Athens in Motion Commission

Athens in Motion Commission Tuesday, June 23, 2020 – 4:00-6:00 pm Online via ACC WebEx https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVU0zsSiwg4&feature=youtu.be PRESENT Lauren Blais Carol Myers Aaron Redman Mark Ebell Teresa Friedlander Roswell Lawrence James Barlament Jake Maas Craig Topple Hillary Essig (TPW, Bike and Pedestrian Coordinator) Rani Katreeb (TPW) Jay Butts (PD) Todd Miller (LS) Steve Decker (TPW Director) Scott Long (Bike Athens) ABSENT 1. Call to Order a. Carol called the meeting to order at 4:04. 2. Agenda Additions and Approval a. There were no additions. b. Mark moved to approve the agenda; Teresa seconded. Agenda approved. 3. Public Comment a. There were no public comments. b. Carol: Where do Public Comments come from? Hillary: There is a link included with the agenda; we did not receive any this time. 4. Approval of Minutes a. Carol will try to spell Jake’s last name correctly. b. Jake asked about the name of the RV Park; other minor clarifications were proposed.  c. Mark moved to approve; Teresa seconded. Minutes were approved. 5. Introduction to new TPW Director (Steve Decker) a. Steve was a traffic engineer in Athens for 11 years; has 40 years of traffic engineering experience. Worked in the State of Florida on safety management systems. b. In particular, he worked with the Bike and Pedestrian Coordinator to work on multi- modal transportation. Existing no-conflict state and local roadways are the result of this work. c. After retiring from the Florida, he wrote the 25-year bicycle plan for Albuquerque. Spent $1.2M per year to build bicycle lane. People actually ride their bikes to work in ABQ (even attorneys). d. Steve is proud of the work that has been done in Athens and by this Commission and he is happy to help in any way he can. i. Carol: can we have money for education materials, etc.? ii. Steve did not have an update on this. But he supports this 200%. He will get with Hillary to make this happen. e. Use the 4 E’s: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, EMS. This approach reduced fatalities in FL by 40%. In Athens, reduced speeding by 30+%. 6. Review of Bike Traffic Laws and Discussion (Jay Butts) a. Bikes have to obey the same laws as cars, with certain exceptions. b. Anyone under 16 has to wear a helmet. No hijinks. c. Stay as far to the right of the road as you reasonably can. No more than 2 people abreast. i. Lauren: there are instances where bikes may use the full lane. Jay: yes, when making a left turn, if there is debris, etc. Mark: on narrow country roads, and there is two-way traffic, there is a safety issue so Mark will take the lane to force the car behind him to slow down. Jay: it is not illegal if you are doing it for a specific safety reason, though this is not extremely clear in the law. Cars have to give you 3 feet of room. Cars can still pass on a double-yellow line if there is no oncoming traffic. Jay endorses taking the lane under these circumstances. Mark: We can work locally on education around these issues. Carol: is there any exclusion of when it is possible to ride two abreast? Jay: no, any time and anywhere. Even though you are not necessarily staying to the right under these circumstances. Good group-riding etiquette is to separate into smaller groups on busy roads so the drivers are better able to pass. d. No carrying stuff you can’t ride a bike while carrying. Headlights required; rear red reflector required. i. Aaron: what about skateboards, scooters, and other non-traditional vehicles? Jay: no, bike lanes are specifically reserved for bikes. e. No riding on sidewalks if you are over 12. No sidewalk riding downtown at all, at any age. i. Carol: sometimes common sense tells you it is too dangerous to be on the roadway. But the law does not allow you to be on the sidewalk. Jay: correct. f. Other Questions: i. Mark: some jurisdictions yellow cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield – has there been any movement on this here? Lauren: there was a bill a few years ago to allow bikes to go through a “dead red” but it did not pass (Aaron: it went through both houses and was vetoed by the governor).  ii. Reporting bike accidents: same as with car. Whenever there is a vehicle-vehicle collision. There is online reporting, unless there is a serious injury or extreme property damage. iii. Jake: are there any issues with the forms being tailored to cars? Jay: all forms are electronic and have options for bicycles. Hillary: the PD ones have a ‘bike’ option you can select it’s the ones where PD don’t get called or that don’t get reported that are a gap in knowledge. You fill out the web form instead of (not in addition to) calling the police. This also helps the police know where bicycle accidents are happening. You can add a tag number if you can get one in the case of a driver hit-and-run. iv. Lauren: what are my options if someone throws something at me, attempts to run me off the road, does something else aggressive? Jay: Make sure you’re safe; call PD; provide info about vehicle. Throwing something at someone from a moving car is a FELONY – Terroristic Act in the State of GA. 7. Cherokee Rd. Concept: Sidewalk vs. Multi-use Path (Hillary/Rani) a. Hillary presented the concepts [See Youtube link above for full presentation]. i. This will be pretty high level. ii. What M&C need from us: Do we recommend using TSPLOST funds for this? Which alternative concept do we recommend? iii. This is the section of Cherokee Rd. between Lexington and Beaverdam. Concept costs include a lot of costs that are not accounted for in the AiM Plan. iv. There are some sections of existing sidewalk on this stretch of road. Mostly residential, with one church. v. 78 mailers, 9 attendees for walk audit. Overall feedback was positive for sidewalk; very cautious about multi-use path due to right-of-way issues. vi. Difference between sidewalk concepts: whether they have a curb and gutter (urban) or not (rural). vii. SIDEWALK CONCEPT #1: Urban/Rural Mix. Cost is $900k (cheaper); will be a more meandering sidewalk. Drainage will be in between the sidewalk and the house. 1. MULTI-USE PATH will require roadway expansion, so we have to decide now if we will choose that route – because otherwise we would have to destroy curb lines when widening road for multi-use path. viii. SIDEWALK CONCEPT #2: Straight curb all the way down the road. Most expensive: $1M due to constraints. It’s a complicated road (per Rani). ix. SIDEWALK CONCEPT #3: Rural. $800k; the cheapest. Sidewalk is 7’ off of the road, because there is no curb to protect peds from cars. Most right-of-way and most opportunity to expand road for bike lanes. x. MULTI-USE PATH CONCEPT #1: (MU path can’t go all the way to Lexington because GDOT has control over the intersection). $2.3M. Remove existing sidewalk and build 10’ M-U path on south side of road. xi. MULTI-USE PATH CONCEPT #2: Keeps existing south sidewalk, builds M-U Path on North side, then crosses road to south side. Hillary does not recommend this one, but it allowed a cost estimate for keeping existing sidewalk. Turns out to be $2.45M – more expensive. xii. MULTI-USE PATH CONCEPT #3: Keeps south sidewalk, and builds sidewalk on north side in front of Satterfield Park. $2.2M.  xiii. MULTI-USE PATH CONCEPT #4: Tears up south sidewalk, builds north sidewalk, builds complete 10’ M-U path on south side. $2.5M. xiv. Funding strategy: There is $5.5M in the bike program money, Funds also need to pay for the other concepts for the next 3 projects and repavement. If we select M-U path, we have to pay for the difference over the sidewalk cost with the bike program money. xv. Next step: Work session on 7/14, public engagement will take place after this; TSPLOST on 7/27. b. Discussion i. Carol: what is the background of how we got to adding a M-U path in here as a consideration, when originally we were looking at a sidewalk? Hillary: this is part of Complete Streets policy; for any new project we look at what the cost would be to make it a multi-modal project including bicycles. (Cherokee Road is a Tier 2 bike project and a Tier 1 ped project) ii. Teresa: Likes the idea of keeping options open; this could be a wonderful place to ride a bicycle, assuming you don’t get killed by the high-speed traffic. She doesn’t want to do something that would make it harder to add bike facilities at some point in the future if we don’t do the M-U path now. iii. Mark likes the 7’ rural offset (option 3): least expensive so more resources for other projects; offset makes it safer (vs. 2 feet off the curbed road) for kids and dogs. Particularly since it’s near a park there will be a lot of kids. iv. Jake: Can we talk about speed limit on road? It is officially 40 MPH but people drive 50. What is the likelihood that this will be comfortably bikeable at some point? Aaron: could reduce the speed limit on the road. Mark: Could do protected bike lanes. Teresa: We could explore some traffic calming. (Does this fall within our ambit?) Hillary: speed limits are determined through a speed study; they are looking at redoing the speed management program. There will not be a speed study for this specific project, but it can be put on the docket through the corridor policy committee. Mark: Are these raised crosswalks? Hillary: No, just an ADA accessible ramp. v. Lauren: what is the length of the project. Rani: it is about 4000+ feet (0.9 miles). Pretty substantial. Hillary: this is not one of our low-hanging fruit sidewalk projects. vi. Carol: Do we have any thoughts about how this will interact with the Lexington Highway projects? Hillary: it is hard to predict what they will decide to fund – e.g., there is a possible M-U path around the airport that would connect up. Another proposed M-U path between Lexington in the park would also connect up. But these are on a long list of potential Lexington Corridor projects. Carol: how does their timeline match up with our timeline? Hillary: Derek (Doster) will be here next month and will have to speak to that. Carol: it would be a missed opportunity if there is a chance to work together. vii. Teresa: is there a preferred way for this to work out in the end that we can help steer as a committee? Hillary: You guys have the big picture. It is hard to recommend a M-U path here without there being connectivity toward Athens or Winterville. Think about it budgetarily with regard to the other three projects (Barber St. Jefferson River, Riverbend). viii. Lauren: why didn’t residents like the M-U path? Concerned about right-of-way and impact to the frontages of their property (trees, flower beds, easements).  Jake: M-U path would require more tearing up of stuff than a sidewalk? Hillary: yes. Rani: Actually, with sidewalks, the amount of disturbance would be more. Would involve grading UP to people’s yards. M-U paths would involve a lot of retaining walls (thus the greater expense) but would actually have LESS impact to property because it would involve retaining walls instead of grading. Rani: we only talked to a small percentage of the property owners. The M-U path would remove parking spaces for the church. Lauren: So the rural option would have the most impact on property owners and incur the most objections. Rani: Yes. Teresa: Rani,if we were to go with Ssidewalk option #2, and frecommend traffic calming and creating bike lanes, would that be feasible? Rani” The road is 22’. It does not currently accommodate bike lines; we would have to add pavement. Mark: Is the existing sidewalk in the 7’ standard? Rani: No. Ideally the ditch would be between the road and the sidewalk. To meet today’s standards, we would move the sidewalk farther away from people’s properties. c. Recommendation i. Carol: can we make a recommendation? We can include a note to Commissioners asking them to keep possible synergy with the Lex road corridor. ii. Mark: We should limit ourselves to the sidewalk possibilities (with Carol’s caveat above). iii. James: I propose option 3. Mark supports this. Teresa wants to know what the residents will be happiest with – if there is a consensus. Hillary: you could recommend option 3 pending public input. Hillary could come back to us with public input. Then we could reevaluate our recommendation. We could also recommend concept #3, with urban section in limited, constrained scenarios. Rani: the professionals came with concept #1 as the preferred alternative. The rationale for its preferred status is due to its consistency with what is there already (on the north side); there are no residential properties on that side. Carol: and #1 would have minimal impact on the church. Teresa: It sounds like this would have the greatest buy-in from the community. Mark and Carol and Lauren and Aaron support option #1. James is OK with it. Roswell prefers option #3 but would be fine with option 1; wants to hear community input. Hillary and Rani say yes; we have time to be flexible. iv. Carol: does anyone want to make an argument for #3 for its safety issues? Roswell: what’s the distance from the road with option #1? Rani: 5 1/2’. Mark: part of which would be gutter, and cars can get into that. Rani: cars can get into the grass as well. The measurement starts from the travel lane. Mark: drivers don’t always treat it that way. Rani: same with municipalities when a road is too narrow to support all of the elements. Jake: over how much of the 4000’ would the sidewalk be likely to be less than 5’ from the road. And how close would it get in the worst case? Rani: it would not get any closer than 5’, except in cases where there is a utility pole. Jake: I am good with 1 given that information – the 1 1/2’ difference is not enough to justify the potential conflicts with property owners. v. Teresa moved that we recommend alternative 1. Lauren seconded. Carol took a vote. Motion passed unanimously, with addendum that recommendation will not be final until we see the results of public input. vi. Jake made a proposal for another addendum: that the M&C should consider reevaluating this potential M-U connectivity pending the outcome of the  Lexington Road Corridor deliberations. Mark seconded. Lauren objected to this addendum on the grounds that we would be losing control, particularly because there isn’t a lot of money in either the bike pot or the Lexington pot. Jake: Do we actually have any control here? Aren’t we just making a recommendation that the M&C can accept or ignore or modify however they want anyway? Aaron agrees with Lauren that it muddies the waters. Carol: let’s leave this now until after community input. Is everyone good with that? Everyone is good with that. 8. Bike and Pedestrian Coordinator Report (Hillary) a. Big update is that we did our first concept review and it went very well. b. Dates for M&C work session for: i. Cherokee: August ii. Jefferson River: September iii. Riverbend Road: October iv. Barber: November v. The agenda setting session for each will be the following month. vi. We will discuss each of these about 1 month before the M&C session. c. Evaluating bike lanes on Baxter, Lumpkin, and Hull. i. Will be looking at adding green paint and striping, but bike lanes on Lumpkin are maxed out. ii. Will be going to M&C for Rocksprings and Hull. d. Summer repavement strategy: Hillary included bike boulevard program as a long term (1+ year) goal. On the roster for M&C to consider over the next year; they responded very positively. e. College Ave closure went to SPLOST; it might actually happen! f. Derek Doster will come next month to update us on the Lexington and Atlanta Highway Corridor progress. g. Lauren: should we have a statement about the College Ave closure? Rani: Athens in Motion inputs relate to the projects identified in the tiers. You can note that you discussed it and are in support. I don’t know if there is an action you can take. Hillary: they did give input on the scooter policies, which are not part of the master plan. Carol may want to follow up with Mayor Girtz. Carol will do so and we will draft something and get it to him if need be. 9. Todd’s Update a. Firefly Trail 2 is waiting on signature for the construction contract. b. Todd emailed the name of the mobile home park where this section will end: Hallmark Manufactured Housing has sidewalks that will tie directly in to the FF trail; Bulldog RV Park is on Hancock to the NW, which has a sidewalk that will tie in. 10. Bike Athens Education Update (Scott) a. Scott: we have been revamping education materials. They have started doing Zoom classes, which has upped their attendance. Their 1-hour class is similar to the Butts presentation. They have added sections on securing your bike to avoid theft and what to do if you are in a crash. Working on getting them translated into Spanish. They worked with Rachel Hopkins in ACC Transit to improve their section on using the bike racks on the buses. New collaboration with Bike Law Georgia to host some classes; they are a law firm that represents bicyclists who have been in crashes. Looking for opportunities to present in front of UGA student grounds and bus drivers to improve awareness of bikes and peds. 11. AIMC Commission Work Update – Chair’s Report a. Carol is committing herself to go back through all the minutes and get us into a focused place. b. Carol will follow up with Steve and Hillary on getting money. c. How do we meet as committees? Can we meet in person? Is there guidance from city? Hillary: I will check. Jake: For ORGC, committee meetings have to be set up through WebEx through the Public Information Office. d. Carol: each committee needs to have a work plan. e. Carol: will put together an ad hoc committee on project prioritization process. 12. AIMC Education Committee – OLLI Course a. Creation of materials and Zoom outreach. 13. Discussion of Committee Work, etc. a. Lauren is eager to move forward but concerned that we are overtaxing Hillary. Hillary has to be at them but says not to worry about it. b. Jake: future land use change and population change – are there projections for how particular parts of Athens are expected to change over the next 50 years? Because, for example, it would be easier to plan on adding bike lanes to Cherokee Road if it becomes more residential, with the consequent lowering of speed limits. Does this fit into the work of some subcommittee? It would behoove us to be thinking 30, 50 years into the future. Hillary: Planning is working on this right now. Hillary will invite them to present the new future land use plan. c. Carol will send out an email that gets us organized and creates deadlines for committee work. d. Carol made contact with the Bulldawg Bikes guy. He has red hair. Lauren would love to meet him. Carol will invite him to our next meeting. e. Lauren: will bike share stations stay downtown, or is that just a COVID thing? No one had an answer to this. f. We might want to look at the Corridor projects before the next meeting so that we have better questions for Derek. g. Rani: TPW is aiming to have concepts for Jefferson River Road for the next meeting. 14. Next Meeting will be July 28th, via Zoom. 15. Meeting Adjourned at 5:52. 16. Jake’s cat is named Khufu Pyramid-Builder.