Laserfiche WebLink
171 was for the pathways. He inquired if it would make more sense to put $1,000,000 <br />172 into a park or into a piece of pavement, if they have an estimate about the number <br />173 of users on the pathways, and the cost per user. He encouraged the Commission to <br />174 take a bold move, step back, and look at the bigger picture. <br />175 <br />176 Andy Hingeveld, WSB and Associates, provided an overview of the Pathways <br />177 Master Plan. He referred to page 23 of the meeting packet, titled Policies and <br />178 Standards, taken from the 2008 Pathway Master Plan. He began to read through the <br />179 standards under Location. <br />180 <br />181 Member Wozniak inquired where in the plan they discuss integrating their <br />182 pathways with a broader, regional plan. <br />183 <br />184 Mr. Hingeveld responded it does not get into that level of detail and is flexible. <br />185 There are a lot of different agencies that may own a certain pathway, and the plan <br />186 helps encourage the idea that along County roads, a pathway is supported. <br />187 <br />188 Mr. Freihammer pointed out it is one of the ranking criteria. If it is identified by the <br />189 County on their bike pathway plan, theoretically it will help a road. However, it is <br />190 up to the Commission to discuss whether it is valid. <br />191 <br />192 Chair Cihacek inquired what the purpose of the plan is and if it is still advisable <br />193 with some roadways to provide pathways along them since traffic patterns and <br />194 volumes are different now than in 2008. He would like to look at traffic volumes in <br />195 relation to use and the type of pathway used. <br />196 <br />197 Mr. Culver responded the prioritization helps staff is selecting projects with limited <br />198 resources and to seek additional funding. They will look at traffic volumes in the <br />199 corridors and decide how to proceed with pathways. <br />200 <br />201 Chair Cihacek stated this section needs further consideration and seems to be <br />202 outdated. He suggested the wording for No. 2 be changed to, "Provide pathways to <br />203 supplement all roads." This will show they are trying to change the traffic pattern <br />204 or accommodate to it. Under item No. 2.2, he inquired about the definition of <br />205 recreational corridor. Under item No. 2.3, sidewalks primarily in residential areas <br />206 may not make sense due to the diversity in types of housing, density in the City, <br />207 and they are not good for bicyclists. <br />208 <br />209 Mr. Hingeveld stated the word "pathway" is a very loose term and may be different <br />210 terminology than what is used today. It reflects supporting all users on roads and <br />211 what the best treatment is for that use. <br />212 <br />213 Mr. Culver commented they intentionally use the word "pathway" to provide <br />214 flexibility of sidewalk trail, on -road facility, shoulder, etc. Most people in Roseville <br />215 agree it is not feasible or reasonable to have a sidewalk on every street. He referred <br />216 to item No. 2.1 and stated Fairview is an arterial roadway. South of County Road <br />Page 5 of 11 <br />