Implement Recommended Alignments 7.1 Activities and Timing to Implement Recommendations Future roadway construction will be coordinated with development. When traffic levels or development in an area warrant, consideration will be given to construction of new roads or upgrading existing regional roads. The schedule for implementing study recommendations varies by area.

Dakota County, the City of Rosemount, Empire Township, the University of MN, and Mn/DNR have formally adopted or recognized the recommendations through their governing bodies either by resolution or letter of support, all of which are included in Attachment D. Within the next few years, communities will update their comprehensive land use and/or transportation plans to reflect study recommendations.

In the longer term, construction of regional roads will occur as land uses change (e.g., UMore Park) and development is approved by local governments. UMore Park plans currently show the northern part of the parcel developing first. Total build-out is expected in 30 years, however, as with any development, this too will be subject to market forces.

This network was developed using the best information available for a long-term corridor planning study. This included current environmental resource information, engineering considerations, and land use management plans. The recommended corridors may be refined in response to changing circumstances and new information. Any refined corridors would undergo the same level of evaluation as was completed for the recommended corridors.

Implementation of specific corridors is all subject to phasing, in response to development. For example, northern portions of the north-south alignments for Biscayne Avenue/Akron Avenue and Blaine Avenue may be initially built to accommodate UMore Park, as it develops. However, the southern portions of these corridors may not get built until much later, in response to future development.

7.2 Right-of-Way Acquisition The acquisition of right-of-way for transportation facilities requires significant financial resources and is a time consuming process. Jurisdictions responsible for road development (state, county, city, etc.) will use available right-of-way preservation tools. For Dakota County, this includes requiring plat dedication for highway corridors to preserve the right-of-way required to implement any of the recommended alignments. In areas that do not develop, a condemnation process would be used to acquire additional right-of-way.

7.3 Context-Sensitive Solution Considerations Development evaluation criteria and processes, as well as potential transportation corridor options was structured according to the principles of a Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) process. Given the unique setting for this project—including the unique UMore Park development and Vermillion Highlands—the CSS approach is valuable because decision-making is focused on project context and stakeholder-based criteria. Through this process, the PMT accomplished transportation objectives while developing a project that reflects community values. A four-step approach to CSS was implemented, as follows:


35

1. Community Inventory and Values;

2. Goals and Criteria;

3. Alternatives Development and Evaluation; and

4. Implementation Planning and Roles.

CSS is a process that will continue to take place through all upcoming stages related to implementing the recommended transportation system. Given the early nature of this study, CSS was applied to identifying project context and issues important to stakeholders. However, the PMT did broadly contemplate geographic areas within the study area which should be given a higher level of CSS consideration moving forward into next steps. These areas are shown on Figure 18.

8.0 Other Transportation Considerations 8.1 Supporting Local Road System, Intersection Spacing, and Other Possible

Roadway Projects The regional roadway network recommended for this study area will be used by the County, local communities, and the University of Minnesota to plan a supporting local road system to complement the transportation network and serve any future land development. Specifically, the Metropolitan Council’s roadway spacing guidelines shown in Table 1 will be used to aid in the planning of the local road network in developing areas, including UMore Park.

Intersection spacing is directly tied to the implementation of a supporting road network, discussed above. As such, this topic will be considered in tandem with planning of a supporting, local road network. Dakota County access spacing guidelines will be adhered to in any future access planning.

In addition to any future access spacing planning, previous recommendations for the CSAH 42 corridor will be implemented as planned (see the CH 42 Final Study planned access management and Attachment A: Updated Recommended Roadway Improvements Segment 15: TH 3 to TH 52, 2007). The PMT recognizes that there is potential for some recommended corridors to impact the need for intersection improvements identified in the CH 42 Study. For example, the Biscayne Ave./Akron Ave. north-south alignment may result in a diversion of traffic from Highway 3 that could reduce traffic levels at the intersection of Highway 3 and CSAH 42 to the point that a previously recommended interchange may not be necessary. Any impact this study’s recommendations would have on plans for other corridors in or near the study area would need to be studied in detail. Dakota County will work with local communities and Mn/DOT to assess all future capacity issues, necessary improvements, and the interrelatedness of future transportation improvements.

During this study, the need to plan for future crossings of Highway 52 were discussed, including the possibility of grade separating crossings at 170th Street and CSAH 66/200th. While these intersections are outside of this study area and therefore were not considered in detail, it should be noted that Mn/DOT, Dakota County, and local communities may consider grade separations at these locations in the future.

Streams and natural areas may provide opportunities for modified highway crossings that promote safety for people and/or wildlife

by passing underneath the roadway.

Hydric soils in the project area may present opportunities for wetland restoration projects that serve as mitigation for impacts related to highway construction.

Preservation of greenway corridors through this study area will involve the

development of grade-separated highway crossings for trail users, access to natural

resource assets such as the Vermillion River, and trail continuity for a regional

trail system.

Fields south of County Road 46 and west of Clayton Avenue are intensively used by farmers serving local farmers markets

Gravel mining in UMore Park and Empire Township will create opportunities for new lakes and related recreational activities.

These lakes offer an opportunity to extend a natural/recreational area corridor beyond the

County Park and WMA to the south.

Areas shaded orange on this base map are “Hydric Soils”– generally wet locations that are indicative of wetlands or the potential for wetlands.

11/02/2009

Context Sensitive Opportunities for Future Consideration

Figure 18


37

8.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Dakota County has plans to implement a north-south and an east-west regional greenway corridor within the study area. The currently planned greenway corridors are shown on Figure 18. These greenway alignments are concepts; the actual location of these greenways will be the result of further planning actions by Dakota County, the City of Rosemount, Empire Township, the University of Minnesota, and Mn/DNR. Specifically, the preferred trail alignment for crossing the Vermillion River will be mutually evaluated by appropriate agencies and determined as part of the 2010 master planning process. At any points where greenways will intersect an existing or planned County highway, a grade-separated highway crossing will be considered for trail users. Specific details regarding funding will be addressed during future inter-agency coordination.

8.3 Future Transit Service The study area currently includes primarily rural and open space land uses and is not served by transit. However, plans for UMore Park and surrounding communities will likely increase the intensity of land uses in coming decades. The UMore Park Concept Master Plan shows that light rail, commuter bus, and internal bus service may some day service the development. Additionally, the Robert Street Corridor Transit Feasibility Study’s Long Term Corridor Vision shows a “potential transitway” extending down Highway 3 (to just south of CSAH 42) and providing transit access into UMore Park. None of the above mentioned transit concepts have been planned or funded. However, Dakota County will continue to coordinate with the University of Minnesota, the Metropolitan Council, and local communities regarding any future transit concepts that would service the study area.

Dakota County’s Transit Plan (Review Copy, December 2007) has identified specific transit needs for service beyond anything that is included in regional or county plans. Within the study area, the County’s Transit Plan has identified needs on CSAH 42, CSAH 46, Highway 3, and Highway 50. As noted in the Transit Plan, implementation of these improvements is considered very long range. Moving forward with any County Highway improvements the Plan does recommend that, “All County arterial highways should provide appropriate level of infrastructure for transit service including adequate widths, shoulders, pullouts, and trails” (Dakota County Transit Plan, December 2007, Chapter Seven: Page 4 of 7).

final report for rosemount / empire / umore area ......final report for rosemount / empire / umore...

Documents