Laserfiche WebLink
80 <br />81 Mr. Culver responded that those two would be removed as noted by Member Lenz. <br />82 <br />83 Member Lenz noted that transit riders wanted amenities and clean shelters, and with <br />84 the diminishing return on those existing shelters and their depreciation, opined that <br />85 the City should not have to undertake their maintenance. While torn in providing <br />86 riders with shelter, Member Lenz stated that in reality the City could not afford to <br />87 keep or maintain them. <br />88 <br />89 Member Wozniak concurred with Members Lenz a Cihacek. <br />90 <br />91 Member Thurnau asked if staff could provide a s110elllllnse of the actual boarding at each <br />92 stop and differentiate between that ridership between those with and without <br />93 shelters. Member Thurnau asked for at a minimum ridership data from 2014 and if <br />94 certain shelters warranted further discussion for retaining or installing a shelter at <br />95 those intersections currently missing a shelter and having significant ridership. <br />96 However, Member Thurnau noted that Metro Transit probably had already looked <br />97 into that before providing their response to acquir em. <br />98 <br />99 Member Cihacek reitera ecommend at the City not purchase shelters. <br />100 <br />101 Member Thurnau noted three stops meeting the t shold for ridership recognized <br />102 by Member Cihacek (25 riders) and suggested purchasing at least those three <br />103 shelters or seeing if Metro Transit was amenable to do so in partnership with the <br />104 City of Roseville. If Metro Transit was not interested, Member Thurnau agreed <br />105 with the recommendation not to purchase shelters. <br />106 <br />107 Member Lenz noted that Metro Transit doesn't maintain smaller shelters and expect <br />108 some partnership for maintenance <br />109 <br />110 Member Ciha k noted that it may make sense to only potentially purchase those <br />111 shelters with significant daily ridership, it also didn't make sense to have them near <br />112 future BRT stations either. Member Cihacek opined that if splitting out one shelter <br />113 at the cost of the other twenty, it was more cost-effective to simply walk away from <br />114 purchase of ny of them. <br />115 °"iiilllllll <br />116 Member Seig questioned if they were actually worth $1,000 each; and had <br />117 obviously been ated at sites having the most advertising impact; but he was not <br />118 supportive of the City purchasing any of the shelters. <br />119 <br />120 Member Heimerl reviewed several routes (#75 and #76) that may drop off as the <br />121 BRT comes into play, as well as their being no realistic reason to take route #65 to <br />122 access the Green Line Light Rail Transit (LRT), but would typically take another <br />123 route to access the LRT. <br />124 <br />Page 3 of 18 <br />