86-1096 M�HITE - CITV CLERK
PINK - FINANCE G I TY OF SA I NT PAU L Council ,/�
CAI�:ARV -,[,1.EPARTMENT File NO. ��-/�° /�
OLUE - MAVOR
1
Coun 'l Reso tion p ; �;
� , � �
Presented By � '
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Commi tee By � Date
WHEREAS, he City of Saint Paul , through its Comprehensive Plan, has endorsed
developm t of an East CBD Bypass and improvements along Shepard/Warner Road;
and
WHEREAS, he City of Saint Paul has decided to evaluate reconstruction of
Shepard d Warner Roads and construction of the East Central Business
District ypass; and
WHEREAS, he potential impacts from such construction/reconstruction warrants
an Envir mental Impact Statement (EIS) ; and
WHEREAS, he EIS rules require a "Scoping Process: which evaluates a full
range of lternatives and narrows that range to those alternatives considered
truly via le and warranting detailed examination; and
WHEREAS, he Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass Alternatives Screenin Report has
been deve oped to define a full range of alternatives; and
WHEREAS, he Screening Report has been reviewed by the Saint Paul Riverfront
Comnissio , the Saint Paul Planning Comnission and the Shepard/Warner/East CBD
Bypass Ta k Force; and
WHEREAS, Sco in Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been prepared to
identify he alternatives and to examine the potentia environmental impacts of
the proje t; and
WHEREAS, he Saint Paul Riverfront Commission, the Saint Paul Planning
Commissio and the Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass Task Force have made
recomnend tions as to which alternatives warrant further consideration and
which iss es should be considered in detail through the EIS process; and
(continued)
COUfVC[LMEN Requested by Department of:
Yeas Na s
Fletcher ��
Drew [n Favor
Masanz
Nicosia
Schelbet __ Against BY
Tedesco
Wilson
Form Appro e by City Attorney
Adopted by Council: Date
Certified Passed by Cou cil Secretary BY
sy
t�pproved by :Vtavor: D te Approv Mayo for Sub i 'on to Council
,
By
WHITE - CITV CLERK
PINK - FINANCE G I TY O F SA I NT PA U L Council
CANAR� -.DEPARTMENT /
BLUE -MAYOR File �0. � ` D��
�
Counci Resol tion
� .
Presented By �
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Committ e By Date
WHEREAS, th Saint Paul City Council held a Scoping Public Hearing on July 8,
1986 at 10: 0 a.m. to receive public testimony; and
WHEREAS, a co in Decision has been prepared which includes the
recommenda 'ons in the Screening Report and the Scoping Environmental
Assessment orksheet and incorporates comments received at the Scoping Public
Hearing an during the 30 day EAW review period;
NOW, THERE ORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the EIS Sco in Decision be adopted and
that the f llowing alternatives be evaluated as t ose a ternatives which are
truly viab e and warranting detailed examination:
Segment A: Shepard Road - Randolph to Chestnut
o - No Build Alternative
o A-1 Widen Shepard Road on existing alignment
o A-2 Widen Shepard road on existing alignment and shift away
from River near NSP and Kaplans
o A-3 Widen Shepard Rvad on new alignment at base of the bluff
Segment B Chestnut Connection to Shepard Road
o - No Build alternative
o B-1 At grade connection on existing Chestnut alignment
o B-2 Grade separated connection on existing Chestnut alignment
Segment C Shepard Road - Chestnut to Robert
o - No build Alternative
o C-1 Minor improvements on existing alignment
o C-2 Shift road and tracks away from river
(continued)
COUNCILMEN Requested pa ent of:
Yeas N s
Fletcher
0'8"' [n Favor
Masanz
Nicosia
Scheibel __ Against BY
Tedesco
Wilson
Form A ov d y City Attorney
Adopted by C ouncil: Date
Certified Passed by Co ncil Secretary BY
B�
Approved by �Navor: ate _ Approved ayor Submis io o Council
�
By
WHITE - CITV CLERK
PINK - FINANCE G I TY OF SA I NT PA U L Council P /�
C4AlARV.� SEPARTMENT File NO. V�-�O/ �
BLUE � - MAYOR
Council,Resol tion
< <
Presented By
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Comm ttee By Date
Segment D East CBD Bypass Connection to Warner Road
o - No Build alternative
o D-1 Grade separated connection
o D-2 At grade connection
Segment E East CBD Bypass Connection to Local Streets
o - No Build (Segment D)
o E-1 No local street connections
o E-2 Local connections to bypass at Kellogg, East Seventh, and
University/Lafayette
Segment F East CBD Bypass Connection to I-35E
o - No Build (Segment D)
o F-1 Pennsylvania interchange
o F-2 Direct connection to I-35E north of Pennsylvania
o F-3 Combined intersection (Pennsylvania)
AND, BE I FURTHER RESOLVED, that special studies be conducted for the
following issues:
o visual impacts
o impacts on historic properties
o traffic impacts
o land development
o relocation
o noise impacts
o air quality impacts
o floodplain impact
o soils, geologic and subsurface conditions
COUNC[LMEN Requested De rtment oE:
Yeas DfeW Na s
Nicosia �
Rettman In Favor
Scheibel Q
Sonnen __ Ag81t1St BY
Tedesco
Wilson
Adopted by Council: Date AUG 5 - 1986 Form Approved City Attorne
Certified V•:s b u cil r BY
sy�
Appro y Mavor. D te � �UG d — �9U6 Approved by or fo ission to Council
�
By '
PUBIISHED AU G 16 1996
,� - ��l
� �
Downtown Riverfront Commission Resolution
City of Sai Paul
file number 85-03
date ' ebruary 7, 1985
WHEREAS, th City of Saint Paul is seriously considering alternative proposals
to reconstr ct Shepard and Warner Roads from I-35E to Childs Road; and
i
WHEREAS, th Riverfront Commission believes that the ultimate alignment and
design of t ese roads will have a lasting influence on the future appearance
and develop ent potential of the downtown riverfront; and
WHEREAS, at its December, 1984 meeting the Commission directed its task forces
to analyze he implications of the Shepard—Warner Road proposals, and to recommend
positions f r the Commission to take as a basis for future decision—making
concerning he roads; and
WHEREAS, th Task Forces' deliberations and recommendations are presented in
the attache report entitled Position Paper: Shepard—Warner Road Reconstruction;
and
.WHEREAS, th Riverfront Commission has studied the position paper and concurs
with the po itions presented within;
NOW, THEREF RE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Riverfront Commission adopts the
report enti led Position Paper: Shepard—Warner Road Reconstruction as the
Commission' basic position on the issues presented, to be used by the Commission
in the futu in evaluating specific aspects of the proposal to rebuild
"� Shepard—War r Roads as they arise; and
BE IT.. FURTH RESOLVED, that the Riverfront Commission directs its staff to
forward the ommission's position paper to the Mayor, City Council, City and
State publi works agencies, and other parties with an interest in the issues
. presented i their consideration.
moved by Mr. McDonel l
secondedby Mr. Stolpestad
in favor 14
against �
!
PED-Planning � DEPARTMENT � ���N� 05���
" � CONTACT
��
X7494 PHONE
Jul 23 1986 I OATE �i�� �
�
GN NUl�ER R0 I G. ORDER C1i All Locat.ions for Si nature :
partm�nt D'-rec orI � Director of Management/Mayor
Finance and na em�nt Services Director � 4 City Clerk
Budget. Direc o.r -
� City Attorne � .
' "
HAT WILL BE ACH EVE BI TAKING ACTION ON TNE ATTACHED MATERIALS? (Purpose/ .
Rationale) : �
The firs� step in e �iS process for Shepard Road wi11 be completed (Scoping Process)
and the evaluati n afi.ternatives will begin (Draft 'fIS Process) .
� - -�>
' �'� � �
,- _
.
_
;
COST BENEFIT BU GET RY AkD PERSONNEL IMPACTS ANTICIPATED: ` I-�ECEIV�.D
None.
J U�_ � L i�oo
� f�AYRR'$ A�'FIC�
. � , . ,
. i
;
,
�
� �
�INANCING SOURCE AND BU GET ACTIVITY NUP�ER CHARGED OR CREDITED: EMayor's signa-
ture not re.
Total Amou►�t. f 'T an�action: p quired if under
� �10,000)
Fun�icMg Sourc : �
Activity Nu r: I •
i .
• ATTACHMENTS Lis an N� mber All Attachments :
City Council Re olu io�h for signature
� .
EIS Scoping Decis}o (�0 copies) .:
; - .
i
f .
DEPARTMENT REVI ' CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW �
Yes No unci R�esolution Required? ' �so�ution Required? Yes No
Yes No I sur ce� Required? Insuranc� Sufficie�t?� Yes No
Yes No I sur ce� Attached:
� � (SEE •REVERSE SIDE FOR INSTRt��'IONS) .
Revised 12/84 i I
i
i !
,
. ... _ _.._...._.,_, . .__..._._._ � _.
-------_ ,_ .._--_.____._..._..__�___ .______ -` �
-- ; J� �D 9(o
� s 1[emben+:
CWrs Nlcosfe, Chalr
�iITY UF ►�AI1T'1' PAUL 7eafce Retlmnn
. uu�ii�ii � � ]ohn DrewaAik
OFFIC� OF THE CITY COIINGIL � �
. Date: July 23, 1984
. -
� - ' tte e I-� e o rt
C o mml
p
� T : Saint Paul City Council � � -
F� om: Committee on Public Works
Chris Nicosia, Chair
The Pub ic Works Committee at jts meeting of July 23, 1986 took tf�e
followin action:
Hearin Date ,
1 . 7/29 �36 VACATION: Petition of 744 Ashland Partnership for ti�e
vacation of part of ASHLAND AVENUE located at the
intersection of Grotto and Ashland. Vacated property to
be used for access to underground parking facility.
Recommenc:ied approval .
Z. 8/7/ 5 VACATION: Petition of Thomas Lunzer for the vacation of
the North-South alley in Block 2, Lewis Addition located
at the intersection of Rice and Manitoba for commer�cial
parking.
Recommended approval .
3. 8/5/ 6 RATIFICATIUN OF ASSESSMENTS: For improving Fort R�ad/W.
Seventh Street from Mississippi River Blvd. to Keilogg
Blvd.
Recommended approval .
4. 8/5/ 6 RATIFICATION OF ASSESSMENTS: For Lowertown Project:
Street and Transit Improvement. (3 parcels laid over by
Council 7/8/86) .
Recommended approval . .
5. 8/5/ 6 AMENDED FINAL ORDER: Improving SNELLING AVENUE from
Edgcumbe F2oad to W. Seventh St./Fort Rd. by regrading and
paving, constructing curb and gutter, constructing new
catch basins, new driveways, an ornamental ligt�ting
system, an 8-foot median, 4 10-foot bump outs in mid-
block for ttie school , a bus turnaround at northwest
corner of Snelling and Edgcumbe Road and a turn slot in
the Edgcumbe Avenue island west of Snelling. Aiso
construct a new storm sewer in Snelling from 900 feet
nortt� of Edgcumbe Rd. to W. Seventh St./Fort Road
(bounded by Montreal Ave. on the north; W. Seventh
St/Fort Road on the south; on the west by a line
beginning approximately 400 feet west of the centerline
of Edgcumbe Road and Snelling and running south to Lower
i St. Dennis Rd. , then southeast to W.Seventh/Fort Rd. and
� on the east by Rankin Street.
Recommended approval , with amendments. on 2-1 vote -
Councilwoman Sonnen voting "NO".
.�, . . ,, . _ . ... _.�. _ .
,, _ ,- „ . _ �.. . .. � _
�: �;�" - z
_ �. ' .
. , . , ,
{.,.
� .. . . 7`: � � � . . � . . � .�� .� .. .
�
' � ��c� - �og�
6. RESOLUTION: approving a Hold Harmless clause to the State
of Minnesota in cannection with the variance granted by
the 5tate for the reconstruction of SNELLING AVENUE from
West 7th Street to St. Dennis Road.
Recommended approval .
7. 7/29/ FINAL ORDER: Repairing WABASHA STREET BRIDGE by
repairing the sidewalk, brackets, replacing a sidewalk
stringers and constructing new sidewalks. Also replacing
the expansion joints with a new type of waterproof
expansion, replacing the bearings at the north abutment
and provide a waterproof surface deck.
Recommended approval .
8. FINAL ORUER: lmproving S[MS AVENUE from Greenbrier to
Arcade Street ( laid over indefinitely from A�ril 8,
1986) .
Recommended a��roval at an assessment rate of $10.00 per
lineal foot.
9. RESOLUTION: authorizing Quit Claim Deed to release tt�e
City's interest in vacated turnarounds in the alley in
Block 59, Irvine's Enlargement of Rice 8 Irvine's
Addition whicfi was vacated by C.F. 19867, approved
December 27, 1917 and C.F. 152094, approved May 5, 1�50.
Recommendeci matter be referred back to City Council
wittiout recommendation.
10. RESOLUTION: appropriating $14,500 from Municipal State
Aid Street funds for improvement to traffic signal at
SMITH AVENUE and Annapolis St.
Recommended approval .
11 . RESOLUT[ON: appropriating $15,000 from Municipal State
� Aid Street funds for improvement of traffic signal at
T.H. 6! and Burns Ave. and traffic signal at T.H. 61 and
Warner Road.
Recommended approval .
12. LETTER: of attorney for Bradley 5tark asking for an
extension of .time to comply with conditions of resolution
for the vacation of part of BF�ADLEY STREET.
No action necessary at this time.
13. RESOLUTION: authorizing a Quit Claim deed to release the
City's interest in sl�pe easements no longer needed over
parts of Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, Block l , Midway Highland
Park.
Recommended approval .
14. COMTINt�A�'1�N� °" �F H�ARIl�IG: to cofi�ider the
Shepard/i�arner/East C6D S�oping Envirorxneht�l Ass+essment
4lorksheet.
Recommended acceptanc� of r�ew resoiutir�n.
�:;, .,-
,., , :
y,
: .. ..
, _
�,�y, , : � . . . . . �
f
. . ��.,. ....� � .. � . � � � ,
�
.. .. . . .. - � .( �. , . . .
� � � ' h'� , '�`' F 'h�y1 1 r 1 � Si r'�°�'_�+r^ r'�,• � �`��1� `'+��N:, ����t��"�jp f ;'i;�v�,5'�y s
d,�a c° �}',y�'.
� � , � �i �� r � � �, ' S 5� � '�k ��^� '�"` ' �.��t d ;�'"�'�€
'�-�7 �.. r � ` .i � +''- r � 1 y 1 x ts l� j� ,�hk
t t � 'I���%���'� ��
p � A � (, �1 "{�� �;, � t : ��� '��' � f^��:1'�� i�?"
t.a ��S i'• � ( � ��4 r r+ *, ���
4 1r � �Zf t
� ,� �_ ' � ''. # :� � _ �f; ��T = ��4 A°�:
� � :.a r 1 . � t -.; � (o� �� `} � .�a ��
i a: �� j �..�; '1 ?rk .: a k �'p� �y s�ti ��
� *. l �4 t�c. � � �� ,+��
Y .� r�' yY , �r . � �' �. � ,�
�.' _ t• � � � ,� n XY�i
i Y �; } l . :t �" ,� �.�'n,m�
�t �.I 1 4.- �� i , �I � '� t i .��1 ��
} �.I , �. � r�. r�r �.
t� � .� } ..J �"� �. N ` �i .� ..,+�! ��.�
1
i� ' �`✓ 1 ,f �1, � �` „� �':� � -r�'- �s y��
�,f, ` �"� ' -..� if �t�. t.✓�_, i d vsr � � 7 .r ��r
s ! � �. ;,� £
i � �c . � . '� . . 43���' � 'v��
� (���+ 'S' �� .. � a ` . . , ,� � 1 �i� ����}}r'�,
i.� � � �� j -£' � a f-i' •� z .�!:
�`�? ? �� - 7�
, �
�
. . . . . . , . .u�.
. �
� . �.� . . . . . . .
_ � �
_
,
.
f � ° x ��
yq�' t �-
\ � C .' .�Y k '�3 � �, -� :•4'�� �
� '� .k �� �. ' I x } - ➢
w4,Y. �. ' } :' • �_ 'r Y( ,'f i Y � � '' .i
" �C�c? ��:� i'� �h���,���4s�a �t > � ', �. ��-�
� � C#��i .a�� ,' -sar,�r�'���3 ��ts�kkae C�r� - j , � `.�'. � t ' ..�.,:`�� `��`
� J' I��f� �'� ���-���� ��11 e ,' ` � ,r r?;
� � � ti r
� �e�E �G ��! �f�asi,�s - ,� � �` ' � ��
t ` .` ��' ;f � ` ` '- .. � ���
° 't'�r ��; ��� �:�dayt 'e�ittn�ie�!`C�s �i3�,�<�k�+��.,� �►f� ���* f" �r "*t� � } �'�
.," ' " � ���y1� W r�#ar�'����►:L C�D =��crpiris`� ����'t�p►e����)�t�ii���#�z��. ,� ,:�, �X ;r �:�
Y',f 1�11 1.� '�x:�;�1� ��i� �Y�i��.*.��.��''���M��� •�Y .�{i� ����14.�If `�V�k� �'������:� t •._'�+j � ..t'y.r.3'V;;
k. ��/, i� �4'. �}�l►��,*,y� . : � � d !., , .
X�.. � � ��
.� t�. � �'. .�g. �t
f� ���' \ 1 � �'t � � "� R,R � t. ��,�,i-y
t - ���� � �.��\ ����. -r �,� '�� � 5 y' ,�3��
� xF
� � � t ;
✓ a� �k�. i �S '�} .' `��
{, � r �- � '; � �.,�e�yrl.dx?
� •. � �' {� J �' .�(� �V h
{�. y�j /�!�. S � I y �3,
4 � ���il 'i.�'� �It �+V��' � �h t . k z � �` � ��
. �r.�M � ,�i� ' f i� s ; A��
`� � i �:. i� . �� � ' �'�'r
� �, `, �� � �� :� :
h � �r�T.:_� ��; i�� . .. � i� ..2 # , � ;:
� � r r i + � .�,.. L� r �r y .�,� .� `��
��
�£ Q�'� � � I �it�Q�, �' .� %�$� �� r � } '� ,�} �'�f, e�����
� � � � �
,�J� ` �' � t d i .: r
z y� ;.� f., <.r . �
"� �`��.0 �#��i�a.'��lt"'' �' {, �' } r .� ��� j"
"}.. _.i � . 4 7 f '�� { F �� �w�y�''3'
`� z ,: t �.. � } :r {(��l
� , �f h { � _. lu,h
.-
♦ ' I b
. � (�'� �. �.. l 1
� � I - N, f � � � ' , '� � ` ` � � \:�` 4 �' �� �r��� ��
I
1 �� � t}`:. S J '� �.-�, � a��.
a- �� ,YL y���.
� � � �'-� �� ) 1� �r,,,�F,r}� � t / k Y�
� f �4 '4.�aT.. f� - t � .
., ' ',_{ ' � �� �} k �� ? ��
i � � " �
1 Y` �,( �t �Y C i' _
¢ 1' :f § �Y�h
� i _ 4 i f;� � � �r.
��'��'� r; � ? ( t �� ✓ �.�,
..� � y �, �` � � ��.
� h � .. ` +, ,{ � -��T y� s }��'-.
t� � ��� � s � �''� � � �`+,�k � N.�
4 . ��� �. ` ��.. � _ " `�3 � ,, '� '�, r� { �r
'� ! 3 F'� '"�'.: �� � � , 0 1 �� �^ � -4 :`t.{.
k y ,: ° � i .. , S r : d E l�p".
f' ' } � (
: ;3�. ./' 4 1�: � a'f �I�
a '� 1,� T� �5 _ ° t �s
�t '��� �_� o � �
(?.�x . � 'C� �, [ ,�i � e� ��-t
f1� J r f`' ��•y � r,: ''� � �S,�yL".
1 i
� •�., � � K g :�� :.�1 � F b'� � '��^i
�' ` ir > `� � �Y�w
F �# ,'� � ��� J SI ,� � ! '_' ;'�k � a
� k 7 '��*, ����
.I . a,o� �y � `. k ,, � .4,
�i. \ K ���j < �' , S4� f �`"���i
� � ] .�- '. 5� 3y-�, �".t
. �<i� 'F� >r�!
- � � z � � a .*. �t ' '� � ��t�
'.� �F �? � � i . f �Y ; � � �r �� ` r t�: ���
�Y5 _ t. 1�_ { � •_ � �r ',�' � d} µ����
`�.. � Fa:= -�✓ '�'� 'r ` t-'r �7�9 ;� ��+'�
'�p. Y � t,: 5 r �
� } '�`'�
$x, �fi F � c �{ � � � � -` � aA � �� L
� , N� J� 9�� , 4.� ��N��
�r" - . ' ��'� 4 ] � .... -�'��
,, . . - � .. ... a\ .. .A .s . ,... . � . ., . .... . � . i. . __ . . ...,x., . - .
. � �- �_�o��
. � �
Northem States Power Company
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis,Minnesota 55401
Telephone(612)330-5500
July 15, 19 �, �
��
--r r
:-�-c
��
Council Pre ident Victor Tedesco '�'' -._-, �,
719 City Ha 1 ;� r_-, m
St. Paul , M nnesota 55102 - � �
,_,
,;� -� ,
Re: Public Hearing - Shepard/Warner/East CBD Scoping � �',' ��
Enviro mental Assessment Worksheet "' �� ,
Councilmemb r Tedesco:
NSP request that this transmittal be entered as part of the July 8, 1986
public hear ng record pertaining to the Shepard/Warner/East CBD Scoping
Environment 1 Assessment Worksheet. NSP's High Bridge plant, located at
501 Shepard Road, St. Paul , is situated in the center of the alternatives
for the pro osed Shepard Road realignment. Ron Vannelli, NSP's Assistant
to the Gen al Manager, St. Paul Division, serves on a City Task Force
planning t road realignment. Mr. Vannelli has discussed with City staff
many of th potential problems that the road realignment may cause for the
power plan and related facilities associated with its operation. The
potential ed of the City to obtain road right-of-way through the High
Bridge pro rty could conflict with operations of the power plant, trans-
mission an distribution lines, substation areas, coal and ash storage and
river acce s. This entire operation is situated on only 97 acres without
any excess property.
The High B idge plant plays an important role in the NSP electric system
with a gen rating capacity of 330 megawatts of electricity. The plant has
been a big part of the St. Paul community since it began operating in 1942.
The plant mploys 170 people and pays about $2 million a year in property
taxes.
The Scopin Environmental Assessment Worksheet document, dated June, 1986,
notes comm nts that Ron Vannelli made at a Shepard/Warner/ECBD Bypass Task
Force meet ng on May 20, 1986:
.° Ron Van elli , NSP, expressed concerns about potential relocations
of thei transmission towers in the bypass area and indicated they
would 1 'ke to cooperate as much as possible in identifying potential
impact of this nature. He and another NSP representative, Ed Loye,
also i ntified a number of potential impacts in Segment A, which
would fect the NSP High Bridge power plant regardless of which
altern ive is selected. It was agreed that NSP would meet with the
City a their consultants to identify the exact location of their
f acili ies. The potential impacts on their properties will be
thorou hly addressed in the EIS.
C�-�-�09�
July 15, 19 6
Council Pre ident Victor Tedesco
Page 2 -
NSP will co tinue to work with City staff and others involved with this
project to esolve issues associated with the proposed road realignment.
Please do n t hesitate to contact me if you have questions regarding NSP's
High Bridge plant.
Sincerely,
�
t he J. arve
Senior o . Aff irs Rep.
Metro Publi Affairs
SJG:kh
cc: City uncil members
A1 Lov joy
Peter ames
Gene hiller
City erk Office
• _ _ . , ;._,,.: .
- '� — CITY CIERK �� . . .... . '. .�a ,:_::�, ... ,-. ...ti,_: ,'� � � . :. . ...,. ..:,��. . . .. . . . . . -
v�•�✓, r FIN/iNCE � .� COIILICII ��'pr `
;,SNARy � OEPAR7MENT - - � �ITY OF SAINT ���PAITL -N0. �'� ' ��� - �
�l'.1F — MAVOR
C uncil , �-esolutio 3 �-� � �o g�
f � a w
Presented By "
: Referred To Commitiee: Date
Out of Committ e By Date �
��ERE�s, the city saiAt Paul nas� co�issia�d the shepard/ktar�rlEast c6n .. � ., _ ;�=-_
FnYiroc�aenta] Ass �tt�rlcsl�et fotr #be pur�se of eYa t�a -- � -r ..
�g u ran
� ��xrn�t �es or rec�strt�ctio� tsf the na�ys; and
����2EAS, �he +ea�ri ta1 i�ac'L �istoQ process requ�ires a ScApi�g Public Hear�ng tts,
�ssfst in t� e�tal tioa Qf �he Scapi�g Emir��rta1 �tssess�r�t �torics�eet.
�
��t�� '[IiEREFt�iE� BE lZE5E31YE1�� fhat the Saiat P�I C�ty Co��tl sets t� Sc�ing �Iic
�:�ariag f at 1A:t� ,�,t#„ City Ccwnc�7 Ch�bers, 3rd Flocr �ity Na7i and
�czurt Ntwse.
�
COUNCILMEN �
Yeas �� Nay Reque�ed by Department of:
Niwsia . �_,, � {
Rettman �n FaVOC ♦ �. .
� { � :�
Scheibei �"'ti.,,,.-, \'''v `� t
so��e� "� Against �y ...�� �: , �
Tedeseo . .
Wi�son _
Form Approved by City AtEorney _
..�opted by Councit: Date —_F��i�� ° ��... s� - r
, _ �,s, �
Lertified Passed by Coy� il Secretary . By •
1 'n ��t l r.
• '.�,� f ,�"'-��,i ,�; c
B� ',.. .._ =-'T-..�=`�..
Aaproved by V!avor. Dat ' Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
Sy By
. ,
, , _ . .
. . , . .
, .
.
.. ,. . -
,. . . .
_ . _ _ -- - - . ..�_. .,. ._ . � .
.
< . _ -- - - - - -. . -- ->:.��'�
��... . � _, . _ � �'� _ 7,�
,�;7TY �:� GIT��' OF SAINT PAUL /� �
�a~P � � OFFICE OF THE MAYOR ��o`���
� a ni W nni
� �u� �n n �
vo ,�
34T CiTY HALL
�se• $AINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102
GEORGE LATIMER (612) 298-4323
MAYOR
May 27, l98
Council Pres ent Tedesco and
Members o the City Council
7th Floor, Ci y Hall
Saint Paul, innesota 55102
Dear Counci President Tedesco and Members of the City Council:
The first ste in the environmental review of the Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass
roadway pro ct is the alternatives screening or "scoping" process. This scoping process
defines and valuates a full range of roadway alternatives. In addition, it narrows the range
to those alte atives considered truly viable and warranting detailed examination.
To move ahe d on this scoping process, the City Council must hold a Public Hearing and
subsequently make a decision on the Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
The attache report (Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass Scoping Environmental Assessment
Worksheet) s already been reviewed by the Riverfront and Planning Commissions. Their
resolutions o support are also attached.
I request tha you set a Public Hearing for July 8, 1986 to receive testimony on the Scoping
Environmen 1 Assessment Worksheet.
Thank you.
Sincerely
George Lati er
Mayor
GL:Im
Attachment
�'e
� �, yio
- � � ��_ �oq �
� � �
city of sai t paul
.,pianning ommission resolution
file num r 86-43 �
„ date - - __
SHEPARD/WARNER ROAD/EAST CBD BYPASS
WHEREAS, t e City of Saint Paul , through its Comprehensive Plan, has endorsed
developmen of an East CBD Bypass and improvements along Shepard/Warner Road;
and
WHEREAS, t e City of Saint Paul has decided to evaluate reconstruction of
Shepard an Warner Roads, and construction of the East Central Business
District B pass; and
WHEREAS, t e impacts from such construction/reconstruction warrant an
environmen al impact statement decision; and
WHEREAS, t e environmental impact statement process requires a "scoping
decision" hich evaluates the full range of alternatives and narrows that
range to ose alternatives considered truly viable and warranting detailed
examinati ; and
WHEREAS, e Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass Alternatives Screening Report has
been developed to define a full range of alternatives; and
WHEREAS, he Saint Paul Planning Commission has reviewed the Shepard/Warner/
East CBD ass Alternatives Screenin Re ort.
NOW, THER FORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends the
� following alternatives as outlined in the Shepard/Warner/East CBD Bypass
Alternati es Screening Report be evaluated as those a ternat ves which are
truly via le and warranting detailed examination: �
Segmen A: Shepard Road - Randolph to Chestnut
. - No Build Alternative
. A-1 Widen Shepard Road on existing alignment
. A-2 Widen Shepard Road on existing alignment and shift away from
River near NSP and Kaplans
. A- Widen Shepard Road on new alignment at base of the bluff
(continued)
moved McDonell �
� � Treichel
in favor s voi ce vote
against '
. . I
: � � ��o
� . � . ��_ �o��
city of int paul
';pianning commission resolution
� s file num r 86-43
date - -
Segme B: Chestnut Connection to Shepard Road
. - No Build Alternative
. B- At grade connection on existing Chestnut alignment
. B- Grade separated connection on existing Chestnut alignment
Segme C: Shepard Road - Chestnut to Robert
. - No Build Alternative
. C- Minor improvements on existing alignment
. C- Shift road and tracks away from river
Segme 0: East CBD Bypass Connection to Warner Road
. - No Build Alternative
. D- Grade Separated connection
. D- At grade connection
Segme E: East CBD Bypass Connection to Local Streets
. - No Build Alternative
. E- No local street connections
. E- Local connections to bypass at Kellogg, E. 7th, and University/
Lafayette
Segme F: East CBD Bypass Connection to I-35E
. - No Build Alternative
. F-1 Pe�nsylvania lnterchange
. F- Direct connection to I-35E north of Pennsylvania
. F- Combined intersection (Pennsylvania) ---
(continued)
moved b �
sec by
in favor
against
. . . . (� � 7��
� � � � �� - �096
city of sai t paul
��lanning mission resolution
,file num r 86-43 -
'date 5- 3-$6
AND, BE I FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Comnission recommends special
studies b conducted for the following issues:
. vis al impacts
. imp cts on historic properties
. tra fic impacts
. lan development
. rel cation
. noi e impacts
. air quality impacts
. flo dplain impact
. soi s, geologic and subsurface conditions
ANO, BE I FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission reserve final
recomnend tions until a preferred alternative is selected and reviewed for
consisten y with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan.
moved �
sec by
in fav�or
against
� � � � . �� - /a9�
Downtown Riv+erfront Commission R�esolution
City of Saint Paul
file number 86-06
date May 22. 1986
WHEREAS. the Saint Paul Riverfront Commission has concluded that the reconstruction
of Shepard R ad and Warner Road will have a long-term impact on the ability of
the City of aint Paul to promote public safety and riverfront improvements; and
WNEREAS, the Riverfront Commission has already stated its concern that the city
cannot simpl reconstruct these roads without considering the implications of their
alignment(s) n the potential of the riverfront; and
WHEREAS, sta and federal law requires that assessments be made of the alternatives
to a project uch as this; and
WHEREAS, the iverfront Commission previously recommended that a Task Force be
established review and assess potential alternatives with city staff and the
Commission; d
WHEREAS, cit staff and the Shepard Road/East CBD Bypass Task Force have under—
taken the fi t step in that assessment. the 'scoping' necessary to narrow
the range of iable alternatives to consider, and have reported their recommendations
in the Altern tives Screenin Re ort of April 29, 1986, and supplementary memo
dated May 15, 1986; and
WHEREAS. the iverfront Commission has reviewed and concurs with the findings
and recommend tions of the Alternatives Screening Report and supplementary memo;
NOW, THEREFOR , BE IT RESOLVED. that the Saint Paul Riverfront Commission recommends
that page 8. aragraph #3 of the Alternatives Screening Report be amended to omit
the phrase "W erever possible" at the beginning of the paragraph; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Riverfront Commission recommends the following
alternatives s outlined in the Alternatives Screening Report be evaluated as
those alterna ives which are truly viable and warranting detailed examination:
Segment A: Shepard Road - Randolph to Chestnut
. - No Build Alternative
. A-1 Wi en Shepard Road on existing alignment
. A-2 Wi en Shepard Road on existing alignment and shift away from
R ver near NSP and Kaplans
. A-3 Wi en Shepard Road on new alignme�t at base of the bluff
moved by
seconded by �
in favor
against
,
" • • - rf/0
` � . �� ' /D��
Downtown Riv�erfront Commission Resolution
City of Saint aul
file number 86-06
date --- ay �
PAGE 2 OF 3
Segment B Chestnut Connection to Shepard Road
. — N Build Alternative
. B-1 A grade connection on existing Chestnut alignment
. B-2 G ade separated connection on existing Chestnut alignment -
Segment C Shepard Road — Chestnut to Robert
. — N Build Alternative
. C-1 M nor improvements on existing alignment
. C-2 S ift road and tracks away from river
Segment D East CBD Bypass Connection to Warner Road
. — N Build Alternative
. 0-1 G ade Separated connection
. D-2 A grade connection
Segment E East CBD Bypass Connection to Local Streets
. — N Build Alternative
. E-1 N local street connections
. E-2 L cal connections to bypass at Kellogg. E. 7th. and University/
afayette
Segment F East CBD Bypass Connection to I-35E
. — N Build Alternative
. F-1 P nnsylvania interchange
. F-2 D rect connection to I-35E north of Pennsylvania
. F-3 C mbined intersection (Pennsylvania)
AND. BE IT F RTHER RESOLVED� that the Riverfront Commission recommends special
studies be c nducted for the following issues:
. visual impacts
. impact on historic properties
. traffi impacts
. land d velopment
moved by
seconded by
in favor
against
- . , � - o
, - , ' , � - /09�
• Downtown Riverfront Commission Resolution
City of Sain Paul
flle number 86-06
date - Mav 22, 1986
PAGE 3 OF 3
. reloc tion
. noise impacts
. air q ality impacts
. flood lain impact
. soils geologic and subsurface conditions
BE IT FURTH R RESOLVED, that the Riverfront Commission recommend to the Mayor
and City Co ncil that the Alternatives Screening Report and supplementary memo
be incorpor ted into the legal file supporting the preparation of the EIS
for the rec nstruction of Shepard and Warr�er Roads.
i
i
I
moved by Mr. Hozza
seconded by_ Mr. McDonel l
in favor �5
against - 0
�
� .. . . � ` ���� —�,�
• � � _ /0 9�
,
SHE RD/WARNER/EAST CBD BYPASS
�
�
�
�
� `
�
. � ::
� .
. �.._ .
� :: ::.....:::: .. ....: _ _
,, ,
q�ll�
1 � '
��e
1
Prepared For: THE CITY OF ST. PAUL
� Department of Public Works
Department of Planning and Economic Development
Prepared By: Strgar-Roscoe-FaUSCh. Inc.
� June,1986
1
� ��� ��� �_ �
,
, �. �
� k �K w,+�. t
� �- 7/ D
� - Q ��
� �
i
1
, SHEPARD/WARNER/EAST CBD BYPASS
,
'
SCOPING
� _
� ENVI NMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
�
�
�
�
�
CITY OF ST. PAUL
' MINNESOTA
'
' JUNE, 1986
'
I
'
� �� -ld��
1
, TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
'
SCOPINGEAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
, 1. PR JECT NAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 . PR POSER 1
, 3 . RE PONSIBLE•GOVERNMENTAL UNIT• . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
, 4. PR JECT LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
5. PR JECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
' 6. RE SON FOR EAW PREPARATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. ES IMATED CONSTRUCTION COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
I8. TO AL PROJECT AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
, 9. SI E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
10. NU BER OF PROPOSED PARKING SPACES . . . . . . . . . . . 4
� 11. PE ITS, APPROVALS, OR FUNDING REQUIRED . . . . . . . . 5
12 . CO PATIBILITY WITH PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
' 13 . D USE AND DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
14. VE ETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
, 15. SO LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
, 16. GE LOGIC CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
17 . SUISURFACE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
' 18. RI ER PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
' 19 . AL ERATION OF WATER RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
20. AP ROPRIATION OF GROUND OR SURFACE WATER . . . . . . . 9
' 21. SO LS PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
22 . RU OFF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
'
,
� ����a��
1
, 23 . NO SE/AIR POLLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
24. WA TE DISPOSAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
I25. WI DLIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
, 26. HI TORIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
27. SE SITIVE FEATURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
, 28. T FFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
29. SE VICE DEMANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
' OT ER ISSUES
SOCIAL IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
, RELACATION IMPACTS . . . : : : : : : : : : : : : . 15
LAND DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS . 16
ECONOMIC IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
ENERGY IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
� CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
S Y OF ISSUES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
, • ISSUES OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE• : : : : : : : : : . 17
VISUAL IMPACTS . 1'7
IMPACTS ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES . . . . . . . . . . 17
' TRAFFIC IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
LAND DEVELOPMENT lg
RELOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
NOISE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
, AIR QUALITY IMPACTS : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . lg
FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS . 19
SOILS, GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . . . . . 19
� • ISSUES NOT CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT . . . . . . . . . . 19
IADDENDU
� • GRAP ICS
Figu e One: General Project Area Map
, Figu e Two: • USGS 7-1/2 Minute, 1: 24, 000 Scale Map
Figu e Three: Study Corridor Map
Figu e Four. Land Use/Zoning Map
Figu e Five: Monitoring Sites for Noise and Air Quality
'
• ALTE ATIVES SCREENING REPORT
'
�
i
' ; �- � -�a9�
E.R. # Filled in by EQB)
,
' SCOPING
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORRSHEET
IJune, 1986
' NOTE T REVIEWERB: This document is a Scoping EAW and,
therefo e, written comments should address the accuracy and
complet ness of the information provided and suggest additional
' issues or investigation in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Such co ents should be submitted to the Responsible Governmental
Unit (R U) during the 30-day review period following notice of
the EAW s availability in the EQB Monitor. Contact the EQB (612-
' 296-825 ) or the RGU to find out when the 30-day review period
ends.
'
1. PR JECT NAME: Reconstruction of Shepard and Warner Roads
� ; and construction of a new bypass east of the
St. Paul Central Business District (CBD)
' 2. PR POSER: City of St. Paul, Department of Public Works
Contact Person: Bob Peterson
' Associate City Engineer
Address: Suite 800 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
' Phone: (612) 298-5311
� 3. RES ONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL IINIT: City of St. Paul
Contact Person: Bob Peterson
Associate City Engineer
, Address: Suite 800 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Phone: (612) 298-5311
,
4. PR JECT LOCATION:
, Th proposed project is located in parts of the following
se tions:
� T 28N, R 23W, Sections 1 and 12
T 28N, R 22W, Sections 5 and 6
T 29N, R 22W, Sections 31 and 32
�
' 1
1
�� _,6 ��
1 '�
�
i �
a. ounty Name: RAMSEY City: ST. PAUL
b. pies of the following graphics are included in the
' dendum:
Fi . 1: General Project Area Map
' Fi . 2 : USGS 7 1/2 minute, 1:24, 000 scale map
Fi . 3 : Study Corridor Map
Fi . 4: Land Use/Zoning Map
Fi . 5: Monitoring Sites for Noise and Air Quality
I5. PR ECT DESCRIPTION
' The pro sed project includes two separate facilities:
• She ar Warner Roads:
' Improvem nt of existing 4-lane Shepard and Warner Roads from
Randolph Avenue to the proposed East CBD Bypass. Alignment
alternat ves under consideration include the existing alignment
and two ossible alignments which would shift Shepard Road away
' from the river between Randolph and Chestnut Streets. Design and
alignmen alternatives are also being considered at the
intersec ions of Chestnut/Shepard and Warner/ECBD Bypass.
' • East C D Cent '
ral Business District B ass:
Construc ion of a new roadway on the east side of the St. Paul
' central usiness district. The alignment would follow abandoned
railroad tracks to be acquired by the City. The roadway would
connect o Shepard/Warner Roads on the south and to I-35E on the
' north. t would serve as an alternate truck route for the 35E
Parkway, which prohibits truck traffic. Alignment alternatives
under e sideration relate primarily to the connections of the �
' Bypass t Warner Road, to the local street system and to I-35E
north of downtown. '�
In an e ort to focus on the more site-specific aspects of the
' area, th Study Corridor was divided into six segments, shown in
Figure 3 Based on the analysis and evaluation completed in the
prelimin ry screening of alternatives, the following segment '
' alternat ves were selected for more detailed analysis in the EIS.
The scre ning process and the bases for these recommendations are
addresse in the Alternatives Screening Report, which is included
in the a tached addendum to this EAW.
,
' f
�
' 2
, � �r/69�
1
, Seqment A: Shepard Rd. From Randolph to Chestnut St.
• No Bu ld Alternative
, • Alter ative A-1: Existing Alignment (4-lane divided)
• Alter ative A-2: Kaplan Crossing (4-lane divided)
, • Alter ative A-3 : Alignment along base of bluff
(4-lane divided)
' seqment : Shepard Rd. Connection to Chestnut St.
' • No Bui d Alternative
• Altern tive B-l: Existing Chestnut alignment with an
� at-grade connection to Shepard Rd.
• Altern tive B-2: Existing Chestnut alignment with a
grade separated connection to Shepard Rd.
�
Seqment : shepard Road From Chestnut to Robert Street
, • No Bui d Alternative
• Altern tive C-1: Minor improvements on existing alignment
� � Altern tive C-2: Shift tracks and road to north
(Requires removal of R/R trestle over
' river)
Seqment : East CBD Bypass Connection to Warner Road
1 • No Bui Alternative
• Altern ive D-1: Grade-separated connection to Warner Road
' • Altern tive D-2: At-grade connection to Warner Road
' Seqment E East CBD Bypass Connections to Local 8treets
, • No Buil Alternative
• Alterna ive E-1. No local connections to East CBD Bypass
, • Alterna ive E-2 : Local connection to East CBD Bypass at
Kellogg, E. 7th St. and University/LaFayette
,
� 3
I
t �- �-�D9�
i
' Segment : East CBD Bypass Connection to I-35E North of CBD
• No Bu' d Alternative
' • Alter tive F-1: Connection of ECBD Bypass to I-35E at the
existing Pennsylvania lnterchange
' • Alter tive F-2: Direct connection of ECBD Bypass to I-35
north of the Pennsylvania lnterchange
� • Alter tive F-3: Combined connection of Bypass to 35E with
partial direct connection north of
Pennsylvania
' 6. RE ON FOR EAW PREPARATION: Scoping document for EIS
� Mandato Category Rule # 6MCAR S 3 . 039,0, Highway projects:
Constru ion of a road on a new location which is four or more
lanes i width and two or more miles in length. (Al1 of the
Bypass ould be on a new alignment; portions of Shepard/Warner
� Roads m be on a new alignment)
, 7. ES iMATED CONSTRUCTION COST:
Based o estimates developed by the City of St. Paul for the
Project Development Report (August, 1985) the construction costs
� for the project, not including right-of-way or relocation costs,
could r ge from $20-30 million.
' 8. TOT PROJECT AREA:
• epard/Warner Roads: 3.5 miles in length
, • st CBD Bypass: 1.5 miles in length
' 9. SI : NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS OR SQUARE FEET OF
CO ERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR INSTITUTIONAL SPACE:
' Not Applicable
' 10. NU ER OF PROPOSED PARRING SPACES:
Not Applicable
'
'
' 4
i
v� � -�o��
t
' 11. LI T ALL RNOWN LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITB, APPROVALS,
OR FUNDING REQUIRED:
' Level o Government T e of A lication Status
FEDERAL Federal Aid Urban Funding
' Great River Road Funding
U.S. A y, Corps Section 404 Permit Required if
1 of Engi eers fill in flood-
plain
Advisor Council on Sections 4 (f) and 106 Required for
' Histori Preservation Reviews some
Alternatives
' STATE: Municipal State Aid Funding
County State Aid Funding
� Minneso a Pollution Air and Noise Analyses To be completed
Control Agency Indirect Source Permit in EIS
, Minneso a Historical State Historic Preservation Required for
Society Officer Determination some
Alternatives
� Minneso a Department Floodplain Impact Study Required if
of Natu al Resources fill in
floodplain
' Minneso a Department Connection to I-35E Will be
of Tran portation addressed in
, the EIS
LOCAL: City Funds
� City of St. Paul Construction in Floodplain Required if
Conditional Use Permit fill in
floodplain
� Ramsey ounty Highway Department Will be
Concurrence reviewed
' through EIS
�
,
' S
�
� �- � -,d 9�
�
, 12. CO PATIBILITY WITH PLANNING:
IS THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL ADOPTED
CO PREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN OR ANY OTHER ADOPTED PLAN?
' The ge ral proposal to reconstruct Shepard/Warner Roads and
build t e new East CBD Bypass is consistent with the City's
adopted Comprehensive Plan. However, some of the alignment
, alterna ives on Shepard Road (Segment A) may not be consistent
with t City's adopted River Corridor Plan. This will be
investi ated further in the EIS.
� 13. DE RIBE CORRENT AND RECENT PAST LAND IISE AND DEVELOPMEN
T ON
AN NEAR THE SITE.
' • Shepa /Warner Roads:
The la use development along these roadways ranges from
1 Industr' 1 (Oil, Electrical, Grain and Railroad Facilities) on
the wes end of the corridor to Commercial/Office uses as the
roadway passes along the south fringe of the St. Paul Central
Busines District (See Figure 4) . The far east end of the study
, corrido is currently undeveloped except for railroad operations,
includi a piggyback facility which the City is currently
attempt' g to acquire and relocate for roadway purposes.
, • East D Bypass:
Most of he land adjacent to the Bypass alignment is utilized for
railroa operations, industrial uses or is undeveloped (See
� Figure 4 . There is a gravel mining operation near the north end
of the ignment.
, 14. VEG TATION: APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY ACRES OF THE SITE ARE IN
EAC OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES BEFORE AND AFTER
1 CON TRIICTION?
For st/Wooded Brush
Wet ands (Types 3-8) Cropland
� Imp rvious Surfaces Grassland
Oth r (Specify)
� The spec fic acreage or percentage of each vegetation type in the
study c ridor has not yet been identified. This information
will be rovided in the EIS. In general, the vegetative cover in
the stud corridor consists primarily of grasslands and oldfield
' vegetati n. Small areas of mixed upland hardwood forest exist on
the far west end of the corridor below the bluff, but are not
expected to be impacted by any alternatives. No known wetlands
, exist in the corridor.
,
' 6
� �� ��9�
1
, 15. SO LS:
DE CRIBE THE SOILS ON THE SITE, GIVING THE SCS SOIL
C SSIFICATION TYPES, IF KNOWN:
� Based n previous studies in this area, the primary surficial
soil d posits in the corridor generally include glacial or
alluvia deposits with some boulders. The soils are frequently
' disturb d by man and intermixed with fill soils. According to
the U. . Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Soil S ey for Washington and Ramsey Counties, the majority of
� the co ridor is classified as "urban land" . Other primary
classif cations are "udorthents; wet substratum", "Doherton; rock
outcrop complex", "Urban; Chetek Complex" and "Chetek; Sandy
Loam". The EIS will include an analysis of soils, geologic and
' subsurf ce conditions for all segment alternatives involving new
roadway construction.
( 16. GE LOGIC CONDITIONS:
DO S THE SITE CONTAIN PEAT SOILS, HIGHLY ERODIBLE SOILS,
, ST EP SLOPES, SINKHOLES, SHALLOW LIMESTONE FORMATIONS,
AB DONED WELLS, OR ANY GEOLOGIC HAZARDS? YES
Based o previous studies in this corridor, there is evidence of
� deep p t deposits and some potentially erodible soils. There
are ma y areas in the corridor, especially along the Bypass
alignme t, where little or no subsoils data exists. This will be
, investi ated as a part of the soils, geologic and subsurface
conditi ns analysis for the EIS.
' 17. SII SIIRFACE CONDITIONS
T IS THE APPROXIMATE DEPTH (IN FEET) TO:
' A. ROUNDWATER: MINIMUM AVERAGE
B. EDROCK: MINIMUM 100 AVERAGE
' Most of this information is not yet available. Based on previous
studies in this corridor, there are areas in the study corridor
with hi h water tables. This will be studied as a part of the
� soils, eologic and subsurface conditions analysis for the EIS.
1
t
1
1 �
t ��-��9�
1
, 18. RI R PROTECTION
DO ANY PART OF THE PROJECT AREA INVOLVE:
, A. S RELAND ZONING DISTRICT? Yes
B. D INEATED 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN? Yes
, C. S TE OR FEDERALLY DESIGNATED
R ER LAND USE DISTRICT? Yes
, IF YES, IDENTIFY WATER BODY AND APPLICABLE STATE
C SIFICATION(S) , AND DESCRIBE MEASURES TO PROTECT WATER
AN RELATED LAND RESOURCES:
' The She ard Warner Road ortion of the stud corridor an
/ P y d the
connect' n between Warner Road and the East CBD Bypass lie
� adjacen to the Mississippi River. Portions of the corridor are
within e Shoreland Zoning District and the 100 Year Floodplain
as well as the Mississippi River Critical Area. Most likely,
I some a ternatives will require fill in portions of the
floodpl 'n. For these alternatives, a Floodplain Impact Study
will be ompleted.
� If fill is necessary in any portion of the floodplain, a U.S.
Army pe it will be required. Any work in the floodplain is also
subject o a City Conditional Use Permit. Requirements of these
' agencie and permits will be addressed in the Floodplain Impact
Study. Requirements of Executive Order 11988, "Protection of
Floodpl 'ns", and FHPM 6-7-3-2, "Location and Hydraulic Design of
' Encroac ents on Floodplains�� will also be addressed in this
study.
The Flo plain Impact Study will specifically identify the size
' of any reas to be filled or affected by filling and the amount
of fill to be placed. The effects of alternatives on the Corps
of Engi eers St. Paul Flood Control Project will be assessed.
� The mat matical model developed for the St. Paul Flood Insurance
Study wi 1 be utilized to determine the effects of the Floodplain
Impact S udy fill necessary for various alternatives.
� The Cit of St. Paul, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be consulted in identifying
potentia impacts of alternatives and the most appropriate
' measure to mitigate these impacts.
�
'
' 8
� � �-��9�
1
19. AL ERATION OF WATER RESOURCES
, DE CRIBE ANY PHYSICAL ALTERATION (EG. DIKES, EXCAVATION,
FI L, STREAM DIVERSION) OF ANY DRAINAGE SYSTEM, LAKE,
ST EAM, AND/OR WETLAND. DESCRIBE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE
1 IM AIRMENT OF THE WATER-RELATED LAND RESOURCES. ESTIMATE
QU TITY OF MATERIAL TO BE DREDGED AND INDICATE WHERE SPOILS
WI L BE DEPOSITED.
, Accordi g to a preliminary discussion with the Minnesota
Departm nt of Natural Resources, there do not appear to be any
' wetland or protected waters within the study corridor, aside
from th Mississippi River. In the floodplain of the Mississippi
River, t is possible that some filling may be necessary. The
potenti 1 impacts of filling on water resources will be addressed
� in the loodplain Impact Study.
20. A. WILL THE PROJECT REQUIRE AN APPROPRIATION OF GROUND OR
' SIIRFACE WATER? No
8. ' ILL THE PROJECT AFFECT GROIINDWATER LEVELS IN ANY WELLS
� (ON OR OFF THE SITE) ? No
21. SO S PROTECTION
DE RIBE THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES TO
' BE SED DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.
At this time, the potential for erosion and sedimentation due to
' the pro ect is unknown. These impacts and the appropriate
mitigat' n measures will be addressed in the study of soils,
geologi and subsurface conditions to be completed for the EIS.
' 22. R FF
A. ILL THE PROJECT GENERATE:
` 1. URFACE AND STORMWATER RUNOFF? Yes
2. ANITARY WASTEWATER? No
� 3 . NDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER? No
4. OOLING WATER? No
The surf ce and stormwater runoff generated by the roadways will
' be acco odated by storm sewer to be included in the construction
of the f cilities. Based on previous studies completed in this
area, th proposed project is expected to improve the adequacy of
' the sto sewer system by relieving the existing capacity
problems in the vicinity of the East CBD Bypass corridor. No
addition 1 flow will be added to the combined sewer system.
Therefor , it is anticipated that there will be no significant
' impacts ue to surface and stormwater runoff. The Metropolitan
Waste Co trol Commission wili be contacted and their comments
will be dressed in the EIS.
'
� 9
��-��q�
�
� �
I
�
' B. I DENTIFY RECEIVING WATERS, INCLUDING GROUNDWATER, AND
VALUATE THE IMPACTS OF THE DISCHARGES LISTED ABOVE. IF
, ISCHARGES TO GROUNDWATER ARE ANTICIPATED, PROVIDE
ERCOLATION/PERMEABILITY AND OTHER HYDROLOGICAL TEST
I ATA, IF AVAILABLE.
' It is nit expected that significant impacts to water quality or
groundw er resources will result from the project. The
Minneso a Pollution Control Agency will be contacted and their
� comment will be addressed in the EIS.
' 23. NO SE/AIR POLLIITION
WI L THE PROJECT GENERATE (EITHER DURING OR AFTER
CO STRUCTION) :
� A. AIR POLLUTION? Yes
B. DUST? Yes, during construction.
C. NOISE? Yes
' D. ODORS? No
' IF YES, EXPLAIN, INCLUDING AS APPROPRIATE:
• DIST CES TO SENSITIVE LAND USES
• TYPES AND QUANTITIES OF AIR POLLUTANTS FROM STACKS, MOBILE
' SOURC S, AND FUGITIVE EMISSIONS (DUST)
• ODOR OURCES
• MITIG TIVE MEASURES FOR ANY IMPACTS
• GIVE HE BASIS OR METHODOLOGY OF ESTIMATES
, The EIS will include both a Noise Analysis and an Air Quality
Analysi . The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has been
' consult d for a preliminary determination of the extent of
analysi that should be completed. Following is a summary of the
propose level of analysis to be completed in the EIS:
' Air ua it :
Air Qua ity modeling for Carbon Monoxide levels will be conducted
at the ntersection of Chestnut Street and Shepard Road and near
� the con ection of the East CBD Bypass to I-35E north of downtown
St. Pa (see Figure 5) . The modeling will be performed using
Mobile III Emission Factor model and the CALINE 3 Dispersion
model. Air quality monitoring for background Carbon Monoxide
' levels ill be performed at locations agreed upon with the MPCA.
An Ind rect Source Permit may be required for the proposed
project The permit application will be developed as part of the
' EIS.
'
' 10
�= �- �� ��
i
1
' Because the intersections of Jackson and Sibley Streets with
Shepard Road are a one-way pair which will be designed to
accommo ate the projected traffic volumes at a high level of
service and because there are no sensitive land uses near to the
' interse tions, they are not expected to create air quality
impacts Therefore, these intersections will not be modeled.
Dependi g on the anticipated traffic impacts of the alternatives,
' the int rsection of Kellogg Boulevard and West Seventh Street
(Fort R ad) on the west end of downtown St. Paul may also be
monitor d.
' Noise I acts•
Based n preliminary discussions with MPCA and with the
' represe tatives of the Irvine Park and West Seventh Street
neighbo hoods (near Chestnut Street) , existing noise levels will
be moni ored at the following locations (see Figure 5) .
' • Along the edge of the bluff above Shepard Road in two areas:
A. At the nursing home on Wilkin Street
B. Close to Chestnut Street
' • Set b ck from the bluff above Shepard Road in two areas:
C. Within Irvine Park
' D. At the intersection of Leech and McBoal Streets
• Along the edge of the bluff above east of the East CBD Bypass
' E. At the nearest sensitive receptor in the
residential neighborhood in this area
• In th vicinity of the connection of the ECBD Bypass to I-35E
, north of downtown St. Paul.
F. At a sensitive receptor location to be agreed upon with
' the MPCA.
Care wi 1 be taken during monitoring to measure normal noise
, levels ather than unusual conditions which might be present.
Both da time and nighttime noise levels will be predicted based
on the HWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model from FHWA-RD-77-108
' for L10 nd L50 levels. The noise analysis will be performed for
the rec ptor sites monitored. The analysis will include the
effects of the "hard" surface of the limestone bluff along the
, Shepard Road corridor. In addition, the noise model will take
into ac ount the grade differentials in some alternatives and
will pr ide a comparison between an at-grade and grade separated
connect' n at Chestnut Street. Anticipated noise impacts will be
' identif' d and possible mitigation measures will be addressed in
the EIS.
1
11
'
' C�� -ia 9�
1
� 24. WA E DISPOSAL
DE RIBE THE TYPE AND AMOUNT OF SOLID AND/OR HAZARDOUS
WA E INCLUDING SLUDGES AND ASHES THAT WILL BE GENERATED
' AN THE METHOD AND LOCATION OF DISPOSAL:
Not Applicable
,
25. WIL LIFE
' WI THE PROJECT AFFECT:
A. FISH OR WILDLIFE HABITAT, OR MOVEMENT OF ANIMALS?
B. ANY NATIVE SPECIES THAT ARE OFFICIALLY LISTED AS STATE
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR OF SPECIAL CONCERN (ANIMALS
' AND/OR PLANTS) ? NO
IFiYES, EXPLAIN (IDENTIFY SPECIES AND DESCRIBE IMPACT) :
, Based o preliminary discussions with the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources and the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and
Wildlif Service, impacts are not anticipated on fish or wildlife
' habitat or movement of animals. The corridor is within the
ranges of the following threatened or endangered species:
Peregri e Falcon, Bald Eagle, Higgins Eye Mussel. However, the
' Fish an Wildlife Service does not anticipate impacts on these
species due to the urban nature of the existing environment. An
officia determination from these agencies will be included in
' the EIS If any potential significant impacts are identified,
they w 11 be investigated and mitigation measures will be
address d.
' I
26. HI TORIC RESOIIRCES
DO ANY HISTORICAL, ARCHAEOIAGICAL OR ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
' EX ST ON OR NEAR THE PROJECT SITE? IF YES, EXPLAIN (SHOW
RE OURCES ON A SITE MAP AND DESCRIBE IMPACT) : YES
Accordi g to preliminary discussions with the State Historic
, Preserv tion Office, and based on previous studies done in this
corrido , there are several sites in and near the study corridor
which a e considered historically significant. These sites fall
' into cl ssifications including Section 4 (f) properties, Section
106 pro erties, and sites of local interest. The Irvine Park
Histori District and Lowertown Historic District lie adjacent to
' the st y corridor. In addition, there are some potential
archaeo ogical sites which may need to be monitored during
constru ion.
1
'
, 12
'
������
,
i
' A Histo� ic Resources Study will be conducted which will include a
detaile inventory of existing and potentially significant sites,
potenti 1 adverse impacts to these sites, measures to protect and
monitor sites during construction activities and other mitigation
' measure . The requirements for 4 (f) and Section 106 review will
be met as well as requirements for Executive Order 11593 ,
"Protec ion and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment" . The
' State H storic Preservation Officer will be consulted for input
to the EIS, as will the Advisory Council on Historic
Preserv tion. In addition, local historic interests will be
' address d including those of the St. Paul Heritage Preservation
Commiss on and the Ramsey County Historical Society.
' 27. 8E SITIVE FEATURES
WI L THE PROJECT CAUSE THE IMPAIRMENT OR DESTRUCTION OF:
' A. DESIGNATED PARK OR RECREATION AREAS? No
B. PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLANDS? No
C. ECOIAGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS? No
' D. SCENIC VIEWS AND VISTAS? Potentially
E. OTHER UNIQUE RESOURCES (SPECIFY) ? No
IF YES EXPLAIN•
' A. Des qnated Park or Recreation Areas:
No know Park and Recreation Lands exist in the study corridor.
' There i a potential for acquisition of lands south of Randolph
Avenue n the west end of the study corridor for expansion of
Crosby arms Regional Park. However, this land lies below the
bluff a ng the river and, therefore, will not be impacted by the
' roadway onstruction.
' C. Scen'c views and vistas:
A key 'ssue in the EIS is the visual impact of proposed
alterna ives on the Riverfront neighborhood and Central Business
, Distric . A Visual Impact Study will be completed for the EIS
which w' ll include:
' • photographic inventory of existing views to and from the
adways including a map showing the location of landmarks
d special features
' • series of renderings which show the affects of
adway alternatives on key views to and from the
adways.
�
'
' 13
1 � �-/a 9�
�
'
' • Examples of design features which could be included in the
roadway design to mitigate negative impacts and to enhance
positive views of landmarks, the downtown skyline and the
� river.
The Vi al Impact Study will focus on alternatives in Segments A,
' B, C, d D.
' 28. T FFIC
F EACH AFFECTED ROAD, INDICATE THE CURRENT AVERAGE DAILY
T FFIC (ADT) , INCREASE IN ADT CONTRIBUTED BY THE PROJECT
THE DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF TRAFFIC.
,
Roadwa Existing ADT Year 2000 Percent Change Due
, Forecasted ADT To Improvement
Shepar Rd 25,000 20-25, 000 Not yet known
, Warner d 15, 600 19-25,000 Not yet known
Chestnu St 7, 000 13,500 Not yet known
Jackson St
' and 20, 000 7, 000 Not yet known
Sibley t
ECBD By ass -0- 19-25, 000 100�
' I-35E:
N. of C D 82,500 130,540 Not yet known
S. of C D 0-23, 000 35-60,000 Not yet known
' As a pl rt of the reliminar alternatives sc e
P Y r ening process,
several traffic analyses were completed including auto and truck
, origin/ estination surveys, selected links and modifications to
the Yea 2000 forecasts. More detailed traffic analyses at the
interse tion level will be completed in the EIS for all segments
' of the tudy Corridor. The following factors will be addressed
in thes analyses:
• mprovement in Safety Conditions
' • elays at Chestnut Street Railroad Crossing
� raffic Level of Service on:
- Shepard/Warner/ECBD Bypass
' - CBD Streets and other City streets (ie. W. 7th St. )
- Regional Highway System (ie. I-35E and I-94)
• oods Movements (Truck, Rail and Barge Operations)
• edestrian and Bicycle Accommodation
� • onsistency with State, Metro and Local transportation
olicies and plans
• eeting Federal and State Highway Design Standards
'
, 14
� � �����
i
' 29. S VICE DEMANDS
ADEQUATE UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES NOW AVAILABLE TO
, S VICE THE PROJECT? IF NOT, WHAT ADDITIONAL UTILITIES
/OR SERVICES WILL BE REQUIRED?
' At thi time, the only known additional service that would be
requir due to the project would be storm sewer. This addition
would consistent with City and Metro sewer policies. In the
' East C D Bypass corridor, the new sewer would relieve existing
capaci problems being experienced in the Trout Brook Sewer
Line.
' OTHER I SUES
, A. SOCI L IMPACTS
Essenti lly, there are no social impacts due to the alternatives,
based n federal guidelines. This includes special social
, groups, changes in neighborhQOd and community cohesion, impacts
on scho 1 districts, churches, recreation areas, police and fire
protect on and regional economic impacts. There are potential
, impacts on neighborhoods along Segments A and B which will be
address d through studies for the EIS including Noise, Air,
Visual, Land Development and Relocation Impacts.
' A Task Force of interested persons has been involved with the
screeni g of alternatives and will continue to be involved
through the entire EIS process. The Task Force is an advisory
' group hich provides significant input regarding community
attitud s and concerns. In addition, most Task Force members
represe t specific properties affected by the proposal.
, Continu d involvement of the Task Force ensures a comprehensive
review f factors which could affect the social environment.
� B. RELO TION IMPACTS
A Relo tion Study will be conducted to identify properties
potenti lly affected by right-of-way acquisition. Adverse
, impacts ue to relocation of properties, such as loss of tax base
and emp oyment, will be addressed in this study. The study will
address the appropriate means of mitigating adverse impacts in
' accorda e with State and Federal requirements governing right-
of-way quisition and property relocation.
,
'
, 15
� ���° q�
�
� C. LAND DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS
The po ntial for increasing or changing development potential
, could e affected by several alternatives. These potential
adverse impacts will be addressed in a Land Development Study
prepare for the EIS. This study will be based on planning
studies currently being completed by the City along the
� riverfr nt and in the eastern CBD. It will address consistency
with cu rent land use plans in the study corridor.
, D. ECON MIC IMPACTS
The po ential for adverse impacts to the local economy is
' primari y related to the extent and location of right-of-way
acquisi ion required for various alternatives in terms of the
loss of employment and taxable and/or developable land. These
' factors will be considered in the Relocation Study, which will be
prepare for the EIS. Other economic impacts associated with
land us will be addressed in the Land Development Study.
' E. ENER Y IMPACTS
, It is not anticipated that significant impacts on energy
resoure s will result from the proposed action.
' F. CONS RUCTION IMPACTS
The pot ntial impacts due to construction activities will depend
' on the ocation and construction techniques employed to complete
the roa ays. The EIS will identify the anticipated impacts due
to vari s alternatives in regard to the following factors:
' • Dust
• Noise and Vibrations
, • Traffic Detours
• Access Disruption
• Utility Disruption
• Emergency Vehicle Access
'
'
,
,
' 16
� �. �-1Q9�
1
SIIMM2�RY OF ISSIIES
' II�
LIST OWN ISSUES, ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO BE
' ADDRESS D IN EIS.
Issues f Potential Si nificance
, Based n the information available at this time, the following
issues ppear to warrant a more significant level of analysis in
' the EIS than other factors.
VISUAL MPACTS
' A Visu Impact Study will be completed for the EIS which will
include a photographic inventory of existing views to and from
, the ro dway corridor, sketches of impacts on key views and
example of design features which could mitigate the anticipated
impacts Neighborhood groups adjacent to the roadway corridor
along s gments A and B will provide input to this study.
1
IMPACTS ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES
, A Hist ic Resources Study will be conducted for the EIS which
will in lude an inventory of existing and potentially significant
, histori and archaeological sites. This study will identify
potenti 1 adverse impacts on these properties and will identify
measure to protect significant sites and mitigate potential
impacts The requirements for Section 4 (f) and Section 106
, reviews will be met in the EIS. The State Historic Preservation
Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will
provide input to this study.
, ' i
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
' More de ailed traffic analyses at the intersection level will be
conduct d for the EIS using data generated during the preliminary
screeni g process. Factors to be addressed include safety,
' delays t the Chestnut Street railroad crossing, traffic level of
service goods movement, pedestrian and bicycle accommodation,
consist ncy with transportation policies and plans and meeting
' highway design standards.
�
'
' 17
' ���09�
�
, LAND DE ELOPMENT
A Land levelopment Study will be conducted for the EIS which will
assess the potential for various alternatives to change or
, increas development potential along the study corridor. This
study ' ll be based on planning studies currently being completed
by the� City along the riverfront and in the eastern CBD.
, Potenti 1 adverse impacts will be identified and mitigation
measure will be addressed.
' RELOCAT ON
A Relo ation Study will be completed for the EIS to identify
' adverse impacts to properties and to the City due to right-of-way
acquisi ion. The study will address the most appropriate means
of mit' ating these impacts in accordance with State and Federal
' requir ents.
NOISE I PACTS
, A Noise Analysis will be conducted for the EIS which will include
monitor'ng of existing noise levels at several locations along
, the blu f and set back from the edge of the bluff (along Segments
A and ) . Future daytime and nighttime noise levels will be
predict d based on the Federal Highway Administration's Traffic
Noise P ediction Model. Potential impacts will be determined and
' possibl mitigative measures will be addressed in this study.
The Min esota Pollution Control Agency will provide input to this
study.
'
AIR QIIA ITY IMPACTS
, An Air uality Analysis will be conducted for the EIS which will
include monitoring for background Carbon Monoxide (CO) levels.
Future O levels will be modeled for the intersection of Chestnut
' Street ith Shepard Road and at the connection of the East CBD
Bypass o I-35E north of downtown. An Indirect Source Permit may
be nec sary and will be developed as a part of the EIS. The
� Minneso a Pollution Control Agency will provide input to this
study.
'
,
,
' 18
r �� -�o y�
�
' FLOODPLA N IMPACTS
If fil is necessary for construction of any roadway
alternat ves, a Floodplain Impact Study will be prepared to
, assess he potential impacts on the floodway capacity, water
quality and other sensitive ecological features of the
floodpla n. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota
, Departme t of Natural Resources and the City of St. Paul will
provide nput to this study.
' SOIL3, G OLOGIC AND SIIBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A study of soils, geologic and subsurface conditions will be
' performe for the EIS which will address the soil types in the
roadway corridors, their characteristics and limitations.
Geologi hazards and the depth to groundwater and bedrock will be
, identifi d in this study.
�
ISSUES NOT CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT
�
� Based o information available at this time, it appears that the
followi factors do not have the potential for significant
impacts ue to the proposed project. Therefore, little further
� analysi will be completed regarding these factors:
• 'ldlife
, • getation
• rk and Recreation Lands
• ime and Unique Agricultural Lands
• noff
� • ste Disposal
• cial Groups
• blic Service
' • onomic
• ergy
• nstruction
'
'
'
' 19
� �� -ivq�
�
�
�
ADDENDUM
�
�
� �
I * EAW GRAPHICS
� * ALTERNATIVES SCREENING REPORT
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
i
1
1
1 �_,a 9
� �
1
_ _ s___ __
i
�
�
�
.,
.��c �_
_ :: ::
�
_ ::
:: :.:
_
:: : ::: :: : .
� ..
,::::.
, �
' i
:::.;: :.:. ::. ... ........ , , ;
>:;::::;,;<:;;.:<:>;:.<::::;:::::::.;:<.::::::.;:.::.,.;;::..;:: �
------------------ fi --------� , .
-- _ <;
�,
�
���
I
�,
�;
i >'
�
BURNS
Ax GROVE
I �1 _
I
� 1�
L
i J\
•�
S �
' ___--
'J— —�
I
U
:.:::::::................
.................... :::::::::::::::.:...
�::::..:................. :::.::::::.:::v�:
.......:.::::::.::::::::: :::::::::v:::::�
�:::.:�:�::::::::::::.ii::.:i ...............
.. . ...... .:.::::.:::::.:.
:��i:.��:;:.:..::..: ............... .
....:::.....:..:.::�� ..............
�::::.�:....::::i.:v.:.:i:�............... i
:... ..............
:::.::::....:.:.::::::.:. .::.:::::.:::: _�_!
<.;..;:<.::..:<.::.:::::....:...::.:::::.:::. ----------- -------- -
:::>:::<:»::>::::>::>::::><::«:;:::;:::.;;:.;::.;;;:;::;.
----- �
- ---=� i— �'--1
__"____� __'_"T_"_'_'
':.;::::v:.:::�::.;r,::'1;::<:::<:;<c::: ::' �
::.:...:::�:::.....:......:.:::":..... METROPOLITANAREA �--
I p.�.Y � J cownaus s:��y �' — �I ti9
1
�'
�
'
�
�
J �
ANdKA "'""" i oacsr uxc J +�.nNO�a
::..::.:::::.::::::.:::: ..
I
'
i_r
I
.
-
- ----
::: - ----- -- -- ------ -- — - -- ------
' :
� ,
;�. L� � �}'
' : � -� i ' (�
� I
.. - � � I
' ;:... •----
s� .�,„. �� a,... i I
, � , _
,
, .- �
;
4r-- }�.! '
�y �
f_—_ � p Hn5S1N O ` � Q pi. �. � n..�. -� � Mnr
u
�___' J � /
�
I
� � I �
, . ,r .
, ,� ,.i
;
� �
�
, �
�- -------- a- � �_ -. ,
.
- �..a.., -------- ��-`s-- -r--------- � � WASHIN �.
----J o ; �.. -�,- �,.,.... � i
; ,
� •...,�' ------
��. .
� �E�T w.:. -�-----��--------�
;_,
o.��. � , o .�..,,. ., ,� _
.
, ; _ .. ------, �
�1 �,.
� � � �� _ � ;� � aE.�� �aa� 5���.��
;� i �tl -T f- �
;
- .b
�
;
, . .
. ,
� � ° —
' -- --- ---, --------- ------------ -- ---- ---- -- -- -- (�,
� . HE NEPW �� ' � .
i , --- TM °"_. ':�,a�.
s� .,.,.. � a ,.:.,,,.. o.�M1'_
Oi e`'/�\ � C' N'G� BnviOwe� r
w�u �
, w.n
i
'' n�m�n °'W O .x �
.. — .a � `.,�,�,� _ _ 4 i ;
� _ � J q
____R•'
' __"__" __ �
, a � Q ..w. . __ � .
��� .r --�- ..: wESi Unl.A
�.�.�. .�.� _ � .
r -- ,
I1 ��� � Panu ` i ..::........:....::�I::::i.
{L y w • �w�[ime1
_ __—_ x.nn,,.a,. , �� i I
_ Y � r Y�'
II HOLLYV/OOD i��.. �!E OWx �� �� M __ � � � w.x.15�• \
� fi r. � L � O M ~� 4 �• �
, 'uw.. ..', ...' :�
sn...r � � � .
_ __:� __ """' " _ ..
w�
w
r.a.... I ' � n.nr.a .°°., y� },�
�, > � �- ��P ` . � -- _--- --------- - - ---
�;-- uMO� w.�o��.� a� �.�Eraw� _,..�,� �r• g.�.�.� -- � � �
� � ..4.�- v 'o � .c> ` � � �� ° i � ,, v°°f �A..
� �C E �a i �� �` � � �' oeHm.HK
-- �— �� � — ------�---- �`�� !
�r—'— iou
��, � 9 .
. �
«
h o '
� I, I i}, c�Hes � .�w.. i � " I ��—
� , ' � � . Y --------- ------ ------------- --
� - � �. �acKSOn � I � r %
1 "°'�^^^ BErviOx I WHfGREN �a � // .. .......�
I ' � I __Il.T� � e�r�w � i I
YOUNG�MEFIC� � � yrf � .I •��//A �
I � �
� �...�L ISV LLE �d r J u�'
v"i GE "�
� , � . „
L-...' - — --i------ � —� --�- -- , --'� ----- t-- ----- � ----�— rY.�
,i `�
, ` i
r�hcoc� I� �� Q I �_� ��&J _��,a DAKOTA � �ewM��oN�" I
I s. csco �,i(,�'� eor, 1, e riae I :w,�,� I Maa .H a.�EHNa I
� O� ,�nrvea� .,. . I.
�'—� NOCNEEN I SPNIrvGUxF. I ..... .. ..,i... ' � I I
I
" SC�� Py I � nr. - I I
S�IN RENCE .. n 1 �J i I
I � v^^� r �
r
\. . i
�
_____ __ __ ___— i_______�� _ ____ ___ ---
,,,, � L ,
, ±—� �� �., �
� b' � � �� '�, � " � L..�-� .�I
' ----� "' --,-
� � � � (
eun . � aeuePwne � , H eh�� �ceonauk� i rvcwM.axer • � c i c�s.�eeocK I •o" � o ��as �
� � I ��� � """�� I I �
-1.-.- �.- �� . --- ---- --�L - f w --- -�- ----�.,r�
' —r-- R.����
� � ,
, ; ..�
���.. iEFGOPO SCIOTiy�
-� — �.�..r,�w GFEENV,1lE I ...--
----._.,....� —...,.. L.__.� � 1—•_J
' �
'
' STRGAR- SHEPARD/WARNER/EAST CBD BYPASS �"
ftOSCOE-
FAUSCH, GENERAL PROJECT LOCATION ~��,.� 1
' INC.
/ .
::.;• �-' �d���� :_ �i� ,_ ..____� il �t��=�-.�1� ., �\ ��.�.. " ! c �'�'� ,�'iill :��
::.: - A .
:::. ��j� _:
::.�� \T_ I •p fl � v �� �� 'JW � �
�� � ������ __ _ '��-_ _�I����� �� i � ���
.�:•:. , � .w
..:., . �._ :�- ��►_�- ', .
. . ��
5i I�=}.___Ti`i�i ii������.7 ``�,i �` �... ,r �7 � �� ���� ���'��,�1��,l��� ;�
'� -.. �� r�. � , ��,r� -_ �.
�-�--� ,�_
i F���ii�',...t°��'�� � :; , � � ������� � � ��� � ���'���,, ,�r%��" '��
■�1.��!��l���._� � �_��,� _. ''} �� .;,•�'��i� ; I��;���� \�� i.J,;,�,, ��,� ,� `,. „�`�.
_-- °�' �' � __.,+f' '
! �C�°'���'���''�i..�:����r"°"-`"�o�+'��f,.� � �[ I j � ', \\ �a,�w �+' r ��� � ' ��I�
�._. \\ �'—�
� -
� � � ..r�il► �``�� �[ �— �:� � � •
��_ _ :� � �� ---�Y ��, �� � r_
'---- �"�•. �. �l� �
_ � ,.--� `
���'� _ Il�ij,�■■ � —.----- : _�,,�,h, �...�-'"; � ,��-�rf��
, . :��� ..----. .. �. , .. _, �I _ , s��� ,f , �.
, �
.1.���_�Il��■!�'�����.__�..._ � ,� � "��.� , -��'� = ` T ,> ��.� �: �..���b��
� �i�l �� � ,� II � � �, ��� i ����;����,�
�
I�A•..1►W��II���__[� � - ��
I �4 �.. , ���----'�`�� ������,,�� �� �, , . �J �
;�i �a I� , .i�_�� ������ ..,,.'. �►� ,Q .� .� � �,� ��:,`!
�
���l�.—����4�''�i���1�►� l!� � `� �r , �. ,.�,►-�,�-,� �{
�iP'����Yi I�T.=';��E�► �.`�� � Y��� �rj � � � \v\� ��. ,. `-��'t'�`� !�+�.
_.. _
,?�' .`
.
�'�'�.'������.�f.� ��s .; � �,�� a � ��Q��
. . ..:::•
.
:.,
--+- _ __ __ .. . �' -�'\ �� .� �
�°%'� .
_- •,, • '
�. �'""��'� ` \ ` "� ' �
;; . .
- — --- — . ..:� .
, �
�4L���`� � ���'���' > ,�er""i�,�; /���I �, `'�
- E� ♦ � �.��. �� /� � �/ �
� � .. �/� -..�
� —T•Y�.E '^,�� �e —. �� .�� ��%.��ILj�� '/���/��I�:� \�� ` .
' �; . �_. ��, l�,� `�'jj �e . Y�. � '� �\i
��..��;�� ,. , ._.��` � � �I1,_:�;-�,s v`�/►
e � � —` ��
�► [•� � '"�, \ ,� ���� ,.,�`'��I<a �I��� e, / i� ����\ ti
�
— , � \ .�.� �. � � „ _ �Q`
��E .`I ����r�ea��.� �� ..�..��, � �°°"''f��.1r�.�i►����asi'vl���� ���� \��\��
.�,�►�►"�i'�.+W� .: -�'�
r.
� i '����� i; r *'"p!"__ �—I � ��/ �I/I `� � ' .,.
�i;��3�.���� ��,I�i '�,o;�,�-,,awr��y.;;��"�►%',�i►�' '1`�`7'"���1� ���%'i"
% ,
�C�'C��I'E��- C��._� � f���it����;�,���i'���������,'�i���„-%�,�
� - �__�l�� �� �, ,�:�t,//��I�''--�i►:`�i(:�.��-•!,•'*��'��' � � ..
� � ;�� �. -_� . � .
����■.�,� ,� ��- ��.-�� �
� ��►� -,;� �jr.;,-� . �� � ��►, �
I�������!`i �.. .��'��ti„ -�!°�rr-�t��' _��• ��-
�_ 3;. . . ` , � -
■�� 't�.I ,�� `�`'x,�.'.�,J1i �,.���,� - ,�
■ ' fi--- � �� 'r',��j �� �i ;:.
r�.�" � . �y. -�. .�, '° = - � �:;;:�.
-�•� r=�3f��r=��, � . � r�j,,..�:� -:• _ .��� ��. i
�1�\�i���,,i .,.�' - ����I1'���`���`�� .io��'r, �
-�,'�' � ��� �'� _ _ .. ..�/�--'��� i�� ,'� '!� ` �
���,�,�..f���!:�_-�,�,��f(I,.�i. ����,� �:�1►���-�,�, , '
�1����a���'�1�,,!��' ��j!�;/� - �,���� i�- ��S'► ! �
—�s� ,:�-_ �, _-� .. i/�' � � �'u -
��/�.��li�l;�� ,�i�/, � � ��i� �
,
�,�;� ��ffi'�T�%��! ' / �' ,`� •
.�� =�fi_��.���,./ i �- _ _�,��-� �
��1Fi�i r�3 Lfi���jj�,�.: � �� ��.�,,t�� . �
���■�'� IP}9!!���� �\�. �� ' ���i�J'YL��a�\���.�i����—�l-���\���
o.'
/.�
, .���i�'►`ii��; -'% �.:. � �. ���„�, !"!!2�i���'�����'r;�����:� �A
,iL..i `Ir./��;��� � i � � `' C � �
— �--, — ;�JI � ��"���1,.'.• - � ■��-��el,�!,1 +�.��rY`�� ��,,
����� �� !I . . ,• � �'�� R�►�,�,.,������+�•�� ;�■i c���Y��,a \ ,
c� �
—� �r � ..��Mt1 � ��� ��\
N /,..%� I I / r ;�. �'�.�� `y.���1 1 � :i���'\��I/e�.
i/' I�I % ��/��?���� ��1��:��i��11`�� ,,—�r,� ,�y .. „�, �.
��'� ��I�/ %��'�' ;�`1��I Tr � ��1i�'�ti7�'��►�1�; i'�y,►w�"'`� ��J '�
�! I! , .,, , /� ,��L ��J��i�:,�— +r.t.=_+�--� ��iJV.- �
-�� J�'A-- � r,;;�f� 1�!; ' ."'�r ������ �r�`'�L�`1 '�=aJ,1i�R -��� � 1�
/,� .,, �� ��� � �, `�rjr��q � �lti���JaL'tl.l�►, � �
i=� i �•' �----- S• A�tr�Atr, i�" A
��*�'1"'���� �� � ' ���t�►����s��i l,��rv�:����r�•�'�����'��o��� �
, , ��►:: , ���. . .
-- /j �, _ ,��y��Ti�t�►:71��.��R� , ���C��vi� �����r�����+ �1
� � :�" ��.���i�1i���.� ���'�..�. ������l��,r��'��t<<�� ,,,
� �i�i �_�.Ll� 1� �.1�1 _ � .-�_
' i ��� 1—n� � �r �i�e ,..,�;,,,a,/'`rn-',+'��gr,�,�"! Ci i��.����t'����i.��.
� , - i��,, � fC a i��:1���..��]�� ����r.:..rovr,�. �� �i� -
� �` � � � r�[�:I�,r��1�:��_�g�� ±���¢�,,..� ��;; �!, �`�', __*
• y
� ;� -, --E-.,�..,, — ���;�, ��;r�;�.°s-���1�n c���--�-.� ��!�
.. I�f'���\c,.�.�1:-���'��'�.ira[E��1��`�>>�r�7�.�r5�� � � �;---.!
� � -t�--7 � _ ��...`�� - __�
� � /:�.�� , .��■�,ICy����a����'f�lr\I�C11L������i1lY�,�L�\l�1>k',.fciPf�±-�t^� .,^,.�
1
. . � �
� � � • •
� � � .
I
' �
�
ruiruwo �v � �
' !. Y�pYL11ND AV[
G�
� 8 L
� s i
$
' 5
• ����������
1 � �
�1 �. : •
` tt;1.;?! F---���-�i
•cRC�sr. f:::;.::<i: .:
r�x�H�xe • � �. , "�.;�:.
o '`i. ��T—.__,y ���....;..,��,���'!`'�. ����`:;����...�:,'.�<.�'���''''��'�.�::: � � �
' � ...:::.... �.:;yi: _.`_`_!: :...�,.:.::_:_\
rxoY�� • � �4
.:':;%:�.:`::::::::;:::����...
'b:_; : � ,�
, �
.. ..o
� D �
0,..
�
.�
' �ea 0 �• >..� 9a� �
,. �,� �'
�� t�
+ d.
r.u�wsu �c. O � DO�\ i���� �.�.�.';� .
' � ��0�� ���
s �
� .• � �
O 'i.
��,; ��O a
' 6 ;., "
a�'c a� �`. ,y ,:: <,.
�S
Wwur • ��_.:::><.<::";' 'Jy ro�� rsmo S�s
fp, s�.�.,.........
{� � � �+ Aq/� •`
�a � p . p�p
•, �' ,' `�L.11' �
� : . ,,. a:
♦4 �.t0 �
5 �. L.��'.�"�:��^.::.����.�.����� �,l� ��.
� ��G
�t. tt �
� � ::: :: .
1 �- �
� tl.P�ul
— 1�� Dernlown
y �IrYert
(MOHn�n FINtl)
Nf�[II�ON 1Y[. p�
�O
:��.':i�������..'�.�.''�:.'%'��'�'.'.�.'.'.':?.'.':.'.'.'.'��.':��.'.������.
, �J
[
7.:...�.. O .
0
' ' �
m
�4
+ 52
' y II
•NM11�OL� �T
_'-�r
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 1-35E
'
' STftGAR- SHEPARD/WARNER/EAST CBD BYPASS ,
ROSCOE- ��~�
FAUSCH, STUDY CORR/DOR & SEGM�NTS � , 3
INC. t�
'
� � � r i
� If�
�%
ij��
\,���� d@
r/ y
I .
�
'�'�'t�
_� � �
� �� . ,�-
I ��
� � � ��� �
y���i �� � .'; e
c� .= �� ��,�
�� ;. ,
I � ,�Y. � . �� .;.
, �: . ,� � �.�.
� , a, ,,. ,�,� �� �. �,
� ����:� ���, ���' � ''�� �r'
;��'`�,`'�, ° �' �-':�°v����� ',�. �`
,�'�""�,' :'; r° �'��,�,`�:.�`�,,,,a�"� �
;::" �� �``, '' � `,
,��, ,� �, �-�'� `' /
,
,�; ��f��� , �;.��`-� �� `,`��
� .� ;,,,�' - .
< ���� � ���
�r. ,�.d'� �' -�'�\ _ �.�w.�_
.wi`
��,.,i� � ,.'.��,� ..����_'.
"�`.i� :a�� ����`%j
� �"�e . .� l. ��.��n
•/1 �,�:���^^"'� ..�\�'Alrr
e� ��,w
�.$�' � � �
I� � b �' �
I
� r':'y�./
� I
8&
� . ��� 1
�-�� • •
' • ,M,.
���
. - • - - • .
i .
.,...�.....__. � • . � .
� �� ~ � �
w wr�~
��I- '� �
� 7i
%i
I �
.rwv�
�i��
�
� � � I
� 1 �
/ • ' ' I • ' I
" . ! • 1
_�a 9
' �
�
r�rwa �v � � e. r�arwa �v
' a ,
t � � �
� R
0
' S
' Z �
_'i
F----^--I F-'-i
� � �Ck�ll tT. '
rwwxex� • �� O
' �NSVtY� e. � $
♦� ��
iNOYM �• 6S
♦`� �
�t�
��� � ��
� o �� .
• � o �. a�o
�� � �r��
�
..
ea Q� . � �' ��,� 9a� _ —
. �
���
�
Q • � ��•.����
' r�e .0 a. ��D������Q� ppNER w�M.
�W `�D��O 0
,
� `�
' +J�+ O�
•1� BLYD. �
/S
�i�, � � 11YII�LO tT. S�SS
JL—.1 !. � f a� �y �AA:''..''''
1t� ♦ � � � [����\�\ /
♦ �LY ��
' � • ��
. 7 0
s• �
♦• � +���� �`�f� •p
6 a i�
, �r. c P
� '4
a�.r.ui
— +� oownmwn
•�.ow�
aeim•n ri•�a)
xrru�ox �re. ��
' �o
r
i
7 � � �
' 9
�
�N
52
' y I
•MM��O���1r
' LEGEND
� NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS
' * AIR MONITORING LOCATIONS
(General locatlonr, To bs egr��d upon by MPCA)
'
' STRGAft- SHEPARD/WARNER/EAST CBD BYPASS
ROSCOE— NOISE AND A/R �
FAUSCH, MONITOR/NG LOCATIONS ~�e�,,, �
' INC. _
, ,�-�'°-�0 9�p
1
' SH PARD/WARNER/EAST CBD BYPASS
�
� �.
�
� `� :
�
�
:
� : .
. .
*t ,
- �:.. :::
� � .N � '
� :. :. : : : : : : : .
..
:�.
� �
�
�
Prepared For: THE CITY OF ST. PAUL
, Department of P�blic Works
Department of Planning and Economic Development
Prepared By: Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch. Inc.
1
1
'
1
'
'
'
'
,
,
'
'
_ '
'
'
'
'
1
'
'
�
� � �����
1
, TABLE OF CONTENTS
, PAGE
PART I - OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
' B CKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
S UDY CORRIDOR 2
' S REENING PROCESS• . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 4
, O ECTIVES OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
R LE OF THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES . . . . . . . . 6
, D SIGN REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
COMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
'
PART I : SEGMENT SUMMARIES 11
, S GMENT A: SAEPARD ROAD FROM RANDOLPH TO CHESTNUT . . 12
' S GMENT B: CHESTNUT CONNECTION TO SHEPARD ROAD . . . 20
S GMENT C: SHEPARD 120AD FROM CHESTNUT TO R(3BERT STREET 30
' E ST CBD BYPASS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
�
S GMENT D: EAST CBD BYPASS CONNECTION TO WARNER ROAD. 37
' S GMENT E: EAST CBD BYPASS CONNECTION TO LOCAL STREETS 42
S MENT F: EAST CBD BYPASS CONNECTION TO I-35E . . . 46
IS Y OF SCREENING RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ECBD BYPASS 49
'
i
'
i
1
1
'
'
'
1
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
. '
'
,
'
i
1
1
1 ��� ��9�
�
i '
I FIGURES
1
I
I
' F GORE ONE: STUDY CORRIDOR & SEGMENTS . . . . . . . 3
F GURE TWO: SEGMENT A: SHEPARD ROAD FROM
, RANDOLPH TO CHESTNUT . . . 14
F GURE THREE: SEGMENT B: ALTERNATIVES B-1 AND B-2 . 22
, F GURE FOUR: SEGMENT B: ALTERNATIVES B-3 AND B-4 . 24
F GURE FIVE: SEGMENT B: ALTERNATIVES B-5, B-6, B-7. 27
, F GURE SIX: SEGMENT C: ALTERNATIVES
C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4 . . . . 32
' F URE SEVEN: SEGMENT D: ALTERNATIVES
D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4 . . . . 38
� F URE EIGHT: SEGMENT D: ALTERNATIVES D-5, D-6 . . . 41
FI IIRE NINE: SEGMENT E: ALTERNATIVES
, I E-1, E-2 , E-3 , E-4 . . . . 44
FI URE TEN: SEGMENT F: ALTERNATIVES F-1, F-2, F-3 . 47
' I
�
' I
I
, I
�
�
, i
�I
'
I
'
' �
�
' I
�
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
,
,
'
'
'
1
'
'
'
'
'
� ��-�a9�
1
PART I: OVERVIEW
,
This se tion provides a summary of the study background, the
, objectiv s of the study, the findings of traffic and engineering
studies nd the screening process recommendations.
' This rep rt has been revised since its initial distribution (on
April 9, 1986) to reflect the recommendations of the
Shepard/ arner/ECBD Bypass Task Force on May 20, 1986.
,
'
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
,
' 1
1 � �'���9l
I
1
; PART 1: OVERVIEW
' I
BACRGRO D
' The Cit of St. Paul has long been concerned about the condition
of Shep d and Warner Roads, especially east of Randolph Avenue.
, A large number of alignment and design alternatives had already
been de loped and evaluated before this current study began. In
additio a new facility had been proposed along the east side of
' downtown St. Paul ("East CBD Bypass") which would connect Shepard
and War er Roads to I-35E north of downtown. Over time, more
complica ed issues have surfaced which have a distinct impact on
the des gn and alignment of these roads. One such issue is
' developm nt of St. Paul 's Riverfront area. The Riverfront
Commissi n is currently involved in an in-depth study of the
potentia for various types of development that could occur in
' the sho range and long range future. The studies related to
the alig ment and design of Shepard/Warner Roads were coordinated
with th Riverfront study in an effort to balance the wide
variety f issues related to land use and transportation needs.
' Because f the changing nature of issues affecting decisions on
Shepard, Warner and the Bypass, the City of St. Paul has decided
' to caref lly reconsider the many factors related to the location
and desi n of the roadways. A Task Force of interested parties
has been formed to provide input to the study. The first phase
' of the study has focused on identifying a broad range of
reasonab e alternatives, analyzing their effectiveness in meeting
the City s objectives, and screening out the alternatives that do
not warr nt more detailed consideration through the EIS process.
' The pur se of this report is to document the analyses and
decision made regarding which alternatives should be considered
in furth r detail through the EIS process. The next step in the
, study wi 1 be to identify the level of analysis to be completed
for vari s environmental factors through the EIS process. These
recommen tiflns will be addressed in the Scoping EAW, which is
the firs step in the EIS process.
,
STUDY CO IDOR
' Figure O e shows the location of the Shepard/Warner/East CBD
Bypass s dy corridor adjacent to downtown St. Paul. The study
corridor includes Shepard Road from Randolph Avenue to
' Jackson/S bley Streets, Warner Road from Jackson/Sibley Streets
to the co nection with the Bypass, and the proposed Bypass, which
would run from Warner Road on the south, around the east side of
' downtown t. Paul, and would connect to I-35E on the north.
'
' 2
I —
�-fo
' ��l'j
Y�P�LAND �V4 1 E. M�RYLAND AVE.
� oO� _OO ' n
E �'y'
�
5
II
, //
� �'.:�� t ff .
, y !�
I �:� , �'��� �
�CKF�tT. �
�
YIMYEM�M� ��O«N Q
� � v N LY E. MIMMEM�M� E. 5
, �
I ,f � �'.: � � ..� ` �� b4.
rwor�s g 4 s o s
7 .' �' 4
� ��
� I V
� � � E.
�.o .,.
V P ITY E. o
. � oop oo �
+� o 0 �{�
�° °? o°D
� M �c\p��(�
� y 94 6�v {1�� tDet ^ �' \!1� 94� �
,�
0 ��'�, � ��
� �0�,��Q�'` ° ,'1
....�.�. E. � �o�O�Q� . .�...
� �\ 4N�1
o; � D o ...o
. .Ooo
I � �O �p
e�'�� �� Y� N
� �R � s
�vE ,b
�y mT ^ ro E !r. /SS�3`
BUYYIT �I E. � f� a S�A.�-.....
�� � 1t`A �#::::::: � 0y Q� �
/ � � n
OII�D�` � 1� 1
� w I� },: i! °ro
s�
p!`g ��TO
5 �. �� �r�` f�
�: ��\ O ��
� _ A
.. � ,. �
1 � � � ..
4E! 81.P�ul
Q. ,+� Dorntorn
AlrOOrt
.. '.:' "::� (NO1menFleltll
a�.
JE�IlIItOM
C�f
O �
, W 9O
BT
[ N � �
O
*' �::
' 1 /
�4� �
46t 52 �
♦ I e
' �ooin �r. �
---ir \
LEGEND
A: SHEPARD ROAD FROM RANDOLPH TO CHESTNUT
' B: CHESTNUT STREET CONNECTION TO SHEPARD ROAD
II
C: SHEPARD ROAD FROM CHESTNUT TO ROBERT STREET
, D: EAST CBD BYPASS CONNECTtON TO WARNER ROAD
E: EAST CBD BYPASS CONNECTION TO LOCAL STREETS
F: EAST CBD BYPASS CONNECTION TO 1-35E
'
STRGAR- SHEPARD/WARNER/EAST CBD BYPASS �,
� ROSCOE- ���°
FAUSCH, � STUDY CORRIDOR & SEGMENTS o,a�a° •`;4� 1
INC. -- �
'
I
' (d��ia 9�
�
, In an e fort to focus on the more site-specific aspects of the
corrido , the study corridor was divided into six segments which
are al shown on Figure One. Segment alternatives were
develop for each of these six areas.
' The mos significant constraints to the alignment and design of
Shepard nd Warner Roads relate to the location of two permanent
, structu s: the new Ramsey County Jail building and the historic
Union D ot building. No alternative was considered which would
alter o physically impact either of these properties. The
' design alternatives was determined, in part, by the physical
limits c eated by other existing facilities including railroads,
bridges, street connections and other structures. The degree of
change, econstruction or demolition required for an alternative
' affected the relative desirability that alternative. These
physical limitations within the corridor are discussed in Part II
of this eport which addresses each segment in greater detail.
'
SCREENIN PROCESS
' Based o the objectives for the corridor, a wide range of
alternat ves was developed for each segment. A vigorous effort
was mad to identify any reasonable alternatives that could
' satisfy objectives related to transportation, land use and
aestheti A significant amount of effort was focused on
creating ' additional open space along the riverfront for
, recreati nal activities and development.
The pri ary challenge of this study was to balance the
transpor atian system needs with the oi�jectives related to
, Riverfro t development. Findings of previous studies concluded,
and the analyses in the current study confirmed, that the
followin factors must be considered in responding to this
, challeng :
• Shepa /Warner Roads are necessary elements of the access
syste for downtown which can nat be replaced by other
' roadw s without significant impacts on residential
neigh rhoods.
' • In or r to safely and efficiently accommodate the projected
traffi demand in this corridor these roadways must be
upgrad d.
' • The r ilroads in this corridor are likely to continue
operat ng for at least the short to mid-range (20 year)
future
' • Develo ment in the west end of downtown is projected to grow
signif cantly in the next 15 years. Shepard Road via Chestnut
, Street is expected to play an important role in providing
access to this area.
' 4
I
� � �_,09�
1
� Give the constraints to development on the downtown side of
' the iver, Riverfront development is more likely to occur on
the uth side of the river.
, • The ensitivity of the riverfront area and adjacent historic
neig orhoods must be recognized in the design of the roadway
by m' imizing visual impacts as much as possible.
' The ran e of segment alternatives was evaluated based on their
relativ strengths and weaknesses in responding to the objectives
for the corridor. The next section of this report addresses the
, alterna 'ves considered for each segment. Also addressed are the
finding of specific analyses completed for these a3.ternatives
and the screening recommendations as to whether to consider
' alterna 'ves in the EIS.
' OBJECTI 8 OF THE STUDY
The pri ry objectives of the screening phase of this study were
to clar' y the need for and function of Shepard/Warner Roads and
' the Byp ss and to determine the most appropriate means of
balancin these needs with other City objectives, especially the
develop nt of the riverfront area. Alternatives were evaluated
, on the b sis of their response to the City's objectives and their
relative ability to fulfill the necessary transportation roles of
Shepard/ arner/ECBD Bypass. Fallowing is a list of the key
objectiv s along the study corridor.
, Trans or ation
' • Provid a direct, convenient gateways into downtown St. Paul
• Improv safety conditions o� Shepard and Warner Roads
• Balanc traffic volumes on Shepard Rd. , Warner Rd. , W. 7th St.
, and th Central Business District (CBD) street system
• Provid direct auto, truck and rail access to existing and
future land uses
• Provid an alternative route to the CBD street system and
' the 35 Parkway for trucks making through trips
• Provid for safe, continuous pedestrian and bicycle movement
• Mainta n important railroad trunk lines and reduce or eliminate
' confli ts between auto traffic and train movements
• Comply with appropriate design standards
• Develo cost effective designs which are within the limits of
financ al resources
, • Provid flexibility for long range changes in the roadway
and ra lroad systems
� Minimi e impacts of traffic on residential areas
'
'
' S
1 ��-�09�
�
' Land IIs
• Compl ' ent City's land use and development plans
• Coord' ate work with Riverfront Development Study
' • Maxim' e additional space at the river's edge for recreational
oppor nity, open space and/or planned development
• Prese e and/or create major, regular shaped land parcels for
' future development
• Minimi e conflicts with permanent physical barriers by
acquir ng properties, if appropriate, or avoiding them
comple ely
, • Avoid mpacts to historic districts and sites
, Visual a d Aesthetic
• Prese e and enhance the views of the St. Paul city scape and
' skylin from Shepard and Warner Roads
• Provid a pleasant parkway corridor to recognize the
recrea ional benefits of the driving experience along Shepard
and Wa ner Roads
, � Avoid isruption of views from the bluff or minimize the impact
of any structures necessary along the riverfront
• Design all new streets and related structures to recognize the
, best u ban design and architectural standards in St. Paul
' ROLE OF AE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Due to t e relative lack of information on the need for and use
of Shepa d/Warner Roads, an analysis of traffic volume forecasts
' was com eted. In addition, origin/destination surveys were
complete for auto and truck traffic using these roadways. The
traffic tudy process and findings are addressed in a separate
, "Traffic Summary Report". Based on the results of these studies,
the foll ing general conclusions were reached regarding the role
of the hepard/Warner/ECBD Bypass facilities. More detailed
conclusi s related to specific segment alternatives are included
, in Part of this report.
, 1. CBD CESS
Shepa d and Warner Roads serve as primary access routes to
' downt wn St. Paul from the western, southern and eastern
porti ns of the metropolitan area. For example, over 70� of
the orning rush hour trips on Shepard and Warner are
begin ing or ending in the CBD and adjacent neighborhoods. A
' large proportion of the trips into the CBD are destined for
the outhern and western portions of downtown. No other
route could provide such a direct access route into this
' porti n of downtown without impacting residential
neigh orhoods.
' 6
I
' �I ---��a��
�
2 . TR CKS
' Th projected truck traffic on Shepard/Warner Roads is 2 600
pe day by year 2000 which will be about 13� of the total
' da' y traffic on these roads. The East CBD Bypass is
fo casted to carry 3,800 trucks. This proportion is higher
th the metropolitan average (10�) and reflects the demand
' fo truck accommodation in this area. The facilities
ava' lable for accommodating truck traffic in this corridor
are very limited. Trucks are prohibited on the entire
Sho tline as well as the 35E Parkway between West Seventh
, Str et and I-94 . The remaining routes available to truck
tra fic, including West Seventh Street and some of the CBD
str ets, have limited widths and are not attractive routes
t for most truck traffic. In addition, truck traffic
sig ificantly reduces the capacity on these local streets.
The efore, Shepard/Warner/ECBD Bypass plays a major role in
' pro iding for regional and local truck movements through the
St. Paul area.
3. REG ONAL DISTRIBUTORS
' She ard/Warner Roads and the East CBD Bypass are projected
to arry 20-25, 000 trips per day by year 2000. These
, roa ays serve as distributors of regional trips to and from
the areas surrounding downtown St. Paul. As previously
not , a high proportion of morning rush hour trips on
She rd and Warner Roads originate in or are destined to the
' CBD area, but trips are widely dispersed throughout the
reg' n. As a regional distribtztor, Shepard and Warner Roads
act s the link between the reyional highway system and the
' loc CBD street system. By providing this link, Shepard
and Warner Roads keep regional trips off local streets
unti they are near their actual destination. The proposed
, ECBD Bypass would also divert some trips from existing
regi nal highways, thus improving traffic flow on those
faci ities.
' 4. DOWN OWN BYPASS
30% of daily trips on Shepard/Warner/ECBD Bypass are
, regi nal through trips which are not going to or coming from
the BD area. Because these roads can accommodate high
volu es at high speeds, they are more appropriate routes for
regi nal through-trips than local CBD streets.
'
'
,
' �
� � �-�-�og�
�
5. AC SS
' Th location of the Shepard/Warner/ECBD Bypass s stem
Y
pr ides good regional access to the CBD, the riverfront
� are and the undeveloped area east of the CBD. 70% of trips
hav a local destination in the CBD or other areas adjacent
to the study corridor. Effective connections between
' She ard/Warner/ECBD Bypass and the local street system would
be equired to support the City's planned land development
by roviding access for both people and goods movement.
' DESIGN QIIIREMENTS
' Based on the objectives for this corridor and the role of Shepard
Road, Wa er Road and the East CBD Bypass, the following design
requirem nts should ideally be met to satisfy the established
transgor ation needs:
'
1. Ca cit Safet
� Bas d on the Year 2000 traffic volumes forecasted for these
roa ays, which ranges from 20, 000 to 25, 000 daily trips,
' fou 12-foot through lanes with 10 foot shoulders are
re ired to safely accommodate traffic. Separate turn lanes
and traffic signals are required at major intersections.
Dri way access to the roadways should be very limited;
' se 'ce roads would bs more desirable for serving property
acc s needs adjacent to the roadways.
' 2 . Inte sections
o A grade vs. Grade Separated Intersections: Preliminary
ca}�a ity analyses indicate that at-grade intersections will
' acco odate the project�d volumes at an adequate level of
servi ce. Further analysis will be completed in the EIS.
o Ra lroad Crossing: Based on the traffic delays caused on
' Ches nut Street due to the railroad crossing, a grade
sepa ation would be desirable from a safety and economic
stan point. Further analysis will be completed in the EIS.
' 3 . Pede trian and Bic cle Accommodation
Wher ver possible, a separated pathway should be provided to
acco modate pedestrian and bicycle traffic all along the
, corr dor. Access to Riverfront activities is a high
prio ity. Pedestrian/bicycle pathways should be linked to
exis ing regional trails at either end of the corridor.
'
'
� $
' ��-�a 9�
1
' RECO NDATION3
The f llowing alternatives were selected for more detailed
analys s through the EIS process. The bases for these decisions
tare ad ressed in the next section of this report.
, Seqmen A: Shepard Rd. From Randolph to Chestnut St.
• No B ild Alternative
' • Alte native A-l: Existing Alignment (4 lane divided)
• Alte native A-2: Kaplan Crossing (4 lane divided)
' • Alte native A-3: Alignment along base of bluff
(4 lane divided)
, seqmen B: shepard Rd. Connection to Chestnut St.
, • No B 'ld Alternative
• Alte ative B-1: Existing Chestnut alignment with an
' at-grade connection to Shepard Rd.
• Alte ative B-2 : Existing Chestnut alignment with a
' grade separated connection to Shepard Rd.
Segment Cs Shepard Road From Chestnut to Robert Street
' • No Bu ld Alternative
' • Alter ative C-1: Minor improvements on existing alignment
• Alter ative C-2 : Shift tracks and road to north
(Requires removal of R/R river bridge)
' Segment Ds East CBD Bypass Connection to Warner Road
' • No Bu' ld Alternative
• Alter tive D-1: Grade-separated connection to Warner Road
' • Alter tive D-2: At-grade connection to Warner Road
'
'
' 9
I
i �,�-�� ��
1
Segmen E: East CBD Bypass Connections to Local Streets
' • No B ' ld Alternative
' • Alter ative E-1: No local connections to East CBD Bypass
• Alter ative E-2: Local connection to East CBD Bypass at
' Kellogg, E. 7th St. and University/LaFayette
' Segment F: East CBD Bypass Connection to I-35E North of CBD
• No Bu ld Alternative
' • Alter ative F-1: Connection of ECBD Bypass to I-35E at the
existing Pennsylvania lnterchange
' • Alter ative F-2: Direct connection of the Bypass to I-35E
at a new interchange north of Pennsylvania
• Alter ative F-3: Combined connection of the Bypass to I-35E
t
i
'
'
'
,
'
'
,
,
'
' 10
II
� �I ���/a��
1
' PART 11: SEGMENT SUMMARIES
' The al ernatives screening process included an analysis of a wide
range f alternatives. In an effort to focus on the more site-
' specif' aspects of the corridor, the study area was divided into
six se ents, which were shown on Figure One in the first part of
this r ort.
' This s ction of the report provides a summary of the following
informa ion for each segment:
' � he role of the roadway segment
• lternatives studied
• indings of studies
' • onclusions of the Screening Process
Graphic of the alternatives also provided for each segment.
, �
' II
' II
I
, II
I
, I�
,
'
'
I
� ��
i
'
1
III
ii
i
� C��'`�e9�
�
SEG ENT A: SHEPARD ROAD FROM RANDOLPH TO CHESTNUT
' :
DESCRIP ON OF SEGMENT
, The se nt of Shepard Road from Randolph to Chestnut represents
a prima link in the access system to Downtown St. Paul. It is
, the con 'nuation of a 9 mile stretch of roadway that runs from
the For Snelling area past downtown St. Paul to Highway 61 on
the east side of St. Paul. Shepard Road provides truck and auto
access the working waterfront of St. Paul as well as to the
' southern half of the Central Business District. No other
transpor ation facility can serve these important functions
without 'mpacting local streets. There are areas along this
' segment here the space available for a road is very narrow. The
most ser ous constrictions are at the NSP High Bridge Plant and
the Harv st States Grain Terminal.
' ROLE OF HE ROADWAY SEGMENT
' Traffic olumes
Shepard oad between Randolph and Chestnut currently carries
' about 25 000 vehicles per day including trucks. In year 2000,
well aft r I-35E opens, Shepard Road will still carry over 20,000
trips. erefore, it is clear that Shepard Road will continue to
be an at ractive and important route even after other routes are
, availabl .
Downtown ccess
' The orig' /destination survey showed that the majority of trips
on Shepa Road are either going to or coming from downtown St.
' Paul and djacent neighborhoods. For example, during the morning
rush hour , over 7Q� of the trips on Shepard Road are originating
in or re destined to the downtown area and adjacent
neighborh ods.
' Trucks
' Shepard ad provides a vital route for truck traffic in the
eastern etropolitan area. Shepard Road provides two key
functions for truck traffic:
' 1. A cess' to downtown and the working waterfront
2 . B pass of downtown and its busy streets
'
'
' 12
�
I
—f�n-!D q�
'
I
�
t
The at ractiveness of Shepard Road to trucks is reinforced by
' restri ed width of West Seventh Street and the prohibition of
trucks on I-35E and the Shortline. In fact, by year 2000,
Shepard Road will attract 2, 600 trucks per day. This represents
' 13� of the total daily volume on the roadway, which is a high
proport on compared with the metropolitan area average of 10%.
Based o these factors, Shepard Road is seen as the only roadway
' which c n adequately provide for regional truck movements in this
corrido .
�
' ALTERNA IVES ANALYSIS
Alterna ive A-1: Widen Shepard Road on existinq aliqnment
' Descri lion•
This alt� rnative would follow the same alignment as the existing
' roadway 'I ith some minor modifications near Randolph Street (see
Figure 2I .
Findinasl
' This al ernative would satisfy most of the City's objectives
related o transportation and aesthetics. It would provide a
direct, afe and scenic route for drivers entering St. Paul from
' the sout and would maintain access to the working waterfront.
The narr w existing right-of-way, which is restricted by the NSP
High Bri ge power plant and the Harvest States grain terminal,
would re ult in some major right-of-way acguisition costs for the
' construc ion of this alternative. In addition, this alignment
would pr clude a grade separation at Chestnut (see Segment B) .
Finally, this alternative would not create any new open spac�
' along th riverfront.
Recommend tions:
tThis alte native is recommended for further study in the EIS.
Alternati e A-2: Widen Shepard Road on existinq aliqnment
, and shift away from river near Raplan�s
Descri ti n•
This alte native would follow the same alignment as the existing
, roadway f om Randolph Avenue to just east of the NSP High Bridge
power pla t. At that point, it would swing away from the river,
through t e corner of Kaplan Scrap Metal and behind the Harvest
' States gr in elevators (see Figure 2) .
'
'
�
I
' 13
II
I
�
(�� -�69�
1
� � � �� � � � s}��, ��,,
� ��
�:�` ,� � � �: ^��. Y���. ,� x•
�:• � :"- m"'�' � ; �
hv,^,� ��� F � ���i' �� �i."g ���..
, �'x ��� e q � . j:J1V
.
Y
.�. . .� J.& ��'�. � �� .: � � � �f� f8 :�
.j@ �
. ��C,:�; �„x_;� �� � '^� x�...� ..�+�n•;.: ���
� �, 'R� ,�"' „� � � ' d , v�:
�� y,.. � � 4 � �� �'�! !&�'Se �"�'' � � '� , �
,� � � � *� '�' . .s ,� �a'
"� �� � � '� ���� ���������� �
` � ��� 6 ^� � ���� ,�,,��.' �.,. �
•�4 �' n/ w ' d �-� �� � m y� r.aYe
,g �� ��e� � ,:F� ..Z�% �,.' � � �*� y` R � °^'"fP
� � ♦t3 a� f
�'. �F ��a� -�r�� A � �
�� �� ���,�., � F� � � `i 1 ft�.�
� � � ' � �`- �° :..� ��',_„�� j�i � �+��
�\�� �� r �� � �;i�,�'��:
� ��r � �,
`��, Q � ���� � a �� ���'�
�ti ��� � � "..�„,°4 fi ��
� "��i3 ���.H� ��� -�� �� �� r�✓�...
. . �. � ,� ,.,. -: aR„'�.�
�� M�ka1 ��� ��� rnk�,�« `�
�� � � ��XYI ���
� � �� � �� ����������r y����j��� �� b
` �I I i�l � �,',��€• �' .
f�� E
.. � ��:
�������� � ����� t�� �� � � -� �
�r `��` ��a � ��,r�-�, � �` ,�; �
, �„fl�' �i� ..,,���..,._""� _"' �' -
ta Q ., ��,,,, ��..
,,S � „ �� ..�a:.��.
r � �
'��'��, � �'a�� �,
i ����H �, �r� � .
� ��
.��� �
� a�wd, ��� t' :� .+N y�i� N i�.<:..
'i k ��. � v? ; �- ' ` �'� � `��.�� , � �y�� ���, k� a�<
� ��� y ,��w,� ,yz.��,
�-� � '�� ���� w�
� � ��
� \��� � :�
� ' ` s +.
��.. $ s}�� �� �..
�; � � � �
�,. � �,.. �P��-� +�a'�°. 'k�e ..
, , y' �t,, '..,y �� (.,.,�� d `� ; �
� ,.�� �ii � .:r fi���� F �r'_ :�.� � ���-.
�a
��.$, '�A�'^
�
�
,
'
STRGAR- •
� �t,OSCOE- `�° 2
FAUSCH, N.\
\4
��
INC. �'
�
� ��-io9�
�
Findin s•
� This a ignment would provide a direct, safe and scenic route into
St. Pa l, although the drivers' view of the river would be lost
near plan's. A significant amount of open space could be
, create along the riverfront by pulling the road away from its
presen alignment. The constriction at NSP would require right-
of-way acquisition but impacts to the Harvest States grain
' termin 1 would be avoided. A railroad grade separation would be
necess ry behind Harvest States. This alignment could connect to
either an at-grade or grade-separated intersection with Chestnut
Street
, Recomm ndations:
This a ternative is recommended for further study in the EIS.
,
Alternlltive A-3: Widen She
pard Road on new aliqr�ment
� alonq the base of the bluff
' Descri tion•
This a ternative would follow a new alignment which would shift
' toward the bluff near the intersection with Randolph Avenue and
follow near the base of the bluff all the way to Chestnut Street
(see F gure 2) .
' Findin s:
This a ignment would provide a direct and safe route into St.
Paul, lthough the drivers' view of the river would be lost.
' Shifti g the alignment away from the river would create
signif'cant new open space all along the riverfront for
recrea ional use or future development. However, major railroad
' track elocation would be required along with relocation of the
Chicag Northwestern railroad yard on the west end of the
segmen . Access to the working waterfront would have to be
mainta' ed and costly grade separations would b� required to
� allow ilroad operations to continue through this area.
Recomml dations:
' This al) ernative is recommended for further study in the EIS.
Alternl ive A-4: Shepard Road with 2-lanes from
, Randolph to Jackson/Sibley
Descri ion•
, This al ernative would follow the same alignment as the existing
roadwa but Shepard Road would be downgraded to 2 lanes rather
than w dened. Modifications would be made to the major entry
� points to Shepard Road to limit access to the roadway. For
example the ramp from T.H. 5/Fort Road/W. 7th St. (at the Fort
Snellin river crossing) could be closed off and traffic would be
' channel d on to W. 7th Street.
15
'
I
1 ���_,���
1
, Findin :
The 2-1 ne alternative would eliminate the need for most right-
of way acquisition along this segment and would leave some
additio al open space along the riverfront for recreational use.
� However the projected demand for travel on Shepard Road would
exceed he capacity of a 2-lane roadway, and a significant
portion of the excess demand would shift to West 7th Street,
' includi g a large proportion of trucks. Because West 7th Street
is too arrow to accommodate truck traffic adequately, the level
of serv' e on this street would be reduced from the current level
of servi ce B to at least a level of service D. In addition,
, major ifts in traffic to downtown streets would occur,
particu rly on Kellogg Boulevard. Therefore, the expected
relief hat Kellogg should experience from the opening of I-35E
' and the ew High Bridge would not be achieved. Instead, the peak
hour c ngestion which currently exists on Kellogg would
detereo te. For example the level of service at the
, interse ion of Kellogg and Wabasha is currently "D", which
represe s stop-and-go traffic and delays through at least one
signal cle. If Shepard Road were reduced to a 2-lane roadway,
the lev 1 of service at this intersection would be "E". This
' represe s traffic conditions which are nearly at a halt with
delays f more than one signal cycle. Secondary to these
traffic impacts would be impacts on the air quality and noise
' levels t roughout this area.
Federal and state funding would be very limited, if not
unavaila le, for construction of this alternative because the
' design uld not meet engineering standards for this facility.
Engineer ng liability would also be of concern to the City.
, Reco�nmen ation:
Based o the severity of the transportation and safety impacts,
it is ecommended that this alternative be eliminated from
, further onsideration.
Alternat ve A-5: shift Aligmnent to top of bluff
' Descri t on•
This al ernative would shift Shepard Road from its present
, alignmen to one along the top of the bluff. From the
intersec ion with Randolph Avenue, the alignment would proceed
toward t e bluff and rise on a structure to the top of the bluff.
It would continue along the edge of the bluff until its approach
' to Chest ut Street (see Figure 2) .
'
'
' 16
� C��-�a 9�
1
, Findin
Shiftin � the alignment away from the river would create
signifi ant new open space all along the riverfront for
recreat' nal use or future development, although some access to
' the wo ing waterfront would have to be maintained. This
alignme would provide a less direct route into St. Paul. The
grade o the structure would be very steep, the structure would
, be very costly, and would have significant visual impacts. The
residen 'al areas on the bluff, including the Historic Irvine
Park Dis rict, would be severely impacted by this alignment.
' Recommen ation:
Because his alternative is very costly and would severely impact
resident al and historic areas, it is recommended that it be
� eliminat d from further consideration.
, Alternat ve A-6: Shift Alignment to South of River
Descri t on•
This alt rnative would require construction of a roadway on a new
� alignmen south of the Mississippi River. The alignment would
have to e either on the floodplain or on the bluff. A specific
alignmen was not identified but general alignments were
, examined}
Findinasl
� By remov ng Shepard Road from the north side of the river, the
riverfro t would be totally free for development or recreational
use. Ho ever, any alignment on the south side of the river would
eliminat the most important access to the south end of downtown
, and to t e working waterfront on the north side of the river. It
is like ' that traffic destined for downtown St. Paul and
adjacent areas, which comprises over 70� of the trips currently
, on Shepa d Road, would shift to local streets on the north side
of the r ver rather than being diverted to a route south of the
river. This shift would have its greatest impact on West 7th
Street w ere the Level of Service would be seriously reduced.
, Traffic mpacts would also be experienced on downtown streets,
particul� ly Kellogg Boulevard.
' Recommen tions:
Because is alternative would not meet the primary objectives of
this tra sportation corridor and the resulting impacts would be
' severe, t is recommended that it be eliminated from further
considera ion.
'
,
' 17
I
� � � �-����
� i
Altern tive A-7: Eliminate Shepard from Randolph to Jackson
� Descri tion•
This a ternative would include closing Shepard Road completely
I from R ndolph Avenue to Jackson Street. Modifications would be
requir at the major entry points to Shepard Road to redirect
traffi on to other routes. For example, the ramp from T.H.
' S/Fort Road/W. 7th St. (at the Fort Snelling river crossing)
would ed to be closed off and traffic would be channeled on to
W. 7th treet.
, Findin :
This a ernative would create significant open space along the
riverfr nt for development and recreational use. In addition, it
' would e iminate the need for right-of-way acquisition along this
segment and reduce land use impacts. However, it would require a
shift 20-25, 000 daily trips, including 2, 600 trucks, from
Shepard Road to other routes, primarily West 7th Street and the
, 35E Par ay. Because the destination of most of these trips is
toward he south end of downtown, much of the traffic would shift
to West Seventh Street, including a very large proportion of
, trucks ince 35E and the Shortline prohibit truck traffic.
Because est 7th Street is considered too narrow to accommodate
truck t a€fic adequately, the level of service on this street
, would b seriously impacted by the shift in traffic. An example
of this impact is the intersection of Smith Avenue with West 7th
Street. Under current conditions, but assuming the High Bridge
is open to traffic, this intersection operates at a Level of
, Service in peak hour traffic, which represents relatively free
flowing raffic with very minor delays at signals. If Shepard
Road we e closed between Randolph and Jac3cson, the resulting
� shift in traffic would reduce the Level of Service to F, which
represen s the worst traffic conditions including minimal
progress on through signals with possible delays of two signal
cycles. Most drivers consider these conditions unacceptable.
, In addit on, major shifts in traffic to downtown streets would
occur, p rticularly on Kellogg Boulevard. The expected relief
' that Kel ogg should experience from the opening of I-35E and the
new High Bridge would, therefore, not be achieved and instead the
peak hou congestion which currently exists on Kellogg would
, continue. Far example the level of service at the intersection
of Kello g and Wabasha is currently "D", which represents stop-
and-go t affic and delays through at least one signal cycle.
Secondar to these traffic impacts would be proportionate impacts
' on the ai quality and noise levels throughout this area.
Recommend tions:
' Based on he severe adverse transportation impacts and subsequent
air and oise impacts of eliminating this segment of Shepard
Road, it 's recommended that this alternative not be considered
, further.
' 18
�
� �,,--�-�09�
1
SUMMAR OF SCREENING RECOMMENDATIONS
' Altern tives recommended for further conside
ration•
�
, N BUILD ALTERNATIVE
A 1: WIDEN SHEPARD ROAD ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT
, A 2 : WIDEN SHEPARD ROAD ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT AND SHIFT
AWAY FROM RIVER NEAR NSP AND KAPLAN SCRAP METAL
� A 3 : WIDEN SHEPARD ROAD ON NEW ALIGNMENT AT THE
BASE OF THE BLUFF
, Altern ives recommended for elimination from further
consid ation•
� A-� : SHEPARD ROAD WITH 2 LANES FROM
RANDOLPH TO JACKSON/SIBLEY
� A- : SHIFT ALIGNMENT TO TOP OF BLUFF
A- : SHIFT ALIGNMENT TO SOUTH OF RIVER
, A- : ELIMINATE SHEPARD FROM RANDOLPH TO JACKSON
'
�
,
�
'
,
'
'
, 19
� ���-����
�
SEGMENT B: CHESTNUT CONNECTION TO SHEPARD ROAD
'
DESCRI TION OF SEGMENT
, The co nection of Chestnut Street to Shepard Road provides a very
import nt entry into the southwestern portion of downtown St.
' Paul. Chestnut Street currently connects directly to West
Sevent Street just west of the Civic Center. It also connects
somewh t less directly to Kellogg Boulevard via Hill Street and
Exchan e Street.
, A rail oad crossing on Chestnut Street near its intersection with
Shepar Road periodically causes significant delays to traffic on
, Chestn t Street. Despite the delays and the circuity of this
route nto downtown, it is heavily used according to current
traffi counts. Future traffic forecasts indicate a significant
, increa e in the traffic volumes on Chestnut Street, which is
based n anticipated growth in employment in the west end of
downto n. In addition, the forecasts assume an improved or less
circui ous connection with the railroad delays eliminated.
' The R verfront Commission has expressed strong interest in
maximi ing open space along the riverfront area. Depending on
' the 1 ation of Shepard Road and the connection to Chestnut
Street there is a potential for creating space for new
riverf ont development.
� The Hi toric Irvine Park District lies along the west edge of
Chestn t Street. The residents of this area have expressed
concer related to traffic on Chestnut Street as well as the
, potent'aI disrupt�on of views down Chestnut Street if a grade-
separa d connection is constructed.
� ROLE O THE ROADWAY SEGMENT
Entr CBD
Chestn Street is currently one of the key entry points to the
, southw tern portion of downtown St. Paul and is forecasted to
increa in importance in the future due to anticipated growth in
emplo nt on the west end of the CBD. It is projected that this
, growth would create a traffic demand that would double the
existi 7, 000 daily volumes by year 2000. Based on existing
traffi counts and the results of a recent origin/destination
, survey, Chestnut Street currently carries approximately 250 of
the tr ffic entering downtown from Shepard Road. By year 2000,
this p rcentage is forecasted to increase to over 50%, which
assume that improvements to the connection are made. This
, traffi is mostly destined to the southwestern portion of the
downto area. Continuation of the Chestnut Street entry to
downto assures direct and effective distribution of traffic on
' downto streets.
' 20
1 �__,���
�
1 ',
Railroa Dela s
' The ra lroad crossing on Chestnut Street causes significant
traffic delays on a daily basis. Recent studies shoc� that
Chestnu Street is blocked for over 3 hours each day due to
' approxi ately 50 trains crossing Chestnut Street. More
importa tly, there was a daily average of 12 train delays during
the pea hours. The average peak hour delay was 3 .4 minutes, with
1 the lon est delay being 27. 5 minutes. Based on these delays,
and fut re traffic forecasts, an economic analysis was completed
to det rmine whether a railroad grade separation would be
justifi ble in terms of user benefits. The findings of this
, analysi show that an expenditure of about $2 million could be
justifi d for construction of a railroad grade separation on
Chestnu Street based on the savings in user costs. Elimination
, of thes ' delays would make Chestnut Street a much more attractive
access 'nto downtown St. Paul in terms of traffic flow.
ALTERNA'!� VE8 ANALYSIS
, Alternat 've B-1: At-qrade connection on e '
xistinq Chestnut
, Descri t'on:
This al ernative would provide a conneetion to Shepard Road
similar o the existing at-grade, signalized intersection (see
' Figure 3 . It could connect to either the existing Shepard Road
alignmen or the alignment of Shepard Road which is shifted
closer t the bluff (see Segment A for ro�dway alignments) . The
intersec ion would require channelization for turning movements.
, Chestnut Street would need to be improved at least as far as Hill
Street.
Findincrs
, This alt rnative would avoid potential disruption of the view
down Che tnut Street and less right-of-way acquisition would be
� necessa if the connection is made on the exi.sting alignment.
The at-g ade intersection of Shepard and Chestnut would have the
capacity o accommodate traffic volumes forecasted for year 2000
at an ad ate level of service. If an at-grade railroad crossing
, were mai tained in this location, the delay due to railroad
operatio would continue to lower the level of service on
Chestnut treet.
' Recommen tions:
Because his alternative satisfies most of the objectives for
this area it is recommended that it be considered further in the
� EIS.
,
'
, 21
�I
1 '
C,��-�a9�
r�
i �� � ; � ,� . � �, �
q Y
� ,���'..� �� p �y,y,i�, e�. �3-L�., �F� P. ��` �i yI .
�� � � � �k
� � � � , � f y;. u
�$ ��` • '�� :� � z %
�} ,� � � o
r � ;
�" ; � �� �� ,� F- ��;
r:e � �4 F� fi�"a.� ;, . {. ;,- W /ry" "•
/. ,..� i yf �" ��.qf'���,.� ;{ � f'� � Z !
t ��� �� ���,��, ��� � 0
�,1�„w� 3Lb'*(� '. , � 5 �iy v �y�,� 3 ,� r� • Q Q
�� �� �_ � �� �, gR �E�� ' "� W w �
' �
�` tj "= ..� s�,����� ; l � Q �
� qiPe�� ;;fl �� a 9 �, �� :� i �� �'- S
� s
� � ay 0
t � � �
���, � � r � „j ,( �'m� �� � , �,<,_ �:., W w
� f
-zk 8 �_ # �� �����.�w 1 � �
� �,��A• �v� �,� �S�i,� � � �n '� � � O
' �t�� �? �-Tg.__ � .� � � ��x �� � y'��; '''b��fya,, � ` � l
•#` J� �'r � ? x -� � �� � = O ^
�, �,E � " ' vsn"r. �n tt - �N'a � � � , �e� � F.. Z
� � � �� � � � �e Q �
� 6�'k; �7 ��� .e �� � . � � � � �I s
� �� ��� y� , � ;� :,« � � s.� m O W �
'�w`'R � � � �� �` _�. �� �,, '
:� � �° � �,, • �.� � ' �;� � ti y Q
� � ���� ���� 2v � �� � ��� Q Q
t,a,, tr. � �� �$' � � 41
� � � `� � � � �� a � W
�"`< �°,�"��� f� a. , ,. � w �, F.
� � „ f ��; ���§ W�"�. F- 0'.
�* �' P ;N � ,�`� � � � �,: -� 00 � I�
�r � � y
� �` � �� d ,�: �' �.� � � � � a 0
,�}� ���� m �
Y
1 �� F � `�� „;, -� � � � � � I�
.� �;� ��.� � �� ,�. ���� V U �
�4:.' ;�� � 2
� �- �
a W Z =r'
' '§« � f� �T.. � � � O v
x �3�g � � �
aR� ���f�:� ax �; -�,�fyk �� � ��} ^ �
' �3°''i� �" �" S .� • \
b � ;,. ���,� � �.��� �� 3 Z �
�; � ' #$� '°� ��d; �� =ea� � � I� W
� :, �' ��'� � �' ,��y Z p� y I�
� �rr � �',�. 0�.{� �� � W Q
�� �_� ;` �, 'f,; „� :��,,,,� ' w: � a = Z
� �,/'� �'"�'°.� � e V
� `�,=,�,�-,. � W
��� � ������ ���;��' ��� � � Z = y U O
� � �,�5�w,� .�� ,�.. �h ���� ; � , �; � o � v
� � �,. � �, �. .-� _: � � = m W
'���� 4 `� �„ � �� �.��� �` �.�& � y"�'. W J � Z
,�'�°��% �'+ 'f r yr� �, 6�e��� � � ��� y � �,�� '� � < � �
t �� � y
� � W
. s
ff�: �• ,»--�;`` a z;.' r`at'� , � a, ,, ��"; ��� V, ; (�
' � � . �� ` �� • o �
�� �"a� ��,,.- :.��� ..:.,� ,�� � �� � < �
� ;i +�,rwr�.Y t, i���-� �, � o
���`�� . ` � �" � �` �� �� � �� � ¢ �
� �� y� � '�- ' � � ����� � m i-
' �' S. r�A�� ,� � �,, � �. �^ �i� ����� � � 2
�'"� .',�'���,ar � r � � � ��s� � � /�� Y'"!= ��.,p F �
�, E° ,� Sp� y� �.�r" �� �.,�x.' �5 �;� p � Q '2
y' � w Z
t., �"�k'� ��b ��'. �.
' lt�,. a. ,.�,� , § '� , /�n '�� �. � `'��,: W
j �_ A ������' ����ek' *�' , ~
'�`�`�. ,r�< 4� ��, P � � � ✓? �T.� � r9�`� � Q
F^'� ' �a� � � � ���i�,� �� � �:
� , �w�� � �"�^
'�R ���i � �"�,
�_e �� � �'^� " 6- ��«��`� �;
1 � � �
� � w�.��� � ' ' ' ° rr" $���� �� �..
� , �
� f�•4 � ' .� ¢` �•� � � � 4� � ' �'���� ��� � � i �.�y
��tl„ ��. � � ��$���,��I � �W W
' � � �OU
I �� ��
�� �z
1
i
1 ��-�09�
r
Alternat ve B-2 : Grade-separated connection on
, the existinq Chestnut aliqnment
Descri t on•
� This al rnative would provide a connection to Shepard Road on
the same alignment as the existing intersection (see Figure 3) .
This alt rnative could connect only to the alignment of Shepard
, Road wh' h 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
intercha� ge would accommodate grade separations for both the
' roadway onnection and the railroad crossing. Chestnut Street
would ne d to be improved at least as far as Ryan Street.
, Findinas
While e forecasted traffic volumes indicate that this
connecti n could function adequately without a grade separation
for the oadways, 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-
separate railroad crossing would be economically justifiable
� based o forecasted traffic volumes and anticipated delays. If
the rai road crossing is grade-separated, then the roadway
connecti n would also require grade separation. The potential
, for vis al impacts is difficult to ascertain without more
detailed analysis.
Recommen ations:
' Because this alternative satisfies most of the objectives for
this are , it is recommended that it be considered further in the
EIS.
�
Alternat ve B-3: At-qrade connection on new aliqnment east
of the existinq Chestnut aliqnment
� Descri t on•
This al rnative includes a shift in the alignment of Chestnut
� Street t the east of its present location (see Figure 4) . The
connecti n would be an at-grade, signalized intersection with
turn la es. 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
alignmen s) . Chestnut Street would be constructed on a new
alignmen from Shepard Road up to Exchange Street, where it would
� return t its present alignment. This alignment would divide a
parcel f land held by West Publishing Company for future
expansio .
'
'
, 23
� �- ia 9,�
�
�
' ���� � �3�- '� �� �..�4 � ,�� F.. �� ����� �� . .
�„ s� , £„
t„ w '�S' w' � ^' „�*y/ �' �� � {�F � �`
����,w �' .,r"��,r �� ;a`� r- �
' s�� ;�k�� � °-� �� � � � £ �' �=' � P���
� ,= C A ��' ��� �; � � ¢ 4 � A V / .;
�f . .� r , ��1r'� ^�g �,r4,e�: ��, r� �, :�.Aa� Z t�"ps,�.
�� �K� �'C. � ����'°�' r `�,�'r � w �^� j Z r
' t � �
� �,""'_.,..._..., �' � �, °- °'✓ �
i �
��� �° �' "� ���9I �;r� w�€�* �;` P' � V
,,. � ,; � � � 'e : '*�' G
� �.' a� �� � �� +: `� W o
,� $ «, � # °""� .� r ��' j. $, � ~F �
�'M�7�` � � .�� +r ^� t�� � ^^� � Q � '
"�*-� a � � � �i��,��'�,a " �: �
' r'� ' ,�€' g��.,, � A � �� Q y Q
��4;��. ��, ' r� �a �� �,: ��._ l �, y� ' i � r% �.�,� ,�a a F- Q
��° '" �' �.m. �N « ` S�� .; � � W Z �
� * r�P � fA w
�*��" � � �R� � $ �".. ax$ �`�� � W i �
� �� � e .� �S �� �. � '�� � � �
ff i� -' .�;� y� �� ��-���� . � ��`� Q J
'�a*"x` _ € ,, ; ' �k�� _ � �, � a
� � # e � ��� =s � � � ���� � �' C7 F �
� a � *a "' � /� �� � � a
� ;�'� �, �` �'�:- �,� � '� �� '� ������ �� � � �`�" � 3
' � -� a �' � � �,� �� k ��
� ` 4 ��"W#� � � "� �� �,�m m j �
.�psa�, '� Z
����� w �
�� �Y, � m-..�g� f� f ,
� e€y . a'�, 3 f i..; $;� � �'�.�d��� �'z °� �a ��
� � '� �� � �� ra � � �,i f,�� � <�� F y y
.� s��{� � , ;e a� � � ��,' Q
��;4� ',.�1 �,::, k .; q , � #+�,. � � ���z,��� ��:� �, ��a��, Z � O �
� � ���y - � ' � �
�� � � �
� � � -�� � _ � ; � Y � ���� � �,.,, � � � � �
� �� - � -ata. � � +s ',� *r,;�u�� � � �� , �. J m W
;�� �,�°' ark,x�fi .<„i'S, k � , ,�q ' t �� � � � �� Q � �,R �
�� �� ��z � § ��� �� � �,� �� �� � �e"�� Q � y �
' � � :s. �. ,�.. � �� N� � � r1 � � �
r� � �� ��. � ��` :� � �"� x�' �# '�!'�,,; V V Q y
.�iima"= � ,` � ,__ !�
Q Z WZ
, A °g °- t �, * � � �W
"� r �� � � '� . *",' g � V Q
� `� � �9;� � fl ��` i. a e7 i 9. � � Z U
�" ��'` �t I �
, �- "` � � �,�. '�° + ,, ,y, �*" � � �l
� ��� ������ .�� � � .�' � Z (��
� � �
� � � , xr � ,� ��� � � � .�_ Z � y Zy
� � � qe = E��� � ° o� 41 �
� '�� � �'� � � +dCa H O Q
' � ;�� �� }� � ,� �`� �°�'`� 9 I ;, � � W a V � �
�"`�� �� �<� � .� �� � � z Z W
a �'� ,�,..-_.-..." } � O� y
� ,� �� ,�t�� �- �Y �� � �x 3 �
� �,. ; ; �, �- � � � i ` v Z m
' - �rt�` � �'' ds�w �y, �� • `� W J
,� � � �4� ��..
� �� 'y , *� ' �a �"� �,� �. �a '
�„�3�. � $ � �y �'� � � �wr�� �"� � "�� Q�a �
��'1 ��a �=� iq $� `��� � `� ��� � � � �� ��R
���.�" ��' � � �. �'�'� �§,.� � f �� � Q¢ V
� €�' � 4: °' ' �'��),�.. ,�� z�. �� �"1 W 'Ww
i sYrtR�' '+� . _ - - �- ��k .. L : �. V-�t � = v,
�'° � ' �" ' v�� ��. �.'y `��� ' °��r �, � m F-
i ,a:s�n H:; " � � �?f i'����3 � �� . �{J W
' °� t���� '� �N• � ;' r' k i������ ��� � � �F
�* ya » • �,�`_ � ' � , °�" ,} � ,•�,I � , F_
� � ' ����.�" a�° , + �C3'.��,�, � �"��$:�� ��� ,x � `"��� Q 3
� v� "Z` � � �,����y '' f � �
+e�C ���e 3��� ;i'������ � � LL!
��� � _
, � y „ ' ���� � � � �' J
� �, � � �,� �
,�� � � a" �� £y � ��Y y y�� °� �. a
,: ¢.� �� $ . x4 � �y,' ���. �� 2..£
��y, 07 i 'a A
p�,, �fT' : � �� 1 � '��W',� �k��' �'; `�S}%-
� ,M;- � t�./ t �tR� g / "Y � ��
' � �+� . x � �
�� �� _�' � j R fa��- ��+P::
.�� ,� � � k�� -�
�` �x d* # s J� �' .._' � ��Fw' 3
,� � �.. � ��� w.� � � ��� �;,� p�� �
,�.�..� �O V
' C7 U �
� �
�� wZ
' i
i
� � � �-�o��
1
Findin s•
� This lternative would provide more of a buffer to the Irvine
Park ighborhood. In addition, by shifting it away from the
existi g alignment, this alternative would avoid potential
� disrup ion of the view down existing Chestnut Street. However,
signif cant right-of-way acquisition would be necessary for the
new Ch stnut alignment. The alignment would divide a parcel of
, land a quired by West Publishing Company for future expansion,
which ould severely limit their expansion potential.
An at- rade intersection of Shepard and Chestnut would have the
, capaci y to accommodate traffic volumes forecasted for year 2000
at an adequate level of service. Without a grade separated
railro d crossing, the delays due to railroad operations would
� contin e to lower the level of service on Chestnut Street.
Recomm dations:
� Becaus this alternative would result in significant adverse land
impact , it is recommended that it be eliminated from further
consid ation.
' II
Alterna� ive B-4: Grade-separated connection on a new
� aliqnment east of existinq Chestnut
, Descri I ion•
This a ernative would provide a grade separated connection to
� Shepard Road on a new Chestnut Street alignment east of the
existin intersection (see Figure 4) . This alternative could
conn�ct� only to the alignment of Shepard Road which is shifted
closer �to the bluff (see Segment A for roadway alignmentsj
' becausel of the grade differential. The interchange would
accommo ate grade separations for both the roadway connection and
the rai road crossing. Chestnut Street would be constructed on a
� new ali nment from Shepard Road up to Exchange Street, where it
would r turn to its present alignment. This alignment would
divide parcel of land held by West Publishing for future
expansi .
, Findin
This al ernative would provide more of a buffer to the Irvine
, Park ne ghborhood. In addition, by shifting it away from the
existin alignments this alternative would minimize the potential
for vis al impacts down existing Chestnut Street. However,
, signific nt right-of-way acquisition would be necessary for the
new Ches� nut alignment. The alignment would divide a parcel of
land ac ired by West Publishing �Company for future expansion,
which wo ld severely limit their expansion potential.
� �
I
�
, 25
III
I
i ��-�09�
!
� While e forecasted traffic volumes indicate that this
connecti n could function adequately without a grade separation
for the oadways, a full interchange would certainly improve the
function of this connection by allowing unrestricted flow for
� Shepard Road. Aside from the roadway connection, the grade
separate railroad crossing would be economically justifiable
based on forecasted traffic volumes and anticipated delays.
' Recommen ations:
Because his alternative would result in significant adverse land
impacts, it is recommended that it be eliminated from further
, consider tion.
� Alternat ve B-5: Reverse location of road & railroad tracks
Descri t on•
This al ernative was developed in an effort to minimize the
, disrupti n and delays due to the location of the railroad tracks "
in this egment and in the segment to the east. The alignment of
Shepard oad would be behind the grain elevators and would cross
' over the tracks to the west of Chestnut Street. The tracks would
have to e in a tunnel for this crossing to occur. Shepard Road
would t en intersect with Chestnut Street with an at-grade
, intersec ion and continue to the east (see Figure 5) .
Findin s
This al rnative was developed, in part, to resoive the conflict
� created y the railroad crossing on Chestnut Street. It also
creates so�e significant open space along the riverfront.
However, there would be very significant costs associated with
, the tunn 1 as well as the major railroad track relocations to the
east nec ssary to construct this alternative. In addition, there
are neg tive impacts on Segment C (to the east of Chestnut)
� primarii because the tracks would be closer to the river which
is cons' ered less attractive to recreational activities along
the rive front. It would also necessitate removal of the Chicago
Northwes ern railroad bridge over the river near Robert Street
� (see Se ent C for further discussion) .
Recommen ation:
, Because there are serious concerns about the ability of this
alternat've to meet financial and land use objectives, th.is
alternat've is recommended for elimination from further
conside tion.
, Seqment lternative B-6: Eliminate connection of Chestnut
to Shepard Road
tDescri 'on•
This al ernative would include eliminating the link between
1 Chestnu Street and Shepard Road. Chestnut Street would be
termina d at Hill Street (see Figure 5) .
� 26
'
��-�oq�
1
1
`� . �.�,��s^ ' >�x ,�` � ' `���. � �
� "M�� �� M #���� � ��-` �
� �.�M ��;R -�� "�" ���,�.. ,� ��� �`
�& _.��`�z � �`�`� �� ;n,M� � � �!��a;,
,, � tn�
' pa.'�il� �° • ,._� .'�p.. �m.« -..:,�,.•':.�
°� { �3: �«�R ��� TS
,+. ,� . . . � .:.
�'� iM ,p,t.
� ��'�� o��� f .. ��: �. :��� ��� � � �, F y �. � �
;i`t�"ts �� �s 'f1�t �4 � { � ,t ^.�-.�.
� � �F � �� �� t �
, : � ��� ��i� _ A��' � �
A�,� � � � ��'
_ a� �� �.' �a � � t
:` a � '�'- "� � "t�
ar
����� � � �,�iw�+..� � '� ��� �- � '§. �.
� �� �� � � " �
. '�. �, �� � � ��
� � �i � � ��T�� � �, �
3� '�� � , ���.« g��.�`���"" "�'� .���� ��,.� �.`�
, e� �� �� ������ �
s� °� ���$ � �' �x-
� �
� "� , .�Y, �' � - .
, � �°` ...,�� _ .��'�n'� ���,.
.� �� � �t � ���
�:� �.�• �,.
`' �
���:: � '��; �
���� � �
' � ��...�� �. � ..�,..
.,< � �*. �
�'��:� �:�,��`.�`°��3'�
, ��`.
, q ; �-
rt �a.
� � � . � �
,. ,��3 � �F�.:
�
a ".�� ��
,-. . �
� �. ,.�
, �
������
� �
� � � ' � :�
� � ��� � i
r � ��� � .a,.
,� ,,,
c.
' ��:.� � � � s - r,�.0'��� °z� � � ��� ti� � �
'c�' ,,� "a� a
ALTERNATIVIALTERNATIVE B—T
' REVERSE ROAD TRACKS 1AICTION OF SHEPARD TO KELLOGG
�
'
STRGAR-
' ROSCOE- ° 5
FAUSCH, W� .,
.�•° .
INC.
�
�I
1 � (��- ��9�
t
� Findin :
The el ' ination of this intersection would open up a significant
amount of space along the riverfront in this area. It would
reduce he traffic impacts on neighborhoods adjacent to Chestnut
, Street y lowering noise levels and auto emissions. However, it
would a so eliminate one of two major entry points into downtown
from Sh pard Road. Chestnut Street currently carries 25� of the
� traffic travelling from Shepard Road into downtown. By year
2000, t is percentage is forecasted to reach 50�, assuming some
improve ents to the connection are made. While 35E would carry
� some o the traffic into downtown instead of Chestnut, the
traffic studies show that significant amount of the traffic,
especia ly trucks, would shift to Wes� Seventh Street or
Jackson Sibley Streets. Because West 7th Street is considered
� too nar ow to accommodate truck traffic adequately, the level of
service on this street would be seriously impacted by the shift
in traf ic. An example of this impact is the intersection of
� Smith A enue with West 7th Street. Under current conditions, but
assumin the High Bridge is open to traffic, this intersection
operate at a Level of Service B in peak hour traffic, which
represe ts relatively free flowing traffic with very minor delays
� at sign ls. If the connection from Shepard to Chestnut were
elimir�a d, the resulting shift in traffic would reduce the Level
of Servi ce D, which represents stop-and-go traffic conditions
� with sl progression through intersections and delays through at
least o signal cycle.
� In addi ion, major shifts in traffic to downtown streets would
occur, articularly on Kellogg Boulevard. Therefore, the
expected relief that Kellogg should experience from the opening
of I-35E and the new High Bridge would not be achieved. Instead,
� the peak hour congestion which currently exists on Kellogg would
worsen. For example the level of service at the intersection of
Kellogg nd Wabasha is currently "D", which represents stop-and-
, go traf 'c and delays through at least one signal cycle. The
anticipa ed shifts in traffic due to closing the Chestnut
connecti n would reduce the Level of Service E, represents almost
stopped raffic conditions with very slow progression through
� intersec ions and delays through more than one signal cycle.
Secondar to these traffic impacts would be proportionate impacts
on the a r quality and noise levels throughout this area.
� In addit on, there would be economic impacts on the southwestern
portion f downtown which would be difficult to predict without
� lengthy nalysis.
Recommen ation:
Because this alternative is not consistent with the
� transpor tion objectives for this area, it is recommended that
it be el ' inated from further consideration.
�
�
' I 28
� � ��o��
1
Alternat ve 8-7: Direct connection of Shepard to Relloqq Blvd.
' Descri t on•
This al rnative was developed to provide a direct link to
I Kellogg oulevard from Shepard Road (see Figure 5) . The link
would be provided with a very long structure which would allow
free flo on both Shepard Road and the new link.
' Findinas•
The phy ical connection to Kellogg would require a costly
structur with a steep grade and significant right-of-way
� acquisit' n would be necessary and the connection to Kellogg
Boulevar in this area would have severe traffic impacts on the
downtown street system. The projected volumes that would use
� this rou are at least 14, 000 daily trips and the only possible
location o make the connection would be very poorly placed in
terms of he City�s intersection spacing.
/ Recommend tion:
Because this alternative is not consistent with the
transport tion objectives for this area, it is recommended that
1 it be eli inated from further consideration.
SUMMARY O SCREENING RECOMMENDATIONS
� Alternati ' es re
commended for further consideration
, NO B ILD ALTERNATIVE ,
B-1: T-GRADE CONNECTION ON EXISTING CHESTNUT ALIGNMENT ;
� I
B-2: � RADE-SEPARATED CONNECTION ON EXISTING CHESTNUT
, Alternati s recommended for elimination from further
considera 'on
� B-3 : T-GRADE CONNECTION ON ALIGNMENT EAST OF CHESTNUT
B-4: RADE-SEPARATED CONNECTION ON ALIGNMENT
� AST OF CHESTNUT
B-5: EVERSE LOCATION OF ROAD WITH RAILROAD TRACKS
� B-6: LIMINATE CONNECTION OF CHESTNUT TO SHEPARD
B-7: IRECT CONNECTION FROM SHEPARD TO KELLOGG
�
�
' 29
1 ��-`Q��
�
1 '
, SEGM NT C: SHEPARD ROAD FROM CHESTNUT TO ROBERT A STREET
DESCRI TION OF SEGMENT
� The se ent of Shepard Road between Chestnut Street and Robert
Street lies below the bluff at the southern edge of downtown St.
' Paul a d provides an important bypass around the heavily used
downto street system. There are several buildings, roadway
bridge and railroad facilities along this segment which severely
limit he space available for a roadway. In addition, there is a
� Chicag Northwestern railroad bridge across the river near Robert
Street which serves a fairly low volume of railroad traffic.
Remova of this bridge would allow the roadway to be shifted
� away f m the river to create open space along the riverfront.
Histor' ally, the area through which this roadway segment passes
� was pr dominantly related to riverfront activities along the
Lower nding, which is located on the east end of this segment.
For th' reason, the City has placed a high priority on creating
some n w space for activities and/or development along the
� riverfr nt in this area.
� ROLE OF THE ROADWAY SEGMENT
Traffic Volumes
� This se ent of Shepard Road carries and will continue to attract
the hi hest volumes on the entire stretch of Shepard/Warner
between Randolph and TH 61. The traffic volumes forecasted for
year 2 0 are 25,000 vehicles per da�, which includes a high
1 proport on of trucks. Based on this traffic demand, it is clear
that th s segment of Shepard Road is an essential link in the St.
Paul ro dway system.
tTrucks �
This se ent of Shepard Road provides two key functions for truck
traffic.
� 1. ypass of downtown and its busy streets
2 . ccess to downtown and the working waterfront
� The att activeness of Shepard Road to trucks is reinforced by
restrict d width of West Seventh Street, the capacity constraints
� on Kell gg and the prohibition of trucks on I-35E and the
Shortlin . By year 2000, Shepard Road will attract 2, 600 trucks
per day.
�
�
� 30
�
i
� ��
��ia Q�
1 �i
� ALTERN TIVES ANALYSIS
Altern tive C-1: Minor improvements on existinq aliqnment
� Descri tion:
This a ternative would include minor upgrading of the existing
roadwa to provide additional capacity and improve safety
� condit' ns. Resurfacing, widening, signal work and
channe ization would be the type of work involved in this
altern ive. Because the space available for the road is
� restra' ed by the existing bridge piers (Wabasha and Robert) and
the ri er, the extent of improvement would be very limited and
would p� rpetuate existing safety hazards (see Figure 6) .
� Findin :
While is alternative would function adequately under projected
traffic volumes, it would not create any additional open space
� along t e riverfront for development or recreational activities.
However it could serve as a short term solution until changes in
railroa facilities would provide other alignment opportunities
within he corridor.
� Recomme dation:
Because this alternative satisfies most of the objectives for
1 this a a, at least on the short term, it is recommended that
this al ernative be considered further in the EIS.
� Alterna ive C-2: Shift Road and Tracks away from river
Descri lion•
� This al ernative would include relocation of the railroad tracks
and roa way as far away from the river as possible (see Figure
6) .
1 Findin
The pr' �ary result of this alternative is the creation of
signifi nt open space along the riverfront. The alignment shift
� of the oadway and railroatl tracks and acquisition of right-of-
way wou d be very costly. In addition, this alternative would
require emoval of the CN & W railroad bridge over the river near
� Robert treet, which is still in operation, although with low
train v umes. The potential acquisition of the vacant Pioneer
Press bu' lding would create more space for this shift towards the
1 west end of the segment.
Recommen ation:
While t is could be a costly alternative and difficult to
� implemen in the short term, this alternative would satisfy the
objectiv s for this area. Therefore, it is recommended that this
alternat ve be considered further in the EIS.
�
t 31
II
y.
1
- �:�:�.
�,�/a 4�
1 a � � �' a�
�,r
ax:: :�F ��.�-�
g �
_, Y t 4 _ ' ., ,
a:: 3
�S S.'•'Wy � ?
.�
� ,y� � ' F yllli 3,�v Y f�'
^x, �� '^� •1
t
ary .<Um 3
�!:,.� �'.�
., •
,A.:. �I .:.
'
�
*..�
?� # �
P
�� f� w't
� �yy� k �
�i
� �
a�r � ba
' krcua+' ��?� � .
V� . � �.t:?�� -.3�4 k..'i �� .
.��� ��� ��� ,�,��
/�_ �
, ,e , � 3'��+r�' '� . .:''.
�� � . � i
� ^� �'�� �'''`, �?�' .�;
,� *` ,a;,� '.�.° � t �;��
�� ��`=� f# s;'.,, ��•` a�
, r�-r �� °�� T +� _
���A\. �� � �� .�°" .3 ������`� .� �.
d�
, F
ge ���� ��� �� ���� � � ��a�:
i�� ��1
i �� �'�,. � _ Iji�
�- � . - � UI y�?'s° . ����i li�. �,�
�'� k ' � ��•� �'1 I lVl
� `/y . �
k
�
VI
, �l ..- �� �Yr
i�iA : �•'��Y�,
8 c a�... .,�_ � .'��.
•� ��Y\ �� �'. ��
T'�;g•;
. �8.
�" �' ���� ' � ��"<•.. '�i
' �f �
... e ,� P . ,Y� .t`.... ` .....,
ALTERNATIVED TO NORTH
'
� °;J
X D� �,. � � �.,.:
, ',^q��
�.
.r'91�. �"i"lE
3�
3� � �
{
�>
f
� ���,. ;�� .
� �tt,<
�F #%
4 e.d
$„
i
f � ��r �f � y
..,;� `�� !i�l�,
� �
' `��.
,�
� ,
\
(
E». `��._�.: �
j(8, �� x �.� � e.
���a� sa�`e � q ;���� ��� ; ��`��F� :�
' k � ��'� i
�r �VN°'.,a����� �i I ��� 3�.i
�a� « � ... �:. �� ��
l�a b-{
�� ��� tl&'�
�
.3� "a.
¢,. a�
w3�-
.
)� °V
4N
' ���� � � � '� �
� � .�
������ � � �� .� ;�.�• ����
, ����� • � .s ��� i��` �.
; ��"� ,����� ''..„„���� ,� � .....",��,��,��� �
' , � ���� � ., �»c. ¢< � ��
^ a� ���;:,a
�� �� �
<
������ � �Y I ��IfM9q��; •�°.° :
� �
,. �� ,� RI o`W1.i���� ��.,,ny� � "l's'�`t� �.
' ��� �a � �
.�
-+�a.;: ..� }- •<M1�
�%.s -� � � � . i ,
� �
� �
' �' ¢ � ���
ALTERNIg AND ROADWAY
'
5TRGAR- �,
� �os�oE- �,� 6
FAUSCH, j ��' Y.�
�4
INC. ``
��
,
�
� ���a��
1
� Altern ive C-3: 2-Lane Roadway on Existinq Aliqnment
Descri ion•
This al ernative would reduce the number of travel lanes to two,
� one in ach direction. Extra lanes for channelizing turns would
be requ red at Jackson and Sibley Streets (see Figure 6) .
� Findin :
This al ernative would create some additional open space along
the ri erfront for development and recreational activities.
However financial resources such as State and Federal funding
1 would b very limited, if not unavailable, for downgrading this
facilit due to its substandard design. In addition, engineering
liabili y would be a concern to the City.
SIn term of traffic impacts, the expected demand on this segment,
which i 25, 000 vehicles per day by year 2000, exceeds the
� capacit of a 2-lane roadway. If a two lane road were built, a
signifi nt amount of the excess demand would shift to downtown
streets,l particularly Kellogg Boulevard. Therefore, the expected
relief t�. at Kellogg should experience from the opening of I-35E
' and the ew High Bridge would not be achieved. Instead, the peak
hour co estion which currently exists on Kellogg would continue.
For exa le the level of service at the intersection of Kellogg
� and Wab sha is currently "D", which represents stop-and-go
traffic nd delays through at least one signal cycle. Secondary
to these traffic impacts would be impacts on the air quaiity and
noise le els throughout this area. Under the 2-lane alternative,
� this con ition would be at least as bad or worse.
Recommen ation•
, While th objectives related to creating more open space alo.ng
the riv rfront are very important, downgrading an existing
facility poses some serious transportation and environmental
' impacts hat are not outweighed by the benefits. Therefore, it
is reco ended that this alternative be eliminated from further
consider ion.
' Alternati e C-4: Reverse location of road with tracks
' Descri ti n:
This alte native would include reversing the location of Shepard
Road wit the railroad tracks so that the road would be as far
' from the river as possible and the tracks would be adjacent to
the road (see Figure 6) . The roadway would have to be stacked
near the est end of the segment to fit between the county jail
building and the Wabasha Bridge. In this segment, this
' alternati e was intended to create some short range and long
range opp rtunities for redevelopment of the area, based on the
possibili y that the railroads may abandon their trackage at some
' point in the future. In the Chestnut area (Segment B) , this
alternati e creates some significant open space along the
riverfron and reduces railroad conflicts.
' 33
I
� ������
1
' Findinqs•
The long• term potential for railroad abandonment is not certain
enough guarantee any opportunities for opening up the
' riverfro for recreational activities and development. If
abandonm t doesn't occur, the tracks would have to be relocated
at consi erable expense and their location next to the river is
' consider • less attractive to recreational activities along the
riverfro It would also necessitate removal of the CN & W
railroad bridge over the river near Robert Street. The bridge
operates ith very low train volumes but there is no indication
� of short erm abandonment.
Recommen tion•
While th e are some obvious benefits to this alternative in the
, Chestnut rea, the tracks relocation costs, the unknown status of
railroad and the lack of benefit to the Riverfront reduce the
overall nefit of the alternative. Therefore, this alternative
� is reco nded for elimination from further consideration.
' Alternat' e C-5: Eliminate Shepard from Chestnut to Jackson
Descr' t' n•
This alt rnative would include closing Shepard Road from its
, intersec 'on with Chestnut Street to Jackson Street.
Findinas•
' While el ' inating Shepard Road through this segment would create
signific t new space for riverfront development, the resulting
shift in traffic to downtown streets would be a significant
� burden. 25,000 vehicles per day, including a high proportion of
trucks, re forecasted on this segment of Shepard Road. If it
were clo ed, a significant amaunt of the excess demand would
shift t downtown streets, particularlp Kellogg Boulevard.
, Therefor , the expected relief that Kellagg should experience
from the opening of I-35E and the new High Bridge would not be
achieved. Instead, the peak hour congestion which currently
, exists o Kellogg would deteriorate further. For example the
level of service at the intersection of Kellogg and Wabasha is
currentl "D" , which represents stop-and-go traffic and delays
' through t least 'on signal cycle. If Shepard Road is closed
between hestnut and Jackson, the Level of Service would be
reduced o Level E . This represents traffic conditions which
are near y halted with delays of more than one signal cycle.
Secondar to these traffic impacts would be impacts on the air
quality d noise levels throughout this area.
' Recommen tion:
Based on the anticipated impacts of eliminating this segment of
Shepard oad, it is recommended that it be eliminated from
, further nsideration.
� 34
� U=d�-io��
�
SUMMARY F SCREENING RECOMMENDATIONS
1 Alterna 'ves recommended for further consideration
' NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
Alternat ve C-1: Minor improvements on existing alignment
' Alternat ve C-2 : Shift Road and Tracks away from river
' Alternat ves recommended for elimination from further
consider tion
, Alternat ve C-3 : 2-Lane Roadway on Existing Alignment
Alternat ve C-4 : Reverse location of road with tracks
' Alternat ve C-5: Eliminate Shepard from Chestnut to Jackson
t
'
�
�
'
'
'
,
'
'
' 35
' �,,�"—�o�/Q 9�
'
EAST CBD BYPASS
'
DESCRIPT ON OF EAST CBD BYPAS3
iThe East CBD Bypass is a proposed roadway connection which would
be cons ucted on a new alignment along the eastern edge of
' downtown St. Paul. The alignment would follow an abandoned
railroad line which is adjacent to a number of active railroad
lines. he Bypass would provide a connection between I-35E north
of downt wn and Warner Road on the south. The Bypass would
' provide wo key functions if it were constructed:
1. Alte nate route around the busy downtown street system for
, auto and trucks. Because trucks will be prohibited on I-35E
betw en West Seventh Street and I-94, the Bypass would be an
esse ial link for regional truck movements.
' 2. Acce to properties on the east side of downtown. There is
a si nificant amount of undeveloped land that would benefit
from the access which could be provided if the Bypass is
' cons ucted.
' ROLE OF ST CBD BYPASS
Traffic lumes
This se ent of roadway will provide an alternate route around
' the east side of downtown and is e�ected to carry from 20, 000
trips (o the north end) to 25,000 trips (on the south) on a
daily bas's. Of the trips projected to use this route, close to
' 15, 000 v icles per day are trips that would otherwise be using
downtown treets for through trips. Approximately 8,000 vehicles
per day a e short, local type trips that would otherwise be using
' regional ighways. Based on these factors, the Bypass plays an
important role in relieving the pressure on downtown streets
caused b through trips. It also provides a more appropriate
route fo short, local trips, reducing the pressure on the
' regional ighways.
Trucks
, A very hi h proportion of the trips on the East CBD Bypass will
be trucks Due to the prohibition of trucks on I-35E Parkway
between W st Seventh Street and I-94, the Bypass is seen as an
, essential link for regional truck movements. There is no route
other tha the CBD street system that can provide the connection
through d wntown St. Paul. By year 2000, approximately 3 , 800
trucks ar projected on the Bypass. This is 20� of the total
, daily tra fic which is twice the average proportion of trucks on
the regio al highway system. If the Bypass is not available,
these tru ks will be forced onto the CBD street system which
, reduce th level of service on a number of streets, especially
Kellogg B vd. which is already at a Level of Service D at some
key inter ctions.
' 36
1 ��-�°��
i
, Land Us
An imp tant part of the City's future development plans
address the land on the east end of the downtown area which
' includes� the Space Center and William's Hill areas. The Bypass
could p ovide the land access necessary to accommodate future
develop nt in this area. There are three potential connections
, between the Bypass and the local street system which could
satisfy these land access needs: East Kellogg Boulevard, East
7th Str t and University/LaLayette. Based on the high level of
' demand, the more connections that are provided, the higher the
user be efits on the roadway will be. In fact, if the
connecti ns are not provided, approximately 11,000 fewer daily
trips wo ld use the Bypass.
'
SEGM T D: EAST CBD BYPASS CONNECTION R TO WARNER ROAD
, DESCRIPT ON OF SEGMENT
' This se ent provides the link between Shepard/Warner Road and
the pro sed Bypass around the east side of downtown St. Paul
which w' 1 connect to I-35E north of downtown. The connection
' should ovide a safe and effective link while minimizing the
space u ilized for the roadway, thus creating open space for
riverfro t development. There are several active railroad lines
' through his area which present a significant limitation unless
some rea ignment is possible. In addition, there is a railroad
"piggy b ck" operation which the City is currently attempting to
relocate to a new area.
'
Alternat ve D-1: Grade-separated Connection
' Descri t on:
This alt rnative would include an interchange connecting the East
CBD Bypa s with Warner Road (see figure 7) . The design of the
' intercha ge would not be determined until detailed traffic
studies re completed to identify the geometric needs of this
connecti n.
' Findincts
Based on capacity calculations for this connection, it appears
' that it ould function at an adequate level of service as an at-
grade in ersection. Therefore, a grade-separated interchange may
not be absolutely necessary to effectively accommodate the
projecte volumes at this connection. However, further traffic
' studies ould be required to determine the best solution at this
connecti n.
'
' 37
1
' //// //V !
�V� �
� �` �r.
_��; � � �
' �� ;� �+��;�� � ! �� � �;� ��� �� � ��
� ��� � � Y � � � � �\ �_ � �
� t.�
�� a ���' ew�,�� `� �' s �
�"�� ���`'�� ����.��k�� . � �. ��.
' �� �`� � �+ "� '"�s� ;,°� ` �r,�E � � k ��, � � �,
�� +�y���a � � z�"�a� !A? �. �� e
� � � , �� � ,�; `�, G gc °� ��d �,�
��.._ ..�� � � � �
.� ':.� �/d� �a: �d
� i '
� �.� �
��" ��� � � .� � �
I�9 . .� �� � �.
a �F.� �` � � '� �
� �� � , � ��€�� � � ���
��� ��� .
� ���` �� �� � a��° �'a g
� � ��, ��= ��.'�' �� � •w � k ..,� �<
. �
� a � `,� .
�Q � .. . � � �`��`��� +���' "� � � �:
� � � �' ar� �,. �", � g:'
V i �.,� ��g� 2�' �� �. L� ;.
t . � ��� � : �� � , ��e
�'... � ��,.°:, v�'Y�� ���4 a � � �.� ��'.
??� �1i• y.�"�'��a�e � � � � z�'��; � 3
^� � • � .: �x.," �� a:
' ' � � � � � * �� �g� a ���
� ,� i �3� q � � -.�
�'!n�'" ��_ . . Y� g �:. 4�� �„�
�° �,�•� Y ��.� �' �-� � .
� �� � �� � g .,«�P �.�� �t:
����, �
' `� _ '� �� � � � ���.� �°
�a �� � ,` "� '' '� �� � � °:� :�
� ��� �}
ALTERNATIVE D—�ONNECTION
'
�; �. � ,.. ,
� e k , : _ -., .. ..
p � � ��
a ,
dC ° <. �� � �:: � R"", .:�� ,�' �_;'
� ry• F d e� . ���i F . �
� � �,°� � , ,� '� �,oa� �"a;�' �. _� .� �� � � �
�
;� � s �� i G'�,"4 ��j `a L; � � � .
� y� E � ��� �
',��[�R >�� ��` o-'� •- ��: � ���.
� �� �� � �:
�� �. � �Z y'�(� 1"�k�`��,'6 � � +�� '�� ��a
� � c�`"- j M�'Sn
��y:: ��� ^�� � 3k �.�".a �4�3yKmu; � � � .�.�,�� �
, �" �yk„e ��.,{� �,' ,v�a'v �', A
..� � �n�L� `� �.� � �� ���.� ��
,„ '��.�+�� ; � ;. �� � �, r, :�
� ',�. ��.�.� � :� .. ��
' � � � �� ��" ��J � , ,� � ..
u,� � r � {
�� � ���'�: F� � & �#� ��.� '��.:
�..�.`: �
�,A, , . ��_ ,� p � 0 :L& �� y�aa •i'` � ;
' � ~, � ���� �� �,; �.� y, �. j.
� �:
� '�`YR° ..q� �.: ��i � � g
Q' a �,. �
� �`w�#n , at ,. .,_N�'� F, ��K�. � � L .
4 € �. � ?�k� � € � ��
rt z ��� � �� "'t � � ;
� �
�, �� � •�'_ �
, �
� � �' ��`� � � � �� � �
� �� ��>� � ��, � � ,:�'��„�.� � ��:�m A
' , � � '1 �� `� ��;�� =�:
F
�� x�� ��.. `m� -:i..� � �F .`� k L � . ��,�� ��
�' �. '.. �:� �S ; yh"'
� � ��� F'i � .
. �� ,_� � � a y._ ���'
.'� � 'YI V{+� •g &�� � ` � \� �F
' ' !' ' � � � �.� � ` .
�R;. � t� i�..� r"�:.
ALTERNATIVE D-3 AT—GRADE a1CKS WITH AN AT—GRADE CONNECTION
'
STRGAR- �0
' 1tOSCOE- 7
FAUSCH, s � �q
4
INC.
,
� �r�-�oq�
'
■ '�
Recomme � dations:
This alI ernative would require further analysis to determine
whetherlit is the most effective connection. Therefore, it is
recommer� ed that it be considered further in the EIS.
� Conside�h tion will be given to a slight geometric shift of the
Bypass � ignment to the east to minimize impacts on land owned by
Asset D� elopment Corporation.
i
Alternat� ve D-2: At-qrade connection
' Descri t on•
This a ternative would include an at-grade, signalized
intersec ion as a connection of the East CBD Bypass to Warner
, Road (se figure 7) . The design of the intersection would not
be dete ined until detailed traffic studies are completed to
identify to geometric needs of this connection.
� However, it is clear that the elevation of Warner Road would have
to be ra sed significantly to meet the elevation of the Bypass.
, Findincts.
Based a apacity calculations for this connections, it appears
that it ould function at an adequate level of service as an at-
1 grade in ersection. However, further traffic studies would be
required o determine the best solution at this connection.
Recommend tions:
� This alt rnative would require further analysis to determine
whether ' is the most effective connection. Therefore, it is
recommend d that it be considered further in the EIS.
' Considera ion will be given to a slight geometric shift of the
Bypass al gnment to the east to minimize impacts on land owned by
Asset Dev lopment Corporation.
�
Alternati e D-3: At-qrade intersection with the location of
the road and railroad tracks reversed
Descri ti �
This alt rnative is the easterly extension of alignment
alternati s from Segments B and C. It is necessary in this
segment tO make the transition back to the original alignment of
the railro d tracks (see figure 7) . The grade differentials in
the area where the reversal must occur are such that the
connection of the roadways must be an at-grade intersection.
Findinas•
� As discus ed in Segments B and C, there are a variety of
drawbacks to reversing the location of the roadway and the
tracks, fer to those sections for an explanation as to the
Iproblems w th this option.
' 39
�
40
,
' -/�9�v
� �
0�
�
��
' �., � � ��, � � � ��� ''� i- �,
r E°
���•, •e; ��� � s� � ; ?�s �� ,•�/�� �
' � �� '` �x�� � ��� # '� � '�� � �p�
� �,,,�,
��"� � z9 . ¢ �� . ' � � „ �' °' � {Y
, � � � ��
� a� F ' e i��. ��� �'Q•.�, •: � a�
� ,. § r � � � ��� � � �� � � � � � �
� `� ���.�g .� � � � � �" t�' � � �
, '���; � � s p � m
� �� f�Y = , �� ,�yi�'�, � � !
F e �r y� ?'° �5 ���"�� ?' l'l �� ��Y � F �
/ ; � �^�
. , � - "'� � � � ia� -' � �� " W Qf��
' "� � "�� � � �'?� &'� a/ � � �' ���� F� m Q Q i
� ;:
r ,� j� E e� ,�z a ��� , p LL. Q
d � � �, :r '$- ,�,,-� �� �: < �
��� �, � � ��,�� W J
� � � � �� ��� � W W
' , P �, �,f{-� �S � ���;/ � x
� ��g r; ������ � �, „� � �' �
M � �s `�£.. "� � ,s; � � � y� F�
��" � � �`� � 3 Q
� � � '� �
�,.
u,
� � ��
, �
' � '°` �� ;: �� f ' Q �
�, „y�+'�i � � �`�", ui
'� '� .w'm / 3r; C7 O
ry � �,
�
,`�kr.: �•.,,'� �' �;- ,�.,� �'� � Z �
�„� ° � �� Q�� xg � �� ��,: � Q �
� '`� ��'< ��� � �� ���'4�4� �" �, {L �► 0
" r,,, � � F- �
�`. � '�r` '�.� �.�r,`� 't*�` �� " ��r Z m
� � t�t;�������. � ,��, � � m �
' > � r ?"d"��. �
�„� �g �'��a�, ,+� � ! g" V 2
�r�"� s��§.-r � �k' .� � =� �
r� al��- ( ,;'t .� rn�, } -�. Z � � Z
��' ;��,� W C�
' ��, f � �;w � .� ;�- �,` W y
�, ��., , y
� � '� � � � ������ � � �� '�` F� `�� ' Q 4
' �
::�`` � `�' �' r � � � �,•.x � �
� �s �; .� � �' ,. " � � �.
.y � j '��� �� �y Q \
� �>.. � � � t �� a m
_ ���� ,� � ;� �:�� �� +� � � O�C
��� � � �: � �� �� � 3 a O�0
i - ' �� � � � �r �„�,� �,. �` , W �
.k �,� �� <�� � �,f � # �� ;� ������ � -' o v=i i�
� ~�; � �,��' �'� ;� �� � � � � � � y
h k��.. � �� �x �f, �f �� ; Q
' ef�� � � ;�.$. F. �� .;��.�� P. � ���T � �
�� �.f � ]b ��� r� �•�°� %
� � _ � ��'�' ,�' �� 3 C
��3% � �t;�� a I�
� "" � �.;,�, � �°,� �e�'� �` �;� p �
.�� �" ��� ,i 'a- OC �
�_ �� +»;. J �i;� �%:� � �' N C
� r'' � � � r;� � �
' �� f 9�-°� W W
x, � �' � �
� �` ,r, �` `#r,� ��, ,�. � ���e ,�g�,�,: �
' �€. � gy„, �M+',�F' .�,"r � aw`� � W
� �• � ��, H
i�rs
' � � ��� � J
� 1� �., '��j��.q �� .. Q
s ��-u� �i r �"�N,�.,��"'�yS°i ,T� �Rv� �.
� � ��a ���
' _ ��.. � ��,':��� �� � .$�
�� �' �'� ,
''kn z 9
�OU
' C7 U �
0�� ��j
Ho �z
�xw�
' il
- - ,
C�-/09'�
Alternati e D-6: Interchanqe with LaFayette Freeway Bridqe
Descri ti n•
This alte native would include an expansive interchange with the
LaFayette Freeway Bridge which crosses almost 60 feet above the
elevation of Warner Road (see Figure 8) .
, Fin�.
The conne tion, if it were feasible, would provide a very logical
connectio and avoid a significant amount of new construction.
However, everal deficiencies were found with such a connection.
( The ramps would be very long with sharp horizontal curvature and
steep gra es. The traffic volumes on the bridge would re
extra ram length for northbound and extra ramps for south ound
( connectio . Capacity for the increased traffic is not available
on LaFaye te Road or East Seventh Street. In addition, the cost
and phys cal appearance of the structure would surely be
� considere drawbacks.
Recommend ions•
Because o the •many deficiencies and drawbacks associated with
1 this alte native, it is recommended that it be eliminated from
�� further e sideration.
/
SEGMENT E: EAST CBD BYPASS CONNECTION TO LOCAL STREETS
� DESCRIPq'Ip OF SEGMENT -
This segme t of the East CBD Bypass relates to the connections to
r several C' y streets which cross the alignment of the B
These str ets are: East Kellogg Blvd. , East 7th Streetpaand
University I,aFayette.
� The City�s land use and street plans include these connections
between t e Bypass and City streets to provide access to a
largely un eveloped area on the eastern edge of downtown. The
� importance of this link is demonstrated by the fact that
approximat ly 11, 000 fewer daily trips would be attracted to the
Bypass if the connections to local streets were not provided.
� Therefora, it is concluded that if more connections provided,
better use benefits will result.
•
■
r
■
42
I
' . 4 � o
�� � .� �� a� � , .�;`� :�
� � �� �� �,�
.�„ 4 ,,�''' �` . � � .
' ('V ��� �i- .. � �;(,,�, ..a?s*+ „r !a ��� -�
i 1. • � �
� .
/
� �
E�
/ 'r'`
� - • � �� � ♦ ��, . . � � � � �i ���,.`q,
f� ��`:�� , ,i../�� a� •7��. .f� ��.� �-.Jo� .R.: � f�'4�� ,d
' � " .
--�t .�b.�� � ,i�!a
�" � .,�.__ ..� _ � .g �� �r�"• s� �. �
�� �,.; �`�„%��� �-,
; �� r, 4:i g ��. � ; � �� "'C�. ¢.�'��?*
/ *k l
� . �+�*�.. � ,�� � �,��f�� � �9� � *� � *� �� �:� �
, y , „
;i� � y.��, ay ~�� 's- �� �'� e� wf
d, '� � . : �• yi ��. �,� d' ',� �:ay , ;�' �.;.
� � .�%r" i�3 ` �.� � ` f, . .
� � ^ �'g � � ,� i° ° b�ir t� . r�' �,
��{ ��.n p, � � � "�
� 'L � F �� � ��x � �� '� � � `��
�
� � � ' �,.
���� �� ���3����f � ���� ;,��� :�� � z9�` � �� � - �
.� .�'+ b ^F�� ir `.;�"' ` � �y.� �.�.�, ���y�.,��'� .`�'���. i",
� `� �� "�h. �'t � ,_. ' ,� ��� �� d �.�..�v� ��.:��' � k� � �
' �i � p�s" :Y - -"��, � y�,.h �;�- s��� +s" ��,'t' �'',. �p�
' �' � �e ,�'� �.. '� �' ��.YV' w s�9�'� � �._ �- �S" ��'�
p � � � a� ����. .� � �� � �/," r.' *,� a.. -. -�.+�" r��
"� � � ' '� � �.� �� � � ' �� ',� '����
� � � '��� �; �� � � ��� � � �'
C `k�s.w ,,qs�+le �Y d '# �e �s� �� ;i ° f � � � � ,
� �TM+R,� ,� �L� � � � 9 ; Ms' �. • ��'.� '�,��,
W A � � ;d. � �t+ �� f'� � � .�" � �
aw�.�. � � � � x � �
h
<�.: �����tf y �� � �:.! �„� > � ����.. �s.�r'w'i °`°h .i�z�'���.a �:'�' � � �r'�,/d'b
, �f�"'"^'d�„ � ����� � �„ �$�°*� e� d �r� �� �%Tb.,
� '�� � '� ��+��m ' .�' � �>
.� �
� a'f�, '�� ��,� � '��' 3' ��w N a°st?I„`�� '��f �`� ,k„n �'� � ',
k ,��� F �'� �, • '� �, +�� ,r� frK a �,.. �y:r � � .� q� '°
' S��:y ''"`�r a�K""v r'�"� , z � # '�� � � ��s
, � �'4`�-.,yF u�� :r .�s ,_ � ., ����-+�rr.. ",�, �
� � � � ���� s-$ y�y t� .y�t �r�#r , `
,�- _ 3���.� � �.�+y�, �: � 1?^y �����: Y� � �„ �
� � ��� ��� �. �
r� � � ° �'`��:� �� � � ��� �.�` } ' �Aa�� � ���;
, �� `� ����� � �` # �������� � � � s� �°..
���� � �'���r �,� ?� , �� � � �3�����r � ��`r
.�;�^�. +�,,''� r r p. :� . f �p�: , , ,�,= � �. l
—�,,�.u: � '`* '��,�'"�%'� "' �
. �
' �
• ' M ti s s:, � u.�"•,�� ° �, ,
^"��, ,
�'` � � �, °°'�'Y . �
� ^ �„ :�, �a.� d.� i "" w
*�`� '� �W�!��� tp� � '�_:,��� � � , ; �- � � < -
° ;r^��� �r';,� x � ' �*�}.Szj � �, � a s.
� �� 'i"�'� � �� � , �.��� 'd<" ��� a %
3ii �
�.t.-....,,. ,y `.��. �� s�"""'^"'^�� f ,� � � �,
.w;.;.,s ,y �� .� �_, v.; � � ,�E1�""r°�ss+ o-ny�.s. r .�. �r•, u
'aea ��� w� `,�:
��..,, . r ;-„a•e
� �� ��� � " " ` l .� `�� �, .w s
, �� �- +r � �� :� `+w
� � �w�"'� '"� r Ks�' ;��
��, ,�, aa-3 , � �.. v+
� ;� _a,,,,.. x �s,.�, ��' s . � �"« ��� 'a�` � � �� �
";;� �� � , ��- c ��� �,,, y� ` �
��'� �
`�°��t h�;�..,a ���p'�r � ,f� � �„ '� ,^�.:: ,�g:y,�;�„s.�+r+ , t �� � ,�;
' � � -� � ��� �s
�3`'* ,�..��, �� � � � "�--- ,� ��� ��' 3 �
� re� � ��
°x ...j- � ��� � � �s � ��
�`�� ,,,,., a � �,:d � ,��"�6� �
y u.
�,, . . � �,
�r „�� , ��'µ ;� �y ��"` � �+�'� �,
.
' k��� - _�___
�, �
�
�.,�r'' - ,: "'� �
. V
� .=� , ,.��`� ' �', � _ �
_,
� � �' 4
� �_ �� �.B � ,
� � � �� �,;, ` � ; � -�
� ���a� �� �-.. � ' �:
: , ✓ -� � �C �, �. ,� � '
ALTERNATIVE E-1 ALTERNATIVE E-4
NO LOCA CONNECTIONS TO EAST CBD BYPA EXTENSION OF KITTSON TO BYPASS
�
STRGAR-
�,oS�oE- �� 9
' FAUSCH, �-s ".
�
INC. '°
'
� �_ ,a��
�
�
� Alterna ives E-3 and E-4: Local Street Extensions
Descri ion•
Both o these alternatives provide options for internal
' circula ion near the East CBD Bypass (see Figure 9) .
Findin
The Cit • is currently working on land use and street plans for
, this ar and will be making recommendations as to the internal
circulat'on needs.
, Recommen ation:
The inte nal street plan should be addressed separately from the
EIS proc ss. As this issue relates to .the connections with the
, Bypass, t will be addressed in the context of Alternatives E-1
and E-2. I
'
,
,
�
� �I
1
�
�
� I
�
�
,
�
1 I 45
�
�
��=��-�o��
� I
� SEGMENT F: EAST CBD BYPASS CONNECTION TO I-35E
� �
DESCRIP ION OF SEGMENT
� This se ent provides the link between I-35E (north of downtown
St. Pau ) and the proposed Bypass around the east side of the CBD
, which w 11 connect with Warner/Shepard Roads on the south. There
are sev ral active railroad lines throughout the area which would
require a grade separation at points where the Bypass crosses
them. his is of special interest for alternatives which extend
, to the orth of Pennsylvania to make their connection with I-35E.
Several bridges would be required to make such connections. The
Metropo itan Council has expressed concern about the potential
� impacts n the metropolitan highway system interchange spacing if
a new i erchange is proposed for this connection. The Minnesota
Departm t of Transportation has expressed concerns about the
1 capacit of I-35E and the Pennsylvania interchange to accommodate
the addi ional traffic.
�
, ALTERNAT VES ANALYSIS
Alternat ve F-1: Pennsylvania lnterchanqe
' Descri t on:
This al rnative would provide a connection o-f the East CBD
' Bypass t I-35E at the existing Pennsylvania interchange north of
downtown St. Paul (see Figure 10) . The praximity of this
intercha e to Mississippi Street, located east of the
intercha e, would necessitate relocation of Mississippi Street
' to provid adequate intersection spacing.
Findinas•�
The exist ng interchange on I-35E at Pennsylvania Avenue is in a
i location hat could accommodate the connection with the Bypass.
The inter hange was analyzed to determine whether its capacity is
adequate o accommodate the additional 20, 000 vehicles projected
' at this nnection due to the addition of the Bypass. It was
determine that minor modifications might allow the Pennsylvania
interchan e to accommodate the projected volumes at a Level of
� Service C However, more analysis will be required to determine
whether t is could be accomplished.
' Recommend ion:
This alte ative should be considered further in the EIS.
�
,
' 46
I
'
�?,��-�o��v
�
� - . � � , �� .�� .� �� � � � � f
� y�- � �� �� � �
;� �. � ��
r+4 � ..� �•' +;��r& , � . '� �, �.�, j
�° ��:`� p� �` � ��� �� '� x;� , � � ;� ,�i �r.-�: -a
� �' � y�� y P �a�
� r � , � a �� x ���# � '.- ���� t`. �.�,y� �,/ ��° � � � ���'
��.,- � „�4 �.. �' �4 � ���'� � �� � � ¢ ��
� � � �:� �
, j� �y �
s�� '' � � °:� � �z-� ��°�« � g��
, �� �'� ��;���..�` � � �� .�s¢ ,��
� � � � � � �
'�: i �.� ,, � "` � � �_�
' 4 �
a,, + �, �� � / r '���;� �
�..�:1a �.Y� �'� 9� W�
� ��� °q � ii, � �/ ,� � �� ,
� �' � �
� �+ re° 3" � �� �>,
"�`�-a � �s a,K � � � ,�, k� �� �'r ��
' � , �.�: � > r. ��r
,> ,�,�; � � � � . �
� �:
� � � � � � � �
���� � F ; �.� � r���a� � �
' �," � � � ��F ��v
, - y'-'t' ��,�.. �...:' '�. a�� �r�� +� �,� ;�� , `,��
.� � .,�` � ^�. �� . r�Y �'` � �
9, .� i:'< � �:t`. _•/ ,/ , ',�` `y"
'�., � � � � �, �r� � P�
, ��� ��g.?* �;a� i dr
�,.r..� � / , � � �-. �' � .. �a �.
�y� �' } 6 �
�1'Y' .{ . : ` IF �r, �^� _.� f.� ..rts'• �F. � % ... �.
� �. � �. � � ' ,
�.s� � � � �,� .� •� '�°-
l �,,,/� f ��'; ��, '� ..� �� � ��,`�
�`.� � � � � � :� d � �� � ���� � � �� �
� � �� � �� ����� , � ��� �� ��� � � � �� ��� �
..�'f�`! � �� �� ����^a. � ; ��i � ��.�71Y�;.h�� ,,�,,.�,_. Sf
� �� , _ � u , ����.� �� -, '�-.�_
' i '. �" "" r t�' `� t ",�` " .;. ��.'�,..�
•:�. "�=:
.
.,�Y
� � ��-�
' -" , �. �v` �. � .* , .�,
� �-�� �� � . � �'� �y ��t,,�; ,
F ��.'\ �' S� ..,. .. � 4': . ` � � � r �.., y{�;� F'':. .. !�r '�r °,� `.;�;: .
� ZJ�.` P �?'. � 7, .
�'�� 1'��•�,�i � +5 ��� � 4 ��� . Yt `_�.� Ya d"� .
' .„N I 'y )��� . .la� ' � .�� ! ;t � . ,� 1�.� �. O, �
i /' `� �j,
�t�/� .� �\ \1�'�ti�py q� '\„i�' R F .�' T', r�� �
..��pp�� \ t >5 ' �.1���.• � �� ��•
`�J� ` ` /� ! { N :.�' �,.._ � .i
' ` i } � •� . � '' -E." + , � ._
ALTERNATIVE F-1 ALTERNATIVE F-3
PENNSYLVANIA INTERCH COMBINED CONNECTION
'
'
'
STftGAR-
�.oS�oE- �'� 10
1 ���
FAUSCH, I ��
INC. I -
'
1 ���_�a9� _
'��
1
Alterna ives F-2 : Direct Connection to I-35E north
' of the Pennsylvania interchanqe
Descri ion•
' This a ernative would continue north of the Pennsylvania
interch ge and provide a free-flowing, direct connection of the
Bypass 'th I-35E (see Figure 10) . This would, in effect, create
' a new i terchange which may not be consistent with Metropolitan
Intercha ge Guidelines. In addition, several costly grade
separate railroad crossings would be needed for this
alternat ve.
, Findinqs
While e Pennsylvania interchange may be modified to
, accommod te the increased traffic, the Minnesota Department of
Transpor ation has some concerns about the capacity of the
freeway nd the interchange. Further study will be required to
, determin the most appropriate location for the interchange.
Recommen ation:
It is re ommended that this alternative be considered further in
, the EIS. I
Alternati� e F-3: Combined Interchanqe
, I
Descri ti n:
This alt native would provide a combination of Alternative F-1
and F-2 . This would allow free-flowing traffic from southbound
, 35E to th Bypass (see Figure 10) .
Findinas• II
' As dis�us ed in F-2, While the Pennsylvania interchange may be
modified o accommodate the increased traffic, the Minnesota
Departmen of Transportation has some concerns about the capacity
' of the f eeway and the interchange. Further study will be
required o determine the most appropriate location for the
interchan .
, Recommend ion:
It is rec mended that this alternative be considered further in
the EIS.
�
'
'
t
, 48
i
_ ���0y�
-
_ SUMMARY F SCREENING RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ECBD BYPASS
— Alternat ves recommended for further consideration
— NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNAT VE D-1: GRADE-SEPARATED CONNECTION OF THE EAST CBD
— BYPASS TO WARNER ROAD
� ALTERNAT E D-2 : AT-GRADE CONNECTION OF THE EAST CBD BYPASS
_ TO WARNER ROAD
� ALTERNAT E E-1: NO LOCAL STREET CONNECTIONS TO ECBD BYPASS
'- ALTERNATI E E-2: ECBD BYPASS CONNECTIONS TO KELLOGG, E. 7TH
—
AND UNIVERSITY/LAFAYETTE
_ ALTERNATI E F-1: CONNECTION OF BYPASS TO I-35E AT THE
EXISTING PENNSYLVANIA INTERCHANGE
�
_ ALTERNATI E F-2 : DIRECT CONNECTION OF THE BYPASS TO I-35E AT
A NEW INTERCHANGE NORTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALTERNATI E F-3 : COMBINED CONNECTION OF BYPASS TO I-35E
� Alternati es recommended for elimination from further
_ considera ion
� ALTERNATI E D-3 : AT-GRADE CONNECTION WITH LOCATION OF ROAD
AND TRACKS REVERSED
�
ALTERNATI D-4: BYPASS ALIGNMENT SHIFTED TO EAST OF TRACKS
— ALTERNATI D-5: BROADWAY/WALL ONE-WAY PAIR
� ALTERNATI D-6: INTERCHANGE WITH LAFAYETTE
ALTERNATI E-3 : EXTENSION OF LAFAYETTE TO BYPASS
a
ALTERNATIV E-4 : EXTENSION OF KITTSON TO BYPASS
�
49
�
�
� Yembere: `
CGITY UF 1��1I�7T PAUL cmr, Ni�o.u. ch.0 �/�G p_,—/���,j
���� Jsnlca Ra!lmaq t�i
OFFICIE OF THE QITy COIIN(7IL 7ohn Dr�w(Alt) °� a
Date: June 25, 1986
� � - Committee Re ort
p , .
. _ -
� To: Saint Paul City Council � .
� �I From: Committee on Public Works
Chris Nicosia, Chair
Thl Public Works Committee at its meeting of June 25, 1986 took the
fo lowing action:
, arin Date
1. 7/I/86 VACAT(ON: Petition of Space Center Inc. for the vacation
of part of Grove, Willius, Ninth, Eighth and the ailey in
Block 9, Kittsons Addition (bounded by Grove, Wiliius, /
John and Seventh Streets). Vacated area to be used for . �
commercial developmeht and parking.
Recommended approval.
2. 7/1/86 VACATION: Petition of the Space Center Inc. for the
vacation of part of Kenny Road between Lafayette Road and
Zoo Line Plat 8 for the purpose of commercial development
and parking.
Recortmiended approval.
3. /8/86 RATIFICATION OF ASSESSMENTS: For the Lowertown Project,
Street and Transit Improvements.
Recommended approval.
4. /8/86 RATIFICATION OF ASSESSMENTS: For the McAfee-Arlington
Storm Sewer Relief System. •
Referred to City Council without recommendation, public -
Ihearing to be continued on July 8, 1986.
5. /8/86 RATIFICATION OF ASSESSMENTS: For the Lowertown Area Storm
Sewer (Broadway-Sixth Storm Sewer) plus connections.
Recommended approval.
6. 8/86 F1NAL ORDER: Condemning and taking easements for the
purpose of constructing and maintaining a public sewer
on, under and across certain property (Edgerton Street
and Railroad property between Edgerton and Payne).
I Recommended approval.
7. ORDINANCE: Granting permission to Historic Landmarks for
Living to construct, operate and maintain a stairway with
handrails into the sidewalk on E. Sth Street between
Wacouta and Wall Streets.
Recommended approvai. '
8. ORDINANCE: Granting permission to St. Patrick's Church to
construct, operate and maintain telephone cable under and
across Desoto Street.
Recorrcnended ap�rova 1.
9. RESOLUTION: authorizing proper city officials to execute
stipulations as to the values reached between the Tewn
and Country Club and the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission regarding condemnation Df easements over Town
and Country Club property. The city is named as an
easement holder, howevet, the condemnations do not affect
any city interests.
Recommended approval.
� 10. SHEPARD/WARNER ROAD ECDB Bypass Alternative Screen Report
(first phase).
Recommended acceptance of above report presented by PED.
il. Other Business - RESOLUTION amending Capital Improvement
Budgets by transferring $725,401.73 from activities as
listed to Como Park Golf/Ski Clubhouse and Sitework.
Recommended approval.
C1TY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL,MINNESUTA 55102 612/298-4475
+�...
_ _ - _ _.._.,_ _ . ..._
:_._ .__
� �-����
"Y � !
i. - r�'+# '.,,dl s°Ar'°f'ay°"!i'1�t'S_���°�9lIC���� _�� _��`���^°:Y7 ��s'�r.'..3�:
i} �
/ � , .. �.,�?' ,.,t`;�' .4'� .. "' sd .=� �1a.,a+Hf ;..� �y a, �*'�'�+��`3Le��2'.�P,�,�.��`� ;
���8 �����.; v .$ ".YYN `1t,�3sic�4k'��Jtfs,T,�,�.'�t�a F�l�
j�1i `� � t1li ���� �``°'`I
_ : �<� '� x�
� �M�
�WIl�� ���,�<4'. �� t:r��z�x��^tet�estcr<��r�c�:.'��
� �'' �.f� �'!d tt F S .1 6 # ..
�.�' < `�{'A k:�.s � � �,�# .
� 1 R � J � ���„xWyiL� � 'i
1 . ` .q�w.,� �.'�k.:�!.r����� = L i.r'—.�� �ri'£ F`9 X �'t l Xk..,,1�:� �r4'�, �fI��_1''��.�#�
. ���4a1 �.ir .�4Y ; i. p�" '.p 1 r ,
. .f: 3, �$.�'.i�h'F#�r',�`�`i..."L'7`r'32-r;",
_ - _ . _ _ . r r�.-�
II
II
II
I
�u��'--/D> �
.
, �' . - � ��ar!^" .��.�}�. '�d 'i��_�.l Yf-� 'pi�s3��:^k.�£'4
. - , � \_.�. .. •{��i..C'u'�'1� f ?.'-��#�2}>�
�'�l�Q�-'�1� �.�— ' ,.-
. �'�1��ws. _�e .cit ��:i���i�� �aus C��f�� '� .X
. � �� • �- �� 1�As�6MMMAMI�'����' ��.
t�e� ,pury�ese o�t etrai��iin� t�►� . ll. ���feE;:ot .a� tfY s ,
ta�t�et�a�riiM�e�ti�ot?1ie.`i�M����` _r - �.k.�,'�.�,��.:��,:;�.��'��',
�. ,,,3 � �
����� _�°��`�'�� ,ts r�- :slt�����>"�4 .�f'X.`��`�# �5.��'.4 � �
c• .-�� '';�. r
�bNi''��RL��1E'PT R��'i�Y��ib 4. �
l9qeop �Iir Ha4iiart ios � .
eop
-,s{�;• ��. �-
� 1�..._
,
all
:� ,.� ,
�!'loor Ci
H
C�A p�ted�ty tbe Couacil�tme&�.�: :>�` "
Approved June 5.1�. _:, __.. ` � ,. , ;
� � � � � '� �td�e 14.,,�6? �3 ._ -_�.��, �_.� .� ���
I
.
�
.
I
� �
.
I