Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-21 Agenda and Packet Materials - Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board (BABAB)A. Call meeting to order B. Disclosures C. Changes to the Agenda D. Public Service Announcements Announcements from Board Members Updates from City Staff The City Commission, on December 22, approved the CIP for FY22-26 including a $500,000 one-time infusion for stand-alone bike-ped projects for FY22. E. Approval of Minutes F. Public Comment Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of the Committee. There will also be an opportunity in conjunction with each action item for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit your comments to three minutes. G. Special Presentation H. Action Items THE BOZEMAN AREA BICYCLE ADVISORY BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA BABAB AGENDA Wednesday, January 6, 2021 This meeting will be held using Webex, an online videoconferencing system. You can join this meeting: Via Webex: https://cityofbozeman.webex.com/cityofbozeman/onstage/g.php? MTID=e957f6ad278c305c6b8cfa233596420c7 Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting Via Phone: This is for listening only. United States Toll 1-650-479-3208 Access code: 126 821 0749 Bozeman Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board Meeting Agenda, January 6, 2021 1 I. FYI/Discussion I.1 PRIORITIZE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN(Lonsdale) I.2 Discussion of Bozeman Muni Code Section 36.12.020 (Churchill) I.3 City Design Standards Update(Delmue) I.4 Bike-Ped / Alternative Transportation Plan (Delmue) I.5 Work Plan(Delmue) I.6 Board Vacancies(Delmue) I.7 NEW BUSINESS(Lonsdale) J. Adjournment For more information please contact Taylor Lonsdale, Transportation Engineer. tlonsdale@bozeman.net or (406) 582-2286 This board generally meets the 1st Wednesday of the month from 6:00 to 8:00 pm Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301). Bozeman Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board Meeting Agenda, January 6, 2021 2 Memorandum REPORT TO: Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board SUBJECT: PRIORITIZE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN MEETING DATE: January 6, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION: No action suggested at this meeting. It is anticipated that the Board will take action on this at a future meeting. STRATEGIC PLAN: 4.5 Housing and Transportation Choices: Vigorously encourage, through a wide variety of actions, the development of sustainable and lasting housing options for underserved individuals and families and improve mobility options that accommodate all travel modes. BACKGROUND: At their December 22, 2020 meeting the Bozeman City Commission approved the Capital Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2022 through 2026. The commission amended the proposed capital plan to add $500,000 for stand alone bicycle and pedestrian projects. City Staff will work with the Bicycle Advisory Board and the Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee to prioritize projects for this funding. While city staff does not anticipate construction of projects with this funding in fiscal year 2022, the possibility of that exists depending on the projects that are prioritized. City staff has previously presented the Board with prioritization projects for Street Maintenance funding from fiscal years 2021 and 2022. The previously approved projects for 2021 will move forward. The projects prioritized for 2022 can now be reconsidered as the amount of funding assumed during the discussion of those priorities was significantly less than what is now available. Staff suggests that the Board discuss how they would like to approach this effort. Among other options, the Board could consider: keeping the previous recommended priorities and adding to them, adding to the previous list of priorities and re-ordering them, or the Board could choose to revisit the prioritization of fiscal year 2022 funds completely now that the available amount is $500,000? During the previous prioritization discussion several board members discussed a desire to revise the prioritization criteria to among other things, specifically include safety as a criteria. Staff has looked at ways other communities do this and has developed some potential revisions the to the criteria. They are included as part of the packet should the Board decide 3 they wish to revise the criteria prior to working on the prioritization effort. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None ALTERNATIVES: As proposed by the Board. FISCAL EFFECTS: Funding will be available July 1, 2021 pending approval of the budget. Attachments: 2021 BZN Project Scoring Criteria Desc_draft.pdf 2021 BZN Project Scoring Criteria Table_draft.pdf Report compiled on: December 30, 2020 4 Prioritization Criteria for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Safety Does the project address a specific bicycle and/or pedestrian safety concern? Is there crash history at this location? Does the crash history include bicycle and/or pedestrian involved crashes? Does the project improve safety for all users? Does the project address a high use location? Is there use data available for the location? Equity Does the project improve equity in Bozeman and/or the bicycle and pedestrian network? Is the project in an area that has previously been underserved by bicycle and pedestrian network connectivity? Will the project improve access to employment and services for people that rely on biking, walking and transit for transportation? Public Input Is the project identified in the Transportation Master Plan, the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, or other adopted plans for the City of Bozeman? Is the project identified in other regional plans? Is there documented public input in support of the project? Access to Schools To encourage more students to walk and bicycle to school, proposed facilities that directly connect to, provide improved safety, or improve network connectivity to any school (public or private) would qualify for this prioritization criteria. Network Connectivity Does the project add to the connectivity of the existing bicycle and pedestrian network? Does it connect to existing paths or sidewalks? Does the project add connectivity to planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Does the project extend the connectivity of the existing network? Network Gaps Does the project fill in an existing gap in the bicycle and pedestrian network? Gaps in the bicycling and walking networks discourage use of these modes because they limit route continuity, sense of belonging and security, or require users to choose less direct paths to access their destinations. Some feel “stranded” when a facility abruptly end or does not easily connect to their destination, forcing users to ride or walk on a street that does not accommodate their proficiency level or increase the length of their trip. Facilities that fill gaps in the existing bicycling and walking network will qualify for this criterion. Connections to Activity Centers Activity centers are the major trip-driving destinations within the community (e.g. parks, commercial districts, employment centers, Downtown, transit stops, etc.). By increasing accessibility to major activity centers, the multi modal network can help reduce traffic congestion and support residents and visitors who choose to bicycle, walk, or ride transit. Projects that connect to these centers qualify for this prioritization criterion. Consideration of population density at the origin of the trips served by the facilities is an important consideration. If the facility connects two destinations, such as commercial district and a park, it may have less impact than if it connects high density residential with and employment center or a school. Relation to current projects 5 Do other projects create a unique opportunity to complete this project? This includes City lead projects, as well as developer led projects. Leveraging of the investments helps to extend the projects that can be accomplished with established budgets. Ease of Implementation (separate into R/W and Maintenance) Bicycling and walking facilities range in project readiness and amount of reconfiguration or prior work that needs to be completed before a facility can be installed. With regard to on-street bikeways, some streets can accommodate bike lanes with little effort; where as other projects may require significant changes to the travel lanes, medians, street parking, right-of-way, etc. Similarly, some trail and street crossings will be easier than others to implement. Many cities choose to pursue the “low-hanging fruit” projects to achieve quick wins and build support for more politically complex projects. Projects that require minimal changes to the built environment and have lower costs will score higher on this criterion. Feasible recommended projects with demonstrated public endorsement will qualify for these prioritization criteria. This criterion considers which agency or agencies own and maintain the right-of-way and whether or not the project is partially or completely outside of the City limits. For example, a project that is only private land and is located outside the city limits would receive the lowest score, while a project utilizes existing right of way within city limits would receive the highest score. Planning and implementation are much more time- consuming and costly when projects cross jurisdictional and/or property lines. Will the existing R/W accommodate best practice design or will it require concessions to fit in R/W. (eg. Eliminate/narrow boulevard, narrow sidewalk or path) Maintenance Who is responsible for maintenance, including snow removal, is there reasonable assurance the facility will be maintained? Assigning Scores The following table does not intend to dictate scores but provides guidance on assigning scores for each criteria. Scores for each criteria will range from 0 to 4. For each criteria, descriptions are provided for what might be associated with a low, middle, and high score. The scores will then have a factor applied based on the relative importance of each criteria. 6 Criteria Score Description 4 Identified by the public as desirable for a future facility (multiple times) 2 Identified by the public as desirable for a future facility (once) 0 Not identified by the public as desirable for a future facility 4 Direct access to a school 2 Secondary access to school (within 1/4 mi.) 0 No direct or indirect access to a school 4 Creates robust connectivity by connecting existing facilities. 2 Extends the existing network but does not add to the connectivity or provides connectivity to planned facilities. 0 No direct or indirect connectivity to an existing or planned facility. 4 Fills a network gap between two existing facilities 2 Fills a network gap between an existing facility and a proposed facility 0 No direct or indirect network gap fill 4 Connects to a major trip-driving destination or two or more major or minor destinations 2 Secondary connectivity to above 0 No direct or indirect connection 4 Located on street scheduled for paving (1-5 yrs). Sharrow and bike boulevard projects receive the full two points because they don't require repaving or reconstruction. 2 Bikeway is located on a project scheduled for street paving (5-10 years) or partially located on a project that will be repaved or reconstructed within 1-5 years. 0 Bikeway is not located on a project scheduled for street paving 4 Can be constructed with little to no reconfiguration of the existing roadway 2 Can be constructed with minor or moderate alterations to the existing roadway 0 Requires major alterations to the existing roadway or right of way 4 addresses a specific safety concern with bicycle or pedestrian crash history 2 addresses a high use location with specific safety concerns. 0 addresses a general safety concern with low of unknown use 4 project improves network AND community equity 2 project improves network OR community 0 project does not address equity. Ease of Implementation Safety The following table does not intend to dictate scores but provides guidance on assigning scores for each criteria. Scores for each criteria will range from 0 to 4. For each criteria, descriptions are provided for what might be associated with a low, middle, and high score. Equity Public Input Proximity to Schools Network Connectivity Network Gaps Connectivity to Activity Centers Relation to Current Projects 7 Memorandum REPORT TO: Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board SUBJECT: Discussion of Bozeman Muni Code Section 36.12.020 MEETING DATE: January 6, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION: None. STRATEGIC PLAN: 3.1 Public Safety: Support high quality public safety programs, emergency preparedness, facilities, and leadership. BACKGROUND: Bozeman Muni Code Section 36.12.020 currently provides very minor monetary penalties for hit-and-run accidents (although very severe jail-time penalties). Discuss possibilities for changing these penalties as well as implications on related aspects, such as law enforcement and prosecution. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None. ALTERNATIVES: As provided by Board. FISCAL EFFECTS: Unknown at this time. Report compiled on: January 4, 2021 8 Memorandum REPORT TO: Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board SUBJECT: City Design Standards Update MEETING DATE: January 6, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION: None. STRATEGIC PLAN: 4.5 Housing and Transportation Choices: Vigorously encourage, through a wide variety of actions, the development of sustainable and lasting housing options for underserved individuals and families and improve mobility options that accommodate all travel modes. BACKGROUND: For the December 22, 2020, City Commission Agenda, Consent Item F.8 was to execute a contract with DOWL/Morriosn-Maierle to update the Design Standards. In the past, it was suggested that the Complete Streets Policy could be made more clear and stronger by, for example, incorporating Complete Streets concepts into the City’s Design Standards. Question: Does the scope of this contract encompass things (such as street sections) that would effectuate the Complete Streets Resolution. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the Board. FISCAL EFFECTS: None. Report compiled on: January 4, 2021 9 Memorandum REPORT TO: Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board SUBJECT: Bike-Ped / Alternative Transportation Plan MEETING DATE: January 6, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION: None. STRATEGIC PLAN: 4.5 Housing and Transportation Choices: Vigorously encourage, through a wide variety of actions, the development of sustainable and lasting housing options for underserved individuals and families and improve mobility options that accommodate all travel modes. BACKGROUND: A couple of members of the Board have mentioned this as a possibility. Phil Sarnoff had experience with Bike Utah regarding such plans in multiple communities in Utah. Barton Churchill has mentioned this as well. I believe that frequent citizen contributor, Mark Egge, also has some knowledge and insight in this regard. This is the overarching web page that Bike Utah had with information and progress regarding the many separate communities: https://www.bikeutah.org/wbp UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the Board. FISCAL EFFECTS: None. Report compiled on: January 4, 2021 10 Memorandum REPORT TO: Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board SUBJECT: Work Plan MEETING DATE: January 6, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION: None. STRATEGIC PLAN: 4.5 Housing and Transportation Choices: Vigorously encourage, through a wide variety of actions, the development of sustainable and lasting housing options for underserved individuals and families and improve mobility options that accommodate all travel modes. BACKGROUND: Does any BABAB Member want to keep track of this, including reviewing individual Members’ expressed interest areas, soliciting from the rest, and then helping to coordinate the BABAB “staffing” of these various areas of focus? UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the Board. FISCAL EFFECTS: None. Report compiled on: January 4, 2021 11 Memorandum REPORT TO: Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board SUBJECT: Board Vacancies MEETING DATE: January 6, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION: None. STRATEGIC PLAN: 4.5 Housing and Transportation Choices: Vigorously encourage, through a wide variety of actions, the development of sustainable and lasting housing options for underserved individuals and families and improve mobility options that accommodate all travel modes. BACKGROUND: We have some vacancies now. Andrew has been so busy with work that he will not renew. Thank you, Andrew, for your time on the Board! The Board now has three vacant positions. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None. ALTERNATIVES: Ass suggested by the Board. FISCAL EFFECTS: None. Report compiled on: January 4, 2021 12 Memorandum REPORT TO: Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board SUBJECT: NEW BUSINESS MEETING DATE: January 6, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Administration RECOMMENDATION: Propose items to be considered for future agendas. STRATEGIC PLAN: 1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND: Please note, the Bicycle Advisory Board cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. This will provide the board the opportunity to consider requests from board members or public comment to place items on future agendas. The board can consider placing the item for discussion in the action area of the agenda and give the presenter time to adequately discuss their issue and give the board time to give feedback or make more official decisions. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None ALTERNATIVES: As decided by the Board. FISCAL EFFECTS: None Report compiled on: December 30, 2020 13