My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6939
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6900
>
res_6939
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:12:49 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 12:02:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6939
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. P-79-2 Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
4/14/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />5 <br /> <br />You can go over the bumps at about 15 miles an hour, or go <br />around them. The east end is an area of acceleration if <br />heading west or east. Right now the condition of the road <br />is in our favor. <br /> <br />I'd like to comment again later, but I thought perhaps <br />the comments I have are directed to the consultants and <br />engineer's comments. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Anyone else? If not, I will close the <br />hearing and ask the Council to make its deliberation. <br /> <br />MR. ANDRE: From the staff's point we have reviewed <br />the data that we had previously looked at as far as safety <br />and speed, and I guess we might point out that we're <br />satisfied, I guess, in terms of concerns that were raised <br />so far as increasing the hazards and the speed. I guess <br />we had evidence that safety,and aspects of it, would be <br />made more critical by the improvement (inaudible) we certainly <br />would not be recommending that we proceed on the project. <br />We are certainly aware and appreciate the concerns of the <br />residents on the street, and I guess we feel the project is <br />feasible and does not per se increase the safety aspects of <br />the street. ' <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: I have a question I'd like to ask. I've <br />asked it earlier in the week regarding stop signs. <br /> <br />MR. ANDRE: Maybe Mr. Van Wormer could speak to that. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: I am aware we have no cross streets <br />as such, but what is the objection to, say a stop sign at <br />Aldine eastbound and either Midlothian or Wheeler - the <br />extension of Wheeler west bound? This would slow the <br />traffic - I mean it would stop it so it would slow the total <br />speed, and I guess I don't understand why we have to have a <br />cross street for a stop sign. <br /> <br />MR. VAN WORMER~ What I can do is try to answer that <br />in general terms. We found - not only ourselves, but <br />engineers from throughout the united States - that stop signs <br />are good devices if they're at a location where drivers <br />would normally expect them, anticipate them, and see some <br />valid reason for them being there. If we get a stop sign <br />that is not in a location that a driver normally expects <br />or where he sees no valid reason, the repeat driver or the <br />commuter has a tendency to roll through it and that can be <br />documented by some studies that have been made where they <br />have checked license plates (inaudible) versus rolling <br />stopping or just a flat out violation of a stop sign that <br />could be called in a marginal location they find the resident <br />drivers tend to roll through it. And if you place a stop <br />sign, the theory is that the motorist will stop for it and <br />increase the speed gradually back up to the existing or <br />posted speed. We find in many low speed areas - generally <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.