Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-13 CYCLING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES September 13, 2011 CITY OF KITCHENER The Cycling Advisory Committee met on this date commencing at 4:05 p.m. Present: Messrs. M. Arges, D. Class, B. Forwell (Vice-Chair), T. Kenyon (Chair),B. Laube, N. Mehés, P. Dedes, D. Hilker, Councillor Y. Fernandes and Ms. M. Sehl Staff: Messrs. R. Schirm (Committee Administrator), W. Sleeth. Regrets: Messrs., S. Burek, Ms. J. Tomero 1. That the minutes of the June 14, 2011 meeting be approved. Motioned by: Mr. D. Class Seconded by: Mr. B. Forwell IRON HORSE TRAIL CROSSING TREATMENT AT RAILWAY CROSSING 2. Mr. William Sleeth provided a presentation of preliminary plans for the re-alignment of the Iron Horse o Trail at the railway crossing. The plans include re-aligning the trail to cross the tracks at close to a 90 angle. Sight lines, shrubs and the inclusion of warning and directional signing was discussed at length by the group. Mr. B. Forwell raised the issue of lighting as the most recent incident occurred in the evening in low light conditions. Mr. Sleeth agreed to investigate the feasibility of lighting this portion of the trail. Further, there are no plans for the inclusion of gates at this crossing once it is re-aligned. Mr. Sleeth will investigate the feasibility of using bollards in place of the traditional gates used on other local trails. Mr. Mehes stated bollards need to be at least one metre in height otherwise they can be a serious hazard for cyclists. Mr. D. Class put forward a proposal for the re-alignment of the trail that includes an alternate access to the Victoria Park parking facility. After much discussion and general consensus on Mr. D. Class’s proposal Mr. Sleeth stated he would investigate the feasibility of the proposed re-alignment by Mr. Class. Mr. Mark Parris will update the Committee on the design at the October CAC meeting. Mr. William Sleeth asked that Committee members review the MUPMP. Mr. Sleeth further requested that the Committee look at the Iron Horse Trail and see how it could be improved for cycling transportation, the idea being that the Iron Horse Trail is the recommended standard for the type 1 trails in the MUPMP. Mr. Sleeth requested that the Committee also review the recommended trail network to ensure that it meets the requirements of the CMP. Mr. R. Schirm stated that he would review the recommended network to see if it fully incorporates the requirements of the CMP. Finally, Mr. Sleeth informed the Committee that he will be on sabbatical from approximately Sept 30 to January 1, 2012. Mr. Tim O’Brien will be his replacement during his absence. CMP Report Card 3. Mr. Schirm made a presentation to the Committee on the elements of creating and maintaining a report card for the CMP. For information purposes he handed out copies of examples of other similar report cards, including the San Francisco Report Card on Cycling, 2006 and 2008, Oregon’s Bicycle Friendly Communities Report Card, T.A. New York City Report on Cycling, Darwin City Annual Report, Muskoka Water Sheds Report Card. CYCLING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 2011 - - CITY OF KITCHENER 2 In the Power point presentation, Mr. Schirm outlined the methodology in that the goal of the Report Card, as defined in the CMP, is to provide the CAC 1. Effective in reporting to Council 2. Effective in aligning goals with staff and Council 3. Effective in managing expectations Mr. Schirm reported further that effective cycling report cards include the 5 “E’s,” • Engineering • Evaluation and Planning • Encouragement • Enforcement • Education The questions that should be asked when compiling a report card are 1. Where are we now? 2. Where do we want to go? 3. How far are we along the way? The State of Cycling of San Francisco represents a complete and comprehensive report card that may be beyond the CAC’s means at this time. However, the questions asked over insight into what the Committee should consider: Questions from the State of Cycling – SF: How have bicycle volumes changed? ? How much do people bicycle in SF? ? Who is bicycling and who is not? ? Why are people bicycling? ? What are the differences between those who do cycle and those who do not? ? What barriers prevent people from cycling? ? How satisfied are people with SF cycling infrastructure ? How safe and comfortable do people feel when cycling in SF? ? How well do motorists and cyclists share the road? ? How well-known are the bicycling outreach programs? ? Committee members debated possible actions based on the presentation. Using the City Website to promote the report card was put forward. Further, using the Your Kitchener publication was mentioned. Mr. T. Kenyon stated that the Committee should recommend specific projects with clear expectations. Ms. Sehl stated that Committee members should review the goals and outlines as set out in the CMP refer to in terms of directions and expectations. The Committee agreed to refer back to the CMP for further directions. Mr. Schirm mentioned the “5 Best Bets” that were developed by the Environmental Advisory Committee and that he felt some of the goals defined were too broad. Councillor Fernandes stated that the EAC had a great deal of challenges in developing the “5 Best Bets.” The Committee agreed to further consider this at the next meeting. CYCLING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 2011 - - CITY OF KITCHENER 3 External Communications 4. . Mr. Tim Kenyon asked that Mr. B. Forwell assume the chair so that he could speak not as chair, but as a member of the Committee. Mr. T. Kenyon then made a statement in light of the email and other communications activity by individual committee members over the summer. He stated that the primary function of the CAC is to report to Council. The committee has no budget, no actual decision making mandate. It’s only real currency is credibility. Individual outputs to external sources by Committee members that do not reflect the views of the Committee and makes the Committee seem disorganized to the general public and to Council. Further, contact by the Committee to Council needs to be proportional. Too much communication with Council lessens the overall impact of the Committee. Blanket emails that are sent out, including to the Mayor, do not put the Committee in good stead with Council and the Mayor. One must consider the content and tone of emails, maintaining a professional conduct. Freelancing cannot be condoned. Finally, Mr. T. Kenyon stated that internal communications need to be respectful. ADJOURNMENT 5. On motion of Mr. T. Kenyon and seconded by Mr. N. Mehes, that the meeting be adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Ronald Schirm Committee Administrator