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
construction /installation costs); criteria for whether a feasibility study or traffic <br />study was required before approval of certain installations; and realistic cost -share <br />based on whether the problem was related to cut - through traffic or neighborhood <br />traffic. <br />Ms. Bloom noted that both the Comprehensive Plan and Imagine Roseville 2025 <br />documents addressed preferred strategies for traffic plans that discouraged cut - <br />through traffic in the community. <br />Vice Chair Vanderwall noted the need for established priorities or criteria to move <br />the community toward acceptance of such a strategy; and noted the efforts by the <br />City of Minneapolis in their diverters and discouragement of cut - through traffic in <br />various neighborhoods. <br />Ms. Bloom cautioned that diverters should not be installed in a vacuum to avoid <br />no standards to coordinate. <br />Ms. Bloom advised that the city had used the Pathway Master Plan in such a <br />manner; however, in considering the focus of a Transportation Management <br />Policy, she noted that there were few things being discussed (e.g. calming, <br />management, signs) that the county would support on their CSAH roads, but that <br />they were receptive to working with the city for pedestrian crossing issues and <br />designs as well as center medians or facilitating pedestrian crossings on multi- <br />lane roads. <br />Member Gjerdingen noted the need for the policy to be revised in the future as it <br />was practically applied. <br />Page 7 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.