RECORD OF MEETING
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ISSUES TASK FORCE
DATE/TIME/PLACE:
Tuesday, March 22, 1994, 5:30 - 7:30 PM, Colonie Community Center
IN
ATTENDANCE: Brad Birge (CDRPC), Helene Brecker (Saratoga
County Heritage Trail Committee), John DiMura (NYS Thruway Authority), Emily H.
Goodman (private citizen), Jerry Mueller (Green City Transportation Council),
Don Odell (Albany County Planning Department), Don Robertson (NYSDOT - Region
1), Bert Schou (CDTA), Zimri Smith (Saratoga County Heritage Trail Committee),
Steve Allocco (CDTC)
DISCUSSION
SUMMARY
(Note: Materials distributed at the meeting are
attached for those members who did not attend.)
Work
Program: The time frame for Phase Two of the New
Visions effort has been extended, allowing the group more time for product
development. At present, the Task Force
should aim to have its recommendation package ready for a December conference.
Along
with modification of the part of the work program dealing with treatment
standards, as discussed in more detail in the next section, the group concurred
with extension of the Phase Two schedule through not meeting in April or
September. The resulting Work Program,
with other changes related to meeting developments detailed below, is attached.
Bicycle
and Pedestrian Treatment Standards: At the February 25
meeting, it was proposed that accepting the Federal Highway Administration's
suggested standards for bicycle treatments would save the group some work,
particularly if NYSDOT was to incorporate these standards into its updated
Highway Design Manual. However, given
uncertainty regarding when the update will be completed, coupled with concerns
raised regarding the desirability of stringent (and, often, costly) standards,
the group decided on an alternative approach to setting forth directions for
bicycle and pedestrian treatments.
It was
noted that while uniform treatments across the Capital District would be desirable,
individual localities vary widely in what improvements they can afford. Thus, if local governments in particular are
to look to this group's products for direction on "what is needed and how
it should be designed," it is important to develop guidelines, rather
than standards, which reflect the varied capabilities of Capital
District municipalities and thus encourage, rather than discourage,
provision of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
The group decided that preparing two items would meet the aims of giving
decisionmakers a general understanding of the issues faced by cyclists
and pedestrians and providing a reference for how to address these
issues. These items are as follow:
* Policy
Statement: For the group's
consideration, the concept of a Policy Statement was set forth and a sample was
prepared to help them envision how the concerns they have brought up in
meetings to date could be presented in a listing of bicycle/pedestrian-related
goals or issues for planners to address.
The sample presents a "shopping list" of considerations; a
fleshed-out version of this list could be a useful tool not only to CDTC, but
also as a guide for municipalities preparing to undertake local projects
outside the CDTC capital programming process.
There
was some discussion during the meeting of the idea of seeing Committee approval
of a Policy Statement along the lines of the handout in the short term. There is a conflict with the goals of the New
Visions effort in trying to do this. As
discussed on pages 89-92 of CDTC's 1993 Regional Transportation Plan Report
(distributed at the meeting), the latest statement of official CDTC policy
includes a commitment to enhancing the environment for bicycle and pedestrian
travel. In short, what the conceptual
policy statement looks for is already in place, save for a formal review
procedure. Setting forth a "goal
statement" as part of the group's recommendations for the long-range plan
would be a useful tool in pursuing this commitment. Looking to change formal processes prior to
the end of this multidisciplinary effort, however, could go outside the New
Visions plan -- the Task Forces need to work together during Phase Three to
determine what (if any) changes to procedures are best for all the Task
Force issue areas and goals. In
addition, one of the key features of the New Visions effort is "respect
for the existing CDTC structure;" one group's bulldozing through a change
in the way CDTC makes decisions would violate this notion and be unfair to
other groups adhering to this principle.
The Task Force would be best advised to limit its proposals of any
changes in the way business is done to the final recommendation package to be
worked with by all Task Forces during Phase Three.
* Design
Guidelines: To date, Task Force
members have received several documents presenting official standards, advisory
guidelines and case studies from which a set of directions for providing
bicycle and pedestrian accommodations could be culled. The group decided that this would be a
desirable alternative to simply adopting the FHWA treatment tables and hoping
they are what NYSDOT eventually goes with for the updated Design Manual. Keeping the result termed guidelines
rather than standards would also avoid conflicts with other agencies'
procedures, and giving this product a more advisory presence would avoid
"scaring off" localities which might otherwise feel the regional
standards imply too high a cost to even try to carry out locally. The group identified the FHWA bicycle
treatment matrices mailed out on March 2 and the excerpts from the FHWA case
study paper entitled Measures to Overcome Impediments to Bicycling and
Walking as the best sources from which to draw, tailoring these references'
particulars to the Capital District as they see fit. It was noted that providing a number of
"real world" examples of where these guidelines could be applied
would be helpful, in illustrating for localities where to look for
opportunities to better accommodate cyclists and pedestrians.
It
was decided that a subcommittee consisting of Brad Birge, John DiMura, Emily
Goodman and Bert Schou would meet to develop working drafts of the Policy
Statement (bearing in mind the concerns noted earlier) and the Design
Guidelines. A working goal should be to
have documents ready for distribution well in advance of the May meeting of the
full group, such that (a)approval of these documents can be reached and (b)they
will provide the necessary guidance to the remainder of the Task Force's
efforts. As this material comes
together, it will be passed on to CDTC for duplication and mailing; in
addition, if other Task Force members wish to offer some direction to this
effort, their comments can be made through CDTC or by directly contacting
subcommittee members. A listing of phone
numbers of Task Force members was requested; this list is attached.
Core
System Performance Measures: A draft listing of core
performance measures was distributed for members to review in anticipation of a
brief discussion at the May meeting. The
rationale for having these measures is that the range of issues and possible
actions being discussed by the Task Forces requires that we go beyond the
traditional measures used to evaluate transportation projects -- namely traffic
delay, operating speeds and air pollution.
Clearly, actions which would increase cycling or walking for transportation
purposes would be of real benefit, but few would provide for improvements in
these three measures on a scale which would "compete" with those of
traditional highway projects.
(Note: later in the meeting, the
draft New York State Energy Plan was briefly discussed, and it was observed
that cycling and walking as potential means of reducing energy consumption were
almost completely ignored. This small
scale of "aggregate benefits" may be part of the reason why; numerous
studies have, however, concluded that these projects tend to have far higher
benefit/cost ratios than traditional highway projects, due to the comparatively
small costs of most bicycle or pedestrian accommodations.)
The core
measures listing reflects a need to develop a socially and environmentally
responsible transportation system, furthering the goals of improving access,
mobility, safety and environmental quality.
Members should review this list with an eye towards whether any
modifications or expansions are required in order to fairly evaluate not just
bicycle and pedestrian-related actions, but those which other Task Forces will
be proposing.
ACTION
ITEMS
* Subcommittee
to meet to prepare Policy Statement (or whatever the alternative term may be;
"Goal Statement" is one possibility) and Design Guidelines.
* Next
Task Force meeting: Tuesday, May 17,
5:30 - 7:30 PM, Colonie Community Center, 1653 Central Avenue (across from Lake
Electronics).
Meeting
agenda to include:
* Brief
discussion of performance measures
* Discussion
of Policy Statement and Design Guidelines; acceptance if possible
* Initial
discussions of designated bike network
Capital
District second revision March 24,
1994
Transportation Committee
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ISSUES TASK FORCE
DRAFT PHASE TWO WORK PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE
Phase Two Products
* a set
of design guidelines for bicycle and pedestrian treatment
* a set
of pilot corridor projects
* a
discussion of desirable roadway/sidewalk maintenance practices
* a
designated regional bike network, including destination treatments and
intermodal connections
Schedule of Task Force
Meetings/Product Development Timeline
(Staff work indicated
by italics)
February
Discuss December conference
results
Implications for Phase Two
goals/work program/schedule
"Preliminary approval "
of Phase Two work program/schedule NOT REACHED
March
Discussion/approval
of revised Phase Two work program/schedule
Discuss
FHWA or NYSDOT bicycle treatment standards; accept if possible CHANGED IN
LIGHT OF REVISED PLAN; SEE MAY TASKS
Development
of pedestrian treatment standards (start from FHWA materials on impediments to
walking and improvement strategies) CHANGED IN LIGHT OF REVISED PLAN; SEE
MAY TASKS
Begin
development of designated bike network (time permitting) DEFERRED TO MAY
WITH REVISED PLAN
April - NO MEETING (Subcommittee work on
Policy Statement and Design Guidelines)
May
Brief
discussion of performance measures to be applied to all task forces'
recommendations
Discussion/Acceptance
of Policy Statement and Design Guidelines
Staff
work to establish "typical costs, benefits" of treatments suggested
by design guidelines between this meeting and June meeting (will use these
measures in developing and evaluating designated bike network and pilot
projects).
Initial
discussion/development of designated bike network
June
Brief
review of "typical costs/benefits" developed by staff for
bicycle/pedestrian treatment guidelines discussed in May
Continued
discussion of designated bike network; acceptance if possible. If acceptance not reached, necessary guidance
should be provided to staff for any technical work to be completed so as to
have network prepared for acceptance at beginning of July meeting.
Start
discussion/development of pilot corridor projects (time permitting)
Staff
work to establish estimated costs, benefits of designated bike network between
this meeting and July meeting
July
Start
or continue development of pilot corridor projects; accept series if possible*. If acceptance not reached, group should
follow same steps as indicated in June schedule for designated bike network, to
allow for staff completion and group acceptance at August meeting.
Staff
work to establish costs and benefits of project(s) between this meeting and
August meeting
Staff
work between this meeting and August meeting to solicit information from Public
Works, Highway agencies on current roadway/sidewalk maintenance practices (to
be presented at that meeting)
August
Acceptance
(if necessary) of pilot corridor projects
Develop
recommendations on road/sidewalk maintenance practices which will make
bicycle/pedestrian travel safer (this could largely be an expansion of some of
the points in the subcommittee's Policy Statement)
Staff
work between this meeting and October meeting to prepare Task Force
recommendation package
September - NO MEETING, but will plan on late August
or early September transmittal of draft recommendation package to members for
review.
October
Acceptance
of recommendation package
* To
get maximum "visibility" for bicycle and pedestrian accommodations,
it has been proposed that there be one urban and one rural project in each
county. As an alternative, a four-county
project could be considered.
Bicycle/Pedestrian
Issues Task Force Members w/Phone Numbers Currently on File
Phone(s)
Name (Affiliation) v=voice/fx=fax
Brad
Birge 393 - 1715 (v)
(Capital District Regional Planning
Committee) 393 - 6081
(fx)
Helene
Brecker
(Saratoga County Heritage Trail Committee)
Denise
Cashmere 386 - 2225 (v)
(Schenectady County Planning Department) 382 - 0194
(fx)
John
DiMura 436 - 3034 (v)
(New York State Thruway Authority) 436 - 2899
(fx)
Emily
H. Goodman 474 - 8821 (v)
(Private citizen/NYS Bd of Equaliz. &
Assessment)
Jerry
Mueller
(Green City Transportation Committee)
Tom
Nattell 438 - 6314 (v)
(Albany Peace and Energy Council)
Don
Odell 447 - 5660 (v)
(Albany County Planning Department) 447 - 5662
(fx)
Jeff
Olson 457 - 3125 (v)
(NYS Department of Transportation - Central
Office) 457 - 7960
(fx)
Don
Robertson 474 - 6215 (v)
(NYS Department of Transportation - Region 1) 474 - 9853
(fx)
Paul
Russell 783 - 2839 (v)
(Town of Colonie Environmental Conservation)
Joann
Ryan 434 - 5190 (v)
(City of Albany Planning Department) 434 - 5098
(fx)
David
Schmidt 382 - 5049 (v)
(City of Schenectady Planning Department) 382 - 1050
(fx)
Bert
Schou 482 - 4199 (v)
(Capital District Transportation Authority) 482 - 9039
(fx)
Zim
Smith 587 - 9499 (v)
(Saratoga County Heritage Trail Committee)
Maggie
Vinciguerra/Ken Grudens 473 - 3835 (v)
(Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities
Council) 426 - 0330
(fx)
Note: Includes people who primarily wished to be
kept apprised of the Task Force's work rather than actively participate.