My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2015-06-22 Interview and Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
AgdaPkt 2015-06-22 Interview and Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/23/2015 5:05:47 PM
Creation date
6/18/2015 5:35:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
6/22/2015
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
411
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
priorities. The proposed evaluation plan measures how well the project achieves these <br />priorities. <br /> <br />Staff collected input on the evaluation plan from a variety of sources. The sources <br />included comments made at the January City Council meeting, emails and letters to <br />staff, feedback from the City’s informal bike and pedestrian working group, and input via <br />an online survey (distributed to the project email list, neighborhood associations and on <br />Nextdoor). The survey used to solicit input is Attachment 2. <br /> <br />Staff received 121 responses to the online survey, which was open for 10 days at the <br />end of May. Survey respondents were asked to rank and rate various attributes, with the <br />following results: <br />Table 1: Attribute Rankings <br />Attribute <br />Overall <br />Rank <br />Average <br />Rank <br />Improve safety 1 3.2 <br />Improve ease of crossing the street 2 4.3 <br />Decrease traffic congestion 3 4.5 <br />Decrease speeding 4 4.6 <br />Provide a Complete Street 5 4.8 <br />Improve ease of entering traffic 6 5.0 <br />Minimize traffic diversion 7 6.0 <br />Improve physical appeal and comfort of <br />use 8 6.2 <br />Improve air quality 9 6.4 <br />Scale: 1 (Most important) – 9 (Least important) <br /> <br />Table 2: Attribute Ratings <br />Attribute <br />Most Common <br />Response <br />(# of responses) Average Rating <br />Safety Very Important <br />(76) Fairly Important <br />Speeding Very Important <br />(51) Fairly Important <br />Traffic congestion Very Important <br />(46) Fairly Important <br />Ease of crossing the street for <br />pedestrians and bicyclists <br />Very Important <br />(45) Fairly Important <br />7.1.C. - Page 2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.