06-24-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

■f I.' • p f. : .1 ■i h- t- I & V H'. 'i: if’i }< 5:^ }y r TH 12 Policy Committee Minutes May 22, 1991 Page 3 Committee discussion followed: G. Acromite asked about the "preliminary” status of the forecasts, and when any substantive dianges should be made. Hay stated that Mn/DOT still needs to review HNTB’s work, and that HNTB will make adjustments to the forecasts if needed, as determined by Mn/DOTs review. (Hay did not anticipate any significant changes.) Final forecasts will be made available for the next meeting. Acromite also asked whether cost considerations should be used by the Committee in the selection process. Hay said yes, that costs are normally included at the EIS stage, but can be used at the scoping level as a criterion. T. Humbert added that Mn/DOT will first look at alternatives that satisfy the transportation need and then will consider economic factors. D. Poss asked about right-of-way needs in Delano. Hay stated that the corridor search area is 500* wide, but the actual right-of-way needs will be less, especially for an urban section. Access will be an issue in Delano, and Mn/DOT may need to look at roadway cross-seaions to assess the problem. Chair Johnson asked if Mn/DOT would be giving any direction as to how many corridors should be studied. Hay said no. all feasible alternatives should be studied but it would be most helpful in the process to identify a "preferred ” corridor, if possible, prior to the EIS. Hay reiterated that the field of alternatives should be narrowed based only on traffic considerations, at this point, and that the other considerations (environmental impacts) will be studied on the surviving alternatives. Acromite asked whether a corridor could be "resurrected” if dropped during the process. Hay said once a corridor is dismissed during the scoping process, it is gone from further study. Dallam added that the EIS requires that all reasoiu^le alternatives (i.e. those that sati^ the transportation need) be addressed. Documentation of the scoping process and evaluation of alternatives is very important, because the adequacy of the evaluation of the alternatives in the EIS can be tested in the courts. Questions and additional discussion from the Committee and the Audience continued: G. Jabbour stated that it would be beneficial to know what kind of roadway will be constructed and what Mn/DOTs preferred alternative is. M. Bemhardson added that the screening process allows tenchmarks to be set at each meeting. Other discussion included a request to summarize the information on each alternative to facilitate the screening process.