pages: TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2006-12-13 | 7 | manner. He noted that if Alameda doubled in population, and if the traffic doubled, the streets would still function similarly, but with much more volume, and assuming they could handle the capacity. Chair Knox White expressed concern about the way arterials were currently defined, and believed that the current plan as set up seemed to completely contradict one of the main themes of the Alameda General Plan, which was de-emphasis of the automobile. He believed that, as proposed, the plan was completely out of compliance with the current, as well as the soon-to-be- updated, General Plan. Regarding the classifications, he was surprised that there was a lot of landscaping design, and that street widths were not called out in the matrix, that the work from the subcommittee regarding the number of lanes for various types of arterials was left out, and that the traffic calming had been left out as well. He inquired why the lanes and the traffic calming had been left out. Staff Khan thanked Chair Knox White for his comments, and did not see any reason why that could not be included. He noted that the consultant tried to incorporate that by examining the buffers, including landscaping, for residential. He noted that by reducing the street grid, the perception of the motorists would result in traffic calming. Chair Knox White noted that he liked the landscaping very much. A discussion of the subcommittee's work as it related to this current report ensued. Chair Knox White noted that on page 10, two goals were expressed in 3.2, "preserving arterial functionality" and "improving residential livability.' He was not sure that they were not opposing goals. He suggested that the Transportation Commission hold further discussion regarding those two goals. He noted that it was difficult to back out of your driveway into fast- moving traffic. With respect to land use overlays, Chair Knox White believed the gateways were a landscaping category, which was acceptable to him. He believed that gateway prioritization should start with the highest occupancy vehicles and zero-emission modes, in other words, not moving the most cars, but the most people. With respect to residential corridors, Chair Knox White inquired whether they were only for arterials, because he believed the map contained collector streets that were not called out as residential corridors, despite being 100% residential. Mr. Spencer noted that he would look at that issue on the map, and added that many arterials were also residential corridors, which led to the conflict pointed out by Chair Knox White. Chair Knox White noted the language on page 13 read, "On-street parking preservation is to be encouraged over other pedestrian and bicycle improvements if there is insufficient right of way. He noted that the Transportation Commission had attempted to address that issue in a slightly different way, which was, "The preservation of on-street parking should be encouraged when there is no adjacent off-street parking available and additional width is needed for pedestrian and bicycle " He noted that if you were next to a parking lot or garage, it should be acceptable to install the bike lanes as a buffer, or other improvements. 7 | TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf |