Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pedestrian Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee forwards county-funded mid-block RRFB and no-parking zone on North Sandusky to council
Summary
Delaware City staff and the county proposed a mid-block rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB) crossing on North Sandusky Street near the former sheriff’s office; the committee recommended the resolution to council after discussion about pedestrian counts, ADA ramping and a county cost share of up to $25,000. Vote: 2–1 in favor.
The Parking and Safety Committee recommended that City Council approve installation of a rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB) at a mid-block crossing on North Sandusky Street and establish a no-parking zone between 125 and 131 North Sandusky Street. The county proposed the crossing and has offered to cover up to $25,000 for materials.
Public Works staff presented a location between the courthouse area and the former sheriff’s office (149 North Sandusky) where county employees and visitors frequently cross. Staff said the county will pay for materials (quoted at roughly $21,000–$22,000) and that Public Works will perform construction, including necessary ADA ramp work and a possible bump-out island to meet ADA grades. Staff noted a formal agreement with the county is still under legal review; the agreement will include a clause allowing the city to remove equipment if pedestrian patterns or facility uses change.
Committee members asked for pedestrian counts. Staff said there is no continuous count available: crossing activity varied by time and case loads, and some hours had few pedestrians while other times saw groups. Several council members said they would like county administrators to provide pedestrian volume data when the item goes to Council. The county’s recent occupancy of 149 North Sandusky by the Delaware County Department of Developmental Disabilities and other county offices was cited as a reason pedestrian activity at that location has increased.
A committee member opposed the mid-block crossing, noting the distance was not large (staff estimated it as near Central Avenue) and arguing that encouraging crossings at a location too close to Central may not be warranted; that member said he would not support the crossing absent stronger counts. Others supported moving the resolution forward because the county is paying materials costs and staff judged the location appropriate to reduce pedestrian crossing risk.
The motion to forward the resolution to Council passed on a roll call vote: Ms. Fraser — Yes; Mr. Reiter — No; Chairman Schaffer — Yes (tally: 2–1). The committee asked staff to attempt to secure pedestrian counts and county administrator participation for council-level discussion.
