Salem Bike Path Committee
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
A regular meeting of the Salem Bike Path Committee was held on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 at 7:00 pm in Meeting Room 313 at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street.
Members Present: Jerry Judge, Stan Franzeen, Dan Shuman, Christine Michelini, David Pelletier, Jeff Bellin, and Nancy Sachetti. Also present was Staff Planner Frank Taormina.
Members Absent: Rachel Hunt and William Peck
Public in Attendance: Dave Knowlton, City Engineer
In the absence of an elected Chairman and Vice Chairman, Frank Taormina called the meeting to order at 7:07 pm.
D. Shuman pointed out the misspelling of someones name on page one of the minutes and S. Franzeen also pointed out an error on the first page. F. Taormina asked for a motion to approve the November 19, 2008 Meeting Minutes as amended. D. Pelletier made a motion to approve as amended, seconded by J. Judge and approved unanimously.
No public comments were taken.
S. Franzeen nominated Dan Shuman as Chair. D. Shuman accepted the nomination. There were not other nominations for chair, so the board voted unanimously for Dan Shuman to become Chairman of the Bike Path Committee, affective immediately.
The Committee discussed the position of Vice Chair and agreed that they would not vote for a Vice Chairman. Instead, a motion was made by J. Bellin to have a floating Chairman. When the Chair is not present for a meeting the Committee would elect a floating or interim Chair that night to facilitate the meeting. J. Bellin’s motion was seconded by D. Pelletier and approved unanimously.
D. Pelletier asked Frank Taormina to have the City Website updated to reflect the new chair and the Committee Member’s new term expiration dates. F. Taormina agreed to do that on behalf of the Committee. Chairman Shuman also asked that the City Clerk and Mayors Office be notified of the change so that mail or other notification can be directed to him. F. Taormina agreed to do that as well.
Dave Knowlton, City Engineer, who was invited to tonight’s Committee Meeting to discuss the concept/implementation of ‘sharrows’ in the City, had not yet arrived so the Committee Members agreed to informally discuss several other old/new business items.
- Sharrows – Discussion with City Engineer
Once David Knowlton arrived to the Meeting, Chairman Shuman opened up the item and turned the floor over to Committee Member D. Pelletier who updated the City Engineer, on the Committee’s interest to use Sharrows to delineate an on and off road bike route.
D. Knowlton told the Committee that he reviewed all the information that was forwarded to him regarding bike sharrows, including the examples of the use of sharrows in East Boston and in Somerville.
F. Taormina mentioned that he contacted Stephen Winslow a Planner from the City of Somerville to discuss the use of sharrows. Frank mentioned that Stephen Winslow is extremely knowledgeable about sharrows and the use of them. During his discussion with S. Winslow, he stated that in Somerville sharrows are used when a roadway cannot accommodate a ‘bike lane’, which requires a certain width and setback from the curb, parked cars, travel lane, and centerline of the street. In Somerville sharrows were used on narrow road that could not accommodate a bike lane to guide riders back to the bike lane. Frank also mentioned that sharrows also have setback and dimensional requirements.
J. Bellin referred to the San Francisco Sharrow Study which identified three different kinds of sharrows. He stated that the sharrow with the chevron sign (or a pavement marking with a bike symbol and two arrows above it pointing north) was the most beneficial to riders and vehicular traffic. The study identified this type of sharrow tends to keep riders further away from curbs and parked cars, and vehicular traffic identified with the sharrow pavement markings and kept further away from the bikers on the road. J. Bellin recommended that the Committee and the City use that style of sharrow in Salem.
The City Engineer recommended that the Committee create a Comprehensive Bike Plan or Biking Master Plan with the assistance of a traffic engineer or bike engineering consultant. The City Engineer understands that the Committee does not have the funds to perform such a task and offered to see if State Chapter 90 Funds may be eligible to fund the plan.
The City Engineer said that he met with Mayor Driscoll earlier that day about using Chapter 90 Funds for a Comprehensive Bike Plan and she wholeheartedly supported it. The City Engineer recommended that the Committee spend the winter with the hired consultant putting together the plan. H believes that once a plan is completed it will help the City with future funding for implementing the goals and objectives of the plan. The City Engineer believes that the bike plan will identify multiple bike lanes and create a network of biking routes throughout the City, prioritize those routes, and identify any issues or conflicts, etc.
F. Taormina mentioned that if and when the City Engineer secures the money he would work closely with him to hammer out the Scope of Work for the plan.
D. Pelletier asked if the Committee’s proposed Green Line Bikeway could be implemented first, then the plan could look at other roadways like Boston Street, etc. The City Engineer recommended that the Committee put together the bike plan first to identify and prioritize all potential bike routes throughout the City, and then they could implement the proposed Green Line Bikeway because it may or may not change once it is reviewed by the consultants.
Chairman Shuman asked the City Engineer how he can find out if Chapter 90 Funds are eligible to fund a comprehensive bike plan. The City Engineer said he would have to contact Mass Highway to determine if Chapter 90 Funds are eligible for such a plan and secure the funding on behalf of the Committee.
Chairman Shuman stated that if Chapter 90 Funds are not eligible, then we should explore other funding options.
The Committee thanked the City Engineer for his time and his recommendations. Chairman Shuman closed the item and reopened the floor to discuss old/new business.
F. Taormina updated the Committee on the status of the Bike Path Extension. He stated that the connection of the Bypass Road Bike Path and the Peter Tracy Walkway will be constructed by Mass Highway as part of the Reconstruction of Bridge Street (Rte 1A). He mentioned that bike path connection will be on Mass Highway’s 75% Design Plans. Frank stated that once the plans are released he will show them to the Committee. The City and State will then hold a public hearing to review the plans with the public.
Frank also updated the Committee on the Salem Bike Path extension efforts. He stated that he and Kathy Winn, Deputy Director DPCD, met with two representatives from the MBTA Real Estate Department, one representative from the MBTA Operations Department, and Anthony Gattineri the property owner of 134 Canal Street (former California Olive Oil Company). He explained that A. Gattineri spoke to the MBTA about reactivating a freight spur behind his property, located on a portion of the railroad Right-of-Way that the City of Salem is interested in leasing from the MBTA to extend the bike path through. He mentioned that the MBTA questioned whether or not Mr. Gattineri has rights to that spur and explained to him that the switches, gears, and a portion of track has been removed. Mr. Gattineri was not certain if
he had any rights to the freight spur but agreed to perform deed research to confirm that. The MBTA also agreed to research his deed to see if he has any rights to the freight spur. Frank mentioned that once the deed research is completed he would meet with the group again to discuss the findings.
F. Taormina stated that at best, Mr. Gattineri does not have rights to the freight line and the City will resume negotiations with the MBTA to finalize the lease agreement. Or if Mr. Gattineri does has rights to the freight spur, but cannot or will not pay to reactivate the gears, switches, etc in order to make it operational again, then the MBTA will resume negotiations with the City to finalize the lease agreement.
F. Taormina stated that at worst, Mr. Gattineri does have rights to the freight line and is willing to pay to reactivate the line to make it operational again, then the City may or may not be able to extent the bike path through that right-of-way. Frank told the Committee that he would update them once the deed research is completed and he meets with the MBTA and Mr. Gattineri again.
Chairman Shuman asked if Metropolitan Area Planning Council (state regional planning agency) is offering the Bike Parking Program again. F. Taormina said yes. He mentioned that he spoke to MACP and the application will be available in early 2009. Once the applications are available he will subscribe to the program again and the Committee can start planning the next round of bike parking facilities in the City.
J. Bellin asked about the next Bike Safety Day and trying to have it on the same day as the race. Chairman Shuman stated that the race event is on a Wednesday and likely would not work.
N. Sachetti recalled that after the last Bike Safety Event, the Committee found out that the Salem Police Department also hosts a Bike Safety Event and that we should collaborate with them instead of holding our own event. Several other Committee Members recalled that as well. J. Bellin preferred that the Committee hold a separate event or try to collaborate with a larger bike event like the race. Discussion regarding the next Bike Safety Event ensued. The Committee agrees to discuss the item at another meeting.
N. Sachetti asked if the Committee could define a Mission Statement for the Committee. F. Taormina read a paragraph from the Bike Path Committee’s 2008 Annual Report which outlines the goals and objectives of the committee and mentioned that the members could use that paragraph as a starting point to hammer out a mission statement.
D. Pelletier agreed with Nancy that the Commission should have a defined mission statement and suggested that that be put on the next meeting agenda.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Committee this evening, Chairman Shuman asked for a motion to close the public meeting. J. Judge made a motion to adjourn, seconded by S. Franzeen and approved unanimously. The meeting was officially adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Frank Taormina,
Planner/Harbor Coordinator
BPC 12-10-08
| 
