pages: TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2007-01-31 | 3 | Bill Smith expressed concern about traffic in the Tube, and noted that as a frequent bicyclist, he was concerned about the condition of the roads. He believed new technology would help the efficiency and safety of auto/bicycle traffic. He would like to see new signage that would enhance traffic safety. Scott Brady asked the Commission to remember that every street in Alameda was residential when considering the street designations. He noted that people backing out of their driveways severely limited the traffic flow. He noted that traffic on those streets will not be able to go faster because of the designation change. Closed Public Comment Chair Knox White noted that the specific planning issues would be dealt with during the planning of the specific sites. He noted that with respect to traffic counts, the guiding policies of the Transportation Master Plan, traffic counts and volume counts were part of monitoring. He inquired whether the types of streets had been specifically stated. Staff Khan replied that under the County Congestion Management Agency, regular traffic volumes were collected on the streets in the system on either a two- or five-year cycle. He would report that information to the Commission at a future date. He noted that trend counts would be collected to show how the traffic volumes change in certain areas of the City. Staff would be amenable to that being either a policy or guideline. Commissioner Schatmeier objected to the characterization of the modal overlay governing transit as a "transit priority." He noted that he was a member of the Subcommittee, and recalled that they were defining candidates for transit service, not priorities. He stated that there were three main purposes in identifying these streets: 1) to identify streets that are candidates for physical improvements, 2) assist the policymakers, and 3) predictability about possible locations for transit. The last two were the factors given the greatest consideration by the Subcommittee. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether it would help to add language stating whether the street currently carries transit. He noted that if there are existing or planned transit services on any particular street, the associated physical improvements could be included in the design of any project. Chair Knox White suggested replacing "can assist in prioritizing" with "prioritized." Commissioner Schatmeier noted that they had shied away once from addressing transit streets as anything more than candidates because of the potential uproar it would create by defining them as priority transit streets. He noted that was something they had tried to avoid before. He suggested that the wording be changed to acknowledge that many streets labeled as transit streets that either don't have transit, and probably won't in the foreseeable future without changes in budget realities. He did not believe there was a reason to create an uproar by changing what they had intended by classifying those streets as transit streets in the first place. He suggested labeling them as transit candidates. | TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf |