Loading...
BPC Final Minutes 02-16-20221 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2022 FINAL MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION Wednesday, February 16, 2022 Final Minutes The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Jack Carter (VC), Gerhard Eschelbeck, Ilango Ganga (C), Erik Lindskog Absent: Maanya Condamoor Staff: David Stillman, Staff Liaison Others Present: Prashanth Dullu, Assistant Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. January 19, 2022 Minutes MOTION: Commissioner Eschelbeck moved, seconded by Vice Chair Carter to approve the minutes as presented. MOTION PASSED: 4-0, Condamoor Absent POSTPONEMENTS No postponements ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Peggy Griffin, public speaker spoke regarding the Lawson Middle School Walk Audit recommendation; the recommendation was not to do a two-way bike path, but to move the bike cage to the southern end of the school. There was a recent decision by staff to do a Feasibility Study. Commissioner Eschelbeck thought the Lawson Middle School item should come back to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission in March. David Stillman, Transportation Manager said there would be a request for funding for the Feasibility Study next fiscal year. Staff was planning on looking at multiple alternatives. The Study was not going to commence until after the new fiscal year. It was unlikely that any progress would be made on this project until Council approved the budget for it. 2 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2022 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None OLD BUSINESS 2. Future Agenda Items (Ganga) Carmen Road Bridge Public Places for Bike Racks (include e-bike parking) Education on How to Use Two-Stage Left Turn Boxes Path between Lincoln Elementary and Monta Vista High School The Impact of Semi-Rural Designation on Bike and Ped Projects/Priorities Adaptive Traffic Signal Pilot Update Multi-Modal Traffic Count Pilot Update Reassess the Intersection at Bubb Road/McClellan Road Stevens Creek Boulevard, Phases 1-3 Legally Allowed Behavior at Stop Signs for Bicyclists Vision Zero School Walk Audit – Review the process Lead Pedestrian Walk Interval Diagonal Crosswalks Lawson Middle School Bike Path Input from Seniors on the Bicycle Pedestrian Improvements Bollinger Road Safety Corridor Project Discuss the role of engagement for the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission – Specifically for School Walk Audit projects. AB 43 – Summary and how Commission can support implementation Bicycle Licensing (to prevent bike theft) NEW BUSINESS 3.City of Cupertino Local Road Safety Plan (Stillman) David Stillman, Transportation Manager introduced Prashanth Dullu; he oversees the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP.) Prashanth Dullu, Assistant Engineer offered a presentation on the Cupertino LRSP. The LRSP is needed so the City of Cupertino can be eligible for possible funding for future transportation projects. Chair Ganga asked if most accidents occurred near the intersection or were they happening on major corridors. Mr. Dullu answered both. There was data regarding intersection accidents, defined as within 250 feet from the intersection, and all the collisions from the corridor outside the intersections were also recorded. 3 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2022 Vice Chair Carter suggested having the color coding on the slide be consistent with that on the data page; it was confusing. Commissioner Eschelbeck remarked that the LRSP was very important for the City, for funding purposes. He mentioned that the findings were like those received by the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (Commission) on an analysis completed last year. A second comment was that Bollinger Road was not included, despite there being two fatalities. It needed to be prioritized. Commissioner Lindskog observed that the LRSP followed a data driven approach, which he thought was reactive. He asked about lowering speed limits, without having the data or a study. He wondered if it was possible to declare high speed traffic existed on a certain street and then just lower it. Chair Ganga wanted to know the corrective actions that were recommended, such as lowering the speed or signal improvements. He wanted to know if those types of recommendations were made. Mr. Dullu answered yes, signal upgrades were going to be recommended, including installing speed feedback signs, filling in missing crosswalks and bike boxes, etc. Chair Ganga wanted to know the criteria to lower the speed limit. Mr. Dullu responded that speed data would need to be taken, and from that, the 85-percentile speed would be used to set the speed limit. Commissioner Lindskog understood that was how speed setting worked before Assembly Bill (AB) 43. David Stillman, Transportation Manager exclaimed it was not possible to set the speed arbitrarily, there was certain criteria involved, such as was mentioned with the 85- percentile speed setting. He understood that AB 43 allowed agencies to drop an additional five miles per hour (MPH) from what the speed survey showed, and it allowed speed limits in certain districts to be set below 25 MPH, which was the current minimum, according to the California Vehicle Code (CVC.) That included school zones or densely populated areas. Vice Chair Carter commented that there were a lot of stop signs where he lived and people went from 0-30 MPH between each one, repeatedly. He wondered if that had a bearing on speed limit setting, because of the closeness of stops signs. Mr. Stillman said the CVC prescribes that speed setting is set with free flow, unrestrained traffic conditions. When a speed limit is evaluated, a place that is not near an immediate traffic control device needs to be found, then measurement of speeds in those locations are taken, and then speed limits are set accordingly. The whole purpose behind the speed setting was to find the speed that drivers were comfortable driving because most drivers drove a speed that was prudent and safe for the conditions. Commissioner Lindskog thought the idea behind AB 43 was to move away from the current speed limit procedure because the speed people drove was not safe. If speeding was not flagged with the LRSP data, then interested parties were not open to the possibility that the vehicle was driving at an elevated speed, which may be the reason there was an accident. He thought the velocity of the vehicle should be taken into consideration, whether it was above the speed limit or not. Mr. Stillman responded that law enforcement was able to cite individuals for driving unsafe, which could mean going 45 MPH in a 45 MPH zone if the conditions were not safe. If 4 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2022 speed limits were set arbitrarily, that would be called a speed trap. He offered to read the entire bill and bring a summary back to the Commission later. Commissioner Lindskog liked that idea, and specifically wanted to know how agencies could use AB 43 to reduce speeds. Chair Ganga inquired about the two fatalities mentioned on Bollinger Road; he wondered why Bollinger Road was not included as a high injury corridor. Mr. Dullu responded that the accidents in the other corridors were greater than those on Bollinger Road. He offered to ask the consultant to re-check Bollinger Road and Wolfe Road. Chair Ganga stated that one fatality was too much, he wondered if adding Bollinger Road was related to funding. Vice Chair Carter said there were many changes proposed in the Bollinger Road Study, but these changes were separate from LRSP. Mr. Stillman said these were separate studies, but the consultant was aware of the Bollinger Road Study. It had not yet been determined what measures to recommend. Vice Chair Carter wondered if Bollinger Road not being recommended in the LRSP was going to affect the Bollinger Road Study. Mr. Stillman said no, there were many facets, and this was only one data source. The City was not precluded from applying for grants to fix safety problems, even if something did not come up on the LRSP Study. Chair Ganga commented on data. Injury collisions were being looked at, but was it possible to look at continuous monitoring, and were statistics for property damage being looked at. This was to determine if a certain corridor would become a high-injury corridor in the future. Mr. Dullu said the primary goal was to look at injury and fatality. Key areas of concern were able to be looked at by the consultant and could be added if need be. Chair Ganga thought it was possible to leverage the data from LRSP toward Vision Zero, even though Vision Zero had a slightly different goal. Peggy Griffin, public speaker thanked staff for the report. She wanted accident information included from the San Jose side and the Cupertino side of Bollinger Road, as the road was split between the two cities. This gave data analyzers a fuller picture. Chair Ganga wanted to know if both the San Jose side and the Cupertino side of Bollinger Road were being included in the data. Mr. Dullu promised to speak with the consultant about that, in addition to looking into Prospect Road. Vice Chair Carter wanted to make sure dual reporting was not made. 4. Touchless Pedestrian Push Buttons (Stillman) David Stillman, Transportation Manager presented on touchless pedestrian pushbuttons to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (Commission.) He noted how they work, the projected cost and details about the installment; not all intersections were able to be retrofitted. Vice Chair Carter wanted a reminder, as to why this item was coming to the Commission. Mr. Stillman said he was asked by the Commission, and recalled the discussion dealt with concerns 5 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2022 regarding the COVID-19 virus and cleanliness. Chair Ganga also recalled it being mentioned at the Technology Commission. Commissioner Eschelbeck recalled that what went along with touchless push buttons was video detection, some advance technique of detecting a pedestrian as they approached an intersection. Mr. Stillman replied that was something a little different, in terms of what was presented tonight. Using standard hardware and video detection, a person could have pedestrian calls placed, based on a video camera detecting the presence of a pedestrian. He would need to investigate video detection, but that was different from what was being presented right now. Byron Rovegno, public speaker could see the City of Cupertino installing touchless push buttons when the existing push buttons needed to be replaced. The Commission identified higher priorities. He did not see a major advantage over the standard push buttons. Vice Chair Carter thought there were already touchless push buttons in place. Mr. Stillman said they were not touchless, but they were very sensitive. You touch your finger to it, and it makes the call, rather than pushing an actual button. Those are called Audible Pedestrian Signals (APS.) Commissioner Lindskog wondered if the APS’s installed now were touched with an elbow, would that place the call. Mr. Stillman replied that it should. Commissioner Lindskog did not think it was a big enough concern to spend the money on something that was already working. Chair Ganga agreed, it was not a high priority item. Chair Ganga suggested that if there was an opportunity to upgrade an intersection, then it would be good to consider modernizing the system, which would be a good time to explore video activation. He thought, in that case, it would just be a software upgrade to an intersection that already had cameras. Mr. Stillman noted that the challenge with that was informing the pedestrian that they were detected. Vice Chair Carter commented that was a slippery slope because another agency may want to use the technology for crime resolution. Chair Ganga did think that was necessarily the case. Commissioner Eschelbeck said the video option was more of a benefit to the bicyclists. Vice Chair Carter thought of a scenario where someone was at the corner of an intersection, advertising, then all cars had to wait for a non-crossing pedestrian. Chair Ganga thought that was a good point, and good to understand the capabilities. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS 5.Staff Update and Commissioner Activity Report (All) David Stillman, Transportation Manager mentioned the meeting at Lawson Middle School. The outcome depended on Council allocating funding for a Feasibility Study, and then solutions for Lawson Middle School could be looked at. He announced that Commissioner Condamoor resigned from the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (Commission.) Chair Ganga asked if there was an active alternate. Mr. Stillman recalled there were some when interviews were conducted previously but he would need find out what the process was. 6 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Regular Meeting February 16, 2022 Mr. Stillman updated the Commission on the Vision Zero Subcommittee (Carter, Ganga, and Stillman.) The Vision Zero Subcommittee was thinking of moving forward with a resolution in support of Vision Zero, but since there was a proposed budget allocation to hire a consultant for the Vision Zero program, they decided to hold off because it would be prior to the budget decision for this fiscal year. The Subcommittee did decide to move forward with a request for the budget allocation for a consultant for the next fiscal year. There was a great amount of overlap in Vision Zero and the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP.) They decided to look at the City of Sunnyvale’s Vision Zero scope and other cites, to identify what was the same, pull that out, and then hire a consultant to do complete the balance of the work. Since there was so much overlap with the LRSP, which was already grant funded, the cost for Vision Zero was anticipated to be significantly less. Commissioner Lindskog updated the Commission on the Mayor’s meeting, the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) meeting and the VTA BPAC meeting from February 9. Peggy Griffin, public speaker complained that there was no secure place to park electric bikes (e-bikes.) Chair Ganga and Mr. Stillman confirmed bike parking was a future agenda item. Vice Chair Carter agreed but wanted to make sure it specified e-bike parking. Mr. Stillman said since Commissioner’ Condamoor resigned, Vice Chair Carter would attend the Mayor’s Meeting and the SR2S meetings next month, Chair Ganga would attend in April. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: ____________________________ David Stillman, Staff Liaison Note: Any attachments can be found on the Cupertino Website https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/agendas-minutes