pages: TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2009-04-22 | 4 | DRAFT five stops, within the city boundaries. Transit needs to be emphasized as the primary mode, dealing with long distance trips, as this is the best opportunity to substitute for vehicle trips. Staff Khan clarified that the change was made after talking with AC Transit and the City Attorney's office. AC Transit expressed concerns about the impact LOS D would have on their service. The City Attorney was concerned that if the City asked a developer or a project applicant to improve a corridor to LOS C, above the threshold of LOS D, that may not be legally viable. The City Attorney asked that the threshold be raised for transit higher than other modes, making it LOS C, to avoid this conflict. AC Transit was pleased with this change as well. Chair Knox White inquired if the impacted transit stop would have to be within the project. He asked how it would be decided if a bus stop was impacted. Staff Khan replied that the location would be based on the trips coming out of the development. Chair Knox White asked for clarification on how the determination of a corridor was made. How is it different than looking at the route? Staff Khan replied that according to AC Transit, 3/4 mile to one mile makes up a corridor, which is approximately five bus stops. Chair Knox White stated that Alameda Towne Centre wanted to expand and one of the traffic impacts is at Central Avenue and Eighth Street. He noted that two stops from Alameda Towne Centre would bring you to Willow Street and Otis Drive. He asked if under this threshold, would it be possible to fix the impact at Central Avenue and Eighth Street? Staff Khan replied it would be addressed only if the transit corridor was impacted in the resolution of conflicts. If not, impacts could not be mitigated at Central Avenue and Eighth Street. Chair Knox White inquired if the way mitigations were being done for autos at intersections is illegal and questionable. He noted that impacts to auto intersection LOS is considered throughout the City; but whenever discussion is about bicycles, transit, or pedestrians, that impact has to be on the property or next to it or we're too far away to have a nexus. Staff Khan clarified that the City Attorney's office stated the nexus needed to be shown and explained as how far the corridor really was. If five stops were not the right length of the corridor, the corridor would be extended. Chair Knox White agreed. Staff Bergman continued explaining Alternative 1 for the pedestrian mode. The threshold would be LOS D; if the location of the intersection were below that threshold, impacts would be considered significant if there is a 10% increase in delay. For bicycle LOS, the recommended threshold is LOS D and if the segment were already below that threshold, a 3% increase in the score would be significant. Alternative 2 was discussed for the auto mode. The initial proposal was for a threshold of LOS D; for intersections below D, increase in vehicle to capacity ratio of 3%. It was noted, that at the Page 4 of 15 | TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf |