Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout25. 13-428 AUGUST 27, 2013 SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 13-407 13-428 ORDINANCE FIRST READING SECOND READING (CARRIED__6-0____ LOST_______ LAID OVER_______ WITHDRAWN_______) PURPOSE: APPROVAL OF CHANGES IN PERMIT PARKING AND SHORT- TERM PARKING AREAS IN WASHINGTON AVENUE PARKING LOT INITIATED BY: PARKING UTILITY COMMISSION A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTIONS 27-48 AND 27A-11 OF THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PERMIT PARKING AREAS AND PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS. The Common Council of the City of Oshkosh do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 27-48 of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to permit parking areas is hereby amended as follows: Remove Therefrom: (K) Washington Avenue Lot: The southern row of stalls, and the five (5) easternmost stalls bordering the northern side of the southern driving aisle. Add Thereto: (K) Washington Avenue Lot: The five (5) easternmost stalls in the southern row. SECTION 2. That Section 27A-11 of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to parking regulations on designated streets and alleys is hereby amended as follows: A-11 PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS WASHINGTON AVENUE LOT Remove Therefrom: 2-hour parking, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, except on Sundays and holidays, in the row of stalls next to the northern driving aisle and the four (4) westernmost stalls bordering the northern side of the southern driving aisle. Add Thereto: 2-hour parking, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, except on Sundays and holidays, except for the five (5) easternmost stalls in the southern row. AUGUST 27, 2013 SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 13-407 13-428 ORDINANCE FIRST READING SECOND READING CONT'D SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, publication and placement of the appropriate signage. SECTION 4. Publication Notice. Please take notice that the City of Oshkosh enacted ordinance #13-428 (A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTIONS 27-48 AND 27A-11 OF THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PERMIT PARKING AREAS AND PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS), on September 10, 2013. The ordinance converts some permit parking spaces in the Washington Avenue lot to short-term parking. The full text of the ordinance may be obtained at the Office of the City Clerk, 215 Church Avenue and through the City's website at www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us. Clerk's phone: 920/236-5011. OJHKOIH ON THE WATER City of Oshkosh - Transportation Department 926 Dempsey Trail, Oshkosh,WI 54902 (920) 232-5342 (920)232-5343 fax MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Rohloff, City Manager FROM: Christopher Strong, P.E., Director of Transportation DATE: August 21, 2013 RE: EXPLANATION OF CHANGES TO PERMIT PARKING AND PARKING REGULATIONS Section 1: Section 27-48 Permit Parking Areas Section 2: Section 27A-11 Parking Regulations RECONSIDER THE CONVERSION OF SHORT-TERM TO PERMIT PARKING SPACES IN THE WASHINGTON AVENUE LOT. This item was tabled from last month. In May, the Common Council, agreeing with the Parking Utility Commission's recommendation, approved changes to parking regulations in the Washington Avenue lot. These changes increased the number of permit parking spaces from 5 to 21, and decreased the number of shol l-term parking spaces from 28 to 12. After these changes were put into effect, staff were contacted by the Oshkosh Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the Exclusive Company, expressing strong concern about the effect of these changes on their customers. At the commission's July meeting, there was discussion of a 1993 agreement that resulted in the creation of the short-term parking lot. Please find enclosed a legal opinion from City Attorney Lynn Lorenson, which conclusively states that this agreement is not in effect. This lot has a high demand for both short-term and permit parking spaces, as was supported by parking lot utilization data collected in 2012 as well as citizen comment received at the April and May commission meetings. In the interest of keeping customer/client parking convenient, it is important to have higher turnover/short duration parking spaces closer to destinations, with low turnover employee and resident parking s aces in more remote locations. As there is ample low turnover/permit parking available in the State Street lot, it makes sense to reallocate the mix of spaces in this lot to favor short-term parking. Staff recommends converting permit parking spaces back to short-term spaces, according to the layout that existed prior to May 2013. The short-term parking spaces will still provide free parking for 2 hours. The layout of spaces pre-May 2013 and post-May 2013 is shown below. N • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Washington Ave Lot As of:October 1,2010 9 10 71 12 13 14 15 16 17 Space Designations 1-17,23-28: 90-Mnute Parking 18-22: PerMit Parking 29-30: Handicapped Parking 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Washington Ave Lit As of:May 14,313 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Space Designations 1-12. 2-HourParking 13-28: Permit Parking 29-30: Hand capped Parking 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 Figure 1: Washington Avenue PASSED BY PARKING UTILITY COMMISSION (4-0) OJHKOJH ON THE WATER MEMORANDUM TO: Mark A. Rohloff, City Manager FROM Christopher Strong, Transportation Director DATE: August 21, 2013 RE: Items Defeated by the Traffic Review Board at their August 13, 2013 Meeting A REQUEST FOR YIELD SIGNS ON CRANE STREET AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH WILSON AVENUE. (CURRENT CONDITION: UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTION.) This is a citizen request. The citizen, who lives in the neighborhood, reports that vehicles travel sometimes at a very high speed down Crane Street and then come to sudden stop at Teichmiller Park, at the north end of the street. The citizen requested yield signs to assist with speed control at this intersection, thereby improving safety. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices clearly states that yield or stop signs should not be used for speed control. Instead, yield or stop signs should be considered based on engineering judgment, reflecting factors such as sight distance, crash history and entering traffic volume. The city instead uses the following warrants as an initial screening tool for installing yield signs at an intersection: • Three or more right angle accidents in a 24-month period, or five or more right angle accidents in a 36-month period. • 1,500 or more vehicles per day. • Inadequate sight distance. There were no reported crashes at this intersection from 2002 to 2012, so there is no measured safety issue here. Traffic counts collected in July 2013 showed approximately 200 vehicles entering the intersection daily, which is well below the threshold for yield sign control. Field review indicated adequate sight distance on all approaches. Speed data were also collected in July 2013. The data indicated an 85th percentile speed (the speed at which 85 percent of traffic travels at or below) of 29 mph northbound and 26 mph southbound. These speeds are typical for a local street. These speeds may be higher than would be expected for an uncontrolled intersection; however, as Wilson Avenue has very little traffic here (-50 vehicles per weekday), with the eastern leg having no outlet, the speeds are not too surprising. This intersection is relatively unusual within the neighborhood in that it has no traffic control device. However,two of the legs of this intersection have no outlet, so the exception is appropriate. EXCERPT FROM TRAFFIC REVIEW MEETING MINUTES: ITEMS DEFEATED 2 AUGUST 2013 Mr. Strong noted the request was made by a citizen to assist with speed control and it does not meet the warrants. Mr. Schuster said you are dealing with two dead-end streets in the last blocks of the streets. Mr. Becker said you have to take into account there is a park in the area, which creates more pedestrian traffic in this vicinity. Mr. Becker asked for guidance on the use of rumble strips. Mr. Strong noted one consideration is the noise factor. Mr. Strong said he would look into this and report back DEFEATED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (1-5) A REQUEST FOR AN ALL-WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND NEVADA AVENUE. (CURRENT CONDITION: MAIN STREET IS A THROUGH STREET.) This is a citizen request. The citizen making this request is concerned about crashes that have occurred at this intersection in recent years. He has requested stop signs be installed on Main Street to help slow traffic down, and hopefully reduce the number and severity of crashes that have occurred. As noted with the previous item, stop signs should not be installed to help control speeds. The warrants that the city employs for all-way stop control include the following: • Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by an all-way stop installation. These crashes include right- and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. • Traffic exceeds 300 vehicles per hour for at least eight(8) hours for the major street approaches,traffic exceeds 200 vehicles per hour for at least eight(8) hours on the minor street approaches, and traffic volumes are relatively equal in distribution. • Other considerations include the need to control left-turn conflicts, the need to control vehicle-pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes, locations with limited ability to see conflicting traffic, and intersections of two residential neighborhood collector streets with similar design and operating characteristics. The crash data at this intersection over the last several years is shown in Table 1. A stop- controlled intersection is flagged as a potential high crash location if there are at least three crashes in a given year. While this occurred in 2011,the crash rate (the number of crashes divided by traffic volumes) was not high enough to trigger additional analysis. Of the ten crashes which occurred from 2008 to 2012, five involved vehicles from Nevada Avenue which did not observe the stop sign. Having stop signs on Main Street would not necessarily avert these crashes, as vehicles may be equally if not more likely to ignore stop signs on Main Street as they would on Nevada Avenue. ITEMS DEFEATED 3 AUGUST 2013 Table 1: Number of Crashes at Main Street and Nevada Avenue,2008-2012 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number of Crashes 2 2 2 3 1 Table 4 shows the hourly traffic volumes at this intersection, averaged over a two-day collection period in July 2013. While Main Street has enough traffic to satisfy the earlier traffic volume warrant,Nevada Avenue is significantly below the warrant requirements, with not even one hour seeing 200 vehicles of traffic. Table 2: Hourly Weekday Traffic Volumes,Main Street and Nevada Avenue,July 2013 Nevada Avenue Main Street Time EB WB Total NB SB Total 12:00 AM 15 3 18 20 13 33 1:00 AM 6 2 8 15 13 28 2:00 AM 5 4 9 18 13 31 3:00 AM 3 8 11 9 5 13 4:00 AM 8 9 16 26 9 35 5:00 AM 12 27 39 62 23 85 6:00 AM 30 44 73 114 56 170 7:00 AM 34 49 83 150 134 284 8:00 AM 36 55 91 129 117 246 9:00 AM 40 42 82 143 135 278 10:00 AM 40 37 77 165 155 320 11:00 AM 55 42 97 192 189 381 12:00 PM 60 42 102 230 214 444 1:00 PM 49 42 90 250 177 427 2:00 PM 69 47 116 263 194 457 3:00 PM 75 53 128 197 230 427 4:00 PM 83 54 137 269 230 499 5:00 PM 82 52 133 235 235 470 6:00 PM 54 _ 40 94 170 146 316 7:00 PM 51 32 83 139 155 294 8:00 PM 49 42 91 117 101 218 9:00 PM 36 31 67 97 74 171 10:00 PM 28 15 43 50 58 108 11:00 PM 16 8 24 32 46 77 Total 932 774 1,706 3,090 2,718 5,807 It should also be noted that Main Street is a minor arterial while Nevada Avenue is a local street. In the functional hierarchy of streets, arterials are intended to provide higher levels of mobility (i.e. fewer stops) while local streets are intended to provide higher levels of access (more stops). ITEMS DEFEATED 4 AUGUST 2013 Changing the traffic control as requested would undermine how Main Street is intended to function, and is not warranted based on either crash frequency or traffic volumes. EXCERPT FROM TRAFFIC REVIEW MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Strong recommended against using stop signs as a speed control. He noted this intersection did not meet the warrants for an all-way stop. Installing stop signs would undermine how Main Street is intended to function as a minor arterial. Mr. Ron Hardy, 1437 N. Main Street, has lived on the corner for eight years. His concern is public safety. It is not entirely about speed or volume of traffic but about the constant turning movements at this intersection. He noted motorists pass on the right side, which obstructs vehicles from turning onto Nevada Avenue. He said that Nevada Avenue, west of Main Street, is icy during the winter months. He also said Nevada Avenue is used as a cut through street, as there is no signal from beyond Bowen Street to Jackson Street. He pointed out this is more than a neighborhood street; it is also a popular bike route. The problem is compounded in September when school is in session and traffic increases. Many children cross at Main Street. He suggested conducting traffic counts in September, after school begins. Mr. Hardy said the neighbor to his south suggested installing blinking stop signs and/or trimming back the tree on the northeast corner. Mr. Scieszinski suggested salting this area more during the winter months. Mr. Strong said he would forward this suggestion to the Streets Division. Mr. Herman noted the traffic data at this time doesn't warrant an all-way stop. He suggested getting more data after the road construction is completed. He felt we should not make any changes until after Main Street is re-done. Mr. Schuster said having parking on only one side of the street may help the situation. He also agreed that traffic counts be conducted after school begins. He suggested revisiting this request when construction is completed in 2015. DEFEATED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (0-6) A REQUEST FOR AN ALL-WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF MT. VERNON STREET AND SMITH AVENUE. (CURRENT CONDITION: SMITH AVENUE IS A THROUGH STREET.) This is a citizen request. The citizen making this request reports that numerous vehicles are speeding along Smith Avenue, where there are currently no stop or yield signs between Main Street and Harrison Street. He suggested that the speed issues are leading to crashes and close calls. The request for stop signs is motivated by the desire to slow vehicles down. ITEMS DEFEATED 5 AUGUST 2013 As noted with the previous item, stop signs should not be installed to help control speeds. The warrants that have been used as an initial screen to determine whether an all-way stop were listed with the previous agenda item. A review of crash records showed one crash in the last five years at this intersection; that one crash occurred when there had been some snow accumulation on the pavement. In other words, there is not a demonstrable crash problem that the all-way stop sign could address. Traffic count data were collected in June 2013, outside of the school year. Approximately 750 vehicles per weekday enter this intersection,with over 80 percent entering from Smith Avenue. The highest hourly volume is less than 70 vehicles per hour. Even if traffic patterns were significantly different during the school year, it is clear that the warrants for an all-way stop are not satisfied based on traffic volumes. A field review of intersection sight distance did not identify any unusual sight distance problems that would merit an all-way stop. The traffic count data were also used to measure vehicle speeds on Smith Avenue. These are summarized in Table 3. The average speed is the mathematical average of speeds in each direction over the two-day study period. The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85 percent of vehicles travel. It is not unusual to see 85th percentile speeds 7 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, so the data do not suggest a recurring speed problem. Table 3: Average and 85th Percentile Speeds, Smith Avenue at Mt. Vernon Street Direction of Travel Average 85th Percentile Eastbound 27 31 Westbound 25 30 It should be noted that, like Smith Avenue, both Libbey Avenue and Gruenwald Avenue do not have to stop or yield between Main Street and Harrison Street, so the situation on Smith Avenue is not unusual in this part of the city. EXCERPT FROM TRAFFIC REVIEW MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Strong noted this request does not the warrants. Mr. Gene Laabs, 2227 Jefferson Street, requested the stop signs to help slow vehicles down. He pointed out that enrollment at Oaklawn School has doubled from previous years. Motorists use Smith Avenue as a cut through because there are no stop or yield signs between Main Street and Harrison Street. If a stop sign were placed at Mt. Vernon Street, it would help slow traffic down. He said a lot of younger families have moved into the area and the problems are getting pretty serious. He noted no one obeys yield signs. Mr. Ralph Neyhard, 2027 Mt. Vernon Street, told the Board that Libby Avenue, Smith Avenue and Gruenwald Avenue are all cut through streets. If you make changes on one, ITEMS DEFEATED 6 AUGUST 2013 the problem will move to another street. He suggested making changes on all three streets. He agreed that something needs to be done to slow motorists down. He noted that at bar closing time, traffic is nuts in the area. Mr. Strong suggested possibly using a traffic calming solution like speed humps. This would help to keep traffic on the major streets. Mr. Herman thought this made a lot of sense. Mr. Schuster agreed that during the school year, this area is a "war zone" and. Oaklawn's traffic will feed the problem. He was in favor of traffic calming on Smith Avenue and Linwood Avenue, the two major streets that go all the way through. Mr. Becker noted speed humps were installed on Hickory Street for the same reason. Mr. Neyhard asked if temporary speed humps could be installed. Mr. Strong replied that would be something that had to be ordered. Mr. Becker suggested painting something on the roadway. DEFEATED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD(0-6) A REQUEST TO PROHIBIT ON-STREET PARKING AT ALL DESIGNATED TRANSIT STOPS DURING NORMAL TRANSIT OPERATING HOURS. This is a Board request. At its last meeting, the board reviewed and tabled a request related to on-street parking at a GO Transit stop on Hazel Street by Bella Vista. Some board members suggested it would be appropriate to consider a city-wide ordinance that prohibits on-street parking adjacent to bus stops. This request appears to have some clear traffic flow benefits. By ensuring that there is curb space for a bus to pull next to, buses are much less likely to block a traffic lane, with the potential that creates to increase delay for other traffic and for encouraging unsafe passing maneuvers. This would also benefit passengers, especially those using mobility devices, by creating a shorter, more accessible path between the stop and the transit vehicle. Administratively,this makes it easier to have parking regulations reflect current transit service, rather than going through a process of finding and removing code sections that were based on former bus routes. A survey of other transit systems serving Wisconsin communities revealed that several cities have policies along these lines, including Green Bay, Madison and Waukesha. Duluth has a practice similar to Oshkosh, where parking is prohibited at designated stops. In La Crosse, such parking is not allowed but there is apparently no clear ordinance as such. Stevens Point has no such policy. Based on an inventory of stops served under our new route system,this policy would affect ITEMS DEFEATED 7 AUGUST 2013 approximately 50 stops (about 20 percent of our locations). In other words, about 80 percent of GO Transit's stops currently prohibit parking. At many locations, such as the Hazel Street one discussed last month, there do not appear to be significant issues with introducing parking restrictions. However, there are some locations which may create challenges. A couple of examples: • Oregon Street at 9th Avenue. A request to prohibit parking at the bus stop at this location was proposed to the board at the January 2013 meeting. The board recommended against the change based on feedback from nearby property owners. Would it be possible to relocate the bus stop in a way that would effectively serve transit customers while not creating opposition from adjacent property owners? • Selected Residential Streets. GO Transit operates service on residential streets (including local streets)where there may be limited vehicular traffic volume but there could be demand for on-street parking. GO Transit has fielded concerns in the past over bus stops being located in front of people's houses. This type of policy could increase those concerns, and make it more difficult for GO Transit to provide accessible and convenient service to its customers. Traditionally, requests to change on-street parking result in notice being sent to adjacent property owners. To be consistent with this board practice, notice would need to be sent to each of the affected property owners before implementing this policy. Because of the number of affected properties,that was not done for this meeting. One final point of note is that GO Transit has allowed passengers to board/alight its buses from locations other than formalized or designated stops. The Transit Advisory Board has discussed limiting boarding/alighting to designated stops, but has not endorsed it as of yet. This policy would require GO Transit to adopt this type of passenger policy. EXCERPT FROM TRAFFIC REVIEW MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Strong pointed out that there are clear benefits at looking into this. It would be great for people with mobility issues and helps with visibility. He noted that 80%of our current bus stops already have prohibited parking restrictions. However, there are some location where this would be difficult to implement based on local demand for on-sstreet parking. He added the transit system has been going towards formulized bus stops but the Transit Advisory Board has not taken any action yet. Mr. Becker felt uniformity would help. DEFEATED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD(1-5)