pages: TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2007-01-31 | 2 | Staff Khan presented the staff report and noted that two previous presentations had been made. The first recommendation from the Multimodal Circulation Subcommittee was to divide the arterials into two categories: regional arterials and island arterials. The regional arterials would carry regionally significant traffic in and out of the City, and island arterials would carry traffic across the City and within City limits. The second recommendation would be to examine those roadways that would be reduced in their current classification. They are currently classified as transitional arterials or collectors. The Subcommittee recommended that Bayview Drive be classified as a local street, however, staff recommended that it be classified as transitional collector, like Buena Vista Avenue or Gibbons Drive because of traffic volumes, connectivity and land use. Staff had previously recommended that an implementation policy be developed to examine the design guidelines development as part of the transportation master plan. It would address some conflicts and concerns raised by the consultant, and would remove the conflicts in the future during implementation. Mark Spencer of DKS Consultants, displayed a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the points covered in previous meetings. The defined objective was to meet the needs of all street users and the surrounding community while promoting the multimodal transportation system in Alameda. Concerns raised included how street classifications could help guide the City towards its future goals in terms of where and how the streets would operate, as well as whether it could be achieved in conjunction with other transportation policies. Modal priority streets, bike priority streets and transit priority streets were discussed, as well as truck routes. He noted that the land use and modal classification overlays needed to be balanced with the auto needs. The street types were defined according to the types of trips served and network connectivity. The street function would be defined by the existing uses; those design and operational needs would need to be addressed. The terms arterial, collector and local were retained, which would provide consistency with FHWA terminology and CalTrans definitions, and would facilitate applying for funding and dealing with other regional programs. He described the characteristics of each type of street and their functionality in detail, especially in relation to transit, bicycles and pedestrians. Mr. Spencer described the implementation strategy as a firm and flexible application, and noted that the modal priorities must be followed to ensure connectivity of the bike, transit and truck networks. He believed it was important to be firm on what was a bike street, emphasizing the bike amenities, and the same with the transit streets, etc. He noted that it was important to be flexible in balancing what happens within the limited right of way. He noted that most of Alameda has a built-out network. He noted that they recommended integrating the street classification system and an implementation policy into the TMP. He noted that design standards, block lengths, cross-sections, and congestion standards all affected and counterbalanced each other. Public Comment Jim Strehlow complimented the consultant on the PowerPoint presentation and requested a copy. He was satisfied with the designation of Gibbons Drive as a transitional collector. He inquired how new development would be added to the plan in the future, and how traffic volumes would be measured and updated. | TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf |