Athens in Motion Commission

Athens in Motion Commission Tuesday, November 24, 2020 – 4:00-6:00 pm Online via ACC WebEx: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlihq6O6BbU&feature=youtu.be PRESENT Carol Myers Aaron Redman Mark Ebell Teresa Friedlander Jake Maas Craig Topple Lauren Blais James Barlament ABSENT Roswell Lawrence GUESTS Rani Katreeb (TPW) 1. Call to Order a. Carol called the meeting to order at 4:05 pm. b. This is also counting as our annual meeting as required by our Bylaws. 2. Agenda Additions and Approval a. Aaron moved to approve; Jake seconded; agenda approved. b. Stephen is lost in south Georgia world and is not able to attend. 3. Public Comment a. No public comments. 4. Approval of Minutes a. Teresa moved to approve; James seconded; minutes approved. 5. Riverbend Road Options Revisited a. UGA continues to be supportive of the 600 ft. from College Station to the greenhouses, and are tentatively willing to commit $125 toward this section. They are not in favor of any high-impact option on any part of Riverbend Rd. Mark: and there’s no rationale for that beyond that they just don’t want it? And is it on both segments, or just segment 1? Rani: It’s on both segments. Mark: we have to look at this in the entire context of the  project; it’s a very small fraction of the total cost. Will we need their permission? Rani: yes, we will need their permission for easements anywhere in segment 2, and for much of segment 1. Carol: from the Greenhouses up to Riverbend Parkway, is that all UGA land? Rani: For the majority of it. b. Rani went through the revised presentation, adding some additional information. i. There are no bike facilities on the first 850 feet of Riverbend, starting at Milledge. Where the bike facilities begin they are substandard (4’ instead of 5’). ii. Carol and Lauren rode the whole stretch before today’s meeting. The hill coming up from Milledge is very steep and long, with narrow shoulders in some places. The traffic is much faster than anticipated. Carol was more convinced of the need for something significant. Lauren agreed that the hill is ROUGH (both ways). iii. Rani reviewed the sidewalk and m-u path options. c. Next steps for Riverbend Rd. i. M&C Work Session 12/8 ii. Public Engagement 2-4 weeks (Dec-Jan) iii. TSPLOST Committee Review 12/14 iv. Concept Approval Agenda 2/2/21 v. MOU with UGA following approval d. Any improvement to bike facilities on Riverbend would have to come from other sources, or from anticipated Barber St. budget. Lauren: is the pavement maintenance process still an option for this? Rani: It has to be on the side where we are doing this construction already, and the options will be somewhat limited. e. Mark: Putting bikes in a bike lane protected only by paint when cars are moving at high speed are not a pro. Rani: TPW recommendations, looking at the entire budget, the only option that UGA approves that would fit into our budget would be Alternative 3 on Segment 2, plus a recommendation to improve bike lanes on the rest of the road. It is much more cost efficient to improve bike lanes during a future sidewalk project. Mark: what is the design standard for when it is appropriate to have a non-buffered bike lane? What speed limit? How do we make it safer than just paint? In most places in the world they would not have a non-buffered bike lane here. Carol agrees and says that the Commissioners are on the same page. f. Craig: if our objective is to increase ped and bike usage, which models would result in that? Why do this project if no one is going to use the bike lanes anyway? It might be worth it to pay more to achieve our objectives. Carol: this is originally a sidewalk project. Per the Complete Streets policy, we should be considering m-u path alternatives when the m-u path is less than 20% more; what we are talking about here is much more than 20%. Rani: M&C also wants to see more m-u path options costed out. g. Teresa: who wants this project? Who is pushing for it? UGA? The community? Carol: how did it get into not just tier 1, but in the first 5 projects to be paid for? Teresa: It seems like we are getting a lot of pushback from UGA, so who is asking for this? Rani: with this project, I dug into the old street files and there were a lot of notes about students walking in the mud and grass, and also that the ravines are very deep. Stopping at Riverbend Parkway will create a gap, and we could be criticized for this. h. Teresa: it seems like in Segment 2 our main constituents will be students, and maybe staff of the University, which has a pretty high stake in that. But they don’t seem enthusiastic about working with us to help with a safety problem that affects their students and employees. I wish they would come to the negotiating table. Mark: I would  be willing to support the least expensive sidewalk option in segment 1, but not supportive of a vastly more expensive project that benefits the University is the main roadblock and they’re the ones who are benefitting. $3-4M is a lot of money that cold be spent in places where there is a desire and user base. i. Jake: There is really only one option here. We don’t have enough money in the bike budget to go 50/50 on a m-u path option, so those are all out. UGA owns all the land, and would have to grant easements for any sidewalk alternative, and they have vetoed all but number 3. So really, we are left with sidewalk alternative number 3 on segment 2, or on segments 1 and 2 (which would be prohibitively expensive). With UGA contributing on Segment 2, it would be $1.675M. I don’t see UGA, especially under the current administration, prioritizing alternative transportation to the extent that they would be willing to absorb the property impact that they are currently objecting to. Out of the 7 available alternatives, there is really only one that is doable right now; the question is do we want to do that. My thoughts about the bike infrastructure: Lauren’s review of the hill made me pause. Unless E-assist bikes become the norm, we won’t see a lot of bike traffic on this road in the near future regardless. I don’t like the idea of unprotected bike lanes on a high-speed road, but wider bike lanes would at least be something. If I were going to make a motion it would be to go with sidewalk alternative #3 on segment 2 and recommend looking at widening bike lanes during repavement. There is a chorus of agreement from those assembled. j. Rani: the 2’ widening would not be during repavement, but during the construction process. Repavement pays for shifting and restriping, but not for adding pavement. What would be needed is some signage and transition at Riverbend Parkway. There will be costs here that would be worked out in the repavement program. Teresa: so if we only go ahead with segment 2, the only repavement would be on segment 2, if we add a sidewalk to that segment. k. Carol: do we have a motion to vote for something? Jake: I think that our motions have to have justification appended to them, based on the Cherokee Road path. I am still frustrated by that experience, especially now knowing that that was not part of the 50/50 split, and it came out of our bike budget, which is already a pittance. Jake moves that we recommend sidewalk alternative number 3 for segment 2 only with the recommendation that improved bike facilities on segment 2 be considered as part of the repavement program. Craig seconded the motion. Motion passes unanimously. l. Mark volunteers to write up the motion with an explanation of why we selected the option and no option for segment 1. 6. Chase Street Corridor Report. a. Rani went through the Chase Street corridor plans distributed to the AiMC beforehand [see Youtube link above for the full presentation]. (This is discussion, not something up for a vote – this has been approved as part of the Chase Street Corridor Plan). This is partly funded by a TAP grant that has a development and an implementation phase. We are in the development phase. The match for the grant would come from an intersection improvement program funded in SPLOST 2011. b. They wanted to take out the center turn lanes, but tractor trailers have to be able to turn around – so practice trumped theory. They tried removing them and adding bike lanes, and there were major traffic issues. Instead, the plan is to divert bike traffic to the forthcoming Barber St. m-u path. 7. Bike/Pedestrian Coordinator Report  a. Bike/Ped coordinator position is still open; will be closed next week and interviews will begin. This person could be in place as soon as mid-December. 8. AiMC Commission Update -- Chair’s (and Vice-Chair’s) Report a. Lauren: Deadline for GNP comments is soon. Make sure to look at it and the Story Map. It has been adjusted, in part due to the creation of the Athens in Motion Plan. b. Lauren: There are some alternatives to the proposed path of the Firefly trail due to the concerns of homeowners. Can we take it to the Policy Committee? Mark: yes. The alternative presents various dangers for cyclists and pedestrians. 9. Annual Report (see Appendix B) a. Per Carol, Jake’s minutes were very helpful in preparing the annual report. b. Annual Report Includes accomplishments and recommendations for future work. Also includes budget for coming year. c. Everyone feels retrospectively productive. d. Aaron moved to approve the annual report. Lauren seconded. Annual Report approved unanimously. 10. Elections a. Carol is leaving the AiMC to become District 8 ACC Commissioner at the end of the year. b. Lauren had self-nominated for chair; Aaron seconded. Craig retroactively nominated her; Mark seconded. Lauren commented snarkily that Carol has excessively large shoes. c. Lauren was voted in as the new Chair unanimously. Carol told Lauren how much she appreciated her work as Vice-Chair, despite Lauren’s rude shoe-size comments. d. Aaron nominated Teresa for Vice-Chair, Mark seconded. Teresa was voted in as the new Vice-Chair unanimously. 11. Grants and Data Committee Update a. Heat Maps: if anyone has any suggestions for changes, or issues with usability, contact James. We don’t have some types of data that people might want. Lauren: is this just internal right now? James: It is a public facing map using data from 2015-2019, 12. Policy Committee Update a. Still working on Complete Streets Policy; waiting to work with Equity and Inclusion office on equity language. b. Will work on letter re: Firefly Trail alternative. 13. Education and Communication Committee Update a. Teresa has no updates. There is a shocked silence. � 14. Meeting Adjourned at 5:44 pm. a. Next meeting will be on 12/22.