My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-27-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
08-27-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/6/2024 12:14:54 PM
Creation date
12/6/2024 12:10:21 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
609
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
HISTTB <br />Kunze asked about funding for the (preliminary engineering), who would proceed with <br />EIS after HNTB completed thw list of activities, and the State’s priority for this project. <br />Reply: Hay explained the process for the project budget and that an additional funding <br />request was made for the consultant to complete the EIS (to provide short-term <br />supplemental stafO, and that this project is Mn/DOT’s number two priority in the <br />Golden Valley office. <br />- Kunze also asked about estimated costs per mile of freeway vs. expressway and when <br />costs (for the project’s constru'^Mon) will be known. <br />Reply: Project costs depend on the design, number of interchanges, grade separated <br />crossings, frontage road needs, etc., and that the freeway to expressway juncture, <br />when l^own, will assist in defining costs. <br />- Acromite asked whether the Policy Committee would have input in redefining, as <br />necessary, the 500 foot corridor width. <br />Reply: If agreed upon, yes; but depends on issues and concerns identified in the scoping <br />process. <br />- M. Johnson asked what the ordinary width of a freeway is (for future protection and <br />preservation mapping purposes), and if frontage roads must be parallel to the corridor. <br />Reply: A roadway may require 3(X) feet of width, depending on whether it is an <br />expressway or freeway section, and that frontage roads are not necessarily <br />parallel. <br />- Acromite asked for a clarification between "corridor” and "right-of-way", and whether <br />Mn/DOT wanted formal documentation of goals, issues, and concerns from each <br />representing jurisdiction for the next policy committee meeting. <br />Reply: "Corridor" implies planning/search area, while "right-of-way" concerns land <br />acquired for the fctual operation of a roadway. No formal documentation of <br />goals, issues, and ccncems is necess^; but a list is needed for the consultant <br />to stay on schedule, by the next meeting (or sooner). <br />Other Business <br />Hay opened the meeting for questions from the audience. <br />- G. Johnson asked if the uncertainty on the design of the highway (expressway vs. <br />freeway) means that Mn/DOT has ruled out the option of toll road financing. <br />Reply: No. However, there has been no decision to study this option for the TH 12 <br />project, and in all likelihood, it will not be studied. The primary focus is upon <br />the selection of a corridor with minimal adverse impact on each city. <br />- R. Sc^^euer discussed Commissioner Levine’s 1989 announcement for a 1-year funding <br />project and how it affects the current project schedule; requested an ebb..»: ji. iWi <br />obtaining funds for the consultant to complete the EIS; and asked about the impact to the <br />project if mutual agreements are not possible between rticipating jurisdictions (at <br />the end of the scoping process).
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.