06/03/86 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

As mentioned earlier, aeveral alternative bridse oandidates retained their respeotive rankinss, in terms of aoorina results, throushout the entire aooring exeroise. Bridse Number 6 (Cft 1~ - Riesling Blvd) was oonsistently the hishest ranked oandidate, whether viewed as a looal or metro aystem faCility. Beoause of its closeness to TH 169, it haa a sreat erreot on it. In addition it serves the major urban area or Anoks. As a result it received oonsistently hiSh scores. Bridse Number 5 (Cft 103 _ 7th Av) ranked aecond for reasons similar to that of Bridse 6. However, the problem of properly widenina 7th Av reduces its overall attractiveness as an alternative. The third ranked oandidate was TH 101. Host or its appeal as an alternate oame from its high soorina in environmental assessment. As a system alternative it did not rate well, generally ranking 8th out of 11. If measured against the bypass alternatives, it is displaced by Bridge 3. Bridge Number 3 (South Diamond Lake - Thurston AV) raDked fourth in overall score. It improved this rating when treated as a bypass alternative, moving ahead of Bridge Number 1 (TH 101). Although its raDk1ng is improved in this instanoe, the same result could be achieved by moderating the rather high environmental scores of Bridge Number 1. Bridge Number 3 also ranked third when only system considerations were measured. Fifth place was held by Bridge Number 2 (CR 121 - CR 83). It achieves the opposite results of Bridge Number 1 in that it does poorly in environmental assessment but consistently ranks fourth highest in system consideration. The following is 'a brief sl1llllllarization of criteria rankina findings on each of the bridge alternatives. EXISTING BRIDGES No. 1 TH 101 It achieves good environmental assessment but rates poor in system considerations. No. 4 TH 169 Consistently ranks at the bottom in all scoring exercises. The major reason is poor performance on environmental, high cost, and the fact that it becomes congested and thus concentrates the corridor deficiency. .No. 9 TH 610 Using the initial criteria scores, it was third ranked due to good performance on environmental and cost criteria. Because the traffic assignments show no significant trip diversions from TH 169, 'l'H 610 drops in rank when the system criteria are given greater weight. No. 12 1-694 MnDOT currently is scheduled to improve the facility. Thus the bridge was not ranked with criteria. 32 If)