Montpelier Transportation Infrastructure Committee

Montpelier Transportation Infrastructure Committee Meeting Minutes March 23rd 2017: City Hall, Memorial Room Members Present: Dona Bate (City Council) Jenn Gordon (Chair), Heather Voisin, Dan Costin, Jonathan Harries, Erin Aguayo, Dan Jones, Anthony Menonna, Chris Loyer City Staff: Cory Line (DPW), Rebecca Harris (AmeriCorps VISTA), Kevin Casey (Department of Planning and Community Development), Mike Miller (Department of Planning and Community Development). Attendees: Anne Watson, Dan Berheide (ALTA) 1. Jenn calls meeting to order 2. Minutes: Erin moves to approve past meeting minutes. Chris seconds. All in favor 3. Agenda: Chris moves to approve this meeting’s agenda. Erin seconds. All in favor. 4. Public Comment 5. Bike Path Enhancement: Anne is proposing project on property alongside the bike path “bike path bump out project” a. Working alongside Ward Joyce to create a design b. Started conversation with Planning Department and DPW c. Elevation is half a foot above 100 year floodway d. Approximate total cost is $10,000. Requests $1,000 to pay for initial project design by Ward Joyce. The designs would be circulated among the public and generate additional revenue through crowd-funding. e. Suggestion for site to have bike repair items and picture guide. f. What is the timeline? i. Kick starter video in April, fundraising in July and construction in August. g. Dan Jones makes motion to provide $1,000 under minor infrastructure fund for the bike path bump out project. Erin seconds. All in favor. 6. ALTA Presentation: Daniel from Alta presents road typology maps. The end goal is to create a city map, with street typologies, which will be referenced when streets are being constructed, repaved etc... ALTA developed three road typologies and a map to present and get feedback Comments: a. There are no options for parking in any diagrams i. Certain diagrams show “shadow” of parking ii. Alta has provided ranges for each section. The diagrams show road typology aspirations, but these aspirations are flexible. b. Can we identify the roads that are being communicated  i. Typology table classifies roads based upon data such as land use, volume and type of road. c. How are one-way streets handled? How does this fit into design guidelines? d. Elm Street is minor arterial, which translates to a road that is meant to transport long distances. For this type of road we want bike lanes (and thus no on street parking) i. From Elm out to Cummings there are sidewalks on both sides. ii. After Cummings, the typology can change to have one sidewalk as we move into a more rural area. iii. After nature center, the street can change again to 2 way roads and bike lanes. e. In the diagrams alternative one is the preference. Alterative two demonstrates options. This distinction between preferred and alternative will become more defined in future diagrams. f. Suggestion for acronym glossary --for instance what does arterial mean? g. What is the difference between one-way cycle track and bike lane? h. Is the map looking at now or the future? i. The design process analyzes what we have today while looking towards the future. i. Will certain roads be exclusive to certain uses? i. There are typologies where certain uses are not preferred. Ultimately we will find where exclusions are necessary. What kind of feedback does Alta want? ii. Alta needs assistance creating a narrative for each of the typologies. For instance, what characteristics make the street special and unique compared to other road types? “Encapsulates identity”. iii. Narrative may answer the question what is a main residential road or mixed use residential (Barre). iv. Alta is going to take feedback to refine concepts and maps. Dan asks the committee to read the road typologies and send responses and reactions to Kevin. Even better –take a photo so we can better understand how these typologies function. Kevin wants feedback by Tuesday or Wednesday of next week (March 31st). 7. Sustainable Design Competition: a. Letter of support will enable the council to put staff time into making the project realistic and allows for further study of the proposal. b. Anthony hopes to change language to “we endorse the further study” c. Letter of support should be completed before the April 12th city council meeting.  d. Chris makes a motion for Dan to revise the letter to include the phrasing as follows: “MTIC supports the conceptual ideas identified by team bridges and encourages city council and staff to pursue further feasibility”. e. Motion withdrawn 8. Policy: Anthony will create questions for the committee to answer/give feedback. 9. Transportation a. Created bike/ped report card b. Will report on how well are we doing in relation to goals set. c. Main street pedestrian counter demonstrated a steady decline in the number of pedestrians d. Need to collect more data such as survey data e. Mike Philbrick provided bike and pedestrian accident data f. Corey collected all infrastructure improvements g. Members should provide comments to Dan Costin by next Friday Length of meeting should fluctuate based on type of meeting. Meeting Adjourned at 8:00PM