HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.a. Adopt Resolution Regarding 2030 Transportation Policy Planf
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
City Council Meeting Date: October 5, 2004
AGENDA ITEM: 2030 TRANSPORTATION POLICY
AGENDA SECTION:
PLAN
Legislative /Intergovernmental
PREPARED BY: JAMIE VERBRUGGE, CITY ADMIN.
AGEN
ATTACHMENTS: AMM Comments; Resolution
APPROVED BY
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
COMMENTS BY THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES
REGARDING THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S 2030 TRANSPORTATION POLICY
PLAN
ACTION:
ISSUE
The Metropolitan Council has distributed the 2030 Transportation Policy Plan for public
review and comment.
BACKGROUND
The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) has reviewed the plan and provided
comments reflective of its member concerns. The comments are attached for review. AMM
has asked its members to pass a resolution supportive of its comments for submittal to the
Metropolitan Council.
SUMMARY
Staff has reviewed the comments and found them to be consistent with the concerns of the
City of Rosemount. City staff will be preparing comments more specific to the City of
Rosemount for consideration by the City Council at its October 19, 2004 meeting.
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.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2004 -
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE
2030 TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN
WHEREAS, forecasts call for almost one million additional residents in the seven - county
metropolitan area by the year 2030;
WHEREAS, an effective and efficient transportation system, that includes both roads and
transit, is key to the successful growth and development of our region;
WHEREAS, congestion and mobility issues are already among the most pressing challenges
facing our region;
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 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount,
Dakota County, Minnesota, hereby supports the attached comments prepared by the Association
of Metropolitan Municipalities in regards to the draft 2030 Transpiration Policy Plan and urges
the Metropolitan Council to make the requested changes to the draft plan before granting it final
approval.
ADOPTED this 5th day of October, 2004 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
RESOLUTION 2004 -
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and
adopted by the City Council of Rosemount at a duly authorized meeting thereof, held on the 2nd
day of May, 2000, as disclosed by the records of said City in my possession.
(SEAL)
Linda Jentink, Rosemount City Clerk
Motion by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Second by:
Member(s) absent:
OA