HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee - 11/08/20231
South Burlington Bike & Pedestrian Committee
APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, November 8, 2023 @ 5:30 p.m.
Room 301, City Hall AND Virtual
Committee Attendees: Bob Britt (Acting Chair), Nic Anderson (Clerk), Donna Leban, Doug Goodman, Ken Burkman,
Amanda Holland, Mark Pasanen
Committee Absent: Dana Farr, Havaleh Gagne
Other Attendees: Erica Quallen (City Staff Liaison), Jon Olin (Hoyle Tanner), Silken Kershner (new DPW Project Manager
of Transportation and Open Spaces), Susan Grasso (Local Motion)
Public: Ryan Doyle, Keith Epstein
1. Welcome, Emergency Exit and Virtual Meeting Instructions, Gratitude – Havaleh (5:30 PM)
a. Introductions for Silken Kershner
2. Changes or additions to the agenda – Havaleh (5:35 PM)
a. Doug would like to talk about DRB meeting. Marty from P&Z and noted Tom (City) did not want to have
any public crossings at Inn Road.
3. Comments from the public not related to the agenda – Havaleh (5:40 PM)
a. None
4. Consideration of minutes from October 11, 2023 – Havaleh (5:45 PM)
a. Minutes in the packet with edits from Bob.
b. Amanda requested edit to item 10.h to strike due to duplicate.
c. Starting boardwalk in 2024, later in year. Add that to minutes.
d. Motion by Donna
e. Seconded by Ken
f. Vote - Unanimous
5. City Updates – Erica (5:50 PM)
a. Read from packet
b. Jaycee done. Can meet with Penny for Paths stencil and spray paint. Friday 17th at Jaycee. Will come up
with time.
c. Dorset St ROW discussions. 12 properties.
d. Continued reading
e. Bob asked if Climate Action Plan implementation impacted Penny for Paths.
f. Erica noted that there would be additional items in CIP that will have a different CIP. All other projects in
current CIP still exist there.
g. Amanda asked about planning studies and threshold for being listed in CIP.
h. Donna noted that a lot of the things included are relatively easy but don’t make a big impact in GHG
savings. Worry they are not addressed. Asked how it got whittled down from Climate Action Plan to
implementation plan. Areas involving citizen and company actions left off implementation
i. Erica noted every action was still in implementation plan but there is a distinction between City capital
expense and operating work.
j. Donna – Seems like entities like GMT are trying to push big ideas in the Climate Action Plan but
concerned condo associations don’t want to participate because it’s not their agenda. If the package
was more attractive, we may get more adoption. Would like to have something to bring to condo
associations with compelling reasons.
2
k. Dorset St paving now includes $50K for design for school zone and shared use path lighting
improvements
l. Amanda asked about Kennedy Drive lighting study.
m. Erica putting on DPW website soon. Tab called Plans and Studies. Organized by year.
n. UPWP call for suggestions from Committee
6. Spear Street Shared Use Path Public Meeting (WARNED for 6:00 PM)
a. Jon Olin from Hoyle Tanner. Took a while to plan out alignment options. Some impacts to properties.
Wanted to get to a concept that had good potential. Funding through VTrans and have had comments
back from them. Getting comments now before preliminary design which is the nitty gritty planning
before final design. Couple of years away before construction.
b. Bob noted this is the second or third meeting on this topic.
c. Jon – Yes, the scoping study from CCRPC (with other projects) and public concerns meeting
d. Ken asked what the original planning was
e. Erica – Was all on west side of road at one point
f. Jon – Also was a concept all on east. Crossing point in front of Forestry Service to east side had a lot of
concerns due to sun, bridge, hill etc. By starting path on west side at the north end, we can hopefully be
behind the pier columns so that users aren’t close to the road and fast travel speeds. Detailed cross
section views on plans. Keeping distance away from edge of road with grass and gravel.
g. Donna asked where edge of pavement of the road is. Does the road move.
h. Jon detailed plan views. At Swift, connecting path to connect with path that continues at Swift at RRFB.
Formalizing closure of old driveway at Church.
i. Donna asked about bikes wanting to continue on Swift and how they would navigate the intersection.
j. Jon – Road cyclists should continue on the road. Path used for running too so don’t want to create a
issue for crossing there.
k. Donna – Don’t ignore the fact that experienced cyclists will want to use Swift.
l. Jon – Generally geared to people who want to use off road.
m. Keith Epstein asked for the bigger picture.
n. Jon – detailed plan down Spear Street heading north on east side and then crossing to west side of Spear
at Songbird Road. Avoiding utility poles as it creates a bigger issue. Detailed drainage. Wetlands
between the bridges. Pre-Coordination meetings with other permitting entities.
o. Bob asked about slope and retaining walls underneath the highway bridges
p. Jon – Detailed fencing that would be between bridges.
q. Amanda asked about road riders who come from 189 path and head south and if we would create a
section there to intersect with road at that point. Should we accommodate them.
r. General committee discussions about how a road rider would use the path and road. Seems like it
depends.
s. Erica – Notes confident riders will do their thing, but the 8-80 ages will want to use the path.
t. Amanda – May want to get the road riders off the path to avoid conflict of speed on path under bridges.
u. Donna – Had neighbors who have had accidents based on sand on road at the low point on road.
v. Jon – Extending curbing along length between the bridges.
w. Mark – Never had issues with standing water but is more about sand and grit.
x. Amanda asked about curbing
y. Jon – Curbing a vertical barrier due to narrower with of green belt
z. Mark detailed crossing points when heading north
aa. Jon – Don’t want to encourage northbound cyclists to try to get to path at blind hill
3
bb. Doug things road riders will use trail.
cc. Ken wonders how it relates to the path down to Shaws in terms of width and speed.
dd. Amanda would like to see grades in preliminary design. Curious about how the cost estimates will come
through.
ee. Erica – The scoping study also required moving the road. Retaining walls don’t need to be very deep.
Length of culvert is good.
ff. Ken asked about crossing at Songbird. Could be dangerous based on vehicle speeds.
gg. Jon detailed that it would have RRFB’s. Design of right angle at crosswalk will get redesign.
hh. Doug asked about speeds on road.
ii. Erica – Has some at Quarry Hill
jj. Nic noted that cargo bikes need more turning radius
kk. Nic also asked for a center line stripe on the hill sections to separate path speeds.
ll. Amanda asked if there is other things we can do since we struggle to maintain paint.
mm. Donna asked about lighting. Would like to see reflectors. In ground on path (flush) or reflectors
on sides such as retaining walls or piers.
nn. Amanda asked about funding and scope.
oo. Bob asked about schedule
pp. Ryan detailed 85th percentile. Was between 45-47MPH depending on which day of week. July 2016.
qq. Ken asked for speed tubes at Songbird.
rr. Erica – Can but getting late in season. May be able to do in Spring too.
ss. Jon noted that Songbird crosswalk seems like best location or sightlines.
tt. Jon detailed schedule. Submit prelim plans April 2024 and submit final plans Feb 2025 if ROW process
goes OK.
uu. Bob asked about UVM ROW process.
vv. Erica detailed process.
ww. Bob asked when CIP shows project being built
xx. Erica – FY25 and 26.
yy. Jon – July 2025 is the possible start of construction. Could slide up or back depending on where it lands
on construction season.
zz. Amanda asked about ADA grades and how it relates to steepness.
aaa. Erica detailed plans. Haven’t talked about pause places.
bbb. Jon – Balancing resources such as wetlands.
ccc. Amanda – Important to control narrative on what we are saying to people about steep slopes.
ddd. Erica – Good to have reference points about what slopes are around (such as Main St heading
into Burlington may be comparable).
eee. Jon – As we go into preliminary we can talk about pause places
fff. Ryan asked about Songbird radius at crosswalk and about effective width of jiggles around poles. Can
these areas be wider so the effective width is not narrowed.
ggg. Amanda asked about utility poles
hhh. Erica – Because of the state funds, if we touch a pole, we need to move all poles and bring them
all into requirements which is 16ft from road edge. Lots of impact on tree canopy.
iii. Mark noted that the squiggle does cross into private properties because of the poles.
jjj. Donna would like to see reflectors or color on poles so that they are more visible.
kkk. Jon – Point taken on widening at points to maintain effective width.
lll. Amanda – Jogs can be challenge for visually impaired.
4
mmm. Mark – Have some big trees (locust) that is by driveway and worth keeping to protect from
Spear.
7. Select liaisons to Active Transportation Plan Advisory Group (7:15 PM)
a. Erica detailed folks who would be part of Advisory Group. More technical, policy and advocacy groups.
Would have a lot of public input. Numerous public events and active engagement such as walks. Group
would meet 3-4 times through project and then looped in when there are deliverables or for events.
Allows committee to be represented and ensures things are incorporated.
b. Bob noted in the past we have had 2 people nominated so that if a person could not make it, someone
would.
c. Erica – Could have two members and they could both go if they wanted since this group is a large
stakeholder
d. Mark asked about commitment
e. Erica noted meetings would be during day and approx. 2 hours. Would start after first public meeting.
f. Amanda asked about opportunity for full committee to review.
g. Erica – Could have stakeholder meeting that is full committee. May be able to do dual events or host as
part of events.
h. Nic recommends having a standing agenda item for updates and feedback.
i. Ken would like to be involved. Havaleh has indicated she would like to be a part of it. Amanda would be
happy to if Havaleh didn’t.
j. Erica – Planning for daytime, noon meetings. Will be public meetings. Will need to be careful on the
quorum challenge.
k. Amanda – Could just warn it anyway if it’s a meeting that we anticipate. Would like to attend and listen
in regardless.
l. Erica – Not a voting group. Just advisory.
m. Ken – May be difficult to attend during the day.
n. Mark noted Havaleh could have conflicts too.
o. Amanda has flexible schedule. When would be the first meeting?
p. Erica – First meeting prob in February.
q. Bob – So we could wait a month and tell Erica in December.
r. Mark – Worth having consistency of folks who attend.
s. Donna asked about engaging with employers
t. Erica – Likely going to SB Business Association.
u. Donna – Some businesses have amazing programs.
v. Amanda – Asked about its relation to Transportation Demand Management.
w. Nic – Encouraged connecting with CATMA. Need to keep thinking about the broader folks using paths
not just on bikes or peds. Scooters etc.
8. Review Status of Policy and Safety Recommendations – Bob (7:30 PM)
a. Bob asked if he has permission to ask on behalf of the committee on additional funding, sidewalk and
shared use path maintenance and striping. that are in document. Detailed what levels of funding were
currently in proposed FY25 budget. Recommending adding 10K per year for striping and path
maintenance. Andrew Chalnick would like a minimum of 20K extra or more added for sidewalks . He
would like to lobby for more funds for striping and sidewalk and path maintenance on the Committee’s
behalf.
b. Donna worth continuing to push for maintenance as trees etc. continue to impact paths and paths
increase.
5
c. Amanda asked about how budget lines are defined for how they are going to be used. Curb and
Sidewalk vs Bike Ped Maintenance lines.
d. Erica – Curb and sidewalk is more spot fixes of a single piece of sidewalk etc. but Bike Ped maintenance
is for longer sections such as replacing tree root damage.
e. Bob noted prior locations of where maintenance funds were spent and current needs.
f. Amanda – Need to be able to show justification. What can we pull from. Need to show what 10K gets us
and what is our need.
g. Bob – Should go to meeting and show what needs fixing.
h. Amanda – asked about maintenance needs analysis.
i. Erica – CCRPC did road inventory and ADA but not paths. Built database to be able do paths. Helps us to
do scores like at East Terrace. Have a map with points dropped on where maintenance is needed. We
asked for shared use path inventory but didn’t get it. Will have to resubmit. CCRPC has program that
scores. Ranks sections of path. Can also do it internally too. Inventory is through paper sheet.
j. Amanda – Still wonders, are these budget items in separate places in City Budget?
k. Bob – Still concerned of how much gets allocated to road, versus paths.
l. Doug asked how much is allocated to road paving.
m. Erica detailed.
n. Bob – Asking for committee endorsement of asking for additional funding.
o. Ryan – Sounds like if Andrew wants to plug really hard for things, it might be worth making the plug for
repainting everything and how much it would cost to restripe the entire set every year and ask for that.
p. Nic – Think we need to help the City Council understand just how far $40K goes. Literally one or two
maintenance jobs.
q. Donna – Need to talk about crack sealing more, as a preventative measure to avoid more expensive
measures.
r. Erica noted they are trying to hire three maintenance positions in the City right now.
s. Ryan – Need to say how much we need to do the whole amount each year not just increasing
incrementally.
t. Erica – Will be able to when we have a complete inventory. Know costs more and will be able to
generate maintenance plan scenarios once we have the existing conditions inventory.
u. Ryan – Keep political pressure by asking for whole amount and have the Council have to justify why they
don’t fund the full amount.
v. Motion to empower Bob to speak on behalf of the committee to request additional funding and the
safety needs.
w. Seconded by Donna
x. All in favor
y. Nic would like Bikes May Use Full Lane to be put up not at entrances to City but more places where bike
lanes end.
z. Erica – Would be good for safety committee to recommend where road signs should be installed and
why; like we did for path signs.
aa. Amanda asked for the documentation on school zones
bb. Nic wanted to state publicly that he thinks the School Zone signs being 25MPH when flashing on a 25
street.
9. Hinesburg Road Speed Limit Review Request – Bob (7:45 PM)
a. Bob read detailed resolution they would like:
6
A. Resolved, that the South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee is recommending
that the South Burlington City Council approve a resolution asking for City Staff to reach out
again to VTrans asking to reduce the posted speed limit to 35mph on Hinesburg Road (State
Route 116) from just south of Nadeau Crest Drive (the new Edgewood development) north to just
prior to the I-89 overpass where the speed limit is already 35mph, and to ask the City’s legislative
delegation for assistance in this matter, if needed.
b. Erica noted process. DPW would make memo. Jesse would put forward.
c. Amanda – Initial questioned this would be necessary to get city staff to talk with VTrans. Not helpful to
have legislative delegation involved at this time. Want to have more context sensitive discussions on
Hinesburg. Think it escalates too much. Don’t see how we have effectively tried to have conversation.
d. Bob discussed with Thomas Chittenden at a recent SBBA meeting about having the City re-ask VTrans as
a first step.
e. Amanda – How are we tackling this? What is the tone we want. Definitely a priority but what is end goal.
f. Doug – Part of opinion piece was about the ask. Wanting it to be more about having Cities have more
autonomy. Its our town.
g. Amanda – Would likely abstain from these conversations because this feels like the last step. Know that
CCRPC are having speed discussions. Maybe it could be recommend what understanding and
collaborating in the county.
h. Bob – Happy to amend
i. Nic – We did get some flat faced no when we asked last time.
j. Amanda – Seems like we didn’t pursue having a more collaborative process.
k. Nic would like to see this resolution be more about the entire corridor, not just 35 in a section. And to
allow more autonomy.
l. Doug – How about inviting VTrans to the table.
m. Mark is asking if it’s the Bike Ped Committee’s role or larger than that since it’s a vehicle speed limit.
Should VTrans talk to Council?
n. Amanda – As a recommendation it would be good. But do we have the bigger conversation first.
o. Doug – Is outraged about a death and nothing happening. Speed is a factor there with the high
percentiles.
p. Amanda – Just by lowering the speed limit it won’t change the speeds. Need to do other things. Could
we make it a class 1 road. Having the I-89 bridge is a factor likely but we need to look at the bigger
picture. What do we need to do to make it a staff priority. Legislature could put pressure on context
sensitive policies.
q. Nic thinks that staff are making it a priority but haven’t gotten very far.
r. Erica – Different discussions for different things. Paving, striping, request form prior to paving.
Hinesburg and Market intersection. Taking over road is not possible due to the I-89 bridge. She has
conversations with them a lot about traffic calming measures, etc.
s. Donna – Example in Jericho on how they managed to get a 35MPH on Browns Trace. They seemed to
signoff on it even though the speed was 50. By school and need to do speed targets.
t. Amanda would like to do a recommendation to City Council to have staff do more assessment. Not sure
what the ask is?
u. Donna – What about a UPWP to talk about what changes could be done at Hinesburg Rd for traffic
calming.
v. The resolution was tabled until the following Meeting.
7
w. Nic still thinks that lowering the speed limit north of Tilley is still important based on O’Brien Farm
coming online. Seems like we still need to discuss further.
x. Erica asked if Safety Group could discuss more.
10. Confirm December 13, 2023 Meeting
a. May need to discuss if a day change may be needed due to City Council liaison (Andrew Chalnick)
conflicts with Energy Committee, whom he is also liaison to, on the same evening.
b. Amanda out, Doug Zoom, Donna would be traveling. Would still have quorum. Meeting date not
changed, time to be set sooner to meeting date.
c. Ryan – Value having Andrew here, especially for speed discussion. Could be good to accommodate his
schedule.
d. Nic – Could ask to have speed discussion at start of agenda so we can ask Andrew to join for first hour
before Energy Committee
e. Have a traffic request next meeting.
11. Adjourned 8:35 PM