10-14-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

V ' r* * DRAFT TH 12 CORRIDOR STUDY Technical Committee Meeting Delano City Hall September 24, 1991 Members Present; S. Hay, T. Loucks, J. Sweeney, D. Dudinsky, J. Dillman, M. Wurzer Alternates Present! T. Johnson, J.D. Goetten Others Present! L. Dallam, R. Harris, L. Scalf, M. Underhill, C. Zimmer, G. Bollis, D. Lewis, R. Hengtes S.Hay called the meeting to order at approximately 1:15 p.m. The minutes of the August 27, IWl meeting were amended to clarify the alternatives that Mn/DOT is considering through Long L^e (Alt. 2 and 2E), and then approved with the correction. Hay then updated the Committee on the status of the alternative layouts for TH 12. He said that Alternatives 2 and 2E are being completed and will be mailed out shortly. There were no comments from the Committee on the layouts as received. L.Dallam then discussed the results of the application of impact evaluation criteria to each alternative, using the summary prepared for Hennepin County as an example. He stressed that the data received is still preliminary, is awaiting Mn/DOT and Committee review, and that modifications are currently being made. (Several changes made by HNTB were read at the meeting). Dallam explained the judgements that were applied in counting residences and businesses in the corridor and within 400 ft. of a highway lane, and the elements considered in the costs of building an urban roadway section, which increases the construction cost of Alternative 2 and its subaltematives. Questions about the subjective nature of some evaluation criteria were raised by the Committee (level of service assumptions, for example) and the need for a criteria evaluation key was addressed. It was decided that a description of the assumptions and judgements applied to the evaluation criteria would be provided with the final evaluation results to assist reviewers in assessing the differences between the alternatives and to screen the number for further study. Hay also commented that HNTB will rank the alternatives for the next meeting, giving each of the evaluation criteria equal weight. The Committee discussed the possibility of having a separate economic impact analysis prepared to evaluate economic considerations (affects on property valuations, lost tax base, school district impacts, etc.) which would otherwise not be provided for by the current evaluation criteria as a measure to screen the alternatives. Hay said that although the economic impacts of the alternatives are very important, it is preferred by Mn/DOT not to do this level of study at this stage of the project because of additional projea delays and resources needed, and that the EIS will thoroughly investigate all project economic impacts. It would be considered by Mn/DOT, however.