pages: PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-08-25 | 5 | reduced delay in the intersection, yet the conclusion was that it was significant. He noted that also happened on High and Fernside on page 4.2-29, and for High Street and Otis on page 4.2-29-4.2-30. He would like to see further explanation of that, so the effects of implementing the TMP to the baseline. President Kohlstrand noted that she had the same questions, and added Island Drive and Doolittle, Park Street and Blanding, and Broadway and Tilden and Eagle. She noted that it was not clear what was analyzed, and that if the delays were less, why it was a significant impact. She believed confusion had been created over what was being analyzed, and that it changed the picture from dealing with traffic and travel in Alameda that was not solely focused on the auto, and that the project should be given its due credit. Commissioner Krueger noted that it was important to get a quantitative number out, as well as to obtain a qualitative look as well. He would like the TDM to be taken into account. Board member Cunningham noted that one of the fundamental issues addressing the need was based on the supply or demand for transportation within the community. Under the assumptions in the EIR, there was an assumed growth of jobs in the community from 31,000 to 49,000, which represented a 65% increase in jobs on the Island, relative to an increase in housing from 31,000 to 36,000, a 17% increase. He noted that it would be important to identify where the supply and demand would be. He anticipated that there more growth in the Alameda Point area. He believed that mitigation should address getting people from areas where the housing was concentrated to where the jobs are. He would like to see other plans within the Transportation Element such as water taxis that would mitigate people not using roads; he suggested that a water taxi from Harbor Bay to Alameda Point may be workable. Board member Cunningham noted that he had raised the definition of LOS in the Town Centre matters, and would like to add further clarification. He noted that a delay over 60 seconds at Santa Clara would be a LOS level "F", and intersections such as Constitution and Atlantic at 53 seconds would qualify for LOS level "E". Board member Cunningham believed that study should be done before adoption of the plan. He inquired whether alternate LOSs would be considered based on the classification of the route. Mr. Thomas replied that would be a possibility, and noted that in Oakland, they had changed the threshold of what was significant. Board member Cunningham inquired whether a safety factor was linked into the LOS, and noted that most of what they had seen was based on timing. President Kohlstrand noted that it was based on average seconds of delay. Page 5 of 9 | PlanningBoard/2008-08-25.pdf |