pages: TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2008-05-28 | 6 | and Webster Street, where pedestrians were a high priority. Staff requested the Transportation Commission's input in how to resolve these conflicts, as well as continuing the dialogue with the City Attorney's office and the Planning Department to ensure no avenues were missed. Staff suggested that the City move forward with the policy in the Transportation Master Plan, but continue with the criteria development on a slower timeline to allow for additional feedback from the public and the development community. Staff Khan noted that the third approach could be a network approach, which had been used in the environmental community for wetlands. In that case, the impact to one location could be mitigated by similarly improving another location. Staff considered that kind of mitigation, by considering bicycle, pedestrian or transit as a network. If impacts occurred at one location, staff would consider going beyond a certain distance to fix a problem in the network. Staff asked the Transportation Commission to extend the timeline for adoption of these criteria by nine to twelve months. Staff requested feedback on the proposed threshold of LOS D for pedestrians, as well as any suggestion of preference on those issues, as well as how to resolve conflicts based upon the three listed methods. Commissioner Schatmeier inquired how LOS for transit was different than LOS for vehicles. Staff Khan explained that the vehicle LOS looks at the whole intersection and all approaches, and that transit LOS looked at the impact on legs with transit. He noted that transit signal priority on some locations would be examined. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier whether delays caused by passengers were taken into account, Staff Khan replied that only delays caused by vehicles were examined. In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding corridor LOS for vehicles, Staff Khan replied they were looking into it, and that the intersection may be improved, but the corridor LOS would go down. Commissioner Krueger noted that Table 13 had a typo, and should read "optimized." He added that Table 14 should read "mitigated." He inquired why the mitigated plan numbers for the 2030 TMP for southbound Buena Vista and Lincoln were higher than the number for the 2030 optimized plan. Staff Khan replied that the TMP policy was meant to reduce the classification for Buena Vista by shifting traffic onto other streets. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the model accounted for crossing two legs of an intersection, such as Encinal and Park, Staff Khan replied that he would check with Dowling and return with that information. Open public hearing. Jay Davis suggested the use of diagonal crosswalks (scramble phase) for streets like Park or Webster Street. 6 | TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf |