pages: TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2007-01-31 | 4 | Commissioner Krueger noted that he would not want to water the language down to the point where it downplayed the physical improvements. He indicated that it is important to say that the modal overlay will determine the priority, not just suggest it. Chair Knox White suggested changing the language under "Modal Overlays" to read, "The modal overlay classifications prioritize operational elements within the constraints of the right of way." Commission Schatmeier noted that would be acceptable. Commissioner Krueger asked why the exclusive transit right-of-way along Clement Ave. does not extend all the way to the Fruitvale Bridge. This would mean that there would be a shared right-of-way at the most congested point in the corridor. Staff Khan noted that both High Street and Park Street currently function almost at capacity, and as a result, staff was examining Fruitvale Bridge to absorb additional capacity. Also, lower level of transit priorities intersect at Tilden, so this could serve as a transfer point. Commissioner Krueger noted that future plans depended on whether the City was serious about the mode shift and emissions reductions or not. He inquired whether the language on page 27 could be strengthened, stating that the modal overlays will be used to establish the priorities, not just that they can assist. He also asked that on page 30, the language referring to "enhanced bus stops" be changed to "enhanced bus stops/stations" because that could go beyond a mere bus stop, and might involve a different mode. Commissioner Krueger noted that the reference to a commercial main street on page 20 seemed somewhat weak in stating that bike racks might not be feasible on some streets. He noted that in his submitted comments, he inquired about the language about sidewalks on both sides of the street, which had been originally mentioned in the matrix beginning on page 34. It appeared that that language was dropped, but he could not find any language addressing it. He inquired whether it was delegated to the pedestrian plan. Mr. Spencer noted that the pedestrian aspects had been taken out in several places, because they anticipated it would be included in the pedestrian planning activity; there was a certain amount of redundancy assumption built in to it. He noted that sidewalks on both sides of the street was not necessarily a given, and there could be right of way tradeoff decisions could be made as well. Commissioner Krueger felt that the strong emphasis on pedestrian access in the General Plan, as related to the strong support for walkability in the community, that he believed that having sidewalks on both sides of the streets would be very important. Chair Knox White suggested deferring this discussion to the pedestrian plan. Commissioner Krueger agreed. Chair Knox White also noted that on page 2, under "Objectives of the Alameda Classification System," a key issue to address is cut-through traffic. He believed the wording should be changed to "residential traffic impacts." On page 7, under "Numbers of Lanes," it read, "This should be determined through operational evaluation; it should be tied to threshold LOS, which are being developed as part of the TMP, and should also be weighed against neighborhood | TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf |