pages: TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2009-04-22 | 7 | DRAFT Commissioner Krueger questioned segment LOS VS. intersection LOS in the summary on pg. 26 of the Dowling report. Staff Khan indicated that Dowling stated that it is not wise to bring all intersections to F or E. If all were F, maintaining a LOS of D for the urban streets would not be possible. If some intersections were below LOS D, others would likely have to be above D to maintain LOS D for the corridor. Commissioner Krueger stated he thought this was used to argue against the idea of using the urban street criteria as was proposed in Alternative 2. Staff Khan clarified that Alternative 2 was not an urban street LOS it's the vehicle-to-capacity (v/c) ratio, a completely different analysis. Chair Knox White stated he had three comments on transit. He stated that the nexus boundaries for each mode should be consistent for auto traffic, pedestrians, transit and bikes. Commissioner Krueger stated that if the City Attorney felt the distance from the project is too great, the radius should shrink for all modes. Staff Khan stated this had not been discussed with the City Attorney. Commissioners Moehring and Krueger both agreed on consistency across modes. Staff Khan stated that going into Oakland to implement mitigation for a project would be difficult, since Oakland has its own thresholds of significance. Chair Knox White mentioned this was a corridor; should look at impact. He stated that the mitigation could be done anywhere along the line as long as the time is made up. Staff Khan stated that depended. If the intersection was in Oakland and the segment goes below a D, it would be implemented; if impact were great in Oakland, it would be difficult to implement anything on the other side. The second concern - what goes on inside the tube or on the bridges and how to address it? He stated that in the model an artificial signal could be created to account for the delay that is caused inside the tube. Chair Knox White commented on Alameda Point's EIR; traffic thru the tube; creating a fake is not realistic for mitigation purposes. Commissioner Krueger inquired if mitigation outside the city limits was ever asked for. Staff Khan replied in the affirmative; the developer pays the other city for this. Commissioner Krueger stated he wasn't aware of that. Commented that was not right; if mitigations were done outside the city for one mode, should be the same for all modes. Staff Khan stated this could be discussed with the City Attorney's office. Page 7 of 15 | TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf |