WEBVTT 00:00:01.122 --> 00:00:13.317 - Without further ado We'll call this meeting to order. This is the October Regular hearing of the city 00:00:13.317 --> 00:00:25.750 - of Bloomington Transportation Commission Will the secretary please call the roll? Copics here Sir Midas 00:00:25.750 --> 00:00:30.174 - here Binder here Jimmy here Flaherty 00:00:31.330 --> 00:00:46.240 - Stasburg here And falling also here Okay, we have a quorum Let's now recapitulate the agenda. We'll 00:00:46.240 --> 00:01:00.702 - have reports and commission communications from commissioners and reports from staff including a 00:01:00.866 --> 00:01:08.918 - outstanding action list review communication of the office of the mayor on boards and Commission's 00:01:08.918 --> 00:01:17.866 - appreciation event from the Metropolitan Planning Organization about the 2028 2032 transportation improvement 00:01:17.866 --> 00:01:26.487 - program recording in progress Staff report on speed feedback signage on hillside and at water and 180-day 00:01:26.487 --> 00:01:27.870 - order update and 00:01:28.418 --> 00:01:34.916 - We will be hearing two cases TCP 26 20 approving the traffic calming and greenways project selection 00:01:34.916 --> 00:01:41.414 - for Rogers Road and TCR 26 21 many title 15 of the Bloomington Municipal Code to define and regulate 00:01:41.414 --> 00:01:48.040 - micro Mobility devices and so-called emotes. We will then go to discussion of topics not on the docket 00:01:48.040 --> 00:01:52.158 - We will go to general public comment on items not on the docket 00:01:52.258 --> 00:02:00.631 - Within we will adjourn. I would like to actually move if there is no objection to switch sections 5 00:02:00.631 --> 00:02:09.171 - and section 4 so that if there's any public comment that comes in the meeting that members would like 00:02:09.171 --> 00:02:17.712 - to Discuss today we can do so Is there a motion or is there a second for my motion? Second all right, 00:02:17.712 --> 00:02:21.982 - let's discuss it staff. Do you have any questions? 00:02:22.114 --> 00:02:33.301 - about this Sorry, who was the second on that? I Don't foresee any consequences for switching sections 00:02:33.301 --> 00:02:44.927 - four and five any concerns from any commissioners Okay, can we please have a roll call vote on the motion 00:02:44.927 --> 00:02:48.766 - to swap sections five and four and 00:02:52.418 --> 00:03:05.151 - Yes, mr. Midas, yes binder. Yes Bone. Yes drummy. Yes clarity. Yes Stossburg. Yes Okay, that seems to 00:03:05.151 --> 00:03:17.885 - be approved so we will do that at that point let's go now to reports and communications are there any 00:03:17.885 --> 00:03:21.630 - reports from commissioners or 00:03:22.050 --> 00:03:30.035 - My left anything we should know about what's been happening in your part of the transportation world 00:03:30.035 --> 00:03:37.942 - To my left Seeing none we'll go to reports from staff. Let's start with the recurring staff liaison 00:03:37.942 --> 00:03:46.006 - report Who's here to present that I? Suppose I can be the sacrificial lamb It's not that bad is it it 00:03:46.006 --> 00:03:50.750 - hasn't become that bad No, I don't think so. All right good 00:03:51.138 --> 00:03:58.863 - but I simply call attention to how many keyboards are in front of me and how very likely it is that 00:03:58.863 --> 00:04:06.898 - I will be distracted this evening and Fumbling for my laptop and I apologize in advance. So you'll note 00:04:06.898 --> 00:04:14.623 - that for our report we have largely regurgitated the text of last month's report adding some Strike 00:04:14.623 --> 00:04:20.958 - throughs through items that we believe will be removed by the next meeting unless 00:04:21.058 --> 00:04:30.358 - There's been perhaps some miscommunication or people have different expectations about where certain 00:04:30.358 --> 00:04:39.657 - items are sort of in the pipeline of action and Other items have been updated since our last meeting 00:04:39.657 --> 00:04:50.430 - and I regret that I will have to add our February 20 26 regular hearing meeting minutes as to our outstanding column 00:04:50.690 --> 00:05:00.006 - I was trying to get that done before this meeting and Time was not on my side. So I apologize for that 00:05:00.006 --> 00:05:09.412 - And I'm happy to try to field any questions on this Okay, are there any questions about this staff memo 00:05:09.412 --> 00:05:16.286 - to my left To my right Can I just first ask who is the author of the memo I 00:05:16.962 --> 00:05:24.801 - It is a joint authorship between Andrew Seabor, myself, Ryan Robling, and John Garzi. Well, I mean, 00:05:24.801 --> 00:05:32.876 - I see that there, but presumably the person, like, who is our contact person? Is it you? It may be us, 00:05:32.876 --> 00:05:40.794 - me, or it may be any one of us. We tend to collaborate on the management of these items and tracking 00:05:40.794 --> 00:05:46.046 - where they're at. This is something that we talk about every month 00:05:46.242 --> 00:05:54.485 - in a sort of internal staff check-in meeting where we're preparing for the next upcoming agenda. And 00:05:54.485 --> 00:06:02.809 - we also have some, we have a shared Google Drive where these items are also being tracked and sort of 00:06:02.809 --> 00:06:11.460 - monitored. Okay. I guess I have other questions but I can talk about that at our next scheduling meeting. 00:06:11.460 --> 00:06:14.398 - So, okay. Thank you for the report. 00:06:14.818 --> 00:06:21.103 - Let's move on to the next item, which is communications from the office of the mayor about the appreciation 00:06:21.103 --> 00:06:27.213 - event who's here to speak for that I'm happy to facilitate this report as well this was a Correspondence 00:06:27.213 --> 00:06:33.207 - that we received via email that I just wanted to make sure all commissioners were aware of I know that 00:06:33.207 --> 00:06:39.375 - sometimes things get buried There is a boards and commissions. It's I believe it's an annual appreciation 00:06:39.375 --> 00:06:42.110 - event scheduled for Tuesday, November 17th and 00:06:42.242 --> 00:06:50.453 - from 530 to 7 it is a drop-in event Your formal address is optional it is mostly just an opportunity 00:06:50.453 --> 00:06:59.071 - to shake hands and Touch base with folks also doing boards and commissions not necessarily Transportation 00:06:59.071 --> 00:07:07.608 - Commission. It's open to all board and commission members Any questions from members Seeing none. Thanks 00:07:07.608 --> 00:07:11.998 - for that. Let's go on to the next report from the MPO 00:07:12.706 --> 00:07:21.145 - I'm also happy to present this one on behalf of the Bloomington Monroe County Metropolitan Planning 00:07:21.145 --> 00:07:30.007 - Organization or BMC MPO They circulated a press release with the Through the office of the mayor earlier 00:07:30.007 --> 00:07:39.206 - this month and I felt it was important to include in our pack of materials so that folks have an opportunity 00:07:39.206 --> 00:07:41.822 - if they have not learned about 00:07:42.018 --> 00:07:50.677 - the upcoming TIP transportation improvement program plan if they haven't been sort of exposed to this 00:07:50.677 --> 00:07:58.741 - part of the process. This particular item is something that contributes greatly to the funding 00:07:58.741 --> 00:08:07.314 - of transportation projects that we hear at the commission. So this is sort of a very early view into 00:08:07.314 --> 00:08:09.182 - some of that process. 00:08:09.314 --> 00:08:17.099 - That is fielded by another organization, but if you have any other questions or you'd like to provide 00:08:17.099 --> 00:08:24.884 - feedback more importantly They are welcoming feedback Online in person and through the Postal Service 00:08:24.884 --> 00:08:32.745 - if you would like to mail a letter Pat Martin would be very happy to receive it Thank you for that are 00:08:32.745 --> 00:08:37.630 - there questions from commissioners to my left To my right, okay 00:08:37.794 --> 00:08:46.876 - This one I would like to ask since we are the Transportation Commission Should we not be getting a full 00:08:46.876 --> 00:08:55.872 - presentation from the MPO? from Pat Martin for the public for the tip I believe that this part of this 00:08:55.872 --> 00:09:04.867 - is the public engagement period so once it is But perhaps to your question, I'll ask Pat. I think it's 00:09:04.867 --> 00:09:06.526 - perfectly valid. I 00:09:07.266 --> 00:09:15.155 - I think it's perfectly valid too, and I'd like to see if we can't schedule an actual presentation of 00:09:15.155 --> 00:09:23.357 - the tip for the Transportation Commission's opinion and feedback In a formal way at the December meeting 00:09:23.357 --> 00:09:31.558 - is that would that be within? Timeliness for their deadline That is a good question. I know that they're 00:09:31.558 --> 00:09:37.182 - planning to adopt they are voting to adopt the plan on December 4th and 00:09:37.826 --> 00:09:48.705 - So it would not be in keeping with our schedule For for review That may be a question that Given that 00:09:48.705 --> 00:09:59.476 - they are also sort of like working within their policy committees or subcommittee structure That may 00:09:59.476 --> 00:10:07.262 - be more of a 2027 Consideration than a 2026 one. I'm just not aware of a 00:10:08.418 --> 00:10:14.544 - Formal requirement to be heard by the Transportation Commission specifically you're not I'm not I'm 00:10:14.544 --> 00:10:21.100 - not familiar with a requirement as part of this part of the process for them to come to the Transportation 00:10:21.100 --> 00:10:27.287 - Commission because the projects contained within it come to the Transportation Commission eventually 00:10:27.287 --> 00:10:33.720 - So the there will be an opportunity to go through the plan in its sort of like piecemeal component parts 00:10:33.720 --> 00:10:35.742 - when projects are being proposed 00:10:37.154 --> 00:10:45.271 - through the moving through the conceptual phase I Frankly find that Disappointing I mean the according 00:10:45.271 --> 00:10:53.546 - to the city I know that they don't have an obligation from the state perspective, but the city certainly 00:10:53.546 --> 00:11:01.505 - Has made at the charge of this Commission to Review anything having to do with transportation and it 00:11:01.505 --> 00:11:05.918 - seems like the most basic thing that we should do is to 00:11:06.210 --> 00:11:13.746 - Have a presentation and have the formula observation of the Commission be put in collectively and not 00:11:13.746 --> 00:11:21.577 - just individual members able to contribute Is there do I? Mean, I don't even know how long a presentation 00:11:21.577 --> 00:11:29.186 - for a tip would require But I mean perhaps we can fit it into the November 16th special meeting I Will 00:11:29.186 --> 00:11:35.614 - consult with staff? Okay, that would be great. I mean we could limit it to an hour but 00:11:37.474 --> 00:11:46.203 - I feel like we won't have any meaningful input if it's not done through a formal process. If you could 00:11:46.203 --> 00:11:54.762 - please inquire, I'd appreciate that. Any other questions or comments on the report? All right, let's 00:11:54.762 --> 00:12:03.575 - move on now to the staff report on speed feedback signage on Hillside and Natwater. That'll be my item. 00:12:03.575 --> 00:12:07.134 - This is John Garzi, the traffic engineer. 00:12:08.130 --> 00:12:16.067 - We installed three speed back signs back in August of 2024 as part of the Hawthorne Weatherstone Greenway 00:12:16.067 --> 00:12:23.705 - Project, two on hillside and one on at water. And these signs show drivers their speeds and encourage 00:12:23.705 --> 00:12:31.192 - them to slow down near the greenway crossings. We have before and after data for the speed feedback 00:12:31.192 --> 00:12:36.958 - signs on hillside. And we found that the average speed for eastbound traffic 00:12:37.122 --> 00:12:44.798 - went from 35 miles per hour to 32 miles per hour and the 85th percentile speed went from 39 to 35 and 00:12:44.798 --> 00:12:52.324 - for westbound the average speed went from 39 to 34 miles per hour and the 85th percentile went from 00:12:52.324 --> 00:13:00.076 - 44 to 38 miles per hour. The 85th percentile speed basically just tells us the speed at which the 85th 00:13:00.076 --> 00:13:02.334 - percent of drivers are going. 00:13:02.946 --> 00:13:10.616 - 85% of vehicles or drivers are going below that speed, and 15% are going above that speed. At water, 00:13:10.616 --> 00:13:18.362 - since it's a one-way street, we only have one. We don't have before installation counts there, but we 00:13:18.362 --> 00:13:26.260 - do have current counts. And we have the average speed showing 29 miles per hour and the 85th percentile 00:13:26.260 --> 00:13:28.158 - being 32 miles per hour. 00:13:32.386 --> 00:13:38.792 - The accounts that we have and the research that we have on this show that they both support reducing 00:13:38.792 --> 00:13:45.516 - the speed that drivers are going at. It's also been showed that once they've been removed that the speeds 00:13:45.516 --> 00:13:51.985 - tend to go back up. And even though the speeds have not been brought down below the speed limit, they 00:13:51.985 --> 00:13:58.455 - have been effective in lowering the speeds. And so what we're recommending is to keep all three signs 00:13:58.455 --> 00:14:01.246 - and continue to collect data until 2027 and 00:14:02.018 --> 00:14:11.990 - Most likely keep them because if we were to remove them, it's likely that the speeds would go back up 00:14:11.990 --> 00:14:21.962 - That's it, thank you Is that the whole report Yes, okay. Thank you Are there questions on this report 00:14:21.962 --> 00:14:31.934 - from members to my right? I want mr. Binder Thank You. Mr. Garzi. Just a quick question about another 00:14:33.026 --> 00:14:41.538 - Dynamic speed feedback sign on hillside at Grant Street for eastbound traffic It is there present installed 00:14:41.538 --> 00:14:49.892 - to my knowledge not operational for some time Is engineering aware of that or is that part of Some future 00:14:49.892 --> 00:14:57.932 - plan to either replace repair remove that speed feedback sign Did you say that's on hillside hillside 00:14:57.932 --> 00:14:59.902 - grant and hillside? Yeah 00:15:00.354 --> 00:15:06.257 - I'm not aware of that speed sign, but we can take a look at that. You said it's not operational I've 00:15:06.257 --> 00:15:12.217 - gone past it a few times in the last, you know year or two and I've never seen it light up. So Chris, 00:15:12.217 --> 00:15:18.120 - okay I'll take a look at that. Okay. Thanks Questions to my left. Mr. Drumming. I have two questions 00:15:18.120 --> 00:15:24.081 - actually Is are the results that we're finding in line with the I assume there's published literature 00:15:24.081 --> 00:15:28.990 - on these signs throughout the country And is this what most communities are seeing? 00:15:29.954 --> 00:15:35.352 - That's correct. And then my other question I've noticed and I don't think in Bloomington but in other 00:15:35.352 --> 00:15:40.644 - communities I've been in Not that I've ever sped but I've heard that people that do speed sometimes 00:15:40.644 --> 00:15:45.937 - get a red light Sometimes it'd be red and blue flashing like kind of like stimulating police slight 00:15:45.937 --> 00:15:51.388 - Is there a reason we don't have those or those any more effective or less effective than what we have? 00:15:51.388 --> 00:15:53.822 - I'm not aware of that. Are you aware when I'm 00:15:54.018 --> 00:16:03.272 - Not aware of what I'm asking about or not. I understand what you're talking about. I'm not sure why 00:16:03.272 --> 00:16:12.710 - we have our signs with the colors that they use Thank you Questions online mr. Flaherty Okay I'd like 00:16:12.710 --> 00:16:22.334 - to ask about At water mr. Garzi We don't have data from 2023 but the data since 2024 September 24 shows 00:16:23.330 --> 00:16:31.520 - speeds generally having increased from 27 mean speed and a 30 85th percent percentile to 29 and 32 Does 00:16:31.520 --> 00:16:39.473 - that concern you at all? Can you repeat that he said that speeds have increased looking at the chart 00:16:39.473 --> 00:16:47.584 - here table six eastbound on an at water September 10 24 Mean speed of 27 miles an hour 85th percentile 00:16:47.584 --> 00:16:52.702 - speed 30 miles an hour by September 20 26 is 29.1 mean speed and 00:16:53.218 --> 00:17:01.975 - and 32 miles an hour, 85th percentile speed. And all the two data points between them are also higher 00:17:01.975 --> 00:17:10.646 - than September 2024. What do you say to that? You're asking if I'm concerned about that? Yes, sir. I 00:17:10.646 --> 00:17:18.974 - would say increasing speeds is a concern because it could lead to higher severity of collisions. 00:17:19.874 --> 00:17:27.797 - But I'm not aware like what's causing that site. It's hard for me to connect my concern for the speed 00:17:27.797 --> 00:17:35.564 - just increasing to what might have been causing it Okay, thank you any other questions Mr. Drummond 00:17:35.564 --> 00:17:43.410 - approximately how much do these devices cost per location? That's a good question, I don't have that 00:17:43.410 --> 00:17:46.206 - data with me I can find that though 00:17:51.650 --> 00:17:58.993 - Seeing no further questions, thank you for the report. Let's move on now to the 180-day order update. 00:17:58.993 --> 00:18:06.264 - Who's here to present? That'll also be me, John Garzi, the traffic engineer. So for an update on the 00:18:06.264 --> 00:18:13.535 - 180-day orders, we have a new order for Kirkwood and Rogers to add a temporary always stop as we are 00:18:13.535 --> 00:18:18.142 - doing construction at this intersection to replace the signals. 00:18:18.978 --> 00:18:27.317 - The effective date for this is October 5th until October 31st. We have a couple other orders that are 00:18:27.317 --> 00:18:35.493 - being extended. I'd say about five of them. These have all been brought up in the past, but there's 00:18:35.493 --> 00:18:43.995 - one for Hopewell East as we have added some new streets there. Parking on 1st Street, on-street parking 00:18:43.995 --> 00:18:47.838 - on North Illinois Street between 12th to 15th. 00:18:48.770 --> 00:19:00.403 - on street parking on West 8th Street between Rogers to Fairview, and then stop control at North Prow 00:19:00.403 --> 00:19:12.843 - and Acuff. That's all for me. Thank you. Are there questions? To my right. To my left. Seeing no questions, 00:19:12.843 --> 00:19:15.838 - thank you for the report. 00:19:17.090 --> 00:19:27.471 - Let's move on now to cases who's presenting TCP 26 20 Alternative transportation coordinate I think 00:19:27.471 --> 00:19:38.267 - David that Ryan wanted me to read a clarifying memo before we get started with this case in recognition 00:19:38.267 --> 00:19:45.534 - of the fact that TCP 26 20 was heard last month and I think I'll just 00:19:46.594 --> 00:19:52.621 - Read it straight here At our previous meeting a motion concerning the petition received four votes in 00:19:52.621 --> 00:19:58.529 - favor and one vote against But the petition was erroneously considered disposed under article 2a of 00:19:58.529 --> 00:20:04.438 - the commission's bylaws No action is official without approval by a majority of the full commission 00:20:04.438 --> 00:20:10.641 - irrespective of vacancies was otherwise specified in the municipal code or bylaws with a full commission 00:20:10.641 --> 00:20:12.414 - of nine members at least five 00:20:12.514 --> 00:20:17.750 - Affirmative votes required to take official action only five members were present at the September 28 00:20:17.750 --> 00:20:22.934 - meeting meaning all five members would need to vote in favor of any motion to pass and Staff did not 00:20:22.934 --> 00:20:28.067 - account for this requirement when the vote was conducted and as a result the motion did not receive 00:20:28.067 --> 00:20:33.302 - the affirmative five votes necessary for official action Action and the petition was neither approved 00:20:33.302 --> 00:20:36.382 - nor denied under article 4d of the Commission's bylaws that 00:20:36.482 --> 00:20:41.905 - Commission may make a decision or recommendation of the disposition of any matter it is required to 00:20:41.905 --> 00:20:47.382 - hear through a motion at the conclusion of that matter Because the original motion to approve failed 00:20:47.382 --> 00:20:52.859 - and no alternative disposition motion was adopted That means the matter remains unadjudicated and is 00:20:52.859 --> 00:20:58.444 - considered continued to this meeting as una finished unfinished business, excuse me so we are bringing 00:20:58.444 --> 00:21:03.921 - it back to the Commission to allow for Commissioners to consider the petition and to take a new vote 00:21:03.921 --> 00:21:05.982 - to formally determine its outcome and 00:21:06.274 --> 00:21:11.436 - the Commission may consider the petition and take action in accordance with its bylaws and applicable 00:21:11.436 --> 00:21:16.648 - procedures if Originals believe if members believe the original motion only failed because of the lack 00:21:16.648 --> 00:21:21.809 - of additional members missing information or misunderstanding a member member can move to approve the 00:21:21.809 --> 00:21:27.224 - petition again Alternatively a member may introduce a new motion to approve with refinement considerations 00:21:27.224 --> 00:21:32.538 - refer the matter back to staff or further refinement Considerations or continue the petition to a future 00:21:32.538 --> 00:21:35.422 - meeting. I hope that has been sufficiently clarifying. I 00:21:35.778 --> 00:21:42.683 - But I welcome any questions on it. Let's start there. Does anyone have questions about? How this came 00:21:42.683 --> 00:21:49.790 - back onto the agenda? Everyone understand what we're doing. Mr. Drumming. I have I understand what we're 00:21:49.790 --> 00:21:56.559 - doing. I believe I guess my question is if it if it fails is it just doesn't move forward from that 00:21:56.559 --> 00:22:03.396 - point. I mean What happens if we'd voted down so effectively? What's different about this commission 00:22:03.396 --> 00:22:05.630 - and stop me if I get this wrong? 00:22:05.922 --> 00:22:13.773 - That the Commission has to have five votes for a motion regardless of the motion So there that's why 00:22:13.773 --> 00:22:21.934 - we have the option to approve or to deny or to continue At the last meeting there were only five members 00:22:21.934 --> 00:22:30.095 - for voted to approve But we took no other action and neither commissioners nor staff realized it because 00:22:30.095 --> 00:22:35.070 - our bylaws are a little more complicated than the commission so 00:22:35.682 --> 00:22:42.978 - Could I mean I think that we should probably have a default to continuing if no Motion can get a majority 00:22:42.978 --> 00:22:50.136 - of members, but that's the dilemma that we had So regardless of whether you approve it or deny it there 00:22:50.136 --> 00:22:57.500 - need to be five votes one way or the other Does that help it? Am I right? I believe so and also to clarify 00:22:57.500 --> 00:23:03.006 - further I believe that voting down like the proposal would kill the project and 00:23:05.762 --> 00:23:14.146 - Okay, that's it's good to know but does that answer your both questions have been answered. Yes. Okay 00:23:14.146 --> 00:23:22.365 - Anybody else have questions about the procedure here? Seeing none. Thank you for the memo. Let's go 00:23:22.365 --> 00:23:30.667 - now to the staff report That'll be David All right, would you start from scratch Certainly, I'm just 00:23:30.667 --> 00:23:33.790 - requesting to share my screen here. I 00:23:43.650 --> 00:24:03.918 - Could you state your name again, please? David Brantes, alternative transportation coordinator. 00:24:03.918 --> 00:24:13.630 - Thank you. Okay, so this is TC dash P dash 26 00:24:13.922 --> 00:24:24.258 - 20 So the measure under consideration is six new speed tables on East Rogers Road between High Street 00:24:24.258 --> 00:24:35.102 - and Spicewood Lane The the goal of this is to decrease the incidence of unlawful speeding on this corridor 00:24:35.102 --> 00:24:42.398 - to reduce it Back to the posted speed limit of 30 miles an hour So just 00:24:42.626 --> 00:24:51.273 - to give background on how we got to where we are now. Each year the traffic calming program takes requests 00:24:51.273 --> 00:24:59.515 - from residents and we compile all of these corridors that residents have identified and put them into 00:24:59.515 --> 00:25:08.323 - a rubric of crash history that were speed related. The vehicle volume, vehicle speed, presence of vulnerable 00:25:08.323 --> 00:25:12.606 - road users, and we came up with East Rogers Road had 00:25:12.898 --> 00:25:21.915 - the highest priority score So Just to give some stats the average speed limit was there was observed 00:25:21.915 --> 00:25:31.111 - to be 38 miles per hour and approximately 97 percent of all vehicles That we observed we're going over 00:25:31.111 --> 00:25:40.754 - the speed limit So there were six crashes reported in the last five years in which speed was a contributing 00:25:40.754 --> 00:25:42.718 - factor in all of them 00:25:42.978 --> 00:25:52.149 - and both the speed data that we found and this crash history led to this being the project that we're 00:25:52.149 --> 00:26:01.680 - working on here. So we did a couple of things, including sending out mailers to affected property owners. 00:26:01.680 --> 00:26:10.672 - We held a public meeting. We got some feedback from the public. We worked with some stakeholders in 00:26:10.672 --> 00:26:12.830 - other city departments. 00:26:13.058 --> 00:26:19.941 - Wanted to mention that since our last meeting we did reach out to the street department to see if they 00:26:19.941 --> 00:26:26.691 - had any concerns about plowing on this Type of traffic calming device since it's different than some 00:26:26.691 --> 00:26:33.374 - of the other Examples like speed humps speed bumps speed cushions in Bloomington and they said that 00:26:33.374 --> 00:26:40.124 - the speed tables looked easier to deal with Than any of those but they don't currently have a lot of 00:26:40.124 --> 00:26:40.926 - issues with 00:26:41.346 --> 00:26:49.550 - Existing devices in Bloomington. So that's not a big concern here And the design has changed a little 00:26:49.550 --> 00:26:57.914 - bit since the last meeting only in the placement of the speed tables So they move slightly, but there's 00:26:57.914 --> 00:27:06.038 - still six of them and you would encounter Three per direction and I'll have some Designs to share in 00:27:06.038 --> 00:27:10.622 - just a minute, but I wanted to address the four criteria 00:27:10.882 --> 00:27:19.302 - So the first one is that we staff found that This project is consistent with the comprehensive plan 00:27:19.302 --> 00:27:27.723 - Which considers all ages abilities modes? along the score door And then the second criteria This is 00:27:27.723 --> 00:27:36.648 - consistent with best practices for eliminating all transportation related fatalities and serious injuries 00:27:36.648 --> 00:27:40.606 - so this is a part of our 2039 vision zero goal 00:27:40.706 --> 00:27:49.147 - Reducing speed is a great way to reduce crash the frequency and severity of crashes There's a there 00:27:49.147 --> 00:27:57.588 - was a lot of concern from the public about crossings here Which I'll show pedestrian crossings from 00:27:57.588 --> 00:28:06.283 - the multi-use path specifically Childs Elementary is nearby Olcott Park is nearby Sherwood Oaks Church 00:28:06.283 --> 00:28:09.406 - The third criteria is that this is a 00:28:09.570 --> 00:28:18.500 - Advancing a sustainable transportation system and equitable access while prioritizing non-automotive 00:28:18.500 --> 00:28:27.519 - modes The improved compliance of this of the speed limit We think will be very useful in Prioritizing 00:28:27.519 --> 00:28:36.626 - these other modes. There's a bus stop near Near one of these crossings that has speed tables on either 00:28:36.626 --> 00:28:39.102 - side So they can get across 00:28:39.554 --> 00:28:47.190 - It'll make it more pleasant to traverse this corridor on a bike. We've heard children use this area 00:28:47.190 --> 00:28:55.437 - Getting home from school. So lots of vulnerable road users that would benefit from further speed compliance 00:28:55.437 --> 00:29:03.455 - and lastly the criteria about adequate public engagement and community-centric design Just kind of baked 00:29:03.455 --> 00:29:09.182 - into the resident-led traffic calming program from the beginning these are 00:29:09.634 --> 00:29:17.815 - ideas that residents came to us with and Or I should say problems that residents came to us with and 00:29:17.815 --> 00:29:25.997 - then we worked to make sure that they had the adequate number of signatures from affected households 00:29:25.997 --> 00:29:34.583 - in the Study area and that they had support from local organizations including the woodlands HOA Sherwood 00:29:34.583 --> 00:29:39.038 - Oaks Church And I believe the last one might have been 00:29:39.842 --> 00:29:48.607 - PTO at child's Can't recall off the top of my head, but essentially all of those things led to a design 00:29:48.607 --> 00:29:57.036 - that we think addresses the concerns here Without getting too much in the way of city operations be 00:29:57.036 --> 00:30:06.138 - that Bloomington Transit the Street Department or emergency services We'll touch more on emergency services 00:30:06.138 --> 00:30:08.414 - later because we have some 00:30:08.610 --> 00:30:17.113 - new speed data information that traffic engineer John Garcy is going to address. So I know it's a bit 00:30:17.113 --> 00:30:25.699 - difficult to follow exactly what we're proposing here without the visual, so with that out of the way, 00:30:25.699 --> 00:30:34.201 - I'll go ahead and show you. So each of these devices is longer and gentler than other examples in the 00:30:34.201 --> 00:30:36.702 - city. Most times when we hear 00:30:37.506 --> 00:30:44.267 - That there is a traffic calming device. We're probably thinking of speed cushions or perhaps speed humps 00:30:44.267 --> 00:30:50.771 - These are quite a bit longer. They have a six foot Ramp up to about three and a half inches and then 00:30:50.771 --> 00:30:57.532 - the table itself is ten feet long So that means that the entire passenger vehicle is going to be sitting 00:30:57.532 --> 00:31:03.198 - on top of the traffic calming device and then come down on the other side as opposed to 00:31:04.450 --> 00:31:13.463 - Speed humps which are a good bit shorter and have a more A more distinct feel to them. So those are 00:31:13.463 --> 00:31:22.567 - designed for speeds a little bit lower But since Rogers has so much volume and the speed limit is 30 00:31:22.567 --> 00:31:31.850 - and not 25 or 20 This is the more appropriate thing to reduce speeds to 30 miles an hour So as you can 00:31:31.850 --> 00:31:33.022 - see up there 00:31:33.282 --> 00:31:41.508 - We've got three going in either direction. And I'm gonna zoom in on each of these. So the high street 00:31:41.508 --> 00:31:49.895 - one is the same as last time with speed tables kind of around that multi-use path crossing. This slows, 00:31:49.895 --> 00:31:58.443 - especially it will slow people shooting out of their roundabout where you have maybe more of a visibility 00:31:58.443 --> 00:32:00.862 - concern than a speed concern. 00:32:00.994 --> 00:32:07.997 - Mr. Brent is can I stop you just for a second to say that some members who are not here have not seen 00:32:07.997 --> 00:32:15.069 - the presentation at all So you should just assume that you're giving it for the first time again. Yes, 00:32:15.069 --> 00:32:22.004 - because so don't don't Some of us benefited from seeing it last time, but not all of us have So just 00:32:22.004 --> 00:32:28.870 - you know, I understand. Okay. Thank you So the the crossing there is a crossing to from the Jackson 00:32:28.870 --> 00:32:29.694 - Creek Trail 00:32:30.018 --> 00:32:37.897 - Up to the multi-use path on Rogers and then up along High Street so this is addressing a visibility 00:32:37.897 --> 00:32:45.854 - and perhaps speed concern coming out of Going eastbound on the roundabout and then coming westbound. 00:32:45.854 --> 00:32:53.733 - You're coming down a pretty steep hill So we want to make sure that drivers are slowing down before 00:32:53.733 --> 00:32:56.254 - they get to that that crosswalk 00:32:57.506 --> 00:33:07.591 - And then they can focus on the roundabout after they've passed through So near the stands drive we have 00:33:07.591 --> 00:33:17.774 - that that's where the bus stop is and There is a pedestrian refuge island in the middle So this is where 00:33:17.774 --> 00:33:25.726 - a lot of crossings are funneled to and this is where the original complaint about 00:33:26.434 --> 00:33:36.079 - unsafe speed is from. So the spacing here is meant to address people coming up the hill and then people 00:33:36.079 --> 00:33:45.352 - coming down towards the crosswalk. And it keeps the traffic calming devices out of the intersection 00:33:45.352 --> 00:33:54.626 - so that nobody turning left has anything to, from the stands drive, has anything to turn over there 00:33:54.626 --> 00:33:55.646 - as they'll 00:33:55.746 --> 00:34:03.798 - They'll slow down anyway because of the Refuge Island kind of constraining the space that they're able 00:34:03.798 --> 00:34:12.006 - to drive but we also Found it important to put it close to the crossing and not Spread it exactly evenly 00:34:12.006 --> 00:34:19.901 - across the high street roundabout to say this air road roundabout Because you know, there's not even 00:34:19.901 --> 00:34:24.670 - a crosswalk on the south side from here to high street. So I 00:34:25.762 --> 00:34:34.063 - We wanted to concentrate where those vulnerable road users are going to be crossing the road And lastly, 00:34:34.063 --> 00:34:41.968 - this is essentially pretty similar to the stands drive over at Spicewood where you have sidewalk on 00:34:41.968 --> 00:34:50.110 - the north side and the refuge island going north and south along the west side of the intersection and 00:34:50.110 --> 00:34:54.142 - That's all I have I'm going to turn it over to the 00:34:54.658 --> 00:35:03.162 - John Garzi for an update on the Essentially the the delay and the delay that the speed tables would 00:35:03.162 --> 00:35:11.071 - cause in travel time But I'm happy to answer any questions on my presentation Thank You. Mr. 00:35:11.071 --> 00:35:19.831 - Brant is mr. Garzi. Would you take it from there? Hello John Garzi traffic engineer so previously when 00:35:19.831 --> 00:35:23.998 - we came we talked about a delay per device of 30 00:35:24.130 --> 00:35:30.673 - seconds that was something that was not Supported by data or research and so we just wanted to provide 00:35:30.673 --> 00:35:37.025 - some data that's supported by research by several different cities in the United States Portland in 00:35:37.025 --> 00:35:43.378 - particular has a lot of data on the impacts of speed tables on emergency vehicles and what we found 00:35:43.378 --> 00:35:50.302 - was that speed tables have a delay of about one to five seconds if you're traveling at 30 miles per hour and 00:35:50.946 --> 00:35:57.305 - and five to nine seconds if you're traveling at 40 miles per hour. And for the types of speed tables 00:35:57.305 --> 00:36:03.915 - we're proposing, which are offset speed tables, they found that there was a two second delay when you're 00:36:03.915 --> 00:36:10.463 - traveling at 30 miles per hour. And for these offset speed tables, the distance that they had them when 00:36:10.463 --> 00:36:17.010 - they tested them was at 28 to 50 feet apart. And so the devices that we're recommending have a distance 00:36:17.010 --> 00:36:20.158 - of 100 feet from the table to the traffic island. 00:36:20.578 --> 00:36:29.268 - We should have similar results, or if not, a lower amount of delay. Like David mentioned, because we'll 00:36:29.268 --> 00:36:37.707 - be doing offset speed tables, this will remove the tables from the intersection, so we don't have to 00:36:37.707 --> 00:36:45.310 - reduce the size of this table, and we'll be able to keep the full three and a half inches. 00:36:46.274 --> 00:36:52.399 - We also found data that talked about the delay for speed humps, which are the more aggressive ones. 00:36:52.399 --> 00:36:58.770 - And so the delay that they found was three to seven seconds. So we feel pretty confident that the delay 00:36:58.770 --> 00:37:05.140 - that we're gonna experience for speed tables will be a lot less than 30 seconds. And just to reiterate, 00:37:05.140 --> 00:37:11.449 - the delay that Portland found for offset speed tables was two seconds when going at 30 miles per hour. 00:37:11.449 --> 00:37:15.614 - That's it, thank you. Does that complete the presentation by staff? 00:37:16.962 --> 00:37:27.284 - Yes, okay Was the data you were just citing mr. Garzi In one of the documents in the agenda, which document 00:37:27.284 --> 00:37:37.224 - was it in? Let me find the title of it I Got you. The title is staff memo response time impacts to fire 00:37:37.224 --> 00:37:46.590 - apparatus by traffic calming devices Okay, it took me until just now to to find that so thank you 00:37:46.850 --> 00:37:54.349 - I just just to further clarify that there are a number of sources cited within that particular memo 00:37:54.349 --> 00:38:02.072 - and given the nature of Web archiving we didn't want to assume that those would necessarily be exactly 00:38:02.072 --> 00:38:09.721 - where we'd like them to be in a year. So we've manually archived the research articles that Mr. Garzi 00:38:09.721 --> 00:38:15.870 - included in his presentation. Those are hyper leaked as PDFs to that staff memo I 00:38:16.642 --> 00:38:22.911 - I'm sorry. I don't understand what the significance was. What do you mean? This is not you don't know 00:38:22.911 --> 00:38:29.242 - where this is going to be in a year So usually when we cite our sources like if we provide a hyperlink 00:38:29.242 --> 00:38:35.388 - to a web URL if that's just a One-off there may be this expectation that in a couple years that URL 00:38:35.388 --> 00:38:41.534 - may move It's referred to as a dead link at that point but given the material we were talking about 00:38:41.534 --> 00:38:43.870 - today we wanted to make sure that the 00:38:43.970 --> 00:38:50.654 - Information the research that we were referring to was archived on our servers In a way that made sure 00:38:50.654 --> 00:38:57.533 - that we would be able to review the data Years and years into the future without worrying to what happens 00:38:57.533 --> 00:39:03.828 - to the original sources And you were telling us this because this has changed since the previous 00:39:03.828 --> 00:39:10.447 - presentation. Yes Well, so in the previous presentation Sorry at the September meeting we didn't have 00:39:10.447 --> 00:39:13.822 - these resources available for you all to review and 00:39:14.210 --> 00:39:22.316 - So this memo wasn't available in September and it's been updated since then anyway Well, no, we authored 00:39:22.316 --> 00:39:30.035 - it for this meeting and then found resort like resources to support the the findings the the claims 00:39:30.035 --> 00:39:37.909 - in the the article and then we linked those I'm just trying to express that we took an extra archival 00:39:37.909 --> 00:39:42.078 - step for this particular report Okay noted. Thank you 00:39:42.434 --> 00:39:52.095 - Now then, are there questions for TCP? I've already forgotten which one, TCP 2620 as presented. Let's 00:39:52.095 --> 00:40:02.135 - start online, Mr. Flaherty, do you have any questions? Okay, let's go to my right. To my left, Mr. Kopek. 00:40:02.135 --> 00:40:11.038 - So in choosing this, the speed tables, what would have brought it from being a minor material 00:40:13.058 --> 00:40:24.616 - Yeah the main reason we chose speed tables versus the like the lights that you're talking about is because 00:40:24.616 --> 00:40:35.849 - this is a traffic calming project and so we wanted to calm the traffic and so the tools we were looking 00:40:35.849 --> 00:40:40.062 - at were ones that slowed down vehicles 00:40:40.834 --> 00:40:48.373 - The lights that you're talking about will just encourage vehicles to stop for pedestrians that are crossing, 00:40:48.373 --> 00:40:54.806 - but it doesn't necessarily slow down the speed if they were to not stop for the pedestrians. 00:40:54.806 --> 00:41:01.723 - So one more note. These devices are also a little bit more cost effective and have less maintenance 00:41:01.723 --> 00:41:09.470 - overall. Once you install them, you don't have to maintain the lights. You don't have to provide power to them. 00:41:14.786 --> 00:41:43.518 - Not that I'm aware of, but I believe that the locations where we are placing the speed tables aren't at 00:41:43.938 --> 00:41:50.064 - aren't on the slopes. And our intention is also that fire trucks are able to go around them because 00:41:50.064 --> 00:41:56.252 - they're offset. So if you need to, they're before the crossings, but they're only on one side of the 00:41:56.252 --> 00:42:02.378 - lane. So when you're going eastbound, you can go, the fire vehicles can go until the oncoming lane, 00:42:02.378 --> 00:42:08.382 - go around the device and then go back into their lane and then not have to go over a speed table. 00:42:15.042 --> 00:42:25.314 - That's correct Further questions to my right to my left I have a quick question about the the Portland 00:42:25.314 --> 00:42:35.287 - memo Rescue 41, do you know it's the way it was not reported? Do we have any sense of whether it's? 00:42:35.287 --> 00:42:43.166 - What rescue 41 was and whether it was more like a squad car or a ladder truck? 00:42:46.146 --> 00:42:56.270 - I'm not aware of its actual weight, but my understanding is that it's either heavier than the fire engine 00:42:56.270 --> 00:43:06.299 - or the ladder truck, and so we chose not to use that as a comparison vehicle. I mean, it's in the chart, 00:43:06.299 --> 00:43:12.030 - but you didn't include it. That's correct. Okay. All right. 00:43:12.258 --> 00:43:18.339 - If there's no other questions, we'll go to the public for comment on TCP 26 20 to approve the traffic 00:43:18.339 --> 00:43:24.300 - calming and greenways project selection for Rogers road. So any member of the public who would like 00:43:24.300 --> 00:43:30.559 - to address this issue, please come to the podium. You'll have three minutes to speak. If you are online, 00:43:30.559 --> 00:43:36.640 - you can use the raise hand function in zoom and staff will put you on screen. So anyone who'd like to 00:43:36.640 --> 00:43:41.886 - speak to TCP 26 20, I see no one coming in there. If you do, please come to the podium. 00:43:47.714 --> 00:43:56.331 - Fire marshal city of Bloomington like we discussed last week in detail anytime We don't disagree that 00:43:56.331 --> 00:44:04.863 - something needs to be done here. But anytime we are calming traffic It's impeding our response times 00:44:04.863 --> 00:44:13.395 - This area that we've talked about Is our furthest out area in the city already? so anything we do to 00:44:13.395 --> 00:44:15.422 - delay that response and 00:44:15.778 --> 00:44:25.433 - Is going to hinder our response to any emergency not only us but EMS and police as well also on the 00:44:25.433 --> 00:44:35.281 - studies that I had read I believe the ladder truck and stuff that they were referring to was a 40,000 00:44:35.281 --> 00:44:43.102 - pound truck Ours is 80,000 pounds so I think the 30 seconds probably is a little 00:44:43.522 --> 00:44:50.396 - Stretched to but I don't believe that as the question has already been asked, you know what the the 00:44:50.396 --> 00:44:56.857 - stats of the angle of the road the inclines and Things like that wouldn't taken was not taken 00:44:56.857 --> 00:45:03.731 - into consideration I feel that we have a far more if we had the stats for 80,000 pound fire truck I 00:45:03.731 --> 00:45:10.811 - think that it was going to be a lot different especially with the incline. So we do appreciate the you 00:45:10.811 --> 00:45:12.254 - know reducing it and 00:45:12.354 --> 00:45:18.152 - The amount originally was six all the way across the road We greatly appreciate that we've got it down 00:45:18.152 --> 00:45:23.893 - to six and different across the road But also speaking with the fire department this yet this morning 00:45:23.893 --> 00:45:29.634 - with the chief and stuff We're probably not going to use we're not going to drive around these things 00:45:29.634 --> 00:45:35.319 - unless traffic is already there We're gonna go over them We feel that would be even unsafe for going 00:45:35.319 --> 00:45:41.342 - into the other lane of traffic unless we already have to because stop vehicle or something like that. So I 00:45:41.922 --> 00:45:48.642 - But I think some of the stats I think the 30 seconds probably is a little bit long I don't think it's 00:45:48.642 --> 00:45:55.363 - going to be quite that much but I think it's a lot greater than the two seconds the report is showing 00:45:55.363 --> 00:46:02.149 - if you averaged in the 80,000 pound to our trucks and and the incline of the roads I'm happy to answer 00:46:02.149 --> 00:46:08.935 - any questions What? We're fine for now. We're just taking public comment the moment. Thank you for the 00:46:08.935 --> 00:46:09.726 - feedback. I 00:46:10.402 --> 00:46:18.557 - Is there further public feedback on TCP 2620? Please come to the podium. State your name. If there's 00:46:18.557 --> 00:46:26.711 - anyone online, please use the raise hand function in Zoom. You'll be recognized. Please also sign in 00:46:26.711 --> 00:46:35.027 - so we can get your name right for the minutes. Hello, I'm Shelly Taylor and I live at the intersection 00:46:35.027 --> 00:46:39.710 - of Winding Brook Circle and Rogers Road in the Woodlands. 00:46:40.002 --> 00:46:52.774 - And all I can say is that multiple times a day I hear cars, tires screeching. I hear car tires hitting 00:46:52.774 --> 00:47:06.910 - the median multiple times a day. I have witnessed accidents, car accidents at that intersection. I have witnessed 00:47:08.226 --> 00:47:18.366 - Well, I heard a horrible noise and I ran to the window and I saw a car that had hit a pedestrian sign 00:47:18.366 --> 00:47:28.306 - at that intersection and dragged the pedestrian sign all the way up the hill. I see children trying 00:47:28.306 --> 00:47:37.054 - to cross. I see them standing in the middle of the crosswalk, which is in the middle of 00:47:37.602 --> 00:47:48.501 - the road and cars just speeding by. And I guarantee you they're going faster than 38, 39 miles an hour. 00:47:48.501 --> 00:47:58.981 - I've just seen a lot of things. I've heard a lot of things with my own ears because of where I live 00:47:58.981 --> 00:48:01.182 - there. And as noted, 00:48:01.730 --> 00:48:09.309 - Speed tables are significantly less of an impact than speed humps or speed bumps They allow for emergency 00:48:09.309 --> 00:48:16.674 - vehicles to traverse with greater ease It's also very difficult for people to get out of the woodlands 00:48:16.674 --> 00:48:23.967 - because there's so many cars going so fast and they simply do not stop for the crosswalk I Don't even 00:48:23.967 --> 00:48:30.974 - use the crosswalk anymore because it is too dangerous I take the bus. I take the city bus twice a 00:48:31.202 --> 00:48:42.874 - week and I will walk up further up the hill and cross the street to avoid that crosswalk because it 00:48:42.874 --> 00:48:54.896 - is so dangerous so I'd like to thank also Courtney daily for writing a fantastic letter of support for 00:48:54.896 --> 00:49:00.382 - this project and I Think that's about about it 00:49:00.578 --> 00:49:09.059 - I have but I do know that speak tables have less of an impact specifically for emergency vehicles and 00:49:09.059 --> 00:49:17.374 - I would really appreciate the Commission Taking my opinion into consideration. Thanks so much Thank 00:49:17.374 --> 00:49:25.772 - you Is there further public comment on TCP 2620? Is there anybody online looking to speak? last call 00:49:25.772 --> 00:49:28.350 - for public comment on TCP 2620 00:49:30.274 --> 00:49:37.393 - Going once going twice back to the Commission. Are there questions follow-up questions after public 00:49:37.393 --> 00:49:44.512 - comment from members? I have some but Anybody online mr. Drumme I don't know if I have a comment as 00:49:44.512 --> 00:49:51.988 - much or a question as much as a comment and if now it's not the time for comments We'll entertain either 00:49:51.988 --> 00:49:58.110 - at this point I understand. I appreciate the fire department's position and obviously 00:49:58.466 --> 00:50:04.048 - That's important. I also understand and appreciate that I'd like the fire department have less runs 00:50:04.048 --> 00:50:09.631 - and slower traffic creates less runs and less injuries and that type of thing so I think we need to 00:50:09.631 --> 00:50:15.381 - be mindful as a commission of the precedent that I mean about we have to balance these things out, but 00:50:15.381 --> 00:50:21.075 - I also think that it's calming traffic is important and and we can't weigh response time just and and 00:50:21.075 --> 00:50:26.713 - not have any traffic calming in the city, especially since it seems like I'm familiar with this road 00:50:26.713 --> 00:50:27.774 - drive it often and 00:50:28.034 --> 00:50:36.506 - It is a very seems like a high-speed corridor for a lot of folks. So I think it's I'm in generally in 00:50:36.506 --> 00:50:44.978 - favor of it and think it's a good idea Are there any questions from members before we get into debate 00:50:44.978 --> 00:50:53.617 - I'd like to ask my questions if possible. So I wanted to call attention to staff that the what the fire 00:50:53.617 --> 00:50:57.022 - department talked about in their comment 00:50:57.890 --> 00:51:07.734 - That's a substantial difference 54,000 pounds versus 80,000 pounds What does staff say to an? 80,000 00:51:07.734 --> 00:51:17.772 - pound fire engine traversing a speed table Can you be more specific in your question well, I'm looking 00:51:17.772 --> 00:51:23.230 - at the chart that I'm trying to find the chart here, so 00:51:23.394 --> 00:51:31.349 - In the Portland study in 1995, they tested an engine that was 35,000 pounds, a squad car that was 23, 00:51:31.349 --> 00:51:39.148 - a ladder truck that was 53, a ladder truck that was 54, and a ladder truck that was 42. And all the 00:51:39.148 --> 00:51:46.947 - times, the delay at 40 miles an hour was as much as nine seconds. The delay at 30 miles an hour was 00:51:46.947 --> 00:51:50.846 - as much as 4.8 seconds. But an 80,000 pound truck 00:51:51.234 --> 00:51:59.248 - is half again as heavy as the heaviest truck that was tested in this study. Do you have no concern about 00:51:59.248 --> 00:52:07.185 - the added delay it would take for that truck to go over a speed table? I don't know if I'd use the word 00:52:07.185 --> 00:52:14.894 - concerned, but I recognize if it's a heavier vehicle and it has to slow down, it's gonna take longer 00:52:14.894 --> 00:52:20.542 - for it to accelerate up again. So I'm more of that. You're aware of what? 00:52:20.738 --> 00:52:27.559 - I'm aware that a heavier vehicle would have to take more time to decelerate and accelerate. Okay, 00:52:27.559 --> 00:52:34.658 - I mean, would that time not be geometric rather than linear? Wouldn't it be 15 or 20 seconds for them 00:52:34.658 --> 00:52:41.618 - to speed up because it's heavier? If I'm remembering physics equations properly, I believe it would 00:52:41.618 --> 00:52:48.926 - be a linear equation. You mean speeding up and slowing down because I know that the equation for headway 00:52:49.090 --> 00:52:55.273 - is not linear, it's, you know, it varies. Just measuring headway between two cars is a geometric, not 00:52:55.273 --> 00:53:01.335 - a linear equation. That's my concern. Yeah, that's correct, but I believe that, so the equation I'm 00:53:01.335 --> 00:53:07.579 - thinking of is like the kinetic equation, or kinetic energy, which is one half mv squared, which means 00:53:07.579 --> 00:53:13.762 - your mass, in order for you to increase it by double, you would have to increase your, sorry, if your 00:53:13.762 --> 00:53:18.430 - mass increases by two, that means the energy required would increase by two. 00:53:19.906 --> 00:53:27.513 - If it's the velocity as a squared function, so that would be geometric like you're referring to so or 00:53:27.513 --> 00:53:34.971 - exponential So I what I'm expecting is that if the mass goes up the delay would just go up by twice 00:53:34.971 --> 00:53:42.577 - Okay, nevertheless That's a concern if that's the trucks that are primarily fighting fires here maybe 00:53:42.577 --> 00:53:49.886 - I mean I at this point I want to call an audible and considering that the fire department is also 00:53:50.050 --> 00:53:56.818 - Staff to have I forget your name. I'm sorry, mr. Could you come back and answer some questions? 00:53:56.818 --> 00:54:04.079 - First of all, which station serves this road? We station four and station five. Okay, so two different 00:54:04.079 --> 00:54:11.128 - stations. Yeah What are the heaviest apparatus is coming out of those stations? The heavy apparatus 00:54:11.128 --> 00:54:18.672 - coming out of station four would be our ladder truck I don't have the specifics on that particular ladder, 00:54:18.672 --> 00:54:19.870 - but our heaviest 00:54:20.354 --> 00:54:28.105 - Vehicle is ladder one and it's it's 80,000 pounds. But ladder ladder one is in which station it's station 00:54:28.105 --> 00:54:35.416 - one Okay, so would ladder one ever go out to Rogers Road. It's potentially Yeah, they could but the 00:54:35.416 --> 00:54:42.728 - I don't know the weight difference in between ladder one and ladder for our ladder. Sorry We've got 00:54:42.728 --> 00:54:46.238 - so many different ladder one and truck but it's 00:54:46.338 --> 00:54:53.604 - More than 50,000 pounds. I'm gonna assure you that 54,000 pounds. Yes. All right, so you've heard Member 00:54:53.604 --> 00:55:01.077 - of the public talk about how their desire like they see much more risky traffic activity than fire activity 00:55:01.077 --> 00:55:08.135 - and we talked I think last meeting about the idea that There are substantially more people who die in 00:55:08.135 --> 00:55:15.678 - car wrecks than who die in fires there and that we shouldn't be designing necessarily for the heaviest truck 00:55:15.874 --> 00:55:24.083 - So what do you say to that? Do you do you share any of those concerns? I do share some of those concerns. 00:55:24.083 --> 00:55:31.827 - Absolutely. That's what I said in the beginning what I I agree that something needs to be done with 00:55:31.827 --> 00:55:39.958 - the speed there and I agree with mr. Drumery that You know the if we slow everything if we slow everyone 00:55:39.958 --> 00:55:45.534 - down then we potentially have less accidents, but Like I said last week 00:55:46.050 --> 00:55:53.126 - Traffic coming devices is not just slowing us down as the 80,000 pound fire truck. It's slowing down 00:55:53.126 --> 00:56:00.272 - the EMS the ambulance the police officer responding to all these calls as well, so Does that mean oh, 00:56:00.272 --> 00:56:07.279 - sorry, not just not just the fires but any any of our any response from any emergency personnel the 00:56:07.279 --> 00:56:13.374 - traffic coming devices, you know, it's going to slow up our response down as well as I 00:56:14.178 --> 00:56:21.707 - To be clear, does this mean that the fire department opposes this or otherwise wishes it to be changed? 00:56:21.707 --> 00:56:28.946 - Yes, I would say that we agree that something needs to be done, but any traffic calming device like 00:56:28.946 --> 00:56:36.258 - this, especially when we don't have complete data, you know, is against our trucks. Yes, we would be 00:56:36.258 --> 00:56:41.470 - opposed to, I don't know what else could be done. We totally agree that 00:56:42.306 --> 00:56:48.733 - Something needs to be done that the speeds that they've in the study and everything just don't feel 00:56:48.733 --> 00:56:55.224 - that that We don't have the right data to support it in the experience of the losing fire department 00:56:55.224 --> 00:57:02.165 - Is there some other solution such as you would support that has been implemented by the city of Bloomington 00:57:02.165 --> 00:57:08.657 - that worked For everyone not just for the fire department. Do you know of any I do not personally do 00:57:08.657 --> 00:57:11.870 - not know of any now Okay, so you don't know what? 00:57:12.130 --> 00:57:19.708 - You would recommend but you the department collectively is not sure that this is the right It's not 00:57:19.708 --> 00:57:27.361 - it's not the best solution in our opinion. Correct. Yes We do support and we are thankful that we've 00:57:27.361 --> 00:57:35.697 - got it down From the the six original to the three that we we do the six original appreciate So so originally 00:57:35.697 --> 00:57:39.486 - it was six all the way across the road Can Andrew 00:57:40.930 --> 00:57:50.264 - Mr. Brantes, what's he talking about? Yes the in our initial meeting with fire We showed them a proposal 00:57:50.264 --> 00:57:59.599 - for evenly spaced Speed tables from High Street to Sarah Road. So not not necessarily in these locations 00:57:59.599 --> 00:58:08.488 - But each of those speed tables spanned both the east and westbound lanes and we after speaking with 00:58:08.488 --> 00:58:10.622 - them Changed the design 00:58:10.754 --> 00:58:19.037 - So that it only spans when you cross over it eastbound you only cross over three distinct speed bumps 00:58:19.037 --> 00:58:27.239 - or speed tables Sorry, and then when you go westbound, it's only three that way as well So then what 00:58:27.239 --> 00:58:35.359 - do you say to citizens like ms. Taylor who I've been very concerned about If anything maybe perhaps 00:58:35.359 --> 00:58:39.582 - want greater It's traffic calming then is already a 00:58:39.746 --> 00:58:49.693 - Like why why? What? Why is this adequate? Where the six weren't Should I mean? Yeah, so My understanding 00:58:49.693 --> 00:58:59.261 - is that a lot of the concern came from crossing Rogers Road north and south obviously we want people 00:58:59.261 --> 00:59:08.734 - to Adhere to the speed limit throughout the entire corridor but we were getting the sense that that 00:59:09.602 --> 00:59:17.548 - We were not reaching any sort of compromise with the fact that Emergency services needs to get this 00:59:17.548 --> 00:59:25.495 - is Doesn't seem like this is a road that it's easy to go around and being a secondary arterial That 00:59:25.495 --> 00:59:33.600 - that makes a lot of sense So this is I don't think it's perfect for emergency services. I don't think 00:59:33.600 --> 00:59:38.686 - it's perfect for the best-case scenario for traffic calming but 00:59:39.298 --> 00:59:47.902 - We we think this is a compromise where perhaps we can Solve some of these issues the higher priorities 00:59:47.902 --> 00:59:56.506 - being around those Intersections where you have left turns going on with high high speeds and you have 00:59:56.506 --> 01:00:04.859 - crossings Thank you any last comment there Thank you one more question for staff for planning staff 01:00:04.859 --> 01:00:08.702 - so Under what circumstance would you revisit? 01:00:09.026 --> 01:00:16.566 - This decision in other words after six months after three years You know, when will you decide whether 01:00:16.566 --> 01:00:23.886 - it's working or not this compromise? I Don't know who to ask that to I Think it would be helpful to 01:00:23.886 --> 01:00:31.206 - have at least three to six months of data just to see how much the vehicles have reducer speeds and 01:00:31.206 --> 01:00:38.014 - so we take before data after data and We consider a successive vehicle speeds have gone down 01:00:39.746 --> 01:00:48.208 - Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you all any other questions on TCP 26 20 before we go to debate Seeing 01:00:48.208 --> 01:00:56.590 - none is there anyone who'd like to speak to this issue on the Commission to my left Mr. Stossberg Yeah, 01:00:56.590 --> 01:01:04.650 - I think one factor I'm considering and how I'll be voting on this is in the data I've looked at for 01:01:04.650 --> 01:01:09.566 - the amount of fatal and serious injuries and car crashes and 01:01:10.018 --> 01:01:19.986 - versus in fire response, it's about 10x for car crashes. So if we can reduce the serious and fatal injuries 01:01:19.986 --> 01:01:29.308 - from car crashes by some, even if it does mean that we are slowing down our fire response by a small 01:01:29.308 --> 01:01:37.246 - amount, that it can be an overall harm reduction. So I'll be voting in favor of this. 01:01:38.722 --> 01:01:47.296 - Thank You mr. Sossberg any further comment from my left from my right Online mr. Flaherty No, I have 01:01:47.296 --> 01:01:55.785 - a question If maybe maybe this is too much in the weeds But if we were to vote this down, does that 01:01:55.785 --> 01:02:04.699 - mean that this project then moves to the next? Select like because my understanding is this was a public 01:02:04.699 --> 01:02:06.142 - or neighborhoods 01:02:06.338 --> 01:02:14.805 - petitioned for this award and maybe this maybe this isn't the time to answer that question, but It's 01:02:14.805 --> 01:02:23.272 - a good question and we can review the the options we have the Actually if I can appeal to staff what 01:02:23.272 --> 01:02:31.738 - are the for this is a petition so if you could please review the I Can pull up bylaws myself, but if 01:02:31.738 --> 01:02:33.918 - you have it handy so this 01:02:34.274 --> 01:02:42.353 - Enumerated in the procedural clarification That mr. Robling provided In the next steps the Commission 01:02:42.353 --> 01:02:50.431 - may consider the petition and take action in accordance with its bylaws if you if members believe the 01:02:50.431 --> 01:02:59.143 - original motion only failed because of the lack of additional members missing information or misunderstanding 01:02:59.143 --> 01:03:03.262 - a member can move to approve the petition again and 01:03:03.618 --> 01:03:10.245 - Alternatively a member may introduce a new motion to approve with refinement considerations Refer the 01:03:10.245 --> 01:03:17.067 - matter back to staff for further refinement considerations or continue the petition to a future meeting, 01:03:17.067 --> 01:03:24.019 - right? Okay, so I Think that D happens almost by default that we would vote on that to continue a petition 01:03:24.019 --> 01:03:31.166 - only if I can't imagine people not approving to continue if they failed everything else, but we can approve a 01:03:32.386 --> 01:03:39.543 - Somebody can move to approve just as is to approve with refinement considerations to Or to move to refer 01:03:39.543 --> 01:03:46.358 - the matter back to staff for further refinement considerations and so the second one would be if we 01:03:46.358 --> 01:03:53.174 - Could state of refinement consideration that doesn't require them coming back to us Although I have 01:03:53.174 --> 01:04:00.195 - to say I don't think we've defined refinement considerations and we need to do that. I Hate to ask but 01:04:00.195 --> 01:04:01.694 - does that make sense? 01:04:02.434 --> 01:04:09.647 - All right. So at some point we're gonna need a motion from someone to for one of those three things 01:04:09.647 --> 01:04:17.005 - to approve Approve with considerations or refer it back to staff So that's what I'd like to hear from 01:04:17.005 --> 01:04:24.291 - members if they want to say anything is what? Motion they'd like to see So perhaps we can start with 01:04:24.291 --> 01:04:30.494 - mr. Stasberg and say what motion would you prefer? I would move to approve as if okay 01:04:31.074 --> 01:04:38.853 - Is there anyone else who'd like to weigh in on this so we can finally? Dispose of this item to my left 01:04:38.853 --> 01:04:46.707 - Sorry For the purpose of meeting minutes was that Commissioner Stossberg making a motion was not simply 01:04:46.707 --> 01:04:54.335 - asked him to weigh in we are in the debate We're trying to figure out what type of motion to make to 01:04:54.335 --> 01:05:00.830 - my right. Is there anyone who would like to weigh in? Are you gonna leave me hanging? 01:05:01.698 --> 01:05:07.813 - Mr. Flaherty, sorry, mr. Drumming. I'll weigh in my comment about the I understand and appreciate the 01:05:07.813 --> 01:05:13.808 - issues about the heavy vehicles and and I can't believe that most reasons I do believe the Portland 01:05:13.808 --> 01:05:19.863 - study seems to be the key study But it's getting pretty old at this point and also the weight of the 01:05:19.863 --> 01:05:25.858 - fire truck I assume heavier fire trucks have bigger engines than lighter fire trucks. So it may not 01:05:25.858 --> 01:05:30.174 - be the only factor but but I'm generally like as I said before I I'm in 01:05:30.626 --> 01:05:36.893 - I'm in favor of safer traffic and and it's seen and whether that comes from enforcement of speed or 01:05:36.893 --> 01:05:43.161 - speed tables and and it seems like This is the best option for this area So that's that's my my way 01:05:43.161 --> 01:05:49.741 - in Could you at least weigh in on what motion you would prefer to see? I think I would second the motion 01:05:49.741 --> 01:05:56.134 - that to approve it. There's no motion on the table yet. I understand Okay, so you would approve as is 01:05:56.134 --> 01:05:58.014 - anyone else want to weigh in? 01:06:00.130 --> 01:06:08.741 - Happy to weigh in I would also be in favor of adopting the proposed findings and approve this design 01:06:08.741 --> 01:06:17.438 - It seems like it's been pretty well considered by staff Okay anybody else last call The one thing I'm 01:06:17.438 --> 01:06:25.964 - going to say here for my part is that I think I voted to approve last time And that I was concerned 01:06:25.964 --> 01:06:29.886 - about about data I think it is incumbent upon 01:06:29.986 --> 01:06:37.465 - The fire department to generate data to like we need to know more about What kind of difference traffic 01:06:37.465 --> 01:06:45.087 - calming is making to response times It's something that we can get and something that the fire department 01:06:45.087 --> 01:06:52.278 - can track. It's it's I think it's an important data point that transcends their mission Does our is 01:06:52.278 --> 01:06:58.462 - our mission? transcended by the existence of the fire departments, maybe maybe so and 01:06:58.818 --> 01:07:07.044 - We should be weighing both sets of statistics. I still think mr. Stossberg's data outweighs it that 01:07:07.044 --> 01:07:15.270 - Generally speaking. There's an order of magnitude more danger from traffic than from fire, which is 01:07:15.270 --> 01:07:23.743 - not to say that Fire isn't important but I think that the the compromise that mr. Brandt has described 01:07:23.743 --> 01:07:28.350 - it as is Or was it? Mr. Garza, I forget you said it now 01:07:28.482 --> 01:07:36.592 - Is a good enough once why asked about when we should revisit it. We should be checking the temperature 01:07:36.592 --> 01:07:45.096 - It's gonna be yet another thing. We have to track on our ongoing list of all the things that we're tracking 01:07:45.096 --> 01:07:53.206 - as a commission, but I Just I can't see any other way to do it if the fire department Finds that there 01:07:53.206 --> 01:07:56.670 - is a more optimal method of traffic calming 01:07:57.250 --> 01:08:04.679 - I don't think that they would approve of speed humps or speed bumps. Those are the only the ones we've 01:08:04.679 --> 01:08:11.891 - looked at I don't know that chicanes worked as they did years and years ago on West 3rd Street This 01:08:11.891 --> 01:08:19.175 - is the the best of a bad set of choices or at least a limited set of choices so I will also Seek for 01:08:19.175 --> 01:08:23.070 - someone to make a motion to approve as is mr. Coppock 01:08:32.450 --> 01:08:48.698 - Please answer the question from the microphone if you can. Yes, so Station 5 would come down Winslow 01:08:48.698 --> 01:09:01.406 - and out that way and Station 4 would come down straight down 3rd Street, yeah. 01:09:02.914 --> 01:09:21.845 - Are you referring to when we take the before and after a study? I'd have to defer to David, but I believe 01:09:21.845 --> 01:09:32.382 - it'd be both directions. Could you say that again, please? 01:09:32.962 --> 01:09:43.820 - Would you agree David yes, so the traffic counts we did were Those pneumatic tubes were laid across 01:09:43.820 --> 01:09:54.678 - the entire road and they gave us Data for eastbound and westbound the 38 miles per hour that I gave 01:09:54.678 --> 01:09:59.998 - that was a summary of both so at each end of our 01:10:00.482 --> 01:10:28.862 - Traffic count documents we get a summary page, which is I? 01:10:30.498 --> 01:10:50.837 - Do you want to pull up the map and show him what you're talking about? I mean did you have you are you 01:10:50.837 --> 01:10:56.958 - referring to a particular East 01:11:00.098 --> 01:11:06.333 - that would give the car department up the hill access to either one of those without having to speed 01:11:06.333 --> 01:11:12.630 - cable. And then you could put a, maybe put a speed cable on the flatter portion which is up closer to 01:11:12.630 --> 01:11:18.989 - the Sherwood Oaks entrance. And then you could also put a speed cable to the west of the Sherwood Oaks 01:11:18.989 --> 01:11:25.348 - entrance in the middle there, same place to slow traffic. Yeah, one back, west back. So you would have 01:11:25.348 --> 01:11:28.126 - to speed cable them to see why you have one. 01:11:31.554 --> 01:11:45.899 - Okay, you're asking a question now. Are you asking, directing this as a question to anyone, or is this 01:11:45.899 --> 01:11:57.598 - your comment? Okay, so if you can give us a sense of what motion you would support, 01:12:02.082 --> 01:12:08.401 - Are you saying you would approve it with refinement considerations right now or do you want to refer 01:12:08.401 --> 01:12:14.970 - the matter back to staff for the refinement? Okay Thank you. Is there any other person on the Commission 01:12:14.970 --> 01:12:21.289 - would like to weigh in at this point before we go to a vote? All right, just as a point of procedure 01:12:21.289 --> 01:12:27.984 - Commissioner copy if you could try to use the microphone. I know it's hard Thank you. Yeah, you're sitting 01:12:27.984 --> 01:12:31.550 - way back and no one can hear you At least no one on tape 01:12:31.842 --> 01:12:37.864 - Then maybe I shouldn't call on you at all save the time, but please lean in when you speak Seeing that 01:12:37.864 --> 01:12:43.887 - I will now entertain a motion to approve to approve with the refinement considerations order a further 01:12:43.887 --> 01:12:49.909 - matter back to staff for further refinement considerations Mr. Binder I move that the Commission adopt 01:12:49.909 --> 01:12:55.757 - the proposed findings and approve approve this proposed design. Is there a second second? We have a 01:12:55.757 --> 01:12:56.926 - motion and a second 01:12:58.434 --> 01:13:11.823 - Will the secretary please call the roll on the motion to approve as is TCP 2620? Mr. Midas. Yes Binder. 01:13:11.823 --> 01:13:19.934 - Yes Bolin. Yes drummy. Yes Flaherty Yes Stasberg. Yes Copic no 01:13:21.954 --> 01:13:30.628 - That vote is six to one and since that's more than five TCP 26 20 is approved. Thanks staff for presenting 01:13:30.628 --> 01:13:38.897 - again We appreciate you coming back this month and we'll try to be more careful Okay, let's go on now 01:13:38.897 --> 01:13:43.518 - to TCR 26 21 who was presenting that Please come forward 01:13:57.634 --> 01:14:04.673 - Everyone okay Can you hear me? All right. All right. Hello Good afternoon or evening. I suppose commissioners 01:14:04.673 --> 01:14:11.328 - I'm here today to speak to you about a proposed amendment to title 15 of the Bloomington Municipal Code 01:14:11.328 --> 01:14:17.727 - Could you just introduce yourself briefly? Of course. Yes. I'm Julius Mitchell. I'm the legislative 01:14:17.727 --> 01:14:23.934 - affairs specialist With the office of the mayor or with with the office of the mayor. Thank you. 01:14:23.934 --> 01:14:25.918 - Okay So, why are we here today 01:14:26.018 --> 01:14:32.072 - The purpose of this proposed ordinance would be to address some of the definitional gaps that exist 01:14:32.072 --> 01:14:38.125 - in the Bloomington municipal code and state law regarding forms of personal electric transportation 01:14:38.125 --> 01:14:44.300 - devices State law only defines class 1 class 2 and class 3 electric bicycles, but we're seeing a rise 01:14:44.300 --> 01:14:50.475 - of new forms of transportation that don't fit these existing qualifications and they certainly aren't 01:14:50.475 --> 01:14:51.262 - considered a 01:14:51.682 --> 01:14:57.924 - Electric motorcycles either so there's this regulatory gray area a definitional and regulatory gray 01:14:57.924 --> 01:15:04.665 - area in which there's really no way to Easily define these forms of transportation So our proposed response 01:15:04.665 --> 01:15:10.907 - would be to create this ordinance which would categorize these personal transportation devices into 01:15:10.907 --> 01:15:14.590 - two major categories micro mobility devices and emotes and 01:15:15.746 --> 01:15:22.299 - So here are the definitions. It's a little bit more in depth in the ordinance itself But put simply 01:15:22.299 --> 01:15:29.180 - micromobility devices can operate based on human power motor power or both And they have a maximum speed 01:15:29.180 --> 01:15:35.209 - of 20 miles per hour when utilizing motor power alone This fits cleanly within the class to 01:15:35.209 --> 01:15:41.566 - e-bike designation under state law and then in contrast emotes they have an electrical motor and 01:15:41.794 --> 01:15:48.426 - that exceeds 750 watts or is capable of speeds higher than 20 miles per hour when utilizing motor power 01:15:48.426 --> 01:15:55.186 - alone. As you'll notice, the main distinction between them is the speed capability. Micromobility devices 01:15:55.186 --> 01:16:01.755 - have that speed cap of 20 miles per hour, and e-motos can exceed that. So one other thing to note with 01:16:01.755 --> 01:16:08.324 - these terms is that micromobility device would be a catch-all term that incorporates a lot of existing 01:16:08.324 --> 01:16:09.918 - forms of transportation. 01:16:10.114 --> 01:16:17.191 - typically includes bicycles, e-bikes, scooters, e-scooters, skateboards, and a number of other types 01:16:17.191 --> 01:16:24.479 - of vehicles that include human propulsion or motor propulsion up to 20 miles per hour. And then e-motos 01:16:24.479 --> 01:16:31.486 - include electric mopeds, off-road electric dirt bikes, electric trikes, and other vehicles that are 01:16:31.486 --> 01:16:38.703 - faster than, that can operate above 20 miles per hour, but not quite the speed of a motor vehicle like 01:16:38.703 --> 01:16:39.614 - a motorbike. 01:16:40.802 --> 01:16:47.991 - So this is just one way to see the difference a little bit. This is, again, the difference is based 01:16:47.991 --> 01:16:55.395 - on the top speed, but these devices that we see that would be classified as e-motos, they tend to have 01:16:55.395 --> 01:17:02.583 - larger tires, bigger engine, bigger frame, just have a higher engine capacity, higher top speed. So 01:17:02.583 --> 01:17:08.478 - it's not based on aesthetics, this definition, but you can kind of get a sense of 01:17:08.738 --> 01:17:14.908 - the type of thing we're attempting to regulate with this ordinance. So to go into more detail, 01:17:14.908 --> 01:17:21.727 - this proposed, the proposed ordinance would change, it would define and regulate personal transportation 01:17:21.727 --> 01:17:28.221 - devices, and we would classify these based on speed capacity rather than aesthetic characteristics. 01:17:28.221 --> 01:17:32.702 - So in the current code, there exists scooters, which are stood upon, 01:17:32.930 --> 01:17:39.330 - bicycles, e-bikes, which are seated and have pedals, coasters, which include human propulsion, but these 01:17:39.330 --> 01:17:45.486 - would all be consolidated under the term micromobility. As you'll find if you examine Plumetine Muso 01:17:45.486 --> 01:17:51.581 - Code under Title 15, these are all regulated already in a very similar way. In fact, I believe that 01:17:51.581 --> 01:17:58.285 - they use the exact same language, so it makes sense to incorporate it under this one term if we're regulating 01:17:58.285 --> 01:18:02.430 - them all in the same way. The proposed ordinance would also include 01:18:02.818 --> 01:18:09.259 - Codification of a speed limit for multi-use paths and trails. It's currently just parks policy, but 01:18:09.259 --> 01:18:15.764 - this would allow for a little bit a little bit more of a Way to define that and it also institutes a 01:18:15.764 --> 01:18:22.205 - separate fee structure for emoted devices Because these devices have a higher top speed potentially 01:18:22.205 --> 01:18:29.226 - bigger frames We wanted to deter behavior a little bit more with a slightly increased fine So as I mentioned 01:18:29.226 --> 01:18:32.382 - Indiana State law has some definitional gaps and 01:18:32.642 --> 01:18:39.718 - So in Indiana, we've seen other municipalities adopt similar legislation. For example, Carmel, Naperville, 01:18:39.718 --> 01:18:46.596 - Fishers, Griffith, and Noblesville have all passed similar ordinances that define e-moto devices. These 01:18:46.596 --> 01:18:53.210 - ordinances vary somewhat between each other. For instance, some of them don't include the catch-all 01:18:53.210 --> 01:18:59.823 - term micromobility devices. Carmel does, for instance, but I don't believe that Fishers or Griffith 01:18:59.823 --> 01:19:01.278 - do. However, they all 01:19:01.506 --> 01:19:06.945 - Use e moto as a definition and the 20 miles per hour is consistent among them one notable difference 01:19:06.945 --> 01:19:12.492 - between our proposed ordinance and some of the others in Indiana is that this proposed ordinance would 01:19:12.492 --> 01:19:17.877 - prevent emotes on multi-youth path multi-use paths and trails This is to promote alternate forms of 01:19:17.877 --> 01:19:23.316 - transportation through a transportation network But it comes with following policy decisions that we 01:19:23.316 --> 01:19:28.809 - need to make we can't just copy paste from other municipalities for choosing to make this distinction 01:19:28.809 --> 01:19:29.886 - here in Bloomington 01:19:31.138 --> 01:19:37.788 - So that brings us to what we are asking from the Transportation Commission. Primarily, we're seeking 01:19:37.788 --> 01:19:44.635 - input from you all on the proposed ordinance as it exists. We also have some outstanding questions that 01:19:44.635 --> 01:19:51.746 - we thought you all might be uniquely suited to answer, such as suggestions for relevant policy regulations, 01:19:51.746 --> 01:19:58.330 - whether to allow e-moto devices on sidewalks and bike lanes. That's an outstanding question we have 01:19:58.330 --> 01:20:00.766 - that you all might want to weigh in. 01:20:01.026 --> 01:20:06.678 - We also wanted to provide a public setting for feedback in case members of the public were listening 01:20:06.678 --> 01:20:12.274 - or wanted to watch the recording See this discussion how it unfolds and provide comment and then we 01:20:12.274 --> 01:20:17.870 - ultimately would like the Transportation Commission to issue a positive recommendation for adoption 01:20:17.870 --> 01:20:23.634 - to the City Council Today we were essentially just seeking to get feedback and we can incorporate into 01:20:23.634 --> 01:20:29.566 - a second draft However, if you feel comfortable with the ordinance as written We're also amenable to that 01:20:30.722 --> 01:20:36.625 - To answer any questions and Tim Street is also here director of parks and recreation who can provide 01:20:36.625 --> 01:20:42.586 - a little more context Good evening commissioners. Thank you. Nice to be here with you. My name is Tim 01:20:42.586 --> 01:20:47.262 - Street I'm the director of parks and recreation for the city of Bloomington and 01:20:47.458 --> 01:20:53.522 - First I want to thank Julius for all the work that he's done on this and this is actually Julius's last 01:20:53.522 --> 01:20:59.527 - week with the city as well so I just he wanted to see this to fruition and won't quite get all the way 01:20:59.527 --> 01:21:05.707 - there but has done a ton of work in researching and Looking at the language and comparing to other things 01:21:05.707 --> 01:21:11.537 - that have been done both within the state and the state of Illinois has passed legislation This has 01:21:11.537 --> 01:21:16.318 - become an increasingly important issue for us to tackle and it's a complex one as 01:21:16.450 --> 01:21:22.419 - Parks and Rec director I have received a lot a lot of complaints increasing starting about Probably 01:21:22.419 --> 01:21:28.626 - midway through last year. I think in midsummer last year we started to see a proliferation of new types 01:21:28.626 --> 01:21:34.595 - of devices that didn't meet the existing e-bike designations that were faster that were unregulated 01:21:34.595 --> 01:21:40.564 - and we started getting complaints and Over the winter and into the spring we said we really need to 01:21:40.564 --> 01:21:43.966 - start to tackle and address this and I want to thank you 01:21:44.098 --> 01:21:49.955 - Councilmember Daley she agreed Quite frankly a lot of the you reports we received while they are all 01:21:49.955 --> 01:21:55.754 - over town a high concentration of them have been on the southeast side of town And so councilmember 01:21:55.754 --> 01:22:01.669 - Daley in her district was a great person to come on as a council sponsor and has been in our meetings 01:22:01.669 --> 01:22:08.222 - with Julius myself and legal and engineering to try to tackle this and wrap our heads around it a little bit and 01:22:09.826 --> 01:22:16.556 - I heard actually a stat today that was really relevant to tonight, that IU Health, and I'm lacking context 01:22:16.556 --> 01:22:22.846 - if they were talking about our hospital specifically, or all IU Health hospitals, said their number 01:22:22.846 --> 01:22:29.514 - three source of trauma right now is e-bike and e-moto related injuries. So it is significant, and there's 01:22:29.514 --> 01:22:35.867 - an article linked in the packet to about the rise of VR visits for e-bike and e-moto injuries across 01:22:35.867 --> 01:22:37.502 - the country, particularly 01:22:37.602 --> 01:22:43.262 - There's a certain age demographic, particularly middle school age, where kids are getting these, and 01:22:43.262 --> 01:22:48.978 - they're going out, and parents may not understand the implications of what their kids are getting on. 01:22:48.978 --> 01:22:54.638 - And it has a high potential for injuries, both to those minors that are operating those, but also to 01:22:54.638 --> 01:23:00.410 - others. As Julius mentioned, we really wanna balance safety and freedom, so there's a couple questions 01:23:00.410 --> 01:23:05.790 - there. Iris, there's a really great chart. Would you mind pulling up the chart from the packet? 01:23:06.594 --> 01:23:13.262 - I think this helps contextualize the issue. So I think what really what we're trying to do is solve 01:23:13.262 --> 01:23:19.931 - the definitional problem first and then have necessary feedback both from Transportation Commission 01:23:19.931 --> 01:23:26.733 - then of course eventually council on Maybe some of the specific regulations This does at least codify 01:23:26.733 --> 01:23:31.134 - some things give some teeth to enforcement. I will mention that I 01:23:31.426 --> 01:23:38.019 - You know Bloomington Police Department has said this publicly that you know, they're very reticent to 01:23:38.019 --> 01:23:44.548 - initiate any kind of chase with especially a minor on one of these vehicles or even an adult because 01:23:44.548 --> 01:23:51.077 - the consequence can be so high of what's going on, but if we have some things codified and you know, 01:23:51.077 --> 01:23:56.830 - there's security camera footage or eyewitness or known actors involved then there can be 01:23:56.962 --> 01:24:02.938 - traffic violations that apply either to that person or to a parent or guardian Of that person including 01:24:02.938 --> 01:24:08.741 - impoundment as well. So it's really just giving us some more tools I think ultimately we really need 01:24:08.741 --> 01:24:14.774 - state action on this Like Illinois has taken we need the state house to take this on and create a better 01:24:14.774 --> 01:24:20.519 - set of rules for the state But in the absence of that we we need to do something this would even if 01:24:20.519 --> 01:24:24.254 - past need to be followed up with a lot of education and outreach 01:24:24.450 --> 01:24:29.930 - I've been talking with both IU health and MCC SC about that who are great partners who would be Well 01:24:29.930 --> 01:24:35.410 - positioned to help give outreach particularly to that younger population where we may need to get it 01:24:35.410 --> 01:24:41.052 - I've talked to the county parks and rec system They're very interested in what we do and in potentially 01:24:41.052 --> 01:24:46.640 - when we adopted a 20 mile park speed limit on the trails a few years ago they they wanted to copy that 01:24:46.640 --> 01:24:49.950 - and bring that to the county trails for consistency sake and 01:24:50.146 --> 01:24:56.128 - They've expressed they would like to explore, you know what we do and potentially bring that to the 01:24:56.128 --> 01:25:02.230 - county trail system as well. So Yeah, looking forward to some discussion tonight if we if we reach an 01:25:02.230 --> 01:25:08.392 - outcome great But I anticipate there may be some discussion and we may want to come back another time. 01:25:08.392 --> 01:25:14.494 - So, thank you Thank you for the presentation and for those final words sort of framing the discussion 01:25:14.494 --> 01:25:17.246 - that we need to have here now with that let's 01:25:17.410 --> 01:25:24.197 - Open up the floor to questions from commissioners commissioner binder Thank You mr Street, did I hear 01:25:24.197 --> 01:25:31.183 - you correctly when you said there's a 20 mile per hour speed limit on the beeline is that Correct. Sorry 01:25:31.183 --> 01:25:37.970 - to make you come back to the podium. Hey, that's what I'm here for Yes by park policy there is so the 01:25:37.970 --> 01:25:42.494 - board of park commissioners can set policies having it codified and 01:25:43.010 --> 01:25:50.361 - giving us actual traffic enforcements that could be issued for that, takes it to another level. Okay, 01:25:50.361 --> 01:25:57.568 - I guess, sorry, maybe I'm a little confused, because I've never seen a, it's not signed, is it? Are 01:25:57.568 --> 01:26:04.918 - there any speed limit? It is on our park, when you go to the trail heads and you read any of the park 01:26:04.918 --> 01:26:12.125 - policy, trail rules, things like that, it is signed. We have not gone to the step of posting actual 01:26:12.125 --> 01:26:12.990 - speed limit 01:26:13.122 --> 01:26:20.061 - Road-style signs, but that is something we could explore especially with the proliferation of what we've 01:26:20.061 --> 01:26:26.802 - been seeing lately It may be a good next step Okay. Yeah, I mean it sort of is related to all of this 01:26:26.802 --> 01:26:33.477 - obviously but it and I didn't want to detour to too much from the the main question here, but I mean 01:26:33.477 --> 01:26:40.351 - I've been riding on the beeline for many many years and that is brand new information to me, so I can't 01:26:40.351 --> 01:26:41.342 - imagine that's 01:26:41.666 --> 01:26:50.328 - Necessarily very well known among others either so it has not been around a whole long time So yeah, 01:26:50.328 --> 01:26:58.990 - but it is a park policy. Okay. Thank you Thank You mr. Binder other questions online mr. Flaherty No 01:26:58.990 --> 01:27:07.567 - to my left mr. Stossberg Yeah for mr. Mitchell I appreciate your research and looking at comparable 01:27:07.567 --> 01:27:08.510 - cities and 01:27:08.962 --> 01:27:16.258 - One of the things that standardized an e-bike laws and has been for years is the class 1, class 2, 01:27:16.258 --> 01:27:23.775 - class 3. I imagine that came up in your research. What we have now in our definition is somewhat like 01:27:23.775 --> 01:27:31.292 - the class 2 up to 20 miles per hour. For those who are less familiar, class 3 is often an e-bike that 01:27:31.292 --> 01:27:37.630 - could go up to 28 miles per hour and class 3 is often regulated in a way that they're 01:27:37.730 --> 01:27:46.673 - ban for multi-use paths. They have a minimum age, like 16, and a helmet requirement. Some places, California, 01:27:46.673 --> 01:27:54.804 - just this month, also regulated e-motos, but they also have these class 3 e-bikes. In this process, 01:27:54.804 --> 01:28:03.422 - did you look at the class 3 or these other class definitions, and did you consider an option where e-moto 01:28:03.422 --> 01:28:06.430 - was an addition to these other class 01:28:07.394 --> 01:28:14.915 - Classifications. Yeah, that's a great question So one of the things we found I guess I would say I found 01:28:14.915 --> 01:28:22.364 - in the research was that um Class 3 ebikes they allow for this pedal component that you mentioned. It's 01:28:22.364 --> 01:28:29.742 - Class 2 ebikes top out at 20 miles per hour when using the motor And then class 3 ebikes allow a speed 01:28:29.742 --> 01:28:34.398 - up to 28 miles per hour when incorporating pedal assist so we're 01:28:34.562 --> 01:28:41.688 - Encountering a lot of different types of vehicles that aren't well encapsulated within that sort of 01:28:41.688 --> 01:28:48.813 - framework like we're seeing Types of I guess e-bikes that can go without pedal assist up to like 30 01:28:48.813 --> 01:28:56.153 - miles an hour, right? So that doesn't fit any of these existing definitions so I does that answer your 01:28:56.153 --> 01:29:04.062 - question or yeah, I think for me there's a question of I like that class 3 is is also in some ways general and 01:29:04.194 --> 01:29:11.332 - And I'm, it's a question for me, is this also the right time to put class 3 legislation in this code 01:29:11.332 --> 01:29:18.399 - as long as we are regulating it? What California did was they said, look, we're going to keep those 01:29:18.399 --> 01:29:25.467 - classes and these EMOTOs are beyond that that are even, I think class 3 also tops out at 750 watts. 01:29:25.467 --> 01:29:31.262 - And EMOTOs are even more than that and they have other distinctive features like, 01:29:31.778 --> 01:29:38.660 - They're often not equipped with pedals which sets them apart and designed to be primarily used off-highway. 01:29:38.660 --> 01:29:45.224 - The official California name is an electric off-highway motorcycle and they have these straddle seats. 01:29:45.224 --> 01:29:51.852 - They have a distinctive look about them. So I think that's my big question. Is this also the right time 01:29:51.852 --> 01:29:55.038 - to regulate Class 3 at the same time as Z Motors? 01:29:55.234 --> 01:30:00.522 - If I'm wrong Julius, but I think as it stands the way it's written definitionally in the updated code 01:30:00.522 --> 01:30:05.810 - a class 3 would still be included under micro mobility so it would not be bumped to that higher emoto 01:30:05.810 --> 01:30:11.099 - category because that definition is contingent on the pedal assist and So a class 3 with pedal assist 01:30:11.099 --> 01:30:16.490 - can go up to 28 but by motor alone It can only go to 20 so it would still fall into that micro mobility 01:30:16.490 --> 01:30:20.638 - category. Is that what you were getting at? Yes, is that and is that correct? I 01:30:22.082 --> 01:30:28.767 - That's correct. There's also still the existing state law which incorporates class 1 class 2 and class 01:30:28.767 --> 01:30:35.386 - 3 e bikes So as Tim mentioned This would still fit within that the the micro mobility emoted decision 01:30:35.386 --> 01:30:42.006 - would fit within that framework It doesn't conflict with the state law, but the state law is still in 01:30:42.006 --> 01:30:48.756 - place and For people who might not have read through all the entire red line. Is there an age or helmet 01:30:48.756 --> 01:30:51.806 - requirement with the for emotes? Yes, there is 01:30:52.098 --> 01:31:02.986 - Let me find it really quick. So there's an existing section in code, section 15.56.100, requirements 01:31:02.986 --> 01:31:13.875 - for helmet and restraining seat use. So there is an existing part of code that regulates helmet use. 01:31:13.875 --> 01:31:20.990 - We've updated it to include e-motos, but it says it's a violation 01:31:22.306 --> 01:31:29.645 - of this chapter to rent or lease under the 18. Okay, hold on. It's dense code. Yeah. Does that answer 01:31:29.645 --> 01:31:36.912 - your question? I have another follow-up, one more if I may. Yes, but it shall be a violation of this 01:31:36.912 --> 01:31:44.251 - chapter for any person under the age of 18 to operate or be a passenger on a micro mobility device or 01:31:44.251 --> 01:31:51.518 - e-moto unless they're wearing a helmet. And in the draft, they are slated to be allowed on multi-use 01:31:52.290 --> 01:31:59.036 - trails subject to the speed limit? Yes. Yeah. And that is one distinction that places have made, other 01:31:59.036 --> 01:32:05.716 - places have said, okay, you can ride these on the streets and bike lanes, but you can't ride these on 01:32:05.716 --> 01:32:12.462 - trails. I know that we're short staffed on various kinds of enforcement. And one of the things we talk 01:32:12.462 --> 01:32:19.012 - about on the Traffic Commission is a stop sign, a suggestion to stop traffic calming actually slows 01:32:19.012 --> 01:32:21.566 - you down. So speak to the question of, 01:32:22.210 --> 01:32:28.301 - How did you arrive at? Allowing them on the you're exactly right. I think that's The heart of some of 01:32:28.301 --> 01:32:34.392 - the what probably really between Transportation Commission and council needs to be discussed is okay. 01:32:34.392 --> 01:32:40.842 - We can solve the definitional problem for now There's still the question of how do we and elected officials 01:32:40.842 --> 01:32:45.918 - feel about allowing them in? multi-use paths and trails bike lanes and sidewalks and 01:32:46.146 --> 01:32:51.720 - So that chart we can make the distinction in there very easily if we have the definitional problem solved 01:32:51.720 --> 01:32:57.241 - and I think that's some of the feedback we're looking for tonight as Julius mentioned I There's a really 01:32:57.241 --> 01:33:02.605 - big trade-off here right between the complaints and the some of the personal safety things we've been 01:33:02.605 --> 01:33:07.969 - hearing about and the desire to have a transportation network that Utilizes trails and let people use 01:33:07.969 --> 01:33:13.332 - the devices they come to so I think there's a key trade-off there that we need to discuss and come to 01:33:13.332 --> 01:33:14.910 - a conclusion on right now and 01:33:15.554 --> 01:33:21.895 - Personally as department head I still lean towards allowing them With some codified restrictions and 01:33:21.895 --> 01:33:28.424 - seeing if that helps us, but you're absolutely right that you know Are we out there setting speed traps 01:33:28.424 --> 01:33:34.765 - on Jackson Creek Trail? No, I don't think that's in the cards for the future But if we have at least 01:33:34.765 --> 01:33:41.044 - some greater education and enforcement tools, I'd like to see where that takes us Okay, I'd like to 01:33:41.044 --> 01:33:43.806 - I want to recognize that Matt's had his his 01:33:43.938 --> 01:33:53.738 - Virtual hand up for a little while. Yeah, I want to get to other questions. We're gonna come back to 01:33:53.738 --> 01:34:03.539 - the second round Thank you for all that. Let's go to mr. Flaherty How's that a little better Can you 01:34:03.539 --> 01:34:13.630 - shout? Yeah Thank you for the presentation on this I did have a related question about the definitional 01:34:13.762 --> 01:34:19.280 - aspects of this proposed ordinance specifically like essentially eliminating some of the particular 01:34:19.280 --> 01:34:25.019 - definitions we have like the definition of bicycle or motorized scooter and Collapsing all of that into 01:34:25.019 --> 01:34:30.592 - a single micro belt micro but micro mobility device definition so we have that now kind of catch-all 01:34:30.592 --> 01:34:36.275 - category micro built micro mobility devices and then the emotes and You know, I did read the red line. 01:34:36.275 --> 01:34:42.014 - I'm still kind of just weighing and thinking through it myself But I'm curious from staff if there were 01:34:42.014 --> 01:34:43.614 - any trade-offs you discussed 01:34:43.938 --> 01:34:50.105 - or any concerns that you would have, things we need to be aware of with respect to a single definition 01:34:50.105 --> 01:34:56.152 - that kind of encompasses really a quite wide array of devices or ways people get around with wheels. 01:34:56.152 --> 01:35:02.319 - So yeah, just curious for your thoughts on that, as opposed to just adding Emoto on top of definitions 01:35:02.319 --> 01:35:08.486 - we already had. So was there a motivation or particular reasons to kind of collapse that into a single 01:35:08.486 --> 01:35:10.462 - micromobility device definition? 01:35:13.666 --> 01:35:20.152 - as well. So one of the main motivations for doing so is that we're seeing a lot of new types of mobility 01:35:20.152 --> 01:35:26.330 - devices. And so as is regulated, we have bicycles, scooters, coasters. But for instance, if we were 01:35:26.330 --> 01:35:32.631 - to see something new, the way that I was conceptualizing it is not sure if you're familiar with hover 01:35:32.631 --> 01:35:37.758 - boards, which came out somewhat recently and were popularized, were they to become 01:35:37.954 --> 01:35:45.592 - So popular we need to regulate them. We would then need a new section of code to incorporate them but 01:35:45.592 --> 01:35:53.304 - we would regulate them in much the same way that we're regulating bicycles scooters and Coasters right 01:35:53.304 --> 01:36:00.792 - now. So it's sort of future proofs our code to then enforce based on The existed based on the usage 01:36:00.792 --> 01:36:06.558 - rather than like how we would describe the device Would you Oh, yeah as well 01:36:06.658 --> 01:36:13.318 - Those online code is often very repetitive for these Regulations like as I mentioned earlier, they're 01:36:13.318 --> 01:36:20.109 - regulated in the exact same way. I think the language is copy pasted verbatim So this allows us to just 01:36:20.109 --> 01:36:26.638 - clean up code which is always good to do and we have a chance Thank you and I definitely understand 01:36:26.638 --> 01:36:33.429 - and appreciate the benefits of that you outline there and so I'm understanding that staff doesn't think 01:36:33.429 --> 01:36:35.518 - there is or aren't aware of any 01:36:36.130 --> 01:36:43.249 - downsides of like Going to a single definition there. I'm just wondering I can't think of any examples 01:36:43.249 --> 01:36:50.575 - offhand But there may be cases where we want distinction between what we say about bicycles versus roller 01:36:50.575 --> 01:36:58.109 - skates versus hoverboards I you know, I don't know but you can't think of any is that what I'm understanding 01:36:58.109 --> 01:37:01.150 - Or don't think there are any We had as well 01:37:01.442 --> 01:37:07.610 - I also couldn't think of any but that is part of why we're bringing it here in case there is something 01:37:07.610 --> 01:37:13.779 - that one of you Can think of that? We've overlooked the only thing that I could think of is if perhaps 01:37:13.779 --> 01:37:19.887 - we wanted to regulate scooters in a very particular way and it doesn't matter if they happen to go 25 01:37:19.887 --> 01:37:25.936 - miles per hour, but I just In my search of code. I couldn't find anything that would be a concern in 01:37:25.936 --> 01:37:31.326 - that regard Thank you and Councilmember lady Julius can correct me if I'm wrong here, too 01:37:31.426 --> 01:37:39.833 - I believe this still leaves room to have regulations in place for rental programs, of course, of these 01:37:39.833 --> 01:37:47.914 - different devices that exist separately in other parts of code. Is that correct, Julius? Yes, yes, 01:37:47.914 --> 01:37:56.484 - it does. It keeps the shared use. We currently have in section 15.64, I believe, if my laptop will load. 01:37:56.484 --> 01:37:57.790 - Yeah, in 15.58. 01:37:58.178 --> 01:38:07.213 - We have shared-use motorized scooters. This also incorporates those under shared-use multi-mobility 01:38:07.213 --> 01:38:16.339 - devices, which is helpful because we're seeing shared-use e-bikes and bicycles. So it sort of cleans 01:38:16.339 --> 01:38:25.374 - up that preemptively, too, because currently that only regulates shared-use scooters. Mr. Flaherty? 01:38:25.374 --> 01:38:26.910 - Okay, thank you. 01:38:27.010 --> 01:38:33.672 - Take a crack at a couple of questions here before we go to a second round First small thing is there 01:38:33.672 --> 01:38:40.269 - an Indiana City named Naperville or are you talking about, Illinois? Because you were talking about 01:38:40.269 --> 01:38:46.535 - Indiana City's and I looked I don't think there's a town called Naperville, Indiana Thank you. 01:38:46.535 --> 01:38:53.263 - You're right. It's an Illinois City. Okay, so that's a little different because they're covered by an 01:38:53.263 --> 01:38:55.902 - Illinois law second question Let's just 01:38:56.322 --> 01:39:03.190 - Let me just put it on the table. I rode here on my trusty electric device. It is a razor eco smart cargo. 01:39:03.190 --> 01:39:10.187 - It has a capacity of 300 pounds, which is what I, I mean, I'm not 300 pounds, but I need a heavier scooter. 01:39:10.187 --> 01:39:16.925 - It's the only scooter I could fit on, but it's a thousand Watts, but it's limited to 20 miles per hour. 01:39:16.925 --> 01:39:23.469 - It's 19.9 miles per hour. Does that fit your definition of an E moto? Because if I look at the chart 01:39:23.469 --> 01:39:24.894 - correctly, I see that 01:39:25.250 --> 01:39:32.287 - Anything over 750 watts is considered an e-moto. But this is a device that can't go more than 20 miles. 01:39:32.287 --> 01:39:38.648 - I'm lucky to get 17, to be frank, except when I'm going downhill. And it grinds a lot. So I'm 01:39:38.648 --> 01:39:45.618 - just complaining about my bike, but that's how I got here. But it sounds like under this, it would not 01:39:45.618 --> 01:39:52.926 - be considered a micro mobility device. It would be considered an e-moto. Is that correct? Technically, yes. 01:39:53.122 --> 01:40:01.019 - This is another thing that we ran into When I was good looking at the other municipalities and their 01:40:01.019 --> 01:40:09.229 - definitions For instance Carmel, I believe they say has a motor that typically exceeds 750 watts I found 01:40:09.229 --> 01:40:17.439 - that typically exceeds to be confusing. So just 750 watts anything above would be classified as an emoto 01:40:17.439 --> 01:40:20.254 - under how I've proposed it here and 01:40:21.570 --> 01:40:28.267 - There's always gonna be that weird situation. Yeah where okay, but I mean now you've put me in a difficult 01:40:28.267 --> 01:40:34.652 - situation I can't support this if it's true My device can't physically go over 20 miles an hour Which 01:40:34.652 --> 01:40:41.099 - thing is it that you're trying to regulate the speed or the power? That's a good question. The primary 01:40:41.099 --> 01:40:43.102 - and the primary desire is speed 01:40:43.682 --> 01:40:50.911 - So we can rework the definition for sure. If you were to remove the 750 limitation, would that materially 01:40:50.911 --> 01:40:57.934 - undermine what you're trying to do here? I don't believe so. Mr. Stossberg wants to weigh in here. Mr. 01:40:57.934 --> 01:41:04.958 - Stossberg, do you have a thought? Yes. I think for me, this comes back to the distinction between this 01:41:04.958 --> 01:41:11.778 - other class, this class three. I appreciate that you're trying to balance and promote accessibility 01:41:11.778 --> 01:41:13.278 - and mobility options. 01:41:13.410 --> 01:41:20.444 - leaned at the moment towards allowing these on trails. But I think if we had a class three definition, 01:41:20.444 --> 01:41:27.409 - you could say yes to class three on trails on multi-use paths and no to e-motos. You've taken over my 01:41:27.409 --> 01:41:34.374 - questioning. I think that might speak to what your, I think it might put you in a different category. 01:41:34.374 --> 01:41:41.886 - I'll allow it. Can somebody address his question on my behalf? Am I allowed to ask a question in return? Yes. 01:41:42.082 --> 01:41:48.461 - Would you consider your bike to be a class three e-bike because it doesn't sound like that. Okay. Look 01:41:48.461 --> 01:41:54.839 - I'm also six eight and so I can't really pedal at the sizes of most e-bikes You know like I had to get 01:41:54.839 --> 01:42:01.094 - a trike that was recumbent to accommodate my frame, right? So this is a compromise if I had to pedal 01:42:01.094 --> 01:42:07.411 - it I wouldn't be able to pedal it So I have an e scooter at least what I thought was an e scooter And 01:42:07.411 --> 01:42:11.870 - but I mean according to this it qualifies as an e moto and I don't know 01:42:11.970 --> 01:42:18.256 - I mean, I bought this device because it was big enough for me. And that's what it took to accommodate 01:42:18.256 --> 01:42:24.666 - me. So in a way, this is a kind of accessibility issue for me. How would you recommend regulating this? 01:42:24.666 --> 01:42:31.137 - No, I think that's a really great question. And this is exactly what's gotten so complicated about this, 01:42:31.137 --> 01:42:37.054 - is the proliferation of different types of devices without manufacturer standards away from the 01:42:37.250 --> 01:42:43.192 - You know initial categories of one two and three that were set up So it leaves us in a tricky place 01:42:43.192 --> 01:42:49.372 - to try to regulate definitionally Yeah, I think you're right by definition of what is proposed it would 01:42:49.372 --> 01:42:55.314 - be an emoto I mean just to break in here It's it's not technically a class 2e bike because it's not 01:42:55.314 --> 01:43:01.315 - a bike right, right? Okay, so But for all practical purposes it is the equivalent of a class 2e bike 01:43:01.315 --> 01:43:04.702 - because it doesn't go more than 17 miles an hour, right? 01:43:04.866 --> 01:43:11.446 - At least not with me on it. Okay, right. So You know not even a bike One option we could consider is 01:43:11.446 --> 01:43:17.960 - is making it more about speed But is the question is is it the speed you're going or the speed it's 01:43:17.960 --> 01:43:24.866 - capable of going right and that's another question too, right because And also looking at a device you're 01:43:24.866 --> 01:43:31.576 - never gonna know Until it's going too fast on the trail that it is. Hey that one goes too fast So it's 01:43:31.576 --> 01:43:33.726 - very tricky to look at something 01:43:33.954 --> 01:43:41.087 - Something that's important here is that both Class 2 e-bikes and this particular scooter were designed, 01:43:41.087 --> 01:43:48.151 - like the design of the Class 2 e-bike limitation is can't go more than 20 miles an hour. This bike was 01:43:48.151 --> 01:43:55.009 - designed to not go more than 20 miles an hour. So in both cases, they were intentionally limited to 01:43:55.009 --> 01:44:02.142 - 20. And I think you can look up the classification of a device to see what its design was, right? Can't 01:44:02.142 --> 01:44:03.582 - you regulate it from 01:44:04.002 --> 01:44:11.239 - The I don't know. I think that's a great point. I think we could look at design speed as a qualifier 01:44:11.239 --> 01:44:18.763 - in there because that is what we're after ultimately Yeah, and that could could maybe solve for a little 01:44:18.763 --> 01:44:25.929 - bit of the gray area that Mr. Stossberg is referencing between the two And you know, maybe we would 01:44:25.929 --> 01:44:28.222 - do that just by eliminating the 01:44:29.154 --> 01:44:35.979 - The focus on the power and the wattage I will have to talk more after this but this is why we're here 01:44:35.979 --> 01:44:43.005 - tonight So yeah, that's that's so that's my feedback. I've got other questions, but let's go to a second 01:44:43.005 --> 01:44:49.763 - round of questions. Mr. Binder Question about this three-foot width. I'm just curious about what the 01:44:49.763 --> 01:44:56.789 - thinking was there You know attempts to regulate mobility devices over the years are replete with really 01:44:56.789 --> 01:44:58.462 - written definitions that 01:44:58.658 --> 01:45:06.079 - unfairly exclude certain types of devices as we're sort of witnessing here. And it doesn't take me that 01:45:06.079 --> 01:45:13.500 - long to think of probably a variety of what kinds of devices we might think of as micromobility devices 01:45:13.500 --> 01:45:21.136 - that would exceed three foot widths. I'm thinking of those bicycle pedicabs, which I don't know if there's 01:45:21.136 --> 01:45:28.414 - any of those services in Bloomington right now, or those sort of quad four wheel where two people can 01:45:28.642 --> 01:45:35.945 - pedal side by side, or a bicycle designed to transport someone in a wheelchair, like in the front, or 01:45:35.945 --> 01:45:43.106 - maybe just a large cargo trike, or those kind of four wheel delivery vehicles that I've seen pop up 01:45:43.106 --> 01:45:50.552 - in other cities before that are like small electric local delivery vehicles, which I'm certain are more 01:45:50.552 --> 01:45:58.142 - than three feet in width. So I'm just sort of wondering kind of what the idea behind the three foot width 01:45:58.306 --> 01:46:04.305 - Was and whether that would be something, you know worth reconsidering because of a lot of devices that 01:46:04.305 --> 01:46:10.479 - might not fit into that category Yeah, that's a fair question This is also one that we saw among a number 01:46:10.479 --> 01:46:16.303 - of the other municipalities this three-foot width So I tried to think of why that might be included 01:46:16.303 --> 01:46:22.360 - as well the reason that I thought might be the case is that Often when we think of enforcement we think 01:46:22.360 --> 01:46:28.126 - of it's only being used when like we won't have somebody policing the beeline checking that you're 01:46:28.354 --> 01:46:35.194 - vehicle is, oh, it's 3.5 feet instead of three, you know, it would only be an issue, it would only arise 01:46:35.194 --> 01:46:41.838 - if it were an issue. So I conceived of a device in which it's maybe six feet wide, but it's got a low 01:46:41.838 --> 01:46:48.482 - wattage and it's got a low speed. So it's technically a micromobility device. So I believe this is an 01:46:48.482 --> 01:46:55.322 - attempt to close a potential loophole where somebody could go down a path that takes up the entire path. 01:46:55.322 --> 01:46:57.406 - That's how I conceptualized it. 01:46:58.082 --> 01:47:05.744 - realm of thinking I left it in. Does that make sense? Yeah, I think that's certainly worth considering 01:47:05.744 --> 01:47:13.405 - too. I don't think we would want to permit mobility devices that are excessively wide either. Although 01:47:13.405 --> 01:47:20.843 - I will point out I frequently see golf carts and UTV type vehicles on the beeline all the time that 01:47:20.843 --> 01:47:27.166 - are operated by the parks department for maintenance or there's the private security 01:47:27.426 --> 01:47:34.067 - That you guys have hired for patrolling the beeline in sometimes gas-powered, you know, you TV type 01:47:34.067 --> 01:47:40.707 - Vehicles, so I guess I I don't know. I think in light of that I'm sort of a little confused about I 01:47:40.707 --> 01:47:47.348 - mean I see those a lot more frequently than I see people, you know riding emotes on the beeline For 01:47:47.348 --> 01:47:53.989 - what it's worth. So, I don't know if you can try to address that I'd appreciate it because I I feel 01:47:53.989 --> 01:47:56.446 - like I more I read this I think that 01:47:56.706 --> 01:48:03.284 - some of these definitions are maybe a little unnecessarily narrow or Trying to solve a problem that 01:48:03.284 --> 01:48:09.861 - I'm not sure exists Or at least that I've personally witnessed I'm just gonna chime in here and say 01:48:09.861 --> 01:48:16.702 - that I pulled up the average dimensions for a golf cart They typically have a width of 48 inches 4 feet 01:48:16.702 --> 01:48:17.886 - rather than 3 and 01:48:18.114 --> 01:48:23.414 - So maybe that's something worth considering. Well, so that's that would be another question I have I 01:48:23.414 --> 01:48:28.819 - would love if you could maybe respond to what I said earlier, but the golf cart thing is another thing 01:48:28.819 --> 01:48:34.276 - I want to bring up at some point because there is a state law about about Municipalities and local golf 01:48:34.276 --> 01:48:39.838 - cart laws and I believe Monroe County also just passed a local golf cart ordinance recently So but that's 01:48:39.838 --> 01:48:43.774 - another question. So let's let's just talk about the the width thing first 01:48:46.530 --> 01:48:51.775 - I'm sorry. There was a lot there. What's but is there a specific question you want me to get out? Sorry, 01:48:51.775 --> 01:48:56.921 - I tend to overload my questions I guess just what the thinking was there about and I think I think You 01:48:56.921 --> 01:49:02.017 - chose she answered the question already I think in just in that you were trying to look at what other 01:49:02.017 --> 01:49:07.062 - municipalities Laws and were and how they were written and you were trying to come up with something 01:49:07.062 --> 01:49:12.058 - that was kind of harmonizing with that Is that right? Yeah, and I think as we look at more and more 01:49:12.058 --> 01:49:14.206 - of what's passing elsewhere we're seeing a 01:49:14.498 --> 01:49:21.291 - Some level of consistent standards start to appear. It doesn't mean the state would adopt that exact 01:49:21.291 --> 01:49:28.017 - thing But we are taking cues from what others are doing so we can yeah, we can look at that more as 01:49:28.017 --> 01:49:34.810 - well When in doubt if anyone is Presenting or asking questions if you say thank you when you're done 01:49:34.810 --> 01:49:41.536 - that way I know to move on to the next person. Are there further questions from members? Yeah, just 01:49:41.536 --> 01:49:43.486 - a note about the width issue 01:49:43.746 --> 01:49:48.875 - Maybe I'm getting ahead of it. But if this is going to be an ordinance used to regulate what's allowed 01:49:48.875 --> 01:49:54.104 - in a bike lane, since those are often more constricted than maybe trails or sidewalks, that is something 01:49:54.104 --> 01:49:59.234 - where the width would be very important. We really don't want something going over three feet, because 01:49:59.234 --> 01:50:04.413 - bike lanes are often, I think, four feet each way usually. And it can be a real safety issue if there's 01:50:04.413 --> 01:50:06.206 - something wider than that going on. 01:50:09.346 --> 01:50:17.239 - Can we direct that as a question to staff like Mr. Biner brought up the idea that a golf cart is used 01:50:17.239 --> 01:50:24.977 - by staff on trails Is there a philosophy or rule about that? Are you willing to rethink it? Is this 01:50:24.977 --> 01:50:32.638 - something that might encourage? The public to ride a golf cart on a trail. What what do you say? I 01:50:34.114 --> 01:50:40.894 - Well, if you look at the ordinance and I know it's dense but the proposed ordinance I simplified the 01:50:40.894 --> 01:50:47.607 - definition in the in the PowerPoint But the definition in the ordinance explicitly does not include 01:50:47.607 --> 01:50:54.319 - golf carts because it's defined by state law So golf cart is explicitly not a micro mobility device 01:50:54.319 --> 01:51:01.502 - or an emoto. Okay But can we get that side question about golf carts on trails? Are they? What's the rule? 01:51:02.018 --> 01:51:11.674 - They are not generally allowed but they are necessary and important for for maintenance and Park activities 01:51:11.674 --> 01:51:20.794 - from time to time. So yeah, we do have to operate them there Thank you. Does that address your mutual 01:51:20.794 --> 01:51:30.718 - concerns? Mr. Binder Questions to my left mr. Stossberg you had more Another reference I looked up was Indiana 01:51:31.874 --> 01:51:37.978 - Yeah, the Indiana state law Indiana you mentioned like eventually emotes need to be addressed at the 01:51:37.978 --> 01:51:44.142 - state level, right? And Indiana does use the ebike or the classification system class 1 class 2 class 01:51:44.142 --> 01:51:50.367 - 3 some places It's integrated into the retail stores where there's a sticker on your bikes when you're 01:51:50.367 --> 01:51:56.592 - shopping you have the wattage and the number I think Partly a problem with emotes was just a confusion 01:51:56.592 --> 01:52:00.158 - when they arrived. What are they? How do we classify them? 01:52:00.610 --> 01:52:06.933 - And so the more that we can standardize, I think the more it can reduce user confusion. You mentioned 01:52:06.933 --> 01:52:13.255 - also separating out the question of defining and then applying policies to the definitions. And if we 01:52:13.255 --> 01:52:20.446 - include this class three e-bike option, it gives you another granular tool at that next level when you're applying. 01:52:20.930 --> 01:52:27.260 - policies. I looked up what these class three e-bikes look like, and some of them just look like commuting 01:52:27.260 --> 01:52:33.231 - e-bikes. They're probably out there. You just didn't realize that they could go faster, and they're 01:52:33.231 --> 01:52:39.381 - not a category I think we're so concerned about. Whereas when you see an e-moto on the B-line, and you 01:52:39.381 --> 01:52:45.054 - just know that doesn't belong here. So I think I would be in favor of adding that distinction. 01:52:47.234 --> 01:52:55.837 - I would just say we we agree that our concern was not about class 3 e bikes Which is is why the definition 01:52:55.837 --> 01:53:04.118 - was written to include them in the micro mobility devices Which will by default be the more permissive 01:53:04.118 --> 01:53:12.400 - of the two categories. Yeah Mr. Flaherty any questions? Okay, I got some more So, let me be let me get 01:53:12.400 --> 01:53:15.294 - this straight Does a class 3 e bike 01:53:15.618 --> 01:53:23.352 - the right to go on Bloomington trails Right now yes, yes up to 20 miles an hour Okay, and as proposed 01:53:23.352 --> 01:53:31.085 - right now if we continue with the allowance for emotos to continue use on Trails and paths the answer 01:53:31.085 --> 01:53:38.894 - would also be yes up to 20 miles an hour But there would be codified language to help with enforcement 01:53:38.894 --> 01:53:44.126 - on the back end of that for violations. So our motorcycles allowed a 01:53:44.354 --> 01:53:51.136 - 20 miles motorcycles are motor vehicles and We talked about this too the lines between these things 01:53:51.136 --> 01:53:58.258 - are tough, but that one at least is motor vehicle I mean a moto and even an e-scooter are motor Vehicles 01:53:58.258 --> 01:54:05.108 - by the technique the simple plain the definition of the words. Yep, but you're saying in state law a 01:54:05.108 --> 01:54:10.398 - motorcycle would not be allowed there that's supposed to go on the street and 01:54:11.362 --> 01:54:17.368 - Is it your goal to try to get emotes regulated as motorcycles? I mean, do you do would you either of 01:54:17.368 --> 01:54:23.732 - you say I would not say that is my goal I hope that the state addresses it because I think again statewide 01:54:23.732 --> 01:54:30.214 - clarity is really needed to help Of course big definitions, but no that is not my goal to get them regulated 01:54:30.214 --> 01:54:36.279 - as motorcycles Okay, because I guess I'm wondering why not I mean they they go well above 28 miles an 01:54:36.279 --> 01:54:39.134 - hour the whole philosophy of class 3 ebike is I 01:54:39.266 --> 01:54:46.157 - If it's more than that, it should only be used on the street. Isn't that the idea? I think that is some 01:54:46.157 --> 01:54:53.049 - of the question that we're after. So if we create this category of e-motor to capture what has appeared 01:54:53.049 --> 01:54:59.742 - that is no longer fitting with what we are calling micromobility, which is the class 1, 2, 3 e-bikes 01:54:59.742 --> 01:55:05.374 - that have been around, the early adopter, early prototype e-bikes, all those things. 01:55:05.666 --> 01:55:11.402 - We've recognized there's a new category this new category doesn't fit the state definition of motor 01:55:11.402 --> 01:55:17.310 - vehicle either Right, they're not motor vehicles. They're not motorized. They're not cars necessarily. 01:55:17.310 --> 01:55:23.104 - So we're trying to create that niche to regulate It's not something else. This is a question for mr. 01:55:23.104 --> 01:55:28.954 - Mitchell. Now, how do you rationalize? banning 17 year olds from using this when they can be licensed 01:55:28.954 --> 01:55:31.134 - to drive a car at 16 by state law and 01:55:34.498 --> 01:55:41.714 - Because right now it says you have to be 18 to use an Emoto in the city of Bloomington. I'm sorry, where 01:55:41.714 --> 01:55:48.792 - does it say that? That's what I thought I saw. I mean, are you not trying to prevent 18-year-olds from 01:55:48.792 --> 01:55:55.801 - using anything? You have to be 18 to use an Emoto. Did I read it wrong? Without a helmet, but you can 01:55:55.801 --> 01:56:02.742 - operate it. Without a helmet? Yeah. Oh, I missed that part. Okay, I'm sorry. I thought I was reading 01:56:02.742 --> 01:56:04.254 - that was just banned. 01:56:04.578 --> 01:56:10.501 - Honestly age is another thing we talked about for emoto and that is another thing we could consider 01:56:10.501 --> 01:56:16.483 - with the Definitional categories if there should be an age limit Well, I mean, let's even just stick 01:56:16.483 --> 01:56:22.406 - with the the helmet. Is that a law? I mean for motorcycle users if you're licensed at age 16 in the 01:56:22.406 --> 01:56:28.862 - state of Indiana Can you really be told? I mean is that is there already a state law requiring helmet use? I 01:56:32.450 --> 01:56:41.141 - Are we circumventing state law at all with this? No, I can't say for certain whether or not There's 01:56:41.141 --> 01:56:50.007 - a state law to require helmet use on motorcycles but the existing helmet requirement for those 18 and 01:56:50.007 --> 01:56:58.959 - younger Or under the age of 18 that exists currently. Okay for all bikes. Okay. Well that answers that 01:56:58.959 --> 01:57:01.566 - question. I appreciate it and 01:57:01.890 --> 01:57:11.389 - But now I also want to know does is this ordinance also a sign that the city is starting to think of 01:57:11.389 --> 01:57:20.793 - Parks facilities namely trails as rights of way as things that are regulated the same as or Managed 01:57:20.793 --> 01:57:30.197 - in the same way as streets Like are we going to put speed limit signs to the same extent that we do 01:57:30.197 --> 01:57:31.326 - on streets? 01:57:31.586 --> 01:57:40.246 - I mean the beeline trail other trails. They are methods of transportation not simply recreational facilities 01:57:40.246 --> 01:57:48.270 - To what extent do you expect to enforce this law through the use of signage? That's a good question, 01:57:48.270 --> 01:57:56.215 - you know, I think are we continue to manage our trails both as recreational facilities linear parks 01:57:56.215 --> 01:57:59.870 - and as transportation corridors that is why I 01:58:00.066 --> 01:58:06.127 - You know a couple years ago. You saw us test the center stripe down the beeline It's gotten busier There 01:58:06.127 --> 01:58:11.899 - are faster speeds. There are more ebikes devices things like that capable of going faster So that's 01:58:11.899 --> 01:58:18.017 - why we work with the engineering department a lot in consultation on some things like that trail closures 01:58:18.017 --> 01:58:24.078 - permits things like that and processes that we've improved the last few years and So we want to continue 01:58:24.078 --> 01:58:28.926 - to manage them as as both of those things to the greatest extent possible That said 01:58:30.754 --> 01:58:37.028 - Sorry, I'm trying to get back to the heart of your question. Well, I mean it's it's it's about signage 01:58:37.028 --> 01:58:43.485 - Signage that was that I'm passive a passive kind of enforcement because we know we can't enforce actively 01:58:43.485 --> 01:58:49.576 - every Trail in the city a little on every street. Yes Hey You know it was it was not in my plans to 01:58:49.576 --> 01:58:56.094 - say I want to set out and I want to put speed limit signs on our trails That's that's not what we're after 01:58:56.834 --> 01:59:03.040 - I think we would like to see the effect of some outreach, some education, a new ordinance passing, what 01:59:03.040 --> 01:59:09.126 - happens, sometimes things are fads, sometimes things evolve, et cetera, but I think if we continue to 01:59:09.126 --> 01:59:15.451 - get the complaints like we have now, we need to continue to look at would signage help? And that's always 01:59:15.451 --> 01:59:21.418 - the answer, put a sign up, but. Well, here's how it would help me if I'm a concerned citizen who is 01:59:21.418 --> 01:59:26.430 - using the trails and has been buzzed by an Emoto and is afraid of being hit by one. 01:59:26.882 --> 01:59:35.223 - If I can point to a sign that says, you see that? Bikes that go more than 20 miles an hour are not allowed. 01:59:35.223 --> 01:59:43.487 - That's a defense. That's a way of contradicting the person who wants to give you the finger. Look, there's 01:59:43.487 --> 01:59:51.364 - a sign. I didn't make it up. It wasn't me. This is the whole point of such regulation, I would think, 01:59:51.364 --> 01:59:55.998 - is to be able to show them. That's the best way to educate. 01:59:56.386 --> 02:00:01.837 - Are you concerned that you would make the trail less? Desirable simply by posting speed limits. No, 02:00:01.837 --> 02:00:07.507 - no, just to be clear. I'm not opposed. I think that's a likely step I don't want to okay, you know have 02:00:07.507 --> 02:00:13.012 - to plaster it everywhere But I think of course when we do this and we do education and outreach some 02:00:13.012 --> 02:00:18.736 - signage would be appropriate I just can't say I've been planning that for years like oh, let's put speed 02:00:18.736 --> 02:00:23.806 - limit signs up but with the proliferation of these devices and the issues we're experiencing 02:00:24.258 --> 02:00:30.114 - Yeah, I think it is probably a next step that makes sense for education Safety, etc. Would you be willing 02:00:30.114 --> 02:00:35.970 - to post a sign that defines what an emoto is or saying like, yeah Because I think that would be important 02:00:35.970 --> 02:00:41.660 - as well now, you know, we have some of those trailhead rule signs already I don't know how many people 02:00:41.660 --> 02:00:47.516 - check them out or look at them. But yes Well now we're not talking about trailhead anymore. We're talking 02:00:47.516 --> 02:00:49.726 - about anywhere where people might enter 02:00:49.858 --> 02:00:55.974 - Like how do speed limit signs get put on streets now? They tend to be every block every other block 02:00:55.974 --> 02:01:02.152 - or every few blocks But it's got to be more than just at the beginning and end of the trail sure for 02:01:02.152 --> 02:01:08.329 - speed limit signs I think we would struggle. I don't think we can put definitional signs You know up 02:01:08.329 --> 02:01:14.567 - and down a lot of locations. Okay. Thank you other further questions. I've got more I just don't want 02:01:14.567 --> 02:01:18.910 - to step on people's toes here Will the police use emotes do you think? 02:01:22.946 --> 02:01:30.805 - I'm not sure what devices they currently have. I think they operate motorcycles currently. I don't think 02:01:30.805 --> 02:01:38.589 - they would, I think they fit the state definition of motorcycle as opposed to. I think my last question 02:01:38.589 --> 02:01:46.448 - is having to do with what Donald Shoup called terminal capacity, the place that you park vehicles. We've 02:01:46.448 --> 02:01:52.510 - talked about, I mean he talks about how airports are the places you park planes. 02:01:52.834 --> 02:02:01.414 - harbors where you duck boats and Parking garages and parking places on streets or where you park cars, 02:02:01.414 --> 02:02:09.994 - but where we park bikes is Kind of confusing and I think it speaks to this issue here. We tend to park 02:02:09.994 --> 02:02:18.324 - bikes on sidewalks the majority of our racks are if you're riding up to it's reasonable to to think 02:02:18.324 --> 02:02:21.406 - that you're riding your bike up to a 02:02:21.794 --> 02:02:29.047 - the place where you're going to park it. And all too often, the places we have to park our bikes are 02:02:29.047 --> 02:02:36.444 - on places that are designated to not ride your bike. You actually have to walk it some distance to get 02:02:36.444 --> 02:02:43.770 - there. It's not really how people use bikes. They want to pull right up to it, too. So if the concern 02:02:43.770 --> 02:02:51.454 - about people riding their bikes on sidewalks is speed, which is what this whole thing is about, why are we 02:02:51.842 --> 02:03:00.356 - putting our Terminal capacity for bikes in the place that specifically designated for pedestrians only 02:03:00.356 --> 02:03:08.788 - And this our trails are designed for all kinds including pedestrians. They're like I mean, you're not 02:03:08.788 --> 02:03:17.054 - supposed to ride your bike in the downtown on a sidewalk but you are allowed to ride your bike on a 02:03:17.054 --> 02:03:21.022 - trail both of which accommodate pedestrians and 02:03:21.954 --> 02:03:29.461 - This is why I'm concerned about putting signs on Trailsly their their forms of transportation just like 02:03:29.461 --> 02:03:37.185 - sidewalks are and I'm sort of stuck here trying to figure out what messages we're sending with the default 02:03:37.185 --> 02:03:44.620 - system we have and Has the mayor's office thought about where bike racks will go and what message that 02:03:44.620 --> 02:03:51.838 - sends? And it's a long question. I know you probably don't have an answer, but I'm gonna ask anyway 02:03:56.002 --> 02:04:02.768 - I guess my answer would just be that's sort of outside the scope of what this ordinance does. Frankly, 02:04:02.768 --> 02:04:09.600 - I'm not sure. I think what you're talking about with bike racks and where they're placed, I think those 02:04:09.600 --> 02:04:15.775 - are a UDO requirement, which goes beyond the definition of micromobility and e-moto. And yet, 02:04:15.775 --> 02:04:22.344 - like I said, we're putting the places where we stop bikes, the places that tell people, oh, you can 02:04:22.344 --> 02:04:25.694 - bring your bike because there's a place to put it. 02:04:26.146 --> 02:04:34.334 - But we're putting it in the zone that specifically for pedestrians and I guess maybe it's a question 02:04:34.334 --> 02:04:42.603 - for parks as well You know Is a trail not a form of transportation that should be regulated more like 02:04:42.603 --> 02:04:48.926 - a form of transportation than a form of recreation I Again, I think it's both 02:04:49.058 --> 02:04:55.583 - And I think it's important to manage for those transportation aspects and the recreational aspects because 02:04:55.583 --> 02:05:01.681 - you're gonna have all kinds of mixed use of people Being on it to get somewhere and people being on 02:05:01.681 --> 02:05:07.779 - it to not get somewhere right to recreate to walk dogs. It's tricky There's a lot of use and that's 02:05:07.779 --> 02:05:14.059 - what we're trying to manage but part of the point of this ordinance is to provide a defense for people 02:05:14.059 --> 02:05:18.206 - who maybe have been struck by an emoto on say a trail You know like 02:05:18.850 --> 02:05:25.796 - They I've ran out of thought I think I think primarily what we set out to do with this Knowing that 02:05:25.796 --> 02:05:32.812 - we would have these some of these exact questions about specific use case scenarios based on the two 02:05:32.812 --> 02:05:40.036 - definition categories right was create a definition category that that works to define and capture this 02:05:40.036 --> 02:05:47.052 - this new aspect and create a codified, you know backing to the park policy for the speed limit while 02:05:47.052 --> 02:05:48.094 - still allowing 02:05:48.258 --> 02:05:53.862 - Use where we currently allow it. So default use has been You can use these things where you use I'm 02:05:53.862 --> 02:05:59.522 - just gonna say bikes, right? There were already existing city exclusions, of course for the downtown 02:05:59.522 --> 02:06:05.182 - dismount zone and in different places that were regulated Those are still in there And so critically 02:06:05.182 --> 02:06:10.842 - I think if we at least have the definitions where we want them and we can talk signage You know down 02:06:10.842 --> 02:06:16.445 - the line. I think some of that is certainly necessary as a next step I think that the key questions 02:06:16.445 --> 02:06:17.342 - are really okay 02:06:17.442 --> 02:06:24.214 - If we've defined these then We quite honestly need need the feedback of the public bodies on sidewalks 02:06:24.214 --> 02:06:30.921 - bike lanes and paths and trails to say You know is this do we want to continue to allow by default it 02:06:30.921 --> 02:06:37.562 - has been yes They're allowed to use them, but it's been sort of unregulated because they haven't met 02:06:37.562 --> 02:06:44.203 - any definition in city code so at least this way we would have a backing of potential enforcement as 02:06:44.203 --> 02:06:46.110 - difficult as that may be and 02:06:46.370 --> 02:06:51.679 - to Allow us to at least try or enforce some things and do some education outreach on these categories 02:06:51.679 --> 02:06:57.040 - but then between Transportation Commission and council I Anticipated there would be more questions and 02:06:57.040 --> 02:07:02.454 - discussion about those exact use case scenarios. Yeah, I think you're right And I'm my questions aren't 02:07:02.454 --> 02:07:07.659 - fully formed yet, but they're emerging from this discussion So thank you both for your answers. Are 02:07:07.659 --> 02:07:11.198 - there any other questions before we go to public comment on this? I 02:07:13.314 --> 02:07:19.624 - None, let's go to the public. I don't see anybody in the chamber who like to speak to this Is there 02:07:19.624 --> 02:07:26.187 - anyone online who would like to speak to TCR 2621? amending title 15 to define and regulate micro micro 02:07:26.187 --> 02:07:32.561 - mobility devices and emotes if so Please use the raise hand function in zoom and you'll be called on 02:07:32.561 --> 02:07:39.061 - you'll have three minutes So anyone online who'd like to speak to this issue? There is not but I would 02:07:39.061 --> 02:07:42.910 - like to provide public comment if that is I will now call on 02:07:43.074 --> 02:07:49.816 - Iris Bull for public comment. Thank you. Please. I would be remiss if I didn't offer public comment 02:07:49.816 --> 02:07:56.694 - on this particular issue because I drive almost what feels like the whole length of the beeline every 02:07:56.694 --> 02:08:03.436 - day to get to work. And I do so on a scooter that can definitely go up to 35 miles an hour if I let 02:08:03.436 --> 02:08:10.314 - it. And I'm grateful that for about four feet that I have that kind of power to get up the little bit 02:08:10.314 --> 02:08:12.606 - of hill at the end of that trail. 02:08:12.706 --> 02:08:20.521 - in order to actually continue on to a path that gets me into my neighborhood. I'm one of the unfortunate 02:08:20.521 --> 02:08:28.039 - people who has to live in the county where our trails and when we have sidewalks go to nowhere. It's 02:08:28.039 --> 02:08:36.002 - just not an ideal place to try to exercise alternative forms of transportation. But that said, I'm exactly 02:08:36.002 --> 02:08:40.766 - the kind of user that probably would never be affected by this. 02:08:40.994 --> 02:08:47.575 - this regulation because I'm assuming that it's designed to punish people who are already getting in 02:08:47.575 --> 02:08:54.155 - trouble for some other reason. I would just encourage that for the sake of simplicity, perhaps that 02:08:54.155 --> 02:09:01.065 - really greater emphasis be placed on speed limits, which would, I would like to think, encourage traffic 02:09:01.065 --> 02:09:07.909 - calming initiatives that are unique to the trails and place less of an emphasis on wattage. That's just 02:09:07.909 --> 02:09:08.830 - my two cents. 02:09:10.338 --> 02:09:17.131 - Thank you for your comment. Is there any other public comment online or in the room? Last call for a 02:09:17.131 --> 02:09:24.193 - public comment, please use the raise hand function. Oh, this is the staff are setting aside their gavels 02:09:24.193 --> 02:09:30.986 - to act as public. Mr. Garzi, would you like to make public comment? You'll have three minutes. Yeah. 02:09:30.986 --> 02:09:37.913 - One of the comments I had was I noticed that e-trikes were noted under e-motos. And I was just curious 02:09:37.913 --> 02:09:39.998 - why e-trikes were noted there. 02:09:40.514 --> 02:09:46.679 - The other comment I had was about speed limits. I think it's also interesting to consider speed limits 02:09:46.679 --> 02:09:52.724 - when you're passing someone, because I feel like that's the most important time where the speed that 02:09:52.724 --> 02:09:58.770 - someone's going is actually important is when you're possibly going to hit them. I don't really mind 02:09:58.770 --> 02:10:05.174 - if someone's going 30 miles per hour when I'm like 50 or 100 feet away. Maybe more. But it really concerns 02:10:05.174 --> 02:10:10.142 - me when someone's passing me at that speed. And so if we had passing speed limits, 02:10:10.466 --> 02:10:17.665 - I think that would be more important and if we were to I would I would like them to be a little bit 02:10:17.665 --> 02:10:25.152 - lower than 20 miles per hour That's it. Thank you Thank you Well, all right, if there's no other public 02:10:25.152 --> 02:10:32.495 - comment last call for public comment use the raise hand function in zoom if you're online and We come 02:10:32.495 --> 02:10:39.838 - back to the Commission for debate anything you've heard that causes you to ask another question or to 02:10:40.418 --> 02:10:49.557 - make a recommendation on what we should do with TCR 2621. To my left, no comments. This is where we 02:10:49.557 --> 02:10:59.061 - go back and forth with each other and we hash it out. They're looking for guidance. I want to encourage 02:10:59.061 --> 02:11:08.474 - you all to say something. Mr. Stosberg. Thank you. I'd probably be most inclined to send this back for 02:11:08.474 --> 02:11:09.662 - refinements. 02:11:10.690 --> 02:11:22.216 - I think a ban on multi-use trails would have broad public support. I think that's something to consider. 02:11:22.216 --> 02:11:33.522 - I have a son who's of the age whose friends have these. And so as a parent, I'm aware of these issues. 02:11:33.522 --> 02:11:39.998 - I'd like there to be an age limit, 16 at least, for these. 02:11:40.450 --> 02:11:48.833 - I read the mentions of helmet. It looks like there's a helmet requirement if you are renting a shared 02:11:48.833 --> 02:11:57.134 - mobility device, but I didn't see a helmet requirement for these, but maybe you're telling me that's 02:11:57.134 --> 02:12:06.174 - in state law. And banning on sidewalks. Again, I just think, I feel like I am, I was in favor of the sidewalk 02:12:06.626 --> 02:12:13.591 - The rule to allow bicycles on sidewalks because sometimes it's the safest way to get someplace and we 02:12:13.591 --> 02:12:20.488 - we shouldn't criminalize You're getting to where you need to go in the safest way. I Don't see these 02:12:20.488 --> 02:12:27.522 - emotive specifically used so much for transportation They seem to be very much used for recreation and 02:12:27.522 --> 02:12:34.351 - so I'm I'm comfortable Being more restrictive about them than I would other forms of transportation 02:12:34.351 --> 02:12:35.102 - especially 02:12:35.330 --> 02:12:43.785 - Because we know there there are other more powerful kinds of ebikes that people are using Which are 02:12:43.785 --> 02:12:52.579 - not emotes and wouldn't have to be have these constraints Thank you, is there any other comment Is that 02:12:52.579 --> 02:13:01.034 - it that you're looking to comment no, mr. Binder I'll just say that I concur with mr. Stasberg that 02:13:01.034 --> 02:13:03.486 - my inclination would be to I 02:13:04.258 --> 02:13:13.250 - send this back for further refinement. We just have to be, I think, very careful about how we're writing 02:13:13.250 --> 02:13:22.157 - these definitions because there are many possible pitfalls. There's always gonna be lots of cases where 02:13:22.157 --> 02:13:31.492 - things can slip through loopholes or the inverse. We are restricting certain types of devices unnecessarily. 02:13:31.492 --> 02:13:32.862 - So I think that 02:13:34.914 --> 02:13:43.157 - to look at other municipalities rules about these things is a good idea. And also I think understanding 02:13:43.157 --> 02:13:51.558 - that the reasons for an entity like the city of Bloomington to regulate different types of micro mobility 02:13:51.558 --> 02:13:59.959 - devices is gonna come from kind of a fundamentally different place than say the you know consumer product 02:13:59.959 --> 02:14:04.318 - safety commission which you know I think was maybe the 02:14:04.514 --> 02:14:11.258 - Origin of the like the three-class ebike system for example, you know, like it's it's pretty well beyond 02:14:11.258 --> 02:14:17.681 - the scope of municipal ordinance to be like regulating like Which types like where the locations of 02:14:17.681 --> 02:14:24.360 - like where reflectors are on bikes that are sold in stores and things like that I think so Whereas like 02:14:24.360 --> 02:14:30.526 - that does pertain to for example the three-class ebike system So I think just with that in mind 02:14:31.938 --> 02:14:43.473 - I think this is a good start. I think the motivations behind it are very admirable. But I think a little 02:14:43.473 --> 02:14:54.569 - bit more consideration is needed about how this is written and emphasizing, I think, the speed-based 02:14:54.569 --> 02:15:00.062 - rules and classifications more so than wattage or 02:15:00.418 --> 02:15:08.336 - You know dimensions or like other or number of wheels or like things like that that Seem more arbitrary 02:15:08.336 --> 02:15:15.950 - and less related to safety compared to the design speed or maximum speed However, you want to think 02:15:15.950 --> 02:15:23.563 - of it? So that's my comment just a point of order to everyone on the Commission our Mandate here is 02:15:23.563 --> 02:15:27.294 - to make a positive recommendation a negative one 02:15:27.714 --> 02:15:36.249 - No recommendation or to continue to another meeting. Those are the four Motions that we can entertain 02:15:36.249 --> 02:15:44.700 - so keep that in mind as you speak further comment from commissioners online Okay Anybody else before 02:15:44.700 --> 02:15:53.151 - I go because we can have two bites here I've got a few things number one People have talked for many 02:15:53.151 --> 02:15:55.326 - years in my experience on 02:15:55.842 --> 02:16:04.077 - about how they would like to see more enforcement of traffic rules. They're always seeing people speeding, 02:16:04.077 --> 02:16:11.927 - or they're seeing bicyclists go through a stop sign and they belly ache, usually on social media, but 02:16:11.927 --> 02:16:20.085 - oftentimes in this chamber. And we ought to know, if we don't already know, that we can't possibly afford 02:16:20.085 --> 02:16:24.318 - to hire as many people as it would take to catch every 02:16:24.418 --> 02:16:34.892 - Miscreant who violates traffic rules. We will be living in what we feel is a police state if we did 02:16:34.892 --> 02:16:45.786 - so this is one reason why we are so concerned about The design speed of Transportation facility because 02:16:45.786 --> 02:16:54.270 - it acts as de facto police to if you can't physically go very fast on a path and 02:16:54.498 --> 02:17:05.981 - You're less likely to speed. I feel like we have to sign all of our facilities that are used 02:17:05.981 --> 02:17:18.822 - for transportation. Our trails, our transportation facilities. They may not be roads, but people travel 02:17:18.822 --> 02:17:23.390 - on them. They don't just do it to... 02:17:24.098 --> 02:17:32.777 - to exercise. They don't just do it to take in nature. They do it because it's a practical form, a practical 02:17:32.777 --> 02:17:41.135 - conduit for getting from one place to another. And I'll go further. I have two vehicles that I use that 02:17:41.135 --> 02:17:49.413 - are motor vehicles, but they are not cars. The second is an e-trike. And again, I have it because it's 02:17:49.413 --> 02:17:51.422 - one of the only vehicles 02:17:51.746 --> 02:18:00.747 - that is bicycle-like, that is pedalable, that I can pedal with my geometry. And in both cases, when 02:18:00.747 --> 02:18:10.199 - I ride the trike or when I ride the scooter, if I can use a parks and recreation facility, I will choose 02:18:10.199 --> 02:18:18.750 - it every time because it's safer. If I don't have to ride on the street, then I choose not to. 02:18:19.458 --> 02:18:27.521 - This is also true for sidewalks. I'm confessing now that I'm a miscreant because I will ride on sidewalks, 02:18:27.521 --> 02:18:35.509 - usually when there is no one as far as the eye can see. And the trike, by the way, meets another concern. 02:18:35.509 --> 02:18:43.723 - I don't think it's three feet wide, but certainly the width of a wheelchair. And I've had lots of experience 02:18:43.723 --> 02:18:48.094 - with the state of our sidewalks because I've bumped along 02:18:48.194 --> 02:18:58.198 - effectively as a wheelchair rider on sidewalks before but the fact is people do it and it's People people 02:18:58.198 --> 02:19:08.013 - ride on sidewalks pragmatically So the idea that somehow the trail is so different than a sidewalk that 02:19:08.013 --> 02:19:16.318 - It needs to be not regulated or regulated differently doesn't fly for me. I feel like I 02:19:16.610 --> 02:19:24.065 - We need to be thinking more about it as like the... I'm gonna go back to the idea that if you've gotta 02:19:24.065 --> 02:19:31.810 - sign up, if there's a sign that says, 20 miles an hour, there's a sign that says, e-motos are not allowed, 02:19:31.810 --> 02:19:39.048 - and that I can point to the sign, it would be one of the most effective forms of enforcement. I'm a 02:19:39.048 --> 02:19:44.766 - big fan of the diverter at Third and Grant. I come northbound on Grant Street, 02:19:44.898 --> 02:19:52.609 - to cross 3rd Street, the only place between Roger Street and Dunn Street where there's not a light that 02:19:52.609 --> 02:20:00.024 - a bike can cross. And I have to tell you how successful the signs are on that diverter. When I'm in 02:20:00.024 --> 02:20:07.736 - the median, the cars that are coming by that usually shoot down 3rd Street westbound, they stop. Rarely 02:20:07.736 --> 02:20:12.926 - do I have to point to the sign. Occasionally, I do point to the sign. 02:20:13.250 --> 02:20:20.293 - to say, hey, you're supposed to stop. But when I do, cards slow down. The sign has a huge effect. It 02:20:20.293 --> 02:20:27.267 - makes a difference. It tells people this is regulated and you're supposed to follow it. And I can't 02:20:27.267 --> 02:20:34.310 - think of a more effective form. We have to have some kind of passive enforcement. We can't just pass 02:20:34.310 --> 02:20:41.214 - the law and say, well, did you not know that this is the law in the city? There's gotta be a sign. 02:20:42.242 --> 02:20:50.209 - So that's my biggest thought. I think we have to allow micromobility on trails and sidewalks the same 02:20:50.209 --> 02:20:58.176 - somehow. I think that the definition that we're looking for for micromobility on trails ought to also 02:20:58.176 --> 02:21:06.300 - apply, like if we're talking about passing speed, that ought to apply on sidewalks and trails the same, 02:21:06.300 --> 02:21:12.158 - and we need to get to that. But finally, I'll just say I've got 1,000 watt 02:21:12.610 --> 02:21:23.143 - scooter that doesn't go more than 17 miles an hour when I'm on it. If my scooter is regulated as a Emoto, 02:21:23.143 --> 02:21:33.278 - I cannot support this flat out. I think the power capacity is an issue, but speed is a greater issue. 02:21:33.278 --> 02:21:40.830 - 20 miles an hour seems like the magic thing everybody definitely agrees on. 02:21:40.994 --> 02:21:49.234 - I believe that my device is designed to be safe because it doesn't go more than 20 miles an hour But 02:21:49.234 --> 02:21:57.557 - I don't know how to regulate it because it's not a bike it's a scooter I think that the in short This 02:21:57.557 --> 02:22:05.879 - needs more work. It doesn't need a lot more work But I don't know how I can recommend can can forward 02:22:05.879 --> 02:22:10.366 - it to council with a positive yet just because there's 02:22:10.914 --> 02:22:17.997 - These bigger issues at hand. I also want to say especially to mr. Mitchell that I think that the work 02:22:17.997 --> 02:22:25.149 - that he's done on it is significant great important and necessary And I don't necessarily want to hold 02:22:25.149 --> 02:22:32.371 - it up Because council can maybe take it up, but if they're asking for our full opinion, I think we need 02:22:32.371 --> 02:22:39.870 - another meeting Those are my thoughts. Is there a second round of comments from commissioners? Mr. Stosberg 02:22:40.738 --> 02:22:47.745 - Oftentimes, when we make laws, we can't get exactly what we want to get at. For a young person driving, 02:22:47.745 --> 02:22:54.753 - we want to say, are you ready to drive? Are you mature enough to drive? We can't test that. So instead, 02:22:54.753 --> 02:23:01.491 - we have an arbitrary rule that's enforceable. You have to be 16, get a license. So we enforce that. 02:23:01.491 --> 02:23:08.565 - When it comes to this topic, we don't have speed cameras on our trails. I don't imagine police are going 02:23:08.565 --> 02:23:10.654 - to sit out with speed cameras. 02:23:11.202 --> 02:23:18.707 - 20 miles per hour is the right speed. I think it's hard to enforce. Something you can easily enforce 02:23:18.707 --> 02:23:26.361 - is, does that look like an Emoto? Is it on the trail? And so, I think as parents, we have to deal with 02:23:26.361 --> 02:23:33.940 - if the kid says, I'm gonna take out the Emoto, but I only promise to go 20, that's harder to enforce. 02:23:33.940 --> 02:23:40.702 - But if you just know that you can't ride them on trails, I think that's clearer. So, yeah. 02:23:41.058 --> 02:23:48.189 - So again, I'm gonna I also want to send this back to for revisions I'm not sure exactly in terms of 02:23:48.189 --> 02:23:55.605 - making a motion if we make a general motion for that or if we want to spell out some specific revisions 02:23:55.605 --> 02:24:02.879 - we make well the our Options are to continue to a future meeting which would be the effect of sending 02:24:02.879 --> 02:24:08.798 - it back It's it's we would have to take it up at the next meeting Further comments 02:24:11.394 --> 02:24:28.061 - my right online To my left I'll entertain a motion on what to do with this resolution TCP 20 TCR 2621 02:24:28.061 --> 02:24:38.846 - I Move the Commission Continue this resolution to the next to the 02:24:39.682 --> 02:24:46.448 - The next regular hearing the next regular. Is there a second? Should just a minute. Is there a second 02:24:46.448 --> 02:24:53.347 - for this motion? My question is should we frame it next or just future meeting? Oh, well, I my language 02:24:53.347 --> 02:25:00.113 - was based on what Steve just said about that. We would have to take it up at the next regular hearing 02:25:00.113 --> 02:25:06.746 - Okay, I take it back. I am wrong here. It's to continue the resolution to a future a future meeting 02:25:06.746 --> 02:25:08.670 - You don't have to specify it 02:25:08.770 --> 02:25:18.808 - Okay, very good with that in mind I I move that the Commission For their sorry continue this resolution 02:25:18.808 --> 02:25:28.460 - to a future regular here I Second the motion. There's a motion in a second. Is there any discussion 02:25:28.460 --> 02:25:37.726 - on the motion to continue and you may choose to get the opinion of staff in this discussion and 02:25:40.066 --> 02:25:48.374 - I'll just save you save you the trouble and say would staff please like to comment on the motion Thank 02:25:48.374 --> 02:25:56.521 - you, my only question was about the next meeting or a future meeting so that was resolved Thank you. 02:25:56.521 --> 02:26:04.668 - Okay. So our next meeting would be December what? All right, one moment don't want to miss speak and 02:26:04.668 --> 02:26:08.862 - I'm very tired What's in it when's our next meeting 02:26:14.210 --> 02:26:24.612 - Would be December 7th When I'm sorry, our next special hearing is November 16th, but our next regular 02:26:24.612 --> 02:26:35.727 - hearing is December 7th Okay. So these are our two options for the range of the year We could take advantage 02:26:35.727 --> 02:26:41.438 - of the November 16th meeting if Commission sees fit and 02:26:41.762 --> 02:26:47.780 - But otherwise our next meeting is December 7th Perhaps I should ask staff when they expected to bring 02:26:47.780 --> 02:26:53.503 - this resolution this ordinance to council Were you hoping to get it done by the end of the year? 02:26:53.503 --> 02:26:59.403 - I mean mr. Mitchell's Departure notwithstanding we were not no we were planning this for in the new 02:26:59.403 --> 02:27:05.362 - year I know the council calendar is pretty full I think to the end of the year already so we knew it 02:27:05.362 --> 02:27:07.486 - was going to be a new year item and 02:27:08.162 --> 02:27:14.282 - December meeting seems like that's probably a reasonable target to be okay. So we have time I was worried 02:27:14.282 --> 02:27:20.402 - there was another meeting really soon and I was like, I don't know if we'll Have it refined. Yeah, that's 02:27:20.402 --> 02:27:26.521 - great. I think that's fine okay, so December 7th is the earliest opportunity we could take this up again. 02:27:26.521 --> 02:27:32.352 - It seems like a Good time. Is that enough time for staff to consider these changes? Seeing nods from 02:27:32.352 --> 02:27:36.798 - the audience. All right any other discussion about the motion to continue in 02:27:36.930 --> 02:27:47.919 - this resolution to a future meeting, we can give staff the option to bring it back. Maybe I should ask 02:27:47.919 --> 02:27:59.229 - staff when is the deadline for submitting, for bringing back this resolution to the December 7th meeting? 02:27:59.229 --> 02:28:03.390 - It will be in November. Just but when? 02:28:07.714 --> 02:28:15.017 - Yeah, what's the time that's November 24th? That is that's the packet material that line that yes, that 02:28:15.017 --> 02:28:22.531 - would be correct. Thank you. Okay, so the staff who's bringing this think that November 24th is sufficient 02:28:22.531 --> 02:28:29.553 - time to To work on a revision I Would say yes, I hope so. We'll have to figure out some things with 02:28:29.553 --> 02:28:37.278 - with Julius's departure and if there's for some reason we feel like we can't make it we will let you know and 02:28:37.730 --> 02:28:44.240 - Find the next earliest opportunity, but I sounds doable to me right now. Okay, that's good Okay Last 02:28:44.240 --> 02:28:50.749 - call sure mr. Mitchell I just like to ask a quick question about rules that this is even allowed But 02:28:50.749 --> 02:28:57.259 - if anything if you think of anything in the interim, I know this is a lot to digest It would help us 02:28:57.259 --> 02:29:04.542 - a lot if maybe you could send something along as that allowed. Okay, perfect Yeah, so if something occurs to you 02:29:05.666 --> 02:29:11.983 - Along and then we could incorporate that into our next draft before we bring it back to you. That would 02:29:11.983 --> 02:29:18.057 - be helpful as well Okay, I think it will just send it to Transportation Commission's regular email. 02:29:18.057 --> 02:29:24.131 - Yeah, you you may absolutely Send your comments to transportation commission at Bloomington gov and 02:29:24.131 --> 02:29:30.265 - I will make sure that mr. Mitchell gets those comments Yes, thank you. I will say that to any member 02:29:30.265 --> 02:29:31.966 - of the public watching that 02:29:32.098 --> 02:29:40.052 - Please if you have any comments on TCR 2621 Send them preferably with that call number so that it can 02:29:40.052 --> 02:29:48.084 - be properly routed to transportation commission at Bloomington that ion gov that's correct and it will 02:29:48.084 --> 02:29:56.350 - get routed to the appropriate place How much more time do we have? Mr. Mitchell for When is his last day? 02:29:57.794 --> 02:30:04.042 - My last day is Friday. So not a lot of time if I were to help but I think it would still help Tim and 02:30:04.042 --> 02:30:10.167 - whoever else If they were able to get written comments, you know feedback before the I'm just gonna 02:30:10.167 --> 02:30:16.660 - try to get it in earlier So you have some say on it? I'd appreciate that maybe with some Halloween candy. 02:30:16.660 --> 02:30:23.031 - All right any other Comments on the motion before we take a vote Seeing none. Will the secretary please 02:30:23.031 --> 02:30:25.726 - call the roll on the motion to continue and 02:30:26.178 --> 02:30:39.731 - TCR 2621 to a future meeting Binder yes Volin. Yes Flaherty. Yes Stossberg. Yes Copic. Yes. Mr. Midas. 02:30:39.731 --> 02:30:53.021 - Yes Said everyone that's a 6-0 vote and with that we move now to general public comment on items not 02:30:53.021 --> 02:30:55.390 - on the docket and 02:30:55.970 --> 02:31:02.634 - Thank you, everyone, for the presentation. Is there anyone who would like to speak to an item that is 02:31:02.634 --> 02:31:09.429 - not on the docket? If so, please come to the podium and state your name, sign in, and you'll have three 02:31:09.429 --> 02:31:15.962 - minutes. If there's anyone online, please use the raise hand function in Zoom, and you'll be called 02:31:15.962 --> 02:31:22.561 - on. Is there anyone who would like to comment on items that are not on our agenda? I did want to ask 02:31:22.561 --> 02:31:25.566 - staff, there are two items that you submitted 02:31:25.826 --> 02:31:33.700 - Part of the the agenda that we're not reading them. They're just connected to us, right? That is correct. 02:31:33.700 --> 02:31:41.499 - Okay Last call for general public comment Seeing none we'll go to discussion of topics not on the docket 02:31:41.499 --> 02:31:49.002 - Is there any item that a commissioner like to bring up that we didn't already talk about today To my 02:31:49.002 --> 02:31:55.390 - right to my left online I would like to ask the Commission about or at least staff on 02:31:55.682 --> 02:32:04.794 - about the first Public comment The request for a speed study. So there was a public comment saying that 02:32:04.794 --> 02:32:13.642 - they'd like to see a speed study on Leonard Springs Road Between a couple of addresses What what was 02:32:13.642 --> 02:32:16.446 - staff's reaction to that letter 02:32:17.730 --> 02:32:26.004 - That is a kind of request that we the engineering department receives fairly routinely as part of the 02:32:26.004 --> 02:32:34.198 - you report system and so the recommendation That I was just making to John was that we escalate this 02:32:34.198 --> 02:32:42.472 - per usual with two of our staff members who routinely oversee these kinds of studies we can follow up 02:32:42.472 --> 02:32:46.366 - with the person who made the public comment and 02:32:47.170 --> 02:32:54.989 - We can also include this as part of a staff report in a future meeting if that's the of interest to 02:32:54.989 --> 02:33:03.043 - the commissioners. I Don't know what other commissioners I for one would like to know how many similar 02:33:03.043 --> 02:33:11.331 - requests like this come in through other means not through us I would say I am NOT the most authoritative 02:33:11.331 --> 02:33:16.414 - on that but a search of the you report system would return for a 02:33:19.554 --> 02:33:25.578 - For every one of these how many typically come in through? I mean, it's it's genuinely it's a great 02:33:25.578 --> 02:33:31.662 - question and I Wish that I had a better answer But the simple fact of the matter is that most people 02:33:31.662 --> 02:33:37.867 - don't know how to ask for that And so it comes by way of a phone call and they talk to the right staff 02:33:37.867 --> 02:33:40.638 - person staff person interprets what they mean 02:33:40.802 --> 02:33:47.571 - and puts them in touch with the right staff person. So it's hard to track internally and even through 02:33:47.571 --> 02:33:54.406 - the eReport system. But people also email the engineering department, engineeringatbloomington.in.gov. 02:33:54.406 --> 02:34:01.573 - They will submit photos, they will submit narratives, and that goes to the same general group that conducts 02:34:01.573 --> 02:34:08.275 - these studies. So that would be another way that we keep track of them internally. If only this city 02:34:08.275 --> 02:34:09.470 - had 311, if only, 02:34:10.402 --> 02:34:20.958 - Alas, we do not I I have heard Interest expressed at multiple levels in the potential for a Communications 02:34:20.958 --> 02:34:30.823 - arm that really tries to wrangle all of that, you know what they called in other cities, don't you? 02:34:30.823 --> 02:34:38.814 - 3-1-1. Yes. Yes. All right That's enough There's no other public another comment 02:34:39.234 --> 02:34:46.878 - of discussion of topics on the docket just to reiterate our next meeting is November 16th and it is 02:34:46.878 --> 02:34:54.751 - a special meeting to take up the topic of the redesign of college and walnut And then our next regular 02:34:54.751 --> 02:35:02.548 - hearing is December the 7th In this room, I think both of them are in this room, right? I Believe the 02:35:02.548 --> 02:35:08.510 - November meeting is in McCloskey. Oh, that's gonna be fun Let me double-check 02:35:09.538 --> 02:35:15.451 - It does say council chambers. Oh, we're so lucky. I do expect it to be a well attended meeting That 02:35:15.451 --> 02:35:21.365 - may be parse partially how we were able to secure council chambers. Okay. Thank you Well with that, 02:35:21.365 --> 02:35:25.918 - I just want to thank everyone for coming and declared this meeting adjourned