Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPAC-2012-10-02CITY OF ITHACA BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday October 2, 2012 >Draft Minutes< Start time: 5:37pm In attendance: Members: Dave Nutter, BPAC chair - person Daniel Keough, BPAC secretary Steve Williams (had to leave 7:12) Matt Freedman (had to leave 6:55pm) Kent Johnson, DPW for Tim Logue; (had to leave 6:55pm) Rob Morache, BPW Liaison <member attendance times entered for voting purposes> Public attendance: None present. I. Introductions n/a II. Agenda changes III. Minutes approval Without a quorum, minutes from both August and September could not be voted on. IV. Public comment No members of the public present. V. Announcements Bicycle Auction update, Daniel, See end of minutes. VI. Reports A. Engineer Bicycle Blvd Plan: Kent was previously under the impression that BPAC had fully approved of the BBP. Though Dave N. and Daniel had submitted comments far before the 30 day public comment period ended they didn't seem to have any effect at all on the proposal. The additional comments Dave N had made just prior to the meeting did not give enough time for those thoughts to be considered by BPW. Dave N. had some concerns -- though was not rejecting the plan. The reasons given again for no significant or complete East/West routes, which is Daniel's main concern in his written comments, is that the traffic volume for automobiles was too high on each of those streets. At a previous BPAC meeting there was mention by Tim Logue that Court St would be playing a greater role in the BBP, extending all the way to Meadow St. The additional comments Dave N had made just prior to the meeting did not give enough time for those thoughts to be considered by BPW. Dave mentioned that we could continue the BBP on Plain St without putting in any speed table or diverter, which seemed to both address a main concern of the BBP making it more direct, simpler route and concerns by the IFD/Fire Chief. Kent tells us that the plan is quite flexible. Though this plan has been created, it can be altered; strategic changes can still be made to it. Traffic data was not collected for the BBP, since funding for the project may not be secured for several years. To avoid unnecessary work with possible traffic pattern changes traffic data collection will be performed at a time closer to expected BBP infrastructure changes. Dave asks about speed tables on Court St. There is a 15mph zone near N Plain & N Albany Streets already. Kent: there has been push back about the bike lane. Eighteen residents so far have signed a petition to get free on- street parking returned, out of the thirty five houses. Though in the BPW meeting, Govind had said we are trying to redress something that had been historically left out by putting in the bicycle lane. Residents can get permits to park around the corner, on side streets, like Elmwood. To do this, the resident could petition the BPW to take advantage of the RPPS, even though not residents on such side streets. The BPW was in unanimous support of the bike lane on Ithaca Rd and is not likely to back- track. At the intersection of E State/E MLK St and Mitchell: there will be a signal light. The work for this will possibly be started next summer. Kent stated that the BBP is just one tool in the tool box. Kent thinks we don't want to push too far for any additional removal of parking. Though the Ithaca Rd parking was not used that much, had limited parking times and no businesses around, some residents have complained. Rob: if the City removed odd -even parking first, there would be far fewer complaints about parking removal, since getting away with odd/even would double the parking in many areas. For the intersection of E State /E MLK St at Mitchell St, there will be a traffic signal light installed. This work will possibly done next summer. Kent went over a sketch of ideas for this intersection. Bike Boxes are being considered as a way to get E State St cyclists a safe turn L up Mitchell St. There will be a consultant for this project that will work through these and other ideas. The curb line is mostly set for E State St, though can be altered, design pending, by a few inches. Dave had sketched out a possible bike lane so the E -bound automobile traffic would stay to the right side with dashed lines allowing the bike lane for left - turning cyclists to be on the inside of the straight lane. Rob offered another option where we could have the part of E State St portion on the East side of the intersection, changing the curb to make it a Left turn to continue down -hill on State St, and a Right turn for those coming up on E State wishing to continue on E State St, allowing the cyclist to more easily, naturally, curve up the hill the more likely destination. We could have a signal light exclusively for bicycles, allowing all cyclists to have an advance green light to go straight or more importantly turn Left onto Mitchell St. We are not sure if there are bike symbol lights successfully used other places /in NYS. Here are a couple examples of bicycle traffic signal lights. Source /Supplier information: http: / /hnroad.en.alibaba.com/product /444322860- 213752525/Non motor Vehicle LED_ Traffic_SiQnal Light.html http: / /wabicyclesblog wordpress.com/2010 /11/08 /alexandria- dons - bike - signal/ Here is a simple traffic signal which clearly specifies when cyclist can safely turn. <2 photos included in digital copy> Dave brought up Daniel's concern of the bus lane on Green St. The lane size for the buses is too small. Often TCAT buses are standing, not just on the white line of the bike lane, but when trying to squeeze into their own lane, some drivers park with the bus partly blocking the bike lanes. Kent had said this narrow bus parking lane width was intentional, since the width of the travel lanes is the minimum allowed by NYS, there was not much more room for a wider bus lane, or a wider bicycle lane. Kent states that the city should take care of all lines put down upon the street. If the City applies paint to the road, there should be willingness to maintain such painted areas. He wanted to clarify previous comment that the way (for BPAC) to get bike lanes or crosswalks is to find areas that we could avoid painting, which is not what he had meant. The school speed zone was approved to N Cayuga for 20mph. Planning Board: We still do not have a BPAC liaison, and are not likely to get one, since the PB has been so busy with projects and are even adding special meetings to discuss projects they were unable to cover in the standard meeting. There will possibly be two regular PB meetings per month, to limit the number of 'special meetings' called for. BPAC needs to contact Charles Pyott as to when PB materials /agenda are available to enable BPAC/ a BPAC sub - committee to review such plans and submit timely comments, as needed. The regular PB meeting is the 4th Tuesday of each month at 6pm, but additional meetings may be scheduled. There will need to be consideration as to comments from this sub - committee to make them an official BPAC statement, versus members of BPAC speaking at the meetings separately, as concerned citizens. Hopefully Charles Pyott can get all the Planning Board agenda information to us by the second Tuesday, a day that seems to work for the BPAC members present. We also need to confirm availability of the City Hall conference room - -or we can meet at Town Hall, as Steve suggests and has access to. Daniel will check with Charles Pyott to allow BPAC access to this information, potentially on the second Tuesday. The regular planning meeting is the one for us to focus on, not 'special meetings'. Questions to consider are: When do the PB materials come out? When does PB need their comments back prior to their meetings? We can comment on all items on the PB agenda that are bike /ped related, even if those agenda items are pushed to a future PB special meeting. Bicycle Boulevard Plan: Dave N reminded us of Garin's idea, making use of the established WALK <Your City> program signs *, which can also include biking information and a QR code, which allows a smart-phone user to scan and immediately generate that specific destination map. This could be incorporated with the BBP, but also is very helpful for use on the Commons, etc, in areas more focus, or only accessible by pedestrians. The sign in the picture linked below is purple, a color that I have seen used for other city's BBs. * http: // walk- yourcity.com/2012 /06/29 /walk - rochester- ny -by- roc - city -2 -0/ One style of 'way-finder' signage being utilized in Rochester, NY. This Walk <Your City> program could work well in unison with the BBP. These signs could address such questions as: Where does this route take me? What is near -by on the BBP? What is walkable /rideable but is not on the BBP.? Bike education could be incorporated with this plan. With the amendment to the BBP by Govind we will need to work with designing this BBP with the Public Arts Commission, perhaps by running an art contest. There could be intersection repairs at many /every intersection along the BBP. There should be Bicycle Boulevard Crossing information on the intersecting busy streets, making drivers aware that cyclists may be crossing. Intersection work, like a community designed road painting could be used to subconsciously encourage traffic calming, and may be refreshed every year. Painting the street is a much bigger sign than the City putting up expensive metal signs, simply announcing the BB. The metal signs don't really change the feeling of the intersection, which can slow motor - vehicle traffic and create more driver awareness, among other things, though other features like the road painting projects do affect the feeling of the intersections and neighborhoods. We should discuss ideas with Public Arts Commission. One example of a city's Bike Boulevard signage, which has helpful 'way - finder' information, similar to the Walk {Your City} program. http: / /www.streetsbiog.org /wp- content /uploads /2006 /09a/berkeley bikeboulevard jpg Announcement: Daniel reported that the annual Ithaca Police bicycle auction has been drastically changed. The issue is not the potential revenue generated from the auction, but is that the loss for the community: the ability to go in- person to the auction, sit on, inspect, and see any bicycle a person would like to bid on, which upon winning, the person could previously walk away with the bicycle. Many of these bicycles are road - ready. Allowing people access to inexpensive bicycles was a great benefit to the community, but that has changed since this benefit has been exported to New York City. The way the online system works is unfair, especially to lower income people in Ithaca looking for a bicycle, and has people in Ithaca now competing with bidders on a national level for purchase of bikes. With purchase there is an additional $49 shipping charge to pay. Additionally, the single inexpensive bicycles are often sold as a lot, several grouped together, requiring someone to pay for more bikes and higher shipping, versus buying one inexpensive bike in person. To get what would have sold as a $25 bike, now someone would be paying several times this amount. Daniel is checking on this as to the possibility of changing this process so as have a non - profit organization pick up the bicycles periodically, perhaps once a month, from IPD. It may be possible for the non - profit or designated auctioneer to perform the auction, in person, in Ithaca. Selling these bikes by auction, while complying with the legislation regarding proper care and dispensing of unclaimed property, would benefit people in this community with the auction returning to Ithaca. Any bicycle purchased, now has to go through "Property Room" auction the website is: htip://www.propeLtyroom.com/c/bikes Adjournment: 7:34pm Bike boulevard discussion: My comments submitted in mid - September prior to the BPW meeting should not be called "additional ". The overwhelming bulk of my 20 September email was my comments copied and pasted in their entirety from 1 July. What I added to that email and also said to the BPW in their public comment period was to highlight and explain a few of the more serious issues within the I July comments, not any new topic. Kent said there was not time to address issues and revise the plan after 20 September. I said there was plenty of time for those issues to have been addressed since 1 July. The reason I submitted them again in September and asked for delay for revision was because the version of the Bike Boulevard Plan submitted at that time for approval by the BPW did not address any of the issues I raised in my 1 July comments. At the BPW meeting Tim said in response to my comments that the reason not to use all of Plain Street was because IFD objected to speed tables on Plain near the fire station. I was not allowed at BPW to offer my opinion in reply that Plain Street could be used without speed tables, because speeds are already very slow with stop signs or traffic lights on Plain at Clinton, Green, State, Seneca, Buffalo and Court. At the October BPAC meeting I explained this to Kent. I asked about the locations of speed tables which Kent said were proposed on Court, and Kent answered. If we can include the locations he mentioned in his answer, it would be good. Kent said they (he & Tim or all BPW ?) didn't want to delay approval of the Bike Boulevard Plan because they wanted to use it in the application for the Safe Routes to School program. I think the description of options we discussed for the intersection of State and Mitchell should be clarified: The north curb line coming downhill from Mitchell through to State is planned to be kept. State Street is to be widened below the intersection to add a second traffic lane to the existing traffic lane and bike lane, so that there will be a lane for traffic going toward Mitchell and a traffic lane going toward State. There will be a traffic light and crosswalks. The sketch Kent presented showed the island remaining in place. The climbing bike lane on State would follow the curb and end at the light. To solve the problem of how riders can continue up the climbing bike lane on Mitchell across the path of traffic continuing east on State, there would be an additional traffic signal just for bikes. The rider would stop, push a button, and wait an undetermined amount of time (traffic lights in Ithaca generally take 90 seconds for a complete cycle) for the signal to stop all motor traffic in all directions. The bike signal would allow just the rider to cross the intersection either to the climbing bike lane on Mitchell or to continue east on State ahead of the line of motor traffic which accumulated during the green phase for the rider. It's not clear how a bike box fits into this design, since motor traffic continuing east on State would continue while the rider waited for a green light, so it would not be safe for a rider to wait outside the bike lane. The idea I suggested was that the bike lane, instead of continuing next to the curb, would more appropriately continue along the right side of the lane bound for Mitchell while a new traffic lane was added to the right of the bike lane and next to the curb. At the intersection the bike lane from State would be between the traffic lane going toward Mitchell and the traffic lane for continuing out State where there is no bike lane. The climbing bike lane would be better aligned to continue across the intersection. Riders would not have to make an extra effort to push a button or wait extra time. There would be no need for a special traffic light. There would be no extra line of traffic following an eastbound rider. There would be no extra delay of traffic beyond the considerable delay of adding the original signal. The responsibility would be on the eastbound drivers crossing the bike lane to respect any rider in it. The bike lane would be dashed where traffic continuing east on State crossed over what would be clearly marked as a continuous bike lane, perhaps by colored paint throughout the bike lane. There are local examples of bike lanes being dashed during approaches to intersections where right -turn-only lanes start along the curb (Campus and Judd Falls, southbound North Triphammer at Graham Road), and this is a standard design. Rob suggested, building on the idea I suggested, that the intersection be made more of a right angle T, such that the eastern leg of State meets Mitchell at a less acute angle. The island would be removed, and a curve similar to the island would instead be incorporated into the south curb line of State where a right -turn-only lane began for eastbound traffic. The bike lane would still be between the lanes for Mitchell and continuing east on State, and the crossing of the bike lane by eastbound traffic would be an even more obvious action and thus even more obviously drivers' responsibility. Right- angled intersections are more safe than acute - angled intersections, so acute intersections are commonly modified to make them right -angle or nearly so. The lanes from Mitchell which would turn east and west at the new light would be next to each other, making the intersection more compact, making the turn to the west a more deliberate action subject to the stop light, instead of the current automatic continuous travel which would conflict with westbound traffic from State. Bus stop by library: The bus lane is barely large enough for a stopped bus, with no leeway if the driver does not stop parallel and within inches of the curb. Daniel has seen buses stopped partially blocking the bike lane. I measured the adjacent traffic lane at 12', whereas 11' is the standard for traffic lanes away from a curb on state roads in the West End. I suggested it would be better if the bike lane were moved - without being narrowed - a foot to the left to give the extra room for buses. Kent said NYSDOT would not allow a narrower traffic lane here. Planning Board issues: Daniel, I thought you volunteered to check the BPAC mailbox and look at Planning Board information to see what topics we should review and set up a subcommittee meeting if needed. - -Dave Nutter