Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 2004-152 - 2030 Transportation Policy Plan - 10/19/2004 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2004-152 2030 Transportation Policy Plan Whereas, forecasts call for almost one million additional residents in the seven-county metropolitan area by the year 2030; and Whereas, an effective and efficient transportation system,that includes both roads and transit,is key to the successful growth and development of our region; and Whereas, congestion and mobility issues are already among the most pressing challenges facing our region; and Whereas, a comprehensive and well-rounded plan for our regional transportation system requires the input of numerous stakeholders, including local governments. Now therefore be it resolved, that the City Council of City of Eden Prairie provides the following specific comments on the 2030 Draft Transportation Policy Plan: 1. The City of Eden Prairie supports the attached comments prepared by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities in regards to the draft 2030 Transportation Policy Plan and urges the Metropolitan Council to make the requested changes to the draft plan before granting it final approval. 2. The City of Eden Prairie is concerned about the implications of the change in designation of TH62 (outside the I35W Commons Project) and TH169 within the"I494/I694 Beltway". Changing the status from an Improvement Corridor and moving these roadways into Management Corridor status at first glance moves them up in priority. However,this may preclude the two highways from being funded for their real need— expansion. With the possibility of an additional 30%fiuiding for the expansion category, less vital projects may well receive expansion funding ahead of these two critical corridors. The City of Eden Prairie requests that Metropolitan Council move these segments of TH62 and TH169 into the Expansion Category to insure their proper placement in funding the needed expansion improvements or identify that these two management corridors will be high priority candidates for expansion in the Constrained Plus 30% Scenario. is yr uke ayor ATTEST: SEAL Ka een Porta, City Clerk September 30,2004 TO: Metropolitan Council FR: Association of Metropolitan Municipalities RE: 2030 Transportation Policy Plan Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on the public hearing draft of the 2030 Transportation Policy Plan(TPP). The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities is composed of 70 cities from around the seven-county metropolitan area,who share your assessment that transportation is one of the most important challenges facing our region today. After closely following your work developing the draft TPP and discussing it with our Board of Directors and member cities, the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities offers the following comments for your consideration. 2030 Transportation Policy Plan Overall,the draft plan does a good a job of outlining the situation facing this region—a rapidly growing and increasingly mobile metropolitan area that is expected to add another million residents by the year 2030. The plan is equally clear and direct in recognizing that current funding sources and levels are inadequate to meet the needs of this region. Without additional funding, congestion will worsen,travel times will continue to increase and both our mobility and economic prosperity will suffer. Finally,we are encouraged by the emphasis this plan puts on transit. AMM's members are strong supporters of a multi-modal transportation system that combines highway investments with the regular route bus service and dedicated transitways required in a metropolitan region of our size. Given these areas of agreement,we would,however, like to urge the Council to make several changes to the draft plan before giving it final approval. 1) Transportation and Land Use Planning As an organization of cities,AMM and its members view this plan from a slightly different perspective than other stakeholders. To cities,this is not just another needs analysis-or study of our transportation system. It is a statutorily mandated and enforceable component of our planning process. Viewed from this perspective,we have several concerns about what the plan expects of local governments and their comprehensive plans. Policy 18 states that in order for a local comprehensive plan to be in conformance with the regional transportation system, cities must plan for the forecasts allocated to them and that they must do so in a manner that does not add traffic to any already congested roads. Furthermore,it states that extensions or capacity expansions to the regional sewer system will be predicated on the state or local unit of government demonstrating that"adequate transportation improvements will be provided when needed to avoid significant negative impact"on the highway system. This is unrealistic and unachievable in most parts of the region—especially given the congested state we are already in and the lack of funding to address existing problems or future needs. For the vast majority of metropolitan cities it simply will not be possible to accommodate any additional households without adding to already congested roads. There is no reasonable way to enforce this policy without shutting down development in many parts of the region. Given the official role this document plays in our local-regional planning process, it is important that all policies contained in the transportation policy plan are realistic and equally enforceable across the region. This is not the case with the currently drafted policy#18. Secondly,the draft plan talks a lot about encouraging cities to develop higher density and mixed- use centers that are transit-oriented and pedestrian friendly. This brings with it an obligation on the Council's part to commit to providing transit service to that area for the long-term. Unfortunately, this is an obligation the Council does not appear to have the resources to meet—especially in the case of developing cities. Cities cannot be expected to develop areas geared to transit,with higher densities and fewer parking spaces, only to have that transit service significantly reduced or eliminated during the next round of budget cuts. Additionally,the draft plan uses too many ambiguous terms when referring to cities and their comprehensive plans. In some cases,its says cities "must,"while in others it says cities are "expected to"or that they"should"do certain things. The plan needs to clearly identify what cities must have in their comprehensive plans in order for those plans to be found in compliance with the system plan,versus what the Council would like to see in those plans as a matter of preference. Finally,the draft plan talks extensively about"managing"traffic and"managing"congestion,but there is very little discussion or mention of"accommodating"traffic or people. This region is so far behind on its transportation infrastructure that the 30-year plan is almost entirely about meeting existing needs. There is very little in this plan to serve future growth. For example,the plan does not identify a single new principle arterial, despite the fact that numerous cities have approached the Council about roads that are already functioning as principle arterials,but lack the appropriate designation,planning or design. Furthermore, despite the Framework's projections of significant population increases for the developing cities in Dakota, Anoka and Scott Counties,the transportation policy plan fails to include any projects to serve that growth. 2)Transportation Funding The plan lacks a clear and specific proposal for funding the needs identified. Experience has shown that this region cannot afford to sit back and wait for additional funding to materialize out of the legislative process. The Metropolitan Council has an obligation to put politics aside and the needs of the metropolitan area first. We invite you to join with local governments and other stakeholders to actively propose and work for additional funding. AMM and its members have long supported a variety of means of raising the funding necessary to build and maintain the transportation and transit system this region needs. Whether it be an increase in traditional funding sources such as the gas tax or license tab fees, or the introduction of new sources such as a metro-area sales tax or county-imposed wheelage tax,AMM and its member cities are ready and willing to work with the Council to develop and pass a multi-modal transportation funding package that can realistically address the needs of this region. Without the voice of our regional planning authority, it will be very difficult to overcome the partisan disagreements and special-interest battles that have left us without a permanent funding increase for 16 years. Given the Council's responsibility to plan the regional transportation system,it is most definitely your role to step into the heart of the issue and contribute to a solution on the funding issues. At a very minimum the plan should provide more specifics about what additional funding would mean on the ground. In order to make the case for additional funding, legislators and citizens need specific information about how additional money would be spent. The transportation policy plan should paint a clear and specific picture of the transportation system residents can expect in exchange for supporting higher funding levels. Summary In summary,while the draft plan makes many good points and includes important planned investments,it does not go far enough in proposing a realistic funding plan,identifying the investments necessary to support an additional million residents or providing a realistic foundation for local comprehensive planning. Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns with you. If you have any questions or would like to discuss any of our comments in more detail,please feel free to contact Kris Wilson,interim executive director, at(651)215—4003.