pages: TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2013-09-30 | 9 | when the project was approved and essentially the City had no real transit strategy for that project. He said since then every residential project approved has some form of a TDM program and the key is paying for transit. He said it is handled in a number of different ways such as having shuttles or buying Easy Passes from AC Transit in perpetuity. Moreover, the City requires that the Home Owner Association (HOA) cannot vote the TDM policy out. He explained based on the long-term strategy for the west end that Alameda Landing would go first. They have to setup a Transportation Management Association (TMA) and Target is paying annually towards public transit services. He went on to say that eventually it might make sense for Alameda Landing and Alameda Point to merge as one TMA. Also, he said part of the strategy is to insert businesses and HOA members into the TMA board and they can adjust the program as necessary. Essentially, they are building a citywide TDM through each project that they approve. Regarding parking around businesses, he felt as a community, we could decide to adjust because business parks at Alameda Point have to pay for parking, whereas older developments do not. Jennifer Ott stated that there are examples of area TDM plans such as Stanford University and Bay Meadows and Joe Daisa could provide more examples. Staff Payne explained that the City has a preliminary TDM/TSM plan in place and the City has an abundant supply of free parking making it difficult to implement the measures. Boardmember Köster asked how much population is needed to support a true TDM plan. Jim Daisa replied there is not a rule of thumb because the program would be tailored towards the population. However, the employment is just as important as the residents. He said Jon Spangler made a good point on how high density residential attracts self-selective people who want to move towards public transit services. Boardmember Köster asked who is responsible for educating the public about the transit services. Jim Daisa replied that the TMA deals with the promotion. Boardmember Zuppan said she is concerned with the economic impact of the plan. Since there would be 1,425 units and 25 percent of them are low-income, plus three housing collaboratives at most 1,000 people would fund the TMA. Yet, the City would be looking for a catalyst project driving development and limiting or providing costs for parking is not an attraction. Ultimately, she felt parking is a component, but since the City has low traffic and high street parking, it is not smart to outline the parking component. Also, she mentioned the City needed a balanced perspective to create an effective and friendly TDM plan for visitors and pet owners. Boardmember Knox White said he agreed with all three recommendations and appreciated the idea of not trying to design the perfect TDM plan and requiring everyone to do it. He suggested that staff look at adding a trip cap and a way to gauge the early capacity issues. He highlighted the city of Cambridge as an example and mentioned that unbundling parking is a good mechanism to reduce the hidden costs of parking. Page 9 of 11 | TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf |