body,date,page,text,path
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,1,"Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes
Wednesday May 25, 2016
Commissioner Michele Bellows 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)
Jesus Vargas
Michael Hans
Thomas G. Bertken
Members Absent:
Christopher Miley
Gregory Morgado
Staff Present:
Staff Patel, Transportation Engineer
Staff Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Arnold Billinger, Vice Chair of the Commission for Disabled Issues (CDI), stated that the CDI is
trying to setup greater visibility for the Estuary Crossing Shuttle and amongst the things that they
are talking about is trying to get the shuttle to be part of the Alameda Fourth of July parade and
at the various street festivals in Alameda like the Island Jam at Neptune Beach. The organization
would like to have a backdrop and booth for the festivals and they would like to invite members
of the Commission to ride the shuttle in the parade and man the tables in order to introduce
people to the shuttle service. He hoped members of the Mastick Senior Center would come and
share the booth as well. He asked if members of the Commission have handouts to provide at the
event table. He also said he would keep the Commission updated when they are ready to
proceed.
Commissioner Bellows said Arnold Billinger should let Staff Patel know and he will inform the
Commission.
Page 1 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,2,"Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, explained that he wanted to know the Caltrans notification
process regarding the Posey Tube. He said the reason being was that he has attended past
Commission meetings and he did not remember a discussion about the exact date of when the
pedestrian and bicycle path would be closed down, especially since the path is used by people
commuting to work. He has been on the bike forums the previous week and members of the
forum did not know about the closure either. He went on to say that in the Alameda Sun
newspaper, there was a short notice about the closure. He noted that this closure affects how
much earlier people have to leave their homes in order to get to their destinations. Asked how
can Caltrans give more advance notice and how was this information getting out to the people.
Staff Patel replied usually when Caltrans has a project they post construction activity one week
in advance. He said there was advance notification near the tube and the press release was sent to
the City and was on their website. However, he explained that there was some confusion about
the construction timeframe and whether it would be done at night or daytime. So, staff included
the information about the shuttle service once that was cleared up. He stated that the police
department found some bicyclists riding in the tube on the roadway surface.
Commissioner Bellows asked if that was legal
Staff Patel replied that it is not legal because the signs were already posted at the mouth of the
tube.
Commissioner Bellows replied that the City works with Caltrans' public information officers and
it would be nice to know when that area will be reopened.
Staff Patel replied the project manager estimated that it would take a month or by the end of June
depending on the railing items, meaning if they are going to fabricate the rails offsite.
3.A. Next Transportation Commission meeting would be Wednesday, July 27, 2016, 7 pm
3.B. Briefing by the Public Works Director
Liam Garland, Deputy Director of Alameda Public Works, said he was standing in for Bob
Haun, Alameda Public Works Director, in order to brief the Commission about the three
questions that came up at the last Transportation Commission meeting. The first question was
about the Broadway/Jackson Project and Bob Haun reported that he was in negotiations with
both the City of Oakland and Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and he will
share a status report in July. He said the second question raised was about staffing within the
City's Public Works Department. He stated that the department is short staffed for a few reasons,
such as staff member Gail Payne is being lent over to assist with the Citywide Transportation
Study and Rochelle Wheeler is back filling some of the work that Gail Payne was doing for
Public Works. He went on to say that they are still short in terms of being able to respond to a lot
of transportation issues but as the study and process moves forward they will have a sense of
how the City is heading regarding transportation issues. Furthermore, he explained that a new
2-year budget is coming out in 2017, so that will be the time when they can assess the staffing
needs within their unit and what they are going to need in the next two years. He noted that the
Page 2 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,3,"City charter requires new staffing to be approved by City Council.
Commissioner Bertken said funding is tight and having to wait until the next budget process is a
natural occurrence. However, he was bothered about the fact that there isn't anything more
important to this City at this particular time than solving a lot the transportation issues especially
around the Cross Estuary transportation issue. So, he felt not having a full court press in doing so
as soon as possible was troublesome.
Liam Garland replied staff is putting the pieces into place. He also explained that they just hired
a city engineer and the new hire will help shape where the transportation unit heads and he will
be instrumental on how the City is staffed on transportation issues.
Commissioner Vargas stated that follow up on these issues would be good since Bob Haun could
not be attend this meeting. Additionally, he asked Liam Garland to invite the new hire to the
next Commission meeting for an introduction.
4.
Consent Calendar
4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - March 23, 2016
Commissioner Schatmeier made a change to the minutes that was attributed to him. He said the
change can be found on page 5, third line from the top ""He explained that the Commission
listened to a lot of public comments that were relative and caused some concerns."" The word
relative should be changed to relevant.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Hans seconded the
motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
5.
New Business
5.A. Approve Proposed Bus Stop Locations for the New Line 19
Rochelle Wheeler presented the report.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if AC Transit was looped in about the last minute modification
on Item 3 of the staff report.
Rochelle Wheeler replied yes, they reviewed the designs and felt it would work.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor for public comment.
Rob Ratto, Executive Director of the Downtown Alameda Business Association, said as a charter
member of the Commission many years ago he commended the Commission on the hard work
they do. He also said that staff made his job very easy that night because he was present on
behalf of the Downtown Alameda Business Association board of directors to endorse 4C and he
was going to implore the Commission, AC Transit and staff to endorse 4c and now the plan has
Page 3 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,4,"changed to 3C. Therefore, he wholeheartedly endorsed 3C.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, stated that he was trying to envision this layout because he rides
his bicycle in the area all the time. He explained that usually a visual such as a cross section
accompanies the presentation and staff report to show the curb footage, travel lane width and bus
width before they set a barrier because it looks like staff is going to be carving out from the curb
to be able make that turn. He said he was also trying to envision this because it was not included
in the packet, thus the public was not aware of 3C and how this option would affect traffic. He
explained that he may be in favor of 3C, but he was looking at 3B. He said it made sense to
move it on the other side because there is a lot of parking on the near side of Park Street, SO a bus
could be placed there. He said when travelling through the section he knows the very narrow part
near the driveway and when there are cars parked at that very narrow part it is often hard for
bicycles to go along Buena Vista Avenue.
Commissioner Bellows asked Jim Strehlow if he was talking about traveling west.
Jim Strehlow replied yes, while traveling westbound it is very narrow and cars often have to look
at him and he looks at them in order to go through because it is very narrow between the car and
stripe. He felt it would have been beneficial for the public to view photos and see the cross
section in advance because he was having some difficulty visualizing the new design.
Commissioner Bellows replied her sense is that it was recently developed.
Rochelle Wheeler replied this project has been in the works to square off that particular corner
and this was from the packet that the Commission approved in March 2014. The project was put
out to bid to make those improvements and last week the City Council approved the contractor to
make this improvement. So, staff is now proposing a bus stop at this corner.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff when they were analyzing the placement of the bus stop were
the dimensions calculated to have enough bus passing space.
Rochelle Wheeler replied staff looked at the widths and with a bus stopped there to pick up
passengers vehicles cannot pass a stopped bus.
Staff Patel stated that staff checked with AC Transit's Traffic Engineering Department about the
widths. He also explained that currently this is a concept approval and staff will be looking at
some modification of stripping for the east bound approach right in front of the Chevron Gas
Station. He noted that the bus stop would be very similar to the Buena Vista Avenue and
Webster Street stop for the Line 51 changes that occurred and a similar setup was created there.
Laura Thomas, resident near Buena Vista Avenue and Chestnut Street, stated that she has lived
in the neighborhood for 32 years and she was excited to see the Line 19 comeback. She said in
the past she used the bus a lot and it will be a benefit for the entire neighborhood especially as
more housing is built in that area. She said she's in favor of affordable housing and the City
needs alternatives to car travel. She concluded that the bus must run regularly and be dependable.
She hoped that in this case when the Line 19 comes back that it has 20-minute headways during
peak hours to get to and from work and downtown Oakland.
Page 4 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,5,"an AC Transit bus you are many times out in the open and this has been that way for many
locations in Alameda and along the AC Transit system. He noticed in one picture in the staff
report, where they now rejected 3B, one bus stop has awnings line on the Walgreens store. He
felt the awnings were life savers for users and although not intended to be shelters they are. He
recognized the same for the visual in 4A, which was rejected, there were awnings over the
sidewalk. He was not sure what could be done about this, but he would like to see a commitment
made by the City and others to figure out a way to finance and add bus shelters whenever they do
something like this because it is a vital part of running a transit system.
Commissioner Vargas said he was glad to hear the homeowner have no questions or issues with
the potential parking loss. He asked staff with the loss of parking are there any parking meters
that would be potentially removed and a subsequent loss of revenue.
Rochelle Wheeler replied no.
Commissioner Vargas stated that this plan was restoring the operations of a line that had
previous parking displacements, so there wouldn't be a net loss.
Rochelle Wheeler replied that is what they believe, but they do not have the exact stops from
before.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if there was an anticipated ridership projection for this line.
Austin Lee, AC Transit Planner, replied he does not have exact ridership projections or numbers
to provide. However, he felt the line restoration would definitely alleviate crowding on the Line
51A and the Line 20 that go through Webster Street and provides an alternative to the Estuary
Shuttle. On the east end it would help alleviate the crowding on the Line 20 and Line 21 to get to
Fruitvale BART.
Commissioner Vargas asked if AC Transit will be able to report the distribution once the Line 19
is operating in order to get an idea of how everything else is coming through.
Austin Lee replied yes.
Commissioner Vargas moved to approve the modification of 3C in place of 3B. Commissioner
Page 5 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,6,"Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
5.B. Adopt the Proposed Plan for Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal Parking
Jennifer Ott, Alameda Point Chief Operating Officer, presented the first half of the report.
Liam Garland presented the second half of the presentation.
Commissioner Hans asked if staff have communicated with Alameda Police Department to see if
they actually have the staffing to enforce this plan.
Jennifer Ott replied staff had a number of conversations with the Alameda Chief of Police and he
evaluated the plan and felt this could be enforced with current staff levels. She explained the
department would have additional revenues available from tickets to cover incremental increases,
but he was comfortable with the plan. She pointed out that the plan was not to take patrol officers
off their beats, but to utilize parking technicians who typically work part time.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff who has the authority to issue tickets on the private streets.
Jennifer Ott replied for the public streets the City has the authority to ticket vehicles and within
the private streets the Homeowners Association (HOA) do not have authority to issue tickets, but
can tow vehicles. However, the HOAs could create a relationship with the Alameda Police
Department so when they call the police, parking technicians can go out and ticket. Therefore, if
a relationship is established the City can issue tickets on private streets. She went on to say staff
and the HOAs have talked about the implementation, but it would ultimately be up to the HOA's
preference.
Commissioner Bertken asked who owns the big piece of property adjacent because it would be
an obvious benefit to the ferry system.
Jennifer Ott replied SRMErnst, a commercial real estate development company.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff if the property has already been sold.
Jennifer Ott replied she does not think the property has been sold because the property is
waterfront commercial land and extremely expensive. She pointed out that this option was
reviewed by the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) in order to find out how
much it would cost to lease the property, but the cost was outside WETA's budget. Also,
providing that much parking would only create the same problem in a year or two, so that would
be a short term solution for a long-term issue. She explained that staff is exploring the idea of
having satellite parking areas along a shuttle route if they decide to go with a shuttle service.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff based upon the plan and the approach taken has anyone made
an estimate on how the plan would impact the ferry patronage in the long run.
Jennifer Ott said from her standpoint in terms of ferry ridership they have discussed what if there
is a decrease in ridership would parking charges be there as a contingency, but there are no
Page 6 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,7,"concrete estimates of that. She stated that their hope is that the demand has been so strong and
people are already using alternative modes of transportation that ridership will not dip
dramatically, but WETA is rightfully cautious about what happens if ridership decreases, so they
have talked about those issues.
Commissioner Vargas said he was excited about the solutions to the challenges. He explained
they may not be perfect yet, but they are getting a lot better. He said he met Kevin Connolly,
Planning and Development for WETA, two years ago at the WETA Board meeting and invited
him to continue this dialogue. He was excited to see WETA's board meeting was held at
Alameda City Hall and there is more inter-activity between the two agencies. He stated that he
would hold off comments on the ordinance until the public hearing because it is very detailed.
He explained that it was good to see the three step solutions regarding the residential parking
stickers, parking charges, and shuttle service as Jennifer Ott described. He went on to say that
over the weekend, he spoke with a resident of Orange County who has a sticker program in their
waterfront neighborhood. The Orange County resident said the program benefitted their family
structure and if the policy was not implemented they would have moved out of the community.
So, he explained although staff and WETA are working not to lose ferry riders they should also
be cognizant to not lose members of the community.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor for public comment.
George K, Executive Director of the Community of Harbor Bay Isle, said he represents 20
Homeowner Associations. He explained that he totally supports the ferry service, but
unfortunately too much of a good thing has created a problem and this is a practical solution that
will work. He felt in his opinion, the framework and the subsequent detailed plan must be
implemented in its entirety. He pointed out that the master association has agreed to administer
the program and if they do choose to tow, his security department will do SO. However, they do
not want to choose until they see the entire plan in place. He said they are created under the
Davis- Stirling Common Act and they are essentially quasigovernment institutions that speak for
members of their community. They have worked closely with the City, WETA and the residents
and this solution will help everyone involved.
Charles Hodgkins, Chairman of the Board Community of Harbor Bay Isle Homeowners
Association, stated that they pertain to the board side of the discussion. He explained that they
have had good meetings with Jennifer Ott, Liam Garland and the Alameda Police Department.
He pointed out that the visual in the presentation showing the land near the ferry terminal was
not accurate because there is already development on the corner where Adelphian Way makes a
turn onto Harbor Bay and there is not development next to it. So, he said what looks like a large
chunk of land is about half of that. He believed a proposal exists to build a senior citizen center
on the remaining land. He believed the solution presented was a long-term, rational and
relatively well thought out plan that will in the long-term improve the viability of the ferry
service. He said the ferry is a resource to the community and the people on the east end and if the
City could get the shuttle sorted out with AC Transit or a private entity that would allow the
community to feel they are not being imposed upon. He stated that from one of the community
meetings one resident commented that motorists drive like lunatics to the ferry terminal and
when they come around the corner, they cause potential collisions. He said the Columbia
Headlines HOA would like to have a plan in place, but they reside on public streets. So, once this
Page 7 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,8,"whole framework comes into place they would be able to provide a solution for everyone.
Eric Schatmeier spoke as an Alameda resident and said he was in opposition to the staff proposal
for three reasons: 1. The plan is inconsistent with the three elements the Commission specified
should be a requirement for approval for any future plan; 2. The plan is technically flawed and
incomplete and 3. He felt the plan was developed in a vacuum. He explained that in the proposal
staff focused on one of the three elements included in endorsing the last plan and he wanted to
emphasis the other two, which are maintenance and growth of ferry ridership and the provision
of adequate parking at the ferry terminal. He felt if the plan is implemented in January 2017 as
proposed there is a real danger of reversing ridership gains the ferry has achieved and pushing
usage down that would result in eliminating 100 daily parking opportunities and then charging a
fee for the few scarce spaces that would be left. He said the fee represents $40 to $80 per month
added to regular ferry fares that are already higher than comparable BART and AC Transbay bus
fares. He explained that he did not know of any demand modeling that would not predict the loss
of ridership because of raising the fare 20-40%. The staff report explained that parking charges
encouraged customers to look for alternative ways to get to the ferry station, but analysis,
ridership surveys or demand modeling did not back up this assertion. Also, he said the plan does
include what ferry customers who do drive would be willing to pay to park, what will result
when various fee levels are implemented, or if there is a contingency plan to determine what the
City and WETA would do to get ferry riders back if the program is scrapped because it failed.
He stated that the Commission did not approve a principal that said provide adequate parking or
shuttle services. The Commission focused on parking because the unfortunate reality is that
shuttle services are not adequate alternatives. He provided a press release from Marin County
where Golden Gate Transit under pressure of exploding ferry ridership implemented the Wave
Shuttle service to meet peak period boats. The article said two of the three routes were being
discontinued because of low ridership. He pointed out that the Golden Gate Ferry boats are
double the size of Alameda's boats and run almost triple of the frequency, so how could the
shuttle service work in Alameda. He said as a user of transportation he would love to get people
to use public transit for their entire work trip, but many will not and if commuters opt to give half
their trip to public transit than he called that a win. He felt the plan was devoid of details
regarding the number of shuttle vehicles that would be deployed, how many motorists could park
at the satellite parking areas, what capital resources would be available and how the parking
charges would cover parts of the plan's costs. Furthermore, he said with the issue of planning in
a vacuum the plan involves multiple constituencies, but the plan ignores ferry riders who should
be part of the conversation. He believed the riders may react negatively and vent their anger at a
public meeting or they will quit riding the ferry altogether. Ultimately, he felt the plan as
implemented and written would be counterproductive to the City and state's transportation goals
and the Commission should insist on something better.
Kevin Connolly thanked Jennifer Ott and Liam Garland for their hard work on this piece of
planning. He emphasized that this plan is currently in the concept phase and the devil is in the
details and he acknowledged the HOAs and their work. He explained that ridership is booming
and a person not getting in their car to commute is a positive thing. He expected initially that
ridership may flatten or reduce and there will be some short-term pain, but the activity is not
sustainable and impacts the surrounding neighborhoods. He said alternative options are
necessary and building structure garages is not an option, but satellite parking is potentially an
option that must be paired with shuttle service. He explained that WETA ferry service operates
Page 8 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,9,"on a farebox recovery performance criteria. He said for years the Harbor Bay service found it
hard to reach the farebox recovery requirement and was always on the chopping block, but it is
now at a healthy percent. He pointed out that the board is sensitive to overcharging for ferry
service, SO they are looking carefully from a policy standpoint about the fare charges over the
entire system. Also, he said how the revenues are being used will be carefully analyzed by the
board. He appreciated the work that has occurred and it is the community's right to define how
they interact with the ferry terminal and they do not want to impose their particular will if it is
not satisfactory.
Commissioner Bellows asked Kevin Connolly if the WETA Board thought about imposing
parking charges at Main Street or the new terminal.
Kevin Connolly replied they are approaching parking charges as a system wide policy, but first
introducing the policy at Harbor Bay. He explained that Harbor Bay and Main Street terminals
have different characteristics, so it is not easy to place a parking permit program at Main Street.
Therefore, they would have to work with the City and that is a future prospect further down the
line.
Jennifer Ott replied she agreed from the City's perspective Harbor Bay is more immediate due to
concerns from the neighborhood. She said staff would conduct the same process of working with
AC Transit and WETA.
Commissioner Vargas referred to the presentation and particularly the parking charge range of
$2.00 to $4.00. He asked if WETA has implemented parking charges in another location within
their system or could they talk about the $2.00 versus $4.00 charge.
Kevin Connolly replied City staff requested that the WETA Board consider parking charges
rather than having the Commission adopt charges. WETA has parking charges in the city of
Vallejo, but the City owns the parking lots and they charge on a monthly basis or $5 for a daily
rate. The policy direction is to keep the parking fees lower to make it accessible for public
transit.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the funding and the fact that WETA has a 40 percent farebox
recovery requirement, but what happens if it is not there.
Kevin Connolly replied the bulk of WETA's operational funding are fares and bridge tolls and
the 40 percent threshold was created because of Harbor Bay and their struggle, but Harbor Bay
has been a big surprise. He said their last ridership survey was in 2015 and they have grown 50
percent since that time and 94 percent of riders were from Harbor Bay and the east end of
Alameda. So, he felt the key part of implementation is informing the riders and allowing them
the opportunity to provide input. He explained that when they held their board meeting a month
ago they heard from a lot of Harbor Bay residents who would be impacted. He also said people
who drive and ride the ferry have no choice but to drive because they have children and need to
bring them to school, so that aspect must be addressed carefully.
Commissioner Bellows replied so everyone who lives in a HOA is going to have to pay some
amount of money for a residential parking permit sticker.
Page 9 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,10,"George K. replied the homeowners do not have to pay for the sticker because with their existing
staff they would administer the sticker program for both public and private streets to make this as
painless as possible on the City and their administrative workload. He said to make this as
palatable as possible in order to get the all of the HOAs on board they would make this cost free
for them and they can absorb the fees in their existing cost structure. He stated that currently they
have 40 employees composed of security and administration and they can do this.
Commissioner Vargas asked about the ordinance and the map that was presented earlier. He said
two HOAs have public streets and three HOAs have private streets. So, he wanted to know if the
addition that is proposed within the ordinance applies to the three HOAs that have the private
streets or does that apply to both.
Kevin Connolly replied the way the amended ordinance is written that would only apply to
HOAs Headlines and Columbia because they are public streets within those two HOAs. So, the
ordinance does not affect the HOAs with private streets.
Commissioner Vargas said a homeowner brought to his attention the seat clarification in Item C
of the ordinance, which highlights that a 55 percent vote was required by the residents to make
changes to the parking and with the new addition in blue and red text that the voting would be
done by the HOAs. Thus, he wanted to know if that one vote now trumps the other vote.
Kevin Connolly replied there is a proposed amendment that does not require the petition, but
requires the HOA boards' approval. So, he highlighted that the next step is not residential
parking permit implementation, but having Public Works evaluate the ability to implement
permit parking and then make its own recommendations on whether residential parking permits
should be issued. He explained the next step is a triggering mechanism and the best
representatives of the neighborhood is the HOA board who has legal authority.
Commissioner Vargas stated that since this is a new element in the ordinance could this be
evaluated after one year or so after implementation to see how the program is working.
Kevin Connolly replied he and Jennifer Ott discussed this and evaluating the program makes
sense to them.
Commissioner Bertken was looking at the three components of the plan and the element of
reliable transit service and improved AC Transit service line means staff should have more
outreach meetings with AC Transit before January 2017. He also explained that staff should also
review opportunities for remote parking and shuttle services. He felt it would be nice to have the
information during this period to show that losing patronage has been observed and taken into
consideration.
Kevin Connolly said the current approval is for the concept to move forward and Jennifer Ott is
in constant contact with AC Transit on this issue.
Commissioner Bertken replied the concept does not say a lot regarding outreach.
Jennifer Ott replied they have had a number of conversations with AC Transit and WETA about
Page 10 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,11,"these issues. She said if the vote moves forward they would continue the conversation with AC
Transit and the Commission.
Commissioner Bellows stated that staff and WETA have done a lot of outreach already and the
HOA are on board. She explained that the concept is not ideal, but it is better than the status quo.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff if they would see this plan again before it goes before the City
Council.
Commissioner Bellows replied the concept would go before the City Council.
Jennifer Ott replied if the Commission approved the plan it would move forward to the City
Council on June 7. She explained that in the fall, they would provide the Commission with an
update on how the plan is going and answer questions and receive comments about the details of
the plan.
Commissioner Vargas recommended to place on the top of the list to look at keeping the parking
charges at the minimum or close to the $2.00 range, similar to the Fruitvale BART and Vallejo
Ferry parking models. Regarding the residential parking permit program, he would look to the
HOAs to come up with a plan and he hoped to not scare motorists away with parking ticket
prices, but maybe with a first offense issue a warning.
Commissioner Hans moved to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Vargas seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 4-0; 1 abstention by Commission Schatmeier who could
not take part in the Commission discussion or vote.
5.C. Discuss the Citywide Transit and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans
Existing Conditions and Goals/Objectives
Jennifer Ott introduced the presentation.
Brian Sullen and Bill Hurl, CDM Smith, were hired to prepare the plan and they presented the
report.
Staff Payne replied they were comparing apples and oranges a little bit when speaking about the
""Travel within Alameda"" slide. She said ultimately, staff is attempting to show the magnitude of
the magnate schools and charter schools in the west end, but it became a little convoluted.
However, she said the main point is Alameda Unified School District enrollment has been stable,
but there has been an increase in student enrollment citywide because of this 1,500 students who
are charter school students.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if density was then the main indicator for success for the bike
share stations.
Brian Sullen explained that he was referring to the bike share station density and how many
stations there are in the area.
Page 11 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,12,"Commission Schatmeier said Bay Farm Island has extensive bicycle facilities, therefore creating
a lot of opportunities to use bikes. He asked if a station would have more use then the population
density would indicate because of the opportunities to use bikes.
Brian Sullen replied absolutely, but he would caution against just adding one bike share station,
but including maybe three stations because when adding bike share stations you have to cluster a
few out there to make it more viable.
Commissioner Bellows asked if the existing conditions includes Harbor Bay.
Brian Sullen replied they do.
Commissioner Bellows said she occasionally takes BART and the trains are more crowded than
ever before. She asked if the crowding was due to less trains or increased ridership.
Brian Sullen replied BART boardings are not down. However, few Alameda residents are taking
BART.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked about ridership from Alameda (note - inaudible dialogue)
Brian Sullen said he would provide the data to the Commission.
Jennifer Ott continued with the presentation's goals, objectives, and feedback.
Commissioner Vargas stated that the ""Origins and destinations"" slide was a useful slide and in
the future he wanted staff to provide a slide about where people come from when they travel to
Alameda. He also wanted to know at a future time why carpool levels dropped from 2000 to
2005. Furthermore, he said the additional bike share slides were not available in the previous
packet, so having that included before the presentation would be good.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.
Denise Tropadea, Alameda resident, said safety is near and dear to my heart as it relates to the
TDM. She explained that she recently moved into a Victorian home in Alameda and when she is
not having to haul building material around than she is biking, walking or using public transit.
She stated that she supported all the work that the City is doing to get people out of their cars.
However, she explained as Alameda continues to grow the City needs to mitigate the number of
cars on the street because it does not add to the quality of life. Therefore, the City needs to
provide more options to get people out of their cars and those options are not in place. She is
asked the Commission to add both the objectives to the TDM as well as the evaluation criteria to
make sure safety and specifically bicycle, pedestrian and vehicle collisions are within the plan.
She asked the Commission to adopt a goal similar to the Vision Zero policy in San Francisco to
reduce deaths and serious injuries as part of the transportation goals. Additionally, she asked for
the City to work on more or some egress off of the west end of the island for people who are not
in a car. She pointed out that the extra four inches of sidewalk within the tube is good, but it's
not a long-term solution and the City needs to plan for another way off the west end of the island.
She felt the shuttles are good, but when riders have to put their bicycles on the back of the shuttle
Page 12 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,13,"going into Oakland and they are not able to lock it, well no one is going to do that.
Heather Little stated that six months ago she started speaking with key people around the City
such as the City Council, Planning Board and Bike Walk Alameda about safety issues such as
the lack of infrastructure for bikes linking one end of the island to the other and vehicles
speeding. She said she was pleased about Central Avenue and the Bay Trail, but in the meantime
something must be done about safety. She explained to the Commission that her husband was
bicycling home from the ferry terminal and while traveling home, a car failed to yield to him and
he was pushed off the road at Main Street. She said he now has a pretty serious collar bone
fracture. She asked the Commission to make sure this plan is not just piecemealed together, but
take into account all modes of transportation along with a policy such as Vision Zero. She
brought up the fact that two fatalities occurred with a car involved in the past eight months. Also,
when she quoted the last statistics on record from 2013 when comparing Alameda to 103 other
cities similar to its population size, Alameda was rated eighth worse for injuries in car related
versus pedestrian accidents. She liked the fact that this was being addressed before new
development gets underway. Yet, the City is struggling because people want to get out of their
cars, but the City needs to set the infrastructure and not have cars parked right on the
intersections. She said this is not just on the Commission, but Alameda Police Department, Bike
Walk Alameda, Planning Board and City Council.
Lucy Gigli, President of Bike Walk Alameda, said the plan was off to a great start and she has
been part of the presentations in the past months. She said there is great stuff to move the City
forward in active transportation. However, she has provided recommendations 1. Safety must be
implemented on our streets and placing goals and objectives on how to encourage people to walk
and bike in Alameda and get them there safely is paramount and 2. One of the largest
impediments in encouraging people to bike and walk off the island on the west end is the Estuary
Crossing. She said a feasibility study was conducted 8-10 years ago that talked about some of the
alternative transit options to get people off the island. Consequently, the City implemented the
Estuary Shuttle that fills a small niche during its run times, but that's it. She said the City needs
to fix that critical link to get people off the island on the west end without having driving.
Jim Strehlow stated that you cannot just rubber-stamp the people because this plan is not one size
fits all. He explained that his coworker has to drive his daughter to north Oakland to high school
from South. He said she will not ride the AC Transit system or BART to 19th or 12th Stations
because she feels uncomfortable and unsafe. So, he felt more consideration should be taken to
the people who are using this infrastructure. He said he rides his bike daily and during the
weekends, but four times a month, he is one of those evil single-occupant drivers leaving the
island. He went on to say the reason being because he picks up three people, which includes two
youths to go to a youth group meeting. Yet, he stated that he is one of the statistics that says he is
driving alone, but he is actually transporting other people, bags of food and other supplies. He
pointed out that visitors coming from other states to visit families will not want to spend their
time taking public transportation all the time. He said he has a friend who goes to Napa and
spends 8 hours on public transportation and that is horrible. The plan should also consider the
elderly who need to get to medical appointments and need assistance. He noted that
infrastructure is important, but do not forget about the people you are trying to serve and make it
safe for all of them.
Page 13 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,14,"Commissioner Schatmeier said regarding the goals and objectives for public transit, he would
like to see public become a multi-purpose and multi-destination phenomenon that serves a
variety of destinations. He would also like to see transit attract choice riders, meaning people
who choose to take public transit, because they think public transit is better for many trips. He
said on the main island the Lines 51 and 851 service Santa Clara Avenue 24 hours a day. So, it is
possible, but may not be as convenient to live on the corridor and now own a vehicle. He
explained that planning is being done on Alameda Point in the hope that some people will move
in without relying on cars for most of their trips. In order to do this, he said a structure must be
put into place on day one that serves people for a variety of trips. As a result, he wanted to see
that versatility reflected in the Commission's discussion on what they intend to do in the future
because currently it is not explicitly laid out.
Commissioner Hans said he would like staff to review the transportation of children. He
understood the fact that there is large number of interisland transportation of children to schools
and as a crossing guard at Lincoln Middle School on Fernside Boulevard there are many
potential vehicle caused collisions. He explained that a number of single-occupant drivers are
commuting back and forth particularly from Bay Farm to the main island in order to transport
their children to school. Also, he said that different youth organizations and events require
families to do a number of back and forth commutes including on the weekends. He wondered if
a kid's shuttle could be implemented to bring children to destinations or take kids to youth events
or schools. He also stated safety is paramount and he has seen a number of incidents and that
continues to increase with near fatalities almost every single day on Fernside Boulevard.
Commissioner Vargas stated that there was ditto between Goal 1 and 2 of the staff report except
changing the last part, so take the comment mildly. He said looking at the creativity side, which
was found on the back side of each of the goals there is more meat and inspiration. Regarding
safety, he suggested that Goal 2 be amended to end with the word ""safely"" or ""safety"" and then
adding the word ""safely"" to Goal 2F and possibly elsewhere. He went on to say that Item 1
addresses carpooling and staff should include the idea of promoting casual carpool or other
elements such as online or smartphone app solutions because he personally had challenges with
one of his sons trying to get to San Luis Obispo two weeks ago.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the feasibility study for the commercial bike rental and how
was the level of detail placed into where they are today.
Staff Payne replied that was a last minute decision because staff has a deadline due June 15 or 17
for a Letter of Interest (LOI) to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and they
wanted to get some kind of feedback. She said if they are selected in the fall there will be some
time for outreach, but the LOI is due soon.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff about the car sharing discussion they had a while ago and
whatever happened with that.
Staff Payne replied that was a point to point car share and staff decided that they could come
without their involvement because that was the easiest way to proceed. She stated that since the
City has so few parking meters that they would not be involved to truing up parking spaces.
Page 14 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,15,"Commissioner Bellows said regarding the objectives and goals, she was fully committed to
multimodal travel, but the fact of life is present and will be interconnected, autonomous and
driverless. Therefore, the goals and objectives should include accommodating for this because
they are coming and it helps people particularly on the west end to get off the island because you
can get a lot of capacity from those vehicles. She felt that was an aspect that the Commission
should think about as well including other technologies such as ride sharing smart phone apps.
She also explained that including safety into the plan is a primary goal.
Commissioner Vargas said that feedback on the bikes was way over his head, but he felt this
topic was out of place and should be discussed separately.
Staff Payne replied Commissioner Vargas could provide input to staff at a later time.
Commissioner Bellows felt the bike share was a separate topic.
Staff Payne said the bike share portion was part of the consultant's work scope to do a conduct
bike share feasibility study. Staff timed bike share portion to be prepared for MTC's LOI.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if the intent was to say that the Commission supports a bike
feasibility study.
Staff Payne replied the intent is to be considered for the MTC capital grant to help fund the
majority of the capital costs in order to have bike share in Alameda.
Commissioner Bellows and Commissioner Vargas replied they did not pick up on the intent from
the staff report.
Staff Payne replied staff would like to know what the Commission thinks about the LOI and
what is needed.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff who will manage the bike share program.
Jennifer Ott replied the grant is a two-step process, meaning staff would put something forward
as a proposal which is preliminary. She explained there wasn't time given the scope to have a
full community process on bike share like staff normally would, so staff made a judgement call
to submit the LOI or lose the opportunity.
Commissioner Bellows replied the LOI states that the City is interested in applying for a grant to
investigate bike sharing in Alameda.
Jennifer Ott replied the LOI allows the City to be considered receiving funding for capital in
order to implement the bike share program. She went on to say there are a lot of questions that
staff has and they do not have many of the answers for implementation or operations yet.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he moved to exclude the bike share element so the Commission
can at least comment on the goals and objectives.
Page 15 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,16,"Commissioner Bellows asked about the schedule for bike share plan.
Jennifer Ott replied bike share plan is due at the end of this month.
Commissioner Bellows asked about the due date for the LOI.
Jennifer Ott stated that the LOI is due in June and in the fall staff will apply for the grant. She
said there was plenty of time to come back to the Commission and answer questions.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff if they receive the grant does that preclude the bike share
program from being a commercial operation.
Commissioner Bellows replied there are different types of models, however, this bike share
program needs to be more thought out.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied whether or not to submit the LOI is not on the agenda.
Commissioner Bellows replied the Commission would have to make the LOI a separate motion.
However, right now she felt Commissioner Vargas was correct the bike share plan was not part
of the goals and objectives. Thus, she proposed to have a new motion to consider the LOI.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied this is not an action item, so staff could submit the LOI with or
without the Commission's approval.
Jennifer Ott said that was correct, staff would need a letter from the City manager, but they
would like the Commission's feedback and staff would come back to the Commission with more
detailed analysis about the bike share program.
Commissioner Bertken replied that he would feel better if they separate the feasibility study,
which creates more confusion.
Jennifer Ott said if MTC accepts the LOI, staff would come back to the Commission as a
separate agenda item potentially named the bike share feasibility study.
6.
Staff Communications
6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. AC Transit Major Corridor Study Analysis
2. Shoreline Bikeway Analysis
3. Broadway/Jackson Update
4. Cross Alameda Trail Preliminary Design between Webster Street and Constitution Way
5. Cross Alameda Trail, Atlantic Segment
Commissioner Vargas asked Staff Patel about item 3 of 6.A. and does he know when that will
happen.
Page 16 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-05-25,17,"Staff Patel replied Liam Garland said they are continuing.
Commissioner Bertken asked about item 2 of 6.A.
Staff Patel replied this is an analysis looking at the results after implementation and staff has not
completed the analysis yet. He said staff is in the process of gathering accident, ridership, crash
and traffic data on Shoreline Boulevard.
7.
Announcements/Publio Comments
8.
Adjournment
9:54 pm
Page 17 of 17",TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf