04-26-1995 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PPR 26 '95 13:54 3. Pavement width increases 4. Travel lane increases I would like to individually address each of these concerns: P.3 113 1. Reconfiguration and Resurfacing: The route is currently two travel lanes (one in each direction) and will remain so when complete. The resurfacing will include a paved shoulder that replaces the current gravel shoulder. Over all, the width of the newly paved travel lanes and shoulders will approximate the width of the current travel lane width plus gravel shoulders. 2. Proximity to Lake Gervais: We are well aware of the restraints placed on any improvement to Keller Parkway by the proximity of the road to Lake Gervais. This is one of the reasons a reconstruction to state aid standards alternative, which would have resulted in a much greater impact, was not chosen. We will identify and take reasonable precautions to prevent construction erosion from infiltrating the lake during the project. When complete, although the paved area will increase, the asphalt shoulders should reduce erosion that now occurs on the existing gravel shoulders. 3. Pavement Width Increases: The asphalt pavement width will increase from 22 to 32 feet, an increase of 45 %. This does not consider the current gravel shoulder width of 3 -5 feet. Roadway surfaces are usually measured from shoulder to shoulder regardless of the mixture of materials. As previously stated, the new width (32 ft.) will approximate the old width (28 -32 ft.), or an increase of 0 % -13 %. 4. Travel Lane Increases: This proposal does not increase travel lanes. When complete, there will be one travel lane in each direction with a paved shoulder that can be used by pedestrians, bicycles, mail trucks, and others who currently use the gravel shoulder. 1 am aware that you are not in agreement with the proposal approved by the city of Little Canada after a lengthy public involvement process. However, I do feel the decision was made with equal respect shown for all parties impacted by the decision. Our department is developing cost sharing agreements with the city and intends to proceed with the improvement as soon as practicable in order that the project can be completed with as little disruption as possible. Preparation of an EAW will not, in my opinion, change the direction this project is heading because the points that are required to bo addressed have been addressed, and the determination of how to proceed after public review will be made by the same bodies who have already determined the proposal is desirable. Because of the time delay and the costs to prepare an EAW, and because Minnesota rules do not require its preparation for a project as limited as this, an EAW is not warranted for this proposal. If you have any further questions, please call me at 266 -2609. PAGE 9