Laserfiche WebLink
administrator and would need to hire an engineering consultant. This “city” <br />consultant would design a noise wall at a location along the TH 10 corridor <br />specified by the City. This location would need to be approved by Mn/DOT. The <br />“city” consultant would develop plans and specifications for the wall with the help <br />of Mn/DOT. The plans and specification would then be sent to Mn/DOT for <br />approval. The City would then advertise for bids and award a contract. The City <br />would be responsible for administering the construction, including inspection. <br />Upon completion of the wall, Mn/DOT would review it and, if they find it <br />acceptable, would require the City to dedicate it to them. Mn/DOT would be <br />responsible for future maintenance. <br /> <br />Potential Ramifications Under Option 2: Mn/DOT’s Proposal <br />The City needs to be aware of the following ramifications under Option 2: <br /> First and foremost: if the City rejects Option 2 and implements Option <br />1, eventually Mn/DOT will be required to extend the existing noise wall <br />along the south side of TH 10 for the entire border with the City. This <br />should be the long term and ultimate goal for the City. <br /> If Option 2 is Implemented, the City will most likely be creating a gap in <br />the wall in the area of Arden Park. This gap may never be filled in. <br /> Noise abatement measures may never be applied Arden Park area <br />and the properties along Long Lake Road. If noise abatement <br />measures, such as a wall, are desired at a future date, it may be done <br />solely at the City’s expense (not Mn/DOT’s). <br /> Because the project cost of extending the third east bound lane on TH <br />10 will go down dramatically after the City builds the wall, Mn/DOT may <br />implement this project much sooner than currently planned. The net <br />result is that the City sacrifices noise protection for part of the TH 10 <br />corridor and Mn/DOT can correct a bottle neck situation for a greatly <br />reduced cost. <br /> Consider: Mn/DOT’s goals and objectives may not be consistent with <br />the City’s. <br /> Mn/DOT is only giving a financial commitment of $300,000 for this <br />option. The actual cost may be much higher. <br /> The City will expend several thousand dollars in staff time <br />administrating this project. <br /> <br /> <br />Other Issues <br />Mn/DOT is currently performing a prioritization noise study for properties along <br />Trunk Highways with in their jurisdiction. This will be done in the spring of 2003. <br />The above mentioned portion of TH 10 is included in the study. It is currently <br />ranked 174 out of 800. However, Mn/DOT is re-ranking and reprioritizing the site <br />within the study. It was indicated that this portion of TH 10 could move up <br />substantially. Staff recommends that the City continue to work with Mn/DOT on <br />this study and advocate the installation of a noise wall as soon as possible. <br />