pages: TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2008-07-23 | 7 | Open public hearing. Nathan Landau, AC Transit, thanked staff for performing this analysis, which he believed could be a model for the rest of AC Transit's service area; only Emeryville, which is smaller, had performed a similar analysis. He noted that transit was involved in 44 of the segments with conflicts. He noted that a wide street with a conflict could be resolved; a narrow street with a conflict could be tougher. Jon Spangler commended the City for taking the initiative in performing this analysis, and added that many cities would not do it. With respect to the conflicts, he suggested thinking about the number of people moved per segment of roadway. He noted that it could easily be balanced in favor of transit, pedestrians or bicycles. He would like to see the analysis fleshed out more fully, and noted there was a column for school districts. He suggested balancing it more in favor of the Safe Routes to School process and priorities is the streets would be safe for kids to walk to school. He believed it was very important not to automatically default to the automobile. Close public hearing. Chair Knox White believed this matrix should be more useful if it is to be used going forward, and he believed the conflicts should be shown more clearly. He believed using LOS C from 2030 projected data to examine potential conflicts was overkill. He believed it was important to look at what the matrix data meant, and wanted to more clearly identify the conflicts. He noted that the entire High Street section jumped out at him because it was an arterial and a school zone, and inquired about the conflict. He believed that whether the number of conflicting segments was 72 or 52, it still seemed very high. He was surprised by the proposed levels of threshold, which went against the EIR policies. Chair Knox White inquired whether staff was prepared to take a recommendation to a joint meeting with the Planning Board in August. Staff Khan noted that staff would continue to work on the document, and get the feedback from the Transportation Commission. He noted that staff was only moving forward with the Transportation Master Plan EIR at this time, not the recommended thresholds. Chair Knox White believed that was a different outcome than what staff had previously stated. He believed the staff proposal should be there in August. Staff Khan noted that staff was looking into how to resolve conflicts, and both Planning and the City Attorney's office agreed that the thresholds of significance should be kept on a separate track. The TMP EIR would be delayed if staff were to implement all five of the listed steps required to develop the thresholds of significance. Chair Knox White recalled that the direction of the Transportation Commission was to use the maps and their overlays as the way to work out the thresholds of significance. He suggested that a significant impact would be "any project that negatively impacted transit, bicycle, pedestrian Page 7 of 14 | TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf |