- We'll call this meeting to order. This is the April meeting of the Bloomington Transportation Commission.
- Can we please have a call of the roll? OK, now. Coppock? Still here. Thank you. Connell? Binder? Here.
- Volin? Volin, that's here. I'm here. Drumme? Faraday? Here.
- Davis? Here. Skursko? She's out. And then Strasburg. Strasburg, here. OK, looks like we have a quorum
- in chambers. Here is a brief review of our agenda for this regular hearing. We'll hear reports
- and communications from commissioners and from staff, including an administrative update, an update
- on 180-day orders,
- an update on the ADA transportation plan, an update on the parking study status, and an update on the
- North Walnut Street project. We'll then hear cases, including TCP 2610, a corridor study for Indiana
- Avenue, Smith to 10th. Scroll further down here. Also, TCR 2611, Title 15 amendments, including the
- subdivision atlas on 17th.
- And then we'll have discussions, staff proposals, general public comment, et cetera. And we'll adjourn
- a discussion that would be of topics that are not already on the docket. Let us start now with we have
- no minutes for approval prepared this month. So let's go straight to reports from commissioners. Is
- there a commissioner who has a report to my left, to my right?
- Online Okay, we commissioners shouldn't be shy to to weigh in just briefly want to say that I want to
- say thanks to Jackie Scanlon in the planning transportation department for repairing the parking Commission
- page, even though the Commission is Defunct there's still relevant materials on it and it had some missing
- links and between
- Jackie Scanlon and Iris Bull they got it fixed this afternoon and it's want to say I'm appreciative
- of it. Okay. With that we go now to reports and communication or communication from staff. Let's start
- with an administrative update. Iris Bull. Thank you. The administrative update has three components.
- The first is just to report on a change that everybody voted on.
- TCR 2609 Where we updated the commission calendar to reflect that there will be no scheduled regular
- hearing for August at this time And as a general reminder reminder related to the calendar there are
- two different places on the Commission's website where the calendar is accessible and I've shared detailed
- instructions in the staff memo on how you can add that calendar to your own
- Google Drive account so that it's a little easier to access. But you can also see upcoming meeting dates
- on our main page on the sidebar on the right hand side. And if you have any questions related to accessing
- commission documents and and the like please feel free to email the commission at commission
- dot transportation dot commission at Bloomington dot i n dot g o v.
- A more substantive update is on changes that are occurring at the city level with respect to document
- accessibility. Over the last six months staff in the city of Bloomington ITS department have guided
- and implemented a variety of updates to administrative policies applications and procedures across the
- city. These updates have been necessary to ensure the city's resources will be compliant with federal
- requirements around the Americans with the Disabilities Act.
- which were scheduled to take effect April 24th, 2026 for government agencies serving 50,000 or more
- persons. These guidelines require that all city maintain documents created or utilized as part of regular
- business meet WCAG 2.1 level AA technical standards when those resources are shared or accessible through
- websites and mobile apps. Given the scale of operations affected by these guidelines and in anticipation
- of the inevitable update to this standard,
- ITS staff adopted WCAG 2.2 standards as a compliance baseline. And typically, staff would not report
- on the status of an administrative project like this because complying with federal standards is simply
- a part of routine business. In theory, we're not talking about something new. This legal requirement
- has sort of been in development since 2010. In practice, however, I've observed a wide range of reactions
- and experiences to the change in standards this year.
- and improving the accessibility of documents and resources necessary for full participation in civic
- society is an undeniably positive feature of the compliance standards. At this time, the training and
- technical literacy required to consistently and reliably meet the standard has meant in many cases a
- radical change the way staff complete their work on a day to day basis.
- The scale and nature of some of the implemented changes will impact residents and commissioners. Some
- may observe that in the coming year, for example, city staff may become reluctant to share or send PDFs
- via email boards and commissions. Liaisons will no longer distribute meeting materials via a sort of
- mega PDF and public records requests will no longer disperse PDF documents to the public by default.
- Some of these changes may be subject to revision while others may not.
- PDFs in particular create significant barriers to WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 compliance standards in order to
- make continued progress on the improvement of city policies and Procedures those of us who serve as
- digital document stewards for the city will need to become more adept at navigating and explaining the
- common knowledge gap that exists around screen reader accessible document creation and management
- Until April 17th 2026 staff were operating under the assumption that all packet materials for this meeting
- needed to meet the minimum compliance standards set up by WCAG 2.2 but later in the day on the 17th
- an announcement from the Justice Department signaled reconsideration of their implementation deadline.
- They pushed out the compliance deadline for one year.
- So practically speaking, this has alleviated some of the immediate urgency with which staff were moving
- to implement all plan policy and procedural changes related to achieving compliance. However, it hasn't
- changed the direction staff intend to go with respect to document preparation and management for the
- Transportation Commission.
- inevitably staff must abandon the preferred established practice of assembling all documents into a
- single PDF document for public review as There's simply no feasible way to do this in a way that meets
- WCAG 2.1 or 2.2 standards as staff works towards Standardizing an alternative document linking system.
- We welcome commissioners and public feedback on how to improve the process And then finally
- There is a section in here conflict of interest disclosure forms. The deputy clerk of communications
- and outreach Jennifer Crossley has requested all staff liaisons to direct all boards and commissions
- members to fill out the 2026 conflict of interest questionnaire form online with the expectation that
- members will complete this task by the next scheduled meeting. In this case commissioners will have
- until May 18th to complete the form.
- The city of Bloomington legal department will be reviewing form submissions to determine if appointees
- need to complete another state mandated form. And if you have any questions about the questionnaire
- you can direct them to crossly directly. And I've provided her contact information and I'll take any
- comments or questions at this time. Thank you for that report. Are there any comments or questions from
- members about administrative schedules document accessibility changes or conflict of interest disclosure
- forms on my left.
- On my right. Online. I can't see Ms. Davis to see whether or not she's got her hand raised. OK. I do
- have one question about the document accessibility forms. So if PDFs aren't compliant, what kind of
- documents are compliant? Are Word documents or text files, what's compliant?
- That's a great question. Technically speaking compliance is something that's achieved by in terms of
- how the document is prepared dictates whether or not is compliant. So the format itself won't determine
- compliance. It's how well the resources utilized with a specific application
- will make it compliant. So yes, Word documents can be compliant, but Word documents can also not be
- compliant if you don't use all of the features in them appropriately. So for example, a very common
- practice is to make a bullet list in a Word document by just hitting the line on the keyboard, and then
- hitting Tab, and then manually typing it in. And instead, you should be using the list function
- built into the program what's happening on the behind the scenes is that you're creating metadata that
- a screen reader can actually pick up on and utilize to direct the experience appropriately for someone
- who's using a screen reader. Without that documents just become walls of overwhelming text and noise
- that are generally not considered compliant. So if a member of the public sends the commission a handwritten letter
- Does someone have to type it in for it to become accessible? It can't simply be scanned and attached
- as part of a question So when the time comes there will be a provision sort of carved out for third-party
- documents That may be something that the Commission Liaisons don't need to do anything for it's sort
- of an open question at what point do we need to remediate documents presented to staff and
- My hope and assumption is that so long as folks are sending us digital documents, it is a trivial exercise
- to make them screen reader accessible and to preserve them that way. If they provide us with something
- handwritten, that's actually harder because when we scan them, they are scanned and sent to us as PDFs
- from the copier. That's just a, yeah. Is it also safe to assume that any petitions coming before us are
- Already screen-readable like they're already being prepared in this format. Yeah Yeah, all of the case
- documents that we've prepared that said because the of the deadline extension And for my own sanity,
- I didn't push myself too hard this month, especially this month. I just meant in general I just did
- yeah in general it
- In theory, staff liaisons should not be accepting any documents from staff that are not already compliant.
- It is not the liaison's responsibility to create a compliant document. I believe that's the equivalent
- of shots fired there, Mr. Seaborg. I just thought you should note that. All right. Thank you very much
- for those answers. And I look forward to seeing what I mean. I guess we're not going to have packets
- anymore. We won't have packets and genuinely I had hoped to
- Perhaps be able to prepare something in advance for commissioners, but I have too many limitations on
- my time. It wasn't something I could. But it is safe to assume that every document linked to in an agenda
- is being preserved in a separate place on the city file server. Yes. So part of the process here involved
- ITS creating a special shared Google Drive where it is sharing management permissions.
- For all boards and commissions, so for Transportation Commission, we were already sort of doing this
- on the back end in terms of document preparation and management So it's for us. It looks a little more
- like just copying and pasting and moving things over when they're ready for other boards and commissions
- This is a much more significant update. They weren't doing anything close to what we were doing Okay.
- Well, thank you for staying on top of the technological curve for us
- Let's move on now to 180-day order update. Andrew Seabor, Director of Engineering. Hello. Hi, good evening.
- Just providing my monthly update on 180-day orders. Since our last meeting, four orders have been extended.
- No new orders have been issued. Pending one discussion topic on your agenda
- Later today about the atlas on 17th subdivision. There may be another 180 new one issued in the coming
- month There is a similar one to that related to a relatively new subdivision close to summit elementary
- that may also be issued Between now and your next meeting but just giving you a preview of what might
- be coming But right now with these are just re issuance of prior orders and I'm happy to answer any
- questions you have about them
- Any questions for staff on 180 D orders to my right? Mr. Flaherty Thanks. I just my ongoing structural
- question about Whether or not there is clarity in the administration specifically the legal department
- About how to handle 180 orders. So you sent out an email update recently and I think was a bunch of
- renewals So we're sort of as we don't result as we fail to resolve this question the sort of number
- of 180 orders grows we keep renewing more and more that's
- Clearly not, you know the the intent for how them they're supposed to be used. So any any updates on
- Timelines how to resolve a fair question. I don't have any significant New information to share from
- your question last month. I Guess an honest question. Maybe we can connect offline is I understand council
- has a attorney at least on call or that
- The next step in my mind was having counsel's attorney and administration legal team work together on
- this topic And I for my sake I would love for that to happen. Yeah that occurred to me, too So I guess
- is it still the position of Corporation Council? That the things that are covered by 180-day orders
- Are not the council's purview at all That is my understanding. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm
- Questions to my left for mr. Seaboard online is Davis Okay The only question I have is in the agenda
- the several items that are Listed under hundred-day orders. These are all existing ones that just happen
- to be being linked to they're not actually on the agenda is that In other words if they're
- the agenda are we supposed to Hear about them or did we already hear about them the ones that I renewed
- you've already heard about I'm happy to give a summary of them again But they are just the memo and
- then just copies of the extended orders for your reference Well, I'm just thinking that for the sake
- of clarity that in the future perhaps items that have already been presented to the Commission Just
- don't get listed here there because they're already in the staff memo you linked to them
- in the staff memo and that way we don't have to worry about voting on each one. That is a reasonable
- suggestion. I believe that in this version of the template so to speak for the agenda this is sort of
- like standard practice for just listing all possible like attachments with a specific item. But I recognize
- that the agenda starts looking really long.
- It's not even that it's that if it's on the agenda we have to do something about it and now I granted
- this is a just an update but it might in the future if you take those four items and just link them
- in the staff memo only the new ones should be the ones that we become unless there's something here
- that we're supposed to vote on that it's coming back for a second hearing suit I mean
- I see what you're saying something we can consider going forward and just also a general note about
- things that would be in this part of the agenda Are just reports and not things I would expect the Commission
- to have to take action. Okay. Thank you Let's move on now to the ADA transportation plan. I believe
- this is mr. Shermus Hi, good evening, my name is Michael service and on the liaison for the Council
- for Community Accessibility
- and the Bloomington Monroe County Human Rights Commission. So every two years we do an ADA transition
- plan. For those who don't know, entities of over 50 people need to show how they are making
- their organization more accessible, accessible in general. And so,
- We agreed that would be the ADA coordinator, which I also am and the department relevant departments
- like engineer planning parks public works Who provide the data for part of this report that we will
- do this every two years? So I've this is my third version of this part of that had been many years before
- it had been done and each year we
- acquire the data from the relevant departments and update that data and let people know as well what
- we're doing to change attitudes and make more people aware of all of the issues that are out there with
- lack of accessibility. And so we've been working on this. It's now considered in a draft form
- And have have been passed out to the Council for Community Accessibility for a public review that just
- happened this afternoon So happened that your commission was the other place where it happens in the
- past It was pedestrian and bike and the Traffic Commission. So you get that now is also your duty to
- do public comment and then we also send a press release out and announce it to the general public for
- any input and put it the library and all of that and
- In an effort to make sure that yes We're trying to cover all of the things that are needed to show that
- we are trying to become more accessible so this is your opportunity to let me know of any kind of Changes
- or feedback that you have on the plan that got sent out to you earlier. I will tell you there was
- One error that we caught today, it's kind of ironic that it was caught because we were attempting to
- ensure that the document itself was accessible. And as people may be aware, as Iris said, it takes a
- lot more staff time to do this. And for a larger document with tables and charts, it becomes even, I
- don't wanna use the word nightmare, but it becomes pretty difficult to be able to get it as accessible
- as you need.
- And we made a small error while we were struggling with one of the tables and apparently along the way
- grabbed some of the data from an older table that had estimates in it as opposed to the actual figures.
- So this is a corrected version of that that has the actual figures in it as opposed to a couple of the
- estimates. And so it just minor changes. So that's all, but we wanted you to have the very final version of that.
- With that I would take any questions if you have any concerns or issues you want to know more about
- Questions for the ADA transition plan. Let's start online Miss Davis you had any I Do not I am familiar
- with it and Am very appreciative of it Very good. Let's go now to in the room to my right and
- To my left. Um, I do have one question. I'm looking at the memo. I don't see a link to the plan. It
- says that it's now available for public review. Is this supposed to be linked to in this memo in the
- memo? Wait a minute. I might be confused. I saw it's attached below that. Okay. My bad. Here it is.
- Okay. Nevermind. Okay. That was easy. Uh, so it's still getting used to not everything being not in
- one packet.
- All right. Question, Mr. Flaherty. Yeah, first, thank you. And just kudos for the third edition that
- you've worked on of this plan. I enjoyed reviewing it. I appreciate the recent creation of the Snow
- Buddies program to help folks who may have difficulty clearing their sidewalks in the event of snow
- to partner with a neighbor or another volunteer to be able to do that. I think that's really terrific.
- And so first, just
- the question of how that's going and yeah, just like what our experience is to date. But then second,
- it reminded me that there was a related accessibility issue with snow that I don't believe was really
- covered in the plan. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Maybe very briefly in one place. But it was a
- really, really significant accessibility challenge in the couple of larger snowstorms we had this
- this year, as you're surely aware, and we've experienced similar in the past. The council is hosting
- a deliberation session in May that we intend to invite some different stakeholders, including Council
- for Community Accessibility, this commission, and others to join to try to work on that. But does that
- deserve more, I guess, attention in this report, like that issue and the need to address it and the
- gaps we face there? So two questions. One is, how's nobody's going? Second,
- What about snow and accessibility more broadly in its role or place in this plan? Well, I'll take the
- tougher question first. So as people are probably aware, these snowstorms were pretty significant in
- the sheer quantity of snow and the issues that came after those. And in that two, three, four weeks,
- nothing to say about the snow buddies program, we experienced a lot of challenges in dealing with the snow.
- There was a lot of snow that got shoved into accessible parking spaces Because of the fact that it snowed
- and warm and then froze There was many places that were just practically impassable that were normally
- would have would not have been an issue But they were hard to be able to break the ice and all that
- stuff like that and
- You know, I almost wish that Adam Wason from the Director of Public Works was here to be able to respond
- to that because he is much more qualified to tell you about all of the challenges that they dealt with.
- Essentially, if you want for there to be less problems with accessibility in Snow, it's probably more
- about saying we need to dedicate more money to being able to clear and deal with the issues and challenges that
- large snowfalls like that Means means gonna happen, you know, it's like that's what we got to do so
- I That's I mean I'm one of the people on the front line who got to field a lot of those issues and we
- tried to address them as quick as we possibly could could and I don't know what else because it was
- unusual circumstances and it's not
- Something you you know, here's an accessible problem that becomes an excessive problem later But we
- try as best as we can and so I direct a lot of that to public works In the good answer for the question
- is snow buddies Because of course you'll find that a lot of the complaints that came from around the
- city were for people who were upset about sidewalks not being done in front of houses and so
- You get three or four that have been done and then one that hasn't, and three or four that done and
- one that hasn't, and the issues of snow plows that come through and shove a lot of the snow right into
- the accessible curb ramp, which of course gets to be really challenging because a lot of people don't
- look upon that as their responsibility because they don't look at it as doing all the snow over to it.
- So not only do we ask for people to volunteer, for people who are disabled or elderly to come and do
- snow removal in front of people's houses who can't do it, we also ask for people to volunteer to do
- accessible curb ramps around spots near where they live. So if they don't have somebody that's close
- to them that they're helping, they could do all the curb ramps as much as they can. The Snow Buddies
- program has two, three dozen, well maybe more, four or five dozen
- Volunteers and they're all matched with all sorts of people all over. We sometimes have certain neighborhoods
- that don't Have as many volunteers around them. We work as best as we can to try to address that and
- staff was out Digging stuff ourselves all the time, too. So it's a great program though. I'm really
- happy we got it. Thank you Mr. Seward is just only to add to that Yeah, just just to note that this
- past January I think after some of the snow
- I reached out to the US access board part of the Department of Justice and specifically the the person
- there that focuses on the transportation and public right-of-way to inquire just about Any guidance
- or standards that they have as it relates to events like snowstorms? and and basically the response
- I got is that a lot of their guidance deals with more like how things are built how they're constructed and
- That they don't have explicit guidance or policies regarding things like snow events and how it impacts
- the sidewalk system a specific couple things I might just read here is that the regulations do not however
- prohibit isolated or temporary interruptions in service or access due to maintenance snow removal would
- fall into that category and
- And so just basically making sure we're not making it more burdensome For people with disabilities,
- but just to say that we I did personally reach out to them Just to see if there was specific guidance
- and there really isn't any related to snow specifically Seems like a gap there, too. Thank you Further
- questions from commissioners for mr. Sherman's on the ADA transportation plan to my left
- I do have a question that's also not in the memo. What's the deadline for submitting comments on the
- plan? I think it's three weeks. It's about three weeks. It'll be in the public press release as well.
- I forgot the exact date. I'm sorry. And by the way, the reason for that timeline to be compressed and
- get the feedback in about three weeks is that we need to turn it around and then get it to the City
- Council, because the City Council does actually vote on it.
- Working on this plan. So I just want you to know that as well So I assume that it's going to be voted
- on before council recess in June. Is that the idea? Yeah, it's always a question and we sort of want
- to wait to get it done before we turn it over to them and say here it is Get this on your schedule as
- soon as you can because we were waiting for that. So well, that's the only date to be determined Okay
- Thank you very much. Thank you Yeah
- It's just a reminder to everyone. Please comment on the ADA transportation plan before mid-may Let's
- move on now to the parking study status update who is here to present Ms. Wall I see in the audience
- Hello, hello My name is Michelle wall. I'm the parking service director for the city of Bloomington and
- I'm here today to present the Walker recommendation report and I will just need access to share my screen.
- for just a moment. It's not, it's not letting me at this. That's a cute kitty parked there on our screen.
- Perhaps we could have another report while we're getting a technical difficulty solved or.
- Oh good. All right. I apologize. So this is the Walker parking rate study and comprehensive review and
- this is Walker's recommendation. So so far you've received the Walker report and the parking study on
- I believe it was April 17th. Iris got it sent out and there was a Google form for all the comments.
- I actually did not get any comments. So at this point I'll go ahead with the presentation.
- Tonight transportation commission is in receipt of the parking rate study and comprehensive review There's
- no resolution or action to be taken on any of the specific items from the report this evening The task
- Completed in 2025 was existing conditions financial review stakeholder engagement peer
- comparisons, which is benchmarking, organizational and policy evaluation, operations and technology,
- communication, branding and wayfinding, recommendations, and then the implementation of the action plan.
- Some of the takeaways of the Walker rate study and review is on straight rates are too low for turnover,
- which then correlates to the garages being too low, outdated parking technology,
- inconsistent wayfinding, and need for transparency. Walker broke this up in four categories, organization,
- policy, operations and technology, communication, branding, and wayfinding. Under organizations, they
- listed three recommendations, centralized citation appeals within parking services, establish a clear
- parking services mission statement,
- and then data driven operations with transparent key performance indicators. The next is policy. Their
- three recommendations is implement zone based on street parking rates set rates for high and low areas
- then adjust this off street parking rates to align rates with demand and operation and lastly reduce
- pay to parking enforcement hours limit on street enforcement times.
- Here is a table. I've listed here of the 10-year rate changes for on-street and surface lots the core
- zones Which was highlighted in in the present in the actual? report Was the high demand area for the
- first three years would be a dollar fifty the next three a dollar seventy five and so on the low demand
- areas 125 for the first three years and so on and
- The next table to the right and orange is the garage hourly recommendation from Walker and the lost
- ticket fees The next slide is about operations to technologies walker listed three recommendations transition
- to a multiple paint multi space meter pay station using pay-by-plate for on-street parking
- upgrade and in for upgrade enforcement to LPR which is mobile license plate recognition technology to
- move to fully digital permits and Lastly replace existing off-street gate parking equipment Last category
- was communication branding and wayfinding they Walker suggested to create a and recommended to create
- a recognizable city parking system logo and brand identity and
- Next is develop and launch an ongoing parking and system communication and marketing campaign And lastly
- to install informational signage at key locations Next steps Walker consultants will be here to present
- report and the report findings to City Council that date is yet to be determined hopefully in May maybe
- June before they break up for the summer the next is the in
- input from various stakeholder groups will have focus groups and stakeholder groups along with administration
- will be Will be collected to guide decisions on which rate and policy recommendations should be approved
- for changes All these revised recommendations will then will propose to title 15 code changes will then
- come back and present to the Transportation Commission and then the final recommendations will then
- with the title 15 code changes will be a
- presented to City Council for approval Lastly then the plan can be implemented So Bloomington now has
- the opportunity to transfer parking from a simple utility and strategic community access that's by financial
- health wayfinding improving our technology and
- Making sure that we have a vibrant downtown by investing wisely and building trust We can create a parking
- system that enhances the accessibility boost our city's vitality and delivers real benefit for the entire
- community Thank you Thanks for the presentation you bet are there questions from commissioners about
- the presentation on my left On my right, mr. Flaherty
- Yeah, thank you one question. I was just reviewing the the Commission's purview In the context of parking
- to and seeking to better understand how these things fit together So the Commission is is charged with
- producing or overseeing an annual analysis of parking asset management That includes but is not limited
- to reporting all costs and revenues for city-owned structured parking surface parking meter parking
- neighborhood parking documenting parking utilization rates and longitudinal trends of those rates and
- Conducting or contracting for parking data analytics and recommending changes to the parking system
- necessary to advance the goals of the comprehensive plan and other applicable city plans And so I guess
- my question is Is this report? Meant to satisfy that is it distinct from that and something so that's
- sort of like a less frequent type of review and proposed changes and
- That would be complemented by annual reporting that actually looks at things like utilization rates,
- etc How does fit together in your mind? So in my mind is this is just the beginning. This is the beginning
- and this report Itself contains really important information But at the same time it does not give you
- the full preview that you're asking for So this is a building block to get to get to that and it depends
- also on the park tech
- technology we agree on that will give us the occupancy and the things that Since we've come from Parking
- Commission to the Transportation Commission which which have been asked for mm-hmm got it, so this is
- more like a Foundational report lays the groundwork on which the annual reporting can be built. That's
- correct. Okay. Thank you Online
- Ms. Davis, you have any questions? I can't see her, so... Okay, I'll just assume that's no, but get
- our attention if you do. No. Okay, thank you. First question, can you, Ms. Wall for me, can you please
- send those slides to Iris Bull so that they can be added to the agenda? I sure can. Okay. Does your,
- Presentation imply that you Michelle wall and the parking services division Endorses the findings of
- the Walker study Because it seems like you're I mean you're not they're not presenting it you are correct
- because I've already presented and your your slides are saying Recommending the recommendations as though
- these are the ones that you're going to make well, they are What this is is we gave you the report
- That report I'm doing a summary of that report for them. They've already been here once that was contractual
- and then they the other The other meeting is for counsel that we put in the RFP. So they're meeting
- that obligation Just to be clear. Yeah, just be clear This is not constitute an endorsement of all the
- findings in the report presenting you their their recommendations Do you have any initial thoughts about?
- Findings anything you agree with or disagree with I agree with a lot and I don't I don't I don't agree
- with some of them so I'm not here to Discuss that tonight because I think it has it takes more than
- me. It's going to take public comment It's going to take the big lift from the Transportation Commission.
- It's going to be administration. It's going to be stakeholders It's going to be businesses. Everybody
- needs a voice in this Okay
- I know that the production of this report was delayed by, uh, you know, personal problems at Walker.
- Um, what is the remainder of the timeline for the production of this report? Like when are the next
- steps going to happen? This is their final report. But, uh, uh, this is their final recommendation to
- us. We will take the feedback.
- And we will regroup with the working group that I shared before and see if there's going to be any any
- changes to that. I'm sorry though the report says quite clearly that they have a whole lot of data left
- to produce. That's not in this report. What's in this report as a denda are the questionnaires asked.
- But I mean I can pull up the part where it says that but I'm not sure what you're seeing. Well I'm sorry.
- Let me see if I can find it.
- They say in this report that let me go back to the beginning here This document serves as a summary
- this is in the purpose this document serves as a summary focusing on the findings and recommendations
- full details and additional information will be provided in the full report and
- That is the full report. That's the executive report, the executive summary you're reading. The full
- report is behind it. Okay. So, so for example, then the data about revenues from the parking system,
- they are bare bones at most. We did not ask for a financial analysis in this report. This is a foundational
- report, as we said before,
- That's not clear from the way that the report is is written. I will share that with them Is there going
- to be any revision of the report based on? Comments from the Transportation Commission. Yeah, I need
- comments and that's why I shared Irish shared the Google sheet. I need comments back Okay, so you're
- saying that the comments we're making here knock I mean you we're only you're only going to share comments
- that we submit via the Google form and
- Anything anything documented in this meeting sure Okay Did you have a question? All right Mr. Flaherty
- Yeah one just a it's helpful some of the clarifying questions to me I So you mentioned that Walker will
- present to the City Council when it hears their report or sees it Will that be at the same time as the
- title 15? No, okay
- Just like I'm providing you a summary of this report Walker has one more session while they'll do the
- same for them. Got it I'm just doing it on their behalf Great. And and while this conversation is helpful
- certainly what what? Would be most helpful by way of giving additional like detailed feedback to you
- And and on what timeline I guess Just personally
- you know, with the fact of coming out last week, and I was on vacation, I just had a time for a deep
- read, and I'd love to, and one recommendation that struck me as a little odd was, I agree in principle
- with the high demand, low demand, price dynamic pricing, or pricing differential, but a one quarter
- an hour difference seems too little to me, for instance. So that's just one example of some feedback
- I would probably give. What's a good process to do that? The Google sheet that I sent out.
- Yeah thank you. It lists everything and it's in a straight form and it comes from you and it goes. I
- will send it straight to them. I will of course read them all but I will send it to Walker as well for
- clarification. I will point out on that form it doesn't ask for like personal identifying information
- if you wanted to provide feedback anonymously you could do it as well. There are just
- Fields that you can use to your heart's content and you know in a whatever creative fashion you'd like
- and if that's insufficient you more than welcome to Email those comments and feedback to us directly.
- We'll make sure that Michelle gets it Got it So I see that I'm looking at the email and it says that
- ideally to share about you know in advance of this meeting It's fine
- I get a cheat cuz I want City Council to so if we get to get feedback from there I'll use that one but
- It's okay if we then say like the next week or so folks are able to submit comments. Okay. Absolutely.
- Yeah I've got some more questions as nobody else does. Okay. Let me see here. So In the staff memo attached
- to this you write of quote balancing customer convenience and
- and long term sustainability and fairness. Is that the division's policy of equating sustainability
- with customer convenience. It's in our action plan. It's in our climate action plan. We were linking
- all of these items to our comprehensive plan our climate action plan.
- Any of the plans that I shared, you guys shared with me that you wanted me to share with Walker, all
- of that is comprehensive. All of that is going to be considered. Okay. I'm going to want to find where
- in the comprehensive plan it says that those two things should be equal. But, uh, in the climate action
- plan, cause I don't think it's what it says. Um, did, uh, the parking services division take into account
- the parking commission's comprehensive policy?
- when it was developing the the spec for this report. Yes it knew it was in the Walker I shared with
- Walker that it was in transition and I gave him the parking commission purpose and all those documents
- that we were you were doing at the end of the closing of the commission. And then what is the expectation
- of this commission.
- I gave them both of those documents as guidelines. Okay. So they received them, but there was no reflection
- of the commission's documents in their work or mention of the commission. Um, which commission, the
- parking commission, this commission didn't exist yet, but their parking commissions, comprehensive policy
- was an extant document that I assume you gave them. I will have to review the document. I gave it to
- them. I have to again, review the, review the document and see if it's, if any of it's listed. I know
- they were focusing on the transition.
- Okay. Um, I do have some concern about specific data on pages 23 through 25 on the garage data. Um,
- it says that average utilization across all locations ranged from 34 to 54% on page 23, but the table
- clearly says that, uh, that was peak data, that average data I had to do the math was as high as 41%
- at Morton during the day and as low as 13% in trades at night.
- Yeah, that need to be added to the Google Doc and I'll have them review that I'm sorry what that will
- need to be added as a comment to the Google Doc and I'll be glad to address that with Walker Okay, will
- Walker correct the report if they've made if it is if it's deemed incorrect by them. Yes Okay, and if
- it's deemed incorrect by the rest of us and they don't think it's no they they will of course Steve
- they're gonna consider your your comments and your feedback and if they need to make it more clear
- They'll be able to do that. Okay I'll just point out since I'm on the topic that on page 24 there's
- another reference to average day and then that refers to peak data. I can't tell if table four is showing
- peak data because it's not clear how different tables four and five different from table three. And
- also I was stunned to read this on page 26. It says parking utilization for on street parking and surface lots.
- is difficult to determine as payments can be made at the meter or on park mobile by zone rather than
- by individual space. Our analysis of this data excludes park mobile sessions as those are zone-based
- and not tied to an individual meter. Why was that so hard for Walker to do, to aggregate park mobile
- data with meter data?
- Because there there is no way to give you true occupancy of that space. There's no way sorry to give
- you true occupancy of that space. I don't understand why not. I mean if the park mobile is showing that
- a space is being paid for right. But then somebody else could go ahead and park there and they haven't
- been they don't pay it and they pay it after extension. There's a lot of reasons why you can't get true
- occupancy.
- What difference does it make I mean you're paying you still have an indication of usage you still have
- an indication but it's not true usage because let's say you come from it's allowed here to Start a session
- in a certain zone and go to multiple zones As long as you're paid you're paid by the license plate.
- You're not paid by zone. We don't track it that way and
- Do you see this image here on screen? This is from the 2018 parking commission report and while you
- may not be able to get pinpoint accuracy as to whether a car is in the space or not, what we I would
- think would care about would be dollars received because that's as good an indication as any
- short of putting sensors in parking spaces. And the reason I call your attention to this chart now is
- that from the 2018 report, we can already see a very significant trend from 2016 to 2018. Usage of the
- app of ParkMobile was 13% of all revenue at meters in 2017. It had increased to 18% by 2018. I would
- be dumbfounded if
- Usage of the app as a portion of all usage did not exceed 40% by now but if it's still certainly going
- to be significant and Walker didn't study it at all didn't even report the amount of data or the amount
- of Revenue brought in by parkmobile. I mean, why can't we use that? Why couldn't it have been a separate
- table? You're more than welcome to use that form Steve. I can address that with them. I'll be glad to
- that's disappointing. All right
- Well, there's more I guess my alternative is to use the form but I'm just gonna say the the parking
- commission had not was not consulted on the development of the The RFP for this Report and I think you
- can see that we might have asked for some more detail here Do you think that there is going to be an
- opportunity for Walker to do anything?
- To add any more detail than they already have or they're simply going to correct Errors that that may
- be pointed out to them The only thing I can do is take your feedback back and and work with Walker and
- let let you guys know Okay. Thank you. Any further questions from members on the report? Mr. Flaherty
- questions or comments either Comments
- Just briefly, thank you for your work on this and I look forward to hearing the recommendations and
- I think I would be interested for the Commission in its work going forward to work to find alignment
- on its purview and what we anticipate reporting on annually. I know this was started before the Commission
- existed as noted, but yeah, making sure that we're getting in sync on, okay, here's the baseline. What
- do we have that we're gonna be able to build on? Are there any things that are missing?
- things like, you know, utilization, other technology changes that we need to enable that, all that.
- My vision and hope is that we arrive at a place where we have a clear set of metrics that we are measuring
- and making informed decisions based on and that we're all on the same page. Totally agree. Thank you.
- I hope to partner with you. Any other comments from members? Last question I guess I have is, again,
- what is the
- deadline for submitting comments I'd say probably another two weeks. I mean, that's fine. I'll give
- you another two weeks Okay, so May 11th Monday, May 11th Monday, May 11th. All right comments are open
- till Monday, May 11th on the Walker report is presented. Thank you so much for making the presentation.
- Thank you look forward to seeing it the final draft Let's move on now to the next item
- I have lost track of We're looking at the North Walnut Street project update who's here to present on
- North Walnut Street I'm sorry. I did I didn't have any public comment on report. Madam clerk.
- Did you I? City clerk Nicole Bolden was here and I meant to ask her for her opinion on the report Do
- you have time to make a comment?
- Your city staff as well All right, I Knew there was somebody I forgot to call on Good evening commissioners
- city clerk Nicole Bolden and I would actually ask Ms. Wall if she'd be willing to share the Google form
- that you shared with commissioners for clerk staff, they have some input on Some of the data that was
- reported in the Walker report that was at
- That was incorrect. So we'd like to make sure that they have an opportunity to correct it before it
- comes before council so we don't have to do it in front of council as well. That said we did review
- the report in the clerk's office with an eye toward the recommendations as it impacted the clerk's office.
- Our assessment was that while this was definitely heavy in terms of community review and input and
- Benchmarking with other pure cities it was lacking in some hard data or context for the data that was
- reported for example Some of the numbers that were provided related to appeals was incorrect So some
- of the numbers were either inflated or not reported it reported Partial data if you're seeing appeal
- data, but you're not seeing void data as well that actually ends up and impacting the numbers of citations
- that are being voided or dismissed through the city and
- Sometimes there are large numbers of voids that are done due to officer error Some of them are done
- due to user error and we have seen an increase of those over the last few years Since park mobile was
- installed with the city in 2020 We've definitely seen an uptick in some of those dismissals where people
- just mistakes if systems are down You see more dismissals if there are errors made on a broad scale.
- You see large lumps of those things done so
- Part of what we do in our office is we don't only track you know reviewing parking citation appeals
- for errors but we look for trends in parking enforcement and signage as well. So a lot of the things
- that we see that come out of the office are tracked and communicated to the appropriate departments
- including parking streets or whatever. So I'm concerned overall with the report because it seems
- to be lacking and I was really happy to hear Ms Wall say that she agreed with Mr Flaherty's desire to
- have metrics and numbers that we're all agreeing on because right now that's not what's in place and
- I'm happy to answer any questions about appeals or some of the data. And if you don't know them right
- now we're available. So.
- Well, we do have two more weeks for comments to be open that people can certainly submit. But while
- this other city staff is here, is there any other questions from commissioners on the report for the
- clerk? Seeing none. Thank you for that last minute input. Sorry to forget that. Thanks to parking staff
- for staying for that extra input. Um, if there's no other objection, we'll go on to the North Walnut
- Street project update.
- Again, Andrew Seaborg is providing an update Last year you received was I think an inquiry but also
- we discussed the resurfacing project where we made some changes to North Walnut Street north of the
- bypass and Most of our discussion was focused on the area of the Blue Ridge intersection But just wanted
- to come to you and share the sort of before and after speed data snapshot and
- So we are comparing traffic counts and speed data from 2024 with 2026 data And we're really looking
- at traffic entering the intersection the intersection being the Blue Ridge entrance So if you just really
- briefly I'll highlight going northbound where we didn't significantly alter the design There was one
- lane before there remained one lane. There was a bike lane. We've got a buffer bike lane now and
- You can see that before the project, the average northbound speed entering the intersection was about
- 45 miles an hour with an 85th percentile, about 50. After the project, the more recent data shows that
- speeds jumped up about three miles an hour without making meaningful design changes to impact traffic
- going in that direction.
- I think just a hypothesis on what we're seeing there is usually after we resurface roads and the condition
- becomes smoother and more favorable for driving speeds tend to go up and As roads degrade and get more
- bumpy people tend to slow down. So that is likely a factor in that But the real change in the design
- was where we removed the second climbing lane going southbound prior to the project if you remember
- there was two lanes and with the after the project there's just one lane with a turn lane into
- the neighborhood and
- So before the project the average southbound speed was about 50 miles an hour with an 85th percentile
- 54 Those speeds basically dropped nearly 10 miles an hour after the project so really meaningful difference
- Especially considering that the pavement is also smoother and in better condition. So so very successful
- And we're pleased to see those results still certainly recognize speeds are fast
- But just wanting to highlight that the design change that we intentionally made to address speeding
- Did have a meaningful input and so just just wanted to share that with you And I think we're definitely
- making it a point to highlight the update with the neighborhood who was interested previously But just
- just wanted to share that data with you and happy to answer any questions that you have Thank you for
- the report. Are there questions for mr. Seymour on the North Walnut Street update to my right mr. Mr.
- Binder and
- Just one quick question, which is about the southbound or sorry the northbound Traffic speeds which
- you noted actually did increase by a couple of miles per hour which I think engineering attributes to
- That there were not as like substantive design changes made to the northbound configuration Do you have
- thoughts on? what if any future treatments to the northbound lane configuration might be applied to a
- Because I mean, we're seeing an 85th percentile speed of 53 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour speed
- zone is probably not the outcome that we're looking for. So I guess with the lessons learned from the
- southbound improvement to speed compliance, are there any northbound treatments that you guys are at
- least kind of initially investigating as a result?
- Question too, I guess honestly at this point. This was mostly just a report of what we have found We
- haven't really done a deep dive into what further action we would do here Recognizing there's a lot
- of other streets in the city that also have speeding issues. I Think that it would be hard for us to
- replicate the change of removing a travel lane But I think I know from other discussions I believe we've
- had at this Commission is we are seeming to find
- Some benefit to things like the feedback speed feedback signs that in the past I think I had more of
- an opinion those are effective in the short term and on temporary usages But as we've had a couple deployed
- for longer terms, we're still seeing some success. So tools like that May be useful and certainly also
- continuing to track the
- The state's program of automated speed enforcement. They've got a pilot program where they're able to
- do some automatic speed enforcement on Construction zones on freeways that we're just hoping is successful
- and ultimately becomes something more widespread But that that may be a long-term goal or dream Thank
- you For the questions, mr. Flaherty Yeah, this is
- I'm encouraged by the the improvements southbound as you know, we heard a neighborhood petition around
- this Late last year and we didn't choose to act out of that time in part because we wanted to see how
- some of these improvements were fairing So the question isn't directly on point to these improvements
- but it's related to the safety of the area and and I'm trying to recall among options that were discussed
- at that time was like
- whether or not a pedestrian and bicyclist crossing refuge could occur on North Walnut where Blue Ridge,
- the Blue Ridge neighborhood has that entrance. Was one of the barriers there that there's a drive cut
- on the west side of the street for a business as well? Am I remembering that correctly? That sounds
- right and I guess I don't wanna, I'm not speaking with much confidence right now. I will hold you to
- nothing. I think that would have been a factor and just,
- I guess I'll just leave it there. Okay, I'm just um Just going back to thinking about it and the options
- here to I Having driven by the the area a number of times since we discussed Just recognizing that visit
- Bloomington, which is the business I think that rents that building which might be owned by the county
- government has two entrances and it seems like They're really not necessary and that if closing the
- northern entrance even if we needed to
- acquire right-of-way or whatever that would entail, if that afforded opportunity for future
- safety improvements. Because even with the reduced speeds, which are significant and very helpful, those
- are still our relatively high speeds for someone trying to walk or bike across both directions, the
- lanes from both directions of travel, and especially with some of the sight lines and hill stuff.
- So anyway, just a thought for future is that we could consider that as well if we hadn't previously.
- I know that that's fair. We can certainly consider that more and I do recall a lot of the discussion
- was more about Cyclists trying to cross to get into the southbound bike lane. Mm-hmm There are of course
- no pedestrian facilities on North Walnut in this area I do remember the neighborhood was also particularly
- interested in that northern driveway and trying to get a left turn so closing it would be but that was
- just the Neighborhoods opinion it's on the screen the northern drive cut of the visit Bloomington and
- Facility it matches Blue Ridge and the southern cut is a couple hundred feet south of it So that's the
- intersection I think yeah exactly right and the pedestrian infrastructure on the west side of the street
- does start almost immediately out of frame there So it's not it wouldn't be a far connection to make
- for pedestrians either So anyway, thank you further questions for mr. Seabor on the North Walnut Street
- report Well, I just want to check with
- Online, Ms. Davis, any questions? To my left. All right, let's go to round two, Mr. Binder. Just a quick
- follow-up, actually, kind of related to the, you know, the difference, the differential between the
- north and southbound travel speeds observed. I would just be curious to hear kind of your thoughts on,
- you know, or just theories on, like, why there is such a difference, because on the surface, it doesn't
- seem like there ought to be, because the configuration in both directions is
- I think basically the same, the lane width, travel lane width is probably very similar, if not the same,
- and then the bike lane and so forth. Do you attribute it to the fact that it's going uphill, downhill,
- or in and out of town? People leaving town, they figure, oh, I'm on my way out of town, I'll speed up.
- Is that kind of what you're, just in your sort of professional experience, is that what you have observed
- in the past?
- Good question again what I'm offering I think our hypothesis on why the speeds went up with it just
- being a roads smoother road surface I can't definitively say that that that was a factor I think on
- why one direction is higher speed than another I have to imagine at least a component of that is is
- the elevation in the grade Going downhill we tend to see higher speeds than trick vehicles going uphill
- And so that that I'm sure is a significant part, but maybe there are other parts, too. I
- And then actually just really quick, does engineering, I'm trying to think about how to frame this,
- does engineering tend to consider the change in elevation when determining street treatments? If a road
- is going downhill, does that warrant different types of treatments than the same
- Direct or the same road going the other direction like have there been cases where you guys have you
- know specifically had to account for like a pretty different pretty big difference in the speed going
- the different directions and in like what kind of design is applied It's good question I honestly can't
- think of a specific example of how we would design it differently though recognizing that I
- Speeds are different. There are like just how quickly somebody can stop going downhill Plus at a higher
- speed that that does factor into the equations in ways we and also there there are factors but I don't
- know if I have a really good answer to say How we would design it significantly different one way or
- the other? Okay, thanks Further questions on this report Seeing none. Thank you. Mr. Seabor
- We'll continue now go on to cases We have first up TCP 2610 a quarter study of Indiana Avenue from Smith
- to 10th Street To adopt the conceptual plan for the Indiana Avenue safety improvements project Who is
- here to present? I see Hank Duncan Thank you, hello, my name is Hank Duncan safe streets program manager
- As we get the slides prepared, I do want to say this presentation will be a little bit longer than I
- usually like presenting for, so if you have any questions as I go forward, please feel free to interrupt
- me, raise your hand, let me know, because I want to make sure that we keep this as efficient as possible,
- yes. Will the presentation be longer than 20 minutes? No. Okay, very good. Please go ahead. So a bit
- of background, cool, this works.
- I'm here talking about the Indiana Avenue safety improvements project a bit of background on this so
- You all have heard this before The city has a safe streets priority network and it has been determined
- by these four factors here The high-injury network that is backwards looking fatal and severe injury
- crashes forward-looking risk of future fatal and severe injury crashes public input
- and demographics of the surrounding area of each corridor. Indiana Avenue from the Henderson and Smith
- intersection up to Indiana 10th is identified on the Safe Streets priority network, specifically between
- Atwater and 10th. It is defined as the highest priority category. Along the corridor, there are a number
- of priority intersections, Henderson and Smith, Atwater,
- Third, fourth, Kirkwood, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth. All of those are identified on the Safe Streets
- Priority Network and the city's adopted Safe Streets for All action plan. That is the impetus for this
- project. Goals for this project, number one, increased safety for all road users. Number two,
- more connectivity along and across the corridor. It's the boundary between campus and downtown for a large
- portion of it and create a fully accessible corridor that is the baseline for any project we work on
- and then finally increase downtown vibrancy. This has been a long and winding road of a
- public outreach and design process for this project. I won't go through each of these steps, but we
- started public outreach and design back in spring of 2024. We are now in the spring of 2026. It's been
- two years. We have hosted four different public meetings, have had a number of online surveys, have
- done pop-up events, have met with dozens and dozens of stakeholders on and along and nearby the corridor.
- and we feel that we are at a point in which we can present a concept to you for review. Going into some
- of the more objective observations and traffic counts of the corridor, the busiest section of the corridor
- is between 6th and 7th Street with about 68, 6,900 vehicles per day. For reference, a normal,
- This depends on context, but a normal one-lane road can carry up to about 10,000 vehicles a day. That's
- a general statement, but that is generally what we say. And this section of Indian Avenue is two lanes,
- one way northbound. We also did traffic counts specifically on Indiana University football game days,
- because we want to observe not just a normal weekday amount of traffic, but also when we have large
- events in our city near the corridor,
- does traffic on the corridor respond to that and Frankly, we didn't see much of an effect the first
- game day that we took counts on It was also the same weekend as the 4th Street Arts Festival. So Grant
- Street was closed There was more traffic on Indiana Avenue and we saw a minor jump of about 400 vehicles
- within that weekend
- We also took traffic counts on a game day later that fall. This is 2024 and traffic counts were actually
- lower on those days than during a normal week. We also took traffic and pedestrian counts specifically
- surrounding the Indian Avenue and Kirkwood Avenue intersection, folks interacting with this intersection.
- We saw, and this is one specific hour,
- on one specific day, so there is a margin of error here, but within the hours of noon to one on October
- 3rd of 2024, we saw 400 vehicles pass through this intersection. In that same time, we saw 1,100 pedestrians
- pass through this intersection. We as a city design all of our projects with pedestrians in mind, that
- is the goal.
- area in particular, it is rare that you see pedestrians outnumber motor vehicles and vehicles as a whole
- that much. We also went out and observed the corridor while CBU was working on their hidden river pathway
- project. So this is back in the fall of 2024. They were digging that culvert.
- on Indiana Avenue, and for this portion of time, Indiana Avenue was reduced to one lane of through traffic.
- So we wanted to go out, observe what are traffic patterns when it is one lane without any other changes.
- The primary factor in traffic flow disruption is pedestrian crossings, specifically at Kirkwood Avenue.
- You have relatively free-flowing pedestrian crossings, and it creates queues backing up on Indiana Avenue.
- especially during IU passing periods. Other activity like buses coming through, we see about 16 IU and
- city buses per hour plus your private apartment shuttles coming through each hour. And then deliveries
- and loadings and pickups for the businesses in that block between 4th Street and Kirkwood Avenue that
- can disrupt traffic flow as well.
- Hughes are typically only a few vehicles, but sometimes do extend to 4th Street and beyond 4th Street.
- The overall takeaway here on these observations is that the intersection functions as pedestrian priority
- because there is a more free-flowing nature to the pedestrians, and vehicle congestion is driven by
- intersection control and crossing activity rather than just the traffic volume alone.
- That's all to say that even though the traffic volume is not as high as a two lane street may need,
- there are other activities like pedestrian crossings, buses, loadings that do disrupt traffic flow.
- Looking at speeds on the corridor. The highest speed sections of the project area are between 6th and
- 7th Street and 9th and 10th. With 50th percentile speeds around 26 miles an hour,
- 85th percentile speeds around 30 miles an hour. Community outreach. I will go through each round of
- community outreach we did and provide a couple of concise points about what we found, how we moved on
- from there. The first round, we always come in with a blank slate. We want to hear from the public what's
- working, what's not working, what are your priorities. This was one of the questions that we asked
- the public through an online survey and a public meeting about what is important to you in a safety
- project on Indiana Avenue. We gave them 16 options and asked the public to rank them all in terms of
- priority. Those top five priorities are the ones that we looked at the most. Slowing down vehicles,
- adding adequate sidewalks, adding protected bike lanes, improving the intersections for vehicles and
- bicycles, and number one, improving the intersections for pedestrians.
- Again, a lot of the feedback we get is more nuanced than simply these numbers, but this is a good framework
- to go off of in terms of community values as we move forward. Throughout this entire process from rounds
- one through four, we coordinated with dozens of stakeholders internally, externally, local businesses,
- Indiana University, neighborhood associations, you name it.
- This first round concept that we came up with attempts to use the feedback we saw in that first round
- and put something pen to paper, put a drawing to it. And what this is is a one lane street northbound
- with a two way protected bike lane. And I'm just showing you a section of this project because the screen's
- not long enough to show you all of it. So this is the section between fourth and sixth street. Essentially
- what this does is one,
- it improves intersections for pedestrians. And pedestrians only have to cross one lane of traffic instead
- of two. Number two, it slows down traffic. One lane of traffic versus two lanes of traffic, especially
- north of six where you have very wide lanes, slows down traffic. And number three, it adds a new bike
- connection through the downtown and campus area, north and south.
- We also in this second round of public outreach, we wanted to present multiple concepts to the public.
- So we attempted to come up with a concept B and essentially let the public choose which one they liked
- more. These are both ideas that we as staff would implement if recommended by stakeholders in the public.
- And so this concept B converts Indiana Avenue into a two-way street.
- From Kirkwood north to 10th, you have striped bike lanes. From Kirkwood south to third, you have sharos.
- And I will mention in each of these concepts at the uncontrolled intersections, 6th, 8th, and 9th, we
- implemented race crosswalks as well. So we asked the public, which one do you prefer more? And the answer,
- again, is more nuanced than simply these percentages, but it was pretty clear that they preferred
- the one lane with a two-way protected bike lane over simply a two-way street. So that was the basis
- we went off of for this next round of public outreach. This is very similar to the first concept that
- you saw, just a little bit more cleaned up. It also adds in a bus pull-off north of Kirkwood. Indian
- University has a lot of events in Bryan Hall and Franklin Hall just east of Indiana Avenue.
- loading was a major concern for them, so we added a long bus pull off for box trucks, other delivery
- vehicles, if IU has an event, they can pull off and stay there as well. Some comments and questions
- that were raised during this round of public outreach were about traffic congestion, curbside management
- between Forth and Kirkwood, again looking at the availability of parking,
- the propensity for delivery trucks or your DoorDash or UberEats drivers to block a lane of traffic to
- pick up a delivery, transit efficiency. Again, we see 16 buses through here per hour. We want to make
- sure that buses are still efficient. And then for pedestrian safety.
- From there, staff went back and looked internally about these options and how we should move forward.
- We wanted to examine more, is this the right way forward or is there another idea out there that could
- be better than what we're proposing? So we ended up coming up with two photorealistic renderings of
- possible ideas to informally reach out to the public and examine what they have to think.
- One is the concept day that I've talked about. This is one lane with a two-way protected bike lane.
- We also came up with concept C, which between 4th and 6th Street would convert Indiana Avenue into a
- transit mall, making it bus only, and compensating for the lack of northbound traffic on Indiana through
- downtown with a converted two-way Dunn Street. The idea behind this is that pedestrians would have more
- free-flowing access
- to and from campus and downtown, buses would be more efficient, and you would have spots for loading
- or deliveries or parklets, whatever we desired as a city. So we went out to Kirkwood Avenue and essentially
- asked street users, what do you think of these concepts? They very much preferred concept, see the Transit
- Mall concept with the two-way Dunn Street.
- Honestly, a bit surprising to me, but it was interesting to hear their feedback. That said, when we
- began speaking with Indiana University about these ideas, they had major operational concerns about
- this idea, and so this never made it to formal public outreach because we want to be good partners with
- IU. The city and IU work so well
- work on a lot of projects together and we want to make sure that we continue that good relationship.
- So because they had major concerns, we did not move forward with this Transit Mall concept. That said,
- while they had hesitations with concept A, we worked together to form a revised version of it with the
- main change of being
- maintaining two motor vehicle lanes through the section of 3rd and 7th Street on Indiana Avenue. They
- had major operational concerns if the street were reduced to one lane, and so after months of discussions,
- we came up with this concept. Essentially, the bike infrastructure, it connects Kirkwood to 10th Street,
- and there's another stub that connects the existing multi-use path on Smith
- up to third, but in the section between third and Kirkwood, there is no bike infrastructure other than
- a northbound sheriff, and largely keeps that area in existing conditions. The only major change is that
- they were very much in favor of raised intersections at Kirkwood and fourth, and so we included those
- in the concept here. We reached out to the public and the community in our
- fourth round of outreach with this concept. The major comments and questions raised were about
- the disconnected bike network between Third and Kirkwood. There were questions about the need for two
- motor vehicle lanes. There were questions about the bicycle crossings at the Project Termini, which
- weren't shown in the slides, but the project engineer, Kendall Kanoki, can go over that when he goes
- over the current concept. And then similar concepts to the round two outreach regarding curbside management,
- congestion,
- Transit efficiency So that is the large high-level review of the process and the outreach that we've
- done throughout this process I will throw it over to our project in to our project engineer Kindle Kenoki
- to Talk about the currently proposed concept before you this evening
- Before we throw it over to him, do you have any questions about the process itself and how we got here?
- I think we should just hold questions until you finish your complete presentation. Perfect, sounds great.
- But please stick around because we may have questions for you. Hello everyone, Kendall Kenoki, engineering
- department. So I just wanted to talk very briefly because I know our 20 minutes are fast ending here.
- Can you introduce yourself? Reintroduce myself.
- I missed it, hi. Kendall Kenoki, Engineering Department. So just wanted to go over the preferred concept
- we have right now with you. I'm gonna start on the south end at Smith Avenue and Henderson. Kind of
- interesting to start at the end because these are the two probably least ironed out parts of this. How
- do we tie into our existing bicycle network? Kind of the idea behind what you see here is that a few
- years ago,
- the Smith Hunter Greenway, a connection was made between Smith and Hunter, which is right here kind
- of off the page, that built this kind of existing two-way bike facility here, and the idea was to facilitate
- east-west bike traffic. Henderson is one way north, so southbound cyclists were not allowed to go on
- the street, and it was an awkward disconnect in that network. So because that existing facility was there,
- We kind of wanted to extend off of what was already built I think when we dive into this little further
- we could evaluate the future, you know, Henderson corridor all the way down to Hillside and beyond and
- and maybe decide to do something different here, but that's that's what we're showing right now one
- thing that's really beautiful about the two-way protected bike facility being on this side of the road
- is there's no conflicting vehicle movements out water is one way east and
- So you have no one turning across it at all and then flipping over to the east side of the road here
- You have the same benefit at this intersection at 3rd Street where there's no conflicting vehicle movements
- there. So that's one benefit of it There's a lot of ways we could switch sides for the two-way protected
- bike lane or not switch it at all and and that kind of still needs to be further evaluated but right
- now this is this is where we're at and there's just a lot of pros and cons to
- The various options there, but I'll kind of continue so, you know crossing the street Again, this is
- shown as a raised Crossing it is a yield to the bikes and not the cars. There's certainly a conversation
- that could be had about flipping that Right now that's that's just where what we're showing that's kind
- of in line with most of our other crossings in the city And then continuing on to third you kind of
- merge into that
- one-way bike facility that's heading westbound. And then you enter this area where there's
- no bike infrastructure, so that's kind of an interesting transition. So northbound cyclists can obviously
- continue in the roadway in one of the two vehicle lanes. Southbound cyclists are gonna have to come
- from somewhere else. Ostensibly they might go down Dunn Street, connect in on Atwater or some other way.
- But that's where we're at right now. So then that's where the two lanes start. Of course an interesting
- feature here is since we're bringing Henderson and Indiana kind of transitions here down to one lane,
- there's really no need to have both of these lanes extend down to this intersection because at one time
- you have right turning vehicles and then another time you have straight vehicles. So there's only one
- lane of traffic entering at one time. So you're kind of able to safely dump your cyclists off into the
- street here with a share-o.
- And then continuing through the corridor. We have a raised intersection at 4th Street, which as Hank
- mentioned IU is really in favor of those we do maintain the street parking along the west side of Indiana
- and then this kind of we're showing it really as just it could be parking it could be there was a desire
- by one business owner they really like their
- You know, they're set up in the summer for the summer dining program, so it could be that. It could
- be loading and unloading of trucks or, you know, delivery vehicles, Uber, Lyft, things like. So this
- is kind of a space, haven't decided exactly what it is. Currently, it's mostly parking. But that's maintained
- along with the two vehicle travel lanes. And then we shift everybody over to the West, existing West
- curb line, go over the iconic
- Kirkwood and Indiana intersection there, showing a nice decorative paver at that intersection. It's
- raised intersection shown here. And then that's where we're able to restart the two-way protected bike
- lane. So really, it's this two-block area that's very tight. There's a huge desire from IU for two-vehicle
- lanes. There's a huge desire from the businesses for the parking, loading,
- you know, outdoor dining, whatever you want to call that space, the flex space there. So it's kind of
- balancing all those priorities right now. Unfortunately, the bike infrastructure doesn't make it in
- in this iteration of the concept. But then you continue north and I'll try to be really brief finishing
- this up. Another raised intersection at 6th Street. We're able to kind of tie in our
- bike infrastructure with the existing seventh street protected bike lane. And then really north of seventh,
- you have a lot of space to work with. I think, I don't know if Hank mentioned this, but parking is pretty
- underutilized on the street. It's neighborhood parking areas. I think there were a total of like seven
- spots that were parked in or something. So this concept is showing no parking on Indiana in this area.
- We have the raised crosswalks at eighth. And I think we,
- We're showing them at 9th, too. I'm not sure why they're not showing up here, but And then you get to
- the the 10th Street, and that's kind of the the end of the project. So this is an interesting transition
- area right now. We're kind of showing an idea where Assuming that Indiana will have bike lanes painted
- north of 10th You have to get the cyclists over to the east side of the roadway so this is kind of an
- idea of showing they they merge in with traffic and
- Kind of have their own left turn lane here and then can join in prior to the intersection Again, this
- is another area that we want to look at a lot harder and see what the absolute best way to kind of transition
- everything together here is of course 10th Street is also another project that's being looked at so
- there's definitely opportunities to coordinate both projects, but I think I will end it there and Is
- that the end of our presentation? We'll open it up for questions Thank you
- Both for the presentation, uh, just to remind everybody we're in cases now, so we're going to have one
- round of questions followed by public comment, followed by a second round of questions and then discussion
- of the case among commissioners. So let's now go to first round questions. Is there any commissioner
- who has questions for staff on this case? We'll start online. Ms. Davis, you don't have to have questions,
- but now it's a good chance to
- still formulating. Okay, we'll come back to you. Anybody on my left with first round questions?
- On my right, Mr. Binder. I'll try to just stick to questions. So I'd be curious to know more about,
- I guess, IU's involvement in this design process. I mean, I don't want to speak for the rest of the
- commission, but I think we're all looking at this
- You know somewhat in bewilderment that a design is being shown here that you know clearly does not meet
- the bicycle network connectivity goals, you know for this project, so I Can't imagine many or any of
- us are going to be satisfied with the design as as presented proposed currently But back to the IU thing
- We're representatives
- You know from the relevant departments at IU invited to this meeting and if if not, then why not and
- if so Where are they? Sure good questions. So It's your first question as to what extent IU has been
- involved with this project We have been meeting with them for literally years on this now. We first
- brought this to them I believe during the first round of public outreach as a
- concept of we are working on this project and through each round of public outreach and design revision
- we have been sending updates and have met with them and then especially last year was when discussions
- became more regular and serious about this project as it became more real and how it would affect IU
- in the long run for campus operations. In terms of
- their involvement for tonight. Some members of the IU capital planning staff were invited to this meeting
- tonight. They declined to attend, but again, they have been very involved with this project and they
- felt that their stance had been made clear to staff and been presented in this design presented to you
- tonight. Okay, thank you. Sure. Mr. Duncan, I understand that all you guys can do is invite them.
- force them to appear here, but I still just kind of baffled it. The fact that representatives from IU
- Capital Planning can apparently provide a lot of backroom input on this project, but then they don't
- show up to this meeting. I agree, IU should be
- Very deeply involved in this project, but to that point they should be here. Let's let's save the comment
- for later. Let's now go to questions. Mr. Flaherty Yeah, thank you. Thank you for your work on this
- and presentation I'm concerned about Safety, I think as we all are on this on the street and in particular
- what some of the revisions between prior concept data at a continuous protective bike lane and the current
- proposed concept and
- what the impacts of that are from a safety perspective. I guess what do you expect southbound bicyclists
- to do if their destination is 2nd and Henderson, they're coming southbound from 10th Street, they get
- to Kirkwood, the two-way protected bike lane disappears for two blocks. What are they supposed to do
- and what do you think will happen? Sure, good question. We are imagining that southbound cyclists,
- on Indiana Avenue would go one block west to Dunn Street, cross on Dunn Street, down to Henderson and
- Smith, and then join with that existing multi-use path at Henderson and Smith and continue southbound
- from there. So three block detour, yeah. Essentially, yes. Got it, three blocks north-south, but yeah.
- Do you think there's a risk that this design choice will induce unsafe
- Risky behaviors in particular bicyclists riding on the sidewalk Pedestrians stepping into the street
- to avoid bicyclists riding on the sidewalk Bicyclists riding in the street against traffic Those types
- of things sure I don't want to Assume any future behavior. I think those are great questions and those
- are questions that we have thought of as well in terms of what may happen
- But isn't that what we're doing here? We're making assumptions about levels of risk of different designs
- based on best practices. And I know it's, we can't conclude exactly what will happen for any individual
- user, but I don't think, but I don't think the exact opposite end is sufficient either. Like everything
- we're doing here about design is predicting how people will respond to interventions like raised crosswalks,
- like, you know,
- So I guess Do you think it's reasonable for one to expect that there will be unsafe behaviors induced
- by this design choice? unsafe behaviors by by cyclists or pedestrians or Yeah, I don't know. I think
- I think that's a fair question. I think that's a fair comment. Honestly. Yes. It's a it's a concern
- Okay, thank you. I do have other questions, but yeah, I'll stop there Well, yeah, let's stick to questions
- here and save comments for after second round. Mr. Stossberg
- How would you characterize the feedback from Bloomington Transit about this? In particular, the seventh
- in Woodlawn I know has been a challenge for buses to make that turn. Yeah, sure. So the seven line was
- a learning lesson for the city as a whole in terms of design requirements for buses and larger vehicles
- and turning radii. Kendall and the engineering staff honestly did a great job in working with Transit
- and fire in terms of finding the biggest vehicle necessary needed to turn onto and from Indiana Avenue
- and making sure that the turning radii were large enough for those vehicles. Bloomington Transit has
- the new EV buses, which are now the, I believe, the largest city vehicles used. And so we are making
- our turning radii large enough for those buses. In addition, you talked about 7th and Woodlawn,
- Right by there is the bus island that intersects the seven line where there's a bus stop and bus island
- for pedestrians to wait for the buses and a crossing spot for pedestrians to cross the seven line as
- they go to the bus in previous iterations of this concept aim we worked with BT to Consolidate their
- stops at Indiana and fourth and Indiana and Kirkwood to put the stop north of Kirkwood there by allowing more
- space for the buses to stop queue not affect the always stop traffic at Kirkwood and Have a large bus
- island similar to the one at 7th and Woodlawn. So pedestrians could cross the bike lane and wait there
- Thank you, did you say 7th and Woodlawn Yes, you mean next to the IMU Just west of 7th and Woodlawn.
- There is a bus stop in Bus Island. Okay
- It took me a while to place it for the question. Mr. Stossberg, Mr. Coppock. Well, I think Mr. Fleury
- said the section between third and Kirkwood, I mean, nobody's going to ride their bike down to Dunn
- Street and come back around. And I could see the people don't want to give up their parking there in
- front of the Buffalo Louise in there. But still,
- I think you need to resolve that section in there. Is there a question? My comment is... We're on questions
- now, Mr. Coppock. We're questions. My question is, how much contact did you have with the businesses
- in that one section through there? Yeah, that is a great question. And I know that we've talked about
- our relationship with IU quite a bit so far this discussion, but we have also met a lot with the local
- businesses.
- You have Qdoba's Dagwood Starbucks Indiana shop, mr. Tokyo, etc. There are there are quite a bit of
- Restaurants and shops within that block face and a variety of opinions on how the ship how the city
- should either maintain parking increase parking reduce parking how we should use that curb to curb space
- to Maximize the the vibrancy and safety of that area
- Right now, Buffalo Louise, they are involved in the city's parklet program. So they have essentially
- deferred the on-street parking in front of their space to have more outdoor seating. You have businesses
- like Starbucks who would very much love for all of this space to be loading and short-term pickups and
- drop-offs because they have a lot of mobile orders and a lot of short-term pickups and drop-offs.
- There are other businesses like Dagwood's who very much value the on-street parking in front of their
- spot So there's not one consensus but talking with the Kirkwood Community Association downtown Bloomington,
- Inc. There is still a concern of How would this street how these businesses be affected by the reduction
- in parking in front of their stores and when and we want to be respectful of that Mr. Coppock
- Okay, Ms. Davis. Speaking specifically to that stretch, has there been any thought to talking with IU
- and those business owners about maybe dedicating more of that parking lot just behind it to your pickups,
- your deliveries, because
- You know, as a wheelchair user, what I can tell you is that there is somebody always blocking the alley
- along Indiana because they're going into Starbucks. Or it's a huge delivery truck that is also partially
- blocking the alley. Seems to me that
- that that problem isn't gonna go away, so I wonder if we could move those people off of Indiana, those
- vehicles off of Indiana. Yeah, that is a great question, and I have a bit of history on this in terms
- of what I've learned from talking to business owners. This is not by any means official, so I wouldn't
- quote myself on this, but from what I learned from business owners
- there used to be deliveries happening in that parking lot behind your Qdoba, Dagwoods area. All of that
- property is owned by IU, and at some point, IU or whoever else may own that property stopped deliveries
- from happening back there. Again, I don't know why, how, or when, but there used to be at one point,
- now there isn't. I don't know, seems to me if they're gonna
- force less bike infrastructure, they could at least give up some parking infrastructure. Sorry, that's
- not a question, it's a comment. We're gonna have time for comments. Do you have any more questions right
- now? All right. Well, let's go to the public, but I wanna take a chance first. First couple of very
- brief clarifying questions. If there was a bike lanes between Third and Kirkwood,
- They would be on the east side of Indiana. Is that correct? Yes. Okay, secondly In that scenario, is
- there any loss of parking spaces on the west side of Indiana? It depends on what we would want to Do
- with that other section of the curb to curb area there is There is definitely possibility that we could
- as a city maintain two northbound lanes through this section and include that
- Two-way protected bike lane. Okay, but I mean if in the scenario of a one lane If we reduce car traffic
- to one lane the parking states as it was Not necessarily what we would probably want to work with parking
- services and local businesses on is Creating more of a flex zone. You're getting into my next question.
- I just first want to ask is there any reduction of linear parking space footage of
- As a result of going down to one car lane there like in other words, there's still that space to be
- worked with Yes, yes that that space is still there. Okay, so now the question I want to ask this related
- to what you were about to say is If there's one thing I've heard Traffic related in my many years involved
- in city government It's a complaint about delivery trucks parked between 6th and 7th and Walnut
- in front of the bars, that they block three lanes to one. The second most commented complaint is the
- intersection Ms. Davis mentioned, the alley between 4th and Kirkwood on Indiana. It sounds like staff
- is already thinking about making some of that space more delivery friendly. Please, is that what you
- were about to say?
- Yes, so in previous iterations of this concept with a one lane, Indiana Avenue We would want to begin
- serious discussions on converting the on-street parking area between 4th and Kirkwood into More of a
- flex zone that what into a flex zone flex zone that could be Parts of the day delivery parts of the
- day on-street parking it could be 15 to 30 minute loading or drop-off and pickup
- Variety of uses because there are a variety of uses on that curbside We know that really the main uses
- are on-street parking Big deliveries for restaurants Starbucks, etc with bigger box trucks or semis
- and then three your short-term deliveries your ubers ubereats door dashes Well, it has staff
- ever contemplated simply saying
- no deliveries in a certain period of time, that maybe deliveries need to be done at different times
- of day than, I mean, it seems to be the same problem that we had before meters where employees were
- parking in front of businesses and then wondering why they had trouble finding customers. If the businesses
- are using this right of way to block potential customers, shouldn't we be, for their own sake, restricting
- the use for delivery?
- So for Your initial question of about it was delivery specific times, right? We have contemplated it
- and that is something that if we move forward with any project that reduces the number of lanes on a
- street where we see Delivery vehicles parking in the lane to deliver we would we would contemplate that
- that would require a lot more discussion with the businesses because they have different vendors, you know
- You talk to say Starbucks they get almost everything from one vendor. They know about what time that
- truck is going to come They know when it's going to come they are in contact with their driver. That
- one's easy There are other shops say the Indiana shop that deals with a lot of different vendors. You
- have different Merchandise or manufacturers delivering things so it were it would require a
- lot of coordination that is not to say it couldn't happen but we would want to
- Make sure that coordination happens before we build anything in concrete. Okay, but I mean Have you
- not heard the same complaints I've heard about delivery trucks generally blocking traffic. Yes, and
- is this is the idea of maybe Pulling the restriction that only one lane has to be this is a question
- for another matter. I'll leave it for later Thank you for the answer that I have more questions, but
- we're gonna go not a public comment. I
- on this is TCP 2610, the Indiana Avenue corridor study. If you are in the room, please come to the podium,
- sign in, you'll have three minutes to speak. If you are online, please raise your hand and you'll be
- called on by the Zoomkeeper. We have a speaker in the chamber, please state your name, you'll have three
- minutes. Great, thanks, my name's Greg Alexander. This is not a good design. A two-way bike lane on
- one side of the street
- always has trouble at the endpoints, and this proposed design has four endpoints over less than a mile.
- Good infrastructure direct sidewalks off, or cyclists off of the sidewalk, but this one directs cyclists
- directly onto the most busy sidewalk. It will cause lawless and dangerous and frightening behavior.
- The bike lane is proposed as two disconnected facilities. I hate tautologies, but a disconnected facility
- is not a connected network.
- The transportation plan calls for bike lanes, not bike gaps, so the proposed finding that it complies
- with the transportation plan is simply false. The intersection of Forth and Indiana in particular is
- almost unchanged by this design. Pedestrians will still face a multiple threat crossing. Forth and Indiana
- is the pedestrian crash hot spot on this corridor.
- It should be the most affected intersection, but instead it is the least affected intersection. Clearly
- safety was not the priority of this design. The Safe Streets for All policy says we will prioritize
- safety over capacity, but the staff report is explicit that stakeholders were allowed to overrule city
- policy. So it is not true. The proposed finding that it complies with the Safe Streets for All policy
- is not true. The worst part is the staff memo
- that obtaining stakeholder support will allow the city to move forward with similar projects in the
- future. Unfortunately, that's not true either. If this design is implemented, bike and ped traffic will
- not meaningfully improve in the most important parts of this corridor. Businesses will not see increased
- revenue from foot traffic. Cyclists and pedestrians will not experience greater comfort or convenience
- or safety.
- The public will not see tangible improvements to justify the expenses. We need to learn from the failure
- of the seven line half-ass designs that fail to honor the council's mandate to Deprioritize car traffic
- do not work They don't improve transportation for vulnerable groups and they don't generate public support
- good designs do work But not if we build bad ones, please vote against this proposal. Thanks Thank you
- Is there further public comment on TCP 2610? Is there any comments online? Okay, you'll have, please
- state your name. You'll have three minutes. Go ahead. Mr. Rousseau. All right. It took a while to unmute.
- Paul Rousseau, Bloomington resident. I'm gonna skip most of what I was gonna say because
- Mr. Alexander just said it better than I could have. I strongly support everything he just said. I also
- strongly second the comments and questions by Commissioner Davis. And I have a question, which is that
- given that IU student enrollment plummets during the summer, has the city asked the university to convert
- some of their private parking into public parking? That would apply to both the parking lots
- in question here between 4th and Kirkwood. But as far as Kirkwood opening, there's also a parking lot
- on the southwest corner of 6th and Indiana that I wonder about. Other than that, I wonder if this is
- this plan before us not one of the clearest examples of business interests superseding the public interest.
- And so many times,
- I wonder, what is this relationship we have between Bloomington and IU? Is it healthy cooperation or
- is it codependence? I say all these things as someone who is car free and gets around by bicycle almost
- every day of the year. Thank you. Thank you. Further public comment in chambers. I don't see anybody
- getting up to the podium. Online, anybody else?
- Last call for public comment on TCP 2610 Seeing none we come back to the Commission for second round
- of questions who's who wants to Take a first crack. Mr. Flaherty. Thank you So concentrating again on
- the section from third to Kirkwood it seems like there's space for three things You could put for instance
- parking a drive lane in a protective bike lane Have one of each
- You could do two of some of them. You could do two drive lanes. You could do two parking alleys, parking
- both sides of the street with one drive lane, et cetera. So we can have all three. This design doesn't.
- And I'm having a hard time understanding why, I guess. I know IU is the major factor here. I think it
- was quoted they had major operational concerns about one lane for drivers on the street.
- It doesn't seem like the traffic counts justify like I'm trying to understand what they're like I don't
- doubt that they have concerns obviously they're exerting their influence for a reason But I'm trying
- to understand are those concerns well-founded are they backed by data? Are they receptive to? The fact
- that the traffic counts don't really support that for instance So I could you help me understand better
- like what since IU isn't here and I'm asking you instead But can you help me understand better what?
- Concerns of capital planning and facilities are like more specifically sure. I will reiterate that I
- am NOT IU I do not want to speak for IU. I will repeat Things that I've heard in those meetings as best
- as I remember them. But again, I am NOT IU in this situation, of course Traffic throughput was a concern
- a concern about future future congestion especially on major event days and weekends football game days
- graduation and
- Etc They had concerns about loading along the area for events at Bryan Hall and Franklin Hall specifically
- In current conditions, they normally have a box truck or a couple box trucks take up the East lane on
- the corridor by one of those two buildings and they unload and load things into those buildings for events
- They also had concerns about emergency service access I will note that the city did Work closely with
- police and fire during this project and I can talk more about that if you'd like, but they that was
- one of their major concerns I Believe there was more that is as much as I can remember from the top
- of my head. Sorry. It's not a perfect answer That's helpful. I see mr. Kenoki getting up to maybe add
- Yeah, I just wanted to say when we had Indiana down to one lane, there were times where it backed up
- all the way to third. And Hank already mentioned this, but the reason for that is pedestrian traffic
- is totally unrestricted, so vehicles just have to wait. And when you have two lanes, you have more storage
- for vehicles to wait while all the pedestrians are crossing, and traffic doesn't back up to third, hardly
- ever. So it was doing that a lot more often
- There's some solutions to that one of which is you could signal eyes these intersections that are really
- high pedestrian traffic We suggested that to IU and they were very much not in favor of that. So I think
- it's it's kind of balancing different preferences here, you know, you could resolve things with some
- solutions and Like you said, there's a lot of different options for the space another thing that I don't
- think has been mentioned either is
- You could actually widen the road to get more than three that would involve Street tree removal. I use
- brick wall or stone wall being moved back things like that That's something we didn't even really talk
- to IU about but ultimately it could be an option. So I guess that thank you. Thank you both just to
- follow up and
- It feels to me like those concerns are mostly either unfounded, like with respect to the game day traffic
- being much worse than regular, for instance, or can be accommodated through design, like having a dedicated
- loading zone and bus drop area that I saw in one of the concepts, things like that. I'll also note that
- the third street, south of it, sorry, Indiana south of third street as it approaches,
- proposed concept only has one lane now northbound instead of two, which would also maybe limit the sort
- of, I don't know, influx rate. I guess, can you tell me more, to the extent you're able, about your
- ability to address the concerns that you had, because if they are indeed addressable, yeah. Sure, so
- I will try to go step by step
- talk about their concerns and how we attempted to address them in terms of Traffic flow and throughput
- as a whole in one of our previous concept a iterations. We did incorporate a bus pull-off So buses would
- pull off to the side of the street and would not stop traffic Currently buses stop one lane of traffic
- and so Indian Avenue is de facto a one lane anyway We already talked about curbside management quite a bit
- but converting those blocks from third to Kirkwood, specifically fourth to Kirkwood, into a flex zone
- of some art, whether it's long-term delivery, short-term deliveries, delivery time-specific areas, I
- don't know, but that is one other area. So we can have deliveries get off the street, buses get off
- the street, and the motor vehicle lane is truly for motor vehicles. Emergency access.
- This was actually one of the more exciting parts of the project Kendall and I worked with fire and police
- on this and specifically designed this bike lane to accommodate a fire truck their biggest fire truck
- and fires Near a station is at 4th and Grant So just about a block west of where this project is or
- a block and a half west west of where this project is and their main Line to go northbound is east on
- 4th north on, Indiana
- And so we want to make sure that they have the ability in case there is ever congestion or somebody
- blocking the lane on Indian Avenue to be able to drive through unimpeded to get to wherever they need
- to get to and so This design or a previous iteration of this design allowed for a fire truck and police
- car to drive through the bike lane make it a pseudo emergency access lane to get through town in terms of
- Loading specifically already mentioned the bus pull off north of Kirkwood. We made that pull off I forget
- exactly how many feet but very very long to accommodate two full buses and a box truck so it
- could additionally be used as a BT I forget the exact term but the the
- The type of area where they where the drivers take a break and take a five or ten minute break and they
- can go use the bathroom Do whatever they need to do it could be used for that and it could be used for
- loading and a bus to just get through as well I think those are the major ones Kindle. Am I missing
- anything here? I Don't think I am so it sounds like you proposed and sort of feel like you're able to
- Mitigate the cons most of the concerns major major areas of concern that you raised and ensured that
- with them But they were ultimately unconvinced Is that is that right? Yes, and now that we're talking
- about this one other concern that they had that I haven't mentioned yet is simply the pedestrian pedestrians
- crossing Indiana Avenue with two-way bike traffic currently pedestrians only need to look one way for
- motor vehicles going northbound and
- This scenario then you would have bicycles going both north and southbound and the potential for bicycle
- and pedestrian crashes Thanks, I'll stop there for now who else has questions mr. Binder I Don't want
- to dwell too much on the you know the gap of the protected bike lane from third to Kirkwood because
- I think we've I mean There's been a lot of comments already about this
- So I will actually just ask a couple of other questions related to signalization. One is, because you
- mentioned it, you know what I use, sorry? Okay, one was I use resistance to the idea of signalizing
- any of these intersections. I'd be curious to hear more about that, what their justifications were.
- And then secondly, specifically about Indiana and seventh, you know,
- just mentioned that with bicycle traffic, traveling multiple directions, there's more potential points
- of conflict and more to have to pay attention to. So I guess my question would be how much thought there
- was or consideration there was to specifically signalizing Indiana Avenue and 7th, just because that's
- the intersection of two two-way bike
- lanes plus two-way motor traffic on 7th Street and northbound motor traffic on Indiana Avenue with a
- lot of turn motions, turning directions from Indiana onto 7th, so that's just a lot to pay attention
- to. It's like a four-way, well, I mean, the signalization, I think, is my question there. How
- much consideration was made to that specific intersection?
- So to answer your first question, what was IU's concern with signalization at Kirkwood in Indiana? It
- was aesthetics. This is a very photogenic location for them. I think for all of us, it's the heart of
- our community, so that was their concern. But signalization would resolve some of the issues with traffic
- backup. So when we saw Indiana down to one lane, we saw it back up to third. The reason was unrestricted
- pedestrian flow.
- That is an option that would resolve that issue. To answer your question about 7th and Indiana, I neglected
- to mention that, but yes, we have definitely been considering a signal at 7th and Indiana. We actually
- had our consultant, our traffic signal consultant look at that a little bit, and it's definitely something
- we'd pursue moving forward. It does also operate as an all-way stop, but like you said, could benefit
- from signalization from a safety standpoint. Okay, thanks.
- That's basically all I've got. Mr. Stosbury. Yes, my question is about contingency plans. I share the
- viewpoint of other transportation cyclists on this commission and in the public that have concerns about
- the gap in this network. I believe it will induce the sidewalk riding and could create new dangers between
- conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians. So working with IU, I imagine some of your staff might have
- brought up this potential.
- Is there a contingency plan if we try this out and we have this new kinds of conflict? Where do you
- go from here if this if the gap doesn't work out? Yeah, sure. So one idea that we've had with this project
- for a long time is to Try it out with temporary materials first. The concept shown is in permanent materials
- bricks pavers
- That has been decided yet, but some kind of concrete material we could also do this with temporary materials
- And so if we do it with quick build materials say similar to what we have on East 3rd Street or other
- Temporary bike lanes in the city temporary protected bike lanes in the city. We could try it out Evaluate
- it have learning lessons and change it as needed That's your question
- Further questions to my left? Going online, Ms. Davis? None? All right, let me ask a couple. Let me
- get this straight. In the suggested alternate bike route, it would go, a southbound bicyclist on Indiana
- would turn at Kirkwood, turn westbound, go one block over to Dunn, and then they'd go to fourth, through
- the light at third, and down what becomes Atwater, all the way to Atwater and Henderson,
- before turning right onto the existing, is that how it would go? That is one option. Honestly, I would
- imagine that most folks who currently use Dunn to go southbound would continue to use Dunn Street going
- southbound. You mean they'd turn right onto that exit, that Dunn Street exit? Yes, so they would go
- Dunn Street through fourth through third and then that split off onto,
- I think between where it turns into Outwater and Dunn, they would turn on to Dunn there, head to Smith,
- then Henderson. I'm a frequent user of this area, and I have gone against traffic ridden on the sidewalk
- on Henderson as it becomes from Indiana going south from 3rd Street just to get to that wonderful bike
- lane, the two-way lane that's the seed of this concept.
- And I just, I can't believe that anybody would go all the way, I mean, Dunn Street at second is not
- the safest thing either. So I'm a little, I mean, is there any design mock-up of this alternate route?
- Because the only one that makes sense to me is what I described as going around the curve to meet up
- with the existing infrastructure at Anderson and Atwater.
- Sure. So the alternative route would simply be a cyclist taking the lane or using the Existing Sharos
- to get to where they need to go. So no infrastructure would be Sharos on that the other the other option
- Would be go southbound on Grant across the newly built pedestrian bike refuge Through that intersection
- over to Smith up to Henderson then along the multi-use path and country like that answers that question Thank you
- You expressed some concerns expressed by the public about later in the process about potential traffic
- congestion being a concern, but they seem absurd since the initial survey found that traffic congestion
- was one of the lowest concerns. Why would staff be suddenly more concerned about the potential for traffic
- congestion once these designs were presented when it wasn't such a big deal at the outset?
- Sure. I don't know if the public concern for traffic congestion was the main impetus in creating this
- two lane design through third through third to seventh. That was more of the impetus of stakeholders
- talk to like IU and local businesses. Okay. Last question I'll ask is can you explain a little bit more
- about the conflict points that have been mentioned tonight and also
- Are there any regrets you have about the design of the seven line? That would be reflected in a newer
- design here with a north-south bike lane Sure good questions So your first question was about conflicts
- points, correct yes and Concerns we have are questions we have about them well just that in this alternative
- design where
- There's not a clear bike lane between third and Kirkwood it creates more conflict points. Is that correct?
- Yes, because you have two more termini of the bike infrastructure. So in the original concept day you
- had the southbound termini or terminus at Smith and Henderson or Second and Henderson wherever you want
- to define that terminus right and the northern terminus at Indiana in 10th
- Whenever we are creating new protected bike infrastructure, especially to a bike bike infrastructure
- That is not connected to other bike infrastructure You have conflict points and because the city's bike
- infrastructure is not fully built out yet. We are still in that mode of Creating the puzzle pieces and
- not necessarily connecting the puzzle pieces now There is a new connection between the seven line and
- Indian Avenue that is connecting the puzzle
- So we are starting to get to that phase which is exciting But as you can see at the south and the north
- end of this project, we're not there yet to your question specifically about this design and the third
- and Kirkwood term and I'm so for northbound cyclists Traveling along Henderson through third to Indiana.
- Honestly, it's a pretty smooth transition You are going from a protected
- Bicycle lane into a shared lane, but that shared lane begins with a protected intersection So there
- is not going to be a car immediately in that way So northbound northbound cyclists honestly have it
- pretty nicely in this design, okay Southbound cyclists again if you are traveling on Indiana to Kirkwood
- we talked about the detour route for that already for
- Southbound cyclists at the northern end of the project say on Indian Avenue north of 10th Those are
- still questions we have actually Kendall and I were talking today about a potential alteration and how
- that's designed And so we are still figuring that out But we are looking at other cities in terms of
- how they begin and end to a protected bike lanes Where there is no bike infrastructure after that? again
- as it's shown
- Southbound cyclists, they are already taking the lane They would merge into a little protected island
- in the middle of the street Cross into the protected bike lane when clear and travel on the east side
- of the street throughout the entirety of the project Thank you interesting answers throughout Are there
- any? Last last gas questions. Mr. Flader. Yeah last question. Thank you. Um, I
- It's about the double threat risk that Mr. Alexander brought up. So when you have two lanes of vehicles
- heading the same direction, you're all familiar, but a pedestrian starts to cross. Maybe one car stops,
- another one doesn't. Maybe the second car doesn't have a sight line to that pedestrian. So, you know,
- obviously the overall goal of this project is to help achieve our Vision Zero goals, you know, eliminate
- serious injuries and fatalities. It seems like that's a real risk.
- That were not mitigating at a couple of key intersections But could be mitigating and I guess I'm curious
- for your thoughts about that and the double threat risk specifically and then also Maybe if you could
- speak at all and this could be responsive or just broader to like the types of crashes we've seen I
- was just reviewing the six streets for all action plan again and
- in this context, it seems like pedestrian crashes specifically are the major issue along this corridor
- and most significant kind of in that third to sixth range. So as far as the types of crashes that have
- occurred and the injuries that have occurred, are they from that particular threat and that risk? Yeah,
- more on that please. Sure. So your first question was about the general concept of a double threat risk
- and how it applies to this project, correct? Yeah. Okay.
- Back to the existing traffic and pedestrian counts in this area pedestrians and peak hours outnumber
- vehicles three to one Right. And so in any project we want to make sure that we are prior to prioritizing
- pedestrians We have talked so much about the bike infrastructure tonight at the end of the day We need
- to make our streets more walkable there are more pedestrians than anybody else out here in this area
- of the city and
- and this project specifically should prioritize pedestrians. And that's why in previous iterations,
- we did include that road diet of going from two lanes to one lane. That road diet was not to add bike
- infrastructure. That road diet was to reduce the number of lanes that pedestrians have to cross.
- From there, then we asked ourselves, what could we put in this space? Could it be parking?
- Could it be trees? Could it be something else?
- It could be anything and then looking at the other priorities that our transportation plan have given
- us that the public gave us in that first round of public outreach that's how we landed on the two-way
- protected bike lane and so I do want to make it clear that The initial idea of a road diet
- was for pedestrians not to add a bike lane specifically Regarding that double threat that you talked
- about that is that is why we did the road diet
- because we have so many pedestrians because we know that when pedestrians cross one lane versus two,
- it is safer. Now again, as we've talked about throughout the presentation and Q&A tonight, there are
- other major stakeholders in town that have other goals, other needs that we need to be aware of. And
- so this ended up being a project where we know it is not perfect, but it is good. It is better than
- the existing conditions.
- We don't want to let good be the enemy of perfect, or perfect be the enemy of good, you know? And so,
- while in this current iteration there are still two lanes, I hear your point, and this is a topic that
- we could raise for a future project down the line. You had another question for me, but I forget what
- it was. I don't know if I already did. It was basically about whether the actual crash data itself
- Yes, tune some of these recommendations and if if sorry, that's my duck alarm It's pretty fun if Basically
- if that's if though if the pedestrian crashes that that are that are happening are caused by that type
- of thing it seems even more important to Eliminate that particular type of threat given the traffic
- counts given the overall content shared so if there's more to share on that front about the specific
- types of crashes that have occurred and what the data informs
- If not beyond what you've already said, no worries Quite frankly, I I don't remember these specific
- types of crashes regarding the double threat that you're talking about In terms of crash data as a whole
- the reason that we're working on a corridor project and not intersection specific projects is because
- there are a variety of crash types at a variety of intersections throughout the corridor So when you
- go into the the actual crash types and who they affected they have affected everyone
- There have been motor vehicle only crashes motor vehicle and pedestrian crashes motor vehicle and bicycle
- crashes so there have been a number of them at every intersection and Focusing on a specific type of
- crash. I think sometimes Keeps us looking backward and not looking forward at the overall principles
- of street safety and the overall future risks of what could happen in the future Thank you Any last
- questions from members before we go to discussion?
- Mr. Coppock Hank in all these concepts that you did Was there ever one where you provided loading unloading
- space on the IU side of the road and maybe the one the one-way concept So in the concept and sorry when
- you talk about loading and unloading do you mean for IU specifically or for businesses and third parties
- well on the east side for IU only so that
- That would eliminate some of their concerns Yes, so in a previous iteration of this one lane concept
- a we created that long bus pull-off That while it is for buses It is also long enough for and this one
- isn't the exact concept, but you can see the idea here That it is long enough for IU box trucks and
- I you loading to happen unimpeded
- Last question, mr. Stossberg. Yeah, so Bloomington passed a new code that legalizes bicycles to ride
- on sidewalks With some carve outs and some geographic exceptions is this gap in the network? Is that
- legal for cyclists to ride on the sidewalk there? Sorry, were you asking if this specific sidewalk on
- Indian Avenue is legal? Honestly, I'm not sure
- Would have to look that up. I know that there is a Square around the downtown that is a dismount zone,
- but I forget if Indiana Avenue is specifically included in that I Have one last question When well,
- it's a two-parter number one is approximately how long would you say a
- Staff has been in discussion with representatives of IU on the design of this project. So The public
- outreach or community outreach phase of this project began in spring of 2024 and I believe our first
- meeting with IU was maybe that June I would say And again at that point, this was a general concept
- of we are we are looking at safety improvements along this corridor Let's work with each other
- From there, especially 20 late 2024 and 2025 was the heart of those discussions and they've they've
- Spanned through early this year and how many discussions should you say that? IU was invited to in that
- span One five more specifically with city staff or public meetings. How many opportunities do they have
- to express their concerns? I think in total we had about
- Maybe five to seven meetings together give or take in that time. Did anybody at IU express our concern
- with Vision Zero? No. So would you characterize their concerns as mostly logistical and aesthetic or
- was there any other safety concern that they had? So they talked about
- So they understand that there is a vision zero goal for the city and they want to be supportive of that
- I think where City staff and IU staff have differed an opinion in the past is the way to get to vision
- zero Now on this on this specific project One key concern that they had was pedestrian crossing specifically
- at Kirkwood and forth where even though there is an always stop sign
- Their mindset is that a raised intersection would Help safety at those locations. And so we've included
- those in this concept So there there has been productive work between the two entities in this project
- and how we can improve safety If that's if that answers your question, it does. Thank you Okay Unless
- miss Davis chimes in to say she has another question. We should go now to discussion before we discuss
- the case Let me just yes
- Mr. Robling Slow Indiana Avenue is a dismount zone from 4th through 7th Indiana Avenue is a dismount
- zone from 4th through 7th, correct Who asked the question I did I asked if sidewalk Riding was legal
- during that got in that gap Okay. Well, let's just review what our options are here and
- the bylaws of this commission say that on petitions motions shall be to a Approve as presented be approved
- with refinement considerations see refer the matter back to staff for further refinement considerations
- or D continued the petition to a future meeting note that we do not have the option to reject the finding
- so I would suppose that perhaps continuing the petition is the closest thing to a rejection should somebody
- Want to recommend that but we must make a recommendation tonight Of one of those choices and with that
- I invite members to discuss this case, mr Flaherty you distinguish between the second third options
- again the refinement I think it's that we want to recommend an amendment, but we don't need it to come
- back to us. Whereas C is We want to see refinements and we want
- Input in them before we vote. So that's my assumption is to What that should mean mr. Binder. Yeah,
- just another point of order I guess my question would be more about the difference the qualitative difference
- between C and D because I Would D simply be oh this seems interesting week, but we just need more time
- to talk about it we don't necessarily need to see further changes proposed by staff and
- Is that the idea behind D? I'm going to suggest the idea that the idea of continuing the petition is
- that we have enough satisfaction, dissatisfaction with the proposal that we think it needs more than
- just a few refinements, that it needs a rethinking. Now I welcome the input of staff, especially Mr.
- Roebling, who authored these, the primary text of these bylaws. Do I have this interpretation correct?
- Would say no that I Think D would be to not ask staff to do anything with it. You just need more time
- You weren't satisfied with the timing of the vote You wanted more members to be present something like
- that. Whereas C would be asking something specific the idea was that you would Identify the exact changes
- or as close as you can that you would like to see staff come back with in a future meeting
- Well, I'll note that for our options when we're considering resolutions that we can Approve or reject
- in one case we can do positive or negative recommendations. We don't have that option here How would
- you suggest if there's a majority that? Finds this proposal dissatisfactory. What are we to do? It's
- a great question. So the body doesn't have the ability to
- Permanently stall anything the decision of all transportation infrastructure projects lies solely in
- the city engineers hands so you can only approve or ask for considerations or you can modify
- the recommendation or recommended findings you can adopt your own findings that dissuade
- Adoption of whatever we're proposed. Why do we'd agree to these bylaws again? This doesn't seem to make
- a whole lot of sense. Mr. Robling, you know, we should be able to say We don't like the project. Yeah,
- I think you absolutely can do that So the you just can't stop a project that is the city engineers job,
- but you can you don't have to support the project and
- It similar to a negative recommendation where you can modify the language of the findings and you can
- find negative findings I would say that is Different than the word approval. We might want to look at
- in a future meeting, but yes, we would yes Okay. Well, I hope that has clarified for everyone the choices
- that we have and with that I invite discussion of case TCP 2610 Who wants to start?
- Ms. Davis Anybody to my right mr. Flaherty Sure I Would be in favor of option C Which is moving that
- we were to refer the petition back to staff for refinements prior to it coming back to us and I had
- I do have a motion prepared to that end That I would be happy to make at some point. I will say I don't
- agree with the staff proposed findings and
- You know, is it consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted city plans? I would
- say no. It doesn't meet the transportation plan for a PBL on this corridor, for instance. Is it consistent
- with best practices for eliminating all transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries? I would
- again say no because there's clear steps that we could take that were proposed previously and then abandoned
- largely because of a single stakeholder IU.
- Is it consistent with advancing sustainable transportation and equitable access to all facility users
- while prioritizing non-automotive modes? I think, again, the idea that we've got space for three things
- and we're deprioritizing the non-automotive modes to give double priority to the automotive mode for
- several blocks is, again, this proposal is not consistent with the criteria for approving plans.
- And then, you know, it has an adequately conducted public engagement and considered community-centric
- designs tied to targeted outcomes. Again, I think that the kind of setting aside of what was the clear
- community priorities in favor of the priorities of Indiana University means that we would need different
- findings. If we're going to vote on findings for this concept, we would need, I believe, to make findings
- that it doesn't meet any of the criteria that are
- codified criteria for review. Just to be clear, I'm dissatisfied with the design. I'm not upset with
- staff. I understand there are competing concerns here, and you're balancing the things you have to balance,
- and that sometimes these decisions are made by folks other than those in this room as well. But I am
- really concerned about this pattern of behavior from Indiana University.
- You know, previously it was Tom Morrison was the VP of Capital Planning and Facilities and Adam Teese
- who worked under him. They're both no longer at IU. But folks who've been working on this stuff for
- a while, including our staff, know very well that we delayed implementation of those safety improvements
- on 3rd Street for like seven or eight years because Capital Planning and Facilities called the mayor's
- office under Mayor Hamilton and said, we don't like it. I met with Adam Teese about it when I was a
- graduate student and he told me it was because it was ugly.
- that they didn't like the aesthetics of temporary materials, interim materials, and that they couldn't
- support it for that reason. I don't know if that's a factor here or not, but it's, I'm sharing that
- anecdote because we've let it stop us from living our own values, and we've even made, we've increased
- ambition since that time. We've actually set a Vision Zero target. If we're going to have any chance
- of achieving it, we actually have to be able to
- stand up for the values that we espouse, the policies that we adopt. And I think what's been very clear
- from staff's presentation is that we can reasonably accommodate almost everything that Indiana University
- is concerned about, and that their concerns ultimately are not things that should trump safety. We shouldn't
- get to say, well, we want a bigger loading zone, so we are gonna make a less safe road. Like those two
- things are not equivalent interests. So I'm hopeful that
- the you know commission will be supportive of referring this back to staff for refinements that Bring
- a concept to us that is more consistent with the criteria under which we're meant to evaluate projects
- specifically that it would you know meet them and That's what I would like to propose but I'm curious
- to hear others thoughts as well Thank You. Mr. Flaherty who else would like to chime in here? Mr. Stossberg Yes
- It was highlighted that pedestrian safety is a priority in this area and that is great from my own crash
- analysis that sounds on point. But this gap for southbound cyclists will increase pedestrian risk from
- sidewalk riding. It was a concern for me that staff wasn't ready with the answer of whether sidewalk
- riding was legal here because there might be not just a likely conflict but a legal conflict
- between cyclists, although you did clarify that it's not all that case. The things I would be comfortable
- with besides just sending it back is narrowing the scope to say it seems maybe otherwise good, but for
- this section. Or I think there needs to be some kind of contingency plan if there really is a conflict
- between the cyclists, southbound cyclists and pedestrians there. One could be build it like it is and
- then have a plan for what if you need to adjust it after that.
- Or I would be comfortable approving it with temporary materials so that to me though these are some
- options to move something forward to improve safety some sooner but we need to I think anticipate that
- this gap may be a problem that needs to be significantly addressed. Thank you. Thank you. To my left
- Mr. Coppock.
- Ms. Davis Any thoughts no, mr. Binder. Yeah, just a couple I actually want to commend staff for their
- work on this project so far. I think there were a lot of difficult problems that You know, we're pretty
- apparent at the outset of this and I'll just actually cite one example the the crossover of the protected
- bike lane, you know between at water and third and and its interaction with the
- you know, South Henderson Street protected path on the west side of the street. That was not an easy
- design to kind of work through and iterate on. So I think that, you know, I'm confident that we can
- eventually get to a good solution for this project because I think that staff have already demonstrated
- that they want to do a good job with this project and have the capability to do so. But I do want to
- call out that
- I don't think that this is presently designed I can support. I think Councilmember Flaherty already
- outlined just about all of the same concerns that I have about it, the design, and not just the design,
- but the actual engagement process, some of the parts of the planning process, and the degree to which
- IU's demonstrated a certain level of influence on this project. As well they should, it's obviously,
- adjacent to campus and they should have a say in this project, but I just get the sense that I think
- at the moment we're sort of being held to certain whims that IU Capital Planning have not just about
- this project, but others in the past, Third Street and so forth. So yeah, option C for sending this
- back to staff for further refinement is also probably a motion that I would support.
- There are many things that I do like about this project. I think it's moving in a in the proper direction
- but I also think it would be a shame if it were if it were built as depicted currently because of You
- know the various shortcomings namely the gap in the protected bike lane between third and Kirkwood So
- yeah, that's what I'll say about that. So again, thank you to planning staff for their your work on
- this so far and
- Look forward to seeing new versions of it in the future Thanks Well a few things first we're in debate
- now mr. Seward is there something that you I Was just gonna say that I Appreciate this discussion and
- just read it if if the motion or the direction is to send it back to staff for further refinements Just
- Making the request some of this dialogue is really helpful to understand like what? Specifically you're
- asking for or you know if certain parts of the project are generally favorable if there are the more
- specific you can be That that would be helpful to staff to hear if there are options that cut I just
- wanted to share that It's a valuable point of order that I was about to bring up and I appreciate you
- clarifying it It's a it's a good point and I'm gonna get to it. But first I want to say just to throw
- it a fact that
- The two blocks of Indiana between third and Kirkwood are I happen to know because I have stuck my hands
- elbow deep into parking data, the most in demand parking spots in the city without question. The price
- on those blocks should double. If they double tomorrow, they would still be an excess of 88% usage.
- So from a commercial perspective alone,
- I would not favor any change that removes that parking. Changing it to flex space or what have you is
- significant, but one of our charges is to consider the commercial viability of transportation infrastructure.
- So I did appreciate the consideration of it. On the other hand, I do, as people have heard me say tonight,
- have an objection to businesses thinking that they can and should be able to deliver anytime they want.
- About the only entity in this corridor that I would defer to on that note is ironically IU, because
- they are more of a 24-7 operation, shall we say. That's as far as I'm gonna go when it comes to complimenting
- IU here, but I do wanna point out that
- I think we should be rethinking allowing deliveries any hour of the day and that we should be requiring
- businesses to be thinking the same way about deliveries that we thought when implementing meters is
- that no, you can't just have deliveries done anytime you want. We need to schedule it. But that's not
- a matter for this design. IU did not consult us
- when they closed 7th Street to bus traffic, when they closed 7th Street to all traffic. They put a statue
- of Hoagy Carmichael there 20 years ago, said, like it or lump it. 20 years before that, they didn't
- ask anybody when they decided to plop a couple of gates down at the corner of Kirkwood and Indiana.
- If you look at the history of IU, you'll see that there were plenty of opportunities to turn right
- going westbound on 3rd Street to turn into the campus. IU has effectively created a super block between
- 3rd and 10th, between Indiana and what is now Eagleson. They didn't ask anybody's permission, they just,
- they're the state and they do what they want. And here now, ironically, they're throwing their weight
- around again. It's ironic that they can make those changes whenever they feel like, but then when we
- wanna make a change that we think we see fit,
- IU says no no but you know they don't check with us. They're not the greatest neighbors. Let's just
- be blunt about it. And in fact that they don't feel that they need to be here says volumes. So I feel
- for city staff that has to to endure it. But just the fact that city staff met with IU five to seven
- times on this project.
- is this commission going to have meaningfully more than one opportunity to consider it? Maybe we'll
- get one more, but you know, uh, we weren't at that table. We weren't there to uphold the, uh, the, the
- goals of the city, uh, along with them to represent, uh, uh, the public interest, but we should have
- enough opportunity to also, uh,
- Refine this proposal until it It's appropriate But in the end, it's going to be a matter of who has
- the most clout I do agree with the idea that We should refine it, but we should refine it simply put
- to go to mr. Teeber's point about what next We should refine it to the original
- where there's a continuous bike lane, that's what I'm gonna recommend. I don't know exactly how to make
- that recommendation. That's what I would like to direct staff to do is simply revert to that design
- and then let's send that design to city council and see what happens. I don't know what else to do.
- The best thing I can say is make a dedicated, if you're gonna really force bike traffic onto Dunn, make
- a dedicated bike lane
- from Kirkwood all the way to Henderson, down Atwater. There is an awful lot of space on that speedway
- of a road that turns into Atwater. It's never been necessary. It wouldn't impede traffic. It would only
- keep traffic going the speed that it should be going instead of revving up to go 35 miles an hour on
- Atwater. It wouldn't hurt to put a protected bike lane there and it would make sense to connect it with
- Atwater and Henderson, but that's not what we should be preferring. What we should be preferring is
- that third through fifth be bike lanes as well on Indiana. Uh, the last thing I'll say is it was staff's
- idea to eliminate three commissions to create this one. And in so doing, uh, limited the public's ability
- to oversee in this way that we find ourselves now that we don't have the way to meaningfully reject
- a proposal.
- Like we can't a petition like we can other types of items that come before us It's a problem with our
- bylaws that we need to revisit. I'm glad mr. Robling thinks that we need to revisit it and You know,
- I want to point out that city code says that this body has the ability to set its own bylaws so I would
- like some meaningful dialogue with staff about a way that this body can
- More effectively object to a proposal that it finds unsatisfactory right now in our bylaws again initially
- written by staff The the point has been made we Can't meaningfully delay let alone reject a project.
- I don't think that's appropriate. I think that We should be able to make a negative recommendation just
- as we can on a resolution in our bylaws Is there any follow-up commentary?
- before we go to a vote and also is there a member who would like to I mean I'd like to say that if a
- member is going to propose to refer the matter back to staff a further refinement to be specific about
- what refinement they would like to see. Anyone is there a proposal a motion motion I can send this in
- writing the staff.
- I move that we refer the petition back to staff prior to its return to the Commission for further refinements
- of the design concept, especially between 3rd Street and 6th Street, to better align the proposal with
- the Commission's criteria and findings for transportation projects, and especially regarding alignment
- with the transportation plan's call for protected bike lanes along Indiana Avenue, the removal of double
- threat for pedestrian crossings of Indiana Avenue, and consistency with community feedback.
- Is there a second for that motion? Second motion. Second for Mr. Binder. Is there any discussion of
- the motion? I'll go to Ms. Davis since she hasn't been called on. Um, I support Mr. Flaherty's motion.
- Okay. I mean, we're not calling him for a vote yet. Just want to know if you had any comments on it.
- Any comments on the motion to my left, to my right?
- Seeing none, we'll go to a roll call vote on the motion to refer the matter back to staff, according
- to the criteria Mr. Flaherty laid out. Will the staff please call the roll? Finder? Yes. Fallon? Yes.
- Flaherty? Yes. Davis? Yes.
- Yes And copic yes That motion passes unanimously six zero Thank you to everyone for the presentation.
- We know now go to TCR 26 11 title 15 amendments atlas on 17th Amending title 15 to codify proposed changes
- to stop control speed no parking and bus zones who is here to present this item
- That'll be me and could you introduce yourself? Yeah, my name is John Garzi from the engineering department
- So this item is for the atlas on 17th subdivision Accepted into the city's street maintenance inventory
- by the Board of Public Works in March 2025 stop signs and 20 mile per hour signs Were installed at the
- time but not formally added to title 15 Since then we've heard concerns from parking services police
- and Bloomington Transit about illegal parking and
- traffic flow, and access for larger vehicles. Staff completed a field review and coordinated with Bloomington
- Transit. We're proposing to codify the existing controls, add targeted no parking restrictions, and
- designate a bus layover to support safe, reliable operations. If you'd like me to go into detail about
- the specific
- Proposals then I can point out them In terms of no parking we're proposing to have no parking on Breckenridge
- which is north of Telluride Our concerns there is that it's too narrow of a street for people to be
- able to pass if people are parking on both sides of the streets and so we're proposing to eliminate
- parking on the east sides as there are
- driveways on those sides, and so it's easier for us to remove parking there, just to allow for better
- visibility. We're also removing parking at Redland, just west of Telluride, and that's also to provide
- abilities for vehicles to drive on the street and to make turns. Same thing at Telluride in the middle
- of the block, as well as Aurora,
- And this is to provide a space for buses to stop and do their layover. Right now buses are stopping
- in the middle of the road on Telluride just east of the curve. And this will provide the buses place
- for them to stop for about 15 minutes as the operators need to go and use the restroom or wait for their
- route to start again. And the same thing is happening at Aurora. We're removing parking for about 50 feet.
- so that the bus can come southbound and make a left turn. That hatched area that you can see is intended
- to prevent people from parking there, but just to clarify it, we're gonna add yellow curb and a no parking
- sign there. In terms of 20 mile per hour signs, we're gonna be doing that for the entire length of Telluride, Redland,
- Arvada, Aurora, and Englewood, so most of the entire neighborhood. We're also adding some stop signs
- on Breckenridge as it approaches Telluride, Redland as well as it approaches Telluride, and Arvada as
- it approaches Redland, as well as Telluride as it approaches Aurora, and Englewood and Arlington Park
- as it approaches 17th Street,
- So basically all the minor streets as they approach a major street. If you're done presenting, just
- say thank you and let us know that we can take questions. If there are any questions, I'll take them.
- All right, thank you for the presentation. Are there any questions for staff on
- Uh, TC PC P, uh, 26 11 to my left, to my right online. With that, uh, well, I guess we'll go to, uh,
- the public. If there's any member of the public who'd like to speak on TCP 26 11, please come to the
- podium, state your name. You'll have three minutes. If you are online, please use the raise hand function and zoom.
- You'll be called on Is there anyone who would like to comment on TCP 26 11? Mr. Robling, is there anybody
- online? Just a small clarification TCR in this case because I'm sorry. It's a resolution. It's a resolution.
- I'm sorry TCR I it's hard to go back and forth to make sure I've got the right number here. This is
- a resolution So just as a reminder while we're coming back to members
- This is the resolution to be forwarded to the Common Council. We can make a positive recommendation
- negative recommendation no recommendation or continue to a future meeting with that. I'll come back
- for a second round of questions or comment or motion a motion. I move to adopt the proposed findings
- and for the resolution to City Council with a positive recommendation. Is there a second second.
- Motion in a second. Any discussion of the motion? Seeing none, will the staff please call the roll on
- the motion to recommend with a positive recommendation to move forward with a positive recommendation
- to the common council, TCR 2611. Vollen? No? Vollen. Vollen, thank you.
- Yes Flaherty yes Davis yes Stasberg yes Copic yes Binder yes That motion passes 6-0. Thank you to staff for that
- We now move to the next item on our agenda, which is discussion of items not on the docket including
- staff proposals or general public comment. This has been compressed a little bit. But anyway, if there
- any other any items that members would like to bring up for discussion that are not on the docket to
- my left to my right. Mr. Flaherty just a very brief follow up on the
- Council's deliberation session, which I had mentioned previously about accessibility and snow removal.
- I think we agreed. Mr Stossberg is going to join that session It was delayed by a month to May 13th
- based on some other business the council had if any commissioners have Specific questions or issues
- they want to make sure that we take a look at in that deliberation session Please just let me know within
- the next week. That's all. Okay. Thank you. Any other items for discussion is Davis Okay, I would like to
- to discuss bylaws at some point to see if we can do something about Recommendations for petitions. I
- also am concerned about This body's obligation to develop an annual report In the wake of the parking
- study regardless of the how it's corrected This this body's responsible at least for overseeing the
- production of a report and
- And it is now April. We're almost through our first year How does staff want to handle that obligation
- that we have? Great question the we'll have to get together engineering public works planning
- and transportation and ESD in order to start that up we were hoping that they would finish up this and
- Parking study and then we could jump into the annual report and right now that we're crossing the finish
- line The plan is to pivot to that. So the plan was to what pivot to that? And so we'll aim in that direction
- Shortly once once everything's all wrapped up there. That's the new plan. Okay, does staff have a sense
- of What month of the year the report would be most appropriate to be issued or does it not matter? Do
- you think? a
- Doesn't matter as far as staff is concerned We were happy to discuss it with the commission if you all
- have a certain month you're aiming for but good Thank you Any other any general public comment from
- members of the public who have not spoken Speaking an item that's not on the agenda tonight. If so,
- please raise your hand in zoom Or come to the podium. You'll have three minutes
- Is there anyone who'd like to speak on an item that was not on tonight's docket? I have Paul Russo online
- and they should be able to unmute here in just a second. All right, please state your name. You'll have
- three minutes. Mr. Russo. Okay, took a while to let me unmute. Thank you.
- I've not been able to attend a meeting of yours since last summer. Mondays is usually a problem for
- me. So I have a backlog of small items. I'll try to run through just four of them. I would like to see
- the 180 day notices on 7th Street ended. I think we're on three or four by now. I don't think that's
- what it was intended for. I think one of the commissioners actually said that words to that effect this
- evening. Second item is that I've noticed that the Grant Street
- Parking is no longer in compliance with the city code due to some construction. And then I would be
- glad to send you a proposed ordinance change to clarify that right now they're just south of 10th street.
- There's parking on both sides of the street and that makes a great hazard for bicyclists. And I'm proposing
- to simplify it. So I would be glad to send that to
- Commissioner Flaherty, for example, since I have his email address and you could consider it at your
- next meeting, I don't know what the procedure is. Third item is that the speed limit on North Washington
- Street, south of 10th Street is incorrectly posted. There should be no variance from the default of
- 25 miles an hour, but there's a 30 mile per hour sign posted just south of 10th that needs to be removed.
- And the last thing is that I,
- Strongly second commissioner of Olin's idea to revisit bylaws. Um, it does appear that, um, bylaws that
- you basically inherited are need to be, um, revisited. Thanks for your time. Thank you, Mr. Rousseau.
- Is there any other member of the public who would like to speak? Uh, please raise your hand and zoom
- or come to the podium and you'll have three minutes. This is general public comment on items not on
- the docket.
- I would like to say that generally speaking, if you would like to contact the transportation commission,
- the email address I believe is transportation.commission at bloomington.ion.gov. So please feel free,
- Mr. Rousseau and anybody else who has comments to send email to that. It will get to every member of
- the commission that way. Is that correct? That is correct. It automatically forwards to, um, four different
- people at least, uh, all of the staff liaisons.
- Okay, does it forward to the commissioners? No, it is it does not automatically forward to commissioners
- Okay, how do we get if we want to hear mr. Rousseau's comments? How do we get his email short of us
- giving our own email out sure thing so typically there's a form for general public comment on the website
- as well and the expectation is that once a month before every meeting staff liaisons are checking that
- to make sure that
- As people are making those comments, they are included as part of the packet. Last I checked, there
- wasn't anything new, so nothing was added to this particular packet, but then I create accessible documents
- from those comments that come in vis-a-vis Google Form, and that is how you're sort of set up to receive
- public comments that way. Sometimes they are not related to topics on the docket, but that's much more
- rare. They generally are.
- Four topics on the docket. So we're helping arrange that feedback as it comes in Thank you for that
- explanation Although I think it would be nice if we could be emailed directly without us having to give
- our Our home emails out so I think it'd be nice if staff were to come up with a Method for people being
- able to email us directly as well as using the public comment form. Yeah, I
- That may be possible there. Thank you at that may also involve a quick conversation with ITS. Okay Thank
- you. Is there any other last minute comment before we adjourn? Mr. Ruffling. Yeah staff has some updates
- from previous Agenda items which are transportation inquiries there have been four so far We have one
- no parking Question or inquiry related to Matlock Heights and
- We expect to see that in May and then we have Inquiries related to College Mall and Covenanter and Smith
- and Morningside. We are still looking into those So we don't expect them to necessarily be at May but
- they could potentially see some a petition or resolution in May and then We had an inquiry related to
- enforcement policy that came along with the College Mall Covenanter Inquiry and we are still looking
- into that. I expect that on a longer term
- Timeline, but we are working on it Thank you for that update I think that's it. Thank you everyone.
- Our next meeting is what day it is May Well May 18th May 18th, it is a weird one because they're of
- funny holidays. Oh 25th is Memorial Day. Okay, so we will see everyone I'm glad I asked May 18th at
- 530 in this room and
- With that, this meeting is adjourned.