03-21-16 Joint WS with PTRC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I-694 NON-MOTORIZED CROSSING STUDY PAGE 21 PUBLIC FEEDBACK ON EXISTING CONDITIONS A public open house was held for the I-694 Crossing study on September 27th 2012. The open house gave residents an opportunity to provide feedback on the existing crossings of I-694 in the study area, routes to move across and parallel to I-694, area destinations, and suggestions for improvement. Information about the existing crossing locations was presented using large display boards with photographs and a short description of the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure at each location. Large maps of the study area were also available for participants to identify barriers and gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle network. Staff from MnDOT, Ramsey County, and many of the communities along the corridor were on-hand to talk with participants about their ideas and answer questions. Materials from the open house were posted on the MnDOT website with the option for people to send in additional surveys and comments. The open house was well-attended with 40 people that signed in (not including agency staff) representing a variety of communities along the corridor. The meeting was interactive, and generally received a positive reception from the community. Forty surveys were completed about the existing and potential crossing locations of I-694, five worksheets were completed about issues related to crossings and intersections outside of the I-694 corridor (most of these were regarding the crossing of I-35W at County Road 96). General comment cards and email comments were also collected. There were not enough surveys completed for each location to draw conclusive results, since many participants only filled out surveys for the crossings they were most familiar with in the study area. However, there were some trends among survey responses and general comment cards that can be highlighted. Highly Rated Crossings: The following crossing locations were generally ranked high (4-5 on a scale of 1-5) on the survey or noted as favorable in the general comments: • Victoria: The Separated trail and lower vehicle volumes at the interchange got favorable reviews from participants. • Grass Lake: The crossing’s complete separation from vehicular traffic as a stand-alone facility was highly valued. Participants noted that the inability to access the trail at night (due to park operating hours) and lack of east/west connections as a barrier to giving it a higher rating. • Bruce Vento Regional Trail: This trail crossing was noted as a positive alternative to TH 61, because of its complete separation from traffic. Several people noted the desire to extend the trail north. • Lexington: The trail facility along Lexington was noted as positive, but high traffic volumes were identified as a detractor from this facility as a safe/comfortable route for some users.