Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-24 Planning Joint Mtg MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES February 24, 2011 CALL TO ORDER Transportation Commission Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Pioneer Lodge. Planning Commissioners Present: Transportation Commissioners Present: Larry Blake Thomas Burnham Michael Dawkins Eric Heesacker Pam Marsh Steve Ryan Debbie Miller Brent Thompson Mealine Mindlin David Young Absent Members: Staff Present: John Rinaldi, Jr. Maria Harris, Planning Manager Russ Silbiger, Council Liaison David Chapman, Council Liaison Julia Sommer Matt Warshawsky Colin Swales APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. February 10, 2011 Joint Study Session Minutes. Commissioners Young/Marsh m/s to approve the February 10, 2011 Joint Study Session Minutes. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Tom Burnham asked a question to clarify Oak Street – Van Ness offset intersection. His question was addressed by other commissioners An amendment to the February 10 meeting was proposed and approved to page: above line of Green Streets, add alleyway th between A and B, from 1 to 4. stth Minutes approved. DISCUSSION ITEMS Erin Ferguson with Kittelson & Associates commented on the project’s status and then proceeded to discuss the comments and input received on the first group of white papers followed by the second group of white papers as noted below. Comments and Input Received on White Paper Group #2: Ms. Ferguson presented on the results of responses from White Paper Group #2. Roundabouts Sutton Place/Ashland Street: No objections to adding this intersection to the list for potential roundabout locations. Wimer Street – Hersey Street / Main Street: No objections to adding this intersection to the list for potential roundabout locations. Planning Commission & Transportation Commission Joint Study Session February 24, 2011 Page 1 of 5 Melanie Miller: Asked whether an offset intersection can work as a roundabout? Erin clarified that it could, but physical space could be an obstacle. Pam Marsh: Sutton or Oak Knoll roundabout could make a statement about “sense of place” and entry to a neighborhood. Bike Routes Erin described the process to get a revised map of bike network to PC/TC based on comments from WP#2 for further review by committee members. Commissioners will have the opportunity to provide comments on the revised bicycle plan at the March 10 meeting; the resulting map from that meeting will be incorporated in the TSP as the preferred bicycle plan. th Pam noted B Street is a natural biking street. David Young noted B Street is an aesthetically nice street, seems the most obvious candidate for a bicycle boulevard. He will often ride on B Street simply because it is pleasant to ride. Tom Burnham noted he believes B Street is out of the way. Debbie noted B Street is more comfortable for less comfortable cyclists than A Street or Main Street. Michael Dawkins noted B Street from 5 to Mountain is relatively narrow in width and vehicle speeds are relatively high. th Tom asked how parking and other uses fit in with bicycle boulevard; Erin and Adrian explained there are different bicycle boulevard treatments that allow parking and other features to exist in conjunction with changes that make it a more attractive route for bicyclists. Steve Ryan noted the proximity of B Street with Main Street and Central Bike Path options; B Street as a bicycle boulevard would provide connectivity and options for different levels of riders. David: we need to decide on cycling as true transportation rather than recreational/fun activity. Erin described that we should be looking at planning the network for multiple types of riders. A certain amount of redundancy or parallel routes may be justified particularly to separate fast moving bicycle trips from slower moving modes often found on multiuse trails – like parents pushing strollers and/or people walking their dogs. Tom stated we have no numbers to judge what facilities are being used, especially off-street facilities. Michael reiterated that there are two different uses – build it and they will come. Larry Blake: There are very few local streets in Ashland that are not comfortable to ride on. He also mentioned the Central Bike Path is frequented by dog users that are not very courteous. B Street provides an effective alternative route. Protected Bikeway David commented that when he checks “agree” he thinks of it as “possibly willing to explore”. Tom asked if the current path adjacent Walker is considered a separated bike facility. Other commissioners clarified the path Tom mentioned is a sidewalk. Steve noted there is a leapfrog issue with buses and bikes where each time bicycles pull to the curb and leave the curb for bus stops it creates a conflict with bicyclists. He asked is there a solution to this issue. Adrian noted it is possible to look at ways to reduce or limit this conflict within the protected bikeway concept. Pam noted it is critical that we get bicyclists through downtown. It is the critical link in the bike network. Larry noted the painted/striped buffers suggested for Lithia Way and East Main Street can provide separation from dooring and traffic. Michael suggested that E Main be made two-way with one lane of traffic and parking in each direction and make the middle lane for biking. David noted the delivery trucks, parking, and business community is a constraint to changing the roadway. The business community believes it is better to have more cars and closer. We need to have the guts to redesign E Main and see it through and through the business community. Strongly believes in on-street bike lanes by reducing one lane of traffic without reducing parking. Larry commented deliveries drivers should not be allowed to double park in the bike or parking lane. Tom noted that Will Dodge Way is an alternative to Main. Michael outlined that Will Dodge Way has deliveries and functional aspects important to business owners along Will Dodge Way. Generally – No objections to moving forward with recommendation of a painted buffer bicycle lane on E Main Street and Lithia Way through downtown. Bicycle Boulevards David commented that 8 makes sense in conjunction with B Street. th Planning Commission & Transportation Commission Joint Study Session February 24, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Steve noted connectivity is the most important aspect of the network, especially for less comfortable cyclists. Debbie noted Helman needs more protection given the schools and a route to the bike path. David commented that it would be a candidate for bike lanes. Michael recommended exploring either Helman or Laurel. Shared Streets Tom commented A Street is a prime candidate for shared streets. Cyclists are sharing the street now in both directions. It is one of the most well used streets. Melanie commented that Winburn Way does not seem to be appropriate for shared streets. A Street would be a great application and thinks it would be an improvement to this street and an economic stimulus project. Steve agrees. David the definition of a shared street may not be clear and the data could be skewed. Many commissioners were interpreting a shared street as a shared bicycle roadway – one with sharrow treatments and other similar attributes. Commissioners were more hesitant about the concept of removing sidewalks and creating a single space for all modes. Pam commented while it would be a cool design showcase but do we really need it – it wouldn’t be fixing any problems. We could take elements of this forward to future projects. David proposed shared streets not be included in TSP. Four commissioners agree to remove. Alleys Michael noted alleys are difficult to use on a bike given the sight distance concerns and blind corners. Maria Harris commented the alley north of A Street could act as an extension of the central bike path from 4 to 6 Streets. thth Debbie commented alleys are a good way to get off busy streets and go slowly on a bike. They are more protected. Tom asked can deliveries be managed on Will Dodge Way – is it possible to also reduce parking or limit access? David commented he uses the alleys on his bicycle all the time and adapts to the conditions. There are few times that it is difficult to navigate because of deliveries, etc. It is ok to slow down. Pam commented there is a broader conversation about the role of alleys, e.g. how do you encourage businesses to focus on rear access. This is bigger than bicycles. Additional comments and discussion postponed until the Will Dodge Way white paper discussion later in the meeting. Green Streets Pam noted we will need to identify where storm water needs coincide with transportation needs. These opportunities may be limited and need to make the most of them. Funding Programs: Ms. Ferguson reviewed this concept and asked for commissioner’s input. Larry asked what the use of transportation funding, e.g. does it include subsidization of transit. Erin outlined that capital, operation and maintenance is included. Michael asked where the franchise fees come from. Maria explained that the franchise fees currently proportioned to transportation is part of a larger revenue stream. David expressed concern regarding the multi-modal SDC; he perceived some some inequity based on when a property owner purchases land or develops it. Steve noted that congestion pricing can be in a different form than traditional approach of tolling a roadway for certain times of the day such as time-based parking fees. Steve expressed interest in adding a “local corporate tax” type fee to the list for consideration. Pam noted the multimodal SDC’s seem like a slam dunk. Expressed interest in using funding programs as a form of social engineering, e.g. can a transportation fee be related to distance from center of city to pay “fair share” of the transportation system essentially a way to reward density as well as living close to and using multimodal facilities available. Transit and Rapid Transit: Ms. Ferguson reviewed this concept and asked for commissioner’s input. Planning Commission & Transportation Commission Joint Study Session February 24, 2011 Page 3 of 5 Tom commented that weather is not included these scenarios or into which modes people use to travel. Some people won’t use transit or wait for the bus in the rain. Erin noted focused on aspects of transit service and amenities that can be influenced by the City and/o RVTD. Tom asked what can we do about improving transit service as a city? Do we support RVTD? Do we start our own bus service? How involved do we get with RVTD? Eric explained RVTD is stuck needing federal funds and in order to get those federal funds they need to provide paratransit service to rural areas within the district that are not served by fixed bus routes. The Ashland area population cannot support the type of bus service we want to have. Pam noted that RVTD seems more dependent on farebox revenue than other transit agencies. Michael commented that he believes RVTD is run inefficiently. Pam asked how dependent will Ashland be on RVTD to do what we want to do? Are other options more complicated or expensive? We should define what we want or have to have and put it to the RVTD. Steve commented he would like more focus on demand-responsive option for transit. Will Dodge Way: Mr. Witte reviewed this concept and asked for commissioner’s input. Tom commented is there a crime problem? I have not heard of them. Tom expressed interest in closing Will Dodge Way to deliveries and transportation on weekends to create opportunity for sidewalk cafes. Melanie asked what a green alley would look like in Will Dodge given lack of space. Adrian explained it could be treatments like permeable paving. David noted the group could identify Will Dodge Way as a desired project, but it is really up the businesses to make it happen. Our job is to envision, allow for, and support the enhancements but up to the businesses. We can’t force it on the business owners. Tom – Agrees with this approach. Pam also agreed with David’s assessment. Pam commented that she imagines a policy that states alleys are part of the throughways for pedestrians and bicyclists. And a desire for businesses to have attractive store fronts on the alleyway. Michael: Agrees with David’s and Pam’s point. Alleyways enhancements are something that are already happening, but do think policies in support of is a good idea to encourage. Multiuse Trails: Mr. Witte reviewed this concept and asked for commissioner’s input. Tom noted there are existing alley pathways that exist today to connect from Siskiyou Boulevard to the Central Bike Path. David commented that he feels multiuse trails are subordinate to what we’re trying to do in terms of improving and providing for transportation trips rather than for recreation. Thinks it’s a waste of time within the TSP to focus on these recreational trails. Adrian suggested identifying the ones that are used for transportation and focus on those. Pam agreed with Adrian’s comment - the Central Bike Path and Greenway Paths are already used as commuter and travel routes and as part of the TSP should be looking for connections to them. David asked if the trails are necessary if there are sidewalks and streets in close proximity that can be used to serve as those connections. Tom commented he interprets some of these as purely recreational and walking trails. Maria commented that providing multiple facilities is along the lines of appealing to multiple levels bicyclists. Adrian agreed with Maria’s comment. Continue to think about redundancies in system features to serve multiple levels of riders. Melanie expressed concerned about paving in natural areas and would prefer to keep those trails natural/unpaved. Safe Routes to School: Mr. Witte reviewed this concept and asked for commissioner’s input. Planning Commission & Transportation Commission Joint Study Session February 24, 2011 Page 4 of 5 Tom asked in your experience with other towns/cities, is this the function of the City or the school district. How involved should we be in this process? Adrian replied there are federal funds available for preparing applications so the City or jurisdiction often helps the schools apply for the funds; cities are also often involved in the program elements. Tom commented it seems like the school district should encourage it. David noted the school district does not do much. Melanie asked who is putting the programs together. David replied a parent from Walker Elementary school spearheaded the idea and found other parent volunteers. BTA bicycle safety program also provides classes in Ashland. The BTA program is funded from a few different commissions within Ashland and supported on volunteer effort. Tom asked how deeply involved do we get in this process as part of the TSP. Adrian noted that nationally there is a general move towards staffing bicycle and pedestrian coordinator under who also works on the SRTS program. Pam noted being involved in the SRTS program at least from an engineering perspective seems relevant to targeting different populations for multimodal travel– make the school going population a target and then focus on projects that complement serving that population with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Tom noted that even when engineering investment occurs parents still drive their kids to school; for example bicycle racks were put in at Bellevue but there is still a traffic jam there every morning. David commented that Bellevue school is an exception due to its more rural location, school administrators did not want SRTS programs because sidewalk or bicycle facilities do not exist leading to the school. As a TSP our role is to identify and prioritize projects engineering projects that facilitate bicycle and pedestrian travel by school. Pam generally agreed – looking to complete facilities to fill in gaps. Tom commented that the commissions should support the schools in their SRTS efforts but should not dictate the process. Pam commented if we make this population a priority, then we will need more information. David commented I think it is part of the process once we decide it is a process. Steve asked would it be possible to break it down between programs and capital projects. Then when the school would identify programs; the City would implement projects that supported those programs, as necessary. David reinforced that there is no “they’ – there is no one at the schools, it is the parents and volunteers creating the programs. Upcoming Work Activities: Ms. Ferguson provided an overview of the upcoming key near term dates. PUBLIC COMMENT None. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Erin Ferguson, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Support from Adrian Witte, Alta Planning and Design Planning Commission & Transportation Commission Joint Study Session February 24, 2011 Page 5 of 5