WEBVTT 00:00:01.090 --> 00:00:12.689 - We'll call this meeting to order. This is the April meeting of the Bloomington Transportation Commission. 00:00:12.689 --> 00:00:23.960 - Can we please have a call of the roll? OK, now. Coppock? Still here. Thank you. Connell? Binder? Here. 00:00:23.960 --> 00:00:30.526 - Volin? Volin, that's here. I'm here. Drumme? Faraday? Here. 00:00:31.682 --> 00:00:39.820 - Davis? Here. Skursko? She's out. And then Strasburg. Strasburg, here. OK, looks like we have a quorum 00:00:39.820 --> 00:00:47.400 - in chambers. Here is a brief review of our agenda for this regular hearing. We'll hear reports 00:00:47.400 --> 00:00:55.378 - and communications from commissioners and from staff, including an administrative update, an update 00:00:55.378 --> 00:00:56.894 - on 180-day orders, 00:00:57.378 --> 00:01:06.457 - an update on the ADA transportation plan, an update on the parking study status, and an update on the 00:01:06.457 --> 00:01:15.446 - North Walnut Street project. We'll then hear cases, including TCP 2610, a corridor study for Indiana 00:01:15.446 --> 00:01:24.347 - Avenue, Smith to 10th. Scroll further down here. Also, TCR 2611, Title 15 amendments, including the 00:01:24.347 --> 00:01:26.750 - subdivision atlas on 17th. 00:01:26.946 --> 00:01:34.600 - And then we'll have discussions, staff proposals, general public comment, et cetera. And we'll adjourn 00:01:34.600 --> 00:01:42.254 - a discussion that would be of topics that are not already on the docket. Let us start now with we have 00:01:42.254 --> 00:01:49.685 - no minutes for approval prepared this month. So let's go straight to reports from commissioners. Is 00:01:49.685 --> 00:01:54.366 - there a commissioner who has a report to my left, to my right? 00:01:56.674 --> 00:02:04.877 - Online Okay, we commissioners shouldn't be shy to to weigh in just briefly want to say that I want to 00:02:04.877 --> 00:02:13.562 - say thanks to Jackie Scanlon in the planning transportation department for repairing the parking Commission 00:02:13.562 --> 00:02:22.166 - page, even though the Commission is Defunct there's still relevant materials on it and it had some missing 00:02:22.166 --> 00:02:23.614 - links and between 00:02:23.938 --> 00:02:31.456 - Jackie Scanlon and Iris Bull they got it fixed this afternoon and it's want to say I'm appreciative 00:02:31.456 --> 00:02:39.199 - of it. Okay. With that we go now to reports and communication or communication from staff. Let's start 00:02:39.199 --> 00:02:46.792 - with an administrative update. Iris Bull. Thank you. The administrative update has three components. 00:02:46.792 --> 00:02:51.678 - The first is just to report on a change that everybody voted on. 00:02:51.970 --> 00:02:58.802 - TCR 2609 Where we updated the commission calendar to reflect that there will be no scheduled regular 00:02:58.802 --> 00:03:05.635 - hearing for August at this time And as a general reminder reminder related to the calendar there are 00:03:05.635 --> 00:03:12.873 - two different places on the Commission's website where the calendar is accessible and I've shared detailed 00:03:12.873 --> 00:03:18.014 - instructions in the staff memo on how you can add that calendar to your own 00:03:18.114 --> 00:03:25.536 - Google Drive account so that it's a little easier to access. But you can also see upcoming meeting dates 00:03:25.536 --> 00:03:33.098 - on our main page on the sidebar on the right hand side. And if you have any questions related to accessing 00:03:33.098 --> 00:03:39.672 - commission documents and and the like please feel free to email the commission at commission 00:03:39.672 --> 00:03:44.478 - dot transportation dot commission at Bloomington dot i n dot g o v. 00:03:45.730 --> 00:03:51.804 - A more substantive update is on changes that are occurring at the city level with respect to document 00:03:51.804 --> 00:03:57.758 - accessibility. Over the last six months staff in the city of Bloomington ITS department have guided 00:03:57.758 --> 00:04:03.892 - and implemented a variety of updates to administrative policies applications and procedures across the 00:04:03.892 --> 00:04:09.966 - city. These updates have been necessary to ensure the city's resources will be compliant with federal 00:04:09.966 --> 00:04:13.598 - requirements around the Americans with the Disabilities Act. 00:04:14.338 --> 00:04:20.758 - which were scheduled to take effect April 24th, 2026 for government agencies serving 50,000 or more 00:04:20.758 --> 00:04:27.563 - persons. These guidelines require that all city maintain documents created or utilized as part of regular 00:04:27.563 --> 00:04:34.368 - business meet WCAG 2.1 level AA technical standards when those resources are shared or accessible through 00:04:34.368 --> 00:04:41.109 - websites and mobile apps. Given the scale of operations affected by these guidelines and in anticipation 00:04:41.109 --> 00:04:43.870 - of the inevitable update to this standard, 00:04:44.002 --> 00:04:50.403 - ITS staff adopted WCAG 2.2 standards as a compliance baseline. And typically, staff would not report 00:04:50.403 --> 00:04:56.994 - on the status of an administrative project like this because complying with federal standards is simply 00:04:56.994 --> 00:05:03.394 - a part of routine business. In theory, we're not talking about something new. This legal requirement 00:05:03.394 --> 00:05:10.112 - has sort of been in development since 2010. In practice, however, I've observed a wide range of reactions 00:05:10.112 --> 00:05:13.534 - and experiences to the change in standards this year. 00:05:13.634 --> 00:05:19.237 - and improving the accessibility of documents and resources necessary for full participation in civic 00:05:19.237 --> 00:05:24.896 - society is an undeniably positive feature of the compliance standards. At this time, the training and 00:05:24.896 --> 00:05:30.500 - technical literacy required to consistently and reliably meet the standard has meant in many cases a 00:05:30.500 --> 00:05:34.494 - radical change the way staff complete their work on a day to day basis. 00:05:35.650 --> 00:05:41.516 - The scale and nature of some of the implemented changes will impact residents and commissioners. Some 00:05:41.516 --> 00:05:47.497 - may observe that in the coming year, for example, city staff may become reluctant to share or send PDFs 00:05:47.497 --> 00:05:53.306 - via email boards and commissions. Liaisons will no longer distribute meeting materials via a sort of 00:05:53.306 --> 00:05:59.115 - mega PDF and public records requests will no longer disperse PDF documents to the public by default. 00:05:59.115 --> 00:06:03.198 - Some of these changes may be subject to revision while others may not. 00:06:03.810 --> 00:06:09.650 - PDFs in particular create significant barriers to WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 compliance standards in order to 00:06:09.650 --> 00:06:15.491 - make continued progress on the improvement of city policies and Procedures those of us who serve as 00:06:15.491 --> 00:06:21.506 - digital document stewards for the city will need to become more adept at navigating and explaining the 00:06:21.506 --> 00:06:27.230 - common knowledge gap that exists around screen reader accessible document creation and management 00:06:28.130 --> 00:06:34.695 - Until April 17th 2026 staff were operating under the assumption that all packet materials for this meeting 00:06:34.695 --> 00:06:40.830 - needed to meet the minimum compliance standards set up by WCAG 2.2 but later in the day on the 17th 00:06:40.830 --> 00:06:47.149 - an announcement from the Justice Department signaled reconsideration of their implementation deadline. 00:06:47.149 --> 00:06:50.462 - They pushed out the compliance deadline for one year. 00:06:50.626 --> 00:06:55.993 - So practically speaking, this has alleviated some of the immediate urgency with which staff were moving 00:06:55.993 --> 00:07:01.360 - to implement all plan policy and procedural changes related to achieving compliance. However, it hasn't 00:07:01.360 --> 00:07:06.573 - changed the direction staff intend to go with respect to document preparation and management for the 00:07:06.573 --> 00:07:07.966 - Transportation Commission. 00:07:08.866 --> 00:07:15.932 - inevitably staff must abandon the preferred established practice of assembling all documents into a 00:07:15.932 --> 00:07:23.211 - single PDF document for public review as There's simply no feasible way to do this in a way that meets 00:07:23.211 --> 00:07:30.489 - WCAG 2.1 or 2.2 standards as staff works towards Standardizing an alternative document linking system. 00:07:30.489 --> 00:07:36.990 - We welcome commissioners and public feedback on how to improve the process And then finally 00:07:38.082 --> 00:07:43.504 - There is a section in here conflict of interest disclosure forms. The deputy clerk of communications 00:07:43.504 --> 00:07:48.927 - and outreach Jennifer Crossley has requested all staff liaisons to direct all boards and commissions 00:07:48.927 --> 00:07:54.403 - members to fill out the 2026 conflict of interest questionnaire form online with the expectation that 00:07:54.403 --> 00:07:59.772 - members will complete this task by the next scheduled meeting. In this case commissioners will have 00:07:59.772 --> 00:08:01.758 - until May 18th to complete the form. 00:08:01.986 --> 00:08:07.764 - The city of Bloomington legal department will be reviewing form submissions to determine if appointees 00:08:07.764 --> 00:08:13.374 - need to complete another state mandated form. And if you have any questions about the questionnaire 00:08:13.374 --> 00:08:19.040 - you can direct them to crossly directly. And I've provided her contact information and I'll take any 00:08:19.040 --> 00:08:24.874 - comments or questions at this time. Thank you for that report. Are there any comments or questions from 00:08:24.874 --> 00:08:30.764 - members about administrative schedules document accessibility changes or conflict of interest disclosure 00:08:30.764 --> 00:08:31.774 - forms on my left. 00:08:33.058 --> 00:08:42.334 - On my right. Online. I can't see Ms. Davis to see whether or not she's got her hand raised. OK. I do 00:08:42.334 --> 00:08:51.518 - have one question about the document accessibility forms. So if PDFs aren't compliant, what kind of 00:08:51.518 --> 00:08:58.590 - documents are compliant? Are Word documents or text files, what's compliant? 00:08:58.850 --> 00:09:07.009 - That's a great question. Technically speaking compliance is something that's achieved by in terms of 00:09:07.009 --> 00:09:15.410 - how the document is prepared dictates whether or not is compliant. So the format itself won't determine 00:09:15.410 --> 00:09:21.630 - compliance. It's how well the resources utilized with a specific application 00:09:21.730 --> 00:09:28.793 - will make it compliant. So yes, Word documents can be compliant, but Word documents can also not be 00:09:28.793 --> 00:09:35.856 - compliant if you don't use all of the features in them appropriately. So for example, a very common 00:09:35.856 --> 00:09:43.202 - practice is to make a bullet list in a Word document by just hitting the line on the keyboard, and then 00:09:43.202 --> 00:09:49.982 - hitting Tab, and then manually typing it in. And instead, you should be using the list function 00:09:50.082 --> 00:09:57.125 - built into the program what's happening on the behind the scenes is that you're creating metadata that 00:09:57.125 --> 00:10:04.168 - a screen reader can actually pick up on and utilize to direct the experience appropriately for someone 00:10:04.168 --> 00:10:11.074 - who's using a screen reader. Without that documents just become walls of overwhelming text and noise 00:10:11.074 --> 00:10:19.006 - that are generally not considered compliant. So if a member of the public sends the commission a handwritten letter 00:10:19.266 --> 00:10:26.831 - Does someone have to type it in for it to become accessible? It can't simply be scanned and attached 00:10:26.831 --> 00:10:34.770 - as part of a question So when the time comes there will be a provision sort of carved out for third-party 00:10:34.770 --> 00:10:42.334 - documents That may be something that the Commission Liaisons don't need to do anything for it's sort 00:10:42.334 --> 00:10:49.150 - of an open question at what point do we need to remediate documents presented to staff and 00:10:49.538 --> 00:10:57.157 - My hope and assumption is that so long as folks are sending us digital documents, it is a trivial exercise 00:10:57.157 --> 00:11:04.491 - to make them screen reader accessible and to preserve them that way. If they provide us with something 00:11:04.491 --> 00:11:11.825 - handwritten, that's actually harder because when we scan them, they are scanned and sent to us as PDFs 00:11:11.825 --> 00:11:19.230 - from the copier. That's just a, yeah. Is it also safe to assume that any petitions coming before us are 00:11:19.458 --> 00:11:27.141 - Already screen-readable like they're already being prepared in this format. Yeah Yeah, all of the case 00:11:27.141 --> 00:11:34.674 - documents that we've prepared that said because the of the deadline extension And for my own sanity, 00:11:34.674 --> 00:11:42.133 - I didn't push myself too hard this month, especially this month. I just meant in general I just did 00:11:42.133 --> 00:11:43.550 - yeah in general it 00:11:45.122 --> 00:11:51.550 - In theory, staff liaisons should not be accepting any documents from staff that are not already compliant. 00:11:51.550 --> 00:11:57.738 - It is not the liaison's responsibility to create a compliant document. I believe that's the equivalent 00:11:57.738 --> 00:12:03.926 - of shots fired there, Mr. Seaborg. I just thought you should note that. All right. Thank you very much 00:12:03.926 --> 00:12:09.993 - for those answers. And I look forward to seeing what I mean. I guess we're not going to have packets 00:12:09.993 --> 00:12:13.598 - anymore. We won't have packets and genuinely I had hoped to 00:12:13.698 --> 00:12:21.291 - Perhaps be able to prepare something in advance for commissioners, but I have too many limitations on 00:12:21.291 --> 00:12:29.182 - my time. It wasn't something I could. But it is safe to assume that every document linked to in an agenda 00:12:29.182 --> 00:12:37.073 - is being preserved in a separate place on the city file server. Yes. So part of the process here involved 00:12:37.073 --> 00:12:43.550 - ITS creating a special shared Google Drive where it is sharing management permissions. 00:12:43.650 --> 00:12:49.197 - For all boards and commissions, so for Transportation Commission, we were already sort of doing this 00:12:49.197 --> 00:12:54.855 - on the back end in terms of document preparation and management So it's for us. It looks a little more 00:12:54.855 --> 00:13:00.622 - like just copying and pasting and moving things over when they're ready for other boards and commissions 00:13:00.622 --> 00:13:06.224 - This is a much more significant update. They weren't doing anything close to what we were doing Okay. 00:13:06.224 --> 00:13:10.014 - Well, thank you for staying on top of the technological curve for us 00:13:10.530 --> 00:13:20.080 - Let's move on now to 180-day order update. Andrew Seabor, Director of Engineering. Hello. Hi, good evening. 00:13:20.080 --> 00:13:29.630 - Just providing my monthly update on 180-day orders. Since our last meeting, four orders have been extended. 00:13:29.630 --> 00:13:36.350 - No new orders have been issued. Pending one discussion topic on your agenda 00:13:36.546 --> 00:13:42.446 - Later today about the atlas on 17th subdivision. There may be another 180 new one issued in the coming 00:13:42.446 --> 00:13:48.404 - month There is a similar one to that related to a relatively new subdivision close to summit elementary 00:13:48.404 --> 00:13:54.247 - that may also be issued Between now and your next meeting but just giving you a preview of what might 00:13:54.247 --> 00:13:59.975 - be coming But right now with these are just re issuance of prior orders and I'm happy to answer any 00:13:59.975 --> 00:14:01.694 - questions you have about them 00:14:03.618 --> 00:14:10.081 - Any questions for staff on 180 D orders to my right? Mr. Flaherty Thanks. I just my ongoing structural 00:14:10.081 --> 00:14:16.545 - question about Whether or not there is clarity in the administration specifically the legal department 00:14:16.545 --> 00:14:22.820 - About how to handle 180 orders. So you sent out an email update recently and I think was a bunch of 00:14:22.820 --> 00:14:29.095 - renewals So we're sort of as we don't result as we fail to resolve this question the sort of number 00:14:29.095 --> 00:14:32.734 - of 180 orders grows we keep renewing more and more that's 00:14:33.186 --> 00:14:40.723 - Clearly not, you know the the intent for how them they're supposed to be used. So any any updates on 00:14:40.723 --> 00:14:48.260 - Timelines how to resolve a fair question. I don't have any significant New information to share from 00:14:48.260 --> 00:14:56.245 - your question last month. I Guess an honest question. Maybe we can connect offline is I understand council 00:14:56.245 --> 00:14:59.230 - has a attorney at least on call or that 00:14:59.842 --> 00:15:07.052 - The next step in my mind was having counsel's attorney and administration legal team work together on 00:15:07.052 --> 00:15:14.332 - this topic And I for my sake I would love for that to happen. Yeah that occurred to me, too So I guess 00:15:14.332 --> 00:15:21.401 - is it still the position of Corporation Council? That the things that are covered by 180-day orders 00:15:21.401 --> 00:15:27.550 - Are not the council's purview at all That is my understanding. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm 00:15:29.378 --> 00:15:39.486 - Questions to my left for mr. Seaboard online is Davis Okay The only question I have is in the agenda 00:15:39.486 --> 00:15:49.995 - the several items that are Listed under hundred-day orders. These are all existing ones that just happen 00:15:49.995 --> 00:15:59.102 - to be being linked to they're not actually on the agenda is that In other words if they're 00:15:59.490 --> 00:16:05.802 - the agenda are we supposed to Hear about them or did we already hear about them the ones that I renewed 00:16:05.802 --> 00:16:11.870 - you've already heard about I'm happy to give a summary of them again But they are just the memo and 00:16:11.870 --> 00:16:18.000 - then just copies of the extended orders for your reference Well, I'm just thinking that for the sake 00:16:18.000 --> 00:16:24.069 - of clarity that in the future perhaps items that have already been presented to the Commission Just 00:16:24.069 --> 00:16:29.470 - don't get listed here there because they're already in the staff memo you linked to them 00:16:29.922 --> 00:16:37.778 - in the staff memo and that way we don't have to worry about voting on each one. That is a reasonable 00:16:37.778 --> 00:16:45.711 - suggestion. I believe that in this version of the template so to speak for the agenda this is sort of 00:16:45.711 --> 00:16:54.112 - like standard practice for just listing all possible like attachments with a specific item. But I recognize 00:16:54.112 --> 00:16:57.534 - that the agenda starts looking really long. 00:16:58.114 --> 00:17:03.968 - 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 00:17:03.968 --> 00:17:09.707 - this is a just an update but it might in the future if you take those four items and just link them 00:17:09.707 --> 00:17:15.446 - in the staff memo only the new ones should be the ones that we become unless there's something here 00:17:15.446 --> 00:17:20.382 - that we're supposed to vote on that it's coming back for a second hearing suit I mean 00:17:20.834 --> 00:17:27.423 - I see what you're saying something we can consider going forward and just also a general note about 00:17:27.423 --> 00:17:34.671 - things that would be in this part of the agenda Are just reports and not things I would expect the Commission 00:17:34.671 --> 00:17:41.260 - to have to take action. Okay. Thank you Let's move on now to the ADA transportation plan. I believe 00:17:41.260 --> 00:17:47.849 - this is mr. Shermus Hi, good evening, my name is Michael service and on the liaison for the Council 00:17:47.849 --> 00:17:49.694 - for Community Accessibility 00:17:49.858 --> 00:18:01.074 - and the Bloomington Monroe County Human Rights Commission. So every two years we do an ADA transition 00:18:01.074 --> 00:18:11.191 - plan. For those who don't know, entities of over 50 people need to show how they are making 00:18:11.191 --> 00:18:18.558 - their organization more accessible, accessible in general. And so, 00:18:19.074 --> 00:18:26.826 - We agreed that would be the ADA coordinator, which I also am and the department relevant departments 00:18:26.826 --> 00:18:34.501 - like engineer planning parks public works Who provide the data for part of this report that we will 00:18:34.501 --> 00:18:42.636 - do this every two years? So I've this is my third version of this part of that had been many years before 00:18:42.636 --> 00:18:45.246 - it had been done and each year we 00:18:45.506 --> 00:18:52.639 - acquire the data from the relevant departments and update that data and let people know as well what 00:18:52.639 --> 00:18:59.984 - we're doing to change attitudes and make more people aware of all of the issues that are out there with 00:18:59.984 --> 00:19:06.622 - lack of accessibility. And so we've been working on this. It's now considered in a draft form 00:19:06.722 --> 00:19:12.518 - And have have been passed out to the Council for Community Accessibility for a public review that just 00:19:12.518 --> 00:19:18.201 - happened this afternoon So happened that your commission was the other place where it happens in the 00:19:18.201 --> 00:19:23.884 - past It was pedestrian and bike and the Traffic Commission. So you get that now is also your duty to 00:19:23.884 --> 00:19:29.624 - do public comment and then we also send a press release out and announce it to the general public for 00:19:29.624 --> 00:19:32.606 - any input and put it the library and all of that and 00:19:32.706 --> 00:19:39.026 - In an effort to make sure that yes We're trying to cover all of the things that are needed to show that 00:19:39.026 --> 00:19:45.467 - we are trying to become more accessible so this is your opportunity to let me know of any kind of Changes 00:19:45.467 --> 00:19:51.422 - or feedback that you have on the plan that got sent out to you earlier. I will tell you there was 00:19:51.586 --> 00:19:58.257 - One error that we caught today, it's kind of ironic that it was caught because we were attempting to 00:19:58.257 --> 00:20:04.929 - ensure that the document itself was accessible. And as people may be aware, as Iris said, it takes a 00:20:04.929 --> 00:20:11.600 - lot more staff time to do this. And for a larger document with tables and charts, it becomes even, I 00:20:11.600 --> 00:20:18.403 - don't wanna use the word nightmare, but it becomes pretty difficult to be able to get it as accessible 00:20:18.403 --> 00:20:19.262 - as you need. 00:20:19.362 --> 00:20:25.191 - And we made a small error while we were struggling with one of the tables and apparently along the way 00:20:25.191 --> 00:20:31.077 - grabbed some of the data from an older table that had estimates in it as opposed to the actual figures. 00:20:31.077 --> 00:20:36.906 - So this is a corrected version of that that has the actual figures in it as opposed to a couple of the 00:20:36.906 --> 00:20:43.358 - estimates. And so it just minor changes. So that's all, but we wanted you to have the very final version of that. 00:20:43.586 --> 00:20:53.281 - With that I would take any questions if you have any concerns or issues you want to know more about 00:20:53.281 --> 00:21:03.364 - Questions for the ADA transition plan. Let's start online Miss Davis you had any I Do not I am familiar 00:21:03.364 --> 00:21:12.478 - with it and Am very appreciative of it Very good. Let's go now to in the room to my right and 00:21:14.626 --> 00:21:21.808 - 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 00:21:21.808 --> 00:21:29.061 - says that it's now available for public review. Is this supposed to be linked to in this memo in the 00:21:29.061 --> 00:21:36.243 - memo? Wait a minute. I might be confused. I saw it's attached below that. Okay. My bad. Here it is. 00:21:36.243 --> 00:21:43.424 - Okay. Nevermind. Okay. That was easy. Uh, so it's still getting used to not everything being not in 00:21:43.424 --> 00:21:44.286 - one packet. 00:21:44.418 --> 00:21:51.286 - All right. Question, Mr. Flaherty. Yeah, first, thank you. And just kudos for the third edition that 00:21:51.286 --> 00:21:58.086 - you've worked on of this plan. I enjoyed reviewing it. I appreciate the recent creation of the Snow 00:21:58.086 --> 00:22:04.886 - Buddies program to help folks who may have difficulty clearing their sidewalks in the event of snow 00:22:04.886 --> 00:22:11.890 - to partner with a neighbor or another volunteer to be able to do that. I think that's really terrific. 00:22:11.890 --> 00:22:13.182 - And so first, just 00:22:13.282 --> 00:22:20.296 - the question of how that's going and yeah, just like what our experience is to date. But then second, 00:22:20.296 --> 00:22:27.310 - it reminded me that there was a related accessibility issue with snow that I don't believe was really 00:22:27.310 --> 00:22:34.187 - covered in the plan. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Maybe very briefly in one place. But it was a 00:22:34.187 --> 00:22:40.926 - really, really significant accessibility challenge in the couple of larger snowstorms we had this 00:22:41.730 --> 00:22:47.482 - this year, as you're surely aware, and we've experienced similar in the past. The council is hosting 00:22:47.482 --> 00:22:53.292 - a deliberation session in May that we intend to invite some different stakeholders, including Council 00:22:53.292 --> 00:22:59.158 - for Community Accessibility, this commission, and others to join to try to work on that. But does that 00:22:59.158 --> 00:23:04.853 - deserve more, I guess, attention in this report, like that issue and the need to address it and the 00:23:04.853 --> 00:23:09.182 - gaps we face there? So two questions. One is, how's nobody's going? Second, 00:23:09.282 --> 00:23:16.617 - What about snow and accessibility more broadly in its role or place in this plan? Well, I'll take the 00:23:16.617 --> 00:23:23.880 - tougher question first. So as people are probably aware, these snowstorms were pretty significant in 00:23:23.880 --> 00:23:31.143 - the sheer quantity of snow and the issues that came after those. And in that two, three, four weeks, 00:23:31.143 --> 00:23:38.910 - nothing to say about the snow buddies program, we experienced a lot of challenges in dealing with the snow. 00:23:39.170 --> 00:23:46.870 - There was a lot of snow that got shoved into accessible parking spaces Because of the fact that it snowed 00:23:46.870 --> 00:23:54.353 - and warm and then froze There was many places that were just practically impassable that were normally 00:23:54.353 --> 00:24:01.617 - would have would not have been an issue But they were hard to be able to break the ice and all that 00:24:01.617 --> 00:24:03.070 - stuff like that and 00:24:03.682 --> 00:24:10.798 - You know, I almost wish that Adam Wason from the Director of Public Works was here to be able to respond 00:24:10.798 --> 00:24:17.847 - to that because he is much more qualified to tell you about all of the challenges that they dealt with. 00:24:17.847 --> 00:24:24.759 - Essentially, if you want for there to be less problems with accessibility in Snow, it's probably more 00:24:24.759 --> 00:24:32.350 - about saying we need to dedicate more money to being able to clear and deal with the issues and challenges that 00:24:32.834 --> 00:24:40.429 - large snowfalls like that Means means gonna happen, you know, it's like that's what we got to do so 00:24:40.429 --> 00:24:48.176 - 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 00:24:48.176 --> 00:24:55.772 - tried to address them as quick as we possibly could could and I don't know what else because it was 00:24:55.772 --> 00:24:58.430 - unusual circumstances and it's not 00:24:58.562 --> 00:25:04.776 - Something you you know, here's an accessible problem that becomes an excessive problem later But we 00:25:04.776 --> 00:25:11.239 - try as best as we can and so I direct a lot of that to public works In the good answer for the question 00:25:11.239 --> 00:25:17.515 - is snow buddies Because of course you'll find that a lot of the complaints that came from around the 00:25:17.515 --> 00:25:23.294 - city were for people who were upset about sidewalks not being done in front of houses and so 00:25:23.522 --> 00:25:29.325 - You get three or four that have been done and then one that hasn't, and three or four that done and 00:25:29.325 --> 00:25:35.302 - one that hasn't, and the issues of snow plows that come through and shove a lot of the snow right into 00:25:35.302 --> 00:25:41.221 - the accessible curb ramp, which of course gets to be really challenging because a lot of people don't 00:25:41.221 --> 00:25:47.198 - look upon that as their responsibility because they don't look at it as doing all the snow over to it. 00:25:47.298 --> 00:25:53.472 - So not only do we ask for people to volunteer, for people who are disabled or elderly to come and do 00:25:53.472 --> 00:25:59.584 - snow removal in front of people's houses who can't do it, we also ask for people to volunteer to do 00:25:59.584 --> 00:26:05.758 - accessible curb ramps around spots near where they live. So if they don't have somebody that's close 00:26:05.758 --> 00:26:11.932 - to them that they're helping, they could do all the curb ramps as much as they can. The Snow Buddies 00:26:11.932 --> 00:26:15.966 - program has two, three dozen, well maybe more, four or five dozen 00:26:16.066 --> 00:26:23.182 - Volunteers and they're all matched with all sorts of people all over. We sometimes have certain neighborhoods 00:26:23.182 --> 00:26:29.717 - that don't Have as many volunteers around them. We work as best as we can to try to address that and 00:26:29.717 --> 00:26:36.186 - staff was out Digging stuff ourselves all the time, too. So it's a great program though. I'm really 00:26:36.186 --> 00:26:42.655 - happy we got it. Thank you Mr. Seward is just only to add to that Yeah, just just to note that this 00:26:42.655 --> 00:26:45.502 - past January I think after some of the snow 00:26:45.826 --> 00:26:51.960 - I reached out to the US access board part of the Department of Justice and specifically the the person 00:26:51.960 --> 00:26:57.915 - there that focuses on the transportation and public right-of-way to inquire just about Any guidance 00:26:57.915 --> 00:27:03.870 - or standards that they have as it relates to events like snowstorms? and and basically the response 00:27:03.870 --> 00:27:10.302 - I got is that a lot of their guidance deals with more like how things are built how they're constructed and 00:27:10.498 --> 00:27:17.521 - That they don't have explicit guidance or policies regarding things like snow events and how it impacts 00:27:17.521 --> 00:27:24.748 - the sidewalk system a specific couple things I might just read here is that the regulations do not however 00:27:24.748 --> 00:27:31.771 - prohibit isolated or temporary interruptions in service or access due to maintenance snow removal would 00:27:31.771 --> 00:27:33.662 - fall into that category and 00:27:33.890 --> 00:27:40.281 - And so just basically making sure we're not making it more burdensome For people with disabilities, 00:27:40.281 --> 00:27:46.800 - but just to say that we I did personally reach out to them Just to see if there was specific guidance 00:27:46.800 --> 00:27:53.382 - and there really isn't any related to snow specifically Seems like a gap there, too. Thank you Further 00:27:53.382 --> 00:27:59.070 - questions from commissioners for mr. Sherman's on the ADA transportation plan to my left 00:28:00.450 --> 00:28:06.475 - I do have a question that's also not in the memo. What's the deadline for submitting comments on the 00:28:06.475 --> 00:28:12.560 - plan? I think it's three weeks. It's about three weeks. It'll be in the public press release as well. 00:28:12.560 --> 00:28:18.645 - I forgot the exact date. I'm sorry. And by the way, the reason for that timeline to be compressed and 00:28:18.645 --> 00:28:24.611 - get the feedback in about three weeks is that we need to turn it around and then get it to the City 00:28:24.611 --> 00:28:28.190 - Council, because the City Council does actually vote on it. 00:28:28.386 --> 00:28:34.250 - Working on this plan. So I just want you to know that as well So I assume that it's going to be voted 00:28:34.250 --> 00:28:40.056 - on before council recess in June. Is that the idea? Yeah, it's always a question and we sort of want 00:28:40.056 --> 00:28:45.920 - to wait to get it done before we turn it over to them and say here it is Get this on your schedule as 00:28:45.920 --> 00:28:51.784 - soon as you can because we were waiting for that. So well, that's the only date to be determined Okay 00:28:51.784 --> 00:28:53.854 - Thank you very much. Thank you Yeah 00:28:54.306 --> 00:29:03.103 - It's just a reminder to everyone. Please comment on the ADA transportation plan before mid-may Let's 00:29:03.103 --> 00:29:11.900 - move on now to the parking study status update who is here to present Ms. Wall I see in the audience 00:29:11.900 --> 00:29:20.958 - Hello, hello My name is Michelle wall. I'm the parking service director for the city of Bloomington and 00:29:21.090 --> 00:29:30.078 - I'm here today to present the Walker recommendation report and I will just need access to share my screen. 00:29:54.786 --> 00:30:17.662 - for just a moment. It's not, it's not letting me at this. That's a cute kitty parked there on our screen. 00:30:23.714 --> 00:30:44.222 - Perhaps we could have another report while we're getting a technical difficulty solved or. 00:30:55.266 --> 00:31:02.964 - Oh good. All right. I apologize. So this is the Walker parking rate study and comprehensive review and 00:31:02.964 --> 00:31:10.587 - this is Walker's recommendation. So so far you've received the Walker report and the parking study on 00:31:10.587 --> 00:31:18.061 - I believe it was April 17th. Iris got it sent out and there was a Google form for all the comments. 00:31:18.061 --> 00:31:24.862 - I actually did not get any comments. So at this point I'll go ahead with the presentation. 00:31:25.698 --> 00:31:33.790 - Tonight transportation commission is in receipt of the parking rate study and comprehensive review There's 00:31:33.790 --> 00:31:41.579 - no resolution or action to be taken on any of the specific items from the report this evening The task 00:31:41.579 --> 00:31:48.158 - Completed in 2025 was existing conditions financial review stakeholder engagement peer 00:31:48.642 --> 00:31:55.888 - comparisons, which is benchmarking, organizational and policy evaluation, operations and technology, 00:31:55.888 --> 00:32:03.421 - communication, branding and wayfinding, recommendations, and then the implementation of the action plan. 00:32:03.421 --> 00:32:10.955 - Some of the takeaways of the Walker rate study and review is on straight rates are too low for turnover, 00:32:10.955 --> 00:32:16.766 - which then correlates to the garages being too low, outdated parking technology, 00:32:16.866 --> 00:32:25.884 - inconsistent wayfinding, and need for transparency. Walker broke this up in four categories, organization, 00:32:25.884 --> 00:32:34.480 - policy, operations and technology, communication, branding, and wayfinding. Under organizations, they 00:32:34.480 --> 00:32:43.076 - listed three recommendations, centralized citation appeals within parking services, establish a clear 00:32:43.076 --> 00:32:46.110 - parking services mission statement, 00:32:46.210 --> 00:32:54.154 - and then data driven operations with transparent key performance indicators. The next is policy. Their 00:32:54.154 --> 00:33:02.099 - three recommendations is implement zone based on street parking rates set rates for high and low areas 00:33:02.099 --> 00:33:09.889 - then adjust this off street parking rates to align rates with demand and operation and lastly reduce 00:33:09.889 --> 00:33:15.134 - pay to parking enforcement hours limit on street enforcement times. 00:33:17.730 --> 00:33:25.244 - Here is a table. I've listed here of the 10-year rate changes for on-street and surface lots the core 00:33:25.244 --> 00:33:32.685 - zones Which was highlighted in in the present in the actual? report Was the high demand area for the 00:33:32.685 --> 00:33:40.347 - first three years would be a dollar fifty the next three a dollar seventy five and so on the low demand 00:33:40.347 --> 00:33:44.030 - areas 125 for the first three years and so on and 00:33:45.986 --> 00:33:54.383 - The next table to the right and orange is the garage hourly recommendation from Walker and the lost 00:33:54.383 --> 00:34:03.620 - ticket fees The next slide is about operations to technologies walker listed three recommendations transition 00:34:03.620 --> 00:34:11.262 - to a multiple paint multi space meter pay station using pay-by-plate for on-street parking 00:34:12.098 --> 00:34:20.130 - upgrade and in for upgrade enforcement to LPR which is mobile license plate recognition technology to 00:34:20.130 --> 00:34:28.477 - move to fully digital permits and Lastly replace existing off-street gate parking equipment Last category 00:34:28.477 --> 00:34:36.509 - was communication branding and wayfinding they Walker suggested to create a and recommended to create 00:34:36.509 --> 00:34:41.470 - a recognizable city parking system logo and brand identity and 00:34:41.922 --> 00:34:49.767 - Next is develop and launch an ongoing parking and system communication and marketing campaign And lastly 00:34:49.767 --> 00:34:57.537 - to install informational signage at key locations Next steps Walker consultants will be here to present 00:34:57.537 --> 00:35:05.307 - report and the report findings to City Council that date is yet to be determined hopefully in May maybe 00:35:05.307 --> 00:35:09.790 - June before they break up for the summer the next is the in 00:35:09.986 --> 00:35:16.742 - input from various stakeholder groups will have focus groups and stakeholder groups along with administration 00:35:16.742 --> 00:35:23.191 - will be Will be collected to guide decisions on which rate and policy recommendations should be approved 00:35:23.191 --> 00:35:29.578 - for changes All these revised recommendations will then will propose to title 15 code changes will then 00:35:29.578 --> 00:35:35.720 - come back and present to the Transportation Commission and then the final recommendations will then 00:35:35.720 --> 00:35:38.238 - with the title 15 code changes will be a 00:35:38.530 --> 00:35:46.752 - presented to City Council for approval Lastly then the plan can be implemented So Bloomington now has 00:35:46.752 --> 00:35:55.538 - the opportunity to transfer parking from a simple utility and strategic community access that's by financial 00:35:55.538 --> 00:35:59.326 - health wayfinding improving our technology and 00:35:59.554 --> 00:36:08.271 - Making sure that we have a vibrant downtown by investing wisely and building trust We can create a parking 00:36:08.271 --> 00:36:16.907 - system that enhances the accessibility boost our city's vitality and delivers real benefit for the entire 00:36:16.907 --> 00:36:25.135 - community Thank you Thanks for the presentation you bet are there questions from commissioners about 00:36:25.135 --> 00:36:29.534 - the presentation on my left On my right, mr. Flaherty 00:36:30.274 --> 00:36:36.181 - Yeah, thank you one question. I was just reviewing the the Commission's purview In the context of parking 00:36:36.181 --> 00:36:41.921 - to and seeking to better understand how these things fit together So the Commission is is charged with 00:36:41.921 --> 00:36:47.717 - producing or overseeing an annual analysis of parking asset management That includes but is not limited 00:36:47.717 --> 00:36:53.290 - to reporting all costs and revenues for city-owned structured parking surface parking meter parking 00:36:53.290 --> 00:36:58.974 - neighborhood parking documenting parking utilization rates and longitudinal trends of those rates and 00:36:59.266 --> 00:37:06.424 - Conducting or contracting for parking data analytics and recommending changes to the parking system 00:37:06.424 --> 00:37:13.869 - necessary to advance the goals of the comprehensive plan and other applicable city plans And so I guess 00:37:13.869 --> 00:37:21.171 - my question is Is this report? Meant to satisfy that is it distinct from that and something so that's 00:37:21.171 --> 00:37:26.110 - sort of like a less frequent type of review and proposed changes and 00:37:26.498 --> 00:37:32.968 - That would be complemented by annual reporting that actually looks at things like utilization rates, 00:37:32.968 --> 00:37:39.823 - etc How does fit together in your mind? So in my mind is this is just the beginning. This is the beginning 00:37:39.823 --> 00:37:46.422 - and this report Itself contains really important information But at the same time it does not give you 00:37:46.422 --> 00:37:53.149 - the full preview that you're asking for So this is a building block to get to get to that and it depends 00:37:53.149 --> 00:37:54.558 - also on the park tech 00:37:54.786 --> 00:38:03.637 - technology we agree on that will give us the occupancy and the things that Since we've come from Parking 00:38:03.637 --> 00:38:12.235 - Commission to the Transportation Commission which which have been asked for mm-hmm got it, so this is 00:38:12.235 --> 00:38:20.917 - more like a Foundational report lays the groundwork on which the annual reporting can be built. That's 00:38:20.917 --> 00:38:23.614 - correct. Okay. Thank you Online 00:38:24.002 --> 00:38:33.780 - Ms. Davis, you have any questions? I can't see her, so... Okay, I'll just assume that's no, but get 00:38:33.780 --> 00:38:43.851 - our attention if you do. No. Okay, thank you. First question, can you, Ms. Wall for me, can you please 00:38:43.851 --> 00:38:53.726 - send those slides to Iris Bull so that they can be added to the agenda? I sure can. Okay. Does your, 00:38:54.114 --> 00:39:01.448 - Presentation imply that you Michelle wall and the parking services division Endorses the findings of 00:39:01.448 --> 00:39:09.145 - the Walker study Because it seems like you're I mean you're not they're not presenting it you are correct 00:39:09.145 --> 00:39:16.841 - because I've already presented and your your slides are saying Recommending the recommendations as though 00:39:16.841 --> 00:39:24.030 - these are the ones that you're going to make well, they are What this is is we gave you the report 00:39:24.514 --> 00:39:32.073 - That report I'm doing a summary of that report for them. They've already been here once that was contractual 00:39:32.073 --> 00:39:39.008 - and then they the other The other meeting is for counsel that we put in the RFP. So they're meeting 00:39:39.008 --> 00:39:46.151 - that obligation Just to be clear. Yeah, just be clear This is not constitute an endorsement of all the 00:39:46.151 --> 00:39:53.502 - findings in the report presenting you their their recommendations Do you have any initial thoughts about? 00:39:53.634 --> 00:40:00.451 - Findings anything you agree with or disagree with I agree with a lot and I don't I don't I don't agree 00:40:00.451 --> 00:40:07.069 - with some of them so I'm not here to Discuss that tonight because I think it has it takes more than 00:40:07.069 --> 00:40:14.084 - me. It's going to take public comment It's going to take the big lift from the Transportation Commission. 00:40:14.084 --> 00:40:20.835 - It's going to be administration. It's going to be stakeholders It's going to be businesses. Everybody 00:40:20.835 --> 00:40:22.622 - needs a voice in this Okay 00:40:22.882 --> 00:40:31.135 - I know that the production of this report was delayed by, uh, you know, personal problems at Walker. 00:40:31.135 --> 00:40:39.306 - Um, what is the remainder of the timeline for the production of this report? Like when are the next 00:40:39.306 --> 00:40:47.641 - steps going to happen? This is their final report. But, uh, uh, this is their final recommendation to 00:40:47.641 --> 00:40:50.174 - us. We will take the feedback. 00:40:50.594 --> 00:40:57.445 - And we will regroup with the working group that I shared before and see if there's going to be any any 00:40:57.445 --> 00:41:04.362 - changes to that. I'm sorry though the report says quite clearly that they have a whole lot of data left 00:41:04.362 --> 00:41:11.147 - to produce. That's not in this report. What's in this report as a denda are the questionnaires asked. 00:41:11.147 --> 00:41:18.197 - 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. 00:41:18.197 --> 00:41:20.126 - Let me see if I can find it. 00:41:20.514 --> 00:41:29.171 - They say in this report that let me go back to the beginning here This document serves as a summary 00:41:29.171 --> 00:41:38.001 - this is in the purpose this document serves as a summary focusing on the findings and recommendations 00:41:38.001 --> 00:41:44.926 - full details and additional information will be provided in the full report and 00:41:45.122 --> 00:41:53.714 - That is the full report. That's the executive report, the executive summary you're reading. The full 00:41:53.714 --> 00:42:02.306 - report is behind it. Okay. So, so for example, then the data about revenues from the parking system, 00:42:02.306 --> 00:42:11.493 - they are bare bones at most. We did not ask for a financial analysis in this report. This is a foundational 00:42:11.493 --> 00:42:13.790 - report, as we said before, 00:42:16.258 --> 00:42:22.758 - That's not clear from the way that the report is is written. I will share that with them Is there going 00:42:22.758 --> 00:42:29.071 - to be any revision of the report based on? Comments from the Transportation Commission. Yeah, I need 00:42:29.071 --> 00:42:35.384 - comments and that's why I shared Irish shared the Google sheet. I need comments back Okay, so you're 00:42:35.384 --> 00:42:42.072 - saying that the comments we're making here knock I mean you we're only you're only going to share comments 00:42:42.072 --> 00:42:44.510 - that we submit via the Google form and 00:42:45.890 --> 00:42:55.226 - Anything anything documented in this meeting sure Okay Did you have a question? All right Mr. Flaherty 00:42:55.226 --> 00:43:04.652 - Yeah one just a it's helpful some of the clarifying questions to me I So you mentioned that Walker will 00:43:04.652 --> 00:43:13.988 - present to the City Council when it hears their report or sees it Will that be at the same time as the 00:43:13.988 --> 00:43:15.710 - title 15? No, okay 00:43:15.874 --> 00:43:23.303 - Just like I'm providing you a summary of this report Walker has one more session while they'll do the 00:43:23.303 --> 00:43:31.024 - same for them. Got it I'm just doing it on their behalf Great. And and while this conversation is helpful 00:43:31.024 --> 00:43:38.381 - certainly what what? Would be most helpful by way of giving additional like detailed feedback to you 00:43:38.381 --> 00:43:41.950 - And and on what timeline I guess Just personally 00:43:42.114 --> 00:43:47.756 - you know, with the fact of coming out last week, and I was on vacation, I just had a time for a deep 00:43:47.756 --> 00:43:53.510 - read, and I'd love to, and one recommendation that struck me as a little odd was, I agree in principle 00:43:53.510 --> 00:43:59.096 - with the high demand, low demand, price dynamic pricing, or pricing differential, but a one quarter 00:43:59.096 --> 00:44:04.738 - an hour difference seems too little to me, for instance. So that's just one example of some feedback 00:44:04.738 --> 00:44:09.822 - I would probably give. What's a good process to do that? The Google sheet that I sent out. 00:44:10.114 --> 00:44:17.434 - Yeah thank you. It lists everything and it's in a straight form and it comes from you and it goes. I 00:44:17.434 --> 00:44:24.900 - will send it straight to them. I will of course read them all but I will send it to Walker as well for 00:44:24.900 --> 00:44:32.293 - clarification. I will point out on that form it doesn't ask for like personal identifying information 00:44:32.293 --> 00:44:38.526 - if you wanted to provide feedback anonymously you could do it as well. There are just 00:44:38.690 --> 00:44:46.186 - Fields that you can use to your heart's content and you know in a whatever creative fashion you'd like 00:44:46.186 --> 00:44:53.610 - and if that's insufficient you more than welcome to Email those comments and feedback to us directly. 00:44:53.610 --> 00:45:00.960 - We'll make sure that Michelle gets it Got it So I see that I'm looking at the email and it says that 00:45:00.960 --> 00:45:05.982 - ideally to share about you know in advance of this meeting It's fine 00:45:06.210 --> 00:45:13.835 - 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 00:45:13.835 --> 00:45:21.461 - It's okay if we then say like the next week or so folks are able to submit comments. Okay. Absolutely. 00:45:21.461 --> 00:45:29.456 - Yeah I've got some more questions as nobody else does. Okay. Let me see here. So In the staff memo attached 00:45:29.456 --> 00:45:34.046 - to this you write of quote balancing customer convenience and 00:45:34.530 --> 00:45:43.066 - and long term sustainability and fairness. Is that the division's policy of equating sustainability 00:45:43.066 --> 00:45:51.687 - with customer convenience. It's in our action plan. It's in our climate action plan. We were linking 00:45:51.687 --> 00:45:57.662 - all of these items to our comprehensive plan our climate action plan. 00:45:57.986 --> 00:46:04.204 - Any of the plans that I shared, you guys shared with me that you wanted me to share with Walker, all 00:46:04.204 --> 00:46:10.545 - of that is comprehensive. All of that is going to be considered. Okay. I'm going to want to find where 00:46:10.545 --> 00:46:16.947 - in the comprehensive plan it says that those two things should be equal. But, uh, in the climate action 00:46:16.947 --> 00:46:23.473 - plan, cause I don't think it's what it says. Um, did, uh, the parking services division take into account 00:46:23.473 --> 00:46:26.366 - the parking commission's comprehensive policy? 00:46:26.658 --> 00:46:35.012 - when it was developing the the spec for this report. Yes it knew it was in the Walker I shared with 00:46:35.012 --> 00:46:43.616 - Walker that it was in transition and I gave him the parking commission purpose and all those documents 00:46:43.616 --> 00:46:52.471 - that we were you were doing at the end of the closing of the commission. And then what is the expectation 00:46:52.471 --> 00:46:54.142 - of this commission. 00:46:54.274 --> 00:46:59.934 - I gave them both of those documents as guidelines. Okay. So they received them, but there was no reflection 00:46:59.934 --> 00:47:05.174 - of the commission's documents in their work or mention of the commission. Um, which commission, the 00:47:05.174 --> 00:47:10.729 - parking commission, this commission didn't exist yet, but their parking commissions, comprehensive policy 00:47:10.729 --> 00:47:16.021 - was an extant document that I assume you gave them. I will have to review the document. I gave it to 00:47:16.021 --> 00:47:21.367 - them. I have to again, review the, review the document and see if it's, if any of it's listed. I know 00:47:21.367 --> 00:47:23.358 - they were focusing on the transition. 00:47:24.194 --> 00:47:31.992 - Okay. Um, I do have some concern about specific data on pages 23 through 25 on the garage data. Um, 00:47:31.992 --> 00:47:39.946 - it says that average utilization across all locations ranged from 34 to 54% on page 23, but the table 00:47:39.946 --> 00:47:47.821 - clearly says that, uh, that was peak data, that average data I had to do the math was as high as 41% 00:47:47.821 --> 00:47:52.734 - at Morton during the day and as low as 13% in trades at night. 00:47:53.058 --> 00:47:58.935 - Yeah, that need to be added to the Google Doc and I'll have them review that I'm sorry what that will 00:47:58.935 --> 00:48:04.927 - need to be added as a comment to the Google Doc and I'll be glad to address that with Walker Okay, will 00:48:04.927 --> 00:48:10.804 - Walker correct the report if they've made if it is if it's deemed incorrect by them. Yes Okay, and if 00:48:10.804 --> 00:48:16.566 - it's deemed incorrect by the rest of us and they don't think it's no they they will of course Steve 00:48:16.566 --> 00:48:22.270 - they're gonna consider your your comments and your feedback and if they need to make it more clear 00:48:22.658 --> 00:48:29.792 - 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 00:48:29.792 --> 00:48:37.354 - another reference to average day and then that refers to peak data. I can't tell if table four is showing 00:48:37.354 --> 00:48:44.488 - peak data because it's not clear how different tables four and five different from table three. And 00:48:44.488 --> 00:48:52.478 - also I was stunned to read this on page 26. It says parking utilization for on street parking and surface lots. 00:48:52.610 --> 00:49:00.137 - is difficult to determine as payments can be made at the meter or on park mobile by zone rather than 00:49:00.137 --> 00:49:07.664 - by individual space. Our analysis of this data excludes park mobile sessions as those are zone-based 00:49:07.664 --> 00:49:15.190 - and not tied to an individual meter. Why was that so hard for Walker to do, to aggregate park mobile 00:49:15.190 --> 00:49:16.830 - data with meter data? 00:49:20.034 --> 00:49:26.780 - Because there there is no way to give you true occupancy of that space. There's no way sorry to give 00:49:26.780 --> 00:49:33.726 - you true occupancy of that space. I don't understand why not. I mean if the park mobile is showing that 00:49:33.726 --> 00:49:40.605 - a space is being paid for right. But then somebody else could go ahead and park there and they haven't 00:49:40.605 --> 00:49:47.551 - been they don't pay it and they pay it after extension. There's a lot of reasons why you can't get true 00:49:47.551 --> 00:49:48.286 - occupancy. 00:49:50.594 --> 00:49:57.779 - What difference does it make I mean you're paying you still have an indication of usage you still have 00:49:57.779 --> 00:50:05.244 - an indication but it's not true usage because let's say you come from it's allowed here to Start a session 00:50:05.244 --> 00:50:12.219 - in a certain zone and go to multiple zones As long as you're paid you're paid by the license plate. 00:50:12.219 --> 00:50:16.126 - You're not paid by zone. We don't track it that way and 00:50:18.754 --> 00:50:27.003 - Do you see this image here on screen? This is from the 2018 parking commission report and while you 00:50:27.003 --> 00:50:35.334 - may not be able to get pinpoint accuracy as to whether a car is in the space or not, what we I would 00:50:35.334 --> 00:50:43.006 - think would care about would be dollars received because that's as good an indication as any 00:50:43.138 --> 00:50:51.730 - short of putting sensors in parking spaces. And the reason I call your attention to this chart now is 00:50:51.730 --> 00:51:00.406 - that from the 2018 report, we can already see a very significant trend from 2016 to 2018. Usage of the 00:51:00.406 --> 00:51:08.914 - app of ParkMobile was 13% of all revenue at meters in 2017. It had increased to 18% by 2018. I would 00:51:08.914 --> 00:51:10.430 - be dumbfounded if 00:51:10.754 --> 00:51:17.633 - Usage of the app as a portion of all usage did not exceed 40% by now but if it's still certainly going 00:51:17.633 --> 00:51:24.579 - to be significant and Walker didn't study it at all didn't even report the amount of data or the amount 00:51:24.579 --> 00:51:31.592 - of Revenue brought in by parkmobile. I mean, why can't we use that? Why couldn't it have been a separate 00:51:31.592 --> 00:51:38.405 - table? You're more than welcome to use that form Steve. I can address that with them. I'll be glad to 00:51:38.405 --> 00:51:40.542 - that's disappointing. All right 00:51:41.122 --> 00:51:49.415 - Well, there's more I guess my alternative is to use the form but I'm just gonna say the the parking 00:51:49.415 --> 00:51:57.956 - commission had not was not consulted on the development of the The RFP for this Report and I think you 00:51:57.956 --> 00:52:06.332 - can see that we might have asked for some more detail here Do you think that there is going to be an 00:52:06.332 --> 00:52:09.566 - opportunity for Walker to do anything? 00:52:09.730 --> 00:52:17.383 - To add any more detail than they already have or they're simply going to correct Errors that that may 00:52:17.383 --> 00:52:25.110 - be pointed out to them The only thing I can do is take your feedback back and and work with Walker and 00:52:25.110 --> 00:52:32.763 - let let you guys know Okay. Thank you. Any further questions from members on the report? Mr. Flaherty 00:52:32.763 --> 00:52:35.614 - questions or comments either Comments 00:52:35.874 --> 00:52:41.427 - Just briefly, thank you for your work on this and I look forward to hearing the recommendations and 00:52:41.427 --> 00:52:47.035 - I think I would be interested for the Commission in its work going forward to work to find alignment 00:52:47.035 --> 00:52:52.976 - on its purview and what we anticipate reporting on annually. I know this was started before the Commission 00:52:52.976 --> 00:52:58.696 - existed as noted, but yeah, making sure that we're getting in sync on, okay, here's the baseline. What 00:52:58.696 --> 00:53:03.582 - do we have that we're gonna be able to build on? Are there any things that are missing? 00:53:03.938 --> 00:53:11.012 - things like, you know, utilization, other technology changes that we need to enable that, all that. 00:53:11.012 --> 00:53:18.581 - My vision and hope is that we arrive at a place where we have a clear set of metrics that we are measuring 00:53:18.581 --> 00:53:25.796 - and making informed decisions based on and that we're all on the same page. Totally agree. Thank you. 00:53:25.796 --> 00:53:32.941 - I hope to partner with you. Any other comments from members? Last question I guess I have is, again, 00:53:32.941 --> 00:53:33.790 - what is the 00:53:34.050 --> 00:53:41.407 - deadline for submitting comments I'd say probably another two weeks. I mean, that's fine. I'll give 00:53:41.407 --> 00:53:48.985 - you another two weeks Okay, so May 11th Monday, May 11th Monday, May 11th. All right comments are open 00:53:48.985 --> 00:53:56.637 - till Monday, May 11th on the Walker report is presented. Thank you so much for making the presentation. 00:53:56.637 --> 00:54:03.038 - Thank you look forward to seeing it the final draft Let's move on now to the next item 00:54:04.354 --> 00:54:13.166 - I have lost track of We're looking at the North Walnut Street project update who's here to present on 00:54:13.166 --> 00:54:21.286 - North Walnut Street I'm sorry. I did I didn't have any public comment on report. Madam clerk. 00:54:21.286 --> 00:54:30.011 - Did you I? City clerk Nicole Bolden was here and I meant to ask her for her opinion on the report Do 00:54:30.011 --> 00:54:32.862 - you have time to make a comment? 00:54:33.186 --> 00:54:42.203 - Your city staff as well All right, I Knew there was somebody I forgot to call on Good evening commissioners 00:54:42.203 --> 00:54:50.887 - city clerk Nicole Bolden and I would actually ask Ms. Wall if she'd be willing to share the Google form 00:54:50.887 --> 00:54:59.403 - that you shared with commissioners for clerk staff, they have some input on Some of the data that was 00:54:59.403 --> 00:55:02.910 - reported in the Walker report that was at 00:55:03.458 --> 00:55:10.551 - That was incorrect. So we'd like to make sure that they have an opportunity to correct it before it 00:55:10.551 --> 00:55:17.643 - comes before council so we don't have to do it in front of council as well. That said we did review 00:55:17.643 --> 00:55:25.232 - the report in the clerk's office with an eye toward the recommendations as it impacted the clerk's office. 00:55:25.232 --> 00:55:32.254 - Our assessment was that while this was definitely heavy in terms of community review and input and 00:55:32.418 --> 00:55:38.826 - Benchmarking with other pure cities it was lacking in some hard data or context for the data that was 00:55:38.826 --> 00:55:45.172 - reported for example Some of the numbers that were provided related to appeals was incorrect So some 00:55:45.172 --> 00:55:51.517 - of the numbers were either inflated or not reported it reported Partial data if you're seeing appeal 00:55:51.517 --> 00:55:58.240 - data, but you're not seeing void data as well that actually ends up and impacting the numbers of citations 00:55:58.240 --> 00:56:01.758 - that are being voided or dismissed through the city and 00:56:02.658 --> 00:56:08.774 - Sometimes there are large numbers of voids that are done due to officer error Some of them are done 00:56:08.774 --> 00:56:15.012 - due to user error and we have seen an increase of those over the last few years Since park mobile was 00:56:15.012 --> 00:56:21.434 - installed with the city in 2020 We've definitely seen an uptick in some of those dismissals where people 00:56:21.434 --> 00:56:27.611 - just mistakes if systems are down You see more dismissals if there are errors made on a broad scale. 00:56:27.611 --> 00:56:30.302 - You see large lumps of those things done so 00:56:30.498 --> 00:56:37.797 - Part of what we do in our office is we don't only track you know reviewing parking citation appeals 00:56:37.797 --> 00:56:45.170 - for errors but we look for trends in parking enforcement and signage as well. So a lot of the things 00:56:45.170 --> 00:56:52.469 - that we see that come out of the office are tracked and communicated to the appropriate departments 00:56:52.469 --> 00:56:59.550 - including parking streets or whatever. So I'm concerned overall with the report because it seems 00:57:00.066 --> 00:57:07.384 - to be lacking and I was really happy to hear Ms Wall say that she agreed with Mr Flaherty's desire to 00:57:07.384 --> 00:57:14.630 - have metrics and numbers that we're all agreeing on because right now that's not what's in place and 00:57:14.630 --> 00:57:21.948 - I'm happy to answer any questions about appeals or some of the data. And if you don't know them right 00:57:21.948 --> 00:57:23.742 - now we're available. So. 00:57:24.034 --> 00:57:30.687 - Well, we do have two more weeks for comments to be open that people can certainly submit. But while 00:57:30.687 --> 00:57:37.406 - this other city staff is here, is there any other questions from commissioners on the report for the 00:57:37.406 --> 00:57:44.325 - clerk? Seeing none. Thank you for that last minute input. Sorry to forget that. Thanks to parking staff 00:57:44.325 --> 00:57:51.044 - for staying for that extra input. Um, if there's no other objection, we'll go on to the North Walnut 00:57:51.044 --> 00:57:52.574 - Street project update. 00:57:57.186 --> 00:58:03.501 - Again, Andrew Seaborg is providing an update Last year you received was I think an inquiry but also 00:58:03.501 --> 00:58:09.817 - we discussed the resurfacing project where we made some changes to North Walnut Street north of the 00:58:09.817 --> 00:58:16.448 - bypass and Most of our discussion was focused on the area of the Blue Ridge intersection But just wanted 00:58:16.448 --> 00:58:21.374 - to come to you and share the sort of before and after speed data snapshot and 00:58:21.762 --> 00:58:28.414 - So we are comparing traffic counts and speed data from 2024 with 2026 data And we're really looking 00:58:28.414 --> 00:58:35.466 - at traffic entering the intersection the intersection being the Blue Ridge entrance So if you just really 00:58:35.466 --> 00:58:42.185 - briefly I'll highlight going northbound where we didn't significantly alter the design There was one 00:58:42.185 --> 00:58:48.638 - lane before there remained one lane. There was a bike lane. We've got a buffer bike lane now and 00:58:48.770 --> 00:58:55.336 - You can see that before the project, the average northbound speed entering the intersection was about 00:58:55.336 --> 00:59:01.967 - 45 miles an hour with an 85th percentile, about 50. After the project, the more recent data shows that 00:59:01.967 --> 00:59:08.533 - speeds jumped up about three miles an hour without making meaningful design changes to impact traffic 00:59:08.533 --> 00:59:10.142 - going in that direction. 00:59:10.498 --> 00:59:16.579 - I think just a hypothesis on what we're seeing there is usually after we resurface roads and the condition 00:59:16.579 --> 00:59:22.432 - becomes smoother and more favorable for driving speeds tend to go up and As roads degrade and get more 00:59:22.432 --> 00:59:28.171 - bumpy people tend to slow down. So that is likely a factor in that But the real change in the design 00:59:28.171 --> 00:59:33.854 - was where we removed the second climbing lane going southbound prior to the project if you remember 00:59:33.854 --> 00:59:39.253 - there was two lanes and with the after the project there's just one lane with a turn lane into 00:59:39.253 --> 00:59:40.446 - the neighborhood and 00:59:40.642 --> 00:59:47.383 - So before the project the average southbound speed was about 50 miles an hour with an 85th percentile 00:59:47.383 --> 00:59:54.521 - 54 Those speeds basically dropped nearly 10 miles an hour after the project so really meaningful difference 00:59:54.521 --> 01:00:01.461 - Especially considering that the pavement is also smoother and in better condition. So so very successful 01:00:01.461 --> 01:00:06.814 - And we're pleased to see those results still certainly recognize speeds are fast 01:00:06.914 --> 01:00:12.283 - But just wanting to highlight that the design change that we intentionally made to address speeding 01:00:12.283 --> 01:00:17.867 - Did have a meaningful input and so just just wanted to share that with you And I think we're definitely 01:00:17.867 --> 01:00:23.398 - making it a point to highlight the update with the neighborhood who was interested previously But just 01:00:23.398 --> 01:00:28.875 - just wanted to share that data with you and happy to answer any questions that you have Thank you for 01:00:28.875 --> 01:00:34.351 - the report. Are there questions for mr. Seymour on the North Walnut Street update to my right mr. Mr. 01:00:34.351 --> 01:00:34.942 - Binder and 01:00:36.546 --> 01:00:43.447 - Just one quick question, which is about the southbound or sorry the northbound Traffic speeds which 01:00:43.447 --> 01:00:50.486 - you noted actually did increase by a couple of miles per hour which I think engineering attributes to 01:00:50.486 --> 01:00:57.663 - That there were not as like substantive design changes made to the northbound configuration Do you have 01:00:57.663 --> 01:01:04.702 - thoughts on? what if any future treatments to the northbound lane configuration might be applied to a 01:01:05.282 --> 01:01:13.645 - Because I mean, we're seeing an 85th percentile speed of 53 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour speed 01:01:13.645 --> 01:01:21.928 - zone is probably not the outcome that we're looking for. So I guess with the lessons learned from the 01:01:21.928 --> 01:01:30.129 - southbound improvement to speed compliance, are there any northbound treatments that you guys are at 01:01:30.129 --> 01:01:34.270 - least kind of initially investigating as a result? 01:01:34.402 --> 01:01:40.518 - Question too, I guess honestly at this point. This was mostly just a report of what we have found We 01:01:40.518 --> 01:01:46.573 - haven't really done a deep dive into what further action we would do here Recognizing there's a lot 01:01:46.573 --> 01:01:52.689 - of other streets in the city that also have speeding issues. I Think that it would be hard for us to 01:01:52.689 --> 01:01:59.047 - replicate the change of removing a travel lane But I think I know from other discussions I believe we've 01:01:59.047 --> 01:02:02.014 - had at this Commission is we are seeming to find 01:02:02.274 --> 01:02:09.102 - Some benefit to things like the feedback speed feedback signs that in the past I think I had more of 01:02:09.102 --> 01:02:16.404 - an opinion those are effective in the short term and on temporary usages But as we've had a couple deployed 01:02:16.404 --> 01:02:23.367 - for longer terms, we're still seeing some success. So tools like that May be useful and certainly also 01:02:23.367 --> 01:02:24.990 - continuing to track the 01:02:25.730 --> 01:02:33.477 - The state's program of automated speed enforcement. They've got a pilot program where they're able to 01:02:33.477 --> 01:02:41.605 - do some automatic speed enforcement on Construction zones on freeways that we're just hoping is successful 01:02:41.605 --> 01:02:49.352 - and ultimately becomes something more widespread But that that may be a long-term goal or dream Thank 01:02:49.352 --> 01:02:53.150 - you For the questions, mr. Flaherty Yeah, this is 01:02:53.634 --> 01:02:59.733 - I'm encouraged by the the improvements southbound as you know, we heard a neighborhood petition around 01:02:59.733 --> 01:03:05.772 - this Late last year and we didn't choose to act out of that time in part because we wanted to see how 01:03:05.772 --> 01:03:11.811 - some of these improvements were fairing So the question isn't directly on point to these improvements 01:03:11.811 --> 01:03:18.087 - but it's related to the safety of the area and and I'm trying to recall among options that were discussed 01:03:18.087 --> 01:03:19.390 - at that time was like 01:03:19.586 --> 01:03:26.263 - whether or not a pedestrian and bicyclist crossing refuge could occur on North Walnut where Blue Ridge, 01:03:26.263 --> 01:03:32.811 - the Blue Ridge neighborhood has that entrance. Was one of the barriers there that there's a drive cut 01:03:32.811 --> 01:03:39.231 - on the west side of the street for a business as well? Am I remembering that correctly? That sounds 01:03:39.231 --> 01:03:45.715 - right and I guess I don't wanna, I'm not speaking with much confidence right now. I will hold you to 01:03:45.715 --> 01:03:49.374 - nothing. I think that would have been a factor and just, 01:03:50.402 --> 01:03:57.143 - I guess I'll just leave it there. Okay, I'm just um Just going back to thinking about it and the options 01:03:57.143 --> 01:04:03.885 - here to I Having driven by the the area a number of times since we discussed Just recognizing that visit 01:04:03.885 --> 01:04:10.498 - Bloomington, which is the business I think that rents that building which might be owned by the county 01:04:10.498 --> 01:04:16.918 - government has two entrances and it seems like They're really not necessary and that if closing the 01:04:16.918 --> 01:04:19.422 - northern entrance even if we needed to 01:04:19.650 --> 01:04:24.926 - acquire right-of-way or whatever that would entail, if that afforded opportunity for future 01:04:24.926 --> 01:04:30.947 - safety improvements. Because even with the reduced speeds, which are significant and very helpful, those 01:04:30.947 --> 01:04:36.682 - are still our relatively high speeds for someone trying to walk or bike across both directions, the 01:04:36.682 --> 01:04:42.302 - lanes from both directions of travel, and especially with some of the sight lines and hill stuff. 01:04:42.302 --> 01:04:48.094 - So anyway, just a thought for future is that we could consider that as well if we hadn't previously. 01:04:48.322 --> 01:04:54.030 - I know that that's fair. We can certainly consider that more and I do recall a lot of the discussion 01:04:54.030 --> 01:04:59.965 - was more about Cyclists trying to cross to get into the southbound bike lane. Mm-hmm There are of course 01:04:59.965 --> 01:05:06.012 - no pedestrian facilities on North Walnut in this area I do remember the neighborhood was also particularly 01:05:06.012 --> 01:05:11.833 - interested in that northern driveway and trying to get a left turn so closing it would be but that was 01:05:11.833 --> 01:05:17.598 - just the Neighborhoods opinion it's on the screen the northern drive cut of the visit Bloomington and 01:05:17.858 --> 01:05:24.566 - Facility it matches Blue Ridge and the southern cut is a couple hundred feet south of it So that's the 01:05:24.566 --> 01:05:31.404 - intersection I think yeah exactly right and the pedestrian infrastructure on the west side of the street 01:05:31.404 --> 01:05:37.981 - does start almost immediately out of frame there So it's not it wouldn't be a far connection to make 01:05:37.981 --> 01:05:44.754 - for pedestrians either So anyway, thank you further questions for mr. Seabor on the North Walnut Street 01:05:44.754 --> 01:05:47.294 - report Well, I just want to check with 01:05:47.618 --> 01:05:53.719 - Online, Ms. Davis, any questions? To my left. All right, let's go to round two, Mr. Binder. Just a quick 01:05:53.719 --> 01:05:59.529 - follow-up, actually, kind of related to the, you know, the difference, the differential between the 01:05:59.529 --> 01:06:05.513 - north and southbound travel speeds observed. I would just be curious to hear kind of your thoughts on, 01:06:05.513 --> 01:06:11.556 - you know, or just theories on, like, why there is such a difference, because on the surface, it doesn't 01:06:11.556 --> 01:06:16.030 - seem like there ought to be, because the configuration in both directions is 01:06:16.290 --> 01:06:22.689 - I think basically the same, the lane width, travel lane width is probably very similar, if not the same, 01:06:22.689 --> 01:06:28.965 - and then the bike lane and so forth. Do you attribute it to the fact that it's going uphill, downhill, 01:06:28.965 --> 01:06:35.242 - or in and out of town? People leaving town, they figure, oh, I'm on my way out of town, I'll speed up. 01:06:35.242 --> 01:06:41.702 - Is that kind of what you're, just in your sort of professional experience, is that what you have observed 01:06:41.702 --> 01:06:42.494 - in the past? 01:06:43.586 --> 01:06:49.226 - Good question again what I'm offering I think our hypothesis on why the speeds went up with it just 01:06:49.226 --> 01:06:54.866 - being a roads smoother road surface I can't definitively say that that that was a factor I think on 01:06:54.866 --> 01:07:00.505 - why one direction is higher speed than another I have to imagine at least a component of that is is 01:07:00.505 --> 01:07:06.371 - the elevation in the grade Going downhill we tend to see higher speeds than trick vehicles going uphill 01:07:06.371 --> 01:07:11.390 - And so that that I'm sure is a significant part, but maybe there are other parts, too. I 01:07:12.418 --> 01:07:22.129 - And then actually just really quick, does engineering, I'm trying to think about how to frame this, 01:07:22.129 --> 01:07:32.228 - does engineering tend to consider the change in elevation when determining street treatments? If a road 01:07:32.228 --> 01:07:40.094 - is going downhill, does that warrant different types of treatments than the same 01:07:40.258 --> 01:07:47.150 - Direct or the same road going the other direction like have there been cases where you guys have you 01:07:47.150 --> 01:07:54.111 - know specifically had to account for like a pretty different pretty big difference in the speed going 01:07:54.111 --> 01:08:01.208 - the different directions and in like what kind of design is applied It's good question I honestly can't 01:08:01.208 --> 01:08:07.486 - think of a specific example of how we would design it differently though recognizing that I 01:08:07.842 --> 01:08:15.271 - Speeds are different. There are like just how quickly somebody can stop going downhill Plus at a higher 01:08:15.271 --> 01:08:22.628 - speed that that does factor into the equations in ways we and also there there are factors but I don't 01:08:22.628 --> 01:08:29.842 - know if I have a really good answer to say How we would design it significantly different one way or 01:08:29.842 --> 01:08:36.414 - the other? Okay, thanks Further questions on this report Seeing none. Thank you. Mr. Seabor 01:08:36.610 --> 01:08:45.978 - We'll continue now go on to cases We have first up TCP 2610 a quarter study of Indiana Avenue from Smith 01:08:45.978 --> 01:08:55.078 - to 10th Street To adopt the conceptual plan for the Indiana Avenue safety improvements project Who is 01:08:55.078 --> 01:09:04.446 - here to present? I see Hank Duncan Thank you, hello, my name is Hank Duncan safe streets program manager 01:09:04.546 --> 01:09:11.002 - As we get the slides prepared, I do want to say this presentation will be a little bit longer than I 01:09:11.002 --> 01:09:17.713 - usually like presenting for, so if you have any questions as I go forward, please feel free to interrupt 01:09:17.713 --> 01:09:24.489 - me, raise your hand, let me know, because I want to make sure that we keep this as efficient as possible, 01:09:24.489 --> 01:09:30.945 - yes. Will the presentation be longer than 20 minutes? No. Okay, very good. Please go ahead. So a bit 01:09:30.945 --> 01:09:33.054 - of background, cool, this works. 01:09:33.666 --> 01:09:40.661 - I'm here talking about the Indiana Avenue safety improvements project a bit of background on this so 01:09:40.661 --> 01:09:47.794 - You all have heard this before The city has a safe streets priority network and it has been determined 01:09:47.794 --> 01:09:54.789 - by these four factors here The high-injury network that is backwards looking fatal and severe injury 01:09:54.789 --> 01:10:00.606 - crashes forward-looking risk of future fatal and severe injury crashes public input 01:10:00.706 --> 01:10:09.007 - and demographics of the surrounding area of each corridor. Indiana Avenue from the Henderson and Smith 01:10:09.007 --> 01:10:17.470 - intersection up to Indiana 10th is identified on the Safe Streets priority network, specifically between 01:10:17.470 --> 01:10:25.932 - Atwater and 10th. It is defined as the highest priority category. Along the corridor, there are a number 01:10:25.932 --> 01:10:30.526 - of priority intersections, Henderson and Smith, Atwater, 01:10:31.170 --> 01:10:38.649 - Third, fourth, Kirkwood, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth. All of those are identified on the Safe Streets 01:10:38.649 --> 01:10:46.056 - Priority Network and the city's adopted Safe Streets for All action plan. That is the impetus for this 01:10:46.056 --> 01:10:52.815 - project. Goals for this project, number one, increased safety for all road users. Number two, 01:10:52.815 --> 01:11:00.510 - more connectivity along and across the corridor. It's the boundary between campus and downtown for a large 01:11:00.674 --> 01:11:10.180 - portion of it and create a fully accessible corridor that is the baseline for any project we work on 01:11:10.180 --> 01:11:18.462 - and then finally increase downtown vibrancy. This has been a long and winding road of a 01:11:18.850 --> 01:11:25.288 - public outreach and design process for this project. I won't go through each of these steps, but we 01:11:25.288 --> 01:11:31.919 - started public outreach and design back in spring of 2024. We are now in the spring of 2026. It's been 01:11:31.919 --> 01:11:38.358 - two years. We have hosted four different public meetings, have had a number of online surveys, have 01:11:38.358 --> 01:11:45.182 - done pop-up events, have met with dozens and dozens of stakeholders on and along and nearby the corridor. 01:11:45.282 --> 01:11:55.265 - and we feel that we are at a point in which we can present a concept to you for review. Going into some 01:11:55.265 --> 01:12:05.535 - of the more objective observations and traffic counts of the corridor, the busiest section of the corridor 01:12:05.535 --> 01:12:14.558 - is between 6th and 7th Street with about 68, 6,900 vehicles per day. For reference, a normal, 01:12:14.786 --> 01:12:21.642 - This depends on context, but a normal one-lane road can carry up to about 10,000 vehicles a day. That's 01:12:21.642 --> 01:12:28.497 - a general statement, but that is generally what we say. And this section of Indian Avenue is two lanes, 01:12:28.497 --> 01:12:35.221 - one way northbound. We also did traffic counts specifically on Indiana University football game days, 01:12:35.221 --> 01:12:41.813 - because we want to observe not just a normal weekday amount of traffic, but also when we have large 01:12:41.813 --> 01:12:44.318 - events in our city near the corridor, 01:12:44.578 --> 01:12:51.289 - does traffic on the corridor respond to that and Frankly, we didn't see much of an effect the first 01:12:51.289 --> 01:12:58.201 - game day that we took counts on It was also the same weekend as the 4th Street Arts Festival. So Grant 01:12:58.201 --> 01:13:05.248 - Street was closed There was more traffic on Indiana Avenue and we saw a minor jump of about 400 vehicles 01:13:05.248 --> 01:13:06.590 - within that weekend 01:13:07.394 --> 01:13:15.512 - We also took traffic counts on a game day later that fall. This is 2024 and traffic counts were actually 01:13:15.512 --> 01:13:23.475 - lower on those days than during a normal week. We also took traffic and pedestrian counts specifically 01:13:23.475 --> 01:13:31.671 - surrounding the Indian Avenue and Kirkwood Avenue intersection, folks interacting with this intersection. 01:13:31.671 --> 01:13:34.686 - We saw, and this is one specific hour, 01:13:34.882 --> 01:13:42.872 - on one specific day, so there is a margin of error here, but within the hours of noon to one on October 01:13:42.872 --> 01:13:51.246 - 3rd of 2024, we saw 400 vehicles pass through this intersection. In that same time, we saw 1,100 pedestrians 01:13:51.246 --> 01:13:59.159 - pass through this intersection. We as a city design all of our projects with pedestrians in mind, that 01:13:59.159 --> 01:14:00.158 - is the goal. 01:14:00.322 --> 01:14:09.587 - area in particular, it is rare that you see pedestrians outnumber motor vehicles and vehicles as a whole 01:14:09.587 --> 01:14:18.940 - that much. We also went out and observed the corridor while CBU was working on their hidden river pathway 01:14:18.940 --> 01:14:25.822 - project. So this is back in the fall of 2024. They were digging that culvert. 01:14:26.050 --> 01:14:33.515 - on Indiana Avenue, and for this portion of time, Indiana Avenue was reduced to one lane of through traffic. 01:14:33.515 --> 01:14:40.773 - So we wanted to go out, observe what are traffic patterns when it is one lane without any other changes. 01:14:40.773 --> 01:14:47.962 - The primary factor in traffic flow disruption is pedestrian crossings, specifically at Kirkwood Avenue. 01:14:47.962 --> 01:14:55.358 - You have relatively free-flowing pedestrian crossings, and it creates queues backing up on Indiana Avenue. 01:14:55.778 --> 01:15:03.930 - especially during IU passing periods. Other activity like buses coming through, we see about 16 IU and 01:15:03.930 --> 01:15:12.082 - city buses per hour plus your private apartment shuttles coming through each hour. And then deliveries 01:15:12.082 --> 01:15:20.155 - and loadings and pickups for the businesses in that block between 4th Street and Kirkwood Avenue that 01:15:20.155 --> 01:15:22.846 - can disrupt traffic flow as well. 01:15:24.226 --> 01:15:31.059 - Hughes are typically only a few vehicles, but sometimes do extend to 4th Street and beyond 4th Street. 01:15:31.059 --> 01:15:38.091 - The overall takeaway here on these observations is that the intersection functions as pedestrian priority 01:15:38.091 --> 01:15:44.725 - because there is a more free-flowing nature to the pedestrians, and vehicle congestion is driven by 01:15:44.725 --> 01:15:50.430 - intersection control and crossing activity rather than just the traffic volume alone. 01:15:51.010 --> 01:15:58.592 - That's all to say that even though the traffic volume is not as high as a two lane street may need, 01:15:58.592 --> 01:16:06.175 - there are other activities like pedestrian crossings, buses, loadings that do disrupt traffic flow. 01:16:06.175 --> 01:16:13.909 - Looking at speeds on the corridor. The highest speed sections of the project area are between 6th and 01:16:13.909 --> 01:16:20.126 - 7th Street and 9th and 10th. With 50th percentile speeds around 26 miles an hour, 01:16:20.290 --> 01:16:26.878 - 85th percentile speeds around 30 miles an hour. Community outreach. I will go through each round of 01:16:26.878 --> 01:16:33.597 - community outreach we did and provide a couple of concise points about what we found, how we moved on 01:16:33.597 --> 01:16:40.580 - from there. The first round, we always come in with a blank slate. We want to hear from the public what's 01:16:40.580 --> 01:16:47.102 - working, what's not working, what are your priorities. This was one of the questions that we asked 01:16:47.586 --> 01:16:53.660 - the public through an online survey and a public meeting about what is important to you in a safety 01:16:53.660 --> 01:16:59.796 - project on Indiana Avenue. We gave them 16 options and asked the public to rank them all in terms of 01:16:59.796 --> 01:17:05.870 - priority. Those top five priorities are the ones that we looked at the most. Slowing down vehicles, 01:17:05.870 --> 01:17:12.005 - adding adequate sidewalks, adding protected bike lanes, improving the intersections for vehicles and 01:17:12.005 --> 01:17:16.318 - bicycles, and number one, improving the intersections for pedestrians. 01:17:17.186 --> 01:17:24.988 - Again, a lot of the feedback we get is more nuanced than simply these numbers, but this is a good framework 01:17:24.988 --> 01:17:32.574 - to go off of in terms of community values as we move forward. Throughout this entire process from rounds 01:17:32.574 --> 01:17:40.015 - one through four, we coordinated with dozens of stakeholders internally, externally, local businesses, 01:17:40.015 --> 01:17:44.350 - Indiana University, neighborhood associations, you name it. 01:17:47.234 --> 01:17:54.123 - This first round concept that we came up with attempts to use the feedback we saw in that first round 01:17:54.123 --> 01:18:01.012 - and put something pen to paper, put a drawing to it. And what this is is a one lane street northbound 01:18:01.012 --> 01:18:08.306 - with a two way protected bike lane. And I'm just showing you a section of this project because the screen's 01:18:08.306 --> 01:18:15.533 - not long enough to show you all of it. So this is the section between fourth and sixth street. Essentially 01:18:15.533 --> 01:18:17.086 - what this does is one, 01:18:17.666 --> 01:18:24.836 - it improves intersections for pedestrians. And pedestrians only have to cross one lane of traffic instead 01:18:24.836 --> 01:18:31.803 - of two. Number two, it slows down traffic. One lane of traffic versus two lanes of traffic, especially 01:18:31.803 --> 01:18:38.702 - north of six where you have very wide lanes, slows down traffic. And number three, it adds a new bike 01:18:38.702 --> 01:18:43.166 - connection through the downtown and campus area, north and south. 01:18:48.514 --> 01:18:56.333 - We also in this second round of public outreach, we wanted to present multiple concepts to the public. 01:18:56.333 --> 01:19:04.153 - So we attempted to come up with a concept B and essentially let the public choose which one they liked 01:19:04.153 --> 01:19:12.200 - more. These are both ideas that we as staff would implement if recommended by stakeholders in the public. 01:19:12.200 --> 01:19:17.438 - And so this concept B converts Indiana Avenue into a two-way street. 01:19:18.274 --> 01:19:25.809 - From Kirkwood north to 10th, you have striped bike lanes. From Kirkwood south to third, you have sharos. 01:19:25.809 --> 01:19:33.128 - And I will mention in each of these concepts at the uncontrolled intersections, 6th, 8th, and 9th, we 01:19:33.128 --> 01:19:40.806 - implemented race crosswalks as well. So we asked the public, which one do you prefer more? And the answer, 01:19:40.806 --> 01:19:47.838 - again, is more nuanced than simply these percentages, but it was pretty clear that they preferred 01:19:47.970 --> 01:19:55.422 - the one lane with a two-way protected bike lane over simply a two-way street. So that was the basis 01:19:55.422 --> 01:20:03.023 - we went off of for this next round of public outreach. This is very similar to the first concept that 01:20:03.023 --> 01:20:10.550 - you saw, just a little bit more cleaned up. It also adds in a bus pull-off north of Kirkwood. Indian 01:20:10.550 --> 01:20:17.406 - University has a lot of events in Bryan Hall and Franklin Hall just east of Indiana Avenue. 01:20:17.634 --> 01:20:25.602 - loading was a major concern for them, so we added a long bus pull off for box trucks, other delivery 01:20:25.602 --> 01:20:33.492 - vehicles, if IU has an event, they can pull off and stay there as well. Some comments and questions 01:20:33.492 --> 01:20:41.776 - that were raised during this round of public outreach were about traffic congestion, curbside management 01:20:41.776 --> 01:20:47.614 - between Forth and Kirkwood, again looking at the availability of parking, 01:20:47.714 --> 01:20:56.142 - the propensity for delivery trucks or your DoorDash or UberEats drivers to block a lane of traffic to 01:20:56.142 --> 01:21:04.569 - pick up a delivery, transit efficiency. Again, we see 16 buses through here per hour. We want to make 01:21:04.569 --> 01:21:10.270 - sure that buses are still efficient. And then for pedestrian safety. 01:21:14.498 --> 01:21:22.215 - From there, staff went back and looked internally about these options and how we should move forward. 01:21:22.215 --> 01:21:30.007 - We wanted to examine more, is this the right way forward or is there another idea out there that could 01:21:30.007 --> 01:21:37.573 - be better than what we're proposing? So we ended up coming up with two photorealistic renderings of 01:21:37.573 --> 01:21:44.382 - possible ideas to informally reach out to the public and examine what they have to think. 01:21:45.218 --> 01:21:52.071 - One is the concept day that I've talked about. This is one lane with a two-way protected bike lane. 01:21:52.071 --> 01:21:58.993 - We also came up with concept C, which between 4th and 6th Street would convert Indiana Avenue into a 01:21:58.993 --> 01:22:06.188 - transit mall, making it bus only, and compensating for the lack of northbound traffic on Indiana through 01:22:06.188 --> 01:22:13.315 - downtown with a converted two-way Dunn Street. The idea behind this is that pedestrians would have more 01:22:13.315 --> 01:22:14.686 - free-flowing access 01:22:14.946 --> 01:22:23.344 - to and from campus and downtown, buses would be more efficient, and you would have spots for loading 01:22:23.344 --> 01:22:32.325 - or deliveries or parklets, whatever we desired as a city. So we went out to Kirkwood Avenue and essentially 01:22:32.325 --> 01:22:41.222 - asked street users, what do you think of these concepts? They very much preferred concept, see the Transit 01:22:41.222 --> 01:22:44.798 - Mall concept with the two-way Dunn Street. 01:22:45.058 --> 01:22:53.441 - Honestly, a bit surprising to me, but it was interesting to hear their feedback. That said, when we 01:22:53.441 --> 01:23:01.825 - began speaking with Indiana University about these ideas, they had major operational concerns about 01:23:01.825 --> 01:23:10.543 - this idea, and so this never made it to formal public outreach because we want to be good partners with 01:23:10.543 --> 01:23:13.310 - IU. The city and IU work so well 01:23:13.538 --> 01:23:22.011 - work on a lot of projects together and we want to make sure that we continue that good relationship. 01:23:22.011 --> 01:23:30.652 - So because they had major concerns, we did not move forward with this Transit Mall concept. That said, 01:23:30.652 --> 01:23:39.292 - while they had hesitations with concept A, we worked together to form a revised version of it with the 01:23:39.292 --> 01:23:41.054 - main change of being 01:23:41.378 --> 01:23:48.574 - maintaining two motor vehicle lanes through the section of 3rd and 7th Street on Indiana Avenue. They 01:23:48.574 --> 01:23:56.124 - had major operational concerns if the street were reduced to one lane, and so after months of discussions, 01:23:56.124 --> 01:24:03.532 - we came up with this concept. Essentially, the bike infrastructure, it connects Kirkwood to 10th Street, 01:24:03.532 --> 01:24:08.894 - and there's another stub that connects the existing multi-use path on Smith 01:24:09.058 --> 01:24:16.730 - up to third, but in the section between third and Kirkwood, there is no bike infrastructure other than 01:24:16.730 --> 01:24:24.477 - a northbound sheriff, and largely keeps that area in existing conditions. The only major change is that 01:24:24.477 --> 01:24:32.075 - they were very much in favor of raised intersections at Kirkwood and fourth, and so we included those 01:24:32.075 --> 01:24:37.662 - in the concept here. We reached out to the public and the community in our 01:24:37.954 --> 01:24:43.424 - fourth round of outreach with this concept. The major comments and questions raised were about 01:24:43.424 --> 01:24:49.297 - the disconnected bike network between Third and Kirkwood. There were questions about the need for two 01:24:49.297 --> 01:24:55.055 - motor vehicle lanes. There were questions about the bicycle crossings at the Project Termini, which 01:24:55.055 --> 01:25:00.871 - weren't shown in the slides, but the project engineer, Kendall Kanoki, can go over that when he goes 01:25:00.871 --> 01:25:07.147 - over the current concept. And then similar concepts to the round two outreach regarding curbside management, 01:25:07.147 --> 01:25:07.838 - congestion, 01:25:08.034 --> 01:25:16.710 - Transit efficiency So that is the large high-level review of the process and the outreach that we've 01:25:16.710 --> 01:25:25.815 - done throughout this process I will throw it over to our project in to our project engineer Kindle Kenoki 01:25:25.815 --> 01:25:31.742 - to Talk about the currently proposed concept before you this evening 01:25:32.706 --> 01:25:39.375 - Before we throw it over to him, do you have any questions about the process itself and how we got here? 01:25:39.375 --> 01:25:46.173 - I think we should just hold questions until you finish your complete presentation. Perfect, sounds great. 01:25:46.173 --> 01:25:53.035 - But please stick around because we may have questions for you. Hello everyone, Kendall Kenoki, engineering 01:25:53.035 --> 01:25:59.576 - department. So I just wanted to talk very briefly because I know our 20 minutes are fast ending here. 01:25:59.576 --> 01:26:02.654 - Can you introduce yourself? Reintroduce myself. 01:26:02.946 --> 01:26:10.161 - I missed it, hi. Kendall Kenoki, Engineering Department. So just wanted to go over the preferred concept 01:26:10.161 --> 01:26:17.032 - we have right now with you. I'm gonna start on the south end at Smith Avenue and Henderson. Kind of 01:26:17.032 --> 01:26:24.110 - interesting to start at the end because these are the two probably least ironed out parts of this. How 01:26:24.110 --> 01:26:31.050 - do we tie into our existing bicycle network? Kind of the idea behind what you see here is that a few 01:26:31.050 --> 01:26:31.806 - years ago, 01:26:31.970 --> 01:26:38.515 - the Smith Hunter Greenway, a connection was made between Smith and Hunter, which is right here kind 01:26:38.515 --> 01:26:45.649 - of off the page, that built this kind of existing two-way bike facility here, and the idea was to facilitate 01:26:45.649 --> 01:26:52.259 - east-west bike traffic. Henderson is one way north, so southbound cyclists were not allowed to go on 01:26:52.259 --> 01:26:59.262 - the street, and it was an awkward disconnect in that network. So because that existing facility was there, 01:26:59.650 --> 01:27:05.899 - We kind of wanted to extend off of what was already built I think when we dive into this little further 01:27:05.899 --> 01:27:12.089 - we could evaluate the future, you know, Henderson corridor all the way down to Hillside and beyond and 01:27:12.089 --> 01:27:18.098 - and maybe decide to do something different here, but that's that's what we're showing right now one 01:27:18.098 --> 01:27:24.287 - thing that's really beautiful about the two-way protected bike facility being on this side of the road 01:27:24.287 --> 01:27:28.734 - is there's no conflicting vehicle movements out water is one way east and 01:27:28.962 --> 01:27:35.012 - So you have no one turning across it at all and then flipping over to the east side of the road here 01:27:35.012 --> 01:27:41.482 - You have the same benefit at this intersection at 3rd Street where there's no conflicting vehicle movements 01:27:41.482 --> 01:27:47.771 - there. So that's one benefit of it There's a lot of ways we could switch sides for the two-way protected 01:27:47.771 --> 01:27:53.822 - bike lane or not switch it at all and and that kind of still needs to be further evaluated but right 01:27:53.822 --> 01:27:58.494 - now this is this is where we're at and there's just a lot of pros and cons to 01:27:59.042 --> 01:28:05.353 - The various options there, but I'll kind of continue so, you know crossing the street Again, this is 01:28:05.353 --> 01:28:11.915 - shown as a raised Crossing it is a yield to the bikes and not the cars. There's certainly a conversation 01:28:11.915 --> 01:28:18.413 - that could be had about flipping that Right now that's that's just where what we're showing that's kind 01:28:18.413 --> 01:28:24.662 - of in line with most of our other crossings in the city And then continuing on to third you kind of 01:28:24.662 --> 01:28:25.662 - merge into that 01:28:25.826 --> 01:28:31.982 - one-way bike facility that's heading westbound. And then you enter this area where there's 01:28:31.982 --> 01:28:39.153 - no bike infrastructure, so that's kind of an interesting transition. So northbound cyclists can obviously 01:28:39.153 --> 01:28:45.919 - continue in the roadway in one of the two vehicle lanes. Southbound cyclists are gonna have to come 01:28:45.919 --> 01:28:53.022 - from somewhere else. Ostensibly they might go down Dunn Street, connect in on Atwater or some other way. 01:28:53.218 --> 01:28:58.598 - But that's where we're at right now. So then that's where the two lanes start. Of course an interesting 01:28:58.598 --> 01:29:03.875 - feature here is since we're bringing Henderson and Indiana kind of transitions here down to one lane, 01:29:03.875 --> 01:29:09.256 - there's really no need to have both of these lanes extend down to this intersection because at one time 01:29:09.256 --> 01:29:14.533 - you have right turning vehicles and then another time you have straight vehicles. So there's only one 01:29:14.533 --> 01:29:19.861 - lane of traffic entering at one time. So you're kind of able to safely dump your cyclists off into the 01:29:19.861 --> 01:29:21.310 - street here with a share-o. 01:29:21.890 --> 01:29:29.168 - And then continuing through the corridor. We have a raised intersection at 4th Street, which as Hank 01:29:29.168 --> 01:29:36.806 - mentioned IU is really in favor of those we do maintain the street parking along the west side of Indiana 01:29:36.806 --> 01:29:44.371 - and then this kind of we're showing it really as just it could be parking it could be there was a desire 01:29:44.371 --> 01:29:47.614 - by one business owner they really like their 01:29:47.842 --> 01:29:53.923 - You know, they're set up in the summer for the summer dining program, so it could be that. It could 01:29:53.923 --> 01:30:00.064 - be loading and unloading of trucks or, you know, delivery vehicles, Uber, Lyft, things like. So this 01:30:00.064 --> 01:30:06.752 - is kind of a space, haven't decided exactly what it is. Currently, it's mostly parking. But that's maintained 01:30:06.752 --> 01:30:12.894 - along with the two vehicle travel lanes. And then we shift everybody over to the West, existing West 01:30:12.894 --> 01:30:14.718 - curb line, go over the iconic 01:30:15.138 --> 01:30:21.595 - Kirkwood and Indiana intersection there, showing a nice decorative paver at that intersection. It's 01:30:21.595 --> 01:30:28.246 - raised intersection shown here. And then that's where we're able to restart the two-way protected bike 01:30:28.246 --> 01:30:35.155 - lane. So really, it's this two-block area that's very tight. There's a huge desire from IU for two-vehicle 01:30:35.155 --> 01:30:39.998 - lanes. There's a huge desire from the businesses for the parking, loading, 01:30:40.226 --> 01:30:46.486 - you know, outdoor dining, whatever you want to call that space, the flex space there. So it's kind of 01:30:46.486 --> 01:30:52.623 - balancing all those priorities right now. Unfortunately, the bike infrastructure doesn't make it in 01:30:52.623 --> 01:30:59.005 - in this iteration of the concept. But then you continue north and I'll try to be really brief finishing 01:30:59.005 --> 01:31:04.222 - this up. Another raised intersection at 6th Street. We're able to kind of tie in our 01:31:04.354 --> 01:31:10.483 - bike infrastructure with the existing seventh street protected bike lane. And then really north of seventh, 01:31:10.483 --> 01:31:16.498 - you have a lot of space to work with. I think, I don't know if Hank mentioned this, but parking is pretty 01:31:16.498 --> 01:31:22.343 - underutilized on the street. It's neighborhood parking areas. I think there were a total of like seven 01:31:22.343 --> 01:31:28.187 - spots that were parked in or something. So this concept is showing no parking on Indiana in this area. 01:31:28.187 --> 01:31:31.422 - We have the raised crosswalks at eighth. And I think we, 01:31:32.066 --> 01:31:38.382 - We're showing them at 9th, too. I'm not sure why they're not showing up here, but And then you get to 01:31:38.382 --> 01:31:44.884 - the the 10th Street, and that's kind of the the end of the project. So this is an interesting transition 01:31:44.884 --> 01:31:51.262 - area right now. We're kind of showing an idea where Assuming that Indiana will have bike lanes painted 01:31:51.262 --> 01:31:57.578 - north of 10th You have to get the cyclists over to the east side of the roadway so this is kind of an 01:31:57.578 --> 01:32:00.798 - idea of showing they they merge in with traffic and 01:32:01.154 --> 01:32:06.838 - Kind of have their own left turn lane here and then can join in prior to the intersection Again, this 01:32:06.838 --> 01:32:12.969 - is another area that we want to look at a lot harder and see what the absolute best way to kind of transition 01:32:12.969 --> 01:32:18.542 - everything together here is of course 10th Street is also another project that's being looked at so 01:32:18.542 --> 01:32:24.170 - there's definitely opportunities to coordinate both projects, but I think I will end it there and Is 01:32:24.170 --> 01:32:28.350 - that the end of our presentation? We'll open it up for questions Thank you 01:32:29.026 --> 01:32:35.573 - Both for the presentation, uh, just to remind everybody we're in cases now, so we're going to have one 01:32:35.573 --> 01:32:42.374 - round of questions followed by public comment, followed by a second round of questions and then discussion 01:32:42.374 --> 01:32:48.794 - of the case among commissioners. So let's now go to first round questions. Is there any commissioner 01:32:48.794 --> 01:32:55.595 - who has questions for staff on this case? We'll start online. Ms. Davis, you don't have to have questions, 01:32:55.595 --> 01:32:57.502 - but now it's a good chance to 01:32:58.658 --> 01:33:06.665 - still formulating. Okay, we'll come back to you. Anybody on my left with first round questions? 01:33:06.665 --> 01:33:15.006 - On my right, Mr. Binder. I'll try to just stick to questions. So I'd be curious to know more about, 01:33:15.006 --> 01:33:23.347 - I guess, IU's involvement in this design process. I mean, I don't want to speak for the rest of the 01:33:23.347 --> 01:33:27.518 - commission, but I think we're all looking at this 01:33:27.714 --> 01:33:36.253 - You know somewhat in bewilderment that a design is being shown here that you know clearly does not meet 01:33:36.253 --> 01:33:44.546 - the bicycle network connectivity goals, you know for this project, so I Can't imagine many or any of 01:33:44.546 --> 01:33:53.168 - us are going to be satisfied with the design as as presented proposed currently But back to the IU thing 01:33:53.168 --> 01:33:54.974 - We're representatives 01:33:55.298 --> 01:34:02.305 - You know from the relevant departments at IU invited to this meeting and if if not, then why not and 01:34:02.305 --> 01:34:09.313 - if so Where are they? Sure good questions. So It's your first question as to what extent IU has been 01:34:09.313 --> 01:34:16.250 - involved with this project We have been meeting with them for literally years on this now. We first 01:34:16.250 --> 01:34:21.662 - brought this to them I believe during the first round of public outreach as a 01:34:22.082 --> 01:34:30.035 - concept of we are working on this project and through each round of public outreach and design revision 01:34:30.035 --> 01:34:37.911 - we have been sending updates and have met with them and then especially last year was when discussions 01:34:37.911 --> 01:34:45.634 - became more regular and serious about this project as it became more real and how it would affect IU 01:34:45.634 --> 01:34:49.534 - in the long run for campus operations. In terms of 01:34:50.242 --> 01:34:57.956 - their involvement for tonight. Some members of the IU capital planning staff were invited to this meeting 01:34:57.956 --> 01:35:05.306 - tonight. They declined to attend, but again, they have been very involved with this project and they 01:35:05.306 --> 01:35:12.802 - felt that their stance had been made clear to staff and been presented in this design presented to you 01:35:12.802 --> 01:35:19.934 - tonight. Okay, thank you. Sure. Mr. Duncan, I understand that all you guys can do is invite them. 01:35:20.098 --> 01:35:29.862 - force them to appear here, but I still just kind of baffled it. The fact that representatives from IU 01:35:29.862 --> 01:35:39.531 - Capital Planning can apparently provide a lot of backroom input on this project, but then they don't 01:35:39.531 --> 01:35:44.030 - show up to this meeting. I agree, IU should be 01:35:44.194 --> 01:35:50.662 - Very deeply involved in this project, but to that point they should be here. Let's let's save the comment 01:35:50.662 --> 01:35:56.763 - for later. Let's now go to questions. Mr. Flaherty Yeah, thank you. Thank you for your work on this 01:35:56.763 --> 01:36:03.292 - and presentation I'm concerned about Safety, I think as we all are on this on the street and in particular 01:36:03.292 --> 01:36:09.821 - what some of the revisions between prior concept data at a continuous protective bike lane and the current 01:36:09.821 --> 01:36:11.102 - proposed concept and 01:36:11.714 --> 01:36:19.242 - what the impacts of that are from a safety perspective. I guess what do you expect southbound bicyclists 01:36:19.242 --> 01:36:26.555 - to do if their destination is 2nd and Henderson, they're coming southbound from 10th Street, they get 01:36:26.555 --> 01:36:33.796 - to Kirkwood, the two-way protected bike lane disappears for two blocks. What are they supposed to do 01:36:33.796 --> 01:36:40.894 - and what do you think will happen? Sure, good question. We are imagining that southbound cyclists, 01:36:41.058 --> 01:36:48.923 - on Indiana Avenue would go one block west to Dunn Street, cross on Dunn Street, down to Henderson and 01:36:48.923 --> 01:36:56.789 - Smith, and then join with that existing multi-use path at Henderson and Smith and continue southbound 01:36:56.789 --> 01:37:04.731 - from there. So three block detour, yeah. Essentially, yes. Got it, three blocks north-south, but yeah. 01:37:04.731 --> 01:37:10.206 - Do you think there's a risk that this design choice will induce unsafe 01:37:10.466 --> 01:37:17.099 - Risky behaviors in particular bicyclists riding on the sidewalk Pedestrians stepping into the street 01:37:17.099 --> 01:37:23.863 - to avoid bicyclists riding on the sidewalk Bicyclists riding in the street against traffic Those types 01:37:23.863 --> 01:37:30.626 - of things sure I don't want to Assume any future behavior. I think those are great questions and those 01:37:30.626 --> 01:37:35.486 - are questions that we have thought of as well in terms of what may happen 01:37:37.282 --> 01:37:44.154 - But isn't that what we're doing here? We're making assumptions about levels of risk of different designs 01:37:44.154 --> 01:37:50.961 - based on best practices. And I know it's, we can't conclude exactly what will happen for any individual 01:37:50.961 --> 01:37:57.768 - user, but I don't think, but I don't think the exact opposite end is sufficient either. Like everything 01:37:57.768 --> 01:38:04.903 - we're doing here about design is predicting how people will respond to interventions like raised crosswalks, 01:38:04.903 --> 01:38:05.950 - like, you know, 01:38:06.978 --> 01:38:13.332 - So I guess Do you think it's reasonable for one to expect that there will be unsafe behaviors induced 01:38:13.332 --> 01:38:19.623 - by this design choice? unsafe behaviors by by cyclists or pedestrians or Yeah, I don't know. I think 01:38:19.623 --> 01:38:25.853 - I think that's a fair question. I think that's a fair comment. Honestly. Yes. It's a it's a concern 01:38:25.853 --> 01:38:32.518 - Okay, thank you. I do have other questions, but yeah, I'll stop there Well, yeah, let's stick to questions 01:38:32.518 --> 01:38:36.318 - here and save comments for after second round. Mr. Stossberg 01:38:37.218 --> 01:38:44.671 - How would you characterize the feedback from Bloomington Transit about this? In particular, the seventh 01:38:44.671 --> 01:38:52.052 - in Woodlawn I know has been a challenge for buses to make that turn. Yeah, sure. So the seven line was 01:38:52.052 --> 01:38:59.505 - a learning lesson for the city as a whole in terms of design requirements for buses and larger vehicles 01:38:59.505 --> 01:39:06.814 - and turning radii. Kendall and the engineering staff honestly did a great job in working with Transit 01:39:06.914 --> 01:39:14.574 - and fire in terms of finding the biggest vehicle necessary needed to turn onto and from Indiana Avenue 01:39:14.574 --> 01:39:22.084 - and making sure that the turning radii were large enough for those vehicles. Bloomington Transit has 01:39:22.084 --> 01:39:29.595 - the new EV buses, which are now the, I believe, the largest city vehicles used. And so we are making 01:39:29.595 --> 01:39:36.734 - our turning radii large enough for those buses. In addition, you talked about 7th and Woodlawn, 01:39:37.506 --> 01:39:44.641 - Right by there is the bus island that intersects the seven line where there's a bus stop and bus island 01:39:44.641 --> 01:39:51.570 - for pedestrians to wait for the buses and a crossing spot for pedestrians to cross the seven line as 01:39:51.570 --> 01:39:58.499 - they go to the bus in previous iterations of this concept aim we worked with BT to Consolidate their 01:39:58.499 --> 01:40:06.046 - stops at Indiana and fourth and Indiana and Kirkwood to put the stop north of Kirkwood there by allowing more 01:40:06.210 --> 01:40:15.020 - space for the buses to stop queue not affect the always stop traffic at Kirkwood and Have a large bus 01:40:15.020 --> 01:40:23.916 - island similar to the one at 7th and Woodlawn. So pedestrians could cross the bike lane and wait there 01:40:23.916 --> 01:40:32.639 - Thank you, did you say 7th and Woodlawn Yes, you mean next to the IMU Just west of 7th and Woodlawn. 01:40:32.639 --> 01:40:36.094 - There is a bus stop in Bus Island. Okay 01:40:36.226 --> 01:40:44.125 - It took me a while to place it for the question. Mr. Stossberg, Mr. Coppock. Well, I think Mr. Fleury 01:40:44.125 --> 01:40:51.870 - said the section between third and Kirkwood, I mean, nobody's going to ride their bike down to Dunn 01:40:51.870 --> 01:40:59.691 - Street and come back around. And I could see the people don't want to give up their parking there in 01:40:59.691 --> 01:41:03.486 - front of the Buffalo Louise in there. But still, 01:41:04.002 --> 01:41:11.035 - I think you need to resolve that section in there. Is there a question? My comment is... We're on questions 01:41:11.035 --> 01:41:17.612 - now, Mr. Coppock. We're questions. My question is, how much contact did you have with the businesses 01:41:17.612 --> 01:41:24.254 - in that one section through there? Yeah, that is a great question. And I know that we've talked about 01:41:24.254 --> 01:41:30.961 - our relationship with IU quite a bit so far this discussion, but we have also met a lot with the local 01:41:30.961 --> 01:41:31.742 - businesses. 01:41:31.970 --> 01:41:40.014 - You have Qdoba's Dagwood Starbucks Indiana shop, mr. Tokyo, etc. There are there are quite a bit of 01:41:40.014 --> 01:41:48.057 - Restaurants and shops within that block face and a variety of opinions on how the ship how the city 01:41:48.057 --> 01:41:56.503 - should either maintain parking increase parking reduce parking how we should use that curb to curb space 01:41:56.503 --> 01:42:00.766 - to Maximize the the vibrancy and safety of that area 01:42:01.250 --> 01:42:07.626 - Right now, Buffalo Louise, they are involved in the city's parklet program. So they have essentially 01:42:07.626 --> 01:42:14.254 - deferred the on-street parking in front of their space to have more outdoor seating. You have businesses 01:42:14.254 --> 01:42:20.756 - like Starbucks who would very much love for all of this space to be loading and short-term pickups and 01:42:20.756 --> 01:42:26.942 - drop-offs because they have a lot of mobile orders and a lot of short-term pickups and drop-offs. 01:42:27.842 --> 01:42:35.055 - There are other businesses like Dagwood's who very much value the on-street parking in front of their 01:42:35.055 --> 01:42:42.693 - spot So there's not one consensus but talking with the Kirkwood Community Association downtown Bloomington, 01:42:42.693 --> 01:42:50.118 - Inc. There is still a concern of How would this street how these businesses be affected by the reduction 01:42:50.118 --> 01:42:56.766 - in parking in front of their stores and when and we want to be respectful of that Mr. Coppock 01:42:58.786 --> 01:43:11.308 - Okay, Ms. Davis. Speaking specifically to that stretch, has there been any thought to talking with IU 01:43:11.308 --> 01:43:24.321 - and those business owners about maybe dedicating more of that parking lot just behind it to your pickups, 01:43:24.321 --> 01:43:27.390 - your deliveries, because 01:43:27.618 --> 01:43:38.547 - You know, as a wheelchair user, what I can tell you is that there is somebody always blocking the alley 01:43:38.547 --> 01:43:49.582 - along Indiana because they're going into Starbucks. Or it's a huge delivery truck that is also partially 01:43:49.582 --> 01:43:53.470 - blocking the alley. Seems to me that 01:43:54.626 --> 01:44:02.166 - that that problem isn't gonna go away, so I wonder if we could move those people off of Indiana, those 01:44:02.166 --> 01:44:09.633 - vehicles off of Indiana. Yeah, that is a great question, and I have a bit of history on this in terms 01:44:09.633 --> 01:44:17.173 - of what I've learned from talking to business owners. This is not by any means official, so I wouldn't 01:44:17.173 --> 01:44:22.078 - quote myself on this, but from what I learned from business owners 01:44:23.042 --> 01:44:31.465 - there used to be deliveries happening in that parking lot behind your Qdoba, Dagwoods area. All of that 01:44:31.465 --> 01:44:39.887 - property is owned by IU, and at some point, IU or whoever else may own that property stopped deliveries 01:44:39.887 --> 01:44:48.067 - from happening back there. Again, I don't know why, how, or when, but there used to be at one point, 01:44:48.067 --> 01:44:52.926 - now there isn't. I don't know, seems to me if they're gonna 01:44:54.082 --> 01:45:01.704 - force less bike infrastructure, they could at least give up some parking infrastructure. Sorry, that's 01:45:01.704 --> 01:45:09.474 - not a question, it's a comment. We're gonna have time for comments. Do you have any more questions right 01:45:09.474 --> 01:45:16.874 - now? All right. Well, let's go to the public, but I wanna take a chance first. First couple of very 01:45:16.874 --> 01:45:22.942 - brief clarifying questions. If there was a bike lanes between Third and Kirkwood, 01:45:23.490 --> 01:45:31.283 - They would be on the east side of Indiana. Is that correct? Yes. Okay, secondly In that scenario, is 01:45:31.283 --> 01:45:39.076 - there any loss of parking spaces on the west side of Indiana? It depends on what we would want to Do 01:45:39.076 --> 01:45:47.100 - with that other section of the curb to curb area there is There is definitely possibility that we could 01:45:47.100 --> 01:45:53.118 - as a city maintain two northbound lanes through this section and include that 01:45:53.250 --> 01:46:00.852 - Two-way protected bike lane. Okay, but I mean if in the scenario of a one lane If we reduce car traffic 01:46:00.852 --> 01:46:08.601 - to one lane the parking states as it was Not necessarily what we would probably want to work with parking 01:46:08.601 --> 01:46:16.203 - services and local businesses on is Creating more of a flex zone. You're getting into my next question. 01:46:16.203 --> 01:46:22.270 - I just first want to ask is there any reduction of linear parking space footage of 01:46:22.978 --> 01:46:30.042 - As a result of going down to one car lane there like in other words, there's still that space to be 01:46:30.042 --> 01:46:37.530 - worked with Yes, yes that that space is still there. Okay, so now the question I want to ask this related 01:46:37.530 --> 01:46:45.089 - to what you were about to say is If there's one thing I've heard Traffic related in my many years involved 01:46:45.089 --> 01:46:51.870 - in city government It's a complaint about delivery trucks parked between 6th and 7th and Walnut 01:46:52.162 --> 01:47:00.956 - in front of the bars, that they block three lanes to one. The second most commented complaint is the 01:47:00.956 --> 01:47:09.837 - intersection Ms. Davis mentioned, the alley between 4th and Kirkwood on Indiana. It sounds like staff 01:47:09.837 --> 01:47:18.632 - is already thinking about making some of that space more delivery friendly. Please, is that what you 01:47:18.632 --> 01:47:20.286 - were about to say? 01:47:20.418 --> 01:47:27.438 - Yes, so in previous iterations of this concept with a one lane, Indiana Avenue We would want to begin 01:47:27.438 --> 01:47:34.389 - serious discussions on converting the on-street parking area between 4th and Kirkwood into More of a 01:47:34.389 --> 01:47:41.271 - flex zone that what into a flex zone flex zone that could be Parts of the day delivery parts of the 01:47:41.271 --> 01:47:46.846 - day on-street parking it could be 15 to 30 minute loading or drop-off and pickup 01:47:46.978 --> 01:47:55.890 - Variety of uses because there are a variety of uses on that curbside We know that really the main uses 01:47:55.890 --> 01:48:04.542 - are on-street parking Big deliveries for restaurants Starbucks, etc with bigger box trucks or semis 01:48:04.542 --> 01:48:12.589 - and then three your short-term deliveries your ubers ubereats door dashes Well, it has staff 01:48:12.589 --> 01:48:15.358 - ever contemplated simply saying 01:48:15.970 --> 01:48:22.581 - no deliveries in a certain period of time, that maybe deliveries need to be done at different times 01:48:22.581 --> 01:48:29.193 - of day than, I mean, it seems to be the same problem that we had before meters where employees were 01:48:29.193 --> 01:48:36.333 - parking in front of businesses and then wondering why they had trouble finding customers. If the businesses 01:48:36.333 --> 01:48:43.407 - are using this right of way to block potential customers, shouldn't we be, for their own sake, restricting 01:48:43.407 --> 01:48:44.862 - the use for delivery? 01:48:45.570 --> 01:48:52.816 - So for Your initial question of about it was delivery specific times, right? We have contemplated it 01:48:52.816 --> 01:49:00.061 - and that is something that if we move forward with any project that reduces the number of lanes on a 01:49:00.061 --> 01:49:07.522 - street where we see Delivery vehicles parking in the lane to deliver we would we would contemplate that 01:49:07.522 --> 01:49:15.198 - that would require a lot more discussion with the businesses because they have different vendors, you know 01:49:15.330 --> 01:49:20.888 - You talk to say Starbucks they get almost everything from one vendor. They know about what time that 01:49:20.888 --> 01:49:26.446 - truck is going to come They know when it's going to come they are in contact with their driver. That 01:49:26.446 --> 01:49:32.060 - one's easy There are other shops say the Indiana shop that deals with a lot of different vendors. You 01:49:32.060 --> 01:49:37.123 - have different Merchandise or manufacturers delivering things so it were it would require a 01:49:37.123 --> 01:49:41.470 - lot of coordination that is not to say it couldn't happen but we would want to 01:49:41.890 --> 01:49:48.652 - Make sure that coordination happens before we build anything in concrete. Okay, but I mean Have you 01:49:48.652 --> 01:49:55.414 - not heard the same complaints I've heard about delivery trucks generally blocking traffic. Yes, and 01:49:55.414 --> 01:50:02.243 - is this is the idea of maybe Pulling the restriction that only one lane has to be this is a question 01:50:02.243 --> 01:50:09.073 - for another matter. I'll leave it for later Thank you for the answer that I have more questions, but 01:50:09.073 --> 01:50:11.710 - we're gonna go not a public comment. I 01:50:12.194 --> 01:50:18.853 - on this is TCP 2610, the Indiana Avenue corridor study. If you are in the room, please come to the podium, 01:50:18.853 --> 01:50:25.138 - sign in, you'll have three minutes to speak. If you are online, please raise your hand and you'll be 01:50:25.138 --> 01:50:31.672 - called on by the Zoomkeeper. We have a speaker in the chamber, please state your name, you'll have three 01:50:31.672 --> 01:50:37.895 - minutes. Great, thanks, my name's Greg Alexander. This is not a good design. A two-way bike lane on 01:50:37.895 --> 01:50:39.326 - one side of the street 01:50:39.458 --> 01:50:46.136 - always has trouble at the endpoints, and this proposed design has four endpoints over less than a mile. 01:50:46.136 --> 01:50:52.877 - Good infrastructure direct sidewalks off, or cyclists off of the sidewalk, but this one directs cyclists 01:50:52.877 --> 01:50:59.298 - directly onto the most busy sidewalk. It will cause lawless and dangerous and frightening behavior. 01:50:59.298 --> 01:51:06.104 - The bike lane is proposed as two disconnected facilities. I hate tautologies, but a disconnected facility 01:51:06.104 --> 01:51:07.902 - is not a connected network. 01:51:08.642 --> 01:51:14.527 - The transportation plan calls for bike lanes, not bike gaps, so the proposed finding that it complies 01:51:14.527 --> 01:51:20.354 - with the transportation plan is simply false. The intersection of Forth and Indiana in particular is 01:51:20.354 --> 01:51:26.528 - almost unchanged by this design. Pedestrians will still face a multiple threat crossing. Forth and Indiana 01:51:26.528 --> 01:51:29.470 - is the pedestrian crash hot spot on this corridor. 01:51:30.050 --> 01:51:36.347 - It should be the most affected intersection, but instead it is the least affected intersection. Clearly 01:51:36.347 --> 01:51:42.401 - safety was not the priority of this design. The Safe Streets for All policy says we will prioritize 01:51:42.401 --> 01:51:48.637 - safety over capacity, but the staff report is explicit that stakeholders were allowed to overrule city 01:51:48.637 --> 01:51:54.813 - policy. So it is not true. The proposed finding that it complies with the Safe Streets for All policy 01:51:54.813 --> 01:51:57.598 - is not true. The worst part is the staff memo 01:51:57.954 --> 01:52:03.816 - that obtaining stakeholder support will allow the city to move forward with similar projects in the 01:52:03.816 --> 01:52:09.912 - future. Unfortunately, that's not true either. If this design is implemented, bike and ped traffic will 01:52:09.912 --> 01:52:16.067 - not meaningfully improve in the most important parts of this corridor. Businesses will not see increased 01:52:16.067 --> 01:52:22.105 - revenue from foot traffic. Cyclists and pedestrians will not experience greater comfort or convenience 01:52:22.105 --> 01:52:22.750 - or safety. 01:52:23.490 --> 01:52:30.153 - The public will not see tangible improvements to justify the expenses. We need to learn from the failure 01:52:30.153 --> 01:52:36.752 - of the seven line half-ass designs that fail to honor the council's mandate to Deprioritize car traffic 01:52:36.752 --> 01:52:43.542 - do not work They don't improve transportation for vulnerable groups and they don't generate public support 01:52:43.542 --> 01:52:50.078 - good designs do work But not if we build bad ones, please vote against this proposal. Thanks Thank you 01:52:50.434 --> 01:52:59.910 - Is there further public comment on TCP 2610? Is there any comments online? Okay, you'll have, please 01:52:59.910 --> 01:53:09.856 - state your name. You'll have three minutes. Go ahead. Mr. Rousseau. All right. It took a while to unmute. 01:53:09.856 --> 01:53:18.206 - Paul Rousseau, Bloomington resident. I'm gonna skip most of what I was gonna say because 01:53:18.914 --> 01:53:25.971 - Mr. Alexander just said it better than I could have. I strongly support everything he just said. I also 01:53:25.971 --> 01:53:32.959 - strongly second the comments and questions by Commissioner Davis. And I have a question, which is that 01:53:32.959 --> 01:53:40.152 - given that IU student enrollment plummets during the summer, has the city asked the university to convert 01:53:40.152 --> 01:53:46.462 - some of their private parking into public parking? That would apply to both the parking lots 01:53:46.594 --> 01:53:55.673 - in question here between 4th and Kirkwood. But as far as Kirkwood opening, there's also a parking lot 01:53:55.673 --> 01:54:04.662 - on the southwest corner of 6th and Indiana that I wonder about. Other than that, I wonder if this is 01:54:04.662 --> 01:54:14.275 - this plan before us not one of the clearest examples of business interests superseding the public interest. 01:54:14.275 --> 01:54:15.966 - And so many times, 01:54:16.674 --> 01:54:24.424 - I wonder, what is this relationship we have between Bloomington and IU? Is it healthy cooperation or 01:54:24.424 --> 01:54:32.405 - is it codependence? I say all these things as someone who is car free and gets around by bicycle almost 01:54:32.405 --> 01:54:40.155 - every day of the year. Thank you. Thank you. Further public comment in chambers. I don't see anybody 01:54:40.155 --> 01:54:43.838 - getting up to the podium. Online, anybody else? 01:54:45.954 --> 01:54:53.696 - Last call for public comment on TCP 2610 Seeing none we come back to the Commission for second round 01:54:53.696 --> 01:55:01.514 - of questions who's who wants to Take a first crack. Mr. Flaherty. Thank you So concentrating again on 01:55:01.514 --> 01:55:09.716 - the section from third to Kirkwood it seems like there's space for three things You could put for instance 01:55:09.716 --> 01:55:14.622 - parking a drive lane in a protective bike lane Have one of each 01:55:15.202 --> 01:55:22.744 - You could do two of some of them. You could do two drive lanes. You could do two parking alleys, parking 01:55:22.744 --> 01:55:30.214 - both sides of the street with one drive lane, et cetera. So we can have all three. This design doesn't. 01:55:30.214 --> 01:55:37.541 - And I'm having a hard time understanding why, I guess. I know IU is the major factor here. I think it 01:55:37.541 --> 01:55:43.934 - was quoted they had major operational concerns about one lane for drivers on the street. 01:55:44.738 --> 01:55:49.713 - It doesn't seem like the traffic counts justify like I'm trying to understand what they're like I don't 01:55:49.713 --> 01:55:54.544 - doubt that they have concerns obviously they're exerting their influence for a reason But I'm trying 01:55:54.544 --> 01:55:59.472 - to understand are those concerns well-founded are they backed by data? Are they receptive to? The fact 01:55:59.472 --> 01:56:04.447 - that the traffic counts don't really support that for instance So I could you help me understand better 01:56:04.447 --> 01:56:09.278 - like what since IU isn't here and I'm asking you instead But can you help me understand better what? 01:56:09.410 --> 01:56:16.212 - Concerns of capital planning and facilities are like more specifically sure. I will reiterate that I 01:56:16.212 --> 01:56:23.216 - am NOT IU I do not want to speak for IU. I will repeat Things that I've heard in those meetings as best 01:56:23.216 --> 01:56:30.288 - as I remember them. But again, I am NOT IU in this situation, of course Traffic throughput was a concern 01:56:30.288 --> 01:56:37.292 - a concern about future future congestion especially on major event days and weekends football game days 01:56:37.292 --> 01:56:38.302 - graduation and 01:56:38.434 --> 01:56:47.610 - Etc They had concerns about loading along the area for events at Bryan Hall and Franklin Hall specifically 01:56:47.610 --> 01:56:56.358 - In current conditions, they normally have a box truck or a couple box trucks take up the East lane on 01:56:56.358 --> 01:57:05.534 - the corridor by one of those two buildings and they unload and load things into those buildings for events 01:57:11.522 --> 01:57:18.396 - They also had concerns about emergency service access I will note that the city did Work closely with 01:57:18.396 --> 01:57:25.136 - police and fire during this project and I can talk more about that if you'd like, but they that was 01:57:25.136 --> 01:57:31.876 - one of their major concerns I Believe there was more that is as much as I can remember from the top 01:57:31.876 --> 01:57:38.750 - of my head. Sorry. It's not a perfect answer That's helpful. I see mr. Kenoki getting up to maybe add 01:57:40.354 --> 01:57:46.479 - Yeah, I just wanted to say when we had Indiana down to one lane, there were times where it backed up 01:57:46.479 --> 01:57:52.604 - all the way to third. And Hank already mentioned this, but the reason for that is pedestrian traffic 01:57:52.604 --> 01:57:59.093 - is totally unrestricted, so vehicles just have to wait. And when you have two lanes, you have more storage 01:57:59.093 --> 01:58:05.522 - for vehicles to wait while all the pedestrians are crossing, and traffic doesn't back up to third, hardly 01:58:05.522 --> 01:58:08.190 - ever. So it was doing that a lot more often 01:58:08.418 --> 01:58:14.638 - There's some solutions to that one of which is you could signal eyes these intersections that are really 01:58:14.638 --> 01:58:20.858 - high pedestrian traffic We suggested that to IU and they were very much not in favor of that. So I think 01:58:20.858 --> 01:58:26.841 - it's it's kind of balancing different preferences here, you know, you could resolve things with some 01:58:26.841 --> 01:58:33.061 - solutions and Like you said, there's a lot of different options for the space another thing that I don't 01:58:33.061 --> 01:58:35.134 - think has been mentioned either is 01:58:35.426 --> 01:58:42.810 - You could actually widen the road to get more than three that would involve Street tree removal. I use 01:58:42.810 --> 01:58:50.194 - brick wall or stone wall being moved back things like that That's something we didn't even really talk 01:58:50.194 --> 01:58:57.362 - to IU about but ultimately it could be an option. So I guess that thank you. Thank you both just to 01:58:57.362 --> 01:58:58.366 - follow up and 01:58:59.746 --> 01:59:06.840 - It feels to me like those concerns are mostly either unfounded, like with respect to the game day traffic 01:59:06.840 --> 01:59:14.067 - being much worse than regular, for instance, or can be accommodated through design, like having a dedicated 01:59:14.067 --> 01:59:21.027 - loading zone and bus drop area that I saw in one of the concepts, things like that. I'll also note that 01:59:21.027 --> 01:59:26.782 - the third street, south of it, sorry, Indiana south of third street as it approaches, 01:59:27.010 --> 01:59:36.258 - proposed concept only has one lane now northbound instead of two, which would also maybe limit the sort 01:59:36.258 --> 01:59:45.150 - of, I don't know, influx rate. I guess, can you tell me more, to the extent you're able, about your 01:59:45.150 --> 01:59:54.130 - ability to address the concerns that you had, because if they are indeed addressable, yeah. Sure, so 01:59:54.130 --> 01:59:56.798 - I will try to go step by step 01:59:57.506 --> 02:00:04.688 - talk about their concerns and how we attempted to address them in terms of Traffic flow and throughput 02:00:04.688 --> 02:00:12.010 - as a whole in one of our previous concept a iterations. We did incorporate a bus pull-off So buses would 02:00:12.010 --> 02:00:19.193 - pull off to the side of the street and would not stop traffic Currently buses stop one lane of traffic 02:00:19.193 --> 02:00:26.654 - and so Indian Avenue is de facto a one lane anyway We already talked about curbside management quite a bit 02:00:26.850 --> 02:00:34.350 - but converting those blocks from third to Kirkwood, specifically fourth to Kirkwood, into a flex zone 02:00:34.350 --> 02:00:41.777 - of some art, whether it's long-term delivery, short-term deliveries, delivery time-specific areas, I 02:00:41.777 --> 02:00:49.130 - don't know, but that is one other area. So we can have deliveries get off the street, buses get off 02:00:49.130 --> 02:00:55.454 - the street, and the motor vehicle lane is truly for motor vehicles. Emergency access. 02:00:55.682 --> 02:01:02.716 - This was actually one of the more exciting parts of the project Kendall and I worked with fire and police 02:01:02.716 --> 02:01:09.485 - on this and specifically designed this bike lane to accommodate a fire truck their biggest fire truck 02:01:09.485 --> 02:01:16.121 - and fires Near a station is at 4th and Grant So just about a block west of where this project is or 02:01:16.121 --> 02:01:22.890 - a block and a half west west of where this project is and their main Line to go northbound is east on 02:01:22.890 --> 02:01:24.350 - 4th north on, Indiana 02:01:24.514 --> 02:01:31.387 - And so we want to make sure that they have the ability in case there is ever congestion or somebody 02:01:31.387 --> 02:01:38.397 - blocking the lane on Indian Avenue to be able to drive through unimpeded to get to wherever they need 02:01:38.397 --> 02:01:45.545 - to get to and so This design or a previous iteration of this design allowed for a fire truck and police 02:01:45.545 --> 02:01:52.830 - car to drive through the bike lane make it a pseudo emergency access lane to get through town in terms of 02:01:52.930 --> 02:02:01.195 - Loading specifically already mentioned the bus pull off north of Kirkwood. We made that pull off I forget 02:02:01.195 --> 02:02:08.446 - exactly how many feet but very very long to accommodate two full buses and a box truck so it 02:02:08.446 --> 02:02:13.982 - could additionally be used as a BT I forget the exact term but the the 02:02:14.114 --> 02:02:20.623 - The type of area where they where the drivers take a break and take a five or ten minute break and they 02:02:20.623 --> 02:02:27.068 - can go use the bathroom Do whatever they need to do it could be used for that and it could be used for 02:02:27.068 --> 02:02:33.327 - loading and a bus to just get through as well I think those are the major ones Kindle. Am I missing 02:02:33.327 --> 02:02:39.710 - anything here? I Don't think I am so it sounds like you proposed and sort of feel like you're able to 02:02:40.034 --> 02:02:45.944 - Mitigate the cons most of the concerns major major areas of concern that you raised and ensured that 02:02:45.944 --> 02:02:51.913 - with them But they were ultimately unconvinced Is that is that right? Yes, and now that we're talking 02:02:51.913 --> 02:02:58.291 - about this one other concern that they had that I haven't mentioned yet is simply the pedestrian pedestrians 02:02:58.291 --> 02:03:04.259 - crossing Indiana Avenue with two-way bike traffic currently pedestrians only need to look one way for 02:03:04.259 --> 02:03:06.366 - motor vehicles going northbound and 02:03:06.498 --> 02:03:14.159 - This scenario then you would have bicycles going both north and southbound and the potential for bicycle 02:03:14.159 --> 02:03:21.601 - and pedestrian crashes Thanks, I'll stop there for now who else has questions mr. Binder I Don't want 02:03:21.601 --> 02:03:28.898 - to dwell too much on the you know the gap of the protected bike lane from third to Kirkwood because 02:03:28.898 --> 02:03:34.078 - I think we've I mean There's been a lot of comments already about this 02:03:35.042 --> 02:03:43.214 - So I will actually just ask a couple of other questions related to signalization. One is, because you 02:03:43.214 --> 02:03:51.226 - mentioned it, you know what I use, sorry? Okay, one was I use resistance to the idea of signalizing 02:03:51.226 --> 02:03:59.238 - any of these intersections. I'd be curious to hear more about that, what their justifications were. 02:03:59.238 --> 02:04:04.766 - And then secondly, specifically about Indiana and seventh, you know, 02:04:05.250 --> 02:04:13.943 - just mentioned that with bicycle traffic, traveling multiple directions, there's more potential points 02:04:13.943 --> 02:04:22.806 - of conflict and more to have to pay attention to. So I guess my question would be how much thought there 02:04:22.806 --> 02:04:31.499 - was or consideration there was to specifically signalizing Indiana Avenue and 7th, just because that's 02:04:31.499 --> 02:04:34.622 - the intersection of two two-way bike 02:04:35.042 --> 02:04:43.043 - lanes plus two-way motor traffic on 7th Street and northbound motor traffic on Indiana Avenue with a 02:04:43.043 --> 02:04:51.045 - lot of turn motions, turning directions from Indiana onto 7th, so that's just a lot to pay attention 02:04:51.045 --> 02:04:58.492 - to. It's like a four-way, well, I mean, the signalization, I think, is my question there. How 02:04:58.492 --> 02:05:03.166 - much consideration was made to that specific intersection? 02:05:03.394 --> 02:05:09.974 - So to answer your first question, what was IU's concern with signalization at Kirkwood in Indiana? It 02:05:09.974 --> 02:05:16.554 - was aesthetics. This is a very photogenic location for them. I think for all of us, it's the heart of 02:05:16.554 --> 02:05:23.392 - our community, so that was their concern. But signalization would resolve some of the issues with traffic 02:05:23.392 --> 02:05:30.165 - backup. So when we saw Indiana down to one lane, we saw it back up to third. The reason was unrestricted 02:05:30.165 --> 02:05:31.262 - pedestrian flow. 02:05:31.458 --> 02:05:38.023 - That is an option that would resolve that issue. To answer your question about 7th and Indiana, I neglected 02:05:38.023 --> 02:05:44.284 - to mention that, but yes, we have definitely been considering a signal at 7th and Indiana. We actually 02:05:44.284 --> 02:05:50.788 - had our consultant, our traffic signal consultant look at that a little bit, and it's definitely something 02:05:50.788 --> 02:05:56.988 - we'd pursue moving forward. It does also operate as an all-way stop, but like you said, could benefit 02:05:56.988 --> 02:06:00.574 - from signalization from a safety standpoint. Okay, thanks. 02:06:00.834 --> 02:06:07.625 - That's basically all I've got. Mr. Stosbury. Yes, my question is about contingency plans. I share the 02:06:07.625 --> 02:06:14.616 - viewpoint of other transportation cyclists on this commission and in the public that have concerns about 02:06:14.616 --> 02:06:21.740 - the gap in this network. I believe it will induce the sidewalk riding and could create new dangers between 02:06:21.740 --> 02:06:28.664 - conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians. So working with IU, I imagine some of your staff might have 02:06:28.664 --> 02:06:30.462 - brought up this potential. 02:06:30.818 --> 02:06:37.983 - Is there a contingency plan if we try this out and we have this new kinds of conflict? Where do you 02:06:37.983 --> 02:06:45.649 - go from here if this if the gap doesn't work out? Yeah, sure. So one idea that we've had with this project 02:06:45.649 --> 02:06:53.459 - for a long time is to Try it out with temporary materials first. The concept shown is in permanent materials 02:06:53.459 --> 02:06:54.462 - bricks pavers 02:06:54.722 --> 02:07:03.013 - That has been decided yet, but some kind of concrete material we could also do this with temporary materials 02:07:03.013 --> 02:07:10.771 - And so if we do it with quick build materials say similar to what we have on East 3rd Street or other 02:07:10.771 --> 02:07:18.834 - Temporary bike lanes in the city temporary protected bike lanes in the city. We could try it out Evaluate 02:07:18.834 --> 02:07:24.158 - it have learning lessons and change it as needed That's your question 02:07:25.250 --> 02:07:32.467 - Further questions to my left? Going online, Ms. Davis? None? All right, let me ask a couple. Let me 02:07:32.467 --> 02:07:40.045 - get this straight. In the suggested alternate bike route, it would go, a southbound bicyclist on Indiana 02:07:40.045 --> 02:07:47.623 - would turn at Kirkwood, turn westbound, go one block over to Dunn, and then they'd go to fourth, through 02:07:47.623 --> 02:07:54.046 - the light at third, and down what becomes Atwater, all the way to Atwater and Henderson, 02:07:54.210 --> 02:08:01.490 - before turning right onto the existing, is that how it would go? That is one option. Honestly, I would 02:08:01.490 --> 02:08:08.840 - imagine that most folks who currently use Dunn to go southbound would continue to use Dunn Street going 02:08:08.840 --> 02:08:15.908 - southbound. You mean they'd turn right onto that exit, that Dunn Street exit? Yes, so they would go 02:08:15.908 --> 02:08:20.926 - Dunn Street through fourth through third and then that split off onto, 02:08:21.538 --> 02:08:29.803 - I think between where it turns into Outwater and Dunn, they would turn on to Dunn there, head to Smith, 02:08:29.803 --> 02:08:38.147 - then Henderson. I'm a frequent user of this area, and I have gone against traffic ridden on the sidewalk 02:08:38.147 --> 02:08:46.332 - on Henderson as it becomes from Indiana going south from 3rd Street just to get to that wonderful bike 02:08:46.332 --> 02:08:50.782 - lane, the two-way lane that's the seed of this concept. 02:08:51.234 --> 02:08:58.747 - And I just, I can't believe that anybody would go all the way, I mean, Dunn Street at second is not 02:08:58.747 --> 02:09:06.485 - the safest thing either. So I'm a little, I mean, is there any design mock-up of this alternate route? 02:09:06.485 --> 02:09:14.073 - Because the only one that makes sense to me is what I described as going around the curve to meet up 02:09:14.073 --> 02:09:18.430 - with the existing infrastructure at Anderson and Atwater. 02:09:19.074 --> 02:09:25.647 - Sure. So the alternative route would simply be a cyclist taking the lane or using the Existing Sharos 02:09:25.647 --> 02:09:32.414 - to get to where they need to go. So no infrastructure would be Sharos on that the other the other option 02:09:32.414 --> 02:09:39.116 - Would be go southbound on Grant across the newly built pedestrian bike refuge Through that intersection 02:09:39.116 --> 02:09:46.462 - over to Smith up to Henderson then along the multi-use path and country like that answers that question Thank you 02:09:47.426 --> 02:09:54.733 - You expressed some concerns expressed by the public about later in the process about potential traffic 02:09:54.733 --> 02:10:02.111 - congestion being a concern, but they seem absurd since the initial survey found that traffic congestion 02:10:02.111 --> 02:10:09.702 - was one of the lowest concerns. Why would staff be suddenly more concerned about the potential for traffic 02:10:09.702 --> 02:10:16.158 - congestion once these designs were presented when it wasn't such a big deal at the outset? 02:10:16.546 --> 02:10:24.439 - Sure. I don't know if the public concern for traffic congestion was the main impetus in creating this 02:10:24.439 --> 02:10:32.255 - two lane design through third through third to seventh. That was more of the impetus of stakeholders 02:10:32.255 --> 02:10:40.304 - talk to like IU and local businesses. Okay. Last question I'll ask is can you explain a little bit more 02:10:40.304 --> 02:10:45.566 - about the conflict points that have been mentioned tonight and also 02:10:45.922 --> 02:10:55.155 - Are there any regrets you have about the design of the seven line? That would be reflected in a newer 02:10:55.155 --> 02:11:04.570 - design here with a north-south bike lane Sure good questions So your first question was about conflicts 02:11:04.570 --> 02:11:14.437 - points, correct yes and Concerns we have are questions we have about them well just that in this alternative 02:11:14.437 --> 02:11:15.614 - design where 02:11:15.842 --> 02:11:22.980 - There's not a clear bike lane between third and Kirkwood it creates more conflict points. Is that correct? 02:11:22.980 --> 02:11:29.785 - Yes, because you have two more termini of the bike infrastructure. So in the original concept day you 02:11:29.785 --> 02:11:36.723 - had the southbound termini or terminus at Smith and Henderson or Second and Henderson wherever you want 02:11:36.723 --> 02:11:41.726 - to define that terminus right and the northern terminus at Indiana in 10th 02:11:42.978 --> 02:11:48.786 - Whenever we are creating new protected bike infrastructure, especially to a bike bike infrastructure 02:11:48.786 --> 02:11:54.767 - That is not connected to other bike infrastructure You have conflict points and because the city's bike 02:11:54.767 --> 02:12:00.690 - infrastructure is not fully built out yet. We are still in that mode of Creating the puzzle pieces and 02:12:00.690 --> 02:12:06.556 - not necessarily connecting the puzzle pieces now There is a new connection between the seven line and 02:12:06.556 --> 02:12:09.086 - Indian Avenue that is connecting the puzzle 02:12:09.186 --> 02:12:16.982 - So we are starting to get to that phase which is exciting But as you can see at the south and the north 02:12:16.982 --> 02:12:24.703 - end of this project, we're not there yet to your question specifically about this design and the third 02:12:24.703 --> 02:12:32.574 - and Kirkwood term and I'm so for northbound cyclists Traveling along Henderson through third to Indiana. 02:12:32.574 --> 02:12:38.046 - Honestly, it's a pretty smooth transition You are going from a protected 02:12:38.466 --> 02:12:45.810 - Bicycle lane into a shared lane, but that shared lane begins with a protected intersection So there 02:12:45.810 --> 02:12:53.153 - is not going to be a car immediately in that way So northbound northbound cyclists honestly have it 02:12:53.153 --> 02:13:00.864 - pretty nicely in this design, okay Southbound cyclists again if you are traveling on Indiana to Kirkwood 02:13:00.864 --> 02:13:04.830 - we talked about the detour route for that already for 02:13:05.442 --> 02:13:12.219 - Southbound cyclists at the northern end of the project say on Indian Avenue north of 10th Those are 02:13:12.219 --> 02:13:19.200 - still questions we have actually Kendall and I were talking today about a potential alteration and how 02:13:19.200 --> 02:13:26.045 - that's designed And so we are still figuring that out But we are looking at other cities in terms of 02:13:26.045 --> 02:13:33.161 - how they begin and end to a protected bike lanes Where there is no bike infrastructure after that? again 02:13:33.161 --> 02:13:34.110 - as it's shown 02:13:34.306 --> 02:13:41.474 - Southbound cyclists, they are already taking the lane They would merge into a little protected island 02:13:41.474 --> 02:13:48.642 - in the middle of the street Cross into the protected bike lane when clear and travel on the east side 02:13:48.642 --> 02:13:55.950 - of the street throughout the entirety of the project Thank you interesting answers throughout Are there 02:13:55.950 --> 02:14:01.502 - any? Last last gas questions. Mr. Flader. Yeah last question. Thank you. Um, I 02:14:01.858 --> 02:14:07.802 - It's about the double threat risk that Mr. Alexander brought up. So when you have two lanes of vehicles 02:14:07.802 --> 02:14:13.746 - heading the same direction, you're all familiar, but a pedestrian starts to cross. Maybe one car stops, 02:14:13.746 --> 02:14:19.576 - another one doesn't. Maybe the second car doesn't have a sight line to that pedestrian. So, you know, 02:14:19.576 --> 02:14:25.577 - obviously the overall goal of this project is to help achieve our Vision Zero goals, you know, eliminate 02:14:25.577 --> 02:14:29.406 - serious injuries and fatalities. It seems like that's a real risk. 02:14:29.858 --> 02:14:36.268 - That were not mitigating at a couple of key intersections But could be mitigating and I guess I'm curious 02:14:36.268 --> 02:14:42.436 - for your thoughts about that and the double threat risk specifically and then also Maybe if you could 02:14:42.436 --> 02:14:48.483 - speak at all and this could be responsive or just broader to like the types of crashes we've seen I 02:14:48.483 --> 02:14:52.414 - was just reviewing the six streets for all action plan again and 02:14:52.578 --> 02:14:58.889 - in this context, it seems like pedestrian crashes specifically are the major issue along this corridor 02:14:58.889 --> 02:15:05.200 - and most significant kind of in that third to sixth range. So as far as the types of crashes that have 02:15:05.200 --> 02:15:11.573 - occurred and the injuries that have occurred, are they from that particular threat and that risk? Yeah, 02:15:11.573 --> 02:15:17.945 - more on that please. Sure. So your first question was about the general concept of a double threat risk 02:15:17.945 --> 02:15:21.438 - and how it applies to this project, correct? Yeah. Okay. 02:15:22.050 --> 02:15:28.104 - Back to the existing traffic and pedestrian counts in this area pedestrians and peak hours outnumber 02:15:28.104 --> 02:15:34.458 - vehicles three to one Right. And so in any project we want to make sure that we are prior to prioritizing 02:15:34.458 --> 02:15:40.633 - pedestrians We have talked so much about the bike infrastructure tonight at the end of the day We need 02:15:40.633 --> 02:15:46.687 - to make our streets more walkable there are more pedestrians than anybody else out here in this area 02:15:46.687 --> 02:15:47.646 - of the city and 02:15:47.778 --> 02:15:54.609 - and this project specifically should prioritize pedestrians. And that's why in previous iterations, 02:15:54.609 --> 02:16:01.577 - we did include that road diet of going from two lanes to one lane. That road diet was not to add bike 02:16:01.577 --> 02:16:08.203 - infrastructure. That road diet was to reduce the number of lanes that pedestrians have to cross. 02:16:08.203 --> 02:16:14.419 - From there, then we asked ourselves, what could we put in this space? Could it be parking? 02:16:14.419 --> 02:16:17.630 - Could it be trees? Could it be something else? 02:16:18.146 --> 02:16:24.452 - It could be anything and then looking at the other priorities that our transportation plan have given 02:16:24.452 --> 02:16:30.758 - us that the public gave us in that first round of public outreach that's how we landed on the two-way 02:16:30.758 --> 02:16:36.384 - protected bike lane and so I do want to make it clear that The initial idea of a road diet 02:16:36.384 --> 02:16:42.628 - was for pedestrians not to add a bike lane specifically Regarding that double threat that you talked 02:16:42.628 --> 02:16:45.534 - about that is that is why we did the road diet 02:16:45.954 --> 02:16:53.021 - because we have so many pedestrians because we know that when pedestrians cross one lane versus two, 02:16:53.021 --> 02:17:00.088 - it is safer. Now again, as we've talked about throughout the presentation and Q&A tonight, there are 02:17:00.088 --> 02:17:07.156 - other major stakeholders in town that have other goals, other needs that we need to be aware of. And 02:17:07.156 --> 02:17:14.153 - so this ended up being a project where we know it is not perfect, but it is good. It is better than 02:17:14.153 --> 02:17:15.902 - the existing conditions. 02:17:16.578 --> 02:17:23.467 - We don't want to let good be the enemy of perfect, or perfect be the enemy of good, you know? And so, 02:17:23.467 --> 02:17:30.423 - while in this current iteration there are still two lanes, I hear your point, and this is a topic that 02:17:30.423 --> 02:17:37.312 - we could raise for a future project down the line. You had another question for me, but I forget what 02:17:37.312 --> 02:17:43.998 - it was. I don't know if I already did. It was basically about whether the actual crash data itself 02:17:44.386 --> 02:17:51.009 - Yes, tune some of these recommendations and if if sorry, that's my duck alarm It's pretty fun if Basically 02:17:51.009 --> 02:17:57.384 - if that's if though if the pedestrian crashes that that are that are happening are caused by that type 02:17:57.384 --> 02:18:03.573 - of thing it seems even more important to Eliminate that particular type of threat given the traffic 02:18:03.573 --> 02:18:09.825 - counts given the overall content shared so if there's more to share on that front about the specific 02:18:09.825 --> 02:18:13.662 - types of crashes that have occurred and what the data informs 02:18:13.794 --> 02:18:19.447 - If not beyond what you've already said, no worries Quite frankly, I I don't remember these specific 02:18:19.447 --> 02:18:25.382 - types of crashes regarding the double threat that you're talking about In terms of crash data as a whole 02:18:25.382 --> 02:18:31.148 - the reason that we're working on a corridor project and not intersection specific projects is because 02:18:31.148 --> 02:18:36.857 - there are a variety of crash types at a variety of intersections throughout the corridor So when you 02:18:36.857 --> 02:18:41.662 - go into the the actual crash types and who they affected they have affected everyone 02:18:41.826 --> 02:18:48.380 - There have been motor vehicle only crashes motor vehicle and pedestrian crashes motor vehicle and bicycle 02:18:48.380 --> 02:18:54.625 - crashes so there have been a number of them at every intersection and Focusing on a specific type of 02:18:54.625 --> 02:19:00.870 - crash. I think sometimes Keeps us looking backward and not looking forward at the overall principles 02:19:00.870 --> 02:19:07.053 - of street safety and the overall future risks of what could happen in the future Thank you Any last 02:19:07.053 --> 02:19:10.206 - questions from members before we go to discussion? 02:19:11.266 --> 02:19:20.237 - Mr. Coppock Hank in all these concepts that you did Was there ever one where you provided loading unloading 02:19:20.237 --> 02:19:28.876 - space on the IU side of the road and maybe the one the one-way concept So in the concept and sorry when 02:19:28.876 --> 02:19:37.597 - you talk about loading and unloading do you mean for IU specifically or for businesses and third parties 02:19:37.597 --> 02:19:41.086 - well on the east side for IU only so that 02:19:41.410 --> 02:19:49.202 - That would eliminate some of their concerns Yes, so in a previous iteration of this one lane concept 02:19:49.202 --> 02:19:57.148 - a we created that long bus pull-off That while it is for buses It is also long enough for and this one 02:19:57.148 --> 02:20:04.863 - isn't the exact concept, but you can see the idea here That it is long enough for IU box trucks and 02:20:04.863 --> 02:20:07.486 - I you loading to happen unimpeded 02:20:13.442 --> 02:20:21.222 - Last question, mr. Stossberg. Yeah, so Bloomington passed a new code that legalizes bicycles to ride 02:20:21.222 --> 02:20:29.001 - on sidewalks With some carve outs and some geographic exceptions is this gap in the network? Is that 02:20:29.001 --> 02:20:36.858 - legal for cyclists to ride on the sidewalk there? Sorry, were you asking if this specific sidewalk on 02:20:36.858 --> 02:20:40.478 - Indian Avenue is legal? Honestly, I'm not sure 02:20:40.642 --> 02:20:50.745 - Would have to look that up. I know that there is a Square around the downtown that is a dismount zone, 02:20:50.745 --> 02:21:00.554 - but I forget if Indiana Avenue is specifically included in that I Have one last question When well, 02:21:00.554 --> 02:21:07.518 - it's a two-parter number one is approximately how long would you say a 02:21:07.650 --> 02:21:14.895 - Staff has been in discussion with representatives of IU on the design of this project. So The public 02:21:14.895 --> 02:21:22.139 - outreach or community outreach phase of this project began in spring of 2024 and I believe our first 02:21:22.139 --> 02:21:29.312 - meeting with IU was maybe that June I would say And again at that point, this was a general concept 02:21:29.312 --> 02:21:36.126 - of we are we are looking at safety improvements along this corridor Let's work with each other 02:21:36.866 --> 02:21:44.983 - From there, especially 20 late 2024 and 2025 was the heart of those discussions and they've they've 02:21:44.983 --> 02:21:53.425 - Spanned through early this year and how many discussions should you say that? IU was invited to in that 02:21:53.425 --> 02:22:01.867 - span One five more specifically with city staff or public meetings. How many opportunities do they have 02:22:01.867 --> 02:22:06.494 - to express their concerns? I think in total we had about 02:22:07.298 --> 02:22:17.460 - Maybe five to seven meetings together give or take in that time. Did anybody at IU express our concern 02:22:17.460 --> 02:22:27.425 - with Vision Zero? No. So would you characterize their concerns as mostly logistical and aesthetic or 02:22:27.425 --> 02:22:34.430 - was there any other safety concern that they had? So they talked about 02:22:35.170 --> 02:22:43.182 - So they understand that there is a vision zero goal for the city and they want to be supportive of that 02:22:43.182 --> 02:22:51.117 - I think where City staff and IU staff have differed an opinion in the past is the way to get to vision 02:22:51.117 --> 02:22:59.514 - zero Now on this on this specific project One key concern that they had was pedestrian crossing specifically 02:22:59.514 --> 02:23:04.830 - at Kirkwood and forth where even though there is an always stop sign 02:23:05.346 --> 02:23:11.971 - Their mindset is that a raised intersection would Help safety at those locations. And so we've included 02:23:11.971 --> 02:23:18.531 - those in this concept So there there has been productive work between the two entities in this project 02:23:18.531 --> 02:23:25.029 - and how we can improve safety If that's if that answers your question, it does. Thank you Okay Unless 02:23:25.029 --> 02:23:31.590 - miss Davis chimes in to say she has another question. We should go now to discussion before we discuss 02:23:31.590 --> 02:23:33.182 - the case Let me just yes 02:23:34.562 --> 02:23:44.078 - Mr. Robling Slow Indiana Avenue is a dismount zone from 4th through 7th Indiana Avenue is a dismount 02:23:44.078 --> 02:23:53.595 - zone from 4th through 7th, correct Who asked the question I did I asked if sidewalk Riding was legal 02:23:53.595 --> 02:24:01.886 - during that got in that gap Okay. Well, let's just review what our options are here and 02:24:02.018 --> 02:24:09.292 - the bylaws of this commission say that on petitions motions shall be to a Approve as presented be approved 02:24:09.292 --> 02:24:16.362 - with refinement considerations see refer the matter back to staff for further refinement considerations 02:24:16.362 --> 02:24:23.568 - or D continued the petition to a future meeting note that we do not have the option to reject the finding 02:24:23.568 --> 02:24:30.910 - so I would suppose that perhaps continuing the petition is the closest thing to a rejection should somebody 02:24:31.074 --> 02:24:38.974 - Want to recommend that but we must make a recommendation tonight Of one of those choices and with that 02:24:38.974 --> 02:24:46.645 - I invite members to discuss this case, mr Flaherty you distinguish between the second third options 02:24:46.645 --> 02:24:54.545 - again the refinement I think it's that we want to recommend an amendment, but we don't need it to come 02:24:54.545 --> 02:24:59.454 - back to us. Whereas C is We want to see refinements and we want 02:24:59.650 --> 02:25:05.937 - Input in them before we vote. So that's my assumption is to What that should mean mr. Binder. Yeah, 02:25:05.937 --> 02:25:12.853 - just another point of order I guess my question would be more about the difference the qualitative difference 02:25:12.853 --> 02:25:19.329 - between C and D because I Would D simply be oh this seems interesting week, but we just need more time 02:25:19.329 --> 02:25:24.862 - to talk about it we don't necessarily need to see further changes proposed by staff and 02:25:25.154 --> 02:25:32.405 - Is that the idea behind D? I'm going to suggest the idea that the idea of continuing the petition is 02:25:32.405 --> 02:25:39.656 - that we have enough satisfaction, dissatisfaction with the proposal that we think it needs more than 02:25:39.656 --> 02:25:46.907 - just a few refinements, that it needs a rethinking. Now I welcome the input of staff, especially Mr. 02:25:46.907 --> 02:25:54.302 - Roebling, who authored these, the primary text of these bylaws. Do I have this interpretation correct? 02:25:54.658 --> 02:26:01.250 - Would say no that I Think D would be to not ask staff to do anything with it. You just need more time 02:26:01.250 --> 02:26:07.907 - You weren't satisfied with the timing of the vote You wanted more members to be present something like 02:26:07.907 --> 02:26:14.757 - that. Whereas C would be asking something specific the idea was that you would Identify the exact changes 02:26:14.757 --> 02:26:20.638 - or as close as you can that you would like to see staff come back with in a future meeting 02:26:20.930 --> 02:26:28.692 - Well, I'll note that for our options when we're considering resolutions that we can Approve or reject 02:26:28.692 --> 02:26:36.378 - in one case we can do positive or negative recommendations. We don't have that option here How would 02:26:36.378 --> 02:26:44.064 - you suggest if there's a majority that? Finds this proposal dissatisfactory. What are we to do? It's 02:26:44.064 --> 02:26:48.478 - a great question. So the body doesn't have the ability to 02:26:48.642 --> 02:26:56.566 - Permanently stall anything the decision of all transportation infrastructure projects lies solely in 02:26:56.566 --> 02:27:03.863 - the city engineers hands so you can only approve or ask for considerations or you can modify 02:27:03.863 --> 02:27:10.846 - the recommendation or recommended findings you can adopt your own findings that dissuade 02:27:11.042 --> 02:27:17.396 - Adoption of whatever we're proposed. Why do we'd agree to these bylaws again? This doesn't seem to make 02:27:17.396 --> 02:27:23.689 - a whole lot of sense. Mr. Robling, you know, we should be able to say We don't like the project. Yeah, 02:27:23.689 --> 02:27:30.043 - I think you absolutely can do that So the you just can't stop a project that is the city engineers job, 02:27:30.043 --> 02:27:33.342 - but you can you don't have to support the project and 02:27:33.538 --> 02:27:41.274 - It similar to a negative recommendation where you can modify the language of the findings and you can 02:27:41.274 --> 02:27:49.011 - find negative findings I would say that is Different than the word approval. We might want to look at 02:27:49.011 --> 02:27:57.051 - in a future meeting, but yes, we would yes Okay. Well, I hope that has clarified for everyone the choices 02:27:57.051 --> 02:28:03.422 - that we have and with that I invite discussion of case TCP 2610 Who wants to start? 02:28:04.802 --> 02:28:12.101 - Ms. Davis Anybody to my right mr. Flaherty Sure I Would be in favor of option C Which is moving that 02:28:12.101 --> 02:28:19.327 - we were to refer the petition back to staff for refinements prior to it coming back to us and I had 02:28:19.327 --> 02:28:26.843 - 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 02:28:26.843 --> 02:28:29.950 - agree with the staff proposed findings and 02:28:31.458 --> 02:28:37.359 - You know, is it consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted city plans? I would 02:28:37.359 --> 02:28:43.431 - say no. It doesn't meet the transportation plan for a PBL on this corridor, for instance. Is it consistent 02:28:43.431 --> 02:28:49.332 - with best practices for eliminating all transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries? I would 02:28:49.332 --> 02:28:55.517 - again say no because there's clear steps that we could take that were proposed previously and then abandoned 02:28:55.517 --> 02:28:58.014 - largely because of a single stakeholder IU. 02:28:58.562 --> 02:29:05.299 - Is it consistent with advancing sustainable transportation and equitable access to all facility users 02:29:05.299 --> 02:29:12.168 - while prioritizing non-automotive modes? I think, again, the idea that we've got space for three things 02:29:12.168 --> 02:29:18.839 - and we're deprioritizing the non-automotive modes to give double priority to the automotive mode for 02:29:18.839 --> 02:29:25.246 - several blocks is, again, this proposal is not consistent with the criteria for approving plans. 02:29:25.474 --> 02:29:31.728 - And then, you know, it has an adequately conducted public engagement and considered community-centric 02:29:31.728 --> 02:29:38.043 - designs tied to targeted outcomes. Again, I think that the kind of setting aside of what was the clear 02:29:38.043 --> 02:29:44.481 - community priorities in favor of the priorities of Indiana University means that we would need different 02:29:44.481 --> 02:29:50.980 - findings. If we're going to vote on findings for this concept, we would need, I believe, to make findings 02:29:50.980 --> 02:29:54.046 - that it doesn't meet any of the criteria that are 02:29:54.178 --> 02:30:01.122 - codified criteria for review. Just to be clear, I'm dissatisfied with the design. I'm not upset with 02:30:01.122 --> 02:30:08.547 - staff. I understand there are competing concerns here, and you're balancing the things you have to balance, 02:30:08.547 --> 02:30:15.491 - and that sometimes these decisions are made by folks other than those in this room as well. But I am 02:30:15.491 --> 02:30:20.510 - really concerned about this pattern of behavior from Indiana University. 02:30:20.898 --> 02:30:25.936 - You know, previously it was Tom Morrison was the VP of Capital Planning and Facilities and Adam Teese 02:30:25.936 --> 02:30:30.876 - who worked under him. They're both no longer at IU. But folks who've been working on this stuff for 02:30:30.876 --> 02:30:36.063 - a while, including our staff, know very well that we delayed implementation of those safety improvements 02:30:36.063 --> 02:30:41.151 - on 3rd Street for like seven or eight years because Capital Planning and Facilities called the mayor's 02:30:41.151 --> 02:30:46.090 - office under Mayor Hamilton and said, we don't like it. I met with Adam Teese about it when I was a 02:30:46.090 --> 02:30:49.054 - graduate student and he told me it was because it was ugly. 02:30:49.698 --> 02:30:56.094 - that they didn't like the aesthetics of temporary materials, interim materials, and that they couldn't 02:30:56.094 --> 02:31:02.303 - support it for that reason. I don't know if that's a factor here or not, but it's, I'm sharing that 02:31:02.303 --> 02:31:08.698 - anecdote because we've let it stop us from living our own values, and we've even made, we've increased 02:31:08.698 --> 02:31:14.970 - ambition since that time. We've actually set a Vision Zero target. If we're going to have any chance 02:31:14.970 --> 02:31:17.950 - of achieving it, we actually have to be able to 02:31:18.370 --> 02:31:24.789 - stand up for the values that we espouse, the policies that we adopt. And I think what's been very clear 02:31:24.789 --> 02:31:31.331 - from staff's presentation is that we can reasonably accommodate almost everything that Indiana University 02:31:31.331 --> 02:31:38.059 - is concerned about, and that their concerns ultimately are not things that should trump safety. We shouldn't 02:31:38.059 --> 02:31:44.416 - get to say, well, we want a bigger loading zone, so we are gonna make a less safe road. Like those two 02:31:44.416 --> 02:31:47.934 - things are not equivalent interests. So I'm hopeful that 02:31:48.034 --> 02:31:55.130 - the you know commission will be supportive of referring this back to staff for refinements that Bring 02:31:55.130 --> 02:32:02.295 - a concept to us that is more consistent with the criteria under which we're meant to evaluate projects 02:32:02.295 --> 02:32:09.391 - specifically that it would you know meet them and That's what I would like to propose but I'm curious 02:32:09.391 --> 02:32:17.182 - to hear others thoughts as well Thank You. Mr. Flaherty who else would like to chime in here? Mr. Stossberg Yes 02:32:17.730 --> 02:32:24.976 - It was highlighted that pedestrian safety is a priority in this area and that is great from my own crash 02:32:24.976 --> 02:32:32.083 - analysis that sounds on point. But this gap for southbound cyclists will increase pedestrian risk from 02:32:32.083 --> 02:32:39.053 - sidewalk riding. It was a concern for me that staff wasn't ready with the answer of whether sidewalk 02:32:39.053 --> 02:32:45.470 - riding was legal here because there might be not just a likely conflict but a legal conflict 02:32:46.082 --> 02:32:52.730 - between cyclists, although you did clarify that it's not all that case. The things I would be comfortable 02:32:52.730 --> 02:32:59.190 - with besides just sending it back is narrowing the scope to say it seems maybe otherwise good, but for 02:32:59.190 --> 02:33:05.650 - this section. Or I think there needs to be some kind of contingency plan if there really is a conflict 02:33:05.650 --> 02:33:12.047 - between the cyclists, southbound cyclists and pedestrians there. One could be build it like it is and 02:33:12.047 --> 02:33:15.998 - then have a plan for what if you need to adjust it after that. 02:33:16.162 --> 02:33:25.428 - Or I would be comfortable approving it with temporary materials so that to me though these are some 02:33:25.428 --> 02:33:34.971 - options to move something forward to improve safety some sooner but we need to I think anticipate that 02:33:34.971 --> 02:33:44.329 - this gap may be a problem that needs to be significantly addressed. Thank you. Thank you. To my left 02:33:44.329 --> 02:33:45.534 - Mr. Coppock. 02:33:46.178 --> 02:33:53.105 - Ms. Davis Any thoughts no, mr. Binder. Yeah, just a couple I actually want to commend staff for their 02:33:53.105 --> 02:34:00.167 - work on this project so far. I think there were a lot of difficult problems that You know, we're pretty 02:34:00.167 --> 02:34:07.365 - apparent at the outset of this and I'll just actually cite one example the the crossover of the protected 02:34:07.365 --> 02:34:12.798 - bike lane, you know between at water and third and and its interaction with the 02:34:13.762 --> 02:34:20.779 - you know, South Henderson Street protected path on the west side of the street. That was not an easy 02:34:20.779 --> 02:34:27.727 - design to kind of work through and iterate on. So I think that, you know, I'm confident that we can 02:34:27.727 --> 02:34:34.952 - eventually get to a good solution for this project because I think that staff have already demonstrated 02:34:34.952 --> 02:34:41.969 - that they want to do a good job with this project and have the capability to do so. But I do want to 02:34:41.969 --> 02:34:42.942 - call out that 02:34:43.074 --> 02:34:49.709 - I don't think that this is presently designed I can support. I think Councilmember Flaherty already 02:34:49.709 --> 02:34:56.609 - outlined just about all of the same concerns that I have about it, the design, and not just the design, 02:34:56.609 --> 02:35:03.377 - but the actual engagement process, some of the parts of the planning process, and the degree to which 02:35:03.377 --> 02:35:10.078 - IU's demonstrated a certain level of influence on this project. As well they should, it's obviously, 02:35:10.210 --> 02:35:17.500 - adjacent to campus and they should have a say in this project, but I just get the sense that I think 02:35:17.500 --> 02:35:24.789 - at the moment we're sort of being held to certain whims that IU Capital Planning have not just about 02:35:24.789 --> 02:35:32.007 - this project, but others in the past, Third Street and so forth. So yeah, option C for sending this 02:35:32.007 --> 02:35:38.142 - back to staff for further refinement is also probably a motion that I would support. 02:35:38.274 --> 02:35:45.248 - There are many things that I do like about this project. I think it's moving in a in the proper direction 02:35:45.248 --> 02:35:51.959 - but I also think it would be a shame if it were if it were built as depicted currently because of You 02:35:51.959 --> 02:35:58.670 - know the various shortcomings namely the gap in the protected bike lane between third and Kirkwood So 02:35:58.670 --> 02:36:05.249 - yeah, that's what I'll say about that. So again, thank you to planning staff for their your work on 02:36:05.249 --> 02:36:06.302 - this so far and 02:36:07.330 --> 02:36:17.281 - Look forward to seeing new versions of it in the future Thanks Well a few things first we're in debate 02:36:17.281 --> 02:36:27.135 - now mr. Seward is there something that you I Was just gonna say that I Appreciate this discussion and 02:36:27.135 --> 02:36:37.182 - just read it if if the motion or the direction is to send it back to staff for further refinements Just 02:36:37.282 --> 02:36:43.012 - Making the request some of this dialogue is really helpful to understand like what? Specifically you're 02:36:43.012 --> 02:36:48.576 - asking for or you know if certain parts of the project are generally favorable if there are the more 02:36:48.576 --> 02:36:54.141 - specific you can be That that would be helpful to staff to hear if there are options that cut I just 02:36:54.141 --> 02:36:59.760 - wanted to share that It's a valuable point of order that I was about to bring up and I appreciate you 02:36:59.760 --> 02:37:05.380 - 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 02:37:05.380 --> 02:37:06.206 - it a fact that 02:37:06.786 --> 02:37:15.714 - The two blocks of Indiana between third and Kirkwood are I happen to know because I have stuck my hands 02:37:15.714 --> 02:37:24.556 - elbow deep into parking data, the most in demand parking spots in the city without question. The price 02:37:24.556 --> 02:37:33.140 - on those blocks should double. If they double tomorrow, they would still be an excess of 88% usage. 02:37:33.140 --> 02:37:36.574 - So from a commercial perspective alone, 02:37:37.346 --> 02:37:46.922 - I would not favor any change that removes that parking. Changing it to flex space or what have you is 02:37:46.922 --> 02:37:57.249 - significant, but one of our charges is to consider the commercial viability of transportation infrastructure. 02:37:57.249 --> 02:38:07.294 - So I did appreciate the consideration of it. On the other hand, I do, as people have heard me say tonight, 02:38:07.554 --> 02:38:15.736 - have an objection to businesses thinking that they can and should be able to deliver anytime they want. 02:38:15.736 --> 02:38:23.604 - About the only entity in this corridor that I would defer to on that note is ironically IU, because 02:38:23.604 --> 02:38:32.258 - 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 02:38:32.258 --> 02:38:35.326 - IU here, but I do wanna point out that 02:38:35.682 --> 02:38:44.367 - I think we should be rethinking allowing deliveries any hour of the day and that we should be requiring 02:38:44.367 --> 02:38:52.719 - businesses to be thinking the same way about deliveries that we thought when implementing meters is 02:38:52.719 --> 02:39:01.237 - that no, you can't just have deliveries done anytime you want. We need to schedule it. But that's not 02:39:01.237 --> 02:39:05.246 - a matter for this design. IU did not consult us 02:39:06.146 --> 02:39:13.197 - when they closed 7th Street to bus traffic, when they closed 7th Street to all traffic. They put a statue 02:39:13.197 --> 02:39:19.849 - of Hoagy Carmichael there 20 years ago, said, like it or lump it. 20 years before that, they didn't 02:39:19.849 --> 02:39:26.501 - ask anybody when they decided to plop a couple of gates down at the corner of Kirkwood and Indiana. 02:39:26.501 --> 02:39:33.086 - If you look at the history of IU, you'll see that there were plenty of opportunities to turn right 02:39:33.410 --> 02:39:39.971 - going westbound on 3rd Street to turn into the campus. IU has effectively created a super block between 02:39:39.971 --> 02:39:46.594 - 3rd and 10th, between Indiana and what is now Eagleson. They didn't ask anybody's permission, they just, 02:39:46.594 --> 02:39:53.029 - they're the state and they do what they want. And here now, ironically, they're throwing their weight 02:39:53.029 --> 02:39:59.400 - around again. It's ironic that they can make those changes whenever they feel like, but then when we 02:39:59.400 --> 02:40:02.302 - wanna make a change that we think we see fit, 02:40:02.530 --> 02:40:11.206 - IU says no no but you know they don't check with us. They're not the greatest neighbors. Let's just 02:40:11.206 --> 02:40:20.056 - be blunt about it. And in fact that they don't feel that they need to be here says volumes. So I feel 02:40:20.056 --> 02:40:28.819 - for city staff that has to to endure it. But just the fact that city staff met with IU five to seven 02:40:28.819 --> 02:40:30.814 - times on this project. 02:40:31.202 --> 02:40:39.782 - is this commission going to have meaningfully more than one opportunity to consider it? Maybe we'll 02:40:39.782 --> 02:40:48.619 - get one more, but you know, uh, we weren't at that table. We weren't there to uphold the, uh, the, the 02:40:48.619 --> 02:40:57.284 - goals of the city, uh, along with them to represent, uh, uh, the public interest, but we should have 02:40:57.284 --> 02:41:00.030 - enough opportunity to also, uh, 02:41:00.226 --> 02:41:10.861 - Refine this proposal until it It's appropriate But in the end, it's going to be a matter of who has 02:41:10.861 --> 02:41:21.602 - the most clout I do agree with the idea that We should refine it, but we should refine it simply put 02:41:21.602 --> 02:41:30.110 - to go to mr. Teeber's point about what next We should refine it to the original 02:41:31.202 --> 02:41:38.283 - where there's a continuous bike lane, that's what I'm gonna recommend. I don't know exactly how to make 02:41:38.283 --> 02:41:45.091 - that recommendation. That's what I would like to direct staff to do is simply revert to that design 02:41:45.091 --> 02:41:51.899 - and then let's send that design to city council and see what happens. I don't know what else to do. 02:41:51.899 --> 02:41:58.980 - The best thing I can say is make a dedicated, if you're gonna really force bike traffic onto Dunn, make 02:41:58.980 --> 02:42:00.478 - a dedicated bike lane 02:42:00.706 --> 02:42:07.765 - from Kirkwood all the way to Henderson, down Atwater. There is an awful lot of space on that speedway 02:42:07.765 --> 02:42:14.963 - of a road that turns into Atwater. It's never been necessary. It wouldn't impede traffic. It would only 02:42:14.963 --> 02:42:21.952 - keep traffic going the speed that it should be going instead of revving up to go 35 miles an hour on 02:42:21.952 --> 02:42:29.150 - Atwater. It wouldn't hurt to put a protected bike lane there and it would make sense to connect it with 02:42:29.442 --> 02:42:36.204 - Atwater and Henderson, but that's not what we should be preferring. What we should be preferring is 02:42:36.204 --> 02:42:43.304 - that third through fifth be bike lanes as well on Indiana. Uh, the last thing I'll say is it was staff's 02:42:43.304 --> 02:42:50.472 - idea to eliminate three commissions to create this one. And in so doing, uh, limited the public's ability 02:42:50.472 --> 02:42:57.235 - to oversee in this way that we find ourselves now that we don't have the way to meaningfully reject 02:42:57.235 --> 02:42:58.046 - a proposal. 02:42:58.530 --> 02:43:06.125 - Like we can't a petition like we can other types of items that come before us It's a problem with our 02:43:06.125 --> 02:43:13.645 - bylaws that we need to revisit. I'm glad mr. Robling thinks that we need to revisit it and You know, 02:43:13.645 --> 02:43:21.389 - I want to point out that city code says that this body has the ability to set its own bylaws so I would 02:43:21.389 --> 02:43:26.750 - like some meaningful dialogue with staff about a way that this body can 02:43:27.458 --> 02:43:35.508 - More effectively object to a proposal that it finds unsatisfactory right now in our bylaws again initially 02:43:35.508 --> 02:43:43.107 - written by staff The the point has been made we Can't meaningfully delay let alone reject a project. 02:43:43.107 --> 02:43:50.931 - I don't think that's appropriate. I think that We should be able to make a negative recommendation just 02:43:50.931 --> 02:43:56.574 - as we can on a resolution in our bylaws Is there any follow-up commentary? 02:43:56.866 --> 02:44:05.517 - 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 02:44:05.517 --> 02:44:14.338 - member is going to propose to refer the matter back to staff a further refinement to be specific about 02:44:14.338 --> 02:44:23.075 - what refinement they would like to see. Anyone is there a proposal a motion motion I can send this in 02:44:23.075 --> 02:44:24.702 - writing the staff. 02:44:24.930 --> 02:44:31.050 - I move that we refer the petition back to staff prior to its return to the Commission for further refinements 02:44:31.050 --> 02:44:36.780 - of the design concept, especially between 3rd Street and 6th Street, to better align the proposal with 02:44:36.780 --> 02:44:42.510 - the Commission's criteria and findings for transportation projects, and especially regarding alignment 02:44:42.510 --> 02:44:48.352 - with the transportation plan's call for protected bike lanes along Indiana Avenue, the removal of double 02:44:48.352 --> 02:44:53.470 - threat for pedestrian crossings of Indiana Avenue, and consistency with community feedback. 02:44:55.746 --> 02:45:03.601 - Is there a second for that motion? Second motion. Second for Mr. Binder. Is there any discussion of 02:45:03.601 --> 02:45:11.692 - the motion? I'll go to Ms. Davis since she hasn't been called on. Um, I support Mr. Flaherty's motion. 02:45:11.692 --> 02:45:19.625 - Okay. I mean, we're not calling him for a vote yet. Just want to know if you had any comments on it. 02:45:19.625 --> 02:45:23.710 - Any comments on the motion to my left, to my right? 02:45:25.090 --> 02:45:38.241 - Seeing none, we'll go to a roll call vote on the motion to refer the matter back to staff, according 02:45:38.241 --> 02:45:51.522 - to the criteria Mr. Flaherty laid out. Will the staff please call the roll? Finder? Yes. Fallon? Yes. 02:45:51.522 --> 02:45:55.038 - Flaherty? Yes. Davis? Yes. 02:45:56.930 --> 02:46:06.517 - Yes And copic yes That motion passes unanimously six zero Thank you to everyone for the presentation. 02:46:06.517 --> 02:46:16.575 - We know now go to TCR 26 11 title 15 amendments atlas on 17th Amending title 15 to codify proposed changes 02:46:16.575 --> 02:46:24.094 - to stop control speed no parking and bus zones who is here to present this item 02:46:26.722 --> 02:46:33.633 - That'll be me and could you introduce yourself? Yeah, my name is John Garzi from the engineering department 02:46:33.633 --> 02:46:40.288 - So this item is for the atlas on 17th subdivision Accepted into the city's street maintenance inventory 02:46:40.288 --> 02:46:46.879 - by the Board of Public Works in March 2025 stop signs and 20 mile per hour signs Were installed at the 02:46:46.879 --> 02:46:53.342 - time but not formally added to title 15 Since then we've heard concerns from parking services police 02:46:53.342 --> 02:46:56.542 - and Bloomington Transit about illegal parking and 02:46:56.770 --> 02:47:06.141 - traffic flow, and access for larger vehicles. Staff completed a field review and coordinated with Bloomington 02:47:06.141 --> 02:47:14.660 - Transit. We're proposing to codify the existing controls, add targeted no parking restrictions, and 02:47:14.660 --> 02:47:23.435 - designate a bus layover to support safe, reliable operations. If you'd like me to go into detail about 02:47:23.435 --> 02:47:24.542 - the specific 02:47:24.738 --> 02:47:33.249 - Proposals then I can point out them In terms of no parking we're proposing to have no parking on Breckenridge 02:47:33.249 --> 02:47:40.987 - which is north of Telluride Our concerns there is that it's too narrow of a street for people to be 02:47:40.987 --> 02:47:48.724 - able to pass if people are parking on both sides of the streets and so we're proposing to eliminate 02:47:48.724 --> 02:47:51.742 - parking on the east sides as there are 02:47:52.194 --> 02:48:00.683 - driveways on those sides, and so it's easier for us to remove parking there, just to allow for better 02:48:00.683 --> 02:48:09.255 - visibility. We're also removing parking at Redland, just west of Telluride, and that's also to provide 02:48:09.255 --> 02:48:17.828 - abilities for vehicles to drive on the street and to make turns. Same thing at Telluride in the middle 02:48:17.828 --> 02:48:20.574 - of the block, as well as Aurora, 02:48:20.802 --> 02:48:27.139 - And this is to provide a space for buses to stop and do their layover. Right now buses are stopping 02:48:27.139 --> 02:48:33.539 - in the middle of the road on Telluride just east of the curve. And this will provide the buses place 02:48:33.539 --> 02:48:40.193 - for them to stop for about 15 minutes as the operators need to go and use the restroom or wait for their 02:48:40.193 --> 02:48:46.974 - route to start again. And the same thing is happening at Aurora. We're removing parking for about 50 feet. 02:48:47.810 --> 02:48:56.315 - so that the bus can come southbound and make a left turn. That hatched area that you can see is intended 02:48:56.315 --> 02:49:04.983 - to prevent people from parking there, but just to clarify it, we're gonna add yellow curb and a no parking 02:49:04.983 --> 02:49:14.622 - sign there. In terms of 20 mile per hour signs, we're gonna be doing that for the entire length of Telluride, Redland, 02:49:18.786 --> 02:49:27.198 - Arvada, Aurora, and Englewood, so most of the entire neighborhood. We're also adding some stop signs 02:49:27.198 --> 02:49:35.693 - on Breckenridge as it approaches Telluride, Redland as well as it approaches Telluride, and Arvada as 02:49:35.693 --> 02:49:44.187 - it approaches Redland, as well as Telluride as it approaches Aurora, and Englewood and Arlington Park 02:49:44.187 --> 02:49:46.686 - as it approaches 17th Street, 02:49:49.570 --> 02:49:59.895 - So basically all the minor streets as they approach a major street. If you're done presenting, just 02:49:59.895 --> 02:50:10.426 - say thank you and let us know that we can take questions. If there are any questions, I'll take them. 02:50:10.426 --> 02:50:18.686 - All right, thank you for the presentation. Are there any questions for staff on 02:50:19.202 --> 02:50:28.521 - 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, 02:50:28.521 --> 02:50:37.839 - the public. If there's any member of the public who'd like to speak on TCP 26 11, please come to the 02:50:37.839 --> 02:50:48.542 - podium, state your name. You'll have three minutes. If you are online, please use the raise hand function and zoom. 02:50:48.866 --> 02:50:56.953 - You'll be called on Is there anyone who would like to comment on TCP 26 11? Mr. Robling, is there anybody 02:50:56.953 --> 02:51:05.269 - online? Just a small clarification TCR in this case because I'm sorry. It's a resolution. It's a resolution. 02:51:05.269 --> 02:51:12.898 - 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 02:51:12.898 --> 02:51:18.238 - a resolution So just as a reminder while we're coming back to members 02:51:18.914 --> 02:51:26.109 - This is the resolution to be forwarded to the Common Council. We can make a positive recommendation 02:51:26.109 --> 02:51:33.304 - negative recommendation no recommendation or continue to a future meeting with that. I'll come back 02:51:33.304 --> 02:51:40.571 - for a second round of questions or comment or motion a motion. I move to adopt the proposed findings 02:51:40.571 --> 02:51:47.550 - and for the resolution to City Council with a positive recommendation. Is there a second second. 02:51:47.938 --> 02:51:58.817 - Motion in a second. Any discussion of the motion? Seeing none, will the staff please call the roll on 02:51:58.817 --> 02:52:09.695 - the motion to recommend with a positive recommendation to move forward with a positive recommendation 02:52:09.695 --> 02:52:17.374 - to the common council, TCR 2611. Vollen? No? Vollen. Vollen, thank you. 02:52:17.634 --> 02:52:44.062 - Yes Flaherty yes Davis yes Stasberg yes Copic yes Binder yes That motion passes 6-0. Thank you to staff for that 02:52:44.578 --> 02:52:51.248 - We now move to the next item on our agenda, which is discussion of items not on the docket including 02:52:51.248 --> 02:52:58.051 - staff proposals or general public comment. This has been compressed a little bit. But anyway, if there 02:52:58.051 --> 02:53:04.721 - any other any items that members would like to bring up for discussion that are not on the docket to 02:53:04.721 --> 02:53:09.278 - my left to my right. Mr. Flaherty just a very brief follow up on the 02:53:09.410 --> 02:53:15.380 - Council's deliberation session, which I had mentioned previously about accessibility and snow removal. 02:53:15.380 --> 02:53:21.177 - I think we agreed. Mr Stossberg is going to join that session It was delayed by a month to May 13th 02:53:21.177 --> 02:53:26.973 - based on some other business the council had if any commissioners have Specific questions or issues 02:53:26.973 --> 02:53:33.118 - they want to make sure that we take a look at in that deliberation session Please just let me know within 02:53:33.118 --> 02:53:39.262 - the next week. That's all. Okay. Thank you. Any other items for discussion is Davis Okay, I would like to 02:53:40.002 --> 02:53:48.776 - to discuss bylaws at some point to see if we can do something about Recommendations for petitions. I 02:53:48.776 --> 02:53:57.637 - also am concerned about This body's obligation to develop an annual report In the wake of the parking 02:53:57.637 --> 02:54:06.324 - study regardless of the how it's corrected This this body's responsible at least for overseeing the 02:54:06.324 --> 02:54:08.670 - production of a report and 02:54:09.154 --> 02:54:19.293 - And it is now April. We're almost through our first year How does staff want to handle that obligation 02:54:19.293 --> 02:54:28.547 - that we have? Great question the we'll have to get together engineering public works planning 02:54:28.547 --> 02:54:38.686 - and transportation and ESD in order to start that up we were hoping that they would finish up this and 02:54:38.786 --> 02:54:45.435 - Parking study and then we could jump into the annual report and right now that we're crossing the finish 02:54:45.435 --> 02:54:52.338 - 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 02:54:52.338 --> 02:54:58.924 - Shortly once once everything's all wrapped up there. That's the new plan. Okay, does staff have a sense 02:54:58.924 --> 02:55:05.383 - of What month of the year the report would be most appropriate to be issued or does it not matter? Do 02:55:05.383 --> 02:55:06.206 - you think? a 02:55:06.434 --> 02:55:13.292 - Doesn't matter as far as staff is concerned We were happy to discuss it with the commission if you all 02:55:13.292 --> 02:55:19.950 - have a certain month you're aiming for but good Thank you Any other any general public comment from 02:55:19.950 --> 02:55:26.608 - members of the public who have not spoken Speaking an item that's not on the agenda tonight. If so, 02:55:26.608 --> 02:55:31.934 - please raise your hand in zoom Or come to the podium. You'll have three minutes 02:55:33.250 --> 02:55:43.843 - Is there anyone who'd like to speak on an item that was not on tonight's docket? I have Paul Russo online 02:55:43.843 --> 02:55:54.235 - and they should be able to unmute here in just a second. All right, please state your name. You'll have 02:55:54.235 --> 02:56:01.630 - three minutes. Mr. Russo. Okay, took a while to let me unmute. Thank you. 02:56:02.434 --> 02:56:08.718 - I've not been able to attend a meeting of yours since last summer. Mondays is usually a problem for 02:56:08.718 --> 02:56:15.190 - me. So I have a backlog of small items. I'll try to run through just four of them. I would like to see 02:56:15.190 --> 02:56:21.537 - the 180 day notices on 7th Street ended. I think we're on three or four by now. I don't think that's 02:56:21.537 --> 02:56:28.072 - what it was intended for. I think one of the commissioners actually said that words to that effect this 02:56:28.072 --> 02:56:32.094 - evening. Second item is that I've noticed that the Grant Street 02:56:32.738 --> 02:56:40.592 - Parking is no longer in compliance with the city code due to some construction. And then I would be 02:56:40.592 --> 02:56:48.918 - glad to send you a proposed ordinance change to clarify that right now they're just south of 10th street. 02:56:48.918 --> 02:56:57.400 - There's parking on both sides of the street and that makes a great hazard for bicyclists. And I'm proposing 02:56:57.400 --> 02:57:01.406 - to simplify it. So I would be glad to send that to 02:57:01.538 --> 02:57:08.250 - Commissioner Flaherty, for example, since I have his email address and you could consider it at your 02:57:08.250 --> 02:57:15.227 - next meeting, I don't know what the procedure is. Third item is that the speed limit on North Washington 02:57:15.227 --> 02:57:21.872 - Street, south of 10th Street is incorrectly posted. There should be no variance from the default of 02:57:21.872 --> 02:57:28.916 - 25 miles an hour, but there's a 30 mile per hour sign posted just south of 10th that needs to be removed. 02:57:28.916 --> 02:57:30.910 - And the last thing is that I, 02:57:31.618 --> 02:57:38.392 - Strongly second commissioner of Olin's idea to revisit bylaws. Um, it does appear that, um, bylaws that 02:57:38.392 --> 02:57:45.036 - you basically inherited are need to be, um, revisited. Thanks for your time. Thank you, Mr. Rousseau. 02:57:45.036 --> 02:57:51.615 - Is there any other member of the public who would like to speak? Uh, please raise your hand and zoom 02:57:51.615 --> 02:57:58.128 - or come to the podium and you'll have three minutes. This is general public comment on items not on 02:57:58.128 --> 02:57:58.910 - the docket. 02:58:01.314 --> 02:58:08.040 - I would like to say that generally speaking, if you would like to contact the transportation commission, 02:58:08.040 --> 02:58:14.574 - the email address I believe is transportation.commission at bloomington.ion.gov. So please feel free, 02:58:14.574 --> 02:58:21.045 - Mr. Rousseau and anybody else who has comments to send email to that. It will get to every member of 02:58:21.045 --> 02:58:27.963 - the commission that way. Is that correct? That is correct. It automatically forwards to, um, four different 02:58:27.963 --> 02:58:31.038 - people at least, uh, all of the staff liaisons. 02:58:31.426 --> 02:58:38.573 - Okay, does it forward to the commissioners? No, it is it does not automatically forward to commissioners 02:58:38.573 --> 02:58:45.379 - Okay, how do we get if we want to hear mr. Rousseau's comments? How do we get his email short of us 02:58:45.379 --> 02:58:52.594 - giving our own email out sure thing so typically there's a form for general public comment on the website 02:58:52.594 --> 02:58:59.605 - as well and the expectation is that once a month before every meeting staff liaisons are checking that 02:58:59.605 --> 02:59:00.830 - to make sure that 02:59:01.122 --> 02:59:07.275 - As people are making those comments, they are included as part of the packet. Last I checked, there 02:59:07.275 --> 02:59:13.920 - wasn't anything new, so nothing was added to this particular packet, but then I create accessible documents 02:59:13.920 --> 02:59:20.381 - from those comments that come in vis-a-vis Google Form, and that is how you're sort of set up to receive 02:59:20.381 --> 02:59:26.718 - public comments that way. Sometimes they are not related to topics on the docket, but that's much more 02:59:26.718 --> 02:59:28.318 - rare. They generally are. 02:59:28.514 --> 02:59:35.838 - Four topics on the docket. So we're helping arrange that feedback as it comes in Thank you for that 02:59:35.838 --> 02:59:43.455 - explanation Although I think it would be nice if we could be emailed directly without us having to give 02:59:43.455 --> 02:59:51.072 - our Our home emails out so I think it'd be nice if staff were to come up with a Method for people being 02:59:51.072 --> 02:59:56.638 - able to email us directly as well as using the public comment form. Yeah, I 02:59:58.274 --> 03:00:06.278 - That may be possible there. Thank you at that may also involve a quick conversation with ITS. Okay Thank 03:00:06.278 --> 03:00:14.281 - you. Is there any other last minute comment before we adjourn? Mr. Ruffling. Yeah staff has some updates 03:00:14.281 --> 03:00:22.056 - from previous Agenda items which are transportation inquiries there have been four so far We have one 03:00:22.056 --> 03:00:26.782 - no parking Question or inquiry related to Matlock Heights and 03:00:27.074 --> 03:00:33.882 - We expect to see that in May and then we have Inquiries related to College Mall and Covenanter and Smith 03:00:33.882 --> 03:00:40.496 - and Morningside. We are still looking into those So we don't expect them to necessarily be at May but 03:00:40.496 --> 03:00:47.110 - they could potentially see some a petition or resolution in May and then We had an inquiry related to 03:00:47.110 --> 03:00:53.659 - enforcement policy that came along with the College Mall Covenanter Inquiry and we are still looking 03:00:53.659 --> 03:00:56.382 - into that. I expect that on a longer term 03:00:56.546 --> 03:01:05.218 - Timeline, but we are working on it Thank you for that update I think that's it. Thank you everyone. 03:01:05.218 --> 03:01:13.889 - Our next meeting is what day it is May Well May 18th May 18th, it is a weird one because they're of 03:01:13.889 --> 03:01:22.561 - funny holidays. Oh 25th is Memorial Day. Okay, so we will see everyone I'm glad I asked May 18th at 03:01:22.561 --> 03:01:24.382 - 530 in this room and 03:01:24.834 --> 03:01:27.134 - With that, this meeting is adjourned.