sign in sign up
<<
Home , Contraflow lane

TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING Thursday, January 26, 2011 @ 7:00 PM Room 103, Town Hall 333 Washington

Meeting was called to order. Present was: Transportation Board Josh Safer, Chairman William Schwartz, Vice Chair Guustaf C.M. Driessen Michael Sandman

Town Staff: Peter Ditto, Director of DPW – Engineering & Transportation Division Todd M. Kirrane, Transportation Administrator Dan Martin, Transportation Engineer Joshua Layne, Senior Clerk Michael Gropman, Captain – Brookline Police Department Kevin Sullivan, Brookline Police Department Kara Brewton, Economic Development Director

Members Absent: Brian Kane Pamela Zelnick

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:  Fred Pinches, a Brookline resident asked if the Transportation Board is going to take action against the Devotion School for parking more vehicles in their garage than there are spaces which causes a serious threat to public safety and violates both the building and fire codes. o Vice Chair Schwartz stated that the Transportation Board has no jurisdiction over school buildings. o Transportation Administrator Kirrane recommended that Mr. Pinches pursue the issue with the Fire Department and the Building Department.  Richard Tuck stated that there are signs now installed on Harvard Street in the vicinity of the St. Mary’s School which creates a “SCHOOL BUS PARKING ONLY” restriction north of the crosswalk that were not there before and he would like the Board to investigate whether or not they are supposed to be there. He stated that they went up after the recent roadway construction project ended.

MEMBER UPDATE  Mr. Driessen said that:

o the Calming Subcommittee has had 2 meetings and is waiting on Town Counsel to review the latest draft policy & procedures. There will be one more meeting of the subcommittee to approve the final draft which will then be forwarded to the Board for consideration. o The Gateway East/Village Square CAC is on hold pending MassDOT’s comments of the 25% design plan which was submitted late last year. o The Moderator’s Committee on Parking recently heard from real estate professionals concerning their viewpoint on the parking ratios in the Town Bylaw. The committee plans to send out a survey with the Town excise tax bill to get a better understanding of the household to car ratio and the residential usage of off street privately owned spaces. o The Emerald Necklace Pedestrian and Bicycle Connection Committee had a meeting in December where the Town’s consulting team of GPI, Alta Bike, and Pressley presented their concept plan for the area. There was a large group of residents and cyclists in attendance who made some recommendations that the consultant is expected to respond to at the next meeting in two months.  Mr. Sandman stated that the Town Administrator’s Taxi Medallion Working Group continues to do move forward. He expects that the Town’s consultant will finalize his first phase report to the Board of Selectmen this spring. He has also worked with staff to develop draft Taxi regulations which will need to be adopted to regulate the medallion based industry.  Captain Gropman stated that the Town Administrator held a meeting with the neighbors and business owners of the St. Mary’s neighborhood to discuss potential mitigation for the ongoing Sewer Separation Project. Tow staff from DPW, Assessors, Police, and Economic Development were in attendance and they plan to follow up with ideas on different forms of relief that could be offered.

DPW UPDATE:  Director Ditto stated that: o The Lower Beacon Street Sewer Separation Project is expected to re-start this spring and will include less evasive cut and cover work to make connections from buildings to the new mains. o Engineering Division staff expects to finalize plans for a Chapter 90 project on Clark from Sumner to Dean. They also plan to complete roadway reconstruction projects on Beverly Road, Salisbury Road, Princeton Road, and Rangeley Road as time allows.

DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON PROPOSED CONTRAFLOW BICYCLE ON GREEN STREET FROM DWIGHT TO HARVARD STREET AS PART OF THE MASTER NETWORK PLAN  Chairman Safer stated that the Board is discussing 3 contraflow bicycle and expects that some will be more controversial than others so he expects to reallocate the 20 minutes per item to accommodate this. He believes most people are pro-bike in Town and interested in ways that the Town can encourage more eco-friendly transportation modes including bikes and public transit. Therefore this conversation should be about the proposals and their appropriate treatment on these and not a discussion about bike planning as a whole. The reality is that Brookline is becoming more proactive in providing safe bicycle accommodations and the community is responding by biking more so the question is whether or not each of these proposals furthers that.  Transportation Administrator Kirrane stated: o staff utilized the comprehensive bicycle facility design manual issued by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) to develop the contraflow plans. This design manual is divided into 3 categories for each type of treatment including required which are those elements required under the Federal Administration’s the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, recommended elements from best practice sources including the AASHTO Bike Planning Guide and Institute of Transportation Engineers, and optional treatments to further improve safety. o Contraflow lanes are not “wrong way biking” but are bike lanes designed to allow cyclists to ride in the opposite direction of motor vehicle traffic. They convert a one-way traffic street into a two-way street: one direction for motor vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians and the other for bikes and pedestrians only. o Contraflow lanes are now an acceptable treatment under the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. o Required design features in the NACTO Manual include: . Bicycle lane word, symbol, and arrow markings (MUTCD Figure 9C-3) shall be used to define the bike lane direction and designate that portion of the street for preferential use by bicyclists. . A “ONE WAY” sign (MTCD R6-1, R6-2) with “EXCEPT BIKES” plaque shall be posted along the facility and at intersecting streets, alleys, and driveways informing motorists to expect two-way traffic. . traffic controls along the street (e.g., stop signs and traffic signals) shall also be installed and oriented toward bicyclists in the contra-flow lane. o Recommended design features in the NACTO Manual include:

. A “DO NOT ENTER” sign (MUTCD R5-1) with “EXCEPT BIKES” plaque should be posted along the facility to only permit use by bicycles. . When configured without parking, a solid double yellow lane line marking should be used to separate opposing motor vehicle travel lanes from the contraflow bicycle lane. . A “No Turn on Red restriction by installing a “No Turn on Red” sign (MUTCD R10-11) on cross streets to minimize potential conflicts with turning vehicles. Cross street traffic may not look for or anticipate contraflow bicycle travel. . Where there is room, bike lanes should be used on both sides. When there is no room for a with-flow lane, shared lane markings should be used to guide with-flow bicyclists to keep to the right side of the road. . If sufficient space exists, a buffered bike lane design should be used. . Contra-flow bike lane markings should be extended across the intersection, especially for contra-flow lanes against the , as a way of alerting cross street traffic to look for contra-flow bicyclists. o Optional design features in the NACTO guide include: . Warning signage, such as a modified “TWO WAY” sign (MUTCD W6-3) may be posted along the facility to inform motorists to expect two-way traffic. . Colored pavement may be used along the facility to draw attention to the unique function of the lane, or in areas with cross traffic, such as at exits, for increased visibility of bicyclists. . Small versions of “STOP” signs (18 x 18 inches) and other regulatory signage may be used along the contra-flow lane to emphasize that only bike traffic is permitted to travel in the contra-flow direction. . Contra-flow lanes may be installed where there is parking on the contra-flow side. Most existing installations use a double yellow line to separate the contra-flow bicycle lane; however local ordinance may prohibit parking in the opposite direction of the contra-flow travel lane. A dashed yellow line, or dashed white line may also be used to separate the contra-flow bicycle lane. Local urban practitioners should use best engineering judgment to determine which strategy to implement. . A curb or a raised median may be used in place of double yellow striping to separate the contra-flow lane from

opposing vehicle traffic. Such a facility becomes a contra- flow protected cycle track. o The Bicycle Advisory Committee has targeted a Green Street contraflow bicycle lane to create a safe two-way route connecting the B.U. area (access to the ), as well as the dense Coolidge Corner Northeast residential area, to the bike lanes on Harvard Street which provide connections to points to the north, south, and west including other commercial districts, schools, parks, and town government offices. o Green Street is: . classified as a local roadway by MassDOT; . allows one way eastbound motor vehicle traffic from Harvard Street to John Street and John Street to Dwight Street; . has a cross section of an 8’ eastbound parking lane, a 5’ eastbound bicycle lane without the required MUTCD markings, and a 13.5’ eastbound travel lane. o The proposal meets all requirements of the NACTO Guide as well as the majority of the recommendations, the MUTCD, and MassDOT guidelines and will eliminate the current cross section detailed above and replace it with an: . 8 foot easterly parking lane with existing regulations remaining in place . 11.5 foot easterly motor vehicle travel lane with a sharrow at the beginning of each block indicating a shared lane with bicycles traveling in the same direction . 2 foot yellow buffered bike lane pavement marking to clearly delineate the contraflow bike lane from the travel lane . 5 foot westerly contraflow bicycle lane with MUTCD symbol and arrow pavement markings . MUTCD ONE WAY signage with the EXCEPT BIKES supplemental plaque . MUTCD DO NOT ENTER signage with the EXCEPT BIKES supplemental plaque . Brookline standard STOP BIKE sign on Green Street at John Street westbound and on Green at Harvard Street westbound.  Cynthia Snowe, Chair of the Bicycle Advisory Committee stated that: o contraflow bicycle lanes have been used on Netherlands Road and Road in Brookline for several years and have worked very well to improve bicycle access and safety. There are also contraflow lanes in Cambridge, other cities in North America, and Europe so their use is not new. o The Master Plan uses the Green Street contraflow lanes to provide a safe route for street intolerant cyclists to avoid heavy traffic

areas and connect Beacon Street east of Coolidge Corner where the bike lanes stop and Harvard Street.  Mr. Sandman stated that he is a supporter of contraflow lanes when used in the right place. He has witnessed them work well in urban areas in the heart of Paris so he is not concerned about their use in Brookline’s commercial areas. However based on motor vehicle volumes, parking turnover, and the valet operation at Osaka he is concerned that the contraflow lane cannot operate correctly without constant obstructions. He agrees that there is a need for a safer connection around the Beacon at Harvard intersection and the immediate blocks leading to the intersection but he is not convinced this provides a safer alternative.  Mr. Driessen stated that he too is a supporter of contraflow lanes and has experienced them throughout the world but the intersection of Harvard and Green Streets concerns him. Between pedestrians crossing Harvard Street and two lanes of traffic on Harvard Street he sees too many possible conflicts for cyclists exiting Green Street and making a left turn onto Harvard Street. When you look at the overall Master Network Plan he believes that a more reasonable alternative to make this connection and bypass Coolidge Corner would be to flow up John Street to Babcock Street and then cross Harvard Street at a signalized intersection.  Chairman Safer asked if the “BIKE STOP SIGN” is more appropriate than a smaller normal STOP sign for cyclists? o Transportation Administrator Kirrane stated that this sign is used on the Netherlands contraflow lane and all feedback from the Brookline Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Cyclists Union, and other advocates has been favorable because it clearly demonstrates that it is meant for the bike to stop.  Chairman Safer stated that as a driver is supportive of bike lanes because it moves cyclists out of the travel lane and makes it easier to share the road with them. He is supportive of this proposal, as a motorist, because the bike lane on Beacon Street westbound ends at Waldo Street one block before Harvard Street and the number of cyclists during that merge into the right lane make it a defacto low speed bike lane and limit the roadway capacity for motorists. Therefore the more cyclists you can divert to these safer alternative routes the better for motorists.  Captain Gropman stated that from a public safety standpoint he is a supporter of contraflow lanes including the ones on Netherlands and Parkway, but he is concerned that the amount of conflicts between the cyclist, the valet operation, and the Harvard Street at Green Street intersection has him concerned. He would prefer staff develop a safer route suggested by Mr. Driessen. He would also support usage of the lower part of Green Street that would create a Dwight, to Green, to John, to Babcock route.

 Stanley Spiegel, a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 2 stated that contraflow lanes are appropriate when they address a problem but this location is not the right place. He is concerned about the introducing westbound cyclists to the already congested intersection of Green Street and Harvard Street where northbound vehicles are merging from 2 to 1 lane and pedestrians are crossing both east/west and north/south. He would like to see this issue be postponed until the study of Coolidge Corner is conducted and the Town can gain input on whether or not this is a viable and safe change to make. He would also recommend that the Bicycle Advisory Committee consider the alternative safe routes mentioned tonight if Green Street is not passed.  Fred Levitan stated that he is concerned about the potential conflicts between pedestrians who are crossing Green Street at John Street who are not aware that they have to look for motorists and cyclists from one direction and cyclists from the other. He is concerned that too many cyclists will not stop at the stop signs and will create issues for the pedestrians. He has the same concern for cyclists entering Harvard Street from Green Street.  Lea Cohen stated that streets are made one way for a reason and she is not convinced that making it two-way for bikes without knowing why it was made one way is a good idea. She does not believe that it will bring more people to Coolidge Corner than already come so she does not see the benefit of it.  Lee Sewlyn, a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 13 stated that he is opposed to all contraflow bicycle lanes because it is wrong way cycling. They present a danger to pedestrians, especially those with physical or vision limitations. That they are based on the premise that cyclists behave like motorists and stop at stop signs and obey other traffic rules and they do not. It is a reality that as a class cyclists do not stop at stop signs, do not stop at red lights, and travel the wrong way on one streets regardless of whether there is a contraflow lane or not. He would like the process, in the future, seek comments from other interest groups outside of the bicycle advisory committee at the beginning of the plan development and not at the meeting when the Transportation Board is going to take action on the issue. If the policy of installing contraflow lanes is based on the premise that bicyclists will obey other traffic laws than it is a failed policy because they don’t. Instead of bike planning he would like to see the Police Department focus on bike enforcement.  Vice Chair Schwartz stated: o that the Bicycle Advisory Committee has held 2 meetings prior to tonight with residents of Green Street to discuss the plan, answer questions, address concerns, and this has resulted in the changing of the plan to improve safety further. o Personally he is concerned about this plan because the section of Green Street between John and Dwight Streets often has cars parked illegally on the side where the contraflow bike lane is

proposed and that would create an even more unsafe condition for cyclists. o That this one is not as critical as the two other proposals since there are alternatives and he would like the Town and the Board to focus on those two good plans than this plan which will create more conflicts than it solves. o He does not support looking at these one a case by case situation and does not support any broad statements that says ‘having a contraflow lane empty out on a busy street is unacceptable or unsafe’. o He also does not support the notion that adding a cyclist exiting a contraflow lane means danger for pedestrians because they are unexpected. Pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists adapt to changes on the roadway every day and this would be no different.  John Peletair, a resident of Brookline and a staff member at the Cambridge Traffic Division stated: o that the city has had contraflow lanes for years with no accident or safety concerns. o That he agrees with comments made that cyclists exiting Green onto Harvard Street and making a left turn could be problematic, but it most likely would not happen except by a small percentage of the bicyclist population because of the potential danger involved. o He would recommend placing the bike lane markings close to the major driveways so vehicles are reminded that there are two-way cyclists. o He disagrees that cyclists will not stop at the exit points since he observes them stopping at the contraflow lanes in Cambridge on a daily basis.  Carla Benka, a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 13 asked if the contraflow bicycle lane on Green Street, if approved, would be installed before the Coolidge Corner study was completed. o Chairman Safer stated that this project, if approved, would be included in the FY 2013 budget and would be installed sometime late this year or early next spring. This would occur around the same time as the area is being studied.  Regina Frawley, a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 16 stated that she thinks contraflow lanes will only act to confuse the situation on the roadway where people expect bicyclists to follow the same rules as motorists.  An unidentified Town Meeting Member asked Captain Gropman to explain what police action was done against cyclists. o Captain Gropman stated that in a one month period the Brookline Police Department conducted an educational program and stopped 1500 cyclists who violated one traffic rule or another and

issued them a warning explaining the need to follow the same rules of the road as motorists.

Mr. Sandman moved NO ACTION on a contraflow lane on Green Street. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Schwartz and passed by a vote of 4 to 0.

DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON PROPOSED CONTRAFLOW BICYCLE LANE ON PARK STREET FROM MARION TO BEACON STREET AS PART OF THE MASTER NETWORK PLAN  Captain Gropman stated that the Police are supportive of this proposal.  Transportation Administrator Kirrane stated that: o the Bicycle Advisory Committee has requested that the Transportation Board move forward on the staff developed proposed contraflow bike lane on the one-way section of Park Street between Beacon and Marion Streets. o Park Street is currently used as a two-way bicycle route connecting Coolidge Corner and destinations north of Beacon Street with residential neighborhoods, Brookline High School, the Evelyn Kirrane Aquatic Center, and other points of interest to the south of the town. However those cyclists currently making this movement from Marion Street to Beacon Street are doing so without the safety and protection of a properly signed and marked buffered northbound bike lane. o Park Street is classified by the MassDOT as a local roadway under Town of Brookline jurisdiction. The public right of way is approximately 27 feet curb to curb and stretches from Beacon Street south to Washington Street. The one way section is from Beacon Street to Marion Street. o The current cross section of the one-way portion is an unmarked 8 foot southbound curbside parallel parking lane on the western curb and an oversized 18 foot southbound travel lane. The one way portion ends that the all-way stop controlled intersection with Marion Street and becomes two-way after the intersection. o The parking along the westerly curb is unmetered and under the 2 hour regulation. o The staff developed proposed contraflow lane for this section will replace this cross section with one that includes an: . 8 foot southerly unmarked parking lane with existing regulations remaining in place . 11.5 foot southerly motor vehicle travel lane with a sharrow at the beginning of the block near Beacon Street indicating a shared lane with bicycles traveling in the same direction

. 2 foot yellow buffered bike lane pavement marking to clearly delineate the contraflow bike lane from the travel lane . 5 foot northerly contraflow bicycle lane with MUTCD symbol and arrow pavement markings . MUTCD ONE WAY signage with the EXCEPT BIKES supplemental plaque . MUTCD DO NOT ENTER signage with the EXCEPT BIKES supplemental plaque . Brookline standard STOP BIKE sign on Park Street at Beacon Street.  Mr. Levitan stated that: o he was on the Transportation Board when the decision was made to reverse the direction and it was done to eliminate the traffic congestion on Beacon Street caused by vehicles exiting Park Street and crossing two lanes of traffic to make a left onto Centre Street or reverse direction on Beacon Street. o He is concerned by the wide corner and angle that vehicles have to make to turn right onto Park Street and is concerned that those vehicles have to enter the proposed contraflow lane to do so. . Mr. Driessen stated that a vehicle making the turn at a reasonable speed would not have to enter the contraflow lane to make that movement.  Jonathan Davis, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 10: o Confirmed that Chairman Safer distributed a letter from the condo association to the other members of the Board. o He stated that as a practical matter most people who live on this block often violate the NO PARKING restriction where the proposed contraflow lane is located and park their vehicles to offload elderly residents, children, groceries, and other goods. This is often done by delivery vehicles from UPS, Fed Ex, and others so the likelihood that the contraflow cyclist is going to encounter an illegally parked vehicle is high which will decrease their safety, not increase it. o He also believes that cyclists will want to make a left turn onto Centre Street at the intersection with Beacon and will disrupt the traffic flow.  An identified resident of Park Street stated: o that she is concerned about the conflicts that will be created by vehicles exiting the driveways and garages who are used to only looking right for motorists. o She is also concerned about the cyclist because there is a history of motorists running the STOP signs at the intersection of Park and Marion Streets.  Dorothy Granfield, a resident of Park Street stated that she routinely parks on the wrong side of the street because the legal paring on Park

Street is normally at capacity. Since motorists have to make a loop up Marion Street and down Beacon Street to access this block she thinks cyclists should have to do it as well.  An unidentified Town Meeting Member stated that everyone keeps arguing against contraflow lanes based on the fact that it is an unpredictable movement that will create conflict. In order to better understand this conflict between pedestrians and contraflow cyclists he spoke with the Pedestrian Coordinator for the City of Cambridge who actually disagreed with the comments being made. She stated that the City has seen a reduced number of conflicts as more bicycle facilities, including contraflow lanes, have been installed because pedestrians and motorists now adapt to the separate but visibility roadway markings indicating that a cyclists is allowed and expected to be in that location.  Michael Sanders, a resident of Washington Street, stated that he supports the proposal as presented by staff.  Chairman Safer stated that although there will be some conflicts with illegally parked vehicles, but this is an improvement for cyclists and pedestrians since they will now have separate facilities.  Vice Chair Schwartz stated that he believes that the street width makes this an ideal location for a contraflow lane and is a key connection that otherwise is not available for cyclists on the roadway.

Mr. Sandman made a motion to alter the cross section of Park Street from Beacon to Marion to include the contraflow lane as designed by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Driessen and passed by a vote of 4 to 0.

DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON REQUEST FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE DESIGNATED CURBSIDE HANDICAP PARKING SPACE LOCATED AT 290 TAPPAN STREET

Mr. Sandman made a motion to remove the curbside handicap parking space in the vicinity of 290 Tappan Street. Vice Chair Schwartz seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 4 to 0.

DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON PROPOSED CONTRAFLOW BICYCLE LANE ON DUDLEY STREET FROM LEE TO WALNUT STREET AS PART OF THE MASTER NETWORK PLAN  Transportation Administrator Kirrane stated that: o the Bicycle Advisory Committee has requested that the Transportation Board move forward on the staff developed proposed contraflow bike lane on the one-way section of Dudley Street between Lee and Walnut Streets. o Dudley Street represents the only safe two-way bicycle route connecting South Brookline and destinations south of Boylston Street with residential neighborhoods, Brookline High School, the Evelyn Kirrane Aquatic Center, town buildings, and other points of

interest north that does not force them to bike on a four lane state highway. o The proposed cross section will be: . 8 foot eastbound unmarked parking lane with existing regulations remaining in place . 11.5 foot southerly motor vehicle travel lane with a sharrow at the beginning of the block near Beacon Street indicating a shared lane with bicycles traveling in the same direction . 2 foot yellow buffered bike lane pavement marking or double yellow center lane to clearly delineate the contraflow bike lane from the travel lane . 5 foot northerly contraflow bicycle lane with MUTCD symbol and arrow pavement markings . MUTCD ONE WAY signage with the EXCEPT BIKES supplemental plaque . MUTCD DO NOT ENTER signage with the EXCEPT BIKES supplemental plaque . Brookline standard STOP BIKE sign . Plan will require the removal of 8 parking spaces at the pinch points  Vice Chair Schwartz stated that he is supportive of this plan because it is the only safe alternative since you cannot legally bike around the reservoir. Otherwise a cyclist must use Boylston Street or Warren Street which are very dangerous routes for cyclists.  Captain Gropman stated that he would like to see a physical barrier used around the pinch points because he is concerned motorists will cross the double yellow line and hit and oncoming cyclist. o Transportation Administrator Kirrane stated that in other municipalities including New York, San Francisco, and Baltimore they use to separate the bike lane from the motor vehicle lane but DPW would have to look at different types to determine which ones will work best for snow plowing reasons. o Both Chairman Safer and Mr. Sandman voiced support of stanchions around the pinch points and only for the spring, summer, and fall months.  Ms. Frawley stated her concern about the contraflow lane on Dudley Street is due to the poor street lighting in South Brookline. She almost struck some inline skaters who were in the right lane of Clyde Street one night because she could not see them.  An unidentified resident of Dudley Street stated that he is an avid cyclist but he is opposed to this plan because the vehicles travel 40+ mph on Dudley Street every day making it difficult to cross the street, never mind riding contraflow. He requested speed bumps on the roadway to increase safety for everyone.

 Lea Cohen stated that the reservoir is a well-used recreational gem in Brookline that she tries to visit daily. She stated that she sees contraflow bikes on Dudley every day so she is supportive of this plan. However she wants to see if it can minimize parking loss.  Mr. Peletair stated that he supports this contraflow lane and has seen compliance and reduced speeds in Cambridge through the use of smaller lanes and pavement markings so he believes motorists will stay to the right of the yellow marking.  An unidentified resident stated that out of the three plans for contraflow lanes presented this is the only one that, from his viewpoint, is mandatory to ensure safety. He stated that there is no alternative to commute by bike safely from South Brookline other than contra flowing on Dudley Street, which he does daily. Warren Street is a very narrow and windy road that is unsafe for cyclists and Boylston Street is a high speed state highway which is even more unsafe. He too is supportive of to slow the speed of the cars.  Vice Chair Schwartz stated that he might like to postpone this item for additional work on the plan to include the bollards.  Chairman Safer stated that he would like to move this plan forward because it will make a current practice legally and a lot safer. He observes people contra flowing every day because the alternatives are not safe or reasonable for a cyclist. He believes that staff can utilize their discretion on the issue of bollards.  Cynthia Snowe stated that another part of the plan was to include sharrows up Walnut Street to direct cyclists where to continue on when they reach the end of the contraflow lane.

Mr. Sandman made a motion to alter the cross section of Dudley Street to include an easterly contraflow lane on Dudley Street from Lee Street to Walnut Street subject to further staff work to include pavement markings and/or bollards to reduce the likelihood that vehicles would enter the contraflow lane where the cross section narrows and the road curves and sharrows on Walnut Street eastbound from Dudley Street to Warren Street. Motion was seconded by Vice Schwartz and passed by a vote of 4 to 0.

DISCUSSION AND ACTION PROPOSED BICYCLE LANE AND SHARRED LANE MARKINGS ON WASHINGTON STREET FROM CYPRESS STREET TO THE TOWNLINE  Transportation Administrator Kirrane stated that this plan will continue the recently installed bicycle facilities on Washington Street (Davis to Cypress) to the town line with Boston at Bartlett Crescent. Highlights include: o A near continuous 8 foot parallel parking lane along the eastern curb where parking already exists o A near continuous 5 to 6 foot northbound bicycle lane except where travel lane width does not allow it at the intersection of

Washington at Cypress and Washington at Beacon where a sharrow is installed in its place o A uniform 10 to 10.5 foot wide northbound vehicular travel lane o A 5 foot wide southbound bicycle lane where lane width allows or sharrows o Dashed bike lane markings carried through the minor street approaches which form T intersections with Washington Street o No loss of existing parking spaces  Mr. Sandman confirmed that the formal left turn lane was long enough on Washington southbound at Cypress Street.  Vice Chair Schwartz requested that where space allows the motor vehicle lanes be held at a constant width of 10 to 10.5 feet and parking lanes be 7 feet to allow for a larger 6 foot bike lane.  Ms. Snowe stated there are bulb outs on Washington Street north of Beacon Street and she would like to know if they have to be removed to allow for a bike lane. o Transportation Administrator Kirrane stated that the bulb outs were designed to remain within the parking lane so they do not affect the installation of the bike lanes.  Mr. Sanders inquired into the most narrow cross section point on Washington Street in this plan. o Staff stated that anywhere on the plan where sharrows are located the width is 42 feet or less. o He followed up stating his preference to remove parking and have dedicated bike lanes in either direction instead of the shared lane markings and a parking lane. As a resident of Washington Street for many years he does not believe the parking usage warrants that many spaces. The City of Boston has removed parking spaces in many places to accommodate dedicated bicycle lanes and he would like Brookline to follow suit. o Staff stated that their direction from the Transportation Board was no parking removal.  Mr. Sandman stated that parking spaces in Brookline are scared and the Board tries to minimize the loss as much as possible.  Chairman Safer stated that this plan is a step in the right direction in improving bicycle accommodations in town and recommending large stretches of parking removal will make this plan very controversial and possibly dead on arrival.

Mr. Driessen made a motion to approve the installation of bicycle accommodations on Washington Street as proposed by staff and amended during the discussion. Mr. Sandman seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 4 to 0.

OTHER BUSINESS:  Scope of Work for Coolidge Corner Traffic Management Study

o Transportation Administrator Kirrane stated that the DPW is placing $25k in the FY2013 CIP budget to fund the study promised by members of the Transportation Board at the November Town Meeting. o Vice Chair Schwartz asked why the Town was going to study this area again and what problem are people trying to solve. . Chair Safer stated that the Board promised to study it in response to a warrant article at the November 2011 Town Meeting. That it was to look into the lingering traffic congestion at this intersection and possible solutions include the possible signalization of the Green Street at Harvard Street . o The Board agreed that staff should seek input from various community leaders and develop a proposed scope for consideration at their next meeting.

 Approval of Meeting Minutes o Mr. Sandman made a motion to approve the meeting minutes as submitted for March 17, 2011, April 29, 2011, January 20, 2011, December 1, 2011, and June 23, 2011. The motion was seconded by Mr. Driessen and passed by a vote of 4 to 0.

 Submission of Taxi Medallion Assessment Report to Board of Selectmen o Transportation Administrator Kirrane stated that the Town Administrator has received the Phase 1 Report submitted by Richard LaCapra detailing his belief on the best way the town can transfer from a licensed based system to a medallion based system. It is expected that the Board of Selectmen, who hired the consultant, will discuss it at an upcoming meeting and may ask the Transportation Board for input. This report comes from his many meetings over the past year with industry owners and the Town Administrator’s Taxi Medallion Working Group. o Mr. Sandman stated that the report details how the Town should break up the sale and release of the medallions into 3 tiers which will help capitalize the industry and make borrowing possible. The first tier comes at no initial cost but the town gets money back upon their resale so there is not a lot of money being left on the table as one might suspect if they just skimmed the report.

 Referral of MBTA Proposed Service Cut and Rate Increase to Public Transportation Advisory Committee for advisory opinion o Abby Swaine, a member of the Public Transportation Advisory Committee stated that there is a crisis in the current budget for the MBTA. She stated that the Town, through the Transportation Board, needs to recognize this funding crisis and advocate

maintaining our current level of service and encourage new revenue sources to address this long term debt issue. She would like PTAC to hold a public hearing on the issue and to report back to the Transportation Board with a draft opinion letter for submittal to the MBTA.

 Potential additional locations for Food Truck Vendors in response for alternative locations assessable by pedestrians by Board of Selectmen o Kara Brewton stated that there are some additional spaces that the staff working group would like the Board to consider making available for Food Truck vendors during the pilot program. They include Pleasant Street @ Commonwealth , Babcock Street @ Commonwealth Avenue, Beacon Street @ Englewood Avenue, John Street @ Pleasant Street on Saturdays, Beacon Street outbound @ Washington Street on Saturdays. o Transportation Administrator Kirrane stated that when this issue was first before the Transportation Board the consensus was that the spaces were on the outer limits of where people tend to be and that the Board would be supportive of spaces closer to commercial centers. The Board of Selectmen had some similar comments and staff developed these locations based on feedback from food vendor trucks. Transportation Division staff has reviewed these proposed spaces and they will not have a negative impact on traffic congestion or interfere with pedestrian movement so we recommend favorable action. o Chairman Safer and Mr. Sandman requested staff to monitor the proposed cluster on John and Pleasant Streets for their impact on the parking supply.

Meeting Adjourned.