Laserfiche WebLink
309 serious about it. The weighting is not necessarily important to staff, and is often <br />310 skewed by personal opinion. The Council's biggest concern has been lack of <br />311 consistency in prioritizing these segments. They should discuss if they agree with <br />312 the values of the weighting, or weighting at all, and discuss what the criteria really <br />313 mean. <br />314 <br />315 Chair Cihacek commented a lot of the criteria seems similar to others on the list <br />316 and could be consolidated. He suggested items B, C, D, and E could be consolidated <br />317 and cover creating safe passageways to and from an occupational place for <br />318 commuters and travelers. Items G and H regarding volume of usage and safety <br />319 concerns seem to be similar as well. <br />320 <br />321 Member Seigler stated if they weightthem, each one should have a different weight. <br />322 Whatever is considered most important should have the maximum value. He <br />323 suggested they identify what the weakness is that needs to be filled. <br />324 <br />325 Mr. Freihammer commented there is a score applied to each weight. He inquired if <br />326 there should be criteria on the score, as it is currently arbitrary. <br />327 <br />328 Chair Cihacek offered another alternative to not use scoring and just present the <br />329 priorities. For example, the priority for the next 10 years could be to complete <br />330 existing connections. <br />331 <br />332 Mr. Freihammer commented all the priorities are seen as needs. <br />333 <br />334 Mr. Culver inquired how they estimate how many people want to use a pathway <br />335 versus how many people actually use it. This is also true for transit stops. <br />336 <br />337 Chair Cihacek stated neither the scoring nor the weight system addresses this. <br />338 Transit stops near a school, apartment complex, or business would indicate it is a <br />339 higher priority than a single family residential area. He commented he thinks it is <br />340 very important to complete broken segments of pathways and as a Commission <br />341 they could figure out what is important to be connected without providing a score <br />342 or weight. <br />343 <br />344 Mr. Culver suggested the Commission agree on a set of criteria and come up with <br />345 rating system based on that. For example, if a pathway does not have any <br />346 connection to transit or regional trail within a half mile, it is rated a zero. If it has a <br />347 connection to a regional system, it is rated a one. If it has connection to transit <br />348 within a half mile, it is rated a two. If it has connection to transit and a regional trail <br />349 within a half mile, it is rated a three. If the Commission can break down the criteria <br />350 into values, then staff could apply them to the segments. <br />351 <br />352 Member Thumau commented he did a pedestrian priority model when he lived in <br />353 Duluth. It consisted of the following three components: 1) What are the generators? <br />354 (i.e. density, lower income residents); 2) What are the detractors? (i.e. Highway 36, <br />Page 8 of 11 <br />