pages: TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2008-05-28 | 7 | Close public hearing. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger, Staff Khan noted that the Planning Board wanted to be sure this was as easy and consistent as possible. The possibility of using headways to define major transit corridors was an option, as opposed to the previously discussed option based on having three bus lines in that corridor. Commissioner Krueger believed that the number of routes was not as important than the number of buses traveling the routes. He believed that headway was better than number of lines. Commissioner Schatmeier believed that transit delays were caused by a number of factors, and that speed was caused by a number of factors. Chair Knox White believed that the reason to separate the two was to put in queue jump lanes for the buses to jump around the congestion, and mitigate the LOS for transit without mitigating the LOS for the cars. He did not believe it made sense to put something together to mitigate all the congestion at Atlantic and Webster by adding a couple of lanes, when all the traffic moved quickly to the Tube, only to sit in traffic at that point. He acknowledged that there was no perfect system, and suggested that the Commission may not need to factor in stops. Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he still struggled with the LOS definition, and what it got the City. He agreed that defining LOS for corridors or intersections was a method for defining traffic problems. He noted that transit delay and transit speeds were determined by many factors, and inquired whether it would identify traffic impacts from a particular development. Staff Khan confirmed that was correct, and noted that they came from the policies that the Transportation Commission recommended last year. He noted that they attempted to address degraded travel time on a corridor, which would impact the transit. He noted that this addressed relative change. He noted that the City could examine the intersections on the corridors, or make some of the transit stops more efficient, and that there were many ways to improve service delivery of transit. Staff Bergman noted that as part of the work done by Florida DOT in developing their bicycle LOS and pedestrian LOS, they also did a transit LOS, which was very data-intensive and complex. Staff noted that they attempted to strike a balance in something that the development community could use without going through the very labor intensive exercise that would put a burden on the City to analyze, and would be difficult for the public to understand. Staff wished to show an impact in a way that was easy to quantify. Chair Knox White noted that he especially liked the real-world analysis that shows what pedestrian LOS A, B, C and D look like. He was concerned that LOS D might be too optimistic, and thought that B might be too stringent. He suggested that LOS C might be a level to look at; he noted that most of the intersections operating in the business districts operate at LOS B. He appreciated the Central Avenue bike lanes from Pearl to Oak, shown as operating at LOS B. He 7 | TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf |