CC_Minutes_2014_0721 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,July 21,2014 Page 9 ten expressed his frustration with the rationale and noted that the minimal amount of money spent per station for the BRT compared to other transit improvements and costs being implemented around the metro area, especially when it provided a direct benefit to Roseville and catalyst for future TCAAP development and en- hancing traffic flow in the northern suburbs. In addition to the previous comments of Councilmember Willmus, Councilmem- ber McGehee opined that Roselawn Avenue also served as a reliever for Highway 36; and agreed with the comments of Councilmember Etten that this BRT line was important to the City of Roseville and those riders connecting with the Green LRT Line. Councilmember McGehee stated that constituents in this area were in- terested across the board in connectivity within their urban metropolitan environ- ment, whether pathway connections, BRT, LRT or other options. Councilmember McGehee noted that consideration should be given to the most ideal way to ad- dress riders, whether handicapped or not, to provide that connectivity around the suburbs as well as to both downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis. Councilmember McGehee stated that she would personally like to lobby for a bus shelter at a minimum at Roselawn and Snelling Avenues and to pursue that with whatever entity necessary. While appreciating the forecasting provided by the Metropolitan Council and ref- erenced in bench handouts, Councilmember McGehee questioned if the density, growth and population modeling used was any more accurate than that of area traffic studies. In the thirty years she'd lived in Roseville, Councilmember McGehee opined that the modeling and its methodology continued to be inaccu- rate based on a thorough review of historical information; and suggested using a more accurate modeling system or equation than the current model, questioning if the modeling was any more accurate in other communities, since it wasn't accu- rate based on Roseville's history. Since the City of Roseville was essentially built out, and development only avail- able on certain sites as infill, and also referencing the bench handouts, Coun- cilmember Etten asked if that status was taken into consideration when forecast- ing future projections, such as an estimated 15% increase in Roseville's popula- tion. Councilmember Etten noted that Roseville currently had a variety of hous- ing types, some currently being constructed or proposed in the immediate future; however, he opined that the projections indicated a very considerable increase given that the community was already 97% to 98%built out. Councilmember Et- ten opined that he continued to struggle with how those projections were arrived at; and questioned where all the people would come from or how Roseville could accommodate that many more people as forecast. Councilmember Laliberte echoed the comments of Councilmembers McGehee and Etten related to the projected growth with Roseville being built out. Coun-