Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/01/2010 Work Session City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MARCH 1,2010 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 1,2010 at 6:30 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ralston, Leezer, Simmons, and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa, and members of the staff Councilors Lundberg and Wylie were absent (excused). Councilor Wylie was travelling to Hawaii and Councilor Lundberg was in Washington DC for United Front. 1. Main Street Pedestrian Crossing. Civil Engineer Richard Perry presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Leiken said he received a call from Sonny Chickering from ODOT who said he would not be able to be to attend tonight's meeting. He noted the letter in the packet from Mr. Chickering. Mr. Perry said the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) requested that Council review the proposed pedestrian crossing improvements on Main Street at 51st and support the closure ofa local business's access to Main Street. During the March 2nd, 2009 work session, Council requested periodic updates from Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) regarding pedestrian safety on Main Street. ODOT had made progress towards implementing a pedestrian Safety Study on the corridor and during the interim, had made additional progress toward immediate improvements. Working with Lane Transit District (L TD) and City staff, ODOT had developed a preliminary design fora pedestrian crossing on Main Street near 51st Street at a location with a high crash rate. The concept would utilize a warning beacon known as a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) and the existing median at that location. Improved street lighting at this crossing location would also be considered with the final design. Several alternative designs were considered by ODOT and the supporting agency personnel. After considering the impacts and overall safety improvements, staff supported the proposed design. The challenge with this design was that it required closure of an access to a local business. The business had 3 other access points to their site; one on Main Street and two on N 51 st Street. The key factor that required the closure of this access was that for the crossing to be safe, the bus must stop beyond the crosswalk creating a "far-side" stop. This configuration would increase visibility between vehicles and pedestrians who were attempting to cross when buses were present. Because of the existing intersections and driveway locations, the stop must be moved to the west to allow for placement of the crosswalk and create the "far.side" stop situation. This would place the stop location immediately in front of the access causing additional conflicts and safety concerns. Therefore, closing the access would reduce the additional hazard for pedestrians and allow the crossing to be constructed with a far-side stop configuration. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 1, 2010 Page 2 ODOT sent a letter to the property owner on Feb. 10,2010 to determine if there was any opposition to closing the access. The property owner resides out of state and the local business owner was a tenant at the site. As of February 18th, 2010, the property owner had not responded to ODOT. Even if the business or property owner objected to the access closure, ODOT had the authority to proceed with the closure because the driveway was never permitted. ODOT would like to inform the Council of the proposed pedestrian improvement and the associated driveway closure before embarking on the improvements and closing the access, and was seeking Council support for the safety improvement project. Councilor Simmons said he was supportive of the crosswalk component to assist with those crossing the street in this area; however, the consequences of closing the western driveway of the Driftwood needed to include feedback from the owners. If they had the LID stop in the location presented in the agenda packet, traffic would'weave to get around the bus. As people made that weave, they would be looking at the traffic hazard ahead of their travel, and would also have pedestrians nearby which meant a lot of conflict for the driver. The concept of moving the bus stop didn't take into account that when the lift was dropped it would be in the middle of South 51st. A flat spot was needed to get the wheelchair off the lift and away from the bus safely. On the west side, if the bus stop was west of the Driftwood as proposed, that conflict was flipped 180 degrees. h created a complex intersection for vehicles coming onto Main Street from 51st Street and vehicles turning left from Main onto 51 sl Street. They needed to be careful of any unintended consequences of this design. The concept of the crosswalk was fine, but the other implications were complicated for pedestrians, bus drivers, and vehicles. He discussed the driveway going into NorthWest Community Credit Union and the traffic going in and out of there turning in front of the bus when stopped. Those things needed to be carefully resolved. He noted that lighting was also a problem. Mr. Perry referred to the ADA access issue presented by Councilor Simmons. L TD consulted on that issue and had determined this location would allow for a flat landing to disembark. L TO was worried that if they were curbside, riders could end up in the parking lot, putting them in danger. In addition, additional lighting would be placed in that area to light up the crosswalk. There would be a pedestrian activated crossing beacon located at this site. This type of beacon was in place on Bailey Hill Road in Eugene. The beacon would be placed in the median as well as on the shoulder, visible from about one mile away, to provide a good indication to drivers that pedestrians wanted to use the crosswalk. He referred to the weave motion of vehicles getting around LTD. Unfortunately, due to the nature of Main Street, that hazard existed throughout the corridor at all bus stops. They had tried to come up with a design that would minimize the negative impacts and maximize the positive. The initial design did more harm than good. Moving the stop to the far side of the crossing and closing the access would make a safer condition. They did discuss leaving the access open with the bus stopping at the access, but determined through internal discussions that would create more hazards. He discussed the far side stop and the near side stop and why they chose to go with the far side stop. The group felt this was the best opportunity taking into account the vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Councilor Leezer said she appreciated that they would be using flashing beacons. She asked if there was any way a portion of the parking lot could be taken so the bus could pull off, eliminating the weaVIng Issue. Mr. Perry said OOOT was trying to do this expeditiously. Doing a pull out would require right-of-way acquisition which would take much more time and money. It was a great idea, but was not feasible at this time. City of Springfield Council :Work Session Minutes March 1,2010 Page 3 Councilor Pishioneri complimented staff for great turnaround time on this project. He referred to the crossing on Olympic which was similar and asked if there had been any pedestrian/vehicle accidents at that location since the improvements. He was pleased with the design. Because it was so busy, people would try to slow down. Having the bus stop after the crosswalk was a good idea, as was adding light on the west side. He noted that the business owners had been contacted. He asked if they had responded. Mr. Perry said there were initial discussions with the tenant of the building (Driftwood) when they were proposing closure of the east access. The tenant had actually made that proposal. ODOT was in the process of contacting them along with City staff about the western access being closed. The property owner had been contacted, who deferred it to the business owner. Councilor Pishioneri asked if that was the potential pushback regarding access closure that Mr. Chickering referred to in his letter. Yes. Councilor Pishioneri said he was supportive of the design. Mayor Leiken asked if the speed limit was discussed. Mr. Perry said it was discussed internally and with ODOT. The consensus was that the road had been designed for that speed. If the speed was reduced farther, most people would travel at what was comfortable to them. If others travelled at the newer lower speed, there was a huge speed differential which caused another safety concern. Until the road was redesigned to cause lower speed, lowering the speed limit would have an ill effect. Mayor Leiken said it was rare when people drove 40 mph on that road. Councilor Pishioneri said east of 58th Street, the speed limit was set at 45. He would like to see it reduced to 40 mph. Mr. Perry said he would talk with ODOT about that. That area was not included in the crossing area, but he believed it was included in the safety corridor study. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 6:52 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa Attest: ~~