Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6STMinutes_2016_11_036th Street Design Ad Hoc Committee November 3, 2016 Minutes A meeting of the 6th Street Design Ad Hoc Committee was held on Thursday, November 2, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. in the Brookings City and County Government Center. Members present: Matthew Weiss, John Howard, Shayn Damm, Jamison Lamp, Skip Webster, Gregg Jorgenson, and Joanie Holm. Jackie Lanning - City Engineer, Shari Thornes - City Clerk, Jeff Weldon-City Manager, Mike Struck-Community Development Director, Mike Lockrem- representing the Bicycle Advisory Committee, Shawn Murphy – Toole Design Group, and Brandon Riss – SDDOT, were also in attendance. Jorgenson called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Approval of the Agenda. A motion was made by Howard, seconded by Lamp to approve the agenda. All present voted yes; motion carried. Approval of the Minutes. A motion was made by Howard, seconded by Webster to approve the July 21, 2016 minutes. All present voted yes; motion carried. Discussion on draft Community Engagement Report from the Bicycle Master Plan. Shaun Murphy from Toole Design presented a Community Engagement Report from the Bicycle Master Plan to those in attendance. Toole Design Group was hired by the City of Brookings to prepare a Bicycle Master Plan for the City. Murphy explained that they had 5 Strategy points that they focused on: 1. Listening Sessions, 2. Community Workshops, 3. An SDSU Event, 4. Online Surveys and Interactive Maps, 5. Promotion and Communications. The Listening Sessions consisted of 6 groups of people (41 people total) including coffee groups, City staff, large employers, the Chambers and Visitors’ Bureau, school faculty, staff and parents, and the Brookings Bicycle Advisory Committee. The goals of the sessions were to learn about the varying perspectives of stakeholders, generate buy-ins, and identify partnership opportunities for the Brookings Bicycle Master Plan. During these sessions, the staff from Toole Design focused on three key pieces: 1. What is working well for bicycling, 2. What is not working well, and 3. What ideas do people have for improving the biking environment. Key themes from the discussion included education for everyone, comfortable and convenient bike ways (citizens commented they would like separation between the bike lane and the vehicle traffic.), bicycling and the community (how to connect major destinations with a bike facility), and prioritizing the bicycle network (some people stated they weren’t aware of the trail and where it is). A Community Workshop was held at the Activity Center with 80 people in attendance. The staff compiled information on what bicycle routes people would like improved, what bicycle facility types would make members feel most comfortable when biking, bicycle education options, future bicycle parking locations, other strengths and weaknesses pertaining to bicycling, and additional participation in the bicycling environment. The event held on the SDSU campus involved at least 58 people, and the event activities were identical to the one held at the Activity Center. The online surveys and interactive maps portion of the study was conducted during the month of September, with 515 people completing the survey. Total participation throughout the study consisted of nearly 900 people. The consensus is that the problem areas are 6th Street, Main Avenue, 3rd Street and 8th Street. The desired routes of those surveyed were 6th Street, Main Avenue and Medary Avenue. As part of the survey they also provided options that would be available for a bike lane and asked participants which option they would be the most comfortable with if riding with kids.  Unmarked Shared Lane  Shared Lane Marking – a shared roadway with pavement markings  Bicycle Boulevard – typically on low-traffic side streets in residential neighborhoods  Bike Lane – on-street bicycle facility designated by striping and signage  Buffered Bike Lane – bike lane with a painted buffer to increase separation  Separated Bike Lane (with flex posts)  Separated Bike Lane (with parking, curb and landscaping)-a bike lane which is vertically separated from motor vehicle traffic using parking, landscaping and curb.  Two-Way separated Bike Lane - lane along a roadway vertically separated from motor vehicle traffic by curb, flex posts or parking.  Shared Use Path – a facility separated from traffic, but intended for shared use by a variety of groups 67% said they would be comfortable with a separated bike lane with flex posts. 89% would be comfortable with a separated bike lane with parking, curb and landscaping 77% would be comfortable with a two-way separated bike lane 90% would be comfortable with a shared-use path Murphy explained that for them to propose a recommendation to the City they go back to “Where do people want to ride?” They keep in mind the main components that were brought forward such as educating everyone, comfortable and convenient bikeways, and trails to large employers. Based on this information, a multi-use trail along 6th Street is being recommended. This trail would be on one side of the street. The trail would be a 10-foot wide sidewalk with a 6-foot buffer between the roadway and the path. This trail would be used by pedestrians, bicyclists, and joggers. Holm asked Murphy if he had a thought as to which side of 6th Street would be the best for this option. Murphy thought the south side may work best, but that would be dependent upon what infrastructure would be on that side of the street. Holm asked if the shared use path would replace the walking sidewalk. Murphy stated that due to the widths that the City would like for the roadway, the bike path and sidewalk would need to be combined. Holm asked if this proposal would require more land to be taken away from the property owners along 6th Street and Murphy explained that the boulevard could be narrowed to allow for this path. Holm also asked what would happen to the path east of Medary Avenue to 22nd Avenue. Murphy explained how a bicycle master plan usually takes place. The plan comes in phases and there could be gaps in the plan until full buildout, or a temporary route could be made available. Murphy also pointed out that during the survey, many people noted that they are currently using the trail along 22nd Avenue near the golf course, which was proof that a multi-use system would work and get used. Howard was concerned with the plan proposed and said he spoke with many people that have said they will not ride on 6th Street. He said he didn’t feel that a bike facility along 6th Street would be safe if there wasn’t going to be enforcement and education. Murphy stated that bike facilities installed along busy streets have actually helped with this problem and they saw less accidents because people were more alert to the bicyclists. Brandon Riss wondered how bicyclists follow rules along a multi-use path compared to riding with traffic. Murphy stated that this would be dependent upon how you designed the path and how signage would be used. It was asked if curbside installation of this multi-use path could be considered. Murphy explained that can become an issue for snow storage which is why they recommend the 6 foot buffer. Webster noted that he is still quite concerned about the safety for bicyclists along 6th Street. Damm stated he agreed with the proposal provided by Murphy because it was going to be safe and up away from the roadway. However, he stated he was concerned about how the bicycle facility was going to connect throughout town. Damm said he would like everyone to think about this before the next meeting and to keep in mind how this can all fit together in the future. He said since Main Avenue to Western Avenue had already been constructed with a wider outside lane and Medary Avenue to 22nd Avenue will not be reconstructed for several years, what would be the best option. Riss asked the committee if they have a preference on which side of 6th Street this path should be installed and staff was going to discuss it. He was going to discuss the recommendation with his supervisors and possibly begin some design work before the next meeting. Meeting adjourned at 3:15 pm.