2005_0411_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

6.9 Subsection H(Transit and Travel Demand Management) states: The I�osedale Shopping Center functions as a transit hub for all MTC, University of Minnesota and community circulator buses. �r provides a 30U parking space park-and-ridefacility, which although sizeable, is inadequate to meet the needs of transit riders using this major transit hub. It also serves as a remote facility for the Minnesota State Fair and major events at the John Rose Oval. 6.10 Metro Transit has 6 years remaining on their existing "exclusive use agreement" with Rosedale Center. Metro Transit does not have a permanent easement; the agreement can be bought out by Rosedale at any time. 6. ll Jones Lang LaSa11e and Metro Transit have negotiated a letter of intent which summarizes an agreement on improvements and modifications to the existing agreements (Transit Hub & Transit Operating Agreements). Specifically, the 20 year use agreement includes the creation of a new transit transfer hub adj acent to the east side of the theater that includes a shelter and rest�oo� facilities for drivers, and three separate bus rows and passenger transfer area; a pick-u�ldrop-oif area near the mall entry and Macaroni Grill; and a 375 stall park-in-ride lot with a transit shelter at the eastern periphery parking lot. TRAFFIC: 6.12 As discussed during the Concept approval process, the traffic report (Rosedale Center Mall Expansion Traffic Impact Study) reviewed four different scenarios. First, Parsons (Mall traffic consultant) analyzed the 2006 & 2025 "No Build" scenario, which establishes a baseline for what the background traffic would be on these roads if the expansion did not happen. Second, Parsons took a look at the 2006 & 2025 "Build" scenario, which demonstrates the impacts to the public street system from the proposed expansion. 6.13 The Parsons report performed a"level of service" analysis for each of the seven intersections surrounding the mall on County Road B-2 and Fairview. SEH (City's traffic consultant) was concerned by proposed mitigation measures that mo-a}- not adequately address all of the traffic capacity and turning movements that appear when the additional traffic is introduced onto the surrounding public street system. 6.14 Due to the reduced size in the project, additional analysis was completed by Parsons and reviewed by SEH. This analysis concludes that the following improvements are necessary: • Eastbound TH 36/Fairv�iew Avenue 4 Optimized cycle lengths, splits and offsets ° Lagging southbound ��ft turn PF3�i�B R�'A I� in•711�e��la�xmes�l p4] h�i I}sge 8 i�l' I�