DRT DISCUSSION NOTES
May 15, 2014
Dave Dysard began the meeting by reviewing current status of project development. The City must have a complete plan set to ODOT for review by August 1. Stage 1 plans have been submitted showing the preferred alternative curb and lane layout and the typical sections at various locations along the project. Stephanie noted the notes of last DRT were distributed to the team. Ken Schumaker had one addition to include “additional striping could be added during construction.” This change will be made and the notes will be posted. Stephanie added that she is waiting for ODOT to approve the geometry change to the interchange ramp. Today’s attendance consisted of: 10 residents (Sue Postal, Carol Kutsche, Mary Weil, John Kirkbride, Tammy Michalak, Lisa Kerrigan, Toni Moore, Dave and Leslie Neuendorff, and Martin Jarret); 3 City staff (Dysard, Stookey, Bartlett); 1 Plan Commission staff (Maguire); and Tom Metzger from TARTA. The proposed agenda is Attachment A to these notes.
Next, Ken Schumaker reviewed discussion with regard to this project from a meeting of residents held the evening before. Ken reported a strong desire to forge a partnership of city staff and resident volunteers to pursue additional funding for decorative lighting and other aesthetics for the corridor. Residents understand that “non-Edison standard” lighting is an additional cost but would still like to pursue adding it. Other elements included: Improvements to the immediate Bancroft interchange area, gateway piers, decorative brickwork and reuse of materials at intersections and bus stops. Some sourcesof funding to pursue included: Toledo Museum of Art (TMA); Ohio Arts Commission; regional Transportation Alternatives Program (formerly Transportation Enhancement program); and private sources. The group requested city staff to put together a fact sheet/briefing paper on some of the funding sources available with brief outline of rules and what elements are eligible for the various sources that staff is aware of. Dave cautioned that City engineering staff is focused on delivery of street repair projects in a very challenging budgetary time. Martin explained that City staff isn’t necessarily leading the effort but need to support neighborhood efforts on the longer term vision of improvements for the neighborhood. Toni added that the group requested a detailed cost estimate and an estimate of available funding for our project and review how much budget is available for aesthetic elements. There was a request for the City to support using EDGE group landscape architects to develop details for the piers and Stephanie and Dave responded that is already committed to.
Dave N. asked when the official 30 day Section 106 review period of the detailed plans would occur (and review with the State Historic Preservation Office - SHPO). Dave D. and Stephanie were not sure but thought that ODOT provided this to SHPO for clearance and that as long as there wasn’t controversy this would happen after submittal of the plans. Dave D. will check on this to make sure we follow process. [Dave D.’s note: we are hopeful that having worked through design with the DRT that there will not be major elements of controversy – we have consensus within the team and public support on pavement width, curb alignment, bus stop locations, tree replacement, parking locations].
On gateway piers Ken S. said that Dick Meyers offered that we may want to do a mock up (plywood or other material same size, height, etc) to get some sense of what they’ll look like. On the lighting Dave D. offered that the City may be able to install underground infrastructure for the lights (conduits, pull boxes, etc.) with this project so that when funding is found for decorative lighting project pavement or other elements wouldn’t have to be destroyed to install them. Dave also suggested it might be worth it to approach Edison to see if they might be willing to put in additional “Edison standard” pedestrian lighting with the project.
Gary Stookey filled in for Dennis Lechlak with the City’s Transportation (Traffic Engineering) Division. He believes they are still working out a computer problem with the safety study computer software. He had performed some personal observation and saw no pedestrians crossing Bancroft. Traffic counts do not support traffic signals at any of the intersections between Collingwood and Monroe. Martin expressed that one of the project goals was to improve and increase “walkability” of the neighborhood – couldn’t that drive installation of at least one signal in the stretch from Collingwood to I-75? Sue recalled the discussion from last time that the design changes being made with this project are being made to “calm” traffic and slow down cars to make the street more walkable and bike friendly. Gary agreed with Sue that we can specify a time (6 months perhaps) after project completion and review if there is more traffic or need for signals. The City has agreed to install underground conduit that can be used in the future should a signal be warranted.
Next Tom Metzger introduced himself to the team and explained that TARTA is supportive of the team’s efforts to reduce number of bus stops in the area. They suggested (and it was included in the preferred alternative at the last public meeting) to reduce the number of stops to 4 between I-75 and Collingwood (down from 8). Tom also volunteered that TARTA would utilize funding that they already have to procure benches for the stops. He also offered that they have a “Victorian looking” shelter with a real copper roof that has been in storage since it was removed from a location where the stop changed. He offered that could be installed. Team was invited to look at it at the Central Avenue facility (bus barn on Central between Detroit and I-75. Popularity of bike racks on the bus was discussed and the idea of bike racks at the stops was discussed but rejected.
Ken presented some sketches for an idea to reuse bricks to “pave” the bus stop areas. There was much discussion of brick walks. Molly suggested that even pedestrian only brick walkswere very difficult to maintain in a good state of repair and cited the example of the walks in Civic plaza between the county jail and City Community Building. Salvage of curbs was also discussed. Dave N. asked if the current curbs could be reused. Tammy shared unsatisfactory results of trying to do this when her drives were replaced. The pieces are hard to set in alignment and always leave gaps that allow water to penetrate the street sub grade (which leads to greatly accelerated deterioration). Abandoned stone abutments along Collingwood near Erie and I-75 were discussed to be reused possibly for bases for the gateway piers. Bricks could be offered to neighbors piecemeal for reuse but without a place to store them it would be very difficult to salvage all the brick.
There was also discussion of making sure trees were included in the plans. There was a planting plan already developed by Dick for the area from I-75 to Ashland. Species were agreed to and general agreement was reached on spacing and location there. It was felt that the group wanted to hear from the City’s forestry division about species and locations from I-75 to Monroe Street. Staff was asked to invite Denny Garvin to next meeting to address this (species and spacing, I-75 to Monroe).
The hour grew late and Sue attempted to summarize different tasks as we move forward. Neighbors will approach Edison representatives about lighting issues and designing conduits (if not the additional decorative lights). Neighbors will look at the TARTA shelter and recommend whether to use it in the corridor and where. Stephanie will complete her detailed cost estimate and funding estimate and share it with the team next meeting.Dave will put together a funding “primer” on sources of funding.
Dave D. recommended that we schedule our final public meeting on project design and a DRT meeting before that meeting. Two dates for DRT meetings were agreed to – May 29 and June 11 at Mansion View (Sue checking availability). The public meeting and Section 106 meeting will be held June 26 at the church (Dave D. check on availability. Goal have plans ready to submit to ODOT August 1.
ATTACHMENT A: Proposed Agenda 5-15-2014
BANCROFT STREET DESIGN REVIEW TEAM
May 15, 2014
PROPOSED AGENDA
5:30 p.m.Review design status, agenda and notes of April 9 DRT (Bartlett)
5:40 p.m.Funding Strategies for Neighborhood Improvements – brief review of results of small meeting to explore other funding (Schumaker)
5:50 p.m.Signal, crosswalk, safety study and other Transportation Division Concerns – follow up on study results and final recommendations (Lechlak)
6:10 p.m.Bus Stops, Shelters and Stop Area Recycled Materials (Metzger/Bartlett)
6:25 p.m.Remaining Design Element follow up (Bartlett)
6:45 p.m.Next steps / schedule / another public meeting needed? / concluding the DRT process (Dysard)
7:05 p.m.Roundtable for comments and adjournment
1