My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017_07-25_PWETCpacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2017
>
2017_07-25_PWETCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/8/2017 11:34:25 AM
Creation date
12/8/2017 11:33:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
7/25/2017
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.
/
45
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
2008 City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan Update <br />Project Prioritization Ranking Criteria <br />A. Connects multiple destinations. Weighted Value: 4 <br />Provides convenient access to businesses, schools, churches, work, parks and a variety of <br />other community amenities and destinations. <br />B. Connects to regional system. Weighted Value: 4 <br />Provides linkage to the larger network of pathways that extend beyond Roseville. <br />C. Connects to Transit Weighted Value: 3 <br />Connects bus stops, transit hubs, or provides a connection to other transit. <br />D. Provides a Safe Route to School Weighted Value: 5 <br />Provides a safe connection from neighborhoods to schools throughout Roseville and <br />adjacent communities. <br />E. Creates a convenient and safe commuter connection Weighted Value: 3 <br />The pathway provides a continuous and safe on -road connection from neighborhoods <br />towards places of business, including St. Paul and Minneapolis. <br />F. Creates a positive recreational experience. Weighted Value: 3 <br />The pathway corridor has few stops and is scenic, attractive or appealing. <br />G. Eliminates a safety concern. Weighted Value: 5 <br />Provides an alternative or improvement for children, seniors, wheel chair bound, bicyclist, <br />walkers, joggers, in-line skaters, cross-country skiers, parents with strollers that mitigates <br />the unsafe conditions that currently exist. The corridor has shown that current users are <br />putting themselves in unsafe or undesirable situations by traveling under current <br />conditions. <br />H. Volume of usage. Weighted Value:2 <br />The pathway corridor has shown a consistent need for facility development based on <br />proximity to significant land uses such as an educational facility, park or business center. <br />I. Adjoining property compatibility. Weighted Value: 1 <br />Pathway can be constructed without major costs associated with its location or without <br />detriment to the abutting landowners. Things such as; topography, right-of-way width, <br />driveways, land use, anticipated use can all influence the impact a pathway project may <br />have on adjoining properties. <br />J. Fills a void in pathway network. Weighted Value: 4 <br />Eliminates a barrier or shortcoming in the pathway network that may inhibit bicycle or <br />pedestrian travel. A "void" is a missing segment in a continuous pathway. <br />Examples of other criteria for discussion: <br />- Overcomes major barrier (river, highway, railroad, etc) <br />- Public demand (feedback) or Population demand (proximity) <br />- External funding/partnership opportunities <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.