4.4. SR 11-21-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 8, 2011 Page 4 of 4 Response to Comment #1- It is understood that using the 2.9% per year is a conservative assumption and that actual historic growth is closer to 1.5%. However, in order to insure that a worst case scenario was analyzed the higher value was used. Even with a lower background growth factor, the conclusions on when specific improvements are needed in relationship to the AUAR development areas would not change (i.e. prior to development dual left turn lanes at 171St Avenue; prior to Phase 2 the addition of a new signalized intersection at Twin Lakes Road, and; prior to Phase 3 closing of all access on TH 10 and construction of an interchange at Twin Lakes Road). Comment #2: Trip Distribution: Use of a city travel demand model for trip distribution raises the question of why this model wasn't used for trip generation and background growth forecasts. A better understanding of this would be helpful. Response to Comment #Z -The City's travel demand model was used strictly to determine the percentage of traffic originating or destined to the north, south, east or west. The specific land use being considered for the AUAR area is not the same as that in the model and therefore would not be a good representation of traffic generation or background growth. The AUAR analysis also subdivided the area into smaller Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's) that would provide a more detailed analysis. In addition the background traffic growth factor was used to provide a worst case condition (see response to comment #1). Comment #3: Given the close access to the Northstar commuter rail station why weren't rail trips considered in terms of mode shifts? Response to Comment #3 - As indicated in response to comment #1, we wanted to analyze a worst case scenario for traffic operations. While it is anticipated that there will be some shift in commuter traffic to the Northstar line, it is not anticipated that the mode shift would be significant enough to impact vehicle traffic operations. Comment #4: Site/Development Generated Traffic: While the use of ITE Trip Generation rates is acceptable, given the significant size of the development and the land use mix of the scenarios, more information on the assumptions used would be helpful. Assumptions on pass by trips, and internal trips within the study area need to be assessed and the cumulative ITE trip totals reduced accordingly. It would also be helpful to list which ITE land use categories were used. Response to Comment #4 -The paragraph above Table 21-4 of the AUAR indicates that the traffic generation was adjusted to account for pass-by and diverted trips. This, together with adding the ITE land use codes, will be included in the Final AUAR. Comment #5: Any road geometric changes proposed for TH 10 including turn lanes will need to submitted as a layout for Mn/DOT's review and acceptance. Instructions for preparing a layout can be found at http•//www dot state mn us/design/geometric/review.html. Please contact Nancy Jacobson, Mn/DOT Metro Design 651-234-7647 or Nancy L Jacobson state.mn.us. Minneapolis ^ St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer N:IPublic BodieslCity CouncillCouncil RCAIAgenda PacketVl-2l-20lllComment Responses.docx