Group:

Bicycle and Pedestrian Issues Task Force

DATE:

March 20, 2001

TIME:

9:30 AM

LOCATION:

CATS Conference Room

Members Represented:

Ed Barsotti

League of Illinois Bicyclists (LIB)

Peter Fahrenwald

Chicago Transit Authority (CTA)

Gary Foyle

Metra

Ronald Hamelberg

Council of Mayors

Barbara Ladner

Pace

Alan Mammoser

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC)

Jan Metzger

Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT)

Carl Mikyska

Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT)

Bobbie Moore

Palatine/Willow Rd. CMT

Randy Neufeld

Chicagoland Bicycle Federation (CBF)

Dawn Post

Chicago Area Bicycle Dealers Association (CABDA)

Keith Privett

Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT)

Craig Williams

Edwards and Kelcey

Others in Attendance:

Larry Bury

Northwest Municipal Conference

Lee Cotton

Village of New Lenox

Cori English

South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association

Todd Hill

IDOT

Dave Longo

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)

Chris Newcomb

47^th Ward Bicycle Advisory Committee

Artemio Perez

CNT

Elaine Ricketts

Cook County Department of Public Health

Jon Saunders

Citizen of Palatine

Keith Sherman

IDOT

Al Sturges

LIB

Randy Warren

CBF

Linda Bolte

Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS)

Tom Murtha

CATS

Tom Murtha

CATS

1. Approval of Meeting Minutes

The minutes from the January 17, 2001 meeting were approved with minor changes.

2. Illinois Department of Transportation Policies and Programs

At the last two meetings, the task force requested more information on IDOT's Transportation Enhancements and Hazard Elimination programs.

Keith Sherman, Chief of Planning and Systems, provided an overview of IDOT's Transportation Enhancements Program (ITEP). He explained that under ISTEA and TEA-21, each state sets aside 10% of its Surface Transportation Program funds for projects that enhance the transportation system. Projects in the following categories are eligible for funds in Illinois: Historic Structures, Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects, Transportation Museums, Landscaping, and Scenic/Historic Highways. Under TEA-21, 51% of funds have gone to bicycle related projects, 33% has gone for historic structures, 11% has gone for landscaping, .1% has gone to buy back billboard advertising, 1% has gone to transportation museums, and 5% has gone for scenic byways.

Mr. Sherman explained why ITEP had only two rounds of project submittals under TEA-21, instead of the expected three. ITEP received $300 million in requests during the first round. It programmed $87 million. It was expected that there would be far fewer requests during the second round. Instead, ITEP received requests for $320 million. Because of the huge demand, it was decided to program all of the remaining funds instead of spreading them out over another round. Ten million dollars have been held back in case there are cost overruns. The three rounds under ISTEA had problems with high cost overruns because of unexpected challenges such as having to do grade-separated crossings at rail lines.

Mr. Barsotti asked if there are programs to help towns avoid the problem with cost overruns by doing better initial design. Mr. Sherman replied that because many projects are being programmed under Illinois FIRST, it difficult to focus on everything. Mr. Barsotti also asked which categories are the most competitive and how funding levels are determined in each category. Mr. Sherman replied that in the first TEA-21 round, 146 bike projects were submitted and 32 were programmed. During the next round, 99 bike projects were submitted and eight were programmed. He also stated that funding levels are driven by the quality of projects.

Mr. Neufeld suggested that there were problems at the beginning of ITEP due to the program's newness. However, ten years later, he wonders how pleased IDOT is with the implementation of projects funded through the program. Does it consider project readiness when evaluating submittals? Mr. Sherman replied that IDOT does need to improve how it handles implementation and that the rating system looks at readiness, but that judgements are subjective. Mr. Hill added that the applications are taken at face value; a project sponsor does not have to have matching funds until the contract's final signing. Mr. Sherman said that a letter was sent to sponsors who haven't moved forward on ITEP funded projects to see if they still wanted the funds. If not, they could be used for projects that are ready to be implemented. No agency volunteered to give up the money.

Mr. Neufeld asked why ITEP isn't administered like the Council of Mayor's STP program. If a project is not ready, it is moved to another year. Otherwise, you invite people to sit on the money. He feels annual programming could help with monitoring. Because the Transportation Enhancement program is so popular, it will likely be reauthorized in the next federal transportation bill. He suggested the program be normalized in the future, so agencies know what to expect and have a sense of the competition. Mr. Sherman stated that canceling the third round was a very difficult decision. There will be outreach before and during the next authorization period to get input on how the program should be restructured.

President Hamelberg concurred that project implementation has been made difficult by rail crossing issues. STP funds helped fund a crossing of the UP tracks. He also stated that Barrington is very grateful for its ITEP grant and is anxious to move forward with the project.

Mr. Neufeld asked if there is an ITEP project implementation report card or status report.

Ms. Metzger asked why, if the program is so popular, IDOT won't spend more than 10% of STP funds on Enhancements. She stated that roads are being forced on communities that do not want them, noting the Illinois 53 add-lanes projects in DuPage County in particular. She suggested that funds for such projects be redirected to transportation enhancements. She also requested more information on the scoring system for ITEP. Mr. Sherman explained that there are many competing priorities. President Hamelberg reiterated that the councils also use STP funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Mr. Neufeld suggested that unfunded projects be submitted for consideration in the STP process. He recalled that NIPC used to circulate a list of all projects that had applied for ITEP funds. He feels we need to have a better sense of all the projects that are seeking funding and get them on the map for other funding programs. Mr. Murtha noted that the CMAQ Project Selection Committee often coordinates with other funding programs and has funded several projects that were not selected for ITEP programming. Ms. Bright stated she has a list of all the ITEP applications submitted under TEA-21.

Mr. Privett expressed concern about putting too much emphasis on project readiness. It might put bold projects at a disadvantage. ITEP funding can add important leverage to these projects. He provided the Major Taylor trail as an example--it took a long time for all the pieces to fall into place, but now the project is moving quickly.

Mr. Neufeld clarified his statement; he does not want to take money away from anyone, but instead juggle obligations to help implement projects that are ready to go. Mr. Sherman added that while the first round had problems, the latter rounds have had better implementation success.

President Hamelberg thanked Mr. Sherman for presenting and fielding questions and suggested the meeting move to the second presentation.

Mr. Mikyska provided an overview of IDOT's Hazard Elimination Program. Like ITEP, it is a 10% set aside of a state's STP program. These funds are to be used for projects that increase safety. IDOT uses these funds for counter measure projects at high motor vehicle accident locations on a priority basis. IDOT distributes the funds to each district on a percentage basis, and the program is administered at the district level. For FY02, district 1 (northeastern Illinois) received 44%, or $7.7 million. Projects are evaluated with the help of collision diagrams, documentation of the nature of the safety problems and cost/benefit analyses. The demand for these funds is great; the entire list of projects is capped at 15,000. They are also broken up between state highway and local projects.

Mr. Sturges asked if projects like the Navy Pier Flyover, which will reduce bicycle and pedestrian conflict points at one of the most congested sections of the lake front path, would be eligible for Hazard Elimination funds. Mr. Mikyska replied that no bicycle or pedestrian safety projects have been funded through the program. When crash severity is a criterion, automobile/automobile related incidents tend to rate higher.

Mr. Neufeld asked if the funds are only used for intersection projects. Mr. Mikyska explained they are also used for pavement projects. Ms. Moore referred to a previous task force conversation about bicycle crashes being underreported. She asked how crashes involving pedestrians or cyclists could be better documented. She is particularly concerned about safety around schools and suggested Hazard Elimination funds also be used for projects such as pedestrian oriented signals at intersections. Mr. Mikyska added that local project submittals have to include police reports to document the number of accidents. He agreed that it is difficult to document pedestrian and cyclists safety concerns in that manner.

Mr. Neufeld agreed that crashes involving bicyclist and/or pedestrians are underreported, but maintained that even accurate reporting would make it difficult for those crashes to make it onto the radar screen. Over 90% of travel is by automobile; the highest crash rate is going to be car/car. However, 20% of traffic fatalities happen to people on foot or bicycle. He posed the question: How can a program like this be used to prevent bicyclist and pedestrian crashes? If there are transportation funds available for preventing fatalities, that program should reflect the problem. This might require changing the way the program evaluates projects because bicycle and pedestrian crashes do not show up in as concentrated a manner as car crashes. Recent legislation in California set aside 25% of its Hazard Elimination Program for a two-year pilot program to address non-motorized school safety issues because of concerns that that area of traffic safety was being neglected.

Mr. Williams asked Mr. Mikyska if he knew how old IDOT's Hazard Elimination policy is. He said it sounds like it precedes TEA-21 and suggested it might be appropriate to update the policy to reflect changes in federal transportation law, which states that Hazard Elimination funds can be used to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians. Ms. Moore introduced a motion, which passed, to request IDOT to update its Hazard Elimination policy to reflect current federal transportation law.

Ms. Metzger expressed concern about the amount of resources dedicated to cyclist and pedestrian safety; it seems motorist safety is all that matters. She would like more information on how IDOT addresses non-motorized safety in infrastructure projects. If IDOT tracks expenditures related to ferry boats, why won't it do the same for cycling and walking? Mr. Mikyska explained that it is easier to keep track of five ferry boats than bicycle and pedestrian components of road projects. Mr. Hill added that talking about bike/ped safety is as challenging as talking about what projects are good for economic development--there are so many variables. Ms. Moore offered the example of IDOT's plan for Palatine/Willow Road which will result in children walking between a retaining wall and six lanes of traffic. Mr. Hill explained that sidewalks are issues that need to be dealt with at the local level because local government has to pay for them. Mr. Barsotti noted that municipalities must pay 50% of the cost of sidewalks along state roads, when the local match could go as low as 20%. He asked if and how that could be changed. Mr. Hill replied that IDOT is aware of this issue.

Ms. Metzger introduced a motion, which passed, to request IDOT put together a report that attempts to capture how much money is being spent on bicycle and pedestrian safety projects, understanding that road projects can improve bike/ped safety without having stand alone bike/ped components.

3. Walkable Communities Update

Ms. Kilgore summarized her experiences at the Walkable Communities Training she attended in early March and described the services and products this region can expect as a result of the program. She also presented draft criteria for selecting eight host communities.

CATS, along with MPOs based in Nashville, Orlando, Seattle, Pittsburgh and Charlotte, has been selected to participate in the pilot Walkable Communities Grant Program. This program is a joint venture with the Federal Highway Administration (through the University of North Carolina Highway and Safety Research Center) and Walkable Communities, Inc. It provides training for MPO staff and technical assistance for conducting pedestrian planning workshops in eight communities. The training included visits to several towns that have made great strides in calming traffic, improving pedestrian safety, revitalizing main streets and enhancing overall quality of life. It also addressed strategies for organizing and leading community workshops that help bring together stakeholders from a variety of perspectives to discover a common vision and develop an action plan.

Two consultants experienced in conducting community workshops will visit the region either this fall or next spring for a week and conduct half-day workshops in eight different communities. These workshops will include an overview (including a slideshow) of strategies that have worked in other areas, a short background presentation by someone from the community, a walking tour of areas of concern in the community, and a discussion of possible strategies. For example, the recent training included a workshop in Los Altos, CA, a community concerned about traffic circulation in front of and behind a particular elementary school. The town has secured a Hazard Elimination grant to help address the problem. Participants, including the mayor, walked around and observed the intersections, identifying problems and brainstorming possible solutions which were later sketched on paper. The instructors provided advice on issues such as low-cost infrastructure solutions, funding, and developing broad-based support for pedestrian improvements.

The Walkable Communities consultants are excited to visit a diverse array of communities in our region and throughout the country. They expect each workshop to be different, and are flexible in terms of what outcomes each community seeks. For example, some communities might want a general introduction to pedestrian planning and traffic calming; others might want to address a specific problem, like a struggling main street. The key is for the workshops to have a very local focus and bring together the people who will continue to work on making improvements to the pedestrian environment long after the workshop is over.

Ms. Metzger asked if this is a "Train the Trainer" program, so that people in the region will learn how to conduct these workshops without outside help. Ms. Bolte explained that CATS intends these eight workshops to be a first round. CATS would like to offer this service to other interested communities. The planning liaisons will likely play an important role in this. Ms. Metzger suggested doing a booklet describing the program and profiling the first eight communities. Ms. Bolte replied that was a good idea and that ideas that emerge from the program will also be incorporated into the planning materials CATS disseminates.

The task force approved the criteria below for community selection. CATS staff will select the communities with input from the bike/ped task force. An application timeline will be established once CATS knows when the consultants will visit the region.

Community Criteria

Problem Identification

A specific problem is identified that can be addressed through improvements to the pedestrian environment.

Policy Commitment

The community has demonstrated citizen interest and political commitment to addressing walkability issues.

Staffing Commitment

A qualified local contact is identified who will be responsible for helping organize the workshop.

Regional Criteria

Diversity

The communities should, taken together, reflect the region's demographic, geographic and socio-economic diversity.

Consistency

The problems being addressed through this exercise should support the objectives of the 2020 RTP and/or be of use to the 2030 RTP development process.

4. Unified Work Program

Ms. Bolte presented the UWP proposals submitted by CATS, CDOT and NIPC. CATS has submitted two proposals. One requests $80,000 for bicycle and pedestrian planning assistance and the other requests $200,000 (phase I of a $400,000 project) for developing the regional bicycle and pedestrian plan, using consultant services. NIPC has requested $150,000 for bike/ped and greenway planning and CDOT has requested $125,000 to update its Bicycle Facilities Development Plan (for off-street routes). A list of all UWP proposals is available online at www.catsmpo.com. The UWP Committee will meet April 4, 2001 to discuss the proposals.

Mr. Privett added that CDOT's proposed plan update will include connections to regional trail systems and address challenges posed by the railroad industry's requirements that crossings not be at grade. Mr. Neufeld was pleased that CATS' proposals were project focused. He also noted that NIPC's proposal included $97,000 for staff (including overhead), and asked Mr. Mamoser if NIPC has one and a half positions dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian issues. If not, he wondered how those funds would be used. Mr. Mamoser said NIPC currently does not have a full time position dedicated to bike/ped planning and that he would have to get back to the task force on this issue.

5. Other Business

Ms. Bolte announced that three task force members have stepped down, leaving the following slots open: two representatives of business groups or the private sector and one citizen or representative of a citizen group. She requested that task force members suggest new members for those slots. At recent meetings, the task force has requested a slot be added for a representative from the public health sector. In response to this, Ms. Bolte introduced Elaine Ricketts, Director of Community/School Health Education at the Cook County Department of Public Health, as a new member. Ms. Ricketts participates in the state's Cardio-Vascular Task Force, and is interested in both the safety and fitness aspects of cycling and walking. She is involved with Project Active, a program in four Cook County suburbs that is helping low-income women adopt a more physically active lifestyle, in part through encouraging walking and cycling for purposeful travel. She is an avid cyclist and is looking forward to serving on this task force.

Ms. Metzger asked if there were any new developments on bicycles and transit. Mr. Neufeld suggested the topic be added to the next meeting agenda because he expects some new developments by then.

Ms. Bolte asked Mr. Williams if Bruce Landis is still willing to visit the task force to discuss Latent Demand Modeling. Mr. Williams said he would see if Mr. Landis is available for the May 30 meeting. It was suggested that he provide an overview of modeling issues at the task force meeting. After the meeting and a lunch break, people who are interested in the more technical aspects of Mr. Landis' work could reconvene for a more focused discussion.

7. The next task force meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 30, 2001, 9:30 am.