pages: PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2012-02-27 | 16 | safety considerations were included in the evaluation. Mr. Khan referred to the bike plan and he explained that the ranking is listed in the back of the sheet. When calculating the points he referred to the bike plan project. Regarding safety considerations, he said that is a tricky question, but staff looked at different modes of transportation to see how safety is incorporated into the design. Board member Zuppan stated that she was looking at the project that strengthened current seismic standards. Mr. Khan replied that regional and lifeline connectivity would be ranked high in priority. Board member Knox White stated that this is a great process and he was glad to see the City is going through this process methodically. He believes the scoring is still missing a couple of things: (1) transit benefits should have some sort of grade because you want to know what does the scoring mean and if staff provides points then they should give clarification for what the points mean; (2) the Regional Significant scoring seems off because it basically says that local projects score very poorly while regional projects receive bonus points; (3) the Economic Development section is vague and should be gradated to show why points are given; (4) the Transportation Element points are aimed towards public works working with another agency and half the points are created by meeting small policies and he suggested that there should be four general pan objectives. Therefore, the scoring side needs to be more methodical, an example, the former ACTIA scoring does calculate it's funding into a great spreadsheet. His other concern was the way that the projects are called out. Some projects are vague and there should be consistency on how the projects are defined. Also, he believes the spreadsheet should include a column that explains the types of funding that the projects could match with. Additionally, he wanted to know how staff would add new projects to the list and prioritize the list that the community brings up. Lastly, when the list is finalized it would be good to have regular updates on the top projects. Mr. Khan replied that the transit benefit would be looked into and regional significance is a very critical item because when going to MTC, Caltrans, or FHWA for grants the agencies are looking for regional significance in order to fund projects. He and staff would look at the sheet and refine where necessary. The Economic Development section is something that staff will look at and they are looking at major projects such as Alameda Point and Northern Waterfront, not for infill small single-family developments. If there is, an economic development gradient staff will look into it based upon specific plans that exist for Northern Waterfront and Alameda Point. The Project Readiness section is a good idea and staff will add points. Regarding the Maintenance section, the project mentioned on Broadway and Jackson project went into the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan and was a cosponsored application with the City of Alameda and Oakland. This was the first time the City has cosponsored with the City of Oakland on this project. Although most of the project's footprint is located in Oakland, it creates a great regional collaboration and the plan has multimodal elements such bus rapid transit, bike lanes and transit exclusive lanes, which are important and received a lot of regional support. President Ezzy Ashcraft asked about the Broadway project's solution to the freeway Approved Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 18 February 27, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf |