XXX - construction worker flipping me off "why does it matter?"
I realized this story really needs to start a little earlier.  In 2013, I
had to walk in the street on College Ave with my infant because
construction workers kept blocking the sidewalk.  Which really lit a fire
under me!  I talked to engineering staff, I talked to planning staff, I
talked to the city council, the plan commission, the board of public
works, the bike and ped safety commission, reporters, other activists.  I
talked to construction workers, like this guy attempting to operate a
skid-steer in a pedestrian detour. I even talked to the police.  Finally,
in early 2020, progress: engineering staff members admitted to me that
the law gave them no enforcement power.  It took 7 years of effort on my
part just to get engineering to admit there was a problem.

XXX - ord 20-21 cover "why does it matter?"
But this is where the story gets good -- they fixed it!  Engineering
staff helped write an ordinance, and the council adopted it at the end of
2020, and that's the chapters 8 and 10 of title 12 that we have today.
And in January of this year, they actually assessed increasing fines
against a builder until complete compliance was reached.  Thanks to a lot
of work by our engineering department, this process can work!

When that ordinance was passed, councilmember Flaherty said that it is
important that the city not only follows its own ordinance but that the
city "sets the standard" for compliance.  This was not a controvertial
statement.  The city council is genuinely interested in this law.

XXX - coffee shop photo "why does it matter?"
Which brings us to the B-line situation.  Just to recap, Parks closed the
B-line on January 13th, with no detour planned, causing people to hike
through the parking lot.  On June 1st, they installed barriers which at
least protected that route through the parking lot.  But the passageway
was too narrow to meet transportation standards, and there was no
enforcement when Parks repeatedly blocked it.  All along, engineering
department has insisted they don't have authority or responsibility for
this because they believe the B-line is not right of way.  This ordinance
attempts to remedy this problem by adding a definition of right of way to
this one law that gives engineering this authority.

So we finally have the right legal tool, and the trick is to get Parks
department to follow it.

XXX - filling a pothole, or creating a temporary detour "why does it matter?"
I hope you all saw the content from city staff in the packet.  Honestly,
I was really disappointed.  The crazy assertion that designing a detour
is the same as filling a pothole is a waste of our time.  Asking kids to
place their bodies in front of drivers in a parking lot for 4 months is
not the same thing as filling a pothole.  It's insulting.  City legal
should be performing higher quality work.

XXX - IC 36-10-4-9(a) "does engineering have authority?"
And there's this continuing suggestion that Parks is above the law.  The
state law that establishes the many powers of park boards specifically
says that they are subject to statute.  The state house recognized that
this question would come up, so they made it clear: parks is not above
state law.  They are subject to statute.

XXX - solar permit 20171594 2350 W Bloomfield Rd (Twin Lake) "does engineering have authority?"
For example, there's a statute that gives authority to county building
departments.  And I looked up the permits -- when they install solar
panels at parks properties, for example, they really do pull a building
permit and they submit to inspections by the building department.  These
departments authorized by state law have real authority!  And of course
they do!  Electrical work is life or death!

XXX - IC 36-9-7-5 (4) "does engineering have authority?"
And there's another statute that establishes the authority of the city's
traffic engineer over all traffic signs that aren't on state highways.
Why aren't they subject to that one?  And the answer to that question is
that engineering department has voluntarily extended them the courtesy of
pretending that they are exempt.  This courtesy harms pedestrians and
cyclists.  Traffic engineering is life or death, too!

And, again, they try to mix up a law that says "the traffic engineer
shall direct the use of all traffic signs" to mean the same thing as
mere presence at a meeting.  Mr. Cibor has repeatedly told me he did not
have authority over this process.  State law says he must direct it.
Direct.  Not advise, not consult.  A different state law says
"supervise."  Direct.  And supervise.

And that leaves only this question of whether the B-line really is right
of way.  And I think I can actually wrap that one up pretty quickly.

XXX - comp plan "is the B-line ROW?"
Under state law, Bloomington's 2018 comprehensive plan requires the
creation of a Master Thoroughfare Plan, for the purpose: quote preserve
and establish rights of way".
XXX - transp plan b-line map "is the B-line ROW?"
Then the 2019 transportation plan was passed to fulfill that
requirement, and what does it say about the B-line?  It has a map of
bicycle facilities showing that the B-line is a "multiuse trail".
XXX - transp plan multiuse trails "is the B-line ROW?"
And it defines that, "multiuse trails are shared-use facilities that are
separate from roadways and in their own right-of-way."
And to be totally unambiguous, Appendix F is a table of all of the rights
of way in the city.  And that table lists the B-line trail as well.

So the council passed a document which has the explicit purpose of
establishing right of way and it says the B-line should be in its own
right of way.  There may be some challenges to overcome, but the guidance
is crystal clear.  The laws that safeguard our rights of way should apply
to our bicycle and pedestrian network as well.

XXX - amendment 1 "definitions"
So, since the last meeting, I propose 3 amendments to replace the
definition of right of way with more transportation-focused definitions,
instead of just copying and pasting a definition from another chapter of
city code.  So amendment 1 says "right of way means a strip of land
occupied by transportation facilities for public use." That's my best
stab at clear, concise, and complete.

XXX - amendment 2 "definitions"
It still leaves a possible question of where to draw the line when it
comes to parks trails, though.  One approach is amendment 2, which adds
to that "including any trails constructed using transportation funds from
the Metropolitan Planning Organization." The MPO is responsible for state
and federal transportation funds.  Parks asked for federal transportation
money to build the Jackson Creek Trail, the Cascades Park Trail, as well
as the B-line.  These trails should be first class members of our
transportation network.

XXX - amendment 3 "definitions"
And, as an alternative, amendment 3 would just say "including the
B-line", so it just addresses this one sticking point but doesn't provide
any guidance on other trails.  I think that's too limited, but I still
think it'd be a big improvement over the status quo.

So, to sum up, if someone is going to ask my kids to walk in a parking
lot with moving cars, that person should be an engineer.  We already have
good law, and pedestrians deserve its protection.  Only engineers can
manage these sorts of safety issues.  It is as simple as that.

So I am really excited to hear what you all think.  And I am interested
in hearing staff answer some questions.

---------questions----------

planning: i understand you don't want to be in the middle, but planning
department specifically was asked to make a document establishing rights
of way, and that document says the b-line should be right-of-way.  was
that a mistake?  should we ignore that plan you all put so much work
into?

engineering: what about enforcement?  can you clear this up for me right
now or will i have to wait another 7 years for the answer?  my ten year
old is the infant from the beginning of the story, is he going to
graduate from highschool before we have enforcement?

engineering: i understand there are other concerns, but simply as a
question of what provides the best safety and convenience for a
pedestrian, what should be different about chapter 12.08 in order to
effectively protect pedestrians?  is the only thing unsatisfactory about
12.08 for regulating the B-line the fact that parks does not acknowledge
your authority?

XXX - GIS map of N walnut
engineering: what if parks and rec closed north walnut street and put up
cardboard signs directing drivers to cross a muddy ditch to continue on
their journey.  would your department cede responsibility to parks in
that case?

XXX - MUTCD 1A.09 03
engineering: is designing a detour something that requires engineering
judgment?

parks: do you have any familiarity with the aashto guide to development
of bicycle facilities?  the mutcd?  bloomington's transportation plan?
bloomington's closure of the right of way ordinance?