The Road Standards Committee meeting was called to order November 10, 2003, in the Council Chambers at 491 E Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska, at 5:10 p.m. by Chair Kurt Marquardt. Present were committee members Mike Yourkowski and Steve Smith. Staff present were Deena Benson-Deputy City Clerk, Mary Calhoun-City Clerk, Beth McKibben-City Planner, and Carey Meyer-Public Works Director . Also present was Homer Advisory Planning Commissioner Lane Chesley.
The agenda was approved by consensus.
A. May 23, 2002 Synopsis
The synopsis was approved by consensus.
A. 1999 Traffic Study and 1002 Homer Area Transportation
Plan
1. Provide input for City Manager regarding scope of work for Consultant
Public Works Director Carey Meyer explained to the committee that the City Council had recently authorized the city manager to allocate funds to hire a consultant to take a look at the work that has been done by the City. He wasn’t sure what was needed from a traffic engineer at this point.
The Committee wanted to know specifically what the scope of the consulting service should be.
Mr. Meyer gave an overview of the Traffic Study and the Transportation Plan-
The Jacques Boutet Transportation Plan is classified as a traffic study and the transportation plan was done two years ago. They are two different things. The Transportation Plan looks at road networks and how it should look in 20 years for vehicular access and trails. It is a master plan for transportation documenting where existing roads and trails are and what the City wants them to look like in the future. Although it did speak to whether or not traffic signals were warranted, it does not get down to the finer points of whether or not a specific intersection should have a signal or how it would be channeled or the timing, etc. It basically says, for instance regarding the downtown business district, the City has poor traffic circulation. The east/west and north/south corridors are limited, so this plan suggested additional streets that could be constructed within the district to provide better circulation. The plan addressed these types of issues throughout the entire community. For instance, it looked at the need for and additional ways to get up the hill other than East and West Hill. It looked at the land between Kachemak Drive and East End Road. There were several public meetings for input from the public and public works had some input also. Mr. Meyer stated that if the goal is to approve the transportation plan officially by the City Council, he is not sure what a traffic engineer can do for that.
The documents and maps are in electronic format for any modifications necessary. The public has supplied some input. The next step would be to present it to the City Council, get some more public input at that level and see if there is support for the recommendations of the plan.
A traffic engineer would be able to assist with the crosswalks and traffic signal issues, which have received some funding for study. As the Planning Commission puts together the traffic impact requirement of the retail development code in Homer, they might be able to use the expertise of a traffic engineer.
Mr. Chesley addressed the issue of whether the committee is looking at the city wide plan or portions of it. He asked Councilmembers Doug Stark and John Fenske for input.
Councilmember Stark advised that it was his opinion to meld together the two plans to create a city wide plan with as few changes as possible so they end up with one document to present to the council, hold hearings and adopt it. He agreed that his take on it was to come up with and adopt a master plan.
Mr. Fenske asked to recap and made the following points-
ü Council expected a more comprehensive document
ü The document was severely flawed - more work was needed
ü Council believed it was a work in progress versus a finished product
ü DOT advised not to expect the State to put something into the projects that is not part of the Master Plan for development.
ü State has a narrow mission - to keep roads in good repair
ü Other layers have been added - large store issue & egress/ingress for large developments
Trails issues another layer
Intersections another layer
ü The Plan needs plans for expediting vehicular traffic in the thorough-fares
ü Directionalize traffic - limit turning options - probably eliminate the need for traffic signals
ü Intersection and byway/pathway controls will have conflicting traffic
ü Future will show transitional routes through neighborhoods that do not seem feasible right now. - gave example in Anchorage ie Raspberry and Jewel Lake thoroughfares from swamp.
ü Future will show a need to access airport without having to come through the CBD - needs to be considered
Mr. Smith put together a list of issues to discuss for the scope as he studied the documents.
1. Biggest intersection problems are Bypass/Pioneer - Bypass/Heath Street - Bypass/Main Street, Bypass/Lake Street, Pioneer/Lake, Pioneer/Heath, etc. - the big loop around the Central Business District.
2. Traffic generators- such as residential section above Pioneer Avenue between High School and west end of town. Pioneer Avenue is the only access to the High School. This needs to be corrected.
He discussed Fairview Avenue relieving the traffic congestion on Pioneer by connecting it from High School to West Homer Elementary.
Mr. Smith stated that Pioneer Avenue and the Bypass are not thoroughfares. He discussed lowering speed limits and placing traffic signals on the Bypass.
Mr. Marquardt noted page 32 in the traffic study under conclusions and recommendations - ..”with the exception of the Sterling Highway and Lake Street intersection, all intersections analyzed for the study exhibited acceptable and often exemplary loss of service.” He commented that to the residents of Homer, waiting at a light for 15 seconds is a long time. However, the national level differs. Presently, most intersections in Homer are not a big deal - he emphasized “presently”.
Mr. Smith commented on the rating of the intersections asking rhetorically, it’s acceptable according to what? He added that Homer is not even considered urban because the population is under 5000.
He compared the population of Homer (under 5000) to South Peninsula Hospital’s service area at 17,000- wintertime population. He pointed out that the newly annexed population is approximately 4700, however, the service area is much greater than that. Mr. Smith explained the computations - the three summer months are 95% greater than the average daily traffic. The average daily traffic takes into account those summer months. He guessed there is more than double the traffic in the summer than other times of the year. He disputed the recommendations and the conclusions in the study because of the models they use in some of the cases. He looked at the intersection of Lake Street and Bypass noting that it takes more than 35 seconds to turn left at noon in the middle of the summer. He stated that he felt the committee needed to look at Homer as a unique situation. The service area far exceeds the population used in the studies.
Mr. Smith discussed the advantage of slowing down traffic on the Bypass. He explained that the lower speed drastically improves the flow. He referred to page 111 of the Transportation Plan.. “lower speed roads (25mph to 35 mph) can accommodate higher flows, because desirable headways (time between vehicles) can be maintained at a reduced distance for higher flows”. He explained that it’s possible to get out between cars because they are going 25-30 instead of 40-45mph. Mr. Smith stated that a traffic light only delays traffic, therefore lowering the speed limit may be preferable to that.
Mr. Smith explained that Homer doesn’t have a classified arterial even though it’s called that in the traffic control plan - arterials don’t have driveways. Homer has rural-residential roads and business district-type public access. He felt a need to address that. The reality in Homer is there only exists a residential system.
Mr. Chesley advised that in his studies for the Planning Commission he recognized the need to create a Sterling Highway access corridor and label it as such. He saw the need to preserve the ability to move volumes of traffic across that stretch. The Planning Commission is looking at tools, one being a provision where the Planning Department will not issue a zoning permit until they’ve had a chance to review and approve of the access. Case in point, the new credit union on the Sterling Highway. Their driveway does not line up with Greatland Street. Now there is traffic coming down the highway at 35 mph, with traffic coming off Main Street, traffic coming out of Greatland and now traffic from the Credit Union with the Main Street intersection close by. The goal is to develop tools to limit the number of accesses to, the turning opportunities off of and even taking back curb cuts given on the Sterling Highway to preserve the flow. He commented on the original requirement that Carr’s build Hazel Street so as not to access off the Sterling Highway. They fought that requirement and were granted curb cuts by the State DOT.
The committee discussed the details of what they would like to see in the recommendations to the council and what the recommendation would consist of including conceptual designs and approximate costs. Mr. Chesly referred to the northwest section of land near the Lake/Sterling intersection noting that it is the location of possibly the largest development in town, the library location and the hockey rink location and slated to be the most critical problem.
The committee discussed the Bypass/Sterling area. Mr. Marquardt noted that the name has changed from Bypass to the Sterling Highway and that it does not function as a bypass. The reality is that it has become the core business/functions area and that must be accommodated. To get away from thinking it is the quick and easy way through town, the name may need to be changed. By default, it has become part of the Central Business District and needs to be recognized as such.
The State DOT analysis of the Sterling Highway was discussed. The status of their study was not known. Mr. Meyer suggested that before the City hires an engineer, it might be good to see what the State engineer recommends, knowing that DOT has not looked favorably on the City recommendations made so far. Mr. Meyer advised that the items being looked at in this study are:
ü What traffic will be on the roads in the future
ü What is the level of service we can expect
ü Should we put in traffic signals
ü Should we consider round-abouts
ü Should there be a one-way couplet in addition to other various broad solutions.
City Planner McKibben advised that the DOT engineer, Scott Thomas is working on the study right now and this is a good time to coordinate with them. She felt the focus was on the Sterling/Lake intersection. Further, she said that DOT is using the Transportation Plan as a guide so if there are corrections necessary, those need to be done and this could be used as a tool with DOT. There was agreement in using this tool to let the State know what the City wants.
Mr. Fenske addressed the DOT’s new way of scoring the projects. He explained that due to limited funds instead of scoring the projects by importance, they were going to take the projects in the order they came in. Mr. Scott advised him that if the plan is not in place, the project would not get on the list and if the project is not on the list, it is not funded. Mr. Fenske noted that the difference between the plan and the project is money. He predicted that if there is no plan by spring, it could be 5 years into the future for the project. He advised that Homer has nothing on the project list beyond 3 years from now.
At this point, the committee discussed the process by which they would address the various issues needing to be looked at in the documents.
Mr. Fenske asked to make a final comment - 60 mph is 88 feet per second; 30 mph is 44 feet per second; 15 mph is 22 feet per second (the length of a car) when speed is reduced anywhere there is increase to the time exponentially that a person has to make a decision to enter traffic or leave traffic. A lot can be solved for traffic control by speed. Another way is to eliminate intersections or the use of intersections, ie no left turn. By altering a plan a little, it can make a big change.
There was a brief discussion on the pros and cons of round-abouts and where they would and would not work along the Sterling Highway corridor. A comment was made that they are horrible for pedestrians.
City Planner McKibben advised that the City has a grant through DOT to do a Scenic Byway for the Sterling Highway. It’s in the RFP stage for a design right now. This is another tool to use to make a recommendation on how this section of the highway can be managed.
There was discussion by staff and the committee on making a statement to DOT giving reasons for lowering the speed limit on the Sterling and asking for their support. Reasons given were that there have been so many curb cut permits granted, it has turned the “Bypass” into a central business district. This has caused concern for pedestrian traffic, the general flow of traffic/turning and denying or cutting back curb cuts could negate the need for installing a traffic signal.
The committee turned to discussing the need for a traffic engineer and the scope of work for a consultant. There was agreement that the city manager and the planning department draft a scope of work for the committee and let them hash it out, not for the committee to be writing scope of work requirements. Mr. Chesley wanted to separate the traffic engineering support into two discreet pots. The other part of traffic engineering services that is happening is the Planning Commission has asked for support in drafting the traffic impact analysis standards that will apply to every commercial district which will set trigger levels of traffic. The trigger would throw it into a Conditional Use Permit. A contract has been let for support for writing a good sound ordinance. He suggested that maybe the Road Standards Committee could take a look at it.
Mr. Meyer gave some background information on the Jacques Boutet report. He noted that it is a draft. The Transportation Plan in the packet is also a draft. Mr. Meyer stated he would produce the final document, which he approved, with the final recommendations.
The committee noted that the information in the two documents is already dated. There were comments that updated information would need to be gathered. Mr. Meyer pointed out that the documents - traffic study, transportation plan, traffic impact analysis- all have different scopes. The Transportation Plan looks at the broad-brush big picture issues like types of traffic on a particular road, the right-of-way width, how many lanes, cost per mile - locations of crosswalks and timing of traffic signals are not found in a transportation plan. As the specific project comes on line the traffic impact analysis is done to decide the implications of the project and how it might differ from the broad transportation plan. In between those two is the traffic study, which looks at much more detailed information such as turning movements, traffic measurements and specific recommendations on where signals should go. He asked the committee not to mix all of this together. He suggested the committee start with the big-picture transportation plan and work down to the traffic study and set standards for the traffic impact analysis.
At 6:30 p.m. the committee agreed to continue the meeting as there was no public attendance.
The committee asked Mr. Meyer what scope he would like to see the committee address. Mr. Meyer suggested they hold public meetings on the Transportation Plan they have. He advised that a transportation engineer is not needed to plot maps, put them on a board and have the public review them. He offered to produce the final report for the committee to review. He suggested they forward their final report to the council for their approval, with the understanding that the Transportation Plan would not do everything they want it to do. He suggested they then move on to the Traffic Study where a traffic engineer would be helpful. The committee expressed support for this plan.
Public Works Director Meyer advised that the City just received a $30,000 grant for a Trails Master Plan that would have to be completed and included in the Transportation Plan, which consists of vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic, development of the dock, elderly handicapped transportation, etc.
Director Meyer offered to do a presentation at the next meeting with the maps and final draft.
City Planner McKibben suggested the final draft be available for the public for 30 days at the library and city hall and solicit public comment. There was a brief discussion regarding public comments that were previously gathered and whether they were available.
At this point there was consensus of the committee to advise administration to hold off hiring a consultant.
The agenda and information to be provided for the next meeting was discussed and concluded as follows:
ü 2001 Homer Area Transportation Plan Final Report be provided prior to the meeting
ü Maps from the Plan be provided
ü Presentation to the committee for review by Public Works/ Planning
ü Staff (PW) research a summary of public comments to be provided.
The committee again addressed the issue of how DOT felt about lowering the speed limit on the Sterling Highway. They asked City Planner McKibben to look into contacting DOT with the reasons discussed earlier. Mr. Smith recapped the earlier discussion saying “Given the fact that the Sterling Highway has evolved into an extension of the central business district as a result of the curb cut permits that have been issued by DOT, we as a committee have questions about traffic safety, pedestrian safety and one of the issues we want to consider is whether or not a reduced speed limit through that stretch is appropriate. In light of that, does the DOT have any objection to a reduced speed limit through that stretch?” The committee agreed on this wording.
Mr. Marquardt suggested that at the next meeting the committee prioritize areas within the city. Each area can then be dealt with separately through a series of meetings. There was support voiced for this plan and for extending the length of the meeting. Mr. Meyer added that he supported trying to present the whole thing to the committee at the next meeting and from that they could decide how to break it up.
The committee set the next meeting on Tuesday, November 25, 2003, from 5-8 p.m.
B.
HARP (Homer Accelerated Roads Program)
1. City Manager asks for input regarding the
HARP Road Repaving.
City Attorney Opinion from April 30, 1998 included.
a. Recommended fee per front foot for repaving projects.
Public Works Director Meyer advised the committee on the current procedures of a local improvement district. The current rates are $30 per front foot for reconstruction/gravel and an additional $17 per front foot for paving - that is $30 and $17 for each side of the road/street. He guessed that the current fees pay for 25-30% of the total cost of the job. Mr. Meyer stated that HARP has done pretty much what it was intended to do. There haven’t been a lot of HARP projects being initiated and the local improvement districts that have been tried have not been successful. What he is seeing a need for is repaving the roads that have already been paved and HARP wasn’t set up for that. Mr. Meyer explained that the budgeted capital costs of maintaining roads may be removed and maybe HARP can help with maintenance as well as the new construction. “There was discussion as to whether Poopdeck/Hazel was authorized under HARP - Poopdeck was and Hazel was not. Hazel was a paper street.” Other items that have come up as possibly being included are the library, the hockey rink, additional access from Lucky Shot and the 10% match for DOT projects. Mr. Meyer asked if the assessment should be increased to keep up with cost of inflation. He asked that the committee re-look at the HARP program. He stated that all would agree it was a very successful project but now, 20 years later, maybe it’s time to look at that program a little bit differently than before. Mr. Meyer advised that most cities require the builder, the sub-divider or the creator of the right-of-way to complete a road to meet standards. They then turn it over to the city and the city maintains and replaces it at no additional cost to the property owners. He advised that there are other ways to fund repaving projects beside HARP, such as selling bonds or saving money annually.
The committee discussed looking at inflation, the fact that the gravel source is getting further from Homer and that currently transportation costs exceed the cost of the gravel. There was discussion on how to proceed with reviewing information and making recommendations. Mr. Meyer handed out information on an example of what pavement rehabilitations might cost on Ben Walters, a rehash of the current assessment levels and other various issues. He also gave the committee a list of all the streets in the city, when they were paved and their length. He noted that the first paving occurred in 1983-1984 and Lee Street, Kachemak Way, Ben Walters are starting to deteriorate. Mr. Meyer reiterated his suggestion that the committee focus on the big picture prior to trying to solve individual problems.
The committee agreed that their recommendation to the City Manager is to allow the Road Standards Committee to review the entire HARP manual and make recommendations for updating.
It was noted by Mr. Yourkowski and Mr. Meyer that the HARP was created by a public vote. There was a discussion on what the process may be to make changes to the program, how the fund was set up and what the fund could be used for. The City Attorney’s opinion was noted and discussion concluded to say the city has the right to spend the HARP money for maintenance such as repaving however, not for patch and repair. In addition, the committee agreed not to take away options from the program, merely look at adding more options.
Public Works Director Meyer offered to bring to the committee the real cost of constructing a street. This estimate would include sidewalk, curb and gutter that was never envisioned to be a part of the HARP program. Steve Smith offered to come up with some information also as he is in that line of work. Mr. Meyer said he would like to give specific recommendations of what roads are going to be repaved and how much they might cost. The street at the top of the agenda is the new access to the High School. The question the committee would be looking at is who and how the property owners get assessed.
2.
City Manager asks for input
regarding using HARP funds as the ten
percent (10%) match for
Federal Dollars for Roads and/or Trails to
replace the State matching funds no longer available.
Chair Marquardt asked if it was urgent to make a decision on this issue as he would like to focus on the HARP issue at the next meeting. Mr. Meyer advised that he did not know of any urgency or any projects coming up in the next three years that would require the 10%. He further advised that the City of Homer is not the only one who doesn’t have anything on the STIP list; that other municipalities are in the same situation because the State doesn’t have any money. Further, he pointed out that Homer would be competing with Anchorage who is proposing a $2 Billion dollar project to build a bridge across Knik Arm. That doesn’t leave much for communities like Homer.
Councilmember Fenske advised the committee that the ranking system for the State has changed to a first-come first-served basis. He said he thought it would be appropriate to consider using HARP funds for the 10% match due to the lack of State funding. Councilmember Yourkowski added that it would be good to be able to apply the funds to the finishing the Spit Trail. Mr. Meyer pointed out that there is a lot of demand on the fund, as there is with the Sewer/Water Fund. As an example, he stated that if there was an East End Road project for $7 Million it would require $700,000 from the fund and wipe it out. He pointed out that the response to the increased demand to the Sewer/Water Fund was to raise the amount of money contributed by the people who were directly benefited by the improvements. This stretched the money to do more than just one or two neighborhoods.
Mr. Meyer asked for recommendations from the committee to pass on to the council. He stipulated that he thought they should spend the next two meetings just on the Transportation Plan. Mr. Marquardt asked to have the information regarding HARP at the next meeting for future review. Mr. Meyer advised that he would ask Jan Jonker, Superintendent to put together some information on the HARP.
There were none.
ADJOURNMENT- 6:30 P.M.
There being no further business to come before the committee the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. The next meeting is Tuesday, November 25, 2003, 5-8 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers.
_______________________________________
DEENA BENSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: ______________________________