I thought I would revive this thread once again. I love this suggestion of
Ken's because it is such a simple yet valuable suggestion. These short missing
links are much easier to install than long pathways and can help created a
connected system which can then boost the usage and value of an off-street
travel system.
There are only 3 properties on the east side of Victoria between Lovell and
County Rd B. The downside is that these properties have very limited setbacks
for the homes. The properties on the west side of Victoria have much more
space to work with. This is why a cross-over may seemingly be necessary, so
that the houses on the east side still have room to park a couple cars in their
driveway without cutting off a sidewalk. However, we all know that crossing
the road, only to walk another 100 feet to the next major intersection, is an
insult to pedestrians, and shows lack of planning on the city's part.
Really, what this comes down to is poor design in the first place. Back in the
day, Victoria should have either:
a) been originally built with a sidewalk if it wasn't going to use road space
to provide a shoulder
b) been shifted over to the west, so that so that the properties on the east
side weren't so squished, so that later a sidewalk could be added if need be.
As it stands, the road would probably need to be shifted to the west to not cut
off a large amount of property from the neighbors on the east side of Victoria.
That would not be financially feasible to do unless the road were already being
reconstructed for some reason.
If the 3 neighbors were alright with sacrificing an easement of their lawns and
driveways, then the sidewalk could be built.
Some bigger issues that need to be addressed are:
1) The city ought to have funding for these kinds of missing links, that way it
is possible to fill them in. I mean right now that sidewalk is an embarassment
to the city, and reinforces the notion that Roseville is meant for: a) cars, b)
people who don't like to walk to stoplight intersections, and c) families that
prefer to shuttle their kids around all the time, because there isn't enough
room or money in the city for building pathways when it could be spent on
hiring as many police officers as possible or other nifty things instead like
pretty plants. Budget money needs to be allocated towards the creation and
maintenance of the city's pathways. Currently none is, and the city council
needs to be convinced that this is an important need during the session where
they prepare their budget for the next year. If our current city council will
continue to neglect city pathways, then we'll have to keep this in mind the
next time elections come around. This is a pretty important area for a city to
neglect.
2) Of course, we need to rethink zoning and street layout as well if we are
going to convince people that walking/biking to a destination is worthwhile.
After all, why walk when there is nothing of value to you within a 3 mile
radius other than a little park which serves no purpose other than walking in
circles for recreation? I'm not dissing parks, but it kind of takes the fun
out of them, when they are the only safe or worthwhile places to walk to.
Sure, parks are a good place for a morning jog or a Saturday afternoon walk,
but if that is the only time you choose to exercise then you are thinking
within a limited mindset which is not useful for resolving the many problems
that occur when cars are the only transportation that are being used and
exercise is treated as something entirely seperate from transport. Let's be
honest, public transportation is lacking in Roseville as well, so if you aren't
driving somewhere, you are probably biking or walking somewhere, particularly
if it's on a Sunday or on a weekday night and you live north of Highway 36.
Maybe with some more high density housing (other than senior high rises) could
be made with users that would take advantage of transit. Roseville has a lot
of land mass and could support a large number of people and grow in population,
but I realize that many people think of Roseville as a suburb for families with
large lawns and a city for people to leave in after they retire, so my ideas
are probably completely outside of the informal mission statement that our city
has. But in the mean time, walking or biking some place sounds good provided
the distances aren't too far.
3) There should be a committee that meets monthly and discusses pedestrian/bike
improvement opportunities within Roseville. Shoreview has a commitee like this
(and yes, it is true they meet monthly) and they are further away from the
urban core than we are, so why don't we have one? We are an inner ring suburb,
pathways should be a part of what goes on in this city. Sidewalk conversations
and seeing other cyclists out on the road should be more normal than it is
right now.
4) Why on Earth are Ramsey County and the State of Minnesota completely exempt
from funding pedestrian and bike facilities when upgrading major roadways? For
example, MN-DOT long ago decided to make Snelling into a Cloverleaf where it
intersects with Highway 36. Why didn't they build a pedestrian bridge in this
location where there are numerous pedestrians on both sides of 36? Every time
I ask MN-DOT about stuff like this, they say the city is entirely responsible
and that these types of things are "add-ons", which is why the city has to pay
for them. Since when did it become an "add-on" to be able to walk about safely
without having to make absurd detours that cars don't have to make? If I'm at
Har Mar and want to walk to Rosedale, I suppose I'm stuck walking 1.5 miles to
do a task that takes a car only half a mile. It seems like the County and
State are completely ducking responsibility when it comes to funding these
types of improvements. However, I still think that until those policies change
the city ought to chip in however they can. Heck, if the city won't chip in,
maybe private property owners can get together and build adjoining sidewalks
accross their lawns. Ken, I'm tempted to start knocking on doors as well. As
for bikes, we are going to need help from at least the city, county, or state
on that one, since it involves roadways.