Laserfiche WebLink
R�QU��T ��Ft C���C11. d�C�l��! <br />AGEiJDA jE`.TIOti: <br />Reports and Recommendations <br />��kM {�EO.: <br />��� <br />ITEM DESCRtPT10N' <br />ORiG1iVATING D�°T./JlV.: <br />AdmXnistratia n <br />Ramsey Catz�ty Bikeway Sys�em <br />aV1EETkNG <br />❑QTE: 5/17/76 <br />�EPT. NEAU r\PPRUVa! . <br />MGR. �tEVIEWEO/RECQMMEN05: <br />The City has receive�. a request fx�am Ramsey CoLmty to review the proposed Ramsey <br />Cot�ty ltegional Bikeway System Plan. The County �3oard, which has approved the plan, <br />is askin.g for approval from the suburbar� comEnLmities prior to hiay 24. The concept <br />of the plan is ta develap a bikeway systen� to serve the �uture of Ramsey Coi.mty Open <br />Space si�es. The system iricludes 160 zniles of bikeways both on and o�f roadways. <br />The Roseville Recreation Cormnittee reviewecl the plan at its May 3rd meeting. The <br />Coirnnittee agreed wzth the concept of the p1an, but has reserrrations on the unanswered <br />questions pertainin.g to what will happen ta ftzture i�npravements on other Coun�y roads. <br />Afrer reviewing the proposaZ uri.th the CoLU3.ty staff, the followirzg concerns have been <br />expressed: <br />1. The proposed bik�way system is located entirely an Catmty �'oads which lead ta <br />xegiana3. parks and ignores the other Cotu�ty roads. <br />2. The pathways selected are in several a�nstances along roadways tvith rather high <br />vehicular tiraffic volume, but only 28 miles of the �6Q mi.les_pro�osed a�-e ta be o£f <br />roach,ray in natuxe. A highex priority to safety is desirable. <br />�. The proposed system would uti.l�ze a11 availahle ftmds Zeaving no appor��mity far <br />bicycl� zmprvvements on Cot.mty xoa s�even �haugh they are in dire need af �hem. <br />4. Other proposed bicycle paths have been publicly discussed and presented whxch are <br />nat shown on the plan, such as CoLmty Road � iyest o� Cle��elar�d and Iaexington <br />Avenues. It is possible that a change cac�ld. be nad.e in �he Coimty's p�� ta <br />'�grandfa�her-in" at least these promised improvements. <br />Tn s�rn�.ry, the Cou�ty has develaped a very narrow definition of i�.s responsiblity <br />which has resulted in the omisszon af several potential3.y desirable portions oi the <br />�verall bikeway system. The b�.keways which have been praposed axe, in our opinian, <br />below the safe�y standards, which are c%sirable. I� these problems are not resolved, <br />it will cost th� City extensiue fimds to augment �he system on GoLmty roads, ox an <br />inadequa.te, �sa£e sysfiem ivill result. <br />If the Cqw�cil concurs with the staff concerns, these may be incorporated in�d �he <br />Cotuicil's acti.on. A member of the Ramsey County Open Space staff wa.Il be present to <br />review t�e plan with the CounciZ. <br />COUNCIL ACTION REQUE5TED; <br />Motion (apprava�ng) (denying) the concegt of the Rar►�sey {'.o��ty Regional. Bikeway S�rst�m <br />prepared by Ramsey Coiuity (with any conditions the Ca�.mcil may wish �a i�orpoxate.) , <br />