My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 04/08/2003
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2003
>
Agenda - Council - 04/08/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/24/2025 3:47:27 PM
Creation date
8/29/2003 11:12:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
04/08/2003
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
377
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
Study Recommendations <br /> <br />In order to achieve the objectives of the County Road 116 Comdor and Access Study and <br />to ensure that access guidelines for the condor are. implemented in a uniform manner, it is <br />recommended that all .jurisdictions· in the study area adopt the study. It is also. <br />recommended that they include the key elements of the study' in their transportation plans. <br />When Anoka County updates its Transportation Plan,· recommendations from this study <br />should be incorporated into the final document. <br /> <br /> Due to the larger regional role County Road lJ:6 is expected to play in the future, it is <br /> recommended that the County pursue upgrading County Road l!6to an A-Minor Arterial <br /> and pursue County State Aid Highway designation_ for se~m~nents that are currently County <br /> Road. <br /> <br />To accommodate future traffic demands and for system continuity, it is recommended that <br />County Road 116 be widened to four lanes throughout the study area. Right-of-way for <br />the four-lane facility should be at le~t 12O..feet, with up to 1.50 feet at major intersections <br />(see Figure 16). This additional width will be required for a distance, approximately 500 <br />feet prior to the intersection. <br /> <br />Access in the corridor should be managed using the principles and policies ~)utlined in <br />Chapter IV: <br /> <br />A. Sig-nalized access to the corridor should be managed so that corridor mobility is <br /> maintained and that safety is provided when accessing or crossing the cOrri.dor. <br /> <br />Policy: Full access intersections should be promoted first at the junction of minor <br />arterial routes, then at collector and local routes. The minimum spacing between '~...",- <br />these access points should be one-half mile. Current and fi~ture intersection points ~.~ sO.,% <br />meeting this criterion have been identified in the corridor. Local communities <br />should plan futur~ arterial or collector routes at these locations. <br /> <br />Other access points along the corridor should be minimized to redUce the number of <br />conflicts in the corridor. <br /> <br />Policy: Intermediate access points may be permitted at a minimum .spacing of <br />880feet (one-sL'cth ora mileg. These access points will not be signalized, and will be <br />restricted to right-in/fight-out. Therefore, these access points should be parr of a <br />parallel system of frontage or backage roads that can provide, access to other <br />adjacent signalized intersections whenever possible. <br /> <br />Public access intersections should be-designed so that turning traffic is separated <br />from through traffic to reduce the number of conflicts. <br /> <br />Policy: Turn lanes should be provided at all full access public access points. <br /> <br />SRF Consulting Group, [nc: <br /> <br />- 53 - <br /> <br />February 2003 <br /> <br />-33~3 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.