01-23-1990 PTRC Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

G. ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATE ROUTES: (continued) • 3. Right-of-way width. Utilizing the preceding traffic volume information and the State Aid standards (See Paragraph F. l) , alternative roadway cross-sections were developed and tested against the varying right-of-way widths of candidate routes. (See Exhibit 4) All al- ternative cross-sectiors assume separated bike/pedestrian paths to reduce the width of paved roadway and improve safety. (See Exhibit 5 for graphic identification of right-of-way widths for all candidate routes. ) 4. On-street parking needs. Since provision of on-street parking space significantly affects the cross-sectional width of future parkways , areas where on-street parking is needed were identified. Generally, where residences front directly onto a candidate parkway route, a need for on-street parking was assumed. (See Exhibit 6) 5. Need for additional boulevard landscaping. In some locations , natural wooded areas or mature landscaping on private property minimize the need for additional street landscaping. Other areas could benefit from boulevard landscaping to create parkway character. (See Exhibit 7) 6 . Availability of landsca innc space beyond right-of-way- As stated in paragraph F .3, County policy is to restrict landscaping within the right-of-way. Therefore, the flexibility to provide boulevard-type landscaping beyond the right-of-way line is important to the long-term establishment of a parkway character. (See Exhibit 8) 7 . Existing overhead utility; lines . Overhead power and telephor-2 lines not only seriously reduce the attractive- ness of the parkway, but also limit the location and type of future boulevard landscaping. The preponderance of overhead lines along certain segments of candidate routes is a definite hindrance to parkway development. (See Exhibit 9) H. FINANCIAL FACTORS: Within the scope of this study, no engineering estimates of specific costs of parkway consturction were prepared. Assum- ing basic road construction costs of $75 to $85 per lineal foot (the approximate cost currently being experienced for street construction in Arden Hills) , it is obvious that large- scale road reconstruction witf,in a short time-frame would be financially prohibitive to both the County and City. Extensive parkway development is considered feasible only if it is accomplished on a programmed basis as segments of roadway require reconstruction. It is also considered in the City' s financial interest to maintain the present County-State Aid Highway designation on these routes to fund basic roadway and pedestrian/bike path construction. r