Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The followiQ& is a brie~ Bummar~~:ion of finCings on each of the ~ridge <br />alt.ernativea. <br /> <br />No. 1 TH 101 <br /> <br />No. Ii TH 169 <br /> <br />No. 9 TH 610 <br /> <br />No. 12 !-691i <br /> <br />No. 2 <br /> <br />CR121- CR 83 <br /> <br />No. 3 <br /> <br />So Diamond Lake <br />- ThU:-S~Q:: Av <br /> <br />No. 5 <br /> <br />CR 103-7th Av <br /> <br />No. 6 <br /> <br />CR11i - Riesling <br /> <br />No. 7 <br /> <br />Noble Av - <br />Crookee. Lake Bl <br /> <br />No. 8 109th - Banson <br /> <br />No. 10 85th - Osbor:: <br /> <br />" No. 11 73rd Av - <br />Mississippi Bl <br /> <br />EX!t!ING BRIDGES <br /> <br />It achieves good environmental assessment but rates <br />poor in system considerations. <br /> <br />Consistently ranks at the bottom in all Bcoring <br />exercilln. The lllajor reason 111 poor performance on <br />enviroDlllental, high cost, and the fact that it becomes <br />congestet and thus concentrates the corridor deficiency. <br /> <br />Using the initial criteria acores, it was third ranked <br />due to good performance on environmental ane. cost <br />criteria. Because the traffic assignments ahow no <br />aign1ficz::t trip diversions from TH 169, '1'F. 610 drops <br />in rank when the "system ~r1ter1a are given greater <br />weight. fiot 1:icluded in the study analysis is a " <br />regional aSsumption that TH 610 will be connected west <br />to I-91i end is planned for ade.itional lanes at the <br />river in the adopted tIS. Taking only those factors <br />into account from the regional perspective Tn 610 is <br />still a leading alternative to provide the needed total <br />capacity in crossings, even if it is not directly well <br />placed tc serve d8lll8%ld functions north. <br /> <br />MIlDO! CUl':'Bntly is sc!leduled to :il:!prove the facility. <br />Further caJ.ysis was not Imdertaken 1n thi:;exercise. <br /> <br />NE\1 SP.!DGES <br /> <br />This ct.ernat.ive rates poor in e~viro1UDenta1 <br />asses5:!ent but very good in syster: consieerationS. <br /> <br />The alternative actieves good overall scores. <br />The by;:ass alternative (3b) i:prcves its !'a:lking, <br />but. :1C": enough to J:2.ke it ~ cost e~fect.ive projec:.. <br /> <br />This cmCidate bas the secone tdghest r;mk:l.ng, but <br />imprOftlllllnts to 7th Av IliaY be ~. "':ic~t. <br /> <br />Cons:.s~e:1tly it. is the highest r2!1kec alternative. <br /> <br />'1'>>;5 !:ridge achieves moderately gooe scores. Access <br />to t:e b~cge :ay be ci~~icult. <br /> <br />OVeral1 the bridge is not hig"'y ratee. <br />Enviro:::llen.tal problems may ex::.at. <br /> <br />:he b:'idge has moderately good scores, b~ its <br />- <br />effect em TE 169 is negli~ble. I~ does provide <br />good east-west service to local L-ea5. <br /> <br />Th1s altel'lllltive ccmsistently scorec 1010. <br /> <br />=fI <br /> <br />