Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Culver responded that those two would be removed as noted by Member Lenz. <br />Member Lenz noted that transit riders wanted amenities and clean shelters, and with <br />the diminishing return on those existing shelters and their depreciation, opined that <br />the City should not have to undertake their maintenance. While torn in providing <br />riders with shelter, Member Lenz stated that in reality the City could not afford to <br />keep or maintain them. <br />Member Wozniak concurred with Members Lenz and Cihacek. <br />Member Thurnau asked if staff could provide a sense of the actual boarding at each <br />stop and differentiate between that ridership between those with and without <br />shelters. Member Thumau asked for at a minimum ridership data from 2014 and if <br />certain shelters warranted further discussion for retaining or installing a shelter at <br />those intersections currently missing a shelter and having significant ridership. <br />However, Member Thumau noted that Metro Transit probably had already looked <br />into that before providing their response to acquire them. <br />Member Cihacek reiterated his recommendation that the City not purchase shelters. <br />Member Thumau noted three stops meeting the threshold for ridership recognized <br />by Member Cihacek (25 riders) and suggested purchasing at least those three <br />shelters or seeing if Metro Transit was amenable to do so in partnership with the <br />City of Roseville. If Metro Transit was not interested, Member Thumau agreed <br />with the recommendation not to purchase shelters. <br />Member Lenz noted that Metro Transit doesn't maintain smaller shelters and expect <br />some partnership for maintenance. <br />Member Cihacek noted that it may make sense to only potentially purchase those <br />shelters with significant daily ridership, it also didn't make sense to have them near <br />future BRT stations either. Member Cihacek opined that if splitting out one shelter <br />at the cost of the other twenty, it was more cost-effective to simply walk away from <br />purchase of any of them. <br />Member Seigler also questioned if they were actually worth $1,000 each; and had <br />obviously been located at sites having the most advertising impact; but he was not <br />supportive of the City purchasing any of the shelters. <br />Member Heimerl reviewed several routes (#75 and #76) that may drop off as the <br />BRT comes into play, as well as their being no realistic reason to take route #65 to <br />access the Green Line Light Rail Transit (LRT), but would typically take another <br />route to access the LRT. <br />Page 3 of 18 <br />