Laserfiche WebLink
<br />II. FINDINGS <br /> <br />As mentioned earlier, several alternative bridge candidates retained their <br />respective rankings, in terms or scoring results, throughout the entire scoring <br />exercise. Bridge Number 6 (Cll 14 - Riesling Bl) was consistently the highest <br />ranked candidate, whether viewed as a local or metro system t'acility. Because <br />ot' its closeness to TH 169, it has a great efrect on it. In addition it serves <br />the major urban area of Anoka. As a result it received consllltently high <br />scores. <br /> <br />Bridge Number 5 (0 103 _ 7th Av) raDked second for reasons s1m1lar to that of <br />Bridge 6. However, the problem of properly widening 7th Av reduces it overall <br />attractiveness as an alternative. <br /> <br />:he third ranked candidate was TH 101. Most of its <br />trom its high scoring in environmental assessment. <br />did Dot rate well, generallY ranking 8th out of 11. <br />bypass alternatives, it is displaced by Bridge 3. <br /> <br />Bridge N\IIIIber 3 (South Diamond Lake - Thurston Av) ranked fourth in overall <br />score. It :1::lproved this rating when treated as a bypass alternative, moving <br />ahead of' Bridge Number 1 (T!1 101). llthough its ranking is improved in this <br />i%lst~ce, the same result could be achieved by moderating the rather high <br />environmental scores of Bridge N\IIIIber 1. Bridge NUIllber 3 also ranked third <br />when only system considerations were measured. <br /> <br />appeal as an alternate came <br />As a syste: alternative it <br />It' measured against the <br /> <br />:it'th place vas held by Bridge NUIllber 2 (CR 121 - Cll 83). It achieves t.'te <br />opposite results of Bridge N\lI:lber 1 in the';; i';;does poorly in envi.ronmental <br />assessmen';; but consistently ranks fourth highest in system consi.deration. <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />70 <br />~ <br />