|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Jan Vanderwall called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Chair Jan Vanderwall; and Members Dwayne Stenlund; Joan Felice;
and Jim DeBenedet; with Member Steve Gjerdingen arriving at approximately
6:37 p.m.
Staff
Present: City Engineer Debra Bloom
2. Public Comments
a.
Mr. Kim Moon and Ms. Linda Henderscheid
Mr. Moon announced the he and
Ms. Henderscheid were Board Members on the St. Paul District 10 Community
Council and Land Use Committee, specifically interested in possible solutions
to proposed changes by the Metropolitan Transition Commission (MTC) to the
Route 83 bus route. Mr. Moon advised that the process was underway for
revising the land use plan for the Como Park area, with transportation a
large part of that consideration. Mr. Moon opined that the
Lexington/Larpenteur Avenue areas were a “black hole” for available bus
service, and the Community Council was seeking support from the City of
Roseville, through this Public Works, Environment and Transportation
Commission in discussions over the next few months with the MTC to improve
those services and revisions to their current plan. Mr. Kim noted that the
proposed MTC Route 83 will go into effect with completion of the light rail
line in 2014. Mr. Moon suggested several route options that would improve
service and tie into existing park and ride facilities, while serving to
improve the overall transportation in this area, and encouraged the
Commission to begin conversations from the City of Roseville’s perspective,
and join in the overall efforts.
Chair Vanderwall concurred that
revising the Route 83 plan would be prudent, and expressed interest in
joining in those discussions.
Ms. Henderscheid noted current
MTC rationale for routes to serve apartment buildings on Hamline Avenue;
however, she noted a preponderance of apartment buildings also along
Lexington Avenue, and from her perspective thought the MTC should also take
that into consideration in their routing.
Member Gjerdingen arrived at this time, approximately 6:37
p.m.
Discussion with Commissioners
included more use of Route 83 with completion and connection to the light
rail line; convenience for potential users along Lexington Avenue;
parks/recreation related parking and traffic congestion issues with the route
through Como Park concerning safety issues with sight lines and multiple
stops along the route; amenities along the route that could potentially use
bus service; observations that Como Park in a fairly urban area only has
vehicle access and no mass transit options; and interest by the MTC in
opening a dialogue.
Mr. Moon noted a meeting with
the Community Council with the MTC in March, and asking that the PWETC
support discussions related to this issue, as well as the larger issue for
discussion at that meeting, that of the proposed Snelling Avenue Rapid
Transit line.
Chair Vanderwall asked that Mr.
Mon and Ms. Henderscheid provide staff with contact numbers for applicable
parties; opining that the PWETC could at least consider support of this
initiative by the Community Council.
3.
Approval of November 27, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Member Stenlund moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the November 27, 2012, meeting as presented.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
City Engineer Bloom noted that
updates on various construction projects were included in tonight’s meeting
packet and available on-line at the City’s website at
www.cityofroseville.com/projects, and as detailed in the staff report dated
January 22, 2013.
Discussion included city practice
for boulevard and/or right-of-way tree trimming specific to sight lines for
vehicles with twenty percent (20%) done annually to ensure public safety and
health of the species of tree; award in December of 2012 of the watermain
project using the 3M product, with staff currently finalizing warranty information
on the product; upcoming presentation by Arizona State University to the
Roseville City Council and others interested in the best value procurement
process used for awarding contracts versus standard low bid or alternative
bidding processes; and hydrologic dredging planned in the summer of 2013 for
Villa Park sediment removal and restoration of wetland depth.
5.
Traffic Signal / Intersection Discussion
Ms. Bloom introduced Professional
Traffic Operations Engineer Mr. Mike Spack with Spack Consulting to provide
the Commission with background on traffic signals, timing practices for MnDOT
and Ramsey County, and pedestrian options. Ms. Bloom noted that Mr. Spack
assisted the City on signal design for the Northeast Suburban pathway
corridor, and updated intersection signal options for bicycles and
pedestrians. Ms. Bloom noted that the most recent PWETC discussions were
related to “free rights” near the TH36/ Fairview Avenue Ramp signals.
Mr. Spack reviewed theory,
priorities, and best practices used for pedestrian crossing design, along
with implications related to those designs, including legal requirements
and/or considerations. Among those issues, Mr. Spack identified legal,
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and concerns, best
practices, and the importance of safety for both vehicles as well as
pedestrians.
Mr. Spack reviewed specifics,
using the Rosedale area as an example, addressing signal cycles and timings
depending on crossing width and state law (3.5 feet per second for pedestrian
crossing); cycles with and without walk signals to avoid vehicle back-ups and
optimizing the system; obsolescence of the push button walk systems of the
past; costs of hardware infrastructure; and options for bicycles to choose to
be on the roadway and treated like a vehicle or as a pedestrian on
sidewalks. Mr. Spack noted that pedestrians are legally obligated, in
accordance with state law, to obey signal indications at intersections.
However, Mr. Spack noted recent legislation that vehicles had to yield and
give the right-of-way to pedestrians when they were crossing at an
intersection on a roadway, independent of whether or not there is a painted
crosswalk at an intersection. Mr. Spack addressed various phenomena from
studies done in the late 1990’s and 2000’s related to traffic signals on busy
roadways and the frequency of pedestrians getting hit in painted crosswalks
being three (3) times higher than without a painted crosswalk; and
indications that behavior between a motorist and pedestrian were the overall
factor, not the presence of a crosswalk.
Mr. Spack advised that if there
was no obvious or major destination, some intersections may not have
crossings; with the industry rationales being that it was better to have
pedestrians congregate at major crossings where possible.
Mr. Spack reviewed the basics of
signal timing; jurisdictional issues and approvals; rationale for placement
of crosswalks and/or lack thereof at Fairview Avenue and Highway 36.
Chair Vanderwall suggested it may
be prudent for additional public education related to this rational for the
general public, as well as additional signage that would assist with that
education.
Mr. Spack noted that research
monies and several campaigns were currently underway through the Department
of Public Safety in the Cities of Richfield, Edina and Brooklyn Park to
review alternative treatments. Mr. Spack further noted his reluctance to put
up additional signs that served to create an atmosphere for tuning out all
signs in the overall landscape with too much information. Mr. Spack advised
that he was more of a minimalist for signs, and preferred to choose locations
for signs carefully.
Discussion among Members, Mr. Spack,
and Ms. Bloom included value of directional/educational signs for pedestrians
to provide rationale for location of crossings for their safety; specific
areas of concern (Snelling Avenue and County Road B-2); how to direct
pedestrians to available pathways; bicyclers not following traffic rules for
their safety; State law related to the length of time for pedestrian
activation and availability of walk signals; types of signal enhancements and
light cycle options; advantages/disadvantages with timed walk signals and
buffer times and associated costs and use based on pedestrian volumes
justifying those costs; and various studies of volumes and pedestrian
crossing distribution in applying standards.
Mr. Spack offered to provide Ms.
Bloom with contact information to pursue educational signs (e.g. directing
them to cross at specific locations to a pathway).
Further discussion included
current debate on the new flashing yellow left turn lights and safety impacts
for pedestrians crossing those lanes of traffic; improved technologies
available for new signal installations versus older existing signal designs;
Ramsey County policies based on MnDOT practices; safety issues in the
Rosedale and Perimeter Road areas and alerting pedestrians to safe crossing
areas; and how to ensure pedestrian crossing safety across multiple lane
roads with and/or without medians.
Ms. Bloom noted that government
entities were responsible for keeping crossing areas accessible in winter
weather conditions, and encouraged citizens to report areas of concern
directly to the Roseville Public Works Department (651-792-7004) for
resolution or forwarding areas of concern to applicable jurisdictions for
resolution. Ms. Bloom advised that Ramsey County and MnDOT had been
proactive this year in working cooperatively with the City of Roseville to
address crossing areas.
Additional discussion centered on
specific issues in safely and efficiently moving vehicular, pedestrian or
bicycle traffic across Snelling Avenue and the many considerations for each
of those types of traffic given the volume of traffic along that corridor and
the cross streets accessing Snelling Avenue.
Mr. Spack advised that numerous new
technologies were under discussion and in the research and development stage
that would facilitate other modes of transportation beyond vehicles, but
nothing was currently being diligently pursued by the industry beyond ADA requirements.
Further discussion included
designing road elements to safely guide pedestrians where you wanted them
cross; intersection camera and sensing systems/detectors trends and issues
with maintenance and engineering flexibility; and computer algorithms to
signal links for side streets with different programs available based on
seasonal patterns.
Chair Vanderwall thanked Mr.
Spack for his presentation and variety of information provided for the
Commission.
Communication Items
(continued)
Member Stenlund requested
additional comment on various communication items, including anticipated
award by the City Council at their January 28, 2013 meeting of the 2013 watermain
lining project as staff finalized warranty information on their recommended
vendor, with those materials included for informational purposes for the
Commission.
Member DeBenedet referenced the
enlightening analysis by Finance Director Miller of the PWETC recommendations
and results of the proposed additional water rate tier; and opined it may
make more sense to eliminate the senior rate with the intent that the lower
tiered rate system would keep their rates level.
Ms. Bloom addressed questions
related to State law requiring a water conservation rate system in place or
audits established as policy to provide similar efforts to incentivize lower
water consumption across the board.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Ms. Bloom noted ongoing technologies addressing lower water
consumption; advising that a future discussion by the PWETC could explore potential
ways to provide those technologies to residents at a cost savings or through
other incentives to achieve the ultimate goal of reducing water consumption,
similar to a program done in the past by the City of Minneapolis.
Along that line, Member DeBenedet
suggested the Roseville HRA could get involved with those residents wishing to
update their systems through low interest loans or other options, including
working consumer education into their Living Smarter marketing campaign.
6.
Receive Recycling Background Information
Chair Vanderwall referenced the
significant background materials transmitted by staff as an introduction and
review by members prior to the February meeting when this item will be
discussed.
7.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – February 26, 2013
Chair Vanderwall advised the
Recycling discussion will be the only agenda item for February’s meeting.
8.
Adjourn
Member Stenlund moved, Member
DeBenedet seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 7:33 p.m. for
the PWETC to tour the Xcel LED Street Lighting Pilot Project recently
installed in West St. Paul, MN.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|