Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/3/2022 - Meeting Minutes SALT LAKE CITY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD Minutes of the October 3, 2022 Meeting Present from the Transportation Advisory Board were Courtney Reeser, Dave Alderman, Jim Espeland, and Jon Larsen. Electronically present from the Transportation Advisory Board were Daniel Mendoza, Danny Houpt, Ellen Reddick, Greg Sanchez, Myron Willson, Reid Ewing, Suzanne Stensaas, and Tyler Schmidt. Absent from the Transportation Advisory Board were Jenn Diederich, Johnnae Nardone, Leo Masic, and Paul Schulte. Present was Amy Lyons. Electronically present were Katherine Maus, Ginger Cannon, Dan Dugan, Dave Iltis, Cindy Lou Trishman, and Julianne Sabula. The meeting was held both electronically and in person and was called to order at 4:06 p.m.by Courtney Reeser. Welcome and Introduction of Guests — Courtney welcomed everyone. Public Comment — Dave Iltis reminded TAB that reviewing CIP applications is part of their main duties and he doesn't think it's been done for several years. He said the same goes for the BAC. He filed a complaint with the city a few months ago regarding ioo South and received a response from Jon Larsen that seemed clear he had not read the complaint. The rationale in the response made no sense and it did not address the points in the complaint and was basically a post hoc attempt to rationalize a poor and illegal decision. 200 South is getting bike lanes and a redo; however,the bike lanes are winding and curvy and it makes little sense as to why they couldn't have been parking protected bike lanes. It's not a good design which he brought up with Jon with no meaningful response. The only meaningful response he got was that it's only like that on some blocks, not all blocks. The curve and slope on some blocks are too great to have curbside bike lanes but that certainly doesn't apply from boo East to goo East. He pointed that out to Jon and the project manager and was essentially ignored. Main Street was completely redone with fantastic new bike lanes. They're buffered bike lanes and it's a great street design. The traffic lanes are nice and narrow, it's a road diet,but inexplicably because Salt Lake City's process is broken, the speed limits remain 30- 35mph. Salt Lake City needs to include with every street project, reevaluating speed limits and not wait months or years later as they did on Sunnyside by the zoo. 300 West is progressing nicely and its sort of open to ride, so he's ridden it and it's a fantastic new bike trail,kudos to SLC for doing that. However, the project basically stops at Home Depot when traveling south and it's a nightmare from there for the next block or to get to the S-Line. SLC needs to do something about this in conjunction with UDOT, but they never stand up to UDOT. They also need to talk to South Salt Lake about having an Page 1 of 8 TAB 10-03-2022 Minutes official bike lane as soon as you cross 2100 South. There are numerous blocked sidewalks and bike lanes downtown although the one at 300 South and 20o East finally has pedestrian access, but the bike lane is still blocked. This has been an ongoing problem where he assumes permitting is not forcing the issue to make the city or developers include pedestrian access. This is a constant problem; all sorts of multimillion dollar construction projects and they are not making accommodations for bikes and pedestrians. South Temple is getting a road diet and bike lanes which are great on some blocks but not so great on other blocks. He spoke with Jon Larsen about this. It looks to him from where the temporary markers are where they're going to paint the lines that essentially, they will be bowing to having parking on the curbside without working towards protected bike lanes. This brings up another failure with SLC which is parking protected bike lanes should be the default, not the exception. There was a battle on Zoo East to get parking protected bike lanes and to keep the ones on 30o East from being removed but on South Temple, they should be the default. Then if you absolutely can't make a parking protected bike lane, then change it,but it should be the default. Courtney stopped Dave at the Board approved 2 minutes. Suzanne commented that she wasn't at the meeting where they voted on that, and she thinks limiting them to 2 minutes is inappropriate and not very inviting. She thinks someone who has done as much careful work as Dave,who more than anyone has looked at, driven, and observed both the progress that is being made and the plans, should be respected. He comes with valid suggestions, praise where it's worthy and questions about where we should look at things where they aren't ideal. She said limiting good suggestions and a list of discussions carefully prepared is inappropriate. Courtney explained that this 2-minute rule was made to keep the Board on time with their agenda and the discussion that needed to be had after public comment, would be addressed in the meeting minutes by staff. Suzanne suggested Dave submit all his written suggestions so there is time for the Department to look at and perhaps respond to them. Daniel suggested that Dave have a monthly slot on the agenda for upcoming meetings because he provides a lot of information. Jon said the Board can do this if they please but having a private resident with their own timeslot on the agenda would be unprecedented. He can always submit his suggestions directly to TAB prior to their meeting for discussion. Courtney suggested he send them to Amy for distribution to the Board. Ginger Cannon wanted to talk to TAB about some discussions the PNUT Board has had regarding the Glendale Master Plan. She said great work has gone into the master plan and she's hoping for some combined work with the TAB and PNUT Board around transportation issues that are part of that plan. She's hoping the two Boards can go to the City Council with a joint letter of support so they can possibly see some transportation enhancements along 1700 South in that area sooner rather than later. Motion: David Alderman moved to approve the minutes of the September 12, 2022 meeting. Jim Espeland seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Council Member Dugan Introduction Dan Dugan, SLC City Council Council Member Dugan thanked the Board for allowing him the opportunity to attend their meeting. He and other Council members have the intention of joining different Board meetings to get a pulse of the city from different angles. Glendale Master Plan Page 2 of 8 TAB 10-03-2022 Minutes Kat Maus/SLC Public Lands Kat introduced herself as a Planner with Public Lands who is the project manager on the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan,which is the plan is for development of the old Raging Waters site. This plan makes quite a few recommendations that include transportation improvements, particularly to 1700 South and a few to the Jordan River Corridor. The City PNUT Board recommended presenting this plan to TAB for their feedback and potential support. The final draft has been shared with the public and is online (https://www.slc.gov/parks/parks-division/glendale-waterpark/). Kat gave the history of the plan and details of the final recommendations to make this 17-acre site into a regional park. She went through the public outreach and results as well as the mission statement for the park. She shared some transportation issues and what they are considering to address those issues. Public Lands is asking for endorsement of this plan by TAB in conjunction with the PNUT Board, showing support for the recommendations made in the plan and commitment to addressing the safety issues and concerns presented with the development of this new park. Jim asked if there was a bond election coming up that will supplement this funding and Kat said there is a general obligations bond on the ballot in November. He also asked if there will be street parking in the plan and Kat said right now, they are concerned about unsafe parking on the street but with activation of the park site, they are hopeful to open that back up for street parking in the future. Jim said the Glendale Community Council was talking about doing some sort of archway identifying their community and asked if the entrance to the park would be a good location for that. Kat said that is something they can explore. He said it would also be important to add lights at the crosswalks and he's read through the entire plan and said they did a really good job. Suzanne has watched the development online and said it is a well thought out plan with a lot of input. She asked what the current speed limit is on 1700 South where they are putting those three crosswalks and was told it is 35mph. She feels it is important to decrease the speed at least for a distance on either side of the park and at the same time, have pedestrian activated crossing signs or whatever is most appropriate. Regarding parking, she thinks it is just as important to not have parking on that street and to have a nice bike lane so people without cars can safely bring their children to the park on their bicycles, scooters, green bikes, etc. The connection to the Jordan River is very important and she asked about funding between the city and county and if impact fees from development in the area can be used. Kat said this is just a city park,but they are asking the county to operate some of their amenities just as they do at Liberty Park and she said this project is nearly fully impact fee eligible so if they don't have significant funding, they will explore using impact fees. Suzanne asked if they spoke with UTA about enhancing accessibility by bus. Kat said the recommendations this plan makes will constitute having conversations with UTA in the future. Greg thinks the plan is great and said there are currently bike lanes on 1700 South and his concern with not having parking on the road is that some people are going to drive, and his concern would be that parking on the road would be maintained until a solution has been provided. Suzanne asked if the parking provided in the park would provide adequate parking because otherwise the street would have to be redesigned for parking and bicycling. Greg agrees that people trying to cross the street is an issue,but people are going to drive and not having enough parking is going to disincentivize people from going there especially with no good transit nearby. Suzanne asked if he thinks the parking plan is inadequate and he said that is correct. He doesn't know what the parking stall prediction is but even in Liberty Park where there are more parking spots, it's sometimes hard to find parking. Suzanne said if they make it bike friendly, pedestrian friendly, public transit friendly, and scooter Page 3 of 8 TAB 10-03-2022 Minutes friendly,then maybe they can change the behavior. Jim said that didn't happen at Liberty Park. Myron loved the proposed crosswalks and agreed with all of Suzanne's comments. He would like to see more detail in the master plan with how those crosswalks will be designed. A median or areas of refuge in between were mentioned and if a full redesign of 1700 South can't be done to lower the speeds through design, those sections where the crosswalks are located should be narrowed down and have some added lights. There will be millions of dollars spent on this park and it should include the connections that are necessary to integrate it with the neighborhood. He's still not clear on the bike lane recommendation so he would like a little clarification on what TAB is being asked to support. Kat said it's a bit out of Public Lands purview to do detailed design on streets and transportation projects with the current funding they have. A recommendation to collaborate with divisions like Transportation and Streets to do parking protected plans and things like that would be her suggestion for specific street design for that project. Reid said lowering the speed limit from 35mph makes sense to him. Unless they are going to do some traffic calming on 1700 South, he would urge them be cognizant of the most fundamental principle that people go the design speed regardless of what is posted. Kat said they can propose further study of certain elements like parking, additional parking capacity that includes street parking and the same with the speed limits. Reid said you can also recommend traffic calming. Jon said as far as the master plan for the park, they want a good interface between the street and the park but it's not the only place where policy decisions can be made regarding the street in front of the park. He said Transportation has a project manager assigned to look at 1700 South and some funds to start a low-cost project. They will be looking at some design options and addressing these concerns. Kat said the PNUT Board will discuss moving forward with an endorsement and it sounds like they will be writing a letter to support this plan. They are hoping for a joint letter to be written to the Planning Commission and the City Council in support of this plan by the end of October. TAB is considering writing a letter of support for the park plan with commitment to addressing the safety issues and concerns. Annual Elections Transportation Advisory Board Members Motion: Courtney Reeser moved that Greg Sanchez be the new Chair. Reid Ewing seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: Reid Ewing moved that Suzanne Stensaas be the new Vice-Chair. Jim Espeland seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: Dave Alderman motioned to adjourn the meeting; Jim Espeland seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 5:26 p.m. and the next meeting of the Board was scheduled for November 7, 2022. Page 4 of 8 TAB 10-03-2022 Minutes Public Comments/Response from Staff 1. 300 W, 400 S These were recently redone by UDOT. SLC did nothing to ask for bike lanes on either street or better striping. Hence both streets have lanes at 12' (some at 11'), no bike lanes, and hence a much less safe street that we could have had. 300 W is a particular problem since without any clear vision from SLC Transportation and UDOT, the 300 W bike path/route will end at Pioneer Park. The vision should be a continuous bike lane from the S-Line to N. Salt Lake. UDOT is going to add bike lanes from N. Temple to 600 N on 300 W because of our advocacy. SLC's failure and UDOT's failure on this means that this route will have a huge gap. This is a policy and leadership failure from the Division and the Mayor and UDOT. Note that this is something that we brought up to TAB but as far as we know, TAB did not do anything on this either. 300 West and 400 South were discussed with UDOT well in advance of the construction that recently took place. Ultimately, UDOT owns these streets and it was their decision to proceed on those projects without lane narrowing or bike lanes. On a related note, on 300 West,we are actively working to extend the protected 300 West bike path northward to connect from the current terminus at goo South to the 300 South bike lanes. This is funded through a partnership with UDOT, who has committed to work with us on the one block that they own in between 300 South and 400 South. While we don't always get everything we ask for with UDOT,we do look for and continually find opportunities to advance projects that meet our collective goals. 2. 100 S Complaint. 100 S should have bike lanes per the Complete Streets Ordinance and per FHWA best practices. It did not get those. SLC broke 2 laws: Complete Streets Ordinance and the Utah Open Meetings Act (by having the post hoc justification meeting after the project was complete). SLC's response was illogical and did not address anything in the complaint. As was Council Chair Dugan's response which abdicated any role for the Council and referred to SLC's inadequate response. The Council showed zero interest in making sure that the administration followed the law. ioo South was a demanding project with many considerations to take into account. We ultimately landed on the decision to omit the bicycle lanes because of the determinations made by the Complete Streets Committee (CSC) and engineers in the Transportation Division. The CSC met in a public meeting on August 30, 2021 and determined that the cost of establishing a viable bicycle way would be highly excessive when considering the need and probable use would be minimal. The recommendations made by our engineers here in the Division, that ioo South would need to maintain four vehicular traffic lanes was due to emergency vehicle access constraints from the University area hospitals. After reviewing the Complete Street Ordinance with the City Attorney's Office to look into the allegations raised in past complaints,we found that pursuant to Chapter 14.o6 the City was within the scope of the Ordinance. Under section 14.o6.020, the City must establish bicycle and pedestrian ways in any new City construction or reconstruction Page 5 of 8 TAB 10-03-2022 Minutes projects in the public right of way but are subject to three exemption conditions. The exemption used to make the determination on ioo South was the second exemption under that list addressing the cost of establishing bikeways or walkways that would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. The Complete Streets Committee was established for these exact discretionary reasons and made that determination before the project was completed. It should be noted that the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan does not call for bike lanes on this section of ioo South. 3. Foothill was recently repaved. It did get some nice safety lanes that allow cyclists some refuge. Again, SLC needs to stand up to UDOT. The road has a ridiculously wide center turn lane, and with some slight striping readjustments it could have had bike lanes. Again, it's unclear that SLC ever stands up to UDOT. We are continuously developing and focused on our long-term relationship with UDOT in order to push forward more active transportation projects on state roads like 400 South and Foothill Drive.Working with them to reach consensus is more beneficial than approaching problems combatively. In most instances,we are actively talking with UDOT about these concerns, but ultimately the final decision is in their jurisdiction. We have and will continue to push for the needs of Salt Lake City and find that UDOT staff do their best within the legislative and other constraints within which they have to work to accommodate our needs. We are making great progress with our relationship with UDOT. Recently, UDOT staff assisted in allocating over $15 million in state funds for transit and active transportation projects in the City. In addition, they have been working with us to make improvements on Foothill Drive and elsewhere, including plans for a new UDOT-funded crosswalk at Kensington Avenue and Foothill. 4. S. Temple Bike Lanes In walking the street, there are several issues, as well as striping that is hard to figure out from the preliminary markings. In some blocks, approximately N to Q, the parking and bike lane could be switched easily. In the eastbound block from 700 E to 800 E, it's unclear if there is a bike lane at all. Yet the buffers are in the middle of the street. From 1100 E to 1300 E, there were zero cars parked there one evening, yet parking is preserved and the bike lane is a normal lane, not curbside. And westbound between I street and 700 E, there needs to be at least an advisory bike lane. SLC needs to do something to improve the crossings to and from the Avenues, either contraflow lanes, or more simply 1 block of 1-way for cars, but 2-way for bikes. SLC ignored these comments. Our team took these comments into consideration on the design.We are aware of the crossing complications along this stretch of road. Our team evaluated parking protected Page 6 of 8 TAB 10-03-2022 Minutes bike lanes and determined that they weren't a feasible option. This is due, in part, to the extra space requirements. Parking protected bike lanes would have necessitated removing the center turn lane, which is a critical safety feature when introducing a road diet. 5. Construction blocked sidewalks and bike lanes downtown and throughout the city. This is a continuing issue and is likely a result of poor oversight from the permitting department. Handicapped pedestrians are particularly impacted. Many examples exist downtown currently. Our team is currently aware of the many issues that arise from the massive amounts of construction in our city.At a recent meeting, we collectively agreed to help with finding these blockages, documenting them and making our permitting groups and construction inspectors aware of them in order to address issues within our public right of ways. Staff are stretched thin during this time of unprecedented growth.We are continuing the conversation between the permit and inspection groups to find efficiencies and process improvements and will keep working on this issue until we get it rectified. 6. 300 W bike path — the path is fantastic where it exists. However there is no connection from north of Home Depot to the S. Line. This requires SLC to stand up to UDOT and build a better way to get through this area. The sidewalk is about 5 feet wide. South Salt Lake has no marked bike lanes from 2100 S to the S. Line. This is large an unfortunate gap in the system. Additionally, Salt Lake should be coordinating with the developer on the block from 500 to 600 S. to get a free block of the bike path here. We would like to clarify that we stopped at the Home Depot because we didn't have the funds to go any further. We look forward to future opportunities to collaborate with UDOT and South Salt Lake to extend the bike path to the S-Line. As previously noted, we are actively working to extend the 300 West protected bike path from goo South to 300 South. UDOT is a collaborative and funding partner on this effort, and we appreciate the partnership. We will make sure to work with adjacent property owners, as appropriate. 7. 200 S — 200 needs better bike lanes in the upcoming design. The bike lanes should be protected. The bike community fought for this corridor to have bike lanes for years. It is the *only* E-W corridor for bikes in downtown SLC. As such it should be the best it can be. The design is unsafe because bikes must weave in and out of parked cars and between buses. It prioritizes (parked) cars over people. The bike lanes should be barrier protected, but at the very least parking protected. Your design is going to result in injuries to people by mixing cars, buses, and people on bikes. While there are some blocks where the street slope by the curb is too much for parking protected bike lanes, this is not the case for most blocks. This issue has been brought up with Transportation who again ignored our concerns. Page 7 of 8 TAB 10-03-2022 Minutes 200 South has been a balancing act between many different perspectives, interests and priorities. We recognize that 200 South is a critical bike corridor, which is why it will be vastly improved compared to existing conditions. It is also the busiest bus corridor in the state, so transit and walkability were the top considerations. As you have mentioned in your complaint,bicycle lanes are among these priorities but had to be shaped around business access and cultural institutions as well. The proposed design has many compromises but allows us to construct the project rather than face constant rejection of the proposals by other stakeholders. Our`hybrid' design has protected bike lanes where they are needed most: at bus boarding islands and at key conflict points within intersections. It should be noted that the design also significantly reduces on street parking by 35 which has been viewed in a negative light by other constituents. When working on well-established environments like that of 200 South,we must bring in all voices in order to best meet everyone's concerns and needs. Compromise is important in addressing such a diverse group of interested and concerned parties involved in large projects of this magnitude. 8. With the new traffic pattern and great bike lanes on Main St, the speed limit needs to be lowered to 25 mph. With the new 20 mph base speed limit on residential streets, SLC needs to follow up on collectors and arterials with much lower speed limits. 35 is way too high on Main as is 30. It is safer for all at 25. There are plenty of leftover signs from the switch to the 20 is plenty campaign. This illustrates a broken part of SLC Transportation's process. Streets are redesigned but the speed limit changes are NOT part of the redesign. New, lower speed limits are in place on Main Street. 9. CIP review process: See the TAB ordinance powers and duties for what the TAB is supposed to be doing: http://www.slcdocs.com/mayor/bc/ordinance.pdf We regularly discuss CIP project priorities with TAB and will continue to do so. The feedback and support is extremely valuable. Approved by Transportation Advisory Board 11-7-22. Page 8 of 8 TAB 10-03-2022 Minutes