2018-07-24_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Freihammer explained the second area the City Council discussed was to ask the PWETC to look at how the scoring system considers existing pathway on one side of a road. They discussed whether segments should get a bonus for not having any pathway currently or possibly deducting points if there was a pathway on one side of the road. Mr. Freihammer noted since the scoring system is a project preference list, staff felt the best way to deal with pathway scoring was to leave the scoring as is but highlight the segments that were high volume arterial roadways with no off-street pathways currently constructed. Mr. Freihammer showed the Commission the project preference list. He indicated the list is not in order of which project will be done first. Chair Cihacek asked if the Council considered the routes based on traffic volume. Mr. Freihammer stated staff did this list on the trail roadways and did not look at the smaller volume roads. He noted they decided they were only going to look at the duel sided approach on an arterial roadway. Public Works Director Marc Culver stated if the Commission looks at the functional classification system he did not think they had any collectors that are over 4,000. They have some collectors that are between 3,000 and 4,000. He stated Mr. Freihammer stated the list was based on 4,000 ADT which would mainly be at an arterial level. He noted this does include all the County roadways within the City. Member Trainor asked if Victoria was considered an arterial roadway. Mr. Culver stated it is north of County Road B. From County Road B to County Road D it is considered an arterial and is a County facility in that area South of County Road B, it is a City roadway and a major collector. The volumes drop percipiently between the two. It is under 4,000 south of County Road Band over 4,000 north of County Road B. Member Wozniak indicated he sent an email with corrections to the Master Plan and noticed they were not made. Mr. Culver apologized and indicated they would get them changed for the next presentation to the Council. He stated he did receive the email and thought they addressed a couple of the concerns. Member Wozniak stated he reviewed the plan in length and his review could have went beyond some of the topics the City Council brought up at the Joint meeting. It occurred to him that this seems weighted toward transit and less so to City Amenities like parks. You get up to five points if near Snelling Avenue and that is the only category of any of the category codes up to five points. There are other categories where they could get to five or higher by adding components that are part of the scoring system but that is a solid five point and kind of skews some of the scoring toward transportation network. Chair Cihacek asked if that is because of how transportation is extended out. Mr. Culver stated between their last conversation with this, in the Council meeting on Page 3 of 16