Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/2009

Home

longer a county facility; it is a city street and should be labeled as such. CR 63 east ofCSAH 5 is being turned back to the city and will not be a future county road. The same is true for CR 27. A note should be made for the latter segments that they will be future city streets. . II Page 6-14 - Table 6-2 Existing and Future Traffic Volumes: The segment forCSAH 5 that is listed as Cty 5 e/o Cty 5 is particularly confusing. It would be easier to understand if written as CSAH 5 e/o CSAH 56. II Page 6-14- Table 6-2 Existing and Future Traffic Volumes: As to the forecasts, the county will only comment on those without a river crossing - some ofthe forecasts appear to be too high and others appear to be too low. Due to changes in socioeconomic data that the city is using, it is logical that numbers will be different. II Page 6-14 - Table 6-2 Existing and Future Traffic Volumes: The footnotes need to be changed. The first footnote should be removed. The second footnote should remove reference to the Anoka County 2030 Transportation Plan. It can state that it used the Anoka County travel forecast model with changes to socioeconomic data and to the roadway network (roadway changes are only assumed for the river crossing scenario). II . Page 6-14 - Table 6-2 Existing and Future Traffic Volumes: The .countywould suggest adding another volume on US 10/169 between CSAH 56 and CSAH 57 - that will have higher traffic numbers and further bolster the case for needed improvements to US 10. -II Page 6-14/15 - Adequacy of Roadway System in Year 2030 - 1st paragraph: Anoka County would like to see what capacity thresholds are being referenced. The text indicates that the consultant used thresholds accepted by Anoka County, but we have not seen what has been used: The county has commented on several transportation plans prepared by consultants that we disagree with their thresholds. II Page 6-15 - Adequacy of Roadway System in Year 2030 - 1 st full paragraph: The county agrees thatthere will be congestion on US 10/169, but some of the numbers on the county system do not reflect congested segments. CSAH 56 between US 10 and Alpine Drive - this roadway will be expanded to a four-lane facility between US 10 and CSAH 116 by 2011. That will address congestion in that segment. North ofCSAR 116 and Alpine is borderline for congestion based on the county's future forecasts which show approximately 10,000 vehicles just north of CSAH 116. CSAH 57 between TB: 10 and CSAH 116 is a four-lane facility and can accommodate the projected traffic. CSAH 116 will be widened to a four-lane facility between TH 47 and CSAH 57 in 2011. That segment can accommodate the future traffic volumes and will not be congested in2030. II Page 6-15 - Adequacy of Roadway System in Year 2030 -last paragraph: This paragraph can be removed. II Page 6-15 - Roadway System Plan - Recommended Policies - bullet 1: The sentence, "The City recognizes that the Transportation System Plan for Mn/DOT's MetroDivision does not include upgrading of either TH 10 or TH 47" is somewhat incorrect. The TSP reco gnizes the need for improvements on both TH 10 and TH 47, but they are unfunded at this time. Incorporating the 84