So we can go ahead and get started, Ryan. We need to, because Mark and Steve aren't here, we need to
choose a chair for this meeting, correct? Yeah, just temporary. Somebody has to technically run the
meeting from membership on the board. So staff, until you nominate and elect a chair, we can only help
you elect a chair. So I accept any nominations.
Nominate Brian. OK. Second. Second? OK. And then everyone's in person, so we can do this. I'll just,
all in favor, say aye. Aye. And I'll post. Aye. Sounds like you won your chairmanship four to one.
Uh, so, oh, I actually, we forgot to recall that, so did that really play, drummy? I've called it roll,
sorry. I'm going out of order. Attendance or? Yes. Okay, here. Copic. Here. Oh. I can read myself. Yes,
please, sorry. Let's go, let's go. Yes. Okay, I'll learn that for next time. Davis. Yes, here. And binder.
Here. Okay, sorry about that, I went out of order. I'll now hand it off to you.
I will thank you for allowing me to chair. I'll be honest, I'm not exactly sure what we're doing today.
So I will look to staff to help guide me through that process. Thank you. Sure. Thanks. So I will give
a quick background on why we're here, what are we doing, and then I'll throw it off to our project manager,
Drew Parker, to go into the more nitty gritty of what this project is, what the study is.
So essentially we are here to talk about the Roger Street, Madison Street and Kinser Pike corridors
from on the south side, Country Club Drive to the north side at the bypass. Why are we here? So the
background is in 2024, the city adopted a goal of Vision Zero 2039. That is essentially eliminating
all fatal and serious roadway crashes on city roads by the year 2039. From there,
months later in that year, the city also adopted the Safe Streets for All Action Plan. That describes
the various action items and needs from the city to reach that goal of Vision Zero. That includes program
and infrastructure investments, employees in the departments, et cetera. In that plan, there are, we
prioritized various intersections and corridors based on fatal and severe injury crash history,
demographic information of folks in the area, and then public comment. That turned into the high priority
network for the city, the streets and corridors that the city needs to work on as we reach that goal
of Vision Zero. On that list are a handful of very long corridors, College and Walnut, Roger Street,
College Mall Road, West Third Street, Third and Atwater, etc. These are the main arterials through town
that unsurprisingly land on this list. Because this Roger Street corridor is so long and so much of
it is on that high priority network, we decided to take a more comprehensive look at this corridor itself
and look not just at the transportation
the streetscape aspect of it, but the land use around it, get more community focus on how we can improve
our community's experiences along and across this corridor. So we partnered with Tool Design Group to
help us do that. And so over the past few months, they have been working on this corridor analysis,
looking at the crash history, the gaps analysis, the pedestrian quality, and looking at the existing
conditions
so we can then move forward and look at what could be on this corridor. Now, you're all's role in this
study. You all are the steering committee for the study. This is the first meeting we've had for the
study. We will have a handful of more meetings throughout the spring and summer as we eventually form
a short-term and long-term concept of what this corridor could look like, both on the street and around it.
What we need from you all is one, use your position in the community to talk to your friends, talk to
your coworkers, your colleagues, your people who you know to be that bridge between the community and
staff. But also, you all are on this commission for a reason. You have different expertises in the field
of transportation and so what we need from you is to ask those deep questions. Push us when we need
to be pushed because this should not be a
staff project, this should be a city project, a community project, and this is where we need you. There
are a few events coming up that I've requested your attendance, there will be more as well, but again,
this is what we want from you is to push us, help us make this a community-centric project. Before I
turn this over to Drew for the more long-form presentation on what we're doing, do you all have any
questions?
Did you start the recording? Yes. The second question is, you have events scheduled, so that will be
more in the public who lives in that area? When are we planning to talk to the people who live in that
area? Oh, yeah. Great question. So I'm not sure if we're going to get into this much tonight, so I'm
glad you asked this. The week of March 23rd, that Monday through Friday in the last full week of March,
is what we're calling workshop.
That is when we are doing a full press public outreach event for the entire week. We will have various
small pop-up events on the corridor to just get street users' opinions and thoughts as they're going
to work, as they're going to their friends' houses, et cetera. Those are unscheduled events to very
much get the true street user of the corridor. Who's walking, who's rolling, who's driving along it?
Let's talk to them.
There will be a formal public meeting that Wednesday at 5.30 p.m. at Switchyard Park. There will be
a lot of promotion about this coming up next week. There will be press releases, social media posts,
flyers, mailers, the whole sort. So public meeting, we will be hosting a few strolls and discusses along
the corridor that you all have been emailed about. Those are essentially strolls along the corridor.
to focus on not necessarily what could be, but more of what is. What are you feeling in the moment?
What are you hearing? What are you seeing? What makes you feel comfortable? What makes you
feel uncomfortable? Let's talk about that. Let's essentially balance that crash data, that hard data
that we have and that tool design came up with, balance that with the qualitative feedback that we get
from the community.
Because there's so much feedback that we can't put into data. We can't put in the near misses. We can't
put in those situations that we hear and we've experienced where, ooh, that felt a little jumpy here.
We can't do that. So that's why we need you all to help us with that. Clear. Thank you. OK. Two questions.
Yeah. Can you go more slowly this time, go through what are the parameters and what's the definition
of the corridor than where they came from? Yes. So this is the Roger Street.
Madison Street and Kinser Pike corridors on the south side starting at city limits at Country Club Drive.
Okay. And then going all the way north up to the State Road 45-46 bypass. Oh wow, okay. And when you
name those three streets, those are all north-south streets? Yeah. Do we focus on offshoots of that
or is it just mainly the main
We are so that is a great question We are mainly focusing on this particular thoroughfare here here
because it is the one of the main north-south connecting streets through the city that said We we are
focusing on intersections along that corridor. And so that's where you might find That that question
of offshoots we could talk about one one that I'm very interested in is third street that third and
Rogers intersection so we are actually
analyzing specifically that section of 3rd Street between Rogers and College because a lot of that goes
together and then I can name other intersections too along with that but for the most part the thoroughfare
plus a little bit of 3rd Street. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So what exactly are we looking at? Are we looking
at pedestrian? Are we looking at signals?
side paths or bicycle paths or what? We're looking at everything, quite frankly. Um, that is one reason
why we wanted to have this broad corridor study because there is not just one answer. It's not just
about signal re timing or protected left turns or bicycle lanes or crosswalks. It's about all of it
and maybe more. And so we are starting off with the approach that it is a blank slate. We are looking,
maybe 10 years into the future, 15 years into the future of what could be, what could we do here within
the given parameters, and then going from there. We don't want to propose anything proactively and then
ask the public to give feedback. We want to get the feedback, look at the data, and then propose something
from there. So there are two prongs we're looking at. One is long-term vision that I just talked about,
and then one is short-term improvements. That's something that we haven't done as much of. I talked
to you all last meeting about
temporary and quick build improvements, we would like to do a lot of that along this corridor. Things
that we can do more cost effectively in a shorter time frame that we might not be able to do in concrete.
And the long term is 2030, right? Or like, how long is long term? Yeah, for this particular corridor
study, we're looking at about 10 years. That would be when we would come up with a plan and it would
be implemented and completed within 10 years.
I mean, in a perfect world. In a perfect world, yes. That's the goal, not come up with whatever's starting
tonight in 10 years. Yeah. I hope not. That would be a long lot of study. I agree. Hank, what about
the section of Kinser Pike north of 45, 46, but that is still within city limits? Yeah, that's a great
question. And that was honestly a discussion we had before beginning this corridor study. Essentially,
we looked at that section as a different context zone, just the characteristics of that street.
are different than what you get south of the bypass. And I would also say that the answer or the potential
improvements for that section are a little bit more straightforward than you get further south. So that
honestly is something we've talked about as a separate project and we almost definitely will study that.
I will also say that is not as high on the Safe Streets priority network. And so that was just another
reason why we focused within this current scope.
And to the point you just made about how these get ranked, is that effectively just how many injuries
there have been? So some of it is, yes, we look at the past five years of fatal and severe injury crashes.
And then we look at, so LATERB, what was it? About a year and a half ago, we went around the city and
did a similar public outreach campaign called Safety Week, where we
essentially talk to street users and residents all over the city. We had this grand old map of where
do you feel safe? Where do you not feel safe? That got incorporated too. And then we look at the demographic
information of folks in the area. What's the percentage of folks who own a motor vehicle? What's the
percentage of folks experiencing disabilities? What's the percentage of folks over 65 or under 18? Those
more vulnerable street users, those are the folks that we want to focus on especially.
My question could be more basic knowledge, but I'm relatively new, so I'm just curious. That scale,
that part, whole part, is it the size we usually work with, or it's much longer than you would chunk
it into? It feels like it's a long part of the city, a huge part of the city. Why would you approach
that on that scale? Yeah, so good question. I will say this is the second full corridor study of this
scope that we've done.
Most of what we do is more short-term infrastructure projects and for those projects we do work on a
smaller scale more so because of funding For this because we're looking at such a long-term vision it
all goes together and so There there wasn't outside of what a obon mentioned of north of the bypass.
There wasn't a clear cutoff of where
the problem starts and where the problem ends, or where we should look at and shouldn't look at, and
so we didn't want to say negate the north side of the corridor, or negate the south side of the corridor,
or the downtown part of the corridor. It's all one corridor with similar usages. Now we'll talk about
different characteristic zones of the corridor, we'll get into that, but for this we wanted to look
at it more comprehensively, quite honestly.
Any other questions before I pass it over to Drew? All right. I will pass it over to Drew Parker. He
is the project manager from Tool Design. And he will tell us a little bit more about the visions and
goals and project overview of the study. Thanks, Hank. I appreciate it. Can you all hear me OK? Yeah.
Yeah. Awesome. I'm going to share a presentation here. I'll just confirm. You can see that as well.
that showing up in the room now. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Awesome. Well, yeah. Thanks for the introduction and
thanks for the great instructions. Me. My name is Drew Parker. I'm a senior planner of tools. I'm based
in Ann Arbor. And thanks for the great introduction to the project. I feel like you covered a lot of
stuff in the first slide that I had here and it was great for me to hear that context as well. I'm excited
to be here with you all for the Transition Commission. I think I have maybe 20 to 30 minutes of slides
here. It's about
30 some odd slides, and we've kind of broken this down to three different sections. So I'll provide
a project overview and schedule. Then we'll talk a little bit about the vision for the project, goals,
and then also design objectives. So I think we can cover those two sections because they're a little
bit smaller than we can pause for questions at that time. And then I have an analysis summary that's
maybe 20 slides. And so I think we go through that as sort of the second chunk of the meeting and then
break again for
questions at the end of that, if that sounds good for everybody. So probably five, 10 minutes presentation,
break again for questions, then maybe 20 minutes presentation on analysis, then break again for questions.
So starting with the project overview, Hank covered this verbally, but yeah, the project extent that
we're looking at is the Kinser Pike, Roger Street, and Madison Street corridor from the bypass all the
way down to Country Club Drive. So you can see just a
corridor extends map here on the right. And really the way that it's been communicated to us, you know,
the purpose of the project is to evaluate existing conditions and then make recommendations for design
changes to improve safety along this corridor. So this is to us really a safety project. It may achieve
other goals, but first and foremost, this is a safety project that's housed under the Safe Streets for All plan.
And I think Hank mentioned this as well, you know, you really want to focus on what's the long term
vision for design recommendations that like 10 year window, but then also thinking of in the short term
or the rapid implementation projects that can do with with quick build materials to achieve some of
those same goals that the long term design is intended to achieve. Like Hank said, so you all have adopted
Vision Zero for 2039. So that means we're trying to eliminate serious injury and fatal crashes by then.
So this is
one corridor within the overall citywide street network where we were starting for this study. And then
Hank mentioned this as well. So on the left side here, you can see this is the citywide high injury
networks. That's where those serious injury and fatal injury crashes occur most frequently across the
city. So especially along the northern end of this corridor, there's a higher frequency of those types
of crashes. And then when you look at the priority and kind of some of the other factors that Hank mentioned,
This corridor, especially the northern end, really rose to the top as the highest priority or highest
tier of priority. So yeah, to give you a sense of the project overview, we started work in October,
and that started with kind of data collection and doing this corridor analysis, which we just recently
completed in a draft form, also coming up with the vision and goals.
Our next steps as the project advances is to develop some alternatives for design and then move ultimately
into a concept design and then compiling that into a final corridor study. So yeah, like Hank said,
this is our first Transformation Commission meeting. We will have a meeting during workshop week that
we give March 23rd to 27th, and then we expect to have a few more Transformation Commission meetings
later in the spring and summer. And our public engagement is gonna be
like Hank said, really focused on that workshop week to just really get as much engagement as you can
all at once. But we'll also have an online survey that will be open for a month. So if people aren't
able to attend those events during that week, they'll be able to engage with the project via the project
website as well. So I feel like I'm repeating some of the things that Hank said, but sometimes it's
good to hear things all the time, at least for me. So the corridor analysis, like Hank said, it includes
crash analysis and traffic data.
a gaps analysis parking utilization data, as well as future land use review. So we'll go through that
in the second half of this presentation. Alternative development. So our goal is to come up with two
alternative design ideas, and that could vary depending on different context zones, like people have
mentioned in the meeting so far that it's a really large corridor that's city-wide, and so it differs
depending on which section you're in.
But as we develop those alternatives, what we'll do is develop some sort of cross-section. You can see
this example on the right. This is just from a different tool design project. But we'll come up with
something like that and have multiple alternatives and plan new concepts to show. And we'll then evaluate
which alternative we think meets the project goals and design objectives the best. So then from there,
when we pick a
Alternative that we want to move forward with, we'll develop plan view concepts up to 10 intersections.
As you can see, an example right here, this is just a typical from another project of what our concept
designs generally look like in plan view. So looking at how we can reconfigure intersections and what
kind of safety improvement elements we can add there. And then our public engagement approach, as mentioned,
it's really focused on the workshop week. You can see these couple of photos from safety week.
the safe streets for all find where we had struggle discuss activities and pop-up activities where we're
just trying to meet people were there they're at do a quick you know 30 second activity and give them
a snack and send them on their way it's a nice way to get quick feedback of people that have time to
come to a public meeting for an hour. All right so that kind of covers the overall project overview
at a very high level of what we will be doing from now through the summer.
The next section I want to move into is the project vision statement, goals, and design objectives.
So these are in draft form. These are statements that we've come up with working with city staff. So
we're really looking for you all as commissioners to provide feedback on if you think this is headed
in the right direction, if you agree with the vision statement, goals, and design objectives. So the
vision statement that we've come up with is to say,
The Rogers Street, Madison Street, and Kinser Pike corridor will become a safe, accessible, and connected
multi-mobile street that supports existing neighborhoods, advances Bloomington's values, and guides
future growth towards walkable, people-centered places. So you can see it's really focused on safety
first, but there's all these other goals that we're trying to achieve with the corridor study, which
is really taking a broad look at the corridor.
So I think I'll run through the goals and design objectives as well and then we can pause and I'm happy
to kind of move back and forth between these slides to talk about each of these with you all. So as
far as goals, we have six goals that are intended to support this vision. So the first one is we have
a goal to eliminate fatal and serious injury crashes. So we'll do that through really street design
changes that we know can help reduce the chances of fatal and serious injury crashes.
We also want to support multimodal travel for all ages and abilities. We know this is an important
north-south corridor that connects all throughout the city, and so we need to ensure that our concepts
support travel for all modes and for all ages and abilities. We also want to align the street design
with existing and planned development and make sure that any changes are supporting existing development
as well as known future planned development.
We also want to deliver cost-effective and implementable improvements of our concepts to be feasible.
And we also want to look for opportunities to have short-term options that can be installed soon to
make those types of safety improvements sooner than the long-term improvements may be when they may
be feasible. We also want to build community consensus through inclusive engagement. So we want to make
sure that we're reaching a broad cross-section of folks that use Roger Street depending
on how they may use it and how they interact with it, whether they live, work, visit this corridor.
And then lastly, we want to support economic vitality and community development. So in addition to those
project goals, we also have eight design objectives. And design objectives are really intended to support
the goals and the goals support the vision. But the design objectives are
In my mind, the way that you evaluate the different designs to say, is this achieving the things that
we're trying to do with this project? So the first one of these is to reflect community values and corridor
identity. The second one is to advance safety through proven street design. The third is to create a
context-sensitive street that calms traffic. The fourth is to build a continuous multimodal corridor
for all users. And then the fifth is
ensure universal accessibility and comfort. The sixth design objective is to support redevelopment and
local economic vitality. The seventh is to strengthen connections to key destinations and the city-wide
network. And then the last design objective is to support safe routes to school. So each of these design
objectives can be evaluated, and we can say whether or not alternatives that we're proposing are achieving
one or all of these eight different
objectives. The next thing I wanted to mention is that staff have also kind of already, oops, did not
mean to advance, sorry, staff have already taken a cut at splitting the corridor up into different contact
zones. As people have mentioned, it's very different along the corridor depending on where you're looking
at. And so city staff have already at a draft level said these are what we think are the four different
contact zones within this corridor.
The first section is the area north of 17th Street to the bypass. And then the second area is from 11th
Street to 17th Street. The third area is from Wiley Street to 11th Street. And then the fourth area
is south of Wiley Street, down the country road drive. So I know there's a lot of information to throw
at you all. But I want to pause there and see if folks have initial thoughts on any of those things
that we just presented, and we can start.
for overflow 20. May I jump in? Yeah. Thank you so much, Drew, for this presentation. Would you mind
going back to your previous slide where you showed the four segments? I think commissioners would maybe
just like a moment to take a look at these four context zones for just a second. Absolutely. As a follow
up, I think I would ask maybe we can
give more context on how they were originated? What is the reason behind them being like that? So there's
no perfect answer here. And also, this is very much a back and forth. These are the contact zones, and
this is what we're going with. If you have other feedback, please give it to us. Essentially, how we
defined it. So I'll start south and go north from there. From Country Club up
to Wiley. It is almost primarily residential. There are some businesses over there, but it's residential.
And that's where you see less of that downtown, more urban context. And it feels a little bit more suburban.
You have long stretches without crossings in there or major intersections. You have a couple with Patterson or
What is it? Rockport, thank you. But it's not too many. But then once you get into that third section,
the Wiley to 11th Street, that is your downtown area. Wiley is where you have, is the beginning of the
Hopewell development where you have the new police station, where you have these businesses coming up
and you have just a much denser urban context going through downtown.
And then 11th Street, to me, is that barrier of, OK, you are leaving downtown, and you're entering more
of a residential space again. 11th to 17th, this is a smaller contact zone. But to me, that is an area
that is delineated on both sides by 17th and 11th, where it feels different south of 11th than it feels
different north of 17th. And then 17th to the bypass.
is, again, you could arguably combine those top two, one and two, into one. But to me, they just feel
a little bit different than each other. There is no perfect science to this, I do want to say. But looking
at the aerial view, looking at the land use, and looking at the street as a whole, that's how we initially
defined it. All right. Thanks. Yeah. Does the network system
relate to anything or I mean is one the top priority or? No it's just north and south that's all. Okay.
I think it would be also interesting to see how the slide about the injury ranking or something and
like it would be interesting to see it once again after we have we see it move so this zoning. Are you
talking about this one?
would you say that the bottom part it's like it's different shade right so it's it's less right yes
it's so the from second to Country Club that's southern half of the corridor that is high and then from
second north to the bypass is highest
Those two, first and second, they have no difference, and injury is basically the same, even though,
yeah, interesting. But as you can see... Oh, sorry, Andrew, go ahead. I would say when I get to the
analysis summary too, we have much more detailed crash data to show as well, if you're interested in
that. Like the actual locations of crashes by mode and severity. I'll show a few more maps, but this
is just comparison to city-wide.
Also, I think I have more general question. In general, when did we do anything to that corridor or
to those parts last time? Great question. I don't have that information on me right now, but that is
a part of what we in tool talked about over the past couple of months of where are projects that we
have done recently? What might skew the data in one way or another or has anything improved after we've
completed something. And the answer is we've done some things, I will say. Rogers and 17th is an intersection
that we improved in the past few years. We installed a pedestrian island at Allen and Rogers. So there
have been a handful, but nothing really to change the entire scope of the corridor. Yeah. So basically,
like recent years, we've done some work. It's not like decades in the past. OK. Thanks.
It's going to be too high an elevation question, but has the city council weighed in on this and said,
we want you to look at this? Or is this something where we could come up with a plan and say, yeah,
it's a great plan, guys, but we're not doing that? This is something that right now we are not planning
on going to council with. This is not going to be an adoption into the transportation plan. Whatever
this final study is, this would be reviewed by the Transportation Commission. That is the body that
we would like
review and approval from once we get to that point. But from our end, the initial council approval of
the impetus for the study was the approval of the Safe Streets for All action plan, which listed this
as one of the highest priority streets in the city. And then eventually presumably come from
the Transportation Commission as a recommendation to further the Safe Streets for All plan.
So when it says weighted scores, corridors, how are those scores weighted? Yeah, great question. I won't
get into the full scoring methodology of it. That is available on the full Safe Streets for All Action
plan. It's there, and it's honestly quite interesting to look at. But in a short sentence or two, it
goes back to fatal and severe injury crashes over the past five years of when we included this data.
demographic information of nearby residents, and then public comment. Those are the three main categories
of data that we used. And then weighted is essentially standardizing those different data sets to make
them weighted. I forget what we weighted them. Call it 33, 33, 33. That's not what we weighted it, but
it's an example. And then that is the standardized data set. What about traffic volume? Is that in part of the
I mean, traffic and pedestrian, because the north part of Kins or wherever you get those apartments
up there, you're going to have a lot more people walking through there. Yeah, for sure. And so that
is one reason why we're studying this in the first place, of looking at oncoming or future developments
that we'll get into actually in a few minutes here. But the methodology, I would have to go back and
look to give you a for sure answer. But it does talk about the profile of streets and the risk profile,
that being number of lanes, traffic volumes, et cetera.
But also, then you're getting into compounding variables of, well, the risk profile aligns with the
fatal and severe injury, the crash data. And so maybe we're double weighting this part of it. Should
we jump back to the vision statement? Do folks have thoughts on the vision statement?
My reaction is just that this seems fine. I mean, it seems to align with the state streets for all action
plan as well as the transportation plan. I mean, I assume that that's most of the inspiration and where
you kind of borrowed the language for the vision statement from. Yes. Yeah. I think my reaction.
that it's aligned with everything pretty well, but it covers so many different things. So it's phrased
pretty nicely, but then you will have a priority when you will be deciding on things. So I think if
it's important to highlight it at this stage, maybe it's something we should do. But otherwise, we can
keep it that general, trying to fulfill all the goals we have. But I don't think it's always possible.
That's why we'll end up prioritizing something over another. Is that something
you'd like to get into when we talk about the goals of this project? Because the goals go into this
vision even more. Would you like to prioritize or create some kind of prioritization list of these six
goals? I think, in a way, it's a question also based on the past experiences.
the way other projects work. Maybe my assumption is wrong. Maybe we can't achieve all the goals when
we work on any project or research. If that's not true, then I think we may want to explore the priority
of it and decide what's more important. That's a great question. I don't have a good answer right now.
I'll be honest, but I'd like to look into this more. Maybe that's something we can talk about.
from now between this and our next steering committee meeting, and maybe we could come to you with something
more then? OK. And also, maybe we'll have more data, like more information. And once we are more into
the process, we'll see where it will be leaning towards. And that's it. More naturally. I'm really glad
you brought that up. I think our goal is to align design objectives with evaluation criteria to look
at the two different alternatives or different alternative designs
And I think we would definitely want your input on both goals and design objectives of which of these
are higher priorities should be weighted higher when we're evaluating those things. Because right now
we're just sort of saying these are the eight design objectives, the six goals, and it's kind of all
being equal, knowing that overall the vision is eliminating serious and fatal injury, excuse me, serious
injury and fatal crashes. But I think we'll definitely want that kind of weighting input
So yeah, we can bring that back from the next meeting. So would you give us your design options? You'll
give us the why you chose that design. Yeah, of course. Are there any design objectives missing at books
that we need covered?
I think we have plenty for now. I think we will decide on whether it's achievable. OK. And also,
if you, after this meeting, if you all think of anything, I'll be sending this out to you all. If you
think of anything, anything you want to combine, add, prioritize, please let me know. This is not just
a one-time question by any means. OK. Any other sections on this?
front matter in the first section or are we ready to move into more analysis content? Let's go for analysis.
I will make one comment. Driving down Roger Street is one of my least favorite. It is very stressful.
Why? It's just every every section of it has its own like like today I went to the cleaners before I
came here and so that it's just I feel like there's lots of things coming at you from
Lots of intersections, lots of pedestrians. It seems, feels narrow, but not in a designed way, but just,
yeah, it's just not, it could definitely use some improvement. Okay, that's fair. Any other? Is there,
are all things on the table in terms of like acquiring property to make the road wider and things like
that, or is it,
Limited in we are not you know, we need to work within the right away. We currently have I would say
right now all thing all things are open obviously once we get into that phase of Conceptual design and
even maybe a full full design Things will get narrowed down. But right now I don't want to say no to it
then I'll move into the analysis summary. This is about the 20th slide, so I think maybe it'll take
about 15 minutes to get through these, and then we can ask our questions at the end and then jump back
to any slides that we want to jump back to. So there's quite a bit of information here, but we'll start
with safety, because that's our number one priority, just being a safe streets for all type project.
So to start with safety analysis, what we did is looked in more detail at 10 years of crash data. And
in that 10 year period, there were 80 crashes that resulted in serious injuries. There were no crashes
resulting in fatalities along the project corridor extents. So that's a good thing. But there were 80
crashes that resulted in serious injuries. And what you can see from some of these charts here is that
where there are crashes involving pedestrians,
much more frequently result in serious injury type crashes. Whereas crashes with bicyclists a little
less so as a percentage and same with motor vehicle only crashes. And then you can see from that map
on the right, the highest serious injury crash intersection is the bypass intersection. I think that
probably comes no surprise to anybody. But then the sort of tie for second is 17th Street and Country Club.
We also looked at it just year by year to see how our total crashes and serious injury crashes trending
over that time period. And you can see that there's a big dip in 2020 for COVID. That's just the case
across the board of all crash analysis. I think what's interesting is that the number of minor or no
injury crashes almost dropped in half, but the serious injury crashes didn't drop quite as much as you
would expect.
Some of that is just a very small sample size, but some of that could also be attributed to when there
were lower traffic volumes during COVID. We know just from nationwide studies that there was more speeding
and more risky driving behavior happening in 2020 during COVID. So, but, you know, generally looking
at that yellow line, serious injury crashes are slightly trending downward in that 10-year study period.
And then there was a slight uptick
in 2024. The most common serious injury crash types are right angle crashes. So when someone drives
into the side of another car, so typically at an intersection that could be from running a red light
or other types of failure to yield type behaviors that result in those more severe type crashes. The
second most common serious injury crash that was rear end crashes
And then the third most common was pedestrian-involved crashes. Oh, sorry. Can I just interrupt for
the quick question? Could you briefly explain the items that are labeled non-collision as well as other
explain in narrative? Yeah. I can't speak directly to that, knowing the in-dot crash data sometimes
has some of these
you know, categories where it's not clear exactly what happened. Non-collision, I am not exactly sure
what that is. It could be, like sometimes that's something like a medical emergency or it could be just
things that kind of like don't fit into another category based upon how things work in other crash data
sets. Other explained narrative is just, you know, it didn't fit into one of the standard crash types
that are on the form. So then there would be more detail
And again, those tend to be ones that are more obscure types of crashes, like maybe a vehicle caught
on fire or something. Sometimes that happens and can cause serious injuries. So those are my best guesses.
I don't know exactly about looking in detail at those three crashes. I think those are just check boxes
on the police report. Yeah, it could be. It's just a couple of them out of a whole list, so not a big
deal. But just figured I'd ask. Thanks. Yeah, thanks for the question.
Looking at, so this map shows just the crashes involving pedestrians. So 11 of these resulted in a serious
injury. It's a small sample size for 10 years. So there's not necessarily like a clear pattern, but
there were two at the bypass. So that was the one that had the most serious injury crashes. And just
in generally kind of see where crashes, whether they be
minor or no injury or serious injury are clustered and they're counter more clustered. North of First
Street, which is why in the safe streets for all plan that was that area was. Higher priority. And some
of that also has to do with just more people walking around in that area. I started around that question
about so. Is there a reason that the data is limited to 10 years?
And the reason I ask is I have a memory of at least two fatalities at 46 in Kinzer, maybe as in the
last 15 years. But I thought they were relatively, I mean, that's a bad intersection. But if we know
of it, does this only include what's listed in police reports? Or if we have information of other injuries,
do we include that data? So that's two compound questions for you to answer. I apologize.
No, no need to apologize. Yeah, this is just crash data from police reports. So if it's not there,
then yeah, we didn't have access to that data. And as for why we would be looking at 10 years, we actually
typically look at a five-year window. We try to look at the last five full years of data. We looked
at 10 years just to have a bigger sample size, honestly, to try to draw more conclusions. So that's
why we did that in this case.
Any other questions on this one? So crashes involving bicyclists are 18 in that 10-year period, one
of which resulted in a serious injury. And that was on the south end of the corridor. So this is a pretty
limited data set, a pretty small sample size to really draw a lot of conclusions from, I think. But
our goal is to have no crashes where a pedestrian bicyclist is hit.
crashes involving only motor vehicle drivers. 68 of these resulted in a serious injury. You can see
similarly, you know, the bypass had the most serious injury type crashes and 5% of the crashes during
the study period resulted in serious injuries. So looking in
more in-depth at safety, kind of getting to the systemic safety and priority analysis that Hank was
talking about previously in Safe Streets for All. When we don't have tons of crash data or very clear
conclusions on where we think there are safety problems based upon looking historically at crash data,
we can also look at speed data, because we know speed is a factor in the potential for severe crashes
to occur. So in this case for the corridor, we have two different
traffic counts that had speed data recorded. And so the map we're showing here shows what the speed
limits are in the corridor. So north of 17th Street and south of Patterson, currently the speed limit
is 30 miles an hour. And then in that middle segment, the speed limit is 25 miles an hour. So there
were two previous traffic counts done and the city plans to collect additional traffic counts to supplement
this. But of the two that we have, currently traffic volumes are, motor vehicle traffic volumes are
between 9 and 11,000 vehicles per day. In the section between 8th and 9th Street, the 85th percentile
speed was 33 miles per hour. And the 85th percentile speed is the speed at which 85% of the drivers
are driving at or below that speed. And it is typically used as the speed to set the speed limit. The
other count we have, the speeds are a little bit higher. So down between Hittleside and Wilson Street,
south of Patterson, the 85th percentile speed was 38 miles an hour. So from a safety perspective, these
are pretty high speeds for areas where there's pedestrians and bicyclists crossing. And so those higher
speeds create the potential for more severe crash outcomes should a crash occur. And looking more in
depth at the motor vehicle traffic volume. So we like to look at kind of hourly capacity of
of streets to understand how existing traffic volume is compared to the capacity of the street. So what
this chart shows you is at that location where the traffic volume is a little bit higher between Hillside
Drive and Wilson Street, the capacity of a signalized two-lane street is 720 vehicles per hour per direction.
Because there's turn lanes, we really consider this to be a three-lane signalized
corridor, which is that green line versus 864 vehicles per hour for direction. So breaking down that
traffic out that we have, we just wanted to show that the traffic volumes are well below the capacity,
carrying capacity of the street. And typically we say with a two lane street that has left turn lanes,
usually the upper limit of motor vehicle traffic lines is about 25,000 vehicles per day. So even with
that higher volume being 11,000
significantly below the capacity of a two-lane stream of left-term lanes at intersections. And one reason
we like to bring this up sometimes is because when there's excess capacity or the volume is significantly
below the carrying capacity, that means that in off-peak periods, people can actually speed because
there's no other cars to get in their way. And we know that can be an issue in some communities. But
the takeaway point here is that the carrying capacity
The traffic volume is significantly below the carrying capacity of the street. So we also mapped existing
sidewalks and missing sidewalks along the corridor. And for the most part, there are sidewalks all along
the corridor. But when you get north of 17th Street, there's a couple stretches that have missing sidewalks
on one side of the street or the other.
We also mapped all of the existing bicycle facilities. So south of Patterson, there's a multi-use path
on the west side of the street. But north of there, there's not really any bike infrastructure. There's
occasional bicycle lanes, which are sometimes only on one side of the street. And there's no bicycle,
all ages and abilities bicycle connected that goes across the railroad tracks on the north end.
We also mapped the existing pedestrian and bicyclist crossings. So this map here, you can see we showed
all the locations of crosswalks on the corridor as these dots, and they're color-coded by what type
of crossing infrastructure there is at that crosswalk. So either rectangular rapid flashing beacons,
I think there's one of those at fourth, and I think one other location on the corridor. Or if there's
a crosswalk with a crossing warning sign, just the orange pedestrian crossing sign,
if there's a crosswalk and an always stop or if there's a traffic signal. So looking at all those crossing
opportunities, we also mapped the distance between those crossing opportunities and then divided that
distance by two to say, you know, if you were halfway between one of these crossing opportunities, what's
the maximum distance you would have to walk to get to a pedestrian crosswalk? And so you can see there's
a couple of locations where there's
pretty long stretches between pedestrian crossing opportunities. And we picked that threshold of 900
feet as the top threshold because that's about a five minute walk for a typical walk speed. We also
mapped all the streetlights along the corridor. So there are two different types of streetlights along
the corridor. There's standard streetlights, which are those red dots. And that's kind of more of a
large overhead
street light that's intended to illuminate the whole roadway. And then there's also yellow
pedestrian-oriented lights, which exist in a couple of different stretches along the corridor, one being
between Switchyard Park and 1st Street, and the other being between Kirkwood and the Beeline Trail.
And there's a couple of intersections that don't have any lighting at all. So those three intersections
listed, Howe Street, Smith Ave, and 3rd Street. And so as part of our proposed
alternatives, we propose adding additional lighting at those intersections. We also map the bus routes
along the corridor. So most of the Lillington Transit routes that run along the corridor, they just
run for a couple of blocks and, you know, cross the corridor so they're not exactly running or south
along the corridor. The exception is Route 2, which does run along Rogers from 1st and 2nd Streets down
to Graham Drive and Rockport Road. It kind of makes a loop.
and then comes back up. We also looked at existing parking restrictions and on-street parking opportunities
along the corridor. There's a very limited amount of on-street parking allowed on the corridor. Most
stretches of the corridor don't allow on-street parking, but there's these handful of pockets of on-street
parking where parking is allowed along the corridor.
And then we also did a parking utilization survey just to see how much is this on street parking being
used along the corridor. And the answer we found is that it's very underutilized, almost not used at
all. We looked at three different periods of morning, a midday, and an evening survey period. And the
maximum number of cars that were ever parked along the corridor for the entire stretch was seven cars
in the evening period. And there was one
one block between University and First Street in one period where there are three cars parked there.
So overall, the takeaway is that though there's a little bit of parking permitted on this corridor,
people aren't really using it partly at all. We also mapped the existing land use, and I think Hank
talked about this a little bit as this is a way to think about those contact zones. So there's a really
wide range of land uses along the corridor.
Single dwelling housing, multi-dwelling housing, mixed-use areas, institutional and civic areas, and
park areas. And it's a real mix depending on where you are along the corridor, which makes sense because
we're looking at a whole city cross-section in this study. The future land use plan includes proposed
urban corridor on the northern end, downtown, in the downtown area.
And then most of it is mixed urban residential, but then there's also pockets of institutional and civic
employment center in parks and open spaces. And then the last land use thing that we mapped is just
known ongoing and future development areas. So there's really three major ones, which are the Aspen
Heights redevelopment, the trades district and the Hopewell redevelopment. So those are three major
areas that are
redeveloping currently and in the future. And so we just want to keep that in mind as part of the study
and how the street design can support those developments. So all that being said, what we did is we
pulled together seven key findings that we think are important to take away from all this analysis.
And so the first one is that the Rogers corridor is a top priority for safety improvements.
In the last 10 years, there were 80 serious injury crashes, and 11 of these serious injury crashes involved
the person walking. So it makes sense that it was a high priority corridor in the Safe Streets for All
plan. We also think that speed is likely a contributing factor to some of these safety concerns, with
those 85th percentile travel speeds being 33 and 38 miles an hour, which are significantly higher than
the posted speed. And we know at that upper end, 38 miles per hour becomes a pretty dangerous speed for
crossing pedestrians. Another finding is that some areas of the corridor are really comfortable and
walkable, but outside of those pockets of nice areas with street lighting and really multi-path and
nice sidewalks, there are quite a few sections that are less pleasant to walk along and have missing
sidewalks or deteriorating sidewalks and not great pedestrian lighting.
Our fourth key finding is that the southern portion of the corridor has a nice multi-use path on the
west side, but moving north of there, there's gaps in the bicycle network, and there's no low-stress
bicycle option to connect over or under the road or tracks in this stretch. Our next key finding is
that on-street parking is allowed only along several blocks of the corridor, and utilization of this
very minimal on-street parking is very low. In most cases, 0%.
are six key findings that there are these key redevelopments happening and improving the streetscape
design can support the city's goal for these new developments to support safe streets and walkable access.
And then lastly, one thing we think was a key finding is just that this quarter is an important north-south
connection across the length of the entire city for all modes. So this is one of those streets that
everybody has to use no matter how they travel to get through the entire city north to south.
So that's a summary of our analysis findings thus far. And yeah, I'll open up to questions, and I'm
happy to jump back to any slides as needed. Mr. Chair. Oh, yes. Thanks very much, Drew. A couple comments,
questions, corrections. The slide about street lighting was interesting to me. I just want to note there
are, in fact,
intersection streetlights at Howe Street and Smith and Third Street. I know that because I spent a long
time trying to get Duke Energy to reinstall the streetlight at how it was improperly removed when Duke
replaced a utility pole, and they did not install a new streetlight until I filed a report to get that
reinstalled.
There's one at Smith, but it is frequently burnt out. So it was probably just not illuminated when somebody
was looking at that one. And then third street, there is now a streetlight there, but there used to
not be one. And then another comment on the third street intersection. So that's gonna be a
major intersection because that's a high pedestrian volume, that's a high vehicle volume. There is a
streetlight there thankfully now.
I think it's at the southeast corner. But someone crossing the street on the north side or the east
side of that intersection, I mean, they're crossing five lanes of traffic. And so it's a big intersection.
There's just one streetlight there. I would suggest that when considering streetlights along this corridor
that we get a little bit more detailed than just whether there is a streetlight there.
because I think its exact placement is pertinent, especially for larger intersections or wider cross
sections of this corridor, whether or not more than one streetlight would be appropriate for larger
intersections and that sort of thing. I was pleased to see that there's at least a distinct, you're
distinguishing between, I guess what you're labeling
a standard streetlight versus a pedestrian-oriented light. But I would be curious as to know what that
actually means, what the definitions of those are. So I'll stop there, though, because that's a few
different comments and questions. Yeah, first of all, thanks for the feedback on there being streetlights
there. I think we were provided data from Duke Energy, so I'm guessing their data is just out of date.
Yeah, it's no surprise.
Yeah, and as far as the definition of standard versus pedestrian-oriented, I think the pedestrian-oriented
ones are the ones that are lower, kind of more decorative streetlights. But they illuminate the sidewalk
much better than the overhead streetlights, and they're more frequent, as you can see on the map. Yeah.
I live in the neighborhood, and a common complaint, I would say,
from neighbors and from the Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association is the lack of pedestrian scale street
lighting along Rogers between Kirkwood and First Street. For sure. And I can say, I mean, you can see
it right there that that's, it's kind of ironic because that section is, you know, the closest to downtown
and yet it has the most poor lighting of most of the middle of the corridor.
Thanks for that comment. Yeah. Since we're looking at this slide, I think I'm just curious. So we can
see that there are plenty of pedestrian-oriented lights in those two sections. What can we conclude
from that? Can you elaborate more? Is it good? Is it working? Or do we need that many? Or do we need
more? For me, out of context, it's interesting. Yeah. So the question of is it working,
I think that would be more based on qualitative feedback that we would get in a few weeks.
But like with data, if we compare it with any other data you mentioned before. Right. I'm interested,
especially when we have either events in that area, either pop-ups or public meetings in that area,
or strolls and discusses on those sections of the corridor. What people think about, and these strolls
are going to be in the middle of the day, but I'm curious about
local residents of, how do you feel walking here versus south or north of this area without lighting?
And I don't think it's that hard to come to the conclusion of you feel a little bit more comfortable
with pedestrian lighting than without pedestrian-scale lighting. But that is one piece of feedback that
I am especially interested in in terms of pedestrian comfort. Can I say something else not pedestrian
lighting related? Drew, would you mind?
I'm jumping to the slide about land use. Does that exist anymore here? I guess either one. I'm not a
parent, but I think if I were, I would probably want to point out that there are a number of schools
along this corridor. And I recall that one of the, I can't remember if it was one of the design objectives
or the project goals, but it had something to do with supporting safe routes to school.
And so I think highlighting the locations of schools, so we're talking Arlington Heights, Fairview,
Tri-North, et cetera, the fact that there's many schools along this corridor, I don't really see that
highlighted in either the land use. Maybe it's on a different slide and I missed it, but I think that's
important to consider where those schools are along this corridor and that those should probably be
fairly high priority sections if, in fact, we are wanting to support a safer outstreet school when looking
at this corridor. Because I see a lot about housing and mixed use and parks and things. 8th Street is
quite tricky, Fairview School. Yeah. Crossing there. Same with 6th. And in fact, at this commission's
last meeting, we heard from a member of the public about 6th.
who pointed out specifically Sixth Street and how difficult it is to cross there. I appreciate that
feedback. I think what we can do is just add the schools to all the maps as a destination to make it
clear where they are and so it's not getting lost in the noise and other things. Appreciate that. Can
you jump to the future land use slide? I think it's one over. So we can look at this for a minute.
I think it's kind of interesting to have a bit different categories. You can map them back, but it looks
a little bit different, not exactly one-to-one correlation. That's why it takes a minute to compare
and see the differences. Not all of them, but some of them, I think. Yeah, so I think just kind of getting
more detailed here, I think that Fairview Elementary is labeled on here as just
institutional slash civic, which doesn't really tell you about how frequently people are accessing that,
or when, like what times of day, and the fact that it's children walking to school and so forth. So
definitely would encourage a little bit more detail around looking at the locations of schools.
And also, I think that maybe in some cases, there are nearby schools that are maybe
You know, it may be more than a block or two away from the quarter, but that are obviously still important.
You know, I'm looking at that map where it says employment center down there to the south of Patterson
and Long Rogers. The city had a study or some guidelines or something like that years ago that
It had to be developed in a certain way to the street, in the streetscape. And that's where a lot of
those pedestrian lights are, which I assume are the ACOR style of lights, instead of the overhead lights
with the mast arm. And so I think that was a requirement for that area. So that might be something to
look at in there. What is that? Or is it just vacant?
What's that? Is that area vacant currently? That's where Novo Nordes Catalan is. OK. Yeah, it's across
from the warehouse. Yeah, the dermatology center, and then there's some kind of data place there that's
just south of dermatology. I was also curious, is there any way you mentioned that there were some projects
from the past years? Yeah. And also, there was the chart about injuries, and there was the trend of going
down with time over years? Any correlation with those projects and the data? It would be interesting
to hear. That's a good question. We don't have that yet. That is something that I'm interested in looking
at. The projects that I'm thinking of, since I've been at the city, I wouldn't necessarily want to use
before and after data because we don't have a
full five-year sample size of data yet, but I'm sure there are some projects along the corridor where
we could look at it before and after. I think it would be interesting what worked basically and what
didn't. We don't want to have more lights or something if it didn't work. Another thing, I was perhaps
in this slide deck and I missed it, but in case it's not in here, I would also say that considering
we don't have any representative today,
here from Bloomington Transit, but if John or Shelley were here, they would say, what about Bloomington
Transit? That's, I think, something important to consider here as well. Oh, OK, we do have it. OK, I
missed it. Thank you. Yeah, we have the routes mapped, but I mean, you know. But not the stops. Yeah,
if there's anything else that we need to know, yeah, I would appreciate that direction as well.
The stops. Yeah, stops and, you know, perhaps future transit service. I mean, BT has.
a number of different projects they're dreaming up for future bus service. So I think considering how
a future design of this corridor would support the long-term Bloomington Transit goals I think would
be also important to consider, useful to consider.
I don't know if this is the right place for this, but pedestrian versus vehicle accidents that happen
at crosswalks that are poorly illuminated. I'm sure they happen here just as much as they happen in
some of these other high injury or fatality corridors.
Bloomington has a couple of hawk signals, but there are other technologies, like the in-roadway warning
lights, but other things that alert cars with lighting that the crosswalk is going to be used. And I
just think that there are so many ways to do crosswalks better in terms of illumination.
But also from an accessibility point of view, the United States does not do much except truncated domes
for warnings. And it's going to be a long time before the United States has a true tactile paving network,
if it ever even does. But we should be thinking about the fact that there are plenty of blind people
who do use fixed route
transit and making sure that there are at least tactile. We could do minimal tactile indicators that
are more directional than just warning. So this is a bus stop. And of course, making sure that the warning
indicators on one side
line up with the crosswalk on the other side, which is not always the case. So I don't know how much
renovation we're doing in the future of this or remodeling of this corridor we're doing, but those are
things that are not always required, but could really help with the safety of our citizens. No, these
are the comments that we want. This is great, quite honestly.
I will also add just on the BT front, I've been communicating with their transportation planner to get
stop data, future service data, frequency data, some of the things that you've already talked about
because these are the things that people want to know. We want to make this a more transit friendly
city and this is a key corridor to make it more transit friendly.
You know, one of the big elephants of the room here is that a lot of those vehicle crashes are at the
45, 46 bypass, which, of course, is INDOT jurisdiction. I'm wondering if either of you, I guess, would
care to comment about if Tool or if the city has had any discussions with INDOT recently about that
intersection and how
Hopefully, INDOT realizes that that's a problem also. I don't know if INDOT themselves have any concrete
plans to do improvements of their own about that intersection. Because I also understand that being
an INDOT intersection, I suspect the city has a lot of limitations that we have to work within or around.
there's probably a few things we just simply can't do anything about because of jurisdictional issues.
So I don't know if you guys would maybe comment on that a little bit. Yeah, I can do that. Yeah.
So yeah, for the city at least, we know that this intersection is a problem. This was, if not the highest,
one of the highest priority intersections noted in the Safe Streets for All action plan. Which one?
Oh, that one. The Kinser and the Bypass. The 23. Yeah, exactly.
This is an intersection that we hear about all the time. We see things happen all the time, and we have
the data to support that there needs to be improvements. That's that, A.O. Bond, as you mentioned. This
is an in-dot intersection. We do not own or maintain this intersection, and we rely on the state to
proactively do something. We have had talks with them. Mainly, our engineering department with their
engineering department have talked with each other, and I know that there is a common understanding
that improvements need to happen.
In terms of timeline, I'm not too familiar about that I have a note to follow up with you all about
that because this is something that I'm Interested in as well. I know they've talked about it. I know
that in dot has put in a couple of Temporary improvements at that northwest corner some I think some
delineator posts to help the turn turning movements a little bit but that is a small small fix in a
big problem of an intersection and
We are limited on what we can do, quite honestly. We rely on Indut to fund improvements at this intersection.
Now, once they do, then there will be talks about what we want, what they want, how we can work together.
But this is just one of those intersections that, as a city, we are incredibly limited at what we can
proactively do. Did that answer your question?
Yeah, I mean it's just it's too bad Let's just say because I think you know this I mean, it's it's it's
actually skewing the data, you know, you know in a big way here I mean, that's it's that intersection
is I think we would all agree is is terrible and There's a grocery store is an elementary school there's
this is yeah, I don't want to focus on this intersection too too much but
This is the dividing point for a lot of folks who not just want to go to this grocery store, but that
need to get to Bloomington North High School about a mile north of here. And Aobahn, you were asking
at the beginning of this meeting of why not include the north side of this corridor in this project?
And quite honestly, without improving this intersection, no matter what we do north of this intersection,
there can still be major improvements.
you are still dividing south of the bypass from north of the bypass, and whatever benefit we would like
to see from any kind of project is limited because of this dividing line right here. Okay. Different,
but kind of similar question. The bridge, the Madison Street Bridge over the CSX tracks. Yeah. Does
the city own this bridge? Does CSX own it? Let's say,
there need to be some changes made to the configuration of the street that's running on the bridge.
What kind of constraints or I guess leeway do we have there? That is a good question. I don't have a
good answer for you. The county would own the bridge. The county owns all bridges over 20 feet. Okay.
So Monroe County would need to be involved in
Right, yeah. That Madison Street section. That is an interesting section, and this goes before my time
in Bloomington, but, and some of you all might know this, but Rogers used to go straight north and connect
with each other instead of swerve over and connect with Madison. That was a project, maybe,
I don't know. I think it was the 90s or something. 30 years ago or so. So there have been changes there
in the past, you know, half century, but you're right, this is another dividing line for folks who live in
the Maple Heights neighborhood and north of 14th Street versus coming down to the downtown trades district
area. That would be a tough project, quite honestly. So it used to be at one time it was a wooden bridge,
one line wooden bridge before they replaced it. But probably the only thing you could look at there
would be some type of pedestrian bridge because I would doubt that the county would want to hang a pedestrian
sidewalk on the side of their bridge.
Because it creates some other issues, but you know there are pedestrian bridges that you can like at
Country Club down there something like that might work Just something to factor in yep I just want to
say this is a great start and appreciate the The work that's already gone into this initial presentation and
Definitely excited to learn more and see how this progresses. Any other questions from the group? I
had a general question. So we talked about our responsibilities in the beginning. So I'm curious when
we will be voting or approving anything. Will they be short and long term? Will they be different?
or it will be like a package of things to approve different initiatives as well, like how granular it's
gonna be. Yeah, that's a good question. I don't have an answer for you yet. Again, this is the first
quarter study in which we have combined those short-term immediate improvements with the long-term vision.
I would imagine most of this study will be one package, one final document of a study, but there are
also points that we would like to include in there of
temporary improvements at this intersection or along this part of the corridor, something like that.
And I imagine those are items that you will have questions and comments about and want to possibly approve
one by one. And so I think it all depends on what we end up proposing. Again, as we go through this
process, the timeline that we're looking at right now is, Drew did a good job of lining out or laying
out what steps need to happen. I think right now,
for a final study to be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Commission, we would be looking
at about mid-summer. Let's say around July, I think is the goal, things change, but summer's the goal.
And so as we move forward in this process, and especially after we get this public outreach data, then
that'll give us a much better direction of where we need to go both short-term and long-term, and then
we all might have some more
I would say clarity on what you all will be reviewing come summer. Along the same lines, are we going
to see it in one big report, or are we going to see like one, two, three, and four like the sections
that they had up on the screen? So it will be eventually in one long report, but the final concepts
that you will be seeing will be different sections of the corridor. It will not be the full corridor itself.
So we'll be looking at, call it 10 different cross sections along the corridor. I forget what the exact
number is, but 10 different cross sections that essentially are the characteristic of that area.
So one, maybe one between Country Club and Rockport, because that is an area. Maybe one for a certain
intersection. So it won't be the entire corridor laid out, but it will be representative of the corridor.
But will that be presented to us as
in the sections or are we going to get everything submitted to us all at once? Like here's the preliminary
report for country club to 45465. Everything will be submitted in one report. You also mentioned like
two versions of designs, like two alternatives. Yeah. So does it mean like for each section or like
even for each smaller components? I think it depends on what
What feedback we get? I know a lot of my answers are, it depends, but right now it very much does depend.
If you have any assumptions, it's all right. I mean, if it turns out that there is one direction that
the public wants to go and that aligns with the planners and project managers' visions, then we don't
need to do two concepts. Usually, there comes, I think you were talking about earlier, those
dividing points where we might prioritize one goal over another, one objective over another, that's
usually what these concepts try to entail. But they will be per segment, right? Just to add to that
a little more context, what we said we would do is in the alternatives phase, we'd look at three different
locations and come up with these
typical sections like high level plan view concepts and before and after bug renderings. And then once
we decide on, you know, this is the approach we want to move forward with, then we would look at plan
view concepts at 10 locations. So that, which is what Hank said, you know, 10 places we would draw something
up like this to say this kind of represents this area generally. Something scalable as well, I guess,
right? You don't really want to decide, design one item per case.
Thanks, everybody. We're two minutes early, so I'd like to end my meetings early. So is there anybody
have any other input, questions, thoughts, concerns? Anyone want to move to adjourn the meeting? I move
to adjourn. Any seconds? Second. All in favor? All right. You guys have it, unless you need to poll
everybody. All right. Adjourned. Thank you, everybody.