pages: CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf, 21
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2006-10-17 | 21 | that have speed limits of 35 miles per hour. The Transportation Commission Chair stated a survey was mailed out to a random sample of 1,200 Alameda Power and Telecom customers ; speed limit was one of the specific questions ; there was overwhelming support for not raising the speed limit. The City Engineer stated classification systems are used for funding purposes the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) looks at speeds an impact exists if speed is lower than the speed designated for an arterial. impacts have to be mitigated. Mayor Johnson stated Alameda's arterials are different than other cities and should not be compared with other cities; Alameda does not have true arterials. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he likes the roadway alterations policies being fairly tight restrictions provide a direction that moves away from reliance on single occupancy vehicles; goals need to be met at some point; planning can be driven from policies rather than a dictate for a 35 mile per hour four-lane road; policies need to be reviewed carefully; he likes all of the policies, except Policy No. 7; Policy No. 7 does not meet the explanation and intent that has been given; Policy No. 7 could use some polishing, but the intent is good. Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated he supports the draft policies and the work of the Transportation Commission; the entire point of the seven policies is to make the actual costs of driving automobiles more explicit; society has been slow in recognizing and accounting for the costs; waiting in traffic for five to ten minutes when a draw bridge is up is more than Level F but is not classified as a significant impact because it is part of the price of being in Alameda; he rejects any suggestion to make Webster Street and Appezzato Parkway an eight-lane intersection in order to accommodate the few hours per day that there might be high traffic; Policy No. 7's intent is to find other ways to solve the problem instead of encouraging more cars on the road and adding to the problem; urged Council to support the staff findings and recommendations so that the seven policies and traffic study can move forward. Councilmember deHaan inquired what language [in Policy No. 1] would be more satisfactory to staff. The City Engineer responded Policy No. 1's language is not the issue; stated streets would need to be labeled in a way not to call the streets arterials and would need to be designed in a way to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 October 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf |