body,date,page,text,path
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
May 28, 2008
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier
Srikant Subramaniam
Neilson Tam
Members Absent:
Robb Ratto
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
April 23, 2008
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the April 23, 2008, meeting and
minutes as presented. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0.
Absent: Commissioner Ratto.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Multimodal Circulation Plan
Chair Knox White requested that the Multimodal Circulation Plan be removed from the agenda
since it no longer met.
Staff Khan noted that would be done.
1",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,2,"b.
Pedestrian Plan
Chair Knox White noted that the Pedestrian Plan Task Force had not met since the last meeting.
c.
Bicycle Plan Update Group
Staff Bergman noted that this group would meet June 16, 2008.
d.
Alameda Point Advisory Task Force
Chair Knox White noted that the meeting was to present a report from WRT Solomon regarding
the MTC Station Area Planning Grant. The first meeting was in March 2007, and they brought
forth a study that determined three development plans, one of which mimicked the PDC accepted
by City Council. They also looked at a scenario with higher density than the second plan, which
would zero out the net traffic gains from the second plan. He noted that report stated the higher
densities would lead to less traffic and more dependence on transit.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
There were none.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A.
Review and Approval of the Draft Pedestrian Plan.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and noted that there had been no changes since the last
presentation of this plan. He noted that it had been brought to the other Boards and Commissions,
and that it would be brought to City Council.
Staff Khan noted that the Pedestrian Plan would be brought to City Council for acceptance in
early July 2008, following the recommendations from the Transportation Commission and the
Planning Board. It would not be adopted by the City Council until the Transportation Master
Plan policies completed the CEQA process, which would be in the September/October
timeframe.
Staff Bergman noted that the report detailed the high-, medium- and low-priority projects, and
that the report would support future grant applications, as well as guide the Capital Improvement
Program in future years. The policies would be adopted as part of the Transportation Master
Plan, which would then be rolled into the General Plan.
Chair Knox White noted that there had been an issue about the maps, which showed a street and
pedestrian walkway, which went through somebody's house. Staff Khan noted that had been
corrected.
2",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,3,"Open public hearing.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva believed the Pedestrian Plan was a very impressive document. She had
noticed the phrase ""put more distance between the car and the pedestrian,"" particularly with
respect to bulbouts. She believed that bulbouts were necessary in some places in Alameda, but
she did not feel in danger when on the sidewalk. She did not believe that bulbouts improved her
safety when she crossed the street, but as a driver, she believed that bulbouts were distracting to
her and made things more difficult when turning. She believed that flashing crosswalks were a
distraction, and did not flash predictably when a pedestrian was in the crosswalk. She believed
that drivers responded to lights rather than people, and that the flashing lights took her attention
away from the pedestrians in the street. She believed at the Island/Doolittle intersection, the walk
from the east side of the golf course was pedestrian-unfriendly unless they jaywalked; a
pedestrian could not cross to the east without going down to Island. She believed that an
improvement was necessary there. She believed that the trails behind Bayview were beautiful
and should be left as is, and did not want them to be paved.
Close public hearing.
Chair Knox White noted that he had some concern about approving the Plan without the
Transportation Commission seeing the final version, that the document that would go to City
Council for approval had not yet been printed, and that the current document had an incorrect
map in it.
Staff Khan noted that the approval could be conditioned that the changes would be made.
Chair Knox White noted that some issues that trod the line between policy and design guidelines,
such as not putting up ""no-crossing"" signs at bus stops, such as on Atlantic Avenue. He believed
that was a policy, and should be in the policy document. He was surprised to find that the design
guidelines, originally intended as a companion document, would not be ready to go to City
Council at the same time. He noted that would be his preference, which showed buy-in from the
City's policy-makers.
Commissioner Krueger inquired about the Island/Doolittle intersection, and noted that there was
no sign stating ""no crossing,"" but that there was no crosswalk, and almost no sidewalk.
Staff Khan noted that the signal operations were an issue, and that there may be a conflict with
pedestrian crossing. He noted that intersection could be added to be addressed in the plan.
Commissioner Krueger suggested that a second category be created, where intersections simply
had no facilities, such as Island/Doolittle, where pedestrian facilities were not in place, rather
than pedestrian crossings being prohibited.
Chair Knox White noted that this plan was not the appropriate vehicle to pick and choose specific
actions, and that he would like to have a discussion about the valid use of the in-pavement lights.
3",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,4,"He believed they were flashy, and seemed as if they would work well; he noted that the current
body of work did not support that the $50-75,000 cost would do a proportionately better job than
a yellow pedestrian-caution sign in the middle of the street.
Staff Khan noted that staff would prepare a presentation by July to address lighted crosswalks as
part of the design guidelines. He understood that they were feasible and effective in some
locations, such as Walnut Creek or San Leandro, generally when visibility was good with no sun
glare issue, such as on Otis Drive. He suggested that the orientation of the street be considered
when evaluating locations for lighted crosswalks.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether any lower-cost interim solutions could be used for
lower priority projects, such as signage at Island and Doolittle. He suggested that a sign
identifying the last chance to cross the street before getting to the bridge. He added that such a
sign could be used near the Posey Tube, and that some sidewalks go to the Tube and that some
sidewalks dead-end.
Staff Khan believed that was a very good suggestion, and that this could be implemented as part
of the City's existing maintenance budget.
Commissioner Krueger shared Chair Knox White's concern about approving a document unseen,
but trusted that staff would make the appropriate changes as requested.
Chair Knox White noted that his comment only regarded the map, which staff stated had been
corrected, and that nothing else in the document had been changed.
Staff Khan noted that there were other changes, such as placement of punctuation, but that there
were no substantive changes.
Commissioner Krueger moved to approve the Draft Pedestrian Plan. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded the motion.
Chair Knox White requested that Commissioner Krueger amend his motion to state that staff
should look at the Island/Doolittle intersection. He noted that it would be hard to fund
everything.
Commissioner Krueger suggested that it be tied into the crosswalk lights, and he shared the same
concerns about the cost-effectiveness of those lights. He shared the concerns about the crosswalk
lights and the associated costs.
Commissioner Krueger amended his motion to approve the draft Pedestrian Plan, but with the
additional recommendation that the cost-effectiveness of the crossing lights be examined, and
to objectively confirm the prioritization of the Island/Doolittle intersection from the standpoint
of closing a gap in the pedestrian network, and whether funding could be shifted to accomplish
that. Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the amendment was acceptable to him, and seconded
the amended motion. Motion passed 6-0. Absent: Commissioner Ratto.
4",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,5,"Chair Knox White noted that he would entertain a motion asking that the design guidelines be
sent to City Council.
Commissioner Krueger moved to direct that the design guidelines be sent to City Council after
presentation before the Transportation Commission. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the
motion. Motion passed 6-0. Absent: Commissioner Ratto.
Staff Bergman noted that the estimated cost of crosswalk lights of $50-75,000 were generally
correct, and wished to clarify that those projects had been funded by grants. City funds
comprised between 10-20% of those funds.
Chair Knox White inquired whether that grant money could be used for other projects. Staff
Bergman replied that the funding depended on the priorities of the funding agencies, and how
they ranked various projects.
Staff Khan noted that was a good point, and that in this case, the lighted crosswalks came from
Safe Routes to School funding, and that the funding contained that restriction. He added that
further discussion could take place in July.
6B.
Review of Multimodal Evaluation Methods to Determine a Project's Potential
Impact on Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Modes.
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and noted that there must be an EIR document to identify
the impacts and clearly disclose them to the public. He noted that one of the existing significance
criteria was the Level of Service D for vehicles at an intersection, which translates to an average
delay of 35-55 seconds. Staff had worked with the City Attorney's office and Planning
Department staff, and have gotten feedback from them to ensure the report is complete in
developing the criteria. He noted that this information would be used to create quantitative
methods to evaluate impacts for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit. He described the various
methodologies used in the report, particularly in determining future conditions on Webster
Street, Park Street and Central Avenue.
Staff Khan noted that staff was struggling with how to resolve conflicts, particularly between
modes. He noted that in addressing transit impacts, they could add a queue jump lane at an
intersection to improve transit service, but at the same time, that would mean the pedestrian
crossing time and pedestrian delay would be impacted. He noted that they must choose between
two modes for the higher priority. He noted that the City Council has the option not to mitigate
significant impacts, if they approve a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and that an EIR
must be in place to be able to make that decision. He noted that depending on how significant
impacts are defined, even small changes such as striping a bike lane could require a full-blown
EIR, which could be very expensive for the City.
Staff hoped that when the street functional classification system was examined as recommended
by the Transportation Commission, that classification system could guide the City in resolving
some conflicts. Staff hoped to identify the streets by a specific mode and their priorities. He
noted that some districts faced similar challenges, such as the commercial districts of Park Street
5",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,6,"and Webster Street, where pedestrians were a high priority. Staff requested the Transportation
Commission's input in how to resolve these conflicts, as well as continuing the dialogue with the
City Attorney's office and the Planning Department to ensure no avenues were missed. Staff
suggested that the City move forward with the policy in the Transportation Master Plan, but
continue with the criteria development on a slower timeline to allow for additional feedback
from the public and the development community.
Staff Khan noted that the third approach could be a network approach, which had been used in the
environmental community for wetlands. In that case, the impact to one location could be mitigated
by similarly improving another location. Staff considered that kind of mitigation, by considering
bicycle, pedestrian or transit as a network. If impacts occurred at one location, staff would consider
going beyond a certain distance to fix a problem in the network. Staff asked the Transportation
Commission to extend the timeline for adoption of these criteria by nine to twelve months. Staff
requested feedback on the proposed threshold of LOS D for pedestrians, as well as any suggestion
of preference on those issues, as well as how to resolve conflicts based upon the three listed
methods.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired how LOS for transit was different than LOS for vehicles.
Staff Khan explained that the vehicle LOS looks at the whole intersection and all approaches, and
that transit LOS looked at the impact on legs with transit. He noted that transit signal priority on
some locations would be examined.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier whether delays caused by passengers
were taken into account, Staff Khan replied that only delays caused by vehicles were examined.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding corridor LOS for vehicles, Staff Khan
replied they were looking into it, and that the intersection may be improved, but the corridor
LOS would go down.
Commissioner Krueger noted that Table 13 had a typo, and should read ""optimized."" He added
that Table 14 should read ""mitigated."" He inquired why the mitigated plan numbers for the 2030
TMP for southbound Buena Vista and Lincoln were higher than the number for the 2030
optimized plan. Staff Khan replied that the TMP policy was meant to reduce the classification for
Buena Vista by shifting traffic onto other streets.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the model accounted for crossing
two legs of an intersection, such as Encinal and Park, Staff Khan replied that he would check
with Dowling and return with that information.
Open public hearing.
Jay Davis suggested the use of diagonal crosswalks (scramble phase) for streets like Park or
Webster Street.
6",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,7,"Close public hearing.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger, Staff Khan noted that the Planning Board
wanted to be sure this was as easy and consistent as possible. The possibility of using headways
to define major transit corridors was an option, as opposed to the previously discussed option
based on having three bus lines in that corridor.
Commissioner Krueger believed that the number of routes was not as important than the number
of buses traveling the routes. He believed that headway was better than number of lines.
Commissioner Schatmeier believed that transit delays were caused by a number of factors, and
that speed was caused by a number of factors.
Chair Knox White believed that the reason to separate the two was to put in queue jump lanes for
the buses to jump around the congestion, and mitigate the LOS for transit without mitigating the
LOS for the cars. He did not believe it made sense to put something together to mitigate all the
congestion at Atlantic and Webster by adding a couple of lanes, when all the traffic moved
quickly to the Tube, only to sit in traffic at that point. He acknowledged that there was no perfect
system, and suggested that the Commission may not need to factor in stops.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he still struggled with the LOS definition, and what it got
the City. He agreed that defining LOS for corridors or intersections was a method for defining
traffic problems. He noted that transit delay and transit speeds were determined by many factors,
and inquired whether it would identify traffic impacts from a particular development.
Staff Khan confirmed that was correct, and noted that they came from the policies that the
Transportation Commission recommended last year. He noted that they attempted to address
degraded travel time on a corridor, which would impact the transit. He noted that this addressed
relative change. He noted that the City could examine the intersections on the corridors, or make
some of the transit stops more efficient, and that there were many ways to improve service
delivery of transit.
Staff Bergman noted that as part of the work done by Florida DOT in developing their bicycle
LOS and pedestrian LOS, they also did a transit LOS, which was very data-intensive and
complex. Staff noted that they attempted to strike a balance in something that the development
community could use without going through the very labor intensive exercise that would put a
burden on the City to analyze, and would be difficult for the public to understand. Staff wished
to show an impact in a way that was easy to quantify.
Chair Knox White noted that he especially liked the real-world analysis that shows what
pedestrian LOS A, B, C and D look like. He was concerned that LOS D might be too optimistic,
and thought that B might be too stringent. He suggested that LOS C might be a level to look at;
he noted that most of the intersections operating in the business districts operate at LOS B. He
appreciated the Central Avenue bike lanes from Pearl to Oak, shown as operating at LOS B. He
7",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,8,"noted that Webster and Park were examples of streets that he would not ride with his children,
but did not believe that Webster and Park must come up to LOS B. He suggested looking at two
different LOS ratings: one for regional arterial streets, and one for the rest of the streets.
Commissioner Krueger echoed Chair Knox White's comments, and understood the desire to have
the consistency, one reason why LOS D was proposed for all modes. Rather than change the
methodologies, he suggested considering a different significance threshold for bicyclists and for
pedestrians. He noted that pedestrians were much more delay-sensitive than drivers, given that
they were exposed to the elements.
Process for Resolving Conflicts between Modes
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether Chair Knox White was suggesting
that instead of headways and number of routes, that the City should look at street classifications,
Chair Knox White confirmed that was the case.
Chair Knox White inquired whether there was a plan in place to ensure this would be completed
within nine to twelve months.
Staff Khan noted that three departments were working on this issue, and that the City Attorney's
office and the Planning Department must be satisfied. He noted that meetings had taken place
among these departments, and they had determined that nine to twelve months was a reasonable
time to go back to the public on this issue and discuss it with the development community. Their
intention was to complete this is nine months, not to put it off for nine months.
A discussion of the street classification system and its goals ensued.
Chair Knox White did not see the network approach as a mitigation of the problems. He
suggested returning in June, and that this should be done as part of the EIR. He believed this
specific issue of how the functional classification maps interacted with each other should go
forward with the final EIR for adoption by the City Council. He suggested that in June, that the
Commission return with several scenarios to be prioritized, with the goals of simplicity and
being easy to understand.
Staff Khan noted that they had discussed how to create a system that did not require discretionary
approval for each mitigation. The development community wanted to know what to expect with
respect to levels of service and kinds of mitigations to expect before coming into a city.
Chair Knox White understood that the concerns were less for very large projects, which would do
an EIR anyway; the concerns generally surrounded the much smaller projects.
Commissioner Krueger shared the concern about the network approach, and believed that was his
least favorite option. He believed that the pedestrian, bicycle, transit and car environments were
not so much like wetlands, and that doing a mitigation in another location was not sufficient or
effective. He noted that they ran the risk of making one intersection completely impassable for
8",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,9,"bikes, and building a beautiful bike path on the other end of town. He noted that he could see
positives and negatives with the functional classification and the protected intersection methods.
He believed the functional classification might be the most practical choice.
Chair Knox White inquired whether the Transportation Commission would be comfortable with
moving forward using the street functional classification, and whether staff would be
comfortable as well.
Staff Khan noted that the administrative draft of the schedule would be delivered on June 4,
2008, as promised by Dowling. The delay was due to staff's request to include some of the
intersections in Alameda Point that were not included in the regional network. Staff intended to
have the administrative draft reviewed, and the draft EIR would be available in July, in
preparation to going to City Council in October.
Chair Knox White noted that August would be a difficult month due to vacations, and requested
that the EIR be released for longer than 40 days. He requested that it be presented after the
August meeting. He requested that something be brought back in June. He requested that the
maps be explained very clearly in the document.
Staff Khan noted that he would talk with the Planning Department and the City Attorney's office
to make sure they would be on board with the prioritization. He noted that the policy would be
adopted which stated it was a City policy, but the remainder would be held off until the criteria
for the nine to twelve month schedule came in. He will talk with the Planning Department and
report back in June.
Chair Knox White expressed concern that with the number of meetings left, that the discussions
may be rushed. He believed that a discussion of the preliminary draft in June would be valuable.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether it would be possible to implement a hybrid approach.
He noted that there were some aspects of the protected intersection idea that that he liked, and
that he believed they were consistent with the City's stated policy regarding certain intersections
where congestion was inevitable. He noted that approach addressed the concern staff expressed
about developers wanting to know how they mitigated.
Chair Knox White believed that was another layer of confusion in dealing with corridors, when
one used the street functional classification, and another was a protected intersection.
Staff Khan noted that staff would examine that idea.
No action was taken.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
9",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,10,"7A.
Webster Street Intelligent System/Smart Corridors Project
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and detailed the background and issues of this matter. Staff
had been working with Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, AC Transit and the
City of Oakland. The City will get some funding from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air,
from the air district, and the funding will be distributed by the congestion management agency.
He noted that staff was working with AC Transit, and understood that the San Pablo corridor had
seen substantial benefit of having the signal priority implemented along the corridor. The signal
would detect the bus up to a certain distance, and depending upon the speed and where the bus
was, it would extend the green time depending upon the operation at that signal. In addition to
benefiting transit riders, it could reduce the overall delay at that intersection for other vehicles.
Staff Khan noted that the second element of the project was the signal coordination along the
Webster Street corridor. He noted that was taken into account in giving the City funding. He
noted that the third element was to provide better monitoring at intersections and at key
locations, and also to have better data collection for vehicle speed and volume along the corridor.
He noted that the advantage of having the cameras monitoring information available is that it
could be available via internet to travelers, such as www.511.org or the Smart Corridors website.
That would also help staff address the concerns of the Webster and Posey Tubes, at the points
where backed up traffic would also impact other crossings in the City. He noted that was also a
safety concern for the City to have better incident management.
Staff Khan noted that the fourth element was to provide this information openly to the public as
he described, and that it would give staff the opportunity to make changes as a result of
monitoring intersections in real-time. Staff would be able to see such things as lane utilization
and saturation flow rates. He noted that Webster Street was a key fire department access route to
the medical center in Oakland. He noted that federal earmark money will be available through
CMA for this project as well. He anticipated that ground will be broken in July 2008.
Chair Knox White noted that bike and pedestrian funding generally came out of grants, as
opposed to stable funding, and inquired whether this funding was considered a grant as well.
Staff Khan replied that it was a grant, based on the population calculation.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether there would be money for
installation of displays at bus stops, Staff Khan confirmed that there would be funds for displays.
Chair Knox White inquired what the City would be getting for $800,000 that could be spent
elsewhere.
Staff Khan replied that incident management was critical for the Tubes, and that the Police
Department has stated that in the last 10 years, over 4,000 calls had been received related to
incidents in the Tubes. He noted that from the time saved in clearing an incident, there would be
10",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,11,"a $6 million savings in increased improvement in productivity costs, and making sure that people
get to where they were going. Staff wished to provide better information to travelers, and was
very concerned to ensure that motorists were informed before getting in their cars and could
choose an alternate route. He noted that this was an unfunded project in CIP.
Commissioner Schatmeier hoped that the 51 Line would be a candidate for bus rapid transit
throughout its length. If the City had this signal treatment on Webster Street, it might prove itself
to be a positive thing.
Chair Knox White believed that Caltrans should provide the funds to maintain their own roads,
such as the tubes. Staff Khan believed that Caltrans may provide some money for this project as
well.
No action was taken.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Broadway/Jackson Update
Staff Khan noted that staff planned to have a presentation made by Dowling and Kimley-Horn at
the June 25 Transportation Commission meeting. They will present the results of the models they
developed. He noted that the option allowing for a left turn coming out of the Posey Tube is
gaining support, and one potential obstacle is that a proposal has been submitted for a
development project in that area.
Estuary Crossing/Feasibility Study
Staff Khan noted that a second set of public meetings had been held this month. The public has
expressed a desire to see timely results. He requested Commission feedback.
Monitoring of Oak Street/Central Avenue intersection
City Council has directed staff to monitor this location based on concern about potentially
creating a de facto right turn lane on westbound Central Avenue at the intersection with Oak
Street. Staff is continuing to monitor this and will report back to the TC with the results of this
monitoring prior to reporting back to Council. A camera used to monitor the construction will be
reoriented toward the intersection, and staff will be conducting volume and turning movement
counts. Chair Knox White expressed an interest in having pedestrian right-of-way violations
monitored.
Future plans
Staff Khan noted that the Shipways project in Marina Village is expected to come forward for a
review shortly.
11",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,12,"WETA legislation update
Staff will report back once additional information is available. Chair Knox White expressed
concern that there would be no opportunity for people in Alameda to provide input until after
something had been approved.
Future meeting agenda items
Items for June include the Broadway/Jackson presentation, schedule for the LOS criteria, and an
appeal regarding the installation of street sweeping signs.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
12",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf