Quick Links
How were the alternatives in the Highway 8 Scoping Study decided upon? (What was the alternatives evaluation process?) And why is the recommendation to widen Highway 8 on the existing corridor?
The original universe of alternatives developed in the fall of 2001 included eleven locational alignment alternatives, both north and south of Highway 8, and on Highway 8. These alignments were identified by the Highway 8 Scoping Study Technical Advisory Committee (consisting of staff from Chisago County and local municipalities) and consultants, with input from the Highway 8 Task Force. The alternatives were identified to meet the long-term need (approximately 20-year horizon) of relieving future traffic levels on Highway 8.
There was a multi-step/phase screening of the original universe of alternatives based on their performance in meeting the defined purpose and need of the project. One of the key elements of the evaluation included the ability of the alternative to serve existing and future travel patterns. In order to define travel patterns within the corridor, an origin-destination study was completed. Based on the origin-destination study, traffic modeling was completed based on specific criteria set for achieving goals along Highway 8, including increased speed and improved safety, mobility and accessibility. Based on these criteria, the alignments north of Hwy 8 showed less positive impact to Highway 8 than the proposed southern alignments. As a result, all northern alignments except one were eliminated from further consideration. One northern alignment, located immediately north of Highway 8, was retained on suggestion of the Highway 8 Task Force. Other alignments were eliminated on the basis of planned county upgrades to these roadways. These alignments were eliminated as alternatives for the scoping study because they are assumed to have already been constructed by the time long-term improvements are necessary.
In the late winter/spring of 2002, the remaining alignments were paired with north-south connectors. The Wisconsin Connection was also added at this time, in an effort to connect roadway improvements being evaluated in Minnesota and Wisconsin, including the river crossing. All of these remaining alternatives underwent a preliminary analysis of potential impacts, as well as modeling for future traffic volumes. Each was also weighed against the identified purpose and need of the project. Several more alternatives were dropped as a result of this process, for example those that showed only negligible effect on Highway 8 traffic volumes and patterns. The one remaining northern alternative was also eliminated because of high potential for cultural resource and/or natural resource impacts. Traffic modeling for this alternative also showed that traffic volumes on Highway 8 would not be significantly improved in future years. Input from the Highway 8 Task Force did retain the north-south portion of Highway 95 that creates a bypass west of Taylors Falls and the Whiskey Road connection that offers some local traffic better options for east-west travel without the necessity of using Highway 8. The proposed alignment along County Road 23 and County Road 83 was eliminated because it was deemed to be a programmed transportation improvement that could be assumed to be completed before the long-term Highway 8 project was implemented. The Highway 97 alignment was eliminated because it is a separate travelshed and too far south to provide significant relief for local Highway 8 traffic needs.
This preliminary analysis resulted in the four alternatives that were brought forth into the Scoping process, which consisted of two alignments (Alternatives 1 and 2) in southern Chisago County, upgrades to Highway 8 (Alternative 3), and the Wisconsin Connection. As a result of public participation and feedback during the Highway 8 Scoping process, assessment of the proposed alternatives’ ability to meet the defined purpose and need for long-term Highway 8 improvements, and anticipated timing (20-year horizon) of the proposed improvements; Alternative 3 has been selected as the only alternative to be carried forward for further consideration. Other alternatives will be sought in the future to solve traffic problems beyond the 20-year horizon.
Highway 8 frequently asked questions
Where are the four lane expansions of Highway 8 Proposed?
The attached figure Figure 7.2-2:
Alternative 3 – Proposed 4-Lane Segments - PDF from the Highway 8 Scoping Study identifies the locations for the 4-lane sections.
According to the Highway 8 Scoping Study, Sept. 12, 2002, p 7-1:
- Section 3a extends the existing Highway 8 four-lane section from the Chisago County border with Washington County, up to County Road 23.
- Section 3b extends the 4-lane section to the western limits of Chisago City. An alternative design or supplementary action for this section could be to provide a continuous left turn lane westbound from County Road 14 to 306 th Street, or to implement a frontage road connecting 306 th Street with County Road 14.
- Section 3c expands Highway 8 to four lanes between the eastern extent of Center City to Highway 95. An alternative design for this section could be to construct passing lanes on segments of the existing two-lane highway east and west of Shafer.
Why can’t I make the movement from Interstate 35 southbound to Highway 8 eastbound?
The recently completed Interregional Corridor Interstate 35 Corridor Management Plan included improvement to this interchange. The proposed improvements will provide for all movements. The cost is $15 million and it was identified as a medium priority project. Funding has not been identified for this project.