The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcomplete street committee minutesComplete Streets Committee Meeting February 10, 2014 The Committee reviewed the notes from the previous meeting and made a few minor changes to the definitions. Walter Malone gave an overview of the Master Bike Plan and made the following points: ■ Under the current Master Bike Plan, developers are not required to make bike infrastructure improvements as defined by the Master Bike Plan. Several years ago there was discussion about making developers responsible for these improvements; however, this policy was never adopted. • The 2011 Master Bike Plan provided a significant change from a heavy emphasis on Class I bikeways, to a heavy emphasis on Class II and Class III bikeways. This was done in an attempt to develop a more comprehensive bike route system in a shorter period of time. The current plan focuses on creating consistent and safe routes throughout the City. • There are still several significant Class I bikeways on the plan, including: the Arkansas River Trail, the Parks and Recreation Extreme Trail (western Little Rock) and the Earth Trail (Fourche Creek), Cantrell Road west of Interstate 430, the north Side of Interstate 630 and Boyle Park, the proposed Southwest Trail and Rahling Road. ■ Most Class I bikeways on the 2011 Master Bike Plan have been changed to Class II bikeways. ■ The City is currently building bike infrastructure on all City -funded projects as defined by the Master Bike Plan; most developers are not doing so. ■ The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department usually defers to local City ordinances and policies when it comes to building to a complete street standard on an AHTD funded project. • The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department does plan on adopting a Complete Streets Policy sometime in the near future. ■ There was a brief discussion about the use of in -lieu funding to replace the building of complete street infrastructure if it were to be required by the City. • There was a brief discussion about the need to strengthen pedestrian requirements and standards on the Master Street Plan. This would include things like high visibility pedestrian corridors, reduced speed, shorter crosswalks, etc. There was a discussion about when should complete street components be exempted from a project. A number of suggestions were put on the table, (/ have copied the following exemptions from another ordinance and would ask that the group adopt these; they seem to be thorough and well thought out) 1. Accommodation is not necessary on corridors where specific users are prohibited, such as interstate freeways or pedestrian malls. 2. Cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. 3. Scarcity of population, travel and attractors, both existing and future, indicate an absence of need for such accommodations. 4. Detrimental environmental or social impacts outweigh the need for these accommodations. 5. Transit accommodations are not required where there is no existing or planned transit service. 6. Routine maintenance of the transportation network that does not change the roadway geometry or operations, such as mowing, sweeping, and spot repair. 7. Where a reasonable and equivalent project along the same corridor is already programmed to provide facilities exempted from the project at hand. Complete Streets Meeting January 27, 2014 The Committee generally agreed upon the following components for each of the City's primary roadway types. The Committee did agree that sidewalks should be a minimum of five (5) feet in width. RESIDENTIAL STREETS Residential Streets should be built with sidewalks on one side of the roadway (or as defined by the City's existing master Street Plan) Residential Streets should have adequate crosswalks where needed Residential Streets should be built to accommodate individuals with disabilities; built to acceptable ADA Standards Residential Streets should incorporate adequate traffic calming measures where needed Residential Streets.should be built to accommodate mass transit needs (i.e., bus stops, shelter right-of-ways, turnouts if warranted, etc.) Residential Streets should be designed to accommodate bikeways, as defined by the Master Bike Plan (usually Class III) COLLECTOR STREETS Collector Streets should be built with sidewalks on one side of the street; commercial collectors should have sidewalks on both sides of the street (or as defined by the Master Street Plan) Collector Streets should have adequate crosswalks where needed Collector Streets should be built to accommodate individuals with disabilities; built to acceptable ADA Standards Collector Streets should incorporate adequate traffic calming measures where needed Collector Streets should be built to accommodate mass transit needs (i.e., bus stops, shelter right-of-ways, turnouts if warranted, etc.) Collector Streets should be built to accommodate bikeways, as defined by the Master Bike Plan (usually Class III or Class II) ARTERIAL STREETS Arterial Streets should be built with sidewalks on both sides of the street (or as defined by the Master Street Plan) Arterial Streets should have adequate crosswalks where needed. Arterial Streets should be built to accommodate individuals with disabilities; built to acceptable ADA Standards Arterial Streets should incorporate adequate traffic calming measures where needed Arterial Streets should be built to accommodate mass transit needs (i.e., bus stops, shelter right-of-ways, turnouts if warranted, etc.) Arterial Streets should be built to accommodate bikeways, as defined by the Master Bike Plan (usually Class II or Class 1) The Committee discussed the standards for Class I, Class II and Class III bikeways and agreed with the City's current definitions of these bikeways. The Committee did clarify the minimum width for a Class I and Class II bikeway. The definitions are as follows: CLASS I (WITH ROAD OR WITHOUT ROAD) BIKE PATHS Class I bikeways or "Bike Paths" are constructed and designed for the exclusive use of 4�50'0 bicyclists. These paths are completely separated from motor vehicle traffic. Bike Paths are the safest for prevention of accidents with motorized vehicles. A Class I Bikeway will be a minimum of 92 feet in width,,. 'S�,4, [ CLASS II BIKE LANES Class II Bike Lanes consist of a paved area both sides of a roadway with a painted stripe separating the bikeway from motor vehicle traffic. A Class II Bike Lane is used for safety reasons where mixing of bicycle and motorized vehicles is unsafe for both. A Class II Bikeway will be a minimum of 5 feet,,. :.-C e&, CLASS III BICYCLE ROUTES Class III Bicycle Routes have only special signage. These routes use the existing Vehicular area with no physical separation. The Committee did have a brief conversation about the City's Parks and Trails System and noted that regardless of the outcome of this conversation, the Community cannot nor should not deemphasize the Parks and Trails System within the City. The Committee discussed the three primary roadway types in the City; Arterials, Collectors and Residential Streets. There are detailed requirements in the Master Street Plan that clarify what the design standards are for each of these roadways. At the next meeting, staff will make a presentation on the City's existing Master Bike Plan and talk about the proposed amendments. The Committee will spend some time discussing bikeways and public and private development. The next Complete Streets Committee meeting will be at 3:00 p.m. on February 10th in the HR Testing Room (on the west end of City Hall) Malone, Walter From: Day, Bryan Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 10:08 AM To: Lewno, Jeremy; Glasgow, Melinda; Kwendeche (KWENDECHE@SBCGLOBAL.NET); 'jdenhamturner@gmail,com'; joy.rockenbach@arkansas.gov; '2rocksrun@att.net'; 'Michael Craw'; 'Johnny Kincaid'; Mason Ellis; Joe White, Jr. Qwhite@whitedaters.com); Lucas Hargraves (lucas@hargravesconsulting.com); Webre, Mark; Minyard, Brian; 'Tionna Jenkins'; 'Mechelle Winslow'; Honeywell, Jon; Bozynski, Tony; Malone, Walter; Dawson, Cindy; Janet Dillon; rontyne@woodlandsedge.com; Leesa Freasier (leesa.freasier@arkansas.gov); Malone, Walter; 'Itobian@aarp.org' Subject: Complete Streets Committee Meeting Notes and Future Meeting Dates Attachments: Bryan Day.vcf Complete Streets Meeting Monday, January 6, 2014 The attendance was light today, but several concepts were discussed. • The group felt it was important that at the next meeting the whole committee should clearly define what a complete street will be on each of the City's designated roadways: local streets, collector streets, minor arterials and principal arterials. • The group felt it was equally important to clarify the design standards and definitions of a Class I bikeway, Class II bikeway and a Class III bikeway at the next meeting. • It was generally agreed that the majority of publicly and privately funded infrastructure projects undertaken within the City do a pretty good job of addressing the sidewalk and pedestrian components of a complete streets plan. Some potential conversation points include whether or not to require sidewalks on both sides of certain streets and whether or not to include sidewalks as a part of residential street development. • It was generally agreed that for future complete street projects and associated requirements to build to the complete street standard, then connectivity should be a component of any final decisions. • It was generally agreed that for a complete streets policy to be effective, then the building of bikeways and transit stops should be a requirement for all future projects (public and private) if the roadway was on the Master Bike Plan and/or Master Transit Plan (this will need to be discussed in further detail at a future meeting). o The next meeting will be Monday January 27"' at 3:00 in the Human Resources Training Room at City Hall. 1 I have also scheduled the following meetings thru early March (hopefully we will be done by then) All meetings will be at City Hall in the Human Resources Training Room which is on the West side of City Hall on the second floor. • Monday, February 10th at 3:00 in the Human Resources Training Room at City Hall. • Monday, February 24th at 3:00 in the Human Resources Training Room at City Hall. • Monday March 10th at 3:00 in the Human Resources Training Room at City Hall Bryan Day City of Little Pock Assistant City Manager City Manager ;5111 244-5409 Work f5t11; 519-1950 Mobile SDayC httlerack.org 2 Bozynski, Tony From: Day, Bryan Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 8:18 AM To: Honeywell, Jon; Bozynski, Tony; Malone, Walter; 'Mechelle Winslow'; 'Michael Craw'; '2rocksrun@att.net' Attachments: Bryan Day.vcf This is what I came up with — feel free to edit or suggest changes / corrections.. thanks again for showing up yesterday. Complete Streets Meeting Monday, January 6, 2014 The attendance was light today, but several concepts were discussed. • The group felt it was important that at the next meeting the whole committee should clearly define what a complete street will be on each of the City's designated roadways: local streets, collector streets, minor arterials and principal arterials. ® The group felt it was equally important to clarify the design standards and definitions of a Class I bikeway, Class ll bikeway and a Class 111 bikeway at the next meeting. d It was generally agreed that the majority of publicly and privately funded infrastructure projects undertaken within the City do a pretty good job of addressing the sidewalk and pedestrian components of a complete streets plan. Some potential conversation points include whether or not to require sidewalks on both sides of certain streets and whether or not to include sidewalks as a part of residential street development. It was generally agreed that for future complete street projects and associated requirements to build to the complete street standard, then connectivity should be a component of any final decisions. Y It was generally agreed that for a complete streets policy to be effective, then the building of bikeways and transit stops should be a requirement for all future projects (public and private) it the roadway was on the Master Bike Plan and/or Master Transit Plan (this will need to be discussed in further detail at a future meeting). e The next meeting will be:7A{ 1 MEN Mr. ■ ■■■ •■ - i G (14► ��; 000A �'�-E Uf�•IDER;40, h tJ FTOPiC'-- FILE U�1DF.�2 a D I Q � r � r I J �l YN- i 1 ur I\0 ell (.,\I, a Cob -�o