- planning session of the Transportation Commission is called to order. Shall we start with the roll call
- attendance? Here? Here. Here. Here. And with that, I don't have the agenda in front of me. We have one
- more member joining us.
- Next on the agenda is approval of minutes. Any no minutes to approve. All right. Next is the Rogers
- Madison Kinzer Pike corridor study from the staff. That is Hank Duncan, Safe Streets program manager.
- throw it off to Drew Parker, the project manager from tool design in just a second, but to give you
- a broad view update on what we've been doing. So since we last met, we have been developing concepts
- based on your all's review, the public feedback that we got this past spring and the data from the corridor
- analysis. We are now into the concept development and feedback phase of the study.
- So we have nine different concepts to show you all in the public over the coming weeks. And we are looking
- for your all's feedback and review, any questions you have, so we can steer these concepts in the right
- direction. The concepts you're about to see are very much preliminary. They will change from now until
- the final corridor study. A couple of notes on upcoming engagement events. There will be a public workshop
- at Switchyard Park
- on Tuesday, September 1st from 530 to 7 p.m. That will be an open house workshop so members of the public
- can come in and talk to staff, review the concepts and give us their feedback. We will also host unscheduled
- pop up events around the corridor to contact street users who normally don't or can't come to these
- formal public meetings.
- And we will also be hosting stakeholder-specific meetings with neighborhood associations, business owners,
- et cetera, throughout the next few weeks. So with that, I will throw it to Drew Parker. Thanks, Hank.
- Good evening, everybody. Thanks for having me. Hank, I think I need permission to share. Let me double-check.
- Let's see if this works. Oh, no. OK, I can't do it. Sorry about that.
- Okay, can everybody see a screen with concept designs in the room? Yes. Okay. Awesome. Well, yeah, thanks
- for the introduction, Hank. So since we last met, we gave kind of a summary of what we heard during
- workshop week and some preliminary concepts, and we have been working on revising those concepts, like
- Hank mentioned. By no means are these final concepts, but as part of this study, what we're trying to
- do is take the design objectives and the goal of the project
- all the existing emissions that we collected and address some of those known issues through these concepts.
- So we've picked 10 locations throughout the corridor to develop these concepts, so it doesn't cover
- the entirety of the corridor. But as a reminder, what we talked about at the last mission meeting, our
- overall concept, wherever possible, is to narrow the street cross-section in order to widen sidewalks at larger
- buffer spaces where we can add more landscaping and separation, and where possible, add shared use paths,
- especially north of the V-line crossing. So you'll see that kind of shown throughout some of these different
- concepts here, starting with the first one. So this concept shows Gorley Pike, and what we're showing
- here is a compact roundabout. And we think this is a really good place
- have a compact roundabout because it slows people coming off the bypass and heading towards the bypass.
- We know that in this northern section the speeds get a little bit higher and so anything we can do to
- calm traffic as it comes on and off the bypass helps with increased yielding compliance at crosswalks
- and just improve safety outcomes at intersections because everybody has to travel through the intersection
- at slower speeds you know 50 to 20 miles an hour instead of
- today where they don't have to stop at all at this intersection, maybe more like 40 miles an hour or
- higher in some cases. So that's the concept that we're showing here for Gorley Pike. This is one of
- a couple of places where we think a roundabout can fit with it right away or with minimal easements
- for sidewalks at the corner. So yeah, I'll pause there. Can we take comments as we go, Hank?
- Or do you want me to review all the concepts and then take comments? I would rather go one by one if
- that's fine with the commission. One concept by one concept. Sure. And then take questions now. Yeah.
- I've heard that in recent times, MDOT has been out to review the 17th and the bypass intersection and
- found it to be problematic.
- And they have also plans in the near future next few years to do something with that bridge. That's
- kind of very recent. Has that those conversations been factored into what we might be doing here because
- that's very close to the. Yes. So regarding the bridge. So we currently have the bridge about
- called about a half mile west of here that connects Gorley Pike to the Arlington Heights Elementary
- School area. NDOT owns and maintains that bridge and they are doing some maintenance, tearing it down
- and building up a new bridge near there. Originally, our hope as the city was to push it closer to Kinzer
- Pike to allow more direct travel for those along Kinzer who are going to either the high school or to
- Kroger in that strip mall area.
- end up pushed back on that, so the location of the bridge is shifting a handful of feet, but it's not
- going to be anything meaningful to really make a difference in this study. For that reason, this is
- a bit beyond the scope of this specific concept, but this past year in the spring, the city applied
- for the Federal Safe Streets for All grant program, and some of the areas that we applied for are along
- this corridor,
- One of the items that we applied for, which we'll hear back about later this year, probably December,
- is an intersection redesign here at Kinser and Gorley and a shared use path to go east on Gorley down
- to old 37, cut under the bypass and come back up north of the bypass. So there is a grade separated
- crossing at the bypass. Again, that is very dependent on federal funding.
- but that is an idea that we've had because we know that NDOT is not budging on that virtual location
- very much. In terms of the larger scale concept of this kinsman bypass intersection that NDOT has been
- working on, so they are including that in a road safety audit. They've been working with city staff
- this summer to make observations, to do analyses about
- what can fit at the Kinsland Bypass, what can make safety improvements while maintaining the existing
- throughput of and capacity of that intersection. They don't have any set in stone plans right now that
- will come later, but I believe, you know, we have been pushing for changes like building a roundabout
- at the Kinsland Bypass intersection or
- narrowing the intersection in some ways. But I think what they're looking at more is changing signal
- time or making smaller, smaller scale changes because they're looking at a lot of different intersection
- projects like this. And so what we are requesting is simply beyond the scope of what they're able to
- do financially. But again, nothing is set in stone. Thank you. Mr. Will, would you like to?
- Yeah. I passed the gavel. That didn't work. I'll get it. Thank you. So the green spaces, do they literally
- mean grass or do they mean some kind of special lane? Green means grass. That can be a grass buffer
- or landscaping like undetermined at this point is just a concept.
- holding space for, yeah, some sort of landscaping. So I see in the southeast corner that there is effectively
- no sidewalk? This is shown as a shared use path. Sorry. So this is darker gray that almost looks like
- asphalt color. The idea is that this would be shared use path. So they've used a different color to
- symbolize when it's a wider shared use path. So the kind of more concrete color is sidewalk. And then,
- yeah, this
- If you could use a different color for the darker gray in the future, I think it would be. Because it
- looks like the shadow of the building to the east of it, and I didn't see it at all. So any other color
- might be a little bit better. Secondly, just to get back to Mr. Duncan, what you were saying about a
- path that was a bike path or a car path under the bypass? That is a shared use path.
- So for pedestrian cyclists, those who walk and roll, similar to what we have on High Street or Winslow
- Road or a number of other locations in the city. So this was something that would also take advantage
- of old 37 going through lower cascades. Correct. So this path would only go along old 37 for
- about a tenth of a mile, maybe a quarter mile max. It is simply to get under the bypass and come back
- up on the other side. So there would be a new path on the other side of the bypass where NDOT has property
- between the bypass and the IMI construction quarry. Any other questions? Is this the end of the project
- right here?
- The northern end of the project. This is the northern boundary of the project. So we don't go to the
- 45, 46. OK. Any other questions, Mr. Binder? The island in the middle, I'm interpreting that as probably
- traversable, but a different paving material. Was that the idea here? Drew? These medians would be concrete.
- They could have plantings as long as those are in locations that don't
- obstruct sight lines, but yeah, the idea is that this is a pedestrian median refuge island on all four
- lakes, so you're only able to be crossing one leg of car traffic at a time. Okay. I meant the island
- in the middle. Maybe there's a different technical term that eludes me here, but the circle. The roundabout
- circle, sorry. Yes. Apologies. Yes, that is mountable, so it would probably be designed with like a
- three-inch mountable curb for large vehicles to turn across it or traverse across it, but
- Passenger vehicles, 99% of vehicles that are coming through there are not going to need to traverse
- there. So yeah, it's a truck apron type of material. And it's not a comfortable material for a passenger
- vehicle to drive over. So normal cars driving through there wouldn't circulate normally through the
- roundabout. But when there's a very large vehicle, a semi truck, the idea is that they can traverse
- across that. Yeah, it's mountable. And that's the distinguishing factor between
- a compact roundabout and a single lane roundabout so the circle is fully mountable. Mr. Sasberg? Is
- this compatible with the amount of traffic that's coming off of the bypass so it doesn't back up? Yeah.
- Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? Let's go on to the next design. I have a question. Mr. Drummey.
- This would and I'm not concerned to say, but this would block off the entrances to the gas station.
- So preliminarily what we're seeing right now, they have four driveways into the gas station and we know
- from a pedestrian safety perspective, ideally you would have less driveways to cross and make it a more
- comfortable walking experience. So right now we're showing closing two of those off, but that is something
- that would be figured out in the final design process and would need discussions with the property owner.
- Is it that that's my you know I and I understand why that would be ideal is that a voluntary thing or
- is it can the city take in that city close access if they want. That taking. Ryan. Generally we do it
- voluntarily seven nine. That's a pretty good proxy for this.
- It is something that's on the table, but it's unlikely that. Could you summarize that for people? It
- is possible to do a takings. It's unlikely that that's the option we pursue. Generally, we work with
- property owners and do a voluntarily. We offer improvements that they wouldn't otherwise get, and then
- they close an entrance or two. You can see that on the seven line, we did that quite a bit.
- What's an example of an offering you might make? I don't know. I'm not an engineer. But generally, landscape
- improvements, things like that, we can make a lot of times something that especially gas stations like
- to see is better entrances, meaning you could turn into them better, more smoothly. So things like that.
- We negotiate with the property owner and figure it out from there. Very good. Thank you. Further questions?
- Let's move on to the next. OK.
- The concept location we looked at is 14th and 15th, and so you can see here it's a two-lane cross section.
- You have the shared east path on the east side, the sidewalk on the west side, and this location is
- a greenway. And so what we designed here is a bikeway crossing and a pedestrian crossing at 15th, so
- those don't currently exist today. So the pedestrian crossing would be a raised crosswalk, and the bicycle crossing
- they have a green cross bike so they have green skip stripe markings. And then there would be curb cuts
- where they could then connect into this shared use path to then continue either on 14th or 15th depending
- on which way they're going. So this is a common bicycle boulevard or neighborhood greenway crossing
- design that's used when you have an offset intersection like this. So we thought this was an interesting
- one to show as a template concept because there's a few places where
- intersections are offset and there's not an easy through connection. So this kind of shows how you could
- continue to make that connection for people walking and biking on this green light in this non-standard
- scenario. All right, questions about 15th Street. Is there any bike paths on 15th or they will be just
- going from the street and then they go into the shared path?
- 14th and 15th are low enough traffic that we're not proposing a separated bike facility, so this would
- be more of a shared street. Other questions? Sorry, go ahead. There's other neighborhood greenways in
- the city, right? Yeah. That you could reference as examples, potentially? Like Allen or, I don't know
- if you have others off the top of your head, but. Anybody else?
- I'm wondering about bicyclists heading westbound on 15th Street, but on the multi-use path.
- They are crossing, they're the only people, well, I'm having trouble imagining it. Like first of all,
- if I'm biking on the east side of West 15th Street and I get to Madison Street
- 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
- the side path and I jog down. There's a raised crosswalk to my right, but how slow will traffic be slowed
- down so that I feel safe crossing? So with this size of student volume, you would probably want rectangular
- rapid flashing beacons.
- at a crossing like this so that people can be made aware and that you'd have advanced, you know,
- yield lines. So there'd be a push button activated. Because cars driving northbound are not going to
- be going as slowly as cars going southbound. And so the flashing lights are definitely going to be for
- the benefit of northbound drivers. Is that right? Right, for both northbound and southbound.
- I understand what you're saying is that it's coming southbound, if they're coming across a race crosswalk,
- there's also a physical barrier that's slowing them down, right? Because they have to drive over the
- crosswalk, the race crosswalk, like a speed hump. But it's for both northbound and southbound. OK, but
- the bicycles going westbound in the north lane onto Madison Street is
- sort of more at risk than? I mean, like a bicyclist going eastbound is already in the street.
- I don't know. I don't know that I have a question. I'm worried about this. Yeah, I understand
- your observation that the race crosswalks slow down traffic more for southbound traffic than northbound
- in advance of the crossing. Is that what you're saying? So it's- It wasn't. That's an interesting-
- I think for an eastbound bicyclist, it was closer to the cars coming north. For westbound, it was more
- like, never mind. I don't know. There's going to be some kind of a signal? Possibly. So what Drew was
- talking about is a rapid flashing beacon like we have at Walnut and Allen or at Hillside and Weatherstone.
- where when there is crossing, or at Forth and Rogers currently, where when there is crossing traffic,
- whether it's a pedestrian or cyclist, you can push the button, lights flash rapidly, vehicles are much
- more likely to yield for that crossing traffic. And then there's a diagonal sign to say that there's
- a raised crossing? Yes. On both sides? Okay. Do we have a shared path beyond the screen area?
- So what's happening with the Sherrith Cross? So essentially, big picture. For most of this corridor,
- you have the B line about two blocks east of Rogers Street. Once you get to around 10th, where the B
- line crosses Rogers and goes westbound, that bike network disappears. You have some sections where you
- have striped bike lanes, but that's not our low stress network that we'd like to achieve.
- And so for folks who live up in Maple Heights or in the Kinzer Flats, that area, there is no low stress
- bike network to get them in there. So essentially the priority for adding that separated path is going
- to be from where the beeline crosses Rogers around 10th Street and up north up to Gorley Pike. So while
- we were just showing these specific intersection concepts, the linear parts of
- of the corridor in these improvements will go beyond just this intersection. Any other questions on
- this intersection? You may cover this, but what are the green pedestrian crosswalk looking things? So
- those are the cycling crossings. The cyclists aren't supposed to use the elevated crosswalk? No.
- It makes it simpler so they can simply go from the street to the path. They don't have to make that
- jog there. And then just marking it for them. Why not make that entire intersection elevated? I mean,
- it seems like you got a lot of crossings in a small area. I don't know. Maybe that's a good thing. I
- don't know. Yeah, that's potentially one concept as well. It would be a little bit more complex and
- expensive to make the whole
- intersection race, but it's certainly something we could explore. I like that. Can we, can you give
- us a sense of how much more that is? Not off the top of my head, but anytime you're dealing with a race
- intersection, a race crosswalk, it starts to impact drainage. And so you have to think about how you
- redesign drainage for the intersection. And it's just, it's more complicated when you're doing an entire
- race intersection versus a race crosswalk.
- is really a question of, is there stormwater infrastructure currently there? If there is, then it becomes,
- it is still more expensive, but it becomes much more feasible. If there isn't, then we're talking about
- magnitudes more expense that we could be spending at other locations along the corridor. Thank you.
- Further questions on 15th Street? Can we go on to the next? Is there something on 14th Street that we're gonna
- It's just the same cross section with the shared east path. So really, most of the concept here is showing
- how places and pedestrians are to cross the street here. So yeah, it's showing both intersections of
- the concept, but there's not anything different to see. OK. Let's continue. So the next intersection
- that we have, the concept for is at 6th Street. And so this is to show how we could narrow the intersection
- footprint at a minor street intersection.
- potentially add a raised crosswalk. So currently there's already this splitter island here. What we're
- showing is just adding curb extensions on the east side of the intersection at 6th Street and then adding
- in a raised crosswalk. So the idea is that you're making the intersection more compact. We're also shortening
- all the crossings because right now this is a two-lane cross section with on-street parking.
- So by eliminating that on-street parking that has
- low to no utilization in our study is what we found. We're shortening that crossing and a number of
- people at the public workshops told us that this crosswalk just doesn't feel comfortable as it stands
- today. And so the goal is to make the intersection more compact, shorten those crossings. And then we're
- showing prioritizing one race crossing on the north side. I think per discussion at the last location,
- you could add it also on the south side.
- It's just, you know, for right now, we're kind of showing one because that's those people down at that
- crosswalk as they come into the intersection. Any questions about 6th Street? Just a couple of comments,
- questions. What is the intention here for 6th Street traffic to be right turn only onto Rogers? No straight
- through traffic? Is that the idea? I'm just seeing the right arrow on the
- on the ground? Yeah. I think in a previous concept we had thought about that it's not necessarily in
- this concept we're not restricting traffic. I won't put we also had looked at the potential to put a
- median here, but that didn't make a whole lot of sense for a couple of different reasons. And so I think
- that's just a leftover from that concept. So I think as it's designed right now, we could make it allow
- all turns of this intersection.
- As it stands today, yeah. Just to clarify, are you saying you will return it to straight or right turn?
- Yeah, any movement. As it stands today, you can make any turn from these approaches. And then I guess
- my only other comment would be that I think between this intersection and the one we just discussed
- at 15th Street, if we were to spend the money on a fully raised intersection,
- I think this one would probably be a little more justifiable, just because of the configuration of the
- traffic and the intersections and probably the volume of pedestrian traffic and bike traffic here. I'm
- not saying that based on any numbers, but just my own experience. Yeah, my comment was, or maybe just
- to double check, I think on the sixth to the west, the island is a bit longer now,
- based on what I saw recently. When you're leaving the gas station, I don't think you can, I think the
- visuals on the left, the island is longer, no? The way they're constructing it right now. Sure, so that
- is on Kirkwood. That's just one block south. Yes, right, sorry. But it's longer there, right? Yeah.
- Okay. Other questions about Sixth Street from commissioners? Let's go on to the next intersection.
- The next intersection that we're showing is at 4th Street. This is shown as a raised intersection at
- 4th and a curbless street north of here. So when we had the workshop week and our design shred, we had
- thought that this was a great location to have a fully flushed street because it kind of matches, it's
- parallel to downtown. It seemed to be the most urban, have the most intensity of businesses, and an
- urban feel.
- of all the portions of the corridor so right now what we're proposing is having this be a curbless street
- feel have like the most main street feel I think of any portion of the corridor so that in mind that's
- our proposing starting the raised intersection at 4th Street and this could potentially go up to Kirkwood
- it could also go further up to 6th Street but we were just showing this section as a representative
- intersection so the
- You know, the street could potentially be done in papers or bricks to really create traffic calming
- feel and create a sense of place. But it could also be done in colored concrete or other materials.
- But the idea is that it feels like a more special place than some other portions of the corridor with
- a higher design treatment. That's the concept here. So yeah, kind of that brick red color, that's the
- roadway, these lighter pink
- outside sections, these would be on street parking lanes. And then you have just very wide sidewalks
- in the stretch to support that kind of more downtown feel. Questions on 4th Street? Maybe just
- a clarification. So I know that you discussed it in the past, the different treatment, the brick or
- any other material, but is it just the aesthetics or like there's any function towards that as well,
- this change?
- at pavers also have a traffic calming effect for people driving there's both the visual and auditory
- change as compared to asphalt or concrete so you know you'll see that in a lot of communities on downtown
- streets maybe just on the public square or a few blocks around the down most downtown area they'll do
- it in brick or pavers because it really slows down traffic especially when you have a lot of activity
- in that space but does also yeah not just visual it also has
- a little bit of a traffic calming effect. So instead of brick pavers, does stamp concrete give you the
- same perspective? I mean, brick's pretty expensive. Potentially. I'm not the right person to ask about
- that. I'm not an engineer, but I would speculate that stamp concrete maybe doesn't have the same
- um, strength for driving on as pavers and breaks. But that's, I would need to ask one of our engineers
- about that in more detail. I'm going to ask a question here of staff, I guess. Um, is cost one of our
- concerns? Do we not have an interest as a commission in spreading out, uh,
- improvements across the city. And if cost is a concern and there's no engineer here to answer our questions,
- are we supposed to make a final weigh in tonight? No. Okay. Maybe if you can clarify what the next step
- is in the process for this body. For this body with the study as a whole? Sure. Sure. So over the next
- Excuse me over the next few weeks to month or so staff will be doing Community outreach and review and
- within essentially revising these concepts based on a lot of that review from there we will also be
- Completing the final study document and right now URLs next meeting will be reviewing the final study
- in the revised concepts and
- whether that's to vote on it as a comprehensive document or if you would like to have a separate planning
- session, I think that's something we can discuss. But as of now, that next meeting would be you all
- reviewing revised concepts and a final study. Can I ask because in the packet for the last meeting,
- it showed meeting number four in July. I thought this is our meeting number four and there was no further
- meeting and so I didn't know
- It just said final corridor study here. So you're basically saying there's another meeting planned that
- you intend to have with us. Sorry. The next meeting that I was talking about would be that
- final transportation commission review meeting to review the study as a whole. But if you all would
- like to schedule a separate planning session to talk in more detail about these concepts of the study
- before the entire body hears it and votes on it, we can absolutely do that.
- Okay, I just wanted to know what our options were. Any further questions on the 4th Street intersection,
- Mr. Binder? Is the intention here, because I'm seeing stop lines on Rogers, is the intention here to
- turn 4th and Rogers into a four-way stop? No. Okay. Question? Back to resurfacing. Any alternatives,
- first of all? And then the second question is where it ends. So is it
- Is it 6th Street? Will it be just a chunk of brick and then the rest will be asphalt? Sure. This is
- simply one option of what we could do. And again, we are not showing the entire corridor linearly. And
- so if we all like, this could expand as far up as the trades district. Because you have the brick streets
- up there that could combine very cohesively up there. But again, you're talking about a large street
- reconstruction project, so cost is definitely
- a factor. Can we discuss in the future in some way alternatives to it, which can help, not as well,
- but I think the cost as well is a big concern. Yes. Further questions on 4th Street and North? Now let's
- go on to the next. Sorry, just one quick comment about this cross section.
- I think I would be supportive of this type of street treatment, but primarily if it were maybe combined
- with a kind of long-term vision for changes in the immediate surrounding land use. I see surface parking,
- a drive-through bank, a gas station on this block, multiple drive cuts, none of which are really things
- that pair well with this kind of investment
- the street treatment, I think. So I would love to see this. And I would love to see it all over the
- city. But I think it would make the most sense to include that as part of a sort of vision
- for the surrounding land use, as well as the street cross-section. Can a commissioner propose changes
- to zoning that are in conjunction with
- a redesign of the street. That might be a question for planning. Ryan Roebling, you should probably
- just sit at the table with us. I don't know why you don't. You can be Leslie Davis. Okay, that took
- long enough that I forgot your question. Can you repeat your question? So Mr. Binder just suggested
- that there's a lot of gaping holes where buildings used to be. If a commissioner wanted to recommend
- changes to zoning that go with the change of the street use or the street design, would that be appropriate?
- The direct answer to your question is no, this commission, I mean, this commission can make a recommendation
- on whichever, it's not really in their purview, plan commission is specifically tasked by the state
- to do that. However, this document is unique, Hank can correct me if I'm wrong, but future land use
- planning is a portion of this.
- So a recommendation in that document would be appropriate. And what is expected to already be part of
- it. In this report or in the, which document? In this final report. In the final report for the Rogers
- Medicine Kinser Corridor Study. And this will have an impact on the Plan Commission? It'll be a document
- that we reference moving forward to the Plan Commission, yes. Mr. Binder? So I was just going to clarify then that
- the final version of this report is intended for our commission, but also for planning commission and
- other commissions and staff and so forth. Yeah, ultimately this commission is the final body for this
- specific report. It will lead up to other decisions by other bodies. So we'll turn to the transportation
- plan and comprehensive plan and bring those forward to the planning commission. So yes. Great, thank you.
- For the question. Last question, maybe just in the city, where else do we have any similar treatment
- or treatment you're referring to when you said long term we can connect to other streets or places so
- it will be more coherent? So you have further south of here, the Hopeville Commons area that was just
- built. That's your curbless brick street just west of the Kroger area and east of Rogers. And then further
- north, you have the trades district area, which is also a flush
- brick and curbless. Thanks. Mr. Sasper. Yeah. Aobahn was mentioning relative traffic. I pulled up the
- Strava heat map, which has bike traffic through the area. In all four of these intersections, 4th, Kirkwood,
- 6th, and 7th are all high-traffic crossings. So in terms of something like this, which will slow down
- traffic for this in that relative corridor,
- make sense to invest more for safety, particularly in that area, because there's a lot of bicycle, a
- lot of bicycle traffic crossing Rogers throughout four adjacent streets. Further questions or observations
- at this point from commissioners? If not, let's go on to the next intersection. Okay, so the
- next intersection we looked at is kind of a bigger section, but we looked at
- and then we took a look down 3rd Street as part of this couple of studies that we also looked at 3rd
- Street down to Walnut. And so I'll start at Rogers and move my way. Where we orient this first? Yeah,
- this is the 3rd and Rogers intersection. Okay, we're still here on the left side of the train. North
- is still up, yeah, sorry. I know we've put north to the right on some of these three previously. Yep,
- north is still up. This is the 3rd Rogers intersection. This is 3rd Madison.
- over here, and then I can scroll over. This is a big role plot poster of the design. So right now, third
- has four motor vehicle lanes, and has a left turn lane at the intersection. But the traffic volumes
- are about 6,000 vehicles per day, which is a very, very small amount of traffic for that much roadway
- space. So it's very overbuilt with that much traffic.
- even a two or three lane cross section can carry 20 to 25,000 motor vehicles per day. And that four
- or five lane cross section could carry potentially 40,000 vehicles per day. So with 6,000, it's very
- overbuilt. And so there's excess capacity and space that we can repurpose. So the concept here shows
- these kind of dark gray or almost black, these are sidewalk level separated bike lanes.
- And then you have the sidewalk here and then you would have a landscape buffer. So we're changing the
- cross section to a two or three line cross section at the intersection where you need this left turn
- lane onto Rogers. But all that additional extra space that was to outside motor vehicle travel lanes
- can be used to put in sidewalk level separate bike lanes and a better buffer from the sidewalk as well.
- So that's the concept there.
- And then as you move east at Madison, we would transition to the sidewalk level separated bike lanes
- to in-street separated bike lanes to go under the B line over here. And then as you get to college,
- we would continue those separated bike lanes. And then at Walnut, you would go back to the existing
- four or five lane cross-section, depending where you look, of Third Street.
- So in this concept, the westbound approach for Third Street, as you come to Walnut, that outside lane
- would now be a dedicated right turn lane because you don't have one through lane continuing through
- this section of third between College and Walnut. And those outside lanes would be repurposed for separated
- bike lanes. So the overall concept is to repurpose that excess space for separated bike lanes if we just use
- slightly different types of separate bike lanes, either in-street or sidewalk level, depending on the
- condition. So that's the overall concept for third street. Wow. Comments or questions for Mr. Finder?
- One, I guess, concern or perhaps objection I have to this, which overall looks great, by the way. But
- one thing that maybe bothers me a little bit here is that
- The separated bike lanes on the section of 3rd Street between Madison and College, they go, if I understand
- this correctly, under the beeline, where the roadway is currently, they don't connect with the beeline.
- Is that right? So we have, what we've shown right here in this southeast corner of the Madison Street
- intersection is extending this shared east path that does connect up to the beeline. So that would be
- one place where there is a connection to connect up there.
- You're right because this is a you know underpass and it's going down under the beeline We're really
- just repurposing the motor vehicle traveling and so the connection would be at this sidewalk level here
- It were part of it exists, but it doesn't go all the way to Madison So this would propose you know extending
- that all the way to Madison Thank you I think I would just maybe encourage the team to
- consider ways to make the connectivity between east-west bike lanes on 3rd Street and the B line to
- be a little more straightforward, a little less awkward, especially for, say, if you're coming south
- on the B line, you want to turn west, turn right onto 3rd Street. It's just a little awkward to do that.
- And there's not really any inherent value in having these cycle lanes go under the B line when
- I mean, I understand for cost reasons, and if you're reducing the motor vehicle traffic lanes to one
- in each direction, then you have the roadway space to do that. But it doesn't exactly improve connectivity
- to the beeline itself. And I understand this whole explanation about the side path on the south side
- of there. But I would just hope there would be maybe some thought given to better ways to connect to
- the beeline here, because I think that's a real opportunity
- Are there questions or comments from commissioners on Third Street? I was going to say this
- is a Rogers-Madison-Kinzer study, but this is going four blocks east, and I think this is perhaps the
- biggest news of the entire corridor study. Are you guys allowed to go this far east? What gives?
- Yes. So the impetus for this is that engineering is going to work on third and Madison and third and
- Rogers intersections this coming year to do some signal replacements. And while we look at
- those intersections, we're changing curb line, we're changing the geometry. And so if we're changing
- these two intersections already,
- We should also look at the bigger picture of this area and work with it comprehensively with these other
- projects that are going on. Can you scroll over to the block between College and Walnut? So now news
- came today that this block is closing for construction of the Convention Center. Are we taking advantage
- of, we're not going to take advantage of that to redo the block?
- Again, this is very much in the conceptual design phase. The public has just had the first opportunity
- to see this. The end product of the study is not going to be that all of these concepts are ready for
- construction. It is an opportunity for when there is funding available to begin an engineering design
- contract to then construct it. But for this specific concept, especially the areas closer to Rogers
- and Madison, there are funds for construction along with the signal replacement.
- How far east will that stretch is a question of what bids we get with this project? Last question I
- have is you said that traffic counts on the block west of Rogers was only 6,000 cars a day. What are
- the counts like down here? So essentially west of college is where the traffic counts
- drop off a good amount. That's what Drew was talking about, where the counts are around 6,000. Drew,
- do you have counts available for East of College? I can give estimates, but I didn't know if you had
- numbers. I don't think we had any zip bit collected, so if you have some. I don't have anything offhand.
- East of Walnut is where they jump up quite a bit, because right now you have a lot of traffic
- Third then traveling north south on college and walnut and so west west of college is where the traffic
- numbers drop off east of walnut This is a very very rough estimate. I would guess about 15 to 17,000
- cars a day Just a counterpoint to mr. Binder's comment about the
- beeline trail. I find this level of connectivity sufficient to me. This is the world I want to live
- in where you have bike lanes traveling under bike lanes. We certainly have roads for cars with bridges
- that travel under each other, and we're not always trying to connect them at that point. I think if
- you're on a longer journey, you can find a way to navigate that doesn't involve being on the bridge
- and looking down and wondering how you're going to get there. So it's OK with me. But to be clear,
- This design does include at least one way to get off the Beeline Bridge and onto East or Westbound Road.
- Right. It doesn't start to make a cloverleaf or something where you can get accomplished every different
- direction. Yeah. At this corner of college as well, we've shown widening the sidewalk to be a multiuse
- path to make a better connection there as well. But all these things are kind of contingent on discussions
- with the property owners.
- In the current state, there's nothing impeding it. There's no building in the way. But in this case,
- there's a wall here, a retaining wall. And over here, there's maybe some utilities in the way, but there's
- not an actual building running right there. So like Hank said, the concept is an idea. This would be
- ideal. But some of these improvements are outside of the right of way that we're showing. Further questions?
- The question will be what will end up in the final report? Like the whole thing and will we be voting
- for the whole thing or like for just the part which is closer to the corridor? True. What part will
- end up in the final report? Yeah, like in the final proposal. Like will it be like this whole part of
- third street or like it will be just the part which is closer to the corridor just because this whole
- project is around about corridor? Will we vote for the whole thing? So for all everything you proposed?
- just now, or like proposing. As it stands right now, we're planning on including all of this. I think
- that's maybe a question for Hank. It was included in a scope of work that we would also look at this
- section of Third Street. Great to do a research and plan, of course, if you've got resources. Is it
- correct to say that the stuff east of Madison is light green to show that it's potential future, whereas
- the dark green is what's intended to be built?
- By East Madison, do you mean the highlights around the protected bike lane and some of the walls? I
- don't know. That's what we're trying to figure out. It's just a different symbology. So this is just
- showing that these would be concrete median islands separating bike lanes. So it doesn't indicate that
- one is short term or one is long term. It's just a different way to symbolize as dark green as landscaping space.
- This lighter green is the curb liner edging pavement. And these light gray is a concrete median island.
- So we haven't discussed what's short term, what's long term. It's more just to start getting the concept
- on paper. I think this ends your question. Yeah. Thank you. So I have a question. Mr. Connick. So we
- have traffic counts from Madison to Rogers on 3rd Street. I would need.
- to look up the exact block where we got traffic counts, whether it's from College to Madison or Madison
- to Rogers, but it's at least one of those two blocks we have traffic counts for. I mean, it would be
- good to know all those from College to Rogers. Agreed. So we can have those provided to us in time for
- the final report? Yeah. OK. Further questions before we move on? Let's keep going south. All right.
- So moving further south.
- We have shown the Dodd Street intersection as another concept. At this location, we've now moved the
- Charities Path to the west side, because it matches the Charities Path that starts at Patterson,
- headed south, all the way to City Limits. And so, you know, the transition, we haven't decided exactly
- where that transition would be, because we have designed everything, but potentially in the, somewhere,
- you know, around Second Street, I would imagine.
- a good location for that. So this concept shows where we have kind of a more compact intersection, a
- more narrow right of way, a very constrained right of way really, how we can still fit in two lanes,
- a slightly wider sidewalk, and a multi-use path. So there's a few blocks in the section around downstream
- where we have the narrowest right of way of anywhere on the corridor, and we still want to achieve the
- project goals. And so this
- This concept shows how we can potentially do that at the Dodd Street intersection and intersections
- that are similar to this area. So currently, it's an all-way stop so we're not changing that. We're
- just showing widening the sidewalk on the west side into a shared-use path. Questions on Dodd Street?
- OK. So the shared-use path is on the west side of Rogers in this area?
- So there is a shared use path from Country Club to Patterson on the west side of Rogers. And this would
- essentially extend that path further north. And are you going to, how are you going to do that? I mean,
- you're going to move the path out into the roadway? I mean, all that sidewall in there has retaining
- walls on there. I mean. Yeah.
- sidewalk on both sides of the cross section and it would widen the sidewalk into the street. Because
- in some places currently there is an on-street parking length here so the pavement is a little bit wider
- than this currently. As we saw in our parking utilization counts, the amount of parking in that space
- is very little or zero on most blocks in all the periods that we checked. So repurposing that space
- to widen the sidewalk. So this doesn't
- change the back of sidewalk in this section. And that goes all the way to 3rd Street on that side? For
- this section, no. Our proposal was to extend it up to, I believe, 1st Street is where the existing bike
- lanes start in the Hopel area. So between 1st and 2nd, you have the
- the new existing protected bike lanes and then north of second we were not proposing any shared use
- path or any additional bicycle infrastructure. North of second street there's no infrastructure. Bike
- lanes north of there. Correct. But it is extending bike lanes from the south. Correct. So what happens
- when you hit the second street? You go down to the B line? So our
- Proposal was with the with the incoming second Street protected by claims that are being built right
- now folks could go from Rogers from second to the beeline Or continue to use the street if they want
- to So it kind of makes that connection at the beeline third Street a little bit more important Correct
- For the questions on dot Street
- Okay, let's move on. So the next concept that we have is at Patterson Street. And this is a place where
- you have a little bit more right away. And so we're showing a single lane roundabout in this section
- as a potential concept. This does potentially require, similar to Gorley Pike, a little bit of easements
- for shared east paths and sidewalks on the edge of the roadway.
- there's a little bit more right of way and there's a little bit more traffic volume size for your traffic
- volume with Patterson. And so the nice thing about single lane roundabout here is that it calms traffic
- on both East-West for Patterson as well as Rogers and keeps those speeds lower to keep everybody safer
- at the intersection. So we also have coming from the East, there is a shared use path along Patterson.
- So that connects into here as well.
- And that's also why we have the extension of the shared eastbound on the west side in this section.
- So we're making that connection east-west to Patterson, but also to the south on Patterson where it
- continues. So single-lane roundabout, you can see here the larger circle that's showing how the red
- brick crosshatch that would be mountable for large trucks. But the green center circle could have landscaping
- in it or a gateway treatment.
- of a car, that kind of thing, because it doesn't need to be traversable or mountable by large vehicles.
- So this is both a safety and traffic operations improvement potentially over the existing signalized
- intersection. Questions on Patterson. Mr. Binder. I'm curious what your methodology was in determining
- the size of this tram, about the diameter of it.
- This uses a standard inscribed circle diameter for a single-lane roundabout using design best practices.
- So there's some flexibility, and I think we want as small as you possibly can. Whereas at Gorley Pike,
- that's a compact roundabout. And the reason for that is because there's not as much space. So you need
- to use a compact roundabout to make the circle smaller, but then the full circle needs to be mountable.
- essentially as small as you can get with a single lane roundabout. And some of the benefits of having
- a single lane roundabout is that you get a little bit more deflection and slowing of vehicles as they
- approach the roundabout. You can have larger median refuge islands and they have a little bit more capacity
- than a compact roundabout. And then also the accommodating truck turns without them having to traverse
- and drive over
- I guess I I don't totally understand why there's kind of this hard delineation between what is considered
- a mini roundabout versus a single-lane roundabout to me in my head again not an engineer but in my met
- in my mind there's just a sort of continuum of there's compact roundabouts that are on the larger side
- there's single-lane roundabouts that are on the smaller side but you're kind of
- saying you're sort of suggesting that actually there's kind of a distinct set of categories for sizes
- of roundabouts, or at least in engineering best practices. Is that right? Generally speaking, and the
- biggest difference is whether or not you have a center median island that has a vertical curve and something
- in it that can't be tripped over. So that's really the distinction between what's a compact roundabout
- and what's a single lane roundabout.
- I just bring this topic up because the city's constructed several roundabouts in the past with you know
- fairly high capacities in mind and I think in retrospect some of those were probably built to be too
- large and so I'm just wondering if this is kind of if the design if the size of this was informed by
- you know some of the previous roundabouts that have been built in the city I mean I'm not gonna
- get into citing examples, but I'd like to hear the answer to that question. Yeah, we haven't looked
- at other comparisons of roundabouts around the second city, but this is the best practice to use a single
- lane roundabout versus a dual lane roundabout. I mean, that dual lane roundabout would be excessive
- and a dual lane roundabouts have their own safety issues. In some cases, depending on how they're assigned,
- they can potentially degrade pedestrian crossings because now you have a multiple threat condition.
- where there's two vehicles yielding to crossing pedestrians or bicyclists. So we prefer only ever going
- as big as a single lane roundabout, because that means that as a pedestrian or bicyclist, you're only
- ever crossing one lane of one direction of traffic. So that's sort of our controlling standard. And
- then as far as how it's designed, that is using best practices in roundabout design, the engineers, my firm.
- put that together using industry standards. I think the decision as to when you use a compact versus
- a single lane really has to do with how much intersecting traffic there is, as well as how much space
- there is. So they operate similarly, but a compact roundabout can't handle quite as much traffic volume.
- And it's more of a kind of collector street or minor arterial type of treatment, whereas
- If you have the intersection of two arterials, then a single-lane roundabout is a little more appropriate
- for that context. Thanks. And just to be clear, I was not by any means arguing for a multi-lane roundabout
- here. I don't think that would be appropriate. Although I would be curious to know if any of these streets
- are actually categorized as arterials, because I would think they would be categorized as collector streets.
- I would need to look that up real fast, but in terms of truck routes, that's what we have been looking
- at in terms of turning movements and what we could put a single lane roundabout on, a compact roundabout,
- or if we're just doing a single geometric change, which you'll see later, and Grimes-Patterson is a
- truck route. Rogers is not defined as a truck route,
- We know that a lot of big trucks use this route. And so we need to have the ability for those larger
- trucks to make these turning movements. Whereas, say, at Gorley, that is obviously not a truck route.
- That is a much smaller street with lower volumes. And so that is another big reason why we can put a
- compact roundabout up there, but not over here. OK, thanks. That clears it up for me. The takeaway for
- me is that Patterson is a more major crossing street than Gorley.
- Okay. I would need to check. I don't. Oh, I think I think I think Shelley has a comment here. Yeah.
- I just about that. So Corley Pike, we have an east west route that that goes through that intersection.
- So that contact roundabout with the bus needs to go over
- So like median treatment every time. I would have to check their engineers around. Yeah. I think there's
- enough room for fire trucks and buses to go around, but it's for like a large semi truck that they have
- to mount it. But I have to tell which I can get back to you. OK. Yeah, we'll need to know the further
- questions or comments from commissioners on Patterson. I wanted to, well, I mean, when they built
- Sarah and Rogers, it was the Champs-Élysées in comparison to this. I mean, it was built to be a two-lane
- roundabout. And I think that we've since corrected that. But it's still the dimensions of a two-lane
- roundabout, even though it's been reduced to one that's just a much larger circle, right? So am I correct
- in looking at the satellite image of this intersection? And am I correct in assuming that there's some
- land that would have to be acquired to the northeast of this intersection? It seems like a vacant lot,
- but I mean, are you concerned about being able to get it, or is that why you designed it this way?
- I mean, there is always concern about land acquisition in any project. If, whether it's here or in other
- areas of this project, if that becomes a barrier, then we can redesign as needed. But right now, because
- we're still in the conceptual design,
- we would like to design what is physically feasible and this is feasible. Okay. Uh, I just want to say,
- this has gotta be my favorite thing. I've called the project and I just liked third street, but, uh,
- this intersection has been crying out for around about four years. It's just so, so big. And, uh, now
- I have a sense of, I've always wondered what it,
- how much land it took to build a roundabout, and now I know that there's a term called compact roundabout.
- That may be my next new favorite thing, but for now, I'm excited about this. Is there more? Should we
- go for it? Mrs. Cheruchko. What's happening with this shared use bus? It's just ending. Which part?
- Sorry. Will it just end there on the left, from the north to the west? Yeah, this part. What's happening
- with the ending of it? Will it be just?
- Handling there, or? There is an existing shared use map to the west on Patterson, so I'm not sure how
- far that goes. Maybe it just goes a few more blocks. But it connects at least to the E line to the east.
- And then it goes maybe a few more blocks to the west. So we're just kind of showing tying into it. So
- we haven't designed it all the way there. OK, so it goes to Fairview. So yeah, it would continue as
- it was or tie into it at some point over here.
- So compact roundabouts, just for everybody's knowledge or information, whatever, is that similar to
- the one that's on Morris Pike there? Was that Renwick or whatever it's called? Yeah. Is that a compact
- roundabout? Good question. Those would be single lane roundabouts because there is an island in the
- middle. You cannot fully mount those roundabouts. Compact roundabout, there is no island in the middle,
- so fire trucks,
- buses, semis, could go over them if need be. So to follow up on this question, is the Morse pipe round
- about the same diameter? I don't know. I would have to check. Is that what you're asking? Yeah, if it's
- the same as the Compaq. Because it's pretty tight. We'd like to know that for the last meeting, yeah.
- Is he pretty tight because you drive too fast, Mr. Compaq? Not on my page.
- Further questions on Patterson, Mr. Duncan? If you give me 15 seconds, I can find out the diameter.
- That'd be great. I guess we could use Google measure distance to do that. Mr. Stossford? That's what
- he's done. It looks like it's about 100, 130 feet, 125 to 130 feet. Compared to? From outside curb to
- outside curb. And then this one is? Drew?
- I think the ICD inscribed circle diameter, which is the outer ring of the roundabout, I think is 100
- feet. On this one, I have to check with Wally. So this would be about 30 feet smaller in diameter. And
- the Morris Pike Rounding. Correct. Further questions? Let's move on south. So the next intersection
- that we designed is Rockport Drive.
- And this one is a little sticky. This one, again, has narrow right-of-way. The right-of-way just gets
- narrower on this southern end. Depending where you are, sometimes it opens up intersections. At this
- intersection, it's pretty tight. And so what we're showing here is some minor changes to try to make
- the intersection more compact, organize the traffic a little bit better, and slow traffic as it goes
- through the intersection. So initially we had
- looked at testing even a compact roundabout. There's just not enough space, given the available right
- of way. And so what we're showing here is adding a northbound dedicated left turn lane. Today there
- is a northbound through lane and actually a dedicated right turn lane into the street to the east, which
- is really not needed. The traffic volume is very low for that dedicated right turn lane. So we're adding
- this dedicated left turn lane
- that outside lane to a through right turn lane and then that allows us to have a striped median on the
- north side here and just better organize the intersection and get left turning vehicles out of through
- traffic so that they don't back up the through traffic and create a safety issue. What we're also showing
- here is adding another crosswalk on the north leg of the intersection. There's no crosswalk on this
- north leg today so this would add in a new crosswalk there.
- Although that is very similar to the existing cross-section, but make a couple of minor tweaks to make
- things more compact and better organize traffic through the intersection. Questions about Rockport Road?
- I don't love the right turn angle from Rogers to Rockport. I feel like if we're trying to be safety
- minded here,
- we should be trying to aim for a closer to a kind of 90 degree approach. And I think there's definitely
- some potential here for at such a shallow angle, you know, a conflict between right turning traffic
- from Rogers and the multi use path. Um, and then the other thing I would say is, uh, it doesn't seem
- like there's any reason to not have a
- Port Concrete Island on Rogers for the crosswalk on the north side of the intersection here versus just
- a painted one. But yeah, I don't know. This intersection has been a problem for a long time. And I don't
- live in this area, but I have plenty of friends who do. And I don't think anybody really likes this
- intersection, so I hope that if we are going to try to
- improve it, we can do as much as possible. Further comments or questions on Rockport? Mr. Minus, I take
- it you'll speak up when you have a question, right? Yes, I will. I'm good now. I have a similar concern
- to Mr. Binder only from coming from the south or rather coming off of Rockport turning right to going
- southbound.
- There seems to be just the same kind of curve that encourages a fast move by a car. And yet I see the
- west crosswalk, the north-south, like there's only stripes. The west side of that path is the right
- width, but the right side is way too wide. Why wouldn't this intersection call for closer in,
- 90 degree turns onto and off of Rockport Road. Intersection realignment. Intersection realignment. Well,
- slightly, yeah. What does that mean? You're not... Rockport's side could be moved north slightly, and
- maybe I noticed the turning radius is larger on the west than the east side.
- I don't know how you answered my question. No, maybe I'm not. So if you want to make it 90 degrees,
- then if you're coming southbound or you're coming northbound on Rockport Road, you'd have to go veer
- to the west and then come back to the. OK, say that again. If I'm coming northbound on Rockport. Rockport
- to get it to be 90 degrees without taking out the gas pumps or gas tanks, whatever it is. It must be
- in that little island up there.
- So if you're coming northbound on Rockport, you'll have to go to the west, angle to the west, and then
- come back to the. OK. Mr. Parker, if you would point that cursor on the southeast corner of the striped
- crosswalk to the west, right there. Yeah. Why is that spot not made? Why is that still for cars?
- Yeah, because of the truck turning template. So I think for trucks, this is a very sharp turn for even
- 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
- radius. So what I think we think is one option would be to put in a truck apron in this section where
- passenger vehicles have to turn around it, but trucks can track over it, similar to what we showed before
- or are about to show on the next one.
- I think we could definitely look into. Yeah, I would. I for one would like you to do that. I I'm. I
- I get the problem of a truck turning and I take it that's the same issue with the north side of that.
- Crosswalk as well. It's a truck issue. Yeah. So you say you can put aprons in that might. You know.
- deter the faster car driver. Right. While still allowing the truck to make the turn. Is this like the
- eastbound on Third Street turning onto Patterson? There's an apron there? It's just like that? Okay.
- Yes, I would be interested in seeing that integrated into the design. Mr. Binder. What about moving
- the stop lines back on, especially on Rockport,
- and then shifting the multi-use paths crosswalk a little bit further west so that the distance is a
- lot shorter and it's not so far out towards the edge of the, into the intersection. Do you understand
- what I'm saying? Because if you look at how large radius those curves are, I mean, I don't think normally
- you'd want a multi-use path that close to the
- corner in the first place, you'd want it shifted a little bit away from the intersection so that the
- overall length of the crosswalk is the shorter crossing distance. Do you understand what I mean, guys?
- I see that that makes it shorter crossing distance, but it feels like you also become less visible to
- the cars on Rogers as you move the crossing further.
- So that's something we're about to see on the country club concept. And what exists now is the crosswalks
- are a little bit set far set back. And there are pros and cons to it. There are pros, like you were
- saying, but there are also cons, like Mark's saying, where you are a little bit less visible. So that's
- something we can talk about more. Yeah. I mean, one way you saw that is with signal timing, right, is
- you separate out the phases. So there's no right turn on red.
- crossing signal for the multi-use path and so forth. Further questions? I was going to ask, is our new
- friend the compact roundabout feasible here? No, we looked into that and there's less right-of-way here
- than at Gorilla Bike, so it doesn't quite fit. We tested that at the design workshop. Works too bad.
- It's also very hard when you have a skewed
- leg coming into a roundabout like that because you need to create the space for the turning maneuvers
- and now you're creating another obstruction for a truck to have to circulate around and it just, it's
- very challenging. So we did try it many times and it did not, without acquiring significant right away,
- did not fit. Okay. Any other questions? Let's move south to the next intersection.
- So the last concept I have to show you today is at Country Club Drive. And like some of these other
- ones that we talked about, we also tried test fitting a compact roundabout here. But because Country
- Club, similar to Patterson, my understanding is a truck route where we have to design it for large trucks
- to move through there, we need to have a larger circle for the roundabout. And it just, we weren't able
- to fit that. So we did try and we tweaked it, went back and forth a number of times.
- in review and it just took up too much space and had too many, yeah, too much additional right-of-way
- acquisition was required for it to really be a feasible concept. So the other concept that we came up
- with is to add truck aprons at all the corners and really make this intersection a lot more compact.
- Like Hank mentioned, I think it already exists, I can't remember where he said, they're in Patterson,
- I think I thought you heard you say. So like already exists in the city and like we could look at Barackport
- The idea being that trucks can still make these right turns, but passenger vehicles will be slowed down
- significantly with those truck aprons because you need to track around them. So that's the overall concept
- here is just making a more compact and slower intersection and make it more comfortable to cross as
- a person walking or biking. Questions on Country Club from commissioners?
- Could you remind me once again, what is the downside of using more hidden inwards? What is the word
- for this? The crosswalks? For the crosswalks, yes. The previous example was more visible, and now it's
- like, yeah. Yeah, so this just came up last week. There's some research that shows that for right-turning
- vehicles, there's a sweet spot of having about 16 feet or less
- from the curb return to the crosswalk for motor vehicle drivers to not already be speeding up. So if
- you are within that window of 16 feet or less, then drivers are still making their turn and they're
- not yet speeding up. And if you're a little further back, then now they're accelerating through the
- crosswalk, which you really don't want. And so I think that's kind of what, I think, I don't know who
- mentioned it, but when you start to set back the crosswalks too far,
- that right turning speed can just get higher. And we want as low of a speed as possible at the crosswalk.
- So when they're closer to the intersection, then that's the slowest. And with a small curve rate, it's
- the slowest speed that we can achieve. Does that answer your question? Yeah. Thanks. So one car length,
- roughly? Yeah. We usually use 20 as a rule of thumb for car length, but yeah, 16.
- and what type of car you're talking about. What kind of boat are you driving? All right. Further questions
- on Country Club? All right. Well, if that concludes all the intersections, how do we sum up in general?
- What's the next thing you want us to consider? Do you mean for the study or with these concepts? I'm sorry.
- trying to wrap it up here so I think I have everything I need for this evening I've been taking notes
- and we'll go through this recording again to look over the comments but I think we have what we need
- to take the Commission's thoughts into consideration and then we'll also combine that with the overall
- public and stakeholder feedback to rise to these designs and get back to you
- Can I get just a general sense from commissioners of their thoughts on this, Mr. Binder? Actually, I
- just had a question rather than a comment, which is, are there going to be any additional concepts for
- any additional intersections or cross-sections of the corridor between now and then when we see the
- final? In other words, at the actual plan commission meeting where we are reviewing the, are we going
- to see a role plot of the entire corridor
- with every intersection designed or, yeah. Not with every intersection designed. So earlier this summer,
- you all saw some typical cross-sections. That's what you'll see to fill in those gaps of the
- major intersections. So Mr. Stosberg asked me about the Rogers and Seventh intersection earlier. While
- that intersection is not going to be designed like what we had
- this evening, those linear aspects will be included in those typical cross sections. And all of these
- concepts are simply a menu of options that we can choose at various intersections. So we are not prescribed
- to do this at this intersection or that at that intersection. These are options that we could choose
- at various types of intersections along the corridor. I guess the reason I bring that up is because
- two intersections I was hoping to see concepts for were 11th Street
- and also where the B line crosses Rogers. And we didn't see either of those. And that's okay. I mean,
- this was already a lot and that's awesome. And also Drew, I just want to say thank you for doing all
- this. I know I've been very critical, but I think that's like the kind of critique you guys were hoping
- to receive. So hope you don't take it personally. But I would still love to see some discussion of 11th
- Street and also where the B line crosses Rogers.
- It's not an actual design. That is something we can mention in the APACA report. When you say discussion
- of it, are you saying you want to redesign? I mean, there are two pretty major intersections on the
- corridor. And I guess I don't understand why we wouldn't talk about those two. It just seems kind of
- arbitrary to me to talk about 15th Street, say, but not 11th Street, or 4th and Rogers, but not
- where the beeline crosses Roger. I don't know, to me it just seems kind of like, I don't understand
- the methodology used to determine what, you know, which particular concepts we were reviewing tonight
- versus what's making it to the final board versus what's just a cross section and it'll just be designed
- at some point in the vague future. Isn't there a department complex going in there where the beeline
- crosses Rogers that you talked about before, so it'd be good to see that intersection. Sure, sure, but
- I think the broader point is, I guess, I don't understand why
- I don't understand what the priority was for these particular intersections versus, you know, versus
- some others that I think we have mentioned as ones that are important to consider. Sure. So essentially
- it's the scope of work included 10 intersections to be designed and included in the final report. We're
- at those 10 in terms of how those 10 were chosen. It's subjective. Okay. Okay.
- Because we only could afford 10, is that it? Yes. OK, thanks. That's the answer I was looking. I mean,
- if that's the answer, that's the answer. That's kind of disturbing, to be frank. Because I have to agree
- with Mr. Binder that those are two important intersections, that it just seems remiss to not also study them.
- I mean, I appreciated the 15th Street change, but yikes. There's something we can do to get those two
- thrown in at this point. So I mean, that is something that Ryan and I can talk about after this meeting.
- But my question would be, where is the line on what intersections we have a design for in the report
- and which ones we don't, because there are
- comments we've gotten from the public about almost every single intersection along the corridor. And
- at that point, you are designing a full corridor, which is it simply costs a lot more than what we're
- doing. And when there are only so many options of improvements that we could choose for these intersections.
- I mean, I don't know about other commissioners, but I feel sort of an obligation to be able to explain
- what we did or how we advised you, you know,
- and that we're going to be people who may find ourselves having to defend the choices that we talked
- about in these meetings. I imagine you were incorporating metrics like crashes and intersections or
- volumes. That's defensible. Well, if we have the data, I mean, if you can provide us that data so that
- we can, will that be in the final report? It can be. What's that?
- It can be good. I think it's necessary. Like at the very least we should be able to explain why you
- made the choices you made. Sure. And then I guess just a quick follow on that. Just to clarify the 10
- intersections that we saw tonight concepts for were those 10 selected by staff or were they selected
- by tool. It was a combined discussion but at the end of the day it was staff. OK. Further final questions.
- I think as a follow up, so if we compare 15th and 7th, like how would we choose, like how would we prioritize
- them? Like why would we choose the 15th street compared to 7th street, which we discussed just now?
- Sure, between those two specifically? Sure, so we tried to choose intersections along the entirety of
- the corridor, and so because we were already focusing on 6th and Rogers in the near west side area,
- We also wanted to show something for the Maple Heights Neighborhood Association as well. So up in that
- area between 11 to 17. A little bit. Yes. That's part of it too. One more related question and then
- I'll I promise I'll stop. When this actually gets to high resolution engineering design. You know contractor
- ready construction ready designs.
- Is the idea that ultimately those other intersections will have been designed and then the entire corridor
- would be built in a single, more or less a single phase, or would this be broken out into a lot of different
- little separate phases and kind of rebuilt piecemeal? Very likely it's the latter, simply because of
- how much we're looking at. Again, if there is a
- giant federal grant that we can get, we're going to try to get it. But a lot of these intersections
- in linear parts of the project, because we're not looking at something like a larger road diet,
- for example, because this is already a two lane street, we can easily do this piecemeal intersection
- by intersection. I mean, kind of, right? Because I think what could happen, I guess, is
- You know, we could wind up with segments of Rogers that have a new side path, and then there's a segment
- that doesn't have a side path yet, and then another segment that has a side path, and so forth. It sounds
- like that may just be how it is, but I think we should just all understand that's maybe what our expectation
- should be, is that it's not like once the construction of this gets going,
- At some point, there will be a full side path along all of Rogers. That's going to take some time in
- multiple design and construction phases. Mr. Coppock, could you let us know what other intersections,
- like we mentioned before, that are part of some other project that may have some design already in place,
- like 11th Street or something like that, or 2nd Street or Kirkwood,
- Sure. I probably don't have the full list off the top of my head, but I can, I can absolutely get it
- to you by our next meeting. Well, or just something, you know, when we have to report, it'd be good
- to know if these other intersections are having some changes made to them. I mean, let us see. It seems
- pretty important. Okay. Is there any public comment? Would you come to the microphone? Please state
- your name.
- I was just wondering, okay, is there anyone who would like to make a motion to allow public comment?
- Second. We have motion and second. All in favor please say aye. Opposed say nay.
- You may speak, you'll have three minutes. Okay, I'm Jill Bird. I live in Prospect Hill, so this is my
- corridor. I'm on a foot bike car all the time. I did fill out a very detailed response to your survey
- online. I hope that that is read and attention is paid. Can you flip through them or should I just try
- to talk about each? Okay, well the first one, there's some areas where there's green space to narrow.
- the street and at least one area, there is a right turn area. Anytime a car, which intersection are
- we talking about? The very first one. Yeah. Anytime a car can make a left turn, I think there should
- be more than one lane. The new work that was done on Rogers. When I turn left to go home, cars are backing
- up behind me because you built a great big green space.
- and I now have one lane. So I would avoid that any time possible. The Madison one, I agree with Steve's
- concern about westbound traffic and how you have to make that little jog to get back on the multi-use
- path. It's going to be particularly awkward for a bicycle that's going to be on the
- right side of a car and then wanting to turn left in front of them. Madison is north-south, which street
- were you? 15th. Madison at 15th. Thank you. That's going to be particularly awkward. And can someone
- remind me, is sixth and Rogers stop signs? Yes. OK. No, it's not. Seventh is. OK. Because a lot of cars
- seem to cross
- And I think once again with the lane narrowing, it's going to be more difficult because cars turning
- left are going to back traffic up and it's going to be harder for cars to cross 6th Street. Third and
- Rogers. Assuming that you are going to do the bike lane under the bridge, please don't cheap out on
- the concrete barrier.
- Riding a bike under that bridge with that big concrete wall on one side of you and cars on the other
- side is frightening. I take the rickety sidewalks just to avoid that. There would be some safety gained
- with the concrete barrier, and I hope you don't cheap out and decide to eliminate that. All right, where am I?
- intersection, when I looked online, it looked like it did not, the multi-use path did not extend past
- Shalom Center to the north. And I urge you to do that because there's a lot of pedestrians, people are
- hanging out, they're eating their pizza out there. And when you're on a bike having the extra width
- of a multi-lane
- versus a sidewalk would be very helpful, and it would be a huge safety factor. That's your time. OK.
- Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Any further public comment? Online? Please use the raise hand
- function in Zoom. Last call for online comment. All right. Do we know, let's come back to the commission
- as a whole, do we know when you plan to have the final meeting with us approximately? Mr. Duncan.
- before the end of the calendar year, certainly. I would say between six to eight weeks from now. Okay,
- so we're looking at a mid-October. I mean, we generally meet on the fourth Thursday, so a second, or
- Monday rather, so a second Monday would be optimal. Or maybe it would be the second Monday in November.
- Okay. All right. Well, in fact, our November meeting is actually in December because of Thanksgiving.
- Okay. So we should expect one more of these perhaps early November. Okay. Any last words? This meeting,
- our business concluded this meeting is adjourned.