pages: TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2008-07-23 | 6 | 6A. Update on Completing Analysis of Thresholds of Significance Staff Bergman summarized the staff report, and detailed the background of this item. Staff received comment from the Commission was that the recently developed street functional classification system may be used to help resolve the conflicts between modes. The schedule presented in June included the following major steps: 1. The final selection of the method of evaluation and level of service to be provided for each transportation mode; 2. Development of draft implementation policies to address conflicts among the different transportation modes when the mitigation for one mode created a significant impact for another mode based on the threshold selected; 3. Run the transportation model to determine where the impacts to the transportation mode will occur; 4. Modify the draft policies as appropriate; and 5. Process the necessary environmental document for the Council approval. Staff Bergman noted that in order to follow up on the Commission's recommendation to apply the street functional classification system to resolve the conflict, staff prepared a table to identify the potential conflicts more concretely. For the majority of street segments in the City, the functional classification system worked fairly well, and several were identified in the attached table that illustrate the potential difficulties. He noted that all the streets that had more than one classification were examined, and described the methodologies used to examine the traffic models on the 70 segments. He presented the following examples of guidelines to resolve the conflicts; these guidelines are examples, for discussion purposes: The top transportation priority for regional arterials would be the motor vehicle, followed by transit; the alternative modes would be accommodated along regional arterials as long as the vehicular Level Of Service (LOS) D was maintained. The top transportation priority for island collectors could be defined as bicycles, followed by transit; the acceptable LOS for bicycles would be accommodated along an island collector, followed by transit. The LOS for the intersection along the island collector could degrade to LOS E. Commissioner Schatmeier inquired if this policy would have impacted the Park Street reconstruction, as buses now stop in the traffic lane. Staff Khan replied that Park Street was already a regional arterial and part of the congestion management program network. If there were concerns about LOS, it would have already been discussed or evaluated. Page 6 of 14 | TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf |