Albany Transportation Commission recommends prioritized Active Transportation Plan after long debate

The Albany City Transportation Commission voted 4-1 on Feb. 26 to recommend that City Council approve the Active Transportation Plan's project and program prioritization, after a three-hour staff presentation and extended public comment.

The motion directs staff to bring the commission's prioritized list and suggested edits to the City Council for study-session review and subsequent inclusion in a draft plan. The roll call on the recommendation recorded votes as Commissioner Highley "yes," Commissioner Kerr "yes," Commissioner McCroski "no," Commissioner Zuba "yes" and Vice Chair Barnes "yes." The commission did not adopt a strict ranked list; commissioners discussed using tiered groupings (top/middle/bottom) and asked staff to emphasize certain categories in the draft.

Consultants and city staff presented Phase 3 of the Active Transportation Plan, which converts previously developed networks into prioritized corridor projects and a set of programmatic actions such as speed management, intersection treatments and lighting. Staff described a three-criterion prioritization method that scored projects 1' on access/connectivity, safety/comfort and community input, and then combined those scores to produce an overall ranking. "We tried to keep everything on a three scale," consultant Pete Rousidian told commissioners, noting higher scores indicate higher priority.

The presentation summarized outreach results: the pedestrian survey drew about 588 responses and the bike survey about 535. Consultants cautioned those results are not a statistically representative sample and that online responses could include repeats. Staff said outreach comments are geocoded in a public database and will be used to inform corridor-level studies.

Several projects and program areas emerged as focal points during debate and public testimony. Residents and commissioners urged higher priority for school-area safety projects, especially Cornell and Marin elementary intersections, and asked staff to consider fast-tracking feasible, near-term safety fixes. Parent and resident Carrie Schulman told the commission the Jackson-Buchanan area is congested during pickups and that "it is not safe for cyclists, especially children, to share the road as they approach the intersection." She and others urged banning right turns on red at key school-zone intersections.

Consultants highlighted corridors that scored highly but are constrained by regional ownership, cost or complexity, including a long-term vision for a San Pablo Avenue protected bikeway and upper/lower Solano Avenue projects. Pete said the San Pablo corridor has strong community support but requires regional coordination. Commissioners suggested "spilling" some community support from constrained long-term projects (San Pablo) into parallel corridors such as Adams and Canes to ensure a complete, connected network is advanced sooner.

On programs, staff noted the community ranked lighting and speed management highly; staff flagged lighting as a high-benefit but high-cost item that would weigh differently if cost assumptions change. Several commissioners recommended elevating lighting and a rail-safety or rail trespass risk-reduction program and asked that e-bike speeds and education be explicitly addressed in program recommendations.

The commission asked staff to incorporate several edits before the draft plan goes to council: (1) emphasize school-area projects and consider staging near-term safety fixes; (2) adjust scoring or treat community input with calibrated weight to account for survey sample issues; (3) ensure projects with multiple components (streetscape + ADA ramps) are packaged transparently; and (4) include program options for lighting, speed management and a rail safety/reduced-risk program. Staff also noted a federal grant deadline for some projects and said they will work to keep funded projects moving.

The commission voted to forward the prioritized project and program list to City Council with the commission's recommended changes. Staff said the next steps are a council study session and then drafting a full ATP document for adoption; commissioners requested that staff circulate the draft ATP to the commission and public ahead of council consideration so commissioners can review how the edits were incorporated.

What happens next: staff will prepare the draft ATP text and maps, incorporate the commission's edits, and present the package to City Council for discussion in March or April. The commission's recommendation will be part of the record delivered to council.

Authoritative detail: staff said the ATP outreach included 588 pedestrian survey responses and 535 bike survey responses; consultants stressed responses may include repeats and that the sample is not a formal randomized survey. A staff member noted the plan will be used to feed projects into the city Capital Improvement Program and staff work program, but that projects will be implemented in phases depending on funding, right-of-way and coordination with regional partners.