Laserfiche WebLink
The AMM is concerned by several issues. The original study is not <br />a corridor selection study but more a c-iteria development study. <br />Of the two corridors proposed for UMPTA grant study, the SW <br />corridor scored lower than other corridors based on the developed <br />criteria. The UMTA study assumes a corridor selection which does <br />not appear to have been done. The previous study was <br />predominately a staff function and did not go through advisory <br />committees or public hearings to provide input for criteria or <br />other major concerns that have not been addressed. Basically the <br />'3C' (continuous, comprehensive, and cooperative with local <br />elected officials involvement) process has not been initiated in <br />this area as it usually is for, Federally funded and other <br />important programs. <br />THE AMM STRONGLY URGES THE GOVERNOR, LFGISLATAURE,AND <br />METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TO CONTINUE. THE '3C' PROCESS UTILIZING TAB, <br />TAC, RTB, AND PUBLIC INPUT TO ESTABLISH CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES <br />FOR THE STUDY OF LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AS WELL AS ALL OTHER TRANSIT <br />OPTIONS WHICH COULD BENEF_T THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM. THE <br />PROCESS SHOULD INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO SUCH ISSUES AS <br />SPECIFIi" TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE SELECTION CRITERIA; OPERATION FUNDING <br />AND CONTROL (PRIVATE, PUB;.IC, JOTNT POWERS OR A COMBINATION); <br />FUNDING MET3ODS; AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A CORRIDOR. THESE <br />QUESTIONS AND OTHERS SHOULD LE CONSIDERED SO THAT STANDARDS AND <br />PROCEDURES CAN BE DEVELOPED FOR APPLICATION TO CORRIDOR SELECTION <br />STUDIES AND SPECIFIC TRANSIT FEASIBILIT`.` STUDIES. PRIOR TO <br />APPROVAL, AL.. ASPECTS OF A PARTICULAR L.R.T. PROPOSAL SHOULD HAVE <br />BEEN STAVDIF.O AND PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC AND APPROPRIATE <br />GOVERNMENTAL EODIES TO ASSURE. A VIAPLE SYSTEM. <br />V-J CITY SPEED LIMITS <br />Bills have peer, introtiuc— in past legislative sessions which <br />would grant cities the authority to set speed limits on city roads <br />and streets. The LMC has pol►cy which supports that authority for <br />cities outside of the seven county metropolitan area. Whereas <br />th i s policy of lc,c.a l authority for free standing rural roe put <br />state cities may be feasibit, it could be extremely dangerous and <br />confusing .n tt.e metropolitan area. The seven county metropolitan <br />area is made up of 140 continguous cities and a number of <br />townships. BecauncE of the compactner.,: of cities in this area, it <br />is often impossible to determine when one has crossed a boundary <br />from one city to the next. If one city ch;inges its limits, its <br />neighbor would either have to also change or post many <br />additional signs on each street crossing a boundary. This system <br />wou1J be coitly, extremely confusing to individuals, and might <br />cause some legal protlemn in cast of accidents. Therefore, <br />THE AMM SUPPORTS SPEED LIMIT CONTROL. OF CITY ROADS AND STREE":S AS <br />CORRENTLY PROVIDED BY LAW FOR THF. ME:TPPeOLITAN AREA AND WOULD <br />OPPOSE CHANGES TO GRANT GENERAL. S PFEC LI'tI' CONTROI. TO INDIVIDUAL <br />