CCP 09-11-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

County Road E T rail Improvements October 7,2004 Page 3 . \Ve hove had cOIllmunicatlOn wnh Ramsey County staff regarding the projecL Dan Soter, Ramsey County TraffIC I:ngineer, and Undersheriff George Altendorter concur that the proposed improvement to the County Road I: bridge would allow for safer movement of pedestnans and bicyclists, regardless of pbns for a sidewalk. ;Vlr. Altendorfer 1Il(!Jcated that the County 1$ concemed over the safe passage for pedestrians based 011 the number of Mounds View High School and Bethel Uni vcrsity students who walk across the bridge. The City has received requests to provide safe faclhties for pedestnans and cyclists along Lake Johanna Boulevard and Old Highway 10, Both of these roadways are also owned by Ramsey County. Sldewalk or trail improvements along Lake Johanna Boulevard are constrained by limited right-of-way and the lack of curb and gUllcr along the roadway to provide a safe separation for pedestrians and vchicles. Old Hlghway JO includes several meas of steep slopes and also lacks curh and gUller to provide a safe separation for pedestnans and vehicles. In addition, the existing CP Rail blidge provides a significant obstacle to a separate trail or sidewalk along Old Highway 10, Staff has investigated the feasibility of improvements to the CP Rail briuge and has deterrmned that the bridge condition IS too poor to make modifications necessary for a sidewalk lmprovemenl. The City has relayed this concern to CP Rail and Ramsey County offieials_ City staff is aware of the eoncems for safer walklllg faeditles in both of these areas and will pursue potential improvement opportunities as they arise. Feasibility Study On January 26, 2004, tlie Arden Hills City Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility study for pedestnan Improvements along County Road E, between the TH 51 bridge and Old Highway 10. The feasibility report was presented to the COllneil on March 8, 2004. The report outlined three options for providrng additional bridge width. Optioll A proposed to reconfigure the lane width and spacing of the roadway to create a 6.5-foot WIde sidewalk along one side of the bridge without expanding the width of the existing bridge. The estimated cost of Option A was $60,000, Option B proposed extending the deck SIlppOl1 along the southern side of the bridge as well as narrowing the Jane widths to facilitate the construction of a 7_S-foot wide sidewalk along one side of the bridge. The estimated cost of Option B was $80,000. Option C proposed a JO- foot wide sidewalk that would require the construction of a parallel beam across TH 51 to widen the bridge deck. In this option, the roadway would remain the same, only one side of the bridge extended for sidewalk eonstruetlon, Option C would allow for the construction of an interior raiJIbuffer between the sidewalk and the traffic lanes for additional level of safety. The estimated cost of Option C was $200,000. Several options were also presented 10 Council eoneeming additional bridge enhancement options, such as omamental railing, decorative surface treatments and lighting. . .