Agenda - Council - 05/12/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The total ~s,filna.~ cost of this alternative is $490,000 with an estimated construction cost of $325,000. i Tlrte ri~jor cost components would include grading, curb and gutter and pavement. This alternafix'e WOuld have reduced drainage and wetland mitigation costs over Alternative 1, as well as a redui',ed '~distance of roadway to be constructed. Alternative 3: Maintain Status Quo. An alternatiy~ with any construction project is of course, to do nothing or maintain the status quo. The prime aglCan~ge of this alternative is that the initial cost is zero. However, the public will pay the costs ass~ciat~.Td With additional mileage travelled and additional travel time in perpetuity. Future deVeldpm .eat may reduce the feasibility or increase the cost of providing this corridor at a later date. ' Existing crOs~ tr~fic between Armstrong Boulevard and Variolite Street will continue to increase on residentia~strg~ts such as 156th and 157th Avenues. The rate of increase is highly dependent upon develo~meot. However, even a single successful commercial operation, such as the soon-to-op0n_[Nor~fork Golf Course, could significantly impact traffic levels on these streets. In general, hOW6ver, [traffic levels might be expected to triple over the next twenty years. AIternativei:4: , Improve 156th Avenue between Variolite Street and Armstrong ~ Boulevard. This altern$ti~e ~ould make use of the existing streets in the area and upgrade them to handle the increased ?~. ~ffiC.~olumes and track loads. If 156th Avenue were improved to MSA standards, it would still.r~qui~e traffic to expend additional travel distance and time involved. Similar to Alternate 2,~t ~uld not only encourage, but it would actually place arterial volume traffic and truck traffi~ ~n ~ ~treet platted and designed for residential use. Additional right-of-way would be required an~ th~ placement of the roadway would reduce setbacks for several homes to approximately, h~f of the recommended forty feet. Traffic lev,li, impj~cts can be expected to be similar to those described for Alternate 3 with the exception that the!raffle increases anticipated on 157th Avenue would be directed to 156th Avenue. Total projeCt,cost!for this alternate would be $450,000 with $300,000 in construction costs. Major :osts.' would include curb and gutter, pavement, drainage and restoration. construCtioi~ Alternative 5:; Construct an Extension of County Road #116 from Ramsey · Boulevard to Armstrong Boulevard. This alterna~ ire Was proposed by a resident at the December 10, 1991 meeting. The proposed alignment ~i,~ illustrated on the attachment entitled Alternate 5. This alignment would extend existing CountYRoad #116 from its existing terminus at Ramsey Boulevard westward for a length of 1.2 mile~'.erm!. ~nating at the intersection with Armstrong Boulevard and the south line of Section 21. This W~iuld Ieffectively extend County Road #116 as a crosstown arterial from Armstrong Boulevardl {ast~ard to the eastern City Limits. This alignment could not be considered a crosstowri m teri~l further west than Armstrong Boulevard as traffic wishing to traverse the entire length 0f:th~i Cit~, would need to make two turns and travel a one-half mile distance north/south along ArmSlronl~ Boulevard. There would be safety hazards similar to those identified in the discussion,ot~ A!t.~rnative 2 with the speed differential caused by accelerating and decelerating over a short distance. !