CC MIN 1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

28 (3 comments submitted from official bodies in the County . He also submitted copies of the informational folders to be mailed to all citizens of the County defining the proposed Master Plan and urging attendance by all at the public hear- ings to be held especially for citizen comment . He advised of the four prime steps to the Master Plan as now proposed , briefly stated as : 1 . Approval of a Master Transit Plan to insure that traffic congestion solutions will be fitted into the Regional Plan by San Mateo County ( Reported as Plan A in Staff report ) 2 . Creation of a County-wide network of modern transit feeder and express vehicles . ( Reported as Plan B in Staff report and recommended for selection as the general plan to be submitted to the electorate on June 10 , 1969 ) 3 . Suggestion to construct a roadbed , separated from all cross traffic , from Daly City to the San Francisco Airport . . . relieving some of the serious congestion at this point , and fares derived therefrom to help pay for the rest of the system ( Reported as Plan C and on which Staff reported as not being convinced would be either logical or feasible ) . 4 . Extension of a rail system to City of San Jose , completely replacing the present SP commute service with the latest model transit equipment , roadbed generally paralleling the SP right - of-way . ( Reported as Plan D in Staff report and advising this may be the ultimate long range answer to Peninsula ' s transit problems , but stressing importance of need for more immediate practical steps being taken as in Plan B , with recommendation for additional studies being made on this ultimate long range proposal ) Mr . Fisher advised of several recent actions taken by Santa Clara County indicating the beginning of a joint cooperative service on this ultimate long range plan for whole of Peninsula ; and reviewed comments made by other groups where Plan had been submitted . Council questioned at length various points of the preliminary plan , covering pos - sible obsolescence should only rail transportation be considered if new transporta - tion developments are made ; user convenience aspects by pickup service areas to main transit system; questioning of statistical studies made as to percentages of usage estimates ; studies made for improving freeway usage by restricted lanes for buses ; further questioning as to shuttle service envisioned to airport instead of a direct rapid transit link ; possibility of an upgrading of service by SP which could tie into a feeder system service and give more immediate results and thereby avoid the proposed parallel system ; questioning of considerations being given for sport or e ..tertainment areas generating special periodic type of traffic , etc . Discussion held concerning type of endorsement Council might give to this pre - liminary plan at this stage . Mr , Fisher , in reply to questioning , covered points raised by indicating studies covering types of transportation now known or how plan envisioned incorporating any type by the 1990 ulti - mate stage as railroad type of transportation not mentioned in Master Plan specifically only an exclusive right -of -way , and if a breakthrough made on other type of transportation the right -of - way would be available for such operation . He also pointed out mode of service to airport not at this point specific , and stressed point it was not intended that plan be prematurely " locked " into specifics after the proposed election . Councilman Arnett moved to accept report and recommendation of Staff , seconded by Councilman Rosselli . On question , Councilman Henderson stated that accepting only the recommendation of Staff for Plan B , providing for publicly owned feeder bus system, didn ' t support enough of the total or ultimate stages of the Plan for a total transit plan , and moved to amend motion to include Council ' s subscribing to the principles of the Plan as outlined in Item 4 ( Plan D in Staff report ) seconded tom '