Over the next 25 years as the freeways clog more and local transportation continues to shift away from single occupancy vehicles, even many of today’s solo commuters could be glad they invested up to 8 minutes a day to position Alameda to take better advantage of alternative transportation systems.

Unfortunately, the current Alameda Point Initiative provides too little assurance that an investment of a few minutes a day extra travel time by solo commuters will generate improved transit. Let’s explore whether or not the EIR process will enable us to fix this and several other critical assurance problems with the Alameda Point Initiative.

In my mind, that number is 4 minutes, the additional length of time added to a person’s commute.

We can agree to disagree.

No to all.

You quote a number as meaningless, then when it’s demonstrated that it is in fact meaningful with significant, measurable & real effect (atrributes most wonks appreciate) you continue to insist it doesn’t matter. You aren’t helping your case.

Dave, the table on page 13 is just Alameda Point. I confirmed my understanding of the travel time data with Public Works (who oversaw the report) before writing the post. The traffic impacts analysis includes all the other developments that are planned.

What I said was that your annual calculation of additional travel time was meaningless to anyone but an economist. People are concerned about their daily commute, will the development add 30 minutes to my commute in the morning. The answer is “no.” Trying to generate larger numbers to make your case is….what’s that word you like to use?…..disingenous?

My point is that the report doesn’t overstretch and try to go out of its way to reduce the impact of the SunCal plan, in fact it is pretty conservative. Therefore, I feel more than comfortable saying it’s a good report and that I would guess that the delays it finds are likely worse than will actually happen.

————-
Getting back to the 4 days thing. You start by saying the report is “pretty good” and indiacting that 4 minutes is virtuially meaningless. When it is demonstrated that 4 minutes is a significant burden on the city as a whole, you say you think it’s unlikely anyway. If a primary conclusion is deemed unlikely, is it still a “pretty good” report? And how are people not losing 4 days? Does the inititiative create a 369 day year?

Are you saying that the GP numbers represent only 2,000 households, and that they will be spread all across town?

Because that’s not what is in the the GP numbers. The 2000 housing units in Table 13 represent only the housing units in Alameda Point part of the GP numbers.

The table you refer to is talking solely about the difference between the GP numbers and the SunCal Initiative. It doesn’t include Alameda Landing, Harbor Bay, Northern Waterfront, etc.

33.33 hrs/8 = 4+ working days

You made a statement about 4 days, I thought your question was rhetorical.

Quite honestly, I don’t think the 4 days info is particularly meaningful as people won’t actually be losing 4 days of work and the 4 minutes probably won’t come to pass. Anyway, I let it stand as it was, a mathematics fact. Multiply 4 minutes by 250 by 2 and divide by 60 and you get 33.33 hours.