06/03/86 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

II. DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS Development aasumpUons within the atudy area were updated by the Technioal Committee to reflect planning assumptions in the oommun1t1es. Prior development forecasts which had been prepared by the Metropolitan Council were replaced with the updates submitted by the oommunities. In most 'cases the ccDlDunity figures were approximately the same (plus or a1nus 10 percent). Resolution cf a few of the numbers was required as discussed below. Use of municipal forecasts in the demand analysh was selected ao that the study of river crossing needs would be cona1stent with local planS. Overall, the changes from regional numbers were not highly significant. Council Forecasts Technical Committee Percent (April , 1985) Forecasts Difference 1'0pulation 239,900 257,1190 + 7 Households 85,700 89,900 + 5 Employment 105,400 115,900 +10 It is interesting to note that the study area forecasts account for 9 percent of the tuture population projected for the seven county region and 7 percent of projected jobs. Table 1 summarizes the forecaste~y community. The original Council forecasts (left collllllI1) are those currently in the travel forecast computer files. The updated Council 2000 forecasts (center column) represent the current forecast (Mid 1985) made by the council's Research Department and, as such, reneat present trends and new information on activities around the region. Both forecasts are unofficial in that they have not been officially reviewed and . approved by the Metropolitan Council. The latest round of forecasts, slightly modified perhaps to reflect discussions with local ..~ities, will be incorporated into the updated Metropolitan Development Framework (MDF) plan for the region in 1986. The purpose of reviewing and comparing forecasts and land use pattems has been to determine where major variations exist in the TAZ data \lBed as the basis for the tl9vel forecasts. A variation of 20 percent or more could have a significant impact on the .travel model's assignment of traffic to various routes. Comparing the municipal with the original Council forecasts, three cities standout: Brooklyn Park, Champlin and Dayton. The new Council forecasts bring Brooklyn l'ark within a 20 percent variation. Note that the hO\IBehold variation is minimal in any case. With respect to Dayton, the variation will have no real impact on the system, so it can be ignored. With respect to Champlin, the initial variation in population was reflected in households, which was significant and needed to be resolved. Champlin had provided a saturation estimate, so the original council forecast was \lBed instead. The onlY major variation found in the employment figureS is in Brooklyn Center. Here the anticipated employment expansion in 2000 is more than 50 7 24- ~