Laserfiche WebLink
Tony Onnen <br />state Representative <br />V * *»♦ <br />District 20B <br />Carver. McLeod and <br />Wright Counties <br />Minnesota <br />House of <br />Representatives <br />COMMITTcES: FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND INSURANCE. <br />HUMAN SERVICES. HEALTH AND HOUSING FINANCE DIVISION REGULATED INDUSTRIES AND ENERGY <br />November 5, 1W3 <br />Nfayor Ed Callahan <br />P.O. Box 66 <br />Crystal Bav, MN 55323-(X)66 <br />NOV -f'O' <br />Dear Mayor Callahan: <br />As wc arc both interested an«l concerned alwut the future of Trunk Highuray (TH) 12, I wanted to take <br />a few minutes to share with you some information that has recently been released and to clarify any <br />misconceptions regarding the futuie of TH 12. As you well know, this highway is important to the economic <br />viabiUty of our community due to the need for goods movement, rural community commerce, and access for <br />outstate residents to the metro area for daily business, medical, and recreational activities. <br />First, let me clarify one misconception, there is not a direct ’shift" of funding from TH 12 projects to <br />TH 212, to the extent that the planned work on 1-394/TH 12 is completed and MnDOT is now focusing on TH <br />212 this could be considered a "shift", but it is more of a reprioriiization of projects. <br />Secondly, due to the large numlicr of comments that many of the Highway 12 Task Force members <br />submitted to the Metropolitan Council they have responded to these comments and addressed our concerns. <br />Their response is sumraari/cd in the following paragraphs. <br />The present position of the .Metropolitan Council as listed in the Transportation Development: <br />Guide/Policy Plan (TPP) Ls that "metropolitan highways in the general rural use area shall be planned, designed <br />and operated to emphasize safety, transporting products to market and delivering goixls and services to the rural <br />communities rather than serving commuter trips." An interpretation of this policy is that the Metropolitan <br />Council .Utempts to limit the addition of rural highway cjpacity which acts as an enticement to live further and <br />further from the urban area. The Council’s growth management policies discourage urban level development <br />from occurring in the rural aica of the seven counties or adjacent counties arc the basis for this policy. <br />However, the Council docs recognize and .support the need for highway connections from the mctrt> area <br />and the entire state of Minnesota. <br />The key area of disagreement between the Council and those supptirting TH 12 improvements Is <br />entered on supporting additional highway capacity sized for the peak period (commuter) travxl demand. The <br />Council has attempted to discourage these investments in the pa.st when the decisions rested in MnDOTs hands. <br />M.iny of the members of the Highway 12 Task Force expressed concern that the Council’s TPP dcKS <br />not include any funding for improvrments on TH 12. While TH 12 is mM mcludcd in the TPP, the region ’s <br />Tran.vportation Improvement Program (TIP) diHis include funds for some improvrments. TH 12 is not in the <br />TPP because these projects total less than $10 million. The projects in the TIP arc ain-sistcnt with the policy <br />direction to improve salcty and preserve the highway. In 1993, three projects arc planned. These include <br />channelization and signals at C^H 146 and a ramp meter bypass to castbuund TH 12 at County Road 15. <br />These projects will improve safety, rsp ‘city ar.d provide an incentive for car pixil and transit. <br />15249 12W 8i»—r S W , Cooato M»io—ora 55321 <br />$t«Ni Onicm BuMng. St. Paul MmoMOta 551S9 tei2) 2M-1S34 <br />TDO (612) 2M-8896