pages: TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2009-04-22 | 9 | DRAFT speeds VS. cars or bikes; need to stop for passengers. Noted Dowling's passenger counts were not the same as AC Transit's; will not accept a future where speeds go down. Staff Bergman spoke about the degradation of transit and the increase of transit time; real differential is between transit and motor vehicles as far as attracting riders. Commissioner Krueger referred to mitigation 4.1 on page 21, for autos and pedestrians; reducing the transit LOS. He inquired if transit signal priority was considered. Staff Khan answered in the affirmative; but not considered in this mitigation. Commissioner Krueger acknowledged. Discussed growth vs. no growth; what mitigations would do or not do; no impact, no mitigation. Staff Khan agreed that mitigations can fix anything but they are very expensive. Chair Knox White noted the Commission had made a recommendation at the last meeting regarding LOS and that staff had responded. Need to address those comments and make a decision on transit LOS tonight. For autos, the question is should intersections or just corridors be included. For bikes and pedestrians, if LOS is set at D, there would be no mitigations and no impacts. The City can decide to make sure there are no impacts so the developer doesn't have to fix some of the issues that come with their development; or to maintain what we have. Chair Knox White noted he was surprised to find that the urban street LOS didn't deal with intersection turning movements. He stated that staff made a good and valid argument for keeping the intersection LOS; any delays at the intersection will be factored into the corridor as well. Staff Khan stated that including the intersection is important because it also gave an idea about pedestrian timing for the signal timing, which was critical. Commissioner Krueger asked if staff was proposing using both methodologies. Chair Knox White answered in the affirmative. Chair Knox White requested adding in the language that says if it's below LOS B, which is what we recommended, that it would be an incremental change, a 10% reduction in the wait time, bike score, etc. that would cause the triggering of a threshold. Clarified that it would not be saying that it's at LOS D now and you have to pay to bring it back up to B. He added that the score went down 9%, nothing needed to be done; down 11%, would have to be brought up to 10%. Commissioner Moehring asked if a new facility would need to be at least at LOS B. Commissioner Krueger asked if 10% was the differential used for automobiles. Chair Knox White replied auto was 3% but that was an increase in traffic volume, not delay. Staff Khan stated that is what currently existed. Chair Knox White made a suggestion for a motion that the nexus area be equal in size for all Page 9 of 15 | TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf |