Laserfiche WebLink
Alternative ~ is inconsistent with planning efforts of the past twenty years. A significant <br />investment l~as been incurred by the City in developing this thoroughfare segment. Its need is <br />valid, as thea'~ ar~ no east/west arterial streets within a reasonable distance of the proposed project. <br />I recommend~ ag~nst pursuing this alternative. <br /> <br />Alternative ~;requires a considerable expenditure and provides no transportation benefits beyond <br />the status qu0. 'This alternative will have a significant impact on the established neighborhood <br />adjacent to l$6thAvenue. I recommend against pursuing this alternative. <br /> <br />Alternative $ provides for the construction of a valuable element of the City's transportation system <br />and will provide relief to Trunk Highway #10. Although it does provide a supplementary route to <br />153rd Avenue, it.does not provide an equivalent route. Areas serviced by 153rd Avenue cannot be <br />serviced equally by County Road #116. The two routes are 1.5 miles apart. I recommend against <br />pursuing this ~tlternative on the basis that it is not an alternative route. <br /> <br />I recommendlthat Alternative 1 be selected and pursued as the route to be pursued for preliminary <br />design and fight-of-way need identification. <br /> <br />Review Checklist <br /> <br />City Engineer <br />City Administrator <br />City Council <br /> <br />PZ: 11/5/92 <br /> <br />GO <br /> <br /> <br />