My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.2. SR 07-24-2000
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2000
>
07/24/2000
>
5.2. SR 07-24-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:33:49 AM
Creation date
6/28/2004 1:21:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
7/24/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
118
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).
View images
View plain text
Information was passed out to the task force only as they were trained. There was no <br />need to distract them since the first few meetings were to be a fast traffic management <br />seminar. The Task force was first trained in the 3-E's of traffic management, basic <br />traffic engineering concepts and in traffic calming methods. See Exhibit B. Numerous <br />other sources were then used to provide a comprehensive and effective guidance in <br />layman's terms. <br /> <br />Most of this information was taken from the "Neighborhood Traffic Management and <br />Calming Program" from the of City of San Buenaventura dated June 1997. There is no <br />need to reinvent the wheel as long as credit is given where credit is due. Only minor <br />editing of the San Buenaventura program was necessary to tailor it to the needs of a <br />small community like Arcata. <br /> <br />The portions of the "Neighborhood Traffic Management and Calming Program" that <br />were most helpful included: <br /> <br /> Traffic Calming Concepts, Exhibit C <br /> Neighborhood ~Traffic Management and Calming, a matrix <br /> showing the relative strengths and weaknesses of each method <br />· Detailed Descriptions of Neighborhood Traffic Calming Options, <br /> full explanations with pictures and drawings- Exhibit D <br /> <br />Subsequent meetings were spent reviewing a host of other data that influence <br />engineering decisions. These included: <br /> <br />· traffic counts - ADT, PMPHT, AMPHT, turning movements, schools in and <br /> out of session <br />· accident data - total accidents per intersection, accidents/million vehicles <br />· bus, truck and bicycle routes <br /> <br />Identifying the Shareholders <br /> <br />The task force decided to hold a town meeting to bring out the neighborhood and <br />citywide stakeholders. Notices were inserted in the weekly newspaper and delivered <br />door to door. See Exhibit E. A survey was also distributed to the neighborhood. See <br />Exhibit F. This was not done in any scientific manner and served only to elicit <br />comments. There were approximately 60 responses to the survey. <br /> <br />The task force asked people to "speak their mind" and they came prepared. The <br />community was just as polarized as the task force and was even more doubtful that <br />their individual option would be heard, let alone recognized. One excellent product of <br />the town meeting was a "hot spot' map. This map graphically represented where there <br />were perceived speeding, congestion, accidents or miscellaneous quality of life <br />problems. Perception is the power of the problem. Staff anticipated that education <br />would improve perception and some problems would simply disappear, as some did. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.