pages: TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2013-06-26 | 9 | Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling said he is glad that regional transit is getting attention in this study and BART acted as the pass through agency to get the money for the City. However, when he reviewed the study and heard the presentation, he heard nothing about Alameda's Housing Element and the Multifamily Housing overlay that was adopted last year. Nor did he hear a reference to them in the draft of study results in terms of trip generation. Furthermore, he did not see in the draft or presentation any reference of the scoping of the environmental impact statement for Alameda Point because there is an estimated 1,700 to 4,500 housing units up for development. So, he felt those issues needed to be accounted for in the final version of the study. In a procedural standpoint, he believed there was no mention of community meetings set for the study although this is technical study. Also, if the City is moving towards a longtime transit corridor, the community needs to be involved in evaluating that change in the beginning. Finally, he could not help but find misplaced quotation marks and commas in the first few pages of the report beginning on page two and the corrections should be taken care of when the report is presented to the City Council. John Knox White, City of Alameda Planning Board member, speaking as a citizen said when he sat on the Transportation Commission with Commissioner Schatmeier, they conducted the Transportation Element and identified Lincoln and Clement Avenues as the two exclusive transit streets. So, he understood that the Transportation Element may be the driving factor of why they chose that location. Specifically, he noted the RTAS' analysis does not review the various alternatives that are identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Alameda Point. He believes this is a problem because land use and transportation planning should be conducted together. Also, he points out that there is not analysis on how the plan will serve commercial areas that are not at the Seaplane Lagoon. He goes on to say this will be a driving plan for transportation solutions at Alameda Point and there should be some discussion on transportation integration of the various housing, mixed-use and commercial areas. Commissioner Bertken said the presentation made him think that the Lincoln Avenue corridor would replace the AC Transit Line # 51 on Santa Clara Avenue. So, he wanted to know what would the City gain from this change. Based on the consultant's illustrations, the corridor was not serving Alameda Point based on the distance and travel to Fruitvale versus going directly to downtown Oakland. So, the corridor would take longer to travel and would not service Fruitvale BART Station. He noted the result would take the highest use transit corridor for AC Transit Line #51A and move it down a block without indicating how that would affect the patronage. Staff Naclerio replied the purpose of the study was to enhance all transit access for all future developed areas. Colin Burgett presented the bubble illustrations that showed access to the Northern Waterfront site and the current location at Santa Clara Avenue does not catch it. Colin Burgett explained the value would relate to the future development at the Northern Waterfront. If the City made the transit change and there is no change to development at the Northern Waterfront, the City would serve a similar ridership market, but not as centralized. Yet, with proposed residential development and job sites closer to the waterfront, that would be a value from a ridership perspective. Additionally, AC Transit would reduce travel time and costs. He was aware that AC Transit was conducting its own study on the Line #51 so there was no interest on the RTAS to say the line would be relocated. However, the expectation was that AC Page 9 of 17 | TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf |