Summary of Stakeholder and Community Input
Meaningful community engagement and input is critical to the development of a successful, publicly- supported and implementable plan. To facilitate a community engagement process that captured the needs of a large and diverse region, outreach efforts included a mix of subcommittee meetings and stakeholder interviews, community workshops, a project website, an online survey and photo contest, an active social media strategy and a virtual presentation of the draft plan.
Bicycle Subcommittee Members To help guide the Regional Bicycle Master Plan, a Bicycle Subcommittee was organized by GBNRTC. It includes representatives from public agencies (local, regional and statewide) and bicycle, trail, and environmental advocates. The Subcommittee included GBNRTC staff along with the following individuals:
Justin Booth, GObike Buffalo Nadine Chalmers, NFTA Jim Cuozzo, NYSDOT Region 5 Julie Fetzer, City of Buffalo DPW John Gerlach, City of Niagara Falls Garret Meal, Niagara County Mark Mistretta, NYS Parks Alan Nusbaum, City of Niagara Falls Planning Mark Rountree, Erie County Planning Gregory Stevens, Niagara River Greenway Darlene Svilokos, Erie County Gina Wilkolaski, Erie County
Public Workshops Public engagement for the GBNRTC Regional Bicycle Master Plan effort included the following public workshops:
September 10, 2019 - public workshop at Hamburg High School September 11, 2019 - public workshop at University of Buffalo Center for Tomorrow February 4, 2020 - public workshop at the Lockport YWCA February 5, 2020 - public workshop at SUNY Erie Community College, South Campus June 15th - 22nd 2020 - virtual presentation summarizing the final draft of Bike Buffalo Niagara (revised to online format due to Covid-19)
Stakeholder Meetings/Interviews The core project team conducted interviews with various stakeholders from a variety of agencies and organizations to gather input and insight into existing conditions and proposed facility ideas. This included representatives from cities, towns and villages in both Niagara and Erie Counties, NYS institutions and agencies, along with bicycle, trail and environmental advocates.
September 10, 2019 September 11, 2019 February 4, 2020 February 5, 2020
On-line Input Map In addition to the in-person meetings, GBNRTC set up an online input map where members of the community were able to register comments about challenging locations for bicycling and ideas for route improvements. Comments received helped the consultant team understand the critical needs of bicyclists in the region and informed the Gap Analysis and the development of the Bicycle Network map.
Project Webpage and Input Map The Plan’s public engagement process was supplemented by the Bike Buffalo Niagara page on GBNRTC’s web site. The web page provided an opportunity for members of the public to catch up on the planning process, download draft deliverables from the consultant team, access slide presentations from the public meetings and to submit comments to GBNRTC’s Project Manager. The web page also provided a direct link to the interactive online map, which was available during the fall and winter 2019-20. The interactive map allowed participants to indicate desirable bike routes, demanding corridors to ride along and problem spots where wide intersections, bike lane/shoulder gaps and other elements created challenges to bicycle connectivity and/or safety. Participants could also register areas throughout the region where bike parking facilities were needed. Hundreds of suggestions were made to the input map, many of which paralleled comments made during the community workshops and from the Bicycle Sub- Committee. Combined, the input helped inform corridor recommendations and bikeway treatments made by the consultant team.
Photo Contest A photo contest was held requesting residents and visitors to submit their best bicycle related photo. The winning entry is featured on the cover of the Plan.
Online Survey An online survey was used to gauge residents and visitors preferences for bicycling and bicycle infrastructure.
Community Workshops This section includes summaries from the Regional Bicycle Master Plan community workshops held on:
September 10, 2019 - public workshop at Hamburg High School September 11, 2019 - public workshop at University of Buffalo Center for Tomorrow February 4, 2020 - public workshop at the Lockport YWCA February 5, 2020 - public workshop at SUNY Erie Community College, South Campus June 15th - 22nd 2020 - virtual presentation summarizing the final draft of Bike Buffalo Niagara (revised to online format due to Covid-19)
September 10-11, 2019 Public Workshops Meeting attendees at Hamburg High School and at the UB Center for Tomorrow provided feedback in four different ways: project goals, comment cards, visual preference survey and map markups.
The feedback received from each is summarized below.
Project Goals: Meeting attendees were asked “What should the GOALS for the Bike Buffalo Niagara Regional Bicycle Master Plan be?” and placed their responses into one of seven categories (engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, evaluation, equity, or other). Each comment was analyzed and tagged related to its main topic of interest. The top four topics mentioned during this exercise include: Connectivity, Facilities (new/proposed), Safety and Maintenance, making these four topics the most population among public workshop attendees.
Comment Cards: At the two public meetings, 13 people submitted comment cards with responses to the following questions:
»» What are your top 2-3 goals for bicycling in the region? – Bicycle network safety is a major goal submitted by meeting attendees. Other goals identified included development of trail connections and expansion of the bicycle network.
»» What are some key destinations and routes for bicyclists? – Multiple comments identified East Aurora as a destination as well as waterfronts (Niagara River and Lake Erie) and major regional trails (Empire State Trail and Shoreline Trail).
»» Where are the challenging corridors for bicycling and where are opportunities for improvement? – a few people identified Route 5 as a challenging corridor, as well as city/urban streets, particularly ones that have higher speed limits (40+ MPH).
Visual Preference Survey: At the two public meetings, participants were asked to submit their preference for a variety of potential bicycle facility types and investments in the two-county region, answering the question “What is the likelihood that the following types of bicycling facilities would influence you to bike more often?” The top three facilities people indicated would influence them to bike more often were: protected bike lanes buffered from traffic, separated bike lanes and rail trails/greenways.
Map Markups: Workshop attendees were asked to markup maps with opportunities or needs for expansion of the bicycle network.
Summary of February 4-5, 2020 Public Workshops Meeting attendees at the Lockport YWCA and at SUNY Erie Community College primarily provided feedback on the draft Regional Bicycle Network and the evaluation criteria that will be used to score and rank the recommended corridors that form the network. (Similar feedback was provided to the project team at the stakeholder meetings that were held during the same two-day period.)
Community Workshops Join us to learn about the plan, discuss bicycle infrastructure challenges, and share your vision of biking in the Buffalo Niagara region! Tuesday 9/10/19 5 pm - 7 pm @ Hamburg High School 4111 Legion Dr, Hamburg, NY 14075 1 By Public Transit click here for directions By Car click here for directions By Bike click here for directions
or Wednesday 9/11/19 5pm - 7pm @ Center for Tomorrow University at Buffalo North Campus, Buffalo, NY 14228 2 By Public Transit click here for directions By Car click here for directions By Bike click here for directions
The Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council and its partners want your input on biking in Erie and Niagara Counties! We invite you to learn about the Regional gbnrtc Bicycle Plan and help us learn how to improve bicycling in the Buffalo Niagara Region!
Greater Buffalogbnrtc Niagara Regional Transportation Council
MEMO
722 Cambridge Street Cambridge, MA 02141 (617) 945-2251
To: Amy Weymouth, GBNRTC
From: Phil Goff, Alta Planning + Design
CC: Hal Morse, GBNRTC; Jeff Olson, Alta; Laura Byer, Alta; Mike Leydecker, Wendel
Date: September 23, 2019
Re: GBNRTC Bike Buffalo Niagara – Public Meeting Feedback (September 10-11, 2019)
This memo documents the feedback received at public meetings for the Bike Buffalo Niagara planning process on September 10, 2019 (Hamburg) and September 11, 2019 (at the University of Buffalo). Feedback arrive in four different ways: • Project Goals • Comment Cards • Visual Preference Survey • Map Markups
Project Goals Meeting attendees were asked “What should the GOALS for the Bike Buffalo Niagara Regional Bicycle Master Plan be?” and placed their responses into one of seven categories (engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, evaluation, equity, or other). Below is a listed of coded comments by their frequency within the public feedback: • Accessibility – 3 • Funding/staffing – 5 • Amenities – 5 • Health – 3 • Bicyclist training – 8 • Hoover Road – 3 • Collaboration – 6 • Maintenance – 21 • Connectivity – 40 • Multimodal – 4 • Counts – 1 • Quality of life – 3 • Crossings – 1 • Route 5 – 5 • Driver training – 8 • Safety – 24 • Economics – 4 • Separation – 7 • Engagement – 1 • Storage – 4 • Environment – 3 • Student training – 2 • Events – 3 • Wayfinding – 8 • Facilities (new/proposed) – 31
Table 1: Public Comments on Goals, sorted by Topic (September 10-11, 2019) ID TOPIC COMMENT TAGS
1 Engineering “Fewer cars on roads – environmental impact” environment
2 Engineering “Have physical boundaries to protect cyclists” separation
3 Engineering “To develop trails or family-safe travel” trails, safety, accessibility
4 Engineering “Biking, as [illegible] as walking” none
5 Engineering “To connect residents more to destinations” connectivity
6 Engineering “Integrate biking onto major roads” none
7 Engineering “To improve connectivity and support connectivity, safety infrastructure improvements to promote increased safe bicycle use to improve health”
8 Engineering “Maintenance plan to keep trail in good shape connectivity, safety also road shoulders”
9 Engineering “Need help with Hoover Road” Hoover
10 Engineering “County parks (connect)” connectivity
11 Engineering “South of Woodlawn Beach – Hoover Rod. Vs safety, Hoover, Route 5 Route 5 – Safety first !!”
12 Engineering “CHIPS/State $ : Use for paths + maintenance” maintenance, funding
13 Engineering “Safety concerns along Rt 5 exposed areas” safety, Route 5
14 Engineering “Southtowns-Northtown Connection-Union safety Rod/Harlem Road both have dangerous sections”
15 Engineering “Get from [Qonia] St (Lack) to Woodlawn” connectivity
16 Engineering “Power lines” none
17 Engineering “Family friendly bike lanes” accessibility
18 Engineering “Accessible bike storage city to town” storage
19 Engineering “Bike lanes connecting city + suburbs – roads are connectivity scary crowded”
20 Engineering “Connecting village centers to the city of Buffalo, connectivity particularly in Southtowns”
21 Engineering “More designated lane for cyclists” facilities
22 Engineering “Connect Peanut Line; Clarence connect to Ellicott facilities Creek Trail”
Public Meeting Feedback (September 10-11, 219) | 2
ID TOPIC COMMENT TAGS
23 Engineering “Phasing the safety conditions from city edge safety, connectivity, amenities neighborhoods and first ring suburbs (lighting, shoulders)”
24 Engineering “Connecting communities” connectivity
25 Engineering “All weather bike lanes, specifically [illegible] facilities, maintenance central routes that are maintained”
26 Engineering “Safety in an area of very limited space” safety
27 Engineering “Protecting cyclist from motorized vehicles” separation
28 Engineering “Ellicott Creek Trail connecting to market places connectivity [illegible]”
29 Engineering “Trail for walking/biking for south UB [illegible]” facilities
30 Engineering “Take Canal Way Trail off road in Amherst area facilities, connectivity specifically Tonawanda Creek and [illegible] issues connectivity”
31 Engineering “Get ROW on Old Hosack in Niagara County” facilities
32 Engineering “South campus through Niagara [illegible] – facilities Sheridan”
33 Engineering “Access to stores without the use of a car” connectivity
34 Engineering “South campus to off campus housing” connectivity
35 Engineering “Bike road signs along all ‘bike’ routes” wayfinding
36 Engineering “Bike facilities maintenance Delaware Park & maintenance Elmwood”
37 Engineering “Traffic calming strategies” safety
38 Engineering “Paint the lines & cross walks!” none
39 Engineering “More signage and traffic calming” safety, wayfinding
40 Engineering “Fix the roads in the city. They are not safe.” maintenance, safety
41 Engineering “Repair potholes in bike lanes” maintenance
42 Engineering “Amherst Central Park Westwood Country Club connectivity connection to Ellicott Creek”
43 Engineering “Amherst Wehrle Drive bicycle corridor” facilities
44 Engineering “Ellicott Creek Watershed Greenway State Parks & connectivity, facilities Trailways interconnection”
Public Meeting Feedback (September 10-11, 219) | 3
ID TOPIC COMMENT TAGS
45 Engineering “Bridges over major roads – bike paths” separation
46 Engineering “Connectivity or existing bike trails” connectivity
47 Engineering “Full time maintenance on trails and designated maintenance bike lanes”
48 Engineering “Trail maintenance” Maintenance
49 Engineering “Connect suburbs to downtown safely” connectivity, safety
50 Engineering “Wider bike lanes with fewer dividers getting on & facilities off the paths”
51 Engineering “Indoor, secure bike parking at UB & Downtown & storage Subway”
52 Engineering “Connectivity of trails & paths” connectivity
53 Engineering “Adjusting frames & grates” facilities
54 Engineering “Connectivity” connectivity
[22] Education “Educating vehicle drivers and bicycle riders” driver training, bicyclist training
55 Education “Motorist-bicyclist understanding rules of road, driver training, bicyclist proper practices, etc.” training
56 Education “Work w/ AARP to help spread word @ healthy health living advantages across generations to gain support of seniors”
57 Education “Auto drivers need to be conscious of where driver training paths run”
58 Education “Teach drivers” driver training
59 Education “Different types of bikers – different skills” bicyclist training
60 Education “Developing strategies for community buy-in” engagement
61 Education “Cyclist safety education” bicyclist training
62 Education “Driver awareness” driver training
63 Education “Driver awareness - cyclist safety vice versa” driver training, bicyclist training
64 Education “Needs to be close to the schools” student training
65 Education “Safety awareness & education for auto drivers & driver training, bicyclist bicyclists” training
Public Meeting Feedback (September 10-11, 219) | 4
ID TOPIC COMMENT TAGS
66 Education “Get cars to stop rolling through lights” safety
67 Education “Bicyclists call bike passing on left, room for other bicyclist training cyclists”
68 Education “User friendly maps” wayfinding
69 Education “Find ways to promote/make people more None comfortable using trails”
70 Education “Put a question on the learned permit test related driver training to auto vs bicycle.”
71 Education “Sunday morning motor vehicle free area to Events include people”
72 Education [covered sticky note] None
73 Education “Regular closing of a parkway to encourage events activity”
74 Education “Bicyclist education” bicyclist training
75 Education “Driver education, culture schools/students” driver training, student training
76 Education “Affiliated with or input and expertise from collaboration national ‘rails to trails’ in Washington, D.C.”
77 Education “Wayfinding” wayfinding
78 Education “Map production” wayfinding
79 Encouragement “Connect Hamburg to Buffalo or other connectivity neighborhoods”
80 Encouragement “Bring people into Hamburg” quality of life
81 Encouragement “Promote outdoor family activities” events
82 Encouragement “Healthier lifestyle” health
83 Encouragement “Allow [illegible] people to age in place.” quality of life
84 Encouragement “Attracting millennials to stay or move to the quality of life area”
85 Encouragement “Scenic routes [through] green space as well as facilities industrial”
86 Encouragement “Keep us all active and healthy” health
87 Encouragement “Increased bike/ped safety education” bicyclist training
Public Meeting Feedback (September 10-11, 219) | 5
ID TOPIC COMMENT TAGS
88 Encouragement “> bike club involvement” collaboration
89 Encouragement “Avoid making ‘enemies’” none
90 Encouragement “Involve bike shops” collaboration
91 Encouragement “Encouraging people to bike more months of the none year”
92 Encouragement “Connecting roadways w/ respect to work connectivity commuting”
93 Encouragement “Signage on shared roads” wayfinding
94 Encouragement “More bike racks” storage
95 Encouragement “Bike issues – number to call (enhanced 311)” maintenance
96 Encouragement “Bike repair infrastructure” maintenance
97 Enforcement “Safer travel for bicyclists” safety
98 Enforcement “Enforce traffic laws to improve bike/ped safety” safety
99 Enforcement “Potential travel speed reductions where there is safety increased bike/ped activity”
100 Enforcement “These are statewide issues” collaboration
101 Enforcement “Enforce the law” Safety
102 Enforcement “Getting ‘all’ local police agencies to commit and safety, collaboration buy in to enforcing ‘speeding’ statue in NYS. V+T laws.”
103 Enforcement “Bike security lockers for bikes at Metro (Lasalle storage UB)”
104 Enforcement “Enforcement of state law: do not drive on paved separation shoulder. e.g., Youngs Rd. in Amherst (some of which is a designated bike route)”
105 Enforcement “Ongoing maintenance” maintenance
106 Enforcement “Detour policies” maintenance
107 Enforcement “Funding for hit n’ run departments in police funding, safety forces”
108 Evaluation “Ensure that evaluation includes a hands-on Hoover, safety observation of the impacted areas. (ie) from
Public Meeting Feedback (September 10-11, 219) | 6
ID TOPIC COMMENT TAGS
[aerial] view, Hoover Rd may look wide enough. In fact in person, there is not enough room at all.”
109 Evaluation “Tourism economic development” economics
110 Evaluation “Crossings on major routes” crossings
111 Equity “Economic development” economics
112 Equity “More funding to promote increased trail funding, facilities infrastructure and activities”
113 Equity “More data to evaluate current bike/ped safety. safety Accident data, etc.”
114 Equity “Develop-undeveloped paths (abandoned rail facilities road tracks) + (old corridors)”
115 Equity “Skyway as a ‘permanent’ bike trail as alternative facilities to tearing down”
116 Equity “Facilities in rural areas restrooms/water” amenities
117 Equity “Multi-modal transportation stations include economics, multimodal businesses”
118 Equity “Bike hubs” connectivity
119 Equity “’Why not’ – a dedicated bike route/path between facilities UB Main/Baily and UB Amherst – ‘bikes only’???”
120 Equity “Restroom accessibility” amenities
121 Other “Connecting Southtowns communities” connectivity
122 Other “Paths to Buffalo” connectivity
123 Other “Get going on connecting Hamburg to Rte. 5 to Route 5, facilities Lackawanna”
124 Other “Bike ‘hubs’ for connecting to non-bike connectivity, multimodal transportation”
125 Other “Connection to Lake Erie Route 5 from the village Route 5, facilities, connectivity of Hamb[urg]”
126 Other “Safe way to connect to Chestnut Ridge Park from safety, connectivity Village of Hamburg”
127 Other “Connectivity of existing/new networks connectivity bike/hiking/walking”
Public Meeting Feedback (September 10-11, 219) | 7
ID TOPIC COMMENT TAGS
128 Other “Connecting Parks and recreational assets” connectivity
129 Other “Connect from Route 5 to the City of Buffalo” Route 5, connectivity
130 Other “To [illegible] eventual spots for commuter economics [movement] to job sites”
131 Other “Ride to commuter hubs” connectivity
132 Other “Rider safety” safety
133 Other “More connector streets that link a trail or bike connectivity path on or off road.”
134 Other “More data that reveals how many current shared counts use paths, bike lanes are connected.”
135 Other “Maintenance of existing bike infrastructure – maintenance street cleaning”
136 Other “Greater emphasis on how these new trails & all maintenance trails will be maintained. Policy!”
137 Other “N/S routes for consideration: facilities Abbott Rd. to New Era Field and Erie Community College
Do – McKinley Pkwy… McKinley Mall
So. Park Ave. – [Hilbert] Coll. Frontier Central School (v) Blasdell”
138 Other “Use of existing shoulders along So. Park Ave., facilities, separation McKinley Parkway for bike lanes… Hoover [proper] separate and protected bike lanes”
139 Other “More trails!” separation
140 Other “Simple stuff: ex: storm grates” maintenance
141 Other “Asset management inventory” maintenance
142 Other “Maintenance” maintenance
143 Other “Very safe paths (away from auto mobile traffic)” safety, separation
144 Other “Is this affiliated with the ‘Rails to Trails’ collaboration organization in Washington D.C.”
Public Meeting Feedback (September 10-11, 219) | 8
ID TOPIC COMMENT TAGS
145 Other “Plans/intentions to connect (anything) connectivity downtown Buffalo? What & where trail – to Evangola State Park to end of [county]”
146 Other “Incorporating gulf courses (green spaces) into none trail formations”
147 Other “[Buffuin] St – South Buffalo Park – abandoned rail facilities road tracks go to Attica (?)”
148 Other “Hazardous road trails: Remediate no share lane wayfinding signage No biking or ped areas designated”
149 Other “Bike lanes on Main St. not just in Buffalo, but in facilities Williamsville along with signage.”
150 Other “Rt 18 by Lake Ontario Porter -Wilson- facilities New[illegible] dedicated bike lanes”
151 Other “Maintenance of ‘shoulder road’ trails – loose maintenance gravel glass garbage”
152 Other “North campus – downtown bike connection” connectivity
153 Other “Main Street (south campus area) bike path” facilities
154 Other “Connecting facilities” connectivity
155 Other “Accessibility” accessibility
156 Other “Public transportation to outer harbor” multimodal
157 Other “One entity to take care of bike facilities” maintenance
158 Other “Advocacy for maintenance standards” maintenance
159 Other “Connectivity” connectivity
160 Other “Names of trails are confusing (seaway, riverway, wayfinding sea trail, canal way, Riverwalk, etc.)”
161 Other “Can Delaware Ave have a bike lane?” facilities
162 Other “Commuter trails from suburbs into downtown connectivity Buffalo”
163 Other “Connect Hertel, Elmwood, Canalside, First Ward connectivity areas”
164 Other “Connected trails between towns – signage from connectivity, wayfinding one to another.”
Public Meeting Feedback (September 10-11, 219) | 9
ID TOPIC COMMENT TAGS
165 Other “Restrooms!” amenities
166 Other “Integrate bicycles with mass transit.” Multimodal
167 Other “Bike/ped coordinators in municipalities” staffing
168 Other “Dedicated funding $ for maintenance” Funding
169 Other “Significant greenhouse gas emission reduction environment climate equity”
170 Other “Is an effort being made to carve out bike routes facilities along river banks (Buffalo) or creeks banks [illegible] as examples, for local travels.”
171 Other “Maintenance of existing trails/lanes” Maintenance
172 Other “(Active railroad right of ways) what are the status facilities of inactive right of ways? Are inactive and abandoned synonymous? Are abandoned right of ways where the ‘tracks’ have been removed?”
173 Other “Convert abandoned (???) skyway to ‘bike trail!!! (a facilities true mile high)!”
174 Other “Bathrooms” amenities
175 Other “Significant greenhouse gas emission reduction environment climate equity” (not a repeat comment)
176 Other “Maintenance of existing trails/lanes” maintenance
177 Other “Why not ‘bike trail’ parallel to Lake Erie Shore facilities behind abandoned Bethlehem Steel plant property??? (Shoreline Trail)?”
178 Other “198,33 (Kensington) Niagara Thruway and facilities Skyway for connections”
179 Other “Get anywhere without getting killed” safety
Public Meeting Feedback (September 10-11, 219) | 10
Comment Cards
At the two public meetings, 13 people submitted comment cards with responses to the following questions:
What are your top 2 or 3 goals for bicycling in the region? 1. “More bike paths, wider shoulders on roads” 2. “Continuous trails- off road, coordinated trail signage, equipped trail head/gateways” 3. “Connections ECT to Amherst Bike path where it crosses Tonawanda Creek Rd S. make RR crossings more level with street” 4. “Safe cycling in NYS” 5. “SAFETY”- Creation of trails created that ‘don’t’ mix or cross paths with automobile/truck/tractor trailer traffic” 6. “Phasing safe bike + ped routes between edge neighborhoods and first ring suburbs (i.e. wider shoulders + better lighting)” “Encouraging more ppl to bike more months of the yr.” 7. “Transportation-reducing car trips, Exercise, Recreation” 8. “Connecting existing trails and creating detours for blocked routes. Creating a universal education program taught in schools. Dedicated funding for maintenance.” 9. “Safety of current paths/streets, creating bike lanes, providing ‘obvious’; where is the path, how does it connect” 10. “1. Stay alive 2. Enjoy biking” 11. “As many ‘paths’ and ‘trails’ in every direction away from ‘combustible engine’ traffic into exurban areas (spokes)” 12. “Safety safety safety” 13. “Amherst central park greenway trail, Amherst Wehrle Dr., bike lane”
What are some key destinations and routes for bicyclists? 1. “Tonawanda, East Aurora” 2. “Waterfront, Empire State Trail, Niagara River Greenway, Neighborhoods” 3. “Cultural centers- Art Gallery, Zoo, Canal side, historical museum, Fort Niagara, schools, restroom stops” 4. “Lake Erie Shoreline” 5. “Ideally, connecting all city and/or county parks with ‘off’ street/traveled paths (abandoned railroad tracks)” 6. “Downtown East Aurora, Orchard Park, Hamburg; Downtown Buffalo, Mercy Hospital, ECC South Campus” 7. “Waterfront, Downtown” 8. “East Aurora, Hamburg, Rockport, Niagara Falls, Buffalo, Shoreline Trail, route 16 (Seneca St.)” 9. “Niagara Falls, Harbour/outer/covial, river (“circle” round the city)” 10. “Bike Niagara County to Wilson, Rtes 425, 18F, 104, 31” 11. “Some/Most routes should not have to compete with automobile/truck traffic; abandoned railroad right of ways” 12. “Waterfront” 13. “Audubon community”
Where are the challenging corridors for bicycling, and where are there opportunities for improvement? 1. “Route 5” “Increase shoulder width on Rte 5” 2. “Route 5, Hamburg to Buffalo, Hamburg to Penn. State line” 3. “Peanut line completed beyond Clarence to Niagara County; connections from UB North to UB South” 4. “Hoover Rd.” “Getting from Dona St south to Woodlawn”
Public Meeting Feedback (September 10-11, 219) | 11
5. “All ‘City’ routes, where speed limits are over ‘40’ mph” 6. “Southtowns generally but Quaker Crossing, ECC South, Hilbert College Specifically.” “Roads- Abbott, Hamburg, McKinley Pkwy, Lackawanna’s Ridge Rd + South Park, West Seneca’s Mineral Springs + Union Rd.” 7. “Northtowns- Southtowns connection” 8. “Humboldt Parkway. Scajaquada Expressway and Kensington are ripe for improvement. Grand Island Bridges. Erie Cat trail completion. Sheridan Drive. NF Blvd.” 9. “Create/connect Tonawanda creek road< City bike paths, Scajaquada, River trail-need to be maintained, plans are great but is there plan to maintain in future” 10. “Regular restroom stops for All Trails” 11. “City/urban, City/urban, City/urban…” “Why not routes carved out along River(s) (Buffalo) and Creeks (Smokes) as examples for local travels…” 12. “Downtown/city neighborhoods” “Lights on bike routes, fix holes, paint lane lines and crosswalks. Signage” 13. “Amherst central park- connection to light rail”
Visual Preference Survey
At the two public meetings, participants were asked to submit their preference for a variety of potential bicycle facility types and investments in the two-county region. The table below illustrates the responses:
What is the likelihood that the following Not Very types of bicycling facilities would Likely Likely influence you to bike more often? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wayfinding signs for bicyclists 5 4 10 11 9 5 Wider shoulders and striped bike lanes 1 1 1 7 16 22 Protected bike lanes buffered from traffic 1 0 1 0 15 39 Separated bike lanes 0 0 0 2 11 35 Shared-use paths 0 0 4 13 12 21 Rail trails and greenways 0 0 0 3 16 32 Shared lane markings 3 6 8 17 10 2 Bike parking/racks 6 8 6 10 12 7 Expanded bike-sharing programs 16 10 11 6 3 2 Better motorist education programs 2 0 2 13 6 23 Bicylist safety education programs 4 5 6 11 7 12
Public Meeting Feedback (September 10-11, 219) | 12
Community Workshops
Join us at one of our upcoming workshops in February to provide input on our Draft Regional Bicycle Master Plan for Erie and Niagara Counties! Tuesday, February 4th 5pm - 7pm 1 YWCA of the Niagara Frontier 32 Cotttage Stret, Lockport, NY 14094 or Wednesday, February 5th 5pm - 7pm 2 ECC South Campus 4041 Southwestern Boulevard, Orchard Park, NY 14127 gbnrtc.org/bikebuffaloniagara
The Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council and its partners want your input on biking in Erie and Niagara Counties! We invite you to provide input on the Draft
Regional Bicycle Plan and help us improve bicycling in the gbnrtc Buffalo Niagara Region!
Greater Buffalogbnrtc Niagara Regional Transportation Council
Beaches *Olcott Harbor
50-mile loop
*Fort Niagara
EST
WINE TRAILS (AND BEER!)
Lewiston to Falls COMMENT LEGEND: to Artpark -ABRR = Abandonded Railroad SHORELINE TRAIL *Canal/Locks Nexus bike racers
GENERAL COMMENTS: -Detour Policy -Lower Speed Limits New Trail -ABRR = Abandonded Railroad -Dingens Park (Cheektowaga) Gap! Needs help! -Abandoned railroad tracks (no rails) Canada Trails to Abbot Rd (Lackawanna) Gap -Parallel to I90 west side (crossed South Park / Electric Ave / Lackawanna) -Abandoned ‘railroad’ tracks parallel to north perimeter of South Park Gap -Lake Ave label is circled with text: Gap “riding from Orchard Park to Waterfront” Peanut Line -Rail trail from Catt. County to Downtown -Paved ideal -Not just to Orchard Park Trail Station *UB -Signs near QR scan codes where a Google N-S Connecting map appears for navigation -Rainbow Bridge has path - ped only 20-mi Buffalo Loop -Lewiston-Queenston [bridge] - no path at all *UB South -Peace Bridge works well! Canada = “BIKING HEAVEN” -Maintain what’s there now! (start w/ nice-weather months...then think about winter Bike Ferry - Mint Biking Track (Outer harbor) ABRR -Wider shoulder when repaving all roads Gap -Connection to Washington Trails -Orchard Park to Ellicottville trail *Downtown -E-W connections dedicated tt Friendship Trail -Jefferson Ave - Larkinville Canalside* ABRR -Fillmore - lots of potholes South Park Rd from Buffalo to Hub and Spoke -Bailey Hamburg Botanical Garden -Aqua Lane - Niagara Street to disconnect - Attica safety concerns Inner/Outerharbor -Amherst: Peanute line historic rail corridor (Tona to Clarence) CONNECT CITY TO LACKAWANNA -Peanut line - connecting schools - Williamsville-Amherst-UB for commuting Shoreline trail missing link (unsafe?) and recreation, track teams -Basic biking rules - right side biking Existing ABRR -Signalized ped crossing HOOVER RD (Niag/Saj Trail/Ton St) -Creekside Drive - issue (canalway trail) GET TO LAKEFRONT! GAPS New ERA -Saj. Creek Trail - Trash ABRR -Maintenance - Esp. on-road -Sidewalk surounding Forest Lawn Park - Newton Rd FUTURE So. Park/ need pathway - issue Tifft Connection -Ton. Rails to Trails is well done (+) -Peanut Line - Clarence Update (Rt. 5) on project Pleasant -Accessing N/F Blvd Sheridan -Facilities in rural areas Amsdell -Trails along water -Bike security lockers -Maintenance -Flexible bollards for on-road/shared trails -colored pavement Inland connection to bypass -Bikes on metro is nice and subway wealthy neighborhoods -Parks connect -Gaps/connectivity -Bike connection UB N/S- safe/identifiable -Gap on Shoreline Trail Saj. Creek -Confusing to access Unity Island (B+P) -Signage/Identification wayfinding Erie -Wheafield Catt -Kenmore Line/City of Tonawanda -Lack of trails -Elmwood conn. N of Del. park wide sidewalks widen? -More dedicated bike lanes -Connecting to parkways from N -Grand Island nice new trail W side (loop around island is nice) -Englewood Ave Avenue (issue) -Better/safer trail -West River Rd on grand Island (works well as inspriation for region) -Missing connection at Ton Creek Blvd Controlled by Erie-Catt Rail Trail Coalition (potential shoulder) - potential overpass opportunity -Maintenance is big issue (and behind Mckinley H.S.) -Sweeping -Share the road signs To PA -Connections from ‘hoods to trails is critical -I90 overpass for bikes not always open -Start w/ safe/connected paths first... then on-street -Wider paths, well-maintained (but not slippery infill/tar material) -Find a road to close on Sundays (See Mem. Drive in Cambridge) -Motorist Education Salamanca to Cattaraugus Trail (existing, 20 mi) -Lockport bypass -Peanut line - more rec. than transit -Bike Rt. 517
Subcommittee Meetings
This section includes meeting summaries from the Regional Bicycle Master Plan subcommittee meetings. Subcommittee members included:
Justin Booth, GObike Buffalo Nadine Chalmers, NFTA Jim Cuozzo, NYSDOT Region 5 Julie Fetzer, City of Buffalo DPW John Gerlach, City of Niagara Falls Garret Meal, Niagara County Mark Mistretta, NYS Parks Alan Nusbaum, City of Niagara Falls Planning Mark Rountree, Erie County Planning Gregory Stevens, Niagara River Greenway Darlene Svilokos, Erie County Gina Wilkolaski, Erie County
GBNRTC Bike Buffalo Niagara Regional Bicycle Master Plan
Project Advisory Committee Kickoff Meeting Notes Meeting Date: 15 May 2019
Notes Issued: 23 May 2019 by Alta Planning + Design
Meeting Summary
Phil Goff from Alta Planning + Design began with a brief presentation related to the Regional Bike Master Plan scope of work, public engagement and project schedule. The presentation included an overview of the GBNRTC’s 2050 Comp Plan and the project’s interactive input map by Amy Weymouth. Questions and comments from committee members in attendance are included below. See attached for meeting sign-in sheet.
Committee members’ suggestions for plans and reports that the Alta team should review: o Tonawanda Bike Master Plan o City of Niagara Falls Complete Streets and Bike Master Plan o City of Niagara Falls Bike Share Plan o Erie County Parks Master Plan (currently in Draft form) Justin: make sure you are collecting lists of resurfacing and reconstruction projects from the municipalities and others. Also, include current projects that are on the TIP, TAP projects and CMAQ grant proposals. Mark: make sure we emphasize the various off-road (and on-road) connections outside of the GBNRTC region…i.e. links to the Fingers Lakes, to Canada, and towards PA Gina: Erie County has a plan for Englewood Ave (??), which could potentially have bike facilities but it may not make sense. That’s why we need this plan. The County will also need to receive formal requests from municipalities in order for them to seriously consider bike facilities Greg: will this plan include recommendations for local streets? (Phil/Jeff: the focus will be on roadways—mostly state and county roadways—that provide regional connections and links to major destinations. In some instances, we may recommend connections on local streets In order to avoid major roadways with high traffic volumes and speeds.) Jeff: we would like to put together a master table showing which cities and towns have adopted Complete Streets policies, which have Bike and/or Pedestrian Master Plans, which have a Vision Zero policy, etc. Various: discussion on e-bikes and what are current rules and legal restrictions on their use on greenways and trails. Currently, they are not legal vehicles, but the State Legislature is currently working on allowing some use legally on trails. Hal: with regards to e-bikes, perhaps we can look at this issue in a Risk Management section of the report? Mark: rather than kicking the can down the road, I’d like for this Plan to ‘move the needle’ on some of the policy issues being discussed including: o E-bikes on trails o International crossings over bridges
1
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – 5/15/19 Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
o Bikes on Amtrak and perhaps others Greg Stevens: how can we best leverage data in this process to make the demand and use projections moving forward? Jim: the team should connect with state’s ped/bike coalition and committee to better understand statewide issues Greg Stevens: Let’s also make sure we are pushing outreach to diverse communities Justin: Thea and Cory from GObike have lots of resources that we can leverage and use for this effort, especially related to the online input map that we’ve developed for the Niagara Falls (NF) work, which we can build off of for this effort. Thea: people sometimes don’t understand the various planning, outreach and branding efforts that GObike is engaged with. For the NF effort and elsewhere, we brand it as “GObike Niagara”. Our work includes bike master planning and bike share planning and we’ve done pop-up events in NF, Lackawanna, Buffalo and Lockport. Justin: our programs work includes events such as Slow Roll in multiple communities as well Amy: the online interactive map for this project will be housed within GBNRTC’s web site, but we will look into coordination with GObike’s effort too Jim: will the Gap Analysis indicate ownership of the corridors (local, state, etc.)? (Phil – yes, we will include a matrix of the gap corridors and indicate ownership/jurisdiction.) Mark: can the committee start with some early ideas for policy and program recommendations prior to the expected Feb 2020 that’s shown in the schedule? Its important enough that getting these ideas out early would be beneficial. Also, the region received a TAP grant award to improve bus service on Busti Ave with better connections to the Peace Bridge…this is something to consider when we are planning for any bridge-related improvements John: the biggest challenges for us will be the Rainbow and Whirlpool bridges which are more challenging to promote bicycling relative to the Peace Bridge which has a sidewalk/path. The Bridge Commission thinks of bicycles as pedestrians, which are not allowed at all on the Whirlpool Bridge. Both the Bridge Commission and the Peace Bridge Authority are critical stakeholders that we’ll need to reach out to. Round-Robin Exercise
What are your primary Vision and Goals for Bicycling in the Greater Buffalo-Niagara Region?
Amy: emphasis for me is safety, developing a world-class bike/trail system, and seamless on and off-road connections John: likes riding along the river but crossing the river is critical for me. Connections to Lewiston and Keystone especially. I would love to see trails and bikeways on a Wayz-like app to help people find them Greg Stevens: seamless Empire State Trail (EST) connections are critical, along with branding to avoid confusion of the various named trails (EST, Erie Canalway Trail, Shoreline Trail). Also, the team needs to understand that these greenways are only as important as what they connect to. Allan: connectivity is most important for me…crossing the Whirlpool Bridge especially. These improvements will help to create more “safety in numbers”. To answer John, some trail apps already exist, for both mountain biking and road biking. REI has one in particular. Jim: need more NYSDOT funding to close trail gaps, also for maintenance
Alta Planning + Design - 2
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – 5/15/19 Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
Mark: we need to learn from other state’s efforts to maintain existing infrastructure. Also, making connections to rural areas are really important. Thea: hardwired bike counts to get more hard data would be awesome. Think about criteria related to what’s desired by bicyclists vs. where there are constraints. Do not propose infrastructure for ‘strong and fearless’ riders only. Make sure the trade-offs of the various design options are understood. In particular, I’d like to see some good idea for bike improvements along the Scajaquada and Kensington Expressways. Cory: I’d like to see this plan community focused and sensitive to the needs of a variety of neighborhoods and municipalities Julie: Connection to the City’s Bike Master Plan is important, and with the Bailey Ave which is currently going on. The planned and existing facilities should continue beyond Buffalo city limits. For Performance Measures, quality is more important than quantity, so keep this in mind as we are developing our metrics. Lauren: We need connections in and outside of our region. Don’t focus too much on recreational routes…we need to shift to bicycle commuting, not just recreation Nadine: Working for NFTA, my emphasis is on bike and multi-modal transportation. Bike parking is also key. A regional bike counting system (permanent and temporary) would be a good recommendation as well. Mark: I have a concern about multiple branding on trails which can be confusing. Clarity is best and educating the public about which trail is which. Consistent signage is needed. Gina: Regional network on County roads is needed. This plan will also allow County staff know what needs to be done along County roads when we do reconstruction and resurfacing projects. Kim: Consistent data collection is important. Chris: Project should involve municipalities early in the process since they will be considered the owners of the facility. Greg Szewczyk: Key goal is to avoid the need to drive to a trail. This plan should be used to help promote bicycling every day. Design Guidelines are the opportunity to promote Complete Streets “everywhere”. I also want the Design Guidelines portion to be a document that any municipal leader can use to find some good ideas on road design. Kelly: Bicycling as a viable option for all people: seniors, those with disabilities, low-income folks…i.e. bike facilities for all ages and abilities. Justin: I have a number of comments… o Leverage the County Executive’s commitment to the Paris Climate goals…one great way to do that is to avoid using LOS as the critical design criteria. o This plan should be used to help limit GHG and VMT…the Governor has an Executive Order to reduce GHG, but there is not enough focus on the impact of transportation. o GObike’s collaboration with the City of Buffalo has focused on maintenance projects (i.e. low hanging fruit) o The Design Guidelines need to promote pop-ups, pilots and more low-cost efforts that people can see and touch in full scale. o The region needs better counts; knowing how many people are riding and how often will demonstrate to elected officials that new bike investments are being used. o “Greenways” is a critical term, and we need to think of them as both on-road and off- road, the latter referring to neighborhood greenways (aka, ‘bike boulevards’)
Alta Planning + Design - 3
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – 5/15/19 Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
Alta Planning + Design - 4
GBNRTC Bike Buffalo Niagara Regional Bicycle Master Plan
Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes Meeting Date: 6/19/19 Minutes
Meeting Summary
Project Advisory Committee Meeting 1. Welcome and Intros 2. Update on Compendium of Municipal Bike/CS Policies Phil: making good progress, Wendel on contract; comprehensive data on complete streets, policies, and programs in Erie and Niagara counties in good shape Greg: Niagara County Sheet was pretty empty as of yesterday; Ben Bidell from Niagara County good resource to have most of that info; North Tonawanda has LWRP, no master bike plans in Niagara County other than Niagara Falls Phil: Alexa from GBNRTC sent update as good as possible Gina: There is North Tonawanda Bike Advisory Committee that is active; North Tonawanda in progress of making bike master plan Phil: Various documents/studies/current plans will be reviewed to inform regional master bike plan such as: Moving Forward 2050, Local Impact Mobility Plan, Buffalo Bike Plan, Niagara Falls Bike Plan, Bike Share Plan, UB Bike Plan, Buffalo State Bike Plan, Empire State Trail, Erie County Parks Master Plan, One Region Forward; important connections to be considered: PA, Finger Lakes, Chautauqua County, International connections to Canada → looking at these area’s plans in conjunction with regional plans to make critical regional connections. Alta will summarize these studies and deliver with mid/late August base maps, initial existing conditions findings and summary of regional relevant plans. 3. Alta Team’s Data Collection Efforts Phil: Laura Byers from Alta setting up base maps with GIS. Discussion of Inset Maps: Where should they be? Not necessarily more important, but just to zoom in, min. 2 locations → 1) North Tonawanda/Amherst area 2) Niagara Falls to Lake Ontario area. Others? Amy: Why these areas? Higher density populations? Phil: Higher density areas and will show more existing facilities to guide recommendations. Inset maps need to be decided early to guide base map creation and subsequent analysis Greg: at last meeting, discussed regional trail “system” composed loosely of: GBNRTC, Greenway Commission, Parks Department, Jim Jones as municipal sponsor, GoBike Buffalo. Loosely calling it Regional Bike Network/Commission. Want to submit trail maps as consensus document for what we want region to look like. Presents 1) Allegany Niagara Greenway map with existing and potential trail connections and 2) WNY Greenways and Buffalo Network with existing and potential trails, representative of reasonable basis for Buffalo area bike trail network; hope that they will be included officially in study
1
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
Mark: Most recent comprehensive plans sent to Alta identify trails and complete streets, important to help identify what towns and smaller communities want; encourage Alta to look at individual communities’ plans as well to make sure smaller towns/desires are considered Jeff: how to address international cooperation between Canada and US? Need to note the significance of border crossings Greg: need Canadian bike maps to be included with NY bike maps; this Friday 6/21 Peace Bridge opens 1st bike/ped international crossing; Greenway Commission was invited to have binational bike/ped festival at some point, all bridges to Canada/US officially allow bikes, but not comfortably so; show the existing conditions at border crossings in study and with new map show Canadian bike routes Jeff: Share the Road initiative in Canada… Amy: What is the status of the Niagara Falls Bicycle Plan? Thea: Draft will be ready for Stakeholder review in Early July, 1st Monday after 7/4; will share the draft with Phil Jeff: Is there a way to summarize education, program outreach in report (reasonably so) to show how many people are being reached with this plan? Thea: GoBike Data: 35 schools reached, pop up projects doing mobile repair, several hundred thousand people reached total each year; goals to expand tactical urbanism + expand bike programs in region beyond just the city of buffalo, with focus on north towns and Niagara Falls; all info. Would be in GoBike annual report, which can be sent to data collection efforts Amy and Alexa: We can send UBRI Report on Complete Streets as well Thea: NYS Creating Healthy Schools and Community Grant from Cornell Cooperative Extension should be noted as well Jim: Any other education besides GoBike? Not municipal, so how does this information get to tourist entities in the region? How do we link GoBike efforts to economic development efforts? Greg: There really are no other outreach efforts other than GoBike in WNY Amy: Maybe that can be part of recommendations Thea: GoBike has realized there is an economic gap analysis; visitors brought $55,000 on local impact just from SkyRide. Economic Development Impact will be studied with GoBike metrics from here on out Jim: No unified educational efforts at the moment other than GoBike Jeff: All of this will be taken into consideration; unknown right now on education program recommendations that will be included in the plan. Phil: Scope of work does not include full report of education programs, but some basic recommendations can be included in the report if desired 4. Brainstorm Stakeholder Interview Options Phil: GBNRTC is going to meet with additional stakeholders beyond the main 8 or so. Potential stakeholders at the moment include: Southern Tier West, GoBike, Greenway Commission, NYS Parks and Recreation, Buffalo Niagara River Authority, Peace Bridge Authority. Anymore? Amy: Talking with municipalities: already met with North Tonawanda and going to meet with Town of Amherst; also want to reach Seneca Nation of Indians. Any binational contacts or PA friends that should be considered? Greg: Bridge Commission is a good one; Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper, PA Friends with contacts at PennDOT Mark: WNY Land Conservancy; they are developing DLW Rails to Trails project Hal: School system in City of Buffalo or in general in the region for educational efforts?
Alta Planning + Design - 2
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
Greg: Peanut Line? Lockport Pendleton Trail? Mark: Communities have contentious views on trails sometimes, so can be difficult to accurately gage support Thea: All universities should be considered, especially because big international populations in summer face mobility issues Lauren: Niagara Falls University, ECC, NCCC, BNMC, UB, Buffalo State Mark: Who in Niagara County would have organized understanding of the impact and who would have a stake? Economic Development Department in Niagara County is the Planning Department, they might be worth contacting, being in touch with Phil: After today it will be easier to see which groups Alta vs. GBNRTC should interview, in person vs. phone Hal and Phil: Context for interview would be helpful to provide framework so we don’t have rambling stakeholders that go out of project scope 5. Next Steps for Alta Team Phil: 1st round of public meetings Tuesday and Wednesday 9/10 and 9/11; one evening meeting in Erie County and 1 in Niagara County and lunch hour pop up event Wednesday or Tuesday in high traffic public area to get additional input. Suggestions on locations? Julie: Looking to reach more than City of Buffalo residents who were reached for City of Buffalo Bike Plan. Conversation will be too city concentrated if in city Lauren: Same in Niagara Falls Thea: Disagree. There were lots of regional desires in Niagara Falls from public feedback that were out of plan scope and should be addressed in this plan. Slow Roll has lots of suburbs riders Alexa: UB North as possible location? Mark: We’ve had public meetings at ECC before Phil: UB makes sense for location as evening meeting. What about pop up spots to set up table with maps? Downtown Buffalo? Mark: Walden Galleria, Farmers Market downtown on Tuesdays/Thursdays, Niagara Square Food truck, public library downtown Jim: Larkinville Nadine: In person outreach is really hard with this scope Gina: Aurora has high bike populations, but how to capture all of them at once? Online might be the best way Nadine: Only got 27 people to stop when NFTA tabled last week at downtown farmers market. Assuming there is more interest in bike plan, maybe max 50 people would be there? It is limited Gina: NACTO conference coincides with these dates. It may make sense to change meeting dates. 6. Other Committee Business Amy: Outside Alta Scope → Maintenance of these bikeways, need to outline framework as we develop bikeways; sketch out concepts of maintenance; Wilson Foundation will fund 20% of maintenance Greg: agreed, will come up with ideas as we move forward Thea: No idea how many bikers in region. Strava data is a very limited population Hal: Statistical importance of understanding how many bikers based on other studies? Thea and Julie: Where we put infrastructure and racks...there are more bikers. But it’s hard to tell if they are already there before the infrastructure or are starting to specifically
Alta Planning + Design - 3
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
go there and get new bikers because of the infrastructure Nadine: Metrocount counters all around? Who do they belong to and do they count bikers? Kim: Probably belong to GBNRTC Gina: In rural areas, tube counts don’t count weekends which is when there are a lot of recreational riders
Alta Planning + Design - 4
GBNRTC Bike Buffalo Niagara Regional Bicycle Master Plan
Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes Meeting Date: 14 August 2019
Meeting Agenda
1. Draft Existing Conditions Report Progress (Phil) 2. Schedule and Format for Stakeholder Interviews (Amy) 3. Schedule and Format for Sept 10-11 Public Meetings (Phil) 4. Next Steps for Alta Team (Phil) 5. Other Committee Business (Amy)
1 - Draft Existing Conditions Report Progress
Consultant team has been moving ahead with data collection, base maps, and report narrative General outline of the report: o Inventory of trail and bike facilities - mainly in map format with supplemental narrative o Existing conditions maps to inform work moving forward - traffic volumes, transit, population density, employment density, destinations, etc. - maps include Buffalo and Niagara Falls insets as well as regional study area maps o Equity/demographic analysis - series of maps and narrative describing areas of need based on five equity indicators (race, no access to vehicle, limited English, seniors, and income) combined into a final composite equity map o Summary of past plans and studies Greg: how much of the EC analysis will be based on trail usage data? PTNY installed a counter in Tonawanda and GBNRTC has done counts before in the past. Would like to take whatever data we have and extrapolate from it to determine how much the bike facilities (on-road and trails) are being used. o Phil: we originally used bike counts on the first draft of maps but the data is not complete and located in specific spots, primarily inner Buffalo and a few corridors where GBNRTC has done traffic studies. We know that GObike has limited counts, though would be a great opportunity to get a snapshot if the data is there. o Hal: the current available data makes the usage looks skewed because not all areas have been counted o Justin: have we looked at Strava/Strava Metro data? Perhaps Reddy bike share data? . Phil: we discussed it but it provides a limited view /demographic of users and is expensive to purchase the full data set. . Justin: perhaps we use the baseline data available, and incorporate a multiplier to account for the utility bicyclists that don’t use Strava? o Thea: we could reach out to regional bike advocates to get their data? Using census commute by bike data?
1
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – 8/14/19 Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
o Greg: the Niagara Greenway has discussed getting interns together to do bike counts in the region. Currently we have incomplete bike network and likely has less ridership than if the system were connected. We should assume higher ridership when a more connected system is in place. However, we would like to try and conduct counts in September using a method the group approves of. o Phil: the more counts we can get, the better o Phil: based on group consensus, it sounds like we should show bike count data even if it is limited to certain communities . PAC member: yes - need some baseline data/visualizations. Need consistency with a bike counting program. Need to show a precedent for the need for bike infrastructure. o Greg: would it be reasonable for us to collect the count/usage data and then transmit that count data to GBNRTC and Alta? PAC member: is there information on how many bikes are loaded onto transit/bus bike racks? o PAC member: no sensors are placed onto the bus bike racks, so no data is available Phil: Consultant team intends to deliver the draft Existing conditions report to PAC by either the end of this week or early next week. We would then like the PAC to provide comments within two weeks. When commenting, please note map items that are incorrect or missing, identify anything (recommendations, ideas, etc.) missing from plan summaries, etc. Use discretion when reviewing the destinations map to determine what should/should not be considered a “key destination” as it would be easy to waste a lot of time fussing the more-localized destinations such popular cafes, grocery stores and local parks. Greg: I agree…we want to make sure we have a logical, well connected, contiguous regional trail system - where they choose to go (destinations) is irrelevant. We want to focus on regional connections rather than local ones. Connections to small/local destinations is not relevant at our scale. The report should also include a larger-scale map of WNY that shows the greenway connections beyond the GBNRTC region. (Phil: yes, we will include that.)
2 – Stakeholder Interviews
Amy: Stakeholder groups consisting of representatives from municipalities, advocacy groups, state funded groups, and other relevant organizations will be participating in four interviews held on September 10th and 11th. They will take place from 10am to 12pm and 1pm to 3pm each day followed by public meetings in the evenings (5pm-7pm) Amy: Stakeholder Workshop Outline: o Go over existing conditions related to bicycling in the region o Discuss and identify critical infrastructure needs for bicycle infrastructure and regional bicycle connections o Identify key destinations for bicycling in the region o Give an opportunity for stakeholder to identify and discuss other relevant topics or organizations which can be leveraged to further this planning effort Jim: An Upstate NY ITE district meeting is being held in downtown Buffalo to discuss transportation visioning in the region on September 10th and 11th as well. The invitation list for these two meetings
Alta Planning + Design - 2
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – 8/14/19 Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
(ITE and Stakeholder Workshops) likely overlap and people will have to choose which they attend. Is there a way to merge these two meetings? o Amy: Would be nice to do that – the group will brainstorm this possibility PAC member: How do we leverage and build upon GObike’s efforts in the region? Niagara Falls received a large amount of public participation - how can we get effective and widespread public participation? o Amy: there is a survey and interactive map online now o PAC member: is there a way to focus those to traditionally underserved communities? Reaching out to Slow Role events, for instance. o PAC member: tabling events at markets can help get input from diverse communities PAC member: highway superintendents regularly have lunch together, have you tried talking with them at one of their lunches at the ITE meeting? o Amy: No, but we should look into that 3 – September 10-11 Public Meetings
Phil: The meeting on Tuesday September 10th will be held at the Center for Tomorrow at UB and on Wednesday September 11th at the Hamburg High School, both from 5pm to 7pm General agenda will be: o Welcome from Amy and team introductions o Alta will present slide presentation for 20-25 minutes, giving a summary about the project scope and schedule, overview of the existing conditions report and key findings, and present a design toolkit for bike facilities appropriate for this region o Break out into 3-4 groups to have facilitated discussions regarding: goals for biking in the region, marking up challenging corridors and difficult intersections for bicycling on the maps, and marking up opportunities for improvement or new facilities on the maps o Come back together to go over the input received from the groups o Wrap up 4 – Next Steps
Consultant team will: o finish the draft of existing conditions report and distribute to the PAC o prepare public meeting materials (maps, presentation, etc.) o compile input from stakeholder meetings and public meetings after September 10th and 11th o conduct gap analysis in late September/early October to connect primary destinations o conduct a supply/demand analysis in late September/early October - looking at where people live, work, play and compare to where bike infrastructure is or can feasibly be implemented 5 – Other Committee Business
Amy to follow up with other MPOs to see what they think of this planning effort and if they are planning to take on similar efforts in their regions Greg: What would a maintenance plan look like at a regional scale? A proposal has been put together regarding maintenance of these types of systems (bicycle transportation) and what it takes to maintain the system, what the gap is in resources, and how to fill the gap in maintenance. What role can/should municipalities play, along with other agencies? The Niagara River Greenway Commission
Alta Planning + Design - 3
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – 8/14/19 Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
wants to look at four main “spine” trails (EST/ECT, Shoreline, ECRT, GVG) and do an in-depth analysis of current maintenance strategies, identify a desired maintenance strategy, and determine what would it take to get an ideal maintenance plan. We want to merge this concept into this Plan in a constructive way. o Amy: this is out of the scope of the Regional Bike Master Plan at this level, but it can be taken on and done in conjunction by the PAC. The scope of this project does not include a full maintenance plan o Phil: while Amy is correct about developing a full maintenance plan not being in the scope, the off-street trails design guidelines—that is part of the scope—will include some information on maintenance issues related to greenways. Justin: Is part of this scope to identify case studies? In the Buffalo Bike Plan, there was a nice section related to best practices related to winter bikeway maintenance. o Phil: This is not explicitly part of the scope but it seems reasonable to include some best practices and case studies regarding trail maintenance and other issues.
Alta Planning + Design - 4
GBNRTC Bike Buffalo Niagara Regional Bicycle Master Plan
Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes Meeting Date: 16 October 2019
Notes Issued: 21 October 2019 by Alta Planning + Design
Meeting Agenda
1. Public Workshops/Stakeholder Outreach - Comments/Themes 2. Draft Vision/Goals/Objectives 3. Gap/Supply and Demand Analysis Methodology 4. Initial Analysis Findings 5. Next Steps 6. Other Business o September 3rd Bicycle Count Initiative
1 – Public Workshop/Stakeholder Outreach
Phil provided a brief summary of the things that were heard from the public workshops o Overall themes included: . Connectivity (especially with the greenway system) . Design of facilities should include separation from traffic . Maintenance and Funding o Visual Preference Survey: we provided images of different facility types and program options, and asked if people thought the design or program would be effective . Most people thought protected bike lanes buffered from traffic would encourage bicycling . Separated bike lanes and Rail trails/greenways were popular too o Non-Infrastructure projects: . Better motorist education was the highest program followed by bicyclist education and bike share system o Jeff O: my impression is that people’s opinions were pretty clear and consistent - people seem to be on the same page - not a lot of opposition or negative comments o Phil: comments received in the map markups were pretty reflective of where (location) the meetings were held. The online interactive map should be more-widely distributed to gather a broader range of comments based on the locations of interest o Amy: we will continue collaborating with others to make sure to get input from a wide range of people throughout the region o Amy: we hope to set up two more meetings with stakeholders to get comments on other areas of Erie and Niagara counties
1
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – 10/16/19 Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
2 – Draft Vision, Goals and Objectives
VISION o Amy: I don’t want to lose sight of intra-regional trail connections to surrounding areas (this should be added to the Vision statement) o Initially, most people seem to prefer Vision option 2 - mainly because of the two elements (tagline and elaborative text). Later, the consensus shifted and many expressed preference for the wording in option 1’s paragraph. Consensus emerged that many would like to see a hybrid (option 1 wording with a tagline similar to option 2). Other comments included: . Last sentence about construction/maintenance should be stronger . Does the sentence about “safe and enjoyable” imply that it is not currently safe or enjoyable? Let’s reword it to say we will continue these efforts - “will become a safer, more enjoyable, more practical...” . No mention of health improvement currently - modify to include health . No mention of environmental health either . Statement should be oriented around “people” rather than the facility, e.g. provide people will good facilities rather than bringing people to the facilities that are built . Reword “mode shift” into layman’s terms - providing more transportation options for people . Vision should show a coordinated effort by all levels of government o How long does the committee have to give input on an updated vision? . Amy: Would like to have this drafted by the end of next week (Alta to provide to Amy), then provide the committee an additional week to provide input. . Phil: yes that sounds reasonable o Bicycle repair shops are not the focus - found this part confusing GOALS o “Greenways” might not be the best term to use. Neighborhood greenways defined as “bike blvds” in the buffalo bike plan o New York State Assembly uses the term: non-motorized, multi-use trails”, which is language used by Parks as well o Phil: let’s use the term “greenway trails” (which everyone agreed to) o Goal 1: Safety . Want more specific action items to help guide what to do and what actions need to be taken . Need specific partners involved (hospitals, schools, etc.) . May need to combine/consolidate objectives for clarity . Vision Zero? Will be quantified in performance measures o Goal 2: Regional Connectivity . Need to address connectivity in the context of the physical environment (water bodies, topography, etc.) . Should just be “Shoreline Trail” . Reference to crossing the border/international bike trips
Alta Planning + Design - 2
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – 10/16/19 Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
. Reference making the connection to transit hubs with new bike infrastructure rather than just addressing bike parking; also need to mention Mobility Hubs . Shoreline trail, EST, and ECT are all co-branded, but the wording makes them sound like separate trails even though they are generally the same trail alignment(s) in the region . Maybe we don’t name the trails at all – “regional trail system” o Goal 3: Design . Jim (DOT): reducing travel lanes to 10-11 feet…unsure of how DOT would respond to that Rest of group: says this can be done “where appropriate” . When roads are being selected for bike lanes, then other pedestrian facilities (sidewalks) should also be considered; a balance will need to be considered . Want to keep in mind the demographics of who is riding where based on current counts on on-road bike facilities; can this be captured somewhere in the performance measures? . Restrooms should be mentioned as well as other comfort-related facilities o Goal 4: Policy . Be more specific about what maintenance means (i.e. ideally, it should reference regular, seasonal maintenance and long-term resurfacing and repairs) . Objective 2 needs to focus on maintenance more - maintenance of the network is a huge issue . We should anything something related to allowing/promoting e-bikes? o Goal 5: Equity . Question about how is equity being defined. Phil explained that it is based on Alta equity analysis inputs described in note at bottom of page; prioritization will later apply a score to equity based on where projects are located . Jeff O: Are we getting to a point where we are trying to see an equitable distribution of resources in the region that would give a higher priority to these facilities; also, are we capturing this correctly in these goals? Will they be treated equally in the mix of other infrastructure projects in the region? . Equity is important and should be higher up in the list of Goals o Goal 6: Economy . Amy: Objective 3 talks about shift employees, but we should generally give access to all jobs but not necessary just shift employees . Bike share stations near mobility hubs and transit stops should be mentioned o Goal 7: Education and Encouragement . Objective 2 – wayfinding and signage: this should be done but how do we work in design standards? Branding of certain trails? How to make compatible? . Phil: I will word this appropriately . On street signage need to consider MUTCD standards . Need to consider public health partners too o Goal 8: Health . Health is important but can also be a preventative measure
Alta Planning + Design - 3
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – 10/16/19 Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
. Objective 1 and Perf Measure 1 should be consistent about referencing “residents” or “residents and visitors” . Phil: census data only based on residents and it would be hard for us to tell who visits from census data o Goal 9: Technology . Counts, especially those related to automation, should be included in this goal . ACS commute to work data does not capture exact mode use; finding other data sources would be good to measure this with 3 – Gap/Supply and Demand Analysis Methodology
Phil: since we only have a few minutes left, I will combine agenda items #3-5 Next steps for the team are to get into the analyses: Gap, Supply, and Demand o Demand: focus will be a heat maps with bicycle trip generators creating the demand; the inputs will include: where people live, work, shop, take transit, and play) o Supply: where there are opportunities for bike infra based on roadway width, number of lanes, inactive rail lines, and utility corridors (Phil clarified that what’s shown as “supply” doesn’t necessarily constitute the network…there is much more to it) o Gaps: analysis will look closely at gaps in the greenway system especially o All analysis will be used to help inform the network recommendations 4 – Initial Analysis Findings
See #3 above 5 – Next Steps
See #3 above 6 – Other Business: Sept 3 Bicycle Count Initiative
Regional advocates conducted bike counts at 42 locations Followed guidance of the National Pedestrian and Bicycle Documentation Program: 2-hour counts on tues, wed, thus, and sat Count locations based on collisions Cameras on Tonawanda rail trail for 48-hour counts - still processing data however Took note of gender and children during counts - took note of assisted device for pedestrians (wheelchair, walker, etc.) Used national multiplier to extrapolate for weekly and monthly figures; having a local multiplier would be helpful
Alta Planning + Design - 4
GBNRTC Bike Buffalo Niagara Regional Bicycle Master Plan
Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes Meeting Date: 21 November 2019
Notes Issued: 24 November 2019 by Alta Planning + Design
Meeting Agenda
1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Discussion of Supply/Demand Analysis 3. Discussion of Draft Gap Analysis 4. Revised Draft Vision, Goals and Objectives 5. Next Steps
Discussion of Supply/Demand Analysis
Phil presented the series of slides related to the Demand Analysis, focuses on the individual inputs that went into the composite demand o Hal: Did we include Canada in the analysis? (Phil: No - we only ran the analysis for the data we had within the two-county study area. We could potentially include some information such as town centers, bike routes and clusters of residential areas) o Amy will reach out to the Regional Niagara Commission to try to obtain data from the Canada side of the border. o Greg: would you ever overlay strava heat maps? Is actual use captured currently? (Phil: actual use is not captured, something like strava use is not included in this analysis Phil then discussed the purpose of the Supply Analysis and went through the various maps that featured the roadways with shoulder width available, then off-road corridors (utility lines and rail lines, both active and inactive) where trails could be possible o Mark M: can active rail be “low hanging fruit”? Is this feasible? (Phil: In some cases, yes. They could have some rail-with trail options. They could become inactive in the future, so it makes sense for the plan to include recommendations if practical. Alta wrote the Rail-with-Trail Design Guide for FHWA 10-12 years ago and we’ve included RWT in some of our plans.) o Mark: is it possible to include drainage ways in the off-road Supply Analysis? (Amy: I will check into availability of data and forward to the team.) o Jim J: a number of trails run along rivers and streams (e.g. Scajaquada Creek), those would be good to include to (Phil: we will include both secondary waterways and drainage systems if we have access to the data)
Discussion of Draft Gap Analysis
1
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – 11/21/19 Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
Phil presented the Gap Analysis slides and referenced the sources used: committee comments, our own analysis of the missing links between trails, public comments and Elly reminded the group (from the phone) that we incorporated info from the Queen City Rail Trails group too o Gina: there is a rail-trail in Concord currently under design that should be considered (Justin: also, potentially include an extension of the trail in Springville, which could be a section of the Erie-Cat Trail) o Hal: the Village of Hamburg wants a Mobility Hub and the Hamburg Master Plan shows a trail route to the Shoreline Trail that the team should incorporate. They’ve submitted a TAP application as well for some of the improvements. o Phil indicated that Alta currently does not have Hamburg’s master plan, for which Amy said she could forward it to Alta o (unknown): In Evans, the Old Lake Shore Road can be tricky for bicyclists….separation is likely needed, eg. a sidepath. o Gina: from Erie County highways perspective, can we get a gap analysis map in GIS format of just the on-road map that we can zoom in on? I’d like to have more detail about what streets are being called out in the gap analysis? (Phil: yes, Alta will send out the Shapefile to Gina at the County and Julie at City of Buffalo) o Jim J: Lockport Road in a critical connection between NF and Lockport o Justin: It is also critical to look at connections in NF from downtown area to the Mall and to Niagara University. GObike has completed the Draft NF Bike Master Plan and I will send a PDF to Alta. o Greg then opened an Excel spreadsheet and a Powerpoint slide presentation to discuss various items that he and the NRG is focused on. . One focus area is the potential route connections between NF and Lockport . Mentioned that connection to PA is important and that the state is willing to prioritize the connection to the Erie-Cat Trail . Critical item is to connect the south terminus of the Genesee Valley Greenway in Allegany County with the Erie-Cat Trail, creating a rhombus shaped trail loop . They are actively looking at the Lewiston-to-Buffalo Shoreline Trail connection, some of which involve on-street links, and a new swooping trail bridge over the NYS Thruway to LaSalle Park (Julie requested that the City of Buffalo be part of those discussions.) o Jim J: will the Alta team create a map and database of road ownership and maintenance responsibilities for all recommended projects? (Phil: in most cases, we have the data re: state, county, local road…so, generally, the answer is “yes”) If so, it would be ideal if it follows the ESRI model. o Justin: sometimes roads may seem to be owned/maintained by one entity but in fact its private, for example a stretch of road controlled by GM o Jeff O: we’ll need to create a shared, commonly-accessible database (aka, Asset Management Inventory) that is graphically visible as well that includes various attributes (ownership, maintenance entity, surface type, etc.) where this information is available. Although it is not in the project Scope, this would be an ideal early Action Item
Alta Planning + Design - 2
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – 11/21/19 Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
o Jim J: folks should look at GoToTrails, promoted by the PA Enviro Council, which is part of the Industrial Heartland Trails Coalition. When the plan is complete, I am keen to have a database of ownership and other info related to the project recommendations. o Phil: Gap analysis is a methodology we use to get to the recommended network. The vast majority of recommendations will have that data Jim refers to. There might be outliers that we don’t know who has control over. o Jeff: our recommendations dataset can start the data collection desired, and set the tone for the future shared database among implementation agencies, but the scope doesn’t include doing it to the full extent that might be desired for all existing and proposed routes. o Julie: in the City of Buffalo, much of the network is on low volume, local streets, not entirely on streets where “improvements” were necessarily recommended. Our focus is building a low-stress network, but the Supply analysis will include some roads for us to consider in the network.
Revised Draft Vision, Goals and Objectives
Amy: multiple drafts have been developed and my impression from the group is that the goals need to be more clear, and concise. The one-pager here today is not going to be the final goals and objectives but should be used today as a tool to start a discussion, take a step back to discuss what we are really trying to achieve with this plan. Mark M: in bullet 1 of Goal 1, I’d like to see reference related to maintenance; we don’t have an adequate funding mechanism for maintenance of current or new trails - maintenance in critical Lauren: need to make “Equity” and inclusivity an explicit goal Justin: the Action Item bullets should be more specific - how to institutionalize the process so these things happen automatically - make objectives more actionable and measurable - who is doing it? How are we doing it? How it is measured? etc. Jennifer: what the region needs is a user-friendly map. (Phil: agreed that this is a good action item or objective, but likely not a big-picture goal at this stage) Jeff O: make clear mode share targets, infrastructure targets, timeline targets, etc. VMT is certainly a good metric to track (unknown): is there a way to separate recreational riders vs. transportation/commuters separately? (Phil: using ACS data, bike commuting is the easiest to track) Greg: let’s track crashes with life-altering injuries as well and how many are mitigated. Also, mitigation of VMT and reduction of GHG’s is a good goal and trackable Thea: focus on safety and “vision zero” should be included Jennifer: I’m interested in behavior change - interested in how to inspire behavior change, how to get people who drive to switch to biking Jim J: current expectancy is that drivers have full autonomy - this mindset is changing but it will take decades/generations (Misc. discussion of the use of term “safety” vs. “comfort” and which is best)
Alta Planning + Design - 3
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – 11/21/19 Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
Phil: perhaps we will develop a survey link and send to the group…the survey will try to get some common agreement on the language used in the vision and goals. People can weigh in and the input can be quantified Jeff: proposed that Amy/Hal meet with me and Phil internally to develop a vision and critical goals together
Next Steps
Alta will develop revised gap analysis maps and get to the next layer of detail - understanding where off-road and on-road connections are, looking closer at data we have related to ownership and maintenance, etc. Amy/Hal/Phil/Jeff to discuss the vision and goals and develop a revised/final version Discussion ensued about whether the committee will meet in December or wait until January. Amy will let people know. It was announced that the December public meetings (as originally conceived in the scheduled) will be held off until Jan or early Feb to give Alta team more time to finalize Gap analysis and move into network recommendations Individual Action Items: o Amy will try to gather data related to drainage ways o Amy will send copy of Village of Hamburg Trail Master Plan to Alta o Phil or Laura will send out the Shapefile to Gina at Erie County and Julie at City of Buffalo. o Justin will send Draft NF Bike Master Plan to Alta o Greg will send his trail progress XLS file to Alta
Alta Planning + Design - 4
GBNRTC Bike Buffalo Niagara Regional Bicycle Master Plan
Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes Meeting Date: 18 December 2019
Notes Issued: 31 December 2019
Meeting Agenda
1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Vision for the Regional Bicycle Network 3. Discussion of Revised Draft Gap Analysis 4. Next Steps (e.g. scheduling January public meetings) 5. Other Business
Vision for the Regional Bicycle Network
Joe suggested to rephrase the vision wording: recommended to stay away from word “maintained” and instead use the word “supported” by everyone involved
Amy reviewed the vision
Joe gave more input on changing the wording in vision to “, and sustained”
Thea - Connections change wording to (where they need to go);
Nadine said on the first page we could say “improve data quality”
Joe - under infrastructure strategy 3 - keep track of performance measures
Discussion: How did we arrive at the intervals?
This should be 10 year plan
Need to have data on the number of miles; will ask Kim about what percentage would make sense in terms of what we would like to accomplish
If the Erie Cattaraugus comes on line then that 50% would be reached in the next couple of years…Thea mentioned that unless there are connections then it
Justin Booth - mixture of infrastructure and performance measures can be adjusted once the exact infrastructure is known
Buffalo Bike Master Plan - there are performance measures - there are miles per year that are outlined in the plan
1
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – 12/18/19 Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
Greg Stevens – should we wait to adjust the metrics to be specific; how specific should we get? (should a goal be divided between trails vs. on road)
First need to know how many miles are in the plan
Phil said as a part of the document scope of work includes tactical financial implementation plan will be developing 5-year implementation capital plan; ROW issues that might come up; funding opportunities/grants
Phil said it is logical to divide off street vs. on street as Greg had mentioned
Phil said targets represent either percentage of what’s on the ground today or percentage of overall recommended plan overtime. It’s up to GBNRTC and subcommittee as to how we want to set up those targets
Greg said that existing is so hit and miss. More compelling to come up with a plan and then talk about percentage complementing of the plan as an objective
Greg asked meaning of “all season greenway” - are we talking about an off-road trail?
Phil said we decided “greenway trail” will be all greenway trails. However, there are some components of the shorelines trail that are on-road currently. Is it simpler just to talk about on road vs off road?
Justin Booth said “Do we want a performance measure to keep track of technology, bike counts taken, specific locations counted?”
Discussion on emphasis of regional connectivity versus streets designed inclusively to eventually advance for greater connectivity
Erie County is hoping to see a process for each municipality come out of the regional Master Plan. Outline process for all roads; even to build complete streets in communities
Justin - plan should be flexible to make sure there’s support for these things.
Mark - need Community & political support and involvement
Is there a place for us to align with Paris Agreement and have a metric that would be aligned with reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions?
Greg asked if there is a place in the document as to why we’re doing this
Phil said in our report we would typically put in a section that outline the benefits of the plan and an improved bicycle metric systems
Alta Planning + Design - 2
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – 12/18/19 Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
Justin emphasized the health performance measures need to be tracked - and how often we track those metrics and how success is being measures and reaching those goals
Metric that should be included for crashes with regard to safety
Need to find appropriate spot for economic and environmental measures
Hal said we have to find a way to fine-tune VMT to normalize data because there are so many variables to the VMT data - possibly include bike volume as a metric
Greg - Composite demand should include equity; plan needs to include equity
Hal said that we should have a comprehensive count program
Discussion of Revised Draft Gap Analysis
Phil said we will adjust Niagara Falls inset map as per Greg’s suggestion
Phil - Input on map is from subcommittee; gaps identified from people at public meeting in September; online input map; more input is welcome from subcommittee on gap analysis map
Phil - Gap analysis map is a steppingstone to getting to recommended bike network - which will be brought to community at the next meeting in late January/early February. Once comments are received from public at next public meeting, it will be fine-tuned.
Phil - When we talk about a gap, we talk about a short connection that is missing. Feels like what we’re looking at is a proposed network not a gap analysis. Maybe a better term is a connectivity analysis?
Thea mentioned potential for rail lines in Niagara Falls — possibility to connect lockport to NF.
Greg mentioned rail connection from Lockport to Somerset
Should we just combine Shoreline Trail, Multi-User Trails, Empire State Trail all as “off road trails”
Greg – let’s use only two colors - off road in one color and on road in one color (all agreed)
Greg identified critical East-West gap from Scajaquada through Cheektowaga to Lancaster
Mark proposed potential North-South Gap through Cheektowaga
Alta Planning + Design - 3
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – 12/18/19 Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
Next Steps
Need more time to look at and still waiting back on some comments
Phil will include suggestions from today and if people have additional comments on connectivity please provide comments to Phil or Amy before Christmas and is looking to finalize to begin work on recommended network. Then want to provide this to subcommittee meeting before next meeting on January 15th and associated infrastructure toolkit with typologies of bike facilities
Late January/early February public meeting. Once input received from public will create typologies, and then start prioritizing in early spring
Close of business next Tuesday will be end of comments for connectivity analysis map
The plan will look at recommended facility types and funding
Next meeting is tentatively scheduled for January 15th
Other Business
No additional business was discussed
Alta Planning + Design - 4
GBNRTC Bike Buffalo Niagara Regional Bicycle Master Plan
Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes Meeting Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 Meeting Summary
1. Welcome & Introductions o Intros around the room/phone 2. Debrief from Feb 4-5 Public Meetings o Amy: 20-30 people, brief presentation of work done and identifying the draft network, open discussion about the draft network, overall feedback was valuable o Phil: thinks the meetings went well, great feedback from those at both meetings, helped us make the next steps to refine the recommended draft network, internal team is comfortable with the network to be presented today o Question from meeting member: any specific feedback from Orchard Park about ECRT trail? . Phil/Amy: were prepared for people to oppose, but it was mainly positive feedback – no negative feeling towards ECRT were expressed . Phil: a couple people at each table expressed support for the ECRT o Justin: can we get a copy of the sign in sheet of meeting participants? . Amy has the sign in sheets that she can distribute o Question from meeting member: is there an overview about changes made to the draft network based on feedback received at these meetings? . Phil: we were taking feedback from those who know the area well and we were able to make edits based on this feedback – can point out some differences during the presentation 3. Presentation of Final Regional Bicycle Network and Bicycle Facility Treatments o Phil: with the exception of the final network maps, this is the same as the presentation that was given at the meetings o (Phil goes through presentation…) o Question from meeting member (Jim?): I don’t see any guidance on lane/parking/etc. width in these slides (typologies slides) . Phil: the report will likely include these types of widths o Greg: Grand Island/Tonawanda slides – unsure if the shoreline trail is accurate...? 4. Discussion Related to Evaluation Criteria for Prioritization o Phil/Amy: explanation of the evaluation criteria for prioritization o Amy: these current scores are based on feedback from the most recent public and stakeholder meetings o Greg: would it be helpful to separate regional multi-use trail from on-road network? NYS Parks is starting an effort to look at statewide trails (does not include on-road). Might make the ranking (prioritization) clearer. . Phil: we can make 2 separate prioritization lists if desired o Question from meeting member: Should all off-road trails connect to other off-road trails? . Another member: might limit the ability to make connections if we did that o Julie: should projects instead be rated mile by mile rather than a full length of a corridor?
1
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
. Phil: this is a very time intensive process as is without breaking up projects into even segments. Though for longer projects, it may make sense to phase implementation . Gina: agree with Phil – it isn’t necessary to break all corridors into segments o Jim (DOT): how do you include municipal boundaries into project prioritization? When 1 project runs through multiple municipalities. Within this master plan, will there be the ability to show regional (multi-municipal) connections that will need large funding sources? o Greg: Niagara county is going public with the lower Niagara study – how they want to be connected, what trail links they want to see, etc. – the northern towns on Lake Ontario are very interested of being tied into a regional network. Route 18 is likely a major component of that effort. . Other Item: DOT is already considering a road diet on river road in north Tonawanda – might make sense to show this more strongly in this plan. . Other Item: Do we also want to call out the city of Buffalo ROW on Scajacueda creek as an off-road trail? Another member: is planning on working with property/GIS people to identify the owner (owner not currently listed) o Question from meeting member: Concern that there might not be enough on-road recommendations in the city of buffalo . Another member: Buffalo already has its master plan, but they want to make sure regional connections are included . Amy: this plan is more about regional connections, not full local networks . Text explaining this should be included in the report o Greg: We haven’t seen an update of a larger regional map of what these regional trails/on-road corridors will connect to o Comment from meeting member Request for layman’s terms o Question from meeting member: what are the bounds of a recommended corridor? Is there a list of sections scored for each corridor? . Phil: the shoreline trail will be tricky, because a lot is on-the ground. The shoreline trail will likely score individual gap connections. For others, we would try to stick with individual road corridors, some will be combinations of roadways, and something like Route 18 might be segmented and scored differently as appropriate. o Question from meeting member: have you tested this criterion? . Amy: No – if we run it and it looks awful then we can talk about alterations to make to the evaluation criteria o Question from meeting member: for the safety criteria – there might not be recent crashes because people don’t use the corridor due to safety concerns . Phil: perception of safety is a hard item to include in the model we are using – perception of safety is different for all individuals o Question from meeting member: I don’t know how the public would have enough perspective on criteria 2 or 3 to give enough feedback o Amy: criteria and analysis is based on available data – we can only run an analysis based on the data we have available 5. Next Steps for Alta Team o Question from meeting member: when to expect a draft? . Amy: draft is in May
Alta Planning + Design - 2
GBNRTC Bike Buffalo Niagara Regional Bicycle Master Plan
Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2020
Meeting Summary
1. Welcome & Introductions
Phil Goff, Alta Laura Byer, Alta Hal Morse, GBNRTC
Amy Weymouth, GBNRTC Kelly Dixon, GBNRTC Jim Jones, GObike Buffalo
Gina Wilkolaski, Erie Co. Mark Roundtree, Erie Co. Chris Church, NYSDOT
Jim Couzzo, NYSDOT Julie Fetzer, City of Buffalo Nadine Chalmers, NFTA
Alan Nusbaum, City of Stephanie Buccalo Gregory Szewczyk, NYSDOT Niagara Falls
Greg Stevens, NRG
2. Discussion of Tech Memo #2: Analysis and Recommendations Report o Jim C: 350 miles of on-road feels like a lot. Knows it’s a wish list but it still seems like a lot. . Phil: a lot of the mileage comes at relatively little cost (bike routes, shoulders, striping, rumble strips, etc.). Also important to remember this is a long-term, regional plan so a lot of mileage would be expected. o Jim C: can we identify which are DOT roads in the corridor table? . Phil: we should have the ability to identify which are state roadways (vs. County vs local) in the final ranked table of corridors o Jim J: I’m thinking that there will be a GIS dataset at the end of the process that can be shared with the jurisdictions – maybe want to do a summary table by jurisdiction and include DOT roads and other road mileage . Phil: correct o Greg Sz: I want to look at the on-road corridors from the other perspective… having only 80 miles seems to be underselling what we already have. . Phil: existing on-road corridors are defined by some existing facility, primarily bike lanes. The 80* miles seems low because it does not include the two NYS bike routes designated by DOT. Those corridors are considered “proposed” as we feel some improvements are needed to make them more comfortable for a wider range of bicyclists
1
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
. * - note that after confirming the data in GIS, the 80 miles incorrectly included SLM routes. After removing those, the total number of centerline miles of bike lanes stands at 63 miles. o Chris: portions of Broadway were restriped with bike lanes, so those should be included on the map (Phil will check in with Julie to understand extents) o Greg St: on the Greenway Trail Network map, there is a gap between the Belt Line in Buffalo and the Lancaster Heritage Trail that should be considered . Phil: there is a large rail yard between the two corridors, so we needed to provide an on-road route around it. We will look again however.
3. Approach to Network Prioritization o Phil provided an overview of the Corridor Designations o Evaluation Criteria discussion . Jim J: Are crashes specifically bike/vehicle crashes? Phil: yes . Jim: Are bike lane miles counted by road centerline or individual bike lane like northbound and southbound double the centerline length? Phil: existing and proposed on-road corridors are represented as centerline miles . Greg Sz: for “safety” and the fact that scoring is based on accidents….note that a lot of times you won’t get accidents in places people aren’t biking. How can we capture “perceived safety” and “comfort”? Phil: this is very tough to measure – hard to quantify where people feel uncomfortable so the methodology typically considers only reported crashes since that data is readily available to use in the model Amy: another data source we may be able to review is the online input map which has intersections and routes with safety concerns identified by users – maybe we review that and include this information? (Phil: yes, this could be possible) Meeting member: safety is not always related to crashes, sometime it is security (lighting, brush, etc.) – are there updates in the Plan to enhance security? o Jim Jones: agrees – a qualitative review could be a more appropriate way to score this criterion o Phil: one problem with a qualitative score for the 173 corridors is that we and many of you are familiar with only a portion of the corridors throughout the region. Those corridors would receive a credible “safety” score, while others—esp at the edges of the region—we could only take a guess at (based on Google map in all likelihood) . Jim J: for network connectivity, I want to stress how imperative it is to create a connected network and prioritize improvements that help connect facilities Phil: many agree with that position as it received the most votes at the public meetings and has 35 of 100 points in our model. . Greg St: are you including short gaps within long trail corridors in the prioritization?
Alta Planning + Design - 2
GBNRPC Regional Bicycle Master Plan – Project Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
Phil: would guess that this would typically be included in trail planning, but seems logical to include here – will try to think of a way to include this in the model somehow . Greg St: Southern Tier bike/trail planning is being done currently – these agencies what to make sure our zoom-out map reflects the efforts being done in those areas Phil: we will have a map and narrative section describing the greater Western NY region and how this plan contributes to the greater Western NY regional bike network . Jim C: from DOT’s perspective, we would like to have a few policy-related recommendations in the plan…is that possible? Amy: yes, I can set up a meeting with the core group to discuss
4. Next Steps for Alta Team (described by Phil, no questions)
5. Other Business
6. Review of Recommended Corridors on the Google MyMap o Greg Sz: when corridors include multiple owners (local roads, vs DOT roads which are one owner) and crossing municipal boundaries will cause complexities during implementation. Perhaps some of those corridors are shorter in length? Also, ideally, the corridors are grouped such that the road characteristics are similar along an entire project corridor length . Phil: we don’t know that the characteristics are the same along each corridor project. Our scope doesn’t really enable us to get into fine-grain detail to provide exact facility recommendations along specific segments within project corridors – we will instead make general recommendations (or a range of recommendations) based on feasibility o Greg Sz: we also need to think about how to phase each corridor. I’m thinking that some corridors are longer than what would be typically implemented at once. Some should be broken up. . Phil: making fine grain recommendation for internal phasing within individual corridors is beyond the scope of the planning project o Gina: from Erie Co’s point of view, if the project was specifically happening for bike infrastructure, then we should be able to do the whole thing as a single project. If we were implementing a capital project then we could include bike infrastructure within the limits of the capital project endpoints. o Amy: per DOTs request, we will give another week for comments
Alta Planning + Design - 3
Stakeholder Meetings/Interviews
This section includes meeting summaries from stakeholder meetings/interviews with municipalities, NYS institutions and agencies, and advocacy groups.
September 10, 2019 September 11, 2019 February 4, 2020 February 5, 2020
Regional Bicycle Master Plan Stakeholder Workshop 438 Main Street Suite 503 Buffalo, NY 14202 September 10, 2019 10am-noon
Agenda
1 10:00-10:20 Introductions Introduce yourself, the role you play at your organization/agency and the work your organization or agency performs that relates to bicycling at a high level.
2 10:20-10:35 Project Briefing GBNRTC and Alta staff will give a brief presentation on the project scope, schedule and existing conditions in the region.
3 10:35-10:50 Vision What is your organization’s or agency’s vision for bicycling in your community or the region?
4 10:50-11:10 Projects, Initiatives Describe any completed projects, initiatives or programs that your and Programs organization has been involved that promotes bicycle access or safety (including available data and/or evaluations that might be available).
Are you currently planning, or will you soon be planning, any bike facility projects, policies or programs that we should know about?
5 11:10-11:30 Critical Elements From your personal or organization’s perspective, what are the 2 or 3 most critical elements that need to be addressed to improve bicycling in the GBNRTC region?
Where are the most critical bicycle infrastructure needs? (Please mark up the map, as needed)
6 11:30-11:50 Key Destinations What are the most important destinations in the region for either commuting and/or recreational bicyclists? (Please mark up the map, as needed)
7 11:50-Noon Wrap Up Are there any other things we should keep in mind during our planning work?
Are there other critical stakeholders that we should be speaking to?
GBNRTC Bike Buffalo Niagara Regional Bicycle Master Plan Project Stakeholder Meeting Notes Meeting Dates: 10-11 September 2019 Notes Issued: 13 September 2019 by Alta Planning + Design
Stakeholder meeting #1 – NORTH TOWNS Tuesday, September 10, 10 am – noon
Attendees: Hal Morse and Amy Weymouth (GBNRTC) Phil Goff and Jeff Olson (Alta) Tom Voight (Tonawanda) Mike Mazino (Nussabanam & Clark, on behalf of City of Lockport rep) Matt Sutton (Tonawanda) Jon Bleuer (Clarence) Chris Schregel (Amherst Engineering) Dan Howard (Amherst Planning Dept) Amy: presented an intro/abridged version of the PPT for the public meetings Misc. Comments from Stakeholders Dan: since implementation can take 5-10 years, will our work look at projections 10 years in the future? (Phil: not in scope…analysis and rec’s based on 2018-19 reality. Jeff: we will think about how growth will likely occur in Centers, which could impact our planning. National Ass of Realtors work and generation shifts imply this as well. We should include some mention of that in the report.) Dan: the changes in Amherst are based on generational shift and preference. (Jeff: this reality is happening in many places in Central and Western NY. We will address this in a few key points in the report re: population projections and shifts. Health trends in Erie and Niagara counties is not great compared with others in NYS.) Hal: significant % of population locally trends younger which is a good sign. Dan: there is some tension from the older generations in Amherst and some of the changes we are proposing (bike facilities, etc.), though one sees more people that look like me riding bikes. Amy: strengthening the Centers is critical for our planning work Agencies’ Vision, and Projects Mike: describing Town of Tonawanda bike plan and connections to the campuses. Plan will push riders away from Niagara Falls Blvd onto parallel routes. We struggle with the variety of planning documents and how they get pushed aside by elected officials when push comes to shove and there is potential loss of parking, especially. It would be good to have non-bike issues emphasized: slower traffic, improved ped safety, etc. Tom: important for us to connect some of these links “into” the Town so we can connect with other communities in the region. Bike lanes are soon coming to River Road, which is something to build off of. Matt: people love bike paths but still get nervous about on-street projects Chris: some of our Complete Streets projects lose the bike component because of opposition to changes to travel or parking lanes Dan: emphasizing connectivity elsewhere is critical, esp across I-290. We have lots of roads in Amherst that are not appropriate for bike lanes. Our network of off-street trails is OK but mostly recreational. While our primary roads are not ideal, the secondary roads (county owned) are being looked at for on-street network. Our maintenance plans are starting to include bike infrastructure during resurfacing projects. Implementation can be constrained due to maintenance issues, but glad that this plan will “put everyone on notice” which corridors are targeted for bike facilities and/or Complete Streets. Hal: besides lines on a map, we want our plan to lay out a structure for communication during the implementation phase. Matt: motorized scooters are hard to ride on the sidewalk, and bike paths are better for ADA though we should reconsider calling them “bike paths” since they are multi-modal. Bike lanes are good for snow storage too. Matt: for LRT project, the bike zone is considered a “shoulder” at this point Hal: in winter, we aren’t allowed to park on the street overnight and somehow we all seem to survive…we shouldn’t have such a problem with some parking loss permanently Jon: the trails, including the Peanut Line is popular but the Town is waiting for the next “big chunk” of trail to be built, but we are focusing on an inner and outer loop. Elected officials in the past have opposed on-street bikeways, but the current administration is more supportive. The Design Guidelines will help us too. 25-30% of those surveyed indicated driving into Clarence to use the trails. Wehrle Drive to West Hill – we have the OK from DOT for infrastructure. Matt: Parker Blvd will soon have bike lanes, unless we lose funding for the roundabout. Dan: we have major political hurdles on the east end of the Peanut Line extension to connect with Clarence. $1.5-1.8m CMAQ application didn’t work out. Sidewalks and bike lanes will extend down Casey Road and then connecting to the Peanut Line is a challenge. Ideally will connect to Buffalo and the Genesee Greenway…currently its used. 100’ corridor with sewer line below and intended to be a transportation corridor, going back to 50’s. It has been 15 years since we tried to make the connection but opposition remains. Dan: the Peanut Line corridor is through a heavily-wooded area compared to Clarence, so that prompts concerns about people going thru their “beautiful wooded backyards”. Some of the homes are at a lower grade too and concerned about privacy. Jeff: looking for projects that connect multiple communities but there is frequently a weak link between them that is challenging. Dan: the Casey Road project is something we can leverage in order to get our link closer and closer to Clarence. Matt: struggle is typically maintenance after implementation. The NFTA corridor is a challenge for us to maintain. (Chris: we have some of the same problems too.) Hal: we are trying to focus on that so $$ can be provided beyond implementation. Agencies’ Projects, Programs and Initiatives Mike: Lockport has lots of stuff going on re: the Erie Canalway/EST trail, signage, etc. Lewiston has activity too…off-street bike facilities that stop at the green space and Academy Park. Work on Center Street in the village will soon create on-street connections to bridge the gap. Beyond the village area, heading north, there could be concerns from residences. Matt: Riverview Solar Park company in Lockport, off River Road. New link to connect to Fire Tower Rd or turn to Two Mile Creek could provide good bike facilities. Intersection with River Road is the toughest challenge. No signal…roundabout proposed with switchback trail to connect to Shoreline Trail. Tom: with 1000s new employees, having a new road with bike lanes would be helpful. Jeff: let’s not lose sight of connection to and over the bridges Dan: Leheigh Valley trail that parallels I-290 to Tonawanda (the ROW is there, so could be low- hanging fruit). Similar experience in that we thought we had $$ to extend the trail but neighbors helped kill the project. We tried to pick it up near the Peanut Line (or, in other spots) to avoid the political problems. New park in center of Town may be able to connect to the Ellicott Creek Trail. Connections along North Force Rd can help connect Village to UB but hasn’t been a focus for many years. Now that the noise barriers are there, perhaps things are different now. Matt/Tom in Tonawanda, there could be support for a road diet and cycle track along Sheridan Rd, which could tie in with the LRT extension project. No loss of parking is part of the project…lots of width available. Dan: Maple Road is a prime opportunity with construction of LRT extension. Main Street is far less appealing. Wehrle Drive has some opp’s as an east-west corridor for cycling. N-S connections are more difficult. Another County project near the bridges or somewhere close-by could offer some opportunities. Jon: other projects can include Sheridan (which will be a road diet, approved by NYSDOT) and will terminate at transit. Eastern Hill Mall conversion too. West Shore line to the Peanut line connection is good (terminates at Wehrle Dr and then a 6’ trail south/west down to Harris Hill/Sunset Park and ultimately to Buffalo) Chris: Projects include Casey Road, ped bridge replacement. New signage initiative we want to start soon. Town Board just passed local ordinance “no parking on bike lanes”. Dan: Amherst Central Park project is a big deal (adjacent to UB campus). Local waterfront revitalization effort will start soon too. Agriculture development/restoration plan will start soon too. Where EST enters Amherst will include gateway-related planning work. New MXU zoning has now been approved too, and they include bike parking facilities (though not sure how robust they are). Matt: our zoning code rewrite will hopefully include more bike parking requirements. Jeff: are there other examples of communities that have good policies and codes related to bike parking, etc.? (e.g. Green Code in Buffalo). Jon: we just redid our code that used to include a recreational code that lead to short walking paths in the back but now developers are able to build stuff in the front for bikes (parking, path links, etc.) Jon: in Clarence, there is little transit and cycling, but we frame it as an amenity for “comfort” rather than convenience. Dan: best potential is on County Roads and having a collaborative arrangement with the County would be helpful (esp. if its formalized). (Matt agrees that County roads are good ones to leverage for new bike facilities.) Jeff: the best way to incorporate road projects would be a common GIS file that all communities had access to provide input. Has there been a working model where this has been done? Maybe AMPO knows? Could be modeled on MAPC’s Land Line map.
Destinations to Focus on Dan: our education institutions are the most significant: UB North, UB South (portion), and Damien College on Main Street. Village of Williamsville (at south end of Amherst) is the center of commercial life in some ways. North terminus of LRT is another (at end of Audubon Parkway and near end of Ellicott Creek Trail). Lots of parks are key destinations (esp. Nature View Park, the largest at the north end and on the Tonawanda Creek Trail). Redevelopment near Niagara Mall, a federal Superfund site…Town would like to see developed as a mixed-use center and could be the next “downtown Amherst”. Dan: for Complete Streets Advocates, are they advocating for other stuff, beyond bike lanes? We have a link to the Town’s open space plan. Chris: we’ve had complaints that people need better connections to its trails (they are a major destination). Jeff: regarding trip-generation issues…should we allow the Niagara Falls tourism and recreation trip data help inform our work? (in this case, in the millions of trips). Tom: there was a study on Niagara Falls Blvd. that UB folks did to look at Jon: we know people want easy access to “fun areas” where they can walk and bike to shops, restaurants and rec opportunities. Tom: we have employment centers near the Niagara River in Tonawanda that are and will be major destinations (solar center and one other). Matt: Kenney Field is a good destination. Travel in and out of Kenmore is another (Englewood is the accessway to the bike path). Cherry Farm too. Opening up access to the waterfront is something we are looking at. Tom: access to/from Kenmore, streets are busy and people prefer the residential streets. Jeff: how well-brandable are the trails…e.g. EST, Shoreline Trail, etc.? Mike and Jon: many probably know now, especially when many of them have 2 or 3 names for a single trail. Dan: like the Freedom Trail in Boston, having brochures available that promote the greenway network at hotels, etc. would be really helpful. Matt: there are nice loops in Canada for bicyclists, but less simple on U.S. side…our routes are linear. Jeff: can we focus on any of these communities as destinations tied into the trail network, similar to what Ontario or Quebec have done.
Wrap-up Amy: some folks couldn’t make it and we’ll meet with them later. Any last issues? Dan: we should do something like this more often, perhaps with others too (reps from Counties, State, other RTC’s?) Jon: What happens after the Plan is complete? (Amy: looking at funding sources and who will take the lead is most critical). Doing a quarterly meeting would be good. Matt: at some point, it would be good if the team did a presentation at our Town Board, so there is more buy-in on various projects.
Stakeholder meeting #2 – SOUTH TOWNS Tuesday, September 10, 10 am – noon
Attendees: Hal Morse and Amy Weymouth (GBNRTC) Phil Goff and Jeff Olson (Alta) Paul Becker (Town of Hamburg) John Newton (Town of East Aurora Ped/Bike Committee) Bill Smith (Town of Evans) Kathy Thomas (Village of East Aurora)
Amy: presented an intro/abridged version of the PPT for the public meetings Misc. Comments from Stakeholders John: can you put the presentation on line? (Amy: yes) Agencies’ Vision Bill: in Evans (16,000 population), we are a mixed community demographically and physically. Many of our roads don’t have sidewalks. Town and state parks are key to connect, along with the waterfront with the Town. Incorporating the Shoreline Trail, that ends in Lackawanna. They understand both the local and the regional connectivity that is all important. Connections to Park/Ride to Village and the string of parks along waterfront is critical. Next month, we are doing a C.S. workshop with Justin Booth. Kathy: East Aurora is a popular destination but nearly all by car and we’d like to get more people walking/biking. John: We have some bikeways along the edge of the Town, but we don’t have a central spine/trunk route that works for bikes in the middle of the town. Having racks and bike lockers are needed too. We have more older people using bikes throughout the community but don’t feel comfortable. Ideally Main Street should be 25 mph (from 30 mph) and has only a narrow shoulder/door zone. Paul: Town population is 50,000 (10k in the Village) and we want to help more kids get to school on bike. Reducing lanes and speed limits would be nice too. Wants to think about having a few one-way streets with bike lanes in the core of the Village. Connection out Newton Rd to Chestnut Ridge Park from the Village would be great. Joint Town/Village multi-modal master plan recently. 18 Mile Creek Rd. greenway has been envisioned. Bike improvements high on the agenda…TAP grants came in but they are focused on ped improvements. Current bike lane on Main Street drops prior to roundabout on Main Street. Major cross-country bike route from West Coast to Boston runs through Hamburg. Bill: we would like to promote cycling and even X-country skiing on trails as a way to promote tourism. We just adopted a new law that prohibits parking of vehicles on established bike lanes. Paul: at Hamburg/Orchard Park area, there are parents who would like to see more trails for their kids to get to schools. John: our high school is up at top of a hill and no one rides. If buses had bike racks, kids might use the service and ride home down the hill. Also, perhaps we can look at opportunities to use the tree lawns as separated bike facility.
Agencies’ Projects Bill: Shoreline Trail is proposed to run through Angola on the Lake. Connecting Went Park with the dunes at Dennett Park. Evans Town Park trail connection is being looked at too. Goal for next year for Erie County is to improve Lake Shore Road to deal with the drainage issue. Portions have a sidepath currently. TAP not awarded to connect to Lake Erie Beach, which is a lower income area. Between Town Park and Bennett Beach is intended to be the next phase of the Shoreline Trail extension. We want to see improvements on Lake Street between Lake and Village and matching them with shared use path or something similar running N/S would be nice too. From Sturgeon Point Road to the south is the focus of the Shoreline Trail development down to 18 Creek Rd. (All of these phases are shovel-ready projects.) Paul: we have a draft of a C.S. policy but it’s been in draft form for a few years now. Multi-modal Master Plan will guide our investment especially along Lake View Rd out to the Rec Complex. Looking for ideas from the Task Force, Mayor and Board of Trustees. John: when we did an intermodal plan from 10 years ago, we got some Share the Road signs and new sidewalks and not much else. Jeff: what’s been the sticking point in East Aurora? Kathy: politically, elected officials have said that they will never raise taxes and we have major lack of $$ because of that. $10m annual budget and $6m has gone into a water/sewer project. We have a Hamlin Park master plan, of which we would like to have more people ride their bikes too ($2.5m project) John: the State seems to be more understanding now of having slightly wider streets to provide bike facilities. (Hal: Resurfacing provides some opportunities to make improvements.) Jeff: did the innovative Main Street Complete Street design 10 years ago, have much of an influence ultimately? Paul: the State is more open to context-sensitive design, and there is more awareness among the public. John: our Main Street project in East Aurora looked at Hamburg but didn’t go “as far” because compromises were made. Kathy: we have “low tech” crosswalks…i.e. painted crosswalks with hand flags. Jeff: we should look at Performance Measures of the various projects which we should include in the plan. Focus of that can be redesigning of the various Main Streets in the region. Have you had much interaction with NYSDOT? Paul: yes, at times…during Lake Street discussion related to roundabouts. DOT said purchase of property for roundabout would take 5-7 years but Village decided to buy it themselves as an investment. 40% of population is on fixed incomes. Two TAP applications for $250k each. Jeff: is there scoring in the TIP criteria related to Complete Streets? (Hal: Yes) Empire State Trail will not be competing for some of the TAP money. Paul: we haven’t had a property re-evaluation in a long time. Jeff: we don’t have Federal $$ to leverage our local $$ against like previous decades. John: putting cones and flags at crosswalks has helped and motorist follow the law more so now than in previous years. Bill: in our Town, drivers ignore Yield to Ped signs. Jeff: there are definitely low-cost interventions like continental crosswalks, in-street crosswalk signs can be very effective. Having similar treatment throughout the County would be significant.
Agencies’ Critical Elements Paul: personal safety is most prevalent…having dedicated bike lanes are needed, combined with reduced speed limits and lane widths. Need more education as well. I see more and more cyclists on the street and know some who commute into Buffalo. Kathy: should we talk to the bike shop owners and others? (Amy: sure, send me the contact info and I will reach out.) John: one-way conversions are not popular with some planners…how has Buffalo’s experiment with one-way streets been? (the contra-flow on Linwood St has gone well) Bill: on the Shoreline Trail segment in the Town, it becomes a two-way sidewalk with no buffer and that’s why they had parking problems in the bike lane. Parts of Rt. 5 were recently repaved with Share the Road signs, but they get ignored. I’d like to see some traffic calming there if possible.
Agencies’ Critical Destinations John: multi-modal connections from East Aurora into Buffalo, so that people can take a bus into the City. Need an East-West connection from the Lake thru Hamburg—perhaps 20A is best?—to East Aurora. For N/S connections, we could build off of the E/W trunk route to create short spurs to other towns and villages. Amy: we have reached out to some businesses in a few places to post flyers, and reach out to bike shops too. John: Moog is likely interested in getting more of their staff on bikes and other alternative modes. Bill: We want to promote walking/biking to take some of the pressure off of parking during summer weekends and holidays. Some minor TDM programs with developers are something I worked with at the Medical Center in Buffalo too. Amy: are there other stakeholders that we should be checking in with? Stakeholder meeting #3 – ADVOCATES Wednesday, September 11, 10 am – noon
Attendees: Amy Weymouth (GBNRTC) Phil Goff and Jeff Olson (Alta) Matt Reitmeier, University of Buffalo, Parking & Transportation (leads bike committee) Brian Dold, Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy Ryan McPherson, UB Sustainability and vice-chair of GObike Buffalo Paul Ray, USA Niagara, NYS Development Kyle Semmel, Communication’s Manager for Western NY Land Conservancy Amy: presented an intro/abridged version of the PPT for the public meetings Jeff announced a global greenway meeting may be coming locally next year, along with the International VeloCity conference may come to Toronto/Niagara Falls
Misc Comments from Stakeholders Ryan: within the Scope of Work, should we be thinking about the links to Canada and elsewhere? (Jeff: yes, we are integrating our planning to help link to all adjacent regions of NYS and beyond.) Ryan: building from the City’s Bike Plan is important but if they can’t get their projects implemented, is it realistic to think that other communities can do so? (Jeff: fair question…all we can do at this point is to finish our plan and effectively lay out a Vision and Implementation Strategy to make it work.)
Groups’ Vision Matt: UB’s bike committee is working hard to make campus more bikeable from adjacent neighborhoods, nearby. Ryan: big part of UB’s work right now is connecting the North and South campuses. At North campus, we really want to reduce the number of cars on campus for longer periods of time. Our Vision (tongue in cheek) is to avoid getting killed when bicycling. Also, widespread bikeability within the region, especially between the two most built-out areas (Buffalo to central Amherst). The Lewiston-Queenston Bridge is a big issue that needs improvements. Matt: big blue buses connect two campuses and smaller white buses circulate within campus and connect to the Medical Campus too. 14,000 trips/day. 30,000 students total, 40k with staff. Ryan: we also have bike share on campus, car share, shuttle buses (transitioning to EV buses) with two-bike capacity racks on all buses. Metro rail extension project is moving forward and in the DEIS stage. We have scooters on campus and I don’t like them very much as they replicate bikes in many ways. Want to push for more e-bikes however but need more paths to encourage more use. Jeff: can we get more info on utility corridors that we can look at closely for routes? (Amy: I will look into that.) Ryan: NYSEG and NIPA (??) might be open to providing data and other info? Should we be thinking of rebranding this as “active mobility” or something else? Eco-system services are important components. Jeff: some org’s have branded themselves with a mission with something broader than just bikes. Brian: we have 850 acres of parks and parkways. Vision for the latter is to have a fully- connected system from park to park, potentially overlapping with the City’s bike network (who own all of the Olmsted lands). We are working with the City to try to improve the traffic circles for cycling. Connecting people from their neighborhoods to the park and then getting people off of the bikes to enjoy the Olmsted parks is important too. Jeff: does the Conservancy have any design guidelines? (Brian: no.) Phil: take a look at DCR’s Emerald Necklace design guidelines for inspiration and ideas for improvements in Buffalo Brian: our main goal is to activate parks in many ways and provide improved ped/bike access, helping the City find necessary funds. Not our role to implement ideas, though we helped make the shared use path through Delaware Park a reality (connecting to the Scajaqueda Path). Kyle: we have had discussions with Conservancies in PA in order to think bigger-picture for both rec opportunities and wildlife corridors. DL&W Corridor from Tesla Plant along the river north is our highest priority. (Jeff: can we talk to Tesla…would they be interested in working with us?) Kyle: not sure. Paul: when Buffalo was doing the Green Code, they initially considered green road corridors too but went by the wayside. Perhaps the prelim work on that could be thought about for the Olmsted Parkways? Jeff: would be missed opportunity if we weren’t thinking about green corridors, wildlife etc in addition to bicycle transportation. Brian: we would like to see the City experiment with short-term demo projects to test out ideas Paul: in N.F., a major goal is to connect workers from neighborhoods into downtown (mostly service industry jobs) AND to connect tourists from the State Park into downtown and other commercial areas. Regionally, the adjacent greenway and park should be a better economic dev tool but it isn’t (esp since we are ½ way between Buffalo and Lewiston, but few bicyclists do it…it’s not encouraged or obvious to most people.) Currently, there is no easy way to get to Niagara Falls Park by bike (either up-back or via a loop in Canada, but it’s not easy). Kyle: having a easy-to-access website would be great to help with that. (Jeff: such things exist: Cyclelife HQ and other crowdsourcing-type of sites. Jeff: key phrase: “make it obvious”. When driving we assume that is what will happen but on bike, it is not the same. Along with the new stuff, we need to keep in mind improving what’s out there—esp wayfinding—and not just new projects. (Kyle: we need Buffalo to have an equivalent of the Boston Freedom Trail.) Ryan: the demarcation of the trail doesn’t need to be a sign, it could be a design element like solar canopies or a landscape approach.
Groups’ Projects, Initiatives or Programs
Matt: keeping North Campus internally connected with bike lane and sharrows over past few years. Programs to recognize and reward people too. We’ve added Dero fix-it stands. For e- scooters, we are not pushing shared scooters but happy to accommodate personal e-scooters. (Ryan: we are treating them like bikes, re: reg’s., though enforcing them in buildings is tough as we don’t really do enforcement.) Phil: any bike counts? (Matt: no but we know that more people are using our new bike racks— now 1100—on campus.) Ryan: currently, we are bronze level LAB Bike Friendly Univ and hoping to go Silver soon. We see a large drop in the # of students who want to drive on campus and higher demand for the alternative modes, esp our bus shuttles. Matt: we surveyed bicyclists last in 2015, asking why they ride onto campus (though we didn’t ask if environmental issues were a critical part of the decision). Currently, we have a small sub- section of regular bicyclists who are paying attention to bike planning and bike culture issues on campus. Ryan: Large number of our potential bicyclists and users of sustainable modes are International and down-state students, not necessarily local Buffalo kids.
Groups’ Most Critical Elements Paul: promoting to people what is coming next in NF is something we like to promote. Ryan: having designated SBLs on Main Street from the Med Campus to South Campus and beyond is critical for us. Kyle: of the cities I’ve lived in, those that are most bike friendly are the most successful. Educating drivers about bike lanes and bicyclists is critical for safety too. Brian: wayfinding is critical to us. Need to have “bread crumbs” for navigation. (Jeff: for the Empire State Trail, we looked at small USGS pavement medallions at regular intervals but maintenance was always an issue. In the Design Manual, we need to look at these features, similar to the green bike path along the waterfront in Albany.) Ryan: GAP in PA does this well. The NGOs are maintaining the facilities and doing it well. (Jeff: it’s very linear however with major cities at each end…i.e. PGH and DC). The public sector does well with Capital projects but less so with maintenance. Paul: Doing a loop around Grand Island would be nice. (Jeff: one of the communities had a plan at one point.) Brian: are the HAWK signals (e.g. Sheridan Drive in Tonawanda) working well? (Amy: I haven’t heard of any problems.) Paul: GObike has some bike route maps on-line but its minimal. Looking at the GAP web site gives one a better idea of mapping and wayfinding. (Ryan: GAP’s site really ‘tells a story’ too, which complements the concept of ‘making it obvious’) Jeff: think of the major destinations in the region like a golf course…where are the 18 holes? (i.e. the most significant destinations.) Brian: Of all of the Olmsted’s spaces, Delaware and South Parks are the most important. Jeff: what about the Seaway Trail along Lake Ontario? (Ryan: I haven’t much discussion about it recently….Erie Canalway Trail roughly parallel’s it and if much further along) Jeff: let’s look at the Adventure Cycling bike route map of the area and see what we can learn from it. Going from park to park—branded well in the Finger Lakes—is something we should look at.
Other Stakeholders we should talk to?
Ryan: Jim Howe Jeff: pushing the final presentation in coordination with the National Greenway meeting scheduled for June may make sense. Coordination with Greg Stevens can be ongoing.
Stakeholder meeting #4 – ADVOCATES Wednesday, September 11, 1:30 – 1:00 pm
Attendees: Amy Weymouth and Hal Morse (GBNRTC) Phil Goff and Jeff Olson (Alta) Adam Johnson, South Buffalo Wheelhouse bike shop Deb Fenn, President of Erie-Catt Rail Trail, Inc, Jenn Kowalik, Campus WheelWorks Noel Dill, Amherst Peanut Line Trail Supporters Amy: presented an intro/abridged version of the PPT for the public meetings Misc. Comments from Stakeholders Bev: 27-mile corridor; we have 99-year lease agreement on the rail corridor through five communities
Groups’ Vision Noel: last section of the Peanut Line to be built (within Clarence and Amherst); opponents cite crime and loss of property values without any evidence. Looking for studies that features places where property values have increased next to parks. Trying to provide a series of connections that doesn’t require someone to drive a car to a trailhead. Paved, off-road rec trails by their nature are available and a great resource for people with disabilities or otherwise. Jenn: bicycling is part of her lifestyle and she is trying to build more bike community. Wants to see more infrastructure for safety and confidence, especially more protected bike lanes in Buffalo….sharrows are “BS and do almost nothing for cyclists”. More physical representation of bike infrastructure will help to educate motorists. The bike shop is on Elmwood near Buff State. Deb: when complete the Erie-Catt trail will bring people thru the most physically and culturally significant portion of Western NY, culminating with a high, trestle bridge to Catt County, NY. The group is waiting for the final piece of the puzzle—the connection to Tift—to acquire so they can connect the Shoreline Trail with the PA line. Community development is a key goal of theirs and helping to connect Buffalo w/ the South Towns. Adam: wants to make cycling more accessible and empowering. Recent rides have been eye opening to see the difficulties and lack of infrastructure for cycling. There hasn’t been a bike shop in South Buffalo for a long time and it has been well received. Jenn: excited to hear about the Outer Harbor mountain bike park, since she’s heard of more and more people who are afraid to ride on roads so buy mountain bikes. Campus Wheelworks rents too. Jenn: many of our rentals ask about places to ride. Noel: Peanut Line trail supporters participate in a weekly group ride from the Farmers Market. More and more people are riding e-bikes. (Jenn: we’ve sold some e-bikes too though I note that in an urban environment, e-bikes going 20 mph can be a bit sketchy.)
Groups’ Project, Initiatives and Programs
Noel: besides organizing rides, we do “Peanut Pop-Ups” and hand out water bottles, bananas, snacks etc to engage people. They’ve learned a lot, such as people aren’t comfortable on Transit Road or Sheridan Drive and want more off-road facilities. While Peanut Line is an E-W connection for commuters but need more N/S links to the Peanut Line. Maple Road, Klein Rd, N Klein Rd, and Casey Road are local roadways that are not bike friendly. Sheridan Drive will soon have bike lanes from Transit Road to the east (43 road diet) during a resurfacing project this fall or next spring. I think the sharrows can have a good educational component (Main St in Clarence has been successful). Deb: her completed projects—of the 27 total—include: o 1.7 mile open in Springvale o 3 miles through Concord, with some help from snowmobilers o They have 3 “Friends…” groups from their 7,000 supporters o In Orchard Park, they have 90 members o Grant pending in Ashford, on other side of the rail trestle to improve the bridge and insert a kayak launch (shovel-ready project) Adam: last winter, started an education program and is expanding into a new space Jeff: do the bike shops have an Alliance so they can speak with one voice? (Jenn: no) Deb: fewer children are learning to ride bikes and those that do only ride on the cul-de-sac and when they get older, they don’t feel safe riding on the roads. Video games and even having parents doing spin classes changes the dynamic. Noel: their group does a “Peanut Roll” ride and we see—along with Slow Rolls—a good percentage of children participating. In Clarence, it is an aging population because younger people do not stick around.
Groups’ Critical Elements and Needs
Noel: road crossing improvements, in some cases a HAWK light is needed. Ellicott Creek Trail connection is a challenge. Deb: support long distance riding for economic development, health and transportation; connect the regional trails; offer Complete Streets options and connect them to the trail options Jenn: meaningful connections between bike lanes and trails is really important. Williams Street bike path terminates at a high-volume intersection with few options for what to do from there. Noel: City of Tonawanda bike hub off the EST is great, but people don’t know about it and it’s hard to get to. People go to Akron as a destination to avoid Amherst. Improving Amherst and points east to the Tonawanda’s are the key inter-connections that will help make regional connections.
Groups’ Ideas of Destinations/Final Thoughts
Jenn: Broadway Market is a good one…maybe Central Terminal. MLK Park. East Side needs lots of love. Deb: high-trestle bridge is awesome, Griffith sculpture park Noel: Canada, esp via the Peace Bridge
GBNRTC Bike Buffalo Niagara Regional Bicycle Master Plan Project Stakeholder Meeting Notes Meeting Dates: 4-5 February 2020 Notes Issued: 10 February 2020 by Alta Planning + Design
Stakeholder meeting #1 – ADVOCATES Tuesday, February 4, 1:00 – 3:00 pm Attendees: Hal Morse and Amy Weymouth (GBNRTC) Phil Goff (Alta) WNY Land Conservancy Noel Dill (Amherst Peanut Line) Riverkeeper Line) Brian Dold (Olmstead Parks Conservancy) (University of Buffalo) Adam Johnson (So Buffalo Wheelhouse bike shop) Deb Fenn (Erie-Catt Rail Trail) Paul Ray (Empire State Development Corp.)
Misc. Comments from Stakeholders Sean: Ellicott Creek Crossing needed between Robinson and other roads; students need to go “all the way around for access” to the UB campus Sean: Link is needed for campus to the trail along the Creek Sean: consider Delaware Park access via Colvin Ave. instead of Storin Sean: In Niagara Falls, use Niagara St rather than Rt 62 as the link (see NF bike plan) Deb: Make sure we are clarifying if a rail corridor is “inactive” vs. “abandoned” … very important distinction. Some of what appears to be “inactive” rail in Buffalo is still considered an active rail line. Unknown: Extend Union Road from Como Park to West Seneca Noel: Difficult to connect on-road to off-road facilities is tough in suburbs… need more off-road feeders to get from neighborhoods to trails such as Peanut Line (look in Wellington Woods area to connect to the Peanut Line). Noel: Suburban town sub-division regulations could include requirement for on-road connections for all ages and abilities. Policy needed to avoid people needing to drive to the trail. Rob: look again at the NF bike plan to integarate the low-hanging fruit from the NF plan into the regional plan Brian: show more N/S connections parallel to Humbolt Parkway Lauren: In appendix, it would be good to show the important local bike maps, e.g. Buffalo Bike Plan, N.F. Bike Plan, etc. Paul: Can the team include shapefiles from Buffalo and NF into our plan to show where the overlaps are? (Phil: we will look into that) Amy: The 5 year C.I.P. will incorporate the priority projects Misc elements to mention at the meeting tonight: Roads selected are not just bike-friendly corridor today, but are a full mix of roadways that are relatively bike friendly and those that are awful for cycling Rec’s don’t preclude local CS improvements on roads outside of the regional network
Stakeholder meeting #2 – NIAGARA COUNTY TOWNS Wednesday, February 5, 2020, 1:00 – 3:00 pm Attendees: Hal Morse and Amy Weymouth (GBNRTC) Phil Goff (Alta) John Bleuer (Town of Clarence) Jim Hartz (Town of Tonawanda) Brian Smith (Town of Lockport) Mike Marino (Town of Lewiston) Dan Howard (Town of Amherst)
- Kenmore Ave, Tonawanda and Main St. Amherst – location of existing HAWK signals - “typologies” vs. “treatments”…use either term
Clarence Projects Greiner from Peanut Line up to Harris Hill (see map mark-up) Peanut Line Trail vs. West Shore Trail in Clarence Tonawanda River Road/Niagara Street will have stiped bike lanes soon as a parallel facility to the Shoreline Trail between Grand Island Bridge and downtown Tonawanda
N. Tonawanda River Rd. – Mill & Pave project… NYSDOT is tentatively saying “yes” in summer of 2021 Twin Cities Hwy/Rt. 425 – what is shown as proposed on-street shoud be off-street as the City wants a sidepath on the west side Look more carefully at the rail line…it could be a RWT that would extend the trail from Pendleton to N. Tonawanda (currently, CSX owned)
Amherst Show improvements on Casey Road with a short N/S link to the Peanut Line and to the existing trail running N/S. The Town tried to fund it thru TAP but without luck Maple Road should probably be a cycle track. Lots of space and could connect to Transit Road to the east and the mall at the Amherst/Tonawanda line Treatment on Maple Rd should extend to Transit Rd Look at Niagara Falls Blvd in Amherst , esp north of I-290. South of I-290, it could be a BRT route with bike lanes We are adding MioVision counter along portion of N.F Boulevard Main Street in Amherst out to Williamsville – look at a route to connect to Daemon College and the rest of the job corridor (tough connection with the I-290 ramps however) Wierle Dr. From Kennington to interstate is being repaved… should we repave it? Extend Youngs Rd. North to EST connection
Email Correspondence
This section includes email correspondence with municipalities, agencies, and various stakeholders and residents regarding the Regional Bicycle Master Plan.
From: Amy Weymouth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 4:14 PM To: '[email protected]'
Hello,
I would like to invite you or a representative to participate in a stakeholder workshop for Bike Buffalo Niagara, the Regional Bicycle Master Plan for Erie and Niagara Counties. In recent years, we have seen numerous projects aimed at advancing cycling in the region, including the development of the Shoreline Trial, the Tonawanda and North Buffalo Rails to Trails, the Empire State Trail, and the City of Buffalo Bicycle Master Plan, to name a few. Although we have seen the network of bicycle infrastructure continue to grow, there are still missing links and disconnected communities that present a critical need to take a collective, holistic approach to bicycle and trail planning in the region. The recently adopted metropolitan transportation plan, Moving Forward 2050 aims to accelerate recent progress by expanding bikeways and multi-use trails to more communities and we are looking for your input on how best to do that.
This two hour stakeholder workshop will be held at 438 Main Street, Suite 503, Buffalo NY 14202 on Tuesday, September 10th at 10am. It will include a brief summary of the project scope and schedule, a review of existing conditions and a group exercise focused on a discussion of your organization’s or agency’s vision for bicycling in the region (see attached for full agenda). Please visit our website at www.gbnrtc.org/bikebuffaloniagara to learn more about Bike Buffalo Niagara. Also feel free to contact me with any questions.
Please let me know if you plan on attending by August 27th.
Thank you, Amy
Amy Weymouth Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council [email protected] 438 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 716.856.2026
From: Amy Weymouth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 4:30 PM To: '[email protected]'
Hello,
I would like to invite you or a representative to participate in a stakeholder workshop for Bike Buffalo Niagara, the Regional Bicycle Master Plan for Erie and Niagara Counties. In recent years, we have seen numerous projects aimed at advancing cycling in the region, including the development of the Shoreline Trial, the Tonawanda and North Buffalo Rails to Trails, the Empire State Trail, and the City of Buffalo Bicycle Master Plan, to name a few. Although we have seen the network of bicycle infrastructure continue to grow, there are still missing links and disconnected communities that present a critical need to take a collective, holistic approach to bicycle and trail planning in the region. The recently adopted metropolitan transportation plan, Moving Forward 2050 aims to accelerate recent progress by expanding bikeways and multi-use trails to more communities and we are looking for your input on how best to do that.
This two hour stakeholder workshop will be held at 438 Main Street, Suite 503, Buffalo NY 14202 on Tuesday, September 10th at 1:30pm. It will include a brief summary of the project scope and schedule, a review of existing conditions and a group exercise focused on a discussion of your organization’s or agency’s vision for bicycling in the region (see attached for full agenda). Please visit our website at www.gbnrtc.org/bikebuffaloniagara to learn more about Bike Buffalo Niagara. Also feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.
Please let me know if you plan on attending by August 27th.
Thank you, Amy
Amy Weymouth Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council [email protected] 438 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 716.856.2026
From: Amy Weymouth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 4:18 PM To: '[email protected]'
Hello,
I would like to invite you or a representative to participate in a stakeholder workshop for Bike Buffalo Niagara, the Regional Bicycle Master Plan for Erie and Niagara Counties. In recent years, we have seen numerous projects aimed at advancing cycling in the region, including the development of the Shoreline Trial, the Tonawanda and North Buffalo Rails to Trails, the Empire State Trail, and the City of Buffalo Bicycle Master Plan, to name a few. Although we have seen the network of bicycle infrastructure continue to grow, there are still missing links and disconnected communities that present a critical need to take a collective, holistic approach to bicycle and trail planning in the region. The recently adopted metropolitan transportation plan, Moving Forward 2050 aims to accelerate recent progress by expanding bikeways and multi-use trails to more communities and we are looking for your input on how best to do that.
This two hour stakeholder workshop will be held at 438 Main Street, Suite 503, Buffalo NY 14202 on Wednesday, September 11th at 10am. It will include a brief summary of the project scope and schedule, a review of existing conditions and a group exercise focused on a discussion of your organization’s or agency’s vision for bicycling in the region (see attached for full agenda). Please visit our website at www.gbnrtc.org/bikebuffaloniagara to learn more about Bike Buffalo Niagara. Also feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.
Please let me know if you plan on attending by August 27th.
Thank you, Amy
Amy Weymouth Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council [email protected] 438 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 716.856.2026
From: Amy Weymouth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 4:17 PM
To: 'Amherst Peanut Line Supporters'
Hello,
I would like to invite you or a representative to participate in a stakeholder workshop for Bike Buffalo Niagara, the Regional Bicycle Master Plan for Erie and Niagara Counties. In recent years, we have seen numerous projects aimed at advancing cycling in the region, including the development of the Shoreline Trial, the Tonawanda and North Buffalo Rails to Trails, the Empire State Trail, and the City of Buffalo Bicycle Master Plan, to name a few. Although we have seen the network of bicycle infrastructure continue to grow, there are still missing links and disconnected communities that present a critical need to take a collective, holistic approach to bicycle and trail planning in the region. The recently adopted metropolitan transportation plan, Moving Forward 2050 aims to accelerate recent progress by expanding bikeways and multi-use trails to more communities and we are looking for your input on how best to do that.
This two hour stakeholder workshop will be held at 438 Main Street, Suite 503, Buffalo NY 14202 on Wednesday, September 11th at 1:30pm. It will include a brief summary of the project scope and schedule, a review of existing conditions and a group exercise focused on a discussion of your organization’s or agency’s vision for bicycling in the region (see attached for full agenda). Please visit our website at www.gbnrtc.org/bikebuffaloniagara to learn more about Bike Buffalo Niagara. Also feel free to contact me with any questions.
Please let me know if you plan on attending by August 27th.
Thank you, Amy
Amy Weymouth Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council [email protected] 438 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 716.856.2026
-----Original Appointment----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 8:43 AM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'jwhitney@grand- island.ny.us'; '[email protected]'; Hal Morse; 'Phil Goff' Subject: Regional Bicycle Master Plan Draft Network Review Meeting When: Wednesday, February 05, 2020 1:00 PM-3:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: GBNRTC Conference Room 438 Main Street Suite 503
Hello,
I would like to invite you to our next Regional Bicycle Master Plan Stakeholder Meeting on Wednesday, February 5th at 1pm. We will present the current status of the plan, seek your input on the proposed network (see attached), and review next steps. If you are unable to attend but would like to discuss please let me know and I’d be happy to meet with you on a day and time that is convenient. Feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns.
Thank you, Amy
Amy Weymouth Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council [email protected] 438 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 716.856.2026
-----Original Appointment----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 8:42 AM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; Hal Morse; 'Phil Goff' Subject: Regional Bicycle Master Plan Draft Network Review Meeting When: Wednesday, February 05, 2020 9:00 AM-11:00 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: GBNRTC Conference Room 438 Main Street Suite 503
Hello,
I would like to invite you to our next Regional Bicycle Master Plan Stakeholder Meeting on Wednesday, February 5th at 9am. We will present the current status of the plan, seek your input on the proposed network (see attached), and review next steps. If you are unable to attend but would like to discuss please let me know and I’d be happy to meet with you on a day and time that is convenient. Feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns. << File: 19-110_NetworkMap_ALL-MAPS_Demand_200129.pdf >> Thank you, Amy
Amy Weymouth Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council [email protected] 438 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 716.856.2026
-----Original Appointment----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 8:42 AM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'Amherst Peanut Line Supporters'; 'Campus Cycling Collective Ethan Johnson and Alex Davies'; 'Buffalo Bicycling Club Marit Ogin'; 'Niagara Frontier Bicycling Club Michelle Lynn Bates'; 'FTW Rides Jenn Kowalik'; 'Colored Girls Bike Too'; 'East Side Bicycling Club'; 'Erie/Catt Rail Deb Fenn'; 'South Buffalo Wheelhouse'; 'Tom's Pro Bike Service'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; Hal Morse; 'Phil Goff' Subject: Regional Bicycle Master Plan Draft Network Review - Stakeholder Meeting When: Tuesday, February 04, 2020 1:00 PM-3:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: GBNRTC Conference Room 438 Main Street Suite 503
Hello,
I would like to invite you to our next Regional Bicycle Master Plan Stakeholder Meeting on Tuesday, February 4th at 1pm. We will present the current status of the plan, seek your input on the proposed network (see attached), and review next steps. If you are unable to attend but would like to discuss please let me know and I’d be happy to meet with you on a day and time that is convenient. Feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns. << File: 19-110_NetworkMap_ALL-MAPS_Demand_200129.pdf >> Thank you, Amy
Amy Weymouth Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council [email protected] 438 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 716.856.2026
From: Amy Weymouth
Hello,
We are excited to present to you the draft Regional Bicycle Master Plan for Erie and Niagara Counties https://www.gbnrtc.org/draft-regional-bike-buffalo-niagara-master-plan. We thank those who participated in the planning process and look forward to working with all of you on its implementation. Please feel free to send me any questions you may have. If there is interest, I’d be happy to set up an in person or online meeting to present the draft. Letters or emails of support would be greatly appreciated!
A few notes about this Plan:
- The Plan will help in getting financial assistance for local projects in the Buffalo-Niagara Region. - The Plan is meant to be a guide to inform decision-making on trail and bicycle infrastructure investments. As the region moves forward with project implementation, projects will be further refined through the design, engineering and public engagement process. - Treatment recommendations can be seen as aspirational in nature, with the goal of providing a regional bicycle and trail network used by residents and visitors of all ages and abilities. - This Plan does not preclude bicycle improvements on other roadways that are not part of the designated regional bicycle network as municipalities should aspire to create Complete Streets wherever possible.
Again, thank you for your time and feel free to reach out should you have any questions or would like to schedule a meeting.
Amy Weymouth Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council [email protected] 438 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 716.856.2026
From: Amy Weymouth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 3:45 PM To: '[email protected]'
Hello,
We are excited to present to you the draft Regional Bicycle Master Plan for Erie and Niagara Counties https://www.gbnrtc.org/draft-regional-bike-buffalo-niagara-master-plan. We thank those who participated in the planning process and look forward to working with all of you on its implementation. Please feel free to send me any questions you may have. If there is interest, I’d be happy to set up an in person or online meeting to present the draft. Letters or emails of support would be greatly appreciated!
A few notes about this Plan:
- The Plan will help in getting financial assistance for local projects in the region.
- The Plan is meant to be a guide to inform decision-making on trail and bicycle infrastructure investments. As the region moves forward with project implementation, projects will be further refined through the design, engineering and public engagement process.
- Treatment recommendations can be seen as aspirational in nature, with the goal of providing a regional bicycle and trail network used by residents and visitors of all ages and abilities.
- This Plan does not preclude bicycle improvements on other roadways that are not part of the designated regional bicycle network as municipalities should aspire to create Complete Streets wherever possible.
Again, thank you for your time and feel free to reach out should you have any questions or would like to schedule a meeting.
Amy Weymouth Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council [email protected] 438 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 716.856.2026
From: Jennifer Baney [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 9:42 AM To: Amy Weymouth
Hi Amy, Thanks for the email. Such extensive and thorough work! As you are clearly an expert in this field, can you advise us as to some logical next steps? We know this is just a draft, but want to plan ahead and be prepared. As it is referenced in your email to us, we are working towards becoming a Complete Streets community, if knowing that helps you.
Thank you for your work on behalf of the communities in WNY, Jenn
From: Lynne T. Ruda [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 2:23 PM To: Amy Weymouth
Amy - Thank you so much - how exciting! I know how much work and collaboration has gone into this plan. What is the timeline at this point to have it go from Draft to Adopted? When would you need a letter of support by?
Thanks -
Lynne Ruda Trustee Village of Lancaster
From: Brian Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 9:41 AM To: Amy Weymouth
Thanks, Amy! Hope all is well.
Brian M. Smith President/CEO Greater Lockport Development Corporation (716) 439-6688
From: Bill Krebs [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 8:51 AM To: Amy Weymouth
Amy, A very comprehensive document. Thanks for sharing. Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Skalski, Tracy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 1:08 PM To: Amy Weymouth
Wow, well done Amy and everyone else involved. What an accomplishment! I am looking forward to the final product being available to reference for a lot of projects I am working on.
Also, I am a member of a bicycling group for my town, and we are going to our board to form a committee to create a local bicycle master plan. We will be using GBNRTC's plan as our starting off point, so I am very excited to see this almost finalized. Am I able to share this with my bicycle group?
Thanks, -tracy
From: Sickler, P. E., Charles
Amy, Nice work by you and others on this important regional bike planning effort! Keep up the good work! Charlie
rom: Zack DesJardins [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 08, 2020 7:10 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Bike Plan Inquiry
Hi,
I sent you a comment but wanted to ask a question. Why does your plan omit the railroad line to the closed Somerset power plant? This rail line would be a great candidate for a trail since it would connect to the old Hojack rail trail in your plan with the Erie Canalway trail in Lockport. There are no customers on the line north of Lockport so it will likely be abandoned soon. I wrote up the idea here. http://highspeedfail.blogspot.com/2019/11/bl-rail-trail.html?m=1
Sincerely,
Zack DesJardins
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:19 PM Amy Weymouth
Hello Zack,
Thank you for your comments. The line you are referring to is included on the revised map (see below). If you have any other questions or comments please feel free to contact me.
Thank you,
Amy
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:22 PM Deb Fenn
Amy:
Thank you for sharing the regional bicycle master plan with me. I was surprised to find Erie Cattaraugus Rail Trail not defined at all within this document. Our 27-mile trail has open sections, currently in use, totaling some 7 miles, in Springville, Colden and Orchard Park. As a federally rail-banked corridor, it is ripe and ready for further development – regardless of whether or not the Southern Tier Trail moves forward, which, of course, we hope it will! Again, your “regional” plan is highly city-focused, which is not a surprise. I was hoping ECRT would at least rank a “Tier II”, with this understanding. After 13 years of working to get Erie Cattaraugus Trail the recognition and funding it deserves, serving several worthy south towns communities in great need of a quiet economic generator, I was disappointed.
Deborah Fenn, President
Erie Cattaraugus Rail Trail, Inc.
From: Amy Weymouth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 2:36 PM To: Deb Fenn
Hello Deb, The Erie Catt Rail Trail is referred to as part of the Southern Tier Trail as it is being currently being looked at as part of a feasibility study and a regionally significantly project. It is described in Chapter 5 page 97 and also in the recommended project listing. I hope this clears things up if not please let me know. Thanks, Amy
From: Squarespace [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 9:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Form Submission - Bike Buffalo Niagara Contact Form - No town support and resident objection to ECRT bikepath portion
Name: Carolyn Coppola Email: [email protected] Subject: No town support and resident objection to ECRT bikepath portion Message: There is no Town that supports a bike path traversing the Towns and residential neighborhoods of the ECRT PORTION of this bike path. A 501 c 3 has been formed called Neighborhood Preservationists of whole 150 members living within these Towms near the ROW oppose this project. These Towns either have complete opposing resolutions against using the ROW as a trail or have asked goBike for a bypass to use on road lanes around the densely populated residential neighborhoods. There is no current need or want for this bike path in these communities along the ECRT portion of your plan.
From: Amy Weymouth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 02, 2020 10:12 AM To: '[email protected]'
Hello Carolyn,
Thank you for your comments. I would like to address your concerns. The plan shows a need for bicycle improvements in the corridor as it is a significant regional connection. However, a preferred alternative has not been identified at this point in the process. The Plan is meant to only guide and inform decision- making on trail and bicycle infrastructure investments and as the region moves forward with project implementation, projects will need to be further refined through the design, engineering and public engagement process. Treatment recommendations can be seen as aspirational in nature, with the goal of providing a regional bicycle and trail network used by residents and visitors of all ages and abilities. I look forward to talking to you.
Thank you, Amy
Amy Weymouth Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council [email protected] 438 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 716.856.2026
From: Squarespace [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 7:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Form Submission - Bike Buffalo Niagara Contact Form - proposed bike trail in Orchard Park
Name: Mike sedar Email: [email protected] Subject: proposed bike trail in Orchard Park Message: I live next to a abandon railroad track on Curley Dr in Orchard Park. for the past 35 yrs. I like the quietness, privacy, and safety that I have enjoyed for many years. Just an hour ago a doe with her new born fawn walked thru my yard, it was wonderful showing my grandchildren that nature scene. Please build your bike pass behind someones else's house, maybe yours or your families
From: Amy Weymouth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 02, 2020 10:10 AM To: '[email protected]'
Good morning Mike,
Thank you for your comments. I would like to address your concerns. The plan shows a need for bicycle improvements in the corridor as it is a significant regional connection. However, a preferred alternative has not been identified at this point in the planning process. The Plan is meant to only guide and inform decision-making on trail and bicycle infrastructure investments and as the region moves forward with project implementation, projects will need to be further refined through the design, engineering and public engagement process. Treatment recommendations can be seen as aspirational in nature, with the goal of providing a regional bicycle and trail network used by residents and visitors of all ages and abilities.
Thank you, Amy
Amy Weymouth Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council [email protected] 438 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 716.856.2026
From: Mike Oliver [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 02, 2020 6:59 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: GBNRTC Bike Master Plan
Jim,
After numerous various plans, conversations, research, legal presentations, etc., with both the Town and the GBNRTC, the proposed bike path behind Creekside Drive homes on the abanded railroad ROW that has reversionary rights (acknowledged by CSX and not eligible for the Rails to Trails program) has still not been removed from the Bicycle Master Plan. As you are aware, we have an internationally recognized trail only 200 feet away in our front yards. Conversion of this land to a trail would necessitate eminent domain proceedings and would be a very public legal battle against Creekside Drive property owners. This path is not needed, is highly invasive, and has been ruled out in multiple previous plans that unlike this plan, engaged property owners. Currently we are unable to properly maintain the inventory of paths we have now. While it can be argued that a path can enhance a property's value, two paths only 200 feet apart turn our properties into islands surrounded by paths and undeniably decreases the desirability of our properties and destroys what little privacy we have. It also significantly interupts the benefits that the Federal and State wetlands that directly abut (and include) this property currently enjoy, which include the unimpeded flow of wildlife and amphibians from the wetlands to Tonawanda Creek.
Previously I have outlined where private property has been taken five times on this street for various reasons, with only one of those actual takings having any legitimate purpose or benefit at this time. This path would completely eliminate the only privacy we have on this street, our backyards. Currently we experience almost daily instances of trespassing on our property as people park on our lawns, fish from our private property, etc. Per our previous conversation we implore the Town to request in writing that the GBNRTC remove this proposal from their plan and state that there is no support for it as an alternative on road plan (Paradise Lane) accomplishes the same objective at a fraction of the cost and provides the public with a route that is usable twelve months a year. The mere suggestion of this trail negatively impacts property values. It is becoming exhausting having to go through this entire process every three years and I know of no property owner that would welcome the taking of property that they are entitled to for the purpose of invading their back yard with a path when they have an internationally recognized path in their front yard.
We implore the Town, per our previous conversation, to request that the GBNRTC remove this proposed path from the plan stating that it has been completely explored, is not viable, and has no support. Time is of the essence on this matter before the draft plan becomes official.
Thank you, Mike Oliver
From: Amy Weymouth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 02, 2020 8:57 AM To: 'Mike Oliver'
Good morning Mike,
I understand your concerns. I would like to point out that the Regional Bicycle Plan is a high level planning document meant to only guide and inform decision-making on trail and bicycle infrastructure investments over the next 10 plus years. As the region moves forward with any project implementation, projects will be further refined through the design, engineering and public engagement process. Treatment recommendations can be seen as aspirational in nature, with the goal of providing a regional bicycle and trail network used by residents and visitors of all ages and abilities. If you would like I’d be happy to discuss further.
Thank you, Amy
Amy Weymouth Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council [email protected] 438 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 716.856.2026
From: Stevens, Gregory (PARKS) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 1:24 PM To: Amy Weymouth
With thanks to Dan for sending this map (and jim or dan please add your comments)
This is a very important addition to our regional gap analysis what Dan shows here connects Cheektowaga’s 2 existing bike trail segments (along the rail yard) to the Lancaster heritage trail – which you can just see the beginning of in yellow at the top rt handcorner of this map. At the left center of this map there is a longer yellow line which is the off road route along the rail road – this connects to on road route along Broadway, which is the preferred on-road commuter route out of downtown buffalo. - At the top left of the map you see dotted green proposed trail route which would connect with the Scjac corridor coming out of buffalo, and then this dotted green proposed connector runs all the way across the map to join the Lancaster Heritage trail So we have a V shaped trail open toward Buffalo and coming to a common Junction a the Lancaster trail head, which would be a great connection – west bound cyclists could choose here whether to ride to North Buffalo, or go left to downtown Buffalo.
From: Dan Young
From: James B Sobczyk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 11:12 AM To: Amy Weymouth
Hi Amy.
I am working with the Town of Pendleton as well as Town of Wheatfield, Town of Lockport, City of Lockport and City of N. Tonawanda to convert and develop the old Erie RR / IRC Electric Trolley right of way to a nature walkway and bike path.
This path will connect to downtown City of Lockport at Steven St Bridge connecting with new Canal Bike Path and follow through the Town of Lockport, Pendleton, Wheatfield and ending in N. Tonawanda and meeting with the River Rd. bike trail.
Some of the path is completed, some are under construction, and some are in the planning stage.
Would like to make this proposed project on your master bike trail listing.
Is your group working with the new "Trails across New York" campaign as well as the R. Wilson Foundation for trails?
Attached are proposed projects or current one to make this one trail to connect all partners.
Can you send me a pdf of your two county bike trail map?
Regards Jim Sobczyk 439-7336
-----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Baney [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 9:19 AM To: Amy Weymouth
Hi Amy, Thank you so much for meeting with us a few weeks ago. It was wonderful to hear about the initiatives happening county wide and how Grand Island can be a part of the process. And...We are super glad that you could potentially be one of our neighbors someday!
I met with a couple this week that own property adjacent to the Alt paper road. The northern part, as you may or may not know, is town owned and has never been developed for commercial traffic. The location is beautiful and it is actually 84 feet wide. It is one of the locations that would be very easy to work with you and others to possibly convert into a basic trail without a significant amount of effort. Within the surrounding area there of Alt is a preserve coming, a private campground, and the eventual possibility to connect to other trails.
I would love to show you the area or talk more about possible inclusion of this overlooked but wonderful option to expand bicycling options---there is a lot that could certainly make this location (historical significance, rare ecological features, etc) something to take a look at.
Let me know your thoughts when you have a moment, Jenn Baney
From: Ron Spohn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2019 11:16 PM To: Amy Weymouth
Amy,
In reading through the Stakeholder minutes I have a few comments. At the bottom of page 2 is the following.
- Lehigh Valley trail that parallels I-290 to Tonawanda (the ROW is there, so could be low- hanging fruit). New park in center of Town of Amherst may be able to connect to the Ellicott Creek Trail. Connections along North French can help connect Village of WIlliamsville to UB.
My first comment is a correction as I believe you meant North Forest and not N. French. These are often confused. My second comment relates to the Lehigh Valley trail. I've never heard of it but I would like to learn more about it. I don't see it on Google maps, but of course that may be incomplete.
And finally, I'd like to add a comment regarding the Peanut line extension through Amherst. This would deadend at Transit and again be completely isolated from the continuation with the Clarence portion of the trail. I don't think a traffic or crossing light would be practical here as the volume of traffic is very high on Transit and the time to cross it by bicycle or foot would add a significant delay and only serve to promote more driver angst against cyclists. I'd like to suggest a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over Transit to connect these two major trails. This would be a great way for Erie County to show its true commitment to bicycle paths and their use as a transportation alternative.
Once again, I'm sorry I won't be at the meeting next week because of already scheduled travel plans. Please keep me in the loop for the following meetings.
Thanks, Ron Spohn
From: Amy Weymouth [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 2:04 PM To: Ortiz, Mariely Subject: RE: Southtowns Planning Development Group - Bike Buffalo Niagara
[Caution: this email is not from an Erie County employee: attachments or links may not be safe.]
Hello Mariely,
I would be happy to present on October 28th.
Thank you for the opportunity, Amy
Amy Weymouth Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council [email protected] 438 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 716.856.2026
From: Ortiz, Mariely [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 12:16 PM To: '[email protected]'
Good afternoon, We were wondering if you, or someone from GBNRTC involved in the Bike plan, would be available to present to the Southtowns Planning Development Group in the evening of October 28th? The SPDG is an informal group of southtowns planning representatives, generally supervisors, planning board and ZBA members, and sometimes Highways and Code Enforcement officials. They meet quarterly for a dinner meeting in the southtowns, at a restaurant. The meeting is usually around 5-5:30; involves ordering drinks and dinner, a short, informal presentation regarding particular topics or projects from the regional standpoint, and each person/town sharing news about their municipality. No PowerPoints are expected, but hand outs are helpful. We think this may be a good opportunity to reach out to the southtown supervisors and officials, to bring additional input to the plan. Unfortunately, I will not be at the meeting, but either Mark Rountree, Principal Planner, or Dan Castle, Deputy Commissioner, will likely be there.
Please let me know if you or someone from your office would be able to present. Thank you, Mariely -- Mariely Ortiz | Senior Planner Erie County | Environment & Planning 95 Franklin St., 1007 | Buffalo, NY 14202 P:+1(716)858-1916 | F:+1(716)858-7248 [email protected] | http://www.erie.gov
City of Buffalo comments received April 16, 2020 via email
GBNRTC/ALTA responses in purple text below
General Comments from Julie Fetzer: · East Delavan Ave is spelled wrong on the map. Will be fixed · Main St between Goodell and Kensington is indicated as existing. Project is currently in design and bike infrastructure tier is TBD. Maybe change to “route for future study” or “route under study”. No action. Our understanding is that the cycle track project is moving forward through final design and whichever Tier it will ultimately become, it’s still considered an existing on-road bike route. The bike network maps present other projects (NYSDOT, etc.) throughout the region that are being designed as de facto existing facilities. Revised action: Include notation, for further study or study underway.
· Niagara St cycle track is indicated as Existing Off-Road Greenway Trails when this is not the case. Will be changed to on-road bike route · The Porter Ave section connects Front Park and the eastern LaSalle Park driveway (not Front Park to Niagara St as indicated). Will be fixed · Consider removing the portions of “existing infrastructure” on the map that don’t connect to the regional plan. For example: Elmwood, Hudson, N Lincoln Pkwy, etc. I think these make the map more confusing, and don’t serve the purpose of showing the regional network connection. No action. Originally, we included SLM routes and we were requested to remove those but to keep striped bike lanes. While some of the existing bike lanes do look like isolated floaters, others such as Linwood may not be part of the regional network but are valuable to show as part of the existing context of the bike network. Revised action: Remove local connections that do not connect to regional network. Julie to provide marked up map.
· It was discussed on the phone call this week the importance of connecting to existing bike infrastructure. I just want to stress the difference between connecting to something because it’s an asset in the bike network (established trail, thoughtfully designed dedicated lanes, etc) versus connecting to something just because it’s there (for example, trying to connect to a short section of dedicated lanes when a parallel route makes more sense overall). Sometimes I feel like there’s a “sunk cost” with this mentality that I want to avoid. Agreed. Let us know if there are any specific examples of this that should be reconsidered. · Although I understand the desire to push the envelope, I think indicating “generous visual separation” on streets like Main St (north of Kensington) and Bailey Ave (especially in University District) is somewhat irresponsible unless we have some idea on how we would feasibility get there. I understand that this is not a design project, but in order for the planning effort to be implemented/worthwhile, we need to answer the question at least on a conceptual level. If we can’t do that easily, maybe we need to identify parallel routes or label these routes as “routes for future study”. Revised action: Include notation, for further study or study underway.
The treatment recommendations—especially for regionally significant corridors such as Main St or Bailey—are best-case scenarios that have the potential to move the region closer to accommodating all ages and abilities bicycling. We recognize that the aspirational nature of the recommendations may not always be implemented as desired, due to engineering/cost challenges or community opposition. However, we’d prefer this plan to put the more aggressive option on the table right off the bat. We are concerned that labeling some corridors as “a route for future study” simply delays difficult decisions and could result in a good bike facility not part of the future discussion.
Comments on Specific Proposed Network Corridors (Pulled from Spreadsheet): · 4 – The Riverline, Tier 1 – I’m not sure which trail section this is referring to. Can you clarify? This is the section of the old DL&W route is now branded as the Riverline, running from Moore Ave downtown to So Park Ave. Looking at this more closely, I realize we show the route running through the Tesla building, so we will fix that. · 11 – Gaiter Parkway Trail, Tier 1 – My understanding is that the section south of E Delavan is infeasible. I’ll find out more information internally as to why. Based on recent discussions with subcommittee members it appears to be a viable or at least desirable project however if there is information contrary to this please let us know. · 12 – Gaiter Parkway Trail Spur, Tier 3 – As above^. See above · 68 – Hopkin St, Tier 3 – OK No action · 69 – Tifft St, Tier 3 – I would alter the tier to Tier 1 for the section between the Rt 5 and Hopkins. (There’s existing dedicated bike lanes now, but the roadway width and surrounding property is prime for a cycle track.) For the section between Hopkins and McKinley Pkwy, I recognize this as a good connection but am not sure we’d have the community support to remove parking on the residential, neighborhood street to fit in bike lanes. But, I would still (ambitiously) leave Hopkins to McKinley Pkwy in as Tier 3. Existing bike lanes will be re-designated at Tier I sidepath · 70 – Elk St, Seneca St, Tier 2 – The section between Smith and South Park would most likely have to be Tier 3. There is a school there that would need to retain street parking for bus loading, so you would lose the buffer space. Will be changed to Tier 3 · 71 – Fillmore Ave, Smith St, Tier 2 – Fillmore between N Parade and E Ferry was a recently completed streetscape project. There’s no bicycle infrastructure in this section (nor will there be in the foreseeable future due to the roadway characteristics). For the other “future” sections of Fillmore, striping plans have already been discussed or solidified they are more appropriately Tier 3 sections (bike lanes). Will be changed to Tier 3 · 72 – Abbott Rd, Southside Pkwy, Tier 2 – I don’t see bike infrastructure on Southside Pkwy anywhere on the map. Can you help me identify this section? The section of Southside parkway with Tier 2 treatment is a very short stretch that’s hard to see and intended to help connect the Tier 2 facility proposed on Abbott Rd with the existing bike lanes on McKinley · 73 – Bailey Ave, Heussey Ave, Tier 2 — Based on GBNRTC’s ongoing Bailey Ave feasibility study, it seems as though dedicated bike infrastructure on Bailey will be tough. I think residents are unlikely to favor bike lanes over street parking in the business district/residential sections. In the industrial (and wider) sections, a possible alternative to bike lanes will be dedicated bus lanes. Although the roadway will be more bike-friendly, I’m not confident in planning and indicating it on the map as having dedicated bike infrastructure. I’d rather think through alternate connections now. Revised Action: Change to Tier 3 treatment See “best case scenario” comment at the bottom of page 1. · 74 – Bailey Ave, US62, Tier 2 — Same as above^. See “best case scenario” comment at the bottom of page 1. Revised Action: Change to Tier 3 treatment
· 122 – Eldon Rd, Huntley Rd, Lasalle Ave, etc, Tier 2 – This appears to be more of a “neighborhood bikeway” connection. The City is taking a neighborhood-wide approach to making residential streets more bikeable as opposed to designating specific routes for bicyclists. It would be my preference to remove this connection completely. We would not put buffered dedicated lanes on these roads. This route was added last month based on comments from Greg Stevens and from the City of Cheektowaga. Tier 2 treatment for urban districts will be expanded to include traffic calming/neighborhood bikeway-style treatment since cycle track/SBL would not be appropriate on these local streets. Revised Action: Include write up on COB’s slow streets policy. Julie to provide.
· 124 – Main St/Rt 198/NY5, Tier 2 — I think how to get bike infrastructure on Main St, north of Kensington Ave, may be the question of the decade. Prior to indicating the section as Tier 2 on the map (or even Tier 3), I think we need to think through how we would actually fit it on the street. In my experience, this is the most regularly requested/criticized bike connection in the city. Any insight on how we’d actually do it? … Maybe this section would be best indicated as “Route for future study” like how Bailey Ave was in Buffalo’s Bike Master Plan. See “best case scenario” comment at the bottom of page 1. · 125 – Donaldson Rd, E Delevan, etc, Tier 1 — E Delevan between Delaware and Main could be Tier 1. Otherwise none of the other roads would be suitable for any tier as defined in this study. I gave more comments on this specific connection to Amy, Greg, & Justin. Please review those. I can resend them separately if needed. Good point on this one. This will be changed to be a Tier 2 corridor which would include traffic calming/neighborhood bikeway-style treatment. · 126 – Broadway, Court St, etc, Tier 3 — This connection is being done as part of a city project with Wendel. Please keep in touch with them on the state of what this connection will look like. Outside of their scope: Court St, Niagara Sq, and Niagara St. Court St is an active project and will be a dedicated lane on one side and shared lane on the other. The other two I think are fine for Tier 3. If you have any guidance/ideas about getting bikes through Niagara Sq, that’d be very helpful. We don’t see anything in these comments to prompt a change in the current designation for this corridor as Tier 3. Arguably, a bike lane on one side and shared lane on the other is still a decent facility if widening a street would be impossible. · 127 – Clinton St, Ny354, Pine St, William St, Tier 3 — OK, just have the question of why Clinton was chosen as the connection over William St. From a regional perspective, we felt that Clinton provided a better connection further east to the NY 354 corridor than William St. Also, Clinton provides better spacing from Broadway. · 135 – Abbott Rd, Cazenovia St, Indian Church, Tier 3 – I’m not sure this connection is feasible or even needed. Folks are more likely to cut through the park road to make the connection (Seneca St to Warren Spahn Way to Red Jacket Pkwy). No action. This route was part of the network map that elicited no comments previously. Plus, bicyclists coming from McKinley will not want to go through the park and out of direction in order to access Seneca St if they continue to head north/westbound. Revised Action: Remove Abbott, Cazenovia, Indian Church. Maintain route through Park.
· 138 – Grider St, Kerns Ave, Northland Ave, Scajaquada St, Tier 2 – I don’t believe any of these streets would be suitable for any tier as defined in this study. I believe this is also part of the specific connection of which I gave comments to Amy, Greg, & Justin on. Please review those as above and I can resend them separately if needed. Refer to COB comments (see attached) Tier 2 treatment for urban districts will be expanded to include traffic calming/ neighborhood bikeway-style treatment since cycle track/SBL would not be appropriate on these local streets. · 139 – Amherst St, Tier 2 – E Amherst St between Main and Parkridge OK for Tier 2. Change Amherst from Parkridge to Bailey as Tier 3. Part of an active project with Wendel so stay in touch with them. Will be fixed · 140 – Parkside, Starin, Tier 2 – I’m not sold on this connection. At a 30-ft width in the northern section, Tier 2 on Parkside physically isn’t possible. There is a lot of support for the Rail-Trail/Delaware Park link from the subcommittee so we intend to keep it in the plan. However, it will be changed to Tier 3. Revised Action: Remove Parkside, Starin connection. Include Main Street to Amherst to connect the NB Rails to Trails to Delaware Park.
· 159 – Dodge St, E Utica Ave, Tier 2 – I’m confused at this connection. Would you be able to share a more zoomed in map? This segment is intended to provide a southbound bike facility on W Parade Ave from the Humboldt/Northampton intersection (where the buffered bike lanes end) to the new facility planned to run E/W along Best Street. The latter is a new route, added as an alternate since we are removing North St from the network. · 160 – Fillmore Ave, Northampton, Tier 2 – Look above for comments on Fillmore. At 30-ft wide, Northampton cannot be Tier 2. This is also a street that we would approach from a neighborhood traffic calming perspective as described above. Revised Action: Note COB’s slow streets policy Tier 2 treatment for urban districts will be expanded to include traffic calming/ neighborhood bikeway-style treatment since cycle track/SBL would not be appropriate on Northampton St. Fillmore will be changed to Tier 3 north of MLK Park. · 162 – Perry Blvd/Marine Drive Link Trail – OK No action · 163 – Niagara St, Tier 2 – Niagara St between Hudson and Porter was already completed with a streetscape project and is shared-lane (no tier). Niagara from Porter to Busti has been designed has Tier 3. Niagara from Busti to Hertel will be Tier 1 (cycle track) – Under construction. Niagara from Hertel to Ontario is shared lane (no tier). Niagara from Ontario to Vulcan is dedicated lanes (tier 3) existing. No action. Despite the current and/or designed conditions along the stretch of Niagara St from Hudson to Busti (i.e. segment #163), it is important enough that in the future—perhaps long term—it should have an all ages and abilities, Tier 2 facility. Again, see the “best-case scenario” comment at the bottom of page 1. · 164 – Esser Ave, Kenmore Ave, Military Rd, Ny265, Skillen St, Tier 2 – This is another one that physically infeasible. Esser is 30-ft wide. Skillen is 26 ft wide. Kenmore is also narrow for a “major road”. I think this connection needs to be thought through further. Tier 2 designation will be used on the narrow portion of Skillen and Esser to indicate the recommendation for traffic calming/bike boulevard treatment, while the wide portion of Skillen, Military Rd and Kenmore will remain as Tier 3 (standard bike lanes). As this can be considered an important E-W connection to the Shoreline Trail I can see how the road width on Kenmore can be a challenge. Is there an alternate route we should to consider? · 165 – Chapin Pkwy, Iroquois Dr, Lincoln Pkwy, Tier 2 – Chapin Pkwy okay for Tier 2. Iroquois Dr and Lincoln Pkwy should be Tier 3. Will be fixed · 167 – Elmwood Ave, Tier 2 – OK No action · 177 – Genesee St, Tier 3 — OK No action · 183 – North St, Tier 3 — This corridor would be really infeasible in my opinion. Even if you removed the (heavily used, Elmwood/Allentown area) parking, there’s not enough space for bike lanes due to the historic brick gutters. Indeed, the brick gutters would translate into bike lanes far below the standard 5’ in width, even with parking remove. Therefore, #183/North St will be removed from the network. To maintain a strong E/W corridor in the Allentown near east side area, we will shift the E/W connection to Summer/Best St (better connection to Metro station and MLK Park). · 184 – Forest Ave, Tier 2 — Elmwood to Delaware should be changed to Tier 3. Forest from Richmond to Niagara should also be changed to Tier 3. Will be fixed · 185 – Delaware Ave/Gates Circle, Tier 3 — OK. We’re still working through how to get bikes through Gates Circle though. No action · 186 – Virginia St, Tier 2 — Active project with Wendel. Check with them for treatment. (Definitely not Tier 2. May be Tier 3 or even shared-lane in one direction.) Will be changed to Tier 3 · 187 – Washington St, Tier 2 — Can you shed some light on why this corridor was selected? For the Buffalo Bike Master Plan, S Elmwood was indicated as the protected connection. Wondering about the different thought here. This was a mistake, perhaps a suggestion at a meeting that was taken too seriously? The Tier 2 connection in Downtown Buffalo should have been S. Elmwood for consistency with the City’s bike master plan. · 196 – Lackawanna-Riverline Link Trail, Tier 1 – I’m not sure which trail section this is referring to. Can you clarify? After checking with other Alta staff re: the alignment for the Southern Tier Connector Trail (STCT), what we are showing is not correct. The northernmost off-road portion of the STCT is likely to terminate at McKinley and we are looking at a variety of on-road connections to downtown. Therefore, we will delete the segment of proposed off road trail from McKinley up to the DL&W/Riverline corridor.