pages: TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2006-12-13 | 6 | Commissioner Ratto noted that he had an issue with respect to the maps regarding the proposal to extend the truck route all the way down Park Street, from the bridge to Alameda Towne Center. He agreed with the changing classification of Park Street, noting that from the Encinal to Otis Drive, it changes into residential, as well as one lane in each direction. He had a huge problem with that being designated a truck route so that it would increase the truck congestion during the day. After Alameda Towne Center finishes it improvements, he believed the congestion could become severe. Staff Khan noted that was a very good point, and added that staff would examine it further. Mr. Spencer added that staff questioned them on that item as well, and he noted that the alternative was more circuitous truck routing. Normally, they would want to take a more direct route. Commissioner Ratto noted that his association, the Park Street Business Association, would fight that tooth and nail. Staff Khan noted that if trucks made deliveries to a certain destination, they would be allowed to use that street for delivery access. Truck routes were defined as handling through traffic. In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether the City had truck count information, Staff Khan replied that classification counts were performed as part of City studies, and that he could look into it further. Commissioner Schatmeier complimented DKS on the quality of the report, and added that he had questioned the need for hiring a consultant to do this kind of work. He had previously expressed dismay at duplicating work that had been already done by the Transportation Commission. He believed that the work shown at this meeting had not substantially added to the work previously done by the Transportation Commission. He noted that the subcommittee consisting of Commissioners Knox White, McFarland and himself had been cognizant of the funding needs, and also vetted their work with community workshops and other Commissions within the City. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the arterial spacing guidelines on Table 3-2 (page 7) referred to a national standard designed to apply to all cities. Mr. Spencer confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Krueger was surprised to see on page 8 the spacing of arterials that seemed very dense, given the Alameda population of 70,000 people. He would have expected to see that spacing for New York or Chicago, and inquired about the thinking behind the number of arterials. Mr. Spencer replied that Alameda had very short blocks with tight spacing and a lot of traffic interruption. In addition, the grid pattern was very dense. He noted that Alameda did not have many collectors, and that the main part of the Island was mostly grid. Commissioner Krueger noted that given that Alameda was not an intense, highly dense urban core, it may make sense to make some of the streets collectors, and have fewer arterials. He inquired about the rationale behind not doing that. Mr. Spencer replied that it was not just the density, but also how the street functioned. Regardless of the amount of volume, the traffic experienced in Alameda was set up so that most of the streets functioned in a very equivalent 6 | TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf |