Without further ado We'll call this meeting to order. This is the October Regular hearing of the city
of Bloomington Transportation Commission Will the secretary please call the roll? Copics here Sir Midas
here Binder here Jimmy here Flaherty
Stasburg here And falling also here Okay, we have a quorum Let's now recapitulate the agenda. We'll
have reports and commission communications from commissioners and reports from staff including a
outstanding action list review communication of the office of the mayor on boards and Commission's
appreciation event from the Metropolitan Planning Organization about the 2028 2032 transportation improvement
program recording in progress Staff report on speed feedback signage on hillside and at water and 180-day
order update and
We will be hearing two cases TCP 26 20 approving the traffic calming and greenways project selection
for Rogers Road and TCR 26 21 many title 15 of the Bloomington Municipal Code to define and regulate
micro Mobility devices and so-called emotes. We will then go to discussion of topics not on the docket
We will go to general public comment on items not on the docket
Within we will adjourn. I would like to actually move if there is no objection to switch sections 5
and section 4 so that if there's any public comment that comes in the meeting that members would like
to Discuss today we can do so Is there a motion or is there a second for my motion? Second all right,
let's discuss it staff. Do you have any questions?
about this Sorry, who was the second on that? I Don't foresee any consequences for switching sections
four and five any concerns from any commissioners Okay, can we please have a roll call vote on the motion
to swap sections five and four and
Yes, mr. Midas, yes binder. Yes Bone. Yes drummy. Yes clarity. Yes Stossburg. Yes Okay, that seems to
be approved so we will do that at that point let's go now to reports and communications are there any
reports from commissioners or
My left anything we should know about what's been happening in your part of the transportation world
To my left Seeing none we'll go to reports from staff. Let's start with the recurring staff liaison
report Who's here to present that I? Suppose I can be the sacrificial lamb It's not that bad is it it
hasn't become that bad No, I don't think so. All right good
but I simply call attention to how many keyboards are in front of me and how very likely it is that
I will be distracted this evening and Fumbling for my laptop and I apologize in advance. So you'll note
that for our report we have largely regurgitated the text of last month's report adding some Strike
throughs through items that we believe will be removed by the next meeting unless
There's been perhaps some miscommunication or people have different expectations about where certain
items are sort of in the pipeline of action and Other items have been updated since our last meeting
and I regret that I will have to add our February 20 26 regular hearing meeting minutes as to our outstanding column
I was trying to get that done before this meeting and Time was not on my side. So I apologize for that
And I'm happy to try to field any questions on this Okay, are there any questions about this staff memo
to my left To my right Can I just first ask who is the author of the memo I
It is a joint authorship between Andrew Seabor, myself, Ryan Robling, and John Garzi. Well, I mean,
I see that there, but presumably the person, like, who is our contact person? Is it you? It may be us,
me, or it may be any one of us. We tend to collaborate on the management of these items and tracking
where they're at. This is something that we talk about every month
in a sort of internal staff check-in meeting where we're preparing for the next upcoming agenda. And
we also have some, we have a shared Google Drive where these items are also being tracked and sort of
monitored. Okay. I guess I have other questions but I can talk about that at our next scheduling meeting.
So, okay. Thank you for the report.
Let's move on to the next item, which is communications from the office of the mayor about the appreciation
event who's here to speak for that I'm happy to facilitate this report as well this was a Correspondence
that we received via email that I just wanted to make sure all commissioners were aware of I know that
sometimes things get buried There is a boards and commissions. It's I believe it's an annual appreciation
event scheduled for Tuesday, November 17th and
from 530 to 7 it is a drop-in event Your formal address is optional it is mostly just an opportunity
to shake hands and Touch base with folks also doing boards and commissions not necessarily Transportation
Commission. It's open to all board and commission members Any questions from members Seeing none. Thanks
for that. Let's go on to the next report from the MPO
I'm also happy to present this one on behalf of the Bloomington Monroe County Metropolitan Planning
Organization or BMC MPO They circulated a press release with the Through the office of the mayor earlier
this month and I felt it was important to include in our pack of materials so that folks have an opportunity
if they have not learned about
the upcoming TIP transportation improvement program plan if they haven't been sort of exposed to this
part of the process. This particular item is something that contributes greatly to the funding
of transportation projects that we hear at the commission. So this is sort of a very early view into
some of that process.
That is fielded by another organization, but if you have any other questions or you'd like to provide
feedback more importantly They are welcoming feedback Online in person and through the Postal Service
if you would like to mail a letter Pat Martin would be very happy to receive it Thank you for that are
there questions from commissioners to my left To my right, okay
This one I would like to ask since we are the Transportation Commission Should we not be getting a full
presentation from the MPO? from Pat Martin for the public for the tip I believe that this part of this
is the public engagement period so once it is But perhaps to your question, I'll ask Pat. I think it's
perfectly valid. I
I think it's perfectly valid too, and I'd like to see if we can't schedule an actual presentation of
the tip for the Transportation Commission's opinion and feedback In a formal way at the December meeting
is that would that be within? Timeliness for their deadline That is a good question. I know that they're
planning to adopt they are voting to adopt the plan on December 4th and
So it would not be in keeping with our schedule For for review That may be a question that Given that
they are also sort of like working within their policy committees or subcommittee structure That may
be more of a 2027 Consideration than a 2026 one. I'm just not aware of a
Formal requirement to be heard by the Transportation Commission specifically you're not I'm not I'm
not familiar with a requirement as part of this part of the process for them to come to the Transportation
Commission because the projects contained within it come to the Transportation Commission eventually
So the there will be an opportunity to go through the plan in its sort of like piecemeal component parts
when projects are being proposed
through the moving through the conceptual phase I Frankly find that Disappointing I mean the according
to the city I know that they don't have an obligation from the state perspective, but the city certainly
Has made at the charge of this Commission to Review anything having to do with transportation and it
seems like the most basic thing that we should do is to
Have a presentation and have the formula observation of the Commission be put in collectively and not
just individual members able to contribute Is there do I? Mean, I don't even know how long a presentation
for a tip would require But I mean perhaps we can fit it into the November 16th special meeting I Will
consult with staff? Okay, that would be great. I mean we could limit it to an hour but
I feel like we won't have any meaningful input if it's not done through a formal process. If you could
please inquire, I'd appreciate that. Any other questions or comments on the report? All right, let's
move on now to the staff report on speed feedback signage on Hillside and Natwater. That'll be my item.
This is John Garzi, the traffic engineer.
We installed three speed back signs back in August of 2024 as part of the Hawthorne Weatherstone Greenway
Project, two on hillside and one on at water. And these signs show drivers their speeds and encourage
them to slow down near the greenway crossings. We have before and after data for the speed feedback
signs on hillside. And we found that the average speed for eastbound traffic
went from 35 miles per hour to 32 miles per hour and the 85th percentile speed went from 39 to 35 and
for westbound the average speed went from 39 to 34 miles per hour and the 85th percentile went from
44 to 38 miles per hour. The 85th percentile speed basically just tells us the speed at which the 85th
percent of drivers are going.
85% of vehicles or drivers are going below that speed, and 15% are going above that speed. At water,
since it's a one-way street, we only have one. We don't have before installation counts there, but we
do have current counts. And we have the average speed showing 29 miles per hour and the 85th percentile
being 32 miles per hour.
The accounts that we have and the research that we have on this show that they both support reducing
the speed that drivers are going at. It's also been showed that once they've been removed that the speeds
tend to go back up. And even though the speeds have not been brought down below the speed limit, they
have been effective in lowering the speeds. And so what we're recommending is to keep all three signs
and continue to collect data until 2027 and
Most likely keep them because if we were to remove them, it's likely that the speeds would go back up
That's it, thank you Is that the whole report Yes, okay. Thank you Are there questions on this report
from members to my right? I want mr. Binder Thank You. Mr. Garzi. Just a quick question about another
Dynamic speed feedback sign on hillside at Grant Street for eastbound traffic It is there present installed
to my knowledge not operational for some time Is engineering aware of that or is that part of Some future
plan to either replace repair remove that speed feedback sign Did you say that's on hillside hillside
grant and hillside? Yeah
I'm not aware of that speed sign, but we can take a look at that. You said it's not operational I've
gone past it a few times in the last, you know year or two and I've never seen it light up. So Chris,
okay I'll take a look at that. Okay. Thanks Questions to my left. Mr. Drumming. I have two questions
actually Is are the results that we're finding in line with the I assume there's published literature
on these signs throughout the country And is this what most communities are seeing?
That's correct. And then my other question I've noticed and I don't think in Bloomington but in other
communities I've been in Not that I've ever sped but I've heard that people that do speed sometimes
get a red light Sometimes it'd be red and blue flashing like kind of like stimulating police slight
Is there a reason we don't have those or those any more effective or less effective than what we have?
I'm not aware of that. Are you aware when I'm
Not aware of what I'm asking about or not. I understand what you're talking about. I'm not sure why
we have our signs with the colors that they use Thank you Questions online mr. Flaherty Okay I'd like
to ask about At water mr. Garzi We don't have data from 2023 but the data since 2024 September 24 shows
speeds generally having increased from 27 mean speed and a 30 85th percent percentile to 29 and 32 Does
that concern you at all? Can you repeat that he said that speeds have increased looking at the chart
here table six eastbound on an at water September 10 24 Mean speed of 27 miles an hour 85th percentile
speed 30 miles an hour by September 20 26 is 29.1 mean speed and
and 32 miles an hour, 85th percentile speed. And all the two data points between them are also higher
than September 2024. What do you say to that? You're asking if I'm concerned about that? Yes, sir. I
would say increasing speeds is a concern because it could lead to higher severity of collisions.
But I'm not aware like what's causing that site. It's hard for me to connect my concern for the speed
just increasing to what might have been causing it Okay, thank you any other questions Mr. Drummond
approximately how much do these devices cost per location? That's a good question, I don't have that
data with me I can find that though
Seeing no further questions, thank you for the report. Let's move on now to the 180-day order update.
Who's here to present? That'll also be me, John Garzi, the traffic engineer. So for an update on the
180-day orders, we have a new order for Kirkwood and Rogers to add a temporary always stop as we are
doing construction at this intersection to replace the signals.
The effective date for this is October 5th until October 31st. We have a couple other orders that are
being extended. I'd say about five of them. These have all been brought up in the past, but there's
one for Hopewell East as we have added some new streets there. Parking on 1st Street, on-street parking
on North Illinois Street between 12th to 15th.
on street parking on West 8th Street between Rogers to Fairview, and then stop control at North Prow
and Acuff. That's all for me. Thank you. Are there questions? To my right. To my left. Seeing no questions,
thank you for the report.
Let's move on now to cases who's presenting TCP 26 20 Alternative transportation coordinate I think
David that Ryan wanted me to read a clarifying memo before we get started with this case in recognition
of the fact that TCP 26 20 was heard last month and I think I'll just
Read it straight here At our previous meeting a motion concerning the petition received four votes in
favor and one vote against But the petition was erroneously considered disposed under article 2a of
the commission's bylaws No action is official without approval by a majority of the full commission
irrespective of vacancies was otherwise specified in the municipal code or bylaws with a full commission
of nine members at least five
Affirmative votes required to take official action only five members were present at the September 28
meeting meaning all five members would need to vote in favor of any motion to pass and Staff did not
account for this requirement when the vote was conducted and as a result the motion did not receive
the affirmative five votes necessary for official action Action and the petition was neither approved
nor denied under article 4d of the Commission's bylaws that
Commission may make a decision or recommendation of the disposition of any matter it is required to
hear through a motion at the conclusion of that matter Because the original motion to approve failed
and no alternative disposition motion was adopted That means the matter remains unadjudicated and is
considered continued to this meeting as una finished unfinished business, excuse me so we are bringing
it back to the Commission to allow for Commissioners to consider the petition and to take a new vote
to formally determine its outcome and
the Commission may consider the petition and take action in accordance with its bylaws and applicable
procedures if Originals believe if members believe the original motion only failed because of the lack
of additional members missing information or misunderstanding a member member can move to approve the
petition again Alternatively a member may introduce a new motion to approve with refinement considerations
refer the matter back to staff or further refinement Considerations or continue the petition to a future
meeting. I hope that has been sufficiently clarifying. I
But I welcome any questions on it. Let's start there. Does anyone have questions about? How this came
back onto the agenda? Everyone understand what we're doing. Mr. Drumming. I have I understand what we're
doing. I believe I guess my question is if it if it fails is it just doesn't move forward from that
point. I mean What happens if we'd voted down so effectively? What's different about this commission
and stop me if I get this wrong?
That the Commission has to have five votes for a motion regardless of the motion So there that's why
we have the option to approve or to deny or to continue At the last meeting there were only five members
for voted to approve But we took no other action and neither commissioners nor staff realized it because
our bylaws are a little more complicated than the commission so
Could I mean I think that we should probably have a default to continuing if no Motion can get a majority
of members, but that's the dilemma that we had So regardless of whether you approve it or deny it there
need to be five votes one way or the other Does that help it? Am I right? I believe so and also to clarify
further I believe that voting down like the proposal would kill the project and
Okay, that's it's good to know but does that answer your both questions have been answered. Yes. Okay
Anybody else have questions about the procedure here? Seeing none. Thank you for the memo. Let's go
now to the staff report That'll be David All right, would you start from scratch Certainly, I'm just
requesting to share my screen here. I
Could you state your name again, please? David Brantes, alternative transportation coordinator.
Thank you. Okay, so this is TC dash P dash 26
20 So the measure under consideration is six new speed tables on East Rogers Road between High Street
and Spicewood Lane The the goal of this is to decrease the incidence of unlawful speeding on this corridor
to reduce it Back to the posted speed limit of 30 miles an hour So just
to give background on how we got to where we are now. Each year the traffic calming program takes requests
from residents and we compile all of these corridors that residents have identified and put them into
a rubric of crash history that were speed related. The vehicle volume, vehicle speed, presence of vulnerable
road users, and we came up with East Rogers Road had
the highest priority score So Just to give some stats the average speed limit was there was observed
to be 38 miles per hour and approximately 97 percent of all vehicles That we observed we're going over
the speed limit So there were six crashes reported in the last five years in which speed was a contributing
factor in all of them
and both the speed data that we found and this crash history led to this being the project that we're
working on here. So we did a couple of things, including sending out mailers to affected property owners.
We held a public meeting. We got some feedback from the public. We worked with some stakeholders in
other city departments.
Wanted to mention that since our last meeting we did reach out to the street department to see if they
had any concerns about plowing on this Type of traffic calming device since it's different than some
of the other Examples like speed humps speed bumps speed cushions in Bloomington and they said that
the speed tables looked easier to deal with Than any of those but they don't currently have a lot of
issues with
Existing devices in Bloomington. So that's not a big concern here And the design has changed a little
bit since the last meeting only in the placement of the speed tables So they move slightly, but there's
still six of them and you would encounter Three per direction and I'll have some Designs to share in
just a minute, but I wanted to address the four criteria
So the first one is that we staff found that This project is consistent with the comprehensive plan
Which considers all ages abilities modes? along the score door And then the second criteria This is
consistent with best practices for eliminating all transportation related fatalities and serious injuries
so this is a part of our 2039 vision zero goal
Reducing speed is a great way to reduce crash the frequency and severity of crashes There's a there
was a lot of concern from the public about crossings here Which I'll show pedestrian crossings from
the multi-use path specifically Childs Elementary is nearby Olcott Park is nearby Sherwood Oaks Church
The third criteria is that this is a
Advancing a sustainable transportation system and equitable access while prioritizing non-automotive
modes The improved compliance of this of the speed limit We think will be very useful in Prioritizing
these other modes. There's a bus stop near Near one of these crossings that has speed tables on either
side So they can get across
It'll make it more pleasant to traverse this corridor on a bike. We've heard children use this area
Getting home from school. So lots of vulnerable road users that would benefit from further speed compliance
and lastly the criteria about adequate public engagement and community-centric design Just kind of baked
into the resident-led traffic calming program from the beginning these are
ideas that residents came to us with and Or I should say problems that residents came to us with and
then we worked to make sure that they had the adequate number of signatures from affected households
in the Study area and that they had support from local organizations including the woodlands HOA Sherwood
Oaks Church And I believe the last one might have been
PTO at child's Can't recall off the top of my head, but essentially all of those things led to a design
that we think addresses the concerns here Without getting too much in the way of city operations be
that Bloomington Transit the Street Department or emergency services We'll touch more on emergency services
later because we have some
new speed data information that traffic engineer John Garcy is going to address. So I know it's a bit
difficult to follow exactly what we're proposing here without the visual, so with that out of the way,
I'll go ahead and show you. So each of these devices is longer and gentler than other examples in the
city. Most times when we hear
That there is a traffic calming device. We're probably thinking of speed cushions or perhaps speed humps
These are quite a bit longer. They have a six foot Ramp up to about three and a half inches and then
the table itself is ten feet long So that means that the entire passenger vehicle is going to be sitting
on top of the traffic calming device and then come down on the other side as opposed to
Speed humps which are a good bit shorter and have a more A more distinct feel to them. So those are
designed for speeds a little bit lower But since Rogers has so much volume and the speed limit is 30
and not 25 or 20 This is the more appropriate thing to reduce speeds to 30 miles an hour So as you can
see up there
We've got three going in either direction. And I'm gonna zoom in on each of these. So the high street
one is the same as last time with speed tables kind of around that multi-use path crossing. This slows,
especially it will slow people shooting out of their roundabout where you have maybe more of a visibility
concern than a speed concern.
Mr. Brent is can I stop you just for a second to say that some members who are not here have not seen
the presentation at all So you should just assume that you're giving it for the first time again. Yes,
because so don't don't Some of us benefited from seeing it last time, but not all of us have So just
you know, I understand. Okay. Thank you So the the crossing there is a crossing to from the Jackson
Creek Trail
Up to the multi-use path on Rogers and then up along High Street so this is addressing a visibility
and perhaps speed concern coming out of Going eastbound on the roundabout and then coming westbound.
You're coming down a pretty steep hill So we want to make sure that drivers are slowing down before
they get to that that crosswalk
And then they can focus on the roundabout after they've passed through So near the stands drive we have
that that's where the bus stop is and There is a pedestrian refuge island in the middle So this is where
a lot of crossings are funneled to and this is where the original complaint about
unsafe speed is from. So the spacing here is meant to address people coming up the hill and then people
coming down towards the crosswalk. And it keeps the traffic calming devices out of the intersection
so that nobody turning left has anything to, from the stands drive, has anything to turn over there
as they'll
They'll slow down anyway because of the Refuge Island kind of constraining the space that they're able
to drive but we also Found it important to put it close to the crossing and not Spread it exactly evenly
across the high street roundabout to say this air road roundabout Because you know, there's not even
a crosswalk on the south side from here to high street. So I
We wanted to concentrate where those vulnerable road users are going to be crossing the road And lastly,
this is essentially pretty similar to the stands drive over at Spicewood where you have sidewalk on
the north side and the refuge island going north and south along the west side of the intersection and
That's all I have I'm going to turn it over to the
John Garzi for an update on the Essentially the the delay and the delay that the speed tables would
cause in travel time But I'm happy to answer any questions on my presentation Thank You. Mr.
Brant is mr. Garzi. Would you take it from there? Hello John Garzi traffic engineer so previously when
we came we talked about a delay per device of 30
seconds that was something that was not Supported by data or research and so we just wanted to provide
some data that's supported by research by several different cities in the United States Portland in
particular has a lot of data on the impacts of speed tables on emergency vehicles and what we found
was that speed tables have a delay of about one to five seconds if you're traveling at 30 miles per hour and
and five to nine seconds if you're traveling at 40 miles per hour. And for the types of speed tables
we're proposing, which are offset speed tables, they found that there was a two second delay when you're
traveling at 30 miles per hour. And for these offset speed tables, the distance that they had them when
they tested them was at 28 to 50 feet apart. And so the devices that we're recommending have a distance
of 100 feet from the table to the traffic island.
We should have similar results, or if not, a lower amount of delay. Like David mentioned, because we'll
be doing offset speed tables, this will remove the tables from the intersection, so we don't have to
reduce the size of this table, and we'll be able to keep the full three and a half inches.
We also found data that talked about the delay for speed humps, which are the more aggressive ones.
And so the delay that they found was three to seven seconds. So we feel pretty confident that the delay
that we're gonna experience for speed tables will be a lot less than 30 seconds. And just to reiterate,
the delay that Portland found for offset speed tables was two seconds when going at 30 miles per hour.
That's it, thank you. Does that complete the presentation by staff?
Yes, okay Was the data you were just citing mr. Garzi In one of the documents in the agenda, which document
was it in? Let me find the title of it I Got you. The title is staff memo response time impacts to fire
apparatus by traffic calming devices Okay, it took me until just now to to find that so thank you
I just just to further clarify that there are a number of sources cited within that particular memo
and given the nature of Web archiving we didn't want to assume that those would necessarily be exactly
where we'd like them to be in a year. So we've manually archived the research articles that Mr. Garzi
included in his presentation. Those are hyper leaked as PDFs to that staff memo I
I'm sorry. I don't understand what the significance was. What do you mean? This is not you don't know
where this is going to be in a year So usually when we cite our sources like if we provide a hyperlink
to a web URL if that's just a One-off there may be this expectation that in a couple years that URL
may move It's referred to as a dead link at that point but given the material we were talking about
today we wanted to make sure that the
Information the research that we were referring to was archived on our servers In a way that made sure
that we would be able to review the data Years and years into the future without worrying to what happens
to the original sources And you were telling us this because this has changed since the previous
presentation. Yes Well, so in the previous presentation Sorry at the September meeting we didn't have
these resources available for you all to review and
So this memo wasn't available in September and it's been updated since then anyway Well, no, we authored
it for this meeting and then found resort like resources to support the the findings the the claims
in the the article and then we linked those I'm just trying to express that we took an extra archival
step for this particular report Okay noted. Thank you
Now then, are there questions for TCP? I've already forgotten which one, TCP 2620 as presented. Let's
start online, Mr. Flaherty, do you have any questions? Okay, let's go to my right. To my left, Mr. Kopek.
So in choosing this, the speed tables, what would have brought it from being a minor material
Yeah the main reason we chose speed tables versus the like the lights that you're talking about is because
this is a traffic calming project and so we wanted to calm the traffic and so the tools we were looking
at were ones that slowed down vehicles
The lights that you're talking about will just encourage vehicles to stop for pedestrians that are crossing,
but it doesn't necessarily slow down the speed if they were to not stop for the pedestrians.
So one more note. These devices are also a little bit more cost effective and have less maintenance
overall. Once you install them, you don't have to maintain the lights. You don't have to provide power to them.
Not that I'm aware of, but I believe that the locations where we are placing the speed tables aren't at
aren't on the slopes. And our intention is also that fire trucks are able to go around them because
they're offset. So if you need to, they're before the crossings, but they're only on one side of the
lane. So when you're going eastbound, you can go, the fire vehicles can go until the oncoming lane,
go around the device and then go back into their lane and then not have to go over a speed table.
That's correct Further questions to my right to my left I have a quick question about the the Portland
memo Rescue 41, do you know it's the way it was not reported? Do we have any sense of whether it's?
What rescue 41 was and whether it was more like a squad car or a ladder truck?
I'm not aware of its actual weight, but my understanding is that it's either heavier than the fire engine
or the ladder truck, and so we chose not to use that as a comparison vehicle. I mean, it's in the chart,
but you didn't include it. That's correct. Okay. All right.
If there's no other questions, we'll go to the public for comment on TCP 26 20 to approve the traffic
calming and greenways project selection for Rogers road. So any member of the public who would like
to address this issue, please come to the podium. You'll have three minutes to speak. If you are online,
you can use the raise hand function in zoom and staff will put you on screen. So anyone who'd like to
speak to TCP 26 20, I see no one coming in there. If you do, please come to the podium.
Fire marshal city of Bloomington like we discussed last week in detail anytime We don't disagree that
something needs to be done here. But anytime we are calming traffic It's impeding our response times
This area that we've talked about Is our furthest out area in the city already? so anything we do to
delay that response and
Is going to hinder our response to any emergency not only us but EMS and police as well also on the
studies that I had read I believe the ladder truck and stuff that they were referring to was a 40,000
pound truck Ours is 80,000 pounds so I think the 30 seconds probably is a little
Stretched to but I don't believe that as the question has already been asked, you know what the the
stats of the angle of the road the inclines and Things like that wouldn't taken was not taken
into consideration I feel that we have a far more if we had the stats for 80,000 pound fire truck I
think that it was going to be a lot different especially with the incline. So we do appreciate the you
know reducing it and
The amount originally was six all the way across the road We greatly appreciate that we've got it down
to six and different across the road But also speaking with the fire department this yet this morning
with the chief and stuff We're probably not going to use we're not going to drive around these things
unless traffic is already there We're gonna go over them We feel that would be even unsafe for going
into the other lane of traffic unless we already have to because stop vehicle or something like that. So I
But I think some of the stats I think the 30 seconds probably is a little bit long I don't think it's
going to be quite that much but I think it's a lot greater than the two seconds the report is showing
if you averaged in the 80,000 pound to our trucks and and the incline of the roads I'm happy to answer
any questions What? We're fine for now. We're just taking public comment the moment. Thank you for the
feedback. I
Is there further public feedback on TCP 2620? Please come to the podium. State your name. If there's
anyone online, please use the raise hand function in Zoom. You'll be recognized. Please also sign in
so we can get your name right for the minutes. Hello, I'm Shelly Taylor and I live at the intersection
of Winding Brook Circle and Rogers Road in the Woodlands.
And all I can say is that multiple times a day I hear cars, tires screeching. I hear car tires hitting
the median multiple times a day. I have witnessed accidents, car accidents at that intersection. I have witnessed
Well, I heard a horrible noise and I ran to the window and I saw a car that had hit a pedestrian sign
at that intersection and dragged the pedestrian sign all the way up the hill. I see children trying
to cross. I see them standing in the middle of the crosswalk, which is in the middle of
the road and cars just speeding by. And I guarantee you they're going faster than 38, 39 miles an hour.
I've just seen a lot of things. I've heard a lot of things with my own ears because of where I live
there. And as noted,
Speed tables are significantly less of an impact than speed humps or speed bumps They allow for emergency
vehicles to traverse with greater ease It's also very difficult for people to get out of the woodlands
because there's so many cars going so fast and they simply do not stop for the crosswalk I Don't even
use the crosswalk anymore because it is too dangerous I take the bus. I take the city bus twice a
week and I will walk up further up the hill and cross the street to avoid that crosswalk because it
is so dangerous so I'd like to thank also Courtney daily for writing a fantastic letter of support for
this project and I Think that's about about it
I have but I do know that speak tables have less of an impact specifically for emergency vehicles and
I would really appreciate the Commission Taking my opinion into consideration. Thanks so much Thank
you Is there further public comment on TCP 2620? Is there anybody online looking to speak? last call
for public comment on TCP 2620
Going once going twice back to the Commission. Are there questions follow-up questions after public
comment from members? I have some but Anybody online mr. Drumme I don't know if I have a comment as
much or a question as much as a comment and if now it's not the time for comments We'll entertain either
at this point I understand. I appreciate the fire department's position and obviously
That's important. I also understand and appreciate that I'd like the fire department have less runs
and slower traffic creates less runs and less injuries and that type of thing so I think we need to
be mindful as a commission of the precedent that I mean about we have to balance these things out, but
I also think that it's calming traffic is important and and we can't weigh response time just and and
not have any traffic calming in the city, especially since it seems like I'm familiar with this road
drive it often and
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
favor of it and think it's a good idea Are there any questions from members before we get into debate
I'd like to ask my questions if possible. So I wanted to call attention to staff that the what the fire
department talked about in their comment
That's a substantial difference 54,000 pounds versus 80,000 pounds What does staff say to an? 80,000
pound fire engine traversing a speed table Can you be more specific in your question well, I'm looking
at the chart that I'm trying to find the chart here, so
In the Portland study in 1995, they tested an engine that was 35,000 pounds, a squad car that was 23,
a ladder truck that was 53, a ladder truck that was 54, and a ladder truck that was 42. And all the
times, the delay at 40 miles an hour was as much as nine seconds. The delay at 30 miles an hour was
as much as 4.8 seconds. But an 80,000 pound truck
is half again as heavy as the heaviest truck that was tested in this study. Do you have no concern about
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
concerned, but I recognize if it's a heavier vehicle and it has to slow down, it's gonna take longer
for it to accelerate up again. So I'm more of that. You're aware of what?
I'm aware that a heavier vehicle would have to take more time to decelerate and accelerate. Okay,
I mean, would that time not be geometric rather than linear? Wouldn't it be 15 or 20 seconds for them
to speed up because it's heavier? If I'm remembering physics equations properly, I believe it would
be a linear equation. You mean speeding up and slowing down because I know that the equation for headway
is not linear, it's, you know, it varies. Just measuring headway between two cars is a geometric, not
a linear equation. That's my concern. Yeah, that's correct, but I believe that, so the equation I'm
thinking of is like the kinetic equation, or kinetic energy, which is one half mv squared, which means
your mass, in order for you to increase it by double, you would have to increase your, sorry, if your
mass increases by two, that means the energy required would increase by two.
If it's the velocity as a squared function, so that would be geometric like you're referring to so or
exponential So I what I'm expecting is that if the mass goes up the delay would just go up by twice
Okay, nevertheless That's a concern if that's the trucks that are primarily fighting fires here maybe
I mean I at this point I want to call an audible and considering that the fire department is also
Staff to have I forget your name. I'm sorry, mr. Could you come back and answer some questions?
First of all, which station serves this road? We station four and station five. Okay, so two different
stations. Yeah What are the heaviest apparatus is coming out of those stations? The heavy apparatus
coming out of station four would be our ladder truck I don't have the specifics on that particular ladder,
but our heaviest
Vehicle is ladder one and it's it's 80,000 pounds. But ladder ladder one is in which station it's station
one Okay, so would ladder one ever go out to Rogers Road. It's potentially Yeah, they could but the
I don't know the weight difference in between ladder one and ladder for our ladder. Sorry We've got
so many different ladder one and truck but it's
More than 50,000 pounds. I'm gonna assure you that 54,000 pounds. Yes. All right, so you've heard Member
of the public talk about how their desire like they see much more risky traffic activity than fire activity
and we talked I think last meeting about the idea that There are substantially more people who die in
car wrecks than who die in fires there and that we shouldn't be designing necessarily for the heaviest truck
So what do you say to that? Do you do you share any of those concerns? I do share some of those concerns.
Absolutely. That's what I said in the beginning what I I agree that something needs to be done with
the speed there and I agree with mr. Drumery that You know the if we slow everything if we slow everyone
down then we potentially have less accidents, but Like I said last week
Traffic coming devices is not just slowing us down as the 80,000 pound fire truck. It's slowing down
the EMS the ambulance the police officer responding to all these calls as well, so Does that mean oh,
sorry, not just not just the fires but any any of our any response from any emergency personnel the
traffic coming devices, you know, it's going to slow up our response down as well as I
To be clear, does this mean that the fire department opposes this or otherwise wishes it to be changed?
Yes, I would say that we agree that something needs to be done, but any traffic calming device like
this, especially when we don't have complete data, you know, is against our trucks. Yes, we would be
opposed to, I don't know what else could be done. We totally agree that
Something needs to be done that the speeds that they've in the study and everything just don't feel
that that We don't have the right data to support it in the experience of the losing fire department
Is there some other solution such as you would support that has been implemented by the city of Bloomington
that worked For everyone not just for the fire department. Do you know of any I do not personally do
not know of any now Okay, so you don't know what?
You would recommend but you the department collectively is not sure that this is the right It's not
it's not the best solution in our opinion. Correct. Yes We do support and we are thankful that we've
got it down From the the six original to the three that we we do the six original appreciate So so originally
it was six all the way across the road Can Andrew
Mr. Brantes, what's he talking about? Yes the in our initial meeting with fire We showed them a proposal
for evenly spaced Speed tables from High Street to Sarah Road. So not not necessarily in these locations
But each of those speed tables spanned both the east and westbound lanes and we after speaking with
them Changed the design
So that it only spans when you cross over it eastbound you only cross over three distinct speed bumps
or speed tables Sorry, and then when you go westbound, it's only three that way as well So then what
do you say to citizens like ms. Taylor who I've been very concerned about If anything maybe perhaps
want greater It's traffic calming then is already a
Like why why? What? Why is this adequate? Where the six weren't Should I mean? Yeah, so My understanding
is that a lot of the concern came from crossing Rogers Road north and south obviously we want people
to Adhere to the speed limit throughout the entire corridor but we were getting the sense that that
We were not reaching any sort of compromise with the fact that Emergency services needs to get this
is Doesn't seem like this is a road that it's easy to go around and being a secondary arterial That
that makes a lot of sense So this is I don't think it's perfect for emergency services. I don't think
it's perfect for the best-case scenario for traffic calming but
We we think this is a compromise where perhaps we can Solve some of these issues the higher priorities
being around those Intersections where you have left turns going on with high high speeds and you have
crossings Thank you any last comment there Thank you one more question for staff for planning staff
so Under what circumstance would you revisit?
This decision in other words after six months after three years You know, when will you decide whether
it's working or not this compromise? I Don't know who to ask that to I Think it would be helpful to
have at least three to six months of data just to see how much the vehicles have reducer speeds and
so we take before data after data and We consider a successive vehicle speeds have gone down
Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you all any other questions on TCP 26 20 before we go to debate Seeing
none is there anyone who'd like to speak to this issue on the Commission to my left Mr. Stossberg Yeah,
I think one factor I'm considering and how I'll be voting on this is in the data I've looked at for
the amount of fatal and serious injuries and car crashes and
versus in fire response, it's about 10x for car crashes. So if we can reduce the serious and fatal injuries
from car crashes by some, even if it does mean that we are slowing down our fire response by a small
amount, that it can be an overall harm reduction. So I'll be voting in favor of this.
Thank You mr. Sossberg any further comment from my left from my right Online mr. Flaherty No, I have
a question If maybe maybe this is too much in the weeds But if we were to vote this down, does that
mean that this project then moves to the next? Select like because my understanding is this was a public
or neighborhoods
petitioned for this award and maybe this maybe this isn't the time to answer that question, but It's
a good question and we can review the the options we have the Actually if I can appeal to staff what
are the for this is a petition so if you could please review the I Can pull up bylaws myself, but if
you have it handy so this
Enumerated in the procedural clarification That mr. Robling provided In the next steps the Commission
may consider the petition and take action in accordance with its bylaws if you if members believe the
original motion only failed because of the lack of additional members missing information or misunderstanding
a member can move to approve the petition again and
Alternatively a member may introduce a new motion to approve with refinement considerations Refer the
matter back to staff for further refinement considerations or continue the petition to a future meeting,
right? Okay, so I Think that D happens almost by default that we would vote on that to continue a petition
only if I can't imagine people not approving to continue if they failed everything else, but we can approve a
Somebody can move to approve just as is to approve with refinement considerations to Or to move to refer
the matter back to staff for further refinement considerations and so the second one would be if we
Could state of refinement consideration that doesn't require them coming back to us Although I have
to say I don't think we've defined refinement considerations and we need to do that. I Hate to ask but
does that make sense?
All right. So at some point we're gonna need a motion from someone to for one of those three things
to approve Approve with considerations or refer it back to staff So that's what I'd like to hear from
members if they want to say anything is what? Motion they'd like to see So perhaps we can start with
mr. Stasberg and say what motion would you prefer? I would move to approve as if okay
Is there anyone else who'd like to weigh in on this so we can finally? Dispose of this item to my left
Sorry For the purpose of meeting minutes was that Commissioner Stossberg making a motion was not simply
asked him to weigh in we are in the debate We're trying to figure out what type of motion to make to
my right. Is there anyone who would like to weigh in? Are you gonna leave me hanging?
Mr. Flaherty, sorry, mr. Drumming. I'll weigh in my comment about the I understand and appreciate the
issues about the heavy vehicles and and I can't believe that most reasons I do believe the Portland
study seems to be the key study But it's getting pretty old at this point and also the weight of the
fire truck I assume heavier fire trucks have bigger engines than lighter fire trucks. So it may not
be the only factor but but I'm generally like as I said before I I'm in
I'm in favor of safer traffic and and it's seen and whether that comes from enforcement of speed or
speed tables and and it seems like This is the best option for this area So that's that's my my way
in Could you at least weigh in on what motion you would prefer to see? I think I would second the motion
that to approve it. There's no motion on the table yet. I understand Okay, so you would approve as is
anyone else want to weigh in?
Happy to weigh in I would also be in favor of adopting the proposed findings and approve this design
It seems like it's been pretty well considered by staff Okay anybody else last call The one thing I'm
going to say here for my part is that I think I voted to approve last time And that I was concerned
about about data I think it is incumbent upon
The fire department to generate data to like we need to know more about What kind of difference traffic
calming is making to response times It's something that we can get and something that the fire department
can track. It's it's I think it's an important data point that transcends their mission Does our is
our mission? transcended by the existence of the fire departments, maybe maybe so and
We should be weighing both sets of statistics. I still think mr. Stossberg's data outweighs it that
Generally speaking. There's an order of magnitude more danger from traffic than from fire, which is
not to say that Fire isn't important but I think that the the compromise that mr. Brandt has described
it as is Or was it? Mr. Garza, I forget you said it now
Is a good enough once why asked about when we should revisit it. We should be checking the temperature
It's gonna be yet another thing. We have to track on our ongoing list of all the things that we're tracking
as a commission, but I Just I can't see any other way to do it if the fire department Finds that there
is a more optimal method of traffic calming
I don't think that they would approve of speed humps or speed bumps. Those are the only the ones we've
looked at I don't know that chicanes worked as they did years and years ago on West 3rd Street This
is the the best of a bad set of choices or at least a limited set of choices so I will also Seek for
someone to make a motion to approve as is mr. Coppock
Please answer the question from the microphone if you can. Yes, so Station 5 would come down Winslow
and out that way and Station 4 would come down straight down 3rd Street, yeah.
Are you referring to when we take the before and after a study? I'd have to defer to David, but I believe
it'd be both directions. Could you say that again, please?
Would you agree David yes, so the traffic counts we did were Those pneumatic tubes were laid across
the entire road and they gave us Data for eastbound and westbound the 38 miles per hour that I gave
that was a summary of both so at each end of our
Traffic count documents we get a summary page, which is I?
Do you want to pull up the map and show him what you're talking about? I mean did you have you are you
referring to a particular East
that would give the car department up the hill access to either one of those without having to speed
cable. And then you could put a, maybe put a speed cable on the flatter portion which is up closer to
the Sherwood Oaks entrance. And then you could also put a speed cable to the west of the Sherwood Oaks
entrance in the middle there, same place to slow traffic. Yeah, one back, west back. So you would have
to speed cable them to see why you have one.
Okay, you're asking a question now. Are you asking, directing this as a question to anyone, or is this
your comment? Okay, so if you can give us a sense of what motion you would support,
Are you saying you would approve it with refinement considerations right now or do you want to refer
the matter back to staff for the refinement? Okay Thank you. Is there any other person on the Commission
would like to weigh in at this point before we go to a vote? All right, just as a point of procedure
Commissioner copy if you could try to use the microphone. I know it's hard Thank you. Yeah, you're sitting
way back and no one can hear you At least no one on tape
Then maybe I shouldn't call on you at all save the time, but please lean in when you speak Seeing that
I will now entertain a motion to approve to approve with the refinement considerations order a further
matter back to staff for further refinement considerations Mr. Binder I move that the Commission adopt
the proposed findings and approve approve this proposed design. Is there a second second? We have a
motion and a second
Will the secretary please call the roll on the motion to approve as is TCP 2620? Mr. Midas. Yes Binder.
Yes Bolin. Yes drummy. Yes Flaherty Yes Stasberg. Yes Copic no
That vote is six to one and since that's more than five TCP 26 20 is approved. Thanks staff for presenting
again We appreciate you coming back this month and we'll try to be more careful Okay, let's go on now
to TCR 26 21 who was presenting that Please come forward
Everyone okay Can you hear me? All right. All right. Hello Good afternoon or evening. I suppose commissioners
I'm here today to speak to you about a proposed amendment to title 15 of the Bloomington Municipal Code
Could you just introduce yourself briefly? Of course. Yes. I'm Julius Mitchell. I'm the legislative
affairs specialist With the office of the mayor or with with the office of the mayor. Thank you.
Okay So, why are we here today
The purpose of this proposed ordinance would be to address some of the definitional gaps that exist
in the Bloomington municipal code and state law regarding forms of personal electric transportation
devices State law only defines class 1 class 2 and class 3 electric bicycles, but we're seeing a rise
of new forms of transportation that don't fit these existing qualifications and they certainly aren't
considered a
Electric motorcycles either so there's this regulatory gray area a definitional and regulatory gray
area in which there's really no way to Easily define these forms of transportation So our proposed response
would be to create this ordinance which would categorize these personal transportation devices into
two major categories micro mobility devices and emotes and
So here are the definitions. It's a little bit more in depth in the ordinance itself But put simply
micromobility devices can operate based on human power motor power or both And they have a maximum speed
of 20 miles per hour when utilizing motor power alone This fits cleanly within the class to
e-bike designation under state law and then in contrast emotes they have an electrical motor and
that exceeds 750 watts or is capable of speeds higher than 20 miles per hour when utilizing motor power
alone. As you'll notice, the main distinction between them is the speed capability. Micromobility devices
have that speed cap of 20 miles per hour, and e-motos can exceed that. So one other thing to note with
these terms is that micromobility device would be a catch-all term that incorporates a lot of existing
forms of transportation.
typically includes bicycles, e-bikes, scooters, e-scooters, skateboards, and a number of other types
of vehicles that include human propulsion or motor propulsion up to 20 miles per hour. And then e-motos
include electric mopeds, off-road electric dirt bikes, electric trikes, and other vehicles that are
faster than, that can operate above 20 miles per hour, but not quite the speed of a motor vehicle like
a motorbike.
So this is just one way to see the difference a little bit. This is, again, the difference is based
on the top speed, but these devices that we see that would be classified as e-motos, they tend to have
larger tires, bigger engine, bigger frame, just have a higher engine capacity, higher top speed. So
it's not based on aesthetics, this definition, but you can kind of get a sense of
the type of thing we're attempting to regulate with this ordinance. So to go into more detail,
this proposed, the proposed ordinance would change, it would define and regulate personal transportation
devices, and we would classify these based on speed capacity rather than aesthetic characteristics.
So in the current code, there exists scooters, which are stood upon,
bicycles, e-bikes, which are seated and have pedals, coasters, which include human propulsion, but these
would all be consolidated under the term micromobility. As you'll find if you examine Plumetine Muso
Code under Title 15, these are all regulated already in a very similar way. In fact, I believe that
they use the exact same language, so it makes sense to incorporate it under this one term if we're regulating
them all in the same way. The proposed ordinance would also include
Codification of a speed limit for multi-use paths and trails. It's currently just parks policy, but
this would allow for a little bit a little bit more of a Way to define that and it also institutes a
separate fee structure for emoted devices Because these devices have a higher top speed potentially
bigger frames We wanted to deter behavior a little bit more with a slightly increased fine So as I mentioned
Indiana State law has some definitional gaps and
So in Indiana, we've seen other municipalities adopt similar legislation. For example, Carmel, Naperville,
Fishers, Griffith, and Noblesville have all passed similar ordinances that define e-moto devices. These
ordinances vary somewhat between each other. For instance, some of them don't include the catch-all
term micromobility devices. Carmel does, for instance, but I don't believe that Fishers or Griffith
do. However, they all
Use e moto as a definition and the 20 miles per hour is consistent among them one notable difference
between our proposed ordinance and some of the others in Indiana is that this proposed ordinance would
prevent emotes on multi-youth path multi-use paths and trails This is to promote alternate forms of
transportation through a transportation network But it comes with following policy decisions that we
need to make we can't just copy paste from other municipalities for choosing to make this distinction
here in Bloomington
So that brings us to what we are asking from the Transportation Commission. Primarily, we're seeking
input from you all on the proposed ordinance as it exists. We also have some outstanding questions that
we thought you all might be uniquely suited to answer, such as suggestions for relevant policy regulations,
whether to allow e-moto devices on sidewalks and bike lanes. That's an outstanding question we have
that you all might want to weigh in.
We also wanted to provide a public setting for feedback in case members of the public were listening
or wanted to watch the recording See this discussion how it unfolds and provide comment and then we
ultimately would like the Transportation Commission to issue a positive recommendation for adoption
to the City Council Today we were essentially just seeking to get feedback and we can incorporate into
a second draft However, if you feel comfortable with the ordinance as written We're also amenable to that
To answer any questions and Tim Street is also here director of parks and recreation who can provide
a little more context Good evening commissioners. Thank you. Nice to be here with you. My name is Tim
Street I'm the director of parks and recreation for the city of Bloomington and
First I want to thank Julius for all the work that he's done on this and this is actually Julius's last
week with the city as well so I just he wanted to see this to fruition and won't quite get all the way
there but has done a ton of work in researching and Looking at the language and comparing to other things
that have been done both within the state and the state of Illinois has passed legislation This has
become an increasingly important issue for us to tackle and it's a complex one as
Parks and Rec director I have received a lot a lot of complaints increasing starting about Probably
midway through last year. I think in midsummer last year we started to see a proliferation of new types
of devices that didn't meet the existing e-bike designations that were faster that were unregulated
and we started getting complaints and Over the winter and into the spring we said we really need to
start to tackle and address this and I want to thank you
Councilmember Daley she agreed Quite frankly a lot of the you reports we received while they are all
over town a high concentration of them have been on the southeast side of town And so councilmember
Daley in her district was a great person to come on as a council sponsor and has been in our meetings
with Julius myself and legal and engineering to try to tackle this and wrap our heads around it a little bit and
I heard actually a stat today that was really relevant to tonight, that IU Health, and I'm lacking context
if they were talking about our hospital specifically, or all IU Health hospitals, said their number
three source of trauma right now is e-bike and e-moto related injuries. So it is significant, and there's
an article linked in the packet to about the rise of VR visits for e-bike and e-moto injuries across
the country, particularly
There's a certain age demographic, particularly middle school age, where kids are getting these, and
they're going out, and parents may not understand the implications of what their kids are getting on.
And it has a high potential for injuries, both to those minors that are operating those, but also to
others. As Julius mentioned, we really wanna balance safety and freedom, so there's a couple questions
there. Iris, there's a really great chart. Would you mind pulling up the chart from the packet?
I think this helps contextualize the issue. So I think what really what we're trying to do is solve
the definitional problem first and then have necessary feedback both from Transportation Commission
then of course eventually council on Maybe some of the specific regulations This does at least codify
some things give some teeth to enforcement. I will mention that I
You know Bloomington Police Department has said this publicly that you know, they're very reticent to
initiate any kind of chase with especially a minor on one of these vehicles or even an adult because
the consequence can be so high of what's going on, but if we have some things codified and you know,
there's security camera footage or eyewitness or known actors involved then there can be
traffic violations that apply either to that person or to a parent or guardian Of that person including
impoundment as well. So it's really just giving us some more tools I think ultimately we really need
state action on this Like Illinois has taken we need the state house to take this on and create a better
set of rules for the state But in the absence of that we we need to do something this would even if
past need to be followed up with a lot of education and outreach
I've been talking with both IU health and MCC SC about that who are great partners who would be Well
positioned to help give outreach particularly to that younger population where we may need to get it
I've talked to the county parks and rec system They're very interested in what we do and in potentially
when we adopted a 20 mile park speed limit on the trails a few years ago they they wanted to copy that
and bring that to the county trails for consistency sake and
They've expressed they would like to explore, you know what we do and potentially bring that to the
county trail system as well. So Yeah, looking forward to some discussion tonight if we if we reach an
outcome great But I anticipate there may be some discussion and we may want to come back another time.
So, thank you Thank you for the presentation and for those final words sort of framing the discussion
that we need to have here now with that let's
Open up the floor to questions from commissioners commissioner binder Thank You mr Street, did I hear
you correctly when you said there's a 20 mile per hour speed limit on the beeline is that Correct. Sorry
to make you come back to the podium. Hey, that's what I'm here for Yes by park policy there is so the
board of park commissioners can set policies having it codified and
giving us actual traffic enforcements that could be issued for that, takes it to another level. Okay,
I guess, sorry, maybe I'm a little confused, because I've never seen a, it's not signed, is it? Are
there any speed limit? It is on our park, when you go to the trail heads and you read any of the park
policy, trail rules, things like that, it is signed. We have not gone to the step of posting actual
speed limit
Road-style signs, but that is something we could explore especially with the proliferation of what we've
been seeing lately It may be a good next step Okay. Yeah, I mean it sort of is related to all of this
obviously but it and I didn't want to detour to too much from the the main question here, but I mean
I've been riding on the beeline for many many years and that is brand new information to me, so I can't
imagine that's
Necessarily very well known among others either so it has not been around a whole long time So yeah,
but it is a park policy. Okay. Thank you Thank You mr. Binder other questions online mr. Flaherty No
to my left mr. Stossberg Yeah for mr. Mitchell I appreciate your research and looking at comparable
cities and
One of the things that standardized an e-bike laws and has been for years is the class 1, class 2,
class 3. I imagine that came up in your research. What we have now in our definition is somewhat like
the class 2 up to 20 miles per hour. For those who are less familiar, class 3 is often an e-bike that
could go up to 28 miles per hour and class 3 is often regulated in a way that they're
ban for multi-use paths. They have a minimum age, like 16, and a helmet requirement. Some places, California,
just this month, also regulated e-motos, but they also have these class 3 e-bikes. In this process,
did you look at the class 3 or these other class definitions, and did you consider an option where e-moto
was an addition to these other class
Classifications. Yeah, that's a great question So one of the things we found I guess I would say I found
in the research was that um Class 3 ebikes they allow for this pedal component that you mentioned. It's
Class 2 ebikes top out at 20 miles per hour when using the motor And then class 3 ebikes allow a speed
up to 28 miles per hour when incorporating pedal assist so we're
Encountering a lot of different types of vehicles that aren't well encapsulated within that sort of
framework like we're seeing Types of I guess e-bikes that can go without pedal assist up to like 30
miles an hour, right? So that doesn't fit any of these existing definitions so I does that answer your
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
And I'm, it's a question for me, is this also the right time to put class 3 legislation in this code
as long as we are regulating it? What California did was they said, look, we're going to keep those
classes and these EMOTOs are beyond that that are even, I think class 3 also tops out at 750 watts.
And EMOTOs are even more than that and they have other distinctive features like,
They're often not equipped with pedals which sets them apart and designed to be primarily used off-highway.
The official California name is an electric off-highway motorcycle and they have these straddle seats.
They have a distinctive look about them. So I think that's my big question. Is this also the right time
to regulate Class 3 at the same time as Z Motors?
If I'm wrong Julius, but I think as it stands the way it's written definitionally in the updated code
a class 3 would still be included under micro mobility so it would not be bumped to that higher emoto
category because that definition is contingent on the pedal assist and So a class 3 with pedal assist
can go up to 28 but by motor alone It can only go to 20 so it would still fall into that micro mobility
category. Is that what you were getting at? Yes, is that and is that correct? I
That's correct. There's also still the existing state law which incorporates class 1 class 2 and class
3 e bikes So as Tim mentioned This would still fit within that the the micro mobility emoted decision
would fit within that framework It doesn't conflict with the state law, but the state law is still in
place and For people who might not have read through all the entire red line. Is there an age or helmet
requirement with the for emotes? Yes, there is
Let me find it really quick. So there's an existing section in code, section 15.56.100, requirements
for helmet and restraining seat use. So there is an existing part of code that regulates helmet use.
We've updated it to include e-motos, but it says it's a violation
of this chapter to rent or lease under the 18. Okay, hold on. It's dense code. Yeah. Does that answer
your question? I have another follow-up, one more if I may. Yes, but it shall be a violation of this
chapter for any person under the age of 18 to operate or be a passenger on a micro mobility device or
e-moto unless they're wearing a helmet. And in the draft, they are slated to be allowed on multi-use
trails subject to the speed limit? Yes. Yeah. And that is one distinction that places have made, other
places have said, okay, you can ride these on the streets and bike lanes, but you can't ride these on
trails. I know that we're short staffed on various kinds of enforcement. And one of the things we talk
about on the Traffic Commission is a stop sign, a suggestion to stop traffic calming actually slows
you down. So speak to the question of,
How did you arrive at? Allowing them on the you're exactly right. I think that's The heart of some of
the what probably really between Transportation Commission and council needs to be discussed is okay.
We can solve the definitional problem for now There's still the question of how do we and elected officials
feel about allowing them in? multi-use paths and trails bike lanes and sidewalks and
So that chart we can make the distinction in there very easily if we have the definitional problem solved
and I think that's some of the feedback we're looking for tonight as Julius mentioned I There's a really
big trade-off here right between the complaints and the some of the personal safety things we've been
hearing about and the desire to have a transportation network that Utilizes trails and let people use
the devices they come to so I think there's a key trade-off there that we need to discuss and come to
a conclusion on right now and
Personally as department head I still lean towards allowing them With some codified restrictions and
seeing if that helps us, but you're absolutely right that you know Are we out there setting speed traps
on Jackson Creek Trail? No, I don't think that's in the cards for the future But if we have at least
some greater education and enforcement tools, I'd like to see where that takes us Okay, I'd like to
I want to recognize that Matt's had his his
Virtual hand up for a little while. Yeah, I want to get to other questions. We're gonna come back to
the second round Thank you for all that. Let's go to mr. Flaherty How's that a little better Can you
shout? Yeah Thank you for the presentation on this I did have a related question about the definitional
aspects of this proposed ordinance specifically like essentially eliminating some of the particular
definitions we have like the definition of bicycle or motorized scooter and Collapsing all of that into
a single micro belt micro but micro mobility device definition so we have that now kind of catch-all
category micro built micro mobility devices and then the emotes and You know, I did read the red line.
I'm still kind of just weighing and thinking through it myself But I'm curious from staff if there were
any trade-offs you discussed
or any concerns that you would have, things we need to be aware of with respect to a single definition
that kind of encompasses really a quite wide array of devices or ways people get around with wheels.
So yeah, just curious for your thoughts on that, as opposed to just adding Emoto on top of definitions
we already had. So was there a motivation or particular reasons to kind of collapse that into a single
micromobility device definition?
as well. So one of the main motivations for doing so is that we're seeing a lot of new types of mobility
devices. And so as is regulated, we have bicycles, scooters, coasters. But for instance, if we were
to see something new, the way that I was conceptualizing it is not sure if you're familiar with hover
boards, which came out somewhat recently and were popularized, were they to become
So popular we need to regulate them. We would then need a new section of code to incorporate them but
we would regulate them in much the same way that we're regulating bicycles scooters and Coasters right
now. So it's sort of future proofs our code to then enforce based on The existed based on the usage
rather than like how we would describe the device Would you Oh, yeah as well
Those online code is often very repetitive for these Regulations like as I mentioned earlier, they're
regulated in the exact same way. I think the language is copy pasted verbatim So this allows us to just
clean up code which is always good to do and we have a chance Thank you and I definitely understand
and appreciate the benefits of that you outline there and so I'm understanding that staff doesn't think
there is or aren't aware of any
downsides of like Going to a single definition there. I'm just wondering I can't think of any examples
offhand But there may be cases where we want distinction between what we say about bicycles versus roller
skates versus hoverboards I you know, I don't know but you can't think of any is that what I'm understanding
Or don't think there are any We had as well
I also couldn't think of any but that is part of why we're bringing it here in case there is something
that one of you Can think of that? We've overlooked the only thing that I could think of is if perhaps
we wanted to regulate scooters in a very particular way and it doesn't matter if they happen to go 25
miles per hour, but I just In my search of code. I couldn't find anything that would be a concern in
that regard Thank you and Councilmember lady Julius can correct me if I'm wrong here, too
I believe this still leaves room to have regulations in place for rental programs, of course, of these
different devices that exist separately in other parts of code. Is that correct, Julius? Yes, yes,
it does. It keeps the shared use. We currently have in section 15.64, I believe, if my laptop will load.
Yeah, in 15.58.
We have shared-use motorized scooters. This also incorporates those under shared-use multi-mobility
devices, which is helpful because we're seeing shared-use e-bikes and bicycles. So it sort of cleans
up that preemptively, too, because currently that only regulates shared-use scooters. Mr. Flaherty?
Okay, thank you.
Take a crack at a couple of questions here before we go to a second round First small thing is there
an Indiana City named Naperville or are you talking about, Illinois? Because you were talking about
Indiana City's and I looked I don't think there's a town called Naperville, Indiana Thank you.
You're right. It's an Illinois City. Okay, so that's a little different because they're covered by an
Illinois law second question Let's just
Let me just put it on the table. I rode here on my trusty electric device. It is a razor eco smart cargo.
It has a capacity of 300 pounds, which is what I, I mean, I'm not 300 pounds, but I need a heavier scooter.
It's the only scooter I could fit on, but it's a thousand Watts, but it's limited to 20 miles per hour.
It's 19.9 miles per hour. Does that fit your definition of an E moto? Because if I look at the chart
correctly, I see that
Anything over 750 watts is considered an e-moto. But this is a device that can't go more than 20 miles.
I'm lucky to get 17, to be frank, except when I'm going downhill. And it grinds a lot. So I'm
just complaining about my bike, but that's how I got here. But it sounds like under this, it would not
be considered a micro mobility device. It would be considered an e-moto. Is that correct? Technically, yes.
This is another thing that we ran into When I was good looking at the other municipalities and their
definitions For instance Carmel, I believe they say has a motor that typically exceeds 750 watts I found
that typically exceeds to be confusing. So just 750 watts anything above would be classified as an emoto
under how I've proposed it here and
There's always gonna be that weird situation. Yeah where okay, but I mean now you've put me in a difficult
situation I can't support this if it's true My device can't physically go over 20 miles an hour Which
thing is it that you're trying to regulate the speed or the power? That's a good question. The primary
and the primary desire is speed
So we can rework the definition for sure. If you were to remove the 750 limitation, would that materially
undermine what you're trying to do here? I don't believe so. Mr. Stossberg wants to weigh in here. Mr.
Stossberg, do you have a thought? Yes. I think for me, this comes back to the distinction between this
other class, this class three. I appreciate that you're trying to balance and promote accessibility
and mobility options.
leaned at the moment towards allowing these on trails. But I think if we had a class three definition,
you could say yes to class three on trails on multi-use paths and no to e-motos. You've taken over my
questioning. I think that might speak to what your, I think it might put you in a different category.
I'll allow it. Can somebody address his question on my behalf? Am I allowed to ask a question in return? Yes.
Would you consider your bike to be a class three e-bike because it doesn't sound like that. Okay. Look
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
a trike that was recumbent to accommodate my frame, right? So this is a compromise if I had to pedal
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
but I mean according to this it qualifies as an e moto and I don't know
I mean, I bought this device because it was big enough for me. And that's what it took to accommodate
me. So in a way, this is a kind of accessibility issue for me. How would you recommend regulating this?
No, I think that's a really great question. And this is exactly what's gotten so complicated about this,
is the proliferation of different types of devices without manufacturer standards away from the
You know initial categories of one two and three that were set up So it leaves us in a tricky place
to try to regulate definitionally Yeah, I think you're right by definition of what is proposed it would
be an emoto I mean just to break in here It's it's not technically a class 2e bike because it's not
a bike right, right? Okay, so But for all practical purposes it is the equivalent of a class 2e bike
because it doesn't go more than 17 miles an hour, right?
At least not with me on it. Okay, right. So You know not even a bike One option we could consider is
is making it more about speed But is the question is is it the speed you're going or the speed it's
capable of going right and that's another question too, right because And also looking at a device you're
never gonna know Until it's going too fast on the trail that it is. Hey that one goes too fast So it's
very tricky to look at something
Something that's important here is that both Class 2 e-bikes and this particular scooter were designed,
like the design of the Class 2 e-bike limitation is can't go more than 20 miles an hour. This bike was
designed to not go more than 20 miles an hour. So in both cases, they were intentionally limited to
20. And I think you can look up the classification of a device to see what its design was, right? Can't
you regulate it from
The I don't know. I think that's a great point. I think we could look at design speed as a qualifier
in there because that is what we're after ultimately Yeah, and that could could maybe solve for a little
bit of the gray area that Mr. Stossberg is referencing between the two And you know, maybe we would
do that just by eliminating the
The focus on the power and the wattage I will have to talk more after this but this is why we're here
tonight So yeah, that's that's so that's my feedback. I've got other questions, but let's go to a second
round of questions. Mr. Binder Question about this three-foot width. I'm just curious about what the
thinking was there You know attempts to regulate mobility devices over the years are replete with really
written definitions that
unfairly exclude certain types of devices as we're sort of witnessing here. And it doesn't take me that
long to think of probably a variety of what kinds of devices we might think of as micromobility devices
that would exceed three foot widths. I'm thinking of those bicycle pedicabs, which I don't know if there's
any of those services in Bloomington right now, or those sort of quad four wheel where two people can
pedal side by side, or a bicycle designed to transport someone in a wheelchair, like in the front, or
maybe just a large cargo trike, or those kind of four wheel delivery vehicles that I've seen pop up
in other cities before that are like small electric local delivery vehicles, which I'm certain are more
than three feet in width. So I'm just sort of wondering kind of what the idea behind the three foot width
Was and whether that would be something, you know worth reconsidering because of a lot of devices that
might not fit into that category Yeah, that's a fair question This is also one that we saw among a number
of the other municipalities this three-foot width So I tried to think of why that might be included
as well the reason that I thought might be the case is that Often when we think of enforcement we think
of it's only being used when like we won't have somebody policing the beeline checking that you're
vehicle is, oh, it's 3.5 feet instead of three, you know, it would only be an issue, it would only arise
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
wattage and it's got a low speed. So it's technically a micromobility device. So I believe this is an
attempt to close a potential loophole where somebody could go down a path that takes up the entire path.
That's how I conceptualized it.
realm of thinking I left it in. Does that make sense? Yeah, I think that's certainly worth considering
too. I don't think we would want to permit mobility devices that are excessively wide either. Although
I will point out I frequently see golf carts and UTV type vehicles on the beeline all the time that
are operated by the parks department for maintenance or there's the private security
That you guys have hired for patrolling the beeline in sometimes gas-powered, you know, you TV type
Vehicles, so I guess I I don't know. I think in light of that I'm sort of a little confused about I
mean I see those a lot more frequently than I see people, you know riding emotes on the beeline For
what it's worth. So, I don't know if you can try to address that I'd appreciate it because I I feel
like I more I read this I think that
some of these definitions are maybe a little unnecessarily narrow or Trying to solve a problem that
I'm not sure exists Or at least that I've personally witnessed I'm just gonna chime in here and say
that I pulled up the average dimensions for a golf cart They typically have a width of 48 inches 4 feet
rather than 3 and
So maybe that's something worth considering. Well, so that's that would be another question I have I
would love if you could maybe respond to what I said earlier, but the golf cart thing is another thing
I want to bring up at some point because there is a state law about about Municipalities and local golf
cart laws and I believe Monroe County also just passed a local golf cart ordinance recently So but that's
another question. So let's let's just talk about the the width thing first
I'm sorry. There was a lot there. What's but is there a specific question you want me to get out? Sorry,
I tend to overload my questions I guess just what the thinking was there about and I think I think You
chose she answered the question already I think in just in that you were trying to look at what other
municipalities Laws and were and how they were written and you were trying to come up with something
that was kind of harmonizing with that Is that right? Yeah, and I think as we look at more and more
of what's passing elsewhere we're seeing a
Some level of consistent standards start to appear. It doesn't mean the state would adopt that exact
thing But we are taking cues from what others are doing so we can yeah, we can look at that more as
well When in doubt if anyone is Presenting or asking questions if you say thank you when you're done
that way I know to move on to the next person. Are there further questions from members? Yeah, just
a note about the width issue
Maybe I'm getting ahead of it. But if this is going to be an ordinance used to regulate what's allowed
in a bike lane, since those are often more constricted than maybe trails or sidewalks, that is something
where the width would be very important. We really don't want something going over three feet, because
bike lanes are often, I think, four feet each way usually. And it can be a real safety issue if there's
something wider than that going on.
Can we direct that as a question to staff like Mr. Biner brought up the idea that a golf cart is used
by staff on trails Is there a philosophy or rule about that? Are you willing to rethink it? Is this
something that might encourage? The public to ride a golf cart on a trail. What what do you say? I
Well, if you look at the ordinance and I know it's dense but the proposed ordinance I simplified the
definition in the in the PowerPoint But the definition in the ordinance explicitly does not include
golf carts because it's defined by state law So golf cart is explicitly not a micro mobility device
or an emoto. Okay But can we get that side question about golf carts on trails? Are they? What's the rule?
They are not generally allowed but they are necessary and important for for maintenance and Park activities
from time to time. So yeah, we do have to operate them there Thank you. Does that address your mutual
concerns? Mr. Binder Questions to my left mr. Stossberg you had more Another reference I looked up was Indiana
Yeah, the Indiana state law Indiana you mentioned like eventually emotes need to be addressed at the
state level, right? And Indiana does use the ebike or the classification system class 1 class 2 class
3 some places It's integrated into the retail stores where there's a sticker on your bikes when you're
shopping you have the wattage and the number I think Partly a problem with emotes was just a confusion
when they arrived. What are they? How do we classify them?
And so the more that we can standardize, I think the more it can reduce user confusion. You mentioned
also separating out the question of defining and then applying policies to the definitions. And if we
include this class three e-bike option, it gives you another granular tool at that next level when you're applying.
policies. I looked up what these class three e-bikes look like, and some of them just look like commuting
e-bikes. They're probably out there. You just didn't realize that they could go faster, and they're
not a category I think we're so concerned about. Whereas when you see an e-moto on the B-line, and you
just know that doesn't belong here. So I think I would be in favor of adding that distinction.
I would just say we we agree that our concern was not about class 3 e bikes Which is is why the definition
was written to include them in the micro mobility devices Which will by default be the more permissive
of the two categories. Yeah Mr. Flaherty any questions? Okay, I got some more So, let me be let me get
this straight Does a class 3 e bike
the right to go on Bloomington trails Right now yes, yes up to 20 miles an hour Okay, and as proposed
right now if we continue with the allowance for emotos to continue use on Trails and paths the answer
would also be yes up to 20 miles an hour But there would be codified language to help with enforcement
on the back end of that for violations. So our motorcycles allowed a
20 miles motorcycles are motor vehicles and We talked about this too the lines between these things
are tough, but that one at least is motor vehicle I mean a moto and even an e-scooter are motor Vehicles
by the technique the simple plain the definition of the words. Yep, but you're saying in state law a
motorcycle would not be allowed there that's supposed to go on the street and
Is it your goal to try to get emotes regulated as motorcycles? I mean, do you do would you either of
you say I would not say that is my goal I hope that the state addresses it because I think again statewide
clarity is really needed to help Of course big definitions, but no that is not my goal to get them regulated
as motorcycles Okay, because I guess I'm wondering why not I mean they they go well above 28 miles an
hour the whole philosophy of class 3 ebike is I
If it's more than that, it should only be used on the street. Isn't that the idea? I think that is some
of the question that we're after. So if we create this category of e-motor to capture what has appeared
that is no longer fitting with what we are calling micromobility, which is the class 1, 2, 3 e-bikes
that have been around, the early adopter, early prototype e-bikes, all those things.
We've recognized there's a new category this new category doesn't fit the state definition of motor
vehicle either Right, they're not motor vehicles. They're not motorized. They're not cars necessarily.
So we're trying to create that niche to regulate It's not something else. This is a question for mr.
Mitchell. Now, how do you rationalize? banning 17 year olds from using this when they can be licensed
to drive a car at 16 by state law and
Because right now it says you have to be 18 to use an Emoto in the city of Bloomington. I'm sorry, where
does it say that? That's what I thought I saw. I mean, are you not trying to prevent 18-year-olds from
using anything? You have to be 18 to use an Emoto. Did I read it wrong? Without a helmet, but you can
operate it. Without a helmet? Yeah. Oh, I missed that part. Okay, I'm sorry. I thought I was reading
that was just banned.
Honestly age is another thing we talked about for emoto and that is another thing we could consider
with the Definitional categories if there should be an age limit Well, I mean, let's even just stick
with the the helmet. Is that a law? I mean for motorcycle users if you're licensed at age 16 in the
state of Indiana Can you really be told? I mean is that is there already a state law requiring helmet use? I
Are we circumventing state law at all with this? No, I can't say for certain whether or not There's
a state law to require helmet use on motorcycles but the existing helmet requirement for those 18 and
younger Or under the age of 18 that exists currently. Okay for all bikes. Okay. Well that answers that
question. I appreciate it and
But now I also want to know does is this ordinance also a sign that the city is starting to think of
Parks facilities namely trails as rights of way as things that are regulated the same as or Managed
in the same way as streets Like are we going to put speed limit signs to the same extent that we do
on streets?
I mean the beeline trail other trails. They are methods of transportation not simply recreational facilities
To what extent do you expect to enforce this law through the use of signage? That's a good question,
you know, I think are we continue to manage our trails both as recreational facilities linear parks
and as transportation corridors that is why I
You know a couple years ago. You saw us test the center stripe down the beeline It's gotten busier There
are faster speeds. There are more ebikes devices things like that capable of going faster So that's
why we work with the engineering department a lot in consultation on some things like that trail closures
permits things like that and processes that we've improved the last few years and So we want to continue
to manage them as as both of those things to the greatest extent possible That said
Sorry, I'm trying to get back to the heart of your question. Well, I mean it's it's it's about signage
Signage that was that I'm passive a passive kind of enforcement because we know we can't enforce actively
every Trail in the city a little on every street. Yes Hey You know it was it was not in my plans to
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
I think we would like to see the effect of some outreach, some education, a new ordinance passing, what
happens, sometimes things are fads, sometimes things evolve, et cetera, but I think if we continue to
get the complaints like we have now, we need to continue to look at would signage help? And that's always
the answer, put a sign up, but. Well, here's how it would help me if I'm a concerned citizen who is
using the trails and has been buzzed by an Emoto and is afraid of being hit by one.
If I can point to a sign that says, you see that? Bikes that go more than 20 miles an hour are not allowed.
That's a defense. That's a way of contradicting the person who wants to give you the finger. Look, there's
a sign. I didn't make it up. It wasn't me. This is the whole point of such regulation, I would think,
is to be able to show them. That's the best way to educate.
Are you concerned that you would make the trail less? Desirable simply by posting speed limits. No,
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
to plaster it everywhere But I think of course when we do this and we do education and outreach some
signage would be appropriate I just can't say I've been planning that for years like oh, let's put speed
limit signs up but with the proliferation of these devices and the issues we're experiencing
Yeah, I think it is probably a next step that makes sense for education Safety, etc. Would you be willing
to post a sign that defines what an emoto is or saying like, yeah Because I think that would be important
as well now, you know, we have some of those trailhead rule signs already I don't know how many people
check them out or look at them. But yes Well now we're not talking about trailhead anymore. We're talking
about anywhere where people might enter
Like how do speed limit signs get put on streets now? They tend to be every block every other block
or every few blocks But it's got to be more than just at the beginning and end of the trail sure for
speed limit signs I think we would struggle. I don't think we can put definitional signs You know up
and down a lot of locations. Okay. Thank you other further questions. I've got more I just don't want
to step on people's toes here Will the police use emotes do you think?
I'm not sure what devices they currently have. I think they operate motorcycles currently. I don't think
they would, I think they fit the state definition of motorcycle as opposed to. I think my last question
is having to do with what Donald Shoup called terminal capacity, the place that you park vehicles. We've
talked about, I mean he talks about how airports are the places you park planes.
harbors where you duck boats and Parking garages and parking places on streets or where you park cars,
but where we park bikes is Kind of confusing and I think it speaks to this issue here. We tend to park
bikes on sidewalks the majority of our racks are if you're riding up to it's reasonable to to think
that you're riding your bike up to a
the place where you're going to park it. And all too often, the places we have to park our bikes are
on places that are designated to not ride your bike. You actually have to walk it some distance to get
there. It's not really how people use bikes. They want to pull right up to it, too. So if the concern
about people riding their bikes on sidewalks is speed, which is what this whole thing is about, why are we
putting our Terminal capacity for bikes in the place that specifically designated for pedestrians only
And this our trails are designed for all kinds including pedestrians. They're like I mean, you're not
supposed to ride your bike in the downtown on a sidewalk but you are allowed to ride your bike on a
trail both of which accommodate pedestrians and
This is why I'm concerned about putting signs on Trailsly their their forms of transportation just like
sidewalks are and I'm sort of stuck here trying to figure out what messages we're sending with the default
system we have and Has the mayor's office thought about where bike racks will go and what message that
sends? And it's a long question. I know you probably don't have an answer, but I'm gonna ask anyway
I guess my answer would just be that's sort of outside the scope of what this ordinance does. Frankly,
I'm not sure. I think what you're talking about with bike racks and where they're placed, I think those
are a UDO requirement, which goes beyond the definition of micromobility and e-moto. And yet,
like I said, we're putting the places where we stop bikes, the places that tell people, oh, you can
bring your bike because there's a place to put it.
But we're putting it in the zone that specifically for pedestrians and I guess maybe it's a question
for parks as well You know Is a trail not a form of transportation that should be regulated more like
a form of transportation than a form of recreation I Again, I think it's both
And I think it's important to manage for those transportation aspects and the recreational aspects because
you're gonna have all kinds of mixed use of people Being on it to get somewhere and people being on
it to not get somewhere right to recreate to walk dogs. It's tricky There's a lot of use and that's
what we're trying to manage but part of the point of this ordinance is to provide a defense for people
who maybe have been struck by an emoto on say a trail You know like
They I've ran out of thought I think I think primarily what we set out to do with this Knowing that
we would have these some of these exact questions about specific use case scenarios based on the two
definition categories right was create a definition category that that works to define and capture this
this new aspect and create a codified, you know backing to the park policy for the speed limit while
still allowing
Use where we currently allow it. So default use has been You can use these things where you use I'm
just gonna say bikes, right? There were already existing city exclusions, of course for the downtown
dismount zone and in different places that were regulated Those are still in there And so critically
I think if we at least have the definitions where we want them and we can talk signage You know down
the line. I think some of that is certainly necessary as a next step I think that the key questions
are really okay
If we've defined these then We quite honestly need need the feedback of the public bodies on sidewalks
bike lanes and paths and trails to say You know is this do we want to continue to allow by default it
has been yes They're allowed to use them, but it's been sort of unregulated because they haven't met
any definition in city code so at least this way we would have a backing of potential enforcement as
difficult as that may be and
to Allow us to at least try or enforce some things and do some education outreach on these categories
but then between Transportation Commission and council I Anticipated there would be more questions and
discussion about those exact use case scenarios. Yeah, I think you're right And I'm my questions aren't
fully formed yet, but they're emerging from this discussion So thank you both for your answers. Are
there any other questions before we go to public comment on this? I
None, let's go to the public. I don't see anybody in the chamber who like to speak to this Is there
anyone online who would like to speak to TCR 2621? amending title 15 to define and regulate micro micro
mobility devices and emotes if so Please use the raise hand function in zoom and you'll be called on
you'll have three minutes So anyone online who'd like to speak to this issue? There is not but I would
like to provide public comment if that is I will now call on
Iris Bull for public comment. Thank you. Please. I would be remiss if I didn't offer public comment
on this particular issue because I drive almost what feels like the whole length of the beeline every
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
it. And I'm grateful that for about four feet that I have that kind of power to get up the little bit
of hill at the end of that trail.
in order to actually continue on to a path that gets me into my neighborhood. I'm one of the unfortunate
people who has to live in the county where our trails and when we have sidewalks go to nowhere. It's
just not an ideal place to try to exercise alternative forms of transportation. But that said, I'm exactly
the kind of user that probably would never be affected by this.
this regulation because I'm assuming that it's designed to punish people who are already getting in
trouble for some other reason. I would just encourage that for the sake of simplicity, perhaps that
really greater emphasis be placed on speed limits, which would, I would like to think, encourage traffic
calming initiatives that are unique to the trails and place less of an emphasis on wattage. That's just
my two cents.
Thank you for your comment. Is there any other public comment online or in the room? Last call for a
public comment, please use the raise hand function. Oh, this is the staff are setting aside their gavels
to act as public. Mr. Garzi, would you like to make public comment? You'll have three minutes. Yeah.
One of the comments I had was I noticed that e-trikes were noted under e-motos. And I was just curious
why e-trikes were noted there.
The other comment I had was about speed limits. I think it's also interesting to consider speed limits
when you're passing someone, because I feel like that's the most important time where the speed that
someone's going is actually important is when you're possibly going to hit them. I don't really mind
if someone's going 30 miles per hour when I'm like 50 or 100 feet away. Maybe more. But it really concerns
me when someone's passing me at that speed. And so if we had passing speed limits,
I think that would be more important and if we were to I would I would like them to be a little bit
lower than 20 miles per hour That's it. Thank you Thank you Well, all right, if there's no other public
comment last call for public comment use the raise hand function in zoom if you're online and We come
back to the Commission for debate anything you've heard that causes you to ask another question or to
make a recommendation on what we should do with TCR 2621. To my left, no comments. This is where we
go back and forth with each other and we hash it out. They're looking for guidance. I want to encourage
you all to say something. Mr. Stosberg. Thank you. I'd probably be most inclined to send this back for
refinements.
I think a ban on multi-use trails would have broad public support. I think that's something to consider.
I have a son who's of the age whose friends have these. And so as a parent, I'm aware of these issues.
I'd like there to be an age limit, 16 at least, for these.
I read the mentions of helmet. It looks like there's a helmet requirement if you are renting a shared
mobility device, but I didn't see a helmet requirement for these, but maybe you're telling me that's
in state law. And banning on sidewalks. Again, I just think, I feel like I am, I was in favor of the sidewalk
The rule to allow bicycles on sidewalks because sometimes it's the safest way to get someplace and we
we shouldn't criminalize You're getting to where you need to go in the safest way. I Don't see these
emotive specifically used so much for transportation They seem to be very much used for recreation and
so I'm I'm comfortable Being more restrictive about them than I would other forms of transportation
especially
Because we know there there are other more powerful kinds of ebikes that people are using Which are
not emotes and wouldn't have to be have these constraints Thank you, is there any other comment Is that
it that you're looking to comment no, mr. Binder I'll just say that I concur with mr. Stasberg that
my inclination would be to I
send this back for further refinement. We just have to be, I think, very careful about how we're writing
these definitions because there are many possible pitfalls. There's always gonna be lots of cases where
things can slip through loopholes or the inverse. We are restricting certain types of devices unnecessarily.
So I think that
to look at other municipalities rules about these things is a good idea. And also I think understanding
that the reasons for an entity like the city of Bloomington to regulate different types of micro mobility
devices is gonna come from kind of a fundamentally different place than say the you know consumer product
safety commission which you know I think was maybe the
Origin of the like the three-class ebike system for example, you know, like it's it's pretty well beyond
the scope of municipal ordinance to be like regulating like Which types like where the locations of
like where reflectors are on bikes that are sold in stores and things like that I think so Whereas like
that does pertain to for example the three-class ebike system So I think just with that in mind
I think this is a good start. I think the motivations behind it are very admirable. But I think a little
bit more consideration is needed about how this is written and emphasizing, I think, the speed-based
rules and classifications more so than wattage or
You know dimensions or like other or number of wheels or like things like that that Seem more arbitrary
and less related to safety compared to the design speed or maximum speed However, you want to think
of it? So that's my comment just a point of order to everyone on the Commission our Mandate here is
to make a positive recommendation a negative one
No recommendation or to continue to another meeting. Those are the four Motions that we can entertain
so keep that in mind as you speak further comment from commissioners online Okay Anybody else before
I go because we can have two bites here I've got a few things number one People have talked for many
years in my experience on
about how they would like to see more enforcement of traffic rules. They're always seeing people speeding,
or they're seeing bicyclists go through a stop sign and they belly ache, usually on social media, but
oftentimes in this chamber. And we ought to know, if we don't already know, that we can't possibly afford
to hire as many people as it would take to catch every
Miscreant who violates traffic rules. We will be living in what we feel is a police state if we did
so this is one reason why we are so concerned about The design speed of Transportation facility because
it acts as de facto police to if you can't physically go very fast on a path and
You're less likely to speed. I feel like we have to sign all of our facilities that are used
for transportation. Our trails, our transportation facilities. They may not be roads, but people travel
on them. They don't just do it to...
to exercise. They don't just do it to take in nature. They do it because it's a practical form, a practical
conduit for getting from one place to another. And I'll go further. I have two vehicles that I use that
are motor vehicles, but they are not cars. The second is an e-trike. And again, I have it because it's
one of the only vehicles
that is bicycle-like, that is pedalable, that I can pedal with my geometry. And in both cases, when
I ride the trike or when I ride the scooter, if I can use a parks and recreation facility, I will choose
it every time because it's safer. If I don't have to ride on the street, then I choose not to.
This is also true for sidewalks. I'm confessing now that I'm a miscreant because I will ride on sidewalks,
usually when there is no one as far as the eye can see. And the trike, by the way, meets another concern.
I don't think it's three feet wide, but certainly the width of a wheelchair. And I've had lots of experience
with the state of our sidewalks because I've bumped along
effectively as a wheelchair rider on sidewalks before but the fact is people do it and it's People people
ride on sidewalks pragmatically So the idea that somehow the trail is so different than a sidewalk that
It needs to be not regulated or regulated differently doesn't fly for me. I feel like I
We need to be thinking more about it as like the... I'm gonna go back to the idea that if you've gotta
sign up, if there's a sign that says, 20 miles an hour, there's a sign that says, e-motos are not allowed,
and that I can point to the sign, it would be one of the most effective forms of enforcement. I'm a
big fan of the diverter at Third and Grant. I come northbound on Grant Street,
to cross 3rd Street, the only place between Roger Street and Dunn Street where there's not a light that
a bike can cross. And I have to tell you how successful the signs are on that diverter. When I'm in
the median, the cars that are coming by that usually shoot down 3rd Street westbound, they stop. Rarely
do I have to point to the sign. Occasionally, I do point to the sign.
to say, hey, you're supposed to stop. But when I do, cards slow down. The sign has a huge effect. It
makes a difference. It tells people this is regulated and you're supposed to follow it. And I can't
think of a more effective form. We have to have some kind of passive enforcement. We can't just pass
the law and say, well, did you not know that this is the law in the city? There's gotta be a sign.
So that's my biggest thought. I think we have to allow micromobility on trails and sidewalks the same
somehow. I think that the definition that we're looking for for micromobility on trails ought to also
apply, like if we're talking about passing speed, that ought to apply on sidewalks and trails the same,
and we need to get to that. But finally, I'll just say I've got 1,000 watt
scooter that doesn't go more than 17 miles an hour when I'm on it. If my scooter is regulated as a Emoto,
I cannot support this flat out. I think the power capacity is an issue, but speed is a greater issue.
20 miles an hour seems like the magic thing everybody definitely agrees on.
I believe that my device is designed to be safe because it doesn't go more than 20 miles an hour But
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
needs more work. It doesn't need a lot more work But I don't know how I can recommend can can forward
it to council with a positive yet just because there's
These bigger issues at hand. I also want to say especially to mr. Mitchell that I think that the work
that he's done on it is significant great important and necessary And I don't necessarily want to hold
it up Because council can maybe take it up, but if they're asking for our full opinion, I think we need
another meeting Those are my thoughts. Is there a second round of comments from commissioners? Mr. Stosberg
Oftentimes, when we make laws, we can't get exactly what we want to get at. For a young person driving,
we want to say, are you ready to drive? Are you mature enough to drive? We can't test that. So instead,
we have an arbitrary rule that's enforceable. You have to be 16, get a license. So we enforce that.
When it comes to this topic, we don't have speed cameras on our trails. I don't imagine police are going
to sit out with speed cameras.
20 miles per hour is the right speed. I think it's hard to enforce. Something you can easily enforce
is, does that look like an Emoto? Is it on the trail? And so, I think as parents, we have to deal with
if the kid says, I'm gonna take out the Emoto, but I only promise to go 20, that's harder to enforce.
But if you just know that you can't ride them on trails, I think that's clearer. So, yeah.
So again, I'm gonna I also want to send this back to for revisions I'm not sure exactly in terms of
making a motion if we make a general motion for that or if we want to spell out some specific revisions
we make well the our Options are to continue to a future meeting which would be the effect of sending
it back It's it's we would have to take it up at the next meeting Further comments
my right online To my left I'll entertain a motion on what to do with this resolution TCP 20 TCR 2621
I Move the Commission Continue this resolution to the next to the
The next regular hearing the next regular. Is there a second? Should just a minute. Is there a second
for this motion? My question is should we frame it next or just future meeting? Oh, well, I my language
was based on what Steve just said about that. We would have to take it up at the next regular hearing
Okay, I take it back. I am wrong here. It's to continue the resolution to a future a future meeting
You don't have to specify it
Okay, very good with that in mind I I move that the Commission For their sorry continue this resolution
to a future regular here I Second the motion. There's a motion in a second. Is there any discussion
on the motion to continue and you may choose to get the opinion of staff in this discussion and
I'll just save you save you the trouble and say would staff please like to comment on the motion Thank
you, my only question was about the next meeting or a future meeting so that was resolved Thank you.
Okay. So our next meeting would be December what? All right, one moment don't want to miss speak and
I'm very tired What's in it when's our next meeting
Would be December 7th When I'm sorry, our next special hearing is November 16th, but our next regular
hearing is December 7th Okay. So these are our two options for the range of the year We could take advantage
of the November 16th meeting if Commission sees fit and
But otherwise our next meeting is December 7th Perhaps I should ask staff when they expected to bring
this resolution this ordinance to council Were you hoping to get it done by the end of the year?
I mean mr. Mitchell's Departure notwithstanding we were not no we were planning this for in the new
year I know the council calendar is pretty full I think to the end of the year already so we knew it
was going to be a new year item and
December meeting seems like that's probably a reasonable target to be okay. So we have time I was worried
there was another meeting really soon and I was like, I don't know if we'll Have it refined. Yeah, that's
great. I think that's fine okay, so December 7th is the earliest opportunity we could take this up again.
It seems like a Good time. Is that enough time for staff to consider these changes? Seeing nods from
the audience. All right any other discussion about the motion to continue in
this resolution to a future meeting, we can give staff the option to bring it back. Maybe I should ask
staff when is the deadline for submitting, for bringing back this resolution to the December 7th meeting?
It will be in November. Just but when?
Yeah, what's the time that's November 24th? That is that's the packet material that line that yes, that
would be correct. Thank you. Okay, so the staff who's bringing this think that November 24th is sufficient
time to To work on a revision I Would say yes, I hope so. We'll have to figure out some things with
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
Find the next earliest opportunity, but I sounds doable to me right now. Okay, that's good Okay Last
call sure mr. Mitchell I just like to ask a quick question about rules that this is even allowed But
if anything if you think of anything in the interim, I know this is a lot to digest It would help us
a lot if maybe you could send something along as that allowed. Okay, perfect Yeah, so if something occurs to you
Along and then we could incorporate that into our next draft before we bring it back to you. That would
be helpful as well Okay, I think it will just send it to Transportation Commission's regular email.
Yeah, you you may absolutely Send your comments to transportation commission at Bloomington gov and
I will make sure that mr. Mitchell gets those comments Yes, thank you. I will say that to any member
of the public watching that
Please if you have any comments on TCR 2621 Send them preferably with that call number so that it can
be properly routed to transportation commission at Bloomington that ion gov that's correct and it will
get routed to the appropriate place How much more time do we have? Mr. Mitchell for When is his last day?
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
whoever else If they were able to get written comments, you know feedback before the I'm just gonna
try to get it in earlier So you have some say on it? I'd appreciate that maybe with some Halloween candy.
All right any other Comments on the motion before we take a vote Seeing none. Will the secretary please
call the roll on the motion to continue and
TCR 2621 to a future meeting Binder yes Volin. Yes Flaherty. Yes Stossberg. Yes Copic. Yes. Mr. Midas.
Yes Said everyone that's a 6-0 vote and with that we move now to general public comment on items not
on the docket and
Thank you, everyone, for the presentation. Is there anyone who would like to speak to an item that is
not on the docket? If so, please come to the podium and state your name, sign in, and you'll have three
minutes. If there's anyone online, please use the raise hand function in Zoom, and you'll be called
on. Is there anyone who would like to comment on items that are not on our agenda? I did want to ask
staff, there are two items that you submitted
Part of the the agenda that we're not reading them. They're just connected to us, right? That is correct.
Okay Last call for general public comment Seeing none we'll go to discussion of topics not on the docket
Is there any item that a commissioner like to bring up that we didn't already talk about today To my
right to my left online I would like to ask the Commission about or at least staff on
about the first Public comment The request for a speed study. So there was a public comment saying that
they'd like to see a speed study on Leonard Springs Road Between a couple of addresses What what was
staff's reaction to that letter
That is a kind of request that we the engineering department receives fairly routinely as part of the
you report system and so the recommendation That I was just making to John was that we escalate this
per usual with two of our staff members who routinely oversee these kinds of studies we can follow up
with the person who made the public comment and
We can also include this as part of a staff report in a future meeting if that's the of interest to
the commissioners. I Don't know what other commissioners I for one would like to know how many similar
requests like this come in through other means not through us I would say I am NOT the most authoritative
on that but a search of the you report system would return for a
For every one of these how many typically come in through? I mean, it's it's genuinely it's a great
question and I Wish that I had a better answer But the simple fact of the matter is that most people
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
person staff person interprets what they mean
and puts them in touch with the right staff person. So it's hard to track internally and even through
the eReport system. But people also email the engineering department, engineeringatbloomington.in.gov.
They will submit photos, they will submit narratives, and that goes to the same general group that conducts
these studies. So that would be another way that we keep track of them internally. If only this city
had 311, if only,
Alas, we do not I I have heard Interest expressed at multiple levels in the potential for a Communications
arm that really tries to wrangle all of that, you know what they called in other cities, don't you?
3-1-1. Yes. Yes. All right That's enough There's no other public another comment
of discussion of topics on the docket just to reiterate our next meeting is November 16th and it is
a special meeting to take up the topic of the redesign of college and walnut And then our next regular
hearing is December the 7th In this room, I think both of them are in this room, right? I Believe the
November meeting is in McCloskey. Oh, that's gonna be fun Let me double-check
It does say council chambers. Oh, we're so lucky. I do expect it to be a well attended meeting That
may be parse partially how we were able to secure council chambers. Okay. Thank you Well with that,
I just want to thank everyone for coming and declared this meeting adjourned