Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Coalition response: As we learned early on, there are conflicts between MnlDOT's desires to <br />maximize flow on I-35W, TH 10 and 1-694 and the need to provide local mobility and access to <br />the regional system, That led to MnlDOT's position that there are too many interchanges on 1- <br />35W and perhaps the County Road I ramps should be removed, Freeway interchange spacing is <br />crucial from a traffic flow perspective and the Federal Highway Administration will playa role. <br />How access is provided at Trunk Highway 10 and County Road 96 affects how access is <br />provided at County Road 10 into and out of Mounds View as well as the design of the County <br />Road H interchange proposed as the 'front door' to TCAAP redevelopment. <br /> <br />Transportation access will forever be a challenge in redeveloping our cities. Accomplishment of <br />TCAAP redevelopment will likely be hampered from a marketing perspective until the major <br />system design and access issues are resolved and there is hope for funding of interim as well as <br />long term fixes, Completing the design homework is made extremely difficult by the severe <br />shortage of both construction funds as well as design development funds at the County and State <br />level. <br /> <br />#3: What are the strategies and objectives of the 1-35W Coalition? Are they open to <br />change and modification or have they been set in stone? <br /> <br />Coalition response: The primary objective ofthe Coalition is to generate the resources necessary <br />to conduct the technical studies needed to provide the information upon which the competing <br />interests addressed in Question #2 can be resolved, The attached document ("Coalition Purpose") <br />provides a more detailed description. Our strategies and objectives are determined annually by <br />the Board based on advice from Mr. Bob Benke, other agency staff, and City and County staff. <br />They can be changed whenever the Board decides. Most recently, the Coalition completed build- <br />out studies that identified ultimate growth/capacity needs that will be used in the next stage of <br />design. At that time, the objectives changed from a planning perspective to specifically focusing <br />on design of the solutions to the problems we identified, <br /> <br />#4. What are the most recent 'successes'? <br /> <br />Coalition response: As noted in the attached document, we have two major tasks at hand. First, <br />on a longer term basis, we need to get I-35W improvements into the MnlDOT and Metropolitan <br />Council plans and program so that we don't continue to face the chicken and egg problem of <br />ineligibility because improvements are not of high enough priority. Toward that end, our recent <br />meetings with MnlDOT Metro District staffhave convinced them that I-35W needs to have a <br />higher priority. We have also been in touch with our Metropolitan Council members to drive <br />home the same point and will continue on this task as they update the regional system plans in <br />2008. <br /> <br />We have also been encouraging the MnlDOT metro division to assign internal staff to the design <br />task rather than using consultants given that they have not had funds for consultant services in <br />their budget, especially since expansion ofI-35W is not in the 2030 plan horizon. The only other <br />alternative has been for Coalition members to come up with the funds, estimated at $250,000 for <br />the first design tasks if done by consultants. They recently assigned a staff planner to the project <br />