My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.4. SR 03-15-1999
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1999
>
03/15/1999
>
4.4. SR 03-15-1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:34:13 AM
Creation date
2/15/2005 3:14:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
3/15/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
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
<br />of development density. It was also in these locales where this option presented the most <br />difficulty. Right-of-way acquisition would have adverse impacts to businesses through . <br />reduction of access and visibility. There were also environmental impacts in right-of-way <br />acquisition; for example, in Elk River, where TH lO's proximity to the Mississippi River <br />and various wetlands would severely limit the environmental feasibility of a frontage road <br />system. Therefore, this alternative was considered to have significant environmental <br />impacts on certain areas of the corridor. <br /> <br />Cost <br /> <br />The capital cost of consolidating access points and/or developing frontage roads along <br />some portions of the corridor was considered feasible. However, in developed areas such <br />as Elk River or Minneapolis, development of frontage roads would require extensive right- <br />of-way or property acquisition that could significantly increase the cost of this alternative. <br /> <br />4.4 SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT/COORDINATION <br /> <br />Safety and Mobility Benefits <br /> <br />This option would provide some improvements on corridor mobility and safety. <br /> <br />Environmental Impacts <br /> <br />On the whole, environmental and community impacts from this option were considered <br />minimal. Visual impacts associated with this option, particularly on areas that were not <br />currently signalized, were considered to be insignificant. Air quality impacts from queued <br />vehicles at intersections were considered to be minor. Vehicle emissions from queued <br />vehicles were not anticipated to significantly increase. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Cost <br /> <br />The cost of this option was moderate. (The most costly element of this alternative was the <br />signal at about $150,000 each.) <br /> <br />4.5 ADDITION OF THROUGH-LANES OR HOV LANES <br /> <br />Safety and Mobility Benefits <br /> <br />In year 2015, MnlDOT's Transportation System Plan (TSP) projects that the segment of <br />TH lOin Anoka County will be operating in LOS E after TIP implementation and LOS D <br />after Plan implementation. Therefore, the mobility and safety benefits of additional <br />capacity presented by this option are significant. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Northstar Corridor Major Investment Study <br />Conceptual Definition of Alternatives <br />February 1999 <br /> <br />VI-6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.