Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee - 12/13/2023 1 South Burlington Bike & Pedestrian Committee APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 13, 2023 @ 5:30 p.m. Room 301, City Hall AND Virtual Committee Attendees: Bob Britt (Vice Chair), Nic Anderson (Clerk), Ken Burkman, Mark Pasanen Committee Attendees – Remote: Havaleh Gagne (Chair), Dana Farr, Doug Goodman Committee Absent: Donna Leban, Amanda Holland Other Attendees: Erica Quallen (City Staff Liaison), Andrew Chalnick (City Councilor) Public: Ryan Doyle, Barb Servis, Linda Bailey, Ben Roshko, Amanda? (in person), Loretta Marriott 1. Welcome, Emergency Exit and Virtual Meeting Instructions, Gratitude – Havaleh (5:30 p.m.) a. Penny for Paths stencil done b. Thanks to Bob for chairing last meeting c. Ryan noted traffic on Dorset Street has been great. Thanks to DPW for the new signals. Seem to be working already. d. Support from Andrew Chalnick for committee work. Current City Council Liaison 2. Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (5:35 p.m.) a. Have a guest speaker who would like to comment on Patchen Road before the agenda item. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda (5:40 p.m.) a. Amanda-White Street. Daughter goes to Children’s School. When light on White turns green, so does ped signal. People don't yield. Conflict. When sun shines, it is right in drivers’ eyes. Would like to have a full pedestrian phase or signage to show that drivers should yield to pedestrians. Jaycee Park mid-block crosswalk has helped. Signal not very friendly and needs addressing. b. Erica asked if there is an advance cross before the green light. c. Amanda - Yes, but don't use the advance because of possible people running orange and then checking for people turning so don't normally do the advance. 4. Consideration of minutes from November 08, 2023 (5:45 p.m.) a. Doug thought in 9.o that he said outraged vs enraged. Would like to change. b. Motion by Doug to accept. c. Bob seconded d. All in favor. Dana abstained. 5. Proposed changes to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policy – Nick Atherton (5:50 p.m.) a. Presentation by Nick Atherton. b. Bob asked why Peak is measured in PM, not AM c. Erica noted that PM traffic is always higher. d. Andrew asked about how the fees can impact people. e. Nick - Right sizes intensity of review. Would help folks not have to hire consultants and incur those additional costs. f. Ryan asked about proximity to transit line versus stop. Not all stops have an equal access. Buffer should be based on walking, not just as the crow flies. g. Erica noted the different types of bus routes. A LINK bus may not have stops. h. Nick - Noted that some transit may only go a couple of times a day such as a commuter route. Leaning toward each bus line reviewed individually. Not in agreement with consultants’ recommendations at present. Winter can impact walking to bus stop i. Nic asked about transit lines not being controlled by the city and what happens if a route goes away. Are TMPs required to be re-reviewed periodically? j. Erica - Could use many of the options, beyond the minimum which will reduce traffic below what the generation may be. 2 k. Nick noted that going beyond the minimum may help for future uses on a property. Can also pay to reduce by 1%. l. Nic asked if there was a concern that people could just buy their way out of it. m. Nick noted LDRs still have requirements. Larger developments will have the larger menu they need to use. n. Doug asked who does the TMP compliance and how long does it go on. How far into the future and what will be the impact of those inspections? Is there a way to estimate the vehicle traffic if there were no mitigations and then determine two years from now to ensure they have done the 14% reductions? o. Nick - Only assessing based at time of application. p. Erica noted traffic studies do look out 5 years or more. q. Nick - Site inspections would be able to determine physical infrastructure done by development review staff. Easy to verify during normal site inspections. Future review would fall on Dev Review staff. Only large developments would have option to do larger programming. Scale the review necessary and size of benefit to size of development. Larger developments may have staff members that manage these components. r. Andrew asked if both residential and commercial? (yes). Some of these should be required, not all optional. Sheltered bike parking strikes him as simply be required to do. Doesn’t impose ongoing obligations. Encourage to think which ones are like that and what can be just built into LDRs. Asked about parking cash-out. Is it just for new development? Would love to see landlords required to price parking separately from rent. Gives renters choice. Powerful economic incentive. Do in both LDRs for new and existing, phased in over time. s. Nick - One of strong recommendations for this policy and would like to offer it for existing, based on renovations. Plan to ask for City Council to pass as a resolution which allows for additional changes to TDM menus. t. Andrew asked about ebikes. u. Nick - Had employee look into regulations or requirements for ebike storage and plugging in. Could add at future time if part of a resolution instead of ordinance. v. Havaleh noted League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly Business designation. Could add that. Could also add fixit stations. Nic seconded BFB’s. w. Ryan asked about space sharing between businesses having non-competing times of day. x. Erica noted in ITE recommendations there are “internal capture” of people going to two things, so doesn’t double count. Helps with space demand planning. y. Ryan asked about distance of buildings from streetscapes, orientation toward public transportation in site layout could be worked in. z. Doug noted Larkin development talking about dovetailing parking between buildings and seems like it relates to walkability and the TDM discussion we just had. So many pieces of this fit into the Larkin property. 6. Patchen Road Traffic Evaluation Request Neighborhood Meeting (6:20 p.m.) a. Erica gave introduction. First review of a Traffic Evaluation Request. Very popular. Patchen Road has a lot of conflict points, speeds and bike/ped-related concerns. 1 mile long. Lot of crashes in last 5 years. Schools and parks around. 85th percentile speed was 37 which is concerning since it's a 25mph zone. Want to hear all details and then can go back to DPW folks to see what we can do internally and what could be a bigger effort. One of the UPWP requests was to study Patchen Road b. Ben - Lives in Summer Woods. On Patchen Road a lot. Sees a lot of conflicts. Lots of parents, kids, dogs. Lots of bad behavior from people driving cars. c. Andrew asked about sidewalk conditions d. Ben - Not good. Too narrow. Have been yelled at for using shoulder of road. Bridge over 89 is crumbling and too narrow. Speed is a huge issue. Way faster than 37. Popular route for going from Winooski to Trader Joes. Only way really. e. Erica noted others have stated had concerns. 3 f. Bob - As a driver, it feels like a 35 road. Even he accidentally speeds. g. Ken - Songbird has traffic calming and shared use paths. Good example. h. Doug - Challenge is turning off White making left onto Patchen. Drivers looking for cars, not pedestrians. People desperate to take left turn. i. Barb Sirvis - Pedestrian. Lives in Summer Woods too. Concerned about cyclists. Don't blame them for using sidewalk. Concerned for kids using road. Bike lane is narrow. Agrees with comment on turning left. Same situation on Dorset and Market. 3 second delay is not enough at White and Patchen light. Worry about school age kids crossing there. Simply not safe. Not as bad heading south on White St. Worse turning from Patchen to White heading to Williston Rd. Have had good results at mid-block crosswalk, even if not pushing the RRFB. j. Erica asked if there are other places in the city where there is good examples and good compliance. k. Andrew asked about road width. Erica said 30’. l. Nic noted that there used to be lines, but they have faded. m. Ben - Seen enough kids using road regularly that it became a concern. Ton of potential. Is a good pathway. n. Loretta - Use Patchen Road. Cars blow through blinky [RRFB] lights. Gets off bike and walks across. Pedestrian New crosswalks on Williston Road are incredibly effective at reducing people from passing in center lane. On Patchen Road saw a person passing cars recently. Going really fast. Middle things [refuges] will stop that. o. Ryan - Have to stop because storm drains are too steep to bike over comfortably. Swerving around is too dangerous when cars are approaching. Likes Montreal Crosswalks that are raised and bike lanes narrow to be able to allow median islands. Asked if there could be a layer about traffic signal technology to help with planning for replacements to be better. p. Erica - Exists on paper. Could take a lot of work to transpose onto a map layer. When a signal gets touched we move towards having full pedestrian phase. Could look at doing wholesale replacement, which could be done in-house, depending on the controller. Some may not accept additional phases. Can do any season. Can check capability by going to one physically. q. Havaleh - On vacation, had speed humps before and after crosswalks. Would be great standard to adopt. People really slow down when they think they may bottom out. r. Linda Bailey - Summer Woods resident. Drives. Sees a lot of what people are describing. Like idea of speed humps before lights. s. Nic - Agree with Ryan on depth of storm drains. Needs to be raised. Dangerous at night. Also want to have bike lane signs and stencils along with line. Even if line gets worn off they would be visible. t. Havaleh - Email from Steve Trono. Email stated: A. I'm hoping you can forward this email to members of the South Burlington Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee concerning the Patchen Road Neighborhood Traffic Safety Meeting on Wednesday, December 13th. Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend this meeting, but I have a concern about future traffic on Patchen Rd. that possibly this committee might want to begin to address now, while it's still in the early planning stage. I noticed while reviewing the new City Plan 2024 a proposed new road running parallel to Williston Rd., behind the Cheese and Wine Traders (and other businesses on that side of Williston Rd.) that would run from the new building going up where the old Holiday Inn used to be, to the current driveway for the Executive Drive Apartments, at which point the new road would dump out onto Patchen Road. This future road being considered by our Planning and Zoning Department seems like a really bad idea to me. This proposed new road would surely increase traffic volume, and pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns, on Patchen Rd., and White St. (where there is a school zone), as it would serve as a short cut to avoid traffic on Williston Rd. between Kennedy Dr. and Dorset St. I wonder what this committee thinks about this proposed future road, and if this committee also has safety and traffic concerns about this proposed road, that maybe this might be the time to voice those concerns to our Planning Commission. I would like to see our city planners thinking about ways 4 to reduce the amount of automobiles and traffic in South Burlington, not encouraging more of it by building more new roads. Thanks you for your time, and for serving on this committee. Best Regards, Steve Trono, Pinetree Terrace resident u. Mark noted speed bumps on South Prospect have been steepened and have white arrows. Thought that they wouldn't have on such a thoroughfare. v. Nic noted car manufacturers are now marketing as “speed bump proof” suspension. May not be very good if that is the case. Need to build steeper. w. Ken - Speed bumps encourage speeding up afterwards etc. Should be designed to help people drive the speed limit and not have to change speeds or use more gas. x. Erica noted that this could be a good UPWP project. 7. City Updates – Erica (6:50 p.m.) a. Read update b. Bob asked about scope of January meeting for Active Transportation Plan. c. Erica thinks it will be more open house style. Using the map like we have at tabling as well as have a lot of empty paper for ideas. d. Havaleh asked about timeline of project. e. Erica - Through August and would plan events based on season. f. Erica noted City Budget Retreat for staff coming up. Bob asked if there was an agenda so they could tune in if needed. Asked if bike ped representation was needed? g. Erica - Not needed. Definitely worth looking over the CIP docs. h. Continued reading update. i. Ryan noted that Saint Albans assessed all 24 miles of sidewalk and bonded to replace 16 miles over 5 years. Policy around damage of sidewalks by private entities. j. Erica detailed tree maintenance planning k. Bob intends to send request to City Council for path maintenance and striping to both be increased by $10,000 as approved at the November meeting. Asked how much we need to spend for striping. l. Erica noted that we don't have a number but whatever is approved will be spent regardless. More need than we could do. m. Doug suggested having photographs accompanying any email or request which would be powerful in showing. Such as Kennedy and Williston intersection. n. Ken noted that drivers are still using the path between Spear and East Terrace. o. Erica noted ACT250 permit for Quarry Hill that was specific to not having vertical elements. Have been talking about bollards in the last two months. Ambulances use it frequently. Open to changes if needed. Would require going back to ACT250 for permit amendment. p. Ken - Wonder if there was slowing of the path for ambulances, could we help those driving there understand that their actions could create larger changes and issues in the future. q. Ryan asked about Act250 and if this could be a good example to show how this could be amended. r. Nic asked about RRFBs at Prouty Parkway. Want to make sure it's still on the radar. Definitely still a need. No driver compliance. Concern about kids crossing every evening in the dark. Also asked about Wright Court crosswalk and if it's still planned. s. Erica - Questioned funding and was not aware it was on CIP for RRFBs. Noted Wright Court could be done as part of Shared Use Path. t. Bob asked about Elsom Parkway crosswalk and want to make sure it's still planned. 8. Active Transportation Plan Updates and Liaison Selection (7:15 p.m.) a. Ken and Havaleh are interested in being our representatives and Doug and Dana could be an alternate as needed if others cannot. b. Doug asked if others could attend anyway and just listen. c. Erica - Don't want to overload the room. Most entities are putting forth one person but Bike Ped have two. If you wanted to attend, we should at least let advisory group talk first. d. No motion needed. Everyone happy. 5 9. Hinesburg Road Speed Limit Review Request – Bob (7:45 p.m.) a. Revised resolution not in agenda packet. b. Bob - Safety sub group met and incorporated comments from last meeting. Added some “whereas” to state situation. Recognized asking about changing assessment criteria from 85th percentile, differing speed zones and include traffic calming not just speed changes. c. Erica confirmed difference between submitting as letter vs resolution. Could submit memo outlining situation and request that they make a motion to officially support the memo or letter to legislature. d. Bob - Recommending they approve a resolution. e. Erica - If remove whereas and update on asking City council to approve and make a memo, it would be easier for them to take up. f. Doug thinks the City Council will take it up if moved. g. Bob noted the relationship with VTrans and how they are approached was updated. Asked if it's supposed to come from Havaleh or whole committee. h. Motion by Havaleh to submit to City council as discussed i. Doug seconded j. Vote - all in favor k. Bob asked who to send it to. l. Nic noted a really good article about how the 85th percentile speed limit is a bad model. 10. Other Miscellaneous Discussions a. On another matter, Bob is concerned about Hubbard Park and the suggestion of conserving through the Champlain Land Trust and how it could create harmful limitations in the future. b. Havaleh - Would be good to speak up to Council but not sure how it's done. c. Linda agreed that since we purchased with public funds, it should be free to the public to be able to change in the future. d. Nic thinks we should stay in our lane and focus just on bike ped components. Could be heated and people can get emotional. e. Ryan agrees that we should focus on neighborhood connections and commuter routes potentially being impacted and would like to be able to change it in the future. f. Erica - Scheduling. Committee had talked about having a joint committee meeting with the Recreatopm and Parks Committee. Want to check it's something to pursue still? Replace a meeting or have second meeting? Andrew C is liaison with us and Energy Committee and they overlap. Could be shared desire to attend. Would this committee want to adjust day of week or first or third Wednesday cycle. g. Bob - Asked who at Rec and Parks would need to attend. Staff? h. Erica - Yes, there is also opportunity to connect more on things like proposals. i. Havaleh - May be able to accomplish if our meetings attend their meetings too. Not sure we need a whole group. Do need to meet one way or the other about events for 2024. Should include Active Transportation Plan as part of SB Bikes Out. j. Erica - Could be 1.5-hour special meeting. Havaleh agreed. k. Havaleh spoke with Nick Atherton and he gave details about hosting other events like Bike to Work Day etc. Public rides or more events. l. Doug - May make sense to partner with Local Motion for Bike to Work Day things. Can leverage them. m. Erica - Also SB Business Association. n. As for a possible change in our meeting dates, Nic and Doug would prefer Wednesday but not concerned about which one of the week. Dana agreed. o. Bob noted that if changed to the 3rd Wednesday that he would miss the June meeting due to travel. p. Mark can do Wednesdays and Thursdays but Tuesdays are a no-go. q. Havaleh will check in with Donna and Amanda r. Erica going to look into which week is best and other potential conflicts. s. Ryan - Asked if Active Transportation Plan opens up additional grant opportunities. Erica noted it's much easier to access funds because it's part of a plan. Noted that grant requests from last night were in 6 relative order. Asked if Shelburne Rd crosswalk study was possible in-house. Erica noted it connects to a lot of large developable properties or large stakeholders as well as a State Road. Couldn't look at 5 or 6 intersections in house. Consultants help with formal requirements for VTrans. 11. Confirmed January 10, 2024 Meeting (7:55 p.m.) 12. Adjourned at 8:08 p.m.