Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMnDOT Stillwater-Houlton Traffic Diversion August 1990 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISTILI,..1riATER-.1.MX.TON TRAFFIC DIVERSION 1 August, 1990 9 s, IMinnesota Department of Transportation 1 1 1 I ( 1 1 I 1 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/I-94 County Road 15/TH 96/TH 95 I-35/U.S. B IV CONCLUSION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1. LOWER ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSINGS AND MAJOR REGIONAL HIGHWAY CORRIDORS 2. POTENTIAL DIVERSION ROUTES TO I-94: WESTERN ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN 3. ST. CROIX COUNTY: TWIN CITIES METRO AREA COMMUTERSHED, 1980 4. 1988 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) : WEST-CENTRAL ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN 5. CITY OF HUDSON: AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (August, ' 1988) 6. RIVER CROSSING STUDY AREA: COUNTY ROAD 15, TH 96, AND TH 95 DIVERSIONS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 alternative routes. 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 I- 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 result 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 I problem had been addressed directly through a new river crossing. People and products would take longer to reach their destinations, one result being higher costs for businesses which utilize the corridor. For these reasons, the transportation departments do not r 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 1 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: "The long- range solution is to construct a new bridge and approach highways. " Using the information gathered by the WCWRPC, Wisc/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 1 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 1 for facilitating traffic diversion would be to improve one or more of the I-94 diversion routes. This would enhance diversion, but create an entirely new set of environmental impacts without directly addressing the transportation problem. 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 In Wisconsin, the most likely diversion routes for most motorists would utilize the I-94 corridor (see figures 1 and 2) . The most convenient access points to I-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 I- 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 I-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. ' Several improvements to I-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 I-94 from the Hudson Truck Weigh Station to ' the junction of STH 35. 2 I IFIGURE 1 LOWER ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSINGS AND MAJOR REGIONAL HIGHWAY CORRIDORS 1 ITAYLORS FALLS i I ' U.S.. U.S.a / ALS N NN.243 ( L / OSCEOLA I Minneapolis—St. Paul N I i \ STILLWATER t' wlsa es 19NN.3e \ HOULTON I1-94 1-e4 LAKELAND HUDSON I FA NTI CHISA O r P-017-10— 1 PT. DOUGLAS 1 — 35 u.s.10 / i rA U.S.�o i � ;� 1 PRESCOTT I I _ C r o/X ,9 1 I Taylor s St. roix 1 kNOKA Falls . .F= lls „J Missisaippj Ilk : 1 Osceola 63�33 i 1 S•me set j r • s4 'ew Richmond AP .:. ' 1N 1 HT r , •ulton0 L _ _ R G 394 "7117 4_rlI� _.T I � H •so 1 1 HENNEPIN '1 • 1 1 I L_ _ _ I 4 OM�� — - - ST. CROI 1 WASH- 1 INGTON PRESCOTT I 1.2.ARVER S• M', /SO N4,\ o I r ' /4tt`�� 1 _ _ SCOTT DAKOTA• -J 1 Inch = 17 Miles - --J I I IFIGURE 2 I POTENTIAL DIVERSION ROUTES TO I-94: WESTERN ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN I I ,C I SOMERSET (STAR PRAIRIE 1 1 0 I .. Star 1 I Prairie 1 I 0 I o I cc V 1 0 IV W I I > 1 i Somerset ' �� ." r II .... I I ,,', }' I New 1 :: IQ►O � Richmond' gc.G ~ 1 • I I I ___ - _- o I Q 1 Houston � 0 i 7 1 1 1 1 i-RICHMOND L v II ST. JOSEPH) To 1-94 To Hudson/I-94 0 1 Inch = 2 1/2 Miles To I-94 I (Via County Road U/STh 12) ISource: West Central Regional Planning Commission 1 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 I-94, even without a concerted effort to divert traffic from STH 35/64. During the summer of 1990, average summertime weekday traffic on the I-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 I- 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. ' Aside from I-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. While U.S. Highway 63 and STH 65 are geometrically better suited to ' carry I-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) . ' 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. ' 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: 1 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 S 1 ,� w tl n a v I • :34 MO: Sti* ra.5190 ��• , ( �� 1 '-� i_ w I T 1 ; N. 1 � -- 900. x,� t= ) 4901 ~ 920' P ;' 4 I 23 i�j I .% ;,\ 1 1 al - , it\--E ! _ I r 1 c- • ,_ Hi _ ; . 1,. '� M is,___ , ,,,k_i 1 4 . _ , ,:. 21:1E--It 1080' I 270: 'i740 A i • 1 Z 3'10.e840'� .- _ 790' 1 — 1 c*s p o w r En ' "'Pr..41111111117. 25 o co/ iir to a'..1.4 ia. et ►• �Q• i OE9£�� 6\ i "-- --'1), .,4 , 370 �, a r. o e d . .L. I W 47 0 r tttt� 1, tr } x - 5740: o n�1 1310. (� i 0 o , fit o° • lig Ai iii W A - 1 _ :D o- o _ _ -4 9-‘t rc 450':ct¢ � 0 1 l7 ! M rn, r CO W �, _ 1 - d. G .I�, ;, o in •I II V MI WO QO I4 el�� 1-1;.N Ell 1 Niil� lit r(s � fir©, ` cl 1D r o 0 i ^ to ti, �� ihmsf4,, - . 1280: 780 Nzo e 1300a ; „ L - i. !<Ti.w I \120 '".�, ►d ,-] o ',1--..,t. --1...,3o -a -`q ��-a..)so > i%. t a ° IN cs; _.>I x?ti� tom. _ o Er-1 r 1% u• i," \ °t my, Kw �L pi 1 tr7 1 , /' �� •�1 ' §_ _ �.. `-,jam_ d - O 0 vs I I I I O 111 O 0 g 1 i/ § ily 1 a. �� ��1 o • I cr- Z m W P 1 I W t .. , na W fro , _ N i �ZE O V � 1 i ,Q � o 0, �f E �Akl £ pp5 ct C u 0 ��....� - 1 t0 - li C7 I = U ¢ W er xw Oil Mr Q II ` A 1 VA 1M+St/31d Li.. U C * _ M II w m� � W 0 sg Z II s z , �'"2 S 6 i 15 I co G o a % Z , e �• 'I a Q S a m o ■ I°h U �I c'...1 is goo' s° er•it 8 ri • 1,,,,, aro g 5 ..&1, 4g .....0 , , 3' 0- % 0 0-C. g in w t i e> I • i § • 0 5 la i t 1 § , Z2 \-----"" \ 1 E 0 4� 1 --jam' . .�.. I 0 O 0 O N. O I ti Lo I I miles north of Hudson. County V is a hilly road, with a 40 mile Y Y s 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 I-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 I-94, and traveling north on TH 95 to the junction with TH 36) . By contrast, the distance required to ' complete this trip going through Houlton and Stillwater is 6.3 miles; diverting motorists would have to travel an extra 9.4 miles. During a non-peak Monday morning, the time needed to drive the ' County Road V/STH 35/I-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 5/TH 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 I-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 1 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 I-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 I-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 I-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 uncongested 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 1 I FIGURE 5 ' ICITY OF HUDSON: AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES I (August, 1968) I 35 e / - '�_,. ' pi* / i\ ,, 1 _' I i \11 y // ? _- —_- '�,, 13450 M I 1 en / FIIIYO PEi y5T \� �:r I y /' 1700 �; 910 //- ORANGE ST- , v+ o :co 970 COLE ST 0 J I 'T�VINE� +�N 13810 2550 2740 '2320% si■= M I z II CI �) tO LOCUST�ST 1 15170"._ w WALNUT ST N F i 1090 / � I J1000NsN- NrSr// I 1: y Y a 690 (LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY) ��LAURE AVE y \\ I - 3280 �.` OL GIRAPD Sr F 'l i . f I - _ LAW Er "---..s.p « _ 5200 1D o �� 5710 z 2350 V' 552 'Y J_ 10 el A 0 n \\ 1 \ t y g I I 3870 3080 I / 111 o r-I10 ,— F Cities 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. 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. 1 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. 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 I-94 is the same as the one already described. 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 alternate 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-Houlton Bridge is the I-94 crossing at Hudson. In Minnesota the best diversion routes south from TH 36 to I-94 are TH 95, which follows the river south from Stillwater, and 1-694 in ' 11 1 1 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 I-35 or U.S. 61 to Forest Lake, and then U.S. 8 across the St. t Croix at Taylors Falls. Routes would be reversed for westbound vehicles. ' TH 95/I-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 I-94. The total distance from the TH 36/95 junction to I-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 I-94, ADT was 9,000 vehicles. A variation of this route would utilize I-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 occurred 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 intersection ' 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 1 I IFIGURE 6 RIVER CROSSING STUDY AREA: ICOUNTY ROAD 15, TH 96, and TH 95 DIVERSIONS I N N r an G p To Osceola/ , a aa; Taylors Falb; 1 _ 8 8 U t/y m ./ww V Fe- 6 ,irrvwwr'_ j ' 35 I 9g ,� 8 4 T W CO.RD. 64 96 .,....,,.. .,�.,. .. 35 131 3 I a©tn ST. N. N �Mr t S5 .n_ 35 I ~we CO.RD. E C.S.A.H. 12 City of `~" STILLWATER 361-m ----N ul I : Q %- 36 6 > 95 $ SI �•Z`' CI) g g ""Rtver O' bouwovrtmoores 1 38 8 *14,4, 44iiii.k A I, 12_ 95 To Bayport/I-94 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. 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. ' 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-35/U.S. 8 ' 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. Diversion signs could be placed at the junction of I-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. ' As of 1988, ADT on I-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 ' 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. Traffic diversion signs do, however, offer some potential for ' rerouting traffic away from the Stillwater-Houlton Bridge. Constructing new or improved highways to carry diverted traffic from STH 35/64 to I-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 1 1 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. ' 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 diversion effort. 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 diversion route--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 could be a useful long-term traffic management strategy in combination with a new river crossing. According to current projections, traffic demand on Main Street in downtown Stillwater will be higher in the year 2014 than it was in 1986, even if a new bridge is built. In conjunction with a crossing, TSM measures such ' 15 1 1 as diversion could be necessary to prevent future traffic volumes in downtown Stillwater from greatly exceeding the already high levels of congestion experienced today. 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 ' 16 1 1 APPENDIX I SF-00006-05141861 DEPARTMENT : Mn/DOT - Operations STATE OF MINNESOTA Metro District - Oakdale 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 with 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) 1 Eastbound TUESDAY*7 FRIDAY*5 SUNDAY*6 AVERAGE 14.2 19.0 12.5 15.2 Westbound 12.3 15.9 17.9 15.4 ' *Runs each day EXTREMES - RUNNING TIMES (MINUTES) TUESDAY* FRIDAY* SUNDAY* Eastbound 10.5-22.1 14.1-25.3 10.0-18.0 Westbound 11.4-13.3 10.6-24.1 12.3-26.5 ' A longest time of 26.5 minutes was recorded on Sunday (westbound) at 5:00 to 5:26 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. 1 1 Michael Louis August 21, 1990 Page two AVERAGE MPH BY SEGMENT ' A B C D E F Eastbound 51.4 40.0 31.4 8.3 37.9 52.6 ' Westbound 54.2 36.3 40.4 13.6 18.1 52.5 The overall average of the 36 runs was 15.3 minutes (dev ±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 3 minutes at 55 mph on a new route. Future travel time on weekends through Stillwater (if a new bridge is not built) 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. 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 o © M OQ(rO�,�Q '1i x4t © �pv� s' Z a U .15 MU 1 • 1$KW \ \ o ,, u xis ti H /. g /, I a t Z i ,j \ a O �i a Li S , h I i 0 IF '- ., , tu 1 ■ a./, Eijiii;;041 rit..N.,..Naikr,%-.7 NC2 E71114 Q a `� `� � 9 �i� 8 E. H — 13 H C I L� < g �IL I V a — Z� a G ~ ` I a vFi rte— •I ' Lu a $ 1 10 i `r I 11V, 0 _ ,s,..--w",...,%14. ,dr ." CD I �� -�� r�5 r \ 1�tQ I! F #� L' '-— , m� et !I E zi cg, ® 111,2"t ......, Oh Z 't, iiii 1011: :$011Iii I h t41 gz ag © 0' F I El li► a E 1, F x 5 z I g lit F SUM aaoo 11V �n-innu i x�rn�n L1 rz I . ui "' ' _ r l'i'I'ii'i' a z Q to — 1'I'I'1'iliiiIl'l'i'i'lll'lll _ i lII 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ah z z ini]II'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ,'� nw::::I�e.)...�i).A).�.�d.)A�L�).4�A�A).4J�1 A) )J.�I�A 11..I.I I.I .11.r. ... . ._ // dill X cg U in< $ ex) tit r _ _ rTTI1111 Ell .�ui////////��� irrir 111111111111'I'1'1'11111 ,rrr,;?;;% - 111 1'11 1 I I 1 1 P I I I I I 1 i^t"7'I'I J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 »...::»L---7.1.1.111.111111111111110111111111111111111111111 E1..slA!1...i!1�A!.L!1-1!1-1�.1�.1�A.1!.1.!.1.!1 1.1.1.11.L�1 i -�.11%�/ 1�- 0 -,-, in ' - • _ .1 11 I t i1 111111111 _ i I`I 11 I'r1111'1'I'1'111'III'1l �� i•i�I'1'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • _."w.:..17.a�.!1!.l�.r.�d!.d.I.L.i.I.4211A�.1.I1.i1.�1.�lla.L11J1.1 f:4 A -....„,..z2,zy.„/„../",.7n.j.. . :I ria ON -r—•i'11'Irl'1'I'1' 1 i ii'1'111'I'I'I'1'l'llill'1' _ ,-7i'I'111 ICI'Illll'I'1'I'I'I'I'I'IlI'I'IlI 0 XIIII.1 �- iltl11111111111111111111 -:... .LI�AiAI.J.,. a1,1,.1 1 ',LI L' 1 1.ulsl.1.1.1.1,1,1 0 I WWel '—-—.... ....... ...... . / Lri >4 � � Ern" ERN � vAIv -,-,`r i i'i ta -1"11, 1 1 1 1 1 1 ww,, -r"t l 111111111 W _ ll'I 1 1 1 I I I i i i i i O H -r i i I'1�1�111111111'1111'I'I111111'I'11111'I11111 w e 1r l.A .L.L A l lw ll l :1.1.)..L I1 iA1 1,.L 1.1.1.1.1.1 IEms cg -- d -I cI I -^•r r•�rici j i'l'I'llill' „ _._..._._.............._._._.__.......,�w• :cas:�i'a!I.L.I....mss!,.!G1 il, l l i1.02 L ICl _ /;iir 1:1:1 1 1 1'111111111111 A Q ».1-iT1iiI�IIII1111111111111111I A E✓ x ' .,r,,,-x".C1.01AA J!.1.,L1,.L,.1.,LI,.1.,.1,1.:a...l...L.I.�L.. ii La m to �,�1 ./ 1 x a u • u<.1 3 I 114 i•1'1'ttilililTIII II II IIII i 1'irl I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 t I 1 I I I �'-i 1'1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 i"I'IIIIIIIIIIII1111111111 I //` �i..4.A:.Lj:.I...I.I.J...l 1/7"l !.LJ_.L.A..LJ..l.J i J l l J l i l • I �` Q -r-,717-0771 I I W illllfllll • Til'Illlllllll il'IIII1111111111 i 1'111111111111111111 i"1'I'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "l '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 f I' ._ lit'111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 411 illllllllllllllll , 11111111111111 i� 7i�1'Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllfl . —'^il'II ( IIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111.1111111111111 _-•-_-""i°I'1'1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 l 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 l I 7 OEM (in ».«,.::.�I.:s.'.al.J�.A�1�s�a�.J�.A�.41.s�.Aa�.J�elx�A�.A�s�alr.�r�r�bl.�..l,.�.,�..�.)r�r�.1,.1.M.�!,�..l,.l.�l..�,L..L,.L�L,1.. w 3.4 ch � w M I w - immi Emil E.NI IMMIll ...1,1111 iTi•1'1'1111111111t1111111111 itr--• r '111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A F/>t ^1J11111111111111111111 0 OS m„:w..A..I..A..A..J._I�t..A..AJ...1...4.A..1_.l.A..J_.l..A.1._A„A../... LILII I ....1 , , o w (I) Cllig 111'Emil i'f"I'I'11i1111111111111 X iil1 1 1 1 1 l l l l l l l 1 `il'1111111611111111 1111-II 111 1 I 1 1 1 t I I I I I 1 I ...S I'1 111 I I I 11111111:I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1111:1111111 i"i'I'I I ( I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -r^r°i i`i I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 t I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I M - i111111111111IMIII 1111111111111 i-I"i'1111111111111111111111111tIt1111111.1 • riI111111111111111111111111111t11111111111 ""iii,'IfII1111111tIIlIl1111111111111111111111t11 iTI'Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllltlllllllllllllll iil'11111 1111 1111111 111111 . 11111111111111111111 , 11111 �� ••-"'r'i I'I I I,I 1,1,1 1,1 L1,1,1.1 1 1.1.1,1 I I.I 1.1.1.1.1.1.1 1.1.I.LI.I.,1,i,L,,L,,�,,�,J,, I.I.I,j,,J,,L..LA. ` -'2rr ,- I .. » 1n• IN I I 1 rc.4• I • I (s1n0q) NOLLVHfIU I u1 1 . w la , A x C5 aN zz I ma a 1 m °� ~7"! Irlli'ili'ilil�li`lal°. i"I°'I'I I I I I I I I I I I W In 3 " ,• i`!�I'l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l y 1i`I'I I I I I IIII 1 1 1 1 1 1 III .4 ul > 0 i"i"i'I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ('.,, ui „ru :.'i.:.l.:.I 1..1..L..4.1_1_Ll.1...41„1..4 A"1..L„L„4 A.A 1 1_1_1„ x IY, U W 3 0 _�ii'i'i�i'�liI I I I i 11'1'IIi11'II111'IIIIII11111111t Pali vIII'11f1111111tllltll . -„,,,-„.wj.;.t;if 1 1:.1..L41..1.J..L.I! 1.1.1.1 1.I...1..1...L.J, N. ic A -ll E E” ; 1 uI a 1N _ i l'I'1'Iltllll — i 'I t I ! I I 1 1 ! __ -iI•IIIIf1111111I d w _ i I'1'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! O i�l'I'I'I'llllllllllllllllllllllllll11111111111111 TTI'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIII I _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111110,I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W „.a. .r...22�. .a.!lul:E 21a.!i. l ! li L�.!a L112 4!2.1.1111.1,1 1.:11 .11!.w!u 1 1. ami W /.../.77/� .—' IF_ F- i•II'I l '-' • __ ----I-777771 l7 11111 I Ili ._ _ .1II1 ! 1 ! ItII1 -1.1' I1I1111111'IIIIIIIt111!Illflll'1'1'III II'11II111111111111111111 CI tra il'I'11IIIf111111111111111111 ,°0 --°••�i I f'I I 1 I I I I I IIII 1 1 1 1 1 t I t l l l l l t l l „.—TTI'I'fllllllllllllllllll '.1.:A tlllllllltl ...aw„.a„.S..A..1...L..l_A_1„J...I..A..A..I...I..A..l 1..J .I..A.l..l.l11. .A 1...1..A..A..1...1...1..1.1. I 0.+ — Emil cz „ - i 1 1'l llllllll111111 4 I _ - i111'11I111t11I1I "„•""1 I'I'I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..w.-”", I I'I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 rl•IIIIIItIIII11tII1I1111 "iI'111II11III1I1II1IIII1IfIIIt 111'IIIIIIIII111t111111111111111 1� 11111111111111111III111111111111111 "•„•• i I'Ii1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �1 y,, ill'Illlllllllllllltlllllllllllllllllllllll _ 11' I I 11111111111111111111 "'�! ""i�l'1'I I II111 Illllllllltllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIII 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cl, .::.i::::::. :. ".-- i"i I'I'I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I III 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 •::.::•:.-::•:: • "".......»-i 1'I'I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l I I I I I I I I l I l l l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a, •::::•., :..:: _"„.. 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I f I I I I I I 1 I I t I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I A :?;:::�:•`•:•' •`:•`:: ._uu::W�E.:.!»k..!.i.L:�.�.L:.L..l..l:!..L..!.:.l.:d..L..L.I.Abl1.1.,.1.1..L.1.,.!.l..L,.I.,.LJ.AL,.I.,d..l.L,.L..!..1J...LJ»I 1.1.1.1.U.1 I,1J...L.!..1:1:L.4.!!. AO ii'i'i'iii'111111 il't'IIIIIIIIItI �i'1'I 1 111111111 I1I -il'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _« _ _ �---1.5711111111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111"`1111 i 1:111 III 11 I 1 I I I IIII 1 1 111 'lat ' 1. �111'IIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111111 _ ' _ �. .�Illili1111111111111111111I1I1111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIflllllllllllllll i I'I'I'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIt111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIItl 111111111111111111111111111'11111111111 �'°�I ,7 Digitilllllllfll llltlf1111t11111y.i.11 11 11�1111111I11111111t11t11111111 11111111111111111111111111111 ...aa: %.1.:.!..1..:..L"L..l..d..L..L..LJ ..L.I..L I..L"L..I..1..LL.I_LL.l.„I.-L..L.!...1.LL..L.L L 1 1 1 1.1 1 1.L.1_L.L.4 11 1 I l L 1- LP fg4. co I I (s1n0q) uoiLVxnU I , I EAST 1r0UND Lazy 7/17190 Interval Time (4ta:5ec) terval AVERAGE AVERAGE: istance RUN *1 RUN#2 RUN 93 RUN 1:4 RUN 05 RUN 116 RUN 117 TIME SPEED 5 tnilesl RUN START TIME--> 2:45 3:10 3:47 4:20' 4158 5:28 5:55 (sir tes} z`' ,. . v 1.468 1.42 2.06 1.51 1,41 1.42 1.41 1,41 1.81 -48.7 A ' 1.238 1,35 2.18 2.52 2.21 1.34'• 1.37 1.57 2.03 36.6 E 1.565 2.11 8.56 2.07 2.02 C,Q4 2.06 2.08 3.08 30.5 C .598 2.19 5.3 1.57 10,23 2.19 2.12 1.33 3,75 9.6 D •9E8 1.25 1.27 1.37 1.29 1.26 1.41 1.29 1.51 31.9 I1.802 2.12 1.49 2 1,48 1.52 2.26 1.56 2.00 54.1 ;-' TOTAL RUN TIME tMIM;SED--> 11:24 .22;46 • 12:32 -19:44 - 10;57 • 11:43 10152 AVERAGE TOTAL RUN TIME---7 14.1$ IWESTBOUND Tuesday 7/17/90 Interval Time iminlseU1 literval AVERAGE AVERAGE Pittance RUN *1 RUN52 RUN #3 RUN #4 RUN N5 NUN t6 RUN *7 TIME SPEED tiles) RUN START TIME-> 2:58 3;34 4:05 4:42 5;14 5141 6:08 imir.utec1 I1,B06 1.56 1.`i1 1.56 2.03 2.01 2 1.59 1.s'7 55.0 r- 917 • 1.28 1.33 1.22 1,44 1 1.3•r 1,34 1.57 35.0 C. .594 1.38 2,1 1.54 2.15 1.41 1.11 2,45 1.96 1E.7:: 1 1111.54 2,41 2.07 2.42 2.56 2.08 2.53 2.25 2.5E 35.8 1.254 2.07 2,31 3.02 2.39 2.43 2 1.54 2.42 31.1 .6 1.458 1,5 1,46 1.48 1,49 1.43 1.42 1.42 1,72 45.1 f� TOTAL RUN TINE 1NIN:51E1•••> 11:40 11:58 12:55 13:26 11:46 11:37 12:30 IAVERAGE TOTAL RUN 11i---> 12.28 I I I I I I I IIEASTBOUND Friday 7/13/90 II Interval live (min:sec) Interval AVERAGE AVERAGE 5 RUN Ai RUN#2 RUN #3 RUN #4 RUN 1f5 IIM.: SPEED e "Distance tailed RUN START 11ME--> 2:32 3:20 3:57 4;49 5:24 (minutes, (-, I1.468 1.26 2,09 1.3 1.39 2.03.. 1.76 50.0 )1 1.2.38 1.46 1.32 1.46 1.37 1.67 44.5 Y3 1.565 5.49 8.03 5,15 5.4 5,1 6.00 15.7 (1 I .598 4.46 5.06 13.42 5 5,2 6.78 5.1 /2 .928 1.35 1,18 ' 1.27 1.17 1.21 1.39 40.I 1.80E 2,03 1.59 2.03 2.03 2,09 2.06 52.5 F I TOTAL RUN TIME IMIN:SEC)--> 14114 20:22 , 25;28 17:?6 . .17:38 AVERAGE TOTAL RUN TIME---) 19,02 NEST8OUN5 •riday 7/13/90 Interval Time (min:sec) nterval AVERAGE AVERAGE istance RUN #1 RUN#2 RUN #3 RUN 1 RUN 15 TIME SIEEU miles) RUN START TIME--> 2:53 3:43 4:25 5:09 5.45 101nutes1 II1.806 2.02 1,59 1.57 2.03 2.06 2.02 52.6 .917 12.14 1,17 7.36 1.22 1.22 4.7:' 11.5 II .599 3.24 2 4.45 3.36 2.15 3.20 ii.2 n II 1.54 2.02 1.53 1.52 1.49 1,55 2.11 43,E cT 1.254 1.58 2,13 2.38 2.09 1.5 2.17 34.7 e ' 1.458 1.32 1.39 1,39 1.38 1.34 1.60 54,7 TOTAL RUN TIME (MIN:SEC)--> 24:1S 10:59 20:26 12:33 11;02 AVERASt' TOTAL RUN TIME---> 15.87 I I I I 1 1 1 EASTBOUND nday 7113/90 - Interval Tiaa (nin;sec) tervai AVERAGE AVERAGE C stance RUN 11 RUN RUN 13 RUN 04 RUN 15 RUN 1b TIME SPEED files! RUN START TIME--), y:60 11;.44 S:30 641 6,N2 7:Oy (minutes) I1.468 1.31 1.29 1.3 1.3 1.39 1.52 1.59 55,4 A 1.238 -1.35 1.4 1.31 2.18 1.38 1.35 1.71 43.4 8 ,.1.565 2.01 2.02 1.46 2.06 1.55 1.54 1,96 47.9 (1 .51 -R.54 1.36 1.45 3.55 2.)6 3.15 3.62 9,9 0 .928 1.43 1.2 1.37 1,3 1.23 1.24 1,5P 36.6 L2 1 1.802 2.22 2.02 1.55 2.1 2.13 1,57 22.11 51.2 7 TOTAL RUN TIME 1MIN;SEC)--; 1B:05 10:00 10:04 43:39 11105 -11,58 AVEP,fi6E TOTAL RUN TINE---} 12,51 4E5T80UND I nday 7115!90 Interval Time lein:seti er v31 AVERAGE AVERAGE stance RUN i1 RUN42 RUN E3 RUN 14 RUN 15 NUN I* TIME SPEED :miles) RUN START TINE--) 1/.2/ 54 -12- 6,/7 6 ..f5‘ 7:z (minutes) 1.806 4.15 1.56 1.59 2.06 2.oe 2 2.22 .48.6 F 1 .917 12.2 16.322 5.02 5,1 1.13 1.57 7.04 7.E .599 2.41 3.31 2.26 4.24 ?,E) 2.52 3.21 11.2 [2 1.34 1.55 1.51 2.35 E,03 2.46 2,05 22.22 41.6 C 1 1.254 1.31 1.26 1.31 2.05 1.45 2.06 1.74 43,2 B 1.456 1.22 1.'1 1.28 1.32 1,322 1.27 1.49 58.7 4 TOTAL RUN TIME (NIN:SEC)--> 24:11 :26:47 16:01 '17:21 11,41 12:29 AVERAGE TOTAL RUN TIME.....) 17.92 • 1 1 1 1