My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011_0808_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2011
>
2011_0808_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2012 1:34:51 PM
Creation date
12/29/2011 12:02:46 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
243
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).
View images
View plain text
' .. dV w/ .. i .. <br />.. .. .. # .. .. .. .. ..! # i# <br />dV <br />dV <br />8. Both Bloom., and .. mentioned the traffic <br />volumes projected for 2030 have been red�uced� primarily to reflect the economic <br />downturn. If that's the case., one would expect traffic volumes to be red�uced� somewhat <br />consistently across the entire area. H�owever., in comparing data from the 2030 Plan to <br />the new projections in th_ Figure 12 (page base traffic <br />projections for Josephine have been red�uced� by 37% (from 6.,500 to 4.,100) yet County <br />Road C has only been red�uced� by 21% (from 15.,400 to 12,200). WouW you please <br />explain why counts on Josephine were red�uced� significantly more than County Road C"s <br />and potentially more than other road�s? <br />RESPONSE: Growth assumptions, ., patterns and roadway characteristics affect <br />each o.. d .. y differently; therefore, forecasts are each o.. d .. y segment and <br />not directly comparable across - board. - .. use data .. .. .. .. b <br />Plan. the year 2010 US census, the most recently approved comprehensive plans in the region <br />and roadway assumptions from the year 2010 Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy <br />WouW you also please clarify exactly what red�uctions in 2030 traffic projections., if any., <br />were assigned to each of the other roadways that were projected to shift traffic onto C2 <br />in 2030? These other roadways includ�e Snelling Ave.., County Road B2., TH 36., County <br />Road E., etc. as d�escribed� on page 12 of the report. This is an important question. If <br />the traffic projections for these other roadways weren't red�uced� at a similar rate as <br />Josephine Rd�. was., the study would be d�rastically OVERstating the negative impact to <br />County Road C2 if it were opened (as a larger number of cars would be projected to shift <br />to it than would actually happen if the base traffic counts had been ad�justed� d�ownward� <br />like Josephine Rd�'s) and d�rastically UN�DERstating the positive impact to other collectors <br />such as Josephine Rd�. and Lydia Ave. (as potentially fewer cars would be available to <br />shift from o _ • <br />RESPONSE: Specific impacts to roadways such as Snelling Avenue, County Road B'2, TH <br />and County Road are outside the scope of this study area. more detailed <br />Rage 2 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.