pf07-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

6. Comment: Traffic increases both on the campus itself and in the surrounding streets and neighborhoods is a major environmental issue. Noise, air, and stormwater pollution all increase as a result. Mitigation suggestions are either impossible to implement or create more environmental damage. Response: Comments acknowledged. The traffic mitigation measures are feasible without further risk of degrading the environment. Table 5 in the Traffic Study demonstrates thaf with mitigation in place, all intersection and approach levels of service are better or the same as future cond�fions without mitigation and, similarly, average delays and vehicle queues are �tter or nearly the same �. � with mitigation. As noted in the Draft EAW, basec� ot��the traffic model SimTraffic, Year 2018 carbon monoxide emiss�o�siat;,the two study intersections most affected by new campus trips decreas `��y 60°fa� t Lydia Avenue/College entrance and increased by 6% at Lydia Ave ��ie/Snellin�Avenue with mitigation measures in p/ace, compared to 2018 conditions withouf`rrtitlgation. The signal timings assumed for the with-mitigation scenario at Lydia Aver�ue/Snelling Avenue may be adjusted slightly at implementation to minimiz�`�� ' marginal increase in CO emissions. It is not likely that noise due to the s �t creases in traffic at the Col/ege will be noticeably greater in the area. 7. Comment: The proposed large increase in enrollment and the failure of the modeling to take into account. ew traffic patterns emerging from the College plans for the Edina Realiy buil "' �re clearly substantive issues. Response: Comment acki`°�wledged. T"�re only about 100 - 125 administrati�re �mployees that wifl be tran ejr� -- o the Edina Realty site. Many of the n��e�sary student trips frorre tdae north cai�npus to the Administration Office can 8�';accommod�ted by walkitag/biking or via the existing shuttle bus service. Th '�� it� in staff vehic]e trips to � dina Realty site would likely result in a mino ease m �ehicle delay af�� lling Avenue/County Road G2 and a small de� ,�s��i�vei�tc "� �" � .��ielling Avenue/Lydia Avenue. 8. Comment: Cifi% shuttle service traffic on the ir College plans. posed alternative solutions such as off-site parking with ement of parking facilities only near the entrance to avoid �rtions of the campus have resulted in no changes in Response: The potential traffic and parking impacts have been analyzed through a Traffic and Parking Impact Study (as revised April 24, 2007). The mitigation measures outlined in that document have a/so been placed by the Planning Commission as a condition to approval of the PUD. A shuttle service is currently operating for students living near campus. 9. Comment: It is a bit difficult to understand why, with no increase from the College, the Snelling/Lydia interchange is so much more seriously impacted compared to the other three interchanges. Without further explanation, this anomaly might indicate a problem with the modeling. Response: Comment acknowledged. This is the result of the traffic forecasts and College trip distribution, not the modeling. Traffic on Snelling Avenue is increasrng by about 1% a year, whereas traffic on Lydia Avenue between Snelling and Fairview Avenues is increasing by about 0.6 % per year. In addition, TKDA Project No. 13529.002 Page 18 Draft Date: July 9, 2007