pages: TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2009-04-22 | 11 | DRAFT arterial for the entire length. The modal priorities for Main Street to Third Street, Third Street to Poggi Street, and Poggi Street to Webster Street, were discussed; exclusive transit right of way identified for that corridor and a bicycle priority. Segment of Webster Street to Constitution Way was identified as a secondary transit route. The land use classification was residential, from Main Street to Third Street, a school and recreational zone between Third Street and Poggi Street, residential from Poggi Street to Webster Street, and industrial/general commercial from Webster Street to Constitution Way. Bicycle and transit were evaluated by segment level; segment treated as a whole. Bicycle LOS for the eastbound was D; westbound was LOS E. Transit was LOS D in the eastbound direction; and LOS C in the westbound direction. Pedestrian/auto mode at the intersections of Atlantic Avenue/Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue/Constitution Way. The only mode not projected to achieve the recommended minimum LOS D was the bicycle mode; projected at E. Ways were noted on how to make the bicycle LOS go back to D; re-striping, improving the pavement condition or eliminating a travel lane; turn pockets are problems. Ways to implement these mitigations without negatively impacting on the other modes. The vehicle LOS and the transit LOS would not be negatively impacted. If Alternative 2 was applied, the modal priorities begin with automobiles as the first, second would be transit exclusive right of way, third bicycle and fourth pedestrian. There is a mode priority adjustment since it's a transit exclusive right of way and a bicycle priority, then that changes to transit exclusive being number one, bicycle number 2, auto 3 and pedestrian 4, and then the next adjustment is based on land use. There are multiple land uses along this corridor; analyzed each segment. For the Main Street to Third Street (residential), used transit exclusive #1, pedestrian #2, auto #3, and bicycle #4. The next segment, Third Street to Poggi Street (school/residential) used transit exclusive 1st, pedestrian 2nd. bicycle 3rd and auto 4th, so bicycle and auto have been flipped. Poggi Street to Webster Street, (residential) same priority as in the first segment; Webster Street to Constitution Street, transit exclusive, then bicycle, then auto, then pedestrian. Transit exclusive remained the highest priority; some discontinuities on some of the other modes based on the way it was analyzed; focused on maintaining the integrity of those modes throughout the corridor; critical for transit to maintain transit time throughout entire line. Noted a concern regarding Alternative #2 and the bicycle mode; while specified as a priority for that corridor; on two of the four segments shows it became the lowest priority mode. Alternative #1 allows for adjustments to be made between modes that allow for a degradation of each of the modes in the event of competing priorities. Staff Khan stated adjusting the threshold was a viable approach that could work; testing was done at certain corridors and intersections. If LOS B for auto/bikes was maintained at a certain location that would conflict with pedestrians at the same location and if an EIR found that there was no feasible way to mitigate that, the Council would have to approve a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA. This means that the City would acknowledge that significant impacts would occur but that they were acceptable in this situation. He noted the flexibility permitted under Alternative 1 would enable the City to reduce the number of EIRs that would be required. EIRs generally cost a minimum of $50,000. He recommended that the Commission to approve Alternative 1 that is listed in Exhibit 3. Chair Knox White agreed but noted that the thresholds could be written to specifically say that something is not an impact. Page 11 of 15 | TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf |