3A Public Hearing 2010 0517 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Marc/: 25, 2010 Agenda No. 10-03 Page II of 20 Note: As indicated under Item 4: Correspondence, four emails also came in regarding this item following preparation of Commissioner packets that contained other related correspondence. Once of the later emails came from Fred Reicker, 2018 Marineview Drive, San Leandro (below): The narrowing of East 14th between Dolores and Blossom speaks volumes against running BRT down that thoroughfare, to say nothing of the impact its construction/implementation would have on the dozens of small businesses along the route. But McKinley school presents another and equally important issue. If it has not already been done, some folks should take a look at the foot and automobile traffic around the school before the start of classes in the AM and especially when school lets out. The afternoon situation is best described as a complete mess. Carrie Makarewicz, 5350 Shafter Avenue, Oakland, and Ebonie Wallace, 436 1 Sth Street, Oakland, sent the same email (reproduced below): You will soon be voting on a "Locally Preferred Alternative" (LPA) to study Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) for our region. Along with TransForm, I am asking you to please vote in favor of studying a robust BRT system with a maximum number of proposed stations and dedicated lanes (also being called a "build LPA"). I am aware that some merchants have begun to express concerns about impacts to parking and that some residents expressed concerns about stop-spacing being too distant for seniors and people with disabilities. However, I believe that BRT can be studied and implemented in a way that addresses these issues. AC Transit has expressed a commitment to mitigate parking impacts caused by BRT to the extent of ensuring a 15% rate of availability of street spaces along the BRT route. I urge you and the City Council to use this opportunity to work with AC Transit to create a ?performance based parking pricing? (sic) strategy that could result in increased parking revenues that could then pay for a local shuttle service (like Emery-Go-Round), or even transit passes for local workers (Eco- passes). Additionally, 100% of remaining new revenues generated from performance-based parking pricing that aren't spent on Eco-Passes for workers could then be re-invested in the district where they were generated, which might also fund more lighting, increased security, or other improvements desired by local merchants. Old Pasadena, and Redwood City offer incredible examples of how to do this, as described in Donald Shoup's book The High Cost of Free Parking. With respect to seniors and people with disabilities, existing bus stops at popular destinations for seniors and people with limited mobility could and should be improved by locating BRT stations in their place. Shelter, seating, lighting, and other security amenities would be welcomed at these stops as an improvement to existing facilities (or lack thereof), and could attract even more riders. Increased traffic and other issues have all but eliminated transit reliability while simultaneously increasing maintenance and operations costs. BRT offers a tremendous opportunity to address these issues. However, without a study of "how much" BRT could be implemented, we cannot know how to proceed. Again, please vote in favor of studying a "full-build LPA" for BRT and work closely with AC Transit to explore helping the City implement a ?performance-based-parking strategy" which could then lead to along-awaited Eco-Pass program. Thank you for your time and service to the City. Note: Another email, from Brian Smitlr, 1059 56th Street, Oakland, was the same as the above except for an introductory paragraph: