03/22/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Vote was taken on the motion which failed, Council members Shirey, Murray, Bradley and Haws voting aye; Council members Williams, Keller, Hamel, Beal and Mayor Anderson voting no. e Mr,. Keller moved seconded by update process as proposed. voting aye except Mr. Murray Mr. ~lil1iams to Motion carried, voting no. approve the 1990 Plan major all council members present Corom 3/10/76 Approve Councilman Murray corrunented on publication of notice asking attendance at a meeting to discuss updating the 1990 Plan. He thought it unfortunate, saying that if the city was to take part, the meeting should at least wait until the decision to participate had been made. E. 12 _ 'rinciples for the Development of the Metropoli tan Area TraiJspoL'tationPlan_ Mar:h 1 report .from LCOG has been distributed to _ Council members. . .. . . Mr. WilliamS expr~ssed coilcer~- with PrinciPle: No~ 8 dealing with response- to level of service. It states that street jmpi:ovement wi1-l be consider-ed if traffic volume is projected to exceed maximum capacity (level of service E). He wondered what that level of service re.presented. Bill Guenzler, LCOG, responded that level E is approaching an unstable condition wherein minor traffic accidents or disruptions could occur - a stop and go condition. Mr.-Williams wondered-how it would apply to the FerryStr.eet Bridge, and Mr. Guenzler estimated that the bridge itself probably would not fit level E but that the southern approach could possible be classed as E for a short period of time during peak rush hour. That kind of evaluation is difficult, however, because the scale of need is identified more on a street length kind of thing. e In applying the standard in Principle No.8, then, the approach would call for sorre street improvement, though the bridge would not as it is judged more in the area of level of service D in the evening peak hour. Dave Reinhard, Public Works Planning Engineer, explained that the kind of analysis they undertook indicates the level of service for the entire peak hour. Almost no locations are at E or worse for an entire hour but rather for a short period of time, he said. Mr. Williams was troubled with the possibility of an entire hour of traffic congestion as it is on the access to the Ferry Street Bridge. Mr. Bradley referred to Principle No. 4 which outlines a consensus of 14% transit. He wondered if that concept would work independently of No.8 which states improvement will be considered on streets exceeding level of service E. Mr. Reinhard felt Nos. 4 and 8 would work independently of one another. In modeling areawide, 14% will be applied; those streets with traffic equalling or worse than level E would call for improvement alternatives consideration. Mrs. Beal referred to funding sources in Principle 1-1, wondering how they would be broken down. Mr. Guenzler felt it would be workable to identify a particular facility with the jurisdiction having responsibility for implementing it. If mass transit is involved, the transit district and the jurisdiction in which the facility is located would be logical sources. Mr. Murray requested staff comment on whether Principle No. 3 is in accordance with the policy statement originally adopted by Council on ESATS, particularly Section (4) in that original document regarding land use. - 3/22/76 - 12 - ,t~514f '