pages: TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2009-01-28 | 8 | worse than the conditions in front of the College of Alameda. He noted that Otis and Park was also a difficult intersection for pedestrians, even though it was an LOS C. He noted that Encinal and Park, which was a busy intersection and was not a good place to park, which was an LOS B. He believed that the City should step away from LOS D. He understood where the transit numbers came from, and suggested that a percent change along a segment would be more meaningful. He believed it would be difficult to come up with a specific number, and that change in the current level of service would be more meaningful in keeping the transit schedule. Commissioner Schatmeier requested further clarification on how a level of service could be assigned to transit, and noted that length of the corridors were an issue. He did not know what the baseline was, and noted that a bus could travel through Alameda at midnight than during the peak hour because there were not as many passengers, and not as many cars on the streets. Staff Khan noted that staff would examine peak period conditions, and noted that any ADA delay of the bus was not part of the discussion; that discussion meant travel time, and subtracting dwell time from the transit travel time. If a project increased the travel time with more cars, and if LOS was already E or F, staff would examine what else could be considered. Commissioner Krueger believed the length of the corridor had to be considered, and that the automobile arterial segments discussed the average travel speed, which must take the length of the corridor into account. He believed that should be taken into account for transit as well, and that the effect on the travel speed should be considered. Staff Khan stated that was correct, and that staff was looking at segments of approximately one- half to three-quarters of a mile. Staff Khan noted that when staff examined it, they had not run the arterial analysis at that point. He noted that it looked at signalized intersections, and that they inquired whether the model could be run on a street without signals. He noted that they may want to resort to the intersection, and that they were discussing the issue with Dowling. Commissioner Schatmeier inquired why the City would be tolerant of degradation of the LOS for automobiles, and believed there were impacts that should be described and responded to. Chair Knox White agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier's comment, and noted that he would like to identify the impacts. Staff Khan noted that the Commission would like to examine: 1. Degradation for pedestrians, bikes and transit by a letter grade; look into how the thresholds were set, particularly D versus C, as well as for pedestrians and bikes; 2. The baseline for transit LOS D should be defined and addressed; 3. Travel speed is a better measure for transit than delay; 4. The intersection LOS should be evaluated for automobiles; and 5. Why the degradation of the automobile LOS should be allowed to degrade. 8 | TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf |