The URL can be used to link to this page

88-1989 WHITE 1CITV CLERK �/'� PINK - FINANCE G I TY OF SA I NT PA LT L Council G 1 yy CANARV - DEijARTMEN T a �� /�a / BLIiE� - MAVOR File NO. � � f Council Resolution ,-s=�� ----a�.__-.., Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date EAST CBD BYPASS - SEGMENT "E/F� WHEREAS, the construction of a ring-road system around downtown has been a long standing priority for Saint Paul ; and WHEREAS, Shepard Road is listed as top priority project in the Streets and Highways element of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul has completed and released the draft Environmental Impact Statement analyzing options for Shepard Road and the East CBD Bypass; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council has further evaluated the alternatives analyzed in the draft Environmental Impact Statement, findings and comments received at a public hearing on May 19, 1988, and the findings of the Mayor's office and city staff; and WHEREAS, construction of the East CBD Bypass will include two lanes in each direction with a median, shoulders, a continuous pedestrian/bicycle path, special landscaping and architectural treatment , and a design speed of 45 miles per hour; and WHEREAS, Segment "E/F" is defined as the East CBD Bypass from 650 feet north of existing Warner Road to the I-35E northbound entrance ramp; and WHEREAS, E-2/F-1, Bypass with Local Connections, has been determined to optimize the key objectives of this segment for redevelopment of underutilized parcels adjacent to the proposed �ypass and for improving access to downtown and the East Side; COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays ' Dimond �� In Favor Goswitz Rettman Scheibel A gai ns t BY Sonnen Wilson Form Appr e by City ttor y Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY Bp Approved by Mavor: Date _ Approv d y Mayor or Submission to Council By BY WHITE ��C�TV CLERK � �J��' PINK - FINANCE COU�ICII GC/ / r � CANARV - DEF}4RTMENT GITY OF SAINT PAUL File NO• D : r� BLClE � - N7AVOR - Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council selects Alternative E-2/F-1, Bypass with Local Connections as the preferred alignment for Segment "E/F"; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the final design of Segment "E/F" not proceed until questions regarding funding and jurisdiction have been resolved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council requests the City Administration to take the necessary steps to prepare the final Environmental Impact Statement, incorporating the selection of Alternative E-2/F-1 as the preferred alternative for Segment "E-F". COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Dimond i.ong In Favot Gosw;tz Rettman � B Scheibel A gai n s t Y Sonnen Wilson � Form Approv d y City Attor y Adopted by Council: Date �C�; � Certified Pass d uncil Secre y BY - By Appr by 18avor. Da _ �(: � 6 � A r by ayor for Submissio o Council gy - PN�IISN� D E C 2 4 1988 LL�.rLLL'�LLL\/ 1�VV Yeas Nays WILSO� � \ �UIMOND �- (___ ''. GOSWITZ,� r. � ,--,�•�.,�_.�,�lJ�., LONG._`. RETTMAN� �ONl�IEN 1�1R. PRESIDENT� SCHEIBEL I DECEMBER� 1988 Yeas Nays �iILSON �DIMOND GOSWITZ-'�. �ONG._ RE11M�e9lk-� `\ �.7VLYLYLILV N�t. PRESIDENT� SCHEIBEL � . DECEMBER� 1988 Yeas Nays `WILSON �DIM \6pSWITZ �F,ONG_ �TTMAN SONIVEN�� MR. PRESIDENT� SCHEIB � � � �.��J ��Z �� , 1y�� '�=19� s `�,T, ,,� � CITY OF SAINT PAUL �•' ; , PLANNING COMMISSION �� =i�ll n '� �• AC'4 � �ames Christenson Chair " '• �'`"'-��"�"� 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 �... 612-228-3270 GEORGE UTIMER D E C��.19�� MAYOR C9TY GLE�t�C December 9, 1988 Council President James Scheibel and Members of the City Council City Hall, Seventh Floor Saint Paul, MN 55102 RE: Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass Draft EIS Dear Council President James Scheibel and Members of the City Council: Attached is the Planning Commission's Resolution on the Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass Draft EIS. The Commission has reviewed, along with previous Draft EIS documents, material contained in the Public Hear}ne Responses and Recommended Preferred Alternative November 1988 report. The Planning Commission's recommendation on Segment B reflects discussion on noise, visual, and train operation issues contained in the report. Sincerely, (�, �' _ � � . �� ames M. Christenson, Chair aint Paul Planning Commission JMC/AL/bp Attachment cc: Mayor George Latimer Donald Nygaard � of saint paul planr�g commission resolution f�e number 8$-91 �te December 9, 1988 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission has reviewed the issues and alternatives concerning reconstruction of Shepard and Warner Roads and , construction of the East CBD Bypass; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission members attended the City Council public hearing of May 19, 1988 and have considered key issues raised at that hearing; and WHEREAS, enhancement of Shepard and Warner Roads, construction of the East CBD Bypass and a grade separated interchange at Shepard Road and Chestnut Street are specific recommendations of the �J.an for Streets and Hi�hways; and i ; WHEREAS, Shepard Road and Warner Road reconstruction and East CBD Bypass . � construction are all top priorities of the Program for Capital Imvrovements � � �.988-1992; and � � WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Public Hearing Resgonses and ; Recommended Preferred Alternative including information on noise, visual , impacts and railroad operations at Chestnut Street; 3 " NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends '. Shepard and Warner Roads be reconstructed as soon as possible; and � , BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the East CBD Bypass be constructed as soon as � federal and/or state capital financing can be secured; and ; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends the following � as the preferred alignment for Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass; s 9 � ' A-3 "Base of Bluff" � B-2 "Grade Separated � ; C-1 "Existing Alignment" t ; D-2 "At-Grade Connection" � � � E-2 "Bypass w/Local Connections" 9f J ; F-1 "Connection to 35E"; and f � �� ^ TRF.7(:AF.T. .��J � seoonded by ��X P � � �-� f ��,:i�P�[N I7l � a — � � BE IT F[JRTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds this preferred ' alignment to be consistent with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a detailed design process be initiated which evaluates the following design issues for the preferred alternative: , - roadway design f - landscaping - walls/noise barriers � - pedestrian access to the shoreline � - gateways into downtowu; and 4 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends a task force j of affected property owners, concerned citizens and groups, and Planning ; Commissioners be established to study the detailed design and report their � findings to the Planning Commission for recommendation.,to the Mayor and City Council. ; � I € � � � � ,� � � � i � i i f � � ��'%-/�'1 t�'�vr � �;.,�^^� �'�/��"'� ��'' CITY OF SAINT PAUL OFFICE OF TRE CITY COIINCIL JAMES SCHEIBEL Council Presidcnt MEMOR.ANDUM November 30, 1988 T0: Saint Paul City Council and Interested Persons FROM: Council President James Scheibel SUBJECT: City Council Meeting on Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass December 13, 1988 10 AM City Council Chambers Last week, the Saint Paul City Council received Mayor Latimer's recommendations on the preferred alternatives for Shepard Road and the East CBU Bypass. The Mayor's recommendations along with a background staff report have been sent to everyone who testified at the Council's public hearing in May. I have scheduled consideration of the Mayor's recommendations for 10 AM, Tuesday, December 13, 1988. Our regular Council meeting will begin as usual at 9 AM and we will take up the Shepard Road/East CBD Bypass issue at 10 AM. Although this meeting will not be a formal public hearing, we will provide an opportunity for comment on the Mayor's recommendations by interested persons. If you wish to speak at the meeting, I would request that vou contact my office and so indicate bv Friday, December 9. We will be considering the project on a segment by segment basis, so please indicate which segment(s) you wish to address. Written testimony is also welcomed and strongly encouraged. The following agenda and time allocations for the meeting are tentative and will be revised as necessary to reflect requests to speak on this issue. CITY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55102 612/298-5679 •�pae . Tentative A e�da 1. Overview of Meeting Process: Council President Scheibel 2. Brief Remarks on Recommended Alternatives: Mayor Latimer 3. Segment A: Randolph to Chestnut 10 minutes Testimony Against Mayor's Recommendation 10 minutes Testimony in Favor - - - Discussion by Council and Consideration of A Segment 4. Segment B: Chestnut Connection 30 minutes Testimony Against Mayor's Recommendation 30 minutes Testimony in Favor - - - Discussion and Consideration by Council 5. Segment C: Chestnut to Robert Street 10 minutes Testimony Against Mayor's Recommendation 10 minutes Testiony in Favor - - - Discussion and Consideration by Council 6. Segments D, E, F: East CBD Bypass 5 minutes Testimony Against Mayor's Recommendation 5 minutes Testimony in Faovr - - - Discussion and Consideration by Council � <<*� e� GITY OF SAINT PAUL `�� • ' OFFICE OF THE MAYOR . .� � ,ilri�i i110' :V . . �� 347 CITY HALL �� SAINT PAUL, MiNNE50TA 55102 GEORGE LATI'vIER (61'_) '_9R•S?_:� �1AYOR November 23 , 1988 Council President James Scheibel Members of the City Council � Seventh Floor City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Council President Scheib�el and Members of the City Council: As the elected representatives charged with quiding the future of this City, we have dealt with many difficult decisions. Major roadway issues are always especially challenging because they involve so many legitimate, competing interests. Yet, last week, at the opening of the I-35E Parkway extension to Relloqg, I was struck once again by the grand results of that very long and arduous decision to complete that roadway. Now it is time to conclude another lengthy deliberation about a roadway: how to rebuild Shepard Road and construct a new East Central Business District Bypass. Over the past two and one half years, we have conducted extensive studies and debated the pros and cons of the alternatives in a very open an3 participatory process. The City Council's public hearing in May on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was very well attended and the quality of community comment excellent. Since May, the City departments of Public Works and Planning and Economic Development have been reviewinq the public t�stimony, drafting technical responses, and completing further research on major issues raised. This information is compiled in the attached report along with their final staff recommendations on the preferred alternatives. I have reviewed the staff' s report and recommendations and discussed the issues with many groups and individuals in the . ' community. .I believe that we have now evaluated all our options thoroughly and it is time for us as elected representatives to act decisively. Therefore, I submit these recoaimendations to you. In Segment A of Shepard Road, between Randolph and Chestnut, I recommend that we select the A3 Bluff alignment. This alternative does seem to reflect the consensus of the community at large and NSP's agreement with the railroad alleviates much of our concern •�p16 � � . � '� Members of City Council November 23 , 1988 Page 2 with implementation feasibility. I do believe, however, that we will need to look to NSP and UNOCF,L to aid our efforts to enhance views from the roadway through sc=eening and landscaping the back of their facilities. For Segment B, the intersection of Shepard Road with Chestnut, we have searched long and hard for a solution acceptable to everyane involved. After all our studies and discussions, I am convinced triat we must separate the roadway traffic from the railroads and . that the grade separated alternative at Chestnut, Alternative B2 , is the best option to recommend. I am confident that with careful design and attention to details, the grade separation at Chestnut will work well for everyone concerned. I recommend that we approach this challenge as we did the I-35E Parkway, and therefore I will ask the City Planning Commission to convene a task force of interested agencies, groups, and individuals to advise the City Administration on the design parameters for the separated intersection. In Segment C, I believe that we are best served by the C1 alternative, making some improvements along the existing alignment. We will qain new space for a continuous pedestrian/bikeway, and improve the safety of the roadway at a reasonable cost. As a community, we have not made nuch of an issue of the East Central Business District Bypass. Z concur with the staff recommendations on the .Bypass segments. The real challenge will � . be to secure funding to buil•d this road, but completing the EIS and selecting a preferred alternative is the first critical step toward realizing this important link in our transportation system. I understand that the City Council has scheduled December 13 for its final deliberations on the preferred alternatives for Shepard • Road and the East CBD Bypass. At this time, I am sending my recommendations along with the staff report to you and everyone who testified at the public hearing in May. I will be present at your meeting to discuss these recommendations with you. If there are any questions that we can address before then, please let me know. Very truly yours, or La imer Mayo GL:dma Attachment � ,,��'_ � 9�'� � � � � q � .d 1 �� '� i 9 SHEPARD/WARNER/EAST CBD BYPASS ��-r � �'� � �- l 9 i PUBLIC HEARIN G � RESPONSES AND � REC01VI1VIENDE D �' PREFERRED A NATIVE LTER r -- '--� �. ,� _ � ._ . - --,�-_ .t � -�-_ � I �� " � -- �� _ _ -- _ - �= _-- _� =,�-, � � � � �_� , _-_ �� ,� � _ � ; _ _- �I_� _ -, _ � . _ �-� _ _ . ____ __ �_ �-� r I i i �-�t---� �, � —_ �i � . ��ilu . �� r�r- — �-- � �� - - - _ - _ -- �_�_ I-� i I r -_ _ � . , . � }� � _ . .. . � f�` ] -- Y --.— " ul ' �' � _= - , _ � ;, • -•, y, ---- , , ,: � -'f - � j .� v -- �. — �� - - -- ° - - - -� ,; ' �, �' ��; � _ .� � �- �- _ „� t ti � , . �:� ,:��- ,�� r � - �- � � � �� ; � � �,.�� ° �R � �� r� �� ?� , : ,. �4�/ �� T � ' � f. � ;Z ° ' � - ��}� _ r i � „ L �� _ � „ . �`^j�� 'r� �i�'� '`�' ;' � �i �t� ```�ti`�. ��.� \ , �~ ` � �r� � ` ._ _ � ��C��.��yp-,,��T ' /�f ��i� � p ^!..,-. � ' ,t ! ..., � s �� ..3c � - � �� _. ,� ��, `'�:� �, ' � �� '��=�� ^; 'f�,�''/ a '� . �� —�, � ' ��. t rV'� I w-,��'��; °��.'� `� '�Y'/��' � � k �c � J I � �� { p. II � ��1�� 4-r'� �Y �w I I ; ' � =�� '��,, ,. �. �'. � � � � `�` �� f i "�' I �� fiv � �r. . =-� �/ r / ��I� 7 �"� . �� ; , , . � ---- � , . ' � � --- I � � ,i�l '� �Gt�D/�R7�3G�`Qffi4 fJ�6S7PQ�� , i;il I i -- — � — I i I � Compiled by:THE CITY OF ST. PAUL ' Department of Public Works Department of Planning and Economic Development � November 1988 � � Department of Planning � and Economic Development � � �� - �9�9 � � � � ` � CONTENTS , Staff Memorandum: Recomm n e ded Preferred Alternatives 1 Appendlces � A Prelimin r a y Staff Recommendations of March 30, 1988 . � B Public Hearing Responses ' B-1 Analysis of Chestnut/Eagle Street Alternatives � B-2 Correspondence with SHPO B-3 Correspondence wtth Railroads , B-4 Analysis of Segment C Alternatives ' C Process Outline: From Selection of Preferred Alternative through Construction , D Cost Estimates and Financing Plan • ' , � � , � �••o••s� . .�. S�C , CITY OF SAINT PAUL INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM ' � , DATE: November 18, 1988 TO: Mayor Latimer , Council President Scheibel Members of the City Council FROM: Public Works and Planning and Economic Development Departments � RE: Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass: Recommended Preferred Alternatives , BACKGROUND ' On May 19, 1988 the City Council conducted a Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass. As a prelude to this public hearing, the City Council Public Works Committee received a briefing on the alternatives under consideration for each segment of this roadway project. A staff report outlining the ' alternatives and preliminary staff conclusions was prepared for the Council at that time (March 30,1988) and is attached as Appendix A to this report. ' The public hearing on May 19, 1988 was well attended and the Council received extensive testimony on the alternatives for each segment of the proposed project. The public hearing record remained open until June 20, 1988 to allow for additional testimony in written form. � ' In July, 1988 copies of the public hearing transcript and all written testimony received were provided to the City Council and all persons/agencies who commented on the Draft EIS. � ISSUE BEFORE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL At this point in the EIS decision making process, the Mayor must recommend and the City ' Council approve a preferred alternative for each segment of Shepard Road and the East CBD Bypass. The segments are identified on Figure 1. A complete description of the alternatives was provided in the earlier staff report (Appendix A). � Once the City Council approves a preferred alternative for each segment of the proposed project, the Final Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared which documents this decision and any commitments to mitigation (i.e., landscaping or special design treatment) ' involved in the selected alternative. An outline of the steps in the process from selection of the preferred alternative through approval of a Final EIS by FHWA, the preliminary and final design phase and ultimately construction is provided in Appendix C. ' The financing plan for this overall project includes both federal and local funds. A cost estimate for the project, along with the current financing plan, is provided in Appendix D. � Construction of the project will extend over several years and, hence, the actual commitment to these expenditures will be made through future Council capital budget approvals. ' 1 , � ' w. �vi � �. ru�rww �v[ . � � $ � 5 '��f 'z ;.y:;;:;' �%�''' ' ;%:••;•.�?l'v i ;,�IF:ti iYi. _ :'f •�� '"'"`� � ; '.{{ii ifi.. ., . � . . • ■� ''•'.'i,'i�..� •,��. ' $� a • ��.,� ,•/j'• s � t•♦. �lm�` .�,:y`4'.,r�r:,: +';:�; . 1 �� • ..� �D ' � •�..,:;;,::� 9s�I 94 ,� ::>:•:••.' ; .., • a . ♦ Y � :Y.•'I.•S:k}i:;..,�'� � , �O �� .:;. � . w �Q ' w�w� � �:':t..>.: '•r .:f..M1` s r ,�� ....,v..�.. � . �r "':::�.:.;. •4. •0 ..+`` ��SS�ss,v.ww..�� . A �a�ii I .OA%........'" � ♦ � �'• 7 �e � :'�` t�: i �v :F^'•• a �'io 5 a f:}::• , +� 3 �/1... ' ... y, t� �.•,'.�`:,•';,!y 9 �;f �. a.r.w � :_f � oo.me.n . . ' �wrw� ' � ..+r.•.• ::i�f,.+i' if�;i'r:i::• (MNww 11�1�) •K /{VY.? v,.y{f'.'"�.... .iy,:v ; :.fr,{`.r :::.;�::�i:'�:::'`. ._:'••,:�: . ::.:�r;;�::�•'.•.;. ..�`, .rr tif.ti.... ::,:,,r?:�*'� � :.:�. .: �,;•%•' r �> ..l,.':i':y :<:�'l.��: tr':+!�� . ' •• � '.'j � a �� a ' S2 r -�r \ LEGEND ` , A: 8NEPARO ROAD FROM RANDOLPH TO CMESTNUT de CNESTNUT sTREET CONNECTION TO SNEPARD ROAD ' Cs 8HEPARD ROAD FROM d1ESTNUT TO ROSERT STREET D: EAST CBD BYPA8S CONI�CTION TO WARNER ROAD E: EAST CBD BYPA88 CONNECTION TO LOCAL STREET8 , F:EAST CdD BYPASS CONNECTION TO I-8SE , SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBO BYPASS PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STUaY CORRIDOR & SEGMENTS FIGURE 1 •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ANO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � •STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. , ' PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT , The purpose of this report is to summarize the staff conclusions and recommendations for a preferred alternative for each segment of the proposed project. Moreover, we wish to share with you the extensive further analysis conducted since the time�of the public hearing � which, together with all the previous analysis leading up to the Draft EIS, forms the basis and rationale for the staff's final recommendation. � POST HEARING ANALYSIS Since the end of the comment period, city staff and consultants have evaluated all the , questions and comments received from various individuals, groups and other governmental agencies. Responses to questions and comments have been prepared as additional information for the Mayor and Council when considering the staff recommendations. These , responses are provided in Appendix B. In those instances where individuals or groups raised the same or similar issues, the questions have been grouped and a more comprehensive response provided. , In some cases, issues raised through the public hearing process required quite a bit more additional research and analysis in order to provide a more thorough response. This has certainly been the case with the requests of a number of individuals and groups for a � , further examination of additional alternatives for the B segment, the intersection of Shepard Road with Chestnut Street. Appendix B-1 summarizes the analysis of additional alternatives for the B segment that have been examined over the past several months. Appendix B-2 � , includes all the correspondence between city staff and the staff of the Minnesota Historical Society to clarify further potential historic impacts in various segments. Appendix B-3 includes further correspondence with the railroads concerning future operations in the river corridor. Appendix B-4 summarizes additional analysis of alternatives for Segment C. ' In addition, staff has continued to meet with a number of individuals and groups to clarify and explore the issues they raised through the public hearing process. For example, we have , had further discussions with residents of Irvine Park/Fort Road Federation, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Corps of Engineers, Council President Scheibel's Shepard Road Task Force, Councilmember Dimond, the Planning Commission, the Riverfront ' Commission, DCDC, the Minnesota Historical Society, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Federal Highway Administration. � ' ' � , � 2 , � ' f SEGMENT A: SHEPARD ROAD FROM RANDOLPH TO CHESTNUT , This segment includes Shepard Road from 900 feet west of Randolph Avenue to approximately 1/4 mile west of Chestnut. The staff recommendation prior to the Public Hearing identified five objectives that were considered in reaching a conclusion. � 1. Promote Riverfront Plans and Objectives 2. Minimize Noise Impacts � 3. Implementation Feasibility 4. Enhance views from the roadway 5. Safety � Based upon these five objectives, the "Staff Summary Conclusion" stated, "Stajf concludes that more information is needed through the public hearing process in order to conclude whether A-2 or A-3 is preferable in terms of implementation jeasibility and views jrom the road." ' The Public Hearing response brought forth additional concerns relating to impacts on business operations, roadway design, cost, traffic impacts, hazardous waste, historic impacts, ' soils/geologic conditions, floodplain impacts, and vibrations. Specific responses to these concerns are provided in Appendix B. The staff concluded that the most significant of these concerns, while already incorporated 1 to a degree into the prior staff recommendation, were the concerns relating to the impacts on the existing businesses in the area and the concerns relating to noise and visual impacts. � 1. Impacts on BusIness Operations Through separate discussions with NSP a�d UNOCAL, as well as through the recorded ' testimony, it had been apparent that the impacts of A-1 or A-2 on industrial operations were more significant than originally envisioned. However, the uncertainties and complex nature of dealing with the railroads in a major property acquisition necessary for the implementation of A-3 continued to offset those impacts. As part of the Public Hearing ' testimony, NSP, the C&NW, and the Soo Line offered the city an agreement signed by the three parties. The agreement pledges the support of the parties in the implementation of the A-3 alignment, and is specifically focused at the elimination of the major implementation ' concerns held by the city. The staff has concluded that the agreement does alleviate the majority of the city's implementation concerns. 2. Noise Impacts � While much discussion relating to noise has been included in ever level of decision makin Y S to date, it continues to be important to note that Alternative A-1 would result in less adverse ' noise impacts than A-2 or A-3 particularly at the west end of the segment. It is equally important to note that all segment A alternatives can be mitigated by noise walls along Shepard Road. It may also be possible to achieve some mitigating effects by slight shifts in , the alignment. This would be evaluated witliin the design process after the completion of the final EIS. Additional discussion on noise impacts is included in the analysis of Segment B. ' � ' 3 � ' 3. V�ews from the Roadway � The other area of concern that prevented a conclusion in support of A-3 in the March 30, , 1988 staff report was that "The views from the roadway--of railroad tracks and the back of NSP and other industry--would not be very attractive." Since the adjacent industrial property owners did not address or offer to provide landscape screening on their own properties, the � city must assume the responsibility of incorporating landscaping and screening off the right of way into future agreements with the private parties involved. Due to the difficult nature of visual treatment for A-3, sufficient additional right of way should be secured beyond � that needed for the roadway alone to allow for mitigation of the negative visual impacts. Conclusions on Segment A � The commitment to A-3 by the industrial property owners has made it the most "feasible" alternative to implement. Because of the extreme difficulties involved in constructing a roadway through this segment and the relative slight differences between the other , objectives, implementation becomes the overriding factor in the decision. 1 FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: A-3 Bluff Alignment CONDITIONS: . � 1. "Old" Shepard Road is to be converted to a two-lane street to provide access to the abutting propertjes and to provide for the pedestrian and bicycle trails. � 2. Additional right of way width is to be acquired beyond that necessary for roadway construct�on in order to accommodate reasonable visual screening and landscaping. ' 3. Provisions for necessary vtsual screening of undesirable elements on adjacent properties are to be incorporated to the extent possible into future agreements and negotiations. ' 4. Moderate shifting of the alignment shall be considered in the design to attempt to help mitigate noise impacts. , 5. Noise walls should be an option to be decided by the city in consultation with affected property owners, the St. Paul HPC, the SHPO, FHWA, MnDOT, and MPCA based on further analysis during the design phase of the benefits and Icosts of noise mitigation alternatives. t 1 t 1 ' 4 � � SEGMENT B: CONNECTION OF CHESTNUT TREET S TO SHEPARD ROAD � The connection of Chestnut Street to Shepard Road clearly is the most controversial segment of this project and received the most comment and questions during the public hearing process. In the March 30, 1988 staff report, we identified four objectives as the most � significant in differentiating among the Segment B alternatives: 1. Vehicular and pedestrian safety, � 2. Downtown accessibility 3. Compatibility with riverf ront plans 4. Compatibility with the ad jacent residential neighborhood , We concluded that Alternative B-2, a grade separated intersection, offered the best opportunity to satisfy these objectives, provided it is carefully designed and executed. , Through the public hearing process, many groups and individuals testified regarding the grade separation alternative, some in favor and some against. Many questions were raised about the impacts of a grade separation of Chestnut and Shepard. Many of the questions � were already addressed in the Draft EIS or special studies and require, primarily, clarification. Some questions focused on the validity of the EIS data or study methodology. Some comments were simply statements of support or preference for one alternative or another. Specific responses to these questions are provided in Appendix B. iHowever, there were four issues raised through the hearing process which staff concluded were extremely significant and required further research and analysis before we could make ' a final recommendation on a preferred alternative for Segment B, the intersection of Shepard with Chestnut. These issues were: 1. The potential reduction in rail traffic crossing Chestnut as a result of � the new agreement between NSP and the railroads 2. The potential adverse impacts on the Irvine Park National Historic District I 3. The potential for shifting the grade separation away from Chestnut to the east 4. Noise impacts and the potential need for noise walls. � Each of these issues has been explored more fully over the past few months; the analysis and conclusions are summarized below. � l. Potent�al Reduction in Rall Traffic at Chestnut � Questions were raised as to whether the new agreement between NSP and the railroads would result in fewer trains crossing Chestnut from the East to the High Bridge Plant and therefore eliminating the need for a grade separation between the railroad tracks and � Chestnut Street. Currently, there are on average 48 train movements per 24 hour period across Chestnut. City staff contacted both the Chicago Northwestern and Soo Line Railroads and asked them � if they anticipated decreased train movements across Chestnut. Copies of this correspondence are provided in Appendix B-3. Both railroads indicated that they anticipated future crossings to be about the same as currently experienced and did not � foresee any significant reduction. � 5 � � Based upon this response, previous responses and information gathered from other sources knowledgeable about railroad operations, such as MnDOT, staff concludes that there will be no significant reduction in rail traffic crossing Chestnut. ' 2. Potential Adverse Impact on Irvine Park National Historic District � Several groups and individuals raised questions about potential adverse impacts of a grade separated alternative on the Irvine Park National Historic District. Specific responses to � these questions and concerns are provided in Appendix B. In researching the potential adverse impact on Irvine Park, staff has been consulting further with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Our correspondence on these matters is � attached in Appendix B-2. In addition we have had several work sessions including one with a representative of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation from Washington, D.C. , In any federally funded transportation project such as Shepard Road, there are two distinct federal laws to safeguard nationally designated or designation-eligible kistoric properties. (Irvine Park is a nationally "designated" historic district. The Harvest States Grain , Terminals are "eligible for designation," according to the SHPO, but have not been so designated.) a. Section 4(fl of the Denartment of Transnortation Act of 1966 requires that in any � highway pro ject, all steps be taken to avoid use of nationally designated or eligible historic properties. Both the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the SHPO share the responsibility and authority to enforce this requirement. The SHPO has concluded ' (Appendix B-2) and FHWA concurred there are no 4(f) impacts on Irvine Park from either an at-grade or grade separation of the Chestnut intersection with Shepard, provided Shepard is moved back from the riverfront. This is because the B-la alternative, an at grade � intersection with Shepard aligned adjacent to the river, would require the demolition of the Harvest States Grain Elevators. This would constitute a 4(f) impact. b. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act sets forth a process to � accommodate historic preservation concerns with the needs of Federal undertakings. The SHPO together with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Federal Highway Administration are the primary agencies responsible for implementing the ' requirements of this process. While the Section 106 requirements do not prohibit selection of an alternative with potential adverse historic impact, it does provide a process to identify any adverse impacts and, if so identified, encourages seeking ways to avoid or reduce the effects. � Through our discussions thus far, the SHPO has concurred with the City's findings that there will be no adverse effects from traffic, air pollutants, or vibrations under any B � segment alternative. Likewise, views from the District are not a concern. However, the SHPO has also advised us that the grade separated alternative has a potential adverse effect on the Irvine Park Historic District due to "the changes in the topography of the Chestnut � Street area, since this topography vis-a-vis the Mississippi River is an important aspect in understanding why the buildings of the district were constructed in this particular location." The SHPO is also concerned with the potential "visual intrusion" of the grade separation alternative as well as the potential impacts of noise walls under any alternative for the B ' segment. SHPO has questioned whether one alternative has significantly higher noise impacts than another and would therefore be more likely to require construction of noise walls. As stated previously, the noise studies have shown that there is no significant noise � impact differences between the at grade or grade separated alternatives. 1 6 � � The Section 106 process insures that historic preservation objectives are given equal consideration in the selecting of a preferred alternative among other objectives such as safety, transportation access, economic development or land use. If, in the balancing of , these objectives, an alternative is selected which does pose a potential adverse historic effect, the 106 process provides•for further consultation among the agencies leading to a memorandum of agreement to avoid or mitigate�the impacts. jIn summary, as part of the Section 106 requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act, we have determined that there would be potential adverse historic impacts from a grade � separated intersection due to the grade change in Chestnut Street. If the grade-separated alternative is selected, further consultation with the SHPO will be initiated to review the basis for this decision and enter into a memorandum of agreement on how the effects will be taken into account. Based on discussions with the SHPO to date, potential mitigation , measures could range from historic documentation to special design features for the grade separated intersection. , 3. Potential Shlfting of the Grade Separation to the East of Chestnut ' Many groups and individuals urged more investigation into the potential for shifting the grade-separated intersection away from Chestnut toward the east. In response, several alternatives were examined in some detail. A more thorough description of the analysis of these alternatives is provided in Appendix C. � � To summarize, three basic "shifts" were examined. � 1) First, we looked at simply shifting Chestnut eastward approximately 80 feet, whicfi in turn shifted the grade separation 80 feet, This alternative provided some increased space for a landscaping buffer along Chestnut but did not provide any benefit in terms of • significant noise abatement on the Irvine Park residential area, nor did it provide a means � of avoiding the potential adverse impacts on the historic topography of Chestnut Street. This 80-foot shift created a new negative impact by requiring the demolition and relocation of Plastics, Inc. This would create an increase in project costs as well as a potential loss of ' jobs in St. Paul. Therefore, this alternative increased costs without any corresponding increase in benefits. � 2) The second type of alternative examined was to move the intersection to Eagle Street. A Chestnut Street type grade separation could not be constructed at Eagle because the ramps to the east could not be fit between the river's edge and the railroad t.racks. To � overcome this constraint, yet still separate traffic and rail operations, Shepard Road itself would need to be elevated. Eagle Street would also be elevated to cross over the railroad tracks and intersect with Shepard. Elevating Shepard would increase the noise and visual impacts on the residential areas. The aesthetic impacts of an elevated roadway combined ' with a gateway to Downtown focused on the back of the Civic Center parking ramp were less than desirable. Finally, four separate alignments were evaluated in an attempt to make Eagle Street work as an entry point and connector to downtown streets. Each alternative � created various traffic, land use, business relocation or cost problems. None was concluded as feasible. Given the negative impacts of raising the Shepard road mainline plus the problems associated with using an Eagle Street alignment, we have concluded that shifting � the intersection to Eagle would be unacceptable. 3) The third type of alternative examined was to leave Shepard Road and Chestnut Street at grade but achieve a separation from rail traffic by raising the raiiroad itself over � Chestnut. This was a new option created as a result of NSP's agreement with the railroads. However, this alternative could cost twice as much as the grade separation alternative plus � 7 � c� commit the city to potentially high, ongoing maintenance costs. Another concern would result from raising the railroad traffic to the height of the bluff top, which could create , both noise, vibration, and visual impacts on the Irvine Park Historic District. � 4. Noise Impacts and Potential Need for Noise Walls The preliminary staff report of March 30, 1988 concluded that "While noise impacts on the adjacent neighborhood jrom Shepard Road and Chestnut are serious, there is no significant � difference among the alternatives--build or no build. Therejore, noise impacts cannot serve as a dijferentiating factor in selecting the Segment B alternative." This conclusion is still valid. ' A separate but related concern, however, is that of noise walls. Several groups and individuals raised concerns with potential noise walls, where they might be located, how tall they might be, and how they might be designed. The SHPO has indicated that noise walls ' constructed on the top of the bluff could be a major adverse effect on the Historic District and should be avoided. Whether noise walls should be provided at all is the first issue. State requirements are fairly ' clear in the case of entirely new roadways where a source of noise is introduced for the first time and standards are exceeded. Usually, in those instances, noise walls are required. However, the Shepard Road project is a reconstruction project and the difference among � noise levels between the no-build (existing roadway) and build alternatives for the B segment is negligible. In this situation, just what kind of noise walls should be designed, if at all, is a judgment to be made after considering benefits in noise reduction against costs in ' terms of not only dollars, but visual and design conflicts. Another consideration may be whether state MSA funds can be used for noise wall construction given the benefit-cost analysis. � Staff and consultants have been researching the noise wall issue further in response to issues raised at the hearing and in subsequent discussions with various groups, FHWA, and MPCA. We have been examining various options from noise walls to minor shifts in the Shepard � Road alignment, or a combination of both. The analysis thus far indicates that there are several alternative ways to mitigate noise successfully. Evaluating the costs and benefits of various options should take place in consultation with all the concerned parties, the Irvine Park residents, SHPO, FHWA, MnDot, the St. Paul HPC, and the City Administration after � completion of the Final EIS and during the final design phase of the project. At this point, noise walls should remain an option for consideration as part of the project. , Conclusions on Segment B � Staff has concluded that railroad traffic through the river corridor will continue at its current volumes, creating vehicular and pedestrian safety problems while disrupting access to downtown. A grade separation of the railroad crossing is required. Moving the crossing � to Eagle Street is not a feasible alternative. The design of the grade separated crossing should be developed in consultation with all the affected parties and include features to mitigate potential historic impacts. A decision on noise walls should be reached during the design phase in consultation with the Irvine Park residents, SHPO, St. Paul HPC, FHWA, and � MnDOT. � � 8 , , FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: B-2 GRADE SEPARATION ' CONDITIONS: 1. The grade separation option shall include: � maximum compression of Intersection geometrics extra wide sidewalks 1 special lighting and landscaping architectural railings and retaining wall treatment . some type of special promontory feature at the river's edge �� opportunity for historic �nterpretation features opportunity for vehicular access to open space and development area from Chestuut � integration with r�verfront plans and objectives 2. A special task force should be established by the Planning Commission comprised of interested individuals and groups to advise the City , Administration on the design of the grade separated facility during the design phase of the project. � 3. Noise walls should be an option to be decided by the city in consultation with affected property owners, the St. Paul HPC, the SHPO, FHWA, MnDOT, and MPCA based on further analysis during the design phase of the benefits and ' costs of noise mltigation alternatives. � ' � � , � � � , 9 ��-- i9�'v' - i��'9 � � - SEGMENT C: SHEPARD ROAD EAST OF CHESTNUT TO ROBERT � This segment includes Shepard Road from approximately one-quarter mile east of Chestnut Street to Robert Street. The staff recommendation prior to the Public Hearing identified � four objectives that were considered in reaching a conclusion: 1. Implementation Feasibility 2. Cost , 3. Riverfr.ont Development Objectives 4. Safety ' Based upon these four objectives, the "Staff Summary Conclusion" stated: "Since neither Riverjront objectives nor design standards can be jully met by either alternative, � the most important jactors in selecting an alternative in Segment C are implementation feasibility and cost. The potential obstacles to implementing C-1 are much more significant than C-1. The major cost dijferential between C-1 and C-2 is not justified in terms of a cost effective investment in the ultimate cross section. Alternative C-2 could result in spending nearly $10. � million to gain immediate changes which given time may happen on their own. In addition, this alternative does not achieve the roadway or riverfront objectives. Therefore, it would be more jeasible to build Alternative C-1 as the first stage of an incremental project. Reconstruction of � the Wabasha bridge should be expedited to allow for completion of the ultimate cross section in the near juture." � The narrowness of this segment and the extreme variations in topography from the top of the bluff to the river's edge make this section very difficult to deal with in terms of access and urban design. The Public Hearing response clearly demonstrated that a good deal of confusion exists relative to the physical constraints limiting choices and to the potential for � changes as events may or may not take place beyond the scope of this pro ject. Appendix B-4 was developed to provide a better perspective of the available alternatives as well as a description of an additional alternative, "C-2 Modified." ' The staff continues to conclude that the overriding factors in Alternative selection for this segment are implementation feasibility and cost. � 1. Implementation Feasibility Attempting to go beyond "No Build", or "C-1", involves a negotiated agreement with the � railroads for the abandonment of the C&NW line crossing the river via the Robert Street lift bridge as well as a virtual reconstruction and consolidation of the elevated mainline tracks throughout this segment. It would be unrealistic to assume that the city could arrive at such � an agreement and bring such a project to conclusion prior to the mid 1990s. In the interim, the Warner Road and Lambert Landing reconstruction scheduled to begin in 1991 would have to be terminated far to the east of Sibley Street to allow for eventual matching of � alignments. In analyzing the value of the additional land made available under the C-2 Modified alternative (see Appendix B-4), it is critical to understand that the constraints of the river � channel prevent the possibility of any mooring activity in the area between Robert Street and Wabasha Street. All boat-docking activity must take place easterly of the Robert Street bridge. Boat activity will certainly be the focal point of the development of both private � and public space in the overall area, and the only feasible pedestrian access from the downtown area exists easterly of the bridge. In addition, the arches of the Robert Street bridge create a definite land-use division or separation. Staff has concluded that the value � 10 ! 1 of the additional land realized under either the C-2 or C-2 Modified alternatives (Appendix B-4, figures 1 and 2) is not worth the time delay and additional cost involved in an attempt � to implement C-2 or C-2 Modified. The staff has further concluded that the effort and resources presently available should be concentrated on the reconstruction of Lambert , Landing easterly of the Robert Street bridge where it is much more feasible to connect the � river activity to the downtown aCtivity. 2. Cost � As concluded in the March 30, 1988 staff report, C-2 would involve about $9 million of additional expense over the cost of C-1. C-2 Modified would involve at least $13-15 million of additional expense beyond C-1. Because much of the cost of C-2 Modified would be for � property damage and relocation, temporary yet expensive structures to maintain railroad operations during construction, costs of rail abandonment, and ongoing obligations to the resulting new rail structures, only very approximate estimates can be made at this time. , Conclusions on Segment C Because of the massive right-of-way requirements of C-2 and C-2 Modified, the staff � concludes that the alternative choices remaining were between "no build" and C-1. In addition, the staff no longer recommends considering C-1 "as the first stage of an incremental project" This statement in the March 30, 1988 staff report inferred a staging � approach that would eventually lead to accomplishing an eventual "C-2 Modified" type of solution. The projected life of the existing railroad structures (exclusive of the lift bridge) will most certainly last well beyomd the point when the city must make a final commitment to an alignment. Incremental or more temporary construction in the area of the Wabasha 1 Street bridge and the area of the approach span to the C&NW lift bridge will be . incorporated into design, but the proper time to make a commitment to a solution that will exist for at least 20 years, is now. • � FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: C-1 Minor Improvements � CONDITIONS: 1. This segment is to be the last segment constructed in order to accommodate near term changes to the Wabasha Street bridge and the C&NW lift bridge. � 2. Design of Segment C will be coordinated with the final plans for the construction of the Lower Landtng area (included in Warner Road � reconstruction). � , � � � 11 � � SEGMENT D: WARNER ROAD CONNECTION TO THE EAST CENTRAL BUSINESS � DISTRICT BYPASS This segment includes the connection of Warner Road to the proposed East Central Business � District Bypass. The staff recommendation prior to the Public Hearing concluded that both of the alternatives were similar in terms of neighborhood impact, amount of relocation required, pedestrian/bicycle accommodation, water and air quality impacts, noise impact and implementation feasibility. The two differing objectives that were considered in reaching a � conclusion were: 1. Safety and Smooth Traffic Flow � 2. Promote Riverfront Objectives Based upon these objectives, the "Staff Summary Conclusion" stated: "Both alternatives jor ' Segment D meet the primary objective of separating the railroad tracks from the Bypass. While D-1 is better in terms of safety and traffic flow, D-2 is better in terms of promoting riverfront objectives. Since views and access to the open space along the river are priorities for this segment, D-2 is the preferred alternative. � Conclusions on Segment D � Very little discussion or new information came forth within the Public Hearing and staff remains convinced that D-2 is the best possible alternative. � FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: D-2 Elevated "T" Intersection CONDITIONS: � 1. Provisioas allowing for the construction of "D-2" as part of the eventual East Central District Bypass are to be incorporated into the design of the Warner . Road reconstruction pro ject. � 1 � � i f i 1 ' IZ � ' SEGMENTS E & F: EAST CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BYPASS ! This segment includes the connection of Warner Road to I-35E with a new roadway referred to as the "East Central Business District Bypass." The staff recommendation prior to the � Public Hearing concluded that the available alternatives for these two segments were similar in terms of views of and from the roadway, pedestrian/bicycle accommodation, air and water quality impacts, noise impacts and implementation feasibility. Five differing objectives that were considered in reaching a conclusion were: � 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan 2. Minimize noise impacts ` , 3. Safety 4. Cost 5. Coordination with I-35E reconstruction 1 Based upon these objectives, the "Staff Summary Conclusion" for Segments E & F stated: (Segment E)The most important objective jor Segment E is consistency with the comprehensive plan--i.e., implementing the ring route concept, improving access to the eastern edge oj downtown � and east side neighborhoods and improving the redevelopment potential of areas ad jacent to the Bypass. E-2 is clearly the best alternative for these purposes." (Segment F) "Alternative F-1 is the only feasible connection to I-35E at this time. Staff should continue to work with MnDOT as � it plans for the reconstruction of I-35E north of I-94, as this will impact the 1-35E/Pennsylvania/Bypass interchange." � Conclusions on Segments E & F . V e r y l i t t l e d i s c u s s i o n o r n e w i n j o r m a t i o n c a m e f o r t h w i t hin t he Pu b lic Hearing an d s ta f f remains convinced that E-2 and F-1 are the best possible alternatives. � FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION.• E-2 Bypass with connections F-1 Connection to 1-35 at Pennsylvania lnterchange ' CONDITIONS: � 1. The final design of these segments will not proceed until the questions regarding funding and jurisdiction have been resolved. ' ' ' ' ' ' 13 � F•••••o �tO"• ` CITY OF SAINT PAUL INTEROEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM , ,��' _�� LL`" .. � _� ., - Y �' DATE: March 30, 1988 ��J�� ` j�y j W�. ` � � f 0'� `�`� TO: Public Works Committee ' FROM: Public Works and PED Staff RE: Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass Draft Environmental , Impact Statement BACKGROUND ' On April 28, 1988 the City Council will be conductin a ublic hearin n g P g o the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Shepard/Warner Road and the East CBD Bypass. � Based on the information contained in the EIS and the public testimony at the hearing, the City Council will select a preferred alternative for Shepard Road and the Bypass. The Public Works Committee has the responsibility to evaluate the environmental impact , statement and the public testimony in order to recommend a preferred alternative to the full City Council. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ' The purpose of this report is to summarize the key findin s set forth in the Dr g aft Env�ronmental Impact Statement regarding Shepard Road, Warner Road and the East CBD � Bypass and to outline the city staff preliminary conclusion on the preferred alternative. It is imnortant to state that this craff conclusion is nreliminarv and based on information ava�lable to date: technical information, such as traffic or noise analyses; private � development information, such as the future plans of property owners or major activities in the area; and knowledge of community goals and concerns expressed in city adopted plans and discussed over the past two years concerning such matters as downtown accessibility, riverfront development and neighborhood preservation. Following analysis of , the public hearing testimony, staff will present its final conclusion and recommendation. NEED FOR SHEPARD ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ' When evaluating how to improve Shepard Road, it is important for the City Council to remember that recognition of the need to improve Shepard Road is not new. Discussions , were intense as long ago as the 1960s, but decisions were delayed by the lengthy debate over where to locate I-35E. The ultimate decision in favor of a parkway for I-35E in the early 1980s affected Shepard Road significantly by designating it the parallel truck route. During this 20-year debate over I-35E, Shepard has continued as a road with inadequate , lane widths and shoulders, dangerous curves, and a very high rate of serious accidents. Meanwhile, downtown has been revitalized, and its future includes continued growth as a ' major retail and employment center. More recently, the City has committed itself to extending this revitalization to the riverfront. ' I ' � There are a series of key facts identified in the Draft EIS which support the need�for ! improving the Shepard/Warner Road corridor: . Shepard/Warner Road is an unsafe transportation facility with a high accident rate. ' Redesign is needed to correct unsafe, substandard conditions. . Shepard/Warner Road is needed to provide important city wide and regional access ' to the Saint Paul metro center from the west, southwest and southeast. . Shepard/Warner Road is needed as part of a downtown route to divert through trips ' from local streets such as Sibley and Jackson streets which are overloaded. . Shepard/Warner Road is needed as part of a truck route because trucks over 9000 pounds are restricted from the I-35E Parkway between West Seventh Street and I-94. ' Through truck trips need to be diverted from overloaded local streets. . Adequate capacity cannot be provided elsewhere in the Saint Paul CBD to ' accommodate future travel demands in the Shepard/Warner Road corridor. . Improvements to Shepard/Warner Road are needed to support redevelopment of the � Saint Paul Riverfront. Redevelopment of the riverfront would enhance not only downtown Saint Paul but the entire metropolitan region. . Pedestrian and bicycle access along the river is poor. The proposed action provides ' an opportunity to improve pedestrian/bicycle facilities and provide connections to the regional trails system. . The aesthetics along the existing waterfront are less than desirable. The proposed ' action provides an opportunity to significantly improve the visual characteristics of _, the riverfront and this portion of the Saint Paul CBD. � NEED FOR THE EAST CBD BYPASS The East CBD Bypass has been proposed as a part of the city's street network for several � years. The Plan for Streets and Highways (1979) included the Bypass as a part of a ring route around downtown Saint Paul. The I-35E EIS identified the East CBD Bypass as an alternate route for the trucks which are prohibited from the 35E Parkway. As the , completion of the 35E Parkway approaches and demands on the city's street system increase, the need for the East CBD Bypass is becoming ever more apparent. There are a series of key facts identified in the Shepard/Warner/CBD Bypass Draft EIS which support , the need for building the ncw East CBD Bypass: . The East CBD Bypass with connections is needed to divert through-traffic from downtown streets such as Jackson and Sibley streets. The Bypass with connections ' would divert 10,000 daily trips from these streets. This is important because the downtown street system is "fixed" and will not have the capacity for future traffic volumes. ' . The East CBD Bypass is needed to provide good access to an underdeveloped portion of downtown Saint Paul and the East Side. Redevelopment of these areas is ' supported by the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. ' 2 ' ' � . The East CBD Bypass is needed as an alternate truck route for the 35E Parkway. The Bypass would divert a large number of trucks from downtown (700) and neighborhood streets. , . The East CBD Bypass is needed to connect the city's street system east of downtown and distribute traffic more effectively on these streets. If the Bypass is built with , connections, close to 10,000 daily trips would be diverted from local streets. . The East CBD Bypass (with a trail) is needed to connect the riverfront trail with the regional trail system to the north and east of downtown. IEIS PROCESS ' The EIS study was initiated in November 1985. The first phase scoping report, which narrowed the range of alternatives, was completed in June 1986 and approved by City Council on December 9, 1986. Special in-depth studies of the alternatives approved in the � scoping report were conducted between 1986 and the end of 1987. These studies included: Traffic Impact Study, Noise and Air Quality Study, Floodplain Impact, Soils Geologic and Subsurface Investigations, Visual Impact Study, Land Use Study, Relocat�on and Right-of- Way Study, Historic Resources Survey. The results of these studies were then incorporated ' into the summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which is now the subject of the public hearing. � Public involvement in this study process over the past two and one-half years has taken four primary forms. Fir a task force of adjacent property owners, businesses and neighborhood groups was established at the outset of this environmental impact statement , process. It met periodically to review the work preceding the Scoping Report, to review the findings of the special studies, and to raise issues and questions along the way. This task force will be convened again prior to the public hearing to be briefed on the summary Draft EIS and the staff recommendation report. � Second• the Planning Commission and the Riverfront Commission, the two standing citizen advisory committees to the City Council involved with roadway and riverfront issues, have ' been reviewing the studies along the way and providing comments and input. These two commissions will be providing advisory recommendations to the City Council following the formal public hearing in April. , Third. City Council President Scheibel established a special group of residents in the Irvine Park/West Seventh Street neighborhood, as well as the affected property owners such as NSP, UNOCAL, the railroads and West Publishing to discuss segments A and B of the study , corridor in more depth. City staff and consultants were involved in all these meetings. He will be offering a summary of his meetings to the City Council. , And fourth, city staff and consultants have had numerous meetings with individual property owners, such as NSP, county and state elected officials and other governmental agency representatives to share information and address their concerns. , ' � 3 , ' ROADWAY SEGMENTS ' For the purpose of analysis we have divided the Shepard/Warner and East CBD Bypass corridors into six segments. (Figure 1) ' A. Shepard Road from Randolph to Chestnut B. Connection of Chestnut to Shepard Road ' C. Shepard Road from Chestnut to Jackson D. Connection of East CBD Bypass to Warner Road ' E. East CBD Bypass from Warner Road to I-35E � F. Connection of East CBD Bypass to I-35E DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS ' If Shepard Road is reconstructed between Randolph and Warner Road, it will be a 4-lane, divided roadway (12-foot lanes) with shoulders and a continuous pedestrian/bike path , along the river. This standard design is assumed for every build alternative. Shepard currently carries about 24,000 vehicles per day. It is forecasted to carry 24-27,000 vehicles per day in the design year 2010 and 27-29,000 if the East CBD Bypass is constructed. These � forecasts assume that I-35E will be carrying 56-60,000 vehicles per day and West Seventh, 18-20,000 (currently 17-19,000). Trucks will comprise about 1396 of the vehicles on Shepard, slightly higher than the average of 1096 for most major arterials. The proposed design for the East CBD Bypass is similar to that of Shepard/Warner Road. , The Bypass would be a 4-lane, divided roadway with ten-foot shoulders, a median and turn lanes at signalized intersections. A trail would be constructed along the western edge of � the corridor to connect with regional trails to the north and south. The alignment of the East CBD Bypass is fixed by the location of railroad tracks along the ' eastern edge of the corridor, which are expected to remain active over at least the next 20 years. The alignment is further limited by bridge piers from the Kellogg, I-94, East Seventh and Lafayette bridges. The proposed connections to local streets could only be accomplished with at-grade intersections with the Bypass. ' Seven additional alternatives were developed to consider upgraded connections at East Seventh Street. At present, grade-separated connections to local street connections are not ' possible due to the grades of the railroad tracks and bridges. However, if these constraints change in the future, it would be possible to consider grade separations along the Bypass corridor. BALANCING MULTIPLE OBJECTIVES � As a prelude to presenting the staff analysis and conclusions, it is critical to explain the ' public policy context in which staff has approached this entire project. The difficulty in any major public policy decision stems from the prevalent situation of multiple goals and objectives for the community. Our experience has been that major roadway decisions are ' very difficult in Saint Paul, because we are trying to achieve not one but several goals and objectives. In many cases, these goals may conflict. Shepard Road is a major road in the city providing regional access to and through our downtown. We need to provide a safe � 4 ' � i � � , w. r��rwn �v � e. r�sruxo �ve 0 Ea j7 � � ' � s i � � ' e = 3 �� 1 F - � I--'� ,eR �r. r w �ve. � • •. �� 't1X:;;�:y';;' -,,y�� ::::r:.rrr:� �'ri:�:.��.�'��-.`.'��`�.,;c��;,'.,.;f:. 5 . ' � e�'" ..:.. �`r;' �'`;`i...:;r;:;:�: :�... � � .. � � ;r:_ :;:::r:......:: ::::r::::::` . .:::.::::F<::i 4. TMOYI Y.. ...�... :'.':,`,`'`,.'.'...,,�t, � �4 � ii`€:M.., m ■. v �D , s ,.� 9 -� im� sa �� ,� ea� I� ,.�:. ,1 `s`i r:::. �. ; • ••�� 'j;:,s�;:::;:';;;;?,.'.::. ` I P o��0�� ; ......0 .... ��`. `D O �.:.:<::::r;;:;.::.. _ .. O � ::::::::.::...::. ' �r ::::::::r:...,.. . , ::::...:....:.....:::t::::_;'. O .... ' ....::.. � �N ' • O t::' 4��► ?;'t: .:;:t::.. �t• .... ' .1��5 tr. s�S surr�r ,va. A�� . s�a. ' � �� A/.._ 1� ♦ ♦ � � � � r i' ♦ °� t ... C` :.. '. �'�t� � �fi / .. ... .::... � .•o b � � � �rj';i±,�:;;`�;rrr;' . ' 3 / � r. e��w A /�':F;'.t:fL'::`.`:ff�`�::;,.;�;(:`?.'('.:;��'��`��'. 4� .... ....:::::r: ..::::::�:�;r;;:..: s�.r..� � OwMa�w AMyvt IXNwp�Rl�h) JO�Y�ON AY�. /:::��:.'.i::�':�'��'i:'�:iei:.��:`:�u:':��.:':_.::.!,!,;;',: ' �l ....... ... .. � � ' :::::::::i" ...�:�:... ...:...::::::.:... ...:::..:... :::::::::�' .:.:� . Q � � ....... . .::�.:::.. _',.. ` � ::..::....... .:... .. � M �il� ' � �� 5 Z + II M�ML�� T ---ir ' LEGEND A: SHEPARD ROAD FROM RANDOLPH TO CHESTNUT , B: CHESTNUT STREET CONNECTION TO SHEPARD ROAD C: SHEPARD ROAD FROM�CHESTNUT TO ROBERT STREET D: EAST CBD BYPASS CONNECTION TO WARNER ROAD ' E: EAST CBD BYPASS CONNECTION TO LOCAL STREETS F: EAST CBD BYPASS CONNECTION TO 1-3SE , SHEPARD/WAFiNER/ECBD BYPASS PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM •ST.PAUL DEPAFTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STUDY CORRIDOR & SEGMENTS FIGURE 1 � •ST.PAUL OEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ANDECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT •STRGAR—ROSCOE—FAUSCH, INC. ' and pleasant driving experience on Shepard Road as well as the capacity to accommodate forecasted travel demand in the corridor. We want a road that is compatible with the ' current activities in the corridor and supportive of a revitalized riverfront. We want to provide good accessibility to our growing downtown retail and employment center. Finally, we very much want a road that is compatible with the ad jacent residential ' neighborhood along the bluff. Staff has evaluated each of the roadway alternatives in light of these multiple objectives. ' We have tried to find the alternative that maximizes them. Where there are conflicts in objectives, we have tried to design alternatives that balance objectives and preserve the essential features of each objective. Striking such a balance and making tradeoffs involves ' analyzing the facts and exercising judgment. This report, therefore, summarizes the professional analysis and judgment of the staff in the departments of Public Works and Planning and Economic Development. ' ' , , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' , 5 1 ' SEGMENT A: Shepard Road from Randolph to Chestnut (F�gure 2) ' This segment includes Shepard Road from 900 feet west of~Randolph Avenue to approx�mately 1/4 mile west of Chestnut Street. , Three build alternatives and "No Build" were considered in the draft Environmental Impact Statement for Segment A (Figure 2). Cross section widths will vary depending on ' space constraints. A-1 Existing Alienment: Follows existing alignment ad jacent to the river. Estimated cost _ $9.1 million. � A-2 Shift East of NSP: Follows existing alignment adjacent to the river from Randolph to the High Bridge.and then shifts the roadway inland through Kaplan's to the base , of the bluff behind Harvest States grain elevators. Estimated cost = $12.3 million. (This cost includes a grade separated route over a railroad spur line currently serving Harvest States. However, the city has purchased Harvest States and intends to demolish it, making the grade separation unnecessary and reducing the cost of ' A-2 to $9.8 million.) A-3 Base of the Bluff: Shifts entire alignment to the base of the bluff behind the ' UNOCAL tank farm, NSP, Kaplan's and Harvest States properties. Estimated cost = $13.1 million. (Again, because the city has purchased Harvest States and intends to demolish it, the cost of A-3 can be reduced to $l Os6 million.) , In addition, staff has evaluated a modification of A-3 proposed by the Irvine Park neighborhood. � ' Midwav Alternative: Follows the A-3 alignment until east of the High Bridge, where it shifts approximately 100 feet more awav from the bluff. Estimated cost = $13.3 million, and $10.8 when Harvest States is demolished. , All build alternatives are similar in terms of cost, the extent to which they meet air quality and safety standards, and impact on the floodplain. The alternatives differ ' in the extent to which they meet the following four objectives: (1) promote riverfront plans and objectives, (2) minimize noise impacts, (3) implementation feasibility, (4) enhance views from the roadway, and (5) safety. ' 1, Promote Riverfront Plans and Obiecttves In 1987, the City Council adopted the Riverfront Pre-Develonment Plan and ' amendments to the comprehensive plan regarding the riverfront. These plans identify two objectives most relevant to this segment: (a) improve public access to the shoreline and (b) enhance the desirability of the Upper Landing site for housing and open space. � a. Imorove oublic access to the shoreline ' Pedestrian and bicycle accommodation along the river is improved by those alternatives that provide space between the road and the trail and separate pathways for pedestrians and bicycles. All of the build alternatives enhance public access to the riverfront but vary in the degree to which they do so. ' A-1: Keeps road in its existing location, immediately adjacent to the river Proximity to shoreline requires pedestrian/bikeway to be combined into one , facility. 6 ' , A-2: Keeps road along the shoreline for most of the segment, but pulls away from ' the river east of the High Bridge. Provides enough room for separate pathways for pedestrians and bicycles east of the High Bridge and along the � shoreline. A-3/Midway: Pulls entire segment away from the river and shifts it to the base of the bluff, providing ample room for separate pedestrian and , bicycle pathways the entire length of the segment. Staff Conclusion: A-3 and Midway alignments do the best job of pulling the road awny ' from the shoreline and facilitating public use of the riverfront. b. Enhance the desirabilitv of the Uooer Landin¢ for housin¢ and ooen snace ' Reintroducing residential neighborhoods to the riverfront is a primary objective of the riverfront plan. The area between the High Bridge and Chestnut is planned for residential and open space uses. Appendix A provides a more detailed analysis , by the Housing Division of the impacts of each alternative on the Upper Landing site. A summary is provided below: A-1: Creates a physical barrier between housing and the amenity of the river. , A-2: - Provides an opportunity for direct access from Shepard Road at the western edge of the site, improving site marketability. � - Provides the largest site of the four alignments, thus offering more design and density flexibility (low-density at east end, higher-density towards the , west). - Road acts as a physical separation between existing industrial and potential ' residential land uses. A-3: - Does not separate existing industrial land uses from proposed residential development. Would require buffering from industrial activity. ' - Provides less direct access from Shepard Road at the western edge of the site, which reduces the marketability of the site. ' Midway: - Provides less direct access from Shepard Road to the western edge of the site, which reduces the marketability of the site. , - Creates smallest site of the four alternatives, thereby reducing the site's design and density flexibility. Staff Conclusion: A-2 does the best job of enhancing the designated site's desirability � and marketability for housing and open space. 2. Minimize Noise Imuacts ' The noise impacts of a new road are a concern of both ad jacent residential , neighborhoods and the city. Table 1 illustrates year 2010 noise levels for each of the Segment A alternatives, based on monitoring and modeling of noise contributed by traffic alone. The nighttime figures are for the peak nighttime period from 6-7 a.m.; the daytime figures are for a peak daytime period from 4-6 p.m. � 7 ' .�/A' � � � `.,�.°e.� � '�'i. _ �-� � � ��`�. ��' ` � i ,�.{ ` . . " . � � .,, � �_> r�� ... O�iA,/'� �' �'�� YS��' -', �'�'S !�(� � `�� --. - �/ Y �. �f n �Il�'� �V F --a I I/ �� e, sr `� �s��y� �� ''� �L . �� ` ,a. �� \� ��'�_"_ �---��_� � ..,. ...., # F � . � ,_- � ' \?�-_ r . , =d,��, .,�� //l'' ��- �,;��;, .� ,R.` ¢,y..1L s _ - ,,,� -�- - - i �_. _ .,.� � � r�ii 1�L�� L �'.- j-- �� , . �'-�� ^ +� .,.�� , � '�� .'� �� ..Q° �� .�,�. .. ,a�.'' ��`j �.� !I �..• . .� t � ��.�.�� F= �` y�� ` Nf-�� r �I w �A� �� ' �/ � �_ a.F � s � ,r � �f � - - � , �. /'��. .<' � r' : .. \, 1 i h _ t _ ,,,,��pp � �� ia � � ��'.,��Y �� ,��-n�y,.��„�, �/ �,�� p y� � �''.,:. Zi. .��j . \I? �_r „ a, �' �/l� ,� � , �� _� - ,� °� � �� '�� ` �e �� '`, J� ��-_ - .� � - ',� _'. T�O ;� � _ �s, � . l 1�',,%`�.> -�' � �° _ � t �� +� :.� � ��. "`�`��y,�n '? i�� ., � /� I�� l i � - � ,�.., �.; �S�e� '"r �� .� !._ ,� y�rttw� �-.'u� '_� �1"- :. ��/ ,`�� ``��:�, r 1� ' �,., � , �'•.t .�., ' _ ' , .... , a � = � � « � ,r M _ s�u, ..s/ � s.ac, — • a'b . _=' ' ._��__�e_—.:.:`— `` —� � I r . F w . � �: �".• � ' „ ''`� �' ,' �� -- "� � , `r � � � , y �,.3 _ _ c� � r- � ., _ ' .�- �, , �--- „ � - �- , .� __ �.�,� �, ... �._ � —__ _,_ �,.,: : .,,,_ _.---�• _ � � - , , � . __ -�- - .�. .-�H ---�: `-----�-� ,�� r�,� �_ i i,� i� .,, A o ° X' ,, _ '_ - �i�� •'"�- T - , � .-. � —— ' '_�-� .� �' �"`----. `__-_-- � ,� __--- - _ ., • - .., - -- ,,, ,', i .� � :-_'� � , - . �—,L . •_ � � .. � � ��. � , s _a�..W . „ . ... � �,,.�,� � � � ��'j� �—,� OC , , , _ ` : - � _ _ � .... - '�` — ,, , � , _ . �.. . . .„ �� " .---' �� -'�=_— .---'. �� re e .o: _ • � --- _._ , - �� . . _ ' _ O _ � . , -, . � " - - . �- ,. .,..� , ., - — - , . .. .. , �� .��, �� _ �� i � >,-/` .�.,.� � ,� , , � , n., :�,',� � ' C 06 ,,:. , , � - � .�... � '�, ,.., , � _ � ,,. . __ . ,- , � ,, .,�, �� ... �� -- � , . ,� . , , ° �„ __ � . :: �� . . , , , . , � , , �_ �.�_ _. � ,� > � ..: � = :.�` - � ;, � r� , ' , �„ � . ,. . ,- _, � , � � � - , � ��. , .. � , .a.. :; 77 '-, � : y � \ ��.s ' � �- � .,. ., �Y� �� .�.� rn�rie�[n.wr � . � �.� . .�.� \ . k,,.. /� ,:°�� .. . ,�.��xp— � x ' A° x.� x I � � . -__'-- . ' -.�.' - `_1--•- �.- _� . [S .�.. I .. ._ .. ' . _n . . . .i.e. ' . . �•� :�\\w.��C,LT n� aNMENT �IFTED AWAY FROM RIVER EAST OF NSP T BASE OF BLUFF GIUIENT A FIGURE 2 IT ALTERNATIVES ; -, -�j �t.�� -i `�'\ y�!3� �; ,.,�y . `�� ' �� i . � \�\\�.•. Y \��. � T.<, 1/� \, � �y � � C '��G'i i'��., vq F J �.` ' �' y�:l�\ � `P 'Y�R • t1 . y /,>�- \;�?,!5;��`��f /� � Y`\' � °5.. . - i �� ,� ^ 1 / \ � ; ' .._ �� .�� - -,� ,r : i �� '�r. ,, °�'."`. �\ E/�/./ � /� � � � s � �\ � \�. �ad u�`. �. i� e��.�,`' I / �� .� •.�, �� ' '_. , � �. ,m..., .�,�� ,..(��,/ � .a. �,.n ! � � �� ,�� .�� — Tv .��` y.� `i" . .y. `�` '"6 ,°��\ ` . - .'-d ^� I� p.. � >� - ��.rz._J_�� .� �� _ / L�( � Y ��,� � ,.,r- X �.. �� .�' -� � �—r� , . . ... ,.._ ' a,. �. . � - u _ �, Y� ��,, � _ -- _ �,—� � .x:� .,,, ��s .., .,, � _ ; _ a �;� �� ., �� m�� ,, ,�— .-- — �,� � �..��- = x�j ,� �----��. ,� x� � �' � __ `';,�, �' ;�� .e.. �`� � ,,,/�, e�� ,, � �� { .,�� o<. 3 .��,�, v� w �.�� \��`^. p. . �tl�� ,\� � �_ • � ��'�.� �� .5�+ !' P �r 4�i� • ._ . ..,.s .Q;aa�\ ., ��F . �� i � \� . . ,.� �z � �c � ��' /• ''� � � ' „ , � � �' � J�� '� .. � �� .r .#� ' i ..�°'r� �� - ' a... " . , 9� ��'`y �Fl.��4� ��`�-f�� , � ,�. � � � �j� � � � � � , ,/ /\� °`, ,_ � �� t l� \ �� „ � �, , _ r a � ,,, ... �� \��; � . : 98 ,.,� � ` � Y�----��—� . - -- �.�� ,-�. . — �� :�� ., � � , , ,� _ � � , � , ., . �,�—°� � , �� 6, . , � ,i-'' �-� ��; =.�� . ,a �i e ! , ,e \ h �---�%�� — � �. ;i Y� � _ c /, � \\\`_J�/�, `� 66� \� �-j'� ,� .�.. ' l��J � �✓ ' y {,r ��_ ��w� �/� �E .c'. —'� ' ..,. � '=v� _ � �, _ ,, ..,,._, _� , ., � � . . �s"`-'—� , �:�-.-� ' ., �w _� �., ^ , .�. � � � ,, _�+' � x \t' —;�:_:�-=r'"�/ ��.. � j. a ,5 � � ` ��Z� '`�'%Y �:,/,/� . '� ` _ .5 � ° . �N� � -�. �'� � �. — — :� a�� .. .�� .Y� �.;-� ��.�\ -�� . � �_�. � �� . � �� :�e.� � �. o� � �;�, ,��: �. x�.ee _ � � ,. � ,� �� ;�.� ,�. . � .. . , � � � �� a . �s�. _ � `� �:�,��,�o {t � � , � . . �� \ � ��, �.�� _� ,�a� �� ,. .�J �' ;� , a . � . g � �� . ' �% �'j; � �a _ � � . �� _ ��-� � �_,<< _ , . , .,. � � � X� ..--�a? ; , � , _ .�,� �,� , .r. . �� ;,� �� ..s e � \�_ z... II Ge ...� ^\\� �z ..y /_`^\\ •. �j� .,. / I \ . � ' `j/ \ .__ .rosi — �--� =� �.,��1' ��\\� � � — .� , e� v � A- 1 : EXISTING AL A-2 : ALIGNMENT S A-3 : ALIGNMENT � SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BYPASS PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SI •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ALIGNME AND ECONOMIC DEVEIOPMENT •STRGAR—ROSCOE—FAUSCH, INC. ��- j 9�s- �9�9 � TABLE 1 � SEGMENT A NOISE IMPACTS c ' Receptors: Duke Wilkin Irvine Park Alternatives � Existing 59/56 72/75 61/60 No Build 64/64 59/61 56/58 A-1 60/62 59/61 57/59 . ' A-2 60/62 66/67* 57/59* A-3 66/67 66/67* 57/59* Midway 66/67 66/67 57/59 ' State Standards 55/65 dBa (Night/Day) Federal Standards 70 dBa 1 *The noise levels at these receptors assume that there will not be a railroad bridge for Harvest States just west of the High Bridge. ' . State nighttime noise standards are currently exceeded at all locations. . State nighttime standards will be exceeded at all receptor sites under all future • ' Segment A alternatives--build and no=build. . Noise differences are only perceptible beyond 2-3 dBa. � . For the Duke Street neighborhood, A-1, the existing alignment, or A2 would be � perceptively quieter than all other alternatives. t . For the Wilkin Street neighborhood, A-1, the existing alignment, would be perceptively quieter than all other alternatives. ' . For the Irvine Park neighborhood, there is no perceptible difference among the A alternatives. Staf f Conclusion: Noise impacts are signi ficantly di f ferent among the Segment A ' alternatives only at the west end. Keeping Shepard in the existing alignment between Randolph and the High Bridge would be quieter for the neighborhood than would realigning the road along the base o f the blu f f. t3. Imolementation Feasibilitv • , With the overriding safety problems on the existing roadway, implementation feasibility is of paramount concern. In evaluating the alignment alternatives in -Segment A, three categories could greatly affect the time frame within which the project would be completed. The three categories that need to be analyzed are: (a) , complexity of right of way acquisition, (b) land use impacts (property damage) and (c) ease of construction. , a. �omolexitv of right of wav acauisition Experience has shown that complicated land acquisitions can add years to the � project time frame. 8 , ' A-1: The acquisition of the Harvest States property is presently in progress for ' redevelopment purposes. To redesignate the purpose to roadway use would involve reimbursement for costs incurred. This would not be complex. The acquisition of the property necessary to widen the roadway along the ' NSP property would need to be carefully negotiated to minimize operational damages to the plant. A-2: (same as A-1 for NSP) ' • The acquisition of the Soo Line "Chestnut Street Yard" has been made less ' complex by the termination of the Harvest States operation, and a concurrence by the roadway funding agencies that a policy of mandatory relocation in lieu of reimbursement for loss of trackage can be waived in this ' project. However, the willingness on the part of the railroad to facilitate the acquisition is crucial to the timing of the project. A-3/M[dway: Requires the most acquisition, since it is on a new alignment. ' The discussion above regarding the ability to reimburse for loss of trackage would again pertain to the taking of the Chestnut Street Yard as well as to a , larger taking within the CNW Western Avenue Yard. Also adding to the complexity of this alignment is a necessary modification to the rail service entrance to the NSP plant. ' Staff Conclusion: All alternatives in Segment A involve complex right-of-way acquisitions. However, from a legal implementation view, the city has more authority to implement A-1 or A-2 than A-3 or Midway. � b. Imoacts on NSP and Railroad Facilities Of equal importance is the complexity and magnitude of property damage ' mitigations necessary to maintain a land owner's operation. A-1 and A-2: Both alternatives involve widening the existing roadway corridor , through the NSP plant. A major electrical plant involves a complex system of above-ground and below-ground interrelated facilities. Relocating or removing pieces of the system requires lengthy and involved engineering , studies and could lengthen construction time. A-3/Midway: Nearly all the facility modifications along this alignment involve � the adjustment of railroad trackage to reconfigure the remaining rail system into a functioning facility. This operation has not proved to be a problem in the past. Staff Conclusion: The jacility modifications necessary for A-1 or A-2 are significantly � more complex than jor A-3 or Midway. c. Ease of Constructlon � ' The complexity involved in the actual construction is another factor that can ' affect project implementation. A-1: Following the existing alignment dictates that the roadway must be closed to traffic during construction. The discussion involving the complex ' 9 � � modifications to the NSP plant under the previous section also pertains to the � difficulty of the actual roadway construction. The plant facilities dictate a very "tight fit," allowing little flexibility in design. ' A-2: The same discussion of A-1 holds true for A-2. Since A-2 leaves the existing alignment at the High Bridge, the segment from , the High Bridge to Chestnut Street could be constructed with little impact on existing traffic. A-3/Midway: Because these alternates are entirely new alignments, construction ' could take place with the least impact on the existing traffic. Staff Conclusions: A-3/Midway are the most straightforward from a design and , construction standpoint, having the least impact on traffic and involving the least number of physical constraints in design and construction. 4. Enhance Views from the Roadwav � This segment of Shepard Road functions as a primar access oint to downtown fr Y p om the southwest. Visitors arriving from the airport will use Shepard Road. Providing a , positive "gateway experience" is especially important to the city's efforts to revitalize the riverfront and to presenting a good image of the city as one approaches downtown (Figures 3 and 4). , A-1: Provides the most impressive continuous view of the river valley and, with Harvest States removed, opens up the view of downtown. ' A-2: Provides an impressive view of the river valley on the west end, which is lost somewhat when the road veers to the northeast. But, with Harvest States removed, a view of downtown is provided. � A-3/Mldway: Provide no view of the river valley because of distance from the shoreline and industrial and railroad land uses between the road and shoreline. ' Would require some type of visual buffering. Provides some attractive views of the downtown. StafJ Conclusion: A-1 and A-1 oJfer the most dramatic visual experiences of the river valley , and downtown. 5. f t ' Safety of the motorist as well as safety of pedestrians and bicycle riders is of major ° concern when considering alternates. , a. Vehicular Safetv � All alternatives would be designed to current design safety standards. However, no degree of standards can eliminate accidents. The goal is to minimize the potential for conflicts while maintaining a high degree of service and access. For example, all intersections are sources of conflict and are accident generators, but , without them there would be no access to enter or exit a street system. A-1: There would be one intersection between Randolph and Chestnut located at , the entrance to the "NSP Island Station" and UNOCAL plant. The roadway 10 � � � r ,�-__ y '.jT��_��,."�"'°� s6r�i i_=r��.. � - - ' . . � . . . . � -. i � "�.'i� ��i ..,�,- �� MM�.,� ` '�� _ —_— ' . .�.� ti ,�� , I - ^, � ,r� :- r a i -� ' _..nv- .w._�_ 1 I '9. �, .4: �. ��+(�...L' �� _ '� - � I I �- I r�" � , - =- C_`__ � - - � , -- . �Si n. �.. . _. _..�.9i a .C°r' t' � �f _ �"'. ' �'y ' '._.ae"� ',�,�lR�"%�._ �.... .. . `L' +. :.,^ -~_ _ . . J . _ . / ' , , _ � ///��/ �,G � ' � . �,;...` . rz ( ,J;l � L x� -�Is tf --�Sy� � �"'A'�/�/ .'��.:. � `� Y� r . -� 1-.- � '--�� A , y• :.t�-.� 'EY, ��.�' - � —: `l-�-., � �i.� `�= �?r�--fic - CA-.- r��;K-�,�+�n_'�`,� c �.,j„�'�4`-�.~�,'T'./,��. ;�i J' I! �1�i�� _� f:'�„ �. �/ F p �� ' �" � �� . .Y /�� ' l f' �`:�' • �.?-�s l,.�,-!� �� rl"��•./ �. L ry �. � j v'4T ti. e! �( \� \ �� ♦ �.�{J . ,- \ . _Q�,-••�� "�Ef�6 j�� f \��1'� � � � •'� ` � � {, \. 1 .nlrF".. -\` �� ' �(•�; � �i+;' •\ �� j_ �`�1�� {��`}i'v�. \� (l� �i�,�y,� ..� � \ �\ f� �� d � �� :///�� \ �� '� .- • r �3 E..t �,x, � �, �� \ �� . .�s �� -- ,. , ,�� .�� " t:� v.t . _ � � \, _ � �,��y. -- � . �,� 'y� I � - �_�� ' �!� � --_- �� . � .- : .. � -• " � --- .1�--��itid' ' ,� p!/ -�- �— �__—_ '��,1��'4a,"�i�>�t;-T , ---_----- ` °a :� � 4 � , � �� . .,_ � . . �� PRELIMINARY CONCEPT(2/1/87) -��'��`� � —_� � �� W AT- RADE C NNE TI N- H N - � ITH G O C O AT C EST UT (B 1b) �_��, ��a.�-� � �� _ _�__ __ � � _.. __ � _._ � '-.Y � � y _ _ � � �--t� _ - — =. .. - _. , :..a,�- � � � ' ;;� Illlll -� ..�� -- �- �- 'I ' � , r.' I t I . � .� , � • � � � � -- �'�,_ � � �:. ` � �? �\ � - ,=, . - 4L _ _ '�`�- ?y..:: 1 _.�- .�.w+ . _ ��p I .�.�' N�� ___--_ i' � �.r y , , ' / ` �=_ �.y_..—�..� �� _. '_ _��L_ � � r ' __-.f �r��\/ ��.�/ s�/ �' �( `t_• � ' —£_'"�-�.r � _M� _.��-� ��v;� '_ � / �� :�� `';� . .,--= z a ,. — Y�. yY r..�� . ;,� y� . .� ._ � v � _ "-'L ' . -,'.. _. �. � 1�a S <:_�� ' ' _,� .1-� 1.3 � � i ��7 T �=t �. . ? ��"'^-wtqn.�°�" �..�_�'��-,��,�� ly��l . , =� �_�;;r� �``�'`y'P /� `� ,�' ,\ ' r' —: ey�_:a �`+_ yr Y ` �� : ` c. -q < , �. f - `�� rL !��.,��trj�i:� w `�� /.s f ' � �� '`�� -- `�_ .� �,� s ��- �. \� n.�..r�: � ' �l --�ti� -' - � r �� - �,�� - ` ' ==�� Y '- � � � � .r-,� :�- � . -� � y. J, . .`� �' : � �_ N �.'� .. �j, ��- �, � 4�,y S r'{' j \ \\ . :,- � , . '�'t�� --- � .,:�."'° Yr 't�� \ �„\ ` `. - ` � -- .- .... . '�� +lf'- d ��.r"' �-' ,::�,` '. -- - � .. � �,4��; . yl� ik . ; __ ..R' � 1 rGf-" ' ' �' . /' '(,�� ' I _ `` __ ' - � � . � � � '._. AA�.. �_ ,_. ,� : , .. _ .. y _- � � � �� 'j�' -`� _ _�y , - ' — ---- _-_. , ��fJ � ;,1. �, , - �� PRELIMINARY CONCEPT (2/1/87)'• � �� ' WITH GRADE SEPARATED CONNECTION AT CHESTNUT (B-2) ' SNEPARD/WANNER/ECBO BYPASS � PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM FIGURE •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC WORKS SEGMENT ALTERNATIVE A�2 •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING � � AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT •STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. e � �I` � - J7�� \ � .1\ - _-` ' � r� � � �. � II \ , i/ � � ��/ � / 1R II \ 1I r1 � � �. t' � I 1. ��✓ � \ � � ,\ � ��, 1 I � � � � �� - � ',� � � ! '� �I :;� �, ;w j�` - � , . ` �� :,.,, ,� � , � r �:� � ��' � �'� ,� "�� , ,' � - ,, ul�+�`'r" % � - �� -' ' �' ; , �� . ;' ,�.., + .. iF:,� � �;;�y��.. ,I� � r�`� � 1�� 1` ��• • "� �� I/'�� I��-' � �� - ��i-' I1�1� �iF� � r // - � I � � N �N �• ",_'�'� E.1 ' Irn � l _ / � ��'?�� ;:� (��, � \ ri ` ,'''� _ ' �.�-�-+ ( �, v . ��r�� -'_��11,- r� I�� / i - . f_��`s-� �� I� � � �`'�� M..� � `- . ' �! -� � � '��,. � -� �i1•I�� I i��^ � _ r,. �� I��=i�:��, `,` i� �, � ��,.�, '�;%�� /R' �� ' �' ; ��; I • %R''""' 7 /•�•'•.� r�� _��a{' ',� �. 1 �. �� !{_��w' ��I I /�� /, ,�4 �-II`—�:p 9,', /�// _"�'�. //� __ �� $��a i � �-'�� t �,y, . ��.'l.I=��"1�'1I�S�1 J /�� 61. � \ �. I i��'�A\I\I �I i�� ''.�I`�` _ 1� � ��,/�'��.%Iib ♦» / .� _ . - ,��i�■' �j'��r� �. ��' `, ' '`� �I■ i�;t"' 1\� '� � � / ��II ' �, , - ', ;-�:� �� =��. 2�l - �N � '�� '�'�'�� t�1'' __ _�� 1 ��— �� _ �. �� ,. , � ��r - ,� r � ��: �-�� _ ��_ �-��. Y _�" '�r, �''''� �;\. i4;� ��R �� \ - - -1�� ' �� >.�� f�i.� : � ��.� ' f'.� ��I ,� - � - � �i ��, �, 'w' `� ��.. r�'�; '' ; , \,; . . � �. • � - i � �� \ - � , � �; - � �,� . . . � alignment would be relatively straight. There would be a slight narrowing of @_ the shoulders just west of the High Bridge. Access to the NSP High Bridge ' plant and to the east would be by way of the existing Spring Street (same as existing). A-2: There would be two intersections between Randolph and Chestnut--the , intersection described in A-1, as well as a second intersection located just to the east of the High Bridge. This alignment would have the greatest curvature, but design standards could still be met. The narrowing of the ' shoulders discussed in A-1 would also apply to this alternative. A-3: There would be no intersections necessary between Randolph and Chestnut with this alignment. All properties would be served from either "old Shepard 1 Road" or from Chestnut Street. The roadway alignment would be relatively straight. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic would follow the "old" corridor. Midway: The same discussion as for A-3 would hold true for the "Midway" version, � with the exception that an intersection would need to exist between the High Bridge and Chestnut Street to provide access to the Kaplan/Harvest States � site. Staff Conclusion: A-3 would result in the least number of intersections (and, therefore, the , fewest potential vehicle con flicts) while still maintaining access to ad jacent properties. b. Pedestrian Safetv All alternatives would physically separate pedestrian and bicycle traffic from , vehicles. However, separation of pedestrian path� from bicycle paths is a safety- . related concern, as is pedestrian security. � A-1 and A-2: Through the NSP plant area, it would be necessary to combine pedestrian and bicycle traffic into a singular path because of width constraints. � The frequency of vehicle traffic adjacent to the path would reduce the sense of isolation for the pedestrian. A-3 and Midway: Pedestrian and bicycle traffic would operate separately � throughout the corridor. Converting "old Shepard Road" to primarily an access road for NSP, UNOCAL, and the Kaplan/Harvest States sites would significantly reduce vehicle traffic adjacent to the path and thus increase the sense of isolation ' for the pedestrian. Staff Conclusion: A-3 would offer a design with the least potential for built-in vehicle conflicts while maintaining sujficient access to both developed and undeveloped sites. A-3 i and Midway would allow pedestrians and bicycle traffic the greatest safety from each other and from vehicles. The reduced security due to isolation would have to be carefully treated in design and in operation. ' SEGMENT A: STAFF SUMMARY CONCLUSION ' Alternative A-1, maintaining the existing alignment, is unacceptable because it would conflict totally with the goals of the City's Riverfront Plan for open space along the river and housing/open space at the Upper Landing site. The Midway alignment is also I unacceptable because it would severely restrict the size and shape of the Upper Landing site. � 11 , � ' � Alternative A-2 would strongly support riverfront housing and open space objectives, minimize noise impacts in the Duke Street area and offer views of the river valley and downtown. Implementation feasibility would be potentially difficult due to the need to ' accommodate NSP plant operations. Alternative A-3 would maximize riverfront open space and avotd conflicts with existing � traffic during construction. RIght-of-way acquisition of railroad properties could be a very complex and lengthy process unless the railroads cooperate as willing sellers. The views from the roadway -- of railroad tracks and the back of NSP and other industry -- would not be very attractive. � Staff concludes that more information is needed through the public hear�ng process in order to conclude whether A-2 or A-3 �s preferable in terms of implementation feasibility 1 and views from the road. 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 ! t � 1 1 � �z 1 ' SEGMENT B: Connection of Chestnut Street to Shepard Road , (Figure 5) Segment B covers the area one-quarter mile east and west from Chestnut Street along the , Shepard Road corridor. Three alternatives and "No Build" have been considered in the draft EIS and offer different ways to connect Shepard Road with Chestnut Street (Figure � 5). B-la At-Grade Intersection Near River: Compatible with Alternative A-1 (existing alignment) only. Does not include a pedestrian bridge. Estimated Cost $3.2 � million. B-lb At-Grade Intersection Near Bluff: Intersection shifted away from the river, closer ' to at-grade railroad crossing on Chestnut. Compatible with Alternative A-2 or A-3. Does not include a pedestrian bridge. Estimated Cost $4.3 million, reduced to $3.8 million due to city acquisition of Harvest States. � B-2 Grade-Seuarated Intersection: Intersection moved back from the river, close to the bluff with grade separating Shepard from Chestnut and Chestnut from the ' railroad crossing. Compatible with Alternative A-2 or A-3. Includes sidewalks on bridges. Estimated Cost$9.5 milllon, reduced to $8.9 million due to the acquisition of Harvest States. Ia addition, staff has evaluated a modification of the B-lb alternative, identified as the ' "Midway" alternative, in response to suggestions of the Irvine Park Associates and Fort . Road Federation. • . � Midwav At-Grade Intersection: located approximately midway between river and bluff. Compatible with Segment A Midway alignment only. Includes a grade-separated pedestrian ' crossing and major landscaped earth berm for noise/visual screening. Estimated Cost $5.8 million. In evaluating these alternatives for the Chestnut connection, five objectives stand out as � most critical to the decision on a preferred alternative as well as most differentiating among the alternatives. These objectives are: (1) vehicular safety, (2) pedestrian safety, (3) downtown accessibility, (4) compatibility with riverfront plans, and (5) compatibility with ' the adjacent residential neighborhood of Irvine Park. The alternative Chestnut intersection designs are evaluated with respect to each of these objectives. 1. Vehicular Safetv / In general, the fewer potential conflict opportunities designed into an intersection, the safer it will be. Therefore, the vehicular safety of this intersection would be improved � by reducing the potential number of turning movements across oncoming traffic, pedestrian rear-end collisions at intersections, and potential conflicts between cars and trains. � B-la, B-lb and the Midway: Maintain an at-grade intersection, creating potential auto-auto conflicts in turning movements and rear-end collisions, as well as � auto-train conflicts at the railroad crossing. Projected accident rates for the design year (2010) are 18-20 per year. 13 , ' �� r ', �� . .-t �� i .r, - .7 T� �, IMI[N011A1� / `� . "y ,��y1S .�'�n � � ��, �� i 1 � y�� 1 ; • \\ � � y F '�"C \ ..a..�TIC6 . I�,e .%:i�`•~�' �� u.. � f'%7 . �, � •..�° 1 , . � _, __ �- �� . , � . 1 .. ii i ❑ .v N T ` �O/ �.i . -�'\ _ � ��° �� . � y � _ - _ l �l� � . :. � : . . „ �.,_ ,.-. � '" � � t �u ' T� . � u. , - .., Y _ 1 I � j 1 �� ____ __ � ; ' � '�� ' , �� -----_--__ _ _ -:' � � , � � �" _____- ' �. -__ _ - --r... e I - _ I i i i � � � ' ...... � � - - � - � � r i i � i '��..v�" �'� _-___ _ "' "'_ � �1 I I I 1 � � � � . � � . L ____ . __.. . � ' • �. . . ___- 1 I ( � � � _____ -- , ' . _' ��.�Z. C, . .�.�e ' ' � '---�� _ 1 0..1.,`�� .\ \ � I - - .u.s �� . �_�- _ '_ o... . �u.e - ,n�� ` `�i' .,�. � .� 1 I � e -�. - - • �� ' � ", ur �a :/. � .�� ~ :_=.. z .� s � (�� r, 'YYLST�iM�MqNIG ' r.._�.L`��^ �• ��' 1� . -= ��-��. �`�.1 � �. �,a __^. �.' ..�. .,:, �,O��Cn�(�.,,:: ' ��'�C�OOOO 000 �.\\l, � � -- - +� - , � -_—. • .,... .... .,... `_ - � � �.'... x , - 8-1e: AT-0RADE CONNECTION NEAR RIVER �� =-' �. ' ". ,� � �`�\� r�,,,,W,, \ { _ �� r�� ,.t 1• ' s , a..M.AfTICS �.1 1� .1 �� a .d ..,\ }�^ - � � � _I �Y � °+ � `�'j - a.s .a. �� _ �. I�� I � r.i�, MI'" - --_ =.ry «.. /, t \ ^ .< � __ . � ♦ \ a.e � �. � . p .,� . M..�. --- ,. -. �0 � � r, ''� i. i - .u., - � t .:. . F � _ � -- L \ -� .._ � ,Y, :•i T�r ' __ " � _--,, , i 'r '� "' ; � 'b. � - -_ -______-__- _ �-t.--fi � ,%;,. --- ___--"'- � i i i'7 i. � / . �� , - _- � __--___ _ _- __ ------_ I t I 1 � � p � .:.... . � � �'�� I 1 1 1 j / � \�'"�� -- _ - _ _ --LI I / '� \/\ �' �l �. ..x. -- `_� �\w •�...s � • `��7'[�� r�r�' � X � �, �4t �^_ _• � � —_`'V C _ i • • � •1�.� . ' •�. �. �(� )�/ + \ J�� 11.t Vvv i. :' ' . . • �(}�JV�4� ' .. ..�Q��O� 060 .— .... � _ � ___=�� 41 �' �F� _�. �_ �f.t �� l ' l ' _ f ._ _ � O. �14t 1� Il.f • • t ' •1.� —�.__� _ �_. � •Ii� � � / � B-1 b: AT-CiRADE CONNECTION NEAR BLUFF i � ��\ � � , • �.... YL Y� �, � � f : 'ro° .,..�s `' 1 M Y./ ,i ,�` ,\ '�.A _ � � ,M� - �• _ . �— _=.` �t.� � P.� �.-�. .� .n..fna I� \ L \ _ ♦ \ �� , << :,;,.. , , o _ , _ �o �.,� �� .• + � � .-" r ,,,�. -'r, Zrl '�, '� � _--_-_-- =__--__- -- •;. _ y'+ p _____--I ___ �� i ' i �� i � '� .:.--�- i�, - _ i �� j �- i p i i i � ... �_—_ - --- - _-- ..,... ---- - _ -_ - ' - ' -I - ------• �� -`--�'—Li i i/ i . ��"`�*o, l � _ __ - ___ �� , . .l �/l41\ .�, _ -__ _ _ _�. �\:.c�,\ . .ir.s __ ,yG��, � • R �1.t • � . � y� ��\ ,�` ' `!!hT FlIM�IM9 .� � e � .�.+ - , .u.e .�-r�TSI'S��v� d�00��0 000 �� • �� VIJVv �:t — ,.. -- _ _--____ ,J� _ _--. .it.s � .-_��.. • - �w� � � -- f�� - - � 1.f '—_. �_...�, - \/ . � � / B-2: QRADESEPARATED CONNECTION , SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BVPASS PROJECTMANAGEMENTTEAM SEGMENT B •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FIG.URE S ' •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES � AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT •STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. `� �. �t�� .r��'�,�E„�, ��i�� a,"�,�„�,��► .t� �� f � ,\�� ► ��•��y��y�'��i��i's'!�':�rFi ��+,^'.1� �`�''�.�—�� I' �/I�II� ; `"a�ir,�,'��j.�� •`'t��,f.��1'7�;,�:�..,..�� ,�� ; ��/ :. �%�//l� � . �\ -A��,�14,�'!. -- �?- -�.� ?;�. t. '�/ � �, `�� -•� ,t�,�s��,�.-�, .�,M�:=,,.�Q.2'��1�;±�a; �l��i �= c, �-�... � � *� � �.. � s' ` T i ` � _� ! r►�. �'��a .�► Iii „„`lu "�� '.��"��♦ I�.-��t`1��% ��i� �: �'\ �� . �.�` ., E � #.. ; ,.��, _.: �—��,�� . isy�.,��.��.5,� ♦� `�.:.� 6� ��. � ��!�,��,� -�q.� '� - � �iii„� � � '� ` ll�l.�._.��1�► � -, � �1,�r �1�r� � ,�; - _ ___ ,: �� ,r� :, _..� , _ ,\ -_�,�� -�� . _ _ _ -�r�r , �� , _ � __ . � , . , _ , _ ; �; � � �,, . �;�;:'`�`,}f�.�- I' �'/�1�� ,\ _\/'� \ 'f`�a\i!• �.-., �%� �� .�,�t�,,r�\ �_ � � _ _�\\\\ � . - . � . . �- ,��;� -� - _. � - .. � ;�� t� ��i•.�, ._ •.b•� ��%-�.-�r. ��I ,I�//��d�i ` 1a�j► �-'L�_'r'\�1�T"a�r,r,Ca'�i�h'�Q's�: .�. ��// ��''�� _=�� ►`".,3 � ' ' � a�i�� , �,��,��-�..�.,�:��3�,+�f,,,�'��9-;•��, ',,�.��,-� �,_ '� �� . .�` 4 *� . � .�,��_r►�. !�, ��' .�� ;�,� � A � ., �fi0 �,�� Q♦ � �.�...� + i `•�i ``w .....� � '��: �� Me��'`'f�a�/ �� .-: .. �` � ti�1.,p �,•T��;�.� -� :;I ��.`\ � ��s��'♦�� ;+r�T � �s��T ;; �.�� '�iii�` �J �� "r!�� :•�, ��' _ �� -�'��,,�, � � .�� /� � - � �.�.�� \� �_,_ i �i�l�ll� in � _ ��'pe � '�=1e�:.��-•. �/� --� _ - � �,. �- .��\ �7 _ " �IA . � ,-, '�. � �� .-. �:�� ; ' -�� ;`�` �` `�^� � � __ -��- '�� _ ��::r �-- - -- _ _ - �,,,r -�� '1: ,�i�'�� -, .� �;�, � �a\;!�,�,_ _ �� .�� - \ `\S �__ _ \ • . � . � . , _ : , _ . . . .- . . � � � . . . . .- . . . .� � , , ! / �" �: / _ � ' � : � ,; � - , . � _� � -� .� /. -� == ��' ��...,.. r�- ,�' �� ,�= � �,_ ► r.�� i '` \\\ (11\i'r 1 i-j= � �/./.l.):1_I ,�� `• / tr', �E�r _ �-1 ,,�� / �, / . � . ., l �_ . `�'�- �..� , �` �'"' _ _ �• , � � � � �,�, Irh ' :« �i��f� :,� �,,�,, ;. �� i� „ ,`;�a� .� � � I , <�� l��. i ��r_''`�.,. �.� , - ��;- I�°"�ti !; ,,�,�!��,�,�,� �; , � �� _ ; , ��r�:,�„F � �_ �� _-�� , . . �1!,•r��,.�wrt � ��'�� , � � �'F�� ►s`�r,��` � ► � j a'x��",�'�,.�' �\ �% • •�' ^ +_-''?� ;/ ��;�:�.:��I:�'�' � � � �Y��f��;'�' 1��` ! �;��i1`4� c!h�� .' �\ / � � �',�� 1�`� � i � E��a±:;�,�� .; ; . � ��l� �J,��i�- % � � � aS��fi��*..� � i%. �'-�-., �"��:�� t � �Ir- ...� � :., i �� ►��•��fl_��=;�1'�. ;� j'/ �� :;,.; i ;�,' l��t �� 1. �r � „ '��j,�� - ' ��'�'=�'l i ;�� N :� "�^�"''�°:+s' �'/ ,► '/+! �' � c�n I �I,�t�. - +��:�;�R� , ! �j(�ir-�" c� �i� �� i , ' I a �� `��:'�� ~f I,l 1\��,�-� �; l } �t,lr�,,��{�'� � ;;:��1 '' ,.k o W ;��y�� , _ , ��:�=. m� : C` �,. �f � I � � ' �l� .� .r;' � / :��r ��(��. ' f a�"� � ��%'`��'J ��'�ll.!'� � ,,.L o�Q �1 ' � ,��• �/%'�� Z Z • • � J��;/, �. `, , � I .�� - i . / � � ,1 � il \ ' � � /�, i � } fl:./ ., � ;�y r ;= 3 I�' `;� � ''�� ,: W . � � �, , , ; o . �� - � ,„ -- ��- � , ,,' ,,;� -, a ' . - /Jr � � l, �,s, � ; a �� ' �� !� J �iF .� i,��, � i� ' , ,�:j ,��`�%�'a%/I'//�/�� :/J , B-2: Removes auto-railroad crossing conflicts altogether and significantly reduces turning movement and potential rear-end conflicts. Projected accidents of 4-5 � per year. Sta}f Conclusion: Alternative B-1, the grade separated intersection, would provide a significantly safer intersection design for vehicles than would any of the other alternatives. ' 2, Pedestrian Safetv The Upper Landing located at the end of Chestnut Street is planned to become an ' important public access point to the river for pedestrians from both downtown and the West Seventh neighborhood. In general, the fewer potential conflicts between ' pedestrians and cars or trains, the safer the situation. B-la and B-lb: Maintain the at-grade intersections with the railroad and Shepard Road, and therefore pose potential hazards for the pedestrian. A separate, , elevated pedestrian bridge could be constructed. However, these tend not to be used by the public due to inconvenience and the sense of isolation/fear for personal safety they create. It is virtually impossible to construct physical ' barriers to prevent pedestrians from crossing at street level. Midway: Ma.intains at-grade intersection but provides a separate elevated pedestrian � bridge. As noted, such bridges tend not to be used. B-2: Grade separation of Shepard/Chestnut and Chestnut/Railroad tracks significantly improves pedestrian safety. Pedestrians would cross traffic on � one-way ramps with volumes of about 2500 vehicles/day each, comparable to a low-volume residential street. In contrast, 24,000-27,000 vehicles/day would travel on the mainline Shepard Road. . , Stajj Conclusion: Alternative B-2 (grade separation) ojfers the best intersection design to maximize the objective of pedestrian sajety. � 3. Downtown Accessibilitv. In evaluating each of the alternative intersection designs as they relate to the ob jective ' of downtown accessibility, the following key facts are important: . Shepard is a significant regional route to downtown and will continue to be in the � future. . Access opportunities to downtown from Shepard are limited due to the bluff geography. Therefore, maintaining both Chestnut and Sibley/Jackson as access � points is essential. . All elements of the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City Council over the past , 15 years have identified Chestnut as a major access route to downtown, including the approved plan for District 9 - West Seventh/Fort Road. . Downtown can and will continue to grow as a retail-employment center over the ' next twenty years, but planned improvements to the transportation system must be implemented. , . The railroad trackage crossing Chestnut constitutes a ma jor corridor, serv�ng, among others, the NSP High Bridge Plant. Railroads indicate no decrease in 14 � , ' future traffic levels. ' . Traffic delays due to railroad activity have been a source of complaint for years. Forty-eight trains per day cross Chestnut, 12 during the peak rush hours (7-9 a.m., � 3-6 p.m.). Fifteen percent of all daily traffic and 179�0 of all peak hour traffic experience delays. Delays range from one to 20 minutes. B-la, B-ib and Midway: Maintain the at-grade intersection of the railroad with , Chestnut, and Chestnut with Shepard, and therefore create traffic delays. B-2: Provides a grade separation between the railroad tracks and Chestnut Street, ' and between Shepard and Chestnut, thereby eliminating railroad-caused traffic delays and improving the accessibility to downtown. Also, through-traffic on Shepard is not delayed by a Chestnut intersection. ' Stafj Conclusion: B-1, the grade separated intersection, maximizes the objective oj downtown accessibility. , 4. �omnatibilitv with Riverfront Plans. Riverfront plans and planning have stressed two main objectives--increase public ' access to the river, and develop housing and open space at the Upper Landing site. In general, moving the road/intersection as far away from the river as possible maximizes opportunities for riverside pedestrian amenities and creates the best possible housing ' site. Appendix A contains the Housing Division's analysis of each intersection alternative on the Upper Landing site. In summary: B-la: In keeping the road next to the river, there are no new opportunities for public ' access. Since the development site is cut off from the river, the marketability of the site for housing is severely diminished. B-lb: Moving the road next to the railroad tracks maximizes the size of the site for ' open space and housing. However, keeping the intersection at grade provides no buffering between the road and housing/open space. ' Midway: Narrows the site between the river and the road, making sufficient setbacks and buffers for housing development extremely difficult. Such constraints would affect marketability of housing. This alternative also eliminates access , to the site from Chestnut, substantially diminishing the desirability of the site for housing or open space use. Finally, the at-grade intersection provides no effective buffering between the road and housing/open space. _ ' B-2: Grade-separation at this location creates the largest parcel for housing and open space. Mainline Shepard Road and the railroads are, in effect, "depressed," and ' the access ramps create natural buffers between Shepard Road and the site. In addition, the gentle slope down Chestnut Street to a bridge with wide sidewalks provides a continuous topographical link between the Irvine Park/West Seventh area and the Upper Landing. , Staff Conclusion: Alternative B-2 ajfords the best opportunity for housing and open space, and a link between the Irvine Park neighborhood and the riverfront. � 5. Comnatibilitv w[th Adiacent Residential Neighborhood. ' Since the mid-1970s, the city has been committed to the restoration of the historic 15 ' ' Irvine Park area. This neighborhood is a very small residential enclave, bounded on the south by the bluff/railroads/Shepard Road, on the east by Chestnut Street and the � fringe of downtown, and on the north by the West Seventh commercial district. Tt has experienced significant public and private reinvestment over the past decade. In evaluating alternatives for the Chestnut connection to Shepard Road, staff has � considered compatibility with the ad jacent neighborhood to be of equal importance to the criteria of safety, downtown accessibility, and compatibility with riverfront plans for housing and open space. Neighborhood compatibility will be a function of three ' factors: (a) noise impacts, (b) visual impacts, and (c) physical linkage between the neighborhood and the riverfront. a. Noise Imnacts ' TABLE 2 SEGMENT B NOISE IMPACTS ' Receptor: Irvine Park Chestnut , Alternative Existing 61/60 67/64 ' No Build 56/58 66/68 B-la 57/59 66/68 ' B-lb 59/61 68/70 Midway 57/59 67/69 B°2 59/61 67/70 State Noise Standards 55/65-dBa (night/day) ' Federal Standards 70 dBa - State nighttime noise standards are exceeded at both the Irvine Park and ' Chestnut receptors under existing conditions. - State nighttime noise standards will be exceeded by all Segment B build and ' no build alternatives at both Irvine Park and Chestnut receptors. - State daytime noise standards will be exceeded by all build or no build ' alternatives at the Chestnut receptor site. Some noise reduction may be possible through provision of walls, earth berms, or landscaping. . - Noise differences of 2-3 dBa or less are not perceptible. Therefore, there is , no significant noise impact difference among the Segment B alternatives. Staff Conclusion: While noise impacts on the adjacent neighborhood from Shepard Road , and Chestnut are serious, there is no significant difference among the alternatives--build or no build. Therefore, noise impacts cannot serve as a dijferentiating factor in selecting the Segment B alternative. ' b. VisualImnacts Opening the view from the Irvine Park neighborhood to the river valley has been a , goal of both the city and neighborhood residents for many years. Currently, the views from the park, the end of Walnut Street, and the several homes along the 16 ' . 1 � bluff is blocked by the Harvest States grain terminals. The acquisition and ' demolition of Harvest States will open up the view of the river valley from all three viewpoints. The design of the Upper Landing housing/open space site will likely impact the views from the neighborhood more than any of the Chestnut connection options. The roadway connection options impacts the views as follows: . ' B-la: Would provide an open view of the river and roadway. � B-lb: Bluff would effectively screen intersection from residential neighborhood. Midway: Similar effect as B-lb, but pedestrian bridge could obscure partial views ' down river from the few residences located immediately along the bluff. B-2: Grade-separated connection requires raising Chestnut Street beginning just south of Ryan. Bridge would be approximately 25 feet above existing , railroad tracks. The view from Irvine Park itself would not be affected. Views down river from the end of Walnut and the several homes located immediately on the bluff edge will be partially obstructed. View of the ' river's edge from Ryan Street will be obstructed by new elevated Chestnut, but the river valley view will be maintained. The bridge itself and potential Chestnut termini at the river would offer a new public vista opportunity of ' the entire river valley. Sta f f Conclusion: , - Both public and private viewpoints from Irvine Park to the river valley will be signijicantly enhanced by the demolition oj Harvest States. ' - There are nublic viewing points of the river from Irvine Park itself except at one end of Walnut Street. The diJferent connection options do not dijjer signijicantly in their impact on these public viewing points. ' - For the several r'v residences located immediately along the bluff, the B-Ib and Midway at-grade connections would mazimize the downtown view. ' - The grade-separated Chestnut bridge alternative would ofJer an improved public viewing option to that currently provided along Chestnut at Ryan. ' c. Phvsical Linkage between the Neiehborhood and Riverf ront. Currently, there are several physical barriers between the neighborhood and the ' riverfront: a major railroad corridor; a roadway carrying 25,000 vehicles per day, and no viable public open space at the river's edge. Where major roads have been built through sensitive residential areas in Saint Paul, we have often succeeded in mitigating their intrusive nature by physically depressing them. Unfortunately, ' this is not possible in the Shepard corridor because it is a flood plain and there is a high water table. However, staff believes we could accomplish much the same effect by modifying the elevation and grade of Chestnut to slope more gently ' towards the river and bridge over the railroad tracks and mainline Shepard Road. As noted previously, this provides a safer pedestrian link to the river. But our design staff also believe that this bridging offers an opportunity to create a more ' intimate sense of scale in the transition area along Chestnut from Ryan to the River's edge. An actual design of the Chestnut streetscape and the termini of the bridge will obviously be critical to the successful implementation of this concept. ' 17 i � SUMMA1tY S'TAFF CONCLUSION: SEGMENT B ' Vehicular and pedestrian safety, downtown accessibility, compatibility with riverfront ' plans, and compatibility with the adjacent residential neighborhood are the most significant objectives differentiating the Segment B alternatives. Staff coacludes that Alternative B-2, grade-separated intersection, offers the best opportunity to satisfy alt of these objectives, provided it is carefully designed and executed. , ' ' , ' ' _ , t ' ' ' ' � ' 1 18 ' , ' SEGMENT C: Shepard Road from Chestnut to Jackson ' Two alternatives besides th " ' " e No Build were considered for Segment C: (Figure 8) , C-1 Existing Aljgnment: Rebuild with safety improvements and bike/pedestrian path along the shoreline. Estimated cost = $2.1 million. � C-2 Shifted Alienment: Relocate roadway as far inland as possible to create shoreline esplanade. Estimated cost = $11.3 million. ' In evaluating these alternatives, there are four factors which are considered important in selecting an alternative: (1) implementation feasibility, (2) cost, (3) riverfront development objectives and (4) safety. , 1. ost � In considering the cost differential among alternatives, it is important to recognize the , long-term cost effectiveness of short-term solutions. Because this area is likely to change in coming years, caution should be eaercised to avoid making improvements that may not be necessary as these changes occur. � C-1: The cost of Alternative C-1 ($2.1 million) covers minimal improvements to the roadway cross section. A major portion of the cost is related to the reconstruction of the floodwall, which is required for either alternative. This � alternative would be considered the first stage in'an incremental approach to improving the overall cross section of this segment. All of the major costs associated with this alternative would be applicable to the ultimate cross section, ' which could be built when the Wabasha bridge is reconstructed. C-2: The cost for Alternative C-2 ($11.3 million) is significantly higher than C-1 due to the reconstruction of the Jackson/Sibley bridges and the railroad retaining , wall, consolidation of tracks and acquisition of rigl�t-of-way. In addition, delays due to lengthy negotiations with the railroads would likely inflate the projected costs. One concern about the high cost of this alternative is that many of the � more costly items would not be required if the Wabasha bridge is reconstructed in the near future ( 5 to 10 years) or if the railroads are forced to take some of the actions into their own hands (such as abandonment of the CGW lift bridge, ' reconstruction of the Jackson/Sibley bridges and consolidation of tracks). Stafj Conclusion: Because the additional costs associated with Alternative C-2 may be , unnecessary expenses in the long run, the incremental approach involving Alternarive C-1 as a first stage is more cost effective and Jeasible. ' 2. Imolementation Feasibilitv ' The number and complexity of special approvals and negotiations can make a big difference in how soon a project can be constructed. In Segment C, the issues which ' could affect implementation of the project are fairly significant. Because there is not enough width, design standards cannot be met completely by either of the alternatives. Therefore, special approvals will need to be obtained for the design of either � alternative. The length of time to obtain such approvals depends on the degree of the variance from standards. In addition, negotiations for right-of-way acquisition can be very time consuming, especially if the railroads are involved and track relocation or abandonment is necessary. , 19 ' ' 1 D-�i 1 . r� � ,; , 2. ` / a°�� s'" � / ��'� ' � 9O�aa � b; �/�r � � , 9pmm �� ' � � i w�aa-ni� � ! �01 '-�° sa i� ' f ,�� / ' �'m� � aa T<m m =z : . � ym2Z >m � _ , r-� 1pa � y�oo �"m � � � � , � =Z�cZO � , , i y � � � 2�D� i� . � /;� .".. ��ef A 2 r m t - 4 i �-I�; i � ZA �> �^ : e - _ �� ;� '`� y � y , � O� � r i � �` i < s � � ,� , al � � �,, = a � � �. , � , � .� . .a � • ' � � i, • ' ' � a ' �w �a �ar i �or ' 'ws° � I '°s° � �'� , �� %" �i ' :/ �i � , ,- �� ` ,- �`, /� 1 �� r I � Y '{ � 7 t 'S � i � . I a j �; ' �� ' , � �'~ � r r � ii Y ;�� i�/ A • ��'�i� � • �• /� . Z — - ' - — - s � � "� a. � ! y! a. � �_ " --- �. �� '��r'� _�_ - 1'11 N � � � • 6 �' ; �j ; � � m '� ; � . � R , ,y� � � �� r � i ti� � i i �.'� « , _ a ._ ' . - �� ' _ .� ' �,� ,�, �.� m � � Z --J _ _ ., - _ _ - .. � m � � � ° I r - r � � � � ° ' - y ��-� Z /� N ! a si �� f�i nQ�aw + A p c� oo �: a ' \/ •• 4 , wA � b 3{ �i � # • n�� I, 9 5 �` n°� � N + �� ,., � i > . =+ �� y 9 a + � L a � � � 3 3 : �; d s }� : '; � a � � 3 � i � � n, r � — � [ � : ��= � � F m � � i' � �� _ i � _ o ° ` ' � `' � "` =`� _ ` ' , � D •a e { � O � •� e 4 _ i � � ��: '� �"�,9 � �F : : m a ,.1, �: �� o � p � y w ,� �� # � � E ;, � � '' � � � y ! 1 ,• e D �� F �. . Z ' a. } : , (� 3 :• s c ?� � � :, � a � _ 7C ./ ".. 1 � t , �n t� '.: ? j N � - - I = O i ( - - ' 1 � �' > . `--': p � �''-� z ' , `--'.: p . =%_ � � ' . ; � - '�� . . � o . f —i � m � —i = � t� � a ' �ti X g� � a . � t E I :' + d 1 I I -� � � a a ) _. � � y � I � ,�� 6 • � ! � S � 1 � 1.E. • ' . � '�I � •'-"--��.. ��.� . � �1 O ��'. �-----------;� ''� � p - ��, �------- _' �^ . � — 3 ,•__�_ � 3" ' ' � •-,------ �' ` � C � � ------$----- I °�+ �; � � � ; ------�----- +� ' � �` i _ � � � �__,_±__----- ; . � Z ;,I ----,--�-----__ ; - :r- � rn � � --- _, s i � 3 ;�� -----------_ - � �� _ :� .r � _ .a ------ °•I� � i J� � "� +;I' --.�------- _ - -- - �, � }f{�� _ • :=C�- , ,�� _ ---i _ • :G ' �, I�{�� -.�� ' �� Y ,� � ��f�I'+ .—� . - �aw . ,� , � •,�'�, �C i :' '�""'-s � � . � ~ :'� �/ '� ji I��I i + /!! � _ II '',i; ,/ ' �' I�I� , �� /" � �,i , , 1 -- -- - -' - � _ .�:��- � . _ _ _ ' . ✓'�� i ��% �9� ___ " • -_ • ,•�� _ ' j� J �� . ... —_— � ~ . - •. — , -� , � " ��,� - - _ � __ - � �_ , _ �;...--�}�'` �•��„..�' - �; � � LL � -rl'� �� 'i 1-a_a..��/T�L�.�.+ jfI R�f/ ry I. - ��,y,_ ��="'I I � - . L�-,:.�L . _ _'�11../' „ .� �'�-� --�� 1 Y�^.fry� .�..�?� a I- . _ � .� � . ��r— r o-..�p I �. � ...,� / ..• �' ��y� I at�,-^ s_-# � I !' � .-w ��..- =�,-�''— : -t < < � �, "� ,D D '� r �.�.��,��_-_ - .......� �.sw..�., , � ,f �� _ �. - ��-�..�.....�� -_��, r%�; �� _ � �.. . ,,,.,.2�'r„ ��y�. . _ _ _ L: �,,�a�, � . �X' :nr �r .. . -� ��u� ��"3�Ai� ��i ; .. ,' �..;"'j p aaau • aYh�� i� � �� ,.�r/.1 ii � ��i. - � i� . �; ,.�y � �.� �. t+!..i'�� 'A��, ;�:`_ r r�,y. �i�'��{� L L j :�_�-+� �'T° i _\, ! , -- . , .r _ _ .:°_ -�— - _ - �� - \ ___ c •r ��.r`• y, .,�� , �� -*..-•� ,� L. T_�� •�� r .� t �''� ��.a�► :,y.,.rz D,e �t.. �� •� •� � �� - �\`� -� ��.�a, '�/ ,.��.1• y •�y � ' � t"�b� �'��e.' l�`�� ,...� � � . _ L� �� -•. ... \ ,t��.S � � /. 'r" . ;�' • LO � ��. ' i--/ '� `j �� ` � � �' r__. _ - . .. �y.� � ��•• �•. � '� t �, t / . � �� qv ��I�� i� � , . � ��' �- � / .�, i X�� , '� t ��.� 1 � ,� ��,_-�� : � � �ll"�,�. �I�II �� ' i �i; .a'��/ ' . �/ � PREIIMiNARY CONCEPT t2/1/87> ALTERNATIVE C-1: MINOR IMPROVEMENTS ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT � ---- n __ � �, � �L __.._---�- -�---_— - — �.�- � _,.i__ _ Y�� /'� .��y=— � —�"Tl� ' J� "�� `�.�". _'_—_ ' I v.-�` i �.n�y ��, ,r.�., �.---- ,, ""�' - , � ,, a - _ . , , �� _ .. � -_.��$,�z:� . �y� �,� ,r i" �;�a o-; �' � 'r� _ � � � � �, � � _� _.. � . _ ��'� M t � _� • � �J i 0 I � F i � ' � �..+�J �� 1 T.��ry,'QC . '/ %�� . . � .� 1� tll�l ..� , "m !,,��/� N/ I � P""�____ _—�. / ��•' / �. �' ' .-.-111W± �� a�• � (�N��11� p r _'._j ��•�j� s :. 11 ��• 'Y ii � .T1 �: •�i .� :✓ � .. .a�+c+� y� ' •� �--.a �"�� ) � � / a � � ��'- , �� .��,. � . ' -`_-� 'i}g' �.C�"°� `, ' _ �,�"�'°^'�� ,� ��.. , _y/�.�/ T r � r c. �� _ \\ O �.� / ' �'�� % �'� ��, _ �� _- / .�'� _ _ � / / ' .� � �-1�; ��, �, :/ „j�,_. , i `% /.� �y� i � �� ,� � ,. - — �'� ' �� .',- r � � � � � � ,.�� :�.- ,, � ,' f�, /►! �; ; 1 : /,� � 'd `/a�y�'��; � �I 1 '�'''',- , /';' ' ,'„ PRELIMINARY CONCEPT (2/1/87) � ALTERNATIVE C-2: ROAD AND TRACKS SHIFTED AWAY FROM RIVER ' SNEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BVPASS PROJECT MANA(iEMENTTEAM $EGMENT ALTERNATIVES FIGURE •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WOAKS C 1 AND C�2 " •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING � � AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT •STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. ' C-1: l�io righ�of-way acquisition is requircd for this al�ernative, which simplifies the ' implementation process. However, fairly significant design exceptions would be required due to the reduced shoulder width at Wabasha and the reduced lane width and no shoulder at Robert. The approval process for these exceptions ' would need to be initiated early in an effort to avoid delays in construction. C-2: Significant right-of-way acquisition would be required, most of which would involve complicated negotiations with the railroads to allow track consolidation. � Also involved in those negotiations would be the abandonment of the historic CGW lift bridge and related trackage, and the reconstruction of the Jackson/Sibley railroad bridges. The complexity of these negotiations would ' likely result in lengthy delays in implementation. In addition, the removal of the historic lift bridge would require lengthy documentation and approvals by state and federal historic preservation agencies. Finally, a design exception would also ' be required for this alternative, but it would be less complicated than Alternative C-1 because it only involves a reduced shoulder width at Wabasha. Staff Conclusion: Alternative C-1 requires a more complicated design exception than � Alternative C-l. However, Alternative C-1 does not involve the substantial right-of-way acquisition, railroad negotiation, and historic preservation issues that are involved with Alternative C-2. � 3. Riverfront Obiectives The area along the river between Chestnut and Jackson Streets is considered a critical ' part of the City's Riverfront Redevelopment Plan. That plan proposes a wide esplanade along the river's edge and commercial development along the bluff. However, there are several physical obstructions to fitting the roadway and a 20 foot � wide esplanade through this narrow strip of land between the bluff and the river. C-1: Thls alternative provides a slightly improved walkway, but not as wide as desired , by riverfront plans. It would be impossible to provide the 20-foot esplanade under this alternative. C-2: This alternative provides a wider walkway than existing, but not as wide as ' desired by riverfront plans. East of Robert Street, the area for a walkway widens and allows for a 20-foot esplanade near the Lower Landing (Jackson Street). , Staff Conclusion: Alternativ� C-2 provides more room in the area east of Robert Street to develop an esplanade as envisioned in the Riverfront Plan. However, this would only be ' possible in a small portion of the segment. 4. Desi¢n Standards � The existing roadway in Segment C is substandard and unsafe due to its narrow lanes, lack of shoulders and restricted sight distance. The desired cross section (12-foot lanes and 10-foot shoulders) would not be feasible due to constraints created by the Wabasha , and Robert street bridges. Without replacing the Wabasha bridge and removing the CGW railroad bridge, adequate space for standard lane widths and shoulders could not be achieved. In addition, the railroad tracks which parallel the roadway could ' potentially be consolidated, but that action alone would not provide adequate space for the standard lane widths. , 20 , r � � � w - _ . � �' �� r�orowo e.e. -SHEPARD ROAD / ` w I � / � f-�TER_IU�ITIVE C-2 f . Ilr � �.w�.r.�...- ! awu.�r N _',; ::: ....; ...::: ,- ....- . ::, � ,: '-': �: I I 1 ":"' r , " ��' . � .�� ' I� - ao . . ..:. ... .:.... ;.. ... . .. rasusun�nvu •:..::::.:..:..�...�::.r�. . . .::..� . . �.; :. ....s`:i'.r.."1;...;, , . .�., . - . ":. ...:.��.. ..... : : ' . ::: ...: y.:.r.r.. . � � .. .. , . . .;: :. .; , ::..:°.:.::r.::�.;: �.... " . . .. ' ...,; .. . ....'� . . � � � � rlD�Mf[ TIIAIL_ � .;,: . :: � "' .� .' .;f �....::.%,y:..i!:':�.:<::':�::::i::.::i:"::::...:.::.:i:�::::.'':::%.2'.:;;r::::::;::.. . ... ' -- ..:": . :..:100, ' . . :.:. . ....::. . . .. ...::::... . ....: , ROBERT STREET BRIDGE :aa �. .00 �uu�w►nve o-z ' . . � . � . BNE�ARD ROAD � E_ALTdINATIYE C-1 —..w�...�... .:::: � . . .�:ii ' � ��::' - --:;:�i; . .. .� .. .... ............ ... . �.:: . � au.�a�n � � � ;i �...:.:::.r:::::.<.:..:.::.::.::.:.: . .. � � ,:.;:::::�::�.:.:'..::;::.:'?.:::":::.: ' . . ....: � '.. � ' ::.. ;::;; � .: :.:.:,;: '. ...'::'..:..:. . TIML rI��' „ � ....:::.:.. . � .. : �. ...:..... . . � '. :: - � % ' :.: '. ':-:....::: �. '..NOs; . .-:;. .; .. �.. : :: :._.:. :. .,. . . ,.:.: . ...�.::: . ..<. . . . . : .� . :..:: .: : , . ...., . �..::i� . :: �' :. . . . :.::.:, . .. .... ..�.:<:.: . '� . � ROBERT STREET BRIDGE "' '°' "' ��u►nve c-� ' � � ,w , ,_� � � - . . . _ . .-- - . _ ._-- - —- - s ,� ' � w � �i ��war eourrr omMrwr e�Mrui \ •• SXEPARD ROAD so ��\ � ALTERNATIVE C-1 , � �o " � " e.� ,.:�<.:.;.:.: �:.:�.<:.:.:� .i:enw,w� M/N /N :::::3{::�<9�":::r:::,:::�::::::;`.:`:;';:::::�`:;'::;::£::#:::�:::'r'G�c::;i::i::::�::�::::::::::2:::i::::::::::::::2:::::�:iiY2:�::2'::::r::%::��:isi::::%i::::::::::<';::t:::.::i:::i::::f:::Y{:i:::::';::::::j::�:::;:::�:a:: ' tM MYtll ::..:.::.�..:::./::..�:::.:� .:.... ..... .:.. �� ; �/�I ': n �' i M AIL 20 ::.�:.:..::.::::::r:;:;�;r,, :...;.o: ...:..::..:.�;::�...:.i.::.:.:. ,,� :. ...::;;..x..;.::...:<.>;:..:...:.::..:......:..:..�.. ::.:::...:...v:....: .:.....;,..;.::::..:.:::::>;.::� :..;.: � ;..:.��:•.:.:.:.. ...�:,.:<:.;x:.i:..::..::.:..:::� ......,..:.��:.. ..::::.. :...,::.:;�:... .:,>:�:..:::..:..:.::.... ...�.. ...:.::a;::. .::......::.. , ...>.:::>:::..>:.:.:.::.:: :>. ;:>�;:.:.: ::::':: ;: ; � ...:.....:....:•:.�. �<.::�:.�.,a,.�. ..::.::::::.: ::.:::.;�.;::�: ..:..::.::..... .::.: ' .r:... ::.�.::.:..::.;� c ,.. .:... :�.:.:;... .� �.:..: .::...:' ::::..:::....�.::.:. ..::.::..:.: ..... .::::.. �..<:�:.;::::>.�.. ,;.,:...:::. ,.� ...:::::..::...::<,.:. ..;�::.. ....v..:�..:. :.: :.::..::::.:::::..:.: ..::..:;�:>�::.::::.:::::..::�: ,:. ... :: .. . :��:.;�.. ��- :.:.:.: ....::: .:.,. .,.... . ;... ;..:ri�:�.::....::.:::��.�:::.,..:: �:..:...:::::::::.::..:.:: .. :�::.. .,..:. • �•��•� .'.``'"' >.>.:. ...:.:;:..<:..:.:.::: ..:....:. ��:�'' �. .:;�.::... ...:.::. ... ::....�.::.. :..: ..:.:::.::�::>:>: . . ..::...::......:.:. . �, �. 0 E::.;:;:.�::.;.::?::.;:::.�:;::..�::;::��::��.��:..:�?.::�::i:.:��:.:�.:�:�;:�� :%::::.�:.�::1��: .. �; . . � .,.. :�.....:. ::::' . ..:. f �::i� . � �':`' �::..:..:. .... ... ..a �.:_.::. .. , .. . ..... .. . . . .:: .... WABASHA BRIDGE '°° :"" ' '"" ALTERNATIVE C-1 ' SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BYPAS3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PUBIIC WORKS FIGURE •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SEGMENT C CROSS SECTiONS ♦ AND ECONOM!C OEVELOPMENT 1 O ' •STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. � C-1: This alternative would improve the safety of the roadway. Twelve foot lanes would be provided, except for the westbound lanes near Robert Street. Shoulders , would be provided on the west end of the segment, but do not fit in the narrower section near the Robert Street bridge. A wider walkway (8-10 feet) would also be provided. A design exception would be required for this alternative due to the � width constraints. C-2: This alternative would also improve the safety of the roadway. Major ' reconstruction of the railroad retaining wall and removal of the historic CGW lift bridge pier would be necessary. Twelve-foot lanes would be provided throughout the segment. Shoulders would be provided throughout the segment, but they would be of substandard width due to constraints at the Wabasha bridge. ' Reconstruction of this bridge would be required to obtain a standard cross section throughout this segment, as would a design exception due to substandard shoulder widths. ' Staff Conclusion: Both alternatives improve the safety of the roadway. Alternative C-2 provides the least number of design standard varfances. , SEGMENT C: STAFF SUMMARY CONCLUSION Since neither riverfront objectires nor design standards can be fully met by either � alternative, the most important factors in selecting an alternative in Segment C are implementation feasibility and cost. The potential obstacles to implementing C-2 are much ' more significant than C-1. The major cost differential between C-1 and C-2 is not justified in terms of a cost-effectire investment in the ultimate cross section. Alternative C-2 could result in spending nearly $10 million to gain immediate changes which, given time, may � happen on their own. In addition, this alternat[ve does not achieve the roadway or riverfront objectives. Therefore, it would be more feasible to build Alternative C-1 as the first stage of an incremental project. Reconstruction of the Wabasha bridge should be expedited to allow for completion of the ultimate cross section in the near future. , , , ' ' . ' ' ' 21 � � , S�GMENT D: East CBD Bypass Connection to Warner Road (Figures 11 and 12) � This segment includes the portion of Shepard/Warner Road from 800' west to 3/4 mile east of the Lafayette Bridge, and the East CBD bypass to 650' north of the existing Warner Road alignment. , Two build alternatives were considered in the draft EIS for Segment D. For either of the alternatives, the three mainline railroad tracks and the spur to the north of Warner Road would be relocated and slightly lowered through a tunnel section to allow the bypass to ' pass over them. D-1: Grade-Seoarated Connection: Bypass elevated over the railroad tracks and 1 Warner Road. Estimated cost = $8.0 million. D-2: At-Grade Connection: Bypass and Warner Road elevated over the railroad tracks with an at-grade intersection of Warner Road and the Bypass. ' Estimated cost = $6.2 million. . � Both alternatives are similar in terms of neighborhood impact, amount of relocation 1 required, pedestrian/bicycle accommodation, water and air quality impacts, noise impact and implementation feasibility. The alternatives differ in the extent to which they address two objectives: (1) safety and smooth traffic flow and (2) promote riverfront objectives. ' 1. Safetv and Smooth Traffic Flow Both Segment�D alternatives provide grade-separated railroad crossings and ' eliminate potential car-train conflicts. This is a priority for Segment D. However, that nature of signalization differs between fhe alternatives. In D-1, two of six traffic movements would be restricted. In D-2, four of six movements would be , restricted. D-1: Minimizes the increase in accidents. Traffic would move more freely because fewer movements would be restricted, and travel times would be ' slightly reduced. D-2: Results in a higher accident rate than D-1. A higher number of restricted ' movements would delay traffic and lengthen travel times slightly. Staff Conclusion: D-1 provides a safer connection with the Bypass and allows traffic to flow ' more jreely. 2. Promote Riverfront Obiectives ' Two objectives are most relevant for Segment D: (a) enhancement of views from the roadway and (b) access to open space. ' a. Enhancement of views from the roadwav Under a separate Warner Road improvement project, the roadway in this , segment would be shifted away from the river to create additional recreational open space along the river's edge. For either alternative, the existing trucking operation along the river will be removed, and views of the ' river and river valley along a portion of the segment will be improved. The 22 ' , � {� /� �y �/��. �� ( `.,♦ . �• 4•Y i '{ �\ f . �� / � � , / 1 � ��i � -�'� . . ` ,�.�1�'_' i �, .- .�� N � - ��. o .� . .-�� / Q .•• ` ` ati ''� �'' / Q 4``-`'":'�� .� •`� . - - 'r i + � . �t �\• � �� + � � . L � � �`t� �i�� " -9 i'; \ . � + � .. `�e,t-,.�.. - - i '� �� . �r' . /'% '\ • .� 1 /� � ' �— �� '. . • � - ' � � ,r��T NELS . . _ �, r i' �, + �� . .. , � �' � � � � � ��. t., _ � � % �'. � ' ` - � J �' •' � � J,' •\,\ � �\ ' /� , /� `\ •\ r ' � � . . � , � .y-` . � _ � I\ \ l« � y�. . , . �r`,�\ ' � �• • �f' � +� .---• �� ,� � \�� '. •��. \� � . � - �r � \ ` ' ��°� s '�-- �"�`"^+:. � � /// ' /�� "`�� ' ,��'"�� 4 �4, \ _--- ' ' r' . "'S'" ; • - `�K��\^��,. �=.. \_ —�� '�� -a ` ,��.'r� � ~ ` ��' _ � �` „ , ,. .r .r .� ::.� ._�—— • � � '— s � t�R�� . • ,� � _ � —'• . —� �\ �.� ,. _ '.��, ,.s' �� __ — — �_ �+ � ' \�.` � N� �� '"- '� .� ,� �^l. � �- _ _ '" `� � — °��+ � ; � �.. ��; v-�• � D-1: GRADE SEPARATED CONNECTION � ��' °� ,=�` ; +{/ � ! ' �� , � .` _.' ��• � \ , � �` � �,. . '�, ..� ' �� /'�.''�l � .•' _, : " .�r:..` o a� ��- ;;, ./ a " ``-`._:�� ° ' - - - 7 i � ��' , \ ''� ��// � � � • • , � , 1�•; , � � ' .•:` - � ' _ ,. i �; V ,� .,�,,. ' / _\- I- �/ : . �. � � �, �N� \ ^. M .`'!````` \,♦ . . . ' \ i �/ �' , . . . � �A• a � t �\� � /^ � f �R �E , ri� • � , � �� i . a,� i�� . " /� � �� .� �. 1' �y� i 1 ��\� �r� . " . . /�' - �I''i { ' • . _ •� �r�. � ' , � \ S� / � �� I \\ � -� ,�\� I ` Ii�I�I�f� \� `\��. �' �• \�\ • \)�Y\ ' /� . _ \�. ' -'• . • \ �� _ �r / / � ~ \ \ �/' ��I 'a � �•°� i ��' x� ```��_�� •. - . � � • '``�. \� �' � , �r� ,Y. _ O� J - "" -. � � . ��C- ��C� . ----- ' • : � _ '�� — _'_�� ,. i ��1 "• �'�� •� — �— ` ° • -`—..,��:`.\ ' :� ��, � "" -� : ` .� : ••'"'" � � '�,..,,. ' D-2: AT GRADE CONNECTiON SFIEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BYPASS ' , PROJECTMANA(iEMENTTEAM SEGMENT D •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNI GORKS FIG URE 11 nNO ecoNOMic oeve�oPMeNT ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES ' •STRGAR-ROSCOE=FAUSCH, INC. � ii�� _ ---•�i� 1==, � , = 111 — ��-�^� '''_::� -- .� �" ■!"-- � '' =I � -�,��11'i'�, .�i��l ��ii+� �_ -��'.�� _..� = _ �II1� � 'r"g= - ��1.,;-�.,-��dlr.=-�+�—� �—'•`�� -,.�I;r�� Ir�r_r^��fti��i_'��i= � �� _�1�t.� _�� .:.��1�_f.:. ..:'y.;-� - � ��-�..��■1 �Ii--�-r�1��1—L�.lu N:1��"' ::""'1�!�I�� _ — � ..........................................._ ..........._.. — - � _ — -�'`_�� _,_,.�;:��.:�■J��1J�' ��Il�fll _��1��'��F,ri�,��-- .�'_ ` (E . ,�— wi r�� __�.,.:.� . . ;�.,.,�.. � s's�. _ .. � � , _— - .��__ � ---- , _— --- �� ,�°°s'' � �`� � - , "' �-,��' -�" ��.•• i -� � ��= �r; �— �� ---— — _- _�� •- ��`�'� _ ..-�': � ��I��f��l,/��'"' ��...,• >-.;, ,��;��!��%- -- �' �� .��w__- /; -_ ��1�t,`,.,��3�i � �/ �_`��i� 1 � � u��,�1.,�"' _ . � • . . . . - . - - . � . � J�-il _ _ — -•11�� ,,i°,�j, r-=i � ��rr--� ''��!II ,, -- i -�'��-�!�!. �� _ -■��'._� - - �� _.� : �� -� R...,.,. -� -� ��—�u.--.�.�-.r,�.�'!--� �:� „ r'".,r� .._.�� - ��a—� � �`� -•�ri c� � AP*� �� ;�.---�.��i=i-;.ia� :i��.:�-1��►�l��i�8��1�!!::. -.:......_....._...........-..ww-•--�-----=y-....�.�.. -�.�- .�,�, _ . ' -".`��11-� _ °ia!=�;�'='-�7,�,i'I!�,��`=��i�l(��E;�,��;1��'��1 ' _ �..: ��.�. _ --- �- �� .�_-��_�__ �-.r. J ��' 4 �` --- _ .__ ._-- � �� i �---�-�1 -:� � � ��Il��,~ •~,•�� - ��, `/ /W/l'11t� /� I lt��`'�r- _-=�� ,.,..��"l �i��il_%��" -�---- -_-�)��i " ��4�?�:�:;ll%.��y�- - ♦ - �� .i- /�' �__ �f\�,..�'�� _i��.�- � I� r � . . - . . . • . - • - - • . . -- . . . . .- . - . - � . � . . . . .- -� . • . . . ' alternatives for the Shepard/WarnerJEast CBD Bypass project differ mainly in the degr�e to which they improve the views from the roadway of � downtown, the river and the open space along the river. D-1: Views of downtown, the river and open space along the river would not be enhanced. � � D-2: Elevates Warner Road, providing a better view of downtown and of the river and open space along the river for the entire segment. ' Stajf Conclusion: Alternative D-2 affords the best views of downtown, the river valley and the open space along the river, due to the elevation of Warner Road. ' b. Access to ooen soace Related to enhancement of views from the roadway is vehicular access from ' _Warner Road to the open space along the river created by the Warner Road improvement projeCt. D-1: Provides no option for access from Warner Road to the open space , along the river. D-2: Access from Warner Road to the open space along the river would be , possible. Staff Conclusion: D-2 is the only alternative from which access to the open space along the , river is possible. _ SEGMENT D: STAFF SUMMARY CONCLUSION ' Both alternatives for Segmeat D meet the primary objective of separating the railroad tracks from the Bypass. While D-1 is better in terms of safety and traffic flow, D-2 is ' better in terms of promoting riverfroat objectives. Since views and access to the open space along the river are priorities for this segment, D-2 is the preferred alternative. 1 , , ' ' , 23 ' ' r SEGMENT E: East CBD Bypass Connection to Local Streets- -- � (Figure 13) � This segment includes the East CBD bypass from 650' north of the existing Warner Road alignment to 400' east of the I-35E northbound entrance ramp. A No-Build and two Build alternatives were considered in the draft EIS for Segment E. , E-1: Bvnass With No Local Street Connections• Estimated Cost = $8.3 million. , E-2: Bvnass With Local Street Connections: Connections to Kellogg Boulevard via E. 4th Street, to E. 7th Street via Kittson Avenue, and University Avenue via Olive Street (Figure l4). Estimated Cost = $11.9 million. , Both build alternatives are similar in terms of views of and from the roadway, pedestrian/bicycle accommodation, air and water quality impacts, noise impacts and implementation feasibility. In evaluating the alternatives, four objectives are most critical: ' (1) consistency with the comprehensive plan, (2) minimize noise impacts, (3) safety and (4) cost. , 1. Consistencv with the Comorehensive Plan In the case of the East CBD Bypass, consistency with the comprehensive plan ' concerns two objectives: (a) access to downtown and the East Side and (b) redevelopment of areas adjacent to the roadway. a. Access to Downtown and the East Side � ' A primary purpose for building the Bypass is to provide good access to an underdeveloped portion of downtown and the East Side. Historically, this ' area has depended on rail access to support industrial/warehouse land uses. As railroads become less active in the area and land uses change, good roadway access becomes more critical to support redevelopment. The Dayton's Bluff District 4 Plan notes the neighborhood's easy access to , downtown as a major strength and competitive advantage and_supports improving the neighborhood's visual, physical and economic connections to downtown as a way to capitalize on this strength. , A related objective is diversion of through-traffic from downtown streets via implementation of the ring road concept. Traffic currently destined for the East Side gets local access only by going through downtown. Providing � r connections between the Bypass and local streets on the East Side in Segment E would divert this through-traffic from downtown streets. ' E-1: Does not improve access to downtown or the East Side. E-2: Improves access to downtown (via connections to Kellogg Boulevard , and E. 7th Street), Dayton's Bluff (via connections to Kellogg Boulevard and E. 7th Street), Lower Payne Avenue (via connections to E. 7th Street and E. University Avenue), the Metropolitan State ' University site (via connection to E. 7th Street) and the State Capitol (via connection to E. University Avenue). By providing local connections, diverts traffic from downtown streets. ' 24 ' r s� � �:;�.`', \ / ,�1\`,� ,(�!�/ � . . : ��; ��. � `r: ..! ':�`1,.= I'�� . . . . �; ys� �< ,:. �r ..�� t ,�_ � .,�� ,^�.` < :}}I,j h� ^�, ' �� j , :.„� y'' � s�--, ':;j •,� ^;�.._ � ; � ��s; � - � f,..•. � � a � �• �f �,.:A� E r" �f �:.:o. r`..�� . �.. _ _; �.. � J.. - � .1 �., � -� �: . �� ,. , . � '« _�.� �'� � ; ,`c+ •;, ��., � r� +� , �. �� , '' . � � � �; ! " , ' �.;�' JI ' .:� - � w � +" \�, 1 � ,:�;�,r `� '.r r. � I '``\ -� ` � � � a@�� '�� ` �' ` I ,` �� ''`�' � ��.�.. � � ;°��, '`+��1� • .� � ' / ,�l�.,.., r _. \�,,,�. ;�•_',�J ��i. f� Q �� l ., � •• ! �.�. .,, _ . �. .' T .! �f.:... w' � t/ ,.._ -,_��T� ' ,� I� ' \ � _. _. �`�j��i j-f '� _. _. °• /��t !� l i j i, r -, � . -� 1 •,.� �. �-•° , � � �.,� F ..,,, � i�I I.,i . _. ( . � .._. ; L- �. _. ( ._. , ._. �'' I�\� 1 �', �,,, . _, _+ � i. �� ,�, �. .�' `• '�'_ . _- � " _,�. _. �;�,,,'�, _. � , - _`� ...��/ ��.... .. -- � �,�i., ' � � �` _,� �� i ;�(; ' �:. .��" . ._ ,.� �, : . , ,:�'�` �,�r� _., _ , � ., �. :' �' )`_ , /:� � :� .,. �—• �`: ', . . � %=� � , ' � `�: _t �( � `�' �.� �� ,G�.,% � s's,..1 J /r�' ` ' N _� �:�`- I` . .�. , y%„ ��;�.J 4 `-�/, ,' ,�.� ..�� `� , ;,' : '"� . ��' � a ;i .:�' . :r .�' p� , - � ✓s,i'��,;� i % - ; ✓s,� f i m ( , _. ,; ,.� ,( : � _. . � --- '� 1, � SC.,..�.;p _ � 4 ,..\��:�.�:. P �� d � ' ' ' -_ — t . � !�-•• , � _ �y `�. �m �.... .., - -- --�.�� .. _. � � .. _ _ � - -_ � � 'C�, ' ' ..,, _�- r - = -- _ � ` -. + �--t�'' = - � � �� .�� . I� �.. ... - �,- J/ �• '\ ^�� ... ' ,� � .... .. � 'i �\n ..� � �. �� _" "_�t, I �J I . ;� � •�' � � -"'-�_ •/ f J J � � i • ' . �^'�'�D'I 1 ,' Y ` (✓ �• � I ..\ _ ..�R�� f _ tf �. _ / _�''' I '\ ..�.� _ .., I� ,,.. (f F. -��.��- .�„ . a� " .` . ... �� •� :�'� - ' , . � � ' ��' �. ,�T � `��;:� � _ :�;�_, � �:�:r�,, , � �.-� , . - _ . - _ • - ...: . ,� _ _ �� ,. - -�=� -�� '��_� �, � _ _ � + ��f �'�,.;� ��. _• �_ � � � _ _ r y- y�� _ --- '' '•A , `!` �•-�� ' .. ��t� i...� .. �I ' � i... . � i �-.. iii � "'-�-�.d � i .� -, . F=' "7`�..: � .. .�}�� i ' '.� '- - .4�,�--�.._.11 �`'I'' i ��. . � ---yyy--- -_- W 6 � - - � w.. -" . � �„"�_.. - _ � �� 'a"r� _ , . WG �. _ � ST+... •.� . n� ' �°__.. - ,� _• .:/� . � _.� a8 ��"'= ----== _• ��I'i�. �: .. - :_ --- � , � ---- -- . ; , ' — �--- .==��=_=_-�_`. - :j :� -- -____=_ --_---_ . � �l: _.. �.; ��--�^ _ _. �� . .� � E�;_-�.�_ -------- �,,;�. .0 �� ... _ . �. ..�� ..� � � ._ . �� t =- ., :______ __________ , ... � .._____ -=--____ � _ � - �� ... �. �� ..�� _____, _ - : : _ ��_�..___�- � -- __ .- . . ^ " � � ��,n �/� �� .... � �'�".� f ;/ r\,. -\� � . .: � � '. :�. .... ._� j , E-1 : ECBD BY�ASS WITHOUT LOCAL � E-2 : ECBD BYPASS WITH LOCAL n �' �K�� CONNECTIONS CONNECTIONS SNEPARD/WARNEFi/EC80 BYPASS ' PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM •ST.PAUL OEPAIiTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SEGM�NT E •ST.PAUL DEPAHTMENT OF PLANNING ALIGNMENT ALTERNQ,,TIVES F�GURE 13 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ' •STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. i i�: �� ; I � ; � � ;:, l; � ;, �� , ;,� r �� .�. � zko : � � ►� f ��- _ ,,, � � � � � � � I � � , , ,,, � �` ��I � � ' , `�;�� ;+�� ! > � � ,e 1 1�� I ;��j� �+� i��' t��/ � � �. I �; ,; IiEu_ ►� ,� �i.� � � ��, _�I 1" .� � � �� I �I I � i�,�'� ��R .�� i� � �! :� �;� I ' l / :�� as_� `;�l�E'�#,u 1 �� I � � \ � �: � I��_;-� %,._ ,� �.�. 1 �f �, � i l� ,_, ,� '�� .\�II_ '`� `��. �I' �•�� I r 1 �L�. a r I �I. �I, = � '� � I'� ?:..\.. � I :;�I�l ,� 'I�� ,e �r�i II�� Ik :: r j1 ` , 4/i' i �- 1 I:� '� �, �f II.�� / �� • ��"_ ie �IIP� �� Iw`!' ` ��I� I .��I; f�'llt �.f ' . h� � �� - ,'��1 , \ � rj,�� r ' '��r• , � / �. r �� , I�� "','lill rt'/JI '� �_ • � I��,� � E �� '��'��' . �il�..� i 1 — i��fi i,:' ��; _ ►�,:� ;i ��.,�, r ,,, �� ,_�r� .��M.��, ;�s � �, � �� - ,,.,,,:. ; — � �� _ ��,i, ,, :��i�, �� __ ,�,::=—� � `. i1 �� % `�� 'I�'� ?' �\1� � � r �� r�,i� ' i �"�r.. � , � • I � �, ,�r°�'a e,�r. � �' `,I�� ,. � 1^'�' !►��; '-.— ��.��,� ��"!T'� ; �� ! , �� , ��„� � ��I;�� , (� ;,� ,_ f�� !�r�t �� °" �r""� � ' ,� �t � � = �� ,, � . > W■ _ , 1 � ��,� � ,��o�� I�� I ��-�! �� i;I 't►� 'i I� �� ! I�'�f j�t ( - �.+ �, : _ •.,�� ,I�r�`nr ' � �� 1,�� rl , � I�I ►� ' ��+i � � � �, � rr � ��i„� , 1 • � , �� . ! '� � �i�l\� �� '_ '� �,',� i�� ' ,, � �' .�� i, , �;� � `�: ( �_ � �� ,,�� 14�� y==-� � � � �'� '-; � �'i I I�:, � ?s �i�t { i i�' II � �� _ �� ;Ir1 ' �� "� � �' — � h � � �� 1� � �-` I � � 1, , ,, �,�1 � { ^s ��li � ' �� i I' ' �, � 1 �'��'t i I �.: �j t�, :«� IIIP�� .� ; f � 11 i_%��. �� g� i�� .� �. � �a r, �• II'�'h '� �y j 1'' r%,�:. ,l � .� �� III'��sj -� I �� ,� /r ' !I�� ; �`� � �1 . ��,,{i�e �s i� �� , �, � �� •'� �1 ��/.� � ��= � � �� 1, J 1 I � ' ��'�;�' � ��'� ,� � �I�`- � � I�►I , ; �3� , ��• � r � ' � ��1 . ��} \ I . a� � �' ��° I � • `I - �, ' i ��ii� :i � � . ► �' '� ��, - . ` , � ��1 �� , ' . � -° i � � , Stafj Conclusion: Only Alternative E-2 julfills the objective of improving access to downtown and the East Sidea � b. Redevelooment of Areas Adiacent to the Roadwav Related to providing access to downtown and the East Side is improving the ' development potential of parcels adjacent to the proposed Bypass. Several of these parcels are currently sparsely developed, due primarily to indirect and � inconvenient access and a lack of exposure. The Bypass, if it were built with connections to the local street system, could bring exposure and significant development opportunities to underutilized parcels east of downtown, ' especially the Space Center and Williams Hill areas. In addition, the District 4 Plan supports redevelopment of underutilized railway areas between Dayton's Bluff and the downtown. E-1: By not providing connections to the local street system, this ' alternative does not proinote the redevelopment of underutilized . parcels east of downtown. , E-2: With its local connections, this alternative greatly enhances the redevelopment potential of the East Side. ' Staff Conclusion: Only Alternative E-2 julfills the objective of encouraging the redevelopment of underutilized parcels ad jacent to the proposed Bypass. ' , 2. Minimize Noise Imnacts Table 3 illustrates year 2010 modeled noise levels for the Segment E alternatives, ' including No-Build, based on noise contributed by traffic alone. The nighttime figures are for the peak period from 6-7 am; the daytime figures are for a peak , period from 4-6 pm. TABLE 3 SEGMENT E NOISE IMPACTS I Receptor: Lafayette , Alternatives � Existing 63/65 dBa , No-Build 63/65 E-1 65/66 E-2 65/67 , State standards 55/65 dBA (Night/Day) ' Federal standard 70 dBA - For every alternative, the federal noise standard will be met at the Lafayette ' receptor site. 25 , , � - For each alternative, including No-Build, the state nighttime noise standard will be ' = exceeded. - The state daytime noise standard is exceeded in all cases except Existing and No- � Build at the Lafayette site. Staff Conclusion: The noise impact of loca! roadway connections along the East CBD Bypass is essentially identical to that of the Bypass without local connections, due to relatively !ow traffic 1 volumes and speeds and significant distance jrom the receptors. 3. fet , In general, construction of the East CBD Bypass will have a positive impact on safety, both pedestrian and vehicular, by diverting traffic from congested local 1 streets in the St. Paul central business district. As with other segments of the Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass route, the creation of intersections in Segment E will increase the number of projected vehicle ' accidents. It is important to keep in mind, however, that all intersections are sources of conflict and accident generators, but that without them there would be no access to enter or exit a street system. , E-1: With no local connections and thus no intersections, a¢cidents will be substantially lower (approximately 7 accidents per year) under E-1. ' E-2: Due to at-grade signalized intersections for the local connections, the accident rate is much higher (approximately 61 accidents per year) under E- 2. , Stajj Conclusion: E-1 has the least potential Jor vehicle conjlicts, but provides no access to adjacent parcels. E-2 would improve overall safety by diverting traffic from congested local , streets downtown while providing access to underdeveloped parcels along the Bypass. 4. �s� , The cost difference between the build alternatives is relatively small, $3.6 million, compared to the amount of much-needed access gained by the additional expenditure. � Sta f f Conclusion: The d i f ference in cost between alternatives is not a ma jor d rawback, d ue to the access and potential land development provided by the more expensive alternative (E-2). iSEGMENT E: STAFF SUMMARY CONCLUSION ' The most important objective for Segment E is consistency with the comprehenslve plan - i.e. implementing the ring route concept, improving access to the eastern edge of downtown and East Side neighborhoods and improving the redevelopment potential of areas ad�acent to the Bypass. E-2 is clearly the best alternative for these purposes. , 1 ' 26 � � SEGMENT F: East CBD Bypass Connection to 1-35E (Figure 15) � This segment includes the portion of the East CBD bypass from 400' east of the 35E northbound entrance ramp to the entrance ramp, and the portion of Mississippi Street from 450' south to 700' north. � Only one build alternative was considered in the draft EIS for Segment F. In addition to � the East CBD bypass itself, Mississippi Street is included in this segment because of its � proximity to the bypass connection at 35E. F-1: Connection of the East CBD Bvnacc tn I_35E at the Existin¢ Pennsvlvania ' Interchange. Estimated Cost = $1.5 million. Two objectives are most important in assessing the F-1 alternative: (1) coordination with I- 35E reconstruction and (2) minimize noise impacts. � 1. Coordinat�on wtth I-35E reconstruction � The proposed connection of the Bypass to I-35E may be temporary, due to MnDOT's , plans to reconstruct I-35E north of I-94 and improve the associated interchanges some time in the future. At that time, the connection could be redesigned if ' necessary. Staff Conclusion: In spife of F-1 being a potentially temporary connection, the connection is necessary to complete the ring road system and to provide an alternate truck route for the I-35E , Parkway. 2. Minimize noise imoacts , ' Ad jacent residential areas are concerned about noise impacts of the Bypass in the vicinity of the I-35E connection. Noise from traffic at the existing I- ' 35E/Pennsylvania interchange and from through-traffic on I-35E are the major noise contributors at the Pennsylvania receptor site. TABLE 4 ' SEGMENT F NOISE IMPACTS Receptor: Pennsylvania t Alternatives Existing 71/72 dBA � No-Build '72��q E-1/E-2 72/74 , F-1 72/74 State Standards 55/65 dBA (Night/Day) ' Federal Standard 70 dBA Adding the Bypass to the existing interchange would not increase noise levels over , the No-Build alternative. In the future, the noise at the Pennsylvania receptor site will be attributable to through-traffic on I-35E, not by the addition of a Bypass 27 , , �,/- \ � i nca.. � . . . •1!].• . .I�i.6 Ii 7 . '-'. � �v� �3Y'. \,'• O �. r , ,2,.s � ,3s.�/�: �/��y < �\''•, J1'`' , �H s� _ . �/�/�� /`. �:,.. se:� , �...� r. � � 1 �1)1.6 . .. .-a102.6'�� . . • �� . /, O � . . 'K , � �� ` �1�6.I / � � t •129�5� .IY9.�0 • � . . . � ,( �.9 /� �nl `'��,�„ , • //��.f e xin.�', ii0.o 1` � � . r f, • F•.� ,� =_. .i0..2 . • .i�0.� .'�� . � .�0... � .r ,r��e., ,a�:a,. _ . ,• � '; � � '` '�!'� / ` � �• �� . .t39. . . •121.� .IlB.6 .. �/ ' . ,• � l j y � . .% .12�.6 , . .•, � . '. ^ . . � � : � � •7:2.9� � ' ;e�' p •t26.1 V. . 'I0B.3o (�.9B.i � '� O � ' ` . . , t�'`, .103.• • ..139.6 '�� ..Iii.+ �;i � � 1 ` iea.e ... •IEB.•' i02.2 IIS.3� '�� . . �?." ]/ . ' \� . .�, �:1 �� / \ ., i 103.5 . ` / `I_ tt�.v � . . `, � 69.9 � � I\j : •iP 4� /�«W ��v J• . • .. ° � . \J�\ ! `+�tj:{,, .�, t � ° ~� "�(�e,,e • • ' .».a. � .. I ,:a � . ` . . :: �.: .. . , � \ i/ s tir �'.z�ize.s ' .irc:s � y �;3z.,� < '��i '= .. . . � ;�.,�.6 �;�, � li � 7,,�� ,�..�: . �� 1 � . ? �. � �/'' �' . � /.• 4\''�• e I � ` / , • r / � ;>.j�,��.e�. rg` • . . ^' /.. . �n... P�� ,�� • . .. `• �ise ` 1°� j :' ' � y ,��.z � � . • i . , i' ,J � , . ..� ` I `/ f� �� `+; , 4a`�``fe .a .i. . i�i; "I�fi �a.• .�1e.2 �� •�. , .iC �'� , s �A � � , � �� t� :� � o . ,r,� � �' � �•. YtK.3 'a/ � :. .�.e 1 � �, a,• � ,. . . t �.�.s .,s�., � A� m �. . � �� . ' �!!.�� l\ .'S' ,.9 31. � i �t. aYl.{ _> ^ � ��.s�.. : .e��,,,,,, . ` � '�/.i�i`t ` •. � - :� / � w �� i � � i r{e.ii1; ' � m � � v� 1� � n�.• �� ' ie� � ��• �� i1 +. \C� � C . � � •: ,� �� ' .•�/3 � 11 . '� ��' 'f'�' � \ ' �\ a I I.9,'JI� •]' •�+N.! �! ' � , � �� ? � •1�7.5 � ``) , � f � � . ' � u' �a.�:_`.�� : � -�°';; «us:� { �. • �T� � a.a 1 � �� ' �' ..z� � �� - _ � e •�S (.�•�\ ' ,' � � �, t•� l ,a� ;� �, a /_' " r � �\ .. � . P`1`4i �. f _ s�.� �+sa. . L' \� .. � \' .. � . . . %.` \ r�' l '.. � -•�.4 r u . �� ': �, i . ` ,� ' . � . '�.;,e '«.: � : �.: .,- �,� ' .112.3 �►� a1N.i t.' v s " -� / q," ��" wlf.! ��!',�, �,'�. �.. • ta !)*_ 3�� • .y a" ._�. ��..�' � r- •ti. �� .».� . ,.,.. `� �i- �\ /� .. ' �B3.B • , I G- / �`�✓ _ • , . i `J� /� < f -�V 3 •100.3 9�.1 �• .�2.1 3 �y� O� / � � `�� ..� . i tl � P' •!!.• . � � 9�.t N.! . . • � � ��-� \ � ' 1C .S • . \ �� ' • 1 IBB.6 � \ • � .M.• .!!.S 'i7.3 M.1 � �� i 1 �%.2 ,�..9• . �� L,•� ' . � E � .uz.a ) ai.i �.s .ut+r�.s: � �n.c _ � , ` ' -- - .. , �„ a,y <'a /, '3jM . �� 4. � / � .103.� � `F 4 ' �IN.O �, � r •IB6.] � � �Y3.2 ��I�].! �. '.t� � // /�� BI.y . \ \493.1 '. _�jF, . .. . / / / n.e � � ) \ ; � // . .l7.1 .�1.� \ � \`•i3.1 � 1 w63.9� [ , �� / � iP.2 '�i �. � - .� . 1 G..� li e � � .: � /� �� // ..�95.1 �F, l�.9 � ..9�.1 ^�I.�r �.�.�i •'.. ,'�`1. . ,� ,\ `�_,�"-�'. M E�hTE R�AD_ .�. F-1 : CONNECTION OF BYPASS TO I-35E � ��••� , ,; - ' AT PENNSYLVANIA • ,, �•,�` `, ;��: � ,.�,� . � SNEPARD/WARNER/ECBO BYPASS PROJECT MANA(3EMENT TEAM SEGMENT F •ST.PAUL OEPARTMENT OF PUBIIC WORKS FIGURE 15 •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1 •STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. � connection at Pennsylvania. It is important to note that, under existing conditions, the No�uild alternative and F-1, the federal noise stanclard and the sgate daytime � and nighttime noise standards will be exceeded at the Pennsylvania receptor site. Sta f f Conclusion: The noise in this segment will be attributable to through-tra f fic on 1-35E, not ' the addition of a Bypass connection to the existing I-35E/Pennsylvania interchange. Both federal and state noise standards are exceeded under the Existing, No-Build and F-1 scenarios. SEGMENT F: STAFF SUMMARY CONCLUSION I Alternative F-1 is the only feasible connection to I-35E at this time. Staff should continue � to work with MnDOT as it plans for the reconstruction of I-35E north of I-94, as this will impact the I-35E/Pennsylvania/Bypass interchange. ' � . 1 ' � � 1 ' ' ' ' 1 , 28 � , � ' �w� �f APPENDIY A ' CITY OF SAINT PAUI E INTER�EPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM ' DATE: March 7, 1988 , TO: Peggy Reichert � FK0111: Mary Tingert 1 � � � SUBJECT: SHEPARD ft0 LIGNMENT AND CHESTNUT INTERSECTION ALTERNATNES, AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE UPPER LANDING SITE � PED staff has concluded a brief analysis of the Shepard Road alignment and Chestnut ' intersection alternative issues, and the impact on the potential development of the proposed Riverfront Upper Landing site. 'I?�e analysis specifically considered the potential for new housing development. The road construction matters have a direct ' and significant impact on any development of the Upper Landing site. The following is an outline summary of notes regarding the features of Shepard ftoad alignment and Chestnut intersection alternatives, and the resulting impact on the � Upper Landing site. Road Construction Alternatives Under Consideration ' Shepard Road Alignment Chestnut Intersection ' Midway At grade A 3 At grade A 3 Grade separation 1 A-2 Grade separation iVle)or Issues Affecting The ftesultin� Development Site � The apparent major issues that have a significant impact on the development of the Upper Landing site include the following: ' — Size and shape of site — Potential number of housing units ' — Relationship to NSP (adjacent unimproved property and buildings) and the High Bridge � — Access to site from the east and west — Image of access ' , ' � ' Page Tvuo - ' 1. :Viidway Ali�nment with At Grade Chestnut Intersection , - fteduces size of site, and narrows eastern part ' - Necessitates placing development more to western pari of site - Potentially leaves the NSP unimproved adjacent property with NSP (negative impact on development) � - No vehicular access to site from end of Chestnut = Access to site at western end is difficult if not dangerous , Vehicular access to park east of Chestnut is only through development site - Less opportunity to buffer site from Shepard Road ' 2. A-3 Ali�nment �9ith At Grade Chestnut Intersection � - Provides most potential for NSP expansion into development site area , - Potentially leaves the NSP unimproved, vacant property with NSP - Access to site at western end is difficult ' - No buffer fcom NSP + Creates maximum potential development site + Better vehicular access to site from eastern end than Midway ' alignment alternative + More space for special "feature" at the end of Chestnut � + More opportunity for buffers than Midway alternative + The eastern part of the site is easier to develop, particularly with ' lower height buildings 3. A-3 Ali�nment With Grade Separated Chestnut Intersection , - Some land is lost for development at eastern end of site � - More constraints at western end for access than A-3 with at grade intersection + Creates more buffer for development ' + Provides better opportunity for "feature" at end of Chestnut + Better pedestrian access ' + Better connection to Irvine Park and West Seventh neighborhoods , ' ' ' Page Three - ' 4. A-2 Ali�nment With Grade Separated Chestnut Intersection ' + Provides best access to the western art of the site P ' + Best buffer from NSP + Itesolves the negative impact of adjacent unimproved NSP property � (must be acquired for alignment) t + b7ost flexibility for housing development alternatives + Includes all the positive benefits of A-3 with at grade intersection ' Additional Considerations � — High site cost for development, and high improvement costs for , _ open space Higher housing density results in more open space — Only open space improvements on site is potentially unattractive ' for several initial years — Low rise housing type buildings appear inappropriate on western part ' of site nearer the High Bridge and NSP buildings Road Construction Summary tIn summary, the following are key results of the analysis: ' 1. The Shepard Road alignment and the Chestnut intersection alternatives have a significant impact on housing development on the Upper Landing site. , 2. The Midway alignment and intersection are the least preferred road construction alternatives for providing a decent resulting development site. At grade inter- sections do not provide positive features for a housing development site. ' 3. The A-2 alignment with a grade separated intersection is the preferred alternative. The A-3 alignment with a grade separated intersection can be workable. , Housin� Development Summary 1. The Upper Landing site can provide a unique development in the Riverfront ' area, and in Saint PauL A significant housing development appears to be achievable; a development can potentially be achieved that will be complimentary to Saint Paul's finest neighborhoods, including Irvine Park. ' 1 . ' . _ .. ' Page Four - 2. A housi develo ment should be considered that incor orates lower t e buildi ' � P P YP ngs on the eastern part of the site, and higher buildings massed on the western part of the site closest to the High Bridge and NSP buildings. Open space should ' be provided throughout the site, including a special feature at the end of Chestnut that provides a positive image access to the site and the adjacent public park. 3. Adjacent site property owners, NSP, West Seventh/Irvine Park neighborhood ' residents, the Riverfront Commission and the City should work together in developing specific design guidelines for the Upper Landing site. ' bgT/bkd ' � ' � ' , ' • , ' , t ' ' ' , ' ` SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BYPASS � NOVEMBER 22, 1988 � The purpose of the "Draft EIS Response Package'� is to � organize, summarize and briefly respond to the comments and questions raised during the review of the Draft EIS on Shepard/Warner/ECBD Bypass. This package provides the background necessary for decision-makers to � understand the issues and concerns raised through review of the Draft EIS. It also provides the � information necessary to understand the differences � between alternatives. Testimony from the public hearing and from written � comments are organized on a segment-by-segment basis, with non-segment issues under the heading of '�General Comments" at the end of this document. For each . segment, the comments have been grouped by issue area � to help focus review of the comments and responses. • Because of the tremendous volume of this package, � comments have been briefly summarized and responses are kept as concise as possible. The Final EIS will include more detailed summaries of analyses and research �referenced in this response package. In � addition, the Final EIS will include a copy of each lett�r received with responses provided as footnotes or references to the text of the Final EIS. � i ! i 1 i 1 1 � � SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BYPASS � SEGMENT A RESPONSES ' NOVEMBER 22, 1988 � , PA E A. IMPACTS ON BUSINESS OPERATIONS A - 1 ' B. IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY A - 3 C. VISUAL IMPACTS A - 3 ID. LAND USE/RIVER CORRIDOR OBJECTIVES A - 5 � E. ROADWAY DESIGN A - 9 F. NOISE A - 12 , G. COSTS A - 16 H. TRAFFIC � A - 17 �� I. HAZARDOUS WASTE A - 18 J. HISTORIC IMPACTS • A - 18 , K. SOIIS GEOLOGIC - / A 22 � L. FLOODPLAIN A - 23 M. VIBRATIONS A - 23 tN. SOCIAL GROUPS A - 24 � , , ' � � ' ' SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BYPASS , SEGMENT A RESPONSES , NOVEMBER 22, 1988 I A. IMPACTS ON BUSINESS OPERATIONS , 1. NSP High Bridge Plant ' a. Normal maintenance o! the NSP plant�s intake structure would contlict with pedestrian/bike traftic and safety. - (NSP) � . Refer to response following comment l.e. b. Maintenance ot plant equipment near the road would result ' in temporary lane closures on Shepard Road. - (N8P) Refer to response following comment I.e. I c. It appears that NBP would lose some employee parkinq with Alternative A-2. - (NSP) Refer to response folZowing comment 1.e. � " � ' d. Alteraatives A-1/A-2 ' presents a hiqh level of hazard, to , N8P employees and it would be ditlicult to eliminate those hazards. - (NSP, OSIiA) Refer to response following comment l.e. ' e. . Construction ot Alternatives A-1/A-2 could affect underqround coolinq system which needs to be kept in ' operation . - (NSP) Response to I.a. through l.e: � A significant amount of work has been done to solve and mitigate the impacts on NSP and identify modifications in the roadway design for A-1/A-2 to avoid and minimize these 1 impacts. Based on information currently avai.Zable, a11 Segment A alternatives appear to be feasible. � , � A - 1 � , `2. Unocal Oil Terminal , a. IInocal terminal is solely dependent on receipt of pro8uct ' by barqe and must have the ability to safely off-load barqes. - (IInocal) Refer to response foZlowing comment 2.e. , b. IInocal must maintain safe, adequate inqress and eqress for transport trucks durinq and after construction. � ' (Unocal) Refer to response foZlowing comment 2.e. ' c. The new roadway and pathway must allow adequate security and safety at the Unocal barqe unloadinq area because products are flammable and hazardous. - (IInocal) , Refer to response following comment 2.e. d. The construction process must not disrupt existing ' pipelines that run beneath Shepard Road. - (Onocal) Refer to response following comment 2.e. ' e. A-3 would have much lesa impact on IInocal�s present and . future operations. - (IInocal) , Response to 2.a. through 2.e: These impacts are more substantial than previously known. ' The potential safety impacts on UnocaZ �s operations are significant. However, these impacts could be mitigated ' through design modifications. 3. Island Station Site a. Impact on access to ten acres of land and the buildinq on , the Island Station Site. - (Nicollet Restoration) An at-grade intersection with signajization and turn , lanes is planned for this intersection for Alternatives A-1 or A-2. This would provide fu11, safe access to the ' site. b. Noise impaats and mitiqation possibilities were not addressed for the - Island Station Site. - (Nicollet � Restoration) There are currently no land uses on the site or active ' development proposaZs with sensitive receptors which wouZd require noise analysis or mitigation. � A - 2 , �'�= �q��- - i9�9 , ' B. IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY 1. Railroad issues � , a. The railroad�s commitment to cooperate with the Cit in Y the expeditious relocation ot railroad facilities has � been obtained. - (NSP) Refer to response following comment l.b. ' b. Need for the railroad overpass east ot the Hiqh Bridqe has been eliminated by shittinq the NSP spur to the west end of their property. This reduces the overall cost of ' Alternative A-3. - (NSP) Response to I.a. and I.b: - � - � Alternative A-3 is NSP�s preferred alignment so they have taken an active role �n resolving many of the obstac,Ies � previously identified as strong reasons for not selecting Alternative A-3. The agreement executed between NSP and the railroads does not address a11 of the City�s concerns related to visual impacts but it appears to resolve some of the major ' obstacZes related to implementation feasibility. If AZternative A-3 is not selected, then the agreement is void and the City wi11 be on their own in negotiating with the ' ' railroads. . 2. Legal Authority � , City has more leqal authority to implement A-1/A-2 than A-3 or Midway. (Planninq Commission) ' The City has the legal authority to condemn business properties, but not railroad properties. However, the condemnation process can be very time consuming and costly. ' C. VISUAL IMPA CTS , 1. Landscaping a. Althouqh the DEiB describes landscapinq as essential for ' Alternative A-3, it is not mentioned for A-2 even thouqh A-2 passes by the same industry. - (NSP) ' ' ' A - 3 I . , A�� ha� the adVantage of being� adjacent to the river ' which offex�s aesthetic vie�vs. A-3 is surrounded by industrial and raiZroad land uses which are not considered as attractive as the river. Therefore, ' Zandscaping Alternative A-3 becomes more important than the other alternatives in terms of creating a pleasant entry to the City from the southwest. b. There is adequate space available alonq the A-3 aliqnment , for landscapinq the roadway; there is not adequate space alonq the A-2 aliqnment. - (NSP) ' Landscaping along the A-2 aZignment is not considered as necessary because the river provides an aesthetic views ' aZong the roadway. For Alternative A-3, it should be noted that space for landscaping west of the High Bridge is very restricted. 2. Views ' a. Views of the road from the river should be considered. � Alternative A-3 would not be visible from the river and, thus, would result in no visual impacts on the views from the river. - (NSPj This is true, aZthough Alternatives A-1/A-2 would not be ' compZetely visible from the river due to roadway�s higher elevation above the river. In addition, the floodwaZl , partialZy screens the view of the road from the river. b. Alternative A-2 does not have the best view of the , doantown skyline because it is blocked by Unocal and NSP. Alternative A-3 has unobstructed views of the skyline. The only distinct advantaqe of Aiternative A-2 is that it offers a limited view of the river and river valley. - ' (NSP) Refer to response following comment 2.e. ' c. Alternatives A-1/A-2 offer the most dramatic visual experiences o! the river valley and downtown. - (Planninq � Commission) Refer to response foZlowing comment 2.e. d. Alternative A-3 would result in what appears to be a back ' alley approach toward downtown. Alternative A-2 would provide a more aesthetic route. - (Lauer Flats , condominium Association) Refer to response following comment 2.e. � A - 4 , � ' , e. The A Modified alternative would offer the best qateway view of downtown St. Paul from eastbound Shepard Road and would maintain views o! the river from the roadway and ' the city. - (w. 7th FeBeration) Response to 2.a. through 2.e: � ' There is clearly a lack of consensus regarding the views of downtown from the Segment A alternatives and the most , aesthetic route into the downtown. Therefore, it is concluded that each alternative has its own strengths and weaknesses and there is not enough difference between aZternatives based on views to d�ctate which aZternative ' should be selected. !. Alternative A-3 would be �.esa visible from the bluff -than � A-2 since it is tucked in riqht next to. the blutt. - (NSP) ' A-1/A-2 are hidden from view by NSP on the west end of Segment A; A-2 is similar to A-3 on the east end; A-2/A-3 are visible from bluff on the east end. I D. LAND USE/RIVER CORRIDOR OBJECTIVES , 1.� Open Space . a. Alternative A-3 mauimizes open space at the river�s edqe and facilitates public recreational use of the riverfront ' - (NSP, Planniaq Commission) This is consjstent with the findings of the Draft EIS. , b. Alternative A-2 is only partially consistent with Riverfront plans because it only partially opens up ' access to the riverfront. - (NSP) This is true; however, A-2 opens up the portion of the ' riverfront which is most Zikely to be utilized because the riverfront west of the High Bridge is dominated by industrial land uses. ' c. Alternatives A-1 and A-2 cannot support the recommended provisions tor rest areas and other amenities in the st. Paul River Corridor Plan. - (NSP) , The St. Pau1 River Corridor Plan (as amended) pZaces priority on providing open space amenities in the area of the Upper Landing. This can be accompZished with either , Alternative A-2 or A-3, but not with AZternative A-I. ' A - 5 ' ` . , 2. Development Parcel (Kaplan/Harvest States site) ` ' a. Alternative A-3 results in the larqest riverfront development parcel on the east end of Seqment A. - (NSP, , Riverfront Commission) This has been confirmed by the Housing Division of PED. b. Alternative A-2 does the best job of enhancin the ' g development potential !or housinq and open space on the Raplan/Harvest states site. - (Planninq Commission) ' Alternative A-2 wouZd provide a buffer between NSP and the development site which would enhance the site. � c. The Irvine Park community supports open space and �uistinq industry as the land uses for the Upper Levee. - (W. 7th Federation) � The decision on a roadway alignment is not dependent on future Iand use of the adjacent parcels. Some ' alternatives are better or worse in terms of preserving the redevelopment parcel, but none of the alignments wouZd preclude any specific Iand use. � d. The A-3 Midway aliqnment diminishes the size and configuration of the housinq site and provides less desirable access from the west end of the parcel. - ' (Riverfront commission) This has been confirmed by the Housing Division of PED. � 3. Ped/Bike Access and Safety a. Cross section ' - Alternative A-3 provides separate, full-width pedestrian and bicycle paths, as well as full 10 foot ' shoulders. - (NSP) � This is true and AZternatives A-1/A-2 do not aZlow a ' fu11 width cross section, especially near NSP. - Impacts to the_environment when the ped/bikeway is , not located adjacent to the proposed roadway should be considered. (FHWA) ' ' A - 6 , ' ' , The Ped/Bikeway for Alternative A-3 follows the alignment of existing Shepard Road (along the river) , rather than shifting away from the river to follow the roadway alignment (along the base of the bZuff) . This was proposed to provide direct access to the river for pedestrians and bicyclists, which is ' consistent with the City�s River Corridor Plan and riverfront deveZopment objectives. Since the ped/bikeway would be in the existing roadway , , corridor, there would not be adverse ecoZogical impacts due to construction or operation of the facility. The fact that the ped/bikeway would not be 1 adjacent to the roadway is seen as a positive effect in terms of noise, a�.r quality and safety concerns. However, 01d Shepard Road would be serving as a 1ow volume access road so there may be perceived security 1 risks due to a more isolated route. b. Salety ' - The area near the NSP screen house will be very unsafe for peds/bikes under Alternatives A-1 and A-2. - (NSP) ' This is a concern for Alternatives A-1, A-2 A-3 and Midway because, the ped/bikeway would be in�the same � location for a1Z three alternatives. However, there would be more room to avoid these conflicts with Alternative A-3 or Midway. ' - Alternatives A-3 and Midway would provide the qreatest sa�aty tor pedestrians and bicyclists. ' 8oaever, the re8uced security due to isalation needs to be considered in desiqn and operation. - (Planninq Commission) ' Extra protection measures due to security risks may make operation of the ped/bikeway more difficuZt. However, 01d Shepard Road wi1Z function as an access 1 road to riverfront properties so the ped/bikeway would not be completely isolated. - The new roadway and pathway must allo� a8equat� , security and safety at the IInocal barqe unloadinq area because products are tlammable and hazardous. - (Unocal) IThis applies to a11 alternatives, but is Zess of a concern for Alternative A-3 and Midway. , � A - 7 � , - Alternative A-3 does the best �ob �f �acilitatinq ' public use of the riverfront and i� most �afe for pedestrians. - (St. Paul Chamber of Commerce) This is consistent with the findings of the DEIS. , c. Maintenance ' - City will have responsibility for maintaining pedestrian bridqes tor NsP employees over shepard � Road it Alternatives A-1 or A-2 are selected - (NSP) This wouZd result in slightly higher construction and operation costs for Alternatives A-I and A-2. , - 4. Existing Land Uses a. Alternative A-3 minimiaes conflicts with existinq land ' uses, especially NSP and IInocal. - (NSP) Alternative A-3 would have Zess operational impacts on ' NSP and Unocal but requires significant modification of the railroad Zand uses. b. NSP�s property near the riverfront redevelopment site was ' • recently downqraded from medium industrial to liqht industrial, which should be reflected in the EIB. - (NSP) , This has no effect on the roadway alignment decision. 5. Great River Road ' a. Alternative A-3 is in keepinq with the Great River Road desiqnation. - (Ramsey Action Proqram) , This is partially true since this aZternative would provide more space along the river for open space. , However, it does not take the best advantage of scenic river views. b. Alternative A-1 is located to take the most advantaqe of ' scenic river views; Alternative A-3 would provide more space alonq the river for improved bike and pedestrian trails and parkinq for motorists to pull of! and enjoy � the river. - (Metropolitan Council) This reflects the confZicting characteristics of the � Segment A alternatives relative to the Great River Road Program objectives. There is not enough difference between aZternatives based on views to dictate which alternative should be selected. , � A - 8 ' � , c. 8istoric preservation is a priority ot the Great River Road desiqnation, not just scenic preservation. - (W. 7th ' Federation) . According to 23 CFR, Section 661.4 (f) , providing convenient access to h�storic sites is identified as a , location criteria for Great River Road routes. Historic preservation is not mentioned as a criteria or priority of the program. , d. Great Rive� Road objectives need to be euamined in terms ot project impacts. - (W. 7th Federation) IEsch of the segment alternatives has been evaluated according to the Great River Rosd criteria as described in 23 CFR, Section 661.4 (f) . A matrix has been prepared � which summarizes this evaluation. Based on the matrix evaluation, none of the segment alternatives appear to be inconsistent with these criteria or objectives. The 1 matrix wi11 be included in the Fina1 EIS and is available to anyone interested in reviewing it. 6. "Old Shepard Road" , a. The City should ostablish a new aliqnmsnt for a scenic drive alonq the A-2 aliqnmeat. - (Rivertroat Commission) , This has been considered as an element of Alternative A- 3. The exact aZignment on the east end of Segment A � would not Zikely be determined until that area is redeveloped. The cost for upgrading OId Shepard Road was not reflected in the Draft EIS cost estimates. � E. ROADWAY DESIGN � 1. Roadway Cross Section a. Alternatives A-1 and A-2 would have a reduced width cross , section through the entire lenqth of the NSP property which would compromise the safety of the roadway. - (NSP) Alternatives A-1 and A-2 wouZd have a reduced width � shoulders in the area near NSP. AZternative A-3 would have a fu11 width cross section through the entire segment. � , � A - 9 ' , 2. Intersections , . a. Alternatfve A-2 would have 2 intersections between Randolph and Chestnut Streets, �hich creates more sources ' of vehicle conflicts and a hiqher accident rate. Accordinq to an analysis by Ayres Associates, A-1 would have a total of 29-33 accidents per year; A-2 would have , 41-47 accidents per year; and A-3 would have 13-15 accidents per year. Therefore, Alternative A-3 would be the safest alternative. - (NSP) At the time the "Traffic Impacts Study'� was prepared, � these intersections were not a part of the layout. The additional data on accidents will be included in the , Fina1 EIS. b. Layouts should show the location of siqnalized intersections that are required for Alternative A-2. - i (NSP) This wiZl be noted in the Fina1 EIS if AZternative A-2 is , selected. 3. Mainline Safety � , a. Statement that ��Shepard Road is an unsafe transportation facility with a very hiqh accident rate�� is not accurate. ° - (W. 7th Federation) ' - Seqment A is worst with 199 accidents, or 36� of total This �s consistent with the findings of the Draft EISe � - Seqment B is only 12�5, or 68 accidents This is consistent with the findin s � g of the Draft EISe - After improvements, acci8ents dropped to 42 (1984) , to ' 28 (1985) , to 14 (1986) , to 9 (1987) accordinq to police records Police records are normally only a part of the total ' accident data base used for forecasting accident rates. Therefore, this data does not provide an � adequate basis for projecting future accident Zevels. � , A - 10 � , ' � - Based on police department data, 8ecrease in accidents can not be attributed to mild �inter of 1986-87. � Based on accident data provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, there was a very clesr trend of Iower accident incidence during the winter of ' Z986-87 which affected the overall rate for that period. � 6. Design Modifications a. Layouts ahould ahoW the moditicationa to the A-2 aliqnment �hich were develope8 to accommodate NSP�s 1 needs. - (NSP� This wi11 be included in the Fina1 EIS if A-2 is � selected. b. Layouts should no lonqer show the railroad overpass near , Hai~vest states. - (NSP) This will be included in the Final EIS. , c. The statement that A-3 �ould be hiqher than other alternatives in some areas is now incorrect and should be revised. - (NSP) rAZternative A-3 (and Midway) would now only be higher than other Segment A alternatives on the west end of the segment nesr Randolph where it passes over the raiZroad ' tracks. 7. Design Flexibility ' a. Alternative A-3 would allow for future wideninq of Shepard Road it it becomes necessary; Alternatives A-1 � and A-2 �ould not. - (NSP) There are no plans to widen Shepard Road. However, it should be noted that a1Z Segment A alternatives are , constrained in some areas, especially west of the High Bri dge. � b. Alternative A-3 would allow the reconstruction of Shepard Road without detourinq the traffic from euistinq Shepard Road. - (NSP) , �Planninq Commission) � This wi11 be noted in the FinaZ EIS. � � A - 11 � � d. Alternative A-3 would be the most atrafqht forward in � terma ot aonstruction and not as diflicult to implement as previously thouqht. - (St. Paul Chamber of Commerce) There would be difficulties in implementing and/or � constructing all Segment A AZternatives, but at this time none of the alternatives appears to be better or worse ' than the others. F. NOISE � 1. Comparison of Aiternatives a. Noise impacta are siqnificantly different amonq the , Seqment A alternatives only at the �est end. The egistinq aliqnment (A-1/A-2) is quieter for the neiqhborhood than A-3 on the west end. - (Planninq , Commission� This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. , b. Alternative A-1 woulS result in less adverse . noise impacts than A-2 or A-3; therefore, A-1 is recommended , for implementation in seqment A. - (II.B. EPA) Alternative A-1 would resuZt in lower noise levels than A-2 or A-3 becatuse it is the furthest from the sensitive ' receptors along the bluff. � However, the trade-offs between potentisl noise impacts and creating better opportunities for riverfront open space and redevelopment , need to be considered in a decision on a preferred alternative. It should be noted that the neighborhoods directly affected by these noise impacts (West Seventh ' Federation and Historic Irvine Park Association) have voiced a strong preference for Alternative A-3. 2. Changes in Noise Sources � a. �Physical chanqes to the environment have been started since the DEIB was released: , - Harvest 8tates Grain elevators have ceased operation and will be demolished; Raplan�s Scrap Metal � operation has also ceased operation and is currently beinq demolished; both of these aill be eliminated as noise sources. - (W. 7th Federation) - Elimination of Harvest States and Raplan�s will also � reduce railroad related noise. - (W. 7th Federation) ' A - 12 � � � , - The railroad overpass near Harvest Btates is no lonqer necessary and a second overpass has been � eliminated due to neqotiations with NSP and th8 railroads. This will reduce traffic noise impacts as well as reduce noise from coal train activity near Irvine Park. - (�. 7th Federation) , The future noise modeZing included only traffic-related noise. The noise due to the industrial operations and � railroad operat�ons in the area were included when monitoring the existing conditions, but were factored out of the modeling of future noise levels so as to more ' accurately predict the difference between the various project alternatives due to changes in traffic volumes and rosdway alignments. Changes affecting the height or aZignment of the roadway have been modeled and wi11 be I incorporated in the Noise Mitigation PZan for the Fina1 EIS. 1 3. Methodology for the Selection of the Receptor Sites a. The six receptor sites do not adequately represent the areas impacted by the noise from the project. - (W. 7th , Federation) The six receptor sites were selected in conjunct�ton with � staff from the MPCA to indicate the level of impact of the alternatives resulting from traffic-related noise in the year 2010. In a11 but one case the receptors were ' located to indicate the worst case noise conditions along the edge of the bluff. A meeting was held wjth the Irvine/West Seventh neighborhood to review the recommended monitoring sites and a receptor was requested ' (receptor number 3) to identify the noise 1evels which couZd be expected within the neighborhood, rather than just along the edge of the bluff. The data obtained � through monitoring at these sites provides the basis for modeling noise at any location along the bluff--either at the edge or set back from the edge. ib. The residential housinq sites alonq the bluff in Irvins Park are not represented by receptor site $3 because it is 500 teet back from the bluft and some ot the houses � are within 50 feet of the bluff. This could make a difference of 6 to 12 decibels, dependinq on the alternative. - (W. 7th Federation) tThe residential housing sites along the edge of the bluff are represented by receptor site number 2, the Wilkin � Street receptor, which is Zocated along the bluff edge. The traffic volume along Segment A wi1Z be essentialZy constant over its length because there are no major � � A - 13 ' . � intersections planned on Shepard Road between Duke Street , and Chestnut St�ee�e Therefore, the data from receptor site number 2 is applicable to any of the homes along the edge of the bZuff. Receptor site number 3 is � representative of noise Ievels within the neighborhood, as requested by the neighborhood. However, a point along the edge of the bluff at Walnut Street in Irvine Park was modeled in response to this concern and will be � incorporated into the Final EIS. 4. New data on the modeled noise levels has been released since the DEIS was � released a. A projected noise contour plot of the A-3 aliqnment was requested from City staff and was presented in early � 1988. A copy was not provided .to the Irvine Park � committee as requested. - �(W. 7th Federation) Additional analysis was performed in response to � questions and comments of representatives of the Irvine Park Neighborhood and W. 7th Federation after the Draft , EIS was pubZished. Its purpose was to develop additional detail needed to understand the difference between alternatives in terms of mitigation opportunities and to � assist in the selection of a preferred alternative. The results of this additional anaZysis have been shared with the neighborhood in a report dated Apri1 26, 1988. The contour plot referred� to was a working diagram and was � superceded by the April 26th report, which provided inuch more detailed and accurate information than the contour pZot. ' 5. Mitigation a. Mitiqation of the noise with noise walls located at qrade , with Shepard Road has been shown to be feasible under specific conditions. - (W. 7th Federation) Additional analysis has evaluated the relative � feasibility of mitigation for the various alternatives anaZyzed. AZ1 of the Segment A alternatives (A-1, A-2, , A-3, Midway) cou.Zd be mitigated with noise wa11s along Shepard Road rather than along the top of the bluff. � � � A - 14 � � � � b. The ��Roise and Air Quality Analyses�� stated that ��a noise barrier located alonq the top edqe of the bluft appears to be the only effective mitiqation measure available�� which has since been contradicted by a document on noise released on April 26, 1988 which shows that the Midway aliqnment could meet noise standards with a 30 toot wall � located adjacent to Shepard Road. - (W. 7th Federation) The "Noise and Air Quality Analyses" included a � preliminary evaZuation of mitigation opportunities. Further analysis was completed since that time in response to concerns raised through review of the Draft EIS which provided much more detailed information and � concluded that mitigation would be possibZe along the roadway rather than on top of the bluff. I o. The April 26th report also indicates that the noise levels alonq the edqe ot the bluf! in Irvine Park would euceed state niqhttime noise levels by 14 decibels, which ' contradicts the statement in the DEIS that noise levels in Irvine Park meet state standards. (W. , 7th Federation) � The Irvine Park receptor was requested by the neighborhood to indicate noise Zevels within the park itself and does meet state standards. The Wilkin Street � receptor was monitored and modeled to identify the impact on properties located on the edge of the bluff. The Apr3Z 26th report provided additional data for the worst � case receptor along the edge of the bluff adjacent to Irvine Park. At that receptor, state noise standards are exceeded. ' d. The A Modified alternative would allow noise walls to be built alonq Shepard Road instead of alonq the top ot the blulf. - (W. 7th Federation) ` This is true based on the anaZysis summarized in the Apri1 26th report. Since that time, however, minor modifications to the A-3 alignment have allowed that � alternative to meet noise standards with the same height wa11 along Shepard Road, not along the bluff. ' � � � A - 15 � � � e. Mitigation fog adverse noise impacts should be considere� t in the Fiaal Ei8 for the preferred aliqnment. - (II.S. EPA) . , Options for providing noise mitigation wi11 be included in the Fina1 EIS. 6. Impacts on Neighborhoods � a. What would noise levels be alonq aliqnment A-2 at housinq � and open space site? - (W. 7th Federation) The noise levels at a potential future residential � deve.Zopment between the river and Shepard Road on al�gnments A-2 or A-3 wi11 need to be determined for the proposed residential project when detaiZs of the residential project are known. It is not necessary to � assess no�se levels for a project that has not yet been designed. ' G. COSTS 1. NSP Properties � a. Alternatives A-1/A-2 would cause an additional cost burden of about $4 million (more than Alternative A-3) ' due to relocation of utilities and plant systems, as well as outaqe costs. - (NSP) Exact costs and responsibility for payment would have to , be determined if either A-1 or A-2 is selected. b. Modifications to Alternative A-2 have been neqotiated t between NBP and the City which reduce some of the costs and impacts but would result in a narrowed roadway cross section. This would affect the satety of the roadway. - � (NSP) Alternatives A-1 and A-2 would have reduced width � shoulders in the area near NSP. 2. Unocal Properties a. Alternatives A-1 and A-2 would require considerable , reconstruction of existinq portions of the terminal and barqe off-loadinq facilities. - (IInocal) � The extent of reconstruction necessary for these facilities has not been clearly determined. Exact costs � and responsibilities for payment would have to be determined if either A-1 or A-2 is selected. � A - 16 � � � 3. Landscaping � � a. Part =I ot the DEIB indicates that construction costs include landscapinq which contradicts a statement in the DEIS 8ummary which indicates that landscapinq is not � included in the estimates. - (NSP) The only Zandscaping costs included in these construction costs are slope replacement costs (seeding or sodding) . � This wi11 be clarified in the Final EIS. 4. Old Shepard Road � a. Identify costs ot improvinq Old 8hepard Road if A-3 is aeleated. - (W. 7th Federation) � The estimated cost for improving 01d Shepard Road is $200,000. This wi11 be added to the cost of AZternative A-3 in the FinaZ EIS. � 5. Comparison of Alternatives � a. Costs for alternatives need to be updated to reflect current estimates, includinq reductions resultinq from NSP�s efforts. - (W. 7th Fede=ation) 1 This wi11 be included in the Fina1 EIS. b. Mitiqation costs for noise and visual impacts to Historic � Irvine Park are not budqeted. - (W. 7th Federation) These costs are Iikely to be very similar regardless of ' the alternative selected. Therefore, such estimates are not necessary in making a decision on a preferred alternative. The costs wi1Z be more specifica.Zly estimated for the preferred aZternative in the Final EIS. � H. TRAFFIC , 1. Travel Time 1 a. Alternative A-3 should be noted in the Binal EIS as havinq a ahorter travel time than A-2 because there are more intersections in A-2. The difference in travel time should be noted and quantified in the Final EIB. - (NSP) � The difference between alternatives would not be significant due to the very low volumes on the cross � streets. However, this wi1Z be quantified in the Final EIS. � A - 17 � • � 2. Access � a. Access to NSP and IInocal from the A-3 aliqnment would be � improved over existinq conditions. - (N3P) Access to NSP and Unocal would be from OId Shepard Road � via Randolph. I. HAZARDOUS WASTE � 1. Spills a. Alternative A-3 would better assure that any spills of ' hazardous materials could be contained; The A-2 aliqnment could allow spills to flow directly into the � river. - (NSP) Spi1Z containment would be a concern for a1l Segment A alternatives, but Alternative A-3 would be of less � concern due to its distance from the river. 2. Soit Contamination � a. The statement reqardinq potential PCB contamination of NSP�s Hiqh Bridqe site is opinion only and not based on fact or testinq. - (NSP) � The Draft EIS identified potential soils contamination for all land uses within the study corridor based on the 1 type of products associated with each business. No statements have been made regarding the 1ikeZihood of finding these materials on any of the sites. ' J. HISTORIC IMPACTS 1. Historic Documentation � a. seqment A and 8 alternatives include adverse effects that � meet each of the conditions of Section 106 requirements, which is contradictory to statements in the Draft EIS. - (W. 7th Federation) � Based on Section I06 guidelines, it was previously concluded that none of the alternatives would have an adverse effect according to Section 106 of the NationaZ , Historic Preservation Act. However, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) recentZy made a determination � � A - 18 . � � tthat Alternative B-2 (grade separation) wouZd have` a potent.i81 adverse effect on the Irvine Park Historic District due to the effects on the ��setting of the j district�'. According to a Zetter dated October 11, 1988, from Dennis Gimmestad, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, (see Appendix B-2) ,� "This effect relates to the changes in the topography of the Chestnut Street area, since this topography 1 . v�s-a-vis the Mississippi River is an important aspect in understanding why the buiZdings of the district were constructed �n this particular location. Further, the introduction of a diamond ' interchange in close proximity to the district would be a visual intrus�on. " � In addition, the letter indicates that there are potential adverse effects on the Irvine Park Historic District from noise wa11 construction in Segments A and , B. The letter also refers to information needed on the effects from vibration and poZlutants. However, documentation has been prepared for the SHPO that adequately addresses these issues. 1 Based on consultations with the appropriate agencies, the SHPO�s finding of potential adverse effect does not ' precZude the City from selecting the grade separated alternative. If the grade separation is selected by the City Council, then the City, SHPO, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Advisory Council on � Historic Preservation (ACHP) will need to enter into a consuZtation process to address mitigation of potential � impacts. A Memorandum of Agreement between the parties � would address the appropriate means to mitigate the potential adverse effects. Based on conversations with the SHPO, ACHP and FHWA it appears that a Memorandum of � Agreement could be negotiated to adequateZy address the potential adverse effects of the grade separation. In terms of noise wa1Zs, since the noise Zevels would be � the same for the at-grade and grade separated alternatives, and both alternatives can be mitigated with roadside noise wa11s, there is no significant difference � between alternatives. Therefore, noise walls should not be a factor in the selection of alternatives. � � � A - 19 � 1 b. Given the �ection 1�6 requirements, coordination �ill be , required related to Section 4 (f) requirements for each of the Seqment A and Seqment B alternatives. - (W. 7th Federation) � Bince there is no physicaZ use of land w�thin the National Register�s Historic Irvine Park District, the � State Historic Preservation Officer and Federal Highway Administration have determined that there would be no Section 4 (f) impacts for AZternatives A-2, A-3, B-Ib or � B-2. Alternatives A-I/B-la would have a potential 4 (f) impact because they require removal of the Harvest States �grain terminal. c. The summary of the DEIS describes historic effects of , Seqment A and B alteraatives as minor and secondary. This assertion minimiaes and prejudices the discussion of , historic impacts. - (B. McCormick, Irvine Park resident) The statements in the Draft EIS Summary were based on information available at the time of preparation. Since ' that time, the State Historic Preservation Officer has made a determination that the grade separation would have a potential adverse effect on the Irvine Park Historic � District. The Final EIS wiZl address SHPO determination. d. The situation with Harvest States and development by the City needs to be clarified and the requirements of , SeCtion 106 and SeCtion 4 (tj must be satisfied. - (FIiWA) The City of St. Paul has purchased the Harvest States � facility for implementation of riverfront redevelopment plans. The State Historic Preservation Officer has been made aware of the City�s plans to remove the Harvest � States facility. The acquisition was made for non- roadway purposes. No federaZ money was used for the acquisition so the requirements of Section I06 and � Section 4 (f) do not appZy to any action the City may take to remove the facility. Alternatives A-1/B-la are the onZy alternatives that would have impacted the facility and these alternatives are not favored by most interested L parties at this time. i � � 1 A - 20 � � ' 2. Impacts on Sites a. Possible demolition of the Harvest States qrain terminal � is ot concern. Alteraatives which avoid or minimize a8verse effects on this property are preferred. - (MN Historical society, SHPO) � � Alternatives A-1/B-Za are the only alternatives that would have impacted the facility and these alternatives � are not favored by most .interested parties at this time. The State 8istoric Preservation Officer has been made aware of the C�.ty�s plans to remove the Harvest States � facility for non-roadway purposes. b. Provision for treatment o! hfstoric properties discovered durinq construction should be included in the project, � includinq potential archaeoloqical sites. - (MN Historical Society, SHPO) ' Such provisions will be included in construction specifications for the project. The SHPO will be contacted in the case of any discoveries. � 3. Mitigation a. Noise and visual impacts on the Irvine Park Historic � District under Alternatives A-2 and A-3 are recoqnized; hoaiever no cost estimatea for mitiqation are included in the DE28. - (W. 7th Federationj ' Normally cost estimates for mitigation are not prepared at this stage unless there is a significant difference between alternatives, which there is not in this case. � 4. Noise and Air Quality � a. Lauer Flats Condominiums is on the National Reqister of 8istoric Places and is located on western Avenue about 1.5 blocks from the bluff. The owners are opposed to Alternatives A-3 and A-3 Moditied due to concerns about � impacts on the qualitp of life, includinq potential air quality and noise impacts. - (Lauer Flats Condominium Association) , At the distance of I.5 blocks from the bluff, residents of the Lauer Flats Condominiums wouZd not be abZe to � discern a significant noise difference between alternatives. � ' A - 21 � , b. Air quality impaat on stone and brick bu�ldin�s o� the= � Nationai Historia Reqister was not conside�ed. � (�0 7th Federation) � I-35E EIS addressed potential impacts of SO4 on historic buildings and found that emissions from increased traffic would not result in adverse impacts on historic � buildings. It should be noted that the traffic assumed for I-35E was in the range of 50,000 ADT, which is much higher than the traffic projected for Chestnut (IO- � 13,000) or Shepard (27,000) . More detailed information on the types of pollutants and projected concentrations are provided in the Segment B responses under � "H. Historic Impacts, 3. Air Pollution Impacts on Historic BuiZdings". K. SOILS/GEOLOGIC � 1. Soils Testing ' a. Detailed soils exploration discussed for A-3 would now be much less extensive that the oriqinal concept required since much of elevated roadway has been eliminated. - ` (NSP) More soils exploration would be necessary along the A-3 � alignment due to the reZative.ly unknown characteristics of the soils in that area compared to the more clearly understood conditions aZong the existing aZignment (A- ' 1/A-2 J . 2. Erosion a. Erosion potential durinq construction would likel be a � Y problem for Alternatives A-1 and A-2, but not for A-3. - (NSP) � Erosion during construction would be a concern with a1Z of the alternatives and is possible to mitigate through � standard construction practices. ' � � , A - 22 � 1 ! L. FLOODPLAIN 1. Overtopping Roadway � a. More frequent overtoppinq of the roadway is shown for A-3 than for A-1 or A-2. A-3 could easily be raised to meet � or even exceed the A-1/A-2 proposals and offer less trequent floodinq. - (NSP) � The frequency of flood waters overtopping the roadway was based on the current roadway profiles for each alternative. Alternatives A-1 and A-2 would have an overtopping frequency of 3o years; Alternative A-3 would � have a frequency of 25 years. Both frequencies are within the normal range of arterial roadway design. Raising A-3 would be considered unnecessary, especialZy � when the s�gn�Eficant cost of filling the entire roadway segment is considered. 2. Filling ' a. Fillinq required to allow residential development would cause a siqnificant chanqe in the topoqraphy and cost to ' development; this needs to be addressed. - (W. 7th Federatioa) � This issue is not a factor in the roadway aZignment decision. � M. VIBRATIONS 1. NSP Property � a. vibration producinq equipment that are a part ot the construction process must be approved by NSP in the areas ' that NSP has equipment. - (NSP) This wiZ1 be coordinated prior to commencement of construction. � � � � � A - 23 ' � £ 2. Irvine Park , a. Potential adverse effeats ot vibration from trucks on historic homes in Irvine Park was not ad8ressed in the � Draft EIB. Because of naturally occurrinq caves in the bluff, vibration is not absorbed by the qround but carried throuqh to residences in the District. - (W. 7th � Federation) A special study was completed for the I-35E EIS which anaZyzed potential vibration impacts for both the � Pleasant Avenue and Shepard Road corridors. The study specifically analyzed existing historic structures (Wright-Pendergast House and Breed-Blakely-Stewart House) � which are located aZong the edge of the bluff on either side of Walnut Street. The .conclusion of that study was that no structural damage would occur due to construction or operation of the roadway. Therefore, it is concZuded ' that Shepard Road and Chestnut Street will not resuZt in structural damage to historic structures. ' N. SOCIAL GROUPS 1. Little Sisters of the Poor ' a. Little Sisters of the Poor 8oly Family Residence, a mid- � rise elderly care tacility and senior housinq complex, is located on the bluff near �ilson Street. Alternatives A-2 and A-3 would have a potential impact on this community which should be esamined. - (�. 7th � Federation) Alternatives A-2 and A-3 would result in higher noise � 1evels and more direct views of the roadway than Alternative A-Z, and these impacts are addressed in the Draft EIS. Impacts on this community's cohesion would , not be likely since the roadway is well beyond the natural barrier created by the bluff. � ' � ' � A - 24 , ' ' SHEPARD/WARNER/EAST CBD BYPASS ' SEGMENT B RESPONSES NOVEMBER 22, 1988 � ' PAGE A. TRAFFIC VOLUMES g _ 1 , B. SAFETY g _ 5 C. DOWNTOWN ACCESS g _ � tD. PEDESTRIAN ISSUES g _ � , E. NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPACTS B - 10 F. RAILROAD DELAYS B - 11 ' G. NOISE g _ 1� H. HISTORIC IMPACTS g _ lg ' I. VISUAL/AESTHETIC IMPACTS g _ 2� � J. DESIGN ISSUES B - 31 K. FINANCIAL IMPACTS B - 34 � L. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS B - 36 M. BUSINESS IMPACTS g _ 39 rN. SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACTS B - 41 � ' ' ' ' � ' ' SHEPARD ARNER EAST CBD BYPASS /W / � SEGMENT B RESPONSES NOVEMBER 22, 1988 ' A. TRAFFIC VOLUMES ' 1. Traffic Increases ' a. Traffic increases on Chestnut 8treet over esistinq levels by 122� �ith qrade separation to 15,000 ADT accordinq to Traftic Impacts 8tudy, as opposed to the 13,00o ADT � reported in the DEIB. - (W. 7th Federation) The final "Traffic Impact Study" (dated May, 1987) shows , traffic on Chestnut with the grade separated alternative at 13,000 ADT. This represents an 86$ increase over existing traffic, not 122�. � It shouZd be noted that the No BuiZd traffic leveZs wouZd be 9,500 ADT and the grade separated alternative would be . a 37$ increase over No Build. The traffic levels for the ' at-grade alternative would be 10,400 ADT and the grade separated alternative would be a 25� increase over at- grade. ' b. Impact o! traffic increases on Eschanqe St. , Hill st. , Ryan Ave. , Irvine Park (roadway) , Eaqle St. , Grand Ave. , and Fort Road/W. 7th 8treet will be siqnilicant and have ' not been examined in the DEIS. - (W. 7th Federation) AZ1 of these roadways were considered as a part of the ' traffic impact study process. The ��Traffic Impact Study�� focused on' an analysis of traffic impacts along Fort Road/W. 7th Street, which has the .most potentiaZ for impacts �Ef Shepard Road is not improved. Volumes along , Exchange, HiI1, Ryan, Irvine Park roadway, Eagle and Grand will not be impacted by any of the alternatives. ' c. A clarification is needed of the Oriqin/Destination of those who are and will be usinq Chestnut Street. (Irnine Testimony) ' , ' H - 1 ' ' € , Based on origin/des�ina�ion data in the "Traf�ic �mpa��s Study", about 80$ of the peak hour traffic on Chestnut 1 Street is people who work in downtown or the West Seventh Street area and are driving to or from work. Most of these people live in the adjacent areas of southwest St. Paul or suburbs immediately adjacent to St. PauZ. , 8. The City has not demonstrated any evidence that increased traffic (specifically truck traf�ic) aill or needs to , occur oa Chestnut 8treet. - (W. 7th Federation) The "Traffic Impact Study" included extensive analysis of , , traffic patterns. According to the year 2010 travel forecasts, which are based on the Metropolitan CounciZ regional forecast modeZ, the traffic on Chestnut Street wiZ1 grow from 7,000 to 9,000 ADT by the year 2010 even � if the road is not reconstructed. Improving this �mportant access route into downtown and the West Seventh business area wi11 attract more auto and truck trips, but ' not any more than roadways of similar character around the City. Roadways which border neighborhoods and provide connections between arterials, such as Fairview, � C1eveland and Summit Avenues, are considered appropriate facilities to carry 10,000 to Z3,000 ADT. The proportion of trucks projected to use Chestnut Street is about 10� regardless of the alternative seZected. Based on the ' regional truck forecasts, trucks on Chestnut Stree� are destined to or from businesses along West Seventh and in the west end of downtown. Very few, if any of the trucks ' are through trips. Growth and development in these areas would be the cause of increased truck traffic, not the design of the intersection or roadways. ' e. No studies demonstrate that a disproportionate number of vehicles needs to be shifted to Chestnut from Jackson/Sibley. - (W. 7th Federation) � The proportion of Chestnut to Jackson/Sibley users to downtown is currently 25�/75$. The anticipated future ' split is 35�/65� primarily due to forecasted new development for the west end of downtown. This change in the spZit does not represent a disproportionate volume ' shift in terms of actual numbers. f. Forecasted volumes trom other sources differ as much as 300$ on Chestnut, Fort Road/West Seventh Street, and , Shepard Road (35E EiB, 8t. Paul Riverfront Pre- Development Plan, Midway Corridor Liqht Rail Transit Study, and City Base Line Statistics) . - (W. 7th ' Federation) 1 B - 2 ' , � Traffic forecasts for the Year 20Z0 were developed for the Draft EIS using the Metropolitan CounciZ �s Regional ' Forecast Mode1. The forecasts have been reviewed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Council and Federal Highway Administration. These 2010 ' forecasts include regional travel characteristics that have been updated since preparation of the I-35E Yesr 2000 forecasts in the early 1980 �s. No conflicting data was found in review of Riverfront Pre-Development Plan or ' M.idway Corridor LRT Study. The forecasts in the Draft EIS are the best available estimates of travel using state of the art forecast methodology. ( q. Trip Diversion , Traftic from 35E would egit to use residential Chestnut instead of Randolph to qet to Shepard road. - (Historic Irvine Park Association) � Very few, if any, trjps from I-35E would need to use Chestnut Street to get to Shepard Road. ' 2. Capacity a. Capacity ot Chestnut 8treet north of Ryan, where it becomes a two lane roadway will be a bottleneck for ' traflic leavinq Shepard Road qoinq into the Downto�n area. - (W. 7th Federatfon) , The physicaZ width of Chestnut . Street north of Ryan Avenue is adequate to accommodate projected traffic through 2010 for aZl alternatives. , b. Traffic dispersal at the Chestnut/Exchanqe intersection has never been addressed. - (Historic Irvine Park Association) ' A capacity anaZysis conducted for Chestnut Exchan e / 9 intersection indicates Leve1 of Service C during 2010 PM ' peak hour. This is considered very acceptable. c. Clarification is needed of the capacity of �-35E� West ' Seventh, and Shepard Road - (W. 7th Federation) ' ' ' B - 3 ' ' , i Based on the Metropolitan Regional Forecast Mode1, in the Year 2010 I-35E will be at capacity with 56,000 vehicles � per day and wi11 be serving primary regional travel needs. At the same time, West Seventh Street will continue to perform an important circulation and Iand access role in the corridor and wiZl be a capacity with ' 17,000 ADT. Shepard Road wiZ1 carry 27,000 trips per day, primarily to and from downtown St. Paul and the West Seventh business district. ' 3. Truck Traffic � a. Ancillary impacts due to increase in number of trucks on , Shepard and Chestnut such as potential adverse egfects of vibration on the Irvine Park Historic District, (especially due to caves in the bluff) are not examined , in the DEiB. - (W. 7th Federation) The I-35E EIS examined potentiaZ vibration impacts on ' historic structures in the Irvine Park Historic District that would have resuZted from construction of I-35E in the Shepard Road corridor. The study prepared for the , EIS concluded that there would not be structural damage due to vibrations from either construction or operation of the roadway. The Shepard Road project is along the same alignment studied for I-35E, and the traffic ' projected for I-35E was much highez° (50,000 ADT) than for Shepard Road (27,000 ADT) or Chestnut Street (10-13,000 ADT) . For these reasons, the conclusions of this study ' are applicable to concerns raised regarding the current project. Therefore, vibration �mpacts on the historic district are not anticipated due to the moderate increase � in truck and vehicular traffic on Shepard and Chestnut. b. Diversion of Trucks to Chestnut Street - Construction of ECBD Bypass and qrade separation at , Chestnut results in a diversion of more trucks to Chestnut Street. Adverse impact on intersections of � Chestnut/Exchanqe and Chestnut/Fort Road is not addressed. - (W. 7th Federation) ' , ' ' B - 4 , � � ` The truck traffic on Chestnut due to the Bypass and grade separation is projected to increase from 1,200 trucks per , day to 1,300 trucks per day. This represents an 8$ increase in daily trucks. In the peak hour, this increase translates to an increase of 10 trucks per hour. � The capacity analyses conducted for the Chestnut/Exchange intersection and Chestnut/Fort Road intersection jncluded the projected truck volume increases. . Based on this analysis, no capacity problems are anticipated. Ajr , qual�ty or noise impacts of trucks are incorporated .in the analyses completed for the EIS. ' 4. Traffic Flow a. At-qrade intersections are proposed for all other � intersections alonq Shepard/Warner Road and the East CBD Bypass. The rationale for buildinq Alternative B-2 (qrade separated) is inconsistent with plans for other intersections. - (Irvine Park Testimony) , _ One of the primary rationale for a grade separation at Chestnut Street is to eliminate traffic delays due to � trains crossing Chestnut Street. RaiZroad crossings are not an issue at any other intersection, except at the intersection of Warner Road with the East CBD Bypass. At , that intersection, it is possible to raise both roadways to an elevated intersection and aZlow the railroad tracks to pass underneath the Esst CBD Bypass. ` B. saFEnr � 1. Intersection Safety a. Increased accident rates at Chestnut/Exchanqe are feared. , - (Panama Rowhouse Association) Forecasted accident rates at Chestnut/Exchange would be the same as aZl other at-grade intersection rates in ' study (I. 65 accidents/year per million vehicZes entering the intersection) . This would translate to 8 to 9 accidents per year for an at-grade intersection and 10 to ' 11 accidents per year for the grade separated alternative. Therefore, there is not a substantial difference between the aZternatives in terms of accidents ' at the Chestnut/Exchange intersection. b. I! ��all Seqment B alternatives improve the safety of the intersection��, then the at-qrade alternatives do � represent an improvement which results in a safe and adequate desiqn. - (W. 7th Federation) � B - 5 ' ' � The statement in the Draft EIS requires clarification. ' Reconstruction of the existing intersection under Alternative B-la would improve safety over the existing situation. Alternative B-Ib, which is an at-grade intersection closer to the raiZroad tracks, would not be � considered as safe as either the existing intersection or Alternative B-la because it would be closer to the railroad tracks. The c�oser spacing between the road and ' the railroad tracks would create potential safety hazards due to waiting vehicles backing up into the Shepard Road mainline during some of the Iengthier railroad delays. ' c. Alternative B-2 (qrade separated intersection) would provide a siqniticantly safer intersection desiqn for vehicles than would other alternatives. - (Planninq , Commission) This is consistent with the findings of the ��Traffic , Impacts Study�' and the Draft EIS. Year 20I0 forecasts show that a grade separated intersection would have 4 to 5 accidents per year; an at-grade intersection would have 18 to 2o accidents per year. , d. The qrade separated alternative arould permanently remove a safety hazard for the motorinq public and the ' railroads. Warninq siqnals at an at-qrade crossing cannot prevent an accident from happeninq. - (Burlinqton Northern Railroad) � This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. e. The portion of Shepard Road between Randolph and Chestnut � should be improved to reduce the accident rate. However, the intersection at Chestnut Street has a much lower accident rate. In addition, recent improvements have 1 substantially improved the safety of the intersection and not only because of the mild winters. - (Irvine Park Testimony) , The accident rate for the at-grade intersection of Shepard Road with Chestnut street is 1. 65 accidents per million vehicles entering the intersection. This is , based on recorded metropoZitan area accident rates for an intersection of this type. ' � ' B - 6 ' , ' �... The recent temporary improvement at this intersection � would not accommodate projected 2010 traffic. Therefore, current geometrics and accident experience at this intersection can not be used to predict accidents in the Year 2010. The accepted methodology for predicting � accidents is based on average accident rates on typicaZ roadways in the metropolitan area. , C. DOWNTOWN ACCESS 1. Alternative B-2 (qrade separated) maximizes the objective of 1 downtown accessibility. However, at qrade delays may not be as extensive as once projected. - (Planninq Commission) � Based on updated information recently provided by the Chicago Northwestern and Soo Line railroads (see Appendix B-3) , the amount of train traffic across Chestnut Street is not � expected to change. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the traffic delays due to train crossings wiZl be any different than projected .in the "Traff.ic Impacts Study" and Draft EIS. � 2. As a major reqional route into do�ntown St. Paul, Shepard Road must be a safe and accessible roadway. Ease ot access � should be a top priority and an at-qrade intersection would not be in the best interest o! the qreater St. Paui area. tst. Paul Association ot Buildinq Owners and Manaqers, inc. ) � This is consistent with the findings of the "Traffic Impacts � Study" and the Draft EIS. ' 3. The qrade separated alternative qives the best and most direct access from Bhepard Road to the Civic Center Arena and Parkinq Ramp and is theretore supported by the Civic Center Authority. - (St. Paul Civic Center Authority) ' This is consistent with the findings of the «Traffic Impacts Study" and the Draft EIS. ' - D. PEDESTRIAN ISSUES � 1. Pedestrian Safety at Chestnut/Shepard , a. Statement that ��Alternative B-2 would improve safety and eliminate railroad crossinq delays�� presumably relates only to vehicular safety, totally iqnorinq pedestrian � safety. - (W. 7th Federation) � B - 7 ' � Based on the current cond�.�ions for destrian crossin s ' Pe 9 at the Shepard/Chestnut intersection, and considering the lack of potential for improvement with a new at-grade ' intersection, Alternative B-2 would clearly improve safety for pedestrians by removing them from the major source of potential conflicts with automobiZes. The at- � grade intersection would require pedestrians to cross a 27,000 ADT roadway and two active railroad tracks. The grade separation would reduce the amount of traffic to be crossed by pedestrians to about 3,250 ADT (per ramp) , ' which is about 12� of the traffic they would have to cross with an at-grade intersection. In addition, removing the need for pedestrians to cross the railroad � tracks would result in an additional safety improvement. b. Statement that ��the qrade separated alternative would , provide the safest and most desirable crossinq for pedestrians/bicycles�� iqnores the reality that pedestrians will have to cross two sets of on and off ramps which carry 400 vehicles per hour. The qrade � separated interchanqe would not promote pedestrian use of the river. - (W. 7th Federation) Refer to the response to the preceding question. In � addition, it should be noted that the hourly volume would be cZoser to 325, which breaks down to 5 vehicles per ' minute, or an average of one vehicle every Z2 seconds. A11 of these vehicles would be stopping for stop signs and the pedestrians would have the right of way. c. Traffic Impact Study atates that ped/bike access will be � improved with the qrade separated alternative only if separate �alkway facilities are provided. Yet no ' provision for separate access is included. - (W. 7th Federation) �� Separate walkway facilities" refer to sidewalks which ' are physically separated from the traffic Zanes by some sort of barrier (such as a curb or jersey barrier) to prevent pedestrian/vehicZe conflicts. A ��separate , walkway facility�� would be incorporated into the bridqe design if the grade separated alternative is selected. d. DEIS refers to research that indicates that a pedestrian , overpass at an at-qrade intersection would be underutilized. This does not take into account the topoqraphical situation of this area. The distance to ' walk would not be qreater because of this topoqraphy. - (W. 7th Federation) � B - � 8 , � , One of 6 the most significant factors in use of pedestrian overpasses is the distance to the closest at-grade , crossing. Pedestrian overpasses are only utilized if there are no other crossing opportunities within convenient walking distance. Since the at-grade , intersection would be within very close proximity of a pedestrian overpass at Chestnut Street, it is very likely that the at-grade intersection would be used to cross the , intersection of Shepard and Chestnut. The pedestrian overpass would likely be underutilized. Topography won�t significantly alter the use of a pedestrian overpass if an at-grade crossing is near by. These findings are ' supported by at least two publications: "Warrants for Pedestr�an Over and Under passes", Ju1y, 1984, Federal Highway Administration; and "Mode1 Pedestrian Safety ' Program: User�s Manual", June, 1978, Federal Highway Administration. � e. Elevated walkways have a lonq history o! failure; people simply don�t uae them because they are perceived as lonq, isolated and hazardous. - (Public Arts in . st. Paul, Desiqn Leadership Group) � This is supported by the research that was referenced in the response to the preceding comment. , t. Alternative B-2 (qrade separation) offers the best � intersection desiqn to maximize the objectives of ' pedestrian safety. - (Planninq Commission, Riverfront Commission) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. ' q. Pedestrian crossinqs to the river with a qrade 'separated interchanqe would be easier, more attractive and safer ' than either crossinq at a traffic liqht or on a free- standinq pedestrian bridqe. - (Riverfront Commission) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. � h. Pedestrian Accessz Pedestrians would be separated co�apletely from vehicular traffic by a pedestrian , overpass. - (W. 7th Federation) Pedestrian overpasses have long been considered ' ineffective and underutiZized, especially when they are constructed adjacent to at-grade intersections. This is primarily because the overpasses are perceived as being inconvenient and isoZated. � � B - 9 ' � ' 2. Functional Connection to Irvine Park a. The B-2 alternative could not possibly functionally tie ' the riverfront to the Irvine Park residential neiqhborhood. - (W. 7th Federation) , The city design staff analysis using three dimensional . modeZs concluded that AZternative B-2 would successfuZly tie the riverfront together with the neighborhood on the ' bluff. This is primarily because it provides a way to "depress'� Shepard Rosd and the railroad tracks and aZlow Chestnut Street to carry pedestrian and vehicular traffic , over the intensity of the traffic corridor including roadway and railroad tracks. b. The qrade separation provides a stronq physical and , visual connection between Fort Road and the River for pedestrians and motorists alike. - (Public Arts in ste Paul, Desiqn Leadership Group) ' This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. 3. Design Considerations t a. Pedestrian accesa in the qrade separated alternative will ' be successful and enhanced if desiqn of the roadway includes walkways which separated trom traffic lanes by distance and defined by special features such as decorative liqhtinq and railinqs. The neiqhborhood ' should have positive aad purposeful involvement in development of these solutions. - (Public Arts in 8t. Paul, Desiqn Leaderahip Group) , This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. E. NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPACTS , 1. Parking ' a. Parkinq impacts on Irvine Park will occur if Chestnut street parkinq is restricted/prohibited. - (W. 7th ' Federation) Rush hour parking restrictions are already in effect on ' Chestnut Street. In addition, the current parking prohibitions in Irvine Park are more restrictive than on Chestnut Street. Therefore, it is unlikely that any parking impacts will occur in Irvine Park. / , B - 10 , � ' b. No on-atreet parkinq �►ill exist for the Panams Roahouses. ' - (Panama Rowhouse Association) According to St. Pau1 Public Works, parking is already prohibited on Exchange Street within a block in either ' direction of the Panama Rowhouses. In addition, rush hour parking restrictions are currently in effect on Chestnut Street. Therefore, there should be no change in , the ava.ilability of on-street parking for the Panama Rowhouses. 2. Local Access , a. Access to Chestnut 8treet from Ryan Avenue and residential drive�ays vill be adversely affected due to ' the substantial increase of vehicles on Chestnut with a qrade separated interchanqe. -. (W. 7th Federation) , The daiZy increase of 2, 600 vehicles on Chestnut Street with the grade separated alternative would translate to about 2 additional cars per minute each way on Chestnut Street during the peak hour. Therefore, it is unlikely � that access to driveways along Chestnut Street wouZd be , adversely affected. , b. The increased traflic will make it virtually impossible to enter from or leave the one-way driveway. - (Panama Rowhouse Association) � ' Refer to the response to the preceding comment. ' F. RAILROAD DELAYS 1. Potential changes which would alter railroad delay rates ' a. The followinq factors �ill result in reductions in levels of train traffic crossinq Chestnut Street and, thus, the � frequency of delays on Chestnut. - (W. 7th Federation) - Trains to the GTA (Harvast States) qrain terminal have ceased 1 This is consistent with available information. ' - Traias to Raplan Scrap Metal yard will cease This is consistent with available information. , ' 8 - 11 � 1 Trains at the Soo Line switchin ard �i11 disa �ar , ' g Y PP if A-2 or A-3 is selected This is consistent with available information. � - Storaqe capacity at CNW�s Western Avenue yard will be ' reduced with a proportional decrease in trains aerviced by it There wouZd be a decrease in the capacity for ' switching activities in this yard. However, according to recent correspondence from the railroads (see Appendix B-3 and comments e and f below) , there is no ' anticipated change in the levels of train traffic crossing Chestnut Street. Both switching and through trips occur in this area. Reducing the switching , activity wi11 not significantly affect through trips. - Traias to NSP�s Hiqh Bridqe plant wil]. oriqinate from the southwest accordinq to new aqreement ' NSP�s agreement with the raiZroads shifts the access to the west end of their facility instead of from the � east end. This does not mean that the trains coming a to the NSP plant wi11 a11 originate from the southwest. Trains wi11 continue to originate from , both directions. - Lonqer train delays were likely a result of servicinq and switchinq activities which will soon be reduced or , eliminated According to recent information received from the ' Chicago Northwestern and Soo Line raiZroads, the characteristics of train traffic crossing Chestnut Street wi1Z remain simiZar to current operations. , Therefore, current Zevels of train delays are expected to continue. (Refer to comments e and f below and Appendix B-3) b. Reductions in lenqth of trains and, thus, the lenqth of , delays on Chestnut Street would reduce delays. - (W. 7th Federation) ' Neither the Soo Line or CNW have indicated that the Zength of trains wouZd be changed in the future. (Refer , to comments e and f below and Appendix B-3) c. The Soo Line and CNW have siqned an aqreement with NSP to reroute approximately 60� of their trains per day away ' from Chestnut. - (Historic Irvine Park Association) 1 B - 12 , � ' 1 Based on recent information received from the railroads on their expected train traffic across Chestnut, they do not have any plans to reroute traffic away from Chestnut , Street. The railroad agreement indicates that the Soo Line wi11 a1low the CNW to use its track into NSP from the west which wiZ1 eliminate the need for an overpass , � east of NSP. However, this does not mean that the trains will be rerouted to come in from the west. (Refer to comments e and f below and to Appendix B-3) 1 d. The possibility exists to reroute all train traffic to eliminate need for any trackaqe at Chestnut. - (Historic Irvine Park Association) , According to recent information received from the railroads, this possibility is not realistic. (Refer to comments e and f below and to Appendix B-3) , e. The future train crossinqs over Chestnut by Chicaqo Northwestern railroad are anticipated to be the same as , they are presently. Possible re-routinq of some trains via South St. Paul and the ��State Street�� route could result in a decrease of about 4 train movements per day ' � crossinq Chestnut Street. - (Chicaqo and Northwestern Transportation Company; Refer to Appendix B-3 for correspondence) ' This re-routing could onZy occur if they use the Robert Street lift bridge, which appears unlikely based on recent discussions. Even if the re-routing occurs, ' reducing the train movements across Chestnut from 50 to 46 per day would not make a substantial difference in the railroad delay problem at Chestnut. , f. In the foreseeable future, the Soo Line expects to continue movinq 20 trains per day over the Chestnut Street railroad crossinq. - (Soo Line Railroad Company; � Refer to Appendix B-3 for correspondence) This supports the conclusion that train traffic wiZl continue at current 1eveZs. ' ,2. Possible Mitigation of Train Delays , a. Early warninq systems could be provided to allow traffic to avoid delays. - (W. 7th Federation) ' If an effective early warning system could be developed to re-route Chestnut Street traffic, it would only divert traffic to West 7th Street or Jackson Street, which would � B - 13 � , , already be at capacity by 2010. The resulting congestion � on those streets would reduce the benefits at Chestnut Street. ' b. Bayport system to prevent train delays durinq peak hours could be implemented. - (W. 7th Federation) Refer to next two comments by CNW and Soo Line. Based on ' their comrnents, this system would not be a feasible solution for this situation. , c. Restrictions in Bayport affect an averaqe of less than one train per day and was aqreed to in cooperation with two major customers located at Bayport. Because of much , qreater train t�affic at Chestnut affectinq many more trains, a similar system would not work. - (Chicaqo and Northwestern Transportation Company; Refer to Appendix � B-3) This confirms the fact that Zimitation of railroad ' traffic is an unrealistic solution to the railroad delays issue at Chestnut Street. d. Soo Line does not own or maintain a two-way communication ' system in Bayport. - (Soo Line Railroad Company; Refer to Appendix B-3) As referenced in the previous comment, it is Chicago and ' Northwestern that operate under special conditions at Bayport. e. Ordinance restrictinq train blockaqes over 10 minutes , - If delays of up to 20 minutes have occurred, then ' better enforcement of state law should take place. - (W. 7th Federation) This regulation applies only to non-moving trains and j would not restrict switching operations or slow moving, long trains. f. Siqnal coordination to prevent ��trappinq vehicles��. - (W. , 7th Federation) Signal coordination can be designed to discourage ' vehicles from being trapped. However, observations of the existing intersection have shown that serious violations of the existing crossing gates and signals are , occurring. Since drivers are violating the existing system it is very unlikeZy that a signal coordination system would be effective in preventing trapping of � B - 14 , � , vehicles in the crossing. In addition, a signal , coordination system could not prevent waiting vehicles from stacking back in to the mainline of Shepard Road, which creates the potential for serious accidents. tq. The Light Rail Transit Task Force was neqotiatinq with the railroads to use light rail in the existing rail corridor. They we�re willinq to use freiqht lines in the � eveninq and off-peak hours. - (Irvine Park Testimony) Based on recent information provided by the rai.Iroads in � the Shepard/Warner corridor, they would be opposed to peak hour restrictions. (Refer to comments i and j be1 ow) , h. The railroads aqree to run at non-peak hours. - (Historic Irvine Park Association) , There has been no indication from the railroads that they would be willing to restrict their movement to non-peak periods. In fact, as indicated by the next two comments 1 by CNW and Soo Line, they would oppose such restrictions. i. The CNW would oppose an ordinance which would requlate the time of day trains could cross Chestnut. CNW train � movement �at this location is not scheduled and such requlation would cause inefficiencies and adversely affect the ability to serve critical industries in the ' area. - (Chicaqo and Northwestern Transportation Company) This confirms the fact that limitation of railroad traffic is an unrealistic solution to the railroad delays 1 issue at Chestnut Street. (Refer to correspondence in Appendix B-3) � j . Any ordinance which would restrict the time of day that Chestnut could be crossed by trains would be resisted by Soo Line. - (Soo Line Railroad Company; Refer to � correspondence in Appendix B-3) This confirms the fact that limitation of railroad traffic is an unrealistic solution to the railroad delays , issue at Chestnut Street. k. 35E should be an alternate route for commuters to avoid ' train delays. - (Irvine Testimony) , � B - 15 ' , - , Commuters wi1Z have the choice of using Shepard Road, ' West Seventh Street, or I-35E to enter downtown St. Paul from the southwest. The projected volumes on these facilities in 2010 indicates that all three roadways wi11 be at or near capacity. Drivers would not choose a more t congested and circuitous route in order to avoid potential delays. Therefore, it can not be assumed that train delays can be completely avoided by selecting an � alternative route in this corridor. 3. Impacts of Railroad Delays a. The railroad traffic frequently blocks the drivewa to , Y the Panama Rowhouses. This will be siqnificantly compounded by the proposed qrade separated interchanqe ' with its vast increase in traffic. - (Panama Rowhouse Association) The railroad delays which currentZy cause the traffic to ' back up to Exchange Street would be eliminated by the grade separated alternative. The at-grade alternative would a1Zow these delays to continue and increase, which � creates an inconvenience to those who live and work along Chestnut Street. b. 8undreds of West Publishinq Company employees use , Chestnut street daily and experience many delays, frustrations and safety problems. Therefore, the company stronqly favors a qrade separated intersection. - (West ' Publishinq Company) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. , c. Estimated annual cost of delays ($72,000) pales in comparison to the expense of a qrade separated � interchanqe ($5.1 million more than at-qrade) . Payback on investment would take 71 years, not includinq opportunity costs, for a roadway with a 4o year life span. - (W. 7th Federation) � Elimination of delays is only one of the objectives of the grade separation. The additional $5 million ' investment would not only eliminate deZays but would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and enhance the gateway access to downtown and the West Seventh Street business district. A11 of these objectives must be , balanced in making a decision on a preferred alternative. ' � B - 16 ' , � r d. To arrive at estimate time loss values, the DEIS used ' 1985 train data and year 2010 projected traffic volume data, which does not present an accurate analysis. - (W. 7th Federation) ' According to the railroads which currently cross Chestnut Street, the Z985 train data is an accurate estimate of both current (1988) train volumes and projected (2010) � train volumes in this corridor (see Appendix B-3) . The design year of 2010 is currentZy the year used in projecting vehicular traffic volumes by state, regional � and local highway officials. G. NOISE , 1. Methodology � a. The area alonq Chestnut Street between Ryan and Exchanqe is not adequately represented by receptor site #4. The . potential impacts on the historic Panama Flats has not � been addressed and is expected to be very significant, especially due to increases in truck traffic under the qrade separated alternative. - (W. 7th Federation) 1 The location of receptor site number 4 (the Chestnut Receptor) provides adequate information to choose between the various alternatives in Segment B, aacording to Dave , Relso of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. However, some additional analysis was performed in response to concerns of the W. 7th Federation regarding the noise 1evels at Panama FZats. The findings of that I ana.Zysis showed that the noise Ievels at the Panama Flats Rowhouses would be (daytime/nighttime; L10 dBA) : , _ No Build Alternative: 70/69 At-Grade Alternative: 70/69 - Grade Separated Alternative: 70/69 � The fact that there is no difference among alternatives indicates that noise impacts to Panama FZats is not pertinent to the decision on a preferred alternative. ' 2. Noise Impacts on Neighborhoods � a. Noise levels alonq Chestnut between Ryan and Exchanqe are of concern. - (W. 7th Federation) � I B - 17 , , £ � Analysis has been completed for this area in response to concerns raised by the West Seventh Federation. As shown , in the previous comment, there is no difference in noise levels � between the at-grade and grade separated alternatives. Therefore, the noise issue should not be the basis for the decision to select one alternative over ' another. b. There is no siqnificant difference in noise levels amonq � the alternatives in Seqment B. - (Planninq Commission, Riverfront Commission) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. � c. The qrade separated alternative provides some real protection for the neiqhborhood from the noise and ' activity of Shepard Road traffic. (Public Arts in St. Paul, Desiqn Leadership Group) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. � 3. Mitigation Issues a. The ability to mitiqate noise impacts may be a � differentiatinq factor in selectinq the Seqment B alternative. More study is needed. - (Planning ' Commission) Further study has shown that there is no significant difference between alternatives in the ability to ' mitigate noise impacts. Refer to the response to the next comment. b. Noise walls heiqhts alonq Chestnut Street would block � views. - (A. 7th Federation) Based on a preliminary mitigation analysis, 20 to 3o foot t noise walls would provide adequate noise mitigation for either the at-grade or grade separated alternative. In some areas, noise waZ1s would have the potential for � blocking views. The visual impact of the noise mitigation along Chestnut Street wi11 be a component of the decision concerning the final form of noise ' mitigation. The City Council, in coordination with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Irvine Park neighborhood wi11 need to weigh the relative benefits of noise wa11s , against the potential visual and historic impacts. � B - 18 � , ' � r.. c. Mitigation on the Chestnut aliqnment is structurally , impossible. - (W. 7th Federation) The preliminary mitigation analysis indicates that a Inoise wa11 along Chestnut would be structurally feasibZe. d. Mitigation of noise impacts on Chestnut Street would adversely impact the historic district, especially the � Panama Flats Rowhouse. Traffic should be diverted from Chestnut to avoid these impacts. (St. Paul Heritaqe Preservation Commission) � Noise mitigation with noise wa11s wouZd be necessary to meet the state daytime and nighttime noise standards for either the at-grade or the grade separated alternative. ' If noise wa11s were built, they would not extend north of Ryan Street because they wouZd be ineffective due to the gaps for driveways as we11 as for Ryan and Exchange � Streets. Therefore, Panama F1ats would not be impacted by noise mitigation. It should be noted that the neighborhood wiZl be involved in discussions on noise I mitigation a2ong with the City CounciZ, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the State Historic Preservation Officer. In terms of diverting traffic, refer to the Memorandum in Appendix B-1 for a summary of 1 other alignments analyzed. ' e. Noise walls within the historic district would violate I district quidelines. They can not be rendered unobtrusive. (st. Paul Heritaqe Preservation Commission) � The visual impact of potential noise mitigation along Chestnut Street will be a component of the decision concerning the final form of noise mitigation. The City 1 Council, in coordination with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Irvine Park neighborhood will need to weigh the relative benefits of noise walls against the potential / visuaZ and historic impacts. ' H. HISTORIC IMPACTS 1. Historic Documentation � a. Seqment A and B alternatives include adverse effects that meet each of the conditions of 3ection 106 requirements, which is contradictory to statements in the Draft EIS. - 1 (W. 7th Federation) ' B - 19 i , z � Based on Section 106 guidelines, it was previously concluded that none of the alternatives would have an ' adverse effect according to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. However, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) recently made a determination ' that Alternative B-2 (grade separation) would have a potentiaZ adverse effect on the Irvine Park Historic District due to the effects on the ��setting of the district". According to a letter dated October 11, 1988, � from Dennis Gimmestad, Deputy State Historic Preservation officer, (see Appendix B-2) "This effect relates to the changes in the topography ' of the Chestnut Street area, since this topography vis-a-vis the Mississippi River is an important aspect in understanding why the buildings of the , district were constructed in this particular location. Further, the introduction of a diamond interchange in close proximity to the district would ' be a visual intrusion. " In addition, the Ietter indicates that there are � potential adverse effects on the Irvine Park Historic District from noise wall construction in Segments A and B. The letter also refers to information needed on the effects from vibration and pollutants. However, � documentation has been prepared for the SHPO that adequately addresses these issues. Based on consultations with the appropriate agencies, the t SHPO�s finding of potentiaZ adverse effect does not preclude the City from selecting the grade separated alternative. If the grade separation is seZected by the ` City Council, then the City, SHPO, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) wi11 need to enter into a � consultation process to address mitigation of potential impacts. A Memorandum of Agreement between the parties would address the appropriate means to mitigate the � potential adverse effects. Based on conversations with the SHPO, ACHP and FHWA it appears that a Memorandum of Agreement could be negotiated to adequately address the potential adverse effects of the grade separation. , In terms of noise wa11s, since the noise Zevels would be the same for the at-grade and grade separated � alternatives, and both alternatives can be mitigated with roadside noise wa11s, there is no significant difference between alternatives. Therefore, noise walls should not be a factor in the selection of alternatives. � , B - 20 � � � , b. Given the Section 106 requirements, coordination will be required related to Section 4 (f) requirements for each of the Segment A and Seqment B alternatives. - (W. 7th ' Federation) Since there is no physical use of land within the Natianal Register�s Historic Irvine Park District, the � State Historic Preservation Officer and FederaZ Highway Administration have determined that there would be no Section 4 (f) impacts for Alternatives A-2, A-3, B-lb or ' B-2. Alternatives A-1/B-1a would have a potential 4 (f) impact because they require removaZ of the Harvest States grain terminal. � c. The summary of the DEIS describes historic effects of Seqment A and B alternatives as minor and secondary. This assertion minimizes and prejudices the discussion of 1 historic impacts. - (B. McCormick, Irvine Park resident) The statements in the Draft EIS Summary were based on I information available at the time of preparation. Since that time, the State Historic Preservation Officer has made a determination that the grade separation would have a potential adverse effect on the Irvine Park Historic � District. The Fina1 EIS will address the SHPO determination. � d. The Final EIS should consider alternatives which shift � Chestnut away from the historic district or provide better justification for eliminatinq such alternatives. - (MN Historical Society, SHPO) IIn response to comments received during review of the Draft EIS, several aZternatives were considered which � shift Chestnut Street away from the historic district. A memorandum included in Appendix B-1 of this package provides a detailed summary of the new concepts that were analyzed and the results of the analyses. The Fina1 EIS , will include a summary of that memorandum. To briefly summarize the findings of that memorandum, � there were several concepts reviewed that would shift the alignment of Chestnut Street away from the Irvine Park Historic District. The concepts ranged from slight ' alignment shifts (80-100 feet) to shifting the alignment a11 the way over to Eagle Street. In addition, the possibility of raising the railroad tracks over Chestnut Street was investigated in an attempt to avoid the need � for a grade separation. ' B - 21 � � � The concepts which included the 80 to 100 foot shift of Chestnut Street would require acquisition of Plastics, � Inc. Aside from the anticipated cost of this acquisition, there is a potential for losing 450 jobs. The relatively minor benefits achieved by this concept ' were easily outweighed by the significant acquisition cost and loss of jobs to this area. The concepts which included shifting Chestnut over to t EagZe Street all included raising the mainline of Shepard Road up to meet Eag1e Street at an elevated intersection. This was done to provide a grade separation with the , tracks but an at-grade roadway intersection. The potential noise and visual impacts of raising Shepard Road were considered major drawbacks to this set of � concepts. Each of the concepts differed in how they connected to the 1oca1 streets and up to West Seventh Street. From a traffic engineering standpoint, each of � these concepts were found to be undesirable due to circuity, intersection conflicts or diversion impacts on other streets. From a cost standpoint, some of the concepts were very expensive due to significant right-of- � way acquisition and impacts on parcel configurations. None of the concepts resolved the noise or visual concerns due to the fact that the mainline of Shepard � Road would be elevated. Finally, the possibility of raising the railroads tracks over Chestnut Street was considered in an effort to avoid � the need for a roadway/railroad grade separation. This concept was evaluated and found to be technically feasible but very expensive. In addition, this concept � would not resolve the noise and visual concerns in this area. e. No evaluation is made of the archaeoloqical value of � sites identified in I-35E documentation - (St. Paul Historic Preservation Commission) The ��Historic Resources Survey°, which was prepared as a , special study for the Draft EIS, thoroughly considered the archaeo.Zogical value of a11 sites within the study corridor. The SHPO was involved in this analysis and has � concurred with the findings of the archaeological evaluation. f. No evaluation is made of the eliqibility for desiqnation , of the topoqraphy of the Chestnut Street or Upper Landinq - (St. Paul Historic Preservation Commission) � ' B - 22 . ' ' 1 � The State Historic Preservation Officer has determined that the topography of Chestnut Street is a significant feature of the setting of Irvine Park; however, they have I stated that they do not consider either Chestnut Street or the Upper Landing eligible for inclusion in the National Register. � q. Reconstruction of Chestnut Street siqnificantly damaqes the context of irvine Park�s connection to the river. Alternatives to avoid these impacts have b_een minimized 1 and dismissed. - (Irvine Park Testimony) Alternatives to avoid these impacts have been analyzed further and are summarized in Appendix B-1. � 2. Visual Impacts and Mitigation Opportunities � a. Natural decline in qrade o€ Chestnut between West 7th and the river should be preserved as it has been for 148 years. - (W. 7th Federation) � The State Historic Preservation Officer has stated that the natural topography of Chestnut Street is historically significant in terms of understanding the setting of � Irvine Park. Preservation of the natural topography must be weighed against other City priorities in making a decision on the preferred alternative. Issues such as � access to downtown and the West Seventh business district, intersection safety and consistency with riverfront redevelopment plans appear to be in conflict with preservation of the grade of- Chestnut Street. � b. The qrade separated alternative has the potential to alter the physical settinq of the Irvine Park historic ' district. - (MN Historical Society, SHPO) , � � � ' B - 23 ' � ' The State Historic Preservation Officer has determined that Alternative B-2, the grade separation at Chestnut ' Street, would have a potential adverse effect on the topographic setting of Irvine Park. Refer to response to the preceding comment. c. The nomination as a St. Paul Heritaqe Preservation ' District states that ��Irvine Park�s close proximity to the downtown affords a variety of impressive views, the , siqht lines of which should all be preserved��. - (St. Paul Heritaqe Preservation Commission) The views of downtown from the Irvine Park Historic , District primarily include site lines over the tops of houses and mature trees. There is no chance that any view of downtown from Irvine Park wou.Zd be obstructed or � obscured by any alternative on Chestnut Street. The view looking east on Ryan Avenue towards downtown will not be affected by the grade separation because the grade of � Chestnut would not start to rise until south of Ryan. d. The critical visual connectedness between the historic Irvine Park neiqhborhood, the river valley, and the � downtown will be disrupted. The deqree of disruption depends on the alternative selected. - (St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission) � Based on a site line anaZysis compl.eted by urban design staff, it does not appear that there is a significant difference between alternatives in terms of the views , between the neighborhood, the river valley and the downtown. The Fina1 EIS wi11 include a photo inventory showing the views from the park. � 3. Air Pollution Impacts on Historic Buildings a. Alexander Ramsey House staff have already noted ' deterioration of outside of structure, apparently caused by emissions of diesel trucks on Walnut and Exchanqe Streets. - (W. 7th Federation) � Based on conversations with State Historic Preservation Office staff, no such damage has been documented and the � source of this comment is not known. b. What are the specific pollutants which may damaqe the outside surfaces of the historic buildinqs? - (W. 7th 1 Federation) The issue of air pollution impacts on historic properties , was dealt with in detail in the I-35E EIS. Because the B - 24 ' ' ' � Shepard Road corridor was studied as one of the I-35E � alignment alternatives, the findings of the studies for that project are applicable to the Shepard Road project. ' In the I-35E EIS, it was noted that sulfur-containing constituents of vehicle exhaust have the potential for direct and indirect impacts (deterioration) on certain building materials (e.g. , limestone, marble, sandstone, � etc.) depending on concentrations. In particular, concentrations of "total sulfate" (504=) were identified as having the greatest potential. However, it should be , noted that sources of sulfates are fossil fuel burning power plants, such as the coal burning NSP power plant. c. What are the concentrations and exposure levels of the � pollutants? - (W. 7th Federation) Based on the prediction method for total sulfate � concentration used in the I-35E Parkway EIS, it was determined that '�worst case" conditions for total sulfate impacts would be the result of traffic growth over � existing volumes at an historic site Iocated very close to both Shepard Road and Chestnut Street. This worst case situation assumes a receptor which is essentially at roadside and compares the highest traffic alternative to � existing rather than no build traffic. Therefore, the worst case prediction would be a much higher predicted concentration than is likely to occur at any location � within the Irvine Park Historic District. Based on the method used in the I-35E EIS, the predicted total sulfate concentration due to increased traffic ' volumes for the grade separated alternative would be approximateZy 0.35 micrograms/cubic meter higher than existing levels. This is only 5 to 7 percent of . the � values monitored at St. Paul Iocations for the I-35�� EIS which experience relatively high 1evels of traffic (values ranged from 5.5 to 7.I micrograms/cubic meter) . It is also only 10 to 15 percent of the increase � predicted at the Cass Gilbert Church receptor site as determined in the I-35E EIS, which was determined not to be a significant impact. ' Therefore, air quality impacts on historic buildings in the Irvine Park Historic District due to increased � traffic are not anticipated. d. What are the specific short term (less than 50 years) and long term (greater than l00 years) impacts of any � siqnificant pollutants? Any impact on the structures in the Irvine Park Historic District which is not evaluated ' B - 25 � , i for its effects over centuries instead of decades is ' inadequate. - (W. 7th Federation) Short term impacts are addressed in the response to the ' preceding comment. Long term impacts (greater than 100 years) are very difficuZt to assess. These impacts depend on travel behavior, mix of the future vehicle fleet, types of fuels used, types of power pZants, etc. _� Therefore, these issues are beyond the scope of this EIS and should be addressed on a continuing basis to respond to actual conditions rather than very Iong range ' predictions which would not be accurate. e. The Air Quality Analysis of the DEIS is incomplete because it does not conside= the impact of pollutants � other than Carbon Monoxide on historic structures. - (W. 7th Federation) The Final EIS wi11 include the analysis of air quality � impacts on historic structures which was prepared in response to these concerns. � 4. Vibration a. Possible adverse effects from all of the Seqment B � alternatives include damaqe to old buildinqs throuqh vibration from construction and operation on Chestnut street. - (MN 8istorical Society, SHPO) ' A special study was completed for the I-35E EIS which analyzed potential vibration impacts for both the Pleasant Avenue and Shepard Road corridors. The Shepard ' Road alignment for I-35E was near the base of the bluff, was an elevated freeway design and was projected to carry over 50,000 ADT. This represent a worse case situation , in comparison to the conditions on either Shepard Road (forecasted voZume of 27,000 ADT) or Chestnut Street (I0,000 to 13, 000 ADT) . The study specifically analyzed , existing historic structures which are Iocated in Irvine Park and are representative of the structure type and age of houses in the neighborhood. The conclusion of that study was that no structural damage would occur due to ' construction or operation of the roadway. Therefore, it is concluded that Shepard Road and Chestnut Street will not result in structural damage to historic structures. ' b. Construction and operational vibration effects on the district have not been adequately assess in light of the unique qeoloqy of the area which includes a network of � caves. - (St. Paul Heritaqe Preservation Commission) ' B - 26 , , � The Vibration Study completed for the I-35E EIS , considered the physical framework of this area, including the unique geology and soils conditions. � c. Given the significance of the Irvine Park Historic District and the extent of caves undercuttinq the bluff, more analysis and mitiqation of construction vibration needs to be addressed. - (W. 7th Federation) � Refer to response to the two preceding comments. � 5. Traffic a. Chestnut street will narrow at Ryan, the access point in , to the historic Irvine Park neighborhood, thus potentially divertinq traffic throuqh the historic district. (St. Paul Historic Preservation Commission) ' The intersections on Chestnut Street a11 have capacity for projected traffic Ievels. Based on the traffic analyses completed for this area, there is no reason to , believe that traffic would be diverted through Irvine Park. 6. Mitigation , a. Noise and traffic impacts on the Irvine Park Histioric District due to Seqment B alternatives are recoqnized but � no provision for mitiqation is discussed or budqeted. - (W. 7th Federation) The cost for mitigation of potential noise and traffic � impacts would be about the same for a11 Segment B alternatives. Detailed mitigation plans are not normally compZeted until after a preferred alternative is ' seZected. I. VISUAL/AESTHETIC IMPACTS , 1. Impacts of Alternative B-2 on Views , a. Elevation of Chestnut will be 25� hiqher than existinq roadway elevation. - (W. 7th Federation) � The eZevation of Chestnut Street would be the same elevation as the existing roadway near Ryan Street. At Hi11 Street, the B-2 elevation would be about 14 feet higher than the existing grade. At the railroad tracks 1 the B-2 elevation would be about 27 feet higher than the existing grade. � B - 27 ' ' � b. The qrade separation will obscure the view of the river ' from at least 11 households in historic homes. - (W. 7th Federation) Existing vegetation, along with the Harvest States grain � elevators, obstruct views of the river from most pubZic • and private areas within the Irvine Park neighborhood. � Based on analysis of site lines from the bluff, the view of the river and river valley wi11 not be affected by the eZevation of the intersection. c. Views from the park area as experienced by thousands of � visitors to the park each year would be affected by the qrade separation. - (W. 7th Federation) ' Based on analysis of views from the park itself, this area would not be affected by any of the alternatives. ' The elevation of Chestnut Street at Ryan Avenue remains the same for the grade separation as the existing roadway elevation. From the end of Walnut Street, which could be developed as an overlook in conjunction with the park, ' views of the river and river valley would not be obstructed by the grade separation. ' d. The statement that ��most of the site lines from the bluff ' are obstructed by structures. . .alonq the edge of the bluff�� is false unless one assumes the historic homes alonq the bluff are obscurinq structures. The loss of ' view of the bluft edqe homes would reduce their value and would severely affect the inteqrity ot the Irvine Park Historic District. - (W. 7th Federation) � Based on analysis of site lines from the bluff, the view of the river and river valley wiZ1 not be affected by the elevation of the intersection. ' e. For the private residences alonq the bluff, the at-qrade connections would maximize the views of downtown. - ' (Planninq Commission) Site lines of downtown from the residences along the ' bluff would not be affected by any of the alternatives. f. Views of the river from Chestnut Street would be obscured by the qrade separation; this would be inconsistent with � the riverfront redevelopment priority to provide a visual connection to the river. - (W. 7th Federation) ' � B - 28 ' ' � 1 The views presently available looking down Chestnut ' Street from Ryan Street are cluttered by the railroad and roadway corridor at the base of the bluff. The river itself is barely visible as a very narrow strip because the existing floodwall blocks most of the river from view ' at this location. The river valZey and the other side of the river are visible and wi11 continue to be visible under a1Z alternatives. The grade separation would � physically remove the mainline roadway and railroad corridor from view and replace it with a more unified and attractive connection between the park and the river. By ' elevating Chestnut, the view of the river and river vaZley would be enhanced where Chestnut rises up over the road and tracks. ' q. The qrade separated Chestnut bridqe would offer an improved public viewinq option to that currently provided along Chestnut Street. - (Planninq Commission) � , This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. , h. Views of the river from Shepard Road would be obstructed by the bridge structure and distance from the river as viewers travel ��throuqh the 2000 foot concrete corridor underpass��. - (W. 7th Federation) ' Views of the river from the A-3 or A-Modified a1ig:�ment would be limited by the fact that it is shifted away from , the river, regardless of the intersection design. Views of the downtown skyline would be unobstructed through the area except for the brief moment when drives pass under the Chestnut bridge. The river valley would be more , visible from this area with an at-grade intersection. However, the difference in viewing time between the two alternatives is very short (less than 20 seconds) . ! i. There are no public viewinq points of the river from Irvine Park itself, except at one end of Walnut Street. - The different connection options do not differ ' siqnificantly in their impact on this public viewinq point. - (Planninq Commission) ' This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. j . Noise walls could affect views to the river valley and to downtown':from both public and private viewinq points. - 1 (Planninq Commission) This would be the case for any of the Segment B � alternatives. � B - 29 ' ' , ' 2. Connection between Irvine Park and River ' a. Alternative B-2 cannot tie the Irvine Park neiqhborhood to the riverfront area with the roadway elevation 25 feet , above the existinq qrade. - (W. 7th Federation) The adjacent bluffline allows the roadway elevation to blend into the surroundinq topography as demonstrated by ' the three dimensional models prepared for this area. In addition, by elevating Chestnut over the tracks and roadway, the pedestrian and vehicular connection between ' the park and the river are improved from a safety standpoint, as well as from an urban design standpoint (refer to the next comment) . b. The qrade separation provides a stronq physical and ' visual connection between Fort Road and the River for pedestrians and motorists alike. - (Public Arts in St. ' Paul, Design Leadership Group) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. ' 3. Design a. It has been amply demonstrated that the bridqe structure � for a qrade separation can be desiqned sensitively, and in a way that enhances pedestrian interest in and a�cess to the historic Upper Landinq site. - (Riverfront , Commission) This is consistent w�th the findings of the Draft EIS. b. The issues of desiqn, selection of materials and ' provision of streetscape amenities will determine the lonq-term success and viability of the area and should be , studied with great care. - (Riverfront Commission) After selection of the preferred alternative, the design concept phase will be initiated and wi1Z thoroughZy ' investigate the most appropriate treatments for this area. A task force of interested parties wi11 be appointed to participate in this process. , c. The qrade separated alternatives puts out of the way that which people are least interested in seeinq - it plays ' down the space for autos and gives it back to the people, hutnanizing a dehumanizing situation. - (Public Arts in st. Paul, Desiqn Leadership Group) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. � � B - 30 ' ' � � d. The Chestnut Street interchanqe must relate visually to ' what will be happening on Harriet and Navy Islands, on Relloqq Mall Park and the Riverfront Esplanade. - (Public � Arts in St. Paul, Design Leadership Group) � The design for this area has been and will continue to be closely coordinated with Riverfront Redevelopment , activities. 4. M�t�gation of Visual Impacts ' a. The scenic overlook proposal would only serve those vehicles wishinq to delay their trip to 8rive to it. - (W. 7th Federation) ' This is normally the case with scenic overZooks; nevertheless, they are considered an amenity by those who wish to use them. , b. Minimizing the visual impact through design schematics such as landscapinq of a qrade separated interchanqe at a ' 25 foot heiqht will not be possible. This will only increase the adverse affects of the lack of view of the river from Irvine Park. - (W. 7th Federation) ' The opportunities for blending the grade separation into the surrounding topography and incorporating an attractive and inviting public space in the interchange ' design have been recognized by many: interested parties. The view of the river from Irvine Park would not be adversely affected by the addition of Iandscaping or , other design treatments. J. DESIGN ISSUES , 1. Historicai preference of City staff for grade separated design at Chestnut ' a. Desiqn plans for Shepard Road and the intersection at Chestnut are no different in the DEI3 than have been developed by the City for at least the past 16 years. - (W. 7th Federation) ' The design concepts for the Chestnut intersection have changed significantly over the past 16 years. Many early , concepts, including the connection studied for the I-35E EIS in 1981, included a major interchange Ioop which extended up past Ryan Street. The Project Development ' Report for the current Shepard Road project (1985) included vast and complex interchange configurations which have since been eliminated from consideration. The ' B - 31 ' , r,. ' Draft EIS for Shepard Road includes both at-grade and ' grade separated intersections, with the grade separation being much more compact than any of the earlier configurations. There has been a significant evolution � in the design concepts for this area which has continued throughout the EIS process. 2. Traffic Speeds � ' a. Consideration of the effects of vehicular speed and speed control issues were not addressed. - (W. 7th Federation) , Traffic signals usually slow traffic down at intersections, but often result in traffic speeding up between intersections. However, there is no data which ' would indicate that speeds wiZl be different with any of the alternatives. 3. Eagie Street Alignment ' . a. Alternatives B-3 and B-4 (Eaqle Street aliqnments) were ' excluded durinq the Scoping Process for unquantified reasons of ��major economic impacts��. - (A. 7th Federation) During the Scoping Process, very strong statements were , made by West Publishing regarding their opposition to shifting the alignment over towards Eag1e Street due to ' significant right-of-way acquisition and impacts on parcel configuration within their property limits. These impacts would limit deveZopment opportunities for a major downtown employer. It would be impossibZe to quantify ' these• economic impacts to any Ievel of accuracy, but it was clear that they wouZd be very significant. In addition, there were other Zand use issues and roadway ' design concerns that were a part of the decision to eliminate Alternatives B-3 and B-4. In response to comments on the Draft EIS, several ' additional alignment alternatives have been studied between Chestnut and Eag1e Street. These concepts are addressed in a Memorandum in Appendix B-I and were ' briefly summarized earlier in this document under H.l.d. The real benefits of shifting the Chestnut alignment were found to be outweighed by the significant cost, traffic ' engineering constraints, visual impacts and lack of noise reduction. ' ' B - 32 ' ' � � 4. Grade Separation , a. The St. Paul Buildinq Trades Council is on record in support of the qrade separated connection for Chestnut , Street. - (Saint Paul Buildinq and Construction Trades Council) ' No response required. b. The St. Paul Trades and Labor Assembly is on official record as beinq in favor of a qrade separation at the , intersection of Chestnut Street and Shepard Road. - (Saint Paul Area AFL-CIO, Trades and Labor Assembly) , No response required. c. Alternative B-2, more than the other two alternatives, supports Metropolitan Council transportation policies , related to safety, goods movement, compatibility with adjacent land uses and circulation and distribution in the downtown. - (Metropolitan Council) � This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. d. Lauer Flats reqistered their opposition to Alternative B- � 2, the qrade separated alternative - (Lauer Flats Condominiwn Association) ' No response required. e. The lonq term well-beinq of the motorinq and pedestrian public, and the needs of both railroads and their ' customers are best served by a qrade separation at Chestnut Street. (Chicaqo and Northwestern Transportation Company) ' This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. f. The " grade separated interchanqe is detrimental to the ' Irvine Park Historic District. The use of Eaqle Street with an at-qrade intersection would allow for convenient access to the city without destroyinq a siqnificant ' neighborhood. - (Central Presbyterian Church) The Memorandum in Appendix B-Z provides a summary of the ' evaluation of Eagle Street aZignment alternatives. , , B - 33 ' ' ._. ' q. A qrade separated interchanqe would provide better � marqins for safety, enhance regional access, eliminate current railroad delays on Chestnut, assure adequate capacity, and encouraqe redevelopment along the river. - (St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce) ' This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. h. Alternative B-2 is recommended for the Chestnut area. ' However, more information is needed on noise, visual impacts and railroad operations before a final desiqn recommendation on Seqment B can be made. - (Planninq ' Commission) Responses to comments on noise, visual impacts and , railroad operations are provided within this Response Package. K. FINANCIAL IMPACTS , 1. Cost Comparisons � a. Acquisition, relocation and related costs for the heavy earth berminq required to accomplish the aesthetics of , , the B-2 alternative are not included in cost estimates. - (W. 7th Federation) Right-of-way acquisition, relocation and grading costs ' for Alternative B-2 are included in the cost estimate. . Heavy landscaping and other urban design treatments, such as the plaza, are not included in the cost estimates for � any of the alternatives. These costs would be similar for all alternatives and would not be known until more detaiZed design has been completed. b. The at-qrade alternative would be a savin s of 5.2 ' 4 $ million, plus the additional cost of a noise-reducinq wall. - (Historic Irvine Park Association) � Alternative B-Zb would be $5.2 million less than B-2. However, similar noise wall costs would be required for ' either of these alternatives. c. Mitiqation costs for noise and visual impacts to Historic Irvine Park are not budqeted. , The costs for mitigation would be similar for a11 alternatives. These costs are not normalZy refined until ' after the selection of a preferred alternative. , I3 - 34 ' � � � 2. TIF District ia. The fiscal impacts of a qrade separation on the TIF District should be analyzed. - (W. 7th Federation) / The impact on the TIF District wi11 be positive overall by improving access to parcels along Chestnut (designated as "office" and ��mixed use" in the Riverfront ' Redevelopment P1an) . Redevelopment of the these blocks for office and mixed use would not be adversely affected by projected increases in traffic. In addition, the � grade separated alternative would be the best alternative for the housing site along the riverfront, according to the Housing Division of PED. , 3. Deciine in property values a. A siqnificant decline in� property value due to the � increased traffic, noise and grime of the grade separation is feared. - (Panama Rowhouse Association) � • The project-is actually expected to improve the setting rather than detract from it. Noise Ievels would be the same for at grade and grade separated. The increases in � traffic wi11 not be noticeable enough to affect property ' values. The traffic would increase from 10,400 ADT to 13,000 ADT. This represents an increase of 2, 600 vehicles per day on Chestnut Street and would ,break down to about 260 vehicles added to the peak hour, which is ' approximately 4 vehicles per minute. 4. Fiscal impacts on local economy of West Seventh/Fort Road area: ' a. Development between Chestnut and Eagle will be severely curtailed if roadway alignment is on Chestnut instead of ' Eaqle. - (W. 7th Federation) On the contrary, the pZanned Zand use for the area between Chestnut and Eag1e assumes that the roadway � - alignment wi11 remain on Chestnut. Shifting the roadway a.Zignment would result in some detrimentaZ effects on development potential in that area in terms of access and ' parcel configuration. b. Riverfront housing would lower the value of , underdeveloped and undeveloped property within the Irvine Park/W. 7th community. This needs to be analyzed. - (W. 7th Federation) , ' B - 35 ' , .,. ' Riverfront housing could be deveZoped under any of the alternatives. Therefore, this issue is not a factor in ' the decision on a preferred alternative. 5. Economic Impacts of Eagle Street Alternatives a. The unquantified @CO210IR1C impacts of alternatives east of � Chestnut 8treet should be examined and balanced aqainst the potential adverse effects of the historic district. - ' (St. Paul Historic Preservation Commission) As previously stated, the economic impacts of Iimiting ' development opportunities for a major downtown employer are impossible to quantify. There are other problems with shifting the aZignment of Chestnut Street to the east, which are summarized in Appendix B-1. ' 6. Relocation Impacts a. Economic Impact Survey did not include the residences ! immediately adjacent to the area, some. of whom operate business-es out of their homes and should have been surveyed. - (W. 7th Federation) ' The Economic Impact Survey was completed for businesses within the actual roadway corridor which would have ' required physical relocation or acquisition in order to construct one or more of the roadway alternatives. Therefore, since none of the home-businesses would require relocation or acquisition for construction of any , alternatives, they were not a part of the survey. L. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ' 1. Induced Development a. If hi hwa j � g y pro ect is not anticipated to induce 8evelopment, then why is the potential for future housinq development used as an arqument for preferrinq one ' alternative over another? - (W. 7th Federation) The project would not induce any deveZopment. The fact ' that some alignments result in better or worse site configurations for planned riverfront redevelopment does not mean that certain roadway alignments would induce that development. ' , B - 36 , , t � 2. Traffic Patterns , a. Land IIse Study calls for maintenance of existinq traffic ' . patterns; however, 8-2 will move a disproportionate ' increase of the amount of traffic to Chestnut relative to the downtown arteries from Shepard Road. (W. 7th Federation) � The shift of traffic does not result in a significant increase in actual traffic volumes or in a major shift in traffic patterns. The proportion of Chestnut to , Jackson/Sibley users to downtown is currently 25�/75s. The anticipated future split is 35�/65� primarily due to forecasted new development for the west end of downtown. This change in the split does not represent a , disproportionate volume shift in terms of actual numbers. 3. Zoning ' a. Zoninq east of the High Bridge: Land Use Study identifies zoninq as ��labor intensive light industry��; it , was changed •in November, 1987 to ��river_ corridor residential�� and should be noted in FEIS. (W. 7th Federation) , , This wi11 be noted in the Final EIS. A�. Compatibility with Riverfront Pians . ' a. Alternative B-2 affords the best potential opportunities for housinq and open space, and a link between the Irvine Park neiqhborhood and the riverfront. - (Planninq , Commission) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. ' b. The qrade separation reflects a vision of the area that is in keepinq with a waterfront plan connected to the community. It allows people to move back and forth , between their River and their City. - (Public Arts in St. Paul, Design Leadership Group) , This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. c. A grade separation at Chestnut Street would be ' detrimental to riverfront revitalization. - (Nicollet Restoration) This is not consistent with the findings of the Housing , Division of PED, the Planning Commission or the Riverfront Commission. ' B - 37 � ' , 5. General Impacts on Land Uses a. Visual, Noise, Historic ' - Land Use Study states that none of the alternatives , have a siqnificant adverse impact on existinq land uses in the area, hence no mitiqation is necessary. However, mitiqation is needed to protect view ' corridors, noise and historic preservation. These impacts are avoidable. - (W. 7th Federation) Coordination with the State Historic Preservation ' Officer, the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation and the Federal Highway Administration wi1l be required to determine the most appropriate , mitigation for any adverse effects related to noise, views and historic properties. b. Noise mitiqation impact on historic land uses ' - There are siqnificant induced chanqes in the land use because required mitiqation for noise will conflict � with adherence to historic quidelines. - (W. 7th Federation) The effect of noise mitigation on the historic ' district is addressed under historic impacts. The residents of the Irvine Park neighborhood wi11 be involved in decisions on whether to install noise ' wa11s. c. Amount of land needed for roadway alternatives ' - In order to accurately evaluate the alternatives, analysis is necessary to determine the amount of land required for each alternative. - (W. 7th Federation) , The Iayouts prepared during the Draft EIS process provide much more detailed information on Iand ' requirements than normaZly provided in a Draft EIS. The estimated right-of-way acquisition costs are included in the cost estimates for each alternative. d. Developability of land ' - Given the height, lenqth and overall scale of the ' grade-separated interchanqe, is the remaininq land really developable? - (W. 7th Federation) ' B - 38 ' ' ' ' This has been analyzed by the Housing Division of PED , and the grade separation was found to be the preferred alternative in Segment B from the standpoint of development p:otential. � e. IInmitigated impacts - Unmitiqated impacts referred to in the Relocation ' Study should be considered siqnificant adverse impacts on land uses. - (W. 7th Federation) ' Unmitigated impacts as referenced in the Relocation Study are generally related to loss of parking areas which are currently leased or on Iand not owned by the - business affected. Mitigation of these impacts may ' not be possible, but the impacts are not considered significant because of the ownership situation. , f. Chestnut-Fort Road area - Land use objectives for development in Chestnut-Fort Road area are not addressed in the Draft EI3. , This is outside the scope of the EIS. , M. BUSINESS IMpACTS 1. Impacts on Properties � , a. Plastics, Inc. Impacts , - The facility loses some or all of a parkinq lot and direct access to its loadinq dock. (W. 7th Federation) , The parking lot across Chestnut Street from Plastics, . Inc. would be reduced in size by up to 20 spaces, based on current layouts. Replacement parking at the , Civic Center ramp is available within 2 blocks from Plastics, Inc. Direct access to the Ioading dock wi11 be maintained under a11 alternatives. , - Security is a serious concern; Any plan which provides haven to the homeless will cause more problems - , (Anchor Hockinq Plastics, =nc. ) None of the alternatives would provide haven to the homeless. , ' B - 39 ' ' , - Truck access is necessary for operation of the ' business and has not been addressed in the plans so far. Access to Plastics, Inc. by a11 vehicZes wi11 be , maintained under a1Z alternatives. 2. Parking Losses , a. Plastics, inc. - All Segment B alternatives take 9 spaces from Plastics ' but none of the layouts show their parkinq lot remaining. - (w. 7th Federatfon) According to the layouts for a11 of the Segment B ' aZternatives, the parking Iot remains in place with � the use of retaining wa1Zs. However, the design concept represented by the models built for each ' alternative have shown the parking 1ot removed and replaced with a landscaped buffer between the road and the neighborhood. This is only one concept and does ' not reflect final plans. - Additional parkinq spaces will be removed by noise ' mitiqation. - (W. 7th Federation) Based on preliminary layouts, the loss in parking would range from about 9 to 20 spaces, depending on , the roadway configuration and whether noise walls are constructed. These are details which wi11 ,be worked out during final design. ' - The Civic Center ramp is not an acceptable replacement for Plastics, Inc. parkinq due to cost and the history of attacks. - (Anchor Hockinq Plastics) ' The Civic Center ramp is patrolled by security personnel and is considered a safe, cost effective ' parking ramp by those who work in the downtown area.. The ramp is within 2 blocks of PZastics, Inc. and is easily accessible by employees. The company wi1Z be , compensated for any parking spaces owned by Plastics, Inc. which are required for construction purposes. b. West Publishinq , - The Final EIS should identify any impacts that parkinq loss will have on West Publishing and its employees. - ' (FHWA) ' B - 40 , r � From I00 to 190 parking spaces currentZy Ieased by , West Publishing from the City of St. Paul . would be taken for roadway construction. The lease agreement is on a short term basis and both par•ties understand , _ that the property may be needed for roadway purposes. There is no need to compensate for lost parkinq owned and/or leased by West Publishing since their lots are , never full. - (W. 7th Federation) The City would need to compensate West Publishing if ' any of West �s property is taken for roadway purposes, regardless of much how it is used. 3. Impacts on Utilities � ' a. Towers supportinq NSP electric transmission lines , - Alternative B-1 would impact one tower and may require tower relocation. - (NSP) This wi1Z be incorporated in design plans and cost , estimates if this alternative is selected. - Alternative B-2 would impact two towers and may ' - require tower relocation. ,(N3P) This will be incorporated in design plans and cost , estimates if this alternative is selected. N. SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACTS , 1. Community Cohesion . � a. Traffic increases result in hiqher noise levels and more qeneral disruption to the community. (w. 7th Federation) , ' A11 aZternatives are similar in terms of noise levels, including the No Build Alternative. Therefore, no significant changes to the quality of life in the , community are anticipated. ' - � ' B - 41 , , ,, SHEPARD/WARNER/EAST CBD BYPASS rSEGMENT C RESPONSES � NOVEMBER 22, 1088 � PAGE A. _ COST C - 1 , B. IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY C - 2 C. RIVERFRONT OBJECTIVES C - 3 ID. DESIGN C - 4 � E. HISTORICAL IMPACTS C - 5 � , . , ' . ' , ' ' , , ' , � � . _ SHEPARD/WARNER/EAST CBD BYPASS ' SEGMENT C RESPONSES I � NOVEMBER 4, 1988 � - A. COST 1. Cost Effectiveness � a. Because of the additional costs associated with Alternative C-2 or C-2 modified, the incremental approach involvinq Alternative C-1 as a first stage is , more cost effective and feasible. - (Planninq Commission) � This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. b. Even with the larqer price tag, C-2 modified is cost effective in terms of development possibilities and , tourism factors. - (Councilmember Tom Dimond) Based on discussions with the railroads and other , property owners a.Zong this corridor, Alternative C-2 modified does not appear to be feasible at this �time. Refer to Appendix B-4 for a summary of analysis , completed to date on Alternative C-2 Modified. 2. Funding � a. There should be further exploration on funding availability before qivinq up on C-2 Modified. (Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation) � Funding availability is not the most serious constraint reZated to C-2 Modified. Refer to Appendix B-4 for a summary of analysis completed to date on � Alternative C-2 Modified. B. IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY ' 1. Right-of-Way Acquisition a. Alternative C-2 and C-2 modified would require ' significant riqht-of-way acquisition, mostly involvinq complex and lenqthy neqotiations with railroads. - (Planninq Commission) , This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. 1 C - 1 1 � _ � � b. Alternatives C-1 and C-2 both impact one transmission , tower located at Warner Road and Sibley Street. There does not appear to be a feasible alternative location for this tower. - (NSP) All design alternatives include a feasible alternative � relation area for this tower. 2. Agency Approvals ' a. Alternatives C-1, C-2 and C-2 modified would require desiqn exceptions, which could delay the project; C-2 L modified requires the least extensive exceptions. - (Planninq Commission) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. ' b. Alternatives C-2 and C-2 modified would involve impacts to the historic CGW lift bridqe which would � require documentation and approvals - (Planning Commission) According to Section 106 of the National Historic ' Preservation Act of 1966, removal of the approach span to the historic lift bridge could result in negZect of , the bridge leading to it deterioration or destruc��ion. This could result in these alternatives having a potential adverse impact according to Section Z06 guidelines. This issue may result in serious ' implementation problems with C-2 and C-2 modified. 3. Schedule � a. Since one of the Riverfront Commission�s objectives is to reconstruct the road as quickly as possible, the additional benefits of Alternative C-2' were not deemed , worth the wait or expense at this time. - (Riverfront Commission) - This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. � ' , , C - 2 ' r � , � , _ C. RIVERFRONT OBJECTIVES , 1. Open Space Along the River's Edge ' a. Alternatives C-2 and C-2 modified provide more room to develop an esplanade along the riverfront. C-2 modified provides the most space. - (Planning Commission) � This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. , b. Special study should be. qiven the C-2 Modified proposal to create more space for an improved Lambert Landinq and for a pedestrian esplanade/bike trail. - (Riverfront Commission) ' The improvement of Lambert Landing for a pedestrian an d bicyc le faci lity is included in the Warner Road � Improvement Project which is a separate project. Refer to Appendix B-4 for a summary of analysis completed to date on Alternative C-2 Modified. , c. This stretch of riverfront is closest to downtown offices, shops and housinq; therefore, it is the most important resource for creatinq amenities. - � (Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. � However, providing more space for these amenities along this stretch of the riverfront may be more feasible in the long range rather than short range future. t2. Development of Biuff Face � a. Alternative C-2 and C-2 modified would adversely affect potential bluff face development by shiftinq closer to the bluff. - (Planninq Commission) , Riverfront development plans should be carefully considered in roadway decisions in Segment C. � b. Public access to the riverfront in this seqment can be better enhanced by creative desiqn of adjacent development parcels. - (Riverfront Commission) � Riverfront development plans shouZd be carefully considered in roadway decisions in Segment C. � � C - 3 ' � _ � 3. Land Use Between Chestnut and Robert Street a. There appears to be no stated plan for this seqment, t includinq the West Publishing site. Development in this area should be inteqrated with Irvine Park. - (Historic Irvine Park Association) ' The City has adopted land use plans which apply to this area. This project has no adverse impacts on the � City�s adopted land use plans. D. DESIGN 1. Logical Termini ' a. The Final EIS should make it clear that whether or not � the Warner Road Improvement Project is completed does not in any way affect the proposed action. - (FHWA) This wi11 be clarified in the FEIS. , 2. Staging a. Alternative C-1 should be recoqnized as an interim ' solution to improve safety and ped/bike access, but not reasonable for the lonq term. - (Riverfront � Commission) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. b. Eutu=e costs of improvinq the downtown riverfront will ' only escalate with time. - (Councilmember Tom Dimond) Some of the costs associated with Alternative C-2 � Modified may be expenditures that would be unnecessary in the future if the Wabasha Bridge is reconstructed or if the railroads abandon the lift bridge on their � own. These factors should be considered in terms of short term vs. long term costs. ' ' ' ' , C - 4 ' , � . , . - E. HISTORICAL IMPACTS , 1. 4(fl Impacts , a. If Alternative C-2 is to be selected as the preferred alternative, then a compellinq case must be made as to why the avoidance alternative (Alternative C-1) is not considered feasible or prudent. This will be ' difficult because Alternative C-1 has already been presented as a reasonable alternative. If Alternative C-1 cannot be shown to be not feasible and prudent, I then it must be chosen over the 4 (f) alternative (C-2) unless some other avoidance alternative is developed. - (FHWA) 1 This comment assumes that a 4 (f) impact would result from removal of the approach span to the bridge. Based on a recent determination by the SHPO, removal � of the approach span to the Iift bridge would not have a 4 (f) impact. However, it would have a potential Section 106 impact, which could result in some difficuZties in implementing Alternative C-2 or C-2 � Modified. 1 � t 1 t 1 t 1 , C - 5 ' ' . � SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BYPASS � SEGMENT D RESPONSES ' NOVEMBER 22, 1988 ' PAGE � A. TRAFFIC D - 1 ' B. RIVERFRONT OBJECTIVES D - 1 C. DESIGN p _ 2 ' , I i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ' , SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BYPASS ISEGMENT D RESPONSES ' NOVEMBER 4, 1988 ' A. TRAFFIC 1. Safe Traffic Flow ia. Alternative D-1 provides a safer connection with the Bypass and allows traffic to flow more freely - � (Planninq Commission) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. , 2. Railroad Conflicts a. The at-qrade intersection in this seqment is too close ' to the railroad track, which increases the accident potential at the at-qrade railroad crossing. (Burlinqton Northern Railroad) � This statement assumes that the railroad crosses the East CBD Bypass at grade. In fact, the railroad . passes underneath the roadway in a tunnel. 1 B. RIVERFRONT OBJECTIVES ' 1. Enhancement of Views a. Alternative D-2 affords the best views of downtown, ' the river valley and the open space alonq the river. - (Planninq Commission) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. ' 2. Access to Open Space , a. Alternative D-2 is the only alternative from which vehicular access to the open space alonq the river is feasible. - (planninq Commission) , This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. � ' D - 1 . ' , 1 C. DESIGN ' 1. Logicai Termini a. The Final EIS should make it clear that whether or not ' the Warner Road Improvement Project is completed does not in any way affect the proposed action. - (FIiWA) This will be cZarified in the FEIS. , ' � ' . ' ° � . ' ' ' . , ' ' � ' D - 2 ' , ' _ SHEPARD/WARNER/EAST CBD BYPASS , SEGMENT E RESPONSES , NOVEMBER 22, 1988 ' PAGE A. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN E - 1 ' B. NOISE E - 1 C. SAFETY E _ 2 ' D. COSTS E _ 2 ' E. BUSINESS IMPACTS E - 2 F. HAZARDOUS WASTE E - 3 ' G. AIR QUALITY E - 3 H. HISTORIC IMPACTS E - 4 � I. DESIGN E - 4 � ' ' , ' ' , ' ' ' ' .. SHEPARD/WARNER/EAST CBD BYPASS ' , SEGMENT E RESPONSES NOVEMBER 4, 1988 ' ' A. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. Access to Downtown and the East Side ' a. Only Alternative E-2 fulfills the City�s objective of improvinq access to downtown and the East Side (Planninq Commission) ' This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. ' 2. Redevelopment of Areas Adjacent to the Roadway a. Only Alternative E-2 would encouraqe the redevelopment of underutilized parcels adjacent to the Bypass. - , (Planninq Commission) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. ' 3. Trip Diversions � a. Alternative E-2 would divert more trips from downtown , streets which would result in a savinqs of 260 vehicle hours of travel per day as opposed to 12o hours saved under Alternative E-1. Thus, Alternative E-2 supports ' Metropolitan Council policies #9 and #13. - (Metropolitan Council) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. ' B. NOISE ' 1. Comparison Between Alternatives ' a. Noise levels would be about the same for both alternatives. - (Planning Commission) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. , ' � E - 1 ' , ` _ _ ' c. saFEr�r 1. Intersection Safety ' a. Alternative E-1 has less potential for vehicle ' conflicts than E-2. - (Planning Commission) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. 2. Mainline Safety , a. Alternative E-2 would improve overall safety by , divertinq traffic from conqested local streets. - (Planninq Commission) This is consistent with the findings of � the Draft EIS. ' D. COSTS , 1. Difference Between Alternatives a. The cost difference betweea alternatives is relatively ' small compared to the amount of much-needed access � qained by the additional expenditure. - (Planninq Commission) . ' This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. ' E. B ' USINESS IMPACTS 1. Utility Relocations ' a. Alternative E-2 would require relocation of an entire duct line on 4th Street at a cost of $700,000. ' Alteraative E-1 would require only a partial relocation at a cost of $85,000, which is preferable to NSP. - (NSP) ' Exact costs and responsibility for payment would have to be decided after selection of the preferred alternative. ' ' ' � E - 2 ' ' ' 2. Parking Losses ' a. The Final EIS should identify how losses of parkinq will impact Barber Electric supply and the space Center, Inc. and if replacement parking is required. - ' (FHWA) This issue is currently being resolved under a Mn/DOT , project and �will be clarified in the Final EIS. F. HAZARDOUS WASTE ' 1. Soiis Contamination ' a. The Metals Reduction company would be impacted by the extension of Olive Street for Alternative E-2. Complaints of lead and PCB contamination are beinq investigated. Costs for possible analysis and ' disposal of contaminated soils and hazardous waste should be addressed in the Final EIS. - (MPCA) � The preliminary Olive Street alignment runs through a parcel which is adjacent to Metals Reduction, but has not been used for storage of inetal reduction products. � However, the site has been used for storage of non- metalic byproducts of the Metals Redcution operaton. These byproducts may contain PCB 's. PCA indicated that the si�te is being investigated for pollutiori , problems. If this alternative is selected, the City would need to coordinate with the MPCA to select the most appropriate route for the 01ive Street connection ' and to ensure that the soils contamination is cleaned up by the responsible party. It should be noted that the East CBD Bypass alignment is not affected by this site and that the connections to the ECBD Bypass are ' onZy preliminary alignments. ' G. AIR QUALITY 1. Indirect Source Permit , a. An Indirect source Permit will be required for the proposed East CBD Bypass because it is a new roadway which is expected to generate over 20,000 ADT within � ten years after completion. - (MPCA) , , E - 3 � ' , _ .. , The necessary documentation for the Indirect Source , Permit for the East CBD Bypass will be developed during the detailed design phase of the project when timing ' H. HISTORIC IMPACTS � 1. Archaeologicai lnvestigations ' a. Backqround research should be performed on the Phalen ' Creek delta and the Trout Creek Valley aress as mentioned in the 8istorical Resources Survey. - (FHAA) Any additional research required by the SHPO wi11 be ' included in the Fina1 EIS. I. DESIGN , 1. Segment Termini � a. The differences between Seqments E and F should be � clarified, especially at the Mississippi Street overpass. - (FHWA) ' This wi11 be clarified in the FEIS. b. Cost estimates need to be clarifie8 for Seqments E and ' F in terms of what is included in which seqment. - (FHWA) This wi11 be clarified in the FEIS. ' ' , ' � ' ' E - 4 ' _ �� y��-�� SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BYPASS , SEGMENT F RESPONSES NOVEMBER 22, 1988 ' , PAGE A. NOISE F - 1 ' B. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM F - 1 ' i 1 1 1 1 ! i 1 i 1 1 1 � ' SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BYPASS , SEGMENT F RESPONSES NOVEMBER 4, 1988 � , A. NOISE 1. Comparison Between Alternatives 1 a. Addinq the East CBD Bypass to the existinq Pennsylvania interchanqe with I-35E would not increase the noise levels over the no build alternative. The , noise in Seqment F is attributable to throuqh traffic on I-35E, not the addition of the Bypass connection. - (Planninq Commission) , This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. � B. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 1. Coordination With I-35E ' a. Mn/DOT plans to reconstruct I-35E north of =-9�1 and improve the associated interchanqes in the future. The connection of the East CBD Bypass should be ' redesiqned at that time if necessary. - (Planninq Commission) � Ongoing coordination with Mn/DOT regarding the future plans for I-35E wi11 continue. ' 2. Ring Road a. The connection of the East CBD Bypass to I-35E is necessary to complete the rinq road system and provide , a truck route for the I-35E Parkway. - (Planninq Commission) , This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. 3. Segment Termini , a. The Final EI3 should clarify the differences between seqment E and F, especially related to the Mississippi Street overpass. - (FHWA) ' This wi1l be clarified in the FEIS. ' F - 1 � . � ^ 1- b. The cost estimates for Segments E and F should be ! clarified in terms of what is included in each segment. - (FHWA) This wi11 be clarified in the FEIS. ' . ' ' 1 � , , 1 � ' ' ' ' � , F - 2 ' , � SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BYPASS , RESPONSES TO GENERAL COMMENTS ON DEIS NOVEMBER 22, 1988 � ' PAGE A. FLOODPLAIN G - 1 , B. HISTORIC G _ 2 C. MINERAL RESOURCES G - 3 ' D. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS G - 3 � E. TRAFFIC G - 5 F. DESIGN G - 6 � G. SURVEY MONUMENTS G _ � .H. AIR QUALITY G _ � ' I. HAZARDOUS WASTE G - 9 J. GROUNDWATER G - 11 ' , ' ' , ' ' ' , � , SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BYPASS ' RESPONSES TO GENERAL COMMENTS ON DEIS NOVEMBER 4, 1'988 � , A. FLOODPLAIN � 1. Additional Data ' a. Additional hydrologic data requested includinq peak flow discharqes, standard project flood flow and flow duration curve. - (Corps of Engineers) � The Corps of Engineers is providing this information to be included in the Fina1 EIS. ' 2. Cumulative Effects a. City should keep track of the accumulatinq effect that � different riverfront projects have on fillinq in the floodplain. - (Corps of Enqineers) ' The City�s floodplain zoning regulations regulate cumulative effects on the floodplain. In addition, the City works c.Zosely with DNR to coordinate development of the riverfront and avoid impacts on the floodplain. , 3. Permits , a. Section 404 permits are required for placement of fill in any lakes, rivers or wetlands. A permit may be required for this project. - (Corps of Enqineers) ' The Corps of Engineers wi11 be reviewing design plans for permit requirements after the preferred alternative has been seZected. , 4. Cooperating Agency ' a. The Final EIS should indicate that the Corps of Enqineers is neither a proponent or opponent of this project. - (Corps of Enqineers) ' This will be clarified in the Fina1 EIS. , � G - 1 � . � , B. HISTORIC � . 1. Documentation a. The St. Paul Heritaqe Preservation Commission was not ' advised in any way of the esistence of the Draft EIS. - (B. McCormick, Irvine Park resident) The State Hi'storic Preservation Officer has the primary , responsibiZity for this type of review. The St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission does not routinely review EIS�s and there is no requirement that they do so. ' b. A June 1 memo circulated by city staff to the St. Paul Planninq Commission included the assertion that � consultation with the sHPO is primarily an administrative issue of appropriate documentation, which supports the belief that protection of the historic district is beinq � minimized or disreqarded by city staff. - (B. McCormick, Irvine Park resident) The intent of the statement was not to minimize the � importance of protecting the historic district from impacts. The statement was referring to the fact that the type of documentation required for this project had ' not yet been determined by the SHPO. 2. Section 4(fl a. It the preferred alternative affects any cultural , resources which are listed or eliqible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, compliance with , Section 4 (f) should be accomplished prior to circulation of the FEIS. - (U.S. Department of Interior) Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer , and the FHWA has been initiated to determine the steps necessary to comply with Section 4 (f) requirements. The only alternative with potential Section 4 (f) involvement , is Alternative A-1/B-la. 3. Mitigation ' a. Appropriate mitiqation for historic impacts can only be determined throuqh consultation with the Minnesota 3HP0 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. It is ' not appropriate to state in the DEIS that documentation is the selected mitiqation until such consultation has been completed. - (Corps of Engineers) , , G - 2 , � ' Coordination with FHWA, ACHP and the SHPO has been ' initiated and determinations on Section I06 and Section 4 (f) impacts have been made. If the preferred alternative would result in potentiaZ adverse impacts, mitigation of impacts wi11 be addressed as required by , these agencies. 4. Archaeological Resources , a. A provision for treatment of archaeoloqical sites during construction should be included in the project. - (MN ' Historical Society, SHPO) This will be addressed in the FEIS for the preferred aZternative and in contract specifications. ' C. MINERAL RESOURCES ' 1. William's Hill a. The Draft EIS did not adequately address the impacts of ' alternatives on mineral resources such as the William�s Hill gravel pit. - (U.B. Department of Interior) , The William�s HiZ1 gravel pit is almost completely mined out and is likely to be nearly depleted by the time construction is ready to commence. , D. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS , 1. Light Raii Transit a. Shepard Road was one of the aliqnment alternatives , considered for LRT in the Midway Corridor Study. Even thouqh it does not appear that the Shepard Road aliqnment is emerginq as one of the top two aliqnments, this possibility should be recoqnized in the FEIS. - (RTB) � The County has not completed their comprehensive LRT pZan and it wi11 not 1ikely be done before completion of the � Final EIS. If the County should decide to propose an LRT line in the Shepard Road corridor, they wi11 need to seek additional right-of-way from the railroads. If their decisions are made prior to final design of Shepard Road, ' then the design could include the necessary specifications to accommodate LRT in this corridor. r ' G - 3 � . � ` , 2. Ring Route Concept ' a. Only improv.es access for drivers from outskirts; limits the access for inner-city neighborhoods due to traffic ' increases. - (W. 7th Federation) Overall, the ring route would provide improved accessibility within the inner-city neighborhoods where ' there is none today and reduces congestion for downtown and inner city neighborhood streets. b. Completion of the rinq route to Interstate 94 is not ' included in the project as pictured in DEIB. - (W. 7th Federation) � The ring route is not intended to hook up directly to I-94. c. Spokes of wheel are not distributed equally; I-94, I-35E, , Minnesota State Hiqhway 5 and Shepard Road are concentrated in one quadrant. =mpacts of rinq route on the Irvine Park community need to be addressed. - (W. 7th ' Federation) Other roads are included in the ��spokes of the wheeZ" , aside from those listed. Lafayette Road, East Seventh Street, East Kellogg Boulevard and Warner Road feed into the ring route from the east �side. The East CBD Bypass , is needed to intercept the traffic from these roads and distribute them more efficiently on to the city street system. (Refer to next comment) d. Shepard/Aarner Road and the East CBD Bypass will serve as , a link between the reqional hiqhway system and the local downtown street system. This link keeps reqional trips ' off local streets until they are near their actual destination. This is in support of reqional transportation policies. - (Metropolitan Council) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. a 3. Metropolitan Highway System ' a. The Shepard/Warner/ECBD Bypass project is supported by the Metropolitan Council and the roadways are proposed , for inclusion as major arterials on the Metropolitan Hiqhway System. - (Metropolitan Council) This is consistent with the findings of the Draft EIS. , , G - 4 � � � 4. Trails , a. The Final EIS should express the need for a recreational bikeway corridor between Pennsylvania and Arlington that I would connect with the bikeway described in the DEIS. - (MN/DNR) This will be noted in the FEIS. , 5. Great River Road � a. Historic preservation is a priority of the Great River Road desiqnation, not just scenic preservation. - (W. 7th Federation) , The Great River Road guidelines do not include historic preservation as a priority for roadway designation. However, access to historic sites is an objective of the , Great River Road program. b. Great River Road objectives need to be examined in terms of project impacts. - (A. 7th Federation, Metropolitan � council) , An evaluation of project alternatives in terms of Great � River Road objectives has been completed in matrix form for inclusion in the Final EIS. While there are differences between segment alternatives in their abiZity � to meet specific criteria, none of the alternatives appear to be inconsistent with a11 of the criteria. ' E. TRAFFIC 1. Truck Traffic , a. Hiqher proportion of trucks on Shepard than is experienced on other roads is not examined in the DEIS. - (W. 7th Federation) , - Because shepard Road will be carryinq 14� trucks, the qateway imaqe and view corridors are compromised ' ' � ' G - 5 t . , ` � Without I-35E, it is to be expected that other nearby � roadways must take up the slack for truck movements. If Shepard Road is connected to the ECBD Bypass, it would provide a more attractive route to/from and around � downtown than W. 7th, a greater share of truck traffic is expected on Shepard. However, based on analyses included in the "Traffic Impact Study", this truck traffic is primarily Zocal traffic associated with downtown St. Pau1 ' and the West Seventh Street business area and not through trips. b. The DEIS did not include oriqin and destination studies � for truck traffic and did not project, for example, the chanqe in truck traffic volume after St. Paul�s 8tructural Steel leaves the area. � The ��Traffic Impacts Study" completed for the Draft EIS did include an Origin-Destination survey which analyzed � truck traffic in the study corridor. The effects of Structural Steel �s closing would be very minor since they currently generate very low truck voZumes. � F. DESIGN 1. HOV Lanes � a. The Final Ei8 should examine the possible preferenti�al , treatments for Hiqh Occupancy Vehicles, such as ramp bypass lanes. - (RTB) HOV lanes were considered in Part II of the Draft EIS. ' Ramp Bypass lanes would not be appropriate for this type of facility. There is not a projected capacity problem on Shepard Road. � 2. Design Concept Process a. A design review task force, similar to the I-35E task ' force, should be established to work with staff as final desiqns are prepared to address, at a minimum, the followinq issues. - (Planninq Commission) , o Safe Roadway Desiqn o Landscapinq ' o Walls/Noise Barriers o Pedestrian Access to Shorelines o Gateways 1 ' G - 6 � , � A design task force wiZl be appointed with a 1 representative from the affected neighborhood and businesses groups, to provide input to the design of the factors listed above. � G. SURVEY MONUMENTS ' 1. Both horizontal and vertical qeodetic control _ survey monuments are located in the study corridor. U.S. Department of Commerce. 90 days notice is required to plan , for relocation and fundinq for relocation should be included in project cost estimates. - U.S. Department of Commerce This will be noted for future reference. � H. AIR QUALITY t1. Assumptions � a. The Final EIS should document the meteoroloqical and traffic level assumptions used for the carbon monoxide modelinq, includinq traffic speeds (existinq and future; with and without $evelopment) . - (II.S. EPA) ' Worst case meteorological and traffic volumes were assumed for each analysis. A1so, a range of wind angles , was analyzed for each intersection to determine the highest modeled concentration of carbon monoxide contributed by the intersection traffic. The detailed meteoroZogical. input and traffic input used in the , analysis wi11 be included in the Final EIS. b. If 8-hour levels were calculated from 1-hour levels, or 1 vice versa, then the assumptions used to derive these levels should be determined. - (U.S. EPA) , The one hour and eight hour conditions were modeled from input data specific to the conditions. 2. Carbon Monoxide Analysis , a. An intersection analysis should be done for any intersection with traffic over 30,000 ADT at any time � durinq the design life of the project. Sensitive receptors and areas along the riqht-of-way with potential for public access should be modeled. Worst case meteorological and traffic conditions should be used. - , (U.S. EPA) ' G - 7 t ' � � The carbon monoxide mode.Zing used MOBILE III and CALINE 3 computer models. The modeling was performed for two , receptors as shown in the Draft EIS (Figures III-22 and IV-13) : Receptor A, located at the intersection of Shepard Road with Chestnut Street; and Receptor B, � Iocated at the intersection of the East CBD Bypass and Pennsylvania Avenue with I-35E. These intersections were identified as having the greatest potential for air quality impacts due to the combination of traffic volume ' � and proximity to sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptors (residences) were selected in conjunction with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ' staff. Receptor A was located approximately 80 feet from Chestnut Street and 375 feet from Shepard Road. Receptor B was located 240 feet from Pennsylvania Avenue and 290 feet from I-35E. , b. The Final EIS should address impacts on roadways where Shepard/Warner Road traftic will be diverted durinq ' construction. - (MPCA) The extent to which there wi11 be diversion of traffic during construction wi11 depend upon the alternative � selected for each segment and the staging of the specific reconstruction operations. This wi11 be fu11y addressed in the Fina1 EIS for the selected aZternative for each , segment. The potential for traffic diversion during . reconstruction for each alternative is summarized as fo11 ows: Segment A: Potential diversion for A-I or A-2 , No diversion for A-3 Segment B: Potential diversion for B-la 1 Less diversion for B-1b or B-2 Segment C: Potential diversion for C-1 or C-2 , Segment D: Potential diversion for D-Z or D-2 Segment E: No diversion ' Segment F: No diversion , c. The carbon monoxide levels should be found for estimated time of completion plus one year and plus ten years. - (Mn/DOT) � i G - 8 ' � ' � ._. Page III-53 of the Draft EIS provides the results of the ' existing carbon monoxide levels. CO levels for ETC plus one year and ETC plus ten years can be found on Page IV- 65 of the Draft EIS. � d. New ��canned statements�� for consistency with the SIP and permits should be included in the Final EIS. - (Mn/DOT) ' The appropriate statements in the "Guidance for Air Quality" document will be incorporated into the Fina1 EIS. j3. Indirect Source Permit a. An Indirect Source Permit will not be required for the � Shepard/Warner Road reconstruction because the anticipated increase in traffic within 10 years after completion is less than 10,000 ADT. - (MPCA) tThis wi11 be noted in the FEIS. � b. An Indirect Source Permit will be required for the East CBD Bypass because it is a new roadway with over 20,000 ADT within 10 years after completion. - (MPCA) ' . Supporting documentation for this permit may be required in the FEIS. However, since the scheduZe for construction is unclear, it may be possible to postpone ' this documentation until the construction schedule is more clear. � I. HAZARDOUS WASTE 1. Investigation of Hazardous Waste Sites ia. The Final EIS will include a strategy for investiqation of each site through testinq and/or monitoring the hazardous waste sites identified in the Draft EIS. EPA , would like to review this strateqy and the results of testinq at each site. MPCA should be notified to ensure that appropriate procedures are followed. - (U.S.EPA) , MPCA will be involved in developing the strategy and procedures. EPA wi11 have the opportunity to review the strategy for investigation and the testing results. � � ' G - 9 � ' F � 2. Other Sites , a. The UNISY3 Corporation, located at 2751 Shepard road is a RCRA storaqe facility which may also be potentially � affected by the proposed project. - (U.S. EPA) - Traffic patterns to and from the facility could be affected by this project - (U.B. EPA) ' - Durinq construction, emerqency personnel may have difficulty responding to any hazardous waste incident ' at the facility - (U.B. EPA) The UNISYS Corporation is Iocated at least 4 miles to the west of the project limits. It is served by other major � roadways, including Fort Road/West Seventh Street and T.H. 5. It is very unlikely that traffic patterns or access to the facility would be affected by the project. � b. Three wells exist near listed hazardous waste sites. Water from these wells should be analyzed to determine if contamination is miqratinq off site and whether action is , needed. This information should be used for selectinq the preferred alternative. - (MPCA) Based on discussions with Becky Lofgren of MPCA, the we1Z ' water testing does not need to be completed prior to selection of the preferred alternative because the , segment alternatives are so close together in this area. We11 water testing will be included in the "Investigation and Testing Strategy for Hazardous Waste Sites��, which wi1Z be developed in coordination with MPCA and reviewed � by U.S. EPA. 3. Costs , a. The total costs for each alternative do not appear to consider the cost for analysis and disposal of contaaiinated soil or hazardous waste that could be found t durinq construction. This may need to be done for some alternatives. - (MPCA) Based on available information, there is not likely to be � a difference between alternatives in terms of potential clean-up costs. Therefore, this information is not � needed prior to a decision on a preferred alternative. However, some general estimates should be deveZoped after the investigations and testing have been completed for the preferred alternative. , , � _ �o � � � r J. GROUNDWATER r1. Water Table � a. Fiqure III-18 shows groundwater at ten feet below the qround surface. Fluctuations of the water table could result in submerginq the roadway. This issue should be addressed in the Final EIS. - (MPCA) , The roadways are designed with a minimum of a 25 year flood frequency, which is the standard design for � arterial facilities. 2. Grad�ents � a. Fiqure III-17 does not include the qroundwater qradients that are discussed in precedinq text. This information should be included in the Final EIS. - (MPCA) � This information wi11 be provided in the Fina1 EIS. � i � 1 1 1 1 1 � � � G - 11 � � � - � MEMORANDUM � TO: Shepard/Warner/ECBD Bypass Project Management Team � FROM: Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. � DATE: November 16, 1988 SUBJECT: EAGLE STREET ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES � The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize all of the analysis completed to date on alternatives to the Chestnut Street � alignment. In the Scoping Process prior to completion of the Draft EIS, an alignment near Eagle Street was analyzed and, for reasons identified in the next section of this memorandum, these alignment alternatives were eliminated from consideration in the , EIS. After publication of the Draft EIS, additional interest was expressed about the possible realignment of Chestnut Street. In response to these comments, a wide range of alternative concepts � was considered. These concepts include slight realignments of Chestnut Street, four new Eagle Street alignment alternatives and an elevated railroad concept. � This memorandum summarizes the major features and results of analysis for each of the following: � A. Scoping Process "Eagle Street" Alternatives B. Chestnut Street Realignment Alternatives ' C. Eagle Street Alignment Alternatives D. Elevated Railroad Alternative , A. SCOPING PHASE ��EAGLE STREET�� ALTERNATIVES During the initial Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass Scoping Phase, ' two "Eagle Street" alignment alternatives were considered. Both of the alternatives (B-3 and B-4) intersected Shepard Road east of Chestnut Street just to the west of Eagle Street. The � alignment was not shifted all the way to existing Eagle Street because the ramps for a grade separation could not be fit in at that location. The alignment would parallel Chestnut Street for about 1-1/2 blocks and then return to the present Chestnut Street ' alignment as it approaches West Seventh Street. Alternative B-3 provided an at-grade intersection with Shepard Road and no grade separation with railroad tracks. Alternative B-4 provided a � grade separation with Shepard Road and the railroad tracks. 1 � � ._ , These two alternatives were eliminated from further analysis in , the scoping process for the following reasons: o The new roadway would significantly and adversely divide property in the area and would reduce development potential of t the land. This would particularly impact West Publishing who has long standing plans to develop the area. o A significant amount of new right-of-way would be required, � possibly including Plastics, Inc. The cost of right-of-way acquisition would be very high. In addition, there was a � strong likelihood of losing a significant number of jobs in this area if these properties were acquired. o The new alignment would provide a circuitous path into � Downtown St. Paul which would reduce its effectiveness as a "gateway" to the downtown. � B. CHESTNUT STREET REALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES Description ' Since completion of the Draft EIS, four alternative Chestnut Street alignments were evaluated in .an attempt to reduce noise � . levels and create a visual buffer for the adjacent Irvine Park neighborhood. In each of the concepts, _ Chestnut Street is shifted to the east approximately 100 feet. By limiting the shift to this distance, a grade separation would still be � feasible. All of the concepts would require acquisition of Plastics, Inc. which would result in the loss of about 450 jobs. Because West Publishing property would have to be acquired to � implement any of these concepts, they were involved in discussions about the configuration of the concepts and how � property trades might facilitate implementation of the concepts. The cost estimates are for work beyond the cost of the Shepard/Chestnut intersection. These costs include rough estimates of property acquisition and relocation costs, which ' could be much higher than shown. Chestnut Realiqnment Concept One (Figure One) ' The first concept considered a shift of Chestnut Street between Hill Street and Exchange Street with no changes to other i roadways. This concept did not include vacating existing Eagle Street. The cost of this concept was estimated at $3 .7 million. ' � 2 ' ' ' ; ,r�� ` - L—! �� • _ , - WEST SEVENTH STREEf - , 1 � _� 1�� {---- , i--- _�, � �� . � � -_J _._.. . � I f � �—� ^,� ' C :� �'"- I ' I . �V N ' � 1 � �'� �� . � ~ m __ ._ y ' � W U � � � SCfllf 1�� : 1�� I � . 'IM -N e lW tos ao0 � __. -__ . . . ,� � ` . , _ � 1 �.. . _ .. ... . _ . � . . � .: . r . . _ . . �£%CHANGE" STREET --- -� - �. .. .� ' ---- .. . . �. ..__--��-ti._-�:- _:i _ . . _ . . . . , _ r-- � -- , . :: -- .. . � . ... . �, TI .. �--- n ' _ _ " � � . . ..... , . m � �" � '.__.i�J.,� I . /�'� . �� , � . : � �� . ` ..L_ �. ., � � . —- �-- � �: , \ ' - _-_—- _ , , � ! � Qcc \ \ �RVINE -: � �. . vIVIC ' � _ � ` . -- - " �� ' ___ - - �- - - , --� CENTER � � �\ .. _ . _ _ --- . -. Re.r-- T .. `"'.� :..� .-.. . _ � � � � , � ._-':-_T _'. 1 I - ... . . „_' , l� �� °ARKING � PARK j, `, �� '�� \ do �� ' /" � � -.--.. �-.-_.._. � �-{ � '�� G i, � , ; �, � RAMP � ��:��\ � — — 1_.J I CS i _. ��° i�� . `,�,\ _----�_-- - -. �-._ _ � , � - . - - o�� ;� � � � �� ; . � - --- - , �, \ \\J � � . NOISE �� _� RECEPTOR (�J _ �� ., . � . -� ._�,-_-�---- – __�— � - �-� -' - HILL-. . � STREET . __� �-� �� LOCAL HISTORIC DISfRICT BOUNDARY-/"� f � _ -� .. �_:. :� _ ._. .._. _ �:a . . . __ .,'. .. _ \\ � _ _ . ._ - . . �_ ___—_. - �� 'V�_� ��\. . �� 1 �� _ _. � y` '�-- -- a ��,' �� ,_ - � a;�� , _ `� - �-- � `�"�, - - _ _.,. , � , - , _ _ , - _ �. o _ - � � _ ` � - �- - - Q� � , --- - - --------_._�...�� 1 - -' . . SNEPARD ROAD � SHEPAR�/WAHNER/ECBD BYPASS GHESTNUT ��T PHOJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS � i�L��C •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING }��E'tt—tGN�E�� cl—TERrI1F�T1V � ' ANDECONOMIC DEVEIOPMENT � •STqGAR-FiOSCOE-FAUSCH. �r,c. G�NGE�T' `1 1 �.. ' Chestnut Realiqnment Concept Two (Figure Two) The second concept considered the same configuration as Concept ' One but also included vacating existing Eagle Street to provide West Publishing with some property in trade for property taken ' along realigned Chestnut. A service road was added to provide access from Ryan Street to the County Jail. Ryan Street was shown closed at the entrance to Irvine Park to explore ' possibilities for more effective noise mitigation, although this ' would not be required to make this concept work. The cost of this concept was estimated at $6.9 million. The additional cost is due to major utility relocations that would be required if , Eagle Street is vacated. Chestnut Realiqnment Concept Three (Figure Three) ' The third concept considered a straighter alignment for Chestnut Street. This concept did not involve vacating Eagle Street based ' on the premise that West Publishing could consider developing in the air rights over the Eagle Street right-of-way, thus eliminating the need for very costly utility relocations. The ' cost of this concept was estimated at $3.7 million. Chestnut Realiqnment Concept Four (Figure Four) � ' The final realignment concept was considered as a potential long range design for Chestnut Street which would require major , property acquisitions along both Chestnut Street and West Seventh Street. This concept would not include vacating Eagle Street. The cost of this concept was estimated at $11. 1 million. The higher cost is due to the magnitude of property acquisitions ! required for this concept. Conclusion � None of the concepts would reduce noise levels appreciably. The amount of space created for a visual barrier between Chestnut ' Street and the Irvine Park neighborhood would be minimal, although more landscaping would be possible along Chestnut Street. Balanced against the significant additional costs and � the potential for major employment losses, the benefits of these concepts are not considered reasonable. � ' ' 4 ' � �- ;�-- , � - 1 1 �� ; � � �-- �-_- � I , I� - . 1�. L..—.I L—____ � _ ' 'NFST iE�JENTH STREET ' � r---�� --, - ----; ----� r --- - � � ` , , `-_ - `�; ---- -� _� �' ,, _ ' � �_- ,; -, � y , �{�// Z O, '✓ C � � � � � � � _D � � � � � � , I �j f � I I `� � SCBIC I�� : IOO� ! � � _�« _b o �� .�I''! � � � � - �. . , � . . , . . _ .. , . .- • - - :� � . . -- — ;� _ - �� ' •t� � j__-_-� i �11� ,� �`� � .r ; I ly ; �o ; _ _ c��., i� _ �,� �.a _ , o. - . � � !—�� , - � � �� , IRV�NE � �' ' � � CIVIC . � ' , , . _ _. --- -�- - -=— � CE�dTER ' '�, \. , __.. . _ _ . RYAN t _ ___- ` \�\ \ . _. � . � ' -- - ��\� PARKING m� �\\\ � � PARK � � ., I . � . , �.. �t^ � RAMP '�'�G\- � �'� �� ' _--- �� 1—I - �CSI , \\\�\\\\� � , — - .� I , r " \ \ \•\ \ � Q�� m � �� \� �� \ . � � � , NOISE � � . �___ _ � � � � RECEPTOR �� ; � , (�) I I — I --�\ , � _ , r t � � , ,r _�_� � ... ..__.-_ -_�' u C� . - _ - 7-.- , . . - _. _ @. . HIIL (CLOSE) STREET . .._.-— � ' �-- -- . . — _-- - ` ��\.\ \ . LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUND�RV _ �_/ � - � - ' I � ' `\�� ' �n . \ \ , � ' \ / ~ \� ,r . �`�_=`�/ �� L�` /-� �`_. Q/ , - _ � _ - _ ` - _ �„� " , o - ' +~''-"_`" ` -` . _ o i ,�i \\� _'.._J � ---�-----�--�--`- SHEPARD ROAD �� --- ' SHEPARD/WAFiNER/ECBO BVPASS C��STNUT STf�EET PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM ��GU�� •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ' •ST.PAUL OEPARTMENT OF PLANNING }"�,EPr�-1G N M�T ��-TER�(�-T1VE � ANO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ,` •STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. �1v�(�T_ Z � � '� I � r,_ I ' : ' ! � �__ ; N �_., _t� � i :— _'. I _ - - L---� �----_ � WEST SEVENTH STREEf ' � ��- ��i-1�`� �I,��r � �—� �----- - � � +I I�__ � l—. -----� � � �� , LL---� � F � z o' I � ' c � I � � ' D � �� I . � � ; - . ' ' _ .' y m I I � � � W � U � � ' � Scale 1" : !00' � n � , � y � -�a -a a ioo soo wo : .�. _._ _. ._ . ' �. . .. : . : ! –` " ' � ' " ' • ' �EXCHAFt6E STREET—� � �r�� , � . ._ . - . -. --- , -_:_ . . � . .. . ; ._. ._ . ._ . . . --- � . _ �. . , . . _ _ � � , � �—� –' x �i m � � � Z � ' ��.�;� �:' � - , .. � �' � r_ , �; � - � oc�'_ ' - - � . ` I -- ��-�\ c�vic ; IRVINE - - � � ' _ ' ' _ . _ _ _'- � "t�VT,`_.R , �\ � - - '� „�,E � � `` �. \ _.. . . _. , RYAN � � s" . - . _ '-�. � �. �. : � (((��}}} P,4RKING � % � PARK ��, �� _ � � , _ ..�... . .-. �^�� . �, `� �� RAMP ��. �� %�� I __ _. _ . .. LJ j� � '�..9.p --.. .. _ . LJ �� - \\ , p \\ == __ _ `�_ _ A B S CS , _ _ O � m � I � ,� � _ � � � N06E . . _...___ _–__ - \ . RECEPTOR (�) '\\ ' _ [� :p � � . t -`_ �� — - �_ .�. . – . � , – HILL �CLOSE) STREET .__... �- � , , _.__ N MY _ . . . �'. .. __ _ '...._ _ . . . .. . �. LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT BOU 0 . _ .�\ �� H '. . . , v..� , . � ., " � ---- Y-;-�-.,.- _ _ � . � oQ ' - . - `- - ,{ �1 - - _ ' - �� _ - - . ,---_. i ° --.=,� _ _ o -�._.�.�,��y __..,,_,_ 1 (� I - . _ � �--r� � � �_�-- -� -� -�.. SHEPARD ROAD , SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BYPASS GFtES"f NUT ST�GGT� PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM ��UR� , •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS '�E�L�G�M�N'l"' �L-T'ERN�FTIVE •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING � AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT /�� •STRGAR-FOSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. ul/NCE�T_ 3 � r � (�,� j � �I �� 1 i ;� -- -��-� �� __.� � ��. -- � . _ , -� ..�- -� � wgST +SEVQ�ni. �T '— %/� ' , ---. �. - � �. _.. - -- - '�� _- � i—�� r-� , � i i � I --J ' � � � I �� s ___ . � � � ;�� i — £ '• � D � � ' r O' . � Z � ['�I ` L--_�__._ �, �. U'- •: W N n � � A 1 I I ' ' _ _ ' � V) . � u `� �L�f � � f Scale 1" : 100' Ii N -�a -m e �oe mo wo I � . - � n � � � 1 '' � � -- - -- —EXCFiANGE �STREET — _ . . . - �- .� l� . \. .. � . 2 m N L /�_ i � � � �� _ -� � � � ' -��_� —= �-�„ __ - - - = I .. / �� '_ ' R b�� " � � i _ _ _ _ __ ; : � __ _ , ; _ _. ___ �t,��: , IRVINE � -.� � . . _.__ --- � n �,TCR � � .� , _ '- - - J ' ' `- � — AVENUE - RYAN fT , " . _ - -. ; , �, _ - a-' - �c pARKING mD PARK � I I � �� `� \ RAMP '� G�� .... . � —._ _ . _.. ._ � �� ' . �� Q /� . �� V`. _`_. � � , 11 1..5 � � �\ [`-� _ \ . —_-__ .. .� Lf_' _"" _ N � ' 0 �\\ � �m ��m � � �. (''� � . NOISE�R � * ,• - _ . � . �� `\ ` , I� (� � : RECEP ' ; . . _ _ _ _ `•\ �.r+ ' � . (9YP.) 4 .. .._ ._. . -' �� _.... W..-----�`"-1 - �\`\ �� . . � � _, _,.. -, - . �. _ � . ..�J_ �] `-�- - �--' . CT . � STREET . -- , '� ��\ v , � '- HILL � .\\\ . � _ _ --..____.— . . �pCAL HISfORIC DISTRICT BOUNDI�R� � - �� i � . ::\ � T � �" _ ~ � �Q r � _ ' � � _ �.. ' _ _ O _ . �.. , � - �. ` c � n (�- 7 I I �� ' _-___�-----�__"----`- T SHEP4RD ROAD � SHEPARD/WARNER/EC80 BVPASS G�{�STNUT �TREET" FIGU�E PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R��16N M.E^1T �L�E�I�PS i I V� ' •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF P�ANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �.,^_`C�Q.r.. � � •STRGAR-FOSCOE-FAUSCH, INC, I�VIV � , B. EAGLE STREET ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES In an effort to find a solution that provides the grade � separation with the railroad tracks while maximizing the distance the connection could be moved easterly, a member of the City ' Council suggested a new concept for connecting Shepard Road to existing Eagle Street. Because the shift would be too far east to allow ramps for a grade separation, it was suggested that the mainline of Shepard Road be raised to meet Eagle Street at an ' elevated intersection. Because Eagle Street would be elevated over the railroad tracks, the railroad conflicts would be eliminated. ' According to this concept, Shepard Road would have to be raised 26 feet at Eagle Street with a 3 percent grade on approach , roadways. Shepard Road would be about 20 feet high as it bridged over Chestnut Street to allow clearance for pedestrians. Shepard Road would meet Eagle Street at an elevated, at-grade intersection. In order to minimize property acquisition from � West Publishing, Eagle Street would be constructed on a bridge over the railroad tracks and up over Hill Street to Ryan Street, ° where it would match into the existing topography. � In an effort to lower the elevation of mainline Shepard Road, and thus reduce noise and visual impacts, a steeper (4 percent) grade and lower design speeds on Shepard Road were considered. � , Increasing the grade from 3 percent to 4 percent grade does not lower the elevation of Shepard Road at Chestnut Street. A slower design speed would create stopping sight distance accident ' potential. The posted speed on Shepard Road is planned to be 45 mph, which is considered appropriate and enforceable for this type of roadway. Each of the four Eagle Street Concepts includes the elevated ' Shepard/Eagle intersection. The concepts differ in how they make the connection between Ryan Street and West Seventh Street. The ' four concepts are described as follows: Eaqle Street Concept One (Figure 5) ., � The connection between Shepard and Eagle Street would be designed as described in the preceding paragraphs. From the intersection ' of Eagle and Ryan Streets, downtown access for this alternative would have to double back via Ryan Street to Chestnut Street then north to West Seventh Street or Exchange Street. Chestnut Street � would be closed south of Hill Street. The Chestnut/Exchange Street intersection would be open with access to and from Downtown available through the Exchange Street tunnel. ' � 8 , , �� r �•� 4tl j� � �� .`� ..�,y �.- ; : . . . , � —� r - — . "�.� i �,,� ,�.� '.i'� .. ► i� �� ._--•��-�, � � ;1 '� ar��.-. � , . _ •"�i ��., y .�--�� - � �: r. —�� \`� .�ti �j',y t r �� r! ' ,I � �._ .az. _ ` ' � �, ti •j J- s,an _._ �--- • � -� � .�� a �� 1 . � r . ..\.-. ,. . . � 1, . � '•� ('T'r��._'t 1 . "°� .. '� �.1 ��.r 'i� CIVIC CENTER �,,., �,t��` :-� I �� - �iI ` �� `,� � .�..�'� 'I. �� , ��-� �� -C - .. -. . . � ... _� � A e�._y_ , � C'�--� � — �� , - , � �� ' `�, 11 �t� � � � �- ��\ �� . �� '� — -- . � Ix` tl � � � _�`��:' �� • '�-�, o o � . � ... ��--� ��''�, 'L� �� -� - � � � � � �; � � �� .._--�--� . ,' .1 , � . �� 9 �� M`t, �, }, �� , ;� � � � � _� �� ' _ _. s-% `°__. °- _ �'--- � � .,6 /, ' z. E�Cn�wGE J�"�\`\�� " �, I ,.�� ,-J •� ` \O J/ 1 `f ��( � \ ` 6(E _ --• '�r ./_._�\' /'\�. . y \� ` �_\5J�• `Y% 1� "\\ . r a �-— —J t , �:�'�-r�I - _ , ', � � ' a � , , \ / . - I I°+ � �� t � ...\� \\ `;� vs.• ..\�� .s' / � - �� . r� . ,. '� �� . . \��. �� V � ..v�.- ss.�( � � i � - �� '�+ .k�- '�\� _ .` .. .a , �� . OROWAY �`�� -r_. �� - I � �``A � �:.. 9� �"�� r ,,�/ � .�'a '�o �, '� •z_ J , - :! �« • �.) \ \, _ , . •.�� `� � �•' / F� ' �/ � � �� . ,.i.,� . � _ ' �—�-- ' � �� CIVIC CENTE�1� �� _�:� � � .��ICE PARli , - � _ _ r� _Y�� _ i ` �\ \ r �f � E p�-. .i ' o.c...c ,€�+ � "�T�l ..��' PARKING AAMP � ici.e� v.. . �i: +�- � „ �� ,. . �•!f ,�.a. _ _� . , .- , � v\ � _ �. . �� I PLASTICS ��. "".w�e.� �., � C- _}� � e ` ` \\ ��\ Q, �, .J � ) • ' �• � .41 INC. � �--- . i �(. � ' � r-� '• " .z � .. , •• �� .r .� � �i '\� c ..c•ro cou..r.o.art+ �� `� `� •�� 1� �///�� /,. .. .�..i ` ` .l = .��:� �-J f � .�I.. 1'��. 11� \ � �p LIC�:,,, \� •n.:/° -- �... � . O �RARk, �` � i . ��R.� I� '1 - � // � �. .. ,� ,I • • ' � � -.� � ly� � �_ ul�. �- �� • '-.� L,.,� i .�'il.�r^' » ' .z s � � � �� / i � - --' ' • . /, / e ) �o � � ��, _ —.- ! ^ ..cc i,.i � \��•ya\�/ . �_ . .. � i cra:° � .. . �. �:--�_ �-� _ . ''- l i �.__ . ' I • . * . , �. �� . _'` ' i' -,\ . _ . .—T-_ _ yN+ I . .2 . \I \ )l ��__�_` ' _ • R . . _ . -.. . ._. / �z��—.._.��=•—� —�--T=t—•. . r�', I i z � � . / � - ��.� � � . � . . ' � ' I u.z �� _ /.. �' � "��_��__ _ __ _-_�. . ._:'�J;T��v"� .�-__� - _ �. �• . . ...��y h � '. I n�rl;� �.,�. �� ^ ��- ��__ i'� �� ^C� - . � WESI �Y�.� ��_.�_� i�� . _ \ , � � -� .--�-' � ____.-'� •. � -------- - - .. �� .�2-�I � �-� �� .�� .�2.6 snECan� � _. . • � _ •. ].� �� -� �.l\/ _. _ � .i-/� . f,• . ' / \ ' -,, _..- iss�. " � +ISSISSIw1 EAGLE STREET ALTERNATE 1 , .. ' --- - _ � �_-- ---_ , � -_ _ - > _ � � � � _._ —" "-_ d.f f.. . • � __ _._'"_ .. ._ ' _ � _�—'�_ -..� �_.�.� .�.i �� , ' . , �• �� . . . ... . .. � __`� . •�.�I � '__ r- �YnO ` •��_,1 '` � _ - �� SHEPARD/WApNER/EC80 BYPASS Ci �L� ��-1" PROJECT MkNAGEMENT TEAM � r,��i J �� •ST.PAU� DEPARTMENT OF PUB�IC WORKS ��,-t-E(�prT�VE � •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING � AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � •STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. GC�N GC��T ' � , Construction costs for this concept would be approximately $7.5 � million. This estimate does include reconstruction of the access to the Civic Center parking ramp. Minimal new right-of-way would be required because existing right-of-way would be used. The only new right-of-way required would be for curves and some , intersection improvements. The circuity of the new downtown access would be very undesirable from a transportation and safety standpoint. It would not provide a clearly identifiable "gateway" ' into dow�►town. Eaqle Street Concept Two (Figure 6) ' Because Concept One was found to be too circuitous and confusing, Concept Two was developed to consider the possibility of ' providing a straighter, more direct route. This concept is the same as Concept One in how Shepard Road connects to Eagle Street. From the intersection of Eagle and Ryan Streets, Eagle Street � would be extended northward to Exchange Street. Downtown access would be either east along Exchange Street through the tunnel or back over to Chestnut Street and up to West Seventh Street. The construction costs for this concept would be approximately � $7.6 million. New right-of-way acquisition would be required to make the connection of Eagle Street to Exchange Street. This ' cost does not include reconstruction of the access to the Civic Center parking ramp. It also does not account for uncertainties in the amount of damages that would be sought by West Publishing due to right-of-way acquisition. ' The intersection at Eagle and Exchange Streets was evaluated as either a four legged intersection or with the north Eagle Street ' one-way leg (southbound) removed. Both configurations were found to be totally unacceptable from a safety standpoint. Placing an intersection on Exchange at the end of the tunnel would be unsafe , due to the sharp curve and steep grade in the tunnel which create problems with visibility. Eaqle Btreet Concept Three (Figure 7) , Because Concept Two was found to be unacceptable due to the , proximity of the intersection to the tunnel, Concept Three was developed to pull Eagle Street away from the tunnel and allow a safer intersection. Concept Three is the same as Concept One in how Shepard Road connects to Eagle Street. From the intersection , of Eagle and Ryan Streets, Eagle Street would be realigned with a diagonal roadway over to existing Chestnut Street. A "T" intersection at Exchange Street would allow downtown access via � the Exchange Street tunnel or along the existing Chestnut Street alignment up to West Seventh Street. Exchange Street would not connect to Chestnut Street from the West. � �o � ' . .'}��y •.e . .� ' _ . . . . . � ' ' 1 r 1 �'•. � �� '�4, � � ��F�e,o �\ . \ � � `�"� .r� � ' A��v!�, d �] •. -� �. Q l� 4, � �I��.�.�,_� ,�'�` _ `�� 1 � -� •; �.} 1 - �y - _�j T� 1' � � �,�-_ � , 7' �� y' a � ` ( a., e �'', � ./ �� L-�� " S � � r ._' � , _ -r- �.--�� — .. J �;1 .,9.•� CIVIC CENTEF •�'� �"��;l � � � -� � � � �� • � �--�'_'a; � � �` a.� �"� � � '',1� ,... ��` ' , . . �f ` ^ . i . � - � �. � � 1 �� ._, �� r �� : � � � -, .. � � � ° � �� f'1 . � . . 1 � ',. . � _--.- �I 1 �. - �� _ . J , t , f:1 -�_�" _ i ��1` ,,�, '�L�` � // ' , �.�\ y ,�' o ` � o ° � �4 �� ,��`\ �.i �. � � _ . . � I . .. . .-T� 1,. 1� . w. .� �'�� t � � )�� \ / a �'i 1� '1 u \ \� — • . �t �I=� I - -- -� , \: ` :-�.• . .e � � � ;� -j.��.��_ �� s �\\ �-� \• ♦� �,' �� ' �=�9 . ��--, . - - _ � `� v,s• � . .� s�( � � . �� ' T �_.�� Pc\ ..�� i - �.�� _ r�� ' � � � - , r „ _ \ \ � ,,.. .'�� g_ `.,>� �� .�t.� r C 1p � `� �'�\v �� ' .a .\, . ,,, ` J I .� � . .. �I, '� I� d-�\ ' �� '. ORDWAY _j l'I s�� • �k _ vJ�.. il..,. �I _ /� \ . . .,�� '1� • . .. �./'�''� \a�� / �+ � � � r- � {� � � '.�� . � ✓ '*,. � �,• � ✓ . � ��. - :. ( i� _�o �- ' � CIVtC C£NTE\• \ � ,��r�� n �._ � , � �t/ � v fi Y ' ��-- � � - .. . - �` � \ \r. .,. . � ,�••. ~ 1' r� � c� ''' .�• �-�� PARKINCa RAMP i � � . � .._ .�.. ��'`�. " � �ar e.n•�e� � � ��A � / � �, . �'; ��.:. - ' �pa�.. 6,_ . pV,STICS ��_ , �, ,� \ � � � �T ..Y . ��'..� 1� \ v� '</ `.� Q',, �) °';° � � . � �, ING �.\.° "� c o o.oui "� � - . e..z_, ._1' 1. _`-�. /, �i� ,�� ." -Z � � '�I i II ��`�� _ \-�y�� ;�\\C P UC L18RAR� , ��' ,. ^ •N. � �� !4 _" - � 1 -, _� i f '� � , ��v �l / •, .. . S � ^ . �' a R� � � � Y � —�KC, y��L�'� \ � I � _ � • � ��o. ➢ �`ii. . - �! --_ � aua+ r'- � �\�/ � =.. �y.-. - � .ra»s --1 � • �'v.��y lJ.s� . �.�f � ..s� - �� °w�°ii..o..o c. �..cE . . �� 40�. _ ___ _ ��' e• i�'r � e� c::oEC�"iiusiciu.�•� ` Z� _ , i ._-�_ ' �; _ _ . ' � .. .. . . � . .+-_._ _-._ .'_,�- - ' �7 . _ _ ' • __ '_ • L' ( � '�. , _ �-• o __- . _ -'-'�_3 '-_ -r- _"_-__ .'A 1 z � ' . . / ' _ -- -'_- . - -«-= �`�-~� ';�� . � '__.� . .. ..� / . , e , •. < .. _�--- . - - ._-.. o- � . � ' ..__� �- . ., . . . � .. � ��—� � -�• e •�. — 'r- � i�.z ==�' -�- -� ..�e _ � ,�_�_ - . - ... . , (-'_ ` '`��T� �-��''�" '� ��i�— -- ' �� • _ , ��—`�'�"��='_ '�,�1�� '� �Cc � �� ,. � : �''X--4'r--�__ -- _ -_ j i �-�f-°"(�'-~-^- ��.��k'�yr.��, --. • i�.i I-' `n�Wr[Mw[ — -- • iz.c . .. I - � -____ . � �, � _ _�_ .., _ - _ _ .. . _�: _ . _ _ __ _ ,. � �___ . x :�z�. .... _ :a y� . . ,. _ . _ ,. . _. _ i �- - - — � .,_„__,�, � EAGLE STREET ALTERNATE 2 r .,�. i ___ - _ _ _ _� _— �f f" •_ -'__.- _._ 1 a _ —� �__�-- .-_-- �6p • � --__. . . -. ". 1� ' �� .�.f - � . . _��. . .i.> a A.- . , . _ .- � � r�1 - � . _ •�.i S -... ... • `` � �al(� � � IYiO •.i i _ . . .. . / . ' ._ � _' � `�'", . 1 •'•' ' f.!' �f'� ... "` . � �`" . . . �� .'�. . � . . 1 ,_ �.��ia� 1 ,.f ._ 1 • �.. . . �\ . _. .�� ' SHEPARD/WAFiNER/ECB� BYPASS `• � r ,�- L E STREG 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM ��G U 2� •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PUBIIC WORKS ��TL'Y) � �^�"��E •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING � L�� ' ANOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT •STRGAR-qOSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. CO N GE�� '� ' X �,r �- r -� . �t� .,� ,Y .. . ,� . . , �-�,.i� .��, �< < `Y � t�-,� w -:'� � - � � "� .,, •��i �, .- -�►- �,. --,�� `, ��:,��. �, t � � �'� i-. ; � �da � • `� �� ... -- ;�` . \-j+ `�� y � � . e.' ,ry� �— �� •�. �— �� . � y-- � —.—- � �� ,/.1.• :,. ``�� ,�'_— r� . . I .. J '11 �,, . •� CIVIC CENTER \1 i' �� ,�I��; _ \1�-_�c"` • �` �'�� , ,••� �" ` `� t��' r. �-�. �'` ' ��, � ,,��6G�_�� r � . . ' \� .<�� ._ ee��, :a . , . �� `,� �� i ,� � a.6 , � , �� . , ��,` � � � ; '�, _�-� , , - � ,, ' �'6: .:.:�� "_o 'o �e ._-f.�— � � ��, �,� �� ,.-" , '� � '�/ �� , � � �. _ � _ , �� ; ' � � '��` �� . .._ �. � N � .. � 1 \, _ � � _ - , . �,l �, /t • ^'�, . ` �\. .=� \�\� ��.\ , . . . ., �\ , • , � . .' � , ,-�y j �_`-°�'�\?•6- .�• �• • ..._�\ \\\' -�", .\� . / �� ' � _l_ 9 � s�.�c_�_ �; � �� p -' \�?`' \\�� -- � - 1�, ,� ; ��'�--- � J „ . �� ,,.. � �� . �� ,� . „ - �' ��— _� �� p ,� .� �::� p =�� . . � �` i�' 1 � .' � :::•.�� .9�A �2� . . onow�r � � a; , '�'.1 _..�_ �— � � �. \�. �� `'� � " A � !i � �� r � ,y �� 1 � J �, . ` .,,� ` � „ �*/ / �!' . � � s � 1 � �� .� :i� , � �' ' ti, J•r .. .^ ' � � �s �� `•.z - � � � � �� CIVIC CENTE�•�� \ � � � ._�:. � ' �,�..�.,�• •` "- I - �_-- " .c. _ .� �. r �. r>' ,' . . .o„ -:�- � � � . .c�.. � . . \. � 1 ,�. .e s o.tw� J „�'� f' .._. � � �PARKiNG RAMP � ez. � � \'�•� , �^ �• /.--�,� $ � ttosc�xn..cc i .� .t��, � H�P� .� STICS a.r«ioaee� � � � �� _ -�. 'PI.A �.y, '' -� ,��3 . - � -- �' ..��.�\ `... C .� �- - � ) °;� ! � .� :-y " INC. i ��. ,:'� .cr ro co .owuE� -'� ` ' t -ti� ..z ,� y �� w.r � f � , �I ) } �_�'" -� � f, „ I � ,'� z�.\, "��. \�' p J � �� ,e� _ir•_, �'� �� .� - - � �� UC RIBRAH� ;'o i A L° .r.� 4 � _ _�— _- �v � ti r. C �.� � � s��co ��' -- � \\\� -,// �� '( ' � �.�'' ' — cw�+ � '� 1' � \% �` ' '��. , • . �:1. .l"�,:► "� .z.e� � � � o o�: —_-1 � / / --.- � " L � �11 ,�� » - _�� .� � . ,_ c. �;� ' �+�.- svc_ . �.�. - �� .��j °j� � : �_,� -�- � io � -, �- sic"i�o:"�' ��`� '.� .i_ �—_— — _ •_...�,. -;: _ �' r � � �—._.-' . '. - __� �13 1• s '. _ i `..__ ._� .��__ ..�,-z ��.. � �_�. 'F '- . -- - `-'=^--P-�---- % T\ a -- -- --- � - — ---�� ------_.____ - ��-r ar-�_. � . - _ . , - _.'. �-"_�_� � \ � �. � _.__ `• � ( , . "'--_� ---.�'_ - . . �_. � . _. J"�� u.z -_ -_' . ' Z_ I �c� __�'�- � -— .. _�. ' ' � `i��.'�?!�,�M � �..`��i— _. -� •n --_ �' . � � .--Ti�'�� . ^, ��;r 1 i'�� or�� - , -.;_- '.`- CVG� 'c - ' : � � _ s__9__—� _ _T , , - -- - �..=r�.--_ - _ . _ � . ��_._ .r .-.�- . .� � _'.'�__' ' ' s,c,.�.�. �� -- ' - • • ,.- •. � . iz.c -. i._a+"*�-� .♦ . � ...� . - ..-- MOYlNAOf _.___ i_"'_ __"_' .e .' - ��' ' . . - - " ...._.. .�.s , rtz -� ��-..- _._ . ' �� ...-- . � - - t � ._s►��"', I,:o�. sr r�.. .��.� � .. . . . , tir---`�_.._-. , e.� - �� . i� �_�_. _ � ' . � .• wISSISSIAI , EAGLE STREET ALTERNATE 3 � .,R. —_ _. — — —_� , -- _ _ _� � � _ . ` °� -�-d.f ..�--. _. ' .�__� �.t . . � . � - __T �ON , ' . . . ...�� ' ��-.- -- �.� .�.f .. . .� . � � a a " ` � • '.f ' ' � •- �� .� .• .�i , " ....,�, , � �Y.� � . ,� ... ..., _ _. ��,t_ SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BYPASS A ' PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM �R�� ST�Er �;��, R� •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ��„`��N�TIV� •ST.PAUI DEPARTMENT Of PLANNING � , AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � i •STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. CONGEP� , , Construction costs for this concept would be approximately $7.8 ' million. This estimate does not include costs for reconstruction of the access to the Civic Center parking ramp. It also does not ' account for uncertainties in the amount of damages that would be � sought by West Publishing due to right-of-way acquisition. A significant amount of new right-of-way would be required to ' make the diagonal connection from Eagl.e Street to Chestnut Street. The new roadway would bisect a parcel of land owned by West Publishing, which would likely require a total take of the parcel with only marginal potential for re-use. The decreased , value of the property would make it difficult to recover the cost. While this concept provides a safer intersection at Exchange , Street, in doing so it requires that no through traffic be allowed on Exchange Street. If traffic on Exchange Street from the West Seventh neighborhood is no ionger accommodated, then a ' minimum of 1, 000 vehicles per day will divert over to West Seventh Street. This would place further pressure on an already congested roadway and further deteriorate West Seventh Street as , a major link from downtown to the �West Seventh neighborhood. Eaqle street Concept Four (Figure 8) ' � Because Concept Three created significant problems from a land use° standpoint, Concept Four was developed to•minimize impacts to ' West Publishing's property. Concept Four is the same as Concept One in how Shepard Road connects to. Eagle Street. From the intersection of Eagle and Ryan Streets, Eagle Street would be extended towards Exchange Street, but would curve away on a � diagonal toward existing Chestnut Street rather than intersecting with Exchange Street. Downtown access would follow this alignment back to existing Chestnut and up to West Seventh , Street. There would be no connection between Eagle Street and Exchange Street. West Seventh Street would have to be significantly widened to accommodate additional traffic generated , by the closing of Exchange Street. Construction costs for this concept would be approximately $7.8 million. This estimate does not include costs for reconstruction , of the access to the Civic Center parking ramp. It also does not account for reconstruction of West Seventh Street or for the uncertainties in the amount of damages and relocation that would ' be sought due to right-of-way acquisition. A significant amount of new right-of-way would be required to make the diagonal connection from Eagle Street to Chestnut ' Street. The new roadway would bisect a parcel of land with existing businesses located on it which would have to be relocated. � , 13 .:., x, �. 4 ,.w .. � .� y . . • � . .* .�- �- - .�� .� ;� I ^ _.� .. , ��/y!- ., : .x` �'�,=''f � � »� . � . Lr�vi�rs► , .1 `' _ ` y�� y• _ . - ` �� :'•''�� 1 \ \ \��-� 1��' � �_ '�--_ f _ �—�� -S ��1'� .-�y i'1 `�- �ie�t�`r-_ �_'�_� I ` �-- ' �� .� �� , ./ , ' �,i'v-"^ �' ' -•,. �i� . - �.��l�' I� ----. --. �•-J � 1 ,i CIVIC CENTER I. � �� -'---.�. f —� � / � , �r_. 1 r,, r � _ `� :�� . .—._." ,� I . � �,� r II ,,M-I' ' ' ��_ • .`�' ��, � i �i ��_ ,•.. � .p . � ��`I• ... �� --�- . . .I I , . ..r �I.i �b� _y�. Y 1� I� ��. /�/ � _� .� � 1 - � , �- _ - I.�� : . �__ -� /_--_ '�� _J . a• �\�; ,�--� ' �,., ' �� ,. , � ` �� ,� � � j ° , � � �.,��-� � � �,;� ` +. '� �a � � -'`=-, � ``\,1, '! . ... _�- '\ � r . . ' �.o.. � s ; _ � `�`� k� '\\ '�___ -- ' . � / \ A. . � . �: I '� 1 L . o_ �• ..� q . .°iu� , t'� • ' � 1 • s. \ `0 "�`- --' ) I -- �i '.�J ,�� °�" '� \•' \ .� �\v s• \�w � � o — �� 9 .- �` - _ _ _ � ' ' _ \ \ , 'P�,�� \ , � , ' -- . ,o ` � , + ---- .c•w , .�. �' _ b , . , \\ �� ,�.. .'�� . ...Y, _'�. , ,> -` ,'�I_.--.�I �.� r d 1c. v I, : I '.��;� \1 p '�a �\' :.: � oa�w�r . , � � � � - � , '. , �: , - �:-„\ ` 9 � . .• \ , l� r .i_:� � I ,1 1 � � �� ''�./ � - �, °"� '��. �,, �, : � . � ,j� �:� :, \�(�� . . � t` � � �� . CIVIC CENTEII • .��. t� � �� --=- �� `� � � � �ci.e r � � i'., ,�i . � ` • i+[�� • _ ' - ..r.� �' �"�^'�.�-'� ��ARKWG RAMP. , � �. . orE++E rF-� Q 9\ � � . � �.. � ��_ . no�e�M��..ce r ,1 \ f��. �g�,�-^--- .��... �/l � . s ''r..z. E p� 6 e , PLASTICS ` , ` '` '� \ art� \� ��, .w `�� '^,� L� - \ _� ..� . . '. _. � � j�.�.��\ V� ..,`� � 'Y� ^ ;��-`" J ".' ,1! ,.z � �� ; ��` INC. i �Y.�i' , � oj.oca++�.\• /� , '// � .' �. � ' �, � '. _J -Z. ' '� ;,� rl (` �� .�� .�\,. `\ P� \ -� / LIC L18RAR F3.• �f � � _ \ �\ � \ t��.' �' _ .N.� r '.� i � �' �. � � ..�,y � � t ,,,, ��- '�s�rtV �� - - �� .A � � � ti _ _ � „ . .. �' � �� . , . �� .. ' �n. . • �� ' � �� w � ,� -' � • . � y 4 _' [. � .,. `" �.�..� �_'�- r -. � �'� - � i w - �� (I' ! � ��'40� y ��. ��h ��1.6.�.-� ' . .. , ' _ ] e �' � _ .--�-�,--�T_� _- - _ _ : -�-_ �� _ H � . .o� _- - . . - ,'�. . __ ' - -_ _ — -- --- _ _ . . q . n _ - 3 � ----_� - . - _��„ . --- � ��-�---�-.. _ • - - -- - , _ -- _-�— ; ,: _ � � ' _ _ - _ _ T. — -- - -__ , ; . , , � _ - �-_ _ . o _ _ ._ _ . . , --__ _ _ -�_ _ _ _ _ , �_ _ _ - _-- - —-_-- : ° . e__ ,..: _._ —--_. . - _ . . , _ _ --- - - _ �'�� ' �?�� " \' ' - � ° n r—_- , �� . • : �: � �_� - -- . � � / �/ '� -_ _:.__ — __� --�---._. _ : : . �zs . _ . _ .�t_ -- • �.. . ..� � .�.�.� �T- -�_�• _ - ' .., �:,:��;� • ' � , � � _�--'- '.a ,.� �---- � �Lz�.. .��.. ,, , �..��.". . f.• e,.. -. - � . __ _ .._ . � . ' � - I . � •issisvm � EAGLE STREET ALTERNATE 4 , .�R. ' — --�-_— — --- - —--_ , o � ° , _, . �- " - - .,a.e _.. - .. _ . �.��. _� - .z c ---. .. �. - _.�.� .� '°'° ' .. _ -. � .. -�.-- . �� . . -�-- �. . . . , ..- =� ,�� , +�"� .owi�� " isoo � . ci �� ` ..; :. . � � �1 � � �� SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BVPASS C� L� STK�T � PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM n •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PUBIIC WnRKS ��."��P�rI V E r��'�"'� •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CoNc�Pr 9' � ' •STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. , � Eliminating the Exchange Street tunnel and the connection of ' Exchange to Chestnut Street would result in a shift of the Exchange Street traffic, which is currently over 7, 000 ADT, over to West Seventh Street. Because West Seventh is already � experiencing traffic congestion and is expected to be at capacity in the Year 2010, this additional traffic would completely break down West Seventh Street from Grand to Kellogg. This condition , would be unacceptable and would require complete reconstruction and major widening of West Seventh Street in this area. This would be very difficult and costly due to the existence of several established businesses on West Seventh which would have ' to be relocated to allow the widening. , Conclusions Reqardinq the Eaqle Street Concepts Noise , While noise levels from Chestnut Street would be lowered by shifting the roadway away from the existing alignment, noise levels from Shepard Road would be increased by elevating the ' mainline roadway. Therefore, there would not be a net decrease in noise for any of the Eagle Street Concepts. � Traffic/Transportation , While the elevated at-grade° intersection proposed as a part of ° ' the Eagle Street concepts would not be as safe as a grade separation, it would remove railroad conflicts from the intersection. This would be a significant improvement over the at-grade intersection considered in the Draft EIS (Alternative ' B-1b) due to elimination of delays and safety concerns associated with the at-grade railroad crossing. 1 An important feature of the transportation network in the Chestnut/Eagle area is that both Exchange Street and West Seventh Street area able to function as a pair to off-load the traffic on , Chestnut Street. Neither roadway could accommodate the traffic demands alone. Therefore, the Eagle Street Concepts (#3 and #4) which reduce or eliminate the function of Exchange Street are unacceptable from a transportation system standpoint. � Chestnut Street currently serves as an important gateway into downtown St. Paul and the West Seventh business area. The Eagle ' Street concepts which create a more circuitous route between Shepard Road and West Seventh Street would reduce the efficiency of this route. , ' ' 15 r � Urban Design/Land Use � All of the Eagle Street Concepts require that Shepard Road be elevated from a point west of Walnut Street to a point east of Eagle Street. Elevating the mainline roadway of Shepard Road on � fill would be much more obtrusive than the grade separated alternative (B-2) considered in the Draft EIS because much more mass would be raised above existing ground levels. In addition, ' the raised portion of the roadway would be much longer than with the B-2 grade separation. The roadway cross section would also be wider to include the side slopes along the roadway. Riverfront development objectives would not be met with this type ' of design and it would be very awkward and costly to blend in Riverfront development adjacent to this raised roadway. Eagle Street would also be elevated for all of the Eagle Street ' Concepts. In order to stay over the railroad tracks and over Hill Street, Eagle Street would be on a bridge from Shepard Road up to Ryan Avenue, where Eagle could match back into existing � topography. Unlike Chestnut Street, which is tucked in close to the Irvine bluff, Eagle Street lies in the middle of a low, open "bowl". Elevated Eagle Street would stick up and be much more � obtrusive than Chestnut Street. Adjacent development parcels would be impacted by the elevation difference, finding it difficult to blend in to the elevated roadway. ' In summary, none of the Eagle Street Concepts considered through this process would resolve the visual and noise concerns raised by the Chestnut Street alignment without significant cost and , additional adverse impacts on existing and future land use. Therefore, none of these concepts are considered reasonable or feasible alternatives. ' C. ELEVATED RAILROAD ALTERNATIVE In searching for other options to provide a rade se aration w' � g P ith the railroad without grade separating the roadway intersection of Shepard and Chestnut, the possibility of elevating the railroad ' tracks over Chestnut Street was considered. In order to accomplish this, the two mainline railroad tracks would be raised on a 1 percent grade starting at about the High Bridge to an � elevation approximately 21 feet above the Chestnut Street grade to provide grade separation for traffic on Chestnut. The tracks would then start downward on a 1 percent grade to the existing elevation east of Wabasha. The elevated railroad structure would � be approximately 4, 000 feet in length. Most of this would be on fill with retaining walls. In the area between Chestnut Street and Eagle Street, the railroad would be a trestle structure, ' possible with a stone arch facade. ' 16 , � � The construction costs for this alternative were estimated to � range from $13 to $16 million above and beyond the roadway costs. The cost would depend on the type of structure used. The City would be responsible for ownership and maintenance of the raised � rail structure which would be extremely costly and a long term liability. Very little right-of-way would be required for this alternative because the alignment would remain within existing right-of-way. , Traffic Transportation rDuring construction only one track could remain operational. This disruption would last for approximately one year and would ' be costly to rail operations. After construction two tracks must be open west of Wabasha, one for rail operations up the hill and one along the base of the bluff behind NSP. 1 While the at-grade roadway intersection would not be as safe as the grade separated intersection considered in the Draft EIS, the train traffic would be separated from vehicular traffic which � would be a significant improvement over the at-grade intersection considered in the Draft EIS. � Noise . Noise impacts from the elevated train traffic wo�ild be more ' intermittent than from highway traffic, but at a higher level of annoyance, much like airport noise. ' Urban Design/Land Use Because the railroad can not be raised on a grade steeper than ' 1 percent, the raised structure would be very long and obtrusive. Because of the height of the railroad tracks, trains would be visible from residences on the top of the bluff. The proposed , Riverfront development site west of Chestnut would also be visually impacted by the elevated structure. In addition, that housing development site would be inaccessible during floods because Chestnut Street would not be elevated. � ' , ' � 1� � � Lower Grade of Chestnut/Shepard Intersection ' In an effort to reduce the height of the railroad structure and minimize the visual and noise impact associated with this concept, consideration was given to lowering the grade of the � Chestnut/Shepard intersection. Because the intersection lies within the floodplain of the Mississippi River, a hydraulic analysis was required to determine flood frequency for the ' various alternatives. Based on that analysis, the roadway could not be any lower than existing grades within significant risk of frequent flooding. This design could not be justified on the basis of any of the benefits that would be achieved. In � addition, if the intersection elevation were lowered, the grade of Chestnut Street would become steeper than it already is, which would be undesirable. For these reasons, lowering the grade of , the intersection is not considered feasible. Conclusion ' Based on the significant additional costs associated with this concept and the visual obtrusion and noise impacts, the elevated ' railroad concept is not considered a reasonable alternative. ' ' ' ' ' � , ' , 18 ' ��_. ,� 9��' - �9�'� 1 1 _ APPENDIX B-2 ICHRONOLOGY OF CORRESPONDENCE AND MEETINGS BETWEEN CITY OF ST. PAUL AND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER ' REGARDING SECTION 106 REVIEW JUNE 20, 1988 Letter from Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) ' to�Leon Pearson, Department of Public Works, commenting on Draft EIS (Attachment 1). � JUNE 22, 1988 Meeting between City staff and SHPO to clarify statements and findings presented in June 20 letter. AUGUST 5, 1988 Letter from Peggy Reichert, Deputy Director, Department of ' Planning and Economic Development, to SHPO requesting � concurrence with finding of no adverse effect under Section 106 and no 4(f) impact (Attachment 2). , SEPTEMBER 22, 1988 Meeting between City staff and SHPO regarding August 5 letter. 1 OCTOBER 5, 1988 Meeting between City staff, SHPO, Federal Highway Administration and Minnesota Department of Transportation . regarding SHPO response to August 5 letter, Section 106 , process and alternative mitigation options. OCTOBER 11, 1988 Letter from SHPO responding to August 5 letter and presenting ' Section 106 findings of potential adverse effects. OCTOBER 12, 1988 Working session between City staff and SHPO to discuss Segment B and results of further analysis of Chestnut/Eagle � alternatives. OCTOBER 20, 1988 Meeting between City staff, SHPO and representative from � � Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding Section 106 review. , I 1 1 1 1 , � , . ' A � 1 , � ATT CHMENT i _ MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY . � Fc)l'�l�(f� tti Itta�i I �i( �t:, ,ii:'l �i�� . , --. . . , -�--, � _ �h 11-1 1 ' June 20, 1988 R�C��;:`�:C� � , , Mr. Leon Pearson JUP� 2U i�� St. Paul L�partrnent of Public Works � � 8th Floor Clt� Hdll AN1eX P��:: �_+_'a� ' +. _ . 25 t•7est eourth Street ` St. Paul, �;innesota 55101 � Dear Mr. Pearson: Re: Sh�ard/t�larner Road (P.arrsey CS�1�1F3 37/3E? from �,andol� �'�t-enuc , to East CBD Eypass and East C�D Eyp�� fran t•�arner Roa� tc I-35E; St. Paul, Ramsey Cour.ty S.P. 164-020-57 r�5018 ( ) t•��hS Referral File Numt,er: 1�A-832 � Th�nk vou for the o rtuni to ca�ur�nt on the Draft Er�,�� cr � n ' . P� tY i r � t a� I.�act S�ateren� for the She�ard/t�iarner/East C3D F.�.�Fzss project ir Sair�t Paul. 7* , �a7 �x-en revieweci pursuant to responsibilit�es �i'iE-?'i t�e �a�e ::�:storic Pr��;e:1•�tion Office by the I�;ational Historic Pr�ervatio^ ��c- of 196E according to 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of :?isteric �roier-.:�s, ��-:E � reculations of the Ac�visory Council on Historic Freservation aovec�ing the Sect ior: 105 reaiew proc�s. r ^,:is i:: a ^�jc: construction project wit;-, potential for corsi:�r�:��E EffE-.C�� ' on tl�:e city. 'I9-,e �'IS identifies several historic proper�i� that mav be af`ectec by ti��E c;roj�ct. � � '?'?-:e s�;-r*�ent oi t�,e project that has the great�t �.oter,ti�� tc �_`. fect histo_ic _�ro�rtie� �� in the vicinity of the Chestnut Street �nrect=cn. "_'his coti.ectior. i.. planneci as one oi the two n�jor truck rout� ir,�o c�.�nta�n �ir�t ' :'�::�:. Pc�ssible demolition of the Harvest S�ates grain terrr,inal �n�, ��onstruc�icr, of G�,c�tn�t Street, which r�ay affect the ?rvine r�:rk F:istoric D15tI1Ct, ctP of r�ajor conoE.�rn. AltE'Lric�1VE5 ��'}11C:1 dVO1G� Cr :'llfiii�;l^_� dG�VE`?"S� � effects on tii�e properties are preferred. �'i�e i,�sue �-�r•_a_�: �� :»� �-t=:"t.1Cl!Ic:l}' CO�ili�IlCt�tC'CJ 1Nlt�l rc-�yard to t1'?E CEU011S�`.LLC�1G.'i vI l,:iE�`.iiL� .��.�I"EE=t� w,�:ch runs alatx the ed� of tl-,e historic di�trict, and t:�e c�si,,^-: of tl��r : � ir,�ersec'�ion »�it}� SheE.�rd F.oad. A graae separated intersectior. ha� the � � �x,tenti ai to aiter tne physical setting of ti�e district, while al l o� thc c�nstruction a1�Err�tives will resuit in �iynificant increas�. i;� traf£ic, esxci�ll�� tc�c�s, alorx, Chestnut. Po�siblF adverse effects inclu« darra�e tc.; ' old buildinc;s thro��gh vibration fram the cor.struction itself, al-�c: �:il�ration, � noise, and �iissions from the incrcased traffic using Ch��n�� t_�ct. � - ' - • ' ' - � � � June 20, 1988 � Mr. Leon Pearson I�]S Referral File NuQnt�,er: AA-832 ' Clearly the Final �rvirormental Ir�act SteteT�ent should adc�ress the potential adverse effects on the affected historic properties. Hawever,, we also think ' it appropriate for the FEIS to review altematives that move the connection away fran Ch estnut, which could go a long way tc�rard eliminatina adverse effects on the District. Although th�e alternatives are r�ntioned in Table t II-1, only the most s�ry reason is given for their elimination froir. oonsicieration. For purposes of federal acency review unier 36CFR800.5(e) , such alternatives need to be included, or better justif icat ion for thei r , elimination provided. Discussion of mitication measures should follow selection of the final alternative. Discussion of the effects of the project alternatives on the Chicago Great ' t,�estern Railroad Lift Bridoe appears to be adecru�te. Finally, we think it appropriate that a provi�ion for treatsr�nt of historic i properties discovered during oonstruction t� included in �he L�rcject. 1� n�ant�r of historic pror�erties in or near t:�e project alternativF ri�;:�t=-cf-wG: have ��;x�rently t,ecn obliterated by sub��:�:�t develoF�er.� ar� cwr.��;cticr„ ' but ra•�; survive a: archaeolooical sites. �-.: shore:ine set�ir� of tt�e projec� also suggests tt-�at unreported prehistoric urchaeolocical sites r�ay i�e preser,�. Given t,nat nbst of the work: will be done i:� areas alreadyy sicnificantly , affected b}• recent developrrent, the chance� =!-,at the proj�ct wil� affect suc;� pro�rties i: slim, and in our opinion exter.�lve prcconstructicn archaeologic�l sur�c�� work is not warrantec�. If you have questions regarding this rr�tter, piease contact Teo Lofst:o� at ' the accress and telephone n�.�ber on the le�terhead. Since rely, � � � � � / � � �E'RI'll� F�. C 1 t'T?1C' �aC ' DEputy Sta�F- Eii�toric Pr�ec��a�icn Office: . • D�I�G:ct�� cc: Saint Paul Heritace Preservation Ca-�r.i��icn � 2� �•;est FoL:rth �trc�et, St. Paul, �.,�n;._�-�� S:1C� t�":r. Stan '�raczyF:, recier�l F.ic�hwa�, �-.:'t _.._��ratic:. . �90 !�ietro ;,�;�:�:r� r�,:ilcinc, �event:� a ��::s_=:� S�rec' , St. ?�u� , !�ir:n��::� ��101 V -� � i:s. nurfx:r�: "cCc�--�:ck � �� lI'� .,;�= i'c.tlK� ��. :c�.l,:_ � ��_.!fIE��_�. �'_ __ ' ' . ATTACHMENT 2 ��`�,T* o•+, CITY OF SAINT PAUL ! � �� ; DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � u� t1 ^ DIVISION OF PLANtiIVG � 25 West FourtF�Streef,Saint Paul,Minnesot�55102 � �•.• 612-22&3270 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR � August 5, 1988 ' � Nina Archabal 1 State Historic Preservation Officer Minnesota Historical Society Fort Snelling History Center 1 St. Paul, MN 55111 Dear Ms. Archabal: ' The purpose of this letter is to present, explain and request concurrence with the City of St. Paul's findings on the potential effects of the Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass project on historic properties. First, we will ' address Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Second, we will address Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended. 1 SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966. AS AMENDED Based on extensive research and analysis, the staff of the City of St. Paul , has concluded that the Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass project will have no adverse effect on any property listed on or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. While we believe that there is a � possibility of finding "no effect, " the controversial nature of such a finding suggests that we recognize a potential effect but conclude that there will be "no adverse effect. " As required in 36 CFR Part 800, we are providing documentation of our finding of no adverse effect. The boldface sections are 1 from 36 CFR 800.8-800.9; the city's response is in regular typeface. , 800.8 Documentation requirements. (a) Finding of no adverse effect. The purpose of this documentation is to � provide sufficient information to explain how the Agency Official reached the finding of no adverse effect. The required documentation is as follows: (1) A description of the undertaking, including photographs, maps and ' drawings, as necessary; The proposed project includes reconstruction of Shepard/Warner Road � between Randolph Avenue and Robert Street and the construction of a new roadway, the East CBD Bypass, along the eastern edge of downtown betweer: Warner Road and I-35E north of downtown. The project is divided into 6 segments, A-F, as shown in Attachment 1. , � ' Nina Archabal � August 5, 1988 - Page 2 Segment A (Attachment 2) includes Shepard Road from Randolph Avenue to � Chestnut Street. The Draft EIS discusses three alternatives for Segment A: A-1, the existing alignment; A-2, an alignment that follows the ' existing alignment until east of the High Bridge, where it shifts to the northeast away from the river; and A-3, an alignment that follows the base of the bluff. Some Irvine Park residents have suggested a fourth , alternative, which would shift the alignment to "midway" between A-1 and A-3. Segment B (Attachment 3) includes the connection of Shepard Road with , Chestnut Street. The Draft EIS considers three intersection alternatives: B-la, an at-grade intersection at the existing location close to the river; B-lb, an at-grade intersection closer to the base of ' the bluff; and B-2, a grade-separated intersection close to the bluff. B-2 carries Chestnut Street over the railroad tracks and Shepard Road. Segment C (Attachment 4) includes Shepard Road from Chestnut Street to ' Robert Street. The Draft EIS looks at two alternative alignments: C-1, the existing alignment; and C-2, an alignment that shifts the roadway ' away from the riverfront. In addition, a third alternative, "C-2 , Modified" , which creates more space along the river, has been suggested and was reviewed by staff. Segment D (Attachment 5) consists of the connection of the East CBD � Bypass with Warner Road. Two alternatives are considered in the Draft . EIS: D-1, a grade-separated connection; and D-2, an at-grade connection. Segment E (Attachment 6) is the East CBD Bypass itself from Warner Road ' to I-35E. Two alternatives are addressed in the Draft EIS: E-1, a bypass without local street connections; and E-2, a bypass with local � connections. Segment F (Attachment 7) consists of the connection of the East CBD Bypass with I-35E. Only one alternative is considered in the Draft EIS: ' a connection at the existing Pennsylvania Avenue interchange. (2) A description of historic properties that may be affected by the , undertaking; a. Segment A The Harvest State Grain Terminal is located north of the existing � Shepard Road alignment and west of Chestnut Street. Although the city concurs with the 1983 St. Paul and Ramsey County historic ' sites survey determination that the Harvest States Grain Terminal is ineligible for local or national designation, your office believes that the property is potentially eligible for listing on � the National Register. Alternative A-1 would take the barge terminal head-house. However, A-1 has not been supported by any person or group, including city staff, and is unlikely to be the preferred alternative for Segment A. Therefore, we anticipate no ' effect on Harvest States due to road construction in Segment A. , , , . ' Nina Archabal August 5, 1988 Page 3 � It should be noted that the City of St. Paul now owns Harvest � States and is investigating redevelopment of the site, separate from the Shepard Road project. It is likely that the grain elevators will be demolished, but they will be removed as part of ' the redevelopment of the site itself, not as part of the road project. Therefore, there is no effect, adverse or othe'rwise, on the Harvest States Grain Terminal from the Shepard Road project. � b. Segment B The Anheuser-Busch Depot is located on Chestnut Street between the railroad tracks and the existing Shepard Road alignment. Both the ' at-grade and grade-separated alternatives would require removal of the building. Ho.wever, this property is not eligible for listing on the National Register. ' The Irvine Park Historic District is located west of Chestnut Street and on top of the bluff above Shepard Road. The district � is listed on the National Register. Concerns have been raised regarding potential effects of the Segment B alternatives on the historic district. , Panama Flats is located on the southwest corner of Exchange and Chestnut Streets. While concerns have been raised regarding potential effects of the Segment B alternatives on the structure, ' Panama Flats is not eligible for listing on the National Register nor is it within the road project's construction limts. c. Segment C � The Chicago Great Western Lift Bridge is located east o.f the Robert Street bridge. It has been determined eligible for listing ' on the National Register. Alternatives C-2 and C-2 Modified would require removal of the railroad approach span to the bridge. However, the National Register nomination form does not ' acknowledge the approach span as being part of the bridge. The nomination form notes that the bridge consists of 8 spans, 7 of which are stationary and one, on the north side of the river, that lifts. There is no mention of a ninth span, the approach span. ' Because the approach span is not considered the significant element of the structure, removing it would not affect the integrity of the bridge structure as an historic property. ' (3) A description of the efforts used to identify historic properties; � Two sources were used to identify historic properties: the "Historic Sites Survey of St. Paul and Ramsey County" (May 1983) , conducted as part of the Minnesota Historical Society's State Historic Preservation Office's statewide inventory of historic structures; and the "Historic � ' ' Nina Archabal ' August 5, 1988 Page 4 t Resources Survey" (February 1987) , written by the St. Paul Department of • Planning & Economic Development during preparation of the Draft EIS for the Shepard Road project. ' (4) A statement of how and why the criteria of adverse effect were found inapplicable; ' The criteria of adverse effect are addressed below. (5) The views of the State Historic Preservation Officer, affected local � governments, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and the public, if any � were provided, as well as a description of the means employed to solicit those views. ' Formal public input was solicited through a public hearing held before the St. Paul City Council on May 19, 1988. The hearing record remained ' open until June 20, 1988 for submittal of written comments. In addition, the St. Pau1 Heritage Preservation Commission held two meetings during the comment period, during which the project was discussed and its impacts on the local Irvine Park Historic District ' were debated. There was an opportunity for the public to participate in both HPC meetings. Comments from the State Historic Preservation Office, the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, an Irvine Park ' resident and the Fort Road/West 7th Federation are attached (Attachments . 8-11) . Based on the input of these parties, the two historic sites with the , most potential fox impact from the Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass pro�ect are the Irvine Park Historic District and the Chicago Great Western (CGW) Lift Bridge. The criteria of adverse effect noted below ' are reviewed for these two properties only. 800.9 Criteria of effect and adverse effect. ' (a) An undertaking has an effect on a historic property when the undertaking may alter characteristics of the property that may qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register. For the purpose of ' determining effect, alteration to features of a property's location, setting or use may be relevant depending on a property's significant characteristics and should be considered. , The roadway project may have a potential effect on the Irvine Park Historic District and the CGW Lift Bridge. The discussion below explores whether that effect is adverse or not. ' (b) An undertaking is considered to have an adverse effect when the effect on a historic property may diminish the integrity of the � property's location, design, setting, materials, worl�anship, feeling or association. Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to: ' , , ' Nina Archabal August 5, 1988 Page 5 ' (1) Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property; ' Irvine Park Historic District � Since construction for the roadway project itself does not physically intrude into the Irvine Park National Register District, it will not alter any of the significant physical features that qualify the Irvine Park Historic District for listing on the National Register. In , addition, the integrity of the historic district would not be diminished. ' Some Irvine Park residents have identified characteristics such as views from the district, the grade on Chestnut Street, the condition of the Upper Landing and the connection of the Upper Landing to the historic district as being potentially altered by the roadway project. However,. � these characteristics are outside of the physical boundaries of the district, and any impact the project may have on them is not relevant for the purposes of this review. , In conclusion, the roadway project will not physically destruct, damage or alter the Irvine Park Historic District. ' CGW Lift Bridee The lift bridge itself is the significant element qualifying this ' structure for listing on the National Register. The north side trestle approach to the bridge, which spans Shepard/Warner Road, is the only portion of the structure impacted by the roadway project (with. ' Alternatives C-2 and C-2 Modified only) . We maintain that the approach span is not a significant contributing element of the structure. The nomination form (Attachment 12) , prepared in 1981 and submitted to the Keeper of the National Register, describes the bridge as consisting of ' eight spans, the northernmost one of which lifts. The north _side approach span is not treated as part of the bridge. The roadway project will not have a physical effect on any contributing characCeristics of , the CGW Lift Bridge. In conclusion, although Alternatives C-2 and C-2 Modif.ied would require removal of the railroad approach span to the CG�i Lift .Bridge, doing so � ' would not physically destruct, damage or alter any significant or qualifying elements of the structure. � (2) Isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the property's setting when that character contributes to the property's � qualification for the National Register; ' ' ' Nina Archabal , August 5, 1988 Page 6 , Irvine Park Historic District Some Irvine Park residents are concerned that a grade-separated ' interchange will isolate the historic district from the Upper Landing, the area generally located along the river between Chestnut and Eagle Streets. Our response is that the historic district is already isolated � from the river by railroad tracks, the existing roadway and intensive industrial uses. We believe that one of the potential benefits of a grade-separated alternative is its ability to reconnect the neighborhood ' to the river by "spanning" these isolating physical characteristics. Some Irvine Park residents are also concerned that a grade-separated connection at Chestnut Street will alter the character of the historic ' district's setting. In the residents' view, the Upper Landing is important to the district's historic setting and to its historic significance. The residents claim that the setting would be altered by � altering the historic connection to the Upper Landing, which they claim to be Chestnut Street. We have two responses. First, the 1973 National Register nomination for ' the Irvine Park Historic District does not consider the Upper Landing a significant site or contributing characteristic for the district. Since is does not contribute to the district's qualification for the National ' Register, any impact the roadway project might have on the Upper Landing or Chestnut Street is not relevant for the purposes of this review. Second, extensive research by City staff has revealed that Eagle Street, ' not Chestnut Street, was the more important connection between Fort Road and the Upper Landing (Attachment 13) . A picture in the Minnesota Historical Society files shows an 1860s view looking down Eagle Street , toward the river, with two commercial buildings facing Eagle and a steamboat docked at the foot of the street. Additional evidence shows Eagle Street to have been wider than Chestnut Street and shows lots ' facing Eagle Street only. Eagle Street provided the most direct connection to the Seven Corners area, suggesting that it was planned as the primary route to the Upper Levee. Finally, fire insurance maps reveal earlier and more extensive development of Eagle Street. ' In conclusion, the character of the Irvine Park Historic District's setting would not be altered by the proposed project, nor would the , district be isolated from its setting by the project. CGW Lift Bridgg � The bridge's lift span is the only characteristic of the bridge that contributes to its qualification for the National Register. Taking the north side trestle approach to the CGW Lift Bridge would not adversely � affect or alter the lift span and would not isolate the bridge from its setting (i.e. the river) , since the bridge itself would still cross the entire river. , ' � ' Nina Archabal August 5, 1988 Page 7 � (3) Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or alter its setting; , Irvine Park Historic District , Visual: Views from the historic district were not listed as qualifying cliaracteristics in the National Register nomination for Irvine Park. Therefore, any impact on them is not relevant for the purposes of this review. , This fact aside, some Irvine Park residents are concerned that views from the historic district will be disrupted by the roadway and noise ' barriers. It is our contention that the views from up blic spaces in the district would not be adversely affected by the roadway. Noise barriers for both. the at-grade or grade-separated alternatives would obstruct some views from private property in the district. However, it is ' important to note that noise walls will not be installed if they are opposed by adjacent residents. � In conclusion, there are no visual elements being introduced that are out of character with or that alter the setting of the Irvine Park Historic District. � Noise: Panama Flats residents are concerned about the increase in traffic on Chestnut Street and the effect this will have on noise levels. Existing traffic on Chestnut is approximately 7,000 vehicles ' per day. Under the No Build alternative, traffic is projected to increase to 9,000 vehicles per day by the year 2010. Under the at-grade alternative, traffic is projected to increase to 10,400 vehicles per � day, while under the grade-separated alternative, traffic is expected to increase to 13,000 vehicles per day. To put these traffic volumes in perspective, it is helpful to look at , the traffic volumes of other streets that are on the edge of stable residential neighborhoods, as Chestnut Street is. Several such streets carry traffic in the 10,000-13,000 ADT range, such as Summit Avenue � between Western and Lexington (10,400-13,200) , Fairview Avenue through Highland Park (11,000-13,000) and Cleveland Avenue between Highland Parkway and Grand Avenue (11,300) . Not only are all of these segments residential in nature, but Swnmit Avenue between Western and Dale is ' already in the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District, and Summit Avenue between Dale and Lexington is being considered for inclusion in the Historic Hill District. Having Chestnut Street carry 10,000-13,000 ' vehicles per day would not be out of character with the average volumes of similar types of streets in other stable residential neighborhoods. Despite the traffic increases projected for Chestnut Street for the year ' 2010, the noise levels projected for the year 2010 at the Chestnut Street and Irvine Park noise receptor sites for both the at-grade and grade-separated alternatives are essentially the same. It is important � to note that the projected noise levels are only 1-3 decibels higher � ' Nina Archabal August 5, 1988 ' Page 8 than the No Build alternative, and that noise level changes of 3 ` decibels or less are considered imperceptible to the human ear. Attachment 14 provides a detailed breakdown of noise levels from the Draft EIS. ' ' We conclude that there are no audible elements being introduced that are out of character with the Irvine Park Historic District or that alter ' its setting. Air Ouality; Based on analyses completed for the Draft EIS, no adverse , impacts on the Irvine Park Historic District from carbon monoxide will result from any of the proposed build alternatives. Based on available information, including a detailed study completed for I-35E, there will be no adverse impacts on historic structures from sulfur dioxide. ' Further investigation of potential air quality effects on historic structures will be done for the Final EIS. Vibration: Based on available information, there is no difference ' between the at-grade and grade-separated alternatives in terms of their vibration impacts from roadway operations on the Irvine Park Historic District. Based on preliminary discussions with Ted Lofstrom of your � office, we anticipate that the sandstone and limestone layers in the bluff will act as a buffer to absorb vibrations from heavy equipment during construction. Additional analysis and documentation of vibration , impacts will be presented in the Final EIS. CGW Lift Brid� Visua • There are no visual elements being introduced that are out of , character with the CGW Lift Bridge or that alter its setting. Noise: Noise levels have no impact on the character or setting of the ' CGW Lift Bridge. Air Oualit� Air quality has no impact on the character or setting of ' the CGW Lift Bridge, because of the materials used for construction of the bridge. Vibration: The roadway project will not introduce any vibration that is � out of character with the CGW Lift Bridge or that will alter its setting. ' (4) Neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or destruction; Irvine Park Historic District ' There will be no neglect of the Irvine Park Historic District from this ' project that would result in its deterioration or destruction. � � � Nina Archabal � August 5, 1988 Page 9 ' CGW Lift Brid� � If the City Council chooses Alternative C-1, there will be no neglect of the CGW Lift Bridge resulting in its deterioration or destruction. If the City Council chooses C-2 or C-2 Modified, the north side trestle ' approach will be removed. Removal of the trestle approach to the lift bridge could result in loss of use of the lift bridge for rail purposes. , If the bridge were to remain under the ownership of the railroad, there is the possibility that the lift bridge would not be maintained unless rail service were restored. This potential lack of maintenance of the bridge could constitute neglect and could result in its deterioration or � destruction. If the City Council chooses C-2 or C-2 Modified, the City will coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Office, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Federal Highway , Administration to determine an appropriate course of action. (5) Transfer, lease or sale of the property. , There will be no transfer, lease or sale of historic properties due to the roadway project. ' Summarv of Section 106 Impacts , The City of St. Paul concludes that the Shepard/ Warner/East CBD Bypass project will have no adverse effect on the Irvine Park Historic District, according to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as ' amended. The project may have an adverse effect on the CGW Lift Bridge under 36CFR800.9 � (b) (4) if Alternative C-2 or C-2 Modified is selected by the City Council as the preferred alternative for Segment C. If this occurs, the City coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Office, the Advisory Council on Historic � Preservation and the Federal Highway Administration to determine an ' appropriate course of action. , SECTION 4(f) OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT AS AMENDED The same two historic properties apply to 4(f) impacts as were considered in , the discussion of Section 106 impacts: the Irvine Park Historic District and the CGW Lift Bridge. According to Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, as amended, there must be "use" of an historic property for there to be an impact on that property. In addition, according to Federal ' Highway Administration regulations 23CFR771, Environmental Impacts and Related Procedures, Subsection 771.135(d) : "For purposes of Section 4(f) , a historic site is significant only if it is on or eligible for the National Register. " r � � Nina Archabal � August S, 1988 Page 10 � Irvine Park Historic District Since there must be a physical use of Section 4(f) property for an impact to � occur, and because there is no physical intrusion into the National Register district, there is no 4(f) impact to the district. CGW Lift Bridge . ' The trestle approach span is the only portion of the lift bridge "used" for ' the project under Alternatives C-2 and C-Modified. Because the approach span is not mentioned in the National Register nomination form and is not a significant contributing element that makes this structure eligible for � listing on the National Register, the project's impact on it is not relevant for Section 4(f) purposes. Summary of Section 4lf) Impacts ' There will be no Section 4(f) impact on the Irvine Park Historic District or the CGW Lift Bridge as a result of the Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass project. ' In addition, we would like to take this opportunity to address the point in your letter of Jµne 20, 1988 regarding the review of alternatives that move , the Segment B connection away from Chestnut Street. The Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet, dated July 1986, provided the necessary and adequate documentation to eliminate an alignment at Eagle Street from consideration in ' the EIS. The relevant pages from the Draft EIS are attached for your review (Attachment 15) . Specifically, three types of impacts of an Eagle Street alignment were identified: engineering design, visual and economic. Engineering design impacts include Eagle Street being on a reverse curve with , irregular intersections and the Eagle Street intersection being too close to a curve on Shepard Road. Visual impacts of the Eagle Street alignment include 100 feet less between the road and the river for a plaza or buffer, and the � negative impacts on views from Irvine Park toward Robert Street and from tne Kellogg bluff and the south side of the river toward Irvine Park. Economic impacts include the potential relocation of Plastics, Inc. , impacts on West ' Publishing's land holdings, the potential for a major loss in employment, the cost of acquiring and relocating businesses, and the creation of irregular parcels that are more difficult to develop. We believe that these reasons justify the removal of Eagle Street from further consideration as a connection ' to Shepard Road. We request your concurrence by September 1, 1988 on our conclusions that: 1) , the Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass project will not have an adverse effect on the Irvine Park Historic District according to Sectiori 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; 2) the Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass project may have an adverse effect on the CGW Lift Bridge according to ' Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, if r � ' ' Nina Archabal August 5, 1988 Page 11 , Alternative C-2 or C-2 Modified is selected by the City Council as the preferred alternative for Segment C; and 3) there will be no Section 4(f) ' impacts on properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register as a result of the project. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 228-3380. � Sincerely, �1 � ��, ��. ,�ti�—C''�-� �� Peggy A. Reichert Deputy Director for Planning � PAR/LT/bp Attachments � , � , , , � 1 ' . , � ' ,� . �I . " j ATTACHMENT 1 r . !� • �u•iuo •v� � I a �.�.�.w •n, � . � � I , s �. . . I I• ' \ ' ,� _ ,,� .. � _ _ �_��._- - -_ _ __. �_ . � .�.:-_�.- ...... .� .�., J � � � � ------- '��,; � � ., � � . � � � .... ,� , , � ��. m ; ,,� � ��s:.� 1 ... � �. � 0• 94�y � �� 4 0 . FJ �Q��p . ...�.. �oOQQQ�O� ..... � � .��000 I 'J��, j` � �_` �` '� P •` � M S ` � / . ,. s�ss �^w.n,�� .vc A /� •« �N� � .qq`. • � �a+ � 1�,/ o �5 U'�� ` . ��p / �'1� � � / �' , �,• \ S � � �a �� ~ae . a , 9� \ / _ `� . 3 • 'c�� A"`" n. e / v � ' � � . . at�.•i ':;.:: . '�. , . o«.t... u.�..� / � �. IMOIw�n f1�N1 l��M •A. / I I C4 ' J '�e I� ,`1 � . o � i� i3 �\ . . i II• �p , � . � r"�"' p i `52' q ♦`• I 1 � .r.�xu n i � ' � ��r e`�' LEGEND � A: SHEPARD ROAD FROM RANOOLPH TO CHESTNUT � ' B: CNESTNUT STREET CONNECTION TO SHEPARD ROAD C: SHEPARD ROAD FROM CHESTNUT TO ROBERT STREET ' D: EAST CBD BYPASS CONNECTION TO WARNER ROAD E: EAST CBD B1fPASS CONNECTION TO LOCAL STREETS F: EAST CBD BYPASS CONNECTION TO 1-35E ' SHEPARD/WARNER/ECBD BYPASS ' ' PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WOFiKS STUDY CORRIDOR & SEGMENTS FiGURE 1 •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ANO ECONOMIC OEVELOPMENT •STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. , ��'_,j9�'�,�" -/9�'� _~~ ��`�. ' D Q d� � . . � � � � •� �� fII>> _ 's��a� j . ATTAC�IENT 2 �On�iTA' _ '{ ' � : c�i cf a y'�� `-_ — . . �• \ .,,: �p-�r;s . /_� . - ; .., .' ,ke�: ��y (T•.rp , ' <m m i s '?;�� ` � � ' • �r ` CO�-Zi�i � �` .� '__ 7 \ ,�: 4,� ...\ . �-. =m��=� � �~� .�,: . .c� -! �� ..rGt�f �i ' Z r C�C _- �w�_ �i�� .� . . �.�� , ^� y`: `�� n'�Z m�t . . • '1 � ��.`'' � • ' , __ - . �:� � 'ir;j`. , ZF ;a � - •/'' � \, ,i. 't�. �1.: i- •� ,`�� 1 �li .�� • �� a - - � • � �-F 1" �: • � �• .- . . �//��• �.� � `� �:ti.,j� `�� c. . , � / /�\, ` �-? 1 ' ' , t . - J ��,� '�l. �� `� ,/�/�(,-_ . ' sr _ _��__ i. �l /•_.�.'� � �"� 1. . , , �� , v�� :` . � , � �7. ',//•/` '� '7� `^ // �� ` �� . `• . � � �f� �. /� I� -� 'c(/ . �� ` � 1 .� � �', v, .r� � »�; � �- -� ,� �.:��/.f' . �'k��.. . ' . . '��Q.. '-l!�`� a •�� ! \J, .. :��.� ;:� '�� ,:��6 ' • ��. :, �;�l r �/'i��+. "��i. �� ,�1 � t� i� �r`i�•�� . ✓ . 1 , � .,.`� _� . . L.'.� �r i. ♦ � - . �,�J�`�f/. �\ ' �' '/,/. � � ` '' �^e � ;'f \.i,� � i.. _ .. . '!�' �,i-, 'n[�. .�. ' �: � V ` . /�. ' ,.3.�,"�.. ,_ �j1��. . t�� , a > > �\ .� ::\ .� .J� �11 _ , �-ti\`J �°�,'a�� ww .. "� `.!`� : ; , , . �.'" '� •'t �r- , ' ' �� m ;. . j� �C i � ? . •i�45, �'� . �,�yi�r� �' a : � s� > � r �c ; �' `, �- x �-� �. � � - �� • \,�t ,. � �.. � �:,'� F• . ��`- ; � in � �� " � •�� . , ' �, � > �,'�r , ; � � ' r z ; -� �� ;' # ,- : `,� •� '',��: �,o��•��? � m m = .� 1 ;;`- �1�` .� '�� r� �. :�`'� �f �. �. Q 1 '� V' ' t�� 1 9�°' . �• �.(��` r .. �� Z � � � a �' :�tl'�-. ;'�; ' `�� '_.'� ,��r� � '� '�� <. m rn D y r ; ,.�� !�' i� '•, ' _ il ,�� , � ; , ,.�,t.�-;;��„J.i��,K ' � � � _ = i ' i�i`� .� !� � • �_' ►` �x<'��'rc .� � ;a'", a � � � -;--1. �';'; !':-�,_,: ' ,t,�� `��:1; �,� °�,, r � a m m ,'�\ . . �� •�J/ , ,� =,�a.: m � T p � � � '�,\�i� . �:�t� - �: ,�.-.�z,��' , � D p a ,,, _��,, ��_ ��:I t� „� D � a �r,—' _ �. ": • . �r�r_"��:y�;rq�. . , '< ; � � � � ' - � '�' .. ::� � �: •i�.. �• � fc" . i ' m •Cj� � (� � ��. ` ��,�� `+�t��"�� °-. `� .�. i � �1 0 1 � . � r e � . w ' i ; • �, �! E .f, � � �. v � � � i � r l �� ,� . � � � � � . �� •. �� a- ; < J � '• �l.,'� „��"'5��.�.�-.,.*r`'� � � _. ' __ . �� +.';�°,�`� ; ��ii � i m ��_ ,' �, �-.�','��, a. 'r ,; :��•� I y -- .. . . �`�al, �:,�^'�'. � r .y .� �, . � .,i� � �'� �....- . ,�,� i � ��k' � �r`l" • �jN" / �- 'S' ' �'� i , , � ` ` ' +�'� � ' � Z �}�!C1. ; V �I�F�+�� > � -�. t � N � ' \'� a /�' ' '� • _,� I y � t ,,� q�•��t f-. I .c . /�.. . . Q � , : t ,,�; � .f :�. ;�r� . � J�''� , i � f 'i _ - . . � I t '�t' '��' T�� _ �l' .. _ , ./�p, ��. `�•�' ' • . , \'� y j � ` . . ', I �' � - ^� � l : ,; i , .-' - . I � � __ -- '' , i t �� ' ��}3 r ". � ,n ` r � Y .�� . , � .... � " '�r-zv m � � ! ('. `� ..�j.—`�=:�• :�--� � ,�.�;�1�., � i � .�i;��' _ --�� - N !, r �# �•�- . .''-J , � � : ._. -.x _ � � {I C=� . .t•. ��'_�'�,�: .j, .� 'C� . �.� � .t �� • . � � ��, _ .� \I�/D1111� � � ^. ... , �'C . " ' �� • ( "' ��. `��. a. • 1� • � . . ' ATTACE�IENT 3 ':�� ,_..Aw.� 'v�� i? �en � ' ,� --�'_ \\�, _ . -�c� � j , Yr t��• . . . �r'�� 1 y �-��. Y -{f , � +��.-_ ,,. i �� w�x�� '� . �, w' � ��_�1 * �� / Z f � - .s� 4 ��`}�, �' ` 1., �'� � ty _l. �-, . " � ATTACHMENT �: CA >Vf N r � Z� � . .. D � � � QmD D = '� 1:/ 1 >n C G �111 '. � 7/: �pr r a� �.� � : , . ' = Q� ' • 'fl a p O m m m 0 �� , � � l� � �� f , v' » �� l � p11 ;) � �f � mm� � >a � � �� ' / i� � i � <mmZ2 � �/ • >. D �� -Zi >a r / � j � c o I j i/' '// > r " ;° °T° - : `` .'`� '� � + �` �� . z� c z o ,. : ' _��.! ''�. Z �D � � :. A 2 r T i i .� � /� , G�i � ;� �"��.i �.� _ � i t '�� 2e O W � < <g � ."' ' j `y, _ � � I > `� �.Z=1.� . - e � ;1�� , ..i,_.c _ a � ., `_'� ., ' ' � �. . , , � ----- � �� _e =, er '; � 30• ' � ' ;�i " 'o> ' �f- 1 � s� ��} Oc �� t �' ' _� i _ � t � �' �. J' Y .s • } : � � � �� i� , � � � / I I i_� f `. .�.,`—_ � , � ;� �_ ��t � �^ �' , �!�`.� r.- '; .'w_v I..�i� yI ' i//// . . � � r . _—'_ ^`._ . � � .«. ,r�• __ �. � 3 •�:,;,.. , � T � � � ;� � i � � ��' r •i F� Z � � ; °.' , t � . .. , � ��%� � . / � � � ``L ' ' ;``.. ; i � i �`jl �i! � t i =� � � j � ' I �� 4 �•� f i �� f; • •t a . - ' ;„ ,� � - � m __�__1 �:_�� .a e� � Z � °_ � � :� :, � - `_ _ :. � � m —� Q %� ; ; ' : f,, - , o`� S' J ; - .; ��':_:e y ,-° -___�;� � /� N , '; � �— , � �• * .. � i �� =�� : � o e a � Co: � Z \/ •• . N�' , f AA � � S �� 1� ' � ; ��V�•' I�,: �A ' � �!!11 O 9T n�i ' N . . aS �. _ • � u 9 � T ari > a = � � � j ` �,� �1 t � � � t �r 7> �< ; � r � ! 1!; � �� ; ♦ � � i �� .� _ � ' y '� 7 � � � _ - - 1 � - _ � - ,-- g�-'�1: N ° .� -�;� ' _ � ', �� ;----�'�; __� I > ' .,� � } o `} — � ; ' 0 r';ip: _ �. • ' . ; ' �;.. .� ��. t. � - � ;}' -y , � ' ; . < � ' t: � �, • i - � ° .' i :� �� + :. � ; r� } �.1 .� � � , :. � I '° � `. - ' . m ,' ` ° a � :i,, , � v� ; ; � -.�,, , � c) :,,, � . : 7C .�� .. ' � . � _ N •�� . ' N � : r ' _ �� ' - —`-�: ' � ;i� ' �= ° '• � -y�� Z t v � ' +� � -�� > ,� • _ _'' ` '� ` � , �mi( ; ./, •_ _•e i wt� • � ' � < <,�, s• . .__ k.". . , , a � � °° i � .� _�--.•�- • .. �a �`� � � , � , � • � � , � O II', _'___"__"y � , ,•' O . __'_ - � . : ' �I '� � c '—° � �' --�---_-___=_ �1 'i ' � i � , h,. � - -� - � , ":�i�} , � � •-----�------_ t� .�.,_.:_ p � - - - _ _ �� .` : m ��'+ .' --'-•---_ ��'�-" -��•� m ,., ' _ _ - ,` - � �. I � _ , .�--�----,,`- .. . � �� -� .� a . W . .� - _ �� ; :: _ j � ` '� �`�� 'r� � I� �� •�V� �' i � • ;...� 1 _ ,. a 2_ . � ... � ., �,r—�T :T__ , { � I /+ ' � ��I' �•� �� 'll . � � � `, � �� . - t. • � ,, . '' • � ATTACF�IENT � • �-�=��-�' � � . � � , , :� \ . . �• � �` � � �y'I ,i � �, .. ` `� ,Y \'��.� . /,� s..��; .t'' � , � ,/ ` � ��: l\ �' ,�/t.¢../�� .� ` . r �� i ' �r�. • - _ � - � ' ' ti. ' ' ' �._��' , . " '+� � ? , .. �'�� - " �' . v :•� . . . +�f� -�- . �� T NELS • -��='., � � � ��, T' �- --� % %' . ' ' ' . �� . . � � `� ' ' �A1 - , '• �.�. �.,' ` . . ��/-"� „ � . � - ' _ . ,• ��; � /' •} - • �... .�-. ��`' � , '-',_ �= �`�� '•� , -_`�/ �' �,.. � , ', �' ��_ �_ ��, '}. �- �.�..rf' ` ,\ � . `�' . i . -- --•� .. \.. . � ' r- , . •,� �': � . . . . . _ ; ' _. , '- ` � ,� . i / '..r�P+i� • :� . .�� J`�� ._ � •� • s �- - �• � . _ :`I_ -_ . . 4Y .�°� �' ,' • � � = – _ � �_ �' � _�`. _A- :� �� • � ��! M ..'� r, � //�� •«��I� \ � - •//.� � . �`. ��,-'.-. D-1: GRADE SEPARATED CONNECTION a, v G' �/a5 �G��/'i��'� 1 • ' '� ' , � � � -��/,�%,� � � � � � : ��_ ��gS �`r' / `' w ��.�• ,, �, '�s ! � /` • / \/ � �l ... �., .. /��" , � ., � • '�'�, � " r• r ' .i��. . ' ' `• . /� � �,` � �-i . �•>�% . . � •,•,,`��..` �:�\ a. ' �. r: . � ' \ ' � , i j \ . k _/Y{.4,�� ,� �� ' / / � • ,, , �` � •1� • . -. �"l`• �r _ Y R NE - I '''��.�� •:� ' ' � � `��'�, ` ' � • �L ,� , � .:`:� . .. \;. � � �'� �.�/�� _ � '' ��' . \ � ,---�sY/ � , . -'!: �� _ � � .}� � \_- ��. .f ' , ' /� ' . / A• � .. ` _ .. • ' '' �,, ' ' � O• - ' `\ � � , - ' . • ` ``` . , , �,� ,.` a ,-; ,�= ,,. �,--� . : �� -r; , . - s�.�%�' : • i— - — . . � , _- '' " -- — - _ _ _ ` -` • �- ,- \ ' ,� := . � .,e --,�, ••.. `•_ �� _ i��_. . '� , �rMA� . �-� .• ` l� `_ �• . o-2: AT GRAOE CONNECTION ' SMEPARD/WARNER/EC80 BYPASS , PROJECT MANAGEINENT TEAM SEGMENT D •ST.PAUI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES F�GURE 11 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT •STRGAF-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. ' ' � �r . , ... . _ �, �, ;- _ �f . .�, �- , ,,, • .. _ � ATTACHMENT b '� ,Y�'�`�•• :;�,K � 1n��' /, �� / t Y'-.�`z "�. ��%, � � ` � �;, �\�0;� ''`,'��'�-� �b� /' _=_�„ � � :s, :��'� � /:,��' "� , i� ,;� ,; �.�, 'A_ � � ,� . �' � ''� . 't� �� "��: ;�� \,. �' �,�i�t' , �: / . ft�!' '� �° �� ' / '�•'��, '�/ -! . � � • � �t •�•/1�� . .�y �J �.��1 / �; � �� . '" y ��. -j � ./, ',k_ r ' 1 �� `/ •/ ii� �N '�. ' �,� li. , ��^�f. �.. 7, ��` '// /� '� �+. �;/' Y c� , � �. 4 _ a. �. �� ,�� - �" � �� ♦. /I f:l ; _� � � �� ' � :1;� _, r �s-�:: - _. _ : � � ,� � �� .f ; �.�: � , -.�._� ��. �.,� `, .c � '� ;� ��; u° ''';. %' ., ' _` ;�; � �� ` \ . �� . .��:\ ..,�, l�;� �,'-� � f,L '��i� � �. � 'J.f �t , . �� • ,`, �� . �r, �� 1Hr � . f, O� ��` .�/1� . • 'rp, �\` . ' � .. , - �� ' -—� .. � `� %�• . � _. `�� _ � I - - _ �I � �,� f_ , - -� -. ` �i f ' .. .. . ... ' .. �,�,�" --, � .. , - -• � _. � .. � . �; .� ; ,,ti� , .,, '%, �= j .� '� . � � �� - -=� ' .. � ; _. - - - , _. •- �. �� .•. `. _.;v -�=.�. ' .\;. / _ \ \ ' _. . �\` / - \ . ^' ` . ' �` � } � i .�: / .. ,�, �1 (. � j / , ;� �•f�� t�� j'• �t� 1 r.�r�•�F, ��,� .�. fl�. 1�/��• ��' , 1 �� _�!r��ti__�_ �� .4 .i� r. �\` " ��' � ' ' � '/ �� '%�' 1�,•./ 1 ``/`.; ' . �r, ��i�•� �,'V � - - _. � � _. � � r�- ,�.� _. + . ^�; _. \ ��^ � % -�, ��i � �` �r�' . ��, �. � '' ,; ��• � !,I� �'" .�,'L � � •i� � � , �i �; •I� j •` ' j� , " ' _ _.��, G ^�jF. .�: - - I - -• � �^��lf-`_ . . � � • � , � ��1� • �' � � ; � ._._ Ji b_� � % .. � � 'i � - m . •-.�_i�� ' '` y�f i � - 't+ � ` (� �' ; . t - , .� �'` ' _�' .. _. - --'� ; /� , / � t. . , _--^__ ' .. � � �j __.--�- .. I " ' �a . — � V:+�,. . ,1 , / �..I. � 1 � �� \ '�•T�, ', .. � ,i � , � �. - , ^ �.�L � .. � Vi. a � � , \� _��-�y �' Ej.� :� •\ ��'� 'I .ji�.f �i. ��. :—� � �y• �_.;� Ic ,�r = �\� � _.1f; • .. . �� ' '�"-'~ . :-� Tii' '< ��``'�• .�,�- � _ �, .�" '' ��,�A� �/' ,� _ , \-`—�"�'�� .��---ti : r.•_�� . . ' : . �__��`i`' �_��--� ,J" c-^'y-� . = , ��_�a., =-=�_l� .`f-�� _-�r 4 F~`' _�,'�� / ,�_ _ _�' + . �_ T f� .. ., i�`��—� ;r, _. _ � '� .n `,` r ' :' � �' " � ��'. _.'_�� _ \ �_�� •,I ��`, � ;��_ ---- ---.., / :ir��,A4 -----------..+ ��:,+ � W�" - 'T _ i _:.�� , C. •, ' �� - �� _ �4 v"-'�J� � - �� -` '�.� '� . �i -t .� � ST`' _'. oc°r -f � --��-� /• - - °u ' ' -- --- ='•� "' / _ • -- _ �. f _. --- L_ � �-r� _- - .� -----=.. �,/�, 1` r � ��` _-- _ ---- -------- + ,� � ;i-�";`�i��= . `=•��_�_ _ �.:�•f:'�! �\� ��.�- _ . � - � ,-•'�•?..^' ':� ; 1 � � .. • _ , _.~_'_--,� .. � • � .... � � � . •'"__ ""_ -_ � .3 r - . .Y ,� ... �\ t� - .�-�. _.. ,� .. '_' . . f ' ' n /1 (;• +` �i. ( ?�\_ � , /1 �;. '' i E- E1 CBD BYPASS WITHOUT LOCAL E-2 : ECBD BYPASS WITH IOCAL � CONNECTIONS CONNECTIONS SNEPARD/WARNERIECBD BYPASS ' PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SEGMENT E •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES F�GURE 13 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT •STRGAR-R OSCOE-FA USCH. I NC. ' • y �. . � -�.I . " ' •%� r . `\� `\ � �^ ATTACHME\; 7 ` �� •` � .� � '` , • � .. �� ',. � .... • M ' � • r ,. .. , � .�,- , . " �.rj • �. ' � i � � �.�-. .,� r . , , , ,..� �"��` . r,, : ' �, .,, "'�'� , �� C . '/� , �.. � - � � �� , • �� ' '; .,«.- i� � .�... : ; . ., .�.. �� - . ; � ',j i� ; o, � ` . 1 i� - -.r� //�^1 ,�� y . '.,�/,� / j / / ' •�r ./ .�r.a I. � � �/� � � � � � ♦ � � �� 1 �y • � ' � / . , a i . ' �: • r w , � � u ' . _`i . o� � a . ` - ,, �' � ; . �� ,/. . , J� ' a'' • /I . /+ , , . " �� ,/ � V' s ,w'. / : •�• �wl d i _. • Q • �I.1 j,. . ` / . . . � ' � '; ;' ; � ,, y/ �� .<i __J� ��.' ��/� � G_ t '" 1 . .a i y /J � \ , Tc � � �/ \ `� ` �.,� ,,�`:� �_, �,,� /j �g �.��. � ,� � � \ • � ' \ f / '�' ', /, �� /I ° \ � `� ` .�:�. � • ; %� �� .,,. � .�t� �"`? . . �.� ;� i/ . � �1 ��a _\ ' :rc.� / r— - , � , ,� 1 • . ''�'( .,:�� ,; ;,�: , j y- � �� `' �+ .•� . � i !> i' � �s �` ' • - � � `, �.F,'� . �� . • ' �� i;�� /� ..l�' , �j r`�' f� ' :': /i� .. � •� .,.3. ��„�.. t N ; - '' ' r,y - f �,O ` •�` � �' '' �:� ��/ / �s . • , ' • o � .r.J � r �� ,.s.� �. .� � 'd.s � ��' m , i � . . •�9i.5 � � , ' �. . �. 1. j �!!.�^� �\ �� •�- • �1 .• - � - . . t •I�1�`� � � / S . ' �� • �:� .\, � 11� , �� Jri.� �� i � \, it • �'.. � � o ' � ,a��.ii�t'/ L . '' I .2 � � P'' �. I\ • .177. ' . , vr/ '.. . ''N-! � �/ �\ — 1, ), , . \ � . .t��.5 ) '�� ' .F:• .+. �,p\ V � � �� l. _ .iM.�.' .� �o rip:� !D � . ��' oss.z . '�' 1 •B'.1 '� , I '\� t , y i � ' � ,•�� ✓, / j�� ` + 0�131. f _ �1.7• ; � � � . � / . . ' . 7i.i \\\\ ..l � i(� i . �}(I� � \� Y \ , � - r . . . '�� d6.2 \ �I /� /; . -�' � �/ .. � '� � . '.M.6 i '�')' � ,. .�a.s .. `E�� . • � "�tY �''�� / '� . � L '� 1 � . C\\��. � . . :�� '� ,�j � •'9. /' . •B • \ � . . -• '�` � � 1 /�i / • • za . � � �� i 3e. . s ,� ,, Fj : i , j � � � ' r` .�.. � �� . . �.�" �� • . —_ � � � � ,� i� O .- • \ / >� � � . i dB.5 ' . . t ' / � .M.. �9l.5 � � _ �� . I � � . ' ��3.3 7�.1 / � ! � r: . �y ��•ae.� - �'�//� �,� � 1� � � e:. � . % .:�2.� ..K.' /1 / .i�.6 - - 1 1 ' jr�' .9�.s'` .�\ - . I � � i 4 �F* /�.�' . ' G"c.2 � 7:�j � y \ .Y /�i . � Y �, v . 2E.' / ' �B3.t S. � \.i�%.! � \�Q./ •��-./ '_�' . %. � � i . . / � .B3.: � . . -� - 1/ / � � . //' � . � �_G \ /� � � _ .. � / •!'.t .8:.� � ` \� � •'1•' � �i7'! ' / ' / 1 � ' c �/ �s'2 Jt �./ \ '^.�I_� ' . . ��(..� . . , .ri.: �' .�9 \ � __.'�--'� E E�.p AD ' ��. _� -� � � � -� � F-1 : CONNECTION OF BYPASS TO 1-35E � � :, � AT PENNSYLVANIA ; n . , "- ��. �� _ � SHEPARO/WARNER/ECBD BVPASS , PNOJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM SEGMENT F •ST.PAUL DEPARTMENT OF pUBLIC WORKS FiGURE 1 S •ST.PAUL DEFARTMENT OF PLANNING ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT •STRGAR—ROSCOE—FAUSCH, INC. ' � I ATTACI-L*4ENT 8 � MINNES TA HI T i . ` O S OR CAL SOCI ET ' FOU`DED I� 18-►9 Furt�i�rrGn4 H�.t��n �en(e�. �r. P�ul. 11.� »1 i 1 • 1612) '?5-i l; � June 20, 1988 r -' R�C�i:�'c D � , , , Mr. Leon Pearson JUN �� '$ �; St. Paul ��epartsr!erit of Public F�or�s � 8th Floor City Hall Annex Qa:;� 'f=�`,� .. „ - _ ' , 25 FTest Fourth Street ' �" "�-'�� St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 � Dear Mr. Pearson: Re: Sh�ard/��;arner Road (?,ansey CSPB 37/3E) from ?Zandolph Avenue , to East C�D Eypass and East CBD Bypass fran Warner Road to I-35E; St. Paul, Rairse�� County S.P. 164-020-57 M5018 ( ) r'�iS Ref e rral r il e h*�an't�e r: AA-83 2 , Thank you for the op�ortunity to camment on the Draft Ervironmental Irc�act Stater.er� for the Sh�ard/t�;arner/East CBD Byp3ss project in Saint Paul. It � has L�en reviewea pursuant to responsibilities given the ytate F?istoric Preser�ation Office by tne i�?ational Fiistoric Preservation Act of 1966 according to 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties, the regulations of the Acvisory Council on Historic Preservation oovemir.g the � � Section 106 review process. 'TYiis is a :na;cr construction project with pote.ntial for consiGer.:ble effects ' on the city. ?'he '�'�'_TS identifies se�eral historic proper�ies t�,at ;aay be affect� by tne project. ' "_'`he sx�:-�.ent of t..e proj ect that has the gr eat�� potenti al to af f2ct histor ic pror.Er�izs is in t;e vicini�� of the G�es�r:ut ��reet connection. 'lfiia connec�ion is glanned as ene of the two major truck routes ir,to aaantaan Saint Paul. Possible denolition of t��:e F�rvest S�ates grain terminal and � recons�ru�ien oi C'..�tn�rt Street, which may affect the Irvine Park I?istoric Distric�, are of :�ajor concern. Altern.atives which avoid or minimize a�verse effect� on t:�ese procerties are preferred. 'I'he issue appears to be , �rtic�,�larly complicated with regard to the reconstruction of ChESSUt Street, whic.h runs along the edge of the historic district, and the desic,n of the intersectior_ with �nepard Road. A graae segarated intersection has tt:e potential to alter the prysical setting of the dis�rict, while all of the � construction al�ernatives �aill result in signif icant increases in traff ic, especially truc;s, along Ch�tnut. Possible acverse effects include c�airace to old buileincs tnrough vibration fran the construction itself, and vibration, � noise, �.�d �issiens fron the increase� traffic using Chestn�*t Street. ' ' � r . _ � � June 20, 1988 � Nlr. Leon Pearson � P�iS Refe rral File :Vtaabe r: AA-83 2 Clearly the Final E7YViroranental I�act Statenent should aodress the potential ' adverse effects on the affected historic properties. Hcwever, we also thirk it a�propriate for the �'EIS to revie�a alternatives that move thE connection away fran Chestnut, which could go a long way taward eliminating adverse ' effects on the District. Although these alternatives are ;nentioned in Table II-1, or.ly the most s�irery reason is given for their eliminaticn fran consiceration. For purposes of federal agency review urr3er 36CFR800.5(e) , � such alternatives need to be included, or better justif ication for thei r elimination provic�ed. Piscussion oi mitigation measures should follaa selecticn of the final alternative. Discussion of the effects of the project alternatives on the Chicago Great � W�tern P�ailroad Lift Bri�ce appears to be adequate. Finally, we think it appropriate that a provi,sion for treatnent of his�oric ' properties discovered during construction be included in the project. �? ntanber of historic properties in or near the project alternative rights-of-wny � . have �parently been obliterated by subsequent development and construction, but may survive as archaeolcaical sites. The shoreline setting of the projec_ also suggests tr,at unreported prehistoric arc3�aEOlogica? sites nay be present. Given that most of the work will be done in areas already sicnificantly j affected by recent develop�nent, the c�:ances that the project will affect such properties is slim, and in our opinion extensive preconst*uction archaeologic�l surcey work is not warrar�ted. , If ycu have questions regarding this mattcr, please c�ntact Ted Lofstror,� at the accr�ss and telephor,e n�nber or. t,':e letterheaa. Sir.ce re1y, ' � / � � � Dennis A. GiRme ac L�put� State Hi toric Pr�ervaticn Officer ' DAG:c2nb cc: Saint Paul Neritace Preservation Ca:�mission � 25 ;ves� Fourt�: Street, St. Paul, hlinnesota 55i02 Mr. Stan Graczyk, Feder�? i?ichway Ac,,�inistration � �90 ^ietro Squar? BuilcinG, S��enth & ?obert S�reet St. Paul, Minnc-sota :,5iG1 �!s. ?artx�ra L�cCornick , 30 Irvine Park, �c`t. Paul, Minn�ota �5102 ' � ' ATTACI�fENT ° � CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION � FILE NUMBER aa-6 DATE lune 9, �9g8 ' WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Statcment (DEIS) has becn prepared on a � proposal for reconstruction and possible realignment of Shepard;Warner Road, including a separate appendix, "Historic Resources Survey"; and ' WHEREAS, Section 73.07 (2) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code states, "The Heritage Preservation Commission shall review and make recommendations concerning all ... city activity to change the nature or appearancc of a Heritage Preservation site, and no permit � shal! issue or work commence until the preservation commission renders its recommcndation ..."; and WHEREAS, the "Statement of Significance" in the National Register nomination form for � thc Irvine Park Historic District includes the following: "Before 1848, Saint Paul was in reality a poor collection of log cabins and shanties concentrated about the two steamboat landings. One was the Upper Landing or Levee located at the foot of present day Chestnut � Street. ...Each site had its own business, trade and residential areas and in the case of the Upper Levee, the heart of the residential area was the Irvine Park Historic District platted along with the existing park by John R. Irvine in the spring of 1849. ...Eventually, the ' • Lower Landing grew into the present Saint Paul central business district, obliterating all of its early historical traces while the Irvine Park area is all that remains of the Upper Levee tdwn" (Excerpts from the National Register District Nomination form by Tom Lutz, 1973); and , WHEREAS, the nomination as a Saint Paul Heritage Preservation District states: "Irvine Park's close proximity to the downtown affords a variety of impressive views, the � sightlines of which should all be preserved"; and WHEREAS, a summary of the history of the Irvine Park District in the local nomination form includes the following: "It is significant that trvine oriented the park not to the , cardinal point of the compass, but parallel to the river and Old Fort Road, refiecting the importance of these lifelines to the early Upper Town community"; and � WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon evidence presented in public testimony, makes the following findings of fact: 1. While the Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass Draft EIS identifies sites designated to ' the National Register of Historic Places and locally as Heritage Preservation sites, no specific evaluation is made of the archaeological value of sites identified in I-35E documentation as having such value nor is eligibility for designation of the topography , of the Chestnut Street or Upper Landing areas assessed. 2. There are potential negative impacts to the Irvine Park Historic District. 3. The critical visual connectedness between the nationally and locally designated hiscoric � neighborhood, the river valley, and the downtown will be disrupted. The degree to which that disruption will occur will vary by alternative road piacements and design choices. 4. All alternatives, without mitigation measures, violate state noise standards. The degree � of potential noise increase varies by location in the district and road design. � . � File it88•6 ' Page Two S. Noise effects along Chestnut Street are unable to bc mitigated without adverse effects � to the district, particularly the Panama Flats Rowhouse. To avoid these adverse impacts, traffic should be diverted from Chestnut Strcct. 6. Noise walls within the district are likely to violate district guidelines, Section C, New Construction. I�Ioise walls are not a building type found in construction of this period. , The function of noise walls necessitates a massive and solid structure. They can not be rendered unobtrusive. 7. Construction and operational vibration effects on the district have not been adequately � assessed in light of the unique geology of the area which includes a network of caves. 8. The age and construction methods of structures in the district, the oldest frame and masonry structures in the city, have not been adequately evaluated for their ability to ' withstand projected vibratory effects. 9. Air quality analysis for effect of automobile and truck emissions on porous br�ck and stone surfaces in the district has not been adequately �stablished. 10. Design of the traffic artery, Chestnut Strcet, connecting Shepard Road to Eachange � Street, narrows at an access point into the historic district, thus potentially diverting traffic through the historic district. 11. The grade-separated design at Chestnut Street, of all alternatives studied in the DEIS, , introduces the greatest visual intrusions into the district, generates the most traffic adjacent and potentially into the district with the subsequent potential noise, air and vibratory problems. In addition, it represents the most radical alteration of topography and scale at Chestnut Strect. � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Heritage Preservation Commission recommends that further research and analysis into potential negative impacts on the city's � historic sites should be conducted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if further study confirms negative impacts, historically appropriate mitigation should be designed and/or alternative design options ` should be perfected; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Heritage Preservation Commission recommends , that no noise walls be constructed within the district; visual connections to and from the district should be maintained; and noise mitigation in the vicinity of the district should be of natural or historically appropriate materials; , BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Heritage Preservation Commission recommends that the unquantified economic impacts of alternatives east of Chestnut Street should be examined and balanced agains[ the potential adverse effects to the historic district; and ' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Heritage Preservation Commission concludes that the grade-separated intersection at Chestnut Street would be inconsistent with thc goal of ' preserving the historic integrity of Irvine Park; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Heritage Preservation Commission strongly , recommends that an altcrnative route, either at-grade or grade-separated, io the east of Chestnut Street be examined. MOVED BY Angell � SECONDED BY Tuna IN FAVOR 10 � AGAINST 0 ABSTAIN 0 � , ATTACI�IENT 1 J � 1 isolation . 2 Succeeding soeak�rs will clar � fy for you how � 3 �ur 3nalysis � f all of these alt�rnatives have led to 4 � our conclusion . The best solu� ion was rejected in I � � � S the scoping process.. Of the alternatives undez + � ' 6 �: iscussi�n , we prefer an A-3 alignment , moved fat � � 7 enough away from the olurf for mitigation , and an 5 at-grade intersection for downtown access . , 9 MR. McCORMICK: Good evening . My namE 1 10 is Keith McCormick , and I have been an Irvine Park 11 resi3ent since 1976 and served on tr�e Heritaqe � 12 Preservation Commission for six years , two years as � 13 chair . I want to talic tonignt about this plan , 1 � � 14 especially what ' s called the preliminary preferzed i � � 15 ogtion of a grade- separated intersection , and its � � � � le effects on the qualiLy of our neighbozhood ana Lhe ; i i7 cor.t � ;+uir�y � fferts � ��r preservation of the district . ' , 1 � :�e district z� sulte� from a partnership � � ' 19 fc =m�d in t?�e mi3-70 s after the national registry T � 2 � status was sacure�3 . .hat partnership consisted of i , ' 21 individual developers , tne City of St . Paul and the , 22 federal government . That F�3rtnership expanded to 23 inclu�e a state nistoric registra � ion and a local I � 24 h�ritaqe preservaticn com:nission district st3tus . Ne � � 25 would lik2 that partn� rship spirit to ccntin�e into ' I ' � ' LUGr\t: � S:YR3ICKI ( •� i2 ) 291 -1U �)5 1 � �� t� turt� . � l Tii�: �t � tus of tn� }iistoi ic � istric � i £ (�1UL � 3 c1-:�n � 1 � �_ 1 � :ic mor� tnan �n non�r :�ry � itu� ti �,r: . ic. � -t IC�CCStC'iLfa .��C1 : 1 � LC:�TIII� 1CLIIll'.l�tS t:ic: t �ic' i.�. Jt � 1 ^ � � LI:,�t YaL" tri� CStllp , u� L �:E•;1 :U U�}'iC;�C . a(,�AIe ul � ,.�.�5 ; G L�.JZ1I.'IiLC :iltlliS 1Ct CUU1Llt� dfill LElstl L<, L :li :�t _' L1 ✓!'. 7 lOc� pruc�ss of � t1e Prc: scrvati�n f�c.� , �n� 1 wc,ulu llx - E to r�u3 to you a c�uple uz points from thct au� un.Ent . 9 The aocunEnt is th� Protect ior. of Pro�er c : � s , lU Proce� ures ior �.:ompliance , r'►civisoty Cour,� ii on li rlistori � Yrc. servc, ticri . it states th� t "H f �ci� r �. 11 }� i1 iln�nceci or tic�nsc;� �ii�tezta}: ir�g s:iull "� �onsid�rtc. 1 � to huve an �� ffcct c:n d nationa� i •�gisc �r listi „y �, ;.��- ;. 1 � �ny ccndition ai tne undErtaxiny ::duses , ur ;,:�y �:aus � , 15 any ch�r.ge ln the quality of ti�e nistoric� i , � i _�c:: l ��ctu: ,. l �i _ L' 1tUZa1 ciiuruct_ r c;f ch� : :.,. ;, ; _ � l _ � , � . �� Yr�- : - - Y „ �1 � ��ULC :lci 1 � �L�� LCS ::ld � i:,; Vtl �tt cL . _ _ = 5 ly GCLI:l 'JC:QCL �OZ] 1 � 1CG.^.S W�11C�1 1C1Cil:G�t � JliC :ait C'i;:� cU I1 :II1tE�: t0 � U25trL`CClUf1 OI c:iCEI :3t1Gri UI all C;2 r� i t 21 of a propercy , isolaLiur� tron or � : tt. r� ticn oi it = � 2 s�rtounding .=r:vircnment , dI1Q lntroaucticr, ,, i vis �� i , [. .) uU�� : Dl° � � Ciil(� ��.i11tL1C: E IEIIlt.i'lt5 WT� lt:.�': dC•: ^vUL �. I .�.�: C:+ai c:.0 CEr v: . t }: .t�C �t O�:tlty' C; l 1 � � St L . lf: . �� 7 a5 1.'- i _ i1c:Vc' � :lUt tflt jJI� .. � _ L. . .. ...:.:c .. . � ,. ..: LCGr�ti e� a�'Ylht; i�:t� : ( �i2 � 2y1 -lU'. :, � ' , 1 ��.: r �ss sigi: liic. �.it ..: vt : � _ ti � � � � s t�� cn�� r. i5tcr ; � 1 � tstri �t . '1'!�� st� t� ct ; � ts ure .::3v: rs� in twc, w� �a . � J r l i SL , lil C_• L .jL lUC: L.� �.l .i;l::t�t1 Cc,;C,SL L .1= t 1GC', iftaC l � , � J �_ J i.: � 1 L E u 1 tl : h!. �. 1 J .: i: � , 5 _C:�; Il i1 1 j � a �v C'. I 5� �O D f'.c3 � c - � ciC:U L : 1dLe�1 dCt10:.S t :tut aLE� ;:Ot �dare � sec: lt: C<<E Li .: � � V u:lU U}' � :1c� L � .., _ ._C: j �.�i5t :1li•_ ..t L:Oi:.� LiL'+C: C1v�+ GT 1 � u11L1 ��1L10I1 i}�nt ;:cll Uc i _ as�aa�ly -- cu:l :�� t:iCliQ ��C 2 to LC r� �+ son� c;� y ncc� ssarr s �bs�qu�nt to tht , 9 construction ch« t is described , ii; a linitrd way , : � � lU the EIS . . 1 � 1 will refcr y�� co �he �or:cert ui i1 "l surrounainc � nvironment UCC .: LISC tnis i5 i -�crt ��nt i :: � 1 .3 this reyard . �oul:: 1 ytt tr; is �- uc � u� il } + � r� � r:� 14 it ' s t�sier first to rrtei you t� � !.�� i ;r,�o. � � nc:� oi t1 � � he lunding , tnE upper lancing , tc; tne nistory oi t^c � � u � i �Y �f St . Pau2 , to :. ;ic � wo nurais �n tr:� wai : r:� : � i i LF'iJT t 5 C.^:t � flcj =.. _ . i � c I` �::.... L ::n� � a1 ..5 � �:1 � _ _ � t: Z , i ., i .::: u� try _:.� , _ _. z � i � _ � ,-. �_�-, � ;,� _ , _ nt �.�� f 7 =. r� .:�s � , 1 J 52t � 1t:'.:@:'.L �tcCet..! :. C ..c � Lf 1C 1ai � Cctt uS ., I � .. _ l. i L V 2e oi st . Paul . � 2i 1 know :nis �s qu1t� small i;ut ; n _.. : s � 21 It3 ��1 � 5 ��P.OTdi� i� Vle:r , y'C)U C:�Il Ste � learl }' tf:° UL.Ct : 2 � l�naing oS 1C E:XL � .^.C1S LY�:T l.htSt [?i: � :�f1(: L.. ; LL V iflc � 2 4 �Z: r K c � C d 1 ill:;:�_ :: 1 :: C •_ i y c v O V c' L f a �L . :i i-__ 1 J'.` _ . 1 c. :..: 1 •' - � 7 �rev� Lns: yvi� �:_.,. �< < ., ti: � s �:;u ��; ;� .... _ .:� � :y s� � , L v v��1� � �►t:�:� I�.:i�: \ li 1 ... � L y 1 �1 l�J � 1 b 1 :3 !1 l L 1 �: .: fi : 1 Y .. 1 L L [ c.1 rJ j% :�. '+�i!i: ,:w Cl �:�'1,'L i J i.�'i : r: C L .l.s L ' 1 yvu _ �n no 1��:: � �. 5��. t :i�� .: i L �ct c �• l .�t i :_;n�c� iF.s t� �t . s P�ul ' s nistory . �i j � -� :;,_ ::�,rcr i.:r�:ain:� �.;,�i i : � .:JIICICLLIU!1 tc 'i i 7 Irvin` F':� rk i- �� ir. as �vlc;� ni•� ot th� �arliesc I �� s; ttl �s�_nt . ri� bttic:vz [h� t tnis cor,str �a� t �on � 7 siyniii �sntly d�mages tn� �ontr:xt Lor t..e district � � dnC its valuc to tutuce gener � tions . ►!v believt . y t:�cre ar� te� si �lt �lternuti � �s that have not oeen ' lU aadressed , dlternativ�.s that woula avoid ai minimize 11 th�s� � tf �� ts . A fzw of tn� st alt � rnGtiv �s nuve beet� 12 cismissec3 withouc cccu�r��nt � tion cz ssior �co:� ir,gs . 1 � In conclusion , �s pz _• s� rv � t � cni � ts k•� h��:� 1 �! �.ilL' �X�.ir.Ct C}:C :.icCtlUf1 lU0 i�riJCE•SS W1 � 1 Tc�i. lrc a 17 rttonsiaeration Of alt? �f�Jtl �' E'S Wiill:t� c10 1E55 :1riAic:Gc 1 � �•.'.' t:lE C1i5LCt1C: ::15Lf1CC . i';"i,_:1"iK �'Ul+ . i i ' :-i:. . ��i:.til:.n�'c.��...�� . �ooc _v_ .. _ .:, . . 1 J •��Il'� a J ! .C.1 � �J l� 1 l`V 1 �j � 1 T Y ..J ' . 1 .. ' . `J'� 7 C. � e';1D� . J � ...... � _ ..i a . _ .'�. i � tl: � . .. i i9 iivin= ��rK .. n� � r,:�i:��er of c .. �t �ssoc: luti .:r. �s w� : _ � �� :s i��. f�.icr ;: � ior. . ric �i � nF� rc �on : ytic t � L:llk au�u � 21 optio�s . une of t :��n, is � i<< � L �.c � - s��i :; t�d � � 21 lI', �erchange � sfl�l YCU ti.iVi u1TE:ui] ! ti�: � IC tllu : 1C � S I1CL , L,� ::Ur chosen GYL 1Cr . � �`! v i 1 c O i ...._ T E:a b Q C:� �U T L i i 1 � i :._ � i C!l 4 T: � t ti c?5 _ j i _., t��il :�� .:� u o c� 'v � � ....'.7� ;l 1 E:: _� . b 5 ..� � _ _ � ._ . _�1 _ .. � ' _ � �. � i L l.•v:1 LV Y :;'f Y R c:, :�ri i ( .;1 � ; � � � -1 �� '�'--J ��r - %��9 ATTACH."IENT 11 Chestnut Street from Shepard to Ryan can also reduce the noise level to enable compliance with state standards . lf the new data presented is valid, and the consequent mitigation measures are possible, then the conclusion that a noise barrier along the top edge of the bluff is the only ePfective mitigation measure available is nece•ssarily invalid. Exhibit A also shows that the unmitigated noise level at the edge of the Irvine Park bluff at Walnut Street with the A-3 alignment exceeds the state nighttime � noise standard by 14 decibels . This is 12 decibels higher than � the Rece tor site 3 in Irv� ne Park, and contradicts the P # � implication in the General Conclusions about Project Alte�natives that the noise level in Irvine Park meets state standards and is � acceptable. f 5. Construction Impacts � Refer to a e IV-76 DEIS — P�_ • � Given the significance oP the Irvine Park Historic � District, and the extent of caves undercutting the bluff, more � analysis and mitigation o�' c�nstruction vibration needs to be addressed than just "the vibration will have to be tolerated" (p. � IV-76, DEIS) . � D. HISTORIC PRESERVATION EFFECTS . R�fer to paqe IV-78 , DEIS � Section 106 docume��ation or the National Historic � Preservation Act is pres�med unnecessary for the Irvine Park � National Historic District. However , according to the Advisory � Council on Historic Preservation , Protection of Properties , Procedures for Compliance : � -38- � ■ ' ` � � �T A federally financed, licensed or assisted undertaking shall � be considered to have an effect on a National Register listing. . . when any condition of the undertaking causes or � � may cause any change in the quality of the historical . . . architectural . . .or cultural character that qualified the property. . . " Further . " . . , adverse effects occur under ' conditions which include but are not limited to: � a) physical destruction, damage. or alteration of all or part of the property; � � b) isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the property's setting when that � � character contributes to the property's qualification for the Netional Register ; and c) introduction of visual , audible or atmospheric , � elements which are out of character with the property or alter its setting. Ciearly, project Segments A and 8 include adverse effects meeting 1 � each of the conditions "a" , "b" , and "c" above and is � � contradictory to the DEIS tp. S-8, �EIS) . ' The phrasing in the summary of '•direct" and " indirect" ' � effects (5-10 , 5-12 ) is not current to the Section 106 . Changes published in Fact Sheet : Hiqhliahts of Chanqes in 36 CFR Part � � 800 . Effective October � 1986, by the Acivisory Council on � � Historic Preservation states "the terminology of " indirect" and "direct" effects has been dropped . although without altering the ' � criteria' s scope; this change reflects recognition of the difficulty of categorizing effects as "direct" and " indirect" and , � the fact that both are treated the same in the Section 106 ' � process . " The OEIS should reflect this change. The characterization oP " indirect" historic impacts as ' � "minor secondary impact" (p. 5- 10 , 5- 12 , DEIS ) is not meaningful nor appropriate in light of the information above and in the ', � regulations . ' � -3 9- � � ... � Noise and visual impacts on the Irvine Park Histo� ic District under Aiternatives A-Z and A-3 are stated. however, no � cost estimates for mitigation are included (p. S-3 , DEIS> . "Potential adverse impacts in Segment B inciude increased noise � and traffic �ear the Irvine Park Historic District. . . " (p.5-4, � DEIS) , but no provision for mitigation is discussed or budgeted. The total construct�n costs for Segment 8 do not include any � costs for mitigation of the noise, traffic or visual impacts identified previously (p. 5-4. OEIS) . � E . SECTION 4(f) IMPACTS � RePer to peqe 5-8, IV-Sl , DEIS Given the above requirements of the Advisory Councit on � Histo�ic Preservation, coordination witl be requir�ed for each of � S.egments A and 8 alternatives . � � � � + � � � � � -40- �� ' �� M„� ATTACHMENT 12 ' United States Departn�ent of the Interior �'�'' ation and Recreation Service �+' .�. � Heritage Conserv -. ;::;�.:�r.;,.k<s.:::*;K.� ' ��.�. � ' ric P1ac ��v��^�}��s�s~' ' nal Register of H�sto es ..,.;..:.;,,��;;�.�=f :;,, Nat�o �.�.�- y 4.��.-�, [nven�ory—Nomir�ation Forrv� -�:��:.��;-��rt�-�:�.-� t See instructions in How to Comlcable sec ions e9�ster Forms Type all entries--complete app 1 . Nar�ne � h�storic Chica o Great Wes rn � sndrorcommon Chica o and t�orth Western Trans ortation Com an Lift Bridae 2. Location �� ' _not far pubiication street � number � _vicfnity ot congressional district city,town Sai P sta�e Mi nnesota code 22 county Ramse code 123 ' 3. Ctassification pwnership Status Pres�nt Use ' Category �oceupied _agricutturs museum _,district --P�b�� _commercial park .__buifding(s) �private _unoccupied rivate residence _,._both _work in Progress —educationsl P �structure _entertainment religiaus ' _.site Publie Aequisitfon Aee�ssibl� _ overnment scientific _abject _in process �yes: �estricted 9 _tieing considered _yes:unrestricted _industrial �L.transportation _�o _military other: ' 4, Ovd►�er of Pr��erty name Chica o and Plorth LJe rn Tra street d� number 275 East Fourth Street ' ` city.town • _,viclnity of sUte Mi nnesota ' S. Locat�a�n of Legal �escriptior� courthouse,registry of deeds.etc. Ramse OuTtt r street d� number state ��• city.town • 6. Re�rese��ation �n �x�s#i�g ��r�eYs � � has it�is property been de'ermined elegible? —yes — title . ._.fedent state county —�ocal Cate e�eesitorv tor survey reCOrds ' . Description � Ch�ek on� C?+�ek on� Co�dition unaltered �original site , �!I�*11e�� _deterionted _moved date _ � _ruins �altered 9 _unexposed _ftir , O�scrib� th• pr�ssnt snd oriyinal (if know�� physieal apP�srano� The Chicago G�eat Western aerial lift bridge was built in 1925 by the Chicago Great ' Western Railroad Company, replacing an earlier swing bridge in that location. In 1927, due to changes in railyard topography associated with the construction of the St. Paul Union Depot, the north end of the bridge was raised 16 fe�t. The bridge is a steel beam � span structure with a vertical lift truss spanning the navigational channel which carries a single track over the Mississippi River. The bridge design is �eminiscent of those designed - by Jal Waddell and may represent one of the designs he patented. Waddell was involved in the standardization of bridge design at the turn of the century and developed patents for � some of his designs as early as 1908-1909. The bridge consists of eight spans, seven of which are stationary, and one, on the north side of the river, which lifts. The vertical lift truss spans 189 feet across a channel width of 146 feet, with a mean low clearance of 75 � feet above water level. � ' , ' ' ' � 1 , � • . �. ' • - ' 5ign�fi�cance r�� has of S19nifiesnes—Ch�efc and justlfy b�low , ' �pr�historic _arcl�eology-prehistoric _eommunity planning _Isndsape aret►itectur�_religion _ �s0a-1 a99 _aref�eology-t�istoric eansenration _Iaw _seienee ' 150�1599 _sgricultu►e ._eca�omics _titersture _sculpturt 160a-1699 _archit�ciure �duqtion _,m�libry _sociall 170�1799 _sR �engineering _music humanitarian 180�1899 �commerce _expforatio�vs�ttlement_philosophy _,t�eater ' �,. 190Q- —communicatio�s _Industry _poiitics�govemment �tnnsportatlon _inv�ntlon _other(specify) Sp�eifie dst�s 1925 duild�r/4rehit�e! ' Stat��nt of Siyniticano� (in on� paragraph) Although the lift bridg� is a standard bridge form, it is a rare type of rallroad bridge to be � ! found in Minnesota. Only a few others have been identified in the state. The location of the lift bridge adjacent to Robert Street Bcidge provides for an interesting contrast. The practical design of the lift bridge is obviated by the bold Act Deco highway bridge. The ' railroad line on which the bridge occurs historically and presently serves as a major north- south freight connector for th� Twin Cities. , ' ' • ' ' , ' ' ' . , � . � . 1 . Major Bibfiographicai References See Attached � 10. Geographicai Data tAcrssge of nominsted property Ousarangl� name Ousdnngle sca�e ' UMT Raterencea � W I ► I � l,,,i�J e (..,�.J l � I � i � � I 2one Essting Northing Zone Eastfng Northing ' c W I_!_ �!l= o W I � I � I � � I � L.�.J � I � � � � t� I � I � �� F 1,�,� I 1 � I � � t ( � I , I � � . � � W � � , i �=�=t Hi�.� � � � i � � � � � i , i , � i Ve►bal boundary deseription and justiiicatlo� 1 � L�st all states and eounties for p►operties overiapping state o• eounty boundaries state code county code ' state code county code � 1 . �orm �re�ared By � - namutitle Susan L. Blachman ' organtzation Barton-Aschman Associates, Znc. date August 12, 1981 street� number 1610 South Sixth Street telephone (612) 332-0421 ' ciry or town ��ea lis Pa state Minnesota 12. Stat� His#or�c �rQ�ervation Of�icer Ce�#if�cation � The evaluated significancr of this property within the state is: ' .,,_natlonal _state X Iocal As t�e designste� State Historic Preservation Officer for the National HistoNc Preservation Ac!ot 1966 (Public Law 8�- 665).1 hereby nominatt this property 1or incfusion in the National Register and ceRify tf�at it has been evaluated aetording to the criteria and procedures set forth by the Heritage Conservation and Recreatio� 5ervice. ' State Nistoric Preservatlon Officrr signaturc ' tltle date , For NCRS use onty , - i hereby certtfy that tJ�is property is included'+n the Nationai Register ' . . . � • date Keepet of.the Natlo�al Aegisier ' Attesr ' date CJ�Lei ot Aeglstntlon ' � � Nick, Georqe - Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company 275 East Fourth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota (phone interview) . � Office of the Chief of Enqineers, United States Army, List of Bridges Over the Navigable Waters of the United States, 1927. ' Jackson, Don - Historic American Engineering Record, Heritaqe Conservation and Recreation Service, 440 G Street N.W. , �' washinqton, D.C. (phone interview) . , ' ' � 1 - ' ' ' � ' , , � ' . � � ' �S .'� �t�� '• j `�Q� ,// � Q J �/ \v • v w � Q, � � � o �f • ••y' `i � �b p r`,/� ` • :• . i •; �! u .,� ' +� Ir �� `r �y • aL •)�O �� ♦ . t � � � � � � � p � � �-�•♦ �� ♦ r ♦ �r � lt MO�• � � � '� � w � � � !)ls�� • • � > _ 1 u • •� t � •� �� 00 � v W • ,0 I q7 ��)� �+ � o• � � • o i r N . �I . � 1 O �C y O� � I. O � • " 0• •� � :�. � J s �f��E� `'�" - i� ` � o �� ° ° _ � Q \ •t E � S[. � v � t a .. � s , ,p � �' � "� � � r � � � • � r � A • 'p��0 � O� � ��+ � ~ � � �� t J �n '� �t � � t.�C �+ : '" �S r _ o � . � a z � a S � � � . a �« O O t � S � o � ; w �rI r •� .�i � f..J . ) ` ` `� \� ' ► , � ��► aSo •�)60a S � '^' 1' � � t •(, r0 a .�� "i � ` ) v � � � 0 7t WO • � �+ � • u t ' . � � • � � � * � S� .� �,�, . l�� ♦ G � N N �� N � w w � ' �f J � `\ \ \ S � y� w � ./1 i ' ' + �0 I �` \,` 0 fQ /,� .� � � ) \\\ S O J Q S � � a .-� •�' 4 5` ,�• r� : � m � ` '" - ` _ � 3� .t y� � • 1 �, J � � i ` �i ,n o, r i 3:i . .,i, , `p�c t r 9� `�• �\ 6 ° s N „ ; g :s s�o 3 � , . , � . \ 1 � r C � J � `\. \ 6 �7 �'{' � Z 15 3 • N� � Or�� • f. � <� s �\` \ �`. D�yO i 3 ; ; p > u C, rf d� �. • S�� u z Z � v_+ � �r� � ,jj t��. Ii (r � ��\ s a J N N �+ � ' � � '�L \ � iS � �IM G �s .�� g� ` f \�. \` i a � � c �. ` � ; ; 3 � O �n � � r ° '� ��'`. �. � m t n �S �� N m y ' \`� \� �a = e 0 3 � �y _ ` �•� .,� 1' �� \` 3�� «� O • i �7 � ; 1 101 ld � � � �f',r �\ `� ��y0 � Z 2 ~ z •S * �e � +O •` �\ �� ; � ,� �s O \ �� ; s s � i lo�i �� i �S a�s ��• �1�� .\`\\ v ; ; i i ' � r � '�� S '. M � � � aS �O 7� Of �� Owl6 ! a�' • , A � L O \ ^�\� : ' � � .� s �'� ' ° �" � .S S �n '�� d �� l � ' \ • � . i 1 � v�. y � �� \� b •O� Y � : � S• l� !1J rii \ � � � !a �� i > � 1$ � \\ \ Z�� c • � � �,-. -. ti. ti �� 9j wu�� s i O� � � � � � ti • 0 V� ••�y �A •� 17b�A i a � ~ � ; `� O - , � ; ,\ �f`� ' 1 ti O� .S �• 3�'� '� Ntl 1 ,\� `� �� . ♦ � • � \ � .� p. � � �� ' . iS 30 �M � �t 0�0 �• �� I �r r �r "�. . 0 \'. �` ; f � 9 > 1 � = s� lf �� W� \ \,, ^ � J � � • � �• \ � ..� 5n y� •w tS r v� � , �o u N i5 7�n0 �, �1 � , '' • - ,s 31�3 ,`•` \\ + �N �• � i5 C �� 3~ w � ! IS '3 � j�\. W�� v '� � � FO 1 Y3 3w c F � � � � � J t 1S \•� \. C V a � � �t0 M u 1S .»Oai Oi • � , � � 7 i �11 \r ♦ � �Q ,�' �' . j � l � > > ) � > j 1 � �t0 �` � . • �• S .� � a � � � � � � � ..Q � 1S N• ,Ol► ♦S ♦S • 7 SO �O � \ ^ ° i > :S tl08 a• �� r J � � t ' � C � 7 � 2 t � I _ . 1 S •t p ,., % 3 � 2 y '� tl 1S Cil♦ CW9 M �p � � • � O � a � � �... �+ ° � d ' � 2 O i N h /1 M • �A t � r��J 15 0 • , _ 1S • VO �t A M� A• M 1� n ' �f , 1 � � ` ; at •7 • � � y i • Z '� .'.1 1 l •O•� '� � i f •� tlU �� S • �� S �'tl � � • � ♦. � - S : • ,»�u g c a" i . ' ti � � + , V t S � O♦ i�w 1 S o a � e � .� N N � _ • � i `r � J f i a C ' O Q • J " �� 1 ��y� ��s.�. •r�F��S::i�.. '� ��i`y — �_ � Y _' .. ��:��'il�lil�'r��►�� =��.Y-� �;� �s;;;�• v . � � . ""�*'L;,��. :�- -- =,�. r 's y. _....—�.�.��r r ��►~�'^�'r'_ � - '�ir��+ � - • `�-;'. � ...� � �:Z°!D c- �� -� - Y � + _ - '_ ��.__.��a�... � "�. � _ '.r„ _¢y�./� �`-w � t?, tk�i_�-� _ =��=4°� - �.. � .rz _ f=..�� _�- � �-�"-�k .. - _ .�_ _ �-,- ,r.: i_ ��`-..:�' '.-. ~�r��-_�`i�t��._, x Y,�.. �'��_�� . r.�`-?"4 ; 3L_J_ � .,j,:.s--�-+`'^.,,,r._-_' �'�r�-�y,_ � �� r`_.a+L:w �i�� rr J'�^'..�. .�':r �-��t -�''r:.��'�'T� `�.Z"`� �_ ��.-�•'_ ' ��{'��.v�._" '1?Jiy=��^_��''=�r r.`,�=��'`:` ry. � '-�' �. 1 ,'r�•�G '� �+�� tis- •L .+.� 'T�� '�" �� ""'�� •'-.Z,�, ��r��" - �' `"�• �� - a. T?..__ ' - ^ .•� _��_•...,t,�,�i Jk�'.a;•.. �C �.��..�=�_'� �i..� - .. . . '�_: ^� .. . _-�'*_��,. i- -��t ,��y�� a „� ' ir, - . t� � j -- � � - •"'�� r . � � -=� '� . ,� r+. - _ ' .., �,= � � � � 1 � - ---— -- �:1I\T'r 1'.11�T. Pl0\LLlt PIt I;S�. - - � _ •l,i.1�'t,j„��•. .�l'l t l T. �_r'T�17 3. O�'7. • --�----- - -- on tFie crrn"E'WeTcehi ir•te� ./ NE�Y LIFT BRIDGE ��N.�� ty�a on �r,� atnw t� ��a�,Y , a h�lt bour 3'c�terduy afternoon. Th� � OPEN TO TRAFFIC Ari�Re. rccordtnR �o �hP �n�,�«r�. RhoMed ao eRects from che prolonped xtraln, and It Is bclle�cd �cfll At ablr to carry the heavleat en6tnc� that w111 -�-- cvcr be Aul!t. � Great Westun Structure Approved 6upported by Great 7ow•r.. �IR11• nPN' IILI ly con�ldered • model by Engineere After 8igid Teita— ��t �� k�nd Ui en��nen•rint clr�les. It �s 1:f_ fi�ce i��nr, glvin; cl�••rranee to th.� Sustsins F.nOZmous Weight. N•�drrt st�amD��s,ts tn:,t M•fu ever � ol.k� tn na�•IKatc the Mlasir�lp�1. It Sa ' sui�ported Ht efther rnd b�� towera 1�;, LI?TLE DA.NGEB OF ACCIDENT r.�.c �� n�s�h� ubove thr. top pf tAe con• rr��r rl.utwrnte upon whlch thcy ren. N'h�n <•umpl�tely ralsed, the Drldgr !a flfty-M•e fart •br�ve the tRCk 1eve1, ' Every K�own Precaution Tsken In and nearl� sc�•enty-fl�e leet abo�•e tne the Mechanism—Provision Made wAt�r lev�•l. T�.0 liugc concrete countcr w�elghts, fo� Wideat Boats. w•els►�tin�; ^': tons euch. arc �us- iknded from Uie tu�.•ers at euh end. rnd theee•, uprraied by an electrtc ' 7'h� nrw llft brid c, thc m��st m�dern mutor rnd y syetrn� of cables anQ g pu11c•�•a, rateo and !m�•er the b�fdgr. t�•I�� of aPxn fur na�'fguble rlvcre rver E;u carefully Dulanced wre the coun- ��. jt Is sald, constructed by t7ic ter M•ci�hts and the brldse ltxif, thet ��>>��+�::�� l;r.•at V1'ratcrn r4flroad to dl�- the welght uf one man oo elther the ptac� i I��• „Id drrw� bru�•�►tA the )tub�rt briA�� nr the wrlghu w111 catue th• , �ir��t brlA�;�•. ��us o��enrd lc� tn�fl)c Y�'S'' DTI:IKC iu rxlae or luw�r w•Ithout pow•er t�rd:�� t�n• th,. IIrKt t1m�. N'nrk on the M'hrn thc brskca arE �Ncraed. , O�•�� RII'111'IIIf�• KMS l'11111��IYlyd ti:iturlaY. Thp Lrldg�• c�n br. CoTilj,detlly Td�d � 7� ��M hut thn,ugh K�•�•�•ral Nqlrf tr..t. Jn th� ehurt sG.ace of forty-flve aecoaM. Thr sa�fng �n tlme over lne o�d dnw•- hui•h �uu,i:,�• i�n�b y�•a��•rduS'. and w�y bNdge, w•hlrh rr�ulred from thrac; W � ��i��'�'�'�� b> �•n�:inr��rx o! ti�e Statc fl�r minutes to turn, wfl) theretore b6 l::�ilr,,:,�1 iind �4'arrhuu�� Commlesclon. �rrut. ��i �i�,• r,.�d :�n�t ��t �h�• tlrm ui ��'udJcil dafepwrd� Ar• Provided. :��i Il:�rrin�t��n uf K�•�.• Yurk, dcalgn- ��r. i�f t:u• hrid_c. The actlon ot the brld,�e b aimoet -�� :+ iin.�l tcxt u1 Ilx affcngt�h, thrcE cnlimly Nutun�r(Ic. Danse� tnQ Tlsk , ��::�• 1i��•��muti�•ca, tlm hca�•ket In uao �f nIi k1nAN hy�•e t►een reduced to an ab- eului• minlmum. th�•enfns•v� declare, Rnn It �s 1m�.��vrtDle fur Lh� o{xr�tor to n�ake a nNaLUke w�hirh wil) re�utt !n � � an rccldrnt of any klnd. Thr locks , cannot be rel�rsrd, or ths lfft ral�ed, untll the block Aaa been pl+�c� aRstnst tralna ln buth dlrectlons, �nd the dd- r�I�InR swlu•h throwa. nor can It be operaied whPn erahu are wfthln a cer- ' taln dfn�ance of thc Cridqe. Whpn �l�e ' Dri�lge tn w�ithin a fcw� fncl�es of the toD uf 1tn lifl. the power I• sutomatically shut uK, and th� brakee ret, and 1t ac.�a ln s elmllar rt�anncr fn lowtring, �o thet poaalAlHtles of mis�udAment, and conaeryuent Avma�Ce to the brfdse, trr , out uf the �umtion. l'nlcas the Uft 1■ acrcUy 1n the r�ght pnsiUon, ualne eannut tnter untlt tt haa been ui- . �usted. `3hould thr. bridgc• bey ae 12ttfe u ono-�!=teenth of an fnch uut of f�s , Ornper �oaith,n on the abu[ments. th� Dlock f� auturnsUcull�• ►ct on tralns fii buth dlrectlone, and th� deraillnF �witch N thrown. Thc slgnal llghu ou ths brid�e �Aow danRer for �team- Do�t� untJt tbe brtdqe hes reuched tlie ' top of tho lltt, and tlie brrl:es ha�•e Deen lociced. New In Thi• 6eetion.' TAe nex• Arid�tr f� one of tl�e Arst M It� klnd evcr con*truct�d in thfr Kctlon , of the couetry. Th�rr. ar�� only thirty-� two 1n �ctual u��c�:�tlon In �hc LTnl�rd !)tates. ]t ia known he tnr �1'rddrll &' F�larrlastun tYPe of ticrtlrnl s�an. and �ee cons�rucud n� the Amerlc+►n� drlAgo Coinpum• �f Ne«• 1�nr6. ' , ��'urk on !he new brldSP N•:+e ataned lasl Au�vst, anA has Deen Roing :i, eontlnuouviy �incc•, ti ith tl�e escePtion of a tew day� 1n the wla�rr, when thc cold weathcr prrccnt�d. Diui•h w�ork c�t � a minor nuture rrmalne to M• donr, b�t thr Dr1d6e 1e, for ull pract�cat pur�e�, complattd. TAe uld dnw•Drldee w•111 De tak�n duw•n tmmedtately. n'ork on thr w'rrcklt� ot thi• old strurture w•UI D�• ' narted tpdiy. and 1t i• Dctic�•N w�ill De tlnlshed tn • f�•w w•c�ke, "�� - i ,, � ��_ . ._ . .... .__ . . . _._ .- �'T�� _ � , ��ED\ESD��Y. :�PItIL �s. 1s1�. , �� SAL'�'T P,�1UL PIn\E�It PRI��, - .� • � to Pass Beaest ,. � Rea�s �a. Vessels ;' - ... ._ --.-- ,,' , � `�4'��, . ' , � �� . : �" ��,`=�s ► : . ':•t;� � ��.••� � ' . t,�:t: , . . _ i � ' � t .�. :.: ., `` ' � ' '�..; , - - t r�;ti:.,:i;:. �.\ . . .. / „ � . • �� ,R ' ..+...�.- ". \ .y� -.f ~ .l"r• .'T.c°�:a .' �- ., , � -ii . i' j �.,. . . . , ' '�.. i,� ' ; � , . + .-�:i�`s.r ``, " 1 ,` ' � �y{ � � \ .' .: �� . . .�. ��• '�'s` ��i MiJt.r+f ��Y; \ °I _ �.�.i . /�+'�9d.�'^►:,� � ' � �•, � . E''�: '. . f� ,s� ��: �� ,�''�� ". � t . • i: 1 . `�` .�� ; . � .x� . _ : , s ° -.;.'..� � . . � : . � � — . � i �� :�'. � ; 1 - ..i,^ .` � " � _ ,F; '� �i -aaS a'' � _ .i. ' ' � �.� �` �� •� • �'• ' , K: � � •i � �..� _ ,�,�> : , i .r; 41'' r d i '+ ,��.�+� , � • ' s`+,. ' � ` �43� Y wn a. �� .f+�"�.,;, '~ , 1. �i� �,�t} s�r r.,�%,'s+�r�:��+ . ' . _- _ . .�. .: y . �a�:"�°� � .�:.:.�� t .��i ;� �� The New Great Westera Bridge. ' � The center span ie eho��•n lifted, like a huSe elPCator, gi�•ing clearanc•e be!on• for the !argest ri�•er steamera. Tl�e Fpaa 1b clectrfcallp controlled and tLe L:�luuce b<:t�vicen tbo gresL countcr�cl��ts at c�c:i slde end the Relgl;t of the eyaa ltselt is remarknble. I , ��._-- ' ' ' ' , � ' Q C� ' 19��~` ��1 � /� ,� � ��M' o� , ��: �. ,,,�� ti�'� � .� ��-�•_: . . , � - _o ,\��Umited States Departm�nt of the Interior � � NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ' ,�,�,`..• w'ASHINGTOI�, D.C. 20240 IM RE�LY lEiEx TO: �]lO � Mr. William R. Lake Division Administrator U.S. Depart�ent of Transportation (� ' Federal Highway Administration Suite 490, Metro Square Building 7th 6 Roberts Streets ' St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 _ Deer Mr. Lake: ' Thenk you for your letter requesting a determination of eligibility for inclusion in the National Regisier pursuant to Executive Order 11593 or the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Our determination appears on the enclosed � material. As you are aware, transportation projects requiring the use of significant historic � properties are also subject to the provisions of section 4(f) of the Department of T�ansportation Act of 1966. Your request for our professional judgment constitutes a part of the Federal planniAg process. We urge that this information be integrated into the National Environmental Policy Act and section 4(f) ana2yses in order to bring about �� the best possible program decisions. This determination does not represent the rest:lts of formal consultation by the Department of T1�ansportation with the Department of the Interior pursuant to section 4(f). Such requirements would be fulfilled only when the ' Department of the Interior separately comments on any section 4(f) statement which may be prepared and approved by you for circulation. The determination aiso does not serve in any manner es a veto to uses of the property, with or without Federal particip- ' ation or assistance. Any decision on use of the property in question lies with your agency after the Department of the Interior has had an opportunity to comment on the 4(f) statement and other procedures are fulfilled (36 CFR 800). iWe are pleased to be of assistance in the consideration of historic resources in the planning process. _ � Sincerely, N . ' Carol D. Shull � Acting Kee�er of the National Register , En cl es ure � � DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY � NOTIFZCATION DISTRIBUTION , cc: State Historic Preservation Officer Mr. Russell W. Fridley , Federal Representative: Mr. Rcbert F. Crecco Buzeau Liaison: Mr. Larry Isaacson � Advisory Council on Historic Preservation:Washinqton, D.C. _ , ' ' � . � %. � a � , ' � _ ' � r � . � � � � . E�. _ DE-TERMINATION OF ELIGIBIUTY NC1TI FICATION � National Register of Historic Places Heritage Conseivation and Recreation Service , Proj�ct Name: Minn. Project I 35E-4 location: Dakota and Ramsey Counties State: MN , Request submitted by: DOT/FHWA William R. Lake Dote r�ceiv�d: 10/6/81 Additional info�mation received: � c� r7 36 C�='� �'�-� 6�.� � De L?��i��*.i�n Eligibility Name of property SHPO Secretory of the Criteria , opinion Interior's opinion � Armstrong Nouse � elig. elig. : „ �� How Residence � ' „ �� Robert Street Bridge ' Chicago 6reat Western Railway �� „ Co. Aerial Lift Bridge , Wabasha Street Bridge �� ,� Nathan Myrick Residence �� ' " �� William Banholzer House , ' � . � ' � ��'/ • y,, /`��L�i1G� , � Keeper of the National Register Determined E2lg3b�. , Date: �� . l9 / FMA B'?67 2/79 y �,PO ��2 S77 ' � �� 0�+5 Suw�190.Arevo Saw�e euromp , a�� ~ �MwNSON Dmsra� 7in 6 RaOe�s Sure�s S� Paul,Mw�esas SS101 �fTf1�1�f1TCf{Of1 � October 1 , 1981 � Keeper of the National Register, W434 � , U.S. Department of Interior Washington, D. C. 20243 � RE: Minn. Proj. I 35E-4( ) S.P. 6280(I 35E) � FHWA-MN-EIS-81-02-D From TH 110 in Mendota Heights To I-94 in S[. Paul � Dakota and Ramsey Coun[ies Gentlemen: As part of the project development process for the � applied the National Register criteria to all potentiallytsignificantehistoric and cultural properties that We have identified in the area of potential impact ' of the project. We have also consulted with Mr. Russell W. Fridley, State His- toric Preservation Officer for Minnesota. In accordance with 36 CFR 63.3, the SHPO by letter dated September 17, 1981 � has determined and ve agree that the Armstrong House, How Residence, Robert Street Sridge (9036) , Chicago Great Western Railway Company Aerial Lift Bridge, Wabasha Street Bridge (6524) , Nathan Myrick Residence and William Banholzer ' House are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. In support of this determination, we are enclosing a copy of a report which , summarizes the historical characteristics of the subject properties. This re- port was developed in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(a)(3) and 36 CFR 63. Your determination of eligibility will be apprecaited. If you have any comments , or questions, pl'ease contact Mr. Rogez Larson or Mr. James St. John (FTS 725-5956) of my staff. � Sincerely yours, - �' ' , _ . _'. ' , � , . . ..�-- . . . • William R. Lake �' Division Administrator , Enclosures . 1 ' �� . MINNESOTA HlSTORICAL SOCIE , F O U n D E 0 I ni 18a 9 690 Ceda� Streer. Sr. Paul, ��f�nnrsoU 5510� - �6t2� : ' 17 Sepcember 1981 1 rMr. C. P. Kachelmyer Preliminary Design Engineer ' Department of Transportation Room 604 - Transpoztation Bldg. Sc. Paul, �l 55155 - , Dear Hr. Kachelmyer: RE: Reviev of the Determination of Eligibility , for Properties Impacted by the Proposed Interstate Highway 35E/Ramsey Cour.ty, IrW. � NHS Referral File Number: I 205 � Our office has received and reviewed �the determina[ions of eligibility for the Armstrong Har4�se, How Residence, Robert Street Bridge (9036) , ' Chicago Great WesLern .Railvay Company Aerial Lift Bridge, Wabasha Street ' Bridge (6524), Nathan Myrick Residence. and William Banholzer House, for the proposed 35E Interstate Highway pro�ect. �'e concur that all of these properties are, eligible for inclusion on the National Register o; Historic Places. It is obvious [hat much thoughtful attention has been given to ' the preparation and presentation of these determinations of eligibility. If you have further questions or cocmtents, please do not hesitate to con- , tact either Dennis Gimmestad (296-9070) or Susan Hedin (296-01�J3) of Che State Historic Preservation Office. � Sincerely� '/t"�'y�,�" 1"� �^ �l�v-......r��[ 1 , �,�Russell id. Fridlev �� State Historic Preservation Officer RWF/sl , cc: Susan Blach�r.ann Barton-P.schman Associates, Inc. 1 1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, M� SSG54 , � ' 0 � . . , �: THE 111DDLE A,iD UPPER:HISSlSSIPPl R11'ER ' CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILROA� BRIDGE, � ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA. c s�a z MI. AOOV[ o��o ��v�R� c.c.w.�.R.cn ' sw�T wzs ��) �n, a..w ' tN.W.lsl1) 70)��' � '� .. •. (p�ppp�sd)POOI l09.2�. fOOI 007.2' , < e �O� �F � O- o a•``'' :O , W`. ,w °��•`�• •W 1 1 ;,�•� :z Z: ��1 �.. . 'z � s� � � �i �/ o ' r o 'r � /� — J • / � C � � f •�!�\[��1 O P ( '`�s' �sG"1 � ��. °r � � 1 � � , Z � s� \r ` ^ ` \i ` ' VERTICAL CIEANAr/C(,L[FT S�DE��SPAM I��TED).«.w.iee�-----------ss.�• � ; VERTICAL CLE�A�NCE,RIGMT S�OF fSPAN IIFTED).M.W.1lSI----------5�•0' � � VEATIGA� CLEAfUNCE,lEF7 5(DE,CSVAN UFTED).POOI-----------�7�.z' .. � � . VERTK.AI GLEARANC�NIGNT StDF(SPAM IIfTEO).oOOt--'---'-"-71.)• � - . VERTICAL ClE4A�YCE,IE�T S�OE�(SPAH IOwEREO�.M.w.le0+'-'--""��•r � vERTtUL CIE�R�a:E,AiGMT 90E,(SVqN LOwE�E07.N-w.i�E�---------E�7' � � � � - . - VERTiUI CLE�RwwC:,IEiT S�D�(SPwN LOwERED).POOI----------20.9' - VEF7iC.�t CIEAB�tiC�aiGrrT SrDE.tSOwN �OwEAED1GOOt_-______'_25.a• � � EIEv. �Ow S'EE.._E►? S�DE.c3P�N UF7ED)-"--'-------'--'960.s � ELEV. LOw 5'E£�.��G�T S�OE�CSpAN U�TEOJ----'--"'---"'-��6�9' . . $CALE OF FfEt �ap p S00 �000 i , � � ♦�L ELEvwTiONS aEFER TO MEAN SE• L[vEl OATUM , � �19�2 ADJUSfMENT� I _ 1 ' • , , i - ^ Z} t' ..`TS _...� .� .;� Y . . " •- . ' ' " R. �i _ �T 4 �+rs �r.si�� -�'� . . .' . _ - . ._ � ,a.:,•�.,. .._ ��: . . y .. �. � ATTACHMENT 13 , DATE: June 23, 1988 T0: Peggy Reichert , Lucy Thompson Allen Lovejoy A�nn Warner � FROM: Tom Harvey SUBJECT: Historic significance of Chestnut and Eagle Streets � , I have more closely reviewed the historical development of the Upper Levee area paying particular attention to the historic connections of the Levee to _ Fort Road and the dvwnt.own area. This review consisted of another look at all of the historic city and fire insurance maps (through 1905) and photos at , M.H.S. and an examination of city public works documents pertaining to street work in the area. For lack of time, I will not describe, in detail, every piece of evidence that I examined. Is S.H.P.O. would like, I can review the , documents with them after I return. My review does not alter the information or conclusions in the "Historic Resources Survey" for Shepard Roacl. My added conclusion, relevant to the � issue of the historic importance of Chestnut Street, is that Eag1e Street (not Chestnut) was the more important connection between Fort Road (principally the Seven Corners area) and the river Ianding. Chestnut grew in importance as , , fill was added and tracks were expanded west of Eagle and Chestnut, but Eagle remained an important connection until after 1900. ' I stand by statements in the general history of the St. Paul riverfront on page 13 of the historic resources study: "Edward Phelan built a cabin near Eagle Street later to become St. Paul's Upper Levee. " "At the Upper Land- ing, Henry Rice established a large warehouse at the foot of Eagle Street. " 1 Recently published reports refer to the Upper Landing as being at Chestnut. I think these reflect modern perceptions rather than historical fact. All the evidence that I find shows that the earliest development of an upper landing � began around Eagle Street and extended up to Chestnut. In the recently published "The Mississippi and St. Paul, " (Ramsey County His- torical Society, 1987) , two pictures on page 19 suggest the historical ' development of the Upper Levee area. An 1870s picture shows tracks on raised trestles and a levee road at the river's edge. Numerous low areas had not yet been filled. Both Eagle and Chestnut extend to the river. Along the tracks, , a Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad freight house extends from Eagle to Chestnut. Two warehouse/commercial buildings are located on Eagle near the river -- one on each side of the street. No buildings are located on Chestnut. Chestnut was, however, the site of the "Upper Landing" ferry cross- � ing (shown on an 1857 map) . An additional picture in I�iS files shows an 1860s view looking down Eagle toward the river. Both commercial buildings are shown and a steamboat is docked at the foot of Eagle. The other picture in "The , Mississippi and St. Paul, " taken after 1889 also shows a steamboat at the foot of Eagle. , Additional evidence supports the importance of Eagle Street. Original plats and insurance maps show that Eagle was 80 feet wide (to Chestnut's 66 feet) . and that lots faced onto Eagle but not on Chestnut. Eagle provided the most , ' direct connection to the Seven Corners area. This evidence suggests that Eagle was planned as the primary route to the Upper Levee. Eagle Street did, � in fact, develop more quickly and fully than Chestnut Street. The evolution of structures along Eagle is not fully reflected in the "Historic Resources Survey" for much of the area was outside of the project study area. Examina- , tion of fire insurance maps over time shows earlier and more extensive development of Eagle Street. It is clear from an overall review of historic photos that the Lower Landing ' was the primary steamboat landing for St. Paul. The Upper Levee developed as an off-loading, storage, and processing area for coal, lumber, grain, stone, etc. Over time the Upper Levee expanded to the west from its start between , Eagle and Chestnut Streets. More tracks and train facilities were built west of Chestnut to be followed by the structures and sites listed in the "Historic Resources Survey. " With that expansion the use of Chestnut Street grew. The residential neighborhood of Little Italy, for example, dates from the 1890s. ' Twentieth century changes have left no evidence of the former importance of the Eagle Street area. Chestnut Street does have remaining structures dating from after 1900. I think it is easy for people to interpret the existing , evidence and to inaccurately conclude that Chestnut Street is the historic connection to the Upper Levee. The Upper Levee itself is shown on maps as extending from one block east of , Eagle to Chestnut; for a length of two to three blocks west of Eagle; and primarily west of Chestnut. It is difficult to draw any definitive conclu- sions on the historic location of the Upper Levee. It expanded and moved and � has been portrayed inconsistently on maps. From the existing maps, I have been unable to reconstruct the historic topog- � raphy and grades of the two levee streets. One map (1851) shows a creek run- ning up the middle of Chestnut Street with a break in a bluff line east of the street and south of Ryan. Existing topography shows no evidence of that creek or of the bluff (it extended east past Eagle Street) . Pe.rhaps along with the , vertical fill and horizontal extension of the levee, a low bluff grade was removed from Chestnut to the east. Or levee fill eventua2ly reached the low bluff elevation. Map interpretation is difficult, at best. One map shows ' Walnut Street extending from the river right to Irvine Park, thus totally ig- noring the major bluff line on the south side of the park. I do not think that historic raising of the grade has occurred; there was no need for it. The current alignments of Eag1e and Chestnut are the historic alignments. � For purposes of choosing an alignment alternative for the Shepard Road to Fort Road connector, it would be Zess appropriate to build along Eag1e Street [han � to build along Chestnut. I realize that Eagle Street is not currently under consideration, but that is an alignment that the West Seventh community has long been favored. If the boundaries of the Irvine Park District were to be ' expanded to include the Upper Levee, they should be expanded to include Eagle Street. The significant period of history for Chestnut Street as a connection to the Upper Levee begins late in the nineteenth century (after 1885) , when fill extended the levee area to the west. Irvine Park's period of sig- , nificance (on the National Register form) is 1848-1900. The important early development of the residential area was taking place in the 1850s, 60s, and 70s when Eagle Street was developing. I do not want to diminish the historic ' connection along Chestnut but do want to assert that if historv is the issue, than shifting the road to the east is not a reasonable consideration. I distinguish the historv of the Upper Levee and Irvine Park areas from issues ' of historic vreservation. From the perspective of historic preservation, any ' ' arguments to preserve the alignment, grade, and topography of Chestnut (or � Eagle for that matter) should rest on those area's significance to Irvine Park as a historic district. Previous memos from Allen Torstenson and myself on the HPC action describe our opinions on impacts on the district as it now ex- � ists. If the street is significant it should have been included in the his- toric district. The boundaries should have extended to the river to include the Upper Levee. • � Those additional areas were not included in the 1973 nomination and should not be added to the district today. National Register criteria address the "quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and � culture that is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and ob- jects that possess integrity of Zocation, design, setting, materials, workman- ship, feeling, and association" (emphasis added) . The Upper Levee has been � dramatically altered through decades of urban development. It retains in- tegrity of location only. The current grade of Chestnut was established in 1899, at the end of the "historical" period of the Irvine Park residential area. Design, materials, and workmanship have all been altered. Any historic � integrity of Chestnut and Eagle Streets is compromised by the fact that they no longer lead to significantly preserved areas. The setting, feeling, and association criteria have all been compromised. � I have not had time to do much more to document topographic changes in the Up- per Levee area. At this time, it should not be necessary. We can get an in- terim reading from SHPO and can see the case made by the Irvine Park resi- � dents. � ' , � . � � � � , � � 87 •i� � N >Nf// �Z� r D o a � a n y �1 tA A• w N f.+ qp ATTACHMENT : �in> > a z ►'S l7 S f7 • • • • �p a �� a'" * r• 0► � N nzvoQ> � 3 �t � b rt n H � G fAD � o;�9 �0 7' O fD fD fD ? � ~� 7C' � 'n -> > -� ►'•� p"S � Z fD 1-+ o�y � ;i 1-� h'�' r• (D O f!) N N• 75' fD O ,9,o tD lt Or � F+- fT ft � F+• r"S m� ; >a � ' <m m s 2 > m 2 Z >� � p"( � (D � C � � ff f!1 c r-� � Q a Q fD CL fT �L7 (/) h� f+• " ;� � T" � a n n � � � ZZ> mi° � o oi x �c �r c� z � T� a N- '* � ? � >� (!I � � ;o � fD Z Z Z Z Z Z o� a O C7N• G �• � �'• C �• CJf+• C �'• r•r p► �G a �L2 w � A+ �G �v W w �G � y � C � fi � rt � rt � rt � � � rt �D � ~' ~ O tD (A � J �1 0� tJ� O� C� 0� C1 J J V� lT1 1-r+ W f0 F+• O O U1 V1 A �l O F-+ �Ji N O� �D O rf � r � �� O tn � i � o� cn c� a� cn �n a� a+ cr� cn r M x � i i o0 ow w �o o� ao oo� o � . �•� � � * ' , � a x a� o� v� v� o� cn o� a� � o Z � co �• o� �o. c� �n o ao ►� o o a N \\ \\ \\ \\ \ (p � 0 = o c+ cn v� �n � �n �n cn cn V� ftt � N• ao �n � ao .� tn oo .i o � � O rnD �� H D � '* ~' z � t� � Z p a�i a o� a� �n u, o� cn a+ o� � ° � � �n G ao o► ao o, N �o �a �a o ty� � � �3 M N \\ \\ \\ \\ \ � � � �" r � �•rt o+ �n �n cn cn tn o� o� r �• � t., w ' `� D A n r oo w O �o o� [� r-+ � N ,� � � n w ° p' � �' � V� Z c� r � � H r 70 � m � � c� a� cn �n a+ v+ o� o� � � o � � � � ft O 00 O� tD J F-� 1D N O O F� � � G� Ul. 0� l71 lTt lJ1 lJ1 V� l71 ll1 C'+ � � � C O � � N � � � � � �o � �, I � r � p N' � w �' , � � •� c� c� �n o� o� o� o� � � ° �� n � � � � � � � �+ � r000 �P F+ �I lJ1 �P N �O v lJ1 1 • O � � � � �1 O� O� U1 O► O� O� O� Fr+ � \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ fD 0� O� U1 l71 O► O► tT� UI ' �P F-' W Vt �P N 1C v (rJl �j � ONp� fi "'I �1 0� Q� lJt J C► O� C1 Fr-� 1� <. , � \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ N � Q� O� lJ1 CJl O� C1 O� O� C'' t7y r A F� �7 �P �7 �D A N (J1 � ' m o � a � � � a� a� cn � c� c� o� � �' y �� , o, o� �n v► v, a► o► o► r o0 � F� v lTi J tJt �A N lIl I O N � ��- , �'��s � � ATT C�EV�S � Alternative B-2: Grade-separated connection on � the existinq Chestnut aliqnment Description• This alternative would provide a connection to Shepard Road on � the same alignment as the existing intersection (see Figure 3) . This alternative could connect only to the alignment of Shepard � Road which is shifted closer to the bluff (see Segment A for roadway alignments) because of the grade differential and the need to minimize disruption of views down Chestnut Street. The interchange would accommodate grade separations for both the � roadway connection and the railroad crossing. Chestnut Street would need to be improved at least as far as Ryan Street. � Findinas: . � While the forecasted traffic volumes indicate that this connection could function adequately without a grade separation for the roadways, a full interchange would certainly enhance the � function of this connection by allowing unrestricted flow for Shepard Road. Aside from the roadway connection, the grade- separated railroad crossing would be economically justifiable based on forecasted traffic volumes and anticipated delays. If the railroad crossing is grade-separated, then the roadway connection would also require grade separation. The potential � for visual impacts is difficult to ascertain without more detailed analysis. Recommendations: � Because this alternative satisfies most of the objectives for this area, it is recommended that it be considered further in the EIS. �� . Alternative B-3: At-qrade connection on aea aliqnment east of the existinq Chestnut aliqnment � Descri tion: - This alternative includes a shift in the alignment of Chestnut Street to the east of its present location (see Figure 4) . The connection would be an at-grade, signalized intersection with turn lanes. This alternative could connect to either the existing Shepard Road alignment or the alignment of Shepard Road which is shifted closer to the bluff (see Segment A for roadway �,_,_,. aliqnments) . Chestnut Street would be constructed on a new -� alignment from Shepard Road up to Exchange Street, where it would �Y;�: return to its present alignment. This alignment would divide a �� parcel of land held by West Publishing Company for future "``� expansion. �� .. � , - 23 _Y .��-. :� zay� . •c �� :�: .�. � �� :�" �%� ' , � � � ; � - ; Y:, ..,.� •�. ' ` � •��,+• .j .a.r T i: � . / : ':r �� _ .�. � � ;�, �' , � ''' s. ,,,i - , -. �._:- r .. # a � .'rf �'�_ � ' :�' `-+.. D - , t` ��- ��•s�°�T _ � � • _s �l., , .i. .�� . f �� •i � • � �� 'K �� y� - _ � Z � �• _� , + _ .. Y^ � '-�� .. 1 F D -� 't" ' " r� 2-��r.' 3 . �1 :X_ :. � ' � � ��' � ,.�#�'i'�r'` • z� ' �S� • 't ia►�' '�• �+ a1 ' �i :. �^� _ 3� _ ' � �� a � _ ;�.1��,, ��i� :, cn = °,° -� 1. • �� ,�,1�. � � _. � a w �. ' ` ,L j�:� �._y �sw;-.. � a> i � • � � :'taNi�� . .. .,� �.:ars.- � 3 ;.i '� �� ..:�'�`•�, ,'� �(! .—� :... .v�; s aae i � F� � �. �- »ri- 1', ! ��`; j . . . :� . . _y � � .— :�, > � ;` _„ .� �� ,� „��' � Z �D �"' �.,; y 4` e` t � � _ _ !�i _ � � �I �m _ � � � � •j n'. ,,,�, �. � �,��:. '�`. � � zn i � ,•� ? ; '+' j% !��'''�' " . 1�f -- ' �/f �O '' � ,'- ++. t .�.. � ' �► �+,.. ' � _ ; � T Z . . !�'_,^ .��`5�� i• w '� �.� �' � � /� , 1� + �1 1'1 H� � :�� - - . �•�. � - `��s � •�- �T I m " � � � � �� ..a� ; ,� /f {''^^':��. .�� .� r / . !'��. �✓'/ � . T' �. .�r.-'. � D Z m � � �; �: . / '� �;:�, ,r''ti�- �,_ .._ , � .,- 9, � y O Z � '�L� C� �`,y � �� y N�y� � V 4`�� j� �; ; �S _ O � � -;r , , �t p n �1 � '�f �� a/. {'..""��•.�►� �� ,.� , •�° � � � _ o'� f;�,``+!�+�i�i = " ` ..< �.;� ��: � � Z a � �_ , , : p C 2 � '` !� �r n� �`' ' 4�' - .,� ,r'. �. .. • c�2 �1 . ; ,,� !Cf '� � •.;' f.,� ,; < = /� m � :�� .'.ar. - � ' m� •� � !�t � �+ � ''�' � f� �" .✓ cn� p � `-� -�� .� � ,y .., r �: �.. � • �m 2 D ~� �' ~ � y a c� � _:� , � . .w�. �_ y � •' , � ,� - " ` �� '�. � � O , � • �, � '. . :' : �5 i�' � m Z = ;�� ' `� ��t ��•�� 3 2 � � `'` • . � ,,,•i .. -�- , -, � m < 1 ' %: � � - t�! � `l•! � 2 `i s � � � � • 't ' , , � m - :, �." ""' y � t� z� -� � ; � ' .:+� �"`,�yt;�'x: •��.,��f,, �,� � �/1 y -� '+ � ± �'' � . �" -�•� �� = i rn �� •:�_ l .�i' •` A*� "';i�°� �� r � T r -.: _ � -"�.� � < m i� 1� ` � t,.ti� - 11T. �' ;.; � �� } ��'a. . ; � ' � 3• ��-'� . � y A ! y T �k � I'M �`1�►� .#'. �� .� _.� • �� ,. . � ;� � �� -: � .�,�� .� - � _ �,j-, ►��._� � � � .. , ;, � � �. .--j, —�:-t , �o � .� ..�+► �: 'i� � ; '^ 1 �_ •�r` ��to ��'��,nNl�� "� ".�': o =m ` �t`*= ! ,� :�:"?� S � �,^�- •- f �� ..-.,�".,..y a y� . � � . , � ��; '� . � ,� �� :�� ' 1 O = � . # ''`� .,'. � �1� - - i- w �: _-� ��. ' = 1 n ^� . ±� '.)'� �� !\ O m .. . � .. ' . .�� '' � s■! �/1 M. � ♦ O '.R�` •� ' ��:�;� `''•�j�• � - ' _ -1� ;� .. _ .i ,` , � � •. �� , � n . . ��^� ` �� < + :S��. � r• �� a��. : i ♦ O .:.,„ '� �'t•, � _�.. a �` ;'� ' � z }�a: ' .,� �..� { �:�,y� ' �-� .� j— ; ��M. �J.�.. . T '� � ` { y,.��_� �.•�' i �t r ' . � f!"� •► <. � I��,�t� 't°,� �'fi"' y; �•V .��f: ,�l ' , ' �. - „ � � --� - �-a�,�� • , j� /� / _ �� ; � +�,,,�/�,r� -�, _ � i� �• - � `� � •• ~ � �ay�'� / ii', I�'��• y.. �� i � � � / � f. �t � f� � � �1 I � �,�� / � ' • \ i ' i I . �� •� e � r � c Findinas• This alternative would provide more of a buffer to the Irvine Park neighborhood. In addition, by shifting it away from the ' existing alignment, this alternative would avoid potential disruption of the view down existing Chestnut Street. However, significant right-of-way acquisition would be necessary for the new Chestnut alignment. The alignment would divide a parcel of land acquired by West Publishing Company for future expansion, which would severely limit their expansion potential. An at-grade intersection of Shepard and Chestnut would have the capacity to accommodate traffic volumes forecasted for year 2000 at an adequate level of service. Without a grade separated railroad crossing, the delays due to railroad operations would continue to lower the level of service on Chestnut Street. Recommendations: Because this alternative would result in significant adverse land impacts, it is recommended that it be eliminated from further consideration. Alternative B-4: Grade-separated connection on a new . aliqnment east of esistiaq Chestnut Descritition• � This alternative would provide a grade separated connection to Shepard Road on a new Chestnut Street alignment east of the existing intersection (see Figure 4) . This alternative could connect only to the alignment of Shepard Road which is shifted closer to the bluff (see Segment A for roadway alignments) because of the grade differential. The interchange would accommodate grade separations for both the roadway connect�ion and the railroad crossing. Chestnut Street would be constructed on a new alignment from Shepard Road up to Exchange Street, where it would return to its present alignment. This alignment would divide a parcel of land held by West Publishi�g for future expansion. Findinas• This alternative would provide more of a buffer to the Irvine Park neighborhood. In addition, by shifting it away from the existing alignments this alternative would minimize the potential for visual impacts down existing Chestnut Street. However, significant right-of-way acquisition would be necessary for the new Chestnut alignment. The alignment would divide a parcel of land acquired by West Publishing Company for future expansion, which would severely limit their expansion potential . .,a,_ :..�;-. � . �_:;- 25 �;. � � _ � � While the forecasted traffic volumes indicate that this � ' connection could function adequately without a grade separation for the roadways, a full interchange would certainly improve the function of this connection by allowing unrestricted flow for � I Shepard Road. Aside from the roadway connection, the grade separated railroad crossing would be economically justifiable based on forecasted traffic volumes and anticipated delays. � ' Recommendations: Because this alternative would result in significant adverse land impacts, it is recommended that it be eliminated from further � ' consideration. Alternative B-5: Reverse locatioa of road i railroad tracks � � Description• This alternative was developed in an effort to minimize the � ' disruption and delays due to the location of the railroad tracks in this segment and in the segment to the east. The alignment of Shepard Road would be behind the grain elevators and would cross � � over the tracks to the west of Chestnut Street. The tracks would have to be in a tunnel for this crossinq to occur. Shepard Road would then intersect with Chestnut Street with an at-grade , ' intersection and continue to the east (see Figure 5) . Findinas: This alternative was developed, in part, to resolve the conflict � � created by the railroad crossing on Chestnut Street. It also creates some significant open space along the riverfront. However, there would be very significant costs associated with � � the tunnel as well as the major railroad track relocations to the east necessary to construct this alternative. In addition, there are negative impacts on Segment C (to the east of Chestnut) � ' primarily because the tracks would be closer to the river which is considered less attractive to recreational activities along the riverfront. It would also necessitate removal of the Chicago Northwestern railroad bridge over the river near Robert Street , � (see Segment C for further discussion) . Recommendation: ' � Because there are serious concerns about the ability of this alternative to meet financial and land use objectives, this alternative is recommended for elimination from further ( consideration. . , Segment Alternative B-6: Eliminate connection of Chestnut to Shepard Road � ( Description• This alternative would include eliminating the link between Chestnut Street and Shepard Road. . Chestnut Street would be , terminated at Hill Street (see Figure 5) . �:-. � r�:. 2 6 '•.. � � ATTACHMENT 3 � � MINNESOTA HIST�RICAL SOCIETY FOUNDED IN 1849 Fort Snelling Hutor� Cenrer, ;( Paui. '�11 >j;;; • �bl?.: "26-1 1'1 , . � Cctober 11, 1°8� � Ms. Pegg� �. �eichert �ity cf Saint Pa�l � Depart�ent of Planning & Economic Development Division of Planninv 25 west Fourth Street � Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Reichert: � Re: Effects of Shepard/tti'arner/East CBD Bypass Project on historic properties; F.amsey County P?�:S Referral File Nu:�ber : AA-832 tT�'e are writing in response to your letter of 5 August anc� to oLr conversations at meetings on 22 September and 5 October, regarc- ina the above referenced prcject. � Your letter expr�sses the epinion that the Sheperd/tvarner/Ea�t CBD B}�pas� Pre;ect w. ill rave r.o adve:se effect o.^. properties � li�*_e� or. er eligi�le fo: listing on the �yational Register of historic Places. t�?e concur Wltr that fi.^.ding, except fez t�:e following: , Segment A: A-1 has a potential adverse effect on tr:e :?arvest States Grain Terminal, if demolition of a �or- tion of t�:e _=_rLCture :•�o�l� be r��uirec. Th�s ef*ect � �.,as �c!:ne��e�^��' i*: �-o�.:_ letter. ;- 1 S�gmer.t B : ::-2 ha� a pot�n}ial ad��erse effect or. the 1 Irvine Park F:isteric District, due to the degree cf ef- fect o.^. t::e setting of the d�strict. This effect re- lates to the changes in the tcpocraphy of the C:�estr.ut Street area, since t:�is topography ��is-a-vi� the �:issis- � sippi River is an i:nportant aspect in un�erstandin5 why ; � the buildi.^.gs of the dis�rict were constructed in thi� . rart�c�lar `��} icn. Furt:^.er, tr�� introduct�ior. of a � aiamo� lnterC.��ge in close p=oxir:i�y to the di st r ict would �e a °r isua�. intrusior.. � ••T �� 71C�E *ha� oLr re�:ie�� e.^.compasseci oni : t::E nT, �� (�.e ....0 G alterna� '_'-cc t•,�?1C: .�'2�E ^C111C°� 1^ t�'?E rZZft =Tc r'i�G::le�:' D-Ir .:-Zr Z:'l� �-3. ) . � ' � . � . ` � � October 10, 1988 :��. Peggy A. Reichert � �HS Referral File #AA-832 Page two � , _ L� � Segmer.t C: C-2 or C-2 modifieo botr� r�ve a po� _r.tial adverse effect on the CGw Lift Bridce, �ince potential neglect may result in its deterioration or destruction. , This effect was acknowledged in your letter. Further, there are potential adverse effect� on the Irvine Park � �:istoric District and the Harvest States Grain Ter*rinal .fror.: noi�e wall construction for tne "A" ano "B" alternates . we do � ^�ct ha��e deteiled enough informatior. or. the location and heignt ��f trese walls to permit ar. d�t°Z:13te-�'1'-�?ter.^.ate assessment of effect at this point. :ir.al?��, the informa:.�ion rre have on potential effec�s fro:r, ncise � does not adequately analyze the various alterr.ates in comparison with the currer.t situation. You have also ir.dicated that addi- , tional information will be available on tne effects from vibra- , *_ions and pollutants. We will further asses� the effects from these factors when this informatior. is r:,ace avGi'_ab'_�. , :i any cf t'r.e alternates with adE�erse eT=ec�� re '_ikel�� to be selected, it is important that ways to avoic or reduce the ad- �-erse effects as per the Advisory Councii reguiatiens be care- � =��lly considered. Should a��oidance of the a�:�er�e �f�ects appear ^et to be possibie, the Advisory Council , F:::•:�, a^c e�,:r office will need to consider wheth�er justificatior. ey_sts for }::e , proposec action. If the parties ag:ee, apprcrr��te means to mitigating the adverse effect can be addressec i.^. � Me.^.:orandurr, of Agreement. � . . StiTe should also note that tre area oF t�:e rrcj �ct ir.cic:des a large � number of potential historic archaeological sites. Altho�gh w� � do not believe that any of these sites ere E'_�5ib�e for li�ting � or. the National Register, we woLl� urge tra= any t�Iemorandum of :.gree�er.t developed for this project ir.co_ccr:.':e procecures pur- � ��ant to 3E CFP. 800 . 11 ("Properties aisc�vere� ��:i. _ _-1��e�enta- � _ '_or. of a:. u.^.dertakir.g" } . � � i � � � � . _ _ . jOctober 10, 1988 Ms. Peggy A. Reichert MHS Referral File #AA-832 � Page three � Thank you for your cooperation in the review of this project. � Sincerely, _ ,��- . /��j�.�..�� Dennis A. Gimmestad Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer � DAG:dmb cc: Betsy Updike, Advi�ory Cour.cil on �istoric Preservation � Old Post Office Building, 110C Pennsylvania �':�� - Room 809 �,7ashington, D. C. 20004 Stan Graczyk, Federal Highway Administration � � t:etro Square Building - Suite 490, St. Paul, MN 55101 Clem Rachelmyer, Minnesota Deg�rtment of Transportation � 612H Transportation Building, St. Pau1, MN 55155 Robert Frame, St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission � 25 �4est Fourth Street, St. Paul, P4N 55102 Barbara McCormick, 30 Irvine Park, St. Paul, MI� 55102 � Becky Yust, Fort Road/4iest Seventh Street Federation 265 Oneida Street, St. Paul, MN 55102 � Ann Warner, Strgar-Roscoe 15500 Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata, �;P� 55391 � ; � r � r� � - � � �� `�� " ��'�� CITY Of SAINT PAVL . r' .':>. ;. �� : DEPARTMENT OF PUBIIC WORKS ,��i��i��; �: .•' ' DONALD E. NYGAARD, OIRECTOR 1dM1( it� 11.�11 nr�nr� Sd�nt I'�iui, ,\1inn�•�cn.i iillll fORGE I�TIr�.�ER ��t1 :�ina��i M�1YOR � � June 8, 1988 � Mr. Richard McDonald Chicago Northwestern Railroad One North Western Center � Chicago, Illinois 60606 � Dear Mr. McDonald: Thank you for testifying at the May 19, 1988 Public Hearing on the Oraft � Environmental Impact Statement for Shepard Road. We are now attempting to respond to relevant questiors or statements made. � As part of the ublic testimon r R y ece�ved, several quest�ons were ra�sed , regarding the train activity at the Chestnut Street crossing. I would like to incfude your response to these questions as supporting documentation in ihe Final EfS. � To ara hrase li � p p s g'�tly, the statement was made: If the Harvest States � grain terminal and Kaplan's operations are terminated, the Northern States Power (NSP) rai! entrance is shif;ed to enter from the west end of the -plant, the Soo Line Ches±nut Street yard is eliminated, and the Chicago � Northwestern (CNW) Western Avenue yard is reduced in size, there would be a significant iong term decrease ir the number of train crossings at Chestnut Street (speaker projected the existing 48 per day crossings � avould be cut to 24 per day). This would eliminate the need for grade seoarating the crossing. � A Public Works-Soo-Milwaukee R oad week long study was performed in November of 1985, indicating that there were an average of 48 movements � through the intersection per 24 hour day. The information you have given us in the past projected that long term movements through the corridor would be approximately equal to or greater than the present traffic. � - � Mr. Richard McDo�ald Page 2 e June 8, 1988 � In addition, it was mentioned that the city couid alleviate the potential operation and congestion concerns for Shepard Road by placing rail � activated advanced warning sigrts on Shepard Road, along with ordinance controi regulating the time of day trains could legally cross Chestnut. Also mentioned at the hearing was reference to a "two-way � communication system like Bayport". If you have any information that would explain this system and whether something similar could be applied � at Chestnut, I would appreciate it, as well as your reactions to the other items mentioned. � I am also requesting this information from the Soo Line Railroad. Thank you for providing this necessary information allowing us to move forward � in this complex project. Sincerely, � .� � � / , �� ✓ L C'y�., t..r-i �_ w.(ti�'�-� � v t �.y� Leon Pearson , Project Manager LCP:smh � cc: Buck Vander Leest, CNW � � � � � � � � � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL .'��t• �'4�� O -+. •�.�r � , A� �� ': ,= »`=. DEPARTMENT OF PUBIIC WORKS :� u�u�au. .> , � ,ui1�iil�� w-' • • - OONALD E. NYGAARO, DIRECTOR f�1M)(�itY Hdll Mne•�. $d�nt P.�ul. ��Lnnr.u�.� 5i111: �GEORGE•LATIMER ��' �x y's� M.�YOR � June 8, 1988 � Mr. Marc Bernhardson Soo Line � One North Western Center Chicago, Illinois 60606 � Dear Mr. Bernhardson: � Thank you for testifying at the May 19, 1988 Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Shepard Road. We are now � attempting to respond to relevant questions or statements made. As part of the public testimony received, several questions were raised � regarding the train activity at the Chestnut Street crossing. I would like to include your response to these questions as supporting documentation in the Final EIS. � To paraphrase slightly, the statement was made: If the Harvest States � grain terminal and Kaplan's operation� are terminated, the Northern States Power (NSP) rail entrance is shifted to enter from the west end of the plant, the Soo Line Chestnut Street yard is eliminated, and the Chicago � Northwestern (CNW) Western Avenue yard is reduced in size, there would be a significant fong term decrease in the number of train crossings at � Chestnut Street (speaker projected the existing 48 per day crossings would be cut to 24 per day). This would eliminate the need for grade separating the crossing. � A Public Works-Soo-Milwaukee Road week long study was performed in � November of 1985, indicating that there were an average of 48 movements through the intersection per 24 hour day. The information you have given � us in the past projected that long term movements through the corridor would be approximately equal to or greater than the present traffic. � ' N ' � ' Mr. Marc Bernhardson �-Page 2 ( June 8, 1988 � In addition, it was mentioned that the city could alleviate the potential operation and congestion concerns for Shepard Road by placing rail , activated advanced warning signs on Shepard Road, along with ordinance control regulating the time of day trains could legally cross Chestnut. � Also mentioned at the hearing was reference to a "two-way communication system like Bayport". If you have any information that would explain this system and whether something similar could be applied � at Chestnut, I would appreciate it, as well as your reactions to the other items mentioned. � I am also requesting this information from the Chicago Northwestern Railroad. Thank you for providing this necessary information allowing us ' . to move forward in this complex project. Sincerely, � /' , ° � �1 �� J/�. �--�•.� • � if LG•1�'�t✓)�' w V � � Leon Pearson � �'� Project Manager � LCP:smh cc: Buck Vander Leest, CNW � � � ' � � , � �'' , ` �S', �;'�' . : r�'.i.I.~.�..,`--� , E . CHICAGO AND �, TRANSPORTATION COMPANY � , `�/ �f � / t� 1:� �j / Il/n Y �J�i� l. �� .:'../� . ' � R.H.MCDONAID ' �y i � t �T�__VICE PRESIOENT-TRANSPOfiT�ION � � June 14, 1988 510.5-1560 � � Mr. Leon Pearson - Project Manager City of St. Paul Department of Public 4lorks � 600 City Hall Annex St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 , Dear Mr. Pearson: I refer to your letter of June 8, 1988, posing questions regarding the � train activity at the Chestnut StrPet crossing. You refer to one speaker who apparently stated that train traffic would be cut from 48 crossings per day to 24 per day if various anticipated changes occurred. You also refer to information given to you by C&�VW in the past which projected that long- � term movements wouid be equal ta or greater than the present traffic. I see the obvious conflict in these *wo statements. � I do not know who made the statement that the train crossings would be cut in half. It could be that Soo Line train crossings would be decreased if various Soo Line customers in the area no longer required train service in that a^ea. Please understand I cannot speak for the Soo Line. � For C&NW, I antici ate the future train crossin s over Chestnut to be th P g e � same as they are presently. We are currently exploring re-routing some � trains via South St. Paul and our "State Street" route. If this would happen, the number of C&NW trains over Chestnut Street would decrease. ' Concerning "ordinance control " regulating the time of day trains could cross Chestnut, the C&NW would oppose such an ordinance. Our train move- ment at this location is not scheduled, and such regulation of train � crossings would cause inefficien�ies and adversely affect our ability to � serve critical industries in the area. � � ' � � . . � - 2 - I am not sure what you meant by the "Bayport reference" that the C&NW h , as agreed to certain restrictions as to crossings and train length at Bayport. Bayport, however, is a situation where these restrictions affect � an average of less than one train per day; and was agreed to in cooperation with our two major customers located at Bayport. Because of the much • greater train traffic at Chestnut, affecting many more trains, a similar � system would not work. As far as my reaction to other items, I feel that the long-term well-being of the monitoring and pedestrian public, and the needs of both railroads � and their customers are best served by a grade separation at Chestnut Street. Let me know if I can be of further help. � Sincerely, � . �-�...�� Vice President - Transportation ' RHM:bd . � � cce Mr. G. F Maybee Mr. R. G. Knicker � , � � , � � � � , ' ' z THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS � OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL � INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION � TO: SHEPARD ROAD - Public Hearing Testimony File FROM: Leon Pearson �� tDATE: 10/28/88 SUBJECT: CNW RAILROAD ACTIVITY AT CHESTNUT ST. CROSSING � f In re erence to the CNW response to questions raised at the Public Hearing (CNW ' letter dated June 14, 1988, signed by R. H. McDonald), I asked for further clarification in the possible reduction in train crossings. The statement was made in the letter; "We are current/y exp/oring re-routing some trains via South St. Paul and our "State Street" � route. If thrs wou/d happen, the number of C&NW trains over Chestnut Street would decrease." In subsequent telephone conversations, I pursued this statement in an effort to determine the number of trains this potential action would involve. The train � traffic being referred to involves two loaded coal trains per day and their unloaded return trips. These 4 crossing movements per day are presently traveling through the - Chestnut St. corridor. ' Based on my dealings with the railroads and on my professional judgement, I view the likelihood of the re-activation of the State Street route and the Robert Street lift bridge � as remote and recommend that this statement not be considered to have any long range impact on the train crossing numbers at Chestnut Street. � � ' ' � ' � ' Soo Line Railroad Company National City Bank Building ' , , Box 530 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 (612) 337-8600 , . (612) 337-8607 • JL1117 20, 1988 DISTRIBUTION SERVICES ' _�..___.__.__ ---______—+ Mr. Leon Pearson ' -� - .: � '°�' �. � ; .� Civil Engineer � � �` " ' �`� �-' _ ' Department of Public Works ; j 800 City Hall Annex � ��,;L � �� j��g i St. Paul , MN 55102 ) 1 ' Dear Leon: ; r_'_ .. .-�a�.: _.:�e,� ��._';�,=i � '_`-- ---------_.�. ' Concerning our conversations regarding impact on number of trains that we expect will traverse Shepherd Road after the East CBD bypass is constructed . ' I am enclosing a letter that was written to Mr. Ed Johnson of the Ford Road Foundation in May of this year. I have checked with our operating departmen•t and they have indicated that there will ' not be a substantial reduction of trains that will cross Chestnut Street once the Harvest States terminal has been dismantled and Kaplann Brothers property has been vacated. , Our best estimate is that we will continue to move 20 trains per day over Chestnut Street in the fozeseeable future. ' The S00 to the best of my knowledge does not own or maintain a "two way" communication system at Bayport. ' Your possible requesting of an ordinance to restrict the time of day that we could cross Chestnut Street would be resisted by the S00. I would appreciate being advised if this is your intention ' so that we would have an opportunity to formul�te a course of action. Sincerely, ' � ' M. S Bernhardson Assistant Vice President Industrial Development 612-337-8612 iMSB,�h 3-77 ' Enclosure Copy To: W. W. Leedy, NCB 300 ' D. J. Curran, St. Paul Yard G. U. Mentjus , SLB 300 ' , ' . ' � SOO Lifl@ R81�1'OaC1 (i0�71paf1�/ tvationa� C�ty aank Bu+�d�ng �/� Box 530 , � Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 (612) 337-8600 (612) 337-8607 ' DISTRIBUTION SERVICES May 16, 1988 ' . � ' Mr. Ed Johnson Director � Fort Road Foundation 265 Oneida Street St . Paul , MN 55102 Dear Mr. Johnson: , Confirming our telephone conversation of this date, the Soo Line moves an average of approximately 2�0 trains over Shepard Road ' daily. It is not possible to give you an exact count of the number of ' trains . We do have two Amtrak trains daily and four scheduled trains daily, but also have some tri-weekly trains as well as coal deliveries for NSP. ' Bud Forest, our Train Master at St. Paul Yards feels that 10 trains per day in each direction is as reasonable an estimate as we can give to you. � If we can be of any further assistance regarding this matter, please advise . ' Sincerely, •� � ' :�� . S. Bernhardson Assistant Vice President . ' Industrial Development �. 612-337-8612 MSB:smo , 4 : 101 � , ' , , , ` iTHE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL , INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION � TO: Shepard/Warner/ECBD Bypass Project Management Team IFROM: Leon Pearson DATE: November 8, 1988 , SUBJECT: SEGMENT "C" ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES � The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify and summarize ali of the analysis completed to date on alternatives to the Segment C alignment. Three alignment alternatives were chosen for further study in the Scoping Process. � 1. � 2. Alternative C-1: Minor improvements on existing alignment 3. Alternative G2: Shift tracks and road away from river as far as possible � No Build Afternative: � This alternative would leave the existing conditions "as is" between a point 1/4 mile east of Chestnut Street to Robert Street. ' Alternative C-1 : This alternative would create extra width (variable, but approximately 8-12 feet) by , replacing the existing sloped river bank with a vertical wall at about the point where the river now meets the slope. Using this increased width, a combination ped/bike path along with a new, wider roadway would be constructed while maintaining the existing � northerly property line. � ' ' , 1 ' Alternative C-2: ' The study definition of this altemative was "to move the roadway as far as possible � away from the river." Within this rather broad direction, several options have evolved. (C-2, Figure 1) The layout developed as part of the Draft EIS assumed that the northerly limit (wall) of the existing railroad would be preserved and that track , consolidation along with construction of the wall at the river's edge (included in C-1) would provide the increased corridor width. � (C-2 Modified, Figure 2) A second approach to this C-2 alternative was discussed after the publication of the Draft EIS at about the time of the Public Hearing. This option L assumed that the entire railroad stru�ture would be relocated under the northerly-most arch of the Robert Street bridge, thus taking most all of the land below the bluff for railroad and roadway right of way. ' In choosing between these altematives, one must be cognizant of the existing constraints in the corridor as well as the possibilities for change. The following is a list � of items that need to be considered along with impacts that would result from the various alternatives. 1. - All altematives involve re uestin a desi n � � 9 9 exception in the area of the bridge pier located between the existing road and the railroad. , Alternative Reguired Desiq,� Exce to ion � No Build Reduced lane widths, no shoulders, min. walkway C-1, C-2, & Reduced shoulder widths, reduced width C-2 modified of ped/bikeway (combined) ' Although the bridge is under study and consideration is being given to , it's replacement, it would be unrealistic to consider that the pier removal allowing for the removal of the design exceptions will take place sooner than ' eight to ten years from now. � . ' ' � , 2 ' ' 2. Mainline Railroad Activitv - The two through railroad tracks presently in ' operation northerly of the road are not in conflict with either No Build or C-1, but are in conflict with C-2 and C-2 modified. iAlternative R�e uired ImQact on RR mainline No Build, C-1 No Impact . ' C-2 Requires consolidation to one track, Reconstr. of Jackson overpass �' Reconstr. of Sibley overpass Reconstr. of all RR walls adiacent to road ' C-2 modified Reconstr. of Jackson overpass Reconstr. of Sibley overpass Reconstr. and relocation of entire RR facility , As noted in Appendix B-3, the railroads' long range plans are to continue to , operate a mix of mainline and local train traffic in this corridor amounting to approximately 50 movements per day. They have indicated that reduction of their facilities to one track in this area would not be feasible. The railroad � property is owned by the railroads and their ability to operate is assured by the lnterstate Commerce Commission. Any purchase or modification to their operation is outside the City's powers of condemnation and would haveto be ' negotiated with the railroads. � 3. p�QQ,g�y other than Railroad riqhf of wav - Northerly of the railroad, there ' are two parcels that would have to be purchased if the railroad is to be relocated. The Pioneer Press building is located midway between Wabasha and Robert and just easterly of the building is a surface parking ' lot belonging to the American Cerrter Building. ' Alternative Imnact on Propertv No Build, C-1, & No Impact ' C-2 C-2 modified Would require condemnation and relocation , 4. Future Develo�ment of Bluff Area - The City's Riverfront Redevelopment Plan proposes commercial development along the bluff face between , Wabasha and Robert Street. Alternative Im�act on Bluff � No Build, C-1 , & No Impact northerly of existing railroad G2 , C-2 modified Would utilize all space below the bluff for railroad and roadway/trail activity ' 3 -- , _ ' 5. Status of the CGW Railroad Lift Bridae at Robert St. - While the bridge is in a "semi-abandoned" state, it remains part of the operation of the � C&NW Railroad, and would require a negotiated relocation settlement in . order to abandon or remove it. The approach span pier is located in the middle of existing Shepard Road, requiring design exceptions if left in ' place. Alternative DBCt , No Build & C-1 Bridge can remain Reduced lane widths and no shoulders in area of Robert St. Bridge ' C-2 Bridge must be abandoned/removed ' C-2 modified Bridge must be abandoned/removed � It would appear that the long range prospect of mairrtaining the lift bridge in an operational state is marginal and that the line is somewhat � redundant to the railroad's system. However, as in item "2.", forcing an abandonment is outside of the City's powers of condemnation and would have to be negotiated. , 6. Coordination with Warner Road / Lambert Landing Reconstruction - The purchase and relocation of the Soo Line Intermodal facility easterly of ' Sibley Street is necessary in order to allow the realignment of Warner Road (beginning at Robert Street) back away from the river. This separate but intricately related project is proceeding at a rate that should result in ' construction in 1991. Incorporated with the Warner Road reconstruction is the complete reconstruction of Lambert Landing easterly from Robert Street. The land designated for the new Lambert Landing as part of Warner Road is , shown in figures 1 and 2. Alternative ImDBCt � No Build & C-1 No Impact on proposed Warner Rd. or Lambert Landing reconstruction ' C-2, C-2 modified Would require a separating the Jackson / Sibley / Lambert Landing reconstruction from the current ' Warner Road Project (1991-92), and would require incorporation of the same area into the Shepard Rd. Project (1994 earliest). � � 4 , , � � �' - q�� F. 'I I � N , lJ �!/�� i � � �I ' �� _ : . � . . i � "" I z . �� - � � . . " _ , ' I °- W � , � � ..- � , � � � � � � . _- - � , w � _ � I• � _ — � � � � , _.,_ : .. .-� : . . . . . ... . . . . . a 3 a.ro�w y� � I I 0 � .�] � Z r � I F m I� I m N � 1'1' ` ' - , O � � W •� _� � W < � �� ':, _._ =a m�� WZC� a a _ � � • I _ ? m � i � �� f �, , � � gQ -� . ti :. � _ ♦3Y15 - - _-� � � '�` i ; • _ �� __�__ �I �� W ,�{ a S LL a Q � ... ,., Y � y v � • a W � ' , � Z I � ��'i p p � --�'—�� i Z Z � . �s,� r — ; g g C� � 9 �� "Q � . ~ . - g 1 � � _ , . _ . = W _ :� a >_ U � a � i oc - � ' ¢ �^. o � � _ W �¢. m a Z � . , � _ � W . . ,n�d ' .. � ,.� '.:m �� J ' .� D � rr . � . / Q - � - - W � - � � / . � �N u .. � ;.,v / � � , I '. o _ 1 I I I � �. � � , . I j �� L'_ I (�2 �..1 t . / ` _ ;,� � y l l W� I � : - � ' . . W i V� W --�".� �—_� —� `�° a t 1 W Q � � � : =+ - 3 � =ti I s ZW i. . - '4 < '' o � � ' ~ e T a � � � F ��- . . . N �' �' �,I . � �8 O� ._...�� .� � ,� ;- M 3 �, � - ` � nea3� . _ � . � , � � Y :. m � � Q • y (-'�'T-`-�-, , N _ N O � --� o � , I'. Q� � z I y �' � aa � z „ l � c • $� � ' gg m�" mar-z ' � M t / �� I �Z � J 2_ / m aaw = Q ', � ' �° ' t,, W W O O a a i . � a . W O � o ¢U� F �J � 1: QV' � �,A� :� � WQ2ZWLL °��` M Y� � ' Z2 W W> � s . _�1 . . QQf �W W , m p � Q� ¢ Q�O � y e � � � - • �mZ" 3Vana.� � � � �. . . i - - ¢W W Wp0 ' _ ° D �.;U 41,�% � _ . � - a a o 0 0� ¢ J t.o L� o wa »a Q c � a �I ' f v=i <aaWC7 , � �� ,�w I .. / _ o¢ � � i -- � �.. ►: r:z� , M �QtA W D W Uf � ' i � � � . r-_._� ' -� �r � �Z i� y� � � ( / ��• � Q m D D = 1_ ` � � i.�f.� , �.; �. � � � � . I � ��Or r �� .. _:��i ` =� - , � , / ►.iD - � � �' _ yZOOQ� _,_. . _ _ •�J�x . , pOmmma J� ' _ --�� ,� i y 3�v p o r � . - �pre�.o � + oc�� i� - •'' � \ o �o� 1s� � � • Q � � � I m i m�� • � � - I � T<mmz2 � .� _ --�:` �. � D�� 1cDia ''I ' t F , ol �-_- --_� . -- - y�0omm . � y �-- __ c� ;r r mn �,; � � 9 �o Z�D� �O � g c � I � i � m� € � .�i n� � ' •� �� . � {� � 9 a � . � � ;y /./ rv�C� � '/ ',�$ � I y . ' . � y I'. 1 �`�� ,� . � i� ��r- � �' t� � •� _' �. CA ,, O m 2 � j m c� �E�, ��_ � % o o� �` _,�-� _� �� —--,.,� �i � �p I�� '� _ � � jg �� im ' � �,,�,, ; r J-- i �� '�� ; .� i , i� I , � , . ._: f-��-° ~ a ;--��i� � � yC �� i $� `t t � �� ; � . � � : N ' -� " _--� �` + ' . . �O �� q / . � _'__ � � .._ �.�_�- _ _—; � . � , �� , , _----T —,-_ = � , ; � _ -� i � ,�` -? �� , ' � —�—� - ¢�� ;t � I�; � � Z � �;PEar �� — . . .. I I �, I � ' ; ' —�-ti— "E:r , . � � a --- -� - �� ;; _ _ �, ; � . . --- - � � r �_ �' ' _ �;, . �. __ ,�_ 1 l"., ^oee=. ��R�� _'_—��_— � p m �j f . . . , . • — __ � � ' s � . m I � � /°' "' -- _ pp� o m " � � '� � �� n�l . i N ° � ' � +, � " � � � � � ' ' ; � � i _ , � _ i� r m `� . ! � ' ' m !� m �� y � v r � ,l�y- _ -.{ —s ` . C� - —�1—� �A.so.�_,�_�� '� � Z Z �. y -'. � �: .�-- _ _-_ _ ' — vv � a� � � t m� z c �� % i�/ � � � � _ �7 G� m � � � � � � � - . ,.. � � ° z G� �� ' �� ' s ' �� ' - �; ' p Z ( � m � ' ; I'� �� " r� - �'° - � --•� � . � ' � �I� ° � � ��j , �� _ � �� , �-, , ,a ' �o �°o r�---- _ `°�--�.-�_ _a r �' s.s,E. �i Z S i . �, z � �T�--,—� . � � �� ;; i a • .�• � ��/ z � fq � �� 1 �' ., � , , , ' • ' m �on0 � �� ,/ � , � /. � .°! . m � � - � � ; � W �� , � � ' Z � '!� / : ' • • • • .. . . , ; � w,--i �; ,� � .�f• � Q � �� n I E . ��r�� .. .�.__..i__is �__; � C � � .�—T-- � D = ' • x • . . ,� � � �_, �p ^Ii � + C m I,u� ' .��; . , ' � � �',� '! I � • F i � ' � N � �' ¢ � � � � �, �' � ' � D �� I� � . � � � _ -- !— � � � � � � I/� �� -,—, ! 1 Z � � - � �� I � ��, � � � � � � _ �� i �/�� '.._�` ----•_._ � , � � ------ � � � SHEPARD ROAD PROCESS OUTLINE I1. CITY COUNCIL SELECTS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE • Section 106 Process (Historic Mitigation) � • Ramsey County Concurrence , • Other Agency Coordination ' 2 . FINAL EIS • Includes Additional Analysis and Responds to Comments � • Document Rationale for Preferred Alternative • Memorandum of Agreement (Historic Mitigation) ' • Commits to Mitigation in General, i.e. , special lighting on bridge, consideration of potental noise walls , 3 . APPROVED FOR DISTRIBUTION FINAL EIS BY FHWA , CITY AND Mn/DOT ' . 4. PUBLIC REVIEW OF FINAL EIS ' S. FINAL DECISION ON EIS • City: EIS Adequacy Decision � • FHWA: Record of Decision I6• PREPARATION OF DESIGN STUDY REPORTS , • By City in Consultation With Affected Parties • Special Planning Commission Task Force Input L7. APPROVAL OF DESIGN STUDY REPORT BY Mn/DOT , 8 . INITIATE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND FINAL DESIGN , 9. DESIGN PLANS FOR EACH SEGMENT APPROVED BY Mn/DOT AND CITY 1 10. PROJECT IS CONSTRUCTED t � �� --.j ��- _��y� � , � y �� Q � °s$ � s �p $ � $ g $ s � yy 8 � O 8 � O Q S p + g : y y N ~ � � � � � N ^ � ~ � � � � � � eP c o F � a A ° � n ' o � � � � � � � < „ _ � � � , � � � N � � � o � � < � $ � � � � � � a � � � �1 � 8 , � V 11 eM M II M <11 .7 � $� � � y � � � U y � S s �a � � z d : "' o � � � � � � � g � h � � s � � » � � g � � Z y � � m � m z �� $ �$ � � � ao , � o g y °`> > "' 7X 8 �� eti S'- �,. O�C � N � M � N � °' � << � � m o� � � � m pp �Q . C �,yy r ae w w o S O7 k�i iM� e �" �o: .a.. P o: a y! '�` � x a � 2S 3 � q F 2S � � � � � � � � � C � � �� e� q� gt � 0 .°i. .�, i. s rmn y O O O O a ` a � ,� � � � � � � g � � $' F �. � S � F F � � d � a 0 O +� o O � � y � 6 R7 y � .�7 < � i � � 9 � � � � � � �� g � � � � � <�� < � �s a � a � � � � �� g � � �� '�� ; : � e � � s �� . . �,= � < S.n - z F . � � � � � �g � � F �� 8 � � � � � � a � a k m �i � .�m., 0 .�. O F � E+ �y� � i > � > � r < � � i.. � � < < V � � A�u Q N V � � � K � �� i � � a e � ^ ° ° ^ � l �