My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Public Works Committee - 01/18/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Public Works Committee
>
2000 - 2009
>
2005
>
Minutes - Public Works Committee - 01/18/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 3:18:19 PM
Creation date
5/23/2005 11:51:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Public Works Committee
Document Date
01/18/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
and County roads. The master trail plan identifies the proposed locations for trails throughout the <br />City and key segments to construct are routinely programmed into the 5-year Capital <br />Improvement Plan. Information sources used to compile this case include "Minnesota Bicycle <br />Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines" prepared by MN/DOT and the Anoka County <br />Highway Department project checklist. <br /> <br />The City has been successful in making trail construction adjacent to new developments a <br />condition of the development agreement. The design standards have varied because there has not <br />been a performance standard adopted by the City. Developers and their engineers could show a <br />proposed strip of asphalt on their plans and say they are meeting the trail requirement. There are <br />several published works on bicycle paths. Staff has compiled the following standards from these <br />sources and propose that they be adopted as the Ramsey Bicycle Path Performance Standards. <br /> <br />Description <br />Pavement Width <br />Design Speed <br />Separation from nearest lane of traffic (rural section) <br />Offset inside right-of-way <br />Minimum horizontal curve <br />Super elevation on horizontal curves <br />Shoulder Width adjacent to bituminous path <br />Side slope, outside Recovery Zone( h:v maximum) <br /> <br />Standard <br />10ft <br />20 mph <br />22 ft <br />2ft <br />80 ft <br />2% < curve < 5% <br />lft <br />4:1 <br /> <br />Past practice has been to construct a trail along one side of State, County and MSA roads <br />(Primary Route). Traffic on these roads has increased and will continue to increase. Staff has <br />been looking at requiring trails on both sides in the interest of public safety. Specific guidelines <br />such as Average Daily Traffic count levels have not been found to provide a basis for requiring <br />the second trail. Factors that should be considered when adding a second trail along a Primary <br />route should include number of adjacent residents, destinations connected to trail, traffic counts <br />and existing crossing geometry. Providing a trail on both sides can reduce the number of times <br />users are required to cross the highway, which translates to fewer car pedestrian interactions that <br />can result in accidents. A sidewalk or path is required on one side of public streets townhouse <br />developments. Discussion during Planning Commission meetings and Council meetings while <br />reviewing these projects has focused potentially requiring a path or trail on both sides of the main <br />public street in the development. The justification would be the higher density of units, residents <br />and vehicle traffic when compared to single-family developments. In addition Trails should be <br />placed in trail easements outside the right-of-way wherever possible, especially in new <br />developments. Trails placed in the right-of-way may need to be relocated when the road is <br />widened. <br /> <br />City staff recommended adopting a performance specification for bicycle paths and trials, require <br />all new developments adjacent to Primary routes to provide trails along both sides. This includes <br />residential and commercial properties that go through the platting process. The trail adjacent to <br />the development should be in a 14-foot trail easement inside the property line. Trails on property <br />not under the developers control would be placed in the right-of-way. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/January 18, 2005 <br /> Page 21 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.