Laserfiche WebLink
Alternative 3hs~l'~ '~' ~consistent with planning efforts of the past twenty ,years. A significant <br />investment ha~.b~n incurred by the City in developing this thoroughfare segment. Its need is <br />valid, as thCre~ifio east/west arterial streets within a reasonable distance of the proposed project. <br />I recommend ~g~Ost pursuing this alternative. <br />AlternatiVe 4 ~ex?~res a considerable expenditure and provides no transportation benefits beyond <br />the status quOi ~liis alternative will have a significant impact on the established neighborhood <br />adjacent to 15~Jth ~venue. I recommend against pursuing this altemative. <br /> <br />Alternative 5 t roll, es for the construction of a valuable element of the City's transportation system <br />and will proVi~ [e ~lief to Trunk Highway #10. Although it does provide a supplementary route to <br />153rd AVerlm it floes not provide an equivalent route. Areas serviced by 153rd Avenue cannot be <br />serviced equal y ~r County Road #116. The two mutes are 1.5 miles apart. I recommend against <br />pursuing this a .te~tive on the basis that it is not an alternative route. <br />I recommend that!Alternative 1 be selected and pursued as the route to be pursued for preliminary <br />design and rig~t-0f-way need identification. <br /> <br />Review Che~:kl!ist <br /> <br />City Engineer <br />City AdminiStt4~ tot i <br />City Council <br /> <br />PZ: 11/5/92 <br /> <br /> <br />