Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-16 Bicycle & Pedestrian_MIN Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission th Thursday, May 16, 2002 Meeting Minutes Roll Call Commissioners Spear, Nutter, Rogers, Beaudoin, Young, Chapman, Bretko, Baxter and Hartzell were present. Call to Order Chapman called the meeting to order at 4:34 p.m. Approval of Minutes th The minutes of April 18, 2002 were approved as presented. Newly appointed commissioner Beaudoin and Young were introduced. They briefly explained their background and interest in the commission, and members welcomed them aboard. Public Forum Lynn Nutry/Alliance for Community Traffic Safety (ACTS), Oregon Harris introduced Nutry and noted that ACTS had given grants for bike safety & safe kids programs; Harris noted that she had suggested that Nutry attend. Nutry discussed her background as a teacher in Vancouver, writing provincial curriculum for teaching cycling in schools. She added that via ACTS she gets to help more than one community via education, advocacy and infrastructure. Hartzell invited Nutry to provide any impressions she had during the meeting. Nutry noted that the recent ACTS grant was for Building Safer Communities, and she stated that half of grantees are cycling related. She explained that other grants include early driver’s training for teens, plus traffic calming improvements, pedestrian controls, street lights, and other infrastructure. She pointed out that Harris would be receiving application materials for next year. Nutry clarified for Nutter that ACTS’s grants focus on DUI Prevention and Building Safer Communities. She noted that very often they seek to include education along with infrastructure, she added that grants are up to $5000. She explained that they are tailored to each specific community, and they are for new measures rather than repairs. She stated that their grant cycle begins in mid-June, with application due in September. She also pointed out that Vancouver, Canada has a very successful safe routes program with a walking school bus. She suggested that members contact Bernadette Kowey, a private planner, who worked on a successful walking school bus program. Harris emphasized that ACTS’s focus is on safety, but some grants may combine education and promotion to that end. Eric Hemler/Noted he had e-mailed everyone about his attempts to establish a rickshaw business. Hartzell noted that Claire Collins at JPR is enthusiastic and interested, and Hartzell also noted the success or rickshaws in old town Albuquerque. Hemler noted that this would be environmentally-friendly and tourist-based and he stated that the concept works well in similar communities. Bretko referred Hemler to the previous rickshaw business owner. Hemler recognized that success would be tourist-based. Malena Marvin, of the Ashland Community Bike Program/Stated that she was present to give an update and present photos discussing the ACBP Bike Swap. She noted that RVTD had donated posters and as such she did not need as much promotional funding as she had expected. She presented a detailed breakdown of her costs and receipts. Bretko and Marvin discussed the success of the event. Hartzell suggested putting aside some seed money from this year’s proceeds to provide capital for next year’s event. Marvin noted that they may develop a Bike Weekend incorporating a race, bike theme movies, the swap, and other activities. Spear/Nutter m/s to approve the reimbursement request. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Harris confirmed that she would be reimbursing Marvin for expenditures she had already paid out. Chapman adjusted the agenda to address the “Safe Routes to School Program.” SAFE ROUTES PROGRAM (School Project: “Car Free Challenge”) Rogers presented a historical recap of the safe routes program, noting what had been accomplished so far. She noted that a house bill dealing with barrier removal had passed at the state level, and Scott Bricker from BTA had attended a prior meeting and requested $2000 in funds from the commission in exchange for BTA getting a program underway in Ashland. Rogers explained that staff had determined that no RFP was required, and she stated that the general intent seemed to have been to take advantage of the BTA’s offer and use them as a resource. She added that a subcommittee was to have come up with a proposal, and she noted that Harris had 2002-0516_Bike Min Page 1 of 4 prepared some materials at that time. Rogers explained that in September, 2001 members continued to meet with PTOs in schools, and she stated that in November, 20 01 they contacted Louis at Lincoln Elementary and began work on developing a specific curriculum using Lincoln as a pilot program. Rogers added that they have found that while Louis is interested in the program, he is not doing a lot. She also noted that members of this commission have created polling sheets, prepared a database, and placed articles in school newsletters in an attempt to involve parents. She stated that they considered involved Southern Oregon University, the Wilderness Charter School and the Ashland Community Bike Program, but no efforts had been made to that end and the program had been postponed with little progress made. Rogers stated that she had spoken to Bricker at the BTA, and they were still hoping to get the “Car Free Challenge” going with the help of BTA. Nutter questioned how BTA would get this program going and keep it going. Rogers responded that they have some ideas, but they do not have specific details at this point. Nutry noted that her experience has been that it is effective to take a handful of activities and to keep trying. Rogers clarified that the issue seems to be the commission requiring a proposal when they don’t have specifics. Nutry noted that ACTS would at least require some concrete proposed outcomes. Hartzell noted that there have been proposals for working with the Traffic Safety Commission and the City to get safety upgrades done along school routes. Hartzell emphasized that there is a need to rely on adults and parents, and Chapman noted the difficulty in getting parents involved. Hartzell suggested calling a work session to discuss this further. Bretko noted that many of the people who were focused on this program have left the commission, and she encouraged new members to get involved. Hartzell questioned what Rogers was asking for, and Rogers responded that she was looking for a $2000 commitment from the commission as a way to get this program underway. She noted that she would be paid as a contract worker, and that Chapman could also potentially be paid as a contract worker for BTA. Chapman suggested that he was less than enthusiastic to fill this role. Nutter suggested preparing a grant application outlining a program with tools and educational components and applying to grants from ACTS to ensure that a sustainable program could be established. Rogers indicated that she feels money from this commission would provide seed money to move ahead toward completing grant applications and establishing the program. Rogers added that in her experience, programs would need to be adapted for each school. Rogers also stated that she thought, but would need to verify, that BTA would match funds from the commission. Harris indicated that $3000 was proposed for next year’s budget. Nutter suggested delaying a monetary decision until the commission had addressed lights, reflectors, helmets and signage issues from this agenda. Harris indicated her confidence that if a signage plan were developed through channels funds could be found to begin implementation. She reiterated that there was still a significant amount of work to be done still prior to implementation. There was discussion of seeking grant funds from ACTS. Nutry noted that a grant request would have to come through the Traffic Safety Commission, and Harris pointed out that there are competing safety grants coming from the TSC that need to be kept in mind. Nutry urged commissioners to keep an end result in mind, and she emphasized the need to change programs as needed to suit individual schools. She also offered to check into getting a copy of the walking school bus program materials. Hartzell questioned whether the house bill mentioned amounts to an unfunded mandate. Harris stated that she was not aware that this was the case, and she added that she believed the bill’s language was fairly soft. Nutry indicated that the state may have funds available, through ODOT, for interested municipalities. Rogers indicated that she could work on a grant-like proposal, and Nutter offered to help. Rogers questioned what the members’ level of interest was relative to this issue. Chapman provided some additional background on what had been done, and he noted that the original goal was to reduce the number of students who were being driven to school. He pointed out that most students have less than a ten minute walk, yet 75% are driven to school by their parents. Beaudoin questioned what the commission desired to accomplish and how. Hartzell emphasized the difficulty in getting any program implemented in schools, and she stated that it will require a significant effort. Chapman noted that this difficulty had been encountered already in trying to get parents involved in the program. Hartzell suggested trying to get city councilors, the Traffic Safety Commission, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission in the schools to get input from parents on what they want. 2002-0516_Bike Min Page 2 of 4 Bretko stated that she likes the idea of the school program, but she stated that she was uncomfortable with providing funding without a detailed request. Chapman suggested that this is the most important thing to be done in the city. Nutter noted that if this issue were not resolved at the school level, it would need to be addressed later as “urban clog.” Incentives/Enforcement to Encourage Safe Bicycling – Purchasing Lights, Helmets, Reflectors and Advertisements Baxter noted that last month, there had been a discussion of implementing a variation of the city helmet program by looking at getting lights for distribution to night cyclists without lights who are stopped by the police. He explained that he spoke to United Bicycle Parts, and they had a light set that they are willing to provide at their distributor cost. He added that this would include a headlight, tail light and batteries, with a retail value of $25, to be provided for $7.25 a set. Baxter added that he felt the issue was what program to propose, not whether lights can be acquired. He noted that the commissioners could ask the police if they are willing to distribute lights, or some other mode of distribution could be identified. Rogers questioned whether this would be a problem for bike shops. Harris noted that she had spoken to Chief Fleuter of the Ashland Police Department and he felt it was a great idea. She indicated that she thought the police would be willing to work with the commission on distributing lights. Spear stated that she was in favor of purchasing lights. Malena Marvin suggested looking at a flashing LED in white as it would use fewer batteries and be more likely to be used. Marvin suggested that the Community Bike Program could be a resource as they intend to serve as an outfitter for commuters. She noted the “Portland Create a Commuter” program that is subsidized based on income levels. Bretko stated that she thought this would be a short-term giveaway. APD Officer Steve McLennan indicated that he did not see any problem with the light distribution. There was discussion that the headlights serve more as active reflectors than as lights. Harris noted that lights would need to be ordered and paid for before June 30th. Nutter/Spear m/s to purchase 125 of the LED lights for distribution through APD, or with another organization if necessary to make them available. Voice votes: All AYES. Bretko suggested that distribution should not be limited to APD. Hartzell suggested dealing with distribution once the lights are on hand. Young suggested, and Beaudoin concurred, that the light distribution should be treated more like a fix-it ticket. Baxter urged that APD be involved in the decision of how to distribute lights, but he agreed with Young. Chapman asked to move on with the agenda, and discuss distribution at a later date. Baxter noted that he had not checked into armband lights. Harris pointed out that no Tidings ads were left available this budget year, and she added that the city’s telecommunications and marketing manage had suggested purchasing theater slides at $2100 for 6 months, which would be shown 250 times per week. Chapman noted that this is being considered by the TSC as well. Harris noted that the reflectors from RVTD would be $820 for 1,000 pieces, shipped, printed, with a cord and clip. She also pointed out that Tidings ads were $220 for 6 runs. There was discussion of the effectiveness of reflectors versus the cost. Hartzell suggested looking into the Ashland Fire Department’s LED light supply from Halloween. Nutter and Baxter noted the need to think of pedestrians as well as bicyclists. Harris questioned whether there was a specific problem the commission was hoping to address. Nutter noted the recent pedestrian death and the lack of marked crosswalks, and he stated that a light would give pedestrians a way to take some responsibility for their own safety. Hartzell questioned whether pedestrians will be willing to keep and use reflectors or lights. Nutter moved to spend $150 to buy armband LED lights. The motion died for the lack of a second. Bretko asked how giving money to the BTA would work. Harris agreed that this was a good question. Rogers stated that there is work to be done that could be decided upon by commission. There was discussion of the issue of this representing a conflict of interest because of Rogers’ role as a contract worker with BTA. Harris stated she would check into the issue of payment from this budget year; she explained that her understanding was that to come from this year’s budget, an expenditure would have to be in th payment for services deliverable by June 30 of this year. She emphasized that this would be difficult, as all work would have to be done before June 30th. Bretko/Nutter m/s to allocate $2000 to school safe routes program. DISCUSSION: Baxter stated that he was uncomfortable with funding this program without a concrete proposal. He emphasized that he was supportive of the program in principal, but he suggested that without a proposal he didn’t feel comfortable with allocating funds. Baxter clarified for Nutter that he would like to see a specific proposal of what the program would entail, what issues would be addressed, and what outcomes 2002-0516_Bike Min Page 3 of 4 could be expected. Hartzell stated that Nutter and Rogers would be working to develop a proposal. Nutter questioned whether the motion could be passed subject to development of a proposal, which could then be worked out via e-mail. Bretko suggested that the motion be amended to add “pending written proposal.” Baxter explained that even if a grant is being made to conduct a study, there is typically a proposal addressing specific goals and costs. Harris emphasized that any proposal to be made would need to be considered before the commission at an advertised meeting under Oregon public meeting law. Bretko reiterated that she would like to allocate the $2000 pending a written proposal. After discussion, the motion was withdrawn and it was agreed that this would be reconsidered and voted upon at the next meeting. Chapman suggested looking at other programs that are currently underway with BTA in other cities. Sub-Critical Mass Bretko briefly discussed the sub-critical mass proposal and asked that it be included on the next agenda for discussion. She stated that it was hoped that this event could begin in September, and evolve into quarterly celebration rides. She noted that she would provide Harris with additional information for inclusion in the next packet. Chapman stated that he would like to check in with the city on a street closure. Harris noted that this would involve a request to administration and sign-off by public works and any other affected departments. She added that this would be more complex if it were to involve a state highways. Bike Safety and RR Tracks Rogers noted that she would be teaching at Helman School from May 24th to June 3rd; she asked that Railroad Tracks item be kept on the agenda until next time. Budget Harris reported that there was $3,300 remaining in the budget, not including the $250 approved earlier for the Bike Swap. New Business Harris explained and distributed a brochure dealing with the commission, and suggested that some time be set aside at the next meeting to go over the brochure. She also suggested an annual review of the city’s long range plan and transportation system plan (TSP); she explained that this would fit with the stated mission of the commission. She noted that this could be a rather time consuming discussion. Chapman stated that this would be a good idea, as the commission will be going before the council soon to make its annual presentation. Next Agenda Distribution of lights, railroad tracks, teamwork brochures, annual review of city goals/policies, BTA program funding, and sub- critical mass. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:29 p.m. th Next meeting: 4:30 p.m. on June 20, 2002 2002-0516_Bike Min Page 4 of 4