Breed
Today, I’ve wrapped up the pages for the existing city policies on the use of the city roadways with a quick rundown of what the existing General plan has to say about non-automotive forms of transportation. Because of the passion that public transit always brings to the debate, I’ve separated it into its own page, putting bikes and pedestrians on a second page. These pages, which will remain where they are, can be found:
Existing Policies regarding “Alternative Modes” and Alameda’s Streets: TRANSIT
Existing Policies regarding “Alternative Modes” and Alameda’s Streets: Non-TransitFor clicking-ly challenged, the text from both pages is presented below:
Existing Policies regarding “Alternative Modes” and Alameda’s Streets: TRANSIT
“Alternative modes” are those transportation modes, like buses, bikes, walking, that are not single-occupancy-vehicles (solo-driven cars). Current transportation planning refers to solutions that encompass all of these modes as “multi-modal.” A multi-modal solution is one that accommodates many transportation modes and properly implemented a multi-modal solution will make sure that one mode doesn’t inhibit the others.
The City of Alameda has numerous documents that cover “Alternative Modes.” There’s the Bike Plan, the Long Range Transit Plan, The Short Range Transit Plan (Ferries) and of course the grand-daddy of them all The General Plan.
The General Plan and Buses
The Alameda General Plan has ten policies regarding the expected use of Alameda’s roadways by buses. (Nine are in the transportation section, one is in the “Health and Safety” element). All ten of the policies are supported in concert by the Long Range Transit Plan and the city’s “Transit First” policy.
The General Plan is very clear in its direction that the city should maintain the transit service that existed in 1991. The General Plan goes further to say that the city should work to provide expanded service.
Policy 4.3.b: Encourage AC Transit to maintain a dialogue with Alameda to ensure continued high levels of coverage and transit frequency.
Policy 4.3.i: Seek both technologies and service providers capable of expanding transit use in Alameda.
Alamedans know that service today (2007) is not as strong as it was in 1991 due to budget constraints, changes in the city including the closing of the Naval Air Station, etc. The city is constrained by both by fiscal realities and current transportation usage in the population as a whole. Within these constraints, the general plan offers guidance for planners in the future should situations arise that would allow for expanded transit use. These policies should be read within that context.
In terms of the use of Alameda’s roadways, the General Plan has three policies that speak to routing of buses in Alameda. The first calls for the development of “transit-oriented” streets. These streets would give priority to transit. The General Plan suggests a list of “candidate” streets in the clarifying language (italics). It would follow that a “plan” would be developed that would identify which streets would be acceptable for this type of implementation.
Policy 4.3.d: Develop transit-oriented streets where feasible.
A transit-oriented street favors buses over automobile traffic by means including signal priority, discouragement of through-traffic, red zones prohibiting parking at bus stops, and curb modification to bring the bus stop to the transit lane rather than requiring buses to move in to the curb. Candidate transit streets include Santa Clara Avenue from Third Street to High Street, Central Avenue from Encinal Avenue to High Street, and Webster Street from Atlantic Avenue to Central Avenue.
The existing General Plan also identifies a possible light-rail route through the city that would connect downtown Oakland and the airport.
Policy 4.3.c: Support AC Transit’s preliminary concept of a light rail line connecting downtown Oakland, BART stations and Oakland Airport with the route passing through Alameda.
A proposed route would be along Webster Street, Central Avenue, Encinal Avenue, Park Street, Otis Drive, Island Drive, Mecartney Road, Harbor Bay Parkway, and the Cross-Airport Roadway.
Nowhere in the Transportation Element are buses limited to these two types of classifications. In fact, in the “Health and Safety” element of the existing General Plan, there’s a policy that makes clear that even Minor Streets are acceptable for transit use.
Policy 8.7.k: Urge AC Transit to use small buses for routes on minor streets as a noise-reduction measure.
Combined with the first policy in the transit section of the Transportation Element, which specifically says the city should support transit routing that is proposed/existing on the city’s minor streets.
Policy 4.3.a: Support AC Transit’s current (1990) route restructuring plan for local and express bus service.
From these policies, it is clear that current city policy as defined in the existing General Plan expects that all roads in Alameda are acceptable for transit service, if that service meets the needs for which it is designed (ridership, cost-effectiveness, etc.). Put another way, there is no policy in Alameda that says “Buses should not run on “X” street.”
Existing Policies regarding “Alternative Modes” and Alameda’s Streets: Non-Transit
The existing General Plan has three pedestrian policies and nine bicycling policies. The disparity is most likely due to the fact that in 1990, when the General Plan was written, walking was not really considered transportation. It was seen more as something that almost everybody does, and that as long as there are a few stop lights at key corners, nothing really needed to be done to make it possible.
Only the first policy in the Pedestrian section specifically talks about pedestrians within the entire public space.
Policy 4.4.a:Ensure that automobile circulation improvements do not degrade the pedestrian environment.
Excessive lane widths, large medians, added turn lanes, wide driveways, and parking lots that do not include designated pedestrian paths create tension for walkers. Addition of medians, curb extensions to the edge of the travel lane at intersections, and similar amenities such as landscaping would improve pedestrian safety and enjoyment, and decrease the amount of time pedestrians must look out for cars.
The clarifying language explains what is meant, but current projects designed during the past 15 years show the weakness of this language being only for “clarification.” Many project EIRs have come forward that have purported to address these issues, while at the same time waved them away by pointing to the existence of pedestrian crossing signals as the proof to there being no degradation to pedestrian environment. In fact, there are numerous studies that point to how increased traffic volumes, higher speeds and wide roadways create an untenable pedestrian environment, resulting in reduced pedestrian activity.
On the bicycling front, the General Plan acts in concert with the city’s adopted Bicycle Plan. There is only one policy regarding Bicycles and their place in the roadway.
Policy 4.5.a: Provide a system of bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes that will encourage both commute and recreational cycling.
A map of the bicycle system was developed and eventually adopted into the General Plan. This map represents the only street classification map regarding the use of city roadways beyond the roadway hierarchy map.
Leave a Reply