Page 1 of 21. Meeting Summary. Meeting Summary

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 21 Meeting Summary Project: 4 th /Prater Corridor Study Project No.: Date: 2/23/2012 Subject: Public Open House Meeting Client: RTC Attendees: See Sign in Sheet Prepared By: S. Huggins Approved By: A. Durling Meeting Summary The second of four Public Open House meetings took place on Thursday, February 23, 2012 from 4 7 pm at the Regional Transportation Center 4 TH STREET STATION located at the intersection of Center Street and 4 th Street in downtown Reno. The public meeting was advertized in the Reno Gazette Journal, the project website, numerous social media outlets via the project Facebook page. On-line flyers were posted on the following Facebook pages: City of Reno, City of Sparks, Reno/Sparks Chamber of Commerce, EDAWN, Channel 2 News, News 4, KOLO 8, Northern Nevada Chamber of Commerce, Artown, Reno Gazette Journal, Downtown Makeover, Wood Rodgers, Sparks Chamber of Commerce and the Reno News & Review. Additionally, articles appeared in the Sparks Tribune and the This is Reno website. The meeting took place in an unused room on the north side of the main terminal. A table was set up outside of the room to help direct interested parties into the workshop and also ensure each attendee signed in. The sign-in sheet (attached) indicates that 63 people attended this workshop; many of which included business owners from the corridor, Reno Bike Project members, local residents and various agency members.

2 Page 2 of 21 Similar to the first workshop, the room was set up as self-guided tour with 6 stations to summarize the project and solicit feedback on the project to date. The six stations were broken down as Public Engagement, Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Challenges, School Zones, Oral History Project, and Roadway Alternatives. The following is a summary of each station and comments from attendees, if applicable. The first station, Public Engagement, provided a summary of the first workshop outcomes. The Board included a brief discussion of where the project is headed, what attendees at the first meeting thought were the priorities, and what goals were most important to attendees for this project.

3 Page 3 of 21 The second station included several boards with aerial photos summarizing the walking audit of the corridor, identified as Existing Conditions. The walking audit involved individuals walking the entire distance of the corridor and identifying issues or areas of concern to be addressed as part of the corridor study. These issues/areas of concern included, but were not limited to, transit stops, pedestrian crossings, streetscape issues, traffic flow, site design, etc. Additionally, issues that were obtained from the public during the first public workshop were identified on the exhibits as well. Several comments were added during this public workshop and will be included in the final exhibits associated with the Existing Conditions Report.

4 Page 4 of 21

5 Page 5 of 21

6 Page 6 of 21

7 Page 7 of 21

8 Page 8 of 21 The third station provided attendees with an overview of Opportunities and Challenges in the corridor, broken down by districts. There were a total of five boards with each board representing a specific section of the corridor. The first board looked specifically at Downtown Reno from Keystone Avenue to Sutro Street with this area more specifically defined as West 4 th Urban Transition, Downtown Reno Core, and E4: East 4 th District. Some of the opportunities in these sectors include: larger ReTrac parcels, Regional Identity, Arts/Entertainment Uses, RTC Transit Center, Proximity to Downtown Core, Freight House District, and Access to Truckee River. Additionally, some of the challenges in these sectors included existing weekly motels, large established developments, existing industrial, deteriorating streetscape, no access to/from Wells Avenue and several more. The next board listed identified as Industrial Transition looked at the area between Sutro Street and El Rancho/N. Kietzke Lane. Some of the opportunities in this district include: opportunity for truck traffic to bypass corridor, potential for incubator industrial, and larger tracks of land make assembling parcels easier. Some of the challenges in this sector include environmental concerns from heavy industrial uses, railroad corridor creates unintended separation of corridor, and degrading motels. The third board in this station looked at Urban Sparks/Downtown Sparks extending from El Rancho east to Stanford Way. Opportunities in this district includes good connectivity throughout, proximity to entertainment, restaurants, and commercial uses, and an urban village appeal. Challenges include, but are not limited to, limited opportunity for large scale developments, multi family transition likely to be on a smaller scale, and neighborhood scale commercial uses. The fourth board, Marina District, looks at the area from Stanford Way east to Sparks Boulevard and encompasses the area around the Sparks Marina (south of Prater) due to the impact on the overall sector. In addition to the Marina itself, additional opportunities in this district include Greenfield parcels with services, vacant big box opportunities, high density residential, and several infill opportunities. Even with the opportunities in this sector, challenges such as low density residential, aging big box inventory, and suburban style street patterns exist. The fifth and final board looks at the East Sparks Employment Node extending from Sparks Boulevard east to Northern Nevada Medical Center and south to Interstate 80. This employment node includes opportunities such as easy interstate and rail access, established business park, opportunities for medical office expansion, vacant parcels with Prater Way frontage and existing entertainment at Wild Island. Challenges in this sector include limited opportunities for infill, difficult circulation patterns, and employment density dependent on change of uses. To summarize, each of the districts offer a number of opportunities and challenges that can be addressed through the corridor study. A hand full of comments were provided by workshop attendees and will be incorporated as applicable.

9 Page 9 of 21

10 Page 10 of 21

11 Page 11 of 21

12 Page 12 of 21

13 Page 13 of 21

14 Page 14 of 21 Station 4, School Zones identified how kids are getting to and from school. Attendees were asked to provide feedback on school routes. No comments were received on this station.

15 Page 15 of 21 Station 5 was intended to inform attendees of the 4 th Street/Prater Way Oral History Project currently being done by the University of Nevada Oral History Program. This board provided a brief explanation of the where the Oral History project began, how the project is interviewing individuals about first hand experiences in the corridor, and how the information will be documented and maintained in the future. This project ties directly into the 4 th /Prater Corridor Study by providing historical significance to the corridor. This station was informational only and not intended to solicit feedback.

16 Page 16 of 21 Station 6 consisted of three boards looking at roadway alternatives and how the various alternatives fit throughout the corridor. The first board included examples of a 3-Lane, Mixed Flow alternative while the second board included examples of a 4-Lane, Dedicated Bus/Bike alternative. A third board provided an analysis of how the two alternatives fit within the existing right of way in the corridor. Attendees were asked to place a sticker on the Alternative they would prefer to see in the corridor. The purpose of the stickers was to obtain an approximate straw poll of attendees of their overall alternative preference.

17 Page 17 of 21

18 Page 18 of 21

19 Page 19 of 21 A total of 30 stickers were placed on the Alternative 1 Board, with 5 people specifically indicating they prefer Alternative 1C, where the bike lane is separated from the traffic lane by a parkway. Alternative 2 had a total of 9 stickers with 7 people specifically indicating (by sticker placement) that they preferred Alternative 2B, which included landscaped parkways. Also, as a part of station 6, attendees were asked to identify what they liked the most and the least about each Alternative. Although not everyone marked likes and/or dislikes for the alternatives, those that did indicated the following: For Alternative 1, most respondents indicated that they liked the dedicated bike lanes; however, many of them disliked the on-street parking, bike lanes adjacent to travel lanes, and having the transit mixed with traffic. Alternative 1 Likes Alternative 1 Dislikes parkways 24% center turn lane 12% transit mixed with traffic 22% bike lanes adjacent to travel 22% on street parking 6% dedicated bike lanes 58% Other 34% on-street parking 22% For Alternative 2, respondents indicated they most preferred the parkways and wide bike lane shared with transit but primarily disliked that there was not a dedicated bike lane and/or no center turn lanes Alternative 2 Likes Alternative 2 Dislikes wide bike lane shared with transit dedicated transit lane 19% single travel lane for autos no center turn lane 31% 18% 27% 13% more transit options/closer to curb Other 9% 6% 25% 6% Other parkways Nothing no dedicated bike lane 46%

20 Page 20 of 21 Additionally, attendees were encouraged to provide written comments specifically on the roadway alternatives. The following comments were provided by attendees in regards to the Roadway Alternatives: Alternative 2 dislike bike and bus lane; forces bicycles to ride single file. Also, bicycles shouldn t have 15 of lane accessible to them; they will ride where they want to within it instead of hugging the side of the road single file (except passing). Don t like the idea or liability of bikes/buses in same lane. Better use of the space along 4 th street eastbound from wells avenue would incorporate existing bike path (along UNR Farm/Coop Extension) and minimize the need for bicycle traffic along more car population routes. Also there is plenty of space along 99% of McCarran Circle (all the way around) for there to be actual bike paths instead of just lane borders to ride on. Also, why no bus circling Reno? As a property owner on 4 th & 6 th, I would like to see the data for bicycle counts before and after bike paths. Until the comparison is available, I would not like any bike land by my property. Would like more historic elements devoted to Lincoln Highway, Victory, and Highway 40. More trees, separated bike lanes, shared bike/transit, bike boxes, and rolled curb. Option 1 improves safety except dislike on street parking as drivers may open doors into the adjacent bike lane. Like Alternative 1 as a cyclist, prefer to share the road because cars expect to see cyclists on the road, not in their own lane. Have quality, unobstructed sidewalks that serve the greatest population is important in this corridor. On Alternative 1, switch location of the bike lane with on street parking cars then become the buffer and protect the bike lane. Alternative 1 does not provide access for bikes to make left turns. On-street parking is critical to our business and the value of our property. Without parking our commercial building becomes worthless. Leaving the corridor alone would be the least expensive option. Not in favor of either proposal/alternative. Neither one addresses the traffic on 4 th Street and will only congest the downtown Reno/4 th St. area even more. The City of Reno went to the expense nearly 30 years ago to widen 4 th Street to 4 lanes and traffic was not as heavy as it is now. A 4- way stop needs to be installed at 4 th St. and Washington as well as a school zone for Washoe High School. Students cannot safely cross 4 th Street. A combination of Alternatives 1 and 2 would be great. Having a cycle track or other Class A bike facility on or adjacent to 4 th Street would help provide a solid connection between Reno/Sparks. Also, transit on the route is VERY important as a driver of economic development. RAPID would be great! It would be great to give residents the option to bike or to ride quality transit like RAPID on the corridor. Let s make it multi-modal! Using pressed concrete for sidewalks would create a physical separation of the bike lane from traffic. Finally, attendees were asked to share any general comments and/or feedback about the overall project once they d had an opportunity to see all the boards. The following are the general comments received: The 4 th Street bus station is very user unfriendly to new and infrequent users. The main access point is on Evans, but the more common access is Lake Street, but you can t turn left in there.

21 Page 21 of 21 Also, the turn onto Prater from eastbound 4thStreet is difficult on a bicycle. You shouldn t have to go down to Rail City to safely turn north from 4 th Street. There is only on-street parking in our section of 4 th Street ( E). If there is no parking lane, we will be out of business as well as our neighbors. What are pollution ramifications of taking a VERY busy 4 lane road to a congested 2 lane road? Why can t it be left the way it is? I like what is being proposed, however, I would like to see a marriage of Alt 1 with Alt 2. it would be great to have a true multi-modal corridor on 4 th Street with quality bike facilities and quality transit options. Something similar to LA MTA Orange line would be great. A hybrid of that model so it works with existing land uses on 4 th /Prater. I think this is great! As an everyday rider from Sparks to Reno for work, I ride the stretch of 4 th from where it picks up at El Rancho to downtown at Ralston. I find this part of my ride terrifying because cars race down 4 th and although most give me plenty of space, I ride knowing that it only take 1 to make me feel unsafe or injure me. This are would greatly benefit from a bike lane. I used to ride Prater, but I find it even scarier because its narrower and riding inbound from Sparks the road widens and narrows erratically causing me to swerve into the traffic lane. Great job with community involvement. More bike lanes and slowing down of automobile traffic most important. Owners of Casale s Halfway Club (Reno s oldest restaurant located since 1937 at 2502 East 4 th St). Our concerns regarding the corridor are simple we would like to see the street lighting that stops at the 1300 th block of east 4 th continued to at least the Reno/Sparks boarder. Also our bus stop at the 2500 th block of East 4 th has minimal lighting this is a safety concern. Also, our lack of concrete sidewalks; a majority of our sidewalks in this section are dirt. Lastly, we have a historical concern. We have an abundance of historical and cultural value and appeal. Our neighborhood gas station ahs had the same family ownership for the last 41 years! Also, our name comes from the fact that in 1937 this Club was located at the halfway point between Reno and Sparks. Most importantly, we ve been here since the beginning and want to be part of the decision making for the future. Keep flow of buses (that are coming and going) in the same direction. The 6 sidewalk with the 5 parkway is an excellent safety feature, but the 15.5 transit plus bike path is a bit small, considering the frequent stops the bus must make. The stops push the bikes out in the 12 travel lane. Would it be rational to consider something like a 10 travel lane, 12 transit lane, and between those a 5.5 bike lane (or derivative thereof)? I would like to see more historic elements added devoted to our highway history.