Laserfiche WebLink
While there had yet to be an official City study, Mr. Schwartz asked <br /> Commissioners what future information needs they anticipated needing from <br /> staff <br /> Chair DeBenedet noted that this could be further discussed under Item#7 on <br /> tonight's agenda. <br /> Ms. Bloom noted that the software tool to work with the City's Pavement <br /> Condition Index (PCI) software from the Local Road Research Board she was <br /> working with should be available for the Commission to view at their October <br /> 2011 meeting, clarifying that this would be a viewing of the tool, not a report, <br /> since that data was still in process, but the tool would provide the science behind <br /> the documentation and provide industry standards to address truck weight and <br /> loading on local streets, not just as it related to garbage trucks. <br /> 5. Draft of Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy <br /> Ms. Bloom noted that the Commission had reviewed the City of Blaine's <br /> Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy at its June meeting; and staff had been <br /> directed to draft a similar policy (Attachment A), specific to Roseville, using the <br /> Blaine format. Ms. Bloom noted that the first draft had been provided to <br /> Commissioners in the agenda packet for discussion and feedback. <br /> Ms. Bloom advised that Member Gjerdingen had provided written comments <br /> from his initial review, and she brought those specific items to the attention of the <br /> entire Commission for their feedback. Some of those items included: referencing <br /> comments related to traffic volumes increasing in Roseville to determine roof or a <br /> qualifier, such as the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Section map by 2030 <br /> and projected changes on State Aid routes; how to and a purpose for checking <br /> high volume roads, when nothing is based in fact or a percentage of annual <br /> increase and what communication was being attempted; perception that traffic is <br /> increasing overall, whether on neighborhood streets or larger streets throughout <br /> the community and region; and how the Implementation Portion of the document <br /> would validate the policy with actual data. <br /> General Comments <br /> • Add a"Definition" section <br /> • Ensure consistency in terms and definitions throughout the document <br /> Section 1.0 Introduction <br /> • First sentence: consider changing "issues," to "concerns," related to traffic <br /> values <br /> • 3rd Paragraph, first sentence: consider changing "residents" to "constituents" <br /> • 2nd sentence: strike "in residential areas" to clarify local streets—redefine <br /> • Behaviors based on perceptions of"a local street" (e.g. Long Lake Road) <br /> • Rationale for concentrating on residential streets, not business streets <br /> Page 4 of 12 <br />