pages: TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2007-01-31 | 12 | Commissioner Krueger believed the most significant goal was the reduction of the total number of SOV trips generated by the project. He noted that while emissions were important, the trips had the most impact on the neighborhoods. Chair Knox White believed there could be benefits of a TDM program that reduced West End trips that did not come out of carbon trading for commute trading, and there could be a benefit for the rides that the project could get credit for. He felt he did not have enough information to make a determination about whether an 8-10% trip reduction is appropriate. He noted that the goal was to mitigate traffic, and that the Commission's EIR policy is not to expand roadways to mitigate the traffic, and to mitigate traffic aggressively through TDM. He stated that the TDM program should be as aggressive as possible within the project budget, and that the TDM program should not take credit for ridership on AC Transit's 19 bus line. He suggested using a biennial survey of the HOAs to get trip information. He noted that he supports the development of a TMA, but he believes it should be connected to the City, rather than be an independent agency. He believed the TMA should focus on the West End, not just the project participants. He would like the use of AC Transit to be the preferred agency when possible, but understood that AC Transit recognized the use of private shuttles when needed. Chair Knox White noted that the first bullet point under Administration (Key Administration Goals, page 9), read "represent Alameda Landing"; he believed the TMA should represent a broader scope and should represent the City. He was surprised to see costs associated with a guaranteed ride home and ride matching, since those were both regional project programs that were free to appropriately sized businesses. Under "Evaluation of Success," the language talked about "participation rate of Alameda Landing employees in the program.' He was concerned that a private shuttle and AC Transit, it would be beneficial to the TDM program to draw riders away from some other form so they could get credit for success. For that reason, he believed it was important to count cars and use surveys, as opposed to asking whether they were using the services. Page 12 discussed "During Phase A, trip reduction target is 2 to 3 percent"; the original memo said "5%." He understood there would be a ramp-up, but 2 to 3% seemed very low to him. He believed that if there would be a lower percentage goal for the first five years, he believed the project should be re-evaluated when the real goal was met. He recommended evaluating the TDM program based on cost per rider, and nothing else, due to the limited funding for this program. He noted that RIDES no longer exists, and that the program is currently called 511 Rideshare. He said that he would email his comments on the surveys. Staff Bergman noted that traffic congestion in the tubes is primarily an issue heading out of Alameda during the AM peak hour, and heading into Alameda during the PM peak hour. However, TDM programs are generally more successful when applied to employment sites, so the potential for the TDM program proposed by ProLogis to reduce traffic congestion is greater in the direction opposite that of the major congestion problems. He requested feedback from the Commission regarding how this issue should relate to the program's goals. | TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf |