WEBVTT 00:00:00.482 --> 00:00:12.582 - planning session of the Transportation Commission is called to order. Shall we start with the roll call 00:00:12.582 --> 00:00:24.566 - attendance? Here? Here. Here. Here. And with that, I don't have the agenda in front of me. We have one 00:00:24.566 --> 00:00:27.358 - more member joining us. 00:00:30.178 --> 00:00:43.784 - Next on the agenda is approval of minutes. Any no minutes to approve. All right. Next is the Rogers 00:00:43.784 --> 00:00:57.662 - Madison Kinzer Pike corridor study from the staff. That is Hank Duncan, Safe Streets program manager. 00:00:58.178 --> 00:01:04.863 - throw it off to Drew Parker, the project manager from tool design in just a second, but to give you 00:01:04.863 --> 00:01:11.614 - a broad view update on what we've been doing. So since we last met, we have been developing concepts 00:01:11.614 --> 00:01:18.834 - based on your all's review, the public feedback that we got this past spring and the data from the corridor 00:01:18.834 --> 00:01:24.382 - analysis. We are now into the concept development and feedback phase of the study. 00:01:24.770 --> 00:01:32.006 - So we have nine different concepts to show you all in the public over the coming weeks. And we are looking 00:01:32.006 --> 00:01:39.039 - for your all's feedback and review, any questions you have, so we can steer these concepts in the right 00:01:39.039 --> 00:01:46.005 - direction. The concepts you're about to see are very much preliminary. They will change from now until 00:01:46.005 --> 00:01:53.241 - the final corridor study. A couple of notes on upcoming engagement events. There will be a public workshop 00:01:53.241 --> 00:01:54.526 - at Switchyard Park 00:01:55.106 --> 00:02:02.699 - on Tuesday, September 1st from 530 to 7 p.m. That will be an open house workshop so members of the public 00:02:02.699 --> 00:02:10.507 - can come in and talk to staff, review the concepts and give us their feedback. We will also host unscheduled 00:02:10.507 --> 00:02:17.671 - pop up events around the corridor to contact street users who normally don't or can't come to these 00:02:17.671 --> 00:02:19.390 - formal public meetings. 00:02:19.746 --> 00:02:27.051 - And we will also be hosting stakeholder-specific meetings with neighborhood associations, business owners, 00:02:27.051 --> 00:02:34.014 - et cetera, throughout the next few weeks. So with that, I will throw it to Drew Parker. Thanks, Hank. 00:02:34.014 --> 00:02:41.523 - Good evening, everybody. Thanks for having me. Hank, I think I need permission to share. Let me double-check. 00:02:41.523 --> 00:02:46.302 - Let's see if this works. Oh, no. OK, I can't do it. Sorry about that. 00:02:50.594 --> 00:02:57.082 - Okay, can everybody see a screen with concept designs in the room? Yes. Okay. Awesome. Well, yeah, thanks 00:02:57.082 --> 00:03:03.204 - for the introduction, Hank. So since we last met, we gave kind of a summary of what we heard during 00:03:03.204 --> 00:03:09.508 - workshop week and some preliminary concepts, and we have been working on revising those concepts, like 00:03:09.508 --> 00:03:15.752 - Hank mentioned. By no means are these final concepts, but as part of this study, what we're trying to 00:03:15.752 --> 00:03:19.486 - do is take the design objectives and the goal of the project 00:03:19.714 --> 00:03:27.058 - all the existing emissions that we collected and address some of those known issues through these concepts. 00:03:27.058 --> 00:03:33.858 - So we've picked 10 locations throughout the corridor to develop these concepts, so it doesn't cover 00:03:33.858 --> 00:03:40.862 - the entirety of the corridor. But as a reminder, what we talked about at the last mission meeting, our 00:03:40.862 --> 00:03:48.478 - overall concept, wherever possible, is to narrow the street cross-section in order to widen sidewalks at larger 00:03:49.154 --> 00:03:56.864 - buffer spaces where we can add more landscaping and separation, and where possible, add shared use paths, 00:03:56.864 --> 00:04:04.791 - especially north of the V-line crossing. So you'll see that kind of shown throughout some of these different 00:04:04.791 --> 00:04:12.210 - concepts here, starting with the first one. So this concept shows Gorley Pike, and what we're showing 00:04:12.210 --> 00:04:17.374 - here is a compact roundabout. And we think this is a really good place 00:04:17.474 --> 00:04:23.772 - have a compact roundabout because it slows people coming off the bypass and heading towards the bypass. 00:04:23.772 --> 00:04:29.948 - We know that in this northern section the speeds get a little bit higher and so anything we can do to 00:04:29.948 --> 00:04:36.125 - calm traffic as it comes on and off the bypass helps with increased yielding compliance at crosswalks 00:04:36.125 --> 00:04:42.605 - and just improve safety outcomes at intersections because everybody has to travel through the intersection 00:04:42.605 --> 00:04:46.238 - at slower speeds you know 50 to 20 miles an hour instead of 00:04:46.978 --> 00:04:54.425 - today where they don't have to stop at all at this intersection, maybe more like 40 miles an hour or 00:04:54.425 --> 00:05:01.799 - higher in some cases. So that's the concept that we're showing here for Gorley Pike. This is one of 00:05:01.799 --> 00:05:09.173 - a couple of places where we think a roundabout can fit with it right away or with minimal easements 00:05:09.173 --> 00:05:16.030 - for sidewalks at the corner. So yeah, I'll pause there. Can we take comments as we go, Hank? 00:05:16.322 --> 00:05:25.182 - Or do you want me to review all the concepts and then take comments? I would rather go one by one if 00:05:25.182 --> 00:05:34.130 - that's fine with the commission. One concept by one concept. Sure. And then take questions now. Yeah. 00:05:34.130 --> 00:05:43.078 - I've heard that in recent times, MDOT has been out to review the 17th and the bypass intersection and 00:05:43.078 --> 00:05:45.534 - found it to be problematic. 00:05:45.954 --> 00:05:53.316 - And they have also plans in the near future next few years to do something with that bridge. That's 00:05:53.316 --> 00:06:01.046 - kind of very recent. Has that those conversations been factored into what we might be doing here because 00:06:01.046 --> 00:06:07.966 - that's very close to the. Yes. So regarding the bridge. So we currently have the bridge about 00:06:08.226 --> 00:06:14.647 - called about a half mile west of here that connects Gorley Pike to the Arlington Heights Elementary 00:06:14.647 --> 00:06:21.196 - School area. NDOT owns and maintains that bridge and they are doing some maintenance, tearing it down 00:06:21.196 --> 00:06:28.002 - and building up a new bridge near there. Originally, our hope as the city was to push it closer to Kinzer 00:06:28.002 --> 00:06:34.551 - Pike to allow more direct travel for those along Kinzer who are going to either the high school or to 00:06:34.551 --> 00:06:36.606 - Kroger in that strip mall area. 00:06:36.802 --> 00:06:43.631 - end up pushed back on that, so the location of the bridge is shifting a handful of feet, but it's not 00:06:43.631 --> 00:06:50.327 - going to be anything meaningful to really make a difference in this study. For that reason, this is 00:06:50.327 --> 00:06:57.022 - a bit beyond the scope of this specific concept, but this past year in the spring, the city applied 00:06:57.022 --> 00:07:03.986 - for the Federal Safe Streets for All grant program, and some of the areas that we applied for are along 00:07:03.986 --> 00:07:04.990 - this corridor, 00:07:05.282 --> 00:07:12.552 - One of the items that we applied for, which we'll hear back about later this year, probably December, 00:07:12.552 --> 00:07:19.821 - is an intersection redesign here at Kinser and Gorley and a shared use path to go east on Gorley down 00:07:19.821 --> 00:07:26.948 - to old 37, cut under the bypass and come back up north of the bypass. So there is a grade separated 00:07:26.948 --> 00:07:32.222 - crossing at the bypass. Again, that is very dependent on federal funding. 00:07:32.418 --> 00:07:39.907 - but that is an idea that we've had because we know that NDOT is not budging on that virtual location 00:07:39.907 --> 00:07:47.545 - very much. In terms of the larger scale concept of this kinsman bypass intersection that NDOT has been 00:07:47.545 --> 00:07:54.960 - working on, so they are including that in a road safety audit. They've been working with city staff 00:07:54.960 --> 00:07:59.038 - this summer to make observations, to do analyses about 00:07:59.394 --> 00:08:07.874 - what can fit at the Kinsland Bypass, what can make safety improvements while maintaining the existing 00:08:07.874 --> 00:08:16.436 - throughput of and capacity of that intersection. They don't have any set in stone plans right now that 00:08:16.436 --> 00:08:24.916 - will come later, but I believe, you know, we have been pushing for changes like building a roundabout 00:08:24.916 --> 00:08:28.158 - at the Kinsland Bypass intersection or 00:08:28.290 --> 00:08:35.506 - narrowing the intersection in some ways. But I think what they're looking at more is changing signal 00:08:35.506 --> 00:08:43.008 - time or making smaller, smaller scale changes because they're looking at a lot of different intersection 00:08:43.008 --> 00:08:50.225 - projects like this. And so what we are requesting is simply beyond the scope of what they're able to 00:08:50.225 --> 00:08:56.798 - do financially. But again, nothing is set in stone. Thank you. Mr. Will, would you like to? 00:08:56.962 --> 00:09:06.869 - Yeah. I passed the gavel. That didn't work. I'll get it. Thank you. So the green spaces, do they literally 00:09:06.869 --> 00:09:16.127 - mean grass or do they mean some kind of special lane? Green means grass. That can be a grass buffer 00:09:16.127 --> 00:09:22.238 - or landscaping like undetermined at this point is just a concept. 00:09:22.370 --> 00:09:28.971 - holding space for, yeah, some sort of landscaping. So I see in the southeast corner that there is effectively 00:09:28.971 --> 00:09:35.092 - no sidewalk? This is shown as a shared use path. Sorry. So this is darker gray that almost looks like 00:09:35.092 --> 00:09:41.093 - asphalt color. The idea is that this would be shared use path. So they've used a different color to 00:09:41.093 --> 00:09:47.274 - symbolize when it's a wider shared use path. So the kind of more concrete color is sidewalk. And then, 00:09:47.274 --> 00:09:47.934 - yeah, this 00:09:48.386 --> 00:09:55.970 - If you could use a different color for the darker gray in the future, I think it would be. Because it 00:09:55.970 --> 00:10:03.704 - looks like the shadow of the building to the east of it, and I didn't see it at all. So any other color 00:10:03.704 --> 00:10:11.214 - might be a little bit better. Secondly, just to get back to Mr. Duncan, what you were saying about a 00:10:11.214 --> 00:10:17.534 - path that was a bike path or a car path under the bypass? That is a shared use path. 00:10:17.698 --> 00:10:26.711 - So for pedestrian cyclists, those who walk and roll, similar to what we have on High Street or Winslow 00:10:26.711 --> 00:10:35.636 - Road or a number of other locations in the city. So this was something that would also take advantage 00:10:35.636 --> 00:10:43.774 - of old 37 going through lower cascades. Correct. So this path would only go along old 37 for 00:10:46.818 --> 00:10:56.087 - about a tenth of a mile, maybe a quarter mile max. It is simply to get under the bypass and come back 00:10:56.087 --> 00:11:05.809 - up on the other side. So there would be a new path on the other side of the bypass where NDOT has property 00:11:05.809 --> 00:11:15.260 - between the bypass and the IMI construction quarry. Any other questions? Is this the end of the project 00:11:15.260 --> 00:11:16.350 - right here? 00:11:16.834 --> 00:11:24.645 - The northern end of the project. This is the northern boundary of the project. So we don't go to the 00:11:24.645 --> 00:11:32.765 - 45, 46. OK. Any other questions, Mr. Binder? The island in the middle, I'm interpreting that as probably 00:11:32.765 --> 00:11:41.195 - traversable, but a different paving material. Was that the idea here? Drew? These medians would be concrete. 00:11:41.195 --> 00:11:46.686 - They could have plantings as long as those are in locations that don't 00:11:47.202 --> 00:11:53.137 - obstruct sight lines, but yeah, the idea is that this is a pedestrian median refuge island on all four 00:11:53.137 --> 00:11:58.956 - lakes, so you're only able to be crossing one leg of car traffic at a time. Okay. I meant the island 00:11:58.956 --> 00:12:05.179 - in the middle. Maybe there's a different technical term that eludes me here, but the circle. The roundabout 00:12:05.179 --> 00:12:10.940 - circle, sorry. Yes. Apologies. Yes, that is mountable, so it would probably be designed with like a 00:12:10.940 --> 00:12:16.126 - three-inch mountable curb for large vehicles to turn across it or traverse across it, but 00:12:16.770 --> 00:12:22.661 - Passenger vehicles, 99% of vehicles that are coming through there are not going to need to traverse 00:12:22.661 --> 00:12:28.847 - there. So yeah, it's a truck apron type of material. And it's not a comfortable material for a passenger 00:12:28.847 --> 00:12:34.738 - vehicle to drive over. So normal cars driving through there wouldn't circulate normally through the 00:12:34.738 --> 00:12:40.629 - roundabout. But when there's a very large vehicle, a semi truck, the idea is that they can traverse 00:12:40.629 --> 00:12:45.342 - across that. Yeah, it's mountable. And that's the distinguishing factor between 00:12:45.602 --> 00:12:54.319 - a compact roundabout and a single lane roundabout so the circle is fully mountable. Mr. Sasberg? Is 00:12:54.319 --> 00:13:03.385 - this compatible with the amount of traffic that's coming off of the bypass so it doesn't back up? Yeah. 00:13:03.385 --> 00:13:12.190 - Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? Let's go on to the next design. I have a question. Mr. Drummey. 00:13:12.386 --> 00:13:17.858 - This would and I'm not concerned to say, but this would block off the entrances to the gas station. 00:13:17.858 --> 00:13:23.548 - So preliminarily what we're seeing right now, they have four driveways into the gas station and we know 00:13:23.548 --> 00:13:29.239 - from a pedestrian safety perspective, ideally you would have less driveways to cross and make it a more 00:13:29.239 --> 00:13:35.094 - comfortable walking experience. So right now we're showing closing two of those off, but that is something 00:13:35.094 --> 00:13:40.894 - that would be figured out in the final design process and would need discussions with the property owner. 00:13:41.506 --> 00:13:50.250 - Is it that that's my you know I and I understand why that would be ideal is that a voluntary thing or 00:13:50.250 --> 00:13:58.993 - is it can the city take in that city close access if they want. That taking. Ryan. Generally we do it 00:13:58.993 --> 00:14:04.222 - voluntarily seven nine. That's a pretty good proxy for this. 00:14:04.450 --> 00:14:11.467 - It is something that's on the table, but it's unlikely that. Could you summarize that for people? It 00:14:11.467 --> 00:14:18.483 - is possible to do a takings. It's unlikely that that's the option we pursue. Generally, we work with 00:14:18.483 --> 00:14:25.639 - property owners and do a voluntarily. We offer improvements that they wouldn't otherwise get, and then 00:14:25.639 --> 00:14:32.030 - they close an entrance or two. You can see that on the seven line, we did that quite a bit. 00:14:32.258 --> 00:14:39.325 - What's an example of an offering you might make? I don't know. I'm not an engineer. But generally, landscape 00:14:39.325 --> 00:14:46.003 - improvements, things like that, we can make a lot of times something that especially gas stations like 00:14:46.003 --> 00:14:52.810 - to see is better entrances, meaning you could turn into them better, more smoothly. So things like that. 00:14:52.810 --> 00:14:59.812 - We negotiate with the property owner and figure it out from there. Very good. Thank you. Further questions? 00:14:59.812 --> 00:15:01.822 - Let's move on to the next. OK. 00:15:02.210 --> 00:15:09.089 - The concept location we looked at is 14th and 15th, and so you can see here it's a two-lane cross section. 00:15:09.089 --> 00:15:15.519 - You have the shared east path on the east side, the sidewalk on the west side, and this location is 00:15:15.519 --> 00:15:22.012 - a greenway. And so what we designed here is a bikeway crossing and a pedestrian crossing at 15th, so 00:15:22.012 --> 00:15:29.470 - those don't currently exist today. So the pedestrian crossing would be a raised crosswalk, and the bicycle crossing 00:15:30.722 --> 00:15:36.855 - they have a green cross bike so they have green skip stripe markings. And then there would be curb cuts 00:15:36.855 --> 00:15:43.105 - where they could then connect into this shared use path to then continue either on 14th or 15th depending 00:15:43.105 --> 00:15:49.002 - on which way they're going. So this is a common bicycle boulevard or neighborhood greenway crossing 00:15:49.002 --> 00:15:55.193 - design that's used when you have an offset intersection like this. So we thought this was an interesting 00:15:55.193 --> 00:15:59.262 - one to show as a template concept because there's a few places where 00:15:59.778 --> 00:16:07.902 - intersections are offset and there's not an easy through connection. So this kind of shows how you could 00:16:07.902 --> 00:16:15.949 - continue to make that connection for people walking and biking on this green light in this non-standard 00:16:15.949 --> 00:16:23.918 - scenario. All right, questions about 15th Street. Is there any bike paths on 15th or they will be just 00:16:23.918 --> 00:16:28.638 - going from the street and then they go into the shared path? 00:16:28.834 --> 00:16:36.988 - 14th and 15th are low enough traffic that we're not proposing a separated bike facility, so this would 00:16:36.988 --> 00:16:45.064 - be more of a shared street. Other questions? Sorry, go ahead. There's other neighborhood greenways in 00:16:45.064 --> 00:16:53.139 - the city, right? Yeah. That you could reference as examples, potentially? Like Allen or, I don't know 00:16:53.139 --> 00:16:58.206 - if you have others off the top of your head, but. Anybody else? 00:16:58.882 --> 00:17:07.810 - I'm wondering about bicyclists heading westbound on 15th Street, but on the multi-use path. 00:17:07.810 --> 00:17:17.708 - They are crossing, they're the only people, well, I'm having trouble imagining it. Like first of all, 00:17:17.708 --> 00:17:25.374 - if I'm biking on the east side of West 15th Street and I get to Madison Street 00:17:26.594 --> 00:17:35.302 - If I don't know the thing is there, I might try to turn onto Madison. I know it's there, so I turn onto 00:17:35.302 --> 00:17:44.178 - the side path and I jog down. There's a raised crosswalk to my right, but how slow will traffic be slowed 00:17:44.178 --> 00:17:53.220 - down so that I feel safe crossing? So with this size of student volume, you would probably want rectangular 00:17:53.220 --> 00:17:55.230 - rapid flashing beacons. 00:17:56.034 --> 00:18:03.005 - at a crossing like this so that people can be made aware and that you'd have advanced, you know, 00:18:03.005 --> 00:18:10.264 - yield lines. So there'd be a push button activated. Because cars driving northbound are not going to 00:18:10.264 --> 00:18:17.666 - be going as slowly as cars going southbound. And so the flashing lights are definitely going to be for 00:18:17.666 --> 00:18:24.350 - the benefit of northbound drivers. Is that right? Right, for both northbound and southbound. 00:18:26.146 --> 00:18:34.386 - I understand what you're saying is that it's coming southbound, if they're coming across a race crosswalk, 00:18:34.386 --> 00:18:42.164 - there's also a physical barrier that's slowing them down, right? Because they have to drive over the 00:18:42.164 --> 00:18:50.095 - crosswalk, the race crosswalk, like a speed hump. But it's for both northbound and southbound. OK, but 00:18:50.095 --> 00:18:55.486 - the bicycles going westbound in the north lane onto Madison Street is 00:18:57.250 --> 00:19:04.304 - sort of more at risk than? I mean, like a bicyclist going eastbound is already in the street. 00:19:04.304 --> 00:19:11.357 - I don't know. I don't know that I have a question. I'm worried about this. Yeah, I understand 00:19:11.357 --> 00:19:19.161 - your observation that the race crosswalks slow down traffic more for southbound traffic than northbound 00:19:19.161 --> 00:19:26.590 - in advance of the crossing. Is that what you're saying? So it's- It wasn't. That's an interesting- 00:19:26.882 --> 00:19:36.737 - I think for an eastbound bicyclist, it was closer to the cars coming north. For westbound, it was more 00:19:36.737 --> 00:19:46.496 - like, never mind. I don't know. There's going to be some kind of a signal? Possibly. So what Drew was 00:19:46.496 --> 00:19:56.734 - talking about is a rapid flashing beacon like we have at Walnut and Allen or at Hillside and Weatherstone. 00:19:57.186 --> 00:20:04.398 - where when there is crossing, or at Forth and Rogers currently, where when there is crossing traffic, 00:20:04.398 --> 00:20:11.682 - whether it's a pedestrian or cyclist, you can push the button, lights flash rapidly, vehicles are much 00:20:11.682 --> 00:20:18.823 - more likely to yield for that crossing traffic. And then there's a diagonal sign to say that there's 00:20:18.823 --> 00:20:25.470 - a raised crossing? Yes. On both sides? Okay. Do we have a shared path beyond the screen area? 00:20:26.050 --> 00:20:33.421 - So what's happening with the Sherrith Cross? So essentially, big picture. For most of this corridor, 00:20:33.421 --> 00:20:40.792 - you have the B line about two blocks east of Rogers Street. Once you get to around 10th, where the B 00:20:40.792 --> 00:20:48.310 - line crosses Rogers and goes westbound, that bike network disappears. You have some sections where you 00:20:48.310 --> 00:20:54.878 - have striped bike lanes, but that's not our low stress network that we'd like to achieve. 00:20:55.554 --> 00:21:02.712 - And so for folks who live up in Maple Heights or in the Kinzer Flats, that area, there is no low stress 00:21:02.712 --> 00:21:09.802 - bike network to get them in there. So essentially the priority for adding that separated path is going 00:21:09.802 --> 00:21:16.960 - to be from where the beeline crosses Rogers around 10th Street and up north up to Gorley Pike. So while 00:21:16.960 --> 00:21:22.398 - we were just showing these specific intersection concepts, the linear parts of 00:21:24.450 --> 00:21:32.550 - of the corridor in these improvements will go beyond just this intersection. Any other questions on 00:21:32.550 --> 00:21:40.813 - this intersection? You may cover this, but what are the green pedestrian crosswalk looking things? So 00:21:40.813 --> 00:21:48.670 - those are the cycling crossings. The cyclists aren't supposed to use the elevated crosswalk? No. 00:21:49.346 --> 00:21:56.146 - It makes it simpler so they can simply go from the street to the path. They don't have to make that 00:21:56.146 --> 00:22:03.082 - jog there. And then just marking it for them. Why not make that entire intersection elevated? I mean, 00:22:03.082 --> 00:22:09.950 - it seems like you got a lot of crossings in a small area. I don't know. Maybe that's a good thing. I 00:22:09.950 --> 00:22:16.750 - don't know. Yeah, that's potentially one concept as well. It would be a little bit more complex and 00:22:16.750 --> 00:22:18.654 - expensive to make the whole 00:22:18.818 --> 00:22:25.139 - intersection race, but it's certainly something we could explore. I like that. Can we, can you give 00:22:25.139 --> 00:22:31.714 - us a sense of how much more that is? Not off the top of my head, but anytime you're dealing with a race 00:22:31.714 --> 00:22:38.098 - intersection, a race crosswalk, it starts to impact drainage. And so you have to think about how you 00:22:38.098 --> 00:22:44.736 - redesign drainage for the intersection. And it's just, it's more complicated when you're doing an entire 00:22:44.736 --> 00:22:47.454 - race intersection versus a race crosswalk. 00:22:48.482 --> 00:22:55.621 - is really a question of, is there stormwater infrastructure currently there? If there is, then it becomes, 00:22:55.621 --> 00:23:02.560 - it is still more expensive, but it becomes much more feasible. If there isn't, then we're talking about 00:23:02.560 --> 00:23:09.232 - magnitudes more expense that we could be spending at other locations along the corridor. Thank you. 00:23:09.232 --> 00:23:16.638 - Further questions on 15th Street? Can we go on to the next? Is there something on 14th Street that we're gonna 00:23:19.362 --> 00:23:26.314 - It's just the same cross section with the shared east path. So really, most of the concept here is showing 00:23:26.314 --> 00:23:32.875 - how places and pedestrians are to cross the street here. So yeah, it's showing both intersections of 00:23:32.875 --> 00:23:39.437 - the concept, but there's not anything different to see. OK. Let's continue. So the next intersection 00:23:39.437 --> 00:23:46.453 - that we have, the concept for is at 6th Street. And so this is to show how we could narrow the intersection 00:23:46.453 --> 00:23:49.182 - footprint at a minor street intersection. 00:23:49.410 --> 00:23:55.338 - potentially add a raised crosswalk. So currently there's already this splitter island here. What we're 00:23:55.338 --> 00:24:01.438 - showing is just adding curb extensions on the east side of the intersection at 6th Street and then adding 00:24:01.438 --> 00:24:07.768 - in a raised crosswalk. So the idea is that you're making the intersection more compact. We're also shortening 00:24:07.768 --> 00:24:13.121 - all the crossings because right now this is a two-lane cross section with on-street parking. 00:24:13.121 --> 00:24:15.998 - So by eliminating that on-street parking that has 00:24:17.378 --> 00:24:23.472 - low to no utilization in our study is what we found. We're shortening that crossing and a number of 00:24:23.472 --> 00:24:29.688 - people at the public workshops told us that this crosswalk just doesn't feel comfortable as it stands 00:24:29.688 --> 00:24:36.087 - today. And so the goal is to make the intersection more compact, shorten those crossings. And then we're 00:24:36.087 --> 00:24:42.363 - showing prioritizing one race crossing on the north side. I think per discussion at the last location, 00:24:42.363 --> 00:24:44.862 - you could add it also on the south side. 00:24:46.050 --> 00:24:53.951 - It's just, you know, for right now, we're kind of showing one because that's those people down at that 00:24:53.951 --> 00:25:02.005 - crosswalk as they come into the intersection. Any questions about 6th Street? Just a couple of comments, 00:25:02.005 --> 00:25:10.290 - questions. What is the intention here for 6th Street traffic to be right turn only onto Rogers? No straight 00:25:10.290 --> 00:25:15.966 - through traffic? Is that the idea? I'm just seeing the right arrow on the 00:25:16.162 --> 00:25:22.311 - on the ground? Yeah. I think in a previous concept we had thought about that it's not necessarily in 00:25:22.311 --> 00:25:28.461 - this concept we're not restricting traffic. I won't put we also had looked at the potential to put a 00:25:28.461 --> 00:25:34.854 - median here, but that didn't make a whole lot of sense for a couple of different reasons. And so I think 00:25:34.854 --> 00:25:41.186 - that's just a leftover from that concept. So I think as it's designed right now, we could make it allow 00:25:41.186 --> 00:25:43.134 - all turns of this intersection. 00:25:46.114 --> 00:25:53.965 - As it stands today, yeah. Just to clarify, are you saying you will return it to straight or right turn? 00:25:53.965 --> 00:26:01.665 - Yeah, any movement. As it stands today, you can make any turn from these approaches. And then I guess 00:26:01.665 --> 00:26:09.214 - my only other comment would be that I think between this intersection and the one we just discussed 00:26:09.214 --> 00:26:15.102 - at 15th Street, if we were to spend the money on a fully raised intersection, 00:26:16.258 --> 00:26:23.557 - I think this one would probably be a little more justifiable, just because of the configuration of the 00:26:23.557 --> 00:26:30.856 - traffic and the intersections and probably the volume of pedestrian traffic and bike traffic here. I'm 00:26:30.856 --> 00:26:38.084 - not saying that based on any numbers, but just my own experience. Yeah, my comment was, or maybe just 00:26:38.084 --> 00:26:43.966 - to double check, I think on the sixth to the west, the island is a bit longer now, 00:26:44.226 --> 00:26:51.011 - based on what I saw recently. When you're leaving the gas station, I don't think you can, I think the 00:26:51.011 --> 00:26:57.929 - visuals on the left, the island is longer, no? The way they're constructing it right now. Sure, so that 00:26:57.929 --> 00:27:04.581 - is on Kirkwood. That's just one block south. Yes, right, sorry. But it's longer there, right? Yeah. 00:27:04.581 --> 00:27:11.166 - Okay. Other questions about Sixth Street from commissioners? Let's go on to the next intersection. 00:27:14.242 --> 00:27:21.322 - The next intersection that we're showing is at 4th Street. This is shown as a raised intersection at 00:27:21.322 --> 00:27:28.542 - 4th and a curbless street north of here. So when we had the workshop week and our design shred, we had 00:27:28.542 --> 00:27:35.763 - thought that this was a great location to have a fully flushed street because it kind of matches, it's 00:27:35.763 --> 00:27:42.773 - parallel to downtown. It seemed to be the most urban, have the most intensity of businesses, and an 00:27:42.773 --> 00:27:43.614 - urban feel. 00:27:43.778 --> 00:27:50.982 - of all the portions of the corridor so right now what we're proposing is having this be a curbless street 00:27:50.982 --> 00:27:57.982 - feel have like the most main street feel I think of any portion of the corridor so that in mind that's 00:27:57.982 --> 00:28:05.186 - our proposing starting the raised intersection at 4th Street and this could potentially go up to Kirkwood 00:28:05.186 --> 00:28:11.983 - it could also go further up to 6th Street but we were just showing this section as a representative 00:28:11.983 --> 00:28:13.342 - intersection so the 00:28:13.794 --> 00:28:20.512 - You know, the street could potentially be done in papers or bricks to really create traffic calming 00:28:20.512 --> 00:28:27.229 - feel and create a sense of place. But it could also be done in colored concrete or other materials. 00:28:27.229 --> 00:28:34.081 - But the idea is that it feels like a more special place than some other portions of the corridor with 00:28:34.081 --> 00:28:40.933 - a higher design treatment. That's the concept here. So yeah, kind of that brick red color, that's the 00:28:40.933 --> 00:28:42.814 - roadway, these lighter pink 00:28:43.074 --> 00:28:50.270 - outside sections, these would be on street parking lanes. And then you have just very wide sidewalks 00:28:50.270 --> 00:28:57.039 - in the stretch to support that kind of more downtown feel. Questions on 4th Street? Maybe just 00:28:57.039 --> 00:29:04.164 - a clarification. So I know that you discussed it in the past, the different treatment, the brick or 00:29:04.164 --> 00:29:11.360 - any other material, but is it just the aesthetics or like there's any function towards that as well, 00:29:11.360 --> 00:29:12.286 - this change? 00:29:14.274 --> 00:29:20.655 - at pavers also have a traffic calming effect for people driving there's both the visual and auditory 00:29:20.655 --> 00:29:27.352 - change as compared to asphalt or concrete so you know you'll see that in a lot of communities on downtown 00:29:27.352 --> 00:29:33.796 - streets maybe just on the public square or a few blocks around the down most downtown area they'll do 00:29:33.796 --> 00:29:40.240 - it in brick or pavers because it really slows down traffic especially when you have a lot of activity 00:29:40.240 --> 00:29:44.094 - in that space but does also yeah not just visual it also has 00:29:44.450 --> 00:29:54.326 - a little bit of a traffic calming effect. So instead of brick pavers, does stamp concrete give you the 00:29:54.326 --> 00:30:04.202 - same perspective? I mean, brick's pretty expensive. Potentially. I'm not the right person to ask about 00:30:04.202 --> 00:30:13.502 - that. I'm not an engineer, but I would speculate that stamp concrete maybe doesn't have the same 00:30:14.146 --> 00:30:24.598 - um, strength for driving on as pavers and breaks. But that's, I would need to ask one of our engineers 00:30:24.598 --> 00:30:34.948 - about that in more detail. I'm going to ask a question here of staff, I guess. Um, is cost one of our 00:30:34.948 --> 00:30:42.558 - concerns? Do we not have an interest as a commission in spreading out, uh, 00:30:43.586 --> 00:30:53.221 - improvements across the city. And if cost is a concern and there's no engineer here to answer our questions, 00:30:53.221 --> 00:31:02.414 - are we supposed to make a final weigh in tonight? No. Okay. Maybe if you can clarify what the next step 00:31:02.414 --> 00:31:11.518 - is in the process for this body. For this body with the study as a whole? Sure. Sure. So over the next 00:31:11.714 --> 00:31:20.601 - Excuse me over the next few weeks to month or so staff will be doing Community outreach and review and 00:31:20.601 --> 00:31:29.229 - within essentially revising these concepts based on a lot of that review from there we will also be 00:31:29.229 --> 00:31:38.030 - Completing the final study document and right now URLs next meeting will be reviewing the final study 00:31:38.030 --> 00:31:40.446 - in the revised concepts and 00:31:40.834 --> 00:31:47.579 - whether that's to vote on it as a comprehensive document or if you would like to have a separate planning 00:31:47.579 --> 00:31:53.941 - session, I think that's something we can discuss. But as of now, that next meeting would be you all 00:31:53.941 --> 00:32:00.304 - reviewing revised concepts and a final study. Can I ask because in the packet for the last meeting, 00:32:00.304 --> 00:32:07.049 - it showed meeting number four in July. I thought this is our meeting number four and there was no further 00:32:07.049 --> 00:32:08.894 - meeting and so I didn't know 00:32:09.570 --> 00:32:16.021 - It just said final corridor study here. So you're basically saying there's another meeting planned that 00:32:16.021 --> 00:32:21.666 - you intend to have with us. Sorry. The next meeting that I was talking about would be that 00:32:21.666 --> 00:32:27.869 - final transportation commission review meeting to review the study as a whole. But if you all would 00:32:27.869 --> 00:32:34.196 - like to schedule a separate planning session to talk in more detail about these concepts of the study 00:32:34.196 --> 00:32:38.910 - before the entire body hears it and votes on it, we can absolutely do that. 00:32:39.234 --> 00:32:47.147 - Okay, I just wanted to know what our options were. Any further questions on the 4th Street intersection, 00:32:47.147 --> 00:32:54.759 - Mr. Binder? Is the intention here, because I'm seeing stop lines on Rogers, is the intention here to 00:32:54.759 --> 00:33:02.371 - turn 4th and Rogers into a four-way stop? No. Okay. Question? Back to resurfacing. Any alternatives, 00:33:02.371 --> 00:33:07.646 - first of all? And then the second question is where it ends. So is it 00:33:07.938 --> 00:33:14.477 - Is it 6th Street? Will it be just a chunk of brick and then the rest will be asphalt? Sure. This is 00:33:14.477 --> 00:33:21.213 - simply one option of what we could do. And again, we are not showing the entire corridor linearly. And 00:33:21.213 --> 00:33:28.145 - so if we all like, this could expand as far up as the trades district. Because you have the brick streets 00:33:28.145 --> 00:33:34.750 - up there that could combine very cohesively up there. But again, you're talking about a large street 00:33:34.750 --> 00:33:37.758 - reconstruction project, so cost is definitely 00:33:37.954 --> 00:33:47.370 - a factor. Can we discuss in the future in some way alternatives to it, which can help, not as well, 00:33:47.370 --> 00:33:57.256 - but I think the cost as well is a big concern. Yes. Further questions on 4th Street and North? Now let's 00:33:57.256 --> 00:34:04.318 - go on to the next. Sorry, just one quick comment about this cross section. 00:34:05.954 --> 00:34:14.598 - I think I would be supportive of this type of street treatment, but primarily if it were maybe combined 00:34:14.598 --> 00:34:23.409 - with a kind of long-term vision for changes in the immediate surrounding land use. I see surface parking, 00:34:23.409 --> 00:34:32.053 - a drive-through bank, a gas station on this block, multiple drive cuts, none of which are really things 00:34:32.053 --> 00:34:35.710 - that pair well with this kind of investment 00:34:35.842 --> 00:34:44.785 - the street treatment, I think. So I would love to see this. And I would love to see it all over the 00:34:44.785 --> 00:34:52.924 - city. But I think it would make the most sense to include that as part of a sort of vision 00:34:52.924 --> 00:35:02.046 - for the surrounding land use, as well as the street cross-section. Can a commissioner propose changes 00:35:02.046 --> 00:35:05.534 - to zoning that are in conjunction with 00:35:06.050 --> 00:35:13.486 - a redesign of the street. That might be a question for planning. Ryan Roebling, you should probably 00:35:13.486 --> 00:35:20.923 - just sit at the table with us. I don't know why you don't. You can be Leslie Davis. Okay, that took 00:35:20.923 --> 00:35:28.359 - long enough that I forgot your question. Can you repeat your question? So Mr. Binder just suggested 00:35:28.359 --> 00:35:35.870 - that there's a lot of gaping holes where buildings used to be. If a commissioner wanted to recommend 00:35:36.002 --> 00:35:43.257 - changes to zoning that go with the change of the street use or the street design, would that be appropriate? 00:35:43.257 --> 00:35:50.511 - The direct answer to your question is no, this commission, I mean, this commission can make a recommendation 00:35:50.511 --> 00:35:57.167 - on whichever, it's not really in their purview, plan commission is specifically tasked by the state 00:35:57.167 --> 00:36:03.823 - to do that. However, this document is unique, Hank can correct me if I'm wrong, but future land use 00:36:03.823 --> 00:36:05.886 - planning is a portion of this. 00:36:06.210 --> 00:36:12.914 - So a recommendation in that document would be appropriate. And what is expected to already be part of 00:36:12.914 --> 00:36:19.683 - it. In this report or in the, which document? In this final report. In the final report for the Rogers 00:36:19.683 --> 00:36:26.584 - Medicine Kinser Corridor Study. And this will have an impact on the Plan Commission? It'll be a document 00:36:26.584 --> 00:36:34.142 - that we reference moving forward to the Plan Commission, yes. Mr. Binder? So I was just going to clarify then that 00:36:34.786 --> 00:36:41.958 - the final version of this report is intended for our commission, but also for planning commission and 00:36:41.958 --> 00:36:49.130 - other commissions and staff and so forth. Yeah, ultimately this commission is the final body for this 00:36:49.130 --> 00:36:56.513 - specific report. It will lead up to other decisions by other bodies. So we'll turn to the transportation 00:36:56.513 --> 00:37:03.966 - plan and comprehensive plan and bring those forward to the planning commission. So yes. Great, thank you. 00:37:04.098 --> 00:37:10.317 - For the question. Last question, maybe just in the city, where else do we have any similar treatment 00:37:10.317 --> 00:37:16.597 - or treatment you're referring to when you said long term we can connect to other streets or places so 00:37:16.597 --> 00:37:22.877 - it will be more coherent? So you have further south of here, the Hopeville Commons area that was just 00:37:22.877 --> 00:37:29.465 - built. That's your curbless brick street just west of the Kroger area and east of Rogers. And then further 00:37:29.465 --> 00:37:33.406 - north, you have the trades district area, which is also a flush 00:37:33.986 --> 00:37:42.012 - brick and curbless. Thanks. Mr. Sasper. Yeah. Aobahn was mentioning relative traffic. I pulled up the 00:37:42.012 --> 00:37:50.589 - Strava heat map, which has bike traffic through the area. In all four of these intersections, 4th, Kirkwood, 00:37:50.589 --> 00:37:58.616 - 6th, and 7th are all high-traffic crossings. So in terms of something like this, which will slow down 00:37:58.616 --> 00:38:02.078 - traffic for this in that relative corridor, 00:38:02.338 --> 00:38:09.733 - make sense to invest more for safety, particularly in that area, because there's a lot of bicycle, a 00:38:09.733 --> 00:38:17.567 - lot of bicycle traffic crossing Rogers throughout four adjacent streets. Further questions or observations 00:38:17.567 --> 00:38:24.376 - at this point from commissioners? If not, let's go on to the next intersection. Okay, so the 00:38:24.376 --> 00:38:30.014 - next intersection we looked at is kind of a bigger section, but we looked at 00:38:33.090 --> 00:38:39.286 - and then we took a look down 3rd Street as part of this couple of studies that we also looked at 3rd 00:38:39.286 --> 00:38:45.542 - Street down to Walnut. And so I'll start at Rogers and move my way. Where we orient this first? Yeah, 00:38:45.542 --> 00:38:51.738 - this is the 3rd and Rogers intersection. Okay, we're still here on the left side of the train. North 00:38:51.738 --> 00:38:57.995 - is still up, yeah, sorry. I know we've put north to the right on some of these three previously. Yep, 00:38:57.995 --> 00:39:02.718 - north is still up. This is the 3rd Rogers intersection. This is 3rd Madison. 00:39:02.914 --> 00:39:11.085 - over here, and then I can scroll over. This is a big role plot poster of the design. So right now, third 00:39:11.085 --> 00:39:18.867 - has four motor vehicle lanes, and has a left turn lane at the intersection. But the traffic volumes 00:39:18.867 --> 00:39:26.804 - are about 6,000 vehicles per day, which is a very, very small amount of traffic for that much roadway 00:39:26.804 --> 00:39:31.006 - space. So it's very overbuilt with that much traffic. 00:39:31.298 --> 00:39:38.583 - even a two or three lane cross section can carry 20 to 25,000 motor vehicles per day. And that four 00:39:38.583 --> 00:39:45.941 - or five lane cross section could carry potentially 40,000 vehicles per day. So with 6,000, it's very 00:39:45.941 --> 00:39:53.299 - overbuilt. And so there's excess capacity and space that we can repurpose. So the concept here shows 00:39:53.299 --> 00:39:59.710 - these kind of dark gray or almost black, these are sidewalk level separated bike lanes. 00:40:00.258 --> 00:40:06.546 - And then you have the sidewalk here and then you would have a landscape buffer. So we're changing the 00:40:06.546 --> 00:40:12.772 - cross section to a two or three line cross section at the intersection where you need this left turn 00:40:12.772 --> 00:40:18.999 - lane onto Rogers. But all that additional extra space that was to outside motor vehicle travel lanes 00:40:18.999 --> 00:40:25.410 - can be used to put in sidewalk level separate bike lanes and a better buffer from the sidewalk as well. 00:40:25.410 --> 00:40:27.198 - So that's the concept there. 00:40:30.082 --> 00:40:37.728 - And then as you move east at Madison, we would transition to the sidewalk level separated bike lanes 00:40:37.728 --> 00:40:45.298 - to in-street separated bike lanes to go under the B line over here. And then as you get to college, 00:40:45.298 --> 00:40:52.869 - we would continue those separated bike lanes. And then at Walnut, you would go back to the existing 00:40:52.869 --> 00:40:58.622 - four or five lane cross-section, depending where you look, of Third Street. 00:40:59.202 --> 00:41:06.274 - So in this concept, the westbound approach for Third Street, as you come to Walnut, that outside lane 00:41:06.274 --> 00:41:13.208 - would now be a dedicated right turn lane because you don't have one through lane continuing through 00:41:13.208 --> 00:41:20.696 - this section of third between College and Walnut. And those outside lanes would be repurposed for separated 00:41:20.696 --> 00:41:28.254 - bike lanes. So the overall concept is to repurpose that excess space for separated bike lanes if we just use 00:41:28.738 --> 00:41:36.852 - slightly different types of separate bike lanes, either in-street or sidewalk level, depending on the 00:41:36.852 --> 00:41:44.966 - condition. So that's the overall concept for third street. Wow. Comments or questions for Mr. Finder? 00:41:44.966 --> 00:41:53.080 - One, I guess, concern or perhaps objection I have to this, which overall looks great, by the way. But 00:41:53.080 --> 00:41:57.694 - one thing that maybe bothers me a little bit here is that 00:41:58.210 --> 00:42:04.932 - The separated bike lanes on the section of 3rd Street between Madison and College, they go, if I understand 00:42:04.932 --> 00:42:11.405 - this correctly, under the beeline, where the roadway is currently, they don't connect with the beeline. 00:42:11.405 --> 00:42:17.753 - Is that right? So we have, what we've shown right here in this southeast corner of the Madison Street 00:42:17.753 --> 00:42:24.102 - intersection is extending this shared east path that does connect up to the beeline. So that would be 00:42:24.102 --> 00:42:27.774 - one place where there is a connection to connect up there. 00:42:28.162 --> 00:42:35.600 - You're right because this is a you know underpass and it's going down under the beeline We're really 00:42:35.600 --> 00:42:43.259 - just repurposing the motor vehicle traveling and so the connection would be at this sidewalk level here 00:42:43.259 --> 00:42:51.287 - It were part of it exists, but it doesn't go all the way to Madison So this would propose you know extending 00:42:51.287 --> 00:42:57.694 - that all the way to Madison Thank you I think I would just maybe encourage the team to 00:42:57.890 --> 00:43:04.744 - consider ways to make the connectivity between east-west bike lanes on 3rd Street and the B line to 00:43:04.744 --> 00:43:11.666 - be a little more straightforward, a little less awkward, especially for, say, if you're coming south 00:43:11.666 --> 00:43:18.863 - on the B line, you want to turn west, turn right onto 3rd Street. It's just a little awkward to do that. 00:43:18.863 --> 00:43:25.374 - And there's not really any inherent value in having these cycle lanes go under the B line when 00:43:25.506 --> 00:43:31.680 - I mean, I understand for cost reasons, and if you're reducing the motor vehicle traffic lanes to one 00:43:31.680 --> 00:43:38.221 - in each direction, then you have the roadway space to do that. But it doesn't exactly improve connectivity 00:43:38.221 --> 00:43:44.396 - to the beeline itself. And I understand this whole explanation about the side path on the south side 00:43:44.396 --> 00:43:50.570 - of there. But I would just hope there would be maybe some thought given to better ways to connect to 00:43:50.570 --> 00:43:54.238 - the beeline here, because I think that's a real opportunity 00:43:57.602 --> 00:44:05.785 - Are there questions or comments from commissioners on Third Street? I was going to say this 00:44:05.785 --> 00:44:14.858 - is a Rogers-Madison-Kinzer study, but this is going four blocks east, and I think this is perhaps the 00:44:14.858 --> 00:44:23.486 - biggest news of the entire corridor study. Are you guys allowed to go this far east? What gives? 00:44:27.426 --> 00:44:36.258 - Yes. So the impetus for this is that engineering is going to work on third and Madison and third and 00:44:36.258 --> 00:44:44.216 - Rogers intersections this coming year to do some signal replacements. And while we look at 00:44:44.216 --> 00:44:53.048 - those intersections, we're changing curb line, we're changing the geometry. And so if we're changing 00:44:53.048 --> 00:44:55.934 - these two intersections already, 00:44:56.642 --> 00:45:04.210 - We should also look at the bigger picture of this area and work with it comprehensively with these other 00:45:04.210 --> 00:45:11.489 - projects that are going on. Can you scroll over to the block between College and Walnut? So now news 00:45:11.489 --> 00:45:19.057 - came today that this block is closing for construction of the Convention Center. Are we taking advantage 00:45:19.057 --> 00:45:23.742 - of, we're not going to take advantage of that to redo the block? 00:45:24.546 --> 00:45:30.806 - Again, this is very much in the conceptual design phase. The public has just had the first opportunity 00:45:30.806 --> 00:45:37.006 - to see this. The end product of the study is not going to be that all of these concepts are ready for 00:45:37.006 --> 00:45:43.205 - construction. It is an opportunity for when there is funding available to begin an engineering design 00:45:43.205 --> 00:45:49.283 - contract to then construct it. But for this specific concept, especially the areas closer to Rogers 00:45:49.283 --> 00:45:54.206 - and Madison, there are funds for construction along with the signal replacement. 00:45:54.786 --> 00:46:04.307 - How far east will that stretch is a question of what bids we get with this project? Last question I 00:46:04.307 --> 00:46:13.922 - have is you said that traffic counts on the block west of Rogers was only 6,000 cars a day. What are 00:46:13.922 --> 00:46:22.110 - the counts like down here? So essentially west of college is where the traffic counts 00:46:22.402 --> 00:46:28.502 - drop off a good amount. That's what Drew was talking about, where the counts are around 6,000. Drew, 00:46:28.502 --> 00:46:34.603 - do you have counts available for East of College? I can give estimates, but I didn't know if you had 00:46:34.603 --> 00:46:40.944 - numbers. I don't think we had any zip bit collected, so if you have some. I don't have anything offhand. 00:46:40.944 --> 00:46:46.622 - East of Walnut is where they jump up quite a bit, because right now you have a lot of traffic 00:46:46.882 --> 00:46:56.951 - Third then traveling north south on college and walnut and so west west of college is where the traffic 00:46:56.951 --> 00:47:06.729 - numbers drop off east of walnut This is a very very rough estimate. I would guess about 15 to 17,000 00:47:06.729 --> 00:47:13.022 - cars a day Just a counterpoint to mr. Binder's comment about the 00:47:13.186 --> 00:47:18.916 - beeline trail. I find this level of connectivity sufficient to me. This is the world I want to live 00:47:18.916 --> 00:47:24.818 - in where you have bike lanes traveling under bike lanes. We certainly have roads for cars with bridges 00:47:24.818 --> 00:47:30.548 - that travel under each other, and we're not always trying to connect them at that point. I think if 00:47:30.548 --> 00:47:36.277 - you're on a longer journey, you can find a way to navigate that doesn't involve being on the bridge 00:47:36.277 --> 00:47:41.950 - and looking down and wondering how you're going to get there. So it's OK with me. But to be clear, 00:47:42.306 --> 00:47:49.228 - This design does include at least one way to get off the Beeline Bridge and onto East or Westbound Road. 00:47:49.228 --> 00:47:56.151 - Right. It doesn't start to make a cloverleaf or something where you can get accomplished every different 00:47:56.151 --> 00:48:02.942 - direction. Yeah. At this corner of college as well, we've shown widening the sidewalk to be a multiuse 00:48:02.942 --> 00:48:09.996 - path to make a better connection there as well. But all these things are kind of contingent on discussions 00:48:09.996 --> 00:48:11.710 - with the property owners. 00:48:12.066 --> 00:48:18.506 - In the current state, there's nothing impeding it. There's no building in the way. But in this case, 00:48:18.506 --> 00:48:25.328 - there's a wall here, a retaining wall. And over here, there's maybe some utilities in the way, but there's 00:48:25.328 --> 00:48:31.768 - not an actual building running right there. So like Hank said, the concept is an idea. This would be 00:48:31.768 --> 00:48:38.718 - ideal. But some of these improvements are outside of the right of way that we're showing. Further questions? 00:48:39.618 --> 00:48:45.499 - The question will be what will end up in the final report? Like the whole thing and will we be voting 00:48:45.499 --> 00:48:51.264 - for the whole thing or like for just the part which is closer to the corridor? True. What part will 00:48:51.264 --> 00:48:57.145 - end up in the final report? Yeah, like in the final proposal. Like will it be like this whole part of 00:48:57.145 --> 00:49:03.026 - third street or like it will be just the part which is closer to the corridor just because this whole 00:49:03.026 --> 00:49:09.022 - project is around about corridor? Will we vote for the whole thing? So for all everything you proposed? 00:49:09.154 --> 00:49:15.000 - just now, or like proposing. As it stands right now, we're planning on including all of this. I think 00:49:15.000 --> 00:49:20.788 - that's maybe a question for Hank. It was included in a scope of work that we would also look at this 00:49:20.788 --> 00:49:26.519 - section of Third Street. Great to do a research and plan, of course, if you've got resources. Is it 00:49:26.519 --> 00:49:32.536 - correct to say that the stuff east of Madison is light green to show that it's potential future, whereas 00:49:32.536 --> 00:49:35.230 - the dark green is what's intended to be built? 00:49:37.506 --> 00:49:43.989 - By East Madison, do you mean the highlights around the protected bike lane and some of the walls? I 00:49:43.989 --> 00:49:50.537 - don't know. That's what we're trying to figure out. It's just a different symbology. So this is just 00:49:50.537 --> 00:49:57.215 - showing that these would be concrete median islands separating bike lanes. So it doesn't indicate that 00:49:57.215 --> 00:50:04.606 - one is short term or one is long term. It's just a different way to symbolize as dark green as landscaping space. 00:50:05.218 --> 00:50:12.762 - This lighter green is the curb liner edging pavement. And these light gray is a concrete median island. 00:50:12.762 --> 00:50:20.378 - So we haven't discussed what's short term, what's long term. It's more just to start getting the concept 00:50:20.378 --> 00:50:27.704 - on paper. I think this ends your question. Yeah. Thank you. So I have a question. Mr. Connick. So we 00:50:27.704 --> 00:50:32.926 - have traffic counts from Madison to Rogers on 3rd Street. I would need. 00:50:33.154 --> 00:50:40.193 - to look up the exact block where we got traffic counts, whether it's from College to Madison or Madison 00:50:40.193 --> 00:50:47.030 - to Rogers, but it's at least one of those two blocks we have traffic counts for. I mean, it would be 00:50:47.030 --> 00:50:54.001 - good to know all those from College to Rogers. Agreed. So we can have those provided to us in time for 00:50:54.001 --> 00:51:00.770 - the final report? Yeah. OK. Further questions before we move on? Let's keep going south. All right. 00:51:00.770 --> 00:51:02.462 - So moving further south. 00:51:03.394 --> 00:51:09.757 - We have shown the Dodd Street intersection as another concept. At this location, we've now moved the 00:51:09.757 --> 00:51:15.869 - Charities Path to the west side, because it matches the Charities Path that starts at Patterson, 00:51:15.869 --> 00:51:22.358 - headed south, all the way to City Limits. And so, you know, the transition, we haven't decided exactly 00:51:22.358 --> 00:51:28.911 - where that transition would be, because we have designed everything, but potentially in the, somewhere, 00:51:28.911 --> 00:51:31.998 - you know, around Second Street, I would imagine. 00:51:33.058 --> 00:51:39.949 - a good location for that. So this concept shows where we have kind of a more compact intersection, a 00:51:39.949 --> 00:51:46.840 - more narrow right of way, a very constrained right of way really, how we can still fit in two lanes, 00:51:46.840 --> 00:51:54.072 - a slightly wider sidewalk, and a multi-use path. So there's a few blocks in the section around downstream 00:51:54.072 --> 00:52:01.100 - where we have the narrowest right of way of anywhere on the corridor, and we still want to achieve the 00:52:01.100 --> 00:52:02.942 - project goals. And so this 00:52:03.362 --> 00:52:11.005 - This concept shows how we can potentially do that at the Dodd Street intersection and intersections 00:52:11.005 --> 00:52:18.648 - that are similar to this area. So currently, it's an all-way stop so we're not changing that. We're 00:52:18.648 --> 00:52:26.444 - just showing widening the sidewalk on the west side into a shared-use path. Questions on Dodd Street? 00:52:26.444 --> 00:52:31.870 - OK. So the shared-use path is on the west side of Rogers in this area? 00:52:32.514 --> 00:52:41.230 - So there is a shared use path from Country Club to Patterson on the west side of Rogers. And this would 00:52:41.230 --> 00:52:49.947 - essentially extend that path further north. And are you going to, how are you going to do that? I mean, 00:52:49.947 --> 00:52:58.412 - you're going to move the path out into the roadway? I mean, all that sidewall in there has retaining 00:52:58.412 --> 00:53:00.926 - walls on there. I mean. Yeah. 00:53:02.306 --> 00:53:08.928 - sidewalk on both sides of the cross section and it would widen the sidewalk into the street. Because 00:53:08.928 --> 00:53:15.813 - in some places currently there is an on-street parking length here so the pavement is a little bit wider 00:53:15.813 --> 00:53:22.500 - than this currently. As we saw in our parking utilization counts, the amount of parking in that space 00:53:22.500 --> 00:53:29.057 - is very little or zero on most blocks in all the periods that we checked. So repurposing that space 00:53:29.057 --> 00:53:31.614 - to widen the sidewalk. So this doesn't 00:53:32.322 --> 00:53:43.239 - change the back of sidewalk in this section. And that goes all the way to 3rd Street on that side? For 00:53:43.239 --> 00:53:54.262 - this section, no. Our proposal was to extend it up to, I believe, 1st Street is where the existing bike 00:53:54.262 --> 00:54:01.470 - lanes start in the Hopel area. So between 1st and 2nd, you have the 00:54:01.634 --> 00:54:09.292 - the new existing protected bike lanes and then north of second we were not proposing any shared use 00:54:09.292 --> 00:54:17.104 - path or any additional bicycle infrastructure. North of second street there's no infrastructure. Bike 00:54:17.104 --> 00:54:24.992 - lanes north of there. Correct. But it is extending bike lanes from the south. Correct. So what happens 00:54:24.992 --> 00:54:30.046 - when you hit the second street? You go down to the B line? So our 00:54:30.242 --> 00:54:38.939 - Proposal was with the with the incoming second Street protected by claims that are being built right 00:54:38.939 --> 00:54:47.637 - now folks could go from Rogers from second to the beeline Or continue to use the street if they want 00:54:47.637 --> 00:54:56.506 - to So it kind of makes that connection at the beeline third Street a little bit more important Correct 00:54:56.506 --> 00:54:59.262 - For the questions on dot Street 00:55:03.682 --> 00:55:11.405 - Okay, let's move on. So the next concept that we have is at Patterson Street. And this is a place where 00:55:11.405 --> 00:55:18.905 - you have a little bit more right away. And so we're showing a single lane roundabout in this section 00:55:18.905 --> 00:55:26.702 - as a potential concept. This does potentially require, similar to Gorley Pike, a little bit of easements 00:55:26.702 --> 00:55:31.454 - for shared east paths and sidewalks on the edge of the roadway. 00:55:31.778 --> 00:55:38.441 - there's a little bit more right of way and there's a little bit more traffic volume size for your traffic 00:55:38.441 --> 00:55:44.978 - volume with Patterson. And so the nice thing about single lane roundabout here is that it calms traffic 00:55:44.978 --> 00:55:51.453 - on both East-West for Patterson as well as Rogers and keeps those speeds lower to keep everybody safer 00:55:51.453 --> 00:55:57.927 - at the intersection. So we also have coming from the East, there is a shared use path along Patterson. 00:55:57.927 --> 00:56:00.190 - So that connects into here as well. 00:56:00.578 --> 00:56:06.926 - And that's also why we have the extension of the shared eastbound on the west side in this section. 00:56:06.926 --> 00:56:13.274 - So we're making that connection east-west to Patterson, but also to the south on Patterson where it 00:56:13.274 --> 00:56:19.623 - continues. So single-lane roundabout, you can see here the larger circle that's showing how the red 00:56:19.623 --> 00:56:26.606 - brick crosshatch that would be mountable for large trucks. But the green center circle could have landscaping 00:56:26.606 --> 00:56:28.510 - in it or a gateway treatment. 00:56:28.802 --> 00:56:37.526 - of a car, that kind of thing, because it doesn't need to be traversable or mountable by large vehicles. 00:56:37.526 --> 00:56:45.999 - So this is both a safety and traffic operations improvement potentially over the existing signalized 00:56:45.999 --> 00:56:54.639 - intersection. Questions on Patterson. Mr. Binder. I'm curious what your methodology was in determining 00:56:54.639 --> 00:56:58.750 - the size of this tram, about the diameter of it. 00:57:01.378 --> 00:57:08.372 - This uses a standard inscribed circle diameter for a single-lane roundabout using design best practices. 00:57:08.372 --> 00:57:15.233 - So there's some flexibility, and I think we want as small as you possibly can. Whereas at Gorley Pike, 00:57:15.233 --> 00:57:22.094 - that's a compact roundabout. And the reason for that is because there's not as much space. So you need 00:57:22.094 --> 00:57:29.022 - to use a compact roundabout to make the circle smaller, but then the full circle needs to be mountable. 00:57:29.986 --> 00:57:36.612 - essentially as small as you can get with a single lane roundabout. And some of the benefits of having 00:57:36.612 --> 00:57:43.237 - a single lane roundabout is that you get a little bit more deflection and slowing of vehicles as they 00:57:43.237 --> 00:57:50.253 - approach the roundabout. You can have larger median refuge islands and they have a little bit more capacity 00:57:50.253 --> 00:57:56.944 - than a compact roundabout. And then also the accommodating truck turns without them having to traverse 00:57:56.944 --> 00:57:57.918 - and drive over 00:58:04.514 --> 00:58:12.569 - I guess I I don't totally understand why there's kind of this hard delineation between what is considered 00:58:12.569 --> 00:58:20.396 - a mini roundabout versus a single-lane roundabout to me in my head again not an engineer but in my met 00:58:20.396 --> 00:58:28.223 - in my mind there's just a sort of continuum of there's compact roundabouts that are on the larger side 00:58:28.223 --> 00:58:34.302 - there's single-lane roundabouts that are on the smaller side but you're kind of 00:58:34.434 --> 00:58:40.889 - saying you're sort of suggesting that actually there's kind of a distinct set of categories for sizes 00:58:40.889 --> 00:58:47.344 - of roundabouts, or at least in engineering best practices. Is that right? Generally speaking, and the 00:58:47.344 --> 00:58:54.242 - biggest difference is whether or not you have a center median island that has a vertical curve and something 00:58:54.242 --> 00:59:00.760 - in it that can't be tripped over. So that's really the distinction between what's a compact roundabout 00:59:00.760 --> 00:59:03.102 - and what's a single lane roundabout. 00:59:03.522 --> 00:59:11.245 - I just bring this topic up because the city's constructed several roundabouts in the past with you know 00:59:11.245 --> 00:59:18.745 - fairly high capacities in mind and I think in retrospect some of those were probably built to be too 00:59:18.745 --> 00:59:26.245 - large and so I'm just wondering if this is kind of if the design if the size of this was informed by 00:59:26.245 --> 00:59:33.374 - you know some of the previous roundabouts that have been built in the city I mean I'm not gonna 00:59:33.506 --> 00:59:39.276 - get into citing examples, but I'd like to hear the answer to that question. Yeah, we haven't looked 00:59:39.276 --> 00:59:45.393 - at other comparisons of roundabouts around the second city, but this is the best practice to use a single 00:59:45.393 --> 00:59:51.164 - lane roundabout versus a dual lane roundabout. I mean, that dual lane roundabout would be excessive 00:59:51.164 --> 00:59:57.396 - and a dual lane roundabouts have their own safety issues. In some cases, depending on how they're assigned, 00:59:57.396 --> 01:00:03.166 - they can potentially degrade pedestrian crossings because now you have a multiple threat condition. 01:00:03.778 --> 01:00:10.850 - where there's two vehicles yielding to crossing pedestrians or bicyclists. So we prefer only ever going 01:00:10.850 --> 01:00:17.786 - as big as a single lane roundabout, because that means that as a pedestrian or bicyclist, you're only 01:00:17.786 --> 01:00:24.586 - ever crossing one lane of one direction of traffic. So that's sort of our controlling standard. And 01:00:24.586 --> 01:00:31.998 - then as far as how it's designed, that is using best practices in roundabout design, the engineers, my firm. 01:00:33.090 --> 01:00:40.701 - put that together using industry standards. I think the decision as to when you use a compact versus 01:00:40.701 --> 01:00:48.387 - a single lane really has to do with how much intersecting traffic there is, as well as how much space 01:00:48.387 --> 01:00:56.299 - there is. So they operate similarly, but a compact roundabout can't handle quite as much traffic volume. 01:00:56.299 --> 01:01:03.006 - And it's more of a kind of collector street or minor arterial type of treatment, whereas 01:01:03.106 --> 01:01:09.715 - If you have the intersection of two arterials, then a single-lane roundabout is a little more appropriate 01:01:09.715 --> 01:01:16.386 - for that context. Thanks. And just to be clear, I was not by any means arguing for a multi-lane roundabout 01:01:16.386 --> 01:01:23.058 - here. I don't think that would be appropriate. Although I would be curious to know if any of these streets 01:01:23.058 --> 01:01:29.854 - are actually categorized as arterials, because I would think they would be categorized as collector streets. 01:01:32.034 --> 01:01:38.406 - I would need to look that up real fast, but in terms of truck routes, that's what we have been looking 01:01:38.406 --> 01:01:44.964 - at in terms of turning movements and what we could put a single lane roundabout on, a compact roundabout, 01:01:44.964 --> 01:01:51.151 - or if we're just doing a single geometric change, which you'll see later, and Grimes-Patterson is a 01:01:51.151 --> 01:01:54.430 - truck route. Rogers is not defined as a truck route, 01:01:54.946 --> 01:02:01.245 - We know that a lot of big trucks use this route. And so we need to have the ability for those larger 01:02:01.245 --> 01:02:07.607 - trucks to make these turning movements. Whereas, say, at Gorley, that is obviously not a truck route. 01:02:07.607 --> 01:02:13.906 - That is a much smaller street with lower volumes. And so that is another big reason why we can put a 01:02:13.906 --> 01:02:20.330 - compact roundabout up there, but not over here. OK, thanks. That clears it up for me. The takeaway for 01:02:20.330 --> 01:02:24.446 - me is that Patterson is a more major crossing street than Gorley. 01:02:24.674 --> 01:02:36.001 - Okay. I would need to check. I don't. Oh, I think I think I think Shelley has a comment here. Yeah. 01:02:36.001 --> 01:02:47.781 - I just about that. So Corley Pike, we have an east west route that that goes through that intersection. 01:02:47.781 --> 01:02:54.238 - So that contact roundabout with the bus needs to go over 01:02:54.754 --> 01:03:02.377 - So like median treatment every time. I would have to check their engineers around. Yeah. I think there's 01:03:02.377 --> 01:03:09.927 - enough room for fire trucks and buses to go around, but it's for like a large semi truck that they have 01:03:09.927 --> 01:03:17.332 - to mount it. But I have to tell which I can get back to you. OK. Yeah, we'll need to know the further 01:03:17.332 --> 01:03:24.446 - questions or comments from commissioners on Patterson. I wanted to, well, I mean, when they built 01:03:24.642 --> 01:03:31.661 - Sarah and Rogers, it was the Champs-Élysées in comparison to this. I mean, it was built to be a two-lane 01:03:31.661 --> 01:03:38.287 - roundabout. And I think that we've since corrected that. But it's still the dimensions of a two-lane 01:03:38.287 --> 01:03:45.241 - roundabout, even though it's been reduced to one that's just a much larger circle, right? So am I correct 01:03:45.241 --> 01:03:51.998 - in looking at the satellite image of this intersection? And am I correct in assuming that there's some 01:03:52.386 --> 01:03:59.146 - land that would have to be acquired to the northeast of this intersection? It seems like a vacant lot, 01:03:59.146 --> 01:04:05.643 - but I mean, are you concerned about being able to get it, or is that why you designed it this way? 01:04:05.643 --> 01:04:12.533 - I mean, there is always concern about land acquisition in any project. If, whether it's here or in other 01:04:12.533 --> 01:04:19.424 - areas of this project, if that becomes a barrier, then we can redesign as needed. But right now, because 01:04:19.424 --> 01:04:21.918 - we're still in the conceptual design, 01:04:22.018 --> 01:04:29.645 - we would like to design what is physically feasible and this is feasible. Okay. Uh, I just want to say, 01:04:29.645 --> 01:04:37.052 - this has gotta be my favorite thing. I've called the project and I just liked third street, but, uh, 01:04:37.052 --> 01:04:44.532 - this intersection has been crying out for around about four years. It's just so, so big. And, uh, now 01:04:44.532 --> 01:04:48.126 - I have a sense of, I've always wondered what it, 01:04:48.290 --> 01:04:55.160 - how much land it took to build a roundabout, and now I know that there's a term called compact roundabout. 01:04:55.160 --> 01:05:01.708 - That may be my next new favorite thing, but for now, I'm excited about this. Is there more? Should we 01:05:01.708 --> 01:05:08.129 - go for it? Mrs. Cheruchko. What's happening with this shared use bus? It's just ending. Which part? 01:05:08.129 --> 01:05:14.870 - Sorry. Will it just end there on the left, from the north to the west? Yeah, this part. What's happening 01:05:14.870 --> 01:05:17.438 - with the ending of it? Will it be just? 01:05:17.666 --> 01:05:23.721 - Handling there, or? There is an existing shared use map to the west on Patterson, so I'm not sure how 01:05:23.721 --> 01:05:29.953 - far that goes. Maybe it just goes a few more blocks. But it connects at least to the E line to the east. 01:05:29.953 --> 01:05:36.008 - And then it goes maybe a few more blocks to the west. So we're just kind of showing tying into it. So 01:05:36.008 --> 01:05:41.944 - we haven't designed it all the way there. OK, so it goes to Fairview. So yeah, it would continue as 01:05:41.944 --> 01:05:44.734 - it was or tie into it at some point over here. 01:05:46.626 --> 01:05:53.539 - So compact roundabouts, just for everybody's knowledge or information, whatever, is that similar to 01:05:53.539 --> 01:06:00.660 - the one that's on Morris Pike there? Was that Renwick or whatever it's called? Yeah. Is that a compact 01:06:00.660 --> 01:06:07.574 - roundabout? Good question. Those would be single lane roundabouts because there is an island in the 01:06:07.574 --> 01:06:14.764 - middle. You cannot fully mount those roundabouts. Compact roundabout, there is no island in the middle, 01:06:14.764 --> 01:06:15.870 - so fire trucks, 01:06:15.970 --> 01:06:23.780 - buses, semis, could go over them if need be. So to follow up on this question, is the Morse pipe round 01:06:23.780 --> 01:06:31.665 - about the same diameter? I don't know. I would have to check. Is that what you're asking? Yeah, if it's 01:06:31.665 --> 01:06:39.399 - the same as the Compaq. Because it's pretty tight. We'd like to know that for the last meeting, yeah. 01:06:39.399 --> 01:06:45.086 - Is he pretty tight because you drive too fast, Mr. Compaq? Not on my page. 01:06:46.338 --> 01:06:54.583 - Further questions on Patterson, Mr. Duncan? If you give me 15 seconds, I can find out the diameter. 01:06:54.583 --> 01:07:02.910 - That'd be great. I guess we could use Google measure distance to do that. Mr. Stossford? That's what 01:07:02.910 --> 01:07:11.319 - he's done. It looks like it's about 100, 130 feet, 125 to 130 feet. Compared to? From outside curb to 01:07:11.319 --> 01:07:14.782 - outside curb. And then this one is? Drew? 01:07:18.402 --> 01:07:27.222 - I think the ICD inscribed circle diameter, which is the outer ring of the roundabout, I think is 100 01:07:27.222 --> 01:07:36.217 - feet. On this one, I have to check with Wally. So this would be about 30 feet smaller in diameter. And 01:07:36.217 --> 01:07:44.950 - the Morris Pike Rounding. Correct. Further questions? Let's move on south. So the next intersection 01:07:44.950 --> 01:07:48.094 - that we designed is Rockport Drive. 01:07:48.642 --> 01:07:54.720 - And this one is a little sticky. This one, again, has narrow right-of-way. The right-of-way just gets 01:07:54.720 --> 01:08:00.739 - narrower on this southern end. Depending where you are, sometimes it opens up intersections. At this 01:08:00.739 --> 01:08:06.758 - intersection, it's pretty tight. And so what we're showing here is some minor changes to try to make 01:08:06.758 --> 01:08:12.777 - the intersection more compact, organize the traffic a little bit better, and slow traffic as it goes 01:08:12.777 --> 01:08:15.518 - through the intersection. So initially we had 01:08:15.714 --> 01:08:22.544 - looked at testing even a compact roundabout. There's just not enough space, given the available right 01:08:22.544 --> 01:08:29.240 - of way. And so what we're showing here is adding a northbound dedicated left turn lane. Today there 01:08:29.240 --> 01:08:36.270 - is a northbound through lane and actually a dedicated right turn lane into the street to the east, which 01:08:36.270 --> 01:08:43.301 - is really not needed. The traffic volume is very low for that dedicated right turn lane. So we're adding 01:08:43.301 --> 01:08:45.310 - this dedicated left turn lane 01:08:46.274 --> 01:08:52.753 - that outside lane to a through right turn lane and then that allows us to have a striped median on the 01:08:52.753 --> 01:08:59.233 - north side here and just better organize the intersection and get left turning vehicles out of through 01:08:59.233 --> 01:09:05.901 - traffic so that they don't back up the through traffic and create a safety issue. What we're also showing 01:09:05.901 --> 01:09:12.192 - here is adding another crosswalk on the north leg of the intersection. There's no crosswalk on this 01:09:12.192 --> 01:09:15.966 - north leg today so this would add in a new crosswalk there. 01:09:16.450 --> 01:09:25.854 - Although that is very similar to the existing cross-section, but make a couple of minor tweaks to make 01:09:25.854 --> 01:09:35.441 - things more compact and better organize traffic through the intersection. Questions about Rockport Road? 01:09:35.441 --> 01:09:44.571 - I don't love the right turn angle from Rogers to Rockport. I feel like if we're trying to be safety 01:09:44.571 --> 01:09:45.758 - minded here, 01:09:46.402 --> 01:09:54.881 - we should be trying to aim for a closer to a kind of 90 degree approach. And I think there's definitely 01:09:54.881 --> 01:10:03.034 - some potential here for at such a shallow angle, you know, a conflict between right turning traffic 01:10:03.034 --> 01:10:11.268 - from Rogers and the multi use path. Um, and then the other thing I would say is, uh, it doesn't seem 01:10:11.268 --> 01:10:14.366 - like there's any reason to not have a 01:10:16.386 --> 01:10:24.732 - Port Concrete Island on Rogers for the crosswalk on the north side of the intersection here versus just 01:10:24.732 --> 01:10:33.159 - a painted one. But yeah, I don't know. This intersection has been a problem for a long time. And I don't 01:10:33.159 --> 01:10:41.184 - live in this area, but I have plenty of friends who do. And I don't think anybody really likes this 01:10:41.184 --> 01:10:45.598 - intersection, so I hope that if we are going to try to 01:10:45.730 --> 01:10:55.372 - improve it, we can do as much as possible. Further comments or questions on Rockport? Mr. Minus, I take 01:10:55.372 --> 01:11:05.013 - it you'll speak up when you have a question, right? Yes, I will. I'm good now. I have a similar concern 01:11:05.013 --> 01:11:14.470 - to Mr. Binder only from coming from the south or rather coming off of Rockport turning right to going 01:11:14.470 --> 01:11:15.582 - southbound. 01:11:16.290 --> 01:11:26.522 - There seems to be just the same kind of curve that encourages a fast move by a car. And yet I see the 01:11:26.522 --> 01:11:36.553 - west crosswalk, the north-south, like there's only stripes. The west side of that path is the right 01:11:36.553 --> 01:11:45.982 - width, but the right side is way too wide. Why wouldn't this intersection call for closer in, 01:11:46.562 --> 01:11:56.203 - 90 degree turns onto and off of Rockport Road. Intersection realignment. Intersection realignment. Well, 01:11:56.203 --> 01:12:05.568 - slightly, yeah. What does that mean? You're not... Rockport's side could be moved north slightly, and 01:12:05.568 --> 01:12:12.638 - maybe I noticed the turning radius is larger on the west than the east side. 01:12:14.690 --> 01:12:21.387 - I don't know how you answered my question. No, maybe I'm not. So if you want to make it 90 degrees, 01:12:21.387 --> 01:12:28.152 - then if you're coming southbound or you're coming northbound on Rockport Road, you'd have to go veer 01:12:28.152 --> 01:12:35.251 - to the west and then come back to the. OK, say that again. If I'm coming northbound on Rockport. Rockport 01:12:35.251 --> 01:12:42.015 - to get it to be 90 degrees without taking out the gas pumps or gas tanks, whatever it is. It must be 01:12:42.015 --> 01:12:44.158 - in that little island up there. 01:12:44.770 --> 01:12:54.808 - So if you're coming northbound on Rockport, you'll have to go to the west, angle to the west, and then 01:12:54.808 --> 01:13:04.944 - come back to the. OK. Mr. Parker, if you would point that cursor on the southeast corner of the striped 01:13:04.944 --> 01:13:14.398 - crosswalk to the west, right there. Yeah. Why is that spot not made? Why is that still for cars? 01:13:16.002 --> 01:13:22.579 - Yeah, because of the truck turning template. So I think for trucks, this is a very sharp turn for even 01:13:22.579 --> 01:13:29.155 - a small truck to make this turn. So it has to be, I'm guessing this is like a 30 foot, maybe a 40 foot 01:13:29.155 --> 01:13:35.668 - radius. So what I think we think is one option would be to put in a truck apron in this section where 01:13:35.668 --> 01:13:42.436 - passenger vehicles have to turn around it, but trucks can track over it, similar to what we showed before 01:13:42.436 --> 01:13:44.862 - or are about to show on the next one. 01:13:46.338 --> 01:13:55.502 - I think we could definitely look into. Yeah, I would. I for one would like you to do that. I I'm. I 01:13:55.502 --> 01:14:04.850 - I get the problem of a truck turning and I take it that's the same issue with the north side of that. 01:14:04.850 --> 01:14:14.014 - Crosswalk as well. It's a truck issue. Yeah. So you say you can put aprons in that might. You know. 01:14:14.178 --> 01:14:22.369 - deter the faster car driver. Right. While still allowing the truck to make the turn. Is this like the 01:14:22.369 --> 01:14:30.480 - eastbound on Third Street turning onto Patterson? There's an apron there? It's just like that? Okay. 01:14:30.480 --> 01:14:38.511 - Yes, I would be interested in seeing that integrated into the design. Mr. Binder. What about moving 01:14:38.511 --> 01:14:42.366 - the stop lines back on, especially on Rockport, 01:14:42.594 --> 01:14:50.783 - and then shifting the multi-use paths crosswalk a little bit further west so that the distance is a 01:14:50.783 --> 01:14:59.135 - lot shorter and it's not so far out towards the edge of the, into the intersection. Do you understand 01:14:59.135 --> 01:15:07.815 - what I'm saying? Because if you look at how large radius those curves are, I mean, I don't think normally 01:15:07.815 --> 01:15:11.582 - you'd want a multi-use path that close to the 01:15:11.714 --> 01:15:19.068 - corner in the first place, you'd want it shifted a little bit away from the intersection so that the 01:15:19.068 --> 01:15:26.568 - overall length of the crosswalk is the shorter crossing distance. Do you understand what I mean, guys? 01:15:26.568 --> 01:15:33.995 - I see that that makes it shorter crossing distance, but it feels like you also become less visible to 01:15:33.995 --> 01:15:37.854 - the cars on Rogers as you move the crossing further. 01:15:39.266 --> 01:15:45.627 - So that's something we're about to see on the country club concept. And what exists now is the crosswalks 01:15:45.627 --> 01:15:51.628 - are a little bit set far set back. And there are pros and cons to it. There are pros, like you were 01:15:51.628 --> 01:15:57.869 - saying, but there are also cons, like Mark's saying, where you are a little bit less visible. So that's 01:15:57.869 --> 01:16:03.989 - something we can talk about more. Yeah. I mean, one way you saw that is with signal timing, right, is 01:16:03.989 --> 01:16:07.710 - you separate out the phases. So there's no right turn on red. 01:16:08.258 --> 01:16:16.577 - crossing signal for the multi-use path and so forth. Further questions? I was going to ask, is our new 01:16:16.577 --> 01:16:24.976 - friend the compact roundabout feasible here? No, we looked into that and there's less right-of-way here 01:16:24.976 --> 01:16:33.133 - than at Gorilla Bike, so it doesn't quite fit. We tested that at the design workshop. Works too bad. 01:16:33.133 --> 01:16:36.606 - It's also very hard when you have a skewed 01:16:36.962 --> 01:16:43.881 - leg coming into a roundabout like that because you need to create the space for the turning maneuvers 01:16:43.881 --> 01:16:50.801 - and now you're creating another obstruction for a truck to have to circulate around and it just, it's 01:16:50.801 --> 01:16:57.856 - very challenging. So we did try it many times and it did not, without acquiring significant right away, 01:16:57.856 --> 01:17:03.486 - did not fit. Okay. Any other questions? Let's move south to the next intersection. 01:17:06.018 --> 01:17:11.695 - So the last concept I have to show you today is at Country Club Drive. And like some of these other 01:17:11.695 --> 01:17:17.428 - ones that we talked about, we also tried test fitting a compact roundabout here. But because Country 01:17:17.428 --> 01:17:23.445 - Club, similar to Patterson, my understanding is a truck route where we have to design it for large trucks 01:17:23.445 --> 01:17:29.349 - to move through there, we need to have a larger circle for the roundabout. And it just, we weren't able 01:17:29.349 --> 01:17:34.174 - to fit that. So we did try and we tweaked it, went back and forth a number of times. 01:17:35.074 --> 01:17:40.912 - in review and it just took up too much space and had too many, yeah, too much additional right-of-way 01:17:40.912 --> 01:17:46.749 - acquisition was required for it to really be a feasible concept. So the other concept that we came up 01:17:46.749 --> 01:17:52.530 - with is to add truck aprons at all the corners and really make this intersection a lot more compact. 01:17:52.530 --> 01:17:58.368 - Like Hank mentioned, I think it already exists, I can't remember where he said, they're in Patterson, 01:17:58.368 --> 01:18:04.606 - I think I thought you heard you say. So like already exists in the city and like we could look at Barackport 01:18:04.994 --> 01:18:12.876 - The idea being that trucks can still make these right turns, but passenger vehicles will be slowed down 01:18:12.876 --> 01:18:20.986 - significantly with those truck aprons because you need to track around them. So that's the overall concept 01:18:20.986 --> 01:18:28.565 - here is just making a more compact and slower intersection and make it more comfortable to cross as 01:18:28.565 --> 01:18:34.174 - a person walking or biking. Questions on Country Club from commissioners? 01:18:34.530 --> 01:18:42.383 - Could you remind me once again, what is the downside of using more hidden inwards? What is the word 01:18:42.383 --> 01:18:50.471 - for this? The crosswalks? For the crosswalks, yes. The previous example was more visible, and now it's 01:18:50.471 --> 01:18:58.795 - like, yeah. Yeah, so this just came up last week. There's some research that shows that for right-turning 01:18:58.795 --> 01:19:03.742 - vehicles, there's a sweet spot of having about 16 feet or less 01:19:04.162 --> 01:19:10.255 - from the curb return to the crosswalk for motor vehicle drivers to not already be speeding up. So if 01:19:10.255 --> 01:19:16.288 - you are within that window of 16 feet or less, then drivers are still making their turn and they're 01:19:16.288 --> 01:19:22.321 - not yet speeding up. And if you're a little further back, then now they're accelerating through the 01:19:22.321 --> 01:19:28.475 - crosswalk, which you really don't want. And so I think that's kind of what, I think, I don't know who 01:19:28.475 --> 01:19:32.638 - mentioned it, but when you start to set back the crosswalks too far, 01:19:32.994 --> 01:19:40.138 - that right turning speed can just get higher. And we want as low of a speed as possible at the crosswalk. 01:19:40.138 --> 01:19:47.079 - So when they're closer to the intersection, then that's the slowest. And with a small curve rate, it's 01:19:47.079 --> 01:19:54.088 - the slowest speed that we can achieve. Does that answer your question? Yeah. Thanks. So one car length, 01:19:54.088 --> 01:19:59.614 - roughly? Yeah. We usually use 20 as a rule of thumb for car length, but yeah, 16. 01:20:00.418 --> 01:20:09.819 - and what type of car you're talking about. What kind of boat are you driving? All right. Further questions 01:20:09.819 --> 01:20:18.957 - on Country Club? All right. Well, if that concludes all the intersections, how do we sum up in general? 01:20:18.957 --> 01:20:28.446 - What's the next thing you want us to consider? Do you mean for the study or with these concepts? I'm sorry. 01:20:30.082 --> 01:20:36.089 - trying to wrap it up here so I think I have everything I need for this evening I've been taking notes 01:20:36.089 --> 01:20:42.037 - and we'll go through this recording again to look over the comments but I think we have what we need 01:20:42.037 --> 01:20:48.103 - to take the Commission's thoughts into consideration and then we'll also combine that with the overall 01:20:48.103 --> 01:20:52.638 - public and stakeholder feedback to rise to these designs and get back to you 01:20:53.282 --> 01:20:59.947 - Can I get just a general sense from commissioners of their thoughts on this, Mr. Binder? Actually, I 01:20:59.947 --> 01:21:06.744 - just had a question rather than a comment, which is, are there going to be any additional concepts for 01:21:06.744 --> 01:21:13.343 - any additional intersections or cross-sections of the corridor between now and then when we see the 01:21:13.343 --> 01:21:20.074 - final? In other words, at the actual plan commission meeting where we are reviewing the, are we going 01:21:20.074 --> 01:21:22.846 - to see a role plot of the entire corridor 01:21:23.074 --> 01:21:31.491 - with every intersection designed or, yeah. Not with every intersection designed. So earlier this summer, 01:21:31.491 --> 01:21:38.947 - you all saw some typical cross-sections. That's what you'll see to fill in those gaps of the 01:21:38.947 --> 01:21:47.204 - major intersections. So Mr. Stosberg asked me about the Rogers and Seventh intersection earlier. While 01:21:47.204 --> 01:21:52.254 - that intersection is not going to be designed like what we had 01:21:52.354 --> 01:21:58.643 - this evening, those linear aspects will be included in those typical cross sections. And all of these 01:21:58.643 --> 01:22:05.301 - concepts are simply a menu of options that we can choose at various intersections. So we are not prescribed 01:22:05.301 --> 01:22:11.528 - to do this at this intersection or that at that intersection. These are options that we could choose 01:22:11.528 --> 01:22:17.694 - at various types of intersections along the corridor. I guess the reason I bring that up is because 01:22:17.694 --> 01:22:21.886 - two intersections I was hoping to see concepts for were 11th Street 01:22:22.242 --> 01:22:28.457 - and also where the B line crosses Rogers. And we didn't see either of those. And that's okay. I mean, 01:22:28.457 --> 01:22:34.611 - this was already a lot and that's awesome. And also Drew, I just want to say thank you for doing all 01:22:34.611 --> 01:22:40.948 - this. I know I've been very critical, but I think that's like the kind of critique you guys were hoping 01:22:40.948 --> 01:22:47.284 - to receive. So hope you don't take it personally. But I would still love to see some discussion of 11th 01:22:47.284 --> 01:22:50.270 - Street and also where the B line crosses Rogers. 01:22:51.522 --> 01:22:58.149 - It's not an actual design. That is something we can mention in the APACA report. When you say discussion 01:22:58.149 --> 01:23:04.460 - of it, are you saying you want to redesign? I mean, there are two pretty major intersections on the 01:23:04.460 --> 01:23:10.835 - corridor. And I guess I don't understand why we wouldn't talk about those two. It just seems kind of 01:23:10.835 --> 01:23:16.894 - arbitrary to me to talk about 15th Street, say, but not 11th Street, or 4th and Rogers, but not 01:23:17.058 --> 01:23:22.111 - where the beeline crosses Roger. I don't know, to me it just seems kind of like, I don't understand 01:23:22.111 --> 01:23:27.266 - the methodology used to determine what, you know, which particular concepts we were reviewing tonight 01:23:27.266 --> 01:23:32.572 - versus what's making it to the final board versus what's just a cross section and it'll just be designed 01:23:32.572 --> 01:23:37.676 - at some point in the vague future. Isn't there a department complex going in there where the beeline 01:23:37.676 --> 01:23:42.881 - crosses Rogers that you talked about before, so it'd be good to see that intersection. Sure, sure, but 01:23:42.881 --> 01:23:46.014 - I think the broader point is, I guess, I don't understand why 01:23:46.146 --> 01:23:53.409 - I don't understand what the priority was for these particular intersections versus, you know, versus 01:23:53.409 --> 01:24:00.887 - some others that I think we have mentioned as ones that are important to consider. Sure. So essentially 01:24:00.887 --> 01:24:08.365 - it's the scope of work included 10 intersections to be designed and included in the final report. We're 01:24:08.365 --> 01:24:14.046 - at those 10 in terms of how those 10 were chosen. It's subjective. Okay. Okay. 01:24:14.466 --> 01:24:23.658 - Because we only could afford 10, is that it? Yes. OK, thanks. That's the answer I was looking. I mean, 01:24:23.658 --> 01:24:33.029 - if that's the answer, that's the answer. That's kind of disturbing, to be frank. Because I have to agree 01:24:33.029 --> 01:24:42.846 - with Mr. Binder that those are two important intersections, that it just seems remiss to not also study them. 01:24:43.266 --> 01:24:50.639 - I mean, I appreciated the 15th Street change, but yikes. There's something we can do to get those two 01:24:50.639 --> 01:24:58.229 - thrown in at this point. So I mean, that is something that Ryan and I can talk about after this meeting. 01:24:58.229 --> 01:25:05.530 - But my question would be, where is the line on what intersections we have a design for in the report 01:25:05.530 --> 01:25:08.638 - and which ones we don't, because there are 01:25:08.930 --> 01:25:15.196 - comments we've gotten from the public about almost every single intersection along the corridor. And 01:25:15.196 --> 01:25:21.525 - at that point, you are designing a full corridor, which is it simply costs a lot more than what we're 01:25:21.525 --> 01:25:28.288 - doing. And when there are only so many options of improvements that we could choose for these intersections. 01:25:28.288 --> 01:25:34.678 - I mean, I don't know about other commissioners, but I feel sort of an obligation to be able to explain 01:25:34.678 --> 01:25:37.470 - what we did or how we advised you, you know, 01:25:37.794 --> 01:25:44.877 - and that we're going to be people who may find ourselves having to defend the choices that we talked 01:25:44.877 --> 01:25:51.890 - about in these meetings. I imagine you were incorporating metrics like crashes and intersections or 01:25:51.890 --> 01:25:59.113 - volumes. That's defensible. Well, if we have the data, I mean, if you can provide us that data so that 01:25:59.113 --> 01:26:03.742 - we can, will that be in the final report? It can be. What's that? 01:26:03.906 --> 01:26:10.641 - It can be good. I think it's necessary. Like at the very least we should be able to explain why you 01:26:10.641 --> 01:26:17.510 - made the choices you made. Sure. And then I guess just a quick follow on that. Just to clarify the 10 01:26:17.510 --> 01:26:24.312 - intersections that we saw tonight concepts for were those 10 selected by staff or were they selected 01:26:24.312 --> 01:26:31.518 - by tool. It was a combined discussion but at the end of the day it was staff. OK. Further final questions. 01:26:32.866 --> 01:26:40.836 - I think as a follow up, so if we compare 15th and 7th, like how would we choose, like how would we prioritize 01:26:40.836 --> 01:26:48.082 - them? Like why would we choose the 15th street compared to 7th street, which we discussed just now? 01:26:48.082 --> 01:26:55.472 - Sure, between those two specifically? Sure, so we tried to choose intersections along the entirety of 01:26:55.472 --> 01:27:02.718 - the corridor, and so because we were already focusing on 6th and Rogers in the near west side area, 01:27:03.138 --> 01:27:11.729 - We also wanted to show something for the Maple Heights Neighborhood Association as well. So up in that 01:27:11.729 --> 01:27:20.070 - area between 11 to 17. A little bit. Yes. That's part of it too. One more related question and then 01:27:20.070 --> 01:27:29.162 - I'll I promise I'll stop. When this actually gets to high resolution engineering design. You know contractor 01:27:29.162 --> 01:27:31.998 - ready construction ready designs. 01:27:33.154 --> 01:27:41.117 - Is the idea that ultimately those other intersections will have been designed and then the entire corridor 01:27:41.117 --> 01:27:49.229 - would be built in a single, more or less a single phase, or would this be broken out into a lot of different 01:27:49.229 --> 01:27:56.746 - little separate phases and kind of rebuilt piecemeal? Very likely it's the latter, simply because of 01:27:56.746 --> 01:28:00.318 - how much we're looking at. Again, if there is a 01:28:00.674 --> 01:28:07.264 - giant federal grant that we can get, we're going to try to get it. But a lot of these intersections 01:28:07.264 --> 01:28:13.591 - in linear parts of the project, because we're not looking at something like a larger road diet, 01:28:13.591 --> 01:28:20.247 - for example, because this is already a two lane street, we can easily do this piecemeal intersection 01:28:20.247 --> 01:28:26.046 - by intersection. I mean, kind of, right? Because I think what could happen, I guess, is 01:28:27.458 --> 01:28:34.934 - You know, we could wind up with segments of Rogers that have a new side path, and then there's a segment 01:28:34.934 --> 01:28:42.481 - that doesn't have a side path yet, and then another segment that has a side path, and so forth. It sounds 01:28:42.481 --> 01:28:50.242 - like that may just be how it is, but I think we should just all understand that's maybe what our expectation 01:28:50.242 --> 01:28:55.582 - should be, is that it's not like once the construction of this gets going, 01:28:56.482 --> 01:29:03.785 - At some point, there will be a full side path along all of Rogers. That's going to take some time in 01:29:03.785 --> 01:29:11.160 - multiple design and construction phases. Mr. Coppock, could you let us know what other intersections, 01:29:11.160 --> 01:29:18.825 - like we mentioned before, that are part of some other project that may have some design already in place, 01:29:18.825 --> 01:29:23.742 - like 11th Street or something like that, or 2nd Street or Kirkwood, 01:29:24.674 --> 01:29:30.966 - Sure. I probably don't have the full list off the top of my head, but I can, I can absolutely get it 01:29:30.966 --> 01:29:37.196 - to you by our next meeting. Well, or just something, you know, when we have to report, it'd be good 01:29:37.196 --> 01:29:43.675 - to know if these other intersections are having some changes made to them. I mean, let us see. It seems 01:29:43.675 --> 01:29:49.905 - pretty important. Okay. Is there any public comment? Would you come to the microphone? Please state 01:29:49.905 --> 01:29:50.590 - your name. 01:29:52.226 --> 01:29:59.807 - I was just wondering, okay, is there anyone who would like to make a motion to allow public comment? 01:29:59.807 --> 01:30:05.886 - Second. We have motion and second. All in favor please say aye. Opposed say nay. 01:30:07.394 --> 01:30:14.607 - You may speak, you'll have three minutes. Okay, I'm Jill Bird. I live in Prospect Hill, so this is my 01:30:14.607 --> 01:30:21.821 - corridor. I'm on a foot bike car all the time. I did fill out a very detailed response to your survey 01:30:21.821 --> 01:30:29.105 - online. I hope that that is read and attention is paid. Can you flip through them or should I just try 01:30:29.105 --> 01:30:36.318 - to talk about each? Okay, well the first one, there's some areas where there's green space to narrow. 01:30:36.642 --> 01:30:44.491 - the street and at least one area, there is a right turn area. Anytime a car, which intersection are 01:30:44.491 --> 01:30:52.419 - we talking about? The very first one. Yeah. Anytime a car can make a left turn, I think there should 01:30:52.419 --> 01:31:00.818 - be more than one lane. The new work that was done on Rogers. When I turn left to go home, cars are backing 01:31:00.818 --> 01:31:05.214 - up behind me because you built a great big green space. 01:31:05.666 --> 01:31:15.121 - and I now have one lane. So I would avoid that any time possible. The Madison one, I agree with Steve's 01:31:15.121 --> 01:31:24.394 - concern about westbound traffic and how you have to make that little jog to get back on the multi-use 01:31:24.394 --> 01:31:32.030 - path. It's going to be particularly awkward for a bicycle that's going to be on the 01:31:32.898 --> 01:31:41.245 - right side of a car and then wanting to turn left in front of them. Madison is north-south, which street 01:31:41.245 --> 01:31:49.274 - were you? 15th. Madison at 15th. Thank you. That's going to be particularly awkward. And can someone 01:31:49.274 --> 01:31:57.541 - remind me, is sixth and Rogers stop signs? Yes. OK. No, it's not. Seventh is. OK. Because a lot of cars 01:31:57.541 --> 01:31:58.654 - seem to cross 01:31:59.426 --> 01:32:08.564 - And I think once again with the lane narrowing, it's going to be more difficult because cars turning 01:32:08.564 --> 01:32:17.792 - left are going to back traffic up and it's going to be harder for cars to cross 6th Street. Third and 01:32:17.792 --> 01:32:26.840 - Rogers. Assuming that you are going to do the bike lane under the bridge, please don't cheap out on 01:32:26.840 --> 01:32:28.830 - the concrete barrier. 01:32:29.378 --> 01:32:38.531 - Riding a bike under that bridge with that big concrete wall on one side of you and cars on the other 01:32:38.531 --> 01:32:47.955 - side is frightening. I take the rickety sidewalks just to avoid that. There would be some safety gained 01:32:47.955 --> 01:32:58.014 - with the concrete barrier, and I hope you don't cheap out and decide to eliminate that. All right, where am I? 01:32:58.562 --> 01:33:07.336 - intersection, when I looked online, it looked like it did not, the multi-use path did not extend past 01:33:07.336 --> 01:33:16.196 - Shalom Center to the north. And I urge you to do that because there's a lot of pedestrians, people are 01:33:16.196 --> 01:33:24.798 - hanging out, they're eating their pizza out there. And when you're on a bike having the extra width 01:33:24.798 --> 01:33:26.174 - of a multi-lane 01:33:26.594 --> 01:33:34.002 - versus a sidewalk would be very helpful, and it would be a huge safety factor. That's your time. OK. 01:33:34.002 --> 01:33:41.557 - Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Any further public comment? Online? Please use the raise hand 01:33:41.557 --> 01:33:49.258 - function in Zoom. Last call for online comment. All right. Do we know, let's come back to the commission 01:33:49.258 --> 01:33:56.446 - as a whole, do we know when you plan to have the final meeting with us approximately? Mr. Duncan. 01:33:58.338 --> 01:34:08.053 - before the end of the calendar year, certainly. I would say between six to eight weeks from now. Okay, 01:34:08.053 --> 01:34:17.580 - so we're looking at a mid-October. I mean, we generally meet on the fourth Thursday, so a second, or 01:34:17.580 --> 01:34:27.390 - Monday rather, so a second Monday would be optimal. Or maybe it would be the second Monday in November. 01:34:28.386 --> 01:34:36.621 - Okay. All right. Well, in fact, our November meeting is actually in December because of Thanksgiving. 01:34:36.621 --> 01:34:45.017 - Okay. So we should expect one more of these perhaps early November. Okay. Any last words? This meeting, 01:34:45.017 --> 01:34:49.054 - our business concluded this meeting is adjourned.