WEBVTT 00:00:01.442 --> 00:00:15.931 - This meeting will come to order. This is the May meeting of the Bloomington Transportation Commission. 00:00:15.931 --> 00:00:26.622 - Can we please have a roll call? Should be not needed. Thank you. Thank you. 00:00:31.522 --> 00:00:58.046 - Go ahead. Copic. Here. Sturmitis. Here. Binder. Vollen. Here. Drummey. Here. Flaherty. Davis. 00:01:02.210 --> 00:01:10.619 - Strasburg here Okay, we have a quorum today's agenda includes reports from staff including Road closure 00:01:10.619 --> 00:01:18.947 - on West Clubhouse Drive bridge hundred needed the order update presentation of a pedestrian facilities 00:01:18.947 --> 00:01:27.356 - operation plan citywide traffic signal of retiming project update traffic calming and Greenways program 00:01:27.356 --> 00:01:29.054 - request for 2026 and 00:01:29.602 --> 00:01:36.414 - on an update on the Roger Street project as well as feedback on the transition plan. There are no cases 00:01:36.414 --> 00:01:43.422 - scheduled for today as far as items that are not on the docket for discussion. We will take up the college 00:01:43.422 --> 00:01:50.365 - model covenant or intersection evaluation update the Smith and Morningside intersection evaluation update 00:01:50.365 --> 00:01:57.177 - and Carla Street's Title 15 amendment ordinance being brought by Councilman Rosenberger that I've asked 00:01:57.177 --> 00:01:58.814 - to be put on the docket. 00:01:59.394 --> 00:02:08.248 - And then we will go to general public comment before we adjourn. Let's start with Let's start with reports 00:02:08.248 --> 00:02:16.605 - from commissioners. Are there any commissioners who have a report they'd like to make on my right On 00:02:16.605 --> 00:02:24.879 - my left I was just Osborne. Yeah Partly to inform the work that we do here I'm working on a project 00:02:24.879 --> 00:02:29.182 - to bike or walk every navigable path in Bloomington 00:02:29.378 --> 00:02:36.392 - including every cul-de-sac bike path and apartment complex. I'm currently about 340 miles into this 00:02:36.392 --> 00:02:43.407 - out of 420 about another 90 miles to go. I may have more reflections when I get closer but one I'll 00:02:43.407 --> 00:02:50.491 - share now is that overall Bloomington has a lot of streets that are comfortable to bike on. We think 00:02:50.491 --> 00:02:57.646 - of them often through a car lens of the busy roads we take from our home to shopping or work but many 00:02:57.646 --> 00:02:58.558 - of the miles 00:02:58.722 --> 00:03:06.334 - of roads we have in Bloomington are residential and quiet and I've now experienced getting from place 00:03:06.334 --> 00:03:13.797 - to place from many directions and overall it's been fairly a pleasant experience to see the city by 00:03:13.797 --> 00:03:21.559 - bike. So maybe more when I'm done. Thank you Mr. Sasberg. I'll just point out something we were talking 00:03:21.559 --> 00:03:28.574 - about before the meeting which is it's pouring rain out as we speak and I was driving here on 00:03:28.962 --> 00:03:35.846 - each third street where the The water is flooding so much that cars were actually driving the speed 00:03:35.846 --> 00:03:42.868 - limit of 25 miles an hour. So I've already Started fielding requests from commissioners as to whether 00:03:42.868 --> 00:03:49.751 - or not we can arrange to flood the streets more often. So it's a slow traffic down Anyway, let's go 00:03:49.751 --> 00:03:56.704 - now to reports from staff Let's start with item one on the closure of the bridge and clubhouse drive 00:03:56.704 --> 00:03:58.494 - and receive or welcome to 00:03:59.298 --> 00:04:06.170 - City engineer just wanted to provide the Commission an update on something that recently had a press 00:04:06.170 --> 00:04:13.383 - release And something that will also have additional dialogue at tomorrow's Board of Public Works meeting 00:04:13.383 --> 00:04:20.323 - But on Friday of last week the city closed a section of Clubhouse Drive on the approaches to a bridge 00:04:20.323 --> 00:04:24.542 - near the old State Road 37 intersection in lower cascades and 00:04:24.674 --> 00:04:31.123 - This was in response to some information that the county shared with the city after they conducted a 00:04:31.123 --> 00:04:37.955 - routine inspection of the facility and determined that The structure had some deficiencies and essentially 00:04:37.955 --> 00:04:44.341 - suggested a lower weight limit on the structure The report didn't necessarily suggest the bridge or 00:04:44.341 --> 00:04:51.045 - the road be closed but based on past experience on other structures that have relatively very low weight 00:04:51.045 --> 00:04:54.238 - limits that the reality is that a lot of vehicles 00:04:54.562 --> 00:05:02.324 - Exceed those weight limits. And so just to reduce the risk the expected risk that some drivers would 00:05:02.324 --> 00:05:10.239 - exceed that weight limit the city closed a section of that road just to in the spirit of public safety 00:05:10.239 --> 00:05:18.154 - Some interesting challenges with this structure are that the state law? Doesn't make it clear who owns 00:05:18.154 --> 00:05:19.614 - the facility it is 00:05:19.778 --> 00:05:25.931 - By definition it is it is more than 20 feet in span and so that generally takes it out of the city's 00:05:25.931 --> 00:05:32.388 - responsibility and There are some interesting components about structures over 20 feet that are typically 00:05:32.388 --> 00:05:38.479 - the county's responsibility But this bridge doesn't meet those so it's sort of in this this awkward 00:05:38.479 --> 00:05:39.454 - place right now 00:05:39.554 --> 00:05:46.056 - But right now the county has shared the information the city has taken some action to address safety 00:05:46.056 --> 00:05:52.622 - and we expect to have additional dialogue on it but tomorrow at the board of public works meeting the 00:05:52.622 --> 00:05:59.253 - board will be just essentially Validating the decision to close the road Until the facility is brought 00:05:59.253 --> 00:06:06.334 - into compliance that something that could carry a higher weight And on that I'm happy to answer any questions 00:06:07.330 --> 00:06:14.720 - Thank you for that report are there questions from commissioners about this on my left, mr Sasberg Will 00:06:14.720 --> 00:06:22.252 - the facility remain open to pedestrians and cyclists? I Think that's there there is I believe a multi-use 00:06:22.252 --> 00:06:29.572 - path adjacent to the structure But that is a detail we have it's all moving very fast But like another 00:06:29.572 --> 00:06:37.246 - structure on Allen Street, it seems very possible to keep it open to that those users Thank you to my right 00:06:38.818 --> 00:06:46.156 - I do I have struggled to understand the relationship between city and county with respect to bridges. 00:06:46.156 --> 00:06:53.566 - So it was my understanding that basically any bridge in the city is effectively some of the county has 00:06:53.566 --> 00:07:00.832 - to maintain and manage. But now you're saying that there are some there's a kind of a lower limit to 00:07:00.832 --> 00:07:03.422 - that. Can you explain a little bit. 00:07:03.618 --> 00:07:09.697 - Yeah, I think if you go back a few years in time Generally the the state law was a little more 00:07:09.697 --> 00:07:16.288 - straightforward that if a structure was greater than 20 feet in length That was generally the county's 00:07:16.288 --> 00:07:23.327 - responsibility but a couple in recent years the code was updated to basically state that some some reasonable 00:07:23.327 --> 00:07:28.638 - things that like if a new structure was going to be added that the county would be 00:07:28.994 --> 00:07:35.842 - Coordinated with and consulted as a part of the design and construction of such a structure But there 00:07:35.842 --> 00:07:42.555 - was also a clause that said if it if it bridge was not inspected by the County for a certain period 00:07:42.555 --> 00:07:49.402 - of time And they have not accepted into their inventory. It is not their responsibility. So this fits 00:07:49.402 --> 00:07:52.222 - into that unique category where it is not 00:07:52.450 --> 00:07:59.727 - By state code clearly a county maintained facility. So they haven't inspected it lately. That was the 00:07:59.727 --> 00:08:07.218 - they have been but they didn't start until I believe 2024 or something to that. Okay, that's interesting 00:08:07.218 --> 00:08:14.638 - So just to be clear the city can still build a bridge add to a bridge do what the city thinks it should 00:08:14.638 --> 00:08:21.630 - as long as they coordinate with the county, but it doesn't mean the county owns the structure and 00:08:22.658 --> 00:08:27.738 - We're not gonna build any covered bridges in it. I'm just trying to understand it I think generally 00:08:27.738 --> 00:08:32.919 - the city's not in the business of building bridges We don't have that expertise and most of our roads 00:08:32.919 --> 00:08:37.999 - already exist and they generally have bridges maintained and owned by the county But in potentially 00:08:37.999 --> 00:08:43.383 - like new developments where there are new roads being built in those situations We would generally expect 00:08:43.383 --> 00:08:48.666 - that the developer and coordination the city are also very much in coordination with the county Through 00:08:48.666 --> 00:08:52.222 - that process in a way. It's sort of like what we do now with building 00:08:52.418 --> 00:08:59.227 - permits that we have a sort of a contract. All of this one is kind of required by state law. That's 00:08:59.227 --> 00:09:05.900 - what I would expect and we would want to make sure that the county is consulted and accepts that. 00:09:05.900 --> 00:09:12.709 - Got it. Sorry. So the county has a bridge fund which is why they're responsible for bridges over 20 00:09:12.709 --> 00:09:19.518 - feet. So the fact that you just don't inspect them makes it a city bridge. I mean the other bridges 00:09:19.518 --> 00:09:22.174 - is the island street bridge one by the 00:09:23.042 --> 00:09:29.905 - Traffic building correct and how is that not a county bridge been there for a hundred years the Allen 00:09:29.905 --> 00:09:36.836 - Street Bridge Was a bridge managed and maintained by the county they inspected it Through one of their 00:09:36.836 --> 00:09:43.632 - efforts basically said that it should have a certain weight limit But with a storage facility nearby 00:09:43.632 --> 00:09:49.150 - there were frequent trucks exceeding that weight limit and so decided to close it 00:09:49.250 --> 00:09:56.721 - So then the interesting thing is if it's closed to automobile traffic, then is it a bridge or is it 00:09:56.721 --> 00:10:04.342 - not a bridge at a certain point? So so that is generally I would have from my perspective expect that 00:10:04.342 --> 00:10:12.038 - it is still seen as a bridge But it has been sitting like that for some time When I'm a grant eat your 00:10:12.038 --> 00:10:16.222 - heart out this is or is not a bridge Any more questions 00:10:17.602 --> 00:10:25.285 - Thanks for the report. Let's move on now to the 180-day order update Yeah, so next one is me as well. 00:10:25.285 --> 00:10:32.817 - So just wanted to continue the trend of keeping you posted on 180-day orders Since our last meeting 00:10:32.817 --> 00:10:40.350 - I did or issue three new 180-day orders The first one 26-01 is essentially caught up or recognizing 00:10:40.350 --> 00:10:46.526 - I think a series of stop controlled intersections that have been placed for years 00:10:46.690 --> 00:10:53.138 - The the city accepted in into our inventory a couple years ago and we just missed adding these two code 00:10:53.138 --> 00:10:59.463 - through that process So just bringing that into compliance with what was always the plan and has been 00:10:59.463 --> 00:11:05.725 - in place The next one is 26-02 related to traffic control in the atlas on 17th subdivision This is a 00:11:05.725 --> 00:11:12.236 - specific example of something we brought to you last month and so essentially just doing the order which 00:11:12.236 --> 00:11:15.646 - we presented and you supported at our last meeting and 00:11:16.098 --> 00:11:21.683 - Why we presented that one to you and not the prior is is we did make some changes from what was in the 00:11:21.683 --> 00:11:27.214 - plan as a result of some feedback from transit and police. So that's why we did want to bring that to 00:11:27.214 --> 00:11:32.853 - you first and then the third is a change in speed limit on East 11th Street where we recently installed 00:11:32.853 --> 00:11:34.046 - some traffic calming. 00:11:34.146 --> 00:11:40.137 - This was a project that we brought to you last year and you supported as well So those are the new orders 00:11:40.137 --> 00:11:45.959 - that we issued and then I also wanted to just note that two additional orders have been extended since 00:11:45.959 --> 00:11:51.611 - our last meeting Continuing the on-street parking clarifications. We made by the mills pool on West 00:11:51.611 --> 00:11:57.320 - 14th Street and Some parking caught changes on 1st Street adjacent to the Hopewell neighborhood with 00:11:57.320 --> 00:12:03.198 - that. I'm happy to answer any questions you have Thank you. Any questions on 180 day orders to my left? 00:12:04.162 --> 00:12:11.626 - Right seeing none. Thank you for that report. Let's go now to The pedestrian facilities operation plan 00:12:11.626 --> 00:12:19.017 - who's presenting this I see Adam Wason from Public Works Good evening commissioners Adam Wason Public 00:12:19.017 --> 00:12:26.626 - Works director. Just wanted to give you an update on some work We've been doing across several different 00:12:26.626 --> 00:12:30.974 - departments over the last year plus and here recently since 00:12:31.170 --> 00:12:38.368 - Probably budget hearings this past fall. We've been discussing the idea of Working on a pedestrian facilities 00:12:38.368 --> 00:12:44.978 - plan originally we were talking about it from the perspective of a sidewalk master plan But realized 00:12:44.978 --> 00:12:51.783 - that you know a sidewalk master plan doesn't actually incorporate all the pedestrian facilities we have 00:12:51.783 --> 00:12:58.393 - across the city so we Have been working with planning and transportation staff engineering staff and 00:12:58.393 --> 00:13:00.094 - other city departments to 00:13:00.610 --> 00:13:06.975 - Start putting together the framework of what would be involved with this and then want to over the next 00:13:06.975 --> 00:13:13.218 - couple months engaged with Transportation Commission and others on taking some of the next steps what 00:13:13.218 --> 00:13:16.094 - we're really working on here and looking at is 00:13:16.770 --> 00:13:23.130 - Both a historical review of how are we how have we gotten where we're at with sidewalks in the community? 00:13:23.130 --> 00:13:29.730 - What a city code looked at over the over time who's responsible for what and a big part of the responsibility 00:13:29.730 --> 00:13:35.790 - component is even Defining what roles and responsibilities exist across the various city departments 00:13:35.790 --> 00:13:42.150 - You know, I've been this is now my third administration. I've worked for we have turnover and just really 00:13:42.150 --> 00:13:44.190 - defining across departments as we 00:13:44.354 --> 00:13:51.490 - As staff turns over and everything else that folks know who's responsible for what areas of the pedestrian 00:13:51.490 --> 00:13:58.159 - facilities across the community good examples, which department would be responsible for vegetative 00:13:58.159 --> 00:14:01.694 - encroachment versus what departments responsible for 00:14:02.082 --> 00:14:08.345 - Putting forward contracts for repair just all the different roles and responsibilities across the city 00:14:08.345 --> 00:14:14.913 - because that hits hand from an inspection perspective it hits Obviously public works in the street division 00:14:14.913 --> 00:14:18.622 - engineering gets involved quite a bit, etc also defining the 00:14:18.722 --> 00:14:25.414 - Private property owner responsibilities making that very clear based on what city code says We're also 00:14:25.414 --> 00:14:32.561 - going to be looking at and providing a lot of information on what programs exist elsewhere and in Bloomington 00:14:32.561 --> 00:14:37.694 - to that are having success getting sidewalks improved so this could range from 00:14:38.210 --> 00:14:43.689 - I'll just give you an example for the last several years. We've had budgeted dollars in the public works 00:14:43.689 --> 00:14:49.064 - budget for what we call the sidewalk assistance program It's intended to assist low-income individuals 00:14:49.064 --> 00:14:54.335 - with sidewalk repairs We're not super successful getting that money out the door because even though 00:14:54.335 --> 00:14:56.318 - we're able to fund up to 50% and such 00:14:56.386 --> 00:15:05.670 - It is often a cost that a low-income member of the community can't even absorb at a 50% rate So looking 00:15:05.670 --> 00:15:15.401 - at what programs exist elsewhere to help Our residents make sidewalk repairs that are their responsibilities 00:15:15.401 --> 00:15:21.918 - looking at Beyond that looking at Our maintenance and operations program 00:15:22.338 --> 00:15:28.538 - Councilmember Flaherty and some of the council members last week had a deliberation session about snow 00:15:28.538 --> 00:15:34.798 - control when it comes to Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure across the community This would dovetail 00:15:34.798 --> 00:15:41.119 - right into that help define the roles and responsibilities Look at how we prioritize where we make those 00:15:41.119 --> 00:15:47.319 - efforts this last this last winter with that major snowfall provided a great example of we can't clear 00:15:47.319 --> 00:15:48.222 - everything and 00:15:48.354 --> 00:15:53.609 - but what should we focus on as far as high priority networks to get folks where they need to be? So 00:15:53.609 --> 00:15:58.863 - long story short of it is we've been working internally a lot on this and now we're gonna be coming 00:15:58.863 --> 00:16:04.433 - to the stage where we start putting out information on what we've collected, get it to the Transportation 00:16:04.433 --> 00:16:09.898 - Commission in a more formal way, see where the Transportation Commission members wanna be more involved 00:16:09.898 --> 00:16:15.153 - or less involved. So that was just the brief update. Happy to answer any questions you have and see 00:16:15.153 --> 00:16:16.414 - if I can't answer them. 00:16:16.674 --> 00:16:28.884 - Thanks for that presentation. Are there any questions from commissioners? To my right to my left. Mr. 00:16:28.884 --> 00:16:34.750 - Drumming How long do we expect that it will last 00:16:35.394 --> 00:16:43.019 - Sidewalks, I mean a properly installed sidewalk that doesn't have street trees that are gonna possibly 00:16:43.019 --> 00:16:50.571 - You know impact it within five or ten years sidewalks. I mean good concrete work should be 30 year 20 00:16:50.571 --> 00:16:57.974 - to 30 year minimum and you know Always dependent upon the quality of the concrete other things like 00:16:57.974 --> 00:17:02.046 - that. But yeah, at least 20 year investment. I think I 00:17:02.370 --> 00:17:08.183 - And that's and that leads me to my next question as I have some experience with street trees I know 00:17:08.183 --> 00:17:14.113 - more about street trees and I'd like to know but how is there a way to tell the truth? Is there a way 00:17:14.113 --> 00:17:19.985 - to have street trees and have nice sidewalks? Yeah, so that's a that's a big part of this too is you 00:17:19.985 --> 00:17:26.089 - know That we'll look at is how does the unified development ordinance impact the sidewalk network? Well, 00:17:26.089 --> 00:17:31.902 - we require street trees for all the right reasons is there a standard that we should change so that 00:17:32.482 --> 00:17:38.527 - The street trees are in a bigger plot that aren't at as high of a risk of Heaving a sidewalk ideally. 00:17:38.527 --> 00:17:44.513 - Yes, but you know, there's also all kinds of limitations when it comes to the development ordinance, 00:17:44.513 --> 00:17:50.736 - etc but You know, and that's the other part of defining roles and responsibilities In our sidewalk plans 00:17:50.736 --> 00:17:56.781 - that we've provided to the Board of Public Works over time and such, you know It's it was in my first 00:17:56.781 --> 00:18:02.174 - years in public works as we were really thinking about sidewalks and such the conversation 00:18:02.338 --> 00:18:07.758 - Came up about we were sending letters to folks to fix sidewalks that were damaged by city street trees 00:18:07.758 --> 00:18:13.177 - So we technically own the tree How can we expect the homeowner then to make that repair if it's a tree 00:18:13.177 --> 00:18:15.966 - that we own that damage the sidewalk so for the last 00:18:16.226 --> 00:18:22.195 - 12ish years we've taken the perspective of if it's street tree damaged We're going to try to fix it 00:18:22.195 --> 00:18:28.224 - when it comes to our attention and within the resources we have But it is a really good example of a 00:18:28.224 --> 00:18:34.253 - question that should be discussed of you know What's the ideal situation to put a street tree in and 00:18:34.253 --> 00:18:40.222 - have a sidewalk last as long as it possibly can in good condition? Yep further questions to my left 00:18:41.698 --> 00:18:48.737 - couple I have a couple questions one is do you see this as becoming sort of a Component of the transportation 00:18:48.737 --> 00:18:55.328 - plan. Yeah, absolutely. That was one point talking point. I didn't get to yeah Incorporating this into 00:18:55.328 --> 00:19:01.791 - the transportation plan the safe streets for all program, you know, it all kind of melts together So 00:19:01.791 --> 00:19:08.254 - it's kind of like a sub plan. Yeah for yeah, that's good. Yeah how How long do you expect the draft? 00:19:08.546 --> 00:19:14.178 - Take I would like to work with you folks over the next couple months and kind of final We've got a lot 00:19:14.178 --> 00:19:19.646 - of the bones in place. We got a lot of structure, but yeah, I just mean We're starting with a staff 00:19:19.646 --> 00:19:25.168 - draft and then you'll bring it to us and and we'll talk about what we want to do with it if anything 00:19:25.168 --> 00:19:30.636 - Yeah, so just just trying to get a sense of how much more time I'd say over the next quarter. We're 00:19:30.636 --> 00:19:36.323 - trying to wrap it all up Okay, so maybe August September the other big component of this too that feeds 00:19:36.323 --> 00:19:37.854 - in is we're wrapping up our 00:19:38.114 --> 00:19:41.598 - sidewalk condition index data 00:19:41.730 --> 00:19:47.581 - Collection efforts with IMS our subcontractor. This is the first time we've gone down every single city 00:19:47.581 --> 00:19:53.208 - sidewalk with a UTV type of equipment that is And there we're going through all the quality control 00:19:53.208 --> 00:19:59.003 - quality analysis right now with them We're hopeful that data is ready to go on the website in the next 00:19:59.003 --> 00:20:04.742 - couple weeks It's been a long arduous process of going through and working with them on it But in the 00:20:04.742 --> 00:20:09.918 - end, we're going to have the most robust set of data on the conditions of our sidewalk ever 00:20:11.490 --> 00:20:18.695 - Well, thanks for that. And we look forward to seeing did you want us to look at any I mean, we'll work 00:20:18.695 --> 00:20:25.900 - through Iris and everyone and get distributed what we want to you guys the commission members to offer 00:20:25.900 --> 00:20:32.896 - review on because if you're looking for some feedback to structure it when we have spare CPU cycles 00:20:32.896 --> 00:20:38.142 - in our agenda, it might be a good opportunity to to put that discussion in 00:20:38.498 --> 00:20:44.181 - But even before the draft is done if you need the help, absolutely. All right. Thanks so much. Thank 00:20:44.181 --> 00:20:50.315 - you all Let's move on now to an update on the citywide traffic signal of re-timing project who is presenting 00:20:50.315 --> 00:20:56.335 - Hello, John Garzi traffic engineer This is a general update on the city's traffic signal or timing project 00:20:56.335 --> 00:21:02.413 - The goal of this work is to improve safety improve consistency across the system and make signal operations 00:21:02.413 --> 00:21:04.382 - more predictable for all users and 00:21:05.250 --> 00:21:10.941 - So far, we have updated 63 signalized intersections across nine corridors. Most coordinated corridors 00:21:10.941 --> 00:21:16.632 - have now been retimed, including downtown corridors like College Avenue, Wallant Street, where signal 00:21:16.632 --> 00:21:22.435 - timing was adjusted to better align with the city's 20 mile per hour downtown speed limits. The project 00:21:22.435 --> 00:21:28.070 - has also included several pedestrian safety improvements. That includes leading pedestrian intervals 00:21:28.070 --> 00:21:33.705 - where pedestrians receive a short heads up start before vehicles receive a green indication, as well 00:21:33.705 --> 00:21:34.654 - as rest and walk 00:21:34.754 --> 00:21:41.232 - where the walk indication displays automatically. At this point the college mall road quarter is the 00:21:41.232 --> 00:21:47.903 - only quarter still to be implemented along with isolated intersections throughout the city. In addition 00:21:47.903 --> 00:21:54.766 - to the overall project rollout staff is also conducting field reviews to verify the timing. It's operating 00:21:54.766 --> 00:22:01.180 - as intended and to identify opportunities for additional refinement. And with that I'm open to some 00:22:01.180 --> 00:22:01.886 - questions. 00:22:03.106 --> 00:22:12.152 - Thank you for that presentation Mr. Garzi. Are there any questions on this report from members to my 00:22:12.152 --> 00:22:21.288 - right to my left Mr. Stossberg. We have budget challenges with the equipment upgrades to have all the 00:22:21.288 --> 00:22:30.782 - signals timed as we would like the equipment ready for the kind of retiming we want to do for the general 00:22:30.782 --> 00:22:32.126 - retiming. Yes. 00:22:32.962 --> 00:22:41.290 - There are other changes that we would need to do upgrades to the signals like doing protected only left 00:22:41.290 --> 00:22:49.458 - turns but for implementing LP eyes or leading pressure intervals and changing the phasing we have all 00:22:49.458 --> 00:22:57.546 - the proper equipment for that. Thank you. I'm a little confused about the distinction you made about 00:22:57.546 --> 00:23:01.310 - College Mall Road. It says you're saying that. 00:23:02.242 --> 00:23:09.071 - The only corridor that has implemented signal timing is college mall or it's the last one that hasn't. 00:23:09.071 --> 00:23:16.231 - That's the only one that has not been retimed. So everything else has been retimed. Every other coordinated 00:23:16.231 --> 00:23:23.059 - corridor where the intersection before it is time so that cars moving down it can progress. That's the 00:23:23.059 --> 00:23:29.689 - only one that hasn't been retimed. Okay. How many such quarters are there in Bloomington like that? 00:23:29.689 --> 00:23:30.750 - There are nine. 00:23:31.682 --> 00:23:38.724 - Did you say nine? Yes. Oh, I saw it was right there. It was right there. Okay. Like, um, third street 00:23:38.724 --> 00:23:45.767 - is counted twice for the Western section and the Eastern section. Uh, when do you think the rest will 00:23:45.767 --> 00:23:52.809 - be coordinated? Those final ones? Um, it's hard to say exactly when we'll do college mall. Um, we've, 00:23:52.809 --> 00:23:59.230 - we've done some changes, but we're, we're observing them just to see how, how they turn out. 00:24:00.770 --> 00:24:07.690 - I'd say maybe in like next, next month or two. Okay. So it's ongoing. Okay. Um, finally, um, can you, 00:24:07.690 --> 00:24:14.610 - uh, clarify a little bit more what rest and walk means? So in other words, uh, does it mean that, uh, 00:24:14.610 --> 00:24:21.599 - you don't see the blinking, don't walk aggressively telling you to stop or what does that mean? So the 00:24:21.599 --> 00:24:28.451 - rest and walk means that when the vehicles in your same direction have a green time that the rest of 00:24:28.451 --> 00:24:30.622 - the green time for the vehicles 00:24:31.010 --> 00:24:38.357 - is shown for the pedestrian sign. Okay. Why is this significant? Um, the benefits are that people know 00:24:38.357 --> 00:24:46.202 - when they can cross the street and same thing for people that are driving. They're also expecting pedestrians 00:24:46.202 --> 00:24:53.478 - to be crossing. If the remainder of the time isn't shown on the pedestrian walk symbol, then a person 00:24:53.478 --> 00:24:56.830 - driving may not expect a person to be walking. 00:24:58.914 --> 00:25:04.566 - So in other words, it has to do with the clock that says the number of seconds that you have left to 00:25:04.566 --> 00:25:10.274 - cross. Yeah, that's correct. So have you gotten rid of that clock? Is that the idea? No, the clock is 00:25:10.274 --> 00:25:15.870 - just going to show the remainder of the time that the pedestrian has to cross the intersection. But 00:25:15.870 --> 00:25:21.466 - it won't be red. It'll be white like it's a walk sign. Um, it will show the countdown once there is 00:25:21.466 --> 00:25:27.454 - only enough time for a person to cross the street. So if like the signal is or if the cycle is 30 seconds, 00:25:27.810 --> 00:25:34.552 - and it takes a pedestrian 15 seconds to walk. Once it goes down from 30 seconds to 15 seconds remaining, 00:25:34.552 --> 00:25:41.230 - it'll go from the pedestrian symbol to the red hand, and then it'll count down from 15 all the way down 00:25:41.230 --> 00:25:47.844 - to zero. So before, what was the typical? Before it would only show the pedestrian symbol for possibly 00:25:47.844 --> 00:25:54.265 - half the time. And so you might have the walk symbol only for five seconds, and then it would count 00:25:54.265 --> 00:25:55.678 - down from 25 to zero. 00:25:56.002 --> 00:26:02.763 - And then after the pedestrian symbol goes to zero Vehicles are still given a green but the pedestrians 00:26:02.763 --> 00:26:09.393 - don't have the green got it. All right now I understand Thank you for explaining rest and walk to me 00:26:09.393 --> 00:26:16.155 - any other questions Mr. Drummey, I thought I understood rest and walk before you explained it so Which 00:26:16.155 --> 00:26:21.406 - is not a criticism of you At one of these meetings there was a discussion about 00:26:21.890 --> 00:26:28.760 - Setting changing I think there was about changing the signals so that there would always be a walk symbol 00:26:28.760 --> 00:26:35.371 - No matter whether anyone activated any buttons or not. Is that related to rest and walk? It's another 00:26:35.371 --> 00:26:41.917 - safety feature, but it's different than rest and walk that one's called pedestrian recall So without 00:26:41.917 --> 00:26:48.463 - a person having to push the button it will always show that I will just assume that there's a person 00:26:48.463 --> 00:26:49.694 - there to cross and 00:26:50.658 --> 00:26:56.377 - It's like they could have come up with a better name than pedestrian recall, but what do I know seems 00:26:56.377 --> 00:27:02.321 - like maybe oh always walk or something Yeah, they're complicated and then in terms of retiming the lights 00:27:02.321 --> 00:27:08.153 - sometimes when I drive to work I drive down third Street headed west of my office is a third in college 00:27:08.153 --> 00:27:13.816 - and Sometimes I will get every red light available Does that mean I'm doing something wrong or is it 00:27:13.816 --> 00:27:18.302 - the light some have to sometimes have to resync or what? What would cause that? 00:27:19.298 --> 00:27:25.586 - Um, it could be that you're driving either lower than speed limit. Yeah. If you're too slow, maybe if 00:27:25.586 --> 00:27:31.873 - you're driving at the speed limit, it could just be that the number of vehicles that were expected to 00:27:31.873 --> 00:27:38.592 - be at the intersection in front of you is is higher or lower. And so we've just given that next intersection 00:27:38.592 --> 00:27:44.510 - and green time either later or sooner, but those are things that we were also also fine tuning. 00:27:46.498 --> 00:27:52.623 - Is that all manual work like somebody has to go stand at the box next to the intersection and 00:27:52.623 --> 00:27:59.203 - make adjustments or is that something you do? Digitally remotely you can do remotely Thank you There 00:27:59.203 --> 00:28:05.719 - are no further questions move on to the next item on the agenda, thank you for the presentation mr. 00:28:05.719 --> 00:28:12.234 - Garzi Traffic calming and greenways program requests for projects 2026 who is presenting this item? 00:28:12.234 --> 00:28:13.342 - That would be me 00:28:14.018 --> 00:28:22.875 - Over here Ryan Roebling from planning and transportation. Hello. Yes. Hello This is just an update that 00:28:22.875 --> 00:28:32.073 - the 2026 neighborhood traffic calming program opened up we have We're looking for a neighborhood applicants 00:28:32.073 --> 00:28:37.694 - from now until June 26th you have to submit a letter of intent to 00:28:38.114 --> 00:28:43.897 - David brand has who is the alternative transportation coordinator in the planning and transportation 00:28:43.897 --> 00:28:49.680 - department We sent a press release out on May 14th, and it's also available in your packet Last year 00:28:49.680 --> 00:28:55.406 - you all approved the 11th Street traffic calming neighborhood traffic calming. That was the highest 00:28:55.406 --> 00:29:01.361 - ranked project So we're excited to get to work on something this year We'll have a public meeting after 00:29:01.361 --> 00:29:07.774 - we have a project selected and then it'll come to you all for review and then I'm happy to answer any questions 00:29:09.186 --> 00:29:16.281 - Thanks for the presentation any questions about traffic calming while the traffic calming program to 00:29:16.281 --> 00:29:23.516 - my left To my right Is this a program that individuals do or that neighborhoods do like how Who should 00:29:23.516 --> 00:29:31.102 - think about doing this an individual can start it a neighborhood will you do need your neighbors signatures 00:29:31.102 --> 00:29:36.862 - a handful of them during your letter of intent, but we can help you with that and 00:29:36.962 --> 00:29:43.798 - You can ask any questions to David Brant as or Hank Duncan who is also familiar with the project but 00:29:43.798 --> 00:29:50.768 - will get you as far as we can. But you will need to talk to some of your neighbors. And once again the 00:29:50.768 --> 00:29:57.739 - deadline for people to apply for this year's program is June 5th 26th June 26th. So what is the letter 00:29:57.739 --> 00:30:02.206 - of intent deadline Friday June 5th by 5 p.m. in this notice here. 00:30:03.522 --> 00:30:09.141 - That's the pre-application meeting deadline. Yes, there's a pre-application meeting which you can have 00:30:09.141 --> 00:30:14.652 - with David but you don't have to have that this year. Historically you did this year. We're going to 00:30:14.652 --> 00:30:20.325 - try to do we found those to be less useful. So if you would like to get an early meeting you're welcome 00:30:20.325 --> 00:30:25.890 - to do that still but really you would just need the letter of intent and then we'll reach out to you. 00:30:25.890 --> 00:30:31.510 - Okay. Well again as from the plain reading of this document it says the deadline for letters of intent 00:30:31.510 --> 00:30:33.310 - is Friday June 5th. Is that the. 00:30:36.738 --> 00:30:46.798 - No it's June 26. So I don't know. Hold on. That's the next deadline for the pre-application meeting. 00:30:46.798 --> 00:30:56.858 - I'm glad I asked. I will double check what I am 90 percent sure the actual deadline is June 26. I'll 00:30:56.858 --> 00:31:05.822 - get that by the end of the meeting and update all of our numbers. OK. Well could we just. 00:31:06.146 --> 00:31:12.721 - for the sake of people who are watching say that practically speaking June 26 is the deadline. I am 00:31:12.721 --> 00:31:19.560 - happy to say that June 26 is the deadline for a letter and then and we're going to have another meeting 00:31:19.560 --> 00:31:26.201 - between now and then so we can reiterate it on the at the June meeting. OK. Any other questions. Mr. 00:31:26.201 --> 00:31:32.908 - Drummond I do. I'm sorry. Questions three questions I guess. But when I first moved to Bloomington as 00:31:32.908 --> 00:31:35.998 - an adult in 2008 I remember someone said to me 00:31:36.226 --> 00:31:42.849 - Bloomington will never install speed bumps again anywhere. And I haven't paid a lot of attention, but 00:31:42.849 --> 00:31:49.538 - I think we've installed them in a few places since then. Is there any truth to, was there a time where 00:31:49.538 --> 00:31:55.576 - we were, what is our current position on speed bumps and has that changed through the years? 00:31:55.576 --> 00:32:02.265 - And is our speed, and I'm asking in relation to this project, if somebody came, the reason I asked the 00:32:02.265 --> 00:32:04.862 - question is because one of my neighbors 00:32:04.962 --> 00:32:11.660 - I mentioned this program to them, and they said, we need speed bumps. They don't live on my street. 00:32:11.660 --> 00:32:18.357 - They live on a different street. But is that something that would be potentially a possibility with 00:32:18.357 --> 00:32:25.390 - this project? Not with this project on all streets. This specific program is on neighborhood residential 00:32:25.390 --> 00:32:32.221 - streets. So that is lower speed, lower volumes streets. There are traffic calming methods that we can 00:32:32.221 --> 00:32:32.958 - implement. 00:32:33.090 --> 00:32:39.801 - but not through this program, including speed humps on different streets. But for this specific program, 00:32:39.801 --> 00:32:46.384 - it is only neighborhood residential streets. But don't we have speed bumps on neighborhood residential 00:32:46.384 --> 00:32:53.223 - streets? Yeah. Like in Park Ridge or? Yes, absolutely. So this program would work for that type of street. 00:32:53.223 --> 00:33:00.254 - And speed bumps, is there something about this program that prohibits speed bumps? Yeah. No, no, speed bumps. 00:33:00.386 --> 00:33:07.886 - We don't generally do engineering could weigh in on why I don't know the technical details But speed 00:33:07.886 --> 00:33:15.534 - humps and speed cushions and things like that we can't do Can can yeah, so on 11th Street we installed 00:33:15.534 --> 00:33:22.514 - some speed cushions. Okay Point of clarification I believe I've highlighted this section that 00:33:22.514 --> 00:33:30.014 - does specifically suggest speed cushions and speed humps as an appropriate proposal for this program 00:33:31.970 --> 00:33:38.526 - Perhaps I should ask Mr. Drummy, before that answer, did you make a distinction between bumps, humps, 00:33:38.526 --> 00:33:44.953 - and cushions? I feel like I'm in a pop song. No, no, no, I wasn't. Whatever the most modern version 00:33:44.953 --> 00:33:51.701 - of it, what the rest of the world would call a speed bump, I mean, hump, whatever the newest, the latest 00:33:51.701 --> 00:33:58.385 - and greatest, which I'm all in favor of, used to not as a younger person, but now I'm, as long as bikes 00:33:58.385 --> 00:34:01.406 - can get around them without bumping, I'm good. 00:34:01.506 --> 00:34:07.077 - Perhaps someone could just briefly Remind us how the definitions of these terms could somebody please 00:34:07.077 --> 00:34:12.539 - do that. So speed hump and speed bump I think the average person thinks that they're the same thing 00:34:12.539 --> 00:34:18.164 - and it makes sense Speed humps are the ones that are 12 feet across 12 feet wide. Those are the pretty 00:34:18.164 --> 00:34:23.626 - standard ones that we use They don't have any cutouts speed bumps are the ones you typically see in 00:34:23.626 --> 00:34:26.302 - parking lots and they're about two feet wide and 00:34:27.202 --> 00:34:32.314 - For those, you would have to drive over them at five miles per hour. You mean deep as you're driving 00:34:32.314 --> 00:34:37.425 - over it, it's two feet this way. And then the speed humps are how? About two feet. They could be one 00:34:37.425 --> 00:34:42.537 - foot wide. They're one foot deep. And a speed bump is two feet. A speed hump would be 12 feet. And a 00:34:42.537 --> 00:34:47.851 - speed bump would be about one foot or two foot. Oh, so in other words, they're much more abrupt, whereas 00:34:47.851 --> 00:34:53.216 - speed humps are more gradual. Yeah, you wouldn't want to put a speed bump in the street unless you wanted 00:34:53.216 --> 00:34:55.038 - someone to come to a complete stop. 00:34:56.866 --> 00:35:05.049 - Okay, and a speed cushion and speed cushions are just like a speed hump So they're 12 feet deep but 00:35:05.049 --> 00:35:13.723 - they have cutouts for transit emergency vehicles But just for larger vehicles the cutouts aren't intended 00:35:13.723 --> 00:35:22.069 - for passenger vehicles So in other words the a speed cushion would only happen on a bus route Whereas 00:35:22.069 --> 00:35:24.606 - speed hump can happen anywhere 00:35:25.794 --> 00:35:31.684 - Well, you just you wouldn't use a speed hump on our arteries arterial roads. Is that the idea? Yeah, 00:35:31.684 --> 00:35:37.515 - you would typically not traffic on the arterial road because you wouldn't want to discourage people 00:35:37.515 --> 00:35:43.347 - from using the arterial roads You tend to put traffic calming on residential roads where people are 00:35:43.347 --> 00:35:49.703 - using those as cut-through roads Okay, I hope that Satisfies all our questions It does for now and confirms. 00:35:49.703 --> 00:35:55.710 - I'm just the average person. Thank you. Yeah Any further questions before we move on to the next item? 00:35:56.418 --> 00:36:02.898 - Thanks again for the presentation. And again, reminder that anyone who wants to, uh, a resident 00:36:02.898 --> 00:36:09.715 - of Bloomington who would like to see a traffic calming project done, uh, has until June 26th to send 00:36:09.715 --> 00:36:16.870 - a letter of intent. Let's go now to an update on Roger street from Grimes, the third street, the project, 00:36:16.870 --> 00:36:17.950 - Andrew Seaborg. 00:36:19.714 --> 00:36:26.514 - Just update on our Roger Street project if you recall I think it was back in your March meeting Kendall 00:36:26.514 --> 00:36:33.184 - provided an overview of that project and particularly focused on related title 15 change that reduced 00:36:33.184 --> 00:36:39.788 - some on-street parking on Roger Street and also committed to following up with the neighborhoods and 00:36:39.788 --> 00:36:42.142 - having some additional feedback and 00:36:42.274 --> 00:36:49.212 - The concept that was presented and you did vote on So since that meeting he did have a series of neighborhood 00:36:49.212 --> 00:36:55.583 - meetings with the Prospect Hill neighborhood He's also submitted mailings to the adjacent properties 00:36:55.583 --> 00:37:01.954 - and reached out to council members And and collected an amount of feedback Really focused on the the 00:37:01.954 --> 00:37:04.414 - area in the Prospect Hill neighborhood 00:37:04.514 --> 00:37:10.252 - I'm wanting to also note though that he has not yet been able to have a similar meeting with McDowell 00:37:10.252 --> 00:37:16.327 - Gardens neighborhood. So that is still forthcoming but specific to the section in Prospect Hill essentially 00:37:16.327 --> 00:37:22.064 - received a lot of feedback. I could share some of his notes from you but what he heard over well from 00:37:22.064 --> 00:37:27.802 - overall from that feedback and also in consultation with the planning department that has the ongoing 00:37:27.802 --> 00:37:28.702 - corridor study. 00:37:28.802 --> 00:37:35.112 - Is essentially that what was presented and what you voted on is the direction we're going to continue 00:37:35.112 --> 00:37:41.483 - to proceed with through Prospect Hill. So essentially that has a refuge island in Roger Street for the 00:37:41.483 --> 00:37:47.421 - Howe Street intersection and then bump outs at the Smith intersection and Prospect intersection 00:37:47.421 --> 00:37:53.607 - So essentially we're maintaining what we presented and what you voted on in that segment and we are 00:37:53.607 --> 00:37:58.494 - expecting to continue to do that for the McDowell Gardens where we had removed 00:37:58.626 --> 00:38:06.113 - Parking to do bike lanes, but we just want to still know we are still meeting with that neighborhood 00:38:06.113 --> 00:38:13.599 - That's still coming so I could go into more details from what he shared with you, but just wanted to 00:38:13.599 --> 00:38:21.160 - give you that update Thank you for the report any questions to my left on Roger Street to my right My 00:38:21.160 --> 00:38:26.942 - only question would be when Do you think the project will be complete I think 00:38:27.522 --> 00:38:33.362 - By the end of this construction season, it will be complete this construction summer will be very busy 00:38:33.362 --> 00:38:39.202 - and work will be starting here soon I think generally on the Grimes corridor, but this is a very large 00:38:39.202 --> 00:38:44.928 - project that includes it was bit out as one. It's Kirkwood Rogers Grimes and Patterson And so it's a 00:38:44.928 --> 00:38:50.938 - big project and so work will start soon and will be done this construction season I'm just asking because 00:38:50.938 --> 00:38:57.118 - I'm anticipating future this item on the agenda in the future So I just want to know how much more to expect 00:38:57.474 --> 00:39:03.334 - Sure, I think this item I think the main thing we would come back to you is is likely in in After we 00:39:03.334 --> 00:39:09.253 - meet with McDowell Gardens in case just just provide a findings from that as we said we would Because 00:39:09.253 --> 00:39:15.171 - this just the timing of this project ideally we would have done that before we brought the project to 00:39:15.171 --> 00:39:20.974 - you But when we received funding that we weren't expecting in the timeline we did that's that's why 00:39:20.974 --> 00:39:26.718 - we're in this Great. Thank you so much Let's go now to feedback on the ADA transition plan Who is? 00:39:26.850 --> 00:39:34.354 - I believe I can present this is a very short note on behalf of Michael Shermus who came and presented 00:39:34.354 --> 00:39:42.004 - a draft of the ADA transition plan He just wanted to provide a reminder that The deadline for receiving 00:39:42.004 --> 00:39:49.655 - feedback is May 22nd. That's coming up in a few days and He just wanted to genuinely encourage everyone 00:39:49.655 --> 00:39:55.614 - to participate take a look at it. I've provided a hyperlink to the press release 00:39:55.778 --> 00:40:02.877 - Specific to this and I would encourage people interested in providing feedback to Utilize the press 00:40:02.877 --> 00:40:10.118 - release as far as a best path for following up with that team And just to be clear the EDA transition 00:40:10.118 --> 00:40:17.642 - plan is a document the city's creating that identifies accessibility barriers in city facilities programs 00:40:17.642 --> 00:40:24.670 - services and activities and Outline steps to address them. Is this the first such plan we've done? 00:40:25.474 --> 00:40:32.021 - I Don't believe so Okay, so this is the latest draft perhaps or I believe this is an update if staff 00:40:32.021 --> 00:40:38.958 - want to if other staff want to chime in Andrew seabor city engineer. This is I think the current basically 00:40:38.958 --> 00:40:45.764 - plan has been every two years. It's updated. So this is It's been two years, but it's been on that cycle 00:40:45.764 --> 00:40:52.830 - for a number of years The prior version last was in place for a while, but we've had one for quite some time 00:40:53.762 --> 00:41:00.805 - Do we generally receive? Comments that might be appropriate for such a plan even when we're not in the 00:41:00.805 --> 00:41:07.779 - process of updating it. I Am probably not the best person to answer that Michael Shermus would be and 00:41:07.779 --> 00:41:14.821 - I'd encourage you to reach out to him. Okay, that'd be great Any other questions on the ADA transition 00:41:14.821 --> 00:41:21.659 - plan update again? We have till Friday May 22nd this Friday to submit comments to this plan To whom 00:41:21.659 --> 00:41:23.710 - do they submit them? To whom? 00:41:23.906 --> 00:41:34.751 - The press release indicates that they should be There is a feedback form in cited in the press release 00:41:34.751 --> 00:41:45.280 - that's bton.in slash 26 ADA URL and That's the best place to submit your feedback. Thank you. Thank 00:41:45.280 --> 00:41:47.070 - you very much. I 00:41:47.522 --> 00:41:54.911 - We have we now go to the cases section of the meeting, but we have no cases scheduled So let's now go 00:41:54.911 --> 00:42:02.228 - to discussion of topics not on the docket first up is an update on the college mall Covenanter Drive 00:42:02.228 --> 00:42:09.690 - intersection evaluation who is presenting? That'll be me. Hello. Mr. Garzi John Garzi traffic engineer 00:42:09.690 --> 00:42:11.646 - This item is the follow-up 00:42:12.066 --> 00:42:18.266 - to a previous inquiry regarding pedestrian safety and left turn operations at College Mall Road and 00:42:18.266 --> 00:42:24.465 - Covenanter Drive. We reviewed the intersection conditions, traffic volumes, crash history and field 00:42:24.465 --> 00:42:30.727 - conditions. This intersection includes a neighborhood greenway crossing on Covenanter, protected and 00:42:30.727 --> 00:42:37.918 - permissive left turn operations on all approaches, bike lanes on College Mall Road and fairly high traffic volumes. 00:42:38.466 --> 00:42:44.394 - As part of the reviews staff evaluated 30 reported crashes over approximately five years. Recurring 00:42:44.394 --> 00:42:50.500 - pattern involved left turning vehicles entering the path of opposing through traffic during permissive 00:42:50.500 --> 00:42:56.428 - left turn operations. Staff also reviewed a pedestrian involved crash associated with the left turn 00:42:56.428 --> 00:43:02.415 - movement. Based on the review we intend to move forward with several low cost near term improvements 00:43:02.415 --> 00:43:07.454 - including left turn yield on green signage adding signage for the existing eastbound 00:43:07.810 --> 00:43:13.855 - no turn on red restriction and refreshing faded pavement markings. Staff is also evaluating whether 00:43:13.855 --> 00:43:20.142 - an LPI or a leading pedestrian interval may be appropriate at this location through the citywide signal 00:43:20.142 --> 00:43:26.731 - or timing project. Given the Greenway crossing long term, we identified potential safety benefits associated 00:43:26.731 --> 00:43:32.777 - with eliminating permissive left turns and moving forward or moving toward protected only left turn 00:43:32.777 --> 00:43:33.502 - operations. 00:43:34.306 --> 00:43:40.918 - However, the existing signal infrastructure cannot currently support that change without being upgraded 00:43:40.918 --> 00:43:47.721 - We are also evaluating potential lighting improvements at the intersection I'm happy to take any questions 00:43:47.721 --> 00:43:54.079 - All right. Thanks for the presentation. Are there questions on my right? Mr. Coppock So the leading 00:43:54.079 --> 00:44:00.437 - pedestrian interval is that already in all directions except for the pedestrian crossing? Could you 00:44:00.437 --> 00:44:03.934 - repeat that please is the leading pedestrian interval? 00:44:04.258 --> 00:44:12.374 - Is it all red for all four legs of the intersection only for pedestrians to cross in? Yeah, so the the 00:44:12.374 --> 00:44:20.568 - pedestrians would get approximately like a three head three second head start and While the pedestrians 00:44:20.568 --> 00:44:28.526 - have a green time the vehicles would have a red Okay, mr. Jimmy With my questions regarding this the 00:44:28.526 --> 00:44:31.678 - leading pedestrian interval as well and 00:44:32.354 --> 00:44:39.916 - You said that you're still evaluating it Isn't generally speaking wouldn't the leading pedestrian interval 00:44:39.916 --> 00:44:47.053 - always be safer for the pedestrian It would be so what is there to evaluate? I guess is my question. 00:44:47.053 --> 00:44:54.403 - So when we I Think maybe in February we came to you all hasn't presented a policy about citywide timing 00:44:54.403 --> 00:45:01.470 - and part of that was how we determined where and when to implement leading pedestrian intervals and 00:45:02.018 --> 00:45:09.970 - And for that, we set a certain threshold, which is pretty low, based on pedestrian volumes. And the 00:45:09.970 --> 00:45:18.002 - Covenanter College Mall area didn't meet that threshold, and so we didn't add any LPIs. But since it 00:45:18.002 --> 00:45:26.590 - is a greenway, we are considering adding that just based on the context. Mr. Stosberg. Is there an expected 00:45:26.590 --> 00:45:31.998 - timeline to be able to make the capital investment for the upgraded 00:45:32.610 --> 00:45:39.885 - signaling. It's not clear exactly when we can make that investment. The main barrier to that is just 00:45:39.885 --> 00:45:47.448 - prioritization. We could find the funding for this location but there are other intersections throughout 00:45:47.448 --> 00:45:55.011 - the city that are higher on the priority list on the safe streets for all plan. They've ranked different 00:45:55.011 --> 00:46:02.430 - intersections from highest to high and I think some of those other locations would be better for us to 00:46:02.562 --> 00:46:11.926 - Upgrade first I Appreciate I'm familiar with that kind of prioritization But I also know that sometimes 00:46:11.926 --> 00:46:21.290 - if things are on the near-term list then later it could be 10 or 20 years. So is there a their ballpark 00:46:21.290 --> 00:46:30.654 - range Yeah, I don't have a ballpark range at this moment Thank you Let me let me go first Mr. Garzi, so 00:46:31.458 --> 00:46:38.685 - The reason that this is getting the attention it's getting is because it's not just a normal intersection. 00:46:38.685 --> 00:46:45.643 - It has a greenway running through it. Is that the idea. That's that's why it's getting this this extra 00:46:45.643 --> 00:46:52.397 - attention. The extra attention that it's getting is because there was a collision with a pedestrian 00:46:52.397 --> 00:46:59.422 - crossing and a left turning vehicle hitting them. And I believe last year it came to the commission and 00:46:59.522 --> 00:47:07.072 - You had made an inquiry for us to look into this intersection and see how we can improve it. And so 00:47:07.072 --> 00:47:15.074 - we're coming back just to show you our findings. How quickly we forget. Sorry. I do have trouble tracking 00:47:15.074 --> 00:47:23.152 - projects from meeting to meeting. But secondly so just to get a clarification what you said to Mr. Drummey 00:47:23.152 --> 00:47:28.286 - I didn't quite follow the thing about leading pedestrian intervals. 00:47:28.578 --> 00:47:36.290 - Uh, why aren't they just de rigueur and, uh, why do we need to, why don't we, I didn't understand the 00:47:36.290 --> 00:47:44.381 - answer to that question. I'm afraid. So your question is why don't we just do leading pedestrian intervals 00:47:44.381 --> 00:47:52.017 - at all locations? Uh, as a matter of course. Yeah. Um, I don't think we really have a reason for not 00:47:52.017 --> 00:47:57.310 - doing it. Um, we just set certain guidelines for when we would do it. 00:47:57.986 --> 00:48:05.715 - And we made the qualifications for that fairly low we can always change that and so like right now We're 00:48:05.715 --> 00:48:13.296 - reconsidering applying the LPI at this location. So it's not that we couldn't we just had a policy and 00:48:13.296 --> 00:48:20.877 - said When an intersection meets this threshold, we'll do an LPI Okay, we'll go second round a question 00:48:20.877 --> 00:48:27.870 - mr. Coppock Just For clarification. So who does the signal timing? adjustments is that done by 00:48:28.866 --> 00:48:34.952 - You guys are a consultant or right now the city wide timing is done by a consultant but we are able 00:48:34.952 --> 00:48:41.160 - to make those changes ourselves as well. And then how are the changes actually made. I mean is it can 00:48:41.160 --> 00:48:47.368 - you do you do them on say a laptop or something take them out download them to the intersections that 00:48:47.368 --> 00:48:53.454 - how it works these days. Yeah yeah basically we can go to the intersection we can change the timing 00:48:53.454 --> 00:48:56.862 - and we can then upload it to the controller. OK thanks. 00:48:58.658 --> 00:49:04.928 - Mr. Stossberg. Yeah, to clarify the leading pedestrian intervals, you're balancing throughput of traffic 00:49:04.928 --> 00:49:11.138 - because this does slow down the cars a little bit with pedestrian safety. So at some threshold you have 00:49:11.138 --> 00:49:17.110 - a lot of pedestrian volume. Clearly it's helpful. And at some other threshold where it's a very low 00:49:17.110 --> 00:49:23.619 - pedestrian volume makes more sense to maybe prioritize the throughput of cars. That's what you're balancing. 00:49:23.619 --> 00:49:24.574 - That's correct. 00:49:27.170 --> 00:49:33.918 - That's good. Thanks. Mr. Drumming You this question may be it's a little bit off topic, but I've noticed 00:49:33.918 --> 00:49:40.410 - that this intersection and I'm Looking in the other direction. So heading eastbound This happens and 00:49:40.410 --> 00:49:46.901 - not be there is no as far as I know that you can turn red on right on red there Is there a reason is 00:49:46.901 --> 00:49:53.457 - it which I is there a reason this intersection is not does not prohibit a right on red? I'm not aware 00:49:53.457 --> 00:49:56.542 - why it doesn't prohibit it. It may just be that 00:49:56.674 --> 00:50:07.201 - We don't have a sign at that location but my understanding is that this intersection is coded to have 00:50:07.201 --> 00:50:17.625 - no right on red. OK. OK. Last time I thought about this intersection it was several years ago and it 00:50:17.625 --> 00:50:26.398 - was about the idea that it was a prime location for a greenway with a more elaborate 00:50:26.946 --> 00:50:36.578 - Infrastructure Perhaps even a protected bike lane at some point Are those is is what is the status of 00:50:36.578 --> 00:50:46.965 - Covenant er as a I mean It's a greenway now, right is it going to be other plans to upgrade it infrastructure 00:50:46.965 --> 00:50:56.030 - wise to make it a more Like a Covenant er has some even beyond this intersection of some pretty 00:50:56.482 --> 00:51:06.368 - wide lanes and Where are we going with with that as a greenway? Does anybody know? I'm gonna defer to 00:51:06.368 --> 00:51:16.351 - Andrew Sipo for this sure There was a time you probably would recall for I couldn't tell you what year 00:51:16.351 --> 00:51:19.550 - but there was a bond package and 00:51:19.682 --> 00:51:27.680 - That City Council approved that basically had a list of capital projects that were prioritized in order 00:51:27.680 --> 00:51:35.601 - And and one of those bonds a protected bike lane project on coven enter was was included But I believe 00:51:35.601 --> 00:51:43.368 - I'm going by memory years back. I think that was maybe the lowest priority project of that band bond 00:51:43.368 --> 00:51:45.214 - project and essentially 00:51:46.146 --> 00:51:53.005 - there was not sufficient funding to move that project forward certainly to a construction stage and 00:51:53.005 --> 00:51:59.865 - since that time additional plans have been adopted that kind of Re-framed how we prioritize project 00:51:59.865 --> 00:52:06.724 - from a SS for a type perspective. So you've nailed it. That's that's what I want to know is tell me 00:52:06.724 --> 00:52:13.721 - how how the plans have changed since that bond was proposed and You know, what can we look forward to 00:52:13.721 --> 00:52:15.710 - the SS for a related I think 00:52:16.866 --> 00:52:22.836 - I'm just going by women. What's in my head here in the dark here? Yeah, but I think in short we are 00:52:22.836 --> 00:52:28.806 - now prioritizing corridors based on what is seen as highest or high priority and I am just Guessing 00:52:28.806 --> 00:52:35.075 - that coven enter in that stretch that a protected bike lane was identified on is not one of those higher 00:52:35.075 --> 00:52:41.463 - priorities and so has been Deprioritized compared relative to other projects like 10th Street or something 00:52:41.463 --> 00:52:44.926 - like that that has kind of been bumped up since that time 00:52:45.538 --> 00:52:51.355 - Very good. Thank you for helping me rescue that memory. I appreciate it. Further questions 00:52:51.355 --> 00:52:58.003 - on the intersection of College Mall and Covenanter to my right to my left. Mr. Seward I know I'm I just 00:52:58.003 --> 00:53:04.395 - wanted to know we did put this item on discussion in case there was maybe comments from the I think 00:53:04.395 --> 00:53:10.787 - maybe members of the public right. Be interested. No no that's we're getting to that. I just wanted 00:53:10.787 --> 00:53:14.622 - to check with further questions before we go to the public. 00:53:15.170 --> 00:53:21.785 - So again this is a discussion of topics that are not otherwise on the docket as a case if there is but 00:53:21.785 --> 00:53:28.529 - we would like to take public comment on it if there's any member of the public who would like to comment 00:53:28.529 --> 00:53:34.951 - on the intersection of College Mall and Covenanter please come to the podium state your name you'll 00:53:34.951 --> 00:53:41.566 - have three minutes if you're online please raise your hand and zoom and you'll be called in due order. 00:53:42.562 --> 00:53:51.205 - My name is Laura Gao. I live on Fair Oaks Lane. I'm a neighbor of that intersection. I was struck on 00:53:51.205 --> 00:54:00.020 - December 17th, 2025, or 24 at that intersection, and was wounded. And the man who ran into me with his 00:54:00.020 --> 00:54:07.294 - pickup truck was not cited for a moving violation. And I came and I brought this in. 00:54:07.650 --> 00:54:15.272 - I thought what can I do to make this a better situation? I can take it to the Traffic Commission to 00:54:15.272 --> 00:54:23.655 - improve the safety and I can try to get the record state straight with the police as There are representative 00:54:23.655 --> 00:54:31.734 - of the police here today or is some as a police person listening online? I don't know I Thank the Traffic 00:54:31.734 --> 00:54:37.374 - Commission for looking into this and for making a plan for for the future 00:54:37.506 --> 00:54:46.027 - I am very glad to hear that stationary signs Saying to obey the left turn to seed the right-of-way is 00:54:46.027 --> 00:54:54.715 - going in and I hope leading pedestrian Interval will be installed at that intersection the rest of what 00:54:54.715 --> 00:54:58.558 - I have that I would say that probably doesn't 00:54:59.394 --> 00:55:05.796 - pertain to what your work is regarding the police, because you have a safe street policy, and you can 00:55:05.796 --> 00:55:12.073 - make the safest streets possible, make the best speed limits, put your infrastructure in place, but 00:55:12.073 --> 00:55:18.413 - if the police don't enforce the law, that's my beef. And I have some things I could say to that, but 00:55:18.413 --> 00:55:25.129 - I don't know that this is the best place if there's no police representation here. It's not inappropriate. 00:55:25.129 --> 00:55:27.326 - I would encourage you to continue. 00:55:27.426 --> 00:55:33.300 - All right, it's gonna take me about three minutes to read it. The chief of police said when we talked 00:55:33.300 --> 00:55:39.175 - about this intersection in November of last year, do you think that giving that driver a ticket would 00:55:39.175 --> 00:55:44.992 - make a better driver of him? And I would say that the answer is yes. You can, as I said, if you have 00:55:44.992 --> 00:55:50.751 - all the work done by this group, but the police don't enforce the rules of the community, it's like 00:55:50.751 --> 00:55:55.646 - playing a board game without rules, but with much graver consequences. As I was hit, 00:55:55.842 --> 00:56:01.639 - By an inattentive driver while crossing in the pedestrian crosswalk and the inattentive driver was not 00:56:01.639 --> 00:56:07.268 - cited with the moving violation I thought what next not giving tickets first for running stoplights 00:56:07.268 --> 00:56:13.178 - and hitting kids and unfortunately that has been put to the test and A child was hit by somebody running 00:56:13.178 --> 00:56:17.118 - a stoplight Excuse me a stop sign and and the driver was not cited. I 00:56:17.890 --> 00:56:23.966 - I would repeat to this commission that in explaining what happened to me as I was going around recuperating 00:56:23.966 --> 00:56:29.930 - with my broken arm, every person who heard my tale was indignant that the police had not given the driver 00:56:29.930 --> 00:56:35.725 - a moving violation. They were just incredulous. Further, after this testimony to the commission, I was 00:56:35.725 --> 00:56:41.576 - talking to a group of eight women who are older, and several of them had moved to Bloomington community 00:56:41.576 --> 00:56:42.814 - recently. These women 00:56:43.362 --> 00:56:50.589 - were also indignant, but they also said that in this community, as in no place they had ever lived before, 00:56:50.589 --> 00:56:57.815 - running of red lights was done with no repercussions. You never saw traffic stops for egregious violations 00:56:57.815 --> 00:57:04.569 - of running red lights. And the police chief asked, will giving the ticket make a better driver? And 00:57:04.569 --> 00:57:12.606 - I would say yes. There are repercussions for operating a vehicle inattentively, while distracted, inebriated, or high. 00:57:12.738 --> 00:57:19.359 - Say yes, there are repercussions It acts on mortgage and then just the driver since other drivers see 00:57:19.359 --> 00:57:26.305 - the ticket being given in conversation with people That hear of the ticket it will spread the word tickets 00:57:26.305 --> 00:57:32.796 - are given there are repercussions for breaking the laws pause you here because your time is up with 00:57:32.796 --> 00:57:39.677 - the anyone like to make a motion to allow her to continue Mr. Stossberg I make a motion to let her finish 00:57:39.677 --> 00:57:42.014 - her statement. Is there a second? I 00:57:42.210 --> 00:57:49.641 - All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Please continue, you have three more minutes. Thank you. 00:57:49.641 --> 00:57:57.072 - And so people will take note if tickets are given. Further, there's a cost to the community in sending 00:57:57.072 --> 00:58:04.359 - out an emergency response team. And if the ticket is given, it has the person who caused the problem 00:58:04.359 --> 00:58:11.934 - have some cost, some skin in the game for the community having to send out the emergency response group. 00:58:14.018 --> 00:58:21.262 - Furthermore, if you report with the citation what has happened, it makes crash analyses and the law 00:58:21.262 --> 00:58:28.650 - enforcement and the insurers that have to deal with that driver in the future know what has happened. 00:58:28.650 --> 00:58:34.590 - If litigation is needed, the police record reflecting reality is crucial as well. 00:58:35.170 --> 00:58:41.502 - The police chief said we would not like it if this community was one in which the police gave out traffic 00:58:41.502 --> 00:58:47.775 - tickets. I have lived in a community where tickets were given out liberally, almost predatorily, College 00:58:47.775 --> 00:58:53.988 - Station, Texas. That community abided by the traffic law in an amazing way because they knew they would 00:58:53.988 --> 00:58:58.110 - get tickets. The Transportation Committee is doing the best they can 00:58:58.370 --> 00:59:04.711 - get the place safe, but they can't enforce the law. The victims can't enforce the law. The police has 00:59:04.711 --> 00:59:11.051 - to do that. The police are those who can give the tickets, who can enforce the laws of the community. 00:59:11.051 --> 00:59:17.454 - And this includes not just for transportation with vehicles, but pedestrians and bicycles as well. And 00:59:17.454 --> 00:59:23.670 - I would beg that the police do the job that is theirs to do. Thank you. Thank you. Is there further 00:59:23.670 --> 00:59:26.654 - public comment? Is there anyone online? I have. 00:59:26.786 --> 00:59:35.609 - Hopi s online they should be able to unmute Please state your name and you'll have three minutes Hi, 00:59:35.609 --> 00:59:44.520 - this is Hopi Stasberg. I just wanted to bring up something that hasn't been mentioned as part of this 00:59:44.520 --> 00:59:53.431 - intersection Heading if if you are heading East through it on a bicycle You can't trigger the traffic 00:59:53.431 --> 00:59:54.654 - light to turn 00:59:55.234 --> 01:00:01.990 - And so I'm just hoping that while we're talking about this intersection and while engineering is focused 01:00:01.990 --> 01:00:08.425 - on it, something is done about that. I have sat there on a bicycle before and gone through a couple 01:00:08.425 --> 01:00:14.860 - of different cycles and then ultimately had to essentially run a red light as safely as possible in 01:00:14.860 --> 01:00:21.745 - order to get through that intersection because if a car is not coming, then I as a bicycle am just sitting 01:00:21.745 --> 01:00:24.126 - there. So I hope that something else 01:00:24.354 --> 01:00:31.416 - happens with regard to that at this intersection too. Thanks. Thank you. Any further public comment 01:00:31.416 --> 01:00:38.618 - in chamber or online. I have Paul Rousseau who should be able to unmute. Please go ahead. You'll have 01:00:38.618 --> 01:00:45.821 - three minutes. Please state your name. Hi Paul Rousseau. I would like to strongly support the comment 01:00:45.821 --> 01:00:52.318 - of the first public commenter when she was struck by a car. It's a very similar experience. 01:00:53.986 --> 01:01:01.094 - Two years ago, June of 2024, as some of you may already know, I was struck by a car and thrown up over 01:01:01.094 --> 01:01:07.994 - the hood and nearly killed. I was waiting at a stop sign at East Third Street and Heritage. And the 01:01:07.994 --> 01:01:15.171 - driver made a fast left turn so fast that she went into my side of the street, probably hit me at about 01:01:15.171 --> 01:01:23.038 - 25 miles an hour and broke my leg in four places. It was a life-changing injury. What I'd like to address tonight 01:01:23.330 --> 01:01:32.500 - is the fact that a year after the crash, I contacted the responding officer and I asked him, was the 01:01:32.500 --> 01:01:41.760 - motor vehicle driver cited for moving violation? And I asked about whether the driver had been tested 01:01:41.760 --> 01:01:51.020 - for THC or alcohol. None of that was done. The driver wasn't even cited. Her windshield was spidered, 01:01:51.020 --> 01:01:52.382 - my leg was out 01:01:52.962 --> 01:02:00.897 - split out into the road and I'm lying and screaming my head off and I'm on my side of the lane. And 01:02:00.897 --> 01:02:08.912 - he said to me, for us to cite a vehicle, I'm reading now from his email he sent me, for us to cite a 01:02:08.912 --> 01:02:17.244 - vehicle for any infraction would require us to see the infraction happen. I don't know what to say about 01:02:17.244 --> 01:02:18.910 - that. That's insane. 01:02:21.890 --> 01:02:29.900 - And I have not been able to ask the chief of police to verify that, but I hate, I suppose he probably 01:02:29.900 --> 01:02:38.068 - would, especially after the comment by the first member of the public tonight. I detect this particular 01:02:38.068 --> 01:02:46.236 - officer who helped me was actually very friendly, but he was apparently telling me what the city policy 01:02:46.236 --> 01:02:49.534 - was. It wasn't his decision, I guess. Um, 01:02:52.866 --> 01:03:01.409 - I detect overall though a real dismissiveness on the part of our police with respect to pedestrian and 01:03:01.409 --> 01:03:09.952 - bicycle safety. And it's got to end. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any further comments from members 01:03:09.952 --> 01:03:18.246 - of the public either in the room or online? Going twice. All right. Let's come back to second round 01:03:18.246 --> 01:03:20.734 - questions from commissioners. 01:03:21.730 --> 01:03:27.989 - Any second round questions follow-ups? Mr. Sossberg Thank you all for your public testimony I've also 01:03:27.989 --> 01:03:34.370 - been hit by a car while riding my bike and it's not something I care to repeat I recall that after this 01:03:34.370 --> 01:03:40.015 - case came before us last time we passed two resolutions one was about the physical facility 01:03:40.015 --> 01:03:46.581 - of the intersection that the other one was directing the city to look into aligning our ticketing policies 01:03:46.581 --> 01:03:49.342 - along with our safe streets per all plan and 01:03:49.442 --> 01:03:55.325 - And I believe that's something we're still waiting to have come back to us. Do you, do you share this 01:03:55.325 --> 01:04:01.209 - recollection? Mr. Seaborn, Mr. Roblin? Yes, that is correct. That was the resolution and we are still 01:04:01.209 --> 01:04:06.977 - working towards that. That'll take a little bit more time than the engineering. Okay. So thankfully 01:04:06.977 --> 01:04:13.091 - with that still in progress, we may have hopefully some positives, uh, something to report in the future. 01:04:13.091 --> 01:04:18.974 - Just to be clear, you're saying that there's a resolution in development, not one that we've adopted. 01:04:19.394 --> 01:04:26.683 - We passed a motion to direct the city to align ticketing policies to with our safe streets for all goals 01:04:26.683 --> 01:04:34.251 - Okay, so that's in the works, but it's not come before us yet. Correct. Okay further questions Mr. Drummond, 01:04:34.251 --> 01:04:41.540 - it's maybe a question for ourselves, but while we're on the topic of this intersection One of the public 01:04:41.540 --> 01:04:45.150 - commenters mentioned and I'm familiar with the same 01:04:45.410 --> 01:04:53.153 - Oftentimes I'll get on my bike and hop over the curb and go push the pedestrian button to make the light 01:04:53.153 --> 01:05:00.674 - trigger which is not well, which is not not everybody can do or things to do but But also the no turn 01:05:00.674 --> 01:05:08.122 - on red issue. Is that something we can ask? Those two things we looked into further or do we need to 01:05:08.122 --> 01:05:13.726 - present a new case? Well, that brings me to the thing I was going to say to 01:05:13.858 --> 01:05:22.576 - Introduce the discussion portion of this topic, which is I frankly I consider this portion of our meeting 01:05:22.576 --> 01:05:31.048 - to be perhaps one of the greatest Process innovations that I've seen in my time involved with the city 01:05:31.048 --> 01:05:39.273 - We are free Thanks to this Structure to discuss anything we've heard today. We are not voting on an 01:05:39.273 --> 01:05:42.398 - item that has been set out for us and 01:05:42.722 --> 01:05:52.550 - with language that we're you know recommending be adopted as city code or Has a new plan or what have 01:05:52.550 --> 01:06:02.570 - you? we have the option to make one or more motions to direct staff to T up a resolution to tee up even 01:06:02.570 --> 01:06:08.062 - an inquiry and that this portion gives us the freedom to 01:06:08.194 --> 01:06:16.103 - Go a field from the point of the main topic which was this intersection to talk about what the more 01:06:16.103 --> 01:06:24.092 - general point of what's the point of fixing it if there's no law enforcement at this intersection or 01:06:24.092 --> 01:06:32.001 - other places. So no commissioner has to make a proposal let alone right now. This is all fodder for 01:06:32.001 --> 01:06:37.854 - thought. But if a commissioner was so moved to say I think that we should 01:06:38.274 --> 01:06:49.809 - Direct staff to drop a resolution direct staff to put an inquiry on the agenda That would be an appropriate 01:06:49.809 --> 01:07:00.810 - motion to make so with that I just want to open the floor for You know for that everyone has come here 01:07:00.810 --> 01:07:07.966 - to see what we think of This this this issue so have at it, please 01:07:09.058 --> 01:07:18.964 - What do you all think? Think out loud. Mr. Stossberg. Miss Gal report mentioned this is not a one off 01:07:18.964 --> 01:07:28.773 - incident. Mr. Russo happened again at Smith and Morningside. We have not just isolated incidents but 01:07:28.773 --> 01:07:33.726 - a pattern of vulnerable road users being struck by 01:07:34.946 --> 01:07:40.768 - Motorists when it was clearly their fault, there's evidence to support it and they are not being cited 01:07:40.768 --> 01:07:46.477 - now I can understand if there's some level at which we can't write tickets for absolutely everything 01:07:46.477 --> 01:07:52.130 - but that this is was the impotence for Predest passing the motion last time I believe we can draw a 01:07:52.130 --> 01:07:57.952 - line where you can say when there's sufficient evidence when the people are vulnerable road users when 01:07:57.952 --> 01:08:03.774 - it was someone's clearly at fault it does feel like we ought to be able to cite people and I hope this 01:08:04.002 --> 01:08:11.590 - Something will come out of that emotion that we've we've passed that have this looked into further If 01:08:11.590 --> 01:08:19.253 - I may ask do we know if this is a matter of state law or local law in other words Is it local law that 01:08:19.253 --> 01:08:26.915 - prevents a BPD officer from writing a ticket or do to state law hold? Maybe there's a staff member who 01:08:26.915 --> 01:08:31.230 - can answer that question Going by memory from when we had 01:08:31.362 --> 01:08:37.727 - Police present at this meeting. I don't know if it's a law that is in place. It's more of a Practice 01:08:37.727 --> 01:08:44.281 - or policy of the department. Okay, so then it is something within our control As a city, I believe it's 01:08:44.281 --> 01:08:50.710 - driven partly by resource constraints as someone who does crash analysis We have like ten or so a day 01:08:50.710 --> 01:08:57.012 - that involve often single or multiple vehicles Right, but this was a case where or whether we heard 01:08:57.012 --> 01:09:00.478 - a case of a member of the public who said I was hit by 01:09:00.706 --> 01:09:07.687 - buy a car I'm lying there in pain and the officer says I Can't do this without yes, you know, but I 01:09:07.687 --> 01:09:14.877 - haven't seen it myself. Can we not change a policy like that? So again having to crash analysis if you 01:09:14.877 --> 01:09:22.277 - if you narrow it down to just the bicycle pedestrian crashes It is a much smaller set. So I think perhaps 01:09:22.277 --> 01:09:29.258 - If you look at only May have I feel like we have resources to do something as opposed to what we're 01:09:29.258 --> 01:09:30.654 - doing now, which is 01:09:31.234 --> 01:09:39.659 - hardly anything. Mr. Dummy. My observation like I've shared before I it's and it's not just Bloomington 01:09:39.659 --> 01:09:48.003 - specific. I don't see many police officers issuing citations for crashes hardly. It's a rare exception 01:09:48.003 --> 01:09:56.914 - to the rule. The police chief my memory is he said look this is for the lawyers to deal with and I appreciate 01:09:56.914 --> 01:10:00.478 - his trust in my profession but but we don't 01:10:00.610 --> 01:10:06.926 - We don't I don't have citations in my toolbox. That's not what I help can help do So I don't think there's 01:10:06.926 --> 01:10:13.123 - a probe I mean there's it's I assume it violates the transportation or traffic code to run into somebody 01:10:13.123 --> 01:10:19.321 - with your car It's just no different than if he comes upon the scene and it turns out the vehicle driver 01:10:19.321 --> 01:10:25.577 - was Intoxicated he didn't see the driver driving the vehicle intoxicated so that they still arrest people 01:10:25.577 --> 01:10:29.886 - on those grounds so I think it may go to the level of probable cause but 01:10:30.178 --> 01:10:36.105 - I think it's more of an issue. My impression is it's the police chief says hey we have limited and I'm 01:10:36.105 --> 01:10:41.974 - not I'm trying to paraphrase what he said. We have limited resources and this is not a resource we're 01:10:41.974 --> 01:10:47.844 - focused on and just like if they want to focus on speeding or issuing speeding tickets or not. I mean 01:10:47.844 --> 01:10:53.713 - I don't think there's I didn't understand there to be a policy that we're not going to issue tickets. 01:10:53.713 --> 01:10:59.870 - It's more just the practice of the department. We're not going to issue tickets. But as I said in fairness 01:11:00.258 --> 01:11:06.196 - It is this is not a Bloomington specific thing. This is I see and I have its statewide personal injury 01:11:06.196 --> 01:11:12.135 - practice and I can count on one hand the number of citations I've seen except for drinking and driving 01:11:12.135 --> 01:11:18.131 - is often there's often a recipe but otherwise using phones people they don't they don't they don't even 01:11:18.131 --> 01:11:23.897 - if the even if the person admits they were looking at their phone there's no citation issue falling 01:11:23.897 --> 01:11:29.662 - too closely speeding those types of things they're just hardly if there's a crash normally normally 01:11:29.986 --> 01:11:36.067 - there is no citation issue. The police report is always done but no citation issue. So basically this 01:11:36.067 --> 01:11:42.447 - is more of a state issue than a local one and that this is not uncommon practice among police departments. 01:11:42.447 --> 01:11:48.409 - I don't know about the first part of your question but my experience is it's not uncommon. Now that 01:11:48.409 --> 01:11:54.789 - doesn't mean we couldn't change or and I think we're I think we're actively trying to address it currently 01:11:54.789 --> 01:11:58.366 - with the pending inquiry. And so maybe the right call is to 01:11:58.754 --> 01:12:06.402 - wait till we get those results back No, I think you have mr. Stossberg so we are addressing this I think 01:12:06.402 --> 01:12:13.832 - in the best possible way in terms of Using design to prevent injuries and as we do that the number of 01:12:13.832 --> 01:12:21.189 - these Incidents will go down because the physical road designs will be safer and as that number goes 01:12:21.189 --> 01:12:28.254 - down It does seem like it becomes more practical to cite the remaining cases and that's the hope 01:12:29.346 --> 01:12:37.803 - I hope we can get to with safer street designs and then citations for a smaller remaining cases Anyone 01:12:37.803 --> 01:12:46.178 - observations on my right Are there any as far as this particular design we are we are brought came to 01:12:46.178 --> 01:12:54.471 - this topic because of College Mall and Covenanter Are there any observations or comments? Or motions 01:12:54.471 --> 01:12:58.494 - that people would like to make about it Does it? 01:12:59.042 --> 01:13:07.688 - Does it need further attention? Mr. Johnny, I'll make a motion I guess for an inquiry into the no turn 01:13:07.688 --> 01:13:16.081 - on red signage and if there's reason that doesn't exist and also included in that motion an inquiry 01:13:16.081 --> 01:13:24.895 - into whether the signal activation related to cyclists can be improved moving forward. Is there a second 01:13:24.895 --> 01:13:26.238 - to that motion? 01:13:31.426 --> 01:13:43.847 - We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll have a roll 01:13:43.847 --> 01:13:56.391 - call vote on Mr. Drummey's motion. Mr. Garzi, can you give us a roll call vote? Just to those who are 01:13:56.391 --> 01:14:01.310 - present, please. Copic? Yes. Mr. Midas? 01:14:05.826 --> 01:14:18.860 - Yes, Jimmy. Yes Strasburg. Yes, that passes five zero any other motions on College Mall and Covenanter 01:14:18.860 --> 01:14:32.146 - Seeing none I'll just say I still feel like the intersection as a whole I mean I while I was appreciated 01:14:32.146 --> 01:14:33.918 - mr. Seaborg's 01:14:35.138 --> 01:14:41.832 - extracting of that memory that we had talked about this intersection before like I'm thinking about 01:14:41.832 --> 01:14:48.793 - the Rain example we talked earlier and the example of when snow falls that that intersection has always 01:14:48.793 --> 01:14:55.688 - been pretty Thick shall we say like with with with space for cars to go nice and fast and I think that 01:14:55.688 --> 01:14:59.838 - also contributes to it I'm a little disappointed to hear that 01:15:00.130 --> 01:15:08.645 - There is that it's, I mean, I guess it's safe enough because it's not one of our highest priority 01:15:08.645 --> 01:15:17.507 - intersections. But I did have the thought that Covenanter could have been made safer, a full greenway 01:15:17.507 --> 01:15:26.196 - with protected lanes, but I can wait. On the other hand, I'm not sure. I hope that no one else will 01:15:26.196 --> 01:15:28.542 - be unhappy that we waited. 01:15:29.506 --> 01:15:36.892 - With that let's conclude this item and go now to the second Intersection evaluation update of the day 01:15:36.892 --> 01:15:44.496 - the corner of Smith and Morningside Who is presenting? this update That will also be me. All right again 01:15:44.496 --> 01:15:51.955 - garsey, please go ahead Okay, so this item is a follow-up To an inquiry regarding stop sign compliance 01:15:51.955 --> 01:15:59.486 - pedestrian visibility and neighborhood greenway crossing safety at Smith Road and Morningside Drive and 01:16:00.194 --> 01:16:06.320 - We reviewed traffic volumes, crash history, field conditions, and community concerns. The intersection 01:16:06.320 --> 01:16:12.505 - currently operates as an all-way stop-controlled intersection with Smith Road functioning as the higher 01:16:12.505 --> 01:16:18.691 - volume roadway compared to Morningside Drive. During field review, staff observed rolling stop behavior 01:16:18.691 --> 01:16:24.222 - and reduced compliance on Smith Road approaches. We believe this may be partially related to 01:16:24.322 --> 01:16:30.983 - driver expectation issues associated with the relatively low cross street traffic volumes on Morningside. 01:16:30.983 --> 01:16:37.393 - We reviewed three reported crashes over the last five years, including a bicycle related injury crash 01:16:37.393 --> 01:16:43.803 - within the crossing area. Based on the evaluation, we intend to move forward with several operational 01:16:43.803 --> 01:16:50.527 - improvements intended to reinforce the stopping condition and improve visibility of the crossing. Proposed 01:16:50.527 --> 01:16:54.046 - improvements include supplemental left side stop signs, 01:16:54.242 --> 01:17:00.659 - on Smith Road approaches, replacement of the damaged southbound stop sign, and upgrading the existing 01:17:00.659 --> 01:17:07.516 - crosswalk markings to high visibility continental crosswalks. At this time, we believe these are appropriate 01:17:07.516 --> 01:17:14.122 - near-term improvements that can be implemented relatively quickly while continuing to monitor operations 01:17:14.122 --> 01:17:21.042 - and safety conditions at this intersection. I'll take questions at this time. Thank you for the presentation. 01:17:21.042 --> 01:17:24.062 - Are there questions on this update? To my left. 01:17:26.882 --> 01:17:35.175 - To my right Seeing none are there members of the public who'd like to comment on this report Please 01:17:35.175 --> 01:17:43.633 - come to the podium state your name. You'll have three minutes Patrick Martin. Are you a member of the 01:17:43.633 --> 01:17:52.175 - public? Yes My name is Patrick Martin. I live at four four seven one East 3rd Street summer house this 01:17:52.175 --> 01:17:55.326 - is just around the corner from me and 01:17:55.618 --> 01:18:03.884 - Smith and Morningside is I go through this intersection as a pedestrian or as a bicyclist or as a runner 01:18:03.884 --> 01:18:11.126 - Three two to three times a day. I don't drive through this intersection I fully support the 01:18:11.126 --> 01:18:19.077 - staff recommendation on supplemental sub stop sign installations and yes, they do roll through there 01:18:19.077 --> 01:18:22.462 - on Smith and also on the Continental style 01:18:22.978 --> 01:18:30.470 - crosswalk markings. One thing I also want to note here too is that Morningside is a BT route and the 01:18:30.470 --> 01:18:38.037 - buses go through there slowed down by the speed cushions. There are no cushions on Smith. There is on 01:18:38.037 --> 01:18:45.752 - Morningside and that's why it's calm. And then also the park which is right there in the corner to that 01:18:45.752 --> 01:18:51.390 - northeast corner. A lot of children crossing in this area quite frequently. 01:18:51.682 --> 01:18:57.926 - Most of them are accompanied by parents, but every once in a while, they're not that's all I got to 01:18:57.926 --> 01:19:04.419 - say. Thank you Thank you. I only asked because Mr. Martin is a member of city staff and I thought maybe 01:19:04.419 --> 01:19:10.788 - he was here for a different reason Any other members of the public who'd like to speak to this issue, 01:19:10.788 --> 01:19:17.406 - please raise your hand and zoom you'll be called if you are online Or you could just thunder your request 01:19:19.490 --> 01:19:29.693 - I have a Darrell on Zoom who should be able to unmute. All right, please state your name. You'll have 01:19:29.693 --> 01:19:39.897 - three minutes to comment. Please go ahead. Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Okay. I was having 01:19:39.897 --> 01:19:43.998 - technical difficulties with the buttons. 01:19:44.162 --> 01:19:54.482 - My name is Darrell Boggess, B-O-G-G-E-S-S. I was at the previous meeting. I decided to avoid the risk 01:19:54.482 --> 01:20:04.801 - of rain tonight. So I have spoken with staff previously about the range of options. I appreciate what 01:20:04.801 --> 01:20:13.502 - they are attempting to accomplish. However, I take exception with the extent of their 01:20:13.954 --> 01:20:26.057 - reaction to the perceived urgency of the circumstance. It appears they have chosen the lowest cost, 01:20:26.057 --> 01:20:38.645 - easiest to implement response, which may or may not be effective. I hope and wish it will be effective. 01:20:38.645 --> 01:20:43.486 - In reality, as a decades long resident, 01:20:44.098 --> 01:20:53.331 - a Park Ridge East. I left three doors away from that intersection. I have seen and heard way too many 01:20:53.331 --> 01:21:02.655 - incidents. And at the last meeting in council chambers, I was impressed. Some of you may recall my new 01:21:02.655 --> 01:21:11.888 - neighbor at the corner of that intersection, right where the accident took place as a security camera 01:21:11.888 --> 01:21:13.246 - at his garage. 01:21:13.602 --> 01:21:22.700 - that was recording it at the time it happened. And during the meeting, he turned on his camera on his 01:21:22.700 --> 01:21:31.976 - cell phone and he counted something like a dozen people that just rolled right on through, like there's 01:21:31.976 --> 01:21:39.646 - no stop sign, anything there. So my concern is, which I voiced previously in writing, 01:21:40.162 --> 01:21:48.647 - I think the real problem is the behavior of the drivers. It's a cut through from 10th to 3rd. These 01:21:48.647 --> 01:21:57.471 - are neighbors, these are commuters, these are people who go through that intersection almost every day. 01:21:57.471 --> 01:22:03.326 - They have grown accustomed to the California roll through technique. 01:22:03.778 --> 01:22:12.706 - They maybe slow down. I've seen several people who did not even hesitate. They just blew right through. 01:22:12.706 --> 01:22:21.635 - But it's become a matter of custom and personal habit. And I don't think having a stop sign on the left 01:22:21.635 --> 01:22:30.219 - side of the intersection is going to be adequate to change behavior. I think they need some kind of 01:22:30.219 --> 01:22:33.310 - a rumble strip, a physical reminder 01:22:33.730 --> 01:22:42.614 - to slow down. So I hope we will come back and discuss this again later if it's not effective. 01:22:42.614 --> 01:22:52.349 - Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Are there any other public comments on this item this this item 01:22:52.349 --> 01:23:00.382 - the corner of Morningside and Smith have a Steve acres who should be able to unmute. 01:23:02.242 --> 01:23:08.685 - Please go ahead and you'll have three minutes. Please state your name. Okay, I'm here. Can you hear 01:23:08.685 --> 01:23:15.578 - me? Yes. Okay, great. My name is Steve acres. I'm a resident of Park Ridge and thrilled with our Greenway. 01:23:15.578 --> 01:23:22.021 - But at the same time, we want to make our Greenway safe from Park Ridge to Park Ridge East and back 01:23:22.021 --> 01:23:28.528 - and forth because we have a lot of kids and adults that pass through that intersection. So two items 01:23:28.528 --> 01:23:30.718 - I'd like to bring up one would be 01:23:30.978 --> 01:23:39.697 - Will you be developing some metrics after the enhancements that you propose to put in the additional 01:23:39.697 --> 01:23:48.330 - stop signs and the crosswalk enhancements? Will you develop some metrics so that we can tell if the 01:23:48.330 --> 01:23:56.962 - changes that you're going to implement are effective or not, if that's possible? And then secondly, 01:23:56.962 --> 01:23:58.430 - what will be the 01:23:58.562 --> 01:24:06.221 - timeline for implementation of the Enhancements that you've mentioned and thank you very much Thank 01:24:06.221 --> 01:24:13.880 - you Further public comment if you're on zoom, please raise your hand. You'll be called if you're in 01:24:13.880 --> 01:24:21.769 - the room, please come to the podium Second call for public comments All right coming back to thank you 01:24:21.769 --> 01:24:25.598 - for the public comment let's come back now to the 01:24:25.890 --> 01:24:34.218 - I'm so sorry. There was a late one. Oh, all right, just not too late. That was my fault Let's hear him 01:24:34.218 --> 01:24:42.383 - Please state your name. You'll have three minutes Hi, my name is Brianna Alexander and I was also at 01:24:42.383 --> 01:24:50.468 - the last meeting I am the mother of the little girl who is hit riding her bike at that intersection 01:24:50.468 --> 01:24:54.430 - and I just wanted to echo the responses from the 01:24:54.658 --> 01:25:06.229 - to other people who spoke and get some clarity around, is it the responsibility of interested parties 01:25:06.229 --> 01:25:17.573 - to bring this topic up after the changes are implemented and we're not seeing change in behavior of 01:25:17.573 --> 01:25:23.358 - the drivers? Does that complete your comment? Yes. 01:25:23.778 --> 01:25:32.476 - Thank you for your comment. Further public comment. Last call for public comment. Okay. Let's come back 01:25:32.476 --> 01:25:41.173 - for second round questions on the question of Smith and Morningside the intersection evaluation update. 01:25:41.173 --> 01:25:49.704 - Anybody on my left. Any questions. We'll get the comments in a minute just if there's any last minute 01:25:49.704 --> 01:25:52.798 - questions here because I have a few. 01:25:53.506 --> 01:26:00.574 - Andrew will you guys be monitoring these improvements once they're done? Yes, we will We'll do a before 01:26:00.574 --> 01:26:06.962 - study and an after study and to answer the question about the metrics We'll just measure stop 01:26:06.962 --> 01:26:13.826 - sign compliance. Just see how many people are stopping and not stopping beforehand and then the same 01:26:13.826 --> 01:26:20.894 - thing afterwards I have to follow up on that. Can you be more specific about how that works? How do you 01:26:21.410 --> 01:26:27.004 - How do you measure people stopping? Do you actually sit there and count? That's correct. Uh, we would 01:26:27.004 --> 01:26:32.652 - have staff grow out into the field and observe both the northbound and southbound direction. Um, since 01:26:32.652 --> 01:26:38.356 - eastbound and westbound is not the issue, we'll just ignore that and just focus on Smith and we'll just 01:26:38.356 --> 01:26:43.895 - observe people as they get to the intersection. If they actually come to a stop, we'll mark that. If 01:26:43.895 --> 01:26:49.324 - they roll through without stopping, we'll mark that and we'll compare the total counts. Very good. 01:26:49.324 --> 01:26:50.750 - Thank you, Mr. Stossberg. 01:26:51.810 --> 01:26:59.366 - I'll phrase this as a question Our neighborhood greenway program does a great job with delivering a 01:26:59.366 --> 01:27:06.921 - certain level of service for the roads We use a range of traffic calming metrics. We choose streets 01:27:06.921 --> 01:27:14.553 - that are low volume if you're on this metric Network, you have a good guarantee That you're going to 01:27:14.553 --> 01:27:20.446 - have a fairly safe route intersections produce a particular challenge because 01:27:21.154 --> 01:27:29.139 - of their nature. Do we have a particular way that we try to guarantee a level of service as greenways 01:27:29.139 --> 01:27:37.514 - pass through intersections as we do for the rest of the facilities? And if not, given a pattern of crashes 01:27:37.514 --> 01:27:45.577 - where greenways, which we're trying to advertise as a safe network, pass through intersections, should 01:27:45.577 --> 01:27:49.726 - we have some kind of level of service that we try to 01:27:49.922 --> 01:27:57.197 - Guarantee for these greenways and intersections. It's a good question Can any staff member address it 01:27:57.197 --> 01:28:04.758 - So your question is how do we guarantee that there's a certain level of service for people on the quarter 01:28:04.758 --> 01:28:11.962 - I know that we can't necessarily but there's a kind of a disconnect these the rest of the facilities 01:28:11.962 --> 01:28:19.166 - or traffic calmed I Write a lot of them and they're just consistently a safe comfortable environment 01:28:19.426 --> 01:28:27.035 - And it's a kind of a promise that we're making to the users of the network This is a safe route. The 01:28:27.035 --> 01:28:34.720 - intersections are also a part of the network How can we provide that same kind of promise or level of 01:28:34.720 --> 01:28:42.706 - service as these routes traverse intersections? It's a great question, it's a hard and hard one to answer 01:28:42.706 --> 01:28:47.678 - I think as I'm just was reflecting as you restated the question I 01:28:48.130 --> 01:28:53.684 - Think I mean this really sincerely but I might want to rethink it a little bit more but I don't think 01:28:53.684 --> 01:28:59.128 - we can make intersections as safe as we can make roadway segments like just by their nature that is 01:28:59.128 --> 01:29:04.246 - where conflicts happen. So so by default they will not be as comfortable as the spots between 01:29:04.246 --> 01:29:09.691 - them particularly where we get to the more major intersections like the two that we've been talking 01:29:09.691 --> 01:29:15.190 - about tonight. So I think there is just a matter of they can't get to that same level but we want to 01:29:15.190 --> 01:29:16.606 - still do all that we can. 01:29:16.898 --> 01:29:23.274 - I am also just reflecting on when we do these projects They're usually from major intersection to major 01:29:23.274 --> 01:29:29.588 - intersection and and making sure we are intentional about looking at those Endpoints as much as we are 01:29:29.588 --> 01:29:35.780 - the in middle intersections And and some every intersection is unique every corridor has some unique 01:29:35.780 --> 01:29:42.462 - features we apply a lot of the same tools but there they can look and feel different at different places and 01:29:42.978 --> 01:29:48.258 - And by nature always stops are different than signals than two way stops versus other things. So, um, 01:29:48.258 --> 01:29:53.435 - so it's just, uh, that's my honest, I don't know if I'm fully answering your question, but that was 01:29:53.435 --> 01:29:58.715 - just the initial reactions I was having. I understand. It's a hard problem. Um, I noticed this on the 01:29:58.715 --> 01:30:04.254 - Hawthorne greenway. I was heading north and it was like crossing neighborhood street, neighborhood street, 01:30:04.254 --> 01:30:09.482 - neighborhood street. Suddenly I got to out water and it was much more dangerous intersection. But as 01:30:09.482 --> 01:30:11.294 - I approached it, it felt the same. 01:30:11.842 --> 01:30:19.165 - So maybe there's some things we can do to alert the cyclists or the road users. Hey, you're coming to 01:30:19.165 --> 01:30:26.344 - a higher risk intersection, whether it's some colors or something. So that in addition, whatever we 01:30:26.344 --> 01:30:33.667 - do for the road users to slow down, I think as cyclists, we learn ourselves and to teach our children 01:30:33.667 --> 01:30:40.990 - to be defensive because the drivers are not really going to stop and we have to be prepared for that. 01:30:41.602 --> 01:30:47.053 - Yeah I think that's that's a good point and that's a great example of we did a neighborhood greenway 01:30:47.053 --> 01:30:52.504 - that really ended in many ways at a major corridor and the context there is very very different that 01:30:52.504 --> 01:30:57.901 - was one of the critiques of it too is that we didn't do more at that time for for crossing at water 01:30:57.901 --> 01:31:02.974 - but it does make it more obvious what that is whereas if we're looking at like an always stop 01:31:03.138 --> 01:31:09.297 - Or it's sometimes you've heard probably in the past people being hesitant to mark crosswalks and only 01:31:09.297 --> 01:31:15.455 - marking a crosswalk because that maybe implies a level of protection that Certain corridors you would 01:31:15.455 --> 01:31:21.493 - want to do more than just do a crosswalk to make it a good crosswalk And so in some cases like this 01:31:21.493 --> 01:31:27.652 - is an always stop so it may feel comfortable and safe but is it and those that have been talking know 01:31:27.652 --> 01:31:29.886 - that it does have its challenges but 01:31:29.986 --> 01:31:37.191 - From a more psychological perspective it has I get I think what you're saying An easier question and 01:31:37.191 --> 01:31:44.468 - our long-term transportation plan we have grid connectivity and As I understand traffic work somewhat 01:31:44.468 --> 01:31:51.601 - like fluid dynamics The traffic spreads out to use all the available routes people want to take the 01:31:51.601 --> 01:31:58.878 - fastest route this particular part of town We have an ongoing interruption, which is a railroad track 01:31:59.106 --> 01:32:06.499 - We don't have connectivity between Park Ridge East and Meadow Park Meadow Park is a private road network. 01:32:06.499 --> 01:32:13.683 - It's not connected with the East East Eastern Heights across there. Is it the case if we could improve 01:32:13.683 --> 01:32:20.658 - our grid connectivity that some of this traffic would then fan out and then there just would simply 01:32:20.658 --> 01:32:23.518 - be less traffic at this intersection and 01:32:24.386 --> 01:32:30.857 - The the theory yes, I think the more that we can have a robust network The more we distribute traffic 01:32:30.857 --> 01:32:37.519 - and the more we can avoid having an intersection where one road has eight times the traffic of the other 01:32:37.519 --> 01:32:44.244 - road To have those more balanced traffic flows We also being mindful of you know Not wanting to encourage 01:32:44.244 --> 01:32:50.842 - more traffic on some residential streets at the same time But but generally yes, the theory is the more 01:32:50.842 --> 01:32:54.078 - connectivity the better and then we can have those 01:32:54.658 --> 01:33:03.739 - It does make things easier. Yeah, but those are not easy easy fixes. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah Questions 01:33:03.739 --> 01:33:13.000 - to my right I wanted to ask about this solution This is sort of a minimal or like the it is it I don't 01:33:13.000 --> 01:33:23.070 - know how to phrase it. I look at this intersection and I see another fat intersection This is lots lots of room 01:33:23.170 --> 01:33:35.950 - for cars to go quickly. I've seen streets next down for pedestrians in more central parts of town and 01:33:35.950 --> 01:33:48.605 - I recognize that installing curbs and bump outs and the like are expensive. Does staff see that as a 01:33:48.605 --> 01:33:52.990 - second step if this solution isn't 01:33:53.122 --> 01:33:58.694 - adequate? Can you talk about that a little? Yes, that would be correct. This is like our phase one, 01:33:58.694 --> 01:34:04.656 - just to see if what can we do to encourage people to stop at the intersection? And then if people continue 01:34:04.656 --> 01:34:10.340 - to not stop at the intersection, what else can we do? So it's like an incremental approach. Okay. And 01:34:10.340 --> 01:34:16.190 - so you're going to take counts to try to see if the problem you can, you can measure whether the problem 01:34:16.190 --> 01:34:22.041 - is being alleviated by the solution, but you're not afraid to do more. You just that you wanted to start 01:34:22.041 --> 01:34:22.654 - with this. 01:34:23.906 --> 01:34:33.557 - Yes, that's correct. Okay. Um, last question would be, uh, uh, what would be, let's say that the problem 01:34:33.557 --> 01:34:43.483 - is not alleviated. Uh, what would be the next level of, of service that you would seek? Um, a big challenge 01:34:43.483 --> 01:34:49.182 - that we have at this location is that it's an always stop and 01:34:49.442 --> 01:34:56.792 - In order for us to apply some other treatments that we have on other greenways, like adding speed humps 01:34:56.792 --> 01:35:04.000 - in advance of it or rapid flashing beacons, we wouldn't be able to have it be an all-way stop because 01:35:04.000 --> 01:35:11.138 - we don't use those measures at all-way stop locations. And so if people continue to not stop at this 01:35:11.138 --> 01:35:18.558 - location, we would most likely recommend that we would remove the stop sign. It sounds counterintuitive, 01:35:18.818 --> 01:35:26.834 - But by removing the stop sign on Smith Road, it would allow us to implement other measures, like traffic 01:35:26.834 --> 01:35:34.468 - calming on the block or the rapid flashing beacons. And that would be similar to what we've done on 01:35:34.468 --> 01:35:42.103 - other greenways. In other words, you're suggesting that if you can't beat them, join them, let them 01:35:42.103 --> 01:35:47.294 - roll through the intersection, but only if we force them to go at a 01:35:48.066 --> 01:35:55.677 - Steady slow rate of speed in that area. Is that mr. Seaborg I see Yeah, I think that's that's right 01:35:55.677 --> 01:36:03.364 - and I agree with everything that that mr. Garzi just noted and I was just having reflections to past 01:36:03.364 --> 01:36:07.550 - debates about other intersections in the community and 01:36:07.714 --> 01:36:13.387 - Remembering a question that that somebody asked it might have been in a city council meeting But like 01:36:13.387 --> 01:36:19.004 - if we were starting from scratch, what would you do? Yeah, and so I think what was described just to 01:36:19.004 --> 01:36:24.622 - you is certainly a very realistic option There are other options that have their they all there's no 01:36:24.622 --> 01:36:30.573 - great thing But like from scratch like this is a very big intersection if we were designing a neighborhood 01:36:30.573 --> 01:36:31.518 - intersection and 01:36:31.682 --> 01:36:37.630 - We probably wouldn't have a median in the center of it. We would have the roads be narrow or we'd have 01:36:37.630 --> 01:36:43.635 - bike lanes of appropriate width or if there weren't bike lanes we'd be doing bump outs there would just 01:36:43.635 --> 01:36:48.948 - it would just be but that becomes a much bigger project and And then it becomes back to the 01:36:48.948 --> 01:36:54.722 - word prioritization on how much to invest We have taken always stops in the community that were big 01:36:54.722 --> 01:37:00.670 - and as we've done resurfacing projects and things or neat not even always stops but tried to gradually 01:37:00.834 --> 01:37:07.450 - Remove excess width we've we've brought brought some of them to you and we've done some before this 01:37:07.450 --> 01:37:14.330 - Commission So those would be other things that could be explored So just give there's a menu of options 01:37:14.330 --> 01:37:20.945 - But I think what we shared is is also a very very real option that we'd be looking at No, it's well 01:37:20.945 --> 01:37:27.230 - answered and I appreciate it. I guess my last question would be how When should we check back? 01:37:28.674 --> 01:37:35.037 - In other words, how long will it take to evaluate, to implement this solution and then to evaluate it? 01:37:35.037 --> 01:37:41.462 - I think a realistic timeline would be a month or two. Just for us to do that quickly. Yeah. Uh, because 01:37:41.462 --> 01:37:47.887 - we would just need to do a study beforehand. It would just mostly depend on staff time and availability 01:37:47.887 --> 01:37:54.127 - to go out. Um, then for us to coordinate with our shops to install the signs and then for us to do a 01:37:54.127 --> 01:37:55.486 - step, the post study. 01:37:55.970 --> 01:38:02.669 - Would it be safe to ask for an update again in August? Three months from now. I think that would be 01:38:02.669 --> 01:38:09.369 - fair. Um, I think for us to do the before and after study during the summer break would be an ideal 01:38:09.369 --> 01:38:16.336 - timeframe just because we don't have fluctuations with students coming back or the school year starting 01:38:16.336 --> 01:38:22.366 - again. I mean you don't think that the relative, uh, lower traffic counts, uh, would, uh, 01:38:23.650 --> 01:38:30.548 - Make it I mean wouldn't higher traffic counts show you a different set of data It would show a different 01:38:30.548 --> 01:38:37.249 - set of data But if we at least have for the before and after with that same level of volume, it would 01:38:37.249 --> 01:38:43.818 - be comparable Okay. All right. Well, so at the very least I hope that we'll get an update in August 01:38:43.818 --> 01:38:50.519 - but now we come to the discussion of the case among members if these questions haven't satisfied your 01:38:50.519 --> 01:38:53.278 - interest is What do we all think of this? 01:38:53.538 --> 01:39:00.973 - And what if any motions might we like to make to call for further action. Mr. Drummond I appreciate 01:39:00.973 --> 01:39:08.408 - the work the staff has done. I find this problem just to be depressing because it seems like I mean 01:39:08.408 --> 01:39:15.992 - as long as we're still if we're going to use our phones when we drive and not figure out that problem 01:39:15.992 --> 01:39:22.238 - then we can put up 50 stop signs at this intersection but if you don't see them and 01:39:22.466 --> 01:39:28.484 - You don't stop and then people get hurt. So it's but I I understand I understand the reasoning and and 01:39:28.484 --> 01:39:34.444 - And then it very interesting to the statement about taking out the stop signs and how that could make 01:39:34.444 --> 01:39:40.345 - it safer But that that it makes sense why that would be the case. So that's my only comment Stasberg 01:39:40.345 --> 01:39:46.247 - I also appreciate the fast action here. I am a neighbor to this intersection I have a daughter named 01:39:46.247 --> 01:39:49.694 - Lena as well and we've biked through that intersection and 01:39:50.018 --> 01:39:59.098 - I also appreciate the big picture that the Staff is doing they have objective system-wide priority and 01:39:59.098 --> 01:40:07.914 - they are working through those in a systematic way that includes cost number of crashes High volume 01:40:07.914 --> 01:40:16.818 - and all these metrics that make sense And so I realize there's this intersection is hard to fix in a 01:40:16.818 --> 01:40:18.846 - better way and I think 01:40:18.978 --> 01:40:28.713 - We will eventually get to a bigger longer term fix as time and budget allow. So thank you. Thank you. 01:40:28.713 --> 01:40:38.353 - Comments to my right. All right. I don't think any further action needs to happen. I think that with 01:40:38.353 --> 01:40:47.134 - the exception of stop signs on Smith whatever they might put in is worth putting in anyway. 01:40:47.842 --> 01:40:55.084 - And that if further remedies needed to come forward, I mean, it's still going to be helpful to have 01:40:55.084 --> 01:41:02.398 - zebra stripes, you know for pedestrians there I Find myself sometimes doing a thousand-yard stare as 01:41:02.398 --> 01:41:10.075 - well just like oh that's probably the way we're getting a slow exposure to the world of of what engineers 01:41:10.075 --> 01:41:17.534 - You know cope with and and are trying to solve and it's non-trivial I think it's fantastic that we can 01:41:17.826 --> 01:41:26.459 - Hope to get a feedback on the implementation so quickly I think that three months is a very reasonable 01:41:26.459 --> 01:41:34.842 - amount of time a little surprised that it could happen that quickly I guess because the the changes 01:41:34.842 --> 01:41:43.559 - are light but I Will not be surprised at all if we come back for more Again if the Smith is eight times 01:41:43.559 --> 01:41:45.822 - the traffic of Morningside 01:41:46.306 --> 01:41:54.407 - And the intersection is as vast as it is, uh, that it encourages, uh, right turn on red and the like. 01:41:54.407 --> 01:42:02.826 - Um, I mean, uh, just looking at that, um, that crosswalk, uh, going the cross, the North South crosswalks 01:42:02.826 --> 01:42:10.927 - are extremely long. Uh, I'm so used to seeing bump outs downtown where the, the, we've, we've sort of 01:42:10.927 --> 01:42:15.454 - rescued the intersection from the right turning car that 01:42:15.586 --> 01:42:23.333 - It's almost a shock to to realize how this is how we used to build our intersections. So I don't have 01:42:23.333 --> 01:42:31.079 - anything more to add. I also just want to say that the comments that people made on this intersection 01:42:31.079 --> 01:42:38.750 - really moved us to ask questions in a way that we didn't know how to ask. And I was grateful for all 01:42:38.750 --> 01:42:44.446 - the public comment that came in and I asked them all to please keep it up. 01:42:45.602 --> 01:42:52.509 - Any other comments before we move on mr. Robling? Sorry, normally I wouldn't jump in here, but just 01:42:52.509 --> 01:42:59.762 - wanted to update for we have about 15 listeners in Then there will be no August meeting. So the earliest 01:42:59.762 --> 01:43:06.670 - meeting this could be is September 28th I suspected that I in the back of my head. I was thinking I 01:43:06.670 --> 01:43:13.577 - wonder if there's an August meeting. So You've got an extra month engineering Let's look forward to 01:43:13.577 --> 01:43:15.166 - seeing a report on the 01:43:15.554 --> 01:43:22.417 - an update on this at the September meeting. Thanks for the catch, Mr. Humbling. All right, if there's 01:43:22.417 --> 01:43:29.347 - no other comment on that, we'll go to the third item on the agenda, if I can find it here. This is one 01:43:29.347 --> 01:43:36.075 - I put up and again, I wanna apologize to Mr. Seaborg for the way I put this on the agenda because I 01:43:36.075 --> 01:43:42.803 - did not follow procedure. It should have been submitted by May the 4th and I did not submit it till 01:43:42.803 --> 01:43:43.678 - May the 8th. 01:43:44.322 --> 01:43:52.884 - Nevertheless because it's only an item for discussion And we've already seen the benefit of this portion 01:43:52.884 --> 01:44:01.283 - of our period I thought it was still appropriate to ask to have on the agenda But I just want to point 01:44:01.283 --> 01:44:09.519 - out that staff has not Submitted a memo on this. In fact, we're gonna get a presentation now. It's a 01:44:09.519 --> 01:44:12.862 - An ordinance proposal from councilmember 01:44:12.962 --> 01:44:21.156 - Kate Rosenbarger who's here in the room and I'd like to ask her to come now and make her presentation. 01:44:21.156 --> 01:44:29.111 - This is on an amendment she's proposing to title 15 on Carla streets. Ms. Rosenbarger thank you for 01:44:29.111 --> 01:44:37.305 - being here and welcome. And I guess her slides. Here we go. Hi. Thank you. My name is Kate Rosenbarger 01:44:37.305 --> 01:44:39.294 - City Council District 2. 01:44:39.522 --> 01:44:48.310 - Today sorry these slides were also very late everyone But thank you to city staff for getting them in 01:44:48.310 --> 01:44:57.701 - this packet or out to everyone So my colleague councilmember Courtney Daly and I are working on an ordinance 01:44:57.701 --> 01:45:07.006 - that amends title 15 vehicles and traffic and it would create a chapter in that in that section of code for 01:45:07.266 --> 01:45:14.866 - Streets and alleys that are closed to vehicular travel. So the ordinance is a draft. I just want to 01:45:14.866 --> 01:45:22.770 - give a little process first It's coming before council on Wednesday this Wednesday, May 20th If it gets 01:45:22.770 --> 01:45:30.370 - introduced that will be first reading where the plan is to have a conversation with council members 01:45:30.370 --> 01:45:36.222 - and staff and department heads about the potential closure and amendments so 01:45:36.386 --> 01:45:44.845 - Next slide here is a little roadmap for the discussion today It will start with where are we now? And 01:45:44.845 --> 01:45:53.470 - so we'll talk about the process to date and the ordinance that is currently in existence ordinance 2502 01:45:53.470 --> 01:46:01.182 - It was establishing the outdoor dining program and in it amends title 15 and other titles of 01:46:01.474 --> 01:46:09.442 - that create a car free Kirkwood on specific blocks for specific months of the year. And then the second 01:46:09.442 --> 01:46:17.411 - part today we can talk about what are we fixing. So this is adding language to title 15 again to create 01:46:17.411 --> 01:46:22.238 - that chapter for vehicle free streets and alleys and the other 01:46:23.266 --> 01:46:29.966 - Part of this is really further clarifying the intent of City Council when we passed the ordinance 2502 01:46:29.966 --> 01:46:36.666 - to have certain blocks of Kirkwood Avenue car free except in emergencies. So I do too just want to say 01:46:36.666 --> 01:46:43.365 - this is very much of course this is on the discussion discussion section of your all's agenda and this 01:46:43.365 --> 01:46:46.878 - very much is a discussion as it will be on Wednesday. 01:46:47.010 --> 01:46:54.497 - I mostly have my laptop here to like take questions and comments from you all. So again, just very much 01:46:54.497 --> 01:47:01.840 - appreciated. So a little bit of the where are we now in 2025. So ordinance 2502 establish the outdoor 01:47:01.840 --> 01:47:09.255 - dining program. And these are some of the where as clauses for the purpose of this program and to sort 01:47:09.255 --> 01:47:12.638 - of also go through the history of the program. 01:47:13.218 --> 01:47:20.017 - The city I can read these I guess if that is helpful a lot of thumbs up from the commissioners great. 01:47:20.017 --> 01:47:27.282 - Okay, nobody moved whereas the city also temporarily closed portions of Kirkwood Avenue to make it available 01:47:27.282 --> 01:47:34.215 - for enhanced social dining and outdoor seating and whereas due to the success of the program the Common 01:47:34.215 --> 01:47:38.014 - Council expanded and extended the outdoor dining program 01:47:38.114 --> 01:47:45.862 - in ordinance 22 0 1 resolution 23 0 4 and resolution 24 0 5. That was street areas only that year because 01:47:45.862 --> 01:47:53.245 - we had a lot of construction and sewer work I think on Kirkwood and whereas the program continues to 01:47:53.245 --> 01:47:59.678 - add vibrancy to our downtown and add health and use of our downtown business community. 01:48:00.930 --> 01:48:07.707 - And whereas the Common Council is committed to activating Kirkwood Avenue as a premier destination for 01:48:07.707 --> 01:48:14.879 - commerce pedestrians civic engagement and community life fostering economic vitality and social interaction. 01:48:14.879 --> 01:48:21.854 - And whereas the Common Council seeks to provide long term certainty to businesses residents and visitors. 01:48:21.954 --> 01:48:28.878 - regarding parklets and the Kirkwood conversion allowing them to plan adapt and invest with confidence. 01:48:28.878 --> 01:48:35.601 - And whereas the city desires to continue the outdoor dining program in the downtown and I left that 01:48:35.601 --> 01:48:42.794 - strike through twenty twenty eight because the original ordinance twenty five oh two we that was sponsored 01:48:42.794 --> 01:48:45.214 - by myself and council member sorry. 01:48:45.346 --> 01:48:52.288 - And we had talked about reevaluating this program at the end of twenty twenty eight which we were also 01:48:52.288 --> 01:48:59.096 - dealing with the parklets but it was council member sorry I think led this that it would create more 01:48:59.096 --> 01:49:06.308 - predictability instability for businesses to plan with confidence as well as residents and their planning. 01:49:06.308 --> 01:49:13.790 - If we did not have an end date to reevaluate but instead it just created an indefinite program and conversion. 01:49:14.562 --> 01:49:25.690 - for every year. So then a little to show where are we now. Very similar place I would say this ordinance 01:49:25.690 --> 01:49:36.925 - 26 1 2 somewhere as clauses that we took from the previous and 25 0 2 and some we changed around a little 01:49:36.925 --> 01:49:41.694 - bit. Do you thumbs up want me to read these. 01:49:42.050 --> 01:49:49.112 - Great good enthusiasm whereas the Common Council and resolution twenty five oh five that should say 01:49:49.112 --> 01:49:56.456 - oh two is signaled a commitment to a predictable seasonal schedule and still seeks to provide long term 01:49:56.456 --> 01:50:03.729 - certainty whereas the City Council is committed to activating Kirkwood as a premier destination. These 01:50:03.729 --> 01:50:05.918 - are copies and whereas by form 01:50:06.146 --> 01:50:13.848 - Formalizing this closure within title 15 the city establishes a transparent framework for governance 01:50:13.848 --> 01:50:21.703 - allowing Allowing the city engineer that's a typo to manage emergencies while maintaining a consistent 01:50:21.703 --> 01:50:29.329 - and predictable standard for the public So this is a little diving a little deeper into the changes 01:50:29.329 --> 01:50:35.582 - that I want you all to be aware of and that I hope we discuss here and at council 01:50:35.714 --> 01:50:42.841 - Twenty five oh two the city engineer in cases of emergency lack of preparation or any other reason that 01:50:42.841 --> 01:50:49.694 - may render the program impractical can permanently or temporarily suspend the program in part or in 01:50:49.694 --> 01:50:56.547 - whole and what we would like to change in twenty six one two would take out that part about lack of 01:50:56.547 --> 01:51:03.606 - participation or any other reason and say in case of emergency in cases of emergency the city engineer 01:51:03.606 --> 01:51:04.702 - may temporarily 01:51:04.802 --> 01:51:15.942 - Restore motor vehicle traffic as authorized And this would so this would be in the form of City engineer 01:51:15.942 --> 01:51:27.188 - proposing orders like 90 day orders or 180 day orders that we see in places like the seven line elsewhere 01:51:27.188 --> 01:51:31.326 - The process and discussion so far is I 01:51:32.226 --> 01:51:41.705 - So in February twenty twenty six there was a memo that was in front of council and it was when we learned 01:51:41.705 --> 01:51:50.738 - that the outdoor dining portion of the program would not be continued based on lack of participation 01:51:50.738 --> 01:51:57.534 - and impracticality citing the budget. And this came from the city engineer. 01:51:58.466 --> 01:52:07.511 - In March I worked on just a very simple initial draft of this ordinance and shopped it around to a few 01:52:07.511 --> 01:52:16.292 - folks on April 10th. I sent that draft via email to city directors so director of planning director 01:52:16.292 --> 01:52:25.073 - of engineering ESD and the deputy mayor. I also sent to all eight of my council members and in each 01:52:25.073 --> 01:52:26.302 - email I asked 01:52:27.106 --> 01:52:35.872 - For feedback welcoming phone calls texts, you know emails getting together Collaboration questions everything 01:52:35.872 --> 01:52:43.842 - there. That is where councilmember Daley came on board April 28th director Cooper Smith did respond 01:52:43.842 --> 01:52:52.051 - to my email and we got together and discussed it and As of today councilmember Daley has met via phone 01:52:52.051 --> 01:52:53.246 - with the mayor 01:52:53.570 --> 01:53:00.870 - Director Cooper Smith and director seabor I think happened to be together and they all chatted about 01:53:00.870 --> 01:53:08.243 - it, which was wonderful and She has an email from director Hiddle and she has a meeting scheduled for 01:53:08.243 --> 01:53:15.470 - tomorrow with the director of public works So we're current timelines is now starting today here we 01:53:15.470 --> 01:53:19.518 - are This will be again up for discussion if it is voted 01:53:19.714 --> 01:53:27.069 - for introduction May 20th City Council meeting and then council has two more meetings before we go on 01:53:27.069 --> 01:53:34.352 - recess. We have June 3rd and we have June 10th. So ideally we would love to have something finalized 01:53:34.352 --> 01:53:41.923 - and working with you all and potentially supported to bring back to council either that June 3rd meeting 01:53:41.923 --> 01:53:43.870 - or that June 10th meeting. 01:53:44.066 --> 01:53:51.928 - which I understand would add a special session from you all and I would like to talk about that. So 01:53:51.928 --> 01:54:00.577 - far the information needed that I know of is from one email from Director Seabor that we need a comprehensive 01:54:00.577 --> 01:54:08.912 - list of streets closed to vehicles because others exist and we would like them all to be in this proposed 01:54:08.912 --> 01:54:11.742 - new chapter of Title 15. Thank you. 01:54:14.146 --> 01:54:21.601 - Sorry. Thanks for the presentation. Before we go to council questions and fully aware that staff has 01:54:21.601 --> 01:54:28.982 - not been able to weigh in with a memo on this. I wanted to give staff an opportunity to comment and 01:54:28.982 --> 01:54:36.659 - I suspect that maybe the person to ask would be director Cooper Smith who's here in the audience unless 01:54:36.659 --> 01:54:43.966 - Mr. C were wanted to present first because I think this is an issue not of safety but of commerce. 01:54:45.122 --> 01:54:52.748 - Whoever would like to speak those welcome director Jane Cooper Smith of economic and sustainable development. 01:54:52.748 --> 01:54:59.819 - Thanks councilmember Rosenberger for the presentation. I don't really have a lot to add. I think that 01:54:59.819 --> 01:55:07.028 - you know we made we staff did what we believed was a deep dive and due diligence to present information 01:55:07.028 --> 01:55:14.654 - and evaluate this program earlier this year and that was how we came to our staff recommendation in February. 01:55:14.818 --> 01:55:21.778 - And I would just footnote that it wasn't Andrew and I didn't decide like it was our it was the majority 01:55:21.778 --> 01:55:28.605 - of cabinet members and departments working on this together. And we really believed that was the best 01:55:28.605 --> 01:55:35.431 - recommendation for this space for a number of reasons. But I think that what council has expressed is 01:55:35.431 --> 01:55:42.525 - that they desire a different outcome. And so I think they have access to the information that we provided 01:55:42.525 --> 01:55:44.734 - at that time and we are happy to 01:55:44.930 --> 01:55:52.170 - Provide anything else that's needed. I've been deeply appreciative of the of the outreach. I think the 01:55:52.170 --> 01:55:59.199 - Initial version that councilmember Rosenberger shared didn't really have a lot of Matter to it. And 01:55:59.199 --> 01:56:06.439 - so there wasn't a lot to respond to but I did find our meeting and on the 28th to be super substantive 01:56:06.439 --> 01:56:12.414 - and helpful So I think just It's been really informative I think we should have been 01:56:13.154 --> 01:56:19.364 - doing some design thinking together earlier on in this process. I learned through these conversations 01:56:19.364 --> 01:56:25.453 - that council member Daley had requested a deliberation session earlier this year and I wish that we 01:56:25.453 --> 01:56:31.663 - had said yes to that because I think that's what this project truly needed. And so you know I've I've 01:56:31.663 --> 01:56:37.812 - said hey maybe we should do a deliberation session session but I don't think there's a huge appetite 01:56:37.812 --> 01:56:42.622 - for that at this time. And then my main concerns are just about what we have a 01:56:43.010 --> 01:56:49.625 - program that we're rolling out full steam ahead and we've we think it's really great but kind of just 01:56:49.625 --> 01:56:56.241 - triaging what the council's expectations are for the remainder of the year and how we're working with 01:56:56.241 --> 01:57:02.791 - businesses and maintenance of traffic plans with construction projects in the area. So I'm concerned 01:57:02.791 --> 01:57:06.942 - about 20 26. I'll just leave it there. But again thanks for the 01:57:07.970 --> 01:57:15.094 - Communication there's some media coverage had said said this is you know contentious and we're battling 01:57:15.094 --> 01:57:22.013 - but that's we're communicating and It's been pretty good. So, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Seabor would 01:57:22.013 --> 01:57:29.137 - you like to speak? Yeah, I just Appreciate the dialogue. I don't have a formal presentation mostly here 01:57:29.137 --> 01:57:34.206 - just to help answer questions the the main things I maybe wanted to share 01:57:34.434 --> 01:57:41.170 - Reflecting on when director Cooper Smith and I had a conversation with councilmember daily appreciating 01:57:41.170 --> 01:57:48.165 - the the note that some of the feedback is Potentially desire to include in it one of the the main questions 01:57:48.165 --> 01:57:54.772 - in my mind just to put it out there is And that a part of this it's a legal discussion to unlike what 01:57:54.772 --> 01:58:01.637 - is most from a legal lens and what is in title 15 or not and so we just between various schedules haven't 01:58:01.637 --> 01:58:03.710 - been able to connect and didn't 01:58:04.194 --> 01:58:11.569 - have a sense of the urgency of the timeline until more recently on this topic. But the independent of 01:58:11.569 --> 01:58:19.089 - the Title 15 discussion is that just throughout time, Title 15 and traffic code has never been the tool 01:58:19.089 --> 01:58:26.970 - used to temporarily close streets. And so that's maybe the biggest question in my mind, which is a different 01:58:26.970 --> 01:58:29.790 - question, it's related, but different. 01:58:29.954 --> 01:58:37.166 - Like we are closing Clubhouse Drive Temporarily we construct projects and close them temporarily. We 01:58:37.166 --> 01:58:44.521 - have some that are some roads that have been closed for seasons or for experiments or some permanently 01:58:44.521 --> 01:58:52.019 - that we just have been successful without doing a traffic code and Just in a very early quick assessment 01:58:52.019 --> 01:58:57.374 - an email dialogue in in state code when it talks about traffic regulations 01:58:57.474 --> 01:59:04.036 - basically says what municipalities can What what our traffic regulations we can regulate and and there 01:59:04.036 --> 01:59:10.470 - are things like stop signs and speed limits and one-way streets But closing a street isn't a traffic 01:59:10.470 --> 01:59:16.841 - regular. It's not one of the options It's just thought of I think differently and so just from from 01:59:16.841 --> 01:59:23.467 - that lens having some uncertainty with with The this specific just the legality of the ordinance that's 01:59:23.467 --> 01:59:26.206 - proposed But happy to answer any questions 01:59:27.074 --> 01:59:36.269 - Thanks to you both for your comments. So let me just frame this here again. This is the discussion portion 01:59:36.269 --> 01:59:44.949 - of the meeting. There's no official action we're taking except to ask the commission staff to tee up 01:59:44.949 --> 01:59:54.058 - a formal proposal such as a we would need to schedule a special session to hear to make a formal proposal 01:59:54.058 --> 01:59:56.894 - to hear a formal proposal before 01:59:57.058 --> 02:00:05.214 - It goes to City Council with the schedule that this legislation is on either that or maybe the ordinance 02:00:05.214 --> 02:00:12.982 - doesn't doesn't We don't know what the council is going to do with the ordinance whether they might 02:00:12.982 --> 02:00:21.061 - Decide it that quickly or postpone it, but it's on a track. That's faster than our next meeting so With 02:00:21.061 --> 02:00:25.566 - that I just want to say open up the floor to questions on 02:00:26.114 --> 02:00:33.752 - This topic do you constant do commissioners have any thoughts on? the ordinance that is Being proposed 02:00:33.752 --> 02:00:41.167 - Mr. Stossburg Yes, thank you. I had one time I owned a building on Main Street in Richmond, Indiana 02:00:41.167 --> 02:00:48.583 - Which for a period was pedestrian mall and a period cars went through but I'm very sensitive to the 02:00:48.583 --> 02:00:55.998 - fact this is more than just a transportation question this is a question about for the residents of 02:00:56.162 --> 02:01:03.379 - vitality of the area. I hear the point that consistency is good, it makes planning good, I hear that. 02:01:03.379 --> 02:01:10.455 - There's also a disconnect in what was presented about, sounds like first there was a recommendation 02:01:10.455 --> 02:01:17.813 - to close due to lack of participation and then impracticalities due to budget, but then following that, 02:01:17.813 --> 02:01:24.889 - this is where there's some details missing, there's a proposal to make it permanent after there was 02:01:24.889 --> 02:01:25.950 - just some data 02:01:26.082 --> 02:01:34.285 - Suggest that it wasn't working So how did and this might this might be a question more for the council 02:01:34.285 --> 02:01:42.408 - than not just the Transportation Commission, but how did we get from? Let's close it to let's make it 02:01:42.408 --> 02:01:51.009 - permanent Thank you first I would like to clarify The permanent would just be a permanent seasonal closure. 02:01:51.009 --> 02:01:55.230 - Okay. Yeah, so it's still the April through November 02:01:56.738 --> 02:02:05.699 - So we we in February were given memo from ESD with data in it and I guess some Points gleaned from a 02:02:05.699 --> 02:02:14.838 - lot of meetings and outreach that they did I think especially with council members and I guess I would 02:02:14.838 --> 02:02:23.710 - say there is a lot of data to that Wasn't in it I don't I it wasn't it wasn't I'm not saying it was 02:02:23.710 --> 02:02:25.662 - a bad memo I'm saying 02:02:26.210 --> 02:02:33.116 - For example there was a piece that said we're losing eighty thousand dollars in parking meter revenue 02:02:33.116 --> 02:02:39.886 - because that would be maxing out those spots that were converted to car free where we would need to 02:02:39.886 --> 02:02:46.724 - take a better look at that because we know mostly people then park on different streets so forth and 02:02:46.724 --> 02:02:53.630 - the side streets and everything so that wasn't really accurate. I think there is some other data that 02:02:54.306 --> 02:03:00.757 - essentially wasn't included about how long people are starting to stay. I think it's called stay time. 02:03:00.757 --> 02:03:07.334 - I don't director Cooper Smith would know more about it than I do where we're looking at cell phone pings 02:03:07.334 --> 02:03:13.848 - and folks are staying longer when it's when cars aren't on it. So they're going that sort of you assume 02:03:13.848 --> 02:03:20.425 - from that they're going to multiple spots instead of going to Nixon eating and leaving. So I think there 02:03:20.425 --> 02:03:23.870 - are other things to be considered I guess that weren't 02:03:24.770 --> 02:03:33.627 - the memo Also conversations with DBI and the downtown Kirkwood Association that at least I've had Thank 02:03:33.627 --> 02:03:42.314 - you It sounds like now there are more conversations happening between the council and the staff about 02:03:42.314 --> 02:03:51.683 - the best way forward Do you feel good about the timeline it sounds like I know on our end it feels compressed 02:03:51.683 --> 02:03:53.982 - the way we're receiving it 02:03:55.170 --> 02:04:02.637 - There's always an option to do something again temporary in the service of doing something better for 02:04:02.637 --> 02:04:10.031 - the long term as opposed to trying to start something this new and definite plan immediately. Do you 02:04:10.031 --> 02:04:17.351 - feel like this is the right way the options of this year versus next year with more conversation in 02:04:17.351 --> 02:04:22.622 - process. It's up for debate I would say. I mean I really try to come in 02:04:22.722 --> 02:04:30.801 - to draft ordinances and like things that I draft with I don't know a lot of curiosity still so I think 02:04:30.801 --> 02:04:38.802 - a lot of people are involved in this and because this has been in existence for years it doesn't feel 02:04:38.802 --> 02:04:46.646 - new to me it feels like we're moving it from the outdoor dining ordinance and just so we're kind of 02:04:46.646 --> 02:04:51.902 - separating it from outdoor dining and just putting it in title 15. 02:04:52.066 --> 02:04:58.897 - So to me it feels more of a fix than a big change and that doesn't exactly answer your question. Do 02:04:58.897 --> 02:05:05.729 - I think there's enough time before we go on recess. I think there is I think that it wasn't seen as 02:05:05.729 --> 02:05:12.560 - something that needed to be discussed until it became all in council's agenda which is OK. Everyone 02:05:12.560 --> 02:05:19.664 - has been so busy. I mean the PD has taken up an ungodly amount of council hours and staff hours. I know 02:05:19.664 --> 02:05:20.894 - that and that was 02:05:21.666 --> 02:05:28.837 - why this got pushed as well. I mean initially we were looking at trying to close it to cars by little 02:05:28.837 --> 02:05:36.008 - five but the PUD just took over. So that's just kind of a nature of where we are now. And so it could 02:05:36.008 --> 02:05:43.038 - happen or it couldn't happen. I think another question is if it were to pass in this time span does 02:05:43.038 --> 02:05:47.678 - it go into effect soon or does it go into effect in twenty seven. 02:05:50.050 --> 02:05:56.652 - I'll ask a process question maybe to Mr. Seaborg's concern. It sounds like there's another conversation 02:05:56.652 --> 02:06:03.000 - that Mr. Flaherty talks about, which is what's the right amount of code to have in Title 15? Should 02:06:03.000 --> 02:06:09.539 - we be removing that? And this is suggesting adding some new specifics at the point we're talking about 02:06:09.539 --> 02:06:16.204 - removing them. I know there's a distinction sometimes between policy, which is high level, and procedure 02:06:16.204 --> 02:06:17.918 - details, and some of these 02:06:18.050 --> 02:06:24.539 - Like to me the name of a street or the section of a sidewalk of the detail So I guess I have some concern 02:06:24.539 --> 02:06:30.845 - about what's the right amount to add to the title 15 Yeah, that's one of the questions on my mind that 02:06:30.845 --> 02:06:36.967 - I don't honestly have a good answer for I think as at meetings like this in the past every month it 02:06:36.967 --> 02:06:43.518 - feels like Commissioner Flaherty at these meetings will ask what's the the latest on those discussions and 02:06:43.618 --> 02:06:50.254 - And I think essentially for the title 15 discussion we're just looking for I'm looking forward to our 02:06:50.254 --> 02:06:56.955 - council legal team in the city administrative legal team to work together on it and happy to be a part 02:06:56.955 --> 02:07:03.785 - of it. And and some of those things are more detailed like how many feet from an intersection to another 02:07:03.785 --> 02:07:08.990 - is always there is no parking. This is a bigger picture policy thing but is it. 02:07:09.538 --> 02:07:17.176 - Where does it land on that I couldn't definitively say because we haven't had that chance to get into 02:07:17.176 --> 02:07:24.739 - those weeds yet. Thank you. Mr. Sasberg will go to Mr. Coppock. Well I've got some questions just on 02:07:24.739 --> 02:07:32.227 - this kind of information that's available like how much is this used date during the daytime on the 02:07:32.227 --> 02:07:37.918 - weekends. I mean even during the weekdays if the whole roads closed off how 02:07:38.434 --> 02:07:44.992 - How much use is there I mean people eat breakfast at uptown and Monday at 9 a.m. or I mean you know 02:07:44.992 --> 02:07:51.680 - how many of these stores are actually our businesses are in favor of closing down the street. Is that 02:07:51.680 --> 02:07:58.304 - that data that's available. I mean I would encourage you as responses from everybody but I know that 02:07:58.304 --> 02:08:04.993 - there's been surveys of businesses done. I suspect that you're going to hear that restaurants tend to 02:08:04.993 --> 02:08:07.550 - favor it. Non restaurants tend not to. 02:08:07.746 --> 02:08:14.775 - I their their experts here in the room Yeah, I mean, I think that's an excellent question obviously 02:08:14.775 --> 02:08:22.016 - and can bring that we have information from the outreach that we did prior to the February meeting and 02:08:22.016 --> 02:08:29.115 - I can share that Reshare that with councilmember Rosenberger. The other tool that we have is is from 02:08:29.115 --> 02:08:35.934 - Placer AI and it uses cell phone data to You know according to a footprint that you draw to show 02:08:36.066 --> 02:08:43.077 - many phones are in that space for how long where do they go where do they come from and The dwell time 02:08:43.077 --> 02:08:49.951 - is included in the memo and we can share that and I'd also be more than willing to just sit with you 02:08:49.951 --> 02:08:56.826 - if you Or any of the other council members want to look at that tool Drama, you know, like we can do 02:08:56.826 --> 02:09:03.633 - whatever but we could we could bring any information back to this body that would like to see it We 02:09:03.633 --> 02:09:04.926 - could also include 02:09:05.826 --> 02:09:13.083 - The original memo. I mean there's a lot in there. I understand that council members have questions about 02:09:13.083 --> 02:09:20.201 - some of the way the conclusions were made but there's a lot of information there I guess and the other 02:09:20.201 --> 02:09:27.181 - question I had is so how many parking spaces are lost not necessarily the revenue but Where do those 02:09:27.181 --> 02:09:33.470 - you know how many spaces are there 80 or 50 or where do those people go park at? I suspect 02:09:33.698 --> 02:09:42.464 - Commissioner of Olin would be able to answer that faster than me, but it's included in our Sorry and 02:09:42.464 --> 02:09:51.144 - I take Councilmember Rosen barter's point that there's better or broader Assessment of that. Sorry. 02:09:51.144 --> 02:09:58.782 - I'm just flipping through the memo to see if I can get a number on the parking spots. I 02:10:01.090 --> 02:10:07.676 - It just looks like it's translated to dollar amounts rather than actual spots. But we can you know I 02:10:07.676 --> 02:10:14.458 - think we could look at the full downtown footprint. We could look at number of spots. I don't know what 02:10:14.458 --> 02:10:21.044 - else but we can look at that. I guess the last question I have Andrew for Andrew I guess. How's fire 02:10:21.044 --> 02:10:27.564 - protection provided in that stretch. I mean I know you know you can get an ambulance or a stretcher 02:10:27.564 --> 02:10:30.238 - in there but how do they get in front of 02:10:31.362 --> 02:10:38.307 - You know busker chumlee or someplace like that. Yeah, I know In the past when the various blocks have 02:10:38.307 --> 02:10:45.592 - been closed there's been some intentionality about making sure like if outdoor dining is out there There's 02:10:45.592 --> 02:10:52.741 - at least X number of feet of free and clear width that can accommodate What fire needs? And that's there 02:10:52.741 --> 02:11:00.094 - are the bollards are in place and there's a plan for them to be able to access it through those bollards so 02:11:00.450 --> 02:11:08.846 - They've definitely been coordinated with they I think EMS providers certainly prefer the road to be 02:11:08.846 --> 02:11:17.325 - open But if it is closed, it's been closed and they've had a plan in place I just wanted to chime in 02:11:17.325 --> 02:11:23.454 - based on the question I'm taking from the 2018 parking commission report 02:11:24.002 --> 02:11:33.089 - 100 East Kirkwood had 16 spots 200 had 16 300 East Kirkwood had 18 spots 400 East Kirkwood had 23 and 02:11:33.089 --> 02:11:42.265 - 500 East Kirkwood has 14 now So that's 87 spots over the five blocks Not all of which have been closed 02:11:42.265 --> 02:11:47.966 - in a given time I also would point out that the net revenue for 02:11:48.546 --> 02:11:55.475 - The three blocks that had typically been closed one hundred four hundred five hundred in 2018 was close 02:11:55.475 --> 02:12:02.270 - to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. So if it was only eighty thousand four gone in revenue I'm 02:12:02.270 --> 02:12:09.199 - going to be interested to know how that number was arrived at. But let's there's more questions I think 02:12:09.199 --> 02:12:16.128 - any other first round questions. Second round question Mr. Stossberg just to reply on the parking spots 02:12:16.128 --> 02:12:18.526 - case I think another useful lens is 02:12:18.914 --> 02:12:24.602 - Uh, business revenue to the will and to the extent they're willing to share during these different 02:12:24.602 --> 02:12:30.578 - experiments because I know some places have found that when they take out parking spots, they have bike 02:12:30.578 --> 02:12:36.324 - parking or other amenities that their sales go up. So it's actually good for sales. So just because 02:12:36.324 --> 02:12:42.357 - we're losing bark parking spots doesn't necessarily mean we're losing, uh, business revenue, but that's, 02:12:42.357 --> 02:12:46.494 - that's what, at this point, I believe we would have data for, for that. 02:12:49.826 --> 02:12:58.309 - We asked businesses to describe the impact on their operations, and we wouldn't ask them to share actual 02:12:58.309 --> 02:13:06.549 - sales data, of course, since it would be in the public record. And it was mixed, I think. Restaurants 02:13:06.549 --> 02:13:15.678 - largely benefited from it, and I think banks, the churches struggled with it. Sorry, I'm just summarizing what I 02:13:15.810 --> 02:13:25.836 - what I recall from memory, but yeah, it's mixed is where it's at. And then interestingly, CVS reported 02:13:25.836 --> 02:13:35.959 - no difference in sales, which I thought was, I don't know. I just thought that was an interesting item. 02:13:35.959 --> 02:13:45.790 - Okay, further questions before we go to the public for comment. Again, this is a kind of an informal 02:13:46.850 --> 02:13:54.601 - Conversation we we have to decide what we want to do about it, but let's open up to the public If there's 02:13:54.601 --> 02:14:01.986 - a member of the public, there's no one in the chamber but is there a member of the public online who 02:14:01.986 --> 02:14:09.664 - would like to speak on the question of Ordinance 2612 which is Working its way through the process which 02:14:09.664 --> 02:14:16.830 - is we're considering considering please speak now I Have a pulver so who should be able to unmute 02:14:17.954 --> 02:14:23.989 - Okay, please state your name. You'll have three minutes. Well, thank you, Paul Russo. I was going to 02:14:23.989 --> 02:14:30.144 - speak about this at the council meeting, but I'll speak now. I strongly support the proposed ordinance 02:14:30.144 --> 02:14:36.238 - and I thank the council members Rosenberger and Daley very much for introducing this. In my view, the 02:14:36.238 --> 02:14:42.214 - ordinance reestablishes a closed closure that is not new and therefore a quick timeline is not only 02:14:42.214 --> 02:14:45.022 - appropriate, but necessary. Summer is upon us. 02:14:45.826 --> 02:14:52.966 - Kirkwood should be closed as soon as possible for the sake of continuity with last year. In my view, 02:14:52.966 --> 02:15:00.247 - of all the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, the seasonal closure of Kirkwood was probably the 02:15:00.247 --> 02:15:07.457 - best. I think the closure is forward thinking and it represents Bloomington well. Regarding the exact 02:15:07.457 --> 02:15:09.790 - language of the ordinance, I see 02:15:10.050 --> 02:15:17.050 - That it would allow the city engineer to suspend the closure for up to 90 days on the basis of an emergency. 02:15:17.050 --> 02:15:23.537 - If I've read that right. That's half the summer. That seems excessive to me. I would suggest instead 02:15:23.537 --> 02:15:30.344 - that 15 days would be more appropriate for any emergency because two weeks would reach the next scheduled 02:15:30.344 --> 02:15:36.638 - city council meeting at which time the city engineer could make the case for a longer suspension. 02:15:37.954 --> 02:15:45.011 - In the unlikely event that a lengthy emergency occurred during a schedule scheduled summer recess of 02:15:45.011 --> 02:15:52.208 - the council Then I suppose the council would need to convene an emergency meeting That's all I've got. 02:15:52.208 --> 02:15:59.265 - Thanks for letting me input Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else online who would like 02:15:59.265 --> 02:16:07.230 - to comment on? the discussion over a potential ordinance 2612 No other takers online last call for public comment 02:16:08.482 --> 02:16:16.668 - Let's come back to the commission. So again, the question before us isn't what should the city policy 02:16:16.668 --> 02:16:24.693 - be? The question is how do we want to address it? If at all, uh, in order to, if, if the ordinance, 02:16:24.693 --> 02:16:32.719 - uh, uh, goes on the track that council member Rosenberger said, we would have to schedule a special 02:16:32.719 --> 02:16:37.534 - session to have input on it before, uh, it goes to council. 02:16:38.018 --> 02:16:45.624 - We don't have to have input on it. I am glad that it's been brought before us And I'm grateful to everyone 02:16:45.624 --> 02:16:52.946 - for being willing to address it But having said that what thoughts do commissioners have mr. Drumming? 02:16:52.946 --> 02:17:00.054 - I Question a rhetorical question I guess has is there any compromise and could it be made a one-way 02:17:00.054 --> 02:17:06.878 - like a one-lane one-way and have it partially closed but to answer your question I I think it's 02:17:07.074 --> 02:17:14.741 - My thought is this far enough along with the people that get paid to make these decisions that I don't 02:17:14.741 --> 02:17:22.407 - think I'm not dying to provide input on it if the world the group is we should provide input I'm fine, 02:17:22.407 --> 02:17:29.851 - but I'm I'm fine not providing input on it as commission Other thoughts mr. Midas I think the major 02:17:29.851 --> 02:17:35.582 - feedback I hear from that group is just like consistency like year-over-year 02:17:35.874 --> 02:17:41.379 - I feel like it's almost that they don't really care which which way the decision goes but just that 02:17:41.379 --> 02:17:46.994 - they really value that whatever it is remains the same year after year so that they can either invest 02:17:46.994 --> 02:17:52.664 - make real true investments in infrastructure for the street or or not and make other plans for it. And 02:17:52.664 --> 02:17:58.169 - then also I'll just mention Bloomington Transit when we used to go down Kirkwood and I believe back 02:17:58.169 --> 02:18:04.004 - in 2021 we removed all of our routes from the street in anticipation of the street being regularly closed 02:18:04.004 --> 02:18:04.830 - and we have no 02:18:05.122 --> 02:18:10.856 - plans to ever really go back to the street for that reason. So that's in our head it's kind of an awful 02:18:10.856 --> 02:18:16.755 - mistreating way doesn't really affect us too much. Last year we ran the summer shuttle because of concerns 02:18:16.755 --> 02:18:22.213 - about like lack of parking and like lack of accessibility and the shuttle just went like extremely 02:18:22.213 --> 02:18:28.002 - underutilized. And we saw especially from some of the different festivals on the events that on Kirkwood 02:18:28.002 --> 02:18:33.571 - that parking limited parking was not a reason that kept people from from Kirkwood. People went there 02:18:33.571 --> 02:18:34.398 - when there was 02:18:34.626 --> 02:18:41.357 - things to do there. They they found parking just fine. They walk there just fine. So further thoughts 02:18:41.357 --> 02:18:48.021 - Mr. Stossberg. I see this through some different lenses. One is as most people have pointed out this 02:18:48.021 --> 02:18:54.752 - isn't new. We've been talking about Kirkwood when to open it and close it for years. And in some ways 02:18:54.752 --> 02:19:01.548 - I think it's fair to consider it as something that predates the Transportation Commission as something 02:19:01.548 --> 02:19:03.198 - that's been talked about 02:19:03.970 --> 02:19:10.090 - before. The other lens is it's very much an interdisciplinary question. It is not simply a transportation 02:19:10.090 --> 02:19:15.864 - question, very much also a business question, a community question. And to me, it's less clear what 02:19:15.864 --> 02:19:22.042 - the role of the Transportation Commission should be. I don't feel comfortable just making a recommendation 02:19:22.042 --> 02:19:28.046 - about the transportation piece because it's much more than that. It has to do with the, we're impacting 02:19:28.046 --> 02:19:32.030 - the lives of, it sounds like if we go with this, the businesses that 02:19:32.386 --> 02:19:39.659 - There may change over time more the type that are successful will appear and some of those that are 02:19:39.659 --> 02:19:47.296 - less successful may move It's a big question for our community and not just one for transportation given 02:19:47.296 --> 02:19:54.787 - that and the timeline goals Yeah I guess my question is like What role should we play here? Okay. Well 02:19:54.787 --> 02:20:01.406 - Did you have a okay, let me weigh in here as a veteran of the Parking Commission I did not 02:20:01.858 --> 02:20:11.055 - to this commission primarily because I was concerned about safety. Not that I'm not concerned about 02:20:11.055 --> 02:20:20.988 - safety, simply that that's my super villain origin story. So as far as parking goes, like I had a immediate 02:20:20.988 --> 02:20:26.782 - question about the cited $80,000 as a loss of parking revenue. 02:20:28.290 --> 02:20:37.682 - There's just so many problems with that phrase in my head like we don't we certainly shouldn't be and 02:20:37.682 --> 02:20:47.350 - I like to think we don't make policy based on whether or not we can make money off of parking. I pointed 02:20:47.350 --> 02:20:56.926 - out back in 2017 that the overall system of parking the garages the lots the parking meters residential 02:20:57.250 --> 02:21:04.316 - neighborhood programs barely breaks even when you add up all the revenue from meters and the lesser 02:21:04.316 --> 02:21:11.947 - revenue from garages and lots That our system only started paying for itself when the meters were installed 02:21:11.947 --> 02:21:19.295 - Okay, so for all this time we've been sort of been at this equilibrium where the the the public parking 02:21:19.295 --> 02:21:26.078 - that the city of Bloomington offers Breaks even or roughly so maybe loses a little bit of money 02:21:26.242 --> 02:21:35.090 - We're talking about several million dollars a year, four, five, six million dollars a year. And that's 02:21:35.090 --> 02:21:43.766 - how much it costs to provide it. So let's not have any illusions about the revenue from meters being 02:21:43.766 --> 02:21:52.442 - somehow, I mean, I think some revenue is used for other things, but that was what the commission was 02:21:52.442 --> 02:21:56.222 - trying to establish was to what extent does 02:21:56.642 --> 02:22:05.291 - Offering parking cost the city So that's an important question and there are other veterans of the Parking 02:22:05.291 --> 02:22:13.697 - Commission on this body. They're they're not here today, but I Don't want to make policy based on Well, 02:22:13.697 --> 02:22:22.750 - we lost money on that's not how parking even works one thing I want to get is the total amount of revenue for a 02:22:23.106 --> 02:22:32.052 - 2025 we don't have it handy in 2024 there was almost 2.9 million dollars in parking meter revenue if 02:22:32.052 --> 02:22:40.909 - The figure for 2025 is anywhere close to that. I think that the $80,000 question is Should not have 02:22:40.909 --> 02:22:51.006 - been a primary reason for arguing whether to close or open Kirkwood But yes, this is a commercial issue it's also 02:22:51.266 --> 02:23:01.076 - We have to weigh the commercial concerns With the right of people to get around so there are regularly 02:23:01.076 --> 02:23:11.458 - people who are elderly or Disabled who express their dismay at a street closure because they have difficulty 02:23:11.458 --> 02:23:20.030 - getting to a place on Kirkwood they were accustomed to I take their concern seriously and 02:23:20.802 --> 02:23:28.997 - And for a long time I've asked a similar question to why is it that we can't squeeze drive lane to an 02:23:28.997 --> 02:23:37.271 - inch of its life to allow cars to go through at five miles an hour 10 miles an hour that would satisfy 02:23:37.271 --> 02:23:45.546 - a problem like that. If we're talking about a citywide speed limit of as low as 20 miles an hour which 02:23:45.546 --> 02:23:46.430 - I've heard 02:23:46.818 --> 02:23:54.947 - Is is something that is being considered at levels above us? This dovetails with that goal Would it 02:23:54.947 --> 02:24:03.483 - cost more an infrastructure to build like I I was I asked this question when I was on City Council Can't 02:24:03.483 --> 02:24:11.775 - we just leave one lane open? Can't we put Jersey barriers up to block one lane off and the answer was 02:24:11.775 --> 02:24:16.734 - it was just way too much in material and an effort to do and 02:24:17.154 --> 02:24:26.531 - I think we would have to I mean I I sort of still favor that idea but I don't know enough to really 02:24:26.531 --> 02:24:36.847 - you know weigh in on it. I think we definitely need more information. I think this topic should be discussed. 02:24:36.847 --> 02:24:42.942 - I'd like to see it discussed as soon as possible but I'm open to 02:24:43.138 --> 02:24:51.591 - the pleasure of commissioners as to how quickly we'd like to take it up. I mean, we're gonna have, if 02:24:51.591 --> 02:24:59.961 - we want an opportunity to meaningfully impact the legislation, we need to have a special session. If 02:24:59.961 --> 02:25:08.330 - we want to take up an inquiry, we perhaps can, you know, take our time to do that. So I think that's 02:25:08.330 --> 02:25:13.054 - sort of where I see the commission. And I know that the, 02:25:13.602 --> 02:25:21.797 - The two other parking commissioners former parking commissioners Would have a great interest in this 02:25:21.797 --> 02:25:29.910 - discussion, but it's up to us to decide whether we want to what effort we want to make With that is 02:25:29.910 --> 02:25:38.267 - there further thought any feedback for me or for others? Anybody want to make a motion what do we want 02:25:38.267 --> 02:25:41.918 - to do I Try not to make motions on the chair 02:25:42.498 --> 02:25:48.747 - I don't want to make motions for people I could do it, but I'd rather come from somebody else Any thoughts 02:25:48.747 --> 02:25:54.937 - I have people to my left I'm in favor of a wait and see because it's gonna come to council I Mean because 02:25:54.937 --> 02:26:00.893 - the point is that we can offer the deliberation session They may not be able to schedule and they may 02:26:00.893 --> 02:26:06.383 - ask what does the Transportation Commission think? That's why I thought we should perhaps act 02:26:06.383 --> 02:26:11.230 - more expeditiously. Okay, I think in this case I'll look to you to make the motion 02:26:12.674 --> 02:26:21.577 - Okay, yeah, I'll do it Okay, well then I'm ready to make a motion to schedule a meeting for June 1 because 02:26:21.577 --> 02:26:30.064 - that gives us some time To to react it doesn't give staff a lot of time To to get ready We could also 02:26:30.064 --> 02:26:38.801 - do a meeting on June 8th and either one ought to give us the opportunity to weigh in meaningfully before 02:26:38.801 --> 02:26:42.046 - the likely final meeting June 10th and 02:26:42.242 --> 02:26:51.481 - I have Ryan Roebling. We have a planning session on June 8th already planned. Really? Yeah. Well, that's 02:26:51.481 --> 02:27:00.280 - convenient. Can we make it a double any any issues with that? Not from staff's point of view. Okay. 02:27:00.280 --> 02:27:09.342 - Let me ask staff over here. Would a June 8th meeting give you enough time to prepare if we were to put 02:27:09.342 --> 02:27:11.102 - this on our docket? 02:27:12.418 --> 02:27:19.095 - a case I Can only speak for myself. I'd certainly legal is a key part of it I certainly want legal to 02:27:19.095 --> 02:27:25.641 - have a chance to weigh in and yeah, June 8th is also a planned Commission meeting So I who June 8th 02:27:25.641 --> 02:27:32.318 - is a planned Commission meeting. Oh, so this room will be used for that and I will be at that meeting 02:27:32.318 --> 02:27:39.061 - So if you want my attendance, I will probably not be here. Will we be in McCloskey? Okay Thank you for 02:27:39.061 --> 02:27:42.334 - that. Mr. Seabor. Miss Cooper Smith I'm available 02:27:42.498 --> 02:27:48.690 - I'll do my best to prepare kind of some of the data points that you all talked about today and that 02:27:48.690 --> 02:27:54.635 - councilmember Rosenberger's as discussed so Do my best great. Thank you. Mr. Seabor maybe Maybe 02:27:54.635 --> 02:28:01.261 - a representative from engineering could attend in your stead I don't think it requires you there. Although 02:28:01.261 --> 02:28:07.578 - I you know, I know you want to weigh in on this Yeah, I'd love to be there. But certainly if there is 02:28:07.578 --> 02:28:12.222 - a meeting we will do all that we can to support that meeting and I imagine 02:28:12.354 --> 02:28:18.774 - Other departments impacted Would try their best as well. Okay. So, all right. Thank you that that helps 02:28:18.774 --> 02:28:25.010 - I Don't know what motion I need to make here I think that if we already have a meeting scheduled, we 02:28:25.010 --> 02:28:31.183 - don't need to schedule a special meeting We can just put it on the agenda or what you yeah that you 02:28:31.183 --> 02:28:34.270 - will need to that would be not a planning session 02:28:34.722 --> 02:28:41.537 - You would need if it would need to fall under regular hearing so you would need a special session a 02:28:41.537 --> 02:28:48.489 - vote to have a special session. Okay. And do you care whether we do this before or after the planning 02:28:48.489 --> 02:28:55.304 - session? Yes, because we will have consultants coming in or well zooming in at 530. How long do you 02:28:55.304 --> 02:29:02.119 - anticipate the planning session to be? Is it an hour or more? The plan is for an hour. I would give 02:29:02.119 --> 02:29:03.550 - it some wiggle room. 02:29:03.650 --> 02:29:12.181 - Maybe and I would give it a little bit of way over maybe 90 minutes just to be safe. Okay So if we were 02:29:12.181 --> 02:29:20.547 - to propose a special session for June 8th at 7 p.m You would find that acceptable Okay, any other I'm 02:29:20.547 --> 02:29:28.011 - gonna make a motion here I'm gonna make a motion to call a special session of the planning 02:29:28.011 --> 02:29:30.718 - of the Transportation Commission 02:29:31.074 --> 02:29:44.915 - June 8th at 7 p.m. Immediately to follow the planning session At 530 on which the question of ordinance 02:29:44.915 --> 02:29:59.422 - 2612 will be the primary Item on the agenda is there a second for this motion Does nobody want a second Okay 02:30:01.538 --> 02:30:17.387 - You couldn't you can bind your fellow commissioners they won't resent you Yes, okay, we have a motion 02:30:17.387 --> 02:30:29.662 - in the second can we have a roll call vote Mr. Minus, yes Vaughn yes Jimmy yes 02:30:32.002 --> 02:30:43.581 - Strasburg? Yes. Coppock? Yes. Okay, so we are going to present this as a, this is a resolution, right, 02:30:43.581 --> 02:30:54.935 - Mr. Obling? I'm sorry, I was not paying attention. What was the question? Well, in order to weigh in 02:30:54.935 --> 02:31:01.118 - on the ordinance, we have to have a resolution, right? 02:31:01.250 --> 02:31:09.447 - Oh, you would like. Yeah, we can bring it forward as a resolution. Sorry. Yes. Okay. So it'll be in 02:31:09.447 --> 02:31:17.972 - the form of resolution. It'll be the case we take up at the special session on June 8th at 7 p.m. Thank 02:31:17.972 --> 02:31:26.579 - you all for that. Thanks. I'm trying. I really am. Okay. Is there any other comment on this issue before 02:31:26.579 --> 02:31:29.694 - we move on to the rest of the agenda? 02:31:31.970 --> 02:31:38.087 - Okay, thank you all. Let's go now to general public comment on items not on the docket. We did have 02:31:38.087 --> 02:31:44.326 - a written public comment submitted by Paul Rousseau on parking on Grant Street that's in your packet. 02:31:44.326 --> 02:31:50.688 - There's nobody else in chambers who wants to make public comment. Is there anyone online who would like 02:31:50.688 --> 02:31:56.988 - to speak to the Transportation Commission on an item that we have not already discussed? If so, please 02:31:56.988 --> 02:32:00.414 - raise your hand and zoom and you'll have three minutes. 02:32:07.938 --> 02:32:16.369 - Is there anyone on zoom who would like to speak final call? All right. I think that's it. There's no 02:32:16.369 --> 02:32:24.883 - other business. This meeting is adjourned and we will reconvene June 8th at 530 in the McCloskey room 02:32:24.883 --> 02:32:33.982 - for a planning session followed immediately by a special session at 7 p.m. In the McCloskey room. Thank you.