Minutes from the Nov. 10th, 2005 Mayor’s Bicycle/Pedestrian Task Force Meeting

 

Meeting Attendees: Roger Alig, Ken Carlson, Susan Conlon, Bruce Ellsworth, Arnold Kelly, Barry Keppard, Art Pope, Chris Scherer, Sandy Shapiro

 

Web site:  http://www.princetonol.com/groups/bikeped/

 

Planning

 

·         Accomplishment of Primary Task Force Mission and Culmination of Task Force

o        Ken C stated that the primary mission of the Task Force was accomplished with the adoption of the bicycle and pedestrian component of the Circulation Element into the Master Plan. At the first meeting of the Task Force on August 2nd, 2002, the Mayor stated that the group should strive to produce a comprehensive plan that could ultimately be presented to and adopted by the Planning Board.  After the Planning Board meeting, the Mayor and Ken C discussed using the incorporation of the Bike/Ped improvements into the Master Plan as the successful conclusion of the work of the Task Force. The Mayor is currently in the process of sending letters to all members of the Task Force thanking them for the efforts in improving conditions for cyclists and pedestrians in West Windsor.  

o        Ken C. and Ken N. are in the process of preparing a final report of the Task Force. 

o        Tonight’s Task Force meeting was thus the last regular meeting of the Mayor’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Task Force.  We will use the December meeting (note special date of Thursday December 15th) as a party to celebrate our accomplishments.  The party will be at the usual time, 7:30PM, but at Ken Carlson’s house (8 Wilson Way South), details to follow.

 

·         Creation of New West Windsor Bicycle/Pedestrian Advocacy Group

o        There was considerable discussion about the formation of a successor bicycle/pedestrian advocacy group to continue the work of the Task Force.  It was suggested that this group operate as a 501c3 private, non-profit organization, and could be modeled after FOWWOS.  There was some discussion regarding the exact activities of this new group and on its role.  Clearly a mission statement needs to be developed, but it was discussed that the group could continue identifying bicycle and pedestrian projects and funding sources, continue to write grants, and could promote education and awareness of bicycle and pedestrian issues.  Identifying funding sources would be a key early activity.  It was also discussed that such an advocacy group would need to be larger, perhaps with a central board of trustees and a large membership, again similar to FOWWOS.  Potential names of this new advocacy group were considered and will be sent around for consideration by e-mail. 

 

·         Review of 11/9 Planning Board Meeting on Update to the Circulation Element

o        Ken C, Susan, and Chris reviewed the 11/9 Planning Board meeting.   The main purpose of this meeting was to update the bicycle and pedestrian components of the circulation element of the Township Master Plan.  For the most part, this was an attempt to incorporate the recommendations of the Orth-Rodgers Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan for West Windsor into the Circulation Element of the Master Plan.  See the Packet article on the Planning Board on the Task Force web site under “Recent articles of interest” and then look under “Princeton Packet”.

o        In this meeting, West Windsor Manager of Land Use, Sam Surtees, and Urbitran consultant, Gary Davies, gave a brief overview of the changes made to the Circulation Element.  Marty Rosen, a member of Planning Board and also a member of the Environmental Commission (EC), stated his dissatisfaction with the proposed trails on greenbelt areas shown in the maps to be included in the updated Element.  He was upset that the EC was not given a chance to comment on the trail proposals.  Ken C. followed by reading prepared comments to the Planning Board outlining suggested corrections and additional language to be included in the update to the Circulation Element (comments are attached at the end of this minutes).  Following Ken, Susan, Meg, and Chris made comments as well. 

o        After the comments, Township staff and Gary Davies made changes to the language of the Circulation Element in response to the public comments and worked with members of the Planning Board to finalize the changes.  Public comments to the Circulation Element related to bicycle and pedestrian improvements were incorporated into the modified language of the Circulation Element.  Public comments relating to road improvements were not incorporated but were noted for possible inclusion when the rest of the Master Plan comes up for revision sometime in the next two years.  There was considerable discussion that bike/ped improvements are intertwined with road improvements, but the decision of the Planning Board and the Township staff was to separate the issues now or else the township would be faced with a revision of the entire Master Plan.  Ken and Susan made considerable comments from the audience during the discussion of language changes and provided the Planning Board with information that it was lacking.  A long discussion ensued on the dangerous conditions on Clarksville Road near Avalon Watch for pedestrians attempting to cross this busy road at rush hour.  Members of the Planning Board were very concerned to hear about the lack of a safe crossing.  There was also interest expressed by the Planning Board of extending the PSE&G ROW trail into Plainsboro. 

 

·         Alexander Road S Curve

o        There was again considerable discussion on safety improvements to the Alexander Road S curve near the D&R Canal.  Ken C. and Ken N. relayed to the group their discussion with Pat Ward and a later discussion with Township Engineer, Jim Parvesse, regarding the S curve.  The Township has decided to put funding for an engineering study in the 2006 Capital Budget, rather than the 2005 budget as originally planned.  The township does not to intend to make interim improvements to the road, improvements that the township stated it would make earlier this year.  Jim Parvesse said that the township first wants to do an extensive engineering study to make sure that what is done is done right.  Members of the Task Force did not understand why interim improvements to the Alexander Road S curve can not be made, in particular improved lighting, signage, and stripping.  Waiting until 2006 for a study, and then waiting longer for physical improvements to be made in the road, leaves this dangerous stretch of road without any improvements for at least a year.  Susan Conlon obtained a copy of the High Priority Safety Mitigation Study that was conducted by consultants on the high priority traffic areas in town, which included the Alexander Road S curve.  She was not able to obtain the documents directly from the township, but rather was told she had to secure the documents by way of the Open Public Records Acts, at a cost of $15.  The reason for this was not clear. 

 

·         Capital Budget Process

o        Ken C. relayed part of his and Ken N.’s update meeting with WW Coordinator of Community Development, Pat Ward, regarding the Capital Budget Process.  Township staff have taken the Task Force’s spreadsheet of project priorities and have re-processed them into the Township’s project spreadsheets.  Township staff are actively reviewing the project priorities as they proceed with the Capital Budget process.

 

 

Recreational Trails

o        Roger reviewed the progress on the Rogers Preserve Trail.  Initial trail work was done with a group of volunteers in October creating a trail from Clarksville Road to Landing Lane, and a spur trail that connects the main trail to the sidewalk between Landing Lane and Berkshire Drive.  Additional trail work will include making the trail more obvious from Clarksville Road, and the addition of signage. A second day of trail work will be held in the near future.

 

Upcoming Meetings/Events:

 

o        Dec. 15th Task Force Celebration Party, 7:30 PM, at Ken C’s house- 8 Wilson Way S. 

 

 

Public Comments on the Circulation Plan Element of the West Windsor Township Master Plan by Ken Carlson, co-chair of the Mayor’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Task Force

11/09/2005

 

I’d first like to commend the Township, Sam and Jim, in particular, for making significant improvements in the Circulation Plan Element with respect to bicycle and pedestrian mobility.   I was gratified to see a lot of the language and ideas from the Orth-Rodgers and Associates Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan included in the updated document.  In 2004, the members of the Mayor’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Task Force worked hard to secure the Local Planning Assistance Grant that resulted in Orth-Rodgers to come in and conduct their analysis.  We also worked very closely, as did members of the township staff,  with our consultants on the development of this plan and today’s meeting is the culmination of this process- that is the inclusion of the plan’s recommendations into the township’s Master Plan. 

 

In reading the Circulation Plan Element, we (my co-chair, Ken Naglak, and I) did, however, have a number of initial comments and suggestions which was sent by e-mail to township staff.  I’ve included the contents of that e-mail in a hand-out to members of the Planning Board.  Since writing that e-mail, we’ve given further thought to the Circulation Plan element document and have additional recommendations, some of them significant. 

 

I’ll start first with our additional recommendations and then review the main points in our original e-mail:

 

  • We recommend the inclusion of a new goal in the goals and objectives section.  That goal would be to introduce traffic calming measures on collector and local roads wherever possible to ensure the safety of local residents.  Traffic calming would include such measures as pedestrian stanchions that are currently in place on Wallace road, as well as signage, crosswalk improvements (including pavement treatments and pedestrian- activated crossing lights), overhead lighting for pedestrians, electronic speed limit signs, speed humps or speed tables where feasible, and consideration of road diets.
  • This goal of traffic calming is vitally important as there is excessive speeding on our local roads, creating clear safety hazards that can be life-threatening to motorists and pedestrians. 
  • We have several specific suggestions for traffic calming:
    • Canal Pointe Boulevard - As recommended in the Orth-Rodgers report, a road diet should be considered for Canal Pointe Boulevard.  Currently this road has two travel lanes in either direction and no shoulder or bikelanes, nor pedestrian refuge islands at crosswalks.  The speed limit is 35 mph, but it is clear that motorists often far exceed this speed, making the road unsafe for everyone.  The Circulation Plan Element should mention the option of placing Canal Pointe Boulevard on a road diet in order to improve conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists- that is reduction to one travel lane in each direction, with a middle turning lane, the addition of bikelanes, and the inclusion of pedestrian refuge islands at intersections to facilitate pedestrian crossing at crosswalks.  There is considerable research that shows that placing roads on a road diet has minimal impact on vehicular traffic flow, while at the same time reducing travel speeds and improving pedestrian safety.  We have a number of articles on recent road diet examples if the Planning Board is interested. 
    • Alexander Road- A road diet should also be considered for Alexander Road between Route 1 and Vaughn drive.  Currently there are two travel lanes in either direction with no shoulders or bikelanes.  Changing the road configuration to one travel lane and a middle turning lane, and with the inclusion of bikelanes and pedestrian refuge islands at intersections will slow the speed of traffic and allow for bicycle commuting to the train station safer pedestrian crossing of this road.
    • Lowering speed limits:
      • There are several roads in town where the speed limit is excessive and contributes to dangerous conditions for cyclists and pedestrians. 
      • Clarksville Road between Route 571 and the NE Corridor Bridge (at Meadow Rd),  This road currently has a 35 to 45 mph designation- which is too fast for a stretch of road that contains two schools, an apartment complex, and a shopping center and a day care center.   The 45 mph section in particular creates a hazardous condition in particular for residents of Avalon Watch who cross the street to get to the Village Shoppes or to cross the street after being dropped off by the bus to Princeton Junction train station.   We and the township have been advocating for a cross-walk at Avalon Watch and lowering the speed limit would help towards that goal. 
      • Southfield Road between Route 571 and Village Road- 50 mph (with an intervening 35 mph section).  There are two schools and a township park on this road, and next year there will be bikelanes on the whole length of Southfield Road.  We recommend the speed limit should be lowered.  
  • There should also be mention in the Circulation Plan element about long-term improvements to Alexander Road in the vicinity of the S curve between Glenview Drive and the D&R Canal.  This stretch of road, as we all know, is heavily traveled and is recognized as a high accident location, and of course, was the location of a recent fatal accident which tragically took the life of a fourteen year old girl.  The road is currently unsafe for motorists, but is also clearly unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists.   Pedestrians and cyclists use this road every day, taking their lives in their hands.  A long-term solution to this road could be to straighten out the roadway and to include bikelanes and sidewalks.  We recommend making interim improvements (such as improved signage and striping, and lighting) and recommend that a long-term solution be stated in the circulation plan element.

The following are the main points from our original e-mail:

  • Page 15- After the paragraph entitled "Clarksville Road from Meadow Road to Quakerbridge Road" a statement should be included (exactly like the preceding one for Meadow Road) that states " Sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and bike paths should be provided along Clarksville Road to insure that pedestrians and bicyclists can safely travel along this busy street"
  • Page 20- last paragraph- a statement should be made such as the following:  "With the removal of signalized intersections along Route 1, it will become even more difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross Route 1.  A dedicated bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Route 1 has been proposed together with a bikepath connecting the train station to the D&R Canal Tow path.  The proposal for this bridge is currently under study by the DOT as part of the Penns Neck Area Final Impact Statement."   Clearly some safe pedestrian and bicycle crossing is needed over Route 1.
  • Page 20- In the second paragraph of the Sidewalks and Bicycle pathways section, it should be stated that "the Final report of the consultants who conducted the NJDOT Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Assistance Program is available to interested individuals."  This is important to include as this document contains a wealth of information.  First and foremost, there is no mention of the Orth-Rodgers Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan in the Circulation Element.  It should be mentioned that copies of this document exists and is available for review.
  • Page 24: first paragraph- the language about the PSE&G ROW seems outdated.  Specifically "The use of the PSE&G utility easement continues to be discussed and evaluated.  Recent indications are that it may be feasible for use".  This seems not to be consistent with what is currently happening- the ROW path is going forward.  This language should be updated to reflect this.
  • Page 30- With respect to means of road improvement funding, language should be included to reflect the fact that there is currently a bicycle lane construction program and as of this year there is a sidewalk construction program. 
  • Suggested Appendices:
  • Appendix listing what township roads can accommodate bikelanes, compatible shoulders, and which should be considered shared roadways (see lists of roads on page 26, 28, and 29 of Orth-Rodgers report).  The bikeway facility map in the appendix does not break down bikeways into these categories and this is important information to capture for future planning.  It is also difficult to see the names of the roads in the map; therefore a separate listing is warranted. 
  • Appendix of NJDOT Bicycle Compatible Guidelines (Table 3 of Orth-Rodgers report).  This would be a useful table for reference.