Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-19 Board of Public Works Meeting AgendaBPW Meeting Board of Public Works AGENDA ITEMS DATE: July 16, 2019 TIME: 6:00 pm LOCATION: 3rd Floor, City Hall, Council Chambers 108 E. Green St., Ithaca Time Topic Voting? Presenter(s) Allowed No Mayor Myrick No Mayor Myrick 3. Communications and Hearings from Persons No Public 5 min. Before the Board 4. Response to the Public No Commissioners 5. Reports No Various 15 min. A. Special Committees of the Board B. Council Liaison C. Board Liaisons D. Superintendent and Staff 6. Administration & Communications A. 2020 SID Assessment Rolls, Budget and Work No Dir. of Eng. Logue 10 min. Schedule Public Hearing 7. Buildings, Properties, Refuse & Transit A. Street Permit Fees for Work Zones on the No Chief of Staff Dan 15 min. Commons Cogan Discussions have been held by staff about adjusting the fees charged for work sites on the Commons to more reflect the impact such work zones have on pedestrian access to amenities. 8. Highways, Streets & Sidewalks A. Six Corners Intersection Public Comment No Dir. of Eng. Logue 15 min. Summary A summary of the presentation and public comment event that took place in March 2019 is provided, along with a recommendation from C&S Engineers. B. Recommendation to Pursue a Climate Smart Yes Dir. of Eng. Logue 10 min. Communities Grant - Resolution The city has an opportunity to apply for grant funding to improve sidewalks on Giles Street. 9. Parking & Traffic A. Amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Schedule II: Yes Dir. of Eng. Logue 10 min. Speed Limits — Proposed Resolution Please see the memo explaining this request. B. Amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Schedule I: Yes Dir. of Eng. Logue 10 min. Traffic Control Signals and Schedule VIII: Stop Control Intersections — Proposed Resolution A memo has been provided explaining this request. 10. Creeks, Bridges & Parks 1. Call to Order/Agenda Review 2. Mayor's Communications 11. Water & Sewer If you have a disability that will require special arrangements to be made in order for you to fully participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 607-274-6570 at least 48 hours before the meeting. The Board of Public Works meets on the second and fourth Mondays at 4:45 p.m. All meetings are voting meetings, opening with a public comment period. Meeting agendas are created from prior public input, Department operating, planning issues, and requests made to the Superintendent. The Board reserves the right to limit verbal comments to three minutes and to request written comments on lengthy or complex issues. This information may then be used to create committee agendas, with the speaker or author invited to attend. 12. New Business No 13. Adjournment Date: July 10, 2019 Page 2 of 5 Yes MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Public Works City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 148S0 Eric HathawayP.E. Kelsey Wessel, P.E. July 8, 2019 Six Corners Intersection Public Comment Summary 133.008.001 BACKGROUND: On March 21, 2019, Ithaca's Department of Public Works in conjunction with C&S Engineers, held a public information meeting for the Six Corners Intersection Project. The meeting began at 5:30 PM and went until approximately 8:00 PM, and was held at St. Luke Church, 109 Oak Avenue. The format ofthe meeting was a presentation interspersed with public cornment/questions among the 34 attendees. The public preseritation included the foliowing topics: 1) Project Purpose and Objectives 2) Design Alternatives 3) Comparison of Design Alternatives a. Safety b. Operations c. Pedestrian Accommodations d. Fuel Consumption and Emissions e. Construction Costs f. Cost Benefit Analysis Public information meeting materials were made available online. The Ithaca Voice also wrote an article summarizing the highlights of the public information meeting, and making the public aware that the City was soliciting input from citizens and neighbors. The public comment period began on the date ofthe meeting and continued through to May 1, 2019. The public could comment either in writing on a public comment form or by email. There were 69 responses, 67 were by email and 2 hand written. Each ofthe comments were read and analyzed by putting them into categories such as preferred design alternative, whether they identified themselves as Memorandum Six Corners Intersection PubIic Comment Summary July 8, 2019 Page 2 of 4 a waiker, biker, or motorist, and any other specific comments they had. The results of the public comment are identified and detailed in the foliowing paragraphs. PUBLIC COMMENT RESULTS: Roundabout versus Traffic Signal The major comment was understandably which design option the respondent was in support of. Out of 69 respondents, 44 preferred the roundabout, 12 preferred the traffic signal, and 13 were impartial. All of those who identified themselves as attending the public information meeting were in favor of the roundabout. Those who were against the roundabout/in favor of a traffic signal, many times stated that their reservation with the roundabout is that vehicles will not yield to pedestrians as they are supposed to in a rouridabout. Chart 1 displays the percentage of commenters and their preferred design option. Chart 1 Preferred Design Alternative p^mmndabout ia Traffic signa| No Preference Types of Roadway Use There were 32 commenters that identified themselves as a motorist, bicyclist, pedestrian, or any combination of. The type of roadway user and their design alternative preference was charted to identify whether the majority of certain roadway users had corresponding traffic control preferences. Out of the 32 specified roadway users, 78% prefer the roundabout, 16% prefer the traffic signal, and 6% had no preference. Twenty-four respondents identified themselves as a motorist, and 19 of them preferred the roundabout. Eleven respondents identified themselves as a bicyclist, and 10 ofthem preferred the roundabout. Fifteen respondents identified themselves as a pedestrian, and 10 of them preferred the roundabout. The conclusion here is that all types of roadway users prefer the roundabout over the traffic signal option. Chart 2 summarizes the results of types of roadway users and their design alternative preference. COMPANILS wwvv.cscos.com (877) CS -SOLVE Memorandum Six Corners Intersection Public Comment Summary July 8,2U19 Page 3 of 4 Chart 2 — Roadway User Design Preference Motorist Bicyclist Pedestrian Motorist/Pedestrian Total Roundabout 8 3 4 7 25 Traffic Signal 2 2 5 No Preference 2 � Pedestrian Safety Pedestrian safety was a reoccurring theme at the public information meeting and through public comment. This is the biggest reservation constituents have with the roundabout alternative. Safety, including pedestrian safety, was a topic at the public information meeting and had the most engagement of the attendees. Through public comment, 14 respondents made comments in regards to pedestrian safety. There is a conception that vehicles wiH not stop for pedestrians, and if they do, they will create an accident by being rear-ended from tailing vehicles. Three comments were made in regards to requesting the installation of Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs) at the crosswalks of the roundabout to make motorists more aware of pedestrians crossing. Out of a total of 14 responses in regards to pedestrian safety, 9 (64%) of those preferred the traffic signal option. Lighting Another topic frequented through public comment was in regards to lighting. Six respondents requested that the design of the roundabout incorporate good lighting. All of these respondents were in favor of the roundabout as the design alternative. Additional Comments Some additional comments made included: 1) Requests a "pedestrian scramble," which stops traffic in all directions to let pedestrians cut across the intersection. 2) The intersection control should be a 5 -way stop. 3) A 360 camera should be installed for monitoring the roundabout. 4) Concerns about construction. CONCLUSION: All modesoftransportation (motorists,bicyclists, and pedestrians) preferthe roundabout alternative. The majority of reservations towards the roundabout alternative have to do with pedestrian safety. There is a perceived notion among commenters that did not attend the public meeting that vehicles will not stop for pedestrians. Additional reoccurring comments include the need for good lighting and RRFBs, which are both connected to pedestrian safety concerns. The majority (64%) of the 69 respondents were in favor of the roundabout design alternative. www.cscos,com (877) CS -SOLVE Memorandum Six Corners Intersection Public Comment Summary July 8, 2019 Page 4 of 4 RECOMMENDATION: Based on public feedback and further analysesour recommendation is to replace the Six Corners Intersection with a single lane roundabout. The single lane roundabout meetall of the project objectives which are: = Increasing safety for all modes of transportation • Maintain/rncrease capacity and efficiency of the iritersection • Provide a gateway to the BeIIe Sherman neighborhood A design alternative comparison was given during the public presentation, weighing the advantages of the design alternatives against each other. The advantages of each alternative are given below. Traffic Sign 1) Lower construction cost 2) Less right-of-way acquisition 3) More intuitive for visually impaired pedestrians Roundabout 1) More efficient operations 2) Minimal pedestrian delays 3) Reduces vehicle speeds 4) Lower long term maintenance costs 5) Increases safety 6) More sustainable 7) Gateway/Aesthetics 8) Reconstructs the road (Ionger Iife cycle) As stated previously in this memo, public input shows some reluctance towards the roundabout due to the misconception of it not being safe for pedestrians. However, there are studies that provide data concluding that roundabouts are safer for pedestrians compared to conventional signalized intersections. The Iatest design guidance for roundabouts, the NCHRP 672', shows that the pedestrian crash rate in pedestrian crashes per million trips for a modern roundabout is 0.33, while the pedestrian crash rate for a signalized intersection is 0.67. A roundabout design forcing lower speeds is a substantial safety benefit for all modes of transportation. Therefore, a roundabout is recommended because it is the favored alternative by the public, it meets all ofthe project objectives, it improves safety for all modes of transportation, and has more advantages compared to a traffic signal. 1 NCHRP Report 672, Roundabouts: An InformationaGuide, Second EditionNational Cooperative Highway Research Program. Washington, Q.C.20iO. www.cscos.com (877) CS -SOLVE 9B. Recommendation to Pursue a Climate Smart Communities Grant - RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the NYS DEC is offering a Climate Smart Communities Grant Program funding opportunity with a due date of July 26 and past grant recipients of this program have funded sidewalk projects; and WHEREAS, the City's Engineering Division have documented the need for new sidewalk construction along 500-1000 Giles St., and past Sidewalk Improvement District (SID) work plans have funded design studies along this corridor; and WHEREAS, new sidewalk along this corridor would promote safer pedestrian access to the Mulholland Wildflower Preserve, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and increase access to the downtown commercial and public centers; and WHEREAS, if the City was awarded this funding, the grant is a 50% match, then the SID #2 budget in 2020 would pay for the City's share of the project, and appropriate environmental reviews would be needed by the Board of Public Works before final approvals, now therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Board recommends, subject to amendment and approval by the Common Council, the City's attorney's office and Engineering Division be granted permission to pursue this grant as best fits the needs and interests of the City, and be it further RESOLVED, That the Superintendent of Public Works be and hereby is authorized to execute these contracts and to administer the same. Page 2 of 4 10A. Amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Schedule II: Speed Limits - Proposed Resolution WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works is authorized by Section 346-4 of the City Code to adopt and to amend a system of Schedules in order to administer the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Transportation Engineer has determined that the speed limit along the entirety of Stone Quarry Rd. and along the 300 block of Spencer Rd. should be lowered from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour, and WHEREAS, the Board concurs with this determination, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That Schedule II: Speed Limits be amended to read: § 346-52. Schedule II: Speed Limits. A. In accordance with the provisions of § 346-6, speed limits other than 30 miles per hour (and not associated with school speed limits) are hereby established as indicated upon the following described streets or parts thereof: Speed Limit Name of Street (mph) Location Stone Quarry Rd. 25 Entire length Spencer Rd. 25 300 block Page 3 of 4 CITY OF IT CA 108 East Green Street Ithaca. New York 14850-5690 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER Telephone: 607/274-6530 Fax: 67!274458 TO: Board of Public- Works FROM: Kent Johnson, Assistant Transpodation Engineer ,CrAil— Eric Hathaway P.E., Transportation Engineer RE: Stone Quarry ltd. and Spencer Rd. Amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Schedule II: Speed Limits DATE: July 2019 In accordance with the City of Ithaca's Traffic Calming Pi-ogram request process, a resident from the 300 block of Spencer Rd. submitted such a request along with support from 17 nearby residents in August 2017, 'The request expressed the residents' concerns that traffic conditions may worsc..11; the 300 hloe'iN of Spencer Rd. after the project to dead-end the 400 block of Spenver Rd, wa3 r:.oropik)ie(t. The (min conceifiL; cxprci:scd ; ) tb dicrircd Ilavc;..oc:of corgHtions uqiy tr,:!) traffic levels ITlay iu i t hu 'h thc rcf,Tderi",:i ,uppoacc: the project to dead-end the 400 block, they hopeb tbat thc itrip;q:;'s of addilith:ai cojki mitigated via roadway repairs and the installation of tiatfic canning measures_ in mid-May of 2018 shortly before construction work in the 400 block of Sxnecr d Itcgari, a traffic count was conducted in the 300 block of SpunGcr Rd, to gzttttehasen:c coodiliou data. A follow-up traffic count vvas conducted in the saint location in mid-May 2019 to see how traffic conditions had changed. (Data was not collected for Stone Quarry Rd. traffic.) A summary of the results is listed below. May 2018 'beibro' data: 85th percentile speed: 29 mph (southbound), 28 mph (northbound) Percent of vehicles over 30 mph: 14.6% (southbound), X.6',10 (northbound) Average daily traffic: 2,560 May 2019 'after' data: 85th percentile speed: 35 inph (southbound), 33 mph (northbound) Percent of vehicles over 30 mph: 54.7% (southbound), 381i% (northbound) Average daily traffic: 4,600 Other factors to consider: - Spencer Rd. is a primary emergency response route for IFD - so speed humps would probably not be allowed. This street segment (300 block of Spencer Rd. and Stone Quarry Rd.) is classified as an Urban Collector - for this type of roadway, we would typically have a target speed range of 25-30 mph and a target volume range of around 2,000-8,000 vehicles per day. The City is looking into options for a now sidewalk along Spencer 11,d, - which might address some of the residents' concerns. Evaluation: Th c evaluuton of the feasibility and appropriateness of traffic calming measures for the 300 block of Spencer Rd. has not et been completed — this analysis will occur along with the other traffic calming requests being evaluated in 2019 and recommendations will be submitted to the BM for consideration in early 2020. Recommendation: Even though the evaluation has not yet been completed, Eric and 1 have confidence at this point that it would be appropriate to lower the speed limit along the entirety of Stone Quarry Rd. and along the 300 block of Spencer Rd. from 30 miles per hoot to 25 miles per hour (which is the lowest allowable speed limit). The cost of this work can be adequately absorbed in the 2019 Traffic Calrning Program budget so it does not necessarily need to follow the typical processing thretrazne The proposed 25 'mph 3pec'i limit will more logically align with the exi:iting 25 mph speed limit posted in tilf Town of Ithaca along Stone Quarry Rd. and is a more appropriate speed limit considering that pedestrians ire required to walk in the travel lanes along this i-Q,latively narrow roadway. A resolution detailing the recommended amendments to the City Code has been provided for your consideration 10B. Amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Schedule I: Traffic Control Signals and Schedule VIII: Stop Control Intersections — Proposed Resolution WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works is authorized by Section 346-4 of the City Code to adopt and to amend a system of Schedules in order to administer the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Transportation Engineer has determined that the traffic control operation at the Court Street and Plain Street intersection should be changed from signalized control to all -way stop control, and WHEREAS, the Board concurs with this determination, now therefore be it RESOLVED, That Schedule I: Traffic Control Signals and Schedule VIII: Stop Control Intersections be amended as follows: Schedule I: Traffic Control Signals. The following intersecting streets or locations are hereby designated for control by a traffic signal: 20. Court Street and Plain Street Schedule VIII: Stop Control Intersections. In accordance with the provisions of §346-12, the following described intersections are hereby designated for control by an all -way stop as follows: Court Street and Plain Street Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca. New York 14850-5690 OFFICE OF TtII CITY ENGINEER Telephone: 607/274-6530 FaX: 607/2746587 TO: Board of Public Works FROM: Kent Johnson, Assistant Transportation Engineer 1641— Rt.; Amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Schedule I: Traffic Control Signals and Schedule VW: Stop Control Inter DATE: July 8, 2019 fic City of Ithaca Transportation Engineer, Eric I iathaway P.E., has determined that the traffic control operation at the Court Street and Plain Street intersection should be changed from signalized control to all -way stop control. A resolution detailing the recoturnencied ,uncildinews to the City Codc has been provided for your consideration.