2014-07-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

125 and how would enforce it. Regarding the "no fare zone," Mr. Culver advised that 126 it may prove difficult for Metro Transit to enforce such a system. 127 128 Member Gjerdingen opined that everyone had to get off the BRT at Rosedale 129 anyway, and suggested at a minimum the northbound BRT have the "no fare 130 zone" available, since it would address existing issues that unfortunately occurred 131 some time ago when the Highway 36 cloverleaf was installed, and this could 132 provide an opportunity to improve that situation. 133 134 Member Gjerdingen stated that he would like to see the PWETC get more 135 involved in the I-35W/Cleveland Avenue project layout and design, specifically 136 for pedestrian crossings, medians and how they looked; whether there would be 137 one or four crosswalks and getting a sidewalk installed as part of it if the road was 138 intended to be widened anyway, opining that a sidewalk versus turn lanes would 139 be more beneficial, especially with the complications in thearsh land in that 140 area. 141 142 Mr. Culver advised that federal funding on the project would make additional 143 design amenities difficult, as minimum elements were needed for installation on 144 which those federal funds were based, with their priority being to move traffic. 145 With the current layout providing dual left turn lanes onto the I -35W ramp, Mr. 146 Culver advised that it was important to preserve some capacity in there; and while 147 there may be alternative intersection designs as part of that, there would be 148 limitations to chan s in order to keep the width down. However, Mr. Culver 149 agreed with Membe Gjerdingen that the City should continue to do its best to get 150 pedestrian faci es installed there. 151 it 152 Discussion ensued among commissioners as to the location being referenced by 153 Member Gjerdingen (along Cleveland Avenue from the intersection to Symantec). 154 -40 155 OMember Seigler noted the discussion held with the City Council at their joint 156 meeting and their support for filling in sidewalk segments to obtain the maximum 157 return for minimum dollars available as a priority of the City Council, and 158 appearing to be a direct charge to the PWETC to facilitate, as well as recognizing 159 that any installation needed to be maintained as well, which would typically be 160 the City's res onsibility 161 162 Mr. Culver clarified that, as part of the annual and long-term CIP budget, 163 infrastructure — including sidewalks and pathways — would be included in funding 164 allocations. 165 166 Mr. Culver concurred, noting that each project would come back for review 167 several times before actual construction. 168 169 Chair Stenlund noted previous requests, and repeated interest expressed by 170 the City Council, to participate in a tour of the Eureka Recycling facility; Page 4 of 18