My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-05-24_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2016
>
2016-05-24_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/19/2016 4:24:58 PM
Creation date
5/19/2016 4:24:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/24/2016
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.
/
99
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
172 Transit's sustainability and environmental leadership efforts, Mr. Williams noted <br /> 173 their attempts to minimize waste, reduce energy consumption, and comply with <br /> 174 state mandates including stormwater mitigation. Mr. Williams noted that <br /> 175 preservation challenges included physical demands, vandalism, accidents and <br /> 176 weather-related concerns. <br /> 177 <br /> 178 Mr. Williams displayed a map showing Roseville weekday boarding averages at <br /> 179 bus stops currently without shelters. <br /> 180 <br /> 181 Mr. Lamb reviewed the criteria for designing and placing more shelters,with <br /> 182 particular emphasis given to areas with specific concentrations of poverty and <br /> 183 minority populations based on receipt of federal funding requiring certain <br /> 184 situations for using that funding; and ongoing revisions of Metro Transit's capital <br /> 185 program accordingly and considering criteria for other boarding stops. <br /> 186 <br /> 187 Mr. Lamb further reviewed the background used for boardings and shelters within <br /> 188 the metropolitan Minneapolis/St. Paul area, with focus on areas with more <br /> 189 density, such as shelters located for stops showing 40 or more boarders per day in <br /> 190 urban areas, and 25+boarders per day in less dense suburban areas. If boardings <br /> 191 show lower than 25 per day, Mr. Lamb noted that shelters are not typically <br /> 192 considered at those sites due to the capital costs and extensive maintenance costs. <br /> 193 Mr. Lamb noted that annual cost estimates for shelter maintenance were between <br /> 194 $10,000 and $11,000 per shelter. With additional funding available for up to 150 <br /> 195 new shelters, Mr. Lamb advised that Metro Transit was reviewing where best to <br /> 196 place them, obviously as previously noted, often tied to federal funding and those <br /> 197 areas showing higher poverty and/or minority populations. <br /> 198 <br /> 199 Member Lenz asked that Mr. Williams speak to physical accessibility of Metro <br /> 200 Transit bus stops,providing various examples of concerns in that accessibility. <br /> 201 <br /> 202 Mr. Williams noted that maintaining accessibility at bus stops and/or shelters was <br /> 203 always a challenge, and Metro Transit was attempting to implement a better bus <br /> 204 stops program," similar to the highway "Adopt-a-Highway Program,"but instead <br /> 205 an "Adopt-a-Shelter"program, seeking partners (e.g. businesses or private <br /> 206 individuals)to monitor shelters or stops in their area to take on some of the daily <br /> 207 maintenance (e.g. snow or trash removal,window cleaning, etc.). Mr. Williams <br /> 208 reported one landscape firm in the south metropolitan area that had taken the <br /> 209 charge to beautify shelters with plantings, and noted that by their taking on that <br /> 210 shared ownership it provided significant assistance to Metro Transit in their <br /> 211 efforts. Mr. Williams stated it was his hope to further expand that program. Mr. <br /> 212 Williams noted that in some cases, it was beneficial to a business owner and <br /> 213 Metro Transit if a shelter or stop may block their business or if their branding <br /> 214 wasn't getting out to the street; and with this shared partnership, it allowed a <br /> 215 participating business to bring their branding or identification into the shelter <br /> 216 while using the Metro Transit's aesthetic. In exchange for letting them advertise <br /> Page 5 of 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.