Laserfiche WebLink
79 Mr. Mareck continued his report by highlighting the meetings and public <br />80 engagement events that have already taken place. He reported the Public Works <br />81 Commission is working on a separate master plan that is not required by the <br />82 Metropolitan Council, and it details project identification and prioritization of City <br />83 pathways. They hope to have the plan approved by the City Council in mid - <br />84 December. <br />85 <br />86 Mr. Mareck referred to page 21 of the meeting packet, and asked the group what <br />87 does and does not work well with the City of Roseville transportation system. <br />88 <br />89 Member Bull inquired if the intersection of Interstate 35 and Highway 36 are in the <br />90 purview of the City or Mn/DOT. <br />91 <br />92 Mr. Mareck responded the Interstate system is owned and managed by Mn/DOT, <br />93 and they decide when and where improvements take place. However, they are <br />94 required to coordinate with the Counties and Cities those roadways pass through. <br />95 This Transportation Plan helps Mn/DOT and the County understand whatthe City's <br />96 needs are. At times, financial resources are shared on projects when State or County <br />97 roadways intersect with City's roadways. The City also has its own Capital <br />98 Improvement Program on projects and will reach out to the County or Mn/DOT as <br />99 needed. <br />100 <br />101 Planning Commission Chair Murphy commented Mn/DOT, the County, and the <br />102 City worked together on the improvements for Twin Lakes Parkway/Cleveland <br />103 Avenue/Northbound 35W/County Road C exit. <br />104 <br />105 Member Kimble inquired what the projects are in the near future for Highway 36. <br />106 <br />107 Mr. Mareck responded Mn/DOT is in the planning stages of developing a MnPASS <br />108 feasibility study for Highway 36. They will be looking at commuting patterns, <br />109 traffic levels, and the right ofway blueprintto see if there is room to add a MnPASS <br />110 lane and determine if it is something the community wants. It is difficult to build <br />111 out of congestion, because if another lane is added, it will become congested again <br />112 with growth in the region. Most of the major expansion projects are in the past, <br />113 and Mn/DOT will be very critical on when and where they are done in the future. <br />114 In order to mitigate the congestion concern, Mn/DOT is trying to coordinate with <br />115 the Metropolitan Council to emphasize transit, bike and pedestrian modality, <br />116 MnPASS, staggered work hours, and ride sharing. <br />117 <br />118 Member Sparby inquired what kind of control the City has over roads that back up <br />119 onto Highway 36, like Fairview Avenue. <br />120 <br />121 Mr. Mareck responded they are looking for input on and working with staff as part <br />122 of the overall transportation network. They will identify congested corridors and <br />123 determine the ability of staff to do more detailed studies in those areas. He referred <br />124 to a document on page 30 in the packet, provided by the Metropolitan Council. It <br />Page 3 of 15 <br />