2017-06-27_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

263 Metropolitan Council and the regional growth plan for the Twin Cities area. If a 264 number looks unreasonable, they can communicate that with the Metropolitan 265 Council. 266 267 Mr. Culver commented the Metropolitan Council model is not going to put 5,000 268 cars on a roadway that cannot handle it. There may be 5,000 additional cars that 269 want to go somewhere, but they cannot because the roadway cannot handle it, and 270 then they end up on a larger road. They also have to look at the larger picture to 271 see how growth in other cities affects Roseville's traffic patterns. Mr. Culver stated 272 there is a plan to add a lane to Highway 36. 273 274 Member Seigler stated that is why he is concerned when the focus on transit and 275 bicycles. As other Cities grow and Highway 36 continues to get worse, everything 276 will continue to flood onto Roseville's streets. 277 278 Chair Cihacek commented the methodology does not have a predictive value for 279 them. They can agree the numbers are conservative and congestion will continue to 280 increase, and they need to use that information to find a solution. They also need to 281 understand what the assumptions are regarding volume of traffic. Mr. Culver 282 suggested they discuss these issues further outside of this meeting. 283 284 Mr. Mareck stated this is a capacity constraint model that restricts the traffic flow 285 to what the capacity is to the existing roadway lanes or to what is known to be added 286 in the future. It is done this way so that they understand how a road will function if 287 no additional funding is available. The City can then find solutions with the County 288 and Mn/DOT with any available funding. 289 Member Seigler inquired why they do not just have the road show it will not 290 function instead of changing the number to reflect what the road can handle. That 291 way they can focus on Highway 36. 292 Member Misra suggested they broaden their explorations of assumptions. Not all 293 young people are buying cars and baby boomers will not be driving in 2040. Mr. 294 Culver pointed out understanding the assumptions will be part of their response to 295 the Transportation Plan. 296 In response to Mr. Culver, Mr. Mareck stated the model does not directly consider 297 self -driving cars or any other technology that is not fully integrated at this time. It 298 is hard to know what impact it will have, but it is important to acknowledge through 299 a narrative in the plan. 300 Member Wozniak stated some reports show that self -driving cars are only 10 years 301 away and insurance rates will be too high for regular drivers that it will push them 302 into self -driving cars. 303 The Commission directed Mr. Mareck to include a narrative regarding self -driving 304 cars in to the Transportation Plan. Page 7 of 11