Petition prevails opposing new pathway and crossings near Acorn Park
A Ramsey County project to reduce drive lanes, add bike lanes, and improve pedestrian safety is planned for 2026 on a segment of County Rd. C
A petition to Roseville City Council opposing a proposed new pathway on the north side of County Rd C and new midblock crossings between Western Ave and Rice Street near Acorn Park prevailed on Jan. 6.
Over the past year, Ramsey County, in collaboration with the cities of Roseville and Little Canada, has worked on a proposed redesign to County Road C between Lexington Ave and Little Canada Road. County Rd C will be converted from four lanes down to three, with the middle lane serving as a turn lane. Bike lanes will also be added on either side of the street. The road will be resurfaced and restriped and traffic signals will be replaced at Rice Street and Lexington Ave.
The project, going into the final design phase in 2025, includes proposed improvements to pedestrian walkways along a segment by Acorn Park. The plan was to put in a new eight-foot paved trail on the north side of County Rd C and midblock crossings between Western and Rice Street. The two midblock crossings would be between Farrington St. and Virginia Ave. and between Galtier St. and Matilda St.
Acorn Park is a popular regional destination for playing disc golf. There are also hiking paths through the woods, a playground structure, and picnic tables. Acorn Park hosts two youth ball fields, two basketball courts, an ice rink, and two tennis courts.
The path and midblock crossings would be paid 50/50 by Ramsey County and the City of Roseville, with the city’s portion paid using the Municipal State Aid funds from the statewide gas tax, according to Roseville Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer.
According to the Jan. 6 Request for Council Action (RCA), the city has been working with the County to add the bituminous (paved) pathway in accordance with the city’s Pathway Master Plan.
“A bituminous trail is more user-friendly since it accommodates both pedestrians and bikers of all ages and abilities and is easier to maintain long-term than a sidewalk. The Pathway Master Plan identifies the rest of County Road C to have pathways on both sides, similar to County Road C west of Lexington Avenue,” the RCA states.
The proposed pathway would have connected seven north/south city streets, and the midblock crossings would have created pedestrian islands in the center lane, which cannot be installed at intersections.
Freihammer advocated for the new trail as a way to provide more connectivity in the neighborhood and eliminate unnecessary crossings of County C. It is also in alignment with the city’s Pathway Master Plan, which was first adopted in 1997 and has been updated and amended over the years, most recently in 2021.
“Imagine every Roseville resident being within short walking distance of a pathway network that links them to numerous local and metro-wide destinations. Places like schools, libraries, parks, stores, friends or work could be easily accessed just getting on the pathway network and walking, biking or skating there,” the Pathway Master Plan reads.
The Plan includes a list of proposed pathways and a priority ranking, to help the city decide which paths to focus on first. However, when a parallel roadway is going to be under construction, the Plan also urges the city to move pathway segments up in priority for efficiency and cost savings.
“The city has been doing these projects when the opportunity comes up . . . It tends to save money, rather than doing it as a stand alone project 10 years later,” Freihammer said during the meeting. He said it could be 15 to 20 years before the County does a road project there again.
Neighborhood petition
However, 71 residents in the neighborhood signed a petition opposing the new northside pathway and midblock crossings. The petition was presented to city council on Nov. 4, 2024 and then added to the Jan. 6, 2025 agenda for discussion.
Nine residents, most from the neighborhood north of Acorn Park, spoke up in favor of the petition to eliminate the northside pathway and midblock crossings.
The neighbors whose properties are on the north side of County C, expressed concern about a new pathway cutting through their side yards. Because the first 12’-14’ from the curb is considered “right-of-way,” or city-owned property that encompasses the street and boulevard, this property can be used for sidewalks, pathways, or other public works needs at the city’s discretion. Those who opposed it said the new pathway would make them feel less safe with more pedestrian foot traffic so close to their homes.
Residents who opposed the midblock crossings believed they were unnecessary and would not be used, saying most people cross to the park at the regular intersections.
“That whole area to the north of County Rd C is residential. From Rice Street all the way to Dale Street. There are two reasons in my observation for people needing to cross County C. One is the residents want to go to the park to recreate. The other is there is limited parking there, so people park on the residential streets so they need to cross. Why do we need a midblock crossing? There’s nothing there!” Ron Kohner of Marion Street said at the meeting.
Kohner also took issue with the plan to add bike lanes to County Rd. C, saying that a lot of people in Roseville are getting older.
“We are limited in how often we’re going to be riding bicycles,” Kohner said.
Not everyone providing public comment was in agreement.
“What’s missing in many parts of Roseville is a place for kids to walk. If you’re going to put in something like this, I applaud you because of how far away Acorn Park is from Roseville Area Middle School,” Linda Strahan, of Wheeler Street, said. “If you want families with young kids to be safe, this is the kind of thing you put in . . . I feel that this is a good vision for Roseville.”
Another resident in the neighborhood spoke up in favor of the midblock crossings, saying she did not feel safe crossing the street to get to Acorn Park and would feel more comfortable with a halfway point to stop and watch for a gap in traffic.
City Council Discussion
After the public comment portion of the meeting was over, city staff and city council discussed the plan and the comments before making their motions on whether or not to accept the petitioners’ request for changes to the plans.
“I tend to be sympathetic to the petition in both regards,” Mayor Dan Roe said in the meeting.
Councilmember Robin Schroeder agreed, saying there were enough crosswalks already without needing additional midblock crossings. She also appreciated all the work it took to bring forward the petition and speak up at the meeting.
“That’s a lot of people and it makes sense to hear their concerns with some of this. I could support not having those pieces in there,” Schroeder said.
Councilmember Wayne Groff agreed, saying he was especially supportive of the project’s plan to go from four lanes to three with a turn lane, which would benefit pedestrian safety.
“Of course, I like to see pathways increased. In general it helps with walkability of neighborhoods. It is a goal of our city,” Groff said in the meeting. “But I do understand the neighbors’ concerns. Change is always difficult.”
Councilmember Julie Strahan was opposed to eliminating the proposed new pathway on the north side of County C.
“We also have to remember that our city is changing. Our city is peopled with a lot of younger people or people that intentionally want to walk. We’re trying to find a lot of multimodal ways to get places,” Strahan said in the meeting. “As someone who used to push a double stroller, a regular sidewalk is not the most conducive to that. I never wanted to take my kids biking on a street, but I would take them on the pathway.”
For context, even though Roseville’s median age is higher than comparable suburban cities in the metro, 60% of Roseville’s population is under the age of fifty. (For more information about Roseville’s demographics, check out the Economic Development Authority presentation from the Jan. 13, 2025 meeting.)
Schroeder made a motion to support the petition, and Roe seconded it with an amendment to make sure the crosswalks at existing intersections were enhanced and that curb ramps were ADA compliant.
Strahan countered with a new motion to accept the north side pathway with the improvements to the crosswalks at the intersections, but to do away with the midblock crossings. Her motion was not seconded, and was not brought to a vote.
“I want to say that I appreciated all of the comments and all the thought going into this project,” Schroeder said at the meeting. “Your city council does want to hear from the residents and what they think about these things.”
Strahan spoke up, too, saying that there have been times when the city has moved forward with installing sidewalks or pathways on both sides of the street despite resident opposition, citing County Rd B as an example.
“It can be challenging when it’s not what your wish is. It was very clear to me when I moved onto my street that at any time a sidewalk could be put into my [yard]. So I’m thinking about what the greater good is for the whole city and all the residents, not just today but 50 years from now. Some people really do want these amenities for access to the neighborhoods around them,” Strahan said.
The original motion to eliminate the proposed pathway and midblock crossings between Victoria and Rice Street on County C was then brought to a vote. Bauer, Groff, Roe, and Schroeder voted in favor and Strahan voted against.
“Once again, we appreciate everyone’s involvement,” Roe said after the vote. “Hopefully this is one of those civics examples of how your government works.”
Next steps
Ultimately, it will be up to Ramsey County to decide on the final design for the project on County Rd. C. However, since the pathway had been requested by city staff involved in the collaboration with the County, it’s likely that it will be nixed, according to Freihammer.
“The pedestrian refuge islands are up to the County as they are responsible for the crossings on the road. I think if the trail is eliminated it makes the decision easy to not install at the original location shown since they do not become viable. They may look at other options,” Freihammer told the Roseville Reader.
Ramsey County held two open houses on the project on May 21, 2024 and Oct. 16, 2024. A third open house is anticipated in spring 2025, after the project layout is finalized. Construction on County Road C is expected to begin in 2026.
More information about the project is available on the Ramsey County website.
thank you for reporting on this. i wonder why the council didnt consider a sidewalk instead of a trail after hearing residents concerns.
the public comment process seems to be less than ideal. residents concerns seem to rarely impact the final design, and in the end the council is forced to either steamroll opposing ideas or drop their plans altogether. there should be more opportunities for discussion.
Really loving local news stories. I don't have time to go to many meetings, but it's nice to hear updates on things literally down the street from me. 😊