Athens in Motion Commission

Athens in Motion Commission Meeting Minutes November 26, 2019 – 4:00 - 6:00 PM Planning Department Auditorium 120 W. Dougherty St, Athens, GA 30601 PRESENT Carol Myers Teresa Friedlander Roswell Lawrence Jake Maas Lauren Blais James Barlament Craig Topple Aaron Redman ABSENT Mark Ebell TPW Hillary Essig Stephen Bailey GUESTS Scott Long Todd Miller, Park Planning 1. Call to Order Meeting called to order at 4:02 PM. 2. Approval of minutes Minutes from 10/22 were approved with corrections as submitted via email. 3. Report from Bike Ped Coordinator - Hillary Essig The Commission congratulated Hillary on her continued marriage. Hillary is planning for walk audits; she has visibility vests and has worked this out with TPW. However, she is waiting on ACC Legal, as a lot of these places are not currently walkable and present safety issues. The walk audits are capped at 15 people. If they are too popular, we will do a separate AiMC walk audit. Hillary was going to cap AiMC participation at 1, but Carol suggested making it 2 and then cutting it down to 1 if necessary. Hillary agreed. Bike/Ped counts from December/January are available for several locations. Barber Street has been collected; Jefferson River Road and Riverbend Road will be collected over the next few weeks. Hillary reported that the Barber Street counts were quite impressive: on a chilly weekday, there were over 273 pedestrians in 24 hours, along with 88 bikes and 1 e-scooter Hillary reported that Commissioner Edwards wants to pursue a future TSPLOST project on Milledge to underground utilities, which would pave the way for bikeability. Hillary reported that TPW did not receive the BUILD grant – apparently, Georgia got 0 build grants. TPW will receive feedback on the grant proposal in January. Jake volunteered to help go through feedback, as analyzing and responding to feedback on grant proposals is part of his professional expertise. Perhaps due to the hostility of the current administration to anything that smacks of being environmentally friendly, the types of projects that got preference were not bike/pedestrian, unless they were doing so collaterally. TPW received 85 responses on Riverbend Road public input. The proposed West Broad roundabout will be voted on next week. Public input will be taken at until December 3rd. Hillary then presented her slate of rotating AiM-related activities:  No updates on open streets, wayfinding audit  No update on tracking crash data (cars, peds, and bikes).  Vision Zero Action Plan depends on crash data.  Road safety media campaign o Will be tied into Vision Zero  Summer pavement: Hancock (striping mostly complete), Oglethorpe (TBC), Baxter (mostly complete); College permanent striping TBC  Commissioners Nesmith and Hamby want to route some Atlanta Highway funding to a shared use path or sidewalk on Timothy. o Teresa is a member of Timothy Forward and has been involved in the discussion of this plan in that capacity. She acknowledged that there are equity concerns with regard to this proposed project and rerouting of funding. o Carol: Why the prioritization of those projects? The corridor study was somewhat siloed, with no inclusion of AiM. Short term goals of the Connect Athens Corridor Study: building a sidewalk along ATL Highway (Corridor), which corresponds to AiM. Long term goal is a sidewalk off the corridor down Mitchell Bridge. Carol would like that the commissioners inform their discussions with the plans that exist. o Transit is a huge factor in priority determination within the AiM Plan, and Timothy Road has no transit because there is nowhere to stop on Timothy Road. o Quantification of data – the prioritization of the AIM sidewalk and bike projects was done quantitatively, using numerical calculations to determine project priority. Hillary has the data now and we will explore it. Hillary wants to make sure she understands it before opening up the discussion to the AiMC.  No update on Lexington Road Corridor.  Prince Avenue Corridor and user group – pending user group; this will get going after the West Broad roundabout.  M&C responded positively to the new process, approved by the AiMC on 11/5 and presented to the M&C the following week, that wraps in both more public outreach and Complete Streets policy.  Firefly Phase 3 is underway. Hillary presented a list of recommendations to GDOT, including a temporary crossing for bikes/peds across Oconee Street; they said no to all of them. In the future the interchange will work well with the Firefly Lauren and Aaron talked to Keith Sanders about this at the TSPLOST meeting. 4. Discussion of Cost Estimates a. Lauren and Teresa were at the Riverbend Road forum. They want to know whether the estimate of costs in the AiM Plan is accurate, because if not, we will need to reprioritize projects to be recommended through present TSPLOST funding. Based on the cost estimate presented at the forum, Riverbend would take ¼ of all of the bike/ped funds available from TSPLOST. b. Stephen cautioned that in terms of project prioritization, cost should be a secondary consideration after all of the other evaluation tools. But he also acknowledged that there is still sticker shock. This is largely due to the fact that the AiMC costs do not include all project costs; only construction – not design, right of way, utility relocation. Stephen talked to Drew Raessler, former ACC TPW Director, recently. Drew indicated that there is a distinction between ‘program’ budget requests (which include the items listed above, e.g.) and ‘project’ budget request. Someone asked how many projects can we do for the next TSPLOST? The costs listed in the AiM Plan are high level costs. i. Hillary: Riverbend is expensive because of the many retaining walls (among other things). Plans don’t account for grades. As with real estate, costs can be drastically different because of right-of-way. ii. Carol: Is UGA contributing to this? The total costs for Riverbend as presented at the forum are $2.1 Million in construction, which is twice the amount in Aim Plan. We don’t know what UGA is contributing – something like $125-$250k, which is why this project got priority. iii. Teresa is concerned about Riverbend Road: why is it a high priority project? Hillary has prioritization numbers and will share them soon (see above). Riverbend Road has transit, which may have significantly raised its priority score – students are considered transit-dependent population. Aaron: there have not been any traffic counts. Hillary: counts are coming. iv. There was a discussion about reaching out to UGA. Lauren suggested a statement like: “The Commission would love to hear how UGA would like to contribute to the walkability of our community.” v. Stephen discussed further the sorts of externalities that can greatly increase project costs. Baxter was $921 per linear foot (from Milledge to CCHS) due to major reengineering. We don’t have any low-hanging fruit left. The recent sidewalk construction on King Ave. was ideal in terms of keeping costs down: no design expenses; in-house resources; no right-of-way or utilities. Because Athens is further along, compared to other communities, we are into the difficult area. Cobb County is doing big bundled projects in order to get economies of scale. There are opportunities to bundle in AiM Plan, but ensuring equitable geographic distribution will be an issue if bundling is pursued. vi. One of the biggest costs is utility relocation – these costs can get way out of hand depending on where the project is located within ACC. This is largely  dictated by franchise agreement with utilities, who use these agreements to try to recoup franchise costs. We thus need to re-look at franchise agreements and try to build in lower relocation costs. vii. Carol: we can be more involved in prioritization of next projects? Carol expressed concerns about projects having an impact on the community’s perception of what we are doing. For example, the reasons for the high prioritization of the Cedar Shoals improvements are generally not understood by the public. Hillary: Cedar Shoals is on hold for repavement, which is when the buffered bike lanes will be constructed. 5. Discussion of AIM plan in regards to Commission action on Bike and Pedestrian Projects a. Corridor funding is through the TSPLOST office, not through TPW directly. Design and implementation is guided by a usergroup for each corridor. b. Does AiMC only get to cover some types of road construction projects? NO. WE get to opine on everything. c. Carol said that we would like the Commission to reference the AiM Plan if they want to do something different. We need to reference the Bylaws when we tell them things, and provide them with a cursory breakdown of costs. d. Carol pointed out that the Corridor studies include more than just sidewalks and bike lanes – the recommendations include them, but they don’t necessarily have to be part of the implementation. e. Aaron: there are a lot of things that the Commissioners don’t know about transportation. Our role is to know enough to be able to inform and advocate for our consensus best course of action in a given case. f. It was determined that we would send an email to commissioners summarizing these topics and staking a claim to our role; we will present this in the public comment portion of the next meeting (someone talking besides Carol); Policy Committee needs to meet with Commissioners again. Discussions have to relate to the Plan. Remind them of the definition of equity – it does not mean ‘equal geographic distribution’ but addressing systemic inequalities in the allocation of resources. g. Motion was made to write a letter to the Commission regarding the importance of considering the AiM plan when making determinations about prioritization of roadways involving bike and pedestrian facilities. i. Motion passed unanimously. ii. Lauren will write letter and send to the listserv Monday for edits. Lauren will read letter in public comment portion of next M&C meeting. 6. Policy and Project Committee Report a. This committee will meet on 12/10. b. Broad and Hancock Roundabout project – we could make a comment advocating for maximum pedestrian access and slowing down traffic. Our recommendation would also include removing the dangerous sliplane from Hancock to roundabout. i. Jake applauded Athenians for learning to love roundabouts, as evinced by very positive conversation about the Whitehall/Milledge roundabout on the NextDoor app. ii. Teresa asked for talking points on Hancock Roundabouts – how to make it safe for pedestrians. iii. Hillary is trying to get an 8-foot separated path included in the design.  iv. Motion made to submit a letter to the Commissioners concerning Broad and Hancock: support the roundabout as a way to include pedestrian and bicycle accessibility. Include Tier of projects. v. Motion passed unanimously. Aaron will write the letter, distribute to the list, and present in the public comment portion of the next M&C meeting. 7. Communications Committee a. Teresa created a list of terms/glossary; would like more feedback on it b. Carol talked to Erin Barger about how to do Open Streets. Needs to have a project director working on it. Need to get funding for it. Needs to have involvement across community. Roswell: it has been years in the making. Blaine has been very intentional about the demographics of Athens, considering barriers, etc. It is very important to meet in places that provide the easiest possible access to stakeholders. c. We need a Facebook page for Education purposes. Not so much for advocacy. d. Motion was made to establish a social media presence – Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Motion passed unanimously. i. Hillary killed the buzz by demanding a disclaimer. 8. Committee Break-Out Sessions a. FUNDING COMMITTEE: Attending: Jake Maas, Stephen Bailey, James Barlament i. Open Streets funding? 1. SPLOST and TSPLOST money can only be used on project-specific costs – can’t be spent on education and outreach, materials, etc. Stephen asked for money for these things related to AiMC costs. Branding and Marketing. UGA? 2. United Way? They supported the Athens Wellbeing project. Community Partners? 3. Costs: Permit costs of street closures, Overtime for PD, Marketing and advertising. 4. Could be centered in AiMC with members from other groups, etc. ii. TPW is using design consultants to write grants. iii. Potential funding sources 1. BUILD 2. TAP grant to fund Chase Street/Oneida peanut roundabout. Preliminary engineering phase ($1M) then you can re-apply for the Construction Costs – total project will be $8M; TAP will fund $6M 3. Community Development Block Grant – looking for infrastructure projects. Rose/Magnolia? Due October. Need to be within Opportunity Zones. Can use OZs to determine with AiM projects focus on equity. 4. GOHS iv. Ike Choi in UGA’s College of Education has developed VR pedestrian training for children. 1. Curriculum for Elementary School – one of the goals of AiMC v. Jake will start a list of rotating grant opportunities b. POLICY AND PROJECT COMMITTEE: Attending: Lauren Blais, Aaron Redman, Craig Topple  i. Lauren shared Emiko Atherton from the National Complete Streets Coalition’s critique of our plan, which was provided by Elliott Caldwell. ii. The critique noted the lack of strong language, no mention of equity, lack of an implementation plan and ownership/responsibility, and no performance measures. iii. Lauren expressed a need to not define people in the plan by their means of transportation in the moment, which Allen Jones had mentioned in his notes. Aaron agreed for the need to humanize people using transportation. iv. Lauren said that the point of the Athens in Motion plan in her mind was to rectify not having Complete Streets policy in the past and to prevent future roads from being incomplete. v. Aaron said the Complete Streets policy should apply to resurfacing projects, not just new construction. vi. Lauren noted that the language in the Savannah’s draft policy is specific on exceptions, such as maintenance that doesn’t result in change of geometry. Aaron pointed out that resurfacing projects would be excluded under that definition. The committee agreed we would work on language. vii. Regarding the need for stronger language, Craig suggested tiers of language for clarification. The top two of which the committee members in attendance agreed to adopt: 1. “Shall” or “is to be” or “are to be” - when it is mandated (preferred language) viii. “Should” - practices strongly recommended (backup language)We want to avoid ambiguous or soft language. ix. Lauren noted the Savannah draft plan’s tremendous emphasis on equity and requirement of a semi-annual report separate from the original implementation report x. In the policy, we want to state what “equity” means as in the AiM and maybe official definitions as needed (equity is not “geographic equity”). xi. The committee developed these goals for the new policy (language to be sorted out). 1. Broader, clearer scope: Complete Streets Policy kicks in not just with total reconstruction, but resurfacing, maintenance etc. 2. Is implemented when opportunities for stormwater, utility relocations, corridor projects, etc. 3. Include equity 4. Implementation and responsibility clearly defined - use Hillary’s workflow? (Public engagement also) 5. Include performance measures and who will take the measurements. xii. Instead of starting from scratch, we will begin with the existing Complete Streets document. xiii. We will first address our goals, then make edits from there. xiv. We’ll collaborate virtually via Google docs. xv. When to present to the rest of Athens in Motion Commission at the February 2020 meeting. xvi. Our next meeting is December 10, 5pm, at the TPW Conference room. Hillary already has our agenda.  c. COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE: Attending: Roswell Lawrence, Scott Long, Hillary Essig, Carol Myers, Teresa Friedlander i. Carol will put up an Athens in Motion Facebook page and give all AiM Commissioners write access. We will use this and other social media to educate and inform Athens residents about pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and related projects. ii. The Communications Committee will create a short presentation based on the AiM program book, but more about functional aspects of active transportation. AiM Commissioners will take this presentation to small group field meetings as a way of helping citizens understand why the ACC United Government is investing in sidewalks and bicycle facilities. iii. We should reach out to Rotary and other organizations to find venues and contacts. iv. Teresa wrote a 30 second elevator pitch about AiMC and will post it in the Google doc folder for comments and edits. v. UGA – Roswell will work on developing the relationship between the University and Athens in Motion. Do we want to reach out to College of Environmental Design students and ask them for field studies on tier 1 projects? vi. Is there a need for educating bicyclist and pedestrians about navigating roads/sidewalks safely? vii. Can UGA provide additional funding for Riverbend Road project? viii. Make a document online where we can brainstorm list of organizations schools, clubs, churches ix. Hillary asked for suggestion for tier 1 Pop-Up events, for example the Family Dollar Store at Jefferson River Road at Jefferson Highway. x. Due to hiring rules and regulations, Hillary and Stephen are delayed in hiring a graphics designer to help with communications. This should resolve soon. 9. Next Meeting will be Wednesday December 18th. Motion to change to 12/18 for next meeting. Passed unanimously. Place TBD. 10. Jake made announcements: ‘Bike Friday’ this Friday. Solstice Party at Jake’s House 12/22. 11. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 PM.