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!