Public Hearings - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The City of Ramsey e Subj: Comprehensive Plan in Progress: e I intend that these comments should be part of the Dec 1, 1998 Public Hearing Record, and are being submitted prior to Dee. 28, 1998 for that purpose. 1. I have continually objected to the north and westerly extension of CSAH #116 beyond CSAH #83 in Ramsey. The county very recently had that road classified as Minor Arterial IIAII, in there presentations to Ramsey. This would put Vehicle movements at about 15,000 per period. I have always advocated that CSAH #116 should make a junction with US 10/169 as soon after crossing CASH #83 as possible, and that new intersection should be grade separation of both the BNSF tracks and US 10/169. That junction should be as close to the western boundary of Shorewood RV location as possible, and Puma Street Alignment Does not meet that criteria. Reference Page 56 of Nov 9, 1998 Draft. The reasoning given to push this westerly is the MNDOT requirement for separation of intersections. This is MNDOT's restriction, and does not fit Ramsey's needs very well. Reference Page 27, Nov. 9, 1998 draft. titled future land use. I suggest that the transportation element illustrated on this page is more of what will suit Ramsey' needs in the future based somewhat, but not entirely on the following reason's: 1. It is tentatively proposed that US 10/169 be upgrade to freeway (limited access) sometime in the future. This will create the need to reconstruct all 3 CSAH roads that intersect US 10/169. 2. Page 27 probably illustrates what will happen when 2 of those CSAH roads (83 and 56) are terminated at other than US 10/169. 3. Given this termination of CSAH 83's intersection the need for the NEW intersection to be pushed west to PUMA St., to accommodate an intersection separation with 83 is eliminated. 4. It would meet the separation requirement with the other New Intersection that is illustrated in Figure 10. 5. It would accommodate a more nearly straight line to the Mississippi River if this western location is chosen for the Proposed river crossing. 6. The eastern Crossing/Intersection could exist also, and this would greatly accommodate the planning for any future Mississippi River bridge, by the city proposing that which would accommodate either bridge location, and allowing development in the City to continue based on this. 7. Using the 20/20 hindsight criteria, I am able to conclude several things. The previous North metro bridge study, in about the 1984/1986 era, concluded that Mississippi river bridges are about 20 to 25 years in planning. The 610 bridge was under construction at the time and was not a location of choice. That the bridge built because of that study which included all locations from north of 1694 to OLD #1 in Elk River, was the second span for CSAH #101. That the next span over the Mississippi River will be the second span for #610, this is a conclusion but, look at the reality of it with the current construction of #610 through Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove. That makes the Next Bridge over the Mississippi River the one in a RAMSEY/DAYTON location if all things are in place, and the governmental entities can agree on it. This bridge is Probably more than 20 years away, more likely closer to 40 years, and to curtail development to wait on it or even pick a specific location at this time would probably kill any chance of that bridge ever being constructed. These are some of the points I would emphasize were I still a part of the Ramsey Planning Commission process, but My opportunity to do it in that forum has been removed, so I will have to do it as a Citizen, in that forum. In the 20 years I have spent as a commissioner, I can't recall a projection that has been totally incorrect, but I am not perfect, and so I may have forgot some error or two, as a matter of convenience. RECEIVED DEe '91998 BY: \4Sb\ \::,.- \ ~^ ~ ~~ ~.Yl,LU,