The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTransportation Packet January 2017Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Transportation Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. AASSHHLLAANNDD TTRRAANNSSPPOORRTTAATTIIOONN CCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONN JJaannuuaarryy 2266,, 22001177 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes: December 15, 2016 IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. NEW BUSINESS A. Post Road Diet Analysis  Discuss Traffic Engineers analysis and take public input (90 min.) B. N. Main Hersey/Wimer Signal Analysis and Crosswalk Analysis  Discuss warrant analysis and mid-block crosswalks (20 min.) C. Transportation Commission Council Update  Discuss February update to Council (5 min.) VI. TASK LIST A. Discuss current action item list VII. OLD BUSINESS A. None VII. FOLLOW UP ITEMS A. CMAQ Grant Application-Chip Seal Project  Recommendation for chip seal grant application (5 min.) B. Intersection Repair  Discuss an intersection repair program similar to Portland (5 min.) C. Vegetation Maintenance Program  Provide update on public outreach program development (5 min.) VIII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Transportation System Plan Request for Qualifications (including transit feasibility study) B. Action Summary C. Accident Report D. Making an Impact Newsletter (December) IX. COMMISSION OPEN DISCUSSION X. FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS A. TSP update process B. Nevada St. Bridge (February) C. CIP Budgeting XI. ADJOURNMENT: 8:00 PM Next Meeting Date: February 23, 2017 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Public Works Office at 488-5587 (TTY phone number 1 800 735 2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). Transportation Commission Contact List as of January 2017 Name Title Telephone Mailing Address Email Address Expiration of Term Dominic Barth Commissioner 617-840-5425 586 ½ C Street dofriesgowiththatshake@yahoo.com 4/30/2018 Danielle Amarotico Commissioner 541-840-3770 265 Alta Avenue Danielle@CommonBlockBrewing.com 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 805 Glendale Avenue corinne@mind.net 4/30/2019 or 541-944-9600 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 4/30/2019 Non-Voting Ex Officio Membership Mike Faught Director of Public Works 541- 488-5587 20 E. Main Street faughtm@ashland.or.us Stefani Seffinger Council Liaison 541-708-3665 20 E. Main Street stefani@council.ashland.or.us Brandon Goldman Planning Department 541- 488-5305 20 E. Main Street goldmanb@ashland.or.us Steve MacLennan Police Department 541- 552-2433 20 E. Main Street maclenns@ashland.or.us Scott Hollingsworth Fire Department 541- 552-2932 20 E. Main Street hollings@ashland.or.us Janelle Wilson SOU Liaison 541-552-8328 1250 Siskiyou Blvd wilsonjan@sou.edu VACANT Ashland Schools Dan Dorrell PE ODOT 541- 774-6354 100 Antelope Rd WC 97503 Dan.w.dorrell@odot.state.or.us Edem Gómez RVTD 541-608-2411 3200 Crater Lake Av 97504 egomez@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 Eng. Service Manager 541-488-5347 20 E. Main Street fleurys@ashland.or.us Karl Johnson Associate Engineer 541-552-2415 20 E. Main Street johnsonk@ashland.or.us Kyndra Irigoyen Administrative Assistant 541-552-2427 20 E. Main Street irigoyenk@ashland.or.us Transportation Commission December 15, 2016 Page 1 of 6 These minutes are pending approval by this Commission ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES December 15, 2016 CALL TO ORDER Graf called the meeting to order at 6:02 pm Commissioners Present: Joe Graf, Danielle Amarotico, Dominic Barth, and Sue Newberry Commissioners Absent: Alan Bender, Corinne Viéville, and David Young Council Liaison Present: Stef Seffinger SOU Liaison Absent: Janelle Wilson Staff Present: Scott Fleury, Mike Faught, and Kyndra Irigoyen Staff Absent: Steve Mac Lennan ANNOUNCEMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of November 17, 2016 minutes The minutes were approved as amended. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA None. PUBLIC FORUM Don Stone He said he might be considered as an advocate for automobiles. He said he read through the downtown strategic parking management plan. He found that the proposal to narrow Main St from three lanes to two lanes is part of the package… Graf said that was a mistake because the multimodal part of the downtown plan was not approved by the Downtown Committee. It is not being considered until the next committee moves in to work on that project. Stone said he is happy and thanked the commission. He said he sits on the board of the Rogue Valley Transit District. Members have commented on the issue of reducing lanes and have had problems making headways for the buses because traffic is held up on the road diet. Louise Shawkat 870 Cambridge She said Grants Pass is looking seriously into electric buses. Electric buses take a good gas powered bus and strip it down and convert it to an electric bus. They will be having a demo that will come to Ashland and Grants Pass. She would like for the commissioners to go look at the electric bus when it comes to town. The results of a survey that GEOS did had a great response. The date of the demonstration is on January 10th. Susan Sullivan 305 Stoneridge Ave Read from attached letter. Newberry asked about Sullivan’s public involvement. Sullivan said she is asking for an opportunity to see a design before the meeting occurs for real review and input. NEW BUSINESS Downtown Parking and Multi Modal Circulation Study Faught said the Committee and Council has decided to not move forward on the multi-modal portion of the plan. There will be a future committee who will work on it. He said there was a public forum meeting for the downtown parking plan in December where about 80 people came. They will have a meeting in January, which will probably be their last meeting. He reviewed the attached PowerPoint presentation. Transportation Commission December 15, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Barth asked if Faught had any updated estimates on when the new parking manager would be hired or update their contract with Diamond Parking. Faught said if the Downtown Committee approves this in January it will go to Council in February and he will recommend for it to be rolled into the next budget process to be included and start July 1st with the new position, if approved. It has to be approved by Council and the Budget Committee, so this could be in July or August. Barth asked if he was understanding correctly that Faught is encouraging merchants to encourage their employees to use the existing parking and if that changes it from the 85% capacity then it might not be necessary to go to paid parking, is that correct? Faught said he does not want to leave it at just that. It may not, but we are starting on the list of strategies, the next strategy is the paid parking, it just means we do not need to do that right away. We are already at the 85th percentile, so we need to take that action now. If we are able to put these agreements together and that drops us below the 85th percentile, we have completed our work in terms of current parking. That group will be working on future strategies so they are more fine-tuned when ready to implement. Faught said this is really across the board, in all positions, for and against; can buy in to it. Barth said going forward, it would be a Council issue, and the alternative parking spaces, it came to paid parking, would that also be a Council issue or similar to the downtown plan where every parking space potentially removed is contested by interested parties in the downtown. Faught said what he envisions happening is that the downtown parking group is in tune with the issues and strategies and be ahead of any issues. Roll out of metered parking will be something that is worked through with the community. From a multimodal perspective, the downtown visioning committee will be working on that. Barth said the income necessary for a shuttle to actually function might rely on some paid parking. Faught said it could, but when he talks about potential strategies and revenue it is really important to roll out the strategies the way they are outlined because we all have to agree that the 85th percentile is a trigger for the next step. The potential revenue is part of the strategy, if one does not work, move to the next one. Barth said the City of Portland receives a portion of tax revenue through the state that is dependent on, a merchant tax. Faught said from a revenue standpoint, if you are looking at funding other types of things, we could start having those conversations, but that is not included in the parking strategy for other tax. Barth said it was in the packet for some sources of funding. Graf said all the possible sources of funding are in there if you are going to build new parking. Graf said his understanding was that this downtown plan was going to be an addendum to the TSP and the TSP is basically the Transportation Commission and the Planning Commission working together, so it is not coming back to the Transportation Commission or the Planning Commission because it is going to directly to the Council. So, is this not part of the TSP? Faught said if the Council approves, to add it to the TSP it will have to go through the Transportation Commission and the Planning Commission. That process could happen before July 1st. Graf said the business survey showed that two thirds of employees in Ashland do not live in Ashland. So they are coming in and parking or riding their bikes, if you figure there are three thousand employees downtown, that is almost two thousand people that have to find a place to park and find a way to get to town. If we are going to move those two thousand people out of the downtown core, we are going to need a shuttle or something already in place in order to help them get there. It feels like we have to wrap all this stuff together because it is more than finding a private parking lot to let employees park it in, we might have to do sidewalk work, shuttle work, and if we do not have paid parking how are we going to afford all that. Even for the phase one stuff. Faught said this new committee will have to struggle through to find this stuff. He said the consultant said if we clear just one hundred parking spaces that is a big difference in your parking supply. Seffinger asked if this has been looked at as a seasonal issue and doing things differently during the summer months. Faught said the season is much larger than you think, summer is about six months and then December is high volume. It is not just a three-month window. Seffinger said some younger women employees are concerned that our city is different from a lot and a lot of night life, some employees feel uncomfortable. Faught said he agrees with that, which is why they have talked about lighting. These are key issues the committee will have to work on. Seffinger asked if they are looking at the impact of driverless cars. Also using apps like Uber, developing them for some community members so they would not have to drive downtown. Faught said these questions would have to be referred to the consultant. TASK LIST Fleury said the italic bold is the step where we are. Barth asked for an estimate on the items of where we are. Fleury said he would put a range for within a couple of months for the items where a date is uncertain. Barth asked to Transportation Commission December 15, 2016 Page 3 of 6 include the month an item comes on the list. Newberry asked to read through the task list. She thinks there are better ways to organize this list. 1. Hersey/Wimer intersection signal warrant analysis – Fleury said Parducci has a draft memo on the signal analysis and started a final draft for the road diet. She can bring some visuals to show what it will look like if the signal is added and what issues it could create. Her reports will also include the cultural diet analysis, the timing, the gap analysis, the ADT’s, and corridor travel times. She will have everything ready to go for the January meeting. 2. Super sharrow analysis for downtown – Newberry asked about the solicitation document being drafted by staff. Fleury said they have contracted with Kittelson to perform the analysis, but we have not for the super sharrow itself. 3. Transit internal circulator analysis – Fleury said he has two drafts and the old TSP RFP documents; they are going to try to combine. He said he talked to Graf about it. Graf asked when will we find time to do it because the road diet and signal analysis is going to take a full meeting with a lot of public input. The bridge will take a full meeting. He said unless we do it as an informational item, and then be sure to talk about it in March. Fleury said he will get the draft as soon as he can and if you have time to look at it and think about it until we can have a formal action item discussion on it, so it would fall in the informational item stage to get you guys something as we process it. We will not fund it until the next budget year. Our expectation is to get it in line so we can start it when we get into the next fiscal year. Newberry asked why the Transportation Commission does not have work-study sessions. It would be a good opportunity to take things like this that we do not have time for on a regular agenda or that we are not ready to bring to an agenda and work on it with citizen input. She asked if this commission has ever considered having one. Graf said there is no reason we cannot have one. Graf said it would have to be a formal meeting with minutes, but there is nothing that precludes us from doing that. Newberry said she was thinking mostly about being responsive to the public. Graf said we should have a work session with public input or we will not be ready or have enough background. Newberry said if Fleury develops a good scope of work, we will have a better understanding of what is involved and it will help our community advocates who have worked on it. Fleury said that was his intention that way we are not a few months into the next budget getting this going. Graf said the scope of work is critical. Fleury said the scope of work will be itemized but will not be supremely detailed because of how the selection process goes. With this level of solicitation, you have to do what is called ‘qualifications based selection’. A generalized scope will be put together for things we are looking for, for the feasibility study. It is sent out, we receive consultants’ formal response to it, grade them, then make a selection of the consultant team that we prefer, and then we enter the ‘true fee and scope negotiations’. That can be something we do with this group and members of the public can have input on that portion of it. Newberry said that seems reasonable that we will start broad and bring it more into point. She said if we could do it in a way that we engage our citizens, even if we do not start with all the details, she thinks that is workable. She said she thinks we need to create a subcommittee to work on this or have a study session to discuss it. Graf said he would prefer to have a study session instead of forming a subcommittee. Fleury said he will get the scope to the Commission for comments to compile a final document. He said he could get the document to the Commission in January, by March we could have a formal study session, which would give him some time to compile everything for the formal document. He said he is looking to release it to coincide with the next fiscal year; it will be released in the middle of May or June potentially to start the process. Graf said we are thinking of having a study session in the first part of March and then having our regular meeting in March which also follows up on it. Newberry said she suggested a study session is because we told the public would be addressing this in January. She would like to have a session in late January or mid-February to meet with people who have input on this issue and to refine our ideas to reflect the input we receive from them. Graf asked if February was too early for Fleury. Fleury said no because he will already have the draft document to the Commission. Graf asked to get the draft document in January and have a study session in mid-February, then have a regular meeting to deal with the bridge, then we talk about the shuttle in much more detail in our March meeting. OLD BUSINESS Intersection Repair Fleury said he took Portland’s permit and made some modifications and sent to legal. Legal reviewed and had some additions to it, which are appropriate. We had feedback from the Public Art’s Commission. The feedback we received Transportation Commission December 15, 2016 Page 4 of 6 that was when someone does a public art project for the City of Ashland, it is approved and becomes property of the City of Ashland. Our intent to for this is for the citizens in that area who do this, take ownership of the intersection repair. The Public Arts Commission thought it was great, but did not see a need to become directly involved with the process itself. He said he has not talked to planning or the Historic Commission about it yet. He said he will finalize the development of the petition to use for signatures of residents and the group will follow the permit process, even if the permit has not been finalized; the group can go ahead as a pilot project if the permit is not ready. He said he contacted Portland about the type of paint they use. One is a general street marking paint and the other is a stain. Portland requires them to add ground coconut shells to the mixture, which is the anti-slick surface they require to be added. He said we need to define the process of obtaining the permit and finding out if the name will be changed to something different. Vegetation Maintenance Program Fleury said that Irigoyen has put together some information and made a brochure. We worked with Newberry to develop a general outline of what we need. He said currently there are no brochures for this at the City. We are working on cleaning this up and will bring it back to the Commission in January or February as an informational item. He said we want to get the brochure out sooner than later. Barth asked about the app. Fleury said we are still working on the app and will demo it to the Commission when ready. We might try to correlate the existing MyAshland app if possible. FOLLOW UP ITEMS CMAQ Grant Application Fleury submitted the application. He did a presentation to the TAC group for initial vetting for input. There was not any voting. He will know more in a couple of months. Newberry asked if chip sealing triggered ADA improvements. Fleury said if we are doing a shared road, they will have to maintain a two percent cross slope. Newberry said they will not have to add sidewalks. Fleury said no, the shared road is without sidewalks, the accessibility would have to be maintained on the road surface itself. Barth asked if this grant would apply to the Glenview ideas. Fleury said yes that will be included. He said the petition will be included from Glenview. If we had to lower the dollar amount that probably would be the area we recommend to be chip sealed. The public hearing is being planned for March. He said the public hearing will be both on the chip seal and the shared road. We have a consensus that the people who live along the dirt road would like to see the chip seal done for dust pollution reduction. Graf asked if this could be moved to April because we are talking about transit in March. Grandview Shared Road Improvements Fleury said it should have been done but we hit bad weather for the rest of the paving. He believes it will get finished next week if the weather allows it. We are still waiting for the road signs to go in the appropriate locations. As soon as they arrive we will work with Parducci to install them in the appropriate locations. We are still working on the final design which goes from Grandview to Grandview and down to Scenic. Graf asked about the rumor of work being done on the guardrail. Fleury said more guardrail was added to protect the transformer. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Commission Business-Individual Meetings Discussions Newberry received an email from someone asking them to go to their home about the E Nevada St bridge project. She said she felt uncomfortable about this so she contacted the city attorney for advice. The attorney said it was ok for her to do that but also reminded her that it is important to remember that when we have a meeting or study session here, everyone is getting to hear what everyone is saying. She said you are able to hear what your neighbor and the guy down the street is saying and what the Commission has to say, which puts us on the same page. She said whereas if she was to go and meet with these people and later they said, “Well Sue said when she met with us at her house…” She said she did not feel comfortable with that and the attorney said this is something the City has been talking about in general about right now. She said we should decide as a Commission on how we want to respond. She feels uncomfortable when she receives an email from people, she wants to write back and respond but is never sure, so far she has been emailing back saying “thank you for your input” but she wished she knew what to say. She wants to encourage people for public input, but would like to know how other Commissioners are responding. Barth said she appreciates how Newberry responded to that sender by inviting them to public forum to share their views. Fleury said in general, as a member, he does think they are not supposed to say anything without Transportation Commission December 15, 2016 Page 5 of 6 the consent of the Commission as sort of what the Commission’s mentality is. As an individual citizen, he thinks you have to make the declaration, that this is my opinion as an individual citizen and not representing the consent of the Commission itself. Newberry asked about receiving letters and that she copies Irigoyen on everything she receives. She asked if they are able to respond, not with an opinion on what the Commission thinks, but with a response in some way, and then send that to everyone else. She asked how the City Council handles that. Seffinger said if it is to all City councilors, the city administrator is generally the one that responds. She said what she does is responds with a “thank you” and lets them know when the next Council meeting is. She has met with people to hear their input and said in advance that she is only coming to hear their input, but does not express any opinions. Newberry said so we could write that some way, copy Irigoyen and Graf. Fleury said anything that comes to the Commission that you believe is valid should be submitted to the packet for it be on the record. Graf said you have to be careful to say you are not speaking from the Transportation Commission, but my own personal opinion is I would like to know more about such and such. Graf said he handles them very tersely. Seffinger said she thinks sometimes the other part of it is if you agree to meet with one side and you do not with the other side then it looks like you are favoring one or the other. She said sometimes she will say that she needs to listen to both sides of the issue, especially if it is a hot issue and there are people from both sides wanting to meet. Accident Report None. Making an Impact Newsletter None. COMMISSION OPEN DISCUSSION Newberry asked what their role will be in the development of a process for the street maintenance priorities for the new monies allocated in the last vote. She asked if they will have a role in the process or just see a final list. Fleury said a little bit of both, it is partly looking at the CIP. He said he has preemptively started to plan, our issue is that we have some historic overlays that have been postponed and we have engineering plans for those. He thinks those will be the first couple that come out of the gate. We are looking at new projects for next summer right as the new budget year breaks. In order to facilitate and get some overlays on the ground, that will be one of things we will use, some of the stuff we already had done that has put on the shelf. In general, we are looking at N Mountain from Hersey to the overpass as an overlay project and adding a couple of ADA ramps that do not exist right now. The other one we are looking at is the overlay on Whiteman from Siskiyou to Quincy. Part of the strategy is to hit roads where we can maintain the pavement condition index up to our threshold level. The pavement condition index is essentially already defined where they are at, what is not defined is which streets within that are going to come first. That is something staff will decide. Newberry said she does not need a list she was just curious if we had a role. She said she is primarily interested in what ADA will be triggered, how much ADA retrofitting will done in those projects. Fleury said anything with an overlay where there is no appropriate ADA at the intersection will have to be solved. Newberry asked about sidewalks. Fleury said sidewalks will have to coincide with existing projects in the TSP. This is only to fund the overlays themselves; there is no additional money for sidewalks. Newberry said that ADA has some requirements for when you do certain things to roads; often overlays will trigger a requirement that pedestrian facilities be provided. Fleury said the main effect is the accessibility at the corners for an accessible route. A lot of our streets have sidewalks but the sidewalks do not have an accessible curb. So that is part of planning and selecting those roads because that is a cost impact we have to do. He said how he looks at it is that some of them are in conjunction with predetermined sidewalk projects we have in the TSP and whether those are City or development driven. Newberry said it would be nice along the bus route to have a completed network of sidewalks. Fleury said that would be a discussion where the Commission sees priorities if it is a bus route, a collector, or arterial. The first round of this overlay is just for arterials and collectors to manage the major portions of our street and infrastructure. The next phase will move into the lower order streets, residential collectors. Barth said when you address these overlay possibilities, we had a letter about Hersey and the possibility of speed reduction humps, on N Mountain there was a flashing light stop sign consideration, so those things might be brought forward. Fleury said he thinks if we are doing something like that based on the letter from Hersey and if we are looking at traffic calming and changes to Hersey as part of that, we would have a hearing about it. Newberry asked if we had a traffic calming program. Fleury said no. Transportation Commission December 15, 2016 Page 6 of 6 Newberry said there are more ways to do traffic calming other than speed humps. She said if we do not have a traffic calming policy, would it behoove us to consider doing that. Relying only on speed humps is not the most effective way to do that. There has been some great traffic calming done in this town without using speed humps. Fleury said that could be a fundamental component of the TSP update that we could work on to define that we could use in perpetuity. Barth said at the top of Mountain, a left on Nevada, which makes the shared road width turn, but if one rethinks it, it could be already a calming thing, instead of increasing it to a highway turn. Newberry said the normal process for us is that people will show up for a meeting without seeing a plan or discuss their opinions or have their questions answered in an environment before we get to the formal thing where they have already prepared their remarks. She asked if we ever have a meeting before the formal public hearing where people are able to look at the plans, an open house style, or workshop style, where they can look at the materials that are being presented so they can get an idea. She said in bigger cities they have engineers there and people can ask them questions. Fleury said in the past we have done design charrettes with design options, where there are engineers there with options on posters, where you can go around and ask questions. Newberry said it is challenging within the constraints of a two hour meeting to bring back something that is important to many people and present new options and answer many questions that have been asked in the interim. She asked if we could consider that some pre-meeting might happen, some kind of educational event. Graf said he would like to have an educational event for the Commission because none of us were on the Commission when the studies were done in the TSP. He said he has talked to Faught about this, that we need to go through and find the problems. FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS TSP update process North Main Crosswalk Analysis/Post Road Diet Analysis CIP Budgeting ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kyndra Irigoyen Public Works Administrative Assistant Celebrate the Season Safely The holidays are a time to celebrate. And hosting a party can be as fun as the event itself. Every responsible host knows that it’s only a great time if every guest gets home safely. Here are some tips to help you throw an entertaining and safe party: ~ As guests RSVP, confirm that they have a plan for a safe way home via a non-drinking designated driver (rideshare service, public transit, taxi, etc.) ~ Collect your guests’ car keys at the beginning of your event. Then, talk with your guests before they leave about the best transportation options for them. ~ Plan activities like “ice-breakers”, party games, raffles, or a “re-gift” exchange that do not involve alcohol and engage people. ~ Do not push drinks! Drinking at a party is not mandatory for having a good time. ~ Provide plenty of food to keep your guests from drinking on an empty stomach. ~ Avoid too many salty snacks, which tend to make people thirsty and drink more. ~ Have plenty of non- alcoholic beverages or “mocktails” for non- drinking designated drivers and others. ~ Never serve alcohol to someone under 21 and never ask anyone under 21 to serve alcohol at parties. ~ If, despite your efforts, some of your guests have had too much to drink, never let them drive home impaired. ~ Have the number of a taxi or rideshare service, and NHTSA’s Safer Ride App, on hand or offer your sofa to guests who need to stay put. Have cash available to pay for cab fare if needed. -Source: Madd.org M aking I mpactan December 2016 - Volume 4, Issue 3 Making an Impact..........................................OregonImpact.org........................................................ 1 Holiday Season Impaired Driving Campaign Materials The holidays are known for being merry and bright, but they’re also known for being the deadliest season when it comes to drunk driving. Every holiday season, lives are lost due to drunk drivers. Use NHTSA’s social norming marketing tools, which can be distributed to fit your local needs and objectives. These materials will partner your office with other States, communities, and organizations on this drunk driving prevention initiative. Making an Impact..........................................OregonImpact.org........................................................ 2 Janelle Lawrence Executive Director Contact Us Funded through a grant from ODOT Transportation Safety Division Subscribe Donate U.S. DOT Issues Federal Guidance to the Automotive Industry for Improving Motor Vehicle Cybersecurity NHTSA is taking a proactive safety approach to protect vehicles from malicious cyber-attacks and unauthorized access by releasing proposed guidance for improving motor vehicle cybersecurity. The proposed cybersecurity guidance focuses on layered solutions to ensure vehicle systems are designed to take appropriate and safe actions, even when an attack is successful. The guidance recommends risk- based prioritized identification and protection of critical vehicle controls and consumers’ personal data. Further, it recommends that companies should consider the full life-cycle of their vehicles and facilitate rapid response and recovery from cybersecurity incidents. This guidance also highlights the importance of making cybersecurity a top leadership priority for the automotive industry, and suggests that companies should demonstrate it by allocating appropriate and dedicated resources, and enabling seamless and direct communication channels though organizational ranks related to vehicle cybersecurity matters. In addition to product development, the guidance suggests best practices for researching, investigating, testing and validating cybersecurity measures. NHTSA recommends the industry self-audit and consider vulnerabilities and exploits that may impact their entire supply-chain of operations. The safety agency also recommends employee training to educate the entire automotive workforce on new cybersecurity practices and to share lessons learned Download the 2017 NHTSA Communications Calendar Download the 2017 NHTSA Communications Calendar to prepare for safety awareness campaigns throughout the year. The calendar is a useful tool to use in planning safety outreach efforts. You can find it at NHTSA’s Traffic Safety Marketing website. Be sure to check out the 2017 NHTSA Safety Weeks and Annual Conference Calendar as well! with others. The best practices guidance released today is based on public feedback gathered by NHTSA, as well as the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity. The proposed guidance follows actions by other entities on motor vehicle cybersecurity, including SAE J3061 Recommended Best Practice: Cybersecurity Guidebook for Cyber-Physical Vehicle Systems and the executive summary to the Automotive Cybersecurity Best Practices issued by the Auto-ISAC in, collaboration with the motor vehicle trade associations, in July 2016. NHTSA’s guidance also suggests that organizations should consider and adopt all applicable industry best practices. NHTSA is soliciting public comments on the proposed guidance. The public can submit feedback by visiting regulations. gov and searching for docket NHTSA-2016-0104. An overview of NHTSA’s work on vehicle cybersecurity can be found here. Making an Impact..........................................OregonImpact.org........................................................ 3 Transportation Safety Workshops TREC Events UP Highway Safety Workshops OSU Kiewit Center TREC Workshops are typically held at PSU. OSU Workshop: Fundamentals of Traffic Safety March ‘17 All Day More Info How Safe is the School Zone Near Your Home? From SafeKids.org Have you seen teens crossing the street while texting? Or crossing mid- block distracted by headphones? We have. New Research Report Our new research report, Alarming Dangers in School Zones, reveals that school zones can be unsafe for students. SafeKids conducted an observational study of 39,000 teens in school zones and found that distraction is on the rise. 80% of the teens we observed crossing the street were doing so in an unsafe manner. SafeKids also noted issues with drivers dropping off or picking up students, with 1 in 3 drivers doing something unsafe, like driving while on the phone, double parking or not following the rules of the road. And many school zones need upgrades. SafeKids found crosswalks missing in 3 out of 10 crossings, and appropriate speed limits (no more than 20 mph) in only 4 out of 10 school zones. This comes at a time when teen pedestrian deaths are on the rise. Today, five teens die every week from being hit by a car. Let’s work together to make our communities safer. Infographic SafeKids has created a new infographic that presents the major findings from the research report. What Communities Can Do There are things you can do in your community to help protect kids on the move. ~ Identify high risk school zones and pursue proven interventions, like crosswalks, appropriate speed limits, visible signs, crossing guards and traffic lights. ~ Educate parents and students on safe walking and driving habits, e.g., not crossing mid-block, avoiding distractions, etc. ~ Set and enforce speed limits in school zones at no more than 20 miles per hour. Implement and enforce school policies regarding drop off and pick up of students. UP Workshop: Improving Safety Features of Roadways - Gresham 12/12 All Day More Info UP Workshop: Improving Safety Features of Roadways - Pendleton 12/14 All Day More Info UP Workshop: Improving Safety Features of Roadways - Grants Pass 1/05 All Day More Info UP Workshop: Improving Safety Features of Roadways - The Dalles 1/06 All Day More Info IIHS Booster Ratings IIHS ratings take the guesswork out of selecting boosters most likely to provide good lap and shoulder belt fit in a range of vehicles. Unlike child restraints with built- in harnesses, booster seats rely on vehicle safety belts to restrain children. Boosters are supposed to make adult belts fit children better and are for kids who have outgrown their forward-facing restraints. PROPER FIT IS KEY Ratings identify boosters most likely to provide good lap and shoulder belt fit. Safety belts are designed with adults in mind, not kids, but when a booster seat is doing its job, the vehicle belt will fit a child correctly. That means the lap belt will lie flat across a child’s upper thighs, not across the soft abdomen, and the shoulder belt will cross snugly over the middle of a child’s shoulder. CHECKING BOOSTER FIT Both the lap and shoulder belts must fit your child correctly. LAP BELT FIT — The lap belt should lie flat and on top of the thighs, not higher up on the abdomen. Making an Impact..........................................OregonImpact.org........................................................ 4 For additional information and resources go to: www.iihs.org SHOULDER BELT FIT — The shoulder belt should fit snugly across the middle of the child’s shoulder. If it falls off the shoulder or rests on your child’s neck, it won’t work as well. An improper fit could encourage your child to move the belt to a dangerous position, such as behind the back or under the arm. Date City Location Address Time 12/17 Vancouver* Peace Health* 92nd Ave Entrance 8:45 am - 2 pm* 12/17 Beaverton Park Place Center 4915 SW Griffith Dr 9 am - 12 pm 12/21 Redmond Redmond Fire 341 NW Dogwood Ave 2 pm - 4 pm 12/29 Eugene Fire Eugene 1725 W 2nd Ave 4 pm - 6 pm 1/5 Redmond Redmond Fire 341 NW Dogwood Ave 2 pm -4 pm 1/6 Milwaukie Oak Grove Fire 2930 SE Oak Grove Blvd 1 pm - 3 pm www.Child Safety Seat Resource Center.org Car Seat Check-Up Events and Fitting Stations *Peace Health Event: Registration required by 8:45 am for 9-10 am class. First come, first served. Must attend class to participate in the clinic, which is held from 10 am - 2 pm. Give the Gift of Safety: 2 Ways Consider making an end-of-year contribution to Oregon Impact. Your donation will help fund impaired driving prevention programs, Child Safety Seat Resource Center programs - including reduced-cost car seats for families in need, community awareness events, and more. Click here to make your tax- deductible donation online, or mail to: Oregon Impact, PO Box 220010, Milwaukie, OR 97269. You can also give while shopping with Amazon.com using our Amazon Smile link. A percentage of your purchase will be donated to Oregon Impact. We are always grateful for your support. Enjoy Holiday “Mocktails” Oregon Impact’s Holiday Mocktails guide is online in PDF flipbook (or ‘“magazine”) format for easy viewing. Click here to check it out, and feel free to share!Smile Happy Holidays!or give through From:Mike Faught To:John Karns; Tami Campos; Kyndra Irigoyen; Scott Fleury Subject:Fwd: Nevada Street Extension Date:Sunday, January 08, 2017 6:35:00 AM FYI Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Kim Blackwolf <wolf@mind.net> Date: January 7, 2017 at 8:08:23 PM PSTTo: <mike.faught@ashland.or.us> Subject: Nevada Street Extension Greetings - I am a long time Ashland resident and a native Oregonian. I have seen on “NextDoor” that a few very vocal (and recent ) citizens are opposing the Nevada Street extension (Bridge) and trying to pressure Public Works and the TransportationCommission into making this a pedestrian, bike, horse bridge. I must let you know there are many Ashlanders who would like to see a bridge connect the twopieces of Nevada Street for cars. Some how I feel like there probably was a bridge there in the early days or maybe a way to ford the creek. I am speculatinghere. I just wanted to let you know it is not all these vocal (NIMBY) folks. I hope equal consideration will be given for the vehicle bridge. When I think offire egress from this city, a bridge there could be vital if there was a serious fire or other disaster. Best Regards, Kim Blackwolf From:Sue Newberry To:Kyndra Irigoyen Subject:Fwd: On-site meeting regarding proposed automobile bridge over Bear Creek at Nevada Date:Monday, December 19, 2016 9:03:22 PM FYI Sue---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marty Breon <marty@breon.org>Date: Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 6:12 PM Subject: Re: On-site meeting regarding proposed automobile bridge over Bear Creek atNevada To: Sue Newberry <sue.j.newberry@gmail.com> Sue, Just a quick note to commend you on your excellent idea of suggesting a “projectmeeting.”There rarely is adequate time to cover a subject with the kind of thoroughness they deserve (at TC meetings.) Well maybe “weed abatement”gets it’s due. I’ll watch for anannouncement of such a meeting. There are new members of the TC who have never heard the rationale that that’s been offered up in support of this big project. Keep in mind that Ashland’s premier bike bridge builder (OBEC) told us twice that we couldbuild a timber and concrete bike bridge that would last a hundred years and it would accommodate emergency vehicles for under two million dollars. This project has hadestimates between $1.185 and $10million and on one CIP list the bridge was anticipated to last 15 years only. It’s hard to even take that seriously. The remaining rationale that’s been tough to address is the phantom modeling study thatsuggested a bridge over Bear Creek at Nevada would ease traffic downtown. We have asked numbers times for the study. I went out in search of it myself and found that there is NO studyto support what has been told to City Council. This came not from ODOT, where I expected to find it but from Kittleson Associates, the firm that worked on Ashland’s TSP. Thisrationale (based on nonexistent traffic analysis) was the main reason it was added to the CIP and made a high priority project and drawn on maps with no questions asked. The good news is that Public Works has contracted with Anne Sylvester of SJC Alliance to dosuch a computer model and traffic analysis. I have written to Mike Faught asking him to include all there pertinent information in the study so we can have confidence in the results. Ihave asked the TC staffer to distribute copies to you. Best,Marty Breon On Dec 19, 2016, at 3:55 PM, Sue Newberry <sue.j.newberry@gmail.com>wrote: Marty: Thank you for understanding my preference for meeting in a public venue. At the Transportation Commission meeting December 15, I asked about the possibility of holding a project meeting prior to the formal TransportationCommission hearing on the Nevada Street Bridge. This meeting could be conducted in a manner similar to the recent Downtown Parking Plan meeting,which included an in-depth presentation and question period, or perhaps as an open house or workshop. I think it is difficult for all of us to get a fullunderstanding of project options and impacts in the time allocated during a Transportation Commission meeting. This is a big, expensive project. We all needto have a complete understanding of how it would fit into the community, how it well would meet our needs, and whether it is the best investment of ourtransportation dollars before we make any final decisions. I do not know if such a meeting will be held, but if so, I will be there to hear what you and others think about the project. Sincerely,Sue Newberry Transportation Commissioner On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Marty Breon <marty@breon.org> wrote: Hello Sue, I understand your preference to continue gathering information at TC meetings. The facts that the TC has established protocol and has minutes prepared by a paid staffer are reasons I recommended that Public Works not proceed with neighborhood meetings for assessing support for the proposal. If you have a chance, please do drive down our driveway before the January meeting. It’s a lovely setting not fully conveyed by a map. We will be away the last two weeks in December. And,if you are unfamiliar with the area, please drive down East Nevada on the east side of the creek. It’s hard to imagine Ashland tearing up a new street like that when there are so many streets that have been neglected and now must be completely replaced. I do hope the questions you noted from the meeting in April are answered. Usually I leave the meetings feeling I have more questions than answers. I did learn on Monday that the often cited modeling that suggested a bridge on Nevada would ease traffic congestion downtown has never actually been done. The good news is that Anne Sylvester of SJC Alliance has been hired to do such a modeling study. We will be watching carefully to ensure that valid parameters are used in the study so we will know if we can rely on the results. Since no traffic counts have been made of neighboring residential streets, extrapolating will be more like divining. Unfortunately, according to Matt Bell of Kittleson Associates (contracted to the do the 2012 TSP update) carbon emissions data has never been part of the equation. Kittleson did preliminary work on modeling but it was never completed. The question you raise about Nevada not connecting to Main is crucial. The concept of making Nevada an east side thoroughfare made sense once, when there was raw land between 99 and the end of Nevada. But apparently planning never included transportation planning. We too anxiously await new proposals for a bridge that will enhance connectivity for bikers and walkers and occasional emergency medical transport – but won’t leave a cloud of carbon particulates hovering in the Bear Creek Basin (our front yard!) Ten thousand car trips per day is what collector streets are expected to handle. I can’t imagine the resulting noise pollution. Vehicle bridges are notoriously loud. Many neighbors support NO bridge, but most would accept a compromise. We have high hopes of seeing a new bridge proposal that is one lane wide, doesn’t overwhelm the site, and can be built for about two million dollars (per Jeff Bernardo of OBEC.) Be wary of any Public Works proposals that are "phased in" approaches. The pedestrian/bike bridge proposal Mike Faught presented at the neighbors’ meeting in September was 24 feet wide – two automobile lanes dressed in sheep’s clothing! Thank you for your service to the community no matter the seat you occupy. I am still hoping for another woman on the City Council. Best, Marty Breon On Dec 6, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Sue Newberry<sue.j.newberry@gmail.com> wrote: Marty: You certainly would be impacted by a bridge, and I understand your concern. Many other residents have written articulate lettersexpressing their concerns and many have testified during the Transportation Commission meetings. One benefit of publicexpression regarding issues is that everyone present listens to a variety of input, ideas, and opinions. Letters are distributed to allcommissioners and included in minutes. Those who are not in attendance can read the minutes. I dislike the formality of thecurrent system and find it constraining for both the public and commissioners, but it does assure that we all hear the same thingand that a permanent record is kept. The list of questions I made during public testimony at the April 28 meeting were prompted by public testimony. I have not lived herelong enough to understand the street network, so testimony was very illuminating. For example, those concerned about additionaltraffic on their streets had a good point. It made me wonder if a traffic model had been run. This is a tool that engineers use to toforecast the amount of traffic that will occur on each street given a specific change, and would usually be prepared during the planningphase. Testimony also made me question how well W. Nevada Street would function as a downtown bypass, since it basically endsin a subdivision. I wondered if there had been a plan to connect it to N. Main at one time. Other commissioners also had questions. Iexpect those questions will be addressed at the January meeting. Let's continue to meet at the Commission so all interested parties can hear the same thing. I really look forward to seeing the newoptions and hearing answers to questions that were asked in April. I also look forward to hearing the reactions of you and others oncethe new options are presented. I'm not aware of the rumor you mentioned, but I am committed to the Transportation Commission. I have much to learn about thiswonderful community, but I believe I can make a significant contribution in the transportation arena. Sincerely,Sue Newberry Transportation Commission On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Marty Breon <marty@breon.org> wrote: Good morning Ms. Newberry, We are neighbors of the proposed bridge over Bear Creek at Nevada. We have been waiting for the subject to return to the Transportation Commission. Mike Faught recently informed me that it will be on your agenda in January. We hope to see proposals for a bike and emergency vehicle bridge that "won’t overwhelm the site." While I realize that's subjective, room for interpretation is appropriate. I was intrigued by your mention of twelve questions on your list that arose as a result of the comments made at the TC meeting in April 2016. I would appreciate it very much if you could meet us at our home on Bear Creek and talk about some of those questions. And of course to see some of the reasons we are oppose building an automobile bridge over Bear Creek. Granted summertime, when weather is beautiful and communing with the creek is a natural, winter is what we are stuck with. Is it possible for you to make a “site visit?” Our driveway is the last one on Nevada making our house and the one next door, the nearest neighbors to the proposed project and the most impacted. We will be available January 7 and 8 and again 19 – 24. Please let me know if any of these dates work for you. If you prefer to meet elsewhere, that’s fine. But on- site will be more informative. I have heard rumors that you are being considered to replace Pam Marsh on the City Council. I have no idea if the rumors are based on more than idle speculation. I am hoping for more women “in charge.” In Ashland, there are now shamelessly few! If there is truth to the rumor, congratulations! If you join the Council, please make time to visit us. All of the City Council members have been down to see for themselves, and eventually it will be up to the Council to decide. Best, Marty Breon 295 East Nevada Street Ashland, OR 97520 541 512-5844