body,date,page,text,path
TransportationCommission,2009-05-27,1,"DRAFT
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
May 27, 2009
Chair Knox-White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:33 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Jane Lee
Robert McFarland
Kathy Moehring
Eric Schatmeier
Members Absent:
Srikant Subramaniam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
April 22, 2009
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the April 22, 2009 meeting.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. (Absent: Commissioner
Subramaniam).
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White noted that the Bike Task Force and the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force
had not met.
Commissioner Krueger indicated the Transit subcommittee members have prepared comments
on the scope of work to update the transit plan. A meeting will be set up to discuss this.
Staff Bergman stated timeframe and level of staff involvement will need to be discussed given
the current resources.
Chair Knox White asked for a report back on how this is going to fit into upcoming grant cycles.
Page 1 of 10",TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-05-27,2,"DRAFT
Staff Khan noted that the City has applied for grant funding for the transportation system
management and transportation demand management plan. Program funding is dependent on the
state's budget.
Commissioner Krueger mentioned the Transit subcommittee provided feedback on the possible
service cuts as well.
Staff Khan noted that AC Transit will be bringing their proposed cuts to their Board on June 24.
Discussions will be brought to both the ILC and the TC meetings.
Commissioner Lee shared that she will be retiring from AUSD at the end of the school year and
is submitting her resignation from the TC. She thanked all for their support this year and
applauded the Commission's work.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
There were none.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A.
Review of the Final Draft Estuary Crossing Feasibility
Staff Khan presented the revised draft, which was brought originally to the TC in March. The
draft had been modified to reflect the comments provided by the Commission at that time,
primarily related to the recommendations and cost estimates. There are three sets of
recommendations:
1) Minor modifications to Posey Tube - This would include moving the railing on the easterly
side of tube only to create additional space for bicyclists and pedestrians, and improving the
surface. The cost has been reduced from $7 million to $2.5 million.
2)
Water shuttle/taxi - An intermediate solution, this would improve access for those traveling
between Alameda and Oakland.
3)
Bridge, tunnel or elevated structure - This was the preferred solution. Several concerns were
mentioned regarding this type of crossing: the need for clearance from the Coast Guard; need
for the bridge to remain closed during peak times for commuters; height elevation and
vertical clearance for bridge (if a fixed bridge) and opening/closing lengths of time if a
drawbridge. Dialogue needs to be continued with Coast Guard, and to date no replies have
been received.
Noted that if the funding was received, staff would like to move forward with the water
taxi/shuttle study. The bike/ped bridge would remain as an open item. The City is also working
towards providing a SMART Corridor project on Webster/Constitution Way.
The City had applied for a $600,000 grant from ACTIA (which has been denied) and $300,000
from CalTrans bicycle transportation account (BTA) to conduct a project study report equivalent.
Awaiting news from CalTrans on the status of the BTA grant proposal.
Chair Knox White inquired as to why the City would chose the more expensive $60 million low
moveable bridge over the $40 million high fixed bridge.
Page 2 of 10",TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-05-27,3,"DRAFT
Staff Khan replied that the vertical elevation of the high fixed bridge would be 175'; elevator and
ramps would be necessary and that was not an attractive concept to the public.
Chair Knox White asked about the $1.5 million in bus improvements; he asked how these are
bike related. Why was a water shuttle the preferred use over the buses?
Staff Khan replied that congestion in the tube was not attractive to the public as well as the fare
required for the trip. The water shuttle/taxi was a preferred method.
Chair Knox White discussed docking and compared what would be involved in providing 15
minute headways for water taxis and road-based shuttles.
Staff Khan replied that the size of the boats was not evaluated on that level. The analysis was
qualitative at this time.
Commissioner Krueger asked for clarification on the wording in the report, referring to
congestion.
Staff Khan replied that congestion referred to how the opening and closing of the bridge in
addition to the possible railroad gate being closed, would affect the automobile congestion when
these two items were in effect.
Open public hearing.
Jim Strehlow thanked Public Works for their handling of the suggested crossings and
alternatives. He opposes SunCal's $1 billion monorail option, but supported special shuttles for
buses only. Having only one ferry is not enough, and this would be expensive. The public needs
to realize that we need to come up with a solution.
Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda stated that she was happy with the second draft and the preferred
recommendation of the water shuttle.
Close public hearing.
Commissioner Krueger discussed the summary of his comments regarding land uses and
congestion. Stated that congestion did not seem to be relevant to the land use. He requested that
language be included to ensure that the preferred option would coordinate with the construction
of a high speed rail alignment, should that happen in this area. High speed rail could impact
grade separations.
Chair Knox White asked why a project study report was needed to study the water taxi project
since it's possibly going to cost the same as just implementing the water taxi. He asked what the
cost of the study would be for the water taxi option.
Staff Khan answered that the study would help obtain funding and flush out any environmental
issues. The cost for the water shuttle would be significantly less than the actual construction, and
would be an estimated $300-400,000.
Page 3 of 10",TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-05-27,4,"DRAFT
Chair Knox White stated that he would like to consider this study's need. He noted that the
recommendation seemed to be geared towards a water shuttle only, but that operational
characteristics are not optimal. He suggested looking into other options further.
Staff Khan replied that in the next level of analysis, all operational characteristics would be
evaluated.
Chair Knox White expressed concern over spending thousands of dollars on a project study
report when the goals haven't been established and not sure if they will be achieved. He
suggested that the staff recommendation should be reworded. Not sure that the money should be
spent on the study only to find out later the bridge cannot be built. He stated that he would
support the water shuttle because the community is in favor, but wants to assure that we are
providing a service that meets the project goals.
Staff Khan stated that many options were presented to the public. The public did not support
some options and those were eliminated.
Commissioner Moehring made a motion to accept the report with the comments provided by
the Commission. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion.
Coordinate project with alignment for high speed rail; potential grade separations.
Long term bridge only be pursued once issues identified in report are understood.
Land use and how project would address congestion should be clarified.
Presentations were made at other boards and commissions, except TC
Clarify why the PSR is necessary as a next step.
During the PSR, once the operational characteristics are known, look at some of the
other options and to determine if better service could be provided for less money.
p. 23 - minimize language re: clearance of pedestrians and bicyclists and comparing to
congestion (55:00)
Note that existing bridges don't open during peak because of delays on I-880; however,
even though the bike/ped bridge won't impact 880, 12-20 minute delays to open and
close the bridge would have a major impact on bicyclists and pedestrians.
There is concern about user demand and the catchment area for the project. Analysis
needs to look at how the facility will fit into a larger system. If people are having to
transfer to another mode to get where they are going, this reduces the likelihood of
serving a significant number of people per day
Bridge is technically feasible, not financially feasible.
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0 (Absent: Commissioner Subramaniam).
Page 4 of 10",TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-05-27,5,"DRAFT
7B. Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Draft Community Based
Transportation Plan
Staff Bergman stated that the CMA undertook this project, based on a 2001 study by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which identified a number of communities for
further study regarding transportation gaps in low-income communities. He provided staff
comments regarding the recommendations presented in the study: 1) Traffic calming issues
would have to be addressed in consultation with other departments, especially fire and police; 2)
It would be helpful if the report could be as specific as possible in identifying the locations
where improvements were requested by residents; 3) He requested clarification regarding a
recommendation to improve pavement and bicycle striping for bicyclists near the Ferry
Terminal. He also noted that sidewalk maintenance is typically the responsibility of adjacent
property owners.
Bruce Brubaker, of Design Community Environment in Berkeley, the consultant on the project,
introduced Diane Stark of ACCMA.
Diane Stark stated that ACCMA's studies are focused on low-income populations and where
there are gaps in transportation.
Bruce Brubaker discussed the project and presented a slide show. He noted that the intent of the
plan was to recommend strategies to address needs, to set priorities and hear the communities'
priorities, estimate the costs and to find potential funding sources to implement the
recommendations. He noted that the consultant team worked with a Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) and City staff to identify changes since the last Census. Outreach was done by
phone interviews and questionnaires; they received 125 back regarding transportation.
Mr. Brubaker noted that the consultant team conducted many outreach meetings with seniors,
youth groups, low-income residents and people with disabilities in different locations in
Alameda. Discussed the strategies about problems that were identified by the community.
Broken down into groups: transit strategies (AC Transit, BART, Para transit, Ferry); pedestrian
strategies; bicycle strategies; driving strategies. Criteria considered community, transportation,
and implementation and financial factors.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired how the array of strategies was chosen.
Bruce Brubaker responded that the community identified problems. The solutions came from the
consultant and the TAC. The priorities were initially set by the TAC and the consultant and
looking for feedback on those criteria.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if the strategies that had been discussed related to development
at Alameda Point.
Staff Bergman replied that only the needs and gaps as they were presented now, in the present,
were analyzed.
Page 5 of 10",TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-05-27,6,"DRAFT
Bruce Brubaker noted there were needs at Alameda Point currently; recommended bus stop and
shelter improvements, most at Alameda Point. The plan is intended to be a fund raising tool. Will
list priorities for projects.
Chair Knox White asked Diane Stark if CMA is committed to following through on this.
Diane Stark replied that the plan is used as a way to identify projects and to list the needs of the
community. When funding becomes available Alameda can compete for the funds. Lifeline
Transportation Funds are available every 3-4 years. AC Transit applied for funds in Alameda for
bus service. Other funds are available, such as Measure B.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if the Lifeline funding was allocated to CMAs by population of
low-income people.
Diane Stark agreed and stated that Alameda County did have a higher population of low-income
people than most of the nine counties in the Bay Area. There is a share for the whole county.
Only 5 areas have been identified, Alameda being one of them. Alameda could compete well
because it has a plan already.
Open Public Hearing
Jay Smith, member of Operation Dignity stated many people at the Alameda Collaborative have
absolute needs for transportation. He has been involved with meetings regarding the 63 Bus. He
noted the shelters have no benches; some locations have no shelters, etc. Feel these issues need
to be addressed.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired if the rankings on the report were staff's or the public.
Bruce Brubaker replied that it was a staff analysis but some were from the public. He listed the
issues: 1) bus stop and shelter improvements, 2) Shopper shuttle service on weekends at
Alameda Point, 3) increase route 63 services on weekend and frequency, 4) implement route 51
on time performance improvements, 5) improve bus service to Alameda Hospital and schools.
Chair Knox White asked for clarification regarding the proposed shopper shuttle on the
weekends, if it was different from AC Transit's service.
Bruce Brubaker responded that there were two different options of addressing the same issue.
Route 63 Service improvement is costly; the shuttle would be a lower cost improvement.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if the community requested higher frequency on the weekend
than on the weekdays.
Bruce Brubaker stated that the community is confused with a bus route that does one thing on
the weekend and another on weekdays, particularly new residents, such as at Operation Dignity.
For people who need to get to BART, it takes an hour to get to Fruitvale BART on a weekend,
but it is only 15 minutes to get to 12th St. on a weekday.
Page 6 of 10",TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-05-27,7,"DRAFT
Jay Smith noted again, the significant impact of the 63 Bus' lack of service on the weekends;
particularly affected are those needing the Food Bank on Constitution Way and those needing to
go grocery shopping at Lucky's.
Bruce Brubaker continued listing items - increase and improve information regarding transit
services, increased education regarding Paratransit, increase transit information for seniors,
install real time information at the bus stops, create a low-income fare discount, to maximize
accessibility of existing discounts, improving accessibility to the Oakland/Alameda Ferry,
increase bus to BART frequency, implement route 50 frequency improvements. Pedestrian
strategies included expanding safe routes to schools program, improve pedestrian experience at
Alameda Point, install in pavement crosswalk lighting, and install night lighting.
Chair Knox White noted that Staff wants to be selective as to where the in pavement lighting is
placed, as it is quite expensive.
Staff Khan noted that if there are too many of the in-pavement lighting facilities, people will start
to ignore them. Also where they are installed affects their impact.
Bruce Brubaker responded that the wording and the priority for the in pavement lighting will be
revised. He continued with the list of items being discussed: Pedestrian strategies: Alameda has
a good grid for bicycle/pedestrian users, but there was a need for improved pedestrian/bicycle
safety in the tube, install pedestrian refuge islands. For bicyclists, more bicycle lanes were
desired, as well as an increase in the bicycle capacity onboard buses, increased bicycle options
for youth and low-income residents, improve bicycling access between Alameda/Oakland,
improve pavement and bicycle striping near the Ferry Terminal.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that creating more bicycle lanes seems to be more significant
for the overall transportation in Alameda. Bike lanes serving particular origins and destinations
that are of interest and concern to the community we're talking about.
Chair Knox White: suggested that the bicycle strategy be consistent with the bicycle feasibility
study. Noted use the term water shuttle/taxi instead of bicycle barge.
Jim Strehlow discussed the use of safest routes to Oakland and Emeryville.
Lucy Gigli addressed Commissioner Schatmeier's comments. Stated that bicycling is the best
mode for youth and low-income people to get around and that any improvements to the citywide
bicycle networks would help all populations.
Chair Knox White: suggested last four items on page 6-58 be removed as not relevant to meeting
the needs of the community we're trying to meet.
Bruce Brubaker: discussed the last strategy to institute an auto loan program for low-income
residents, and that car sharing was not useable by lower-income populations. He noted all
comments will be revised and further comments should be directed to Diane Stark. Another
presentation will be given to the ACCMA board for review and approval on June 25; public is
welcome.
Page 7 of 10",TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-05-27,8,"DRAFT
Chair Knox White noted that line 63 route displayed on the map is incorrect. He also noted it was
odd that two of the top three strategies are the same, but different operators. Suggested they
could be the same goal. Weekend service to Alameda Point is the goal.
Staff Bergman noted that the route and number of the 63 Bus might change in the future,
therefore note the report in such a manner that it would describe the route without referring to the
bus number.
Commissioner Moehring refers to page 6-52, C, amend to reflect the fact that the pipe in the tube
will not be fixed and that the capital cost would be $2.5 million.
Commissioner Krueger referred to page 6-19, discussion regarding bus service to the hospital
and the bus stop at Otis and Willow. Report stated the stop had been rejected. Thought the stop
was on hold, but not rejected.
Chair Knox White suggested wording be changed regarding the bus stop.
Staff Khan noted that the line 63 issues will be going to Council in July.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the staff report should cite this report in terms of the issues to
access to the hospital.
7A.
Approval Parking Restrictions at Casual Carpool Site at Santa Clara and Webster
and Enhancement of a Casual Carpool Site on Park Avenue near Encinal Avenue
Staff Bergman presented the staff report. Stated the casual carpool had been discussed several
times in the past when there were parking, bus interferences and ticketing issues with its
location. Carpoolers relocated their pickup spot, and staff conducted surveys. It was determined
the riders liked being near a bus stop; in case they did not get a carpool driver to pick them up, so
they could hop on the bus. A new location was discussed on the East side of Broadway at
Encinal Avenue; it was next to a traffic signal and had a wide travel lane, which should benefit
pedestrians and minimize impacts on traffic circulation. Additional outreach was conducted and
it initially seemed people were supportive of that location. Upon sending notifications out to
people in the vicinity, there was much opposition from residents and carpoolers. Staff responded
by modifying the recommendation to try and improve the location where it is currently being
done. A comment was received from the liquor storeowner on the corner of Encinal & Park
Avenue regarding interference in the driveway. He asked that people keep his driveway clear,
but did not express opposition to the carpool site. An outreach campaign will be done asking
riders to stay clear of the driveway and not make U-turns on Encinal Avenue. In terms of Santa
Clara and Webster stop, the parking restriction to keep the free spaces clear between the hours of
7-9 a.m., M-F, has been received favorably. The recommendation is to support the parking
restrictions on Santa Clara and Webster Street and to conduct the outreach campaign for the
casual carpool site at Encinal and Park Avenue.
Page 8 of 10",TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-05-27,9,"DRAFT
Commissioner Krueger pointed out a discrepancy on the map and asked if the project to alter the
shape of the street at Park Avenue and Encinal Avenue would impact the casual carpool.
Staff Khan noted that due to budget cuts, this $60,000 project was one that was cut. The idea is to
take the pork chop out and narrow the turn and hopefully this will happen when funding becomes
available.
Open public speaking
John Avignon and Elizabeth Noak residents of Alameda of Marti Rae Court, near the casual
carpool site. They are affected by the carpoolers who are trashing their front yard and blocking
their driveways. Concerned that this was a permanent decision and that they now have inherited
this problem. Inquired if City will be participating in cleanup. They noted that there was no city
trashcan at the site.
Staff Khan suggested these concerns be included in the community outreach effort. Trash can
issue will be discussed with Public Works.
Chair John Knox White asked Staff what the time frame was for the proposed removal of the
pork chop island at Encinal Avenue at Park Avenue.
Staff Khan noted that due to the budget cuts; the earliest this project would be considered would
be at least 3 years away.
Chair John Knox White stated that if the speakers are unhappy with the recommendation that
will be going forward, they have the opportunity to appeal their decision to the City Council.
Noted casual carpooling is a difficult issue and problems, such as these, always come up.
Commissioner Krueger asked if there was any enforcement that could be done to those who are
lacking respect for others' property, such as littering. Agrees to add this issue to the outreach and
to provide a trash can for public use.
Commissioner Moehring discussed the number of drivers performing illegal U-turns in the City,
especially in commercial business districts. Hopes that Staff can help mitigate any issues
surrounding the speakers' concerns.
Staff Khan mentioned that Staff will be bringing this up with the Alameda Police Department;
enforcing U-turns.
Chair John Knox White recommended coming back and looking at these issues in 6 months and
possibly at that time a better solution will be available. Also, the proposed AC Transit service
cuts could impact transit service in this area.
Page 9 of 10",TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-05-27,10,"and appointments made prior to July's meeting.
Stated that the agreement to finalize with City Car Share to have two vehicles based in Alameda
was in the final process.
9.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 p.m.
Page 10 of 10",TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf