My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026-0324 PWETC Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
202x
>
2026
>
2026-0324 PWETC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2026 12:43:58 PM
Creation date
5/13/2026 12:43:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/24/2026
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.
/
28
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
Mr. Freihammer introduced the next segment on County Road C2 west of <br />Snelling Avenue, described as the development of both on- and off -road <br />pathways from the west city boundary to Snelling Avenue, including aproposed <br />pedestrian bridge over Interstate 35W. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that this segment originated from an earlier, more <br />ambitious concept intended to create a continuous east -west pedestrian corridor. <br />He noted that existing conditions include partial sidewalk connections, <br />pathways through Langton Park, and segments with wide shoulders but no <br />dedicated pedestrian or bicycle facilities. He added that the corridor passes <br />through wetlands, residential areas, parkland, and industrial areas with limited <br />pedestrian demand. <br />Mr. Freihammer indicated that the proposed pedestrian bridge was a key <br />component of the original concept, intended to provide an alternative crossing <br />to the County Road C corridor. However, he noted that without the bridge, the <br />corridor would not function as a continuous route. He questioned whether <br />constructing a bridge at this location aligns with current priorities and whether <br />it is a worthwhile long-term investment. <br />Member Luongo expressed concern aboutthe feasibility of funding apedestrian <br />bridge, noting uncertainty about the funding source. <br />Member Brokaw Palalay expressed concern about the value of the proposed <br />corridor, noting uncertainty about how many people would use it. She indicated <br />that without a broader regional connection, such as a continuous greenway <br />linking multiple cities, the segment may have limited usefulness. <br />Chair Ficek noted that broader considerations regarding regional bike <br />connections would be more appropriate to discuss in the future bike plan. <br />Member Luongo noted that while the connection could be beneficial for linking <br />to the northeast, it was unclear whether there would be significant demand to <br />travel into the city's residential areas from that direction. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that the current primary connection for pedestrians <br />and bicyclists runs along the diagonal trail and County Road C corridor, which <br />has been improved with a pathway on the south side that connects to the city's <br />trail system. He noted that this infrastructure did not exist when the County <br />Road C2 concept was originally developed in the early 2000s. <br />Mr. Freihammer indicated that additional improvements on the County Road D <br />corridor, planned for a future project, will further enhance connectivity, <br />reducing the need for a separate C2 corridor. He explained that these newer <br />corridors provide viable alternatives that were not previously available. <br />Page 19 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.