Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Packet January 2016G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\Commission Roster\2016\TRANS COMM List January 2016.docx Transportation Commission Contact List as of January 2016 Name Title Telephone Mailing Address E-mail Address Expiration of Term Dominic Barth Danielle Amarotico Commissioner Commissioner 617-840-5425 541-840-3770 586 ½ C Street 265 Alta Avenue dofriesgowiththatshake@yahoo.com Danielle@CommonBlockBrewing.com 4/30/2018 4/30/2017 Joe Graf Commissioner 541-488-8429 1160 Fern Street jlgtrans15@gmail.com 4/30/2018 Alan Bender Commissioner 541-488-4967 145 Almond Street Alan.bender@erau.edu 4/30/2017 Corinne Vièville Commissioner 541-488-9300 541-944-9600 805 Glendale Avenue corinne@mind.net 4/30/2016 David Young Commissioner 541-488-4188 747 Oak Street dyoung@jeffnet.org 4/30/2018 Sue Newberry Commissioner 775-720-2400 2271 Chitwood Lane sue.j.newberry@gmail.com 4/30/2016 Non Voting Ex Officio Membership Mike Faught Director of Public Works 541- 488-5587 20 E. Main Street faughtm@ashland.or.us Mike Morris Council Liaison 541-708-3665 20 E. Main Street morrism@council.ashland.or.us Brandon Goldman Planning Dept 541- 488-5305 20 E. Main Street goldmanb@ashland.or.us Steve MacLennan Police Dept 541- 552-2433 20 E. Main Street maclenns@ashland.or.us Scott Hollingsworth Honorè Depew Fire Dept SOU Student Liaison 541- 552-2932 503- 422-6723 20 E. Main Street hollings@ashland.or.us honoredepew@gmail.com VACANT Ashland Schools Dan Dorrell PE ODOT 541- 774-6354 100 Antelope Rd WC 97503 Dan.w.dorrell@odot.state.or.us Paige Townsend RVTD 541- 608-2411 3200 Crater Lake Av 97504 ptownsend@rvtd.org VACANT Ashland Parks 20 E. Main Street Jenna Stanke Jackson County Roads 541- 774-6231 200 Antelope Rd WC 97503 stankeJS@jacksoncounty.org David Wolske Airport Commission david@davidwolske.com Staff Support Scott Fleury Karl Johnson Engineering Serv Manager Associate Engineer 541- 488-5347 541-552-2415 20 E. Main Street 20 E. Main Street fleurys@ashland.or.us johnsonk@ashland.or.us Tami De Mille- Campos Public Works Permit Technician 541-552-2420 20 E. Main Street campost@ashland.or.us Transportation Commission November 19, 2015 Page 1 of 5 AASSHHLLAANNDD TTRRAANNSSPPOORRTTAATTIIOONN CCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONN MMIINNUUTTEESS November 19, 2015 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Joe Graf called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Mt. Ashland Room at Mountain Meadows, located at 857 Mountain Meadows Drive. Commissioners Present: Danielle Amarotico, Alan Bender, Joe Graf, Corinne Viéville, and David Young. Commissioners Absent: None Ex officio Present: Brandon Goldman, absent Staff Present: Scott Fleury, Mike Faught and Mary McClary Council Liaison: Michael Morris, absent SOU Liaison Present: None ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairperson Graf thanked Mountain Meadows for allowing the Commission to hold its meeting at their facility, and providing enough room for everyone. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes for: September 24, 2015 and October 22, 2015. Chair Joe Graf corrected the sentence under Announcements for the October 22, 2015 minutes. FROM: “Graf pointed out the agenda is going to change so the North Main cross walk item won’t be discussed tonight due to Kim Parducci not being able to attend the meeting.” TO: “Graf pointed out the agenda is going to change. The North Main cross walk item won’t be discussed tonight due to Kim Parducci not being able to attend the meeting.” The minutes were approved with stated correction. PUBLIC FORUM Set aside. NEW BUSINESS None. OLD BUSINESS N Main Crosswalk Discussion Kim Parducci, the Traffic Engineer, reported to the Commission about ODOT’s approval status with the two crosswalk project designs they had been diligently working to get started. ODOT generally liked the design of the Van Ness/N. Main crosswalk design, which consisted of a short walk- small island-short walk design. They had concerns for the truck traffic, due to the concrete island. Kim will run it by their Freight group to make sure the city had sufficient clearances for truck traffic. Generally they liked the whole design. These minutes are pending approval by the Transportation Commission. Transportation Commission November 19, 2015 Page 2 of 5 The Nursery/N Main proposed crosswalk had more constraints and concerns from ODOT. She explained it was difficult to design due to the angle and existing driveway. ODOT would approve the design but would need to close the circular driveway closest to the proposed cross. They were also concerned with congestion created because of continual crossings and single lane traffic. ODOT would be in support of crosswalks as long as the city would design, fund and maintain them. Mike Faught asked if the city would be maintaining just the crosswalk and Scott Fleury explained the city would either have an agreement mostly likely, to just re-stripe the crosswalk. Kim recommended to go forward with the Van Ness/N. Main crosswalk design, and wait on the Nursery location. Corrine Vieville asked about plans for flashers. Kim explained the Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RFB) would not be recommended for Van Ness mainly because the distant was so short. The Commission entered into a discussion regarding congestion, delays, safety, Road Diet, RFB and balance between them. Chairperson Graf asked if the Commission recommendation was to go forward with Van Ness with a flasher. Mike Faught recapped the Commission would either go forward without a flasher and evaluate further, or if the Commissions felt strongly to move ahead including a flasher, then Kim would need to re- evaluate parts of the project. Kim explained they did not look at the project with a flasher and she still had reservations using a flasher on N. Main Street. The Commission felt strongly to go forward with the design including a Flasher for Van Ness/N. Main. Chairperson Graft asked about the evaluating criteria that would be used to decide the project on Nursery with a flasher, if Van Ness did not include a flasher. Kim talked about monitoring traffic on Van Ness without a flasher to discern when pedestrians cross and look at the traffic flow of disruption. If there were indications of change with the crosswalk, the Commission may want to consider not putting a flasher at the Nursery project. She felt it would be beneficial to monitor a location before utilizing both locations with flashers. The Commission discussed the pros and cons of flashers and when the projects would be able to begin. Scott Fleury realistically thought 8-12 months. Kim pointed out the project would need to go before Council and ODOT’S Freight Group. Chairperson Graft asked for consciences on moving forward with the first project including a possible flasher, and beginning the steps for the second project. David Young felt that a crosswalk was needed more further down. There was more discussion regarding the two proposed crosswalks. The Commission came to a consciences on moving forward with the Van Ness/N. Main including looking at a possible flasher at that location. Chairperson Graft moved VIII, B. Traffic Crash Summary to allow Officer MacLennan to speak next. Officer MacLennan mentioned the stop signs placed on Walker Street were creating a serious traffic problem. The stop signs on the railroad tracks, also were not working properly. He recommended a legal stop sign, so he could enforce and create safer crossing for pedestrians. He reported half of the cars stop and half do not. Scott Fleury explained about undersized stop signs were placed for automobiles. When the crossing gates do not work, there has to be a stop sign, and he believed that was the reason for their placement. He was waiting for a formal response from Corp as that area was under the jurisdiction of the Railroad. Again, Transportation Commission November 19, 2015 Page 3 of 5 Officer MacLennan requested if the RR arms were not working, legal stop signs needed to be placed and unfortunately it would interfere with the bike lane and sidewalk. Transit System Study Session The Commission reviewed the Transit portion of the Transportation System Plan (TSP). The Planning Commission, Transportation Commission, and RVTV all worked together with a consultant to create the TSP. Mike Faught summarized the TSP multi-model components and outlined the policies within consisting of housing, upgrade sidewalk facilities, street lighting, bike storage, approve pedestrian crossing opportunities, and work with RVTV to monitor and improve transit stop amenities. In addition they wanted to establish a bus pass program, extend service hours, service area, central transit hub, express bus, and encouraged RVTV to apply for a grant to be utilized in extended bus service for 3 years. Mike summarized each of the suggested programs. He referred to a Power Point presentation. (time stamp1:08:42 to 1:22:11) David Young spoke to this experience with the TSP Plan process. Alan Bender talked about the ride sharing to the airport and car sharing in general. Dominic Barth, a new member of the Commission, commented how he was looking forward to taking advantage of the existing plan and all its possibilities. Chairperson Graft asked to open Public Forum, having passed it earlier in the meeting. Janice Trieglaff/825 Boulder Creek Lane spoke to the Commission requesting a stop at Fair Oaks and North Mountain because of the difficulty to see at that intersection. Donna Steward, Mountain Meadows, spoke to the Commission regarding the area by the Coop, Oak Street and Railroad, how confusing it was to use the stop sign or where to stop. There was no marked white line. Elizabeth Pallet, 938 Mountain Meadows Circle wondered if the Commission wanted to walk the areas of concern where they were planning a cross walk? Roy Sutton, 989 Golden Aspen Place concurred with Donna’s Steward’s comments about the cross at Oak and RR and also mentioned he asked a few years ago for a stop at the corner of Fair Oaks and North Mountain. He was hoping an accident would not have to occur before a stop sign was placed. Louise Shaket, 870 Cambridge wondered if businesses supported the bus route and turn around spot by Ashland Hills. In addition any support for general transit. Mike explained during the TSP update there was communication. When they really become specific projects, then more people/businesses get involved and interested. Roy Sutton, 989 Golden Aspen Place asked about the map and the Nevada bridge. Mike Faught clarified the full design has not been completed yet and/or the best route for the future. There was a 1.5 million grant and another million dollars in system development charges. They still need an additional 3 million dollars and have hired someone to help us lobby for more money. Donna Swans, 863 Plum Ridge Drive, spoke regarding a rubber tire vehicle, or could they state electric vehicle? Mike explained it was a term to distinguish it from a transit route. Donna Steward, Mountain Meadows asked if they explored options for downtown parking in the huge Christian Church. Mike talked about the consultant and the identification of about 900 spaces available for Transportation Commission November 19, 2015 Page 4 of 5 parking. They are looking at agreements to be able to utilize that. The radius is approximately from the RR tracks to North Main. Roy Sutton, 989 Golden Aspen Place talked about the letter to the Editor and remarks concerning auto exhaust and pedestrians. He felt that was an important point for the electric vehicles. Dave Young reminded everyone that the next Downtown meeting would be held December 2nd at the Council chambers at 3:30pm. November and December meeting dates The members discussed future November and December dates for Commission meetings. Scott suggested the 3rd Thursday at the Siskiyou room/or Council chambers. Chairperson Graft asked if they needed to update the code and the website. The regularly scheduled meetings would then be the 4th Thursday of each month, except November and December would be the 3rd Thursday. All agreeded. FOLLOW UP ITEMS Mayors Brown Bag—scheduled for tomorrow, November 20th Grandview Shared Road Status—Mike met with the property owner and other people who were not happy with the guard rail. He was working on a new standard for the shared road. He wanted to come up with a design that met the cross section of 18’ and 3’ for each side for pedestrians. The next step would be a public engagement process and talk about implementation. In addition, they would begin the education process and make sure it’s a safe facility for everyone. David wondered why an unpermitted guard rail was being worked around. Dominic wondered if it became the city’s responsibility. Mike explained about the code and requirements. The ordinance states, “unless it affects future design” and that makes this something that would need to be changed. Oak Knoll and Highway 66 Intersection Chairperson Graft stated the intersection was in the TSP to be realigned. Scott explained it was within ODOT jurisdiction boundary on Oak Knoll and Jackson County had the right of way jurisdiction on East Main. It is a cross boundary project. It would require looking at an engineering design and obtain a funding source to complete the project. Mike explained the TSP had two phases for this project, the first a realignment and the 2nd the roundabout. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Action Summary Traffic Crash Summary—already addressed. COMMISSION OPEN DISCUSSION Corinne Vieville asked about a trolley for SOU on First Friday and wondered about details. Dave Young talked about they hire a private trolley and Taste of Ashland does the same thing. Chairperson Graft has spoken to SOU regarding a representative and Dave Young spoke about filling the Commission vacancies. Alan believed OSF should be represented on the Commission as well. Mike would make sure the Mayor understands the concerns. He also gave the Commission the history of its members. FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS Public Outreach/Education-Oregon Impact Programs Transportation Commission November 19, 2015 Page 5 of 5 Traffic Control Resolution Update Traffic Crash Summary PD letter Car Share-Zip Car Code Enforcement Discussion—Dave asked that the code enforcement officer come to a future meeting to talk about the obstructions on sidewalks. Bridge St. Parking Prohibition ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:05 pm Next Meeting Date: December 10, 2015. Respectfully submitted, Mary McClary, Administrative Assistant for Electric, AFN and Information Technology Transportation Commission October 22, 2015 Page 1 of 7 ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 2015 CALL TO ORDER Chair Joseph Graf called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Danielle Amarotico, Dominic Barth, Joe Graf, and David Young Commissioners Absent: Corinne Viéville and Alan Bender Council Liaison Absent: Michael Morris Student Liaison Present: Janelle Wilson Staff Present: Mike Faught, Scott Fleury, and Kyndra Irigoyen ANNOUNCEMENTS Paige Townsend, representative from RVTD is unable to attend today’s meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes: None ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA Presentation by Paige Townsend, RVTD representative, will be rescheduled for January. Group will read memo prepared by Townsend and post online for public viewing. PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Guteheon, 2253 Hwy 99 He thought the bus people would be here. He will be back when they are back. Gutcheon says he has been riding the bus for the past 10 years, puts bike on the bus. He said 20 years ago the bus used to run just in town and drove slow, the seats were soft and now they are hard, the fare was 25 cents, the bus drives fast and stops fast. The drivers are always late and tailgate, they are on a 2-hour route and rushing to each stop, and the bus stinks sometimes. He apologizes for being negative, he does love the buses though, and they are great. He told the commission he thinks they should ride the bus to see the problems. He thinks an electric shuttle inside town would be awesome. Roy Sutton, 989 Golden Aspen Place Sutton spoke with reference to the Jefferson Exchange interview on Tuesday about the five electric buses they have ordered for Lane County that will serve Eugene and Springfield, to be delivered in June. They are not too far away if any of us want to observe them first hand, he said. They did cover how they received some funding for them. The bus that they manufactured is the same one we looked into, it is a Chinese company but they are produced in Palm Desert, CA so they qualify for federal funding, if the money is available. Graf asked if he knew if they are using them on their bus rapid transit route or their regular neighborhood routes. Sutton didn’t recall but the mileage covered a day was 130 miles per day, the battery will last 150-180 hours with the charging station overnight, which is a big improvement from earlier models. Graf says he knows they have put in a bus rapid transit from Springfield to Eugene. Sutton says that about 50% of their fleet are hybrid buses. Mike Faught said that he can forward the presentation to the commission and is available online. Paul Rostykus, 436 Grandview Drive Rostykus spoke about the guardrail issue on Grandview Drive. He lives up above Grandview, it runs up from Scenic to the intersection of Sunnyview and Skycrest. There was a guardrail put in about 6 months ago, about 350ft long. He displayed pictures to the commission that he took. Grandview is relatively narrow to begin with; the placement of the These minutes are pending approval from the Transportation Commission. Transportation Commission October 22, 2015 Page 2 of 7 guardrail has narrowed the road even more by 2-6ft, depending on the part of it. It has also eliminated the escape path for pedestrians. So if you want to get out of the way of a car, hopefully you can jump the rail. This is a highway style guardrail, very sturdy. There are some visual issues going on; the picture showed a truck backing out of a driveway and the visual impairment from the oncoming road. He spoke about how narrow the road is when there are both pedestrians and cars on the road. A picture was displayed showing a woman walking a dog on the side of the road in between the guardrail and a van driving up the hill, with a second car driving down the hill. The picture gave a visual of how narrow the space is. He said he was up there with two others on the road a few weeks ago in this same position when a large Kenmore dump truck was coming up the hill and another car was coming down the opposite way. He and the other person were able to jump over the guardrail and the third person straddled the guardrail. He estimated by holding his hands about a foot apart, was the space between the guardrail and the cars driving next to it. He thinks that if a person was squished between a car and the guardrail, it could result in a loss of limb, broken bones, surgery, or not surviving. He then displayed a cross-section he created. The black line in the middle is the pavement, which is between 16½ and 20ft wide, now the guardrail is on the left hand side, between the unpaved shoulder next to the guardrail there is between 9 and 24 inches. According to the city planning documents, the city right of way is about 70-80ft wide; most of the roadway is shifted to the right hand side in this place. He is not sure why the guardrail was put here, it was not mentioned in the building plans for the project or in the planning documents for this area. He cannot find an encroachment permit that was issued for this either, which makes this guardrail a city violation of municipal code. His question is why is this guardrail remaining if it was installed by a private company on public property, why is it remaining in violation of the municipal code? NEW BUSINESS Code Enforcement Graf said this is a follow up to previous discussions about sidewalk maintenance and sidewalk hazards. Faught said he has previously given instructions to the street crew for arterial collectors to issue letters for public right of way where they have performed inspections. Patches, who has since retired, use to do this work on an annual basis and was very good at it. Since he has left, this task has not been a high priority, but now it is back on track. The street crew does this unless there is a controversial issue, then a code enforcer will go out and inspect the issue. For example, if trees are growing into the sidewalk or we have traffic division triangle issues on arterials and collectors then we have the street crews inspect this. Young asked about when we had the heavy rain and the leaves were covering the sidewalk, from the standpoint of the rental properties or a person who has a disability, how do they get the leaves off the sidewalk? Faught responded that we do not have staff to clean up leaves on the sidewalk; it is the responsibility of the property owner to clean up things like that. What he does not wait around for is a long-term issue like overgrowth. Faught explained that it takes about three months of someone’s time to go out and do these inspections for arterial and collectors each year. If there is an issue, we send them a notice and give them a timeframe to respond to the issue. Young asked if, as a commission, they could put a message in the city source that it is the responsibility of the property owner to keep the sidewalk clean, that it is in our mission to keep the sidewalks safe. Faught will bring an example of past reminders that have been issued to the commission to review. Bridge St. parking prohibition Fleury included the email he received from the code enforcement officer, Kevin Flynn. He has been in contact with property owners there who have requested us to discuss parking prohibition along the west curb section (120’) off Bridge St., which is the west curb section of 120ft. He sent notice to all the property owners adjacent to this street section and was able to contact two property owners who are in support of the prohibition. One property owner is concerned about his two on street parking credits on the east side of the street and he wants to maintain the integrity there, however this prohibition would not affect the east side of the street, only the west. We will find out if there is interest in the east side of the street also. There is potential for about 40ft of additional frontage that could be used on the east side of the street, if there was an additional parking prohibition. It meets the streets standards for having Transportation Commission October 22, 2015 Page 3 of 7 parking on that side of street and the volume is fairly low from the last count and is not expected to increase. Graf asked for clarification, we are not talking about changing the section that is yellow (the east side of the street), only the area behind the driveway that goes in behind the mini mart and the corner. If we did something about this, it would change from unlimited parking to one hour parking. Fleury explained that business owners asked for this one- hour turnover because college students park here all day and sometimes leave cars there overnight, which limits the parking for their customers. He said there had been timed parking there at one time, but has since been removed. Amarotico asked Fleury to point out on the west side exactly where the parking prohibition would be. Fleury responded that the parking prohibition would come from the driveway, 40ft up, not restricted at all, and then 40ft up from there, to right below the driveway and would be timed. There is an abandoned driveway where people park in front of now, so that entire section could potentially be timed too. That would add could be another 3-4 spaces in that area. Graf asked if there is any data on this area of how many people go to these businesses and cannot find a spot to park and do we have any information on how short this parking lot is for all the businesses that are in there? Fleury said there is not any data for this. Graf said if we make any decision on this, it would be complaint driven, not data driven. Faught told the commission they could recommend for the city to hire someone to collect the data on the area. The data we are taking is from the police department on all the issues they are having in this area. Barth said his own observation of this the area is that this area is constantly full. He did notice that when the parking was no longer timed the turnover was not as frequent or not at all. This area has become very popular, where Pita Pit and Case Coffee Roasters are now. Spring, summer, and fall are the busiest times there. Graf said there are two restaurants and businesses on the other side that take up many spaces and it is hard to park there when you go. Young asked if anyone had spoken to SOU about this. Wilson said she does not think she can speak for everyone at SOU but said their campus director of public safety has been encouraging students to purchase SOU parking permits to park in designated spots and encourages students to be good neighbors to surrounding businesses and community. She thinks it is good to be data driven and thinks the campus would appreciate the data too. She thinks if it is negatively affecting the businesses, then changing the current parking to timed parking makes sense. Graff asked if anyone wanted to make a suggestion to take action on this topic. Young asked how many untimed spaces we are converting to one hour and how many additional spaces would be added to it. Fleury said there would be six spaces added per the standard guidelines; however, people will park closer together so eight to ten people could probably squeeze in there. Young/Barth m/s the Ashland Transportation Commission supports sending notices to the neighborhood for the parking prohibition on Bridge Street. Barth asked who would issue citations in the area. Fleury said that the community service officer would monitor the area and issue citations as necessary, not Diamond Parking. All in favor. Motion passes unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Transit System Study Session Faught suggested that we invite Paige Townsend back in January to present. Graf asked if we could make the memo that Townsend provided in her absence for the public. Faught said that we Transportation Commission October 22, 2015 Page 4 of 7 would post the memo on the website for all to view. FOLLOW UP ITEMS Grandview Shared Road Faught said this is a very controversial issue. He explained that the plan of action he is proposing is supported by legal guidance. The guardrail meets our standards; they came in to get a copy of our standards, but did not secure a permit to put in the guardrail. Faught asked to see Paul Rostykus’ cross section diagram. We need an 18ft paved section and 3ft on each side for pedestrians. As this cross section shows, we do not have 25ft out there right now. We have a traffic engineer who reviewed this who said it does provide vehicular safety. Faught has talked to the property owner about this, needs additional space for shared roadwork; he thinks ultimately there will end up being a guardrail there. We may cut some of the bank on the other side to create a true shared road. Faught has spoken with the property owner who is willing to pay part of the cost. He would like to just move it one time, once the design is accepted. We have an engineering firm on board to provide us with three options for the final solution. We may have to cut part of the hill to fix the sight distance issues for this section. Faught wants data to drive the final decision. We are on the fast track to get these options back. From a legal standpoint, this is a safe approach to move forward with. The next step after we get the final solutions is to send a notice to adjacent property owners because we are changing the speed to 15mph. He wants the commission to have a public hearing for anyone who is impacted by this. He wants to really engage the community on this because it is a big deal. Speeds above 15mph on this road do not work and speed bumps on this road are not a good idea. Barth asked if we are past having to wait for the Normal Ave. stuff. Faught said Normal Ave. is at its second reading. We are a couple of months out from getting the final design solutions for the shared road, around February or March. The follow-up before we put the 15mph speed signs up is to have a public process with the commission. Barth asked when is the soonest the 15mph speed signs will go up. Faught responded that they will go up in March or April. It will be designated as a shared road after it meets the standards to be a shared road. We have several other shared roads, but will work through the signage systematically because it is a big change for people to go 15mph. Barth is concerned about the guardrail. He said we have been talking about this off and on for six months and he said even Mike said he experienced a close call on this stretch. The longer this goes on, the more liability the city is exposed to. Faught responded that he is working with legal direction and we need to work with that legal interpretation. Young said his main concern is how many city resources and taxpayer resources are going into something that was really a private developer’s mistake. He wonders what kind of precedence this sets; that someone illegally put in something that is dangerous. In addition, it infringes on the design options going forward. Young is concerned that we are spending a lot of time and city resources, when we could be doing other things. Faught said that the city resources would have to be spent on the work anyway because the road needed to be converted to a shared road. He said that he was already working with Fleury on this in the first place. He said at this point it is better to work with everyone, instead of ripping the guardrail out. Graf said as far as the shared road code approval, it’s still tied up in the Normal Ave. process, the citizens who don’t like it haven’t stopped, he is wondering where this all sits if the council decides to table the whole thing for more studies and many more months, where does this leave this hanging? Can the council approve some parts of the plan that include these parts of the plan without necessarily approving the whole thing? Faught responded that the issue with Normal Ave. has nothing to do with the shared road design. Transportation Commission October 22, 2015 Page 5 of 7 Young said his understanding about shared roads is that you take conditions as given. This is new information to him tonight, that since a set of standards have been created for Normal Ave., that now you are forced to apply them retroactivity to preexisting roads to get that 25ft. Faught responded that they have said all along that they need 18ft of paved road and 3ft on each side for pedestrians. He recalls that he has consistently spoke about having 3ft on each side for pedestrians and it is the legal designation to change the speed limit to 15mph. Graf understood that when they did the Normal Ave. traffic plan they amended the TSP to include the definition of shared roads. If the council does not approve the Normal Ave. plan it puts everything on the table, then we do not have a definition of a shared road. Faught said the definition is there and he can easily take it as a standalone to the council. He wants to end up with a shared road we are all proud of, a safe refuge for all pedestrians. Graf asked how soon would we have options from the engineers. Faught said he does not want to give a date, although he has asked the engineers to design it quickly. Oak Knoll and Highway 66 intersection – Site Distance Fleury said he did not have a chance to finish it. He did lay out site stopping distance layout for the 35mph, which he will show the commission at the next meeting. He also contacted the street department to see if the evergreens were encroaching. The pictures from last time showed the evergreens dangling over the fence. The street department investigated this site hindrance. Walker Ave. RxR Stop Signs They did remove the miniature stop signs from the edge of the sidewalk. The crossing arms had previosuly been working but he was informed tonight that the arms were not working on Monday. The police were contacted who then contacted the appropriate parties and the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP) had people out there working on the issue. The general manager of CORP came to the meeting about a month ago. He has contacted him since and he is very responsive. Faught said we need to work with them in the future so that they follow the rules. Fleury said CORP should be removing the cabinet next week and putting up the arms. The cabinet will be relocated, which is why the sidewalk is missing. Keep Oregon Green and Protected (KOGAP), the city’s contractor, will then pour the last two panels to create the connection so pedestrians are not walking in the rocks. Young said the stop bars are still not there for cars. Fluery said the crossing arms control the stop. East Nevada St. Bridge Project Faught asked to add another item to the follow-up items. Faught said there have been some developments on the East Nevada St. bridge project. They have hired Al Densmore to help look for funding for this project. If there was previously a bridge there, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) money may be available. We had a contact today who may have a photo that proves there was a bridge there. Mr. Densmore had a great idea to work with the Greenway Board. We now have a full letter of support on the greenway extension. He is recommending that we separate the pedestrian bike facilities from the automobile bridge. There is a lot more money available for pedestrian and bike facilities than for auto. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Action Summary Nothing discussed. Downtown Parking and Multi Modal Circulation Study-Draft Report Graf said that the downtown committee is very close to approving this draft from the consultant. Now is the time to raise any issues if you have any in the development section. This is a plan of process, not so much specific recommendations. If you see something in there that you do not think we should do, it does not say do it, it says study it or evaluate it. Good news is that nothing is written in stone, the bad news is it has still to be determined. Faught said some things are written in stone. We have an 18-month plan to follow through which involves hiring staff who are dedicated to do this work. Transportation Commission October 22, 2015 Page 6 of 7 Graf said one of the first solutions to parking is to try to find shared lots, which are private lots that are sitting empty most of time, and to try to find a way to create a public private partnership so that those will be available for those who need long term parking downtown. Faught said the consultant identified 1200 spaces of existing private spaces, of which 900 during the peak period remain empty. The consultant is recommending that we create relationships and use that space instead of building new facilities. Graf said there are a lot of spaces, but they are not right in front of the businesses. We may have to have something that involves improvement to sidewalks, shuttle buses, lights, and more ways to drive there and take your bike off your car and ride your bike into the downtown core. He thinks the other thing that is important here is that there will be another committee that will take over, the Parking Advisory Committee, which will be in operation to manage the parking and advise the parking downtown, which will likely have representatives from the transportation commission. Amarotico asked if Faught could give her a real life example of how a public private partnership would work. Faught said that some businesses might be able to barter with other businesses. Faught said for the city to pick up some spots, an example is the church by Oak St., the parking lot is empty every day except Sundays, it is a great opportunity to create agreements, which may not involve money. Amarotico said going back to the real life example, so when other cities do this in other cases, would the city pay the church a rental fee. Faught said each business would work out a deal for their own employees. It’s not that we create an ordinance that you cannot have employees parking downtown, the businesses have to manage that. If we create a mechanism for our city employees to park downtown, we would work out some deal for them to pay and encourage them to park there. Young clarified that this is just the draft plan and is only the parking component. Seeking the agreements would be the job of the staff or consultant. Barth noted that page 16 references ‘San Ashland’ instead of ‘Ashland’ and Graf asked that Figure B be removed on page 24. Graf said the consultant is taking suggestions, so now is the time for input. Everyone can give their suggestions to Graf or Young and they will give the input to Faught who will update the consultant. Young asked that the edited version be given to the committee, two weeks before the next meeting, so the committee has a week to catch some edits or other suggestions. Faught said when this is done; we will work on the multimodal piece of it. He would like to eventually have a town meeting about this to receive their input. Graf asked if all of the plans would come through the Transportation Commission before it goes to Council. Faught said yes, it would go to Planning as well before it goes to Council. He wants the vetting to happen before it goes to council. Open Discussion Graff gave an update on his attendance at the Mayor’s brown bag. Young voiced his concern about the ongoing vacancy on this commission. Graff said there has been movement, it has not been fast enough, but there has been movement. There is another person who is now being interviewed for the commission. Graff asked about any future agenda topics. He asked when they are going to be discussing the Siskiyou portal. Faught said he recommends that should be the next project after the downtown parking management plan is completed. From a staffing perspective, we need to get that done first. Faught said we want to do a pedestrian bridge study by SOU. Fleury said when we applied for the Traffic Growth and Management (TGM) grant, the council asked Transportation Commission October 22, 2015 Page 7 of 7 that the corridor go from Walker Ave. to essentially Sherman St. We did apply for the TGM grant; unfortunately, we did not get it for the safety study. Graff said at our next meeting we would hopefully have a presentation by Paige Townsend from RVTD. Faught said he would like to bring Paige in to the next meeting and at the following meeting have a prioritization process for the transit side like the commission has done for all the other elements of the TSP. We want to hear Paige’s presentation first and gather all the data and then talk about what we think is the most important thing we should do next. Young said he reviewed the memo that Paige gave the commission in her absence. He said he was concerned because it sounded like more of the same stuff from RVTD. Faught said that they have hired John Watt Associates to create a better marketing piece to get the word out. Young said there was a lack of understanding for the Ashland system. Graff asked, what are the problems and issues we are trying to solve, what are the strategies, who is the population we want to serve in Ashland, not RVTD’s strategic plan. He said he does understand in their case if they do not get their levy then they cannot get their service up. Faught said our plan is not that far outside of their long- term plan; there are elements of their long-term plan that fall right into our transportation recommendations in the TSP. Fleury said he was contacted by ODOT regarding a letter that was sent to officer MacLennan from a petitioners group at Bellview Elementary School regarding the intersection of Tolman Creek Rd. and Siskiyou Blvd. ODOT contacted Fleury and said they would like to move forward with a preliminary four way stop at that intersection. Counts were taken in that area and based on the operational structure it would work better as a four way stop. This is ODOTS’s right of way, but they are contacting us for our support. Ideally, he would like to add this to the January agenda. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kyndra Irigoyen Public Works Administrative Assistant Rogue Valley Transportation District From the Desk of Paige Townsend, Senior Planner 3200 Crater Lake Avenue  Medford, Oregon 97504-9075 Phone (541) 608-2429  Fax (541) 773-2877 Visit our website at: www.rvtd.org December 10, 2015 TO: Ashland Transportation Commission RE: RVTD Transit Strategies and Short/Long-Range Planning I apologize I am unable to attend your meeting and will be available in January barring any additional family illnesses. This memo represents brief responses to questions, concerns and strategies that the Commission is discussing to improve transportation options in Ashland. Let me begin by describing some of the recent efforts in Ashland. In the 2014-2015 Academic year RVTD provided SOU with a state-funded grant to improve multi-modal transportation use to the campus. This project was largely marketing focused using weekly events co- sponsored by student clubs and advertising. 14% of the student body participated in the program and with the pre and post surveys we observed a 4% decrease in drive alone trips. An indirect benefit was a 22% increase in bus pass sales and a 118% increase in bus pass usage from the year prior. RVTD presented to the Multi-Modal Downtown Committee in the fall of 2014 to encourage downtown employers to consider using bus passes, carpooling, bicycling and incentive/marketing based programs as an approach to solve a portion of the transportation issues in downtown. This is an easy, low-cost way to improve transportation in the near term and based on the success of the SOU program we could see similar affects in downtown as we did at SOU. We only need a partner who is interested willing and able to pursue this on behalf of the downtown merchants. RVTD participated in the SOCAN Transportation break out group and from this learned more about the desire for a shuttle, trolley, or circulator type of system in Ashland. RVTD is open to helping with this planning stage and I would pose two questions at this time, “Who is your target audience?” (service workers, recreation/tourism, employees of downtown) and “What type of trip are you hoping to reduce?” (work, school, shopping, recreation). The reality is that neither RVTD, the downtown merchants or the City will have enough resources to serve all of these needs (at least in the beginning) so having some targets will help to plan for a more successful service. This will also help to strategize on who should provide the service and how it should be funded. Mike and I met to look at the transfer location conceptually described as being in the RR District. We support this concept and need to make it more of a concrete plan. This would require identifying a parcel, completing the street system to support circulation and considering the facility needs as a multi- modal hub for all transportation. Perhaps this is a project the Commission could work on with the City and RVTD. The Commission should also be fully aware of our investment in Compressed Natural Gas as an alternative fuel source in our fleet. We now use a fleet of 23 buses and 18 of these are CNG. This fuel choice will bridge us to the next wave of technology, which could be electric, but we are not in a position to consider a major fleet or fuel transition at this time. It might help to understand that RVTD is currently paying $1.17 per gas gallon equivalent (GGE) which is significantly less than a gallon of diesel and would also be significantly less than the cost to supply our vehicles with power based on the current kwh and surcharges. We are open to ideas but these should be posed in a transition plan and not anticipated to become part of the RVTD within the very near future. However, RVTD is applying for funds to put a solar system on top of the Maintenance Facility which will offset approximately $8,000 of power costs per year. This will also help to get staff acquainted with the idea of using locally-generated renewable electricity in the fleet which is much more amenable to us than conventional sources. Lastly, RVTD staff is working with the Board to pursue a May 2016 property tax levy. The service proposal has two major parts. 1) RVTD is currently running at a deficit of approximately $1 M per year. We have to fill this gap before other services can be proposed otherwise we risk doing another service reduction like none we have ever seen. 2) The levy would support bringing back Saturday service, increasing frequencies back to 20-minutes on Route 10, possibly increasing frequencies on Route 24 to east Medford and improving and re routing service in west Medford. These ideas are still be explored along with service to RCC Table Rock Campus, an express route and evenings. Our staff is also working on a state funding package that would improve transit service throughout the state in small urban and rural areas. I hope to attend the January meeting and until then, Happy Holidays!