SECTION IV i
1
IV. OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION PROCESS
The evaluation of alternatives was based on identified goals
and objectives for the TH 7 corridor. The goals and objec-
tives statements serve as evaluation criteria for selecting
1 among alternatives.
Several different approaches were considered for evaluating
alternatives relative to identified goals and objectives (or
' evaluation criteria) . Three of these approaches are
described below. Each subsequent approach employs a
slightly more rigorous application of evaluation criteria.
' o Approach 1: Logic/Discussion--This approach is most
applicable to a "yes/no" decision that is strongly
influenced by technical characteristics. The approach
1 involves the presentation of technical data, analysis of
the data relative to the evaluation criteria, a
discussion (hopefully logical ) of each side of the deci-
sion, and a conclusion drawn from the analysis and
' discussion. This approach is not as effective when
applied to decisions which require a choice among several
1 alternatives since the evaluation (discussion) generally
focuses on only one aspect of the problem.
o Approach 2: Plusses/Minusses--This approach is better
' suited to situations where there are many alternatives
and many different aspects of the alternatives to be con-
sidered; generally there is an agreed upon series of
' alternatives that are to be assessed against an agreed
upon list of evaluation criteria. Each alternative is
then rated relative to each criterion within a range from
very good (++) to very poor (--) with intermediate
' ratings of good (+), neutral (o), or poor (-). The
plusses and minusses are then totaled for each alter-
native and the alternative(s) having the highest positive
total represent the best alternative(s). The drawback of
this approach is that it assumes that all criteria are of
equal importance and that the criteria were selected so
' as not to favor one aspect of the problem.
o Approach 3: Weighted Criteria/Numerical Scoring--This
approach is also oriented to situations where there are
49
1
many alternatives and many different aspects of the
alternatives to be considered. In addition, this
approach also allows different weight to be given to dif-
ferent aspects of the problem. In this approach weights
are assigned to each criterion ranging from 1 to 5. Each
alternative is then scored or rated on how well it per- ,
forms relative to each criterion similar to approach 2
except that it is assigned a numerical value of 1 to 5
instead of the plusses or minusses. Usually the most
important criteria are given a high weight or value and
the alternatives which are rated best relative to a cri-
terion are given a high score. The scores for each
alternative relative to each criterion are then
multiplied by the weight for that criterion. The
weighted scores for each alternative are totaled and the
alternative(s) with the highest weighted total represent
the best alternative(s) . Under this method the raw
scores can also be totaled which would provide an answer
similar to approach 2.
The third approach was selected to evaluate the study ,
segment alternatives. Under this approach the consultant
did the scoring of the alternatives based on a technical
analysis of the data relative to the agreed on evaluation
measures and presented the results to the project management
team for discussion. The Project Management Team (PMT)
selected and weighted the evaluation criteria. The PMT
weights for each criterion were applied to arrive at a
weighted score for each alternative. The weighted scores
were used as a tool to assist the PMT in reaching a concen-
sus on the best alternative in each study segment.
GOALS/OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION
MEASURES
The goals/objectives or evaluation criteria are meant to
provide a basis for evaluating and selecting from the alter-
natives for each study segment. A draft set of evaluation
criteria were developed and presented to the PMT for their
discussion. Based on these discussions a final set of cri-
teria were agreed on. These criteria are presented on the
following table.
The PMT members were asked to weight the goals or evaluation
criteria from 1 to 5. In order to be consistent in the
weighting, 5 represented the highest weight, given to the
goal (s) which are most important, and 1 the lowest weight
and given to the goal (s) which are least important. The
same weight could be given to more than one goal and all
goals could be given equal weight.
1
50 '
1
n z o m = a
z D D C W I
f,7 z r . V r
Cl+ cm cn m
c v rnc-5
N O O v O 1•-'
-I t MI o 1(.1w I
o
� o
� z
rn ON cn
cn C(TI .A I
V CTW N 1--. =G")
3 'v -I c+'C7 -I VI -I a -I f) -I a 0 N -1 C) O - O
fD 0 0 =' O 0 c+ O 0 S = 0 00 = O e+ 0 a = o D I
O e+ CD e+ C CO CD CO -5 a r
O C c+
r+ CD 3 fD 3 a 3 a 3 -S e+ a s �• -I-C3 LA
V+ 0a cn0a << = a • -1 Cu --• 3 a -r•<< cD o = -S
c+ J. c+ c+ -. 0 �. fD -.. aC .I' V = < = 0 D
-..•-.• O C -..• O a O = N O 0 -5 N C Cu CD V < =
O a e+ a s c+ -s 1 e+ c t -S 0 c+ 0 -s a C�
-10 << -.Cu CD -s a a s • < • ••C fD O Vi C) a I
c+ a fD CD In fD 0 a °O 0 fD 0
S O = a Z O • V+ O O = a a O co
CD 0 'S fD • -..• rt e+ e+ Z X a V+ a C..
0 0 CD V+ 0 a 0 •A•0 -s a o ? 3 a rn
Cn 1 -5 a l• 1 fD Z a 'S a 0 c -,. Cn Cu V+ = C7
c+ -s • a = -. -fi = c+ n << c... c+ �• -I I
C CD J. f . in-.. et - _J. -A fD = 0 fD CO
GI cn 3 0 3 -+• 3 � 3 �• -c N ,-I- -s O = C
<< � c•• ri- aC Cuc• -c 0 0 • CD e+ rn
O. -5 -s -s O -s IT -s 3 a V+
a fD O a 0 0 0..0 H O CD 0 S T. CD
Z O < -+< -.I< < Cu el- c+ < 0 el- -.•<
CD c+ fD CD Cu fD C CD i+ N X -+• -+ fD e+ fD Cu 0. a S I
= us CD • CD -s
• a s fD a as fD a e+ CD CD -5
r) < (1 C) CA (1 << = V) 0 a 0
0 fD C) C C) (-) a -r rt -h
a fD fD In fD -i•fD �• 3 0. 0. • In
fD N 0 N fD 1n O V+ O Cu -+• f 3
< V+ 10 V+ to In vs La. 'S Cu C) 0 I
CD 3 c+ c+ O fD C< fT-, r+ fD e+ -..• c+ ='' c+ = Z C) V+ a �•
0 0 0 0 O 0 fD O CD e+ V+
e+ 0 J. y J.
1 to c+ CD cn CD -I -S a O -..• c+
O' X c+ X = -+• O "h C<
J. C J. C . i. CO a r+ �• I
=
V+ 0.N V �• S I
c+ << e+ O fD
1 1
V Os CT -P. W v f V I I-+ 1.--am
AI Cr a Cr a• v
r
c
-I-'•-s -I aaz 0. -aZ < c-) > -h 0- T. a C) z -I 3 z T.
=O fD << CD fD C CD a C fD ? 0 -s CD 3 O C C -S fD C -I
I
n Ho f)- < 3 0 0 3 a a 0 0 < 0 � a ►•y• 3 CD 3
V-5 -.• CD 'S CD Cr Z a fS --a• O -a- 3 fD C t+ IT < e+ Q' O
• CD a fD --.CD fD CD C) CO a O < 0 fD fD CD Z
a fD C Cu 0 -5 C C -s BCD fD ao e+ 0 C -5 n - 3
inO O V+ •c In to fD V. O fD 'C
CD r+ a fD 3 a CD CD a V+ el. to 3 0 C a e+ C) 0 rn
�• fD O V1 O -.• e+ CD -i+ 3 0 O -.- CD -h D I
O Cu N -. a � a•O • O -1., h O fD a O 3 V1 CA
-S ..• O et' O X S O e+ e+ -' CD w a C
N V+ In S e+ -S CD a 'S 0 -+ C+ .'O
Cs.a CD e+ e+ -+•<< fD .0 c+ In a - fD fD 0 C) C) m
CD fD 'S X N 'S C) •C N C _..• _.•< C) O O as V+
C+ < 0 a =fD a =fD -c fD 0 c+ fD c+ e+CC1 --. V+
-5 fD -1+ < -.• < 0 O O fD -+ Z 0 e+ -I c•* V+ I
fD �- fD 0 0 CD CD O = C) a V. 'S Z- = fD
a 0 0 = -h --aX -h (is << e+ -h 'S •0
N c 0 0 fD a -4• -h Cu 0 V --a•0
CD 3 c+ e+ fD •C c+ fD fD Cu O 3 �• = -'h a a
fD fD �•X 0 -J• -S ) e+ = a fD C) a c+ O
O O 3 "CI e+ 3 -.• a a = -4+ c+ I
O c+ e+ fD CD fD fD fD 5 In 3 -I S 0 3 �• O V)
In -- 'S = O r+ fD V+ =CD O -+• In 0 'S
e+ a r+ -.•el. rr C) �• fD .0 O 0 c e+
-s X -. O fD -a• O fD O 1+ < V C e+ 0 0 Cp 3 0
0 O' 0 a CO 0 CD ='' -5 O s a
< -++ a C a a -S -s -r•-5 CD e+ cr. -I
CD -. O CD V+ -"• H 0 = I
= C C CDc(-I. -h C) 0 a-c c+ a CD -5O eh -5
C CD a C CD �•O C << a c+ C C ...1-..X fD V) O C to C1 -s Cr 0 a fD O 'S C << -S X
3 fD ffDD O -I O CCD -I CCD VV) 0 -s f c(-I- a N a CCD a
-S O =0 = a -4• -I CD fD fD •--a O 'S -s 0 I
e+ -.. O -s -5 co 0. fD = C) fD V+ -S fD -.• O'
O fD 1 V fD fD V fD fD 3 r+ O • 'S Cu Cu
O • a V+ O CD V -a. 0 C) • -. 0-
CDC) N -.• O rf. 'S • 0 3 C -.• V+ O
0 fD fD a Z -1• CO O a r+ -S
O N am. CD 1 O
C rfl = c
a O 0 I
N = -1 c+ C+ X 'S c+
H .a <c
I
rn C) C) -4
I
Il70
rn >D c W
r/I m
70 -i \
O ,-, C) I.•+
I rn-1 N C-. o
I- .< Z
I c
cn m
C
I--. I-. I-.. --. (0 CO RI
W IV I- O •
CD rt c+ --I0. cP - 4 f --I J• 3 —4 r* -1
O S1 O (D GI O CD Cu 0 0 O 0 0 0
< rr N rP = rt
—s O J. 0_0 J. J. 0 J. S .1 S 'S .1 (D 'S
O O O CD O O 00 O O 0 CD 0 -S 0
J. = J. J J. J•< Cu < < <
I
3 1, 3 e"t 1, 3 1, 3 N J. - J. CD -I.(D Cu J• J.¢I J• --I Q, J• 0. = rh 0. 0.
n N Cu n N t1 C) N (� CD CD CD (D (D
• --0. (D J. (I) a (D 0 V X
• O. --, O Cu J.y J. y
J. r. •-. -.. rt J. I•} N C) a C N C
M. al M. S C M. J.� 0 �1, et -+,
J. J. cD y J. CD
N (D Z 1, J. 1,
CD 0. CD fD CD c+ < 'S W J. p J•
y J. N J. U N J. fD fD �•p C) (0 C)
d 0. J. CD
0 C N 0 -0 0 'C rl• 0 CD W O
O a CD O Cu p Cu 0 -5 0 0 O (-e-
1 C)re-
n 0 X 1, • 0 rt 0.
re- I-r CD (-I- (D rt J. n
s x N x rr 0. �C -+, a
CD O J. J. S(D CD G, 0 -0
O rt 1, rt. 3 N-.• rt Cu CD C)
Cu t-+ J. J. c+ O tO 0 C) 0 J.
I
c a to -5 (o a oo + � �
-s = Cu O o 5 cc rr
�•v o N � -o � � 0 O 0_0
O 0 -0 � � a = E= a -♦
III
I O I I N V << p. O V
N CD O.
CO f+1
W W W N N N I-' IJ I.. C C
O Cr A. () CT a Cra •
To
C
I
•C E X r* () z To Z z < N o a 3 (-) Q+ Too Cu o c 3 0 c J• CrSDo
CI • -I
AC) -.0 rt -S Cuo -+• Z(0 N C) cam.O 0_MI -0
►-�
CD 0. CD O O C N (D O' rf O e h CD 0 N • O
(0 -A 'S N (0 CD O J. CD CD J.J p Z
. , V, -,• 0 Z
p, J• • (D -S rt 3 J 00+ (a C) N 0.) U) O (CD CD 3
rh 1, .0 N C
J
I
rD c S1 o CD 0CDa a m
0 co -.• C) C "I, --•
0 c F O CD 7r 7c D
p c•h a a N .• CDC c) N
3 -, o o lS a N n 0- J J• (..I. -S (< rt S S C
-•• 0 rh Cu C CD • rt 0 -,•(0 3 'S J• 0 0 0 70
3 0, t< C) N < N 3 (0 = CD O pI f 'S C C m
G C'1 n -,• fD CD O rI' 0. J. 'Z Z N
pi J. CD O N 3 J•N V, c t 'S
re N 3 N CD 0 CD 0_ p, v S O � �
rt •we me N 0. O a O 'S a CD fD
• C) 0. N • rt.. S -,O X CD CD
I
y pI J. -S m7r "CI CO
O rt C rt C (<
• Z V, J• a, c f C -,-+•CDN O 0
CD .fD = CD (0 • 1, 1,
O CL rt O• •5 0. N N
CO C) I • 00 rI•(D CD CD
CD 0 O Cu f 0 N 'S 'S
p •
fCD AO
� U) r�rm C) C)
C) O v N CD CD
V J.
J• J• 'S t0 C 0 0
I
CD O p p 0 3 0 O.
-..•
C rt NCI.0 5 2
a .0
J. Di • N CD -0.
rt -5 -r J•(D O CD V
J. CD Cr 0. 0.CD -S •
O O. Cu � CD V N J.
'
J.
CL
0. J
°O CO 0
a CD 'Z
c"r N
I .
m P") -�
o n 4
z r r
3 rn
c-) co
m o '—c'izi
. z
rn c '
cn m
•
c) '
O 0
0
• w
CD s
CD <
n
J. (I
<
CD CD
) o
= o
CD CD
ca
o a
N -r
N N
J.
Q J••
CD
(t
CD
0
N
m
r
I I 1 rn a.C7 C7 n
w c+ � N tOi, vOi •-•
-s CD -s c+ et O
c) w n c �
-hO_ CD
J..T V J < J.J. rn
C) O CD O CC) 'G D
V)
J.
N CD N O O C�'1
N I N N CDCT
0 '
NN J.
r•h C • 3
O CD Z Z
N CD <
J<
0 a
w CD
J. et
O N u, ,
V J.
wc)
C
J.
C
N co
'G
The weights assigned by each PMT member were averaged to
produce an average weight for each evaluation criteria. The
average weight was based on one weight from each community
and one weight from the Metropolitan Council and one weight
from Mn/DOT. Where an agency or community had more than one
representative on the PMT the weights from that community or
agency were averaged before being averaged with the weights
of the other communities and agencies. The next table shows
the weights assigned to each of the critiera by individual
PMT members and the average of the individual weights. The
table also shows the ranking of the criteria based on the
weighting. Safety and mobility received the highest weight
and access for future residential and non-residential deve-
lopment
received the lowest weight.
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR DETAILED EVALUATION
Selection Process
Even after initial screening of alternatives, there remained
too many alternatives to reasonably evaluate at a detailed
level . Also, because of possible combinations of alter-
natives
between different study segments the amount of ana-
lysis required was prohibitive. Therefore, a three step
process was developed to arrive at a preferred alternative
for the corridor. The steps involved were the following:
1. Select two or three alternatives in each study segment to
evaluate in detail .
2. Select a preferred alternative for each study segment
based on the detailed evaluation of the alternatives.
3. Conduct an interrelationship analysis to determine how
the preferred alternative for each study segment fits
into an overall corridor plan.
As indicated in the selection process above it was desirable
to reduce the number of alternatives in each study segment
to two or three. The following discussion describes how
alternatives were selected for detailed evaluation and
discusses the selected alternatives. The alternatives are
illustrated on Figures 17 through 34 in Chapter V where the
detailed evaluation of the alternatives is discussed.
TH 101/Minnetonka High School Area
In the TH 101 Minnetonka High School Area two alternatives
were presented at the public meeting. The major difference
between these alternatives was how they addressed the access
on the north side of Highway 7. Alternative 1 showed the
extension of the north frontage road to the 7-HI shopping
1
54
1
m m O r -I G7 -I
< DooO m a D . oo
z . Po o z r G7 r I
O Pp n v) v) = rn
3 z •-I N O O 1-.1 N
c7 3 O m Po CO z
z rn v) -1 m O I
2 C 11
m O
V) D
A W N 1--' O k0 CO V 01 U1 A W N 1--+ N
c7 z z z o D 3 D D D D V) c7 3 z
O D O m rn Po n c-) r1 c) c) D O O o
V) -I z V) V) -I ►-+ c7 c'7 c7 c7 -11 2 CO I
-I c 1 •-. ►-. rn z rn rn m rn m --I •-+ O
z z o G7 z r N N N N -I ►-+ r co
m > rn m z 1--1 cn N cn v) -< z c.
-71 1- z-1 v) rn- m C c-)--1 -I -1 -I M-e 7
rn rn o •-• -I O O O O --I --1
•.1 G z r n- a D D TI -T1 m m C I
0-1 -I o -0 -0 c c X x m
m O D 3 70 c) c) c c N N
z z r -o o •-. PO 7O -I -I
m 3 D V) -I -I m m 1-1 •-i
N) z 1-4v 3 z Po GI a, I
•-+ c-) to Z N O m
3 -I 7o z V)
-0 V) m I •
-I N
•
N 1-r 1--• N W A A N Na N N U1 N U1 I
N W N W A A A N N N N (11 U1 U1 I
z
0
W c.Tl W U1 CTf N A 1--` W h-• co U1 A CTI •-. I
G
O
1-4
U1 A U1 A N A A A W C71 W A W CT1 D
r
m
W N A A N •-. W 1-6 N 01 C71 W 1--6 N 1-1
G7
_
N
A co W 01 A W W CTi C71 W A CTt N W
U1 A W C 1 C71 A U1 A A A A U1 U1 U1 I
W W N N A A A W N A W U1 A A
W W N W co W W N N W W A W A > I
G
W 1--6 00 V 01 N CO V co N N 01 N N G7
V N V C11 N Ul V U1 V C71 CT1 N Cri 0-1 .
01 1-6 N A CT1 0 W A W tO CO 1-6 V N 2
1
center and back to TH 101. The other alternative was to
leave one of the existing right-in, right-out access points
to maintain adequate access to Lynwood Terrace.
At the public meeting most of the discussion in this area
focused on the slip ramp access to the high school and the
impacts of upgrading Delton Avenue. Two additional alter-
natives were proposed at the public meeting. One alter-
native was to move Highway 7 north to allow Delton Avenue to
be widened and the other was to make Delton Avenue one-way
and retain the slip ramp from eastbound TH 7. After an ini-
tial evaluation both of these proposals were dropped. One-
way on Delton Avenue would create very circuitous and
indirect access for the residential area south of Delton
Avenue and the existing highway right-of-way is sufficient
to accommodate widening of Delton Avenue without a shift in
the alignment of TH 7.
However, another alternative was added and labeled as
Alternative 2. This alternative retained the slip ramps to
Minnetonka High School by relocating them to the east of the
building and realigning Delton to Old Excelsior Boulevard to
provide more space between TH 7 and the frontage road for
the ramps. After discussion with the Project Management
Team these two alternatives were recommended for detailed
evaluation.
Although the preferred plan is to make the frontage road on
the north side of TH 7 continuous to TH 101 if the oppor-
tunity is available, it is recognized that under the pre-
sent conditions this extension of the north frontage road is
not feasible.
Vine Hill Road/Old Market Road Area '
There were eleven alternatives presented at the public
meeting in this study segment. The four major issues
addressed by these alternatives were the following:
1. Is there need for access to TH 7 from the south at Vine
Hill Road?
2. Should Vine Hill Road be extended to the south through
the Shady Hills neighborhood in order to make Vine Hill a
continuous through street?
3. Should there be a second major access point to TH 7 west
of Vine Hill Road in this study area?
4. If there is a need for a second major access point where
should it be located?
1
56 '
1
11
The need to make Vine Hill Road continuous by extending it
south from its present intersection with TH 7 is dependent
on the amount of traffic on Vine Hill Road south of the
frontage road which desires access to TH 7 or to continue
through to the north. Based on existing counts in the area
the majority of the traffic on the south approach of the
Vine Hill Road/TH 7 intersection has an origin or destina-
tion on the frontage road. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
on the south approach is 6500 vehicles per day, while the
ADT on Vine Hill Road south of the frontage road is only
1300 vehicles per day, which indicates there is approxima-
tely 5200 vehicles per day with origins or destinations on
the frontage road. With the proposed development to the
south, the traffic on Vine Hill Road south of the intersec-
tion may increase but it is not expected to become the domi-
nant movement.
Making Vine Hill Road continuous to the south will require
' the acquisition of at least two homes and would also have
serious impacts on other homes in the Shady Hills neigh-
borhood by diverting traffic past them. The City of
' Shorewood has gone on record opposing the extension of Vine
Hill Road to the south.
A second issue used to select the alternatives in this area
for detailed evaluation was the need for a second access
point to TH 7 west of Vine Hill Road. Capacity analyses of
the Vine Hill Road intersection indicate it is currently
11 operating at capacity. The upgrading of the intersection
will not add significantly to the capacity of the intersec-
tion and Vine Hill Road will not be able to serve the
increase in traffic forecast with the proposed future deve-
lopment in the area and the closure of other right-in and
right-out access to TH 7. Therefore a second major inter-
section will be required on TH 7 in order to serve the traf-
fic to the area. Based on this initial evaluation the
following five alternatives were selected for detailed eva-
luation in this area.
' o Alternative 1 represents the City of Shorewoods current
proposal for access to TH 7 in this area. The alter-
native addresses the current problems at the Vine Hill
Road/ TH 7 intersection by moving the south leg of the
intersection 2100 feet to the west to a new street
designated as Old Market Road. It is anticipated that
' this new intersection would be signalized and would have
full access to and from the south. Access on the north
side would be limited to right-in and right-out. The
alternative would also provide a slip ramp from the south
frontage road to eastbound TH 7 just east of Vine Hill
Road. In addition to the slip ramp Vine Hill Road would
have full access to and from the north. This alternative
1
57
I
minimizes the amount of right-of-way needed, and the
right-of-way needed would be easier and probably less
expensive to acquire. The impacts of the alternative are
primarily related to access and circulation.
Alternatives 2 through 5 all retain full access at Vine Hill
Road and detach the south frontage road. Although the
alternatives illustrate only one way of detaching the fron-
tage road the intention is not to restrict other options.
These alternatives are different in the way they treat
access to the west of Vine Hill Road.
o Alternative 2 shows full access to and from the south at
Old Market Road and closing all other right-in/right-out
access in the area. The alternative also shows the
extension of the south frontage road to Christmas Lake
Road. The intersection of Old Market Road and TH 7 would
probably be signalized. This second intersection at Old
Market Road would reduce the traffic demand at the TH 7/
Vine Hill Road intersection and replace other access
which would be closed in the area.
o Alternative 3 shows right-in, right-out, left-in access
at Old Market Road, the closure of all the other access
in the area and the extension of the south frontage road
to Christmas Lake Road. In this case the intersection at
Old Market Road would probably not be signalized. This
alternative also shows the extension of Vine Hill Road to
the south through the Shady Hills neighborhood. The pur-
pose of this extension is to facilitate the movement of
through traffic on Vine Hill Road and improve the access
to TH 7 for traffic on Vine Hill Road south of TH 7.
o Alternative 4 shows the construction of a bridge over 1
TH 7 connecting St. Alban' s Bay Road with Covington
Road. The alternative also shows a new alignment for Old
Market Road/Covington Road which cuts through the ceme-
tary property although it should not affect any current
grave sites. This road would then tie back in to Old
Market Road where it is currently terminated to the
south. Under this alternative St. Alban' s Bay
Road/Covington/Old Market Road would be designated as a
collector street. The alternative also shows hook ramps
connecting to the realigned frontage roads creating an
interchange in this area. Although an interchange is not
consistent with the expressway design concept the
topography in this area may make the interchange a
feasible alternative in this location. Most of the
right-of-way needed to accomplish this interchange is
already owned by the state. Also shown as part of this
alternative is the extension of the south frontage road 11
to Christmas Lake Road.
1
58 1
o Alternative 5 is similar to Alternative 4 except it shows
how an at-grade intersection might be accomplished within
the existing topography. This intersection would be
signalized and have left- and right-turn lanes. Under
this alternative Old Market Road would follow closer to
' its currently proposed alignment and no taking of ceme-
tary property would be required. Most of the right-of-
way needed is currently owned by the state.
Excelsior Area East
Three alternatives were presented at the public meeting for
11 this study segment. The major issue in this area is whether
Division Street should be upgraded with a major intersection
on TH 7 and the Christmas Lake Road intersection closed; or
whether the existing access situation with ramps to and from
Excelsior and access at Christmas Lake Road should be
retained with some improvements. A compromise between these
two alternatives with access at both Division Street and
Christmas Lake Road was considered but because the spacing
between these two intersections is less than the desired
2000 feet between major intersections and because one objec-
11 tive of the Division Street improvements is to consolidate
access in the area it was recommended that this alternative
not be carried forward for detailed evaluation. However,
another alternative was recommended for evaluation which
modified the Excelsior access to provide better access to
the east on TH 7 from the south.
Excelsior Area West
The major issue in this area is the closure of the Galpin
Lake Road access to TH 7. Most of the discussion at the
public meeting focused on the proposed closure and it was
suggested that the relocation of the CR 19 intersection to
Galpin Lake Road be evaluated as an alternative. In addi-
II tion to the one alternative presented at the public meeting
two new alternatives were developed. The first relocates
Galpin Lake Road to intersect with Water Street while the
other relocates CR 19 to intersect at Galpin Lake Road.
TH 41 Area
There were five alternatives presented at the public meeting
for this area. The alternatives focused on three major
issues:
1. The location of access to the area south of TH 7.
2. The access to the existing and proposed development by
TH 41.
3. The level of upgrading required on TH 7.
59
1
Based on comments at the public meeting there was a pre-
ference for access to Sandpiper Avenue rather than to
Pleasant Avenue; and strong objection to closure of access
to Oriole Avenue and the construction of an east-west road
connecting to TH 41 as shown on some alternatives. The
location of access in this area has been generally agreed on
and the major alternatives are whether TH 7 should be
upgraded at isolated locations or to a five lane section.
Lake Minnewashta Area 11
Three alternatives were shown in the Lake Minnewashta Area.
The alternatives varied in the level of improvement shown on
TH 7 which ranged from upgrading isolated intersections, to
a five lane section or to a five lane section with a fron-
tage road on the north side of TH 7. The proposed access
closures and major intersections were the same for each
alternative. It was recommended that all of the alter-
natives be retained for detailed evaluation to determine the
level of improvement needed in this area. The alternatives
in this area are not necessarily exclusive of each other;
that is one alternative may represent the first stage of the
recommended alternative.
I
1
1
r
11
r
1
11
11
60 11