My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-07-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-07-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/22/2011 9:41:17 AM
Creation date
7/22/2011 9:11:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
7/26/2011
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.
/
47
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
county or local; established streets versus newly - constructed streets; and current <br />practice for Roseville to "push the minimum" of eleven foot (11') wide lanes. <br />Ms. Bloom noted the need for consistent, city -wide established criteria for <br />requests, including those to close or open roads, and based on functional <br />classification, traffic patterns, number of vehicles and their speeds, whether <br />someone could request a cul -de -sac and what criteria would determine approval <br />of such a request; and the overall goal to assist staff in providing better customer <br />service through a traffic management policy. <br />Ms. Bloom noted the need to have this policy as part of the tool box to provide <br />rankings but not set expectations. <br />Wor "q- <br />Further discussion of items to include in the Roseville model policy included <br />multiple and specific illustrations to provide sufficient understanding for the <br />public; aerials of various types of road or similar situations to those requests being <br />considered; costs associated with each physical improvement or conversion; and <br />consideration of trial or temporary applications before permanent changes are <br />installed. <br />Discussion ensued related to staffing to meet demand; traffic engineer versus city <br />engineer expertise; funding to cover those additional costs (e.g. 25% of <br />Page 6 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.