Allandale25
Senior Member
Just to continue the McLaughlin route clarification discussion a little further, now I'm confused on what staff are going to do. On one hand, they say that they'll look at "sub-options". On the next page, "Attachment A", they write under "Notes" this:
"Notes:
1. There are eight families of alternative alignments with Options 2 and 3 having subalternatives for a total of eleven alternative alignments.
2. As per Council’s decision on March 9, 2016, Options 3, 4 and 5 are only to be considered."
So they seem to be saying on this page that 5 is being considered and only 2 [Main] and 3 [Creek] have "subalternatives". I assume this means "sub-options".
"Notes:
1. There are eight families of alternative alignments with Options 2 and 3 having subalternatives for a total of eleven alternative alignments.
2. As per Council’s decision on March 9, 2016, Options 3, 4 and 5 are only to be considered."
So they seem to be saying on this page that 5 is being considered and only 2 [Main] and 3 [Creek] have "subalternatives". I assume this means "sub-options".
.....i will say this, that once Main itself was killed, most of the long list of "alternative routes" put forward had my eyes rolling and the only two that made me think "I wonder how they would look/do" are the two that are left.....but, again, I was never a "route guy" on this whole line so we will see.