Loading...
10-392Amended 4/21/10 Council File # �0-392 Green Sheet # 3106096 � RESOLUTION Presented by CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 5 � -� ��� .-�" 1 , _ � � .. 1 WHEREAS, the Parks Plan of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to update and 2 implement the Street and Park Tree Master Plan initially written in 1978 to assist in increasing the scale 3 and quality of the urban forest by facilitating city-wide tree planting and maintenance efforts; and 4 5 WHEREAS, the Parks Plan of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to update the tree 6 types planted on public right of ways and park lands with a mix of native and non-native tree species 7 within the Street and Park Tree Master Flan; and 8 9 WHEREAS, the Parks Plan of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and the Saint Paul Tree Advisory Panel 10 recommendations, Parks Commission Resolution #09-22, identify the importance of planting for increased ll tree species diversity, making an attempt to transiYion away from existing monocultures; and 12 13 WHEREAS, the Parks Plan for the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to coordinate the 14 efforts of the various stakeholders and neighboxhood groups to effectively incxease xeforestation and care 15 for trees by residents and community groups; and 16 17 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Parks Commission approved the updated Street and Park Tree Master Plan, 18 Resolution #10-OS on March 10, 2010 19 20 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, ehat the Council of the City of Saint Paul approves and adopts 21 the Street and Pazk Tree Master Plan. Bostrom Carter Harris Stazk Thune Requested by Department of: By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: Approved by City Attomey � I'/ �/ I O I U 8 By: Adopted by Council: Date `f f�/ f Approved by Mayor for Submission to Counci] Adoption Certified by Counc� Secretary By; By � � Approv a or Date ��� �i�7 l0 By: Amended 4/21/10 RESOLUTION Presented by WHEREAS, the Parks Plan of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to update and implement the Street and Park Tree Master Plan initially written in 1978 to assist in increasing the scale and quality of the urban forest by facilitating city-wide tree planting and maintenance efforts; and 4 5 WHEREAS, the Parks Plan of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to update the tree 6 types planted on public right of ways and park lands with a mix of native and non-native tree species 7 within the Street and Pazk Tree Master Plan; and 9 WHEREAS, the Parks Plan of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and the Saint Paul Tree Advisory Panel 10 recommendations, Parks Commission Resolution #09-22, identify the importance of planting for increased ll tree specias diversity, making an attempt to transition away from existing monocultures; and 12 13 WHEREAS, the Parks Plan for the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to coordinate the 14 efforts of the various stakeholders and neighborhood groups to effectively increase reforestation and care 15 for trees by residents and community groups; and 16 17 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Parks Commission approved the updated Street and Park Tree Master Plan, I 8 Resolution #10-OS on March 10, 2010 I9 20 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul approves and adopts 21 the Street and Park Tree Master Plan. Bostrom Carter Requested by Department of: By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services Stark Thune ✓ By: Approved by City Attomey I'/ �/ I // I U N By: Adopted by Council: Date `Y��/� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoption Certified by Coun ' Secretary By: BY � n Approv a or Date � L� �(�7 By: Council File # 10-392 � Green Sheet # 3106096 CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ' _ ' :_ '�� ; �� ,-, - -.r , QN KATHY LANTRY Counc�l Prts�dent CITY OF SAINT PAUL OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL DATE: Apri121, 2010 TO: FROM: I' � Council Members Council President Lantry Amendment for Item #6 on Today's Agenda Attached is an amended resolution £or item #6 on today's agenda Approving and Adopting the Street and Tree Master Plan. This amendment was requested by Parks and PED. The amendment only removes the last 12 words of the final clause of the original which indicates that the plan be adopted as part of the city's comprehensive plan. The Parks Plan chapter of the Comp. Plan recommends that the City adopt such a plan, but that this tree plan doesn't necessarily need to be officially adopted as part of the Comp. Plan. PED was concerned that whenever the City amends the Comprehensive Plan, we have to go through a very formal amendment process with the Metropolitan Council. This generates a lot of unnecessary staff work (for us and them) for little practical benefit in a case where we're establishing City policy that doesn't really affect regional systems. Therefore, we will be adopting the plan as city policy, but will not be adopting it as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Please let me know if you have any questions. CITY HALL SUITE 320C SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102-1615 651/266-8670 0 AA-ADA-EEO Employer � ��-392 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet .............�„�.,,,,..�....,,.,,,.,,. .,a.� .,.,.,o.�,.. i {., y �, PR_ParksandRecreation '� OSAPR2010 GPeeI1 Sllee` NO 3106096 Contact Person & Phone: CY Kosel 632-2412 Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Doa Type: RESOLUTION E-Document Required: Y Document Contact: Cy Kosei Contact Phone: 632-24'12 � , Assign Number Por ' Routing Order 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ��� : 1 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: ', Approval of attached council resolution approving and adopting the Street and Park Tree Master Plan as part of the Parks Plan of the i Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Re�ect (R): Plannmg Commission CIB Gommittee Civd Service Commission Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a wntract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/irm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): The Parks Plan of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan �deutifies the need to update the tree types planted on public right of ways and park la�ds wiY6 a mix of native and non-native tree species within the Street and Park Tree Master Plan. Advantages IfApproved: Increasing the scale and qualiry of the urban forest by facilitating city-wide tree planting and maintenance. I I Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: The Street and Park Tree Master Plan as part of the Parks Plan for the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan will not be completed. Total Amount of Transaction: Funding Source: F inancia l Information: (Explain) Activity Number: Go —" � f ,� r,. ° 7 Ei�L�< "�� ��� _ . �€l�tP ;� + t t � i� ! r . t� n.a CosURevenue Budgeted: April 8, 2010 12:57 PM Page 1 ROL3TTNG ORDER: Befow are correct routings for the si�c most frequent types of docimments: CON112ACTS (ass�es authoiized budge[ ercists) I. OutsideAgency 2. Depazhnent Director 3. GityAttomey 4. Mayor/.AssisYmmt (for contrecGs over $25,Op0) 5. H�an Rights (for contiacts over $50,000) 6. Office ofFinancial Secvices - Accoimting COUNCIL RESObUTION (amend budgets/accept granfs) 1. Depar��tDirec4or , 2. Office of Financial Services Director 3. CityAttomey ' " 4. MayodAssistant 5. City Co�cil 6. Office of�'inancial'Services - Accoimting ADMINfSTRATIVE ORD�RS (BudgetRevision) 1. ActivityM�agerorDepaztmentAccoimt�t 2_ DepartmentDirector 3. Office ofE"mancial Services Director 4. City Clerk 5. O�ce of Fin�cisl Services - Acco�tin8 ADMITTISTRAITVE ORDII2S (all others) 1. Depmim�tDirector ' 2. CityAttamey, , 3. O�ce ofFinancial Savices Director 4. City Clerk COUNCII. RESOLUTION (a!1 otheis sad Ordinances) , 1. DeparimentD�rector 2. City Attomep 3. Ivta}ror/Assistant 4. Cify Co�cil EXECE)TIVE QRDER 1. DepacfineatDaector 2_ CityAtWmey 3. Mayorlla�sm. 4. Citp Ctedc TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATE7RE PAGES Indioate the # ofpages on wluch sigoaLues are reqnired snd paperclip or flag each of these pages. ACIION REQUESTED Descn'Ue afiat � Prolecf/re4aest seek5 to accompiish in eitfier chronologicsi order or order of importmce, wLicLever is most eppropriate for the issae. Do not write complete sent�. Begin each item myoia lis[ with a verb. RECOMIvIEhIDATIONS Complete ifthe issue in qaes6oa has been presented before a¢Y �Y P�&c orprivate. PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS: This mformation will be nsed to deteffiine the ciry's liability for workers compensation claims, ta�ces and propa civil service Liriagrales. INiTTATING PROBLEM,ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY Explain the situetion or conditions that created a need for your,project or request. ADVANf?.GES IF APPROVID Indicate whether this is simpIy an annual budgetprocedise reqnired by law/charter or whetha there are specific ways in whicli the City of Saint Paul and its eitizens w$! benefit from this projecHaction. ' DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED What negafive effects � ma}or changes to eavsting or past processes mighY$ac pmject/request'pnodnce if it is passed (e.g: tra�c delays, noise, tffic inaeases � s�ents)? To whom? When? For how lon$1 , DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED � What will be the negative consequences if the promised edion is Hot approved7 Inability to deiiver service7 Confmue high traffic, noise, accident rate? Loss ofrevenueR — FINANCIAL RvIPACT � Althonghyon most taiIor the infoimation yon pmvide here to the issae you are addressin8. � 5��� You must answer two qnestions: How much is it goiagfo cost7 Who is going to pay? �„ � � ., , � � � � �. „ _ �. �� � ,� „ � � Council File # �O'3q� Green Sheet # 3106096 RESOLUTION CITY OF WHEREAS, the Parks Plan o e Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and the Samt Paul Tree Adv�sory Panel recommendations, Parks Commi ion Resolution #09-22, �denhfy the importance of planring for increased tree species divers�ty, makmg an anem to transition away from existing monocultures; and WHEREAS, the Parks Plan for the Sai Paul Comprehens�ve Plan idenhfies the need to coordinate the efforts of the various stakeholders and ne�ghborhood upsto effectroely increase reforestation and carefortrees by residents and commumty groups; and bv 1 WHEREAS. th Parks Plan of the Samt Paul Comprehensive Plan �dentifies the need to update and implement the 2 Street and Park e Master Plan imhally written in 1978 to assist in increasing the scale and quality of the urban 3 forest by facilitatm ciry-wide tree planting and mamtenance efforts; and 4 5 WHEREAS, the Parks lan of the Samt Paul Comprehensive Plan ident�fies the need to update the tree types planted 6 on publ�c nght of ways a d park lands wrth a mix of native and non-nahve tree species w�thin the Street and Park 7 Tree Master Plan; and 10 11 1� li 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Parks Commission #10-OS on March ] 0, 2010; and NOW THERBFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ( and Park Tree Master Plan as part of the Parks Plan the updated Sheet and Park Tree Master Plan, Resolurion of the CiTy of Samt Paul approves and adopts the Street Samt Paul Comprehensive Plan. Yeas Nays Absent Bostrom Carter Hanis Helgen Lantry Stark Thune Adopted by Council: Date Adoprion Certified by Counml Secretary By: Appzoved by Mayor: Date By: NT PAUL, MINNESOTA Requested by Dep B }� Approved by City / BS'� ' .�i Appro `ed a� By: 4 of Parks and Recreahon 1�-3qZ �-o S paul Parks �nd Recreation Gommission ?OG Cur Hall A�ncx. 25 �1'. 9th Svice� Saint Paul. MV �5102 -(651)266-6400 RESOLUTION 10-OS WHEREAS, the Saint Pau] Parks and Recreation Commission ("Commission") is an appointed body established to advise the Mayor and City Council on long-range and city-wide matters related to Parks and Recreation; and WHEREAS, the Parks Plan for the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to update and implement the Street and Park Tree Master Plan to assist in increasing the scale and quality of the urban forest by facilitating city-wide Yree planting and maintenance efforts; and WHEREAS, the Parks Plan for the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to update the tree types planted on public righf of ways and park ]ands with a mix of native and non-native tree species within the Street and Park Tree Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Parks Plan for the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and the Saint Paul Tree Advisory Panel recommendations identify the importance of planting for tree species diuersity, making an attempt to transition away from existing monocultures; and WHEREAS, the Parks Plan for the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to coordinate the efforts of various stakeholders and neighborhood groups to effecCively increase reforestation and care for trees by residents and community groups; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Depamnent of Parks and Recreation requests the Saint Paul Parks Commission to approve the Street and Park Tree Master Plan as part of the Parks Plan for the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan Adopted by the Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission on March 10, 2010: Approved: Yeas � I�ays �% Absent: / Resolution 10-OS Attested to by: � ' � ' ' ,���, Staff to the Parks nd Recrea n Commission G\Drv\ALOMUiISSION\Parks Commission\Resolutions�?OI OVtesolution 10.51andrttarktrees doclandmarktrees �o - 3q�.. �� . s Pau� Parks and Recreation Commission a00 C'�h Hn➢?.�m�e:.,'i �'. ec� 1� Sn m r Samf Pn�d, i�ffi »10.: i651 �_'66-6100 RESOLUTION 09-22 WHEREAS, the Tree Advisory Panel is an appointed body established to advise the Department of Parks and Recreahon on city-wide matters related to the public urban forest; and WHEREAS, the Parks Plan for the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to update and implement the Street Tree Master Plan to assist in increasing the scale and quality of the urban forest by facilitating c�ty-wide tree planting efforts; and WHEREAS, the Parks Plan for the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan identifies the iuiportance of a inore diverse tree stock, making an attempt to transition away from existing monocultures; and WHEREAS, the Parks Plan for the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to update tree types and introduce possible new tree species within the Street Tree Master Plan; and NOW, THEREPORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Tree Advisory Pane] advises the Parks Commission to approve the recommendations and may it serve as a guide in the development of the updated SYreet Tree Master Plan; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Tree Advisory Panel urges Che City to explore and utilize where feasible new technologies when planting trees in hard surface areas, such as paved commercial zones, pxoducing healthier trees growing in sites with more soil volume, less compaction, and allowing more water infiltration. Resolution 09-22 Adopted by the Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Commission on December 9, 2009: Approved: Yeas � Nays G Absent: � Attested to by: Parks and Recreation Commission Representative — Diana Berchem 10-392 � Dear Emily Goodman, I am a resident of the St. Paul Hamline-Midway neighborhood and a yearround cyclist, and Pd like to register some comments on the current version of the Central Corridor LRT Plan and Bike Walk Plan for the city council hearing on 4/21/2010. I strongiy feel that the current Plan is not designed in the best interest of the residents and businesses in St. Paul. St. Paul was the first city in Minnesota to adopt a mmplete streets policy, which was a great move, but the LRT and CCBW Plans do not reflect that commitment. - As it stands, the Plan for University Avenue LRT is overweighted to auto and truck tra�c at the detriment of cyclists, pedestrians, Corridor businesses and their local customers. The assumption that University need remain a 41ane road does not serve the Central Corridor neighborhood and threatens the livability and economic vitality issues that are at the core of St. Paul's future success. I have been a homeowner in Hamline-Midway for over 10 years, and have traveled in and shopped in St. Paul for almost 25 years, and nearly every development during that time has been increasingly hostile toward the residents of the Central Corridor in favor of creating an alternative throughway to Hwy 94. The result has been an increase in the number of empty storefronts and increasingly difficult access to new construction that comes along. The trend is hurting both property values and the business climate. It's time to reverse that trend by converting the CCBW Plan to a profile that includes a single auto traffic lane in each diredion, with a return of parking accommodations along University storefronts and a proper bike lane on each side of the street. This"change would put the focus back on the Corridor neighborhood and business district, which was the a primary reason for proceeding with LRT in the first place. Central Corridor residents are also a primary customer for the �RT system, and the newly designed Corridor must do a much better job of serving this important base if it is to live up to its potential. The truth is, there is no good alternative to University as a complete East-West corridor for bicycle traffic. Cyclistr need a safe route that goes where they need, to go, and there is none better than University. Businesses on University need to have customer access, and this means space for both car and bike parking as well as transit stops (which are excellent with the newly added stations). Pedestrians will not feel safe wafking along storefront sidewalks when there is oniy a narrow space between the building and speeding traffic. A plan for rivo tra�c lanes with parking and bike lanes would solve these problems. The Central Corridor is a long-time incubator for small business, and that business relies on access by alI customers, whether by mass transit, automobile, bicycle or pedestrians. We live in an established city neighborhood, and it requires city 10-392 planning, not auto-centric suburban ideas. A Central Corridor Plan built to bring people in 2ther than to push them through is a long-term investment in our own future. Please honor our Complete Streets commitrnent and change the LRT and Central Corridor Bike Walk Plans to include space on University Avenue for trains, cars, 6icycles, parking, and most especially, for the residents. Thank you, Bill Connell Hamline-Midway, St. Paul, MN bcon nell Co�ama i I.com 10-392 � Comments to the Saint Paul City Council on the Central Corridor Bike Walk Plan April 21, 2010 Residents and business owners along the Central Comdor view University Avenue as part of our neighborhood, not as a major highway whose value lies in maximizing its average traffic volume. The opposition to the removal of on-street pazking, concems of Frogtown residents about experiencing community destruction similar to that of the Rondo neighborhood, and resident womes about further physical sepazation from the rest of the city are evidence of how much residents and business owners caze about the vitality and livability of the Central Corridor. As a home owner and year-round bicyclist, I shaze these concerns. I love my neighborhood and know its many strengths. I am also aware, however, of how the Midway area looks to visitors. Empty storefronts, bumed out buildings, failed redevelopment project from two decades ago, seas of empty surface parking lots, and poor sidewalk and street conditions make my neighborhood appear seedy and dangerous. I view the Central Comdor project as a great way to revitalize the Midway area. Part of my family's decision to purchase a home in Hamline _Midway was based upon the future availability of the train. That said, I do have some grave concerns that this plan will not only fail at its goal to "foster bicycling and walking as a major portion of the transportation solution," but will actually dearease opportunities for safe walking and biking. I understand that previous federal regulaUons and funding formulae had requirements that prohibited bicycle accommodations and narrowed the choices for pedestrian accommodations on University Avenue. With recent rule changes we have an opporhuiity to address many of the concerns of residents and business owners. The solution is to make University in a single lane of vehiculaz traffic with on-street parking and bike lanes. There aze many arguments in favor of this arrangement. The parking study completed by the Metropolitan Council noted that not all businesses have alley access which under the current plan is where loading and unloading would occur. Not all large businesses with large, unused parking lots were willing to share with neazby small businesses. Business owners expressed concern that patrons would be unable or unwilling to talk a few blocks from parking lots. Residents were womed about shoppers taking residential parking spots and the report acknowledged that there was no funding for additiona] parking enforcement in residential azeas. Clearly there is a need for on-street parking if we are to retain the important small businesses along the Comdor. For pedestrians, two travel lanes for motorized traffic and r8moval of on-street pazking means that there will be no buffer between traffic moving at 40 miles per hour and the sidewalk. This can be very unnerving, particulazly for the elderly and families with small children, both of whom will be regular train users. For me, a walk to Rainbow Foods on Snelling Avenue and University Avenue with my toddler in tow can be a harrowing and stressful experience. I fail to see how the new plan would improve that experience. Leaving on-street pazking and adding bike lanes also benefits bus transit users and improves traffic flow by creating space for buses to pull over when loading and unloading passengers. 10-392 While I can appreciate the challenges that led to the choice of no bicycle accommodation on University and the designation of Charles, Aurora, and Fuller Avenues as bikeways through the Comdor, there aze many short-comings with the plan that are best addressed by accommodating bikes on University Avenue. As the plan aclaiowledges, bicyclists take University Avenue because there are no other options as a thoroughfare. In the win#er there are no other options due to inadequate snow removal on pazallel arterial streets such as Thomas or Minnehaha Avenues. Between Prior Avenue and Raymond Avenue there is no choice but to take University. The long-term option of an off-road bikeway connecting Prior to V andalia is great; this does not provide a solution in the short-term. In the Midway shopping azea the redevelopment plan looks wonderful, but again, leaves no short-term solution for non-motoriZed traffic. Siguificant work will have to be done to develop the Fuller Avenue bikeway through Midway Center. At Rice Street and Marion Avenue, the plan recommends bicyclists cross at University due to a dangerous crossing at Rice Street and lack of other cross-town options for the bikeways. Thexe is a gap in the plan for how bicyclists would enter downtown from the north. All of these problems could be solved by accommodating bicyciists on University Avenue. There would be no need for complicated way-finding, routes the take bicyclists a mile or more ofFcourse to avoid areas like Prior Avenue, or jog-backs such as at ihe Rice Street crossing. I am aware the bicyclists would still legally be able to ride on University Avenue. This is inadequate given the goals of the plan to make bicycling and walking a"major portion of the transportation solution," St. PauPs Complete Streets policies, and the lack of realistic altematives to University Avenue, particularly in the winter. I cannot see "taking a lane" as a safe or sane choice on a January day with fresh snow on a single speed bike with studded tires and on those days it is impossible to bike on side streets. Realizing that the ideal and easiest solution is most likely not going to happen, the remainder of my comments will focus on improving the current plan (which, not to sound completely negative, has many slrengths). Reorganize the priority azeas. Changes to Pierce Butler are first on the list of priorities yet it is nearly a mile from University Avenue and only serves a small portion of the Corridar. Reprioritize the projects to place the Chazles Avenue bikeway, improvements to Minnehaha and Marshall Avenues, and the Griggs and Mackubin bikeways at the top. Focus on alternatives that aze within blocks of University so the bicyclists have access to University Avenue for the shopping and services we rely on. Extend Nlarion Avenue bike lanes through Pennsylvania to the north and across I-94 to the south. Explore lowering the speed lunit or options for a road diet on Pennsylvania, which is currenflq an urban highway with cazs h at 50 miles per hour that feeds into speeding on Marion Avenue. Advance bike boxes aze a great idea and would fit this area wonderfully. Marion Avenue is ripe for improvement as it is wide enough to offer options and provides an important connection to downtown. 10-392 Keep bicyclists off the sidewalk. The Kellogg Boulevard side path is a dangerous and confusing idea. Side paths give the illusion of safety while placing bicyclists in dangei of being hit by cars lurning right tbat either do not see (or Sook for) bicyclists or do not anticipate the speed at which bicyclists are moving. Side paths confuse motorists who do not realize it is a side path and not a sidewalk and reinforces the erroneous belief that bicyclists belong on the sidewalk As one of very few entry points into downtown and a very wide road with room for options, Kellogg Boulevard should have narrower lanes and bike lanes added. I l�ow that Kellogg was redone only a decade or so ago which seems to be the main reason for not wanting to make more changes. We need to adaut the mistake of building a car-centric urban freeway and redo it again to accommodate the needs of all users. • Extend the Jackson Avenue tr�c calming and treatrnents to University Avenue on the north as access to downtown. Why do a good thing only halfway? • Prioritize bicyclists ahead of cars on the bikeways by using more aggressive treahnents. Restrict enhy by motorized traffic to major roads, reduce the speed limit to 15 miles per hour, and remove on-street parking. Snow removal is key to all of these improvements. Without adequate snow removai, bike lanes, bike boulevazds, advance bike boxes, and other treatrnents do nothing. This past winter the bike lanes on Minnehaha Avenue were unusable after the first snowfall. The medians on Snelling Avenue, Lexington Avenue, and Dale Street were not cleared leaving no choice but to cross at busy intersections. Even with a funded study of snow removal, Marshall Avenue bike lanes were also unusable. Minneapolis does a good job of clearing its bike lanes and bikeways. It can be done. The scariest thing about tlus entire plan is that although the Central Comdor train appears to be inevitable, bicycle and pedestrian improvements aze not. The lack of cer[ain funding truly communicates the priority that the City places on non-motorized transportation. This is my community. I support the train. The Central Comdor is not an alternative to I- 94 for commuters who just want to bypass my neighborhood — it is out neighborhood and community. Safe walking, safe bicycling, easy public transportation, and a livable, green area are all things that will make the Corridor a great place to visit, live, or run a business. Although I am on the board of directors of the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota and the Twin Cities Greenway Initiarive, this letter is my personal beliefs as a home-owner and mother who uses a bicycle as my family's main forrn of transportarion and in no way represents the opinions of those organizations. Sincerely, Dana DeMaster 1642 Blair Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104 10-392 � Emily, This is to register support for the action plan as it represents an important step in developing a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network for St Paul and complement the transit network. Thank for the good work and looking fosward to detailed implementation proposa4s. John Mark Lucas and family (4 walkers, 4 bikes and 2 Go cards) 1338 Keston St Saint Paul, Minnesota 55108 10-392 Dear Ms. Goodman, As an avid cyclist and bike commuter, I strongly favor enacting the Central Corridor bike walk plan. Regards, Peter Mitchell 1448 Berkeley Avenue 10-392 � Sarah LaROChe Emily—our district 10 newsletter mentioned a public hearing on 4/21 to discuss creating a bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment around the LR7 central corridor. What I feel is missing from this description is the addition of "driver friendly'. 1 drive through ihis area every day to and from work and often on the weekends. My commute takes me over the Franklin Street bridge which is ctose to the U of MN. My experience with both bikers and pedestrians is that they are rude, do noi follow the rules and create a very serious hazard to drivers on the road. Whatever solution ihere is— my vote is to get bikes and pedestrians off the sireets —these should be Ieft to cars and other large transportation. I have seen more times that I care to recall near misses where bikers are riding aggressively in the road and almosi get hit, I have seen a biker hit a patch of ice and flip head over handle bars and land directly in front of moving cars on Franklin ( a miracle he didn't get killed) — I have had pedestrians step out in front of my car moving 35 miles an hour in the middle of the street. I would add —any additional "pathing' added for bikes should require its use —you can drive by any of the numerous bike paths in the twin cities and still have to fight with bikes in the road for space—they don't use them! The article said we could send you our comments in advance so please consider these my commentsi Thanks!