Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPJT Minutes 1995-10-11SRCC/SRPC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.)10/11/95 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1995, AT 7:00 PM Special Joint Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council/ Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember San Rafael Planning Commission Gary 0. Phillips, Councilmember David J. Zappetini, Councilmember Absent: Barbara Heller, Councilmember Present: Planning Commission Richard O'Brien, Chairman James Atchison, Commissioner Ann Batman, Commissioner Bonnie Hough, Commissioner (Arr. 8:35 PM) Cyr Miller, Commissioner Joyce Rifkind, Commissioner John Starkweather, Commissioner Absent: None Others Present: Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP DOWNTOWN/EAST SAN RAFAEL TRAFFIC MODEL AND ANALYSIS SCENARIOS - File 4-3-289 x 10-2 x 11-13 x 11-1 Mayor Boro opened the workshop meeting and called upon Planning Director Robert Pendoley and Public Works Director David Bernardi for introductory statements. Mr. Pendoley stated that the purpose of the meeting is to familiarize the City Council, Planning Commission and the public with the new Traffic Model for Downtown and East San Rafael. The second purpose is to do a case study on the Downtown area to familiarize everyone with the projected traffic conditions under the General Plan and under the Vision for Downtown San Rafael. Staff will be updating the General Plan in 6 to 8 weeks and hope to hold meetings on the Priority Projects Procedure (PPP), and Traffic Models are a very important part of that. Public Works Director David Bernardi stated that time delays will be critical in this process. The LOS (Levels of Service) will be discussed and explained. He added that Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian has worked with the consultants for many hours. Jean Hasser, Principal Planner, has also been active in putting this program together. Mr. Bernardi introduced Daylene Whitlock and Steve Weinberger of the consulting firm of W -Trans. Mr. Weinberger explained the methodology used in the traffic modeling and traffic analysis. His subjects included the Traffic Model, Land Use, Trip Generation Rates, and the Data Base. Ms. Whitlock discussed the work done in 1986 for the 1988 General Plan, when there were very few personal computers available, and described the use of computers in the present day calculations of volume and capacity, which form the basis for timing of signalized intersections. She explained about key intersections in the Downtown area and how their calculations were made, and the relationship of the various intersections with regard to traffic volume. There was a brief question and answer period. Councilmember Phillips asked, with the traffic model, when the results are different than what you would expect in true life conditions, will you adjust the model to reflect what is actually taking place? Mr. Weinberger replied that they adjust the assumptions. At that point they have results and want them to make sense. They only adjust volumes which show they have an existing different count. Councilmember Phillips asked, are they changing the numbers, or changing the assumption? Mr. Weinberger replied that on the intersection level, with this process, they will never all be exactly the same, but they try to account for the differences, and when they compare the actual field conditions with what the model said was existing and there are certain locations which are slightly different, it is readjusted onto the future volume. They adjust the calibrations to the model until it makes sense. Councilmember Cohen inquired about the delay methodology, noting that in the morning going southbound on Hetherton you might experience a lot of delay at Third Street because of what is happening at Second Street with people going onto the freeway. He stated it is his experience that there is more delay on Hetherton than on Third Street at that intersection. He asked, does the model calculate delay for the different approaches to intersections, or does it just indicate that an intersection has a certain amount of delay? Ms. Whitlock responded that SRCC/SRPC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 10/11/95 Page 1 SRCC/SRPC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.)10/11/95 Page 2 the timing software they use takes all the approaches into account and generates timing for them separately. One of the things which is good about this operation's methodology is that if you have a side street with very low volumes you can say that those people will have to experience a lot of delay because we really need to move traffic up and down our arterials, but this methodology will not allow you to do that. By adjusting your timing you can reduce the overall intersection delay by increasing it to 20 cars and decreasing it to 500. That is part of the reason you want to use the timing method. The signals are pre -timed and operate according to the split. The timing is set differently for morning and evening. Councilmember Cohen inquired about the methodology for intersections with stop signs. Ms. Whitlock replied there are separate uses for all -way stop signs and for side street only signs, and gave Francisco Boulevard and Harbor Street as an example, explaining the movements on the chart. The model looks at each one individually. Chairman O'Brien noted the report talked about northbound Highway 101 and showed a figure of 7,000 cars, and southbound with 3,000 cars, when in fact it should be the other way around since traffic is heavier southbound than it is northbound. That is why CalTrans wanted to add a lane southbound. In addition, there is a left turn shown on Second at Hetherton and also left and right turns at Irwin, whereas both are one-way streets. Also, at Harbor Street and Francisco Boulevard, Harbor Street is shown as going straight ahead where in fact you can only go either right or left. Ms. Whitlock pointed out symbols on the chart which indicate that those movements cannot be made. She explained that is just a form which is set up for data entry. There was a ten minute break in the workshop, after which the discussion resumed. Mr. Weinberger stated that they will go through the results of the report and the Analysis of Scenarios, which is very detailed. Ms. Whitlock discussed the baseline results with all of the intersections. Mayor Boro asked the Council and Commission for questions. Councilmember Cohen inquired about the intersection of Mission and Irwin, which is worse under this scenario. He noted the delay is presently 1 minute and is to be changed to 2 minutes. He asked, where do the cars go? If they are to wait 2 minutes at that intersection they must be backing up somewhere. How could there be less impact on that segment for people coming down Mission, with a 2 minute delay? Ms. Whitlock responded that because the segment analysis includes a number of intersections they may be experiencing approximately the same delay at Irwin as on Mission, but they may have gotten improved operation at Lincoln and at Hetherton. That may be the offsetting factor. She noted that part of the General Plan scenario includes additional lane improvements on Lincoln, which would allow you to give more green time to Mission at that intersection so that would improve the corridor rate, even though one of the intersections might get worse. Councilmember Cohen observed that if they have to wait 2 minutes at an intersection they are queuing up somewhere. He noted that cars do back up along Mission waiting to make the left turn to get onto 101 and he would think that would worsen the situation and not get better, which is what the model seems to be suggesting. Ms. Whitlock responded, when you balance them against one another and look at them in the aggregate, most of that increased delay may be on Irwin and not on Mission. The arterial corridor might get better but the intersections might be worse. Mr. Weinberger explained that the two corridors leading up to that intersection are both operating at LOS E, and most of the other intersections on those corridors are operating at D or better, so someone traveling would have a lot less delay through a number of intersections until they get to that one where they experience most of the delay. (Planning Commissioner Hough arrived at the meeting at 8:35 PM) Mayor Boro stated that the question which still has not been answered is that, when you experience the 15 cars which are at LOS F currently for 60 seconds, and if 8 of them get through, 7 will be left over and another 8 come in, what you are saying is that it will take 2 minutes to get through and there will be possibly 30 cars stacked up. He thinks that is the question: Where are the cars going to be at that intersection? Ms. Whitlock replied that some of them may still be waiting back at Fifth Avenue, which is not unheard of on Irwin Street. Mayor Boro asked if Ms. Whitlock is saying that the LOS F at that intersection might not be there, but it is just to get the total elapsed time to get through there from a given point? Ms. Whitlock responded that the LOS is to give you a total elapsed time along a segment, but the delay or LOS for the intersections gives you an average delay per vehicle. Mayor Boro stated the key is that you are saying "average". Councilmember Phillips referred to page 6 of the Summary which covers General Plan Conditions. The last subparagraph makes reference to Lincoln Avenue - Second Street to Mission Avenue (LOS F). Following that, it says that LOS E is being recommended for the standard for this arterial parallel to US 101. It does not talk about mitigation to get from LOS F to LOS E. He asked, does that mean that there is none? He noted that in previous subparagraphs there are suggested recommendations. Ms. Whitlock explained that in some cases, because of the fact that it is a system -wide analysis, we found that several SRCC/SRPC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 10/11/95 Page 2 SRCC/SRPC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.)10/11/95 Page 3 corridors, such as when they made improvements to Second Street, that helped Fourth and Fifth and in some cases helped Lincoln, Irwin and Hetherton, so when they mitigated one corridor by adding a lane on Second Street, it impacted the entire system because it "shuffled" trips all the way around. Councilmember Phillips asked if that intersection is at LOS F now, and LOS E is being recommended, how do we go from F to E? If the recommendation is for E, why not make it A - and how do we get to E? Ms. Whitlock responded, one of the things they glossed over and she will clarify, is that because there are not any accepted standards in the existing General Plan for arterials, what they looked at was the County CMP (Congestion Management Plan). The County uses LOS D except on US 101, where they are using LOS E. To maintain consistency, and because we recognize the fact that if you make Irwin better so you can keep it at LOS D, or Hetherton better so you can keep it at LOS D, cars will come off the freeway and go down Irwin and get back on the freeway at the other end, and you will have your LOS right back down to E. It seemed most logical to keep the arterial LOS standards for the streets parallel to US 101 consistent with US 101. She stated they do not want to encourage the traffic to come off and use the City streets to get through and then back onto the freeway. Ms. Whitlock added that she feels she is missing the question. She explained that Lincoln Avenue, without mitigation, was at LOS F; however, when we mitigated Second Street and re -ran the model and generated new numbers and new signal timing, that improved Lincoln as well, and that is when it went to LOS E. Councilmember Phillips clarified that, with those mitigating features, it is at LOS E. Chairman O'Brien stated that, with reference to Irwin Street, getting off the freeway you can get in the wrong lane and you do not know it until it is too late, and that requires a lane change. Therefore, you have an area of conflict, and any time you have such a conflict you will have a slowing or delay in traffic. That is exactly what is happening on Irwin. If it were realigned, or perhaps given better signage, it would eliminate the problem of not knowing about the "Left Turn Only" in that lane. He noted he did not see a recommendation to that effect. Ms. Whitlock responded that part of that was taken into account. She noted they had gone to various intersections and done a count on how many cars got through when the light was green. She did a count at Bellam Boulevard and I-580 as a point of reference and, as opposed to the typical standard of 1,800 cars an hour, there were less than 1,100 which got through on the green. Cars sat there on a green light because they were stopped from Bellam back to the I-580 ramp. That is part of how they took into account instances such as confusion when people are changing lanes. She noted that on Second Street, as you are approaching Tamalpais, there is a right turn lane which goes onto the freeway, but it is very short, so you get about 4 cars backed up in there. After that, you really cannot count that lane as a lane because you are not going to get usage out of it. They counted how many people were actually getting through on the green light and took that into account. The short lane was given only half as much capacity. With regard to signage because of any confusion, that was not part of this analysis. All they were trying to do was find out how does it really operate. Commissioner O'Brien stated he agrees with Councilmember Phillips that if you have a problem in one area it gridlocks the rest of the street. If we corrected the problem with signage we would not have the problem at Second and Third. He noted that could be mitigated by changing the lane design and would free -up those intersections. Ms. Whitlock stated their analysis was focused on taking the existing system and finding whether or not it works up to the City's standards, and if it does, will it handle the additional traffic from the General Plan? As long as everything works, based on the information we could put into it, that was as far as they were directed to go. Commissioner Starkweather stated Ms. Whitlock alludes to an interesting point when she describes the street parallel to US 101. It would seem that what she is suggesting is that not in all instances does the model move as much traffic as possible. In other words, it may not be a part of the modeling activity but may be a matter of policy of the City Council, as to how much they wish to give over the City streets to solving regional problems. He stated that Hetherton was one example, and the way Second and Third Streets are handled is another example, which is changed by signalization which has a considerable ripple effect in terms of regional activity and where people are going, and which has no real relationship with San Rafael activity. He stated it is almost as though San Rafael has created a mini -101 going in the other direction, which causes problems because of people who are not dealing with San Rafael. We have a certain amount of that with Second and Third Streets. He asked, to what extent can the model help, in terms of helping the City Council make decisions of that sort, in addition to moving as much traffic as possible. Mr. Weinberger explained that in evaluating the conditions of tomorrow they looked at what happened if they expanded the capacity of Hetherton/Irwin, and can they get a better LOS than E. No matter how many times they did it, it drew more traffic off the freeway to balance the travel time and the traffic seeking the shortest route. Commissioner Starkweather stated that, conversely, if you do specific things to reduce the amount of traffic on those streets, is there an advantage to the City in some respects? Will the model give that information? SRCC/SRPC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 10/11/95 Page 3 SRCC/SRPC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.)10/11/95 Page 4 Mr. Weinberger stated it is capable of giving the trade-offs for you to make decisions like this. One of the reasons why they decided to recommend LOS E for those routes is because we kept coming up with the same answers no matter what we did. That is now a policy issue for the City to consider. Commissioner Starkweather inquired if something similar was done in connection with Second and Third Streets. Ms. Whitlock explained that Second and Third, because of their inclusion in the County's Congestion Management Plan network, are mandated at LOS D by that program. Mr. Weinberger added that it could potentially impact funding through the CMP if the City does not maintain LOS D there. Principal Planner Hasser gave a presentation explaining how the Downtown Advisor Group used this new traffic model information to recommend policy changes to help accomplish "Our Vision for Downtown San Rafael." Ultimately the Council will make those policy decisions with the help of the traffic model. Ms. Hasser gave a background description of the work on General Plan 2000, which was adopted in 1988, and noted that traffic was a primary consideration in making land use decisions. Land use limits were established and circulation improvements were balanced with all existing and potential development in the General Plan. A strict Mid -LOS D traffic standard was established for arterial intersections Citywide, without regard to differences between Downtown and other parts of the City. If a development were to cause the traffic to drop below LOS D the development would have to be delayed until improvements were constructed. The limits caused particular concern Downtown where there is little vacant land and there was little room to remodel or to encourage businesses to stay Downtown with some expansion potential. Ms. Hasser described the community-based planning effort which went into the Downtown Vision Committee and its subcommittees. By means of charts, she showed the parameters with the areas recommended for change and those which the Committee felt should stay the same. She noted that the Downtown area is urban and not suburban, with most lots developed with buildings which are close to the street. The Committee agreed that slower traffic is appropriate for Downtown, and they recommended that the traffic continue to be monitored. She stated that the Vision for Downtown San Rafael description is an active, economically healthy, compact urban place, and recommends that the traffic policy changes are an important way to accomplish the Vision. Commissioner Rifkind asked if LOS E would become the standard in the instances mentioned, except for the one intersection. Ms. Hasser replied they would all remain at LOS E, at least. They would be mitigated by signal timing, and by adding the extra lane between Lincoln and Tamalpais on Second Street. Councilmember Cohen asked, in running the model was there any evaluation of conversion of the north- and southbound streets in the core Downtown area to two-way? Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian stated that B, C and D Streets failed at Second and Third Streets, so they decided to leave them as they are. He explained that when we change some one-way streets to two-way they could not adjust the signal timing to make it workable. Mayor Boro stated that at a later time we can come back to that issue. He noted there will be no recommendations by the Council tonight since this is a workshop simply for the purpose of understanding the methodology of the traffic modeling. Mr. Pendoley agreed, and added that it would be important to have feedback tonight. Staff plans on bringing recommendations to the Council in December. He suggested that it would be appropriate to open this meeting up to questions from the public. Mr. Mansourian gave a demonstration of the computerized modeling, and explained the various steps taken to secure the data. Mayor Boro asked if any member of the public would care to speak. Mr. Harry Winters of the West End Neighborhood Association (WENA) stated he wonders if the explanation of the tools for studying traffic are flexible enough that they could accommodate changing the two-way streets without making a radical change at Second and Third. He wondered also was the final study all that the City will have, or if the City is buying a tool which can be used in the future. He stated tonight should be an evaluation and workshop for a traffic study for the future, and he does not think it should be a part of a promotion of the Visioning as such. He noted there will be public hearings on the traffic modeling, and there are probably things which could be changed. He asked, is this ongoing, or is this final? Mr. Bernardi explained that Councilmember Cohen had been concerned about the one-way street question. He stated that if you converted B, C, and D to two-way streets, the Second and Third Street traffic would be impacted below LOS D. He explained that staff considers the traffic model a living document which will continue to be updated as things change within San Rafael. They will continue to update the model as time goes on. Mr. Winters asked will the General Plan be updated to include these latest figures, and Mr. Bernardi assured him that it will. SRCC/SRPC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 10/11/95 Page 4 SRCC/SRPC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.)10/11/95 Page 5 Mr. Roger Smith stated he is curious about the accuracy of the modeling process. He noted the baseline was approximately a 10o increase in traffic, and asked how accurate is that? Mr. Weinberger responded that the 10o is hypothetical. They put in the model the best information they have based on data collected in the field. These are future projections and when we analyze we take into consideration projected increases and see if the volume increases make sense. He does not know of anyone who has checked on 10 to 15 year old projections to see if they are accurate now. Mr. Bernardi stated that what staff has learned over the years is that the traffic has increased and building has occurred as they projected, so by going forward like this we can be fairly confident that since we know what happened in the past we can reasonably project for the future. Mr. Weinberger recommended that in five years or less they could go back and check, and make any changes necessary. If there are new technologies out there, the assumptions can be adjusted. Mayor Boro noted that where we are at this point is, we have a new concept as to how to measure traffic. If those assumptions change we have a model which is accurate now and it can be changed in the next few years to update it. Councilmember Cohen asked, is there a tool to analyze interim changes? Could you "plug in" land uses and circulation improvements? Is it possible using this model in connection with the General Plan update regarding build -outs? Mr. Weinberger replied that if the Council comes up with circulation improvements they want or do not want, we can easily go in and make the changes, run the model and come up with the results. Councilmember Phillips inquired about a practical application of the model. He stated that not long ago it was suggested that the Council look at D Street with alternate methods of controlling the traffic. He asked, can we factor those into the model and see what the result or impact would be? Mr. Weinberger responded they could go into the model and reduce the speed capacity and see what effect it would have on the overall. Mr. Bernardi added that the D Street issue covers a small area of the whole model. He stated staff knows what areas they are concentrating on, and it is easier to do it by hand. This method will allow staff to analyze the effects of various projects or capacity in a certain fixed area, such as the P.G. & E. site. Councilmember Phillips inquired about cost of the program, and Mr. Weinberger stated it could cost anywhere from $500 to $7,000, depending on how many assumptions need to be changed, etc. Councilmember Phillips asked is this something we can do ourselves, or do we rely on the consultants? Mr. Bernardi stated that right now we do not have the capacity, and Mr. Weinberger added that the City also does not have the license to operate, as well as the equipment. Councilmember Cohen stated he understands about the average of all the cars passing through an intersection, but will this model allow us to analyze differential delay - can we analyze the cars coming from all directions? Ms. Whitlock replied that can be done. It was done at Lincoln Avenue, and at Second and Grand, where there are five directions. Councilmember Cohen inquired, do we own the rights to the model but not the software license? Mr. Weinberger responded that was correct. No one else indicated they wished to speak. Mayor Boro stated he has no reaction one way or the other. He thanked the Planning Commission, Councilmembers and staff, and also the consultants for bringing the program together. Commissioner Rifkind asked about the process and Mayor Boro explained it will go through the Planning Commission and will have full Public Hearings. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1995 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC/SRPC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 10/11/95 Page 5