pages: TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2009-04-22 | 12 | DRAFT Staff Bergman noted that he would like to add to the staff recommendation that if a segment had a Class I bikeway and had not been recommended for a future bicycle lane, the degradation of the bicycle LOS would be allowed to go to E and would not be considered a significant impact. Since the bicycle LOS does not account for off-street paths, this would allow a street with a Class I facility to degrade lower than one where bicyclists must ride in the street. Chair Knox White agreed. Discussed Alternatives 1 and 2. He stated that it was strange that a bicycle priority street is a priority where it came in last on the analysis, and that pedestrians should be better taken care of in this process. Commissioner Moehring thanked staff for creating a report that a non-transportation professional could read. Chair Knox White stated that he hoped there would have been more analysis comparing the two different proposals and how they would work out; would have been good to look at Park or Webster Streets or Central as it comes down through the center of the island. Staff Khan explained that the study was conducted this way because segments with potential concerns for pedestrians were selected. Chair Knox White stated he did not have a problem with what was chosen. Commissioner Krueger noted his that there was a slight difference between his understanding and what was written up. He thought that the bicycle mode was the number 3 priority for the residential land use regardless of whether it was a bike route or not. But it states that bikes were only prioritized if it was in the bike network. To address this situation where it is a residential land use and a regional arterial, he suggested slot bicycle in after pedestrian but only if it's a bike route. Chair Knox White stated the intent was to say that bike is only prioritized here if it's on a bike network. Commissioner Krueger stated he thought his thinking on the matter may not have been correct and would like to hear from others. Chair Knox White stated autos being the bottom priority on a regional arterial seemed odd. Commissioner Krueger stated the land use shifted the priorities. Chair Knox White noted that when he developed Alternative 2 that he left the bikes off purposefully. Commissioner Krueger stated the residential land use changed it. Chair Knox White stated the only difference between a regional arterial and non-regional arterial would be that primary transit was not prioritized in a residential area; bikes would be before transit in that area. Commissioner Krueger stated that residential elevates bike, whether it's a bike route or not; same Page 12 of 15 | TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf |