Agenda - Council - 02/23/2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

plan is submitted to the Met Council. ■ Page 6 -12 — 2030 Traffic Forecasts —1 paragraph: The forecasts used are not from the Anoka County Transportation Plan. Text should be reworded to state that the city's consultant used the Anoka County travel forecast model to prepare 2030 travel forecasts. A second sentence should state that the city's consultant modified the Anoka County model by changing socioeconomic data and including additional roadway improvements. This is an error in multiple areas of the plan. It needs to be corrected in all areas. ■ Page 6 -12 — 2030 Traffic Forecasts — 2 °a paragraph: The county finds it odd that the Met Council would request 2030 forecasts to be prepared assuming a constructed river crossing as the primary forecasts. The Met Council's Transportation Policy Plan does not include the construction of a new river crossing before 2030. Since it is not an approved regional improvement, it should not be considered a primary forecast, it should be the "reference purposes only" forecast. Additionally, the reference to the Anoka County forecasts is incorrect. The city's consultant used the county's forecasting model to generate future volumes; it did not use actual Anoka County forecasts. Also, the text should clarify whether or not a full access interchange was also assumed at CSAH 83 as part of the scenario with a river crossing and whether or not interchanges at CSAH 56 and CSAH 57 were also assumed as part of the river crossing scenario. Having interchanges at these locations would have a freeway on US 10/169 and could make a significant difference in forecasts. ■ Page 6 -13 — Table 12030 Household and Employment Projections by TAZ: Text in the plan notes that the city updated the socioeconomic data in the Anoka County model. The data in the county model is from the Met Council approved system statements and input from the city. Did the city change its socioeconomic data with the approval of the Met Council or is it a new scenario that has not been approved? If it is approved, then nothing needs to be done. If it is different than what has been approved by the Met Council, text should indicate why it is different and what the difference is (e.g, 10 percent additional population by 2030 or 20 percent more employment by 2030). ■ Page 6 -14 — Table 6 -2 Existing and Future Traffic Volumes: References to county routes are incorrectly labeled. Additionally, it is difficult to identify travel forecast locations. A map showing the traffic volumes would be easier to follow. For example, CSAH 83 has two numbers listed, one south of CSAH 22 and one north of 153rd. Both numbers are located north of 153rd and south of CSAH 22, but where? Why 153rd for the location, it is not a major roadway facility where you would expect to see a change in volume. Alpine would be a better location and an additional location south of CSAH 116 would also be helpful given that is going to be the more heavily used portion of roadway. ■ Page 6 -14 - Table 6 -2 Existing and Future Traffic Volumes: The columns in the table are incorrectly labeled. "Location of Count" should be renamed "Location". "2020 County with future Bridge" should be renamed "2030 Forecasts with River Crossing ". "2020 County without future Bridge" should be renamed "2030 Forecasts without River Crossing ". The year is incorrect for both future scenarios and future volumes are not "counts" they are forecasts. ■ Page 6 -14 — Table 6 -2 Existing and Future Traffic Volumes: CR 63 west of CSAH 5 is no