10/20/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Bill Smith, Biko Associates, reported that one of the goals of the study was to consolidate or eliminate some of the driveways on Highway #10. There are currently 53 accesses within a 2.5 mile stretch on Highway #10. The easterly alignment gives the City a very good frontage road system - consolidating driveways does not interfere with the frontage road system. With regard to traffic signal spacing, there would still be signals a mile apart which is good spacing. He stated that the bridge in either alignment would have to be elevated and there would be an interchange rather than an intersection with Highway #10. He stated that a "fly over" would basically be the only way this could be constructed. He stated that if the property in the proposed bridge area was slated for residential, an elevated structure may affect the value of the property. However, an elevated structure going through parkland leaves opportunity for foliage, trails, etc. He added that one of the key factors is that the bridge provides an alternate to the 610 and 169 Bridge and the 101 Bridge in Elk River. He speculated that the traffic from the west will take #101 and traffic from the east will go to #610 or #169. Mr. Smith stated that to do this study, they looked at where development is more likely to occur and it appears it is more likely to occur in the easterly part of the City in a north/south corridor to St. Francis. This alignment would make the trip more direct. Chairperson Wagner stated he is somewhat confused because if this (Figure #5) is the proposal, he wondered how the Planning Commission got to recommendation of the plan represented by Figure #7. Mr. Smith stated that there was some concern about what's going to happen in the City of Dayton. He disseminated a memorandum which listed some of the questions and concerns previously raised by the Economic Development Commission and his answers for them. With regard to Dayton, Mr. Smith suggested it is wise to coordinate with neighboring communities on projects such as the bridge crossing. Two communities in agreement have a better chance of negotiating with MnDOT. Mr. Smith stated that this study attempted to achieve other alternatives so when it is brought to MnDOT, it will coordinate with the things that are happening in other cities/areas. He added that since this bridge construction is probably 20 years in the future, a definite alignment would not be necessary, a couple of alternatives would be acceptable. He explained that because state and federal funds will be used to construct the bridge, a Scoping Study will first be completed by MnDOT, where a host of location decisions will be generated for preliminary analysis. They will then narrow it down to five locations, for example, and conduct a study on these. MnDOT will then select a preferred alternative based on the results of the study. The Cities of Ramsey and Dayton will have a say in location, but the ultimate decision will be MnDOT's. He reiterated that there will be many more alternatives, so deciding upon one right now may not be so important. Mr. Schwanke stated that this is like a vision; what will Ramsey want to do with the bridge. It's really a Ramsey decision right now. He suggested looking at the issues and coming to a consensus, then talk to other cities and to MnDOT. Commissioner Kent stated that one of the concerns of the Commission is the "T" intersection coming onto County Road #116. He suggested this would be an area of congestion and questioned how it would be alleviated. Mr. Smith stated that the north and south bound traffic will be eliminated and the three lanes proposed would be able to absorb the traffic there. He stated it would be a large intersection; however, signal times could make it work quite efficiently. He suggested that some of the arterial streets may have to be modified. Economic Development Commission/October 20, 1994 Page 3 of 7