My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Study Session Agenda and Packet 2008 05 27
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
STUDY SESSIONS (45.010)
>
2001-2009 City Council Study Sessions
>
2008 City Council Study Sessions
>
City Council Study Session Agenda and Packet 2008 05 27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2019 11:35:41 AM
Creation date
9/8/2008 10:27:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Original Hardcopy Storage
5F6
Supplemental fields
Test
SSAGPKT 2008 05 27
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL <br />FROM: MALCOLM FLEMING, CITY MANAGER <br />DATE: MAY 27, 2008 <br />SUBJECT: DISCUSSION -TRAFFIC MITIGATION <br />ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT <br />SUMMARY: <br />Traffic complaints continue to be one of the most difficult community problems to address. In <br />the past, the City has responded to complaints on an individual basis without a comprehensive <br />prearranged program in place. In order to establish a more proactive program instead of a <br />reactive program, staff suggests that we use a "tool box" approach to identify the type and <br />scope of traffic problems for which the City will consider ritigation, the response actions <br />appropriate for a particular problem, the process of quanl:ifying the problem and the public <br />involvement process associated with processing the problem. <br />Some traffic complaints are not properly addressed by traffic mitigation programs that rely on <br />accepted traffic engineering practices. For instance, sorrie City residents have asserted that an <br />unacceptable safety hazard exists for pedestrians at the iintersection of Dillon and St. Andrews. <br />However, there are relatively few pedestrians crossing this intersection and there is a safe <br />alternative (an underpass) within a short distance (5 minutes total walking time) of the <br />intersection. Because of the sight distance issues in this ;area, installing pedestrian-activated <br />flashers at this location might cause an increase in rear-end accidents (and injuries) from cars <br />stopping abruptly. It might also create the perception of a higher level of safety for pedestrians <br />than actually exists and result in a pedestrian being hit. These potential downsides could more <br />than offset any actual increase in safety for pedestrians ii` flashers were installed. Situations like <br />this may require the traffic mitigation program to include a component that foregoes traffic <br />studies and focuses more on public information issues. <br />At Tuesday night's study session staff will present an outgine of the tool box concept used by <br />other communities. Because traffic mitigation programs can be expensive-depending on the <br />scope of traffic mitigation activities undertaken-we will also discuss the possible fiscal impact. <br />^ SUBJECT <br />Discussion -Traffic Mitigation <br />AGENDA ITEM <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.