Laserfiche WebLink
<br />mitigate these deficiencies an interchange at TH 10/ 169 and Twin Lakes Parkway <br />was assumed. This also assumed that all access to TH 10 / 169 in the area would be <br />removed. The results indicate that with the proposed mitigation, the ramp <br />intersections would be operating at a LOS D or better with any development <br />Scenario, with no movements at a LuS F. The results of including the mitigation are <br />shown in Tables 21- 18, 21-19 and 21- 20. <br />I'~~ ble'1 ~ 10 i'hase ~ Scenari o 1 wi th Mit i anon <br /> <br />... . . . <br /> . <br />9 NB 0 A 0 A <br />.q <br />Twin Lakes Pkwy and <br />WB <br />20 <br />B <br />18 <br />B <br />24 <br />C <br />27 <br />C <br />~, TH 10/169 EB Ramps SB 20 B 31 C <br /> EB 7 A 20 C <br />.~ NB 6 A 17 B <br />.q <br />Twin Lakes Pkwy and <br />WB <br />4 <br />A <br />4 <br />A <br />10 <br />B <br />10 <br />B <br />~, TH 10/169 WB Ramps SB 0 A 0 A <br /> EB 4 A 4 A <br />I°a ble 21 e 19 -~ F'f~~4~~ ,' '~s ~~n~i1 i.-~ "` ~~ i t h !~'iit i ~atia~~i. <br /> <br />.. . <br />.. . <br />.. . <br />- <br /> . <br />a NB 0 A 0 A <br />.~ <br />Twin Lakes Pkwy and <br />WB <br />22 <br />C <br />22 <br />C <br />30 <br />C <br />32 <br />C <br />~, TH 101169 EB Ramps SB 24 C 35 C <br /> EB 7 A 27 C <br />.~ NB 9 A 21 C <br />.~ <br />Twin Lakes Pkwy and <br />WB <br />5 <br />A <br />6 <br />A <br />15 <br />B <br />13 <br />B <br />~, <br />rn TH 10/169 WB Ramps SB 0 A 0 A <br /> EB 5 A 4 A <br />City of Elk River <br />Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review <br />August 2011 Page 69 of 90 <br />