body,date,page,text,path
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT
October 24, 2007
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:40 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Eric Schatmeier
Srikant Subramaniam
Nielsen Tam
Members Absent:
Robert McFarland
Robb Ratto
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
September 26, 2007
Chair Knox White noted that the following language be changed on page 4: ""He recommended
that the state street transit fare box average of 27-28% be used.""
Chair Knox White noted that on page 6, the language reflected a double negative, and should be
changed as follows: ""Chair Knox White did not believe that angled parking was not appropriate
everywhere ""
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the September 26, 2007, meeting.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Commissioners
McFarland and Ratto were absent.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,2,"Open public hearing.
Deborah James wished to express concern about the behavior of students on the Line 63, and
noted that she had written an email to the Alameda Transit Advocates website, with a draft letter
to the principals of the schools on Line 63. She noted that the students have become very foul-
mouthed, to the point where the driver was required to stop the bus until they quieted down, or
were asked to leave the bus. One young man threatened the bus driver, who stated that she would
call the police. She noted that the kids had quieted down since they were informed that she
drafted a letter online.
Close public hearing.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A. Options for Rerouting AC Transit Line 63 and Locations of New Bus Stops. Outcome:
Commission to Provide Comments.
Staff Bergman summarized the staff report, and displayed a graphical presentation of the route.
He noted that this was a direct follow-up from the March 6, 2007, City Council meeting, in
which an appeal of the Commission's recommendation to install bus stops at the intersection of
Otis Drive and Pond Isle was reviewed. The Commission recommended the stop due to the gap
between the existing bus stops on the intersection of Otis Drive and Grand Street, and the
intersections of Whitehall Road and Willow Street. The distance was approximately 3,000 feet,
where the City's goal was to have stops approximately 1,000 feet apart. In addition to the
concern about spacing, Line 63 has had significant operational problems; there is currently
insufficient run time in the schedule to enable the bus to remain on-time throughout the day. The
Council directed the Transportation Commission to review additional bus stop alternatives, to
evaluate the ridership potential of rerouting Line 63 from Otis Drive to Shoreline Drive between
Grand and Willow, and to examine other routing alternatives. The Commission established a
subcommittee consisting of Commissioners Ratto, Schatmeier and Krueger to examine Line 63
in more detail, working closely with staff and AC Transit. At this meeting, staff will present the
Commission's and staff's recommendations regarding the line. He provided an overview of
where the route runs, as well as its frequency and schedule.
Staff Bergman noted that a key issue at the Council meeting was the density along the Shoreline
corridor, compared to Otis Drive, and whether that would attract additional ridership. He
provided overview of the density in that area, which was displayed on the overhead screen. He
noted that there were over 1,000 housing units in the vicinity of Shoreline Drive, and
approximately 330 in the vicinity of Otis Drive. At previous meetings, public input had primarily
been received from residents of Otis Drive, where the proposed stops had been. A survey was
distributed to collect input from riders of the bus in this area, and 128 responses were received.
Most of the respondents overall indicated that the proposed stop locations, comparing Otis Drive
to Shoreline Drive, would not impact their riding habits, although the proposed Shoreline stops
were identified by significantly more riders than the Otis Drive stops.
Transportation Commission
Page 2 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,3,"Staff Bergman noted that additional input was solicited from more Shoreline Drive residents, and
received a total of 38 calls and emails; 29 of those supported rerouting the bus onto Shoreline
Drive, and 9 were against.
Summarizing all of the input received to date, Staff Bergman noted that the following comments
had been received:
1.
65 people opposed stops at Otis Drive and Willow Street;
2. 40 people supported the Shoreline Drive the route;
3. 10 people were opposed to the Shoreline route;
4.
11 people were opposed to the proposed stops at Otis and Sandcreek;
5.
8 people were opposed to the stops at Pond Isle;
6. 1 person supported the proposed stops at Otis and Sandcreek;
7. 1 person opposed all stops in the Otis corridor;
8.
4 people indicated they wanted one stop somewhere along the Otis corridor;
9. 2 people supported the Otis and Pond Isle stops;
10. 1 person indicated they wanted to maintain the stops within Alameda Towne Centre;
11. 2 people wanted to maintain stops at the Ferry Terminal; and
12. 1 person opposed the removal of stops at Alameda Point on Monarch Street.
Staff Bergman noted that scheduling was a key issue, identified by approximately 24 respondents
in the survey; on-time performance was a major problem on the line. The key segment of the
route that was problematic has been between the Atlantic/Webster intersection and the end of the
line near 12th Street BART, which had to do with Tube congestion and congestion in downtown
Oakland. For Line 62 to achieve acceptable on-time performance, approximately four minutes
must be eliminated from the run time.
Staff Bergman added that funding was also discussed; four buses remain in service at any given
time on the 63 in order to maintain the 30-minute headways. The annual cost of adding a fifth
bus, depending on the number of hours per day it would run, would be $300-500,000. Depending
on rerouting recommendations, it could require significant expenses on the City's part; the City
would be responsible for making capital expenditures at bus stops. With respect to future transit
demand, particularly in the West End, Alameda Landing was expected to be online fairly soon,
with early tenants coming in mid-2009.
Staff Bergman noted that the subcommittee examined a number of options for modifying Line
63, which he also displayed on the screen:
1.
Potential reroute at Alameda Point, which would save approximately two minutes off
the run times. Staff Bergman noted that of the two sets of stops eliminated on
Monarch Street, AC Transit's data indicated there were six riders per day using all the
stops.
2.
Rerouting the line near Encinal High School, estimated to save 1.7 minutes in one
direction, and just under a minute in the other direction. The schools have indicated
that they would not object to the modification, as long as the students' needs would
be served during the peak times.
Transportation Commission
Page 3 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,4,"3. The current route goes up Park Street, down Encinal, up High over to Fernside, and
out to Fruitvale BART. The idea was discussed of a more direct line to Fruitvale
BART, going up Broadway (saving considerable time); that would be implemented in
conjunction with other modifications. AC Transit is in the process of evaluating Line
51.
4. It was suggested that the 63 be shifted to Shoreline Drive between Grand Street and
Willow Street, as there is more housing density and greater ridership potential.
5. The route by Encinal High School went to Pacific, Marshall, Lincoln, down Webster
Street. A more direct route would be to continue straight down Central. While a fairly
dense corridor, and therefore it was not recommended.
6. With respect to operations near the Ferry Terminal, the route currently ran along
Main Street, went into the Terminal, stops, and exits to Alameda Point. The option
was to establish stops along Main Street, away from the Ferry Terminal, which would
require a 600-foot walk to the terminal from its present location. That option would
save approximately one minute in each direction.
7. They discussed maintaining the existing route along Otis Drive and relocating the
stops to Otis Drive, removing them from Alameda Towne Centre. That was estimated
to save approximately two minutes in one direction, one-and-a-half minutes in the
other, and eliminates the bus having to slow down for traffic and pedestrians through
the route. The major disadvantage would require shoppers to take their groceries out
to Otis Drive.
Staff Bergman noted that subcommittee's recommendations were as follows:
1. To eliminate the portion of the Alameda Point route along Monarch Street, saving
approximately two minutes;
2. To implement the reroute away from Encinal High School during the non-peak hours
associated with the school.
He noted that AC Transit indicated that if it was not possible to make sufficient cuts to reduce
run time that they may be obligated to add an extra bus because of their obligations to their
drivers. The subcommittee did not reach a consensus regarding how to proceed given this
scenario. Two options were discussed by the subcommittee: 1) The additional bus could operate
on Line 63 on an interim basis, while the Transportation Commission would have a specified
amount of time to develop a plan to use that bus most effectively. If no plan is developed, the
additional bus should be removed, and more drastic cuts be implemented. 2) The additional bus
should not be run on an interim basis, but only if a plan is already in place for utilizing the
additional bus.
In both scenarios, the subcommittee agreed that if a satisfactory plan could not be developed to
make use of the additional bus, that the following additional service cuts be made to Line 63, in
the following order, only as necessary to provide additional run time:
Transportation Commission
Page 4 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,5,"1. The stops be relocated away from the Ferry Terminal to Main Street;
2. Implementing the changes at Encinal High School throughout the entire day; and
3. To relocate the stops from the interior to the perimeter of Alameda Towne Centre.
The subcommittee stressed that they felt these were undesirable changes, but was necessary. He
noted that the initial reluctance by AC Transit to add an additional bus on the route had to do
with the impact it might have on farebox recovery, and whether this poor performance might
impact the future viability of the route. The subcommittee also recommended that Line 63 should
be rerouted from Otis Drive to Shoreline Drive, between Grand and Willow, once the run time is
available, and once the capital improvements have been made at the bus stops, particularly on the
south side of Shoreline Drive. This potential service change should be part of any discussions
regarding how an extra bus might be used.
Staff Bergman noted that another recommendation was: Since the schedule could not currently
accommodate the additional runtime required to serve Shoreline, bus stops should be installed at
the intersections of Otis and Sandcreek, as well as Otis and Willow to support the City's bus stop
spacing guidelines. This was a change from the TC's previous recommendation to install stops at
Pond Isle. The change was in response to the shift in position by the Alameda Police
Department, which determined that the Otis and Sandcreek location was the preferred bus stop
location.
Staff Bergman noted that the final recommendation from the subcommittee was that the
westbound bus stop at the intersection of Whitehall and Willow should be made the highest
priority for improvements at bus stops in the City. There is not currently a sufficient landing area
for people to stand while boarding the bus.
Staff Bergman noted that staff analysis addressed the farebox recovery issue that was a concern
to the Commission, that an additional bus would reduce farebox recovery, and that the might
impact the future of the line. AC Transit's data indicated that the 63 currently exceeded the
minimum standards for buses along its route; it is ranked in the middle with respect to passengers
per service hour and farebox recovery. While the additional bus would affect the performance, it
is not clear what the impact would be at this time.
Staff supports the following recommendations outlined by the subcommittee: The elimination of
the portion of the Alameda Point route; the modified service to serve Encinal High School at
peak school hours only. If AC Transit determines that an extra bus would be available, staff
recommended that this should be done on an interim basis, enabling the Transportation
Commission to develop a plan to best utilize that bus over time. That would enable the route to
stay on schedule and serve the existing route, as well as to enable the Transportation
Commission to develop a longer term strategy to serve the West End's upcoming development in
the next few years. Also, the line would be more effective and less convoluted.
Staff had significant concerns about some of the more severe cuts that the subcommittee
recommended be implemented if needed:
Transportation Commission
Page 5 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,6,"1. The relocation of the stops away from the Ferry Terminal was not supported by City
policies, which encourage intermodal connections. It would also undermine the potential
for people to use those connections.
2. The elimination of the direct service to Encinal High School was also problematic. The
partial reroute away from the school during the day would enable about half the riders to
be served with the school times; people in the neighborhood would lose transit access as
a result of that. The school prefers to have the students board in front of the school, so the
staff can monitor them while they wait.
3. Relocating the buses to the perimeter of Alameda Towne Centre would affect some very
heavily used stops. There were over 400 boardings and alightings per weekday at those
three stops. Staff recommended that they not be relocated at this time.
Staff recommended that if the new bus is available, that it be run on a pilot basis for up to 12
months. If the pilot service is implemented, the Transportation Commission should continue to
work with City staff, AC Transit and community stakeholders to develop a recommended
reconfiguration of the route. Alternative configurations should include, at a minimum, rerouting
the Line 63 onto Shoreline Drive between Grand Street and Willow Street; servicing Alameda
Landing, and splitting the route into two separate pieces to more effectively serve the destination
points along the line.
Commissioner Krueger wished to stress that with respect to staff not wanting to endorse the
options for the Ferry Terminal, the direct service to Encinal High, and the relocation of the stops
at Alameda Towne Centre, from the subcommittee's perspective, these were last-resort options
that they did not mention lightly. They considered these to be options in the event that nothing
else worked, and nothing else could be done.
Chair Knox White noted that under ""Funding"" in the staff report, it was suggested that a move to
Shoreline would require the establishment of new bus stops on Shoreline. He noted that they
currently had bus stops used by the W. Staff Bergman noted that was a more general reference
regarding any route changes.
Chair Knox White inquired whether the surveys and fliers were actually posted at the bus stops
on Willow and Grand. Staff Bergman replied that he did not believe they were, and that they
focused more on the origin and destination points, such as Alameda Towne Center and the
hospital.
Chair Knox White inquired whether the survey gathered address information from the
respondents, Staff Bergman replied that they received at least intersection information.
Chair Knox White inquired what the daytime off-peak ridership on the Encinal High School line,
Staff Bergman replied that it was about half the total.
Transportation Commission
Page 6 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,7,"In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether interlining was considered at the bus
stops, Sean Diest Lorgion, AC Transit, replied that they had discussed it at MLK and 12th Street
in Oakland, where line 12 runs. They did not do much interlining at Fruitvale BART because
there were so many bridge lines and the congestion on the bridge. They would be able to
examine that possibility. He noted that interlining did play a significant role in how the service is
run, as it enables AC Transit to more effectively use its drivers.
Open public comment.
Liz Cleves, speaking on behalf of Diane Voss, read her statement into the record:
""At the Transportation Commission meeting on May 24, 2006, the Alameda Police
Department raised concerns about the safety of the mid-block bus stop in front of the
crosswalk at Lum School and Otis Drive at Sand Creek Way. Crossing guards,
residents and parents have repeatedly expressed their concerns regarding the safety of
the crosswalk. In spite of all the efforts the City has made to make that crosswalk
safe, it still poses safety concerns. Since the May 2006 meeting, the Police
Department has changed their view, and according to the staff's current report, the
Alameda Police Department is comfortable with the location of the bus stop at the
Otis and Sand Creek intersection.
Comfortable. Are they comfortable with the vehicles exiting the drop-off area,
and stopping on top of the crosswalk, and sometimes in the crosswalk? Are they
comfortable with the number of vehicles that do not stop behind the Yield to
Pedestrian arrows? Are they comfortable with the fact that when the bus is stopped in
front of the crosswalk, oncoming vehicles cannot see the pedestrians, and therefore
will not stop behind the arrows? Are they comfortable with the fact that the crossing
guards will not be there all day, every day? Who will give further protection to
children on weekends, holidays, school closure days, and during summer vacation?
Please keep in mind that the crossing guards are there only during the weekdays
for two hours in the morning, and three hours in the afternoon. A great deal of time
has been spent talking, designing surveys, posting signs, soliciting opinions, writing
reports, etc. How much time has been spent watching the crosswalk as children
arrive, and when they leave school? How much time has been spent watching the
crosswalk when no crossing guards are present? The added drive-through drop-off
area has added new safety concerns. The flashing lights in the pavements cannot be
seen on bright, sunny days, and a bus blocking the driver's view of pedestrians will
add an even greater safety hazard. Many children are not going to wait for the bus to
leave the area before they dart out in front of the bus to cross the street. There is
probably nothing that can make this crosswalk 100% safe, but there are things that
can make it less safe. A bus stop in front of the school crosswalk is one of those
things.
If you check with the Alameda Police Department, you will find that they've
been citing many drivers lately for failure to yield to pedestrians at the crosswalk.
They are mostly present during the morning and afternoon times. They can be there
issuing tickets all day long. City Councilmember Doug DeHaan, even after the
installation of all the safety devices, remarked that he finds this crosswalk dangerous
and is reluctant to use it with his family. A bus stop first installed on Otis and Sand
Transportation Commission
Page 7 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,8,"Creek in June 2004 was removed shortly after doing safety concerns. Why are we
running around and around, only to end up back where we started? Over and over
again, we have read and you've heard the fears, the complaints of Alameda Landing
residents, Lum School parents, crossing guards.
At the City Council meeting on March 2, 2007, Councilmember DeHaan was
before the City Council, and he asked to answer the problems of a bus stop on Otis
and Sandcreek. He said to put the Line 63 back on Shoreline.""
Liz Cleves noted that the staff report stated that the density at the Shoreline area far exceeded that
in the Otis Drive area, and that the Shoreline area has 1,077 housing units, and the Otis Drive
area has 330 housing units. The Shoreline corridor has three times the number of housing units
than the Otis area. She believed that the ridership generated in the Shoreline area would be
greater. She noted that of the 128 responses staff received from the survey; 23 of those responses
(18%) stated that the Shoreline alternative would increase their ridership, compared to 8
respondents (6%) in the Otis area. Sixteen respondents favor a new stop at Otis and Willow. She
noted that with respect to rerouting Line 63 and the locations for the new bus stop, Attachment 3
read, ""By shortening one of the Alameda Point route, this would reduce the run time by 1.8
minutes westbound, and 2 minutes eastbound. This change would eliminate low-usage stops. The
change at one would require riders to walk an additional 1,350 feet."" She noted that AC Transit
Board Policy 508 read, ""Bus stops or locations where bus passengers access the AC Transit
system: Bus stops must therefore be convenient to the places where passengers wish to go.
Convenience and speed will be balanced in determining appropriate bus stop placement, as too
many bus stops can slow down travel times. Outside the downtown areas, AC Transit generally
seek to have bus stops 1,000 feet apart. Passenger usage of bus stops is an important factor when
considering bus stop placements or removals."" She believed the proposed increased in walking
distance was too far.
Jonathan Martin wished to address the reroute of Line 63 from Otis to Shoreline between Grand
and Willow. He liked the quietness of Willow Street, and objected to the rerouting of the 63,
which would put noisy buses in front of his house at all hours. He requested that Line 63's
current route be kept.
Lucy Farber noted that she lived in Berkeley but was the office manager at St. George Spirits at
2601 Monarch Street, which was halfway between the two stops that were proposed for
elimination. She noted that people come from all over the world to visit their tasting room, and
encouraged people from San Francisco to take the ferry and then use Line 63. They attach a
coupon at the bottom of the ferry ticket to take the 63. She noted that the temp crew they hire to
bottle the vodka frequently take the bus, and she objected to the proposed elimination of their
bus stop. She was concerned about the cold and windy weather, which would make it
inhospitable to require people to walk to their business. She noted that they encouraged people to
take the bus after drinking at the tasting room, and that the removal of the bus stop would make it
more difficult for them to use the bus.
Deborah James expressed concern about the possible stoppage of the bus to the ferry terminal, as
well as to Alameda Towne Centre. She suggested eliminating service to the ferry terminal during
the times when the ferry did not operate. She did not believe that all of the drivers were aware
Transportation Commission
Page 8 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,9,"that they should come into the ferry terminal, which has happened a number of times.
Jim McDonald spoke on behalf of his elderly mother, who lives on the corner of Willow and
Shoreline. She was very concerned about bus and passenger noise, as well as pollution,
generated by the current route. She believed that rerouting the 63 line would aggravate that
condition, as would the litter from the passengers.
Claudia Davison distributed her letter to the Commissioners, and spoke in opposition to the
proposed bus stop on the northwest side of Otis and Willow. She noted that the location was
adjacent to high-density condominium residential units, and added that there was already
insufficient parking at that location. She added that youths already passed through the complex
en route to school, and she was concerned that this would add to their security, vandalism and
parking problems. She had previously requested removal of the red curb zone on the north side
of Otis, across from Willow Street. She did not believe that was a suitable location for a bus stop,
which would add to the underutilization of that curb space. She believed that bus drivers should
idle their buses and take their breaks in commercial, rather than residential, areas. She proposed
that this stop be relocated to the east side of Willow between Otis and the fire hydrant to the
south, which was adjacent to commercial medical facilities with off-street parking. She believed
that fewer people would be adversely affected on a daily basis seven days a week, and for fewer
hours, since it no one would be there after business hours. She believed it was important that
Alameda be connected to the two BART stations.
Tamara Rouse noted that she and her children had problems crossing the street on the way to
Lum School, and believed that adding a bus stop at that location would be a safety hazard. She
noted that she was a property manager at 1901 Shoreline, and that while the residents liked
having the morning and evening bus stop at that location, the off-peak buses created a lot of
noise, traffic and unpleasant smells. She was also concerned about vandalism and strangers
loitering around their property during that time.
Susan White, 1901 Shoreline Drive, echoed Ms. Rouse's comments, and objected to the diesel
fumes in the middle of the day. She added that she suffered from asthma, which was aggravated
by the fumes. She noted that she moved to this area to live in fresh air.
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, noted that less than half of the residents on Alameda
Point have cars. He believed that Line 63 was broken. He noted that their growing youth project
discovered that the lack of convenient access to affordable, healthful food stores was a major
issue leading to food insecurity in the West End. He noted that the bus line at Alameda Point was
heavily used and relied upon by the community, including many students who attend Island High
School and Bay School. He noted that the bus was a lifeline for those traveling to the food bank,
and that the schedule should not erode at Alameda Point. He has heard stories of buses skipping
the Alameda Point loop altogether to regain the on-time schedule. He did not believe that moving
the line from Towne Centre should not be considered, even as the Towne Centre is being
redesigned as a more upscale shopping center. They would welcome any further efficiency on
Line 63, but did not want to see any reduction in service.
Transportation Commission
Page 9 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,10,"Christine Toll noted that she lived at Willow and Shoreline, and expressed concern about the bus
noise outside her window.
Jack Bogar thanked the Transportation Commission for the special meeting regarding the ferry,
and for their efforts to improve the bus service for the riders. He noted that it was very difficult
to walk across the street safely to Lum School. He noted that cars trying to pass the stopped
buses at the crosswalks created a very unsafe situation, and had witnessed the Alameda Police
Dept. pull many violators over. He believed that a bus stop adjacent to the crosswalk was very
dangerous, and should not be allowed to stand.
C.J. Kingsley noted that she lived near Lincoln and Webster. She believed that it would be nice if
the Towne Centre-bound bus would arrive at :20 and :50, rather than 18 and :48. Riders who
disembark from the normal hourly ferry would be more likely to make the connection. Because
of the erratic bus schedule, she suggested that the inbound W, except at Atlantic and Webster, be
allowed to pick up Line 63 passengers with a transfer.
Ursula Apel, Kitty Hawk Road, noted that she lived eight blocks away from Safeway, and added
that it was difficult to carry groceries that distance. She noted that it was difficult to cross
Willow/Whitehall, and that there was no legal crosswalk at that location to reach the bus stop.
She noted that many families signed a petition to have a bus stop on Otis that would be safer and
closer to Lum School.
George Wales recalled the City Council meeting in March 2007 was meant to address
improvements in the bus system from the riders' perspective. He believed that the reduction of
run times would be beneficial to the riders.
Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, believed it was very important that as many people
as possible have access to public transit, and looked forward to seeing the gap in Line 63 filled.
She noted that solutions to reliability problems were critical, and that having direct access to the
ferry as well as bus stops that are close enough. She believed it would be advantageous to move
another bus to Shoreline, but because of its cost, she would be happy to solve the problems on
Line 63 some other way in the short term.
Kevin Gong supported the rerouting Line 63 to Shoreline, because the Transportation
Commission's data stated that the density along Shoreline was three times that of Otis. Also 50%
of the survey respondents replied that it would increase their ridership if the 63 were to run on
Shoreline. He believed that AC Transit and the City had a responsibility to ensure that the public
transportation system was successful and accessible. He believed that a stop at in front of the
school on Sandcreek would be irresponsible, and that the City fought hard to make that area safe
for the children.
Transportation Commission
Page 10 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,11,"Close public hearing.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the Monarch stops, Staff Bergman
replied that there were a total of six riders per day.
Commissioner Schatmeier complimented staff on an outstanding staff report, particularly the
items for which consensus was reached, and not reached. The Transportation Commission did
not want to cut transit service, which they viewed as an asset to the community. He emphasized
that some options were a last resort, and found the arguments with respect to the Monarch stop to
be particularly compelling. He wished that more businesses advertised their proximity to transit,
and encouraged their customers to use transit. He believed that show of support should be
rewarded, not penalized. They reached the consensus that Line 63 was very unreliable, which
was echoed by the speakers. The subcommittee reached the conclusion that four minutes needed
to be cut from it. He hoped that interlining could be used to achieve economies throughout the
system, and he did not believe AC Transit should add a bus on an interim basis to an existing
route. He shared the experience expressed by a speaker regarding the bus not going into the ferry
terminal, and noted that it happened too often. He agreed with the woman who suggested
carrying local passengers on the W line; he noted that was already done on the O and OX. He
believed that would be a good supplement for transferring passengers, and for local passengers
from Webster Street to Shoreline.
Chair Knox White inquired whether AC Transit has considered offering a free transfer within
a
specific geographic area.
Mr. Diest Lorgion replied that AC Transit has not been consistent about which Transbay lines
offer local service. He noted that they examine local service on the W, and added that they were
generally allowed where local service is not available.
Chair Knox White noted that he would rather see consistency in favor of allowing local transfers
on all the lines.
Mr. Diest Lorgion noted that adding local passengers while a Transbay bus is trying to get to San
Francisco was a concern for the Transbay passengers.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding adding another bus, Mr. Diest Lorgion
noted that they had to balance between offering reliable transportation versus being able to cut
only so much.
Chair Knox White noted that last year, the Transportation Commission made a bus stop spacing
recommendation to City Council that would adopt the spacing that AC Transit used, with more
flexibility up to 1,300 feet between bus stops. He inquired about the status of that
recommendation.
Transportation Commission
Page 11 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,12,"Staff Khan recalled that was an interim recommendation until the Transit Plan was developed or
implemented. Staff Bergman noted that the Transit Plan mentioned 1,000 feet as an
approximation, and that it did not establish a minimum.
Chair Knox White noted that in terms of Line 63, the subcommittee seems to have recommended
that the current line did not work. He agreed that ridership should be the primary goal on this
line, and that unreliability would destroy ridership on this line. He agreed that either a new bus
should be added, or that certain stops should be cut. He noted that City Council did not rule on
the appeal when they heard it in March, and asked for more information. He noted that the
Transportation Commission would recommend that this issue return to City Council for a final
decision. He hoped that any decision would support ridership and reliability on Line 63.
Chair Knox White noted that a primary concern was the safety issue in front of Lum School, and
was not personally convinced that a bus stopping in front of the school is a major safety issue.
He noted that there was clearly a problem with respect to the use of the roads in front of Lum
School. He did not believe there was a need for four lanes of traffic along Otis. He suggested that
any motion sent to City Council should ask them to prioritize looking at Otis between Westline
and Park, and to redesign the road, possibly to three lanes to shrink the crossing distance. He
supported moving the bus line to Shoreline, and added that it may need to happen as part of a
longer term plan for rerouting. He supported asking AC Transit to examine the ability to interline
that route. He would like to know whether run time could be found within the route.
Chair Knox White noted that eliminating the East End Loop along High Street, Encinal and
Fernside was rejected because of the ridership of 50-60 riders per day. He found the
subcommittee recommendation rerouting near Encinal to be problematic. He was willing to
support the Monarch Loop cut, and noted that segment jeopardized ridership along the entire
route of the rest of the line. He described Line 63 as an ugly transit route, making frequent turns.
He suggested bifurcating the line, which may allow for better, more usable transit. He would be
willing to support a conditional motion stating that the Transportation Commission supported
moving the line to Shoreline if interlining will allow for an incremental increase in the cost of the
line. He emphasized that the 63 must run on time and reliably once the changes have been made.
Commissioner Krueger endorsed the cut to Monarch, and recalled mentioning St. George, and
found that to be a difficult decision. He noted that he had attended several events at St. George
and used Line 63. He was curious about the ridership stemming from the temp work staff, and
noted that there was no way to fix the line without finding time and thereby cutting pieces of the
route off.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he had been emphatic at the subcommittee level about not
adding another bus. He noted that timing was a critical component, and stated that if they could
identify changes to the route that would make the expenditure of the additional bus worthwhile,
rather than just adding a bus to preserve the schedule, he would like to see a chance to make the
case of adding another bus to serve places that are currently unserved, and gain additional riders.
He did not support the strategy of adding another bus to this route on an interim basis. He
disagreed with staff's findings in that regard, and strongly advised against adding another bus on
Transportation Commission
Page 12 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,13,"an interim basis. He would like to try the four minutes of cuts they were originally asked to make
on an interim basis; during the evaluation period, the contingency of adding another bus by
serving additional areas should be examined. If the four minutes did not solve the problem, then
additional cuts or an additional bus must be added.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether four minutes was not enough, Mr. Diest
Lorgion replied that when they originally looked at the route, the current scheduled running time
is 50 minutes one way. He added that during peak periods of the day, the running time was 57-58
minutes. AC Transit anticipated a reduction to about 54 minutes may work, while allowing the
drivers' contractually required six minutes of layover. He noted that while the contract stated a
six-minute layover, it has become an issue with the operators, and that additional time might be
necessary.
Chair Knox White requested that AC Transit speak with drivers about the layover issue, and
added that the City did not want to constantly change the schedule, which would lead to
confusion and a drop in ridership.
Commissioner Schatmeier believed the trial cuts would enable the City to develop a way to use a
fifth bus, or to further adjust the schedule. He was not comfortable with a trial period of adding
another bus on the same route.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to support the elimination of the Monarch Street stops and
to
implement the school-peak service only on Central Ave., on an interim basis, to remove four
minutes of run time. The TC would then examine and prioritize the additional two to four
minutes, and to develop a plan for best using an extra bus should it become available.
Commissioner McFarland seconded
Commissioner Krueger inquired what would happen if the cuts were made, and did not work
before another plan was ready. He wanted to be ready to put another bus out there, in the worst
case scenario. He agreed that the plan should be ready as soon as possible.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he did not define the interim period in the motion, and
suggested that it be the time between signups.
Mr. Diest Lorgion replied that the earliest that any change could happen would be March, or
possibly June 2008. He said that route changes and signups occurred every three months. He
noted that major changes were made every six months.
Commissioner Schatmeier suggested that the interim period be six months. He did not believe
that every single cut had been explored.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the driver's union could wait that long, or whether an
extra bus must be added sooner. Mr. Diest Lorgion replied that the Commission's
recommendations would still go to City Council, so if the TC provided alternative
recommendations, this would help any changes to be implemented more quickly.
Transportation Commission
Page 13 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,14,"Chair Knox White wished to make several friendly amendments. He noted that a key item from
the City Council meeting was the move to Shoreline, and would like the motion to include that
item. He suggested adding language to the motion that if an additional bus was needed, the bus
routes would be re-examined.
Commissioner Krueger believed that if the required time at Shoreline were to be added, further
cuts must be made somewhere else.
Chair Knox White agreed with Commissioner Krueger's assessment. Commissioner McFarland
noted that as the seconder of the motion, that was agreeable to him.
Chair Knox White believed that any cuts were to be made, he believed the Transportation
Commission should wait until they could discuss all the lines and the best way to run transit in
Alameda.
Staff Khan noted that if they discussed adding a bus, it would not be restricted to Line 63. He
noted that the time issue must be discussed before implementing any cuts.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he would rather add the bus on an interim basis than make
deeper cuts.
Chair Knox White noted that the motion did not include a number of subcommittee conclusions,
such as:
The bus schedule cannot currently accommodate additional runtime. To serve Shoreline,
a bus stop should be installed at the intersections of Sandcreek and Willow and Otis to
support it;
Eliminate W. Midway/Monarch/W. Redline (at Alameda Point) portion of route
Reroute from Central/3rd to Pacific, away from Encinal HS, except at peak times for
school trips near the beginning and end of the school day
The prioritized list of additional cuts: 1) removing the bus from the Ferry Terminal; 2) if
that did not work, removing all direct service to Encinal High School; 3) if that did not
work, relocate the buses from the interior to the perimeter of Alameda Town Centre. He
personally did not believe the Towne Centre stops should be removed, as they were one
of the highest use stops in the City;
Line 63 should be rerouted to Shoreline once runtime is available and capital
improvements have been made at the bus stops. Since there is no available runtime, bus
stops should be installed at Otis and Sandcreek, and Otis and Willow to support the
City's guidelines.
The westbound bus stop at Whitehall and Willow should be made the highest priority of
improvements at the bus stops in the City.
Line 63 should be rerouted from Otis Drive to Shoreline Drive between Grand Street and
Willow Street once run time is available and capital improvements have been made at bus
Transportation Commission
Page 14 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,15,"stops. This potential service change should be included as part of any discussions
regarding how to best use an extra bus if that becomes available.
Since the bus schedule cannot currently accommodate the additional run time required to
serve Shoreline Drive, bus stops should be installed at the intersections of Otis/Sandcreek
and Otis/Willow to support the City's bus stop spacing guidelines. This change in the
TC's previous recommendation is in response to the Alameda Police Dept. indicating that
they are comfortable with the location of the bus stop at the Otis/Sandcreek intersection.
The cuts will be on an interim basis, and if they do not work, additional cuts or rerouting
should be identified
Commissioner Krueger suggested an additional amendment discussed in the subcommittee that
was not included in the report: The ferry terminal cut should not be made without the capital
improvements at the terminal.
Chair Knox White noted that there were 18 unfunded bus shelters in the City already.
Staff Khan wished to clarify that the area on Main Street was a wetland area, and constructing a
stop there may have some serious environmental implications. He noted that an environmental
document may need to be prepared.
With respect to the need for more run time, Chair Knox White inquired whether the
Transportation Commission preferred going straight to the ferry terminal and Encinal High
School all day, or whether those locations would be examined after an interim period.
Commissioner Schatmeier preferred the latter choice.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the capital improvements could be made a priority, if
not a contingency, for shifting the line.
Chair Knox White noted that the installation of a new stop must meet all ADA requirements,
which would prevent it from becoming a muddy swamp.
Following a discussion of which items would be retained in the motion, Chair Knox White
summarized the Commission's consensus that Items #3 and #4 should be removed from the
discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the date this item would go to the City
Council, Staff Khan replied that at the latest, it would be in December.
Chair Knox White noted that it would be difficult for him to support a motion that discussed
additional buses on an interim basis before other cuts are made.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that it was not correct that he would never support another bus;
he would not support another bus on the existing route to make up six minutes that were missing.
Transportation Commission
Page 15 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,16,"Mr. Diest Lorgion replied that the line must be reviewed internally by AC Transit staff, and they
would determine whether they need to come up with other cuts on their own, with feedback from
the Transportation Commission, or add another bus.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that would work for him.
Chair Knox White suggested that the Commission not prioritize the items, and that #4 (Ferry
Terminal) would be removed from the discussion until it was necessary. Commissioner
Schatmeier agreed with that suggestion.
Chair Knox White believed that it would be important to look at the road design for Otis. He
added that Items 3 and 4 would be removed from the discussion, and the motion amended to
examine the Otis design. In addition, if AC Transit says that four minutes would not be enough,
they will come back to the TC for additional recommendations.
Commissioner Schatmeier amended the motion to include the following:
1. Implement the proposed route change at Alameda Point, removing stops on
Monarch Street and rerouting the bus onto Lexington Street
2. Implement service near Encinal HS to serve the school at peak school hours; at
other times the bus would be rerouted off Central Avenue and 3rd Street, and would
run on Main Street and Pacific Avenue
3. The two proposed cuts described above should be made on an interim basis to
evaluate whether they are sufficient to keep the bus on schedule
4. Line 63 should be rerouted onto Shoreline Drive between Grand and Willow once
run time is available and capital improvements have been made at bus stops to meet
ADA requirements
5. Since the Line 63 schedule cannot currently accommodate the additional run time
needed to operate on Shoreline Drive, bus stops should be implemented at the
intersections of Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive at Willow Street
6. The westbound bus stop at the intersection of Whitehall Road and Willow Street
should be the City's top priority for bus stop improvements
7. Evaluate Otis Drive west of Park Street to see if the street can be redesigned from
four travel lanes to three travel lanes with bike lanes
8. If AC Transit indicates that the time removed from the first two recommendations
above is not sufficient, and/or they decide to put an extra bus on the line, they will
come back to the TC for recommendations regarding how to proceed
Commissioner McFarland seconded. Motion passed 5-1 (Krueger). Commissioner Ratto was
absent.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Proposed alignment of Mitchell Avenue Extension from Alameda Landing to Main
Street. Outcome: Commission to provide comments.
Transportation Commission
Page 16 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,17,"Commissioner Schatmeier moved to extend the meeting. Commissioner Krueger seconded the
motion. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Ratto was absent.
Staff Khan presented the staff report. He noted that the alignment of the new street is
preliminary. Mitchell Avenue would be needed to support the development in the area, and to
provide access to the Posey and Webster Tubes. Staff examined how to place it to provide access
to the adjacent properties by minimizing impact to existing and historical buildings. Staff took
into the consideration that the alignment be routed where the current sanitary sewer line as well.
He displayed slides to illustrate the proposed rerouting. He noted that instead of a left-turn lane,
staff suggested additional turn lanes into the driveway to access the property.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger regarding the travel lane, Staff Khan
explained that it was meant to establish a right-of-way. He added that this was not a final design,
but was a planning-level design. Commissioner Krueger was concerned about the width of the
street.
Open public hearing.
John Beery believed the biggest problem with the project was that it crossed private property,
and that the property must be purchased at some point. He added that in many instances, the City
wants to do things that are not supported by funding. He did not believe the design should begin
until the purpose of the design has been determined clearly. He noted that the properties would
be impacted, and suggested a use such as Rossmoor on the site. He noted that this project
wouldn't be completed for 22 years, and added that there must be practical considerations. He
did not believe the City should be negotiating with South Shore, but that they should listen to the
City's needs. If the City cannot get what is needed, then it should state that something is needed
from South Shore. He emphasized that this was a business, not a charity, and added that the City
was not a charity as well. He believed that time was being wasted, and noted that as a property
owner on the site, he would like to see alternatives for the road.
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, noted that they had serious concerns about the
alignment as shown and agreed with Mr. Beery's comment that it was too early to bring this item
forward. He was concerned that when a concept is put on paper, it becomes hard to change. The
Collaborative's specific concern was the section of the road that crosses Main Street into
Alameda Point, which cut off the corner of one of the housing units, and abuts the road up
against it. It would also dump the traffic onto Orion Street, a residential street where a lot of
children live. They had been told that alignment would not go there, but would go further up
Main Street. He was concerned that this has been reversed. They were also concerned about the
larger discussion about the redevelopment of Alameda Point, which would cause a significant
change in the layout of the land. He believed this conceptual alignment was premature, and
hoped that it would be withdrawn at this point. He would like it to be brought forward at a more
appropriate time, when the entitlements at Alameda Point have been completed.
Close public comment.
Commissioner Krueger requested that staff address where this alignment fits with Alameda Point
Transportation Commission
Page 17 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,18,"and the larger picture. He inquired whether other alternatives have been examined.
Staff Khan noted that Mitchell Avenue is being designated as a truck route and a bicycle route,
providing access to Alameda Landing and Alameda Point. He noted that it would be an
additional route besides Stargell, as well as Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, and that it
addressed the needs of the West End as identified in the General Plan.
Chair Knox White noted that the speakers made a good point that it was too early to bring this
item out of the conceptual phase, which tended to take a life of their own. He understood Mr.
Beery's concern, given that the realignment went through his property. He suggested that if a
right of way were to be preserved, he would like to see more discussions with the property
owners. He believed this may invite another problem intersection in the City. He noted that they
did not know all of the traffic scenarios, and would like to see those identified more clearly
before proceeding.
Commissioner McFarland noted that developing a truck route into an intersection on a curve was
fundamentally bad design, and added that there was a sharp curve coming into the intersection.
He believed that neither condition was desirable.
No action was taken.
7B.
Designate representative to Alameda Point Advisory Task Force.
Chair Knox White described the purpose and schedule of the Task Force and invited any
interested Commissioners to volunteer as an alternate. He noted that he intended to attend all the
meetings.
Commissioner Schatmeier volunteered to serve as an alternate on the Task Force.
8.
Staff Communications
Staff Khan noted that the most recent information from the design team stated that one of the
alternatives coming from the Posey Tube would create a hook ramp along Fifth Avenue to
Jackson Street; that alternative may not be feasible any longer. He added that there was an
Oakland-Chinatown meeting the previous week, during which that item was discussed. The
concerns they had heard related to pedestrian access at the intersection. They were also
concerned because of the elevation change and the distance between the exit from Posey and the
intersection of 7th and Harrison. He noted that was a difficult grade change and may not be
possible to implement.
Staff Khan noted that they would examine an alternative to develop a 6th Street arterial corridor.
The design team hoped to provide better access along the Oakland side using 6th Street, and to
develop some better signal coordination and improved access further to the north to 880 and 980.
City staff would like to address the weave that occurs on the freeway at the Jackson on-ramp,
leading to the 24 exit, and to reduce congestion at that area.
Transportation Commission
Page 18 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,19,"Future meeting agenda items
Staff Khan would like to discuss the thresholds of significance for the environmental review of
the Transportation Element at an upcoming meeting. They were also looking at pedestrian,
transit and bicycle level of service threshold of significance. Staff has been working with the
consultants, Dowling Associates, to refine those items, and will bring the information back in
November or December.
Staff Khan noted that the Park and Webster Street parking studies may be brought back later. It is
currently delayed, He believed it may be brought back in January.
Staff Khan noted that a public meeting would be held November 1, 2007, regarding the Fernside
Boulevard bike path improvements, for which the City received grant funding. The meeting
would be held at Lincoln Middle School at 7:30 p.m. in the Multi-purpose room.
Staff Khan wished to address few questions that Chair Knox White posed to him regarding a
HUD grant received by the City, as part of the Community Block Grant Program. He noted that
as part of the 2005 audit, two concerns were raised:
1.
With the money received, the City made improvements to bus stop locations, and
the selection criteria had been questioned. The auditors recommended that a
process be developed with respect to bus stop improvement selections, particular
with respect to different demographics of population regarding income and
disabilities; and
2.
Some ADA features at the improved bus stops were slightly off They
recommended that the City be very careful in the future when making such
improvements. It may be necessary to remove some of the sidewalk to comply
with the requirements to maintain an appropriate cross-slope.
Staff Khan noted that he had received an email from the City Attorney's office, stating that they
were negotiating with HUD. They were looking into the voluntary compliance agreement in
order to address the concerns raised by HUD; the agreement has not yet been signed. Once it has
been signed, the City may have 60 days to bring forth procedures to address the two issues.
9.
Adjournment:
10:35 p.m.
Transportation Commission
Page 19 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf