Laserfiche WebLink
CONCEPTS CONSIDERED <br />Approach 1 <br />There were five different Approach 1 concepts identified in Subarea 1 to manage access along the western <br />side of the study area. As operations and safety issues are not of high concern at this time in Subarea 1, these <br />concepts focus on managing private and public access points along Highway 10 by providing access to front- <br />age -type roadways. These local streets funnel local and business oriented trips to the primary intersections for <br />access to the highway, therefore minimizing potential conflicts for Highway 10 traffic. <br />1. 156th St. Extension (Jarvis St to Alpine Dr) - Project 1-1-1 <br />Public right-of-way exists to complete the 156th St. connection between Jarvis St. and Alpine Dr. on the north <br />side of Highway 10. This concept would build the two remaining segments necessary for the connection to <br />Alpine Dr., which could act as the primary intersection in this area moving forward. Four accesses could be <br />removed from the highway by providing access to the new local street instead. Another goal of this concept <br />would be to convert the Alpine Dr. at -grade rail crossing to a quiet zone by installing a median along Alpine Dr. <br />2. South Frontage Road Extension (Edison St to Adams St) - Project 1-1-2 <br />Similar to Project 1-1-1, this concept could remove two direct accesses (one private and one public) on <br />Highway 10 as well as a median opening. This concept could move trips away from Jarvis St. and would be a <br />precursor to Project 1-1-3 as another step towards making Alpine Dr. the primary intersection. <br />3. RCUT at Alpine Dr and Turn Lane Improvements and South Frontage Road - Project 1-1-3 <br />Tying into the street constructed in Project 1-1-2, this concept could link the south side of Highway 10 to <br />Alpine Dr. and could construct a Reduced Conflict U-Turn (RCUT) at the Alpine Dr. intersection with Highway <br />10. Two direct accesses would be closed to the highway as well as one median opening. As an alternative to <br />a traffic signal, this intersection treatment could serve the majority of trips accessing the Highway in this <br />subarea safely and efficiently without adding delay to mainline traffic. <br />4. RCUT at Bowers Dr with Turn Lane Improvements - Project 1-1-4 <br />A second RCUT intersection could be constructed within subarea 1 with this project at Bowers Dr.. The re- <br />stricted access at this location could more safely provide access to the homes south of the highway in this <br />area we well as to any future development that may occur south of the highway. The project could close two <br />access points and one median opening. <br />5. Riverdale Blvd Extension to Bowers Dr - Project 1-1-5 <br />As additional development takes place south of the highway, a local frontage road could be built to connect <br />the RCUT at Bowers Dr. to the interchange at Armstrong Blvd. and provide safe access to the properties. <br />Approach 2 and 3 <br />There were no Approach 2 or Approach 3 concepts identified in Subarea 1. It was determined that at -grade <br />alternatives with a connected local street system would be sufficient considering the limited area being served <br />due to the proximity of the railroad and river to the highway. An interchange is not expected in this subarea. <br />Subarea 2 — Armstrong Blvd (CSAH 83) <br />Beginning in the fall of 2014, a full access interchange will be constructed in Subarea 2 at Armstrong Blvd.. The <br />interchange will remove one of five traffic signals on Highway 10 within the study corridor and will provide a <br />much needed grade separation between Armstrong Blvd. and the BNSF railroad just north of the highway. Trains <br />HIGHWAY 10 ACCESS PLANNING STUDY 48 <br />