My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-06-28_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-06-28_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/28/2011 9:08:16 AM
Creation date
6/28/2011 8:53:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/28/2011
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.
/
110
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
commercial road functions and issues; challenges of `chokers;" differentiations in <br />commercial areas with truck traffic; and philosophical considerations and <br />opinions. <br />Ms. Bloom opined that roadway classification is a major component and the <br />foundation of this discussion. <br />Additional discussion was related to safety priorities and consideration of <br />different policies /priorities for areas near school yards, playgrounds, school <br />routes, and other areas where children were present in groups; the most effective <br />traffic calming procedure being police enforcement; and cost factoring as part of <br />the ranking analysis that included maintenance. <br />Based on available data, Ms. Bloom advised the highest vehicle /pedestrian traffic <br />collision areas were at Lydia and Snelling Avenues and Highway 280 at <br />Broadway Avenue. Ms. Bloom offered to further research pedestrian and bicycle <br />accidents as part of this continuing discussion, using staff's existing mapping tool <br />for data over the last ten (10) years. <br />Member Vanderwall noted that the majority of the City's arterial streets were not <br />controlled by the City of Roseville, voiding any potential regulation pattern. <br />Given the lack of control of many arterial streets throughout the City, Ms. Bloom <br />advised that the PWET Commission be aware that this policy was for <br />"neighborhood" traffic management. <br />Ms. Bloom noted that there were two (2) different issues: Complete Streets and <br />Traffic Management, and opined that neither were mutually exclusive, but neither <br />were they the same. Ms. Bloom advised that the reality is that some Complete <br />Street concepts were contrary to a traffic management plan addressing safety <br />concerns. Ms. Bloom advised that the Pathway Master Plan says that when there <br />were less than 1,000 vehicles on a particular roadway, it was a "share the road" <br />situation; and questioned how the two concepts could be coordinated. <br />Chair DeBenedet asked that staff research and provide other official City policies, <br />including the Comprehensive Plan and Non Motorized Pathway Plan areas that <br />addressed traffic that could facilitate this discussion at next month's meeting. <br />Chair DeBenedet asked Commissioners to read through the model policies <br />provided by staff and come prepared for further discussion. Chair DeBenedet <br />opined that the City of Blaine's policy seemed to be a good starting point to <br />initiate those more detailed discussions. <br />Member Vanderwall opined that the Blaine policy was excellent, based on traffic <br />pattern considerations and impacts of a three (3) month test pattern. <br />Page 9 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.