Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-23 Public Comment - M. Brown - Comments from GAP on Active Transportation Plan (Trans Board, Parks Board, Commissioners and staff)From:Marilee Brown To:Agenda Cc:Bryce Gordon; christine roberts; Courtney Oyler; DeeJay Newall; Paul Reichert; Shannon Mahoney; kelly pohl; Ralph Zimmer; delmue; Betty Stroock Subject:Comments from GAP on Active Transportation Plan (Trans Board, Parks Board, Commissioners and staff) Date:Tuesday, January 24, 2023 5:54:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the Transportation Board and the Parks Board (and Commissioners and Staff). Many thanks to the consultants that have been putting the active transportation plan together. Members of GAP (Galla10 Alliance for Pathways) and Safer Bozeman have been activelyinvolved in active transportation within the City for many years. We have engineers and enthusiasts that have a lot of institutional knowledge on the subject within this City via PTS,BABAB, and TCC. We stand ready to help in any way that we can on this important project. Unfortunately, we have had only a few days to review this material and find that it needs much better vetting (and a deep dive) prior to being sent to the City Commission for approval. Additionally, the public needs to be allowed to participate in this important document prior to the City Commission work session. The preamble states that because of past conflicts between the PROST plan and the TMP, theParks Board will now be in charge of the Active Transportation Plan and define all of the amenities throughout the entire City of Bozeman - including areas outside of and not attachedto parks. However, the Transportation Board’s entire work plan (that was approved by the City Commission) is focussed on Active Transportationtation and they are only being includedfor a 1 hour discussion of the plan? And no written notes on their comments will be given to the Parks Board or the Consultant? This does not seem prudent or in the best interests of theCity. Therefore we urge the Transportation Board (with approval of the Parks Board) to ask for and be given the time to do a deep dive and to work directly with the consultant in finalizing thisimportant document. We do have some quick comments on the following areas of the proposed plan: Revenue sources Please clarify what funds can be used for what type of paths and what funds are missing all together. For instance, Parks district funds may only be used in parks or for maintenance ofpark related trails. Arterial and Collector District funds also have restrictions. Gas Tax maintenance funds may only be used between the curbs. Infill projects largely do not haveany revenue fund at this time. Design Manual - Shared Use 1. Lighting is prohibitively expensive (just like water fountains) and it pollutes the night sky and neighborhoods. Requiring it on all shared use paths without stating what types of lighting, or specifically where it should be installed for safety (like at street crossings) is ambiguous. Itwould be like declaring that all collector and arterial streets need to be lit without defining it - our City would be ablaze with light. Please review this requirement. 2. Geo Textile or weed barrier needs to be required for all shared use pathways. 3. Why are wood deck joints up to 36 inches wide? I would fall in. 4. There is no guidance on vegetation and buffers. This is very important and necessary tokeep traffic calmed, and allow users to have an enjoyable ride/walk. 5. Water (fountains) should be required at specific increments or at least at picnic table areas. 6. There is no description of an Anchor Route in this section. 7. Crosswalks need better requirements. PTS heard from people that had been struck in Downtown that the crosswalks blend in with the buildings (brick patterns) and caused them tobe hit. 8. Better definitions and guidance for use is needed for rapid flashing beacons and HAWK lights - for instance signage, pointing them so vehicles in the circles can see them at an angle,and that HAWKs are preferred with time-outs in heavy use areas (to allow vehicles through). 9. Signage needs to include “no outlet” or “trail ends mid-way” so that users do not get fed out onto busy streets when paths suddenly end. Connect Chapter Many of the paths are shown in a straight line but Anchor Routes are sometimes curvy. Wording is needed to say that all types of paths may meander. For example the plan for Frontage Pathway is not always directly attached to Frontage Road - it deviates and uses localstreets where necessary. The Map is at very low resolution and is hard to understand without arterial street names. Anchor Routes We enjoy the concept. But it needs a lot of clarity. The northern route simply points at theriver without consideration of how it will cross the river. Both the freeway and the East Gallatin River are barriers to active transportation and inclusion. The areas north of thefreeway and river are not included in any other trails plan. The issues need to be addressed prior to these areas being annexed into the City some time in the future. UDC updates Please include discussion of laws that may need to change. Below are only two examples. 1. For example, a child can ride on a sidewalk up to the age of 14 and a parent can not ride with them. The police have stated that they will not enforce such laws. And many times ofthe year it is not safe to ride in the streets. Users have a hard time distinguishing a wide sidewalk from a multiuser path. Missoula (and our MSU campus) allows cycles (under acertain speed limit) on sidewalks except on specially marked sidewalks. We need to be safe and consistent. 2. For a second example, the same child riding against traffic on a sidewalk can not be easilyseen or expected at crosswalks if suddenly riding fast across them. Several children have been severely injured because of this. Yes the vehicle is at fault (with only a $100 fine), but it allcould have been prevented if there was some kind of rule for how to enter a crosswalk on a bike - the police have been asking for this. 3. Speed limits (and other use limits) are needed for shared use paths - especially now that e-bikes are around. Thank you for all your hard work and let us know if we can be of assistance. Marilee Brown Marilee Brown, Chair GAP - Galla10 Alliance for Pathways 2411 Kid Curry DriveBozeman, MT 59718 406-579-5447 saferbozeman@gmail.comwww.frontagepathway.com