DOCSLIB.ORG

N. Lynn Street Esplanade and Custis Trail Improvements Construction - Progress Report –

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Capital Projects Update: N. Lynn Street Esplanade and Custis Trail Improvements Construction - Progress Report – UPC Design 70762 / CN 109813 Locally Administered PE Phase VDOT Administered CN Phase 12/05/2019 1 Project Overview The Lynn Street Esplanade and Custis Trail Improvements project is a pedestrian and bicycle safety, traffic management and street beautification initiative located in Rosslyn. The project incorporates findings from the 1999 Esplanade Study, (A) Lynn Street Esplanade: North Lynn Street from the 2003 Rosslyn Circle Safety eastbound Lee Highway to westbound Lee Study and the 2006 Lynn Street Highway Esplanade Preliminary Design (B) Custis Trail: Westbound Lee Highway from Study. N. Lynn Street to N. Oak Street. 2 Project Location: (A) Lynn Street Esplanade: North Lynn Street from eastbound Lee Highway to westbound Lee Highway (B) Custis Trail: westbound Lee Highway from N. Lynn Street to N. Oak Street. N B A 3 Project Location Street View: (A) Lynn Street Esplanade: North Lynn Street from eastbound Lee Highway to westbound Lee Highway 4 Project Location Street View: (B) Custis Trail: westbound Lee Highway from N. Lynn Street to N. Oak Street. 5 The Lynn Street Esplanade (A) Project includes: • Widened sidewalks and larger pedestrian and (A) Lynn Street Esplanade bike waiting areas (B) Custis Trail • 11’ traffic lanes • Upgraded traffic signals and new signage • On-street bike lane on Lynn Street • Upgraded street lights • “Corridor of Light” public art elements at the four corners of the I-66 bridge • Custom fencing • Landscaping 6 N. Lynn Street Bridge Improvements (A) N Gateway Park EB Lee Highway 7 East side of Lynn Street Improvements (A) N Plan and elevation showing new bridge barrier, custom fence, 20’ wide sidewalk and integrated sculptures 8 East side Lynn Street (B) NE Corner Luminous Body Foundation and Lighting N 9 West Side Lynn Street / Gateway Park (A) Plan and Elevation Graphics N 10 Sculpture Locations: Foundations in scope of work, Sculptures by others N 11 East side Lynn Street Southeast corner of Lynn and Lee Highway Sculptures by others / NIC 12 Sculptures in Progress! 14 Sculptures in Progress! 15 Custis Trail Improvements (B) Project area includes: • Bicycle and pedestrian facility upgrades (A) Lynn Street Esplanade • Intersection improvement at Lee Highway and (B) Custis Trail N. Lynn Street • Trail widening to 16’ • Increased trail separation from traffic • Westbound lane reduction from Ft. Myer to N. Oak Street • Curb extensions and wider curb ramps • New traffic and dedicated bike signals • New streetlights on both sides of westbound Lee Highway 16 Overview - Custis Trail and Westbound Lee Highway Improvements (B) N • Planned 16’ wide trail with 6-foot buffer (pre-construction 10’ & 3’buffer) • VDOT approved lane reduction on westbound Lee Highway provides space for wider trail and improved sight distances • Improved pedestrian queuing areas at street crosswalks • Upgraded traffic and trail signals at major intersections N. Oak Street to N. Lynn Street 17 Progress Photos of Custis Trail and Lee Hwy Westbound Improvements 18 Project Schedule & Progress • Spring, 2017 Design Plans Completed and sent to VDOT: • Spring, 2017 Project Advertised for Construction: • Fall, 2017 1st Bid Opening Date / Project re-bid due to low bid activity • Winter 2018 2nd Bid opening . • Spring 2018 VDOT Approved Contract for Construction • May 2018 Construction Started • Spring 2020 Anticipated Completion Construction Progress For More Information visit the project webpages: VDOT: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/rosslyn_bike_ped.asp Arlington: https://projects.arlingtonva.us/projects/lynn-street-esplanade-custis-trail-improvements/ 19 Project History 2/1999 CB appropriates $50K of the Rosslyn Fund to prepare a study for Improvements to Rosslyn. 8/1999 The original Rosslyn Esplanade Study completed – Simple concepts show ways to better link Rosslyn with the Potomac River. Study presented to the public and the Waterview SP committee. 7/2000 CB approves Waterview SP#25. $3.6M for the development of two offsite projects: - Improvements at 19th and Kent Street - Improvements to N. Lynn Street 2/2002 Rosslyn Circle Safety Study Ph I, completed and presented to the Pedestrian Advisory Committee. 8/2003 Rosslyn Circle Safety Study Phase II completed. Explored additional bike and pedestrian options around Rosslyn Circle and along the Custis Trail. 12/2004 Planning work starts for19th and Kent Street Improvements. 2/2005 Engineering design starts for 19th and Kent Street. 6/2005 I-66 Entry Ramp Study completed 11/2005 CB approves Contract with Toole Design Group for Lynn Street Planning and Environmental Services. Project stakeholders include VDOT, NPS, Civic Associations and Rosslyn Renaissance. 3/2006 JBG Public Arts contribution linked to the Lynn Street project. 4/2006 Lynn Street design charrette completed 7/2006 NEPA / Environmental Assessment completed. 20 Project History (cont.) 4/2006 Lynn Street public engagement / design charrette completed. 2/2007 Lynn Street Esplanade Planning / Conceptual Design Completed. 2/2008 All Development Condition Funds received from JBG. 12/2008 Lynn and Custis Trail PE Phase Authorized by VDOT. 6/2009 MWCOG TLC Arlington Trail Study completed for Custis Trail improvements from N. Scott St. to N. Lynn St 3/2009 19th and Kent Street Improvements complete. 11/2009 CB approves contract with Toole Engineering for Design Services for Lynn and WB Lee Highway and Custis Trail Improvements 2/2010 Lynn Street and Custis Trail 25% engineering design complete 6/2010 CB approves revision to VDOT Project Funding Agreement to combine the Rosslyn Circle Improvements project with the Lynn Street Esplanade Project. 12/2010 Scope changed to remove proposed improvements on NPS property. 5/2011 CB approves design contract amendment #1 for additional traffic analysis, geotechnical work and survey. 1/2013 60% Plans complete 9/2013 CB approves design contract amendment #2 for major geometry changes as requested by VDOT, coordination with artist and new signals on westbound Lee Highway. 4/2014 CB approves Amendment #3 for additional design services for modifications to the Lynn street Bridge barrier wall and water main relocation design. 7/2015 90% plans submitted to VDOT and Arlington County 21 8/9/2016 100% Plans submitted to VDOT Project History (cont.) 8/2016 100% Plans submitted to VDOT 9/2016 VDOT Risk Assessment and Pre Advertisement Conf. Complete 12/2016 Final VDOT comments Addressed and Plan Set resubmitted 2/2017 VDOT central Office approves Project for Advertisement 6/2017 Dominion Power Undergrounding work 90% complete 3/2017 Construction Advertised By VDOT 4/2017 Bid opening / One bid received 5/2017 Bid rejected / Contractor not qualified by VDOT for Project work over $1M 6/2017 Plans updated to address questions received during advertisement and in preparation for rebid. 7/2017 New Schedule set for re-advertisement in November 2017 1/2018 New Bid opening Date 3/2018 Construction Contract awarded by VDOT 4/2018 Pre-construction Conference 5/2018 Construction Started Spring 2020 Construction Completion 22.
Recommended publications
  • Ken Matthews: 1934-2019

    Ken Matthews: 1934-2019

    KEN MATTHEWS: 1934-2019 The world’s racewalking community was saddened in June 2019 to hear of the passing of Ken Matthews, Great Britain’s last surviving Olympic race walking Gold medallist. His death occurred on the evening of Sunday 2 nd June in Wrexham where he was a hospital in-patient. Kenneth ("Ken") Joseph Matthews was born on 21 June 1934 in Birmingham and started his race walk career as an 18- year-old, following in the footsteps of his father, Joe, who was a founding member of the now defunct Royal Sutton Coldfield Walking Club. Throughout his athletics career, Ken remained Midlands based, and remained a loyal member of Royal Sutton Coldfield Walking Club. An electrical maintenance engineer at a power station near his hometown of Sutton Coldfield, he became one of England's most successful ever racewalkers and dominated the world stage throughout the early 1960's. He won 17 national titles, as well as Olympic and European gold and, between 1964 to 1971 he held every British record from 5 miles to 2 hours, including a 10-mile world best of 69:40.6. Perhaps surprisingly, he did not dominate as a youngster and it was not until 1959, at age 25, that he won his first British titles – the RWA's 10 miles road title and the AAA's 2 miles and 7 miles track titles. 1 From then on, he was pretty much unbeatable in England, but the British race most people remember is, interestingly, a loss rather than a victory. In spectacle, excitement and sheer athleticism, the 1960 AAA 2 mile duel between Stan Vickers and Ken stands comparison with any of the great races in the history of the championships.
  • The ARTS Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update

    The ARTS Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update

    “The ARTS Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update envisions a seamless network of safe and inviting bicycling and walking paths, trails, and on-street facilities, between South Carolina, Georgia and the four member counties, that equitably supports economic development, active transportation, healthy lifestyles and improved quality of life for all citizens and visitors of the region.” Chapter V Two ision , Goa ls, and Objectives 1.1. Objective: Ensure that accommodations for Introduction bicyclists and pedestrians are provided on Based on goals and objectives of existing local all appropriate infrastructure projects where and regional planning documents, the input of pedestrians and bicyclists are permitted to the Project’s steering committee, the project travel. purpose, and relevant examples from around 1.2. Objective: Integrate bicycle and pedes- the country, vision, goals, and objectives are trian facilities in their projects, including, but listed below. The goals and objectives are not limited to, transit, development, public categorized by five of the six E’s associated works, infrastructure, and recreation facili- with bicycle- and walk-friendly community ties. designations. The five E’s are: Engineering, 1.3. Objective: Improve the level of service for Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, and existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Evaluation. Equity is considered a sixth E and the member counties. is interwoven within the goals and objectives 1.4. Objective: Increase the mileage of bicycle provided. Objectives 1.6, 1.7, and 3.3 give and pedestrian facilities by fifteen percent particular attention to equity, though it should in each of the region’s four counties within be addressed within the implementation of the next 5 years.
  • Roundabout Planning, Design, and Operations Manual

    Roundabout Planning, Design, and Operations Manual

    Roundabout Planning, Design, and Operations Manual December 2015 Alabama Department of Transportation ROUNDABOUT PLANNING, DESIGN, AND OPERATIONS MANUAL December 2015 Prepared by: The University Transportation Center for of Alabama Steven L. Jones, Ph.D. Abdulai Abdul Majeed Steering Committee Tim Barnett, P.E., ALDOT Office of Safety Operations Stuart Manson, P.E., ALDOT Office of Safety Operations Sonya Baker, ALDOT Office of Safety Operations Stacey Glass, P.E., ALDOT Maintenance Stan Biddick, ALDOT Design Bryan Fair, ALDOT Planning Steve Walker, P.E., ALDOT R.O.W. Vince Calametti, P.E., ALDOT 9th Division James Brown, P.E., ALDOT 2nd Division James Foster, P.E., Mobile County Clint Andrews, Federal Highway Administration Blair Perry, P.E., Gresham Smith & Partners Howard McCulloch, P.E., NE Roundabouts DISCLAIMER This manual provides guidelines and recommended practices for planning and designing roundabouts in the State of Alabama. This manual cannot address or anticipate all possible field conditions that will affect a roundabout design. It remains the ultimate responsibility of the design engineer to ensure that a design is appropriate for prevailing traffic and field conditions. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose ...................................................................................................... 1-5 1.2. Scope and Organization ............................................................................... 1-7 1.3. Limitations ...................................................................................................
  • Temporary Traffic Control Zone Pedestrian Access Considerations

    Temporary Traffic Control Zone Pedestrian Access Considerations

    Guidance Sheet - Temporary Traffic Control Zone Maintaining Pedestrian Pathways in TTC Zones If a project allows pedestrian access through part of the TTC zone, the pathway should be properly Pedestrian Access Considerations maintained. Note that tape, rope, or a plastic chain strung between devices is not detectable; their use does not comply with the design standards in the ADA or the MUTCD, and these items should not be used as a control for pedestrian movements. When implemented, the following recommendations should improve When developing temporary traffic control (TTC) plans, the importance of pedestrian access in and around safety and convenience: the work zone is often overlooked or underestimated. A basic requirement of work zone traffic control, as provided in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), is that the needs of pedestrians, v Inspect pathways regularly, and keep them clear of debris and well-maintained. including those with disabilities, must be addressed in the TTC process. Pedestrians should be provided with reasonably safe, convenient, and accessible paths that replicate as nearly as practical the most v Treat surfaces with non-slip materials for inclement weather. desirable characteristics of the existing sidewalks or footpaths. It is essential to recognize that pedestrians are reluctant to retrace their steps to a prior intersection for a crossing, or to add distance or out-of-the-way v Replace walkway surfaces with holes, cracks, or vertical separation. travel to a destination. This guidance sheet serves to remind TTC designers and construction personnel of v Inspect detour pathways regularly for adequacy of signal timing, signs, and potential traffic the importance of pedestrian access, to stress the need for pedestrian safety, and to offer suggestions that will improve the visibility of pedestrian access.
  • Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations

    Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations

    Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION STUDIES Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations June 2014 Published By Minnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB) Web: www.lrrb.org MnDOT Office of Maintenance MnDOT Research Services Section MS 330, 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Phone: 651-366-3780 Fax: 651-366-3789 E-mail: [email protected] Acknowledgements The financial and logistical support provided by the Minnesota Local DATA COLLECTION Road Research Board, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and the Minnesota Local Technical Assistance Program John Hourdos and Stephen Zitzow, University of Minnesota (LTAP) at the Center for Transportation Studies (CTS), University of PRODUCTION Minnesota for this work is greatly acknowledged. Research, Development, and Writing: Bryan Nemeth, Ross Tillman, The procedures presented in this report were developed based on infor- Jeremy Melquist, and Ashley Hudson, Bolton & Menk, Inc. mation from previously published research studies and reports and newly collected field data. Editing: Christine Anderson, CTS The authors would also like to thank the following individuals and orga- Graphic Design: Abbey Kleinert and Cadie Wright Adikhary, CTS, and nizations for their contributions to this document. David Breiter, Bolton & Menk, Inc. TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL MEMBERS Tony Winiecki , Scott County Pete Lemke, Hennepin County Kate Miner, Carver County Tim Plath, City of Eagan Mitch Rasmussen, Scott County Jason Pieper, Hennepin County Mitch Bartelt, MnDOT This material was developed by Bolton & Menk, Inc., in coordination with the Minne- Melissa Barnes, MnDOT sota Local Road Research Board for use by practitioners. Under no circumstances shall Tim Mitchell, MnDOT this guidebook be sold by third parties for profit.
  • American Title a Sociation ~ ~

    American Title a Sociation ~ ~

    OFFICIAL PUBLICATION AMERICAN TITLE A SOCIATION ~ ~ VOUJME XXXVI JUNE, 1957 NUMBER 6 TITLE NEWS Official Publication of THE AMERICAN TITLE ASSOCIATION 3608 Guardian Building-Detroit 26, Michigan Volume XXXVI June, 1957 Number 6 Table of Contents Introduction-The Federal Highway Program ......... ... ................ .. .................... 2 J. E. Sheridan Highway Laws Relating to Controlled Access Roads ..... .. ....... ........... 6 Norman A. Erbe Title Companies and the Expanded Right of Way Problems ...... ............. .. 39 , Daniel W. Rosencrans Arthur A. Anderson Samuel J. Some William A . Thuma INTRODUCTION The Federal Highway Program J. E. SHERIDAN We are extremely grateful to Nor­ veloped its planning sufficiently to man A. Erbe, Attorney General of the show to the satisfaction of the dis­ State of Iowa, for permission to re­ trict engineer the effect of the pro­ print his splendid brief embracing posed construction upon adjace.nt the highway laws of various states property, the treatment of access con­ relating to the control in access roads. trol in the area of Federal acquisi­ Mr. Erbe originally presented this m tion, and that appropriate arrange­ narrative form before the convention ments have been made for mainte­ of the Iowa Title Association in May nance and supervision over the land of this year. As is readily ascertain­ to be acquired and held in the name able, this is the result of a compre­ of the United States pending transfer hensive study of various laws touch· of title and jurisdiction to the State ing on the incidents of highway regu­ or the proper subdivision thereof." lations. Additionally, we are privi­ It is suggested that our members leged to carry the panel discussion bring this quoted portion to the at­ of the American Right of Way Asso­ tention of officers of the Highway ciation Convention held in Chicago, Department and the office of its legal May 16 and 17, dealing with "Title division, plus the Office of the Attor­ Companies and the Expanded Right ney General within the members' ju­ of Way Problems".
  • "2. Sidewalks". "Boston Complete Streets Design Guide."

    "2. Sidewalks". "Boston Complete Streets Design Guide."

    Sidewalk Zone Widths The width of the sidewalk contributes to the degree of When making decisions for how to allocate sidewalk space, comfort and enjoyment of walking along a street. Narrow the following principles should be used: sidewalks do not support lively pedestrian activity, and may create dangerous conditions where people walk in the Frontage Zone street. Typically, a five foot wide Pedestrian Zone supports > The Frontage Zone should be maximized to provide space two people walking side by side or two wheel chairs passing for cafés, plazas, and greenscape elements along build- each other. An eight foot wide Pedestrian Zone allows two ing facades wherever possible, but not at the expense of pairs of people to comfortably pass each other, and a ten reducing the Pedestrian Zone beyond the recommended foot or wider Pedestrian Zone can support high volumes of minimum widths. pedestrians. Pedestrian Zone Vibrant sidewalks bustling with pedestrian activity are not > The Pedestrian Zone should be clear of any obstructions only used for transportation, but for social walking, lingering, including utilities, traffic control devices, trees, and furniture. and people watching. Sidewalks, especially along Downtown When reconstructing sidewalks and relocating utilities, all Commercial, Downtown Mixed-Use, and Neighborhood Main utility access points and obstructions should be relocated Streets, should encourage social uses of the sidewalk realm outside of the Pedestrian Zone. by providing adequate widths. > While sidewalks do not need to be perfectly straight, the SIDEWALKS Pedestrian Zone should not weave back and forth in the When determining sidewalk zone widths, factors to consider right-of-way for no other reason than to introduce curves.
  • East Midtown Waterfront Esplanade Community Working Group June 24, 2013

    East Midtown Waterfront Esplanade Community Working Group June 24, 2013

    East Midtown Waterfront Esplanade Community Working Group June 24, 2013 East Midtown Waterfront Esplanade Project : Community Working Group 06/24/13 1 Agenda I. Project Overview a) Project Goals b) Project Considerations c) Progress Update II. Pre-Concept Design a) Design Inspiration b) Community Working Group 1 Meeting Summary c) Responding to Community Aspirations III. Breakout Session IV. Reporting Back V. Project Timeline and Next Steps East Midtown Waterfront Esplanade Project : Community Working Group 06/24/13 2 I Project Overview Site Context East Midtown Waterfront Esplanade Project : Community Working Group 06/24/13 4 Project Overview Contemplated by State legislation in July 2011: . Sponsored by State Assemblymember Brian Kavanagh and State Senator Liz Krueger (locally by Councilmember Daniel Garodnick) Project purpose: . Construct a continuous greenway from East 38th – 60th Street along the East River to create a critical transportation connection and to provide new open space to alleviate chronic shortage in the immediate area East Midtown Waterfront Esplanade Project : Community Working Group 06/24/13 5 Project Goals Provide Critical Transportation Route Achieve major transportation need and policy goal by filling critical gap . East Side of Manhattan lacks dedicated greenway for non-motorized transportation; creating one is a major public policy goal . Improve transportation options for thousands of pedestrians, joggers, rollerbladers and cyclists . Support alternative forms of transportation for New Yorkers and improve air quality Bicyclist on 2nd Ave & 38th Street NYC Bike Map in 2016 East Midtown Waterfront Esplanade Project : Community Working Group 06/24/13 7 Provide Waterfront Access & Open Space Provide waterfront access and new open space for densely populated East Midtown communities .
  • Petition For/Request to Initiate Vacation of Public Highway, Street, Alley Or Easement Requirements and Process Overview

    Petition For/Request to Initiate Vacation of Public Highway, Street, Alley Or Easement Requirements and Process Overview

    Petition for/request to initiate vacation of public highway, street, alley or easement Requirements and process overview The City of St. Louis Park will vacate public highways, streets, alleys or easements if it is found that the city has no current or future need for these lands. Proceedings to vacate such land may be commenced by petition of a majority of the owners of property fronting upon the portion of the public highway, street, alley or easement to be vacated, by action of the St. Louis Park City Council or by recommendation of the St. Louis Park Planning Commission. In order to constitute a petition for vacation, a majority of abutting property owners of the portion of public highway or street to be vacated must appear on the petition form. If the request is for vacation of a public alley or easement, it must be signed by the majority of owners of property adjacent to the alley or easement in the block where the alley or easement is situated, whether or not the petition requests vacation of the entire alley or easement. The petition shall be filed with the city clerk. If the application represents a request to the planning commission to recommend and to the city council to initiate vacation, that must be specifically stated. The applicant is encouraged to discuss the proposal with community development staff prior to completion of final plans and filing of a petition/request. Submittal checklist ☐ Petition/request ☐ Filing fee (see application for fee schedule) ☐ A complete and accurate legal property description must be submitted if the property to be vacated is an easement.
  • Mr. Gupta Detailed the Current Status of India's Road Network and Its

    Mr. Gupta Detailed the Current Status of India's Road Network and Its

    Mr. Gupta detailed the current status of India’s road network and its maintenance: “The total length of the road network in India is 4.69 million km. It is the second largest road network in the world, just after the United States. ….. The national highways constitute 82,000 kilometers, 1.7 percent of the total length, and carry 40 percent of the total traffic.” “65 percent of total traffic and 90 percent of passenger traffic are being serviced by roads. The corresponding figures in the 1950s were 12 percent and 31.6 percent. The compounded annual growth rate of traffic on roads during the last two decades has been 9 percent. Road maintenance, however, is not commensurate with the traffic growth rate.” “The Indian Constitution assigns responsibility for the national highway network to the central government while State governments are responsible for developing and maintaining the state highways, major district roads, other district roads, and village roads. ….. The Ministry of Road Transport & Highways is the apex organization in the road sector in the country responsible for the planning, development, and maintenance of the national highways. It extends technical and financial support to state governments for the development of state roads, the connectivity of roads of interest and economic importance; it evolves the standards and specifications for roads and bridges in the country.” “Several road development programs are being implemented in the country. The first, the National Highway Development Program, is one of the world's largest road development programs. It comprises seven phases of development of more than 55,000 km of national highways; of which 21,000 km of road length has already been completed.” “Another is the Rural Road Development Program fully funded by the central government to supplement the efforts of the state governments in the construction and maintenance of the rural road network.
  • PLANNING and DESIGNING for PEDESTRIANS Table of Contents

    PLANNING and DESIGNING for PEDESTRIANS Table of Contents

    PLANNING AND DESIGNING FOR PEDESTRIANS Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................1 1.1 Scope of Guidelines.............................................................................. 2 1.2 How the Pedestrian-Oriented Design Guidelines Can be Used........ 5 1.3 How to Use the Chapters and Who Should Use Them ...................... 6 2. Pedestrian Primer ...................................................................9 2.1 What is Pedestrian-Oriented Design? ................................................. 9 2.2 Link Between Land Use and Transportation Decisions .................. 10 2.3 Elements of a Walkable Environment ............................................... 11 2.4 What Kind of Street Do You Have and What Kind Do You Want?... 12 2.4.1 "Linear" and "Nodal" Structures .......................................................................... 12 2.4.2 Interconnected or Isolated Streets ....................................................................... 14 2.4.3 Street Rhythm......................................................................................................... 15 2.4.4 "Seams" and "Dividers" ........................................................................................ 16 3. Community Structure and Transportation Planning.........17 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 17 3.2 Land Use Types and Organization..................................................... 18
  • Rice County, Minnesota Highway

    Rice County, Minnesota Highway

    A B C D E F G H I J R 22 WR22 W21 R W21 R WR20 W R20 WR19 Road Name Location Road Name Location Eaton Ave................G4-5, G8, G9, G9-10G9,G8, EatonAve................G4-5, 13000 12000 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 E..............H7-J7 200th St EavesAve...............G3 200th St W.............A7 200th St EbelAve..................G5 201st Ct W.............B7 201stCt EbelWa y.................G3 202ndW............A7 St EbertCt....................G3 Rice County, 204th St E..............G7 204th St EchaCt..................G3 rt 205th St W.............C7 205th St D8-9 D6-7, EchoAve.................D4-5, 1 W.............C7 206th St EchoCt....................D8 1 Edg e brookDr...........G3 3000 E..............F8 208th St 209th St W.............C8 209th St Edward sWa y...........G5 3000 S co tt County Scott I8-J8 E..............I8, 210th St G9 EilerAve...................G6-8, 210th St W.............A8-D8 210th St ElginCt.....................D6 Minnesota ElginTrl....................D8 Porter 02 E..............H8-I8 215th St 04 C8B8, W.............A8, 215th St ElktonTrl..................D8 Creek 218th St W.............A8 218th St ElmCt.......................G6 06 05 04 03 02 06 01 Bridg e waterTowns hip County Wheatland County Porter03 Creek W e bsterTowns hip I8 E..............F8-H8, 220th St D9-10D8,D6, D5-6, D4-5, ElmoreAve...............D2-3, 4000 01 T112NR21W T111NR20W Ditch 14 Ditch 31 W.............B8-C8 220th St ElmorePath..............D6 4000 Delano 1. Ave De 1. cke Ct r 222ndW............D8-E8 St ElmoreTrl.................D6 05 ElmoreWa y..............D6 Highway Map Rice County, W 41stSt 2.