Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Eugene Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Eugene Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Meeting Date: November 14, 2011 Agenda Item Number: A Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Reed Dunbar www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5727 ISSUE STATEMENT This work session will provide an overview of the draft Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and the process for finalizing the plan. The last council work session on this planning process was on July 11, 2011. BACKGROUND The Eugene Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (PBMP) provides the City of Eugene with the projects and policies necessary to create a first-class city for bicycling and walking, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, and provide for a well-designed, integrated, safe, and efficient multi- modal transportation system. Its geography covers the entire city including linkages to adjacent communities. The Eugene PBMP serves as the basis for the pedestrian and bicycle element of the City’s Transportation System Plan (TSP), which is currently being updated. The City Council has not previously acted on the PBMP. TransPlan, which was adopted in 2001, serves as the City’s existing TSP and includes pedestrian and bicycle policies and projects. Since the adoption of TransPlan, the city developed a Pedestrian and Bicycle Strategic Plan in 2008 that addresses mostly non-infrastructure elements of making Eugene more walkable and bikeable such as education, encouragement and enforcement. Development of the PBMP is funded through a Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant from the Oregon Department of Transportation. There has been an extensive amount of public involvement for the plan including a collection of input gathered over the past several years, an interactive web-based mapping tool, an online survey and comment form, neighborhood toolkits, two open houses, and six meetings of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC). Based on these interactions, a draft PBMP document was made available to the public in September 2011. A third open house was held following the release of the plan. There was also an online survey available for residents to provide comments and staff collected written comments, primarily via email, on issues and concerns. See Appendices A and B for a summary of public comments. Elements of the draft PBMP include: 1.Proposed set of pedestrian and bicycle policies that are recommended for adoption as part of the TSP update S:\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M111114\S111114A.doc 2.Design Toolkit that serves as a best practice guide for updating the City’s design standards and guidelines 3.List of proposed capital projects and feasibility studies that will replace the pedestrian and bicycle projects in the current TransPlan 4.List of intersections that have been identified for further analysis to identify safety issues and potential improvements 5.Recommended code revisions. Staff recommends that the revised draft of the PBMP be brought back to the council for acceptance during early 2012. The plan will be officially adopted around mid-2013 as part of the TSP adoption process. In the interim, the accepted PBMP will serve as a blueprint for pedestrian and bicycle planning activities including grant writing, facility development and network improvements. RELATED CITY POLICIES The Transportation System Plan is being updated as directed by the City Council in 2008, to provide an integrated land use/transportation plan with the development of Envision Eugene. The TSP will include policies from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. COUNCIL OPTIONS Provide feedback to staff on draft Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Not applicable, as no action is requested at this time. SUGGESTED MOTION Not applicable, as no action is requested. ATTACHMENTS A. Online Survey Summary (October 2011) B. Summary of PBMP Draft Comments (Fall 2011) C. Timeline FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Reed Dunbar Telephone: 541-682-5727 Staff E-Mail: reed.c.dunbar@ci.eugene.or.us S:\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M111114\S111114A.doc ATTACHMENT A PBMP Online Survey Summary Methodology Online survey (surveymonkey.com) linked to eugenepedbikeplan.org; closed 10.14.11. Maintained and data table of results provided by CH2M Hill (consultant). # Responses 86 Neighborhood of Respondent 1 General Comments 55% Positive; 20% Mixed; 14% No Answer; 12% Negative Positive comments: comprehensive, organized, a good step, let’s do it! Mixed comments: a good start, unfocused, needs more action, skeptical of bike boulevards, doesn’t do enough to address transit connections and connections to LCC, 20-years is too long. Negative comments: not aggressive enough, no timeline, doesn’t address real issues, too expensive, doesn’t go far enough. Yes 38%; No Answer 28%; Maybe 27%; No 7% 2 3 ATTACHMENT B Eugene Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Summary of Public Comments Themes: The plan will work. Respondents believe the plan will help increase the convenience, safety, and number of pedestrians and bicyclists. Dissenters fall into two camps: either they feel the plan doesn’t go far enough or they think that public money is better spent somewhere else. To reach the next level we have to try new things. Many comments focused on developing innovative bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Recent installations such as the two-way buffered bike lane on Alder Street are thought by many to increase the comfort and safety of bicyclists. Likewise, the use of stutter flash beacons across high volume roadways is thought to increase pedestrian access and safety. While bike lanes work well for many people, separated facilities will be necessary to attract the majority of individuals who have safety concerns (such as families with children). Change won’t happen overnight. It will take a concerted effort on behalf of public and private entities to double the percentage of walking and biking trips. Developing programming, infrastructure, and culture all require time. There will be growing pains. Developing infrastructure that is unfamiliar to local residents will meet with resistance. It will take courage and determination to educate the public and convince transportation users that a new design is the correct one. Stay the course. If we are serious we must commit funding. The projects detailed in the plan are numerous and will take many years to implement. There is a feeling that lack of funding will negatively impact the implementation schedule and that projects with significant cost (such as bridges) might be eliminated outright. Cities that have achieved a high percentage of walking and bicycling trips have done so because they invested in that outcome. While city staff, local agencies, the private sector, and elected officials will need to be creative throughout the funding process, dedicated funding streams also need to be established. Summary of comments on the plan’s policies: a.All performance measures need to be quantifiable. The amount and variety of data available will be a limiting factor. b.Policies should prioritize separation of bikes from automobiles. c.There is a feeling that on-street parking will impede implementation of this plan where there is inadequate street width to provide additional bike facilities if parking is left intact. d.Some respondents would like to see more emphasis placed on personal safety. An example is increasing lighting on shared use paths. e.Implementation of the PBMP will require new and greater funding sources. f.Enhancement of the pedestrian environment has been underfunded. Pedestrian policies should emphasize sidewalk infill and dedicated funding streams. Summary of comments about the plan’s projects: a.Prioritize improvements in the campus area b.There needs to be a safe, consistent route through the Lane County fairgrounds c.Prioritize reconstruction of Willamette Street d.Identify route to LCC e.Include EWEB property as study area f.Install a separated facility on W Amazon Drive