This is a memo I sent to my fellow city commissioners earlier this evening.  If you care about what this street will be for the next 25 years, the city commission needs to hear from you.

_________________________________________________________

To:  City Commissioners, City Manager, Planning Commission members

From:  Chris Bzdok

Re:  8th St

__________________________________________________________

Summary 

I want to fill you in on what is planned for 8th St, on my efforts to give the city commission some choices about the design of this project, and my suggestion for where we go from here. I’m sorry for the length, but I’m trying to put all the information out there.

 The short version is that 8th St will be reconstructed this year from Garfield to Barlow. It’s a roughly $850,000 project with about $230,000 of stimulus funds. The old and new master plans, the Grand Vision, and other documents and discussions call for 8th St to be a complete street, with new pedestrian crossings and bike lanes.

 Our city engineer decided not to include bikes or new pedestrian crossings, but never informed us of that. We’re now being told we can’t do anything because making changes will jeopardize the stimulus funds. That is contrary to informal feedback from others. So, working with TART – and with the assent of the city manager – we tried to get a second opinion from a local engineering firm. The city engineer called the president of the firm, and the second opinion lost its momentum.

 I’ll be the first to admit it: I get emotional when it comes to bike lanes. But the issue is, who’s in charge here? The city commission, through our master plans and policies? Or the city engineer, who can overrule our plans and policies and not tell us?

 I don’t do this lightly and I never want to do it again. But I have been trying since December to get staff to bring us some options to consider for this street before we re-construct it for the next 25 years. Options that would make it safer to bike, safer to cross, and discourage all the speeding.

My suggestion is that we ask the city manager to get a second opinion about what our options are, that he direct the city engineer not to interfere, and that we be presented with those options so we can make a decision.

 I’ll start with a chronology.

Chronology

September 28, 1994

The old city master plan is enacted. This master plan was in effect until the new master plan was adopted on August 3, 2009. It specifically says future improvements of East 8th St need to include bike lanes and better pedestrian crossings:

Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel

There are areas within the community that are vehicle-oriented, where driving is encouraged and walking is made difficult. Numerous driveways, obstacles, and lack of sufficient rights of way to develop adequate sidewalks contribute to an environment hostile to the pedestrian. East Eighth Street, Fourteenth Street, Division Street, Garfield Avenue, East Front Street and Peninsula Drive are examples of roadways where the needs of the pedestrian and bicyclist must be taken into consideration. Roadway improvement designs must consider the needs of the pedestrian and bicyclist by incorporating sidewalks and bike lanes. In order to provide a sense of security for the pedestrians, sidewalks need adequate separation and clear demarcation from the roadway. Appropriate building concentrations at easy walking distances from bus stops and residential areas, plus interesting, lively street edges invite walking and biking. Lighting, landscaping, benches and public art are also encouraged, as they enhance the sidewalk environment. Pedestrian crossings should be clearly marked and lighted.  (Page 4.6, the emphasis is mine).

2008 and 2009

The planning commission and city commission work on the new master plan. Until the new master plan is enacted, the old master plan remains in place.

The new master plan does not address specific locations, but rather gives directives for types of neighborhoods. The stretch of 8th Street in the project area is part TC 4 Corridor Neighborhood (between Garfield and Rose St), and part TC 3 Traditional Neighborhood (between Rose and Barlow).

TC 4 Corridor Neighborhood says: “Bike lanes incorporated with street markings along major streets.” There is even a photo of a bike lane with the caption “Bike Lanes” on page 15.

TC 3 Traditional Neighborhood says: “More formal designated transportation access (sidewalks, bike lanes, alleys).”

The new master plan also has 7 “Core Principles.” One of them is “Transportation choices are important to our vitality and environmental health.”

It also has 9 Goals. One of them is “Become pedestrian friendly and encourage more energy efficient, environmentally friendly transportation choices.”

 Fall 2008

I do not have a precise time frame, but I believe the city engineer was designing the reconstruction of 8th St during this period. I do not know when he made the decision not to include bike lanes or new pedestrian crossings on 8th St. More on that decision later.　

November 2008

The Grand Vision hired Harris Interactive to do a scientific poll, and the poll results come out. 91% of those surveyed in GT County want more walkable, bikeable neighborhoods. It was the highest positive response to any question they asked.

February 21, 2009

City Commissioner Jim Carruthers requests that 8th St be re-striped to include bike lanes. I can’t possibly say it better than he did:

There is lots of good study and information available for changing roads from 4 lanes to 3 lanes with bike lanes. Lowering traffic speeds, pedestrian safety, traffic calming and flow, emergency vehicle movement and a relatively inexpensive fix to support a pedestrian friendly town, are all positives as I see it. I have included a number of websites below for review. This is not rocket science and is something that many communities are doing all across this country.

I’m hoping we as a city can do a demonstration project on 8th Street, say from Lake to Woodmere for our spring street striping program and from Garfield to Munson (I am open to options). After some preliminary engineering study by the city (which is in process already I believe) I hope we can try this for the 2009 summer season.

Let’s take a pro-active approach to a safer, more walkable community, something citizens have been asking for now for some time. What is the harm in trying something like this?

April 20, 2009

City commission votes to re-stripe 8th St between Garfield and Munson. The city manager’s specific request was for authorization to undertake the “Eighth Street Re-striping Pilot Program in the spirit of making Eighth Street a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly street.” We were never given a choice to re-stripe from Woodmere to Lake that Commissioner Carruthers suggested as an option, but the idea was that this would be a pilot program. I don’t know about you, but I always thought a pilot program is something you try out and if successful, you do more.

April 20, 2009

City commission passes the first Neighborhood Enterprise Zone. The NEZ is a stretch of 8th St within the reconstruction project area, from Rose to Franklin. The NEZ is a tax abatement whose purpose is to “encourage owner occupied housing and new investment in core communities.” To reiterate: we are giving people some of their tax money back, in order to promote a more residential neighborhood along this stretch of 8th St.　

June 8, 2009

City commission starts discussing Infrastructure Policy. Right from the get-go, the policy says:

All projects shall use the technical resource, “Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities.” Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) is a process of balancing the needs of all users of the system, including non-vehicular uses. It is a “Complete Streets” approach that incorporates methods to reduce vehicular traffic impacts on adjacent neighborhoods.

All major street construction should include a bias in favor of sidewalk or bikeway construction in conjunction with the street (in addition to the #1 sidewalk above). There may be cause to not include either sidewalks or bikeways but that cause would need to be demonstrated.  (Emphasis is mine).　

July 27, 2009

City commission continues discussing the Infrastructure Policy. The parts about complete streets and context-sensitive solutions for neighborhoods continue to be included.

 August 3, 2009

City commission accepts the new master plan. The text about bike lanes in those neighborhoods, and transportation choices being a core principle and goal, is included.　

August 27, 2009

City enters into the contract with MDOT for $230,000 of stimulus funds for 8th St. More on the specifics of this contract later.　

September 21, 2009

City commission adopts the Infrastructure Policy, including the parts about complete streets and context-sensitive solutions for neighborhoods.

December 16, 2009

I hear from an outside source that the 8th St reconstruction project does not include bike lanes or new ped crossings. I inquire, and two days later Ben forwards me this email from the city engineer:

The 8th Street Reconstruction Project includes repair of sidewalks and installation of barrier free ramps to current standards. We examined opportunities to include bike lanes in the proposed cross section and found the street would need to be widened by 4′ in either direction (8′ total). When applying this additional width to the cross section we would need to remove several large trees and change the look of the route significantly. The wider street would reduce the tree lawn are between the sidewalk and curb to 3′. Thus, the existing width was retained.

The proposed project follows the current configuration including:

  • A narrow center turn lane and wider travel lanes for shared use in the area between Rose and Garfield. The center turn lane also functions as a pedestrian refuge area
  • A two lane section with wider travel lanes for shared use and parallel parking on the south side from Rose to Barlow
  • The current configuration between Barlow and Woodmere with wider travel lanes for shared use

Also, the designated cross town bike route (Washington Street) is located a few blocks to the north and the recreation trail is located a few blocks to the south of this portion of 8th Street.

Note two things. First, the reason not to include bike lanes was not because they would cause a traffic or safety problem. It was because of some trees and some tree lawn. Second, the email says the project follows the current configuration, but that’s not entirely true. There is a new left turn lane on either side of Barlow.　

December 2009

Mead and Hunt sends their first drafts of the Grand Vision corridor of significance reports. While they need a lot more work, there is one key item. Corridor #9 includes 8th St from Cass St east to Munson. The report says “In addition, a non-motorized facility should be constructed throughout the entire corridor.” (Emphasis is mine).

Early January 2010

I meet with Ben more than once on this. My impression from those meetings is that the city engineer’s position is that we simply cannot make any changes. The two reasons are (1) it would take a year to re-design and so we will lose the stimulus funds, and (2) MDOT will not agree to any changes and so we will lose the stimulus funds.

Informal inquiries with others in town indicate these things are not true, or not entirely true. I tell Ben I am going to see about getting a second opinion. Not to attribute any particular statements to Ben, my impression was that he expressed openness to a second opinion.

January 14, 2010

TART hires Gosling Czubak for the second opinion. It seemed more appropriate for a bicycle and pedestrian organization to hire the opinion than for me to do it. (Disclosure: I did contribute). The scope of work was for Gosling to do a concept design and have a meeting with TART and the city engineer about how to implement the design if the city commission chose to do so. Two landscape architects and a PE were involved for Gosling, and they made a contribution of part of their services.

TART would like to present the concept design Monday night; hopefully we can get copies ahead of time. The gist is that rather than widen the street 4 feet on either side for the whole stretch, they widen it only within 100 feet of Rose St and Garfield. They also take out the relatively recent center turn lane between Rose St and the approach to Garfield. (Garfield still has a turn lane.) Left-turning traffic into Glen’s is directed to use a short stretch of Rose St from the dedicated turn lane there. The travel lanes are narrowed slightly but still meet AASHTO standards and will help discourage speeding on 8th St. Better pedestrian crosswalks are included. Tree grates are installed where the tree lawns narrow around the intersections.

The plan is the very picture of what the old master plan says we want East 8th St to look like. Yet because the only differences are some paint and some widening around the two intersections, the changes can be done by change order. Engineering design – including for storm water – still needs to be done, but we understand that would take a week, not a year.

 January 21, 2010

Bob Otwell from TART calls the city engineer and leaves a voice mail requesting a meeting with Gosling, TART, and city staff to discuss the second opinion. A couple hours later, the president of Gosling calls Otwell and puts the meeting on hold. Apparently the city engineer had called the president of Gosling.

January 27, 2010

The meeting does go forward, but the president of Gosling attends. This was not part of the scope of work for the second opinion, nor did TART request it. The report I got from the meeting (which I did not attend) was that the president of Gosling agreed with the city engineer that no changes could be made to the project.

A couple days later I asked for the purpose and substance of the city engineer’s call to the president of Gosling. Here is the response I received:

  • Inquired about the nature of their work for TART after receiving a phone message from Bob Otwell requesting a meeting to review bike lane concepts
  • Discussed the status of the Project
  • Discussed the potential conflict of interest with their existing services contract with the City for testing and surveying services for the Project
  • Inquired about the use of plans prepared by the City Engineer as the basis for their work

The existing services contract referred to was for soil testing and surveying, for about $12,000. I want to be clear – I do not think the president of Gosling did anything unreasonable under the circumstances.

But here is my question about the “conflict of interest.” The mayor told the city manager we were going to get a second opinion for the city commission to consider. The city manager told the mayor he was open to a second opinion. Gosling, who was working for the city on the soil testing, was hired to do the second opinion on the design. Was there really a conflict with the city’s interest, or just with the city engineer’s interest?

Discussion

As a result of discussion with the city manager (who has been frank and open every step of the way), here are the arguments I expect we will hear, and my notes on each:

A. We cannot change the project or we will lose the stimulus funds.

No one is arguing that we should give up the stimulus funds. The question is what changes can we make without losing the stimulus funds?

The agreement we entered with MDOT says that MDOT hires the contractor, and that has occurred. The work is supposed to start in the spring. The stimulus funds are for “shovel-ready” projects That doesn’t really answer the question though, because projects like these also have change orders as I understand it.

The contract we signed with MDOT is interesting. At page 5, it says “[MDOT’s] sole reason for entering into this contract is to enable [the city] to obtain and use” stimulus funds. It says that “any and all approvals of, reviews of, and recommendations regarding … plans and specifications … are done to assist [the city] in meeting program guidelines in order to qualify for available funds.” It says that the city still has “exclusive jurisdiction” and “control” of 8th St.

Now on Attachment II, item E (p 14 of pdf), the contract does say:

No extra work shall be performed nor changes in plans and specifications made until said work or changes are approved by the project engineer and authorized by [MDOT].

So we do need MDOT’s consent to make changes. Informal feedback from other sources is that if the project engineer advocates for changes, MDOT can be flexible. Remember – we’re not asking for more stimulus money for the changes.

Terms like “programming change” and “function change” have been thrown around. As in, “MDOT won’t agree to that because it’s a programming change,” or, “bike lanes can’t be put in because they change the function of the street.” But no one has been able to find where these terms come from, or how they dictate what we can or cannot do. The documents I received don’t say anything about this. We are talking about changing the paint and some extra width at two intersections. And if we cannot do both, can we do one of those? Can we do something else?

What about making changes after the project is closed out? Could we cut the curbs back at those intersections and change the paint then? What would that cost?

Page 13 of the attachment to the MDOT contract (p 23 of the pdf), raises some concern. It says that after the project is done, the city may “make no changes in ordinances or regulations enacted, or traffic controls installed in conjuction with the project work without prior approval of [MDOT] and approval of the FHWA, if required.”

We need to be absolutely sure we understand what that means. But it seems likely there are still options, if we want to find options.

B. Changing the design will take a year.

I have not heard this argument in a while, so I do not know if we will hear it again.

C. We need a public process.

That’s the goal of this discussion. There was no public discussion of this project. There was a public process involving the installation of the Rose St light in 2004, but there was no public process involved in the new center turn lane from Rose to Garfield.

There was also no public discussion of new turn lanes at Barlow. The neighbors are just now finding out about it. One of them wrote:

Ignoring for a moment that this design does nothing to improve or enhance 8th Street, I am deeply offended that the City has decided to encourage and facilitate the routing of traffic into the Oak Park neighborhood. Name any other place where they would treat the citizens and homeowners with such total disdain.

D. We’re just putting the street back exactly the way it was.

That is not true. The new left turn lanes at Barlow are different. The “function change” of those turn lanes will be to route traffic into that neighborhood and make it easier to speed on 8th St, as the above comment states.

E. The city commission was informed about this.

Could we have spotted a thread and pulled and pulled until we had answers? Maybe. Was it brought to our attention? Definitely not.

It’s true that action was taken – on the consent calendar – to approve various contracts related to this project. But I have reviewed each one of these packets. No contracts were ever provided to us. No plans were ever provided to us. No presentation or discussion was ever held.

When was the last time we did an $850,000 project in this city and it was never presented to us?

F. The city engineer made an engineering decision that bikes don’t belong on 8th St

I suggest this statement is the most direct explanation of this whole process. And it brings us back to the central question: Who is running the city? Whose decisions are these?

Let me tell you what you already know. People spend a ton of time on these efforts: city commission meetings, planning commission meetings, master plan meetings, ad hoc meetings, “conference committee” meetings, TALUS meetings, Grand Vision meetings. We discuss and debate goals and priorities and wording, and through time-intensive processes we make group decisions. These meetings are usually staffed, so we also spend public money on these plans and policies. And we make the decisions in public.

The old master plan was clear: put bike lanes and pedestrian enhancements on East 8th St when we improve it. The city engineer disregarded the master plan when he designed the project. Then, while we were putting in place the new infrastructure policy and the new master plan, he chose not to re-visit the design so it would be consistent with those documents.

We cannot review the details of every project. We set policy. But the point is that the policies we set are supposed to be followed. At the very least, if the city engineer decides to overrule our policies, shouldn’t we get a heads-up? Shouldn’t we be presented with recommendations, and then allowed to make the decision? If these plans and policies can just be overruled by one person without discussion, what do they even mean? Why bother?

Finally, as someone who is emotionally involved on this particular issue, let me tell you this. When you ride your bike in traffic, you are very aware of your surroundings. Therefore, you constantly observe the choices that were made on streets, bike trails, and intersections. As a city taxpayer who helps pay for this infrastructure, you ask yourself: Was a decision made here to protect me, or to expose me? Was my safety a higher priority or a lower priority at this location? Do I get a choice about how I get around my hometown, or don’t I? And whose decision is that anyway?

Bikes are on 8th street now. The question is whether they will get some protection, or continue to have no protection. The bigger question is, who decides?

Conclusion

We are boxed in now, and no one is going to suggest we give up the stimulus money. The question is whether we are boxed in completely, or only partially.

We tried to get a second opinion, but that process was influenced. My suggestion is we ask the city manager to get a new second opinion, and to direct the city engineer not to interfere. That’s what a second opinion is after all – one that the author of the first opinion does not influence.

Our choices will be more limited now than they were 6 or 12 months ago. But we still should have a chance to hear what is possible, what it will cost, and what the pros and cons are. That’s our job. That’s what people expect us to do.

Thanks for listening.