The URL can be used to link to this page

277377 WHITE - CITY CLERK ��/'l• J� PINfC �`s FINANCE COUIICII ��6 �V e BL,�JE RY. - MK'rOR�TMENT � G I T Y O F SA I N T PA U L File N 0. ' Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the completion of the I-35E link in St. Paul has been a long standing issue for the City, and WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Legislature directed the Metropolitan Council to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement analyzing all options for I-35E, and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has completed and released the draft Environ- mental Impact Statement for public review and comment, and WHEREAS, the St. Paul Planning Commission, after completing an evaluation of the alternatives studied in the draft Environmental Impact Statement involving three months of weekly open meetings, a public informatiori meeting at St. Luke's School on July 20, 1981, and a public hearing on August 10, 1981, has recoYmnended completion of I-35E in the form of a modification of Alternative J based on the following findings: 1. Completion of I-35E would provide overall a positive impact on the economic, social, and environmental quality of the City and would be generally supportive of the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. There would be no new significant land use or ecological impacts resulting from a roadway in the Pleasant Avenue Corridor. 3. A Shepard Road freeway alternative would result in significant environmental degradation to the Mississippi River floodplain. 4. A four lane parkway in the Pleasant Avenue Corridor would enhance access to the St. Paul CBD, thereby improving CBD economic development potential, reduce traffic on neighborhood arterials, and adequately accommodate forecasted travel demand. COUIVCILMEN Requestgd by Department oE: Yeas Nays Hunt Levine In Favor Maddox McMahon B snowaite� _ Against Y — Tedesco �Ison Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date — Certified Yassed by Council Sectetary BY By� Approved by ;V►ayor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By BY WHITE - CITY CLERK ��(1�� PINK - FINANCE { C`ANARY�,- DEPARTMENT � COUIICII i �� s�ue . - MAYOR GITY OF SAINT � ALTL File NO. Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date -2- 5. There will be no violations of air quality standards resulting from a four lane parkway in the Pleasant Avenue Corridor. 6. Noise impacts of a roadway on the Pleasant Avenue Corxidor can be signifcantly reduced by prohibiting trucks on a parkway and further, providing mitigating measuxes such as noise walls where appropriate; there would be no significant difference in noise impact between a direct connection or indirect connection of a parkway to I-94/T-35E north. 7. The paxkway alternative on Pleasant Avenue would provide the most positive visual and aesthetic integxation with adjacent residential areas and historic sites. 8. Continuity of the intexstate system is both logical and highly desirable and could be achieved by a direct connection o� the paxkway to I-94/I-35E without significant negative impact on adjacent land use activities in terms of noise, air quality, aesthetic or any other environmental impacts. 9. An improved north-south arterial route between the Lexington Avenue bridge and the Midway area would be highly desirable to accommodate heavy travel demand but additional study should be undertaken to determine if the Short Line is appropriate for this purpose and if so, how the north end of the Short Line should be modified before any connection to I-35E is made or the present truck prohibition lifted. 10. To fully accommodate travel demands of the I-35E corridor, roadway improvements in addition to a Pleasant Avenue Parkway are vitally needed, including, modi- fications to the Common Section of I-94/I-35E, widening of the Jackson on-ramp to I-35E, modifications to Shepard Road to provide lane width regularity, pro- tected left turn movement, and a safe Chestnut interchange, and construction of an East CBD Bypass. COUNCILMEN Requestgd by Department of: Yeas Nays Hunt levine [n Favor Maddox McMahon B snoweiter - __ Against Y Tedesco Wilson Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date — CertifiE:d Passed by Council Secretary BY BY -- Approved by ;Navor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY - – — BY WHITE - CITY CLERK � �y,a�}}}yyy^ PINK `- FINANCE ��_l�� CANARY'- DEPARTMENT COIlIIC1I r�r V 9LUE - - MAYOR G I T Y O F S A I N T PA U L File N O. Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date -3- WHEREAS, the St. Paul City Council has further evaluated the alternatives analyzed in the draft Environmental Impact Statement, findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, and the comments received- at a special public hearing on August 26, 1981 , and WHEREAS, the St. Paul City Council has concluded that completion of I-35E as recommended by the Planning Commission would be con- sistent with the City' s adopted Comprehensive Plan and would provide an overall positive impact on the social , e conomic, and environmental character of the City, and tiVHEREAS, the St . Paul City Council is cognizant of the strong travel demand between northern Dakota County and the Midway area of the City, but has also concluded that further analysis is necessary before any changes can be eonsidered to the Short Line, said analysis to evaluate design options for the north end and access points along the roadway, traffic valumes and speeds, noise, air c{uality, aesthetic, and land use impacts , residential street impacts of forecasted non-local traffic, and impacts on pedestrian movement, and said analysis to propose mitigating measures for any negative impacts identified, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that the St. Paul City Council supports the completion of I-35E as a modification of Alternative J, as herein described: COU[VCILMEN Requestgd by Department of: Yeas Nays Hunt Levine [n Favor — Maddox McMahon B snowaite� _ Against Y Tedesco Wilson Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By. Approved by ;Navor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Councii BY - — BY WNITE - CITV CLERK [��('1�� PINK i- FINAf�CE COLLnCII � �t •i �CANARV,- DEPARTMENT GITY OF SAINT PALTL File NO. r,•• � BLUE - MAYOR Co�ncil Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date -4- l. Construction of a four lane parkway in the Pleasant Avenue Corridor from West Seventh Street to downtown St. Paul including: a. prohibition of trucks ; b. 45 mile per hour speed limit ; c. a raised, landscaped median and roadsides ; d, architecturally treated lighting; e. continuous pedestrian and bicycle paths to be located, where feasible, within the existing right-of-way; f, appropriately located and designed pedestrian crossings and noise mitigation measures; g. grade separated interchanges at Shepard Road, West 7th, Randolph, Victoria, St . Clair, Grand/Ramsey, Kellogg and a grade separated crossing at 5th/6th Street crossing , and the design of these intersections should be reviewed by the affected communities; h. direct connection from the Parkway to I-94 east and I-35E north; i. major modifications to the common section of I-94/I-35E to provide lane continuity and to eliminate weaving. 2. Widening of the Jackson Ramp from llth Street to I-35E north. 3. Improvement of Shepard Road to standardize lane widths, and provide shoulders , protected left turns, and an upgraded intersection with Chestnut, and the design of this intersection should be reviewed by the affected community. 4. Construction of an East CBD Bypass to connect Shepard/Warner Road to I-35E at Arch/Pennsylvania. 5. Continuation of the truck prohibition on the Short Line and no conn- ection of I-35E to the Short Line until further study has been completed and a satisfactory resolution of traffic problems at the north end has been determined b the Cit Council and be it further � COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Butler In Favor Hozza Hunt Levine __ Against BY — Maddox Showalter Tedesco Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Vassed by Council Secretary BY B� /lpproved by iNavor. Date _ � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By BY WHITE - CITY CLERK 'j /�� PINK • - FINANCE n C.ANARY� - DEPARTMENT G I TY O F SA I NT 1 �.0 L COUt1C1I ti� �� L,UE •- �MAVOR File N . Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date -5- RESOLVED, that the St. Paul City Council requests that the Minnesota State Legislature adopt the appropriate legislation to permit completion of I-35E as hexein described, and be it further RESOLVED, that upon receipt of the final Environmental Impact Statement in 1982, and in the event that any new or significant information is introduced to the public review recoxd of the draft EIS, the City Council will evaluate fuxther its support of Altexnative � as modified and described herein, and be it fuxther RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Council hereby transmit this resolution to the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration, and the Ramsey County delegation to the Minnesota State Legislature. COUNCILME[V Requestgd by Department of: Yeas Nays 1'lunt �evine [n Favor — �Maddox �NIIcMahon �,�oe� _—�__ Against BY �'��°°- 1981 SEP �7 Fotm Appro by City Att n y Adopted by Council: Date — Certified a-- by C un � Secre ry BY B � App y 1Aavor: �� QR1 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By BY p HED S E P 19198� . . ;��1��`� CITY OF SAINT PAUL ;��...a OFP`ICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL •��ee�e�ese !��e�eB RON MADDOX KARL NEID, JR. Councilman Legislative Aide September 2, 1981 Mayor George Latimer St. Paul City Council Members A1 Olson, City Clerk Attached is a copy of the resolution on the agenda for September 3, relative to I-35E. The resolution is lengthy due to three considerations: technical, legal, and public interests. The bottom line of the resolution is the completion of I-35E as a parkway in the Pleasant Avenue Corridor with prohibition of trucks; direct connection with 35E; improvements to the common section in downtown St. Paul;� continuation of truck prohibition on the Short Line; and no connection of 35E to the Short Line until a further study is completed; and the study of the Short Line would include the general parameters as outlined by the Short Line Coalition. The resolution, upon our passage, will be directed to the Metropolitan Council, MDOT, and the Ramsey County Delegation of the State Legislature. If you have any questions, please f el fr e to call. Sin rely, R Maddox ouncil President RM:das cc: Peggy Reichert CITY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 6l2/298-4475 �C�� . t CITY OF SAINT PAUL �` " �� s_e:esaae OFFIC�L' OF TH�' CITY COIINCIL uae�m�ue ��r�� RON MADDOX KARL NEID, JR. Councilman Legislative Aide September 2, 1981 T0: Mayor George Latimer City Counc� FROM: Ron Maddox;4-Council President A1 Olson, City Clerk Below is a li.st of the communications and testimony that the City Council has received from many interest groups on the issue of 35E. These organizations either submitted their communications at the hearing, directly to the Office of the Council President, or directly to the City Clerk's Office. The list is not inclusive of individual letters that we have received as there are many. It would be my suggestion that a motion be made at the Council meeting tomorrow (Sept. 3) incorporating this letter into the public record. SPEAKERS Tom Fitzgibbon, Planning Commission Senator pon Moe Senator Marilyn Lantry Rep. Fred Norton Rep. Wally Hanson Rep. Frank Rodriguez Rep. Tom Harens Tony DeZie1, Trades f� Labor Assembly Greg Felice - RIP 35E Margaret Martin, Lex.-Hamline Comm. Council Dick Smith, Snelling-Hamline Comm. Council Dick Gunderson, District 11 Phil Gersmehl, Tndividual Gordy Erskine, Merriam Park Comm. Council Sherry Chenoweth, Wilder Park Residents Phil Getts, RIP 35E Charles Rauschnaut, Assn. of Commercial Clubs Dave Thune, West 7th Comm. Council John Manillo, District 17 DCDC Ann Gilsdorf, 1380 Portland Bob Van Hoef, Operation 85 CITY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SA1NT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 6l2/298-4475 �O . � . � � �� , -a- SPEAKERS (cont.) Dick Zehring, Swmnit Hill Abe Rosenthal, Ml�ii. Transport Services Assn. Ralph Brown, WESCO Glen Peterson, Individua.l Mark Jirsa, Railroad Island Community Cindy York, Individual COMMUNICATIONS Wesley Schultz, Individual Perry M. Wilson, Jr. , Individua.l Cindy York, Tndividual (Speaker) Phil Gersmehl, Individual (Speaker) James C. Bryan, American Postal Workers Union Tom Harens Richard Radman, Bldg, $ Construction Trades Council Bob Van Hoef, Operation 85 (Speaker) Abe Rosenthal, MN. Transport Services Assn. (Speaker) West End Business Professional Assn. Chamber of Commerce West 7th Federation Irvine Park Assn. DCDC Wilder Park Association (Letter � petition) Dakota County Board of Commissioners Burlington Northern Ramsey Hill Association Short Line Coalition Summit Hill Association RM:das f�►�'��`� AGENiDA OF THE COUNCIL August 26th, 1981 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS -�'CITY .HALL'�.& COURT HOUSE Albert B. Olson, City Clerk I. PUBLIC HEARINGS Hearing to consider Planning Commission recommendations on the I-35E Environmental Impact Statement. � � �� August 3, 1981 Albert B. Olson, City Clerk 3� City Hall St. Paul, Minnesota Dear Al: Please be notified that I have called a special meeting of the City Council for Wednesday, Au�ust 26th, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall, to consider the Pla,nnittg Com�r►ission recommendations n the I- Environmental Impact Statement. � Council Pr sident We, the undersi�ned Councilmen, do hereby waive written notice requirements for a special meeting of the City Couneil on Wednesday, August 26th, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council C bers for reason tated above � , • � . . ' . }. . � � . � �.7�� 7 i � � ; -, � � . , , . , ' . , . , ; , , - . r . ; � , � - � _ , ; _ , � ; , , , � ; _ . , . _ � . : f ;; . � , , , , . � , : , _ , � - / � � . , �aiy''30, �981 . �, . ; ; , , ' � Pe13gy Reichert �, I ; , ' � Depu�y Director tor �R.soning , . � , : - 11th F}.00r� City Hs1]. MnieY . ' ' • ` • Desaic I�isa Reie�ert s � , ; I . , _ _ � , The Ait�' Cq�il #,os3eky adoDtwed a motioa sftt3og s date oi b�a�� u�uat th, ].981 at 7a30 P.l�t. in t.�e t�ouoafi t�ambers to , I �oc�sider ,�he Plarwing Comoaission rec�sadati�s on ttie I•3�E ; . � � Srtviron�ental Impact St,ate�ent. ' � i�til]� yau pleaae take the necebaery etaps #'or �rol�er notii"l.�atio�s ', � of this heariagY ' � � � j , • Very tru�y yours� ' ; . : , . ; • • ( . ; r . • Alber� B. Oleon ' � � City Clerk , r I . , . . . ; — �. , ; .. a AHO i1t � . . , , ' , j . - . . , � ,. ; • .. � . . � , , � . ; � ,: � �, , - � , , , ; _ , . _ � � , . `, � " � � . . - . _ ; . � _ . _ , � _ � � . , �� t . , J , { _:� � , �;: i ; - ;. � ` ' � � . , � \ � � , �_ . • 1v ��8 �•*r�, CITY OF SAINT PAUL 4 y . � �°o '"'' a� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � �nnt�tnn +� � un ��u � '2,+• „�Q %• � DIVISION Of PLANNING !'�' �� 251Nest Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnetota,55102 GEORGE LATIMER 612-298-4151 MAYOR July 28, 1981 Counc�l Presldent Ron Maddox � 7th Floor City Hall . St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 Dear Councilman Maddox: As you know, the Planning Commission is nearing the end of its review of the I-35E Environmental �mpact Statement. �"Fie Comnission's recorrrmendations will 6e transmitted to the City Council on or a5out August 17, 1�81f I would like to reques� that the City Cowncil , 7n ant-icipation of considering that recorranendation, set a pu6lic fiearing date for August 26, 1981 , at 7:OQ P.M, Tn the City CouncTl Chambers. . Sincerely, � /�' e . � . _ �� Peggy A. Reichert • Deputy Director for Planning cc: A1 O1^-��, City Clerk PAR:DKS:mh 1�", �-,, ;� f. � '�� ,, - � �; Y ✓� * � / O � � / �� AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY ROSEMARY J FRANR , being duly sworn on oath, says: that he is, and during '`'' all times herein stated has been, Clerk of the ' '�'"'�" ` Northwest Publications, Inc., publisher of the "` " newspaper known as the St. Paul Dispatch, St. �''� "�' Paul Pioneer Press, St. Paul Sunday Pioneer Press, a newspaper of general circulation within -4. the City of St. Paul and the County of Ramsey. �� That the Notice hereto attached was cut from � �„ the columns of said newspaper and was printed and published therein on the following dates: �o��. � 1�� day of August , 19 $1� day of , 19 day of , 19 day of , 19 day of , 19 d ay of , 19 day of , 19 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1�� day ��f , 19 ��. %�%� . � Notan Public Washington County, Minnesota My commission expires Oct 10 , 19 � x e�4AAy��AA1u►,� F��,� za�, �-j�� N07ARY PY M R��A�P4 �J wASFitNG70N , 5�7A Ex kes OcUNpy � k�roy�nissron p t►syod 19d7 mvv��'�,�,�,��,� . � AFFIDAVIT OF PUBI.ICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA COUIYTY OF RAMSEY ROSEMARY J FRANK , being - ;,;,,�,,,,K„�,,,�,��,:� duly sworn on oath, says: that he is, and during ��'�wRO+N"ff w`��"`" r all times herein stated has becn, Clerk of the -�."""'„�sT��"�`� � � 7 Northwest Publications, Inc., publisher of the ,=,�vrw�.+e.r:��n.H.i..; �citi% �ca�i c ie.es i��t ,,,F,,,,�„�„.,,,,;#. newspaper known as the St. Paul Dispatch, St. �,'•n a:o�k`�«`�"�w:� ��S� P� �� Paul Pioneer Press, St. Paul Sunday Pioneer ;�,;;,�,�^;��„�,,,, Press, a newspaper of general circulation within �,,,,��.+.�:�,�+�� . 5,.,.m.,,+cE�:,�.�,.� the City of St. Paul and the County of Ramsey. ; �'��«,�M.�,.�..�- ; .�twe.roa n»GM.c°"inq is +�+*�°�"�!�'°t"«'� That the Notic� hereto attached was cut frorn �k�� F�°"��,,o,,,,.«��`+� the columns of said newspaper and was printed �w�'�o�,��°`�+•�� and published therein on the following dates: �' �on,re o.r.bom•nf.t m-uN:.. _ , �,o..�w�.�.,:� 14th day of August , 19 8I day of , 19 day of , 19 � day of.�-_: , I9 day of , 19 day of , 19 day of , 19 Subscribed and sworn to before me this �� day �►f �,ugust , 19 �1_._ . %�� • . Nocary� Publ;c Washington Cc��nty, MinnPSOta My commission expires Oct 10 � �9 87 a 4Aa�A.�Aaac►aa�►maAaa4wa�ra4a,c+.a�c4a4na�� ;�+c. KAY M RITCHIE � • ;� c},1 `'`=��t�� UOTARY PJBltC• �!tf�McSOTA F'��nn •2�u, ^` �J:� VVAS!-flt3GTON COliNTY �'.`-.F tdy CCmmiss:an Expires Oct.10,1987 � '. ��"�'tl'�'� �� U �� '�� 1 r�� '� X .r s� � � �'`-��' ��,.,�'` 41,,�Zz1�. �'�tZ..�s� �'l`�S N-OQ�Z-1 N� �6 , �' n . �;,,,�,�,�, ��0 �� - � a� y ,� �� ,� ��, ,� �,,..�..► ��. � �' �� r�� , �. � � � � � �� 1��'�� c.�,�-e- , � � ..r � ;,� � r�{ '`,t�,rr �.�,•�-4�.�-,��.,��'.'� (I�---r�� ,� � ,� ':�� 4�� ,E �. �� F � . . ,�"`��..:�.��tLl ,�.� �,� „�; �� l,..�;.�t,.�'t\ {��..s' yL �a� ' i � � 7�� , � � � U�. �- , ,.,� ,o..�--� �P � . , . , _ _ � �, , �_ ` , �K�� s ��5..�� ,w� �� +c�r a 1 Ti-��-L �J �r��LGJ /�UC. �e � � � �� .�, �'� 6 4.� � ,�.�e . �' ��;� _ �� w � �. d.a �� .i.� - rTS-=-r+,�"-- a./6 f ��`ECf7r ', �`/,r c� �� , /5'�s,lo�,� G�/�ic�G� s�'.Z. `\� ' ��' , �b i�G� � � � �� . ,-7�`� � r� << � � �-j-�� c--� ��-- .�.� �� l��c'� �—�;�� . - /��U►� �� a� ��-� ��. �'h �` �/�I,s � �h orr,-/c�u-�-G �F� , � `�' {�t a'G�;�IM� �i��y�— �� ,� �t�ir�,� � � � �,� ��.�-��. ' �'.36' ' �,�u � � ��—�v!� Ger - ''� rc�df k �� _ ��v�N��c� �� C, ,�r� �J� _ --___- � � ��r� . _ _ _ ' S �`�.� ..� ��,� .,C�.,�.� � �pti� i C� �� / � �/ � . s�� s ,��- � '�''ow.��} �bbea 1"'� � e,��.�.rt- - +�:.a� 1 Q,,�r'.��-r�rh.. �� e� �o� -�• V'�� - L��s�Z'o�s .�.. �o �� ,� a �`� � . a,,,,r,,,� �/"/`�'b N � ��Z 1 G 1` (�i„� • � • .,,,� �� t��c�...- -- IZ 1 L'� 3 S� . � �,,,"'— ��.�c-t,�� s�,�a ... w��vc,s�tc.-F M�fi�.J � 3�` S�tg� 1��. C�+�,►s��. �5s�3��isa �p ��k s �; ��h. �s��z ��z,�- 9 � �W:�c�Cwi•+o�.Yso� '�3 2'�+.�...�a . �o�o��t�vc..J� Z�33 p�,�{,�.J s.i� J - Sh� ,��G.��•#� �1`�s�c1� v� . �„� G��+s — �� N r�� t s�o� 13�3 d ��,r�l�,N� — , . $ � �� - n � b P ,` �I��r , u � � 1 � � . � �.s� - �.��. - ,� �w� August 23, 1981 964� Lombard Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota ,55105 Victor Tedesco St. Paul City Council St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear r1r. Tedesco: On Wednesday, August 26, you will be considering a recommendation by the City Planning Commission for a direct connection between the proposed parkway and the Interstate system. ' For the sake of the neighborhoods of our city, I urge you to oppose that recommendation. Instead, I hope you will support "Alternative J", the plan for multiple routes to dosntown. Too many cities in our country have gone downhill because of city planners' ea.gerness to run freeways through their neighborhoods. Sincerely, YV Wesle�ultz Y � �. "7 "� � "� � MICHAELJ.DOHERTY11882-19731 DOHERTY, RUMBLE & BUTLER ALAN I.SILVER WILFRID E.RUMBLE(IB91-197i) ROBERT H.WENNER PIERCE BUTLER,JR.11693-19571 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ELIEN HIGGINS J.C.FOOTE JAMES R.CRASSWELLER IRVING CLARK JOHN A.YILEK THEOPHILRUSTERMOL2 ATTORNEYS AT LAW BRUCEC.FAULKEN FRANK CLAYBOURNE JEFFREY B.OBERMAN PIERCE 9UTLER CYNTHIA S.ROSENBLATT JOHN L.HANNAFORD I500 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING GREGORYA.KVAM PERRY M.WILSON,JR. ROBERT S.BRILL JEROME HALLORAN SA1 NT PAU L, M I N N ESOTA 551 OI PENELOPE N.CAIRNS JOSEPH M.FINLEY MARC W.LARSON HENRV D.FLASCH DAVID P.DYSON � EUGENE M.WARLICH TELEPHONE (612) 291-9333 CARTER G.BISHOP JAMES K.WITTENBERG THOMAS A.CONNOP ROBERT L.DAVIDSON JOHN J.MSGIRL�JR. WRITER�S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER AMV B.SADOFF THOMAS E.ROHRICHT RICHARD H.IEHRING BOYD H.RATCNVE JANICEL.OZZELLO BURTON G.ROSS ELIZABETM HOENE RALPH K.MORRIS MARY E.PROBST BRUCE E.HANSON LISA M.HURWITZ J.LAWRENCE MSINTVRE MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE qNNIHART WERN2 RICHARD A.WILMOIT JOMN G.HOESCHLER 3750 IDS TOWER KAREENYR.CK UND ON WI�LIAM J.COSGRIFF RICHARD B.PETERSON MINNEAPOLIS�MINNESOTA 55402 NEVIN R.HARWOOD RONALD A.ZAMANSKV DEAN R.EDSTROM �NI�LIAM L.SIPPEL C.ROBERT BEATTIE TELEPHONE (612I 340-5555 DAV�D G.MARTIN STEPHEN T.REFSELL TELEX 290-635 GEORGE L.MAY OF COUNSEL WILLIAM J.HARGIS ( FRANCIS D.BUTLER T MOTHY R.OUINNLL August 24� 1701 HAROLD JORDAN DANIEL W.dBRIEN WILLIAM B.RANDALL Mr. Victor Tedesco City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Councilman Tedesco: I am writing as a concerned citizen, a resident of Crocus Hill living at 10 Crocus Hill. I was most disturbed about an article in the Dispatch indicating that the fact that the Crocus Hill neighbors did not appear at the hearing before the City Planning Commission indicated a "dissipation" of support for the indirect connection of the parkway with i-94 or perhaps that the supporters felt that the battle had been won. As one who has been opposed to any further development along the so-called "Pleasant Avenue Corridor" I can tell you that my interest and those of the neighbors with whom I have talked has not dissipated nor do we believe the battle will be won until this entire matter is resolved. I personally believe that the initial planning for 35-E was a mistake and the mistake became most apparent as the years went by. Those wishing to complete 35-E are now leading with the charge "Let's get on with it." In my opinion, this will result in getting on with a mistake and compounding it. I am not really in support of the "Alternative J" even with no direct connection. In my opinion, if those who live to the south want a quick method of getting into town other than LaFayette, this could easily be accomplished by terminating the "freeway-parkway" at Duke Street and providing for a continued interchange at the Grand Avenue-Ramsey Hill intersection as well as a full interchange at Fifth and Sixth Streets. This resolution should satisfy the Chamber, since it will bring people into downtown and not whizzing through, as well as the Trades and Labor Assembly since their major concern is that jobs will be created. ; ; � �� • ' � ,.___ ,__.._._. _ ;._ _ __ _ ._ __._..._ ____. .__--__ .. .. _. __ __..._. ___.____. ___ ___..... - -.. __ - _. _.. � __ : 1ea� �- � _ __ .__ 3 r.� � ��.�,� _�_��.,__ __. _._ � _ _ t _; __ �h�� _�-�� _--��- C�1�c�o�.i�i� � 5_ 7__ ____.._ ._. . _ __. _. _ _ _ __ .-� --ln -��CIC,_ __ �u,!__��i�c.�__,___ l�a __�.v1.�_ _ �%1�� . . `l . _ _. ____.___ _ --_.____ __ _ __ _ _ _.__�__� f:� _ _ _S��1�_ _ �6?�, ._ . ��e--1r'_. . _ ►�'a�� _ _. _ ___.._.. � r ° � _ __ __ ._ __ _...�__.._� c� __ __1 � /�,�e- __ `�� _ ��,�,�► � _. _. ___ ___ _ _ _.. .._. _. ____� ___. __ l�-� _ __ �� ✓� __��1 c�_--..��rv�5 � __ .�r�_� _ _- -. � _ _ _t _ _ �� _� ___ _ ��c�s�?�=E'�� _ __.. __D_Gt, __.___ _��Q.� �!��f--r__ _._.__ ___ � _ � ��. ; � _ _ _�__ _��.__.� _ _ n��._ __ a __ _m��+� � �__ _ _ . 1 i __ _ ,_�'�✓l__ l�_�? c.�.. __ YYIz� V�-- �f�'___ .�,__ -�t iM_� _ _. . , , �- , ,. _ � �-xf� n.�� _ � �� rn _o� �h� ��s�_ -�� _ _ _ __ __. _ _ __ . � � _ _. _ ? ?��-Q,� d� I,c)Dv 1 c�. . '�`°-,.. .�- _ ��LV1,C:�- . - - --__ . ._. __ ��r� _. . ��, _ __ � __ __ _ _ '� _ . ___ ._ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ _._ ___ __ _ _ ._______�._ . _ _ __. __ .___ _._ _ ��- � � � J. ... _ i ..___. ..___._... .. ._...�. . . .. . . _. . . . __..._ . _ ... .. _ .� . . .. . . . . . . ._.. . ... _.. _ ... .... . _. .. . . . .. ._ .. . . .. . .._. . . . . . ... .. .. ..... __. ..... ..._. . .. . . . . � . . . . . .. . _ . . . . .. ... _ .. .. . . . . . ..'- - - ...___-. _. .._r __. _.__ . . . . _.. . . _ . ___... _... . __. _ _.. { __...__.._._ _...... ..... .... _"'.*. . ....... ...._ . _. ..._ ' .. . .... _. _._._""_. . _ ........_"_._...._._... _ .__...... . _. . _.. ..._ .__....._. ..._.. .... � ......... . ....._... ._...... . ... .......... ..... � . 1 __ _ t _ _ _. ___ _. __ _ _._ _ ....... _.._ _ ____ .__ ___..___ __ ._. __ .._ _ _ _ _ _ __ _._. .__... ---- _ ._ ___ i ____ _ _ . _.._ .._---._. _ - __ _ .--_....__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ - __ -....__.._. � _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ __ _ . ID: Phil Gersmehl , Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Minnesota But my comments here are hardly the official position of the Golden Gophers My profession may be described as concern with assessment and mitigation of .environmental impact, particularly as it relates to soils and plant communities. It was my testimony, in part, that got the Short Line added to the I-35E EIS. At that time, the highway planners were still using an obsolete official estimate _ of around 12,000 vehicles per day as the projected Short Line traffic after hookup with I-35E. I made an independent calculation (using a 20-sector 0-D model ) of • about 27,000 and presented it a� a hearing. Someone accused me of inflating the figures for effect, and, as I recall , I got a wee bit nasty and suggested that � whoever made the city's calculations might have done so in full knowledge of the mandatory threshold of 13,500 vehicles per day for a full EIS. Since that time, separate traffic forecasts by the state and the metro council have all been in the 26 to 30 thousand range, with a few technical problems still to be solved. My point is not to argue who's right in forecasting. My point is that Federal law requires a full EIS for any urban traffic link with a potential volume above a threshold (I believe it is still 13,500, but there was talk about changing it to 15 or 20 thousand. In any case, the probable Short Line traffic is still well over the threshold) . You're not in a position to be deciding whether to proceed with or without a study -- you simply cannot connect the Short Line without a full and adequate EIS. Point 2 is that the present EIS is simply not adequate. I could bog us down in . technical details about traffic models and soils, but the inadequacies are much more profound. Pages 148-9 identify the problem of traffic congestion at the north end of the Short Line; they propose to solve it by extending the Short Line north along the railroad right-of-way to Snelling. This would involve some relocations and neighborhood disruption. In oral comments, Ghaleb and others - have said that virtually all properties north of Selby from Snelling to the railroad would have to be condemned; a few on the east side would also need to be moved to allow the Selby Bridge to be reconstructed. However, the section on Takings and Relocations (page 161 in the draft EIS) makes no mention of the need to condemn property at the north end. And the table of costs of various alternatives also ignores the question. If you use the EIS as a guide for planning, you will be acting on the basis of very incomplete and misleading information about the true impact, both economic and environmental , of the project. This problem is especially acute in the light of two historical facts. 1 ) In 1976, at a zoning hearing, the city vacated and sold a property along the railroad right-of-way, squarely in the path of the Short Line. The community was told, and I quote, "extending the Short Line along the railroad is neither necessary nor desirable." Acting on the basis of that assurance, many people north of Selby have rehabilitated old structures and made a considerable investment in their houses. 2) In 1978, the District l3 Plan stated the District's opposition to a Short Line hookup, but it also wrote in a "what if" clause. That provision said that if, in the interests of a larger constituency, the city should decide to connect the Short Line to I-35E, the city should protect the neighborhoods at the north end. Specifically, the plan and accompanying memo called for before- and-after measurements of conditions at the north end and a procedure to allow residents to choose relaocation if conditions should deteriorate significantly. Though this provision has been repeatedly called to the attention of the EIS team, no measurements have been made. Any Short Line hookup without them would make a mockery of the District planning process. ��. St. Paul, Minnesota Area Local of �,.'; ;� ��,y� ;W v � � �rrYerican ��ogtar �or�erg �nior�, �.,�'�=�L3�� AFFILIATED WITH - MINNESOTA AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR - CONGRE55 INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZF.TIONS ST. PAUL TRADES & LABOR ASSEMBLY. AFL-GIO MINNESOTA FEDERATION OF LABOR. AFL-CIO MAILING ADDRE55 BOX 3065, MAIN POST OFFICE ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55765 612 227-6912 �o August 19, 1981 � ptf6 2 0 �ss� Mr. Ron Maddox COUNC{LMAN President RON MA��X St. Paul City Council 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Sir: I am sorry that _�T ��°rl�c hearing on August 26th on the subject of I-35F �. `P�/ �� ' �etter become part of the record. A.�.�� • L On �'1 For the recor� /�, O' • ��_n �'" '� �t Nebraska, St. Pau1 $T P��CBOX 3��O I realize th � �N. g51 been aimed at all the facts an� 65 �d repetition. As you are If inection of I-35E Parkway a y�u hdve ;a to do the project riqht. be i dhy queSt• �nection denies betweenytheeto Tuesd my of�1Ce °n Mon2pns, = w�11 � safe connection One argL ay o� nex� Week. ddy ahd .s that it allowed flexibility l nt g at some time in i the future, r'Yan ct connection could be bu.` � argument because the funding Anoth ion. It must be rememberec :hin the common section, direct connection is made c :h completion funds. If an in- rtment will have to go searchir :ommon section. So we are, in essen��, MNDOT's preliminary plans for the direct connect�..__ m in the common section. f ' ` Page 2 August 19, 1981 As a member of the Executive Board of the Trades and Labor Assembly and Chairman of its Civic Committee, I have supported and support the Trades and Labor Assembly's position; namely, that if a direct connection is achieved, we can support the rest of Modified 'J' , primarily that the Shortline will not be connected directly with the Parkway and the Shepard Road East CBD bypass project. As a member of the Planning Commission of the City of St. Paul, I totally supported the resolution that came from that body which is before you. • I appreciate your time and attention, and urge you to support the direct connection. Sincere , �,.--� --. . ._._ ` � ��-_'` J�me C. Br an � , cc: City Council Members File ,� ,� ,�.� Minnesota �� Thomas.1. Harens ��; �jOUSe Of District65B G��` � Ramsey County ;,��=, '�" • Committeea: =��.=._� Representat�ves Energy -=��' Generat Legislation and _ Harry A.sienen,dr.,Speaker Veterans Affairs -�� Chairman,General Legislation and Vet�rans Affairs Subcommittee Labor-Management Relations ReappoRionment and Elections � Vice Chairman,Ramsey County Delegation `�'�''�� ' � �� ! ' ��Z �J � i ' //c e7N� j• ^ � • !IA,IJ C%� , L�� LE`i� ` � C—� � ' .�t� t � , ; , T� �� . .�- �� o�� ,� � � � . � �� ; �� . - ,,.� _� ti ; , � �� , ;- z� ��_ , ��__. - 'GZ Reply to: ❑299 State Office Building,St.Paul,Minnesota 55155 Office:(612)2967801 i,�� ❑ 260 Elm Street,St.Paul,Minnesota 55102 Home:(612)291-1738 �`"' i! � S pF�one 224-9445 � � „ t�FRIIDppO ��`a*s�tv4�p;�! f Z9 � �WYYY Q °� �'A � * —l�� o-' 1 . . • � ��,4L_!_'.a_cq �'� . Bu�8�1i� and Constr�r�teon Trw�es �s'��'�'��! �ovn�il � � �0��0.i0.��`�~ � f�NO�sta��°� LABOR TEMPLE� �� STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 August 25, 1981 � t AFFILIATED UN10NS • . _ ASBESTOS WORKERS NO. 34 BOII.ER MAKERS NO. 647 r��'j��/ � {\V�✓ �" ... . . BRICKLAYERS NO. 1 i BRICKLAYERS. MASONS & , PLASTERERS NO. 9 � CABINE7 MAKERS& MILLMEN No. 1252 �, Ron Maddox, President CARPENTERS NO. 87 � � � Sain� Paul City Council CARPEhJTERS IVO. 957 City Hall and Court Hou�se CEMENT MASONS NO. 560 Saint Paul , Mn. 55102 ELEGTRICAL WORKERS No. 110 ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS No. 9 Dear Sir: GENERAL DRIVERS NO. 12O GLAZIERS NO. 1324 The Saint Paul Building and Construction Trades Council HOD CARRfERS& LA60RER5 presented the attached resolution to the Convention of r�o. �32 the T�Iinnesota Building and Construction Trades at _ IRON.WORKERS NO. s�2 __ Duluth, Minnesota on August 21-23, 1981. - LArHERS No. 483 LINOLEUM WORKERS NO. 596 The Minnesota State Building Trades Council adopted the MANo E�&STONESHOPMEN resolution and recommended that it be adopted by the Mi��wRi�Hrs No. 548 Minnesota AFL-CI�. OPERATING ENGINEERS No. 49 We will not be able to attend the Council Hearing on PAINTERS NO. 61 Wednesday, August 26 but we wish to have this letter PILE DRtYERS NO. '18417 and resolution entered into the record. PIPEFITTERS NO. 455 PLASTERERS NO. 20 PwMeeRS No. 34 Slrl ely� RooFERS No. 96 ',� � � SHEET METAL WORKERS •, � �7 No. 76 � / S�GN PAINTER5 NO. 880 unT�T� ni1 SPRINKLER FITTERS NO. 417 RI 11t1L1L C. Rt�L N� TERRAZ20 WORKERS NO. 5 Secretary TERRAZZO WORKERS HELPERS No. 107 TILE LAYEP.S NO. 18 TILE LAYER HELPERS NO. 34 �i°J 1 . , RESOLUTION WHEREAS , the proposed interstate 35E link in the City of Saint Paul is� an important element in the transportation system of the region and is especiallq important as it connects and serves the City of Saint Paul , and WHEREAS , transportation and planning studies over the years have established the City' s need for a new roadway in the Pleasant Avenue corridor , as well as the East CBD Bygass and an improved Shepard Road , and WHEREAS, the 35E link would provide improved access to the down- town area from rapidly growing residential areas in Dakota County and the Southwest and would relieve existing and anticipated traffic congestion on arterial streets in Saint Paul , and WHEREAS , this section of 35E is important to the adopted economic development strategy of the City of Saint Paul, which relies on downtown development as a source of new �obs and tax base to expand the City' s economy and relieve the tax burden on residential neighborhoods , and WHEREAS , this important section of 35E has not been built to date because of the inability of the community to agree on its function , impact, and appropriate design, and WHEREAS , the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council have prepared a draft Environmental Impact State- ment which examines City and regional transportation needs and the role of this section of 35E in meeting those needs , and presents various alternative solutions , and . : WHEREAS , the Office of the Mayor of the City of Saint Paul has selected from the Draft EIS , Alternate J which includes a Pleasant Avenue Parkway , the East CBD Bypass and improvements to Shepard Road and the Jackson Street ramp to 35E , and WHEREAS , public understanding and acceptance of this proposal is necessary for its implementation within the time constraints established for completion of the Interstate system, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that we support the Mayor' s modified Alternative J proposal as a workable solution which is politically and economically feasible and which deserves broad public support in the interest of the City ' s economic growth and vitality , and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that this resolution and supporting data be transmitted to the Metropolitan Council for presentation at the Public Hearing of September 9 , 1981 . 7-29-81 l . � •��-' • l�e` RESOLU`iI�T� I�O. �0 SUBJECT: Completion of 35-E Corridor _R�D T0: SUBMIT`PED BY: Saint Paul Building and Construction Trades Council WHEREASt The position of the Saint Paul Bui.lding and Construction Trades Council was to have a Freewa.y in the Pleasant Avenue Corridor; and WHEREAS: The Saint Paul Building and Construction Trades Cauncil reluctantly agreed to modify its position to allow a parkTaay TN�.th a direct connection to I-9�; and [��iEREAS, The EIS statement just corip7.e�ted verifies trat �osition as the __.__ - best for the citizens of Saint Pau1, the Downtown Busir��ss Community, and the i�ietro Region; and WHEREAS: The State law now appears to require an indirect connection between I-94� and Parkway9 noti•r; -therefores ba it RESOLVID: That the I�Iinnesota State Building and ,Construction Trades Counci� support a direct connection bettreen I-3j Parkway and I-�4; and, be it further RESOLVED: That we support State Legislation to achieve th�s result. opeiu#12�kb . r . a ♦� X� �J � � �77 � � RESOLUTION WHEREAS , the proposed interstate 35E link in the City of Saint Paul is� an important element in the transportation system of the region and is especiallq important as it connects and serves the City of Saint Paul, and WHEREAS , transportation and planning studies over the years have established the City ' s need for a new roadway in the Pleasant Avenue corridor , as well as the East CBD Bypass and an improved Shepard Road , and WHEREAS, the 35E link would provide improved access to the down- town area from rapidly growing residential areas in Dakota County and Lhe Southwest and would relieve existing and anticipated traffic congestion on arterial streets in Saint Paul , and WHEREAS , this section of 35E is important to the adopted economic development strategy of the City of Saint Paul , which relies on downtown development as a source of new �obs and tax base to expand the City' s economy and relieve the tax burden on residential neighborhoods , and WHEREAS , this important section of 35E has not been built to date because of the inability of the community to agree on its function , impact, and appropriate design, and WHEREAS , the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council have prepared a draft Environmental Impact State- ment which examines City and regional transportation needs and the role of this section of 35E in meeting those needs , and presents various alternative solutions , and t , y WHEREAS , the Office of the Mayor of the City of Saint Paul has selected from the Draft EIS , Alternate J which includes a Pleasant Avenue Parkway , the East CBD Bypass and improvements to Shepard Road and the Jackson Street ramp to 35E , and WHEREAS , public understanding and acceptance of this proposal is necessary for its implementation within the time constraints established for completion of the Interstate system, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that we support the Mayor' s modified Alternative J proposal as a workable solution which is politically and economically feasible and which deserves broad public support in the interest of the City ' s economic growth and vitality , and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that this resolution and supporting data be transmitted to the Metropolitan Council for presentation at the Public Hearing of September 9 , 1981 . 7-29-81 • �`,�,,, �� rrr� : � Q� h�� . � i WEBPA � I� ��T ��D BL1SI��S� - . P�,��S�IO��L �� . - �� ,: - --- � .. . _ . � � Fo� � R D BETTER BUSINESS AU6 201981 August 10, 1981 • cour�c:+:MnH RON MADDOX Metropolitan Council and To Whom It May Concern: � The entire Membership and Board of Directors of the West End Business and Professional Ass 'N have beerl ar�d are still on record: Be it resolved that I-35 E Pleasant Avenue corridor fro I=94 near powntown St. Paul to Trunk Highway # 1I0, Dakata County shall be as original planned a Freeway with direct connection. ca;�ayour a��en�ionetoythe �actsnviromen'cal Impa�:t Statement and 1. Alternate A - is the most efficient from the standpoint of Metro mobility and city mobility. A 2. Alternate/is the safest design of all the alternatives. 3. Alternate A. is the least costly of the two A. & J , when the total cost of co,:ple�ingthe two is factored ?_n. 4. Alternate A. will correct the weavingnmvementin the "Common Section " by grade-separating I 35E from I 94 and this cost is- included ir� the Alternate A costs. No costs for upgrading Shepard Road are _ factored in the Alternate J ALTERNATE J vs ALTERNATE A 5. At grade intersections at 5th and 6th Streets under Alternate J - -- 6. Indirect connection would be routed on llth and 12th Streets with at grade intersections with St. Peter, Wabasha, Cedar, Minnesota Robert and Jackson St�eets . What a bottleneck under Alternate J. At grade iritersections are most dangerous type_ Th�y are the least safe. 7. Trucks can be prohibited on the Short Line under Alternate A just as they can be under Alternate J. . 8. Al1 of Alternate A. will be funded from 90-1Q Federal Money. 9 . There are no identifiable sources for the $34 million needed ta up- grade Shepard Road and the Central Business District By-Pass under Alternate J. These dollars cannot come from 90-10 Interstate Funds. 10. Legislation will be needed before either Alternate A or Alternate J can be built. � . , - n . �1,� n, r«� ,. � ; �►� �WEBPA� � � ' 1 ��O��L fl�� 1■s - �� ST �ND 1�SI��SS - I A _ — - \ � For � BETTER BUSINESS � � 10A. When the rest of the Metro Area and the out state areas are made aware of St. Paul ' s squandering its 9Q - I0 3egacy and that St. Paul will be demanding millions from the acutely limited highway funds, thereby reducing the funds needed ta upgrade our secondary road system throughout the state, there wiZl be widespread support from legislators, other than those froin the Summit - Crocus Hill Area, to lift the restrictions on Alternate A and there will be no support to create legislation needed to build Alternate J. 11. If Alternate J is built and is proven to be wrong and inefficient, the 90 - 10 Interstate dollars wi11 no Ionger be available to up-grade it to Interstate Standards. 12. Alternate J is purposely designed to disco�zrage traffic inta and through St. Paul. . 13 . The Economic vitality of St: Paul is dir�ctly related to the accessibility to the City. A case �in point is when the High Bridge was closed, it had a devastating effect on the W_ 7th District, and the Dodd Road Distrcit, and Smith Rve. District. This proved - - - that through traffic in any area creates k�etter expQSUre and therefore more business vitality. It is our firm belief with the facts we have at hand, there is only --- one sensible solution that it is the Completion of I - 35 Pleasant . Avenue Corridor to be completed as c�riginally planned - A FRFEWAY. - Yours truly, -- __. WEST END BUSINESS AND FROFESSFONAL ASS 'N.. � Pres ' e t- Klaren G. ahl _ - , . _ s ,. -_ � - 1 + • ,;��?�� STATEMENT OF ABE ROSENTHAL EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT MINNESOTA TRANSPORT SERVICES ASSOCIATION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF INTERSTATE 35E (I-35E) FROM TH 110 (DAKOTA COUNTYj TO I-94 NEAR DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL BEFORE ST. PAUL CITY CUUNCIL AUGUST 26, 1981 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA MINNESOTA TRANSPORT SERVICES ASSOCIATION (MTSA) IS A 45-YEAR OLD TRUCKING TNDUSTRY TRADE A�SOCIATION OF APPROXIMATELY 100 MOSTLY FAMILY OWNED SMALI� BUSINESS FIRMS INVOLVED IN "FOR HIRE" PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT AND GOODS, PUBLIC WAREHOUSING AND ASSOCI- ATED INDUSTRIES WHO PROVIDE OUR TRUCKING MEMBERS WITH TRUCKS, TRAIL- ERS, TRUCKING EQUIPMENT REPAIRS AND SUPPLIES, ACCOUNTING, INSURANCE, AND OTHER SERVICES. THE FOUNDERS OF MTSA IN 1936 DETERMINED THAT PUBLIC SAFETY AND COUR- TEOUS AND EFFICIENT MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND OPERATIONAL CONDUCT WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF OUR A�SOCIATION. DURING THE � PAST DECADE (1970-1980) OUR SNDUSTRY HAS BEEN DEEPLY CONCERNED OVER STREET USE PROBLEMS IN THE CITY OF ST. PAUL WHICH HAVE BECOME MORE ACCUTE AND REQUIRE REMEDIAL ACTION. MTSA TRUCKING MEMBERS PROVIDE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATTON OF FREIGHT AND GOODS Q.RDERED BY ST. PAUL MANUFACTURERS, WHOLESALERS, RETAILERS, AND CONSUMERS. IT IS THE DEMANDS OF ST. PAUL CITIZENS FOR EFFICTENT, ECONOMICAL, AND SAFE MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT AND GOODS THAT CONTROLS THE MOVEMENTS OF OUR TRUCKS INTO, OUT OF, AND WITHIN ST. PAUL. IN OTHER WORDS, MTSA Ti�UCKING MEMBERS ARE A PUBLIC UTILITY; THAT IS, THEY DO NOT OWN A SINGLE ARTICLE THEY �UL. (SEE MTSA EXIiIBIT 1 AND 2) , . ' � � . �.�a '��'�'� YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER, PLANNER, OR PRACTI- TIONER TO KNOW THAT THE CITY OF ST. PAUL TRUCK ROUTES ARE ARCHAIC, CONGESTED, UNSAFE, INEFFICIENT, AND UNECONOMICAL AND REQUIRE IMMEDI- ATE UPGRADING AND EXPANSION. (SEE MTSA EXHIBIT 5) IT IS IMPERATIVE TI3AT THE CITY GOVERNNiENT OF ST. PAUL RESPOND A� THIS TIME TO MTSA'S PLEAS FOR SAFE, EFFICIENT, AND ECONOMICAL TRUCK ROUTES. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ONLY MATTER BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL THIS EVENING IS THE COMPLETION OF INTERSTATE 35E (I-35E) FROM TRU�TK HIGHWAY (TH) 110 (DAKOTA COUNTY) TO INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) NEAR DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, I WILL LIMIT MY COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE MTSA MEMBERS TO THIS PROJECT. HOWEVER, MY STATEMENT AND TESTIMONY TONIGHT IS NOT '�O BE INTERPRETED. AS IMPLYING THAT OUR ONLY STREET USE PROBLEM IS THIS SEGMENT OF HIGHWAY. THE CITY OF ST. PAUL HAS SEVERE MOTOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC PROBLEMS FROM A SAFETY, ENERGY USE, AIR AND NOISE POLLUTION POINT OF VIEW ON SNELLING, MONTREAL, WEST SEVENTH (FORT RQAD) , CLEVELAND, FAIR- • VIEW, CRETIN, AND OTHER STREETS LOCATED IN THE WESTEFN AND SOUTHERN AREAS OF ST. PAU.L. (SEE MTSA EXHIBITS 3 AND 4. ) THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU IS NOT ONE OF PROVIDZNG ACCESS FOR RESIDENTS OF DAKOTA COUNTY TO ST. PAUL. RATHER IT IS ONE OF MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL FOR SAFE, EFFICIENT, AND ECONOMICAL STREET SYSTEM FOR MOTOR VEHICLES, INCLUDING TRUCKS INVOLVED IN INDISPENS- ABLE FREIGHT AND GOODS MOVEMENT, WHICH WILL PROVIDE AI,TERNATE ROUTES AND RELIEF FROM EXISTING STREETS WHICH ARE UNSAFE, INEFFICIENT, UNECONOMICAL, HEAVILY CONGESTED FOR THE CURRENT �TEHICLE TRAFFIC PATTERNS, A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF WHICH TRAFFIC PROBLEM HAS BEEN 2 . . r� � �� CAUSED BY THE UNCOMPLETED SEGMENT OF I-35E FROM THE LEXINGTON BRIDGE TO I-94 NEAR THE DOWNTOWN. RECENTLY THE ST. PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCTED HEARINGS AND RECOMMENDED COMPLETION OF THE SO-CALLED PLEASANT AVENUE CORRIDOR ` AS A "PARKWAY" (RESTRICTED AGAINST USE BY TRUCKS), DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO 2-94. WIiILE MTSA MEMBERS APPLAUD THAT COURAGEOUS ACT OF• THE CITIZEN MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WHO VOTED FOR THE DIRECTLY CONNECTED "PARKWAY" PLAN ; WE WOULD, HOWEVER, BE LESS THAN HONEST IF WE DIDN'T ALSO EXPRESS OUR SINCERE REGRETS THAT THE COMMISSION FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL LAW CONCERNING PLACING THE RESTRICTION AGAINST TRUCKS USE OF THE FEDERALLY FINANCED ROAD. THEY FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR "EQUAL BUT SEPARATE ROADS" TO SERVE THE NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF FREIGHT AND GOODS MOVEMENT IN ST. PAUL. (5EE ATTACHED LETTER FROM THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTR.ATION TO THE HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER. ) I AM HERE TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE CzTY COUNCIL AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATION,._.BOTH PARTS OF CITY GOVERATMENT, RECOMMEND AND ORDER COMPLETION OF I-35E AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED WITH TRUCK USE AUTHORIZED. AN ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO BUILD A NEW TRUCK ROUTE OR AMEND THE TRUCK ROUTE 'ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE EQUAL, BUT SEPARATE ROAD CONNECTED TO I-94. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT P,PPROXIMATELY 52$ (1977) OF ALL FEDERAL AND 38$ OF ALL STATE HIGHWAY USE TAXES COLLECTED IN MINNESOTA ARE PAID BY OUR INDUSTRY, AND THE ROADWAY IS BEING BUILT WITH FEDERAL AND STATE HIGHWAY USE TAX DOLLARS . (SEE MTSA EXHIBIT 6) TO DATE, AN ESTIMATED $54 MILLION AT 1980 DOLLARS HAS BEEN SPENT. NO SATISFACTORY ALTERNATIVE TO COMPLETION OF I-35E AS PLANNED ORIGINALLY HAS BEEN SUGGESTED IN THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 3 � . �: '��'�'� STATEMENT AND THEREFORE MTSA BELIEVES THAT OUR INDUSTRY RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES UNDER FEDERAL LAW WOULD BE VIOLATED UNDER �HE ST. PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION THAT A TRUCK USE RESTRICTION BE IMPOSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THE METROPOLITAN COUNCII„ AND THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION ON THE ROAD COMPLETED ON THE I-35E CORRIDOR (PLEASANT AVENUE) . TIiAT WOULD BE AN INTOLERABLE SITUATION TO MTSA AND THE CITIZENS OF THE WESTERN AND SOUTHERN PARTS OF THE CITY. AS A HOMEOWNER AND REAL ESTATE TAXPAYER RESIDING WITH 3 1/2 BLOCKS OF THE PLEASANT AVENUE CORRIDOR, I PERS�NALLY HAVE ALSO A CITIZEN'S INTEREST IN SEEING THE FREEWAY COMPLETED TO RELIEVE THE VEHICLE CONGES�'ION ON OUR WESTERN AND SOUTHERN AREA STREETS. IN CONCLUSION, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THP,T YOUR VOTE ON THIS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ISSUE RESPOND ADEQUATELY TO TH£ NEEDS WE HAVE ADDRESSED IN OUR STATEMENT FOR A ROAD BETWEEN LEXINGTON/7TIi STREET AND I-94 DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO BE USED BY TRUCKS HAULING FREIGHT AND GOODS TO ALLEVIATE CONGESTION ON �T. PpiUL'S WFSTERN AND SOUTHERN AREA STREETS. ATTACHMENTS: SEPTEMBER 19 , 1975, LETTER FROM DEAN CARLSON, DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR, FHWA, TO FRANK MARZITELLI, COMMTSSIONER OF HTGHWAYS EXHIBITS: 1. THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE 2. THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE (CONTINUED) 3. ST. PAUL TRAFFIC COUNTS - NO. 1 4. ST. PAUL TRAFFIC COUNTS - N0. 2 5. ST. PAUL TRUCK ROUTES 6. HIGHWAY USER TAXES - 1977 DATA 4 . �� - • -, �-�r , . .; - -� - � , r ' • �. �! • 7 Sui te 490, i�e�i°o Suuz�r•, gu-�7 d9 ng St. Paul, M�i nna�of:�R 55!Ol - ' Sentem:�r 19, 197� Mr. Fran� t3. Marz�tei 1 i ' _ Comnissioner ` Department of Highways St. Faul, Minnesota . . Re: . I 035�-��(19) prvpas�d Speed �c�d Truc{: . Restr3 e�c4 ons i n St. Paul Dear S�w: Foll�:ric�� i� a::r t�:ashzngton at'�� ;°�:,;3��w �o �ur s�bm�lti.�� a� your July 25 let�er. inquiring 3n�a th� z7•Egtbility of Interstat� funds if speed,truck restrictions were placed �n I-35E in St. Pau1. "The maps furnishec! and information cantained in Division Admirt- istrator E. Dean Carlson's August 4 memorandum indicate the environmental problems of constructing this route in the central part of the city, partfculary as the pro�ect would affect four� hospltats. The memorandum also ind�cates that there miyht be reasonab7e, alternative routing(s} available for througn trucks if they are prohibited from using preseatiy-designated I-35E between . Short Line Road and I-94. � Approval of the restriction of trucks from a» Interstate route ultimately rests with the Federal Highway Administratar. 8efore we cou7d recomnend restricting trucks from ttsing I-35E in the section � in questian, there would have to be � conclusive showing that there is alternative routing for trucks �vF�ich provides service reasana6ly • comparable to the service I-35E would provide. Rn analysis of the lmpact of the increased truck trafffc on the alternate routing(s) would also be reqat-red. If current Interstate standards are met, we can see no objection to the State setting operating speed limits on this section as a means of easing the noise impact. We understand that the speed limits under consideration would not restrict the cagacfty of t;�e faci l i ty. Current legislation would not aliow "savings" on I-35E ta be used for upgrading other alternative routes." . . . _ � I • ' _ " i -2- 4!e wouicl conclude, therefore, that the� �nviron�ntal Impact State- ment rra;{ deve7op the speed and truck restr�ctions as a vlable aiternate thereby providing the Administrator a means of considering the merlts of such a proposal. Thus, tite official determination can not b� made until �he EIS process is campieted. Sincere�y yours, ,�C. E. Dean Carlson Divtsion Administrator � . � � f}�.....�!.�.....---- ' � �a ,..r�,� � ;"a . � � _ � .f•f��.C� .,� � O . p1Mz V W ^ � � • y � 'i V iN7i +!� �•• N L M N ��/�' �=D" �i t L5� S'� ?n ��"� �' ~� R m H� r ' • a �'�r �N � �� T \��lr/� � ^r . m� �i � � � � n u __ s �ti��N N . •ro o� •! R ' ?i ��f�� / n . . � v,e �� y •: b��I ,�.v ti�r i � ��••''�' ^,"� � � � �o . /� e„ � : • p'� �� •�4� � � _� � g �a � � v� � � = Q�o �V"u ±r rCj, y" � � °�''•�I �� `�y ��f ~�,. �vy � � w ,�, .�� ° � N • a� �N ; - " �� a'°'� .� 6N s'' . � "�� m.� �. Fr c'��S �+'," � �+ ��i. C: � �+' m d� � � ��o�a8 � °� II� � i � O� S�C i�TEi� o E� � ��'1O LJ � \ .w W�SOS��p .xr a OM • � �. NY .�.JN sy w � . � r . � �� pW 1 �ii� f7� p�� p, �� D� � o �� . �� j ; �sw mm� :,ro :.� :�� f � ,,.� it m� • , ^�- C 1� y�* � � � �'�� .�i t- �� y . .� y -+ y� NN �./i+ '°+ �u _ � `m'S� � o — ♦ � `° � �`"�E� �' —t - �+ �? � nr g� °'o t5� � `D� � �� .� ,�, .9 . '. �a -r �� Lr� yw o� vaA'k �N Z � � . :►v��D � V W O p O� vii� y 'j � r J � : �� = oY � o � = m a� ,� � a$ , T. �•- ;� . c, � ; . .. '� � . ��"•iJ�`9 0� � s� i n � � —'a � _S Z Z �� o ti' • , • � � �p� � VO ' � �t�,w 'O(�" . � �Q�� X ppy L� �r �.IC�� fl Z — '� "� "� � „� t'u' .��t;' � n[KSON ¢� t - . . —i = v 7t z �' �° °� S-' L � ' - , � �g N , s : �� • � ,�� f� �,.-, � • f � , �a� �Q�� , N yp N �� ( � ,�`- � . ..� {� � Cr�t idO �VV � �� 0 sN O�O O Q " � u � ;N ��' .�u, � �- �i . O m S �� _.�e v=��J'!a �rt°� r0 L ` O . • . • '�v°�3 t;' ,—N � �a . i � �e ��' �yrm� ' �� _ � .r' � �� Yt�l .� . wx . ?�� a !W�LL ;� V� m � � ��S � S � � ° • � y y�O � < •_ ' C D�r =a �+'� • O�•. G = �n �� _s%'' �'7 's . : . . - s � � w� ,peo „� •. . � > : �O � /" � i = �C p �� ' .'L�� 9 S • ' i • r� v � _ � � • ~��SJP + � y ,x., ' OC q . P r- � � . O • N � s . a,� t ,�3SF i_� s . . . .._ r • . z o � • �,cn ��,� z � pLIVE ~ mA mN�: . � �c° " "' �X 7� � N{7� � ' O � •.j ✓"'._ _ � c v �4 � �� ocA,r�rre . - � y �O r �m�� • y$ �f . , : 't N � . / ' _ { � � � .� `'� �°O } . . � ': �'`� •'f ' ' � � � �j- . �-�.- �.�.�..�' . . .�_, • � . � � • ' �. . � � ; F 'ON 1191WX3 1fS1W + • • � . •; •.-. •. ' • , . • . - • � �1 .�� - `�00 T:Z] .. . ' 7!2! ��,. T •• , ' �i•• • � � s,7f . , � LTT . FT'� �� c: f� �� . �� •: �� .�� . . 2� . �Cy,7 ��+?�a7 �� . � ++lO 2ilO .. . � ' � }!pp ' YT/��.� `� � I ^ W Taj tZA , � � � ,� ��r i:� ,�'�► ' r�z�. a-wTS' ' � ls�o �,�,Qn . �7 � Y� a U.l2! ' �l,i1C � � �000 ��\ 17,iOC�+ir' �7l� �.TS�.�A�r'0 � I�QOC • � �aa �loQ 1 ':�. �s�.�� s�z� �a �s ra �� 3�r s� sar s.� �,,,; ��°°J • � Q i- z.*r,. � so•z � _.� / sT r,�. '.� ' Z -.ss a�-'_'��•_..,.... s.-�� . � � � � . ��,! ^� � �`�. �� a�oan ' �__. —_.T . ..r.... - � �� /f,�l0 � . . ]Y.S t /�"'�. `.ti19 � �i 7.?f �rZt L��O � S+'7 wT CC+CC•�10J i SLSiO� � �.f23 3�7i � D,i'� �jC7 �•�.7i t {a3 �!� 77t1 �Ai y� !?i �vaal�at: 7�78 `3 ` � 112D • � I ��76 �qi � r 4 �„ !�lM �� , . s, ,��. 1't! A%70 � �a �7! �i� ' � b�0 y � •� �,7� !-Ti y� �� .7i� . �� . . . � � • N< <�` �7O {�Jb tl400' . � �` , / }� � l70O . OI� �f�� AY�+t � js7� S�Ti 3�7y a'� l�Ji .1?J00 i7i �� 1 7��7'�CC��9�� f �i.7� . � rq� !� � t'7� 7l00 Cn4wQ i.77 11 .,_ �A . 3-� •S�t��i�`}qp . Y ! �i.7� 9 i � ii7! �� . a R 4 II.T74,�'n . !�n U.7� �� . � � • � � � � � � ' N..�• 4ti � N • � Y� ' ^ 3 s-� �. � 3�` � S�Qa" ts7s �ra � • p3] . � � . � y:� . � .a. � � �---�� _' .a. �--�--._.ri� . m...,�, �„ .,��, . w �at �,�° � +.ta " . s.s �� a.°is �e,sss ' • � • � � — r nao Ra.�r. . « 11 }: ..'�. ,.,, s� � �: j ;��_u� « J • "� �-� J : ' � � ' ' � � ' 1 . ? ' r� � . � , � • � . � $ � p,r�v �s ; • /� ' : Le.,-i y� z � � • •� �l � M!0 » 10,�J! �__ �yTq ...}Z�,1 "Otuq � Few.1 l.n r �{ 3.7t �{ aj•f A�r� !�T! . 2l70 � ? � � . MJ�7 � M7f M.]�O � � !,� �Na � }� � �� }� �7 � � Q� � � � "` � at� ('�'� . . � � � �.�a a'�'a.s�a «1/� • . •-r� r �a.n�!". t � .�� *• 2 7r S,Up � �tl2l�"yf.S7 .i.��.'J«� � N! � ' � : 3�K �t �� ' (� . �11. � ]�7a � 1200�!7� � �,y ' � � g, �t�r, t� — �s �+ � «s�► R f� M N22! 1 . -.b � � !s.,a . � �0-�1 �ia�o _ � ' �� 2� � . � � i�,�r�p r' d�. �` � r� b� �� </ Mt� i.7a �1� ! JJ � .�'� �.7{ \ ¢ � { � ~�p, ` i � � p� S'7i ' ' Y77 ` � � t�• / �s �570 =�Qpp • a �` • . ; h77� hs7 � . . � tf �� y� � lQ�4�'7!� , . . M7 K,.� f. � . •.' , . � �� l�7� L` � , �.�� .j�� ;� � ' ��w ....�r...� . , _� . �r/' � ;i . .�� i \ • , ' ��r �� •�� ` ,� . MTSA EXNIB(T N0. 4 � ST. PAUL 7RAFFIC CflUNTS „Z .— �-.-, .f�" 4 - , � .. 4 , �r,_ . ,��r,. .. � /J . Oii M� . MI{ti1f:1�►1 •1V(M �� F�.' .; i , //�� ;��M��`� /�� RHW� � �.:i . ' � ��' r�h.��M y.y.Y?�J +�,.�� ,•� � I �' � � c�� i �ca ° ; . � �r '•� � � � � � ` � � riA�"` � n � � �.� ,.. .� /.► �� . 1 '� � ,�-0 _ �s � ��wM�..:. �s � � /' mcewet ��,� ��R �� .�. . � .� � � � �� ....�.�wwrc. �i t � � ;� . t i ' � � �-.a,�-,•;� � � � � " nsr[ .�;rt , ; <. 1 / � ..�.. `;:�' • 1 . � 1 �:4 1 7 1 lKYN6 � •�" .. 1 � , •: Z�_ � I ♦� 1 1 t 1 A °.� p � \ � � � � �yyw� 'yi t�.'�Y'+�:-. ;p . �, ; � ; � � �� . �� :�t;;.,. ; ; . � ��.. .�.;4 �R .c L. t� � r: -K �� `--�-� � � ;�-. ;� . . .;.� . , � � i � , � '�: �� r�; �'*+�a �� . � �,� �,�,r `` 1 .k,''�.. � . ��r m�Cw��1 1 ...-. �j,A•.�• � S wi�� u��orw � .... � _�1�...��..�...«.�--�� ..•}M ��- � �4 •�.. � � �. '`?�'. � i p . � .a�« :� " �� , zi � � � p �. .,� '�i � � `\ g � f . � ;� � yu :.,.?r.' � , ,,s..a .„ � �;. ':::�t��:�..�.' �� • .o:v. � �<�,^s �►�,��:;-. �' .�'- �sr� � � � ! ' � ' � I , �• ,�4 { k.�i �'�i�°,�' � � ��` ` � 3 x � � � �'�f' 1�'�'. � � 'a..' ; \�.` t, 1 � "� � �.�e ;;.';± �� .��wBtcwr � � ` 2s �R � R R �ipi R R�+ Q � �g � � •� .;.�.' � �� ` � �� ,!� T � + �l �. "„ �r f� i-....: �` . y„�-�+�� \` �+ b" � n y � r"�`r� € � ��S e s e D a � r.... 3, f�:� � . . S Qg M �� , j5 � �� a �" � � ��•Y � �• �'Ir� �r � . � w � � a g ^ s � � '�°' • ..:�`. �.,.a�'."�'"G"�i � � �� -.� � � S g rn z � o � ° • y � � �i s N Sx = �, -i �w:,� � �, �+ 76 « � ; @ � a .� t �3+` / `r «�� "'r � � E•� Y � ' � QS � �' a ^ = � �—� 7aotw,. �, �fi r,. ..�:, ��;,•:� i � � g �� + � � � ��..?k` i .� ,� ' ..- 7.�'`� �: s.�,'.. f ♦r � , @E 1�1� �xE y � \ , � ,. Y � � �� y� ��:+x:t�J� R� � F ��" 6 � w � '�' 1�. !y" ' yF �4'�' '�`t�. ,k!�� Niarll�i�R "I �+ �� a w . ..t 7A' ► � '4 .t...�'e�+* —F•� � s o: M� � � � RT '�1 C�'.a'� •. '. ` � 13�t:dt) �L(:�,� . I' . Rl ( «r�ii�i .r � � 15 :��-A;�'+i'� .� `I/ � M � O ��M 49��' �� 7NS: _ .�'K�7�• .��T+Yrw I � F .� _ �:=. .r � r.,. .�... � � ! N � rT� _,,, `: ti j��;r � a ..��.. I �� ,��x�� ; � � �� ' . . y x � '�'�`:`<,E�;,�.r,'' ; ,.x•k� � � � �' �;'� �� ♦� c �. ' p �� i��ta��+. r��.t,-, �� ,1�i3�`' `r *, 1� . • -n n� � ^; �v..'"� '�� '�:��s'`-"- �� R �� 2cf•'� s � O t� R .�R � w NORTt1 ��*��>�-"`� :iR ��, �'""�� ,. � . � p� � ;� � r. w��y�.�., .� +' �i Z �_ j � � :.�3f bYY1�'�.7_.C_ \`♦ g I �� ,� � �.. '� . . T :� � " S "i�� • � A S �� ; '"s y7��.;x' .y�;' � �� .� '�..�s ; .v � � , �.�.r�±' ') C . ~` � � � �, �♦ � , s.' ♦� � � Rs iy ' :� � r � i r1►�� ..- � �,e yy, ? r � ��i Q � � , �� " �7C��1!'Pt�' �"Lyr�y��i ; � `��MiW—_FIMY �.-��*��' ,� ( r M � � � � � �S r„ �� i" .r t� � _ ~�! ( � _ � t� O � .� ,.s;"`v *t. _'�'�,M'��..�.,'v �d W { �4i�"��.. � � �p s �i .IY 1�~N� ��:��{r'h.r '�1'`f'.rf � � � e�7 � � k�C. �'��.Y�C y,N,tl� , Z E�' � °�'r.�_' j-;"�'�+�� t � E ` r��j�T.�t��1�' � � 6 O� E Q . ;,;;_,. ''nr,:. i Cr i �': � � 1«ji��' f "..''�': �cR� ��M . = t! F' ,�,,. , a �o . � ¢ T ��•r.r I `' f"``�- �:;,. �;�� hxr, �,,��.P r'�� ra' ��35�� '`;''�'r�' ,eea''��,. ?`xs �,i.; ;'un,—"*t�.� . � �y� �Ti�~ �`~ � � � n r ..a� t'Q.e...�� ...�--� . . . �K/a10M►1m � S�, , •� .�� t F 5 'ON � tfS1W� - . .• , , ', �� ! $ . USER TAXES ON TRU CKS MTSA ExxzBZT No. 6 � _ -,, - - __ TOP $8.8 BILLION , . � = `' � Federai and state highway user taxes on ped the S100 million leve! in eight states with � _____. . � trucks exceeded S8.8 biliion in 1977, accord- • California and Texas exceeding the S250 � � �' ing to data from the American Trucking Asso- million mark. � ' r� aations.The revenue amounts to nearly half of . --; � a � � the Federal Highway Trust Fund receipts and � 1 ' more than one-third of al1 state highway-user � �� taxes. _ _. .- -----.. � � - .� ��' It's significant that trucks paid more than , half of state highway user taxes in nine states. Cdlection of Federal highway�er taxes top- � SPECIAL TRUCK TAXES BY STATES, 1977 (In Thousands) STATE HIGWWAY•USER TAXES, 1977 ` State Truek Federal Truck j Highway qf,of Highr�ay 96 of , :. a:" f State User Taxes Total User Taxes(1) Total ,� ' rr � %:;» Alabama.•............. $ 114,473 48.1g6 $ 72,802 58.19(, r,.,� ;y' 37°� Alaska................ 16,7�1 53J 9,474 67.5 r,�,� ;-^ MOTOR TRUCK Arizona............... 97,438 52.5 42,412 54.7 ' ,:�'�.a:;; Arkansas............. 79,801 46.0 45,552 55.5 ' , _„':��, California............. 601,258 35.6 287,449 44.9 a •'+'^^� Colorado.............. 75,195 46.2 45,768 52.1 ''y'`��:,`��'` Connecticut.......... 39,146 16.3 16,532 22A `°��•�� . .... Delaware............. 17,758 32.6 8,412 45.5 Florida............... 199,985 32.4 105,443 42.1 All Moto� Paid By Georgia............... lOS,286 34.4 76,590 43.2 Vehicles Trucks Trock Hawaii................ 11,416 26.4 5,991 35.1 (Millions) (MiQions) Percent Idaho................. 47,715 55.5 20,682 6A.6 IIlinois............... 263,100 34.9 116,821 38.0 Registration Fees.... Z 4,444 $1,828 41.1�, � Indiana............... 171,891 47.8 104,474 56.7 Miscellaneous Fees. . 1,678 552 32.9 lowa.................. 117,961 44.8 -- 54,340 52.9 Motor Fuel Taxes.... 9,319 3,227 34.6 � Kansas............... 96,912 50.1 46,098 56.2 Motor Carrier Taxes. 254 248 97.6 Kentueky............. 151,242 43.8 62,758 55.0 Louislana............. 1Q4,301 46.6 65,327 52.5 Total State Taxes.... ;15,695 �5,855 37.3�, Maine... ............. 30,780 39.1 15,514 46.1 Maryland............. 100,951 25.6 41.650 37J Massathusetts....�.. 66,036 22.8 37,796 28.9 FEDERAL Ii16HWAY • Michigan............. 225,529 35.9 131,910 48.0 TRUST FUND RECEIPTS, 1977 Minnesota..... ..... 20 807 saissippi......:.... . 4 .4 41,756 52.6 " ..... 122,244 38.9.. 79.500 47.9 ':"``t`' Missouri......... �•.�. Montana.............. 43,110 59.4 21,737 64.5 � �^ ,-<:�.��-�.:�� Nebraska............. 64.645 50.2 31,832 57.0 f r Nevada............... 28,594 44.7 14.220 51.7 - ��. �+` 46°� New Hampshire...... 17,229 25.4 9,388 37.4 .;<<,��'r�`� MOTOR TRUCK New Jersey........... 117.887 22.1 52.871 27.8 ti �``� ..��,;. New Mexico.......... 52,222 53.9 29,713 59.4 ; , .`.•:;.t NewYork............. 191,500 22.8 94,163 29.3 ��<�� North CaroHna....... 176,973 42.0 89,653 49.4 ��a� North Dakota......... 27J23 48.5 14,484 58.g ' -1'"'" C,:� Ohio.................. 267,114 41.5 132,$20 41.9 Oklahoma... ......... 100,220 41.8 69,005 612 � Oregon............... 83,043 47.3 43,401 50.8 All Motor Paid By ; Pennsylva�ia......... 284,201 33.9 139,385 44.9 Taxes Oadicated to Vehict�s Trucks Truck ; Rhode Islaod......... 14,789 24.4 7,040 33.1 Highway Trust Fund (Millions) (Millionsj Percent South Carolina. ...... 67,500 35.4 39.385 42.4 i South Dakota......... 28,608 46.8 14,639 55.0 Motor Fuel. .. . ... .. $4,631 $1,608 34.7q, Tennessee............ 135,694 40.5 67,604 45.4 �ubrieating Oil. . .... 65 27 42.2 - Texas................. 497,545 44.2 256.533 50.6 Motor-Vehicle Use Utah ................. 37,507 52.3 25.503 59.0 Tax............ ... 228 224 98.4 Vermont.............. 18,327 34.6 6,748 43.9 New Trucks, Buses, Virgi�ia.. ............. 143,726 33.1 67.669 42.5 &Trailers. ........ 640 635 99.1 Washington........... 183,174 40.0 60,633 52.8 parts&Accesso�ies. 165 164 99.1 � West Virginia......... 81,061 45.8 34,998 60.9 Ti�es and 7ubes and � Wisconsin... .:....... 97,364 35.0 52,617 39.1 Tread Rubber.. ... 796 336 42.2 ; Wyoming...... ....... 38,204 66.7 16,095 66.6 � District of Columbia.. 5,840 10.3 1,875 16.0 Total Federal Taxes E6.525 52,994 45.9qo U.S.ToWI. .. . ........ ;5,855,506 37.3� $2,993,592 45.9qo SOURCE:American Trucking Associations,fnteistate la/oimation Report. , (1) Federal taxes include only Highway Trust Fund eolleetions paid by highway users. SOURCE: America� Trucking Associations, Interstats fnlormaHon Report. - �� city of saint paui planning commission resolution f ile number $�-29 � date Auqust 14, ,98, : WHEREAS, the Interstate I-35E link in St. Paul is an important element in the City and regional transportation system plan; and WHEREAS, the long awaited Environmental Impact Statement for I-35E has now been completed in draft form and released for public review and co�ranent by the Metropolitan Council ; and WHEREAS, the Mayor has directed, the St. Paul Planning Comnission to evaluate the twelve alternatives analyzed in the draft Environmental Impact Statement, including his suggested modifications to Alternative J, and submit findings and recomnendations to the Mayor and City Council ; and WHEREAS, based �on careful review of the Environmental Impact Statement, consideration of the City's Comprehensive Plan, discussion at public meetings, and consideration of public testimony at a formal public hearing, the Comnission has reached the following major conclusions regarding the impacts of the various alternatives: 1 . Completion of I-35E would provide overall a positive impact on the economic, social , and environmental quality of the City and would be generally supportive of the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. There would be no new significant iand use or ecological impacts resulting from a roadway in the Pleasant Avenue Corridor. 3. A Shepard Road freeway alternative would result in significant environmental degradation to the Mississippi River floodplain. 4. A four lane parkway in the Pleasant Avenue Corridor would enhance access to the St. Paul CBD, thereby improving CBD economic development potential , reduce traffic on neighborhood arterials , and adequately acconmodate forecasted travel demand. 5. There will be no violations of air quality standards resulting fram a four lane parkway in the Pleasant Avenue Corridor. m0� � Bryan ��a'�d �/ _Schmi dt in favor » . against- 6. Noise impacts of a roadway on the Pleasant Avenue Corridor can be significantly reduced by prohibiting trucks on a parkway and further, -- providing mitigating measures such as noise walls where appropriate; there would be no significant difference in noise impact between a direct connection or indirect connection of a parkway to I94/I-35 north. , 7. The parkway alternative on Pleasant Avenue would provide the most positive visual and aesthetic integration w.ith adjacent residential areas and historic sites. 8. Continuity of the interstate system is both logical and highly desirable and could be achieved by a direct connection of the parkway to 194-35E without significant negative impact on adjacent land use activities in terms of noise, air quality, aesthetic or any other environmental impacts. 9. An improved north-south arterial route between the Lexington Avenue - bridge and the Midway area would be highly desirable to accommodate heavy travel demand but additional study should be undertaken to determine if the Short Line is appropriate for this purpose and if so, how the north end of the Short Line should be modified before any connection to I-35E is made or the present truck prohibition lifted. � 10. To fully accomnodate travel demands of the I-35E corridor, roadway improvements in addition to a Pleasant Avenue Parkway are vitally needed, including, modifications to the Comnon Section of I-94/I-35E, widening of the Jackson on-ramp to I-35E, modifications to Shepard Road to provide lane width regularity, protected left turn movement, and a safe Chestnut interchange, and construction of an East CBD Bypass. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the St. Paul Planning Correnission recommen�s endorsement by the Mayor and City Council of Alternative J as herein defined and modified: � 1 . Construction of a four lane parkway in the Pleasant Avenue Corridor from West 7th Street to downtown St. Paul including: a. prohibition of trucks; b. 45 mile per hour speed limit; c. a raised, landscaped median and roadsides; d. architecturally treated lighting; ' e. continuous pedestrian and bicycle paths to be located, where feasible, within the existing right-of-way; f. appropriately located and designed pedestrian crossings and noise mitigation measures; g. grade separated interchanges at Shepard Road, l�est 7th, Randolph, Victoria, St. Clair, Grand/Ramsey, Kellogg and a grade separated crossing at 5th/6th Streets, and the design of these interchanges, except for the 5th/6th Street crossing, should be reviewed by the West 7th Federation; � h. direct connection from the Parkway to I-94 east and I-35E north; i . major modifications to the comnon section of I-94/I-35E to provide lane continuity and to eliminate weaving. 2. Widening of the Jackson Ramp from llth Street to I-35E north. 3. Improvement of Shepard Road to standardize lane widths, and provide shoulders, protected left turns, and an upgraded intersection with Chestnut, and the design of this intersection should be reviewed by the affected cor�nunity. 4. Construction of an East CBD Bypass to connect ShepardJWarner Road to I-35E at Arch/Pennsylvania. 5. Continuation of the truck prohibition on the Short Line and no connection of I-35E to the Short Line until further study has been completed and a satisfactory resolution of traffic problems at the north end has been determined by the City Council ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEO, that the Plannina Commission recorranends that upon receipt of the final Environmental Impact Statement in 1982, and in the event that any new or significant information is introduced to the public record of review of the draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Mayor and City Counci�l reevaluate its endorsement of Alternate J as modified and described above; and BE IT FUR7HER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission directs the Deputy � Director for Planning to transmit this resolution to the Mayor and City Council for their consideration. I-35E DRt1FT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ' August 24, 1981 1 . What is the purpose of the Draft Environmental Impact State�nt? The Metropolitan Council has prepared the Draft EIS in order to study the social , economic, and environmental impacts of each of 12 alternatives for completion of the I-35E link in St. Paui . The Draft EIS sumnarizes the ma�or impacts of the alternatives, and points out the signfiicant differences among them. The Draft EIS has been made public so that the results can be studied and discussed before a finai decision is made regarding the I-35E link. 2. What is the process and time schedule for reaching a finai decision and implementing it? The Draft EIS was released on June 29, 1981 . Mayor George Latimer directed the St. Pau1 City Planning Commission to consider a11 twelve alternatives plus a modification of Aiternati-ve J, in li�gfit of the Draft �IS findings. The Planning Commission has held pu6jfc meetings and hearings , and on August 14, 1981 , transmitted its recommendation to the Mayor, Soon the St. Paul City Council and the Metropolitan Council wi�l also hold hearings on tF�e matter. All of this testimony wi11 6e forwarded to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, who makes the finai decision. F1e is expected to make a. decision by the end of 1981 . The final EIS wi11 then be prepared. The final EIS, to be completed early in 1982, will contain responses to public hearing testimony, a description of the selected alternative, documentation of that selection, and a description of any measures necessary to mitigate the impacts of the selected alternative. These might include noise walls, landscaping, and phasing of construction. The final EIS must be approved by the Metropolitan Council , Minnesota pepartment of Transportation, and Federal Highway Administration, before detailed design and engineering wark may begin. If a decision is made to build a roadway, construction would begin in 1984 or 1985, and the roadway would be open to traffic 6y 1988. 3. What is the Planning Comnission recomnendation? The Planning Commission, after studying the Draft EIS, discussion at public meetings, a formal public hearing and its own deliberations , recommended Alternative J, as described below: a. Construction of a four lane parkway in the Pleasant Avenue corridor fran West Seventh Street to downtown St. Paul including: -2- 1 . Prohibition of trucks; 2. 45 mile per hour speed limit; 3. A raised, landscaped median and roadsides; 4. Architecturally treated lighting; 5. Continuous pedestrian and bicycle paths to be located, where feasible, within the existing right-of-way; 6. Appropriately located and designed pedestrian crossings and noise mitigation measures; 7. Grade separated interchanges at Shepard Road, West Seventh, Randolph, Victoria, St. Clair, Grand/Ramsey, Kellogg and a grade separated crossing at Fifth/Sixth Streets, and the design of these interchanges, except for the Fifth/Sixth Street crossing, should be reviewed by the West Seventh Federation; 8. Direct connection from the Parkway to I-94 east and I-35E north; and 9. Ma�or modifications to the common section of I-94/I-35E (between St. Peter and Jackson, north of downtown� to provide lane continuity and to eliminate weaving. b. Widening of the Jackson Ramp from llth Street to T-35E north. c. Improvement of Shepard Road to standardize land widths , provide shoulders , protected left turns, and an interchange with Chestnut Street. The design of this Ynterchange should 6e reviewed by the affected cot�nunity. d. Construction of an East CBD Bypass to connect Shepard/Warner Road to T-35E at Arch/Pennsylvania. e. Continuation of the truck prohibition on the Short Line and no connection of I-35E to the Short Line until further study has been completed and a satisfactory resolution of traffic problems at the north end has been determined by the City Council . The Commission also pointed out that new information could come to light during the review of the Draft EIS or in the process of preparing the final EIS. If so, this alternative should be re-evaluated in light of such new information. 4. Why did the'Commission recommend the Pleasant Avenue corridor instead of the Shepard Road corridor? The results of the draft EIS indicate that the construction of a freeway on the Shepard Road alignment (Alte�native B) would result in significant environmental degradation of the Mississippi River and its floodplain. Further, the costs would be a�out five times as much as any of the Pleasant Avenue corridor alternatives. Finally, acquisition of right-of-way is complete in the Pleasant Avenue corridor, whereas a ma�or portion of the Shepard Road corridor would have required new right-of-way. 5. Why did the Comnission recommend a Parkway on Pleasant Avenue beginrring at We�$�ven�i �'tr�'� A parkway would have four ianes , two in each direction; landscaped median and roadsides , and pedestrian and bicycle trails; trucks would be prohibited and the speed limit would be 45 miles per hour. -3- �r'�s.9 A'� The decision to recomnend a parkway was based primarily upon noise levels and aesthetic impacts. Although noise levels will still increase due to the construction of a parkway, the prohibition of trucks significantly reduces that impact. Truck traffic will be adequately served by other routes, such as improved Shepard Road, West Seventh Street, and the proposed �ast CBD Bypass. The landscaping of the parkway will improve its visual integration into surrounding neighborhoods. 6. Why did the Comnission recormiend a direct connection from the Parkway to I-94�I-35E? A direct connection wou1d merge the Pleasant Avenue traffic directly into the traff,ic lanes of the I-94�I-35E "common section". The comrwn section is the freeway segment directly north of downtown St. Paul , between St. Peter and Jackson Streets. With a direct connection, traffic would be routed onto Eleventh and Twelfth Streets, adjacent to the existing comnon section. At-grade intersections would be located at St. Peter, Wa6asha, Cedar, Minnesota , Ro6ert and Jackson. Access to Eleventh Street east-/north6ound would be provided in the area of St. Peter Street by means of a ramp-type roadway. Access to Twelfth Street west-/southbound would be provided in the area of Arch Street by using the existing University Avenue exit ramp. The connection to the new segment of I-35E would be gained by a ramp in the area of Twelfth Street and Wa6asha. This was the matter upon which the most debate focused during the Planning Comnission's review process. The Comnission concluded that the direct connection provides better continuity, concentrates traffic on a ma�or roadway rather than spreading it out, would pose no more significant environmental impacts on neighborhoods than wouid tF�e indirect connection, and provides Detter access to the downtown area. 7. Exactl what traffic and trans ortation im acts would result from the Comnission's recotmtendation, especia' y e irect connection. It is important to note the role the I-35E link would play in regional transportation. Most long distance througFi travel using Interstate 35 (such as from Albert Lea to Duluth). is expected to use eitHer 35W or the 494-694 6eltli.ne, rather than go through St. Paul . This is true regardless of the alternative chosen for the I-35E link, so that even a freeway would not attract these long-distance trips. About 60% of the traffic which chooses to enter St. Paul via the I-35E Lexington Avenue Bridge ov�r the Mississippi River will be headed for either downtown St. Paul or �ust beyond downtown. About 40� will be headed for the Midway area. The following chart indicates the traffic volume expected on various St. Paul streets under three alternatives: no 6uild, Parkway with direct connection, and parkway wi�p� indirect connection. .� /7 ��`.�, :S�. � Jl;,,� '.`-�' �/ �- `� � � � �� \�, " • �'�i \e\� � J, � � , _ , �\ \ - . � � ��. ,.j� , � D �\� . / ��, � �,_ _ :Y/�'/ �\\ �: a ` % � � . -- � � O � � � C � ,� � r_ �/� �;✓ ,�,'i��•\ � � � —� � /�— _ . ' �< �— � i i�''�f` � \� � —T--�� ^ .0,. �isj�:.,�. �UO ` 1 ' � \\ _. . < � � � ' � i ; ;,, \ � . �o ;, ,. , ___ -11,�; � , o� , , , \ , _ i, . , � ,, _ . - , �J/', ., _ 0 . . :.. �,' _ � ` ' j 1 , _ � .r�-` l� _.--,� — — � /.�• l �O '_ i � , � , - ^\ ' - �/( � � .. � - � ` U _ . � ' ' ;� -� � . - ��.�-;j ;� \� o I �,-.. _- =, '� _�' a i �. _ l . T � �' � ' �� _ J��l._1�� ,��'�T ` - �� ,,��,i _�� , � � � � , _ -- --_ - - a�_- . - :�`.:�� I� - � - -'�� -� �� --- --I ' ,�]�� =�� °�� ` � ,-� �, _ , � . �� . . —� � --- , �-- .:� '"- �--�' , ± �;, � aC�� !��IC��o.� - � ,\��, ,, __ _ ��nP, „ r--�- _ � �-, ,-� � �1 '� � .,� �, , � ��,� �� ^�� ,,� �r�� _ -�n� -�-� � �- DIRECT CONNECTION >�' �� ' � `�, • :� �'�� %_� j; ///i �' � ` , i�/ , : ,.�, , \\ \ \� '�� ? / � ��:�� ;;, �'� � �� ;�' ,�;' .� �� . ,. �� _ , �r � �:�� ;,�.� �� .�� _ �_�� I \ '� � �''-�L - -__ _— ��` '�,,� � � �' .��• )� � � �� ,i �� . --�� ' L; �,��.�� ; ,� - -- �^� ;�� , ��, � :� �� :� ,� �� 1 � � „% ��:�, . , , �\� ,., , � �� ,_'�'` i -'I I i % , ;= � �''\ \��i i �\\� :� � �.i �. .: \ . . � �\�\`�\\\ �� I ��.�'� �� / ��-'` II � 1'i':-- , - - -� _ -�__ �� ,- � . . �, ` i, �,\� � _ _- _��- �. . � �--� ; ; .,��_ - �__ _ _l� _-- - , _ ; . � ,, � �._ -- �� _ __ _ ��-\ ,�,�� =� �f �, -_ � -—�;I � \. �� ' l _, , � �� - .,, ; � __ -- � �., . ' OOW �'OWNI T.PAULI �'. �,y'� �� '_ �`, ; `:� r` I�'�� +�, ' - - . _J� J l � . � � }l � � �-�.,'� � -,/-�° l-_J 1 '� �, �l _ _' '�_ _ i��i ---I�I -�I 'I \�^\� , � `� . �� r— - I �� _ -- s=.: . .,`-- 'r-- J � � � _ - -_,,:� , �, I . �_ i —�. .,I� ��;�,�-��- `�-�� l� .�- 1% �`_ � �_____ � � J _— �, �� ;= =— —,� --;---,�- .,,—,;�' .---�-'°� _ . � .,;� �� I� �,� �_�_. ' J�i �l. �.t �✓i=— \\ c �--- —.,, . �.� . -- ' `I 1� , � ; `\. � INDIRECT CONNECTION '�E -4- Current and Year 2000 Average Daily Traffic for Selected Streets, Alternatives I, C and J C J T Par way Parkway 1980 No-Build Direct Indirect Traffic Alternative Connection Connection Counts Year 2000 Year 2000� Year 2000 Snelling, South of Randolph 13,200 13,300 13,400 13,000 Snelling, North of Randolph 32,200 42,900 43,600 46,300 Hamline, South of Randolph 2,600 3,000 1 ,200 1 ,300 Hamline, North of Selby 10,900 11 ,000 13,000 15,900 Lexington, South of Randolph 10,900 16,300 1 ,000 1 ,000 Lexington, North of Selby 23,00� 23,000 21 ,600 23,100 Short Line, Between Grand & Hamline 7,00.0 18,600 24,700 26,500 Pleasant, Between Grand & Kellogg - - 56,000 25,300 Shepard, Between Randolph & Chestnut 21 ,800 48,300 22 300 30 200 W. 7th St. , Between St. Clair & Smith 16,600 27,600 � ,��00 East CBD Bypass - - - 14,700 Co�non Section I-94/I-35E, Between 80,50Q i05,000 128,000 94,400 St. Peter & Jackson Either alternatTVe would substantially relieve South Lexington, West Seventh, and Shepard Road. The significant differences betwen Alternative C and J would be the volumes on: - Pleasant Avenue Parkway - Corr�non Section I-94/I-35E - Shepard Road The direct connection would provide better continuity and convenience and, therefore, would attract significantly more travellers to the Pleasant Parkway. It would also require major improvements to the connnon section, in order to route traffic fran the Parkway directly to I-35E or I-94 without dangerous lane changes. Further, it would result in a lower traffic volume on Shepard Road than would an indirect connection. -5- The foltowing chart compares the traffic volumes expected on the Parkway with the indirect and direct connection. Comparison of Direct and Indirect Connection Traffic Impacts on Pleasant Avenue Corridor Year 2000 Average Daily Trafflc ' Alt. C Alt. J Roadway Segment Direct Connection Indirect Connection I-35E Lexington Bridge over Mississippi River 57,400 57,600 I-35E Between Shepard and �est Seventh 49,600 47,200 Pleasant Between West Seventh and Randolph 67,100 56,900 Pleasant Between Randolph and Short ti�ne 59,600 49,400 Pleasant Between Short �ine and Victori�a 38,000 21 ,900 Pleasant Between Victoria and St. Clair 43,300 25,500 Pleasant Between St. Clair and Grand Ramsey 48,700 28,300 Pleasant Between 6rand Ramsey and Kellogg 56,000 25,300 Pleasant Between Kellogg and St. Peter 49,700 16,800 In the case of either the direct connection or the indirect connection, traffic volumes on Pleasant Avenue would be vi�rtually the same to West Seventh Street, wqich is where the existing section of I-35E ends. Between West Seventh Street and downtoHn St. Paul , however, many more vehicles would use Pleasant Avenue with the direct connection than with the indirect connection. _ According to the travel forecasts for the Draft EIS, the traffic volume on Pleasant between Grand Ramsey and Kellogg would be 56,000 daily vehicles with a direct connection, but 25,300 with an indirect connection. The difference of about 30,000 vehicles can 6e attributed to the perceived inconvenience of using the indirect connection. Some of tPt�ese trips wvuld use other routes in St. Paul , while some would avoid the city entirely. Barton-Aschman's analysis indicates t�e followfng ma�or routes would be used: I-94 west' of downtown 6,000- 7,000 daily vehicles West Seventh Street 1 ,500- 2,000 daily vehicles Shepard Road 8,OOQ-10,000 daily vehicles The total of� these amounts to between 15,500 and 19,000. The other 10,000- 15,000 vehicles not using Pleasant Avenue would 6e distributed on other city streets or would use the 35W or 494-694 route to avoid the indirect connection. 8. How will the Comnission's recommendation affect noise levels in surroundin residential areas? Does the direct connection with its higher traffic vo1umes on the Parkway have a greater noise impact than the indirect connection? The construction of a major highway in an urban area has the potential for high noise levels produced by tires, engines, and exhaust of vehicles. Noise levels for such a pro�ect are reguiated by the Federaj Highway Administration and the Mfnnesota Pollution Control Agency. This chart indicates comnon indoor and outdoor noise levels, and shows the level that is considered acceptable under state and federal standards for residential areas: 7 ��,1 �� -6- Common Outdoor Noise Level Comnon Indoor Noise Levels In Decibels Noise Levels 110 Rock Band Jet Flyer at 100 ft. 100 Inside Subway Train (New York) Gas Lawn Mower at 3 ft. Diesel Truck at 50 ft. 90 Food Blender at 3 ft. Noisy Urban Daytime 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 ft. Shouting at 3 ft. Gas Lawn Mower at 100 ft. 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 ft. Comnercial Area 60 Normal Speech at 3 ft. Heavy Traffic at 300 ft. 50 Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime Dishwasher Next Room 40 Quiet Urban Ni�httime Small Theatre Large Conference Room Quiet Suburban Nighttime 30 (Background) Library Bedroom at Night Quiet Rural Nighttime 20 Concert Hall (Background) �� Broadcast and Recording Studio ' � Threshold of Hearing • Federal Standard ♦ State Daytime Standard � State Nighttime Standard Source: P�oise Control--New Standards: W.R. Green; California Department of Transpor- tation; Paper presented at AASHO Annual Meeting; November 14, 1973. c �7� In order to determine noise impacts of the I-35E alternates, noise was monitored at various receptor locations along the P7easant Avenue corridor, Shepard Road corridor, and the Short �ine Road. The results were used as a baseline �o predict future noise leve7s. The following chart indicates predicted noise 1evels in decibels for each of the monitoring locations, for Alternatives A (a four lane freeway which would allow trucks on the Pleasant Avenue corridor�, C, parkway with direct connection, and J, parkway with indirect connection. The chart indicates that federa7 standards (70� or state daytime standards (65� wou1d be exceeded fin many locations Gy the year 2000. In fact, any of the I-35E aiternatives has some adverse noise impacts. The comparison between current (1980�. noise 1evels and tire predfcted leve1s under Alternate A (4 lane freeway) indicates lncreases of between 6 and i5 decibels. This is one of the major reasons for recommending the prohigition of trucks from the P1easant Avenue corridor. A comparison between Alternative A and the parkway alternatives also indicates a significant difference. In many �ocations along the Pleasant Avenue corridor, the prohibition of trucks W171 reduce noise levels by 5 or 6 decibels . This is a difference great enough to 6e perceived by the human ear. Comparing current f1980� noise ieve9s with those predicted for the parkway alternatives, it is apparent that even construction of parkway wi�1 significantly increase noise levels along P9easant Avenue. Ftowever, mitigation measures , such as noise walls or earth berms, would 6ring noise 7evels down enough to meet state daytime standards in most locations. , Finally, there is no significant noise difference berween a direct or indirect connection. Alternatives C (parkway wTth direct connection� and J (parkway with indirect connection� vary 6y only one or two decibe�s at any receptor location in the Pleasant Avenue corri�dor. This difference is not perceptible to the human ear,. Therefore, a1tfiough the direct connection wou9d attract about twice as much traffic to Pleasant Avenue, the noise impacts wou�d not be any greater than with the indirect connect�on, -8- �I��d Comparison of Predicted Noise Levels for Year 2000, Alternatives A, C, and d, Noise Levels in Deci6els Before Mitlgation A]t. C Alt. J. Alt. A Parkway Parkway 1980 4-Lane Freeway Direct Indirect Receptor Location Noise Levei Trucks Allowed Connectiar� Connection Pleasant Avenue Corridor 2 Alaska & Otto, near interc�iange 56 74 68 69 of W. 7th & I-35� . 3 Watson & Baldwin, near interchange 52 74 68 69 of W. lth & I-35E 6 JefPerson & Victoria, near inter- 62 b8 63 62 change of Pleasant & Victoria 7 Linwood Park, St. Clair & Victoria 61 67 fi3 b2 8 Ramsey & Sumnit, interchange 6Q. 67 62 fil with Pleasant 9 Grand & Douglas, south of Grand- 54 70 65 64 Ramsey interchange with Pleasant 10 Pleasant & Thompson, at tlnited 60 75 69 69 Hospitals 17 Nint� & Smith, downtown St. Paul 64 72 68 66 near Labor Center Shepard Road , 1 Southeast corner of Shepard &� 68 71 73 74 I-35E 11 Butternut & Sumac, nortfi of 67 71 73 74 Shepard 12 Emma St. near Shepard Road, 64 60 62 63 13 Irvine Park, Elm & Walnut 57 66 68 68 14 Rivoli & Minnehaha in the 56 NA NA 60 Railroad Island neighborf�ood 15 Kellogg & Cedar, downtown 68 59 59 63 Short Line Road 4 Griggs & Fairmount 63 74 68 68 5 Sunmit & Griggs 64 72 65 65 16 Hamline & Selby 67 72 65 65 Comnon Section 18 Mt. Airy & 0'Orient, Mt. Airy 7Q 73 73 74 Housing Complex 1,9 Genessee & L'Orient, Mt. Airy 68 73 73 74 Housing Complex 20 St. Paul Ramsey Hospital 67 69 69 70 -9- 9. How will air ualit in St. Paul be affected b the Comnission's recomnendation? ou e rec connection ave any greater impact on air qua �ty, t an t e indirect connection. The Federal Clean Air Act of 197U esta�lished air quality standards for five po.11utants: sulfur dioxfde �502� , total suspended particulates (TSP�, photochemical oxidants (OX�, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and car6on monoxide (CO� . The standards specify an allowa6le exposure period for each pollutant based on threshhold levels for adverse ePfects on human heaith and welfare. In order to enforce these standards, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has established a process for granting indirect source permits. A ma�or new or modified highway project which traverses a metropolitan area must qualify for such a permit. The T-35E corridor, assuming construction of a new roadway is to take place, will need an indirect source permit. - In order to determine air quality impacts of the I-35E alternates, air quality was monitored at various receptor locations in each of the corridors to establish baseline air qualTty. Then, using this baseiine, a computer modej forecasts future air quali�y. The forecast is based on assumptions about future traffic volume, traffic speed and contro� , vehicle mix, and weather conditions . Differences among the air quality impacts of the various I-35E alternatives are negligible. That is, the pollutant levels produced would be about the same regardless of which alternative is chosen. Further, none of the alternatives would result in any violation of state or federal air quality standards through the year 2Q00. The examples shown here is the eight-hour average carbon monoxide level for each alternative, by the year 20QQ. The following chart compares carbon monoxide levels for alternatives C, P1easant Avenue parkway with direct connection, . J, Pleasant Avenue parkway with indirect connection, and I, the no-build alternative. -10- Predicted Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in Parts Per Million (ppm) in the Year 2000 � Alt. C Alt. J Parkway, Parkway, Alt. I Direct Indirect Receptor Location No Build Connection Connection Pleasant Avenue Corridor PA-1 Adams School , Watson & Tuscarora 2.8 3.8 3.75 PA-2 Jefferson Avenue residences where 3.2 3.6 3.3 Parkway would overpass Jefferson PA-3 Linwood Park, St. Clair & Victoria 2.9 2.9 2.9 PA-4 Jefferson School , Harrison � Western 2.8 3.2 3.1 PA-5 United Hospitais 3.0 3.8 3.2 PA-6 Archdiocese of St. Paul , Sunanit Ave. 2.8 3.1 2.9 Shepard Road Corridor SR-1 Crosby Farms, interchange of 6.0 NA NA Shepard & existing i-35E SR-2 Butternut Ave. residences , 4.4 4.1 4.3 Butternut & Bay SR-3 Kellogg Park, between Cedar & Robert 4.1 3.9 4,1 - Short Line Corridor SL-1 Wilder Park condominiums 4.5 4.9 5.1 SL-2 Residences between Hague & Laurel 4.1 4.0 4.4 SL-3 Residences along Selby, north end 4.7 4.5 5.4 of Short Line South Lexington Avenue I-1 Lexington between Otto & St. Clair 5.1 NA NA Downtown St. Paul I-2 West 7th at Kellogg 7.2 5.5 5.4 I-3 llth Street at Wabasha 3.9 4.7 5.6 I-4 8th Street at Robert 5.1 5.0 4.6 The federal •and state limit for carbon monoxide concentrations is 9 parts per million. As the chart indicates, there is a difference of no more than 1 .5 parts per million between Alternatives C and J, at any receptor location. The highest carbon monoxide concentrations shown in the chart are at SR-1 , Crosby Farms, and I-2, West Seventh and Kellogg, under the no-build alternative. These would result from heavy traffic which would be forced to use West Seventh Street and Shepard Road if no new roadway were constructed. -11- 10. Wh are the im rovements to She ard Road and the construction of the East CBD Bypass included in t e Commission's recoTrmen ation. Alternative J as described in the Draft EIS includes the East CBD Bypass but not the improvements to Shepard Road. However, both of these are long-standing proposals of the City of St. Paul , and are necessary for the I-35E link to function properly in the long run. Shepard Road current1y carries over 20,000 vehicles per day, including trucks. A four-lane high speed roadway should 6e able to adequately handle this volume, but Shepard Road lacks shoutders and some sections have inadequate lane widths (ten or 11 feet instead of the standard 12 feet� . Turns at ma�or intersections are problematic due to lack of separate turn lanes. The intersection with Chestnut Street is a particularly dangerous sit�ation; in fact, its accident rate is one of the highest in Minnesota. This is due to both the lack of turn lanes and the at-grade railroad crossing on Chestnut �ust north of Shepard - Road. An interchange would solve both these pro6lems. The East CBD Bypass would be constructed primarily to eliminate the need for through truck trafffc to travel through Lowertown on Sibley Street. A study of truck origins and destinations indicates that a6out 50% of the trucks now using Sibley Street would prefer to use the �ast CBD Bypass if it were constructed. The Bypass would be built on railroad right-of-way east of downtown St. Paul . It would connect Shepard Road to I-35� north at Arch-Pennsylvania. 11 . What role does the Jackson Street ramp widening play? The Jackson Street ramp, located at Eleventh and Jackson Streets , is the major access from downtown St. Paul to I�35E north. Eieventh Street has sufficient capacity for this traffic, but the Jackson Street ramp becomes a bottleneck during the afternoon peak hour. The ramp feeds only one lane of traffic from Eleventh Street onto I-35E north. Zf an additional lane is added to the ramp, this 6ottleneck can be eliminated. 12. Why is the Comnission recomnending no jnterchanqe between the Pleasant Avenue parkway and the Short Line Road? A11 of the I-35E alternatives described in the Draft EIS include the interchange between Pleasant Avenue and the Short Line. However, the Draft EIS also points out that t�e Selby-Snelling jntersection, where the Short Line terminates on the north end, would not be able to handle the additional traffic. The Draft EIS does not full�r address this problem nor does it fully analyze solutions to i t. An improved north-south arterial route, such as the Short Line Road, would be highly desirable to serve the heavy travel demand to the Midway area. The Commission has , therefore, recomnended that addjtional study 6e undertaken to determine if the Short Line is appropriate for this purpose and if so, how the north end of the Short Line should be modified before any connection to I-35E is made or the present truck prohibition lifted. � i�,d �� I I -12- 13. 5 ecificall , what im rovements would be re uired on the comnon section of I-35E/ I-9 to�accomnodate t�ie ad itional traffic which will be attracted by the direct connection. The comnon sectfon is already congested, and the additional traffic from the Parkway would requfre ma�or reconstruction to eliminate weaving movements. This would involve reconstructing each of tF�e si-x bridges (St. Peter, Wabasha, Cedar, Minnesota, Robert and Jackson�_ spanning the corrrnon section, to provide the additional parement widtF� to add a lane in each direction on the common section. It would make the corr�non section safer, although traffic would still become congested during peak hours. 14. How much will this project cost? Is fundinq available? Cost estimates, in 1480 dollars, are as fo1lows: Pleasant avenue Parkway $36.9 million Shepard Road Improvements 11 .8 million East CBD Bypass 19.4 million Jackson Street Ramp Widening 8.2 million Improvements to Common Section 14.1 million 90.4 million According to officials of the Federal Highway Administration, it is likely that the Pleasant Avenue parkway could gain approva1 to be funded with the previously- committed interstate funding from the I-35� link. It is also likely that the improvements to the common section and Jackson ramp could be paid for from federal interstate funds. Funding for the other components, the East CBD Bypass and Shepard Road, has not yet 6een committed, bat discussions with state and metro officials indicate these two projects would be high priorities in future funding programs. 15. Would an � lec�islative action be required to implement the Planning Cor�nission's reco�nen ati on. Yes. gtate law currently authorizes construction of a parkway on Pleasant Avenue with ,an indirect connection to I-94/I-35E north. To construct a direct connection, therefore, will require an amendment of the current legislation. The law, however, does authorize consideration of all alternatives in the Environmental Impact Statement. 16. Some desi n work had to be done for all of the alternatives in order to determine t e�r impacts . How muc f exibi ity remains. Design was a concern of the Planning Commission as evidenced by their references to desfgn review in the resolution they adopted. Preliminary layoats were prepared for all of tf�e alternatives and they will be displayed at the City Councfl and Metropolitan Councfl hearings. Design guidelines have been clearly esta6lished for the parkway, and interchange locations are set. Fiowever, the specific design of interchanges has yet to be determined, and the St. Paul City Council must approve the final design before it can be implemented. There will 6e a preliminary as well as a finai design phase to the project, which will take place during 1982. The Mayor and City Council intend at that time to involve the affected District Planning Councils in reviewing the design. It is entirely appropriate for anyone having either general or specific concerns about the desiyn �o Say so during the public hearing testimon�r. �� N�.� `� �� .�� ; ._,/�-' �` �2.n.✓ �� ,�f� ;,.. • ✓ 4 v Y�%/�1 • `----, C �' -/ , - t :4� � �` � `� .r . ' I , t f�•' - � 7 (` r�('� .. 's =•i . 1181 Edgcumbe Road ��z�'� g=d� [.. .� #1402 ��:".�_�� . �:,� St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 July 6, 1981 JUL y - 1981 _-,_ ✓� MAY�iR� ��;� _ The Honorable George Latimer Mayor of the City of St. Paul 347 City Hall St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Mayor Latimer: The 233 signatures on the enclosed petitions attest to Wilder Park residents' continuing concern about the future of the Short Line Road. We are distressed that a number of alternatives under con- sideration in I35E planning would, if adopted, result in vastly increased traffic, including trucks, on the Short Line Road. As you know, that road passes in very close proximity to our new homes. We elderly residents of the Wilder Park tower saw our move to 6�Iilder Park as a desirable change in life style--away from our oversized "empty nest" homes--to the convenience and desirability of condominium living. The vast majority of these people were home owners in the three neighborhood districts bordering Wilder Park prior to our move here, and the expectation was that our neighborhood environment would remain essentially the same. Indeed, it was that expecta- tion which, to a great extent, attracted us to Wilder Park. Neither we in the tower nor families in the town houses expected the possibility of a freeway running alongside our homes. You have earlier received the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the Wilder Park Association. By way of the enclosed petitions, we now add our individual voices to the resolution and strongly urge your rejection of any alterna- tive in I35E planning which would substantially alter the present character of the Short Line Road. Thank you, Mayor Latimer, for your consideration. Sincerely, �.� �e ��/ Enclosures: Eva eline S. Burton Petitions Resolution � � WILDER PARK ASSOCIATION Resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of Directors at their May 19, 1981 meeting. WHEREAS Wilder Park is a model of a highly desirable residential complex which was created by the cooperative efforts of the City of St. Paul and the tiVilder Founda- tion; and WHEREAS this model residential facility provides excel- lent housing and a high quality of life for more than 400 tax-paying citizens of the City of St. Paul; and WHEREAS this high quality of life would be seriously damaged if the Short Line Road were to be given a greater role in the movement of traffic than it now has; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Wilder Park Association that the Short Line Road should continue to be used as a route of moderate traffic volume; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Wilder Park Association strongly urges the Mayor of St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, and the Metropolitan Council to reject any option for the Short Line Road which would substantially alter the present character of this route and of the adjacent areas. : . � , • - • r - . . - . . - . . - - • . - . - • • ' - • • � - - • • • • • - - • • • � • - • • • - • • • • - - • - � � - n • � - n - � ' � • � _ ii - • • - �. / � � � / � � �e_�...` � �i.�LL�� ! � � / � / / 1 � '�� '� '�� , " ,/ �, �• ,��; , �r!' ,- _ ,, �i ' , ,/ �,� - , , i ,, , � _,__ � , � � � . �1.�. � �u c " �!. �- - � � i . .� ,, ,li r� , . �� !� . .� .:. _- _ ,�_ .� -- - -=� _�. _ -.��,. � ,/� `� �� . „� / _- �...�_ - G�� i �i. ��.. �� ./ �,� �. iii,..� -.«:. ;� � ... ,.; ..�. .. � .�_:.' .. � c. _.� � _ � _ . �� i .i � i ' �� ,r � � , •i•� . � �. �� ./_' ��I_ ' �� 1( /�_,�_y� I � � / i � � � �. � �� -_�.t i ' _2 i. � �� .t ,�! �� I. , , � �_ , . � / , , I, �! I ,�-�=- - - � - � % -� _� - - -- � ,_� _ , ��` ��_ . 1 "� "�� % %�%�r�= ��/ t.�:.��.. �. ... 4 1 • � ' . ' � , � .�� 1� �..� _� � �? i � / � �� /�� /� ✓s�✓ � � �..si� _ �. r�i�. _ �� / ��_.tl/ �� / i ' � � ��i��i� � ��%L , �/ / ' � / , �i:�/ ��_i�, � /' . �/�. _ii �. � � , / ' �; � . �, /, �. , � � i : . � - . - - . . - . . - - . . - - • . - . . . � - � . • - - . . . . . - - . • . . - . • . _ . . . • - - . - . . - �� . � - �� - , . . : �, - � . . - - �f%///�/ � /.1/ : ///�_/� � � _// _/'t � .' �� _ii / � � / �� . � � � I � � .i � � ` ! � �. .� � .�_i_..1 :� :� �=�t .�� // � � �� t��.�\/�/� � �i/L • � .�V'7 ��: . i �s��-l / �i '� 1 ' � � i r / r r � � � � � � i.I/ L //.uf1 .�� !� � � � ` ./'. � `I % ��i�li%:�I�I/.//�if/L/��/ �lit��[�_/!%/L�%/�%l'%'/� � �" . ... ,%� . �• . ! �/ ' �n .... .1 � � ,, � '� a� � ��i.L' l.:�i, ./1 /� �•� �� ' I 1 - • _ , �__ _ _ i _. • r . �� I !i�� !_. i � � y _�:. � ��.,--- � � � , - � i � � , �� i � iL.1. ..,: �.�i ,y �i � �:�. - -_ / :'�.�� - , � � _�. , �. _ � . � _ , _ p � J� 1981 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Wilder Park, do hereby petition the Mayor of St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, and the Metropolitan Council to re�ect any options for the Short I,ine Road which would give it a greater role in the movement of traffic than it now has. Name Address __ , �a� . �.US �, • ��rb i „ ,��'� �� .4 �i� �.5/aS� � � ��d-' �, C�'� l'� � -- � � �S'�s 1�=� � /� /1 � ��- °��1, `! '7�% (.,�ea-r�L� �� . �.�/feS ..��.��.... '� • � , ., � � c i �-- � �, l�% o �1 ' �� / . . � � �� 7 ��-f J� 1981 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Wilder Park, do hereby petition the Mayor of St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, and the Metropolitan Council to reject any options for the Short I,ine Road �M which would give it a greater role in the movement of traffic than � it now has. = Add_ �� 1 ��4��t,b�c � /G' l C'� SS!o s' � � o� ^' � ��"l �,C%�q �� j0� ��S�o C` �� //�"� ��L�-Q/�.�w.�--�..�� fs°/o � �5�i a 5 �-.-- � �'� � JJ _ � a l � 'Lxc.-C��t.� .�.�� Cc.t ��(�d Cd� S J`/�Y � ' �� 'rl 3 �� 1�� % j ' � � u (� � /lCJ� L�s� c'_Le v�L� � �� --c` S S�a,s... /�� i� .�i _ //�/ � -,- //� �s�'�,� - a. • Jt� 1981 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Wilder Park, do hereby petition the Mayor of St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, a.nd the Metropolitan Council to reject any options for the Short Zine Road which would give it a greater role in the movement of traffic than it now has. Name Address ^ - // 8/ � '� � ��i Ra� # �oS �� r � �'/ � . #� � �/2�-� G�` /�k/ � � . .� �#do� � r � :� ►^ l�.r�',�,; �� ,-� , �C6.�' � �► C 3 � J� 1981 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Wilder Park, do hereby petition the Mayor of St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, and the Metropolitan Council to re�ect any options for the Short I,ine Road which would give it a greater role in the movement of traffic than it now has. Na.me Address - - � � � 1/`'l � �v1 � ��d�- -� ��3.�s 3 Y � ;� ` ' / ry�� - ti � � os - " "' � 3 G � �� /�/ �C.°de . � � r . � � ' ,�' �/� _ �, ,, �3�� Y 313 /1 �� 1� _ ��r ,//.�/ � �� /� /� - 1/�� ' " �� • J� 1981 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Wilder Park, do hereby petition the Mayor of St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, and the Metropolitan Council to reject any options for the Short Line Road which would give it a greater role in the movement of traffic than it now has. Name Address - - - ��/Z. /� / � ��.� �2� � �/S � i/ i �� /��i � �► �e � ��3 / �'�.- ��i� 1 �� :� �� G ` 6�3 _ _ r � � � �c:��fNti 1 ) _ ,_ ��, .� �a � .�-e l l g� .� / O . . / / � a / o � � �� • J� 1981 ' PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Wilder Park, do hereby petition the Mayor of St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, and the Metropolitan Council to re�ect any options for the Short Zine Road which would give it a greater role in the movement of traffic than it now has. Name Address - � S'.�/d� //�/ ��C��,.�,� �� .�- p�. i � ��-- g - r , �� T ��-� �i� � �'� � ,. - - f. /�� ._�� p � � l� � � � ` � 2� �� . �� „�,,,,, � �L.1�fC��1�3._._ �� ,�. - �5--� y° � • Ju�1981 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Wilder Park, do hereby petition the Mayor of St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, a.n.d the Metropolitan Gouncil to re�ect any options for the Short Zine Road which would give it a �reater role in the movement oY traffic than it now has. ; Name Add_ ° �. / � - � .� � / � - . -� b/z , � �/ �l � �' e � � -- �t l/ �I ��Q . � �o � �� l/ � � � ,� � � � � g� � �� r � . � 8 �� , � 7 • Ju�1981 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Wilder Park, do hereby petition the Mayor of St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, and the Metropolitan Council to re�ect any options for the Short I,ine Road which would give it a �reater role in the movement of traffic than it now has. Na.me Address _ `-��i.�� ` / l '�. 4 - �� Y� , �s�i�� Io �s t �—�o�s� ~� " � � 6 ' ��' rs„ . . , # , � �� .��J�� D Sr � � �� 7�l � � 1 . . - � � �,��1l��.� . �� j � ��-( < �.e�.� . ,— I 1 Y! ,.' � , '7 �� ,� �`'� � �.QM L l� ,l � �9 �c �J�. II�� // '7/� '• �„��—t�, L�,-- �.�. � 1/ �i �, �i �7D t� S �- /`�o-"�s1. �,rr.i��h�-D�.�% , /�/�,( _ .c- .- '�/3 ., ,� G(. /'� �1 � .. ��G ,��/`�/ju L, 8 � Ju�1981 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Wilder Park, do hereby petition the Mayor o� St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, and the Metropolitan Council to re�ect any options for the Short I,ine Road which would give it a greater �ole in the movement of traffic than it now has. Name Address _ � j / � cs �� ,, �~ �1 �., - � � �ti�-�•�-� �8�� 3 � �� l C � �a � ' � � �-� 1 ; � % � 8 , �. � � �/ ' �� .��.� � � / �_ � << � �� , ��, lr � j/ � �fo � • J� 1981 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Wilder Park, do hereby petition the Mayor of St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, a.nd the Metropolitan Council to re�ect any options for the Short Zine Road which would give it a greater role in the movement of traffic tha.n it now has. Name Address - - � � � � , � � � , , `-C.�� , � f!� �� _,�.� �f- , 1 - � � �. ., �9�.� �� ., '- ` _fl� � �, - .��,��r- �.,f 1�� „ 7 � �� ' � JI �/ r . �V �. � � �..=. �1�0_ T��.�.-�____— � f sr j ., 9 0 � , � � �r - � iG /1 �S'/ f�� ,uy�,�o� /G Z> 3 � ��g� ��v��. �C -� � � � __ � �'— — �, - - .. �� s r � � i r � � fl ( � �� ,,�- � � ' �� .� pi� ,� � /' � � � % . , �� ,"a _. . .��v /�1 ��:��.� �� 9�� n � � � . r //�i �` a - (-.- �.-� t � 1 /�.9. � �� , /o � J� 1981 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Wilder Park, do hereby petition the Mayor of St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, and the Metropolitan Council to re�ect any options for the Short Zine Road which would give it a �reater role in the movement of traffic than it now has. = Add_ � �nd�l � �� oo$ 7 � � a � � / v /oi� ji8 � �-�Q,- 8 . iG2t'dwi/ TiTl�fi�� _ f� . ',�"��' a a � � / ! � �� ?—. "'— /i � Jt� 1981 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Wilder Park, do hereby petition the Mayor of St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, a.nd the Metropolitan Couneil to re�ect any options for the Short Zine Road which would give it a �reater role in the movement of traffic than it now has. = Add_ C-' �.'Gi� r i g l � ,�:��-e��o�. �-/i �-�, ""�` i/b'� �� — �� ` � /' Cv L � K/ ' �.Griylc�-- //0 '1-- , `.� r � 0—� �_. ` 1�� // � ,.c� ��C. — //O �1 � ° rl �� 11 �'1 � i i,� i / v" � O / /� 0.3� --�..aL,�.�. � I� o.� /� �". r� t71.� 1981 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Wilder Park, do hereby petition the Mayor of St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, and the Metropolitan Council to re�ect any options for the Short Zine Road which would give it a greater role in the movement of' traffic than it now has. Na.me Add_ ress t�T_ �z �1 � rva. « �` I � I� � ��:�2L ; I i i � ��(-Z.7 - � �� '/ /v� a S , � � � �� — ' i i � , I 2 � � �.�--�, . ,� , � � '�� _ _ ' y�r °� °� /di� �� <, �� , � . � � ,.� .� ' �-�'c, , , , � �� 6 /,�,. '' '' /.2 %� _ — a:z o G : . � - . - • , - s - - . - . . - - . . - • . - . - • • ' - ' • _ • • - • • • • • - • • • i • - • ' •_ • • • • - - - • - � � - n • � - u - � � • ♦ , c _ u - � • • F / � � � / / �� / / � / � / _-, � _ ' _ ♦ /i� I�" " .L�'l ��' �� / / ` / 1 I � _i i/..r / �.. �� _/i • •� �� ,( � � � .� � � L� _ . . � / � i.. � i =/� �.c�� .i _�.� iL � I � / � �i'_. .� _�C.1._�. ....�� i_i) � '/ ' ' / _/`' � � � � � ♦� � � � • _�r�.� � �' � � � — �� '�' � I/� ,, ��_. _ / •. . _� _ i �. ��_ i / /� / �� I ,� , � , � ' 1��. • !r�L._J.. _I.� i _ r � � /� -�� / � � � i i II� �.. � • � �' � � / �•' � ,� , ,� ,..�%�/, � �.��. ,, �/� ' '�� / �_a/.�ii I�.i.��.�i��i�- �! � _F��/_ ./�//� �r /�� 1 �, / � / l ' / _ �i �.�� .`a<.�Z-��. i • ' . . I/. „�- � _ �r:�'� � ,...�.'�� I � �i� , - , _ �, � ' � = , / , �,, �i:,.. .. � a�,. E - '=- • � .-- �.v._ . _ �i / r ,. �� — �� i i � . , � . �� i . i ��.1�r.i� � � � �, � � � ��. � � �� I �� .J.�� • . ai�� ' � /S • J� 1981 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Wilder Park, do hereby petition the Mayor of St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, and the Metropolitan Council to re�ect any options for the Short Zine Road which would give it a �reater role in the movement of traffic than it now has. Name Address - - �- �-c�t"i�i1 �� g �� -- -- — o< ` � � � .,?�( f� � /�C� � i� ,/ �-e� __1- Y �' �s�o�. �� l.��r � •� '� I �� i � '' �l �.�`/l �_ �r �c � /S��".. � �-�"� /� / _c��Gc /�' �cS� �'. �� -� � �b� � t � �� r, . / �_�YeX�f� �' k `' /S a,.3 /6 • J� 1981 , PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Wilder Park, do hereby petition the Mayor of St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, and the Metropolitan Council to reject any options for the Short I,ine Road which would give it a �reater role in the movement of traffic than it now has. Name, Address /} , .� /� �� C " ' � !6r � ` 'G�t ��0 � � �� - �6 � � �� ._ _ � � ,� - i�g� � �� ►� ► � �• 1 � C � �1. /S ��ti/3A.�.C. O Pf . / , , /�/� `� ffYS ' I I �C,-G... �1 L lJ C_, � r Q� ' �r' �' a �J � � 1 � � ��--� 6 / /7 . J� 1981 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Wilder Park, do hereby petition the Mayor of St. Paul, the St. Paul City Council, and the Metropolitan Council to reject any options for the Short Zine Road which would give it a �reater role in the movement of traffic than it now has. = Add_res_s ��,/,� _--- sr�o s-- �i: - //�/ ��q,��_.�.��d /�o� - /� 8 I � i Z= .�.--� 1i8� � � � o / J .�r /r � /7�S— ' � /� � /70� .. . i � �� i 7 ��— �` — { ,� C �i /�C� � - `_' � . s . �� —.. �. .. � ,_ ("�-c,._,.o f�,�., � �l :,�' E`C.��=,,�'_�i-- GC; 1 , � �y� � J . Y / �, .r-- �i- `��{1�--�... �- _ E,,.,�'-°�.,i.r'� -- .� � � .�' , CITY O� �:, v: PAUL �. , ' _--...-;�. lNTER�EPARTt� � �+? 'r��'�10R,'�NDU�1 `�C;,.,��:_: �s -•__%�:.J • /j , ,, ._ .� /�)� `�# ��'�:_.`_::j�3"_''=''"`°''`" . / ��ti r .� o�ti� �� /v��i.l.i- . -:� �._...>� � ' � ��% �� -.✓ .,,,. : : June 2'4, 193? ;� ��`�' ��n�' \X°� - -� �� ,�__------ ; -�,;� ��y v� „v` 'g' �u : Pe99s' rei chert �v�,," � n �1, �� - ��eva��o � i..��.::::.r: - � �„� � N�+ �v'�^ � �—. '{ ' `�i�� ':�„�'� ,J�z �v� � /-� ��` "�� :;��: Greyory H4up� � �:c, V�' ��' �;� ��\ �(�'� �� , � �, � � v �i�' ;tE : Cevel o�;nent a� �he� Koppy f�o�ors 5; t� ,, ? :��:� Tuesaay, June �3, with Dorothy Scn'esselman, Bill Pearson and �oug �"�st�r to �,�� sorre �ackground i nformati on abou� ine i i kely resol ution of �r�« I-3��I P�easar,* Aver��e si�uation. Dorothy sho�.:�d Bill , Coug and myself a drawir,, �.vhicF; sn��:��ted the most likely connection of c�ot�intotiti�n to I-9� and of Pleasanr. ?,rz,,�e *_t:. E;eventh a��u T��lfti� Streets. Dorothy :nd:cated that these dllgrtt:;e!^:�S ar� r:oi s�a�j�ct to much dispu�e any rnore, that �;:�is so-called indirect conr��ctior �O 't�iP In�_r•state �s a comprumise which has e�.: ed conscnsus aoproval . ihe res^a;ning is�ue is ho�.•: `he Short Linz Road �dil� b� used in conjunction with Fleasa�z� ;ve�.;�. My ?nterast in d•;scussing thes2 mattz�� :;i �h Core}ny, �ill and Dou� is g?�:er�L2d by r�.;id d2vel��pment pressure or the Kc��;, i•1�tors Site. Sp2cifically, hir. ,ir,i�n ��a��, � o��,��,��r of th� IN�J, a-��i�i�es �c bui l d an o: ri ce �ui i di^g on tha� si te. He :�;- r�a �., �o �o about ttivo years ago and was unab� e to �:;a�r7 ur�a��i�:�;.�s suppori ;�rora . ... ?c:r� A�u�.'•�:;ri ty Bcard fo r .'�,at venture. Ne f�el s t,�at ihe oro ject coul d �z ^�:a;_�� _�::� . . : ne.-, 'althoug;� he has no anchor tenant) >u:�d 'nas approac'r.ed �he Developrr��r. �;iv:s:�r� r�garding tnz possi�il -,'ty of assistance. From cur d:scussion, it is clear to Bi? i , Doug, Doroth; ar� myse?T tnat �ne al�gnments whi ch wi 1 i serve to connect do�antoNm ane the Interstate v�i 11 :��:��d:^ ob_;:��ete thF street n�twork between th� Koppy Motors bloc: and th� '�iasoni;. ��;:}pl �� hl�:<:K, �nd between t'r,e Mason�c Temple �l,�ck and tne vaca<<� partia� bloc'.< �:;�� o; it. u^ur f�e� ing a�as �hat the whole par��l , consistin4 �; those t�r�� io�� :' , s"L�a�.� be c:�n5idered as one :evelopable site an� tnat : t ��ould be pr�maiure an� u>> :�rtuna�e zo have a portion or the s' �e developed ��c�.v wi thout son� ove: � � ' s:h��M= ir� ::�;nd ,for ,tne way ine rest or it sne:_:id loo!c. �i�is iM�'ties tha� t�e City s!��o�:i .: cc�.r:der ac�uiring a�,d reloca�ing ihe C_:�nal �c You�h :�r:i�:^ anc per;�,aps �`�� uiniar� i�lJ'ii.F'. I l. dG�e�'.Y'S t"at the $td�4' �^!1� � .;3va �U dCG!;l i^2 t('.� ;�,�:':21"1 Cdr� i..?nE'r ,-��3Y'�.�il�? lo�`.. ;�i i l :�earso�� anu I expe�t tha� t,�._.r �.•:oul d ��;=su? t i�: ii�2 Statt �eina re-qui r ed � � �o �::e al ; c� A^��rican Linen and re,c ... ..� tii� r,:�o; e `:;cil ;�;, I :.�.� ��; . � :o f�: JSiH'.l?fld t'�.0 J tE'VE' ifiat 4�le pp51 t10r 0'.. .:� J?S t0 dGG� , �'c'. �f;? l.�(C G�. �� 1!1: ;;la'1� r;�, . �I�!' tilJiCl�d^ .`�O(i?2 �Y'�COa;"I1Z7Ci� tfld� i,f;'� � ,i�idn r1•.^. ,. ., ..r'UC�,i:'� l5 vi'��a��_ :^_•t -�'. pr:::;?ect for de�o i i �i��;; . �f?� , ,:°St1011 4'J2 dS�:°(j OUY'SE'�V25 � �'10`rJ2`:�^, 1 S ��lC� 1� ��fl° ��,�Y'Oqrl w�.� US2 iCi', t�:: resu�ltant �.�.�y large parcel ? Tn consiue�ir.g thaL qu�sticn, it .-�as:.` t 1��,, b�fore we �;andere�� o adjcining bloc;s which ��,e al ;o �^czr.�tilized and ,:=rzct�� z� 1 w ' ✓1 • • . . _�- • scrr� aecr_a,.0 by the Pl easan;. Aver�ue al i gnn��ent. Looki ng ut ther� —i n connec�i on ;��t�� or contra-�-��;i;ior� to ou� subject blcc� - �rrhat resul �ed :ras cans�nsus a��ong us ;.hat th� Pianni^y and Development D:vis�ons ought to join �ogei��r in a f�ighes� and n°si use stud�r for the area bounded by tiinth Street, �t. �aseph`s Lane, �r'�s� Seventh ��r"eEi., i,:l:S�t1Ut iiV2nU�' dtld I�c1^! P�e3S�ft� nVEC1UE. Th;Y'P c'�2 d RU��e+ OT' �;^vG�CS �^JIt:1111 th2se bo�rdaries �vhich are ca��diGa�es To^ acquisirior and redevelopraent, in �art or ti��nele, so�„e ofi whi�h +,iill_ be �;acant pa�cels owi�ed �y ��e State. I '�'�CjU2�-� i��i�"C �JOU C�ISCUSS ��1175 �i�3i.�2r, �°Y'�dpS �.li"th �OY'��h�/, BiT1 dn� ;,1VSC'i �, :•,i t�, the i c:�a of establ i shi ng a oro jec� and at 1 eas� a rough outl ir.e �:�or% �ro�ram and time sci:edule. ;�l:dma cc: Bil� =earson ^o�o�;�v Schlesselman uoug Foster . � _ �7y . �. .. �,� �Y OF SAINT PA�7I� �.rl =:'�'i;` ' OFFICE OF THE CITY COIINCIL , j` i4 Tw47lt�1nt 'liG5Q5L0's4!1:� � � �' . . l�4tl�ES�.ti�`�1?i1 ' . P. C�I�I�I� RUBY HUNT July Z , 1981 caun�;1WOman J U L 2 — 19 81 �1AAYORS OFFICE Merriam Park Community Council Lana Cheatham, President iVilder at St. Anthony � St. Paul, Minnesota 55104 Dear Ms. Gheatham and Members of the Merriam Park Community Counc�il As a member of the City Council and also as one who lives near the Short Line , I am well aware of the longstanding concern of : your neighborhood and other adjoining neighborhoods on t�e issue of the Short Line. I do not believe it would be appropriate for me as an elected -- - -official to pass final judgment on your questions until the Environmental Impact Statement on 35-E is presented and dis- cussed at the public hearings that have been scheduled (see attached letter) . Of the many alternatives that are presented in the EIS , I believe Plan J is one of the most viable (35-E as a parkway to downtown with no trucks allowed and a connection to the _ Short Line, also with no trucks allowed) . I wi11 appreciate other specific views you may adopt on the 35-E alternatives as we go through the hearing process. Sincerely, l' " il�� RUBY NT Councilwoman RH/rs CC: Summit Hill Association � Lexington-Hamline Community Council Randolph Heights Neighborhood Association Wilder Park Condominium Association Encls. CITY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 612/293-5378 °�� . ��1 P,� � � . . R� �� t� . MERRIAI�! PARK W CC�MMUI�i1TY Ct7U�ICIL., lnc. � � 645-0349 • WILDER AT SAINT ANTHONY • SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55104 �c��, �� 'R P�A� _ `•,y.�r'y-� _. r.✓�' . 1""�'^✓o . . . July 2, , 1981 RECEIVED Councilwoman Ruby Hunt �U� � tg�, St. Paul City Council (� i�ai rlO�r Ci�y Fidii �Q'�N��W� '" � St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 �U�Y HUN'C Dear Councilwoman Hunt: The Merriam Park Community Council passed the following resolution regarding the upgrading of the Short Line Road: A. There should be no alterations to the present traffic system until the impacts at the North End of Short Line and along the route of the Short Line Road are evaluated and the foilowing '� . minimum requirements are established for the route:: 1. There should be no trucks on the Short Line Road. ._._- ___ 2. The route should have low traffic volumes, and - have a low speed limit. 3. The Short Line Road must be landscaped with greenery. This must be done in such a way that the landscaping is a living noise barrier. 4. The Se1by Avenue Bridge should be restored and maintained. 5. The noise levels along the Short Line should not exceed the standard of L.D. 10 for daytime - 65 decibles (a) . 6. There must be no significant deterioration _of :air '.quality. 7. There must be long,er pedestrian cross times at Selby and Snelling, Dayton and Snelling, and Marshall and SneZling. Provisions must be made for unimpeded pedestrian traffic. 8. Non-local traffic must be discouraged on residential streets, e.g. , cul-de-sacs, barriers, and the like. B. These are explicit standards for the Short Line Road. Aggrievec3 residents and businesses must be fairly and equitably compensated for violations of these standards. We would appreciate a response outlining your position concerning the upgradi.ng � of the Short Line Road. �Be t regar s, 'na� �./S�;ucn-a,1�r,. Lana Cheatham, President � l4erriam Park Community Council � � Copies To Mayor Latimer and Council riembers ` � t/-/S !v�-�.'�°" cJ�� • � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL ;e..°'*'rn°:�� °` �"'* �� o ;; DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ;� :iiii'i ii�u C' �e DIVISION OF PLANNING ',��°""�� 25 West FouRh Street;Sain:Paul,Minnesota,55102 GEORGE LATIMER 612-298-4151 MAY�R July 1 , 1981 Counci1 President Ron Maddox � and Members of the St. Paul City Council 7th Floor City Hall St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 � Dear Council Members: The City of St. Paul has just received the Environmental Impact Statement for the I-35E project. Prepared by the Metropolitan Council in draft form, the EIS < .. -- is to undergo public review this summer. The Metropolitan Council will hold a � �� public hearing o� Sep�ember 9, 1981 , at which time St. Pau1 should officially respond to the EIS. The Planning Commission has established the following schedule of meetings for review. Planning Commission's Steering July 7, 14 '12:O1J Noon Corrnnittee Discussion and 21 City Ha11 Annex . _ . _ Publi_c Meeting Conducted by July 20 7:00 P.M. Steering Committee St. Luke's Schoo1 � Summit and Oxford 3 Steering Committee's Recommendation July 24 9:00 A�M. to Planning Commission i5th Floor Auditorium Gity Nall Annex Planning Commission Publi.c Hearing August 10 7:00 P.M. : - 15th Floor Auditorium Ci ty lial 1 Annex Planning Commission Action on August 14 9:00 A.M. Recorr�nendation to City Council 15th Floor Auditorium _ Ci ty Hal l Annex � City Council Public Hearing Week ofi August 24 . Council Chambers (evening�. 3rd Floor, City Nall City Gouncil Action 4leek of August 3t Council Chambers 3rd Flaor, City Hall Metro Council Public Nearing � September 9 Highland Park Junior High � � �� 77 . . � � _2_ �' ; You are welcome to a�tend any of these meetings , and you will rece�Ve materials which the Planning staff prepares for the Cammission. A summary of the EIS wi11 be availab1e soon and wi11 be sent to you. If you have any questions regarding the review process of the EIS, please do nat hesitate to call . Sincerely, � ��'��7`7 �' __ Peggy A. Reichert Deputy Director, Planning � °o � � N3 � C D�, T wn �H p �1� N= O S r.� �p�n V N� V O T N ' y�/' CC'1 �I C7 .y ' r'-r m9 2 O { 2 x n � x T T � � T 29 x C c � o s c z s"' o � � �, ,� z s �, n s O � r' � < � i -i C o �� 3 � � C 3 N N r � C1 !11 S 1� /�1 yDj C1 �D T ' O � !��y TC �1 � T N r � 3�' T O T P ��' �w O n �I (�]"J C T Q T M 0 T T� p O D �D �� T� v � I T � � 11 T Iw C .A'Z' ��!7 '^ � 9 O D r � 3 n r r < r ~3 =� 9 '-' � � � nN � o � � � o c = N �o = � r �p1 � _Z � r- � �+--+ T f'f t+ � +�� -I -1 O O Z 7c P � � `� .'7i � �i C Q �" d � G fD .� r. �. .� � � d N 1'*t f0 f��C � fD fD Rt � n tn 9 r O -w C or .� v�i � A � r+ r► Ri P'f � �S ^1 'S n ,3 fJ 'S X p (D N fp '� N < + a ,� 3 _`'C N R (0 N � G� Z O+ �j � a C '� g � � � � � � C d O e+ uRi � �C -�i � G L1 r�w > . _ (] C e+ � � � i � . u+ t'n � > e�i= t1 Z < H � n -1 C C n fD O O a O X � O O p 2 M'Q~ � D � � 0 = � R O �� N � � O j5 C �T ' � c� eD l� fD��1 Q • C �. _ � � 2< Ci X N r+ � C !� O � v r(ap ~ ?� � � .?C� � f�D C,'fn �+� � 0�+. m io � a oQ K x —r r a r+� � .• � eo re r+ � n a v 25 H t+ N N R f D ? � Q a � I m I O C � . �s � N l'q, � OI � � ry N r � W 'T�. �� Z T1 . . . �i A 0 ��• f'►� i r 1D r � � � � o� LT1 '11 • � � � Z m r r~ � � �1 � �7�'GI � a � � � O �. N � O� eO �D �n t7 Z Z H n X ' (D fD O N R TC d N � r O� N C � 'p 1 � SL f1 O G�f�D r'►tn e'*�C C � g �> �1 C �C � N �p � f0 or f1 f*i � -� �Z < -� R � S C .�7 'S O ..'. 0 � N � p �*� S G � O e+ (�D 7 O�r X'S o�i = !"7 g � �Q w� Z 10 � N 6i � f0 r' � r � O� n � --rJ �� f0 � � O A m � Z nCi wri 7C O � e+fD 'S -+++ 9 � -�A S '+7�C N < ' 7 or 3 e+* < O e+ �+ .II -+G r'+ Z fD �S e-r ^S $ 6t d CD � �r O Pf fD � �� 7 n N A -+--+�7c'.- �+C e+ t7 3 �tC Ou .r C � G -►fD �A f1 f'f '� e ��Z �s v+ rr�0 -• T n Or fD 11 tn A f9 � �D p ?� � � < O �i ?+cv 'T -�� p o y R � � .�tC � r�+ � N „ ."',i = � $ �> 0 �� tD Z O .�fD 7 r* o � ; :. � ° " 2 0 0 � p � n�i C � �l -�'i t9 cr in ��S�C n�� N N r 8 0� � `� � ' 9 -q C.� vi .r.? u+ �p r � $ r .�G 2 ' • � H ^S 3_ N '*N R'S.-.Ci � � �O� T O -� O r► Gi � fa � < <1 fp Q' Z y � 2 � n� O O � �S e+ fD 'S f� „ • � C rD A �p e+ ,r d ep O 9 (� ?f� C +� ?�tn r < . �t' -�e+t� A �D r+ Z rr �.� r.r �r� f9�'C iw o � c no� � rp � �a c� o+ � v+ �n� r. s v+ -► e.- � - ro -�o n �+. C �� 9�r �N -w 7 C O+ Q f1 N (D C n .'7 O "N N N (7 !'�►fT� 'S N : �it � (D y f9 C O O e+ O u 8 o C , i � 'S � 7 "� � .I �.~i e g �D a � _ .T 7 N Z N or � � ? - r a� " � � $ � O � � c�O > H 1 � �r r.l'� O Or 7 N r► �u i r � � G Q a 8 T �� x o � 'S �C � 'a � a� � � � a � � z rn T - ^� < d• t9 N `r�p Z 52 �C =� O 25 T < .'D �+ (9 -r 17� N N C� � _ ..r m r* �s m .+.� $ e�� I I � � \X C'f �fD A O fD '�< ...W� . ...G+7 f'f p � vf0 . 7r0 -hN + 2 7 � !fl � +� '+� .'J e+ � Gr +�f � n. o cfl ��c � o� a n` > � n o+ e-r x � :� O n � � �.-+� a7 � � cD � c�3 v�i r�D n� 3 cx _... o z �c - a - o z �c .� -i � n -'- � �^ a � °o y '� C� I � � y �r+ io�i � raC m � m e, ; c u� -, p �� ,"�o < � m �^ra a r`�'�o 3 0 � � "� ' � o g � '` � � � � � o o i m i . ... � „o o� -z � ca o Z a � H� o ... � � 'S � � O.�n �n 2 < r- G7 N n 3'-C �i � O � g c'" "" „� � � �s -� :� ?7 + = p o+ u0 � � u O � u n+ Z V m v s tp � � ' � 9 T i,� r m a �' r- C D O O g O = �'�' o r n� � i 2 2 �^ � � � ra Q 9 O 3 ° 'v �o � � � '� C Z X A , u C n n > .� � � � � _ -ri� O p a O V O � N� � N A n . N O � � m N O V T �G T /11 /�}� T ti iJ r. V Of �y g m pp{ '�7 .� r g O r O G T � y �� . -- : . . � ° � � o � � C y 3 -Di CO 2 O � r s�c� �h � ' < O -r x -a � G� 7J a v N m.�q� ��t� y � �.-i r � � �=r `c� .�r 33 � ��-p � -c �� o 0 p m r � tn N Z Z �C . ' � � � C V' Q O C� 'fl � � aa � K O � � -CDZ c. '.' ? a K � c � o > � z s'" o f �3 � �, z s ,� °c 3T �"� � �p N G s' �' � � G C r 3 � r 3 �+ v_ � �r- 3 0 ' O � LTJ ca oo� ac� a � o T N T $ e�, � � � �, N � >� � � 3 = � r. � -� � �+ o o h � g � "' o � a �� „°,o m-� � [� � ��.� � O C n�+ n�i r' C � � N � D $ n< n;i v �� x C [D -�� C7 � T � y S e � � .�w m Z N �' w�in C�Z /1 ia � a.. !0 �C � N C m S r j � { C r � { � C�u, � O 9 � ` ♦ e� .r,� rn T r- 9 O r -� � A <= c" z r � C� C � C � ' D m C ` Z c� � N g Z _ C + V/ � t�7 Z �� t � D � � � � r � � � �-G+ � � � � � � � � � Z � + n' u � w � y vai Gi 'C � � p � D .r N C .. fT ; � .Ni en i � T S n O � .S � �1 4i � r � u 8 � � T� � n �� 0 � r� l"►� _ � C Z T Q 'a r �1 RI Z 'r' � u � � = � r � �..O+ � ? � � i � w !, .��j O n � � r. � � � �^ •C H � o � n " . g o $ �a �' n o� � v A � p 8 � � "' w- � t-, �T O • ° r S� n�i trJ c° c z �^ Z a'� '" x N O= � Z � f�D � .o O j e�2 H �C t't fD u C� <L i^�^ ` fD � S .v �,ai > ^,,� 3 C� lTJ s+ O '.' •� „r m u °' � • �' w 9 n s .� �r (A ? y � "� " � ir' 8 �° Q r � - �Oo > > � � � g m g N Qpp$ � � n tG Yf , �D wt � � z 0 O 9 i� "� ... b � O � C N -+1 � �' • � �w � 31 1-] e'r = ° � «C > ' > F..{ � � � m r ID H� � V� gp ^� 9 . <r 9 `� Ci � � '� Ir fn � � 8 T C � � r • �+ r- C7 � z '"x �- � `° �c> - mrC � �o p�y . � .0 1i� w �10 T . .� i � wwi O�� v � I � y� ; � y90 T n N r' a V N .r DT . 0 f� P • !'W p11.1A . � s y y � p. :, � '71'J7 l"* Q q b p :�yr T , � � � Z <�> a � I .. -+ ,y rw=� � O � C Gy p -+ >=n+ 7c N '1► � � � 0 f"�2 .r. N Y, y 1- .''�O T r I • N Z O � � � � � � ; n =0r � � � N O � y rT . � 7 � z 2 Q t0 � � � � i � -i N a m x T Y� Q ' ►�r 1 � Z. . � N