My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 03-20-2006
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCP 03-20-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:21:25 PM
Creation date
11/15/2006 10:09:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
80
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />TH 10 <br />Mn/DOT has completed an Inter Regional Corridor Management Plan for TH 10 <br />from west of 1-35W to St. Cloud and points north. The plan recommends that TH <br />10 be rebuilt to freeway design standards from Anoka west. Expansion needs are <br />recognized in the draft TSP (p 83-84) but they are not funded. Corridor area <br />cities and counties are continuing to address current and anticipated problems on <br />a piecemeal basis with Mn/DOT Metro and District 3 staff. Interim solutions at <br />local problem sites are being developed. Cities are reserving rights of way and <br />implementing recommended zoning management policies. However, the <br />uncertainty of the ultimate design and timing of expansion of TH 10 creates <br />numerous decision issues. In many cases, private property owners and business <br />people are left in limbo, uncertain if they should reinvest or relocate. The TSP <br />should: <br />. Be updated to reflect the recently authorized planning and improvement <br />funds contained in the SAFETEA-LU act approved recently by Congress. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />· Incorporate additional funds for accomplishing the Corridor Management <br />Plan vision on a more timely schedule. <br /> <br />GENERAL COMMENTS <br />. In addition to the specific corridor related concerns noted above, we would <br />recommend reconsideration of the stated policy to give priority to <br />outstanding commitments from the previous plan (page 6). While we <br />recognize that continuity and confidence in scheduling projects are highly <br />desirable qualities of a transportation investment plan, we also believe that <br />it is unwise to make that an unbreakable contract. The rapid growth of our <br />Metro region results in new problems every day. We believe that new <br />needs should be considered in context and in contrast to existing needs. <br />Forcing major new problems of today to wait until 2031 for funding is <br />irrational and unacceptable policy. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />· The Draft TSP does not clearly identify or present the technical factors <br />and analysis results that Mn/DOT uses to select projects for funding. <br />Reference was made to the 2004 report "Metro Freeway Method". We <br />assume that some measure of congestion is included along with Average <br />Daily Traffic. To what extent is consideration given to 'bang for the buck'? <br />Was consideration given to funding several smaller projects versus 'mega' <br />projects with high ADT? Were these trade off decisions made entirely <br />internally to Mn/DOT or were they based on Metro Council plans & <br />policies? <br />. A key assumption is that transit ridership will double between now and <br />2030 consistent with the Metro Council's TPP (p 21). Was an analysis <br />done to determine the consequences of this goal not being met due to <br />lack of performance or adequate service funding? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.