Laserfiche WebLink
262 and how it impacts the current congestion model. If they make changes, it will <br />263 become adaptive in the next round, but it is not currently present. <br />264 <br />265 Member Kimble inquired if this was an iterative model that will come back for <br />266 consideration in the Transportation Plan. <br />267 <br />268 Mr. Mareck explained they will provide an analysis that uses the Land Use Plan to <br />269 show the Metropolitan Council how the output of growth compares to the regional <br />270 allocation for Roseville. If there is a deviation from that, there has to be a justifying <br />271 explanation from the City. <br />272 <br />273 Chair Cihacek commented this model is not iterative. If they make changes in the <br />274 next five years, it will reflect itself in that same time span. They will make changes <br />275 in the next travel demand model, but that will not happen for another five years. <br />276 <br />277 Planning Commission Chair Murphy inquired if this plan reflects growth in <br />278 neighboring communities regarding transportation needs for people going through <br />279 Roseville. <br />280 <br />281 Chair Cihacek commented they will continue to push for better transit options and <br />282 try to make it clear they are underserved. It is the best congestion mitigation they <br />283 can make. <br />284 <br />285 Member Bull commented there is a lot of transit technology out there worldwide <br />286 they should look at to know how to plan for the next 20 years. <br />287 <br />288 Chair Cihacek suggested the policy include a position that states it is their goal to <br />289 incorporate advancing transit technology to fit the goals of the Transportation Plan. <br />290 It could be a broad statement to allow for the plan to be changed if needed. <br />291 <br />292 Chair Cihacek thanked the Planning Commission for coming suggested they meet <br />293 again after they discuss the City's pathway plan, and annually after that. <br />294 <br />295 6. Pathway Master Plan — Scoring Criteria <br />296 Chair Cihacek noted they did receive public comment that will be part of the packet <br />297 at the next meeting from a resident commending them for their new approach, and <br />298 asking several questions on improvements, specifically in Villa Park. This will be <br />299 added to the September PWET Commission packet. <br />300 <br />301 Andy Hingeveld, W SB and Associates, reported they came up with more standard <br />302 metrics and consolidated ranking criteria from the previous plan. He reviewed the <br />303 10 criteria that were part of the previous list and provided an updated consolidated <br />304 list for consideration. This list includes the following: <br />305 <br />306 Connects multiple destinations. <br />Page 7 of 15 <br />