SR 05:240 - Laserfiche WebLink

favored in developed neighborhoods; rather, measures to control speeds have been preferred. Unless out-of-neighborhood traffic is attracted to a neighborhood collector route due to medal congestion, total neighborhood traffic is generally minimized in front of total residences by maximizing street access to arterials. However, each neighborhood is different, with different street patterns and different configurations of local street collectors. Neighborhood traffic choosing internal, neighborhood streets over available medals is an issue probably best left to individual neighborhood traffic calming. Measures to reduce this type of cut-through would require measures to impede traffic within the neighborhood itself, not at entrances/exits. Such measures have historically had difficulty achieving neighborhood consensus. Conclusion: Policy direction concerning neighborhood cut-through traffic requires a balancing of a neighborhood's desire to keep others (and themselves) off neighborhood streets as much as possible. Consideration should be given to incorporate traffic calming and arterial mobility policies into the General Plan: Consider fostering arterial traffic efficiency through elimination of stop signs, designing and timing signals to allow as free flow on medals as feasible while minimizing cut-through opportunities. · Consider timing signals to cater to heavily traveled arterial routes, especially at major cross streets. The key is the functionality of arterial streets, including key turn movements. · Consider adopting traffic-calming principles into the General Plan for use in addressing neighborhood traffic issues. · Consider adopting standards for allowing new development traffic onto existing neighborhood collectors, whether by volume, speed, or other characteristic. This may require a careful review of the many types of residential collectors in the city. STREET NETWORK ALTERNATIVES As directed by the Council, three street network scenarios have been prepared. The first, Alternative A, is the "Existing Plus Approved" network with intersection modifications aimed at reducing traffic congestion and delay as listed in Appendix A and further discussed in Appendix B, attached. This was the street network described in the May 24, 2005 staff report. The second street network alternative, Alternative B, includes the street widenings and extensions that do not include Stoneridge Drive extension or the Wes Las Positas interchange, in addition to the intersection modifications assumed in Alternative A. The third alternative assumes all Alternative B elements and adds in the West Las Positas interchange and Stoneridge Extension, and is referred to as Alternative C. These network assumptions are summarized below. The regional street network is the same for all alternatives. It includes the following key new facilities: 19