pages: TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2008-05-28 | 8 | noted that Webster and Park were examples of streets that he would not ride with his children, but did not believe that Webster and Park must come up to LOS B. He suggested looking at two different LOS ratings: one for regional arterial streets, and one for the rest of the streets. Commissioner Krueger echoed Chair Knox White's comments, and understood the desire to have the consistency, one reason why LOS D was proposed for all modes. Rather than change the methodologies, he suggested considering a different significance threshold for bicyclists and for pedestrians. He noted that pedestrians were much more delay-sensitive than drivers, given that they were exposed to the elements. Process for Resolving Conflicts between Modes In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether Chair Knox White was suggesting that instead of headways and number of routes, that the City should look at street classifications, Chair Knox White confirmed that was the case. Chair Knox White inquired whether there was a plan in place to ensure this would be completed within nine to twelve months. Staff Khan noted that three departments were working on this issue, and that the City Attorney's office and the Planning Department must be satisfied. He noted that meetings had taken place among these departments, and they had determined that nine to twelve months was a reasonable time to go back to the public on this issue and discuss it with the development community. Their intention was to complete this is nine months, not to put it off for nine months. A discussion of the street classification system and its goals ensued. Chair Knox White did not see the network approach as a mitigation of the problems. He suggested returning in June, and that this should be done as part of the EIR. He believed this specific issue of how the functional classification maps interacted with each other should go forward with the final EIR for adoption by the City Council. He suggested that in June, that the Commission return with several scenarios to be prioritized, with the goals of simplicity and being easy to understand. Staff Khan noted that they had discussed how to create a system that did not require discretionary approval for each mitigation. The development community wanted to know what to expect with respect to levels of service and kinds of mitigations to expect before coming into a city. Chair Knox White understood that the concerns were less for very large projects, which would do an EIR anyway; the concerns generally surrounded the much smaller projects. Commissioner Krueger shared the concern about the network approach, and believed that was his least favorite option. He believed that the pedestrian, bicycle, transit and car environments were not so much like wetlands, and that doing a mitigation in another location was not sufficient or effective. He noted that they ran the risk of making one intersection completely impassable for 8 | TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf |