CURRENT UPWP   //  Future Arterial & Collector Roadway Planning

Future Arterial & Collector Roadway Planning

Arterials are intended to provide higher speed and longer distance transportation and therefore they tend to be interjurisdictional facilities. Ensuring agreement among all relevant jurisdictions as to the location of those arterials, the amount of right-of-way to preserve for the future corridor, and access control standards to protect operations are important to the successful development of efficient and safe arterial corridors.

This planning effort is not meant to be detailed at the corridor level. Rather, the intent is to be a high-level, regional planning effort. As such, we understand that some locations for some arterials or collectors will be approximate or general until such time as a detailed corridor study can be completed.

Our current functional classification is available at:

Note that within the APO’s planning area there are five cities over 5,000 population, covering portions of three counties. In addition, there is a US highway, two state highways, and I-94. The successful proposer will be expected to work with each jurisdiction to understand their development goals and to develop a list of potential roadway corridors for the future federal-aid network. Then, work across jurisdictional boundaries to ensure the continuity of the arterial corridors, where relevant. The State should be consulted anytime a corridor is expected to intersect or cross one of their highways.



  1. “The RFP states that, ‘Given the nature of this study, we do not expect that the normal, early ‘issue identification’ public input meeting would provide meaningful input into this process. Instead, we expect, near the end of the process: The presentation of a draft future functional classification map for public review and feedback, and The presentation of a draft final map for public review and feedback,’ however, an RFP requirement is the detailed public input plan, with visualizations. Content proposal #4 suggests additional content be provided than otherwise stated in the RFP. What is St. Cloud APOs intention in regard to stakeholder engagement?”
    • First, let me be clear that you can propose whatever public input plan you think is wise. With that said, it is difficult for me to imagine that the public could provide meaningful input early in the process. (But by all means tell me if you think I’m wrong). So, my idea was simply that we should go to the public with a rough draft and let them react to it. Then refine it based on their feedback. In my mind the two parts of the RFP that you cite are not incongruous. You will need a detailed public input plan. You will need appropriate visualizations to help the public understand what we are proposing. But I believe most public input will occur rather late in the process.
  2. Under Deliverable(s) section on page 2, the second paragraph states “In addition, the consultant shall provide guidance on access spacing, right-of-way preservation, and intersection control for the future corridors.” Question: What type or level of intersection control guidance is desired for future corridors?
    1. We’re talking about pretty long-range planning over the entire geographic region, so I’m not expecting intersection-specific-levels of analysis. I just want to give the implementing jurisdictions some sense of what to reasonably expect. The ideal result would be a map showing roundabouts, all-way stops, minor approach stops, traffic signals, etc. etc. for intersections of two Federal-Aid roadways. And that could simply be based on expected traffic volumes and the intended function of the roadway. For example, it may be reasonable to suggest that the default intersection of two collectors should be a roundabout. Obviously, before the corridors are constructed there will be detailed planning and engineering analysis to verify or refine that guidance. This document is only intended to provide a starting point for more detailed planning in the future.