12/09/87 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

in spite of evaluations ranking the site poorly in terms of both environmental and systems considerations. The report ac}nnowledges difficulties in providing the extra capacity needed. %he repo~t did not deal with the implications of a~d~tional traffic on the northern extension of TH 169 as TH 47 through knoka, which we believe will be subject to seve~e coDgestion. The M~tropolitan Council has been supporting improvements to the 'existing TH 101 and TH 169 crossings. A key factor preventing the Metropolitan Council fr~m supporting a crossing at CR 83 or CR 56 is that they are outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area 0~33SA) lir~. The prefer. 'ite for an additional major river crossing would be the continuity of an arterial road north of t_ha bridge r_hrough Ramsey and Burns, and also south of the bridge through Dayton and possibly part of Maple Grove to achieve a connection with TH 152. Given the ey_ist~ density of develoument and current policy on development within the MUSA line, neither the Minnesota De~t of Transportation nor t_he Metropolitan Council are likely to investigate or pursue a bridge crossing in the vicinity of Ramsey at ~his time. Further investigations into tine bridge crossing w~dld therefore have to be at the initiative of Ramsey. It would cooperation with Anoka County, Hennepin County, Day,on and F~%ple Grove in ~ enthusi~ic abo~ a crossing during the t~_~k force deliberations. Although the current density of devel~t does ~ creats an urgency for the implementation of an additi~na2 bridge crossing, it does ~ the potential for findipg a suitable rou*~e. All too often, r~ates for such proj~ are ~ pl~ned until t. he need be~mms obvious. By that tim~, the density of development frequently makes th~ provision of a route infeasible. On the Ramsey side of the ¥~ississippi River, CR 56 (Ramsey Boulevard N.W. ) a.~pears an c~vi~ds candidate fr~m transpcr-~ation systems requirements. It ~-nother c~ndidata. !ts p_~_s~nt .~ate ccrT~L--.'~i~, ~o ~he nor~_h is not adeqdate. F~ever, ~is= mi~.t be rec~ifi~ Ln c~ujun~ion %~t_h a re~,iew of ~-.n ~e.~-=!l t_h~.~are pi~-.n for Ramsey. }lo,ever, i~ w~uld ~ be prudent -'/-'.,~ :_--~i~?s ~..n~__?..",.,-g access on D~-'.rec-~ a~ess f.~am p_-xl~_~ies Lnta.~.~nt m~li~n breaP~. 4O