1993_1115.ws_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

To: Proj ect File SW-93-1 From: Steven Gatlin, public Works Director RE: Bikeway/Pathway County Road C Date: October 21, 1993 On Wednesday, October 20, 1993, a meeting was held with the Metropolitan Council staff to discuss the status of the County Rodd C pathway project, In attendance were' Emil Brandt, staff advisor at Met Council to the Transportation Advisory Board, and Dave Engstrom, a MnDOT employee on loan to the Met Council. fir. En strom's function is to manage the 1 TEA projects, BRW also Doug Differt former had representatives at the meeting including � , MnDOT Deputy Commissioner, and Gary Ehret, project manager. - I attended representing the city. MnDOT explained the status of the ISTEA program in general for projects awarded in 1993 . It was noted that the goal of the funding committee was to have the project constructed as early as possible in 1994 . It was also noted that they are reviewing their criteria for future projects. Met Council staff - repeated that the original goal of the enhancement and pathway program was to rovide pathways which provided the highest number of "purposeful" trips which served the largest population possible. The most important concept for the pathway system was linkage -of the system with existing facilities and not necessarily design standards. We first provided updated schedule information to Met Council . We noted that we hope to complete the public. involvement process by January, complete plans by April, advertise in May., and let a contract at that time. Work would begin in late June or early July to be completed by the end of October, 1994 . This seemed to meet the Met Council's schedule, This schedule will be presented to the funding and programming committee which meets on Thursday, October 21, 1993 * We then discussed the feasible alternates to deal with the social, economic, and environmental concerns expressed by residents involving the impact of the County Road C pathway on the segment between victoria and Rice. The alternates which were discussed included the following: A, 1. Redefine the project as a multi-use facility on County Road C over the west half from Cleveland to Victorian and designate the east half for pedestrian usie only. Using this designation, a narrower section could be incorporated into the east half perhaps using the city standard cross-section of four-foot boulevard and five-foot path,*