1995 Working Papers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

" . ~ Page 2 .,.' The West bridge approach corridor can be aligned to become the extension of 116 without creating a "T" intersection. This is most efficient and it will allow traffic to flow into Ramsey's industrial area unimpeded. There is substantial opposition to the East bridge in Dayton. Although officially undecided, Dayton is investigating other alternatives and has withdrawn its support for the East bridge location. The West bridge location proposed by the Planning Commission supports all road alignments being considered by Dayton. If County Road 116 is extended to Highway 1 0, including a grade separated intersection, the East alternative will require an additional interchange. Cyrus Knutson, MnDOT, estimated the cost of the East interchange to be $2,000,000 to $6,000,000. 2. SHORTCOMINGS OF THE EDC PLAN (East Bridge Location) On November 18, 1994, the Economic Development Commission enumerated six criteria they consider to be the benefits of the East bridge location. Many of these points were incomplete or wrong. This is our perspective on each of these points: 1. If calculated correctly the acquisition cost for the East alignment exceeds the cost of the West alternative. Jim Gromberg, Economic'Development Coordinator prepared the figures EDC used. However, He didn't use the Planning Commission proposal and his comparison contains many questionable items. 2. Contrary to EDC's statement, the West alternative is actually closer to the midpoint between Highway 101 and 169 river crossings and central to what would become a major retail/commercial area. 3. Contrary to EDC suggestion, it's the East alignment which will have the greater impact on existing development in Ramsey. The West alignment only affects residential development potential. The residential zoning will be replaced by significantly greater commercial development potential. '. ~3ey ~1('6lli'a:gC COll11ma~ial dcvclopfflent because lrpays...f6tlf times the-tax rey@ntte uf 11;~iJvl1:tial dcvetopmeui. 4. The East location creates a "T" intersection with 116. A "T" intersection is less efficient than the Planning Commissions recommendation. EDC opposed a "T" intersection at 116 in August yet they now highlight it as one of the benefits.