HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-02-11 Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee minutesPedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee
Minutes of the March 2, 2011 Meeting
Upstairs Conference Room Alfred Stiff Office Bldg.
Those Present:
Voting Committee Members:
Ralph Zimmer (Gallatin County)
Frank Manseau (Gallatin County)
Gary Vodehnal (City of Bozeman)
Danielle Scharf (City of Bozeman)
Sam Miller (At-large Voting Member)
Non-Voting Committee Members:
John Van Delinder (City of Bozeman – Street Superintendent)
Liaison Officers:
Tommie Franscioni (Bozeman Police Department)
Guests:
Bill Bartlett (BABAB Member)
Taylor Lonsdale (MT Safe Routes to School Coordinator)
Rick Hixson (City Engineer)
Tim McHarg (City Planning Director)
Quorum: present
NEW BUSINESS:
Ralph called the meeting to order at 12:10 PM.
Public Comment. No public comment.
Consideration of Meeting Agenda. Ralph offered the opportunity to provide input on the agenda, but no comments were made.
Minutes. Minutes of the February 9, 2011 meeting were reviewed and unanimously approved with minor edits made by Ralph Zimmer prior to distribution.
Dialog with Senior City Staff. Sean Becker, Debbie Arkell and Ron Dingman were not able to join us today, but Rick Hixson (City Engineer), Tim McHarg (Planning Director), and John Van
Delinder (Streets Department) were in attendance for this discussion. This group also recently met with BABAB on February 2nd. Topics of discussion included the possibility of appointing
a bike-pedestrian coordinator for the City of Bozeman (and possibly Gallatin County). Gary has recently done some research on what other communities have done relative to establishing
a similar position. Handouts include job descriptions from other communities and a draft job description for Bozeman that was created by BABAB. Gary summarized information provided
on handouts for Missoula, Billings, Great Falls and Helena. Missoula, Billings and Great Falls are Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPO’s). Helena is not and neither is Bozeman. MPO’s are communities over 50,000 in population and they get federal transportation planning dollars specifically for alternate modes
coordinator positions. Butte does not have an alternate modes coordinator, nor is it big enough to be an MPO.
Ralph explained why we have a desire to establish this position. A bike-pedestrian coordinator could make sure coordination takes place relative to new sidewalk and bike lane projects
and they should coordinate with this committee and other similar committees (BABAB, SRTS, etc.). They could also make sure that the necessary groups are aware of and have the opportunity
to provide input on projects early in the process. We don’t mean to criticize the way existing staff is addressing these issues, but it would be nice to have a point person for these
issues. This person could also be in charge of pursuing grant funding to expand our system of these facilities. Taylor noted a specific example along Stockman Bank on Kagy Boulevard
west of 19th Avenue where the multi-use path should have been extended based on the arterial street standard, but sidewalk was constructed instead. All agree that the City is currently
doing a great job at coordinating construction of these facilities with the staff that they have.
Tim summarized the same discussion from the BABAB meeting addressing how these tasks should plug into the existing City processes. He explained how the City goes about planning and
implementing plans related to bike and pedestrian projects. The overarching policy is the transportation plan update from 2007, which includes an impressive extent of non-motorized
facilities. The City uses that document in three primary ways. 1.) The review of subdivision applications by the Development Review Committee. 2.) Capital Improvements Program (CIP),
which are the long-term capital improvements funded by the City. This is a 5-year program evaluated on an annual basis through public process. City staff is always surprised by how
few people show up to the CIP and budgeting meetings. It would be a good time for committees like ours to provide input on infrastructure improvements. These always happen as part
of the regular Monday night Commission meetings. 3.) CTEP process coordinated by the Parks Department, which is the way in which a lot of the non-motorized projects are implemented.
They are currently considering whether or not this process should be administered by Planning or Engineering. The City also has another funding pool for filling in missing sidewalk
links.
Tim came from Durango, CO where they had an alternate modes coordinator. If he were designing the position, he would probably put them in charge of the CTEP program and helping to coordinate
some of these other activities. Given the Planning Department’s budget situation, he does not currently have the staff to assign those duties to a current position without sacrificing
another service. It’s challenging to fund without the MPO designation. Colorado has a significant amount of sales tax that goes towards open space and trail projects. Their alternate
modes coordinator worked with other city departments to determine how best use these funds, but she also worked on the bus system and had marketing responsibilities, coordinated SRTS
and worked on general sidewalk and bike lane projects.
Ralph mentioned that Tim suggested an alternative to BABAB where they would consider a bi-weekly or monthly meeting of Department Heads to discuss anticipated projects and projects already
under way. This would give an opportunity for discussion of pedestrian/bike issues at a timely point. These meetings would be open to the public so BABAB and our
committee could have a representative attend the meeting. Tim said this is an alternative that the City departments were discussing prior to the topic of getting a bike/ped coordinator
coming up at the Commission’s January 24 meeting. This internal discussion was primarily focused on how best to coordinate efforts with GVLT, but could also be used to discuss potential
projects in general. It could be used as a coordinating meeting with several bike and pedestrian-related groups (PTS, BABAB, SRTS, and others).
Frank asked if there has been any coordination with the County. Tim has not had any coordination with the County yet, but agreed that could be done.
Gary noted that GVLT has been meeting with Ron and Tom on a monthly basis for the past year related to maintenance and potential projects. There have been several occasions where it
would have been nice for them to have input from other City departments.
Gary also noted that bike-pedestrian coordinator positions are important for education and encouraging more bike and pedestrian use, grant writing, coordination with SRTS program, and
development review. Gary said the process has been somewhat disjointed between GVLT, City departments, and volunteer boards. It would be beneficial to have a point person to help coordinate
the individual processes. Taylor agreed that this position is critical to implementing bike and pedestrian infrastructure in this community. That is his opinion as a community member,
not necessarily as a representative of SRTS. It’s critical to have someone from within the City that ties all of these components together. Obviously, funding for the position is the
primary issue.
Rick noted that the City won’t automatically become an MPO when we reach a population of 50,000. We can’t become one if under 50,000 (we’re currently about 40,000), but we still have
the choice to become one after we reach 50,000. There are a lot of strings attached to becoming an MPO, so a significant amount of discussion would need to take place before the City
makes the decision to become one.
Tim noted that he doesn’t want to have a position in his department that’s dependant on grant funding because it comes and goes. If we’re researching funding opportunities to bring
before the Commission, we should consider more sustainable funding sources. There is a financial advantage to developers to increase mode split to bike/pedestrian modes and reduce impacts
on roadways. There is also a benefit to the City relative to reduced infrastructure maintenance costs. These are all compelling arguments related to funding such a position to make
to the Commission.
Gary explained that he had a similar discussion with Phil Smith in Missoula regarding the benefits of getting more people walking and biking to reduce the exponential infrastructure
maintenance costs currently being encountered. We could also tie it into the sustainability plan relative to reducing our carbon footprint. Maybe we could even recruit an economics
student from MSU to help us put the numbers together to justify this position. It’s important to be discussing it during this budget cycle, but probably more realistic to attempt to
get it funded next year.
Ralph noted that both BABAB and our committee would be supportive of the idea of holding the proposed monthly meetings. Tim will talk to Ron about getting that going and within a couple
of weeks email Ralph an update.
Ralph requested input from Tim and Rick on what we could be doing to help them in their positions. Tim suggested that we talk more about the multi-modal coordinator position and tell
them that we are interested in getting more involved in the CIP process. Tim encouraged us to be well-prepared for that meeting to make the most of the opportunity to have a two-way
conversation with the Commission.
Rick suggested that we consider talking to the Commission about the subdivision sidewalk requirements and help to push for the requirement that sidewalks must be built when the street
is built to help eliminate the case where we have streets with many gaps and no way to fix them. We could help figure out how we can get the sidewalks installed as part of the typical
section of the roadway. Developers currently have 3 years to install them, but with the tough economy, this has resulted in several streets around town without sidewalks. The old excuse
that the sidewalks will be damaged when construction takes place is just an excuse by developers to pass the cost on to the home owner.
Ralph also asked Tim when the Commission will be considering priorities for Planning, Engineering, etc. Tim said it was not clear from the agenda because the specific departments weren’t
listed, but the discussion took place on February 21st. At upcoming meetings, they will be taking all the information from the various departments and begin their discussions on goal
setting this Monday.
Ralph said this committee will be scheduled to meet with the Commission in March or April. Ralph informed the Mayor that April 18th or 25th would be best for us because it would be
after our next meeting on April 13th.
Ralph does not know yet when BABAB will be meeting with them or even if they would like to meet with them on the same night. John and Bill both said that BABAB will most likely be interested
in joining the same meeting as us. All confirmed that April 18th or 25th would be beneficial and that we’d like to join the same meeting with BABAB. John reiterated that we need to
be prepared to tell them what role we would like to play; otherwise they will likely just tell us what we should be doing as an advisory committee.
Distracted Driving. The second reading of SB 251 will take place this afternoon. If there’s opposition to it, the bill will likely die today. If they are in favor of it, it will go
to the house for review. The Highways and Transportation Committee amended it significantly and then voted in favor of it 9-0. Ralph is almost certain that it has been modified to
the extent that it now addresses texting only. Gary and Tommie expressed concern over the difficulty of enforcing a texting-only law. It becomes a lot of work to enforce a misdemeanor
offense.
Ralph has sent comments to the four senators from Gallatin County and one of the four senators who requested a bill last fall. He also sent an email to the entire membership of the
Senate Highways and Transportation Committee saying we’re supportive of the bill, but it needs to be broadened in scope and the language needs to be clarified.
On behalf of our committee, Ralph suggested that 1.) The scope be broadened, 2.) The language be clarified, and 3.) Even if nothing else is done, we support the bill. Passing something
now is better than nothing. Frank asked if we could include comments about the two families we’ve spoken with that have been affected by accidents caused by the use of
cell phones while driving. Ralph said that it’s been difficult to include that because we have only a very limited amount of space to comment.
Sam expressed concern that a state level texting law may hurt our chances of getting a cell phone ordinance adopted in the City of Bozeman. He noted that we expressed support for it
as a cell phone bill, but he doesn’t agree that we should continue to support it as a texting only bill. Ralph suggested that if it moves forward, we lobby the House to broaden the
scope and clarify the language, but maybe reconsider supporting the bill if these modifications don’t occur. There is also concern that this bill could preclude the local ordinances
that have already been enacted by communities like Billings. If the bill is passed by the Senate and moves on to the House, Ralph will communicate to appropriate members of the House
that we urge them to broaden the scope of the bill beyond just texting and change the wording such that it can be easily understood by the general public. If those changes are made,
we support the bill.
Future Agenda Items. The following items have been carried over from previous meeting minutes as potential future agenda items.
Missing sidewalk sections and accessible curb ramps along Main Street
Sidewalk/trail along Oak from 7th to Rouse
Longfellow Crossing
Path along Bridger Canyon Road
Galligator Trail crossing at South Willson & Lincoln – review # of crossings along Willson from Kagy to Garfield and consider a recommendation to install another at Mason
South Willson & College intersection improvements
Citizen proposal to install flashers on South Willson at Dickerson
Continue discussion on Complete Streets Policy
Continue discussion on Sidewalk Encroachment Policy
Continue discussion on Distracted Driver Issues
South 19th Avenue turn lanes
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 PM.
Next Meeting: April 13, 2011
Minutes by Danielle Scharf
Minor edits by Ralph Zimmer