My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1984 10 02
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1984 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1984 10 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:46:53 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 1:38:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
10/2/1984
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1984 10 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
86
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
411 411 <br /> 9/1.8/84 Page -4- <br /> 1) Identify feasibility alternative <br /> interchange locations <br /> 2) Define and analyze alternatives <br /> 3) Evaluate alternatives and recommend <br /> preferred alternatives <br /> 4) Financial considerations <br /> 5) Documentation <br /> 6) Local involvement <br /> Mr. Yoshioka stated that there hasn't been <br /> a lot of money available through tradi- <br /> tional funding sources, i.e. the Federal <br /> Government who would match 90% of the cost, <br /> and we would have to come up wtih 101. <br /> Therefore, the trend has been to go into <br /> private financing or cooperative financing <br /> of transportation improvements. These are <br /> in the form of Metro Districts, Special <br /> Districts, cooperative efforts between the <br /> State, County, and cities. This question <br /> hasn't yet been examined; but is an impor- <br /> tant part of the study. This will be handled <br /> by one of their sub-consultants TransPlan, <br /> Inc. out of Boulder. <br /> Meetings are held each month and the meeting <br /> is a cooperative one between Broomfield, <br /> Louisville, County of Boulder, DRCOG and <br /> the State Highway Depmrtment. Other cities <br /> and counties are invited to attend. In <br /> addition they plan to have 2 public meetings <br /> in Phase II. When the Phase II study has <br /> been completed it will be presented to <br /> the Louisville City Council, Louisville <br /> Planning Commission, Broomfield Council and <br /> Planning Commission, Boulder Planning Com- <br /> mission and County Commissioners. Alterna- <br /> tive locations will be dropped off to a <br /> maximum of 4 and after extensive evaluation <br /> one will be determined. The negative as <br /> well as the positive aspects of the evalu- <br /> ation is a requirement of DRCOG when you <br /> go in for an amendment. <br /> When an interchange is put in at any lo- <br /> cation, one of the primary criteria that <br /> DRCOG, the State Highway Dept. and the Federal <br /> Highwy Commission look at is does the high- <br /> way serve more than just a Local function, <br /> and what is the connectability to the regional <br /> system? Mr. Yoshioka also stated that be- <br /> cause this is part of a US highway, part <br /> of the amendment process will have to be <br /> an enviornmental assessment. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.