Item A: River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project

Home Browse Search

Advantages: Preserves existing local streetscapes; City is probably unlikely to improve local streets without substantial pressure from residents; eliminates any sense (or reality) of dislocation among current residents to the extent that improvements may narrow front yards, cut down trees, increase traffic and attendant noise; narrower (presumably) paved street sections can deter traffic speeds and “short- cut” traffic; the City backlog in improving local streets is so great that “as-is” is in effect the de-facto operational policy. Challenges: May perpetuate safety, drainage or other problems associated with the older street section (if such problems in fact exist); retaining older street sections may require increased maintenance costs ? Option No. 3:Local Street Transitions - When existing local (and perhaps minor collector) streets are extended by new development, the City could consider utilizing the improvement level of the older section (or adopting some middle ground such a matched street widths, eliminating sidewalks, etc.) in building the new extensions. This approach should, however, be appropriately mitigated where the street is or becomes an access to a major activity center such as a school or park. City street standards are currently being reassessed with respect to narrower street sections, curb-less streets, and a variety of other “minimum” design parameters. If applied to local and collector streets in River Road and Santa Clara, these new standards could help address street transition and upgrade concerns/ Advantages: Better preserves existing local streetscapes; provides for uniformity along individual streets (e.g.: avoids having improvements transition back and forth to differing standards); City street standards are currently being modified to permit narrower streets and other options that may help to preserve local character. Challenges: Residents of newer sections may prefer to have urban level street improvements; opportunity for the City to obtain full standard streets through development dedications may be lost; may not be desirable where the extension means the street becomes an access to a significant traffic generator ? Option No. 4: Connectivity – Many older neighborhood residents like their long dead-ended older streets. Absent some over-riding and significant public safety or access concern, the City could moderate its requirements for connectivity in association with deferring upgrades of local street sections (see options above). As a middle ground, the City could perhaps acquire right-of- way connections without building the actual connection, and/or initially limit connectivity to pedestrian sidewalks and/or bike lanes. Advantages: Preserves existing local streetscapes; limits any sense (or reality) of dislocation among current residents to the extent that improved connections may increase traffic and attendant noise; right-of-way acquisition preserves options for physical connections in the future; when associated with bike and pedestrian connectivity may reduce some vehicle trips Challenges: Deferring connectivity contrary to one of the goals of connectivity – reducing dependence on and length of vehicle trips; opportunity for the City to obtain full standard streets through development dedications may be lost; the State Transportation Rule makes connectivity and the provision of non-vehicular alternatives (such as pathways and bikeways) among the key considerations in transportation planning and improvements. ? Option No. 5: Traffic Calming - A variety of effective and proven improvements are available to slow traffic and deter “short-cutting” of through traffic into local residential neighborhoods. Such traffic calming measures can go a long way to preserving the “feel” of a local street, even as community and traffic increase around the neighborhood. These “calming” improvements include speed humps, traffic circles, median islands, narrowed pedestrian crossings, etc. 37 River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper DRAFT 11-24-05 Service provider Review