My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-10-25_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-10-25_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/28/2011 9:20:59 AM
Creation date
11/28/2011 9:20:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/25/2011
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
bicycle lane stenciling, striping and other options that staff could address with <br /> Ramsey County for the next phase of the Rice Street project. <br /> 5. Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy <br /> Ms. Bloom provided an updated draft of the Roseville Neighborhood Traffic <br /> Management Program (TMP), including changes that she'd incorporated from <br /> individual member comments, other than those from Chair DeBenedet and <br /> Member Gjerdingen that had yet to be incorporated, pending additional <br /> consideration and review by the full Commission. <br /> 1.1 Purpose (Page 1) <br /> Discussion ensued regarding comments related to violation of traffic laws and <br /> addressing aggressive drive behavior; and whether identifying it may increase that <br /> aggressive road behavior. <br /> Ms. Bloom opined that staff felt the purpose of the plan was well-defined as <br /> written at this time. Ms. Bloom noted that there is already a standing Traffic <br /> Safety Committee, and when that was the decision-making body and the threshold <br /> for something becoming a TMP issue and traffic safety discussion. <br /> Mr. Schwartz opined that the TMP should be written around infrastructure design <br /> issues rather than enforcement issues. <br /> Member Vanderwall noted that both suggestions identified driver behaviors, and <br /> the results of driver behavior, and opined that this may be redundant; with the <br /> overlying issue being the result of driver behavior making for unsafe <br /> neighborhoods, and suggested that the intent of the TMP was to alleviate those <br /> conditions, without seeming to be accusatory of drivers. In other words, Member <br /> Vanderwall suggested that the TMP was based on how we manage traffic, not <br /> how we manage drivers. <br /> Chair DeBenedet opined that traffic was managed through managing traffic <br /> behavior; however, he agreed to not including "violation of traffic laws," in this <br /> draft of the TMP. However, Chair DeBenedet opined that wherever else it was <br /> addressed, it should be broadly defined in the Purpose Statement. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that in the enforcement section of the TMP (page 7), this <br /> strategy was addressed. <br /> Ms. Bloom sought direction from the Commission on how to best encapsulate the <br /> enforcement item. <br /> Discussion included providing positive versus negative terminology to define it <br /> without judgment; whether the intent of the TMP was to address the negatives, <br /> and the need to identify conditions that prompt using this procedure; staff was <br /> directed to include a separate sentence that addressed promoting safe walking, or <br /> Page 3 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.