pages: TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2005-04-27 | 2 | 6A. Recommendations from other City Boards and Commissions on Draft TMP JKW: The Planning Board asked to have a visioning statement inserted before the first paragraph to define "multimodal" as including autos, transit, bicycles, walking, and needs for people with disabilities. Circulation Goal: The Commission on Disability Issues asked to add "barrier free" to the last safe and efficient transportation systems. A1.1 concern by the Planning Board that bikes and pedestrians were not specifically included, definition above takes care of that. A-1.4 Add on all streets and in all sections of the City. A-1.5 Housing Commission transit indemnities is an implementation goal covered under the transit plan. A-1.6 Commission on Disability Issues covered in the introduction A-1.8 The EDC had a comment on including smooth cross island flow in the city. Thought it was incorporated in Did add into this, "without unduly disrupting the quality of life for residents". A1.11 Planning Board was split, some wanted to minimize, others support cul de sacs A-2.5 Multi modal cross estuary travel added in "bike, pedestrian shuttles or high occupancy vehicle only crossings" are types of projects we should be looking at. A-2.6 included Planning Board's recommendation A-5.3 EDC had suggested to fixed route AC Transit system to enhance mobility for those without access to personal transportation. Prefer the word provide, enhance sounds like it's an option. A6.6 Planning Board suggested in adding this policy. Require monitoring programs to ensure TSM (JKW added "and TDM") measures mitigate impacts. Objective A-7 Add the underlying section of enhancing the viability of non-automotive transportation modes. Used Planning Board language A-7.4 Planning had a comment on the fact that they felt identifying rights of way doesn't mean results are not always the way you hope it to come out but need to try. B-1.1 PB and Rec and Parks Commission supported. Left as written B-2.5 Left as written B-3.1 Planning Board supported the language as written, left as written B-4.2 CDI Recommendation including people with disabilities. B-5.1 The Parks Department indicated the permit program should be designed so that they would not impact on adjacent neighbors and homeowners use their garages for parking instead of storage. B-5.2 Included the Planning Board's recommendation of shared parking in mixed used areas. 1.2 Stays the same 2.2 did not include disability to better serve pedistrian needs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Not a citywide circulation goal. To be dwelt with on construction projects. C2.5 The Planning Board added in to promote land use that would encourage alternate modes of transportation and enable agencies to procure grant funding. C3 The Planning Board recommended more bike related polices so added two more. C3.2 and C3.3 Transportation Commission Page 2 of 8 April 27, 2005 | TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf |