pages: CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities | 2016-06-08 | 7 | Gail Payne: Now we did also add some goals that didn't get into this version, but there was a request to add not a goal, but a safety objective, so we added that. We also added an objective pertaining to new technologies, and another one that pertains to equity. And I'll just read you the latest version that we have on the new equity goal that's not in your packet, but it's in for the Planning Board packet and the City Council, because I really like how it's shaping up, and it pertains to you all. "Ensure transportation improvements are applied equitably for all users, including senior, low income and minority populations, and are compliant with ADA requirements. Gail Payne: And with that, I think I really would love to hear your comments on the discussion topics. Are there areas where we need to investigate further, pertaining to existing conditions? Did we miss some topics? What do you think about the goals and objectives? And are there other areas that we should be covering? Thank you for your time. Beth Kenny: Thank you very much. Gail Payne: I hope I wasn't too long. Beth Kenny: You did a great job. I have a couple of questions. First, I'm wondering, are there plans to create another island crossing? And if so, have we thought about making it specific for public transportation options, and bike and pedestrian options? And because of the amount of development going on, are we getting money from the developers to build this type of infrastructure that we're going to need? Gail Payne: So for the first question about the additional island crossing, we don't expect to have more capacity in terms of another island crossing, like another bridge or tunnel. And the main reason is that Oakland just doesn't want it, they're just not interested in having it touch down on their property, and that's where it would have to be. And so we really have to work within the constraints that we have. And we did study a bike pedestrian bridge over in the West End, and we found out that it was really infeasible, because of the Coast Guard Island, and that the need for the boats to get in and out 24/7 because they're for emergency purposes. And so the bridge would have to be so incredibly high, and not be a draw bridge, that bicyclists and pedestrians just wouldn't use it. And so we're not expecting another crossing on this. However, BART is looking at a second tube, a Transbay tube going between the East Bay and San Francisco. And if they do that, they possibly could add a station, either in Alameda or in the Estuary, or closer to Alameda than what we have now. That potentially, the one idea is if it were in the Estuary, then that would be a way for bicyclists and pedestrians to go under, either use the BART station or get to Oakland 24/7 or I don't know, 24/7 but Gail Payne: So, there are ideas out there, another idea is that at some point, we're going to have to improve the tubes, because they won't last forever. And so, when it needs to be upgraded, that it would be a complete street type of tube, whereas maybe it would have a dedicated bus lane, maybe it would have a real bike path, and a real way for pedestrians to go on it and through it. So, those are some long, long-term solutions, yet there's nothing in the short-term idea out there. For the second question about developer money, SO yes they are required, developers are required to both contribute to when they're developing their units to also pay for the streets adjacent to them and anything related to their development. We call it a nexus, there has to be a nexus about it, so as to a legal way for us to require them to pay, because we can't just say, "Oh, well we want you to pay for some other. Everything because we don't have any money." 08/17/16 Page 7 of 19 | CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-06-08.pdf |