Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPAC-2009-02-19Bicycle /Pedestrian Advisory Council — Minutes from February 19, 2009 meeting BPAC members in attendance: Dave Nutter, David McElrath (DAC liaison), Matt Freedman, Trevor French, Josh Carlsen, Andy Goodell, Renee Brutvan, David Kay (Planning Board liaison), Jennifer Dotson (Common Council liaison), Kent Johnson (Engineering Staff support) Visitor: Mollie Futterman (working on Cornell's "Big Red Bikes" initiative) Agenda: Membership — should BPAC membership number be reduced? BPAC 2009 goals — how to prioritize BPAC efforts? Sidewalk prioritization update Bicycle boulevard concept Collegetown transportation plan update Membership Since BPAC member attendance had been rather low for many months, attending members were considering the option of reducing the number of available members from 11 to 7 so that a quorum could be achieved with greater regularity (lacking a quorum, voting cannot occur). Upon seeing the very large attendance at the 2/19/09 meeting (perhaps the largest attendance in many years), the issue was tabled. BPAC 2009 goals BPAC members briefly discussed the idea of developing some specific goals to help steer BPAC's efforts in 2009. Previous goal prioritization exercises were discussed, such as the planning exercise spearheaded by Carla back in 2007 (see HYPERLINK "http: // bbpac.rockwren.us /wiki /index.php ?title= 2007_ Strategic_ Planning _ Exercise" ht // bpac .rockwren.us /wiki /index.php? title = 2007_ Strategic_ Planning_ Exercise for info. (caution: the wiki site has been badly damaged with all types of inappropriate info.)). It was noted that when developing goals it will be better to focus on a few issues that individual BPAC members can get excited about and can get personally invested in, than to just list a lot of things that could be done. BPAC members agreed to think about potential goals between now & next month's meeting so that a productive discussion can occur at the March BPAC meeting. Sidewalk prioritization update Kent shared the revisions to the sidewalk prioritization spreadsheet that Tim made based on last month's BPAC meeting feedback. As Kent understood the revisions, they dealt with adding a population density factor to various sidewalk segments based on adjacent population densities. The added density factor did raise /lower the priority rating of some of the sidewalk segments, but the changes were slight. Kent reiterated the purpose of the sidewalk prioritization spreadsheet, namely that it was to lend objectivity to the decision - making process and was not meant to set a specific order in which sidewalk segments would be addressed. There was a discussion of the various ways in which sidewalk segments could be built /funded, such as through the City's existing Uniform Sidewalk Improvement provision (see City Code § C -73 Sidewalks), using federal funding, or using City funding. Bicycle boulevard concept Kent shared information about bicycle boulevard treatments and how such treatments could be tried in Ithaca. BPAC members had varying opinions about the concept. Below is a sampling of some of comments expressed: The bike boulevard would still have cyclists sharing the travel lanes with motor vehicles — is there really going to be a benefit? Are motor vehicles prevented from passing cyclists along the bike blvd.? — if new types of rules are introduced, how will motorists know about them? Kent, and some others, felt that passing should still be permitted. A number of BPAC members supported the bike blvd. concept. There seemed to be support to continue investigating this concept. Some BPAC members felt that more bike lanes and fewer bike blvds. should be pursued. Since bike blvds. were being proposed on streets with already low traffic volumes and speeds, why would additional (and costly) treatments be necessary. However, the low traffic speeds and volumes may already be near the threshold of what "easy rider" cyclists would consider acceptable — the presence of bike blvd. markings could encourage these cyclists to feel more comfortable and could encourage motorists to be more cautious /considerate. The results from the upcoming sharrow experiment may help to suggest how useful the bike blvd. treatment may be since these two types of treatments are similar in many ways. In summary, BPAC members seemed sufficiently interested in the bike blvd. concept to continue to investigate its feasibility /applicability. BPAC members seemed more interested, though, in investigating bike lane installation options. Collegetown transportation plan Jennifer shared information about the activities of the Subcommittee on Collegetown Transportation. This working group of Common Council members, Planning Board members, and Engineering and Planning staff is evaluating implementation options relating to Chapter 4 of the Collegetown Urban Plan and Design Guidelines which addresses transportation issues in Collegetown. The group has met two times and has developed some goals and some action steps to gather additional data necessary to pursue the goals. Likely, the aspect of most interest in this endeavor for BPAC members is the consideration of expanding /improving the pedestrian space in the heart of Collegetown. New BPAC Chairperson appointed Josh Carlsen was enthusiastically and unanimously voted in as BPAC's newest Chairperson! Meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm Minutes submitted by Kent Johnson Below are additions to the minutes submitted by Dave Nutter. These additional items were parts of extended discussions of agenda items at the 2/19/09 meeting of BPAC and are included here to provide a more complete and detailed record. It should be made clear that the BPAC voted to approve the 02/19/09 minutes with these additional comments appended. MEMBERSHIP. There are potentially 11 voting BPAC members, and half (at least 6) must be present in order for official business and votes to take place, even if there are vacancies. There are now 3 vacant voting member seats. Kent, as staff, resigned some time ago. Nicole recently resigned. Ron Chapman was BPW liaison but has not attended within the memory of some current members and may not be on BPW anymore. The BPW liaison is a voting member designed to connect BPAC with the infrastructure policy- makers, keeping BPAC informed of upcoming issues and projects, and keeping BPW informed of BPAC opinions, information, and resolutions. Jennifer Dotson mentioned a possible candidate for BPW liaison. BPAC 2009 GOALS. On the one hand there are required jobs, including review of upcoming projects, and working toward the implementation of plans for bike and pedestrian travel in the City of Ithaca. On the other hand there are plenty of other projects which may be relevant (pertaining to advocacy for safe legal travel by foot or bicycle or similar travel by persons with disabilities within the City of Ithaca), which one or more members wish to undertake, and which the BPAC would like to support. We decided to share on this listsery our own interests for the latter category so as to start discussion and see if support coalesces around a small number of do -able projects. SIDEWALK PRIORITIZATION UPDATE. Josh asked if the requested feedback from BPAC members had been factored into changes in the spreadsheet. Kent seemed to say no. Dave Nutter asked that two additional factors be taken into account: 1) The presence of a sidewalk on one side of a street should somewhat lessen the need for one on the opposite side. However, a single sidewalk does not completely solve problems because of the hazards of mid -block crossing between a single sidewalk and destinations on the opposite side of the street. For example, Cliff Street has a great deal of motor traffic, a single well -used sidewalk, and severe space, slope, and cost limitations to installing a second sidewalk. Since it is so hazardous to cross, with poor sightlines, and great distances between intersections (I know a kid who got run -over while trying to cross) BPAC and the City should consider ways to facilitate safe crossing by pedestrians. 2) Paved street width beyond that needed for motor travel should be taken into account as potential bicycle and pedestrian travel space. Striping can substantially increase the value of this space, even though sidewalks would still be preferable for pedestrians. Pedestrians can share paved shoulder space with bike riders if numbers of each are moderate. Pedestrian accommodations should not be made at the expense of bicycle travel space. Examples of existing pavement width include: North Meadow Street between Cascadilla and Dey Streets, where 10' paved shoulders and a signed ban on driving (which could be better emphasized by striping) make for a degree of safe travel, even though motor traffic is obnoxiously noisy; Hector Street between Fallview Terrace and the City Line, where there may be room for striped shoulder space for bike and ped travel at least on the north side and possibly on both sides, and below Fallview Terrace nearly to the bottom where there may be room for a climbing bike lane (the single sidewalk only goes up to #601, just below Vinegar Hill); Malone Drive (part of which has sidewalks) and Cherry Street which both have room for striped shoulder space. Mention of Malone and Cherry provoked discussion of conflicts between motor vehicles and non - motorized travelers along nearby narrower Taber and Brindley Streets, especially on the 11' wide bridge on Brindley Street. BPAC and Engineering should consider ways to address this conflict. Discussion of funding for sidewalks included noting that current City of Ithaca policy that construction of sidewalks is generally at the expense of the adjacent property owner. Work can be by a City crew, or the property owner can arrange for someone else to do the work, which must meet City standards. There is a small fund for new sidewalk construction, and Kent was going to find out how much is in it and how it had been used recently. BICYCLE BOULEVARD CONCEPT. Given that money has already been commited to putting bike stencils in the path of motor vehicles on Cayuga Street, we should not commit to similar treatments on other roads until this has been evaluated. Bike - friendly traffic - calming can certainly take place without using signs or stencils about bikes, and without claims that money is being spent just to benefit bike travel. The engineering 5 -year plan is too heavily weighted toward bike boulevards. There should be more emphasis on implementing the parts of the bike plan which offer more conflict resolution between bike and motor travel, i.e. wide shared lanes or bike lanes. Opportunities exist without impacting parking (most of Lake Street, and University Avenue between West Avenue and Lake Street) or with minimal parking removal (Mitchell Street and Ithaca Road between State Street and Dryden Road). There were also calls for moving or consolidating parking in order to make a more usable bikeway network of north -south and east -west streets. Kent acknowledged the call by Jennifer and others to move more toward bike lanes, including dealing with associated parking issues.