2016-10-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

540 At the request of Vice Chair Lenz, Mr. Culver reviewed the other resident petition 541 received for County Road C-2 and traffic studies about traffic flow along that 542 roadway. Mr. Culver noted some residents were advocating for a traffic light at the 543 intersection of Lexington Avenue and County Road C-2; but noted the downside 544 of that was that more vehicles would then use that road, creating more issues for 545 those residents. 546 547 As part of traffic management, Vice Chair Lenz requested review of timing of 548 signal lights on Snelling Avenue where it intersected with County Road C and 549 Lincoln Avenue. 550 551 Mr. Culver, based on his past experience with traffic control and signal timing, 552 noted the challenges of those intersections and coordinating it and potential backups 553 from Snelling onto those east/west streets and little place for traffic to go if timing 554 was changed. Mr. Culver reviewed rationale with higher traffic volume corridors 555 and goal of signal timing to reduce the average amount of delay at the intersection 556 and along the entire corridor; and unfortunate results that side streets generally get 557 penalized and the main lines get a priority to reduce overall average delays. Mr. 558 Culver noted it was frus ting with delays on side streets using that philosophy 559 even though it served th 40 r purpose. 560 6h 561 Mr. Culver noted the intern design work being nsidered by city staff and the 562 City Council to address that area, proposing County Road C-2, Snelling Avenue, 563 Lincoln Avenue and Terrace Drive be redesigned to offload the Lincoln side and 564 provide higher capacity and a better option at Fairview Avenue and County Road 565 D by better coordinati ydia Avenue County Road C-2 and the County Road C 566 junctions. 567 568C25% eimerl as e who ade t e decision on the assessment split of 75% 569 r the Traffic Management Plan parameters. In the case of the Wheeler 570 re, Member Heimerl noted even those this was a restricted area for the 571 communty, all Roseville residents would be covering 25% of the cost for the 572 closure and driveway relocation, resulting in why a small number of residents 573 should be allowed restricted access at the cost of all. 574 575 Mr. Culver stated he would need to further review the discussion and rationale in 576 developing the Traffic Management Program modeled after other communities and 577 developed prior to his tenure with the city, but receiving PWETC and City Council 578 approvals at the time. In some cased, Mr. Culver noted the improvements may be 579 seen as improving the quality of life for a broader area beyond those directly 580 benefitting from a project. 581 582 As a resident, Member Heimerl stated he might be less inclined to spend money on 583 other people's road closures, when during Minnesota State Fair time, he couldn't 584 get out of his own driveway onto Hamline Avenue. 585 Page 13 of 14