Laserfiche WebLink
CiTY OF SAN LEANDRO BiCYCLE & PEDESTRiAN MASTER PLAN ~ 213 <br />I. Coordination. Project can be coordinated with another Capital <br />improvement Project, Grant Opportunity, Development, or Overlay <br />project for efficiency in design and construction and reduced resource <br />demand is 5; ________ Score. <br />J. Pedestrian volume of 20 peds or higher in peak one hour period is <br />5 score. Where 20 peds is not achieved for a crossing assign 0 score; <br />_________Score. <br />K. Site Conditions. This category allows the professional to assign up to <br />10 points for site conditions which are unusual, such as a side trail connec- <br />tion, or roadway gradient, or other aspect that in the opinion of the <br />professional elevate the subject crossing beyond typical consideration; <br />__________ Score. <br />L. implementation Complexity. if the site meets criteria for installation <br />or enhancement, satisfies certain community goals, and can be imple- <br />mented relatively simply with minimal costs, staff time, or other resources <br />as determined by the Department, assign a 5 score; _________Score. <br />The City retains the right to remove or modify any enhanced treatment or <br />marked crosswalk within the public right-of-way at its sole discretion and <br />may from time to time develop pilot projects to evaluate new technologies <br />and advances in crosswalk safety. The above criteria is developed by the <br />Transportation Department staff and any interpretation of criteria or condi- <br />tions rests with the Department Director or their designee. <br />in addition to the proposed scoring criteria, staff further recommend three <br />draft Tier Levels that are an important strategy in helping to manage how and <br />when improvements are made for pedestrian crossings given limited resources. <br />Each Tier Level is briefly described below: <br />Tier 1 – In progress (Current Design and/or Construction) <br />This first Tier represents those crossing improvements which are currently <br />either in design with known funding designated for the improvement or are <br />pending construction soon. <br />Tier 2 – Unfunded/ Un-resourced Priority Candidate <br />The second Tier represents pedestrian crossings which have relatively high <br />scoring and priority need with a general concept of improvement, but no <br />funding or resources identified to further its design and implementation. <br />Tier 3 – Vetting and Options Investigations <br />The third Tier are sites which have merit for improvement but have not been <br />fully vetted and may have various options to consider before improvements <br />can or should be made. This Tier level may have sites that score relatively <br />high but further investigation is necessary due to the need to develop the <br />most cost effective strategy in accommodating pedestrians. For instance, can <br />a segment of sidewalk improvement be made as part of another program that <br />creates linkages to an already nearby established crosswalk? <br />Overall, it should be noted that although a scoring process is utilized, it is not <br />used as a sole determining factor for decision making of which sites have the <br />greatest priority. its primary function is to assist in gaining a general sense <br />of the merits of the crossing improvement relative to other sites. After the <br />department team vetting exercises, there may be lower scored candidates <br />which end up being assigned for immediate improvement if opportunities exist <br />or other consideration necessitates such action. <br />351