HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-13 04 Study SessionDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
Monday, September 13, 2004
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, September 13, Study Session of Dublin City
Council to order at 7:00 p. m. in Council Chambers at the Dublin Municipal Building. The topics
for discussion were:
• Intersection Analysis and Improvement Prioritization Study
• Southwest Area Traffic Calming Analysis
• S. R. 161/US 33 at John Sells Middle School Pedestrian Tunnel Feasibility Study
Roll Call
Council members present were: Marilee Chinnici-Zuercher {arrived at 7:55 p.m.), Tim Lecklider,
Mike Keenan, Cathy Boring, Amy Salay and Jahn Reiner. Mr. McCash was excused.
Staff Members:
Jane Brautigam, Frank Ciarochi, Marsha Grigsby, Ken Richardson, Jeanie Willis
Guests:
Fire Chief Woo, Traffic Consultants - R. D. Zande & Associates: Dave Samuelson, Tina
Wawszkiewicz, Brian Hagerty, Joe Sullivan.
Call to Order
Vice Mayor Lecklider called the meeting to order, noting that the Mayor would arrive late due to
another engagement. The agenda will be revised to consider the Southwest Area Traffic
Calming issue first.
SW AREA TRAFFIC CALMING ANALYSIS
Ms. Willis, Assistant City Engineer, stated that at the request of City Council, staff engaged
traffic consultants, R.D. Zande & Associates, to conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of
phases 1 - 4 of the Southwest Area Traffic Calming Plan.
Mr. Samuelson stated that the City requested afollow-up traffic calming analysis of three sites:
(1) Rings Road, (2) Wilcox Road, (3) Woerner Temple at Castleknock Drive and Woerner
Temple at Norn. The scope of the study was to conduct an assessment of traffic calming in the
southwest area; to measure the effectiveness of the calming completed in phases 1 through 4;
and to make a recommendation on completing phases 5 and 6. They did not identify additional
traffic calming that might be considered for phases 1 through 4, although they have a caveat to
that, nor did they identify alternatives to phases 5 and 6. They also have not yet held a
community meeting concerning alternatives to those phases. For the listed locations, they
collected volume and speed data and compared it to the study completed in 2002. For phase 5,
they also completed a license plate survey. At Rings Road, there is existing traffic calming -
traffic circles and raised crosswalks. A median speed of 32 mph was recorded, except in the
unimproved area of Rings Road between Wilcox and Norn roads. Although a minor reduction in
traffic volume occurred between 2002 and 2004, there has been development in the area, which
has somewhat offset the anticipated improvement. This implies that there has been relatively
minor improvement along Rings Road. However, 1999 data shows the peak hour volumes to
be in the 500 - 600 vehicles/hour range, and the 2004 volume is only 30% of that. Zande's
assessment is that the traffic calming on Rings Road has been effective. In the last two years, it
has reduced in daily and peak hours. The particular segment of Rings Road between Norn and
Wilcox with a higher speed of 38 mph suggests that the City might want to initiate stage one of
City Council Study Session
September 13, 2004
page 2
the traffic-calming program, which is essentially education and enforcement. This portion of
Rings Road is ineligible for traffic-calming measures.
Mr. Lecklider stated that the speed limit along this entire section of Rings Road is 25 mph.
Mr. Samuelson stated that in phase 5, traffic calming was added to Wilcox Road, from Woerner
Temple to Innovation Drive. Along with the traffic calming, other road improvements were
included in phase 5 -realignment and extensive drainage. Traffic calming measures include:
chicanes, landscaping, raised crosswalks, gateway features, and removal of unwarranted all-
way stop controls at Heather Glen and Northcliff. Speed studies taken on Wilcox near the
Innovation Drive intersection indicated an 85% percentile speed of just less than 35 mph. This
speed is similar to that on Norn Street, where chicanes were also added. On Wilcox Road, the
curvature of the chicanes is much more severe, therefore, the volumes would be reduced.
However, with lower speeds, there is the possibility that motorists might be inclined to use
Heather Glen as acut-through, therefore, Zande looked at the cut-through traffic.
Regarding volume changes, the study implies a low volume reduction since 2002. However,
with 1999 volumes and peak hour volumes in the range of 500-600 vehicles/hour, this is a
substantial reduction in the past five years. Overall, in the past five years, there has been about
an 18% volume reduction. Since 1999, there have been other contributing factors, primarily the
completion of Emerald Parkway and Woerner Temple.
Regarding cut-through traffic, license plate surveys confirmed the concern regarding cut-
throughs. The consultants documented a total of 18 cut-throughs at this location. Of the 18 cut-
throughs at this location, all but one continued north on Wilcox toward Innovation. Of those 17
vehicles, 12 were oriented to and from the east on Innovation and the 5 were oriented to Shier
Rings Road. There are some implications from those numbers: (1) these through trips
represent 30% of the peak volumes in the morning; (2) about 2/3rds of those volumes are
oriented to and from the east on Innovation Drive, implying that with traffic calming on Wilcox
there is a likelihood that some traffic will divert to Heather Glen; (3) in the pm peak, there were
no through trips on Heather Glen; (4} of the 32 through vehicles, half were oriented to and from
the east on Innovation Drive, again implying the likelihood that through trips might use Heather
Glen if all of phase 5, as proposed, is implemented on Wilcox Road.
The conclusions of this particular portion of the study are that current speeds are similar to
those on Norn in the chicane area; all-way stop control is not warranted at Northcliff nor at
Heather Glen; the chicanes as proposed may divert cut-through trips to Heather Glen; the use
of gateway features would communicate to drivers that they are entering a residential area,
therefore they may be less likely to use it as a through trip. All of phase 5 is not recommended
except for the gateway features, which could be implemented as part of phase 6. The
consultants did not study or identify alternatives to phase 5.
Mr. Lecklider inquired what percentage the cut-through numbers represent of the daily volume
on Wilcox Road. Who are the high speeds assigned to?
Mr. Samuelson stated that the probability is that they are local traffic. When the police have
done studies on the drivers cited within an area, they find the majority of those cited for
speeding are area residents. Approximately one-third of those cited are through trips.
City Council Study Session page 3
September 13, 2004
Discussion continued regarding cut-through traffic.
Ms. Salay inquired the an extrapolated estimate of the traffic volume on Rings Road, based on
the number who live in the neighborhood and must use Rings Road and the projected trips per
day for each household. Residents of Brighton Park, Wilcox Road, and a certain portion of
those who live in Trinity Park must use Rings Road. Can that be estimated without doing a
license plate survey?
Mr. Samuelson responded that they did not do a through trip count on Rings Road. However,
typically, the estimate is 10 tripstday per household, so 140 homes would be estimated at 1,400
trips/day. Such estimates could be 10-20% off, however. A license plate survey would provide
more accurate data.
Mr. Samuelson stated that phase 6 proposes gateway features for Norn at Woerner Temple and
Castleknock at Woerner Temple. The median speed on Norn is 34.7 mph. The traffic volume
has actually increased in that neighborhood since 2002, reflecting area development and the
change from a cul de sac to through street. He recommended that the gateway features in
phase 5 be implemented on Norn Street. They would reinforce the chicanes and other traffic-
calming measures an that road, emphasize the residential character, assist in speed reduction,
and complete the aesthetic features of the southwest area traffic calming program.
He noted that there is no earlier data for Castleknock Drive; however, the median speed was
less than two miles above the posted speed. The volume is low- 640 cars/day. There are 80
homes in the area, so there are very few cut-throughs, if any. They recommend proceeding
with the gateway features for Castleknock. It would reinforce current driver behavior, which is
already slow, and reinforce the residential character.
In summary, for Rings Road, they believe the traffic calming has been effective and recommend
consideration for additional calming through Stage 1 of the traffic-calming program. Far Wilcox
Road, they recommend only the gateway features of phase 5 and a public meeting with the
community to discuss the study findings. They also recommend completion of phase 6 for Narn
Street and Castleknock.
Mr. Samuelson that for Rings Road they recommend continuing to work with the Division of
Police. For Wilcox Road, they recommend community meetings and implementation of phase 6
including the gateway features of phase 5.
Ms. Salay stated that she supports adopting the consultant's recommendation. This study and
recommendation is new to the residents in the northern edge of Woerner Temple and Heather
Glen, who believe that phases 5 and 6 will be implemented. However, the City has learned that
those phases are no longer necessary as traffic volumes do not warrant those steps -they
could even have an undesirable impact. The residents do understand that there will be traffic an
Woerner Temple and Heather Glen and there is a need for compromise in order to balance the
traffic in both. Although phases 5 and 6 may no longer be needed, there are some steps the
City should take on Wilcox Road concerning ditch enclosure, stormwater management, and a
bike path for pedestrian connectivity. That should satisfy the traffic calming commitment to the
southwest area.
City Council Study Session
September 13, 2004
page 4
Mr. Lecklider inquired if staff's expectation is that an additional public meeting on this topic
would be held.
Ms. Brautigam stated that staff would hold a community public meeting, after which the item
would be scheduled on the Council agenda.
Mr. Lecklider requested that staff proceed with scheduling the meeting.
Ms. Brautigam referred to phase 6 of the Southwest Area Traffic Calming Plan, and noted that
estimates being received for the landscaping for the entryway features are coming in about 6%
higher that the estimates.
[Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher arrived at 7:55 p.m.]
Mr. Samuelson noted that Zande had been asked about the passibility of a name change for
some sections of Wilcox Road, which are now cul de sacs or courts. A 100% concurrence of
the residents would be necessary.
Ms. Salay noted that the residents are interested in renaming those sections that are now cul de
sacs to indicate that they are not through streets, such as Wilcox Road. The words "court," or
"circle" indicates that it is not a through street.
Mr. Samuelson displayed slides of those road sections proposed for a name change north of
Tuttle Crossing and north and south of Rings Road, and a slide showing the different types of
properties and status of vacancy. The key component is that the City does have 100%
concurrence from the property owners and residents far the name changes. He noted that there
would be communication with the Franklin County Engineer's Office.
Ms. Salay inquired about the need fora 100% concurrence. That level of concurrence has not
been required previously -- why is it necessary for this?
Ms. Willis responded that residents can experience difficulties with name changes, for instance
with their mail. The City Engineer's staff would prefer to have 100% agreement to avoid issues
with disgruntled residents.
Ms. Salay stated that anyone who has ever moved has experienced similar difficulties. This
requirement would potentially allow one person to derail the entire proposal. It would not be
right to allow one person, for the sake of personal convenience, to prevent something that is
good for the rest of the neighborhood. A requirement of 80 - 85% would be more reasonable.
If this requirement does not reflect concurrence with law but is a preference of staff, Council
may discuss the issue further.
Ms. Willis stated that staff has not yet spoken with the residents; therefore, she is not aware of
the level of concurrence.
Mike noted that it is essential that there be a policy in place for this type of issue.
Mr. Samuelson indicated the conclusion of the Southwest Area Traffic Calming report.
City Council Study Session
September 13, 2004
page 5
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS AND IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIZATION STUDY
Mr. Samuelson stated that the eight mast critical intersections were identified and prioritized on
the basis of accident and safety data. The intersections identified in order of priority are:
(1) SR 161 & Riverside/US 33
(2) Riverside/SR 257 & Bright Road
(3) Riverside Drive/SR 257 & Summitview Road
(4) Avery-Muirfield Drive & Post Road
(5) SR 161 & Corbins Mill
(6) Hyland-Croy Road/Ligget Road & Post Road
(7) Hyland-Croy Road & Brand Road/Mitchell-Dewitt Road
{8) Muirfield Drive & Sells Mill Drive.
Mr. Samuelson stated that a 100-point evaluation system was used to rank the intersections --
40 points was assigned to safety criteria, 35 points to signal warrants, 15 points to vehicle delay
and 10 points to traffic volume. The range of points was 24 - 76 points. There were three
criteria for traffic safety -total accidents, accident rate and accident severity. Criteria for signal
warrants were - 8-hour volumes, crash experience, and pedestrian crossing volumes. He
summarized the prioritization ranking and recommendations, including cost estimates, for the
top intersections. He noted that the recommendationsore based on existing volumes. The
Thoroughfare Plan is being revised, and volumes could change.
Ranked #1 -- SR 161 & Riverside/US 33
The recommendations far improvement were very minor. Mr. Samuelson stated that
approximately 37,000 vehicles enter this intersection daily, and a volume increase is
anticipated. Traffic crash history indicates a problem with congestion, a high occurrence of year-
end collisions on S. R. 161, and angle collisions at driveways along Riverside Drive just north
and south of the intersection. As traffic increases, a greater problem will be created for those
homes on Riverside Drive near the intersection. Currently, this intersection operates with a
service level of E. With turn lanes added, the level of service would improve to D or better. This
would be only a bandaid solution, however, which as traffic grows, could prove to be insufficient.
It's likely a bigger solution will be required, such as a grade separation. The Thoroughfare Plan
might show other issues associated with this intersection either from volume reduction or
volume increase. There is a certain point at which the addition of turn lanes does not make an
intersection work. At that paint, grade separation would be required - an underpass for
northbound traffic, but that would be 20-30 years in the future. With this particular improvement,
there are some issues. The widening would need to be designed on the Scioto River side of
Riverside Drive and along the north side of S.R. 161 in consideration of driveway slopes,
accesses and the bridge.
Ranked #2 -- Riverside/SR 257 & Bright Road.
Approximately 28,000 vehicles enter this intersection per day. Orchard Crest Drive is
approximately 200 feet north of the intersection. This intersection experiences many angle and
rear-end collisions, most of which are related to attempted left turns south from Bright Road.
The utility pole and shrubbery, which obscure sight distance, are easily addressed. The
recommendation is for a southbound left turn lane and a signal. The recommended turn lane is
quite long. This is not due to a heavy left-turn volume but due to the fact that through traffic
stopped at the light can back up so far that vehicles are prevented from getting into the turn
lane. This configuration raises an issue regarding right-of-way and Orchard Crest Drive access.
City Council Study Session page 6
September 13, 2004
A previous set of plans from 1995 provided a complex design for signal control at both Bright
Road and Orchard Crest Drive, adding a southbound left turn lane on Bright Road and a right
turn lane on the south leg of Riverside Drive. In contrast, the new recommendation is a simple
design.
Ms. Salay inquired the number of residences on Orchard Crest Dive. Mr. Samuelson
responded that there are nine.
Ms. Salay inquired if the Bright Road intersection were to improve with the extension of Emerald
Parkway, would that affect its prioritization?
Mr. Samuelson responded that its prioritization would change.
Ms. Willis noted that one consideration is if it would be desirable to expedite the Emerald
Parkway extension as part of salving the problem at this intersection.
Ms. Salay observed that many times when an intersection is signalized it proves to be a double-
edged sword. It makes the intersection safer but it also attracts traffic.
Mrs. Boring stated that these recommendations appear to be "overkill." When the Emerald
Parkway extension occurs, many of these issues will be resolved.
Mr. Reiner agreed. The intersection needs aright-hand turn from Bright Road to Riverside
Drive, but it would not be wise to attract more left turn traffic to that intersection. The future
extension of Emerald Parkway should divert some traffic from this intersection.
Discussion continued regarding the recommendations.
Ranked #3 -- Riverside Drive/SR 257 & Summitview Road
Mr. Samuelson stated that approximately 21,000 vehicles per day enter this intersection, as
opposed to the 37,000 at Riverside and SR 161. There are both angled collisions and rear-end
collisions. This was an isolated signal designed as a temporary signal, and it does create
random stops for motorists. It had the highest occurrence in crash history.
Suggested improvements: In the near term, a southbound left turn lane is recommended. In
the long term, a westbound right turn lane is recommended. There are potential issues with
right-of-way, driveway access and impact to utilities.
Ranked #4 - Avery-Muirfield & Post Road
Mr. Samuelson stated that approximately 34,000 vehicles enter this intersection per day. Crash
history indicates that the two key issues are congestion and proximity of the driveways to the
intersection. The City has approximately $1 M in improvements planned for this intersection.
Ranked #5 - SR 161 & Corbins Mill
Mr. Samuelson stated that approximately 38,000 vehicles enter this intersection per day.
During the AM and PM peak hours, most of the motorists are oriented towards the freeway, but
most of the collisions are oriented away from the freeway. There are two contributing factors -
congestion from backups and vehicles exiting the highway at high speeds needing to decelerate
suddenly, but there is no coordination with the traffic signal immediately to the west. That
results in many sudden stops.
City Council Study Session
September 13, 2004
page 7
Suggested improvements: In the near term, an extension of the left turn lane through re-
striping. In the long term, it is expected that there will some need for turn lane extensions onto
Corbin's Mill on the Shawan Falls approaches. The widening on Shawan Falls along the west
side would impact the parking areas there. If widening occurred on the other side, the impact
on Indian Run would be more significant.
Mrs. Boring inquired the necessity for widening
Mr. Samuelson stated that it is necessary to eliminate the traffic backup on Shawan Falls. That
requires widening the road to identifylstripe the lanes.
Mrs. Boring inquired if the back up was that significant.
Mr. Samuelson indicated it was.
Mrs. Boring stated that she was concerned about protecting the aesthetics of that particular
area.
Ms. Salay agreed and added that protection of the south fork of Indian Run is also important.
She noted that making a left turn into Sells Middle School is very difficult. There are also
motorists attempting to make turns into the businesses at that site. There is the potential for
head-on collisions. Even though this is not an intersection, she wanted to note the problem with
this left turn from SR 161.
Mr. Samuelson stated that it is an access management problem. In the more established
thoroughfares of mast cities, conditions will exist in which a motorist attempting to turn left will
have a direct conflict with a motorist coming from the opposite direction attempting to make a
turn at the same site.
Ranked #6 -- Hyland-Cray Road/Liggett Road/Post Road
Mr. Samuelson noted that approximately 10,000 vehicles enter this intersection per day. There
were two intersections in this study in which it was not possible to obtain sufficient accident data
for the diagrams where they used State Highway Patrol summaries -this was one of those.
In the three-year period of the study, there were a total of six crashes -five of the six involved
an injury, one a fatality. The citations were either for failing to stop at the stop sign or failure to
yield. The accident severity ratio was substantially higher than at other intersections.
Improvements Recommended: The visibility should be enhanced, given the number of drivers
who did not stop at the existing stop sign - either a flashing beacon or blinker stop sign.
Continued monitoring of this intersection is also recommended in terms of volume, accidents
and ongoing development.
Ranked #7 -- Hyland Croy Road/Brand Road/Mitchell-Dewitt Road
Jerome High School is located in the northeast corner. The City of Dublin owns two corners of
the intersection; Union County owns the remainder. Approximately 4,000 vehicles per day enter
this intersection. The data is representative of Spring 2004. That data has been reviewed
since the start of school, and their conclusions remain unchanged. However, next year the high
school will have freshmen through seniors, and the additional class may cause a significant
change in traffic volume. In addition, future development to the north could cause a change in
driving patterns. At present, mast traffic is oriented to and from the east on Brand.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he had observed that westbound on Brand at the intersection with
City Council Study Session page 8
September 13, 2004
Hyland-Croy Raad, a utility pole causes a sight obstruction.
Ms. Willis Hated that Engineering staff has been working with the Union County Engineer and
ODOT to change the speed limit on Hyland-Croy from Parkmill to Brock Road to 45 mph. Only
a small portion of that area is within the City of Dublin's jurisdiction, however.
Mr. Samuelson stated that this is the other intersection, which he'd mentioned, on which they
had been unable to obtain accident information except through the State Highway Patrol.
Generally the accidents were caused by "failure to yield." In the last three years, there were
eleven accidents three of which had injuries. This intersection does not have "high delay
conditions." It received low points and does not meet any signalwarrants or al)-way stop
controls. There is an ongoing study for lowering the speed limit. The City has already added
blinker stop signs.
Recommendations: Monitor the high school traffic volumes. Future intersection improvements
are anticipated.
Ranked #8 -- Muirfield Drive/Sells Mill
Mr. Samuelson stated that approximately 15,000 vehicles per day enter this intersection with
eight total crashes. Most of these were related to people traveling on Sells Mill and turning left
to go south. There appears to be a sight vision problem -perhaps motorists in the outside lane
obscuring view of the inside lane. It also may be related to a motorist pulling up and then trying
to slow down immediately in the meeting area before continuing south. Adding a northbound
right turn may help minimize the visibility problem. This intersection meets one warrant for
traffic signalization and will soon meet two. This intersection was also studied for the possibility
of pedestrian tunnel and was ranked 6t" in that study.
Recommendations: Continue to monitor the volumes and accidents annually. They will be
taking another count at the intersection. It has been a few weeks since the roundabout opened.
Drivers may have developed different driving patterns, which could have impacted the traffic
volume at this intersection and their conclusions. In the long term, it is suggested that either a
traffic signal or a northbound right turn be added.
STATE ROUTE 161/U.S. 33 BIKEPATH/PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Ms. Willis stated that the purpose of this feasibility study was to determine the physical
constraints to constructing a tunnel under SR 161 near the John Sells Middle School and Indian
Run Elementary School and to determine the public's interest and potential use of such a
facility.
Mr. Hagerty stated that the project started with Council's adoption of the comprehensive
pedestrian tunnel study report on December 15, 2003. That study prioritized locations for
potential tunnels throughout the City. The study ranked a tunnel crossing under Bridge Street
near Monterey Drive as the second highest priority and recommended further evaluation prior to
consideration for programming as a CIP project. Consequently, a feasibility study was deemed
necessary to evaluate public interest and to evaluate the cost of placement of the tunnel. Zande
initiated the study in January 2004, met with school administrators in April, distributed flyers,
and conducted public surveys on the web. A public meeting was held in June and a report was
submitted to staff in July. He displayed slides of the project area with Sells Middle Schaal and
Indian Run Elementary School in the center and a schematic of the existing bikepath and
City Council Study Session page 9
September 13, 2004
sidewalk systems to which the tunnel would need to connect. The scope of the project was to
identify demand through existing counts as well as public interest and to identify physical
constraints through survey, engineering work to develop alternatives and soil borings to
determine depth of the bedrock. He noted that existing pedestrian volumes are light with the
exception of afternoon foot traffic between the school and McDonald's and Kroger's before the
start of after-school activities. The volume of traffic on S.R. 161 makes that grade crossing very
difficult for pedestrians. The traffic consultants met with the school principals, a representative
of the school superintendent, arepresentative from the library, the Dublin Community Church,
the homeowner associations, and sent notices to the affected property owners, conducted a
public involvement meeting and a survey. Some findings were that the school has a policy to
bus students living '/ mile from the elementary schools and 1 mile from the middle schools.
However, all students at these two schools are bused due to the fact that SR 161 is considered
a barrier to pedestrian crossing. The school administration and the homeowners were
supportive of the project. There are approximately 63 middle school students and 35
elementary students who would live within that range, who are currently bused. If the tunnel
were constructed, they would be candidates for walking to the school. The administration
estimated that approximately 3 bus trips/day would be saved.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the schools would contribute to the cost of the tunnel. One
million dollars for 100 children seems a disproportionate remedy.
Mr. Hagerty stated that some of the concerns expressed in the survey were: (1) lack of
sidewalks on the south side of SR 161; conflicts with pedestrians and vehicles; safety in the
tunnel and vicinity of the tunnel; crossing of the elementary school children; the need to monitor
activities in the tunnel. Of the 119 survey responses, at least half indicated that they cross SR
161 a few times/month. Ninety percent were supportive of the tunnel and 213rds stated they
would use the tunnel a few times/month. Some respondents stated that they would increase the
number of their pedestrian crossings per month.
Mr. Hagerty stated that study of the physical feasibility indicated two potential locations on the
south side of SR 161. Existing bikepath and sidewalks were identified as well as property lines,
easements and right-of-way. Soil borings were performed in various locations on the two
alternatives -undeveloped lots between the City cemetery and the Duke and Duchess station
and between the Sunoco and Marathon stations. The advantage of the western location is that
it is directly across from the Sells Middle School entrance and would afford the school
administration a better view of the tunnel. The advantage of the second alternative is that it
would be better positioned between the elementary and middle schools. The schools indicated
that the possibility of relocating the entrance of the school.
Ms. Salay stated that there has been discussion regarding adding a connector between the
1919 building and Sells Middle School.
Due to the proximity of the existing bikepath and sidewalk systems, consideration was given to
running the tunnel through the back lots behind the gas stations or backyards and tying it into
the existing system. However, the safety factor discouraged that consideration.
Ms. Salay inquired about the proposed walkway east of the proposed tunnel. This would be a
great place for a sidewalk, except for the unsafe proximity to the heavy traffic flow. There is the
curb of SR 161, 3-4 feet of grass, and the stonewall of the cemetery. The sidewalk could not be
City Council Study Session
September 13, 2004
set back as there is no room.
page 10
Mr. Hagerty stated that this would be a consideration of improved safety; it would not ideal, as it
does not give a sound separation from traffic. However, it would improve the situation for those
who are walking on the shoulder of SR. 161 now.
Ms. Salay inquired about a possible physical separation, such as that used on a bridge,
something that is not aesthetically offensive.
Mr. Hagerty responded that would be a possibility, however, it would require at least two feet of
the available space.
Mr. Lecklider suggested cable or double cable, such as being used on I-270.
Ms. Salay stated that with the immediate proximity of the historic cemetery and Historic Dublin,
she was interested in something aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. Lecklider stated that the cable would be more transparent that would allow a view of the
cemetery stonewall, as opposed to a solid obstruction.
Mr. Hagerty responded that cable guardrail also requires a certain amount of space behind it, as
it is designed to deflect.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is not an area where children should be encouraged to
walk - it is so narrow and the traffic is so intense.
Ms. Salay agreed, not unless there was a barrier that absolutely deflected vehicles. Is it
suggested that only the grassy area between the curb and the stonewall would be sidewalk -
that's it?
Mr. Hagerty responded that the curb would be pushed out a little further to allow room for a
standard sidewalk.
Ms. Salay inquired the width.
Mr. Hagerty stated that he does not have the exact measurement, but he would estimate
approximately 6-7 feet between the stripe and the stonewall.
Mrs. Boring inquired if he was suggesting that the curb line actually be moved up or in.
Mr. Hagerty responded that it would not impact the lane width but the shoulder width between
the stripe and the curb.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council was given the impression that there were large
numbers of children who would be walking and would utilize the tunnel. She expressed surprise
that the tunnel would be for the benefit of 100 children. One million dollars is far too much for
100 children. The schools indicate they would need three less bus routes. Does that mean the
schools would contribute to the oust of the project if the City assists in the movement of the
children.
City Council Study Session page 11
September 13, 2004
Mr. Hagerty responded that the subject did not come up in the meetings the consultants held
with the schools.
Ms. Salay responded that she would also be interested in the answer to that question.
However, she considers the tunnel to be the response to the need for pedestrian connectivity in
Historic Dublin and to allow the residents on the south side of SR 161 to access the north side
safely. Aside benefit would be that it could be used by children to walk to those schools.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is necessary to define the connectivity that would be
achieved - a Pro Care? No one walks to the Post Office.
Ms. Salay stated that is because there is no sidewalk.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in consideration of the enormous amount of money
involved with this project, Council must determine what they are attempting to connect and if
there are other areas where there is a greater potential for connectivity. She would describe
this site as one for occasional connectivity for the south to the north. The City's pattern of
spending money far connectivity to the historic district might be more related to bikepaths or
walking paths, not tunnels.
Ms. Salay responded that the City does need to provide safe, at-grade crossings -that is what
she is interested in achieving. If Council rejects the proposal for a tunnel, then it is behooved to
consider safe, at-grade crossings and connectivity to the same. Right now, they do not exist,
and the community suffers from lack of pedestrian connectivity to the schools, the library, and
the historic district.
Mrs. Boring stated that experience shows that the kids will not go down and through the tunnel,
they will take the quickest route and that is right through the intersection.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that a safe, at-grade crossing is less expensive than a tunnel,
and it is something the City should provide even if a tunnel were to be approved. The schools
have already indicated that they would like to sell the Indian Run Elementary facility. One
obvious reason is that SR 161 is a major thoroughfare and not a friendly academic environment
far young children.
Mr. Lecklider stated that there has been discussion about the school district's abandonment of
that building. If some Council members were considering the tunnel for the benefit of the
schools, how much longer will the schools be there? He looks at this, however, as a potential
complement to Historic Dublin. Has there ever been interest expressed for a crossing west of
the cemetery?
Ms. Brautigam stated that last Friday, Ms. Grigsby and Mr. Hammersmith attended a meeting
with the school administration for another reason, and this topic came up. Those in attendance,
including Treasurer Chris Mohr, had not been contacted. It appears that the school
representatives who were contacted were the principals of Indian Run Elementary and John
Sells Middle School. Although those contacts were appropriate, it is even more important that
upper level school administration be involved.
City Council Study Session page 12
September 13, 2004
Mr. Hagerty responded that the consultants did meet with the superintendent and the treasurer.
Ms. Brautigam responded that the treasurer does not recall that discussion.
Mr. Richardson stated that he does not believe Mr. Mohr made it to the meeting.
Mrs. Boring suggested that in view of the amount of money for this project, the City should
obtain feedback from the property owners in Historic Dublin.
Ms. Salay agreed. Council could look at this and safe, at-grade crossings in context of the
development of Historic Dublin. This is one component of that effort that Council may/may not
choose to pursue.
Ms. Brautigam stated that the Historic Dublin Committee has looked at this and will address it in
their overall report to Council. Their focus is not on pedestrian tunnels or the schools, however,
so it is not likely they will offer support for the proposal.
Mr. Reiner stated that this is a project that is going to be put on hold.
Mr. Lecklider inquired what numbers were involved with the justification for the Bristol Commons
tunnel that Council approved several months ago. Will it provide pedestrian crossing for more
than 100 people on a daily basis?
Ms. Willis indicated that staff does not have those numbers at home.
Ms. Salay stated that a SR 161 pedestrian tunnel was ranked #1 on staff's list. The Bristol
Commons tunnel had a lesser ranking. The cost involved, however, dictated that a feasibility
study be done.
Mr. Lecklider stated that what Council considered, however, were the amenities, not the actual
number who would use the tunnel -- that question was never asked.
Ms. Brautigam stated that the issue was not weighed. The ranking went to the streets that had
high volume and high speed, and because SR 161 had both, it rose to the top.
Mr. Lecklider stated that to be fair it is necessary to use like comparisons. If Council intends to
reject this tunnel on the basis that only only 100 people would use it, then it is important to know
what the projected usage is for the Bristol Commons tunnel.
Ms. Salay responded that 100 is not a correct number. That is an estimate of the number of
school children who could use the tunnel, not including other usage by the rest of the
neighborhood.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the connectivity Council wants to achieve is the other issue.
At Bristol Commons, connection to the municipal pool was a primary objective. It is true,
however, that Council was not provided similar types of criteria for both tunnels.
Mr. Lecklider stated that the other factor is, if provided, how many citizens will actually walk the
distance and use the tunnels. If the families prefer to drive their children to the pool or the
City Council Study Session page 13
September 13, 2004
school anyway, is the tunnel justified?
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked the consultants and staff for their reports.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Submitted by:
Deputy Clerk of Council