12/01/92 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The total estihaat~ cost of this alternative is $490,000 with an estimated construction cost of $325,000. Tl~e '~.t~ jor cost components would include grading, curb and gutter and pavement. This altematiq~e WOuld have reduced drainage and wetland mitigation costs over Alternative 1, as well as a redu~ed!4distance of roadway to be constructed. Alternative ~: Maintain Status Quo. An alternative with any construction project is of course, to do nothing or maintain the status quo. The prime adqan~ge of this alternative is that the initial cost is zero. However, the public will pay the costs asse' :iated with additional mileage travelled and additional travel time in perpetuity. Future develo ~mi~nt may reduce the feasibility or increase the cost of providing this corridor at a later date. Existing cross ~.tr~fic between Armstrong Boulevard and Variolite Street will continue to increase on residential struts such as 156th and 157th Avenues. The rate of increase is highly dependent upon develo[ rno~t. However, even a single successful commercial operation, such as the soon-to-open- qo~fork Golf Course, could significantly impact traffic levels on these streets. In general, howe' ~er¢ ~affic levels might be expected to triple over the next twenty years. Alternative 4: ' Improve 156th Avenue between Variolite Street and Armstrong Boulevard. This alternatiqe would make use of the existing streets in the area and upgrade them to handle the increased traffic ~01umes and truck loads. If 156th Avenue were improved to MSA standards, it would still re4:lui~6 traffic to expend additional travel distance and time involved. Similar to Alternate 2, it!,w¢tild not only encourage, but it would actually place arterial volume traffic and truck traffic o~ a~',treet platted and designed for residential use. Additional right-of-way would be required and[th~Iplacement of the roadway would reduce setbacks for several homes to approximatelylhalI'[of the recommended forty feet. Traffic level i~lYaCts can be expected to be similar to those described for Alternate 3 with the exception that ~he.,traffic increases anticipated on 157th Avenue would be directed to 156th Avenue. Total project ~egst~for this alternate would be $450,000 with $300,000 in construction costs. Major construction cOstS would include curb and gutter, pavement, drainage and restoration. Alternative $: Construct an Extension of County Road #116 from Ramsey Boulevard to Armstrong Boulevard. This alternative was proposed by a resident at the December 10, 1991 meeting. The proposed alignment is illUStrated on the attachment entitled Alternate 5. This alignment would extend existing Coun~ ~oad #I 16 from its existing terminus at Ramsey Boulevard westward for a length of 1.2 mites ~g~tting at the intersection with Armstrong Boulevard and the south line of Section 21. This would effectively extend County Road gl 16 as a crosstown arterial from Armstrong Boulevard eaStWia.'.d to the eastern City Limits. This alignment could not be considered a crosstown artei'iai! further west than Armstrong Boulevard as traffic wishing to traverse the entire length of the ~t~ Would need to make two tums and travel a one-half mile distance north/south along Armstrc~ng!,]~oulevard. There would be safety hazards similar to those identified in the discussion of Alterflative 2 with the speed differential caused by accelerating and decelerating over a short distance.