pages: TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2006-10-25 | 6 | Mark Spencer, Principal, DKS Associates, Oakland, made the presentation on this item, and described the scope and goals of the Draft Functional Classification System. He noted that the three main classifications were arterial, collector and local streets. He noted that Caltrans follows the functional classification system put forth by the FHWA, and that any municipality must follow that system to qualify for federal funding. He noted that Denver used a multimodal approach based on surrounding street context and land use, and they created five new street types: residential, main, mixed use, commercial and industrial. He displayed those street types on the overhead screen and described their functions. Austin, Texas, used a "great streets plan," which promoted streets as public places, and they accepted congestion as part of success. He noted that most cities were not trying to achieve every one of their objectives with every kind of street concept; some streets will accept more congestion and lower service levels in exchange for a vibrant, multimodal, multifunctional, pedestrian-dominant street. They instituted several new street types: pedestrian-dominant, bike and local access, mixed mode, commuter, rapid transit (with no on-street parking). He noted that a mixed mode street was designed to serve slow- moving vehicles accessing the street frontage uses, and discouraged any kind of through traffic by design. A four-foot safe zone for parking access and bicycle room was also included, similar to the bike lane on Santa Clara Street. He noted that pavement treatment was also used for crosswalks, parking and safe zones. He noted that the 25 mph concept was used in Denver and Austin, and that Austin used narrow lanes, on-street parking and "commuter streets." Palo Alto used landscaped medians, curbs, narrow travel lanes, curb extensions and 25 mph limits; they used physical changes to the street to force the slow speed. Santa Cruz was the only city using the term "enforcement" with respect to the speed limit. Traffic calming is consistent with the bulbouts and curb extensions. Santa Cruz has gateway issues from Highways 1, 9 and 17. Portland did not specifically address gateway issues in their street classifications. He requested input and direction from the Commission. Public Comment There were no speakers. Closed Public Comment Chair Knox White wanted more clarification on where they were in the process, and what the next step would be. He also thought that the Commission would start from the work done by the Circulation Task Force as a base going forward; he was surprised to find that was not mentioned in this report. He believed that they had already laid out what they were looking for, and noted that he liked the grids and believed they were easy to understand. Commissioner Schatmeier was gratified to learn that the City was not tied into the arterial format, and that other cities had also used unorthodox ways of defining their streets without jeopardizing funding. He was surprised to find that was not mentioned in the report. 6 | TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf |