HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-12-27 CC Packet Special Meeting
-
e
-
r illwater
"~ -- ~ ~
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA ~
December 21, 1990
M E M 0
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
MARY LOU JOHNSON, CITY CLERK
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1990
This memo is a reminder to Council that a Special Meeting is scheduled for
Thursday afternoon, December 27, 1990, at 4:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of
City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street, Stillwater, Minnesota to discuss the
foll owing:
1. Unfinished Business.
2. New Business.
3. Any other business Council may wish to discuss.
CITY HAll: 216 NORTH FOURTH STillWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
e
OVER A CENTURY OF seRVICE
~
e
e
GAB Business Services Inc
9531 West 78th Street Suite 320
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Telephone 612-943-2307
FAX 612-943-2383
Claims Control Office
December 19, 1990
Attn: City Coordinator Nile Kriesel
City of stillwater
City Hall
216 North 4th st.
stillwater, MN 55082
GAB FILE NO:
INSURED:
CLAIMANT:
56542-07820
CITY OF STILLWATER
ROUSSEAU, ALAN/PATRICIA
Dear Mr. Kriesel:
This letter will formally acknowledge receipt of the
lawsuit filed in Washington County Dist. Court entitled,
"Allen and Patricia Rousseau, Plaintiffs, vs. Sweeney
Construction a/k/a/ Sweeney Construction Co., & Patrick R.
Sweeney and The city of stillwater, Defendants."
Pursuant to our telephone conversation of 12-18-89 I
advised you that I was assigning this case to the League
of Minnesota cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) inhouse staff.
Senior staff attorney, Tom Grundhoefer, will be assigning
this matter to his staff and they will be in touch with
you shortly. Their address is 183 University Ave., E.,
st. Paul, MN 55101. Counselor Grundhoefer's telephone
number is 612-227-5600.
This case is being handled pursuant to the coverages as
issued to the city of stillwater by the LMCIT under the
Covenant No. CMC9844-90 with a coverage term of 01-01-89
thru 01-01-90 on a claims made basis and a retroactive
date of 01-01-87. The Municipal General Liability
Declarations provides for a property damage liability
deductible of $5,000 per claim.
In general terms this lawsuit arises out of activities
with respect to a building permit issued to the Plaintiffs
back in 1988 and its subsequent revocation of that
building permit. It also pertains to an apparent
agreement entered into the city of Stillwater, the Dept.
of Natural Resources in an effort to resol ve a dispute
which apparently has become a lawsui t. As you and I
discussed it appears that State Farm Mutual Insurance
Company was the first party insurer of the Rousseaus and
56542-07820
-2-
12-19-90
e
that they are br' nging a subrogation action for damages
which they paid u der their policy of insurance issued to
the Rousseaus. A parently Plaintiffs' home was damaged by
water during the onstruction process of their home.
I would ask that ou advise your city officials to refrain
from discussing t e subject matter of this litigation with
anyone other than representatives of GAB or the LMCIT. I
would also ask hat you forward to us any processes
received in this atter as soon as possible.
In the event
us.
ould have any questions, kindly contact
Sincerely,
DG:KAR
CC: Attn: Rob M Garry
McGarry Kear ey Agency
243 South Ma'n st.
Stillwater, 55082 e
CC: Attn: David Magnuson, City Attorney
Attorney at aw
324 South Ma'n st.
stillwater, 55082
CC: LMCIT
e
~. .
MAGNUSON & MOBERG
ATIORNEYS AT LAW
e
THE GRAND GARAGE & GALLERY 324 SOUTH MAIN STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082
David T. Magnuson
J ames I. Moberg
Mr. Nile Kriesel
Stillwater City Coordinator
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Re: Joint Cable Commission
Dear Nile:
Telephone: (612) 439-9464
Telecopier: (612) 439-5641
December 18, 1990
Enclosed is a copy of the letter I received from Mark Ayotte with
regard to the Joint Cable Commission.
I do not think that we are in disagreement with Mark, and my
advice to Stillwater has been, and continues to be, that our duty
to Ann Bodlovick is to provide defense and indemnification.
Perhaps the council wishes to discuss this so they can direct me
to give assurances to Mark Ayotte.
e
Call if you have any questions.
DTM/ch
Enclosure
e
Yours very truly,
~
David T. Magnuson
,_ \9J~~
f") \-'
~t~C. .~
e
e
e
;.
LAW OFFICES
BRIGGS AND
MORGAN
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
2200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
I; : ~ oj I
L . ,
...
<!j"lt't
~ ~ ".--,: :}.~ :
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
TELEPHONE (612) 291-1215
TELECOPIER (612) 222 -4071
INCLUDING THE FGRMER FIRM OF
LEVITT, PALMER, BOWEN, ROTMAN & SHARE
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER,
223-6543
December 6, 1990
David T. Magnuson
stillwater City Attorney
suite 260, The Grand Garage and Gallery
324 s. Main street
stillwater, MN 55082
Mark J. vierling
Oak Park Heights City Attorney
1835 Northwestern Avenue
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dwight P. Cummins
Bayport city Attorney
Cummins, Gervais & Associates
Professional Building, suite 101
363 5th Avenue North
Bayport, MN 55003
RE: Davis v. Central st. Croix Valley Cable
COlnmission. et al.
Gentlemen:
I have undertaken to review the resolutions adopted by Bayport
and Oak Park Heights and the meeting minutes for stillwater
concerning the above-captioned matter. As you know, the Commission
and the individual directors had submitted a request to the Member
cities for indemnification and defense pursuant to Minn. stat.
9466.07, Subd. 1. The statute requires a municipality to defend
and indemnify its elective and appointive officers. In my view,
the statute provides for an absolute and unconditional obligation
on the part of the Member cities to defend and indemnify the
individual commission representatives in this action.
2270 MN WORLD TRADE CENTER
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA MIDI
1612) 291-121~
2200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SAINT PAUL, MIN1'/ESOTA ~~101
(612) 291-121~
2400 IDS CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MIN1'/ESOTA ~15402
1612) 339-0661
BRIGGS AND MORGAN
December 6, 1990
Paqe Two
The actions tak n by the Member cities simply agree to advance
to the commission prorata share of defense costs subject to
reimbursement from he Commission. I wish to emphasize that the
Commission and the i dividual directors are extremely grateful to
the Member cities fo their assistance. However, the action is not
fully responsive to the request for defense and indemnification.
The absence of any a knowledgement on the part of the Member cities
to agree to indemnif the individual Commission representatives has
caused a fair degree of confusion and disconsternation on the part
of the affected indi iduals.
While I contin e to believe that the individual commission
representatives wil be dismissed from this litigation, I would
encourage each of yo to request action from the City councils for
a clear acknowledgem nt of their statutory obligation to indemnify.
In the absence of ac ion by the Cities, I simply wish to inform you
that the Commission and the individual Commission representative
wish to reserve the'r right to seek indemnification in the future
in the event person 1 liability is determined.
The only remai
three Member Ci tie
commission for the
directly to the Co
commission should su
the remaining admin
will be best left t
ing matter relates to the manner in which the
wish to arrange for the advances to the
defense costs. My billings will be sent
ission. Please advise me as to whom the
mit its request for the advance. I trust that
strative matters relating to the advancement
be worked out among yourselves.
Thank you for our continued assistance. If you should have
any questions, plea e feel free to contact me.
MJA:bjb
ltkJ~~
cc: Chairman Jacly Ulrich
.1.,
e
e
e
~
WASHINGTON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
GOVERNMENT CENTER
14900 61ST STREET NORTH. P.O. BOX 6 . STILLWATER. MINNESOTA 55082..Q006
Office: 612/779-5445 Facsimile Machine: 6121779-5498
Code Enforcement/Building Permits: 612/779.5443
Mary Luth
Public Health Director
Rose Green
Office Manager
Doug Ryan
Environment/Land Use
Division Manager
Karen Zeleznak
Community Health
Division Manager
December 13, 1990
James W. Kinder
11591 McKusick Rd. N.
Stillwater MN 55082
Dear Mr. Kinder:
e
I am writing to confirm our next meeting to discuss the Minnesota
Transportation Museum rail line issues. The meeting will be
Thursday, January 1 0 at 7: 00 PM. We can meet in the Publ ic
Health Department on the 4th floor.
As we discussed over the phone, the meeting will have two main
purposes. The first is to develop a complete list of the issues
as the citizens see them. The second is to discuss the
circumstances under which your group feels continued operations
of the trains would be appropriate.
Following our meeting I plan to sit down.with representatives of
the Transportation Museum to inform them of your concerns and
suggestions for appropriate operating conditions. A decision on
holding a third meeting with all parties involved will depend on
the degree to which a common solution appears likely.
It is my hope that these meetings will move us in the direction
of a compromise that all parties can be satisfied with. In
February I will report back to the Planning Advisory Commission.
As you recall the Commission will also provide time for input
from the citizens and museum representatives during the February
meeting.
e
Washington County does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin,
sex, religion, age or handicapped status in employment or the provision of services.
~
. 6'
: ~:
, ~
... ...t
".. ...
. ...'"
........
~.. --;,:':;!".
.)~i
~
Feel free to cont ct me if you have any questions or concerns
prior to our meeti g.
Sincerely,
~q RtM1
Doug RY~
Environment and La d Use Division Manager
cc: Mary Luth, P blic Health Director
Jack Tunheim, Planning Commission Chairman
Dennis O'Donn 11, Land Use Specialist
John Diers, M'nnesota Transportation Museum
Gary Erichson, Grant Township
Pat Bantli, S illwater Township
Mary Lou John on, City of Stillwater
.
.
e
e
e
e
e
e
1.
"
L. .
3.
I..EGISLATIVE UPDATE
STILl.WATER-HOULTON RIVER CROSSING STUDY
December, 1990
STATUS REPORT ON EIS PROCESS
--Where have we been?
--Why was decision delayed?
--Where are we now?
---Where are we going?
MOST IMPORTANT PROCESS ISSUES
--Non-proliferation/The Existing Bridge
---RecreationaJ River Classification
--Water Resourr.es Project
--Urban Growth, Developmen~, and Sprawl
NEEDS AND CHALLENGES
--Improving Agency Relations
--Reducine Lawsuit Potentia]
--Development Moratoriums
4.
Ins PROCESS STEPS: An Overview
--Problem Identification
--Scoping
--Special Studies
--Draft. EI S
--Meetings/Location Hearing
--BUII~ & Location Decision
--Bridge Design Process
--Roadway Design Process
--Design Hearing
--Final EIS
10/85
1/87
1988/89
3/90
4-5/90
12/90
1 to 10/91
1 to 10/91
12/91
2/92
5.
FINAL EIS/MASTER PLAN OVERVIEW
Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway
(Blue)
(Blue)
(BJue)
(YelJow)
(Green)
e
GRANT
TOWNSHIP
e
.
STILLWATER - HOULTON RIVER CROSSING
CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT
DECEMBER, 1990
-,
,
,
,
\
,-- -----
srlLLH~TER
~
I
I
I
I
I
-'
--_\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,_ - - - __ - - ___.- - I
il
, ,
I'
I '-,
, .....
<t) 1\
~ IZ\
~. 0\
</.}. ~\
O' z\
Xl
CJ)
~
~
-'>';
irl
iuJ
,_----0:
, (!}
,
-,
\- -' ,
, ,
, I
\
,
,
,
,
INTERCHANGE LOCATION STUDIES
. . ~ ~ . . ~ .
..'
e
e
e
L
STATUS
STILLWATER-HOULTON RIVER CROSSING STUDY
STATUS/ISSUES/NEEDS
December. 1990
A. Re.Y.i~w:__.whe_r'_e...__bay~we_JL~~n'?
B.
Draft EIS location phase now complete. BUILD
conclusion made. and preferred corridor alignment
identified for design development.
Why was decision postponed frQlIl July untilJ)~-.CeJIlber?
River management agencies (DNR1s, NPS, and Boundary
Area and Management Commissions) felt that NO-BUILD
analysis was not adequate. Primary comments were: bRD
trucks, divert traffic to other crossings, and make
changes in St.illwater to handle the traffic across the
existing bridge. Four discussion meetings were held,
and Mn/DOT agreed to provide additional level of
analysis detail. Three comprehensive reports were
prepared and dist.ributed to the agencies:
1. "Trucks in the Stillwater Area"
2. "Stillwater-Boult.on Traffic Diversion
Research and Discussion"
3. "An Analysis of Transportation System
Management (TSM) in Downt,own St.i llwat,er"
c.
~lha~jl.J.lL_ha-I?,P-.e.n_n.Qw3.
Design development, begins. Major commitment to public
and agency involvement. Three focus areas are:
J. TH 36 between TH 5/Co. Rd. 5 and the river.
Number of interchanges, and locations.
Business accessibility--incl. frontage
roads, visibilit.y, and acquisitions.
40 to 60 residential relocations.
Business access while under construction.
2. Bridge type/design selection: Consultant.
Process similar to Smith Ave. High Bridge.
Landmark or blend in.
Aesthetic treatment.
Number of piers.
Cost.
3.
Environmental impact summary:
- Looks like wetland impacts can be avoided.
Looks like pond can be constructed to
handle bridge deck drainage and hazardous
spill potential--an improvement, over
existing conditions.
D.
Sche.d:u]e-
The bridge
process wi
alternativ
presented
December,
nnalyzed a
final EIS-
acquisitio
Constructi
Staged con
possibilit
1 I. ISRues
Higgins Eye Pearly Mussels (Clams) will be
avoided or relocated. No other endnngered
species or wildlife impact,s anticipat,ed.
Air quali ty improvement; will occur wi th new
bridge.
e
a t w..Lll_h~.n-D.e.xt?
and approach highway design development
I take approximately ten months. The
s and the results of analysis will be
t a Design Public Hearing--approximately
991. Public and agency comments will be
d final decisions will be documented in the
approximately April, 1992. Right-of-way
could begin shortly thereafter.
n on the project could begin in 1994.
truction occurring over several years is
, depending on funding.
A . tLQIL:--1W9l_Lf. T-B..t_Lo n....:_th fl_J':Z t..Q.:t;jng J3rJ....dg e
The river
and Scenic
limit the
J972. At
bridge is
removed.
DOTs and t,
agree with
e
anaging agencies have interpreted the "Wild
Rivers Act" as providing the aut,horit,y to
\~ber of bridges to what was in-place in
tillwater-Houlton, this means if a new
onstructed, then the existing bridge must be
'his now seemB to be the primary issue. 111e
e Federal Highway Adminintration do not
this interpretation.
The posi ti n of the DOTs is t.hat the new and the oj d
bridges ar, separate issues. The disposition of the
existing hridge will be determined through a separate
public decision-making process that will occur when the
bridge becomes potentially unsafe. At that time, the
DOTs will seek local ownership of the bridge.
Considerations include:
1_ The condition of the bridge is not the
tran.portation problem. The location of the
corridor is the problem being addressed.
The ridge is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
- As owners of the bridge, the OOTs are oblignted
to explore ways to preserve it.
The W/S Rivers Act. contains provi sian to ensurr~
the preservat.ion of hist.oI'ic resources.
TIl. Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office
su ports its preservat.ion.
2.
e
e
3.
Bridge would continup. to providp. loca) traffic
benefits to downtown Stillwater, and would provide
access to Kolliner Park acrosn the river, which is
owned by Stillwater. Stillwater would like to
explore options to keep bridge_
B. R~~ea~iQnQLJGla.QQificati~QD
The WjS Rivers Act identified three river segment
classification designations: Wild, Scenic, and
Recreational. The Lower St. Croix from the
Washington/Chisago County line to its confluence with
t,he Mississippi is classified as "recreationaL" The
river managing agencies have interpreted the
classifications as only describing the extent of
development, at the t,ime of designation--all
classifications are to be treated the same. The
DOTs/F1-JWA feel that thp. classification was intended t.o .
identi fy the import.ant, segment, value (Wild, Scenic. or
Recreational), with different levels of development and
controls. Legi slat.ion di d not, intend to prohibit
necessary infrastructure improvements.
e
A kp.y statement from a Legislative History review of
t.he W/S Rivern Act includes:
"A t.hirn principle embodied in H_R. J8260 is its
recogni lion that. different streams need to be
pcrLLecJ,t~sLfJ).LJiifLe.I'.fllit.J'.e.ft50nJ~. Some deserve
protection solely for their value as completely
nat,ural streams _ Q.thex.s defiEirV!L.I?rotect_imJ
bee.Quse _Q.f the_I'_e..G r~a t j9D-<;j,L_~QI:J..JU:ti.t._ie.Qi.heJ
Q.ffoTd_. In some inst;anGe these two ob~iectives may
be compatible, in ot.hers they will be
:i ncompat.i ble. LL_ iG._fQ..r_thi.~e..fl.son_thaLJLJi~
18260_.'p;r:'Qy-id(~J;Lf.Qr.-C.tg~pi fyJ.J:u;.-.-t.be s.treams
in~l1.l...d.e.d-.lii thi.lL-the system bv tyru;:-9.Dd for making
pla.I1s...L..or-.their de.yelopment or lack of development
.aCQ.ord..i.MlY... "
C _ W.ate~Re_sources Pro'; e.~tQ
A key segment (Sec_ 7.(a)) of the W/S Rivers Act
contains the following statement:
e
.. . . _ and no department or agf:U1QY of the United
States shall assist by loan, grant, license, or
otherwise in the construction of any ~stk~L
re.QP.JJrQ..!~Jl....PJ'Dj.eC.t that would have a direct and
adverse effect on the values for which such river
was est.Cibl ished, a~et_e.r.IDinB_d_..bY_t.hfL.S.e_cre.:t,.6rY
charge(L~j.J-,,-b_itJL_adID..ini.sj:a::.a.t.i.QD - ..
The river
statement
t,hf'! Depar
making au
proposal.
the EIS p
Environme
process c
managing agencies have interpreted this
to provide the National Park Service, through
ment of the Interior, with final decision-
hority over any development or infrastructure
The DOTs/FHW/\ do not agree, and feel that
ocess, as established by the National
tal Pol icy Act, is the designat,ed publ ic
arged with transportation decision-making.
e
A key sta ement from a Legislative History review of
the W/S Rivers Act includes:
"The term ~wat.er resources project, ~ as used in
this section (7.a) should be broadly construed to
incl de any project that iID~undQ, diverts and
reJ~l.,L 11.8, or otherwise llt,i I izes wate:r: in the river
for arious purposes with Federal assistance or
unde a licr-mse thRt~ cou] d direct] y affect the
ri.ve .
Congressiona~Jecord - S.pna~-9/26/f)b
The river manRging agencies have interpreted the
construction of a bridge pier to be a water resources
project. They have also interpreted a "license" as
includj ng dredee and fill permi ts, and wat,er qual i ty e
certifiea ions. Their position is that unless the
existing ridge is removed, the construction of a npw
river era. sing will not be allowed. The agencies have
int,erpretfd their environmcmLal responsihilities and
aut,hari ti s very broadly, wit.hout ot;her agen(~y and
pub] ic dL eusslons.
D . Grnwt,lL_I2' .Y.e.LQ.P1!1f~n.L_ QI}~LSillJ.'.{iWJ
It is the position of Mn/DOT that it is unreasonable to
perpetuat" unsafe and ineffici.ent transportation
facilitie. in order to cont,rol growth and development.
Mn/DOT su ports good comrmmi ty comprehensive planning
and zonin controls to provide orderly and well thought..
out devel pment guidelines and controls. The river
managing gencies, along with the State transportation
agencies, should be contributors to those discussions.
III. NEEDS DISCUSSI N
While a lot of
Stillwater-Hou
effort. sti 11 a
wOl1Jd have to
int~er-Agpncy c
and 2.) the po
study and research has been completed on the
ton River Crossine EIS, therA is considerahle
ead of us. 1~0 specific areas of concern
e L) qua] i ty improvement effort aimed at
D'L"Tlunic<:lt,ion, coor'dinat j on, and cooperat, ion,
.ential for lawsuits or procedural challenges.
e
e
Both of these concerns seem to t.ie in wi th two stat,emfmtn
made by Governor-Elect. Carlson: 1.) "Hands-on" management of
St,ate agen~ies, and 2.) Fiscal responsibility. There is an
opportunity to address the above at, Stillwater-Houlton:
A. Impr":'9vi.ng~ncv relationships
Need to place high priority on initiating and
facilitating multi-agency discussions leading to mutual
understandings of roles, responsibilities, and
authorities. No individual agency is entirely right or
wrong. Its more a matter of highly dedicated,
functionally organized departments of State government
that work hard, but tend to narrow the scope of work
within their own specialized areas of expertise. The
effect. of this on the public can be reviewing delays,
strained relations among the agencies and their staffs,
and between the public and St~at.e government in general-
-and higher costs. A more whol istic State government,
customer service approach is appropriate and timely.
High level leadership is neeoe in this area.
B.
Re.J~.lJ.h.irllLJK> t e.Il~ i a 1 f QI:...J n'tlS.lJj,_t B
e
If State agencies can form improved relationships based
on a higher level of mut,ual understanding and
cooperation, t~hat. will present a more united front. to
t,he public and special concern groups. This wi 11
greatly reduce the likelihood of special interest or
"surrogate" lawsuits and save public funds. At
Stillwater-Houlton the likelihood of lawsuits based on
differing interpretations and misperceptions of
environmental rules, regulRt,ions, and law is, in our
opinion, quite high.
St,ate government, should be able to get things done
be~a,1JJ2~ of multi-agency involvement, rather than in-
spite of that involvement.
C.
~ve)~ment Mo".r.atorium
e
A larger, on-going need which is also a concern at
Sti llwat,er-Houl ton relat,es to the commercial
development of corridors RS design development is
occurring. While municipalities seem to have the
authority to declare moratoriums, they seldom use it.
The DOTs do not have the authority. Seems to require
legiAlative discussion and posAible Met Council
involvement. The tough question is: should property
owners hRve to pay taxes on property when their use of
that property is severely restricted?
STILLWA ER-HOULTON RIVER CROSSING STUDY
ENV RONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PUB IC DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
e
DECEMBER, 1990
MAJOR STAGE IN 1rlli ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY PROCESS
Trans t~n Problem Ide~tiIi~ati~n
Relying on technical transportation criteria including accident
history and congesti n levels, Mn/DOT and Wisc/DOT initiated
Environmental Impact Statement study process.
Document: Draf.t Stl1.d Ou l' ne and ScopiOK.J)..9.-C.1lID.ent, 10/85
SJ~oping-ProceQ..$
Purpose of the scopi g process is to solicit agency and public
participation in ideltifying study alternatives and important
social, economic, an
pot,ential impact; to
Stut~cmcr1t _ l!hree St
for further si,udy: t
the South Corridor.
included: recreation
agricultural, social
natural resources, t
air quality. A Rive
appointed representa
environmental concerns and areas of
e discussed in the Environmental Impact
]lwater CBD bypass corridors were identified
e North Corridor, the Central Corridor, and
Important areas of potential concern
1 use of the river and aesthetics, economic,
historical and archaeological, energy use,
reatened and endangered species, noise, and
Crossing Task Force was formed made up of
ives of the eleven area communities.
e
Document: Sc.Q-PinLIle. huon DOmJIDent. and Fl.D.p_LSt_u~..Y-.ilixtlinf2, 1/87
S.:m~.G.i1L~D.Y.i r-.Onm.entAl._~S t lJd:v Phase
Special environmenta st.udies were conducted for each of the
important concern ar,as identified during the scoping process.
In addition, studies were also conducted for river tunnels and
tunnel construction, and a special report was completed which
summarized river imp cts. Section 4(f) Evaluations were also
conducted for the ri erway, Mile Long Island, and Kolliner Park.
The studies were rev.ewed by the River Crossing Task Force,
participating agenci .s, and special concern groups. Several
alignments and locat'on options were developed to address review
COIT@ents and concern~_ Important factors identified concerning a
new river crossing i eluded: height, grade, appearance, color,
bluff impacts, piers aesthetic treatment, and cost.
e
e DOCUIDfmts: E,CQDQTP,j c-Isf;HJeS alJ<l_IITlP-Clc.J<-Q; ThT'_f;"~i;Ltfim}iL..mtd_EndB.J"lgeJ'ed
S.P..e.J~j...eS; KatllI:.~ L__Be.J;tQltrC_~LIr)ppc..t_Q; .Rp",,-c.rELa.ti.QJ}il~~Up.P<....D_f
St",,-CJ::Qj~cJltY~r; WiJd_.....QDd ScJ.;~ni c River lmp~ctq; ViLtlJal
I_IDP.rlJ';j~Q; Sn!2iaJ-IIDPnCt..C;;; .Energy....J1s.e-"-_NQ.ise ...._Qnd_..Aj_r
Aj.:r:_Ql.laJi.ty_l...IDp...acts; Agr...ic_u 1 tura 1 I sSUe..5 _-"3,I}cL..IIDIW...ct.s ;
H....i..Qt()r.i.c.a_L~n.d .Ar.cha e_o 1 Og i ca l-Reso1lI:.C_e-1ID.I?Q,c.ts ; and
RQtllL.amLJ>.Q1JJ.h_CQr.ti.O.o..t'_J\ln.nel Impacts. 1988/1989
~a f.1-_Eny i r on.Jl1e n tal I mllil.c..:t S.t:..a tem,en t
tit
1bis document marks the formal conclusion of the location
information gathering fmd analysis phase. Purpose of document is
to stat,e transportat.ion need, describe BUILD and NO-BUILD
alternatives, describe affected environment, and to summarize t,he
pot,enti n 1 transportat.i on, social, economic, and env ironmenta1
consequences of the alt.ernat.ives. This is a BUILDING-BUILD and
location specific document only. Limited design details were
present,cd. The process dec ision-makers were the Commissi oner of
t.hp Minnesot,a Dppartment of Transportation and the Secretary of
the Wi.sconsin Department of Transportation. Their charge was to
arrive at. a conclusj on representing the best overall public
interest based upon a balanced consideration of the need for safe
and efficient transportation, and the socia], economic, and
Rnvjronrnent.aJ effects of the alLernatives. With a BUILD
conclu,sion. a corridor wns a1Ro sf:lect.ed for design dE~ve)opment..
Document.s: D-r_Qft_..Enyi r_QxlJJl.e..nllJ~I..mp..!;1..-C_t S:tca:t~mp~nt, inc) uding
Sect. ion 4 (f) Evaluations for t.he Lower St.. Croix Scenic
Riverway, Mj)e Long Island, and Kolliner Park, 3/90
.cQIDu.runit..Y_.1nLQ.~.rn.gti PDq, l__M~.~tj.D.iLC;;
After the public had an opport.uni ty to review the draft
Environmental Impact Statement and other related document,s,
Mn/DOT and Wisc/DOT held informational meetings in the area
during April, 1990. The purpose of the meetings was to provide
opportuni ties for t.he public t.o ask questi.ons and to receive
additional information prior to the Location Public Hearing.
I&.c.a.tj.~lbl.ic Hearing
e
A public hearing was held in Stillwater, Minnesota and St.
Joseph, Wisconsin during May, 1990. The purpose of the hearing
was to receive formal public and agency comments and
recommendations concerning whether the conclusion of the study
process should he BUILD or NO-BUILD. If t.hat, conclusion was
BUILD, then the public and agencies were asked to recommend a
corridor for furt,her deve] opment.. Aft,er aU comment.s were
evaluated, a decision was announced in December, 1990.
e
If t,he decision waul have been NO-BUILD. then the st,udy process
would have concluded. Wi t,h a BUILD decision. the design st,udies
phase begins wi~hin he selected corridor. After approximately
one year and conside able opportunities to participate in the
design development., he publ i c and participating agencies will
again be asked to co ment and make recommendations concerning
design Jevel details at a Design Public Hearing.
~j)~..igu---5cl..e.~t_i.QD_IT.Q~eBJ?
A hridge engineering consultant, Short, Elliott, and Hendrickson,
Inc., has been hired to provide the technical evaluations, and to
prepare graphic repr sent.ations of the bridge type alternatives.
The selection proces will consist of four major elements:
1.) Research a d information presentation.
The consul ant will conduct research to identify
examples 0 . river crossings that have been construct.ed
in enviro lent-ally sensitive locations t,hroughout the
world. A lids presentation will be presented to
varhHlS pu Jj c and agency groups to soli cj t bridge type
ideas for onsideration at Stillwater-Houlton.
2.) I dent.j fica~ i on and Pre 1 iminary Analysis.
Select sev.ral bridge types recommended by various
audiences, prepare graphic representations within St..
Croix settng, form evaluation criteria based on
j oentj fied concerns and needs as contri buted fron,
agency and public audiences, and conduct preliminary
engineerin anRlyses and CaRt estimates.
':l \
,j - .I
Present.at.i
PreRPnt, co
and public
three to
4 _ )
DetaiJed A
Prepare co
type alter
graphics
audiences,
select.ion.
e
n of Preliminary Findings_
elusions of preliminary analyses to agency
audiences, and solicit recommendations for
x best bridge types for detailed analysos.
alysis and Selection.
puter simulation graphics of final bridge
atives. Conduct detailed analyses, present
d analysis conclusions to agency and ~lblic
and solicit recommendations for final
Road a Desifm DevelQI?IDent ProceQ~
Concurrent with the
Wisc/OOT will facili
residenb3 and busine
include the business
ad,i acent to Hou] t.on
neighborhood in Oak
discussion meetings
concerns relating to
ridge Design Selection Process, Hn/DOT and
ate a participation process with area
s owners. The areas of primary focus
communi t.ies along T. H. 36 in Minnesot.a, ann
n Wisconsin, and the large residential
ark Height.s, MinnesotR. Several public
ill be conducted to solicit needs and
design development..
e
e
e
e
De s..iillL2:uJ) Ii c HBating
The conclusions of the Bridge Type Selection and Highway Design
Development processes will be presented at a Design Public
Hearing to occur at the end of 1991. Final agency and public
comments will be solicited.
Eina.l.-.EDvlronmentJi.lJmpact Stat,ement
This final public environmental study report will be prepared to
document all information gathered, and the conclusions made
during t,his comprehensive public decision-making process. The
focus of the final EIS will be on describing and discussing the
potential impacts of the preferred Rlternative, and proposed
mi t,igat.ion m8asures to reduce unavoidabl e negative impacts_
e
LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY
FINAL EIS/MASTER PLAN
August 18, 1975
The proposed master
TayloY's Falls and th
~he remainder as rec
legislation, it reco
Riverway between Tay
Stillwater, and admi
remainder (River CIa
f the Proposal
is that of approving and implementing a master
eveloping, managing and guiding use of the Lower
enic Riverway..__
L
Page 1: Description
"The proposed action
plan for acquiring,
St. Croix NationalS
Ian classifies the 10.3 miles of river between
Chisago-Washington county line as scenic, and
eational. In accordance with the authorizing
mends Federal administration of the 27 miles of
aI's Falls and the northern city limits of
istration by the respective states of the
si ficati on) _
2.
Page 1: Project Back~round
. . _ In 1964, an in-de t,h study report prepared by the Lake Centred
Regional Task Force iroup of that team emphasized protection of the
St. Croix and Nameka on above Taylors Falls, but noted the outstanding
gua] ity of the recre tion resQurce represented by the St,. Croix_below
TayLQrfl__Falll2 and re ommended that appropriate measures to protect it
be taken.
e
3. Page 5: Purpose and anagement Objectives
The major purpose 0 the proposed master plan is to ba~pnce tbp~~~~d
faJ'_..I'_ecye.Q..tional use oL-.t]}e area a~ainst the objective ~_e_peJ'JTi_n.g
thJLnat.ural-yal.JJe..s. Lthe_a_r...e.a~ Thus, the overall goa I of the plan is
to preserve the exi ting scenic and recreational resources of the
Lower St. Croix thr ugh control of development and use.
Major management objectives required to attain this goal include
coordination and co peration among the National Park Service,
Minnesota, Wisconsi and existing local governments in planning
community developme t, recreational facilities and historical
interpretation; in reservation and conservation of the riverway by
pr..Qridinf! order Iv d velopment and limiting new recreationaL..a~~s~;L!'.9
gyoid exc~~ding~he carrYi~_cQP9~itv of the rive~, and in encouraging
the private sector 0 provide recreational opportunities within and
outside the riverwa boundaries in such a way that pJ.~ned__de~lQpID~nt
w.i~b.E;LQ.QIDP_a_t_iblE"<- . i:t.h..-t.hEL.Yftl_Le'y~g~lll'~c.har:ac..t~..r . Manilgp.men t ..
will be based on th concept thilt the area can only partially be .,
protected by the Fe eral and State governments and thus the effort to
protect the basin r quires the support of all levels of government and
of the private sect r if it is to succeed.
e
e
e
4. Page 6: Project Boundaries
Encompassed within the boundaries of the project are ~h~_Qt~~__bJ~JL5~
.eb.Q.r..e.lin~pJ._aIJ.ds_and~~---5t_ Croix Rive..u~Q.~d wit.hj~
vi~ual corridQr a~~en by a river UQ~~_
The joint National Park Service-Minnesota-Wisconsin master plan calls
for tWJ,LJii.Qtinct manaf!ement and devel..QP.ment....J;;.ectionQ within the 52
mile riverway. With the exception of .State properties, .the northern
27 miles from Taylors Falls to the northern city limits of Stillwater,
Minnesota, would be administrated by the National Park Service. .. l'hi~
2Lmi..l~-Eftd..eral . seEID..en"t....Q.fjb.e Lower S.~oi.xJlould be . administ1:a.teg
as~Di.str~~t of tb~t_ Cr~ix National Scenic Riverway, which was
designated as one of the eight original National Wild and Scenic
Rivers by the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
As a result, 227 miles of the St. Croix Riverway system would be in
Federal control. Thj;LS.QJ,;Ithern 25 mi~_Qfthe svstem. includ.eJ:t-1n_..the
Luwe_r.._.s..t~_CrJLi~i ve_r..'tmy. WQl1-1cLbe mana~edby the. States. of · Minnesot.g
and-.Wi_m~...Qn sin....
5.
Page 8: Land Acquisition and Zoning
The purpose of the joint Federal-State management and development plan
would be the :m:-eservatiu.p of~j~sting scen~nd re~reQ..t..iol']gl
reJ;;_Q:U~GJ~_a...Q.f..-I.he....Lo..Y1~~St ~ Cro..i~LJSj v.e...r_~hI:Q]J~~n t rQll.e.d_d..eyclm?.ID~ll~ .
C(ultrQJ.__QL__l.and....JJsj~......Q,nd._~:te_v~men t. wi.t.hin..--andjl,dj acen:L1LO- thfi.
rive r~ay__bol.l nd a1::.ie fLWO.U 1 d.-.be__ft.c.c.omplishe.d_b..Y__..f.est..and _sc_en.i c..__e i?.fleJn17.:JJ t
aG.9.u_is.it.i_QILalld_..t.hrQ:yglL_1QQ..a_l_~..~mj~Dg _Q.r.d.inanc..e s~
6. Page 13: Development and Management
The proposal recommends little development. Camping would occur in
existing State parks and in private campgrounds, with additional
camping areas suggested outside the boundary_ Private enterprise
either within or out.side the pro.iect area would provide food, lodging
and other business services to visitors.
Continued use of adjacent lands for forest and farmland would be
encouraged to maintain the character of the region.
7_ Page 2'7: The Region
However, the region impacted by the proposed action is much more
limited than that included in the four planning regiono. The area of
impact includes only the counties of Washington, Chisago, Polk, St.
Croix, and Pierce and particularly those communities which border the
river.
8.
Page 33: The Resource
The Lower St. Croix is a diverse scenic and recreational resource of
great significance. The river surface varies from narrow, deep, ,fast
flowing reaches through the Dalles below Taylors Falls. to areas where
subsidiary channels wander among forest.ed islands and sloughs, to the
broad, lake-like waters below StUlwater. Almost unique among
American rivers near major population centers, i.ts waters are clean,
support abundant fisheries, and are sui t.able for water contact
recreation.
e
___In most reaches,
incorporated areas a
evelopment;s are hardly visible, except for such
Marine-on-St. Croix, StiUwater and Hudson_
9. Page 49:Resource Use and Trends; Land Ownership
Farming is the domin nt use in the region around the Lower St. Croix.
This activity is ori nted toward the nearby metropolitan markets_
___More immediately djacent to the Riverway, the prevailing land use
pattern is one of no es of development interspersed with rural lands.
Almost; all indust.ria. and commercial use bordering the river is found
in or immediate] y ad' acent. t.o those nodes (StillwaterJOakPark
HeightsjBayport, Hud on/North Hudson and Prescott) with a scattering
in such smaller comm nities as Marine-on-St. Croix, Lakeland, Aft.on
and Osceola_.__
Development pressure , generated by ,the growth of the Twin Cities, are
being felt along the St. Croix, particularly in Washington County., and
to a lesser extent i Chisago, St _ Croix and Pierce Count.ies.. - -
Several disparat.e indicators reveal a trend toward development along
the St. Croix_ ___a recent study shows that 2,626 residents of Pierce
County commute daily to jobs in Minnesota so that, as the empJoyment
base in the Twin Cities increases, so does residential demand in the
five counties bordering t;he Lower St._ Croix_
e
JO_ Page 63: Preservat.i
The 27 m:lc portion
Stillwater will be
The State Unit of t e National Scenic Riverway extends from the
northern city limit of Stillwater to the mouth of the river. In this
25-mile reach, the iver widens out into Lake St. Croix. Bankside
development. is prev lent in the several communities and many permanent
and seasonal homes re visible on the bluffs overlooking the lake in
certain segments_ lere, man~s works are visible, but so long as they
do not dominate the setting or the skyline, they do not detract from
overall att.ractiven ss of the riverscape. Long segments of shoreline
st,i11 remain undeveloped in this reach_
River from Taylors Falls to
Purchase of easemen part.icularly significant lands will control
the amount and plac ment of development to assure that it will not be
incompatible with t e attractiveness of Lake St. Croix~s setting,.._
11. Page 65: Cultural R sources
No actions are prop sed by the plan which would directly affect any of
the National Regist r properties described in Chapter II and neither
the State Historic reservation Officer of Minnesota or Wisconsin has
cited adverse effec upon any National Register property. It is
possi ble that. the pl an may directly affect such propert.i es, either
adversely or benefi iaDy, but such effect has not been specifically e
identified at this ime.
12_ Page 66: Socio-Econ
2_ Limit the righ
to develop and
property owners within the Riverway boundaries
their property in ways which are now
e
permissible.
6_ While the recommended action imposes no Federal controls on
Minnesota and Wisconsin, approval by t,he states of the master
plan for the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway morally
commi t.s the states to certain actions_ These actions include
purchase of fee lands for facility development, purchase of a
substantial acreage of scenic easement, development of several
boater wayside/mini-parks and promulgation of land use control
standards, if authorized. Approval also commits the states to
cooperation with each other, with the National Park Service and
with local governments in managing the Riverway_
13. Page 68: Recreation
Implementation of the proposal will perpetuate recreational values of
the Lower St. Croix River_
e
14_
e
Creatc._.additional demand for access to and recreational use of the
river, and probably for recreational use adjacent to it_
___an increase in the number of passenger and recreational vehicles in
the Lower St. Croix will occur.
This wilJ result. in heavier traffic on access roads, an increase in
air pollution, traffic problems, and demand for parking facilities.
Page 75: Mitigating Measures Included in Proposed Action
_ . _ ShOll Jd cultural resources be found to be adversely effected,
proposal will be reconsidered and re-sited, where practicable.
practicable, for compelling and over-riding reasons, salvage of
resource will be undertaken by professional personnel.
the
If not
the
Where construction scars on the land surface result, remedial
landseaping will be lmdertaken as soon after completion as seasonally
practicable. During construction, all measures consistent with
applicable Federal and State laws and regulations will be taken t.o
preveni~ degradation of t~he environmental quality of the site.
CuI t.uraJ resources wi 11 be avoided when practicable. A public
informational and educational program will be conducted in the
interests of such resources, and such resources will be placed under
surveillance.
Should any threatened plant species be identified in or near a
developmental site, it will be avoided or professionally directed
remedial measures will be taken.
Even without establishment publicity, the demand for public outdoor
recreational opportunity is projected to increase substantially over
the next 25 years and if present trends continue, this will result in
increased use of motor vehicles on the Lower St. Croix and related
adverse impacts.
Air pollutants resul
necessarily increase
efficient vehicles a
devices will phase 0
e
ing from the operation of motor vehicles will not
in proportion to additional travel, since non-
d t.hose not equipped with pollution control
t through age in due course_
lmPl€Lm
:tQIW of manage.m~n
l.lQer conflicts.
P~o.-YJ.-.d~-ID~.:tdgor re~
whi lemB.11.Mewell..t 0
to_ward-pr...o..:t~c~iQn_a.
s to river classification~~_k_~he
~er regulations and work toward resolution of
~~rtion will be managed to maintain ~rrd
Qj;LQIl..~portuni ty in~.L.J@.t..1l.J'~c;ett.iM-"
hJ~. res.'J'.e.a:t.i9.nal river segmen.t..J1.ilLJ>e direct.e...d
._en1illnce...m.e.D~_ezistinl1 recreationa.1 values..
15.
Page:78: .. Adverse Imp
Construction disturb
remedy, even though
fill<are generallyia
lost.... Environmenta.l
Acquisition or dispo
exhaust pollution, t
often unavoidable pI'
cts which Cannot be Avoided._.
nee of surfaces is not always subject to 100%
rofessional landscaping of the site. Cut and
necessity and the natural contour of the site is
degradation may occur as a result offill
ala Short--t.erm adverse impacts of noi se, dust,
affic disruption and visitor inconvenience are
ducts of construction.
Alt.hough no threaten d speci es of wildlife are known to inhabit t.he
area, threatened fIo a are identified. It is possible that adverse
impact on representa ives of such species may occur despite
preventative measure .
If gasoline continue
a reduced scale or a
possible planning an
motor vehicles. Air
traffic problems wil
particularly on week
be operated off-road
-
to be available for recreational use, even if in
a high premium, it is unlikely that the best
management. can circumvent all adverse impact.s of
pollution will occur, even if at a reduced scale,
be generated at principal access points,
nds, accidents will take place and vehicles will
16. Page 94: Responses t Review Comments
Bureau of Outdoor Re reation
Comment:
Initial and secondar
evaluat~ed if future
Wisconsin 64, Minnes
impacts on the river environment should be
pgrading or relocation of highways U.S. 10,
ta 243, and U.S. 8 occurs.
Response:
It seems premature t evaluate impacts unless the Wisconsin Department.
of Transportation an Minnesota Department of Highways studies
conclude such change are needed. For those highway crossing
improvements conclud.d as needed, the impact~ evaluations will be madp
and alternatives off red, by the agency concerned, prior t;o ..
implementat.ion. ..
e
-
e
.r
Federal Highway Administration
Comment:
Insufficient consideration of secondary impacts of proposed Riverway
on the highway network in the area. Specifically, will this increased
traffic require construction of ne~ highway facilities, or the
reconstruction of existing highways?
Response: .
Because no large scale developments are planned and since optimum use
i.s now being approached during peak use periods, increased traffic
resulting from implementation of the proposal is expected to be
minimal by the respective state highway agencies.
Comment:
Th~ EIS ShOllld include discussion of proposed highway projects which
are environmentally related to the proposal.
Response:
The five proposals cited are described below. The environmental
impacts of these proposed actions are not known to have as yet been
documented and circulated.
2. Proposed relocation/reconstruction of the bridge and
approaches at Stillwat.er. The Minnesota Department of Highways
advises that this project is under study as a possible fut.ure
action_
Comment:
We are also concerned that the draft stat.ement does not appear to
indicate consultation with state or local highway agencies. Early
coordination by the NPS with these agencies is recommended to
faci litat.e the planning of highway projects which may have Section
4(f) DOT connotations.
Response:
The distribution list of the draft statement, reflecting OMB A-95
compliance, does not adequately attest to the interagency coordination
which has been standard and ongoing in these matters. In recent
months, for example, personnel of the National PArk Service, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, representatives of the State Department of
Natural Resources, and the State highway agency of the state
concerned, together with appropriate FHWA personnel, have consulted
on-site in early planning on highway proposals affecting the St. Croix
NSR upon four occasions.
The Department of the Interior, National Park Service and the
Departments of Natural Resources of the States of Minnesota and
Wisconsin stand ready to assist at the request of road construction
agencies in the study, evaluation and planning of transportation
projects in the NSR area t.o insure compliance with appropriate
provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and Section 4(f) of the
DOT Act.
"
e
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Comment:
These comments deal
of existing river cr
needed_ Flexibility
assured_
rimarily with highw~y accessibility. Improvement
ssings and, possibly, additional crossings may be
for future transportation needs should be
Response:
Certain elements of hese comments are addressed previously in
response to comments by the Federa~ Highway Administration.
Additionally, it is elieved that Section 13 (g) of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Actpr vides the necessary. flexibili ty t.o satisfy future
transportation needs_ However, we would urge the Wisconsin Department
of Transportation an the Minnesota Department of Highways to initiate
coordination with th u.S. Department of the Interior at the earliest
conceptual planning tage of any project which may involve or affect
the National Scenic iverwayArea. Also, we promote the utilization
of a systematic inte disciplinary approach for all planning in the
project area_
Metropolitan Council
Comment:
The EIS should consi er the effect on the master plan of a new bridge
at Stillwater.
\
Response:
This bridge proposal is addressed in the response to comments of the
Federal Highway Admi istration. Tbe Recre<;itionaL.-River designa.tiOlJ
~ldJ;.h-prgvaj.-1.Q..J!.t S.tiI1wateJ: cQnteml:?l.~s read..Y-9~c_eJ2.Qjbility to
tJ"ansPQr..tat~ii2n.......and..-b . rs nejj._ne..r bridges nor para.l_l.eJ....i.I!1Lrj;lj~_nQL_IDQtQr
ve.hi..cJ._~c_o:('1'i..dQr..f,L, In the general sense adverse effect of a
replacement bridge c nnot be foreseen at this time, however, all such
proposals must campI with pertinent provisions of the Wild and Scenic
Ri vers Act;.
-
Assuming such an und rtaking would have substantial Federal fund
participation, the s onsoring Federal agency would be responsible for
project-specific environmental documentation in compliance with NEPA
Sierra Club, Minnea
Comment:
What are the impact of the various kinds of use of the river on
wildlife? How do motorboats, canoes and snowmobiles affect wildlife?
Response: ~
The Lower St. Croj.z as neit.h~r wild rive.r_JlQ...r wilder.n~J:Lg\!ftLi.t<.ig~.%- .,
Ju.st_a.s.......J'i~p.eriIDLGeS 'dentifi.ftd wi th thes~r..e.g-ClaRQifjc..a.tj QDQ_wLll
gene..I'_allY.-J.l.Qt~J~_aY .tlable Q.ll__thi~ach of thSLti.yer. nei.th.t:u,-.lti.ll
wildl ife~eact. herfL it mif!ht be expected tO~_G.L.w..eI~_t.h~tse_\lQ.eB
t.9-..be sudde_Illy int1:.ud..ed.jJLt..o_a.~istine environro.erLL-lt-IDay
r.e.a.s.onab 1 y be ARRllmf'ld that-.r..e..side.nt w:i 1 d] :i fe-l)opulat:i on~aY.e---.hec_o.m.e
*'
e
~QnditiJdIl.e.d-.t.Q_com-P..aI:-q._t.i vEULhigh de.psi ty us~ in the seasQil--..nf
QQ..GJ,;t:r'.r_e.nc~-,"_
17. Final Master Plan: Additional References
Page 5: Recommendations:
Proposals for new bridge crossings, renovation of existing structures,
or powerline and pipeline crossings should be reviewed and approved in
advance by the administrating agencies to ensure that scenic and
recreational values are protected.
Page 6:
AJ I comrmLni ti es along the Lower St.. Croix that. still ret~some_of
~be~RtQrical-1l~vor should_~~couraged in their efforts to
maj~t~~~h~~ultural~~i~rical characte~
--
Page 7: Introduction
During the preliminary inventory and evaluation period for the
proposed nationwide system of wild rivers, an in-depth study report on
the St. Croix-Namekagon Rivers was prepared by the Lake Central
Regional Task Gr'oup. One of the more significant recommendations of
that study area was:
"The St. Croix Hiver...(below Taylors Falls) is a recreational
resource of outstanding quality, even though development
precludes classifying it as a wild river. A--P12r.Q.Rl'iQ:te_._IrK~.af:?1J.r~.k>
should be taken to aSQ~re perpetuption of this~rti.~i_th~
.s..t.r.eQJl1_af:? a recref!..:tiQ..na~l-ITso_urce Q...f...-h.iglL.gua.l.i:tY......"
Page 31.: Recreational Classification Zone
...There are three highway and four railroad crossings located here.
Even with this amount of development, the recreational segment ret,ains
outstanding natural and recreational values that have qualified this
area for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System.
e
Page 48: Overall Goal of the Comprehensive Master Plan
At the present time, there are three major factors endangering the
natural charact.er of the Lower St _ Croix Valley: increasing
development pressure, the possibility of water quality degradation,
and increasing recreational use. These factors are already evident in
the IJake St. Croix area from Stillwater to Prescott, due to its
proximity to the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. As stated in
the Scenic River Study Report:
"Recreation utilization of the St. Croix River Valley has been
judged to be at or near its optimlIID level. If efforts are not
made to curtail and control the expected increase of recreational
use on this river, the quality of its significant natural
environment will deteriorate. While establishment of the Lower
St. Croix River as a component of the National Wild and Scenic
River System will undoubtedly encourage increased recreational
use, this use will be controlled or regulated by carefully
guiding or limiting the extent of further development and by
judicious enforcement of the regulations to protect or restore
the natural environment."
...
e
The major purpose of this master plan iR to balance the need for
recreational. use of he area against the equally important objective
of preservation of t e nat.ural values of the area. Thus, the overal]
goal of the plan is "to preserve the existing scenic and recreational
resources of the Low r St. Croix River through controlled
development."
Page 48: State Manag.ment Objectives
Theprimar'y objectiv is to preserve the view from the water surface.
The Lake St_ Croix V lley or visual corridor is essentially the zone
of adjacent land tha has a visual impact on the river user and,
therefore, should be protected from adverse use and development if the
natural and Rcenic a peal of the riverway is to be preserved. Thus,
t.o achi eve t.he overall goal of the master plan. the riverway
boundaries were deli leated wi thin which various land use controls \.;i J 1
be applied, basedprima,rily upon the view from tho water surface..
Page 50: Land Manage ent.
Due to the degree of development of the lands adjacent to Lake St.
Croix from Stillwater to Prescott, the St~ate plan recommends a
"recreational" classification for this river segment. This
classification is co sistent with that of the National Park Service
and that recommended in the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Report of
February 1973.
-
The Nati orw] Wi Id all' Scenic Ri vel' Act (P. L. 90-542) st.at.es that.
"recreational" rivers: are "readily accessible by road or railroad,"
"may have some devel pment along t.heir Rhore] ine," and may have
"undergone some impolndment or diversion in the past."
Under Federal guidel ines, fut:ure construction that~ would modify the
wat.erway or adjacent lands would not be permitted, except in instances
where s11ch developme ts would not have an adverse effect on the values
for which the river 'as included in the national syst,em. Such
construction could result in a decision by the Secretary of the
Interior to withdraw the affected river area from the system. The
"recreational" clas i:fication of Lake St. Croix is also consistent
with the master plan's overall goal of "preserving the existing scenic
and recreational re.ources of the Lower St. Croix River through
controlled development."
e
COUNCIL REQUEST ITEM
-'DEPARTMENT
P a.Jc.k4
Dec. 27
MEETING DATE
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST (Briefly outline what the request is)
_~~i~~~_t~~~~!p-~4~~1~~~~_______________________________--------------
_~~~~~~_~~~~_~~_~~~~4J_~~~~~~~~~~e2_~~~2~__________________________
!).a40n g. RU1:e4 - J/67 Pa.Jc.kwood 1.11.., St.Ulwat.M .
----------- ---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------..----(r~-S;--------------------------------------------
II '1:'1 .
--------/ZP~?~~~-~--------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FINANCIAL IMPACT (Briefly outline
associated with this request and
needed to fund the request)
the costs, if any, that are
the proposed source of the funds
_~5~~~Jj~Q~~3~-~~-------------------------------------~--------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AD~ITIONAL INFORMATION ATTACHED
YES
NO _~_
AL~ COCNClL REQUEST ITEMS ~~2I BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK A
MINIMUM OF FIVE WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED
CCUNCIL M~TING IN ORDER TO BE PLACED IN THE COUNCIL MATERIAL PACKET.
~_/7 &c. tQ, nJT ( J.-- ~{ - q i:J
SUBMITTED BY ~~---.:__--~~-------- DATE ___________L___
"
e
Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Board
Room N475 Griggs-Midway Building
1821 University Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55104-3383
(612) 642::0555 . ..,' j-
LAWFUL GAMBLING EXEMPTION
FOR BOARD USE ONLY
e
PLEASE TYPE
Submit request for exemption at least 30 days prior to the occasion.
When completing form, do not complete shaded areas until after the activity.
Give the gold copy to the City or County. Send the remaining copies to the Board. The copies will be
returned with an exemption number added to the form. When your activity is concluded; complete
the financial information, sign and date the form, and return to the Board within 30 days.
Number of Members License Number lif currently or previously
--~.C)C licensed) and/or permit number. \-....-\CJ''\~
\
'- .
INSTRUCTIONS: 1.
2.
3.
Ch/er~~~:~tiv:~ffiC~~+~\'f"e_; ,.
\. .;. ~:.;':-1 ";: ,~',~: ~'"
State' '. I
Phone l':!uf':lJeJ
Organization Name
Add ress
Manager's Name
: :? .,....',....,,'
Type of Organization
o Fraternal 0 Veterans
o Religion 0 Other Nonprofit Organization
Attach proof of three years existence.
It Other Nonprofit Organization (Check One and anach proof of nonprofit status).
L1-.IRS Designation
o Incorporate with Secretary of State
o Affiliate of Parent Nonprofit Organization
Name of Premises Where Activity Will Occur
I. ;. 1. .:/
Date(s) of Activity, drawing(s)
t::;:~(l
,.-, J ._~ ,,; / i:.' L ~:j .~ J
_Raffles
Paddlewheels
Game
Premis:es Aedres;>. ,- '0.'-0' ,:c"
. _. v'___, -.j ~ .....; i '.~ '" ."- .....' ,-'
Bingo
Tipboards
Pull-Tabs
Use of Profit
I affirm all information submitted to the Board is true, accor-
ate, and complet,e.'
'!....I
Chief Executive Officer Signature
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NOTICE BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY
I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of this application. By acknowledging receipt, I admit having been served with notice
that this application will be reviewed by the Charitable Gambling Control Board and will become effective 30 days from the
date of receipt (noted below) by the City or County, unless a resolution of the local governing body is passed which specifi-
cally disallows such activity and a copy of that resolution is received by the Charitable Gambling Control Board within 30
days of the below noted date.
CITY OR COUNTY TOWNSHIP
Name of Local Governing Body (City or County)
Township Name (Must be notified when County is the approving body)
e Signature of Person Receiving Application
. .
. .
Signature of Person Receiving Application
Title
Date Received Title
Date
CG-00020.01 (6/87)
.
White - Board
Pink - Organization
Canary - Board returns to Organization to complete shaded areas.
Gold ~ City or County
e
GEORGEPARKER 2833 RIVER ROAD VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 23454
12 December 1990
Wallace Abrahamson
Mayor
City of Stillwater
216 N 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mr Abrahamson:
The proposed 22.6 % increase in City property tax is yet another nail in the economic coffin of
municipalities that charge far in excess of value for services. When will decision makers in the State, at
every level, realize that they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces? Enough.
e
Residential property taxes are way too high-too high by 100%. Cut them in half, The taxes on residential
rental property are ridiculous, For the County to maintain that it is realistic to tax at the rate of 20-25% of
the landlord's gross revenues is nothing short of stupid, No other word describes what the effect will be on
small scale property owners who will have absolutely no incentive to either maintain or improve rental real
estate. Cut these taxes to 10% and you will stimulate ownership, improvements, maintenance, and pride,
Continue to tax at these rates and no one will buy, no one will improve, and no one will maintain-at the
same standards-the property values that ultimately you, as an elected official, are obliged to preserve,
Every level of taxation in the State of Minnesota is too high. Peripheral and non-essential services must be
cut back, on every level of government, to a level that is affordable across the income spectrum. The
sooner you people realize that, the sooner Minnesota will become an attractive state in which to generate
business and personal income, Assuming that that is not going to happen anytime soon, the consequence
will be that people who have the capability to earn the income from which such taxes are drawn shall leave
and those remaining will be obliged to pick up the tab, Since that tax base will decrease, both in size and
revenues, the problem of excessive taxation wall continue an ever-tightening, downward spiral.
Leadership requires that one person takes the hard stands and argues persuasively and fairly for these things
to change.
e
~~~~~{,fJ(~
. '.
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
204 NORTH THIRD STREET
e
STillWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
BOARD MEMBERS:
DON JAHNKE, President
JOHN L. JEWELL
MORRIE ANDREWSEN
DENNIS McKEAN
Secretary/Manager
December 18, 1990
Mayor and Council
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater MN 55082
Re: Downtown Watermain Replacement.
Dear Mayor and Council,
At the Board's most recent meeting, December 13, 1990, the Board agreed
to contribute $39,952.00 for oversizing Downtown watermains.
e
This particular figure was calculated by SEH Inc. Contribution for
oversizing watermain is consistent with Board policy.
If you have any further questions or need more specific answers, I will
be available to answer them.
Thank you,
);z~u7/lY4L
Dennis HcKean
e
...
e
, .
CENTRAL SAINT CROIX VALLEY
JOINT CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
1 91 7 X~40. S. Greeley Street
Stillwater, MN 55082-6012
(612) 439-8803
December 20, 1990
Mayor Wally Abrahamson
CITY OF STILLWATER
294 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Mayor Frank Sommerfeldt
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
14168 North 58th Street
Oak Park Heights, MN 55082
Mayor Nathan Bliss
CITY OF BAYPORT
294 Third Street North
Bayport, MN 55003
Dear Mayors and Council Members:
Enclosed is the 1991 budget approved by the Central Saint Croix
Valley Joint Cable Communications Commission at its December 17,
1990, meeting. We are submitting this' budget for your approval
as required by the Joint Powers Agreement.
Commission members spent much time in discussion of certain
aspects of the budget. We do not anticipate any dramatic
increases in our franchise fees for 1991. Cable television is
more a luxury than a necessity, and in tough economic times will
most likely be one of the first items used to balance the family
budget. The installation of cable at the two correctional
facilities and at the marinas during the summer months may help
compensate for any lost subscribers.
The Commission Office has a bare bones budget under which to
operate, but a major new expenditure is necessary to properly
insure the Commission and its members. The Commission feels a
strong commitment to continue funding community programming at
the same level as last year. Commission members voted to
eliminate reimbursement of their basic cable service, which had
been instigated earlier this year. In most systems this is
provided by the cities, or the franchise fees are adequate to
allow all commissioners to overview the system they are
appointed to monitor.
Representing
the Cities of Bayport, Oak Park Heights, and Stillwater
also the Townships of West Lakeland, Baytown, and Stillwater
MICHAEL E. KNUTSON, Chairman
JACLYN ULRICH, Vice Chairperson EDWARD LAWSON
BEV SCHULTZ, Secretary MARY KREIMER-ADRIAN
ANN M. BODLOVICK, Treasurer PHYLLIS WHITE
DEAN KERN JACK DOERR
e
e
e
. ~
.
Mayors Abrahamson, Sommerfeldt and Bliss
December 20, 1990
Page Two
The area which caused the most discussion was the necessity to
require the government entities to contribute to the cost of
cablecasting their meetings. The cablecaster has done an
admirable job with too little compensation for too long of a
time. We have provided all of the equipment necessary to get
governmental meetings out to the constituents, and 11m sure you
are aware of the ever-increasing number of residents viewing
your meetings. The cost per meeting to your city for a one-man
production will be $31.25. The remainder will be compensated by
funds the Commission has at its disposal. We will be actively
seeking grant moneys in 1991 to help reduce the cost to you even
further, as we feel it is a very worthwhile endeavor and a
service to all of the cable subscribers in the area.
The Commission is appreciative of all of your actions on our
behalf and sincerely regret the necessity of this charge.
Please notify our office of your acceptance of this proposal,
which will be implemented on February 1, 1991, contingent on
your approval.
Sincerely '6j;~ $udi
Jaclyn ulrth
Chairperson
JU:mgr
Enclosure
cc: Washington County Board of Commissioners
ISD No. 834 Board Members
e
e
e
. -
CENTRAL SAINT CROIX VALLEY
JOINT CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
OPERATING AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 1991
INCOME
Interest Earnings
Franchise Fees
Cablecast Reimb/Government Productions
TOTAL INCOME
EXPENSES
Salary and Benefits - Admin Seely
Salary and Benefits - Cablecast Contractor
Office Supplies
Professional Services
Accounting Help
Legal
Audit
Telephone
Postage
Mileage
Conferences/Meetings/Dues
Print/Publish
Insurance/Bond
Miscellaneous
Community Programming Support
Office Rent
Photocopier
Capital Outlay
Channel 12 Equipment
Office Furniture/Equipment
TOTAL EXPENSES
JU/mgr
12-10-90
$14,000.00
7,500.00
300.00
70.00
3,000.00
500.00
720.00
350.00
100.00
250.00
100.00
2,375.00
200.00
30,000.00
2,640.00
720.00
750.00
100.00
$63,675.00
$ 550.00
59,000.00
4,125.00
$63,675.00
$63,675.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. WISCONSIN
County Road V
County Roads I, A, U, and STH 12
County Roads A, U, and STH 12
III MINNESOTA
TH 95/1-94
County Road 15/TH 96/TH 95
1-35/U.S. B
IV . CONCLUSION
I
I
I 1.
I 2.
I 3.
4.
I 5.
I 6.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
LOWER ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSINGS AND MAJOR REGIONAL HIGHWAY
CORRIDORS
POTENTIAL DIVERSION ROUTES TO 1-94: WESTERN ST. CROIX
COUNTY, WISCONSIN
ST. CROIX COUNTY: TWIN CITIES METRO AREA COMMUTERSHED, 1980
1988 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT): WEST-CENTRAL ST. CROIX
COUNTY, WISCONSIN
CITY OF HUDSON: AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (August,
1988)
RIVER CROSSING STUDY AREA: COUNTY ROAD 15, TH 96, AND TH 95
DIVERSIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTRODUCTION
Encouraging motorists to voluntarily divert away from the
Stillwater-Houlton Bridge has been suggested as a possible way of
reducing traffic congestion in downtown Stillwater. The amount of
traffic willing to divert will be strongly influenced by how much,
if any, time savings are available on the al ternativeroutes.
Irrespective of any time saved, however, diversion would also
produce negative social, transportation, environmental, and
economic impacts.
By encouraging motorists to avoid Stillwater, traffic volumes would
necessarily rise in other locations, shifting vehicle-residential
conflicts to other areas. Because some of the diversion routes are
county roads which are not designed for high traffic volumes,
safety would be an important consideration. In addition, the DOTs
are concerned about the feasibility of diverting traffic to the 1-
94 crossing, which is projected to carry a rapidly increasing
demand.
Another factor is fuel consumption, which would rise as drivers
take routes which are less efficient than the BUILD alternatives;
this would resul t in adverse energy and air quality impacts.
Finally, encouraging motorists to detour would result in a more
time-consuming journey than would occur if the transportation
problem had been addressed directly through a new river crossing.
People and products would take longer to reach their destinations,
one resul t being higher costs for businesses which uti I ize the
corridor. For these reasons, the transportation departments do not
regard traffic diversion as a primary, long-term solution to the
area.s transportation problems.
Two attempts at diverting traffic away from Stillwater-Houlton have
already been made. In Minnesota, the Stillwater City Council
requested in 1966 that diversion signs be installed to divert north
and southbound traffic away from the downtown area on to County
Road 15 and TH 96. These signs remain in place.
On the other side of the river, the West Central Wisconsin Regional
Planning Association (WCWRPC) prepared a report for the St. Croix
County Highway Commission in 1985 entitled Congestion at the
Stillwater Bridge. The report discussed several TSM measures to
reduce congestion, including diversion. According to the WCWRPC
report, TSM ideas such as traffic diversion were to be regarded as
interim, temporary measures to reduce congestion levels: liThe long-
range solution is to construct a new bridge and approach highways. II
Using the information gathered by the WCWRPC, Wise/DOT and the St.
Croix County Highway Commission developed a diversion plan in 1985,
and conducted a pilot study to evaluate its effectiveness. The
proposal did not significantly affect congestion at the bridge, and
safety concerns were expressed about the alternate routes, which
were not designed to handle additional traffic volumes. The pilot
study was discontinued.
1
\
I
I
I
I
I
It is probable that a more extensive and comprehensive diversion
plan could produce better results than those achieved up to now.
This is particularly true if diversion routes were more widely
publicized in the media, and principal recreation destinations
(e.g., float parks on the Apple River) were encouraged to hand out
information materials on alternative routes. Another possibility
for facilitating traffic diversion would be to improve one or more
of the 1-94 diversion routes. This would enhance diversion, but
create an entirely new set of environmental impacts without
direttly addressing the transportation problem.
I
I
I
I
Unless otherwise noted, the Wisconsin diversion routes discussed
below are described as if drivers were going east to west, with
west to east travel assumed in Minnesota. Motorists could utilize
the diversions traveling from either direction, and the routes
would have to be marked accordingly.
WISCONSIN
I
I
I
I
I
In Wisconsin, the most likely diversion routes for most motorists
would utilize the 1-94 corridor (see figures 1 and 2). The most
convenient access points to 1-94 for motorists diverting south
across St. Croix County include U.S. Highway 63 from Baldwin and
Turtle Lake; STH 65 from Roberts, New Richmond, and Star Prairie;
County Roads A and U, and STH 12 from New Richmond, Boardman, and
Burkhardt; County Roads I, A, and U, and STH 12 from Somerset and
Burkhardt; and County Road V, which travels south from STH 35/64
east of Houlton, and rejoins STH 35 north of Hudson.
Even without additional diversion traffic, traffic demand on the 1-
94 St. Croix River crossing will grow substantially in the coming
decades, as it serves a rapidly growing area. 1-94 bisects St.
Croix County, which has one of the fastest growth rates of any
county in Wisconsin. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on 1-94 grew from
22,460 in 1976 to 40,420 in 1988, and increase of 80 percent.
Between 1980 and the year 2010, St. Croix County's population is
projected to increase by 53 percent, from 43,262 to 66,100. During
the same thirty year time period, the City of Hudson's population
is expected to increase by 36 percent, from 5,434 to 7,400; more
than half of Hudson's working residents commute to jobs in
Minnesota.
I
I
Several improvements to 1-94 are being discussed for the 1990s to
help address this growth. The two-lane eastbound bridge is slated
for replacement with a new, three-lane bridge (the west-bound
bridge currently has three lanes). In addition, a new interchange
is planned for Carmichael Road in Hudson, with an extension of the
three-lane section of 1-94 from the Hudson Truck Weigh Station to
the junction of STH 35.
I
I
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 1
LOWER ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSINGS
AND MAJOR REGIONAL HIGHWAY CORRIDORS
l1J
TAYLORS
FALLS
U.s. .
ST. CROIX
FALLS
OSCEOLA
(
I
I
N
t
~ Mlnneapolis-St, Paul
all NN. 31
1-114
PRESCOTT
P-OLK I
I
I
.
I
.
ST,_CROIX)
.
'CARVER
~-l_
-.-11;
rPO'-
It- - - - ---!.C2TT
1 Inch = 17 Miles
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 2
POTENTIAL DIVERSION ROUTES TO 1-94:
WESTERN ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN
----~URM~~E------
H
I
_ _81.. .!O.!.E~iiJ
To Hudson/I-94
To 1-94
New I
Rlchmondl
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
.
I
.
.
I
RICHMOND
1 Inch = 2 1/2 Miles
To 1-94
(Via County Road U/STH 12)
Source: West Central Regional Planning Commission
I
I
I
I
Nonetheless, the projected population increases, combined with
additional commercial and industrial growth, and mounting
recreational traffic (e.g., the new dog track), will put
considerable pressure on 1-94, even without a concerted effort to
divert traffic from STH 35/64. During the summer of 1990, average
summertime weekday traffic on the 1-94 bridge was 57,000 vehicles,
a figure which is expected to grow to a demand of 90,000 by the
year 2010. These numbers suggest that the capacity of eastbound 1-
94 is already being strained at certain times, and that it will be
difficult to handle additional diversion traffic in the future,
even with the planned improvements.
I
I
Aside from 1-94, other potential diversion routes across the St.
Croix River are located at Osceola, Wisconsin, and Taylors Falls,
Minnesota/St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin. For motorists traveling
between northwestern Wisconsin and the Twin Cities, these crossings
represent reasonable alternatives to Stillwater-Houlton. It is
probable, however, that most drivers who would benefit from these
routes are already taking them. An important drawback of these
northern diversion routes is the impact of funneling additional
traffic through Osceola and St. Croix Falls/Taylors Falls. These
areas have traffic problems of their own which would deteriorate if
additional traffic was directed toward them.
I
I
I
While U.S. Highway 63 and STH 65 are geometrically better suited to
carry 1-94 diversion traffic than the other roads listed above,
they are east of the heaviest traffic volumes along STH 35/64.
According to 1988 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) figures, ADT at the
draw bridge was 15,130, while the ADT on STH 35/64 a mile west of
Somerset was 8390 vehicles. Further east, ADT on STH 64 on the
western edge of New Richmond drops off to 6370 vehicles (see figure
3).
I
I
I
I
I
These traffic numbers help illustrate how the percentage of St.
Croix County workers who commute to the Twin Cities declines from
west to east across the county (see figure 4). While more than 70
percent of the workers in Houlton/St. Joseph Township (west-central
St. Croix County) commute to Twin Cities jobs, less than 10 percent
of the workers in Glenwood City (east-central st. Croix County) are
in the Twin Cities commutershed. In addition, much of the weekend
recreation traffic from the Twin Cities is bound for Somerset.
I
I
I
Because of these regional traffic flow patterns, the county roads
west of New Richmond are in a better location than STH 65 and U.S.
63 to capture diversion traffic. Listed below is a short
description of these roads:
County Road V
A few miles east of Houlton, County Road V proceeds south from STH
35/64. Traffic diverting on this road would rejoin STH 35 about 3
I
I
5
-------------------
FIGURE 3
1988 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT):
WEST-CENTRAL ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN
. " U II .., \ ~. L""~A /1-"1 << I~ L~ 1r'1IW~. II I I 1\ 2j ~~ ~.~490
11A1,/ I ~ "'J ~.Pn I~ W . I W,.".= ~ew. "S t17.0 ft4 ...~~ ~,..
~~~ $Omer5 t ~ J!:.iJ ~ II , .~ '" vi ./' _ ~A\ ~~~~ic~ lli;>~ I " i(~'\~ j6 ~~;- - ~
. l!fC.---.- r::: bC)""7r= w"~v ~ 'ClQ ~ --" .,1\.1_ S. '~'f: ~ ~
6 Y'~' if'" E- ~J~~ I'~~V.; ..~~ ~ ,,;,~r., ~~, ,. J L~).1 ~.~ ,~
3S" "-.I;. .... L H~C fi>4 Q ~ 9"c... So<> ", Lmr T "'" ""'... 0/
'..... \ L \."t> ..........--- I!='- A ~!i.'" .I',.., __f" 4C~9
12 '\J~ . J/~~90 ,~,~ll,~ .1 '0. r-kr: -I !- A '7'" "U'?Y j~9oqP'l A ~
,/ ~ , .,' ~0"4.~s~ I J ~ (fIS..I'''' =. ,--#~, {-~
~. ~~ ~ j', ti _-.:.~.~. ...t; u t ' ~ ';f,tFlOi c;~~~; ':= 1 g ti l I ~ II :!( ~u ,
rl~~-II-: T '1 Q j 4~ O~. :; 81( . 11 )) I I) /1 8 'I ~,.I,. , iQr Eri?'orner p.9 ru
1513~llllJ,'to ~ I~' o. Llt ,,~- l = ~~~1. I ~ ~f:~.~.?' ~ 3~3g: ~ I v f:R!~ ~_~_~RIE ~ I
-"'~~.~I . '!oil d- ~,f(d~r.l. .~~t~8Wf6~~ 1I~l,r~~nrr:-..,€9Q~D,., "2' jl
ft4 ~\ ST.)\. 'i:~~m ~ l~ 1lIJ.~. lo..' I' ~ G, ~L_1(___ ~.__.Il ._
'~~, 35~t261/J.o(~Q '~rI9.~~ A~ 11~lnlT "--I,;l..".\\ ]~~~~p t~6f
l~'~~ li~ ~ l_ .. . ~ I ~~. I ~~~r. I ( E I JO \, ~ I.@-=~_ ~_ ~""'\~
~" 's.~ \. /I If ""'. '!1,b~ _ ;:Q 1 ~- ,.:-: ~E~ - ~~ [~- TII D1F1
~1r.'1L\ ~'f". ~ "; '.~ ~::1~~~D['1. . "33~~ "1 " ) L ~ '":If' Jp ~
. M~~<:~~l~~, . 3200'> ! ~-~-rll"~~~l> ~1~~~~(ll '~_IR7
\ii (;}r~~so 1~=~ ~ ~503Q~ ~.l Q' I ~ I: .,~. l U V-i I AMM O~~]Lo-1~' ;
m, ""~~!1~830 "'4~O)r~Rg,,' 26~r~~rberts I~..J.:'~ ~ftij~ r~i0
~ ,t::;~~J243p JI,f"U 2490 d r~:'l ," 11 . ~ iY <.8.":: t-.. C.q3slEg': ~
r;;U~"".,' ...::,. .... .~...::j..... I~.I">. "'?/ (/ · i ,~0. - 4 !60:.... ... r { ! - (Q~ IV... , ~
~ .'. ,.$!. 1""1f'~ ~..- · ~ ~I (,YfW'- .Y'< OV~~-~
. .\\\\~.;t~.';:tF. 84~.7"Ji' ~29~ ~~,:1 r==ol[ :251 ~I rJ . ~l, 0:, ,,-_._dT) .. 'I7i 7(
r, ) - --- - 35~'r'- '---fI ~C~ ~I--- ~-~ -- 184 ~ .
rr LaW :2270 I . - ic==" II '"'.,.. ~ ~ I - ,.. 11-
~1 .. )bf . 44 ~ -1: " f=
'l $,. J .I'ffl'~ ~ ~~'f ~ ~ ,/_ _ _ _'Tn 5e r= ,,: _ II = -'i,l;'&' I I /.
-------------------
FIGURE 4
ST. CROIX COUNTY:
TWIN CITIES METRO AREA COMMUTERSHED, 1980
50% 30% 20%
. .
CVlDN FOREST
CJ
Deer Perk
.,. 10%
Eft PfIAIFtE EMERALD ,'" lENv.()(X)
\
\ , I
\ , t G1enwood CIty
\ ~, \,,-~ 0
\ ,
\
~
\ WARREN \ HAMMOND , BALDWIN SPFtNGFIBD
.
\ , ,
/ " \ j I
Roberts (): \ Hammond ~Wln .
'0 W1tson ,
.,.' ,.
TROY .,. K1NNCKlNN~ >
.,.'" " ~ ,
~.,. " ~ ffi
-~ > I 10%
-- " ~ l!
! I
<ver Falls ~ I
30% 20%
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau Of The Cemu
,~nes IndCate the percent of er11*>yed RttvtlulD that oomm.rte
to Hennepil, Ramsey, or WaSllngton CoUltles of Metropoitan Mnneapols-St. paut..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
miles north of Hudson. County V is a hilly road, with a 40 mile
per hour curve and a narrow dirt shoulder. Passing opportunities
are limited. All traffic must stop at the intersection with County
road E, 2 miles east of Houlton, and at the junction with STH 35.
Before intersecting with 1-94, STH 35 passes through North Hudson,
where the posted speed is 25 miles per hour, with many residences
along the road. After crossing Lake Mallalieu, STH 35 proceeds
through downtown Hudson, where traffic must pass through three stop
lights before reaching the entrance to west-bound 1-94.
Assuming that motorists return to TH 36, the total distance of this
diversion is 15.7 miles (traveling south on County Road V/STH 35,
crossing the river on 1-94, and traveling north on TH 95 to the
junction with TH 36). By contrast, the distance required to
complete this trip going through Houl ton and Stillwater is 6.3
miles; diverting motorists would have to travel an extra 9.4 miles.
During a non-peak I'1onday morning, the time needed to drive the
County Road V/STH 35/1-94/TH 95 route was 25 minutes. The
corresponding (eastbound) time for the STH 35/64 and TH 36 segment
being diverted was 8 minutes, a 17 minute difference.
According to a travel time study completed on the 7.6 mile TH
36/STH 35-64 study corridor in July, 1990, the maximum amount of
time needed to drive west on the Minnesota-Wisconsin study corridor
to the TH 51TH 36 junction, was approximately 26 minutes, which
occurred on a Sunday afternoon (see appendix). The average
westbound study corridor driving time on Sunday was under 18
minutes. The average east and westbound corridor running times for
all the days in the travel time study (Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday)
was slightly more than 15 minutes. Under a BUILD decision, the
average corridor driving time would be reduced to approximately 7
minutes, 18 minutes less than the County V diversion under
uncongested conditions.
The travel time study suggests that even under the most congested
conditions, the County Road V diversion route would offer little or
no potential for time savings; under average conditions, this
diversion would take at least 10 minutes longer than the main
route. The main advantage of diverting on County Road V would be
the possibility of a less stop-and-go traffic flow during congested
periods. Of course, the more people use the alternate routes, the
slower they will become.
As the 1-94 diversion route furthest to the west, County Road V is
in position to tap into the highest traffic volumes along TH 35/64.
However, because of stop signs, traffic signals, and
residential-area speed limits, County Road V/STH 35 is not capable
of providing an efficient or convenient diversion route for large
amounts of traffic. In addition, diverting traffic away from
Stillwater to Hudson simply transfers congestion problems from one
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
downtown area to another. There are many residences along STH 35
in Hudson and North Hudson which would be adversely affected by
additional through traffic.
In 1988, ADT on County Road V was 760 vehicles north of the
junction with County Road E, and 1260 south of the intersection.
In Hudson, STH 35 had a 1988 ADT of between 13,450 and 15,810
vehicles in the downtown area, approximately the same traffic
volume as the Stillwater-Houlton bridge (see figure 5).
County Roads I, A, U, and STH 12
Motorists who wish to divert STH 35/64 at Somerset have the option
of taking County Roads I, A, and U south to 1-94. This route has
many of the same problems as County V, with an abundance of curves,
hills, reduced speed sections, and many residences along portions
of the right-of-way.
After leaving STH 35/64 on County I, motorists would pass by a
school and a long stretch of residences on the outskirts of
Somerset, with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Between
Somerset and Burkhardt, located approximately 7 miles to the south,
County I makes a number of fairly sharp curves, some of which are
posted for 35 miles per hour. There are many areas where passing
is not possible, and there is virtually no shoulder in places.
After a stop sign at the junction with County Road A, the road
winds into the village of Burkhardt, where the posted speed slows
to 20 miles per hour at one curve.
South of Burkhardt, traffic would follow County A, which has a
designated bicycle route on its paved shoulder. Near the point
where County A becomes County U, the road crosses some railroad
tracks. At the junction of County U and U.S. highway 12, traffic
must pause at a stop sign, before proceeding to the junction with
1-94.
According to a travel time run made on a non-peak Monday morning,
this diversion takes 31 minutes to complete, from the beginning of
County Road I in Somerset, to 1-94, to the junction of TH 95 and TH
36 south of Stillwater. By comparison, the (eastbound) driving
time for the diverted stretch of TH 36/STH 35-64 was 15 minutes.
The comparative mileage is 22.1 miles for the diversion and 10
miles for the main route. Under un congested conditions, this
diversion would require approximately 16 extra minutes of driving,
and an additional 12 miles to get to the TH 95/TH 36 junction in
Minnesota. It is not likely this diversion would offer significant
time savings during congested periods.
This diversion route, along with the one discussed previously, is
the one most likely to capture part of the heavy Apple River
recreational traffic which travels between Somerset and the Twin
9
UftE 5
clG ...t.
...- 50'" .
F ,",un FF1C
Cl1"'" ~'" "~~qaa)
\atEE"- ust,
~AGE t Au9
A\lE
U~E5
\lOt..
l
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~
\"
9
:1.1-
b
'!!
'rd
~
~
10
-
I
I
Ci ties on summer weekends. Information and maps available at major
river floating areas could help divert some of this traffic.
Compared to County Road V, this diversion has the advantage of not
funneling traffic through downtown Hudson.
I
I
I
I
I
I
In 1988, ADT figures were 940 vehicles on County Road I, north of
the junction with County E. On County A south of Burkhardt, 1988
ADT was 3200. County Road U and STH 12 had 1988 ADTs of 5,030 and
4360 vehicles, respectively.
County Roads A, U, and STH 12
Much of this route is similar to the one discussed above. The
stretch of County Road A which is different from that discussed
previously proceeds southwest from New Richmond through land which
is mainly agricultural. The road is a designated bike route, and
has numerous curves which make for difficult passing. At the town
of Boardman, the speed limit slows to 35 miles per hour as the road
passes through a small residential and commercial area. The 1988
ADT on County Road A was 1270 vehicles two miles north of Boardman,
and 1690 south of town.
I
I
Shortly before Burkhardt, there is a sharp turn where County Road
A joins briefly with County E. County A meets County I at
Burkhardt, and the rest of the route to 1-94 is the same as the one
already described.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In spite of the problems discussed previously, this diversion route
may be the most efficient way to avoid the Stillwater-Houlton area
for motorists wishing to travel west from New Richmond. The reason
for this is that the northern portion of the route cuts diagonally,
heading southwest from New Richmond to Burkhardt.
As with the other 1-94 diversions, it is not likely that people
with destinations in the northern portion of the Twin Cities would
realize significant time savings by diverting, even if the STH
35/64 corridor is crowded. Motorists crossing 1-94 into Minnesota,
for example, end up approximately 5.6 miles south of where they
would have been had they crossed at Stillwater and continued west
on TH 36. Depending on the destination and al ternate chosen,
taking a diversion route could easily add an extra 10 miles to a
trip between Somerset, for example, and the northern suburbs of the
Twin Cities.
MINNESOTA
As discussed above, the most likely crossing alternative to the
Stillwater-Houl ton Bridge is the 1-94 crossing at Hudson. In
Minnesota the best diversion routes south from TH 36 to 1-94 are TH
95, which follows the river south from Stillwater, and 1-694 in
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Oakdale. To the north, motorists could take County Road 15 north
to TH 96 and proceed east to TH 95. Travelers would then follow
the St. Croix River north to crossings at Osceola (TH 243) and
Taylors Falls (U.S. 8). Another possible route across the river is
1-35 or U.S. 61 to Forest Lake, and then U.S. 8 across the St.
Croix at Taylors Falls. Routes would be reversed for westbound
vehicles.
TH 95/1-94
This diversion would require signs on TH 36 before the junction
with TH 95. Traffic would be routed circuitously through a
residential section of Oak Park Heights on Washington County
Highways 23, 21, and 28. Eastbound traffic would stop at the busy
junction with TH 95, proceed south, and pass through Bayport on the
way to 1-94. The total distance from the TH 36/95 junction to 1-94
is 5.6 miles.
A major disadvantage with this route is the additional traffic
which would flow through a residential section of Oak Park Heights
and Downtown Bayport. Residents in these areas already contend
with a significant amount of traffic. As of 1988, ADT on TH 95 in
downtown Bayport was 9,800; just north of 1-94, ADT was 9,000
vehicles.
A variation of this route would utilize 1-694, which is located
approximately 10 miles west of TH 95.
County Road 15/TH 96/TH 95/TH 243/U.S. 8
This is the by-pass route which has existed for more than 20 years
around the western and northern edge of Stillwater (see figure 6).
One possible way of improving this system would be to install
electronic message boards which could be updated with current
traffic information.
A major drawback which this route shares with many of the other
diversion alternatives is the prospect of increased traffic on a
county road not designed to handle large volumes of interstate
traffic. A substantial amount of low density residential
development has occut"red in the County Road 15/TH 96 corridor;
these residences would be adversely affected by additional traffic,
and would produce vehicles attempting to enter and exit the
roadway. Further impediments to smooth traffic flow on this route
are stop signs at the junction of County Road 15 and TH 96.
As of 1988, ADT on County road 15 just north of the intet"section
with TH 36 was 6,500. The 1988 ADT on TH 96 east of the junction
with County Road 15 was 3,650 vehicles.
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 6
RIVER CROSSING ,STUDY AREA:
COUNTY ROAD 15, TH 96, and TH 95 DIVERSIONS
It)
-
It)
It)
ci
a:
8
N
CD
::t
C
en
d
~
CO. RD. 64
80th ST. N.
N
t
C.S.A,H. 12
-
-
%
.,(
as
d
~
City of
STILLWATER
It)
-
uJ
~
::t
.,;,
en
d
ui
~
i
To Osceola/
Tay]ors Falls
~
iii
~
~
~
To Bayport/I-94
\
tti
.s:;
-
It)
-
CO. RD. E
~
I
I
I
I
I
TH 95 is a winding road which passes through the town of Marine on
St. Croix as it follows the river north from Stillwater. This
highway passes through two state parks before the Taylors Falls
bridge, and carries considerable recreational traffic. The stretch
of TH 95 between Stillwater and Marine on St. Croix is scheduled
for improvements in the near future. The 1988 ADT on TH 95 in
Marine on St. Croix was 2,850.
I
I
One variation of this diversion would be to continue north on
County Road 15 to the junction with TH 97; motorists could then
proceed east to the junction with TH 95, and then continue north to
the Osceola or Taylor's Falls/St. Croix Falls crossings. The 1988
ADT at the Osceola and Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls crossings was
2,580 and 7,535 vehicles, respectively.
I
The river crossings at U.S. 8 and TH 243 would be most useful for
weekend recreational traffic, as they are north of the main Twin
Cities/Wisconsin commutershed.
I
I-35/U.S. 8
I
As discussed above in the Wisconsin section, this is the most
likely diversion route for motorists traveling to and from the
lakes and recreation area in northwestern Wisconsin. However, it
is likely that many of the motorists who could benefit from this
route are already taking it.
I
I
I
Diversion signs could be placed at the junction of 1-694 and TH 36,
I-35E, and U.S. 61. As mentioned earlier, one disadvantage of this
diversion would be increased traffic flows through Taylors
Falls/St. Croix Falls.
I
As of 1988, ADT on 1-35 (south of TH 97) near Forest Lake was
37,000 vehicles. The 1988 ADT on U.S. 8 north of Forest Lake near
the Washington-Chisago County line was 12,200 vehicles.
CONCLUSION
I
It is unlikely that many~motorists could be persuaded to divert if
they believe it will not save them time. Many motorists who use
the existing bridge are already familiar with alternatives, and
would probably be using them if they felt they could benefit.
I
I
I
I
I
Traffic diversion signs do, however, offer some potential for
rerouting traffic away from the Stillwater-Houlton Brid~e.
Constructing new or improved highways to carry diverted traffic
from STH 35/64 to 1-94 in Wisconsin would probably be necessary to
handle significant quantities of diverted traffic. These improved
routes would increase the convenience and safety of diversion, but
increase the cost and environmental impacts. Any advantages
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
achieved from diverting traffic from Stillwater-Houlton would be at
least partially offset by costs such as more congestion elsewhere,
safety problems caused by increased cars and trucks on county
roads, additional fuel consumption and construction costs,
inconvenience, and economic impacts.
I
I
I
I
During the earlier diversion study, the plan was to have the County
Sheriff's Department put up signs when congestion was occurring on
STH 35/64. One problem with this idea was the lag between the time
congestion occurred and when the signs were actually in place.
It is likely that an electronic message board which could be
updated quickly would be a more effective way of alerting motorists
to congestion around Stillwater-Houlton, helping them make an
informed decision about which route to choose. Permanent signs
warning of periodic congestion would also be a possibility worth
exploring. As mentioned earlier, information efforts through the
media and local businesses could help improve the success of any
div~rsion effort.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Even if diversion and other TSM measures were able to reduce
today's congestion on Minnesota's TH 36 and Wisconsin's STH 35/64
congestion to acceptable levels--and this is not considered
probable--these gains would likely be eroded by the rapid increases
in traffic which are forecast for the area's roads, including those
used for diversion. Between 1986 and the year 2014, for example,
traffic on TH 96 west of the junction with TH 95 is predicted to
increase from 2,400 ADT to 5,000 ADT under the NO-BUILD option.
Traffic on another diversionroute--Beach Road/County Road 23
between TH 36 and TH 95--is expected to rise from 7,000 ADT in 1986
to an estimated 14,500 ADT in the year 2014. Even if half the
bridge traffic anticipated for the year 2014 were to divert--a very
optimistic scenario--traffic volumes over the structure would be
similar to the unacceptably high levels experienced in the late
1980s.
Given the magnitude of the traffic problem which already exists,
combined with the predicted increases in demand, the best
transportation solution to the area's long-term needs requires the
construction of new infrastructure, including a new river
crossing--rather than merely attempting to redistribute traffic
flow. In general, Mn/DOT and Wisc/DOT do not consider traffic
diversion to be a safe or efficient primary solution to the
region's increasingly severe transportation problems.
It is possible, however, that diversion could be a worthwhile,
relatively low-cost interim strategy to help ease congestion until
a new river crossing can be completed. In addition, diversion
cDuld be a useful IDng-term traffic management strategy in
cDmbination with a new river crDssing. AccDrding to current
prDjectiDns, traffic demand Dn Main Street in dDwntDwn Stillwater
will be higher in the year 2014 than it was in 1986, even if a new
bridge is built. In conjunctiDn with a crossing, TSM measures such
15
I
I
as diversion could be necessary ~o preven~ fu~ure ~raffic volumes
in down~own S~illwa~er from grea~ly exceeding ~he already high
levels of conges~ion experienced ~oday.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
16
I
l
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
APPE.NDl"/.
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SF-OOOO6-05 !41861
DEPARTMENT: Mn/OOT - Operations
Metro District - Oakdale
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Office Memorandum
DATE: August 21, 1990
TO: Michael Louis
Project Manager
FROM: Larry Erb
Traffic Analysis Manager
PHONE: 779-1202
SUBJECT: Stillwater Travel Time Study
Travel times through Stillwater from County 15 (on the west) and 20th St. (on the
east) in St. Joseph Township were conducted on Friday, Sunday and Tuesday -July
13, 15 and 17, 1990. The attached map shows the 7.6 mile segment wi th
intermediate checkpoints circled and segments labeled.
Travel runs were made each direction on all three days between the hours of 2:30
p.m. and 7:30 p.m. Average running times varied greatly due to traffic volumes
and bridge openings. See attached sheets for daily particulars. Graphs A, B &
C depict each day~s run with the bridge opening times shown at the top. The
bridge openings definitely affect the travel times due to the backups, which take
time to clear. Non-interstate traffic in Stillwater gets caught in these backups
adding to the clearing time.
AVERAGE RUNNING TIMES (MINUTES)
Eastbound
Westbound
TUESDAY*7
14.2
12.3
FRIDAY*5
19.0
15.9
SUNDAY*6
12.5
17.9
AVERAGE
15.2
15.4
*Runs each day
EXTREMES - RUNNING TIMES (MINUTES)
Eastbound
Westbound
TUESDAY*
10.5-22.1
11. 4-13. 3
FRIDAY*
14.1-25.3
10.6-24.1
SUNDAY*
10.0-18.0
12.3-26.5
A longest time of 26.5 minutes was recorded on Sunday (westbound) at 5:00 to 5:26
p.m. and the shortest time was 10 min. on the eastbound run immediately after
(5:30 to 5:40 p.m.). Travel times within segments did not vary much by day or
direction. The slowest segment was D which had average speed of 8.3 mph.
Segments A and F (outer segments) averaged 54 and 52.5 mph (respectively). The
lowest (daily) average speed of 5.3 mph was recorded on Friday~s six runs
(eastbound) in segment D.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Michael Louis
August 21, 1990
Page two
AVERAGE MPH BY SEGMENT
Eastbound
Westbound
A
51.4
54.2
B
c
D
E
37.9
18.1
F
40.0
36.3
31.4
40.4
8.3
13.6
52.6
52.5
The overall average of the 36 runs was 15.3 minutes (dev :1:4 min.) to traverse the
7.6 mile course results in an average speed of 29.8 mph. A Build decision on any
of the alternatives under study would attain an average speed of 55 mph since
signalized intersections would be eliminated. This would mean an average running
time of 7 minutes between these points.
A look at only segments C, D and E (closest to bridge) showed the overall time
averaged 10.7 minutes or about 17 mph over the 3.1 miles. Time would be less
than 3J2 minutes at 55 mph on a new route.
Future travel time on weekends through Stillwater (if a new bridge is not buH t)
will basically increase to an average time of about 25 minutes (15 minutes
presently). The extremes (present was 10 min. and 25 min.) will vary between 15
minutes and 35 minutes, with many more occurrences of the latter. The random
occurrence of delays is created by bridge openings, local events (high pedestrian
traffic and vehicle traffic), and interstate traffic volume. Due to this
variability the potential benefits of diverting traffic is not good.
\
-
GRANT
TOWNSHIP
GRANT
TOWNSHIP
Vl
a:
o
Cl
-
a:
c:
o
~U
.
,...J
J...J
,<
--------
I ~.
SCALE
o 1/2 1
I IPfl']l.:l!":b."o:IIHW~~tlimnUIII
~n.''''l!tI.ft\;W':t..~;:..:;;;I ~
!l
1
~
~
@)
~
~
~
\.....,.,
..
MINNESOTA ..... ~
~..
~
~
@ ~
<D
STll..LWA TER
@)
@
@
;il ..~, ~
/)., ~ L~ Ul>
;ill ~1 J. \.", L..M STll..LWATER
r..J "....
9L~_~_~J j
~
~.J-~
~ I
I
~
I
BAYTOWN
TOWNSHIP
----------
WISCONSIN
-------------------- --------------------l
@(!)
F
OAK PARK
HEIGHTS
~
~(~
( ~-s:l
(' 0
O~~~
'Sl.... C',.,..
<h
"?s
.
2
COOOY .
ST. JOSEPH
TOWNSHIP
(!)
-------------------
TH 36 STILLWATER RIVER ROUTE
TRAVEL TIME STUDY
.....
,-
. -'
."a
....,
. n
.-.
(I)
...
::s
"
.J:
.3
-
z
o
....
~
~
cr:
::J
Q
"io
. .J:...
.l!I
.
. ....
o
2.5
KEY
. - RIVER BRIDGE
CLOSURE TIME
j - EASTBOUND
~ - WEST BOUND
I
:
~ " II
I H g
of ;'t ~!: I rz
1:1 ,~:.:. l.i dl
t-'I~ Nr-i I...i ;OJ.
i..-~l I~ :-1 ~~' ::-_,
j..-:l l'J. t..;j i 1:--1
0- ~:-J :-.,
r-::1, ~',"'-l t-,J ~ ~:-!l
r-; .~' 1-- .j ""' ::-_-.
.... -I '-"10_-:1 '~ :__1
~:jJ. !~: ~:-, o~ !::jll
~::=:I: ~ t:::!, ~ ~_:-:'I
~::~I :~i t~:-~\ ~ L:::jll
~:::~ .~I t:::jl ~I r::::.11
~-:~i ~ t::::~ ~ t::::~j
~:E::~l ~~ t"::::::,\ ~I ~::::::I!
~:~:~~~ l~~' ~~:~~~1 .~@~~I f~:~~~~,
L.:---.J "'---...;J .~ 1:----1
L-:..----.1 i-,------.I ' ~--------,
L-_- -_-:, ". ! ;...- - --~t I" ;..- --- -_I:
r:;: . 5 L: . E..-'? ."'- .
~ ~. :a.J 0 .5
TIME OF DAY (hours. pm.>
-Tuesday 7/17/90
-------------------
..-.
CI)
..
='
o
..c:
-
z
o
....
f-
<(
a:
::J
Q
TH 36 STILLWATER RIVER ROUTE
TRAVEL TIME STUDY
"-
. -:I
.'!l
.:..:;
. .
.."
. ,::=
......
0'"
. "'-
d
l.i
I~
I~
.!~
~
I
;1
.'1
,
~
. ...
",.
~~t
'i.JI
2.0
.." II
L..::)
L
.
r.
lit
:.:
H
I~i
1;-:1
~-j
'--1
r-,
[_~I:
1----',
1---
,--i
i_-__'
,._-,
r---j
'---I
,:..----,
I~:::ji.
j:..-----I
f-:-:-3,
IE=:===~,
.----t
----I
:-------'.
-----:
lE::::==:~1
1:..-:...------1
._---',
1=-------:...-:.
1----_:
1:-:-:-:-:-::,
~----_.,
-----
-----...
:-:-:-:-:-:-',
I~~i~~ll
F:~:~:~:~:~~l
~- _ _ -- --,
------1
- - - - - - -:
-:-:-:-:-:-:~~I
~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-i
~~~~~~~~~~)
~~::==:::::==:::j
d
.,
.,
ti
~!
.....,
.",
,"-!
~,
I~
,~
.l~
.~!
.~
.'~
.'~
/~~
;'~81
l~~'f:i
"~I--!
.'~~I
~'-l
!~ ~::Jj
:&1 ~~~~.
I~~ ~-:-:...:~!
:~ ~:::::::i
:' : F::-:-~l
-. .7;
,:Jt . ~J
J
.~
N
:i:::i
:~
~
.:~
.~~'
: . i
.~., '" ..
~' "J ..
!~: Ll
; t.:
:~ t:I,.
.'~ r-'I
~~~l.
'~r.-'
~~~l
.~ h-:-1
.11 f~~J
~m t~~
~'~ ~:==::~!I
.!~'~'~'~_~~:~~~l'
_~ r--------,
. [:==:::=3',
..:11): ~~~~~~~I~
'. : j:-------:
. F~:~:~:~:~:~:1
. r:: ~ - - - - - 'I
. . :-:-:------_-:,
KEY
. - RIVER BRIDGE
CLOSURE TIME
j - EAST SOUNO'
~ - WEST SOUNO
l
d ~
~I ~
~ .~
,~ ;:~
~~I ~
,II ~
- ~~ ,~I
.1., Ii.
. I ;~~, I ~~'_.
~I ~~!4. '~I~ ~;~l
I ~---' ~: ,---I
..~. i-::::~l .'E~l t:::il
I ~ t:~:::::il: l~~1 ~::::~,
-:-:-:-~I! ;:--:-:-~i
----. I r___-.
-=::=:==:I :' . I F::-:--~
...... ..... fi, c=.
..:Jt.:J. -li.u
TIME OF DAY (hours, pm.>
-Friday 7/13/90
~.~
r.. .~
Cu. ~"i
-------------------
-
en
...
='
Q
..c
-
z
o
.....
f-
~
=
~
Q
TH 36 STILLWATER RIVER ROUTE
TRAVEL TIME STUDY
;;,~.
. --
..i'.:i
. =
~
P.
..
',:1,
~
j::I,
1-="1
~-:!
i---!
:- :
:--s
1::-:'1
.---1
t-:-:I
~ !----:.II
:: L-_-_
1~1 ~ :-:-:'
~ r_-_-J,
"I t-:-:-.',
,S:::i 1:=:::::::)
;~I !-=::::::',
. ~l E:::=:::.l,
~! 1-:-:-:-:1
,~ ~:~:~~~\
~I t:::::::=::'1
.Il~~~~~f~\
I ~~~~~~~~~~~~II
g- ~~~~~~~~~~,
'_~! ~~~~i~~~~~~i~~~,
, --------:.1
0' I . :::::::::::----j
4.e
-.
. ,:::
.-.
.L
.o!
. .5.
ri
rJ
i'i
S'l
1':-:.1
r_i
1- :
1.-1
i~~i
;:-_-',
t-::I
I---t
1--1
i:... :-:.1.
:-- ,
r- ---:'i
[:-:-::",
1----...;.:.
~-:"':_ii
E::::=:l,
b
~:::::~Il i.1;
~:==::~li ~ b
L_-_-_-_': 1: l-j
t~~~~ ~ ~
t---:-:-:-:-i, f-l . tj
;:---------j 8:-11 i r_.,
r--------:!. 1..-:! ,1 t-:::'I
~~~i~~~'i r~l, .@ ~~~I
.-----., '--' ~! ~---...:'.
1~1 ~~~~~~~~~~ll ,ij ~~~~ii ~Il ~::::~!'I .
" E-:-:-:-:-:~i ,',I [-:-:::1 "~.,,, ~:::::=='I
N L------I ,,!,---, ~ \.---.,
~ : --...:---------:1 1'\1 ;---::~l ~ ,- - --I
~ ~::::::::::::~'I &1 E::::==,', ~~II ~::::::~I
~ ",' . ~l t::::=:::-j.'1
~ · ~~~~~~~~3H1 ~I E~~~~~~\ ~I ~::~::::\
~ ~-_-_-_-_-_-_-__I ~I L__-_-_-:.I ~j l-_-_-_-__I
I~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~, ~I~~~~~~\ ~I ~:::::::~\
,'~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~II ~~ ~~~~~~~~~I .~~ iili~\
~ . ------- ...:-_-_-_-_-:1 '~l ~----------J ~I ~::-:-:-:-=...:J
:~, . :::-:-:-:-:::::::~I :' ,t:::::::::::'I' ! E:::-:-:-:-:-11
5 ~ R ~ h C
. - ---.. . i[jI - . ~
TIME OF DAY (hours, pm.>
-Sunday 7/15/90
~
~ fl
I ~j.c~I.
, -I
~ :!J
'-1
~ :::'j
~ E:~l.
~ L-_-.!
~ b---:1,
~ ~:::~
~ E~~i
:~ ~:::::~II
I~ t--_--.l
7.0
KEY
. - RIVER BRIDGE
CLOSURE TIME
~ - EAST BOUND
~ - WEST BOUNO
,
h
J fl
ii ti
.~ ~II
~\l ,-.
: ~.:
:~i t-:?i
.~i 1=-='1.
'~~ i-:~Il
::'\. '-l l::---'
:'\.'-j .--1
t\.~'0.. ~ "-J r...:- ~I
~; t-:-:.i,
~' i f-:-:-:i,
~ ---,
~~ t::::3
~~~; E=:=::fll
~.~ ~:::::~,
r_-_-_-_',
--_-_-~I.
. ~----I
; !"":---:-:::,
. .
7 L;;
B . {Jj
'lhn~l
i 5 tanc~ RUtl _1 fWN~2 RU~ 13 RUN i4 kUN #5 fMI #6
f~~~~~-----------~~~-~~~~~-~~'~~.-~: ":.:~:. -~~..~~~~-~---~~~~-----~~~~-----:~~~---. - ~:~B..,.
1.468 1.42 c.06 :,5~ 1.41 1.42 1.41
11.p.~e 1.35 e.la r:,52 2.21 1.34 -. 1.;;l'/
1. ~b5 C, 11 B. 56 2.07 2, (le e . 04 ~. Ob
.098 2.19 5.3 1.57 1(\,t!3 2.19 2.12
I.~,a 1.2:i l,e? 1.37 1.2~ 1,t~ 1.~1
I.B02 2.12 1.<,9 t 1.48 1.52 iU~t,
TOTAL RUN 11"[ IMIN:SE[)--} 11:24 .2~~~6 . :~l32 ,19:44 10:57 11:43
AVERA5~ iOTAL RUN mIE~--)
1------------------------ .r... ".. ---..-----------------------..--- - -. ." .. - - --------------------------...., -. '" ----------
WEsnOUND
lull~day 7/17/90
I. Interyal Ti,~
(;.inl!ieLI
r.terval
ni~tancf RUN -I RUHt2 RU~ 13 RUN #4 RU~ ~5 P.U~ i6 ~UN #1
I~~~~~___________~~~_~~~~~ .~: ~~.~~ ~ _~ ~~~_____~~~~_____~~~~____..~:42 ..~: ~~n___~~~~_____~~~~_____ u,.. .,. _ m______u
'II.Ill,lb
,91i
.~99
11'~'4
1.254
1.458
TOTAL RUN TIKE (HIN;SfCI...)
I... ... ......... .....-..--- ------- ---- ------ -.... ., .'U ____ ----------------------__ -. .. .. _..___________________ - -.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
le;d;Y 7/17/fJO
EASI&OUrIP
Inttn'al Tillll
(;;n;~ec)
1.56 1.51 1.56
1.28 1. 33 1 .)~
.....
1.3B 2,1 1.54
~.41 2.07 2. iI'
2.07 2.3J 3.0c
I.:; 1.46 US
11:40 11 :58 ,,.. .L;,
lC:~"
2.03
1.44
2.15
?',Ol 2
1 ~ 1.3'1
..il
1.41 1.1~
f,(l~ 2.53
2.43 t'
1.~3 1. 48
E.5b
2.39
1.49
13:26 '11:~6 11:37
AVERAGE TuTAL RU~ iIHf--->
AVERA6E AVHtA6E (.
RUN .7 TIHE SPEED -)
E
5:55 (cir.~\te5) r::
'-'
..., .. -----------
1./;'1' 1.81 .48.7 A
1.57 2.03 36.6 6
2.0B 3,OB ~Q,~ C
1.3;; 3.75 9.6 D
1.29 1.51 3//.9 17'
'-
l.~t. 1'.00 54.1 ~
r
10:52
14.IB
AVfRAGE AV:RH6E
WIE SPEED
In:ij1ilh>~)
1. 59 ~ ,\/7 s~.o <:
,
1.~4 1 ..~ 35.0 E'
..JI
,,45 1.96 le.~ f'
2.;'~ ..,
e.;.l1 35.8 (...-
1.54 2,42 :~: .1 S
1.4~ 1. 'If. 49.1 fI
'lC:~1()
12.28
I
I
I
Fridey '/1l3/9()
I
[ASTDDUtm
In~erval 11IIe
(min:setl
Interval
Iii stance RUtI Ii RUN.E RUN.3 RUtl #4 RUN is
IIQileSI RUN STARl 1IH~--) 2:32 3:~O 3:57 4:49 5:2ij
__________________~.~~~________________________________________________.___. .0 _ ...
I UbB
1.n8
1.:i6S
I .5~S
.928
l,eo~
TOTAL RUN TIME (KIH:SEC)--)
I.. ~..~..~__..__________________..__..... .
1.26
5.49
4.46
1.3:'
2.03
14: 14
IIlTi~ay 7/13/90
_ten.l
i ;t"lf)~e
.. i:lill'~l
2.09 1.3 1.39 2.03 ...
1.46 1.32 1.46 1.37
B.OS 5,15 5.4 5.1
5.06 13.42 5 5.?
1.1B l.c7 1.17 1.21
L~9 2.03 2.03 ~.O'7
20:22 25:29 17:P6 .17:38
AVERAGE TOTAL RUH TIME---;
WEST60UND
Ir.hrval Tille
(Ilin:setl
RUN jl P.UH~2 RUN #3 RUN #4 RU~ 15
RUN START TIME--) 2:53 3:43 4:r.~ 5:09 5l4~
11. 906
.917
I
I
-~---_..p' ~.. ~~---~------------------------------'-"
I
I
I;
I
I
I
.~99
1.54
1. c~4
1. 459
TCTAL nUN TI~E (HIH:5ECl--)
2.02
12.14
::l.e4
3.03
1.58
1.32
~4 :1:;
1.~7 ~.O3 2.06 ~.Oc ~3.~; F
7.3& 1.22 1.22 4 "'1 11.5 ,-
.1.
'""
4.45 3.36 C .1~ 3.20 ll.t' "",,
I
/'
l.~~ 1.'19 l.~S 2.11 '13,6 (!
2/38 2.08 1 <; 2.17 34.7 8
...
J.38 1.3e 1.34 LbO :;'4, 'I h
,0:26 1'2: 33 ' 11:02
AVfRA5t' TOTAL RUN TIME---) is.S']
. -- ---------, ------------------------..... ~.' ..... "- ...----...---
1.59
1.17
2
1.53
e.l~
1.38
1(i:5~
\
AVERAGE AVERAGE 5
HI'll: :iI'EED E.
(1I1nutesl G
. ..... .----
1.76 50.0 A
1.67 44.5 8
6.00 15.7 C.
6.78 5.a 0
L~9 ~(l.1 f
2.0b 52.S F
1~.O~
AVERAGE AVEf.~&E
TIME S~U.O
llllnute~)
RUH SlAIn Tll'lE--) if: 21
1--------- ------~.. h________________ u_... ..
l.eot, 4.15
.917 lE.2
I.S~9
1.5~
1.254
11 ,4~lG
, TOTAL RUN TIMf (XI~:~ECl--)
I
I
I
F! 7/13/90
Int!!rval
Istallce
i les)
RUN 11
RUN SH:iiT TI tiE. . > l{.:tJ 0
I i. 4b8
1.238
i.tillS
1,~~8
.928
1.802
T01AL RUN TIME 1!lIH:SEC)..)
I
Inday 7/15/%
It!.'! val
stance
Imill/S)
. 1.31
.1.35
~.OI
. ~.~4
1.43
2.22
18:05
fWN #1
2.41
J.~t.
1.31
1.28
~4: 11
EMTBOUND
Interval Till!:
';in:set'
IlVERflGE AVERAGE S
RUNIE RUN 13 RUN i4 ~ur; I:; RUN n TillE SPEED E
tf:L! ~ 5:30 ~;o ( MtlZ 1:09 If.inute!:il f;
v
...._..____________________.,__~..~~.~..______________----_..~. "~
1.29 l.~ 1.3 1.3~ 1.52 1.59 55.4 A
1.4 1.31 c.le 1.38 1.35 : . 'Ji 43.4 l3
i!.02 l.lfb P'.Qb 1.55 1.54 1.% 47.9 C.
1. ::It. 1.45 3.5) ~ .I~ 3.15 3.62 9.1' D
1.2 1.37 1 '.." L23 1.24 1.5c- 36.6 f
.>}I
2.02 1.~~ 2.1 2.13 1.5? e.ll 51.2 c
,
10:00 10:(14 013;39 i 1105 .11 15a
AYER~~f TOTAL RUN TIHE---) le.51
WESTBOUND
lr.ht'ial Tiffle
(Iin:setl
RUN#2
5:0/
AVERA6EAVERflSE
RUN 15 roUt: ~~ TIME SPEED
/ -- ,,/ "',/ : '.J:./ (minutes)
~/-./::?I- J
RUN 13 RUN 14
5;~2- 0;/7
1.56 1.59 2 2.22 48.6 r
2.06 1:.Q, r
1~.S2 5.02 5.1 1.13 1.5? "O~ 7.S I
t::
3.3J :,26 4.24 i:.t'l t!.~2 3.21 11.E D
1.51 2.3~ P .~)3 2.48 2,1)5 2.22 1;1.6 C
1.26 1.31 2.05 1.4~ 2.08 1. 74 43.2 B
1. ill 1.28 1.32 1,32 1.2i 1.49 58.7 71
_,6:47 16:01 'n:Et .1l:~l 12:29
AvERAGE iOTnL Rml TIME' ~..> 17 .~t
1--- -- -------------.......... - - - ----------------- - -....
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
II .
I I 1.
IV.
V.
1.
2.
3.
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
HEAVY COMMERCIAL VOLUMES IN DOWNTOWN STILLWATER
TRUCK DIVERSION
SAFETY
TRUCK INSPECTIONS
LIST OF TABLES
HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ON THE STILLWATER BRIDGE
HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN THE STILLWATER AREA: TH 36 AND
TH 95 NORTH OF JUNCTION
HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN THE STILLWATER AREA: TH 36,
WEST OF JUNCTION WITH OSGOOD
\.
I
I
SUMMARY
I
An important concern expressed during the draft EIS comment period
was the role of trucks in contributing to the congestion in
downtown Sti llwater. In particular, some observers fel t that
trucks were using the Stillwater Bridge as a means to avoid the St.
Croix Weight Scales, located on west-bound 1-94, across the river
from Hudson.
I
I
Several themes emerge from the data avai lable on trucks in the
Stillwater area. First, while the number of heavy commercial
vehicles crossing the Stillwater-Houlton bridge more than doubled
between 1982 and 1990, they remain a small percentage of overall
traffic, lower than on comparable roads elsewhere in Minnesota.*
While the contribution of large trucks to the Stillwater congestion
is disproportionate to their numbers, their overall impact on the
traffic problem is relatively minor. During counts taken in both
1982 and in 1990, semis comprised less than 1 percent of average
daily traffic (ADT) on the drawbridge. Removing semis from the
bridge and downtown Stillwater is not a principal, long-term
solution to the area"s congestion problems.
I
I
I
I
I
There is little doubt that some trucks are using Stillwater-
Houlton and other crossings to avoid the 1-94 weight scales.
According to a study done after the scales opened in 1987,
avoidance was greatest immediately after the facility opened,
after which truck volumes on westbound 1-94 began to recover.
Because the relative number of large trucks using the Stillwater-
Houlton bridge is so low to begin with, the addition of trucks
diverting from 1-94 has a minimal impact on congestion.
I
I
There is reason for concern that trucks which are avoiding the
scales are doing so because of inadequate equipment, or other
deficiencies. In addition, semis rumbling through the center of
Stillwater detract from its historical ambiance. It is probable
that large trucks in downtown Stillwater are more of a safety and
aesthetic issue than a major congestion factor.
I
I
HEAVY COMMERCIAL VOLUMES IN DOWNTOWN STILLWATER
I
According to the recently completed 1990 16 hour weekday count,
heavy commercial vehicles account for 3.4 percent of the total
traffic counted crossing the Stillwater bridge (see table 1).
Data from the two other TH 36 survey sites listed in tables 2 and
3 indicates the percentage of heavy commercial vehicles has held
steady at slightly more than 4 percent of total traffic volume in
recent years.
I
I
I
* The term "heavy commercial" includes buses, and trucks with at
least 2 axles and 6 tires; semis constitute one category of heavy
commercial vehicles. Pickups and panel trucks are not included.
1
I
I
I
TABLE 1
I
HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ON THE STILLWATER BRIDGE *
(Data From Actual Weekday Counts and ADT Calculations)
I
DATA TYPE
1978 1980
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990
I
Weekday Truck Counts
(7. of Total Vehicles)
2.97.
3.47.
I
Weekday Counts
(:It of Trucks)
273
565
I
Trucks as 7. of ADT
2.67.
I
ADT (Trucks)
322
I
Weekday Semi Counts
(7. of Total Vehicles)
.97.
.97.
I
Weekday Counts
(:It of Semis)
87
158
Semis as 7. of ADT
.87.
I
ADT (Semis)
103
I
Weekday Counts
(Total Vehicles)
9500
16800
I
ADT
(Total Vehicles)
12200
16100
I
* As used here, "truck" refers to all heavy commercial vehicles,
not just semis.
I
All numbers include vehicle flow in both directions. The weekday
figures are based on 16 hour counts done from 6 A.M. to 10 P.M.
I
The average daily traffic (ADT) figures are calculated on the raw
weekday count data, assuming an average 24 hour traffic flow for
the entire week, with adjustments made for seasonal variations.
Data is not available for every year.
I
Heavy commercial data from the 1990 counts has not yet been
converted into ADT figures. The 1990 weekday total vehicle count
is higher than ADT because count was done during summer, when
traffic is heavier.
I
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2
HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN THE STILLWATER AREA:
TH 36 AND TH 95 NORTH OF JUNCTION
DATA TYPE 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990
Weekday Truck Counts
('l. of Total Vehicles) 4.5'l. 4.3'l.
Weekday Counts
(# of Trucks) 487 668
Trucks as 'l. of ADT 4.4'l. 4.3'l.
ADT (Trucks) 698 469
TABLE 3
HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN THE STILLWATER AREA:
TH 36, WEST OF JUNCTION WITH OSGOOD *
DATA TYPE 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990
Weekday Truck Counts
('l. of Total) 4.5'l. 4.3'l.
Weekday Counts
(# of Trucks) 770 968
Trucks as 'l. of ADT 4.2'l.
ADT (Trucks) 606
* Data From Actual Weekday Counts and ADT Calculations.
Information given at bottom of table 1 also applies here.
3
I
I
I
For comparison purposes, the 1988 state-wide heavy commercial
percentage of total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was 10.5 percent
for rural principal arterials which are not part of the
interstate highway system. The 1988 figure for comparable urban
routes (which is the most closely analogous to Stillwater) was
5.7 percent of ADT.
I
I
In spite of the relatively low percentage of heavy commercial
traffic in the Stillwater area, the number of heavy commercial
vehicles counted crossing the bridge rose from 273 to 565 a day
between 1982 and 1990, an increase of 107 percent. By
comparison, ADT over the bridge increased by 32 percent during
the same period, an average annual increase of 4 percent a year.
While these numbers are not directly comparable because one is
based on raw count numbers and the other on adjusted ADT, they do
suggest that heavy commercial traffic has increased significantly
faster than traffic as a whole.
I
I
I
The types of heavy commercial vehicles which have increased most
rapidly, however, are not those which have the greatest potential
for adverse impacts on traffic congestion. The number of semis
passing over the bridge during the 1982 to 1990 counts, for
example, increased by 82 percent. By contrast, busses increased
by 318 percent during the study period, 3 axle trucks increased
by 217 percent, and 2 axle/6 tire trucks increased by 101
percent.
I
I
I
In 1982, semis constituted 32 percent of the total heavy
commercial vehicles crossing the river, a figure which had
declined to 28 percent by 1990. The share of the total weekday
traffic volume occupied by semis increased slightly between 1982
and 1990, but they remained less than 1 percent of all vehicles
crossing the bridge. These numbers suggest that semi diversion
caused by the opening of the 1-94 weigh station in 1987 has not
played a major role in increasing congestion in downtown
Stillwater.
I
I
I
According to the 1990 16 hour traffic count, truck activity on
the bridge remains relatively constant between 6 A.M. and 6 P.M.,
when use begins to taper off. According to the most recent
count, peak volumes occurred between 10 A.M. and 2 P.M., when a
total of 196 heavy commercial vehicles passed over the bridge,
including 60 semis (an average of 15 semis per hour). The most
common type of semi during the peak period--and throughout the
day--is the 5 axle variety. During the 1982 count, the peak
truck period occurred during the same late morning and early
afternoon hours as in 1990. One difference between the two
periods is that in 1990, the heavy truck period began earlier in
the morning and extended later into the afternoon than
previously.
I
I
I
I
4
I
I
I
I
In downtown Stillwater, the comparatively low percentage of heavy
commercial traffic in general, and semis in particular, is
partially offset by geometric problems, particularly at the
Chestnut and Main intersection. Large trucks have trouble making
the turns, slowing traffic. Semis occasionally jump the curb,
and sometimes even hit buildings. In addition, truck noise and
exhaust has an aesthetic impact on downtown, making the area less
pleasant for pedestrians and merchants. It is possible that the
flow of large trucks through downtown Stillwater is also having
an adverse effect on the City's historical buildings due to
vibrations and air pollution.
I
I
I
Removing semis from the bridge would provide a measure of relief
to the transportation difficulties experienced in Stillwater, and
furnish safety and aesthetic benefits. Temporary restrictions on
semi traffic could serve to slow the deterioration of the
Stillwater traffic situation until a new crossing can be
constructed. However a semi ban or restrictions would not make a
major, long-term contribution toward relieving the total
congestion problem, as semis remain a very low percentage of
total traffic. Because semis are so readily seen and heard in
the crowded downtown area, it is probable that they are often
perceived to be a more significant contributor to the congestion
problem than they really are.
I
I
I
I
In terms of congestion-producing potential, the effects of a
complete ban on semis from the bridge would be quickly negated by
annual increases of other types of vehicles. Assuming for this
analysis that each semi produces the same congestion as four
cars, on-going traffic increases would push congestion back to
current levels in less than two years.
I
I
I
An additional consideration is that both TH 36 and STH 35/64 are
designated truck routes in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Mn/DOT
classifies TH 36 as part of its Market Artery System, which is a
network of high priority truck routes. In Wisconsin, 5TH 64 is
designated as a multi-lane connector under Wisc/DOT's Corridors
2020 Highway Economic Development Plan. One of the principal
reasons Congress authorized construction of the existing bridge
in 1929 was to "facilitate interstate commerce."
I
I
The permanent removal of semis from these roads would have
important economic impacts, and is not a long-term transportation
option. For businesses in Wisconsin towns such as Somerset and
New Richmond, the Stillwater-Houlton crossing is an important
conduit of economic activity. According to a 1988 report
published by the West Central Regional Planning Association (The
Need For 5TH 35/64 HiQhway Improvement), "the economic
development efforts of the communities along 5TH 35/64 have been
hurt by the current conditions on the roadway."
I
I
I
5
I
I
I
I
Stillwater also relies heavily on trucks to ship goods in and out
of the City. In the event of a ban on semis which do not have
local business, it would be difficult to differentiate between
trucks with destinations in Stillwater, and those which are
passing through.
I
TRUCK DIVERSION
I
It is widely believed that some trucks are using the Stillwater
bridge as a means for avoiding the weight scales on the Minnesota
side of the 1-94 crossing. In a 1988 Mn/DOT report (entitled
Traffic Impacts of establishin9 Permanent Weigh Stations), truck
data was collected for a 19 month period, beginning 7 months
prior to the opening of the weigh station.
I
I
I
In the five month period following the opening of the weigh
station in July, 1987, it is estimated that approximately 300
westbound 5 axle semis per day were avoiding the scales. This
means that numbers were down approximately 20 to 25 percent from
previous volumes. During the last month of the study period
(June, 1988), 5 axle semi volumes on westbound 1-94 had recovered
to the point where they were down about 15 percent.
I
I
The data for all trucks other than 5 axle semis also showed a
drop in volume after the weigh station opened, but not as great.
Initially, volumes were down 10 to 15 percent (about 100 trucks
per day). Again, there was a recovery at the end of the study
period, and after the scales had been open nearly a year, volumes
had actually climbed above pre-station levels.
I
I
The recovery in truck numbers toward the end of the study period
suggests that the opening of the weigh station acted as an
incentive for many truck owners who used 1-94 to get their
vehicles and documents up to compliance standards. Trucks which
use the 1-94 corridor regularly likely have an economic incentive
to ensure that their documents and vehicles meet regulations,
rather than continue diverting to another crossing. It probably
does not make sense for most frequent, long-term operators to
continually waste time and gas to avoid the scales.
I
I
I
Because of pre-existing data collection scales about 3 miles west
of the new St. Croix Weigh Station, the effect of the station's
opening on truck weights could also be analyzed. Truck weights
were more erratic than volumes, but they also showed a drop after
the station opened, in some cases up to 25 percent.
I
I
While the St. Croix Weigh Station is inconvenient to by-pass,
truckers do have a number of options. For most trucks traveling
along 1-94 from west-central Wisconsin to the Twin Cities,
Stillwater-Houlton would be the most obvious alternative
I
6
I
\
I
I
I
crossing. The detour north on STH 35 from Hudson to Houlton is
approximately eight miles.
I
There is another bridge about 15 miles south of 1-94 at Prescott,
but weight restrictions are in effect until the new crossing is
completed. Further downstream on the Mississippi, the crossing
at Red Wing could be an alternative for some trucks. Some
vehicles coming from the Chicago or Milwaukee area likely divert
on 1-90 across western Wisconsin, crossing into southeastern
Minnesota, and proceeding northwest into the Twin Cities on TH
52. According to the 1-94 truck diversion report, it is probably
large 5 axle semis that utilize the 1-90 detour, as smaller
trucks generally do not travel such long distances.
I
I
I
Delays caused by the St. Croix Weigh Station are not the primary
cause of truck diversions. The weigh station can quickly screen
vehicles, directing them to bypass the station, to proceed to the
scales, or go to the inspection area. Furthermore, the fear of
being caught over weight is also probably not a major motivating
factor for avoiding the weight scales. According to the Mn/DOT
1-94 diversion report,
I
I
it is the impression of some members of the State
Patrol that it is generally trucks with safety
violations on the equipment which are avoiding the
scales. They do not feel that it is an overweight
issue.
I
I
I
Truck violation data collected by the State Patrol along TH 36 in
Washington County generally supports this viewpoint. According
to violation records collected from 1980 through April of 1990,
the most frequently encountered type of truck violation is
driving without Minnesota registration, or with expired
registration. During this period, the Patrol recorded 287
instances of this type of registration violation. Out of state
motor carriers can not legally operate in Minnesota without
making arrangements that typically involve registering their
vehicles and Interstate Commerce Commission authorization with
the state. They must also purchase a road use tax license.
I
I
I
I
I
After registration, the next most frequently listed violation
type was illegal use of plates, which was cited 32 times. This
was followed by an inadequate daily driver log (24 violations)
and, in fourth place, weight infractions for over 34,000 pounds
on a tandem axle (23 violations). Citations for no cab card
ranked fifth among violation types (19 violations).
During the summer of 1990, the Minnesota State Patrol performed
an intensive two-day truck inspection in the Stillwater area
along TH 36. According to aerial surveillance which was done
during the inspections, some trucks were seen suspiciously
detouring north off of 1-94 on the Wisconsin side of the river in
I
7
I
I
I
I
I
order to cross at Stillwater. All drivers stopped were
questioned about their departure point and destination. The
Patrol estimates that 7 percent of the 614 trucks which were
stopped appeared to be avoiding the 1-94 scales, according to the
information provided by the drivers and inferences made by the
inspectors. Even if half of all semis using the bridge were
diverting from the 1-94 scales--which is highly unlikely--they
would still constitute less than half of one percent of total
traffic over the bridge.
I
I
I
To summarize, the new weight scales on 1-94 do provide an
incentive for some trucks to detour around them. As one of
several possible alternatives, the Stillwater bridge receives
some of this additional traffic, although it is an extremely
small percentage of the total traffic. While trucks diverting
through Stillwater from 1-94 contribute to the traffic problem,
the overall effects on congestion are very minor. It is likely
that truck diversion through Stillwater is more of a safety issue
than a congestion concern.
I
I
SAFETY
I
From 1984 to 1989, there were a total of 27 accidents involving
trucks on TH 36 in Washington County. Of this total, 21
accidents involved property damage, and 6 caused injuries. There
were no fatalities.
I
In the period from 1976
same stretch of TH 36.
16 in injuries, with no
to 1983, there were 71 accidents on the
Of these, 55 resulted in property damage,
fatalities.
I
I
Not included in these study periods was a widely publicized
accident caused by a truck which ran a red light on TH 36 in
February, 1990. The accident resulted in 4 fatalities near the
intersection with Oasis Avenue. The truck had recently been
cited for numerous safety violations.
I
Safety problems created by trucks are particularly acute in
downtown Stillwater. According to a report completed on
pedestrian safety by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety in
the early 1980s, the City of Stillwater has half of its
pedestrian accidents in the downtown area. Some pedestrians have
been killed attempting to cross crowded downtown streets. The
presence of large trucks in the downtown area amplifies the
already serious conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. In
addition to safety issues, the passage of large commercial
vehicles through Stillwater makes the city a generally less
inviting place for pedestrians, a factor which could have an
adverse impact on Stillwater"s tourist industry.
I
I
I
I
8
I
I
I
I
Truck safety issues have recently been addressed at both the
state and Federal levels of government; standards are getting
tighter. In 1990, the Minnesota Legislature passed a law which
creates a commercial vehicle inspection program. By April 1,
1991, all vehicles in the affected vehicle classes must display a
decal proving that a certified inspection was performed. In
addition, all drivers must perform a daily pre-trip inspection,
and keep records of the condition of safety equipment on the
vehicle. The previous year, the Minnesota Legislature passed
commercial driver license legislation, which brought the state
into compliance with the Federal Commercial Vehicle Act of 1986.
As of December 21, 1990, minimum Federal anti-drug standards will
be in effect for interstate motor carriers, including the testing
of drivers for the use of controlled substances.
I
I
I
I
TRUCK INSPECTIONS
I
I
According to Mn/DOT's Office of Motor Carrier Safety and
Compliance, 15-20 percent of trucks stopped and examined during
Mn/DOT's surprise inspections around the state (trucks are
screened before being inspected) have safety defects serious
enough to warrant taking the vehicle off the road. According to
information from Mn/DOT inspections, the percentage of seriously
deficient vehicles on TH 36 in Stillwater appears to be similar
to the statewide average.
I
I
An important caveat, however, is that inspection data is
difficult to compare, as conditions can not be controlled very
easily. Because of good communications, violators are often able
to learn about inspections quickly, and take alternative routes
to avoid detection. Furthermore, there can be significant
variations in manpower and conditions between inspections. Data
between agencies can vary considerably as well. The Minnesota
State Patrol, for example, typically puts a higher percentage of
vehicles out of service during its checks than Mn/DOT inspectors.
I
I
I
In November, 1989, Mn/DOT sharply increased its truck inspection
program, one result of a new emphasis on highway safety within
the Department. Since then, Mn/DOT has inspected 4,000 vehicles,
double the number from the previous year. Periodic surprise
checks are performed in the Stillwater area. Mn/DOT's Program
Management Division recently hired six new people to help with
truck inspections. In addition to recent cooperative efforts
with Wisconsin, Mn/DOT has discussed joint inspection efforts
with DOT representatives in Iowa and North Dakota.
I
I
I
On June 5th and 6th, 1990, Mn/DOT and the State Highway Patrol
conducted a joint surprise inspection on both sides of TH 36,
near County Road 5. During the inspections, Mn/DOT officials
inspected 99 trucks; 197 warnings and 37 citations were issued,
some vehicles and drivers receiving more than one. Of the
I
9
I
I
I
I
vehicles inspected, 16 (17 percent) had violations which were
serious enough to remove them from service, a figure which is
consistent with Mn/DOT's state-wide average. One driver had an
out of service violation.
I
It is worth noting that the State Highway Patrol had a much
higher out of service ratio during these inspections; nearly 56
percent of the 59 trucks the State Patrol inspected during the
two day effort were put out of service. When inspection reports
from Mn/DOT and the State Patrol were combined, the percentage of
inspected vehicles which received out of service violations came
to 30 percent
I
I
I
On June 7th, 1990, there was a major spot inspection program
along both sides of the Minnesota-Wisconsin border. This was a
two-state endeavor, with personnel from the DOTs, state patrol
officers, and county sheriff offices. Inspection locations
included the Stillwater area (WI side), Prescott (WI side), Red
Wing (MN and WI sides), St. Croix Falls (WI side), Osceola (MN
side), and the Hudson area (WI). The percentage of inspected
trucks with violations serious enough to warrant taking them out
of service was slightly lower than the combined numbers from TH
36 in Stillwater. Out of 283 inspection reports received from
Wisc/DOT, Mn/DOT, and the MN Department of Public Safety, 72
vehicles (25 percent) had out of service violations. A total of
7 drivers had out of service violations.
I
I
I
Another series of surprise checks occurred on July 31 and August
1, 1990, when the Minnesota State Patrol performed an extensive
truck inspection along TH 36 in the Stillwater area. Of the 321
trucks which were inspected, 27 percent were put out of service,
similar to the results of the Minnesota-Wisconsin multiple border
crossing inspection.
I
I
I
Even with the additional attention being paid to truck diversion,
catching violators will remain a cat and mouse game. The bulk of
Minnesota's truck inspection resources in the Lower St. Croix
Valley are located at the 1-94 station. The Minnesota State
Patrol operates two mobile inspection teams in the Metro Area,
and occasionally diverts personnel from the 1-94 station to other
locations such as Stillwater. Unfortunately, there are
insufficient resources to permanently cover all potential routes
which trucks can use to avoid inspection.
I
I
I
Trucks which are out of compliance with safety regulations will
continue to use Stillwater and other crossings unless trucks are
banned or permanent inspections stations are constructed.
Neither of these is a viable option along many routes currently
being used by trucks to avoid scales. As stated earlier, the
number of trucks diverting from 1-94 is too small to
significantly add to the congestion problem in the area. Truck
diversion is mainly a safety issue at Stillwater.
I
I
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this report is to analyze potential traffic system
management (TSM) ideas to improve traffic flow through downtown
Stillwater. The main focal point of Stillwater~s congestion
problem is the signalized intersection of Chestnut and Main
Streets, located two blocks west of the existing drawbridge.
TSM efforts in downtown Stillwater could be useful as an interim
measure to reduce congestion until a new crossing can be
constructed. In addition, long-term TSM measures could prove
helpful in managing on-going traffic increases, even if a new
crossing is constructed. However, TSM is not considered to be a
principal, long-term solution to the local and regional
transportation traffic problems, which require a new river
crossing to be adequately addressed.
Currently, average weekday peak hour volumes exceed the capacity
of the Chestnut and Main intersection, which provides a level of
service of F, with vehicle delays of up to 2 minutes. (Level of
service D is considered to be the minimum acceptable level.) The
situation is much worse on summer weekends, when traffic volumes
are up to 25 percent higher. Some of the main problems at this
intersection are as follows (see figure 1):
* On westbound Chestnut, there is a large volume of traffic
which turns left onto Main. Compounding the problem is the
fact that the length of the two westbound lanes on Chestnut
are restricted by the two lane drawbridge, while the width
of the roadway is restricted by buildings on either side.
* On eastbound Chestnut (west of intersection), there are
three possible movements from one lane. Parking on both
sides of Chestnut restricts the capacity.
* On northbound Main, the right turn lane is limited by on-
street parking. South of the restricted parking area, both
northbound (to TH 95) and eastbound (to Wisconsin) traffic
is restricted to one lane each.
* The presence of a significant number of pedestrians leads
to additional restrictions on the traffic flow in downtown
Stillwater, especially during the summer.
The following sets of alternatives attempt to address these
deficiencies, resulting in different benefits and disadvantages.
As detailed in the Stillwater-Houlton Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, some of these alternatives have already been studied
in detail by the City of Stillwater and/or the Minnesota
Department of Transportation, beginning in the 1960s. Appendix A
in this report includes comments submitted to Mn/DOT which
review, among other things, Stillwater~s views on TSM and
downtown traffic problems.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALTERNATIVES WHICH MAINTAIN A TWO-WAY
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC FLOW ON MAIN STREET
Three principal alternatives were analyzed to improve the
capacity of existing streets without altering the two-way traffic
flow on Main Street. Some of the ways the capacity of existing
streets might be improved include increasing road width and
number of lanes, improving turning radii at corners, and
restricting parking. Converting a portion of Chestnut to one-way
traffic is also an option.
The extent of road widening possible in downtown Stillwater is
restricted by buildings and the need to maintain sidewalks of an
acceptable width. In theory, Main Street could be widened to a
maximum of four lanes (14/12/12/14 feet), which would result in a
reduction of sidewalk width on each side of the road from 11 feet
to 7 feet. Chestnut could have a maximum of four 12 foot lanes,
with 6 foot sidewalks. However, these sidewalk widths are
considered less than acceptable due to the large number of
pedestrians in downtown Stillwater. Consequently, the revisions
described below utilize parking limitations, turn restrictions,
and/or one-way traffic flows on Chestnut to improve capacity:
* Revision A prohibits left turns from eastbound Chestnut and
extends the right turn lane on northbound Main south to Nelson
Street (see figure 2). Eastbound traffic on Chestnut would be
able to turn left one block east at 2nd Street. Extending the
right turn lane on Main would result in the loss of 15 on-street
parking places.
* Revision B incorporates the changes made above, but further
limits parking on Chestnut and Main (see figure 2). Traffic on
eastbound Chestnut turning right onto Main would be able to use a
right turn lane, due to more limited parking south and west of
the intersection. In addition, traffic turning right onto Main
from westbound Chestnut would also be able to take advantage of a
new lane made available by parking restrictions.
* Revision C removes eastbound vehicles from Chestnut between
Main and 2nd Street, improving the signal phasing (see figure 3).
A disadvantage of this option is that it increases traffic
volumes at the intersection of Myrtle and Main, one block to the
north. Left turns from southbound Main to eastbound Chestnut
will also increase with this option.
Revisions A through C do not solve the intersection traffic
problem for average weekday traffic; they do even less for summer
weekend traffic, when vehicle volumes and pedestrian traffic are
significantly higher. As depicted in table 1 below, the present
configuration is rated at level of service F, the failure level.
Revisions A, B, and C provide successively better results.
2
\.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 1
TSM REVISIONS IN OOWNTOWN STILLWATER:
1WO-WAY TRAFFIC ON MAIN STREET
(Average Weekday Traffic)
Configuration Level of ServicejVehicle Delay in Seconds
1989 1994 1999 2004
Present * * * *
Revision A E/42 E/56 * *
Revision B D/38 E/51 * *
Revision C D/27 D/32 E/51 *
(*) Failure--worse than level of service F. Vehicle delay is an
average computed for all vehicles entering the intersection.
However, even the most successful revision (C) attains a level of
service F by the year 2004.
ALTERNATIVES WHICH CONVERT MAIN STREET TO ONE-WAY TRAFFIC FLOW
It is possible to improve traffic flow at the ChestnutjHain
intersection by restricting Main Street to one-way, southbound
traffic. One-way streets improve capacity by reducing turning
movements at intersections (thereby improving signal timing),
without the need to widen lanes or add new ones. Main Street
would remain as it is now (10/12/12/10 feet), with 11 foot
sidewalks.
Conceivably, northbound traffic which formerly utilized Main
could be routed on to Water Street or the railroad right-of-way
(both located between Main and the river). Second Street, which
is located west of Main Street, is not considered a candidate for
one-way pairing due to topography.
All of the one-way pair alternatives investigated here would
result in larger socio-economic impacts than revisions A through
C, which maintained two-way traffic flow on Main. The Water
Street alternate would, for example, require the acquisition of
the grain elevator or feed store located south of Nelson Street,
in addition to the loss of considerable parking spaces.
Pedestrian movement in the downtown area would also be altered.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternatives which employ one-way traffic pairings hold the
potential for substantial impacts to the historical resources in
Stillwater. A significant portion of downtown Stillwater is in
the process of being nominated as a National Historic Commercial
District; the City has expressed concerns about the potential
impact of large traffic volumes on the integrity of existing
cultural resources and the future historical district (see
appendix B). The Freight House Restaurant, which is located
between the railroad tracks and Water Street, is presently listed
on the National Register of Historic Places and could be
adversely affected by these alternatives.
In part because of historical concerns, there are serious
geometric constraints with the one-way alternatives which would
make them difficult to implement. Water Street, for example,
offers only 48 feet between building faces; this would provide
for just two 14 foot lanes, with 10 foot sidewalks on each side.
There would be no room for on-street parking, and truck
deliveries would become much more difficult.
The one-way alternatives (revisions D and E) which utilize Main
and Water Streets for southbound and northbound traffic,
respectively, are as follows (see figure 4):
* Revision D utilizes Chestnut movements which are most similar
to revision A, with fewer turns possible because of one-way
traffic on Main. Parking along Main is permitted without
restriction.
* Revision E converts Chestnut west of Main to a westbound one-
way, similar to revision C. This change will result in vehicles
entering the Chestnut/Main intersection from only two directions,
instead of the four at present. However, three destination
directions remain on southbound Main, as Chestnut (east of Main)
must continue carrying two-way traffic to maintain access to the
bridge.
As depicted in figure 4, the feed store at the southeast corner
of Main and Nelson would be acquired in order to provide better
access to Water Street. Another way to route northbound traffic
onto Water Street would be to use the land south and east of the
Brick Alley parking lot (see figure 5). This alternate would
utilize the same Chestnut and Main configurations illustrated in
figure 4 (revisions D and E), but would require the acquisition
of the grain elevator instead of the feed store. The grain
elevator route would improve access to Water Street, but would
eliminate additional parking spaces south of the Brick Alley.
The operation of revisions D and E at the Chestnut and Main
intersection would not be affected by the route chosen to direct
traffic to Water Street.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As indicated in table 2~ revision E provides a level of service
of C for average weekday traffic through 1999~ the best of any of
the alternatives analyzed in this report. It is estimated that
revision E would provide acceptable levels of service for average
weekday traffic until the year 2004.
It is important to note that both of these alternatives are less
successful in addressing average summer weekend traffic at the
intersection. Revision E is estimated to exceed level of service
D on weekends around the year 2000.
TABLE 2
TSM REVISIONS IN DOWNTOWN STILLWATER:
ONE-WAY PAIRING
(Average Weekday Traffic)
Configuration Level of ServicelVehicle Delay in Seconds
1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
Present * * * * * *
Revision D D /30 D/35 E/55 F/88 * *
Revision E C/16 C/18 C/23 D/31 E/46 *
(*) Failure--worse than level of service F. Vehicle delay is an
average computed for all vehicles entering the intersection.
Another possible alternative would be to use the railroad right-
of-way for one-way northbound traffic (see figure 6). (A
variation of this option would be to maintain two-way local
traffic on Main Street while routing two-way interstate traffic
next to the railroad tracks--see figure 7). With the rail line
alternative~ less than 50 feet would be available for a new road~
permitting only two 14 foot lanes. Up to 150 parking spaces
could be lost with the railroad alternative. Due to access needs
of the Minnesota Railroad Museum (located north of Chestnut)~ the
railroad tracks must remain in place~ necessitating an
inconvenient~ acute angle road crossing.
The railroad option has the potential for severe impacts to
neighboring Lowell Park~ which is a heavily used recreation site
and part of the proposed historical district. Access to the park
would become more difficult, and visitors would be subjected to
increased noise and air quality impacts from vehicles using the
railroad right-of-way.
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Another important consideration is that some land from Lowell
Park would need to be acquired to develop the railroad option.
Use of this parkland would invoke the Federal Highway
AdministrationAs Section 4 (f) criteria; under Section 4 (f), an
alternative which affects significant parkland or National
Register sites may be selected only if there is no other
"feasible and prudent" alternative.
Downtown Stillwater depends heavily on historical and
recreational resources for its economic base, and impacts to
these amenities could have serious consequences for downtown
businesses. Because of social, economic, historical, and
parkland impacts, use of the railroad is not considered to be an
acceptable alternative. Compared to the railroad option, use of
Water Street in a one-way pairing with Main would produce fewer
adverse impacts and result in the same traffic improvement.
CONCLUSION
None of the alternatives discussed in this analysis comes close
to being a primary solution to the transportation problem in
downtown Stillwater. Even the best option would fail before the
year 2014 for average weekday traffic; a level of service rating
of F would be reached earlier for heavier summer weekend traffic.
In addition to not providing a satisfactory solution to the
transportation problem, each of the downtown TSM options would
have varying adverse impacts on parking, access, pedestrians,
businesses, parkland, and/or historical resources. The one-way
pair option, in particular, would have an adverse impact on the
Stillwater waterfront and the area around the historical Freight
House. Impacts would be particularly severe with the railroad
right-of-way alternative.
The principal utility of the TSM study alternatives in downtown
Stillwater would be the possibility of reducing traffic
congestion on an interim basis before a new bridge is built. In
addition, they might prove useful as long-term measures to help
Stillwater manage growing traffic volumes in conjunction with a
new river crossing. By the year 2014, forecasts indicate that
there will be more traffic in downtown Stillwater than there is
currently, even if a new bridge is constructed.
6
\
\
\
\
\ ....
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \\
\
\\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \.-
c./l
l-
Z
~
uJ
-' >
o
~
uJ
0::
::l
<..?
H
U.
<..?
Z
H ....
l-
c./l
H
><
L1J
\
\ \ ....
\ \ ....
\
....
....
....
\
\
\
...
....
....
.... ....
""".,.~,;
... ....
....
...
...
...
...
....
...
...
...
...
....
*' ' ..... "\.
...1IfI"....... \
....... \
....
....
....
...
...
...
...
~~'t....'" ...
~1Q~ ...
~....'" ...
... ...
.... .,. , ...
... ...
...
....
...
"
\
...
('
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
...
....
1\.~....'" ...
~rl~... .......
"'...~, ....
... ...
..-4
<..?
H
U.
Ii)
at
~
~ N
z
C> ,
....
1/1
~
....
0
~
0
...."'\ @
... \
.... \
....
... ...\
... ...
... \
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
\~
\
\
.>
...
...
....
\
\
\
\ \
\ \\
\ \ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
) \
\
\
\
\
0::
L1J
>
H
0::
\
...."'\
\
...
\
\
\
...
....
...
...
...
...
...
><
H
o
x:
<->
.
...
l-
c./l
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
\ \\
\\
\
\
\
\
...
~\}1....... ...
S"'... ...
C'f\; ... ;, .... ...
... ...
\
... \ \
\ \
\ \
\ \,\
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\
...
...
....
...
\
....
...
...
...
...
...
\
\
\
\
\ \
\ \\
\ \ \
\ \
\ \ ...
\ \ ... ... ...
\ \.-'" ........
\ ...
\ ...
\ \
\ \
~ \ \
'" \ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \' \
\ \ .;.....
\ \ ...
\ \....
) ... ...
...
....
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... \
\
\
\
u.l
Vl
::l
o
:J:
\-
:x:
C>
....
u.l
0::
\.L.
~
~
Q..
J
J
~
J
\
\...
...
...
...
...
...
....
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
~ \ \\
\ \ \
\ \
\ \
\ \...
,)
...
...
\
\
\
\
...
...
\
\
\
...
...
...
"'"
\
\
\
\
\
...
...
.....
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
. :::. ::. -:.,.."'ll., "
. -. ~.~. Il> \
~<t\~ ' ,~.f2 :~._.
~S\... ~\.\l~'
... ... \
... ...
\
\
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
\
\
...'"
'"
",'"
",'"
,.~. ." '"
'",'"
",'"
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
\
\
\
\
~
~
'"
",'"
'" '" :;,.
~." "",,,,,;
",'"
......
~...
... ' \
, \
\ ,
\ ,
,
\ \
, \
\ \\
\ \ \
,
, ,
, ,
\ ",,'"
}
...
.........
... ......
.........
.........
,," ","
...,'"
\
...'
,
",'"
,... ,...'
.".,,;""
'.'*'\.~ '- t.!'~~'\'
~ .,..- .,.'\ ._~,-"'"
'\~~
..' ,
'"
......
,~ '
or,....... \
...' \ \
\ \
...
...'
\
,
,a
q. \ r..-:
(<": \ \fc\
,
......
,. '" ."....\
...... ,
RE\}1510N ~
\
RE.\J1510N e
! .
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
rlG\JRE.
RE.\J1510N5
2
~
,,'"
,,"
...
.,,'" '" "",'"
.,,;' ",,"
.........
......
,...
,
"
\
,,\ \
\ ,
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \'
\ ,
,\ \
\ \
\- ,
\ \
, ,,'
...
...
~ 6
\
,
\
\
\
\
\ \
\ \\
\\ \
\ \
\ \
\ ,'"
,."J
\
\
\
\
\
......
,...
, ......
." ,. "" ""
,-;,., ,...
,...
,...
,
,"'......
...,'"
......
, ...\
\
\
\
......
...",'" ,'......
"'...... ......'
,
",'
,'"
\
\
\
~\1f
\ \ ~
\\ \ ~
\ \ ~
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \.,'
>
"
TH 95
,.
,,'"
,"'"
, \
\
\
\
...
...'
"
.........."...,....
....'
(
\
\
\
\
\ \~
\ \\.,:)
\ .A
\ \ (...
\ \ ,.-
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ ",'
"
....
,
1i) , ...
~ ~,' '"
", "".".
, '" (
",' \ \
... '" \ \
\ \
\ \("l
\ \~
\ \~
\ \\~
\ \ \ ;;..\
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ .......
~'V ,,' ...'
'2.,' \
.... '" ,... "'.... \ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\
,
"
~...,,,, <'
....~ ,"" \
~' \
,''t ,\
;;..\ \ ("l
, \ 0.
\ \~
~~'\\\ \ ll'l
\\\\~
\ \ 'f
, \
\ \
\ \ '
\ ",,'
;' \ ". "
.",;' '"
,,'
...
,
" ,
.... ." , , ...
.......'
,.------.
."..",.------
....
"
" '"
.......",.......
,
.......
\
\
\
\
\
\
...)
...'\
\
\
\
".","" ,.
...' ,~,..., \\
".... \
\
\
....\
"'....
,
"
.... ".......
,
....
....'"
,...
....'
,
....'
....
....'
,
....
,
,,'
'"
,
"
....,
, ,....
".,;
q.
ft,.
,/ ~
\. ....r ~
...,'\
.'
.. ~
.'
....
@ OENOiES S1.G~~\..
.'
,
~~'\~
~z
r Ie
FREIGHT HOUSE.
Rl\}E.R
51.
\
\
\
\
\
,
,
,
,
, ,
, ,
" ., "":.'
, ,
'" ,
\, ,
... ""
""
""
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
\ \\
\ \
\\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
<.)
5
t-'
if)
t-'
'/'
oJ
~
""
,,'" ...."\
, "" \
' "', \
,',' \ \
' ""
, ,
"" ""
, ,
,
""
u
r:
::>
'-'
t-'
\J-
,
~ '
~~~ ",,'
- ... \\,~ "
"'" , ,
"'-;,.. '",,""
"" '"
, ,
, ,
,
,
""
<
\
\ \
\ \
\ \\
\ \ \
\ \
\ \
\ \ "
\ '"
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
\ \\
\\ \
\ \
\ \ ,
\ \, ,
') ",""
""
"\\...'C(........ ,. ." .... ,.,
.rl~, "
"'" ~ ~ "
'" '"
'" '"
\ ",' "
'" '"
"
"
\ \~
\ ')
\ ,
\ ~Q1. " '"
\ \ \ ~<;'\ ",' ,
\ \ \ c~ "'." '"
\ \ " '" ""
\ \ "'"
\ \ "" '" '"
\ '" ,'"
\ ,
\ ,
\ \
\ \
~ \ \
.f"\ \
\ \
\ \
\ ,\
\ \ \
\ \
\ \ ,
\ \."
)
,
'"
,
'"
,
""
,
,
'"
,
,
'"
'"
~c ~ ",,,
'-. ' "
cfJ ,," ~'
"., "
" "
, ,
"
'"
"
<'
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
'" '\
,.
'" \
"
'"
,
,
"
'"
,
'"
"
"
U'I
0>
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
\,.
<t
a
....
1/'1
~
....
o
~
o
"
"
,
'"
'"
""
, \
\
\
\
\ \
\ \
\ ~\
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\\\\
\ .
@
""
",'" \
'"
".
\
\
\
'.
""
'"
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
\ \\
\ \ \
\ \
\
\
\
\
..\
\ ~\
\' \
\' \
\
~ \ \
\ \
\ \\
\ \ \
\ \
\ \ '"
\ \"
>
'"
"
"
"
",,'do~
" "
"" '"
'" ""
"
'"
"
'"
,
""
'"
\
\
\
\
\ ,
'"
'" \
'" \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
\ \
\ \\\
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
~
--
'.
'.
'.
--
\
--
.....
.....
--
lit:
-a
Q..
.......
'-'
. t-'
\J-
"
.......
....
.......
--
...,
...
ex::
u.1
'7
.....
~
.
"
"
")<.
.....
o
~
<..)
.
r-
if)
'.
'.
'.
...
".
....
,
,
,
,
,
--
--
.....
~ ~
~
,
\
\
\
,
\
,
,
RE.\J1510N 0
RE.\J 15 ION E
'..
,
0::
\\~~~i
~" ~ ,,; ... "...1.
\;'" '
" "" "".
" ~~. 1\.\
-f{,~~.
~I
~.
,'"
"
...,'
,
~
4\ \.~NES iO
JCi. 95
/
rIGURE.
'tI~"E.R 51.
4
ONE.
~~'<
....
....,....
....'
, "
, \
,
,
,
,
,,'"
,," ,"
.... '
,....'"
\
,
,
\
,
\
,
,
,
\
,
\
....'
, \
,
, ,
\ ,
\ \
,
, \
,
, \'
'\ '
\ ,
, ,
, \ .."
,."J .......
"'.... (
,....... ........"
....... ,'....' "" '\
~ ~'V "" ,....' , ,
....' ,.... ' ,
,,< ' ,~
,...., , ' .,:)
, '" " ' \' .A
, , ,\ '~(l\
\ ,q. , ,
, \~ \ \
, ,,\~ \ '.......
'\ ,~
, ,
, \
, , ...
\ .... '"
~('o ....' '"
'2. ,,,v,,,'" ",'
, '" .'
'" '" "'.... , \
,. ,," \
"'"......'" , \
...' \
, ,
, ,
,
...
...",'"
, ",' ",' '"
",'" ,.;
...'"
,
"'....
....
........
...
...... ...
....-;,., ...,'"
.......
......
.......
." ", ". "
........
...,'"
...
,...
,
\
\
,
~\~
, , ~
,\ \ ~
\ ,~
, \
\ ,
, ,
\ , .).".... G".... - - - - - - .
,"'....'" :
...> @,..."------
TH 95
,.
,'"
....""
\
,
,
,
...,'"
",...", ...'
... ...'"
....'
'"
...
,
,"'....
.,," ,,""
,......
...'"
,...' ,
" , ",'
... ,...
,......
,...
~
... ' ,
, , ,
\ ,
, ,
,
, '
, '
, \'
,\'
, '
\ '
\ ' .......
} '"
...
.......'"
...'
....'
"",...",'"
,'"
,'"
,
,
,
,
,
,'"
.......' (
" " ;'\ \
;,,'" \ \
\ ,
, ,C"l:\
' \
, \
, \,1b
" \ ~
, \ 'f
, , "
'1> ' ,-' -'"..........,
'C" , ' ~'" '" '" , '
'..A v"'" ,
" ' , , \\ '
....' ...... ' '
, '" ' '
.......
, \ '
, >
'"
"
,
,," ."
... ",,'"
....'"
,
,...
",'"
'" -.-., ",'" '"
,...
...'
.,,; ,"
, ""-:, '" '"
,,,,'"
......
...."
" \
",' ,
'" "'f-
\ ,..-':
, ,fc\
, ,
@ OE~OiES S tGN~\.
,...
...'
....", '" '\
........ "
"
... '" "'....
'" ",'"
, ,
...
.'
.'"
! .
,,/
"
,. ,r
.......:\
... !.
~z
\1
\ .:>J)
~
"
" ,,<
ST "" ~
110 P ~i\\(. tllG ~LOllG 'Il~ TE.R ' ,,,>
" ,,'^
" ,,~
~CQUtRE. eutLOtllG ' ,~
" ,,~
"" RI\JE.R
51 . CROl~ \ ""
" "
" "
" "
St:.E rIG. 4
INiE..RSE..CilON 01'
\
\
\
\
\
~L 1E.RNA 1E.
rIG\JRE. 5
oN 'H~1E.R 51.
,....
",.' ,"
"....' "
'" ",' ... "" ,
............ ,... \ ,
.... ... ... "
....'
".... ' ,
, ,
, \'
, ,
,\ ,
, ,
, ,
, '.... .......
,
",' ",.""
...,'" "
'" "" \
, \ \
, ,
\ '~
\ \\~
,\ ,~
, , "'",
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,..... G" - - - -
. -
'" .... ...
,> @ ""....------
... '" '
... "', ,BEeltll ()llE ....'f
... \ '
, \\ '
, '
, '
, '
",,,,'" ....>
........'"
TH 95
ONE.
'HA'<
I' OR RE..\J IS IONS 01'
M/>.lN ~ c\-\E..SiN\.li
,
\
,
\
,
\
, ,
, \'
'\ '
\ ,
, ' ,
, ' ' ,,'
, ,~
, /' ('
, / /'"
, /' "':/ "
, ~"",/ ,/ "
" ,/' (' " ,,~
",' .... "" , ' ......
, / / ' ' \''''
, ...........'" \ ' \'<:..
v ' ~/ ' ' ' , ,.
,/ ' ,q" , ,
. ,.. ' ,
, ' ,~ '
, ' \,~ ' '~
, '\ ,,," "
, ' , ,,' ~
, ,,/' /' \
, , ,,/
, , ' ,-,<."'''' , '\
,\, ' ...." /'
, '2. ... ' '\..
, ,'" ~~...,
,... ...
\ ......, "
"'.... -:,'"
,...'
,..
...'"
,.. ,...
, ...'"
'" '"
,... ,
/"
GD OE~OiES S1.GN~\.
,
,
\
,
,
...
....,....
,; .." .",."
....'-;,., ...........
,....'
...'
... '
",'"
"
...
....
....
'"
",'"
........
.......,.". ...
",," .",.'"
,
",'"
\
,
,
,
\
,
,
,
\
,
,
...
",'"
,"'"
",...'" ,
('"
,
,
, ,
\ \~
, ,~
, \,1b
,
, ,'f
, ,
,~ '
\C'" '
,--: .......".
,
"
'"
;/
rl'
....
'"
...
",'"
,"" ...."
... '" "...' ,
,'" '
... '
,
......'"
... ~ ....
...,'"
...
'"
,,'
""" ,,,,...'
,,,,'"
......'"
",'"
....'"
-...,
,,,,"""" ,,"
... ., ...
~ ~ ...... '" ... '
,,'"
,,"" ",,-'
...
...'
...'"
, "'-:, ...
"'" "" ,. '" ."
....,...
\
,
,
}
,...
...
'"
'"
....'"
...'"
'"
......
......
.......
...
~z
! .
O!!
"
\ . ~"_ :,i;
\~ .~
, \ .' '"
~\",....", ...","-
... . ""
;,t'''' ~ .
,... ...,~. 1\,
~<j~.
. I
LO'HE\.\. p~R\<.
~.
!to p~tNG Iol.QMO _TEll st.
RI\JE.R
4 \.~NES iO
jCi. 9S
CROI~
,.cQ\lt1\l E.\.t'lA1oa
51.
,,,,,,,1M' sP..CES ~ost
rl.\JUf'\t:. 0
NORi~aoUNO ALONG RAILROAO
......
,... ....
... ....'"
.........
...,....
-,,' "",'
......... \'"
'" ..., ,
\ \
, ,
\ ,
, ,
, \ \
, ,
,\ ,
\ ,
, \
\ ,
, ~,
....'"
...
""",.; ~
;,,-" ",.,,,,""
....,...
...'"
......
,,'" ,
, ...'
......
'" '
, \
,
\
\
~
\
\
\
\
\ '
\ '
\ \\
,\ \
, ,
,
\' '"
",'"
,)
....
....'
,
,
\ ,
\ \
\ ,
, ,
,
, '
,
\ \'
\ \ ,
\ ,
, ,
" \ \.....
...."J
...'" <'
, '" '" ,...., \
...",'" ,'.......... \,
-; ~~..."'........ ' ,
......' ........... ' \
,/ ( , ,~
/ /" ' \'.,:)
, / " ,-:\
, ..... ,/ " ,\ ','(l\
....... '
, ,q;, \ ,
, '0" " , //
\ \ ~. \ ....... '" "
, -se. \ '" ' ....
'\ ,;;..\ ......' "'.......
\ \ '"
\, ... .... ' \
, \ -' \
- ".......
\ "'.... "'.... \
n .' '
1.~ ,... "
-,,,,," , \
...,'" ",'" ,
... ...... \
,~",'" \
'"
\
\
...'
....'"
..."" ,....'
....'" '
,....
...
",'"
.",,'" ;"
",'"
...........
........
",,'
...
.....
....
'"
...
1/
\
\
\
\
\
,
,
\
,
,
\
,
....'"
'"
...'"
",'"
......'
.,,' ............
.... "','" ... ,
, '" '
'" ",' \ ,,,"
, \\1f
, \ d!
,\ ,~
, \ ~
\ ,
\ \
\ ,
\ ,....'\ 0"... - - - - - - .
.... ..
,,,,'" -
....> @ ,'......------
\
\
,
,
...
......
(
","'" ,
,....' , ,
\ ,
, \C"l:\
' ,
, ,
\ \\~
\\ ,~
\ \ 'f
, ,
\~ \
\C" \ '
,."", v"
"
TH 95
'"
......
"
, ~,'
",'"
'"
,
...,'\ \ eEGtll ()liE ..,,'I
, '
\ \\ '
, '
, '
...\ '
...",'"
"""," .,,'"
",...'
,
...'"
,
",'
'"
...
,,'
...'"
...'
"', '"
,. ,,,, '"
,...
,,'"
,'"
....~ '"
, or,....... \
.... .... '\
, ,
\\0
\~
\
,
" ... "'\
... ,
\
......
,
,,,,," ~,.;
",'" -
~ ...'"
...
....
"
... ...
",'"
'" ,
'"
,'"
,
...
...
,...
,...... ",...'
,...
,....
@ OENOiES S1.CNA\.
,
\
! .
~z
,
O!!
, ,
\.. ^~ ,i!
\~~~
:J;-\~ ' ",:
'\. ,. .; . ..;. ,.
.,..'" ~.
,," ~~. ~~
~~~
,1
,
\
,
".
r1
tfUlf te Ul'IJ;TS TO ,Jd\1I. USEllS
I' IJ'II. tllG I'..IoCES \.05T
,
RI\}E.R
\
51.
CROIX
\
\ ~
~~J;/
~))'/
VI
..eOlltfIE. ,0l'l'tt0t'
Of ,......UlO \.01$
,
,
,
,
\
,
\
,
,
,
\
,
,
,
\
,
\
,
,
,
\
~
o
ex::
J
t-'
4.
~
<.:>
z
o
:i
'/iif)
::>~
<':>0.-
t-'')-
\J-cO
,
........ ,'\
, ~,,'
.... "
.... ,
'" ,
, ....
". ,
'" '"
,
,
~
~
o
~
\-
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
\
,
.>
"
~ '
~~~ "
_...,\,"l) .... ""
"'" '" ,
"" ,
'" ., "
.... ,
, ....
'"
""
,
,
<
\
\
\ ,
\ \\
\ \ \
, \
\ \
, ,
\ '"
,
\
,
\
\
,
,
,
,
\
1O
0>
:a::
....
I
I
I
I
I
\
,
,
,.
'" ""\
". \
'"
""
'"
\
\
,
, ,
\ \\
, \ \
\ \
, ,
, ,
\ ,
\ ,
) ,
, ,
~... .. ,
~~, " ,
_~~C ,,' " , ,
~"", ,
CfJ ".:; ~ '
, ,
, ,
... ....
'" ,
".
'"
\
\
\
\
,
,
,
,
, ,
, \,
\\ ,
, \
\ , ,
\ ,....
')
,
,
,
,
\ ,
..
, '\
,
""
,.... ,
,
'"
'"
,
,
,
,\\'~, ,
~~~, ,
....~~""
.... ,
"" ,
.... ,
'"
,
\
\
\
,
,
, ,
\ \\
\ \ \
, ,
, \ ,
, '''''
')
'"
~1. .......
",-1.~ '" , ,
~';7.... ....
C~ , , ,,~ ...
, ,
, ....
\ ,,~ ",,""
'" ,
,
....
,
, \
~, \
, ,
.f" \ \
, \
, \
, ,
\ \\ \
, \
\
,
~
""
,
,
'"
,
,
""
,
,
,
,
'"
\
,
'"
,
,
,
,
\ ,
\ \,
'\ \
, \
\ ,
\
\
,
,
,
,
'"
,
,
'" ,
, ....
',,' '"
, ,
.... '"
, ...
\.... ,
.... ,
".
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
\
,
,
,
\
,
,
,
\
,
, \
, \,
, \ \
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
\ ,
, \
, ",'
\
\
"
\
,
,
,
,
,
'"
, ,
\
\
,
\
\
, ,
, \
, \\\
\ \
\ ,
\ \
\ \
, ,
, ,
\ ,
\ ,
, ,
, \
, \
, \
, \
, ,
\ ,
,
~
-a
~
1/'1
~
'0
~
o
@
..
\
\
\
,
\
\
\
,
,
..
"
\
'.
,
'.
..
..
...
i
\
...
~
"
----
C>
t-'
\J-
,
", ....
.... "
~
~
II@
~
'/'
t-'
~
.
r-
if)
~
...
1
~
\
~
~
...
I
"/
o
....'"
ao
~.
~'O~
J..,
..,.
~
III
~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Af'P€.tl'Ol'1.
-
~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
A.ppend~ A.
'-
-
I DO.T METRO DIST. TEL NO.612-297-7328
JLQ'I (17 '?CI It:-: U-4 1'1N/llVI R:.ST CQ!'V1 RI'1 .1l~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jun 8.90 10:06 No.OOl P.OS
, F'.4
COMMENTS ON
STILLWATER/HOUll0N ST. CROIX RIVER
. C~oSS I NG
.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statemsnt for a new Stillwater-Houlton Bridge
is being revi~'wed. This project haS been discussed Inan,y times'and it seems
like'y at this time a bridge at some location will'be constructed because of
the need for ~ bridge, from a regiona' as well as local perspective. The 1980
City of Stillwater Comprehensive' Phn calls .for such a brfd9~ and previous
plans back to the 60's discuss Downtown congestion and the need for I new
bridge across the St( Croix.
A new Stillwater/Houlton Bridge will significantly effect the CH.,)' of
Stillwater and environs - possib1y more than any other pUblic works
construction project in its histor,y. In determining its pOSition regaraing a
pr~ferred bridge corridor location, the Stillwater City Counci1 has reviewed
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and special reports. held special
meetings to describe the project to the public, receive comments and attended
MnDOl meet 1 ng$ to di scuss the ,project. Recornmenda ti ons ,rega rdi ng bri dge
locations have been received from the City Planning Commissfon, Downto,,!,n Plan
Steering COllllnitt~e, Certified liiritage P,'eservetion Commhs1on. Oownt.own
Business Association. Chamber of Commerce .and Downtown Development
Corpor~t;on. .
It is now time to make the City's position regarding the bridge corridor
1ocat1Dn known to the State and the Stillwater community. The major
env1 ronment, transportati on. 1 and use. hi stor1 c and cultural resources and
economic impects of the bridge alternatives are well documented~ It is
important to make the City's position known and actively try to influence the
decision making process because of the importance of the "bridge issue" in the
future for s~n lwater. Depending 00 loeation, the bridge could solve many of
the Downtown traffic prOblems or cause 1rrep~r,ble damage to an endangered
c~ltural and hlstor'c resource. Downtown Sti"water. '
Beyond the Downtown. interchange 1 oc~ ti ons and designs could sfgn1f1caritly
affect other parts of Stillwater; the Highway 36 commercial corridor, major
C1 ty streets s South Fourth Street, Greel ey Street, and County Road 5. Once a
bridge corr;dor location 1$ selected, cateful attention wi'l have to be paid
to specific bridge and frontage road design and appearance.
Based on the community ;nput the Draft EIS and local transportation needs. the
following facts and statements present the City's position regarding the
bridge corridor lpcat10n and Draft EIS.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY ,
, m north and central :6ridse corridor 10ca~10ns are inconsistent with the
City's Comprehen$1ve Plan. The plan ca1ls for. a new St. Croix bridge outside
of the Downtown. The overall goal st~tement in the Downtown Plan recognizes
.... Stillwater historic ri~ertown image anq naturel setting: "
"The image and identity'of Downtown 5tillwa~er 1$ of primary
importance. It is represente~ in its historic buf1d1ngs, its
natural setting. and in its dedication to open spaces and the
river. The goal of the Downtown P1an h to enhance 4f1d retain the
hi storie r;vertow~ image of Stillwater through a conscientious and
I DOT METRO DIST. TEL No.612-297-7328
JUN "7 '9C3 It.: ~ M1'l/[101 ASST 'Cll'U'1 1=.:1'1 41~:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jun
8.90 10:06 No.OOl P.06
". ~-.
gradual process of ch~n~c and ~conomic growth ~o that Stillwater,
the Birthplace of Minne$ota, conti nues to be a spec i a 1 pl ace to
live. to worle. and io visit. II
.
.
A Central Corr1dor briage would be incons~stent w1th the underlying goal
for the area. More specifically, the Oowntown Plan cal1~d for the
retention,of the existing lift bridge recently des1gn'ated to the
Nationa' R~g1ster of Historic Places, as part of the Downtown historic
character and for the new bridge to be located in the South Corridor.
TRANSPORTATION ,
Th~ City Of st1'1witer appreciates being involved in the planning and
environmental review process for the proposed new river ero~sing over
the St. Croix River. The City has been actively cooperating with the
Minnesota Department of Transportation Dno other transportation planning
agencies for the past thirty years in efforts to resolve the existing
traffic problems. The City has had an opportunity to review several
previous reports from MnlDOT as part of the environmental review process
and the Draft Environmenta' Impact Statement.
Tne tity of Stillwater' is vet.)' aware.'of the deficiencies and capacity
restra1nt~ of the existini road syst.m. The City has lived with.
congestion caused by th~ 1ack of capacity for many years. No other
community or agency is impacted by the existing problems like the City
of St11'water. The existing lift bridge 8r'Jd the approachini road~la.Ys do
not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate current traff4c. The
existing roadway is narrow and the intersections are very restricted.
The Downtown area is congested and has many,conflicts between
pedestrians. automobiles and trucks.
The Envi ronmental 1II1~)lICt Statement pl.oy'1d~$ a his t.uricu1 n~view of p&.$t
efforts. The City has worked for the'past thirty 1ears to improve the
'flow of '''traffic in the Downtown area. The City has removedpark1ng on
"~1n Street from MYrtle Street to south of Chestnut Street. All parking
has been removed on Chestnut Street between Main Street and the bridge.
Left turns have been banned and left turn lanes added. This has been
done to improve the flow of traffic and has often worked to the
detriment of the Downtown businesses by reducing local traffic
circulation and removing Valuable p~rk1ng spaces.
Numerous other option's haveb.een studied oVt::r th& Vll~1. thirty years.
ToLl:ll relilovd.' of perking aloni Main Street and creation of double left
turns westbound wou 1 d slightly increase westbound capacity at the Main
Street and Chestnut Street intersecti on. However, a 1 arge, northbound
vehicle would be unable to turn in the remaining portion of Main Street.
The use of one-way streets using various combinations of Water Street,
Main Street, Nelson Street, Chestnut Street, Second Street and Olive
Street have been reviewed and found to be unworkable because of the
narrow rights-of-way and the grade$ on some of the streets.
Aeconstruction of the roadways in the Downtown area to include a bypass
through the east side of the o.ownto"-'n wou1d virtuall,y wipe out much of
the historic character and several of the build1n9S within the Downtown
area. There wou1d still remain a single lane in eaCh direction on e 11ft
bridge creating congestion~ The use of other streets. such as Third
DOT METRO DIST. TEL No.6l2-297-7328
I JUN 07 '9~ 16: 05 MN/DOT ASST eel:'11'1 F:'Yj 41~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jun
8,90 10:06 No.OOl P.07
F'.E.
Street. Fourth Street or MYrtle Street hes been reviewed ana found to be
lacking because of the steep grade5 end the discontinuous platting of
stree\.s in the residential areas. The City has been bypassed by a route
rrOli\ HI9hw~y 36 at'ld Cuuflly Rul:ld 15 on the west s id~ of HighwayS 96 and
q5 on t,he OC\ft.h '\irlp.. Th1c; mark~d h.vp~<;l\ hac; removed only a few
vehicles.
oespite all the efforts the City and the State have made. traffic delays
end congestion have continued to increase. In the 1960's traffic delays
occurred on Friday nights for two to four hours and for a few hours on
Sunday. As tr^ffic gr:p.w. congestion occurred from early afternoon Friday
through late Sundaj night and began to occur every evening. Today,
traffic delays occur for two to four hours Monday through Thur'day and
from Friday noon until late evening and all day on Saturday and Sunday.
Even on weekdays when the 11ft bridge is operated. congestion
i rrmedi a taly occurs in the Downtown area. ,
Sti l1water residents and visitors cont1nue to cite traffic as a major
concern. The traffic situation is,responsible for some Downtown
busine~se~ 'eaving the Downtown area.
Traffic volumes have grown with 'the development of Western Wisconsin as
part of the greeter Metropolitan Twin City area. The bridge traffic is
composed of recreational' traffic on weekends but most of the weekly
t.raffic comes from worK and business r~1ated trips. In 1962, the average
daily traffic (ADT) on the bridge was 4,900 vehicles per day. In 1970,
.the volumes had' .ri sen to 8.000 and in 1980 they were at 11,000 ACT.
Volumes in 1986 were 12,400 AOT: Traffic vo1umes in the Downtown area
have grown even greater. Volumes on H1ghway 36 immediately south of the
Downtown area 1$ currently 17.40Q vehicles per day (1986).' This is one
of the heaviest vo'l.Ime two lanE': roadways in the ,Metropolitan Area.
Generally. volumes bet\lieen 8.000 and 12.000~111 rJ!qu1re.a four-1ane
roadway.
The baCkup of northbound traffic: on Highway 36 frequently extends baek
to "the HIghway 95 end Highway 36 1 ntersect1 0-"$, more than a mi1 e from
the M,a in Street end Chestnut Street intersection. Traffic attempting to
~ypas~ th;~ backup have used a combination of several 18S$ desirable
routes. Some traffi c utili xes the HIghway 6 ., nterchange (which has a
very limited sight distance). Traffic then uses county Road 5 and Olive
and Myrtle Streets or Pine to reach the Downtown area. Others will use
County Road 12 and Myrt1e Street. In a typical evening, traffic will
baCK up for a few blocks on MYrtle Street from the stop sign at Third
Street. Traffic also uses South Fourth Street and Third Street and other
combinations to reach the Downtown area and, approach the brfdge on
Ch&\tnut Strfet. others will use l comb1not10n of Owens Street. Greeley
SLnu:\,. Pine "lreet., 011ve S"treet, and Ghurcnl'll ~treet. trattle 1rom
the so~th on Highway 95 will often use County Road 23 (8each Avenue) end
... Lf'CSV~' l.hrough Oak Pork Heights and Stillwater. using' fourth Avenue anQ
any other combination of streets. Some wi" ut1l1~e Chilicoot Hill on
Second ~treet approaching the Downtown. This h111 has been" deemed
dangerous enough to be closed each wi~ter,
IDO.T METRO DIST. TEL No.612-297-7328
"TlA'I07 '90 li;.:~ "11'1-"1)01 H~~I L:Uln ~:'l 01:1.:;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jun 8.90 10:06 No.001 P.OS
..... ',.
Thi$ bypassing of traffic through residential neighborhoods has cr.ated
documented speeding problems, numerouS complaints from residents, and
request for stop signs. Traffic, with its frustrat1on$ of b~ckups and
bypasses, will speed,. roll through stop sig~s, and create serious
concerns for the safety of pedestrians WhO may bt cros$ing any of these
residential streets. ,~
The commercia' and industria" deve10pment in Western Wisconsin,
including Somcr~ct and New Richmand, has created heavi commercial
traffic traveHn9 through the Downtown area. A single commercial vehicle
has a significant turning problem at the Main Street and Chestnut
Streets intersection and generally travels $~OW on the hills cOining up
from the Downtown Stillwater area. With the growth in tommercial
veh1cl es, a new c apac1 ty restraint has been added to the Downtown again
significantly reducing the ob1'ity to travel through the City.
The' i ft bridge is a ser1ou$ congestion factor. Through the coopertlt10n
of numerous agencies, a rigid schedule for opening the bridge has been
established which has diminished some of the previous problems of
frequent openfr'19S. Hc;wevet', the great&r number of boats us in9 tbe 11 ft
bridge has created a longer time length of opening, decreasing the
street capacity in the Downtown area.' An~ time the 11ft br1die is
opened. 1 t stays open for several minutes creating an imedhte batkup
of traffic into the Downtown area.
. .
An tiarly 1980's Minnesota Department of Public safety report en
pedestrian saftty in several communities indicated that the City of
Stillwater has ha1f its pedestrian accidents in the Downtown, !tea.
Included are fate' acc1 dents 1nvo 1 vi"9 pedestri,ans cross i n9 downtown
streets in the face of heav1 traffic. While the City and Stete have
cooperated in attempting to miKe pedestrian safety a higher priority,
pedes tr1 ans are still at risk anywhere' in the Downtown area. A simple
change in phasing. of the traffic signal at Main Street and Chestnut
Street to protect pedestrians from left turning traffic resulted in a'
intolerable backup of w~stbound traffic. Traffic frequent11 baCkS
through the Nelson Street and Main Street intersection forcing
pedestrians to walk between vehicles. It is virtually impossible to
cross Chestnut Street at Water Street at any time.
The accident rate t'or Highway 36 from the St. Crl)ix River to Highway 95
is almost double the state-wi de average for. iWfJ 1 aile urban roadway.
Th 1$ ,i s desp1 te the fect that at many hours of the day, tnffic is at a
standstill or moving s1ow1y significantly reducing the possibility of
accidents.
The ma.jor concern of the t1 ty of Sti 11 water is the future of the city
under a "no.bl.l; ld'l opt; on. ,he Mn/OOT ,forecasts under the "no..bufl dOl
alternat1ve 15 ,8.2UO ,vehicles per day ,on the ]'1ft br1dge, 'double tne
curtent volume. Volumes on Highway 36 south of the Downtown area would
be 33) TQO vehicles per day, a~most twice the existin,9 volume. It wou1d
be physically imposs1b1e to carry these vo1umes of traffic with any
semblance of order. Traffic would be' beyond capacity for several hours a
day. The major concern is that traffic would back up significantly
further than currently along Highway ~6 to the south. The backup
I DOT METRO DIST.
,JI..':~ LI, ='1:.1 .LO'I:.',
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TEL NO.612-297-7328
""'1 L'''',I, ",-,_, I ""VI". .~.,' I .... ~.J
Jun
8,90 10:06 No.001 P.09
undoubtedly would reach the high speed fourMlanc sections in Oa~ Park
Heights. Traffic diversions would be numerous and many of the
residential streets would be faced with high volumes. Third Street.
Fourth Street. MYrtle Street, Ctlestnut Street and others approo,hi ny t.he
Downtown would have bloCKS of backed up traffic attempting to acee$$ the
single 1ane of traffic heading into Wisconsin.
,"
Volumes on the Wisconsin side of the bridge would be sim110r'y affected.
The forecast is for 9,000 veh1eles 'per cay on the county TrunK Hlgnway l
approach. a roadway marked by lIDangerous Hill" signs. A concern.is that
traffic, once clearing the bridge. would driVe fast and dangerously,
attempting to make up for the lost time waiting in traffic. Traffic will
not divert to the Hudson bridge several m1les away because of the need
to travel through NOrth Hudson and Hudson, or Bayport and Oak Par~
Heights. lhe alternate route would take 20 to 35 minutes depending upon
the time of dey. In addition, the Yo1umes of traffic will significantly
back up far beyond the Highway 35 and 64 intersection and beyond the
IIi ghway 36 and 95 1 ntcr!.ccti ons. Diversions would be d~wn county roads
and other city streets not designed fro the types of traffic that wi'l
Qccur.
The City has 'o~ked at TSM options.' They simply are not worktb1e.
Transit would sit in the same traffic backups. Ridership would be low.
UNo action" or "no..build" is clearly an unacceptable alternative to the
e1t1~en::i of' Stil1water tll1d to the thousands of motorists waiting in
traffic each day currently and the many tllousands who will utilize the
'bridge in the future., "
Travel 'in the Downtown area wouid be impossible. Pedestrians would bB at
risk any time they stepped into.any street because of bypassing traffic.
Cars would be idling on virtually every street with obvious impacts on
air .:pol1ut1on.Of major concern f $ the impact of exhaust fumes on the
'Old '-,briek;i.ndstone facades which were constructed back in the 1860' s,
1870's and 18801 s. Also of concern 15 the impact of the vibrat10n$ from
the increasing numbers of commercial vehicles.
Replacement of the bridge on site 1$ clearly unacceptable. Whi1e a newer
bridge could be bun t. it would, have simi 1 a r capac; ty probl ems and the
same tremendous' negative impacts on the street and highway systems of
Downtown Stillwater, res1dent101 Stillwater, and Western Wisconsin that
the .xi~ting hrlrlo@ hal.
Tne Ci ty of Sti llwater has recently devoted a 1 arge llOOunt of resource's
in terms of both time and money. for a studi of the Downtown area. This
Downtown study has resulted in a Downtown Plan developed by the
Stillwater City Council. The plan took years to develop and implement,
~ent through numerous public meetings and hearings, and was toe result
of efforts by two different citizcn committeei. The plan has had the
approval of not only the City Council, but ~lso the Planning Conu~iS$1on,
Economic Oevelopment Committee, Historical Committee, Chamber, end
others. ' . . ,
I DO~ ME~51~ \:BISJI." ~C""'Q ,.".~l.~L~_~R ...~.;.f,-,f.~I:?328
Jun 8.90 10:06 No.OOl P.l0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As a part of the study, the City reviewed the North, Central and South
Corridors. A North Corridor would not relieve ~raffic in the Downtown
area and would create numerous access problems for the City of
Stillwater. This is in addition to the disruption Of the scenic
qualities of the more 'natura' appearing river. The north 61ternative is
not a viable alternative for the City of Stillwater.
, .
Similarly, the central alternative is inconsfstent with the Duwntown
Plan and past plans for the City: The central bridge location would
impact the visual qualities of toe' river and the Downtown area. It would
also perpetuate manY of the problems on the hills in Western Wisconsin.
The Ci ty 1 ntends to expend funds to i'nprove the .aesthetics of tne river
front, primarily in Lowell Park, for a few bJocts eithe~s1de of the
existing bridge. The visual impact of tne bridge passing diagonallY in
front of much of the park area would be visually unacceptable. The
touchdown of the bridge on the ea$t 'side of ttle river would be in Citj'
owne'd Ko11iner Park near the exist1n9 11ft bridge. The view of the
elevated bridge would destroy the visual quality of the river and the
Wisconsin bluff lines as viewed from Downtown. It would impact the charm
of the historical Downtown district with its characteristic church
steeples and ~ioneer Park as viewed from the river. It would be the most
visible structure po~sible in terms of river traffic. The r,ity &150
believes that the noise impact of the projected 22,000 to 33.000
vehicles per day would be unacceptable to people in the Downtown,
residents living on either side of the area or traffic on th~ river.
, .
A centra1 brirlgp would destroy the 'future use of the city owned river
front property referred to as the Aiple Property south of the Downtown,
which is ~urrently planned for open space and river recreation. as en
~xtens1on of Lowe" Park. The Centra' Corridor location would degrade
the qua 1'1 ty of the experience of vi s1 tin!) Lowel1 Park enjoyed by over a
million visitors per year. The main view from the park would be the
bridge. A central bridge location would also limit the attractiveness
and value of C;~ owned Ko"iner Park as optn space recreation resOJrc~.
The City. 'after careful review of the many documents !:ld reflection upon
thirty years of transportation studies and more than one hundred years
of river front existence, has unanimoUSly supported the South Corridot~
The corri dor a119ns most c10sely wi th the ex; sti n9 h1 ghway. A well
. des i gned. aesthet1 c bridge is consistent with the existi ng uses on the
Minnesota side of the river and careful design would minimize the
impacts on the Wisconsin side of the river. The bridge would have
significantlY ,less visual impact than the ,mOKe stacks, conveyor belts.
and coal piles of the NSP power plant. Dr some of the other 1ndustrial
uses made of the river at this location. The western shoreline 1s
clearly fu11y developed ana the bridge WOUld have little visual impact
to users of the river. Noise from a bridge at this location would be
s1snificantl.Y less than the industrial noise form the Andersen plant or
the King plant or from the overpowered hoats currently using this
potti on of the St. Croix R1 ver. The noise 1 eve 1 s would definitely be
less than the unacceptable congestion no1ses that would exist in the
Uowntown Sti llwateT' area directljl adjacent to pedestrhns and numerous
people oriented businesses,
\
I DO~ MEI~P u~I S.,l' A"" "'-' ,. ,. ...!~~ ".~? :.~f.,~-:f..9~::.?328
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jun 8.90 10:06 No.OOl p.ll
The City of Stillwater has lived with the traffic problems since the
invention 01 the automobile. The City has made great sacrifices in the
Downtown area to adapt to the use of CIty streets as well as county
roads and hi ghw~.y~ b.y 'non..St11 'water traffi c. The C; ty has l'ttempted to
retain the scen1cquaiities of the St. Cro1x River as proven by its
preservation of some of ,the river front, developments of park end
rec rea t ion actf vi ties o'lerl ook 1 ng or adjacent to the r1 y,er and the
support of the recently adopted Downtown Pla~. With thi~ type of
comm1 tment to the river, it is extremely difficult for 'the City to
recognilC! 'thQ Claims; af some individual' 8n/'l (Jrnll('l~ th~t the traffic
problem exists for merely a few hours for recreation traffic.
,
HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL
Minnesot~ was born along the banks of the St. Croix River in what is how
Downtown Stillwater in 1848. This event and the. succeeding evolution of the
area has 8 lot to say about what is the essence of Downtown Stillwoter, and to
Some extent. Minnesota.
The pattern of activity and remnants of the lumbering ,nd manufacturing eras
can still be seen in Downtown Stillwater. In fact r1verlide parks, Lowell
Park. Kolliner Park and Aiple Property were all lumbering sites given 'to th6
City after the demise of lumbering.
Stillwater has always been reeognfzed'as the town of brick and church $teep1es
on the St. Croix. Recently. the general perception has been formally
recogni%ed through the nomination of Downto~n Sti11water as a National
Register Historic District. The existing lift Bridge and $Qvere' other
h1storic,bui1d1ogs. already on the National Register. $trengtnen the, historic
significance of the Downtown. Fortun~te l~ for 'Sti 11 water, and unfortllna te ty
for many Downtowns that experiencert rOAd and bridge project$ during the
fifties. sixties and earl~ seventies. historfc and cultura' resources are no
longer taKen for granted. Through Federa1 and State laws. special attention
mUiit be pidd 'to recognized historic resources such as Downtown Sti"wat.r. .
Sectfon 106 of the Natlona1 Historic Preservation Act requires projects such
as this bridge project. to take into account its affect on historic
properties. Section 4f of the Department of Transportation Act states that
projects shan not be approved which destroy or ,substantiall,)' a1ter a his tori c
propert,)' of Local, State or National inportance unless 'there is no "feasible
and prudent alternative.' 'and an 'possible phnning is undertaken to minimize
harm. NEPA requires an EIS for major federal projects that will significantly
affect the qua1i" of the environment including important historic. cultural
and natural aspects of our national heritage,
Or. Norene Roberts, author of Historic Reconstruction of the Riverfront:
Stillwater, Minn~sota 1985 and Inten~jve Natiooal.ReQ1ster surve~ of Downtown
rr111water~ 1!110nQiota, 1,989 has 1nt:11caten that ^ lbo reVlew Si"lOUlm
conaucted for the Downtown and Bridge due to existing traffic vibration and
exhaust. 8eside these impacts, the visua1 and noise impact of a central Bridge
1ocation would affect the character, and attractiveness of historic Downtown
Stillwater.
T~e Centra~ Bridge Al1gnment 0'1" a "no.build'l opt1on W111 'affect the Downtown,
hlstoric St111water propertiesj the Downtown Stillwater Commercial Historic"
Oistr;~t, Lift 81"idgot freighthoute Depot, Rosc.oe Her$e.v House, st. Croix
. lumberm'lll,lowell, Park arrd Vittorio's and the requ1red NEPA. Section 106 and
4f reviews must be completed before a Central Corridor and "no-buildll option
can be selected. . .
I DOT METRO D1ST. TEL No.612-297-7328
JLlfi In '~O 1f.\: 09 I'U'~/J:JOT H~-::; I 1,.1.':'111 ~r'l 41.:1
.
Jun 8.90 10:06 No.OOl P.12
". J.J.
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
The National Wild and Scenic River Act also supports the preservat10n of
hi~Lurh: tlreu. The A\:t d~(;l(H'es "it is the pul h;y uf the United States thQt
selected rivers of the nation ~hich with their inrnediate environments possess
outstanding remarkabl e s'cenic. recreationa 1, geolo91ca I rli'Fi and wila life.
historic. cultural or other similar values sha11 be preserved in free flowing
condit1on tnat their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit
and enjoyment Of present and future.9~nerations. ~underl1ne added)
The Lower St. Croix M~ster Plan. the plan developed by State and Federal
ndtur~l resource agencies,to recognize and protect the Lower St. 'Croix R1ver
states liThe develop~nt end management of the St. Croix should place primary
emphasis on maintaining and enhancing aesthetic, scenic. h1storic. fish and
wildlife and geologic features. II (underline added) The Wild ana- Scen1c River
Act and I.ower St. r.roix Masttr p1an reqIJirefi that the historic and C'u1tural
~esources of n1storic Stillwater on the banks of the St. Croix be preserVed
for future generations enjoyment. .
rCONOMIC
Tne econom1c impacts of a new bridge are concerns of the City. A Centra'
Corr'frlor RrinO! or a Ilno btli lQ" d8ci~ion wou'd have a nllgiltivQ impact on,
Oowt'ltown. The DowntoYlr'l 'is. conwuted end $uffer~ econpmico'll,y because of the
congestion and heavy tr~ck traffic. Increased traffic would only worsen the
economic viabi1itt of the area.
If 0 Southern Corridor Bridge location is selected. the 1ntp.rr.ha~ge ~nn
front6ge locations and des1in will be critical to provide convenient access to
the adjacent businesses. .
tON'LUSION
n is cleTrly evident to the City that a IlnoRbuild" or Centra" Corridor
location are un~cceptable and unmanageeb1e. It is also clear that the South
torridor has a significant number of advantage. for the traVQ1ing public t' the
-rivtf user and ,the adjacent c:omrrunities. the City urges the Minnesota and .
Wisconsin Departments of Transportation to support the South Corridor and to
continue to maintain a schedule for construction and opening of the new ~r1dge
to alieviate the un~cceptable transportation and safety prob1ems in the '
DUWlltU\'i1l an;d elml other areol of St111water. If a "no-bu11 d" or t;entra I
corridor 'ocation is selected. it is the City's pos;tfon that additional NEPA.
Section 106 and Section 4f studY end review is necessary.
\
l
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
APpend~ B
,..
-------------------
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF
STILLWATER NATIONAL HISTORIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
ST. CROIX nlVEn \ ,
-
f
~ ~
-,--1 --.
-- ~-
-- (
--... , -
Jrh-= II I LOlli II ~
III NIl. I
t;' ",fill If,
Jj [[IlD[[J [lTI Il I hrlll I ::.:...~
aDMS Sf. ~- Itm II, Rffl ' .......
L-';= 0Dll n;~ h
... fit.... I
c,~_. Iii .:-1 I
_.. I 1= P ua JJ~U
- ~i~mi8l-i SE<X>>lO
ti \ i~\
ti ,i t; --'
~i - ~ -
PlJIO sr.
r BI~~
l~o1Jrcc : Int;Fmaivo National HeaiDte~ -ri t
tiu.t:ypv of" D{)~t.own fiti llwflter.
, . , .
'Iii"' 01 n18 Nallonal RegIster
L:J or Hslorlc Places
t;
r
M Lnncbota. Norf.cn Hnberi.o. Ph _ 0 _ .
lIiBl.orjcill Hp.BoClrch. Inc.. IHOD.
I,'j nnl boundariet] of dintrict may
vnry {rom t.hooo nhown here_
Fa.I1,"
t,
ffiB.fHHE
81
fnll