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