Athens in Motion Commission

Athens in Motion Commission Tuesday, February 23, 2021 – 4:00-6:00 pm Online via ACC WebEx: https://youtu.be/QOy-FvMJbaE PRESENT Aaron Redman Mark Ebell Teresa Friedlander Lauren Blais James Barlament Roswell Lawrence Craig Topple Jake Maas Stephen Bailey (TPW) Rani Katreeb (TPW) GUESTS Toole Design Group: Sarah Johnson, Savannah Langkamp, Tom [no known last name; presumably “Tom” is a mononym, like “Cher.”] 1. Call to Order a. Meeting called to order at 4:07. 2. Agenda Additions and Approval a. Agenda approved. 3. Public Comment a. No public comments. 4. Approval of Minutes a. Minutes were approved. 5. Bike/Ped Coordinator a. The AiMC welcomed the new Bike and Pedestrian Coordinator, Daniel Sizemore. 6. Barber Street Presentation a. Toole design group presented on proposed Barber St. bike/ped improvements. See Youtube link above for presentation details. A few key points: i. Any design had to take a lot of truck traffic into account. ii. This portion of Barber St. was further divided into 4 smaller segments, from north to south.  iii. There is not currently funding for the Boulevard to Prince segment, so that preferred design is exploratory and has no cost estimate associated with it. iv. Costs: 1. Dairy Pak to Loop 10: $1,572,000 2. Loop 10 to Oneta St.: $923,000 3. Oneta to Boulevard: $2,524,500 4. Boulevard to Prince: $303,750 (design only) 5. Intersection at Dairy Pak: $510,500 6. Intersection at Oneta: $391,500 7. Intersection at Boulevard: $314,000 8. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS: $6,539,250 b. Stephen noted that this was a presentation/Q&A; we will meet in a Special Called Session to vote on the design. c. Stephen discussed how this cost would fit into our budget. There will be enough funding to cover Barber at the above estimated costs. We have $6.5M available for peds and $5.2M for bikes, leaving us money for additional projects as we prioritize next year’s Tier 1 projects. d. Stephen told us that when Cherokee Rd. M-U path was approved by the M&C, they approved design funds only. They removed dedicated construction funds from TSPLOST, anticipating that funding for the M-U path would come from the Tax Allocation District (TAD) there. e. Rani discussed next steps. i. There will be a special called meeting to vote on this. ii. Then a 2-week public engagement starting at the end of March. iii. SPLOST and T-SPLOST Citizen Oversight Committees have to review and approve (March 22) iv. Concept Approval Agenda May 4 v. Sidewalk on Segment 4 appears to be on private property; ROW will need to be acquired. But this is based on GIS information, not survey. Will be confirmed later. f. Q&A i. Teresa: It appears that there are cars parked on the grass at the side of the street near Pilgrim’s Pride, so people are already pinched for parking. So where will those people park? Mark: may be parking for convenience/proximity rather than necessity. Tom: part of the intention would be to provide a protective measure to ensure there is adequate offset to the facility. ii. Aaron: is there any information about separated bike lanes versus together bike lanes on one side of the road. Tom: there has been some, and we can provide some documentation on that. A two-way gives you some efficiencies, as you have one buffer instead of two, but requires careful planning, especially around intersections. Mark: they use colors in Amsterdam as a visual cue. Has this been considered? Tom: sometimes asphalt vs. concrete gives you that cue. We use directional indicators to minimize conflicts. Sarah: difference in height also helps. iii. Mark: What are the tentative plans around Newton Bridge Road? It doesn’t even get to Terrapin. Lauren: but it will go to General Time. Tom: this is a potential for the TAD, and there’s the TSPLOST-funded Vincent Drive project. Right now it looks like Greenway to nowhere, but it makes more sense in the  larger context. Jake: both GT and Terrapin are super supportive of M-U paths on Newton Bridge road. iv. Mark: can we get rid of the slip lane at Oneta? Tom: you have to have it to accommodate trucks. Otherwise the radius would be too large. This is better than a typical slip lane because it has a stop condition. If signalized we would include a no right on red sign. v. Mark: on Section 4, Jalisco Market, Kwik Car Wash, Shell station, it is basically one big entrance. Will this be addressed? Sarah: roadway has to widen up to accommodate third lane. But a giant concrete apron is not safe for peds or bikes; we took this as an opportunity to put in a curb extension and formalize these entrances. Mark: we may be able to address the Shell entrance on the Prince Corridor Committee. vi. Lauren: how wide will the M-U path be? Sarah: This is only shown in a couple of places in the preferred design. The two-way bike lane is 10’, narrowed rarely to 8’ to accommodate utility poles that can’t be moved. The shared-use path in the exploratory phase is only 10’ wide, as there is also an existing sidewalk on the other side of the street. Tom: at Dairy Pak, the goal is to get at least 12’. vii. Lauren: is this route “preferred” by Toole, or Toole and ACC staff? Rani: Toole and Staff, based on available budget, impact, and weighing pros and cons. viii. Rani: We are acquiring more properties in order to maintain the drainage ditch because it is SPECIAL: it is enhanced with engineered soils to treat stormwater. ix. Daniel: is anything being done with the curb across from Habitat? It is similar to the Car Wash area. Sarah: we have begun to identify how to narrow and formalize those entrances with a new curb. x. Rani: coordination with CSX is often costly and may be an additional cost here. The cost estimate may change to reflect this cost. Should be between $150k- $250k. xi. Jake: we’ve been presented with other alternatives with other projects – in this case, are we just voting yes or no on this preferred design? What are our options? Lauren: “THAT IS THE BEST QUESTION ANYONE HAS EVER ASKED IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.” Rani: Yes. But you can decide you don’t like part of this design and ask for alternatives. But we want to have a consistent design across all segments. The preferred design for Segment 4 is an M-U path, but we are not showing it because that would be a separate project. We didn’t want to spend a lot of money on non-preferred options. Stephen: Barber St. was the first identified M-U path among these projects. From the beginning we knew it was going to be bike and ped facilities. In previous votes we were agnostic about bike and/or ped. xii. Teresa: my gut reaction is positive; y’all have done a terrific job seeing the problems and possibilities of this long road. I would like to read through the information and drive it and walk it a bit before voting. Stephen: we can push out the work session or have a special called meeting very soon. Jake: I am prepared to vote yes, but I do want to talk about the budget. xiii. Special called session scheduled for March 3rd. Lauren” thanks to Toole, it’s really exciting to see this street come together. 7. Staff Update (Stephen/Rani) a. Riverbend vote is happening next week. UGA has become more amenable to right-of- way usage between College Station and Riverbend Pkwy. Looking at M-U section there  and at the opposite end, from Lakeside Drive to Milledge. Will be put forward in a Commission-defined option. Lauren: Does that mean we’ll get rid of the bike lanes? CS- bound bike lanes would be removed with expectation that westbound cyclists would use M-U path; Milledge-bound will be expanded to 5’ (right now they are substandard). This doesn’t fix everything due to series of transitions between M-U path and substandard bike line; this will still need to be addressed in a future project. Lauren: can we see the CDO? Stephen: I think so; I will check and send over the concept drawing if approved. It’s basically M-U path alternative 1, but only for those two stretches. May change by the time we get to the voting session. b. Rani: we are putting together the future paving program list. We hope to be able to share this with AiMC at the next meeting. 8. AiMC Commission Update -- Chair’s Report a. Lauren has talked to the Mayor and Jean Spratlin about vacancies and adding two more members. b. Budget was submitted in September by Carol for $12k. c. Thanks to Mark and Aaron for speaking at M&C meeting last week. The M&C really paid attention. Teresa: were they speaking as AiMC Commissioners or private citizens? Aaron: private citizens but identified their civic roles. Teresa: I want to make sure I’m wearing the correct hat. Lauren: you could go either way, especially since you are speaking as Vice Chair. Teresa: I will speak on behalf of AiMC and keep it brief. Will look at public comments and summarize what those are saying to us, and emphasize that we are primarily focused on safety, ease of use, and comfort. Craig: I will speak whenever needed; I’m flexible. Teresa: we’re taking up a lot of slots. Lauren: there were 20 slots and only nine were filled. 9. Proposed Work Plan (Lauren) a. This is a brief document concerned only with policy, budget items, and anything else that might come before the M&C. Work plan: i. Finish the new Complete Streets policy ii. Intersection Policy iii. Considerations for Small Sidewalk Projects b. Motion to approve the work plan? Teresa: should we add an item for “other business”? Lauren: no, this is not meant to be comprehensive. Teresa moved to approve. Aaron seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. UGA Update (Lauren/Roswell) a. Meeting is scheduled with Alison McCullick. We are interested in the replacement for Gotcha as campus bike vendor, among other things Jake: are they just gone? Lauren: they are really gone. Roswell: this caught UGA by surprise as well. Aaron: couldn’t have been worse timing with the pandemic. Lauren: they were doing a great job. Teresa: was it an economic decision? Aaron: yes, they just weren’t getting ridership with campus fully and then partially shut down. b. Roswell: UGA does not have a comprehensive bike/ped mater plan; bike and ped facilities are included on an ad hoc basis. 11. Corridor Committees a. Lauren: feel free to request official letters from AiMC if appropriate. b. Teresa: ATL Highway Corridor Committee: storymap/survey tool is up and running. Comment period is open through April 19th. c. Mark: Prince Ave Corridor Committee: GDOT says there is no way to put bike lanes on the entire corridor. We only have control between Milledge and Pulaski. There is  support for a road diet from some business owners on Prince. A lot of ped improvements are proposed. Should be a presentation soon on possibilities for bike lanes from Milledge to Pulaski. Letter from AiMC in support of complete streets policy for Prince would be appreciated. Mark will draft a letter. Lauren: what is GDOT’s rationale for no bike lanes? Mark: high traffic, Hospital doesn’t want them, can’t narrow road or get rid of turn lanes. This was decided before the Committee even started meeting. However, historically, GDOT has identified Prince as a corridor that should have multi-model transportation. But they are going against this now. They will build pedestrian refuges and add signalized mid-block crossings. The world did not collapse when Dougherty got 3-laned. Potential for bike lanes there in the future. Lauren: I think this was a phased approach so the public did not think it was being 3-laned for bike lanes. d. Lexington Corridor Committee: Jake volunteered to be liaison. Roswell is happy to go when he is available. 12. Committee Discussion (Craig) a. Craig: We should recruit members of the public to serve on our committees? Lots of people could make contributions and would be good avenue for education and recruitment. Lauren: I agree. Reach out to your networks. 13. Grants and Data Committee Update (Mark) a. Nothing to report – have not yet found any fits for funding. 14. Policy Committee Update (Lauren) a. Work plan drafted [see above]. b. Have talked about process for selecting Tier 1 projects. TSPLOST 2023 proposals will be due at end of year. c. Trying to wrap up Complete Streets policy. 15. Education and Communications Committee Update (Teresa) a. Open Streets had to be put on hold due to pandemic. No permits are being issued. 16. Other Items a. Jake: AiMC is now an ex officio on ORGC, so Lauren has a standing invitation to attend. 17. Announcements a. Special Called Session is March 3rd. b. Next meeting March 23rd. 18. Adjournment a. Jake moved to adjourn. Daniel seconded. Mark thirded. Jake fourthed. Lauren fifthed. Teresa objected but was overruled. Meeting adjourned at 6:03.