My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013-09-24_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
2013-09-24_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/24/2013 2:47:09 PM
Creation date
10/24/2013 2:46:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/24/2013
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.
/
19
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
Map #1 - County Road D <br /> Member DeBenedet noted that he had ranked this segment high, while other <br /> Members ranked it low. <br /> At the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz reported on current backups <br /> at signal lights at County Road D and Fairview and Lydia and Fairview, with <br /> Ramsey County including those areas in its five-year update plan for <br /> reconstruction. <br /> Member Felice spoke in support of completing that connection. <br /> Member Gjerdingen noted overgrowth conditions on some segments of the old <br /> sidewalk at County Road D and Cleveland Avenue. <br /> With a potential for road reconstruction, Member Felice noted that rankings could <br /> change and they could and should be revisited occasionally. <br /> Member DeBenedet suggested including that as a footnote to the final plan. <br /> In reviewing the dollar amounts, Member Gjerdingen noted the difference when <br /> cost-sharing was available for some segments. Member Gjerdingen suggested <br /> including another footnote to identify any segments that were in Ramsey <br /> County's 5-year reconstruction plan. <br /> Map #2 - C-2 west of Snelling Avenue <br /> Member Gjerdingen noted off- and on-road options listed; and from the <br /> perspective of Councilmembers, he wasn't sure what was to be made of the list as <br /> it was currently so spread out and broken up, making it hard to distinguish <br /> according to the original Pathway Master Plan, which included on- and off-road <br /> options for the entire stretch of County Road C-2. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that the options were dependent on traffic volumes, and if <br /> they were at a certain number, off-road options were preferred for high traffic <br /> areas; on-road options for medium traffic; and on-road with sidewalk for lower <br /> traffic volume areas. <br /> Member Gjerdingen opined that it made sense to eliminate any on-road options <br /> from the spreadsheet if they fell below that threshold; with Mr. Schwartz <br /> responding that the higher thresholds should be evident for those roads listed. As <br /> an example, Member Gjerdingen pointed out the Long Lake Road segment to <br /> Long Lake Road segment at more than 2,000 traffic volume, with Mr. Schwartz <br /> responding that it was already at a much higher volume (over 3,000 vehicles per <br /> day). Member Gjerdingen concluded that it could be left at the current ranking <br /> and included on the spreadsheet, but expressed his preference if segments could <br /> be better aligned. <br /> Page 14 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.