My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.4. SR 08-16-2004
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2004
>
08/16/2004
>
6.4. SR 08-16-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:33:54 AM
Creation date
8/13/2004 1:03:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
8/16/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Specifically with respect to the response ot' question number 21, relating to a.m. <br />and p.m. peak hour traffic, we have serious concern about impact on the regional <br />transportation system. If the households are not attached to jobs within the City of <br />Elk River, it is anticipated that the majority of the households will be traveling to <br />work within the Metro Area. This would produce an additional 1,440 work trips <br />during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This is approximately 1,104 a.m and 1,082 <br />p.m. more trips than the projected numbers stated in the traffic study. To give you <br />an idea of the impact of this amount of traffic, this would mean an additional 5.45 <br />miles of cars, bumper to bumper in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. We <br />believe this would, indeed, have a significant impact on the regional <br />transportation system, i.e. TH 10 and TH 169, and for those frustrated with the <br />current levels of congestion on these two corridors, it will likely have a significant <br />impact on the adjacent County Highway System in Anoka County. This is a <br />phenomenon we are already experiencing without the proposed development. <br /> <br />Speaking specifically to Anoka County's Highway System impacts, we would <br />disagree with the response to question 22. The EAW states the proposed <br />development is not expected to cause or increase congestion in the area. We feel <br />based on the 2000 TBI, congestion will increase in the area. It is anticipated that <br />the project will increase daily trips on our CR 64, CR 65, CSAH 22, CSAH 83, <br />and CSAH 116. <br /> <br />The project developer should be aware of future trail connections between Anoka <br />County and Sherburne County. The trail segment proposed in the Anoka County <br />20/20 Parks Vision Plan is to provide a trail along the CSAH 22 corridor. The <br />trail segment would mn along CSAH 22 and connect up with CSAH 13 in <br />Sherburne County. The trail would link East Twin Lake County Park with the <br />Sherburne National Wildlife refuge. <br /> <br />As both of our communities plan for future growth we hope that we can work past our <br />borders to maintain an efficient and safe transportation system. Thank you for giving us <br />the Opportunity to provide comments on the River Park EAW. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Lance Bernard <br />Transportation Planner <br /> <br />Cc: <br /> <br />Kate Garwood, AICP, Multimodal Transportation Manager <br />Nick Eoloff, Parks Planner <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.