Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-. <br /> <br />January 3, 1995 <br /> <br />To: Planning Commission <br /> <br />Subject: Draft of Transportation Plan Update <br /> <br />~~~~~ <br /> <br />From: Terry Hendriksen <br /> <br />The City Council asked us to update the Transportation Plan. Our recommendation is <br />complete, however, the location selected for the Mississippi River bridge is controversial <br />and the Economic Development Commission has developed an alternative plan. <br /> <br />This memo will focus on three things, benefits of the Planning Commission alternative, <br />shortcomings of the EDC plan, and errors in the December 12, 1994 report from Jim <br />Gromberg, Economic Development Coordinator. <br /> <br />1. BENEFITS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE <br /> <br />Planning Commission concluded that although a Mississippi River bridge is a very <br />significant element of our Transportation Plan we must develop a "Transportation <br />Skeleton" that will support both bridge locations. The "Transportation Skeleton" should <br />exhibit good planning, even if a bridge is not built. <br /> <br />Transportation Skeleton <br /> <br />Industrial Boulevard (CR 116) is scheduled for extension to Armstrong boulevard. <br />Ramsey is meeting with Anoka County to determine the desired extension of 116 beyond <br />Armstrong. <br /> <br />- The Planning commission recommended extending 116 West, beyond Armstrong, to <br />Highway 10. A grade separated intersection is desirable. This improves Ramsey's <br />commercial/industrial development potential, provides an EastIW est collector through <br />our industrial area and would be an attractive alternative for some highway 10 traffic. <br /> <br />West Bridge <br /> <br />A new Mississippi bridge will generate significant traffic volume. The intersection of the <br />bridge approach and Highway 10 can be a prime retaillcommerciallocation if space is <br />available. Property surrounding the West bridge corridor is currently undeveloped. <br />Hundreds of acres outside the critical rivers boundary are available for development with <br />the West alternative. <br /> <br />Because the West alternative is undeveloped land, there is no impact on current <br />residential use. Enough property exists to allow development of the bridge approach <br />corridor, commercial/retail uses and "mixed use" residential for buffering. <br />