Laserfiche WebLink
and how would enforce it. Regarding the "no fare zone," Mr. Culver advised that <br /> it may prove difficult for Metro Transit to enforce such a system. <br /> Member Gjerdingen opined that everyone had to get off the BRT at Rosedale <br /> anyway, and suggested at a minimum the northbound BRT have the "no fare <br /> zone" available, since it would address existing issues that unfortunately occurred <br /> some time ago when the Highway 36 cloverleaf was installed, and this could <br /> provide an opportunity to improve that situation. <br /> Member Gjerdingen stated that he would like to see the PWETC get more <br /> involved in the I-35W/Cleveland Avenue project layout and design, specifically <br /> for pedestrian crossings, medians and how they looked; whether there would be <br /> one or four crosswalks and getting a sidewalk installed as part of it if the road was <br /> intended to be widened anyway, opining that a sidewalk versus turn lanes would <br /> be more beneficial, especially with the complications in the marsh land in that <br /> area. <br /> Mr. Culver advised that federal funding on the project would make additional <br /> design amenities difficult, as minimum elements were needed for installation on <br /> which those federal funds were based, with their priority being to move traffic. <br /> With the current layout providing dual left turn lanes onto the I-35W ramp, Mr. <br /> Culver advised that it was important to preserve some capacity in there; and while <br /> there may be alternative intersection designs as part of that, there would be <br /> limitations to changes in order to keep the width down. However, Mr. Culver <br /> agreed with Member Gjerdingen that the City should continue to do its best to get <br /> pedestrian facilities installed there. <br /> Discussion ensued among commissioners as to the location being referenced by <br /> Member Gjerdingen (along Cleveland Avenue from the intersection to Symantec). <br /> Member Seigler noted the discussion held with the City Council at their joint <br /> meeting and their support for filling in sidewalk segments to obtain the maximum <br /> return for minimum dollars available as a priority of the City Council, and <br /> appearing to be a direct charge to the PWETC to facilitate, as well as recognizing <br /> that any installation needed to be maintained as well, which would typically be <br /> the City's responsibility <br /> Mr. Culver clarified that, as part of the annual and long-term CIP budget, <br /> infrastructure—including sidewalks and pathways —would be included in funding <br /> allocations. <br /> Mr. Culver concurred, noting that each project would come back for review <br /> several times before actual construction. <br /> Chair Stenlund noted previous requests, and repeated interest expressed by <br /> the City Council, to participate in a tour of the Eureka Recycling facility; <br /> Page 4 of 18 <br />