PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND ACCESS TASK FORCE MEETING #10 MEETING MINUTES

Transcription

1 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND ACCESS TASK FORCE MEETING #10 MEETING MINUTES Date: Wednesday, January 8, 2015 Time: 5:00-7:00 pm Lcatin: Basement Cnference Rm Larcm City Hall Attendees: Task Frce Members Present, 7: Vivienne Armentrut; Sctt Campbell; Neal Elyakin ; Linda Diane Feldt; Anthny Pinnell; Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz; Jim Rees; Task Frce Members Absent, 2: Kenneth Clark; Owen Janssn Public Present, 4: Richard Hausman; Kathy Griswld; Barbara Lucas; Eric Lipsn; refer t Attachment B fr sign-in sheet City Staff Present, 3: Eli Cper, Cynthia Redinger, Cnnie Pulcipher; Cnsultant Present (The Greenway Cllabrative), 2: Nrman Cx and Carlyn Prudhmme Re: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Frce Meeting Meeting Called t Order: 5:00 pm 1. Intrductins. 2. Changes t agenda: N changes t the agenda. 3. Public Cmmentary: 1. Richard Hausman Wuld like t get mre feedback n hw and if an issue is addressed when psting a cmplaint t A2 Fix It, therwise it is difficult t tell if it is effective. 4. Apprval f Meeting 8 Discussin/Minutes minutes apprved. 5. Discussin and Actin items 1. Traffic Management 2. Wrk-zne Related 3. Bicycle Related 6. Update n the Prpsed Sidewalk Snw & Ice Ordinance C. Pulcipher gave an update n the status f the prpsed sidewalk snw and ice rdinance which first reading was pstpned due t cncerns f enfrceable prcedures fr nticing and ticketing that require additinal discussin and editing. 7. Snwbuddy Update V. Armentrut mves that the Task Frce applauds the effrts f a private entity t undertake the evaluatin f the Snwbuddy prgram and eagerly anticipates the results. Secnded by S. Pressprich Gryniewicz. Unanimus apprval. 8. Subcmmittee Updates. 1. Crsswalk Budget/CIP Subcmmittee V. Armentrut gave an update n state funding actins fr transprtatin, the capital imprvement plan and Act 51.

2 9. Next Steps Update n the next meeting, February 4 th, 2015 City Hall basement meeting rm. 10. Public Cmmentary: 1. Barbara Lucas There is a website called with infrmatin n the 85 th percentile. Outside f the City f Ann Arbr, there is a feeling that the 85 th percentile is the right way. A lt f peple utside f Ann Arbr feel that Ann Arbr is ding things illegally. Yu need t be aware and stay n tp f what is ging n at the State legislature; because there is cncern that they might push smething thrugh. Sme peple at the Washtenaw Cunty Rad Cmmissin supprt the 85 th percentile as well. When speed studies are dne, if a car is slwing fr a bicycle r pedestrian they have t thrw ut that car speed. 2. Kathy Griswld Crsswalk imprvements are needed at Pineer High Schl and Edgewd. We need t have minimal standards met at all schl crsswalks. There is a cncern that City Staff is waiting t deal with sme urgent issues, such as lighting and safety issues, until this Task Frce is cmplete in August Dn t let the City defer peratin issues t the Task Frce. The City f New Yrk significantly reduced pedestrian death in 2014 because the Majr changed legislatin t make the default speed limit 25. The crsswalk at Hurn High Schl near Gallup Park needs t be updated t current standards. 3. Eric Lipsn The crsswalk at Edgewd and Stadium is a majr cncern; it needs imprvements and is a death waiting t happen. This grup needs t cnsider pedestrian lighting. In many cases trees blck street light frm reaching the sidewalk. Lights need t be aimed at the sidewalk. The lighting mratrium was dne five years ag fr financial reasns and shuld be ablished. Lighting has t be evaluated. Better crsswalk signage and cnsistency in crsswalk signs is needed. Meeting adjurned at 7:07 pm. Minutes taken by Carlyn Prudhmme [Secretary nte: fr all f these meetings there will be tw recrds f the meeting. These minutes are a recrd f fficial actins taken and public cmmentary. Ann Arbr City staff and/r the cnsultant n this prject, the Greenway Cllabrative, will prduce a secnd recrd f the discussin pints f the meeting, with mre detail. Bth f these recrds will be available n the Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Frce Ggle Drive repsitry, available thrugh the City f Ann Arbr website at

3 Attachment A: Meeting #9 Discussin Summary PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND ACCESS TASK FORCE MEETING #9 - DISCUSSION SUMMARY Nte: This is nt a direct transcriptin f the meeting discussin. The fllwing summary has been develped frm ntes taken during the meeting; cmments are paraphrased. Where staff and cnsultants prvided infrmatin and respnses they are shwn in italics. Apprval f Agenda: Unanimus apprval (Attachment C). Apprval f Meeting # 9 Minutes and Discussin Summary: Unanimus apprval. Discussin n Traffic Management: What s the reality in regards t the 85 th percentile? It is the abslute law r d yu have t take int accunt what the cmmunity wants and cnsider that bicyclists and pedestrians are present? Engineering studies are cmpleted when Speed limits are set and a large cmpnent f the study is the 85 th percentile t see what speeds the traffic is currently traveling at. Beynd that, we als cnsider the rad users, gemetry f the rad and the cntext. US Limits (a prgram develped and maintained by the Federal Highway Administratin) is used t cnfirm recmmendatin that cme ut f the engineering studies. US Limits is expert-based decisin sftware and takes bicycle and pedestrians int cnsideratin. The 85 th percentile is part f the entire package, but nt the nly factr. The 85 th percentile is bjective. City staff is sensitive t trying t get the right balance. The City s speed limits are usually cntext sensitive and we have used prvisins, such as radways that are adjacent t public parks, t pst speeds at 25 mph. The Michigan Department f Transprtatin tends t rely mre n the 85 th percentile n its rads. Hw much say des the City have n setting speed limits n rads under their jurisdictin? As lng as the engineering study supprts the lwer limit it can be psted. If yu pst a speed that is dramatically lwer n an aut riented radway it culd be argued against in curt that yu are creating a speed trap. If yu want a rad t functin differently, yu usually have t make changes t the design elements t influence speeds. Hw much cntrl des the City have ver the design f the street? We have a fair amunt f cntrl. Fr example, a lwer design speed has been selected fr Geddes Avenue (near back entrance t Gallup Park) t help tame the traffic n that radway. Even thugh Geddes has the service f getting peple in and ut f dwntwn, t be sensitive t the cntext f the rad the lwer speed was chsen. All f the elements in that crridr will be develped t that design speed.

4 Attachment A: Meeting #9 Discussin Summary What design speed has been chsen fr Geddes Avenue (suth f Hurn River near the rear entrance t Gallup Park)? Staff Fllw-up: The design speed fr Geddes Avenue is 30 mph. The current speed is psted at 30 mph except arund the curve where it is psted 25 mph D rad diets slw speeds? Rad diets prvide mre cnsistent and unifrm speeds. They als prevent mtrists frm weaving thrugh the crridr, making it much safer. In the City, rad diets are primarily implemented fr safety and bike lanes are an added benefit. Adding bike lanes imprves bth the pedestrian and bicycle realm; they get bicycles ff the sidewalk and prvide an extra 5 ft buffer between the sidewalk and mtr vehicles. If we wanted t make all f the radways under the City s jurisdictin 25 mph, we wuld have t undertake a series f design changes that wuld be a capitl cst. Yes, and sme f the larger arterial rads will always have mre f a vehicular fcus and it will be hard t bring them dwn t 25 mph. The rundabuts near Skyline High Schl wrk really well and traffic flws slwlyand smthly. The biggest cncern is that it is difficult t see pedestrians, wh are usually students, crssing the street. Frm an engineering standpint, rundabuts are designed in way that if used prperly, safety is a shared respnsibly between the mtrists and the pedestrian. When driving the rundabut prperly, the driver shuld have ample time t see the pedestrian and stp. In reality, as part f this Task Frce, yu can determine what type f educatin and enfrcement is needed and if this is truly an issue. Traffic flws smthly n Jacksn Rad nw that there are three lanes; hwever there are n midblck crsswalks fr pedestrians. Staff fllw-up: MDOT is testing ut the 4 t 3 lane cnversin and plans t install midblck crsswalks in a year r s nce the prject is permanent. Crsswalks are incnsistent in signage and markings making it difficult t identify them when driving. The City uses tw style f marked crsswalk; parallel markings n lwer speed/vlume radways and high visibility cntinental crsswalks n high speed/vlume radways. Engineering judgment and cst effectiveness are cnsidered when implementatin crsswalks. There are sme signs that were put in place ver 15 years ag and d nt fllw current standards s they are different. Later generatins are intended t be clearer. In Ann Arbr, pedestrians have the right t crss the rad anywhereas lng as they d nt impede the path f a mtr vehicle. Lighting is a majr cncern when in regards t crsswalk, especially at night and in the mrning in the winter mnths when it is dark. It is challenging in Ann Arbr as we wuld like mre lights fr safety we als have a lighting mratrium that was put in effect abut five years ag which limits the additin f new lighting. The mratrium fcuses n energy efficiency, cst and maintenance f lighting. Are there rules/laws that limit hw many crsswalks yu can have in a particular area? N, there are engineering guidelines that are fllwed.

5 Attachment A: Meeting #9 Discussin Summary Are there rules/laws limits t hw frequently speed humps can be placed alng a crridr? By putting in speed humps des it autmatically change the speed limit? The City fllws best practice guidelines fr the design and placement f speed humps that have been established by the Institute f Transprtatin Engineers. Speed humps are designed t be driven ver at 25 mph. In reality, as they are installed with ht mix asphalt, there is sme variability and the actual driving speed may cme ut at 20 mph. When dne prperly there is cmpliance. Based n analysis cmpleted by the Washtenaw Rad Cmmissin, speed humps were fund t be very effective and led t a reductin in speeds. There is desire by the public fr a ttal redesign f the intersectin at Washtenaw Rad and Stadium Blvd; it is difficult t access the bus stp. The City has been wrking with MDOT and AAATA t install a crsswalk at this lcatin and prvide access t the bus stp; it cmes dwn t funding at this pint. Many peple are interested in eliminating right turn n red in the Dwntwn area. The Dwntwn Street Design Manual is fcusing n this issue and, based n significant cmmunity input, is hearing supprt fr eliminating right turn n red in the DDA district. The Task Frce may cnsider als weighing in n that recmmendatin. An engineering study wuld need t be dne t determine the feasibility f such a recmmendatin. Right turn n green, when the driver actually has the right f way, can be very dangerus fr pedestrians as well. Hw des smene put in a request fr new lighting t be put in? A request culd be made thrugh an t City Staff r A2 Fix It. Systems Planning wuld evaluate and priritize the request. Discussin n Wrk Zne Related Issues: Histrically, there were always sidewalk sheds at cnstructin sites. Fr example, Cnstructin phts frm the 1960 s all shw thse sheds. What changed (plicy, fees, etc.) between then and nw that we rarely prvide cnstructin sheds at cnstructin sites nw? It is nt clear what triggered the change. One reasn may be the building cde and a lack in the ability t inspect the integrity f the shed befre they g up. There are als different types f cnstructin prjects that have different time frames which may impact whether a sidewalk shed r clsing is used. The Dwntwn Street Design Manual prject team is als fcusing n this issue and lking at best practices frm ther cmmunities. We may have sme plicies in place that make it cheaper fr a cnstructin cmpany t clse a sidewalk than prvide a sidewalk shed. Fr example, at First and Washingtn the sidewalk was clsed during a large cnstructin prject and it shuld have been kept pen. It shuld be mre expensive t clse the sidewalk then put up a shed. In terms f pririty, pedestrians nly get a small prtin f the right-f-way and they shuld nt be the first t g when there is a cnstructin prject; pedestrian sidewalks shuld be the last t g.

6 Attachment A: Meeting #9 Discussin Summary What permissin is needed t clse a sidewalk, hw lng can it be clsed and when are sheds an ptin? Ptentially, fees fr clsing a sidewalk culd be funneled int ther pedestrian imprvements. Discussin n Bicycle Related Issues: Why are the Please Walk Bike signs used in the dwntwn? What is the lgic t these signs? As part f the recmmendatin in the Nn-mtrized Transprtatin Plan, sidewalks are available t bth bicycles and pedestrians. The signs are riented t the sidewalk t infrm and remind bicyclists t yield t pedestrians and t please walk their bicycle as a curtesy. Similar signs were als put up in the State Street area due t the narrw walkways. In reality, bicycles still ride n the sidewalk. Generally, if yu want bicycles ff the sidewalk, yu need t prvide a safe and cmfrtable separated facility where they feel cmfrtable away frm traffic. The Dwntwn Street Design Manual prject team is lking int bicycle pririty streets. In Ann Arbr, are yu legally required t have a bell n yur bike? Based n State Law a bell is nt required if yu give an audible warning when vertaking a pedestrian. Yu are required t have a light in frnt and a reflectr in back. What is a traffic cntrl device? It can be pavement markings, signs r signals. Are sharrws (a.k.a. shared lane markings) effective; d bicyclists feel safer and d drivers behave differently in the presence f a sharrw? When sharrws were installed in the Dwntwn, we nticed an increase in the number f bicyclists using the radway and received lts f psitive feedback frm members f the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Calitin. The installatin f sharrws and share the rad signs made it clear that it is a shared space and there is less hstility. Bicyclists are drawn t separate bicycle facilities, which get them ff the sidewalk. Increased physical separatin is the best thing fr bicycles, pedestrians and vehicles. Althugh expensive, there are many best practice mdels. Bicycle facilities shuld be safe fr a family with children t feel cmfrtable riding their bike n. Plitically, there may cme a pint in time where the demand fr such facilities is such that the City will make a chice t invest in separate facilities and reallcate physical and financial resurces t make that happen. The Dwntwn Street Design Manual prject team is cnsidering additinal bicycle facilities in the dwntwn. There is ptential fr cnflict between bicycles and pedestrians n shared use paths. A lt f the existing shared use paths were implemented decades ag with different standards. Many are 8 feet r less wide. New paths will be up a minimum f 10 wide and maybe where there are high vlumes f pedestrians and bicycles. What are the rules fr bicycles when sharing a pathway fr pedestrians? Bicyclists must yield t pedestrians, give an audible warning and pass n the left. The new pathway alng Washtenaw wrks well fr bicycles and pedestrians.

7 Attachment A: Meeting #9 Discussin Summary Rad diets are nt feasible n all radways; traffic vlumes must be cnsidered. Has there been any feedback n the Jacksn Rad 4 t 3 lane cnversin? Feedback frm has been very psitive and they feel speeds have gne dwn. After the final cat f asphalt has been installed, the center turn lane will cntinue t the intersectin s it is easier t turn nt side streets. Can the task frce have a map that identifies street jurisdictin? That map exists as part f the Nn-mtrized Plan. Pst meeting fllw-up: N. Cx sent the map and the rad functinal classificatin map t the Task Frce. Can private rads be addressed by the City? Private rads wuld be addressed by the hmewners assciatin. Safety has n bunds, s there are sme things that the City culd cmmunicate t the hmewners assciatins and bring t their attentin. Update n the Prpsed Sidewalk Snw and Ice Ordinance: Since the last Task Frce meeting, after further discussin internally, City Staff determined that the language was nt ready t be taken t first reading f City Cuncil at their January 5 meeting. The prpsed rdinance amendment did nt anticipateptential added csts t the city fr snw remval if a ticket is dismissed in curt. Last year the judges dismissed a lt f tickets. The City des nt wait 10 days t clear the snw, as they want it accessible t pedestrians. We are wrking n clearer language that minimizes financial risk t the City by making it clear that any charges incurred by the City t remve snw will be charged t the hmewner regardless f the utcme f a curt decisin. Hw many tickets were dismissed last year? We d nt have that infrmatin. What was the reasning fr the tickets being dismissed? Hardship and the amunt f snw last year. Many peple d nt want t have a wasted warning; they feel yu shuld be ticketed immediately. As example, if a car is blcking a driveway, it is twed away, there is n warning perid. The same shuld apply t a sidewalk, as yu are blcking a pedestrian s rute n the sidewalk. The language snw r ice f 1 inch was remved in the December 2014 prpsed amendment language and it nw refers t any amunt f snw r ice. Based n persnal bservatin, it seems that peple nly shvel after a significant snw event. It will be imprtant t educate everyne, s they knw they need t shvel after every snw event, whether large r small. The intent, as understd by the Task Frce, is that sidewalks shuld be cleared regardless f the depth. Additinally, City staff is ging t be suggesting a May 1, 2015 effective date if City Cuncil apprves the amended language. This is give staff time t develp and effective utreach and educatin campaign. We anticipate that a first and secnd reading wuld be in March. An update will be prvided at the February Task Frce meeting. D we want clearer language abut bus stps included? At the last meeting, a decisin was made that we dn t be explicit abut bus stps. Walk r ramp that

8 Attachment A: Meeting #9 Discussin Summary leads t a street has been added t the language t capture all bus stps and ther areas that may nt have been anticipated. The winter maintenance subcmmittee shuld discuss this issue at their next meeting and prvide a clear directin t City Staff as sn as pssible. When a hmewner buys a huse, it needs t be clear t them what they are respnsible fr maintaining. Snwbuddy Update: V. Armentrut mves that the Task Frce applauds the effrts f a private entity t undertake the evaluatin f the snwbuddy prgram and eagerly anticipates the results. Secnded by S. Pressprich Gryniewicz. Unanimus apprval. Crsswalk Budget/CIP Subcmmittee Update: V. Armentrut gave an update n state funding actins fr transprtatin, the capital imprvement plan and Act 51. (See Appendix D fr a detailed reprt) The next meeting will fcus n land use/site design, transit related issues and rundabuts. A reminder will be sent ut t the Task Frce t prvide any specific questins they have regarding land use/site design, transit related issues and rundabuts fr the next issues and resurces brief. The Task Frce will have until the EOB n Mnday, January 12 th t their questins t C. Prudhmme via Ggle Grup.

9 Attachment B: Sign-in Sheet

10 Attachment C: Apprved Agenda CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN Public Services Area/Systems Planning 301 E. Hurn Street P.O. Bx 8647, Ann Arbr, Michigan Web: APPROVED AGENDA - PEDESTRIAN SAFETY & ACCESS TASK FORCE TASK FORCE MEETING #10 Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 Time: 5:00-7:00 pm Lcatin: Basement Cnference Rm Larcm City Hall (301 E Hurn Street) Chair: Linda Diane Feldt Secretary: Ken Clark 1. Intrductins 5 5:05 pm 2. Apprval f Agenda 5:05 5:10 pm 3. Public Cmmentary (3 minutes/speaker, limit three speakers) 5:10 5:20 pm 4. Apprval f Meeting #9 Discussin Summary 5:20 5:25 pm 5. Discussin and Actin Items 5:25 6:25 pm a) Traffic Management (20 minutes) b) Wrk-zne Related (20 minutes) c) Bicycle-Related (20 minutes) 6. Update n the Prpsed Sidewalk Snw & Ice Ordinance 6:25 6:35 pm 7. Snwbuddy Update 6:35 6:40 pm 8. Subcmmittee Updates 6:40 6:50 pm a) Crsswalk Budget/CIP Subcmmittee (10 minutes) 9. Next Steps 6:50 7:00 pm a) Next Rund f Issues and Resurces Brief 10. Public Cmmentary (3 minutes/speaker)

11 Attachment D: Crsswalk CIP/Budget Subcmmittee Reprt Nte: This reprt was prvided as a supplement fllwing the meeting and cmbines infrmatin frm V.Armentruts reprt and K.Clark s .

12 Attachment D: Crsswalk CIP/Budget Subcmmittee Reprt Ken Clark s n January 7, 2014: Act 51 The tw primary surces f rad mney in Michigan are Act 51 mney (abut $1 billin per year), and federal funding (als abut $1 billin per year). The Act 51 mney is revenue frm weight taxes received at vehicle registratin each year, and fuel taxes levied at the pump. Nte that there is als sales tax n fuels, but that mney ges t cities and schls, nt t rad funding. Cllectively, the state funding is called the "Michigan Transprtatin Fund" (MTF). The state mney is then subdivided accrding t a set f frmulas in Act 51 itself. After specific amunts are remved fr varius purpses (like special bridge funds), the remaining is split three ways: 39.1% t state trunklines, 39.1% t cunty rad cmmissins, and 21.8% t cities and twnships. That 21.8% is divided amng the cities and twnships in the state accrding t tw criteria, their ppulatin and their ttal lane mileage. That's imprtant. It has nthing t d with vehicle miles traveled, gas bught r used in a jurisdictin, percentage f peple driving, r anything else. It's strictly ppulatin and rad lane miles. Ann Arbr received almst $9 millin in the mst recent budget frm the state in Act 51 funding. Next, Act 51 sectin 10k requires: "(2) Of the funds allcated frm the Michigan transprtatin fund t the state trunk line fund and t the cunties, cities, and villages, a reasnable amunt, but nt less than 1% f thse funds shall be expended fr cnstructin r imprvement f nnmtrized transprtatin services and facilities." S a *minimum* f 1% f that funding *must* be used fr nnmtrized transprtatin services and facilities. The mney desn't have t be spent n a yearly basis, but every 10 year basis they have t have spent that much n nnmtrized transprtatin. Of curse, mst jurisdictins in the state either ignre that prvisin, r cunt things like paving rural rads as nnmtrized transprtatin prjects. Fr many years, Ann Arbr didn't set aside specific funding fr nnmtrized transprtatin, but a decade r s ag the city decided t set aside 3% f ur Act 51 mney fr nn-mtrized transprtatin. That amunt has fluctuated recently because f Michigan's severe recessin, but in the last budget there was an abut 2.4% set aside, f almst $219,000 fr "alternative transprtatin", with just under $200,000 ging t public services.