2021.12.21 Work Session Packet
4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696
Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov
Posted: Dec. 17, 2021
City Council Work Session Agenda
Tuesday, Dec. 21, 2021 at 6 p.m.
Council Chambers/Zoom
Pursuant to due call and notice given in the manner prescribed by Section 3.01 of the City Charter,
the work session of the Crystal City Council was held on Tuesday, Dec. 21, 2021 at _____ p.m. in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 4141 Douglas Dr. N., Crystal, Minnesota. If the agenda items are not
completed in time for the regular City Council meeting at 7 p.m., the work session will be continued
and resumed immediately following the regular City Council meeting. The public may also monitor
and participate in the meetings by connecting via Zoom, through one of the methods identified on
the City Council Meeting Schedule for Tuesday, Dec. 21, 2021.
I. Attendance
Council members Staff
____ Adams ____ Norris
____ Banks ____ Therres
____ Budziszewski ____ Gilchrist
____ Cummings ____ Elholm
____ Kiser ____ Larson
____ LaRoche ____ Ray
____ Parsons ____ Revering
____ Sutter
____ Serres
II. Agenda
The purpose of the work session is to discuss the following agenda items:
1. Commission applicant interviews.
2. Blue Line Extension update.
3. City manager monthly check-in.
4. Constituent issues update.
5. New business. *
6. Announcements. *
III. Adjournment
The work session adjourned at ______ p.m.
* Denotes no supporting information included in the packet.
Auxiliary aids are available upon request to individuals with disabilities by calling the city clerk at
(763) 531-1145 at least 96 hours in advance. TTY users may call Minnesota Relay at 711 or 1-800-627-3529.
___________________________________________________________________________________
FROM: John Sutter, Community Development Director
TO: Anne Norris, City Manager (for December 21 work session)
DATE: December 16, 2021
SUBJECT: Blue Line Extension update
___________________________________________________________________________________
At the Sep. 23 City Council work session, Metro Transit and Hennepin County staff (“the
project”) presented different design concepts for the Crystal segment of the proposed Blue
Line Extension. Most prominent among these options was a grade separation of Bottineau
Blvd. over Bass Lake Road, with the station at grade in between the northbound and
southbound embankments of Bottineau Blvd. The primary purpose of the grade separation
would be to improve the traffic flow through the Bass Lake Road intersection and reduce the
number of lanes pedestrians would need to cross.
Since then:
•Due to concerns expressed by city staff about the interchange option, especially related to
public safety, the project prepared an alternative concept that would maintain 6 lanes at
grade through the Bass Lake Road intersection, similar to the configuration in place from
2011-2015 before the segment from Wilshire south to Hwy 100 was restriped to 6 lanes.
This option would include a pedestrian bridge over Bottineau Blvd with an elevator and
staircase accessing the south end of the station platform. This is called the “4-6-4 Option”.
•The project has also modified the Interchange Option in response to city staff concerns.
The most significant change is lengthening the bridges so the station platform is no longer
between two embankments. This means the pedestrian crossing and access to the south
end of the station platform would be from a path under bridges instead of a tunnel through
embankments as shown on Sep. 23.
•The project also took current traffic counts for comparison with historic and forecast counts
on Bottineau Blvd. This included two segments (Wilshire-Corvallis and Corvallis-47th) that
had not previously been counted. An updated traffic simulation comparing the 4-6-4 and
Interchange options is being prepared but will not be ready for the Dec. 21 work session.
The purpose of the Dec. 21 work session is to share these materials with the City Council and
receive feedback before they are presented at a community open house from 5-7 p.m. on Jan.
6 in the Community Room in the basement of City Hall, 4141 Douglas Dr. N.
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Blue Line Extension Update
Based on staff, Council and community feedback, the project will refine these concepts and
present them in person at a Council work session on Feb. 10.
In the meantime, on Dec. 13 the project released a Draft Route Modification Report for public
and agency comment. This report finds that the Bottineau Boulevard alignment appears to be
workable in a very general sense but it does not address the specific issues and challenges
with this alignment, and most significantly does not address concerns about the mobility
impacts of eliminating a lane in each direction north of Highway 100. At the Jan. 13 work
session, staff will present proposed comments on the Route Modification Report for Council
discussion, followed by Council consideration of a formal comment resolution on Jan. 18. The
project’s deadline for comment is Jan. 25.
Attachments:
1. Draft Route Modification Report (summary)
2. Slideshow for Dec. 21 work session
3. Traffic Counts and Forecasts
4. Right of way comparison (11x17) - 4-6-4 Option vs Interchange Option
5. Aerial and ground view comparisons (11x17) - 4-6-4 Option vs Interchange Option
METRO Blue Line LRT Extension
Route Link Options Update | November 2021METRO BLUE LINE EXTENSION
Draft Route Modification Report Summary • December 2021
Background
Since August 2020, the Metropolitan Council and
Hennepin County have partnered to evaluate
revised route options that do not use freight rail
property as previously planned for the METRO
Blue Line Extension.
Brooklyn Park:
The former route and stations along West
Broadway in Brooklyn Park remain the same.
Crystal and Robbinsdale:
The proposed route along Bottineau Boulevard
(County Road 81) closely parallels the original
route for most of this area.
Minneapolis:
Two route options are being evaluated ‑–one along
ry and Washington Avenues (shown iLow n purple)
and one along West Broadway Avenue (shown in
green).
Purpose of the Report
The Initial Route Evaluation Report released
in March 2021 laid out a process and general
timeline to identify a community‑supported route
for the project. Now, this Draft Route Modification
Report describes the overall process, public
input, and technical evaluation that will inform the
recommendation of a modified route. The Final
Route Modification Report will recommend a
community supported route for further evaluation
in spring 2022 that responds to the Project
Principles and project goals.
Help us select a route!
Now is the time to give comments as your feedback will shape the final recommendation. To submit your comments on the Draft
Route Modification Report and for a list of upcoming community meetings, visit BlueLineExt.org.
Schedule
AUGUST
2020
MARCH
2021
JULY
2021
NOVEMBER
2021
DECEMBER
2021
SPRING
2022
Hennepin County and
the Metropolitan Council
issued a joint statement
on advancing the project
without using 8 miles of
railroad right-of-way
Release of the Initial
Route Evaluation
Report that
identified potential
route options
ONGOING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Release of
potential station
study areas and
visualizations of
light rail
We’re here
Release of
preliminary design
options on how
LRT could fit into
each community
Release of
Draft Route
Modification
Report
Release of
Final Route
Modification
Report
Olson Memorial HighwayFremont Ave N7t
h
S
t
N10th Ave NLyndale Ave N63rd Ave
METRO C LINE (BUS RAPID TRANSIT)PLANNED METRO D LINE (BUS RAPID TRANSIT) MississippiRiverMississippi RiverDouglasDrBr
ookl
y
nBlvds58th Ave
42nd Ave N
Bass Lake Rd
O
s
seo
R
d
B
o
t
t
i
n
e
a
u
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(C
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
8
1
)
Dul uth St
WinnetkaAveN69th Ave
57th Ave
Webber
PkwyWBroadwayA
v
e
OrchardAve44th Ave N
45th Ave N
CSAH 57
Douglas Dr NHumboldt Ave¬«55
¬«252
¬«100
Brooklyn
Center
Brooklyn Park
Crystal
Fridley
Golden Valley
New
Hope
Minneapolis
Robbinsdale
[0 1½Miles
Potential Station
Study Areas
METRO Bus Rapid Transit
Stations (Existing and Planned)
§¨¦94
§¨¦394
§¨¦694
Former Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA) Station Locations
Former Route
West Broadway Route
Lowry Route
2013 Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
Shared (common) Route
METRO C LINE (BUS RAPID TRANSIT)Golden Valley Rd
Olson Memorial HighwayFremont Ave NPenn Ave NWEST BROADWAY
ROUTE
§¨¦94
Golden Valley
Robbinsdale
Plymouth Ave N
LOWRY ROUTE
3rd/4th St Ramps(
C
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
8
1
)
B
o
t
t
i
n
e
a
u
B
l
v
d
Lowry Ave N
10th Ave N10th Ave N7t
h
S
t
N
7t
h
S
t
N
21st Ave N
W Broadway Ave
Lyndale Ave NTARGET FIELDSTATION
Victory Memorial
Parkway/
Grand Rounds
North
Commons
Park Hall
Park
Farview
Park
Palmer Park
Central
Park
Washington Ave NFor project questions or to invite us to an event, contact:
Brooklyn Park/Minneapolis/Robbinsdale/
Overall Project Questions:
Sophia Ginis – Sophia.Ginis@metrotransit.org
Crystal:
David Davies – David.Davies@metrotransit.org
Visit BlueLineExt.org for more information,
to sign-up for the project newsletter,
and share your comments, questions and
concerns on our interactive feedback map.
Stay Connected!
METRO Blue Line LRT Extension
Route Link Options Update | November 2021METRO BLUE LINE EXTENSION
Project Update • November 2021
Background
Since March 2021, the project team
has been evaluating two routes
in Minneapolis, one along West
Broadway (shown in green) and one
along Lowry Avenue (shown in purple)
to connect to the cities of Robbinsdale
and Crystal along County Road 81 and
then into Brooklyn Park. The project
team has updated design details that
help show how light rail could fit into
your community.
Next Steps
Following the recommendation on
a community supported route in
early 2022, design and the technical
evaluation of the recommended route
will advance and be documented in the
federal and state environmental review
documents. Through this process, the
Metropolitan Council and Hennepin
County will work closely with project
partners at all levels to effectively
address and advance defined goals and
policies set forth in adopted plans and
applicable design guidelines, such as:
•City of Minneapolis plans and policies
such as the Climate Aciton Plan, Vision
Zero, Transportation Action Plan,
Street Design Guide, and Complete
Streets policy among others.
•Metropolitan Council’s Thrive MSP 2040
•Hennepin County’s Climate Action Plan
•President’s Justice40 Initiative
Olson Memorial HighwayFremont Ave N7t
h
S
t
N10th Ave NLyndale Ave N63rd Ave
METRO C LINE (BUS RAPID TRANSIT)PLANNED METRO D LINE (BUS RAPID TRANSIT)MississippiRiverDouglasDrBr
ookl
ynBlvds58th Ave
42nd Ave N
Bass Lake Rd
O
s
seo
R
d
B
o
t
t
i
n
e
a
u
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
8
1
)
Duluth St
WinnetkaAveN69th Ave
57th Ave
Webber
PkwyWBroadwayA
v
e
OrchardAve44th Ave N
45th Ave N
CSAH 57
Douglas Dr NHumboldt AvePalmer Park
Central
Park
¬«55
¬«252
¬«100
Brooklyn
Center
Brooklyn Park
Crystal
Fridley
Golden Valley
New
Hope
Minneapolis
Robbinsdale
[0 1½
Miles
Potential Station
Study Areas
METRO Bus Rapid Transit
Stations (Existing and Planned)
§¨¦94
§¨¦394
§¨¦694
Former Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA) Station Locations
Former Route
METRO C LINE (BUS RAPID TRANSIT)PLANNED METRO D LINE (BUS RAPID TRANSIT)reviRippississiMreviRippississiMGolden Valley Rd
Olson Memorial HighwayFreemont Ave NPenn Ave NWEST BROADWAY
ROUTE
§¨¦94
Golden Valley
Robbinsdale
Plymouth Ave N
LOWRY ROUTE
Victory Memorial
Parkway/
Grand Rounds
North
CommonsPark
HallPark
FairviewPark
3rd/4th St Ramps(
C
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
8
1
)
B
o
t
t
i
n
e
a
u
B
l
v
d Washington Ave NLowryAve N
10th Ave N10th Ave N7t
h
S
t
N
7t
h
S
t
N
21st Ave N
W Broadway Ave
Lyndale Ave NTARGET FIELDSTATION
[§¨¦94
£¤169
¬«610
Brooklyn Park
Brooklyn Center
Maple Grove
Osseo
OAK GROVE
STATION
93RD AVENUE STATION
85TH AVENUE
STATION
BROOKLYN
BOULEVARD STATION
85th Ave
93rd Ave
Miles
0 0.50.25
73rd Ave
69th AveZane AveNoble PkwyBr
o
o
k
l
y
n
B
l
vdBo
t
t
i
n
e
a
u
B
l
v
d
(C
ou
n
t
y
Ro
ad
8
1
)W Broadway AvePLANNED STATIONS IN
BROOKLYN PARK
ATTACHMENT 1
METRO Blue Line LRT Extension
Route Link Options Update | November 2021METRO BLUE LINE EXTENSION
Draft Route Modification Report Summary • December 2021
Community Engagement
The METRO Blue Line Extension Project relies on community voices to inform project decision‑making. Since August 2020,
the project has engaged with communities through a variety of activities, including in‑person and virtual community meetings,
door knocking, attending community events, online and paper surveys, and interactive maps. See below for the timing and
project updates shared since August 2020.
• Round 1 (August 2020 through January 2021):
Input on project goals, concerns, opportunities, and thoughts on potential new routes
• Round 2 (March 2021):
Input on new route options released as part of the Initial Route Modification Report
• Round 3 (July to August 2021):
Input on the connections that light rail would make within communities and station locations within those areas
• Round 4 (Late September to December 2021):
Input on updated design concepts and potential opportunities and impacts of light rail options
Since March 2021, project staff have contracted directly with 12 community and cultural organizations to support a robust
engagement process. These organizations are seeking feedback on the project by hosting activities prioritizing low‑income
communities, communities of color, and specific areas of the corridor. The community and cultural organizations include:
• Asian Media Access Inc
• CAPI USA
• Encouraging Leaders
• Harrison Neighborhood Association
• Juxtaposition Arts
• Lao Assistance Center of MN
• Liberian Business Association
• Northside Economic Opportunity Network
• Northside Residents Redevelopment Council
• West Broadway Business Coalition
• Jordan Area Community Council
• Hawthorne Neighborhood Council
Major themes heard from the community:
• Avoid impacts/disruption to communities and the environment
• Safety on transit and in communities served
• Easy pedestrian access to/from stations
• Anti‑displacement efforts are a priority
• Support for businesses during construction
• Access to regional destinations
• Support economic development
• Improve the transit experience
• Improve access/serve transit dependent populations
Anti-Displacement Initiative
The Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County are committed to delivering a light rail transit (LRT) investment that benefits
current corridor residents and businesses. In response to feedback received during engagement activities, project partners are
advancing efforts to address community concerns about housing affordability, business support, and displacement.
The project team is convening a diverse Anti‑Displacement Workgroup with seats for agency and community partners to
research and recommend programs and policies that will support this initiative. The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs
(CURA) will lead and facilitate the Anti‑Displacement Workgroup and provide recommendations in the next 18 months.
October 9th Bike, Walk, Bus tour of Minneapolis route options and
station study areas.
METRO Blue Line LRT Extension
Route Link Options Update | November 2021METRO BLUE LINE EXTENSION
Draft Route Modification Report Summary • December 2021
Project
Principles
ROUTE
PRINCIPLES
ENGAGEMENT
PRINCIPLES
• Meet Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) New
Starts criteria
• Maintain existing alignment
(route) as much as possible
• Mitigate negative impacts
• Meaningful engagement
of stakeholders
• Engage, inform, and consult
diverse communities to
co-create project solutions
that reduce disparities
Evaluation Process
To determine a community‑supported route, the project team is considering Project Principles and goals, community and
business feedback, and engineering requirements. Each route is evaluated against the project goals to see how it serves
community needs.
Each route has been evaluated based on its ability to meet project goals. All the routes have received an overall assessment
of “good” in their ability to serve the community. In some cases these routes achieve an excellent rating based on unique
features and the potential to deliver exemplary positive benefits. None of the routes have been assessed as “poor,” which
would mean they did not meet the project goals. The Evaluation Findings section of this report provides more detail on how
each route was evaluated against the project goals.
ASSESSMENT OF ROUTE OPTIONS TO DEFINED GOALS
PROJECT GOAL
BOTTINEAU BOULEVARD
(COUNTY ROAD 81) IN BROOKLYN
PARK, CRYSTAL, AND ROBBINSDALE
LOWRY
ROUTE
WEST
BROADWAY
ROUTE
Improve transit access and connections to
jobs and regional destinations EXCELLENT EXCELLENT EXCELLENT
Improve frequency and reliability of transit
service to communities in the corridor EXCELLENT GOOD GOOD
Provide transit improvements that
maximize transit benefits, while being cost
competitive and economically viable
GOOD GOOD GOOD
Support communities’ development goals EXCELLENT GOOD EXCELLENT
Promote healthy communities and sound
environmental practices including efforts
to address climate change
GOOD GOOD GOOD
Advance local and regional equity and
work towards reducing regional
economic disparities
GOOD GOOD EXCELLENT
METRO Blue Line LRT Extension
Route Link Options Update | November 2021METRO BLUE LINE EXTENSION
Draft Route Modification Report Summary • December 2021
Next Steps
The Draft Route Modification Report is available for public review, and comments will be accepted through January 25, 2022.
The Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County will carefully review the community input received along with the findings from
the technical analysis completed to date to recommend a community‑supported route for further evaluation in spring 2022 as part
of the Final Route Modification Report. Following that recommendation, design and technical evaluation of the recommended
route will advance and will be documented in federal and state environmental review documents. Further robust community
engagement will continue through these and future phases.
To submit your comments on the draft report and for a list of upcoming community meetings in January, visit BlueLineExt.org.
For project questions or to invite us to an event, contact:
Brooklyn Park/Minneapolis/Robbinsdale/
Overall Project Questions:
Sophia Ginis – Sophia.Ginis@metrotransit.org
Crystal:
David Davies – David.Davies@metrotransit.org
Visit BlueLineExt.org for more information,
to sign-up for the project newsletter,
and share your comments, questions and
concerns on our interactive feedback map.
Stay Connected!
Blue Line Extension Community-Supported Route:
• Best meets the Project Principles and goals
• Grounded in community feedback through collaboration with stakeholders
• Supported by project corridor communities and decision‑makers
LRT projects are complex and unforeseen challenges arise.
Schedules and timelines are subject to change.
1 YEAR 1.5 – 2 YEARS 1.5 – 2 YEARS 3 – 4 YEARS
Identify
community-
supported route
Environmental review
Document benefits
and impacts of the
project
Municipal Consent
Seek city support of
the LRT design
Engineering
Develop construction
ready design plans
Station area planning
Construction and Full
Funding Grant
Agreement
Federal funding
Goal — Line
opens in 2028
We’re here
Click to edit Master title styleBrooklyn Park | Crystal | Robbinsdale | Golden Valley | MinneapolisCR81 Options Comparison at Bass Lake RoadATTACHMENT 2
Comparison of BLRT CR81 Options at Bass Lake Road3CATEGORIES 4-6-4 INTERCHANGE KEY TAKEAWAY Design ŶExpands CR 81 Between Crystal Airport Rd and Wilshire Blvd, keeping six lanes of thru traffic for just over half of a mile (3,000 feet) ŶLight rail is at-grade in the center of the roadwayŶPark and ride access via Lakeland Ave N. from the Wilshire intersectionŶCR 81 has four thru lanes are on a grade-separated overpass at Bass Lake Road with ramps for access from Bass Lake Road; the intersection maintains full access for Bass Lake RoadŶLight rail is at-grade centered between overpass bridgesŶPark and ride access via Lakeland Ave N. from the Wilshire intersection¾The 4-6-4 option includes an additional through lane in each direction, while the interchange elevates CR81 over Bass Lake Road Right of WayŶAdding LRT to a 6-lane CR 81 requires additional right of way on the east side of the roadwayŶInterchange ramps and bridges requires additional right of way on the east side of the roadway¾There are similar right of way impacts between the road expansion for the 4-6-4 option and the Interchange option Form & Function ŶStation platform is in the middle of a six-lane road (with additional turning lanes at the intersection) ŶThe pedestrian bridge provides a crossing of CR 81 and concept provides grade-separated access to the south end of the station to the platform from the park and ride and trails (note: must accommodate the truck moving route so the overpass is higher than typical pedestrian bridge)ŶStation platform is at-grade framed by adjacent interchange bridgesŶThe south at-grade crossing provides grade-separation from CR 81 and provides access to trails on either side of CR 81 and access from park and ride to station ¾The Interchange creates more space for the station with the additional area under the bridges available as complementary community space Station ExperienceŶChallenging due to traffic on both sides of the platformŶAccess to the north end of the station requires crossing between three and five lanes of traffic on CR 81ŶPedestrian bridge access to park and ride and regional trailŶRoad noise will sound louder to riders at the platformŶSeparated from vehicle traffic with opportunities for placemakingŶAccess to the north end of the station requires crossing only the access ramps for CR 81 ŶSouth end at-grade access to platform without crossing roadwayŶLess road noise at the platform due to the separation from CR 81 ŶOffers more protection from weather elements for riders at platform and at-grade crossing users¾The Interchange offers more opportunity for placemaking, easier passenger access to the station, and less road noise on the platformTraffic Performance ŶOffers slight improvement over four-lane CR81 with LRTŶTraffic operations slightly degraded from existing conditions for peak-hour travelŶThru traffic on CR 81 is separated from the intersection (no stopping)ŶImproves Bass Lake Road operations from existing ŶBest performing traffic option compared to four or six lanes, reduces travel time for vehicles on CR 81 by ~20-25%ŶTraffic operations are better than existing conditions¾The 4-6-4 accommodates traffic almost as well as the existing intersection.¾The Interchange accommodates traffic better than the existing intersection. Pedestrian Crossing ExperienceŶAt grade crossing: similar to what pedestrians experience todayŶTrack design would provide pedestrian refuge in the center of the road with pedestrian crossing buttons ŶPedestrian bridge: added height for truck moving route increases pedestrian effort and travel time compared to the at-grade crossing, most pedestrians and bikes will likely cross at-grade to save timeŶIntersection has many more opportunities where pedestrians and vehicles could conflict, making it less safe (due to the number of lanes that pedestrians cross and the directions of traffic)ŶBass Lake Road at-grade crossing: separate from the CR 81 thru lanesŶSouth end at-grade crossing: requires no roadway crossingŶDirect connection between trails on east and west sides of CR 81ŶDirect connection from park and ride to stationŶPedestrian and bike safety features will be included at rail crossing¾The 4-6-4 would continue to include a long crosswalk but includes an elevated pedestrian bridge crossing option; while the Interchange option allows pedestrians and bikes to cross CR81 at-grade without crossing the through traffic.g
Right of Way84-6-4 OptionInterchange Option
4-6-4 Option Design44-6-4 Design
4-6-4 Design5
9Bass Lake Road: 4-6-4 OptionAerial View of Station Area Looking NorthDRAFT: CONCEPT IN DEVELOPMENTNote: This image represents a planning concept based on cursory engineering work. If this concept advances, significant additional design would be required.
10Bass Lake Road: 4-6-4 OptionAerial View of Station Area Looking EastDRAFT: CONCEPT IN DEVELOPMENTNote: This image represents a planning concept based on cursory engineering work. If this concept advances, significant additional design would be required.
11Bass Lake Road: 4-6-4 OptionGround View of Station Area – Pedestrian CrossingDRAFT: CONCEPT IN DEVELOPMENTNote: This image represents a planning concept based on cursory engineering work. If this concept advances, significant additional design would be required.
Interchange Design6
Interchange Design7
Traffic Performance12Bass Lake Road: Interchange OptionGround View of Station Area Looking SouthDRAFT: CONCEPT IN DEVELOPMENTNote: This image represents a planning concept based on cursory engineering work. If this concept advances, significant additional design would be required.
13Bass Lake Road: Interchange OptionGround View of Station Area Looking EastDRAFT: CONCEPT IN DEVELOPMENTNote: This image represents a planning concept based on cursory engineering work. If this concept advances, significant additional design would be required.
14Bass Lake Road: Interchange OptionGround View of Station Area Looking East from Park & RideDRAFT: CONCEPT IN DEVELOPMENTNote: This image represents a planning concept based on cursory engineering work. If this concept advances, significant additional design would be required.
15Bass Lake Road: Interchange OptionAerial View of Station Area Looking NorthDRAFT: CONCEPT IN DEVELOPMENTNote: This image represents a planning concept based on cursory engineering work. If this concept advances, significant additional design would be required.
MnDOT Examples16MN 43 Bridge– WinonaMN 61– Hastings
CR 81 Traffic Volumes Annual average daily traffic (AADT) is the estimated average daily traffic volume experienced in both directions of a roadway segment considering the seasonal variation in traffic in a one‐year period. Segment 2005 AADT1(vehicles/day) 2015 AADT2(vehicles/day) 2019 AADT3 (vehicles/day) 2021 AADT4 (vehicles/day) 2030 Forecast5(vehicles/day) 2040 Forecast6 (vehicles/day) A CR 81, 63rd Ave to Bass Lake Rd 23,900 26,500 28,500 26,500 35,000 34,000 B CR 81, Bass Lake Rd to Wilshire Blvd 23,900 27,000 31,000 26,700 36,000 32,000 C CR 81, Wilshire Blvd to Corvallis Ave 28,100D CR 81, Corvallis Ave to 47th Ave 29,900E CR 81, 47th Ave to TH 100 ramps 28,500 32,500 38,000 33,10039,000 1. Existing volumes during the design phase for the CR 81reconstruction.2.Volumes after the CR 81 reconstruction but before therestriping to 6 lanes between 47th Ave and Wilshire Blvd.3.Volumes after the CR 81 restriping to 6 lanes between 47th Aveand Wilshire Blvd.4.Volumes collected in October 2021.5.Forecasts used in the design phase for the CR 81reconstruction.6.Forecasts in the current Hennepin County Transportation Plan.ATTACHMENT 3
Interchange Option
4-6-4 Option
Right of Way ATTACHMENT 4
Bass Lake Road: 4-6-4 Option
Aerial View of Station Area Looking North
Bass Lake Road: Interchange Option
Aerial View of Station Area Looking North
Bass Lake Road: 4-6-4 Option
Aerial View of Station Area Looking North
Bass Lake Road: Interchange Option
Aerial View of Station Area Looking North
ATTACHMENT 5
Bass Lake Road: 4-6-4 Option
Ground View of Station Area – Pedestrian Crossing
Bass Lake Road: Interchange Option
Ground View of Station Area Looking East
4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696
Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov
CITY MANAGER WORK PLAN
MONTHLY CHECK IN – DECEMBER 2021
Objective 1 – Policy Facilitation – strategic planning for continued
implementation of Council priorities:
o Thriving Business Climate
▪ Open To Business assistance available
▪ Hennepin County façade improvement pilot grant approved
o Create Strong Neighborhoods
▪ Code enforcement – on-going
▪ Implementation of Master Parks System Plan improvements –
on going
▪ Home improvement loans/rebates available through CEE
o Fiscally sound and stable policies and practices
▪ Long term financial planning on-going; updated Long Term Plan
reviewed 11/2/21 and on agenda for 12/21/21 acceptance
▪ 2022 budget and levies approved 12/7/21
o Build inclusive community so all feel welcome
▪ Just Deeds initiative in place for residents to remove
discriminatory covenants from property titles
Objective 2 - Continue to invest in long term plan/saving for capital projects
o Planning for use of ARPA funds – still waiting for guidance from
Treasury
o Police station project – new construction underway; finalizing State
grant agreement requirements so reimbursements can be requested
Objective 3 - Coordinate community conversations regarding equity and
inclusion
o Draft work plan discussed at November work session; additional
discussion in early 2022
Objective 4 - Evaluate operational expectations in light of lessons learned from
pandemic adjustments
o Elected officials and commissions back to in-person meetings, public
still can access virtually or in person
Working on 2022 Work Plan, based on 2021 performance evaluation