2017_07-25_PWETCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

171 studies at intersections to alleviate traffic issues, and possible policy changes that 172 could help improve the system in the future. After a plan is in place, more detailed 173 scoping studies are done, it is included in the City/County CIP or State 174 Improvement Program (STIP), right of way is acquired, and projects are completed. 175 This completed transportation plan is forecasted through the year 2040. 176 177 Mr. Mareck highlighted the goals and policies from the City's existing 178 transportation plan. He encouraged Commission members to look them over and 179 provide staff with feedback on things that may be out of date or additions that could 180 be made. He referred to Goal 5 and noted, that not all the multi -modal infrastructure 181 is owned by the City, and it was suggested to change the statement to read, 182 "Encourage the use of non -motorized transportation to provide or support a high - 183 quality network..." 184 185 Member Seigler (54.07) referred to Goal 2 and inquired why the City is so anti - 186 growth. Highway 36 is killing Roseville and making every street going east and 187 west a highway. The plan says they are not going to do expansion and expects 188 people to ride a bike. Chair Cihacek pointed out there is not a lot of space left in 189 Roseville for expansion, unless they change density. Mr. Mareck commented a 190 transportation plan is about putting together a balanced network of improvements. 191 In discussions, there has been a strong desire to focus on the bike and pedestrian 192 trails. 193 194 Member Seigler (56.22) suggested they build the transportation plan to include 195 future growth. Mr. Mareck stated at this stage they are only collecting input from 196 people regarding modes of transportation and there are not any solutions that are 197 being proposed. These types of projects will need to have multiple owners that 198 would include Mn/DOT, Ramsey County, and the City, and that is why they have 199 been included in the initial discussions. 200 201 The Commission discussed the future use of self -driving cars and if the future use 202 of them should be included as a mode of transit. They will make more efficient use 203 of roads, but will still use the roadways. 204 205 Mr. Culver stated there is conflict and synergy between Goals 2 and 3. Goal 3 does 206 address accommodating existing and projected demand of cars to reduce 207 congestion. The plan itself does not say they are against any roadway capacity and 208 they are open to expand roadways in an effort to improve congestion. The plan 209 represents they are in a constrained place both fiscally and with land, and it is 210 difficult to expand the roadways within an urban environment. Chair Cihacek 211 suggested they look more closely at Goals 2 and 3 and remove some of the 212 conflicting language. 213 214 Mr. Mareck referred to the maps in the meeting packet, beginning on page 34, and 215 continued his report on the existing roadways in Roseville regarding roadway 216 jurisdiction, lanes, classification, average daily traffic (ADT), existing and Page 5 of 11