pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2008-11-18 | 2 | Member Gilmore stated that a key issue revolves around the feasibility of implementation and the traffic solutions - how to move people on and off the island. She discussed this as being a big part of her comfort level with regard to whether the plan can be executed. She wants to see real life examples of the solutions in place and working, and does not want Alameda to be the experiment. Member Matarrese had two transportation-related points: how we are addressing commute in the tube into China Town, and truck routes, how are we moving goods? Matthew Ridgway, consultant from Fehr & Peers, addressed the transportation issues. He stated that traffic congestion is expected to be worse, regardless of Alameda Point redevelopment, as moving traffic to/from Alameda Point is secondary next to the traffic moving through the tube and the 880 corridor. One of the questions was whether the option of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) was out. Mr. Ridgway responded 'no', but is reserving the right of way to bus transit alignment. He further discussed that the project is developer funded and funding will be sought from AC Transit and other funding sources. Another question was regarding buy-in of other stakeholders. Mr. Ridgway explained that they are working with AC Transit for funding issues and Caltrans on Broadway/Jackson improvements, but there is a much larger group of stake holders, and they are not assuming things outside of Alameda's purview. The Board had requested a matrix be created. Mr. Ridgway prepared a draft which highlights major differences between the three plans, the APCP plan, the WRT plan, and the current SunCal plan. One of the major differences they realized was having an onsite school, which was carried forward to the current AP transportation strategy. A rapid bus element was not definitive in other plans, but in the current AP transportation strategy, it is definitive to fund a rapid bus transit system, also proposing to fund construction and operating costs for an additional BRT line across the whole island to the Fruitvale BART station in order to increase transit use throughout the island. A bikeshare program is being proposed; and another dramatic difference is a progressive parking plan, which was in the APCP plan, and is carried forward to the current plan. Shared parking, unbundling cost of residential parking, commercial fee based-parking, parking maximums, limit number of auto trips - new elements included in the summary of the matrix proposed to reduce auto trips. Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese were concerned about the passive incentives of parking, which did not have the effect that was intended, because other transportation hasn't been provided. Member Gilmore discussed these unintended consequences and not being able to lure business to site because there is not enough parking. Member deHaan discussed the real life situation in Alameda, that streets upon streets are constrained because of no parking. He stated his concern that lack of parking has not driven Alamedans to use public transportation. Mr. Ridgway explained that possibly parking shortages weren't in tandem with a whole host of transportation alternatives. They are proposing to implement the transportation alternatives and provide the level of parking that would balance with those alternatives - to be effective economically and be viable. They are trying to develop a plan that addresses all these issues. Chair Johnson stated that if we insure other transportation alternatives were available, people would use it. Vice Chair Tam discussed the City's settlement with Oakland China town over the impact of the Alameda Point project with traffic in China Town - a traffic level threshold was generated, and the appropriate level was 1800 units. She asked Mr. Ridgway if their mitigation measures are all to get back to that threshold level. Mr. Ridgway affirmed, stating that they are marketing the plan as a green development - you live here because you only have one car or no car - the people that have a lifestyle with fewer or no automobiles would want to live here. Another question addressed how the water emergency transit authority will interface and will meet the needs for maintenance and fueling facilities, and if this can be accommodated at | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf |