11/05/92 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The total eSti~a~l cost of this alternative is $490,000 with an estimated construction cost of $325,000. ~ r~jor cost components would include grading, curb and gutter and pavement. This alternati~V~ ~0~uld have reduced drainage and wetland mitigation costs over Alternative 1, as well as a redud~ ~stance of roadway to be constructed. Alternative 2l: Maintain Status Quo. An alternative ~ any construction project is of course, to do nothing or maintain the status quo. The prime adw a~i~e of this alternative is that the initial cost is zero. However, the public will pay the costs asSo~ ia,~ with additional mileage travelled and additional travel time in perpetuity. Future develo rn~fl~t may reduce the feasibility or increase the cost of providing this corridor at a later date. Existing cro-~s I~a ~ c between Armstrong Boulevard and Variolite Street will continue to increase on residential ~tt~ ~ts such as 156th and 157th Avenues. The rate of increase is highly dependent upon develoP~e~t. However, even a single successful commercial operation, such as the soon-to-open I~o~ ~fork Golf Course, could significantly impact traffic levels on these streets, tn general, howe~er, t~affic levels might be expected to triple over the next twenty years. Alternative 4: ~. Improve 156th Avenue between Variolite Street and Armstrong ~ .~ Boulevard. This alternatiV~ ~a~uld make use of the existing streets in the area and upgrade them to handle the increased waffle ~01umes and truck loads. If 156th Avenue were improved to MSA standards, it would still ~re~iui~ traffic to expend additional travel distance and time involved. Similar to Alternate 2, tt:~wa ld not only encourage, but it would actually place arterial volume traffic and track traffic oi~ia ~ :eet platted and designed for residential use. Additional right-of-way would be required and th~ placement of the roadway would reduce setbacks for several homes to approximately fialt of the recommended forty feet. Traffic level iinpa~ts can be expected to be similar to those described for Alternate 3 with the exception that ih~ii~affic increases anticipated on 157th Avenue would be directed to 156th Avenue. Total project. ¢~ ~st;fbr this alternate would be $450,000 with $300,000 in construction costs. Major construction c0~ sts~,would include curb and gutter, pavement, drainage and restoration. Alternative ~: i Construct an Extension of County Road #116 from Ramsey ~ Boulevard to Armstrong Boulevard. This alternatiV~e Was proposed by a resident at the December 10, 1991 meeting. The proposed alignment is ilJuSt~ated on the attachment entitled Alternate 5. This alignment would extend existing County P~d~ad #116 from its existing terminus at Ramsey Boulevard westward for a length of 1.2 miles t~g,~ting at the intersection with Armstrong Boulevard and the south line of Section 21. This WOUrld ~f_ectively extend County Road #116 as a crosstown arterial from Armstrong Boulevard ea~/tw~d to the eastern City Limits. This alignment could not be considered a crosstown art~[! f~urther west than Armstrong Boulevard as traffic wishing to traverse the entire length of the ~it)~Would need to make two tums and travel a one-half mile distance north/south along Armstr~g~$oulevard. There would be safety hazards similar to those identified in the discussion of/ilt~ative 2 with the speed differential caused by accelerating and decelerating over a short distance.