body,date,page,text,path
TransportationCommission,2015-03-25,1,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item 4A
Action
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Commissioner Jesus Vargas called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Michele Bellows (Chair)
Eric Schatmeier (Vice Chair)
Thomas G. Bertken
Michael Hans
Christopher Miley
Gregory Morgado
Jesus Vargas
Staff Present:
Alex Nguyen, Assistant City Manager
Liam Garland, Deputy Public Works Director
Virendra Patel, Transportation Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
Chair Bellows explained that she would postpone Item 5A (Harbor Bay Ferry Area Parking
Recommendations) because any Transportation Commissioner who lives near Item 5A may not
be able to participate in the debate or vote. The Transportation Commissioners will work with
City staff, and then will reschedule the 5A item as a special meeting at the end of April. She
apologized for the inconvenience, and stated that the public comment period will be open until the
special meeting.
Commissioner Miley moved to have a special meeting for Item 5A. Commissioner Vargas
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.",TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-03-25,2,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item #4A
Page 2 of 13
3.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Dorothy Freeman, Alameda resident, said one week ago she attended a meeting about the I-880
and 23rd/29th Avenues Overcrossing Project. She observed people asking questions and the
standard reply from Caltrans staff and contractors were that traffic studies were conducted. She
felt although the traffic studies were conducted 3-5 years ago, they may not have looked at the new
construction work on the northern waterfront. She requested that the traffic study be updated and
that the study look at new housing coming on board. She also was concerned with the Ford Street
intersection across from the Park Street Bridge and wondered whether there would be pedestrian
or bicyclist controls at the intersection.
Staff Patel replied that staff was aware of the new traffic arrangement that would occur and staff
reviewed the traffic signal plans and the new studies that Caltrans provided to them. Pedestrians
crossing the intersection could activate the signal. Regarding the traffic studies, he said the studies
include Alameda Landing, Alameda Point and road projects for the City.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, referred to the Cross Alameda Trail project at Ralph Appezzato
Parkway and during last month's Transportation Commission meeting a plaza area was mentioned.
He spoke to staff person Michelle Berner of West Alameda Business Association (WABA), and
she said a consultant designer was working with the City, but she does not know the details. He
urged staff to have the designs of the Webster Street plaza area fully vetted by WABA members.
Staff Payne replied that the WABA design committee - not Michele Berner - has been working
with the City and they have forwarded their design sketch for the Neptune Tower and plaza area.
3A. Central Avenue Complete Street Concept Proposal Workshop #: Tuesday, April 14 at 6:30
p.m. (Encinal High School Cafeteria, 210 Central Avenue)
Staff Payne stated that the meeting would introduce the idea of a proposed bikeway along Central
Avenue between Pacific Avenue/Main Street and Encinal Avenue/Sherman Street.
3B. Clement Avenue Complete Street Concept Proposal Workshop #3: Wednesday, April 29 at
6:30 p.m. (Main Library, 1550 Oak Street)
Staff Payne stated that this meeting would be the third and last workshop.
3C. Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, May 27 at 7 p.m. (City Hall Council
Chambers)
Staff Payne stated that a special meeting will be held at the end of April and the regularly scheduled
meeting will be held on May 27.",TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-03-25,3,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item #4A
Page 3 of 13
4.
Consent Calendar
4A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - January 28, 2015
4B. Joint Meeting Minutes of the Transportation Commission and Planning Board - Approve
Meeting Minutes - February 25, 2015
Commissioner Miley moved to approve Item 4A and 4B of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.
5.
New Business
5B. Approve 2015-2017 Transportation Projects in Alameda's Proposed Capital Improvement
Program and Provide Input on 2017-2025 Transportation Projects
Staff Garland and Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Vargas referred to page 7 of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) document
and stated that the gas tax revenue was projected to drop to $1.6 million dollars per year, and
wanted to know why the gas tax revenue was reduced.
Staff Garland replied that the gas tax was calculated with a state formula and the formula reduced
the revenue received by the City. He also mentioned that hybrid vehicles are part of the reason for
the reduction of gas tax revenue.
Commissioner Miley referred to page 15 of the CIP document regarding a facility study that the
Department of Public Works was conducting. He wanted to get an idea of what the schedule
looked like.
Staff Garland replied that the facility study should be completed by the fall. Furthermore, he said
that his staff procured a third party expert on facility assessment to identify all deficiencies and
costs to remedy the facilities. He said that staff would turn the results into a ten-year capital plan.
Commissioner Miley referred to page 17 of the CIP document and asked if the $13 million needed
to get the City's roads in ""good"" condition was per year or over two years.
Staff Garland said the figure was an upfront investment of over two years with a big push on street
resurfacing to make that big jump to ""good"" condition.
Commissioner Bellows asked Staff Garland if the City was aiming for the current level, which was
at the high end of ""fair.""
Liam Garland replied yes to maintain the current level.
Commissioner Vargas referred to the bar chart on page 25 of the CIP document and said the chart
outlined $19 million in funds, but the text stated by the end of fiscal year June 30, 2017 the",TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-03-25,4,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item #4A
Page 4 of 13
remaining funds would be $20 million.
Liam Garland replied the numbers should be consistent and the $20 million in funds is a typo.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that some funds, which were initially devoted to street paving
and road rehabilitation, have been reallocated to transportation. Therefore, he asked for the dollar
amount.
Liam Garland replied that the funds have not been reallocated, but moved from rehabilitation to
transportation and that would be a $10 million project.
Commissioner Schatmeier said the change would cause the remainder of the other transportation
projects to have $9 million for funding.
Liam Garland replied yes.
Commissioner Schatmeier explained that part of the short-term capital project plan was updating
the pedestrian and bicycle plans, which were completed in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Thus, he
wanted to know if the transit plan also would be updated since the last update was in 2001 and if
there was another source of funding to update the plan.
Staff Payne replied that the transit plan update was currently going through a separate process with
City Council and staff would have a special City Council meeting about this soon. She explained
for now there was a placeholder project called the Island Access Study for that item because staff
was not sure what the City Council would approve.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the Island Access Study would be multimodal.
Staff Payne replied that the City Council would discuss whether to have a separate transit plan and
a separate Transportation Demand Management plan.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if they have identified funding for the study.
Staff Payne replied no.
Commissioner Vargas referred to the City's Transportation Element within Exhibit 3 and he
wondered if there have been changes to the street classification system that described the street
types.
Staff Payne replied that the Transportation Element was passed in 2009 and the document was a
significant effort. She said if the Transportation Element was to be revised, the Transportation
Commission would have an active part in the process and staff does not plan to change the
document any time soon.
Commissioner Bertken said the staff report and presentation was the best presentation of a budget
plan that he has seen in the many years that he has worked in this profession.",TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-03-25,5,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item #4A
Page 5 of 13
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comments.
Don Sherratt, Alameda Resident and member of Alameda County Fairgrounds Association, said
that he was a member of the Alameda Traffic Advisory Committee and Recreation and Park
Commission for eight years. When he was on the Recreation and Park Commission, there was an
issue about funding the bike bridge and there was a promise to continue the bike trail all the way
around Alameda. He spoke with Commissioner Hans and he mentioned a safety issue near the
bridge and that it was hard to travel by bicycle on that path. He explained that there are four speed
humps that slow the speed, so when you go from the bridge to Shore Line Drive there was a gap.
He also said that when he was on the Recreation and Park Commission, funding was promised to
continue the bike path from the East Bay Regional Parks District and the City, but the funding did
not come through because of political reasons.
Commissioner Bellows explained to Don Sherratt that the Commission moved the project from
long-term to short-term so that project could begin with a feasibility study.
Jim Strehlow referred to Exhibit 2 found on page 5, item 53 of the staff report. He wanted to know
the timing of the traffic signals and the flow for cars, bicycles and pedestrians because when talking
about major funding and long-term projects residents need to understand the flow of transportation.
Lucy Gigli, Bike Walk Alameda Advocacy Director, reviewed the plan with staff and she asked
that Central Avenue and Fifth Street to Sherman Street be pushed up to the short-term projects.
Staff Payne replied that the Central Avenue project was in the conceptual phase and that was the
basis for the meeting on April 14. It was hard to know if the community will accept a bikeway
along Central Avenue. She felt it was hard to place the corridor, but staff felt the section between
Pacific Avenue and Fifth Street should be placed in the short-term and the project will be submitted
as part of a TIGER grant even though they have not gone through the concept proposal since this
section is part of the Bay Trail and adjacent to Alameda Point.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if the approval and vetting phase were deemed viable could
staff move the project from the long-term to the short-term in the next round.
Staff Payne replied yes.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, said he hoped that
staff was putting as much effort into obtaining transit funding as they were with the capital funding.
He understood that the operations and capital funding rules were different, but the City should
attempt to rebalance the funding scales.
Commissioner Miley echoed Commissioner Bertken's comments about staff's excellent work on
the report. When he reviewed the priority list, and listened to the various residents, he found that
traffic calming and pedestrian safety on Otis Drive was not listed.
Staff Payne replied that the project was on the long-term list as part of the Otis Drive Bikeway.
She also explained that when staff looked at the bikeway proposal, they also reviewed the corridor",TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-03-25,6,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item #4A
Page 6 of 13
as a complete street. She said staff might change the project name to Otis Drive Complete Street.
Commissioner Miley echoed Jon Spangler's comment about how seeking various funding options
were imperative. He said Cal Fire recently had a call for projects for urban greening and it may
be out of staff's purview, but Cap and Trade funding may bring more revenue for urban forestry
projects.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that the City needed to make transit more user friendly and the
capital program could address the transit issue. He suggested that the City could possibly subsidize
transfers by AC Transit within City limits.
Commissioner Vargas said he enjoyed the pictures in the report and he noticed a Geographic
Information System (GIS) project that would identify utilities, maintenance and overall
infrastructure, which was helpful.
Commissioner Miley replied that Jim Strehlow brought up a light signalization plan and that should
be addressed.
Staff Patel said staff could address the traffic signal synchronization program.
Commissioner Bertken made a motion to approve Item 5B. Commissioner Miley seconded the
motion. The motion was approved 7-0.",TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-03-25,7,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item #4A
Page 7 of 13
5C. Approve the Clement Avenue Complete Street Concept Proposal and the Active
Transportation Program Grant Submittal
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Schatmeier referred to the PowerPoint slide showing the existing section and
proposed section. He asked staff if the location of the railroad tracks would be unacceptable to
motorists.
Staff Payne replied motorists tend to travel away from the railroad tracks and veer off into the bike
space. She also said the street would need resurfacing to make the road smoother. Furthermore,
she stated that the removal of the railroad tracks was ranked highest on the goals for the
community.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff about the Navy and businesses' views of the proposal. He
referenced the city documents and NACTO guidelines relative to challenges of putting a cycle
track in an industrial designated street. He also expressed concern over the quality of the technical
document supporting the recommendations.
Staff Payne said the Navy restricted parking in front of their facility, so staff planned to work with
them to reduce the restriction because it was right near Thompson Field. Regarding the businesses,
she stated that staff had several meetings and some businesses were in favor and others were
opposed. Businesses on the north side had the most significant comments. She explained that the
businesses at Alameda Marina were opposed to the bikeway on the north side. The owner of the
property, Shawn Murphy, supported the project because he was working with the Planning
Department to redevelop the property as a multi-use development in the future.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comments.
Shawn Throwe, business owner at the Alameda Marina, said he received a lot of boats on trucks
and some of the boats are over 15 feet wide. He found the proposal misplaced because the area
was zoned industrial and the cycle track should be moved to Buena Vista Avenue. He felt the City
was attempting to drive out the boat industry from the island.
Jim Strehlow said Clement Avenue was his secret highway as a child. He stated that he was against
the protected bikeway proposal because it was not designed the right way and the bikeway should
be placed on the south side not the north side. He told the Commission to ignore the community
consensus survey because anyone could have stuffed the comment box. He urged Commission to
look at the safety issues and how the businesses use the street.
Sean Svendsen, owner of Svendsen's Boat Works, said he was opposed to the plan because
Alameda used the corridor as a viable truck route going east to west. He explained to the
Commission that his business off loads a couple of hundred boats per year and the boats range
from 40-50 feet in length and weigh 20-30 tons. He also said that sometimes the trucks that haul
the boats have a wide load escort. He felt it made no sense to create a blind spot for truckers, RVs
and trailer boats coming in and out of the marina. He believed it was a good idea to remove the",TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-03-25,8,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item #4A
Page 8 of 13
railroad tracks and make the sidewalk improvements. He was in favor of bike lanes on each side.
However, when looking at objective #8, improving truck access, he does not see that happening.
Zach Kaplan, Alameda resident and bicycle rider, said he was in favor of removing the railroad
tracks and making the sidewalk improvements, but he was opposed to the cycle track. He
explained that he used to own a Class A motor home and the two-way bike track will produce a
fatality. Also, if he attempted to use the cycle track in the wrong direction he would have to cross
a
lane of traffic to get to the other side and then cross another traffic lane to get back, so there
would be two additional conflicts with motor vehicles.
Sara Sanchez, Alameda Marina business owner, said she was excited for the planned street
improvements and she has seen an increase in bicycle activity. She looked forward to the cyclists
having their own space, but she opposed the plan because the corridor is designated as an active
truck route. She noted that if the railroad tracks were removed and Clement Avenue was striped
like Broadway Avenue then the flexibility for motorists would be preserved and cyclists would
have a safe space to ride. She urged the Commission to only approve the street and sidewalk
improvements and wait for more data before implementing the cycle track.
Liz Taylor, Alameda Marina business owner, said there are large trucks that come into the facility
and people from all over the world come because they have space to offload trucks. She went on
to say that cyclists generally avoid Clement Avenue. She also noted that Clement Avenue was an
emergency access route. She felt it was more sensible to have better connectivity between
Fruitvale BART and the Ferry Building through a resource going down Lincoln Avenue.
John McKeon, Alameda resident, former sailor, truck driver and avid cyclist, said that the concerns
about the railroad tracks for cyclists are true because the tracks are dangerous. He believed there
was a lot of reactive thinking from the public because as a former truck driver, he could envision
better access and egress to the Marina if staff implemented the two-way bikeway proposal in a
smart way. He explained that there would be extra room to make a right turn say at Shiller Street
if the parking spaces were buffered back to allow more of a turning radius. He also did not see a
continuous flow of truck or bicycle traffic throughout the day. The two-way bikeway would make
truck drivers more aware of the presence of bicyclists. The two-way bikeway would be safer for
bicyclists without close to car doors.
Lucy Gigli stated that protected bike lanes and cycle tracks separate and protect people from faster
moving traffic. She explained that vehicles going 75 mph zoom by cyclists and the cycle tracks
separate cyclists from car doors. Furthermore, she said that 81 percent of respondents were in
favor of the cycle track for Clement Avenue. She stood out on Shore Line Drive to obtain people's
opinions and they were happy about this cycle track plan.
Dorothy Freeman stated that a new development came before the Planning Board labeled as 2100
Clement Avenue and this project would hold 58 new condos between Willow Street and the
Thompson High School football field. However, she said the address is actually 2100 Eagle
Avenue. All of the traffic would be going down Eagle Avenue and the City will have to construct
a three-way traffic signal for people to go in and out of the development.",TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-03-25,9,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item #4A
Page 9 of 13
Ginni Dofflemyer, Alameda resident, said the new development planned at 2100 Eagle Avenue
would create more traffic at Buena Vista and Eagle Avenues. Regarding the Alameda traffic study,
she wanted to know when the document was published and she wanted to know where she could
read the document. She also asked staff if the rails on Clement Avenue could be repaired or used
for transportation because that may be cheaper than taking them out. Furthermore, she requested
that the Commission schedule a time to speak about the 2100 Eagle Avenue development so that
her neighbors can come out to speak.
Bruce Kibby, Alameda resident, felt that the Clement Avenue proposal was a well thought out
plan. He said as part of the Cross Alameda Trail, the City should be building a trail through the
Clement Avenue section and the protected bike lane would create a feeling of a trail rather than a
regular bike lane. He appreciated the thorough outreach effort, which was similar to the Shore
Line Drive outreach effort. When traveling down Shore Line Drive, he sees the changes that were
made based on the input at the workshops for that project.
Jon Spangler said that he disagreed with those who support the cycle track. He explained to the
Commission that the buffer zone was two feet wide between the parked cars and the cycle track
and that meant people would get ""doored"" when heading towards Park Street. He felt the truck
traffic issue needed to be dealt with and the way the parking spaces are away from the curb will
not work unless there are police escorts and wide load escorts, which is not acceptable. He
suggested that staff go back and review implementing Class 2 lanes in either direction and add
buffers by taking parking off of one side of the street.
Trish Herrera Spencer spoke in her individual capacity as a citizen, and said that she echoed most
of Jon Spangler's comments. She also questioned the reliability of the resident survey because it
did not outline the use of the road and the critical components. As mayor, she received comments
that not all bicyclists use the cycle tracks and some bicyclists actually prefer to be in the road.
Donna Eyestone, Alameda resident, said she biked to work to Harbor Bay and took the Shore Line
Drive protected bikeway all the way there, which is wonderful. She stated that the cycle track
allowed her to get out of her car and on to a bike. She mentioned that the door zone was an
important issue and she liked the cycle track on Shore Line Drive when going in the direction of
cars because she can see whether doors are in the process of being opened. Also, when going the
opposite direction, a motorist in the passenger seat who is opening the door could see her coming.
Sam Hensley, Alameda Resident, stated that he has two sons that go to the Academy of Alameda,
and they are huge bikers. He said that he could not think of sending them on Clement Avenue
without them being protected with a two-way bikeway. He suggested that some of the parking
spaces be removed because the parking demand is not heavy.
Commissioner Morgado said the railroad tracks have to go and he requested additional street
information from staff. He wondered if staff could look into how removing parking spaces would
work out while constructing bikes lane on both sides of the street. He asked staff if the
Commission needed more information would that preclude them from submitting an application
for the grant.",TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-03-25,10,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item #4A
Page 10 of 13
Staff Payne replied eliminating parking was not an option to pursue because it was not high priority
to remove parking in front of someone's home or business.
Commissioner Bellows replied that she heard the businesses say they wanted to maintain
flexibility. She wondered if staff could work with them to identify off-street parking at Svendsen's
Boat Works. She asked staff to think of any creative options, especially since there are homes and
business on both sides of the streets.
Commissioner Morgado said staff should even consider reducing parking on the north side to
increase the turning radius.
Staff Payne replied that was something that she did bring up in the presentation and staff would
consider the idea because of visibility and the fact that the project was part of the complete street
program.
Commissioner Bellows said she was concerned about the wide load issue and she asked staff if
they could eliminate parking during date time hours when most deliveries occur.
Staff Payne replied deliveries occur throughout the day.
Commissioner Hans stated that the street width was 13 feet across and the 6 foot rail road tracks
acts as a buffer. He went on to say that staff was looking into reducing the street width to 11 feet,
so he wondered if parking was needed on the north side in order to increase some of the turning
areas.
Commissioner Miley referred to the City's Transportation Element objective 4.1.7 and objective
4.3.3. He felt the project was adhering to the objectives, but he was willing to approve the concept
with some modifications for staff to look at Class II bike lanes. Ultimately, he worried that the
cycle tracks were being shoehorned on Clement Avenue and given the current land use the idea
may not work.
Commissioner Bertken said that removing the railroad tracks was important and he was glad to
hear from both opposing and proposing views on how the cycle track would work. However, he
said reducing the street width on Clement Avenue for truck traffic was not positive and he wanted
further analysis on having bike lanes on either side of the street.
Staff Payne replied the grant that staff would be applying for was for the design and construction
of the proposal and there could be modifications.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff about the amount of the grant.
Staff Payne replied once staff received direction on how to move forward then they can cost out
the concept for the grant application.
Commissioner Bellows said voting on the agenda item was to move the project forward with an
application to the grant. Furthermore, she said the grant amount was on a sliding scale, meaning",TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-03-25,11,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item #4A
Page 11 of 13
the City may not receive all of the funds they initially requested.
Commissioner Vargas said he was happy to see the diverse responses and found eight speakers not
for the cycle track and four speakers for the cycle track and a few other comments. He explained
that he grew up in Chicago and he used to bike ride from the north to south side for many hours
alongside heavy truck traffic. He felt the most important thing he was trying to bring to the
conversation was that the community contained industrial traffic. There are numerous driveways,
and the trucks have large turning radii. He related a conversation that he had with NACTO
advocates from Chicago that implemented a lot of cycle tracks and their biggest lesson to him was
to be careful when putting too many bicycle facilities in industrial areas. He said carving in too
much into the truck traffic would be dangerous. Additionally, he noted that there were public
concerns of placing cycle tracks on one side where the destination was on the opposite side of the
street. He re-stated that the NACTO component needed to be factored in and he felt the consulting
firm should have done more homework regarding the City's policy. There are heavy traffic
volumes and ultimately, he felt staff should keep all the modes of traffic in mind and there must
be a balance.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that this is a designated bicycle, truck and transit route and the
City must find a way to allow all of the transportation needs to coexist. He asked staff why the
cycle track was on the north side rather than the south side, which would eliminate many truck
conflicts on south side. He summarized a business owner's comment regarding how truck access
would be improved, and asked for more information. He also questioned the parking demand in
the area and he requested that staff provide data on who parked in the area.
Staff Payne replied that the south side contained a number of dead-end streets and many more
street conflicts since the streets end on the south side of Clement Avenue. Regarding truck access,
in the future Clement Avenue would extend from Tilden Avenue to Sherman Street. She explained
Clement Avenue would be a through route for trucks in the long term. She also said staff wanted
to make sure the turning radii was sufficient for the trucks and a loading zone is proposed near
Oak Street. Additionally, she said staff would consider eliminating parking spaces on the street.
To eliminate parking on one side of the entire street would not be possible.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if they eliminated parking on one side of the street how
many parking spaces would be taken out.
Commissioner Bellows said there are 220 parking spaces in total on the street.
Staff Payne replied divide the 220 parking spaces by half for each side of the street.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff who is using these parking spaces.
Staff Payne stated that the area is zoned as multi-use and commercial and residential and used to
be industrial. The long-term vision of the street is to be more multi-use (commercial, residential
retail and some industrial). Currently, it is a mixed corridor.
Commissioner Miley asked staff what is the parking demand.",TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-03-25,12,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item #4A
Page 12 of 13
Staff Payne stated that she does not have it in front of her yet it is not anywhere near 100 percent,
and the demand depends on the section of Clement Street. She requested that the Transportation
Commissioners consider approving the traditional bike lane concept.
Commissioner Miley stated that while the zoning may change, we have existing users and the City
needs to balance equity and accommodate all users, but maintain their safety.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the concept so that staff could move the item forward to
the City Council, but the concept should be focused on traditional Class II lanes. He also hoped
the design would not preclude the City from being able to install cycle tracks in the future.
Commissioner Bellows stated the motion should also make sure that truck traffic is accommodated
and that the wide loads needed to be accommodated safely.
Commissioner Bertken asked if the proposal also includes all the key features in the staff report.
Commissioner Schatmeier wanted more information on parking demand. If the parking is used
only 50 percent then staff should consolidate parking on one side of the street and have the cycle
track.
Commissioner Miley stated that a cycle track could go in the future, pending more information.
Commissioner Bellows wanted to include more parking information and utilization rates with a
feasibility study to see if parking could be consolidated.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to approve staff concept recommendations with the exception
of item b, instead make the lanes traditional Class II bike lanes. He also requested that staff
accommodate truck access. Also, staff would look into parking demand and provide the parking
information moving forward. Commissioner Morgado seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 4-2, 1 abstention.
5D. Approve Point-to-Point Car Sharing Policy
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Bertken told staff that a car sitting in front of someone's home for three days could
be a bit onerous.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if he reserved a car after 10 pm and parked the car close to
his home would he be charged just for driving the car to his house.
Staff Payne replied that was exactly how you would use the car, and the rental would end once you
arrive at home.
Commissioner Morgado requested that the review occur after one year.",TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-03-25,13,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item #4A
Page 13 of 13
Walter Rosencrantz of car2go introduced himself and provided a brief overview of the car2go
operation including an explanation that it makes business sense to move car2go vehicles that are
not moving after 24 hours.
Commissioner Miley moved the staff report with an amendment that staff reviews the progress
within one year rather than within two years. Commissioner Hans seconded the motion. The
motion was approved 7-0.
5E. Approve City of Alameda Paratransit Program Review for Fiscal Year 2015/2016
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the staff report. Commissioner Hans seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
6.
Staff Communications
6A. Update on Ad Hoc Transit Committee
Staff Payne replied that Board member Knox White is interested in joining the committee and
Commissioners Miley and Schatmeier are interested. Staff Payne suggested that Commissioner
Hans participate because of the school trips within the area.
6B. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
2. Proposed I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation and Circulation
Improvements
3. AC Transit's Comprehensive Operations Analysis
7.
Announcements/Public Comments
Commissioner Miley announced that Assistant City Manager, Alex Nguyen, will be leaving to the
city of Riverside and he thanked him for his service to the City.
8.
Adjournment
10:07 pm",TransportationCommission/2015-03-25.pdf