body,date,page,text,path
TransportationCommission,2014-07-30,1,"Transportation Commission
November 19, 2014
Item 4A
Action
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
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:
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Michele Bellows
Eric Schatmeier
Gregory Morgado
Thomas G. Bertken
Staff Present:
Alex Nguyen, Assistant City Manager
Virendra Patel, Transportation Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Commissioner Vargas announced that he recently visited Chicago and was able to easily traverse
the city on a number of different transit modes.
Staff Payne stated that Assemblyman Rob Bonta will hold a Town Hall Meeting Tuesday,
August 12 at the Alameda Free Library.
Page 1 of 10",TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-07-30,2,"4.
Consent Calendar
4A.
Meeting Minutes - Special Meeting - December 11, 2013
4B.
Meeting Minutes - March 26, 2014
4C.
Meeting Minutes - Special Meeting - April 23, 2014
4D.
Meeting Minutes - May 28, 2014
Commissioner Miley moved to approve Items 4.A., 4.B., 4.C. and 4.D. of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5.
New Business
5A.
Approve Installation of a Bulb-out at Park/Lincoln Northwest Corner
Staff Patel said the plan was originally presented to the Commission on March 26 and the
project's consultant would present the report.
Joy Bhattacharya, Traffic Senior Project Manager, Stantec Consulting, presented the report.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
John Knox White, Alameda Resident, said he supported staff's recommendations.
Commission Schatmeier said he was glad that a review of the intersection took place and he was
glad staff was able to make improvements.
Commissioner Vargas moved to approve staff recommendations for Item 5A. Commissioner
Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5B. Review and Provide Comments on Ferry Terminal Access Issues and Potential Solutions
Staff Payne presented the report and introduced Kevin Connolly, Water Emergency
Transportation Authority (WETA) and Becca Homa, AC Transit.
Kevin Connolly, WETA Planning and Development Manager, presented the Alameda Terminal
Access Plan results to date.
Becca Homa, AC Transit Service Planner, presented AC Transit's a potential change to Line 31
route to allow for it to serve the Main Street ferry terminal.
Staff Payne presented the next steps found on page 4 of the staff report and she requested
recommendations from the Commission.
Page 2 of 10",TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-07-30,3,"Commissioner Miley referred to page 3 of the staff report, where the last point made was for the
WETA Board to adopt the plan. Thus, he wanted to know when the board would adopt the plan.
Kevin Connolly replied the board would adopt the plan sometime in the fall between October and
November.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Kevin Connolly to compare the Harbor Bay Ferry's ridership
originating from Oakland and Alameda.
Kevin Connolly replied the total breakdown of Alameda-Oakland ridership is 51 percent of riders
are from Alameda and 49 percent of riders are from Oakland. He went on to say that 70 percent
of Alameda passengers board during the AM peak commute and 70 percent of Oakland riders
board during the midday to late evening hours.
Commissioner Schatmeier wanted to know how many Harbor Bay Alamedans ride. He assumed
that if there are 2,800 riders a day and roughly 1,400 a day are from Alameda, then roughly 70
percent or 900-1,000 riders are boarding during the AM peak commute.
Kevin Connolly replied roughly, there are 992 riders from Harbor Bay.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Lucy Gigli, President and Co-founder Bike Walk Alameda, explained that there are a number of
issues that should be addressed within the plan. Firstly, she said creating a crosswalk from the
D'Club to the west of the dog park would allow pedestrians to get from their vehicles to the
terminal safely. Secondly, she said reducing the speed limit to 25 mph along Main Street would
increase pedestrian and bicycle safety. Thirdly, she noted that improving bicycle access along
Main Street could be done by constructing a cycle track on the west side of the street. However,
she explained the only issue would be that cyclists would ride down Main Street, cross over and
then go up the cycle track and then cross over again. Also, she mentioned the option of including
buffered bike lanes within 0.2 miles of the stretch on the east side between Singleton Avenue and
the ferry terminal. Lastly, she felt asphalt paving dominated Alameda Point and converting the
last unpaved lot into a parking lot was not environmentally sound.
John Knox White explained that AC Transit Line 63 was eliminated due to low ridership because
the bus could not make the scheduled route. He pointed out that the intended Line 31 re-route
would inconvenience the Alameda Point Collaborative, which is a 214-unit transit dependent
residence. Thus, he felt turning the existing service into a loop was detrimental. He requested
the Commission to ask staff to conduct a ridership study to see the origin of Harbor Bay ferry
riders.
Commissioner Bellows asked about enforcing parking restrictions on Adelphian Way.
Specifically, she mentioned the solution of working with WETA and the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) staff to enforce the two-hour parking on
the landside of Adelphian Way. She wanted to know how BCDC could dictate how the City
regulates parking.
Page 3 of 10",TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-07-30,4,"Staff Payne replied the City was obligated to comply with the BCDC permit found under page 2
of the staff report. The BCDC prohibits parking on the Bay side, but short-term parking is
allowed on the land side.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff how willing would BCDC be to let the parking requirement
go.
Staff Payne replied that staff needs to work with BCDC to amend the permit.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if the parking restrictions were enforced, where would ferry
riders park.
Staff Payne noted that the landward side provides about 50 parking spaces.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if the neighbors around Adelphian Way were notified about
potential changes to the parking regulations.
Staff Payne said residents have not been notified and all conversations are informal. Staff is
disregarding the two-hour restriction for the time being.
Commissioner Morgado said he drove by the area around 4:45 pm and there was one parking
space in the parking lot and no parking spaces along Adelphian Way. He asked why a two-hour
limit would be implemented.
Staff Payne stated that BCDC works with the City anytime development is within 100 feet from
the Bay. Their mission involves public access and making sure the view shed is visible, which
may have triggered the parking restrictions.
Sergeant Simmons, Alameda Police Traffic Division, explained that in the last 6-9 months they
have received a number of calls from residents about the landward parking side. Community
members at the end of Creedon Circle asked them to lift the parking enforcement because of
increased ridership and the number of cars encroaching within their neighborhoods.
Commissioner Schatmeier said enforcing the two-hour restriction on Adelphian Way would
spark drivers to park in the surrounding neighborhoods. He mentioned that other cities have
residential parking permits and that could be a solution for the area. He was also concerned that
removing parking on Adelphian Way would lower ferry ridership. He noted that the curb
coming out of Sweet Road onto Adelphian Way should be painted red since it is a fire hydrant.
He does not think that BCDC would want ferry riders to decrease.
Commissioner Miley asked WETA about the ability to purchase the vacant lot adjacent to the
ferry terminal to increase surface parking lot spaces. He wondered if WETA or the City
approached the landowner about potential development.
Kevin Connolly said the vacant land was privately owned by the Lehman Brothers and the asking
price was beyond their budget. They have talked to the owners and the solution may be to
potentially lease parking spaces.
Page 4 of 10",TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-07-30,5,"Commissioner Bellows asked WETA if they ever considered implementing a parking fee.
Kevin Connolly replied they discussed the idea and are willing to consider it.
Commissioner Miley stated that there are other lots along Harbor Bay Parkway and he
recommended WETA review those sites. He suggested reaching out to the existing shuttle at the
nearby business park to see if they could expand their service to reach the ferry terminal.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he paid more for parking in Chicago than San Francisco and in
the densest areas motorists required a sticker. He asked WETA if there are sites where that
scheme has been implemented.
Kevin Connolly stated that the city of Vallejo owns a number of open surface lots around the
Baylink Ferry Terminal and they now charge for parking.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if they looked at allowing for parking along McCartney Road.
Staff Patel replied no.
Commissioner Bellows asked if there was a way to accommodate parking along the road.
Staff Patel replied they could investigate to see if parking would be possible.
Commissioner Vargas mentioned that there was a park and ride on Island Drive near Doolittle.
He then asked if the AC Transit bus that picks up at the park and ride could stop near the ferry
terminal to accommodate additional ferry riders.
Becca Homa replied that Line #21 does stop at the park and ride and near the terminal. However,
she felt few people were taking advantage of the service, but she could investigate further.
Staff Payne replied that the park and ride spaces were at capacity.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff who parked there and where were they going.
Staff Payne said the lot was owned by the City and charter buses utilized the lot.
Kevin Connolly replied Google runs five buses a day at the park and ride and Apple runs three.
Staff Payne replied that the Golf Parking Lot was a potential alternative; however, staff once
executed the shuttle approach and only a handful used the service.
Commissioner Miley replied that all agencies involved should take notes and come back to the
Commission with feedback and follow up to explore solutions. He would like to see the
crosswalk idea reviewed to allow safe access when crossing Main Street.
Commissioner Vargas felt the Homeowner Associations from the adjacent communities should
Page 5 of 10",TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-07-30,6,"also be contacted.
Commissioner Bellows needed clarification on the plan to acquire additional parking and how
that would tie into the Seaplane Lagoon improvements and future service at Seaplane Lagoon.
Kevin Connolly replied that they are engaged with Alameda staff to look at the whole range of
potential outcomes and variations. However, WETA's improvements are based on the short-
term access study because they are not looking at making 20-year investments until they know
the outcome of the Seaplane Lagoon Project.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he wanted to speak about transit access issues. When he
worked in Marin County, he traveled using the Alameda-Oakland and Golden Gate Ferries. He
explained that Golden Gate Transit had a long history of feeder shuttles to the Larkspur Ferry
Terminal and no one used the service. Regarding AC Transit, he was disturbed with the 66
percent on-time performance rating and he was doubtful that eliminating the last trip on Line #
21 to serve the morning ferry riders was helpful. Moreover, he said staff should review the
ridership gain if they are going to re-route Line #31.
Commissioner Morgado asked staff how far away was the O'Club lot from the ferry terminal.
Staff Payne replied that there are 138 spaces at the O'Club parking lot and noted that the staff
report displayed the parking lot as the blue rectangle.
Commissioner Morgado stated that motorists usually park on the unregulated part of Main Street
in the morning.
Staff Payne replied that was correct.
Commissioner Morgado asked staff how many people actually park there.
Staff Payne replied they saw the total number of cars parking on Main Street come from all over
the presented map from West Midway to the west gate/Navy Way, and they were willing to walk
to the terminal.
Commissioner Morgado asked staff if the City allowed people to park at the O'Club lot, would a
crosswalk be present.
Staff Payne replied a crosswalk was not present and that was one of the requests presented by
Lucy Gigli of BikeWalk Alameda. She said that the O'Club lot was used by the Park and
Recreation Department.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied that his son had a wedding party at Rosenblum Cellars and
they recently moved to Jack London. He does not know if the site has been replaced by a new
tenant, but if not could the vacant parking spaces be utilized.
Kevin Connolly said that Bay Ship and Yacht is interested in leasing the space.
Page 6 of 10",TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-07-30,7,"Commissioner Vargas referred to Spirits Alley and wondered if the AC Transit Line #31
extension could cover that area.
Becca Homa said during the last Commission meeting a few people requested service for the
area. However, peak ridership occurs during the evening and weekend timeframe and service
during that timeframe was expensive and long. She said that this was not a high priority service
area.
Commissioner Miley asked AC Transit if they are looking at any specialty transit service to
accompany regular service.
Becca Homa replied that AC Transit's Board approved the purchase of smaller vehicles SO that
may be a possibility.
Commissioner Vargas asked if there could be a modification of the loop if someone pushed a
button near Spirits Alley.
Becca Homa replied the action was called flexible service and staff was looking into the option,
but staff would have to address union and driver training issues.
Commissioner Schatmeier explained in the past WETA and AC Transit representatives talked
about implementing bus service to and from San Francisco when the ferries turned people away.
He also wanted to know if WETA used a contractor for the bus service. Alternatively, ferry
riders could board AC Transit Line OX at the Temporary Transbay Terminal. He wondered if
the 5:40 pm or 5:50 pm Line OX run could originate at the San Francisco Ferry Building then
proceed to the Temporary Transbay Terminal.
Becca Homa replied that would be difficult because layover, restrooms and tour bus spaces
would be an ongoing issue. Therefore, they would like to concentrate their operations at the
Temporary Transbay Terminal.
Kevin Connolly said they contract out the backup buses. Regarding AC Transit and ferry
service, WETA had conversations about a partnership between the two agencies and that was
something they would like to see. Moreover, he mentioned that a regionwide Transbay corridor
plan was enacted between AC Transit, BART and WETA for better integration between the
entire system and establishing a partnership was an ongoing conversation.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff about the ability to change the dog park to a parking facility.
Staff Payne said a new dog park was in construction and overseen by Amy Wooldridge,
Recreation and Parks Director. The dog park would be located in the new Estuary Park just
north of Mosley Avenue.
Commissioner Miley commented on the fact that the City was responsible for the ferry
infrastructure maintenance on the landward side. He wondered if that was standard practice or
unique to Alameda.
Page 7 of 10",TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-07-30,8,"Staff Payne replied that is unique to the City.
Commissioner Miley asked how much the maintenance work costs the City.
Staff Payne replied WETA reimburses the City for all maintenance work.
Commissioner Bertken asked WETA why the improvement of the pedestrian crossing at Main
Street was not the responsibility of WETA.
Kevin Connolly replied that they raised the issue since the beginning of the effort and that it was
not embraced by the City's Public Works Department.
Commissioner Vargas said the project looked like a candidate for a joint public partnership.
Alex Nguyen, Alameda City Manager, said he would like the Commission to come back in the
fall to discuss the specific studies and present refined recommendations.
Commissioner Vargas stated that a special committee should be put into place to review the plan.
Commissioner Schatmeier offered to volunteer for the subcommittee and he stated that the
Commission should express their requirements for the plan without committing them to a single
solution.
Alex Nguyen recommended that Bike Walk Alameda be part of the subcommittee and requested
that staff look into the number of people who could be part of the subcommittee.
Staff Payne felt that the subcommittee should sit down and include additions and deletions using
the next steps part of the staff report as a starting point.
Commissioner Miley said regarding the potential solution portion, he would like staff to explore
available surface lots around the area, include additional bicycle parking under WETA's
responsibility and study the effects of re-routing Line #31.
Commissioner Bellows amended Commissioner Miley's statement to include staff to explore
available on-street parking as well.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied that the solution should also exclude enforcing parking
restrictions on Adelphian Way. He also supported reviewing the effects of re-routing Line #31.
Commissioner Bellows felt they should remove the signage that restricts parking on the landward
side. She would also like the curb at Adelphian Way and Sweet Road painted red to prevent
parking. Additionally, she would like to see the first elements of the BCDC parking issue
combined because the parking agreement should be released.
Commissioner Morgado said he agreed with not citing motorists for parking and the City should
work with WETA and BCDC to make that happen. He does not completely agree with removing
the existing dog park, but if there was an alternative being built then it was not a big problem.
Page 8 of 10",TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-07-30,9,"Also, he would like to make sure pedestrians and cyclists travel safely along Main Street.
Commissioner Vargas asked Sergeant Simmons for the speed limit along Main Street.
Sergeant Simmons replied 35 mph.
Commissioner Vargas felt that safety was an important issue. The Main Street pedestrian and
cyclist crossing was high priority. Secondly, he said the Commission should work with the
contract BCDC laid out since modifying the contract would be difficult. Moreover, he felt that
parking restrictions were a revenue generator and if the City needed money then start giving
tickets.
Commissioner Miley replied WETA should look into implementing parking charges within their
parking lot.
6.
Staff Communications
6A.
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
The next Commission meeting will be Wednesday, September 24th. and potential items
could include:
Ferry Terminal Access Recommendations and Updates
Northern Waterfront Development Projects
Pedestrian Safety Program Update
I-880/29th Avenue/23rd Avenue Interchange Improvement Project
Proposed I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation and Circulation
Improvements
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, said two months ago he spoke about the I-880/Fruitvale Avenue
construction and how the left turn lane onto Elmwood Drive had an unnecessary 20-second
delay. Yet, he found that two months ago the City striped Fruitvale Avenue with an extra lane
and that alleviated some of the traffic. However, he said a 20-second delay continued to plague
Elmwood Drive and he would like the Commission to talk to City about this issue. In addition,
he was upset that he spent the last several meetings asking for a survey of traffic conditions and
recently found out that the City conducted a study for Alameda Point. Thus, he wanted better
communication between departments and the Commission. Also, before attending the
Commission meeting, he attended the Del Monte Warehouse Project meeting at City Hall West.
He said a number of transportation issues were brought up, yet the issues are not being
communicated with the Commission.
Commissioner Vargas asked the Commission if the Del Monte Warehouse Project should be
included as a future agenda item.
Staff Payne replied the Del Monte Warehouse Project was located within the Northern
Waterfront and that there are several developments in progress. She advised the Commission to
Page 9 of 10",TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-07-30,10,"call this upcoming agenda item as ""Northern Waterfront Development.""
Commissioner Schatmeier made the motion to include the topic within the existing future agenda
items. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
8.
Adjournment
8:55 pm
Page 10 of 10",TransportationCommission/2014-07-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,1,"Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes
Wednesday November 18, 2015
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
Christopher Miley
Michael Hans
Gregory Morgado
Members Absent:
Thomas G. Bertken
Staff Present:
Staff Patel, Transportation Engineer
Staff Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
3.A. Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 7 pm
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that AC Transit has been actively compiling a service
enhancement plan that impacts the City. Commissioner Schatmeier provided a memo
summarizing the items that were discussed. He explained three priorities came about from the
discussion: 1. funding should stay local; 2. maintain existing AC Transit Line O on Santa Clara
Avenue and if they shorten the route as originally proposed by AC Transit then savings should
stay local; and 3. in the absence of transfers, AC Transit should maintain direct service to
Fruitvale BART Station on the current lines despite the additional cost of doing SO. He
recommended that the topic be agendized for the January 2016 meeting so the Commission can
discuss the priorities.
Staff Payne stated that the City has been working with AC Transit and the City supports their
expansion plan. She further explained that the biggest priority is the restoration of the Line 19,
Page 1 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,2,"which is in the northern waterfront area and a new development will be built in the area. She said
last week she went to an AC Transit hearing and summarized the need for restoration of the Line
19.
4.
Consent Calendar
4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - May 27, 2015
Commissioner Schatmeier stated he had a change to Item 5b discussion of the Central Avenue
Complete Streets proposal. He said that the minutes state Webster Street and Central Avenue
eastbound traffic on Central Avenue has a large amount of vehicles turning right onto Webster
Street. He explained that he meant to say was westbound traffic on Central Avenue has a large
number of vehicles turning right onto Webster Street and he was concerned about how that
would be treated.
4.B. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - July 22, 2015
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the minutes of May 27, 2015 with the corrections
provided by Commissioner Schatmeier and approve the minutes of July 22, 2015. Commissioner
Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5.
New Business
5.A. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Patel presented the quarterly report and introduced Rochelle Wheeler, Alameda Public
Works, to present an update on the Cross Alameda Trail.
5.B. Recommend City Council Approval of the Central Avenue Concept Including Safety and
Other Street Improvements
Jennifer Ott, Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point, presented the report and introduced
Staff Payne to discuss the public outreach, staff recommendations and next steps. Jennifer Ott
also presented Jean Finney, Deputy District Director of Caltrans District 4, who spoke at the end
of the presentation.
Commissioner Vargas said having worked with Caltrans there are design manuals and guidelines
and there are design exceptions for similar facilities that Caltrans has granted with lane widths of
10.5 feet.
Jean Finney replied yes and the standard width for this type of roadway is 11 feet, so there will
be a design exception for the 10.5 feet lane widths. She also reiterated the fact that traffic
engineers looked at the conceptual plans and gave conceptual approval for the 10.5 feet width.
Sean McPhetridge, Superintendent of Alameda Unified School District (AUSD), stated that he
was glad that the City and staff worked with the District. He explained that school leaders
Page 2 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,3,"support a walk and roll event every year to show and emphasize the need to be healthy and safe.
He also said the City of Alameda has worked hard to partner with them on numerous fronts and
he along with his colleagues support the plan.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he thought staff did a good job on outreach and the
presentation was conducted well. He said Jennifer Ott talked about safety improvements and the
disproportionate number of collisions the corridor is responsible for and he felt that was an
interesting case. He wanted to know if there will be a report on the before and after statistics as a
result of the project.
Staff Payne replied she would like to report back about the impacts after construction.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that the presentation commented on the delays in traffic in the
year 2035 and he wondered how much of the delays and growth attribute to traffic growth that
would take place if the City did nothing. He wondered if that would be a similar level of delay
and growth. He also wanted to know if staff attributes the delay growth to the project or the fact
that the City will get bigger and there will be more traffic in the year 2035.
Staff Payne replied the numbers for the year 2035 do assume that all the planned development is
within the estimate including no mode shift and the project is built.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied the data reflects the assumption that the project is built, but
does the data also assume growth delays in the corridor if the project was not built so there
would be no net impact on delays.
Laurence Lewis, Associate Planner Kittelson and Associates, said the comparison that Staff
Payne mentioned was in addition to the growth that would happen from upcoming development.
He explained there was a comparison with the same level of traffic in the year 2035 meaning
existing conditions and with what was proposed without mode shifts.
Commissioner Schatmeier said the benefits listed included the improvements to bus access and
he wanted more detail regarding this.
Staff Payne replied the west end of the island where there is the two-way bikeway on the west
side of the street would have bus islands on the west end of the street to accommodate the
existing bus stop and staff would move the island a little bit north to the far side of that
intersection. She also mentioned that on 8th Street there would be a bus bulb-out for the
westbound bus stop with benches and shelters and that type of improvement along the corridor.
Commissioner Miley stated that looking at the Encinal High School side, he was happy to see
staff partnering with the school. He confirmed with staff that the reconfiguration of the school's
parking lot, which is the staff parking lot, will have no loss to parking spaces.
Staff Payne replied there is no parking loss.
Commissioner Miley replied since the parking lot is the staff's parking lot, where would the rest
of the encroachment of the existing school's facilities take place.
Page 3 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,17,"Commissioner Miley said to follow up on Commissioner Schatmeier's comments about 8th Street
and Central Avenue the intersection is tricky and he lived on 8th Street growing up. Overall, he
felt the project improves safety throughout the corridor, but staff could look to do more. He
wondered if staff could look at having the bike lane encroach into the park because it is
concerning what driver behavior would be like at the intersection, especially making that right or
left turn onto 8th Street going northwest.
Staff Payne replied staff looked at this option. She said the advantage is a more protected space,
but the disadvantages are conflicts with bicyclists getting into the park because there is a park
facility with a preschool and after care with a lot of parking activity at that intersection.
Commissioner Bellows replied staff could move the right turn lane over further and keep the
orientation the way it is and that could provide more room for the westbound traffic to not
merge.
Staff Payne replied there is also a concern when you get to the 8th Street intersection as a cyclist
how would you get across since you would not be orientated to go eastbound again.
Commissioner Miley said the lineup would not be ideal.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to accept staff recommendations with additional requests
and move the plan to City Council for review. He requested that staff conduct additional analysis
at the 8th Street intersection and to further review the short merge or if there is any way to extend
that. He also requested that staff provide the City Council with some analysis that shows what
encroaching into the park would look like, so they have some options in front of them.
Additionally, he asked that when the project is eventually implemented staff would present an
annual review to the Commission. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion.
Commissioner Vargas made an amendment to the motion that included having the engineering
department review the concept as it evolves, so they are officially in the loop. The motion was
approved 6-0.
6.
Staff Communications
6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
-
Cross Alameda Trail - Atlantic Segment
-
Main Street Ferry Terminal Improvements
7.
Announcements/Public Comments
None.
8.
Adjournment
10:21 pm
Page 17 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,4,"Staff Payne replied that would be the lawn space and they would be moving to the two kiosks
further south out of the path of the bikeway.
Commissioner Miley asked about the Webster and 8th Street intersection. He explained the
intersection is where the highest pedestrian incidents were observed. He wondered if there were
any treatments or improvements made within the 10 years.
Staff Payne replied there were four pedestrian injuries at Webster Street and Central Avenue over
the past 10 years and since that time staff has improved that intersection. She said staff created a
new marked crosswalk on the east side and they felt that would improve the intersection moving
forward. She went on to say that half of the injuries occurred before the intersection
improvement and half occurred afterwards, but she felt that did not occur on the eastern side.
Commissioner Miley inquired about Washington Park from Page Street to 8th Street, where the
bike lane would discontinue. He wondered if staff looked at going into the park to accommodate
a lane there.
Staff Payne replied staff reviewed the option and decided not to pursue that because park space is
very limited and they weighed that as a higher concern.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comments.
Kyle Long, Alameda west end student and east end resident, said he took a bicycle safety class
and obeys all traffic laws. He said he feels unsafe when bicycling and feels safer when there is a
dedicated bike lane.
Jay Katter, Alameda Community Learning Center (ACLC) student, said his friend who also
bicycles was hit by a car when riding to school. He felt having bike lanes on Encinal Avenue
would be very nice.
Jay Lucy stated that he does not support the project. He felt the elimination of the parking spots
and road access at the intersection of Central Avenue and Webster Street will be a business
negative and poor use of City funds. He asked for a loading and unloading study to be conducted
and he said West Alameda Business Association (WABA) does not support this project. He
pointed out that at the public meeting when the new cross walks were installed at the intersection
of Central Avenue and Webster Street staff stated that over 20,000 vehicles were crossing daily
and now the numbers have mysteriously dropped due to a different agenda even with the growth
pattern being 2.9 percent from 2009. He said with population density growing, limiting a major
arterial makes no sense when a back path exists on Santa Clara Avenue. He requested that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be considered on such a significant proposal. He also
requested that a Shore Line Drive usage survey be considered to see how the people living along
Shore Line Drive feel about the change. Having been to every meeting on this topic, he felt
disappointed by the changes that were made since the last meeting. He heard that the schools are
drawing from outside the area like the city of Oakland. He asked that the bulb-outs not be used
because they are a hazard and are not maintained.
Page 4 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,5,"Kathy Neilson, Central Avenue resident and parent to an Encinal High School student, said she
was surprised by the low collision incidents reported at the corner of Encinal Avenue and St.
Charles Street because she felt there are more collisions that took place than was actually
reported. She was happy to hear about the inclusion of curb extensions and crosswalks because
they will be effective. She felt that the loss of one parking spot in front of her home makes up for
increasing community safety. She was also happy to see the Sycamore trees would stay and
beautify the street. She wondered if the plan includes redirecting activity to go from Santa Clara
to Central Avenue. She also wondered if the school district considered changing the school
hours. She thought potentially staggering school start hours would reduce the traffic.
Colin Wainmain, Academy of Alameda student, said he rides his bike to school 3.5 miles each
way. He said he likes to ride in the bike lanes because they do not honk at him and the bike lanes
allow him to focus on riding safely and follow the laws. He explained that after school, he often
rides down to Webster Street to get a snack and then rides over to soccer practice at Alameda
Point. He said he would ride along Shore Line Drive after soccer practice, but his coach would
not let him ride in the dark because it is too dangerous.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, stated that plans have changed from initial presentation from
workshop to workshop to tonight. He said what was shown tonight was new material not
previously shown to the public so #1, 2, 3 and 4 became 1, 2a, 2b and 3 from sections A-K. He
felt there should be more meetings on the project now that there are new revisions and the
community should review and have the opportunity to present questions and receive answers. He
asked staff how many citizens along sections A-F have stated that they want a cycle track in
front of their house or business, especially since it will be more difficult for them to enter and
exit their home or business. He also said, the parking widths on sections F, G, H, I, and K are 7
feet wide, not 8 feet wide and he wondered if staff would move the disabled off the street. He
noted that Section J, slide 48 on the presentation packet is something the community has not seen
before and public input was not received. He believed that was a bait and switch. He asked the
Commission about Commissioner Schatmeier's ideas and why they were not included in the plan
other than 8th Street. He said he bikes along 19th Avenue near Stern Grove in San Francisco and
San Francisco would never suggest taking away one traffic lane because that would make it
difficult for vehicles and emergency access vehicles to maneuver. Overall, he said some portions
of the plan he agreed with, but he did not approve this vastly changed project.
Todd Waimain, Central Avenue resident on the east end, said he and his children bicycle to the
west side of the island. He felt the City needs to have a safe way to get across the island and his
children have told him about unsafe drivers and how they are following the rules of the road. He
went on to say that he lives on a portion of Central Avenue that contains sharrows and the drivers
do not understand exactly what they are. He asked that staff construct dedicated bike lanes
because most drivers understand what that is and it is safer for cyclists. He explained that he
would cycle more frequently to the west end to Alameda Point for soccer games and Spirits
Alley if there were safer options to do SO. He noted that when coming out of Crab Cove cyclists
are spit out on a sidewalk and there is signage saying ""Do not bike on the sidewalk."" He also
pointed out that the plan has no loss of parking, so he does not understand why this plan cannot
be approved as it stands because the presentation was quite thorough.
Page 5 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,6,"Susan Sperry, Alameda resident, asked the Commission to reconsider the plan and carefully look
at the issues of the street. She came before the Commission because she was devastated to see
what happened to Shore Line Drive. She carefully gathered newspaper editorials about Shore
Line Drive and she is a property owner on Shore Line Drive as well. She said in the past she was
able to see the ocean from her window and now there is parking lot.
Bruce Kibbe, Santa Clara Avenue resident, felt the plan is excellent and to go ahead with it
because this plan is looking towards the future. He said every bicycle equals one less car and one
less parking space that needs to be provided by merchants.
Commissioner Miley said it was great to see so many young kids out tonight to speak and attend
the meeting and he said they were brave to bike to school.
Commissioner Bellows replied it was great to see the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD)
produce such articulate children.
Matt Winn, Central Avenue resident, said one of his kids attends Franklin Elementary School and
he does not see the school on the study. He went on to say that there is a whole subset of parents
who live on the north side and have kids who attend Franklin Elementary School. He stated that
there are four traffic lanes and when crossing the intersection you have to wait 30 seconds or so
until one of the lanes notice and stop. However, by that time motorists start getting impatient
because there are three other lanes that need to stop and you must wait for all four lanes to stop
in order to go. He explained that he uses Central Avenue to get across the City as a motorist and
he would gladly give up a lane to see this plan go through, so he recommended the plan.
Scott Mace, Central Avenue resident between Webster Street and 8th Street, said he bicycles a lot
throughout the island. He felt bikes belong on the street because they are traffic too and motorists
need to respect that and most motorists do. He explained that some of the proposed bike lanes are
too narrow on Santa Clara Avenue because there is a 7 foot parking lane and a 6 foot bike lane
and this gives cyclists a foot or more to avoid the door zone. He pointed out that on Central
Avenue staff proposed a 7 foot parking lane and a 5 foot bike lane and that is a legal engineering
minimum. However, the bike lane is a door zone bike lane. He requested that staff either widen
the bike lane or revert to sharrows. He noted that some statistics are lacking in this presentation
such as staff say conflicts occur at intersections, but separated facilities do not make it safer. He
stated that they do not know what the cyclists were doing when they were injured. He felt road
diets are good for pedestrians, but signage must state that cyclists are not mandatory, and then
perhaps sharrows could be painted next to the separated bike lanes. He wanted to see new
resources devoted to pedestrian, cyclist and driver education. Ultimately, he was not in favor of
the plan as currently proposed because of door zone issue.
Gerald Bryan, Alameda resident, stated that the concerns are at the intersection of 6th Street and
Central Avenue because it is a choke point across the entire island. He said if you have an
accident at the intersection, you will stop traffic going in each direction and that was proven last
week at the busiest time of the day. He felt if you cut off that line 6th Street does not go around
the corner except for Palace Court and that does not go anywhere. He said realistically staff
should look at the area a little differently such as reviewing the crosswalks on the corner and the
lack of proper driving and poor riding on the part of cyclists. He recommended erecting
Page 6 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,7,"stoplights especially by the school to regulate traffic. He said currently, there are two poles with
bright orange flags and that is the only way to get across the street safely. He exclaimed that
safety is the most important thing.
Commissioner Bellows asked that the speakers with children line up so she can pull their speaker
slips in light of the current time.
Cosma Hatragi, Maya Lin School student, said he bikes to school every day. He said he
sometimes ride his bike after school to Franklin Park Pool to his sister's swim lessons. He
explained during his ride there are many fast moving cars and he rides on the sidewalk, which is
not safe for pedestrians. He thinks there should be bike lanes on Central Avenue.
Deena Hatragin, mother, cyclist and Alameda resident, said she moved to Alameda because it is
a bike able town and she uses her bicycle for everyday transportation. She felt very strongly to
have her children ride bicycles as well and she hopes that more people will get out of their cars
and onto bicycles. She heard over and over again that the City needs to make the island safe
enough for everyone to ride, SO she approved the plan.
Marissa Wood, Alameda Community Learning Center student, said she regularly shops at the
farmer's market and Webster Street businesses. She explained when coming from the west end
and approaching onto Webster Street she attempts to bike onto Santa Clara Avenue, but the part
of Santa Clara Avenue west of Webster Street has many stop signs and the road is hard to share
with cars. So, she stated that when she does not bike down Santa Clara Avenue, she will bike
down Central Avenue which is very dangerous. She felt the project would help all members of
the community because there will be parking spaces for motorists and the plan will reduce speed
limits benefitting pedestrians.
Jerry Cevente, 5th Street resident, thanked the Commission and staff for embarking on the study.
He said he and his wife have been to all of the public workshops and he has lived on 5th Street
for 25 years. He went on to say that he drives, walks, and bicycles on Central Avenue and it is
harder to walk across and along Central Avenue. He said he likes seeing the amount of cyclists
increasing, but on Central Avenue the cyclists end up on the sidewalk. He noticed the vehicle
speeds along Central Avenue are a lot faster than the speed limit sign. He believed the bulb-outs
and the flashing beacons at the crosswalks will create an advantage for pedestrians and make
traffic flow better. He noted that the traffic signal installed at 3rd street is good, but that will
bend the end of Taylor Avenue and eliminate the right turn lane with the ability to turn right onto
3rd Street. He explained that the report stated that a traffic signal on 5th Street may be erected
and he felt it would be advantageous to have the signal sooner than later and possibly not run it
as a true traffic signal all day, but during peak hours and then have it as a flashing red the rest of
the day. He brought up the fact that Webster Street and the way that you see the traffic signals
work on Central Avenue one light is available and then there is a turn coming up Webster Street
going south has its own signal and coming up Webster north it has its own signal. Thus, each
direction should have its own signal. He requested that the City work with the merchants on the
northwest corner of Webster Street and Central Avenue about the impact to deliveries in the
morning. Overall, he felt the plan is a real benefit because of the bicycle lane and narrow streets
to have complete streets.
Page 7 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,8,"impacts on traffic going into the tube even with the development of the adjacent housing project.
He wondered how the planners figured there would not be a problem going into the tube. He
recommended that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be conducted in order to look at the
number of items that have not been pushed here. He also said that a study of the changes to
Shore Line Drive has not been published.
Jerry Harrison, Alameda resident, stated that he supports the proposal. He also explained that he
has cycled from coast to coast and the one place that makes him uncomfortable is riding on
Central Avenue between Sherman and Webster Streets.
Diane Brock, west end resident, said she is concerned about recommending the plan without the
research data. She explained that staff at the last public workshop said the Planning Department
would conduct a traffic study on what is happening at Southshore. She asked that the study be
done before moving forward with this plan because the public does not need vague statistics. She
also felt a project of this size should have an EIS and she needed data before any
recommendation should be considered.
Dave Maxi, Bay Street resident, said he is not against cyclists, but he is wary of the narrow
traffic lanes and the behavior of cyclists. He went on to say that cyclists would arrive at the
Chestnut Street and Central Avenue stop sign and not stop. The cyclists would then go off to the
sidewalk or crosswalk and then back onto the bicycle lane. He questioned whether the narrow
lanes would create congestion for truck, delivery and vehicular traffic because many delivery
trucks double park. He also stated that it is illegal to enter the center lane to pass cars and the
extra street trees will take up the car space and create more maintenance issues.
Dan Wood, Alameda resident, said he is in favor of the project and he heard a lot of people who
are in support of the project. He also heard the community speak about issues which are relevant
as well. However, he felt that the City should start with what they have proposed and they can
tweak it to make it even better.
Griff Neal, Alameda resident, stated that 450 homeowners who live on the south side of Central
Avenue between Burbank and Sherman Streets are fiercely opposed to the plan. He said he does
not drive much, but he has to leave the island for work and family obligations. He went on to say
that during rush hour it will be difficult to get onto Central Avenue and the plan does not
consider the south side residents. He brought up the fact that there is little support from people
attending Franklin Elementary and Saint Joseph Elementary Schools; many of whom ride their
bicycles on San Antonio Avenue and go over to Grand Street.
Klose Slidernagers, Shore Line Drive resident, stated that tonight's meeting addressed similar
issues made during the Shore Line Drive proposal. He stated that the Shore Line Drive project
was a godsend for people bicycling or walking to the beach. He explained that before the project
was implemented pedestrians had to cross four traffic lanes and now speeds are much lower and
cars are not overtaking an already stopped car. He said the outcome of the project created a huge
impact on bicycle and pedestrian safety. However, he was surprised by the number of cyclists
Page 8 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,9,"riding on Fernside Boulevard after including the cycle track there and he felt Central Avenue
will have the same outcome.
Bernie Matthews, west end resident, gave a shout out to Jennifer Ott because she's a true
professional. However, he felt there are many similar issues to Shore Line Drive where parts of
the community, especially renters, feel the plan is ugly and inefficient. He felt Appazatto Way is
a freight train coming down the track and the project is like my way or the highway. He said he
has been a resident of the west end for 18 years and cycles often. He encouraged the Commission
and staff to take a look at the traffic on Central Avenue because he does not trust the data. He
also pointed out that the bike group must have partnered with this project, which felt like a
conflict of interest.
Kelly Jackson, Central Avenue and 8th Street resident, stated that she generally supports the
project, but she has a problem with the plan along the Central Avenue and 8th Street segment.
Last year, she wrote the City about the intersection and she was surprised with the relatively low
number of reported accidents. She felt it was a step backward for this intersection and people
will speed to jockey past each other to get ahead because there is a quick merge ahead of the
intersection. She also felt this is an effort to compromise, but this is putting everyone at risk
including residents and visitors.
Julie Connor, Bay Street resident, said she understood the variety of interests and circumstances
that come into play. Were it not for the road diet proposed at 4th and Sherman Streets, she would
be in support and she felt the Commission should have more information about this intersection.
She referred to slide 7 of the presentation and noted there were three injuries on Sherman Street
within a 10 year span and one accident within the 10 year span. She said only Lincoln and
Central are thoroughfares and to cross Central Avenue is already difficult. She brought up the
survey data and noted that 25 percent of 4th and Sherman residents were not in favor. Also, she
stated that the streets along San Antonio Avenue and Sherman Street will have unintended
consequences of extra traffic.
Bonnie Waimain, bike safety instructor, thanked staff for their work and explained that the
benefits of bike riding connects to better health and reduces the need for parking spaces. She
explained that more people would bike if they felt safe. She said the separated bike lane creates
visibility and predictability for cyclists and motorists. Overall, she supported the plan.
Scott Milston, Bay and San Antonio resident, said he is pro bike, pedestrian and kids on bikes,
but he opposed the plan because he needs good data. When he read the literature he was
disheartened by what he saw was one minute increases to traffic time and that memo did not
support the statistic at all. He also explained that the memo readily admitted that no study was
done on the spillover affects to the side streets. He pointed out that the majority of tonight's
meeting was very pro and at the November meeting there were plenty of dissenters in the crowd.
He felt it was the responsibility of the Commission and staff to think of the macro effects of the
pro-growth initiative occurring within the island. Yet, the City is restricting one of the main
arteries on the island.
Rein Clostenter, Bay Street and Central resident, said he rides his bicycle to work daily to go to
work and supports the road diet. He explained that his mother-in-law lives on Shore Line Drive
Page 9 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,10,"and he can now ride his bicycle with his family. He stated that his children will start Franklin
Elementary and crossing Central Avenue is a barrier to get to the school. He also explained that
he would patronize the businesses on Webster Street more, but he does not want to take the car.
Overall, he supported the plan.
Karen Ratto, Caroline Street near Central Avenue resident, said she rides her bike around and
felt the grant money could cover the EIS. She also feared that San Antonio Avenue will take on
more traffic and she didn't hear much about the viability of using Santa Clara Avenue as a
bicycle route.
Dave Kimball, Advocacy Director for Bike East Bay, said safety is a huge reason to support this
project and the community receives a net gain of parking which is a first. He explained if the
City received an endorsement from Caltrans then that says something, so they need more
partnerships like that including working with the schools. He said his organization conducted
shopper intercept surveys to see how modes of travel relate to consumer spending when
consumers walk, bike or take public transit. There were two studies conducted locally in
downtown Berkeley and Oakland's Temescal neighborhood in order to have local shopper data
which support projects like this.
Jeffrey Berneford stated that two lanes in both directions offer a lot of flexibility for garbage and
delivery trucks to move around vehicles. He felt once the project is in place, a 1.6 minute delay
will produce a domino effect because there are three 20-second traffic signal cycles. He
suspected that the plan will be very unusable and he did not support the plan.
Benty Peterson, Burbank Street resident, said she has two children and she enjoys living in
Alameda because they can bicycle. Therefore, she supported the plan, but she had concerns with
the gap.
Carol Gottstein, disabled Alameda resident, said she was struck by staff's lack of outreach
towards the disabled community. She explained that the disabled rely heavily on vehicles and
she had concerns about the 7 foot wide parking strips. She wondered what the City would do if a
disabled resident requests a blue curb in front of their residence. She explained the City would
have to construct a bulb-out of their parking space into the bicycle lane because that is what the
resident is legally entitled to have. She also agreed with the other speakers who said the data and
reference to the data were vague.
Michele Elson, Bike Walk Alameda Board Member and south side of Central Avenue resident,
said she is the parent of Franklin Elementary and Academy of Alameda students. She said she
supports the plan and felt staff did the work to show the plan is needed. She felt the plan should
be focused on safety because where Central Avenue comes into Sherman Street she observed
motorists flying through the traffic signal as soon as the light turns green. She stated if motorists
could slow down and drive the speed limit that may be easier to get off Bay Street or St. Charles
and get on to Central Avenue or Sherman Street. Also, the plan will help young and older
pedestrians cross the street easier. Additionally, she said having dedicated bike lanes will provide
a continuous route on an arterial that is best equipped to handle it. Overall, she supported the
plan.
Page 10 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,11,"Lisa Foster stated that she does not live far from tonight's meeting location and she bikes with
her 1 and 5 year olds frequently. She said she regularly goes west towards Washington Park, the
library and other establishments. However, when she hits Sherman Street they have to go over to
Santa Clara Avenue, a busy street with buses, so she would love to stay on Central Avenue. She
also said when going past Webster Street and staying on Central Avenue she is okay with that,
but the cars that are stuck behind her are probably not okay because they have to negotiate
around her. Overall, she felt the proposal is a step in the right direction.
John Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated that he
rides his bicycle, drives, walks and takes public transit. He explained that he lived on San
Antonio and Encinal Avenues so he understood the different perspectives. He said Monday
through Friday from 6-7 am and 6:53 pm he has been stuck in the tube going to the Capital
Corridor Station in Oakland. He said the intersection of 8th Street and Central Avenue is the
chokepoint, but if they can save 16 people from being killed or injured over the next few years,
then 96 seconds is not a big price to pay. He was disheartened to hear former chief of police
Bernie Matthews say that traffic was more important to him because he was sure his heart bled
every time someone was in a collision or victim of a crime. He felt there are too many
preventable collisions and injuries and he supported the project. Yet, if the plan had to be revised
and there are no bikes lanes created the safest thing is to take the curb side lane, which is the
same thing as having a bike lane.
Lucy Gigli, Director of Advocacy for Bike Walk Alameda, stated that Central Avenue is not
Alameda's main highway it is a neighborhood because the corridor contains housing, schools,
parks and businesses. She said currently it is a four lane roadway with an average of seven
collisions per year. Staff has done an incredible job composing a detailed packet addressing the
diverse community and their needs. She felt it was an iterative process with many people
involved. She pointed out that the result and package seen before the Commission does not
match Shore Line Drive, but instead matches Atlantic Avenue, Broadway and Fernside
Boulevard. As the report showed, the middle turn lane will make it easier for people to turn onto
Central Avenue from San Antonio Avenue and Bay Street. She explained that the Commission
received over 200 letters and postcards of support and 72 people came that night from Franklin
Elementary and other schools, so let's support this project.
John Knox White stated that a previous resident spoke about how the flags were put up on the
corner of Central Avenue and if that intersection is broken and not working than there it is. He
exclaimed the question that should be asked is how many people are acceptable to hit on this
street because if the answer is greater than 0 feel free to shoot it down. He said the City must
create a safe environment and this is a best compromise plan. He went on to say that the City has
a 20-year experiment happening, which is Broadway. The corridor carries more vehicular traffic
and has neighborhood streets that cross into it including driveways that enter on to the street. He
said they don't have to wait for Shore Line Drive to be evaluated when they know there have not
been major accidents or backups. He brought up the fact that this will be the first bike lanes west
of Webster Street and if that is not a call for equity on the west end then that is it. He asked the
Commission to please move forward with the project.
Brian McGuire stated that there was a well-publicized article within the last couple of weeks
about two kids walking in the San Francisco Marina District with an almost identical road setup
Page 11 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,12,"(four lanes of traffic and uncontrolled crosswalks) as the area around Maya Lin School. He said
kids think it is safe to go and someone driving 35 mph can take them out. He felt two lanes with
a center turn lane is a big difference than a two lane road. He explained that he use to live south
of Central Avenue and motorists only have to go across one lane to get into the center lane and
merge. He went on to say if Caltrans approved a project it is not a takeover of the bicycle groups.
Ultimately, he supported the project.
Karen Bay, 5th Street and Taylor Avenue resident, said she is a 15-year ferry rider. She explained
that she attended a transportation meeting on November 16 and was told that the ferry
experienced a 30 percent increase in the last two years and she has seen it. She has also seen a lot
of people riding their bikes to the ferry and a lot of children riding their bikes to school. She said
the problem with Santa Clara Avenue is that it is not safe infrastructure for cyclists. So, she
approved the project because it is important for students and commuters going to the ferry and
for Alameda Point as whole.
Peter Baron stated that he organized the first bicycle symposium in Cambridge Massachusetts in
the 1970s and he spent his career doing waterfront redevelopment and restoration. He said he has
never seen a town with more bikeway and pedestrian potential unrealized than Alameda. He felt
the potential for the Alameda Point circumference trail is extraordinary and people will be
coming across the island and around the state to go there.
Lee Huo, Bay Trail Project Planner, said he supports completing the trail along Central Avenue.
He explained that the idea of the trail is to get along the shoreline on a Class I separated trail as
often as possible. He pointed out that you do see alignments such as Central Avenue where the
project essentially completes the trail between Pacific Avenue and Crown Drive. He thanked
City staff and the consultants who worked diligently with the concept. Furthermore, he said the
trail is a regional recreation trail and significant commute alignment adopted in the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) regional bicycle plan and Alameda County Transportation
Commission (ACTC) bicycle and pedestrian plan.
John McKeenan stated that the Commission studiously paid attention to all the speakers and he
does not see that often. He said Indianapolis, Indiana known for motor cars and racing has put
together a tremendous complete street program in the last five years and has gone from
completely no infrastructure to trend setting infrastructure. He cited cities such as Copenhagen in
Denmark having 55 percent of its commuters bicycling and the rest commuting by public transit
or private vehicles. He felt bicycling and public transit is the way the community can survive on
this planet. He ultimately supported the project.
Commissioner Miley stated that he would like staff to respond to a few statements made by the
speakers. He explained that the last speaker hit the nail on the head about the fact that
multimodal communities are the future. He said he heard the concerns about loading zones
within the business district and the loss of travel lanes on Central Avenue. He understood that
people may double park on Webster Street more often when loading, SO he asked staff to address
and explain the plan moving forward.
Staff Payne replied the area of concern is along Webster and Page Streets and the northwest
corner, which was mentioned. She referred to page 4, cross-section I, which is right next to the
Page 12 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,13,"establishment that needs the loading zone or has a lot of loading. She explained that the merchant
is not interested in having a loading zone because that would restrict parking. So, she said double
parking occurs and that can still happen with this cross-section. She went on to say that
loading/unloading would occur in the bike lane in the painted buffer and motorists could go
around. She understood that this configuration is not ideal, but it happens all the time and staff
felt having the bike lane blocked every now and then to load and unload was the tradeoff for
having a bike lane. She also mentioned that this is a corner establishment so they could still have
loading and unloading occur southbound on Webster Street.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if the bulb-outs at the corner of Webster Street and Central
Avenue will impact delivery vehicles from being able to turn whether they are going north or
south on Central Avenue from Webster Street.
Staff Payne replied staff does not believe SO and the plan was designed to accommodate trucks.
Commissioner Miley recommended that staff work with the business district in order for the
streetscape to be designed appropriately for that intersection.
Staff Payne replied staff can do that, but they are not at that level of design. Additionally, from
what she has heard the area was designed a little tight so it is hard to get in and out when trying
to park on Webster Street.
Commissioner Miley said people shop online a lot and as a result FedEx and UPS double park
and take the travel lane. He asked Alameda Police Department if a car double parked is in the
travel lane is it against the law to go around using the center lane.
Commissioner Bellows repeated the police officer's answer and said a vehicle cannot drive into
the center lane just to pass a double parked vehicle, the vehicle must wait.
Commissioner Miley asked Staff Payne what is the cost of conducting an EIR for the project. He
also explained that this plan is talking about paint and curb extensions. So, he wondered if an
EIR was required and has an EIR been done for other projects similar to this plan.
Farima Brown, Alameda Attorney's office, stated that there will not be an EIR for this project
because after a lot of due diligence by staff including City Planner Andrew Thomas and herself
the plan is the poster child for a CEQA exempt bicycle project. She explained there are several
grounds for its exemption outlined in the staff report, but the strongest one is public resources
code 21080.20.5, which was specifically designed for this type of project in urbanized areas. She
went on to say the plan is statutorily exempt, which is a contrast to projects that are categorically
exempt. Furthermore, the project is also exempt from a variety of categorical exemptions, which
are outlined in page 15 of the staff report under Environmental Review, 15301C and section
15304H.
Commissioner Miley stated that other speakers compared Central Avenue to other roads such as
Shore Line Drive and Broadway. However, he felt this project is similar to Fernside Boulevard
and Broadway, which he drives on every day. He asked staff to talk about the door zone within
the bicycle lanes and how they reviewed that and came up with the width.
Page 13 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,14,"Staff Payne replied they are under constrained situations and curb to curb it is 56 feet in width for
most of the corridor. She explained that was the best they could do and this is not a best practice
bike way due to the door zone. Therefore, staff will have to implement public education around
this issue. Additionally, she felt having a separate bike space is much better than what is
available today.
Commissioner Miley asked staff about the 7 foot parking spaces and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) concern raised by Carol Gottstein. He said when he viewed the map he
saw some blocks with 7 foot and 8 foot spaces and he understood that some portions along
Central Avenue are constrained. He wondered if there will be ADA parking spaces added to the
plan.
Staff Payne replied there would be six ADA parking spaces added and staff has looked at the
corridor and they believe six would be most appropriate. The parking spaces would be located
west to east in front of Encinal High School, Patton Elementary, two parking spaces near the
Webster Business District, one parking space by Washington Park and one by the Weber
Commercial District.
Commissioner Miley asked staff how many ADA parking spaces are currently present within the
corridor.
Staff Payne replied none.
Commissioner Miley replied so this is an addition and they would be 8 feet.
Staff Payne replied when the area is 7 feet they would encroach into the landscape strip.
Commissioner Miley replied so staff would not encroach into the bike lane or into traffic it would
be into the landscaping.
Staff Payne said she met with WABA and they liked the two ADA parking spaces at the foot of
Webster Street on the east and west sides. She explained that would be accommodated without
any change and staff has not produced an exact placement, but that is the direction and their
highest priority is to place the spaces at the foot of Webster Street.
Commissioner Bellows made a motion to continue the meeting since the time was now 10 pm.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the disabled parking space issue was done in
consultation with disabled advocacy groups.
Staff Payne replied no.
Commissioner Vargas stated that the comments raised by Jean Finney (Deputy District Director
of Caltrans District 4) as part of her comments explained the need for additional traffic analysis
that was also brought up by a few community members. He asked staff if it is possible to find out
Page 14 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,15,"what studies are needed and he wanted to hear from Staff Patel about his perspective on some of
the technical issues that are involved.
Jennifer Ott replied that they hired Kittelson and Associates who performed the traffic analysis.
So, Staff Patel could talk about what Caltrans might inquire about, but she would like Kittelson
and Associates to talk about what analysis was performed.
Commissioner Vargas stated that Caltrans was looking for additional traffic studies in order to
grant the City design exceptions. He explained they only cover the part between Webster and
Sherman Streets, which is a state route, and the rest does not need approval but falls on the City.
However, for continuity sake he asked staff to talk about the studies Caltrans is inquiring about
and the studies that have been done so far, including what are the challenges this project has
from an engineer's perspective.
Staff Patel replied since this project is only a study they have not done detailed traffic operation
analysis. However, from Caltrans' or the City's standpoint staff is conducting analysis on each
and every traffic signal along the route and the proposed signals along the route. Yet, that level
of detail Kittelson and Associates may have done as an overview. He explained that design
exceptions usually go to the headquarters, which is why staff ended up having this route under
the City because they were asking for a standard shoulder width and the City did not have the
standard width.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if the traffic and operational analysis include a review of shifts
in vehicle traffic or only show the Central Avenue traffic or also movements to other streets.
Staff Patel replied that staff would look into the shifts in vehicle traffic.
Commissioner Miley asked staff when the plan would go over to engineering for detail design.
Staff Patel replied staff reviewed the conceptual plan and made comments, but the plan is turned
over to engineering for detail design when the final plan is approved by the Transportation
Commission and City Council.
Commissioner Bellows said what was happening tonight was reviewing and making a motion for
the conceptual plan and that was all that was funded. She said until additional funding is
identified they are not going forward with the design.
Jennifer Ott stated that staff has reviewed the conceptual plan with City and Coastal engineers,
Stantec Engineering, Staff Patel, Kittelson and Associates and Caltrans engineers. She also said
there will be additional analysis and engineering when they get into the design phase.
Laurence Lewis, Kittelson and Associates, stated that an overview of the analysis looked at seven
key intersections on Central Avenue and one limitation that would be addressed is looking at the
minor intersections as well. He said they looked at locations that have traffic signals with the
highest traffic volumes going west to east and during the design phase all the side streets would
be analyzed. Additionally, they looked at AM and PM peak hours to understand the existing
traffic volumes level of service and existing conditions to understand the impact. Overall, they
Page 15 of 17",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-11-18,16,"discovered there was a 1.2 minute increase in travel time going 25 mph from one end of the
corridor to the other stopping at all the traffic signals and experiencing delays there. He pointed
out that the limitations did not account for people shifting to cycling or walking or account for
people diverting to other routes. He heard several comments about the 8th and Webster Street
intersection and some of the compromises made for the bike lanes were for vehicular operations
and level of service. When he met with the Commission earlier in the year there was a level of
service identified at the location. He said they reviewed the intersection in consultation with the
community and the City and revised the concept so the intersection could operate at the level of
service.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that several intersections were called out as needing attention.
He wondered how staff analyzed those intersections, specifically whether traffic signals or new
treatments were necessary. He said one speaker stated there should be a light at 6th Street and
Central Avenue another speaker stated a traffic signal is needed at 5th Street and yet another",TransportationCommission/2015-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-11-12,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT
November 12, 2008
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Jane Lee
Kathy Moehring
Members Absent:
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier
Srikant Subramaniam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
Lt. David Boersma, Alameda Police Department
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
October 22, 2008
These minutes will be considered at the December 10, 2009, meeting.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White wished to discuss the traffic light at Park and Blanding at 8 a.m. on
Friday morning. He noted that it was red in all directions for three to five seconds, and
changed from green on Park to green on Blanding. He added that at the light at Santa
Clara and High the City had previously had added one second to the red, but that it was
not there now.
Chair Knox White inquired about the establishment of a transit plan subcommittee. Staff
Khan replied that staff was concerned about the resources needed to implement that
request, and suggested revisiting the request in December.
Chair Knox White requested that on future agendas, items brought for content be
agendized for action as well. Staff Khan noted that staff would look into that request.
Chair Knox White noted that the question was raised at the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) meeting whether comments represented consensus or
1",TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-11-12,2,"the opinions of individuals.
a.
Pedestrian Plan Task Force
There was no report.
b.
Bicycle Plan Update Group
There was no report.
c.
Alameda Point Advisory Task Force
There was no report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
There were none.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
a.
Monitoring of Oak Street and Central Avenue Intersection
Staff Khan summarized the extensive staff report and detailed the background and scope
of this item. He described the monitoring plan, and added that Public Works and
Alameda Police Department (APD) coordinated the work with the community groups,
addressing their concerns. In response to a request by APD, City Council approved the
change to the Municipal Code on June 17, 2008 regarding the use of the garage by
skaters and skateboarders.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Moehring about additional bike racks in the
area, Staff Bergman replied that there was not a current proposal for anything on the north
side of Central near the theater. Staff Khan added that staff would continue to examine
that issue, and that racks would be installed in Lot C.
Commissioner Krueger noted that page 4 stated that there was a pedestrian crossing time
of 4 to 7 seconds, and inquired why there was a maximum walk time. As a pedestrian, he
expected that the flashing hand time should be equal to the crossing distance divided by
the average walking speed, and that the green signal should last through the crossing
time. He would like to see the crossing time maximized.
Staff Khan replied that based upon the studies, 7 seconds at a signalized intersection was
the maximum to coordinate with the cycle.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether it would be possible to have a white hand and
countdown that changed to an orange flashing countdown as the crossing time ran out.
Staff Khan stated that a $50 parking permit was being considered for Monday through
Friday parking. Staff would consider the PSBA request to increase the parking time from
four to eight hours.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the truck that hit the
2",TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-11-12,3,"marquee would affect the bulbout design, Staff Khan replied it would, but that the bulbout
could not be extended to the alley because of the need for the commercial loading zone.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether peak commute hour traffic was
measured, as opposed to peak use of the theater, Staff Khan replied that commute traffic
was higher than traffic associated with the theater.
Chair Knox White stated that the intersection of Oak and Central was identified as a
problem in the negative declaration for the theater project. Staff Khan responded that
changes were made to the signal timing at that location in conjunction with the opening
of the theater to address those concerns.
Chair Knox White requested that the staff report be clarified, as it appears to state that
right turns from Central onto Oak were excluded from the analysis.
Chair Knox White expressed concern about the bike and pedestrian right-of-way
violations, and noted they were not mentioned in the report. He noted that he witnessed
the violations frequently, and that many people double-parked in the bike lane.
Lt. Boersma noted that double-parking data was collected by the Finance Department,
and that the data could not be obtained.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox-White whether the tree that was removed would
be installed on the bulbout, Staff Khan replied that staff would look into that, and added
that it may also be installed in Lot C.
Open public hearing.
Lucy Gigli noted that she was disappointed when she saw the flier that the City
distributed regarding bicyclist and pedestrian safety. She noted that when this item went
to the City Council, the Transportation Commission wrote a letter regarding its concerns
with the right turn lane, and she was disappointed that she did not see any analysis of how
it all worked. She noted that with respect to the bulbouts, which she generally favored,
she did not completely understand the argument for having them, as the number of
jaywalkers did not appear to be very high. She asked if any reports were available
regarding use of the parking structure. She noted that if bike parking were installed in Lot
C, the bulbout would help bring it closer and link it to the theater.
Staff Khan replied that the parking structure was underutilized at this time, and staff was
exploring the possibility of reducing the parking requirements for area businesses.
Ms. Gigli inquired whether the study would look at removing on-street parking to reclaim
the space instead of increasing prices. Staff Khan replied that this would not be feasible as
there was free parking in the residential neighborhoods.
Close public comment.
3",TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-11-12,4,"Commissioner Krueger expressed concern about the traffic backup on the intersection at
Park Street, which he assumed was based on the traffic predictions. He inquired whether
the traffic volume was sufficient to justify the queuing.
Staff Khan replied that staff did not see the traffic buildup when looking at the numbers.
Commissioner Moehring noted that she would like to see bike parking in front of the
theater.
Chair Knox White agreed with that suggestion. He noted that bike parking in the garage
was relocated without any input. The volumes were lower, and the long dropoff wasn't
needed. He would like to see something in the City Council report about illegal use of the
bike lanes for passing. He would also like to see bike parking in front of the theater.
Staff Khan noted that the bulbout also helped by providing spaces for patron queuing at
the theater.
Commissioner Lee expressed concern about the $150,000 cost, and commended staff on
the brochure, which could be modified and used for schools.
Staff Khan said that staff could email her a copy of the file if the schools were interested
in reproducing and distributing additional copies.
Commissioner Moehring suggested sending it out through the Alameda Educational
Foundation.
Commissioner Krueger suggested that the City Council report mention how the bulbout
will help with patron queuing and protection of the marquee. He believed the bike
parking should be as close as possible to the theater entrance.
No action was taken.
b.
Transportation Element Update Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and requested comments on the analysis, as well as
the content of the Transportation Element. He noted that with respect to the flexibility of
the Transportation Element, the guiding policies would go to the decision-makers who
would make the final decisions based on specific conditions. He noted that the
Transportation Element was a policy document, and was a program level analysis.
Project level Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) would address more specific issues,
and the staff recommendations attempted to provide the City Council with some
discretion in dealing with them. He noted that secondary impacts could result from the
increased traffic congestion resulting from the proposed policies, such as increased cut-
through traffic and negatively affecting the City's ability to implement transportation
system management strategies. With respect to the concerns about CMA funding, staff
recommended changes to the proposed language in policies EIR-1, EIR-2, and EIR-6.
4",TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-11-12,5,"Commissioner Krueger inquired whether trip reduction related to transportation demand
management (TDM) was considered in the analysis, or whether it did not reduce the trips
sufficiently. Staff Khan replied that the anticipated reductions were not sufficient to
mitigate the congestion resulting from the proposed policies, and that this analysis was
conducted in response to the comments that had been received.
Commissioner Krueger suggested that that language be clarified.
With respect to flexibility, Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the policy as written
could be overridden. Staff Khan replied that the General Plan would have to be changed.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether a Specific Plan could override the General Plan.
Staff Khan replied that a Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan.
Chair Knox White noted that the City Council has already accepted the EIR policies, and
that the EIR does not approve or deny a project, it just describes the impacts. He believed
that the proposed language for EIR-1 and EIR-2 essentially made their intent
meaningless. He added that the CMA had never withheld gas taxes for deficiency issues.
He noted AC Transit's comment C-4 about bikes and transit mixing relatively well. He
suggested adding clarification that the primary and secondary transit street classification
did not have to do with current or anticipated service levels, but how the streets were
treated. He noted that the EIR policy allows a queue jump on secondary streets.
Open public comment.
Chair Knox White responded to a letter submitted from Ani Dimusheva. The letter
expressed concern that the City would be instituting measures to force traffic toward
particular streets. Chair Knox White noted that other than transitional streets, the
Transportation Element does not propose change in the use of the streets. The letter also
described the treatments employed on Fernside Blvd. and compared conditions to Grand
Street. Chair Knox White noted that the speeds on Fernside and Grand were found to be
similar.
Close public comment.
Chair Knox White requested that two clarifications be added to the draft Transportation
Element:
1.
A description of how the overlay maps for the functional classification
system should be used regarding:
Classification layer - should describe the expected overall use of the
street
Land use layer - should describe the interaction between the roadway
and the surrounding area
Modal layer - should indicate the priority of specific modes
2.
The EIR policies should be renumbered and listed under the
implementation strategies in section 4.4.2.
5",TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-11-12,6,"Transportation demand management (TDM) does not have to focus solely on trips
generated by the project. For example, the bus rapid transit (BRT) proposed by SunCal
for Alameda Point will largely serve other sections of the island.
The TC had recommended that Mariner Square Drive include only two traffic lanes, not
four.
Chair Knox-White noted that he liked staff's proposed change to policy EIR-7 .
Commissioner Krueger noted that he was concerned about the proposed changes, as
completed projects do not always uphold what was stated in the General Plan.
Staff Khan noted that if these policies had been in place previously, that elements from
some project that the TC has object to could not have been constructed. For example,
Atlantic would have a 25 mph speed limit, and there would be no soundwall.
Commissioner Krueger moved to accept the three clarifications. Commissioner
Moehring seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Krueger moved to accept staff's recommendation regarding the
proposed modifications of selected street classifications. Commissioner Moehring
seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Krueger moved to accept staff's proposed changes regarding policy
EIR-7. Commissioner Moehring seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Moehring moved to accept staff's changes regarding policies EIR-1, EIR-
2 and EIR-6. There was no second.
Commissioner Moehring moved to accept policy EIR-1 as written, and policy EIR-2
with the addition of exceptions for the addition of transit-exclusive or nonmotorized
vehicle lanes. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
Chair Knox-White invited a motion to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m.
Commissioner Krueger moved to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m. Commissioner
Moehring seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Krueger moved to recommend adoption of the Transportation Element
with the previously stated changes. Commissioner Moehring seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Krueger expressed concern about induced traffic, and wished to clarify the
meaning of ""environmentally superior"" in the language of the EIR.
6",TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-11-12,7,"Commissioner Krueger moved to recommend approval of the EIR, with comments,
with the provision that the environmentally superior alternative does not include the
phenomenon of induced traffic, and does not include analysis of all the environmental
effects, particularly emissions in reaching the conclusion of ""environmentally
superior,"" and only looks at the City's adopted significant criteria. Commissioner
Moehring seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
c.
Thresholds of Significance Scope of Work and Schedule
Open public comment.
There was none.
Close public comment.
Chair Knox-White noted that Phase I should be completed by March 2009, and would
like it to become a priority.
No action was taken.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study
Staff Khan noted the study was expected to be completed in early 2009, and that the draft
of the study would be presented to the Transportation Commission first.
b.
Broadway/Jacksor Update
Staff Khan noted that the project study report (PSR) was submitted to Caltrans, and added
that they did not have the funds available to review it. He noted that ACTIA was hiring a
consultant for the study report.
Staff Khan noted that the Pedestrian Plan would go to City Council in January 2009, and
that ACTIA had indicated that it would regard the City as meeting its project deadline if
the Planning Board approves the Transportation Element in November.
c.
Monitoring of Oak Street/Central Avenue intersection
Staff Khan noted that there was no report.
d.
Upcoming development-related traffic studies and plans
7",TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-11-12,8,"Staff Khan noted that there was no report.
e.
Future meeting agenda items
ADJOURN: 10:50 p.m.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2008\121008\111208minutes-draft.doc
8",TransportationCommission/2008-11-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
April 23, 2008
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier (arrived at 8:00 p.m.)
Srikant Subramaniam
Nielsen Tam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
Michael Fisher, Division Chief, Fire Department
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
January 23, 2008
Commissioner Ratto moved approval of the minutes for the January 23, 2008, meeting
and minutes as presented. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion
passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Krueger abstained). Absent: Commissioner Schatmeier.
b.
March 26, 2008
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the March 26, 2008,
meeting and minutes as presented. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Ratto abstained). Absent: Commissioner
Schatmeier.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White noted that the Bicycle Plan Subcommittee had met briefly, during
which the process for moving forward was discussed.
Transportation Commission
Page 1 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,2,"Chair Knox White noted that the Pedestrian Task Force had met, which will be discussed
later in the meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Open public comment.
Councilmember Doug DeHaan provided an informational update regarding the
Esplanade project approved by the City Council within Harbor Bay and concerns
expressed by some community members. Public concern had been expressed about the
ferry service, and that the parking lot at the terminal was at 90 to 100% capacity every
day, which limited the City's ability to add ridership to the ferry.
The Council expressed an interest in looking at alternatives for improving ferry ridership.
He noted that the commercial portion of the Harbor Bay Association had run a very
successful shuttle service from BART and within the development itself. He added that it
was a private effort, and in doing so, it had served their population well. The developer
who sat on the Harbor Bay Board noted that he could not commit them to extend that, but
that he would work with the rest of the community to look at extending a shuttle service
into Harbor Bay. Councilmember DeHaan stated that another option that was suggested
was developing a staging area near the beginning of Ron Cowan Parkway where people
could park and take a shuttle to the ferry terminal. A third alternative would be to
restripe the existing parking lot, which, he estimated, could create perhaps ten additional
parking spaces. He encouraged the Commission look at the alternatives.
Councilmember DeHaan discussed the farebox recovery ratio history for the service and
noted that the Council wants the ferry to be successful. He noted that the additional
activity from new development would be helpful to the ferry. He encouraged the
Transportation Commission and Public Works to move forward on this issue and to
provide an update. He noted that a shuttle service would benefit not only Alameda
residents, but also people from other areas via the Ron Cowan Parkway.
Bill Smith wished to discuss the fourth bore and fourth platform for BART, and stated
that he had been instrumental in getting bicycles onto BART and the buses. He believed a
shuttle would be able to connect the different neighborhoods to Alameda Point. He was
glad that there were no overhead elevated tracks and steel wheels on the rapid transit
trains. He discussed SunCal and the TOD.
Close public comment.
6A. Resident Appeal of Parking Restrictions on to Provide Emergency Access on
Palace Court (Continued from March 26, 2008 meeting).
Staff Bergman presented the staff report. He summarized the history of the project, and
displayed and described the appellant's concerns. The Alameda Municipal Code
authorized the Public Works Director to remove parking based on safety considerations.
Transportation Commission
Page 2 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,3,"Staff solicited input from residents, and received some comments in favor, some in
opposition, as well as some suggested alternatives, such as allowing people to park on the
sidewalks, as was done previously. The Fire Code required a 20-foot clearance for
emergency vehicle access. The Fire Department indicated that they had some vehicles
that were 9.5 feet wide, which so removing parking on one side of the street would be
sufficient, as it would provide 16 feet of clearance. To mitigate the impacts, parking was
removed on the even side of the street, as fewer spaces were impacted. He noted that the
two-hour parking restriction on the other side of the street was removed to provide full-
time on-street parking for four additional spaces.
Staff Bergman noted that the decision was appealed, and that the appellant made several
points. The appellant believed that there were alternative methods of providing access,
such as sidewalk parking, that would allow the on-street parking to be retained.
Staff noted that this recommendation was not made because it was prohibited by Section
22500(f) of the California Vehicle Code, which stated that ""no person shall stop, park, or
leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to
avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or
official traffic control device on any portion of a sidewalk, or with the body of the vehicle
extending over any portion of a sidewalk."" In addition, the sidewalks are not constructed
to support the weight of the vehicles, and there was concern about the impact that parking
on the sidewalk would have on pedestrian traffic. The appellant submitted a letter
subsequent to his initial appeal, raising additional points. One suggestion was to relocate
the curb to widen the street, in order to provide emergency access. The Alameda
Municipal Code required that public sidewalks be at least five feet in width; by removing
the 18 inches from each side of the street, that would provide an additional three feet,
giving 27 feet. Since the parking lane was typically eight feet wide, that would leave only
11 feet of clear space available, which would be insufficient for emergency access.
The appellant further suggested that a parking permit program, which had been discussed
by the City as a number of neighborhoods in the City are dealing with similar problems.
When staff researched the costs and other requirements to implement such a program, it
was found that it was typically funded through the General Fund. At this time, the City
had difficulty in finding resources at this time. He noted that may be viable in the future,
but would not be practical at this time.
Staff Bergman noted that the appellant's second basis for appeal noted that a request had
been made for a hearing regarding this matter, and the Municipal Code authorized the
Public Works Director to implement parking prohibitions based on safety considerations
prior to the appeal being held. This TC meeting provided the appellant, as well as other
members of the public, with the opportunity to request that the decision be overturned.
Staff Bergman noted that the third basis for appeal was a request for documentation
establishing the need to eliminate the on-street parking. This information was
communicated to the appellant and other affected resident in the notification sent out on
January 23, a copy of that letter was included in the packet. Also included were the
Transportation Commission
Page 3 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,4,"initial appeal, the subsequent letter from the appellant, and comments from residents.
Given that the 18 spaces has been removed from one side of the street, and full-time
parking has been restored at four additional spaces, there was a net loss of 14 full-time
on-street parking spaces. Staff recommended that the Transportation Commission support
the Public Works Director's decision to eliminate the parking on the odd side of the
street.
Commissioner Krueger noted that there appeared to be a pickup truck and a large boat
trailer, and inquired whether staff had observed that on the site. Staff Khan replied that he
had not seen it on the site. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether it was legal to park
those large vehicles on the street, given the existing parking problem. Staff Khan replied
that there was a restriction of commercial vehicles to be parked in residential areas, and
there were some time limits as well.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether 10 feet would be enough
width to fit the 9.5-foot-wide vehicle through, Michael Fisher, Fire Department, replied
that it would be very impractical, and that the Fire Code required a minimum of 20 feet in
width. An allowance was being made by bringing the width down to 16 feet.
Open public comment
Marc Voisenat, appellant, noted that the street was 24 feet wide, and noted that taking
parking from one side of the street only created 16 feet. He believed that if 20 feet was
needed, that the neighborhood should not settle for 16 feet. He had not realized that the
Fire Department had made an allowance to 14 feet, and did not know how they came to
that determination. He believed that if the Fire Department took the position that the
Code should be followed, then it should be adhered to. He displayed a photo of the street,
and noted that two vehicles were allowed to park on the sidewalk in a special parking
designation. He believed that if they were allowed to make those accommodations there,
and the Fire Department allowed accommodations to shorten the width of the lane, then
he believed his suggestions should be considered. He noted that some of his ideas
originated from the City, such as parking on the street curb. He suggested that trimming
1.5 feet from each side of the street, and making the width of the parking seven feet
would yield 14 feet with parking on both sides of the street. He suggested that the City at
least mark the parking spots, and added that people generally parked as close to the other
vehicles as safely possible in order to create more parking spots. He noted that church
parkers generally were not aware of that, and sometimes parked where they could take up
two to three spots with one car. He believed that painting the parking spaces would not
have a big fiscal impact for the City. He did not understand the difficulty in implementing
and supervising permit parking, and did not believe it would be more difficult than
supervising a no-parking zone. He believed that the fees for the parking permits would
help supplement the cost of supervising the program, and added that it would also give
the appearance that parking was restricted on Palace Court. He believed that 14 feet
would be sufficient for the fire vehicles to pass.
Edith Brady, 529 Palace Court, noted that the boat and truck had been moved to their
Transportation Commission
Page 4 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,5,"believed that people should use alternative modes of transportation.
Karen Goddin, 527F Palace Court, inquired where the closest fire hydrant was located.
Staff Fisher replied that it was on Central Avenue. She further inquired why an
emergency response could not be made with a smaller vehicle than a fire truck. Mr.
Fisher replied that the typical response to an emergency medical service call in Alameda
required one engine company with three personnel (captain, driver and a paramedic), as
well as a paramedic ambulance with two paramedics on it, for a total of five people. He
noted that was the minimum County-required response within the City of Alameda.
Matthew McHenry, 534 Palace Court, believed the permit parking should be examined,
and that it would be the best and easiest solution. He would like to know why it was such
an expensive and difficult solution.
Close public comment.
Chair Knox White reminded the Commission that this was an appeal hearing, rather than
trying to solve the problem. The Commission may make recommendations to staff
following the Commission's decision.
Commissioner Krueger believed that more time should be given to the alternatives, and
requested that staff answer the question about the parking permit, specifically about the
break-even cost for the system itself.
Staff Khan replied that Staff Bergman's research regarding cities such as Berkeley and
Walnut Creek found that the cities had created a neighborhood parking program, which
was subsidized by the General Fund. He understood that the question was whether the
permit program could be fully paid by the residents. In order to make the program viable,
the permits must be issued and tracked, and guest permits must be issued, fees must be
collected and enforcement must take place. He noted the resources would be extensive
Transportation Commission
Page 5 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,6,"for a smaller program, and that this was viable on a larger scale; in that case, police
officers and other personnel could be hired just for the permit program.
Commissioner Ratto thanked the Fire Department for living in the real world and
accepting the 16-foot-wide fire lane, rather than the 20-foot width required by Code. He
noted that if that were not the case, the neighborhood would not have any parking on
either side of the street. He noted that because the Commission was only dealing with the
appeal, he would bring the public comment brought forth by Mr. McDowell regarding
other streets to staff and request that they look into it. He noted that he had grown up in
Alameda, and was aware of two different instances where houses had burned to the
ground because the Fire Department did not have access to them. In those cases, parking
had been changed to allow parking on only one side of the street. He was sensitive to
public safety, and added that he would vote to deny the appeal.
Chair Knox White echoed Commissioner Ratto's comments, and shared his concern about
selective enforcement on other streets. He understood that some allowances could be
made to the 20-foot lane widths, and believed the selective enforcement stemmed more
from a desire to avoid this problem on other streets, rather than ill will. He believed this
issue should be addressed on a policy level by the City. He noted that the Transportation
Commission has generally supported parking permits, and that they were cited in the
Transportation Master Plan currently in circulation. He noted that the permit program
should be made in a cost-neutral way when 10% budget cuts were being made to every
program. He noted that the program would become cost prohibitive almost immediately.
He noted that the Public Works Director identified this as a safety hazard, and that was
the primary concern of the City. He believed the Fire Department had provided
documentation establishing the need to eliminate on-street parking, as identified in
Condition 3.
Commissioner Ratto moved to approve the staff recommendation to deny the appeal.
Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0.
Chair Knox White believed the City needed to address the permit parking issue, which
continued to come up before the Commission. He understood staff's concern about
setting the parking program up, and that because it was a benefit to the neighborhood, it
should pay for itself. He would like staff to cost the proposed program out, in order to
create a cost-neutral program.
Commissioner Krueger expressed concern about the photo of the handicapped spaces on
the sidewalk, which seemed to contradict the Vehicle Code.
Staff Khan noted that the City had been trying to create allowances on that street, as well
as the need for handicapped parking. Staff considered that it was located at the end of the
street, with minimal fire access and through traffic issues. However, if the neighborhood
was unhappy with that allowance and wanted those spaces removed, staff would take that
into consideration.
Transportation Commission
Page 6 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,7,"7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Review and Provide Recommendations on the Proposed Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010.
Staff Hawkins presented the staff report, and reviewed the process for and projects in the
Capital Improvement Program in detail. She noted that there was additional detail on the
website at www.ci.alameda.ca.us. She noted that the CIP will go to City Council in June.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether the carryover projects used
previously allocated funds, Staff Hawkins replied that the money will have been
earmarked and would not come out of the new budget. She added that there had been
insufficient staff for approximately four years to address the carryover projects.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the website contained more details on the
projects than what was available in the packet, Staff Hawkins replied that the data sheet
for every project was available on the website. She added that there was generally a more
detailed description of the proposed project, but that design plans were usually not
included. She noted that further details could be obtained by calling the Lori Kozisek
Public Works Department at 510/749-5840.
Staff Khan wished to point out the annual projects described in the packet, and noted that
page 204 listed the Bicycle Program and the Safe Routes to School improvements. Under
the Bicycle Program, the bulk of the money in 2008/2009 will be spending in preparation
of the Bike Plan; the City anticipated that some of the projects will be implemented in
2009/2010. The Safe Routes to School improvements will be continued, and the maps
will be developed throughout the City. This program also funded any requests from the
Alameda Unified School District for analysis and review of drop-off zones and parking.
He noted that the Congestion Management Plan funded streets in the Congestion
Management Program, and the staff wished to avoid a situation where a deficiency plan
must be created. The City may conduct studies addressing signal coordination and signal
timing. On-call striping and signing work was performed upon Commissioner request,
and the City was attempting to upgrade the signals to meet current requirements. He
noted that the Transit Pass program issued all City employees an EcoPass or universal
pass; he anticipated that the program would be in place in June or July of this year.
Chair Knox White inquired whether the $110,000 in Measure B funds for the Bicycle
Program was all for staff time. Staff Khan replied that most of the funds were earmarked
for staff time to perform any studies. He added that most of the annual programs were for
staff time, except for striping and signing. Staff Hawkins replied that all of the Bike and
Ped funding was applied towards the Sidewalk Program. She noted that ACTIA requires
that all projects funded through the bicycle and pedestrian portion of Measure B must be
on an approved list, while projects funded through the streets and roads portion do not.
By funding bicycle and pedestrian projects through the streets and roads funding it
prevents the City from having to continually update the project list.
Transportation Commission
Page 7 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,8,"Commissioner Schatmeier inquired whether the City had joined the Alameda County
program Safe Route to School program. He inquired whether that would come out of the
CIP. Staff Khan replied that if funding were to be provided to the County, it would not
come out of this program, and that it provided salaries for employees.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the Tree Plan, Staff Hawkins
replied that when a tree was removed, one was generally planted. She noted that staff
intended to wait for the Master Tree Plan, and implement it as proposed.
With respect to the unfunded projects, Chair Knox White inquired whether the long-range
transit plan update would start in Fall 2008. Staff Khan replied that the City applied for
grant funding for this project, and that it was unfunded because the City had not heard
back from the funding agency yet.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the disposition of the program if
the City did not receive the grant, Staff Khan replied that Public Works would need to
remove the project.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that there was a great deal of need, with few resources.
He expressed concern about government priorities in general, and was glad to see there
was a list of unfunded projects, which highlighted the need. He noted that bus shelters,
which the Transportation Commission had expressed an interest in, were listed under
""Other,"" without a proposed funding source. He was curious about the allocation. Staff
Hawkins replied that went towards the Citywide Development Fee, and that a study
identified specific projects. She noted that 27% would be paid for by development, and
73% to be paid for by the City; the General Fund would offset it.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the Long-Range Transit Plan update was listed in
the unfunded category, and included language reading, ""Pending approval of Caltrans
Community-Based Transportation Planning. Staff Khan replied that was a grant that the
City had applied for.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the $157 million figure for curb ramps and $86
million in sidewalk repairs on page 5 in the Unfunded Projects was correct, and not a
typo. Staff Hawkins noted that they were correct, and that the sewer repair work was also
in that range. She noted that the figure covered a complete replacement over 20 years.
She noted that truncated domes at the intersections were required to comply with the
ADA, which was a huge new cost.
Open public comment
Bill Smith noted that he would make his comments would be available on web video, and
noted that he would like the Coast Guard housing to be converted into disabled veterans.
He would like the infrastructure to be improved with a mini transit system that would be
monitored with a collaborative public/private joint venture to be shared with the
community at large.
Transportation Commission
Page 8 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,9,"Close public comment
Chair Knox White noted that $250,000 had been identified in the two-year plan for the
cross-estuary environmental project, which he believed was very good. However, he
believed that the proposed project could become so large that it would not be able to
move forward in three or four years. He suggested that with the tight City finances, that
the money may be better used in other bike and pedestrian programs. He believed that the
environmental study was very important, and that it should be done when possible.
Staff Hawkins noted that was included because the projects that received capital funding
had feasibility studies, environmental studies and often, designs completed. She
suggested that as the Transportation Commission consider going forward with the City
Bicycle Plan update, that some of the other projects that would be funded be prioritized.
Commissioner Krueger noted that on page 7 in Unfunded Projects, the study for the Otis
Reconfiguration caught his attention. He noted that the issue came up several times with
the neighbors' concern about safety on Otis. Staff Khan noted that he was trying to get it
funded through the TMP process, and that it was listed because it was presently
unfunded. If the contingency money from the TMP is not used, these funds could
possibly be used for the Otis Drive study.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the bus shelters were listed on the unfunded list, and he
recalled that the City would go forward with the bus shelter program. He had hoped to
get some grants, which had fallen through. He inquired whether it would be taken back to
Council.
Commissioner Krueger moved to recommend that the City Council approve the CIP
program, as well as the following: 1) bus shelter procurement and maintenance be
brought back to City Council for direction on finding funding; 2) bicycle, pedestrian
and transit projects be prioritized in the CIP; 3) if it appears unlikely that capital
funding will be available for the cross-estuary bicycle/pedestrian crossing
improvements, the funding reserved for the environmental work for the project be
reallocated toward other projects in the bicycle plan; and 4) funding be made available
to study the potential reconfiguration of Otis Drive. Commissioner Ratto seconded the
motion. Motion passed 7-0.
Chair Knox White suggested that the monetary figures in the reports be consistent so that
they are reflected either in dollars or thousands of dollars. He noted that the score column
was not explained, and suggested that it be eliminated if it is not clarified.
Staff Hawkins noted that it examined the environment, cost-effectiveness, available
funding, and that it was an attempt to prioritize things.
7B.
Proposed Implementation of Parking Restrictions on Central Avenue in
Front of the New Theater and Cineplex to Improve Traffic Circulation and
Transportation Commission
Page 9 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,10,"Access.
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and summarized the background and details of this
item. He noted that representatives of the Police Department were available to answer
questions. He noted that their goal was to provide a clear access for the Police and Fire
Departments in front of the theater, particularly with the number of people accessing it.
He noted that other cities provided loading/unloading zones in front of the theater with no
parking allowed to ensure that the environment was safe.
Commissioner Krueger recalled that there had been parallel parking and bike lanes prior
to the construction project. Staff Khan confirmed that both were present in the
recommended design. Commissioner Krueger inquired what would happen to the bike
lanes if the parking was removed on one side. Staff Khan replied that the proposed
design includes an eight-foot parking lane, a five-foot bike lane, and then the travel lane
of 11-12 feet. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether traffic would have to pull into
the parking area across the bike lane. Staff Khan replied that was in line with the
standards, and was common in commercial zones. He noted that the speeds should not
increase. The speeds would be controlled by the pedestrian and other activity near the
street.
Commissioner Krueger noted that right-turning traffic onto Oak would create a de facto
right-turn lane. Staff Khan replied that staff considered a right-turn lane, but there was not
enough space or justification. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether a bulbout could
be considered to prevent that situation. Staff Khan replied that was not considered as part
of this item, and that the request came after the construction was nearly complete. He
added that it could be considered in the future.
Open public comment.
Bill Smith noted that it was important to protect the safety of the children, and that
cameras were important to monitor safety. He suggested that volunteers with police-
quality cameras would help maintain decorum when large numbers of children attended a
movie. He suggested that signage also be used to maintain control of the situation, and
that a crosswalk be placed in the middle of the street as well.
Close public comment.
Commissioner Ratto inquired whether the yellow zone would be a ""no parking"" zone in
non-loading hours. Staff Khan replied that the City would work with the Business
Association in terms of the time, and that allowing parking had been considered for non-
peak hours. The zone could be signed appropriately after consultation with the Business
Association. Commissioner Ratto believed there should be no parking there, with the
exception of commercial vehicles during certain times. He believed that the desire was to
have no parking from that driveway up to Oak Street, and did not want to see people
fighting over the parking spaces during off-hours. He noted that he supported this
Transportation Commission
Page 10 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,11,"concept, and that it would be considered by the Park Street Business Association (PSBA)
Board of Directors at its next meeting.
Chair Knox White inquired where the 35 required bike parking spaces had gone. Staff
Bergman replied that there were 40 spaces in the garage, including bike lockers and
racks.
Chair Knox White noted that this plan was similar to the Jack London Cinema - a big
theater with no parking in front of it, and across the street from a parking lot with no way
to cross the street. He did not believe this was a pedestrian-friendly area. He believed it
was unfortunate that this plan was coming forward at this time, after years of planning in
this area. He noted that the traffic and parking plan came to the Transportation
Commission two years ago, which he believed was the time to make these
recommendations. He agreed with Commissioner Krueger that the red curb would
become a de facto right turn lane, which would be more dangerous for pedestrians and
bike riders trying to navigate the intersection. He did not see how 270 feet of no-parking
zone could be created without a bulbout. He noted that he was not against the dropoff
zone, but questioned whether that much space was needed either for dropoff or
emergency access. He believed there should be bike parking in front of the theater, that
bicyclists would be more likely to use this than the parking in the garage. He noted that
other cities provided bike parking in front of the theater, and believed that those spaces
would be full of bikes on a summer evening. He was concerned that the City was trying
to solve this problem quickly and cheaply, and did not believe this added to the area. He
had not heard anyone justify the need to park four or five fire trucks in front of the theater
at any given moment, and believed this created a very unfriendly environment for
pedestrians.
Lt. Dave Boersma, APD Traffic Division, noted that this was a compromise, and that
from a public safety standpoint, he preferred a red zone in front of the entire area, without
allowing any parking. He noted that 187 feet of white zone was a lot of space, and that at
20 feet per parking space, this would allow a lot of cars to park. He noted that an
alternative to the red zone was to leave it as a metered parking zone, which created
double parking problems in front of the building, and would not allow for emergency
vehicle access. He noted that they were primarily concerned about the vehicular traffic
flow through the area. He added that he hoped that drivers did use the red curb zone as a
de facto right-turn lane, as this would keep the traffic flow moving. He was concerned
that there would be a lot of traffic stuck at the red light on westbound Central Avenue at
Oak Street, which would then back up and impact Park Street. APD proposed a right-turn
lane at the intersection, but that there was not enough space where the street narrowed to
put an actual right-turn only lane. They believed that having the red zone would be a
good compromise.
Commissioner Krueger would like to see a mid-block crosswalk, as suggested by Mr.
Smith. He noted that there will be a lot of pedestrians wanting to cross over to the theater
entrance, and believed the City should acknowledge people's actual behaviors and design
the crosswalk to suit.
Transportation Commission
Page 11 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,12,"Staff Khan noted that when crosswalks are designed, staff look at pedestrian visibility and
safety; staff did not want the pedestrians to be a place where motorists did not expect
them. By putting white lines on the street, a safe environment would not be provided,
especially at night. He believed that a crosswalk at this location may create more
concerns.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the alleyway met the standard to constitute an
unmarked crosswalk. Staff Khan replied that the alleyway was an access point. He noted
that between two signalized intersections, crossing would be considered jaywalking.
Lt. Boersma understood that an unmarked crosswalk must be a prolongation of the
sidewalk; that there was no sidewalk, only a driveway onto private property. Therefore,
there was no unmarked crosswalk.
Commissioner Ratto noted that a PSBA member who owned a restaurant across the street
from the theater would request the PSBA Board to request that the City install a mid-
block crosswalk with in-pavement crosswalk lights. He noted that as executive director of
PSBA, he would work for this recommendation. However, as a Transportation
Commissioner, he would vote against that recommendation. He noted that this could give
a false sense of security to people crossing the street, and he did not believe that it was
needed between two controlled lights. He understood the concern about the de facto right
lane, and noted that PSBA would be against the bulbout at that corner, as it would
negatively impact traffic flow. He inquired whether vehicles could turn left from Oak into
the garage. Staff Khan replied that they could.
Commissioner Ratto believed that while 40 bike parking spaces in front of the theater was
excessive, he suggested that some bike racks be put in proximity to the theater. Staff
Khan replied that this could be done, and added that the City could used some grant
money for that purpose. They also considered putting some bike parking in the alleyway.
Commissioner Krueger believed the priority should be putting the bikes in front of the
theater, and that there would be security concerns with alleyway parking. He suggested
that the real issues be acknowledged, that the proposal is more about maintaining traffic
flow than meeting the needs of pedestrians. He believed that congested traffic would be
better for pedestrians, and that smoothly flowing traffic would be more dangerous for the
pedestrians.
Lt. Boersma noted that both traffic and pedestrian issues were relevant, and that drivers
would still double park; there would also be a risk to passengers. He believed this would
proposal would eliminate the ability to do that, and there would be an impact. He noted
that there would be queues in front of the theater, especially for the blockbuster movies.
He would discourage people crossing in between the two corners, and believed that a
mid-block crosswalk would make things worse. He believed it would impede the traffic
flow and give people a false sense of security. He believed the proposed plan addressed
the pedestrian safety, traffic flow and emergency access issues.
Transportation Commission
Page 12 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,13,"Commissioner Ratto noted that this would not be set in stone, and that if there were
problems, changes could be made.
Chair Knox White responded that it would be better to get the plan right the first time.
Chair Knox White noted that he would move against this, but did support removing the
parking. He supported the creation of a dropoff zone, the commercial loading zone and
the a red curb for sight lines. He opposed the creation of 270-foot-long de facto new lane
along Central Avenue. He understood the sight line issue as described by the lieutenant,
but was very concerned about drivers making right turns at the corner while pedestrians
waited to cross. He would rather see a bulbout that would prohibit the quick right turn.
He believed the proposed plan would not lead to good traffic flow and a vibrant
downtown, but that the proposal could be changed to achieve that goal.
Commissioner Ratto moved to approve the staff recommendation to approve Proposed
Implementation of Parking Restrictions on Central Avenue in Front of the New Theater
and Cineplex to Improve Traffic Circulation and Access. Commissioner McFarland
seconded the motion. Motion failed 2-5 (Knox-White, Krueger, Schatmeier,
Subramaniam, Tam opposed).
Commissioner McFarland left the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Commissioner
Subramaniam seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-1 (Ratto opposed).
7C.
Review of Draft Pedestrian Plan
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and acknowledged the hard work of Gail Payne in
the preparation of the Draft Pedestrian Plan. This item will be brought back for action in
the May meeting. He described the pedestrian plan in detail, and displayed the
PowerPoint presentation on the overhead screen. He noted that it provided guidelines
above and beyond the ADA guidelines. He noted that goals were recommended by the
Transportation Commission as part of the TMP policies: circulation, livability,
transportation choice and implementation. He noted that several public meetings were
scheduled to discuss this plan, and described the progress of the plan. He described the
points assigned to the project for reaching the project goals, totaling 100 points; a project
totaling 70-80 points would trigger its implementation. He noted that high priority
projects included those considered over the next 10 years; the high priority projects
would cost approximately $10 million over that time, and these included accessible
signals, countdown signals, and intersection enhancements.
Staff Khan described the medium priority projects, which were planned over five-plus
years, to be pursued after the high priority projects were funded. Staff expected $2
million from Measure B sources, $3 million from Safe Routes to School and competitive
grants. He noted that public hearings would be conducted in April and May, and expected
Transportation Commission
Page 13 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,14,"that the Transportation Commission would hear this item for action in May. The final
draft of the Pedestrian Plan will be created in May and June, and then taken to City
Council for acceptance. Staff would like this plan to be adopted as part of the
Transportation Element of the General Plan.
Open public comment.
Adrienne Langley-Cook noticed that the draft plan identified a walkway through her back
yard, and requested that it be corrected to reflect that there was no such pathway.
Chair Knox White noted that this comment was passed to staff, and that it would be
removed from the plan.
Tony Daysog complimented the Transportation Commission on its work, and wished to
see Alameda become even more pedestrian friendly. He recalled past major pedestrian
accidents. He noted that this was not only a quality of life issue, but also a safety issue.
Bill Smith echoed Mr. Daysog's comments, described a recent serious pedestrian accident
and re-emphasized the need for pedestrian safety.
Close public comment.
Chair Knox White commended Gail Payne on the quality of this plan.
No action was taken.
8.
Staff Communications.
Staff Khan noted that a meeting was held earlier in the day on the Broadway-Jackson
Study update. The project is moving forward as scheduled, and staff hoped to meet with
the Chinatown community in May. He anticipated bringing it to the Transportation
Commission for its June 25 meeting. The goal is that the project study report will be
completed and submitted to Caltrans by the end of July. He noted that good feedback had
been received from the Oakland and Alameda communities, and believed that consensus
has been building towards the alternative in terms of providing access through Sixth
Street, as well as providing new ramps as discussed.
Chair Knox White believed that it would be good to have a public hearing in Alameda to
make it more convenient to Alamedans, particularly since the City was paying for part of
the project.
Staff Khan noted that the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study was moving forward, and
distributed a handout to the Commissioners. The study would look into alternatives that
will address several user requirements, as identified by Gail Payne. Several meetings will
be held, and the study schedule was listed on page 4. Two meetings have been held on
Transportation Commission
Page 14 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-04-23,15,"April 10 and April 12, one in Oakland and one in Alameda. More meetings will be held
in May, at the Jack London Aquatic Center and at City Hall West. The Draft Report will
be presented in the fall of 2008, and staff hoped to complete the project with a
recommendation to City Council in early 2009.
Chair Knox White inquired whether the Transportation Commission was involved in the
process. Staff Khan replied that this item would be brought to the Transportation
Commission one or two times.
Staff Bergman noted that future agenda items included a presentation on AC Transit's
Line 51 Task Force in either the June or July meeting. He noted that AC Transit was in
the process of making staffing changes so that potential service changes on Line O are
still being studied. Staff Khan noted that preliminary data from AC Transit indicate that
few local riders were using Line O, so the elimination of local service on the transbay
route that had initially been discussed may not be appropriate.
Staff Khan noted that the universal transit pass program was being discussed for use by
all City employees, which may be implemented by June. He noted that the passes would
include the bearer's photo.
Staff Khan noted that staff had been directed to work with AC Transit staff regarding the
potential implementation of shuttle service between Alameda and BART.
Chair Knox White wished to ensure that there would be sufficient notification for future
appeals. He believed there should be a written procedure requiring noticing when a
tentative agenda was set. Residents would be informed at least 20 days in advance if
possible, and a staff report and additional information would be available a week in
advance.
Staff Khan noted that he had a video from Paden Elementary School that he had
originally planned to show this evening, but would show at a later time.
9.
Adjournment:
10:30 p.m.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC/2008\052808\042308minutes-draft-rev.doc
Transportation Commission
Page 15 of 15
04/23/08 Minutes",TransportationCommission/2008-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-01-25,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, January 25, 2011
Commissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:01 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Kathy Moehring (Chair)
Jesus Vargas
Thomas G. Bertken
Christopher Miley
Michele Bellows
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Adrienne Heim, Administrative Assistant
2.
Minutes
Commissioner Vargas moved approval of the minutes for the December 14, 2011 meeting if
""tree"" in 4B were to be made plural. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. Motion passed
4-0.
3.
Oral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments
Commissioner Vargas commented on Tom Remas, Bay Area Civil Engineer, who passed away
recently. He called for a moment of silence.
Commissioner Moehring welcomed two new commissioners, Michele Bellows and Christopher
Miley.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, wrote a letter to the editor of the Alameda
Sun at the end of 2011 regarding the I-880 project along 23rd and 29th Avenue bridges. He had
not heard of project updates. Apparently, others saw problems concerning the bridges, especially
construction, and most issues have been resolved. The website, I-880 corridor.com at Caltrans,
shows the status of the projects including the 23rd and 29th Avenue bridge status. Citizens
should know what is happening with the status and how it affects them.
Page 1 of 13",TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-01-25,2,"Commissioner Moehring stated that she took the I-880 project issue to staff and staff took the
issue to Alameda City Council.
Staff Khan responded that the project is funded by Regional Measure 2, and has other funding
sources, totaling $100 million. Caltrans addresses some concerns regarding traffic that goes
through residential areas to and from the freeway. The project raises 29th Avenue northbound off
ramp, and creates better connections into Alameda by creating dual left turns and a signal.
Staff's main concern was directed towards the 23rd Avenue interchange. Northbound drivers
will be able to enter I-880 by driving on a combined on-ramp with a signal near the ramp. Staff
negotiated the final design and brought their recommendations to the City Council, Alameda
Transportation Commission and Alameda Planning Board. Staff and Caltrans addressed signal
impacts at Clement and Park Streets intersection. Staff recommended that Alameda CTC provide
or help find funding to create bus queue jump lanes on Park Street, which will allow transit
priority from Buena Vista to the bridge, and will link the signals between Oakland and Alameda
to the bridge. The queue build up may increase on Park Street, but only for a short period. Also,
staff is working with Caltrans to fund signal priorities off the on-ramp at 23rd Avenue. All issues
that were raised with the City Council have been looked at and been negotiated to minimize any
impacts. If the Transportation Commissioners would like the Alameda CTC to come present
about construction impacts, that would be good.
Commissioner Moehring stated that she would love to have the Alameda CTC present and to
include the presentation on the next agenda. Also, she requested to have this item on a semi-
regular basis to keep the TC and public up to date.
Staff Khan - There are two lanes coming into Alameda on 23rd and 29th Avenues. Therefore, it
would be a great opportunity to have regular construction updates from the Alameda CTC and
staff will add this to the March agenda.
4.
New Business
4A.
TSM/TDM Recommended Strategies
Staff Khan summarized the staff report.
Cliff Chambers, consultant from Mobility Planners, provided further details on key findings and
recommendations from the staff report.
Commissioner Vargas asked what cities have Transportation Management Associations (TMA),
how the TMA director would work with city staff, and what are the fiscal impacts of supporting
implementation. Commissioner Vargas also mentioned that staff's presentation and document
listing the components and subsequent strategies make sense.
Cliff Chambers responded that TMAs are like Baskin Robbins, meaning they have many flavors.
Page 2 of 13",TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-01-25,3,"Some are based on a citywide level; most are developed at a very large development, like Bishop
Ranch in San Ramon, and the TMA in San Francisco's downtown. There are different levels of
funding so it is difficult to pinpoint an exact funding source. It makes sense to develop a TMA
with individual employers like Harbor Bay Landing and Alameda Point since the City does not
have adequate staff resources.
Staff Khan stated there is a concern for funding a citywide TMA. Staff is looking at ways to
gather revenues and the best approach is under the MX zone developments that require a master
plan, and that would be the catalyst to start a TMA. For example, Alameda Landing may need to
start a shuttle program. Since there is already a shuttle program running, including Alameda
Landing could be a potential funding source. The Estuary Crossing Shuttle currently operates to
Wind River and College of Alameda. Now the City needs to provide revenues to sustain staff
time to provide the shuttle service.
Commissioner Moehring responded to Staff Kahn regarding targeting Webster and Park Streets,
Harbor Bay Business Park and Harbor Bay Landing to partner and seek membership in a future
TMA. She asked if staff contacted these groups to help expand the program or create a program
that benefits everyone, understanding staff time.
Staff Khan stated this is a good idea, but the City cannot impose this plan upon any existing
bussinesss. The key for us is to bring the employers together with a potential localized grouping
(South Shore, Webster and Park Streets, and Harbor Landing). The main goal is to create a
program to help employers encourage employees to use mass transit and other shared commute
options.
Cliff Chambers - Staff pulled a meeting together to see how Alameda businesses felt about such
TDM strategies. Around 12 employers participated and gave input; however, staff needs time
and resources to pull it together, and to create a catalyst.
Commissioner Miley asked whether carshare programs are part of the TDM strategy.
Cliff Chambers responded that carshare is one element that is explained in the document, and the
City has carshare, but the carshare program is not fully utilized.
Commissioner Vargas stated having attended a meeting at the California Transportation Forum
recently, he asked a question and the resulting answer was government should not add another
layer or commission to transportation issues. Having said that, a TMA would create another
layer. There should be an option where an organization resembles a public-private partnership.
Therefore, staff should look into the TDM recommendations that benefit the City's goals, and
once a big funding opportunity occurs, a separate institutional entity could take on this task.
Cliff Chambers stated that many TMAs are non-profits, such as the San Luis Obispo Ride-On
Transportation. Many TMAs have elected officials on their private non-profit boards.
Furthermore, many TMAs are private non-profits that are member based. One commonality is
TMAs have a champion who supports trip reduction to enhance quality of life and improve the
environment.
Page 3 of 13",TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-01-25,4,"Commissioner Bertken asked about the staff report's findings regarding Alameda Point. The
report mentioned transit availability is an important part of combating congestion, but in
connection to Alameda Point the ferry service should be mentioned and service is important to
future development. With regards to the report's findings, there is a similarity between Alameda
Point and Treasure Island due to traffic congestion from drivers entering the tube heading
towards Alameda Point and congestion when drivers exit the Bay Bridge towards Treasure
Island. Therefore, that case should be looked into for similarities. Also, in regards to modeling
the traffic congestion for Alameda Point, he questioned what staff used to obtain the congestion
rates.
Cliff Chambers explained that his colleagues at Dowling Associates are working with the
congestion modeling.
Staff Khan stated that the data was provided by the 2000 General Plan, under the Land Use
Element and is still current. The Land Use Section includes household and employment data for
Alameda Point.
Commissioner Bertken announced the new ferry service in May 2012 between South San
Francisco and Alameda, and staff should include this information in their report.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, stated that a TMA is wonderful idea,
especially given his inside view of a national transit commuter program, where an employee
could submit a voucher for an alternative travel subsidy of up to $220. He mentioned the
program to his employer and it created a struggle for his employer to take on the plan and read
through the red tape. Therefore, having a TMA to facilitate the program would be great.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated the TMA
concept is great; however, he questioned whether it is possible to require businesses to join a
TMA when they seek a business license in order for the City to legally gain momentum on a
program. TSM/TDM depends on external funding through state and federal appropriations and
they cut back the commuter benefits specifically for bicycle trips. Consequently, AC Transit
cannot provide the initial service it once had due to lack of funds. Furthermore, transportation as
it relates to land use policy needs to include land density and reform parking requirements.
Commissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments to the TSM/TDM Strategies. For
this month's meeting, the commissioners are only required to provide comments.
Staff Khan - This plan needs to be completed, reviewed and approved in February so we can
receive payment from Caltrans. Therefore, staff would like the commissioners to make the final
recommendations in February.
Commissioner Moehring acknowledged the deadline.
Commissioner Bertken questioned the strategies regarding how vehicle trips are estimated for
new development. He also asked about the parameters that go into the strategies such as the
Page 4 of 13",TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-01-25,5,"minimum number of employees needed to begin the TDM program.
Staff Kahn - Staff would run a model using computer software to incorporate land use density,
peak time trips, trip generation rates based on type of land use to estimate traffic generation and
use TDM strategies to reduce the congestion.
Commissioner Bertken asked how staff determines what goes into the model.
Staff Khan explained that Institute Of Transportation Engineers trip generation rates are used in
the model.
Staff Bertken responded so mitigation is based on environmental significance.
Commissioner Moehring agreed to the deadline again and acknowledged that the next meeting
will be held on Wednesday, February 22.
4B.
Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines - Summary of Comments
Staff Khan summarized the staff report with a power point presentation and stated that he would
like to present the final draft to the TC in March for final recommendations.
Commissioner Bertken stated in the staff report, specifically in Appendix A and D, there is no
case studies of where bicycle parking requirements and bicycle shower facilities are being
implemented.
Barry Bergman stated that there are general examples of bicycle parking policies and they are
included in the report. Specific Appendix D thresholds can be included in the revised report.
Commissioner Vargas asked if an extended time of input would be helpful.
Staff Khan stated middle of February is the deadline to make final recommendations.
Staff Moehring commented towards a financial burden upon employers to construct bicycle
showers and lockers.
Barry Bergman stated in the report, regarding Appendix D, if there is only one shower provided,
the shower must be marked as unisex and for persons of disabilities.
Staff Moehring asked about national safety guidelines that the City must follow for right turn
lanes accommodating bicycles and automobiles.
Staff Khan - Staff has worked on such an issue for example if you were to ride on Fernside
today and cross High Street going west you will see that staff did not have the space to create a
bike lane, so they dropped a lane and included sharrows. The cities of Oakland and Berkeley
have made similar treatments.
Page 5 of 13",TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-01-25,6,"Barry Bergman stated that it is not advisable to have bicycle lanes to the right of the turning car
lane.
Commissioner Moehring called for public comments or questions.
Lucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda, started off by saying thank you to staff for being so
diligent in answering questions and calls that have come to draft the guidelines. Since there are
new commissioners, it is important to re-iterate the need to implement these guidelines to make
Alameda's streets safer and help more cyclists riding on the streets. According to well
documented research reports, cycling activity increases when the city accommodates all types of
cycling skills and creates separate facilities such as cycle tracks (Fernside Street by Lincoln
Middle School), Class I bike paths and buffered bike lanes. Again, she appreciates staff's efforts
to get the best facilities for the City.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, he has been a
bicycle advocate since 1970. This month he took a bicycle tour on a Sunday afternoon in
Oakland where he saw the bicycle lane within the right turn lane. Protection of the door zone is
important, but it is not feasible to expand streets to accommodate cyclists without angering
drivers. Regarding Figure 13, on page 24 of 46, if you were driving a car into that intersection
you would not go straight through the intersection by driving through the right turn lane.
Therefore, you should not ride your bike that way. I recommend in that intersection always take
the thru traffic lane. Figure 11, page 22 of 46, should be the preferred design alternative. Mr.
Spangler commends the City of Alameda on the positioning of sharrows on the road and the City
should continue the tradition of positioning the point of arrow of sharrows safely outside of the
door zone. Also, the City should include ""Share the Road"" signage for cyclists and drivers.
Furthermore, the city should erect informational signs stating Alameda is a ""Bike Friendly"" city
and educational signs for cyclists to "" Stay out of the Door Zone."" He would also like to see a
reduced defacto parking strip for automobile parking from 8 to 7 feet ultimately creating a
psychological road diet for drivers to park closer to the curb. Finally, he would like the City to
include a bicycle buffer (see Figure 7) next to the door zone rather than to the left side of the
cyclist.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, would like to see signage appear once
funding is available. Signage is good for people who are not familiar with the bicycle landscape,
so lets prioritize this item.
Commissioner Bellows stated that the guidelines are incredibly comprehensive and public input
was great.
Commissioner Miley also appreciated the public process, and reserved comments until the item is
brought back in March.
Commissioner Moehring would like to see more signage to educate the public to share the road
and important for everyone to be more considerate. She also recommended that Mr. Spangler
present a bicycle safety tip at each meeting going forward, such as bicyclists should share the
Page 6 of 13",TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-01-25,7,"street with drivers and not ride on the sidewalk.
Staff Khan clarified one item within the presentation, when he said 6 inches versus 4 inches, he
did not mean to reduce the bicycle lane width on the traffic side. He was thinking on the parking
lane side. There is a requirement from Caltrans, which states that the bike lane stripe should be 6
inches. Also, including the T's at 7 feet instead of 8 feet is intriguing and he will look into it.
Commissioner Moehring liked the T's in the bike lane from the door zone.
Commissioner Bertken discussed his interest in the T's within the bicycle lane and how it
encourages better parking.
Staff Khan will come back for a final recommendation from the TC in March.
4C.
Transportation Commission Bylaw Revisions
Staff Payne summarized the staff report to revise the commission bylaws.
Commissioner Bertken stated regarding the minutes to break the one paragraph that presents
three different concepts into three paragraphs.
Commissioner Moehring called for public comments or questions.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, objected to
removing the monthly meetings to every other month and to the quorum definition for the rules
of order section C, subsection M. To abandon the initial rule and to not define the quorum is
unacceptable. In Section A, under meeting minutes, Mr. Spangler mentioned that the TC is as
important as the Planning Board and this body should make its case with the City Council to
meet every month depending on staff and commissioners' workload.
Commissioner Moehring stated that for a long period Alameda TC would meet every month, but
would cancel meetings because there was not enough on the agenda. It is stated in the bylaws
that the TC must define the meeting periods. The TC can schedule special meetings when
necessary and then publicize the meetings in a sufficient timeframe.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, did not have an objection of when meetings
occur, but there must be list of dates publicized so the public is aware of these meetings.
Commissioner Bertken stated the reason to meet every other month is due to staff time to prepare
for each meeting and should be considered the most. If there are enough items then TC members
should schedule a special meeting.
Commissioner Vargas responded by suggesting on a trial basis to conduct a meeting every other
month depending on the workload, and when necessary to schedule a meeting earlier to finish by
11 p.m.
Page 7 of 13",TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-01-25,8,"Staff Khan stated that all City body meetings have an end time of 11 p.m. and to create
consistency the bylaws included that end time. Commissioners can direct staff to look over the
bylaws and revise as necessary.
Commissioner Bertken asked to define the quorum.
Commissioner Moehring stated the quorum is self-descriptive, and means four.
Commissioner Bertken called upon the commissioners to approve the motion to have the
Alameda TC meet bi-monthly based upon staff recommendations and considering staff time.
Secondly, he called upon the commissioners and staff to publically advertise the exact meeting
months on the City's website. Finally, he stated that the 11 p.m. end time should be set as is and
if necessary, the meeting could be moved to an earlier start time.
Commissioner Miley moved approval of the bylaw revisions with the revised minutes paragraph
broken into three sections and explicitly stating ""odd months"" for the meeting times.
Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
4D.
Alameda Paratransit Program Modification
Staff Payne summarized the staff report.
Commissioner Miley asked about the total number of survey respondents.
Staff Payne replied that 584 surveys were sent out and 142 surveys were completed.
Commissioner Miley asked whether the $2.50 travel voucher cost, would curtail the budget
problems for the next fiscal year.
Staff Payne stated most likely not.
Commissioner Miley asked about Measure B reauthorization and increased funding to keep the
rate flat.
Staff Khan stated 10 percent of service revenue comes out of Measure B for the paratransit
program, but the reauthorized Measure B looks to double the revenue stream. If approved in
November then staff would see increased funding. To clarify the first question, in the beginning
(before the start of the shuttle service), the Alameda CTC stated that they would take the City of
Alameda's Paratransit surplus away if the City did not use it. So, staff asked the City Council to
approve the initiation of a city shuttle. The shuttle is very successful, but in three to four years,
the service cannot be sustained financially without more funding or cuts to other services.
Commissioner Bellows asked about the survey question regarding the $3.00 and $2.50 voucher
fee.
Page 8 of 13",TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-01-25,9,"Staff Payne stated both the Recreation and Park Commission and Commission on Disability
Issues voted to increase the price up to $3.00. Also, the survey response option was changed to
$2.50 because the premium travel voucher costs $2.50 for a $5.00 voucher.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if the amount of revenue received from the voucher increase
would offset financial burdens.
Commissioner Vargas commented on the fact that 7,000 residents are 70 years old, but only 60
out of 584 participants are currently active. He then questioned whether the program could
sustain fiscally if more participants were to join the program.
Staff Payne responded that we pay operators the same amount every month so it is easy to
budget. For the taxi program, if participation increases, the City would have to turn them away,
which is our budgetary challenge. We hope that the program remains stable.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff to explain the difference between premium taxi service and
MRTIP service and whether staff can re-direct services from MRTIP to premium taxi service.
Staff Payne responded that the Premium Taxi Service is a much broader service and you would
have to pay more because it allows for a 50 percent subsidy of taxi rides whereas MRTIP allows
the elderly and disabled to return home from medical appointments for free.
Staff Payne and Khan stated that staff limited the number of taxi vouchers and the distance taxis
could travel to because they want to make slow changes to the service rather than eliminating it.
Ultimately, staff does not want to drop the program so staff will review the budget and will
report back next fiscal year on its progress.
Commissioner Moehring explained that the next agenda item would propose a price change for
the Premium Taxi Service.
Commissioner Bellows moved to charge $3.00 per MRTIP travel voucher. Commissioner Vargas
seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
4E.
Draft Prioritized Transportation Project List
Staff Khan summarized the staff report.
Commissioner Bellows stated there should be a banner across the top of the project list that states
not sequentially prioritized, but ranked based upon upcoming grant applications. Also, staff
should distinguish the ranking list between bicycle, pedestrian and mass transit projects.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff about their use of the ranking system and whether that would
interfere with their current workload.
Page 9 of 13",TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-01-25,10,"Staff Khan responded that the ranking of projects does not change current workload priorities,
but helps define what grant applications staff should pursue.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff whether they have a rule of priority when conducting
preliminary research within the list of projects.
Staff Khan gave an example of a feasibility study conducted by staff in 2008 for the Estuary
Crossing; the next step is to create the project study report, which is the next level of planning.
Many grants have short deadlines, such as one that came across his desk that was due in four
days.
Commissioner Vargas stated there should be a cost estimated for the feasibility study and costs
should be included within the list, especially when staff decides to apply for a grant.
Staff Khan - Regarding the cost issue, it is a good point. Staff purposely did not include costs
because sometimes we can receive earmarks. This list is a general plan policy, but staff needs to
work with the community to see where the work is needed. As you look at the different funding
pots, the cost issue is where we crunch the numbers and find funding revenues. Other projects
have specific requirements and grants have specific criteria to dispense funds.
Commissioner Miley explained that he is appreciative of the explanation of the ranking system,
but would like a more detailed report. He also stated that projects that are not already funded
could be leveraged by other projects being funded.
Staff Khan - The ranking is a great start and if staff revises it ten different ways at end of the
day staff can be flexible to go after a grant where a project fits the grant requirement.
Commissioner Miley asked if staff adheres to a main objective when multiple projects are up for
a grant at the same.
Commissioner Bellows stated that you could apply several projects for the same grant, which
usually has evaluation criteria. She stated that Commissioner Miley's point is valid.
Staff Khan stated that considerable legwork must be done if staff decides to pursue a grant for a
specific project to show that it is important.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff if the City Council or City Manager were looking for specific
outcomes from the project ranking.
Staff Khan - They are not interested in what staff is working on, they are concerned with
projects that should be pursued for grant funding. Leveraging funding would be important.
Staff Khan - Staff must submit the final project list to City Council in March.
Commissioner Bellows replied that staff should bring back the list to Alameda TC with revisions.
Page 10 of 13",TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-01-25,11,"Staff Khan read a comment made by email from Lucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda,
regarding project ranking and when paraphrased she stated there are many ranges of transit
benefits per project type and each project may be regionally significant or important to economic
development. Since the City now has so many plans, this kind of a list is critical so that
everyone can agree on how all the places and projects should be prioritized to align our plan
goals.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, the precedent has
always been in regards to categorizing projects based on opportunistic grant applications and
staff should take advantage of the applications whenever they become available. One project in
particular is the Estuary Crossing project. The list should show a project once with a
subcategory of two action items within the projects to simplify the list. The City Council
understands this is a laundry list, but the list should also show transit benefits, or combination of
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit benefits, plus showing regional importance.
Commissioner Miley made the motion to approve the list; Commissioner Bertken seconds
motion.
4F.
Safe Routes to School Draft Project Submittal - Grand Street at Wood Middle School
Staff Payne summarized the staff report.
Commissioner Moehring responded by asking whether staff spoke with residents surrounding the
mid-block crossing.
Staff Payne - Outreach was conducted to residents within a 300 feet radius of the mid-block
crossing, and there is an overall positive outlook to the project.
Commissioner Bellows commented on the fact that Grand Street is a confusing area and the plan
is heading in the right direction. She also wanted to get a total cost estimate for the project.
Staff Payne - The total grant fund from Caltrans is a maximum of $450K and the total project
cost is a maximum of $500K.
Commissioner Bellows explained that she would like to see additional landscaping for the area to
look more attractive and to create a better pedestrian refuge area.
Staff Payne spoke with the Alameda Park and Recreation Department and adding four trees
would be the biggest landscaping. Also, she talked to Wood Middle School vice principal to see
if they would like additional landscaping adjacent to their property and the mid-block crossing.
Commissioner Bellows suggested landscaping within the median strip, similar to Lincoln Street
near the nursery, and she asked about pedestrian lighting.
Staff Payne - Since the grant is a Safe Routes to School grant and most of the students are home
Page 11 of 13",TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-01-25,12,"before nightfall, staff decided to not include lighting.
Commissioner Miley - Staff should solicit letters of support for the project to help with the grant
application. Staff also should encourage solicitation from Senator Hancock and Alameda County
Supervisor, Wilma Chan.
Commissioner Bertken - Getting rid of the left turn is a great idea, but removing the left turn
may cause uproar from Wood School drivers.
Staff Payne - It is a good point. Staff conducted a survey of turning movements. Within the
morning peak hour, the removal of the left turn would only affect about 5 or 6 drivers.
Commissioner Bellows stated that the school could arrange for parents to pick up their children
further south on Grand Street near the staff parking lot.
Staff Payne - In terms of landscaping, Caltrans usually limits funding for landscape
improvements up to ten percent of construction costs.
Commissioner Vargas - Several of Caltrans projects are advanced and funded when there are
safety issues.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated he was a
safe routes to school volunteer at Franklin Elementary School. He suggested limiting or
prohibiting cars from making left turns and prohibiting the faculty area from becoming an ad hoc
drop off zone. He also asked if the crosswalk would be lit. There should be lighting at the
crosswalk, the median crossing should be extended to control turns and implement a road diet for
the entire length of Grand Street.
5.
Staff Communications
Staff Payne provided a summary of the Alameda CTC's update to the Countywide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plans.
Staff Payne discussed future meeting agenda items, which will include the TSM/TDM draft plan
and the paratransit program discussion about premium taxi service costs.
Staff Khan called on commissioners to vote to call a special meeting in February.
Commissioner Bellows made the motion to schedule a special meeting for February.
Commissioner Vargas seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Miley also called to have a presentation scheduled for the near future regarding I-
880 updates.
Page 12 of 13",TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-01-25,13,"Staff Payne stated she does have this down for the March meeting.
6.
Announcements
None
7.
Adjournment
10:46 PM
Page 13 of 13",TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-02-27,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
February 27, 2008
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. He noted that a
quorum was not yet present, so the Commission would address several discussion items that did
not require action.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier (arrived at 7:50 PM)
Members Absent:
Robb Ratto
Srikant Subramaniam
Nielsen Tam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
January 23, 2008
Chair Knox White noted that a full quorum was not present to consider the minutes, and that they
would be addressed at the next meeting if a quorum was present.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
Chair Knox White suggested that the agenda be taken in order until a quorum has been reached,
if Item 7A comes up before that occurs, Item 7B would be heard.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White noted that the State Senate had a new bill number assigned to address the
clean-up language for the establishment of the Water Emergency Transportation Authority
(WETA), but no actual language was associated with it. He noted that the TC had requested that
Sen. Perata's staff be on hand for a public meeting regarding this matter.",TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-02-27,2,"Chair Knox White inquired what the City's policy was regarding parking in red zones and across
sidewalks. He believed the City should investigate an education campaign regarding the new
crosswalk lights. He has seen almost no change in driver behavior regarding the lighted
crosswalks.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Open public hearing.
There were no speakers.
Close public hearing.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A.
Update on I-880/Broadway/Jackson Project Study Report.
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and updated the I-880/Broadway/Jackson project. He
summarized the history of the project, and displayed and described the proposed arterial changes
and signals in detail. Staff was concerned that any change to the historical structures would cause
structural and environmental issues. The speed required for the right turn would have to be no
more than 25 mph. Caltrans did not support traffic slowing down abruptly coming out of the
Posey Tube, which led to further options being studied for traffic coming out of the Tube in
Oakland. A left turn onto the existing one-way Sixth Street was suggested, with further
improvements intended for Sixth Street; he noted that option showed great promise. The
feasibility study suggested that for northbound traffic on I-880, the Broadway off-ramp be
eliminated and a new ramp be installed at Webster Street, which would improve access to
Alameda by allowing people to make a left turn into the Webster Tube entrance. He noted that
the final report was due to be completed in Summer 2008.
Commissioner Schatmeier joined the Commission on the dais. He inquired what specific
problem the project was intended to solve, and noted that while he used it during off-peak hours,
he understood that it was cramped and awkward.
Staff Khan replied that the northbound Jackson Street on ramp has a weave as it comes onto the
I-880 freeway; and reduction in any traffic trying to use Jackson Street will improve the safety
on the freeway. He added that the City was looking into further improvements to provide better
circulation along the corridor near Sixth Street. He noted that by 2030, congestion in the Tubes
would be substantially increased. With respect to Chinatown, the traffic would be moved away
from the pedestrian concentration at Seventh and Harrison. He noted that there was a fatality at
Seventh and Harrison, and that this was a serious concern for the Chinatown community.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether this plan would help traffic moving southbound, as
well as at the weave. He further inquired whether there had been any investigation into shifting
the traffic by the Senior Center onto arterials without having to cut the corner.
2",TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-02-27,3,"Staff Khan replied that the hook ramp created the benefit of creating an arterial in front of the
Pulte building. The City was interested in the alternative because of the importance of the
southbound access. There were constraints with respect to the entrance to the Pulte building.
No action was taken.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Residents' appeal to Proposed Changes to Central Avenue
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and detailed the background of this matter. He noted that
parents and school officials had submitted concerns regarding circulation and drop-off zones in
front of the school. Parents had been concerned about double-parking during the school drop-off
time, people blocking entrances and children's safety. Staff's major concern was separating the
vehicular traffic from the children exiting the cars. He noted that one goal was to remove parking
on the west of the school driveway; he displayed the loading zone area at the school on the
overhead screen. He noted that if the white zone were to be moved onto school property, the cars
would also be moved. The double-parked cars would be addressed by removing the parking
altogether west of the school entrance. The third action was to create a one-hour parking zone in
front of the zone where an unrestricted zone had previously existed. He noted that cars could not
remain in a white zone unattended. He added that it aided children with special needs and their
parents.
Staff Khan noted that his discussions with the school indicate that they have seen substantial
improvements in this area as a result of the changes implemented to date. They also wanted to
create a program at the school that would allow teachers or volunteers to receive the children,
open the door and get them out of the cars, which would improve the traffic flow. Staff
encouraged the principal and the parents to implement this. Staff conducted a survey of the
parking supply as compared to demand. Christina Hanson, a resident, sent a survey to staff that
she conducted at approximately 30 minute intervals, and staff conducted another survey between
8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Staff found that if one-hour parking was installed, the smallest number of
available parking spaces at 9 a.m. was five spaces; there were 16 spaces available at 3 p.m. He
noted that staff's intention was to improve traffic circulation, address children's safety, take the
vehicular traffic away from access of children getting into the school, address access for special
needs children by providing some parking for parents to enter the school, and to improve parking
conditions by removing several red curbs to provide additional parking spaces. The striping
would be redesigned to allow the parking at that location.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether any of the red curbs were in place
to provide visibility, or whether it was due to the striping, Staff Khan replied that the existing red
curb at Fifth and Central would be removed because it had been installed for visibility reasons
when there was no stop sign. They wanted to maintain some visibility at the signalized
intersection of Ballena and Central, but there was a substantial amount of red curb that could be
addressed to accommodate the parking configuration.
3",TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-02-27,4,"Staff Khan noted that the City had coordinated with local Eagle Scouts to perform some of the
striping. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner McFarland whether the curb would be
painted, Staff Khan replied that it would not be painted and because it was time-limited, there
would be signs placed at those locations.
A discussion of the details of the various parking zones ensued.
Commissioner Krueger inquired which of the safe routes to school had been addressed. Staff
Khan replied that the school did not yet have a safe routes to school map, and that Public Works
began creating those maps last year. This year, the plan was to work on the West End for this
school, Chipman, Encinal High and Ruby Bridges. He noted that it generally took time to engage
the community and the parents, and staff felt that the drop-off zone would enable to parents to
understand what was going on. Staff felt that the parents would be encouraged to continue their
support to create a robust program to allow the drop-off zone, and then a walking school bus or a
bicycle train.
Open public hearing.
Ms. Chris Hanson, 461 Central, appellant, noted that this had been a frustrating situation for
herself and her neighbors. She felt the City had mishandled this process, and added that she had
been a municipal employee for over 15 years, including for Alameda, and that she understood
the public process and rationale. She noted that the length of the curb in front of the school was
supposed to be a green curb with seven spaces for one-hour parking at 7 a.m. She noted that the
situation was very stressful, and had tried to get information from Alan Ta, junior engineer with
Public Works; she had been told it would be done. She was later told by Public Works Director
Matt Naclerio that the notifications would be re-sent. She did not believe the City should cater to
a specific interest group without considering the concerns of all the neighbors. She appreciated
the marked improvement with the traffic flow, and noted that the week the school had monitors
on duty, there was also improvement. She noted that the speed of the through traffic was
excessive. She noted that there were already spaces available at the peak usage hour, and did not
understand why there must be time-limited parking spaces if a minimum of five spaces were
available at all times.
Ms. Hanson displayed photos showing that seven spaces were available. She noted that the
neighboring houses were built in 1910, and did not generally have garages; in addition, there was
limited driveway and off-street parking. She added that most of the neighbors had to park on the
street, and that many neighbors took public transportation. She did not believe that the neighbors
should have to move their cars before going to work in the morning. She noted that many people
drove compact cars, and suggested that the curb be repainted for compact spaces. She suggested
that if the school wanted to add three spaces of private staff parking, they could add three more
spaces in that location because the concrete at the back of the school was already being utilized.
She suggested that some of the staff members park further down so three spaces could be made
green.
Ms. Hanson distributed three letters from her neighbors to the Commission.
4",TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-02-27,5,"Ms. Robin Hewitt echoed Ms. Hanson's comments and frustration. She expressed concern that
about growing congestion in the Tube, and noted that Alameda was losing parking spaces as it
continues to grow. She noted that apartment buildings have fewer vacancies and more cars as the
housing market crisis continues. She believed the parking enforcement at schools should have
stronger enforcement. She has observed illegal U-turns, double parking and no place for children
to cross the street except at the intersections of Central at Fourth and Fifth Streets.
Close public hearing.
Commissioner Krueger noted that Ms. Hanson's letter, parking counts and photos showed many
empty spaces. He inquired why it would create a hardship if the other spaces were taken away in
that case. Ms. Hanson replied that from the hours of 8 to 3, she demonstrated that there was
ample parking. She inquired why there would be limited parking spaces during a time there was
ample parking. She noted that in the event she did not have to leave her house until 9 a.m., she
would have to get up earlier to move her car during the school drop-off hours before it was 8
a.m., when the limited parking started. She did not believe the neighbors should be subjected to
that inconvenience.
Commissioner Krueger inquired about the issue of special needs children, and whether it was a
different scenario from a handicapped parking zone. He further inquired whether those children
must be escorted to school, and whether the staff parking lot could be used for that purpose. Staff
Khan replied that the handicapped parking inside the parking lot could be used. The school
previously had two disabled parking spaces (blue and green lots on the overhead map), and they
allow the children to be escorted to school without leaving the car unattended on the street. Staff
believed this addressed the needs of the parents and the school.
Commissioner Krueger inquired about the appellant's suggestion of creating more space within
the off-street parking lot in order to create temporary parking for people going into the school
without taking street parking spaces. Staff Khan noted that the parking lot was configured for
employees or people who would be there a long time.
Chair Knox White indicated that he understood the concern about having the drop-off zone just
prior to the entrance to the school, and asked if the spaces could be converted to on-street
parking. Staff Khan replied if the spaces were not occupied, that this area would continue to
function as a drop-off zone, and could lead to double-parking in that area.
Chair Knox White stated that did not make sense to him, and was concerned that the Police
Department enforces parking restrictions inconsistently, including near schools, and that having
specific designations for each section of curb may lead to further problems if it can't be
enforced. Since both the staff report and Ms. Hanson's survey seem to indicate that there is
sufficient parking in the area, he did not believe it was necessary in this case to carve out so
many specific uses for each part of the right of way, and believed that the need for parents
accessing the school should not be prioritized over residents accessing their houses. He was
surprised that so much staff time was available to address parking issues outside of schools, but
not for walking and biking issues around schools, and that a majority of the students live within
5",TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-02-27,6,"walking or biking distance of the school. He noted that a lot of time has been spent on school
drop-off zones. He suggested enacting an ordinance to enforce double fines in school zones, as is
allowed by the state. He understood that staff had a difficult job in balancing many wants and
desires in the City. He did not see any need to remove the parking at Paden school, and
suggested adding a crosswalk in front of the school across Central Ave. He suggested
encouraging walking to school, and strongly encouraged the neighboring residents to be notified
of actions such as this near their neighboring school. He would like the personnel manual to
include a requirement to inform the public of changes happening near their homes. He noted that
residents should realize that it was not always possible to park directly in front of their house or
school.
Staff Khan noted that it was important for staff to work with the school principal, parents, school
district and police. He noted that additional Police staff had been hired to increase enforcement
in front of the schools, primarily for the children's safety. He noted that the intention was to
remove the children from the path of traffic. He noted that they were working with the school to
develop a safe routes to school map.
Commissioner Schatmeier echoed Chair Knox White's comments, and did not see any
compelling reason for the one-hour parking zone in front of the school. He noted that when his
disabled child was school-age, she often took AC Transit when she was old enough. He noted
that he had to fight for parking places like everyone else for parent-teacher conferences. He did
not see a reason to grant a parking space for someone who would be at the school for an hour or
less. He noted that people should be able to find some other place to park, or use the off-street
lot, and did not agree with the staff report in that regard.
Commissioner Krueger did not see a compelling need for the time-limited parking, but was
concerned about the traffic flow and safety. He inquired about other safety and circulation issues
apart from double parking. He believed that parking should be designated in the correct way,
whether or not the restrictions were enforced.
Staff Khan displayed the circulation map, and replied that in the morning, parents used the white
zone to drop off, and other cars would stop in the middle of the street. He noted that the access
was changed to eliminate other cars impeding the access.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether compact spaces would be possible,
Staff Khan replied that the City did not have any ordinance for compact spaces. He added that the
Commission could recommend to the City Council that an ordinance for compact spaces be
developed.
Chair Knox White noted that if there did not seem to be a need for a restriction which was not
being enforced anyway, he did not believe it made sense to have such a restriction. He believed
the City's roadways should interact with the land uses.
Commissioner Krueger moved to accept the staff recommendations, with the modification to
remove time-limited parking, and retaining the no-stopping zone during school hours. Motion
dies for lack of a second.
6",TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-02-27,7,"In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding double fines in school zones, Staff
Khan replied that that law would sunset this year. Chair Knox White suggested that double fines
in school zones be considered.
Commissioner Krueger suggested that the road diet issue be examined by staff.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to accept the staff recommendations to uphold the appeal,
with the modification to remove time-limited parking. Two of the three white parking spaces
would be preserved, and no stopping would be allowed in one space closest to the driveway
from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-
0.
7B.
Conceptual Design of Mariner Square Drive Realignment and Park and Ride
Lot/Transit Hub
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and displayed and described a conceptual design of a
proposed realignment of existing Mariner Square Drive to a former railroad right-of-way, and
construction of a transit hub in the vicinity of the Posey Tube entrance. The existing Mariner
Square Drive would be used to provide buses with direct access to the Posey Tube. The project
includes a Class I separate bicycle/pedestrian path that would provide connectivity to the Bay
Trail and the Posey Tube, a future estuary crossing for transit, bicyclists and pedestrians that is
currently under study, and the proposed Cross Alameda Trail. He noted that there is the potential
to explore shared parking opportunities with adjacent businesses and property owners. He noted
that electronic bike lockers were being considered, and that bus line modifications could be
considered to bring the W and 19 buses to access this site. Staff requested the Commissioners'
comments about pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation. In addition, there has been
preliminary interest expressed in constructing a hotel on an adjacent City-owned site, so staff
also invited comments from the Commissioners on the potential for the transit hub and potential
hotel to share parking, given the needs of these types of uses. He discussed that proposed costs
for each part of the proposal, and noted that the City is including this in the analysis for the TMP,
since if the project is included in the General Plan it will facilitate getting access to funding.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the amenities include bus shelters
and seating, Staff Khan replied that shelters would be part of this, and the City may also look into
including electronic Next Bus signs to provide real-time information about transit vehicles
arrival times.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the intersection of Atlantic Ave.
and Webster Street would be served, Staff Bergman replied that one option that could be
considered is rerouting the W to serve the transit hub, but maintaining the existing Line O route,
which is heavily used at Atlantic and Webster.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether there was a way to serve this area, as well as Atlantic
and Webster, Staff Khan replied that there could be a shuttle service to BART offered by AC
Transit. Staff intended to address the issues regarding the congestion pressure on the Tubes, and
7",TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-02-27,8,"City Council has shown strong interest in discussing shuttle service.
Chair Knox White inquired how well the characteristics of this location match up with best
practices for a Park and Ride lot, Staff Khan replied that staff was looking into that issue.
Availability of land and access to the Posey Tube are very attractive features of this site, but that
other consideration must be evaluated as well.
Commissioner Krueger noted that in the Long Range Transit Plan, the College of Alameda was
identified as a location for a transit hub. He asked if this project would be pursued as one of
several transit hubs, or if it would preclude hubs at other sites. Staff Khan responded that this
site could potentially enhance access to the college, and there may even be an opportunity to
pursue funding jointly with the college. He estimated that the distance from the college to the
transit hub is less than 1500 feet.
Open public hearing.
Hussein Khomani noted that he ran a daycare at 2100 Mariner Square Drive with 125 children,
and he was very concerned about the safety of the children if this proposal were to be
implemented. He was opposed to the proposal, and believed that general pedestrian safety would
be impacted as well, especially in the morning and afternoon when 125 parents dropped off and
picked up their children. He noted that the first dropoff was at 6:30 a.m., and children were
picked up at 6:00 p.m., and believed the pollution and noise would affect the children. He was
concerned about the elevation of the area, which was almost five feet above his property. He did
not believe $12 million was sufficient to resolve the elevation. Staff Khan responded that as part
of the proposal, new pipes would address the drainage issues.
Philip Thorn noted that he lived in the Heritage Bay complex, that his children attended the
nearby daycare center, and that his office location would also be impacted. He would like the
Transportation Commission to be aware that the daycare center was a dedicated facility for the
children, with an outdoor area facing the proposed road. He was very concerned about the noise
and pollution impacts on the children, and noted that there were regular accidents on that road.
He believed it would be very dangerous to have the road with a thin fence that close to the
playground. He added that there were regular accidents at the Tube, and that cars would not be
able to evade the accidents with the new plan. He suggested that more money be allocated to
mitigate flooding. He did not believe a four-lane road would be appropriate next to the daycare
center. He inquired about the timeframe of this proposed project, Staff Khan replied that funding
would not occur earlier than 2012.
Bill Smith noted that he had ridden his bicycle in the area for 15 years, and expressed concern
about the speed in the Tubes. He inquired where the 1,500 cars coming from the Base were. Staff
Bergman noted that was from Marina Village Parkway. Mr. Smith noted that he generally saw
buses, not cars. Staff Khan described the route he had inquired about. Mr. Smith expressed
concern about the truck traffic near the daycare center.
8",TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-02-27,9,"Close public hearing.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that this kind of proposal concerns him as a transit user. He
believed this project was an example of the best of intentions yielding the worst of results. He
noted that it took 2¹/² to 3 hours for a transit bus to get from Santa Rosa to San Francisco because
the bus must exit the freeway and wait for local transit. He added that it took twice as long for a
transit user to make the trip than a driver in a car. He believed that routing the San Francisco
buses to the transit hub site would be a significant diversion of a normally rapid route. He
believed it would only benefit users of the park and ride lot, at the expense users further down
the line. He inquired why shuttles were discussed when the AC Transit service was good. He
believed that both directions must be served without delay, and that this would be a deterrence to
transit ridership. He believed this would work only if it can be served efficiently without serious
sacrifices in running time.
Commissioner Krueger echoed Commissioner Schatmeier's concerns. He noted that while the
idea seemed to be good, the location was not a hub of any kind. While it may be easy for the City
to build on this site, he did not believe it was the right thing to do. He noted that he liked the
queue jump concept for lines that we know are successful, not necessarily with reconfigured
routes.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether Mariner Square Drive was on a map,
similar to Mitchell Moseley, Staff Khan replied that it was currently included in the Draft
Transportation Element.
Chair Knox White shared the Commissioners' concerns. He believed the number of riders served
would have minimal impact on Tube traffic. He was concerned that the City may need to reroute
several bus lines, which would add run time even if funds were obtained. He believed this
proposal would be a mistake to implement.
Staff Khan noted that there would be funding from developers from Alameda Landing and
Alameda Point, and that those developments triggered the need for this proposal.
Chair Knox White believed the bus routes should be planned before the transit hub was located,
not the other way around, and was concerned that multiple bus lines might be reconfigured to
serve the project. He believed that four lanes for Mariner Square Drive seemed excessive, and
would be apprehensive about adopting this plan into the Transportation Element. He would like
to see the Alameda Landing EIR numbers in order to comment further. He noted that because the
daycare center is located so close to the Posey Tube entrance, it is already heavily impacted by
traffic. He also questioned the location of the project in terms of adjacent land uses, as there are
no easy pedestrian connections to Marina Village or Alameda Landing. While he supported the
inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, he expressed concern that if the road is constructed
to be four lanes that people would want to use it for biking and walking. While this plan was
9",TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-02-27,10,"very conceptual, he believed it would be important to stay in contact with the daycare owner,
since they owned the building. He stated that this may not be the right location for a transit hub,
and it is not the right time to be pursuing it, that there are many existing pressing needs for transit
in the City.
Commissioner Krueger noted that regarding the realigned road, he would like to see more detail,
and added that shortening the route from Alameda Landing to the Tube made sense. He also
believed that this use of the railroad right of way made sense. He did not believe that a four-lane
route may be necessary.
Chair Knox White did not see a transit hub with commercial spaces being a good match for
shared parking. He would like to see this proposal again when the traffic model was done, with
more specific numbers.
Staff Khan noted that he would add the speakers to the email list for this proposal.
Commission Communications (cont.)
Chair Knox White noted that the federal grant for bus shelters that the City had applied for was
denied.
Staff Bergman noted that those funds were generally earmarked and were competitively awarded.
Staff would continue to track that issue.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the bike path near Mount Trashmore was overgrown with
hedges, and would like it to be trimmed back.
Chair Knox White noted that the bus route map at the southwest corner of Santa Clara and High
was covered with graffiti.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he had complained about it, and was told that all complaints
about graffiti must be routed through AC Transit. Staff Bergman indicated that the City is
responsible for graffiti on shelters, but that AC Transit is responsible for other bus route maps
posted at bus stops.
Chair Knox White noted that there was broken glass at the shelter at Webster and Santa Clara, as
well as Willow and Santa Clara.
8.
Staff Communications
Staff Bergman provided an update on the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study, funded by a
$100,000 grant from ACTIA. ARUP was hired as the consultant, and Caltrans District 4 would
provide access to its on-call outreach consultant. Oakland has also contributed to the project as
well. Several community meetings had been scheduled in Chinatown (April 10) and in Alameda
(April 12).
10",TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-02-27,11,"Staff Bergman noted that the March ILC would be rescheduled.
Staff Bergman noted that the City received a grant to install bike lockers and racks at the Harbor
Bay Ferry Terminal, as well as near key commercial areas.
Staff Bergman noted that paratransit program enrollment had increased by 25% during the past
year, and that enhanced marketing was being undertaken.
Staff Khan noted that the Ecopass program was being finalized with AC Transit for all City
employees. The program is anticipated to be in place by early summer.
Staff Bergman updated the bus stop improvements which would be implemented in conjunction
with AC Transit.
Staff Khan noted that a Park Street redevelopment project was being initiated, and a charrette
would be presented at the Alameda Library.
Meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEESITC\2008\032608\packet\022708minutes-draft.d
11",TransportationCommission/2008-02-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-07-26,1,"DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 2017
Commissioner Vargas convened the meeting at 7:05pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Vargas, Bertken, Soules, and Palmer.
Absent: Chair Bellows, Vice-Chair Miley, Commissioner Hans.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Commissioner Soules made a motion to continue item 5-A to a future meeting.
Commissioner Vargas seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
3A
Laura Palmer - New Commissioner Introduction
Commissioner Vargas welcomed the new member of the Transportation Commission,
Laura Palmer.
Commissioner Palmer introduced herself. She said she is a long-time resident, has three
kids at different schools, commutes to work and wants to keep Alameda the great place
that it is. She said she works at Google, and has been in technology for most of her
career.
3B
Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, September 27 at 7:00
p.m.
Staff Member Payne announced that there would be a meeting on September 27th. She
said the November meeting would be on Wednesday November 15th, due to the
Thanksgiving holiday.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4A 2017-4538
Approve Meeting Minutes - April 26, 2017 (Action)
The staff report can be found at:
ittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3097452&GUID=47F0E7
ED-DBEE-4D83-B289-C1FBFC7672B9&Options=&Search=
Commissioner Soules made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner
Bertken seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
1",TransportationCommission/2017-07-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-07-26,2,"5. NEW BUSINESS
5A 2017-4539
Elect Chair and Vice Chair (Action)
Continued (see Item 2: Agenda Changes) ***
5B 2017-4540
Uphold Public Works' Decision to Not Install an All-Way Stop Control at the
Intersection of Sixth Street and Haight Avenue and Approve the Removal of Four
Parking Spaces on Sixth Street at Haight Avenue (Action)
Staff Member Aghamir, City Engineer, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The
staff report and attachments can be found at:
 ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3097454&GUID=4F47F3B3-
28D0-48AD-9D28-C592568C504F&FullText=1
Commissioner Soules noted that the original request to the city was to improve visibility
for vehicles at the intersection and was not related to pedestrian activity.
Commissioner Vargas asked what the level of impact in injury and dollar value of the two
collisions that occurred at the intersection in the previous five years.
Staff Member Aghamir said he did not believe the injuries were severe, and that they
were broadside collisions in 2011 and 2016.
Commissioner Vargas suggested voting on the stop sign first and the having the parking
discussion separately.
*There were no speakers for public comment.*
Commissioner Bertken said there was a similar issue at an intersection on Bay Farm. He
said the police sergeant at the meeting explained that the driver has a right to pull
forward into the parking lane at an intersection to improve visibility before entering an
intersection. He said there should be more education of this fact due to the number of
intersections in Alameda with this issue.
Commissioner Bertken made a motion to NOT install a stop sign at the
intersection. Commissioner Soules seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Soules asked if there were a viable no action alternative to removing
parking spaces at the intersection.
Staff Member Aghamir said there was not. He said there is poor visibility at the
intersection that merits some action.
2",TransportationCommission/2017-07-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-07-26,3,"Commissioner Bertken said he does not recommend the staff proposal of removing
parking spaces at all four corners of the intersection.
Commissioner Soules asked staff to restate the details of the 2nd alternative
recommendation.
Staff Member Aghamir said it would result in the loss of three parking spaces and a sign
limiting parking at one corner to vehicles under six feet tall.
Commissioner Soules said much of the public correspondence was concerned that
allowing vehicles under six feet tall to park at the corner would compromise pedestrian
safety.
Commissioner Soules made a motion to implement the staff recommendation that
would remove four parking spaces.
Commissioner Vargas asked if there were any plans for development in the area.
Staff Member Aghamir said there was nothing in the immediate area.
Commissioner Bertken seconded Commissioner Soules' motion. The vote was 3-
0-1 (Palmer abstained).
Commissioner Vargas asked if a 3-0-1 vote constituted passage.
Staff Member Payne's response was inaudible, but appeared to be shaking her head in
the negative.
Commissioner Palmer said she would therefore change her vote to aye. The
motion passed 4-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A 2017-4541
Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and
Plans (Information)
Staff Member Ott updated the commission on upcoming projects and ongoing plans. The
staff report and attachment can be found at:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3097455&GUID=59058475-
5992-48F4-BB1D-EF75AB020C63&FullText=1
Commissioner Vargas asked how much the parking tickets would be for ferry riders
parking in the Bay Farm neighborhoods with permit parking.
3",TransportationCommission/2017-07-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-07-26,4,"Staff Member Ott said the ticket would be the standard rate for parking violations around
the city.
Commissioner Bertken asked what the relation was between the Transportation
Commission and the Citywide TMA Board.
Staff Member Ott explained the role of the Transportation Commission as a citywide
advisory body. She said the TMA will be an independent board that decides how to use
their accumulated funds to reduce drive alone trips and meet our transportation goals.
She said the TMA would report annually and be accountable to the city.
Commissioner Vargas said that we should remember to plan for carpool, carshare, and
autonomous vehicles.
Commissioner Soules asked if the TMA has specific goals for seniors and the disabled.
Staff Member Ott said that they do not specifically address that and are focused
primarily on peak hour congestion issues, but will look at other areas as well.
Commissioner Palmer asked if the TMA would be focusing at all on the car trips
generated by the new development.
Staff Member Ott said the TMA is focused on how to get people out of their cars, but the
city considers vehicle capacity and congestion when planning new developments or
changes in street designs.
Commissioner Vargas suggested that the Transportation Commission agendas be
shared with the TMA Board and that they be invited to listen and participate in meetings
dealing with large projects in order to hear the dialogue from the community.
Commissioner Soules asked what outreach channels have been used to get the word
out about the Harbor Bay parking changes. She asked if the bus would be synched up
with the elementary school dropoffs and still be able to make the 830am ferry.
Staff Member Payne said the bus arrives at the ferry terminal at about 822am, which
means the timing for school drop off is very tight.
Staff Member Ott said they would continue to monitor the fine details and continue to
report back on the results.
Staff Member Payne explained the outreach that included press releases, flyers and
person to person contact with ferry riders in recent months.
4",TransportationCommission/2017-07-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-07-26,5,"6-B Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Approve Draft Transportation Choices Plan
2. Update on 2014 Parking Occupancy Goal and Recommended Parking
Improvements
3. Accept the Annual Report on the Alameda Landing and Marina Shores
Transportation Demand Management Program and Progress on the Citywide
Transportation Management Association
Staff Member Payne listed the above items that will be coming up in future meetings.
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow, resident, said he does not like what he hears related to driverless cars
because it will mean less jobs for people. He said he would prefer to pay people, not
technology. He said he thinks that if there are votes on driverless vehicle policies that
people who work for Google should recuse themselves. He said he thinks security will
be an issue for driverless vehicles. He said he was worried about the delay created for
right hand turning vehicles at Atlantic and Constitution with the proposed changes. He
said he would like to see the traffic models that support the statistics that were quoted.
Commissioner Soules asked if there was a bifurcation in the data for peak hours and off
peak hours in the traffic study.
Staff Member Ott said they will provide any information they have and ask the consultant
for further information if necessary.
Commissioner Vargas asked Mr. Strehlow if he was looking for an answer for just this
one build alternative, or something more broad.
Mr. Strehlow said he was looking for more details of how the model is conducted, not
just what the final data is.
Commissioner Palmer said these questions are prevalent in the community and putting
out more information about this issue could be beneficial for the community.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Vargas adjourned the meeting at 8:15pm.
5",TransportationCommission/2017-07-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-11-18,1,"Approved Minutes
Transportation Commission Meeting
Wednesday, November 18, 2020
Time:
6:30 p.m.
Location:
Due to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners was able to attend
the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom. City Hall was NOT open to
the public during the meeting.
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Nachtigall and Commissioners Hans, Yuen and Weitze.
Absent: Commissioner Kohlstrand.
2.
Agenda Changes - none
3. Staff Communications as shown in the web link here:
  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4692141&GUID=8D171B30-7FE5-4F69-9740-
AC133A1D805E&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
3A. Vacancy on Transportation Commission - To apply, please complete online form:
www.alamedaca.gov/GOVERNMENT/Boards-Commissions/Online-Application
3B. Willie Stargell Complete Street Survey - www.Alamedaca.gov/stargel
3C. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Annual Report on Transportation
2. General Plan Update
3. 10-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
4. Active Transportation Plan Update
5. Intersection Access Equity - Traffic Signal Policy
6. Citywide Roundabouts Analysis
3D. Update on the Subcommittee for the General Plan Update and 10-Year CIP
3E. Future Meeting Dates for 2021 - Meetings start at 6:30 p.m.
1. Wednesday, January 27
2. Wednesday, March 24
3. Wednesday, May 26
4. Wednesday, July 28
5. Wednesday, September 22
6. Wednesday, November 17
3F. Alameda Active Transportation Plan: Latest info at www.ActiveAlameda.org
3G. Alameda County Safe Routes to Schools online resources, activities and webinars during
coronavirus pandemic: http://www.alamedacountysr2s.org/covid-19
3H. Alameda Slow Streets program web page: http://www.slowstreetsalameda.org/
3I. Alameda Commercial Streets program web page:www.alamedaca.gov/commercialstreets
3J. COVID 19 Get Around Safe Pledge: www.alamedaca.gov/AlamedaPledge
3K. Vision Zero Program: www.alamedaca.gov/VisionZero
3L. Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) 2020 Trainings:
ittps://www.alamedaca.gov/Departments/Fire-Department/Alameda-CERT
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
1",TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-11-18,2,"3M. Emergency Alerts for Alameda - Subscribe at AC Alert web page:
https://www.acgov.org/emergencysite/
3N. Regional Emergency Transportation Alerts - Subscribe:
https://511.org/alerts/emergencies/511Alert
30. Clipper Card (adults) - order on line or at Walgreens or set up Autoload to add value
automatically: https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/getTranslink.do
3P. Clipper Card Discounts for youth, seniors and people with disabilities
-
ittps://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/discounts/index.do
3Q. FasTrak or new toll tag for upcoming I-880 Express Lanes scheduled to open late summer 2020:
on line or at Walgreens (except not Park Street location) and then register on line:
https://www.bayareafastrak.org/en/signup/signUp.shtm
3R. City Adaptation Project - web links
www.alamedaca.gov/ShorelineWebsterPoseyTubes
www.alamedaca.gov/ShorelineDoolittleDr
www.alamedaca.gov/ShorelineVeteransCt
4. Announcements / Public Comments
No public comment.
4A. Transportation Commissioner Appreciation of Service Resolution for Commissioner David Johnson
(Information Item)
Chair Soules recognized former Commissioner David Johnson's work on the Transportation Commission
by reading the Appreciation Resolution as shown here:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4692142&GUID=6E20E869-87B5-4AAA-9151-
CF52B01073CF
5. Consent Calendar
5A. Approve Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020 (Action Item) as shown here:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4692143&GUID=6C38C6E2-F113-44B3-B7A
OFBC34881B33&FullText=1
No changes proposed. Commissioner Nachtigall moved to approve as is. Commission Yuen seconded. The
motion passed 5-0.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Recommendation to Approve the Central Avenue Safety Improvement Project Final Concept (Action
Item)
Gail Payne, Senior Transportation Coordinator and Stefan Schuster of CDM Smith, gave a presentation.
The staff report and attachments can be found at:
  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4692144&GUID=26A3562E-9A47-432D-9624-
973193AAOBFO&FullText=1
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
2",TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-11-18,3,"Stefan Schuster also introduced:
Jennifer Cheung of CDM Smith
Michael Bjork of CDM Smith
Szu-han Chen of CDM Smith
Jake Gunther of CDM Smith
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A
Commissioner Weitze asked questions about the plan overall.
Chair Soules asked staff to clarify the current stage of the plan and what comes next.
Staff Payne responded that the 35 percent drawings are complete. Staff is looking to obtain overall project
approval before spending effort on developing detailed designs.
Mr. Schuster added that more details will be developed for roundabouts with all stakeholders. At this time,
the City is looking for approval of the corridor-wide concept with the roundabouts.
Commissioner Weitze stated that there are points of friction that are not totally addressed such as in front
of Encinal High School and at the transitions from two-way bike path to single-sided paths, and he is not
sure why these choices were made.
Staff Payne responded that Encinal School area is confusing today because drop off/pick up is under
construction and there will no longer be a parking lot there. This project will create room for a center turn
lane, and a bus pull-out for a bus to wait out of the traffic lane, just west of the jet and so we expect it to
function better than it does now. The City team is coordinating with the school on the design. As for why
there is a change from a two-way to bike lanes at Eighth Street, this was analyzed in 2015, and there are too
many driveways east of Eighth St, which creates a visibility issue and takes away a lot of parking. The
number of driveways also means the center turn lane is more valuable here. Also, this is Caltrans right of
way, so the City needed to be more conservative.
Mr. Schuster added that the width is constrained and there are large heritage trees that need to be protected.
Commissioner Weitze clarified that he was talking about the change at Central/Pacific from two-way
protected bike lanes to standard bike lanes.
Staff Payne stated that on Main Street, one can use bike lanes or the multi-use pathway on the west side of
the street.
Staff Wikstrom added that the two-way cycle track does merge into a multi-use path. The longer-term plans
are for the cycle track to continue north of Pacific Avenue along Main Street.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
3",TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-11-18,4,"Commissioner Hans asked what the estimated construction period is.
Mr. Schuster stated that he estimates six to eight months, depending on weather, time of year and other
changes.
Chair Soules stated that she has heard that traffic circles can be problematic for the visually impaired and
wanted to clarifications on the accommodations. She questions whether the lower operations and
maintenance costs include the landscaping maintenance and irrigation systems.
Mr. Schuster responded that accessibility measures are included for people with visual impairments,
including tactile domes, refuges within the splitter islands, and shorter, high visibility crossings. He agreed
that landscaping and irrigation would include operations and maintenance costs but less than signals.
Landscape costs would be mitigated with carefully selected native plants and water efficient irrigation
design. but any plants will still have an establishment period when watering is needed of up to the first three
years.
Staff Wikstrom added that while there are long term costs of roundabouts, the traffic signals have many
more regular maintenance and replacement costs, like traffic signal bulbs.
Commissioner Weitze asked why we are keeping some of the all-way stop intersections given the benefits
of roundabouts.
Staff Payne and Mr. Schuster responded that the roundabouts take up more space, so the City cannot install
them in more constrained locations such as Fifth Street, Webster Street and Eighth Street. The City is
considering one at Fourth Street but the budget needs to be considered.
Commissioner Yuen asked what the planned treatment of trees is along the corridor, about the school
coordination and concerns and about the selection of intersections for pedestrian-activated beacons.
Mr. Schuster responded on the trees that it is a priority to save and protect the existing trees. Contractors
will be required to protect the trees to avoid damage. The team is in the middle of a tree study, which is an
inventory of every tree, including species, condition and protection needed. Limited tree removal is
anticipated, and primarily will be on the western end of the project because of the cycle track. The project
will replace these trees, it is anticipated to have a net gain of trees in the corridor.
Staff Payne responded about the school interactions, which have been positive with the schools, district and
principals. For Maya Lin School, students cross at Ninth Street, so the project will install a flashing beacon
at this intersection. At Paden, the principal participated in a bike tour of the project area, and is in favor of
the concept. Originally, the project had included a flashing beacon in front of the school, but the team
believes it is safer for kids to cross at the signalized intersections at Fourth Street and Fifth Street. For
Encinal School, the team was concerned about a roundabout in front of the high school, but found examples
of successful roundabouts in similar locations. Also, the west end has charter schools and ASTI whose
students may use these new facilities.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
4",TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-11-18,5,"Commissioner Yuen asked why there are no beacons at Fourth and Fifth Streets.
Staff Payne responded that the project is hoping to include a roundabout at Fourth Street and that it is
currently signalized. The Fifth Street intersection will be simplified and will include new curb extensions,
high visibility cross-walks and refuge islands. At Ninth Street, the new beacon, as explained, is for Maya
Lin students. St. Charles has been selected to have a flashing beacon since it is a future bike boulevard.
Page Street will have a flashing beacon at the consolidation bus stop location. Lincoln Avenue by Encinal
School will have one to give students a safer crossing.
Vice Chair Nachtigall asked if the City is planning any pedestrian crossing improvements along Lincoln
Avenue since the project is showing that traffic will divert to this street.
Staff Payne responded that the City is having Kittelson Associates do a citywide review of roundabouts,
and may add roundabouts to Lincoln Avenue since it is a wide street. In the Transportation Choices Plan,
there is a corridor-long improvement project planned for Lincoln Avenue.
Staff Wikstrom added that Lincoln Avenue is identified for short-term improvements since it is a high injury
network corridor, which includes daylighting intersections, and possibly high visibility crossings.
Mr. Schuster added that a flashing beacon and a high visibility crosswalk will be added where Lincoln
Avenue and Central Avenue intersect.
Chair Soules had a general question about diversion and what has been studied and how will that study
continue during the design phase particularly for Webster Street given the planned limited turn options at
Central Avenue/Webster Street intersection.
Mr. Schuster stated that the diversion is covered in detail in the TOAR exhibit of the staff report, and it
shows some diversion maps. Webster St. and Eighth St. to Constitution Way are the most preferred routes
in the morning for those motorists trying to leave the island. The project may cause additional motorists to
re-route from Central Avenue to Eighth Street, rather than using Webster Street. No significant impacts to
the intersections along that corridor are expected. On other potential diversion routes, there would be fairly
limited amounts of diversion such as on slower parallel residential streets, which have less time savings.
The team is looking at traffic calming measures at the cross streets to deter cut-through traffic.
Public Comments for #6A
Denyse Trepanier thanked staff for their work, which has come a long way, and has taken a lot to work with
all stakeholders. She stated that she is on the Board of Bike Walk Alameda, and expressed her gratitude
that this project prioritizes what we as a community have said we want to prioritize: safety and climate.
She is heartened that tonight's dialogue is not centered on traffic and parking. It is easy to say that we want
safety and climate, but often it devolves to discussing parking and having it become a chief criterion. She
is thrilled about roundabouts and the cycle track.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
5",TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-11-18,6,"Ruth Abbe stated that she is with Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda, and is active on CASA's
transportation committee. She is very supportive of this project both for its safety and climate benefits. She
really thinks the emphasis on increased safety for walking and biking, and on reducing this as a corridor for
traffic is great. She wants to commend staff and to provide full support.
Christopher Buckley stated that he is a City planner and a tree advocate. He wants to go to bat for preserving
the maximum number of trees and for adding more trees. He understands that trees will be planted, and
discussed options for adding trees even at narrow sidewalk locations with Staff Payne. He wants to ask the
Commission to support these efforts that staff and consultants are doing for tree preservation and to
maximum tree plantings, and to recommend them to Council.
Amos White stated that he is the Founder of 100,000 Trees for Humanity. He is committed to planting this
many trees in Alameda, and to help Alameda meet its 2030 climate goals. He commends the work that the
Commission is doing on this project. He stated that there is no indication in the concept plans of where
trees will be located, but there is talk in the staff report of removing trees, which is concerning. He asks the
Commission to emphasize maximizing tree planting, such as at roundabouts and landscaped areas, and to
minimize any tree removal. He asked the Commission to avoid or minimize as much as possible the
removal of trees and to maximize planting of new trees to support CARP.
John McCabe thanked staff and the consultants. He thinks that this will be a great project. He runs and
bikes in the area. The bike lanes will help him drive less, and the students will be able to bike to school
instead of being driven. The increase in visibility is a big issue for turning on and off Central Avenue. He
is looking forward to the project. The roundabouts are new, and he lives close to a proposed one. These
intersections proposed for roundabouts are really messed up right now, and are really confusing for
motorists, and worse for pedestrians. Roundabouts will make traffic flow better, and will make businesses
more accessible to pedestrians. His only concern is the timing of the project, and he wants to see this get
done faster.
Cynthia Cooper stated that she lives at the corner of Encinal Avenue and Sherman Street. She is pro bike
and trees; however, she is a renter. She expressed that it is very challenging to park. When the economy
was doing well, parking is more difficult. Eight people live in the building, and there are many apartments
and condos in this vicinity. She loves the idea of bicycling but she works in Livermore so she needs to
drive. The project is very concerning. She has lived here since 1994, and has had to sometimes park 2-3
blocks away, which is hard with groceries and at night. It makes for a difficult lifestyle. She requested to
please consider this more. The project is eating up too much parking, and she wanted to know if there is a
way to do this without losing so much parking.
Trish Spencer thanked the Commissioners for comments about the visually impaired people using
roundabouts and does not think it was adequately answered. Regarding impacts on Webster Street and
Central Avenue, she is interested in changes here due to COVID. She is not sure if any changes were made
in the bike/pedestrian/transit/car projections for the project because of COVID. She would like to know
more about the assumptions. She would like to see the increases in bike and pedestrian use and the decreases
in transit be considered and is wondering about changes in driving due to people working at home now.
Jeannine Gravem stated that she is a resident on Sherman Street. She is extremely concerned about the
roundabout at this intersection and is unclear why the project is reducing traffic on Sherman Street with
a
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
6",TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-11-18,7,"cul de sac or right turn only. The project will cause confusion and congestion in that there is a lot of traffic
coming through here. Compressing to one lane in each direction will slow people down and she does not
think a roundabout will work. She is very concerned about parking, too. There are many apartment
buildings in this area, and some do not have garages or driveways. Some households have multiple cars.
She thinks decreasing parking by 23 percent is pretty extreme.
Cyndy Johnsen stated that it is a fantastic project and can't be built soon enough. It has safety for all, more
efficient traffic and less engine idling. It is a win for everyone. She is glad the project is prioritizing safety
and climate over parking. She commends staff on the virtual open house and hope to see more of these in
the future.
Jim Strehlow stated that earlier AC Transit said Webster Street and Central Avenue intersection would not
work for them and asked why there is not more public input on it. Sherman Street looks horrible. He stated
that motorists will become trapped in the middle of the roundabout with pedestrian crossings. He asked if
all the residents have been notified, if the Fire Department has approved, and if the side streets been notified.
The PDF on page 9 lists lost parking spaces as 70, but the PowerPoint shows 122. The numbers are
misleading. The scanned text cannot be searched, and one font is not supported. He wants more public
workshops. There is no participation panel during this meeting so it is unclear how many people are
participating tonight.
Christy Cannon stated that she supports roundabouts in that there would be less idling and less pollution.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A
Chair Soules stated that Staff should take steps to increase transparency and watch the fonts and to confirm
community engagement. She asked if AC Transit and WABA have worked on this project in that they were
not talked about in the presentation, and should be looped back in. She wants to see data on traffic
diversions and the impacts of parking loss. She wants to hear about the Webster Street traffic impacts.
Commissioner Weitze stated that roundabouts are an opportunity to do public art and not just landscaping,
and wants to know what the City has learned from the Shoreline project.
Staff Payne replied that the project could either include art or work it into the design as a future phase. She
stated that the project includes eight-foot wide parking and travel lanes that accommodate trucks so that it
is less cramped than Shoreline. AC Transit supports the project because the lanes are wider than initially
planned, and is fine with consolidating bus stops, which helps them make the turn at Webster Street. WABA
wanted and got a left-turn lane into the foot of Webster Street.
Mr. Shuster added that the project provides space for future potential bus service from the Alameda Point
area near the Pacific Avenue/Main Street roundabout and the Fifth Street intersection. AC Transit also
provided design input on bus stops on the eastern part of the corridor, which have been incorporated. He
feels the project has satisfied AC Transit's requests.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
7",TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-11-18,8,"Commissioner Hans stated that he is proud of City staff in that they have worked hard on this project,
including community engagement, working with WABA and considering schools' needs. He fully supports
the project.
Commissioner Yuen stated that she is a big supporter of this project, and appreciates the focus on multiple
goals: safety, Vision Zero, High Injury Corridors, climate, stormwater management, pedestrian and
bicycling. She supports the roundabouts. The issues of parking and diversions should not slow down this
project. She would like a chance to comment on the tree survey in the final concept.
Staff Payne clarified that this is the final concept for approval, but staff will come back during next steps to
talk about trees. About outreach, staff has done notifications to properties within 300 feet three times since
2015, and there are over 500 people on the Central Avenue email list serv. For parking, the project opens
up some street parking west of Sherman Street where none currently exists. The 2045 projections are worst-
case scenario, pre-covid, SO they probably are accounting for more traffic and they include cumulative
impacts from new development expected in 2045.
Chair Soules stated that if any Commissioners have concerns like parking, trees, diversions, we can request
Council to address them. She requested a friendly amendment to have the tree survey come back to the
Transportation Commission. She asked how many other east-west corridors are planned for a road diet.
Staff Payne replied that there is a proposed project on Lincoln Avenue.
Chair Soules expressed concerns about Lincoln Avenue also getting a road diet in that having road diets in
multiple places could increase commute times, and we need to maintain service levels for transit. She
requested before/after data to show that safer routes allow people to shift modes.
Staff Payne stated that the cycle tracks on both Fernside Blvd. by Lincoln Middle School and on Shoreline
increased bicycling.
Chair Soules stated that high schoolers should be encouraged not to drive.
Staff Payne stated that Encinal School is removing the student parking lot making it more difficult for
students to drive. The countywide Safe Routes to School program is increasing outreach to high schoolers,
as well as free bus passes and Island High School currently receives them.
Chair Soules is concerned about public engagement because the project has been going on for so long that
some people have moved away, and new people have moved in. She asked if there has been outreach over
the last few years.
Staff Payne stated that there have been five public workshops since 2013 with the last two in the past few
years: one in December 2018 and another one was one month ago in October as a virtual open house for
multiple weeks, which still exists on the Central Avenue web page. The City has done notifications to
adjacent properties three times, and provided postcards to Webster Street all the way to Santa Clara Avenue
and to the block of Sherman Street south of the roundabout for the recent virtual workshop.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
8",TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-11-18,9,"Vice Chair Nachtigall thanked City staff for a comprehensive staff report. She supports the project's safety
improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, the roundabout recommendations and minimizing tree
removals.
Chair Soules stated that Commissioner Kohlstrand expressed a concern about increased traffic on Eighth
Street, which would get heavy traffic diverted from Webster Street. Chair Soules also stated that the public
street is not there for private parking storage. She expressed concerns about diversions and outreach to
renters.
Staff Payne replied that all residents along the corridor including renters received notifications as well as
property owners.
Public Comments for #6A
Jeanine Gravem stated that the notification was not done well for Sherman Street in that she first heard of
the project when she received the postcard for the recent workshop.
Donna Gravem stated that the City should take into consideration the age of the Sherman Street area. Many
of the houses were built before cars were common, so there is not a lot of off-street parking. Please take
that into consideration.
Cynthia Cooper appreciates that Chair Soules heard the parking concerns and she supports a parking permit
idea. She agrees that Eighth Street can be challenging, and it can be tough to get off the island.
Commissioner Comments and Discussion for #6A
Vice Chair Nachtigall made a motion to support the final concept
Chair Soules added the following friendly amendments: to minimize tree removals and maximize tree
plantings, to look at ways to mitigate parking loss, to ensure that the outreach is sufficient, to mitigate traffic
diversion and transit performance issues and to bring back traffic diversions, parking and the landscaping
plan to the TC.
Commissioner Hans seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5-0.
7. Announcements / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow stated that the current Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way light timing is bad and need to
wait a long time as a pedestrian and a bicyclist so the loop detectors need to work better.
8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2020
9",TransportationCommission/2020-11-18.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-07-24,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes: Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Commissioner Jesus Vargas called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Michele Bellows
Thomas G. Bertken
Sandy Wong
Eric Schatmeier
Staff Present:
Staff Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Staff Alan Ta, Public Works Assistant Engineer
Staff Heba El Guendy, Public Works Supervising Civil Engineer
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Commissioner Vargas attended the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and
Associated Bay Area Governments (ABAG) meeting on July 19th regarding the One Bay Area
Plan and the adoption of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Ultimately, he was glad to see
land use and transportation planning coming together.
Alex Nguyen, Alameda City Manager, introduced Heba El Guendy, Supervising Civil Engineer,
who is in charge of the City's transportation unit.
Staff El Guendy said that she joined the City's Public Works Department a month ago and her
24-years of experience centers on traffic engineering, roadway design and transportation
planning. She explained that she has experience as a consultant and has worked for several years
in the public sector. Additionally, she said she is passionate about the implementation of
complete streets.
4.
Consent Calendar
4A.
Meeting Minutes - June 26, 2013
Page 1 of 10",TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-07-24,2,"Commissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Bellows seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 5-0; 1 abstention.
5.
New Business
5A. Resident Appeal of Public Works Staff's Decision to Not Install the No Parking Street
Sweeping Signs on the 2600 Block of La Jolla Drive
Staff Ta gave an overview of the item.
Commissioner Schatmeier clarified with staff that their recommendation was to not recommend
the signs.
Staff Ta replied staff is recommending the signs not be installed.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if the installation of the signs have any influence on the number
of times the streets are swept.
Staff Ta explained that the residential streets have a set schedule and they are swept on a weekly
basis.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if the signs are not installed, then occasionally cars will be in
the way.
Staff Ta replied yes.
Commissioner Vargas said he spoke with a City sergeant about the fact that his street was swept
across the street where there are signs and later into the day they swept the other side without
signs. He then asked about the safety implications if the signs are not added.
Staff Ta replied he is not aware of any safety impacts with the signs being present or not.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Ann Leonardo, resident of La Jolla Drive, created the petition because the street cleaner comes
up Broadway, enters into the La Jolla and attempts to get into the cul-de-sac, which is 125 feet
long, and cannot because of the parked cars. Consequently, the street cleaner continues up
Broadway. She apologized to the staff and Commission for the amount of time that it has taken
to review the issue. When she decided to execute the petition, she attempted to notify her
neighbors by knocking on their doors. She felt the street around the cul-de-sac is used as a kind
of catch all for parking.
Robert Erdmann, resident of La Jolla Drive, reviewed the staff report, public comments and
appeal. He stated that all opposing comments were address in Staff Ta's notes during his field
Page 2 of 10",TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-07-24,3,"visit on October 22nd. He sent an email the next day and thanked Staff Ta for coming out and
made it clear that he was against the no parking street sweeping signs and parking restrictions on
the 2600 La Jolla Drive block.
Commissioner Miley asked the residents if the gutters and curbs are generally clean on their
block.
Ann Leonardo replied that she hired a gardener to clean the 80-foot strip in front of her house.
The gardener clears the gutter and he blows underneath cars. However, she felt the residents
should not have to do it if there is a street cleaning vehicle going up and down the streets.
Robert Erdmann replied that he grew up on the block and his continued duty is to pick up some
occasional leaves and soda cans. He stated tall trees are not present on their block and the wind
blows some leaves from the other block, but he sweeps them up because it is not a huge issue.
Periodically, on Thursdays, there are not many cars on the street so they could get into the street.
Commissioner Schatmeier confirmed with Robert Erdmann that at times the street sweeper is
unable to clean the gutter area.
Robert Erdmann said he is usually at work, but his wife does occasionally see the street sweeper
unable to get into the gutter area.
Commissioner Wong referred to page 5 of the staff report where there are two pictures of a
typical Thursday street cleaning morning compared to a non-street sweeping morning. Overall,
the snap shots look like there are more cars. So, she asked if staff could look into moving the
street sweeping day to a time when it is not as heavily used.
Staff Ta replied staff has spoken to the maintenance department and asked if they could move the
time, but the City's street sweeping schedule is a complicated matrix and to change it for a 125-
foot cul-de-sac is not a reasonable use of staff time.
Commissioner Wong asked staff what are the scheduled street sweeping dates for Broadway.
Staff Ta replied the days are Monday and Thursday.
Commissioner Wong explained since the opposite side of Broadway is on Monday then the street
sweeper could go down the cul-de-sac since it is a non-street sweeping day. Additionally, based
on the photo from the presentation the cul-de-sac would be less impacted by cars.
Staff Ta replied that there would still be an impact of parked cars regardless of the day.
Commissioner Miley asked if the City is required to sweep 100 percent of City streets.
Staff Ta replied that the City has a schedule to sweep all the public streets, but he is not certain of
City policy.
Commissioner Bellows said her street contained signs on one side because it was needed to
Page 3 of 10",TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-07-24,4,"maintain the overflow and water quality of the Bay from the affluent running off during storms.
She went on to say residents could request the signs, but 50 percent or more residents must agree
with the need to erect signs and restrict parking. Ultimately, the City is meeting and exceeding
the requirement to sweep the streets and the City does not have to sweep every street because the
outflow to the Bay is far less.
Commissioner Miley replied that the City has a broader standard and not just a block-by-block
policy.
Commissioner Miley moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Bellows seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5B. Encinal High School Improvements - Phase II
Staff Ta presented the report.
Commissioner Bellows asked if Taylor Avenue would still be two-way.
Staff Ta replied yes.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff based on the improvements initially there were 20 movements
and in Phase II would there be far fewer movements.
Staff Ta replied yes.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if there are warrants to be checked regarding the stop signs.
Staff Ta replied that there are, but they are reviewing them qualitatively. Also, based on the
geometry and the layout of the five-way intersection, if three cars appear it is hard to see which
car goes first. Consequently, the intersection would not be a great candidate for an all-way stop
sign.
Commissioner Miley asked about the peak-hour traffic volumes and how many cars are coming
from Central Avenue or Third Street and turning onto Taylor Avenue.
Staff Ta said that the counts are found in the presentation.
Commissioner Wong said that she understood the bus stop relocation, which makes sense.
However, on the opposite side found on Figure 15, ""Passenger Loading Zone"", there is
significant congestion in the morning compared to the afternoon. So, if they put the Passenger
Loading Zone 4 right there, then that block or create congestion even though cars are pulling to
the side. She felt one of the main issues are drivers who are coming from Central Avenue
towards the high school stop in the middle of the intersection when students are entering the
crosswalk from Third Street across Central Avenue instead of stopping by Central Avenue and
Taylor Avenue. She went on to explain that all motorists should stop where they are supposed to
stop because cars on Central Avenue would line up until they almost touched the kids. Third
Street becomes backed up and drivers going down Central Avenue cannot pass the traffic and
Page 4 of 10",TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-07-24,5,"make sweeping turns onto Taylor Avenue.
Staff Ta replied that they reviewed it and were thinking of a few other options, but their priorities
were to improve pedestrian and bicycle access.
Commissioner Wong asked staff to move the drop off point down to the corner near the student
parking driveway and access to the bay because it is less congested. She emphasized not at the
five-way intersection but nearby so only one crosswalk would be moved.
Staff Ta replied that staff could review the benefits of relocating the passenger-loading zone to
possibly two locations. Also, he noted they have been working with Encinal High School and
Alameda Unified School District on the improvements.
Staff Payne referred to Exhibit 3 in the staff report and asked Staff Ta if they were still working
with the school district or is it on hold. She just wanted clarification because that passenger
loading zone is east of the driveway.
Staff Ta replied that it is still a recommendation.
Commissioner Wong stated she understood that, but on the opposite side there are near misses
when cars approach on Central Avenue going westbound from Taylor Avenue and Third Street.
Commissioner Bellows stated that she supported Commissioner Wong's comments and asked
staff with the projected future growth and warrant for the flashing beacon are these proposed
improvements compatible with this structure.
Staff Ta replied that he does not see them as being incompatible.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff based on the illustration presented if the street narrows down
as it approaches the other crosswalk at Lincoln Avenue.
Staff Ta replied that the street opens at the crosswalk.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Jerry Juhala said for part of last year he helped Officer Yakas conduct crosswalk duties at the
school in the mornings. He fully supported the Public Work proposal. He urged the Commission
to do at least some of the items proposed before the school year begins. He recommended that
they erect the portable signage that says ""No left turn from Central onto Third Street"" and ""No
left turn from Taylor Avenue onto Third Street."" The signs would make it significantly safer for
students to cross going to school and the signage has limited cost. He felt any change would
require an educational period for the students and parents. Furthermore, he thought that the
loading zones are a good idea, and would help stop parents dropping kids in the middle of the
intersection.
Karen Greaves, Taylor Avenue resident, said her biggest issue is the restriction of turning onto
Taylor Avenue from Central Avenue and Third Street. She felt Taylor Avenue is not the issue,
Page 5 of 10",TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-07-24,6,"but it is the parents that are in a hurry and want to drop their children off at the most convenient
place. This recommendation is not the right solution.
Kurt Peterson, Block Captain of 200 Santa Clara Avenue, said they had two community
meetings and he attended the last meeting. He noted that the congestion problem is one hour of
every weekday and the overwhelming issue is speeding cars headed towards Third Street. He
found over 90 percent of the residents did not want to see Taylor Avenue closed, but the staff
wants to recommend partially closing Taylor Avenue. Police presence of one hour of every day
would help. He complained that the City did not provide an email with the community
comments after the meeting.
Debbie Jennings, Taylor Avenue resident, created the petition and obtained the signatures to
object to the change. She said that the intersection does not meet the qualification for traffic
signals, but does that mean that the state of California would not allow the City to install the
lights or does that mean if the City installed the lights then the City must pay the bill. She
recommended having a no left turn at anytime during the AM and PM school rush, but closing
Taylor Avenue is not going to solve the problem.
Wendell Stewart, Santa Clara Avenue resident, said he supported Kurt Peterson's comments, and
that only one hour each day is a problem.
Sonja Christianson considered herself an expert because she has lived in the area for over 18
years and walked across that crosswalk to take her child to Paden Elementary every morning.
She felt that the traffic speed is one of the biggest issues and it is not addressed in the
presentation. Also, occasionally she crossed the intersection going on a walk, and they have not
addressed the most dangerous intersection is Lincoln Avenue and Central Avenue due to the
curves and the speeding. She requested a traffic signal.
Harold Jennings, disagreed with blocking entry onto Taylor Avenue and during the school
hours, he supported a crossing guard or a police presence. Overall, he recommended that the City
spend more time looking at the intersection.
Susan Hodges said she does not live in Alameda, but her grandson goes to Encinal High School,
and she attended all of the public meetings. The majority of the attendees wanted an on-demand
stop light. She supported moving the bus stop, the crosswalk, but the stop light would help.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, explained that he
has ridden through this intersection before and he is glad that the intersection is getting attention.
The previous speaker mentioned an on-demand stop light, and he suggested that there be an on
demand, all direction stop pedestrian signal. The action would demonstrate the Commission and
City's belief in a pedestrian friendly City. Also, a uniform no left turn during the peak periods
similar to San Francisco's policy would help.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if other warrants besides traffic counts could help erect the
traffic signal.
Staff El Guendy replied that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provide
Page 6 of 10",TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-07-24,7,"for eight warrants that are needed to erect a traffic signal. However, even if all eight warrants are
met, the final approval is subject to engineering judgment. She stated that staff provided
significant information in the report with two alternatives to address the communities' concerns.
She also explained the cost for a full signal at the five-legged intersection would equal to
$500,000 or more, and the City would be responsible for the bill. Also, if they were to install
signals that are not warranted that would subject the City to liability if a collision were to occur.
Unwarranted stop signals increase certain types of collisions such as car rear and right angle
collisions.
Commissioner Schatmeier referred to Jon Spangler's comments about restricting left turn
movements during peak hours and that is already done on Park Street. He asked staff if it could
be considered an alternative rather than closing Taylor Avenue.
Staff Ta replied that some of the signage already has been addressed, and staff wanted to
maintain the westbound Central Avenue left turn for people who live east of the school to access
the back of the school. Also, staff wanted to allow motorists coming down Third Street to bypass
congestion at the crosswalk on Central Avenue.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he was sympathetic to the sweeping turns that were presented in
the report. However, he understood the residents' concerns of closing off the street. Ultimately,
he was looking to find an alternative to address both issues and restricting access during peak
periods on Central Avenue coming from the base onto Taylor Avenue might help.
Staff Ta explained that the improvement provided a refuge and visibility to the motorist and
allowed them to creep out without concerns of the sweeping movements. Staff addressed Taylor
Avenue residents' concerns in the alternative proposal.
Alex Nguyen asked Staff Ta to go over the alternative proposal with the Commission.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff to go over the public's response of the alternative proposal.
Staff Ta explained that based on the community's input with a permanent limitation onto Taylor
Avenue staff developed this alternative, which is very similar in design, but maintains the
movement inbound so during off peak hours there is no change to the intersection, but peak
hours they could not turn from Central onto Taylor Avenues. However, motorists would be able
to enter onto Taylor Avenue from Third Street and there would be signage located within the
vicinity of Encinal High School to restrict left turns.
Commissioner Vargas asked Debbie Jennings if her group reviewed staff's alternative proposal
Debbie Jennings replied that there is some support from the residents.
Kurt Peterson stated that you need a raised barrier in the red area illustrated in the presentation.
Also, the unsafe turn from Central Avenue onto Third Street is needed to be addressed.
Commissioner Miley wondered if the Safe Routes to School program could provide funding
opportunities.
Page 7 of 10",TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-07-24,8,"Staff El Guendy replied that high schools are eligible for federal Safe Routes to School grants.
Also, there might be some regional funds available.
Staff Payne stated that Measure B does not have a competitive grant program.
Commissioner Miley felt that the best thing was to have physical presence to oversee activity, but
that requires funding. He supported the alternative to the recommendation and staff should
identify grant opportunities.
Commissioner Bertken stated that if they are forming the motion that they should include
recommendation two.
Commissioner Wong asked staff how long would they study affects after implementation and
would the study look at the population increases.
Staff El Guendy replied that the study would be dictated by the school season and staff could
conduct additional observations for the stop control.
Commissioner Schatmeier said the concern is the left hand turn from eastbound Central Avenue
onto Taylor Avenue and staff presented it as a sweeping turn that caused safety concerns. So,
signs limiting the turn during peak hours would be erected, but he did not hear about a stop sign
being installed in that direction.
Staff El Guendy replied installing a stop sign for Central Avenue would require both directions.
Thus, warrants would have to be evaluated for the overall intersection for all approaches.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if staff was proposing a stop sign on Central Avenue.
Staff El Guendy said no.
Alex Nguyen asked for clarification before the Commission made a motion. He asked the
Commission if staff should not go ahead with the big loading zone until they studied the
possibility of moving it down across the other loading zone.
Commissioner Wong recommended the alternative to staff's recommendation with further study
of moving the loading zone.
Commissioner Bertken said Donald Lum Elementary School has yield markings located before
the crosswalk where motorists are supposed to stop and wondered if that could be included in
this proposal.
Staff Ta replied they are ""Yield here for pedestrian"" markings with triangles across the street like
shark teeth and they could review adding them to the proposal.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to accept the alternative to the recommendation one with
staff to review Commissioner Wong's recommendation to shift the loading zone # 4 from its
Page 8 of 10",TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-07-24,9,"current location further down to Lincoln and Central Avenue. He also added that staff should
review Commissioner Bertken's comment to add ""Yield to pedestrian"" markings painted on
Central Avenue.
Commissioner Schatmeier commented that staff should study the traffic volumes for the
sweeping turn, which was one of the differences between staff's recommendation and the
alternate.
Commissioner Vargas asked Sergeant Simmons his opinion about staff's recommendation one
and the alternate based on a safety perspective.
Sergeant Ron Simmons, Alameda Police Traffic Section Supervisor, felt the first
recommendation was the safest recommendation based on pedestrian and bicycle movements,
and he appreciated alternative two, but he would like to see ""No stopping anytime"" signs on the
curve of the sweeping turn from westbound Central Avenue to eastbound Taylor Avenue
because he noticed when painted red the parents stop at that intersection to drop-off their kids.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the alternative to staff's recommendation and review
Commissioners Wong, Bertken, and Shatmeier's comments as well as exploring future funding.
Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5C. Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff about the conclusion of Neptune Park pathway after they
approved the IN and Out Burger development.
Staff Payne stated that is under Alameda Landing Remnant Parcel Updates under item #6.
6.
Staff Communications
Changed Date for Next Regular Transportation Commission Meeting
- Tuesday, September 24 at 7 p.m., City Council Chambers
Special Transportation Commission Meeting with the Planning Board on Monday,
September 30 at 7 p.m., City Council Chambers (Main Item of Discussion - Revised
Draft Regional Transit Access Study)
Alameda Landing Remnant Parcel Updates
-
Went to the Planning Board on Monday, July 22. The use permit for the Chase Bank,
In and Out Burger driver thru aisle, and Safeway Gas station with exception with
wine and beer was approved. On August 12, the project is headed for the site design
and landscaping. Approval is subject to the provision of the crosswalk on Stargell
Avenue and Webster Street, which is in the state right-of-way. Now, staff is
communicating with Caltrans to get approval of the crosswalk. There will be a
meeting with Caltrans next week to get feedback on the alternatives to the design.
Additionally, staff will apply for an encroachment permit for the installation of a
Page 9 of 10",TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-07-24,10,"pedestrian signal at that leg and the establishment of the crosswalk. Overall, the site
plan has been revised and a fence in the center median on Stargell Avenue was
included to prevent jaywalking and mid-block crossing.
AC Transit Line OX - Opening to Local Riders
BART Strike Updates and Lessons Learned
-
There may be a BART Strike on Monday, August 5.
-
Commissioner Bellows said she received positive comments on how the City handled
the BART strike because residents said it went smoothly.
-
Commissioner Shatmeier said that two days ago, he was catching the bus towards the
coliseum and usually he takes the Harbor Bay Ferry. He saw a sign that says City of
Alameda shuttle to the ferry and he was not aware of it. He would like to know how
the City is getting the word out about the service.
-
Staff Payne replied that she sent out an announcement to the Commission email list
serv about the shuttle and staff set up a City webpage about the BART strike, which
included information about the shuttle. Moreover, she linked the shuttle to the
511.org website.
Posey and Webster Tube Rehabilitation Project - Next Steps
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
-
Revised Draft Regional Transit Access Study
-
AC Transit Line 51A Performance Initiative Grant
-
Alameda Point Planning Document
-
AC Transit Comprehensive Operations Analysis
-
Alameda Ferry Terminal Station Access Plan
-
City of Alameda Transit Disruption Plan
-
Port of Oakland's Ron Cowan Parkway Proposed Class I Path
-
Traffic Control and Contingency Plan during Construction for I-880/29th Ave./23rd
Ave. Interchange Improvement Plan in Oakland: Public Information Program and
Transit Impacts
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Jon Spangler wanted to say the BART Pilot project looks good, but the July BART strike did
slow things down because it took away their first 5-days. Yet, they are working on getting the
bikes through and the BART Board is scheduled to evaluate the outcome in October.
8.
Adjournment
9:04 pm
Page 10 of 10",TransportationCommission/2013-07-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-01-24,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2018
Chair Bellows convened the meeting at 7:00pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Bellows, Vice-Chair Vargas, Commissioners Bertken, Soules.
Absent: Commissioners Hans, Miley, Palmer.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
*None*
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow thanked Public Works for keeping on top of the leaves in the streets. He
asked what the detour signs near Otis and Fernside were for. He said a flashing
crosswalk is needed at Harvard and Fernside.
Staff Member Payne said there would be some night time closures of the Bay Farm
Bridge to do maintenance work and the announcements are on the website. She said
residents could use SeeClickFix to request traffic calming efforts. She said the city hired
a new engineer, Robert Vance, to work on the city's traffic calming and capital
improvement plans.
Staff Member Vance introduced himself to the commission.
3A
Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 7:00 p.m.
3B
2018-5117
Upcoming Grant-Funded Bicycle Safety Education Classes: February 12 and
February 28, 2018
The flyers can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3309108&GUID=6599A16A-
CAAF-4DAC-8696-E1A464857057
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4A 2018-5118
Approve Meeting Minutes - November 15, 2017 (Action)
Vice-Chair Vargas noted that he was absent from the November meeting.
Chair Bellows said that we did not have a quorum to approve the minutes and would
have to wait until the next meeting to approve them.
1",TransportationCommission/2018-01-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-01-24,2,"5. NEW BUSINESS
5A 2018-5123
Approve the City of Alameda Transportation Program Plan for Seniors and
People with Disabilities for Fiscal Year 2018/2019 (Action)
Victoria Williams, Paratransit Coordinator, gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachment can be found at:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3312459&GUID=A99E4217-
6663-4E87-B5F6-D4FD2OFD2A63&FullText=
Chair Bellows asked if the Measure BB funding will continue and be able to sustain the
program into the future.
Staff Member Williams said she thinks they will be able to continue to provide their
services, noting that the large capital expenditures would not be necessary in the future.
Commissioner Soules asked how many stops are co-located with AC Transit stops.
Staff Member Williams said about ten stops were co-located.
Commissioner Soules suggested getting the service added to the transit feature of
Google Maps, which could help ridership.
Chair Bellows opened the public hearing.
Pat Potter, CASA and Bike Walk Alameda, asked if tricycles had been considered by the
program to provide for seniors who would like to get outdoors.
Commissioner Vargas asked how the Cross Alameda Trail would help the program.
Staff Member Williams said it would help provide options for seniors to safely get places
and get exercise, and said it connects some shuttle stops.
Staff Member Payne said the separate trails and mid-block crossing near Independence
Plaza would be assisted by this funding.
Commissioner Vargas said that the connection may need a little more explanation to
justify that connection. He asked why there was a planned drop in the outreach cost.
Staff Member Payne said that they are doing the big push for outreach now and that by
next year will be able to reduce that number.
Commissioner Bertken asked if the vouchers were still available.
2",TransportationCommission/2018-01-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-01-24,3,"Staff Member Johnson said the vouchers are still available and the price has been
further reduced.
Commissioner Vargas made a motion to approve the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Soules seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
5B 2018-5124
Discuss Repairing Alameda's Aging Infrastructure (Information)
Staff Member Ott gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3312460&GUID=7A7A901C-
  CDBO-4E4A-A924-206B55E63DB7&FullText=1
Commissioner Soules asked how the data would be aggregated.
Staff Member Ott said this qualitative survey is following up on the annual community
survey quantitative work.
Commissioner Soules asked how they were ensuring feedback from the broader
community and not just those that have time to seek out the survey.
Staff Member Ott listed some of the stakeholder and community groups that they have
been reaching out to hear from all segments of the community.
Commissioner Soules said she would like to see the entire list of groups that were
reached out to on the city's social media feeds. She said that the disaster preparedness
information on the website needs updating and could be a focus of the efforts. She said
we are trying to focus on people who need and want to use transit services and get rid of
their cars, which means we need emergency plans for those populations.
Staff Member Payne said she recently took the CERT class, which helps community
members understand what the emergency response plan would be.
Commissioner Vargas asked if a chart could be developed to show the percentages of
funds needed in different areas to help identify alternative sources of funding.
Staff Member Ott said that they are developing some of that information internally and
would pass the feedback on to share that data more widely.
Commissioner Vargas asked how much response there has been and if there is
metadata available.
Staff Member Ott said they are doing scientific surveys, but she does not have that data
available at the moment.
3",TransportationCommission/2018-01-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-01-24,4,"5C 2018-5125
Approve Proposed Transportation Program and Fees for Alameda Point Existing
Businesses Consistent with the Alameda Point Transportation Demand
Management Plan (Action)
Staff Member Ott gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3312471&GUID=7543762B-
DF1-4D12-8B68-5285AC40CAC2&FullText=
Chair Bellows opened the public hearing.
Jim Strehlow said there is no TDM solution for certain types of businesses and taxing
them based on square footage would not be fair. He said he would understand if it were
an infrastructure tax instead of trying to just get people out of their cars. He said it is
unfair to people who have storage units at Alameda Point.
J.P. Frary said he hopes his employees will use the EasyPasses. He said they were a
little concerned about the administrative costs and the responsiveness of some of the
TMA board members. He suggested charging for parking at the ferries to support
transportation in Alameda. He says ten people in his building would use the bicycle
incentive.
Staff Member Ott said they are close to going public with a strategy for Main St. parking
plans. She explained the bylaws of the TMA determine who sits on the board. She
explained who was on the board and why they were chosen. She said they did their best
to pick people that represented the different interests on the base and terms are up
every three years. She explained the process they went through to come up with
appropriate fees based on different land uses.
Commissioner Vargas asked if a renter of a storage unit would see any fees.
Staff Member Ott said that the owner of the property would receive the invoice.
Commissioner Soules asked what the routine engagement would be for the TMA.
Staff Member Ott said they would have immediate issues to come before the
commission for input on. She said they could invite the board members to future
commission meetings.
Commissioner Vargas suggested adjusting TMA fees for employers who hire locally.
Staff Member Ott said they could look at that. She said they often see employers come
here first, then their employees move to the island.
4",TransportationCommission/2018-01-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-01-24,5,"Commissioner Bertken made a motion to approve the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Vargas seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6A 2018-5126
Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and
Plans (Information)
Staff Member Payne gave the staff report. The staff report can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3312486&GUID=BCBAF319-
4C77-42AB-9444-OBEF5BC07731&FullText=1
6B Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Line 96 Route Adjustments
2. One-Way Carshare
3. 2014 Parking Occupancy Goal Update
4. Traffic Calming Draft Policy and Prioritized List
5. Approve Alameda Transportation Demand Management Annual Report
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
*None*
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bellows adjourned the meeting at 8:30pm.
5",TransportationCommission/2018-01-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-09-28,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Philip Tribuzio
Jesus Vargas
Kathy Moehring
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Minutes
Due to lack of quorum, the approval of the minutes for the June 22, 2011 will be moved to the
next meeting.
3.
Oral Communications - Non-Agenda
John Spangler announced the PedalFest event on the waterfront at Jack London Square, which
will take place on Saturday, October 22 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. The event is produced by
Jack London Square, East Bay Bicycle Coalition, Walk Oakland Bike Oakland and Bay Area
Bikes. It is a free celebration of bikes, and includes stunts, a bicycle parade, vintage bikes and
handmade bikes.
John Spangler announced a memorial event in honor of Brendan Sorenson at Lincoln Middle
School on Sunday, November 6 between 12 noon and 4:30 p.m. The event will include a bike
safety course and a memorial ride before dark.
John Spangler requested that Island Drive include on-street bicycle facilities if any development
with the golf course moves forward. On-street bicycle facilities will help with traffic calming,
especially near Amelia Earhart Elementary School. He also requests full pedestrian access
across Doolittle Drive at Island Drive.
Page 1 of 3",TransportationCommission/2011-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-09-28,2,"4.
New Business
4A.
Presentation of Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and
Plans.
Staff Payne summarized the staff report.
Commissioner Moehring requested to see the timeline for the Park Street Streetscape project and
expressed concern that construction would occur during the holiday season.
Staff Khan stated that the City staff is coordinating with the local businesses and contractors to
work around the busy times so as to minimize the impacts to the businesses. He promised to
send a project schedule to the commissioners.
Commissioner Vargas complimented staff on the Island Drive overlay, which included ADA
improvements and bike facility enhancements. He is interested to know about other
opportunities to comment on potential future development in the area.
Staff Khan stated that a Planning Board meeting on Monday, October 24 will discuss the
potential development at the golf course. It will be a scoping session for the EIR, which then
will go to the City Council. Comments from the TC meetings will be forwarded to the Planning
Board and City Council.
Commissioner Vargas requested information on future transportation funding opportunities.
Staff Khan responded by naming the key funding sources: Measure B, American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA), vehicle registration fee and the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP). Local jurisdictions score their streets based on a Pavement Condition Index
(PCI). Deferred maintenance in the City is continuing to go up as the City continues to
experience approximately $3 million annual deficit in street maintenance. The City's annual
street maintenance needs are approximately $5 million. Alameda's streets are showing at a 69
PCI whereas the optimal PCI is in the 70s. MTC states that it will cost $5 billion over 28 years
to maintain streets just in Alameda County at the existing PCI levels and $7.5 billion to improve
the streets to a more optimal PCI level. Resurfacing streets helps all modes. Resurfacing
addresses ADA improvements such as ramps and restripes bike lanes and improves transit stops.
5.
Staff Communications
Staff Payne promoted the Guaranteed Ride Home Program and handed out information on the
program.
Staff will present TSM/TDM strategies at a future meeting - potentially next month. Draft
Bicycle Design Guidelines will be presented in November. Staff will work with the Chair on
items. Staff Payne reminded the committee that the November and December meetings are held
on the third Wednesday of these months to avoid the holidays.
Page 2 of 3",TransportationCommission/2011-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-09-28,3,"Commissioner Vargas requested to consider on the agenda information about development
opportunities involving neighbors, land acquisitions and traffic studies to review.
6.
Announcements
Commissioner Vargas stated that he was invited to Sacramento for a transportation safety event
associated with Caltrans, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the California Highway Patrol.
One of the issues highlighted is educating youth to not text and drive - safety first.
Commissioner Moehring requested that ""Public Comments"" be added in the beginning of the
agenda as a courtesy to the public.
Staff Khan suggested adding it as a sub-bullet to ""Oral Communications - Non-Agendized
Items.""
John Spangler announced that the East Bay Bicycle Coalition (EBBC), which has 3,000
members, teaches bicycle safety in Alameda County. The instructors plan to expand the
program to schools. There are different classes ranging from a one-hour commuter class and
family clinic to a three-hour class or an all day course. Bonnie Wehmann is the Educational
Coordinator for the EBBC and also is an Alameda resident.
Commissioner Vargas commented that a bicycle club may be forming at Alameda High School.
7.
Adjournment
7:41 PM
Page 3 of 3",TransportationCommission/2011-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-03-23,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
March 23, 2005
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 9:40 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
Jeff Knoth
Patianne Parker
John Knox White
Robb Ratto
Michael Krueger
Eric Schatmeier
Robert McFarland
Staff Present:
Barbara Hawkins - Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works
Barry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
No action was taken.
3.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None.
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
None.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
5A.
Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study (continued from February 23, 2005 meeting)
Chair Knox White noted that the proposed bike lanes on Clement Avenue are only five feet wide,
yet the connecting bike lanes on Atlantic Avenue are six feet wide. He stated that the proposed
travel lanes on Clement Avenue are 12 to14 feet wide. Chair Knox White noted that Caltrans
requires lanes to be less than 12 feet wide on highways, and stated that the travel lanes on
Clement Avenue could be narrower, even with the presence of a truck route. He recommended
that the bike lanes be widened to six or seven feet in width along this corridor.
Chair Knox White recommended that the proposed off-street paths include separate bicycle and
pedestrian facilities since sufficient space appeared to be available. This should help avoid
conflicts, as trail users would not have to compete for space as they currently do along the path
adjacent to Shoreline Drive.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
1
Page 1 of 2",TransportationCommission/2005-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-03-23,2,"Commissioner Krueger also recommended that wider bike lanes be used along Clement Avenue.
He noted that at times he bikes and rides along Atlantic Avenue, which has 12-foot travel lanes
and six-foot bike lanes, and believes that this configuration works well. Commissioner Krueger
noted that this section of Atlantic Avenue is a designated truck route, similar to the proposed
Clement Avenue extension. He expressed concern that wider travel lanes would encourage
speeding by motor vehicles.
Commissioner Parker moved acceptance of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study,
including the recommendations from the Commission. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the
motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 7.
6.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
i:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2005\0405\minutes032305-final.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
2
Page 2 of 2",TransportationCommission/2005-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-09-23,1,"Approved Minutes
Transportation Commission Meeting
Wednesday, September 23, 2020
Time:
6:30 p.m.
Location:
Due to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners were
able to attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom.
City Hall was NOT open to the public during the meeting.
Legistar Link:
https://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=760090&GUID=4152DF75-6717-443E-
9689-38C92CB3CD4B&Options=info/&Search=
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules, and Commissioners Yuen, Kohlstrand, Hans, and Weitze.
Absent: Vice Chair Nachtigall and Commissioner Johnson.
2. Agenda Changes
None.
3. Staff Communications
3-A Electric Vehicle 101 Webinar: Wed, Sept 30 at 6:30 p.m. - sponsored by Alameda Municipal
Power - - https://www.alamedamp.com/349/Electric-Vehicles
3-B Central Avenue and Encinal Avenue Project Joint Virtual Open House, October 1-20,
www.alamedaca.gov/Central
3-C Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Ten-Year Capital Improvement Program for Transportation Projects
2. Central Avenue Final Design Approval / Encinal Avenue Project Update
3. Traffic Signal Policy
4. Oakland Alameda Access Project Update
5. Active Transportation Plan Update
3-D Future Meeting Dates for 2020 - Meetings start at 6:30 p.m.
1. Wednesday, October 28 (special meeting)
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
September 23, 2020
1",TransportationCommission/2020-09-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-09-23,2,"2. Wednesday, November 18
3-E Alameda Active Transportation Plan: Latest info at www.ActiveAlameda.org
3-F Alameda County Safe Routes to Schools online resources, activities, and webinars during
coronavirus pandemic: :http://www.alamedacountysr2s.org/covid-19
3-G Alameda Slow Streets program web page: http://www.slowstreetsalameda.org
3-H Alameda Commercial Streets program web page: www.alamedaca.gov/commercialstreets
3-I COVID 19 Get Around Safe Pledge: www.alamedaca.gov/AlamedaPledge
3-J Vision Zero Program: www.alamedaca.gov/VisionZero
3-K
Community
Emergency
Response
Team
(CERT)
2020
Trainings:
ps://www.alamedaca.gov/Departments/Fire-Department/Alameda-CERT
3-L Emergency Alerts for Alameda - Subscribe at AC Alert web page:
https://www.acgov.org/emergencysite/
3-M
Regional
Emergency
Transportation
Alerts
-
Subscribe:
https://511.org/alerts/emergencies/511Alert
3-N Clipper Card (adults) - order online or at Walgreens or set up Autoload to add value
automatically: https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/getTranslink.do
3-0 Clipper Card Discounts for youth, seniors and people with disabilities
-
https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/discounts/index.do
3-P FasTrak or new toll tag for upcoming I-880 Express Lanes scheduled to open late summer
2020: online or at Walgreens (except not Park Street location) and then register online:
https://www.bayareafastrak.org/en/signup/signUp.shtml
4. Announcements/ Public Comments
None
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
September 23, 2020
2",TransportationCommission/2020-09-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-09-23,3,"5. Consent Calendar
Gail Payne, Senior Transportation Coordinator, said due to an administration change there would
be a delay in minutes but they would be available at the next meeting for approval.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6-A 2020-8317 Status Report on Transportation and Recommendations for Commercial
Streets and Slow Streets Programs. (Actions)
Staff Member Payne introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments
can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4643213&GUID=342A24A5-DA6E
ID3A-93BD-6D4800COF781&FullText=1.
Scott Wikstrom, City Engineer, also presented some of the new developments and the status of
those developments.
Robert Vance, Senior Engineer, discussed resurfacing projects around the city and how they would
be giving notice to residents.
Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, discussed the status of Vision Zero Implementation.
Rochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator, gave an update on the status of the Active
Transportation Plan and Alameda's Slow Streets.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions #6A. (Not related to the slow streets program)
Commissioner Weitze asked about a gap on a bike trail, the gap between Pacific and West Atlantic,
and if there were any plans to close that gap.
Staff Member Wikstrom said there was no short-term plan to correct that gap but in the long-term
plan that would be a component in the master infrastructure plan for Alameda Point, Site B, but
there was no time frame for that.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to know if there were any plans to update the light at the intersection
at Appezzato and West Atlantic to a modern light that could have traffic lights programmed based
on ferry times.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
September 23, 2020
3",TransportationCommission/2020-09-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-09-23,4,"Staff Member Wikstrom said yes and that was part of Site A Phase 2. Site A was having some
challenges and they were not sure when Phase 2 would move forward. He discussed the Traffic
Signal Policy and they were looking at how 2 Way cycle tracks function at major intersections.
Commissioner Yuen asked about the reductions in AC Transit services and wanted to know if
these changes would be temporary or permanent. She was concerned for essential workers who
rely on public transit. She also wanted to know more about the reduction in Transbay crossing and
if there was any possibility for Federal Aid for transit.
Staff Member Payne said that since March AC Transit had reduced their services but when the
SAH (Stay at Home) was lifted they increased their services. AC Transit was also putting out extra
buses in some locations due to the limited capacity they were allowed to have on each bus. They
were monitoring ridership in real-time. AC Transit was hoping to get some infusion of Federal
Aid, they were looking at reducing their services next year. She discussed Alameda's plan to
encourage and transfer people to the ferry since Alamada just got its 3rd ferry terminal and the Bus
to BART plan to get into San Francisco.
Commissioner Kohlstrand was curious if the sidewalk work at Alameda Point was being paid for
by the developer or the city and if it was the developer she wanted to know what areas the city
would focus its investments on.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that most of the workaround Site A would be covered by the
developer. He added that when Covid hit they focused most of their attention and funding on the
residential and commercial slow streets and the restriping of Webster and Park. These had
exhausted their funding and they would be going back to council in October to restore some
funding.
Public Comments for #6A (not related to the slow streets program)
Jim Strehlow discussed how he already regularly rides his bike on Clement Ave as it is now. He
believed that the plan outlined for Clement was very dangerous and put cyclists too close to
vehicular traffic. He stated that he would continue to ride in the vehicular lane instead of the
planned painted bike lane that would go against traffic.
Staff Member Payne explained how the SLMs or sharrows worked and that it was perfectly fine
to share a lane.
Commissioner Comments #6A (not related to the slow streets program)
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
September 23, 2020
4",TransportationCommission/2020-09-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-09-23,5,"Commissioner Yuen wanted to discuss the work done for Police Reform and to highlight that work
since she believed that it intersected with the work they were doing on the Transportation
Commission. She said that a safe and functioning transportation system is dependent on traffic
safety and they rely heavily on police officers to enforce that safety. She put forth to her fellow
commissioners that for the Vision Zero Action Plan she wanted to see goals and policies that
included equitable enforcement strategies that wouldn't disproportionately endanger black and
brown folks. She also asked that this commission should be plugged into the city and what was
going on and to even have someone from the Police Reform Committee come and talk with them
on better ways they could be involved.
Chair Soules asked Staff Member Foster to discuss the goals and how they planned to include the
equity component.
Staff Member Foster discussed that the core of Vision Zero was to create system change. It would
create an environment that people would be set up for success. She also discussed how Vision Zero
does have enforcement as an element but it has been deemphasized. Alameda would include
enforcement but there would be caveats about equity.
Chair Soules asked the staff to consider Commissioner Yuen's comments in future updates and
how that would be appreciated.
Commissioner Kohlstrand thanked staff and supported the comments made by Commissioner
Yuen in regards to equity issues in enforcement. She then brought up the issues of traffic circles
and how they hadn't been given much consideration in any of the plans. She discussed how helpful
traffic circles could be for Alameda and wanted to see more comprehensive research about traffic
circles.
Staff Member Wheeler said from the perspective of the Active Transportation Plan, traffic circles
were a key treatment that the city could use for pedestrian safety and traffic calming. They would
even consider temporary traffic circles in slow streets as part of the grant they had applied for.
Traffic circles were very much on their radar of things to use.
Commissioner Kohlstrand gave some suggestions of places that would benefit from traffic circles.
Staff Member Payne clarified that traffic circles would be on minor streets and roundabouts would
be taking the place of traffic signals. She discussed wherein Alameda roundabouts were being
considered, such as Mecartney and Island Drive.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
September 23, 2020
5",TransportationCommission/2020-09-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-09-23,6,"Staff Member Wikstrom said that would be in 2022 and also added information about the
difference between traffic circles and roundabouts. He said with the temporary barricades on the
slow streets there is the question if it should become permanent and traffic circles are a great
alternative.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked about lane reduction on Pacific and wanted clarification on where
on Pacific that would happen.
Staff Member Wikstrom clarified the lane reduction on Pacific Ave would be from Main to Fourth
Street.
Commissioner Kohlstrand wanted to know more about the AC Transit reductions and when those
hearings would take place. She had concerns about the elimination of the O Line and what effect
that would have on citizens. She also requested that the staff make their recommendations as clear
as possible. She wanted to see the recommended action from the staff at the beginning of the Staff
Report. She wanted to know exactly what actions the commission was being asked to act on.
Staff Member Payne said that AC Transit would be having virtual public hearings that were
separate from the Alameda Transportation Commission meetings and she would make sure all the
commissioners and the community knew about those meetings.
Chair Soules thanked the staff for putting this together and agreed with Commissioner Yuen and
Kohlstrand for their comments on equity. She discussed her thoughts on AC Transit reductions,
she did not want to see these temporary events have a negative long-term effect. She also wanted
to see continued progress on the Emergency Responses and to not let that be forgotten.
Staff Member Payne said they would have a progress report by the next meeting and between
Covid and the fires the Emergency Response team really had been maxed out. They have had some
opportunities to work on Tsunami and Earthquake preparedness.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions (Action Items)
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked if planters would be more aesthetically pleasing and safe rather
than using the water-filled barrels to protect the parklets.
Staff Member Wikstrom said there had been internal conversations between the Engineering
Department and the Attorney's Office to discuss risk management about having diners on an active
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
September 23, 2020
6",TransportationCommission/2020-09-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-09-23,7,"roadway. He said water-filled barriers are the best at protecting against a car and anything smaller
wouldn't be as safe.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked about encroachment permits and wanted to make sure she
understood it correctly. District-wide encroachment permits cover Webster and Park St and
anything outside of that would need a separate individual permit.
Staff Member Wheeler said that was correct.
Chair Soules asked as this program moves forward would there be metrics put in place to study if
there was an increase in travel time delays.
Staff Member Wikstrom explained where AC Transit got the 10% travel time reduction number,
from GPS transponders in their buses. They also have good reliable data pre-pandemic to look at
the traffic impact. He also explained how he personally had been monitoring traffic on the island
and that they were working on integrating and coordinating the signal timing on Park and Webster
St.
Staff Member Wheeler added that having signal coordination is what would most improve AC
Transit's travel time.
Chair Soules said she supported the slow streets program but she did see the importance of beta
testing parklets and seeing the full impact. She asked about the effect on side streets, like Oak St,
that was along Park and Webster St.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that they definitely needed to do more data collection. He said the
main challenge was making sure they had good pre and post-data, which they don't really have on
side streets. He said what they needed to bring forward as part of the Active Transportation Plan
was to really see what was important to the community. When the pandemic is over what will
Webster and Park St return to?
Staff Member Wheeler added that those questions were a part of their staff recommendations. She
said that with everything still being new it would be next July that they would look at what effect
all of these programs have had and that diversion was something they would need to look at.
Chair Soules gave her full support to waving the permit fees, with businesses being hit so hard by
the pandemic she was in full support of anything that would help them.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
September 23, 2020
7",TransportationCommission/2020-09-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-09-23,8,"Commissioner Yuen discussed the many uses and demands of the commercial streets and the
safety people needed as they eat outside. She saw the slow traffic as a trade-off for business to be
able to continue during the pandemic. She said the priority of the Commercial Street Program was
to give businesses a fighting chance of survival and that means having slower traffic in these
corridors. She threw out the idea that maybe parts of AC Transit routes would need to be removed
during this time.
Commissioner Weitze said the trade-off was worth it and doing these experiments was worth it.
He asked about parking lots on Webster that had been transformed to eating areas, crediting Sandy
Russell from Fireside, and wanted to know if that was a city-driven or a private party project. He
pushed for that being permanent and something that could set Webster apart.
Staff Member Wheeler said that was a private parking lot that had really been pushed by Sandy
Russell and WABA (West Alameda Business Association). She said making it permanent was
something that would need to be discussed further and yes it had been very popular and successful.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked about the 8th and 9th streets that were included in the permanent
slow street program. She felt that further study was needed since she didn't think both needed to
be included.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion for the Transportation Commission to
recommend to the City Council to approve the 3 items recommended by the staff. To wave
encroachment permit fees through October 31st, 2021, for the commercial street program -
delay short-term temporary special event closures along Park St and to authorize the staff
to apply for the Alameda CTC (County Transportation Commission) Covid-19 Rapid
Response Program. Commissioner Hans seconded the motion and a roll call vote was taken.
The motion passed 5-0.
6-B 2020-8318 Alameda Active Transportation Plan Update: Community Survey Results
(Information)
Staff Member Wheeler introduced this item and introduced Sara LaBatt, EMC Research, who gave
the presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4643214&GUID=E4A5206B-46C3-
E32-87BB-F107BC666872&FullText=1.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions and for #6B.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
September 23, 2020
8",TransportationCommission/2020-09-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-09-23,9,"Chair Soules thought that it was great that this was all pre covid data since it created a baseline.
She also commended the decision to incentivize the survey, she believed this was really the best
way to get an actionable equity program. She was curious to know how e-bikes and new bike paths
would affect mode shift and how they were reaching out to people who may not think they could
afford an e-bike app.
Staff Member Wheeler said that they did ask questions about e-bikes and ownership of e-bikes.
This was also part of the Climate Action Plan, so they did have data on that.
Ms. LaBatt added they learned through the survey that about 10% of people surveyed said that
they have an e-bike or a scooter-share membership.
Chair Soules thanked Ms. LaBatt for her presentations and for breaking down the information in
a very easy-to-understand way.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to know how many of the 32% of residents using active transport
to get off the island and how many were West End Alameda residents.
Ms. LaBatt said that number did include West Enders getting off the island but did not know how
much of the 32% was from them.
Public Comments for #6B.
Jim Strehlow referred to page 2 of the presentation. He found the presentation wording by Sara
LaBatt to be wonderfully clarifying but the verbiage was not printed. He found certain parts of the
presentation to be initially misleading since tens of thousands of residents were not part of the
survey. He gave examples of better wording that would be more adequate. He also believed that
certain surveys were accepted and others rejected based on their own undocumented bias.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B
Commissioner Kohlstrand found the amount of data to be very helpful as they move forward on
the Active Transportation Plan. She wanted to know if there was going to be an opportunity to
discuss the issues over cost and prioritization into the survey as it was presented to the public. She
gave an example of her past work when people were excited about a project until the price for the
project was announced, then people were no longer excited for said project. She also stressed the
need to connect safety data with the survey results as well as looking at this through the lens of
cost-effectiveness.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
September 23, 2020
9",TransportationCommission/2020-09-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-09-23,10,"Staff Member Wheeler said that was the plan to use the survey to see what were the priorities and
what would be the implementation plan be. Obviously, with implementation, they would need to
know the costs and they would meld together cost and priorities.
Commissioner Weitze was surprised by the low amount of children who walk to school in groups
and discussed ways to improve that. He also wanted to make it a priority to get bikes into
commercial districts.
Ms. LaBatt wanted to answer Commissioner Weitze's earlier question. She said that it was 23%
of West Enders use active transportation, 15% walk or use a mobility device on the sidewalk, 11%
ride a bike, and 4% ride a bike to get off the island.
Chair Soules was curious how this worked with the Travel Demand survey that had been done
earlier. She brought up that reliability is very important when it comes to using public
transportation and how many high schoolers will drive their own cars to high school. She added
that if anyone had additional thoughts they wanted to think more about they should email Staff
Member Wheeler.
7. Announcements / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow was amazed that no one had mentioned that Bike to Wherever Day was tomorrow
and cyclists could pick up goody bags at participating locations.
Chair Soules thanked Mr. Strehlow and said more information on Bike Wherever Day could be
found on the city's website.
8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:47 p.m.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
September 23, 2020
10",TransportationCommission/2020-09-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-12-12,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
December 12, 2007
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier
Srikant Subramaniam
Members Absent:
Nielsen Tam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
October 17, 2007 Special Meeting
b.
October 24, 2007
Chair Knox White noted that page 12 read, ""Chair Knox White noted that the Transportation
Commission would recommend that this issue return to the City Council."" He clarified that the
TC recommendations were to be sent back to the City Council.
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the October 17, 2007, special
meeting and October 24, 2007 minutes, as amended. Commissioner Ratto seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-0.
2.
AGENDA CHANGES
Chair Knox White noted that since the audience members are attending to comment on Item 7-B,
that it be heard first, followed by Item 7-C and then 7-A.
Chair Knox White noted that Commissioner Schatmeier arrived.
1",TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-12-12,2,"4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Pedestrian Plan Task Force
Chair Knox White noted that he would ask Commissioner Tam to replace former Commissioner
Knoth as the third member of the subcommittee. He noted that they met quickly for an update,
and a pedestrian plan proposal would be presented in the spring.
Staff Khan noted that the plan was a preliminary draft, which presented the existing information
gathered to date. The project selection and cost issues had not been addressed.
Chair Knox White noted that several members of the public had attended as well.
b.
Alameda Point Task Force
Chair Knox White noted that the last meeting had been canceled, and that the next meeting
would be held December 13, 2007.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Open public hearing.
There were none.
Close public hearing.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
There was none.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7B.
Approval of Parking Removal to Provide Adequate Stopping Areas for Bus Stops
Along Encinal Avenue Between Mound Street and High Street.
Staff Bergman summarized the staff report, and noted that it was recommended that the City be
flexible wherever possible and consolidate stops where appropriate. He displayed the proposed
alternative changes. Alternative 1 had more of an impact on parking; Alternative 2 had received
public comment and concern; Alternative 3, by changing the location of the westbound stop,
placed a stop on the near side of the intersection, which was not preferred in bus operations
(Alternative 2 would have a stop on the far side of the intersection); Alternatives 4 and 5 would
have exceeded the spacing guidelines, which staff preferred to avoid. The ridership numbers
were highest at the Encinal and High (33 riders per day), and Encinal and Fountain (11 per day)
stops. The recommendation of removing those two stops would have meant removing the two
2",TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-12-12,3,"more heavily used stops. As a result of those figures and community feedback, staff
recommended keeping the stops at those locations, and implementing the parking restrictions,
which would mean installing red curb at Encinal and Mound, impacting three parking spaces on
the westbound side of the street. Staff recommended limited parking restrictions at the
Encinal/High and Encinal/Fountain stops, based on the hours of bus operations.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier whether any of the proposed changes
would impact running times on Line 63, Staff Bergman replied that staff could not determine that
to be SO.
Commissioner Krueger believed there was an inconsistency in the labeling of Alternatives 4 and
5 with respect to page 2 and Attachment 3. Staff Bergman replied that the real Alternative 4 was
identified correctly in the table. On page 2, Alternatives 4 and 5 should be swapped.
Open public comment.
Rachel Allen, 1231 Court Street, noted that she was opposed to Alternatives 2 and 3, which
would place a new bus stop on the corner of Court and Encinal. She was opposed to the proposal
between of the impacted shared parking with the church. She noted that the crosswalk was used
by students, and she was concerned about the safety of a special needs child living nearby. She
supported Alternative 1.
Katherine Neal Manalo, 2919 Encinal, expressed concern about her son's health related to noise
and pollution, affecting his asthma and pulmonary problems. She believed that Alternative 3
would be a problem, especially the students who .may dart into the street. She appreciated the
bus service, and supported Alternative 1; she suggested eliminating the Mound stops.
Dave Nederhood, Pastor, ACLC, noted that the church did not have off-street parking. He
presented signatures from church members in support of Alternative 1.
Cliff Reese, 3004 Encinal Avenue, spoke in support of Alternative 1. He noted that 3014 Encinal
was a four-plex, with two drivers per unit. He added that they shared the eight parking spaces
with that building.
Mark Betts, 1300 Mound Street, noted that his house was only seven feet from the sidewalk. He
noted that on Mound, there were nine houses with no off-street parking. He noted that there was
only five feet between the retaining wall to the telephone pole. He noted that on Court Street,
there was 21 feet from the house to the curb, which was enough room to attenuate the noise. He
noted that his house and sidewalk were cracking from the vibration impact from Mound Street.
Close public comment.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he supported the staff recommendations, and believed that
with respect to the existing bus stop at High and Encinal (OX), it was impossible to for a bus to
make the tight right turn at High and also be able to stop at the red curb. Staff Bergman noted
that he had not heard from AC Transit operations, but staff would look into that issue.
3",TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-12-12,4,"Commissioner Krueger understood the point made by Commissioner Schatmeier, but did not
necessarily agree that it would justify removing the parking restriction. He believed that it was
still necessary to keep the cars from parking there. He suggested that it may be better to relocate
the stop.
Commissioner Krueger inquired about the final agreements that resulted from the community
meetings. Staff Bergman noted that he would contact Mr. Betts regarding the outcome of the
community meetings regarding the stops on Encinal.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he was disappointed that there was not some opportunity to
clean up the stops, which seemed to be somewhat confusing. He would have been inclined
towards the consolidation option before hearing the public comment, but that seemed to be the
will of the Commission.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the staff recommendation. Commissioner
McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
7-C. Review and Comment on the Update to the Economic Development Strategic Plan.
Eric Fonstein, Economic Development Coordinator, Development Services Department,
presented the staff report and described the Economic Development Strategic Plan. He noted that
this presentation was a mid-point review, and noted that the EDSP was not intended to supersede
the City's policy documents. He detailed the Plan's seven economic priorities:
1.
create industrial and office jobs;
2.
increase the quality and availability of retails jobs and services;
3.
promote business travel and limited impact tourist attractions;
4.
create recreational and entertainment facilities;
5.
provide internal and external traffic circulation;
6.
foster new enterprises; and
7.
promote administrative hearing.
He noted that the Economic Development Commission endorsed the plan at its last meeting, and
added the inclusion of a vision statement, which was included in the Commission packet. They
also wished to include an overall direction of the Strategic Plan as a core statement. The
Planning Board also endorsed the plan in its most recent meeting.
Open public hearing.
There were no speakers.
4",TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-12-12,5,"Close public hearing.
Commissioner Krueger inquired why the results of the telephone survey did not match the City's
demographics as a whole, and would like to include the Census figures to identify the
discrepancies.
Chair Knox White noted that the mid-term goal on page 8 of ""working with regional, state and
federal agencies to provide stable funding for a BART shuttle service to Marina Village Business
Park"" should be connected with the existing Line 19 service every half hour. He believed the
document should acknowledge the existence of the service. He noted that the Planning Board
was working on green building codes, and recommended that it be a near-term, rather than a
mid-term goal. He noted that a long-term goal was the development of residential space at
Alameda Point, which identified the development of green standards, and suggested that the role
of mixed use be included in sustainable, green development. He noted that the current parking
study was a near- and mid-term goal, and inquired when it would be addressed.
Staff Fonstein replied that Planning and Building, Development Services and Public Works were
taking their time to closely examine the statistical analysis before bringing it forth. Staff hoped to
present the document early in 2008.
Chair Knox White noted that the long-term plan to have a center at Alameda Point with retail
shops, including an anchor grocery store and links to transit nodes, should mention mixed use as
a way to achieve the Transportation Commission's long-term goals. He hoped that the larger,
more historic trees could be retained, or not be replaced with much smaller trees. He noted that
he had attended many outdoor movies in the park, and noted that they were shown at the park
that was furthest from most of the housing. He suggested holding them at some of the parks in
central Alameda to reduce the amount of driving.
Chair Knox White agreed that creating bike paths in lanes throughout Alameda Point would be a
good goal, but did not understand why it was listed under ""Recreation and Entertainment"" on
page 19. He believed that bike paths certainly belonged under ""Recreation,"" but that bike lanes
should be included in the Internal/External Traffic Circulation section because of their
importance in everyday travel. On page 21, he did not understand the near-term goal of exploring
public transit with shorter routes and shuttles. He noted that the many shuttle discussions
included the need for efficient and well-run routes, and he did not believe the survey clarified
what shuttles meant to people. He noted that page 22 should read ""Emery Go-Round,"" not
""Emeryville Go-round."" He noted that the long-term goal on page 23 to create a seamless
network of streets to ""achieve integration throughout the City, and to minimize traffic
congestion,"" seemed to not be consistent with the policies stated by the City Council's EIR
policies to use streets to minimize traffic congestion. He believed that Alameda Point should be
integrated into the street grid. Staff Khan believed the intention was to minimize congestion by
adding TSM or TDM measures, not by adding or widening streets. He noted that the goal was to
minimize congestion. Chair Knox White requested that the language be clarified.
5",TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-12-12,6,"Commissioner Krueger noted that he was also curious about the shuttle issue, and wondered
whether the shuttle issue had been explored in other ways. He inquired whether people wanted a
shuttle because it was free, or because it was not run by AC Transit, or whether it was because it
had a different route. Staff Fonstein replied that with respect to the Marina Village Business
Park, staff met annually with the human resource directors of major companies in Alameda to
build a good rapport with businesses. He noted that the human resource directors that that was a
desire. It could be a more tailored program, or lack of publicity of existing services at this time.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he worked at Wind River, and that an announcement was sent
out soliciting employee feedback on a BART shuttle. He responded to the contact at the human
resources department, stating that there was a bus that ran every half hour to two different BART
stations, stopping in front of Wind River; she was not aware that there was a bus, and the
company dropped the survey at that point. He believed that the shuttle could be explored further,
and wondered how much of it was a demand for something different, and how much was the lack
of knowledge about existing services. He suggested that bus passes or other incentives could be
used to augment the existing services.
Chair Knox White noted that Peralta College just voted to provide the students with free bus
passes.
Commissioner Schatmeier believed that there was an inaccurate public perception that buses
were seen as dirty and noisy, and that shuttles were seen in a much more positive light. He would
like to see the consciousness regarding the two forms of public transit to be raised.
Commissioner Ratto agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier's comments, and noted that Table 2
on page 13 should include mention of the stations regarding the façade grant program, as well as
for the storefronts. He did not believe that Chair Knox White's wishes regarding the trees would
come to pass; he noted that the new lighting on Park Street was much closer together than the old
cobra lighting, which necessitated the removal of many old trees for spacing. He added that there
were two dead trees in front of the Hob Nob that should be removed. He added that a tree
midblock northbound, coming up from Alameda Towne Centre was leaning into the second
transit lane. With respect to in lieu fees, he inquired where DSD had determined where they
would be feasible. He noted that PSBA would push for an exemption next year.
Chair Knox White noted that some of the street lights were very bright and intrusive.
Commissioner Ratto disagreed, and noted that there were both inside and outside lights that were
intended for illuminating the sidewalks and transit lanes.
Staff Fonstein noted that the Planning Board had recommended that the title of Strategy 5, which
read, ""Internal and External Traffic Circulation"" should be changed to ""Multimodal"" instead
of
""Traffic.""
Commissioner Ratto moved to accept the proposal with the attached Commission comments.
Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
6",TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-12-12,7,"7-A.
Review of Practices to Evaluate Development Impacts to Bicycles, Pedestrians and
Transit.
Staff Khan presented the staff report. He described the LOS practices used in Palo Alto, as well
as in Florida, for different modes of transportation, and then evaluating them in advance of
development that occurs. He noted that they examined the effective green time for a pedestrian to
cross an intersection in conjunction with the cycle length of the signalized intersection. He noted
that this method was simple to calculate. At unsignalized crossings, the method examines how
many gaps were available in the traffic stream. It also examined how much delay a pedestrian
would experience. The Highway Capacity Manual also has a method for calculating bicycle
impacts, and looked at substantial additional data that would be needed to calculate that
information. He noted that Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) recommended avoiding
using one LOS method for all modes. The consultant looked at the combination of the Highway
Capacity Manual method to calculate the delay to pedestrians, transit and other modes like
bicycles.
Staff Khan noted that it was important to establish a quantitative method to simplify the
calculations, and to provide better information to developers. For the impacts on bicyclists, staff
recommended using the method used by the Florida DOT, which used physical parameters in
conjunction with the volumes and the speeds on a street. Staff was considering the Highway
Capacity method, which gave a delay for each approach at an intersection. On a corridor basis,
staff recommended, and AC Transit has supported, using the corridorwide analysis (Arterial
Level of Service analysis), which provided the travel time or delays on an arterial or a street. It
took several intersections in the analysis into account, and provided the total delay that a line can
experience.
Chair Knox White noted that Dowling Associates had worked on a similar project for the City of
San Francisco, and he was surprised to see very little of their work in this report. Staff Khan
replied that he asked the same question, and Dowling stated that they took it into account; they
also stated that they were also working for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to
develop standards for a highway capacity manual. He understood that knowledge was
incorporated in this study.
At the request of Chair Knox White, Staff Khan read the letter from Nathan Landau of AC
Transit, regarding the report and the recommendation of transit. AC Transit was interested in
looking at corridorwide impacts; staff was also interested in using intersections as well. He noted
that he had not received specific direction regarding CEQA issues.
Chair Knox White noted that as multiple LOS standards are set up for multiple transportation
forms, there will be conflicts, especially when possible mitigations impact other modes. He
inquired about the process going forward with respect to any tradeoffs and consistency in the
process.
7",TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-12-12,8,"Staff Khan noted that public process would be critical, and he hoped that at the beginning of
2008, there would be more specifics in terms of the intersection impacts. He believed it would be
a policy decision.
Chair Knox White noted that reality often did not line up with a report's predictions, and noted
that sometimes, mitigations at an intersection did not change the congestion at the next
intersection, resulting in an unchanged travel time.
Staff Khan agreed with that point, and noted that many EIRs did not address what would happen
in the intersection upstream from the congested intersection. Staff recommended including
arterial level of service criteria as well, which would also help the transit analysis.
Chair Knox White was concerned about using the HCM pedestrian information, because it was
information already collected for cars at an intersection. He understood that this was a model,
and noted that the City may decide that it is too complicated and nuanced. He also believed that
it should be thoroughly examined. He inquired when it would be completed.
Staff Khan replied that it was promised for the summer of 2008, and added that public input and
feedback would be critical.
Commissioner Krueger echoed Chair Knox White's comments about pedestrians, and while he
supported a simple, quantitative model, he also supported considering capturing other factors
besides delay, perhaps in a future refinement. He believed that qualitative factors that influence
the choice of intersections did not reflect delay, but affected pedestrians more than drivers. He
noted that the bicycle discussion addressed the environment more than delay. He would like to
see more balance in that aspect of the report. He noted that having to stop, even without a delay,
was more of a burden for bicyclists than for pedestrians or drivers. He added that when he biked,
he avoided streets with stop signs, sometimes in favor of streets with lights. He would like to see
more balance in that respect.
Chair Knox White agreed with staff's recommendation to have a list of various LOSs for various
modes.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Khan noted that MTC requested the Transportation Commission's input for the next 25-
year plan being developed. The survey was being conducted, and examined issues like global
warming, congestion, emissions and other issues. The website address is:
www.mtc.ca.gov/t2035.
Commissioner Ratto requested that Staff Khan email the link to the Commissioners.
Chair Knox White suggested that the URL be posted on the City's website.
8",TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-12-12,9,"a.
Future Meetings
Staff Khan noted that staff would look at those methods in February. He added that the car share
presentation would be made in January. He believed the parking study would be presented in
early 2008.
Chair Knox White noted that with respect to the ferries, a staff member from Senator Perata's
office stated that they would be willing to have a public meeting in Alameda, possibly in January
at the Transportation Commission to discuss the cleanup language.
Staff Khan noted that he tried to get more information from the City Manager's office, but none
was available at this time.
b.
Broadway/Jackson
Staff Khan noted that a traffic simulation and analysis had been prepared, and staff has been
reviewing the recommendations in terms of traffic patterns on the other side of the Tube. Future
development and traffic flow through the Tube was also under review. The next step would be
get the feedback for a presentation in early 2008.
Commissioner Ratto suggested that staff begin an outreach to the other business associations.
Commissioner Krueger requested an update on the status of the effort to install red curbs at bus
stops.
Staff Bergman noted that there were three or four curbs that required further follow-up.
Staff Khan noted that the Line 63 item would go to City Council on January 15, 2008. Staff
would send the Transportation Commission's recommendation to City Council.
Commissioner Schatmeier would like to see an item updating matters that the Transportation
Commission has spent a lot of time on, such as Line 63. He added that an ILC meeting was held
recently, and would like an update since he cannot always attend the meeting.
Staff Bergman noted that the ILC meeting consisted of updates on other issues, such as Line 63
and the 51 Task Force. The EcoPass is being pursued, and concerns were raised about the
Transbay O line, particularly when the local riders filled the buses in lieu of the 51, preventing
the Transbay riders from using the bus.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier regarding the Otis bus stop issue, Staff
Bergman replied that was part of the Line 63 issue, and would go to Council in January.
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
 G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC/2008/012308\121207minutes-draft.do
9",TransportationCommission/2007-12-12.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-09-25,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
Chair Soules convened the meeting at 7:01 pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Vice Chair Soules, Commissioners Nachtigall, Yuen, Kohlstrand, Weitze.
Absent: Commissioners Hans, Johnson.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
None.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
3-A Transportation Commission Meeting: Wed, Nov 20 at 7 p.m.
3-B Tsunami Presentations: Thurs, Sept. 19 at 6:30 p.m. (boating community) and Wed,
Oct. 30 at 6:30 p.m. (citywide) - City Hall, Council Chambers
3-C Alameda Bike for the Parks - Community Bike Ride - Sat, Sept 28
3-D International Walk and Roll to School Day - Wed., Oct 2
3-E Smart Driver Refresher Course by AARP at Mastick Senior Center - Wed., Oct 9 - 9
a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
3-F Electric Vehicle 101, City Hall Council Chambers: Wed, Oct 16 at 6:30 p.m.
3-G Transportation 101 + Clipper Card Registrations at Mastick Senior Center - Tues, Oct
22 at 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
3-H Transportation Services Survey for Seniors and People with Disabilities at Mastick
Senior Center or on-line at www.AlamedaParatransit.com by Thurs, Oct 31
3-I Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) 2019 Trainings in October: register
on Fire Department web page
3-J
Upcoming
Grant-Funded
Bicycle
Safety
Education
Classes:
https://bikeeastbay.org/alamedabikeed
3-K Emergency Alerts for Alameda - Subscribe at AC Alert web page:
https://www.acgov.org/emergencysite/
1",TransportationCommission/2019-09-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-09-25,2,"3-L
Regional
Emergency
Transportation
Alerts
-
Subscribe:
 ttps://511.org/alerts/emergencies/511Alert
3-M Clipper Card (adults) - order on line or at Walgreens or set up Autoload to add value
automatically: https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/getTranslink.do
3-N Clipper Card Discounts for youth, seniors and people with disabilities -
https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/discounts/index.do
3-O FasTrak or new toll tag for upcoming I-880 Express Lanes: on line or at Walgreens
(except not Park Street location) and then register on line:
https://www.bayareafastrak.org/en/signup/signUp.shtm
Chair Soules recognized and congratulated Commissioner Kohlstrand on her recent
retirement and described some of the highlights of her career in Transportation Planning.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said she looks forward to giving back to the community during
her retirement.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4-A 2019-7280
Draft Meeting Minutes - July 24, 2019
Commissioner Nachtigall made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner
Kohlstrand seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
5. NEW BUSINESS
5-A 2019-7281
Uphold the Public Works Director's Decision to Remove One Parking Space at the Corner
of Walnut Street at San Antonio Avenue to improve intersection visibility and safety
Scott Wikstrom, City Engineer, gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can
be
found
at:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4139789&GUID=7EAB8214-
OBE2-4480-A488-5C82AE7E4927
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked if the request for improved visibility came from someone
in the neighborhood.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that the request came in via SeeClickFix.
Commissioner Weitze noted that in 2012 the warrants for an all way stop sign were not
met and asked if that was still the case.
2",TransportationCommission/2019-09-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-09-25,3,"Staff Member Wikstrom said that they have not done updated traffic counts. He said the
counts were 30% below the threshold in 2012 and that he would not expect that large of
a change at this intersection since 2012.
Steve Mack, appellant, gave a presentation.
Chair Soules asked what the rest of the conditions of the intersection are, such as signage
and striping.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that there are no marked crosswalks and that the aerial image
displayed is accurate.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked whether Walnut was considered a local street or a
collector in the City's street classification system.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that Walnut is a local street.
Commissioner Weitze asked if there were any other examples of four way stops in
Alameda that did not meet the thresholds, but were installed because of community input.
Staff Member Wikstrom said he is not aware of any recent examples that would meet that
criteria.
Chair Soules opened the public hearing.
Sean McGowan said that high schoolers zip through the intersection. He said that parking
is very difficult during the school year. He said the neighborhood cannot afford to lose a
parking space. He said they need a stop sign to reduce speeding.
Bob Ralston said the High School students take up all the available parking during the
day. He said drivers like to speed through the intersection. He said they need a stop sign
before someone gets killed.
Shemaiah Stanton said that the primary issue is not visibility, but speeding. He said things
have changed a lot since 2012. He asked that staff take a fresh look at the need for a stop
sign.
Jane Kramer said we don't need to eliminate parking spaces. She said she stops at that
intersection automatically when driving, but most people don't know what to do there. She
said visibility is not a problem and that it needs a four way stop.
Denyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda, said we are trying to make our streets safer. She
said safety has to come as a higher priority than parking. She said every study shows that
3",TransportationCommission/2019-09-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-09-25,4,"daylighting improves safety. She said a stop sign would be nice, but it would not remove
the need for daylighting.
Richard Thomas said parking does not take precedence over safety, but that the
intersection would still need a stop sign.
Jim Strehlow said that a similar situation happened in 2009 on Buena Vista. He said an
argument was made that Safe Routes to Schools concerns could override the lack of
warrants for three stop signs that were desired. He said a similar argument could be made
here.
Chair Soules closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Weitze asked what it would cost to conduct a new study of the intersection
today.
Staff Member Wikstrom said he does not have exact numbers, but suggested it would take
several hundred dollars and several hours of staff time. He said for warrants they typically
do traffic counts, not speed surveys. He said speed surveys would add additional cost and
staff time. He cautioned the Commission that there are probably 50 intersections in town
that we could be having this exact same discussion about.
Chair Soules asked what it would take for the intersection to meet the warrants.
Staff Member Wikstrom said there are two primary warrants that enter into the decision.
He said one was collision history. He said that if the collision warrant is met, they must be
able to say that all other potential improvements have been made, including improving
visibility.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said the attached policy emphasizes arterials and collectors.
She said that these are both local streets and asked if this is where we should be
prioritizing improving visibility.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that the crash history is sufficient to merit addressing visibility
at the intersection. He said that would be a required step before consideration of installing
a four way stop where the traffic volumes do not meet the thresholds.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked if limiting the height of vehicles parked near the corner
could be the first step.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that could be the first step, but they are recommending the
parking space removal as well. He said this would enable them to say that all efforts have
been exhausted if collisions continued to occur and there was a desire to install a four way
stop sign in the future.
4",TransportationCommission/2019-09-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-09-25,5,"Commissioner Yuen asked if there were other measures which could be taken to reduce
speeds and improve safety at the intersection without removing a parking space.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that after education and enforcement, from an engineering
standpoint, improving visibility is the logical action to take to increase safety at the
intersection.
Chair Soules asked if Alameda High School has any educational programs for their new
drivers to promote safe driving in the community.
Rochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator, said the Safe Routes to Schools
program is looking to expand to High Schools and Alameda hopes to be one of the pilot
cities for that program. She said she is not aware of any activities that are happening now
at Alameda High.
Chair Soules asked if planning staff has evaluated residential permit parking policies.
Staff Member Payne said that the neighborhood around the Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal
has implemented permit parking through their HOA. She said that it was resident initiated.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said that there were discussions about the issue during her
tenure on the Planning Board, but nothing was ever implemented.
Commissioner Nachtigall said she visited the intersection to better understand the visibility
and parking situation. She said she believed the daylighting would be helpful. She said
that need not contradict the possibility of a four way stop in the future.
Commissioner Weitze asked Commissioner Nachtigall if she noticed any available parking
in the area when she visited at 6:45 p.m.
Commissioner Nachtigall said she saw one space on Walnut and several spots on San
Antonio between Walnut and Willow.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said that she understands the need for parking but needs to
come down on the side of safety. She said it is unfortunate that we have to wait until there
are accidents before safety improvements are made or stop signs added. She added that
she understood that traffic engineers have to balance safety with the need to move people
through an area.
Commissioner Yuen thanked the residents for coming out and sharing how the loss of
parking would impact their daily lives. She said she saw the issue as both/and not either/or.
She said we should increase visibility and reduce speeding. She said she would support
5",TransportationCommission/2019-09-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-09-25,6,"daylighting the intersection and encouraging staff to look at other engineering options to
slow traffic at the intersection.
Chair Soules said that she would support preserving parking and limiting height of
vehicles, but does not think that is sufficient, noting that many children are shorter than
cars. She said the tradeoff between improved safety and visibility against the
inconvenience of having to park further away is a necessary one.
Chair Soules made a motion to approve the staff recommendation. Commissioner
Kohlstrand seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
5-B 2019-7282
Discuss Tsunami Awareness
Captain Sharon Oliver, Disaster Preparedness Coordinator, gave a presentation. The staff
report
and
attachments
can
be
found
at:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4139806&GUID=969322E6-
5B51-43F1-A87A-OCDD2C2C9F09&FullText=1
Commissioner Yuen asked what level of coordination there is with Oakland on this issue.
Captain Oliver said she does coordinate with her counterparts in Oakland and with both
police departments to coordinate evacuation plans.
Chair Soules asked how vulnerable populations that do not and cannot drive are being
addressed.
Captain Oliver said we have our own shuttle and also partner with paratransit. She said
they are at the beginning of the conversation and are working on the transportation plan,
but it is not complete yet.
Chair Soules opened the public hearing.
Jim Strehlow said this is what he fears most about the overdevelopment in Alameda. He
said we should know what the evacuation rates are of our exits and we should know how
many people will die because we have overpopulated the island. He said he remembers
regular flooding events that created dangerous conditions for driving and most evacuation
routes are vulnerable to flooding.
Chair Soules closed the public hearing. Informational item, no action was taken.
5-C 2019-7283
Recommend City Council Adoption of Vision Zero Policy
Staff Member Wheeler and Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, gave a presentation. The
staff
report
and
attachments
can
be
found
at:
6",TransportationCommission/2019-09-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-09-25,7," https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4139823&GUID=F4F57230-
D1C1-4647-85B9-C4DCDEB6B4C7&FullText=1
Commissioner Weitze asked if there are punitive or enforcement aspects to Vision Zero.
Staff Member Foster said that increased enforcement is part of other cities' plans. She
said San Francisco initially focused enforcement on locations and violations where
fatalities and collisions were most likely.
Staff Member Wheeler said she sees it as a data driven process to perhaps redistribute
where enforcement occurs in order to have the most impact on behavior, rather than
simply increasing overall enforcement.
Commissioner Weitze asked if reconsidering the standards and process for placement of
stop signs was part of the Vision Zero process.
Staff Member Wheeler said they have not looked at that as a standard to evaluate, given
that federal guidelines exist on stop sign placement.
Chair Soules opened the public hearing.
Jim Strehlow said NACTO implementation in San Francisco did not make him feel safer
while cycling. He said it took him out of his way, compared to the older, more direct route.
He recalled a recent fatality in San Francisco on a NACTO redesigned intersection. He
warned the Commission not to believe that this would be a perfect solution.
Chair Soules closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said she supports the Vision Zero movement and looks forward
to developing the policy.
Commissioner Yuen said she strongly supports Vision Zero and is excited by the focus on
equity. She said she would like to see a focus on design and engineering over
enforcement, which can be punitive. She asked that the annual report be brought back to
the Transportation Commission.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion that the Vision Zero Policy be
recommended to the City Council with the amendment that the annual report come
to the Transportation Commission. Commissioner Yuen seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5-0.
5-D 2019-7284
Update on Active Transportation Plan
7",TransportationCommission/2019-09-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-09-25,8,"Staff Member Wheeler and Megan Wooley-Ousdahl, Toole Design, gave a presentation.
The
staff
report
and
attachments
can
be
found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4139824&GUID=46062EA4-
SEOC-4F62-8938-8DC2CD9B2970&FullText=1
Commissioner Yuen asked if the Technical Advisory Committee has changed to the
Community Advisory Group.
Staff Member Wheeler said that it has indeed changed to a Community Advisory Group.
She said they would still use the Vision Zero Task Force in order to gather technical
feedback.
Commissioner Yuen asked how we were recruiting for the Community Advisory Group.
Staff Member Wheeler said they are reaching out to people now from different groups and
demographics in the city to attempt to identify a diverse representation of the community.
Commissioner Weitze asked why we are doing all the audits and data collection before a
major piece of infrastructure like the Cross Alameda Trail is complete.
Staff Member Wheeler said most of the data collection has been gathering the existing
data rather than generating new data. She said there are lots of other facilities and areas
of the city that have identified issues that they want to move forward with. She said there
will be an automatic bike counter on the new trail which will provide an ongoing source of
data.
Chair Soules asked how the survey sample size will ensure an accurate representation
and not oversample or under sample certain populations.
Ms. Wooley-Ousdahl said the community survey would be statistically significant with a
professional research firm that has methods to ensure a proper sample. She added that
the focus groups would be another area where they can be very deliberate about who they
reach out to for input.
Chair Soules said that equity in lifestyle, not just demographics, is important to achieve a
true mix of Alamedans, and that transparency in that area will be important.
Commissioner Nachtigall said she is not sure that what is described as a focus group is a
true focus group.
Staff Member Wheeler explained the way staff envisioned conducting the focus groups
with specialized subsets of people such as park users, business groups, or disabled
residents.
8",TransportationCommission/2019-09-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-09-25,9,"Commissioner Weitze asked if the survey results would be broken out by renter versus
homeowner.
Staff Member Wheeler said that is not something that has been looked at yet for this
survey, but that staff can consider it further.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said that transit should be considered as part of the assessment
in how pedestrians and bicyclists access the city.
Staff Member Wheeler said that connections with transit are part of their analysis.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said we should take care to ensure that the West End and Bay
Farm are adequately represented in the surveys.
Chair Soules suggested having events at mode connections would be a good way to
capture folks and get information on the first and last mile issues.
Commissioner Yuen said capturing input from disadvantaged and underrepresented
communities comes in multiple forms, including geographic areas that lack active
transportation facilities, looking at collision data for areas that are disproportionately
impacted, and looking at demographics such as income, race, ethnicity, and age. She said
she appreciates the many ways people can get involved in the planning process.
Commissioner Weitze suggested the West End Art Walk as a good place to find survey
participants.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A 2019-7285 Status Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Member Payne gave an update. The report can be found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4139839&GUID=BF2758A2-
715F-42CD-9795-E9BA6541F532
Staff Member Wheeler said the expected opening of the Cross Alameda Trail segment
under construction is now slated for December. She reported on the theft of the Cycles of
Changes storage truck from outside of Maya Lin School, and their fundraising appeal in
order to get back in service.
Staff Member Wikstrom explained that the bike lanes on Pacific from Main Street to 4th
Street would be delayed due to federal funding requirements and the language in the
environmental clearance.
6-B Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Citywide Parking Management Plan - Expansion for Alameda Point and Ferry
Terminals
9",TransportationCommission/2019-09-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-09-25,10,"2. Electric Vehicle Adoption
3. Line 19 Promotional Program Evaluation
4. Long-term Goals and Objectives for AC Transit Service in Alameda
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow told a story of bicycling in the park above the Transbay Terminal on a quiet
Saturday morning. He said multiple police officers stopped him for riding his bicycle even
though there was no signage saying it was not allowed. He asked if this body was the right
place to find out if cycling was permitted there or not, since he has not had success getting
responses from AC Transit in the past.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:44 p.m.
10",TransportationCommission/2019-09-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-07-25,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
July 25, 2007
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robb Ratto
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier (arrived 7:40)
Srikant Subramaniam (arrived 7:40)
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
May 23, 2007
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the May 23, 2007, meeting
minutes. Commissioner Ratto seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
a. Multimodal Circulation Plan
This subcommittee has not met.
b. Pedestrian Plan
c. TSM/TDM Plan
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Madeline Murphy, 2518 Janis Circle, believed that many people do not want to use the
parking garage near the theater, and would rather park in the outlying areas. She noted
that her neighborhood was consumed by many people parking there for the theater and
the nearby restaurants. She noted that many residents cannot park in front of their own
Transportation Commission
July 25, 2007
Page 1 of 10",TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-07-25,2,"houses because of this situation, which she believed would get worse. She would like to
see discussions of permit parking to begin for this neighborhood.
Chair Knox White requested comment from staff regarding potential parking permits.
Staff Khan advised that he had spoken with Development Services Department, and that
they were working on a parking study. They had been collecting data since last year, and
were preparing memos and data to be presented to the Transportation Commission in
September or October; following that, it would be presented to the Planning Board and
City Council. In terms of residential permit parking, staff has noted that such programs
have resulted in a substantial drain on resources in other jurisdictions. They had found
that the creation of residential permit parking required a funding source to establish
enforcement, processing and collection of fees. The results from the parking study would
be available upon its completion.
Matthew Anderson, 924 Grand Street, noted that everyone he had spoken to on Grand
Street was opposed to its redesignation as an island arterial. He believed the redesignation
would be detrimental to their neighborhood and to their efforts to deal with traffic and
safety issues on Grand Street and the surrounding areas. He added that he spoken to Mr.
Khan about a recent incident where a blind man was struck by a vehicle turning off of
Grand Street, which reignited people's interest in the safety issue.
Staff Khan noted that the street functional classification system was part of the
Transportation Master Plan policies that are moving forward at this time. The City has
hired Dowling Associates as the consultant to work on the General Plan Amendment;
their first task was to do the traffic model and develop the scenarios and analysis.
Following that, they will go to the CEQA process that will require the City to produce a
programmatic EIR, which will involve an ample public comment period. He noted that
the issue would come before the Transportation Commission several times.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
There were none.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Current Status of the Broadway/Jacksor project. Discussion.
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and noted that the Alameda County Transportation
Improvement Authority (ACTIA) and the project consultant (Kimley-Horn) were present
in the audience. He summarized the scope and layout of this project, and noted that a
feasibility study was completed in April 2006, following by the examination of various
alternatives in improving access from Alameda to I-880, as well as access and circulation
in both Alameda and Oakland. Since the feasibility study has been performed, ACTIA
has hired consultant Kimley-Horn to work on the evaluated alternatives; they will move
forward with a Project Study Report (PSR) as required by Caltrans. The goal of the task
to the consultant was to produce the PSR, which will be approved by Caltrans.
Transportation Commission
July 25, 2007
Page 2 of 10",TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-07-25,3,"Art Dao, Deputy Director, ACTIA, provided an update on the development of the
Broadway/Jackson/I-880 access improvement projects. He noted that the existing funds
will not be enough to deliver this project, and that state and federal financial assistance
would be necessary. Their goal is to use the PSR as the platform to compete for that
funding.
Dave Dickinson, consultant project manager, described and discussed the feasibility
study. He noted that there were some issues with ground water with respect to
constructing the exit from the Posey Tube. He noted that the curve of a proposed ramp
coming out of the Tube could only accommodate design speeds of 23 mph, so they were
looking at different options to reduce the speeds in the Tube and enhance safety. With
respect to the proposed I-980 ramps, he believed they could provide some benefit.
However, he noted that the merge distance between consecutive on- and off-ramps was
much less than half of standard. In addition, the ramps violate FHWA policy regarding
placing new local ramps on the freeway-to-freeway connector such as this stretch of I-
980. They also explored whether the Broadway off-ramp could touch down at Webster or
Harrison, so that Alameda-bound traffic could turn smoothly into the Webster Tube. The
feasibility alternative examined touching down at Harrison; however, it introduced
another intersection at Harrison and Sixth. They were examining whether it could be
brought all the way down to Webster, depressing Harrison about five feet in order to get a
reconstructed off-ramp at Harrison. They also examined whether the I-980 off-ramp
could be dropped directly into the Webster Tube, but it was determined not to be feasible
due to the profile grades and trying to get three lanes of traffic into two lanes.
Mr. Dickinson noted that they wanted to finalize the geometric analysis, and to
understand the origin/destination studies. He displayed the areas where traffic counts
were also being performed, and believed this data would provide a credible traffic
forecasting and operations analysis for this project.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the context-sensitive alterations near the senior
center in Chinatown could be seen as a short-term issue, or as an alternative to the
reconfiguration of the ramps for the sharp right turn out of the tube. Mr. Dickinson
replied that they were exploring that issue, and suggested that it may be both. He noted
that it seemed to have promise as a long-term viable solution, and if the pedestrian
conflicts could be removed, that ramp may become an in effect dedicated freeway on-
ramp. He noted that it was signed and striped for that function.
Chair Knox White noted that the staff report stated that Oakland had recommended the
elimination of Alternative B-1, and inquired whether those issues had been resolved in
order to allow that alternative to move forward. Mr. Dickinson replied that Oakland had
partnered with them, and that he had not heard anything to indicate that they might turn
down Alternative B-1, although some elements may need to be addressed. They
continued to move forward in exploring B-1, and had not been told to stop.
Transportation Commission
July 25, 2007
Page 3 of 10",TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-07-25,4,"Mr. Dickenson noted that they eliminated the conflict of the Pulte building, and that while
some of the hurdles still existed, he did not consider them to be insurmountable. He noted
that the 23-mph curve was a challenge, and believed that it should be posted 5 mph below
that.
7B.
Project Update: for I-880/High Street Seismic Retrofit Project and 42nd
Avenue/High Street Access Improvements. Discussion.
Staff Khan presented the staff report. He noted that staff's concerns were related to access
along frontage roads, although some of those concerns had been addressed by providing
some direct access from the I-880 Southbound off-ramp that will connect directly to 42nd
Avenue, providing better access to Alameda.
Stanley Gee, project manager, Caltrans, made a presentation describing the seismic
retrofit, and displayed the ongoing project on the overhead screen. He noted that Caltrans
had determined that in the event of a major earthquake, the structures would be
vulnerable to significant damage. They determined that it would be better to completely
replace the structures, as detailed in the proposal. The cost of the project would be
approximately $75 million, and the new structure would be designed to meet current
highway standards, including lane width, shoulder width and ramp design. The new
freeway will be somewhat wider than the existing structure, which currently has little to
no shoulders. He noted that the biggest challenge would be to clear the right of way
needed for the project, which would impact Home Depot. He added that there would be a
significant impact to the parking lot area because of the widened freeway, reconstruction
of the ramp, as well as the reconstruction of E. 8th Street. Caltrans was in the process of
working out that issue with Home Depot, and the cities of Oakland and Alameda. The
solution included eliminating a portion of E. 8th Street that would significantly reduce the
impact of the Home Depot parking lot. Their intention was to not replace that portion of
E. 8th Street.
Mr. Gee noted that there would be a minor impact to the Shell gas station, and that the
front of the property of the East Bay MUD pumping plant will have to be taken for the
reconstruction of Oakport Street. He described the acquisition of the property formerly
held by the Japanese engine company, as well as the Western Tool property. He advised
that the goal of the project was the seismic retrofit of the structure, not adding lanes. An
important feature of the project was the reconstruction of the interchange at 42nd Avenue
and I-880. He noted that they were scheduled to start construction in early 2009, and that
the actual construction period should take about four years. He displayed the actual
staging of the project on the overhead screen.
Transportation Commission
July 25, 2007
Page 4 of 10",TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-07-25,5,"Commissioner Ratto inquired who was responsible for signage at the intersection near the
right-hand turn at High Street that allowed access to Alameda Avenue. Mr. Gee believed
it was the City of Oakland's responsibility. Commissioner Ratto noted that when he made
that right-hand turn, there was no stop sign, yield sign or any other signage, which he
believed was hazardous due to the auto traffic driving through at a high speed.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the closure of E. 8th Street would have any
effect on the freeway access. Mr. Gee replied that it provided a frontage road with fairly
light traffic. He added that it would be made into a cul de sac by the City Oakland.
Staff Khan noted that E. 8th Street provided local circulation for the Oakland side; the
concern regarding the Alameda side was the internal circulation to access Home Depot
and I880. The new project would provide better access to Alameda from 29th Avenue
southbound I880 on-ramp to reach 42nd Avenue.
Public comment.
Madeline Murphy believed there would be an impact on the Fruitvale Bridge when
people exit from Fruitvale to Alameda Avenue. She was concerned there would be many
lane closures.
Mr. Gee noted there would be a tremendous amount of construction going on, with a
great deal of equipment; he acknowledged there would be disruption, but that they would
maintain the same number of lanes on the freeway as currently exist during peak periods.
He noted that High Street would be maintained open, but may need to be closed for very
short periods of time late at night in order to do some of the overhead work. He noted that
they did not intend to have any long-term street closures, including High Street. He noted
that any work that could not be done safely at night, or that would cause noise impacts,
would occur during the day. He added that they would work with the City.
Close public comment.
Staff Khan noted that some closures and delays were inevitable, but that Alameda will
work closely with Caltrans and Oakland during this time.
No action was taken.
7C.
Draft Action Plan for SOV Trip Reduction at Webster/Posey Tubes and Bay
Farm Island Bridge. Outcome: Comment from TC and Approval of Draft Work
Plan. Discussion/Action
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and noted that this item grew out of the joint
meeting between the Transportation Commission and the City Council on May 7, 2007.
the Council had indicated that they were interested in having the Transportation
Transportation Commission
July 25, 2007
Page 5 of 10",TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-07-25,6,"Commission focus on developing strategies to reduce the number of single-occupant
vehicle trips at the Webster-Posey Tubes and the Bay Farm Island Bridge. Based on the
meeting, staff prepared an action plan. He noted that the key points were:
1. The City's Municipal Code will require some modifications to enable the TC
to undertake this activity, which will be discussed in Item 7D.
2. The levels and characteristics of the traffic at Bay Farm Island Bridge,
including the portion of traffic related to schools and accessing I-880.
3. To determine what additional measures can be used to address traffic concerns
at the two locations.
4. Consideration that whatever is done could have impacts on other activities
that are underway, such as the TMP.
The last section of the report outlined the action plan, and described the tasks, as well as a
general timeframe. Page 3 listed the specific tasks, including the bullets from Exhibit 1.
Staff intended to develop a coherent, cohesive strategy for focusing on the reduction of
single-occupancy vehicle trips.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the report stated that traffic counts would be taken
when school was in session ""if needed,"" and inquired what circumstances would occur
that the counts would not be needed during school session. Staff Khan noted that the
intent was not to be redundant, since a substantial amount of data had already been
collected when school was in session.
Commissioner Krueger noted that page 4 discussed working with AUSD to determine
their interest in pursuing funding for school buses. He inquired whether that would be
paid for by the school district. Staff Bergman noted that staff had not discussed that issue
with the school district yet, and that additional funding opportunities were to be explored.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that there was substantial bus/transit service on Bay
Farm Island, and suggested that marketing existing transit services should be included in
the strategies. He suggested looking at origins and destinations to see if whether existing
transit service could be used.
Public comment.
There were no speakers.
Close public comment.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he had heard anecdotal evidence and complaints about
the reliability of the AC Transit school service, and that parents drove their children to
school because of it. He suggested that the Transportation Commission investigate that
potential issue, and to work with AC Transit to make the bus more attractive. He noted
that the bus either showed up late or not at all.
Transportation Commission
July 25, 2007
Page 6 of 10",TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-07-25,7,"Commissioner Ratto suggested that discussions with AUSD take place to develop a
formalized carpooling program for students, as well as incentives for people to participate
in it. Staff Bergman replied that staff had spoken with AUSD regarding staff participation
in an EcoPass program. Commissioner Ratto noted that he would not let his first grader
ride the bus to Earhart School, but would feel more comfortable with letting a younger
child with a neighbor in a car pool.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that Marin County had a School Pool program that also
included walk-pooling and bicycle-pooling, enabling numbers of parents to accompany
their children to school and reduce single-occupancy trips.
Chair Knox White believed the Safe Routes to School maps for Otis School should be
completed. He did not believe it belonged on this particular action plan. Staff Khan noted
that staff examined Otis and Lincoln because they were close to Bay Farm Island, and
that the Safe Routes to School maps were being developed.
Chair Knox White believed that the problems should be identified first, and that the data
should be collected in such a way that the problem spots could be clearly determined and
identified. He added that the overall goal was to reduce the congestion in the two areas or
corridors. He hoped that the language to reduce the single-occupancy trips would be
stronger. He supported Councilmember DeHaan's suggestion to think outside the box, as
if cost were no factor, in order to develop more innovative solutions. He believed the
Transportation Commission could begin working on the solutions as data are collected,
and that the pedestrian plan deadlines should not be pushed back as other work gets in the
way. He noted that the Transportation Element had already been pushed back to May
2008. He noted that with respect to the Safe Routes to School program, there still seemed
to be an inability for the School District or the City to take ownership of the program. He
would like to see a meaningful partnership between the two entities so that the programs
such as those brought up by Commissioner Schatmeier may be implemented.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that Marin County had a Transportation Authority to
hire someone to coordinate the various programs at the schools. He noted that the task
forces associated with each school should be coordinated, including parents, school
district personnel, the City Public Works staff, and students.
Staff Khan agreed that ownership of the program would be the key to any kind of success
in the school area. He believed that enforcement was also critical, requiring the
involvement of the Police Department in that process. He noted that Public Works meets
with the Police Department on a monthly basis to address school-related issues, as well as
other issues to maintain coordination. He believed that a similar structure with the school
district would help in this process, and invited comment from the Transportation
Commission to improve the coordination.
Commissioner Ratto moved to accept staff's recommendations in the Draft Work Plan,
and to further prioritize additional strategies. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the
motion. Motion passed 6-0.
Transportation Commission
July 25, 2007
Page 7 of 10",TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-07-25,8,"7D.
Proposed Revisions to Alameda Municipal Code Regarding Reassignment of
Technical Transportation Team Responsibilities, Modification of
Transportation Commission Responsibilities and Appeal Process for
Transportation Operational Decisions. Outcome: TC to comment and endorse
the proposed revisions to Alameda Municipal Code.
Staff Khan summarized the staff report, and described the background of this item. He
noted that a joint meeting between City Council and the TC had been held on May 7, 2007.
At that time, City Council directed the TC to look into some specific projects, discussed
during Item 7C. It was discussed that because the TC did not have the authority to look into
specific project development processes or work on specific projects, staff was directed by
Council to make some modification to the Municipal Code to allow the TC to work on some
specific projects if directed by City Council. He noted that the Transportation Technical
Team (TTT) responsibilities will be shifted to the Public Works Director. The Public Works
Director's decisions may then be appealed to the TC, and the TC decisions may be appealed
to City Council. He noted that the City Council would be the ultimate authority in that chain.
He noted that the Public Works Director had the discretion to send items to the TC if he or
she felt that some of the issues may require policy input, or if it had substantial opposition in
the community. Staff planned to make a change to the Alameda Municipal Code to allow
the TC to look at some specific projects as directed by City Council.
Staff Khan noted that staff intended to include in the TC's new responsibilities items related
to Planning Department development projects, including new development and
environmental documents. Another point of discussion was the method by which the
communication went to the Planning Board. Instead of providing the information as part of
the public comment, staff was directed to provide a memo specifically stating that the
recommendations came from the TC.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the main change seemed to be between who the
appeal body was, and who the current and proposed authority was.
Chair Knox White noted that this change made the Public Works/Transportation
Commission/City Council connection more consistent with other departments, where
staff makes a recommendation and the appointed body acts as the appeal body.
Commissioner Ratto believed there was an anomaly on the chart on page 3, under
""Proposed Authority."" He noted that the TC was noted listed under any items except for
""Angled Parking,"" and inquired why that was singled out. Staff Khan replied that angled
parking had Council-designated zones where it could be placed. He believed that was the
thought behind in modifying the Code.
Public comment.
There were no speakers.
Transportation Commission
July 25, 2007
Page 8 of 10",TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-07-25,9,"Close public comment.
Commissioner Ratto believed this was a wonderful report, and liked the matrix as well.
To make it clear that TC decisions can still be appealed to the City Council, he suggested
that in the Background portion of the write-up, the last line of the first paragraph should
be changed to read, ""The Transportation Commission (TC) will be the initial appeal
board"". He suggested that on page 2, the second bullet under ""Proposed AMC Revisions""
be changed to read, ""If operational decisions by the Public Works Director are appealed,
such initial appeals will be "" He suggested that in the matrix, ""Current Appeal Body""
should be changed to ""Current Initial Appeal Body."" Also, ""Proposed Appeal Body""
should be changed to ""Proposed Initial Appeal Body.""
Commissioner Krueger suggested the inclusion of the following language, ""As
previously, the Council remains the final and ultimate appeal body.""
Chair Knox White inquired about the disposition of the report following this meeting.
Staff Khan replied that there were over 30 changes, and that staff wished to ensure the TC
understood the goals and purpose of the changes. He advised that this document would
go to the City Council on August 21, 2007.
Commissioner Ratto moved to accept the staff report with the suggested clarifications in
language, including the two excluded items from the staff report. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Khan advised that the parking study for Webster Street and the West Alameda
commercial district will come to the TC in September or October. The Economic
Development Strategic Plan is tentatively scheduled for the November Transportation
Commission meeting. Staff may bring the Local Action Plan from the Climate Protection
Task Force to the TC either in October or November. The August meeting will include a
presentation from the Congestion Management Agency on the 29th and 23rd Street project.
Staff has requested that CMA attend the meeting to present that project; staff has
concerns related to access from Park Street to the freeway.
Staff Bergman advised that Commissioner Knoth has officially resigned from the TC, and
staff has been working with the School District to find a recommended replacement. He
hoped an appointment may be made within a month or so. He noted that the City's
website has been undergoing design changes, with the ultimate goal of being more user-
friendly, especially in accessing documents.
Chair Knox White noted that the TC minutes will be available on the web site in a more
timely manner going forward.
Transportation Commission
July 25, 2007
Page 9 of 10",TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-07-25,10,"Commissioner Ratto inquired whether this meeting was meant to be televised. Staff Khan
noted that he was concerned about that issue, and did not know why it was not televised.
He noted that he would report back to the TC.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2007\082207\0725minutes-draft.doc
Transportation Commission
July 25, 2007
Page 10 of 10",TransportationCommission/2007-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-07-25,1,"FINAL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2018
Commissioner Vargas convened the meeting at 7:00pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioner Vargas, Commissioners Miley, Soules, Bertken, Hans, Palmer
Absent: Chair Bellows
2. AGENDA CHANGES
*None*
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow asked why there is a sign on High St. telling drivers headed to the Oakland
Airport to turn around and use I-880. He says the neighbors think it sends a bad
message and should be taken down. He said the street sweepers go too fast to clean up
bird waste on the street.
Kandice Lee raised concerns about the uncontrolled parking situation at the dirt lot near
the Main St. ferry terminal. She said she was stuck four cars deep for hours because of
the lack of organization and signage. She said there needs to be a temporary solution
while we wait for long term plans.
Staff Member Ott said that they did not realize that the issue at the dirt parking lot was
as severe as it appears to be. She said staff is going to look for interim solutions to
improve the situation. She said that the dirt lot is owned by the City.
Commissioner Miley noted that the item was not on the agenda and that bringing it back
at a future meeting would be helpful. He said he is worried about the liability issues that
come with the lot.
Commissioner Vargas suggested that the City cover Ms. Lee's costs relating to the
incident.
Commissioner Soules suggested that whatever plan is put in place be mindful of the
temporary nature of the improvements and consider the appropriate level of investment
given the potentially short life span.
Commissioner Palmer asked how much parking would be available at the new terminal,
and whether people are ever not able to find parking there.
1",TransportationCommission/2018-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-07-25,2,"Staff Member Ott said she will address those questions more later in the agenda.
Ms. Lee said the meeting with staff should be open to the public. She said she was not
satisfied with Staff Member Ott's responses.
BA 2018-5823
Transportation Commissioner Appreciation of Service Resolutions for Thomas
Bertken and Jesus Vargas (Information)
Commissioner Vargas read a resolution recognizing Commissioner Bertken.
Commissioner Soules read a resolution recognizing Commissioner Vargas.
The resolutions can be found at:
tps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3557180&GUID=7A3A09C7
:C9A-4969-9391-294BB09CF5C1
3B Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, September 26 at 7:00 p.m.
3C Upcoming Grant-Funded Bicycle Safety Education Classes:
https://bikeeastbay.ord/alamedabikeec
3D Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) 2018 Trainings in September and
October: register on Fire Department web page
Commissioner Soules asked how many people have completed the program.
Staff Member Payne said there are over 150 active CERT members.
3E Request for Appointment of Transportation Commissioner to the Climate Plan
Update Task Force
Commissioner Miley agreed to serve on the Task Force.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4A 2018-5824
Approve Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2018 (Action)
4B 2018-5825
Approve Meeting Minutes - April 9, 2018 (Action)
Commissioner Miley said he would be abstaining from the April 9th minutes because he
was absent.
Commissioner Palmer made a motion to approve both sets of minutes.
Commissioner Hans seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
2",TransportationCommission/2018-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-07-25,3,"5. NEW BUSINESS
5A 2018-5826
Approve the AC Transit Line 96 Route Adjustment Proposal to Expand Service to
Alameda Point Businesses as Part of the Implementation of the Transportation
Plan for Alameda Point (Action)
Staff Member Payne gave a presentation. The staff report can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3557215&GUID=7843278E
3735-4E67-A414-B1DE4A393253
Commissioner Vargas called the public speakers.
John Atkinson said the changes provide a great opportunity to residents, visitors, and
employees at Alameda Point to not rely on single occupancy vehicles. He said they are
trying to plan for current and future users in the area and lines up with the City's
transportation plans.
John Spangler said we need to take a wider perspective. He said he is appalled by our
inability to find a way to serve the Main St. ferry terminal.
Commissioner Palmer asked how old the ridership data that was used for this analysis
was.
Mr. Berman, AC Transit, said the numbers are from last winter and are consistent with
ongoing analysis.
Commissioner Palmer asked why we are not putting service to the ferry terminal in this
plan right now.
Staff Member Ott said that this line does not serve most of the island and WETA's data
show that their riders come from across the island. She said they do not want to put a
service in place that is doomed to failure and prefer to seek funding for a more
appropriately designed line.
Commissioner Miley asked what the timeline for a ferry bus line is.
Staff Member Payne said they can apply for grant funding in the next year.
Commissioner Soules said the mode to mode connection is a hard problem to solve, but
is taking a long time to make progress on the ferry connection issue.
Staff Member Ott said they are trying to be creative at Harbor Bay, but that people are
finding alternative ways to get to the terminal.
3",TransportationCommission/2018-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-07-25,4,"Commissioner Vargas said that it would be good for AC Transit to provide enhanced
service for festivals and special events.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to approve the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Hans seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Vargas
abstained.)
5B 2018-5827
Accept the Annual Report on the Alameda Landing Transportation Demand
Management Program and Review of the City Staff Recommendations
(Information)
Staff Member Payne introduced the item. The staff report can be found at:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3557209&GUID=2C08EC85-
3E29-4624-BA77-C30A7FB72305&FullText=1
Commissioner Vargas opened the public hearing.
John Atkinson gave a brief history of the Alameda Landing TMA. He said employers of
service workers want service outside of the current shuttle commute hours. He said the
shuttle is training people to ride transit. He said they are in total agreement with the staff
recommendation.
Jim Strehlow said that bicyclists are still in need of a solution for getting through the
tube, especially at non-peak hours. He asked whether a previously discussed water
shuttle would become a reality. He said the Main St. ferry is not really an option for
crossing the estuary.
John Atkinson said that a water shuttle dock would be part of the next phase of Alameda
Landing. He said the economic viability of a water shuttle is not good.
Staff Member Payne said WETA is also studying small boat operations that could
include a cross estuary option, funded by RM3.
Staff Member Wheeler said the city is actively looking at water shuttle opportunities,
including privately run options.
John Spangler asked if the city can offer residents the opportunity to buy into the
transportation options being offered to people in the new developments. He said that
hopefully any new water shuttle would be more environmentally friendly than the diesel
powered option offered previously.
Commissioner Vargas closed the public hearing.
4",TransportationCommission/2018-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-07-25,5,"Commissioner Miley asked what the cost differences would be for a bus shuttle versus a
water shuttle option.
Staff Member Wheeler said they are investigating costs and also ridership estimates for
different options, but did not have numbers available at the moment.
Commissioner Soules said she would like to see more land based options because
water based options are so expensive.
Commissioner Palmer said the market may provide novel solutions to the water crossing
option, similar to an Uber on the water.
Commissioner Bertken said that there is an extensive ferry and water taxi system in
Sydney Harbor that seemed quite viable.
Commissioner Soules asked what the timeline is for the WETA small boat study.
Staff Member Payne said that it should take at least six months to a year.
Commissioner Vargas suggested the formation of an estuary joint power authority.
Commissioner Soules said we would need to monitor how many people may not stick to
the bus option when the private shuttle for Alameda Landing goes away.
5C 2018-5828
Elect Chair and Vice Chair (Action)
Commissioner Soules nominated Commissioner Miley to be Chair for the upcoming
year. Commissioner Bertken seconded the nomination. The nomination was approved 5-
0-1 (Miley abstained.)
Commissioner Miley nominated Commissioner Soules to be Vice Chair for the upcoming
year. Commissioner Bertken seconded the nomination. The nomination was approved 5-
0-1 (Soules abstained.)
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6A 2018-5829
Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
(Information)
Staff Member Payne gave a brief report. The staff report and attachment can be found
at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3557216&GUID=4E8FE4B8-
E3A7-4496-BBBD-AAE0470BB288&FullText=1
5",TransportationCommission/2018-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-07-25,6,"Staff Member Wheeler said the Cross Alameda Trail from Main to Constitution will be
going out to bid soon and will begin construction in the fall. She gave an update on the
Oakland Alameda Access Project, which is in the environmental phase and being led by
the County.
Staff Member Ott gave an update on the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal process.
6B Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. I-880/29th Avenue/23rd Avenue Interchange Project Update
2. Update on the Oakland-alameda Access Project
3. Alameda County Transportation Commission Capital Improvement Program
Commissioner Soules suggested the new commissioners get a shorter version of the
update the commission got from the Planning Board.
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow announced the Fernside neighborhood plans for National Night Out. He
said he regular encounters about five people using the Posey Tube pathway and the
2008 data may be obsolete. He said all the new panels along the railing are loaded with
graffiti.
John Spangler announced that Pedalfest is this Saturday at Jack London Square. He
said there is no signage for how bicyclists navigate the Park St. bridge area.
Pat Potter said that the ferry and water shuttle discussions need a broader focus than
just commute hour trips. She said it is an economic development opportunity.
Staff Member Payne announced that Bicycling Magazine rated Alameda the 21st safest
place for cycling.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Vargas adjourned the meeting at 9:15pm.
6",TransportationCommission/2018-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-09-27,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
September 27, 2006
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Jeff Knoth
Michael Krueger (arrived 7:40 p.m.)
Robert McFarland
Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II
Doug Garrison, Supervising Planner, Dept. of Planning and Building
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Ratto moved approval of the June 28, 2006 minutes. Commissioner
Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Commissioner McFarland moved
approval of the August 30, 2006 minutes. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion passed,
5-0 (Abstained: Ratto)
3. AGENDA CHANGES
Chair Knox White moved to move Item 7B to the beginning of the meeting to
accommodate AC Transit staff in attendance.
4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Multimodal Circulation Plan is moving forward. Will be presented to go to an EIR draft
guidelines to the council October 17th but a request for funding an EIR to update the
transportation element of the General Plan, which will be the guiding principles of the TMP.
Pedestrian Plan will be on the agenda for the next meeting.
Chair Knox White noted that AC Transit has formed a task force to look at the bunching of buses
on the 51 line, and thanked AC Transit for their work on this issue.
Transportation Commission
Page 1 of 12
9/27/06 Meeting Minutes",TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-09-27,2,"7B. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING AC TRANSIT'S PROPOSED TRANSIT
STREETS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ALAMEDA.
Staff Bergman mentioned that this Agreement would largely formalize what already exists, since
representatives from the City and AC Transit currently meet through the Interagency Liaison
Committee (ILC).
Chair Knox White mentioned Item 3 that it was a good job explaining what the city will provide
to AC Transit. He suggested that the City and the Transportation Commission be sent the
agendas or meeting packets from AC Transit's Planning and Operations Subcommittees and
Boards as to the items.
Chair Knox White noted that the City Council asked the TC to make a recommendation to them
if the Agreement meets the needs of the City.
Commissioner Ratto moved to recommend to the City Council that they adopt the Transit
Streets Cooperative Agreement. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed
unanimously, 6-0.
7A.
REVIEW AND COMMENT ON DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTER REDEVELOPMENT
AND EXPANSION PROJECT
Staff Garrison of the Planning Department said that he was at the meeting to receive comments
on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Alameda Towne Center expansion
project. He noted that the EIR will be brought back to the Planning Board in October, and that
the Planning Board expressed an interest in hearing the Transportation Commission's comments.
Commissioner Krueger asked if the Planning Board will have a second public meeting to take
comments on the project.
Staff Garrison answered that there would be second meeting. The public will have until October
12th to submit their comments on the EIR. The Environmental Consultant and Planning Staff
will prepare the final EIR, which includes responses to those comments. Another meeting may be
scheduled at the Planning Board to discuss broader project issues. If the Planning Board would
like another workshop, that may be scheduled, otherwise they will schedule a hearing.
Chair Knox White asked why was not the gas station included in this EIR.
Staff Garrison said that the property is not owned by the shopping center. Safeway decided to
submit a separate application for the gas station rather than be included in the Towne Centre EIR.
However, the gas station traffic was included under the baseline, which is other projects that
were reasonably foreseeable.
Chair Knox White asked why the intersections of Park Street/Encinal Avenue.and Park Street/San
Jose Avenue were not analyzed in this study along with bridges and tubes.
Transportation Commission
Page 2 of 12
9/27/06 Meeting Minutes",TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-09-27,3,"Staff Garrison said that the scope of the analysis was determined by the engineering staff in the
Public Works Department and based on their understanding of city traffic and existing conditions
along with anticipated traffic conditions.
Chair Knox White asked if traffic from existing Target stores in the area was used to estimate the
trip generation.
Staff Garrison responded that the analysis used the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
trip generation numbers for shopping centers.
Chair Knox White asked if it is known how this compares to large general merchandise stores.
Staff Garrison said no.
Public Comment
Jon Spangler expressed concern about the lack of some traffic data in the EIR, such as the
impact on Park Street intersections and trip generation comparisons to other Target stores. He
stated that there were no mitigations in the DEIR to address bicycle and pedestrian safety, such
as new facilities to help pedestrians crossing the parking lot. He recommended that the project
pay for its full impact on the community, and that it pay for a transportation demand
management (TDM) study and mitigations. He suggested that there might be a better location in
Alameda for a Target.
Tim Erway stated that the EIR included faulty traffic numbers based on a 2003 study. He stated
that there is only a limited number of main streets and some narrow neighborhood streets
providing access to the area, and he predicted that the project will create significant congestion
as a result. He stated that the mitigations do not appear to be sufficient, even if the majority of
the traffic is generated on-island.
Mark Irons agreed with the other two speakers on the traffic problem that the project will create,
especially on Park Street.
Closed Public Comment
Commissioner Krueger said that buses appear to have a problem entering the center at the new
entrance on Park Street. He asked if AC Transit provided input in the design and if they feel that
transit operations will still work with more intensive use and the parking garage along the bus
route.
Sean Diest Lorgion from AC Transit said that at the meeting with the Park Street entrance they
were not there when it was designed. The final plan was that the bus stop would be re-located
farther back. It's a temporary location where it is right now. It will move further back towards
Safeway to the crosswalks. Private vehicles have had to stop and back up to let the buses in.
Have asked staff to put a stop bar at the location to keep the traffic farther back.
Transportation Commission
Page 3 of 12
9/27/06 Meeting Minutes",TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-09-27,4,"Commissioner Krueger_wanted to know if A/C Transit could consider a way to allow transit
access to be more efficient, since the current route has conflicts with vehicle and pedestrian
traffic. Adding Target and the parking garage will increase the intensity of its use.
Sean Diest Lorgion from A/C Transit said he would be interested in working with City staff and
the developers on this.
Staff Khan responded that he had talked with AC Transit and the developer. Shifting the center
line is being considered to help the buses navigate the turn.
Chair Knox White had questioned Mr. Erway to clarify his comment about the 2003
transportation study on his concerns that the existing numbers are not correct.
Mr Erway said that there was no way to know if the existing numbers on the graph was correct.
He compared the 2003 map along with the 2025 projected map. The projected numbers came up
less than the 2003 numbers. It does not seem correct.
Staff Garrison said that he would not expect traffic volumes to decrease over time, but that it
is
possible that the level of service could improve as a result of the mitigations. He said that actual
traffic counts were done in 2005, and the numbers were lower than numbers from 2002. This
was attributed to construction at the shopping center or a number of vacant retail stores. He also
noted that the ITE trip generation numbers have been updated, based on real-world data, and the
factors are now lower than what they had been. As a result, the 2003 traffic numbers almost
certainly overestimated the traffic volumes.
Staff Khan agreed with Staff Garrison. He noted that the 2025 map was a draft and was not
intended to be posted on the web site. The map is being updated and should be finished in a
couple of weeks.
Commissioner Krueger noted that South Shore is more accessible to non-motor vehicle modes
than many other shopping centers, and asked if this was accounted for in the trip generation
rates.
Staff Khan said that the 7th Edition of the ITE trip generation book takes into account some of the
other factors that weren't in the 6th Edition. It does provide information on shopping centers that
are in urban areas on transit and pedestrian access. This was used for the Towne Centre project,
which was classified as an urban shopping center.
Staff Garrison stated that the baseline traffic was measured on the street in 2005. If the numbers
were lower than the 2002 numbers, the 2002 numbers were used.
Chair Knox White asked if the EIR assumes any mitigations that were required by the Mitigated
Negative Declaration in 2003 that have not been implemented yet.
Transportation Commission
Page 4 of 12
9/27/06 Meeting Minutes",TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-09-27,5,"Staff Garrison stated that the signal was actually installed after the traffic counts were done, so
the existing traffic should be better than what was projected in the traffic study. In the 2003
mitigation the driveway next to the new Walgreens was supposed to make it a right turn only.
This one has been implemented since last month. This mitigation was not assumed in the
baseline.
Chair Knox White said that under the pedestrian and bike circulation, everything in the EIR was
previously approved, so there are no new bike or pedestrian amenities. The EIR reads as if these
accommodations are part of the new plan, but there should be mitigations over and above this.
He noted that the EIR does not look at project impacts on bicyclists and pedestrians off-site. He
asked about the proposed addition of stop signs, except where it would cause traffic to back up.
Staff Garrison said that for vehicles entering from Otis, stop signs may result in queuing onto
Otis. If an east-west sidewalk is added, this may have to be reconsidered.
Chair Knox White said that we're trying to create centers on the Island. Creating more parking is
not the way. There's tremendously over parking this project, this amount may only be needed 3-
4 days per year. The minimum here is 4.0 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., the same as the maximums at
Alameda Landing.
Staff Garrison said it would be useful for the Planning Board if there was some consensus from
the TC about parking. He noted that addition of new sidewalks may required tradeoffs, such as
reducing the amount of parking.
Staff Garrison responded that the parking study that was done was a combination 2002 count
compared to ITE's, which at the time was a little over 4 spaces per 1,000. This was applied to
the additional floor area, and added 20% based on the improved selection of retailers.
Chair Knox White asked if the traffic distribution is based on actual counts.
Staff Khan said that distribution is based upon existing traffic patterns and future land use
changes and it is determined by how the traffic is going from one place of origin to destination.
Most of the time it goes down to a judgment call.
Chair Knox White expressed concern that Target may have a different trip generation pattern than
a shopping center.
Chair Knox White recommended reducing the number of vehicle lanes and adding bike lanes to
Otis, Park, and Shoreline, to mitigate the impacts of traffic on bicycle circulation. He also
recommended mitigating the impacts of the increased vehicle traffic on pedestrians by widening
the existing sidewalk along the west side of Park Street, much of which is three feet wide, and
adding an east-west sidewalk along the inside Burger King and banks.
Transportation Commission
Page 5 of 12
9/27/06 Meeting Minutes",TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-09-27,6,"Staff Garrison noted that an issue raised in the EIR was traffic trying to exit onto Shoreline to
make a left turn. There are a couple of options. One is to put in that left turn lane and the other
to make it an all way stop.
Chair Knox White stated that the main pedestrian path is along Whitehall Street, adjacent to the
proposed Target. He recommended that the sidewalks be extra wide, and commented that
currently pedestrians are required to cross many driveways.
Chair Knox White applied the seven TC-approved guidelines for reviewing EIRs to this project:
1. Not widening roadways in response to new development. That mitigation needs to come
from somewhere else than pumping more traffic through the city.
2. Widening of intersections. - not an issue for this project
3. Speed limits should be 25 mph. - not an issue for this project.
4. The effects of bike, pedestrian and transit environment outside of the project site itself
has not been analyzed in a meaningful way.
5.
EIRs would not proposed mitigation significantly degrade the pedestrian and bike
environment - he stated that the three proposed mitigations don't.
6. New stop signs do not qualify as TDM. He suggested Trader Joes needs a stoplight
because it there are major pedestrian bicycling issue getting into the center from Otis
from that intersection.
7. This would require additional analysis.
Commissioner Knoth expressed concern that Whitehall Place is the major entry to the parking
garage to Target, and must accommodate a bus route, vehicle traffic, a bike lane and the main
pedestrian path. He also stated that there is a ten-foot bike path connects here as well. He asked
if a 15-foot bicycle and pedestrian path could be installed at the Office Max driveway to divert
people off Whitehall.
Staff Garrison responded that this could be looked at, but there are feasibility concerns due to
proximity to Office Max and the required realignment of the existing traffic signal. Also, there
are neighboring properties with different owners that could impact this.
Commissioner Knoth said that the parking lots at Safeway and Trader Joes are difficult to walk
through. He asked if more frequent walkways through the parking lot could be added, although
this may require a reduction in parking.
Commissioner Krueger suggested improving the pedestrian and access at the expense of slightly
reducing parking or creating more spaces in a parking structure. He recommended some type of
sidewalk on both sides of all internal roadways. He asked if raised sidewalks could be used
instead of speed bumps to enhance pedestrian access and slow traffic, as in the Wind River
parking lot.
Chair Knox White suggested that the TC provide guidance to the Planning Board and possibly
ask staff to put together some suggested methodologies regarding reducing the amount of
Transportation Commission
Page 6 of 12
9/27/06 Meeting Minutes",TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-09-27,7,"parking required. He noted that some of the TC's recommendations will have to come at the
expense of the parking supply.
Mr. Garrison they can proceed with that general guidance taking a look at some of these
enhancements to see what the parking number comes up to at that point. He said that the
Planning Board has discretion regarding parking ratios, and that some recommendations could be
included in the analysis to determine the impact on parking. One option may be to reduce
parking, require them to monitor parking usage, and possibly require the addition of a second
deck on the parking structure in the future. This would have to be discussed with the architects.
The project architect said that there are some leases that stipulate the availability of four spaces
per 1000 square feet. However, Target has a large area for storage/stockroom space, and it may
be possible not to count this space as part of the square footage. He suggested that it may be
possible to do some other things to improve the floor plan/site plan/parking plan. He said that a
second parking deck would be very expensive and should be avoided.
Commissioner Krueger moved that the TC recommends that the use of a lower parking ratio
should be investigated in order to allow for the addition of more pedestrian, bicycle and
transit mitigations such as the addition of sidewalks, bus stops, bike lanes etc. Commissioner
Knoth seconded. Motion was approved, 5-1 (Ratto).
Staff Khan expressed concern that by recommending the removal of travel lanes that this could
result in a policy conflict with the City's standard of Level of Service D at the intersections.
Chair Knox White responded that they are only asking that these options be investigated. Once
staff has conducted its analysis, staff can reach its own conclusions about whether these ideas
make sense.
Commissioner Krueger moved to recommend as a mitigation for the project that the City look
into installing three lanes with bi-directional turn lanes for the streets boarding the project - Otis,
Park, and Shoreline. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion approved unanimously, 6-0.
Chair Knox White stated that the 15-foot bike/ped path connecting to the east side of the project
is problematic, that bicyclists coming out of the center will have a difficult time making a left
turn onto Park Street.
Architect expressed concerned that 15 feet is a pretty big expanse of sidewalk for what it is trying
to do. Maybe there should be some flexibility to include landscaping. The Shoreline Trail is 8 ft
wide.
Staff Bergman stated that a minimum is 8 feet and recommended is 10 feet for a multi use path,
although wider facilities are recommended for high-use areas.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved that the City look for a mitigation for left-turning bicyclists
heading onto Park Street. Commissioner Krueger seconded. Passed 4-2 (Ratto, Knoth).
Transportation Commission
Page 7 of 12
9/27/06 Meeting Minutes",TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-09-27,8,"Commissioner Knoth moved that bike lanes be considered for Park Street as a connector to the
15 foot bike/ped path going to the center as a mitigation for the impacts of the project.
Commissioner Krueger seconded. Motion approved, 5-1 (Ratto).
Commissioner Krueger moved that as a mitigation for the increased intensity of the project, that
the sidewalk on the west side of Park Street be widened to at least 5 feet. Commissioner Knoth
seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Commissioner Krueger moved that there be sidewalks on both sides of every road within the
center, and that the intersections of the parking lot and locations where sidewalks cross multiple
entries into the parking spaces be separated by raised crosswalks. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded. Motion failed, 4-2.
Commissioner Krueger moved that every internal roadway should have a continuous sidewalk
on at least one side and there should be more sidewalks down the center of parking aisles for
access for people getting out of their cars and walking to the center. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Staff Khan stated that this could be problematic, since Harsch may not own all of the property.
Chair Knox White responded that in the past Harsch has managed to find ways to construct
sidewalk on their property, so he suggested that they be asked to include these improvements.
Commissioner Knoth moved that pedestrian safety mitigations be made on Whitehall Place
because of the additional traffic traveling through this corridor and into the Target parking lot.
Commissioner Ratto seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Commissioner Ratto moved that there should be more fully detailed explanation regarding the
trip generation numbers. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Chair Knox White asked that this explanation be included in the EIR analysis.
Staff Khan stated that if assumptions were used that resulted in larger trip generation numbers,
that this would raise the parking estimates.
Commissioner Ratto moved that the EIR look specifically at the impact of the project on the
intersections of Park Street/Clinton, Park Street/San Jose and Park Street/Encinal.
Commissioner Krueger seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Commissioner Krueger made a motion that a mitigation be made relating to the impact of traffic
generated by the project on transit service. Commissioner Ratto seconded. Motion passed
unanimously, 6-0.
Chair Knox White stated he felt that we did not have a TDM plan.
Transportation Commission
Page 8 of 12
9/27/06 Meeting Minutes",TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-09-27,9,"Mr. Spangler stated that when Wind River moved here the city Public Works and Planning
Department staff sat down with Wind River saying that we can't require you to do these
litigations but we think they would be a good idea. Suggest the mitigation worded as a gester of
a sign of commitment to the community that Harsch Development and Target along with the
development team offer a transportation management plan voluntarily to the city to account for
their new square footage.
Commissioner Knoth moved that as part of our recommendation suggest as other developments
in town have voluntarily offered up greater than requested TDM projects ala Wind River.
Encourage the applicant to go above and beyond to accommodate mitigations for the other
650,000 square feet. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed, 5-1 (Ratto).
Commissioner Krueger moved that the committee take a 5 minute break and extend the meeting
time to 11:15. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
7C. SELECTION OF TWO COMMISSIONERS FOR THE COMMITTEE REVIEWING
BIG BOX RETAIL
Chair Knox White stated that Commissioners Ratto and McFarland have been selected to be on
the committee reviewing big box retail.
7D. COMMENT ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES OF THE ALAMEDA LANDING
PROJECT WITH REGARDS TO THE RECENT TC-APPROVED 7
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES.
Chair John Knox White reported the results of his review of the project using the TC-approved
guidelines:
Chair Knox White spoke regarding Mitigation T/C 5-A, the Tinker Avenue Extension. He
noted that currently it is a two-lane street that does not connect to Webster. He would
consider the proposed 4-lane section adjacent to this to be a widening.
Staff Khan noted that west of 5th, Tinker would only need to be increased to four lanes in
conjunction with the development at Alameda Point.
T/C 11A and 11C call for intersection widenings.
Widening the Atlantic/Webster intersection would degrade the bicycle and pedestrian
environment.
Staff Khan noted that Tinker is proposed to have bike lanes from Main to 5th, and east of
there to be an off-street path.
T/C 20D - The discussion of signals at Mitchell/5th, Marina Village Parkway/Mariner
Square Loop, and Tinker/5th should include references to bike loops.
Transportation Commission
Page 9 of 12
9/27/06 Meeting Minutes",TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-09-27,10,"Chair Knox White noted that the approved mitigations refer to a TDM plan, but it does not talk
about the plan's goals, how it will be monitored, or who will produce the plan. He asks that the
plan be brought to the TC before it goes to the City Council. He emphasized that goals need to
be established up front.
Staff Khan stated that Planning is heading up this effort, and their staff can be requested to do a
presentation.
Public Comment
Jon Spangler stated that the TDM plan should reflect the operation of a water-based cross-
estuary shuttle.
Public Comment Closed
Chair Knox White stated that some TDM measures, such as flexible work weeks, cannot easily
be monitored to estimate trip reductions.
Staff Khan noted that there are goals established in the TCMP.
Chair Knox White responded that there should be other goals beyond those relating to tube
traffic. He supports the project's emphasis on TDM measures, but doesn't see why they are
proposing the amount of parking they are, since trips are being reduced. Providing too much
parking will undermine the TDM measures.
Staff Khan stated that City staff have been working to find ways to monitor the TDM plan, and
have been looking at examples from other cities, but have not found a satisfactory methodology
up to this point.
Chair Knox White suggested using two of the four proposed lanes on Tinker as bus-only lanes.
Staff Khan responded that queue jump lanes are being proposed on Tinker.
Chair Knox White made the following comments:
While there are bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the project, getting to and from the
project for these users will be difficult.
The plan refers to minimizing traffic on minor residential streets, this may conflict with
the TMP policies. The project streets should not function like those on Bay Farm Island.
Plan proposes 24-hour streets, this is best achieved by vibrant neighborhoods and
sidewalks
5th Street should be no more than three lanes
parking ratios should be reconsidered
Commissioner Krueger moved the following:
Transportation Commission
Page 10 of 12
9/27/06 Meeting Minutes",TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-09-27,11,"The following conflicts with the seven policy guidelines endorsed by the TC should be
addressed: a) policy #1: proposed Tinker extension, b) policy #2: additional lanes proposed for
the Atlantic and Webster intersection, c) policy #3: the Tinker extension should be designed to
encourage 25 mph speed by drivers, d) policy #4: EIR does not address impacts of the project
on bicycle and pedestrian environment outside of the project area, e) policy #5: EIR does not
account for negative impacts on bicyclists and pedestrians, particularly regarding proposed
Atlantic and Webster intersection improvements, f) policy #7: Level of Service worse than D
should be acceptable at the Atlantic and Webster intersection.
Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion was approved unanimously, 6-0.
Commissioner Ratto moved that the Commission wishes to highlight the extreme necessity for
completing the extension as a way of making this project work. Commissioner Knoth
seconded. Motion was approved unanimously, 6-0.
Commissioner Krueger moved that the conflict between the amount of parking being provided
and the plans for an aggressive TDM be resolved. They are in conflict and we shouldn't do
both because it's a waste of money; let's decide what we are really going to do. Commissioner
Ratto seconded the motion. Motion was approved unanimously, 6-0.
Commissioner Krueger moved that the feasibility study of the bicycle and pedestrian
connection to Oakland be included, and that any conflicts with the long-term transit plan for
Alameda Point be resolved in a way that one doesn't preclude the other. Commissioner Ratto
seconded. Motion was approved unanimously, 6-0.
8. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Bergman mentioned that the ethics test needed to be completed before the first of the year.
Commissioners will be reimbursed for the cost of the test.
Staff Bergman commented on the W. End Shuttle Analysis. This is the work scope that the TC
reviewed several months back. It's underway now and looking to wrap that up within the next
month or SO. At this point the consultants gave us some background information especially
looking at alternative fuel vehicles and potential routing to key destinations. Staff Bergman said
it would be on the next agenda for October.
Staff Bergman showed photos of pedestrian improvements completed at Alameda Towne Centre.
Staff Bergman announced that the City was awarded a grant from the Bicycle Transportation
Account to construct a path on the east side of Fernside Boulevard connecting San Jose Avenue
to the bike bridge. An additional 10 foot path adjacent to the existing 5 foot sidewalk. The grant
is for just under $600,000.
Staff Khan said that in October we will also have some information on street classification from
the consultants and will have a presentation on that. He said that three meetings have been
Transportation Commission
Page 11 of 12
9/27/06 Meeting Minutes",TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-09-27,12,"scheduled with the consultant to come back here. By December have the street classification
finalized. Will do October, November and December.
Meeting adjourned at 11:25 PM.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2006\0906\to min 92706-FINAL.doc
Transportation Commission
Page 12 of 12
9/27/06 Meeting Minutes",TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-11-15,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2017
Chair Bellows convened the meeting at 7:02pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Bellows, Commissioners Palmer, Hans, Miley, Bertken.
Absent: Vice-Chair Vargas, Commissioner Soules.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
*None*
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Andrea Wuttke gave a brief presentation on her proposal for aerial tramways connecting
Alameda to BART stations in Oakland. She said it would take six minutes to reach West
Oakland BART, and would require bus system integration.
Arnold Brillinger spoke about the renamed free Alameda Loop Shuttle. He said we need
to get the word out so people can take advantage of the service.
3A
Climate Action Plan Draft Work Scope to City Council: Tuesday, December 5 at
7:00 p.m. (City Hall, Council Chambers)
3B
Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 7:00 p.m.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4A 2017-4538
Approve Meeting Minutes - September 27, 2017 (Action)
Commissioner Miley made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner
Bertken seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0-1. (Chair Bellows abstained
due to her absence from the September meeting.)
5. NEW BUSINESS
5A 2017-4939
Approve AC Transit's Transbay Tomorrow Proposal for Alameda Except for
Reducing Line OX Frequency (Action)
Staff Member Payne introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at: ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3205740&GUID=3D9FE359-
5A66-45CC-AFEB-C24E95C2EOA6&FullText=
1",TransportationCommission/2017-11-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-11-15,2,"AC Transit Board Member Elsa Ortiz gave an introduction to the Transbay Tomorrow
proposal.
Linda Morris, AC Transit, gave the presentation on the plan details.
Commissioner Miley asked what the overall capacity changes would be for the reduced
Line OX afternoon service.
Ms. Morris said the average ridership was in the high 20s. She said the fleet is mixed
right now and that they would commit to using the higher capacity MCI buses due to the
reduced frequency.
Chair Bellows asked if they are still anticipating and planning for growth on the line that
is being reduced.
Ms. Morris said they will wait for the expansion plan to address possible growth in
services.
Commissioner Palmer asked if AC Transit is working with the Planning Board to
anticipate demand from new residents and what flexibility there is to address this
increased demand from new housing construction coming online after the plan is
adopted.
Ms. Morris said the expansion plan is expected to double transbay service if the funding
(RM3) comes through.
Commissioner Palmer asked how much time the dedicated lanes would save when
Salesforce Tower would open.
Ms. Morris said they are estimating a savings of 5-10 minutes per trip once the
dedicated access bridge and lanes to the new terminal are open.
Commissioner Bertken asked if there might be demand for even earlier eastbound
service on Line W, similar to Line O. He said the comparison between the time it takes to
travel by car and by bus was too optimistic.
Ms. Morris said they were trying to provide a very rough estimate of the competition
between modes. She said they used Google Maps estimates of travel time from
Alameda.
Chair Bellows asked what would happen if RM3 failed to pass, if there was a backup
plan to fund the desired service expansion.
2",TransportationCommission/2017-11-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-11-15,3,"Ms. Morris said they want to have the service expansion plan in place for when and if
RM3 passes. She said they could pursue other funding sources if it does not pass.
Chair Bellows asked if the new buses would have technology that would make accepting
local fares on transbay routes faster.
Ms. Morris said the fare medium would be the same regardless of old or new buses and
there would have to be some switching back and forth for local riders. She said MTC is
developing a second generation Clipper Card system and that she is not involved, but it
may alleviate some of that issue.
Commissioner Miley suggested there could be two card readers on each bus.
There were no public speakers.
Commissioner Miley asked if the report was heard by the Alameda-AC Transit liaison
committee.
Staff Member Payne said the topic was heard and the same issue about Line OX service
reduction was raised.
Commissioner Miley said that with the growth of the island that any reduction in service
would be counterintuitive.
Commissioner Palmer asked why none of the double decker buses currently are
proposed for Alameda.
Ms. Morris said they have higher demand in Emeryville and Berkeley, which will get the
first 15 double decker buses.
Commissioner Palmer asked if there would be an issue fitting the double decker buses
through the tubes.
Ms. Morris said the height of the buses would not be a problem.
Commissioner Bertken asked if the disapproval of the Line OX reduction would impact
the plan elsewhere.
Ms. Morris said the cost neutral plan requires trade-offs in some areas to achieve
service improvements in others.
Ms. Ortiz said they would love to add more service but they do not have the money
unless RM3 passes.
3",TransportationCommission/2017-11-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-11-15,4,"Commissioner Palmer asked if developers of new housing are being asked to help
subsidize transit.
Staff Member Ott said that all developments pay fees to fund transit. She said the Line
19 service at 20-minute headways was only possible because of the special taxes on
new developments.
Commissioner Miley said they are really just stating Alameda's priorities tonight and not
affecting the overall cost neutral nature of the plan, which will be worked out later.
Chair Bellows said they are moving to approve AC Transit's Transbay Tomorrow
proposal with the exception of reducing the Line OX service. Commissioner Miley
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
5B 2017-4940
Receive Status Report on Implementation of the Adopted Plan for Access to the
Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal (Information)
Staff Member Ott gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3205741&GUID=3B82C9A7
E63D-4F13-90BC-E7EFF40BA6DF&FullText=1
Kevin Connolly, WETA, applauded City Staff and AC Transit for their efforts to address
these issues and make difficult decisions. He said their business is booming and they
are reaching their limits for their current service levels.
Commissioner Hans asked if they had plans to implement paid parking at the Harbor
Bay Ferry.
Mr. Connolly said they originally wanted to implement paid parking at the same time the
permit parking on Bay Farm started. He said they had some issues and decided to let
the permit parking roll out first and see what happened. He said they hope to have
charges in place in the first half of 2018. He said they are sensitive to the cost of their
service but understand the logic of providing a small disincentive for people to drive.
Chair Bellows asked if they could charge more for parking earlier in the day and reduce
the fee as the day goes on.
Mr. Connolly said that all options are on the table. He said the nature of their operations
means that it will limit what kinds of things they can do.
Commissioner Palmer asked what kind of price range they are thinking about. She said
going to a machine at BART to pay for parking adds time and asked if they can keep it
simple and have permits.
4",TransportationCommission/2017-11-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-11-15,5,"Mr. Connolly said their initial study said that they should look at $2-3 per day. He said
that further information indicates that it might take something like $5 to get people to
change behavior. He said using a phone or app like Golden Gate ferry has worked very
well.
Chair Bellows asked if the AC Transit driver could notify the ferry to wait if they are close
but running behind.
Mr. Connolly said the problem is on AC Transit's end. He said the boat is 99% on time.
Commissioner Miley said he knows Line 21 is not reliable because of the length of the
route. He asked if AC Transit has considered splitting the route.
Staff Member Ott said AC Transit is looking at ways to address that issue systematically.
Commissioner Hans asked if moving the last ferry to a slightly later time would help
solve the problem for parents who have to drop off kids at school.
Mr. Connolly said they have competing groups of riders that want earlier or later
departure times. He said they are facing new issues at Harbor Bay every year due to
increased ridership.
Christine Lok said she represents a large group of riders. She said the AC Transit
service does not serve the ferry riders well. She said she supports the parking permit
idea. She says it has to coincide with other improvements and that riders will want to
know where the funds are going.
*No action was required*
5C 2017-4941
Review Climate Plan Update Draft Work Scope (Information)
Staff Member Garland gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments can
be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3205794&GUID=0CFEF934-
A6FF-4DD8-986E-6EF13E792F30&FullText=1
Commissioner Miley suggested staff get in touch with the State's Coastal Conservancy
staff on sea level rise adaptation issues.
Chair Bellows said the plan seems to be on the right track. She asked if there are any
concrete steps we are taking to address the transportation contribution to greenhouse
gas emissions.
5",TransportationCommission/2017-11-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-11-15,6,"Staff Member Ott said the Transportation Choices Plan evaluated the reduction in GHG
emissions the plan would result in. She said the plan should put the city on track to
exceed the transportation-related emissions reduction targets.
Commissioner Miley said the public would want to see the tangible items that would be
helping us meet the goals shown in the data.
Chair Bellows opened the public hearing.
Pat Potter, CASA and Bike Walk Alameda, said the Transportation Choices Plan does
not address the Bicycle and Ped Plans, which will be important for meeting our GHG
goals. She said we need to really talk to people to figure out what way to get people to
take the bus or ride a bike.
Ruth Abbe, CASA, said they have not been very active on transportation issues in the
past. She said that acknowledging that transportation is responsible for 52% of our GHG
emissions means they will be taking a more active role in transportation issues. She
encouraged the commissioners to fully participate in the development of the Climate
Action Plan to aspire to some attainable goals in the plan.
Chair Bellows closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Miley said that the transportation share shows how our bike and
pedestrian plans need to chip away at our GHG numbers.
Staff Member Garland asked for an informal response from each commissioner about
whether the plan was headed in the right direction or not.
Chair Bellows said the speaker's comments about the bike and pedestrian plan effects
on the plan. She asked to talk about the LimeBikes. She said they are everywhere, but
there are no helmets.
Staff Member Ott said they are looking at ways to help get minors wearing helmets when
riding. She said there have been over 11,000 trips since the launch with about 350 per
day.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6A Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Alameda Transportation Management Association Annual Report
2. Paratransit Program Annual Review
3. One-way Carshare
4. 2014 Parking Occupancy Goal Update
5. Traffic Calming Draft Policy and Prioritized List 6. Alameda Point Existing
Tenant Proposed Fees
6",TransportationCommission/2017-11-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-11-15,7,"7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Commissioner Palmer asked how we can work more with the Planning Board to address
the traffic issues as new housing comes on board.
Staff Member Ott said they did take the Transportation Choices Plan to City Council and
had a robust discussion. She said they are going to add some edits to the final plan to
include some next steps on many of the big ticket long-term items. She said they can
look into a joint Transportation Commission/Planning Board meeting to discuss the
broader land use and transportation issues.
Commissioner Miley suggested that anytime there is a big capital item or plan that could
be heard by both bodies simultaneously it could save a lot of staff time as well.
Andrea Wuttke asked that the tramway system be considered at the same time the
engineering study for a bicycle and pedestrian bridge is conducted.
Chair Bellows said operating costs would be an issue for a mass transit system. She
said the tram idea has been studied in the past.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bellows adjourned the meeting at 8:56pm.
7",TransportationCommission/2017-11-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-07-25,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Commissioner Thomas Bertken called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Thomas G. Bertken
Michele Bellows
Christopher Miley
Sandy Wong
Jesus Vargas
Eric Schatmeier
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
Commissioner Vargas made a motion to pull item 4B from the consent calendar and to present
this item first under ""New Business"" since there are members of the public that would like to talk
about that item. Commissioner Miley seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Matthew Fitzgerald announced that the Alameda Bicycle opened for operation in 1969 and his
family took over in 1987. His family business is good small business, which contributes to the
community. If anyone has any questions, please contact him at Alameda Bicycle Sales, Repairs,
and Rentals at (510) 522-0070 or pay a visit at 1522 Park Street Alameda, CA.
4.
Consent Calendar
4A.
Draft Meeting Minutes - June 27, 2012
Commissioner Miley made a correction on page 7(10) under ""Commissioner Miley's comments""
it should be corrected to say CBS, such as Outdoor Clear Channel.
Commissioner Bellows made a correction on page 3(10) under ""Commissioner Bellows suggested
that the Island Drive/Robert Davey Jr. Drive traffic-calming project could use a pedestrian
Page 1 of 11",TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-07-25,2,"scramble."" She actually only asked if that was possible and wanted clarification.
Staff Payne explained the structure of the Consent Calendar. The chair would ask if anyone
would like to move an item from the consent portion of the agenda. The chair then would make a
motion to approve the consent calendar. Afterwards, the chair opens the floor for any questions
or discussions on items remaining on the calendar. After reviewing the remaining items, the chair
would ask for any objections. If none are offered, the remaining items are considered passed.
4D.
2012 Transportation Expenditure Plan Fact Sheet
Commissioner Schatmeier asked about the transportation expenditure plan and he wanted to
know more about the status of it. He felt if the transportation expenditure plan appears to
increase operating funds, he would like to know how that would affect the City of Alameda.
Thus, he wanted to know more about it.
Staff Khan said the transportation expenditure plan has been finalized and approved by the
County Board of Supervisors, and will go to voters for approval in November. AC Transit will
receive a significant amount of money for operations and maintenance. Currently, not much has
been done about how they will use that money. He did explain that Commissioner Schatmeier's
point was valid, and he would talk about the next steps and that should be discussed with the
Interagency Liaison Committee.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied that he was most interested in the transportation expenditure's
plan to increase AC Transit's operating funding by 100% to increase and restore services. He felt
that increasing the operating subsidy means essentially doubling transit service or buses running
every 30 minutes will be increased to every 15 minutes. He hopes for a process in which the City
could participate so they get their share of expansion money even if it is not specifically
identified for Alameda.
Staff Khan stated that if the Measure B passes that will bring other money to the City. The City
estimates that the plan will bring $240 million of potential project funding to Alameda.
Commissioner Bertken made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Commissioner Vargas
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0; 3 abstentions.
5.
New Business
5A.1 Shoreline Drive / Westline Drive Proposed Bike Lane Project - Community Meeting #2
Summary of Comments
Staff Payne presented a summary of the report.
Carol Gottstein, an Alameda resident, stated that she grew up near Shoreline Drive and is a third
generation Alamedan. She could not attend the first meeting, but was interested in attending the
second meeting. She noticed in the Transportation Commission minutes that Staff Payne heard
Page 2 of 11",TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-07-25,3,"more from the neighborhood and bicyclists than other residents. Additionally, she thought there
would be break-out sessions, but when she came, she was handed a nametag and sat in an
assigned seat. She also was unable to elect her group's spokeperson. The group had to select one
out of six alternatives for the plan and every table, which seemed odd, selected the same
alternative. She also found that someone at her table lived in Oakland. She felt that the
participants were manipulated to respond in a particular way. Ultimately, she wanted to make
sure that cyclists from out of town are not planning routes for their benefit and that all group
attendees understand the meaning of cycle tracks and what that entails.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, explained that he
does not live on Shoreline Drive, but lives in the mid island area. He has driven, bicycled and
taught bicycle safety along Shoreline Drive since 1977. He tried to ease Ms. Gottstein's concerns
by letting her know that there were not people stacked outside or inside Alameda to respond in
particular way. He felt the reason the cycle track was chosen was because anyone who is
concerned with children and new cyclists riding along the street could clearly see that the cycle
track was the safest option for providing bicyclists with access to the shoreline. He personally
does not like cycle tracks, but allowing cyclists to ride safely on the street is crucial. Furthermore,
he noted that Crown Beach is a regional resource and not the property of the City.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff if the information that was just reviewed and commented on
be included in the final input. Additionally, he wanted to know if there would be later public
meetings in the fall and if so is a schedule available on how this will play out.
Staff Payne replied that staff is taking what they learned from this meeting in late June and they
are coming up with a draft plan for this route. Staff will present the draft alternative to the
participants in the fall. The meeting date is not scheduled at this time. The draft plan will go to
the Transportation Commission after the public meeting in the fall, and also will go to the
Planning Board and then the City Council.
Staff Khan replied from staff's perspective is to work with the community to find the
community's needs and priorities. So, no decisions will be made about the project design until
consensus is made.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied that he attended the meeting. He was impressed by how the
community received all the comments and was engaged in the process. The community members
were collegial, and the meeting was well run. He was told by an acquaintance that Shoreline
Drive was a faster alternative than Otis Drive because there are fewer traffic lights and stop
signs. He questioned whether the community around Shoreline Drive wants this street to be a
through street to avoid Otis Drive or do they want to divert people to Otis Drive. So, the main
discussion should be how does the community want Shoreline Drive to operate and that should
be a central goal for this process.
Commissioner Miley stated that he also attended the meeting and as someone who grew up in
Alameda his group was well run. Regarding the cycle track, the group came to a consensus that
the cycle track was the superior alternative. He would be interested to see how staff interprets the
comments and refines the alternatives and plan.
Page 3 of 11",TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-07-25,4,"Commissioner Wong asked staff how many people attended the last meeting.
Staff Payne stated that close to 100 attendees were present at both the first and second public
meetings.
Commissioner Vargas asked if the meeting summary reflected the attendees and if it is possible
in the next meeting to see where attendees reside. Also, he would like to know if attendees are
joggers, bicyclists or both.
Staff Khan replied from staff's perspective, they do not want to separate the community by
geography, especially as the last speaker noted, it is a regional beach and part of the countywide
bicycle plan not just the city bicycle plan.
5A.
Election of Transportation Commission Chair and Vice Chair
Staff Payne presented the summary of election conditions.
Commissioner Bertken opened the discussion for nomination of the new Chair and Vice Chair.
Commissioner Miley nominated Commissioner Vargas as the Chair. Commission Bellows
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Commissioner Bellows nominated Commissioner Miley as Vice Chair. Commissioner Vargas
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Commissioner Vargas introduced Commissioner Schatmeier, and asked him to give a brief
summary of his experience.
Commissioner Schatmeier explained that he was one of the original Transportation Commission
members and served for 11 years. He worked as the Planning Manager for Caltrain from 1980 to
1992. He then went on to work at Caltrans Headquarters in Sacramento as a director in the
Railroad Division. In 2006, he became the program manager for the Transportation Authority of
Marin, and he is now retired. He recently got involved with the Commission because he was
interested in the AC Transit Transbay OX Line and the fact that AC Transit disallowed local
service to passengers on the bus. The agency made the change without coming to the Interagency
Liaison Committee and the Transportation Commission first, and he thought that process was
assumed as a standard operating procedure.
Page 4 of 11",TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-07-25,5,"5B.
Proposed Yellow Crosswalk on San Antonio Avenue in Front of Franklin Elementary
School
Staff Khan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Vargas explained that Alameda resident Alan Ta submitted a letter giving
suggestions on the location of the crosswalk. He then called for public comment.
Page Tomblin, parent of a student at Franklin Elementary School, thanked the Public Works and
Parks and Recreations Department staff, nearby residents and Alameda School District for
working with the PTA and parents to develop ways to access the park safely. The Franklin
Elementary School recreational space is small SO better access to the park would be helpful.
Ken Carvalho, Alameda resident and Franklin Elementary School PTA, has worked with the
Franklin community to address the access and safety issues for two years. The organization
worked with the City to produce a written statement to have the City partner with them to make
the park accessible. He explained that a Joint Use Agreement was established between the City
and the school district. He said that there used to be a mid-block crosswalk at this same location,
and he would like to see it restored. Since there is no grass on the school's playground, the kids
need the park to play their sports. He hoped that the Transportation Commission would approve
the project.
Jon Spangler explained that he became a volunteer at Franklin Elementary School while serving
on the original Transportation Commission. He became the crowd control supervisor for
kindergarten to fifth graders. This effort led to developing one of two Safe Routes to School
maps in the City of Alameda. He also found out that San Antonio Avenue was quite busy with
traffic since it did not have stop signs compared to Encinal Avenue. He would like the crosswalk
restored, and recommends that the Commission approve the project.
Carol Gottstein, lives on Grand Street, and she went to the community meeting. She does not
believe a particular direction was taken at the meeting. She sees the new plan has cluttered signs
and painted striping. She read what Mr. Ta wrote, and she believes that he has a lot of good
points. The amount of time that is being saved is seconds and does not change access. When she
was a kid, she was taught to cross at the corners, which still should be applicable today.
Commissioner Vargas opened the discussion to the Commission.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if staff wants the Commission to approve the staff
recommendation tonight.
Staff Khan replied that they are asking for an action on the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Bellows said that she was happy to see such a collaborative effort between the
school, Public Works Department staff, the school district and the PTA. She lives a block away
from the area, and watches the kids go to the park. She also reflected on wheelchair bound people
and the fact that they have to go all the way around to access the park. So, she supported the
Page 5 of 11",TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-07-25,6,"project.
Commissioner Bertken asked if the crosswalk design includes a handicap portion of the sidewalk.
Staff Khan replied yes.
Commissioner Wong questioned whether there were plans to include a crossing guard at the
crosswalk during the daytime or after school.
Staff Khan replied no, there were no plans for a crossing guard. The intention of the crosswalk is
to enhance pedestrian crossings. The school is taking the lead to improve pick up and drop off
operations. Staff recommended to the school that the crosswalk should be addressed in
conjunction with the drop off and pickup. He mentioned that there is a crossing guard at the Paru
Street and Encinal Avenue intersection.
Commissioner Miley asked if staff had a chance to review the letter by Alan Ta, and if staff could
explain some of the points made in the letter such as line spacing and letter heights on the street.
He also asked staff to explain why they are moving forward with the proposal.
Staff Khan replied that he read the letter and when the department decides to install traffic
controls on a street the City must adhere to the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD). There are different criteria for different items to be installed. If the manual
says ""shall,"" then the City cannot deviate because it is the state law.
Commissioner Miley understood that not every street is the same and so the MUTCD provides
some discretion to accommodate particular circumstances and thus improving access to students
in the park.
Commissioner Vargas asked Staff Khan if the recommendations section of the staff memo should
be amended to include ""and watch for one year"" or is the project a permanent implementation.
Staff Khan replied even if the street is later closed, the crosswalk will still be valid and
pedestrians could continue to use it.
Commissioner Vargas asked Staff Khan if the placement of the paddles was something that the
City would monitor.
Staff Khan explained that the City staff could not go out every morning SO it is a partnership. He
then stated that having the school involved makes a big difference because education to improve
pedestrian access is crucial for all school zones.
Commissioner Wong made a motion to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Bertken
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Page 6 of 11",TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-07-25,7,"5C.
Draft Regional Transit Access Study (RTAS) - Overview of Study Corridors, Transit
Demand, and Service Examples
Staff Khan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Vargas called for public comment.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, was confused about the public comment
format because during Commission Moehring's term, the Commission discussed the item before
the public would comment. Therefore, he was unable to comment on the Commission's thoughts
before coming up to speak. He asked the staff to change the spelling of ""corridors"" on the top of
every page of the report. Additionally, he disliked the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) plan because it is
not a good fit for the city. He explained that Eugene, Oregon may have extra space for a
dedicated lane, but Alameda is not able to dedicate a lane on Atlantic Avenue because it has two
lanes. He also did not believe that the proposed fare collection system would speed up the
service. He felt that the gains are not what the residents want. He would rather have a well-
organized bus system, not a bus rapid transit system. He wants City staff to clarify the gains of
the bus rapid transit system.
Commissioner Vargas called for the Commission to comment.
Commissioner Miley asked about the timeline and when staff would present the final draft report
to the Commission. He also wanted to know if this draft plan would go to the Planning Board
and City Council.
Staff Khan responded that staff's intention is to create two to three more documents to go through
the Transportation Commission. The plan would include a detailed analysis. The grant has an
October 2014 deadline, so they have some leeway. The goal is to process the study, and move
forward especially since the Alameda Point is moving forward. Staff may go to the Planning
Board in the meantime to move the process concurrently with the Transportation Commission
and then present the report to the City Council sometime in summer or fall of 2013.
Commissioner Miley understood that the plan was in the early process, but he was interested to
see how the Bay Area's first BRT will function in the east bay. Thus, he wanted to know what
the timeline was for implementation and service.
Staff Khan explained that in terms of the timing, the East Bay BRT is a little bit ahead of them
because Oakland is in the Environmental Impact Report phase. He also mentioned that the
project should link into Oakland.
Commissioner Miley said the East Bay BRT had federal funds identified for the project. He
explained the proposed plan does have some natural synergies there. So, he questioned how the
idea of BRT would work when he understood it as a system with dedicated lanes. Lastly, he
commented on some of the travel modes in place of work numbers where you see big numbers
for Oakland, San Francisco, Alameda and a lump for Alameda County. He would like to know if
staff has data that shows that the dispersion throughout central and southern Alameda County. He
Page 7 of 11",TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-07-25,8,"wondered if there were any other natural synergies in terms of job centers throughout the county.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked about the corridors (one in red and blue) depicted for BRT and
Rapid Bus. He was curious about beginning the line at Alameda Point and going to Fruitvale
BART station for both cases. On the aerial shot, there is a red line going through the tube to
Oakland and another aerial shot of the blue line showing that as well. He wanted clarification on
what was being depicted there and if it was intended to work in conjunction.
Staff Khan explained that the BRT would be brought before the Commission in September after
further analysis. Staff reviewed the two corridors because the General Plan included the need to
connect Alameda Point with the 12th Street BART and another connection to the Fruitvale
BART Station.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that when he was originally presented with this information,
there was a study on the AC Transit Line 51 and how that line could be sped up. He does not
know what happened to that presentation, but there was talk to convert Line 51 to a rapid bus.
So, he wondered if the two corridors would supplement Line 51 or replace it.
Staff Khan responded that they have been talking about Line 51 for both Berkeley and Alameda.
AC Transit received $10 million from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) three
months ago from their Transit Performance Initiative Program funded from federal sources.
Alameda is analyzing Line 51 to see how to reduce delays along the corridor. Also, AC Transit is
interested in analyzing whether the corridor should continue on Santa Clara Avenue or move to
Lincoln Avenue, but the analysis will be discussed in September.
Commissioner Schatmeier commented that the BRT is further away from the center part of the
island and essentially located on the north end of the island along the Beltway and Clement
Avenue. He felt that should be acknowledged and discussed later. Furthermore, an analysis of the
cost and benefits from each alternative should be discussed.
Staff Khan responded that the red and blue lines presented in the report are just the corridors and
they do not represent identified BRT or Rapid Bus service.
Commissioner Schatmeier explained that staff has a lot of statistics on ridership and behavior in
the City and they make decisions on deploying transportation not on transit demand, but by
funding availability. So, when analyzing the cost and benefits, he would like staff to be cautious
and recognize the limitations of the travel model so that they recognize the benefits that may not
be measured numerically or by the travel model.
Staff Khan responded that inclusion of Transportation Demand Management and enhanced
transit service measures could double the base line numbers based on the data.
Commissioner Schatmeier exclaimed that the numbers are standardized and they do not
recognize the ideas that he was talking about.
Commissioner Vargas said the plan does not point out Bay Farm since it is a City of Alameda
Page 8 of 11",TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-07-25,9,"study. He does not know if it needed to be included and that is a question for staff. He felt that a
background of the General Plan and Senate Bill SB 375 should be addressed and land use
policies should be discussed in conjunction with the Planning Board. He also addressed the need
to reference other BRT projects in regards to number of miles, cost and ridership in future
documents.
Staff Khan spoke about the Bay Farm area. The funding that the City received was intended to
connect Alameda Point to the BART station. However, the analysis could lead staff and the
Commission to discussions on the Long Range Transit Plan.
Commissioner Bertken commented that it was worthwhile to bring up that staff had a diagram of
the route, which includes the ferry terminal, but the corridor stopped at the edge of the base. He
mentioned that there is discussion to have a transit center at the terminal. So, as a matter of
presentation, the corridors should end where the new terminal will be placed. Also, he pointed
out that there would be 300 new ferry passengers due to Alameda Point development. Yet, there
is no place within the report to show that there are close to 700 trips today across the Bay to San
Francisco. Lastly, he asked staff if the consultants that were used would be on board for the entire
study.
Staff Khan explained that Nelson Nygaard would be on board for the entire plan.
Commissioner Bertken said Nelson Nygaard did a wonderful job putting the information together
as an introduction to where we stand today, but further discussion is needed. He mentioned that
the lines that are shown in the report are not where the population lies. They might be good
streets from a physical standpoint, but for attracting riders who may want a relatively short
walking distance, they may not be.
6.
Staff Communications
On-going Traffic Calming Projects
Staff Khan mentioned that staff held a community meeting at Fernside Blvd about the traffic-
calming project at the end of June, but the meeting was not well attended given that it was a
holiday season.
Complete Streets Policy Requirement
Staff will bring information about a proposed Complete Street Policy to the Commission at the
September meeting. The policy requirement is coming from the following two different sources:
1) the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) recently approved the One Bay Area
Grant and the funding is coming from federal sources. So every jurisdiction should have a
complete street policy adopted by early 2013, and 2) the Alameda County Transportation
Commission (ACTC) has a Complete Street requirement in their funding agreement that the City
signed and must adhere to in order to receive Measure B funds by June 30, 2013. One advantage
for the City is that they recently updated their Transportation Element in the General Plan.
Page 9 of 11",TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-07-25,10,"Draft Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans
Staff Payne explained that ACTC has issued the Draft Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans
and they are on their website at www.alamedactc.org. The deadline for public comment is this
Friday, July 27th, but they should be flexible about receiving comments after the deadline.
Alameda CTC Planning and Programming Update
Staff Khan explained that schedules for funding were made available, and the City must adhere to
the deadlines. Staff will continually inform the Commission about what is happening at the
ACTC.
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
Staff Payne explained that the next meeting will take place Wednesday, September 26th and
should include the following:
-
The Quarterly Report
-
Complete Streets Policy
-
Draft Prioritized Transportation List
-
Regional Transit Access Study
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Commissioner Schatmeier commented about the AC Transbay Line OX and that the item was not
on this agenda. He wanted to acknowledge the passing of Cory LaVigne, Director of Service
Development and Planning at AC Transit. He knew him professionally, and he thought he was a
fine man. He hoped that the Line OX item would be on the September meeting agenda.
Staff Khan acknowledged that Cory LaVigne's sudden passing and it impacted City's transit
timeline for the Line OX item.
Jim Strehlow wanted to speak after the Commissioners' comments about agenda item 5C. He
understood that there was a discussion of having a circulator bus traverse through Alameda Point.
He would like to know when they are going to discuss the Beltline because the property would be
used instead of Atlantic Avenue or Pacific Avenue. Moreover, he would like to know when will
the area be developed and when will they have access to it.
Staff Khan responded that the Beltline property has been transferred to the City and a portion of
the property is going to be used for the BRT.
Jon Spangler explained that the BRT proposal looked good to him and since he once lived in
Eugene, he was glad to see that area increase their transit service. His reason for speaking was to
remind the Commission that Saturday, August 18th from 11 am to 8 pm the East Bay Bicycle
Coalition would hold Pedal Fest at Jack London Square. More information can be found at
http://pedalfestjacklondon.com/. Also, he mentioned during the month of August, BART will
Page 10 of 11",TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-07-25,11,"have its first pilot project to eliminate the bicycle blackout periods. For the five Fridays in
August, bicyclists can take their bicycle on any BART train at anytime of the day.
Matthew Fitzgerald announced a Pancake Breakfast on Sunday, July 29 from 9 am to 12 noon at
Fire Station #1, 2401 Encinal Drive.
Michael John Torrey, representing The People of the City, explained that a lot of people are
looking for the bus circulator at Alameda Point, especially for people who want to visit the USS
Hornet. Also, many elderly residents live in Alameda and he would like a circulator to pick up
passengers between Webster Street and the ferry terminal. Line 31 only stops at Ranger Street
and not at the ferry terminal.
8.
Adjournment
9:19 pm
Page 11 of 11",TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2022-01-26,1,"Draft Minutes
Transportation Commission Meeting
Wednesday, January 26, 2022
Time:
6:30 p.m.
Location:
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 codified at Government Code Section 54953,
Transportation Commissioners can attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allows public
participation via Zoom.
Legistar Link:
https://alamedaca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_RdDnLxBeQjuXZhWV-OEQNA
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Yuen and Commissioners Kohlstrand, Weitze, Rentschler and
Nachtigall.
Absent: Commissioner Michael Hans.
2. Agenda Changes
None.
3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385385&GUID=0524F134-2FC5-
 47DB-8D47-125D50782A68&FullText=1.
4. Announcements / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow questioned why July 27, 2022, had been recommended for cancelation. He also had
issues with recent City Council decisions about slow streets and beg buttons. He noted there was
no public opportunity to question why the City Council had not followed the staff's
recommendation. He felt that the public had been left out of the process. He also discussed a recent
trip to Orlando Florida where he felt they had very bad bike/pedestrian facilities.
Robert Vance, Public Work Senior Engineer, introduced Tawfic Halaby who had recently joined
Public Works as a Supervising Civil Engineer. He would be working on the Capital Improvement
Program.
TC Draft Minutes
1
1/26/22",TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2022-01-26,2,"Chair Samantha Soules congratulated Commissioner Randy Rentschler who had recently retired
from MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission).
5. Consent Calendar
5A. Approve Special Meeting Minutes - October 27, 2021 (Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385386&GUID=7761655A-3E7F-
4669-9501-35A0E865E689&FullText=1.
5B. Approve Meeting Minutes - November 17, 2021 (Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385387&GUID=9067248C-DC24-
40D2-9BED-5F5A482C4702&FullText=1.
Commissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the minutes from October 27th and
November 17th, Commissioner Natchtigall seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of
hands and the motion passed 5-0, Commissioner Rentschler abstained since he had been absent at
the meetings.
5C. Approve Meeting Calendar for 2022 (Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385388&GUID=3A8E20A9-B5DF-
4B06-B387-8CC10BC3F5BA.
Gail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, explained the changes in the calendar for July.
Chair Soules opened public comment.
Jim Strehlow thought that the changes complicated things but he understood and would make sure
people knew about the schedule changes.
Chair Soules closed public comment.
Commissioner Rentschler moved approval of the 2022 Meeting Calendar and Vice-Chair Tina
Yuen seconded the motion. A vote was taken by raise of hands and the motion passed 6-0.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Discuss and Endorse the Annual Report on Transportation and the Annual Report on
the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan for the 2022 Work Plan (Multiple City staff) (Action
Item)
TC Draft Minutes
2
1/26/22",TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2022-01-26,3,"Staff Member Payne introduced Danielle Mieler, Sustainability & Resilience Manager, who gave
the presentation on the Annual Report on Climate Action & Resiliency 2022 Work Plan. The staff
report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385389&GUID=CD117554-40EC-
4D67-9B54-5D65F51F339B&FullText=1
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A CARP
There were no questions.)
Public Comments for #6A CARP
Jim Strehlow discussed how many recent council actions (roundabouts) were already slowing
down traffic, he felt that these actions would increase carbon emissions as cars wait longer for
non-existent pedestrians. He also discussed how the city was not preparing for electrical
brownouts, and that too much demand was being put on electricity, especially with plans to get rid
of PG&E gas lines to homes. He felt that these plans were leading Alameda's citizens and
businesses to chaos.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A CARP
Commissioner Scott Weitze questioned the goal for commuters and if it was on track.
Staff Member Meiler discussed current traffic demands and telecommuting. She acknowledged
that people were returning to work but that emphasis was on public transit.
Commissioner Rentschler discussed that FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) had
recognized that roundabouts reduced greenhouse gases and decreased travel times. He then
discussed how the pandemic had affected the data but it looked like people were going back to
driving. He did believe though that the city's goals were on target even if they feel aspirational.
Commissioner Kohlstrand believed Alameda had done a good job developing the policy
framework for CARP. She noted this was a critical time to take action against climate change. She
noted the importance of funding to take concrete actions.
Chair Soules also discussed the stretch goals and goals that were not on track due to lack of
funding. She wholeheartedly would recommend to Council to have revenue priorities.
TC Draft Minutes
3
1/26/22",TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2022-01-26,4,"Commissioner Weitze asked about the Easy Pass Programs and free bus tickets. He was concerned
they were not targeting the right ""carbon-intense"" groups. He liked the program but wanted to
make sure they were targeting people who would otherwise drive.
Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning Buildings and Transportation, discussed Alameda's role
with AC Transit and how they were looking at the E-Z Pass Program.
Commissioner Kohlstrand noted that the E-Z Pass Program was not on target and wanted to know
metrics that were being discussed to get in back on target.
Vice-Chair Yuen wanted to see a dashboard with performance metrics to see where they were on
track. She also wanted to see Greenhouse Gas measurements.
Staff Member Meiler answered that a dashboard was in the works and explained other metrics that
were in the works. She also discussed potential regional greenhouse gas emission measurements
that locals could use.
Commissioner Yuen then asked about existing housing for electrification.
Director Thomas discussed existing incentive programs and potential requirements to encourage
electrification. He added that this is something that would take time.
Commissioner Alysha Nachtigall asked about data availability for car, electric vs. non-electric
ownership.
Staff Member Meiler answered that 2020 was all that was available at the moment.
Vice-Chair Yuen asked about Congestion Pricing.
Director Thomas said it was still in the plans and that it needed State Legislation to make it
successful. They would have to work with the regional partners.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to support the endorsement of the Climate Action Plan
to the City Council. Also to urge the City Council to not only prioritize Climate Actions for funding
in the city but also to strongly consider new local funding sources to facilitate concrete action
towards meeting these goals. Commissioner Rentschler seconded the motion. A vote was taken by
a raise of hands and the motion passed 6-0.
TC Draft Minutes
4
1/26/22",TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2022-01-26,5,"Staff Member Payne then introduced Lisa Foster, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, who gave
a presentation on the Annual Report on Transportation. Robert Vance and Areli Vazquez of Public
Works and Rochelle Wheeler of Transportation and Director Thomas also presented. The staff
report and attachments can be found at
  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385389&GUID=CD117554-40EC-
4D67-9B54-5D65F51F339B&FullText=1.
Public Comments for #6A Transportation Annual Report
Denyse Trepanier expressed her appreciation to the staff for their work and commented on the
Clement St bike path. She also discussed improvement ideas for Willow to make cycling safer.
Jim Strehlow believed that the Traffic Fatality goals were faulty, he believed that traffic fatalities
were usually committed by drunks and bad drivers. He thought the goals penalized good citizens
with infrastructure changes. He discussed how roundabouts would not decrease greenhouse gases.
He also gave suggestions on how Agendas for meetings should be worded.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions and Comments #6A Transportation Annual Report
Commissioner Rentschler discussed roadway striping on Alameda Ave and the paid parking at
Seaplane Lagoon. He discussed that fares should really benefit the rider and he urged everyone to
think twice about charging for parking right now. He also discussed the bike/ped Oakland Bridge
and the likeness of it happening.
Chair Soules discussed the best way to get updates with PowerPoint and what data needed to be
seen by the public and the Commissioners.
Commissioner Kohlstrand agreed with Chair Soules about the mid-year updates through
PowerPoint. She also discussed parts of the Cross Alameda Trail that said they were completed
but were still fenced off. She also wanted the Sub-Committee to get information on the Street
Classifications before it came back to the Commission. She also discussed and agreed with some
of the points made by Commissioner Rentschler about the bike/ped Oakland Bridge.
Director Thomas discussed the timeline for the Street Classification and agreed it should go to the
Sub-Committee first.
Chair Soules discussed that a subcommittee could help with the prioritization of goals.
TC Draft Minutes
5
1/26/22",TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2022-01-26,6,"Staff Member Wheeler said the fencing should be down from the Cross Alameda Trail on the
following Monday.
Commissioner Nachtigall asked about the Grand resurfacing project. She discussed other sections
that should be included. She also discussed priorities and that completing the Cross Alameda Trail
should be high on the list.
Staff Member Vance explained that sections for resurfacing were chosen based on paving needs.
Commissioner Weitze discussed the Cross Alameda Trail and how to safely get people to the
Alameda Landing Waterfront. He also wanted an update on the Alameda Point Adaptive Reuse
Project and about the EV (electric vehicle) plan for the parking lot at Seaplane Lagoon.
Staff Member Wheeler answered that Fifth Street was the best option. She also pointed out other
places to find information on the connected network.
Staff Member Vance gave an update on the Adaptive Reuse Project.
Staff Member Foster answered that EV chargers should be put in by spring, it was currently only
a small percentage.
Chair Soules expressed the need for equity with having EV charging spots, especially with
reducing overall parking. She then discussed goals in the Vision Zero Plan and that you have to
look at more than one plan to get the full picture.
Vice-Chair Yuen gave her thoughts on the West End Bike Bridge and the feasibility of it
happening. She believed that regardless of whether the bridge happened or not it was imperative
that the city looked at alternative ways to get on and off the island.
Chair Soules agreed and discussed other potential ideas.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to endorse the Transportation Annual Report,
Commissioner Nachtigall seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands, all were in
favor except for Commissioner Rentschler.
Commissioner Rentschler discussed his issues with the ambitious bike/ped bridge. He believed the
cost was too high, was not feasible and he could not support it.
TC Draft Minutes
6
1/26/22",TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2022-01-26,7,"Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to endorse the Transportation Annual Report.
Commissioner Nachtigall seconded the motion. Chair Soules made an amendment to consider the
priority and the low feasibility of the Bike/Ped Oakland Bridge (West End Bike Bridge) with the
comments made by Commissioner Rentschler. Commissioner Rentschler seconded the
amendment. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed
6B. A Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update to
accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Period 2023-2031 in
Compliance with State Law
Director Thomas introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can
be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5385300&GUID=E42261C5-E282-
4236-BC4A-145AB6AEF4CD&FullText=1.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions and Comments for #6B
Chair Soules asked for clarification on State requirements.
Director Thomas discussed and explained what State Law required and that part of these
workshops was showing citizens what the city had to do. This was a State requirement and the city
had to do this.
Commissioner Rentschler discussed the difficulties around this challenge, such as SB-10.
Commissioner Kolhstrand wanted clarification on where SROs (single room occupancy) were
allowed. She wanted to ensure there was a mix of housing types. She also discussed the Gold Coast
and High Street and where multi-family housing could work.
Director Thomas went into the details around SROs and what other changes were coming to Park
and Webster.
Commissioner Weitze believed that SROs were good and worked. He discussed why they were
beneficial. He also discussed Linear Park and why it should be rezoned. He thought it would be
great for more housing.
Chair Soules went into detail about the importance of equity.
TC Draft Minutes
7
1/26/22",TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2022-01-26,8,"Commissioner Nachtigall discussed the different barriers they had to remove to be successful.
Chair Soules discussed the possibility of another joint meeting with the Planning Board.
Public Comments for #6B
Jim Strehlow spoke against multi-family housing. He also expressed his concerns about safe
evacuations off the island.
7. Announcements / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow pointed out that in-person meetings were better because you could see who was
attending them. He also wanted to hear more about the plans for water taxis.
Alex Spehr asked about the bike barge idea instead of a bridge. She also suggested bollards for
protected bike lanes.
Chair Soules discussed items that should come back such as Estuary Crossing options.
8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
TC Draft Minutes
8
1/26/22",TransportationCommission/2022-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-07-22,1,"Approved Minutes
Transportation Commission Meeting
Wednesday, July 22, 2020
Time:
6:30 p.m.
Location:
Due to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners were
able to attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom.
City Hall was NOT open to the public during the meeting.
Legistar Link:
https://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=760089&GUID=A99C9591-DCEB-46B5-
SE9E-A8C47FDCE07E&Options=info/&Search=
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Nachtigall and Commissioners Yuen, Kohlstrand, Hans,
Johnson and Weitze.
Absent: None.
2. Agenda Changes
None.
3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4593184&GUID=DB9DC6E5-62EE-
41E5-A423-1EDDF584B964.
Commissioner Kohlstrand wanted clarification that the O line was going to be eliminated.
Gail Payne, Senior Transportation Coordinator, said yes that was correct as a temporary COVID
measure that AC Transit is considering.
4. Announcements / Public Comments
A recorded message - Jim Strehlow from the Fernside Homeowners Association wanted to thank
Public Works for removing an unwanted sign on southbound High St.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
July 22, 2020
1",TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-07-22,2,"5. Consent Calendar
5A. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, May 27, 2020
(Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4593101&GUID=9299F04F-AE62-
4707-AA00-96A00687406B&FullText=1.
Commissioner Kohlstrand clarified her comments on page 5 second paragraph, her concern was
that retaining parking along Park St was going to contribute to congestion on the street.
Commissioner Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes as corrected and Vice-Chair
Nachtigall seconded. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Elect Chair and Vice-Chair of the Transportation Commission
Commissioner Weitze made a motion to reelect Samantha Soules as Chair and Alysha
Nachtigall as Vice-Chair and Commissioner Kohlstrand seconded both motions. A roll call
vote was taken and both motions passed 7-0.
6B. Discuss the New Transbay Rail Crossing - BART to Alameda
Chair Soules recused herself from this agenda item.
Staff Member Payne introduced this item and introduced Sadie Graham from BART and Camille
Tsao from Capitol Corridor who gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4593186&GUID=692D3207-694B-
  41C6-B7C4-18C42E061513&FullText=1.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked if Capitol Corridor would be using the same criteria as BART for
their system expansion and if the employment consideration was going to factor in the density for
the potential around future stations.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
July 22, 2020
2",TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-07-22,3,"Ms. Graham said she saw this program as more infill in terms of growth than exurban growth. She
acknowledged the importance of the balance of employment and housing and that is something
they will need to take into consideration.
Ms. Tao said that the Capitol Corridor team would do more work on policy for station
development.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to know if they would be using data that had already been collected
for the best places to put a station and other useful information that was already available. Would
they be integrating that data into their reports?
Ms. Tao said that her team had already been reviewing existing reports and studies. She explained
in further detail the information they had already gathered and the data her team would be
collecting.
Commissioner Johnson asked how BART and Regional Rail would share tracks.
Ms. Tao discussed the options but said it came down to what would be most beneficial.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the crossings would be under or above the water.
Ms. Graham said that is information they just don't have right now. They are focusing now on
what best serves the needs of the network and the region. It could be a BART crossing or a standard
gauge crossing or even both.
Staff Member Payne asked if they had already determined if the plan was to have both BART and
Regional Rail.
Ms. Graham said that had not been decided, both plans or a combination of the two would be
considered.
Public Comments for #6B.
There were no public speakers.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
July 22, 2020
3",TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-07-22,4,"Commissioner Weitze wanted to know if this commission had any role in picking future stations
in Alameda.
Ms. Graham said that was to be determined, they would want to build relationships with the cities
they are coming to but there were many technical elements that needed to be considered.
Commissioner Kohlstrand wanted to know how they planned to analyze and assess the data to see
the need for a station in Alameda. Also, how can they get the information about what a station in
Alameda would generate in terms of ridership?
Ms. Tao said they had not developed that methodology yet but once they have their teams on board
early next year that is what they will be working on.
Ms. Graham added that the teams would specifically be helping them build their ridership models.
They also would be using market analysis as well.
Commissioner Kohlstrand hoped there would be opportunities for the commission to be a part of
those discussions and add their input.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to know if there was anything that could be done to speed up the
timeline by 5 years since some Alameda residents might be shocked or concerned by the 2040
timeframe.
Ms. Graham said there were many factors that could speed up development such as private/public
partnership. Parts of the Environmental Review Process could hold up development. She said
having political champions who raise awareness and funding would be beneficial.
Ms. Tao added there were many projects in the works and not enough funding to go around.
Getting everyone to support a master plan and support the same projects could have the potential
to speed up development.
Commissioner Yuen agreed that if there was any way to prioritize this project to speed up
development that would be great. She hoped Ms. Graham and Ms. Tao would come back to keep
the conversation going.
Staff Member Payne wanted to add her support and offered whatever Alameda could do to
champion this project.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
July 22, 2020
4",TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-07-22,5,"Vice-Chair Nachtigall was excited by this project and understood this would be a long-term
project. She was pleased by all the positive feedback.
Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcroft wanted to say how much she enjoyed the presentation, what a well-
run meeting this was, and that she was a huge proponent of this project.
Vice-Chair Nachtigall welcomed Chair Soules back to the meeting.
6C. Alameda Active Transportation Plan Draft Recommendations
Rochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced this item and gave a
presentation. Attachments and staff report can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4593220&GUID=83995912-734B-
4C48-802B-D5C127AB4F27&FullText=1.
Staff Member Wheeler also introduced Megan Wooley-Ousdahl, Project Manager with Toole
Design, and Jessica Zdeb, Portland Office Director with Toole Design, who also presented parts
of the presentation.
Chair Soules thanked the staff for their excellent presentation.
Public Comments for #6C
Recorded comment - Jim Strehlow addressed that it was wrong to summarize that 80% of the
residents in Alameda wanted more biking and walking unless there were over 70,000 results in the
survey. He found the percentages presented to be wrong, offensive, and misleading to the public.
He urged that Lincoln Avenue should be for trucks since there were already other streets
designated for bikes. He wanted no bicycle enhancements on Lincoln Avenue and said that
bicyclists already use Lincoln Avenue as it is at their own risk.
Commissioner clarifying questions and comments #6C (Goals and Visions)
Commissioner Weitze asked if intra-island car trips and getting off-the-island car trips were
included in the goals.
Staff Member Wheeler said that was not directly incorporated into the mode shift goal, it's seen as
a subset of it. It could be made into an action item under the goal of increasing walking and biking
trips off the island.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
July 22, 2020
5",TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-07-22,6,"Commissioner Hans said that he would prefer separated bike lanes whenever possible. He also
stressed that safe access to schools and shops should be the priority right now.
Commissioner Kohlstrand wanted to better understand how this bicycle and pedestrian plan fits
into the overall circulation plan for the city, and felt that it hadn't been given that context. She was
in full support of making safe bicycle routes but believed the solutions needed to be multimodal.
She also asked if there was an additional reference made to connecting with transit stops.
Staff Member Wheeler said that improving access to destinations including transit was included
in the vision statement, although it's not explicit in the goals.
Commissioner Kohlstrand reiterated that the tendency was to look at each of the modes
individually and when they are all put together it needed to make sense for everyone.
Staff Member Wheeler said that more analysis was needed. The main goal was increasing safety,
she also reminded the Commission that at their next meeting they would be able to review the
revised General Plan, which would look at the big picture.
Commissioner Johnson also wanted to look at all the modes together, not just the bicycle mode,
and to strongly endorse the liberal use of bike boulevards. It is best to separate out the modes of
transportation keeping the cars on the busier streets and putting the bikes on the slower
neighborhood streets.
Chair Soules agreed and that their job was to look at projects comprehensively, in a balanced way
for all and not look at mode to mode solutions.
Vice-Chair Nachtigall said she appreciated that safety had become a primary goal. She added that
the online map and survey showing where pedestrians and cyclists were nearly hit really did
support a strong safety goal.
Ms. Wooley-Ousdahl said along with the bicycle network they have recommendations for the
pedestrian facilities. She also added that not every bicycle facility would require them to take away
an auto lane.
Ms. Zdeb discussed how bike boulevards worked as a shorter-term implementation opportunity
since they generally had fewer political barriers. As for diverters, it was something they had in
their ""toolkit"" but as of now, where they would go is not determined.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
July 22, 2020
6",TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-07-22,7,"Vice-Chair Nachtigall asked if the overlays for truck and transit routes were current or had been
changed.
Staff Member Wheeler said what they were using now for truck routes was what was in the General
Plan. She was not aware of any discussion on changing those and what was in the General Plan
were the official truck routes.
Chair Soules said she was bothered by the transit mode connection not really having a tangible
piece in this work. Her concerns with the goals were that it seemed there was a missing piece on
the importance of people getting to transit points. She believed it was worth monitoring the routes
that they had to choose and hold themselves to a high level of accountability. She liked the link
between goals and objectives - this was going to be important.
Commissioner Yuen suggested creating a goal percentage for mode shift and for safety. She added
that one of the objectives or actions should be to create a set of performance measures in regards
to the goals to see how well they were achieving these goals. She also agreed with finding a
balance between different modes of transportation.
Commissioner Kohlstrand agreed there needed to be measures of effectiveness. She said that these
issues had been brought up in the past and she was concerned that they would be forgotten at the
point of implementation. She also stressed that the items they invest in needed to be the most cost-
effective.
Staff Member Wheeler said that performance measures and metrics would be the next steps in the
plan, and also making goals more specific. The goal, for now, was figuring out the
recommendations, then they would look at prioritization criteria that would include cost-
effectiveness and mode shift potential. She added that at the September meeting they would be
evaluating the 10-year capital improvement project list that would focus on criteria and prioritizing
projects for the next 10 years.
Chair Soules added that benchmarking was a really important step in this process. Her concern
with asking what people wanted was that they would not be able to meet those expectations. She
wanted to see a mix of different ways to get people to shift modes and she thought the framework
of what could be done and measured was there. She also wanted to recognize the work done by
the staff, setting goals and benchmarks was difficult. She challenged everyone to define the goals.
She said she would rather have a goal set and missed but make progress, than have nothing to
target.
Commissioner clarifying questions and comments #6C (Proposed Bike Network)
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
July 22, 2020
7",TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-07-22,8,"Chair Soules addressed the concerns over mixed mode streets and how to make sure there was
parity between the modes. She thought an overlay of a transit line for the map in a PDF was helpful.
She did have some concerns for AC Transit and other areas.
Commissioner Weitze asked if the land to the east of Constitution Way was city land.
Staff Member Wheeler said that most of that land was still owned by Union Pacific (UP) and that
some of it further north was owned by the City.
Commissioner Weitze clarified that the way it was shown on the proposed Bike Network map is
that it would be a potential bike path toward the estuary. However, since it was not owned by the
city that would be a long time in the future.
Staff Member Wheeler said that was correct but that the sidewalk was owned by the city. They
could potentially widen the sidewalk.
Commissioner Weitze asked if the city had been talking to Union Pacific about the land.
Staff Member Wheeler said the city had not prioritized that area given the other UP land (in Jean
Sweeney Park and adjacent to Tilden Way) that they were interested in.
Commissioner Kohlstrand wanted to know if they as Commissioners would have an opportunity
to give input and if they could do that through the staff.
Staff Member Wheeler said yes as individuals they could do that.
Chair Soules pointed out that they could review the online maps and that through August they
could leave online comments. She encouraged everyone to take a look at the maps and leave
comments.
Commissioner Weitze brought up the interest in the continuation of a bike lane on Pacific Avenue,
to be able to bike to the new Ferry Terminal. He said that it wasn't a safe area as it is now. He
wanted to know if there was any work planned due to the public's interest.
Staff Member Wheeler said that her understanding was that the short-term plan was to use
Oriskany to connect out to the future Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal. She added that due to
conflicting land uses and a dead-end street there were no plans to focus on Pacific Avenue.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
July 22, 2020
8",TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-07-22,9,"Chair Soules wanted clarification on where the Commissioners could send any other comments.
Staff Member Wheeler explained all the online tools they could use from the online Bikeways
Map to all the surveys that were available under each element. She also provided the project email:
activealameda@alamedaca.gov
Commissioner clarifying questions and comments #6C (Park, Webster and Lincoln Streets)
Chair Soules wanted to know how the Commission felt about the reconfiguration that Park Street
and Webster Street had undergone already. She wanted to know more about how businesses felt
and if the public was still going out and enjoying these areas.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to know if the protected bike lanes would preclude parklets because
that was how it was drawn. If the parklets prove to be a success, it would be something to consider.
Staff Member Wheeler believed that was a downside of the separated bike lanes. She said that they
could do a combination of two but that wasn't ideal. She explained that all of the concept plans
would also make a lot of pedestrian improvements and further explained where those would be.
She said there were many iterations of what they could do and that with expanded sidewalk space
they could have room for sidewalk dining.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to clarify that the determination of which side of the street on which
to widen the sidewalk was ultimately the city's decision, but that businesses could petition to get
their side expanded.
Staff Member Wheeler said that was correct, all the transportation options were the city's decisions
with input from the community and that the City Council would make that decision.
Chair Soules said it ties into the concept of complete streets. They were looking at it through the
lens of a particular mode and they need to think of it with the concept of a complete street. They
need to make sure they have enough information and data that correlates to make an informed
recommendation.
Commissioner Nachtigall addressed how they could learn from current events and get real-time
data. So much of what they are doing now is where they want to possibly be in the future.
Chair Soules said that there are commuter and utilitarian trips vs. recreational trips that have
different bodies of stakeholders. She was glad that in the planning stage they had not precluded
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
July 22, 2020
9",TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-07-22,10,"looking at more than one option because of what looked good. She also found the street typology
interesting and a useful tool.
Commissioner clarifying questions and comments #6C (Pedestrian Infrastructure)
Commissioner Kohlstrand addressed the street typology map they had been given and gave some
recommendations on places where it could be improved. She also made recommendations on how
to make the bike/ped paths around the island a complete network and pointed out gaps she found.
She addressed the pedestrian overlays and noted that the Northeast area of Alameda was lacking
in these areas.
Staff Member Wheeler clarified the areas that Commissioner Kohlstrand had recommended. She
said that the gaps that were mentioned were filled, and said that all the information hadn't made it
to the pedestrian map.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked Commissioner Hans to comment about the pathway through
Lincoln Middle School that was often used in that the access was blocked by a locked gate.
Commissioner Hans explained on the map where it should be opened and where it got locked. He
further explained on the map the area that was secured and that it was an agreement with BCDC
(Bay Conservation and Development Commission) and the school district.
Chair Soules encouraged everyone to think about where commercial and industrial traffic would
travel. Trucks bring in goods and services and for safety and other concerns they needed to
accommodate commercial traffic.
She also addressed the public comment about data slicing and how information is skewed to the
individuals who have the luxury and time to send in public comments and fill out the surveys. She
wanted to make sure the City understood who was answering, this is why equity and outreach were
so important. She also stressed that staff be mindful that they don't become myopic, that they need
to look at comprehensive solutions and find the best ways to deliver them.
Staff Member Wheeler addressed the concern about data slicing, stating that from the beginning,
with this project they had been trying to hear from the whole community. She spoke on the
challenge of doing that but they had been reaching out to underrepresented groups such as those
living at Alameda Point Collaborative, homeless individuals, high school students, and seniors.
She spoke more on all of their outreach methods and what they were learning from their surveys.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
July 22, 2020
10",TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-07-22,11,"Commissioner clarifying questions and comments #6C (Priorities)
Staff Member Wheeler said right now they are taking the opportunity to focus on high-level input
from the community on priorities. She added that the goal now was checking in with the general
public on it.
Ms. Wooley-Ousdahl said that was correct and that the next phase would be to prioritize the
projects. They wanted to give people the opportunity to weigh in from the beginning.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to know about maintenance and the pedestrian infrastructure and if
it would be considered in the context of slow streets that had been implemented and if it would be
considered with current infrastructure or a separate category.
Staff Member Wheeler explained that maintenance with current infrastructure was just barricading
on the slow streets. As of now, not much maintenance was needed.
Commissioner Weitze clarified his question. Is maintaining the current slow streets a concept
within Alameda? Should we keep the streets as they are now and expand them?
Staff Member Wheeler said yes, they could see that as a program to potentially keep slow streets
or to turn them into bike boulevards. It could be an evolution of the project.
Chair Soules encouraged everyone to tell friends and family about the surveys, and that there was
an open house next Wednesday.
7. Announcements / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow wanted the maps to educate the public about the beautiful views of Alameda from
Oakland with beautiful walking and biking paths that are public. He urged to keep bicycle
enhancements on potential bike boulevards and side streets, not Lincoln Avenue, Webster Street,
Central Avenue or Park Street, which are transit routes. He pleaded to make the plan a multi-modal
plan.
8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:31 p.m.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
July 22, 2020
11",TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-02-23,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes
February 23, 2011
Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:31 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
The roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Philip Tribuzio
Thomas G. Bertken
Jesus Vargas
Kathy Moehring
Kirsten Zazo- absent
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Daraja Wagner, Administrative Assistant
2.
Minutes
Commissioner Moehring moved approval of the minutes for the January 26, 2011
meeting. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
3.
Oral Communications - Non-Agenda
None.
4.
New Business
4A.
Alameda Employee Survey Results
Staff Payne summarized the staff report.
Open public hearing.
Commissioner Moehring asked Staff Payne out of the surveys that were sent out, how
many responses were received and also if she was satisfied with the results of the survey.
Moehring also expressed her concern about if the respondents really represented enough
commuter employees.
Page 1 of 5",TransportationCommission/2011-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-02-23,2,"Staff Payne responded that she was satisfied with the results of the survey. Payne stated
that according to Dowling Associates, who are the experts in surveying, the results were
good and just about met their target of 1,000 responses.
Staff Khan responded that it was not a scientific survey, but it did capture the different
work locations of main employment areas around the city like Towne Centre and Harbor
Bay.
Staff Payne stated that she did have that information and invited people to come to the
stakeholder meeting on March 10, 2011 for more information.
Commissioner Vargas asked if there would be any benefit to finding out what the youth
thought. He stated that if youth were walking or taking the bus then they would have less
of a dependency on their parents.
Staff Payne responded that they did capture some youth responses yet the focus was on
employees, which tend to have an age cluster corresponding with the baby boomers.
Commissioner Bertken asked what the total employment in Alameda is. Bertken stated
that he wanted to make sure that the survey got answers from the appropriate employees
according to geographic area.
Staff Payne responded that the next step will be to look at the answers from the specific
areas to see how the people responded and see what will best meet their needs. Payne
stated that she would follow up with this topic at the next meeting.
Commissioner Bertken asked how the plan ultimately would be used. What will it
address?
Staff Khan responded that the plan will be used to reduce single driver vehicles and also
will create a list of strategies to help reduce traffic.
Commissioner Bertken stated that people who have cars available to drive are not going
to want to stop using their cars especially since 95 percent of the people who work in
Alameda receive free parking.
Staff Khan responded that a better alternative must be provided and that people must be
able to see the advantages of it.
Commissioner Tribuzio asked if there was anything that asked people who commuted on
bikes how often they commuted that way. Tribuzio stated that eventually people would
return to their cars.
Page 2 of 5",TransportationCommission/2011-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-02-23,3,"Staff Payne answered yes, that there was a question asking if they biked more than once a
week.
Commissioner Vargas asked if Staff Payne could elaborate on why there were 29
comments under bike related to the Posey Tube.
Staff Payne responded that these comments were from bicyclists traveling between
Oakland and Alameda on the west end of the city. The Posey Tube has a narrow path
and buses only have two slots for bikes on the racks. The City will begin a shuttle
between the College of Alameda and Laney College to address this issue starting this
summer.
Close public hearing.
No action was taken.
4B.
""Going Forward"" Community Planning Strategy for Alameda Point
Staff Khan explained the ""Going Forward"" effort and assisted the Commission members
in completing the transportation and access section of the workbook.
Open public hearing.
Commissioner Tribuzio stated that bicyclists want a bridge across the estuary and it
would be very important for future planning. Due to the future building on Alameda
Point, there will be more traffic. However, the bridge is a conflict with the relocation of
the Coast Guard.
Jon Spangler - as a charter Transportation Member - stated that he has a problem with
the zero sum ranking order. It is clear that if all ten elements with high density housing
units are implemented then it will have a significant impact on traffic; however, if one is
missing then the whole thing will go up in smoke. However, all ten elements can reduce
Alameda's carbon emissions. All the elements are critical. He also stated that he hoped
that it would not exclude development to Alameda Point.
Jim Straelo stated that he valued the ""additional comments"" section the most. He liked
that he could add additional comments. He found fault that it was not possible to rank
others additional comments. He wants everyone to come up with comments that are
outside the box like:
Circulator Systems that would allow buses to go around Alameda Point and bring
them to the buses on Webster Street
More pedestrian walkways through the tubes
Instead of one central hub, he liked the idea of having several neighborhood hubs
spread throughout the city to match the housing that will be there
Page 3 of 5",TransportationCommission/2011-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-02-23,4,"He also thought that it was not smart to not have parking for townhomes. Even if
residents did not need it, their guests might. Jim restated to not just limit ideas to the
workbook.
Commissioner Tribuzio responded that the design is to get people out of their cars.
Building townhomes where people cannot park does not make sense due to the high
prices for the homes and the fact that people have cars and will drive them. Tribuzio also
stated that the ranking order did not make sense.
Staff Khan responded that he just wanted to encourage the community participation to see
where priorities lie. Khan reassured them that all written comments will be taken in
consideration and will not be ignored.
Commissioner Bertken agreed with Spangler that it is not consistent, and it is not good to
have trade offs.
Commissioner Vargas asked that the youth be considered and wanted to make sure to
accommodate skateboarders. Since the average age is growing higher, it is important to
have ADA standards.
Commissioner Moehring stated that the intention is not to pick one and solve the
problem, but to create alternatives.
Commissioner Bertken asked how will the trade offs be done.
Staff Khan gave an example that the BRT forum thought it was a good idea for the BRT
to
go
to 12th Street BART but BRT to Fruitvale BART did not come up as a higher
priority.
Commissioner Moehring stated that the City cannot develop it all at once. It is a matter
of gauging the impact and figuring out where to start. Moehring stated that it all had to
be done at some point.
Close public hearing.
5.
Staff Communications
Request to Start Transportation Commission Meetings at 7:00 PM
Commissioner Vargas moved to recommend that the meetings begin at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Tribuzio seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
511 SchoolPool RideMatch (https://www.schoolpool.511.org
Staff Payne explained the new program.
Page 4 of 5",TransportationCommission/2011-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-02-23,5,"Future Meeting Agenda Items
Staff Payne stated that future meeting agenda items for the March meeting look to be as
follows:
Countywide Transportation Plan/Transportation Expenditure Plan
Quarterly Report
TSM/TDM Plan - Preliminary Alternative Strategies
6.
Announcements
Jon Spangler stated that $5,000 was in the budget for new bicycle parking. It would be
an excellent use to install new bike racks. Spangler suggested that the staff and
community take it into consideration.
Commissioner Moehring stated that Webster Street has more bike racks. With more
awareness, more will come.
Jim Straehlo stated that some bike racks are preferred over other types depending on how
many can be parked at a time.
7.
Adjournment
8:45 PM
Page 5 of 5",TransportationCommission/2011-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
February 23, 2005
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
Jeff Knoth
Patianne Parker
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Eric Schatmeier (arrived at 7:50)
Staff Present:
Barbara Hawkins - Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works
Barry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works
Carol Beaver - Division Manager, Development Services
Andrew Thomas - Supervising Planner, Planning and Building
2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Parker moved approval of the December minutes, which was seconded by
Commissioner Knoth. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
3.AGENDA CHANGES
4.COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
4A.
TMP Subcommittee Appointment: Grid System and Strategies for Implementation
Chair Knox White proposed that the existing subcommittee that developed the draft TMP
policies remain in place for the implementation portion of the Multimodal Circulation Plan. The
Commissioners supported this recommendation.
5.ORALCOMMUNICATIONS-NON-AGENDIZEDI - ITEMS
None.
6.OLD BUSINESS
1",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,2,"6A. Updated TMP Schedule
Staff Bergman presented the staff report and described staff's recommended revisions to the
previously approved TMP schedule. He noted that the bicycle plan update would be the first of
the modal plans to be undertaken, and suggested that the effort be coordinated with the Alameda
County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) effort to update the countywide bicycle plan.
He stated that CMA staff have indicated that the City's project recommendations for the
countywide plan would have to be submitted by the summer, so it would not be possible to
complete the City's plan update in time. Therefore, staff recommended that the bicycle plan
update proceed on two tracks: 1) identify projects to be recommended for inclusion in the
countywide plan, and 2) undertake the complete update of the plan. This would enable the
timely submittal of the City's project recommendations for the countywide plan, which would
help enhance Alameda's efforts to compete for grant funds.
Chair Knox White indicated that he would appoint a subcommittee of two commissioners to
oversee the development of the bicycle plan update. He also requested that staff prepare the new
TMP schedule in a revised format, so that all tasks would be in chronological order. Staff
Bergman responded that this would be done.
Commissioner Parker moved approval of the staff recommendation to revise the TMP
schedule, which was seconded by Commissioner Knoth. Motion carried by a unanimous voice
vote - 4.
6B. Task Force Recommended Draft TMP Policies
Staff Bergman stated that the draft Transportation Master Plan (TMP) policies had been prepared
by the TC subcommittee - consisting of Chair Knox White, Commissioner Schatmeier, and
Commissioner McFarland. The subcommittee received input from the TMP Task Force and City
staff. Staff comments were listed in the draft document, below the subcommittee's
recommended policies. Staff Bergman stated that the draft document is now being brought to the
full TC for additional input and approval of a final set of policies.
Commissioner Schatmeier arrived.
Chair Knox White asked that the final version of the draft policies be brought back to the
Transportation Commission after other boards and commissions have had a chance to comment,
prior to being forwarded to the Planning Board and the City Council.
The Commission reviewed the policies and staff comments. Staff was directed to make the
changes to the draft document as recommended by the Commission.
Chair Knox White Opened Public Comment
Jon Spangler recommended a modification to Policy C-3.2. Rather than making improvements
only to routes identified in the bicycle plan, the City should look to promote equitable access for
bicyclists on every street in Alameda. Mr. Spangler also recommended that the TMP process be
2",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,3,"enhanced by providing more opportunities for the public to voice its comments, rather than have
it be an agenda item at a single Transportation Commission meeting.
Chair Knox White stated that this issue would be addressed as part of the bicycle master plan.
Public Comment Closed
Commissioner Parker moved acceptance of the TMP policies as modified by the Commission.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote -
5.
7.NEW BUSINESS
7A. Alameda Point Land Use Impacts on Transportation
Staff Thomas gave a presentation on the anticipated transportation system impacts of the
proposed land uses at Alameda Point. He noted that the Alameda Point Advisory Committee
would be hosting two upcoming meetings: 1) on March 3, which would focus on land use issues,
and 2) March 23, which would be co-hosted by the Transportation Commission and would focus
on transportation issues. Both meetings will be televised. Two additional workshops will be
scheduled before June.
Staff Thomas noted that if the conveyance process with Navy goes smoothly, that starting in the
summer of 2005, the City will enter an 18-month entitlement and environmental review process
for Phase lof the project.
Staff Thomas noted that the policies for Alameda Point were established in the mid-1990s in the
community reuse plan. The policies were incorporated into the General Plan in 2003, but in
accordance with the housing element and concerns about transportation through the tubes, a
greater proportion of the project now consists of housing. The revised development concept also
reflects the improvement in the residential housing market.
Staff Thomas cited two major policies driving the Alameda Point project: 1) reintegrating
Alameda Point into City; 2) the project would not rely on General Fund, so the development
needs to pay for itself. He noted that the costs of the development would be considerable, for
example, there is an estimated $300-350 million to upgrade or replace infrastructure. There will
also be significant environmental remediation required, due to soil and groundwater
contamination.
Staff Thomas summarized the preliminary development concept. Some of the major features of
the project are:
1.2 million square feet of adaptive reuse, not including civic buildings
662,000 square feet of new non-residential development
615 affordable housing units (out of a total of approximately 1900 total units
159 acres of open space
streets would be laid out as a grid system
3",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,4,"the ultimate location of the ferry terminal has not been determined
The transit center would probably be at the Main Street terminal, at least in the early phases of
the project. In addition to the ferry, various transportation options are being considered:
shuttle between Alameda Point and the 12th Street BART station, operating on 15-minute
headways during peak hours
""eco-pass"": a portion of homeowners fees will go toward transportation, so people will be
able to use shuttles or other services it without paying an additional charge
water taxi service to Oakland
queue jump/HOV lanes for bridges or tubes
transit barge
Commissioner Krueger asked if the shuttles would be integrated into the regional transit
network, rather than being stand-alone services.
Staff Thomas noted that the City has begun discussions with AC Transit, BART, the City of
Oakland and the Port of Oakland to explore a range of options. Options include:
BART extension from downtown Oakland to Jack London Square to Alameda
Light rail across Alameda to Fruitvale BART - While alignment in Alameda is mostly
available, connecting to the BART station will be a significant problem. Also, this will not
serve people traveling from Alameda Point to San Francisco.
Aerial tram to West Oakland BART - This may not work well, as BART trains to San
Francisco are generally filled by the time they reach West Oakland. Also, if the tram
connects to the BART platform, Oakland will not benefit from the project, so it may be
difficult getting this option approved.
Staff Thomas stated that there are currently too many options in terms of both modes and
alignments. The City hopes to narrow down the list of options to one or two of the best
candidates by June and study the feasibility of those options.
7B. Work/Live Regulations
Commissioner Krueger asked if any data were available regarding parking and trip generation
for work/live development as opposed to purely residential
Staff Hawkins indicated that she was not aware of any such data.
Commissioner Parker stated that the work/live regulations have been in place for several years,
but no such projects have actually been implemented. She indicated her support for keeping the
regulations in place to enable the City to see the impacts of project implementation.
Chair Knox White stated that the regulations seem to support the City's transportation goals.
Chair Knox White Opened Public Comment
4",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,5,"Jon Spangler expressed his support for the work/live regulations, and urged the TC to support
maintaining the current policy.
Public Comment Closed
7C. Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study
Staff Bergman provided an overview of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study, which was
funded by a grant from the Association of Bay Area Governments. The Rails-to-Trails
Conservancy received separate funding for work on this project, and has been taking the lead on
the public outreach component. Staff Bergman noted that the Trail would consist almost entirely
of facilities identified in the General Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan. The proposed Trail
would be largely located within the corridor formerly served by the Alameda Belt Line railroad,
extending from Main Street to Tilden Way, and include the following features:
serve a variety of users by utilizing both on-road and off-road facilities
enhance access to key destinations, including planned development at Alameda Point,
former FISC (Fleet Industrial Supply Center) site, proposed development in the Northern
Waterfront area, and the renovated Bridgeside Center
design would permit the potential development of a rail corridor
land acquired and bike lanes constructed in conjunction with extension of Clement Avenue,
which the City hopes to develop as a continuous route from Tilden Way to Atlantic Avenue
Commissioner Parker asked if the proposed routes would undermine the ultimate goal of
shoreline route. Staff Bergman responded that the
Staff Bergman noted that the City has applied for funding from the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission for funding for the first phase of the Trail, from Main Street to Webster Street.
Staff Bergman stated that Lucy Gigli of BikeAlameda had expressed concerns regarding the
proposed striping and lane widths on Clement Avenue. He distributed the letter from Ms. Gigli
to the Commissioners.
Mr. Spangler noted that there is an additional former railroad right-of-way east of Constitution
Way that connects to the former FISC site, which could potentially connect to the Cross Alameda
Trail.
Chair Knox White suggested that the Commissioners e-mail comments to staff prior to the April
meeting, and the comments would be brought to the Commission at that time for approval.
7D. West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Plan
Carol Beaver of the City's Development Services Department introduced the West Alameda
Neighborhood Development Plan, which addresses the area bounded by Appezzato Memorial
Parkway, Main Street, Pacific/Marshall/Lincoln, and Webster Street. She noted that in February
2004, the City began discussions with neighborhood stakeholders regarding the types of
improvements they would like to see. The resulting concept plan addresses safety
5",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,6,"result, numerous recommendations of the Plan focused on establishing pedestrian connections
through the school property and the adjoining park. The completion of these improvements
would require coordination and the potential exchange of property between the City and the
school district. Other improvements recommended for the area near Chipman Middle School
include the realignment of the Pacific/Marshall intersection, and the re-design of the school's
drop-off area and parking lot.
Mr. Smiley noted that the feasibility of implementing a raised crosswalk across Pacific Avenue in
front of Chipman Middle School would depend on the traffic volumes utilizing this corridor to
access the planned development Alameda Point.
Commissioner Knoth noted that for pedestrians there are important connections between this
neighborhood and the proposed school in Bayport and to Encinal High School. He asked about
the possibility of an elevated pedestrian crossing over Appezzato Memorial Parkway. Staff
Hawkins responded that people tend not to use such facilities if they create a less direct route for
crossing the street.
Mr. Smiley noted that the Plan called for enhanced pedestrian and bicycle circulation along the
northern boundary of the neighborhood (south side of Appezzato Memorial Parkway) through
the establishment of a linear park. The City's Long-Range Transit Plan also identifies this route
as a potential transit corridor.
Chair Knox White noted that the illustrations in the Plan include marked crosswalks at several
locations where crossings are currently prohibited. He recommended that the City attempt to
make intersections as pedestrian-friendly as possible and look for opportunities to permit legal
crossings. Commissioner Krueger agreed, and recommended installation of new crosswalks
where possible.
6",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,7,"Chair Knox White Opened Public Comment
Jon Spangler stated that staff had insisted that two travel lanes would be required in each
direction along Pacific Avenue/Marshall Way/Lincoln Avenue. Therefore, by adding a median,
the existing wide curb lane would be eliminated, making this route more difficult for bicyclists to
use. He noted that an earlier version of the proposed design called for three lanes - one through
lane in each direction with a shared turn lane in the center - and bike lanes.
Public Comment Closed
Chair Knox White and Commissioner Knoth both indicated that they supported Mr. Spangler's
recommendation of one travel lane in each direction on Lincoln/Marshall/Pacific.
Commissioner Parker said that the configuration recommended by staff, with four through lanes,
is required to accommodate the anticipated traffic demand associated with the development at
Alameda Point.
Chair Knox White suggested that the three-lane configuration with striped bike lanes be
implemented until the actual traffic demand warranted the additional travel lanes. Commissioner
Krueger agreed, and stated that long-term needs should not limit near-term improvements. Staff
Hawkins stated that Public Works had determined that two travel lanes would be required in each
direction to accommodate the future traffic at Alameda Point, but that staff did not specifically
preclude the installation of bike lanes.
Commissioner Parker asked if the developer of the Harbor Island Apartments could be required
to relocate the sidewalk so that it would no longer be behind the parking area.
Staff Hawkins responded that the carports will be removed as part of the renovations. She noted
that since the existing buildings are only being modified, the City cannot compel the developer to
make such changes. She also noted that Poggi Street is privately owned, but there is a public
easement for the sidewalks.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the bus routes depicted in the Plan need to be updated. Mr.
Smiley agreed that any recent changes needed to be incorporated into the Plan, and stated that
transit improvements may also have to be modified if the locations of the major transit stops
have changed.
Commissioner Parker moved to continue the meeting. The motion was seconded
by
Commissioner Schatmeier. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5.
8.STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
March 23 Joint Meeting with APAC: Estuary Crossing Workshop, 6:30 Start Time
9.ADJOURNMENT
7",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-02-23,8,"The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 AM.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2005\0305\022305minutesfinal.do
8",TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-05-22,1,"DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2019
Chair Miley convened the meeting at 7:00pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Miley, Commissioners Soules, Nachtigall, Johnson, Kohlstrand, Yuen.
Absent: Commissioner Hans.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
*None*
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow said he recently found a Bird electric scooter obstructing the pathway in the
Posey Tube. He suggested a minimum speed limit in the tube as a potential solution to
deal with problems like scooters being left or slow moving pedestrians pushing shopping
carts.
3-A. Transportation Commissioner Appreciation of Service Resolution for Chair
Christopher A. Miley
Gail Payne, Senior Transportation Coordinator, thanked Chair Miley for his service on
the commission.
Commissioner Soules read the resolution and expressed her gratitude towards Chair
Miley.
3-B. Climate Action and Resiliency Plan Public Comment - May 14-31. Link to the
online platform: www.opentownhall.com/7405
3-C. Clement Ave. Safety Improvement Project Workshop - Mon., June 3 at 6:30 p.m. -
City Council Chambers: www.alamedaca.gov/clement
3-D. Car Seat Inspections/Installations (free): Sat., June 15 in the City Hall Parking Lot
from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM.
3-E. Clipper Card Registration at Mastick Senior Center - Tues, June 18 - 1 p.m. to 3
p.m.
3-F. Bicycle Safety Education Classes: Sat, June 22 and July 27 at 9 a.m. to 12 noon:
https://bikeeastbay.org/alamedabikeed
Transportation Commission draft minutes
Page 1 of 10
May 22, 2019",TransportationCommission/2019-05-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-05-22,2,"3-G. Transportation Commission Meeting: Wed, July 24 at 7 p.m.
3-H. Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) 2019 Trainings in September and
October: register on Fire Department web page
Scott Wikstrom, City Engineer, provided an update regarding City Council requests for
an updated policy for daylighting intersections. He said they would be bringing the item
to the City Council on July 2nd.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4-A 2019-6924
Draft Meeting Minutes - March 27, 2019
Commissioner Kohlstrand moved approval of the item. Commissioner Nachtigall
seconded the motion. The motion passed without objection (6-0.)
5. NEW BUSINESS
5-A 2019-6925
Approve Otis Drive Traffic Calming and Safety Improvement Project
Design Concept Recommendations
Staff Member Payne announced that Commissioner Johnson would have to recuse
himself from the item due to the proximity of his business to the project area.
Staff Member Wikstrom gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3948357&GUID=5FF05DC7-
3762-4F80-AEF9-1B58E7661A5C&FullText=1
David Parisi, project consultant, continued the presentation of the draft concept.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked for more information about the impact of a roundabout
on pedestrians, noting that pedestrians would not have a protected cycle.
Mr. Parisi explained how the roundabout would work, noting the shorter crossing
distances and slower vehicle speeds.
Commissioner Nachtigall also expressed concern about safety for pedestrians on the
roundabout.
Chair Miley asked for clarification of what decisions staff was looking for tonight.
Staff Member Wikstrom said staff was looking for recommendations on the short term
improvements and feedback on the alternatives for the Rittler Park section.
Transportation Commission draft minutes
Page 2 of 10
May 22, 2019",TransportationCommission/2019-05-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-05-22,3,"Chair Miley opened the public hearing.
Jim Strehlow recalled failing his first driving test due to speeding on Otis Drive. He
expressed skepticism that a roundabout would function for double long parade floats. He
asked about the ramps in the long term plans and how high they would be and whether
they would impact vehicles passing through intersections.
Joe Keiser said that many Wood Middle School students wanted to provide input to the
Transportation Commission, but that tonight was the Wood open house. He said two
students put together a video to share with the commission. He said he is a resident of
Otis Drive and strongly supports the project.
A video of Jacob and Kiley Wong, Will Middle School students, was played. They
expressed concern about cars speeding and asked for safety improvements for
pedestrians and bikers.
Denyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda, said they support the project. She said they urge
adoption of the parking protected bike lane near Rittler Park. She said cars doing drop
off would force cyclists out into the street.
Jon Spangler said he likes the roundabout because it reduces vehicle speeds. He said
he supports the project but disagrees with the Bike Walk Alameda suggestion of
curbside bike lanes. He said children going to and from cars will cross the bike lane
without looking.
Karen Boutiler said she supports the plan. She said she thinks all moving traffic should
be in the middle of the street, not between parked cars and the sidewalk.
Chair Miley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Nachtigall said the proposal meets the goals of the project. She noted
that some of the proposed trees would not be a good fit for the area.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said she supports dealing with speeding and improving
bicycle and pedestrian safety, but noted that many people opposed the project. She
asked staff if there were ways to achieve traffic calming without dramatically changing
the configuration of the roadway.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that road diets have been demonstrated to reduce average
speeds and have even greater impact reducing the extreme speeds. He said Otis has
been identified as a priority street in the Bicycle Master Plan.
Commissioner Kohlstrand suggested that narrowing the existing lanes to ten feet would
provide room for four foot bike lanes. She suggested that a center turn lane may not be
Transportation Commission draft minutes
Page 3 of 10
May 22, 2019",TransportationCommission/2019-05-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-05-22,4,"needed everywhere and that a landscaped median with occasional turn pockets would
be preferable.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that a five foot bike lane is the minimum design standard.
He said a four foot lane is not recommended and would put cyclists even closer to the
door zone of parked cars. He said landscaped medians would be a large short term
investment and long term maintenance cost. He said the project is fundamentally
different from Shoreline Drive.
Chair Miley said he was sensitive to concerns about kids having conflicts in the
protected bike lane. He asked if there were any treatments that could be used to mitigate
that problem.
Staff Member Wikstrom said there is not a very good option for letting kids know that
they are crossing a bike lane next to the curb. He said it is a relatively narrow space but
any bicyclist travelling at speed could create an issue.
Chair Miley asked if homeowners were noticed about the change in bus stop positions,
and asked if there were any responses.
Staff Member Payne said they did not receive any concerns from homeowners about the
change in bus stop locations.
Chair Miley said he supports the project in order to calm traffic in the corridor. He said he
prefers the buffered bike lane but could support the protected bike lanes in front of Rittler
Park.
Commissioner Soules asked if AC Transit gave feedback on the moving of bus stops.
Staff Member Payne said they have worked closely with AC Transit. She said they are
okay with the lane widths and with the bus stop location changes.
Commissioner Soules asked whether staff knew the difference in parking loss between
the Class Il and Class IV options near Rittler Park.
Mr. Parisi said installing red curb at all corners in the corridor would result in the loss of
about 10-15% of the parking opportunities. He said the Class IV option would result in
the loss of an additional two parking spaces near the park.
Commissioner Soules said she had similar concerns as Commissioner Kohlstrand about
the number of people opposed to the project. She noted that auto drivers are not as well
organized as bicyclists and pedestrians. She said this thoroughfare carries our
crosstown traffic. She said the public is having a hard time understanding how bike lanes
Transportation Commission draft minutes
Page 4 of 10
May 22, 2019",TransportationCommission/2019-05-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-05-22,5,"solve the speeding problem. She asked for more information about enforcement efforts
and why that is not a long term solution.
Sgt. Brian Foster, Alameda Police Department Traffic Supervisor, said he has three
motor officers in addition to himself to deal with this problem. He said they spend more
time on Otis Drive and see higher speeds here than anywhere else in the city.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked how the speeding on Fernside compares after the road
diet.
Sgt. Foster said you can never solve all the speeding problems. He said speed is a
problem on Fernside when there is little traffic, but he never sees speeds over 60 mph
like on Otis.
Commissioner Yuen said she is supportive of all the proposed changes. She said we
need to focus on design to address speed. She said we cannot rely on enforcement,
which can create its own negative impacts. She added that focusing on multimodal
solutions is the key and ties into our climate action goals.
Commissioner Nachtigall said she supports the changes, but worries about increased
pedestrian bicycle conflicts.
Commissioner Soules asked if the Class IV option makes the lane widths tighter.
Staff Member Wikstrom said the Class IV option would feel tighter than the Class Il
option because of the position of the parked cars, but would have essentially the same
lane widths. He said that could have the effect of further calming traffic.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said she would support the Class Il option with the parking at
the curb. She said she could see the potential for conflicts with people exiting their cars
into the Class IV bike lane and added that the Class IV option is not very elegant.
Chair Miley moved to accept the staff recommendation on the short term project
with direction to support the Class II option at Rittler Park, not include the two tree
types indicated by Commissioner Nachtigall, and that a status report be given 12-
18 months after implementation. Commissioner Yuen seconded the motion.
Commissioner Yuen asked if staff knew how many reported injuries there have been on
Shoreline due to pedestrian and bike conflicts.
Sgt. Foster said he does not have that data, but that most of those collisions would not
get reported because they are not injury collisions.
Transportation Commission draft minutes
Page 5 of 10
May 22, 2019",TransportationCommission/2019-05-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-05-22,6,"Commissioner Yuen said she was trying to figure out what was the safest alternative
between the Class Il and Class IV options. She said she is uncertain, but would support
a Class IV option given her understanding of best practices.
Chair Miley said he would normally support protected lanes where ever possible, but
thinks that this location would not be right because of the presence of so many children.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said that she thinks the street can work as a two lane street
with turning lanes, but that her earlier concerns were in the interest of respecting the will
of the broader community beyond her personal views. She said that, given that most
speakers tonight are in favor of the project, she will support it with some reservations.
Commissioner Soules said she is concerned about people who are not represented or
cannot bike for different reasons. She said knowing that this project is just paint, she
feels okay moving forward. She said that going forward, how workshops are attended
and surveys constructed will be important. She said there is not a capacity issue on this
portion of Otis. She said she would make a motion to support the staff recommendation
and Class Il bike lanes.
Chair Miley restated his motion.
The motion passed 4-1 (Yuen opposed.)
Commissioner Yuen said she opposed the motion because she preferred the Class IV
option in front of Rittler Park.
5-B 2019-6926
Recommend Transportation Projects in Alameda's 2019-2021 Capital
Budget to the City Council.
Staff Member Wikstrom gave a presentation. The staff report and attachment can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3948400&GUID=A88F2666
FFD-40D2-BE8D-39A1651BD151&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
Chair Miley asked if the root damaged pathways around Bay Farm Island would fit into
this spending plan.
Staff Member Wikstrom said the paths would typically fit under the pavement
management program because most of the pathways are asphalt.
Chair Miley suggested that there may be other less prominent intersections in the city
where roundabouts could be employed to help acquaint residents with their use.
Transportation Commission draft minutes
Page 6 of 10
May 22, 2019",TransportationCommission/2019-05-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-05-22,7,"Commissioner Johnson said that Shafter Avenue approaching College in Oakland
recently was treated with new roundabouts. He said they were minor streets and used to
create a bicycle throughway and were really well done.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked to what degree our traffic signal system is integrated.
Staff Member Wikstrom said most of our signals operate independently. He said they are
making efforts on Webster and Park to introduce corridor coordination.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said that efforts to time the signals on our major corridors
would be a positive.
Commissioner Soules asked how projects within the traffic calming fund would be
prioritized and coordinated.
Staff Member Wikstrom said the fund is set aside for smaller needs around the city as
opposed to the larger, corridor length, and grant funded projects.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to accept the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Yuen seconded the motion. The motion passed without objection
(6-0.)
5-C 2019-6927
Provide Comment on the Draft Climate Action and Resiliency Plan
Erin Smith, Deputy Public Works Director, gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at:
tps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3948401&GUID=9698D1CE-
9A05-4E98-971B-BF4614B2826E&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
Commissioner Yuen asked why the public comment period was only two weeks long.
Staff Member Smith said that it was a long process and in order to meet the adoption
timeline that two weeks was the best they could do.
Chair Miley opened the public hearing.
Jim Strehlow said we need to be careful not to road diet too many streets. He supported
efforts to time the traffic signals. He scoffed at the idea of taxing everyone to provide EZ
Passes to all residents. He said congestion pricing would be a regressive tax and is a
bad idea.
Christy Cannon emphasized the importance of acting to curb greenhouse gas
emissions. She said transportation is where we need to solve the problem. She said we
need to get people onto buses, which will require big efforts to prioritize their movement
Transportation Commission draft minutes
Page 7 of 10
May 22, 2019",TransportationCommission/2019-05-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-05-22,8,"and reliability. She supported many efforts to get people out of their cars. She said
communication with the public will be critical for getting public support and success.
Chair Miley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Soules said the plan has a good balance of aggressive near term goals
within the long term vision.
Commissioner Kohlstrand expressed surprise that the plan did not make more of a
connection between transportation and land use. She said we need to focus on density
in order to support transit alternatives. She expressed a preference for improving
Alameda's jobs to housing balance. She asked for more information about reducing use
of natural gas appliances.
Staff Member Smith said that the fuel switching in the plan could involve swapping out
heaters and appliances. She said they are looking to make progress increasing the mix
of electric versus gas appliances throughout the city.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked if there is an expectation that the City would provide
incentives to achieve the goal of fuel switching.
Staff Member Smith added that the plan calls for all new development to be all electric.
She said she can envision the Public Utilities Board providing incentives in the form of
rebates for customers to move away from their gas powered appliances.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said focusing on communities that are disproportionately
impacted and attempting to get people to switch to transit may not work if the island's
entire transportation network was not sufficiently protected. She asked for more
information about the thinking behind how the plan approaches protecting transportation
infrastructure.
Staff Member Smith said the network that best serves transit and transit dependent
communities was prioritized. She said all the bridges are able to handle about 48 inches
of sea level rise. She said they focused on redundancy in the network.
Chair Miley said funding the priorities in the CARP would be challenging and suggested
setting aside funding for these long term projects.
Staff Member Smith agreed with Chair Miley's sentiment and explained how the Plan
addresses funding issues.
Commissioner Nachtigall asked how the telecommuting item would be dealt with on a
regional basis given the nature of employment.
Transportation Commission draft minutes
Page 8 of 10
May 22, 2019",TransportationCommission/2019-05-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-05-22,9,"Staff Member Smith said their goal would be to raise awareness generally in the
business community about the benefits of telecommuting. She acknowledged the
regional role necessary for successful implementation of that strategy.
Commissioner Nachtigall said she had a potential regional connection to suggest for
staff to follow up with regarding telecommuting.
Commissioner Yuen asked how the CARP would interact with other decisions being
made by the City. She asked how we would hold ourselves accountable.
Staff Member Smith said the concepts in the plan are pervasive in everything the City
does. She said that they would leave it up to Council to determine how the CARP gets
integrated into the workflow.
Liam Garland, Public Works Director, said annual reports would be a time for Council to
make sure we are on track and hold ourselves accountable. He added that staff has
been working closely with Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA) and
expects them to help hold staff and Council to account.
Commissioner Yuen said she supports the coordinator position and advocates that they
are represented on other planning processes in the city for coordination purposes.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked if the annual reports would come to the commissions
as well as City Council.
Staff Member Garland said they could make the reports available to the Transportation
Commission, given how significant a share of greenhouse gas emissions come from
transportation.
There was no action taken.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A 2019-6928
Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and
Plans
The report can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3948433&GUID=B86FABE1-
614B-44BB-B569-82ED268F2013
6-B Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Resident Appeal of Walnut Street/San Antonio Avenue Daylighting
2. Transportation Management Association Annual Reports
3. Emergency Plan with Transportation Annex
4. Clement Avenue Safety Improvement Project
Transportation Commission draft minutes
Page 9 of 10
May 22, 2019",TransportationCommission/2019-05-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-05-22,10,"5. Central Avenue Safety Improvement Project
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jon Spangler, Chair of the BART Board Bicycle Advisory Task Force, said BART will be
making a decision between including only one, or keeping two multi-purpose/bicycle
parking spaces per BART fleet of the future car.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Miley adjourned the meeting at 10:07 p.m.
Transportation Commission draft minutes
Page 10 of 10
May 22, 2019",TransportationCommission/2019-05-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-02-26,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2020
Chair Soules convened the meeting at 7:00pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Soules, Commissioners Kohlstrand, Nachtigall, Johnson, Yuen, Weitze
Absent: Commissioner Hans
2. AGENDA CHANGES
None.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
3-A Transportation Commission Meeting: Wed, March 25 at 7 p.m.
3-B Grand Opening Celebration of the Cross Alameda Trail (Main Street to Jean Sweeney
Park) - Sat, Feb. 29, 10 a.m. to 12 noon, Webster Street Plaza by Ralph Appezzato Pkwy.
Event Listing: https://www.alamedaca.gov/Shortcut-Content/Events-Activities/Grand-
Opening-Celebr ation-Cross-Alameda-Trail
3-C Traffic Safety Town Hall: Thurs, March 5 at 6 p.m., Love Elementary, Multi-Purpose
Room
3-D Spring into Bike Fair: Sat, March 21 at City Hall parking lot on Oak Street between
Santa Clara Avenue and Lincoln Avenue
3-E Bike Festival: Sun, May 3, 12 noon to 3 p.m., Bay Farm School
3-F Bike to Work and School Day: Thurs, May 14
3-G Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) 2020 Trainings:
ittps://www.alamedaca.gov/Departments/Fire-Department/Alameda-CERT
3-H Alameda Active Transportation Plan: Latest info at www.ActiveAlameda.org
3-I Emergency Alerts for Alameda - Subscribe at AC Alert web page:
https://www.acgov.org/emergencysite/
3-J
Regional
Emergency
Transportation
Alerts
-
Subscribe:
tps://511.org/alerts/emergencies/511Aler
1",TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-02-26,2,"3-K Clipper Card (adults) - order on line or at Walgreens or set up Autoload to add value
automatically: https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/getTranslink.do
3-L Clipper Card Discounts for youth, seniors and people with disabilities
-
ps://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/discounts/index.do
3-M FasTrak or new toll tag for upcoming I-880 Express Lanes scheduled to open late
summer 2020: on line or at Walgreens (except not Park Street location) and then register
on line: https://www.bayareafastrak.org/en/signup/signUp.shtm
Public Comment:
Maria Gallo spoke about her ongoing efforts to address traffic calming along Fernside
Blvd. She asked that the traffic engineers answer the question about which configuration
of Fernside (west or east of High Street) is safer.
Jim Strehlow renewed his question from the January meeting about crossing the solid
lines of the bike lane on Broadway at Clement. He said he disagrees with the position of
the previous speaker regarding the Fernside corridor. He said the no right on red sign
added on High Street would divert traffic through the Marina-Windsor neighborhood.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
None
5. NEW BUSINESS
5-A 2020-7745
Endorse The City Council's Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Policies on Street Width,
Lane Width, Crosswalks And Bulb-Outs to Promote Safe, Livable Streets and
Environmentally Sustainable Transportation Choices; and, Give Direction to Staff on Tools
For Improving Safety At Intersections.
Brian McGuire, Transportation Planner, gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments
can
be
found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4337173&GUID=77514CDC
901E-48B2-A86E-047864BE44D5&FullText=1
Commissioner Johnson asked if the example ""ladder"" crosswalk would be the standard
for all crosswalks going forward.
Staff Member McGuire said the criteria for what types of crosswalks would be used in
which places was being developed internally and as part of the ongoing planning
processes, but were not part of the resolution before the Commission tonight.
Commissioner Weitze asked what the drivers say contributed to the child-involved
collisions.
2",TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-02-26,3,"Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, said we have the police reports with the primary
collision factors for each collision. She added that the interactive web map for the Active
Transportation Plan included a prompt for drivers to add comments about problem areas
that created safety issues.
Staff Member McGuire added that there are often a number of factors that go into any
collision. He said the resolution is focused on enacting national standards based on data
driven conclusions.
Andrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director said city staff are trying
to address these issues from three angles: engineering (the focus of tonight's resolution),
education, and enforcement.
Chair Soules opened the public comment.
Susie Hufstader expressed strong support for the resolution. She said there have been
many fatalities in the region lately and Alameda is one of the only cities that is responding
with the appropriate sense of urgency. She said we need to make it physically impossible
to drive at high speeds.
Christy Cannon said she is most concerned about hitting someone when making right
turns and that the bulb outs near Lake Merritt have really been helpful in making things
safer.
Pat Potter, President of Bike Walk Alameda, expressed support from the resolution and
liked how it prioritized safety.
Jim Strehlow said we need to drill down on the causes of collisions not just rely on
statistics. He said narrow lanes would just bring vehicles closer together and create safety
problems. He suggested adding more loading zones for delivery vehicles.
Chair Soules closed the public comment.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said she supports much of what is in the resolution. She said
we are being asked to endorse a lot of high level policies without the data to back that up.
She said some of the language is vague, such as where to place crosswalks. She said
the standards are not tied to what type of street is being discussed.
Staff Member McGuire said the most prescriptive elements in the resolution such as lane
widths are not reacting to the specifics of local collisions but relying on national level data
and best practices. He added that staff is continuing to develop detailed standards for their
toolkit while striking a balance between having policy makers weigh in on detailed
standards versus policy level language.
3",TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-02-26,4,"streets or developing new projects.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked if we have data to show that the bicycle lane on Central
has many collisions. She asked if the physical barrier is necessary for safety and
questioned whether two way separated bike lanes are appropriate in applications where
there are numerous cross street and/or driveway conflicts.
Staff Member Thomas outlined some of the safety concerns along Central Avenue that
lead to the staff recommendation for separated bike lanes.
Chair Soules mentioned that it was clear when she was on the Central Avenue site visit
that some of the simpler safety measures that could be applied to the Central and Webster
intersection had not been deployed. She said there is a balance between doing regular
maintenance safety measures and the larger, transformative projects.
Staff Member Payne stated that Public Works is working with Caltrans to implement short-
term visibility and other safety improvements along Central Avenue ahead of the larger
safety project.
Staff Member McGuire said that the resolution preference for separated bikeways does
not dictate two-way facilities and that there would be a number of new one-way separated
facilities, especially at Alameda Point.
4",TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-02-26,5,"Commissioner Johnson said we are getting too granular and are looking into the minutiae
and we should be focused on endorsing the high level national standards while preserving
flexibility for specific cases.
Staff Member McGuire explained how staff would use the policy resolution to move
beyond some high level discussions that often get renewed with each project and can
slow down implementation.
Commissioner Yuen said it may be helpful to more clearly articulate how this policy
interacts with other planning and policy documents. She appreciated the clearly defined
hierarchy to protect vulnerable road users.
Commissioner Nachtigall said we are moving to a more agile approach, and that a bold
approach is needed. She said agile is not perfect and it can be iterative.
Commissioner Johnson asked what was being done on the enforcement side of the
equation.
Staff Member McGuire said APD had just completed a two week enforcement period
where they wrote over 900 citations, triple their typical number. He said staffing challenges
mean that is not sustainable at the moment, but their intention is to fill those vacancies
and increase enforcement.
Staff Member Foster said that APD had applied for state funds to help increase their ability
to conduct enforcement efforts.
Commissioner Weitze asked if endorsing the resolution would mean they are endorsing
the use of bollards.
Staff Member McGuire said that the resolution endorses the idea that bollards are a cost-
effective safety measure, but not cost-free and would set up a discussion about budget
priorities if Council wants to move forward with expanded safety measures.
Commissioner Weitze said use of bollards would be controversial and giving aesthetic
guidance is a granular issue that it seemed the Commission was trying to avoid getting
bogged down with.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said she is in support of the overall goal and is just trying to
figure out how we prioritize implementation.
Chair Soules said the policy seems far reaching and the lack of data or benchmarking
make it difficult to know if you are making an informed decision. She said how and where
we apply these best practices has a large impact and we need to prioritize how to
implement this in the community.
5",TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-02-26,6,"Commissioner Nachtigall said she understands what it feels like to re-hash the same
issues at every meeting and that if this helps move that forward while doing what Council
has asked of staff, she supports the resolution.
Chair Soules asked what it would do if they recommended removing some of the specific
items around lane widths and bollards and the like while endorsing the general principles.
Staff Member Thomas said the Commission could take any action they desire, including
endorsing the resolution but saying they have an issue with some of the specifics because
they do not seem thought through.
Commissioner Weitze said it seemed like the hierarchy was the main part of the resolution
and most of the rest was very granular and not needed in the resolution.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to endorse the resolution and capture and
transmit the feedback provided by commissioners to City Council.
Commissioner Kohlstrand suggested that Council's desire for some of these actions may
mean that a motion supporting the resolution but capturing hesitation over some of the
more specific items would be appropriate.
Commissioner Kohlstrand seconded the motion while offering an amendment to
endorse the resolution's concepts with some reservation about some specifics with
the assumption that they would be able to revisit them as part of the Vision Zero
and Active Transportation Plans.
Chairs Soules asked for a friendly amendment to the motion that as we move
forward and fine tune policies it is done with whatever data is available and we are
doing some sort of benchmarking in order to hold ourselves accountable.
Commissioner Johnson accepted the amendments. The motion passed 6-0.
Staff Member McGuire briefly described the discussion questions raised in the staff report.
Commissioner Johnson said he feels strongly about marking all four legs of a crosswalk
because it is a lot to ask for people to walk three legs of an intersection to cross the street.
He also said the high visibility crosswalks are important because it prevented him from
hitting someone at night who was dressed in dark clothing thanks to the contrast created.
Commissioner Nachtigall supported having all legs of a crosswalk marked.
Commissioner Weitze asked if crosswalks are ever removed.
6",TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-02-26,7,"Staff Member McGuire described factors that might lead to a decision not to mark all legs
of an intersection but was unaware of whether there were any recent cases of removing
a crosswalk.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said we cannot only rely on the numbers of pedestrians using
a crosswalk to decide whether to provide a marked crosswalk or not.
Staff Member McGuire said that the ""regular and frequent intervals"" language would
address the need for safe crossings on challenging corridors with low volumes of
pedestrians.
Chair Soules said they use a forced spiral in system engineering to automatically revisit
policies to implement best practices and lessons learned which could be useful for the
issues staff is bringing up.
Commissioner Yuen said she wanted to add ""Equity"" and ""Evaluation"" to the Engineering,
Education and Enforcement safety efforts. She said looking where high injury corridors
meet places that have historically had underinvestment in active transportation should be
where we prioritize actions.
5-B 2020-7747
Review of Alameda Point Parking Plan
Staff Member Thomas gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4337174&GUID=50F70940
OF5-47F1-BD97-2A89EAB2EOA1&FullText=1.
Chair Soules opened the public comment.
Jim Strehlow said he is glad license plate readers will be used. He expressed concerns
about how data would be stored. He asked if there are plans to track everyone that comes
and goes from Alameda Point. He asked for the opportunity to provide input on an LPR
policy before it goes to City Council.
Chairs Soules closed the public comment.
Chair Soules asked if the LPR policy would be an ordinance or resolution.
Staff Member Thomas said staff is creating an LPR policy specifically for this parking use
to take to Council as a resolution.
Chair Soules asked what drove the decision for how much space there would be for public
parking at Alameda Point.
7",TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-02-26,8,"Staff Member Thomas said the land plan was intended to provide room to provide surface
parking and then convert to structured parking if the demand warranted.
Chair Soules said she would like to know what the impact of constraining the availability
of parking would be over time to organically limit the amount of congestion new
development created.
Commissioner Weitze asked if any of the parking plan would affect Main Street or Pacific
or other residential streets as having controlled parking.
Staff Member Thomas said Main Street would be the initial border and staff would have to
monitor commuter behavior to see if they are parking in the neighborhoods to avoid paying
for parking.
Commissioner Weitze asked if commercial tenants could lease their extra private parking
to commuters.
Staff Member Thomas said that tenants could use their parking in that way unless there
was something in their lease preventing it.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said charging for parking could make an expensive commute
option more expensive for people who do not have other good options to get to the ferry.
Staff Member Thomas said that a $5 parking fee would put the cost of a ferry trip well in-
line with other transbay options.
Commissioner Weitze suggested we want to draw people towards the ferry in order to
keep people away from the estuary crossings so the cost should incentivize that behavior.
Chair Soules said that a modern system can provide a lot of flexibility to manage the
parking use of different areas for different users by analyzing usage data while preserving
privacy.
Commissioner Nachtigall said we do not want to preclude people from using the ferry and
cannot get mode shift if the other modes are not available.
Commissioner Yuen asked for the opportunity to review the data gathered and make
recommendations based on it as the system moves forward.
Commissioner Weitze asked if we would be funneling parkers through the Appezzato
intersection or Pacific.
Staff Member Thomas said West Atlantic would be the primary route. He said we would
be constantly routing people around construction zones as Alameda Point is developed.
8",TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-02-26,9,"No action was taken.
5-C 2020-7748
Review and Comment on 2019 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Report and
General Plan Update Work in Progress. The review of the annual report and General Plan
update draft elements are exempt actions under the California Environmental Quality Act
Staff Member Thomas gave a report. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4337245&GUID=76CC4132-
A630-4DB1-900C-4AACC4DFECF9&FullText=1.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said that in the future to accommodate required housing we
would have to focus on our transit corridors in order to meet the need for housing while
dealing with congestion and climate concerns.
Staff Member Thomas said that much of the focus for future housing would continue to be
at Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront, but also likely to include shopping centers.
Commissioner Yuen said it is amazing that we are even coming close to meeting our
RHNA obligations. She said so much of the climate plan is dependent upon us thinking
big and bold about transportation solutions.
Chair Soules suggested it may be useful to have another joint meeting of the
Transportation Commission and Planning Board at a future date to discuss the housing
and transportation issues together.
No action was taken.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Central Avenue Concept - Webster Street Area and Environmental Clearance
2. General Plan Updates
3. Active Transportation Plan Updates
4. Ten-year Capital Improvement Program
5. Transportation Commission Bylaw Changes
6-B Future Meeting Dates for 2020 - Meetings start at 7 p.m.
1. Wednesday, March 25
2. Wednesday, May 27
3. Wednesday, July 22
4. Wednesday, September 23
5. Wednesday, November 18
9",TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-02-26,10,"7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow said his concerns about the parking management item is about forcing
private businesses become parking enforcers which creates a new burden. He hoped that
the City would help private owners address this problem created by the paid parking
program.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:44 p.m.
10",TransportationCommission/2020-02-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-09-26,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT
September 26, 2007
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:40 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robb Ratto
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier
Srikant Subramaniam
Neilson Tam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
Chair Knox White welcomed Commissioner Tam to the Transportation Commission.
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
August 22, 2007
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the August 22, 2007,
meeting minutes. Commissioner Ratto seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0-1.
Commissioner Schatmeier abstained.
2.
AGENDA CHANGES
Chair Knox White suggested hearing Item 7B first.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the Water Transportation Authority and the new
legislation would be included in discussion of the ferry. Chair Knox White replied that
they may discuss it, but no action may be taken.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White noted that the Multimodal Circulation Subcommittee, Pedestrian Plan,
not the TSM/TDM Subcommittees had not met. He noted that the Line 63 Subcommittee
met earlier in the evening.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the Line 63 Subcommittee reviewed the options that
had been discussed in the previous meeting, and confirmed some of the choices that had
Transportation Commission
Page 1 of 9
September 26, 2007",TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-09-26,2,"been made. The City staff/AC Transit staff report had been received, responding to the
Subcommittee's questions. They were able to narrow their recommendations in
preparation for bringing it back to the Transportation Commission in October.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the release of the report, Staff
Bergman replied that the Subcommittee was expected to meet with affected residents
prior to the Transportation Commission meeting, and that would be incorporated into the
staff report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Open public hearing.
There were no speakers.
Close public hearing.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7B.
City of Alameda Ferry Program: Short Range Transit Plan FY 2008-2018
(SRTP). Outcome: TC to comment and endorse the Ferry Program's Short
Range Transit Plan
Ernest Sanchez, Ferry Manager, City of Alameda, presented the staff report, as required to
maintain the program funding. He noted that the SRTP covered a period of approximately
11 years, and described the expected financial environment for the Alameda-Oakland and
Alameda-Harbor Bay Ferries. He noted that both ferry services were doing very well,
with strong ridership; the Alameda-Oakland Ferry carried 440,000 riders annually, and
the Alameda-Harbor Bay Ferry carried 134,000 riders per year. He discussed recent
legislation, and added that SB976 was recently passed by the California State Legislature.
It would establish a new agency, the Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation
Authority (WETA), which would replace the existing Bay Area Water Transit Authority.
Staff Khan understood that staff would bring a report to City Council on October 2, 2007,
regarding this issue, as directed by the City Manager. He noted that a letter to Sacramento
may be drafted. He suggested that the Transportation Commissioners attend the City
Council meeting to express their concerns.
Commissioner Schatmeier expressed concern about the change in governance structure,
and inquired about the status of the legislation.
Mr. Sanchez replied that it had been passed by both houses of the Legislature, and is on
Governor Schwarzenegger's desk for signature.
Commissioner Schatmeier was still concerned about the changes of the structure, and
noted that Alameda's Mayor was currently on the Board; he understood that the new
Transportation Commission
Page 2 of 9
September 26, 2007",TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-09-26,3,"Board would be composed of individuals appointed by the Legislature and the Governor.
Mr. Sanchez confirmed that was correct, and that the current Water Transit Authority had
11 Board members, to be replaced by a new Board consisting of five members, three
appointed by the Governor and two appointed by the Legislature.
Commissioner Schatmeier expressed concern that that change may result in some loss of
local influence and control over what happened in the future, and hoped that the
Governor may reappoint existing Board members. He was concerned that the change may
work against Alameda's interest.
Chair Knox White suggested that the City Council send a strong letter to the Governor's
office, and noted that he tended not to sign items without the input of the people involved
in setting them up.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto regarding the impetus for the legislators
to make this change, Mr. Sanchez replied that the legislation cited the need to develop a
comprehensive and effected emergency water transit response in the event of a region-
wide emergency. It argued that in order to effectively develop and implement such a
program, the transfer of Alameda's and Vallejo's ferries would be needed.
Commissioner Ratto noted that the Alameda and Vallejo ferries were instrumental in the
emergency aid after the portion of the Bay Bridge collapsed following the 1989
earthquake. He suggested that the Transportation Commissioners attend the City Council
meeting.
Open public hearing.
There were no speakers.
Close public hearing.
Chair Knox White inquired whether the 500 passenger per day on the Alameda-Harbor
Bay ferry indicated one-way or round-trip. Mr. Sanchez replied that was the total count.
Chair Knox White cited the paragraph explaining the difficulties with the 65-minute ferry
meeting the transit service, and inquired whether a table could be included to clarify the
difficult language. He noted that on page 13 (Fare Structure) read, ""Alameda-Oakland
proposed fare and inquired whether another fare hike was being proposed. Mr.
Sanchez noted that the fare hike approved by City Council approximately two months
ago must go to the CPUC for approval; that process in not yet complete, and he hoped
that a decision would be made soon. He confirmed that was not another fare hike.
Chair Knox White noted that the language on page 15 (Objective 2) read, ""
provide
comfortable, reliable and frequent ferry service."" He noted that Measure 1 discussed a
minimum fare box recovery, and pointed out that in several places, different numbers
Transportation Commission
Page 3 of 9
September 26, 2007",TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-09-26,4,"were used, including comparisons to different non-ferry modes of transportation. He
recommended that the street transit fare box average of 27-28% be used, as well as the
recovery ratio for the highway system by CalTrans.
Chair Knox White inquired whether Objective 3 on page 16 (Integrated Ticketing)
included any discussion between the City and Translink. Mr. Sanchez noted that it had
been discussed with MTC, but there was no current implementation schedule or funding
available at this time. Chair Knox White suggested adding that as a goal, stating that the
region should start moving to a single fare card.
Chair Knox White noted that Objective 3 on page 16 (Measure 2) read, ""Transit
schedules should be coordinated to allow easy, convenient transfers between ferries and
land-side transit."" He noted that it mentioned that the ferries ran at a 65-minute headway,
and inquired whether that was because it was the shortest possible headway.
Chair Knox White noted that Objective 5 on page 16 read, ""The ferry system should
provide ample reserve capacity in case of disruptions to land-based transportation
systems."" He believed that seemed to run counter to the cost-efficiency argument. He
believed it would be interesting if the plan discussed that issue. Mr. Sanchez replied that
the City has participated in the Spare the Air program, and cited the recent closure of the
Bay Bridge and other heavy service days. They used additional carrying capacity from
the contractor, Blue and Gold Fleet, which would meet that goal without having the
additional carrying capacity on their books.
Chair Knox White noted that on page 18, Service and System Evaluations, the total City
expenses between FY2002-03 and FY2006-07 nearly tripled for the Alameda-Oakland
Ferry Service; at the same time, the Alameda-Harbor Bay service decreased significantly.
He inquired whether that was the City's portion of the fuel increases, and inquired
whether the City would take on more expense for the Alameda-Oakland Ferry. Mr.
Sanchez confirmed that the two contractors operated on different contract structures. The
Alameda-Oakland Ferry was contracted with Blue and Gold Fleet, which was a cost-plus-
fixed-fee arrangement. He added that the City paid Blue and Gold Fleet approximately
$280,000 in annual fixed fees for overhead, profit, etc. He noted that the other ferry
expenses (fuel, labor, insurance) were passed through to the City for payment by the City.
The Alameda-Harbor Bay Ferry service was operated under a fixed subsidy agreement,
whereby they agree to the operating subsidy at the beginning of the year, and the ferry
operator, Harbor Bay Maritime, would be required to operate and provide the required
service at that level of funding. He noted that it used a modified fixed subsidy agreement
because the fuel was paid for on a direct pass-through basis.
Chair Knox White noted that it was a significant surprise when the dollar bridge toll was
passed under Regional Measure 2, including language to pass that money onto the
Alameda ferry system, and other area regional systems, going to the WTA. He inquired
whether there was any way to tap into those funds under Regional Measure 2. Mr.
Sanchez replied that there was no way to access Regional Measure 2 funds. Chair Knox
White requested that staff look into that possibility under the WETA arrangement. He
Transportation Commission
Page 4 of 9
September 26, 2007",TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-09-26,5,"noted that overall, the report looked good with strong metrics in ridership, fare box
recovery, and fee reduction, especially in comparison to other regional transit.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired whether the ticket structures for the two services
could be linked. Mr. Sanchez noted that under the Harbor Bay Maritime operating
agreement for the Alameda-Harbor Bay Ferry, Harbor Bay Maritime retained all fare box
revenue. Fare box revenue for the Alameda-Oakland Ferry is collected by Blue and Gold
Fleet, but is credited to the City to offset operating expenses. He added that last year,
there was almost a dollar difference in round-trip fares between the two ferry services.
With the new proposed fare increase, they would become closer, but would still be
different. He noted that both contracts will expire June 30, 2009. They intended to ask if
there would be one operator willing to operate both ferry services. Under one contractual
structure, he expected that a unified fare structure would be possible for both services.
Commissioner Ratto moved to endorse the SRTP as presented. Commissioner Krueger
seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A.
Proposed Revisions to Alameda Municipal Code Regarding Reassignment of
Technical Transportation Team Responsibilities, Modification of
Transportation Commission Responsibilities and Appeal Process for
Transportation Operational Decisions. Outcome: TC to comment and endorse
the proposed revisions to Alameda Municipal Code.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and noted that the Transportation Commission
had supported the concept of the initial changes, and the final language was being
brought back for inclusion in the Municipal Code. He noted that the TTT, which is
currently responsible for many of the operational issues in the City, and that the primary
change would be a streamlined process. At this time, residents appealing decisions may
have to attend multiple meetings going through the TTT, as well as the TC and the City
Council. The recommended change would be to transfer the TTT's responsibilities to the
Public Works Director, with the TC acting as the preliminary appeal body, and the City
Council acting as the final appeal body.
Staff Bergman noted that the TC's responsibilities were modified so that the TC may
comment on specific projects, as opposed to only plans, at the request of the City
Council. The TC would also provide comments and recommendations regarding various
transportation-related documents.
Open public hearing.
There were no speakers.
Close public hearing.
Transportation Commission
Page 5 of 9
September 26, 2007",TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-09-26,6,"Commissioner McFarland inquired whether 8-2.5, which discussed traffic marking,
signage and striping, also addressed the visibility of traffic signs and keeping them clear
of obstruction by vegetation. Staff Khan confirmed that was correct. Commissioner
McFarland noted that has become a problem in some areas.
Commissioner McFarland noted that 8-7.1 addressed prohibited parking at red curbs, and
inquired about instances where someone has painted the curb red by their property. Staff
Khan noted that is dealt with through the Police Department, who enforces the red curbs.
If a property owner paints the curb in front of their home, the City maintenance staff
would be able to tell the difference because the City uses a specific color for curb
painting. In those instances, the City would contact the property owner to have them
remove it; otherwise, the City would remove the paint and charge the owner.
Commissioner McFarland inquired what part of the Municipal Code addressed the
maximum length of time for on-street vehicle parking in an otherwise legal parking spot.
Staff Khan replied that the maximum length of time was 72 hours, as described in the
Vehicle Code; another section of the Municipal Code referred to the Vehicle Code.
Commissioner McFarland noted that 8-8.1 addressed angled parking, and inquired
whether the Transportation Commission had responsibility for the removal of angled
parking. He noted that he was referred to the angled parking on Central. Staff Khan
understood that the responsibility was currently with City Council, but would be assigned
to the Transportation Commission. He noted that while the responsibility for the removal
may not be clearly stated, he understood that it would be brought back to the
Transportation Commission. He would be open to any recommendations to enhance the
language.
Commissioner McFarland expressed concern about safety for cyclists. Staff Khan noted
that was a good point, and suggested enhancing the language to cover the removal of
angled parking.
Chair Knox White did not believe that angled parking was not appropriate everywhere,
but that parallel parking was generally considered appropriate.
Commissioner McFarland inquired whether 8-11 (Loading Zones) addressed the hours
that a loading zone was in effect. Staff Khan replied that loading zone time restrictions
were established by the Public Works Director.
Commissioner McFarland inquired whether only commercial vehicles were allowed to
use loading zones. Staff Khan replied that it would be any vehicle if they were in the
process of loading or unloading passenger or commercial goods.
Commissioner Krueger inquired about 8-11.1(b)(2), addressing bus stops without a red
curb. Staff Khan confirmed that it addressed bus stops without a red curb, but with a time
limitation. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether a school bus stop was considered to
Transportation Commission
Page 6 of 9
September 26, 2007",TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-09-26,7,"be a loading zone. Staff Khan confirmed that it was for passenger loading and unloading.
If a red curb is installed, they are also used for bus layovers. A discussion of the curb
colors and time restrictions ensued.
Chair Knox White noted that if the Transportation Commission wished to make a policy
recommendation, it could request that the item come back at a future meeting.
Chair Knox White noted that 2-8.1 cited the additional language that ""The Transportation
Commission may, at the discretion of the City Manager
""
to ensure that future
commissions did not ask to examine every stoplight and stop sign. He believed it could
be read in future years that the City Manager may decide whether the Transportation
Commission could discuss an issue or not. He added that the Transportation Commission
answered directly to the City Council, and acted at the City Council's discretion. He
questioned whether the language referencing the City Manager should be included.
Chair Knox White noted that many City projects that would need to move forward would
never come to the Transportation Commission for comment because of the potential
delay in receiving City Council recommendations; he believed the Planning Board would
already have approved the item by that time. He suggested that the word ""major"" be
inserted before ""transportation plans,"" as well as removing the two caveats. He believed
the language missing from the Ordinance was the Council's ability to call for a review.
He suggested the addition of the following language: ""The Transportation Commission
may review major transportation plans, including projects and documents."" Staff Khan
noted that staff would be amenable to that change.
Chair Knox White noted that Section 8-8.1A was deleted, with respect to parallel parking,
and inquired about the reason why parallel parking was not included in that section. Staff
Khan did not believe it had ever been included in the Municipal Code. He noted that
parallel parking was provided as part of the design or function of the street, and was
assumed to be available unless explicitly prohibited.
Chair Knox White noted that 8-5.1 addressed speed limits and car pool parking, and noted
that several plans, including the General Plan, that already addressed street speed limits
in the City. He inquired whether it was necessary to mention the fact that City policy on
those issues already existed. Staff Khan clarified that the Public Works Director may not
take action that was against any plans or policies, and should establish the process. With
respect to the enforcement of speed limits, he noted that if a radar gun is to be used, a
speed survey must be used as back-up. He noted that it was important to work with the
Police Department with respect to Code requirements.
Chair Knox White noted that several items would be removed from the Municipal Code,
including streetsweeping, specifics about off-street parking lots and official parking lots,
removing the authority for placement of stop signs from the City Council and giving it to
the Public Works Director.
Staff Khan summarized the changes as described by the Commissioners.
Transportation Commission
Page 7 of 9
September 26, 2007",TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-09-26,8,"Commissioner Ratto moved to accept the suggested changes as presented.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Agreement between AC Transit and the City on Formalizing Collaboration
on Projects of Mutual Interest. Outcome: TC to comment and endorse draft
agreement
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and described the background of this matter, and
language in the draft agreement. The City wanted to ensure that there was no transfer of
liability. He added that the formatting had been improved, and that exhibits with contact
information and responsibilities had been included.
Open public hearing.
There were no speakers.
Close public hearing.
Chair Knox White noted that on page 4, Section 3.3, read, ""The City will include AC
Transit on the mailing for agendas and staff reports for the Transportation Commission
and Transportation Technical Team meetings."" He suggested removing mention of the
TTT in that language, and that the Planning Board agendas be sent to AC Transit as well.
Chair Knox White wanted to ensure that riders would be notified with respect to potential
bus stop removal.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that in the Recitals section, a passage discussed the City
and AC Transit working together on expanding transit service for redeveloping areas
within the City. He did not object to that in principle, but if there was expansion of
service to be contemplated, he believed it should be considered Citywide.
Commissioner Ratto moved to accept the Agreement between AC Transit and the City
on Formalizing Collaboration on Projects of Mutual Interest and the suggested changes
as presented. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0.
8.
Staff Communications
Staff Bergman noted that Jim Gleich, the Deputy General Manager of AC Transit,
suffered a massive heart attack on Sunday evening, and went into surgery earlier in the
day. He added that he had worked with him for some time, and that he has been very
supportive of transit in Alameda, and requested that everyone keep Jim in their thoughts.
Transportation Commission
Page 8 of 9
September 26, 2007",TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-09-26,9,"Staff Khan requested that the Broadway-Jackson project be kept as a standing item in the
agenda, and noted that a meeting had been held earlier in the day regarding initial
analyses that the consultant had conducted on this project. He added that they were
examining some alternatives that address the ramps from the Posey Tube to Jackson,
using the intersection of 7th and Harrison, addressing the right turn and bicycle crossings.
Staff Khan noted that in the October meeting, staff would bring forward the Line 63 item,
and that the parking study would probably be presented. He noted that on October 3,
during the Walking School Bus event, Public Works, the Police Department and the
Unified School District would collaborate substantially. He noted that at least three
schools would participate that day, and hoped that participation would continue beyond
that day. He noted that it was driven by PTAs and parents.
Staff Bergman advised that the Interagency Liaison Committee with the City was held on
September 4. He noted that the Ecopass program was discussed, and that AC Transit has
been developing a standardized methodology to broaden the use of pass programs among
the various agencies and employment sites. He added that on September 5, the AC
Transit Board approved the pricing matrix. The City is considering implementing such a
program for City employees, and that it could potentially include other employers in the
City. He noted that the next meeting of the ILC was tentatively scheduled for December
4, 2007.
Chair Knox White noted that there was a community meeting on September 10 regarding
the lighting in the tubes. He noted that last night, the bike path was closed, and some
employees who work in Alameda but use the Tube to commute home were met by CHP
officers and told they could not use the Tube to get home. He added that Union Pacific
proposed the increased use of a railroad crossing on the Oakland side of the Park Street
Bridge. He noted that this resulted from Union Pacific's loss of an easement due to
widening of I-880. He described the new route, and added that construction equipment
showed up the previous day without discussing it with Oakland. He was concerned that
CalTrans did not include Alameda and Oakland in these significant decisions.
Staff Khan noted that the City's major concern was the potential impact on the operation
of the bridge, as well as having rail go through the intersection of Ford and 23rd, and then
crossing to Glascock, and then next to Fruitvale. He noted that staff was working through
their legal channels, and that a legal challenge was one option.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Transportation Commission
Page 9 of 9
September 26, 2007",TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-04-25,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, April 25 2012
Commissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Kathy Moehring
Thomas G. Bertken
Jesus Vargas
Sandy Wong
Rajiv Sharma
Michele Bellows
Christopher Miley
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Minutes
February 22, 2012 minutes
Commissioner Bertken made a motion to approve the February 22 minutes. Commissioner
Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0; 2 abstentions.
March 28, 2012 minutes
Commissioner Bertken made a motion to approve the March 28 minutes. Commissioner
Moehring seconded the minutes. The motion was approved 2-0; 4 abstentions.
3.
Oral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, asked a question about the Gibbons Drive
public meeting scheduled for May 3. He did not see the meeting posted on the upcoming items
or the future agenda items and the public should know in advance.
Staff Khan replied that the upcoming planned meeting agendas items would be included in the
future meeting agendas. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 3 at 7 p.m. where the
Transportation Commission meetings are normally held.
Page 1 of 14",TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-04-25,2,"Jim Strehlow replied that the meeting should be included on the current agenda.
Staff Payne replied it is not standard procedure to include the meeting and that is why it is just a
bulleted item. She explained that the meeting would be discussed in the future agenda items.
Furthermore, they conducted significant outreach with neighborhood barricades, City web site
event calendar, an email to members of the Transportation Commission email list and a
notification via regular mail to the adjacent neighborhood.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, explained that on
Saturday, May 5 Bike Alameda will be offering a two-hour how to ride a bike classes to adults at
the South Shore Center. They also will offer a one-hour commuter workshop session on how to
commute by bicycle. The second half of the session will be on the road focusing on how to
handle bikes better. Everyone is welcome and anyone who wants to take a class can register at
www.ebbc.org./safety. Also, on Thursday, May 10 at Lum Elementary School, there will be a
discussion to install bike lanes on Westline Drive and Shoreline Drive.
4.
New Business
4A.
Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan
Staff Khan presented the Transportation Expenditure Plan process and introduced Tess Lengyel
to present the plan in further detail.
Tess Lengyel, Deputy Director of Policy, Public Affairs and Legislation for the Alameda County
Transportation Commission (ACTC), presented the Transportation Expenditure Plan's
development, outreach efforts, and direct allocations to Alameda. The ACTC will come back to
the City of Alameda on Monday, May 14 for the Planning Board's approval and on Tuesday,
May 15 for the City Council's endorsement.
Commissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments from the Commission about the
Transportation Expenditure Plan. For this month's meeting, the commissioners were asked to
provide comments.
Commissioner Miley stated in all his years working with government agencies, he has found
ACTC to be the most responsive government agency. He explained that she mentioned 11 cities
endorsed the plan, but he wondered about the transit agencies, meaning BART and AC Transit.
Tess Lengyel replied AC Transit has unanimously supported the plan and ACTC staff is going to
meet with BART tomorrow morning.
Commissioner Miley commented about BART operating funds and asked if their county sales tax
dollars go to fund BART operations or projects in other counties. If that is the case he asked if
there is anything in the plan that states the funding must stay in Alameda County.
Page 2 of 14",TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-04-25,3,"Tess Lengyel replied it specifically is written in the plan that all funding in the plan must serve
Alameda County. So, they are going to work with BART to ensure that they use the funds to
serve the county.
Commissioner Bellows stated the plan is comprehensive and very ambitious. She wanted to
know what were the projections or assumptions used for the revenue stream. She knew
previously that revenues dropped down due to the economy, so what types of assumptions were
made.
Tess Lengyel replied they looked at different level of projections each year with a 2-3 percent
increase so it is conservative.
Commissioner Bellows stated over time because previously it was 4 percent.
Tess Lengyel replied they were year-by-year projections. Also, it is cumulative, but it is a
percentage point above and stepped increases are used and follow the local indices.
Commissioner Vargas asked as a small business owner what kind of small business goals does
this program have. He mentioned various advisory committees, but will there be one for this
element.
Tess Lengyel explained they have a strong Local Business Contract Equity program. This
program has a 70 percent requirement when using only Measure B funds and 30 percent for all
local business enterprise. ACTC has exceeded their goals and continue to do SO. If they have
state or federal funds, the local contracting requirements are trumped by the state or federal
requirements.
Commissioner Vargas referred to slide 13 and specifically public transit operations. Ms. Lengyel
mentioned that 24 percent of the funds go to transit operations, but she did not mention the dollar
amount.
Tess Lengyel replied 48 percent of transit operations investment would go to transit, including
operations and capital investment, and 34 percent would go to operations. She went on to say
that it includes AC Transit, Altamont Commuter Express, BART maintenance, Wheels, Union
City Transit and other East Bay transit operators and the Student Transit Pass Program equaling
$1.85 billon. Additionally, specialized transit for seniors and the disabled would equal $747
million.
Commissioner Vargas said he missed the meeting where the consultants spoke about the 23rd
and 29th I-880 project. However, there was a question about the Park Street triangle and whether
or not it was included in the TEP. So, he wanted to know if there are funds for the project within
this program?
Tess Lengyel replied the project is not specifically called out.
Page 3 of 14",TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-04-25,4,"Staff Khan stated there is no current funding source for the Park Street triangle. The I-880 project
will make some improvements by installing a signal at Ford Street and 29th Avenue, but
ultimately the city of Oakland and Alameda will reshape the triangle and they are looking at the
long-term needs. However, there are programs from Measure B that staff can work with the
ACTC and the city of Oakland staff to get funding.
Commissioner Bellows asked if it is for a 30-year projection.
Tess Lengyel replied yes.
Commissioner Miley asked how does the City determine whether to submit a project to the
Countywide Transportation Plan.
Staff Khan stated that the City looks at the list of current plans and the General Plan policies
supporting them and then staff brings the list to ACTC. He went on to explain that plans already
existed for the Broadway and Jackson project and the rapid bus service have been in the station
area plan for Alameda Point since 2008. Also, staff comes before the Commission to see if they
want to add projects. Currently, the Fruitvale Bridge lifeline structure is one of the highest
priority to the City. The term lifeline structure means after a major earthquake or disaster the
structure would continue operating. They also applied for a $50 million local street and road
funding grant as a separate source just for the City and $15 million bike and pedestrian
improvements grant as part of the Countywide Transportation Plan. Finally, he hopes that
putting the list of requests in the plan will allow the City to go after maintenance revenue and
more.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff to revise a technical glitch found on page 2 of the staff
report's summary. On page 2, they specifically name all of the transit agencies, but they do not
name WETA and he would like the name included.
Staff Khan stated he would correct that glitch before they present the staff report to the Planning
Board.
Commissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments from the public about the
Transportation Expenditure Plan.
Jim Strehlow mentioned that the Miller Sweeny Bridge is no longer called the Fruitvale Bridge.
He rides across the bridge and on the street side occasionally, but normally bicyclists ride near
the pedestrian lane. So, adding a bicycle lane makes no sense and he would hate to see a
dedicated lane not get used. He explained if staff wants to get people off the island and into
Oakland, there should be three lanes not the proposed two-lane bicycle and transit lane that takes
up space and causes congestion. He wants to know if this is the conceptual design or if this
concept is being submitted for approval, and where does public input come into play.
Staff Khan replied that the lifeline project is a conceptual design. He discussed the proposed
project with Bike Alameda and they want this corridor to be improved as well. However, the
conceptual design was developed to receive a cost estimate and once funding is available, their
Page 4 of 14",TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-04-25,5,"goal is refine the design. They are also working with the city of Oakland to make sure it is usable
on both sides.
Jon Spangler explained that he has strong misgivings with the 3rd iteration of Measure B. He
was looking for more than 1/3 of the funds going to public transit operations. He stated that he
was one of the people to advocate for an increase, but this plan is still capital project heavy and
underfunds transit operations. He may ultimately decide to vote for Measure B3, but there was
no outreach conducted in Alameda or a hearing before this body and he feels this is why the
Council pushed it forward to May 15.
Commissioner Miley replied the plan has a lot in it and he believes everyone should understand
that the county has a lot of needs. He does have concerns that no meeting was held in Alameda
about this plan. Yet, there was extensive public outreach done, AC Transit has endorsed the plan
and it is light years ahead compared to other jurisdictions in the country. So, he will vote yes on
Measure B3.
Commissioner Moehring stated Vice Mayor Bonta and Obaid Khan were on the committee so
there was representation from Alameda. She is glad that certain ideas are in the plan, but it is not
all done and they still have time to bring ideas up to the Commission and receive public input.
Commissioner Vargas explained that Los Angeles County has been able to revive their economy
and build for transit purposes. Ultimately, he felt the numbers were big and ACTC's plan is
good. If counties such as Los Angeles have done a lot to create and sustain jobs, he believes this
plan will do it.
Commissioner Bertken said it is a well-done plan and he supports the Council to accept it.
Commissioner Miley stated since the state has removed redevelopment, it is hard for cities to
create jobs and conduct the type of improvements needed. Therefore, this plan improves transit
and money going to the port and more. He asked staff about the Project Priority List status and
the process for developing the list.
Staff Khan replied the City Council directed staff to not move forward on any projects even in
plans and on the books without working with the community, Planning Board and Transportation
Commissions. The City Council reviewed the priority list in the last meeting and asked staff to
continue working with the Transportation Commission and Planning Board. The Transportation
Commission will see a revised priority list on the agenda in July. Right now, the priority list is
moving forward and staff is categorizing the list to refine the priorities and more.
Commissioner Miley asked staff to look at best practices made by other cities going through the
same process. He would like to see examples to benefit the discussion in July.
Commissioner Moehring stated she is happy to see students getting bus passes and anything
encouraging public transit use is to be commended. She then asked the Commission to make a
recommendation.
Page 5 of 14",TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-04-25,6,"Commissioner Miley made a motion that the Commission recommends the City Council to
endorse this transportation expenditure plan for Measure B. Commissioner Vargas seconded the
motion. The recommendation was approved 7-0.
Staff Khan spoke about the Miller Sweeney Bridge and the challenges. Measure B, supports the
$94 million application for the super structure and they along with their cosponsor Alameda
County will continue to develop this project. He also stated that Alameda County submitted
applications for the Park Street and High Street Bridges.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff to define replacing the Park and High Street Bridges.
Staff Khan replied the plan is to take down and replace the bridges because the Park and High
Street bridges are reaching their life cycle and will need more maintenance when looking at a 20-
30 year period.
Commissioner Miley said staff is looking to replace the High Street and Park Street bridges. Yet,
the full replacement and steel structures overtop may prevent them from being called lifeline
structures. But once they are replaced, they can be considered lifelines.
Staff Khan stated he does not have the full details yet, but they may be potential lifeline
structures once replaced.
Commissioner Bertken explained that once the bridges are replaced they would be in accordance
with seismic standards and they should be lifeline structures.
Staff Khan replied that should be true. He mentioned the multimodal circulation project at
Broadway and Jackson Street and presented a brief overview of the project. He wanted to
quickly describe the project since it was mentioned.
4B.
Appeal of All-Way Stop Control at Fourth Street/Santa Clara Avenue
Staff Khan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Bellows asked if crosswalks are located all the way around the intersection. She
then asked if there are advance-warning signs that say ""Slow School Crossing"" anywhere on
Santa Clara Avenue.
Staff Khan replied when they installed the two crosswalks, the intersection is only for the white
crosswalks since the distance is far away from the school. The yellow school crosswalks do not
qualify for this location.
Commissioner Bellows said she was thinking of a volunteer crossing guard plan, so she was
happy that Staff Khan mentioned the Adopt-a-Crosswalk Program. She mentioned when making
a midblock crossing on Park Street there is a flashing warning that pedestrians can hit to alert
approaching vehicles. So, maybe the Safe Routes to School program could adopt something like
that since it is on a Safe Routes to School route.
Page 6 of 14",TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-04-25,7,"Staff Khan stated yes the Rectangular-shaped Rapid Flash Beacons are used in many places like
Berkeley. Staff is considering one on Fernside Boulevard, which is carrying 9,000 vehicles per
day. His only concern is if the beacons were implemented on Santa Clara Avenue and 4th Street,
the bright lights would disturb homes in the residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Bellows replied the lights would only be on during the day since that is when they
would have the most use.
Staff Khan stated they would look into this.
Commissioner Moehring mentioned that she loved the pedestrian signal lights and since it is a
narrower street it would require fewer lights.
Staff Khan told the Commission that they could see the lights in action in Berkeley on Martin
Luther King near Alcatraz. Overall, studies found a compliance rate of 95 percent of motorists
stop for the beacons compared to the lighted crosswalk at 75-80 percent compliance.
Commissioner Moehring said she understood everything that cannot be done and she wanted to
know what could be done.
Staff Khan replied that staff could make the crosswalk more visible by installing crosshatching
and they have done that in other places. The current signs are up to standard for color, visibility
and reflection. Also, they can work with the police to install a Speed Traffic Trailer, which
advertizes motorists' speeds.
Commissioner Vargas stated if stop signs cannot be erected what is possible without breaking
policy or law.
Staff Khan stated that staff would look at the Rapid Flash Beacons because lighted crosswalks
are quite expensive. The Rapid Flash Beacon has lower energy usage and could cost anywhere
from $14,000-15,000. He would work with the school district and community to pursue grants to
fund it, if the community wants it. He also mentioned that rumble strips receive noise complaints
at night by the community and he does not recommend them placed in residential areas.
Commissioner Miley mentioned that drivers often ignore feedback signs and enforcement is an
important component. He wanted to know what is the City's liability if they install an
unwarranted stop sign.
Staff Khan stated there are certain things in state law that you cannot do. When installing stop
signs, the review analysis states five collisions must occur in the past 12 months that are
correctable by a stop sign. He explained the presence of too many traffic controls without it
being warranted, will eventually foster bad driving behavior by drivers ignoring stop signs.
Commissioner Miley explained it was good to see the traffic counts in the staff report and he
wanted to get a sense of the pedestrian volume.
Page 7 of 14",TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-04-25,8,"Staff Khan replied the pedestrian counts are listed on page 2 on the 4th paragraph. When they
counted, there were 70 pedestrians and bicyclists in the morning and 79 pedestrians and bikes in
the afternoon.
Commissioner Miley asked if the Safe Routes to School funding had enough funds to hire
crossing guards.
Staff Khan replied the crossing guards are paid for by the police department. However, in the
Safe Routes to School Plan, there is a Walking School Bus Program.
Commissioner Miley asked what are the criteria for placing a crossing guard at the intersection.
Sergeant Simmons, Alameda Supervisor of Traffic Unit, explained the only requirement for
locating a crossing guard is that they be used for elementary school students only. Regarding the
budget, there are 24 crossing guards and that maximizes his budget. The guards are distributed to
17 locations throughout the City and he does not think they have enough guards. If he were to
deploy a crossing guard at this location, that would take a guard away from one of his double
staffed positions. There are two Speed Traffic Trailers that were obtained through grant money
and they are moving them throughout the City to make motorists aware. As for enforcement,
there is only one traffic officer. They have five police officers and because the situation of the
jails within the county they have to have the prisoners at North County Jail at 8 am, which means
getting them ready for transport at 7:30 am and that is the time most kids are going to school.
Ultimately, they are doing the best they can with what they have and they have seven officers on
duty in the evening.
Commissioner Moehring called for public comment.
Lisa Shannon, Haight Avenue resident, she has three children 5,8 and 11 years old who attend
Patton Elementary and walk everyday. They cross Santa Clara Avenue and 4th Street in the
morning and the evening. Parents and children already walk together so a walking school bus is
already occurring. It seems that a City representative was able to survey the intersection for only
one day. However, the other days paint a picture that is quite different because there are
accidents and near misses that commonly occur. First, two young girls were nearly struck by
a
vehicle when crossing Santa Clara Avenue on their way to school. Secondly, on two occasions
her children were nearly hit when crossing 4th Street. She understands that City costs play into
the decision, but having a potential lawsuit is worse.
Mary Jo Casey, Santa Clara Avenue resident, she wanted a stop sign to make the community
safer and prevent accidents. Since she lives so close to the intersection, she is able to see cars
cross the intersection. She has lived in the house for nine months, works from home, and has
witnessed two accidents.
Liz Warmerdam, Haight Avenue resident, has three children 15, 10 and 8 years old and they
cross the intersection frequently in the morning. She presented a document outlining pictures of
the intersection to the Commission and spoke about the dangers of the street approach to the
Page 8 of 14",TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-04-25,9,"intersection. She wanted staff to consider more actions then just a stop sign. She read the City's
guidelines for a multi-way stop sign, located on the very last item # 4. The City guidelines are
the catchall and the City engineer can recommend and implement the best alternatives.
Commissioner Moehring asked if the last picture was taken at 5th or 6th Street.
Liz Warmerdam replied that it was taken at 6th Street and she took that because of the paddle
and the yellow ladder markings because it is within 600 feet of a school and they draw white
ladder markings.
Linda Preisendore, Santa Clara Avenue resident, she does not want the stop sign in front of her
house because the sign would create noise and air pollution from the cars. Also, there use to be a
bus stop near her house and the buses would stop to let people off and that made her window
shake. She does not want Rapid Flash Beacons or any light control near the intersection because
that would cause a disturbance to her. On hot days, she likes to open her bay window and let in
fresh air and with the stop sign, she would not be able to do it.
Susan Campbell, 4th Street resident, she has a 7 and 9 year old. One day, her 9-year old
daughter and friend were walking behind her and they were almost hit by a car. Melanie
Shannon also witnessed the incident. Consequently, they do not walk to school anymore. So, she
is asking for a stop sign.
Noel Wise, Alameda resident, she has three children, but does not live in the West end. She has
spent a lot of time on that street in the last 10 years and attempts to avoid the street because of its
visibility issue. She agreed with the mention of the City's guidelines because every City has such
guidelines. She is not aware of any liability for erecting a stop sign if all the criteria were not
met. Finally, she believes if a stop sign cannot be erected, then remove the area as a school safe
zone.
Melanie Shannon, Appellant for this decision and part of the 300 residential block of Haight
Avenue, stated this is a unique intersection because there are seven schools located around this
intersection. She believes the sun glare causes dangerous driving and many people speed up
between stop signs. Since a stop sign is located on 5th and 3rd Streets, 4th Street is the speed up
zone. Finally, she wanted to ask about the process for next steps.
Commissioner Moehring replied they are voting on the recommendation tonight.
Melanie Shannon replied if the Commission votes against the stop sign, what could they do to
ensure the intersection is safe for their children.
Commissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments from the Commission.
Commissioner Miley asked if the Commission makes a recommendation based on staff's
recommendation and if the recommendation is negative what is the next step for the appellant.
Staff Khan replied any person can appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council and the
Page 9 of 14",TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-04-25,10,"City Council's decision could be appealed in court. There is a 10-day limit after the
Commission's decision.
Commissioner Bertken stated the crosswalks are along Santa Clara Avenue so there are no
crosswalks on 4th Street. He commented about the side distance and visibility issues.
Staff Khan replied the City removed some parking when concerns were brought up in 2008 and
they installed a pedestrian crossing sign and improved the red curb where the bus stop was
mentioned. Regarding visibility, if there is an additional need to remove more parking, than they
are happy to work with the community.
Commissioner Bertken stated he is raising the question because one of the public comments
indicated that parked cars are so close to the intersection that the visibility is not adequate.
Additionally, one public comment said there were two accidents in the last 9 months. So, were
those incidents recorded.
Staff Khan replied they use police recorded data and if the accident is not reported, it is not
shown in the records.
Commissioner Moehring commented on the sight distances. She lives in west Alameda and
drives on that street. The houses in west Alameda and at the corner are closer to the curb, so it
does create a visibility issue because drivers cannot see around the house. She understands when
a stop sign is installed it creates more pollution, but her greatest concern is for safety. She
believes if they have to construct white crosshatching and crosswalks then that should be done
immediately.
Commissioner Sharma stated that the Commission might want to take the time to study the
options, instead of installing a stop sign right away.
Commissioner Bertken said the Commission is supposed to act on the appeal and it would be
easy if the department gave them specific actions to take that would show an increased level of
safety.
Staff Khan replied staff will mark a ladder crosswalk that includes white lines to make it more
visible and instead of using the ""Slow School Xing"" on the street, they could mark it as
""Pedestrian Crossing."" Also, they could remove on street parking, but that would require a notice
sent to the community to solicit a response. Finally, the Speed Traffic Trailer also can be placed
in the area.
Commissioner Bellows stated that protected bulb outs would project pedestrians out more, while
keeping them safe.
Staff Khan replied that bulb outs are great and they could look into it, but funding is an issue.
Commissioner Bellows explained that she had reservations about the bulb outs unless bollards or
some type of safety mechanism protects pedestrians.
Page 10 of 14",TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-04-25,11,"Staff Khan replied staff could look into painted bulb outs as well.
Commissioner Vargas explained that the reminder of the number of schools around the
intersection and the fact that there are several parks is important. Therefore, the Commission
should think about a four way stop because it is a unique intersection.
Commissioner Moehring mentioned that the distance between 4th and 6th Streets bring up safety
issues. Personally, she believes the solutions are inexpensive.
Staff Khan replied when you make a change to the environment you might impact bicyclists
because they do not like to see too many stops signs and Santa Clara Avenue is a bike route.
Commissioner Bellows stated that bicyclists should also watch out for pedestrians so the stop
control could help as well.
Commissioner Miley stated that he walked down that street almost everyday when in high school
and understands the safety concerns. He hears a lot of consensus for a stepped approach. The
stop sign would seem like a logical first step, but his concern is for the people who live on Santa
Clara Avenue and he does not know if the Commission is hearing from them about this route and
intersection.
Staff Khan replied staff noticed this appeal via USPS mail service.
Commissioner Miley explained he would like a stepped approach and he is looking at the ladder
crosswalk and increasing the visibility and they can take if from there. He also mentioned that
the Commission could receive an update on traffic improvements or concerns to see if the stop
sign is the next logical step.
Commissioner Moehring asked if there is a particular time line to receive an update.
Staff Khan replied there could be a 1-year review.
Commissioner Moehring said a 3-month review would be better and she asked for Sergeant
Simmons' opinion on whether crosshatching is an effective safety measure.
Sergeant Simmons replied anything that the City can do to paint warning signs on the street and
protect children is a benefit. The controls are just like signs so drivers who cross the path daily
do not see the signs after a while. The crosshatching does make it more visible, but the signage
ends up becoming commonplace.
Commissioner Bertken mentioned by the time they do the painting it would be good to install
Speed Traffic Trailer as well.
Staff Khan replied staff would coordinate with Sergeant Simmons.
Page 11 of 14",TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-04-25,12,"Commissioner Miley said there seems to be a very active community in the neighborhood. Since
staff mentioned a volunteer crossing guard, he asked the public if someone was interested in
receiving training as a volunteer.
Melanie Shannon asked the Commission to vote on the stop sign first and if the vote does not go
through then present alternative options.
Commissioner Miley recommended that the Commission conduct a stepped approach looking at
installing the ladder crossing, pedestrian signage and Speed Traffic Trailer. However, he asked
the community if they would like to have a volunteer cross guard.
Melanie Shannon replied the community is very active and there are 21 kids on their 300 Haight
Avenue block. They like the idea of a crossing guard with a stop sign, but to commit parents to
volunteer everyday is difficult.
Sergeant Simmons stated that he is not opposed to a volunteer cross guard, but if the police train
civilian staff on City streets, then the City could incur a liability.
Staff Khan replied there is a liability waiver that parents would sign off, but parents feel they are
picking up the liability. The Safe Routes to School Program offers other effective programs such
as the Walking School Bus.
Staff Payne explained that Melanie Shannon spoke about already doing a Walking School Bus.
The Walking School Bus is a group of kids walking with families and families take turns doing
it. It is safer because they are a big visible group. She works with the Countywide Safe Routes to
School Program. There are four schools regularly involved in the program, but Patton School is
not one of them. So, she urged the public to gather the Patton School's community to work
together to receive support from the Countywide Safe Routes to School Program.
Commissioner Bellows stated that an 85th percentile of traffic is high and there is a long stopping
distance when vehicles are moving above 25 mph. Her inclination is vote for the stop sign.
Commissioner Bellows moved the Commission to approve the appeal and deny the Public Works
Director's decision. Commissioner Vargas seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.
5.
Staff Communications
Bike to Work Day - Thursday, May 10, 2012
The City is working with Bike Alameda to erect five energizer stations around town. The month
of May is also Bike Month. This year the Public Works Department has a team of peddlers
called the Public Works Pedalers so she invites other teams to join them. Also, on Thursday,
May 10 is the Shoreline Drive/Westline Drive Proposed Bike Lane Project Public Meeting at
Lum School at 7 p.m.
Page 12 of 14",TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-04-25,13,"Estuary Crossing Shuttle Updated
Staff applied for funding, but they have not heard about the outcome yet. They applied for 80
percent funding for the years 2013-2016. The good news is that they are still in the running for
50 percent, but not for 80 percent.
Change of Southbound Bus Stop on Park Street at Clement Avenue
A big tree is getting in the way of the bus stop. The City will not cut down the tree, but will
move the bus stop from the near side to the far side of the intersection to avoid the tree. They
notified all parties concerned and their response was positive. So, staff hopes to make the change
in May.
New Freedom Grant - Accessible Pedestrian Signal Locations
Staff included the exact nine locations in the Transportation Commission's packet. They
received federal funding and they are waiting for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
to sign the necessary documents. Once the documents are signed, staff will conduct public
outreach and bring the topic to the Commission.
Monday, May 28, 2012 College of Alameda 7 p.m. on the Webster Street SMART Corridor
Project Public Meeting
Staff Khan explained there were questions asked about the project from Planning Board member
John Knox White and the answers are included in the Commission's staff report.
Future Meeting Agenda Items:
There is a special Meeting scheduled on Thursday, May 3rd at 7 pm about the Gibbons
Drive/Northwood and Southwood Drives Intersection at City Hall.
Regular scheduled May 23rd meeting:
Broadway Jackson Project
Capital Improvement Program before it goes to the City Council for their approval
Call for Projects: Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program
Going to have Transportation Commission meetings every other month after May
The July 25 meeting will include: the Miller Sweeney Bridge project, Alameda Point
Transit Plan Review, the Shoreline/Westline public meeting update, Draft Prioritized
Transportation List, and the Quarterly report.
Commissioner Bellows asked Staff Payne if the City has received funding for the Shoreline
project.
Staff Payne replied yes they have.
Page 13 of 14",TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-04-25,14,"Commissioner Miley asked if they are still waiting to hear back on the grant from the Grand
Street Mid-block Crossing at Wood School Safe Routes to School.
Staff Payne replied yes it would take about three months or SO.
Commissioner Miley asked if it is possible to get a list of the future agenda in their packet.
Staff Payne replied that she would talk to Staff Khan about that because sometimes things
change and it would be good to have flexibility.
Commissioner Miley stated that it would be good to see the potential future agenda items.
Staff Khan replied that they would incorporate it into the next meeting
6.
Announcements
None.
7.
Adjournment
10:13 pm
Page 14 of 14",TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-08-30,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - AUGUST 30, 2006
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Jeff Knoth
Michael Krueger
Eric Schatmeier
Robert McFarland
Absent:
Robb Ratto
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works
2.
Proposed Commission Policy Recommendations to the City Council Regarding
Criteria for the Evaluation of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs)
Chair Knox White asked if the background information presented at the June TC meeting should
be included in the recommendations to the City Council.
Commissioners Knoth and Krueger both indicated that they felt this was important to help the
Council understand why the TC was forwarding these recommendations at this time.
Staff Khan noted that staff has identified conflicts between the TC recommendations and the
existing General Plan, so that adoption of the policies by the Council would have to be preceded
by an environmental review. He recommended that this be integrated into the process for
evaluating the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), rather than forwarding the recommendations
separately. He also noted that number four on the list of policy recommendations is already
included in the CEQA process.
Chair Knox White stated that while the Alameda Landing EIR included bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, it did not account for the impacts of the project on bicyclists and pedestrians outside
the project area.
Commissioner Krueger stated that the intent of the recommendations is as an interim measure
until the TMP is approved. He emphasized that he has no interest in stopping or slowing
projects, but is concerned about how projects are being implemented. He stated that since there",TransportationCommission/2006-08-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-08-30,2,"are a number of projects currently moving forward, it is important to have something in place
while the TMP is being completed.
Chair Knox White indicated that the City Manager has said that in the future the TC will be able
to get involved in project discussions at an earlier stage, along with the Planning Board, before
plans have been developed.
Staff Khan recommended that the TC frame its concerns as guidelines, rather than policies, to
make its concerns clear to the City Council and avoid having to conduct the environmental
review and go through the process of amending the General Plan. He noted that the City
Attorney's office has already indicated that they see conflicts between what the Commission has
proposed and the existing General Plan. Therefore, if the recommendations are made as policies,
staff would be recommending the environmental review.
Staff Bergman suggested that the Commission consider the current timeline for the TMP. He
noted that a consultant was recently hired to complete the Multimodal Circulation Plan and the
update of the functional classification system. The consultant's work is scheduled to be
presented to the TC in December, and the review by other boards and commissions,
environmental review, and approval by Council should be completed by June or July 2007. As a
result, if the TC's current recommendations are submitted as policies prior to the rest of the TMP,
it may be that they would only be adopted a few months earlier than if they were folded into the
TMP process.
Commissioner Knoth stated that there appears to be a fundamental conflict between the spirit of
Attachment 1 and Attachment 2.
Staff Bergman stated that when the Council considers the Alameda Landing EIR, they will either
be looking at recommended guidelines from the TC or recommended policies. The policies will
not be able to be adopted yet.
Chair Knox White expressed concern that if the recommendations are made as guidelines, that
the Councilmembers may in turn point to the existing policies and dismiss the guidelines.
However, they may give more weight to recommended policies.
Commissioner Knoth recommended using stronger language because when projects are actually
built there have not been tangible results in terms of how they support City policies.
Chair Knox White recommended modifying Attachment 1 by changing #2 on the second page to
read: ""amend the General Plan where necessary to include these policies until such time as the
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is adopted by the City Council.'
Chair Knox White asked that the TC's recommendations be submitted in the standard format
used to communicate board and commission recommendations to the Council, rather than the
letter format used in Attachment 1.
2",TransportationCommission/2006-08-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-08-30,3,"Commissioner Knoth moved to forward Attachment 1, with the recommended modification to
the text, to the City Council as a policy recommendation. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded
the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 5.
3.
Selection of Transportation Commissioner for City's Climate Protection Campaign
Task Force
Commissioner Krueger volunteered to represent the TC on the Task Force. No other
Commissioners volunteered.
Chair Knox White nominated Commissioner Krueger to represent the TC on the City's Climate
Protection Task Force.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2006/0906/083006min.doc",TransportationCommission/2006-08-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-08-30,4,3,TransportationCommission/2006-08-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-09-28,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
September 28, 2005
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:37 PM.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
John Knox White
Robert MacFarland
Patianne Parker
Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier
Absent:
Jeff Knoth
Michael Krueger
Staff Present:
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
Barry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Parker moved approval of the minutes for the July 20
Transportation Commission meeting. Commissioner Ratto seconded the
motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 5.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Multimodal Circulation Plan Subcommittee - The
Subcommittee has been working on a revision of the City's street classification system
and met with the Task Force. A follow-up Task Force meeting is scheduled for October
12.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
None.
6.
OLD BUSINESS",TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-09-28,2,"6A.
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Priorities
Staff `Bergman presented the staff report. He noted that since the original timeline for the
TMP was approved, that circumstances had changed; as a result, staff is recommending a
revision to the planned order of some of the mode-specific plans of the TMP.
Specifically, the City had received a grant for the Pedestrian Plan, and recently the
Council has expressed an interest in several activities that would fit into the discussion
for the Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management
(TSM/TDM) Plan. Since the Multimodal Circulation Plan is well under way, and would
serve as the framework for the entire TMP, staff views this as the highest priority.
Commissioner Parker stated that is would be easier to keep track of the progress of the
TMP if staff could prepare a chart illustrating the TMP schedule.
Commissioner Parker also noted that the proposed ECO Pass program is specific to
employers and asked why it could not be expanded to a larger population across the City.
She also noted that there is a proposed pass program for the Alameda Point development.
Staff Bergman responded that AC Transit is in the process of developing a standardized
formula for calculating the costs of these types of programs. Currently they only have
three programs in place, all in Berkeley - for City of Berkeley employees, University of
California staff, and University of California students. Because of the different
characteristics of these populations, the costs for these programs need to be calculated
separately.
Public Comment Opened
Bill Smith recommended the use of benefit assessment districts to develop funding
sources for needed transportation improvements.
Lucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda, stated that she was wary of further delaying the
bike plan update. She noted that it has been six years since the initial plan was
completed, and that there is a need for many changes to the current plan.
Jon Spangler expressed his concern about the feasibility of collecting all of the required
data for the pedestrian plan by the end of the school year. He reiterated Ms. Gigli's
concerns about the bike plan, and indicated that he would like to see it made a higher
priority.
Public Comment Closed
Chair Knox White recommended that once the bike plan update begins that a second
bicycle plan update workshop be held due to poor attendance from the public at the initial
meeting. He asked that the workshop be held at City Hall instead of City Hall West to
encourage improved attendance.",TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-09-28,3,"Commissioner Parker moved to accept the staff recommendation. Commissioner Ratto
seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 5.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
I-880 Access Issues
Chair Knox White noted that there are projects being undertaken in Oakland which could
have a significant impact on Alameda's access to the regional transportation system, and
he is concerned that there have not been sufficient opportunities for input in the early
stages of project development. Specifically, he mentioned the Broadway/Jackson
interchange project, and the Park Street Triangle project, both of which will impact on
connections between Alameda and I-880.
Chair Knox White stated that the process for providing input into a project can be
confusing, and that it would be helpful for elected officials and citizens to have a better
understanding of how it works. He distributed a handout suggesting the development of
a task force to discuss these issues. Specifically, Chair Knox White suggested that the TC
recommend a process whereby staff from the cities of Alameda and Oakland, elected
officials and the public would develop an agreement which would define what projects
would be of mutual concern as well as a process for soliciting input on these projects
early on. He suggested that this approach would be proactive and would enable ideas to
be circulated early in the process before design decisions are made.
Chair Knox White emphasized that the proposed task force would have a limited life
span, meeting perhaps three or four times, to develop this agreement.
Commissioner Parker asked what has already been done and what is being done to
coordinate efforts between the two jurisdictions.
Open Public Comment
Jon Spangler stated that Chair Knox White's handout does not address emergency
preparedness issues, and that consideration of these issues at a regional level is important.
He suggested that a task force be established for the long term, so that the cities of
Alameda and Oakland could continue to coordinate their efforts on projects that affect
both jurisdictions.
Bill Smith expressed his support for Mr. Spangler's comments regarding emergency
preparedness, and noted the importance of enhanced access to I-880 for Alameda.
Close Public Comment
Commissioner Schatmeier suggested that the Interagency Liaison Committee (ILC),
which the City of Alameda and AC Transit use as a way of addressing transit issues,
could serve as a model.",TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-09-28,4,"Chair Knox White acknowledged that the staff of both cities does communicate, but his
concern is that the concerns of the public are not aired early enough in the process, and
that important decisions are made before the input is solicited
Commissioner Parker stated that she did not know enough about current coordination
efforts between Alameda and Oakland. She moved that this item be tabled until the next
meeting.
Staff Hawkins stated that there are a number of ways in which the two cities currently
work together. She noted that there is the ??? which meets quarterly, including staff
representation from Oakland, Alameda, Caltrans, the Coast Guard, and Alameda County.
She suggested that emergency response may be a good topic for this committee??? and
noted that the City is currently developing an emergency response program. She also
noted that several years ago, there were periodic meetings between the city managers and
assistant city managers from both cities. She asked what are the most appropriate levels
of government that should be getting together, since at the higher levels, the exchange is
more general
Staff Hawkins stated that the Park Street Triangle project was developed as part of the
estuary plan, which had a significant amount of public input. The current effort is
carrying forward a capital project that was identified in that plan.
Staff Hawkins also noted that sometimes early input can be difficult for the public,
because they are not familiar with the issues, and it is helpful to have some analysis done
to give the something to respond to.
She noted that the ILC is somewhat different than dealing with Alameda/Oakland issues,
since AC Transit is a transit agency that operates in Alameda.
Commissioner Ratto moved to accept Chair Knox White's recommendation. No one
seconded the motion.
Chair Knox White tabled the discussion of the proposed task force to address input into
selected Oakland projects until the October meeting.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
The TC had requested updates regarding the status of the Commission's
recommendations on three projects.
Broadway-Jackson: Staff Hawkins stated that the TC's recommendations on the
Broadway-Jackson interchange project will be forwarded to the City Council along with
comments from other stakeholder groups. She noted that additional presentations on the
project will be made to the League of Women Voters and the Alameda Chamber of
Commerce, and that others may be interested in presentations as well. She indicated that",TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-09-28,5,"the recommendations should be presented to the Council in November or December, and
that December is also the scheduled date for the final stakeholders' meeting.
Alameda Point Transportation Study: Staff Hawkins stated that the Alameda Point
Transportation Study would be presented to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA) on October 5, but presentations are not scheduled for any City boards
and commissions. She indicated that the intent is to clarify issues for the developer and
that ARRA will hopefully accept, not approve, the study.
Theater/parking garage: Staff Hawkins stated that a use permit hearing is scheduled for
September 29. She noted that issues to be discussed include the conversion of angled
parking to parallel parking on Central Avenue between Oak Street and Walnut Street and
installation of a bike lane along this block once the main library building has been
completed. To address the needs of bicyclists on Oak Street, the proposal is to add shared
lane markings (or ""sharrows"") and signs. She stated that there will be discussions with
the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) to address their parking needs in the area.
Staff Hawkins also noted that the environmental document for the project has gone
forward.
Chair Knox White said that the TC recommended the installation of sharrows from
Encinal Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, not just to Central Avenue. Staff Hawkins responded
that this would be addressed in the implementation process.
Chair Knox White suggested that when the Commission makes recommendations to the
City Council, that it might be easier for the Council to review the recommendations if
they were presented in a different format. Currently the Council receives a copy of the
TC minutes. Chair Knox White suggested preparing and sending to the Council a brief
summary of the main recommendations in addition to the minutes. Commissioner
Parker supported this recommendation.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM.",TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-02-25,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT
February 25, 2009
Acting Chair Krueger called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:37 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Srikant Subramaniam
Members Absent:
Jane Lee
Kathy Moehring (arrived at 7:40 p.m.)
Eric Schatmeier
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
December 10, 2008
Staff Bergman noted that due to lack of a quorum, the December 10, 2008, minutes would be
presented at the next meeting.
b.
January 28, 2009
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the January 28, 2009, meeting and
minutes as presented. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
Chair Knox White suggested that Item 7A be presented first because of the members of the
public in attendance. He suggested that the Draft AC Transit Line 51 item be heard next, and that
the Multimodal Thresholds of Significance be heard after that.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Transit Plan Subcommittee
There was no report.
Page 1 of 12",TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-02-25,2,"Bicycle Plan Update Task Force
Chair Knox White noted that this group would meet the following week, and that there was
nothing to report
Commissioner Moehring arrived at 7:40 p.m.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
There were none.
Commissioner Lee and Commissioner Schatmeier arrived at approximately 7:45 p.m.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Request of Relocation of the Bus Stop at Santa Clara Avenue and Chestnut Street.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and detailed the background and scope of this item. The
request to relocate the bus stop was made due to concerns by church representatives that diesel
fumes from the buses caused to the church building and the stained glass windows, and that the
damage if left unabated would undermine the extensive renovation that the church had
undergone recently. The church is listed on the National Historic Register. The church also
claimed there was damage to the landscaping and the front stairs by bus riders who waited on the
property, and that the bus riders left trash on the church property. AC Transit and the City
generally prefer to keep bus stops in pairs for ease of use by the riders, and staff suggested that if
it was determined that the stop should be relocated, that both stops should be moved to other
locations.
Staff Bergman noted that the first choice was to keep the stop at the same intersection, but to
move it to a different location. The presence of driveways made the location across the street
unsuitable. The only other feasible location that would comply with the bus stop spacing
guidelines supported by the City and AC Transit would be to relocate it to the intersection of
Lafayette Street and Santa Clara Avenue, one block away. He noted that staff considered several
factors in evaluating whether to recommend the relocation. In addition to the spacing guidelines,
they looked at the physical conditions at the two locations, the land uses near the two sites, the
presence of stop signs and crosswalks, input from the community and stakeholders, as well as the
usage of the current bus stop and the number of pedestrians and bicyclists using the intersection.
Staff Bergman noted that staff contacted AC Transit regarding the impact of the emissions on the
church, and were told that since 2002, AC Transit has undergone an extensive upgrade of their
buses, resulting in a 97 percent reduction in the buses' particulate emissions. The tailpipes of the
buses also pointed away from the building, and that the impact would not be that significant.
Staff Bergman noted that determining the impact of emissions is a very complex process, but
Page 2 of 12",TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-02-25,3,"given the absence of more detailed information from AC Transit, staff used the information
available. He displayed the location of the bus stop on the overhead screen. He noted that in
comparing the spacing between bus stops at the two alternative locations, they were essentially
equivalent with respect to the guidelines.
Staff Bergman noted that several items were in place to assist pedestrians with crossing at the
intersection of Santa Clara and Chestnut, including all-way stop signs, a yellow school
crosswalk, a crossing guard, and yield to pedestrian signs. At the Lafayette intersection, there
were stop controls for Lafayette Street approaching Santa Clara, but the traffic at Santa Clara was
not controlled, and marked crosswalks were not present.
Staff Bergman noted that with respect to the adjacent land uses, the westbound stop was directly
in front of the church; the eastbound stop was in front of the parking lot and a school associated
with the Immanuel Lutheran Church across the street. The alternative location at Lafayette Street
was for the eastbound stop near a residential building; the stop for the westbound direction
would be near the grass strip in front of a residence. He noted that the existing location was a
school crosswalk, and lined up with several other traffic controls along intersections on Chestnut
Street. He noted that there were several schools, including St. Joseph's, nearby and that it
connected as a pedestrian corridor.
Staff Bergman noted that with respect to bus stop usage, the existing bus stops at Santa Clara and
Chestnut were among the most heavily used stops in the City. He noted that the two bus stops
combined were used by an average of 419 passengers per day. He noted that AC Transit
indicated that they opposed the relocation of the stop because of the pedestrian amenities at the
existing stop, and the lack of a crosswalk at the Lafayette intersection. In addition to the request
from the church, staff contacted Haight Elementary School, and there were three child care
facilities within a block of the location. The principal of the elementary school, as well as several
teachers, indicated that they supported relocating the stop and expressed concern about having
students crossing at the same location where the bus stop was located. A similar comment was
received from one of the child care centers. A comment was received from the Alameda Korean
Presbyterian Church supporting the stop at its current location.
Staff agreed with some of the concerns expressed by AC Transit regarding the appropriateness of
the bus stop, and supported maintaining it at its current location, primarily because of the stop
controls at the intersection SO that the buses are required to stop, whether or not there were
passengers at the stop. Staff Bergman noted that the City was interested in working with the
church to minimize the impact of the bus riders on the stop. He noted that upgraded benches
were on order by the City, and were expected to come in soon. Both stops were on the priority
list for shelters that were approved by the City Council, based on ridership levels. The City has
contacted the Alameda Police Department regarding the potential to conduct patrols or other
appropriate safety measures. The City preferred to maintain the stop at the existing location, and
for City staff to work with the church to mitigate any negative impacts of the bus stop.
Page 3 of 12",TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-02-25,4,"Commissioner Schatmeier inquired whether this stop had ever been located anywhere else. Staff
Bergman replied that he was not aware of any other location.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether pedestrian activity was part of the criteria for a stop
sign warrant. Staff Bergman replied that it was one of the factors.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the pedestrian activity attributable to the bus were to be
added to the totals for Lafayette and Chestnut would put it over the warrant threshold. Staff
Bergman replied that it would not.
Commissioner Lee inquired whether police had been involved with other bus stops that may have
had issues. Staff Bergman replied that he was not aware of anything.
Staff Khan noted that Public Works worked very closely with the Alameda Police Department in
these issues, and if staff anticipated any vandalism or other security concerns, the police
department would send more officers and keep an eye on the area.
Commissioner Lee inquired whether there had been any specific occurrences that required police
intervention. Staff Khan replied that he was not aware of any instances other than traffic-related
issues.
Commissioner Lee inquired whether the number of pedestrian crossings was a factor in
determining the location of the bus stop. Staff Bergman replied that was one of the factors that
influenced the bus stop's location.
Chair Knox White complimented staff on the quality of the report and photos. He inquired
whether the City was able to bill appellants for staff's time. Staff Khan replied that staff had
received City Council's approval for charging a fee if a request was non-safety related, but that
this analysis began before the policy was in place.
Open public hearing.
Mark Cunningham noted that the initial intent was to see what could be done to minimize the
damage to this National Register historic church, and that one option was moving the bus stop.
They had also requested a shelter and a more clearly marked area for the riders to sit, which
would relieve the wear and tear on the steps. After hearing staff's report, he understood that
moving the bus stop may not be the best idea, and he requested a covered bus stop with seating.
He noted that the decrease in the diesel emissions was a good piece of information.
Nancy Hird, President, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), noted that this
building was on the National Registry of Historic Places, and that the AAPS supported the
preservation of any older building. AAPS met in the Presbyterian Church for the general
meetings, and she relayed a story about several boys waiting for the bus that night, bouncing a
basketball against the church building.
Page 4 of 12",TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-02-25,5,"Phil Sandri noted that he was a daily bus rider who used this bus stop, and complimented staff
on the quality of the staff report. He believed the proposed move to Lafayette Street would be a
very poor decision from a safety standpoint, and that the Chestnut Street location was key. He
noted that the sight lines on Lafayette and Santa Clara were very poor, which he believed would
compromise pedestrian safety.
Jean DuPuis appreciated the work that went into the staff report and analysis, as well as the
concern for the preservation of the church buildings in Alameda. She believed that relocating the
bus stops to the Lafayette intersection would relocate the nuisances experienced at the church
site to another historic building, and would like the effects to be mitigated at the original site.
Jim Rankin noted that this was a difficult issue for the City, and that St. Joseph's lets a lot of
students out that go down to Chestnut. He noted that if the stops were relocated to the Lafayette
intersection, the noise would make it difficult for nearby residents to sleep.
Margaret Harris, Principal, Henry Haight Elementary School, noted that with respect to the
views of others, separating the school crosswalk from the bus stop would help eliminate the blind
spot for pedestrians and the crossing guard. She believed it would improve safety when the
crossing guards were not available, and that it would help eliminate the drop-off and school
traffic blockage that occurs when the bus stops. She had seen scary maneuvers by the parents and
student pedestrians right before the morning bell rang. She also noted that if the stop were
relocated that students would not have to walk amongst adult strangers waiting for the bus.
Rev. Jack Buckley, pastor, First Presbyterian Church, noted that he had observed an evolution of
the crosswalk and bus stop arrangement over the past 15 years. He believed they may have been
enhanced following some accidents, and became four-way stops, with further enhanced painting
and signage. He noted that the church leaves the porch light on until 10 p.m. for the benefit of the
riders, and he enjoys talking with riders when he is outside the front door. He noted that the
church likes to be a good neighbor. He would like to protect the church as much as possible, and
move the stop a block away. He did not want to pass their problems on to their neighbors, and
would be willing to live with the decision of the Transportation Commission. He wants the best
for the church, the building and their neighbors.
Stephen Richardson noted that he concurred with the staff report, and did not want the burden to
be shifted to the neighbors or the nearby historic building. He understood the church's concerns,
but did not want to have the diesel fumes near his home. He supported the staff recommendation.
Melissa Murphy noted that she lives right next to the proposed relocated bus stop, and that her
bedroom was right above the bus stop. She noted that while she appreciated the concern around
historic buildings, she was more concerned about her health.
George Correa spoke in opposition to the relocation of the bus stop, and was concerned that the
40-foot-long bus would impact one of the large trees on the corner of Lafayette and Santa Clara.
He was concerned the tree would have to be cut down, at a cost of nearly $5,000. He added that
Page 5 of 12",TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-02-25,6,"articulated buses would not be able to use this stop. He added that staff checked the property at
1835 Santa Clara, where the proposed stop would be located, and added that there was a garage
door that had been grown over with trees. If the garage were ever to be cleared and used, the bus
stop would impact that driveway.
Close public comment.
Commissioner Schatmeier complimented staff on the thoroughness of its analysis. He noted that
a shelter at this location would be a positive addition.
Commissioner Moehring noted that she was married in this church, and loved it. She inquired of
Rev. Buckley how he felt about benches and a shelter at the original location. She believed that
some thought should be put into the design of a shelter to enhance the beauty of this church.
Rev. Buckley believed that a shelter would be an improvement over the original bench that was
open to the air. He noted that it would not provide any shelter to people on a rainy day. He had
seen several shelter designs around Alameda, and believed that a shelter that was glass-enclosed
and the ability to seat more than three people would be appropriate. He would not like
advertising to be placed on the shelter.
Commissioner Lee appreciated the previous comments, and would like Principal Harris'
concerns to be addressed. She understood the safety concerns.
Staff Khan noted that staff examined the operational aspects of this intersection, such as signage
and signals. He noted that a stop sign at a crosswalk created a better situation for pedestrians.
Chair Knox White thanked Mr. Cunningham and Pastor Buckley for their comments and
cooperative participation. He noted that this stop was one of 18 in the City that was identified by
the City Council as a priority location for a bus shelter. Regarding the school concerns, he was
not aware of the buses being involved in collisions with pedestrians. He was aware of dangerous
maneuvers by parents dropping children off at this and other school locations. He would like to
see an educational effort aimed towards parent drivers to take more care around pedestrians.
Commissioner Krueger moved to approve the recommendations in the staff report, with a
recommendation for immediate placement of a bench and a trash can at the northbound and
southbound stops, and a high priority for installation of a shelter compatible with the architecture of
the church at the northbound stop. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed
7-0.
7B.
Review of the Draft AC Transit Line 51 Service and Reliability Report
Staff Bergman summarized the staff report, and detailed the background of this item. He
described the extensive work performed by AC Transit on this ongoing review. He noted that
extensive bunching of buses had been reported, and AC Transit examined the issue thoroughly.
Staff needed to see more information regarding the causes of those delays. He noted that
Page 6 of 12",TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-02-25,7,"relatively few recommendations affected Alameda, and that many of the difficulties affected the
portions of the line in Oakland and Berkeley. The options for service modifications were a major
part of the report, including the possibility of splitting the route into two different routes;
possibly having a limited and local service; or the creation of alternating A and B stops.
Cory Lavigne, District Service and Operations Planning Manager, noted that the report contained
a robust public outreach process. He noted that they would like the input of the Transportation
Commission before commencing the public outreach process. He introduced Puja Sarna and
Sean Diest Lorgion from his office, who wrote the document.
Puja Sarna noted that this route was the source of most of the complaints received by AC
Transit.
Sean Diest Lorgion presented a PowerPoint presentation on the overhead screen, and described
the route. He noted that Line 51 was one of AC Transit's most important routes, and the most
heavily used, with close to 20,000 daily riders, almost 8% of the total district ridership. The
service operated virtually around-the-clock, covering 13 miles, with service every 8 minutes
during peak hours, every 10 minutes during the midday, and every 20 minutes during the
evenings. There were roughly 80 stops per direction, providing great accessibility for the
passengers. He noted that it generally operated at 9 mph in the PM peak hours, at a daily average
of 12 mph; some segments were 6-8 mph. He noted that there was large variability in running
times, and that the buses frequently bunched up. He noted that the goals of the task force were
increase travel time of the route, improve service reliability, increase passenger comfort, while
retaining riders. He noted that they conducted point checks to calculate running time along the
route, and that the variability in running times made it difficult to write a schedule for Line 51.
Puja Sarna noted that with respect to route-wide improvements, AC Transit recommended
having signal coordination along major corridors where it didn't already exist. They also
suggested moving bus stops to the far side of signalized intersections so the bus would not catch
two signal cycles. They recommended queue jump lanes, so the bus could bypass traffic queued
up at a traffic signal, at locations such as the Tube entrance. They recommended having
protected left-turn phases, such as where the 51 turned left from Webster onto Santa Clara. They
also looked at stop removals and stop spacing issues. They recommended maintaining the
appropriate parking restrictions at bus stops to allow the bus to enter and exit the bus stop, and to
allow easy boarding and alighting from the bus. They recommended keeping bus stops clear of
obstructions, such as garbage cans and newspaper racks that should be placed in appropriate
places. Passengers will be encouraged to move toward the end of the bus and alight from the
back door. They recommended using a prepayment program at three to five major bus stops to
streamline boarding.
Ms. Sarna noted that with respect to reliability, one option was to have a dwell point in the
middle of the route so the bus can reset a schedule without irritating the passengers. She noted
that another option to reduce running time was to implement a ""limited"" service, which would
stop approximately every three bus stops; this would replace a portion of the local service. She
noted that the A/B option was two buses that would stop at alternating stops, although both
would stop at major stop locations. She noted that the A/B option had the drawback of making
Page 7 of 12",TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-02-25,8,"everybody wait longer for the bus. She noted that the report was a draft, and that AC Transit
anticipated receiving more comments. She noted that they would also conduct a rider survey,
which they would also distribute to transit advocates. A cost-benefit analysis would be conducted
once the recommendations were refined.
Open public hearing.
There were no speakers.
Close public hearing.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he rode the 51 regularly, and always wondered what happened
at the end of the line with respect to recovery time.
Mr. Diest Lorgion noted that the delays in the run could stem from delays due to factors such as
additional time it takes bicyclists and wheelchair passengers to board, and the need for the
operator to use the rest room.
Ms. Sarna noted that the operators' contracts state that they are permitted to take a break at the
end of the line, even if they were behind schedule. She noted that there had been some
improvement in management of break times.
Mr. Lavigne noted that this was an 86-minute route, and that the break times were designed so
the operators felt comfortable taking a needed break.
Chair Knox White inquired whether additional recovery time had been proposed to keep the line
on schedule.
Mr. Lavigne noted that was an option if they wanted to add recovery time within the route or at
the end of the line; the resource expenditures would be the same. He noted that the addition of
time or resources would help the situation.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired about the distinction between signal priority and signal
coordination. Ms. Sarna noted that signal coordination was what they advocated for, which
occurred when a series of signals were hard-wired together to allow cars to pass through the light
continuously. Signal priority was a different type of technology that allowed the emitter on the
bus to hold the green light for a longer time, usually 10% of the signal length, to allow the bus to
travel through.
Staff Khan noted that signal priority and signal coordination went hand in hand. A new signal
would be installed at Pacific and Webster, in conjunction with coordination along the whole
corridor.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that page 17 of the report indicated that drivers are instructed
""not to pass the leader bus, even to reduce buses operating ahead of schedule, and the buses will
continue to be off-schedule until they can reset at the end of the route."" He noted that he has been
Page 8 of 12",TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-02-25,9,"a daily transit user for most of his life, and had seen drivers on other transit services bargaining
with one another regarding who would pull ahead and pick up passengers. He inquired about the
reason for AC Transit's policy.
Mr. Diest Lorgion noted that was called ""bump and run"" where drivers would pass each other to
help out. At one time, such strategies were used, but it was determined that some drivers were
abusing this, and it was decided not to permit this.
Open public hearing.
Adrienne Longley-Cook expressed concern proposals to have people exit at the rear doors to the
bus. She noted that seniors and people with mobility problems felt more comfortable exiting at
the front of the bus. She believed that a speed increase was a problem for people with disabilities
standing on the bus, and that she almost went through the window of the bus at one time. She
noted that a member of the Commission on Disability Issues mentioned that drivers had passed
her up because her daughter is in a wheelchair.
Close public hearing.
Chair Knox White thanked staff for the addendum, and noted that 2,800 people on the route
(almost 40% of the ridership) got off in Alameda. He inquired whether the alightings could be
added to capture a more accurate picture of the route.
Commissioner Moehring expressed concern about the removal of the two stops in Alameda,
which did not contribute to the slowdown of the system very much. She noted that the City was
trying to encourage people to take public transportation, and she did not believe that was a
helpful change. She noted that Alameda really was not a major part of the problem.
Mr. Diest Lorgion understood Commissioner Moehring' concern, and noted that every stop
removal did save time as a whole. He noted that they were conscious of equity among the
participating cities.
Chair Knox White believed that reliability was the major factor that helped riders once they've
gotten on the bus. He supported both removals, and that the removal of the stop at Santa Clara
and 9th should be discussed because of ridership.
Commissioner Krueger noted that as a bus rider, he believed the Line 51 balance was skewed,
and should be moved towards speeding up the bus and making it more reliable, even if that came
at the expense of a slightly longer walk.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that this was the best performing route in the system, and that it
was high-frequency, served many different generators, and that it was important to preserve the
positive aspects of the route. He did not want the appeal of the route to riders to be lost while
making operational improvements, and that there were often tradeoffs in those performance
decisions.
Page 9 of 12",TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-02-25,10,"Commissioner Lee expressed concern about splitting the routes, and that if it lost time, it may be
more or less convenient to change buses if it was reliable.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the process moving forward, Ms. Sarna
replied that public input was very important, and that workshops were being scheduled in each of
the three cities where the 51 operated - Alameda, Berkeley, and Oakland.
Chair Knox White noted that he would like an opportunity to discuss this item in more detail
before moving forward. He noted that the least ridden section of the line had the most delays. He
did not believe it would be appropriate to identify drivers as the sole sources of the delays, but
did not believe it would be appropriate to soft-pedal the issues on this line. He supported
removing the stop at Lincoln, and believed there should be a discussion of whether 9th Street
makes sense when examining the number of daily riders. He believed the decisions should be
based on whether meaningful time would be saved.
Chair Knox White believed the origin/destination study was key, and should be done before there
was a discussion of what to do next. He noted that many people he knew who traveled to
Berkeley did not take the 51 all the way; he observed many people riding to 12th and Broadway,
where they continued via BART. He noted that he had never seen a bus stop before entering an
intersection in order to wait for the bus ahead of it to clear the bus stop, and suggested that be re-
emphasized in the drivers' training. It was his personal experience that the delays on Broadway
between 8th and 11th were due to double parking.
Mr. Diest Lorgion noted that they would consider looking at the larger articulated buses if the
line was split.
Chair Knox White did not favor the A/B split service, and did not believe that would serve riders
very well. He believed that driver training and management was very important, and cited the
example of New York City buses.
No action was taken.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to extend the meeting until 10:30. Commissioner Krueger
seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0.
Commissioner McFarland and Commissioner Subramaniam left the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A. Preliminary Proposed Thresholds of Significance and Implementation Policies
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and explained the meaning of the thresholds of
significance. Staff would like Dowling to return and provide more information about the
analysis. He noted that the issue raised at the last meeting addressed the degradation associated
from the tradeoffs resulting from conflict between two modes, impacting the second mode. He
Page 10 of 12",TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-02-25,11,"noted that if the thresholds were to be locked, the tradeoff would be possible. He noted that the
California Vehicle Code provided considerable leeway for the community to provide feedback if
a crosswalk is proposed to be removed. The Vehicle Code requires the local jurisdiction to hold a
public hearing; one was recently held regarding the removal of a school crosswalk near
Woodstock School, which has closed.
Staff Khan noted that with respect to conflict between thresholds, a major comment received
from the Commission addressed the public safety issue. Public safety is usually addressed
implicitly in the Thresholds. He discussed the flow of traffic along long segments without
reaching LOS F. He noted that Dowling was testing this, and would provide a report on the
results. He noted that at the last meeting, it was requested that pedestrians and bicycles be given
preference over transit. After talking with AC Transit and looking at the issues in the field, staff
believed that transit should be given the priority because it would ultimately yield better
conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Chair Knox White believed that the City should be very clear about what's happening with
respect to disclosure, and that it was difficult to understand the procedures for resolving conflicts
between preferred modes as presented in the staff report. He asked to see the policies used by
staff to develop the procedures.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he also had trouble with the information presented in the staff
report. He inquired whether an algorithm was used to come up with this list.
Staff Khan noted that the list of streets was based on a Citywide model that stated that certain
intersections would go to D or E, and that pedestrians, bikes and transit had the priority on those
streets. Staff looked at the conflicts that would potentially occur in the future and also based its
recommendations on the input from the Commission that the Street Functional Classification
System should be followed.
Chair Knox White asked for a sense of the Commission, and asked whether the Commission
understood this well enough to discuss it in March.
Staff Khan noted that with ""regional arterials with commercial, main or school recreational land
use designation, preference will be given to transit mode, followed by the pedestrian mode if the
transit LOS degraded below D.""
Chair Knox White inquired how the priority was decided.
Staff Khan noted that staff identified the places where transit was critical, and that maintaining a
good transit service was important.
Commissioner Schatmeier believed that the need for this was created by automobiles. He
commented at the last meeting that there were transit vehicles that ran down transit malls with
15-minute headways; when the trains go by, the pedestrians get out of the way until the next train
comes.
Page 11 of 12",TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-02-25,12,"Open public hearing.
Nathan Landau of AC Transit noted that there was not an unmanageable conflict with anything
besides cars, unless the right of way becomes constricted. He noted that when there was one lane
in each direction, a center turn and bike lanes, the bus would become very vulnerable to any
disruption in that single lane. He added that they would look for solutions that did not harm
either side.
Close public hearing.
Staff Khan noted that developers would like to know what kind of impacts their projects might
create when proposing a project in the city.
Chair Knox White would like this policy and the priorities to be spelled out in a clear, simple
manner.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that LOS for transit has not yet been defined, and was glad that
staff will continue to look into it.
No action was taken.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Estuary Crossing/Feasibility Study
Staff Khan noted that staff planned to release this study next month, and will be brought to the
Transportation Commission in March.
Broadway/Jackson Update
Staff Khan noted that there was nothing new to report.
Upcoming development-related traffic studies and plans
Staff Khan understood that Boatworks Development was moving forward, and were in the EIR
process. Staff would bring information to the Transportation Commission as it becomes
available.
Staff Khan noted that staff was deeply involved in the I-880 and 23rd/29th interchanges. CMA
was moving forward with the proposal to eliminate northbound access on 23rd Avenue. He
described the proposed redirection of traffic. Staff was concerned about a proposed new signal
before the ramp meter, which would create more delays for traffic leaving Alameda.
Chair Knox White inquired why that extra signal would be installed. Staff Khan replied that they
wanted to combine the two ramps from Oakland and Alameda into one ramp, which was
Caltrans' preference.
9.
ADJOURNMENT: 11:02 p.m.
Page 12 of 12",TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-04-26,1,"Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes
Wednesday April 26, 2017
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)
Jesus Vargas
Gregory Morgado
Thomas G. Bertken
Samantha Soules
Michael Hans
Members Absent:
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Staff Present:
Jennifer Ott, Base Reuse and Transportation Planning Director
Liam Garland, Public Works Acting Director
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Rochelle Wheeler, Transportation Planner
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements/Public Comment
Austin Lee, AC Transit Transportation Planner, said they received a lot of comments about the
Line 19 particularly at the Buena Vista and Stanton bus stop. He then provided some background
and gave a brief update. He said, originally in 2015, staff looked at reinstating the bus stops at
Grand Street yet due to some operational difficulties staff moved this bus stop towards Minturn
Street because of the truck route and emergency vehicle access. He explained that since the bus
stop was moved away from Grand Street, staff had some difficulty in naming the time point.
Consequently, the time point was moved to Buena Vista and Stanton and residents began
complaining that the buses were dwelling too long. He further stated that AC Transit's ultimate
goal would be to move the time point to Buena Vista and Entrance Road. Additionally, he hoped
with the new commercial development planned at the intersection they would get a STOP control
or some signalized intersection. He said in the meantime they adjusted the scheduled, so bus
Page 1 of 5",TransportationCommission/2017-04-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-04-26,2,"operators should not dwell there anymore. Line 19 is one of the shortest routes (approximately
6.5 miles) in their system, so they were encountering ""hot periods"" where the buses arrive too
fast.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, stated he was glad this was being addressed in some form at
tonight's meeting. He explained that with the assistance of Commissioner Morgado he was able
to get a hold of someone who could help him with the Buena Vista and Stanton bus stop issues.
He further explained that temporary problems at the Sheriff's office were currently corrected. He
also exclaimed that up until tonight AC Transit had not responded to his inquiries when earlier
he contacted them through various outlets. In addition, he filed a request for information from
Public Works about the Buena Vista and Stanton bus stop and he wondered how long it would
take staff to respond with information. Regarding the stop itself, when the Alameda police
officer attended the Transportation Commission in February he stated that the traffic activity
around the Buena and Stanton bus stop was unsafe. He hoped that Public Works would repaint
the left-hand turn lane and double yellow line near the beginning of the left-hand turn lane
towards Arbor Way so motorists can legally pass the bus.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff about how long is the required time to respond to an inquiry.
Staff Payne replied ten days.
3.A. Resolution of the City of Alameda Transportation Commission Recognizing the Service of
Gregory Morgado (Information)
Commissioner Bellows read the declaration recognizing the service of Commissioner Morgado.
3.B. Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) Staff Recommends $35
Million for City of Alameda Transportation Projects
Staff Payne announced that on April 27 the Alameda CTC Board has been asked to approve the
staff recommended projects for the countywide Comprehensive Investment Plan 2018 effort,
which includes $35 million for City of Alameda transportation projects.
3.C. Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan - Round 1 Workshop: Tuesday, May 9 at 6 p.m.
-
Metropolitan Transportation Commission in San Francisco
3.D. Bike to Work Day: Thursday, May 11
3.E. Bike Festival & Rodeo: Saturday, May 13- 12p.m. to 4 p.m. - Edison Elementary School
3.F. Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, May 24 at 7 p.m.
Staff Payne replied that there are not many items on this agenda, so the May meeting could be
cancelled. Staff would review their workload, but they will keep the Commission and public
posted.
Page 2 of 5",TransportationCommission/2017-04-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-04-26,3,"4. Consent Calendar
4.A. Transportation Commission 4.26.2017 - Approve Meeting Minutes - February 22, 2017
Minutes (Action)
4.B. Transportation Commission 4.26.2017 - Approve Meeting Minutes - March 22, 2017
Minutes (Action)
Commissioner Vargas made a motion to approve the minutes with the minor changes noted at
the last meeting. Commissioner Hans seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5.
New Business
5.A. Approve Transportation Projects in Alameda's 2017-2019 Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) and Provide Input on 2019-2027 Transportation Projects (Action)
Staff Garland, Acting Director of Alameda Public Works, presented an overview of the process
to adopt a capital budget and the recurring projects in the transportation component of the CIP.
Staff Payne finished the presentation by going over the longer term projects.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal project and wondered if
the $18 million received is in addition to the $10 million developer commitment.
Staff Payne replied approximately half will come from Alameda CTC and the developer is
required to fund the remaining half. Thus, between the two entities they will receive $18 million.
Commissioner Bertken replied the total cost would be $18 million.
Commissioner Bellows replied $8.2 million is coming from Alameda CTC.
Commissioner Soules said staff did some serious work to secure funds and she thanked them for
the hard work.
Commissioner Bellows echoed Commissioner Soules comment.
Commissioner Vargas complimented Liam Garland on the layout of the document. Furthermore,
he appreciated the project sheets, cases of responsibility and the budget sources. He explained to
staff that with the increase funding coming into the department they will have to cover the peaks
and find the appropriate hires, even if the duration is for one to two years. He also asked about
the pavement condition and what is the department's target goal for a healthy pavement.
Staff Garland said the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has a preferred
Pavement Condition Index of 84. Alameda would have to spend approximately $60 to $70
million dollars to get to that level, so reaching that preferred level is probably not attainable.
However, compared to other neighboring cities such as Oakland, Berkeley and San Leandro who
have a rating of 60 and below, Alameda looks good at 74.
Page 3 of 5",TransportationCommission/2017-04-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-04-26,4,"Commissioner Vargas referred to the backlog of sidewalk repairs averaging around 5,000. He
asked staff if that was a good number and wondered what the target is compared to the funding
projected.
Staff Garland replied staff is making tremendous progress to reduce the backlog and he
explained that staff had not broken $1 million on yearly sidewalk repairs until 2014. He said
currently they are at $1.5 million for sidewalk repairs per year. He went on to say that between
2001 and 2013 they did not have enough funding for sidewalk repairs and that is where the
backlog began. However, he felt it would take a few budget cycles to reduce the backlog unless
there is a big investment of money into sidewalk repairs.
Commissioner Soules made a motion to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Morgado
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5.B. Approve programming of $348,196 in TDA Article 3 funds in the 2017-2018 Fiscal Year,
for the Cross Alameda Trail: Main to Constitution Project (Action)
Rochelle Wheeler, Transportation Planner for the Alameda Planning Division, presented the
report.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if there is an update to the Cross Alameda Trail (CAT)
Atlantic Gap project concept.
Staff Wheeler replied that staff would be incorporating the recommendations from the
Transportation Commission to the CAT Gap concept. On April 18, staff presented the project to
the City Council to get their approval. The Council provided some input and asked to have staff
present again with easier to read drawings and concepts. Essentially, they had a hard time
understanding the plans because staff provided more limited information than what was brought
to the Commission. The City Council said they would like the mid-block crossing included. Staff
is going back to the Council on June 6 with the responses to their questions including the
improved renderings.
Commissioner Bertken asked Rochelle Wheeler if she would come back to the Transportation
Commission to present the recommendations from City Council.
Rochelle Wheeler did not plan to come back to the Commission because they are including the
TC recommendations.
Commissioner Vargas made a motion to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Bertken
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
6. Staff Communications
6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
Page 4 of 5",TransportationCommission/2017-04-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-04-26,5,"1. Accept the Annual Report on the Alameda Landing and Marina Shores Transportation
Demand Management Program and Progress on the Citywide Transportation Management
Association
Staff Payne explained that staff has just a couple of agenda items for the next meeting and they
want to present the draft Alameda Transportation Plan in July. So, most likely the May meeting
will be cancelled.
7.
Announcements/Publio Comments
Jim Strehlow would like to have more information about the Estuary Shuttle because it is going
to be ended. He would like to know if there will be a plan to have free transportation on AC
Transit only between Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue and say 8th Street and Harrison Street.
He wants to know if there will be a policy or will bicyclists have to pay to go through AC Transit
lines. With the shuttle being gone, he wants to know if there will be some sort of granted
exception for these segments and if that happens how will that be advertised to the general
public.
Commissioner Bellows replied you could still ride your bicycle through the tunnel.
Jim Strehlow stated that a lot of people will not and they have been riding the shuttle.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff to address this.
Staff Payne replied that staff included a similar recommendation in the draft citywide
transportation plan on how to get cyclists between Alameda and Oakland. It is a request to AC
Transit of a policy change that bicyclists would ride the bus for free just through the tube. In the
interim, bicyclists can still use the tube and could use their bikes on the bike racks for AC Transit
buses along Webster Street. There are buses traveling during peak times every few minutes
through the tubes and AC Transit can accommodate many of those bicyclists.
8.
Adjournment
7:44 p.m.
Page 5 of 5",TransportationCommission/2017-04-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-02-27,1,"FINAL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2019
Chair Miley convened the meeting at 7:00pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Miley, Commissioners Soules, Nachtigall, Hans, Johnson
Absent:
2. AGENDA CHANGES
*None*
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
3-A Horizon Long-range Planning Workshop: Tues, March 12 at 6 p.m. - BART in
Oakland
3-B Otis Drive Traffic Calming Community Workshop #2: Wed, March 20 at 6:30 p.m. -
Wood School
3-C Transportation Commission Meeting: Wed., March 27 at 7 p.m.
3-D Transportation Commission Special Meeting: Wed, April 24 at 7 p.m.
3-E Upcoming Grant-Funded Bicycle Safety Education Classes:
https://bikeeastbay.org/alamedabikeed
Commissioner Nachtigall gave a report on the 2nd Transportation Awareness Campaign
Advisory Group meeting. They discussed the budget, plans, and next meeting scheduled
for early May.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4-A 2019-6591
Draft Meeting Minutes - January 23, 2019
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner
Hans seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
5. NEW BUSINESS
5A 2019-6589
Transportation Commission Endorsement of the 2018 Transportation
Choices Plan Annual Report and Work Program Priorities.
1",TransportationCommission/2019-02-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-02-27,2,"Staff Member Thomas gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3865608&GUID=80FF4F23-
24E8-4BAE-9132-D864811B7ADB&FullText=1
Chair Miley opened the public hearing.
Tony Kuttner said thanked staff for the effort that went into studying the free shuttle idea.
He asked that the recommendations reflect the community's desire for a free shuttle as
the top priority in the plan.
Jim Strehlow said that road diets make congestion and pollution worse. He said the bus
lane on Webster makes it unsafe for northbound bicyclists. He said the Fernside
homeowners would fight the removal of a lane on the Fruitvale Bridge for bike lanes. He
suggested more signals in Alameda be timed for traffic flow.
Chair Miley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Soules said the report is a good recap of the priorities. She said she does
not see the goals and objectives from the TCP addressed in the annual report. She said
the projects in the report should map to the goals and be benchmarked to keep us
honest and transparent. She said we need data on mode shift results from our surveys
and not just opinions. She expressed concern that favoring certain mode shares (ie- bike
and pedestrian projects) without providing other options like transit, carpooling, etc., we
would run into problems. She said not everyone has the luxury to walk or bike, and we
need to serve all the segments of the Alameda population.
Commissioner Johnson asked if ten miles of repaving every two years is sufficient,
calculating that it would take 25 years to do every road in the city.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that was just enough to ""tread water."" He said there are
other ways to manage the street network and he is planning to bring an item to the next
meeting to discuss those issues.
Chair Miley said he would like to see costs tied in to the listed priorities. He said if the
OAAP can improve conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians inside the tube, we should
take advantage of that. He said we should try and make use of and update the 2009
Estuary Crossing Study. He said finding funding to replace the Miller-Sweeney bridge to
be a lifeline structure should be a top priority. He said he would like any action to include
the input of both public speakers.
Commissioner Nachtigall said she would like to have a visual representation of what
phase all the projects are at, rather than having to look at each one individually.
2",TransportationCommission/2019-02-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-02-27,3,"Commissioner Soules said she remembered the bridge study from when she first came
on the board showed the bike/pedestrian bridge was cost prohibitive. She asked what
has changed since then and also where other alternatives were at now.
Staff Member Thomas said the study was about 10 years ago. He said it was the first
time they really tried to identify the scale of the project options to cross the estuary. He
said Bike Walk Alameda made a political push with Council to keep studying the idea.
He said they picked up where the old studies left off. He said the Oakland Alameda
Access Project is a $100 million project that presents an opportunity to advance work
studying the bridge and other alternatives. He said that staff feels that they need to be
ready to take advantage of the A's stadium and projects in Oakland that are moving
forward now to see if they can make progress on these ideas.
Chair Miley said we have to stay in the conversation.
Commissioner Soules said she did not want to be in a position where we are deciding
between funding for a bike/ped bridge and getting a multimodal lifeline bridge
replacement.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to endorse the report with the input
received this evening. Chair Miley seconded the motion while asking that staff to
incorporate the commission and public comment. The motion passed 5-0.
5-B 2019-6590
Otis Drive Traffic Calming and Safety Improvement Project Workshop and
Survey Debrief
Staff Member Wikstrom gave a presentation on the informational item. The staff report
and presentation can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3865609&GUID=93D5DCC4-
16E-49F2-8E14-3C28BF915796&FullText=
Commissioner Johnson asked how the cost of a roundabout compared to putting in new
stop lights. He asked how a road diet road would enter a roundabout.
Staff Member Wikstrom said the signals cost $400,000-450,000 and a roundabout would
be on the same order of magnitude. He said the three lane road would become a two
lane road going into the roundabout since there are no left turns in roundabouts.
Commissioner Johnson asked how the safety compared for pedestrians on a
roundabout VS. a signalized intersection. He said he would wait for the consultant to
come back in April to discuss the safety differences more closely.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that in a roundabout you only have to cross one lane of
traffic from one direction at a time.
3",TransportationCommission/2019-02-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-02-27,4,"Chair Miley said that the safety for the school children crossing at that intersection would
be his main focus.
Commissioner Nachtigall said that Grand is very wide in that area which makes it
unsafe.
Commissioner Soules asked what the 13% of ""hit objects"" was in the data.
Sgt. Foster said a fixed object is what they check if someone hits something other than
moving cars, pedestrians, or bicycles. He said it could be a house, parked car, pole, etc..
Commissioner Soules asked if drainage improvements on poorly design corners would
be evaluated as an environmental improvement when considering bulb out projects.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that they have not considered that yet, but noted that
dealing with drainage issues can get very expensive very quickly.
Commissioner Soules pointed out that the top five priorities from the workshop
responses can all coexist together.
Chair Miley opened the public hearing.
Joe Keiser said he lives on Otis and is supportive of this project. He said he sees the
high speeds all the time and is concerned for his two young children's safety. He said a
girl lives across the street from him and gets driven to her grandparents' home next door
to him because it is impossible to safely walk across Otis now.
Jim Strehlow said a roundabout at Grand and Otis would be incompatible with the trucks
in the Fourth of July parade.
Chair Miley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnson asked what would happen to the road diet and bike lane when it
approaches Willow Street.
Staff Member Wikstrom said they have not gotten into that level of design detail yet and
would have something when they come back in May with the preliminary design.
Chair Miley asked if the signals at the split Willow intersections would be altered at all in
order to have better coordination between the signals.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that would likely be a phase II item because of the level of
signal work and cost required.
4",TransportationCommission/2019-02-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-02-27,5,"6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A Oakland-Alameda Access Project - Request Transportation Commission Member
on Advisory Group
Staff Member Payne said that Commissioner Nachtigall has accepted the responsibility
of serving on the advisory group.
6-B Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update - Draft Work Scope
2. Miller-Sweeney Bridge Restriping
3. Resurfacing Plan
4. Draft Capital Improvement Program
5. Transportation Management Association Annual Reports
6. Draft Climate Plan Update Strategies
7. Emergency Plan with Transportation Annex
Staff Member Payne said the next meeting would be March 27th and the purpose of the
special April meeting would be to review the draft CIP.
Staff Member Wikstrom asked what level of detail the board would like on the paving
program when that item comes back.
Commissioner Johnson said he just wants a general understanding, and that he was just
concerned that 25 years to cover every mile of road in Alameda seemed like a long time.
Chair Miley said he would like to know what level of investment would be necessary to
get ahead of the curve instead of just treading water.
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow, ""thinking outside the box,"" said that he was surprised there was no
discussion of the possible BART extension tonight when discussing cross estuary
solutions. He said the idea of a tunnel connecting Alameda to Jack London square with
people movers does not need to wait until BART is built and could start now.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Miley adjourned the meeting at 8:52pm.
5",TransportationCommission/2019-02-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-11-20,1,"Transportation Commission 1-22-20
Item 4-A
APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2019
Chair Soules convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Soules, Commissioners Nachtigall, Kohlstrand, Hans, Johnson, Weitze.
Absent: Yuen.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
A portion of Staff Communications was moved to the front of the agenda in order to allow
the City Engineer to introduce new staff members and provide an update related to Vision
Zero actions.
*STAFF COMMUNICATIONS'
Scott Wikstrom, City Engineer, introduced two new engineering hires for the Public Works
Department. Donya Amiri, Traffic Engineer, and Robert Vance who will be supervising
many of the capital improvement projects that come before the Transportation
Commission.
Staff Member Amiri introduced herself to the Commission.
Robert Vance, Senior Engineer, introduced himself to the Commission.
Rochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator, provided an update on the
Transportation Choices Plan outreach process. She said the recent open house was well
attended and a big success. She said the project webpage is now up at
ActiveAlameda.org. She noted the City Council unanimously adopted the Vision Zero
Policy at its November 5th meeting.
Staff Member Amiri reported on short term actions being taken in response to recent youth
involved collisions, including refreshed crosswalks, daylighting intersections, adding
advanced stop bars, replacing signage, and changes to signal operations to improve
pedestrian safety. She said there would be a citywide speed survey completed soon which
can provide opportunities to reduce speed limits and analyze flow characteristics.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
3-A Transportation Commission Meeting: Wed, Jan 22 at 7 p.m.
3-B Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) 2020 Trainings: register on Fire
Department web page
1",TransportationCommission/2019-11-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-11-20,2,"Transportation Commission 1-22-20
Item 4-A
3-C Alameda Active Transportation Plan web page: www.ActiveAlameda.org
3-D Emergency Alerts for Alameda - Subscribe at AC Alert web page:
tps://www.acgov.org/emergencysite/
3-E Regional Emergency Transportation Alerts - Subscribe:
https://511.org/alerts/emergencies/511Alert
3-F Clipper Card (adults) - order on line or at Walgreens or set up Autoload to add value
automatically: https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/getTranslink.do
3-G Clipper Card Discounts for youth, seniors and people with disabilities
-
https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/discounts/index.do
3-H Clipper Card senior sign-up event at Mastick Senior Center - Tues, Dec 17 at 1 p.m.
- Conference Room D
3-I FasTrak or new toll tag for upcoming I-880 Express Lanes scheduled to open late
summer 2020: on line or at Walgreens (except not Park Street location) and then register
on line: ittps://www.bayareafastrak.org/en/signup/signUp.shtm
Laura Katz said her 15 year old daughter was struck in a crosswalk at Fernside and High
St. by a hit and run driver on October 3rd. She said it has been a traumatic event for her
family. She requested crossing guards and improvements along the entire corridor of
Fernside from Versailles to High.
Andy Stoddard said he would like to see a light on Fernside at Harvard. He said people
go too fast. He said they have been trying to address that area for at least 12 years. He
suggested having the commissioners do a visit to the site.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said she walks that corridor regularly and that it is a very
dangerous corridor.
Chair Soules noted that many of the recent collisions have been happening around the
time change.
Commissioner Johnson said he lives near Fernside and understands the concerns there
very well.
Maria Gallo requested the commissioners to come walk the corridor with the residents.
She asked for stop signs and other measures to help slow cars down.
2",TransportationCommission/2019-11-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-11-20,3,"Transportation Commission 1-22-20
Item 4-A
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4-A 2019-7469
Draft Meeting Minutes - September 25, 2019
Commissioner Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Nachtigall
seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
5. NEW BUSINESS
5-A 2019-7470
Discuss the AC Transit Line 19 Promotional Pilot Program
Gail Payne, Senior Transportation Coordinator, gave a report. The staff report and
attachments
can
be
found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4228445&GUID=E655A108-
CE47-448B-B312-E6AC7D057282&FullText=1.
Kristy Cannon said it was a good experience interacting one on one with residents and
they learned a lot about barriers people have that prevent transit usage.
Chair Soules said she loved the model of this program.
Commissioner Nachtigall thanked the team for their efforts, noting that the team knocked
on her door as well.
Commissioner Weitze said the Line 19 has a branding problem. He said the ""BART
Shuttle"" branding is powerful and should be incorporated into the signage on the bus
displays.
No action was taken.
5-B 2019-7471
Review and Comment on Draft Goals for AC Transit's Comprehensive Operations
Analysis
Staff Member Payne gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found
at: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4228572&GUID=10E395B0-
4726-44A0-9E74-EB10D2E078B7&FullText=
Commissioner Kohlstrand said that successful transit is dependent upon three factors in
an area: income levels, automobile ownership, and density. She said we need to make
our transit investments in concert with our land use decisions, focusing on our densest
corridors. She said we are setting ourselves up to have to subsidize the services outlined
in these goals that might not be the most efficient allocation of resources.
Chair Soules said there is a disconnect between the statements that we are well served
by transit and the public's impression that they cannot get where they need to go in a given
3",TransportationCommission/2019-11-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-11-20,4,"Mirabelle Reyes, appellant, said she started keeping track of the crashes at the
intersection since 2016. She said drivers are speeding to try and make the light at the next
intersection. She said there are many kids, elderly and people pushing strollers at this
dangerous intersection. She said the intersection needs a four way stop.
Commissioner Nachtigall asked Ms. Reyes what she meant by a systems issue.
4",TransportationCommission/2019-11-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-11-20,5,"Transportation Commission 1-22-20
Item 4-A
Ms. Reyes said that Oak Street is a high injury corridor with lots of speeding and the traffic
flow is not being contained correctly.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked if Ms. Reyes had evidence that there have been five or
more collisions in the past 12 months.
Ms. Reyes said she shared some images with Public Works staff.
Chair Soules asked Staff Member Wikstrom to explain the warrant process and data
discrepancies.
Staff Member Wikstrom said they use the police logs, which only include incidents that
generate a police report. He said that Oak Street is a common bypass for Park Street. He
added that collision numbers have been mostly stable in Alameda over the past ten years.
Commissioner Johnson said he biked through the intersection in order to evaluate the
safety. He said the visibility at the intersection was now pretty good. He said he did not
believe there were crosswalks marked across Oak Street, which he thinks may help in
that area.
Staff Member Wikstrom said that creating an uncontrolled crosswalks imply a degree of
safety when the vehicles on Oak do not need to stop. He said they are mindful to limit the
number of those, but might want to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at those
types of crossings.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said this intersection would be a good candidate to return to in
six months or a year to see if the visibility improvements have reduced collisions.
Chair Soules asked that staff give more information at a future meeting about what Vision
Zero is and what the effort is about to provide context for the community.
Commissioner Hans said we need to improve how we collect data on minor traffic
incidents.
Staff Member Wheeler explained some of the ways they will be collecting data for the
Active Transportation Plan.
Chair Soules summarized the Commission's feedback: staff will look for ways to improve
the ability to report and how that impacts the warrant process; report back on how the
daylighting improvements are working at Pacific and Oak.
5",TransportationCommission/2019-11-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-11-20,6,"Transportation Commission 1-22-20
Item 4-A
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to uphold staff's decision not to install a
four way stop at Pacific and Oak. Commissioner Weitze seconded the motion. The
motion passed 6-0.
5-D 2019-7473
Discuss Electric Vehicle Adoption
Staff Member Payne gave a presentation. The report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4228580&GUID=2C474DDF-
F4DD-4A03-B091-CC1E8E09A727&FullText=1
Sonia Manrique, Alameda Municipal Power, continued the presentation.
Commissioner Weitze asked about the fleet replacement policy and whether replacing
existing vehicles with new electric vehicles was a net benefit.
Staff Member Payne said they are replacing vehicles that are beyond their useful life. She
added that charging capacity is the main limiting factor to the number of EVs they can
purchase at this time.
Commissioner Weitze asked what would happen to the green energy surcharge once the
shift to 100 percent clean energy occurs.
Rebecca Irwin, Alameda Municipal Power, said they will be repositioning the Alameda
Green program to allow people to green up the regional grid instead of just their individual
home.
Commissioner Weitze asked if the rebate would apply towards the infrastructure or just
the charger.
Staff Member Irwin said that the rebates can be applied towards infrastructure, but that
multifamily units present unique challenges that can dramatically increase the cost of
adding individual chargers. She added that AMP staff will come out and talk through the
issues for any particular site.
Commissioner Nachtigall asked if the rebate would apply to leased EVs.
Staff Member Irwin said that AMP is focusing on rebating used vehicles, saying that the
market is already taking care of encouraging new vehicles.
No action was taken.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Annual Report for the Transportation Choices Plan and the Climate Action and
6",TransportationCommission/2019-11-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-11-20,7,"Transportation Commission 1-22-20
Item 4-A
Resiliency Plan
2. Annual Report for the Alameda Transportation Management Association (TMA) and
the Alameda Landing TMA
6-B Future Meeting Dates for 2020 - Meetings start at 7 p.m.
1. Wednesday, January 22
2. Wednesday, March 25
3. Wednesday, May 27
4. Wednesday, July 22
5. Wednesday, September 23
6. Wednesday, November 18
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow said that not everyone in the Fernside area would be agreeable to changes
to Fernside that would favor neighbors on the north side of Fernside. He said the center
turn lane solves a lot of needs for people that live on Fernside. He asked that all neighbors
be included in a meeting on the issue.
Chair Soules asked that the Fernside HOA be included when staff arranges a site visit for
commissioners and neighbors of Fernside and Harvard.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m.
7",TransportationCommission/2019-11-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-01-28,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT
January 28, 2009
Acting Chair Krueger called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Jane Lee
Robert McFarland
Kathy Moehring
Srikant Subramaniam
Members Absent:
Eric Schatmeier (arrived at 7:55 p.m.)
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
December 10, 2008
Staff Bergman noted that the December 10, 2008, minutes would be presented at the next
meeting.
b.
November 12, 2008
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the November 12, 2008, meeting and
minutes as presented. Commissioner Moehring seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Absent:
Commissioner Schatmeier.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Transit Plan Subcommittee
Commissioner Krueger noted that the Transit Plan Subcommittee met in early January, attended
by Commissioner Schatmeier, Staff Bergman and himself. They discussed the scope of work for
the Transit Plan based on the grant application made to CalTrans. While the City did not receive
1",TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-01-28,2,"the grant, they used the application as a starting point to review the existing transit plan and
identifying the sections that needed to be updated. They considered the idea of prioritizing the
scope of work because of possible funding constraints.
b.
Bicycle Plan Subcommittee
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White, Staff Bergman noted that the consultant contract
was being finalized, and staff was working on preparing the document to be addressed by the
consultant. A public meeting would be held in the near future.
Chair Knox White requested that the plan come before the Transportation Commission. Staff
Bergman noted that a preliminary product could be brought before the Transportation
Commission, and Staff Khan agreed that the policies issues should be brought before the
Transportation Commission.
Chair Knox White noted that he had wanted such items to before the Transportation
Commission, and inquired why this was not brought forth. Staff Khan noted that during the
December 10, 2008, the City Attorney's office had recommended that not every item be brought
forth as an action item, similar to the Planning Board's Consent Calendar.
Chair Knox White noted that he would like further clarification on this item. He believed the
Estuary Crossing Funding Study should be discussed before being publicly reviewed, and he did
not want to indicate support without seeing it. Staff Khan described the items in the study:
1.
Fixing the Posey Tube Pathway (short term)
2.
Intelligent Transportation Systems: increased throughput for transit through the
Tubes;
3.
Movable bridge near the Tubes, possibly near Pasta Pelican or Alameda Landing.
Chair Knox White inquired whether that included transit. Staff Khan replied that the agencies
included AC Transit, but that did not appear viable at that location.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether this could be tied in with the Jack London Square
Streetcar study, or with high-speed rail. Staff Khan replied that the opposition was to the
Broadway connection, not to transit itself.
Chair Knox White would like to see a working group formed between the Transportation
Commission and the Planning Board to address the draft policies.
c.
Pedestrian Plan
Staff Khan noted that the plan was adopted by the City Council, and that the design guidelines
are currently under review by staff. He noted that staff has been occupied filling out paperwork
for the Stimulus Package, and believed that Alameda County would receive $40 million from the
federal government. He described some of the items on the list included in the federal package.
Chair Knox White hoped that the City would look at adding bus shelters to the grant packages.
2",TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-01-28,3,"Commissioner Schatmeier arrived.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
There were none.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A. Preliminary Proposed Thresholds of Significance and Implementation Policies
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and explained the meaning of the thresholds of
significance.
Staff Khan detailed the background of this item, and the ideas developed by staff. He noted that
Dowling Associates, the transportation consultants, developed LOS standards that would be
discussed. LOS D was the level proposed to be established for all transportation modes. He
discussed the methodologies employed, which was based on previous input from the TC. He
described the methods by which conflicts would be resolved for street segments on which the
Transportation Element has identified multiple modal priorities.
Based on the City's transit-first policy, staff recommends that transit generally be given
preference, followed by the pedestrian mode, followed by the bicycle mode.
Staff Khan noted that LOS below D would always be a significant impact on street segments
where only a single modal priority was identified. Where multiple modal priorities were
identified, lower LOS would be acceptable to resolve conflicts as indicated in the staff report.
He noted that at intersections, automobiles could go to LOS F if an arterial LOS D could be
maintained. This level of flexibility was not permitted for any other mode.
A discussion of the selection of LOS D ensued.
Staff Khan noted that public input and discussion would be very important.
Commissioner Moehring complimented staff on a job well done with such a large task, and that
she was pleased that this was not written in stone. With respect to Table 1, she inquired why
LOS E for bikes, schools and recreational areas was acceptable for regional arterials, and why a
higher level of service was not required. She was very concerned about safety issues regarding
the most vulnerable modes: bicycle and pedestrian. Staff Khan replied that it was only triggered
by conflicts, due to the identification of multiple priorities. He emphasized that in other
circumstances, the City did not want to degrade any of the modes below LOS D. He noted that a
hierarchy must be identified.
Commissioner Moehring inquired about bicycle detection at traffic signals.
Staff Bergman noted that they were installed at Sherman and Buena Vista. Staff Khan added that
the City was working on that item.
3",TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-01-28,4,"Staff Bergman noted that in some locations, there were bike stencils on the ground that indicate
where the bike should be lined up to trigger the signal. He noted that there were other areas in
town where the capability was enabled, but that there were no stencils painted yet. He noted that
the bicycle LOS only addressed bicycling conditions in a shared traffic environment; it did not
apply to trails, which was LOS A all the time.
Commissioner Lee requested a clarification of LOS D. Staff Khan replied that the pedestrian
LOS for each leg of an intersection would not experience a delay greater than an average of 40
seconds. He noted that for autos, each leg was not taken into consideration, and that the entire
intersection was considered to determine the LOS.
Chair Knox White noted that past EIRs, including the TMP, included staff reports stating that
they were as conservative as possible. He believed that the traffic study for the new theater
confirmed that.
Staff Khan noted that each analysis was different, and that the theater assumed increasing traffic
using a certain percentage of growth. Currently, the TMP model will be used for all the projects
in the City, and that actual land use for each area will be used, providing much better
information.
Open Public Comment
Jon Spangler believed this effort was a wonderful step beyond what had been in the 1991
General Plan. He inquired whether the transit LOS would be degraded if something happened to
the Tube, such as more concrete falling in, closing the Tube. He inquired whether the number of
wheelchair passengers on the Line 51 bus would create a further delay. He noted that
bike/pedestrian conflicts on paths need to be addressed, and that a solution should be identified.
He believed that there should be more emphasis on school and bike/pedestrian priority, as
mentioned by Commissioner Moehring. He believed the bicycle LOS was somewhat fuzzy. He
would like to know what intersections were being considered where there could potentially be
conflict between transit queue jump lanes with a Class II bike lane. He believed the City was
exploring new territory with this item, and looked forward to further refinement.
Ricardo Pedevilla noted that he usually got around town by biking, walking or taking public
transit. He requested documentation for the Florida Department of Transportation methodology
with respect to the bicycle LOS calculations. He inquired why that method was selected.
Staff Khan replied that the method was selected from different sources brought before the
Transportation Commission in 2007, including the Highway Capacity Manual, blending the
recommended methods into this report. He noted that many methods were very complicated and
required substantial amounts of data collection. He noted that one consideration in selecting this
method, in addition to its wide use around the country, was that it is easy to calculate, resulting
in good data.
4",TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-01-28,5,"Nathan Landau, AC Transit, noted that he was sorry that he could not bring an official AC
Transit answer or position at this meeting, and that he appreciated the work done by the staff,
consultants and Transportation Commission. He believed that there was only one other City in
the district that was close to this step. He noted that a bus traveling at approximately 12 mph, it
would travel through that segment in 150- to 225 seconds. He noted that slowing the buses down
would be more of an issue when they already moved slowly. He added that buses were mainly
impacted by autos and occasionally bikes; in general they prefer to keep transit and bicycles on
separate routes.
Close public comment
Commissioner McFarland left the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Chair Knox White identified the two main issues for discussion as resolution of conflicts between
modes and the values selected for the thresholds. He noted that the discussion of prioritization
would use LOS D as the starting point. He noted that the TMP was just adopted the previous
week, and that it has several core policies and principles. He noted that Policy 4.4.2.E stated that
""mitigations will not significantly degrade the levels of service for bikes, pedestrians and
transit.""
Commissioner Moehring reiterated that while public transit should take a huge priority, she
believed the safety issues of the more vulnerable users, especially bikes and pedestrians, should
be considered.
Commissioner Krueger was surprised to see that pedestrians were rarely, if ever, the number one
priority. He believed that everybody in the City was a pedestrian at one time or another.
Commissioner Lee noted that the school pedestrians were especially vulnerable, and that she was
also concerned with the bicyclists.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the transit-first policy was referenced, and whether that was
with respect to vehicular traffic, not over pedestrians.
Staff Khan noted that the feedback from the public regarding the Pedestrian Plan identified the
primary issue as intersections and crossings. He noted that along segments, pedestrians were
generally on the sidewalk, and did not interact directly with traffic.
Commissioner Schatmeier believed the pedestrians should have a high priority, and added that
there were many more conflicts between pedestrians and autos than with the buses. He added
that the Line 51 bus only went by every 10 minutes.
Staff Khan noted that delays for pedestrians at intersections could occur with the addition of a
queue jump lane. He noted that research has shown that when the delays increase, there is also an
increase in in appropriate crossings.
5",TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-01-28,6,"Chair Knox White noted that he was not convinced that putting in a queue jump lane would have
an assured negative impact on the pedestrians as defined by the pedestrian plan. He believed
there were places where the limited capacity leaving the Island made it necessary to identify the
most efficient means to do so. He believed that corridors should be identified where transit
should be allowed to trump pedestrians. He noted that there were very few roads with bike and
transit priority. He believed that Clement, Tilden, Santa Clara, and certain parts of Central were
the streets in which that conflict might exist. He believed that there were too many exceptions
using the method proposed by staff, and that bicyclists on a bike street should receive priority.
He had difficulty with the table, which was a visual representation of the policies, and that the
Transportation Commission did not have the policies at this time. He expressed concern about
the impact if a crosswalk or sidewalk were to be removed.
Staff Khan replied that he intended to include that issue in the report, and added that a crosswalk
removal was being performed on Poggi Street, where a school used to be located. He noted that
the yellow midblock crosswalk at this location no longer had any function, need or use, therefore
it was being removed. He noted that a policy identifying removal of a crosswalk as a significant
environmental impact could potentially trigger the need to prepare an environmental document.
Commissioner Moehring noted that Webster Street was a traffic hub, particularly at the corner
near Santa Clara; many buses, pedestrians and transportation used that street in the commercial
district. She would like to separate that item from the schools and recreation because the
transportation in a commercial district was extremely important; pedestrians were an integral part
of that equation.
Chair Knox White did not like the idea of treating Class II and Class III bike routes differently,
and that he understood that they had a different hierarchy. He noted that the only reason Oak
Street was a Class III route was because it had not yet been made a Class II route; he believed it
was a key cross-island roadway and that it should not be allowed to get worse.
Staff Khan recapped the comments that he heard:
1. The Transportation Commission would like to see safety issues to be examined, and
for bike and pedestrian safety to be considered a priority;
2. Pedestrians and bikes should be given preference in school and recreation zones; and
3. Transit in the commercial zones should be prioritized.
Chair Knox White noted that pedestrians should be prioritized throughout the city, with the
exception of gateways and commercial zones, where transit would be prioritized.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the whole point of building an exclusive lane was to give
transit priority.
Staff Khan added that the transit should be given preference where it had the exclusive right of
way.
6",TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-01-28,7,"Commissioner Krueger agreed with that assessment, and liked that gateway suggestion because
it addressed the queue jump issue. He believed that queue jumps could be included as part of the
transit exclusive right-of-way corridors.
Staff Khan noted that crosswalk removal issues had been addressed, as was sidewalk removal.
However, he stated that staff supports giving higher priority to maintaining LOS on Class II
bicycle lanes than on Class III bicycle routes.
Chair Knox White noted that believed this would lend itself to a developer or staff to push for
Class III, because the Class II mitigation to a higher threshold would not be needed.
Staff Khan noted that the Commission's concern was the throughput of moving people through
gateways. He noted that they were very short segments through the bridges and the tubes. He
noted that in order to take people out of single-occupant vehicles, and if they were going to San
Francisco, he believed that transit throughput should be provided to accomplish that. He stated
that it would be critical to maintain the safety of intersections and crossings, because that was
where they interacted with automobiles and other modes. He suggested that staff be given a
chance to re-examine this issue and return to the Transportation Commission.
Chair Knox White suggested that on exclusive and primary transit streets; transit should be
prioritized.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the Transportation Commission did not discuss automobiles,
and inquired why they were being put on the bottom.
Chair Knox White believed that the TMP already did that, where there was a conflict. He
believed there was consensus on the comments regarding the resolution of conflicts, and wished
to address the thresholds. He suggested that instead of identifying a specific number, an impact
could be defined as any time the LOS degraded from C to D, or D to E, instead of assigning a
bottom. He noted that any degradation or significant movement would be identified as an impact.
Commissioner Krueger suggested that a hybrid system may be used to identify the floor and the
delta, or change. He was not in favor of making it so sensitive that an EIR would be required for
minor occurrences.
Staff Khan noted that staff had no intention of moving in that direction. He noted that most of the
streets in Alameda would function very well for bikes, pedestrians, transit and automobiles. Staff
was concerned about the issue of degrading the impact on automobiles so much that it could
create secondary impacts for other modes.
Chair Knox White found the staff recommendation of LOS D for all modes to be perplexing. He
did not believe it was equitable, and that one intersection in Alameda operated at D; no
intersections were below 40 seconds. Staff Khan noted that Webster and Atlantic also failed at
that time. Chair Knox White noted that came from Dowling's documentation, and he did not
know how the City Council, boards and commissions could consider themselves good stewards
of the community by not finding any impacts to the pedestrian environment until it became
7",TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-01-28,8,"worse than the conditions in front of the College of Alameda. He noted that Otis and Park was
also a difficult intersection for pedestrians, even though it was an LOS C. He noted that Encinal
and Park, which was a busy intersection and was not a good place to park, which was an LOS B.
He believed that the City should step away from LOS D. He understood where the transit
numbers came from, and suggested that a percent change along a segment would be more
meaningful. He believed it would be difficult to come up with a specific number, and that change
in the current level of service would be more meaningful in keeping the transit schedule.
Commissioner Schatmeier requested further clarification on how a level of service could be
assigned to transit, and noted that length of the corridors were an issue. He did not know what
the baseline was, and noted that a bus could travel through Alameda at midnight than during the
peak hour because there were not as many passengers, and not as many cars on the streets.
Staff Khan noted that staff would examine peak period conditions, and noted that any ADA delay
of the bus was not part of the discussion; that discussion meant travel time, and subtracting dwell
time from the transit travel time. If a project increased the travel time with more cars, and if LOS
was already E or F, staff would examine what else could be considered.
Commissioner Krueger believed the length of the corridor had to be considered, and that the
automobile arterial segments discussed the average travel speed, which must take the length of
the corridor into account. He believed that should be taken into account for transit as well, and
that the effect on the travel speed should be considered.
Staff Khan stated that was correct, and that staff was looking at segments of approximately one-
half to three-quarters of a mile.
Staff Khan noted that when staff examined it, they had not run the arterial analysis at that point.
He noted that it looked at signalized intersections, and that they inquired whether the model
could be run on a street without signals. He noted that they may want to resort to the intersection,
and that they were discussing the issue with Dowling.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired why the City would be tolerant of degradation of the LOS for
automobiles, and believed there were impacts that should be described and responded to.
Chair Knox White agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier's comment, and noted that he would
like to identify the impacts.
Staff Khan noted that the Commission would like to examine:
1. Degradation for pedestrians, bikes and transit by a letter grade; look into how the
thresholds were set, particularly D versus C, as well as for pedestrians and bikes;
2. The baseline for transit LOS D should be defined and addressed;
3. Travel speed is a better measure for transit than delay;
4.
The intersection LOS should be evaluated for automobiles; and
5. Why the degradation of the automobile LOS should be allowed to degrade.
8",TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-01-28,9,"Chair Knox White noted that LOS D was standard for automobiles, and inquired whether the
pedestrian, bike and transit threshold should be defended. He noted that the ability to define the
threshold should be based on what was happening in the City.
No action was taken.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study
Chair Knox White noted that during the Estuary Crossing study discussion, AC Transit stated
they were not interested in a transit-only crossing across the Estuary. He requested clarification
from staff.
Staff Khan replied that in context with the delays caused by raising and lowering the bridge, and
in context with crossing train tracks in Oakland, those two issues could seriously impact
headways.
Nathan Landau of AC Transit noted that was consistent with what he understood, and what made
sense regarding the existing problems. He noted that a drawbridge over the Estuary could be
open for as much as 30 minutes, which would ruin the effect of any transit. He noted that it had
been an ongoing issue at the Embarcadero with the main line buses getting stuck. He noted there
was considerable Tube congestion, and that they desperately needed queue jumps to get in there.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether he was aware of any proposed grade
separations for the railroad tracks at Jack London Square, Mr. Landau replied that there were
none in a serious way. He noted that it had come up regularly, and that it would be a very
expensive project.
b.
Broadway-Jackson Update
Staff Khan noted that Caltrans stated that comments could be expected on the PSR by mid-
March. He noted that funding must be obligated in 90 days, and that it would be brought down to
60 days due to the stimulus funding.
c.
Line 63 update
Staff Khan noted that staff prepared an off-agenda report for City Council, and distributed copies
to the Transportation Commissioners.
Staff Bergman noted that AC Transit was still performing further analysis, particularly the
possibility of interlining with another line to be more efficient. He added that the possibility of
relocating the terminus on that end to bring it closer to the 12th Street BART station. The
possibility of shifting to Lake Merritt was considered and discarded, as most of the Line 63
riders did not appear to be transferring to BART, but traveling to other destinations in Oakland.
9",TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-01-28,10,"d.
Casual Carpool/Park and Ride Analysis
Staff Bergman noted that there was discussion about designating a casual carpool area to
facilitate pickups without drivers getting tickets. Staff observed and surveyed the major existing
casual carpool site at Encinal and Park Avenue; 97 survey responses were collected in about an
hour. He noted that there were a lot of users, and that 75 of the respondents used the casual
carpool at least four days a week. 55% of the respondents walked to the casual carpool site, and
40% indicated that they drove to the site. Staff was looking at designated areas to facilitate
boarding and were working with AC Transit to ensure it coordinated with the location of OX bus
stops.
e.
Upcoming development-related traffic studies and plans
Staff Khan noted that the Boatworks EIR was moving forward, near Blanding and Oak Street;
there was a proposal for 42 housing units. Staff would bring more information when it became
available. He noted that the Planning Board held a public hearing on that project in its most
recent meeting.
f.
Future meeting agenda items
Staff Khan noted that Line 51 would be discussed at the February TC meeting.
Staff Khan noted that the Water Emergency Transit Authority wished to hold a public hearing in
March, immediately preceding the Transportation Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. He added
that the threshold significance issue would return to the Transportation Commission.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:30 p.m.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEESTC\2009\022509/012809minutes-draft.doc
10",TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-04-24,1,"Transportation Commission
June 26, 2013
Item 4A
Action
Transportation Commission Minutes: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
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:
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Michele Bellows
Eric Schatmeier
Sandy Wong
Members Absent:
Thomas G. Bertken
Staff Present:
Staff Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Staff Matt Naclerio, Public Works Director
2.
Agenda Changes
Commissioner Vargas made a motion to move the topic of John Sweeney Open Space
Conceptual Uses under item 6 before item 5A.
Commissioner Vargas made a motion to move the item up. Commissioner Bellows seconded the
motion. The motion was approved 4-0.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Commissioner Vargas stated that he met with William Kempton, former Caltrans Director, on
Tuesday, April 26th. Currently, Mr. Kempton is the Executive Director of Transportation,
California, which promotes smart policy for advancing transportation within California as well as
highlighting the financial challenges that the state will have within the next two to five years. In
the future, Mr. Kempton will present potential solutions to the Commission.
Page 1 of 6",TransportationCommission/2013-04-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-04-24,2,"4.
Consent Calendar
4A.
Meeting Minutes - January 23, 2013
4B.
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Recommended Allocation
Commissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Bellows moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Wong seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 4-0; 1 abstention.
5.
New Business
5A. Proposed Fiscal Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 Capital Improvement Plan
Staff Naclerio presented the staff report.
Commissioner Miley asked if the loss of Measure B3 had an impact on maintenance efforts in
Alameda.
Staff Naclerio explained that Measure B3 would have doubled the amount they already have to
use for projects, and consequently the City would have increased the amount of resurfacing
within Alameda. He said that the City just updated their Pavement Management Program, and it
indicated that the City would need to currently fund $30 million dollars just to keep the streets at
its current condition. On average, the City should be funding $7 million dollars a year to
maintain their Pavement Condition Index (PCI). Currently, the PCI is 69 and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission's (MTC) goal states the PCI should be 75. Overall, he felt the
greatest impacts to losing Measure B3 funds is the City's streets will continue to deteriorate and
the Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Corridor project and several other projects would not be
funded.
Commissioner Miley asked about the type of impact that it will have on the City's future
development, particularly on the West End and the redevelopment of the base.
Staff Naclerio explained that the loss of funds would not impact the Alameda Landing project
because staff already conducted an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and traffic impacts are
mitigated. Additionally, since it predates the measure, the project did not include Measure B3 as
a funding source. Yet, he said where it does hurt is Alameda Point because the City crafted
specific projects to assist this area. City staff is in the process of conducting an EIR and looking
for other funding sources.
Page 2 of 6",TransportationCommission/2013-04-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-04-24,3,"Commissioner Bellows asked Staff Naclerio if Measure B sunsets in 2022.
Staff Naclerio replied in 2020.
Commissioner Bellows stated then that the City should see some pass through money.
Staff Naclerio replied yes and that totals $1.6 million dollars a year in Measure B, and three
programs in Alameda are funded through the measure.
Commissioner Vargas asked how staff ranked the projects and how the numbers were generated.
Furthermore, he was glad to see the Transportation Commission received a ranking of 93 out of
100. He also had a comment within the General Plan, but not sure if he could comment on that
item.
Staff Naclerio explained that the City developed a rating system to align with their major goals.
Some of the goals include retaining outside funding sources, mitigating environmental impacts,
and reducing the City's future liability. He said the intent of the ranking system was to make
sure that other projects, besides Public Works projects, also were funded. The system was vetted
through the executive management team and through the City Council.
Staff Vargas asked staff to further explain the rating system's compliance and interaction with
the General Plan.
Staff Naclerio replied that the Planning Board by state law is required to make a finding to
comply with the General Plan before the City Council can adopt a Capital Improvement Program.
Staff attached the Transportation Element of the General Plan, and he felt all projects are
consistent. He asked that the Commission include inconsistencies found in the staff report or
additional projects that should be included. The Commission's recommendations would be sent
to the Planning Board for review and comment.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor for public comment.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, referred to the bottom of page 42 of the staff
report under ""List of Future new Streets and Transit Corridors in the City of Alameda."" He
explained that the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge and light rail corridor was discussed in a
forum in 2006 or 2007, and the recommendation was not to have a corridor from Alameda Point
to the Fruitvale BART Station. So, the light rail corridor was the last thing he wanted to see
invested if funding becomes available for big projects.
Staff Naclerio replied that the project is listed in the City's General Plan, which was vetted and
approved by the Transportation Commission, the Planning Board and the City Council.
Although the project is in the current General Plan, it was not included in the next two fiscal
years of the Capital Improvement Program. He also said the project will not be recommended to
be enhanced, improved or funded. However, he stated staff is working on and will present a
transit access study for Alameda Point, and the corridors will be analyzed in that document
partially because they are in the General Plan.
Page 3 of 6",TransportationCommission/2013-04-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-04-24,4,"Commissioner Bellows asked if the Shore Line Cycle Track project is included in the report.
Staff Payne explained that it is under Bicycle and Pedestrian Capital Projects. The local funds
are from the citywide developer fees.
Staff Vargas called the Commission for a motion.
Commissioner Miley moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Bellows seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.
6.
Staff Communications
Jean Sweeney Open Space Conceptual Uses
Amy Wooldridge, Alameda Park and Recreation Director, presented a report.
Commissioner Bellows asked Staff Wooldridge if the 40-foot rail-bank preserved for future rail or
bus service would have to be located in the center.
Staff Wooldridge replied the rail-bank could go anywhere as long as 40-feet in width along the
length of the beltline was preserved.
Commissioner Wong stated that in the community survey there was a gray spot that stated ""All
other responses."" She asked if that was a fill in open ended question.
Staff Wooldridge replied that it is correct and out of the 400 comments from the survey, two main
interests were an aquatic complex and a running track.
Commissioner Vargas asked about the proposal's phasing options or thoughts.
Staff Wooldridge replied that it depends upon funding, but the general focus is to create the Class
I trail and lighting and then fill in amenities.
Commissioner Vargas asked if there would be an effort to align the initial trail with the 40-foot
wide rail bank, or do they have to be independent of each other.
Staff Wooldridge replied that they could be aligned concurrently.
Commissioner Wong said the recommendation for the Jean Sweeney area was for passive use.
She wanted to know if the project will occur in phases or if there will be opportunities for active
uses. Also, she wanted to know if staff could revisit the plan to include active uses in the future.
Staff Wooldridge replied that staff is mostly focusing on passive uses. The City Council would
have to approve the proposed Conceptual Plan. Moreover, she saw interest in other areas of the
Page 4 of 6",TransportationCommission/2013-04-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-04-24,5,"City that could be used as active uses.
Commissioner Wong stated that she mentioned aquatic activities and that there is a need for them
in Alameda. She wanted to know if there was any mention of alternative ways to secure funding
for maintenance such as swim meets.
Staff Wooldridge replied that the net costs for active uses are generally higher than for passive
uses. They are looking at numerous options for swim centers because the cost recovery for
aquatics is better for indoor centers than outdoor pools.
5B. Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Payne presented the staff report.
Commissioner Bellows explained that she was happy to see the success made with the grant
efforts.
Commissioner Vargas commended Commissioner Miley for his assistance.
6.
Staff Communications
AC Transit Line OX - Reconsider Opening to Local Riders
Staff Payne presented AC Transit liaison John Urgo who took over Linda Morris' place.
Line OX will reopen to morning local riders in the fall. More information will be
provided at the next meeting.
Posey and Webster Tube Rehabilitation Project
Staff Payne mentioned that two letters were enclosed in the packet - one from the Mayor
and the other from the City Manager to Caltrans - requesting to add a new guardrail
within the tube as well as other items.
Measure B Reauthorization Follow-up
Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski and Rob Bonta have co-sponsored Assembly Bill 210,
which would allow Alameda CTC to place another measure on the ballot to try to
increase the transportation sales tax and to extend it. Another bill by Senator Corbett will
be introduced to lower the voter threshold for transportation sales tax measures from
66.67% to 55%.
Commissioner Vargas asked if there is a sunset clause in the legislation.
Staff Payne replied that the bill would allow Alameda CTC to go out to the voters until the year
2020, so they would not have to go back to the state each time for a request.
Encinal High School Improvements- Phase II (Community Workshop on Tuesday,
April 30 and Wednesday, May 30 at 7 pm)
Proposed Elimination of AC Transit Lines 314 and 356 (Midday Shopper Shuttles)
-
Page 5 of 6",TransportationCommission/2013-04-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-04-24,6,"- Wednesday, May 22 public hearing tentative date
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
-
Draft Regional Transit Access Study (RTAS): Overview of Study Corridors, Transit
Demand, and Services
-
Residential Appeal of Public Works Staff's Decision to Not Install Street Sweeping
Signs on La Jolla Drive
- Traffic Control and Contingency Plan during Construction for I-880/29th Avenue/23rd
Avenue Interchange Improvement Project in Oakland: Public Information Program and
Transit Impacts
- Bikes on BART - Second pilot study by BART reviewing bicycle restrictions
- Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant Application(s)
- Robert Davey Jr. at Channing Drive Traffic Calming - Phase II
- AC Transit Line 51A Performance Initiative Grant
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, reported on the
BART Bike Pilot 2.0 that occurred March 18-22. He said the results worked very well and the
first three trains were reserved for non-bike passengers. When he was reviewing the pilot, he
talked with bicyclists at the Fruitvale BART Station that took their bikes to work and they had no
problems finding space. He also mentioned that BART has a new tool that would allow
passengers to see how crowded the cars are. The tool could be found on their website. Also, the
BART Board is scheduled to review the staff evaluations. Robert Raburn is Alameda's
representative on the BART Board.
Jim Strehlow explained that he is a member of Bike Walk Alameda. Thursday, May 9 is Bike to
Work Day. There will be energizer stations at Bay Farm Bridge, Park Street at Peet's Coffee and
College of Alameda beginning at 6:30 a.m. for commuters going to work.
Commissioner Vargas thanked Staff Payne for sending the Commissioners the bike month
activities in Alameda.
John Urgo, AC Transit Staff Liaison, introduced himself.
Commissioner Schatmeier requested an update of the AC Transit Line OX, and would speak with
John Urgo after the meeting or in the future.
8.
Adjournment
8:10 pm
Page 6 of 6",TransportationCommission/2013-04-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-06-29,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 29, 2005
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:40 p.m.
1.ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
John Knox White
Robert McFarland
Patianne Parker
Eric Schatmeier
Absent:
Robb Ratto
Michael Krueger
Jeff Knoth
Staff:
Barbara Hawkins - Public Works Department
Barry Bergman - Public Works Department
Andrew Thomas - Planning & Building Department
2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The Commission agreed to postpone approval of the April 27 minutes until the end of the
meeting.
3.AGENDA CHANGES: None
4.COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS: None
5.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
6.OLD BUSINESS:
6A.
TMP Sub-Committees Appointments and Next Steps
Commissioner Parker mentioned that it has been a long time since the last meeting and that she
did not get first choice of committees to pick to be on. She wanted to know who is on the
committees.
Chair Knox White mentioned that there are two active sub-committees. The Bicycle Master Plan
Update Committee includes Chair Knox White, and Commissioners Schatmeier and Ratto. The
Circulation sub-committee is made up of Chair Knox White, and Commissioners Schatmeier and
McFarland.",TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-06-29,2,"Transportation Commission Minutes
June 29, 2005
Chair Knox White said that this item was brought back to the Commission because of the need to
form a Pedestrian Master Plan Subcommittee. He also noted that he has limited time available
and would prefer not to sit on the Pedestrian or the Bicycle Master Plan sub-committee.
Chair Knox White noted that Commissioner Krueger had indicated that he is willing to serve on
either the pedestrian or bicycle plan subcommittees, and that Commissioner Parker had
expressed her interest in the circulation subcommittee. He also said that he would approach
Commissioner Knoth about serving on the pedestrian plan subcommittee. He stated that he will
send out an e-mail to the Commission the following week after speaking with the other
commissioners.
Chair Knox White mentioned that Commissioner Knoth would be on the Pedestrian sub-
committee. He thought it would be okay to have a two person sub-committee instead of a three
person one. They would be able to cancel any number of meetings. The sub-committee should
be self-driven, so it is important that subcommittee members be prepared to push items forward.
Commissioner Parker wanted to be on the Circulation committee but do not care to be on the
Pedestrian or the Bicycle committee.
Staff Bergman had a draft of the TMP schedule for each of the three plans meetings scheduled for
this year, which were handed out.
Chair Knox White asked that under the Commission Communications that bullets be inserted for
each of the three sub-committees and have the head of that sub-committee give an update.
Staff Hawkins said that Michael Schmitz was selected from the Economic Development
Committee (EDC) to be on the Task Force Committee. Contacted some of the other
commissions and notice that some of their members were not active. She suggested sending an
action item to the chair and have the chair be responsible for selecting someone.
7.NEW BUSINESS:
7A.
Alameda Point Transportation Strategy Report
Commissioner Parker stated that one of the goals of the Alameda Point project is to seamlessly
integrate the development into the rest of Alameda. However, some of the language emphasizes
the separate nature of the project. For example, splitting the 63 Line will serve Alameda Point
and downtown Oakland without serving the rest of the City. The document should not come
across as saying that Alameda Point is better than the rest of Alameda.
Commissioner Schatmeier agreed with Commissioner Parker's concerns, but expressed support
for the many innovative strategies presented in the report, such as developing a system where
transit is self-supporting. This could serve as a model for other locations in Alameda as well as
the Bay Area.
Page 2 of 6",TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-06-29,3,"Transportation Commission Minutes
June 29, 2005
Chair Knox White noted that there is a long-term goal of a transit service connecting to the east
end and Fruitvale BART station, and this would connect Alameda Point to the rest of the main
island. He also stated that it may not be appropriate to address citywide policies in an Alameda
Point-specific document.
Chair Knox White also wants the City to look at trip generation through the rest of the City as
well as the tubes. He noted that the report talks about increasing BART ridership, but it would
be helpful to know how many of the existing transit users drive to BART. If they are driving to
BART, Alameda gets no benefit in terms of reducing congestion in Alameda. He asked how the
queue jump lanes would be implemented, if there is a fund that would be reserved for this
purpose.
Staff Thomas stated that while listed as a mid-term project, they are hoping that queue jump lanes
will hopefully be a ""Day 1"" strategy. He noted that Oakland neighborhoods support this strategy
as well. He noted that the queue jump lanes would make the transit options much more effective,
but that they will be easier to implement from the Alameda side.
Commissioner Parker asked if the Broadway/Jackson project is part of this.
Staff Thomas said that one of the most promising strategies that would work within the
Broadway/Jackson design is to segregate buses in the left lane of the Posey Tube, with cars going
to the freeway directed to the right. The latter group would turn right on 5th Street in Oakland
and be able to get directly onto freeway ramps, reducing the number of vehicles traveling
through the intersection of 7th Street and Harrison Street.
Staff Thomas stated that splitting the 63 Bus route would enable headways to increase on both
portions of the route. He also noted that this was only one option, another would be a privately
funded shuttle from Alameda Point to downtown Oakland. He added noted that staff has had
conversations with AC Transit regarding the EcoPass and have indicated that Alameda Point
would need a minimum of 20 minute headways to downtown Oakland.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if a direct bus from Alameda Point to San Francisco was
considered.
Staff Thomas responded that the transbay buses were very well used, the question is how to get
people to them. He also noted that since there are approximately 2000 residential units proposed
for Alameda Point, there would probably not be sufficient demand to support a transbay bus
route directly to San Francisco.
Commissioner McFarland asked how Alameda Point might be affected in future rounds of AC
Transit service cuts.
Staff Thomas responded that the EcoPass should help protect these routes, as they provide a
stable funding source for AC Transit, but if the City opted for a privately funded shuttle there
would not be the same protection.
Page 3 of 6",TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-06-29,4,"Transportation Commission Minutes
June 29, 2005
Chair Knox White expressed a concern that AC Transit could start requiring contributions like
the EcoPass to get additional transit service.
Staff Thomas stated that this project could be a model for future development projects in
Alameda. The developer working on the Oak to 9th Street project in Oakland has expressed
interest in some of the ideas being explored for Alameda Point. He also suggested that other
partners are possible, such as Catellus and the College of Alameda.
Commissioner Parker asked if the existing west Alameda neighborhood could be included.
Staff Thomas responded that this would be difficult, since residents would likely be willing to
pay only for services they will use, whereas in an EcoPass program all residents of Alameda
Point can be required to contribute toward transit services up front.
Chair Knox White asked if there had been any discussions with City CarShare.
Staff Thomas responded that they had not spoken specifically with that company, they would
decide how to implement a CarShare program once the funds were in place.
Chair Knox White noted that something that should be considered is that City CarShare has been
removing some of their ""pod"" locations in suburban areas because of low usage and suggested
speaking with them to learn from their experience. He also stated that even if a BART station at
Jack London Square doesn't make sense, we don't want to rule out the potential for a direct
BART station in Alameda at some point in the future.
Staff Thomas stated that the focus was on being able to put some services in place early on.
While the process included a very broad discussion of creative options for transportation, it
became clear that many of the proposed solutions included elements that would require
coordination with other agencies, so the City would have a limited amount of control. These
items will be considered for long-term implementation. In terms of BART, he said that BART is
considering a transfer station in Oakland, so all riders to other east bay destinations would have
to transfer, and it's possible that at that point a BART connection may make sense.
Chair Knox White asked how the $50 million committed to transportation would be used.
Staff Thomas stated that $20 million would be used to fund strategies up front. The $20 million
may be used to subsidize services early on, since many residents won't be living there at first.
The additional $30 million would be the project's contribution to the future long-term strategies.
Chair Knox White requested the following changes to the report:
Page 6 - bus shelters should be a Day 1 strategy, not mid-term
Page 7 - first line should say ""Alameda Point""
He suggested that they should work to incorporate the ferry service into the EcoPass program,
and that the Alameda Point Collaborative residents should be allowed to participate in the
program.
Page 9 - He asked if the bifurcated 63 Route is a Day 1 or mid-term strategy.
Page 4 of 6",TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-06-29,5,"Transportation Commission Minutes
June 29, 2005
Staff Thomas indicated that it could be either or neither. He said that the main goal is to have 15-
20 minute headways for service to Alameda Point, however it is accomplished.
Chair Knox White expressed concern regarding the option to pay extra to buy additional on-site
residential parking spaces, he hopes the cost will be sufficient that everyone will not choose to
have the additional parking space.
Commissioner Parker stated that it would be harder to sell units with only a single car garage.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that on Bay Farm Island it's difficult to get people to use transit,
since they moved there when the bus ran infrequently and there was no weekend service. He
hoped they will market the transit options, and use that to attract buyers.
Chair Knox White asked if location-efficient mortgages (LEM) had been considered. These
allow people who live in areas with access to transit to qualify for larger mortgages, since
presumably they would have lower transportation costs. LEMs are available in San Francisco.
Staff Thomas responded that LEMs have not been considered up to this point.
Chair Knox White said that he was confused by the discussion of CarSharing on p. 12, where it
states that the CarShare fleet will be used for the guaranteed ride home (GRH) program, but that
when vehicles are not available users could utilize the county GRH program, which operates
under a voucher system.
Staff Thomas responded that if the transportation coordinator could offer employees use of
CarShare vehicles for GRH if the vehicles were not being used for other purposes; otherwise
employees would rely on the existing county program.
Chair Knox White asked that it be noted in the document that the bus rapid transit (BRT) vehicle
depicted in Eugene is actually a simulation.
Commissioner Parker stated that the meaning of the statement ""Marketing efforts will target
employees regardless of their origins"" is not clear.
Staff Thomas responded that the phrase was referring to trip origins, and that this would be
clarified.
Commissioner Parker noted that the document refers to a 1% increase in transit use as a result of
marketing initiatives, which seems very low for the amount of effort being devoted to this.
Staff Thomas responded that the 1% refers more to some of the traditional transportation demand
management strategies, and that the wording would be revised to clarify this point.
Chair Knox White asked for clarification regarding the City's intention to use the former
Alameda Belt Line right of way for a transit corridor.
Page 5 of 6",TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-06-29,6,"Transportation Commission Minutes
June 29, 2005
Staff Thomas confirmed that this is part of the plan.
Chair Knox White stated that a service operated by AC Transit will be better than a privately
operated shuttle, as it will integrate into the larger transit system.
Staff Thomas said that the outcome depends on a determination of what the City will receive
from each scenario.
Chair Knox White recommended that the Mayor and City Council should work with the AC
Transit board members to encourage an arrangement for service at Alameda Point. He stated that
AC Transit may even be willing to offer Alameda a better deal just to get the program off the
ground and serve as an example of what could be done in other developments.
Chair Knox White expressed his strong support for the findings in the report.
Staff Thomas praised the Alameda community and the Transportation Commission for helping
keeping the solutions realistic.
Commissioner Parker noted that the long-term solutions are really projects that affect the entire
island, and asked that the language be changed to refer to travel ""to and within Alameda Point
and the City of Alameda"" to emphasize that.
Commissioner Parker said that many people will oppose light rail.
Staff Thomas responded that transit technologies are improving, and that lighter weight vehicles
or bus rapid transit may have similar operational characteristics to rail but be less invasive to
neighborhoods.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None
The Minutes will be discussed at the next meeting.
9.ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2005\0605\062905minutesfinal.doc
Page 6 of 6",TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-12-14,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 14, 2005
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
John KnoxWhite
Pattianne Parker
Michael Krueger
Eric Schatmeier
Jeff Knoth
Absent:
Robb Ratto
Robert McFarland
Staff Present:
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Knox White moved to approve the minutes of the November meeting. All were in favor
except for Commissioner Parker who abstained.
3. AGENDA CHANGES
None.
4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Regarding the Pedestrian Transportation Master Plan update, there was a Task Force meeting on
December 7th. Rebecca Kohlstrand from the Planning Board, Nancy Gormley from the Housing
Authority, and two members of the public attended the meeting. They reviewed the feedback
from the first public workshop and provided input regarding key pedestrian issues and policies.
Chair Knox White suggested that staff call Task Force members prior to meetings to remind them
of the meeting time.
Staff Hawkins said that staff had called and that some members had either indicated they would
be attending but did not show up or that they left messages and could not connect directly.
1",TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-12-14,2,"Chair Knox White suggested that it might be helpful to follow up with the staff person from each
board and commission to make them aware that their representative did not make it to the
meeting, and also to let them know how many more meetings there would be.
Chair Knox White noted that no progress has been made on the Circulation Plan since the
consultant is not yet on board.
Commissioner Krueger requested an off agenda report on the status of the Bus Stop Accessibility
Program at a future TC meeting.
Staff Hawkins said that she would be working on that. She noted that Public Works is short
staffed so it will take some additional time. The main tasks are to check to see if the requests all
went through the TTT and to review the status of the work orders.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he is interested in three issues: 1) Red curbing, 2) Paving for
accessibility and 3) Parking restrictions.
6A. CAPITAL IIMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) CALL FOR PROJECTS
Staff Hawkins stated that the CIP would be presented first in house to the Commissions and
Boards who can provide input. There will then be three public meetings held in
January/February or February/March Staff will prepare cost estimates for the top-ranked
projects. These will be presented to the public, and will then go back to the boards and
commissions prior to being sent to the Council.
Chair Knox White said that this item was put on the agenda so that the Commissioners can make
recommendations regarding projects that are either on the unfunded list or not on the list at all.
Through the project evaluation process, some of these projects could potentially be added to the
list of funded projects.
Chair Knox White asked for clarification about the carryover projects, such as the $30,000
allocated for Bike and Pedestrian Operations.
Staff Hawkins said that when staff deals with all bicycle and pedestrian requests, this pays for the
time to conduct analysis, collect data, and other related tasks.
Chair Knox White asked if all staff time is included in the CIP.
Staff Hawkins said that previously all projects have generally been included in the CIP, but that
beginning this year the projects will be separated from annual costs. There will be two project
lists, an annual projects list for these ""work program"" activities, and a capital projects list.
Chair Knox White asked if the ""General Plan Update"" project includes the Transportation Master
Plan (TMP).
2",TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-12-14,3,"Staff Hawkins responded that the Planning Department generally has that money dedicated to
consultant activities, so it is not likely that this funding would be available for the TMP.
Chair Knox White asked about the I-880 High Street improvements.
Staff Hawkins responded that the project includes reinforcing the bridge for seismic purposes and
possibly adding an extra lane. She noted that the City would also like to continue to work with
Oakland to improve circulation on local streets in that area. This is a Caltrans project and
Alameda's contribution is participating in meetings and providing our perspective.
Chair Knox White noted that the list includes $176,000 for in-pavement crosswalk lights. He
asked if before and after studies could be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of these
devices, as opposed to other treatments such as pedestrian paddles.
Staff Hawkins said that this project is for crosswalks near Lum, Chipman and Haight schools,
and was funded by a Safe Routes to School grant. Therefore the only discretionary spending in
the project is the $18,000 in Measure B funds.
Commissioner Parker asked if the projects list is a wish list for grants.
Staff Hawkins said that in the header the sheet it says ""carryover"" or ""funded"". The carryover
projects are supposed to be fully funded and grant submittals that were not funded should have
been eliminated. She noted that the City had submitted a grant proposal for the
audible/countdown signal heads. While the grant was awarded for the countdown devices, the
audible signals were not funded. Therefore, while the entire budget amount is listed in the table,
the only the countdown portion of it has been funded. Staff Hawkins stated that the proposed
grant amounts are included, even if funding has not been secured, because the City needs to
earmark then matching funds. If the City is not awarded the grants, the matching funds can be
released for something else.
Commissioner Parker asked if any of these grants going to sunset if we haven't started the
project.
Staff Hawkins said that the pole-mounted radar speed displays was one that was just about to
sunset but the City received an extension. It was supposed to have been finished by December
but instead it will be finished by March.
Commissioner Parker asked who ranked the projects.
Staff Hawkins said that the departments rank them. However, she noted that sometimes a project
with a lower ranking will proceed ahead of a higher priority one if grant funding becomes
available.
Commissioner Parker requested that the list indicate what projects have been started, the
percentage of completion, the estimated date of completion or estimated date of start if not
started.
3",TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-12-14,4,"Staff Hawkins mentioned that there are sheets that include this information, it's just not printed in
the report that was distributed.
Chair Knox White suggested that it would be helpful to indicate the funding status in the table, so
it would be understood if the funding status is uncertain.
Staff Hawkins responded that this could be indicated in the Comments section.
Commissioner Parker asked if the phase of the project, e.g. design, could be indicated.
Staff Hawkins stated that the way the document is compiled is that the whole project is listed as a
single record. This helps with the keeping track of overall project costs. She said that the phase
of the project could also be indicated in the Comments section.
Commissioner Parker asked if a project falls off the carryover list if it would then be put on the
unfunded list? And would it continue to be a priority?
Staff Hawkins said that the Council determines which projects are the priorities.
Commissioner Krueger asked if there are any other means by which operations are handled and
do on going operations count under projects?
Staff Hawkins replied that the purpose of some operations is to give Council the understanding of
what people are working on. Work program is an annual project such as sidewalks, tree
trimming as to how much money has been put into it.
Commissioner Krueger asked if there is any discretion for removal of projects from the
carryover/funded list or is everything on her subject to go forward no matter what.
Staff Hawkins said that was her understanding.
Chair Knox White asked about the pedestrian heads project with various locations for $400,000
and wanted to know what that was (page 4).
Staff Hawkins stated that the Commission on Disability Issues had requested that all signals have
countdowns and audible signals. Public Works then applies for grants to bring the City's costs
down. The budget for this project indicates the cost for all signals in the City.
Commissioner Krueger said that this sounds like another project, 1-04-96.
Staff Hawkins acknowledged that it might have been put in twice. She's meeting with the
departments to review the projects and determine where there is duplication.
Chair Knox White asked about the unfunded Tinker Extension project, and whether it is almost
complete.
4",TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-12-14,5,"Staff Hawkins said the Tinker Extension is considered the portion from 5th to Webster Street, and
should be called Tinker Intersection. This will be funded by state funds and developer funds.
Chair Knox White asked about the traffic signal at Fernside Boulevard and San Jose Avenue for
$400,000.
Staff Hawkins said that this was supported by the school district. The projects had to be included
in the budget because the City was seeking grant funding, but it hadn't yet been approved by the
school board at that time. The City did secure the funding but the school board voted against the
project, so it will be taken off the list.
Commissioner Parker asked if we could apply the funds to another project.
Staff Hawkins said that it was from local streets and roads funds, but will be applied towards the
bicycle and pedestrian access along with bus access.
Chair Knox White suggested that a potential project might be construction of roundabouts on
Fernside Boulevard to help deal with the volume of traffic.
Staff Hawkins said that the TC could recommend such a project. She noted that the City is trying
to work down on already requested traffic calming projects, and a petition has been submitted by
residents of Fernside Boulevard, so this issue could be addressed. If it turns out that the capital
portion is more than what we have budgeted, it can be brought before Council for more money.
Chair Knox White suggested adding several projects to the CIP list: purchasing and installing the
remaining 18 bus shelters, the top ten priorities from the bike plan, safe routes to school and safe
routes to transit improvements, and the bike lanes on Central Avenue between Walnut and Oak
Streets.
Staff Hawkins said that some projects need some preliminary analysis so that that the general
feasibility could be determined and cost estimates can be developed. She said that the Cross
Alameda Trail Feasibility Study is an example of this. Now that costs have been determined, it
can be included in the CIP. Staff Hawkins suggested that the Commission request funding for
feasibility studies so the projects would be moved forward.
Public Comment
Lucy Gigli said that she would like this budget cycle to include two projects from the bike plan's
priority project list. Also, she wanted to ensure that funding is available for bike lanes on Central
Avenue between Walnut Street and Oak Street, and if appropriate that should be included in this
process.
Commissioner Krueger suggested recommending the inclusion of the Cross Alameda Trail,
purchase and installation of the remaining 18 bus shelters, and bike lanes on Central Avenue
between Walnut and Oak Streets.
5",TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-12-14,6,"Staff Hawkins said that those projects have been sufficiently developed to be submitted. She
noted that the bike lanes are to be included as part of the library relocation, but it still needs to be
in the budget. Staff Hawkins said a safe route to schools project is less defined, and that staff is
collecting data now to identify locations for improvements. Staff is also working with Jon
Spangler to get more volunteers to get data, which we then can substantiate where and what we
need in improvements.
Commissioner Parker moved that the following three projects be added to the capital
improvement budget for 2007-08: Cross Alameda Trail, purchase and installation of 18 Bus
Shelters to be bought and installed, and bike lanes on Central Avenue between Walnut Street
and Oak Street. Commissioner Krueger seconded and was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Parker moved that the operations and annual maintenance queue be formalized
and part II added to that. Feasibility studies for bike plan priority projects, safe routes to transit
and schools, bus shelter maintenance and transportation Master Plan. Commissioner Krueger
seconded and passed unanimously.
Chair Knox White indicated that he wanted to make sure that the TMP funding matches up with
what the Council has already approved.
Commissioner Krueger asked if there are any rules about how gas tax funds are spent.
Staff Hawkins said that it has to be spent on transportation related items and in the past gas tax
was always spent on the roads but in more recent years has been directed to transit purposes. For
transit purposes it's generally allocated to AC Transit and the only other given to the city is the
roads money, which is generally used for resurfacing. When the City does resurfacing, it tries to
update striping and bike lanes.
Commissioner Krueger asked why $67,000 of gas tax money is being spend on the Underground
District Conversion project.
Staff Hawkins said some money is made available from the utilities to underground the overhead
poles. People from the community presented to Council areas where they are willing to pay half
of the bill and the City would like to have its allocation from the utility company to be put
towards its share of the undergrounding.
Commissioner Krueger asked what does undergrounding utilities doing with transportation?
Staff Hawkins responded that she was not aware that the gas tax was to fund that.
Chair Knox White asked staff to check to see that this was correct.
Commissioner Krueger stated that some of the existing bus shelters do not have all the amenities.
The shelter at Buena Vista Avenue and Paru Street does not have a bench, map and schedule.
Most of the city shelters put in prior to the Park & Webster Renaissance Project and Bay Port do
6",TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-12-14,7,"not have map holders, although most have trash cans. He recommended bringing all bus shelters
up to the new standards.
Staff Hawkins mentioned that we have been using the bus shelter funds to handle the existing
shelters, and that it would be appropriate to use the current maintenance fund money for this
purpose.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Bergman mentioned that the workshop at the College of Alameda collected input and got
some good information for the Trail Workshop and Paratransit. The Paratransit covers almost all
of Alameda except for a few exceptions like Bay Farm Island. We have not been spending our
annual Paratransit allocation. We have been looking for ways to expand the current program.
One way is to open up an existing Taxi program to the disabled and anyone 75 years and over.
Have to figure and structure that. Short term during Christmas Season had it available to seniors
for shopping.
Chair Knox White asked when the consultant will be hired for the Circulation Plan.
Staff Hawkins responded that this should happen in January. She noted that staff is currently
working on the request for qualifications (RFQ).
Chair Knox White requested the RFQ indicate that consultants need to have planning experience
and that it would be two month process.
Staff Hawkins would like to see the RFQ go out in January and then everything done by June.
The consultant would meet with the Task Force in February or March.
Staff Hawkins noted that following projects are scheduled to be presented to the TC in the
coming months: Target EIR in January, Safeway gas station in February, and a request for a joint
meeting in April with the TC and the Economic Development Commission to look at the new
ProLogis environmental update.
Chair Knox White asked if there was any idea about a joint Council and TC meeting in January.
Staff Bergman has not heard anything more on it.
Chair Knox White said that when the negative declaration comes to the TC it would be helpful to
the Commission and Planning Board to give a 15 minute discussion on the difference between an
negative declaration and an environmental impact report (EIR) and what is to be expected from
both.
Staff Hawkins said that we would ask Doug Garrison of the Planning Board to present it.
Commissioner Knoth asked if someone from the school district is involved in the safe routes to
school initiative.
7",TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-12-14,8,"schools along with a number of parents to get feedback.
Commissioner Knoth suggested that facilities at each school need to be surveyed to determine
where there are cross walks and other facilities.
Staff Hawkins said that staff is using Otis and Franklin schools as a pilot program to determine
what needs to be looked at for the other schools.
Commissioner Knoth said that lighted crosswalks are something that would be important at all
schools. Currently some schools have them and some not.
Staff Hawkins said that in-pavement lights are also going to be installed at 8th Street and Taylor
Avenue. Where in-pavement lights are installed depends on if they meet the warrants.
Chair Knox White mentioned that some schools have very vocal parents in getting thing done
faster, and recommended finding a way to level the playing field.
Commissioner Knoth said that everyone should have at least a minimum level of facilities and
that there will be some cases where traffic deems other things. He asked if there was a timeline
for the study.
Staff Bergman stated that as far as part of the Pedestrian Plan staff would be collecting a lot of
school data between now and the end of school year. Facilities have most of that already for
locations such as; cross walks and signals along with crossing guards, and in pavement lights
largely have not. Staff will also be looking at existing conditions and traffic patterns, such as
conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2006TC min 121405-final.doc
8",TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-10-28,1,"Approved Minutes
Transportation Commission Special Meeting
Wednesday, October 28, 2020
Time:
6:30 p.m.
Location:
Due to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners can attend the
meeting via teleconference. The City allows public participation via Zoom. City Hall was NOT open to the
public during the meeting.
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules, Commissioners Kohlstrand, Nachtigall, Hans, Johnson, Yuen,
Weitze.
Absent: None.
2. Agenda Changes - none
3. Staff Communications as shown in the web link here:
  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4672973&GUID=F417595E-294D-4A7A-81A9-
930246FOCDD5&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
4.
Announcements/ Public Comments - none
5.
Consent Calendar - none
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Recommendation to Review and Provide Input on City Staff's Draft Support Letter for the
Oakland Alameda Access Project (OAAP) and to Provide Comments on the Project's Draft
Environmental Document
Chair Soules recused herself from this item, and Vice Chair Nachtigall led this item.
Andrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director, gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4672974&GUID=E0OCAC43-48BD-4066-8468-
E7ED82F902BF&Options=&Search=
Staff Thomas also introduced:
Rodney Pimentel of HNTB
Susan Chang of Alameda County Transportation Commission
Speakers on #6A
Gary Knecht: He stated that it is Jack London District and not Jack London Square, which is concerned
with connection to Chinatown. He does not want more frontage roads, and will tolerate them. The
horseshoe does create a frontage road of concern. Getting to Alameda will not be improved with this
Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020
1",TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-10-28,2,"project, unless one is coming from San Leandro. If coming from San Francisco, this problem has not been
solved from Broadway by this project.
Paul Ashby: He encouraged the City of Alameda to support inclusion of the Webster Tube walkway for
bicyclists. He has concerns about traffic off the island, for bicyclists and for pedestrians. This $100 million
project is not yet funded and he is concerned about how to fund the $200 million bike/pedestrian bridge and
when it could be funded. Pedestrian improvements will be valuable. Bicycling is difficult in the tubes, and
the Webster Tube bike improvements are not satisfactory; however, a four-foot wide path (in Webster Tube)
would be better than the three-foot wide path (in Posey Tube).
Sugiarto Loni, representing Oakland Chinatown Chamber. He stated that Chinatown receives the brunt
of
the traffic problem. He was involved in the previous Broadway-Jackson Study; however, Alameda was
opposed so the study was delayed for ten years, is his understanding. The OAAP project is a good project
for the Chinatown community. The project would open up the Chinatown community making it better for
pedestrians. He thinks the horseshoe will work, and he does not want to lose time with a $200 million
bike/pedestrian bridge, especially with the planned development of Alameda Point. He hopes that Alameda
will support OAAP and not derail it.
Serena Chen: She has lived in Alameda for 23 years, and also lived in Oakland and helped build the social
communities in Oakland. The freeway cut off Chinatown, and this project is a serious social justice issue.
Institutional decisions destroyed the Oakland Chinatown area. She does not want to hold up the opportunity
to bring Chinatown together and reduce pollution from Alamedans who drive. She wants to move forward,
and she also supports the bike/pedestrian bridge.
John Han: He was born in Alameda, and he lives and works in Alameda. The progress of this project is
necessary. Alameda will grow yet there is no other ingress or egress. The collisions continue in Oakland.
Oakland Chinatown has been disproportionately impacted by the current design, and it is systemic injustice
to keep it here. It appears that Alameda City leaders and bike advocates are holding this project hostage
and the optics are horrible.
Doris Gee: She is an active community member in both Alameda and Oakland Chinatown. She appreciates
the changes to be built with this project. She has tried to cross 7th and Harrison in Oakland with her family,
and motorists would not stop for them. The project will create more tourist opportunities and an Alameda-
only exit out of Alameda.
Lena Tam: Former Councilmember and she does not want to delay this project. She uses this route to
commute to Oakland and support the OAAP because it reduces the crash rate between motorists and
pedestrians. She is worried about the long-term sustainability of Oakland Chinatown. She witnessed a
pedestrian being hit on Webster Street who later died. She appreciates the time everyone has spent
reviewing the plan.
Denyse Trepanier: The existing path through the tube is filthy and dangerous. It does not meet Caltrans
safety standards for a path. The Webster Street walkway also would be substandard. She agrees with most
of the speakers tonight that the OAAP has nice improvements for Oakland. Only one percent would use
this new Webster Street path and monies should be redirected to the bike/pedestrian bridge. The voters
wanted a multimodal solution, and this project is not it.
Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020
2",TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-10-28,3,"Michael Sullivan: He bikes through the tubes on a daily basis. It would be unfortunate to spend monies on
another path in Webster Tube. It is not a multimodal project. He strongly supports investing in the
bike/pedestrian bridge.
Ed Manasse, Deputy Director of Planning with the City of Oakland. He has been working with the Alameda
CTC project staff and consultants. He appreciates the comments heard tonight, and the City of Oakland
will be drafting a letter of support for this project. He also supports the bike/pedestrian bridge project,
which will be positive for both cities.
Jim Strehlow: He is a bicyclist and motorist. The 2009 Estuary Crossing Study stated that the number one
priority would be the water taxi program, and he wants to know the status of this project. The OAAP project
is multimodal. The bike/pedestrian bridge is too far north for his needs so he would not use it. Sixth Street
is six lanes, and will become a traffic jam. He supports this project.
Cyndy Johnson: She is with Bike Walk Alameda, and highlighted the portion of their submitted letter about
the bike/pedestrian bridge. The project path does not meet best practice standards. The bike/pedestrian
bridge should have been included in this project, and could accommodate up to 13 percent of the estuary
trips. Alameda CTC should identify funds for the bike/pedestrian bridge. This bridge has been ten years
in the making.
Commissioner Comments and Discussion for #6A
Commissioner Kohlstrand: She stated that this project is a long time in coming, and it is an important
project, particularly for the City of Oakland. It seems to be a reasonable solution, and we should support
the project as recommended by City staff. She has used the bus more than the car in this corridor, and is
concerned that no transit improvements are listed as part of the project. She would like to have transit
priority on both sides of the tube, and would like to hear why it was not included in the project. She would
rather see the Webster Street path improvements than shift the monies to a bike/pedestrian bridge, which is
worth looking at along with water taxis in the longer term. She would like clarification from the video
about the Jackson Street ramp. In general, she supports the OAAP project, and feels it is time to alleviate
the traffic congestion in Oakland Chinatown.
Rodney Pimentel clarified that the bus times will improve along with motorists. The left lane in the Webster
Tube will be reserved only for Oakland traffic including buses to Oakland. Regarding the four-foot wide
path, Caltrans did approve the design exception and wants to open it up for one-way travel for bicyclists
and pedestrians. It is considered an incremental solution with the long-term solution as the bike/pedestrian
bridge. As for the Jackson Street ramp, motorists could take it from I-580 and I-980.
Commissioner Kohlstrand: She would like the project to consider HOV lanes on Fifth Street in Oakland,
and to include transit in the mix so it needs to give transit vehicles priority.
Commissioner Yuen: She supports the project, and appreciates the comments about the current impacts to
Oakland Chinatown. It is important for Chinatown to fully use the community assets, like Garden Park.
She would like clarification that the support of this project does not preclude the bike/pedestrian bridge.
She would like to see the incremental progress for bicyclists that this project brings. She would use the
bike/pedestrian bridge but she does not want to delay this project.
Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020
3",TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-10-28,4,"Commissioner Weitze: He supports the bike/pedestrian bridge, though he recommends that it be designed
as a bike/pedestrian/transit bridge, since transit will help individuals who do not bike or walk. He is
disappointed that the conversation is focused on a one-foot wider bike path, and instead would like to see a
path protected from traffic and air pollution. He would like other path options, and not to have a path that
exposes people to the air in the Tube. He is hesitant to support the project as is. It is not multimodal. The
bike/pedestrian bridge is the long-term solution.
Vice Chair Nachtigall: She supports the project, and the current experience is dangerous for pedestrians.
She is concerned about the potential for delay, and the bike/pedestrian bridge should not preclude this
project. It is not the most multimodal solution but incremental improvements are needed and this project
has been in the works for a long time.
Commissioner Kohlstrand: She requests that it needs to be clear what the Commissioners are being asked
to do for any agenda item. She is open to adding language to enhance pedestrian and transit access as a
motion.
Vice Chair Nachtigall: She asked for clarification on if it an action item.
Staff Thomas: Staff would like to pass comments to the City Council. Can be either consensus-based or an
action.
Commissioner Weitze: It is not a multimodal project so it does not feel like Alameda should give up on the
Webster Tube path improvements.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to support the staff letter with two modifications:
Remove statement that the City would not oppose the removal of the proposed Webster Tube
walkway if it could help fund the next phases of the Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge.
Request that Caltrans and Alameda CTC enhance transit access to and from the Tubes both
in Oakland and Alameda, which would improve multi-modal access of the project.
Commissioner Yuen: She seconded the motion by Commissioner Kohlstrand.
The motion passed 6-0.
Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020
4",TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-10-28,5,"6B. General Plan Update (Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building and Transportation
Department)
Andrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director, gave a presentation and introduced
consultant Sheffield. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4672975&GUID=66886312-9FOE-4C9E-9485-
317F282E7D8E&Options=&Search=
Chair Soules requested to take community comments and to set up a process for future commissioner
comments as a sub-committee. She would like a high level of engagement. The General Plan sets a baseline
for projects moving forward. It is an opportunity to have community members' voices heard.
There were no community comments on Item #6B at this time.
Commissioner Comments and Discussion for #6B
Commissioner Yuen: She had the following comments:
It is a great start of this General Plan and she commends staff for all the hard work on it.
The pandemic has changed city planning and how we are dealing with commercial and slow streets,
and it impacts fiscal budget of the City. The General Plan needs to mention the pandemic.
Staff Thomas agreed about the pandemic and released this draft just as the pandemic began, and will add
lessons from the pandemic in the second draft.
Commissioner Yuen continued her comments:
The actions within policies should be enumerated.
Some actions are specific and others are broad, and would like the actions to be as specific as
possible to be able to check them off the list if completed.
Some actions are global across several chapters such as complete streets, climate and mobility
element, and would like to see if it is possible to see mapping by element and action.
Staff Thomas said that the update needs to be restated to better understand progress to inform budget
decisions, and staff/consultants are working on cross indexing.
Vice Chair Nachtigall agreed about the need to include mention of the pandemic. It is well designed and
pretty, and yet the photos and the design graphics need to better visually convey diversity to show
Alameda's racial and ethnic diversity as well as diversity of businesses. The graphics need to match the
text to show that all people are visually represented.
Staff Thomas expressed appreciation for this comment and said that he would fix it.
Commissioner Kohlstrand commended staff and consultants on the work done to date, and said that it is a
good draft. She would like the survey results to be synthesized, and would like to understand what
Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020
5",TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-10-28,6,"Alamedans think of density and land use. She would like to see a special workshop meeting or sub-
committee to capture all the different perspectives of the commissioner members. She would like more
emphasis on transit in that a higher percentage of trips are on transit compared to bicycling and walking,
especially getting on/off the island. She is unsure how to proceed with housing obligations until we know
what happens with Measure Z.
Staff Thomas: He said that Measure Z will impact how the City can proceed with residential density. The
City needs to meet the state's housing obligations.
Commissioner Kohlstrand: She stated that she would like to consider doing sketch planning with Measure
A or with something more rational.
Chair Soules: She agreed, and would like to have more comments on the General Plan with a sub-committee
process.
Commissioner Weitze: He would like measurable actions agreeing with Commissioner Yuen. He would
like to set an actual goal for the percent of trips going on and off the island such as car-free to help with
funding projects.
Chair Soules: She stated that the surveys need more quantification. For example, the survey responses are
heavily skewed towards white. The report does mention the groups that are underrepresented, and it needs
to report back on how the gap would be reduced. She would like to have more prioritization of projects as
well as timing. It is important to have rigor in the objectives and metrics. Transit moves the most amount
of people, and transit needs to come back strong. She would like to see another Planning Board and
Transportation Commission joint meeting to better understand zoning and development agreement
requirements and to ensure coordination.
Commissioner Yuen: She likes the idea of the joint meeting with the Planning Board, and supports the
transit first idea, and would like to lift it up in the update. The survey results are lacking, and the charts are
confusing. She would like an expert to look at it who knows qualitative research. There needs more
outreach effort to harder to reach demographics such as the Active Transportation Plan's statistically
significant survey as well as other opportunities, which is difficult during a pandemic. She agrees about
the importance to set targets and to have performance measures and metrics. Micromobility could be better
highlighted to provide greater access to transit. She is pleased to see more consideration of equity.
Chair Soules: She wants to better assess if the projects can accommodate given the projected population
and density on the west end such as Central Avenue.
Staff Thomas: He said that the City does not have the rigor for prioritizing how public funds are used. It
ends up being a mix of politics, planning and cost/benefit analysis. We have multiple problems - a housing
crisis and inadequate transportation.
Chair Soules: She stated that we do not want to quantify and study what is not helpful. We will have more
traffic volumes so she is unsure if these projects will work for bicycling once Site A is developed.
Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020
6",TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-10-28,7,"Staff Thomas: He stated that it would be a worthwhile conversation, and could help guide the priorities.
It
is difficult to prioritize bicycling, walking, greenhouse gas reductions because these projects are trying to
solve multiple problems.
Chair Soules: She said that having rigor costs money. We need to base the traffic numbers on an updated
analysis to serve as a backdrop and for context on how to prioritize projects.
Staff Thomas: He would like to have a sub-committee with the specific policies in front of the group. We
are unsure how the future will be for transportation and if the entire travel pattern will shift due to COVID
and telecommuting in the future. For example, WETA is expecting midday boats to be more crowded.
Chair Soules: She agreed that it is difficult and we are trying to think long term, and she will follow up with
the study team on how to follow up for more details on the sub-committee.
Commissioner Kohlstrand: She would like to have a viable transit system even if we have less congestion
by making it more attractive.
Commissioner Weitze: He asked how does Alameda promote working from home. There is talk about
incentives for local businesses such as financial incentives. Alameda should try to do it.
Chair Soules: She said that regionally, telecommuting is being mandated.
Public Comment for #6B
Christy Cannon: She said that she is on the Community Action for Sustainable Alameda, and she attends
Planning Board meeting, and thinks it would be wonderful to have regular joint meetings with the Planning
Board. It is tightly related, and is complicated. There are no easy ways to get people to talk about these
issues. Making a City plan forces us to think 20 years ahead. She worked on promoting AC Transit bus
line 19, and is excited to emphasize transit. It is a great conversation, and she appreciates the time taken by
commissioners and staff.
6C. Public Works 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan Draft Recommendations
Scott Wikstrom, City Engineer and Robert Vance, Supervising Civil Engineer gave a presentation. The
staff report and attachments can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4672976&GUID=A2011A80-1F87-401F-9C00-
73E3A5007B64&Options=&Search=
Commissioner Comments and Discussion for #6C
Commissioner Kohlstrand: She asked for clarification on the numbers for the funded projects between $56
million and $39 million.
Staff Vance: The $56 million is the maintenance and the $39 million are the funded new infrastructure.
Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020
7",TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-10-28,8,"Commissioner Kohlstrand: She said that it is difficult to understand the funding and the process, and she
requested more input earlier than next Spring such as briefings on how it is coming along would be helpful.
The discussion on metrics is pertinent with limited funding, and is needed to have the most effective and
efficient use of public funds.
Chair Soules: She asked Commissioner Kohlstrand if it is a topic to fold into the General Plan subcommittee
study sessions.
Commissioner Kohlstrand: Yes, it would be helpful.
Chair Soules: She stated that Alameda has been extremely competitive with grants compared to the rest of
the region. It is a commendable track record. These projects have done the greatest good with the least
assets. We need to closely consider our regional partners, and how the projects impact the region. The
projects need to state the benefits such as showing the mode split quantitatively, and staff needs to factor
this analysis into the entire cost of the project. For equity, it is important to reduce barriers such as credit
card issues, language issues, etc. She appreciates that lens in Alameda, and would like for staff to do this
outreach to educate ourselves and transit users. Administratively, the commissioners will provide input to
staff through the subcommittee. More voices and louder voices are great at this stage.
Public Comment for #6C - none
7. Announcements / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow: Before COVID, the Bay Area was seeing increased use for water shuttles. Water taxis were
the 2009 solution, and he would like to know the status of the water shuttle program, especially the status
of the Alameda Landing payment for it. It should have been a yearly commitment. The General Plan
discussion needs to address the main problems similar to what the discussion stated.
8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes - October 28, 2020
8",TransportationCommission/2020-10-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-01-22,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes:
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
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:
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Gregory Morgado
Michele Bellows
Eric Schatmeier
Members Absent:
Sandy Wong
Thomas G. Bertken
Staff Present:
Staff Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Staff Patel, Public Works Transportation Engineer
Staff Haun, Public Works Director
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Commissioner Schatmeier mentioned that the AC Transit Board approved the fare changes and
he was unable to attend the board meeting to see if they reviewed the Commission's comments.
He then said fare changes would take effect in July 2014.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, stated that he was unable to attend the November Commission
meeting. He referred to the Alameda Point plan and saw too many streets that were coded to
have cycle tracks on the presentation map. He urged the Commission to review the budget to
make sure funds are spent wisely.
Staff Patel replied there was a presentation from the Planning Board and the plan has not gone to
the City Council for approval.
Commissioner Miley said that just because the map and routes are in the plan does not prevent
City staff and the Commission from looking at other options.",TransportationCommission/2014-01-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-01-22,2,"Page 2 of 7
Commissioner Bellows asked for clarification on whether the plan required complete
construction of the cycle tracks. If not, then we would put a hierarchy in place and figure out the
best use for the money.
4.
Consent Calendar
4A.
Transportation Commission and Planning Board Minutes:
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Commissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the meeting minutes.
Commissioner Bellows moved to approve the meeting minutes. Commissioner Miley seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
4B.
Transportation Commission Minutes:
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Staff Payne stated that she would carry the approval over to the next Transportation Commission
meeting.
4C.
Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Commissioner Miley asked if there was a completion date set for the Webster Smart Corridor
Project.
Staff Patel replied that the construction is done and the next step is integration. The Alameda
County Transportation Commission (ACTC) contractor installed Intelligent Transportation
System (ITS) elements along the project limits.
Commissioner Miley referred to the I-880 North at 23rd and 29th Avenue Interchange project and
requested that ACTC staff present any updates to the Commission for the next meeting.
Staff Patel said he requested ACTC to present their updates with the Transportation Commission
and City Council.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if a date was set for construction.
Staff Patel replied construction is set for sometime this summer. The public can obtain
information about the project on the Caltrans website. However, he said staff wants to find out
how ACTC intends to manage closures, traffic mitigation, and the coordination of other Bay
Area projects near the City.
Commissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the Quarterly Report.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the Quarterly Report. Commissioner Bellows seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.",TransportationCommission/2014-01-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-01-22,3,"Page 3 of 7
4D.
Transportation Priority List Update
Commissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the updated priority list.
Commissioner Bellows moved to approve the updated priority list. Commissioner Miley
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
5.
New Business
5A.
Shore Line Drive/Westline Drive Bikeway Project: Revised Eastern Section and
Parking Inventory
Staff Payne presented the update.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Bert Morgan, resident of Shore Line Drive, stated the City overlooked the inadequate number of
crosswalks for the neighborhood. He further explained that Grand Street and Westline Drive
have two crosswalks and towards Alameda South Shore Center there are two crosswalks. He felt
that many people cross midblock while cyclists and cars speed around them. He worried that the
plan represents a hazard because the traffic on Shore Line Drive is increasing, and there will be
more with the development of Alameda Point.
Joyce Larrick, resident of Shorepoint Court, said her cul-de-sac is across from Crown Memorial
Beach and there are over 800 residential units within the area. She stated that there is only one
crosswalk that goes over to the park and she is concerned with the lack of a crosswalk at
Westline Drive. Ultimately, she wants the City to focus on overall safety in the neighborhood.
Klaus Schniedergers, resident near Shore Line Drive, felt the side streets are difficult to exit with
a car or bicycle, and he wanted to make sure there is support to keep the area safe.
Bruce Kibby, local bicyclist, thought it would be a good idea to have a cycle track along Shore
Line Drive. Additionally, he felt City staff cleverly resolved the issues pertaining to pedestrian
safety, handicap parking and visibility. He approved the project.
Phyllis Klein commutes to school every day and travels along Shore Line Drive. She felt that
there is a lot of traffic on Shore Line Drive, and was concerned about the potential lack of
parking for residents in the evening.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, said he helped to
refine the Alameda Bike Plan in 1999. He explained that the current plan is much better than
what was first introduced by City staff. Moreover, he mentioned that Fernside Drive has
a
similar treatment, but carries 2-3 times as much traffic and Shore Line Drive is not meant to be a
commuter route for cars.",TransportationCommission/2014-01-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-01-22,4,"Page 4 of 7
Commissioner Morgado referred to Mr. Morgan's comments and said if a bicyclist runs a stop
sign they could be cited for a traffic violation. He asked Sergeant Simmons if the police could
focus on writing citations in the area.
Sergeant Simmons, Alameda Police Traffic Section Supervisor, said that it is an issue all over the
City and they are focusing on that issue citywide.
Commissioner Schatmeier referred to Mr. Spangler's comments on the plan and how it improved
due to public involvement. He felt that it was a better plan due to public input and he would like
to acknowledge that the process helped to produce those comments and the refinements to the
plan.
Commissioner Vargas applauded staff's work and the inclusion of a summary of changes to the
plan.
Commissioner Vargas requested a motion from the Commission.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
5B.
City of Alameda Paratransit Program Annual Review
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he reviewed the paratransit service performance graphs and there
is a huge upwards spike for taxi service in the first part of 2010-2011 fiscal years. He wanted to
know the reason for the spike.
Staff Payne replied that at the time the City did not provide a shuttle and the City did not have
restrictions on distance for the medical return taxi subsidy. The results showed users traveling
from different counties for appointments. The City sought to constrain the costs while
maintaining service. Staff Payne stated that the current subsidy only allows users to travel within
Alameda County and users receive only five vouchers per month.
Commissioner Schatmeier explained that the cost control narrative says that shuttles are the most
efficient way to provide service, but the taxi service is $5 per trip, which is a third of the cost of
the shuttle trips. He felt that it makes sense to preserve the $5 per trip cost and to encourage more
taxi trips. He thought that this would be the best option because taxi service is available seven
days a week and the shuttle service is only available three days a week. Thus, if you want to
provide the most service then provide the option with the greatest availability to people.
Staff Payne replied that the goal of the shuttle service was to have the service implemented over
time with demand increasing as well and then the operating costs would reduce.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he approved of paratransit service, but he wanted the
service to be meaningful and accessible. He viewed the best passenger count documented was",TransportationCommission/2014-01-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-01-22,5,"Page 5 of 7
July 2012. When he heard the plan that asked for a budget increase, he wanted to make sure
staff reviewed where access was needed and where the greatest number of people accessed the
service. Ultimately, he urged the Commission to be vigilant about how the money is spent and
review with a critical eye. Additionally, he was interested in erecting a route map around the
shuttle stops.
Staff Payne replied that staff will purchase schedule holders for the stops. She wanted to know if
Commissioner Schatmeier approved the schedule holders along with requesting a route map.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied yes.
Commissioner Miley said the Oakland Broadway Shuttle displays their route map clearly.
Additionally, he does not have major issues with the increase to the program, but he is concerned
with the financial impact. Specifically, he was concerned with implementing service and then
eventually having to cut it back. He asked staff about the timeline for service increases and their
plan once they have to cut back on services.
Staff Payne said the infusion of funds was from a one-time capital project fix such as benches
and bus stop schedule holders. It is an increase to the budget this one time and taken care of the
next fiscal year. She explained the increase in funds would increase the number of vouchers for
the subsidized taxi programs. If the funds are used, staff would revert back to the number of
vouchers they usually give. However, she felt a public forum would be needed to review the
reduction of services.
Commissioner Miley asked Staff Payne if the decrease in funds would be from the amount that it
is increasing for this year.
Staff Payne said every year there is a base budget amount of around $150,000 for the next fiscal
year. When adding together the costs of the paratransit program, they would have to dip into the
program's reserve to pay for the costs. They were advised to dip into the reserve to not lose the
money they initially received.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if the reserve was held by ACTC.
Staff Payne replied yes, through ACTC from Measure B funds.
Commissioner Miley asked if the City and East Bay Paratransit (EBP) meet to discuss issues or
best practices.
Staff Payne replied when they survey passengers, they ask questions pertaining to the City
program and EBP. She said after the survey results are reported, they pass the information along
to EBP. Moreover, she said Alameda's subsidized taxi and shuttle program help to close the gap
for EBP service because the EBP service requires passengers to reserve 24 hours ahead of time.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the survey includes all three of the services that are
provided in Alameda. He also wanted to know if there are questions asking about service",TransportationCommission/2014-01-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-01-22,6,"Page 6 of 7
preference especially since services could increase or decrease in the future.
Staff Payne replied that the survey asks questions about all the paratransit services yet there are
no questions about service preference, which could be a question added in the future.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if there is a difference with wheelchair accommodations
between taxis and shuttles.
Staff Payne replied that the shuttle has two wheelchair spaces and not all taxis have wheelchair
access. The one issue they have is that most taxis have a separate special rate for wheelchairs,
while one taxi company (Welcome) installed a taxi meter onto their wheelchair van.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if many of the users leave from senior care centers to doctor
visits.
Staff Payne referred to Figure 2 and said a total of 35 trips per month are taken from medical
appointments to home.
Commissioner Miley asked staff where the majority of passengers are traveling.
Staff Payne replied they tend to be from Mastick Senior Center, Trader Joe's Shopping Center
and residents of group homes.
Commissioner Vargas requested a motion from the Commission.
Commissioner Vargas moved to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
6.
Staff Communications
6A.
Staff Communications
Staff Payne replied that the next Commission meeting will take place on Wednesday, March 26,
2014 and the following items would be discussed:
Staff from the Water Emergency Transportation Authority is expected to attend the
meeting.
Park Street Pedestrian Safety Project
Commissioner Miley asked staff to invite ACTC to the next meeting.
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Jim Strehlow commended the City's Public Works Department because they swiftly cleaned the
main corridors and side streets after a fierce windstorm in December.",TransportationCommission/2014-01-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-01-22,7,"Page 7 of 7
Commissioner Miley commended the City's Public Works Department and the Police
Department for their work in December as well.
Commissioner Vargas welcomed the new Public Works Director Bob Haun.
Bob Haun, Public Works Director, said they responded to the wind storm at 7:30 pm that night
and worked straight through until 4:30 am the next day. He commended all the staff for their
efforts in clearing the debris.
Commissioner Vargas asked Bob Haun about the City's water conservation efforts.
Bob Haun replied that they are working on a report for the City Council due February 4th and
they plan to make a 20% reduction of water use that might result in some brown turf areas
around town.
Jon Spangler stated that he is a member of the BART Bicycle Task Force representing Alameda
County. He said on October 21, 2013 BART implemented new bike rules that allow bicycles on
all trains in all directions with the exception of the first three cars during commute hours and the
first car during all hours. He explained that the policy is successful so far and all indications look
good. In the meantime, BART's demonstration cars will arrive this year and there is a road show
schedule available on the BART website.
8.
Adjournment
8:10 pm",TransportationCommission/2014-01-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-05-28,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes:
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Commissioner Jesus Vargas called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Michele Bellows
Eric Schatmeier
Members Absent:
Thomas G. Bertken
Gregory Morgado
Staff Present:
Alex Nguyen, Assistant City Manager
Liam Garland, Administrative Services Manager
Virendra Patel, Transportation Engineer
Alan Ta, Assistant Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
Commissioner Vargas explained that only Item 4B could be moved due to lack of quorum for
Items 4A, 4C and 4D. Staff Patel stated that staff recommended moving Item 5A to a future
meeting to allow for more review time.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Commissioner Schatmeier announced a public hearing for the San Francisco Bay Ferry's fare
program FY 2015-2020. The agency will hold a hearing on Tuesday, June 3 at the Alameda
Main Library.",TransportationCommission/2014-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-05-28,2,"Page 2 of 6
4.
Consent Calendar
4A.
Meeting Minutes - Special Meeting - Wednesday, December 11, 2013
4B.
Meeting Minutes - Wednesday, January 22, 2014
4C.
Meeting Minutes - March 26, 2014
4D. Meeting Minutes - Special Meeting - April 23, 2014
Commissioner Miley moved to approve Item 4B of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Bellows
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.
5.
New Business
5A. Approve Park Street Pedestrian Safety Project
Staff Patel stated that the consultant was waiting to receive the evaluation for the northwest
corner of Park Street at Lincoln Avenue in terms of radius and bulb out clearance. The final
document was still in draft form.
Commissioner Vargas verified with staff that the Commission would review the remaining
intersection.
Staff Patel said the intersections of Park Street and Buena Vista Avenue and Park Street and
Pacific Avenue were approved by the Commission. The Commission directed staff to look at the
northwest corner of Park Street at Lincoln Avenue and return to a later meeting for approval.
5B. Approve Parking Improvement for the Park Street and Webster Street Shopping Districts
Staff Garland and Staff Ta presented the report.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Rob Ratto, Executive Director of the Park Street Business Association, said the association was
involved with this process and they are enthusiastic about the proposed signage. Furthermore, he
said people generally complain about having to carry lots of change and they are enthusiastic
about using their credit cards to pay for parking.
Commissioner Schatmeier said when looking at the demand coding within the parking demand
maps, they seem to be all over the map. He noted that Park Street could be coded Green, Yellow
or Red at similar times of any given weekday and he struggled to find a pattern that could
establish an appropriate pricing strategy.
Staff Garland replied staff reviewed two Bay Area pricing strategies that could work in
Alameda. The first strategy is based on San Francisco's model where there are three prices",TransportationCommission/2014-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-05-28,3,"Page 3 of 6
within a day for every block and the final pricing pattern was a result of changes made within
two years. The second strategy is based on Berkeley's model where the demand for parking is
within the downtown. Therefore, two zones exist where higher priced parking would be within
the core and then further away the parking rates are lower.
Commissioner Schatmeier said staff did not mention a parking revenue strategy for the City. He
felt since there was no proposed parking rate increase on the horizon and the parking strategy's
goal is to have two open spaces on each block, then how would that impact the parking revenue.
Staff Garland replied their goal is not to increase parking revenue. For example, in San
Francisco there is an incentive to lowering rates on the lower demand blocks to encourage people
to park there. He felt there was no revenue guarantee. He said when motorists use credit cards
at the smart meters, they may tend to max out the meter's time, which could increase revenue.
Commissioner Schatmeier told staff that those surveyed about their parking behavior may not act
on their preference, especially after the policy is applied.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if motorists could view the cheaper parking meters' locations
through signage or a map.
Staff Garland replied based on the San Francisco model motorists cannot tell.
Commissioner Bellows felt that would not work for people and she understood the parking
garage rates being cheaper, but the on-street rate changes seemed peculiar to her. Also, she
noticed the daytime (7 am to 9 am) parking demand maps would barely receive demand since
most businesses are closed. Therefore, she felt the two open spaces per block concept during
that time period was not relevant.
Staff Garland said that staff would measure the progress of the goal by measuring parking
demand three hours of the day. Also, he felt based on the total number of blocks in the area,
there would ultimately be a percentage of blocks coded Red and staff would want to improve
those blocks.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if their aim was to have two open spaces available per day,
per hour, or per period of monitoring.
Staff Garland replied the parking blocks coded Yellow are about two open spaces per block and
staff would like to turn all Red blocks to Yellow blocks. He mentioned that the collection of
data from 7-9 am was a controlled data set to see when those areas are not busy.
Staff Ta replied on Wednesdays during one of the busiest parking demand periods, Webster
Street is coded Yellow, so we are half way there. He also said the parking lot is coded Green.
Commissioner Miley stated that he would be interested in seeing increased parking rates, but he
understood the phased approach. He commended staff for taking a comprehensive look.
Commissioner Vargas said the idea of electronic signage to guide motorists makes sense. He",TransportationCommission/2014-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-05-28,4,"Page 4 of 6
noted that having this information accessible on a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) for
passengers to guide the drivers to the parking spaces would be helpful. He also requested that
staff come before the Commission at a later time to discuss the goals and overall smart meter
policy based on input from the public and consultants.
Staff Garland replied staff would come back to the Commission and the City Council before
April 1 of 2015 to say whether the pilot program has worked.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff how many smart meters would be installed on Webster Street
and how many would be installed on Park Street.
Staff Ta replied 16 to 18 smart meters on each street, respectively.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that there is a lot of free parking within proximity of Park
Street. He noted that Broadway and Santa Clara Avenue have available spaces and are close to
Park Street. Any decision affecting the parking rates and policies could be influenced by the
proximity of free parking.
Staff Garland replied staff would review the next round of maps to see where people park away
from Park or Webster Streets.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if that is something they could look at as part of the pilot.
Staff Ta replied they would collect the data.
Commissioner Schatmeier told staff that he would like to see the maps displaying parking
demand for metered spaces versus parking demand for free spaces.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded the motion. The motion received 3 votes with 1 abstention. A lack of quorum on this
motion prohibits it from being approved.
5C. Review AC Transit Line W
Staff Payne provided introductory comments and introduced Becca Homa, Planner at AC
Transit.
Becca Homa presented the item.
Commissioner Schatmeier said the staff report discussed the difference of costs to run a Motor
Coach Industry bus (MCI) versus other buses. He noticed that there is a significant difference in
costs and when using MCI buses. Also, he saw Lines W and OX using MCIs and the conversion
contemplated should bear the benefit and the frequency that would reduce overcrowding.
Becca Homa said if staff added another trip to increase the frequency, they would look at the
highest number of standees. For example, they reviewed Lines C and F and the number of
standees was in the 50 to 60 percent range. Ultimately, staff's goal is to balance their resources",TransportationCommission/2014-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-05-28,5,"Page 5 of 6
accordingly. Furthermore, she stated that Line W received a couple of additional bus runs but at
this point they have not seen the cost savings yet to add more trips.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if there was data on the local trips received on the Line W.
Staff Payne replied 4 percent of the total trips are local.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the number of local trips varied by morning and
evening.
Becca Homa replied she cannot speak of the morning versus evening, but she heard the demand
for school trips in the morning tend to be high.
Commissioner Schatmeier said that was precisely what happened with the Line OX when they
discontinued local passengers in the evening when it was not a problem. Yet, he said when local
trips were restored it was restored in the evening without disruption. Staff should evaluate the
problems and find out if they occur during the day or evening before discontinuing local
passengers.
Becca Homa said she will take the feedback to staff. She felt some of the peak hours in the
evening are still at capacity, but she will analyze the trip patterns and demand.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied the problem is not the issue with capacity, but with the local
demand needed for Line W. He went on to say if there was demand in the morning for students
but not in the evening, then the agency should be more selective.
5D. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff about the application status for electronic bicycle lockers.
Staff Payne replied the application status is still unknown, but the Air District was evaluating it
this week.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated he did not see the paratransit shuttle mentioned in the report.
Staff Payne replied omitting the paratransit shuttle was an oversight and she would add the
shuttle to the list under transit plan.
Commissioner Vargas stated that on page 4 of the report one of the projects (I-880 23rd and 29th
Avenue project) was briefed with the Commission. However, he was not sure if the Commission
requested a briefing on the Broadway/Jackson multimodal project because that may be of interest
to other Commissioners.
6.
Staff Communications",TransportationCommission/2014-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-05-28,6,"Page 6 of 6
6.A.
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
- The next Commission meeting will be Wednesday, July 30th
-
Water Emergency Transportation Authority Parking Issues and Route Changes
- Approve Park Street Pedestrian Safety Project
- Potential review of the pedestrian safety program
- Broadway/Jackson multimodal project
Commissioner Vargas acknowledged the public petitions presented about areas of concern such
as safety items. Staff is moving those items to the appropriate channels. He stated that if a
Commissioner would like to see those items presented at the next meeting, then a request would
be made at this time and then addressed during the agenda draft development meeting.
Commissioner Bellows requested that staff provide a status on the I-880/29th Avenue/23rd
Avenue Interchange Improvement Project.
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, asked the Commission to request a thorough traffic study and
fact finding document for Alameda Point. He explained that the current Alameda Point traffic
study analyzed Webster Street and the needs for Alameda Point only. However, he suggested a
broader study of all the access ways in and out of Alameda.
8.
Adjournment
8:10 pm",TransportationCommission/2014-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-02-22,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 22, 2006
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
John Knox White
Pattianne Parker
Michael Krueger
Jeff Knoth
Robert McFarland
Absent:
Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier
Staff Present:
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works
Andrew Thomas, Planning
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Parker moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Knoth seconded the
motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 4 (Abstained - McFarland).
Commissioner Parker stated that there were items discussed at the meeting that were not
reflected in the minutes, and asked if the Chair could maintain a record of items that require
responses from staff.
Chair Knox White said he would discuss this with Staff Hawkins.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
Staff Bergman suggested the Staff Communications be moved up before the Northern Waterfront
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), so that Andrew Thomas from the Planning
Department could be present.
Chair Knox White agreed.
4.
COMMISSION COMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White mentioned that the only thing not on the agenda was the Pedestrian Master
Plan Subcommittee.
1",TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-02-22,2,"Commissioner Knoth said that he and Commissioner Krueger met with Staff Bergman and
reviewed the comments from the last Task Force meeting, discussed the draft policies, and
reviewed the schedule. A set date for the next task force has not been established yet.
Chair Knox White mentioned that the ILC's next meeting is March 22nd 10:00 a.m. at AC Transit.
Commissioner Parker said that she attended a recent Catellus presentation about the proposed
Alameda Landing Development. She requested that the TC be given a brief presentation or
white paper on transportation projects related to this project, which may also affect the Northern
Waterfront project. This would help the Commission to understand what has been approved,
what phases the projects are in, and how they fit together. Specifically, she referred to the
construction of the Clement extension, Tinker Avenue, and Mitchell Mosley Avenue (note: most
recent plans have Mitchell connecting directly with Main Street, not joining with Mosley).
Chair Knox White asked when the TC is supposed to be briefed on the Alameda Landing project.
Commissioner Parker said that it is her understanding that it is scheduled for April, following the
Planning Board workshop on April 10.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Bergman presented information on the following items:
A Request for Qualifications for on-call contracts has been sent out. It covered the range
of Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering activities including the completion of
the Multimodal Circulation Plan.
A final public meeting for the Park Street Triangle project was held on February 8th in the
City of Oakland.
The City Attorney's office had forwarded AB1234 to the Commission. Staff Bergman
noted that it is not relevant to the Commission at this time, as it only pertains to
Commission members that receive compensation for Commission related activities.
The Bus Shelter Survey was posted on the City's web site the week of February 20th and
also fliers were put up at the 22 bus shelters for residents to take. About 100 responses
were received in the first week. The fliers are scheduled to remain at the bus shelters
until the end of February.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
None
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7a.
Northern Waterfront Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Staff Bergman said that Andrew Thomas from the Planning Department hopefully could stop in
and answer Commission questions following another meeting he was attending. The TC had
2",TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-02-22,3,"reviewed and provided some comments to the General Plan Amendment in 2004. A sub-
committee was formed and put together for comments. The EIR report has just been issued and
will be available thru the end of March for comments. The packet included the Transportation
and Circulation sector project description based on the General Plan Amendment that was
circulated before. None of the comments have been incorporated as to this date. Once the EIR
is finalized it will be forwarded to the Planning Board and Council. The TC members can
review the comments, which they can modify.
Chair Knox White said that the members would like to review those comments.
Commissioner Parker had a question. In the Project Description, Page 7, there is a discussion of
scattered residential properties. She expressed concern that some of these properties might block
a future transit corridor.
Chair Knox White said that it should be on the next meeting for discussion.
Commissioner Parker said that the DEIR, Transportation and Circulation deal with impact fees.
Some new developments have had their impact fees waived or reduced. Wants to make sure the
DEIR is based upon assessment of impact fees to stand firm on its policy. She also stated that
the DEIR indicates that the intersection of Clement and Park will be very congested in 2010 and
2025 whether the Northern Waterfront project is approved or not.
Chair Knox White responded that on Page IV.E-27, the baseline for 2025 with no project is Level
Of Service B. Commissioner Parker responded that the text on Page IV.E-28 is not consistent
with that. She noted that the report says ""the impact of the Clement extension on the intersection
of Park and Clement in 2025 is determined to be significant and unavoidable.""
Commissioner Krueger noted that on page 10, Line 19 runs on weekdays but also on weekends.
Regarding the transit discussion on page 18, he asked if there is sufficient right of way for a
future transit corridor.
Staff Bergman responded that cross-sections were developed as part of the Cross Alameda Trail
Feasibility Study, which illustrate how vehicles, bicycle facilities, and a rail corridor could be
accommodated. He indicated that along Clement Avenue the cross-sections located the rail
corridor within the roadway.
Chair Knox White stated that he was not aware of this, and asked that the cross-sections be
shared with the Commission for discussion at the March meeting.
Commissioner Krueger noted that there were originally three rail corridors through the Northern
Waterfront area, and that there were a number of houses located on them. He asked how the
development could have been approved when this area had been identified by the City as a future
rail corridor.
Commissioner Parker noted that it is has been recommended by several Boards and
Commissions that they reserve a continuous transit right of way.
3",TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-02-22,4,"Commissioner Krueger noted that this seems to be a pattern.
Staff Bergman said that the curb-to-curb cross-section for the section of Clement Avenue in
Marina Cove is 48 feet, the same as it is east of Grand.
Commissioner Parker noted that at previous meetings, residents of Buena Vista Avenue had
expressed their opposition to introducing rail service on the street.
Chair Knox White asked if the transit corridor would be located along the street, and Staff
Bergman responded that it would. Chair Knox White asked that the TC be given an explanation
of the right of way and how it changes along the corridor at the next meeting.
Commissioner McFarland stated that the data on page IV.E-6, Roadway Operations, include
what seem like very high vehicle capacity numbers for the Posey/Webster Tubes. He noted that
freeway lanes accommodate just over 2,000, and this is for facilities that are 12 feet wide with
shy distance.
Chair Knox White asked that at the March meeting that staff present the assumptions underlying
the peak hour capacity numbers for the Tubes.
Commissioner Parker wanted to know how ""peak hour"" is defined.
Staff Bergman said that it was not a specified hours based on what the count was but was the
highest hour on the day it was collected.
Commissioner Parker asked if the Commission could look at the trend of traffic throughout the
day instead of just the peak hour. This way the Commission could see how long the peak lasts.
Chair Knox White had a questions regarding Section 4, page 5. He noted that the Class II bike
lanes on Tilden Way exist on only some of the roadway. On page 17 the Northern Waterfront
Trip Distribution has 11% for trips coming from the south to Alameda and 7% trips going south
from Alameda. He stated that in the Transit Plan and at the Alameda Point Preliminary
Development Concept public meeting, the number used was 40%. He asked for clarification on
which number is correct.
Staff Bergman said that at least part of the discrepancy is due to the 40% being a percentage of
off-island trips, while the 11% is the percentage of all trips generated by the project. A
significant number of trips are expected to begin and end in Alameda.
Chair Knox White had a question on Page 17, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. He stated that
the TC had indicated during the discussion of the theater project that it would like to see
Negative Declarations and EIRs address bicycle and pedestrian usability and access as one of the
significance criteria.
4",TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-02-22,5,"Chair Knox White had a question on Page 19, Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. It states that
the removal of the truck route from Buena Vista will improve bicycle and pedestrian safety on
Buena Vista, but does not mention that the trucks are moving to Clement where the bicycle lanes
will be. The EIR should note this.
Chair Knox White had a question on page 22, Construction Traffic. It talks about re-routing of
automobiles, bicycles, buses and emergency vehicles. He suggested that it should read that buses
should only be rerouted as last resort to avoid confusion among riders. He asked if the items
listed on Page 24 under the TSM/TDM Plan #7 are already in a City plan, or if they are being
recommended for inclusion.
Staff Bergman responded that they are in an existing plan.
Chair Knox White stated that the DEIR should indicate that the elimination of the bike lanes on
Atlantic and redirecting the bicyclists onto a trail through the former rail yard would be a
hardship to bicyclists, as it would hinder bicycle access to, from, and within Marina Village. He
also expressed concern that the language is overly aggressive in suggesting the conversion of
Atlantic into a four-lane street. He asked staff to provide information on the level of service
along four-lane streets throughout the City during their peak hour of usage.
Staff Bergman responded that in some locations there may be excess capacity in anticipation of
future development.
Commissioner Krueger agreed with Chair Knox White: 's concern, and stated that he supported the
off-road path, but that it should not be considered a substitute for the bike lanes.
Chair Knox White asked how important the need is for additional capacity at this location. He
suggested that it may be worthwhile to allow the street to be congested for a short period of time
in order to maintain the bicycle facilities.
Commissioner Parker suggested that rather than specifying the number of lanes, that the
Commission could recommend a consistent width across the Island.
Chair Knox White expressed concern about the tendency to create more four-lane roads as part of
new projects, as this will ultimately only increase the traffic volumes.
Commissioner Krueger questioned whether it makes sense, if the Tube is the primary bottleneck,
to increase capacity along Atlantic to get to the Tube.
5",TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-02-22,6,"Commissioner Knoth moved that the TC is concerned with the consistency of the DEIR
recommendations with the wording 4.1.C of the 1990 General Plan, ""Do not increase through-
traffic capacity on the Main Island"". Commissioner Krueger seconded. Motion carried by a
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Commissioner Krueger moved that the TC would like the language clarified to point out that
although desirable pedestrian and bicycle access through the belt line is not a substitute for
pedestrian and bicycle access on Atlantic. Commissioner Parker seconded. Motion carried by
a unanimous voice vote - 5.
Commissioner Parker moved that the TC recommends that the Tilden-Clement connection is
extremely important to assure the success of the development of the Northern Waterfront under
this GPA. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5.
Commissioner Krueger noticed that there was a mentioned on page 30 of using developer fees on
Broadway/5th Street and Jackson, but no mention of using them to pay for the extension of
Clement for Tilden.
Staff Thomas said that it's not the additional traffic generated by the redevelopment of the
Northern Waterfront. The issue is that much of the traffic would be shifted from other streets, so
the development cannot be required to pay for the improvements. He noted that all new
development in Alameda pays Citywide Development Fees (CDF). The impact fees are directed
to improvements at specific locations. Public Works is doing an update of the Citywide Fees to
determine the most important projects to be funded.
Staff Thomas stated that since the funds are not currently in place yet for the Clement-to-Tilder
connection, the DEIR recommends that it be included in the General Plan.
Commissioner Krueger moved that given the importance of the Tilden/Clement
connection, the TC recommends to the City Council to direct staff to prioritize the
connection and to identify the funding to make it happen. Commissioner Parker
seconded. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5.
Chair Knox White asked for the GPA to come back to the TC in March in order to look review
their previous comments on the General Plan Amendment.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2006/0306/022206 tc minutes-FINAL.doc
6",TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-10-22,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2008
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Jane Lee
Robert McFarland (arrived after Roll Call)
Kathy Moehring
Eric Schatmeier
Srikant Subramaniam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
September 24, 2008
Commissioner Moehring moved approval of the minutes for the September 24, 2008,
meeting and minutes as presented. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion.
Motion passed 6-0.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Pedestrian Plan
b.
Bicycle Plan Update Group
c.
Alameda Point Advisory Task Force
Chair Knox White noted that none of the task forces had met since the last meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
None.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
1",TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-10-22,2,"7A.
Review of SunCal Company's Redevelopment Concept Plan for Alameda Point
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, presented the SunCal Preliminary
Redevelopment Concept for Alameda Point, with a focus on its transportation strategy.
He noted that the document was an important milestone in the redevelopment process for
Alameda Point, and was the first major submittal by the SunCal Companies that was
intended to lead to a final plan for Alameda Point, which would then lead to Alameda
Point's actual redevelopment. He detailed the background of this item, and noted that the
plan was submitted on September 19, 2008, and that City staff was reviewing the plan,
concurrently with the Alameda community and the Alameda boards and commissions.
Weekly meetings have been held with those boards and commissions, focusing on
various aspects of the plan. Once comments have been received from all boards and
commissions, staff will present all the comments to City Council on November 5, 2008,
sitting as the ARRA. He added that the Draft Master Plan will be submitted to the City by
December 19, 2008. Staff believed the transportation issue was probably the most
difficult and significant issue to tackle for Alameda Point, which was an extremely
complex development. Staff was very concerned that SunCal put together a strong
transportation plan to complement the land use plan. Staff believed it was very important
to have a transportation strategy that can actually be implemented. He noted that in
addition to Pat Kelleher, SunCal Companies was also represented by Nick Kosla and Sara
Chavez.
Mr. Pat Kelleher, SunCal Companies, noted that this was a very challenging site for a
number of different reasons, and added that understanding the physical site constraints
was critical to understanding how Alameda Point could be developed. He noted that one
of the constraints was the PDC floodplain, which was assumed during the PDC process.
He displayed a PowerPoint presentation. He noted that one critical item was determining
whether or not the finished floor levels of the historic buildings would be out of the flood
plain. They did not believe it would be feasible to fill between six to ten feet of dirt
around the buildings. He noted that a significant portion of the finished floor levels was
above the floodplain. He noted that the environmental conditions had not changed from
the PDC, and that the environmental cleanup issues were a current concern. He described
the presence of the young bay mud, which was subject to differential settlement issues,
and loosely consolidated sand on the side closest to the marina and seaplane lagoon
hangars were subject to liquefaction.
Mr. Kelleher noted that Peter Calthorpe, the urban planner, had four guiding principles:
diversity and balance in the project; human and pedestrian scale; conservation and
restoration; and connections and interdependence. He noted that there had been an
extensive community planning process, and that three large workshops had been held,
attended by approximately 700 people. He added that they had done considerable polling,
and that many comment cards had been received. He described the proposed affordable
housing units, and noted that connectivity within the site was critical. He displayed the
layout for four soccer fields, as well as football and lacrosse fields, and four baseball
fields. He noted that diverse housing opportunities would be important to the project's
2",TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-10-22,3,"success, such as single-family homes, townhomes, live-work, multifamily tuck-under,
senior housing, workforce housing, commercial development, and mixed use retail. He
noted that a diverse housing mix enables more flexible and effective reaction to a
changing marketplace.
Mr. Matthew Ridgway, Fehr & Peers, noted that Megan Mitman's name should be on the
slide as well, due to her significant contribution to this work in close coordination with
the City. He augmented Mr. Thomas' comments on the contractual arrangement on this
project. He noted that while SunCal provided the funding, Fehr and Peers' contract was
with the City of Alameda. He displayed a series of slides illustrating present and future
auto congestion, which they anticipated would become worse with or without the
Alameda Point development. He noted that they encouraged people to use alternate
transportation modes as much as possible. He noted that there was no draw on the
General Fund, and that the project was at least fiscally neutral.
Mr. Ridgway detailed the six guiding principles of this project:
1. Attract eco-minded residents and tenants. All residents and businesses will pay for
an ecopass program, whether they use it or not;
2. Create a self-sufficient community, with shopping, work, child care, educational
(elementary school) and recreational opportunities on-site;
3. Provide the best transportation services and facilities in the city, with a dedicated
shuttle to connect to the 12th Street BART in Oakland in the initial phase. A Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) system with two routes (between Alameda Point and 12th
Street BART, as well as to the Fruitvale BART station) will be implemented.
He noted that the proposed addition of the new ferry terminal at the seaplane
lagoon would enhance ferry operations. He noted that the Transportation
Coordinator would host regular transportation fairs and organize rideshare
matching. He detailed the route and operations of the dedicated shuttle line, and
added that a new shuttle would augment the 63 route. He estimated that the costs
for the overall transit improvements would be between $35-50 million.
4. Provide Island-wide benefits for the City. He noted that reduction in auto use
must be implemented to free up the capacity for the additional travel associated
with the development of Alameda Point. He noted that it was expected that there
would be a 2-4% reduction in motor vehicle trips, and a significant increase in
infrastructure to accomplish that goal. The BRT system would be an addition to
the transit choices. The bikeway system would provide an additional benefit, and
that a trail facility would be extended along the former Alameda Belt Line
corridor along the length of the Island. The $5-7 million cost would be built into
the development pro forma. The system would provide additional travel and
recreational opportunities, as well as travel to the Ferry Terminal.
3",TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-10-22,4,"5.
Limit vehicle trips to and from Alameda, and the inclusion of a car and bike share
program. The cost of parking would be unbundled from the cost of purchasing the
residential units. The second parking space would cost incrementally more than
the first space, and ride-share and alternative fuel vehicles would have the
opportunity to have premium on- and off-street parking. As little parking as
practical would be provided, and it would be managed as best as possible to
obtain the highest and best use of it.
6.
Implementation and monitoring of the more successful programs by an on-site
transportation manager.
Mr. Ridgway displayed each phase of the proposed project and described the high points
of each phase.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he would be concerned if the proposed BRT station
west of Main Street were to be split, and that there could be a conflict between having the
station or maintaining the large landscaped area at that location. Mr. Ridgway replied that
they would examine that issue in detail.
Commissioner McFarland noted that page 106 discussed the reduction of commercial
trips by 30%, and residential trips by 10%. He inquired how the percentage was
measured. Mr. Ridgway replied it was based on anticipated peak hour trips.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Moehring regarding the guaranteed ride
home, Mr. Ridgway replied that it would enable people to feel comfortable using transit,
and that it would probably entail a contract with a taxi company. It would allow transit
users to be reimbursed for a taxi ride home for unanticipated trips home.
Commissioner Moehring requested clarification of the additional cost of a second vehicle,
and whether an alternative fuel vehicle would receive a discount. Mr. Ridgway noted that
they were more concerned about congestion than fuel type.
Commissioner Krueger inquired about the statement on the shuttle on page 109,
specifically that it would operate every 10 to 15 minutes. He inquired whether it was for
the peak commute, or throughout the day. Mr. Ridgway replied that he did not have the
information at hand.
Commissioner Krueger noted that page 199 addressed the market-based fees for street
parking, and inquired about the management for lot capacity for the market-based off-
street solution. Mr. Ridgway noted that they made assumptions about the parking revenue
consistent with their operating revenue assumptions. He noted that they would want to
encourage people to use the Ferry Island-wide. Commissioner Krueger liked the market-
based approach, and suggested that if the parking lot was empty, the fee should be cut.
However, if the parking lot was above 85% full, it would be possible to charge a higher
fee without discouraging anybody.
4",TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-10-22,5,"Staff Thomas noted that staff intended to bring the Transportation Element before the
Planning Board on November 24, 2008, for the final recommendation to the City Council
for their hearing in early January, 2009.
Commissioner Lee expressed concern about school budgeting which can cause student
diversion from Ruby Bridges to Bay Farm Elementary School because of classes at
capacity. In terms of transportation, she believed that would be a nightmare. She believed
the plan was innovative, and liked the idea of the EcoPass.
Commissioner Moehring requested that with respect to the intersections at Webster
Street, that the Business District should be a part of discussions because of the impact on
the Business District. She noted that traffic turning onto Webster was a concern to her.
Open public hearing.
Mr. Stuart Ricard expressed concern about the Tubes, and inquired about the number of
trips in the Tube with and without the mitigations and the project.
Ms. Mitman noted that the preliminary traffic numbers in the Tube with the project would
be 2,000 vehicles in the morning, about 1,300 inbound, and 750 outbound; about 1,960
vehicles would use the Tube in the afternoon, with 790 inbound and 1,200 outbound. She
noted that was slightly higher than the PDC numbers, and that the numbers reflected full
buildout, but without the 2% islandwide credit. She further described the numbers at Mr.
Ricard's request.
Mr. Ricard expressed concern about locating retail at the outer portions of the Island, and
believed it would be better to have it more centrally located. He was also concerned about
impact on the Tube, and inquired about the number of units west of Grand Street. Mr.
Ricard stated that this was the time to make a decision about this development, and not
let it get so big that it cannot be affected. He believed there were huge benefits to this
project, but was also concerned about the impact on the Tube.
Mr. Bill Smith expressed concern about congestion in the Tube, and noted that the
recumbent bicycle he has developed will also be available as a free public transit vehicle.
He supported public/private peer-to-peer financing such as that utilized with solar energy.
Close public hearing.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that this document was an exciting item, and believed
that it was essential for the development to provide alternatives for people from Day 1.
He believed this kind of strategy was important in attracting people to such a
development. He understood that details about headways were still forthcoming, and this
development would make it possible for people to travel the Island without using an
automobile. He discussed the last round of service cuts at AC Transit, and noted that the
63 had been a catch-all line. He believed that because the 63 was supposed to do
everything, it didn't do anything very well. He suggested running the 63 on 15-minute
5",TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-10-22,6,"headways, rather than 30-minute headways. He would like the 63 to be rethought in a
significant manner.
Commissioner Moehring appreciated the innovation, creativity and diversity in this plan,
and especially appreciated SunCal's flexibility in working with the community.
Commissioner Krueger noted that on page 57, the intersection of Atlantic and Orion was
very good, but that the potential BRT station planning needed to be integrated into the
site design, because the station would be a potential focal point. He noted that Fruitvale
was an example of how bad planning of a station can ruin an otherwise great
development. He would like to avoid having a split station. He noted that on page 108,
there was a typo in the Mode Choice section, stating that residents would have a 10-mile
walk to the ferry, and that it should read ""10-minute"" walk to the ferry. He noted that on
page 109, the shuttle frequency should be clarified. He believed that the parking lots at
the transit station should be managed in a market-driven way, the same as the street
parking.
Chair Knox White was happy to see that the personal rapid transit (PRT) was
underplayed, and while the technology would become developed in the future, he did not
believe it was the right use for this development. He noted that under Commercial, the
document identified three parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, which was 25% lower
than Alameda's current minimum. He believed the plan was a good one from a
transportation standpoint, and should be backed up by realistic data. He hoped the plan
could move forward in a timely manner.
No action was taken.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White noted that he had received an email about the new traffic signal at
Atlantic and Webster, stating that inbound cars turning right and west on Atlantic were
running the red light because they were used to the old configuration.
a.
Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study
Staff Khan noted that he was not present at the two public meetings that were held during
October, and that he had not received the feedback from the consultant. He would present
that information at the next meeting.
b.
Broadway/Jackson Update
Staff Khan noted that the project study report has been submitted to CalTrans, and that
they had not scheduled or budgeted the project study report (PSR). Staff was currently
working on incorporating the PSR.
c.
Monitoring of Oak Street/Central Avenue intersection
Staff Khan noted that he had originally planned to bring it to this meeting, but it was
delayed and will be brought at the November 12, 2009, meeting.
6",TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-10-22,7,"Chair Knox White inquired whether the changes were necessary, and he hoped the report
would indicated whether the traffic generated in that area would have caused the
concerns, particularly the traffic blockage on Park Street.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether traffic counts had been
conducted, Staff Khan replied that they were done.
Chair Knox White inquired about the results of the traffic counts, and how they
compared.
Staff Khan replied that staff used the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) analysis,
and that the information would be brought forward at a later date. Generally, staff found
the impact to be much less than what was cited in the MND.
d.
Upcoming development-related traffic studies and plans
Staff Khan noted that staff would keep the Transportation Commission updated on further
SunCal updates.
e.
Future meeting agenda items
Staff Khan noted that the Final EIR comments for the Transportation Master Plan would
be brought forward on the November 12, 2009, meeting or later in November in a joint
meeting with the Planning Board.
Staff Khan noted that the parking study for the Business District will be brought forward
either in November or December.
Commissioner McFarland noted that he drove to work from High Street to I-880, and
noticed a lot of activity on the road by the Shell station in Oakland. He inquired about the
status of the I-880 widening work, and noticed a lot of utility and drainage work. Staff
Khan replied that the plans were to start some of the work in 2009. He added that the
project would be coordinated with the County's work as well. He added that CalTrans
planned to do most of the work at night, without closing lanes during the day.
Staff Bergman noted that the Interagency Liaison Committee meeting had been held with
AC Transit, which had collected some data in September about the changes on Line 63,
and how they affected run times. Each proposed change at Alameda Point and near
Encinal High School was anticipated to gain about two minutes each.
Chair Knox White noted that Staff Bergman mentioned that the City did not receive the
grant to fund a long-range transit plan update. He believed that in terms of the casual
carpool issue, the City should be careful to prioritize things. He proposed that in
November or December, either staff or a Transportation Commission subcommittee
should be develop a scope of work for a long-range transit plan update.
7",TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-10-22,8,"Staff Bergman noted that Walk and Roll to School Day had been held earlier in the
month, and that he would report to the Transportation Commission on the participation
numbers once they become available. He noted that Alameda was very active in the
elementary and middle school participation.
Staff Bergman noted that both of the City's Safe Routes to School grant applications did
not receive funding.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the new bus stop work on Shoreline looked very good,
and was glad to see the paving taking place. He inquired whether the bus stop on
Versailles and Fernside had been red curbed. Commissioner McFarland replied that it
had been red curbed.
ADJOURN: 9:30 p.m.
 G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC/2008\111208\102208minutes-final.doc
8",TransportationCommission/2008-10-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-06-28,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
6/28/2006
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Jeff Knoth
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Pattianne Parker
Robb Ratto
Absent:
Eric Schatmeier
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Knoth moved approval of the May minutes. Commissioner McFarland
seconded. Motion approved unanimously, 4-0 (Commissioners Ratto and Parker did not
attend the May meeting and abstained).
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
Item 6B was moved up on the agenda. Commission Communications moved to end of
meeting.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS (moved)
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Adrienne Longley-Cook, resident and member of the Commission on Disability Issues,
noted that there are difficulties for pedestrians at the Alameda Towne Centre.
Staff Khan responded that Public Works had sent a letter to Harsch Investments, the
developer, to express concerns about the pedestrian environment and asking for a
response by the first week in July.
Susan Decker, resident, stated that it is not only people with disabilities that are having
difficulties, and that it is important to make sure that the City doesn't miss the
opportunity to enhance the pedestrian environment at the Alameda Towne Centre.",TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-06-28,2,"Ms. Decker also inquired about the status of the City's efforts to install sufficient red curb
at all bus stops throughout the City.
Ms. Decker also noted that some of the more heavily used bus shelters could use
additional maintenance.
Commissioner Parker stated that it is important to enhance the awareness about the
graffiti problem, and that the quick removal of graffiti will help to maintain the shelters at
a high standard.
Commissioner Krueger noted that graffiti at the shelter located at Santa Clara Avenue and
Willow Street lasted for several weeks before it was removed.
Chair Knox White stated that regarding the Alameda Towne Centre it would be important
to look at pedestrian access throughout the entire site.
6B.
Bunching of AC Transit buses on Line 51
Tony Bruzzone from AC Transit said that they had spent a $500,000 for new software to
help with the bus schedules. Have hired a consultant to help look over the information on
the bunching. This will include 25-30 weekday routes, 16 weekend routes and every
trans bay line to make adjustments to the time in order to re-write schedules for the buses.
This is especially difficult since some drivers finish their routes faster than others. They
would be building the schedules from the early part of the route so that at the end of the
route spread it out to ease the bunching. He said that hopefully this should help to
develop a more realistic schedule and hope to get this implemented by September or early
October.
Chair Knox White mentioned that it looked more like the drivers operations is what is
causing the bunching.
Mr. Bruzzone said that by adjusting the schedules to require drivers to push in the first
part of the route, the problems could be reduced.
Commissioner Krueger asked how much of the problem is due to traffic, and how much
to following the schedules.
Mr. Bruzzone answered that more than half is due to traffic especially at University
Avenue, College Avenue and especially going south bound including the tubes.
Chair Know White asked if AC Transit ever considered having buses turn express in mid-
route to avoid the bunching problem, passengers could be asked to change to the next
bus.
2",TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-06-28,3,"Mr. Bruzzone said that it could be done, but a problem is that AC Transit charges for
transfers.
Commissioner Parker asked if AC Transit is looking at the prior studies that have been
done on it? She didn't think that AC Transit's issues are unique or that the solutions have
not been addressed before.
Mr. Bruzzone said that AC Transit has the ability to track every bus using GPS, but the
system is not integrated into the scheduling system, so they can't relate this to where the
buses are supposed to be. The on-going process of the GPS scheduling inter phrase is
going on 5 years. It takes a very long time to influence schedule changes because of
institutional issues - the contract has to be reviewed several times with the drivers.
Chair Knox White asked how confident he was on the effectiveness of the new
scheduling.
Mr. Bruzzone said that it will at least work better than the current system. The schedule
insures that 95% of the buses will leave the terminal on time and that is what they are
aiming for.
Chair Knox White asked if the new schedules are implemented and there is still an issue
on bunching, would this become an operations issue? One issue is that residents do not
want to wait long periods of time for a bus and if they do they will eventually want to
find another mode of transportation.
Mr. Bruzzone said that once the schedule improvements have been made, it would be an
operations issue, and that the appropriate place to discuss any concerns at that time would
be the Interagency Liaison Committee (ILC). He noted that the operations department is
trying to add more supervisors, and that the new manager rides the 51 bus, so she is
familiar with the problems first hand. But despite the commitment of staff, there are
many constraints.
Commissioner Krueger mentioned that dedicated lanes are needed for the transit in order
to get reliability. Has seen bunching on Sundays when there are no games or other events
that would cause the bunching.
Mr. Bruzzone said that this is mostly a schedule problem and that it would be fixed with
the proposed changes.
Commissioner Krueger said that he noticed buses bunching at the beginning of the route
and asked what percentage are leaving on time.
Mr. Bruzzone said that it is difficult to get this information because the way the data
is
recorded it doesn't indicate if the buses are arriving or leaving. However, AC Transit is
working on improving this system.
3",TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-06-28,4,"Commissioner Krueger stated that the problem needs to be measured. Wanted to know
what type of metrics would be used to calculate this.
Mr. Bruzzone indicated that AC Transit does have planning metrics, but that operations
metrics have been a problem. He said that they will be going to the board with service
design metrics and service delivery metrics, including headway adherence and on-time
performance. He said that the AC Transit Board's Planning Committee will be holding
meetings over the next 6-8 months to deal with service delivery issues, and he
encouraged concerned Commissioners to participate. Information about upcoming
meetings will be posted on AC Transit's web site.
Mr. Bruzzone stated that AC Transit is trying to establish standards consistent with the
Transportation Research Board's recommendations. He also mentioned AC Transit's
efforts to streamline their environmental review process when they implement service
changes. They will establish a service baseline, then if they deviate from that standard,
they will hold a public hearing.
Commissioner Parker asked what institutional impediments there are to coming up with
standards.
Mr. Bruzzone responded that it is not just an institutional problem, but believes that the
new operations manager is committed to improving service delivery and breaking down
the cultural barriers.
6A. Policy Discussion of Environmental Review Recommendations
Chair Knox White stated that the Commission made some vague policy recommendations
at the May meeting regarding the review of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), and he
requested that this item be placed on the agenda to clarify the recommendations.
Concerns raised at the meeting centered on the impacts of proposed mitigations from
EIRs, especially on pedestrian safety. He noted that the staff recommendation was to
recommend to the Council that the Commission work with staff to develop interim
policies regarding the EIRs, but is concerned that this would take too long, given that
projects are in the pipeline.
Chair Knox White suggested taking some recommendations from the draft Transportation
Master Plan policies approved by the Commission and use them as criteria that EIRs
should meet. He suggested that since the TMP has not been approved yet, and major
development projects are moving forward, the Transportation Commission should
recommend that the City Council not certify EIRs that do not meet the criteria.
Chair Knox White distributed his recommendations so the full Commission could discuss
them. The first page included City policies, including the General Plan, the
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) policies adopted by the Transportation Commission,
Bicycle Master Plan, the City Council resolution naming Alameda as a ""transit first"" city,
and the long range transit plan. The second page had six suggestions that would make
4",TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-06-28,5,"consistency of the policies with the general plan, long-range transit plan, and the TMP.
Last week discussion was increasing traffic volumes, intersection widening, and speed
limits to a certain extent. Need to have an analysis done before the Council certifies it.
Commissioner Knoth responded that this type of statement could hopefully prevent some
problems, such as those with pedestrian access at the Alameda Towne Centre.
Commissioner McFarland suggested recommending the policies to the Council for while
the TMP is under development.
Commissioner Parker stated that the policy statement would point out that many policies
are already in place, that in some cases they are vague and not being followed, and since
EIRs are coming up for approval, this could be considered as a guiding document until
the TMP is in place. She suggested that at this would at least generate discussion about
critical issues. She also noted that some issues may not be addressed here, so the
language should be modified to acknowledge that.
Mr. Ratto expressed his concern that the policies appear to be dictating to the Council
how they should act. However, the policies would be useful for the TC as a guideline in
reviewing EIRs. He also noted that despite various City policies which recommend
reducing reliance on automobiles, that is still and will continue to be the major form of
transportation in Alameda.
Chair Knox White said that the TC is only making a recommendation to the Council and
not attempting to tell the Council how to act or to be disrespectful. He responded that if
the language used in the handout was inappropriate, he is okay with rewording it.
Commissioner Ratto expressed his concern with the language, e.g. ""reject any EIR
""
Chair Knox White said that this is so that projects won't be exempted from the policies.
The City Council has ability to ignore the General Plan, TC recommendations, etc.
However, if they adopt this as their policy, a discussion will have to happen regarding
how a particular project does or does not conform to established policies.
Commissioner McFarland recommended that the proposed policies be used as a guide for
the TC.
Commissioner Krueger stated that while some generalities in policy are useful to allow
for flexibility, if they have too much flexibility they don't achieve the desired result.
These policies would help make clear what things are unacceptable to the City, so that
projects will be more consistent with the goals.
Chair Knox White suggested modifying the policy statement to indicate that this is what
the TC would be using to guide its recommendations.
5",TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-06-28,6,"Commissioner Parker stated that it is important that the Commission make clear what its
priorities are. She said that these issues be discussed at the level where decisions are
being made, that it is not sufficient for the Council just to be told that the TC will be
using this as a guide.
Chair Knox White said that the policies do not say that a particular project should not be
built.
Commissioner Parker said that it was important to indicate why the Commission is
putting this forward. The TMP will not be ready before many of the major development
proposals are presented to the Planning Board and City Council for decision. Therefore
the Commission is transmitting its recommendations to the Council in advance of the
TMP.
Commissioner Krueger said if Alameda is including language about improving transit,
bicycling, and walking just to sound good he would support removing the language and
being honest about what choices the City is making.
Commissioner Krueger said that we as the city have a choice as to how much public
money will be spent to accommodate cars and also the amount of private money required
to be spent to accommodate cars (e.g. how much to require of developers; protection of
open space; impact of road widenings on neighborhood, etc.). He stated that travel
choices are not fixed, but other modes may become more popular if we make them more
convenient.
Commissioner Ratto said it was frustrating to see lip service toward being a transit first
community, referred to difficulty getting red curb zones for bus stops. Mitigations are
required, but the reality is still that most people will be traveling by car, and people
cannot be forced to use other modes. So the issue is really a question of if the City wants
to allow more development to come in.
Commissioner Krueger said it also depends on how much accommodation you want to
make. If the city were to make a limited accommodation for vehicle traffic, but instead
offer a bus lane, someone moving in might decide to not live there or would move there
only if they were willing to take the bus.
Chair Knox White: look at wording and bring it back for additional discussion.
Commissioner Parker suggested turning the text of the policies to the chair to modify the
wording.
Commissioner Ratto said it would be helpful if the Commission could meet with the
Council so the TC could have a better understanding of the Council's expectations.
Staff Bergman said that the City Manager's Office has been contacted and are following
up on their schedules as to when they would meet.
6",TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-06-28,7,"Commissioner Parker moved that the proposal be re-worded to make it clear this is the
criteria the Transportation Commission will be using regarding the evaluation and
adoption of the transportation section of EIRs, and that the Commission recommend to
the City Council and Planning Board they also use these criteria. Commissioner
McFarland seconded. Motion approved, 5-1 (for: Krueger, McFarland, Parker and Knox
White; against: Commissioner Ratto).
Commissioner Krueger noted that sound walls are not addressed.
Chair Knox White mentioned that there is a question about whether sound walls are a
transportation issue or not, so he avoided including it.
6C. Transmittal of Commission Recommendations to City Council
Chair Knox White mentioned to write a letter with staff and send it directly to Council,
Planning Board, signed by the Chair.
Commissioner Parker motioned that the Commission communicate its decisions by having
the Chair write a letter with staff outlining Commission decisions, to be signed by the
Chair, and to be sent to the City Council or the Planning Board, as appropriate.
Commissioner Ratto seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Commissioner Parker suggested to the chair that he should report back to the TC on the
reaction of the City Council.
4. Commission Communications
Chair Knox White said that there have not been any meetings with the Sub-Committee
recently.
Commissioner Parker said that this would be her last meeting to attend since she is
leaving.
9. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2006/0706\tc min 62806-rev.doc
7",TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
April 25, 2007
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Acting Chair Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier
Srikat Subramanium
Absent:
Jeff Knoth
John Knox White
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
Eric Fonstein, Development Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
March 28, 2007
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes as presented. Commissioner
Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0, with Commissioner Subramaniam
and Commissioner McFarland abstaining.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Multimodal Circulation Plan
No meeting had been held since the last report.
b.
Pedestrian Plan
No meeting had been held since the last report.
c.
TSM/TDM Plan
No meeting had been held since the last report.
5.
Oral Communications - Non-Agendized Items",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,2,"None.
6.
Old Business
None.
7.
New Business
7A.
Options for Routing and Stop Locations on AC Transit Line 63 Between the Intersections
of Otis Drive at Grand Street and Whitehall Road at Willow Street
Outcome: TC to provide direction to staff regarding alternatives to be analyzed and
appoint subcommittee to work with staff.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and summarized the background and scope of this item.
The Commission had recommended that bus stops be installed on Otis Drive at the intersection
of Pond Isle; that decision was appealed. On March 6, 2007, the City Council reviewed that
appeal and directed the Commission to exhaust all options for other stop locations, as well as the
potential rerouting of the 63 onto Shoreline Drive, where it previously operated. The staff report
also includes information presented by AC Transit, which was read to the Commission at the last
meeting, discussing some other issues on Line 63 to provide a broader context for this
discussion. Currently, Line 63 operates on a very tight schedule.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the school routes could be considered part of the
discussion, and asked whether it would be possible to serve the school, and cut that part out of
the 63 route in order to save running time for a net savings or neutral effect. Staff Bergman noted
that generally, staff would consider if other routes could be altered, too. He understood that most
of the routes also operate on very tight schedules.
Open public comment.
Peter Muzio believed that a bus stop at Lum School was a bad idea, which he had previously
expressed at the City Council meeting. He distributed a letter to the Commission that he had
written in opposition to the stop.
Acting Chair Ratto noted that could be done at the end of the public comment. He noted that a
decision would not be made at this hearing.
Kevin Dong noted that he was a homeowner at Otis and Willow, and noted that after attending
the City Council meeting, he realized there must be a balance between ridership and run time. He
noted that Shoreline had more population density. He questioned the data by AC Transit stating
that there was more ridership on the new route, and inquired whether it was because of
population growth or the new stop at Whitehall improving the ridership. He noted that the
proposed Alameda Landing stop would add 10 minutes to the run time, and that it made this a
nonissue. He suggested putting the bus stops where they were wanted or needed, rather than
worrying about two or three minutes of run time.
Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, noted that there were tradeoffs, and that it was
already difficult for people to get to the hospital because of the reroute to Shoreline. She noted
2",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,3,"that Shoreline had poor sidewalks on the beach side. She hoped the reroute would not negatively
impact elderly people. She noted that wherever the route goes, she hoped that good stop spacing
would be retained in accordance with the transit plan's guidelines.
Liz Cleves noted that she was grateful that AC Transit and Public Works was looking at this route
so thoroughly. She concurred that the stops at Whitehall and Willow near a convalescent home
inadequate. She noted that between Park and Grand, there was a greater density of people on
Shoreline compared with the same cross streets on Otis. She distributed an aerial photo of those
streets, and believed the stops should be near riders, and not based on run time.
Diane Voss believed that Line 63 should be removed from the Town Centre, which is already
becoming congested. She noted that passengers carrying packages take longer to board a bus.
She stated that the congestion would also bring unsafe conditions due to impatient drivers, and
added that run time would be saved by not going through the center itself. She stated that
Shoreline is a better location for the route, as it would serve the Hall of Justice and the post
office. She said that Lum Elementary students would not use the bus.
Geoff Kline noted that he was disappointed that the report did not discuss ridership, nor was
safety addressed. He noted that run times and driver breaks were certainly important, but not at
the expense of those two items.
Adrienne Langley-Cook, Commission on Disabilities, noted that the Post Office had no sidewalk
near the bus stop, and that the crosswalks were not totally defined on Shoreline. She believed a
crosswalk near the Albertson's would be very valuable and would increase access to Town
Centre. She would like to see a wider sidewalk near Shoreline to accommodate seniors and the
disabled.
Kathi Young noted that she lived at Shoreline and Willow, which meant a long walk to get to the
bus. She noted that the stop at Whitehall and Willow was inadequate for disabled access, and that
it was dangerous and ill-lit. She believed there should be public transportation along that street,
and added that there were some turns at Alameda Point that did not seem to go anywhere.
Closed public comment.
Commissioner Krueger requested that AC Transit speak to the ridership issue, and added that no
AC Transit service actually made money.
Sean Diest Lorgion, AC Transit, said that they wish to provide service to higher density areas.
Commissioner Krueger inquired how much the ridership might increase, and whether there was
any ridership from the lagoon homes that would be lost. Mr. Diest Lorgion noted that the current
bus stop was at Willow and Whitehall, which would still be used if the route went on Shoreline;
no bus stops would be lost. He was concerned about possibly removing service from South
Shore.
3",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,4,"Commissioner Krueger inquired how much additional fare box revenue the new routing would
bring in. Mr. Diest Lorgion estimated it would be about 25 extra riders a day at an average fare of
70 cents, which would not pay for itself. He noted that the current route has about 1800
passengers a day, and that an extra 25 passengers per day was a small addition.
Staff Khan noted that 25 riders per day would add approximately $6800 annually at 70 cents
average fare, while the annual cost of operating a bus is at least $300,000 a year.
Acting Chair Ratto requested that the letters be read into the record by Staff Bergman:
Submitted by Chair John Knox White: ""The Line 63 is already not meeting the needs of its
current riders. The delays on the line have created a sporadic and unpredictable service, causing
usability to diminish. Before any changes in routing are considered for a specific portion of the
line, priority needs to be given to providing Alamedans with a service that meets its schedule.
This means removing up to four minutes of run time, or adding another bus. Given AC Transit's
current finances and current proposed losses from the State totally $7 million this year, and $5
million a year in perpetuity thereafter, increase in the operational cost of the line by 25% should
only be considered if service cuts elsewhere will not take place. If staff's comment is correct,
other service improvements in Alameda, such as extending the Line 51 to Fruitvale should be
identified for what the additional $300-500,000 could provide.
""Line 63 already makes an incredibly circuitous route, making the line difficult to use for riders
heading to Oakland from west of Webster Street. Adding run time should only be done in
connection with the implementation of other service efficiencies. With regards to Otis versus
Shoreline, AC Transit should identify the ridership potential for both Otis routing of the Line W
and Shoreline routing of the Line 63. It makes sense that the same routing should be used for the
two lines. We should know the ridership potential for all lines on both streets. We need to be
aware of the cost effectiveness of the switch if it entails adding another bus to the route. Staff
should determine if the additional ridership can offset adding an additional bus. At an annual fare
box recovery of $875 per full-fare, five day a week rider, 342 new daily riders would be needed
to fully recover an additional bus.
""Staff should consider a two-phase approach if additional operational efficiencies cannot be
found to make identified switches. Phase One: Keep the existing routing, install stops as per TC
recommendation, and reduce overall runtime to meet schedule needs. Phase Two: Integrate
Alameda Landing transit needs with Line 63, look at bifurcating the two lines in order to reduce
scheduled run times to both west end and east end lines, and making routing changes identified
at that time.""
Received from Ursula Apel: ""Dear Members of the City Council and Transportation
Commission: I was delighted to hear of plans to install a new Line 63 bus stop on Otis Drive
near Lum School. My husband and I live on Kitty Hawk Road, so our closest stop now is the one
at Whitehall and Willow, which has no sidewalk on the north side, and no marked crosswalk on
Whitehall. I am in my 70s, and like many senior citizens, I find it much easier to carry groceries
and other purchases home if I can take a bus for as much of my trip as possible. If there were a
stop at Lum School, I would have only a short walk to my home, and a stop at Pond Isle would
4",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,5,"also be convenient for me and for others in my neighborhood who live on Yorkshire, Greenbriar
and other streets. Several of my neighbors who ride the bus do not speak English very well, so
I
have agreed to speak for them. One suffers from cancer, and has lost the use of her arms, so she
is unable to drive. My husband also cannot drive, but he enjoys going to the coffee shops at the
shopping center. Due to his heart problems, he has to walk slowly and rest often. Taking the bus
would allow him to get there faster, while still walking the short distance to the stop, which
would be good for his health.
""I know that people who live on Otis have their own concerns about parking and other issues, but
a good system of bus stops and sidewalks is an asset to the whole community. I used to take the
63 when it ran on Shoreline, and the bus stops there were not the best. When I stepped off the
bus, my feet would sink into the sand because there is no sidewalk on the beach side. I don't
think a wheelchair could use these stops safely. Although putting the 63 back on Shoreline would
make it convenient for the many people who live on that street, I ask that you please not do so
unless a more stable surface can be provided for people getting on and off the bus. Whatever the
City decides about the best locations for 63 stops, I hope you remember how important it is for
citizens to have access to public transportation. That means not only providing frequent stops,
but also ensuring that well-kept, usable sidewalks and other walkways lead to those stops. The
elderly, disabled, and many other depend on having good bus stops close to us.""
Received from Peter Muzio: ""After reviewing the notes posted online concerning this agenda
item, I noted that 27 people had actually taken the time to write and/or attend meetings here at
City Hall. All of the 27 people are opposed to adding any bus stops to Otis Drive between
Willow and Grand. However, the City is for either one or two additional bus stops. By reading
the online file notes, it is apparent that an unidentified person on City staff, for reasons unknown,
really wants a bus stop at Lum School. City staff indicated initially that a bus stop at Lum School
would be approximately halfway between the existing bus stops at Grand and Willow. To that
end, the Transportation Committee [sic.] was tasked with evaluating the situation. They
determined that Lum School is not centered between Grand and Willow, so they recommended a
bus stop be installed near Ivy Walk. This located would be approximately centered between the
existing bus stops at Grand and Willow. As this I'd not coincide with the wishes of the City staff,
City staff requested that two sets of bus stops be installed so they could still get the desired stop
at Lum School. So the score is one big (City staff) vote for two bus stops, one medium
(Transportation Commission) vote for one bus stop, and 27 little (residents along Otis Drive)
votes against additional bus stops. At the City Council meeting on March 6, 2007, additional
people (parents of children attending Lum School) spoke against the reinstallation of the bus
stops at Lum School.
""Having just reviewed the additional run time and cost information provided in advance of the
April 25, 2007, Transportation Commission meeting, it is apparent that barring a magical funding
source, the 63 bus line needs to cut the number of bus stops along its route, not increase the
number of stops.
""As you already know, people at the Willow (east) end of the subject area who do not want an
additional bus stop because City Councils do not require builders to provide sufficient off-street
5",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,6,"parking at multiple unit buildings, and therefore, they really need to on-street parking spaces. I'm
sure they will tell you they are well-served by the existing bus stop at Willow and Whitehall.
""Otis Drive is a wide street with limited access. Between Willow and Grand, only Sand Creek
Way intersects it on the south side, and Sand Creek does not go south to the beach. The ""isles""
which intersect on the north side are all one-block, dead-end cul de sacs. It is natural for people
to drive fast on Otis than they would on a narrower street or a street with cross streets every
block. This is why visibility is so important to pedestrians. The people near the proposed Lum
School location are seriously concerned about pedestrian safety is a bus stop is placed such that it
blocks the visibility of oncoming traffic. The proposed bus stop location in front of 1815 Otis is
on the wrong side of the crosswalk. Ditto the proposed eastbound stop. This is the reason there
has been so much opposition to this bus stop.
""Safety problem #1: It is safer to have bus stops located where cross streets and crosswalks are
located at the rear of the bus, rather than in front of the bus. This allows pedestrians to see
oncoming traffic, and traffic to see the pedestrians. The proposed bus stops at Lum School have
the megabuck crosswalk in front of the bus. This is the least safe location. People exiting the bus
will be drawn to the front of the bus to cross the street. Some of the correspondents on this
subject suggest that the crossing guards will prevent people from crossing the street while the
bus is present. They fail to consider that the school is in session 185 days out of 365 days, and
only from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. This is a small percentage of the bus schedule. This crosswalk is used
by residents in the area, as well as kids that use the playground facilities when school is not in
session, as well as kids and adults that use Rittler Park on weekends and during the summer. The
bus stop should be located where they are safe all day and all year. It is ridiculous to use an
existing red curb for a bus stop when the red curb is there to ensure visibility for the people using
the crosswalk. You have spent a fortune on this crosswalk. If you had gone to the trouble of
preventing cars and SUVs from parking there, 24/7/365, ever since the crosswalk was installed,
then you don't want a bus to park there, either. You want people to cross the street behind the
bus, and not in front of the bus.
""Safety problem #2: The proposed bus stops at Lum School are in a very complex traffic area.
there are three houses between Sandalwood Isle and Waterview Isle on the north side of Otis.
This is a short block, not a long block. Sand Creek Way and the Lum School dropoff lane
intersect Otis on the south side between Sandalwood and Waterview. Add in a supercrosswalk
which does not align with any of the four intersections, and you can imagine that cars are coming
from all directions at the same time. All cars from these four intersections must turn onto Otis, as
none go straight across. Having the crossing guards not let pedestrians cross while the bus is
present is great for the pedestrians, but does nothing for the autos that are coming from each
other from all directions. When the children are arriving at school in the morning, and leave in
the afternoon, there are many vehicles parking on all nearby side streets, as well as in every
available space on Otis, and every available space in the Lum School dropoff lane. Cars are
turning onto and back out of Sandalwood Isle and Waterview Isle, and also entering Otis from
the dropoff lane in Sandcreek Way. It is heavily congested. The supercrosswalk is in the middle
of this very confused traffic pattern. Adding a bus to the mix only exacerbates the congestion and
limits the visibility.
6",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,7,"""The City of Alameda has put a great deal of effort into making pedestrian crossings as safe as
possible. Do not take a step backwards!
""Although there are ramps located at the supercrosswalk at Otis, there are unrecognized ADA
problems with putting a bus at Lum School. The only reason to place a bus stop on Otis at
Willow and Grand is to attract riders. There are no cross streets in this area. North of Otis are
one-block dead-end cul de sacs with low-density, single-family houses. South of Otis are four
blocks of housing: two blocks of single family, and two blocks of medium-density apartments
and condos. The bulk of the potential riders reside south of Otis. To get to Otis from the south,
there are two routes: One is Ivy Walk, which leads directly to Otis. The other is Snowberry Walk
which leads you into the back of Lum School, then along a driveway through the Lum School
grounds to Sandcreek Way, approximately one block distance, then along Sandcreek Way for one
block to Otis.
""ADA Problem #1: When school is not in session, there is a chain attached with a padlock across
the driveway through Lum School. I can step over the chain, but a handicapped person cannot.
You will have to tell the principal at Lum School to stop using the chain. Whatever the reason the
chain serves will be eliminated. I do not know, but I suspect the chain reduces the likelihood of
vandalism, as this driveway leads past the office entrance, which is not visible from the street or
from the residences in the area. Also, as this parking lot is not visible from the street, and school
is only in session during the day, and then only 185 days out of a 365 day year, the same reasons
for closing the gates to the parking lot at Crown Beach at sunset would be in play for limiting
access to this parking lot.
""ADA Problem #2: There is no ADA ramp to get up only the sidewalk on Sandcreek Way. My
wife is disabled; we went to vote at Lum School last election. We used the supercrosswalk, but
when we got to the area near the school office where the voting booths were located, there was
no ADA ramp to get off the sidewalk to the driveway that leads to the office. This is the same
driveway that would be used by people cutting through the schoolyard to get to a bus stop,
should one be placed at Lum School.
""The City has indicated the building a bus stop at Ivy Walk would require painting and marking a
crosswalk. I pointed out that the crosswalk at Heather Walk and Heather Isle does not have a
painted crossing. That is the very next bus stop west of Grand. However, I was informed that the
regulations now require newly installed bus stops to have a marked crossing, and the Arlington
Isle stop does not need a crossing because it is grandfathered in under the old regulations. I do
not believe that painting a crosswalk near Ivy Walk will encourage students at Lum School to
cross Otis when they have the supercrosswalk at Lum School.
""To summarize: No one (other than an unnamed person on City staff) wants the bus stops. Shelve
this proposal, and revisit it someday if someone actually expresses a need for a bus stop and you
can buy the extra few minutes of run time that will be needed. And if you are absolutely
compelled to put in a stop, put it on the safe side of crosswalks and intersecting streets so that it
does not interfere with the visibility needed by us old, gray-headed pedestrians crossing this
heavily used street, and vehicles entering the traffic on Otis Drive. A stop at Ivy Walk would be
much safer than a stop at Lum School or a stop at Willow. Sincerely, Peter Muzio.""
7",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,8,"Commissioner McFarland noted that in addition to the bus routing and timing, there was an issue
of needed sidewalk improvements at some of the bus stops. He would like staff and AC Transit
to address those issues.
Acting Chair Ratto appreciated the comments about accessibility on Shoreline, and asked staff to
specifically to look into the Whitehall/Willow bus stop issue, particularly the poor condition of
the stop. He acknowledged the costs factored into every decision that must be made, and he
added that he had a great desire to serve on the subcommittee.
In response to a question by a member of the audience whether a resident could serve on the
subcommittee, Staff Khan noted that staff was considering doing a survey of residents and riders
in that area. He believed a public workshop would be the perfect forum to define what the
subcommittee's scope would be, and suggested forming the subcommittee first. Staff intended to
return in June. He noted that he was not sure if there was a precedent for a citizen serving on a
subcommittee, and Staff Bergman noted that some subcommittee hearings had been open to the
public.
Commissioner Schatmeier would support a subcommittee, and noted that the issue of cutting
running time had not yet been addressed. He agreed that the subcommittee would be the perfect
vehicle to address those issues, and volunteered to serve on the subcommittee.
Commissioner Krueger also volunteered to serve on the subcommittee.
Acting Chair Ratto noted that the subcommittee would work with staff and AC Transit, and
would like Liz Cleves to serve as a liaison between the community group and the subcommittee.
Liz Cleves would like to nominate Diane Voss to serve because she was in school full-time.
Staff Khan noted that staff would try to schedule a meeting for the following week.
Staff Bergman noted that the public speakers' names have been added to the mailing list, and
invited other members of the public to leave their contact information.
No action was taken.
7B.
Citywide Curbside Bus Stop Access Action Plan
Outcome: TC to reaffirm City 's practice of providing curbside access to bus stops and
provide guidance regarding flexibility in this practice. Discussion/Action
Staff Bergman summarized the staff report, and added the City Council had directed the City
Manager to work with the Commission to develop a plan to provide unobstructed curbside access
to all bus stops in Alameda. Most of that work had been completed, and there were some
remaining that were still underway, and were brought to the Transportation Technical Team
(TTT) in March 2007. He noted that there were a number of residents and businesses who
objected to the parking restrictions, generally with the impact on on-street parking. Staff wished
8",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,9,"to bring the matter to the Transportation Commission to reaffirm the City's current practices
regarding the provision of curbside access at bus stops, and to identify any areas where the
policy could be flexible. He noted that the objections raised at the TTT meeting included:
1.
A disabled resident indicated that having parking restrictions near his home would
be a hardship;
2.
A business owner stated that parking restrictions would harm his business;
3.
A church member talked about parking restrictions exacerbating existing parking
shortages during church events;
4.
A resident stated that many parents use the on-street parking as they drop their
children of at school.
He noted that most of the bus stop consolidation had been implemented, particularly on the 51,
and that other lines could be revisited with respect to relocation or revisiting regarding potential
problems that they cause
Open public comment.
Staff Bergman noted that Chair Knox White also submitted comments on this item:
""Where staff feels that neighborhoods have identified major constraints due to lost street parking,
staff level study and decision-making should be acceptable to see if existing City policy would
allow for consolidation, stop move, etc. Recent changes to the bus stop placement policy allow
for more flexibility in placing stops, as was used in the recommendation for Otis. The City of
Alameda maintains very stringent minimum parking standards for both residences and
businesses. As such, before too much discussion is had about removing bus stops, these
standards and the usage of the mandated parking should be evaluated, or the City should get rid
of the requirement.
""In residential areas, staff should also identify whether the City mandated parking for autos is
being used as well, before studying major stop location redesign. Household garages used for
storage, etc., eat up a lot of onstreet parking as well. Perhaps a policy that neighborhoods do a
parking study, looking at available off-street spots, use of those spots and other street uses should
be considered a first step. For those areas where a high percentage of off-street parking is being
used for parking, then staff can determine if the removal of 2 to 3 spots will necessitate parkers
to walk more than 100 feet, 10 percent of the bus rider maximum walk. If this is found to be the
case, then bus stop removal would be weighed as a measure of total daily ridership versus total
daily parking usage. Whichever is higher would represent the solution which maximizes
community benefit.
""In business districts - Park Street and Webster Street - have parking removed for stops already,
and shops are doing well financially. Staff should try to accommodate parking needs in
neighborhood business districts without removing stops. The Transportation Commission has
historically supported transit in commercial areas.""
9",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,10,"Staff Bergman noted that an email was sent to him by a business owner who had spoken at the
TTT meeting:
""We are owners of Wilmot's Books, a small independent bookstore that has been in existence on
the West Side of Alameda for the last year and a half. During that time, we have run a successful
business, despite being in a tough industry and being located a bit off the main business section
of town. We've also been happy to become part of the community and a strong presence in the
neighborhood for culture, literature and the arts, and most importantly, a place where people can
come and hang out and shop. We are located at 478 Central Avenue, which is the intersection of
5th and Central Avenue, and is one of the locations that would possible be affected by the
proposed changes in parking.
""While our business is successful, it is also quite vulnerable. The difference in our succeeding
and encountering great challenges can be the difference of just a few customers each day. The
difference of a good day versus a bad day is directly linked to the parking in front of our store.
While parking S already quite scarce in our neighborhood, the changes in parking would take
away the three most important spots we have, which are directly in front of the store late in the
afternoon. Since the changes proposed for directly across the street going in the opposite
direction affect the early morning, people living in the neighborhood would be more likely to
park in front of our store in the evening. The net result is that we would lose our most important
parking for over half the hours that our store is in operation.
""While we are very supportive of public transportation, we are also aware that a bus has never
stopped to drop off anyone at this stop. The bus stop is not used, and certainly not needed. It is
located two blocks from the school, so the students simply do not use this stop to be dropped off.
If a change is going to be discussed, it should be to get rid of this stop that causes nothing but
confusion. I cannot put it any simpler than this: If you choose to take away our parking, even for
just a few hours at a time, you will force us to move, and we will need to shut down this store. It
is my assumption that the City of Alameda would rather have an independent bookstore instead
of parking for a bus stop that isn't used. Thank you for your consideration, Tim and Mary
Wilmot.""
Staff Bergman noted that the stop he referred to only serves one of the school lines, so the
restriction was only for the hours when that bus was in operation.
Joyce Larrick, representing herself and Rebecca LeValley, who was unable to attend. She read
Ms. LeValley's comments:
""As a middle-aged and short bus rider, it is difficult enough climbing on and off some of the
larger cruise line-type buses currently in service without the added obstruction of winding
through parked cars to get to the bus. I think the tragic accident in San Francisco yesterday where
a handicapped man was killed because a truck driver did not see his low silhouette in the
crosswalk highlights some of the potential dangers to bus riders trying to board buses through
high-profile SUVs, etc. I cannot see the possible advantage to a business of having their
customers frustrated by the inability to get in or out or a parking space blocked by a boarding or
discharging bus. Frustration leads to rash action and injuries. While we caution children against
10",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,11,"chasing balls out into the street between parked cars, and now you want to send bus riders into
the same danger.""
Ms. Larrick noted that following her involvement with Earth Day, she supported bus ridership to
reduce pollution and congestion. She believed the City should encourage more people to use the
bus.
Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, was sympathetic to the concerns of business owners,
and noted that bus riders were customers, too. She did not believe the City should take a step
backwards on not providing access to the bus, and believe that all stops should have access. She
believed the effects on a business would be minimal, and that the problems of the transit stops
were outweighed by the greater good. She suggested that moving the stop a block in one
direction or another may be a good compromise without adversely affecting good bus stop
spacing.
Deborah James believed the school bus was the only bus that stopped by the book store. She
noted that the 63 was often late and jam-packed because it served two high schools. She added
that people often use the bus stop as a dropoff for Chipman Middle School.
Geoff Kline wished to respectfully disagree with the transit advocates, and believed there were a
number of places in Alameda, especially on lightly traveled streets, where ""flag stops"" [where
the stop is marked by a sign and there are no parking restrictions] could be installed rather than
removing parking spaces where parking was problematic. He did not believe that painting all the
curbs red was the solution, and he did not believe it was realistic for everyone to get out of their
cars. He believed the drivers should be able to have a place to park.
Deborah James noted that riders at flag stops would not be visible to the bus driver unless the
rider ran into the street.
Closed public comment.
Commissioner Krueger believed it was important to be flexible, and to listen and weigh the
concerns of all parties in order to be fair. He did not believe every case should be an exception.
He did not support the idea of a flag stop. He believed the times of the restriction should be
negotiated, based on the hours of operation. He believed assessment should be made to move or
consolidate stops. With respect to Chair Knox White's comment about the lack of parking in
residential neighborhoods, he suggested that a parking survey be employed to determine if
garages are being used for vehicles.
Commissioner Schatmeier agreed with Commissioner Krueger's comments. He believed that bus
service was an asset rather than a liability to the community. He supported flexibility as
described by Commissioner Krueger.
Commissioner McFarland supported the flexibility as outlined by Commissioner Krueger, and
believed the policy should stand.
11",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,12,"Commissioner Subramanium believed that policies were in place in order to have consistent
implementation across the City, and did not believe that having exceptions would benefit the
City.
Acting Chair Ratto noted that it was best to work with Public Works and AC Transit to deal with
red curbs. He supported the bus plazas on Park and Webster Street, and believed that the
Transportation Commission might as well disband if they could not stand firm on this policy.
Pertaining to flexibility, he believed that staff should assist residents in consolidating bus stops
and work with AC Transit because there were exceptions to the rule. He believed the burden of
proof was on the appellant, and they need to show a real need for the parking spaces. He believed
the garage should be used for cars and not storage.
Commissioner Krueger moved the following:
1) All bus stops should have parking prohibitions during the hours of bus operations.
2) If there are problems with eliminating parking at a particular location, the relocation or
consolidation of bus stops should be considered. In the case of an appeal of a decision to
remove on-street parking, staff should work with the appellant to explore options for flexibility,
but the burden of proof is on the appellant to demonstrate the need for the on-street parking
spaces.
3) The level of bus ridership and demand for on-street parking at the location should be
considered in such decisions - if the parking demand is high and bus ridership is low,
preservation of parking should be given greater emphasis.
4) Any changes to bus stop locations should ensure consistency with the Long Range Transit
Plan's recommended bus stop spacing of approximately 1000 feet.
5) City should explore ways to encourage private property owners to make better use of
existing off-street parking.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
7C. Review and comment on Civic Center Parking Garage Management Plan Policies and
Procedures.
Outcome: TC to review and provide comments on draft Parking Management and
Operations Plan. Discussion/Action
Staff Eric Fonstein, Economic Development Coordinator, Development Services Department,
summarized the staff report and described the scope and background of the proposed parking
structure, which should be completed by December 2007. He noted there was a perception of
reluctance to use a parking structure if it is difficult or complicated to use.
Commissioner Subramanium inquired whether car sharing had been considered, such as in
Oakland and San Francisco. Acting Chair Ratto noted that had not been examined at this time.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that car sharing was business operation, and that enough
business must be generated for it to be economically viable.
12",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,13,"Open public comment.
Jim Strehlow noted that he was primarily a bicycle rider and pedestrian, and recalled the
discussion of this item at the City Council meeting. He noted that there could be alternatives to
paying for parking, such as free parking or alternative transportation, as well as merchant
validation programs. He requested clarification of the TDM page 1, section 1, line 4-6, which
stated that it would generate limited revenue to pay for operations, and the remainder would
repay the loan. He would like to see the profit and loss for the next three years.
Closed public comment.
Staff Fonstein explained the attendant and gate approach, and noted that the 50 cents per hour
rate was similar to the parking rates on the street. He further explained the details of the structure
pay-by system, and noted that it was similar to eight of BART's East Bay parking structures. He
noted that a gate approach was twice as capital-intensive, requiring ticket dispensers and
receptors, as well as the gates themselves and staff required for maintenance, emergencies or
malfunctions.
Commissioner Krueger believed it was unusual to pay for the next time the driver would use the
parking structure. He inquired whether it could be purchased the same day if movie tickets were
ordered in advance. Staff Fonstein noted that he would consider that idea.
Staff Fonstein stated that there would be a four-hour maximum. He noted that daily parking
could be used via a monthly parking program.
A discussion of parking enforcement ensued.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if any consideration had been made to using the garage as a
park and ride lot, and noted that the garage will be very close to the most heavily traveled transit
streets in the City. He stated that given the maximum number of hours people would be
permitted to park, use as a park and ride lot would not be possible.
Acting Chair Ratto believed that if there was a surplus of monthly passes within the district, that
park and ride could be considered.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that could be an attractive possibility for revenue generation,
although that was not the primary purpose of the garage.
Commissioner Krueger believed that onstreet parking should be more expensive to encourage
people to use the garage.
Acting Chair Ratto noted that the Class II bike lane on Central would be restored in front of the
high school, and that the diagonal parking be converted to parallel parking.
Staff Khan noted that the City was waiting for construction to be completed.
13",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-04-25,14,"Acting Chair Ratto noted that was important, and should be included in the report. He thanked
staff for an excellent job on this item over the many months of development.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to recommend that the City Council accept the proposal,
including restoring the Class II bike lane; prevalidation with a code for movie tickets; examine
car sharing; examine the optimum pricing of street parking versus garage parking; transit riders
included in monthly passes; return to parallel parking on Central. Commissioner McFarland
seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Khan noted that staff wished to discuss the EIR for Harbor Bay Village, which was
suggested to come before the Transportation Commission by the Planning Department. He
distributed the Draft EIR document, and indicated that the public comments would close May 4,
2007. He invited the Commissioners to request that it be agendized, and he would request that
the Planning Department extend the public comment period to accommodate Transportation
Commission comments.
Staff Khan handed out bicycle surveys to invite comments regarding pedestrian/bicycle access
issues. He noted that it was also available on the City's website.
Acting Chair Ratto noted that the Park Street Spring Festival would be held on Mother's Day
weekend (May 12 and 13). He noted that last year, 40,000 people attended the downtown
festival.
Staff Bergman noted that the draft Transportation Element has been circulated to the various
boards and commissions, including the Economic Development Commission, Commission on
Disabilities, the Climate Protection Task Force, Rec and Parks Commission and the Housing
Commission. It would be completed in mid-June.
Staff Bergman noted that the next ILC meeting would be held May 31, 2007, and that further
information would be emailed to the Commissioners.
Acting Chair Ratto complimented Staff Khan on doing an excellent job in front of the EDC the
previous week.
Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
i:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2007/052307/042507minutes-final.doc
14",TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-09-24,1,"Transportation Commission
November 19, 2014
Item 4B
Action
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
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:
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Michele Bellows
Eric Schatmeier
Thomas G. Bertken
Michael Hans
Members Absent:
Gregory Morgado
Staff Present:
Alex Nguyen, Assistant City Manager
Virendra Patel, Transportation Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
Commissioner Vargas removed Item 5A. Review Northern Waterfront Development from the
agenda and the item will be discussed at the next meeting.
3.
Announcements/Public Comments
Commissioner Vargas welcomed Commissioner Hans to the Transportation Commission.
Commissioner Hans gave an introduction about his work as the principal of Lincoln Middle
School and that he currently sits as the Alameda Unified School District representative for the
Transportation Commission and resides in Bay Farm.
Commissioner Schatmeier said there are flyers in the hallway, which were produced by AC
Transit, announcing a community meeting on Tuesday, October 14 at 5:30 p.m. at the Main
Page 1 of 6",TransportationCommission/2014-09-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-09-24,2,"Library. The transit agency created Plan ACT, which will study adjusting schedules and plan
routes, and they want the public to assist. He also mentioned that Line 51 was important to
Alameda residents and the public process benefited residents during the recession when cutbacks
were prevalent.
Commissioner Vargas noted that transportation technology was advancing in California and the
state recently approved beta testing for driverless vehicles.
4.
Consent Calendar
4A.
Meeting Minutes - July 30, 2014
The minutes will be carried over to the next Transportation Commission meeting.
5.
New Business
5B. Approve Cross Alameda Trail Design Concept
Staff Payne presented the staff report.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Jerry Serventi, resident of the West End, frequently used the proposed trail area to walk his dog.
He felt the trail would benefit the community because the trail could be used by a number of
people with different comfort levels. He felt transit on the corridor also would benefit the City
and the next step would be to develop nodes at Webster Street, West Campus Drive, Fifth Street,
Third Street and Main Street. He applauded staff for conducting extensive outreach, and he
urged staff to keep the community engaged in the early parts of the design process such as at 25
percent design.
Lisa Helina-Prior, mother of two children who attend Nea Community Learning Center and
Alameda Community Learning Center, said 50 to 60 cars were parked on the site every school
day and there were no other parking options for the faculty of 900 students from K-12th grades.
She explained that families have no place to drop off their children, so they use Third Street as a
drop off point in the morning. Additionally, she explained that the school made allowances by
staggering student's class start times, but the travel time between Central Avenue and the
Appezzato Parkway takes 20 minutes due to traffic volumes. Furthermore, she stated that Patty
Wilczek, Executive Director of Community Learning Center Schools, submitted a letter back in
July asking staff how students would be able to cross the pathway given the high traffic volume.
Furthermore, she felt that there was limited access for emergency vehicles on the side of the
facility and the project would put students' safety at risk. Also, she pointed out that the Boys and
Girls Club shared the parking area with the school, which further limits parking.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, said when he was
a Commissioner with the City's Transportation Commission from 2002-2004 he was a coauthor
of the Cross Alameda Trail vision plan. He explained that the project was in the pipeline well
Page 2 of 6",TransportationCommission/2014-09-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-09-24,3,"before his term as Commissioner. He felt the previous Alameda Unified School District's
(AUSD) superintendent did not take into account how the City's upcoming transportation
projects would impact the District. He presented an option of including a drop off zone in the
transit right of way, so pedestrian access would be possible off of Third Street. He explained
that removing benches from the project was brought up on the community blogs and that should
not occur because benches are needed every 1,000 feet to make sure the trail is fully compliant
under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Moreover, he was excited to see the project
underway because the trail would connect west Alameda and Alameda Point to the Fruitvale
BART Station.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda Resident, said he was in favor of the design. There are details of the plan
that need to be worked out. One example has to do with not being able to make right turns on
Webster Street, which are needed. Additionally, he said staff should review the details because
restricting right turns would prevent people from accessing major sites on Buena Vista Avenue
or Webster Street.
Bara Waters, representative of Community Learning Center Schools, felt the project would
create a major traffic issue and the facility's access needs should be taken into account in terms
of emergency access. She is in favor of the concept.
Commissioner Vargas asked Staff Payne about the access to the school and whether it was
appropriate to ask the landowner to present access needs to the City.
Staff Payne replied that the City was working with Alameda Unified School District (the
landowner) on access, egress and student drop off and pick up issues. Also, she said Alameda
Public Works improved the school's drop off and pick up area on Third Street.
Lucy Gigli, President of Bike Walk Alameda, said the City has been planning the project for
decades and she was happy they found funding. She believed the cross section was a great way
to separate pedestrians and bicyclists. She thought the trail was squished under the southern
boundary, especially with the trees near the Esperanza site within proximity to the donut shop.
She does not want to cut a bunch of trees down, but there may be some wiggle room for the bus
lane. She also was concerned with the intersections and how they cross the streets. She stated
that along Main Street where the path goes on one side and jogs way over to the crossing was not
the way bicyclists move and the City should accommodate that mentality. She wanted staff to
address the school's concerns and watch traffic patterns; however, the city has a policy to create
more open space rather than parking on the proposed open space. She acknowledged that the
ultimate purpose of the trail would allow kids to walk and bicycle to school safely.
Donna Eyestone, board member of Bike Walk Alameda, reaffirmed Ms. Gigli statements. She
also exclaimed that getting people walking and biking in a separated space was important. This
opportunity would open up the west end of the island to bicycling and walking.
Commissioner Bertken stated that the Commission has the opportunity, according to the
schedule, to look at the actual design in January and most of the items would be reconsidered
when reviewing the final design.
Page 3 of 6",TransportationCommission/2014-09-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-09-24,4,"Commissioner Schatmeier said the separation of bicycles and pedestrians was a great approach.
However, he was concerned with pedestrians and bicyclists not staying within their designated
spaces because just separating the modes would not control people from deviating such as what
happens on the Bay Farm Island paths. Thus, it has to be done correctly.
Commissioner Hans asked staff why a jogging path was needed rather than having just one big
pedestrian path.
Staff Payne replied part of the issue was that joggers like to jog on softer surfaces. She clarified
with the Commission that emergency vehicles would be able to travel on the proposed bikeway
because it would be wide enough at 12 feet.
Commissioner Bertken asked how this project would impact the safety vehicles or access to the
school.
Staff Payne replied that the school driveway parallel to the southern part of the trail is on school
property based on preliminary information from the record survey. Therefore, emergency access
could occur on their property.
Commissioner Miley said he agreed with Commissioner Bertken's comments and he believed that
receiving the design concept in the early stages while engaging the community and hearing their
comments were important. He shared some concerns that the jogging path was against the fence,
but he understood the staff's budgeting issues.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if the landscaping would be implemented or would that be
phased later.
Staff Payne replied that there is funding for a bioswale and to plant 65 trees without irrigation.
She explained that there are different options to keep the trees watered for the first few years
such as tree bags and polymers. In the future, she said that staff may be directed to provide more
landscaping, but that does not pertain to this project.
Commissioner Vargas explained to staff that public engagement must be maintained with the
communities, schools and Boys and Girls Club. He also asked staff if reports were provided to
Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) on accomplishments and milestones.
Staff Payne replied that there are progress reports provided to ACTC.
Commissioner Miley moved staff recommendations with two notes commending the staff with
public engagement and asking staff to review all public and the Commission's comments to
resolve conflicts. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Page 4 of 6",TransportationCommission/2014-09-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-09-24,5,"5C. Review Citywide Pedestrian Safety Program
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he was glad to see the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) events. He
explained that when he worked in Marin County, he administered the SRTS program, which was
funded by a countywide sales tax of 11 percent. He felt switching travel behaviors from driving
to walking or biking to school was not a pipedream because a great conversion occurred in Marin
County and he would like Alameda to keep up the good work.
Commissioner Miley stated that on Bay Farm he would see a number of students ride their
bicycles even though the path was not ideally designed. He made staff aware of pedestrian
issues on Mecartney Road, especially during the evening hours at Belmont Way and Verdemar
Drive.
5D. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and
Plans
Staff Payne and Staff Patel presented the report.
Commissioner Miley asked Staff Patel if it was possible to get the city of Oakland and Caltrans
to create two left turn lanes on High Street.
Staff Patel replied that Caltrans controlled the intersection and he would contact his connections
at Caltrans to request the left turn lanes at High Street.
Commissioner Miley asked staff to include the Jackson/ Broadway project as a future agenda
item and have ACTC present information about the project's outreach process.
Staff Patel replied that the project contains two parts: 1. downtown circulation for downtown
Oakland including Chinatown, Atlantic Avenue, and Constitution Way; 2. reviewing the
Broadway/Jackson scope of work, where the consultant would be hired and public outreach
would begin.
Commissioner Bellows stated that from her understanding, the city of Oakland was conducting
the circulation portion and ACTC was conducting the Broadway/Jackson section.
Commissioner Vargas replied once ACTC finalizes their consultants the Commission would
engage with them.
6.
Staff Communications
6A.
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
- Next meeting Wednesday, November 19, 2014
- Item 4A. Approve Meeting Minutes - July 30, 2014
- Item 5A. Review Northern Waterfront Development
- Car2Go carsharing program
Page 5 of 6",TransportationCommission/2014-09-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-09-24,6,"- Ferry terminal access
- I-880/Broadway/Jackson project
- AC Transit to present Alameda Service Plan
- BART shuttle services
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Staff Payne provided a summary about the Transportation Commission's Ferry Access
Improvement subcommittee, which consists of Commissioner Bellows, Commissioner Bertken,
and Commissioner Schatmeier. She also explained that they met with the Water Emergency
Transportation Authority (WETA), Lucy Gigli of Bike Walk Alameda, AC Transit
representatives, Doug Biggs of Alameda Point Collaborative and Amy Wooldridge, Alameda
Recreation and Parks Department Director. They will reconvene in November when they have
more details.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied that there was great consensus on the goals that were to be
achieved. Moreover, he felt that they recognized ridership increases, associated issues with
increased ridership and parking as main issues.
Jon Spangler stated that the back route into the Frank Otis Elementary School Campus near
Court Street contains an old sign with no reflectors on the diamond yellow sign. Thus, motorists
drive rapidly down the street to drop students off on time. He also said if one were to make
another right turn there was a big drop off zone and that corner needed work. Additionally, he
stated that there was a fence around the facility that did little to protect parked bikes. Ultimately,
he would like Public Works to look at the street and the adjoining intersection to see if safety
could be improved.
Jim Strehlow stated that the intersection of Fernside Boulevard and Versailles Avenue contained
a pedestrian blinking light across Fernside Boulevard, which was working wonderfully. He saw
people obeying the traffic control and he thanked the City for the newly tarred roadway along
Buena Vista Avenue near the Edison Elementary School.
8.
Adjournment
8:30 pm
Page 6 of 6",TransportationCommission/2014-09-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,1,"Transportation Commission
January 13, 2013
Item 4A
Action
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Commissioner Jesus Vargas called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:03 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Michele Bellows
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Eric Schatmeier
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Sandy Wong
Members Absent:
Thomas G. Bertken
Staff Present:
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Matt Naclerio, Public Works Director
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Commissioner Wong commented that she is a representative for the Alameda Unified School
District. She received letters from students indicating their concern of the five-legged
intersection in front of Encinal High School. She mentioned that the intersection has received
many accidents and near misses. Furthermore, there is a concern around the Boys and Girls
Club, Woodstock Education Center, Woodstock Park, and Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway
onto Third Street. She will monitor the situation and look into the concern further.
Commissioner Vargas acknowledged the recent election results from Measure B1 and he asked
staff to schedule an agenda item to discuss the results and next steps.
Page 1 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,2,"Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff at some point to share their knowledge of next steps for
Measure B1 and potential strategies for supporters of Measure B1.
Commissioner Vargas explained that dozens of letters and emails were sent to staff regarding the
agenda items and he opened the floor to public comment.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, asked if there was an update regarding the
I-880/23rd Avenue/29th Avenue project coming before the City Council.
Commissioner Vargas replied an update would be given towards the end of the agenda in Staff
Communications.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, asked staff to
present feedback and strategies after the failure of Measure B1. He attended the last Planning
Board meeting and there was a discussion on the new leasing strategy for Alameda Point. He
felt the City was now stuck without any option besides the tubes. He stated that the City needs
better transportation options before going further with the development of Alameda Point.
4.
Consent Calendar
Commissioner Schatmeier brought up a technical concern regarding item 4C. Generally, the
audible voices for the signals at Park Street and Santa Clara Avenue are indistinguishable. He
was not sure if the problem existed in the microphone or the signal equipment. Going forward,
he would like staff to improve the quality of the signal's information.
Staff Payne explained that the new standard is to not have the voice because it is too difficult to
understand. As part of state regulations, staff uses the California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) and the manual does not require that voice as part of the new
pedestrian push button equipment.
4A.
Meeting Minutes - September 26, 2012
4B.
Mandatory Ethics Training Requirements
4C.
Accessible Pedestrian Signals - New Freedom Grant
Commissioner Vargas made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Commissioner
Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0; 2 abstentions.
Staff Naclerio explained that the Alameda Municipal Code requires a minimum of 4 affirmative
votes to approve an action item.
Commissioner Schatmeier made another motion to approve the consent calendar. Commissioner
Miley seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0; 1 abstention.
Page 2 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,3,"5.
New Business
5A. Shore Line Drive/Westline Drive Proposed Bikeway Project
Staff Payne presented the staff report.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comment.
David Duffin, 30-year Alameda resident, felt City staff did an incredible job to develop the
project. Although the overall impact certainly satisfies a need for more bicycle access, there are
thousands of people in the area who have no idea about this project. He has spoken to many
people in the area and they have no idea about the project's concept. Alternatively, he proposed
that the City leave the area as is or double the pedestrian path within the area to take bicycles off
the road and put them within a safe space.
Carol Gottstein grew up near Shore Line Drive and she felt the comparisons presented in the
study are invalid because they compare Alameda to large cities such as San Francisco, Long
Beach and Seattle. She felt the project would not work on a narrow and short street and she felt
the new infrastructure would create an enormous amount of clutter and future dependency and
funds to maintain.
Jeanne Lahaie, member of Team Alameda and Bike Alameda, spoke before the Commission
independently. She went to three of the meetings and applauded staff Payne and her team for
their thorough outreach. She lives at Broadway and Shoreline Drive and brought a few
outcomes from the breakout sessions. First, there are no curb ramps on the sidewalks from the
crosswalks. So, it is difficult for individuals with disabilities residing around the area to travel
safely. Furthermore, she would like to see the bikeway extended to Washington Park. She
mentioned the City adopted that idea under the long-term plan and with community support and
volunteers the start up costs should be small. She highlighted that bicyclists become confused
about where to go at the corner of Broadway and Shore Line Drive, and signs should be posted
to
address it. She is in favor of the plan, but she would like to see two motor vehicle travel lanes
so as not to create more congestion.
Bruce Kibby, resident of Santa Clara Avenue, believed the process and project design was great
and he supported the project wholeheartedly. He knew that many people had input on the Shore
Line Drive bikeway. He urged the Commission to review the priorities of the proposed project
that show the proposed bikeway meets them such as improves resident access to
apartment/condos, reduced conflicts on path, improves safety and maintains bay views.
Randy Rentschler, 20-year resident of Alameda, works in the field of transportation for 20 years.
He felt City staff worked hard on the project to create an effective plan, which he fully
supported. He pointed out that new Bay Area communities such as Danville have installed
bikeways on many of their streets. Currently, new collector streets only would be built with a
bikeway. The Commission and the community should support this project and similar actions on
other streets in the future.
Page 3 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,4,"Jon Spangler explained that he was born and raised in Redwood City, which is similar to
Alameda in size. He hoped that the community could recognize improvements that could be
made through City staff's hard work. He urged staff to consider creating additional adequate
disabled parking access for residents in the neighborhood. Also, stop signs on Shore Line Drive
and Westline Drive are needed on Shorepoint Court where Westline crosses it and at the U.S.
Post Office. Lastly, the barriers for the cycle tracks should be raised similar to the Belgium
example for the entire length of the cycle track.
Commissioner Vargas asked Mr. Spangler's opinion on delineators.
Jon Spangler replied that he would rather see a rigid concrete barrier that is usually found in
parking lots to absolutely stop or slightly deflect a car that is spinning out of control.
Jim Strehlow was satisfied with the City staff's community process and the way they addressed
the community. However, he was a bit concerned on a couple of items. First, he acknowledged a
safety issue in Figure 1 at Shore Line Drive, Broadway and Bayview Drive. When traveling
down Shore Line Drive, hitting the stop sign and then making a right hand turn on Bayview
Drive, there should be more of a buffer like a green box or sharrows. Overall, he did not
understand how the flow would work in the area and he is concerned with the pedestrian
crossings at Park Street and Grand Street. He urged staff to consider budgeting for yield to
pedestrian signs or markings.
Lucy Gigli, President of Bike Alameda, she would like to thank the staff for taking the time to
engage the community. She felt the project took all community viewpoints into account and the
project will be a model for the rest of Alameda County. Her only concern was the cost, which
doubled, and may slow the implementation of the project. She suggested phasing and
prioritizing actions such as moving the bollards to a later phase. She also suggested reducing the
priority for landscaping such as on Fernside Drive and to produce less costly alternatives in the
interim to get the project moving along to not lose funding.
Warren Vegas, Alameda resident and bicyclist, supported the measure and wanted to see the
barrier along the cycle track buffered at 4 to 5 feet. He also asked the Commission and staff to
think about adding an additional crosswalk near the McDonalds, which can be dangerous to
pedestrians.
Randall Block, Alameda resident and bicyclist, felt that Alameda is a great place to bicycle and
the proposal creates a separation between bicyclists from cars. He reiterated the belief that City
staff had done an excellent job with the community's concerns and question about the project
overall. Overall, he was speaking for other bicyclists and families about how phenomenal the
project was and how much he fully supported the project.
Catherine Egelhoff, Alameda resident and bicyclist, believed City staff conducted a great job
with community input especially given resident's individual needs and concerns. Overall, she
supports the project.
Joyce Larrick, Alameda resident and pedestrian, stated that City staff had done a great job. She
Page 4 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,5,"mentioned that it was hard to walk on the beach on the weekend due to a large volume of cyclists
with their children on the path. She questioned the project's timeframe from start to finish and
whether the Commission would make a decision that night or would they continue to review the
documents. She hoped that the project finds sufficient funding to maximize the full benefits to
the community.
Susan Sperry, 30-year Alameda and Shore Line Drive resident, voiced her disapproval of the
project because her financial investment is tied to her home. She felt the proposal would reduce
the value of her home and would bring vehicle and bicycle congestion to the area. She suggested
that the project move to Alameda Point and wondered if the project description and community
meetings were sent to residents around the area.
Staff Payne replied all residents within 300 feet of Shore Line Drive and all residents within the
single family housing area between Shell Gate Road and Sunset Road were sent notifications
about the project.
Commissioner Wong asked if the following cycle track buffers (white pavement markings, car
stops, and raised curbs and medians) found on page 6 of 15 in the staff report were suggestions
or would actually be implemented.
Staff Payne replied the white pavement markings would be at 24/7 parking spaces. The parking
would create an extra buffer so the City does not have to invest in extra funding in those
sections. When there is not 24/7 parking within the area, staff recommends the car or wheel
stops at each end of Shore Line Drive and at the north section of Westline Drive. Staff also
recommended even wider physical barriers along the curves. She pointed out that there are two
curves - Shore Line Drive/Westline Drive and Shore Line Drive/Broadway - where the median
would be 3 feet wide and 6-8 inches in height.
Commissioner Wong questioned whether the raised curbs and medians would have a drainage
issue.
Staff Payne replied staff is recommending the car stops because they do not have to provide
additional gutter and drainage, which would be another underground expense.
Commissioner Miley questioned whether bicycles would be prohibited from the path once the
cycle track is installed.
Staff Payne replied no.
Commissioner Miley reviewed the illustration of a left-turn pocket, straight lane and right-turn
lane in Figure 8 of the staff report. He wanted to know if that was a right-turn lane into the state
park.
Staff Payne replied that it is a right-turn lane because the lane helped the City align southbound
vehicles in the right space away from the cycle track.
Page 5 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,6,"Commissioner Miley wanted to know if the Caltrans grant had deadlines that meant the project
needed to move forward or the City would lose funding.
Staff Payne replied that yes in a little over a year from now the City would need to request
authorization from Caltrans for construction.
Commissioner Miley wondered whether the project would move forward to City Council if the
Commission approved it.
Staff Payne stated that staff would move forward with the final plan. Since the City obtained
federal monies for the project, they will go through a federal process to go out to bid. Before
staff releases the request for proposals (RFP) on the construction work, staff will request City
Council approval and then will release the RFP and select a contractor. Staff will go back to
City Council for approval of the contractor that staff recommends for construction.
Commissioner Miley asked if the process would occur over a year.
Staff Payne replied yes.
Commissioner Miley wondered whether the City offered residents parking placard during this
time.
Staff Payne explained that the City offered placards and the community has to go through a
process to have a certain number of residents interested in the idea.
Staff Naclerio stated that the residents would initiate the process, which would require a petition
and a deposit. The process would require the creation of a self-supporting Assessment District
approved by a majority residential vote.
Commissioner Miley asked staff how many parking spaces currently exist on Shore Line Drive
and once the project moved forward as proposed what would the number then be.
Staff Payne replied that the exact number of parking spaces is not available to her at this
moment, but she knows that the project area consists of 1.6 miles and parking spaces are 20 feet
long. Overall, the project would provide 125 additional 24/7 parking spaces on the beach side of
the street on Shore Line Drive and on Westline Drive on the west side of that street.
Commissioner Miley asked if that is a net gain or a reduction because some parking spaces may
be eliminated.
Staff Payne replied during 9 am to 5pm loading zone parking spaces in front of multi-unit
complexes would be for loading purpose only. After 5pm, the parking spaces would be open to
residential parking.
Commissioner Bellows stated that staff worked hard to gather community input and ideas. She
was curious about the funding since they had to work within the federal grant terms within one
Page 6 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,7,"year and they are around $400,000 short. She asked staff if they considered phasing as part of
the project.
Staff Payne replied staff should have the funding without seeking additional grants. A large
number of monies would come from Measure B Bicycle/Pedestrian pass through and Vehicle
Registration Fee pass through monies.
Staff Naclerio replied that the City is looking to construct this project within the grant deadlines.
Until the bids come in, the City will not know what funds are needed. The City recently
received Vehicle Registration Fee monies. If used, then City would have to reduce its
resurfacing project funding.
Commissioner Schatmeier echoed the tremendous effort made by staff to pull all of the
community's comments together. He spoke about a public comment regarding signage. He
wondered whether the Commission would see appropriate wayfinding signage included in the
project.
Staff Naclerio said signage requested by tonight's speaker is not included in the project
currently.
Commissioner Schatmeier questioned the bus shelters on Webster Street and Park Street. He
assumed that the shelters were funded and maintained by the business association.
Staff Naclerio replied no.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if the City maintains the shelters.
Staff Naclerio replied yes the City erected and maintains them.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that the bus shelters should be constantly maintained or they
would detract from the project.
Commissioner Vargas encouraged staff to find additional funds for the project. He considered
safety as an important factor for the project as well as personal safety while riding a bike and the
bicycles themselves.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Bellows
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
Page 7 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,8,"page 7, Figure 2 of the staff report. He considered the extension problematic because cars are
always parked around the area and the future development plan at 2001 Versailles Avenue would
amplify parking demand.
David Commerford, Alameda resident, approved of the restriping at High Street and Fernside
Boulevard. He commented that the bike lane ends half way down the block and that would
correct that issue because traffic is SO vigorous around that area. He did not believe installing
speed signs would be an effective speed deterrent. Yet, he highly approved of the Phase III stop
signs at Harvard and Cambridge because that it is a long and wide street. Moreover, he felt
police enforcement should be extended past 5pm and there should be signage by the left-turn
lane onto High Street.
Warren Vegas thanked the City, Public Works Department and the Police Department for their
work. He chaired the group that brought the petition forward a year and a half ago and he was
speaking on behalf of the six residents that worked with staff to come up with a proposal for the
community meetings. He noted that within the six-month survey, there were 6 accidents and 44
traffic tickets given on that block. Consequently, there are significant speeding incidents
occurring on that stretch, which causes increased noise. Also, there is a bicycle lane and families
residing around the street with children use the bicycle lane to ride to Edison Elementary School.
He believed that speed feedback signs, the light at Versailles Avenue and restriping on High
Street are important. Car mirrors are ripped off yet are not reported.
Commissioner Vargas asked for input on the curb extension comments from Mr. Vegas.
Page 8 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,9,"Warren Vegas replied that there is some concern for reduced parking, but the only concern
brought up by the traffic team was that it allowed kids crossing at Versailles Avenue to be more
visible to motorists.
Gayle Ewe, Marina Drive resident, supported the project as proposed. She walked her children to
Edison Elementary School for 11 years and was almost hit by a truck as they entered the
crosswalk. She believed that the entire proposal would increase safety and visibility of
pedestrians by motorists.
Dorothy Owens, Versailles Avenue resident, explained that her area contains a lot of cars parked
all the time. At one point, she asked the employees of the insurance company nearby to park on
the other side of Versailles Avenue or Fernside Boulevard, close to the empty lot. In the future,
she believed that as development increased, so would the demand for parking. She wondered if
the new beacon could go on the insurance company side to keep the parking space.
Jim Strehlow, Gibbons Drive resident, explained that when he gets off at Gibbons Drive and
eventually onto Fernside Boulevard going north he really enjoyed the double dashed center
merged lanes that are along Fernside Boulevard whether in the car or the bicycle. While cycling
on Harvard Drive or Fremont Drive, he has the opportunity to turn safely into the center lane
because he could see traffic each way. He heard mention of medians, but he really liked the
buffer area on Fernside Boulevard as a bicyclist or motorist. Regarding the Fernside
presentation, there is a solid white line separation on Fernside Boulevard - when coming from
Tilden Way onto Fernside Boulevard near Pearl Street - he wished it were a dashed line.
Jon Spangler supported the project and he is familiar with this neighborhood. He has been on
buses that seem to go well over 25 mph heading towards the Fruitvale BART station and he has
driven and cycled in the area. He wanted the area to mimic the other part of Fernside Boulevard
along the Estuary towards Doolittle Drive. He questioned whether the striping in Phase II and
III could be combined or could jump to Phase III to save some money on the project.
Commissioner Wong wanted to know if the Rapid Fire Beacon would be active all day and
whether pedestrian pavement signals could be placed at this location similar to Encinal Avenue
near Franklin School.
Staff Naclerio replied that In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights are not as effective as the Rapid Fire
Beacons at having motorists yield to pedestrians. He noted that 80 percent of motorists yield to
Rapid Fire Beacons, which catch their attention and are activated by pedestrian push button.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that a pedestrian button activates the beacon. He felt it may
cause motorists to only look for the light and not the pedestrian who crosses without having
activated the light.
Staff Naclerio replied that he does not have the statistics to that statement, but the intention is to
train pedestrians and especially school children to press the push button to activate the light.
Commissioner Wong stated that pedestrians step on a pad at Washington Park to activate the
Page 9 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,10,"light and she wondered if that could be an alternative to the push button.
Staff Naclerio replied he is not sure if this technology could include stepping on a pad, but
mentioned that on Pacific Avenue, the City installed a step pad in front of the school and they
had to add the pedestrian push button because pedestrians would walk beyond the stepping pad.
Commissioner Miley stated that the overall cost of Phase II would be about $115,000 to
$150,000. He commended staff with approaching the project as phases and bringing in the
community for comment. He noticed that a stop sign or speed bumps was the best way to stop
vehicular traffic. He was concerned about costs for Phase II and he did not know what the
overall maintenance costs would be to maintain pedestrian safety and visibility within the area.
Staff Naclerio replied that it is not a huge maintenance cost for the speed feedback sign and the
cost was incorporated within the annual maintenance budget. The City does not have experience
with the Rapid Fire Beacons so he is not certain what the ongoing or increased maintenance
costs associated with the technology would be. Also, the curb extension would have nominal
maintenance and the restriping lasts for 5-7 years when using thermoplastic materials. He
pointed out that the high side costs for Phase II would be $135,000, and they could prioritize
Phase II improvements and may reduce the priority of the speed feedback signs.
Commissioner Miley asked if Phase II would have the bike lanes go all the way through or would
it go into Phase III.
Staff Naclerio replied for the most part there are bike lanes and a couple of areas with sharrows.
He confirmed with staff seated at the meeting that the restriping of High Street would create a
continuous lane from the entire length of the bike lane.
Commissioner Vargas asked if Sergeant Simmons would make a quick overview about the
Neighborhood Speed Watch Program, especially where it is deployed and the costs to the City.
Sergeant Simmons explained that the City had the Neighborhood Speed Watch Program for
many years, but when they tried to get the neighborhood mobilized enough to deploy the
program, they were met with a bit of resistance. There are a couple of groups in the works and
they used it once on Central Avenue with positive results. There are zero costs to the police
department because they partner citizens with volunteers in policing who are with them when
they choose to run the program. The volunteers use radar guns - there are ten in total - and the
department had the guns for many years. When the community deploys the program, the
department mails non-punitive letters to the registered owners of vehicles and they had success
with reducing speeds. The department is currently working on that stretch of Fernside
Boulevard and spoke with two people who expressed interest in volunteering and they plan to
conduct training within two weeks.
Commissioner Miley brought up public comments about a concern for loss of parking spaces on
Versailles Avenue. He asked if there are any other types of curb extensions that could be used to
prevent the elimination of the parking space. He suggested a similar copy of the bulb outs along
Park Street's mid-block area.
Page 10 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,11,"Staff Naclerio replied staff could look at that, but it will be expensive because it would
completely change the drainage of that intersection. He suggested the Commission ask staff to
look at additional options. One option would be to re-do the width of the travel lanes, but that
may run into problems at a very busy intersection.
Commissioner Bellows heard that people park there all day and if there was any way to create
parking limitations (2 hour or 4 hour limit) to promote higher parking turnovers.
Staff Naclerio replied their concern is when they install the curb extension they do not want to
direct vehicles into it. They want to provide a way to direct motorists away from the curb
extension to the center.
Commissioner Bellows asked if the beacon could be moved more to the other side of the
intersection.
Staff Naclerio said the beacon is being installed in the curb extension that would be raised. They
are applying an advance warning to the west and east of it.
Commissioner Vargas asked about implementing Phase II and what is the duration of measuring
the performance.
Staff Naclerio recommended at least a year and to go through all the seasons to assess behavior.
Commissioner Wong stated that staff mentioned prioritizing the list of the approval process so
when would it be in the future or currently how would it work.
Staff Naclerio felt that it could be done and he would start by suggesting the red curb for
visibility and the restriping of the lane be done first. He pointed out that unlike item 5.A., this
project does not have funding in place and staff would have to apply for grants. However, the
community supported the Rapid Fire Beacons and that should be installed. If they do not find all
the money, the speed feedback sign would be prioritized last and moved to the third phase.
Commissioner Miley stated in terms of priority suggestions, the question to the Commission
would be what two curb options should be prioritized. Either they move forward with the one
with extension and lose a parking spot or not lose the spot.
Commissioner Bellows moved to accept the loss of the parking space (option 1) because it would
ultimately be safer and to go with the recommended approach. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
Page 11 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,12,"5C.
Complete Streets Policy Resolution
Staff Payne presented a summary of the report.
Commissioner Miley moved to adopt the policy resolution. Commissioner Vargas recommended
they make an amendment before taking the vote. For clarification, the following statement found
on page 2 ""First City and the County of Alameda to install and operate a bus priority signal""
whether it is first or not should be clarified or modified by staff.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the item and to direct staff to amend or clarify the
following statement ""First City and the County of Alameda to install and operate a bus priority
signal"" to determine if that is accurate and to make the necessary corrections before moving the
item to the City Council.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
Commissioner Vargas asked the Commission to vote to move Item 7 - Announcements / Public
Comments - before moving to Item 5D.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to move item 7 up and Commissioner Wong seconded the
motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Christina Trotter, Billy Truong, Reggie Hubbard (students) and Joan Schwartz. (teacher) from
Encinal High School were concerned with street traffic in front of their school, especially where
the five streets including Central Avenue come together. There are no crossing guards and
traffic is consistently dangerous throughout the day. They wanted to voice their concern and
have the Commission come up with a viable solution.
Commissioner Vargas asked if it was a daytime or after school issue.
Joan Schwartz stated her class goes out a lot during the day so the motorists are consistently
dangerous in their behavior regardless of congestion.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he would ask staff to look into opportunities to highlight this
concern.
Staff Naclerio replied that based on the comments received, staff would look at the issue. He
stated that traffic incidents are based on a first in first out process and they would estimate
coming back to the group within a few months.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if the Safe Routes to School Program could be incorporated
within the area.
Staff Payne stated yes high schools are part of the Safe Routes to School Program. There is a
Page 12 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,13,"state and federal program, but one of the two does not fund improvements to high schools.
Jim Wullschleger, Broadway and Central resident, was glad to see the Commission approve the
pedestrian buttons and he is fully in support of the action. He noticed that the pedestrian button
could be a nuisance if the locator button is too loud or not adjusted correctly. He felt Staff Payne
did a great job on the Shore Line project and he is in support of a volunteer based traffic
program. He would like to see a speed tracker use flash photography to capture speeders once
technology becomes cheaper.
5D. Revised Draft Prioritized Transportation Project Lists
Staff Payne presented a summary of the report.
Commissioner Vargas asked if staff was seeking the Commission's approval of the list so it
could move forward to the Planning Board and then the City Council.
Staff Payne replied the item would go to the Planning Board on December 10, 2012 and the City
Council on January 14, 2013.
Commissioner Miley thanked staff for taking feedback from the Planning Board, Transportation
Commission and City Council and incorporating the comments into the list.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked about the paratransit shuttle listed as a project within the list.
Staff Payne replied the paratransit shuttle is listed on page 1of the Implementation List right after
Exhibit 1.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he was against the shuttle service before its implementation
because he was skeptical about the way it would be deployed. Thus, he would like to have some
performance data since its implementation.
Staff Payne replied that the performance report would be provided at the next meeting as part of
the annual review of the Paratransit program.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he noticed that part of the next action after implementation is a
quarterly report coming back to the Commission and Planning Board. Yet, he remembered that
some comments provided by others such as the Planning Boardmember John Knox White
recommended a report annually or biannually. So, he wanted to know why staff decided on a
quarterly report.
Staff Payne stated that staff will present a quarterly report on project updates and they plan to
update the list annually.
Commissioner Vargas asked how the list considered Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375.
Staff Payne replied that these bills are highlighted in the Complete Street Policy Resolution (item
Page 13 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,14,"5C) and the Transportation Element is one of the best practices because it is multimodal. The
Transportation Element's goals add up to eight points of the evaluation criteria. Additionally,
the City created Bicycle, Pedestrian and Public Transportation Plans and all of these different
modal plans receive rankings. So, the list does capture and represents all the modes.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Bellows
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
6.
Staff Communications
Staff Payne and Staff Naclerio presented the following updates on activities related to
transportation policies and plans:
On-going Traffic Calming Projects
Otis Drive Traffic Calming will come to the Commission in January 2013.
AC Transit Line OX- Reconsider Opening to Local Riders
AC Transit re-opened up the Transbay Line OX to local riders in the afternoon. AC
Transit issued public announcements on November 9 and the maintenance crew updated
the decals at all Line OX stops. Emails and 511.org announcements were created.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he used the Line OX last week for the first time after
the implementation. The driver let him on and he clicked his Clipper Card and it presented
the local fare. He complimented AC Transit staff for their flexibility, but noticed the sign
at the Park Street and Santa Clara Avenue bus shelter still says ""Drop Off Only"" and he
does not know what other signage should be changed.
Status of Recruitment for the Supervising Civil Engineer
Staff Naclerio stated that the City recently closed the submission of applications and they
would conduct interviews with the top candidates from the ten applications received in the
upcoming weeks.
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
Commissioner Miley would like to schedule a briefing and next steps on the results of
Measure B1 sometime in January 2013.
Commissioner Vargas seconded the recommendation on speaking about Measure B1.
Staff Payne stated that the topic would be placed on the agenda for 2013. The next meeting
would take place on January 23, 2013. Other items, as listed on the agenda, include:
Additional Proposed City CarShare Pod on Santa Clara Avenue at Webster
Page 14 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-11-28,15,"Estuary Crossing Shuttle Final Report for First Year Operations
Proposed Neptune Park Path Conceptual Layout
Traffic Control and Contingency Plan during Construction for I-880/29th Ave./23rd
Ave. Interchange Improvement Project in Oakland: Public Information Program and
Transit Impacts
Draft Regional Transit Access Study (RTAS): Overview of Study Corridors, Transit
Demand, and Service Examples, Part II
Traffic Calming Projects regarding the Fernside Boulevard Project - Staff scheduled
a meeting at the Edison School on Thursday, September 27th at 7pm.
The last meeting the Commission approved a midblock crossing between Franklin
School and Franklin Park and staff installed the crossing with help from Alameda
Unified School District staff.
8.
Adjournment
9:39 pm
Page 15 of 15",TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-11-16,1,"Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes
Wednesday November 16, 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)
Jesus Vargas
Gregory Morgado
Thomas G. Bertken
Samantha Soules
Members Absent:
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Michael Hans
Staff Present:
Jennifer Ott, Base Reuse and Transportation Planning Director
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Rochelle Wheeler, Transportation Planner
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, said at the last Transportation Commission meeting he brought
up the Posey Tube construction project and he asked staff when Caltrans reached out to the
community. He was informed by staff that Caltrans presented in 2014. He felt there was a
difference between a presentation on the project and a workshop about the project. He said a
workshop gets the community involved and Caltrans only informing the community was not
enough. He said Caltrans did not provide much notice about when they were going to implement
their design.
Dorothy Freeman, Alameda resident, explained that the last Alameda traffic study utilized the
proposed development housing unit numbers entered into the Alameda Housing Element in
2012. She said since then, some studies for each individual developments have been done, but
the new citywide traffic study is in progress. She said currently the number of houses that have
Page 1 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-11-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-11-16,2,"been requested along the Northern Waterfront far exceeds the numbers that were used in the
study. The housing units approved for Del Monte, Encinal Avenue Terminal, Alameda Landing,
and Alameda Marina basically doubled from what was used in the study. She said residential
units under construction have not completely affected Alameda's traffic system as of yet. She
noted that the development, 2100 Clement Street, just started construction and many more
developments are under construction. She explained that the City has not resolved cutting
Clement Avenue through Pennzoil, so all of the new southbound traffic will be pushed onto
Buena Vista for an undetermined period of time. She said a new bus lane will soon begin along
Buena Vista further slowing down the traffic and she has yet to see how the newly occupied
units will affect not only traffic going southbound, but through the tube, transit lines, ferries and
City streets. She asked the Commission to express these concerns to the Planning Commission
and the City Council.
Tony Daysog, Alameda City Councilmember, said mid-December would be the last month as a
City councilmember and he thanked the Commission and staff for their service. He felt these are
really exciting times for the City and especially for the transportation field, which includes
autonomous technology. He encouraged the Commission to continue to always be positive
because the items they review will provide positive improvements to the lives of residents now
and into the future.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he attended the California Transportation Association
Conference that day and they had competing receptions earlier that morning. He said he attended
the Latinos in Transit gathering and they talked about the challenges associated with the election
results in terms of federal funding for transit. He explained that we should be in a good place
since we tax ourselves in California. He said there was great concern about transit funding and
unfortunately he was unable to attend last month's Transportation Commission meeting because
he was leading a delegation to learn more about California High Speed Rail and how Public
Private Partnerships could be implemented on the local level.
Nancy Heard, Alameda resident, said she is working on some projects in the City and when
conducting community service she reviewed various Planning Department studies about where
people travel to once they off board the ferry. She explained that one study stated that people go
to San Francisco and another study stated that commuters go different places. So, with the City's
planned development coming down the pipeline, she felt a study must be conducted again to
make traveling off the island easily feasible.
Commissioner Bellows said that she attended the Walk and Roll to School Day event on October
5 at Franklin Elementary School with Lieutenant Guilari. She explained that the students listened
attentively about being safe, do not speed, wear helmets and remember to walk their bikes in the
crosswalks.
Page 2 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-11-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-11-16,3,"4.
Consent Calendar
4.A. Approve Meeting Minutes - September 28, 2016
Commissioner Vargas asked staff to review whether the Transportation Engineer was in the roll
call last month and whether he will be included in the roll call going forward.
Commissioner Morgado moved to approve the September 28, 2016 minutes with Commissioner
Vargas' comments. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
5.
New Business
5.A. Provide Status of the I-880/23rd/29th Improved Project
Joy K. Cheung, Caltrans Senior Transportation Engineer, provided an update.
Commissioner Morgado asked Joy Cheung if Caltrans staff could move construction activity a
little bit faster because he drives that way every day and it's crazy.
Joy Cheung said she understood his concern, but they have to do the work in stages because they
cannot tear both bridges down and that is why it will take three years.
Commissioner Vargas stated that the interchanges are very important for automobiles and buses,
but he wondered what about the interim accommodations for bicyclists. He asked if Caltrans
staff would provide special traffic detours for cyclists to traverse the area, especially right off the
Park Street Bridge.
Joy Cheung replied that they have built new islands and crossings and they will implement a new
signal light right there. She went on to say that the temporary detour shows the sign on 29th
Avenue and when taking a right on East 7th Street there is a pedestrian and bicycle crossing, but
they never changed the bicycle lane. She also noted that cyclists who travel over I-880 and then
move towards East 11th Street can view a detour sign.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.
Jim Strehlow stated that it is going to be a maze and pretzel when competing with vehicles,
pedestrians and cyclists. He said the overall traffic design is a mess and Caltrans said the one
reason the 23rd Avenue Bridge was designed for three lanes with a traffic light was because there
wasn't funding. However, he explained that Measure BB funds came with a bunch of money and
he asked Joy Cheung if Caltrans staff could solicit funds to expand the design from three lanes to
four lanes.
Joy Cheung replied Jim Strehlow was correct; there would be two lanes coming into Alameda
and one lane going out and the ramp would be open going the same way, but it will be signalized
at East 11th Street. Yet, she said the 29th Avenue Bridge contained only two lanes before and
now there will be two lanes coming into Alameda and a straight off ramp from north I-880. She
Page 3 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-11-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-11-16,4,"said this will ease traffic by allowing motorists to make a safe U-turn going towards 23rd
Avenue back into Alameda. She further explained that the project was funded by the Alameda
County Transportation Commission (ACTC), Measure BB passed last year, and the design was
created six years ago. So, if Caltrans staff went back to redesign the project while in construction
that would cost taxpayers more money. However, she said she would bring the concern to ACTC
to make sure they analyze this in the next phase.
Commissioner Bellows asked Joy Cheung to provide the Commission with a project schedule
and map.
5.B. Approve the Draft Strategies for the Citywide Transit and Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Plan
Staff Payne provided an update and introduced consultants Bill Hurrell and Brian Soland of
CDM Smith to present.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.
Jim Strehlow said the consultants have their agenda, which includes items they want to promote.
He said he attended one of their low participant meetings and they did not discuss alternatives
like adjusting school hours that could shift people commuting to school and then work or
working with employers and merchants to adjust the hours that businesses are open. He asked
staff whether the developers were paying their fair share into the pot because it costs quite a bit
of money to build a new ferry terminal, bridges, and tunnels and developers are creating the
congestion problem. He mentioned that 90% of the web surveys tend to be bicycle favored
because the surveys are anonymous, the bicyclists are hot and heavy and do everything on the
web. He explained that you get community representation statistics from what people are saying
and the demographics are not spread evenly. He said he was not sure how to get the true
demographic information from web surveys. Moreover, he said there's a need to make Alameda
a safe bike city, why because the bicyclists say SO. He felt there was some need to create more of
an emphasis on bike safety even though Alameda is already a bike friendly city. He noted that he
had two accidents in the last 13 months and that was due to inattentive motorists.
Jim Meyers, Alameda Health Care District Board member, spoke as an Alameda citizen and
explained that as the City reinvents itself one of the issues being reviewed is the health and
wellbeing of the community in addition to the oversight and operation of the parcel tax.
Therefore, he said he attended one of the stakeholder gatherings for the TDM and noted that
many people around the room were developers, but overall the meeting was well-represented.
However, he didn't hear many people say they use public transit as their common transportation
mode. He encouraged the Commission to consider the opportunity index that is available and the
fact that there's a study out that outlines low-income areas of the island that are least served by
public transportation. He emphasized that transportation availability is a big component of well-
being and he asked the Commission to consider and find ways to hear the voices of the most in
need when surveying these choices.
Commissioner Bertken said he understood there is a list of projects, but he wondered what staff
needed from the Commission based on the presentation.
Page 4 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-11-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-11-16,5,"Commissioner Bellows replied the presenters somewhat summarized the purpose, but she felt the
Commission's purpose regarding the agenda item was to review the list of projects found in the
staff report tables. She explained that the project list was divided by transit projects, multimodal,
and bicycle and pedestrian projects. Additionally, she stated that the projects were segregated by
the individual TDM strategies and then short-term and long-term timeframe.
Jennifer Ott, Director of Base Reuse and Transportation Planning, said there was a lot of
information in the packet and she proposed that the Commission review the table in order to find
something missing or potential projects that should be included in the table. Furthermore, she
proposed that the Commission review the wording to see if something should be stated in
another way.
Commissioner Bellows replied that it was unclear whether transit service would be provided to
the Main Street Ferry Terminal.
Jennifer Ott explained that providing transit service to the Main Street Ferry Terminal was
included. She went on to say that Staff Payne worked with Water Emergency Transportation
Authority (WETA) and AC Transit on a grant for potential bus service that would be a limited,
cross-island service connecting Main Street Ferry Terminal with Fruitvale BART.
Commissioner Soules asked staff about the island being well served by public transit because
there's a perception that it's not very convenient. She felt there are areas underserved by public
transit, especially regarding service performance, which needs improvement. She mentioned that
seniors trying to make medical appointments and riders commuting to school to drop off their
children and then board the ferry is not feasible. She said an incentive that should be considered
would be to provide free rides to build community support and then display transit riders'
testimonials. She also noted that when new transit service is introduced, it's important for staff to
get the word out and incentivize utilizing public transportation.
Commissioner Bellows asked Jennifer Ott about the new development plans and whether staff
will work with the developers to provide transit passes especially since parking is limited.
Jennifer Ott replied all of the employees and residents of Alameda Point will have free transit
passes as well as the Northern Waterfront.
Commissioner Bellows replied that Commissioner Soules was talking about promoting and
incentivizing public transit use and publicizing the benefits of taking public transit.
Jennifer Ott said that's a great idea.
Commissioner Soules liked the idea of monitoring the promotion to make sure it's not only
effective and justifies the funding, but provides a benchmark that would enable staff to retire
projects that aren't working. She asked staff if there's origin and destination analysis for inter-
island public transit trips, especially during peak periods. She noticed that the ferries have had
an
influx of people who do not live in Alameda that create more congestion on the island during
those peak times. So, she felt reviewing the inter-island peak trips to inform some of the lowest
Page 5 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-11-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-11-16,6,"hanging fruit when it comes to free bus service would be helpful.
Bill Hurrell and Brian Soland replied they looked at the inter-island activity as part of the
existing conditions analysis. They said some of their recommendations looked at improving
access from BART stations, particularly in Oakland. They explained that WETA is looking at
expanding their bi-directional service and that would require either bus service or a last mile
connection. They said the Main Street Ferry Terminal would help commuters get into Alameda
and their overall recommendations would assist commuters getting into and coming from
Oakland.
Commissioner Vargas said he liked the format of the project table, which allowed him to sort
things out in his mind. Regarding the Vision Zero policy, he explained that it would be better if
the policy included the multimodal elements based on the Swedish model such as freight activity
and other vehicles not just bicycles and pedestrians. He liked the structure of the document
because it was an easy read and the map in the back was good. He was glad to see projects
included in the Bay Farm side. In terms of amending the document, he said he spoke with Staff
Payne about ideas centered on the Intelligent Transportation System and autonomous vehicles
and he referred to the multimodal table on page 13 of the Draft Strategies Memorandum, item
#28 ""Parking Management and Shared Parking Lots."" He explained that autonomous
vehicles/bus services and parking management/shared parking lots should be broken out
separately because there's so much occurring with their neighboring county Contra Costa County
that the City should proactively look at this technology. He felt themes such as ""Smart Cities""
should be kept in mind, especially as the City looks for federal funding and the idea of Public
Private Partnerships should be categorized as an opportunity. He explained that he was recently
shopping around for a new vehicle like a plug in Hybrid and it occurred to him that he hasn't
seen the reappearance of the City's municipal electrical car power program. So, he would like to
see that partnership revamped. He also recommended that staff start to look at promoting on
demand-privatized paratransit service and he would schedule time to talk with Staff Payne about
this. Additionally, he suggested within the staff report on the first paragraph under background
which states ""quality of life during a time of anticipated population. should also include ""and
employment growth"" in the sentence, especially if it goes before the City Council. Including
those words would also help the Metropolitan Transportation Commission understand that the
City plans to include more jobs within the City.
Commissioner Morgado said that it was interesting to read the verbatim public comments and he
found it surprising that the public wanted a free bus system, but didn't want their taxes raised. He
said he was a supporter of a free bus system that's funded by the municipality. He stated that he
read all the public comments and some were classic and others were informative, but overall he
felt Alameda has very intelligent residents who pay taxes in this City.
Commissioner Soules felt that places like Alameda, because of its geography, offer a unique
environment for immerging technologies and innovative solutions. She stated that either Public
Private Partnerships or some form of agreement with a potential equity component in place could
spur different ideas that could be Beta tested and not burden the City's taxpayers. She said being
so close to Silicon Valley and having autonomous vehicles there already could be a benefit to the
City.
Page 6 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-11-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-11-16,7,"Jennifer Ott said there are testing areas in Alameda Point because currently the area isn't
predominately occupied with housing and other uses. She explained there's wind energy and sail
drone (water based drones) testing in the area and staff talked about Alameda Point becoming a
place for autonomous testing and having the City allow autonomous vehicles. She also
mentioned the fact that staff discussed developing transportation network and bike and
pedestrian network apps as part of the TDM plan.
5.C. Review and Comment on the Access and Mobility Chapter of the Draft Main Street
Specific Plan at Alameda Point
Jennifer Ott presented the report.
Commissioner Morgado asked Jennifer Ott if staff spoke to the community and if so what they
said.
Jennifer Ott replied said staff spoke to the community and the Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society asked to preserve portions of the base that are historic. She explained that
another stakeholder requested that the ""beehive"" street network remain preserved and to not
build between the big lights. She said staff also heard from stakeholders who want a connection
to the ferry system. Also, she stated that the Site A stakeholders asked to integrate the street
network and Alameda Point Partners asked staff to create streets that do not have a cut through
that incentivizes speeding. She pointed out that the existing residents in the market rate units are
generally supporting the plan, but they want to know the timing and how that will impact their
lives. Moreover, Bike Walk Alameda and the Planning Board requested that staff keep streets as
narrow as possible and they would prefer 7' foot parking lanes. Further, they requested they
make bike facilities available on all the streets and staff addressed that request.
Commissioner Bellows replied given all of the information about South Shore and the parking
issues pertaining to the area there were negative public comments received about this.
Jennifer Ott replied narrower parking lanes induces a traffic calming effect, thus creating a
pedestrian friendly environment because the overall street width is narrower. She stated that the
consultant preferred 7' foot parking lanes, but the City engineer preferred 8' feet parking lanes to
provide more comfort to the adjacent bike lanes.
Commissioner Vargas said he grew up in Chicago and there were a lot of tough neighborhoods.
He asked staff how they would group the affordable housing units because when the city of
Chicago stacked the affordable housing units this subsequently became high-rise ""ghettos."" So,
he wanted staff to be cognizant of the fact that having blended income communities would help
everyone help each other.
Jennifer Ott said she's heard this comment a lot and ultimately however the project gets financed
will have moderate-income units that will be integrated with the market-rate units. First, she
explained that one of the needs from the nonprofit housing group was the need for their
residents, who were homeless or at risk of homelessness, to be close to a number of services that
allow them to become self-sustaining. Secondly, she said the way affordable housing gets
financed in California without redevelopment dollars is to receive low-income tax credits. In
Page 7 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-11-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-11-16,8,"order to receive the tax credit, they would have to finance essentially 100 percent affordable
projects and that's extremely competitive. However, staff has discussed this with the Alameda
Housing Authority and the Commission's questions are legitimate.
6.
Staff Communications
6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Cross Alameda Trail - Atlantic Avenue Gap Closure
2. Paratransit Annual Review
3. Transportation Management Association Annual Report
4. I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation Project
Commissioner Bellows asked staff to provide a map and project schedule for the I-
880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation Project.
7.
Announcements/Public Comments
Jim Strehlow said he didn't think he was going to speak on item 5.c., so he did not fill out a
speaker card. He explained that he spent a lot of time on Orion Street and it's an active
warehouse district where forklifts enter in and out of the Williams of Sonoma and Pottery Barn
buildings, while 18-wheelers and Caterpillar heavy equipment park alongside Orion Street. So, if
staff places a cycle track there, they're essentially negating the warehouse district's needs.
Jennifer Ott replied that the warehouse activity is not within the Main Street neighborhood and
those uses are found in the Enterprise District, which is located in the southern part of the base.
She said the location where the existing warehouses are located will become a real employment
center at some point and staff will then contemplate where the cycle tracks will go to balance the
various needs.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff about the timeline
Jennifer Ott replied it's in the future and will not happen over night.
Jim Strehlow said when staff and the Commission spoke about autonomous vehicles they favor
giving away money to automakers in Silicon Valley versus jobs and he found that to be offensive
because producing jobs in Alameda is more important.
Commissioner Soules asked staff if there is an emergency evacuation for people who are heavy
users of public transportation that may not own a vehicle.
Staff Payne replied staff could add that in as an item.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff to potentially include a briefing from representatives from
GoMentum Station in Concord. The station is where the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
leads and facilitates collaborative partnerships, which includes autonomous vehicles and job
creation opportunities could be brought to Alameda. He explained that he was going to invite
Page 8 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-11-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-11-16,9,"the Commission and some staff to tour the site. He also learned from the city of San Leandro,
during a Bus Rapid Transit tour that during their general plan review, city staff brought the
community together to understand their mode priorities and where they should be placed.
Subsequently, the city designed a road mode priority plan that cannot be debated going forward.
He suggested that a round table discussion should be planned with the Planning Board and the
community about mode priorities.
8.
Adjournment
8:34 pm
Page 9 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-11-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-12-13,1,"DRAFT
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
December 13, 2006
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at [7:30] p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL: Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier
Srikant Subramaniam
Members Absent:
Jeff Knoth
Robert McFarland
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II
Eric Fonstein, Economic Development Coordinator, Development Services Dept.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of October 25 and November 15, 2006 Minutes. Chair Knox White advised that there
was not a quorum to vote on the minutes of October 25, 2006.
Chair Knox White advised that there was not a quorum to vote on the minutes of November 15,
2006 minutes.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Multimodal Circulation Plan
b.
Pedestrian Plan
c.
TSM/TDM Plan
Chair Knox White advised that none of the subcommittees had met yet. He noted that he received
a letter advising that AC Transit was having a proposed review of
[[burst of static on",TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-12-13,2,"tape]] service deployment policies. He understood that those meetings would commence in
January 2007.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
6A. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE MULTIMODAL CIRCULATION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RECONCILING TMP POLICIES WITH THE 7 NEW
POLICIES.
Staff Khan presented the staff report. He noted that on October 17, 2006, City Council approved
the initiation of the process for a General Plan Amendment to incorporate the Transportation
Master Plan policies and the seven additional policies recommended by the Transportation
Commission. Following the meeting, the Transportation Commission met in October, and the
Commissioners asked the Multimodal Circulation Subcommittee to examine the TMP policies to
determine whether any conflicts existed. If conflicts did exist, they were requested to address and
reconcile the policies. The Subcommittee met after that meeting and developed
recommendations, including minor changes to the TMP policies, as well as a substantial change
to Policy 7 of the EIR policies. He detailed the changes in the policies as described in the staff
report. The staff recommendations were intended to ensure that if Policy 7 were to be
implemented, and if a certain level of congestion were to be accepted in certain locations in the
City, some thresholds would be established that would take into account the impacts that may be
generated from the increase in congestion.
Staff Khan described the current CEQA process in detail. Staff recommended that Policy 7 be
strengthened so that if the TSM or TDM measures were implemented, they would be verifiable
on an annual basis. If they were not being met, additional measures would be implemented. Staff
requested that the Commission examine the changes recommended by the Subcommittee and by
staff, and to approve the changes with the changed policies as recommended by staff.
Public Comment
There were no speakers.
Closed Public Comment
Commissioner Krueger noted that he was trying to reconcile how staff's wording related to the
goal of strengthening the TDM language. He noted that the second set of language seemed to put
conditions on when unmitigated congestion could be accepted with TDM. He believed that
weakened the intent of Policy 7 as he understood it.
Staff Khan noted that Policy 5 addressed the issue of pedestrian and bicyclist impacts, which they
tried to tie to Policy 7, and which strengthened Policy 7 in establishing thresholds.
A discussion of the impacts and thresholds ensued.
2",TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-12-13,3,"Chair Knox White noted that the Subcommittee had addressed Item B-2.1 by email, and came to
the consensus that changing ""protect"" to ""promote residential neighborhood integrity"" actually
weakened the proposed language. He believed that the following four lines appeared to be
editorializing, rather than making a policy statement. He did not believe it was necessary, and did
not believe it added anything to the policy. Regarding Item 7, he recalled that Commissioner
McFarland stated that the first part of it was nearly a duplication of the next statement regarding
the implementation and verification of a quantifiable TSM. He believed the language as written,
which included words such as ""could be"" instead of ""are going to be,"" significantly reduced the
effectiveness of Policy 7.
Commissioner Schatmeier agreed with the lack of necessity on Item B-2.1 in Policy 7, and
believed that the first sentence was superfluous.
Commissioner Krueger noted that was word ""yearly"" was included to specify a timeline for
verification, and inquired how important the yearly verification was.
Chair Knox White inquired once the EIR was passed, and the mitigations accepted, what the
addition of the language would do in terms of the City's ability to do anything differently.
Staff Khan advised that if the EIR had indicated thresholds, such as a 10% reduction in trips, and
if there was only a 5% reduction after the first year, the next level of TSM/TDM measures may
be required.
Chair Knox White believed the intent of Policy 7 was to bring the City out of having to mitigate
every possible piece of congestion at every possible intersection, which created an uncrossable
environment at some intersections. He believed this language may be appropriate for the TDM
plan, which would say that the TDM plan should have various phases to help achieve the TDM
plan goals.
Staff Khan noted that there were two aspects of the language: to ensure the measures were
verifiable and quantifiable, and to ensure that when the EIR was done, that the public would be
fully aware of the impacts if a certain level of congestion were to be accepted.
Chair Knox White noted that part of the EIR process was to identify and call out congestion. He
did not understand how the additional language accomplished that goal, other than to say it ""can
be decided.""
A discussion of level of service language and other wordsmithing items ensued.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he was inclined to accept Attachment 1 as it is, and he
suggested that specific language be added to state that the congestion should be quantified. He
believed the City should have clarification on the number of minutes traffic would be delayed.
He suggested that language be added explicitly stating that the facts would be put on the table.
3",TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-12-13,4,"Chair Knox White inquired whether the following language would be acceptable: ""During the
EIR process, the full extent of congestion at intersections will be disclosed beyond the LOS
letter.'
Commissioner Krueger concurred with that suggestion.
Chair Knox White suggested the following language, ""This unmitigated congestion should be
expressly evaluated and disclosed during the EIR process, and acknowledged as a byproduct of
the development.'
Commissioner Krueger suggested adding the following language, ""The alternate methods of
transportation, impacts of pedestrians, bicycles, queues at intersections, driveway access"" as
examples of the kind of disclosure being discussed. He added that including the language, ""could
be included, but not limited to as an example of the kind of things to be disclosed.
Staff Khan thanked the Commissioners for the specific language, and believed that would be
useful.
Chair Knox White suggested: ""This unmitigated congestion should be evaluated and disclosed,""
and if staff wished to discuss queues at intersection, that would be included in the LOS
discussion.
Staff Khan noted that LOS addressed delays, but did not take queues into account. He noted that
the queue analysis was performed as part of the model that examined LOS at intersections.
Commissioner Ratto moved to accept staff recommendation with the changes discussed by the
Commission, including the addition of the language ""This unmitigated congestion should be
evaluated and disclosed (including intersection delay length of time) during the EIR process,
and acknowledges a byproduct of the development.""). Commissioner Schatmeier seconded.
Motion passed, 5-0.
6B.
REVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON DRAFT FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONCEPTS * 2ND PRESENTATION.
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and noted that the consultant, DKS, would continue the
presentation. He noted that DKS had examined what other cities throughout the country had
done. They reviewed the cities' existing functional classification systems, and discussed them
with personnel from the other cities, resulting in recommendations and changes to the functional
classification maps and overlays. Staff requested the Commission's recommendations and input
for staff and the consultant. Staff would return with the final recommendations and changes in
January 2007, and would present the final report at that time.
Mark Spencer, DKS Associates, continued the presentation on the Street Functional
Classification System work that they had undertaken with City staff. He presented the overview
of the material covered in the previous meeting, and displayed a PowerPoint presentation
4",TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-12-13,5,"discussing the candidate streets and the primary concerns for each street, such as speed, access,
function, design features, land use and other elements explained in the report. This information was
compiled into a matrix table, which Mr. Spencer displayed on the overhead screen. He described the
methodology for creating the report and the maps. He noted that the pedestrian access layer was
removed, as all streets have pedestrian access and are integrated in the grid system. Mr. Spencer
indicated that there are two key recommendations: 1) implementation policy to recommend design
standards, and 2) prioritization and decision-making framework to address stakeholder concerns and
conflict resolution.
Chair Knox White noted that one step recommended an implementation process for creating
design standards, and inquired whether it was intended to accomplish that before or after the EIR
process. Staff Khan believed it would be more beneficial if it was part of the GPA, and that staff
recommended it be accomplished before that. Staff was in the RFP process for the consultant,
and hoped that by the end of January, a consultant would be found for the GPA analysis. If the
Multimodal Circulation Subcommittee could meet within the next month and provide some
recommendations, he hoped staff could return in January to discuss the implementation policies.
Public Comment
Jim Strehlow inquired whether the map depicted existing or proposed streets, because the
Clement Avenue went all the way through. Mr. Spencer replied that it depicted proposed streets.
Mr. Strehlow inquired whether the street segments would be published in a PDF file so the
public could comment on the classifications. Mr. Spencer replied that would be possible,
although they were currently unreadable; a new PDF version would be posted on the TMP
website on the City's website. A higher resolution version would be posted for readability.
Commissioner Krueger noted that a PDF file would have more flexibility for the user to zoom in
on a segment of the map.
Closed Public Comment
Commissioner Krueger noted that Alameda had very mixed land uses, and inquired whether
some cities had a mixed use classification, or whether the predominant use in a given area was
used. Mr. Spencer replied that most cities had mixed use land uses, and that most cities have not
undertaken this on a citywide basis; rather a more focused scope was used, within a
neighborhood or street corridor-type basis, which can change from block to block.
Commissioner Ratto noticed that on the land use map, part of Park Street was designated as a
school and recreational area, which he noted was not correct. Mr. Spencer noted that was
because of Island High, which would be moving. Commissioner Ratto added that Park Street was
still not a school zone. He noted that it was a Commercial zone, and inquired why it was labeled
that way. Staff Khan noted that the way the Transportation Commission looked at the zones,
there was a two-block radius around the school. Mr. Spencer noted that the zones were layered
on top of the other, and that the classification on top was the most visible.
5",TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-12-13,6,"Commissioner Ratto noted that he had an issue with respect to the maps regarding the proposal to
extend the truck route all the way down Park Street, from the bridge to Alameda Towne Center.
He agreed with the changing classification of Park Street, noting that from the Encinal to Otis
Drive, it changes into residential, as well as one lane in each direction. He had a huge problem
with that being designated a truck route so that it would increase the truck congestion during the
day. After Alameda Towne Center finishes it improvements, he believed the congestion could
become severe.
Staff Khan noted that was a very good point, and added that staff would examine it further.
Mr. Spencer added that staff questioned them on that item as well, and he noted that the
alternative was more circuitous truck routing. Normally, they would want to take a more direct
route.
Commissioner Ratto noted that his association, the Park Street Business Association, would fight
that tooth and nail.
Staff Khan noted that if trucks made deliveries to a certain destination, they would be allowed to
use that street for delivery access. Truck routes were defined as handling through traffic.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether the City had truck count information,
Staff Khan replied that classification counts were performed as part of City studies, and that he
could look into it further.
Commissioner Schatmeier complimented DKS on the quality of the report, and added that he had
questioned the need for hiring a consultant to do this kind of work. He had previously expressed
dismay at duplicating work that had been already done by the Transportation Commission. He
believed that the work shown at this meeting had not substantially added to the work previously
done by the Transportation Commission. He noted that the subcommittee consisting of
Commissioners Knox White, McFarland and himself had been cognizant of the funding needs,
and also vetted their work with community workshops and other Commissions within the City.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the arterial spacing guidelines on Table 3-2 (page 7)
referred to a national standard designed to apply to all cities. Mr. Spencer confirmed that was
correct. Commissioner Krueger was surprised to see on page 8 the spacing of arterials that
seemed very dense, given the Alameda population of 70,000 people. He would have expected to
see that spacing for New York or Chicago, and inquired about the thinking behind the number of
arterials. Mr. Spencer replied that Alameda had very short blocks with tight spacing and a lot of
traffic interruption. In addition, the grid pattern was very dense. He noted that Alameda did not
have many collectors, and that the main part of the Island was mostly grid.
Commissioner Krueger noted that given that Alameda was not an intense, highly dense urban
core, it may make sense to make some of the streets collectors, and have fewer arterials. He
inquired about the rationale behind not doing that. Mr. Spencer replied that it was not just the
density, but also how the street functioned. Regardless of the amount of volume, the traffic
experienced in Alameda was set up so that most of the streets functioned in a very equivalent
6",TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-12-13,7,"manner. He noted that if Alameda doubled in population, and if the traffic doubled, the streets
would still function similarly, but with much more volume, and assuming they could handle the
capacity.
Chair Knox White expressed concern about the way arterials were currently defined, and
believed that the current plan as set up seemed to completely contradict one of the main themes
of the Alameda General Plan, which was de-emphasis of the automobile. He believed that, as
proposed, the plan was completely out of compliance with the current, as well as the soon-to-be-
updated, General Plan. Regarding the classifications, he was surprised that there was a lot of
landscaping design, and that street widths were not called out in the matrix, that the work from
the subcommittee regarding the number of lanes for various types of arterials was left out, and
that the traffic calming had been left out as well. He inquired why the lanes and the traffic
calming had been left out. Staff Khan thanked Chair Knox White for his comments, and did not
see any reason why that could not be included. He noted that the consultant tried to incorporate
that by examining the buffers, including landscaping, for residential. He noted that by reducing
the street grid, the perception of the motorists would result in traffic calming. Chair Knox White
noted that he liked the landscaping very much.
A discussion of the subcommittee's work as it related to this current report ensued.
Chair Knox White noted that on page 10, two goals were expressed in 3.2, ""preserving arterial
functionality"" and ""improving residential livability.' He was not sure that they were not
opposing goals. He suggested that the Transportation Commission hold further discussion
regarding those two goals. He noted that it was difficult to back out of your driveway into fast-
moving traffic.
With respect to land use overlays, Chair Knox White believed the gateways were a landscaping
category, which was acceptable to him. He believed that gateway prioritization should start with
the highest occupancy vehicles and zero-emission modes, in other words, not moving the most
cars, but the most people.
With respect to residential corridors, Chair Knox White inquired whether they were only for
arterials, because he believed the map contained collector streets that were not called out as
residential corridors, despite being 100% residential. Mr. Spencer noted that he would look at
that issue on the map, and added that many arterials were also residential corridors, which led to
the conflict pointed out by Chair Knox White.
Chair Knox White noted the language on page 13 read, ""On-street parking preservation is to be
encouraged over other pedestrian and bicycle improvements if there is insufficient right of way.
He noted that the Transportation Commission had attempted to address that issue in a slightly
different way, which was, ""The preservation of on-street parking should be encouraged when
there is no adjacent off-street parking available and additional width is needed for pedestrian and
bicycle "" He noted that if you were next to a parking lot or garage, it should be acceptable to
install the bike lanes as a buffer, or other improvements.
7",TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-12-13,8,"Chair Knox White noted that on page 25, the arterial overlay matrix, the automobile column
essentially focused on peak vehicular mobility and capacity at all times. He noted that the
original intent of the TC Subcommittee, using the modal overlays, was to outline a network of
usable bike and transit systems that allowed for the City to create that system, including bike
lanes. He noted that for the bicycle priority overlay, the intent was to prioritize the streets for
bike improvements. He was concerned that by naming every street in Alameda that went across
the Island an arterial, and then stating that the street would be designed to carry as much traffic
as possible to meet the capacity and maximize flow, the City was limiting itself in the ability to
do any bike or transit planning.
Chair Knox White noted that on page 31, he believed the language, "" providing a comfortable
pedestrian environment,"" should be more fully fleshed out.
Chair Knox White noted that the parking part of the matrix was the same everywhere, and he
believed that there should be street parking wherever it is feasible.
Chair Knox White noted that he was willing to accept that there would not be pedestrian zones,
and noted that the definition of a pedestrian zone was difficult to define. He noted that the
subcommittee was not particularly supportive of the idea of pedestrian corridors as a meaningful
concept. He complimented the consultant on reflecting that in the matrix. Regarding the bike
map, he would like to see the subcommittee's bike map, which included new streets for future
use. He noted that they did not call out the classifications. He asked that the transit overlay be
called ""transit priority"" instead of ""transit preferred"", and that the original subcommittee's
definition of a primary transit street be included in the documentation. He complimented the
consultant on the transit map, and noted that the consultants elevated Lincoln from a primary
transit street to an exclusive transit right of way street, which he would not argue with. He noted
that there was a caveat after the description of the three kinds of street which said, ""Streets not
classified as either primary, secondary or exclusive transit right of way could nevertheless be
used by such nontraditional transit services as neighborhood shuttles, paratransit, electric buses,
etc. Nonclassification does not preclude specialized school routes of full-size buses as
necessary.'
Chair Knox White believed that if the multimodal overlays were prioritized, he believed most of
the conflicts between the uses should be discovered before the document is adopted. He
summarized the approaches taken by several other cities that were studied. He believed that any
process that goes forward should honor and acknowledge the Transportation Master Plan that
was passed by the City Council. He concurred with Commissioner Schatmeier's statement that
the document was well-done and readable, and added that the matrices enhanced the clarity of
the work. Staff Khan thanked the Chair for his comments.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he would submit further comments to staff via email. Staff
Khan requested that Chair Knox White submit his comments and modifications to staff as well.
Commissioner Schatmeier supported the idea of developing an implementation policy, and
would like to participate in that. He inquired what that would be based upon.
8",TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-12-13,9,"Chair Knox White suggested that the Commission address that issue during the January 2007
meeting, after the proposal final draft is distributed. Staff Khan requested that the additional
information be returned to staff by February in order to be included in the GPA process.
Mr. Spencer thanked the Commission on the level of effort and detail in responding to the
document. He noted that the use of the terms ""arterials,"" ""collectors"" and ""local streets"" would
be difficult to precisely define, and noted that the use of the terms allowed eligibility for funding
and consistency with County-wide, regional, and state plans. He noted that funding was the
primary reason for continued use of those terms.
No action was taken.
7A.
CITY OF ALAMEDA BUSINESS AREA PARKING STUDY
Eric Fonstein, Economic Development Coordinator, Development Services Department,
presented the staff report describing the parking study for the two business districts. He described
the study's background and scope, and advised that the goal was to provide a framework for a
comprehensive strategy to manage and regulate parking in the rejuvenating business districts. He
noted that the Park Street business district had changed since the last study with the additions of
many new retail businesses such as Starbucks and Peet's Coffee. He noted that the consultant,
Wilbur Smith, was completing the first technical memo, which reviews and analyzes the existing
parking conditions for both on- and off-street parking, including public and private lots. He noted
that the study would eventually contain five technical memos: Existing Conditions, Demand,
Loading Zone, Analyzing the Parking Code/Alternative Code Requirements, and Parking
Management Plans/Incentives for Parking Facilities.
Staff Fonstein noted that after the findings were concluded in the spring, staff would return to the
districts and community workshops to present the findings. Staff would then come before the
Transportation Commission, EDC, Planning Board and the City Council to present the final
report for approval.
Commissioner Ratto suggested that the study area be extended up to the estuary.
Staff Fonstein noted that the first task, data collection, was nearly complete, and that it would
stretch the study budget to return to the field and extend the study area.
Commissioner Ratto noted that data was collected between 7 and 9, he suggested that the hours
be extended to 10. He also suggested that the weekend hours be earlier. He requested an
updated work schedule.
Commissioner Krueger was surprised that the study area for Park Street (Figure 3 map) went so
far west, near Walnut Street, but did not extend as far east to Broadway. He inquired why the
study area was so lopsided. Mr. Fonstein noted that the map was drawn erroneously.
Commissioner Krueger asked why the Webster Street area is so much narrower than the Park
Street area.
9",TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-12-13,10,"Staff Fonstein responded that study areas respond to the areas where there are parking
restrictions. He advised that a draft recommendation would be presented to the Commission in
the spring.
There was no action.
Chair Knox White requested a motion to continue the meeting.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m. Commissioner
Krueger seconded. Motion passed, 5-0.
7B.
STATUS OF RED-CURBING FOR BUS STOPS
Staff Bergman provided an update on the efforts to improve accessibility at the City's bus stops.
Based on guidelines and discussions with AC Transit, it was determined that 55 feet of red curb
was sufficient at the nearside bus stops, and 65 feet at the far side stops; the City began to
provide those improvements. The table attached to the report indicated where there were
deficiencies. At 23 of the locations, additional red curb was required; some of those could be
addressed administratively because only one space was required; the other locations would be
brought to the TTT. Twenty-seven of the stops on the list were only served by either school
routes or Transbay peak hour-only routes; signage would be used to have minimal impact to
allow parking on the weekends and other times when buses were not running. Ten other stops
had individual situations that needed to be resolved. The staff report indicated that the 60
locations will be taken to the TTT beginning in February, and after internal discussion, it would
be done more quickly than originally planned if there was not significant opposition. The staff
report indicated that red curbing was removed from some locations, and after further
investigation, it was determined that nearly all of them resulted from bus stop consolidations.
The only stops affected by that were those that were being relocated.
Commissioner Ratto noted that in the staff report it states that red curb was removed after it had
previously been approved. Staff Bergman replied that was the result of an internal
miscommunication, and investigation of most of those sites were the result of consolidation.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether there were any instances where the red curbs were
removed, but the bus stop signs were not; he recalled that there were several instances on
Encinal. Staff Bergman noted that at Mound, there was a bus stop, and that red curb needed to be
put in.
Chair Knox White thanked staff for compiling the database.
No action was taken.
10",TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-12-13,11,"7C.
SELECTION OF A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT/
TRANSPORTATION
DEMAND
MANAGEMENT
(TSM/TDM)
SUB-PLAN
SUBCOMMITTEE.
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and noted that staff would like to complete the TSM/TDM
plan by the end of 2007, with implementation anticipated to begin by the end of 2007. Staff
requested that the Transportation Commission appoint a subcommittee to work on developing
the policy's objectives for this sub-plan. He noted that the subcommittee would participate in
identification of thresholds for peak hour trip reduction, revise existing Citywide ordinance on
TSM/TDM programs, develop management and operation procedures for the Transportation
Management Associations, and support the establishment of fees to administer the TSM/PDM
programs. Staff would work with the subcommittee to establish the policies, goals and objectives
as soon as possible.
Chair Knox White noted that he would be willing to participate in the subcommittee, and that this
was an issue of interest to him. He anticipated one meeting per month.
Commissioner Ratto volunteered to participate in the subcommittee.
Commissioner Subramaniam volunteered to participate in the subcommittee.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Khan inquired whether the Commissioner S had taken the ethics training course. He noted
that they were due by the end of the year, and could be taken online.
Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
11",TransportationCommission/2006-12-13.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-09-27,1,"DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
Vice-Chair Miley called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Vice-Chair Miley, Commissioners Vargas, Bertken, Soules, Hans, Palmer.
Absent: Chair Bellows.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
*None*
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Commissioner Vargas announced the scoping meeting for the Oakland-Alameda Access
Project would take place the next day in Oakland.
3A
Alameda Transportation Management Association - Introduction of Chair
Michael O'Hara of Tim Lewis Communities
Jennifer Ott introduced Mike O'Hara.
Michael O'Hara introduced himself to the commission. He gave some history on the
forming and composition of the TMA.
Commissioner Vargas asked how large the TMA is, how often and where they meet, and
how the Transportation Commission can work with them.
Mr. O'Hara said they have been meeting monthly. He said the sub area committees also
have been meeting to discuss specific items. He explained the funding they get from
new units and employers. He said they met recently to approve their
website: www.alamedaTMA.org
3B Station-Less Bike Share to Launch in October
Staff Member Payne said that there would be a ribbon cutting on October 5th at 4pm at
Faction Brewery.
3C Walk and Roll to School Day: Wednesday, October 4, 2017
3D Climate Action Plan Update Town Hall Meeting: Thursday, October 5, 2017 at
6:30pm (Main Library)
3E California Share Your Ride Week: October 2-6, 2017
1",TransportationCommission/2017-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-09-27,2,"3F Alameda Bike for the Parks: Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 9:00am (Washington
Park)
3G Climate Action Plan at Public Utilities Board: Monday, October 16, 2017 at
7:00pm (City Hall, Council Chambers)
Staff Member Payne said this item has been postponed to November 13th.
3H Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at
7:00pm
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4A 2017-4752
Approve Meeting Minutes - July 26, 2017 (Action)
Commissioner Vargas asked if we could insert the dollar range of parking ticket
violations on page 4 of 6 for future reference.
Commissioner Soules made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner
Vargas seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0-2 (Vice-Chair Miley and
Commissioner Hans abstained due to their absence from the 7/26/17 meeting.)
5. NEW BUSINESS
5A 2017-4753
Elect Chair and Vice Chair (Action)
Vice-Chair Miley said Commissioners Bellows and Vargas have a lot of experience and
he feels they would make an excellent chair and vice-chair. He said he spoke with Chair
Bellows and confirmed that she would like to stay on as chair. He said he would like to
make that motion when the time comes, after discussion.
Commissioner Vargas said he tried to convince a young man to be chair, but he
declined.
Vice-Chair Miley said he appreciated the offer, but was not in a position to commit the
time necessary to be chair.
Vice-Chair Miley made a motion to appoint Commissioner Bellows as chair, and
Commissioner Vargas as vice-chair for the next year. Commissioner Soules
seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
5B 2017-4754
Approve Draft Transportation Choices Plan (Action)
Staff Member Jennifer Ott gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachments
can be found at:
2",TransportationCommission/2017-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-09-27,3," https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3158563&GUID=FA3FBDE5
B456-4391-8D95-1AC8D71F82AA&FullText=1
Commissioner Soules asked what the timeline is to meet the stated goals.
Staff Member Ott said the goals were based on a 15 year timeline.
Commissioner Palmer asked what dollar amounts the actual developers are required to
contribute to the plan and not just their residents.
Staff Member Ott gave examples of contributions that developers have been required to
contribute, such as $10,000,000 for a new ferry terminal at Alameda Pt.
Commissioner Palmer asked why 2030 was chosen as the benchmark for measuring the
plan's success.
Bill Hurrell, CDM Smith, said they wanted to pick a horizon that was long enough to
allow the plan to have an impact, but not so long that they would not have confidence in
predicting what would happen in the future.
Vice-Chair Miley opened the public hearing.
Christina Hanson, employee of Harbor Bay Isle and Central Avenue resident, said the
community is concerned about the proposal to add bus lanes on Island Drive. She said
they do not believe this is the right solution for the problem. She said the median and
trees are very important to the community. She said there are also safety concerns
around the elementary school with adding bus lanes there.
Jim Strehlow said we have added 5,000 new homes and asked where the 5,000 new
jobs were to go with them. He said the city should be prioritizing job creation but is in fact
doing the opposite. He said stopping growth is part of the real solution. He said
Alamedans want another bridge or tunnel. He said the public meetings are too rigid for
genuine discussion, or speakers are hand picked. He asked that more discussion time
be allowed for future meetings on these issues. He said when he drives kids for a non-
profit he is a single driver off the island. He said he is mad because this plan is not a
solution to the transportation problem.
Pat Potter, CASA, said she is concerned about the Transportation Awareness
Campaign. She said we need to drill down deep and understand what prevents
individuals from changing their behavior.
Andrea Wuttke, transportation planner and infrastructure economist, said a bus system
is a supplemental mass transit vehicle. She said her plan would be to take 20,000 rides
a day out of the system to connect the island to Oakland via an aerial tramway.
3",TransportationCommission/2017-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-09-27,4,"Randy Woolwine, aerial tram builder, said a tramway would be equal to a fully loaded
bus leaving a terminal every minute. He said they did a study for Alameda in the past for
a homebuilder.
Maria Gallo asked why there is no evening estuary crossing goal. She said there could
be placeholders in the plan for mid-course corrections. She said there are more
opportunities for public awareness. She asked why Alameda is so reliant on AC Transit
for our services. She said we should do more pilot projects.
Jean Nader, member of Alameda Progressives, said the proposal has some noteworthy
items in it that reflects Alameda's history. She said innovation and equity should be
considered in the plan. She said many bike riders use the walking path to get to and
from the ferry because they are trying to get away from the cars on Main Street. She
said residents west of Webster have lost most of their bus service.
Jeff Gould said that there is not enough attention paid in the plan to the goal of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. He said it does not take responsibility for the electrification
of our fossil fuel vehicles. He said people would be more likely to walk and bike if they
were not forced to breathe cars' toxic emissions.
Christine Bauer said she has seen a huge increase in ferry ridership in recent years. She
said ferry riders would like to see the terminal access plans moved from medium to high
priority. She said that drivers who cannot find parking often decide to drive to BART.
Christine Lok said she is a ferry rider with concerns about coordinating access to the
ferries. She said the changes at Harbor Bay have had an impact on people's lives. She
said there are real people behind the graphs and numbers.
Alan Pryor said we should have more options for charging electric cars in public spaces.
He said it would also help get rid of greenhouse gases.
Vice-Chair Miley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Soules said there is no silver bullet and is glad the plan is diverse. She
said the public awareness and engagement is important. She wanted to understand how
this would be a living document to make adjustments as time passes.
Commissioner Palmer said she liked the items in the plan. She wanted to know why we
are pushing the big ideas off into the future.
Vice-Chair Miley said he would like to see another access point on the west end, but that
they are extremely large projects that the city cannot carry on their own. He said we
need to seriously consider congestion pricing to help fund the big ideas. He said the
4",TransportationCommission/2017-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-09-27,5,"ferry parking issues have been on the TC agendas for 18 months but the conversations
were dominated by the HOAs. He agrees with moving the ferry terminal access plans to
the near term.
Staff Member Ott said they are fine with moving the ferry terminal items to the near term
and are already working on it.
Commissioner Vargas suggested adding ferry parking as an issue to items three and
four. He said we need to address that issue sooner. He said we should reiterate findings
that previous estuary crossing analyses have done on some of the ""crazy, creative""
ideas so we do not spend a lot of money redoing the same studies.
Commissioner Soules said she was glad that the Harbor Bay ferry area permit parking
issue would be returning for review soon. She said she is worried that neighborhood
parking permits would spread before we are offering viable transit options for people
accessing the Harbor Bay Ferry. She said we should be doing some risk based delivery
on these projects.
Commissioner Bertken said the public will judge the success of the plan based on their
own personal experience today versus the future.
Mr. Hurrell said the data they based the plan off of was from 2015. He said the new,
higher goal would dial things back to about 2010 traffic levels. He said success will mean
the duration of the peak will decrease. He said the goal is quite aggressive.
Vice-Chair Miley asked for an explanation of the methodology of the jobs and housing
numbers in the plan.
Mr. Hurrell said that they used ABAG's regional forecasts to project jobs and housing
numbers, as well as all the project specific numbers for the island were factored in.
Commissioner Vargas asked if Goal 2 would result in a reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions.
Mr. Hurrell said that the mode shift would result in a reduction in greenhouse gases. He
said that does not take into account changing the mix of cars to more electrics, which
was not the focus of the plan.
Commissioner Vargas asked if the plan could highlight electricity discounts offered to
electric vehicle owners.
Mr. Hurrell said they could add some language being more supportive of electric
vehicles to change the tone of the plan somewhat.
5",TransportationCommission/2017-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-09-27,6,"Staff Member Ott said that they are entering into a Climate Action Plan update, which
could take this plan and switch to the focus of greenhouse gas reductions.
Vice-Chair Miley summarized what he thought the commission's feedback was. He said
they would like to review progress in 1-2 years rather than 3 years. He said they want
items 31 & 32 to be moved up to near term completion. He said this is a good first step
at addressing our congestion issues. He asked if each project in the plan would go
through a public outreach process before implementation, i.e. Island Dr. bus lanes.
Staff Member Ott said that they would have public processes. She said their intention
would not be to take out mature trees. She says they think they could achieve a bus only
lane by taking only about two feet of the median. She said they think it is a good project,
but that if the community does not like it, they will move on to other projects.
Commissioner Soules asked for and received confirmation that there is always a project
website for any major projects to help with outreach. She said she would like to hear
more about engaging genuine ride sharing (no cost) technologies.
Staff Member Ott said they are working on those kinds of ride sharing issues and can
add more. She said it is important for everyone to remember that they need to engage in
the budget process as well if they want to see their projects and plan implemented.
Commissioner Vargas made a motion to recommend the plan with amendments
suggested by the commissioners during discussion. Commissioner Hans
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Palmer said she was not clear on what they are actually voting to do. She
asked if we are voting to get started and things in the plan can change over time or are
we saying this is how we want things to go.
Vice-Chair Miley said his understanding is that we are recommending approval of the
plan as it is, with the comments heard tonight, moving items 31 and 32 up, and having a
quicker reporting back on the plan.
Commissioner Palmer said she does not have enough information on some of the bigger
project ideas and would have to vote nay.
Staff Member Ott said they can always bring new ideas forward.
The motion passed 5-1 (Palmer.)
6",TransportationCommission/2017-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-09-27,7,"5-C 2017--4755
Review Station-less Bike Share Program (Information)
Staff Member Ott gave the staff presentation. The staff report and attachment can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3158564&GUID=903E0D37-
5AD5-49DB-B4D7-2413D78711C8&FullText=1
Commissioner Soules said they have it in Seattle and she liked it. She asked if there
was a way to help people acquire helmets.
Staff Member Ott said they will work with the bike shops and report back. She said it will
work well with things like the ferry for those last mile issues.
Dermot Hikisch said he supports the bike share pilot. He said their goal at Gig car share
is to enable trip sharing and reduce car ownership.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A 2017-4757
Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and
Plans (Information)
Staff Member Payne gave an update. The staff report can be found at:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3158565&GUID=55E22B57-
94AF-4020-8F8A-7BC8CA395278&FullText=1
6-B Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Climate Action Plan Update Work Scope
2. Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal Parking Restriction Analysis
3. Traffic Calming Draft Policy and Prioritized List
4. 2014 Parking Occupancy Goal Update
5. Alameda Transportation Management Association Annual Report
6. Paratransit Program Annual Report
Staff Member Payne listed the above items coming to future meetings.
6. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow said he wishes he had learned more about the details of the bike share
program. He said traffic is so bad in Alameda it is reducing the quality of life and
enjoyment of visitors coming to Alameda. He said the Transportation Plan is missing the
mark.
Commissioner Vargas said he attended a car show at Alameda Point that was a fun
event that provided a great backdrop for the event.
7",TransportationCommission/2017-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2017-09-27,8,"Commissioner Hans said that October 4th is Walk and Roll to School Day and folks will
see more kids biking to school that day. He said they normally have about 300 riders per
day, so might see 400-500 that day.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Vice-Chair Miley adjourned the meeting at 9:06pm.
8",TransportationCommission/2017-09-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-07-22,1,"Transportation Commission
November 18, 2015
Item 4B
Action
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Wednesday July 22, 2015
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)
Christopher Miley
Thomas G. Bertken
Michael Hans
Members Absent:
Gregory Morgado
Jesus Vargas
Staff Present:
Staff Patel, Transportation Engineer
Bob Haun, Interim Assistant City Manager
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Commission Bellows asked for a moment of silence for Dennis Harry Stone who passed
away on July 8 and owned Stone Cyclery.
Bob Haun stated that the changes of staffing to the Commission include Gail Payne
moving to take the initial lead on the City's transportation study. He explained that the
study was requested by the City Council to look at Transportation Demand Associations
(TDA) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs around the island. He
went on to say that there will eventually be one TDM program for the entire island.
Direction was given to staff in January to begin the study but it languished for about six
months. Gail Payne is on loan to the Planning Department and will be there for at least
Page 1 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-07-22,2,"the next six months to get the study off the ground. He anticipates that the study will last
for a couple of years and the results will be reported back to the City Council. He said
Gail Payne will attend almost every single Commission meeting to present the tasks
that she is working on, which is developing the scope of work and the RFP for the
consultant which he anticipates will be able to be presented at the September 23rd
meeting. Moreover, the Commission will be able to weigh in on the information
presented. He said he will support Staff Patel who came back to staff the Commission.
However, he mentioned that given the lack of staffing for the next six months and
depending on where Gail Payne will be placed permanently staff will be fairly restricted
on what they can do and what they can staff. Yet, staff will support the Commission and
the Interagency Liaison Committee (ILC) with AC Transit.
Commissioner Miley said he looked forward to having Gail Payne present to the
Commission as the process moves forward.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Bob Haun how he saw this fitting into or
supplementing the Transportation Element (TE) of the General Plan.
Bob Haun replied that was yet to be determined and he was not sure if the study would
drive changes to the TE. However, the City Council will be very involved in the study.
He also said they will generally try to change Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) travel,
review the ingress and egress of the island and try to improve those routes.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the role the Commission would play in the study
and what would be the ultimate relationship with the Planning Board.
Bob Haun replied the Planning Board would have a lot less input than the Commission
and although Gail Payne was assigned to the Planning Department, this is not a
planning function necessarily. He said they have not discussed who Gail Payne will
report to although she will probably report to the Planning Board. He explained that the
general feeling within the City is that the Planning Department started this because
there was a large report on transportation that began with Jennifer Ott and Andrew
Thomas. Therefore, since they initiated and have ownership of the study then the
natural direction would be for the Planning Department to complete the study.
Commissioner Miley stated that it would be useful to have the chair of the
Transportation Commission speak with the chair of the Planning Board to schedule a
joint meeting at some point about this issue.
Bob Haun said he suspected that at some point there will be a joint meeting because
there will be a development portion of the study including how to handle the additional
traffic from the developments.
Commissioner Bertken stated that if the development was a given as a supposed to
constrained by transportation, then part of the study will be dealt with where the TDM
approach would be worked out along with the development.
Page 2 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-07-22,3,"Bob Haun replied that development was not a given because they do have some
options on the future of development. He explained that some things do not have
options, but with the development parcels on the books now they have somewhat of an
option. Therefore, he said that may come back up for discussion about where they want
to insert instances of having discretionary approval.
Louie Krevnovski, Alameda resident, stated that he lives on Central Avenue and Ballena
Boulevard and he felt reducing Central Avenue from four lanes to two lanes will cause
congestion and accidents because vehicles stop at the right-hand lane quite frequently
and there is high turning activity from Central Avenue onto Webster Street. He also
explained that vehicles will have to pass the stopped cars on the left turn lane and that
will cause congestion and accidents. He suggested that the City conduct a one day
traffic study by closing the two center lanes with left turns allowed. This will show you
the effect it would have on traffic.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Louie Krevnovski if he lives near Central and
Webster.
Louie Krevnovski replied he lives on Central Avenue and Ballena Boulevard and passes
that area often. He said when he drives west on Central Avenue and turns onto Webster
Street there is always congestion because motorists are trying to turn right, but cannot
because pedestrians constantly enter the crosswalk. He went on to say that currently
cars can get around stopped vehicles in the left turn lane, but if there is only one lane
traffic will back up a long way. His concern is that there will be a lot of congestion that is
not foreseen by discussion.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda Resident, stated that while riding his bicycle around the city of
Oakland from Alameda he noticed the following activities that could affect the city of
Alameda: 1. A four to five story development is being built at Park Street right across
the bridge and he did not remember the project or potential traffic implications being
discussed at past Transportation Commission meetings. So, he wanted to know if that
was included in past traffic studies.
Commissioner Bellows asked Jim Strehlow if he was speaking about the study for the
Caltrans 23rd/29th Avenue Overcrossing Project.
Jim Strehlow replied he did not remember the project being discussed and he would like
to know if that development was included in any previous study and if the city of
Oakland had to conduct an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with Alameda.
Commissioner Hans replied he did not think so because the project will be a senior
living area and was advertised at the Alameda Theater.
Commissioner Bellows replied that the project was advertised at the theater, but she did
not remember discussing the project. However, she would look into it.
Jim Strehlow referred to the High Street on ramp going from High Street to the on ramp
Page 3 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-07-22,4,"at
I-880 headed northbound and westbound. He said there use to be a left-hand turn
signal and once the signal was done and motorists were stopped at the light they could
still make a left-hand turn. However, with the new signal it is a left-hand only turn, so
when the signal is green motorists cannot make a left hand turn. He felt vehicles are
trapped at the left-hand turn and he wondered who made that decision.
Commissioner Bellows replied Caltrans operates those signals if it relates to the
freeway.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied Jim Strehlow's comment was well taken because the
interchange is a disaster since it has been reconstructed.
Commissioner Bellows replied she would talk to the staff at Caltrans to see what could
happen.
Commissioner Miley seconded Jim Strehlow's comment and said the interchange never
really worked and may be worse now.
Commissioner Bellows felt the interchange was broader now.
Commissioner Miley said constructing two left turn lanes or a split left may have been
brought up at a previous Commission meeting to push more traffic through. However,
he felt something should be done to improve the functionality of the interchange and he
hoped that staff will continue to push Caltrans to improve the functionality of the
interchange.
Jim Strehlow stated that the last issue he noticed was at San Leandro Boulevard when
turning left onto High Street and into Alameda on the northwest corner. He saw a sign
that reads City of Alameda, and it is in bad shape. He wondered who is responsible for
the sign's condition.
3. A. Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 7
p.m.
4.
Consent Calendar
4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - March 25,
2015
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the minutes of March 25, 2015. Commissioner
Bertken seconded the minutes. The motion was approved 5-0.
4.B. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - May 27,
2015
Page 4 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-07-22,5,"Commissioner Miley stated that within the minutes Commissioner Hans was shown to
be present and absent. Since, Commissioner Miley could not remember if
Commissioner Hans was present he called for the minutes to be postponed.
Commissioner Bellows made a motion to postpone the approval of the May 27, 2015
minutes until further review.
5.
New Business
5.A. Review AC Transit's Draft Comprehensive Operations Analysis Study
Staff Patel introduced Robert Del Rosario, AC Transit Director of Service Development,
to present the report.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Robert Del Rosario about the proposed route that
would increase service on Otis Drive and Shoreline Boulevard and is currently served
by Route 20 with 30-minute headways. He wanted to know if the proposed route would
be staggered with the Route 20, so one or most of them would create 15-minute
headways.
Robert Del Rosario replied yes. He explained that the area on Otis Drive, from Park
Street to Webster Street, would contain two routes that are 30 minutes staggered
against each other creating 15 minute headways.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Robert Del Rosario would there still be 15-minute
service along Park Street provided by the Routes 20 and 21. However, the half hour
headways would be along High Street.
Robert Del Rosario replied yes.
Commissioner Miley asked Robert Del Rosario for the total number of double decker
buses purchased by AC Transit.
Robert Del Rosario replied 20 buses to start with.
Commissioner Hans asked Robert Del Rosario if the buses would fit in the tube.
Robert Del Rosario replied yes.
Commissioner Bertken asked Robert Del Rosario if there would be any problems with
the double decker buses in the tunnel.
Robert Del Rosario replied there should be no problems and the bus should fit in the
tube where the bus height is 13 feet and six inches.
Commissioner Bertken stated that there is also a limit on the side road at the Yerba
Page 5 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-07-22,6,"Buena Tunnel.
Robert Del Rosario replied AC Transit staff tested the limit and brought a bus over there
in February and reviewed the buffer.
Commissioner Bertken asked Robert Del Rosario about providing weekend service
since everyone is trying to get people out of their cars.
Robert Del Rosario stated that staff is looking at the cost and pacing themselves to see
what ridership demand looks like. He explained that if funding became available staff
could look at weekend service.
Commissioner Bertken replied access off the island on the weekend was important.
Robert Del Rosario stated that the goal was for staff to review weekday service, but
weekends are just as important.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Robert Del Rosario about the bus circulator concept
and whether the buses would go in clockwise and counterclockwise directions.
Robert Del Rosario replied that staff created the cost out for both directions.
Commissioner Bellows referred to the fact that 85 percent of Measure BB goes for
operations and that translates to $20 million a year and she asked if those funds go
through the entire AC Transit service district.
Robert Del Rosario replied that was correct, although only in Alameda County.
Commissioner Bellows asked Robert Del Rosario how much did the city of Alameda
receive.
Robert Del Rosario replied he would have to review the numbers, but he estimated $2
million.
Commissioner Bellows replied then none of the service proposals would really work.
Robert Del Rosario referred to 3A of the staff report or 3C in the PowerPoint
presentation and stated that the route that would work would be along Buena Vista
Avenue. He further explained that if AC Transit partnered up with the Estuary Shuttle
they could probably make it happen. However, he felt AC Transit was committed to
adding a new route with the Measure BB funds and it would be at 30-minute headways.
Commissioner Bellows replied so the City would receive one new route with 30-minute
headways and everything else would be implemented later.
Robert Del Rosario replied AC Transit would also fix Route 31, which would serve
Alameda Landing.
Page 6 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-07-22,7,"Commissioner Hans stated that one issue that his neighbors have asked him to discuss
was to relieve the pressure on the Route 51 because they have to stand all the time.
So, he wondered if AC Transit staff has considered that issue.
Robert Del Rosario replied staff added more runtime to the Route 51 and although the
route has 10-minute headways, which is good, they felt the service does not run on the
even spacing. So, staff is trying to improve the route's on time performance and
reliability. Furthermore, he said the capital project for the Route 51 included relocating
and removing some bus stops and looking at signal priority along Webster Street, which
should relieve pressure.
Commissioner Miley asked Robert Del Rosario going forward to bring handouts for the
Commissioners to follow along to if the staff report changes at the last minute, otherwise
he appreciated the presentation. He pointed out that staff handed out comments from
John Knox White and he wanted to present the comments to Robert Del Rosario. He
felt Robert Del Rosario answered some of John Knox White's questions such as bus to
ferry connections. Also, John Knox White proposed a two-year pilot program for the bus
to ferry connections, which he seconded the idea. He also said that Commissioner
Schatmeier proposed having an ad hoc committee consisting of Transportation
Commission and Planning Board members to meet with AC Transit and City staff to
discuss the City's long-term and short-term priorities and he felt it would be useful to
have those meetings. He also suggested that a future ILC meeting could include an
agenda item that allowed the ad hoc committee to address some of the items they have
discussed.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he has had conversations with Bob Haun about this and
Bob Haun ensured him that it was not too late to submit ideas and comments. He put
some ideas out there, but his hope was at the end of the subcommittee process that the
ad hoc committee would come back to the Transportation Commission and recommend
some priorities that the plan could address. He went on to say that the Commission has
already created the committee and they have to decide when to meet. He also
explained that his goal was to have a list of 3-5 priorities that the City would like AC
Transit to address.
Commissioner Bellows replied logistically there was an issue because the public
comment period closes on July 31.
Robert Del Rosario stated that the purpose of the comment period date allowed AC
Transit to start the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process.
Commissioner Bellows replied so this was part of the scoping of the CEQA.
Robert Del Rosario replied yes.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that AC Transit's proposal contains some interesting
ideas, but this may reallocate resources to something else and that may be a discussion
Page 7 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-07-22,8,"outside of this process. He understood that AC Transit Boardmember Pebbles has
expressed interest in reviewing the Route 21 service at the next ILC meeting and he
had no problem with that, but he suspected that Boardmember Pebbles was doing that
to save some resources.
Commissioner Miley stated that one priority would be that resources already expended
in Alameda stay in Alameda. He felt it was important to have different government
agencies' perspectives such as the Planning Board and City staff, so if there was a way
to get a meeting accomplished by using existing infrastructure that would be ideal.
Bob Haun explained that neither he nor Staff Patel could staff an ad hoc committee at
this time due to short-term staffing constraints. He went on to say that Route 21 is on
the agenda for the next ILC meeting scheduled on October 7 and that would be the
appropriate time to speak to that item. He said if the Commission would like to have an
informal committee they could do that without staff support, but the priority items would
have to come back to the Transportation Commission for endorsement before it went
out.
Commissioner Bellows replied so the ad hoc committee could present their findings to
the Commission and the Commissioners could discuss the items and agendize them for
the September meeting.
Bob Haun said that would be within the appropriate window because the next public
hearing is November 8. He further explained that from the City's perspective they are
interested in Route 19 for the Northern Waterfront because Marina Cove Il housing will
be available as of spring 2016. Furthermore, he mentioned that the Estuary Crossing
Shuttle was only funded for half a year and the City would like to keep that going. So,
shifting the Route 19 service at Sherman to go up through Atlantic Avenue would
basically pick up all the stops for the Estuary Crossing Shuttle. He pointed out that
Route 31 touching Alameda Landing may have some synergy with the Alameda
Landing Shuttle because there are significant contributions from Marina Cove II, Del
Monte, Wind River and Marina Village who either subsidize the Estuary Shuttle or
operate their own shuttle and they may want to jump on the boat too if Route 19 goes
through Marina Village.
Commissioner Bellows noted that Robert Del Rosario mentioned that there would be a
line going down Buena Vista that would ultimately shift to Clement Avenue.
Robert Del Rosario replied that staff talked about this in the very long-term and they
would have to consider a number of factors such as bus stop placement and how the
service would interact with the bicycle proposal along Clement Avenue.
Commissioner Bellows asked Robert Del Rosario why the service would be placed on
Clement Avenue.
Robert Del Rosario replied to get closer to developments.
Page 8 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-07-22,9,"Bob Haun stated that the potential development at Boatworks would contain 182 units
sooner rather than later since it has been approved by the City. Therefore, he felt the
ideal time even when thinking of shifting the route to Clement Avenue would be to
somehow acquire the Pennzoil property that would extend Clement Avenue.
Commissioner Bertken mentioned one of the comments from John Knox White's memo.
He felt that the coordination with bus service to the ferry schedule is important because
within the next 20 years there will not be additional capacity across the bay except what
you could do with ferry boats.
Bob Haun replied that was on their radar and he currently sits on the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) Core Capacity Study Technical Advisory Group.
Thus, he explained they are looking at a number of options such as the opening of a
ferry terminal at Seaplane Lagoon and charging for parking at the ferry.
Commissioner Bellows asked Bob Haun do drivers have to pay for parking at the Jack
London Square terminal.
Bob Haun replied he did not believe riders have to pay for parking, but they have to
obtain a parking validation on the ferry.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied he is a bus and ferry rider, but his experience with
bus service to the ferry terminal is similar to bus service to the airport. He said bus
service along the Harbor Bay end are running empty and they are timed to meet the
ferry, but they do not have a tremendous on time performance record. He gave an
example of when he worked in Marin County and the Golden Gate Transit bus to ferry
service was not in heavy demand, so when John Knox White proposed to conduct a
pilot program there should not be empty buses to the ferry terminal.
Commissioner Bertken replied he has not seen a real survey conducted that showed
where in Alameda ferry riders are coming from.
Commissioner Bellows replied that Kevin Connolly, Water Emergency Transportation
Agency (WETA) Planning and Development, provided a map of where riders come from
when he presented to the Commission last time.
Robert Del Rosario replied the bulk of riders live between Webster Street and Park
Street. Residents living east of Park Street use the Harbor Bay ferry. He explained that
all three proposals have their merits, but scarcity of resources forced them to prioritize.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that one of the proposals labeled Service
Enhancement Proposal # 2 for the Route O has the service truncated on the island and
does not go to Fruitvale BART Station anymore. So, he wanted to know if the change
would save resources.
Robert Del Rosario replied that they could do both, but what is hurting the Route O is
reliability with the traffic they face when crossing into the Fruitvale BART Station.
Page 9 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-07-22,10,"capture revenue and reduce fraud with the transfer policy. However, he said Clipper
does reduce the fraud, but when getting a paper transfer from the farebox that is when
fraud comes into place.
6.
Staff Communications
6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
-
C. K. Myers letter regarding Central Avenue Complete Street proposal
-
IDrive Alameda letter regarding Central Avenue Complete Street proposal
Bob Haun stated that the letters were forwarded at the direction of the mayor to provide
to the Commission, and the Commission could comment on the letters if they would like.
However, he stated that the IDrive Alameda letter was different because the letter
requested a response from the Commission. From his knowledge, the Commission
does not typically respond to a letter. However, if a representative from the group would
like to attend the next Commission meeting and appear before the Commission, then
the Commissioners would reply back to the comment. Therefore, he recommended that
staff could get back to IDrive Alameda to explain that the Commission would hear ideas
at a future meeting, but the Commission does not respond to letters to specific people,
and the letter was sent anonymously.
Commissioners Bellows and Miley agreed with staff recommendations.
Commissioner Miley stated that the Central Avenue Complete Street Proposal was part
of the future meeting agenda items, so he assumed that staff would come back to
provide an update.
Page 10 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-07-22,11,"Bob Haun replied the next meeting for the Central Avenue Complete Street Proposal
will be held on September 17. He said he will update the Commission and he
encouraged the Commissioners to attend. Afterwards, staff will gather the data and
public input received and develop a recommendation with the Commission and City
Council.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the future agenda items and whether the items are
programmed, scheduled, or just discussed for the future.
1. Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
2. Proposed I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation and Circulation
Improvements
3. Main Street Ferry Terminal Improvements
4. Central Avenue Complete Street Concept Proposal
5. Improving Service to Spirits Alley and Other Base Businesses
6. Ferry Terminals' Connectivity Improvements
7. Promote Increasing Ridership from Alameda High School and Middle Schools
8. What are Key Cross Island Lines, Ranked in Order of Priority or Ridership
9. Any Planned New Stops Based on Approved Development
Commissioner Bellows replied nothing was scheduled yet, so as things happen they will
be presented to the Commission.
Bob Haun stated that if any of the Commissioners need a briefing on item 2, I-
880/Broadway/Jackson he could give individual briefings. He stated that this was an
Oakland project and Oakland was still going through their downtown circulation plan. He
said Oakland wanted to complete the plan in conjunction with the Broadway/Jackson
Committee meetings and Alameda was not participating in those meetings. However,
the City is waiting for the end of this year to take a pulse of the project's stage and then
they will decide where to land.
Commissioner Bertken replied on this particular project, this was a portion of Measure B
funding. Thus, he wanted to know where the allocation of Measure B funds comes from.
Bob Haun replied that the funding comes from Alameda County Transportation
Commission, through the expenditure plan.
Commissioner Bertken replied that part of the Measure B funds, when looking at it, will
give a set amount of funding for this project.
Commissioner Bellows replied Broadway/Jackson is a capital project, not a program.
Commissioner Miley stated that ACTC tries to ensure geographic equity in the
allocations for the capital program, so there was a percentage for each geographic
region in the county.
Page 11 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-07-22,12,"Commissioner Bellows said the voters actually voted on the expenditure plan that listed
Broadway/Jackson amongst other projects from different cities within Alameda County
and those projects are set.
7.
Announcements/Public Comments
John Bidorg, resident of Alameda County, explained that he is currently homeless living
in the city of Berkeley. He wanted to touch base about AC Transit and how the bond
was first created to raise funds for public transportation and assist people who heavily
rely on public transportation.
8.
Adjournment
7:33 p.m.
Page 12 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-11-15,1,"DRAFT
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
November 15, 2006
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Jeff Knoth
Michael Krueger
Robb Ratto
Absent from Roll Call:
Eric Schatmeier (arrived 7:45)
Robert McFarland (arrived 7:40)
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Knox White advised that there was not a quorum to vote on the minutes of October
25, 2006, and that they would be considered at the end of the meeting if Commissioners
McFarland and Schatmeier arrived by that time.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
6A.
REVIEW ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMEND BUS STOP LOCATION
ON OTIS DRIVE.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report and displayed a map of the Otis Drive corridor.
He provided the history of this matter. He noted that both sites were constrained, and that
the eastbound location for Pond Isle would be located diagonally across the intersection,",TransportationCommission/2006-11-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-11-15,2,"and the westbound location would be just behind where the photo showed. Normally, AC
Transit preferred far side intersection locations, but it was not feasible in this instance
because of the presence of a driveway and a tree. He displayed a chart that summarized
the impacts, including the loss of on-street parking.
Staff Bergman noted that Attachment 2 summarized the location of Otis and Willow, and
the eastbound stop on the southwest corner of the intersection already had an existing red
curb; no onstreet parking would be lost.
Commissioner Krueger expressed concern about the Whitehall and Willow stop, which
he believed was substandard. He added that there was no sidewalk and no paving, and
that it was a mud strip on the westbound direction. He believed it was in limbo because of
the South Shore redevelopment, and inquired whether it was outside the property line for
South Shore.
Staff Bergman believed that bus stop was not part of the South Shore site.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether that stop would be upgraded or eliminated, and
believed that in its current state, it was unacceptable. Staff Bergman had not heard any
discussion about that stop.
Commissioner Krueger suggested that the stop be moved around the corner and relocated
to Willow.
Staff Bergman believed the bus stop for the W was on the near side of the intersection,
and suggested that this subject be discussed during Staff Communications.
Public Comment
Mina Katoozian, 1936 Otis Drive, noted that she had lived at her address for 10 years and
added many of the residents of the single-family homes had between one and three cars.
It was not her opinion that these residents needed a bus, and she had not observed anyone
in the neighborhood use the bus. She noted that she operates a large family day care, and
believed the presence of buses in her neighborhood would be a safety hazard. She
opposed the presence of this bus stop near her house.
Liz Cleves, 1815 Otis Drive, pointed out that Ivy Walk is a pedestrian path connecting
Otis Drive to Sandcreek Way. She supported the Pond Isle location specifically because
of its proximity to Ivy Walk.
Barbara Nemer, 3202 Ravens Cove, supported the Pond Isle location, and added that the
westbound side of the street was almost empty of cars during the day. She believed that
the neighbors had offstreet parking for their homes.
Marilyn Teplow, 1805 Otis Drive, believed that empirical, practical thinking must be
used to arrive at a sound conclusion. She noted that there were three streets along the",TransportationCommission/2006-11-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-11-15,3,"odd-numbered side of Otis (Glenwood Isle, Pond Isle and Sandalwood Isle), with three
residences between Sandalwood Isle and the crosswalk to Lum School. She noted that
there had been strong objections to this bus stop on safety grounds. She believed that the
site between Glenwood Isle and Pond Isle was a better solution, because it was halfway
between the existing bus stops. She conducted an informal 14-day survey, which revealed
that there were seven days when there were no cars parked along that corridor; three days
when one car was seen; three days when two cars was seen; and only one day when three
cars were seen for part of the day. She did not believe that removing parking space would
interfere with a bus stop on the odd-numbered side of Otis Drive. She did not believe
there would be a perfect solution, but hoped the Commission could find a solution that
would do the least harm to the greatest number of people.
Diane Voss, 1815 Otis Drive, believed it was important to have a bus stop on Willow and
Otis, and noted that all of the measured distances would be thrown out of scale if it did
not go in. She noted that after safety, ridership was the next most important criterion. She
did not understand why the bus was ever rerouted from Shoreline to Otis. She noted that
while she did not like to see trees removed, she would support that removal if it would
allow a bus stop for the public interest.
Eva Csoboth, 1932 Otis Drive, had collected signatures from her neighbors in opposition
to the proposed bus stop, and read her letter into the record:
""We are writing in regards to the proposed bus stop of AC Transit 63 Line you are
considering installing in front of our house, located at 1932 Otis Drive. We
oppose this bus stop installation proposal for the following reasons: We, the
residents of Otis Drive, have never been surveyed or asked about the proposal to
install the bus stop in our residential area, and these surveys should be mandatory
before even considering such a proposal. It is questionable that the majority of
residents of this section of Otis Drive would need or request an additional bus
stop. The new route of the AC Transit 63 line passing our house on Otis Drive
was routed from Shoreline Drive one or two years ago, I don't know exactly
when, has increased the noise level and air pollution already.
Installing a bus stop resulting in the stopping, idling and restarting of the bus
would further increase the noise and the fumes in front of our house, which is a
significant health hazard. I have been treated for asthma and this would be a
further risk factor for an exacerbation. Our tax dollars would be wasted on
installing new bus stops when there are existing bus stops on Shoreline Drive. The
recommended 1,000 feet distance between bus stops could be easily achieved if
the AC Transit 63 line would be rerouted to an area where a higher number of
people live, and more people would be able to use the bus. We only received your
letter informing us about the proposed bus stop installation on Friday, November
10, five days before this Transportation Commission meeting. This late
notification suggests that this proposal might not be known to the affected
residents. We are requesting your reconsideration of this matter.""",TransportationCommission/2006-11-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-11-15,4,"She noted that this letter was addressed to City Engineer Barbara Hawkins, and submitted
it into the record.
Geoffrey Kline, 1940 Otis Drive, believed the Commission was looking for a solution to a
nonexistent problem, and did not believe there was a need for a bus stop in this location.
He noted that many of the residents were retired; one worked in Benicia, and very few
people took the bus. Anyone who took the bus could walk to the existing stop on Willow.
He did not want the few remaining trees to be removed for a bus stop, and he did not
believe many people wanted the bus stop. He noted that he recently retired from public
service in San Mateo County and added that at one time he was their traffic engineer. He
believed it was reasonable for people to be able to park in front of their house. He noted
that the speakers who supported the bus stop did not live near it.
George Wales, 2031 Otis Drive, agreed with the previous speaker, and did not believe the
bus stop was needed. He noted that the nearby condo complex would lose six to ten
parking spaces. He expressed concern about air pollution generated by the bus at Sand
Creek. He did not believe a bus stop was needed at all.
Bill Beltz, 2051 Otis Drive, noted that he and his wife were very concerned about the
traffic congestion because of the buses; they did not believe another bus stop was needed.
He noted that the noise level of buses and other traffic was very bad. He noted that many
of the buses were running nearly empty. He was very concerned about the traffic safety,
and had seen a pedestrian hit and injured.
Closed Public Comment
Commissioner Ratto inquired whether it might make sense to make an exception to the
guideline for bus stops every 1200 feet or so. He noted that some of the testimony was
compelling enough to indicate that might be the case. He assumed the meeting was
properly noticed, and noted that no one spoke in favor of a bus stop on this street.
Commissioner Krueger did not believe it was fair to have an exception in this case when
they were not allowed for bus stops in other parts of the City where there were
objections.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that most neighborhoods in the United States did not
have a majority of residents who use the bus regularly, but many people do. He noted that
many low-density neighborhoods do need bus stops for the riders who use it. He did not
believe it was a compelling argument to state that no one used the bus. He noted that if a
majority of residents was the criterion for bus stops, there would be none in the City.
Commission Ratto did not want it thought that he wished to do away with public
transportation. He stated that in this one particular case, from what he heard from the
speakers, that the existing bus stops at Grand and Otis, and at Willow and Whitehall
would be sufficient to service the bus-riding population in this area. He heard nothing
during the public comment period that would change that perception.",TransportationCommission/2006-11-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-11-15,5,"Chair Knox White noted that he would not be comfortable suggesting no bus stops
between Whitehall and Grand. He noted that he occasionally rode that bus line, and heard
some people discussing how they missed the old stop. He suggested that this stop could
be put in for a year to measure ridership, and if that were to be the case, the stop could be
removed. He believed that the best location for a stop would be in the center of where
people lived.
Staff Khan expressed concern due to the need to install a crosswalk at adjacent to a new
bus stop. In particular, this is an issue since the location is near a school, and this will
result in the children crossing Otis Drive at multiple locations.
A discussion of the costs of crosswalks, pedestrian ramps, signage and paint ensued.
Commissioner Ratto inquired whether a resident requested this bus stop, or whether its
installation was being explored because a stop was required every 1200 feet. He
suggested that whatever the expense would be to build a bus stop, that nothing be put
there; if bus riders felt they were not being properly served, they could come to the
Transportation Commission and request a bus stop. He tended to agree with the speaker
who felt the bus stop was being forced on the residents of that block.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he completely disagreed with Commissioner Ratto 's
comments and believed that he presented a false choice. He believed that use of transit
was created by the access to transit. He believed that fewer people would use the bus if
the stops were too far away from each other.
Staff Khan noted that staff must examine potential crosswalk sites to ensure that they
meet warrants. Also, staff may want to look at the ridership at the previous stop locations
at Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way.
Chair Knox White stated that he would entertain a motion.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he was leaning towards the Pond Isle location,
which he believed had the fewest negatives associated with that location.
Commissioner Krueger believed that Sandalwood was a slightly better location for
spacing.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to recommend to City staff that bus stops be installed
at Otis Drive and Pond Isle. Commissioner Krueger seconded. Motion passed, 5-1
(Commissioner Ratto opposed).
Chair Knox White apologized for the late mailings for this item. He added that the item
had been on their agenda for the last month, and that they did not personally do the
mailing. He added that the agenda was not officially set until the Wednesday prior to the
meeting. He believed that the notices went out once the agenda was officially set. He will",TransportationCommission/2006-11-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-11-15,6,"ask staff to notify the neighbors as early as possible so they will have time to prepare for
meetings.
Chair Knox White wished to stand by his statement at the previous meeting regarding the
stop in front of the Otis School. They had requested that the Police Department return
with an actual safety consideration for the stop in that location, and they have submitted a
letter indicating that there was no safety consideration for the buses and the school
children. The police felt that the concerns were more due to parents double-parking, as
well as other behaviors that have since been mitigated. Chair Knox White noted that he
had voted last time to remove the stop for other reasons, and did not want to sound
callous with respect to safety. As the father of a six-year-old and an eight-year-old, he
emphasized that safety was very important to him.
Chair Knox White wished to clarify that a marked crosswalk would be installed at Pond
Isle; two unmarked crosswalks already exist at that location.
Commissioner Ratto stepped out of the Chambers.
7A.
PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON TMP SCHEDULE DUE TO RECENT
CHANGES IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and recounted the outcome of the October 17, 2006,
City Council meeting, wherein it authorized the presentation of a General Plan
Amendment to analyze the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) policies proposed by the
Transportation Commission. He noted that some changes must be made in the TMP
schedule, but staff's goal at this time was to ensure the changes would be minimal, and
that delays would be reduced as much as possible. The report also mentioned that two
specific sub-plan schedules would be provided; there were currently staffing concerns
and they wanted to make sure the schedule presented could be realistically followed. He
noted that when the City Council approved the General Plan Amendment (GPA) process
last month, staff also presented a tentative schedule that would require returning to City
Council in September 2007 to present the GPA for City Council's consideration.
Staff Khan noted that with respect to the pedestrian plan, some specific related policies
had already been proposed by the subcommittee. Staff would consider including the
specific sub plan policies in the GPA process in order to address and analyze the policies
expeditiously. Once the GPA was completed, staff intended to move forward with other
sub plan development processes, including specific policies for other future sub plans. He
noted that Attachment 2 presented a revised pedestrian plan timeline, which demonstrated
it the pedestrian sub plan to City Council in March, 2008. By December 2007, staff will
be able to have initial document of the plan. Staff has also worked with the Planning
Department on this plan, and they supported having the plan move forward; they believe
the December 2007 deadline is realistic.
Chair Knox White noted that the Transportation Commission had discussed bringing back
the policies as part of the environmental review for the pedestrian plan, but he did not",TransportationCommission/2006-11-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-11-15,7,"recall voting on the supplemental pedestrian policies. He inquired whether that would
occur at the December 2006 meeting.
Staff Bergman stated that the minutes stated that the Commission had previously
approved the policies brought back by the subcommittee.
Chair Knox White agreed with Staff Khan that all three schedules were doable, and was
pleased to have staff's commitment to ensure they were completed.
Commissioner Ratto returned to the dais.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Khan distributed the schedule for the 2007 meetings to the Commissioners, and
noted that the meetings would generally be on the fourth Wednesday of each month, with
the exception of November and December, when they would be held on the third
Wednesday to accommodate the holidays.
Staff Khan noted that the mandatory ethics training must be completed by the end of
December. Staff would email the information to the Commissioners, and added that the
training could also be completed via Internet.
Chair Knox White requested that the City's website be updated to reflect the meeting
schedule changes in November and December.
Commissioner Krueger requested that staff communicate with the Planning and Building
Department regarding the plans for bus stops at Whitehall and Willow; he believed they
were outside the South Shore property. He did not want them to fall through the cracks,
and he did not believe they would qualify as accessible, especially the westbound stops.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether staff had an update on bus stop that had not
been red-curbed, like the ones on Encinal, Versailles and Mound. He added that the stop
nearest to Broadway on Fernside was not red-curbed. He had requested a staff report
before.
Staff Bergman advised that report would be agendized for the December meeting.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired whether there were any plans in the immediate future
for the Interagency Liaison Committee to hold a meeting. He repeated his request that the
Transportation Commission be noticed with sufficient time to react to the dates.
Staff Bergman advised that staff had been holding some discussions with AC Transit
about the issues, but a date and agenda had not been set up. He advised that he would
notify the Commissioners when that information was available.",TransportationCommission/2006-11-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-11-15,8,"Commissioner Krueger wished to address the northbound bus stop on Park Street at
Buena Vista (near Cavanaugh Motors).
Commissioner Ratto noted that he had already discussed that stop with Matt Naclerio,
and that the parking space for the Marketplace had been dealt with. He understood that
there would be a memo officially requesting that the northbound bus stop be moved to
the far side.
Meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m.",TransportationCommission/2006-11-15.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-12-11,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes:
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
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:
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Thomas G. Bertken
Gregory Morgado
Members Absent:
Michele Bellows
Eric Schatmeier
Sandy Wong
Staff Present:
Staff Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Staff Nguyen, Assistant City Manager
Staff Patel, Transportation Engineer
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
None.
4.
Consent Calendar
4A.
Transportation Commission and Planning Board Minutes:
Monday, September 30, 2013
Commissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Bertken moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Miley seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.
4B.
Transportation Commission Minutes:",TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-12-11,2,"Page 2 of 9
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Commissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.
A quorum was not met, so the Commission will vote at the next meeting held in January 2014.
5.
New Business
5A. Shore Line Drive/Westline Drive Bikeway Project Update
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Rion Cassidy, resident of Bay Street, said he was here in part because he had become convinced
that some things violate the public participation policy. He said the Commission approved the
project in the past, but today he learned the way comments were handled in the early stages of
the project were no longer allowed at this point. He felt that it is a violation. His argument is
there are a lot of changes at the last minute and the term ""bait and switch"" came to mind. There
was a community meeting and there were four different choices and cycle tracks were an
alternative. His request was to table the decision until the community weighs in on the decision.
Commissioner Vargas asked Staff Payne what type of time is available before the decision is
needed to lock in the funds.
Staff Payne replied staff would need to submit the construction drawings to Caltrans by January
13, which is a request to authorize construction.
Commission Vargas asked if there was time to make modifications on the existing illustrations.
Staff Payne replied yes.
Carol Gottstein, Alameda resident, said the whole project crammed a lot of stuff onto one road
that cannot be widened anymore. She said 50 percent of the promised disabled parking spaces
have been eliminated or changed and that is disheartening.
Commissioner Vargas asked if the ADA parking is an item that is delayed like the crosswalks or
are they currently not feasible.
Staff Payne replied that the disabled parking is infeasible because the parking spots would only
comply at eight feet in width whereas on-street parking widths along this corridor are only seven
feet.
Commissioner Miley asked if staff made every effort to look at every intersection to see if
disabled parking could fit.",TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-12-11,3,"Page 3 of 9
Staff Payne said they reviewed every intersection and there are places on some side streets that
are feasible, but they would be in front of a single-family home. So, they decided not to pursue
these spots because it is inconsistent with the City's parking policy.
Commissioner Morgado asked staff if there was a list of reasons why they were doing this
because there were problems with bicycle riders in the walkway and now there may be problems
with pedestrians in the bikeway.
Staff Payne said the existing path still would be a multi-use path. The conflict point is at the
crosswalk where pedestrians are crossing the street.
Commissioner Morgado said he found it interesting that the pedestrians are prohibited from the
cycle track, but the cyclists could enter into the walkway because he does not want to see conflict
arise.
Staff Payne replied that the reason staff kept it as is because there are different types of cyclists
such as families who ride slower. However, she said staff could revisit the issue.
Commissioner Bertken explained that he was concerned with the traffic along the westbound side
of the street and the fact that there are a lot of loading vehicles. However, he found staff made
provisions for 17 loading zones or 51 parking spaces that would be eliminated in the daytime,
but the City would provide parking on the other side.
Staff Payne replied that the provision said up to 17 loading zones and in those areas with loading
zones there are condos and apartments. The City would provide 24/7 parking on the other side
of the street. So, these areas have overall more parking. Additionally, the loading zones are
designated from 9 am-5 pm, and the big demand for parking in that area is at night time.
Commissioner Bertken wondered if we are really substituting parking for loading zones. He
wanted to know how many new daytime parking spaces would be available on the bay side.
Staff Payne replied they do not have an exact count yet but she would send Commissioner
Bertken the exact number.
Commissioner Vargas stated it was not clear in the presentation whether the U-turn movements
would be allowed.
Staff Payne replied that right now U-turns are prohibited and they will keep that as is.
Commissioner Vargas talked about the crosswalks and he said the Sand Beach neighborhood is
sort of in the middle and he wondered if there is a way to include one crosswalk.
Staff Payne replied it was not a matter of policy, but a matter of the budget. She explained that
staff could review the cost estimate and see if it is feasible to include one more crosswalk.",TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-12-11,4,"Page 4 of 9
Commissioner Vargas commented about the bike box, he wanted to know if that works for a
signalized intersection or for a stop sign.
Staff Payne replied it works for both. She said for the signalized intersection, the bikes are
detected by video and that is how the signal is triggered to turn green. However, the stop sign is
the right-of-way rule.
Commissioner Vargas asked about the costs going up and if staff was seeking additional new
funds.
Staff Payne replied not at this time because staff believes they can do the project with the
existing funds.
Commissioner Miley commended staff for finding a balance for all users of the area. Overall, the
project would be an improvement from what we already have.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve staff's recommendation with addition that staff work on
adding one of the eliminated crosswalks from the Fair Haven to Sunset area.
Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.
5B. Detailed Summary of Transportation Demand Management Plan for Alameda Point
Eric Fonstein, Development Manager Alameda Point, introduced Jim Daisa of Kimley-Horn and
Associates to present the report for Alameda Point. Jim Daisa presented the report.
Commissioner Bertken said some time ago the Commission reviewed a traffic analysis of the
intersections in town, which was part of the environmental document. There were some areas
that needed mitigation. He questioned if the illustration presented part of the connection from the
traffic analysis that was done on the intersections or if these intersections that were showing
some problems had to be mitigated.
Jim Daisa replied that the environmental impact report looked at the impacts of intersections and
contained three different findings: 1. some solution could be done physically and operationally,
but it would be expensive; 2. Transportation Demand Management (TDM), which has a goal
target of reducing vehicular trips from commercial development by 30% and residential
development by 10%; and 3. significant and unavoidable impacts. He felt there is a lot hanging
on the TDM to reduce trips given that the estimate of trips.
Commissioner Bertken referred to the environmental document and said there are physical
improvements that are going to need to happen even considering the TDM.
Staff Patel, Alameda Public Works, referred to the environmental document and he stated that if
there is less than significant criteria and the physical mitigations are called out then they will be
applied to the intersections. So, only the ones that are significant and unavoidable would be",TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-12-11,5,"Page 5 of 9
infeasible to conduct the physical mitigation.
Commissioner Bertken said when you have long range goals there is a concern when accepting
the environmental document.
Jim Daisa replied that if the physical or operational mitigations bring the number of vehicular
trips down to less than significant, then it would be implemented early. However, he said if it
was infeasible, there would be reliance on the TDM.
Commissioner Miley asked about item 9.4 under ""Monitor and reporting"" and wondered whether
he could speak about consequences of failing to meet goals and to explain more of the
background regarding the reductions.
Jim Daisa replied that they debated it during the joint meeting with the Planning Board and there
were options for consequences of failing to meet the goal. He explained that one example could
be the Transportation Management Association (TMA) could go before the City Council for a
monitoring report and they would have to go to the Planning Board and revise their plans if they
fail and that has a monetary impact for development at Alameda Point.
Commissioner Vargas wanted to know if the Transportation Commission would see the
monitoring report, and requested that it occur more than one time per year.
Jim Daisa stated that the City Council may prefer that the Transportation Commission review it,
and that it could occur every six months.
Commissioner Vargas said it was good to see sustainable communities and he felt establishing
more live/work developments would require City policy to promote those types of land uses in
that area or to provide a discount to minimize incoming and outgoing traffic.
Jim Daisa replied that we want to attract people who like compact community living, but he does
not know if a policy is necessary and that may be difficult when we are still trying to encourage
general development to establish here. He felt promoting the area to self selective people and
companies who promote sustainable lifestyles was a good start.
Commissioner Morgado asked where in the United States are TDM programs implemented.
Jim Daisa replied that TDM is in many municipalities in some form or another. The City's TDM
is a robust program and even San Francisco has a TDM with a series of incentives. In Oregon,
state law mandates trip reduction rules. The company Nike in Portland has a robust TDM
program with shuttles, bicycle amenities and other incentives. TDM programs used to be
voluntary, and now there are goals with consequences.",TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-12-11,6,"Page 6 of 9
5C. Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Draft Master Plan
Amy Wooldridge, City of Alameda Recreation and Parks Director, presented the report.
Commissioner Miley said since the project is not funded what is the estimated full build-out cost.
Amy Wooldridge replied that she has not gotten an estimated cost, but she wanted to wait until
she knew what the design would look like. She estimated that the project cost would be between
$5 to $7 million.
Commissioner Vargas said he remembered going to some of the community meetings and the
field visits. He asked if she could highlight the description of the 20-foot right-of-way dedicated
for transportation.
Amy Wooldridge explained that there is a future rail right-of-way requirement since they
purchased the land from the railroad. She said the agreement states that they had to allocate a 30-
foot wide right-of-way for future transportation projects. For the next meeting, staff realized that
they need to include that dedication on the next draft of the plan.
Commissioner Vargas asked if they are seeking input on that now.
Amy Wooldridge replied she is seeking input.
Commissioner Vargas said that there was an old building on the site and wondered if there is an
opportunity to reuse the building.
Amy Wooldridge replied it is a storage building on the southeast corner and adjacent to the
building is a small square building that will be converted to a maintenance storage shed. She said
they plan to keep the exterior. The building was painted and the roof was fixed by the Church of
Latter-day Saints. She is not currently including the building in the plans because the general
concept is to create a concession building or rail history museum, but that is an expensive piece
of the project and would be tackled last.
Commissioner Vargas asked if there was a first phase in mind if $3-$4 million were allocated to
the project.
Amy Wooldridge replied the vision has a few key steps such as soil clean up. A grant was
submitted and by February, staff would have a plan on how to start the cleanup process such as
digging everything out and getting rid of the dirt or capping it, which is the cheapest option.
Also, they need to insert the utilities (water, electrical, and sewer) and a key component is
focusing on the Cross Alameda Trail and placing light fixtures. Afterwards, the fences would be
taken down and staff would look at the open space that can be planted. Furthermore, when the
design is in place then staff can start community projects piece by piece with the planting
components. She then said the second phase would be to build out plazas, playgrounds,
restrooms and other important amenities.",TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-12-11,7,"Page 7 of 9
Commissioner Bertken mentioned that foundations could fund this type of project and the
community utility could be broken up into pieces like the recreation areas and educational
centers.
Amy Wooldridge replied that there are potential federal and private funding sources for
transportation, open space, and recreation such as federal rails to trails.
Commissioner Bertken believed the plan is very professional and very fortunate to get an in-
house member of the group.
Commissioner Miley asked if the right-of-way has to remain unused.
Amy Wooldridge replied that the rail right-of-way has to be located on something we can live
without at some point. It should not be on the Cross Alameda Trail, and cannot cross major
structures like the parking lots or restrooms.
Commissioner Vargas said communities do not want noisy facilities adjacent to their homes.
Commissioner Bertken asked if the rail right-of-way has to be identified at this time or is it just a
commitment.
Amy Wooldridge replied it is the latter because there is no specific design and designation of this
rail right-of-way.
Commissioner Bertken stated the placement tends to become a historical item that the City is
essentially locked into doing. He felt it is better to recognize that fact and point out it is not a
commitment.
Staff Nguyen said he was concerned that it is a rail line, so it can only curve and turn so much.
Also, he felt we do not want to build facilities where we later may want to place the route.
Commissioner Bertken replied that we are locked into providing the design requirements and we
do not want to lay it out now because in the future the location may change. He asked if there
would be an easement on either side of the park.
Amy Wooldridge replied no, there is an agreement that the 22 acres has to have a 30-foot wide
easement across it somewhere.
Commissioner Miley referred to the Cross Alameda Trail and wondered how it linked up on the
western side along Constitution Avenue and Neptune Park.
Amy Wooldridge said staff is exploring the connections further especially due to funding. She
felt the trickier issue is the eastern side because that is a dangerous curve and they do not have
the outline of how to get people across the street in a safe way. Additionally, she said having",TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-12-11,8,"Page 8 of 9
Boardmember Köster on the Planning Board was essential because he has information about the
Del Monte development.",TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-12-11,9,"Page 9 of 9
6.
Staff Communications
6A.
Staff Recruitment Update
Staff Nguyen said he would speak to Human Resources about recruitment, and he would provide
that information to the Commission.
6B.
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
Commissioner Bertken asked if a representative from the Water Emergency Transportation
Authority (WETA) could come and present updates and plans sometime soon.
Staff Nguyen said yes possibly in January or February.
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
None.
8.
Adjournment
8:35 pm",TransportationCommission/2013-12-11.pdf
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
TransportationCommission,2015-02-25,1,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item 4B
Action
Joint Meeting Minutes of the Transportation Commission and
Planning Board
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Commissioner Michele Bellows called the Joint Planning Board and Transportation Commission
meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Transportation Commission Members Present:
Michele Bellows (Chair)
Eric Schatmeier (Vice Chair)
Jesus Vargas
Christopher Miley
Thomas G. Bertken
Michael Hans
Gregory Morgado
Planning Board Members Present:
Mike Henneberry (President)
Dania Alvarez
David Burton
Lorre Zuppan
John Knox White
Stanley Tang
Staff Present:
Alex Nguyen, Assistant City Manager
Jennifer Ott, Chief Operations Officer for Alameda Point
Andrew Thomas, City Planner
Virendra Patel, Transportation Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Lev Kushner, Alameda Point",TransportationCommission/2015-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-02-25,2,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4B
Page 2 of 10
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements/ Public Comments
None.
4.
Provide Feedback on Recommended Approach to Citywide
Transportation Delivery Strategy
Jennifer Ott, Chief Operations Officer for Alameda Point, presented the report.
Nate Conable, Principal at Fehr Peers, presented the transportation trends of the City.
Boardmember Knox White stated that well over a decade, the City worked with BART to identify
a BART stop. He wanted to know if Jennifer Ott included BART in the discussions because
Alamedans comprise 50 percent of Fruitvale BART ridership.
Jennifer Ott replied the omission was not purposeful because her team focused on current
transportation services. However, she felt that BART should be added to the stakeholder list.
Lorre Zuppan asked staff if discussions with the City of Oakland also should be conducted.
Commissioner Schatmeier said the overriding goals presented were the Estuary Crossing and
decreasing Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) trips. He wanted to know if staff went through a
process of reviewing a number of possible goals and boiling them down. He felt the other goal
that staff should review would be for Alameda to become a multi-destination with multiple
transit service options city.
Jennifer Ott said staff listened to the collective experiences resonating from the community
meetings and from discussions at City Council meetings.
Boardmember Burton stated that Jennifer Ott talked about having one goal with two
deliverables, but he needed clarification.
Jennifer Ott replied staff identified the deficiencies, and would review the citywide approach to
Transit Demand Management (TDM) and would update the transit plan. She explained that they
would hire a consultant team to prepare the citywide TDM and transit plan documents. Staff
also could focus on increasing transit for the rest of Alameda by increasing transit usage by say 1
percent, but the main concerns were focused on congestion at the crossings.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comments.",TransportationCommission/2015-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-02-25,3,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4B
Page 3 of 10
Tony Kuttner, President of Greater Alameda Business Association, was concerned for the
business community and the City's community as a whole. He would like to see a free local
shuttle that serves the businesses and residents similar to the city of Emeryville's Emery Go
Round shuttle. He stressed that a free, reliable transit system could be funded from a variety of
funding sources, and he emphasized the goal of the plan was focusing on the Estuary crossings
and reducing SOV trips because the transit plan should serve businesses and residents within the
City.
Kurt Petersen, Alameda resident, has been in sales for 35 years before retiring and he told the
Board and Commission they are getting a hard sale. He believed the idea of the plan was great
and needed, but he was concerned about the outcome of Site A and the several developments in
the pipeline. He urged the Board and Commission to take some time and analyze the results. He
also felt ongoing community input was not taken into consideration.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, explained that a plan to force people to mostly ride public
transit would not work and this plan is for a transportation czar for the City. When he reviewed
the statistics, he did not see how that would fit into the real world because people do not fit into
statistics. If parking is not available then residents will place their vehicles in the surrounding
neighborhoods. He also mentioned that recently an accident in the Webster Tube created havoc
for people trying to get into the City. So, the impending month long closure of the High Street
Bridge will be an experiment to see how hard it will be for residents to get off the island.
Linda Morris, AC Transit Senior Transportation Planner, stated that the presentation was
appreciated and she looked forward to working with the City. She said the plan was timely
because AC Transit is preparing a Comprehensive Transportation Analysis (COA) and is going
out to the community to elicit feedback. She will present the results at the Transportation
Commission. She explained that one thing to focus on was the timeline because AC Transit
created a short, medium and long range plan and in terms of the short range there will be service
online starting March 15 and weekend service to the Faction Brewery. In terms of the short and
medium timeline, she said there will be a public hearing in the summer of this year and the AC
Transit Board will approve and implement a plan in late fall with some service increases for
Alameda. Regarding the discussion of shuttles in Alameda, she said the job landscape of the
City is less dense than the city of Emeryville. Staff could work with developers to create an AC
Transit Easypass for residents to use the bus network.
Eugenie Thomson, Alameda resident, thanked the staff and Board and Commission for
addressing the TDM plan. She pointed out that the City is looking towards the biggest growth
plans in quite some time. Therefore, she urged the Board and the Commission to maintain the
existing good quality of life and to recognize that goals need to be set for TDM and Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) with all the upcoming growth.
Trish Herrera Spencer spoke as an Alameda citizen and thanked Tony Kuttner for raising the
issue of how the shuttle could support local businesses. Traffic is a problem.
Carol Gottstein, Alameda resident, echoed Jim Strehlow's comments and restated that the plan",TransportationCommission/2015-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-02-25,4,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4B
Page 4 of 10
would create a transportation czar that is too behavior controlling. She urged the Commission
and Board to see that the City must be inclusionary and not select residents based on their
transportation choices.
Commissioner Vargas stated that in the future he would like to see the materials sent in enough
time for everyone to read it. However, he felt that it was good to see different agencies such as
AC Transit and BART collaborating and he wanted the city of Oakland to be included in the
discussions. He noted that the VMT information will be required to report on to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and to the state of California.
Commissioner Miley explained that the City should look at this process as an opportunity since
the passing of Measure BB. He also said the future street work around Broadway and Jackson
Streets in Oakland should be included in the analysis. He asked Jennifer Ott why the
Transportation Commission, Planning Board and City Council would participate in the
contractor selection process because in his experience working with the County these bodies are
not involved in that process.
Jennifer Ott explained that in the past staff have invited the president of the Planning Board to
participate. However, she said she will confirm with the City Attorney's office before asking a
member to join.
Commissioner Miley said he seconded Boardmember Knox White's comments about BART
being a critical partner in this discussion. He felt the plan should include all the City's bridges
including Bay Farm Island Bridge because island circulation is critically important. He also
thanked staff for bringing the update to the Board and Commission, but he thought the timeline
to get things accomplished was quite aggressive.
Boardmember Burton said that naming the plan according to its intent and its meaning to the
community was vital. The goal should be to minimize net increases of SOV travel in and out of
the City. He also recognized that congestion and mode shifts are an economic development issue
where the City should provide incentives and opportunities to current residents to reduce VMT
through job creation within the City and focusing on TDM strategies for all new developments.
He said staff needed to coordinate with the existing plans and explain this effort to the public. In
terms of the staff report, he said three items were left off or not fully explained: 1. on page 5 of
the staff report the recommended approach to divert SOV trips was not mentioned and it should
be; 2. the first major tasks should be to define the project and scope of work and 3. outline the
community and stakeholder engagement process.
Boardmember Tang stated it was important to engage with people who do take public
transportation to gather their feedback. Younger generations do not drive as frequently.
Boardmember Zuppan said the project's scope was too narrow when speaking about the estuary
crossings. She urged staff to think bigger and analyze citywide traffic reductions.
Boardmember Alvarez said she feared staff was not engaging with the city of Oakland because of",TransportationCommission/2015-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-02-25,5,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4B
Page 5 of 10
the issues that we are facing with the accessibility to freeways when crossing the bridges and
tunnels. She also felt excluded because she did not see a lot of work on Harbor Bay or Bay Farm
Island. Overall, she would like to see the entire island especially the area that has limited
transportation options reviewed. Furthermore, she questioned the ability to have a portable
barrier on Park Street Bridge similar to Golden Gate Bridge or the old Caldecott Tunnel.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that focusing on the estuaries crossings should not be the only
goal in this effort because there are all kinds of transit needs.
Commissioner Morgado concurred with Commissioner Schatmeier stating that the City should
update the plan to create more livable streets.
Boardmember Knox White stated that he agreed with everyone, but he felt they need multiple
goals like no new net trips or setting a threshold for VMT. There are benefits to VMT, but there
are also a lot of risks. He noted that livability is a goal by maintaining or reducing current traffic
levels.
Commissioner Vargas stated that rather than focusing on the goals and the aggressive timeline of
setting these goals, he believed the idea of measuring and monitoring the results is important.
Boardmember Henneberry said that intercity circulation should include traffic calming.
Commissioner Bellows stated that another goal should be to look at different transit options other
than public transportation based on the type of trip. She felt people with cars should not be
vilified and there should be an option to deal with peak periods trips on and off the island for all
points of access including Doolittle Drive.
Jennifer Ott said she will speak with the City Council on March 10, and there were a lot of
commonalities found in the comments between the Commission and Board.
5.
Approve Cross Alameda Trail Preliminary Design for the Ralph
Memorial Appezzato Parkway Section
Staff Payne presented the report and introduced the project consultants Eric Swanson of BKF
Engineers and Sarah Sutton of Placeworks Inc.
Eric Swanson, Civil Engineer, BKF Engineers presented.
Sarah Sutton, Principal Landscape Architect, Placeworks Inc. presented.
Commissioner Bellows asked Sarah Sutton to describe a rain garden.
Sarah Sutton replied that a rain garden can be described as a bioswale that is flat and captures the
water.",TransportationCommission/2015-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-02-25,6,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4B
Page 6 of 10
Commissioner Bellows asked Sarah Sutton if the rain garden will be irrigated.
Sarah Sutton replied the project does not have funds for irrigation, so they chose low water
needy plants.
Commissioner Bellows mentioned that in the presentation Sarah Sutton said the area was flat, so
she wanted to know where the trees fit in the area.
Sarah Sutton explained that the placement varies because they do not want to place trees on the
bottom in case of heavy rain activity in the future.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if the federal funding could be used for the remediation.
Staff Payne replied yes and there was $1.8 million for the project. Staff is not sure how much the
remediation will cost.
Commissioner Miley wanted to know the total budget for the complete build out.
Staff Payne replied right now the cost estimate is for $1.8 million and some elements can be
added into the construction document for example the Webster Tower would be an added
alternative.
Boardmember Burton said that there was not an attached resolution included in the staff report,
so wanted clarification on the process.
Staff Payne replied that staff would be asking for approval on the preliminary design and there
was no need to take it onward, but just to continue the work.
Boardmember Knox White asked staff if they would be able to approve how the plazas look
exactly or conceptually.
Staff Payne replied the design was the ultimate vision.
Boardmember Knox White replied so if the whole $1.8 million was adequate to completely build
out then approving the design was the final review.
Staff Payne replied yes.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if she needed a separate action from the Board and the
Commission.
Staff Payne replied one action since it is a joint meeting.
Commissioner Hans said that last time when they voted on this design the schools came to talk",TransportationCommission/2015-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-02-25,7,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4B
Page 7 of 10
about how they used the pathway for parking. When he passed by the area the other day he saw
about 50-60 cars between the school and the Boys and Girls Club. He wanted to know if the
design goes through where will the staff park.
Staff Payne replied they have met with Alameda Unified School District and the school
management plans to look for parking offsite. She explained that the Housing Authority and
Park and Recreation Departments have underutilized parking lots close to the school and near
Hometown Donuts.
Boardmember Tang asked if there would be low lighting along the multiuse path or water
fountains.
Staff Payne replied not at this phase for the lighting and no for the water fountains.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comments.
Rion Cassidy, Alameda resident, said he was an avid bicycle rider and wondered why there was
not a bike lane on Appezzato Parkway. He was glad to see the project come to light, but he did
not understand the need to construct a park there just to get a bike path built. He also called for
responsible government by not overspending to get the site built and then not maintaining the
site afterwards. Additionally, he questioned the 15 foot set back from the bike path to the street
for a future bus only lane because that limits the amount of lighting on the path.
Jim Strehlow said he rode his bicycle from Bay Farm Island along Fernside Drive and the bike
path when heading towards High Street was pleasant. Yet, when he rode his bicycle near Fifth
Street, the middle bike lane caused him to have cars on his left and on his right, which was
uncomfortable. So, he questioned the design on Fifth Street. Furthermore, he asked staff what to
do about bus stops adjacent to the path and how can pedestrians access them especially with a
cycle track in the way.
Trish Herrera Spencer said there was not much parking near Hometown Donuts, so she would
like more specificity. Also, she was concerned about the bike path being set back because of
visibility issues especially for females and children.
Boardmember Knox White stated that he was concerned about the Webster Street Plaza because
the configuration focused everyone sitting at the wall and looking at the expanse of intersection
concrete. He believed that turning the plaza to focus on places where people want to be was
a
better option.
Staff Payne replied she had the same reaction and she wanted the plaza to be flipped as well, but
when she brought the idea up to the Webster Street Business Association Design Committee they
did not like the idea. Ultimately, she said the committee would like a gateway that serves their
area.
Boardmember Knox White asked staff if there was a way to remove the curb or the double",TransportationCommission/2015-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-02-25,8,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4B
Page 8 of 10
yellow line near Hometown Donuts at Appezzato and Main Street.
Commissioner Miley stated that as a jogger he really liked the meandering path and he liked the
fact that pedestrians were buffered from the traffic. However, he was concerned about approving
the design without knowing that the budget can create the full vision and that will leave open
questions on the precise design. So, he asked staff if there were time constraints from the other
funding sources.
Staff Payne replied there are no time constraints with the other funding sources except for the
federal monies, which need to be expended by December. She explained there are few ways of
handling the design based on the outcome of the funds. Firstly, the competitive grant that was
received was for multiuse and jogging paths. If there are funding issues then staff will have to
go with the original approach for the first phase, which would be to construct the multiuse path
and later on construct a separate walking path. If the project is delayed due to environmental
remediation then staff may have to scale back the separate path concept.
Commissioner Miley moved the item and asked staff to come back to the Commission and Board
if the Board is interested with any changes, updates or delays. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 13-0.
6.
Approve TIGER Grant Application: Naval Air Station Alameda
Multimodal Regional Connections Project
Lev Kushner presented the report and asked the Commission and Board for an endorsement of
the concept.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that the proposal had a circle with a ""T"" inside and labeled
proposed transit center.
Lev Kushner replied the symbol represented the linkage of the bus rapid transit and ferry
terminal.
Commissioner Schatmeier said there was a star located north side of the ferry terminal icon on
another map and that interface was different so, he wanted a clear understanding of what the
icons represent.
Lev Kushner said he will revise the maps since it was not clear.
Boardmember Burton asked Lev Kushner to describe the Central Avenue bike lane changes in
detail and describe in detail the changes to the bus lanes on Stargell Avenue.
Lev Kushner said along Stargell Avenue there will be queue jump lanes at the two intersections
of Main and Fifth Streets headed towards the Webster Tube.",TransportationCommission/2015-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-02-25,9,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4B
Page 9 of 10
Jennifer Ott replied there was an existing right of way that has enough room on the street to
accommodate queue jump lanes.
Boardmember Knox White asked staff about the location of the queue jump lanes on Main Street
and Stargell Avenue.
Jennifer Ott replied the maps presented are for their trip to Washington D.C. and they will be
refined at a later time.
Commissioner Miley moved staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the
motion. The motion was approved 13-0.
7.
Presentation on Site A Development at Alameda Point, Including
Initial Discussion of the Site A Transportation Demand
Management Strategy
Jennifer Ott presented the report.
Joe Ernst, Principal of SRM Ernst, presented.
William Duncanson, BAR Architects, presented.
Phil Olmstead, Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates, presented.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that the Clipper Card does a lot for people and he was glad to
see it in the presentation as something to be explored.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff what was the underlying intent of the presentation and what
should the Commission likely see in the future.
Jennifer Ott replied that they wanted additional feedback to incorporate in the plan and gain
additional feedback. She said that they will return for the March 25 Transportation Commission
meeting to explain more about the TDM strategy and gather more feedback.
Boardmember Knox White asked Jennifer Ott if there was an intent to meet the TDM goal since
they plan to review the outcome every year.
Jennifer Ott said staff will meet with Nelson Nyggard about the results of reviewing the TDM
every year.
Boardmember Knox White replied the plan does not specifically say what we are doing and he
felt establishing goals and meeting them was important.",TransportationCommission/2015-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-02-25,10,"Transportation Commission
March 25, 2015
Item #4B
Page 10 of 10
8.
Announcements/Public Comments
Jim Strehlow, said the Panama Pacific Exposition will have its 100 anniversary on Saturday,
February 28 at the Palace of Fine Arts and the exposition incorporates a lot of Alameda history.
He also felt that the Commission and Board did not answer his or other speakers' questions or
take in feedback and that greatly concerns him.
Staff Payne said at a previous Commission meeting the Commissioners decided to create an ad
hoc transit committee to better understand what the city's highest transit priorities are. So,
members of the Planning Board can join and the procedure would be for the President
Hennebery to nominate members.
Trish Herrera Spencer said that three speakers on the items presented received no discussion or
input from the Board or Commission and she encouraged future acknowledgement and input.
9.
Adjournment
11:02 pm",TransportationCommission/2015-02-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-02-28,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
February 28, 2007
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Jeff Knoth
Michael Krueger
Eric Schatmeier
Srikant Subramanium
Absent:
Robert McFarland
Robb Ratto
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
October 25, 2006
b.
November 15, 2006
c.
January 31, 2007
Chair Knox White requested that page numbers be inserted in the minutes. Commissioner
Schatmeier requested that in the January minutes, that they be changed to reflect that Mr. Knopf
was comparing Alameda to San Francisco.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved approval of the minutes for the October, November, and
January meeting minutes. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously, 5-0
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
Chair Knox White suggested that the Alameda Landing TDM item be heard before the shuttle
study.
Transportation Commission
February 28, 2007
Page 1 of 9",TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-02-28,2,"4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Multimodal Circulation Plan
b.
Pedestrian Plan
c.
TSM/TDM Plan
Chair Knox White encouraged people to sign CalPIRG's online petition opposing the budget cuts
by Governor Schwarzenegger, which would cut $1.1 billion from the Public Transit account.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
Staff Khan inquired whether the Commissioners would be available for a joint meeting with City
Council on March 27, 2007. He understood that Commissioner Schatmeier was available, as was
Chair Knox White and Commissioners Krueger and MacFarland. He added that Commissioners
Knoth was not available, and that he had not heard from Commissioner Ratto. Commissioner
Subramaniam indicated he may be able to attend. The meeting would be held in the evening.
6B.
Alameda Landing TDM Goals and Program Development - Second Presentation
Outcome: Review and recommend finalization of performance goals, the methodology
by which the goals will be evaluated, monitoring guidelines, and a process
Staff Bergman summarized the staff report, and noted that this discussion item would return as an
action item in March, and would go to the Planning Board in April.
John Atkinson, consultant to Catellus on this project, complimented City staff on its expertise.
He believed the City had a unique opportunity to forge a sustainable TDM program. He noted
that the program goals would be to reduce vehicle trips and congestion. Mr. Atkinson stated that
the emphasis of the program would be reducing peak commute times through the tubes and into
the project area. Later the program would have broader goals. He believed that the TDM
measures should be judged on cost effectiveness. He stated that the intent of the project is for an
Alameda Landing Transportation Management Association to be established to serve the project
area and to ultimately merge into a future West End TMA. He stated that Catellus agreed
wholeheartedly that the implementation of an EcoPass program through AC Transit would be
beneficial for the project. He stated that the Census data for the rest of Alameda were not directly
applicable to this project.
Mr. Atkinson noted that there was a concern about bike capabilities on the shuttle, and that some
people had asked about using a trailer. He noted that none of the operators he contacted were not
comfortable with that concept for safety reasons. He noted that bike racks could be mounted on
the front and the back of the shuttle, which yielded a capacity of six per loop, or approximately
36 per day.
Transportation Commission
February 28, 2007
Page 2 of 9",TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-02-28,3,"He believed that the TDM program would be comprehensive enough that retail trips could be
reduced. He noted that the water shuttle could potentially partner with Alameda Power &
Telecom. Part of the agreement was to do a comprehensive water shuttle feasibility study, and
many of the issues would be raised there; the type of vehicle would be included in the
comprehensive water shuttle study. The shuttle would be coordinated with existing transit, as
well as with the employers' work schedules in order to make it effective. Their goal was to
provide a variety of commute options, and they would continue to work with AC Transit with the
residents and employees of the Landing. He noted that there would be a maximum amount of
commute choices, and a minimum amount of waiting time for those choices. With respect to
counts, they believed that surveys would serve as a viable reflection of the effectiveness, and
would allow them to make changes based on users.
Mr. Atkinson noted that staff had suggestions for the survey particulars, by expanding the survey
to maximize the return. The end goal was to get as much feedback on these programs from the
tenants and residents as possible, in order to tailor and make the program as effective as possible.
He noted that they wanted shuttle feedback, and that the dock location would be covered under
the comprehensive water shuttle study. They have had ongoing meetings with the Port of
Oakland and a variety of other agencies, and of the approval process that would be needed; they
would forward that to staff. He noted that the study would examine whether the shuttle would be
on demand or operate on a regular schedule.
Public Comment
There were no speakers.
Closed Public Comment
Commissioner Krueger noted that he looked at the updated version online, and saw that the
EcoPass was mentioned only as an optional measure. He did not see that it would play a large
role, and inquired whether it was still under development.
Mr. Atkinson noted that the EcoPass representative attended their meeting with AC Transit, and
that the EcoPass would be part of the long-term solution. If it proved to be economically and
operationally viable for them to make changes to existing lines and provide a greater degree of
service to Alameda Landing and then other sites, the EcoPass would be a part of that
comprehensive AC Transit strategy to serve the project. While EcoPass programs have typically
served large employers, he suggested that it may be possible to enable smaller employers to
participate by having the program administered through the TMA. He noted that the budget for
TDM measures was limited. It may be that AC Transit service would be a good long-term
option, but there would not be sufficient funds and ridership available for it to be implemented
early in the project, so the private shuttle would provide interim service.
Transportation Commission
February 28, 2007
Page 3 of 9",TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-02-28,4,"Mr. Krueger stated that the financial analysis seemed to treat the AC Transit option as a
standalone option. He inquired whether it could be viewed as an incremental extension of the
existing service. He suggested reconfiguring two existing lines to include Alameda Landing and
Alameda Point, and believed it would only need to cover the incremental cost of the existing
line. He added that it would not cannibalize the AC Transit ridership with the shuttle, and did not
see that possibility listed.
Mr. Atkinson agreed it was that was a viable point.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired whether the possibility of incorporating the EcoPass into a
program with employers similar to a parking cashout. Mr. Atkinson replied that could be
investigated for both businesses and residential uses.
A discussion of the EcoPass program ensued.
Chair Knox White stated that developments like Alameda Landing pay taxes and that AC Transit
therefore has a responsibility to provide some level of service there. He believed that the TDM
program should be augmenting this service, not paying AC Transit to serve the development.
Chair Knox White believed one of the major issues faced by the Commission was how to start a
TMA that was Alameda Landing-focused, and meld it with the Citywide TDM process. He
believed that would likely result in a Citywide TMA. He recommended that the document state
that the TMA is originally being set up for Alameda Landing to address its TDM goals. He noted
that there was an expectation that once the City's TDM program is completed, and has gone
through the EIR process and Council adoption, it would be folded into a larger TMA. He also
expressed a concern that the TDM program is being set up as a benefit for the Alameda Landing
project, while the intent is that the program should be mitigating traffic congestion.
Staff Khan stated that staff wants to help ensure that the TMA addressed the goals that were
established, and not have to wait until the rest of the entities joined in for the program to be
successful. So it should establish a TMA for Alameda Landing, and should be able to move into
the future for the West End TMA, and ultimately would be consistent with a citywide TDM plan
and program.
Bruce Knopf, Catellus, noted that they were very interested in ensuring the program achieved the
goals that were set out. He added that Catellus was very experienced in running TDM programs,
and they participated with other entities in Emeryville in operating the Emery Go Round. They
understood the process of working with partners to achieve goals, and always thought of this
program as fitting into the larger transit picture in the West End. They were also very concerned
about ensuring that the financial obligation that the tenants and residents would be paying into
will bring direct benefits to the project. Over the long term, they were looking for a way to
balance those two objectives.
Transportation Commission
February 28, 2007
Page 4 of 9",TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-02-28,5,"Chair Knox White would like to further explore the role of municipalities in other TMAs, and
wanted to ensure that the City had a real voice in how it moved forward, such as the Council
having a voting member or be required to approve the program. He wanted to be careful that the
TDM program did not become exclusively a shuttle program. He felt strongly that the City
should evaluate the program by counting trips, using the ITE trip generation rates as a baseline.
Mr. Knopf noted that the City Council has some authority over the TDM program, as it must
approve any reallocation of the budget involving at least $45,000.
Chair Knox White recalled that at the last meeting, Commissioner Schatmeier suggested not
using the word ""shuttle,"" and that it should be discussed in a more inclusive sense. He believed
the surveys were good and worthwhile, but believed that counting cars would be the best way to
judge the effectiveness in the early years. He believed the agreement between City Council and
ProLogis gave a lot of cover for not meeting the goals. He believed that the efforts should go
beyond what was expected, and that all participants should work aggressively to meet the goals.
Chair Knox White noted that page 3 of the TDM program read, ""The first phase of TDM
program will have regular supplementary ground shuttle service running at 30-minute
headways."" He had assumed that AC Transit would run some type of service through the project
area, and that tension would build between AC Transit and the private shuttles. He believed that
language was needed that addressed AC Transit service as the preferred transit service, and that
an agreement be reached between AC Transit regarding the thresholds that would trigger their
ability to go into offering that service.
Chair Knox White noted that the bottom of page 3 read, ""Within Alameda Landing, neither
property owner or tenant, other than the affordable housing, will be a participant in the TDM
program, paying annual TDM assessments."" He requested a clarification that this referred to the
payment, that the affordable housing tenants would not be asked to pay into the TDM program,
but that they would be able to participate in the program. Mr. Knopf confirmed that they would
not be asked to pay into the program. He stated that they would also be able to access the
EcoPass.
Chair Knox White echoed Commissioner Krueger's comments about including the EcoPasses as
one of the priority possibilities for the program, rather than a voluntary or optional item. He
noted that Table 2 on page 10 (Projected TDM Implementation) should be titled as an example
of TDM implementation. He wanted to allow the flexibility of the program to change as its
effectiveness is evaluated over time. He also noted that some items called out as part of the TDM
program were already parts of the City ordinances, and were required independent of the
existence of the TDM program. They included bike parking and bus shelters. He would like
those prerequisites to be pointed out as such.
Chair Knox White noted that a car share programs should not cost the project any money to
implement. Mr. Knopf noted that the $2000 for guaranteed ride home was mostly for the
marketing efforts and implementation; he noted it would not be effective if nobody knew about
it.
Transportation Commission
February 28, 2007
Page 5 of 9",TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-02-28,6,"Chair Knox White noted staff's concern that the guaranteed ride home may only be offered to
large companies. He had spoken with the CMA about a project in which they were willing to
allow residents to take part in this program as long as there was a program coordinator. He was
pleased that the applicant was being proactive with these items.
Mr. Knopf noted that they would return in a month to follow up.
6A.
REVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON FINAL REPORT ON
WEST END SHUTTLE STUDY Outcome: Review and recommend finalization of
draft report on West End Shuttle Study. Discussion/Action.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and described its background based on Council's
interest in using electric vehicles as a way to improve linkages from the West End to BART.
John Atkinson, the City's consultant on the project, noted that he had spoken with AC Transit
representatives, who were interested in their roles. He hoped to have more substantive
discussions in looking at more concrete discussions. He thanked Staff Bergman for his patience
and hard work as this project changed throughout the process. He presented three conceptual
maps, and described the features and the routes. He noted that by improving the 63, it would not
impact any of the existing service, and the cross-Island service would still be at 30-minute
intervals; it might be improved to 15- to 20-minute intervals connecting BART to the West End.
He noted that service on other parts of the Island would not be diminished to benefit the West
End.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that if the loop in the Phase 3 map is only 1 direction, that some
people would face a very long trip to connect to BART, but if the loop were bi-directional, the
headways would be doubled.
Chair Knox White noted that the written description of ""hybrid electric"" stated that emissions
were ""slightly reduced"" from diesel, but the grid showed that hybrid electrics have ""low
emissions"" and diesels have ""high emissions."" Mr. Atkinson replied that it depended on the type
of fuel used in the hybrid.
Chair Knox White inquired whether the mechanics' rates of $50 per hour were based on the
City's rates, and wished to ensure that whatever was listed matched what was actually paid.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the cost comparison with AC Transit was truly fair.
While their cost per mile is higher, they may be able to service the area by incrementally
expanding an existing route, rather than establishing a new one, so the cost comparison should
reflect this. He also asked that the analysis account for the benefits of providing a service
through AC Transit, which would integrate into the larger system. He noted that a potential
disadvantage of a City- or privately-provided shuttle would be the possibility of taking riders
from AC Transit, which could have a negative impact on AC Transit's existing service. In
Transportation Commission
February 28, 2007
Page 6 of 9",TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-02-28,7,"addition, it may be difficult to coordinate such a service with AC Transit in terms of providing
riders with information such as maps.
Chair Knox White noted that this study originated from the Council's interest in developing a
service that would utilize electric vehicles, and added that some cities continued to use electric
vehicles. He suggested that since the analysis does not recommend electric vehicles, that a more
detailed explanation should be provided.
Mr. Atkinson noted that given the route under consideration - connecting Alameda to Oakland
through the tube - that the grade in the Tube would be a challenge for these vehicles.
Chair Knox White would like to know more about the advantages and disadvantages. He noted
that Santa Barbara still ran electric buses, and would like more information. He believed
Alameda would be a good place to run electric vehicles because it was generally flat, so it would
help to include a description of circumstances under which such vehicles would be a viable
option.
Mr. Atkinson noted that the Phase 3 route as shown on the map would be an ideal application for
electric buses because it was short and flat, operates only within Alameda, and had the
opportunity for charging between runs.
Chair Knox White asked that the report include a summary grid of the cost information. He
believed the conclusion should be more robust, and that the recommendations should include
some options. For example, if the City chooses to run electric shuttles, the pluses and minuses
should be included, including higher capital and maintenance costs.
Mr. Atkinson noted that Staff Bergman had made similar recommendations that separated the
monetary concerns from the other recommendations in a more sequential manner. He noted that
he wanted to include pricing on bio-diesel, and added that fueling stations were often donated.
He suggested that a bio-diesel fueling station could be constructed in the West End, and added
that the technology was continually advancing. He added that resistance to bio-fuels was
beginning to relax on the vehicle manufacturers' part.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired about the source of the higher maintenance for electric
vehicles. Mr. Atkinson noted that it was because of the use of prototype vehicles for which
replacement parts are not standardized and readily available.
Commissioner Schatmeier requested that more detail be provided about electric buses, since that
was a major reason the study was undertaken.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the European track record had been examined.
Transportation Commission
February 28, 2007
Page 7 of 9",TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-02-28,8,"Mr. Atkinson noted that the manufacturer for the Santa Barbara vehicles was in Goleta, and that
they had a vested interest in ensuring they worked well. He noted that the electric load on rainy
days was often a challenge, when the heater and windshield wipers were needed while the
vehicle was running.
Chair Knox White noted that since this item will be sent to the City Council, he would like to see
it again. He believed the Commission's comments were extensive, and he would rather not send
the recommendations to City Council without reviewing the revisions.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked why fuel cells were not discussed in the report.
Chair Knox White believed that AC Transit made a policy commitment to this technology, and
that they decided not to implement CNG in favor of hydrogen.
A discussion of the proliferation of shuttles ensued, including revenue impacts and ridership
confusion.
Commissioner Schatmeier recommended changing the name of the study, which seemed to
indicate that the City was about to implement a West End shuttle.
Staff Khan noted that a unit cost could be identified for the 15-minute interval, and therefore
could be applicable in other parts of the City
Commissioner Schatmeier asked to see more analysis of why the routes were chosen, and what
route choices were available. He suggested renaming the document ""Shuttle Operational
Analysis"" so members of the public did not think a shuttle was imminent.
No action was taken.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Bergman noted that the first meeting of the Line 51 Task Force was held earlier in the day,
and that it was a staff-only meeting that presented data identifying some of the issues and
problems.
Chair Knox White requested an oral report or minutes from that meeting.
Commissioner Krueger requested a status report on the red curbing. Staff Khan noted that the
first batch was ready to go to the TTT on March 14, 2007.
Transportation Commission
February 28, 2007
Page 8 of 9",TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-02-28,9,"Commissioner Schatmeier asked what the status was regarding the proposed bus stops on Otis
Drive.
Chair Knox White noted that he and Commissioner Krueger understood that the TC's
recommendation was for two stops in front of Pond Isle and Willow, but Willow was not
specifically referenced in the motion. He noted that the staff report recommended that stops be
installed along Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way and Willow.
Staff Khan noted that what was going to the Council was actually an appeal of the Commission's
recommendation to install the stop at Pond Isle.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM.
Transportation Commission
February 28, 2007
Page 9 of 9",TransportationCommission/2007-02-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,1,"Transportation Commission
January 22, 2014
Item 4A
Action
Transportation Commission Minutes:
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
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:
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Michele Bellows
Thomas G. Bertken
Sandy Wong
Eric Schatmeier
Gregory Morgado
Members Absent:
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Staff Present:
Staff Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Staff Ta, Assistant Engineer
Staff Nguyen, Assistant City Manager
Staff Patel, Transportation Engineer
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
None.
4.
Consent Calendar
4A.
Meeting Minutes - July 24, 2013
Commissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.
Page 1 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,2,"Commissioner Bellows moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Bertken
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0; 1 abstention.
5.
New Business
5A. AC Transit Fare Increases
Commissioner Schatmeier explained that he produced a memo on his recommendations dated
October 14th and discussed the objections raised at the Inter-Agency Liaison Committee (ILC)
meeting. He said since the meeting, Staff Payne received a notice from AC Transit staffer
Nathan Landau that transfers for transbay riders would continue. He felt his major objection is
the elimination of transfers on the system and the fact that passengers located near the worse
service would receive a fare increase and that seems inequitable. He noted that the memo says
that service speeds would increase due to the elimination, but to him that does not make sense
because passengers would have to come up with cash each time they board. Moreover, he
believed the change is convenient for the operating department and not for the passengers, and
the policy will increase the fare on the least efficient service. Thus, his recommendation is for
AC Transit to provide every passenger with a 90-minute transfer, similar to MUNI, as proof of
payment.
Commissioner Bellows said she commended Commissioner Schatmeier's research and she
agreed with his recommendations.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Commissioner Bertken said he rode MUNI three times a week and he felt their program was
good. Furthermore, he liked the implementation of the transfer policy onto the Clipper card and
their ability to provide paper transfers.
Commissioner Schatmeier said AC Transit provided examples of other transit agencies
implementing a similar transit policy, but the policy still represents a trend for favoring the
operating department rather than the customers' needs.
Commissioner Vargas asked AC Transit staff about the time savings once the transfer policy is
eliminated.
Robert del Rosario, AC Transit Director of Service Development, replied that staff analyzed the
boarding times and cash paying passengers took eight seconds, Clipper passengers took four
seconds and simply walking on board took three seconds. Thus, he said the transfer would be
around the four seconds range. So, he said elimination of paying cash is the key.
Commissioner Bertken said he was somewhat familiar with MUNI's system since he has been
using it for some time and the biggest delay is inserting cash into the farebox. However, he felt
the operators could easily generate a transfer pass within seconds.
Page 2 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,3,"Robert del Rosario said AC Transit use to have paper transfers back in the 1990s and they
changed over in early 2000 when new fareboxes were installed. Overall, he said the paper
transfers were surrounded by fraud and it was hard to determine the transfer's time limit rip.
Basically, the agency wanted to move away from the paper transfers, so they converted to
magnetic strip transfers and passengers had to dump the pass into the farebox. This procedure
took anywhere between four to eight seconds per passenger.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied the SFMTA inspectors enforce the proof of payment system
on MUNI more than the drivers. He explained the proof of payment policy speeds up the
process, but AC Transit may not be ready to implement such a process.
Commissioner Vargas requested a motion from the Commission.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to insert the recommendations from his October 14, 2013
memo and asked AC Transit for clarification on the transbay transfer policy. Commissioner
Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Staff Nguyen if there is an appropriate way to communicate the
Commission's motion to AC Transit.
Staff Nguyen replied for the record staff would give the motion to AC Transit directly.
5B. AC Transit Line 51
David Fyfe, URS Consulting Engineer for AC Transit, presented the report.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Vincent Wu, engineer and Alameda resident, said he resides on the corner of Santa Clara Avenue
and Caroline Street, and he opposed the relocation of the bus stop from the southwest corner to
the southeast corner. He said years ago, the owner of 1000 Santa Clara Avenue repaired the
storefront because the store was damaged by a car. He felt the relocation is dangerous because
of the setback from the curb.
John Brennan spoke on behalf of Christ Episcopal Church. They are supportive of the overall
plan, but do not support the stop relocation in front of the church on Santa Clara Avenue at
Grand Street. He explained that there is a lot of pedestrian and vehicular activity in front of the
church. Additionally, there is handicap access to the church to accommodate services, weddings
and funerals. They proposed a number of alternatives such as moving the stop in front of the
dentist office at Union Street or leave it where it is.
Sheri Stock said she wanted to make additional comments to John Brennan's comments. She
said there are many studies on this transit line, but when she sat on the church steps and watched
the traffic flow go by she found not much of a savings of time. She saw the bus stop after
loading passengers on numerous occasions. Also, she noticed that while the bus would be in
front of the church, motorists could not easily make a free right turn and that would lead to
traffic congestion.
Page 3 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,4,"Harry Reppert, parishioner of Christ Church, said there is a 60 foot white zone in front of the
church for easy drop off of passengers. He mentioned that the church's activities would be
impacted if the drop off zone is eliminated.
Commissioner Vargas asked where the location of the drop off zone was specifically located.
Harry Reppert replied that the loading zone is on the Santa Clara Avenue side and right in front
of the church.
Dennis Yee, parishioner of Christ Church, said he opposed the bus stop relocation on Santa Clara
Avenue at Grand Street because the church hosts many activities and a large number of youth
and elderly visit the church. The church has a small parking lot and only one handicap space.
The drop off curb area serves as the handicap space. Furthermore, the church conducts many
weddings and funerals and the majority of the events come from non-members of the church. He
also said the relocation would displace motorists who would have to park further down the street.
Every Tuesday, the church serves a food pantry for over 100 clients, which is the same morning
for street cleaning on Grand Street.
Genevieve Monterrosa, resident of 1716 Santa Clara Avenue, said she lives two doors down
from Christ Church and opposed the bus stop relocation primarily because of parking. There are
only three residences on the block, so parking is already challenging. Having two bus stops on
the same block would cause cars to go around both buses and increase the risk of accidents. AC
Transit wants to be consistent of the running times, but the running time only changes by less
than one minute. The areas that are more challenged are in Oakland and Berkeley and this stop
is not in the top 20 locations listed in the relocation list. She read a letter from her neighbor,
Laurie Harper, who said that she does not want the bus stop moved because it would place a
stop in front of the church and there is no evidence supporting the need for the change.
Ultimately, congestion and noise would be generated from the relocation.
Pam Cowart, parishioner of Christ Church, said she opposed the relocation of the bus stop.
Norbert Scheunemann, parishioner of Christ Church, said he opposed the relocation of the bus
stop. He said the Girls Inc. facility next to Christ Church have a lot of youth activity that
increases potential accidents. He noted that service delays are related to Oakland and Berkeley
and will not save time in Alameda. Additionally, he asked the Commission to review the activity
next time they drive by the church because there is a lich gate that is an integral part of the
Anglican tradition and the relocation would obstruct its use.
Maria Phraner, resides across from Christ Church, and agreed with the parishioners and
constantly observed traffic and pedestrian activities. She felt the relocation would hinder the
activity because there would be two bus stops across from each other and that would increase
congestion, noise and pollution.
Michael Cordell, resident of Santa Clara Avenue and Willow Street, said he opposed the bus
stop relocation because the stop would be directly in front of his house. He stated there is
already a parking problem on the block and the relocation could cause potential accidents from
Page 4 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,5,"children attending Henry Haight Elementary School and Little Seeds Children's Center. He
explained that two stops would be on the same block (Santa Clara Avenue/Chestnut Street and
Santa Clara Avenue/Willow Street). He felt AC Transit and the City will compound traffic
congestion rather than negate the issue.
David Baker, resident near Caroline Street and Santa Clara Avenue, wanted to focus on the delay
issue and the bus lane extension specifically within the Santa Clara Avenue corridor. He
suggested staff think outside the box and study a bus only lane in two directions on Lincoln
Avenue to reduce the load on Santa Clara Avenue.
Frank D. Valenzuela, owner of Dan Francisco Salon, opposed the bus relocation because his
patrons can access his salon easily, but the relocation would displace them. He explained that
loading and unloading passengers in front of the entrance door with a 15-foot setback from the
curb would affect the privacy of the 27-units surrounding the stop. Additionally, the placement
of the bus stop in front of the salon would be far less safe than the current location and there is a
utility post at the corner of the relocated stop, so if a bus hits the post it would be disastrous.
Lance Russum said he is familiar with the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Caroline
Street. He worked near there for over 47 years and witnessed accidents and near accidents.
There is no reason why the bus should be moved to the southeastern side. He believed the
relocation would create more congestion and blockage. He also suggested eliminating the stop
on Santa Clara Avenue at Everett Street.
Carolyn Pounds, resident near Eighth Street and Santa Clara Avenue, said she opposed the bus
stop relocation near her area. She mentioned that Eighth Street and Santa Clara Avenue is a busy
intersection and she does not see the benefit from the relocation.
Lesley V. Gustafson said she opposed the relocation near Santa Clara Avenue and Caroline
Street, and felt it would be unsafe for the businesses and the 27-unit residents. Furthermore,
parking would be impacted by the relocation.
Dan Thuzon, resident of 1645 Broadway and an engineer, opposed the bus stop relocation onto
Broadway and Buena Vista Avenue. He said working as an engineer he must produce the
following outcomes: 1. faster; 2. cheaper; and 3. better. He believed that moving the stop does
not address those issues. He noted that there are three houses on the corner that do not have off-
street parking and street cleaning further displaces cars. He mentioned that Edison School (2700
Buena Vista Avenue) is a block away and the children cross the intersection in the early morning
and afternoon. The bus would impact the visibility of motorists and cause pedestrian accidents.
He also carried a letter from his neighbor, Karen Pierce, at 1647 Broadway Avenue. His
neighbor is a bed ridden senior, and wrote the noise and smoke would disrupt her health, remove
parking for her caretaker and decrease her property value.
Letty Soogian explained that moving the Santa Clara Avenue and Caroline Street bus stop would
be detrimental for residents and business owners. She pointed out that parking is already limited
and that would further hurt senior residents and visitors in the area. She said now is not the time
to threaten businesses and employees' incomes.
Page 5 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,6,"Leanne Corrie, patron of Dan Francisco Salon, opposed moving the bus stop at Santa Clara
Avenue and Caroline Street. She said there has always been an issue with parking and traffic
and crossing Santa Clara Avenue is already dangerous. She recommended installing a cross
walk at the intersection.
Mike Tuttle, resident of 787 Santa Clara Avenue, opposed the relocation at Eighth Street and
Santa Clara Avenue because the stop is close to his house and it would create additional traffic
and noise. He said, in the past, he called the police several times to have a person removed
because she was screaming at the top of her lungs while waiting for the bus and that goes on all
the time. He suggested moving the stops to Santa Clara Avenue at Ninth Street where the
transbay bus stop and 5-6 businesses are located. He had additional concerns with the relocation
during the 8 am and 5 pm peak hour because children are picked up and dropped off. The result
creates double parking at the elementary school, so that is why they need a consolidated bus stop
to open up parking spaces and a loading zone. He mentioned that Officer Jones is at the
intersection every weekday since the beginning of September to issue parking citations.
Pedro Marquez said he opposed the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Caroline Street
because he does not find anything wrong with the existing stop.
Matt Valenzuela, employee of Dan Francisco Salon, said he opposed the Santa Clara Avenue and
Caroline Street stop relocation. He recognized the issue of buses stopping within proximity to
the salon's windows. Additionally, he felt the fumes would enter the salon, which would be
detrimental for the patrons. He added that patrons do not have an area to wait if the stop is
relocated and the new stop may bring loiterers. Furthermore, the relocated bus stop is near a
driveway that is frequently used and when that driveway is being used, it would be an issue of
visibility to the street.
Jane Sullwold said Frank Valenzuela came to her and asked for her helped. She referred to AC
Transit's letter dated June 25, which noted the delays at Santa Clara Avenue and Caroline Street.
She received the study from Fehr Peers and found no delays in that area. She said public
comments sent to AC Transit were never published to the Commission. She brought copies of
the letter submitted by her and Mr. Valenzuela. She also mentioned that Mr. Valenzuela
collected over 100 signatures of people opposed to the bus stop relocation. She said AC
Transit's initial goal was to reduce service delays, but at the community workshop many have
said that there are no delays. Now, AC Transit has shifted its goal to resolving the safety issue.
Reverend Stephen McHale, Christ Church, said his primary role is to make the space open and
welcoming to the community. He felt the relocation would limit access to the front of the church
and that would deter visitors attempting to come to a number of events that are hosted by the
church. He mentioned the delicate lich gate has architectural significance and the relocation
would make the gate a defacto bus stop. Moreover, he has seen an uptick of theft in the church
and he does not want trash increased near the church.
Bryan Sperry, Oakland resident, felt that moving the bus stop at the front of Christ Church would
not help increase service speeds. He would like the relocations focused in Oakland. He believed
the lich gate at Christ Church would be subject to graffiti and the City would eventually request
the gate be removed because of safety reasons.
Page 6 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,7,"relocating the bus stop based on safety reasons. She pointed out that Alameda High School is
close to the intersection, so possibly eliminating the stop at Santa Clara Avenue and Willow
Street would increase service time.
Eleanor Wiley, resident of 1402 Santa Clara Avenue, said she opposed all bus stops relocating
and felt Alameda is being painted with the same brush as Berkeley and Oakland.
Alex Helperin, resident of 1705 Broadway, said he opposed the Broadway and Buena Vista
Avenue relocation and the existing stop has a large setback and less parking issues.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, said at the July 9
meeting a lot of people commented about the wrong type of people are being attracted to bus
stops. He lives three blocks from the Santa Clara Avenue corridor and said not everyone who
rides the bus is homeless or starting trouble. That night he rode his bike down Santa Clara
Avenue and he never worried about AC Transit buses hitting him. They are the safest drivers on
the street. However, he felt motorists tend to cause pedestrian accidents overall. He also pointed
out that buses do not stop at the Dan Francisco Salon for more than 15 seconds and they are
gone. Yet, he did hear legitimate transit-related conflicts such as the Broadway and Buena Vista
Avenue stop and he hoped they could fix the service between downtown and Fruitvale BART
Station. Overall, he approved of the incremental stop changes because every second is essential.
Louie Martirez, Line 51A passenger, said he is in favor of moving the bus stop to Ninth Street
and Santa Clara Avenue because of the current location's safety issues.
Page 7 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,8,"Alan Pryor, resident of 1009 Santa Clara Avenue, said that moving the stop in front of Dan
Francisco Salon would be detrimental and he felt Christ Church made valid points about not
having the stop close to their location.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, said the Santa Clara Avenue section
between Everett Street and Broadway does not need a stop at Everett Street because Park Street
and Broadway are good enough as they are. He felt the relocation stop at Buena Vista Avenue
and Broadway did not make sense. In addition, he wanted to see Broadway and Santa Clara
Avenue kept as a stop and the City should paint the stop SO it is clearly marked as a bus stop.
Cynthia Landry said she travels on the bus down at Webster Street to downtown Oakland for
work. She is not clear of all the existing issues, but the bus worked fine for her. She felt
everything should stay as it is.
Commissioner Schatmeier said the Everett Street and Santa Clara Avenue speakers mentioned
there is one stop on Everett and not on the westbound side. He felt that is a prime candidate for
elimination.
Sean Diest Lorgion, AC Transit Senior Transportation Planner, said a few years ago they did
remove the westbound stop, but the current spacing in the eastbound direction between Park
Street and Santa Clara Avenue at Broadway is roughly 1,600 feet. He noted that AC Transit has
an 800-1,300 foot spacing guideline and they would like to keep the policy with regards to
Everett Street.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked AC Transit staff if the parking spaces in front of Dan Francisco
Salon are designated for disabled people.
David Fyfe replied the parking spaces are not disabled spaces.
Commissioner Schatmeier wondered why the Ninth Street and Santa Clara Avenue bus stop was
not shown in the presentation map.
Sean Diest Lorgion replied that the current bus stop on Ninth Street and Santa Clara Avenue is
used for the Transbay Line O only and the Line 51 stops at Eighth Street and Santa Clara
Avenue.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked AC Transit staff if they examined consolidating the lines.
Sean Diest Lorgion replied that staff discussed the option and they are willing to consolidate
both lines onto Eighth Street and Santa Clara Avenue. They chose Eighth Street and Santa Clara
Avenue because the intersection is signalized and Ninth Street and Santa Clara Avenue has an
uncontrolled intersection.
Commissioner Schatmeier said there are safety conflicts between traffic and pedestrians,
especially when buses pick up at the near side and far side of an intersection.
Robert del Rosario replied that a stop sign controlled intersection if on the far side had to stop at
Page 8 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,9,"the sign and then pull into the stop. However, the near side is substandard because the bus often
does not have enough space and must pull into the stop at an angle. The far side approach takes
up less parking and allows the bus to go through the intersection and pull into the stop.
Commissioner Wong referred to the Santa Clara Avenue and Morton Street bus stop proposal.
She noticed that moving the stop on the far side would create conflict with an existing fire
hydrant shown in the staff presentation on page 18. She is wondering about the impact of it.
David Fyfe replied that the fire hydrant would be moved.
Robert del Rosario said they would not want the bus to dwell near a hydrant for long periods, but
the driver could move out of the way if there was an emergency.
Commissioner Wong replied SO there is not a code or regulation of distance for placing a bus stop
near a fire hydrant.
Robert del Rosario said not for a bus stop.
William Buller, AC Transit Traffic Engineer, said the back end of the bus would be 10 feet away
from the ramp and the hydrant.
Commissioner Wong asked staff for the approximate distance needed between bus stops.
William Buller replied 800 to 1,300 feet.
Commissioner Wong referred to the Santa Clara Avenue and Eighth Street bus stop, and she
wanted to know the location of the Ninth Street and Santa Clara Avenue stop.
Robert del Rosario replied that the Ninth Street stop is on the west side near the corner store.
Commissioner Wong said since it is in front of the corner store, which is the same distance as
Maya Lin School, then there are two bus stops on each corner even if the stops are not used by
the same bus route.
Robert del Rosario replied the bus stops have different routes that pick up and drop off and the
policy of distance is based on the same route.
Commissioner Wong said when consolidating the stops down to Ninth Street and Santa Clara
Avenue and then Webster Street and Santa Clara Avenue there would be two bus stops on the
same block by Maya Lin School and another by the corner store.
Robert del Rosario replied they would consider removing the Ninth Street bus stop and the stop
sign per route policy. However, the point of the policy is to have access to a line for all
passengers and not the fact that there are two bus stops on one block. Otherwise, their
passengers have to walk further to access the service.
Commissioner Morgado asked staff if they contacted the Alameda Police Department when
Page 9 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,10,"conducting the report. The reason he asked was that he had Sergeant Simmons attend the
meeting to comment about general crime around bus stops within the Santa Clara Avenue
corridor.
Sergeant Simmons, Alameda Police Department Traffic Division, said over his 23-year history
he has seen graffiti, loitering and occasional theft of cell phones or personal property at bus
stops.
Commissioner Vargas asked Sergeant Simmons about accident data along Santa Clara Avenue.
He specifically wanted to know about the number of speeding buses and parking or drop off
concerns.
Sergeant Simmons replied that the drop off at Eighth Street and Santa Clara Avenue concerned
him because the stop is right in front of the library. He said if the relocation were to happen, the
City would lose around seven parking spaces on that block. Moreover, the area near Maya Lin
School is one of the worst areas for picking and dropping off passengers and many motorists
double park or encroach in the bicycle lanes. Regarding speeding buses, he routinely receives
calls about this issue, and he is armed with a radar gun to check AC Transit buses, but he does
not see many speeding buses. He stated that he does not have all of the accident data for Santa
Clara Avenue, but he recalled the last collision was at Grand Street and Santa Clara Avenue
involving a motorist running a red light and hitting a car.
Commissioner Bellows told Sergeant Simmons that every time she drove near Eighth Street and
Santa Clara Avenue it is impacted in all directions. She avoids the area because it is such a
tough intersection. Also, she wanted to know his opinion about relocating the bus stop from
Eighth Street to Ninth Street.
Sergeant Simmons said he was concerned with the Ninth Street and Santa Clara Avenue
intersection because the heaviest crossings involve Maya Lin students. Additionally, he said that
they deploy a crossing guard at the intersection, adding extra activity would hinder the children's
safety.
Commissioner Morgado asked Sergeant Simmons if lighting was an important element to
stopping crime.
Sergeant Simmons replied lighting is an important factor to reducing crime. Yet, he does not
know if he could make a fair assessment about the lighting at the bus stops along Santa Clara
Avenue because he has not worked night shifts in a long time. However, he would ask the night
time officers and come back to the Commission with an answer.
Commissioner Schatmeier said it would be good to know how the proposed moves would be
impacted by the presence or absence of lighting.
Commissioner Bertken asked AC Transit staff for clarification of the route 51A when discussing
service delays in the staff presentation.
Robert del Rosario replied the 51A line runs through Fruitvale BART Station and into
Page 10 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,11,"Broadway, through Santa Clara Avenue and up Webster Street. The bus goes into downtown
Oakland and up Broadway in Oakland and terminates at the Rockridge BART Station.
Commissioner Bertken said the staff presentation displayed a one-way savings of 17 minutes.
He questioned the amount of delay within the Webster Street and Broadway section.
William Buller replied there would be 3-5 minutes time savings through Webster Street, Santa
Clara Avenue, Broadway and back.
Commissioner Bertken asked if AC Transit has kept records on accidents around the bus stops
and pedestrian crosswalks.
Robert del Rosario replied AC Transit has the data, but he does not have it currently. He went
on to say there were some significant incidents that have occurred such as the case at Frick
Middle School in Oakland along Foothill Boulevard. He pointed out that AC Transit does not
want pedestrian incidents to occur because the liability to them and their customer base is huge.
Commissioner Bertken said a number of public speakers presented their input this evening. He
wanted to know how AC Transit staff incorporated community input.
Robert del Rosario replied that the safety issues that were mentioned are taken very seriously. In
addition, AC Transit has the County sheriff officers who work with the agency to address the
safety issues and the agency worked with the police department to coordinate ways to make bus
stops safe. He noted that there are opportunities for grants to incorporate more lighting and other
enhancements around bus stops.
Commissioner Bertken asked AC Transit staff if they made any changes since the first proposal
based on community input.
Robert del Rosario replied that three months ago they had a community meeting that was well
attended and based on that they went back and conducted field work to see if there were parking
issues and ways to mitigate those issues along Santa Clara Avenue. Staff then came up with two
tiered recommendations. The priority recommendations were for bus stop locations that are
labeled tier 1 for the agency and City staff agreed. The second tier is high priority, but they have
some discretion to postpone the implementation.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the basic locations and the changes that are not associated
with a traffic signal.
Robert del Rosario said he does not have the exact details, but they could pull up the list. He
emphasized the safety benefits from near side to far side at uncontrolled intersections.
Commissioner Bellows wondered why several locations are moving from near side to far side,
but others are not.
Robert del Rosario replied he would have his team talk more about that because obstacles such
as traffic signal cabinets and driveways prevent the agency from moving the bus stops.
Page 11 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,12,"Sean Diest Lorgion explained that there are a couple of locations where they would like to move
the bus stops, but sometimes there are multiple driveways that would not allow them to install a
bus stop and they do not want to move a stop midblock.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if they would consider a controlled intersection a stop sign or
only a stoplight.
William Buller replied when the side street is stopped that is a semi-controlled intersection.
However, when all directions are stopped that is an all way controlled intersection. The reason
they call the intersection controlled and uncontrolled is that they are focusing on the main route.
Commissioner Wong said she understood the benefits of locating the bus stops, but she wanted
clarification on whether the agency's goal for moving the locations was for safety or time
savings.
Robert del Rosario replied the goal is for both safety and time savings. However, the far side has
an accessibility advantage, so there would be some time saving and safety in all situations.
David Fyfe explained that the far side bus stop could also minimize parking removal. He
explained that a bus could easily pull over to the far side bus stop and maneuver through the
intersection, but the near side bus stop would eliminate more parking spaces.
Commissioner Wong replied that it is a 2.5-minute savings total.
David Fyfe said the time savings preliminary estimate is 3 minutes in Alameda in each direction.
Commissioner Wong referred to the bus location on Santa Clara Avenue in front of the library.
She felt moving the stop in front of Maya Lin School could pose potential problems like loitering
and graffiti. Moreover, there is a school gate nearby the bus stop and that is a safety issue.
Commissioner Schatmeier wondered if there were available funds to upgrade the relocated bus
stops with shelters, benches or lighting.
Robert del Rosario replied that the primary purpose of the project was to increase speed and
reliability and that is what the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) approved and
funded. Alternatively, staff could look into small spot treatments and the agency recently
applied for a Safe Routes to Transit Grant with Alameda.
William Buller replied that they are also tasked with being accessible and some amenities could
fall under the heading of accessibility, especially under ADA.
Commissioner Schatmeier was concerned that the amenities at the existing bus stops would not
be available at the relocated stops.
Sean Diest Lorgion explained that as part of the project if there was an existing shelter or bench
it would be relocated.
Page 12 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,13,"Commissioner Wong asked AC Transit staff if the preferred relocation recommendations were
a
package deal or could the Commission approve them separately.
David Fyfe said it is not a package deal.
Commissioner Wong explained that she found value of relocating some of the bus stops but for
the others she did not see intended service or safety improvements.
Robert del Rosario explained that the relocation's objective is to improve the time savings to
load the passenger quickly.
Commissioner Vargas asked AC Transit staff how they addressed bus stop relocations around
schools in other cities that they serve.
William Buller said they work with the schools and attempt to find a solution either by shifting
the bus stop or working around established equipment that impedes on relocating the stop.
Ultimately, they work around the obstacles to find a solution.
Commission Bellows would like to make separate motions.
Commissioner Schatmeier felt the Commission would review the first and second tiers. There
should be discussion on prioritizing the locations for the second tier.
Commission Vargas requested clarification on whether the first tier was priority deployment and
the second tier would need further discussion.
David Fyfe said staff evaluated the technical basis for operational benefits and safety concerns.
The first tier does not have a traffic signal and the second tier is all traffic signal controlled.
Thus, all locations give operational benefits, but the first tier is not traffic signal controlled.
Commission Vargas asked AC Transit staff if they were looking for a package approval to move
the project along quickly.
Staff Payne directed the Commission to pages 26-27 of the staff report. The pages illustrate all
the items needed for approval.
Commissioner Vargas called for a motion
Commissioner Bertken moved to endorse the five items found on page 26 of the staff report.
Commissioner Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Commissioner Bellows made a motion to approve the intersection relocations separately.
Commissioner Bellows moved to approve the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Mozart
Street. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Page 13 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,14,"Commissioner Bellows moved to deny the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Caroline Street.
Commissioner Wong seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.
Commissioner Bellows moved to approve the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Morton
Street. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4:2.
Commissioner Bellows moved to approve the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Chestnut
Street. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:1.
Commissioner Bellows moved to approve the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Willow
Street. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.
Commissioner Bellows moved to approve the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Walnut
Street. Commissioner Wong seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.
Commissioner Bellows moved to require further analysis on Santa Clara Avenue and Everett
Street. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.
Commissioner Bellows moved to approve the relocation at Buena Vista and Webster Street.
Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.
Commissioner Bellows moved to deny the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Eighth Street.
Commissioner Wong seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.
Commissioner Bellows moved to deny the relocation at Santa Clara Avenue and Grand Street.
Commissioner Wong seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.
Commissioner Bellows moved to deny the relocation at Broadway, Tilden Way, and Eagle
Avenue. Commissioner Wong seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:1.
Commissioner Bertken asked City staff what would be the consequence of the action taken by
the Commission.
Staff Nguyen replied that they need to hear from AC Transit staff because they have a 24 month
time horizon and that would frame how they go forward.
David Fyfe said that they were conducting public outreach until December 2013, and the design
consultant will continue to work with the community. They expected the design process to
conclude by the end of the year and they would start construction by early 2014.
Commissioner Bertken asked if they would review the bus stops that were of concern to the
community and the Commission.
Page 14 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,15,"Robert del Rosario replied that the relocation stops that were of concern would be put on hold
until further analysis.
David Fyfe said all votes for no's would be dropped out of the proposal.
Staff Nguyen replied that the Commission took the vote and anyone who disagreed with the
decision could appeal to the City Council within ten days. He also mentioned that there is a fee
to file an appeal.
Robert del Rosario replied staff would continue moving forward with the bus stops that are
approved because of the deadline set by MTC.
Commissioner Wong asked for clarification on the final motion for Santa Clara Avenue and
Caroline Street.
Commissioner Vargas called for the Commission to make another motion for Santa Clara
Avenue and Caroline Street.
Commissioner Wong moved to keep the bus stop at Santa Clara Avenue and Caroline Street.
Commissioner Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Michael Cordell asked the Commission for a re-vote on the Santa Clara and Willow Street
relocation because the new location contains a fire hydrant, school and daycare center. He also
asked about the appeals process.
Staff Payne replied that an appeal could be submitted with the City Council within ten days.
5C. San Jose Avenue at Regent Street All-Way Stop Appeal - Report
Staff Ta presented the report.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Neil Heyden, resident of 2500 San Jose Avenue, said he was glad the issue was being addressed.
He has experienced five accidents in the last couple of years at the corner and constant honking
horns. He pointed out that motorists traveling along Regent Street do not realize that the other
motorists do not have a stop sign. Thus, the proposal will not address the issue. Additionally, he
felt the height of the parked cars comes into question because the signage may not be visible to
oncoming traffic. He proposed Regent Street to include a sign that says ""Cross Traffic Does Not
Stop."" He explained that congestion and speed around San Jose Avenue is high in the morning
and around 100 cars pass around the area during the peak hours.
Mary Claire Neumann, resident of 2504 San Jose Avenue, composed the letter for the appeal.
She said everyone in the neighborhood was concerned about this issue. She stated that every
other day she hears shrieking tires and honking horns, and she does not understand why an all-
way stop sign would not resolve the issue. Moreover, she noted that parking may be available at
1:30 pm, but not at 5 pm and on. Usually, she has to park three blocks away from her house and
Page 15 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,16,"it is getting worse. However, she was okay with losing one parking space in exchange for more
visibility.
Jon Spangler said that since 2002 he was concerned that Alameda does not measure up to the
Caltrans' recommendation to paint one parking space red at all intersection corners for visibility.
His experience living over in the Gold Coast entails terrible sight lines at St. Charles or Ninth
Street as he bikes or drives along Central Avenue.
Commissioner Wong asked staff if ""Cross Traffic Does Not Stop"" signs warrant or meet the
standard of the signage installed.
Staff Ta replied that the ""Cross Traffic Does Not Stop"" sign is typically placed where stop signs
are new or orientation has been changed. However, they could put them in if the Commission
requested.
Commissioner Bellows asked Sergeant Simmons if it is possible to get more surveillance within
that area.
Sergeant Simmons replied yes it is and he was going to pass his business card to offer a
Neighborhood Speed Watch program. The program arms community members with radar guns
and helps them to accurately gauge the speed of the vehicles.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff what are the fiscal implications of moving the
recommendations forward.
Staff Ta replied that there are none. The review is part of the traffic operations program, and are
programmed under the maintenance budget.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to amend the recommendation to include the City actively
solicit the Neighborhood Speed Watch program.
Commissioner Bellows moved to also include ""Cross Traffic Does Not Stop"" signs in both
directions.
Sergeant Simmons replied that the program is only as effective as the participation of the
volunteers. So, if they find that there is no participation then there is not much they can do about
it.
Commissioner Vargas asked Sergeant Simmons about enforcement of the signage height.
Sergeant Simmons replied that he arms his parking technicians with every tool that they need to
enforce the signs and the technicians have tape measures to measure the height of vehicles.
Commissioner Vargas requested a motion from the Commission to approve the staff
recommendations with two amendments to actively solicit residents to participate in the
Neighborhood Speed Watch program and to add ""Cross Traffic Does Not Stop"" signs in both
directions. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.
Page 16 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,17,"Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the neighborhood appealed the decision would it come
back to the Commission for consideration.
Commissioner Vargas replied that the appeal would go to the City Council.
5D. Planned Construction of Class I Bike Path on Ron Cowan Parkway
Hugh Johnson, Port of Oakland Project Manager, presented the report.
Commissioner Bellows asked if the project is a Class II bicycle lane and ultimately if it would be
a Class I path.
Hugh Johnson replied that they are building a Class I path, and it currently has a side of road
bike lane from Harbor Bay Parkway to Air Cargo Road. Currently, there is a Class I path from
Air Cargo Road to Airport Drive.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if this would be a gap closure.
Hugh Johnson replied yes.
Commissioner Vargas asked if the letter received from Bike Walk Alameda made it to the Port
of Oakland.
Hugh Johnson replied yes.
Staff Payne replied that the two organizations had a nice exchange and after the exchange they
received the letter.
Commissioner Vargas requested a motion from the Commission.
Commissioner Bellows moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.
5E. Estuary Crossing Shuttle Proposed Route Change
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he liked the idea in principal, he but wondered how the shuttle
would proceed if an AC Transit line #51 needed to pull in when the bus stop was occupied.
Staff Payne replied that it is a long stop and fits multiple buses. So, depending on where the AC
Transit bus is at the time, the shuttle could go before the bus or after it.
Commissioner Vargas requested a motion from the Commission.
Page 17 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,18,"Commissioner Bellows moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Bertken seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.
Staff Nguyen explained that there were comments opposing staff recommendations and the
comments are included in the staff report. Additionally, he said staff made an effort to reach out
to the College of Alameda who opposed the change, but were unsuccessful in doing SO. He went
on to say that a faculty member at College of Alameda proposed a different route to maintain the
stop in front of the college. He mentioned that there would be an Estuary Crossing Shuttle Task
Force meeting the next day and a representative from the college would be there.
Commissioner Bellows asked if the time-related issue occurred because of the service area's size.
She asked about the distance between the shuttle stops.
Staff Nguyen replied that the service had to meet the standard of the grants. So, there is a 30
minute loop requirement and people were complaining about the fact that we are taking the
college stop away rather than the Wind River stop. However, Wind River pays into the service
and the new objective is to eventually create a second shuttle.
Commissioner Schatmeier pointed out this is a special purpose shuttle and the service is designed
to serve specific clientele at specific stops.
Commissioner Vargas said the conclusion would be to eventually discuss establishing dialogue
with the college and possible funding for a second shuttle to accommodate students.
6.
Staff Communications
6A.
Transit Line 631 Changes
- Changed to meet the Academy schedule.
6B.
BART Service to Alameda Request
- The mayor sent a letter to consider BART service within the City.
6C.
Bicycle Rack Voucher Project - Call for Projects
- Staff will submit a bike parking grant and staff solicited suggestions from the
Commission on bike rack locations.
6D.
Potential Future Agenda Items
- Park Street Pedestrian Safety Project
- Jean Sweeney Open Space - Preliminary Conceptual Layout
- Transportation Priority List Update
- Quarterly Report
- Alameda Point Draft TDM Plan
Commissioner Schatmeier pointed out that last month he requested a discussion on the City's
ferry service, and he would like the item placed on the agenda.
Jon Spangler explained that the next day at 9 am BART Board would vote on staff
recommendations under item 5a to make bikes on board a permanent policy.
Page 18 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-10-23,19,"Commissioner Wong asked about the supplementary bus service at the Academy of Alameda,
and wondered if the schedule for the #631 line presented pick up and arrival times.
Staff Payne said the bus would leave Encinal High School at 3:30 pm, and would then leave the
Academy at 3:35 pm.
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Jim Strehlow spoke about the traffic light at Webster Street and Pacific Avenue, and over a year
ago he asked how this signal is going to be timed for Webster Street. Staff replied that it would
be timed along with the other traffic lights on Webster Street. Currently, he found the
intersection's traffic signal produced traffic back up and now wondered if the signal is on
demand. Overall, he was concerned that the public did not get what was promised and requested
a review of the signals as a future agenda item.
Staff Patel, Transportation Engineer, replied that the Webster Street project was still under
construction and the signal has not yet been set. The timing would occur at the end of the year,
and staff would give the Commission an update at the beginning of this year.
Jon Spangler said he also had feedback on the light at Webster Street and Pacific Avenue. He
was glad to see the light at the intersection. Furthermore, he does not mind seeing the traffic at
Webster Street slow down a little bit. However, he wanted the City to de-emphasize auto
convenience in favor of pedestrian crossing and bicycle safety.
8.
Adjournment
10:46 pm
Page 19 of 19",TransportationCommission/2013-10-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
December 10, 2008
Acting Chair Krueger called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier
Kathy Moehring (arrived after Item 4)
Jane Lee
Members Absent:
John Knox White
Srikant Subramaniam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
Eric Fonstein, Development Services Department
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
October 22, 2008
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that with respect to page 7 (Future Agenda Items), he did not
recall raising the issue of High Street and I-880, and believed that another Commissioner made
those comments. Staff Khan believed the comments were made by Commissioner McFarland.
Commissioner Lee noted that with respect to school budgeting on page 5, the language should be
changed to:
""
school budgeting, which can cause
""
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the minutes of October 22, 2008, as amended.
Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
b.
November 12, 2008
There was not a quorum to consider these minutes, which will be considered during the January
28, 2009, meeting.
1",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,2,"3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
No task forces met since the last meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
There were none.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A.
Parking Management Strategy for the Park Street and West Alameda Business
Districts.
Eric Fonstein, Development Services Department, summarized the staff report and detailed the
background and scope of this item. He noted that West Alameda Business Association and the
Park Street Business Association expressed concerns that the Alameda Municipal Code did not
reasonably take into consideration the type or size of the business, or its location, when applying
the minimum parking requirements. The members also believed that the City's in lieu fees were
burdensome and expensive, especially for small businesses. The third concern was raised by
residents in the neighborhoods regarding lack of adequate on-street parking. He noted that in
response to those concerns, the City hired Wilbur Smith & Associates to conduct a parking
study, which measured occupancy, turnover and duration of both on-and off-street parking in the
two districts. He noted that the study was completed before the completion of the new Civic
Center parking structure and Movie Theater, although those facilities were included in the future
parking demand calculations.
Mr. Fonstein advised that the study found high on-street occupancy levels several times during
the day; City-owned parking lots A and C were also highly used, and that many of the private
lots were highly underused; and there were high occupancies in the residential areas near the
downtown area. Similar findings were found in the West Alameda district. He noted that the
goals of the parking strategy were:
1. Management of the existing supply should be enhanced, and that the bargain hunters and
employees should be moved from the on-street parking spaces and into the private and
public lots through pricing mechanisms, and to open up the on-street parking for the
shoppers, which benefit the district; and
2. Lower the barriers to private investment and business expansion in the districts.
Staff Fonstein noted that the infrastructure and supply were in place, but that the resource
management tools must be sharpened. He noted that on-street parking was an underpriced, finite
resource, which was capable of being exploited or sold out. He noted that an appropriate price
point for on-street parking should be found, so that merchants and employees did not monopolize
the on-street parking; parking structures and off-street lots would be preferable. He noted that by
appropriately pricing the on-street parking, the turnover rate would be optimized. He noted that
2",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,3,"short-term parkers were less sensitive to the price, and preferred the convenience. He noted that
Professor Donald Shoup of UCLA discovered that appropriately priced parking actually reduced
traffic congestion by up to 30%, which was the percentage of drivers cruising around the block
looking for a parking space. He noted that the goal was to have 15% vacancy of meter space
available at any one time, or approximately one empty space per block. He noted that in the Park
Street district, the on-street meter rates were increased from 50 cents to $1 per hour. The off-
street public lots were kept at 50 cents. Staff recommended monitoring the parking conditions on
Park Street.
Staff Fonstein noted that on certain areas of Webster Street at certain times, there was high
occupancy, but that there was not enough to consider raising the on-street meter rates. Both
districts would continue to be monitored. He noted that an ordinance may be considered to
establish a target occupancy rate of 85%, and create a threshold of meter rates which could be
adjusted up or down at 25% intervals. He noted that this plan needed neighborhood support,
active enforcement and should be self-funded to avoid impacting the City's General Fund.
Staff Fonstein noted that staff's recommendations were to establish a cost-neutral program,
which would be borne by the permit holders, estimated at approximately $75 annually. It would
also establish two-hour parking for non-residents in a permitted area; active enforcement would
be very important, and that violators would receive a ticket. The program should be located
within three blocks of the commercial area; 75% of the on-street occupancy in any given two-
hour area should demonstrate an impact on those streets; and one-third of the neighborhood
should sign a petition to bring it forward to the City. After a study, the City should present the
measure to the residents for a vote, with a majority approval by the property owners.
Staff Fonstein noted that the third management strategy was to use employee parking permits,
allowing employees to park in off-street lots and parking structures, freeing the on-street parking
for customers. He described the prices of the various parking permits. Staff recommended that an
RFP be prepared and issued for a trial project for both districts, as funding becomes available.
Staff Fonstein noted that the second goal was to encourage private investment, infill development
and business expansion in the business districts. He noted that there were some concerns by
members of the business associations about the parking requirements. He noted that the goal was
to find the right size of parking requirements for uses. He noted that there were comments that
the requirements did not take the realities of on-street business locations into account, and that
motorists may park once for many destinations. He noted that another concern was that
restrictive requirements would increase the cost for infill development. He noted that staff would
like the flexibility to go below the stipulated requirements, using either a demand waiver, a
historic waiver, or a shared parking waiver. Staff would like to look at shared parking, and that a
City employee parking lot at Lincoln and Walnut may be opened to the public on weekends, and
for special events. They would also like to create a shared parking database for people to use.
Staff would like to re-examine the shared parking code, to ensure that it would be easy to enter
into the agreement.
3",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,4,"Staff Fonstein noted that the third goal was program management, with periodic monitoring,
depending on the availability of funding. He noted that issues such as satellite parking programs,
park & ride, casual carpool, loading zones, the possibility of extending enforcement to Saturdays
or evenings, valet parking, the needs of disabled patrons, and to develop a long-range financing
plan for future parking in both districts. He noted that WABA endorsed this plan the previous
week, and it was presented to PSBA for consideration in January. He noted that the EDC did not
have a quorum on November 20, 2008, and that it would be re-presented on January 15, 2009.
This plan would be brought before the Planning Board at their January 12, 2009, meeting. They
hoped to bring it to the City Council in February 2009.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired about the impact of casual car pooling on surrounding
neighborhoods. Staff Khan noted that it was not defined fully at this time, but that there would be
some impact. He noted that Encinal/Park and Santa Clara/Webster are currently being used
informally for this purpose.
Commissioner Moehring inquired about the payment machines, and would like to confirm that
they would accept cash in addition to credit cards. Staff Fonstein confirmed that they would
accept cash. Commissioner Mehoring ask when funding for these machines would become
available, Staff Fonstein for the initial pilot project, and that the cost was $48,000 for two
machines. There would be one machine per block. Commissioner Moring noted that it would be
nice to try a machine, and inquired whether they could be solar-powered.
Staff Khan noted that some machines can be loaded via cell phone.
Open public hearing.
There were no speakers.
Acting Chair Krueger suggested this might be a good time to read Chair Knox White's written
comments into the record.
Staff Bergman noted that Chair Knox White stated that ""in-lieu fees should be used for
accommodation of transportation, but an emphasis on transportation options that reduce the need
to build more parking. Bus shelters, benches, bike racks, etc., not just parking for bikes or for
cars."" After receiving the comment, staff examined the Municipal Code, and it appeared to allow
considerable flexibility, and should accommodate Chair Knox White's concerns, although it was
not explicit. The Code stated that ""fees should be allowed where the City can identify
appropriate uses for funds reasonably related to the project. Appropriate uses shall include, but
not be limited to, acquisition
4",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,5,"Close public comment.
Commissioner Schatmeier agreed with Chair Knox White's comments, and was concerned about
the portion of the study that recommended lowering the cost of commuter parking in off-street
parking to address the balance between on-street and off-street parking. He believed the lower
parking cost would serve as a deterrent to using transit in areas where transit service was dense.
Acting Commissioner Krueger requested that the possibility of the TransLink card be
investigated, because the program was moving very slowly. He agreed with Chair Knox White's
suggestion about broadening the usage of the in lieu fees for transportation improvements, with
an emphasis on parking demand reduction. He believed that the minimum and maximum long-
term fee adjustments should include adjustments for inflation. He noted that the criterion for the
15-minute transit service was good except the requirement that it also be 15 minutes on
weekends during peak business hours, which he believed was met only by the 51. He believed
that was too strict.
Staff Khan agreed and stated that it should be changed to weekdays only for the criterion.
Acting Chairperson Krueger suggested using 15 minutes during the week, and 30 minutes during
the weekend, which would apply to both the minimum and maximum. He suggested lowering the
price of garage parking would encourage people to park there, or to increase the cost of street
and residential parking.
Staff Khan wished to confirm that Commissioner Schatmeier suggested that before changing on-
street pricing, that the impacts should be evaluated, and if the residential permit parking could
address the on-street parking issues. Commissioner Schatmeier confirmed that was correct.
Staff Khan noted that he understood the other comment to examine casual carpool analysis more
comprehensively, consider TransLink card use for payment of parking meters; broaden the use of
in lieu fees that could be used not just for bicycle or parking supply facilities, but also for transit,
transit shelter and parking demand management strategies. He understood that inflation be
included for maximum parking meter charges, as well as examining making a change to a waiver
that changes weekday 15-minute and weekend 15-minute headway to weekday 15-minute and
weekend service being available.
Staff Khan summarized the Commission's desire that shared parking would be available for all
parking and would apply to all waivers if a facility acquired a new waiver. He added that for the
maximum waiver, shared parking could also satisfy as part of the waiver.
Acting Chairperson Krueger noted that was not his comment, and that having looked for shared
parking should be part of the conditions in order to obtain the waiver. He noted that in order to
get the waiver, you must show that you cannot satisfy it through shared parking.
5",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,6,"Commissioner Moehring moved to recommend approval of the plan with Commissioner
comments forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
6B.
Proposed Method for Identifying Preferred Transportation Modes on Street
Segments Where Multiple Priorities Have Been Identified.
Staff Bergman summarized the staff report, and provided the background on this item. He
displayed a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the staff report.
Commissioner Moehring noted that segment 68 (Central to Atlantic) gave preference to autos
and pedestrians, but that it was also a major transit route, which should be addressed as well.
Staff Khan agreed.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the segment 15 listed transit and bicycles on Challenger at
Marina Village Parkway, which was not a primary transit or an exclusive right of way transit, yet
transit was listed as the preferred mode. He inquired whether that was correct. Staff Khan noted
that staff would re-examine that item.
Open public hearing.
There were no speakers.
Staff Bergman noted that Chair Knox-White submitted comments in writing, which he distributed
and read into the record:
The current report/proposal does not address the goals that the TC and the TMP set out,
which is to stop the incremental degradation in the walk/bike environment and maintain
the quality of life on all streets.
Past TC and staff discussion has focused specifically on allowing higher congestion in
Commercial areas in favor of pedestrian improvements, however the current staff
proposal does the opposite, specifically saying that for Commercial Main and School and
Recreational Zones not on Regional Arterials, preference is given to Pedestrians,
Bicyclists, and/or Transit.
This means that automobiles are given preference in both Commercial Main Streets and
School and Recreation zones, the exact opposite of the purpose of these classifications. In
fact, the proposal essentially makes the Commercial Main Street classification moot.
The TC's past consensus goal identified the use of the ""Modal Priority"" maps in the TMP
for Multimodal LOS purposes. The staff proposal does not follow this methodology and
the TC should be aware of this during the discussion.
6",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,7,"At the TMP EIR hearing, we heard from 3 different people about the trouble pedestrians
have crossing Broadway near San Jose. Broadway is a Regional Arterial. In moving
forward with staff's proposal, auto mobility will be prioritized over pedestrian; the ability
of the city to respond to these issues will be reduced.
Alameda's regional arterials are not Gilroy-like walled off roadways that can be treated
in isolation of other modes; they run through our business districts, past parks and
schools.
Many of the core Primary Transit Streets are also along the Regional Arterials, in
prioritizing autos over transit, the staff proposal reduces the TC and city council's) goal
of moving people instead of cars, especially as it affects the Park Street Bridge and more
importantly the tubes.
Before the discussion on the ""grid"" begins, I'd respectfully ask that the TC discuss the
goals of the TMP and the desire to create multimodal LOS thresholds. Only through an
understanding of what we are trying to achieve, can the right result be crafted.
Rather than starting with the grid, which is difficult to conceptualize, I would like to
encourage people to talk about policies and trade-offs using the grid to identify examples
of where certain situations might occur and how the TC would like to recommend they be
handled.
Regional arterials streets: Park St., Webster St., Constitution Way, Encinal/Central, 1/2 of
Broadway, Clement Ave., Atlantic Ave., Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, 1/2 of
Main Street, Otis Drive (from Towne Centre to the bridge).
Close public hearing.
Commissioner Moehring noted that the regional arterials should all have transit as one of the
preferred modes.
Commissioner Schatmeier concurred with Commissioner Moehring's comments, and counted
many streets designated as primary transit streets where transit was not mentioned in the priority
column.
Commissioner Moehring left the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Acting Chairperson Krueger noted that the auto was the default modal priority, which he
believed was the reason there was no auto overlay. He noted that the modal overlays answered
that priority. He believed this grid brought the street classification in as a means prioritization,
particularly bringing in the regional arterial as a way of saying automobiles should trump the
other modes, despite the modal overlays. He was concerned that was not how the street
classification was intended to be used.
7",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,8,"Commissioner Schatmeier would like the streets to be prioritized on a case by case basis.
Commissioner McFarland agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier's assessment.
Staff Bergman noted that for the multi-modal priority layers, they were examined in isolation.
Acting Chairperson Krueger suggested that the clarifications, as detailed in the November 12,
2008, minutes (page 5) be reviewed for the benefit of the Commissioners who were not in
attendance at that meeting.
A discussion of the modal overlays ensued.
Commissioner Schatmeier suggested that Park Street be designated as a primary transit street,
because the level of service and ridership was already high; they could be higher by assigning
this priority, and giving preferential treatment to transit.
Acting Chairperson Krueger noted that the classifications were based on a series of rules,
particularly a rule that if a street was designated as a major arterial, that automobiles would
automatically take precedence, which was not the same as saying it was a case-by-case basis. He
believed that staff was trying to craft a set of rules that could be applied to determine the
outcome. He believed that was fair, because it would be practically difficult to handle everything
on a case by case basis; in that event, there would be no need for overriding rules and
classifications.
Commissioner Schatmeier objected to the rule stating that regional arterials would always get
auto-priority treatment, and noted that Park Street was different than Otis.
Acting Chairperson Krueger noted that regional arterials were a major issue in that they were
also commercial streets.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that Webster and Park were major transit corridors, but that
there was no ""T"" listed in the table.
Staff Bergman noted that if the Commission would like to modify the guidelines, that would be
useful feedback for staff.
Staff Khan noted that the City would hire Dowling Associates to work on this specific aspect of
threshold significance. He noted that if this could not be resolved at this time, there would be
other opportunities; this may be a good starting point to get feedback for the next meeting.
Acting Chairperson Krueger believed the discussion should be continued with all of the
Commissioners present, and that the resolution of the conflicts should be identified.
8",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,9,"Staff Khan noted that the stated goals of the Transportation Element would be a good place to
start; the following goals were identified:
1.
Circulation
2.
Livability
3.
Transportation choice
4.
Implementation in a cost-effective way.
Acting Chairperson Krueger noted that he had considered the following goals: protecting
livability; maintaining current bicycle, pedestrian and transit levels of service/access; and
creating equity for the modes.
Acting Chairperson Krueger noted that the statement about regional arterials was tricky because
they ran through all of the business districts. He believed that when the automotive mode priority
in regional arterials, that ran counter to the idea of preserving the walkable business districts.
Staff Khan reflected the comment to mean that the regional arterials would be examined in terms
of looking at giving priority to high-occupancy vehicles.
Acting Chairperson Krueger noted that would be a good start, and would like to explore the
issue of prioritization. He would like to have more information to provide guidance, and if the
modal overlay did not determine the priority, he would like something better than just an ad hoc
statement, and that maybe too many streets were called out.
Commissioner Schatmeier suggested that the goals be used as a guide in setting the priority.
Staff Khan noted that some changes could be made based upon the Commissioners' comments,
and that the revised goals could be brought back at a later meeting.
Acting Chairperson Krueger complimented staff on the presentation and believed this was a very
good format.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired whether the chart included every classified street. Staff Khan
noted that staff only looked at the streets in the transportation model with a LOS of C or more.
Staff Bergman noted that this was done conservatively, and if the analysis were limited to streets
projected to go to LOS D or lower in 2030, it would be reduced to 50 segments. He noted that
this constituted only a small percentage of the City's street network.
Acting Chairperson Krueger noted that good ideas were brought forward.
Staff Khan summarized the direction, and noted that staff would examine the Transportation
Element goals, and incorporate them into the preferences for different modes. He invited further
Commissioner comments, and would report back in January 2009.
9",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,10,"7.
NEW BUSINESS
a.
Appointment of a Long-Range Transit Plan Update Subcommittee
Staff Bergman noted that this item was suggested by Chair Knox-White, since the City was not
successful in acquiring a grant to complete the Long Range Transit Plan update. Chair Knox-
White requested that a scope of work be identified for the time when funding was available. He
noted that the general scope of work was identified in the grant application, and could be fleshed
out. The Subcommittee would be composed of three members, which was not a quorum; the
discussion would be brought back to the full Commission.
Acting Chairperson Krueger invited volunteers to serve on the Subcommittee. Commissioner
Schatmeier noted that he would be willing to serve, as would Acting Chairperson Krueger.
Commissioner McFarland noted that he would be willing to serve, but wanted the new members
to have the opportunity to serve. He suggested that two members be named, with the third to be
named later.
Acting Chairperson Krueger appointed Commissioner Schatmeier and himself as volunteers for
the subcommittee, and deferred naming the third member until the next meeting.
Open public comment.
There was none.
Close public comment.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Khan noted that staff was asked to consider identifying every agenda item as an action item.
After a discussion with the City Attorney's office, it was felt to be problematic.
Acting Chairperson Krueger asked for standard guidelines so that there was consistency between
all the boards and commissions.
Staff Khan noted that the Planning Board did not take action on every item, and that they
included discussion items on the agenda.
a.
Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study
Staff Khan noted that a public meeting was held in October 2008, as well as a policy advisory
committee meeting with members of other agencies. A meeting with the TAT was held on this
issue, and that the report would be brought to the Commissioner.
10",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-12-10,11,"b.
Broadway/Jackson Update
Staff Khan noted that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting. A transportation
study would be submitted to City Council on December 17 or 18, 2008, and would be available
to the public.
c.
Monitoring of Oak Street/Central Avenue intersection
Staff Khan noted that there was no report.
d.
Upcoming development-related traffic studies and plans
Staff Khan noted that there was no report.
e.
Future meeting agenda items
Staff Khan noted that staff would examine ordinances related to parking, because residential
permit parking required an ordinance change, and that the issue would be brought forth in
January or February 2009.
Staff Bergman noted that the Interagency Liaison Committee with AC Transit was tentatively
scheduled to meet on the 17th, and was rescheduled for January 2009.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:05 p.m.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\/2009\012809\121008minutes-draft-rev.doc
11",TransportationCommission/2008-12-10.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-06-25,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT
June 25, 2008
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier
Members Absent:
Srikant Subramaniam
Neilson Tam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
Lisa Goldman, Deputy City Manager
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
May 28, 2008
Commissioner Krueger noted that page 2 ""MTC Stationary Planning Grant"" should be
""Station Area Planning Grant.""
Commissioner Krueger noted that there were several comments on pages 10 and 11 that
he did not remember making, and inquired whether they were made by someone else.
Page 10: ""Commissioner Krueger noted that bike and pedestrian funding generally comes
out of grants Page 11: ""Commissioner Krueger believed that CalTrans should provide
the funds to maintain their own roads, such as the Tubes."" Chair Knox White believed
that he had made both comments.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that page 11 should be changed to read, ""Bus rapid
transit"" rather than ""rapid transit"".
Commissioner McFarland moved approval of the minutes for the May 28, 2008, meeting
and minutes as corrected. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-
0. Abstain: Commissioner Ratto. Absent: Commissioners Subramaniam and Tam.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
Page 1 of 11",TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-06-25,2,"There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Pedestrian Plan
Chair Knox White noted that the Pedestrian Plan Task Force had not met since the last
meeting.
Staff Khan noted that staff was in the process of completing the draft plan, and will go to
City Council as part of the TMP at the end of the year.
b.
Bicycle Plan Update Group
Chair Knox White noted that the group met on June 16, 2008, where an overview of the
Bike Master Plan update process was presented.
d.
Alameda Point Advisory Task Force
Chair Knox White noted that there had been no meetings since the last TC meeting.
Chair Knox White noted that he had spoken to a citizen on the bus regarding the bike
parking issue at the theater. They had suggested looking at racks for the Park Street area.
He noted that the City-owned lot across the street from the theater had a lot of dead
space.
Staff Khan noted that the Police Department had requested an official parking space for
police vehicles or others to park there. Staff was in the process of making that change.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he had driven past Amelia Earhart School and
Lincoln Middle Schools, and had seen the 631 bus in operation. He inquired whether the
bus operated when school was out of session, and did not believe that was a good use of
resources.
Staff Bergman responded that bus ran when summer school was in session, but did not
know whether it was in session yet.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
There were none.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A.
Oral Update on the Status of Water Emergency Transit Authority (WETA)
Page 2 of 11",TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-06-25,3,"Lisa Goldman, Deputy City Manager, presented the staff report, and described the
background of this item. She noted that SB1093 was introduced by Senator Wiggins of
Vallejo. Sen. Wiggins had voted for SB976, which did not please her constituents. She
then took the lead on the cleanup legislation, and ensured that Alameda was included in
the discussions. SB1093 had passed the Senate and several Assembly committees, and
was currently pending before the Assembly Appropriations Committee. She noted that
the City of Vallejo, despite its economic problems, hired a consultant and a lobbying firm
to assist with this legislation. She noted that they brought forward several interests to
City Council and the Transportation Commission, particularly with respect to guarantees
and protections for ferry riders, and asked that any new bill would guarantee that current
service levels were maintained at a minimum for seven years. They also requested that
future fare increases be consistent with historical trends for Alameda ferry services, and
that the City be reimbursed for all of its investigation assets associated with the ferry
service at fair market value. They estimated that there were approximately $1.2 million of
discretionary money that could have been used for other City purposes. They wished to
ensure that they were reimbursed for monies that could have been used for local streets
and roads, or other transportation projects in town. They requested a seat on the new five-
member board, and Mayor Johnson was appointed to that board by Senator Perata.
Vallejo's former mayor was also appointed to the board.
Ms. Goldman noted that they were also interested in quarterly rider satisfaction surveys,
on-time performance, public meetings in Alameda if a fare increase or schedule change
was anticipated. They wanted to ensure that any plans at Alameda Point would not have
to suffer or change because of the work with the new ferry system. They wished to be
involved in the development of the management plan for emergency response. They
pushed the date for the development plan for completion out six months because they had
a late start; the transition plan must be adopted by July 1, 2009. The ferries cannot be
taken away or consolidated until the plan has been adopted by that date. The cities of
Alameda and Vallejo, as well as the WETA Board, must affirmatively adopt resolutions
stating that they will move forward. Any proposal to change the fares or schedule must be
followed with a public hearing in Alameda. She noted that they must respect the City's
General Plan, redevelopment plans, and any existing redevelopment agreements. They
cannot compel property changes or operational changes prior to the adoption of the
transition plan without the affirmative agreement of the City. They must compensate the
City in a manner to be determined later. She was hopeful that no major changes would
follow, and was disappointed that the permanency of the Board was not established.
Open public hearing.
There were no speakers.
Page 3 of 11",TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-06-25,4,"Close public hearing.
Commissioner Schatmeier believed one of the worst features of the bill was the five-
member board versus the 11-member board. He believed the five-member board was too
small, and that reducing the number of representatives will make it more difficult for
riders to directly communicate their concerns to decisionmakers. He believed this
legislation and new agency was unnecessary and not very well thought-out. He also noted
that he would like for ferry tickets to be good on other ferries. Ms. Goldman noted that
would be one major benefit of the new plan. She noted that the new executive director
would be John Stanley, who had close ties to Alameda as executive director of the
Hornet.
Chair Knox White noted that staff requested that someone from Senator Perata's office
come to hold the hearing in October, but that they stopped returning calls, which he
believed was disrespectful and unfortunate.
No action was taken.
6B.
Broadway/Jackson Project Update
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and reviewed previous meetings on this ongoing
project, which was performed in collaboration with the City of Oakland, ACTIA and
Caltrans to move the project forward. He noted that it was important to address the weave
at the Jackson Street on-ramp on I-880 northbound. He noted that the intersection at 7th
and Harrison was heavily used by pedestrians, so one goal of the project is to reduce
traffic at that intersection. Staff would like to shift freeway-bound traffic as much as
possible, off Chinatown's local streets to arterials. Staff intended to present an alternative
that he mentioned previously, which would give drivers exiting the Posey Tube the
option to make a left turn onto Sixth Street, which would be turned into an arterial street
and would provide access to the freeway. The Broadway off-ramp would be moved,
shortened and dropped at Webster Street. There would be a new on-ramp at I-880 North
at Market Street, including some arterial improvements on 5th Street.
Dave Dickinson of Kimley-Horn Associates, the project consultant, displayed a
presentation on additional studies that had taken place since February 2008, and discussed
the background of the project, as well as recommended alternatives. Their two main
objectives with the project study report were to develop a scope of an overall project that
was reached through consensus of the stakeholder agencies; and the deeper analysis of
the environmental studies. They developed a concept to put in a left-hand turn from
Harrison to 6th Street, tapping into the 6th Street arterial. They developed elements that
had an independent utility so that they could be implemented individually. He displayed
the proposed arterial improvements along 6th Street, leading down to the Market Street
on-ramp. The project would also include a southbound off-ramp at Martin Luther King
Jr. with the 5th Street improvements. A left turn would be added from Harrison, exiting
Page 4 of 11",TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-06-25,5,"the Posey Tube onto 6th Street. The study report would be available for agency review in
mid- to late summer, and finalized by the end of the calendar year, at which time the
environmental process would commence.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier, Mr. Dickinson replied that 6th
Street would not require additional right of way, and that it was an underutilized three-
lane road at this point. Signal coordination and prioritization would be utilized on the
roadway, which would be relatively cost-effective. There would be intersection
improvements at the base of the Market Street and a 6th Street on-ramp.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether 5th and 6th would remain one-way streets. Mr.
Dickinson replied that they would. Commissioner Krueger further inquired whether it
would be possible to square off the corner at Broadway near Jack London Square and still
maintain the traffic flow. Mr. Dickinson replied that would be possible, with a slight
curve to allow cars to turn.
Chair Knox White inquired how the project study report chose its alternatives, and
inquired whether modeling had been done with respect to the alternatives. Art Dao,
ACTIA, replied that they had done traffic forecasting and origin/destination studies, as
well as traffic counts. He noted that a complex traffic forecasting model had been
developed, and that they were in the process of performing the operations analysis.
A discussion about the necessity of the ""pork chop"" island and the double turn in the
intersection at Harrison and 7th Street ensued. Mr. Dickinson stated that it possibly could
be eliminated; his staff would examine the number of trips being diverted.
No action was taken.
Chair Knox White suggested that Item 7A be heard before Item 6C.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Resident Appeal of Public Works Director's Approval of the Installation of
""NO PARKING"" Street Sweeping Signs on the 1300 block of Regent Street.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and summarized the background and scope of
this item. He displayed the affected area on the overhead screen, and summarized the
responses received in the survey. He noted that the first basis for the appeal was that the
parking restrictions would increase the hardship on parking, which would be twice a
month for each side of the street, for a total of four times each month per block. City
policy states that street sweeping signs were installed with the intention of balancing the
environmental needs of the street's cleanliness with the needs for parking in the
neighborhood. The second basis for the appeal was that the neighbors took pride in the
street, and picked up debris as it collected. The City's concern was that the street
sweeping machines can remove debris that could not be removed by hand, such as
metals, hydrocarbons and small particles from brake pads on cars, etc. This also had to do
Page 5 of 11",TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-06-25,6,"with the City's obligation under the Municipal Storm Water permit, and through the
Clean Water Program to control the runoff into the Bay. Staff recommended that the no-
parking street sweeping signs be installed on this block in accordance with City policy,
and to comply with the requirements of the Federal EPA Clean Water Act.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that both the appellants and the letter mentioned casual
car poolers, as well as Transbay bus riders. He inquired how many of the current parkers
were in that category. Staff Bergman replied that was anecdotal, and that hard numbers
were not available at this time. Staff did have boarding and alighting data from the Trans-
Bay bus at that location. The morning boardings were slightly over 100 per day, and
about 200 in the evening.
Commissioner Ratto inquired whether the 1200 block of Regent Street was signed for
street sweeping. Staff Bergman replied that it was, as was the 100 block.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger regarding the duration of daytime
parking, Staff Khan replied that the parking occupancy survey was conducted at the time
the sweepers would go through. Commissioner Krueger suggested it would be useful to
know how many cars were there for the entire four hours.
Commissioner Krueger requested further information on the amount of debris in the
gutter. Staff Khan noted that the City was trying to determine parking impacts where
street sweeping was installed, and based on that, staff recommends the restrictions, and
identifies the conditions of the affected streets. Staff found that there was no scientific
way to determine the condition, but qualitative analysis observed an accumulation of
debris in the storm drain inlets. He noted that the mechanical broom was much stronger
than by hand. He noted that removal of debris by hand also increased the suspension of
particles into the air, as compared to the sweeper, which vacuums the debris into the
containment chamber.
Open public comment.
Mr. Rabin, appellant, noted that the area was used by carpoolers all day. When he arrives
home from his night shift at the hospital, he frequently had no place to park, and that cars
parked on his corner all day long. He noted that he had to move his car to a spot two
blocks away, and added that this was an ongoing problem for him. He understood that
street sweeping was a necessity, but believed that manual sweeping would be better than
the street sweeper. He noted that the vehicle emits hydrocarbons, stirred debris around,
and left a trail behind it. Some residents have complained that their cars have been
sideswiped, and others believed that it was a revenue-enhancing practice through the
Page 6 of 11",TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-06-25,7,"issuance of tickets. He added that the street sweeping schedule was sometimes confusing
and difficult to remember. He would like the casual carpool pickup spot to be moved to
the parking area near the theater.
Staff Bergman noted that staff reviewed off-street parking along the block, and with the
exception of six, at least one offstreet space is available.
Staff Khan believed the street sweeping would improve the situation, because carpoolers
would not be able to park on the street.
Mr. Rabin, appellant, noted that the residents did not mind street sweeping, but did mind
having the carpoolers parking in the area. He would like to see a parking sticker system
explored and instituted.
Staff Khan noted that staff was looking into that possibility very seriously.
Close public comment.
Commissioner Krueger stated that he heard that there is hand-sweeping on Gibbons. Staff
Khan noted that he was not aware of it, and that it was not sanctioned by the City.
Commissioner Ratto noted that because of the massive trees on Gibbons, the residents
bring in a vacuum truck to remove the leaves. He had never seen any hand-sweeping on
that street in 10 years.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he lived at 1204 Regent Street, which had street
sweeping, and inquired whether anyone had any objection to his participation in this
issue. He added that he had an off-street parking space.
Commissioner Ratto noted that he had participated in Park Street issues for six years, and
did not object to Commissioner Krueger participating in this issue.
Chair Knox White noted that conflict of interest was financial.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he had no financial interest in this issue, and that he
agreed that parking on Regent Street was very difficult.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the issue of the street being used as a park-and-ride
lot was critical, and believed that there may not be a problem otherwise. He believed the
restriction would take care of most workdays, and did not believe that decisions based on
a guess should be made.
Staff Khan agreed that a park-and-ride lot would be beneficial near the Park Street
district, but that a location was difficult to find. He invited suggestions for potential
locations. He noted that the City of Davis offers a permit was possible for transit users;
staff was looking into that possibility very seriously.
Page 7 of 11",TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-06-25,8,"Commissioner Ratto agreed with Mr. Rabin that the sweeping schedule was difficult and
restrictive. He respectfully asked Public Works to look at the possibility of modifying the
schedule so that the streets could be swept on the other days to spread out the parking
restrictions. He suggested that the City hold discussions with the owners of the Bank of
America building, and that they offered monthly parking passes in that lot. He suggested
talking with the US Bank building, which was underutilized during the day. He noted that
he would vote to deny the appeal, and added that the appellant brought up many good
points. He commended the appellant for appearing before the Transportation
Commission, and chided his neighbors for not showing up for the appeal. He believed the
appellant would have been better supported if his neighbors had appeared as well, and
added that it was easy to sign a piece of paper, but that showing up for the meeting was
very important. He noted that this would be his last meeting as a Commissioner. He
suggested going back to the neighbors, and encouraging them to show up next time.
Commissioner Schatmeier supported Commissioner Ratto's comments, and that a park
and ride lot would be an asset to the City.
Commissioner Krueger believed a park and ride lot would help, but would not solve the
problem. To solve the street sweeping issue, the parking utilization must be reduced to
less than 30%.
Commissioner McFarland agreed that having all the neighboring streets swept on the
same day was a big problem, and that some people did not have off-street parking.
Staff Khan agreed with that assessment, and had previously suggested modifying the
schedule. He noted that the maintenance crews looked at making the sweeping pattern as
efficient as possible without impacting neighborhoods more than necessary. He noted
that if no off-street parking is available, the City takes this into account.
Chair Knox White noted that while a park and ride program was being discussed, there
was also a large parking garage with many open spaces during the day. He believed this
could be a way to solve the park and ride problem. He noted that the Transportation
Master Plan had a recommendation for setting up permit parking plans, making them
available to neighborhoods. He would like to see some semblance of control over how
many people park in an area, and for the public to use public streets as necessary. He
believed residents should be careful in identifying the space in front of their house as
""their space."" He was concerned with street sweeping itself, and believed that it should be
done on every street. He noted that other streets, such as Crist Street, were highly parked.
He noted that this was a difficult decision, but that the streets were swept only four days a
month. He believed staff would continue to work with the residents with respect to the
impacts.
Commissioner Ratto believed there should be signs on Central, Encinal, Chester and
Crist.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether a street stayed signed forever. Staff Khan noted
Page 8 of 11",TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-06-25,9,"that staff did not have an occasion to remove a sign, but if they receive a request, it may
be because of a substantial land use change, such as a new school. It was staff's goal that
ultimately all streets would be signed.
Commissioner Ratto moved to accept staff's recommendation to deny the appeal.
Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1 (No: Schatmeier).
6C.
Review of Draft Schedule for Completing Analysis of Thresholds of
Significance.
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and noted that the major issue was how to resolve
conflicts. The City Attorney has stated that a Supplemental EIR would be necessary. He
noted that the Transportation Commission has asked staff to determine how to resolve
conflicts prior to bringing the EIR to the City Council. He noted that they would present a
schedule to bring the resolution forward. The five items listed in the discussion to be
implemented before reaching the goal of having the threshold of significance were:
1.
The final selection of methods of evaluation or level of service criteria;
2.
Development of draft implementation policies to address conflicts among
different transportation modes;
3.
Running the transportation model to see where the impacts were, and how
to mitigate them;
4.
Modify the draft policies as appropriate; and
5.
Process the necessary environmental document so City Council could say
they understood the conflicts and the impacts, and that they would approve
the new thresholds of significance.
He noted that the City Council must also disclose the impacts to the public, which was a
very important item, in accordance with proposed EIR Policy 7. As an example, he noted
that the City of San Jose had selected a few intersections that were protected, and that
they would not be mitigated by adding more lanes; they would create a system of other
modes in the City, and that the impacts at the other intersection would pay for the
improvements. He noted that in order to collect the money from a developer or from
projects, it would be critical to have a nexus between the fees collected and the impacts.
A statement of overriding consideration would be needed for those intersections that
would trigger the requirement of a supplemental EIR. He described the contents of the
schedule in Table 1. He noted that in order to meet the schedule, a joint public hearing for
the Draft EIR with the Transportation Commission and the Planning Board was being
considered for August. The Final EIR would be brought to the Transportation
Commission before it went to City Council. He noted that resolutions to the conflicts
must be determined, and that staff hoped to return to the Transportation Commission in
August or September with those recommendations.
Chair Knox White noted that the Transportation Commission requested that the
procedures for resolving conflicts come to this meeting, rather than a schedule. Staff
Khan indicated that staff would continue to bring information forward as it became
Page 9 of 11",TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-06-25,10,"available.
Chair Knox White was confused about the rationale for bringing the San Jose example
forward, which the Transportation Commission has stated they did not want to follow.
Staff Khan noted that it would be helpful for the Transportation Commission to clearly
state that they did not want to pursue the San Jose example. Staff Bergman noted that the
Transportation Commission had requested that staff focus on using the functional
classification system to resolve conflcits, but that the possibility was brought up of
blending a few approaches together. He noted that the San Jose example was meant to be
illustrative.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the minutes accurately reflected his memory, and that
he had asked about the San Jose approach as a hybrid approach. He did not want to drop
that subject without further discussion.
No action was taken.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Bergman brought the maps that had been produced for the Safe Routes to School
project. The rest of the maps would be completed by the end of the summer. He displayed
a video to illustrate the impact of the redesigned drop-off zone at Paden School on traffic
circulation.
Estuary Crossing/Feasibility Study
Staff Khan noted that staff was looking into some alternatives for creating a crossing
across the Estuary. A Technical Advisory Committee meeting would be held on August
5, 2008, and a Policy Advisory Committee meeting would be held on August 7. Another
set of public hearings would be held in September and October.
Future meeting agenda items
Staff Khan noted that he did not have any development-related traffic studies or plans at
this time. He noted that another appeal on the street-sweeping issue would be held at
a
future meeting. An ILC meeting would be held on July 2, 2008 at City Hall.
Staff Bergman noted that the City's work on multimodal thresholds of significance was
presented for discussing at ACTIA's bicycle and pedestrian working group meeting. Hoe
noted that there was considerable interest in the City's work among staff from other
agencies, but no one had undertaken similar work to date.
Staff Khan noted that the Transportation Master Plan Environmental Impact Report
would be released by the second week of July.
Chair Knox White asked about AC Transit-related signage near Willow and Otis, or
Willow and South Shore. Staff Bergman replied that this related to the proposed
Page 10 of 11",TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-06-25,11,"improvements at bus stops. The improvements will be implemented even if this portion
of Line 63 is not shifted to Shoreline Drive, as the stops also serve Line W.
Chair Knox White noted that this was the final meeting for Commissioner Ratto.
Commissioner Ratto noted that it was ironic and gratifying that the four Commissioners
that he started serving with were the four Commissioners in attendance. He noted that it
had been a pleasure serving with them, and that he had learned much from them. He
thanked Staff Khan and Staff Bergman for staffing this Commission, and for their efforts
in informing the public regarding the limitations of the Department. He also thanked the
public for their participation.
Chair Knox White thanked Commissioner Ratto for his service.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he was distressed that this was Commissioner
Ratto's last meeting. He noted that they had disagreed on issues, but that he always
respected him as a colleague and a friend. He noted that he would be missed.
9.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:35 p.m.
Page 11 of 11",TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-01-22,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2020
Chair Soules convened the meeting at 7:00pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Soules, Commissioners Kohlstrand, Nachtigall, Hans, Johnson, Yuen,
Weitze.
Absent: None.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Gail Payne, Senior Transportation Coordinator, requested that Staff Communications be
moved to the front of the meeting in order for the City Engineer to give a status report on
recent and upcoming Public Works actions.
Commissioners expressed unanimous support for moving item 6, Staff Communications,
to the front of the agenda.
*6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS*
Scott Wikstrom, City Engineer, gave an update on near term actions taken in response to
the collisions involving children that occurred in Fall 2019 as well as some near term safety
and maintenance projects.
Commissioner Kohlstrand noted that the warrants used for decisions like new stop signs
seem skewed towards automobiles and asked if we can look at updating the criteria we
use when evaluating safety for people walking and biking.
Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, gave a brief update about Vision Zero planning and
implementation efforts.
Commissioner Johnson referenced a news story about success Norway has had with
safety by reducing and enforcing speed limits.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
3-A Transportation Commission Special Meeting: Wed, Feb. 26 at 7 p.m.
3-B Save the Date: Grand Opening Celebration of the Cross Alameda Trail (Main Street
to Jean Sweeney Park) - Sat, Feb. 29, 10 a.m. to 12 noon, Webster Street Plaza by Ralph
Appezzato Pkwy. Event Listing: https://www.facebook.com/events/1770417466416590/
3-C
Community
Emergency
Response
Team
(CERT)
2020
Trainings:
ttps://www.alamedaca.gov/Departments/Fire-Department/Alameda-CERT
1",TransportationCommission/2020-01-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-01-22,2,"3-D Alameda Active Transportation Plan Web page: www.ActiveAlameda.org
Existing
conditions map link for input: https://tooledesign.github.io/F0061-Alameda-City-ATF
3-E Emergency Alerts for Alameda - Subscribe at AC Alert web page:
https://www.acgov.org/emergencysite/
3-F
Regional
Emergency
Transportation
Alerts
-
Subscribe:
https://511.org/alerts/emergencies/511Aler
3G. Clipper Card (adults) - order on line or at Walgreens or set up Autoload to add value
automatically: https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/getTranslink.do
3H. Clipper Card Discounts for youth, seniors and people with disabilities
-
ttps://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/discounts/index.do
3I. Mastick Senior Center Transportation 101 - Tues, Feb 11 at 1 p.m.
3J. FasTrak or new toll tag for upcoming I-880 Express Lanes scheduled to open late
summer 2020: on line or at Walgreens (except not Park Street location) and then register
on line: https://www.bayareafastrak.org/en/signup/signUp.shtml
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4-A 2020-7648
Approve Meeting Minutes - November 20, 2019
Commissioner Kohlstrand moved approval of the minutes; Commissioner
Nachtigall seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
5. NEW BUSINESS
5-A 2020-7649
Endorse the Transportation Choices Plan Year 2 Annual Report and the West Alameda
Transportation Management Association Year 5 Annual Report (Andrew Thomas, Director
of Planning, Building and Transportation)
Commissioner Yuen recused herself from the discussion regarding the West Alameda
TMA because she is a resident of Alameda Landing.
Staff Member Payne gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found
at: ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4306960&GUID=6660FA4F-
B751-454E-9296-7EA4262ED671&FullText=1
John Atkinson, Executive Director of the West Alameda TMA, spoke about the history of
the TMA.
2",TransportationCommission/2020-01-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-01-22,3,"Commissioner Weitze asked about the Line 96/96x changes and ending of the Target
shuttle. He asked how we would decide if the change has been a failure and trigger
returning to what has been a very successful shuttle program for Alameda Landing.
Staff Member Payne listed some of the benefits of the change including expanding hours,
service areas, access to the ferry, eliminating competition between a private shuttle and
a public transit route, and serving our lowest income and most transit dependent
neighborhoods with increased service.
Commissioner Weitze noted that the nature of the shuttle only having two stops may have
been what attracted people from the new development and worried that the ridership could
drift if the service was part of a longer line.
Commissioner Kohlstrand expressed support for consolidating the TMAs. She said there
is a lot of good data available for the commercial users and asked if there would be a way
to identify trip origin and destination solutions.
Commissioner Nachtigall asked if the Line 19 would serve a similar role for the Northern
Waterfront developments as the Line 96 does, increasing frequency with fees from new
developments.
Staff Member Payne said that the Line 19 is actually the model, and the peak hour
increased service is a result of funding from the new residents.
Commissioner Hans made a motion to endorse the West Alameda TMA Annual
Report. Commissioner Kohlstrand seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
Commissioner Yuen rejoined the dais.
Staff Member Payne gave presentation on the Transportation Choices Plan Annual
Report.
Chair Soules opened the public comment.
Susie Hufstader recommended that the Transportation Commission get involved in some
of the regional and Oakland planning efforts underway and expressed strong support for
the public bus options over maintaining private shuttles.
Chair Soules closed the public comment.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said we need to have better measures of effectiveness to see
if we are making the most cost effective decisions needed to achieve climate change
goals.
3",TransportationCommission/2020-01-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-01-22,4,"Chair Soules said she was looking for rigorous criteria on how to prioritize the numerous
""high priority"" items in the Transportation Choices Plan. She said we need to be more
accountable in measuring success and failure for our own projects and create a sense of
competitiveness to see which would achieve the greatest impacts.
Commissioner Weitze said the light timing changes are needed when infrastructure
changes, mentioning the changes at Pacific and Appezzato on Main Street.
Staff Member Payne responded to some of the issues raised by Commissioners.
Commissioner Kohlstrand added that being able to put the impact into clear soundbytes
for public consumption would be really helpful.
Commissioner Nachtigall made a motion to endorse the Transportation Choices
Plan Annual Report. Commissioner Hans seconded the motion. The motion passed
7-0.
5-B 2020-7650
Endorse the 2019 Annual Report on the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (Patrick
Pelegri-O'Day, Climate Action Coordinator)
Patrick Pelegri-O'Day, Climate Action Coordinator, gave a presentation. The staff report
and
attachments
can
be
found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4306974&GUID=3E3FA250-
7C90-42E6-B6CC-82030620D359&FullText=1.
Chair Soules expressed appreciation for the realistic approach taken in the report as to
which items are achievable in given time periods.
Commissioner Weitze suggested tying the scary flooding and sea-level rise maps to the
recently passed infrastructure bond to show how the two are connected for residents in a
concrete, understandable way.
Commissioner Yuen said the dashboard should reflect changing health outcomes from
these type of climate related actions.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said so much of this discussion is determined by land use policy
which needs to be part of the climate action equation.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to endorse the report. Commissioner
Yuen seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
5-C 2020-7651
4",TransportationCommission/2020-01-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-01-22,5,"Provide input on Active Transportation Plan Draft Vision and Goals, and Receive Project
Update (Rochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator)
Rochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator, gave a presentation. The staff
report
and
attachments
can
be
found
at:
attps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4306999&GUID=0F41AD7D-
39A1-4465-B886-583743D11DBC&FullText=1.
Chair Soules opened the public comment.
Susie Hufstader, Bike East Bay, said Alameda's community is the most engaged she has
seen after watching many of these plans be developed. She said the city is ready for some
big transformations and difficult choices ahead.
Chair Soules closed the public comment.
Commissioner Yuen gave feedback on using consistent language and connecting these
issues to the need for transit connectivity.
Commissioner Kohlstrand suggested inserting the community health impacts into this
language.
Commissioner Nachtigall provided active words to improve the vision statement.
Commissioner Weitze suggested splitting the goals into on-island and off-island trips
because of the different challenges each pose.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Vision Zero Policy Implementation in Response to City Council Referral
2. Central Avenue Concept - Webster Street Area and Environmental Clearance
3. General Plan Updates
6-B Future Meeting Dates for 2020 - Meetings start at 7 p.m.
1. Wednesday, February 26 (Special Meeting)
2. Wednesday, March 25
3. Wednesday, May 27
4. Wednesday, July 22
5. Wednesday, September 23
6. Wednesday, November 18
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow asked if he was allowed to cross a solid white line to enter the newly re-
striped bike lane on Broadway at Clement.
5",TransportationCommission/2020-01-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-01-22,6,"8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
6",TransportationCommission/2020-01-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-03-23,1,"Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes
Wednesday March 23, 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
Christopher Miley
Gregory Morgado
Thomas G. Bertken
Michael Hans
Staff Present:
Staff Patel, Transportation Engineer
Staff Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
3.A. Next Transportation Commission meeting would be Wednesday, May 25, 2016, 7 pm
Commissioner Bertken stated that he received information about the Water Emergency
Transportation Authority's (WETA) next board meeting. He said the next meeting will be in
Alameda at City Hall Council Chambers on Thursday, April 7, 7 pm.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he stopped receiving AC Transit's Interagency Liaison
Committee (ILC) meeting notices. He explained that he missed the January meeting and he
would like to know when the next meeting will take place.
Staff Patel said he would check the date and provide the information to Commissioner
Schatmeier.
Page 1 of 13",TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-03-23,2,"4.
Consent Calendar
4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2016
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Hans seconded the
motion. The motion was approved 7-0.
5.
New Business
5.A. Cross Alameda Trail Gap Closure on Atlantic Avenue: Accept a Status Update and
Approve Grant Application Submittal
Rochelle Wheeler, Alameda Public Works Transportation Planner, presented the report.
Commissioner Vargas asked for the cost estimate on the range of what the concept may cost,
not the actual design, but the construction costs.
Rochelle Wheeler explained that staff brought the $200,000 cost, which pertains to the project
concept at its minimum and without the signal work to the Commission in January. She went on
to say that staff developed the design that was currently attached within the staff report and the
$200,000 is the cost of construction. However, she explained that the grant application would
now include the signal work and mid-block crossing, so the estimate would be $600,000. Yet,
the grant monies received from Measure B would be up to $600,000, therefore staff may receive
the full amount needed to complete the work.
Commissioner Schatmeier explained that staff asked the Commission to approve the project in
concept in January, but he asked what would staff need from the Commission at this point.
Rochelle Wheeler replied the environmental review stating that this was categorically exempt
and this particular element that staff is attempting to move forward.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the Commission decided to take action and accept staff
recommendations would that allow staff to proceed.
Commissioner Bellows said she had a concern about an issue that was brought up during the
January Commission meeting. She explained that apparently the curb ramps came into question
and they may become obliterated. So, she asked for clarification on whether staff analyzed all
ADA access for all modes of transportation.
Rochelle Wheeler replied that she received the email that was forwarded to the Commission from
Mr. Grishtohl. She said staff would like to separate users through the crosswalk as much as
possible and staff will be looking at what is allowed in the vehicle and municipal code because
the idea is to separate users as much as possible.
Commissioner Bertken asked if the Commission was approving an environmental review of this
portion of the project concept.
Page 2 of 13",TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-03-23,3,"Rochelle Wheeler replied no, this type of project was categorically exempt from environmental
review. However, she said if the City is adding a mid-block crossing or implementing traffic
signals, then the Commission would have to approve an environmental review. Thus, she asked
the Commission to essentially approve the project concept including the portion presented that
evening.
Commissioner Bertken asked under what conditions was the project categorically exempt.
Rochelle Wheeler replied it was categorically exempt under state law.
Commissioner Bellows referred Commissioner Bertken to the staff report, Environmental
Review, Section 15301.
Commissioner Bertken stated that the attachment within the staff report indicated signaling and
other items for the safety of the bicyclists along Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way. He
asked staff to explain the intention of the signaling.
Rochelle Wheeler replied the design (Exhibit 1) is the same as presented in January.
Commissioner Bertken replied in January staff did not exhibit a safety example for the bicyclists.
Rochelle Wheeler replied staff is still developing the safety portion for the bicyclists and they
will provide the Commission a fully formed example in May. She explained that staff would like
to provide signal changes such as a dedicated signal for bicyclists.
Commissioner Bertken replied that bicyclists could not move when other traffic is moving
presumably.
Rochelle Wheeler said that was correct and that would be studied.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor for public comment.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, stated that he did not see the bus stops analyzed and at the
previously meeting he brought up the Main Street to Webster Street section of Appezzatto
Parkway and asked how staff would place the bus stops in that design and no one had an answer
for him. He felt he would have to wait for the next Commission meeting to see what is actually
planned for this area. He said he continued to favor sharrows because cyclists would ride in the
directional flow of traffic. He explained that he visited the state of Florida not too long ago and
they use sharrows, so he wondered what makes Alameda so different. He went on to say that the
City needs two lanes on various streets to get across town from Alameda Point. So, taking away
a lane would be contradictory to the City's General Plan. He said the Commission should handle
everyone's needs not just bicyclists' needs. He stated that he was interested in the earlier design
with no right hand turns off Atlantic Avenue onto Constitution Way. However, he hoped that the
Commission would allow right hand turns from Atlantic Avenue onto Constitution Way close to
the designed cycle track because otherwise traffic will back up all the way to Webster Street. He
explained further that if a right turn is not implemented then there will be traffic along Webster
Page 3 of 13",TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-03-23,4,"Street onto Atlantic Avenue. He also exclaimed that West Alameda Business Association
(WABA) was not notified of this project because he attended a meeting with them earlier in the
day. He pointed out that the level of service concerned him because the level of service would be
reduced from a level D to level F. He felt the Commission is becoming a traffic congestion
creation Commission and as a citizen who has lived in Alameda for 60 years he wondered why
the Commission would make things worse.
Commissioner Miley addressed the public outreach comment brought up by Jim Strehlow. He
said he understood from the January meeting that staff would be engaging WABA and other
stakeholders. However, he said staff explained that the project's design would be discussed in the
May meeting and this meeting would take action to seek grant money. However, in the interim
staff would reach out to stakeholders before the May meeting.
Rochelle Wheeler replied that was correct, she reached out to AC Transit and Staff Patel would
discuss reaching out to WABA.
Staff Patel replied they have reached out to the WABA design committee members with the
concept plan leading up to the January meeting.
Commissioner Miley replied in advance of the January meeting in terms of any additional data or
potential tweaks to the design that was originally presented in January, staff should reach out to
WABA again.
Staff Patel replied yes.
Commissioner Vargas explained that he did not vote for this item when they met last time and
there still was no concept further designed. He said he wished to have heard more about the
concepts and impacts to the affected stakeholders before staff requested a grant approval by the
Commission. He felt troubled that staff said they would provide more information about the
issues presented at the January meeting, but an update has not been received by the Commission.
Rochelle Wheeler replied she understood Commissioner Vargas' comments, but she did not want
to come unprepared. Thus, she wanted to give more time to conduct outreach and data gathering
before presenting the full design. She understood that she said this to the Commission at the
January meeting, but she wanted to make sure there was a thorough design brought forth. She
went on to say that the last meeting staff was explicit about the $200,000 identified through
Measure B did not include the mid-block crossing or signal work. So, she said staff found
additional money where the bicycle signals and mid-block crossing could be included in the
project.
Commissioner Vargas stated that a member of the police department was in the audience. He
said one of the comments that was asked in January was about emergency responders. He wanted
to know if staff has information or comments about that.
Rochelle Wheeler replied no not yet, but she has that listed as one of the items and will follow
up.
Page 4 of 13",TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-03-23,5,"Commissioner Schatmeier stated that the Commission approved the concept last month and the
cycle track and removal of the lane was part of the concept. He explained that the Commission
listened to a lot of public comments that were relevant and caused some concerns. He said the
Commission asked staff to address those concerns, but for this meeting the revised plan is not
before the Commission tonight and they are not going back and revisiting the issue of the cycle
track or the single lane. He understood that this meeting was to move the grant application
forward and the Commission understood that it was categorically exempt.
Rochelle Wheeler explained in particular staff would like the Commission to approve the
midblock crossing location and signal improvements.
Commissioner Bellows replied for this meeting staff came to the Commission in order to apply
for more grant money to create a complete concept including the signals. She explained that until
the Commission blessed the action, staff would have to withdraw the preliminary application.
She further explained that the final application was not due until after the May meeting. She said
the May meeting will allow the Commission to decide if design is not going in the right direction
and if not, staff will not send the final application.
Rochelle Wheeler replied the Alameda Housing Authority would still move forward with their
plans, but they would not include the transportation plans.
Commissioner Bertken said based upon Commissioner Vargas' comments he wanted to
understand the amount of money that would be available and what staff would be asking for in
this current grant. He asked staff if the City receives this grant would that include all of the
traffic signaling and everything that was discussed or would that be an additional grant that has
to come down the line.
Rochelle Wheeler replied the $600,000 includes changes to the signals and mid-block crossing.
Commissioner Bellows replied this would create a more complete project.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-1; Commissioner Vargas voted no.
5.B. Approve Submittal of Transportation Grant Applications: Active Transportation
Program and TIGER
Rochelle Wheeler presented the Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant portion of the
presentation.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if the applications would be due in January.
Rochelle Wheeler replied June 15, 2016.
Page 5 of 13",TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-03-23,6,"Commissioner Bertken said the recommendation talked about approving the whole grant
submittal. However, the recommendation does not specifically mention the two projects that staff
just spoke about. So, he wanted clarification on whether the recommendation would approve the
entire package or the two projects.
Rochelle Wheeler replied staff was in the process of selecting which would be the best project to
meet the recently released guidelines. So, staff would like to have some flexibility in making
sure they submit the project that best adheres to the new guidelines.
Commissioner Bertken stated that he was concerned about staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Bellows replied the Commission would revise the motion to call upon the specific
projects.
Commissioner Vargas stated that when he read the staff report, he thought he would be hearing a
recommendation from staff for one or the other. He mentioned that staff indicated that the first
project Central Avenue went through a diverse community interaction, but he did not hear
anything about community outreach for the Stargell Avenue Project. He felt this would have
allowed the Commission to make an objective recommendation.
Rochelle Wheeler replied depending on how the term disadvantage community is defined,
Stargell Avenue provides access to the Alameda Point area. Also, depending on how the term is
defined, there are some disadvantaged communities around the Stargell Avenue area as well.
Commissioner Bellows explained that because the guidelines have just come out staff has not
processed what will score the best within the guidelines, but she wondered would this be
disadvantaged focus.
Rochelle Wheeler replied yes.
Commissioner Vargas stated that if the Commission is picking one project over the other without
having additional information it would be good to know if there's more data on one location
versus the other, so the Commission could make an objective recommendation.
Jennifer Ott, Alameda Point Chief Operating Officer, stated that she is working with Rochelle
Wheeler and Gail Payne on the grant applications. She said last year the disadvantaged
communities weighed heavily on the decision to award the grants. So, they scoured through the
list of all the potential improvements and the two that were most competitive were because of the
Alameda Point Collaborative, which has half children and families that are at risk of
homelessness. The Central Avenue Project was selected because there is a school along the route
that is very close to the supportive housing community. Yet, she explained staff would need
some time to produce the staff report and staff felt it was best to come to the Commission now in
order to build some flexibility to review the guidelines and see how they are calculating
disadvantage communities because it changes from year to year. Consequently, staff chose the
two locations because of the supportive housing communities that are located right at the base.
Page 6 of 13",TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-03-23,7,"Commission Bellows stated that since this information is complex the Commission should break
the motion up with the two different funding sources.
Commissioner Bertken agreed with Commissioner Bellows' comments, but he was concerned
about the staff report and the recommendation that stands.
Commissioner Bellows replied the current recommendation is not specific enough for the
Commission. So, the Commission will recommend whether staff can submit the grant application
for these projects or not.
Commissioner Schatmeier agreed with Commissioner Bellow's comments and stated for the
Active Transportation Program portion of the motion the Commission would call out the two
projects. He asked Jennifer Ott if she would report back to the Commission after staff selects a
project and the Commission would vote to proceed with the selection or not.
Jennifer Ott replied they would not have time to come back to the Commission in May for a vote
because the grant deadline is in June. However, she would report the decision to the Commission
in May.
Commissioner Bellows made a motion to approve the Active Transportation Program with an
addition of the two projects and provide staff flexibility to select one or both of the two projects
for the grant application. Commissioner Miley seconded the motion. The motion was approved
7-0.
Jennifer Ott reported on the TIGER grant application process.
Commissioner Miley stated that when she went to Washington D.C. the application and project
was well received, but went under the wire. He wanted to know the name of the City's lobbyist.
Jennifer Ott replied Ackerman.
Commissioner Miley replied if there was any way to coordinate efforts and if it has not already
been done with other groups like Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) or other
local agencies that go to Washington D.C. in order to use their weight and resources.
Jennifer Ott replied staff's hope would be to have AC Transit co-apply with them like last year
and with the addition of the ferry terminal staff's hope would be to co-apply with WETA during
the application process.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff for the action that needed to be taken by the Commission.
Commissioner Vargas stated that there was one action for Item 5B where Commissioner Bellows
stated that the Commission should split the recommendations since they are recommending for
two funding or grant applications. He explained that so far the Commission took action on the
Active Transportation Program portion.
Page 7 of 13",TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-03-23,8,"Commissioner Miley moved to accept staff recommendations with the specific language that can
be found on page 2 of item 5B that delineates ramp improvements, Stargell Avenue, Main Street
and Central Avenue. Commission Vargas made an amendment to the recommendation, if time
allows, for staff to contact other agencies to co-apply to be part of the grant application.
Commissioner Schameier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.
5.C. Status Report of the Citywide Transit and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Plans
Staff Payne presented the status report.
Commissioner Vargas said the page numbers should be included in the report. He also asked
staff about the outreach efforts and if a stakeholder list was created.
Staff Payne replied there was a list and she would send the list to the Commission for review.
Commissioner Vargas replied the list should also include the city of Oakland and the Oakland
office of the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) as there
may be some synergy with Broadway Street access. He also asked staff about the proposed fees
of the consultants that were shown on page three. He wanted to know if the fee was considered
during the valuation or was it qualifications based only.
Staff Payne replied the cost was one of the criterion and there were other criteria like experience
and quality of work.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied that he looked at this page too and he did not remember any
deliberation that the committee did and it could be viewed as if they chose the low bidder. He
said they chose the firm they felt was the best and gave the best value for their dollars.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff about the milestones described during the 18-month process
and he asked what would be the key milestones to have the project under control.
Staff Payne replied for the May meeting she would come before the Commission about the
existing conditions. Afterwards, there would be a near term strategy type of memo, meaning staff
would want to implement the strategies as soon as possible. She then explained that the
preliminary strategies and the draft plan would be the other key milestones.
Commissioner Hans asked staff who came up with the 400 surveys.
Staff Payne replied that is the number that allows the research to become statistically significant.
5.D. Comment on the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) Strategic Plan and
Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal Plan
Page 8 of 13",TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-03-23,9,"Jennifer Ott presented the report.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if they are envisioning that ferry service will still be on the
other side of Alameda Point.
Jennifer Ott replied this is not a relocation or replacement plan of the existing terminal. She
explained that the Main Street Terminal depends on Oakland service and Oakland depends on
Alameda service, SO both terminals would essentially act as west Alameda ferry service.
Commissioner Schatmeier explained that when they first analyzed the transportation plan for
Alameda that was the first time he heard about the Seaplane Lagoon site and at that time of the
discussion, he thought that would replace Main Street Terminal. He also brought up the fact that
the Seaplane Lagoon Terminal would have quicker run times.
Jennifer Ott replied the run times would be approximately the same.
Kevin Connolly, Planning and Development for WETA, stated that there are wake-related
restrictions because of wild life habitat and speed restrictions.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if there are similar restrictions going up the Estuary.
Kevin Connolly replied there are wake-related restrictions because of vessel fueling and other
reasons. He said currently it takes 20 minutes from Main Street to San Francisco and
approximately 20 minutes from Seaplane Lagoon to San Francisco.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff about the 400 temporary parking spaces at Seaplane Lagoon.
Jennifer Ott replied those temporary spaces will become permanent, but the location is
temporary.
Commissioner Bellows referred to the Main Street Terminal and wondered if there was a plan of
action to gravel where she usually parks.
Kevin Connolly replied yes and staff is analyzing the transit and bicycle access and parking
issues related to both terminals.
Commissioner Bellows asked Kevin Connolly in the short-term could that area be graveled.
Kevin Connolly replied the Albert H. DeWitt O Club goes into construction on March 28, so
Albert H. DeWitt O Club will have approximately 130 to 140 spaces depending on how they
stripe it.
Commission Bellows said divots exist in the dirt lot on the waterside.
Kevin Connolly replied there are currently no plans for that area.
Page 9 of 13",TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-03-23,10,"Commissioner Vargas felt from Commissioner Bellows' comments there was a sense of urgency
to improve the parking. He wanted to go with that theme and comment to the schedule that staff
showed, which it was slightly different than the staff report plan. He also wondered if it was
possible to move this plan forward because BART is having operational problems with their
trains, so there is a sense of urgency to have an alternative route. He asked staff if they could
shave a year off the projected date. He further asked what could be done and who could
implement the project delivery methods. He wondered if the City could take the lead, WETA or
a Joint Power Agency.
Jennifer Ott replied there are a number of factors that drive the schedule, but in terms of
construction of the terminal, the City is responsible because the City is the applicant. She said
another issue would be the boat procurement and the time it takes to construct the boats.
Currently, the City does not have operating dollars and if to the extent, the City has to depend on
Regional Measure 3 dollars or some regional gas tax it would not be up for this year's ballot. So,
ultimately it comes down to operating subsidy, timing of the measure and vessel procurement.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff about the $16 million cost for one boat.
Jennifer Ott replied they are big boats.
Kevin Connolly replied it is a 450 passenger vessel and there is a small vessel building
community in the United States. Additionally, he explained the vessels have to be US built.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor for public comment.
Jim Strehlow stated that he felt the plan was a great idea, but when he talked to other people they
wondered what the ""E"" in WETA stands for. He wondered why WETA has to include the word
""emergency"" in the title because the organization should be involved in transportation solutions.
He said he was surprised that the WETA administration building at Alameda Point has 50 or so
parking spaces for their staff and the Alameda Transit Demand Management (TDM) plan
specifically looks for employees to find transit alternatives. He was disturbed by the idea that
there are different rules for businesses and residents and government agencies exempt
themselves. Finally, he said to not forget about Bay Farm Island. He was happy to see the third
ferry option happening, but they did not come up with a solution for Bay Farm Island's parking
situation. He exclaimed that residents are having a horrible time with the parking because there is
way too much of a demand.
Kevin Connolly stated that he appreciated the Commission working with WETA. Regarding
providing service, he said they are bursting at the seams for Transbay service demand and this
spring and summer, they are pulling in vessels that are not formal commuter boats for regular
service to combat the demand. He noted that WETA recognized the increased demand and
growing pains as far as parking challenges are concerned, but he was optimistic that they will
find a solution.
Commissioner Miley stated that although the vessels are expensive they are made in America,
which was important. He questioned the 20-year strategic plan because that is a big span of time
and he wanted to know if WETA will review the plan periodically.
Page 10 of 13",TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-03-23,11,"Kevin Connolly replied that WETA has a10-year short-range plan that is updated every two years
that comes with budget constraints and then there's the 20-year plan, which is a guided
unconstrained document that outlines how they envision themselves developing as an agency.
Commissioner Miley asked Kevin Connolly if the 20-year plan would be subject to the type of
review as the 10-year plan.
Kevin Connolly replied yes, the general practice is to review the 20-year every 5 to 10 years.
Commissioner Bellows asked Kevin Connolly if WETA use to be called the Water Transit
Authority.
Kevin Connolly replied yes, they were called the Water Transit Authority in their inception and
the word ""emergency"" got legislated in 2009 with capital funding attached to acknowledge that
safety was needed.
Commissioner Miley stated that it would be great if that ""E"" came with more capital or operating
funds because it would be great to be able to buy more boats in the event of an emergency.
Kevin Connolly replied that the project's timetable and the year 2020 date to purchase vessels
was provided because a certain amount of funds are drawn down from the Proposition 1B
program and programmed out.
Commissioner Miley asked staff for a future agenda item to address the Bay Farm parking issue,
which was addressed at a past Commission meeting.
Jennifer Ott stated that the WETA Board has decided to come to Alameda on April 7 to hold
their meeting at 7 pm at City Hall. She explained that many Alameda related items would be
discussed. She said on April 4 the City Council will discuss the ferry terminal and MOU and
from her understanding, there will be a referral from a councilmember to discuss the Harbor Bay
Ferry Terminal's parking issues.
Commissioner Miley said he understood that staff was working on this issue. He explained that at
a previous meeting staff stated they would work with WETA and other joint agencies.
Jennifer Ott replied that she was happy to come back and brief the Commission, but this topic
will also be discussed at the April 4 and April 7 meetings.
Commissioner Schatmeier said it has been difficult to get operating funds for transit and it is
easier to obtain capital funds. He felt planners should call out the need for operating funds every
time they list funding sources and for them to be very specific about the need for operating funds
and their scarcity so the word will spread amongst people who are not necessarily professionals
in order to grasp the obstacles.
Commissioner Miley explained that a third of Measure B funds are operating and WETA was not
included to the extent that they should have been.
Page 11 of 13",TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-03-23,12,"Commission Vargas stated that since the developer is leading the design and construction of this
project the partnership sounds like a Public Private Partnership or P3. He asked staff if the
project has the potential for revenue generating if a third entity would charge for parking or
concessions to leverage creating new funds.
Jennifer Ott replied the project is not a P3 because it is a city design and they are contracting
with a developer. However, she explained that the TDM plan would look at parking charges at
the ferry terminal and staff is discussing this option with WETA and AC transit and also trying
to looking at creative ways to find funding.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded the motion. Commissioner Vargas made an amendment to the motion by asking staff to
update some of the graphics to match the PowerPoint presentation and schedule because it
seemed to be more updated on the PowerPoint presentation. The motion was approved 7-0.
6.
Staff Communications
6.A. AC Transit service improvement status
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Staff Patel if they know what happened to the recommendation
letter once it was sent to the AC Transit Board.
Staff Patel said he would come back and let the Commission know.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff to provide a future update on the status of agency staff.
Meaning, does the agency have staff in house or open positions.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff to look into providing a future update on the
Broadway/Jackson Project.
Staff Patel said he believed the city of Oakland and ACTC are looking at a combining the
consultants for the two different projects for the freeway and downtown circulation plan. He has
not been to a recent meeting with ACTC discussing the new project.
Commissioner Bellows said she would still like to know what the project entails and for staff to
organize a presentation.
Commission Miley seconded that comment.
Staff Patel replied he would put together a presentation with the ACTC consultant and city of
Oakland.
Page 12 of 13",TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-03-23,13,"7.
Announcements/Public Comments
Jim Strehlow stated that on Thursday, May 12 is Bike to Work Day. He wanted to bring up his
past comments once again about citizens of Alameda are interested in the City's pot hole repair
program and will there be a grant submission especially with the gas tax dwindling. He also said
that he would like to hear about the staff position report that was requested by Commissioner
Vargas.
8.
Adjournment
9:20 pm
Page 13 of 13",TransportationCommission/2016-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,1,"Transportation Commission
March 23, 2016
Item 4A
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Wednesday January 27, 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
Christopher Miley
Gregory Morgado
Thomas G. Bertken
Members Absent:
Michael Hans
Staff Present:
Staff Patel, Transportation Engineer
Staff Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Arnold Brillinger, Alameda Resident, said he was recently appointed to the Commission on
Disability Issues (CDI) and he wanted to introduce himself. He explained that the CDI wanted
members of the Commission to attend other Alameda Commissions and Boards in order to
network. He went on to say that he will be attending the Transportation Commission meetings
from now on and another member, Tony Lewis, would also like to attend.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, said last year he highlighted the fact that a sign on High Street
and San Leandro Boulevard was in disrepair and he wanted to publically thank Staff Patel for
replacing the sign. He also explained that there was an unfinished business item at the stretch
between Webster Street along Atlantic and Willie Stargell Avenues. He said the section where
Page 1 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,2,"there is a bus only lane and two 45 mph traffic lanes creates discomfort for bicyclists who are
comfortable on Webster Street because there is no other safe place to go when riding down
towards the tube. He suggested that AC Transit consider sharing the bus only lane with cyclists
and there are other places in Alameda that share the lane with cyclists.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if that could be reviewed and eventually brought back as a
future agenda item. He also asked staff if Alameda Public Works controls the striping.
Staff Patel replied that the bus only lane would be Caltrans, SO he would have to approach them.
Next Transportation Commission meeting would be Wednesday, March 23, 2015
4.
Consent Calendar
4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - May 27, 2015
Jim Strehlow referred to the May 27, 2015 minutes. He explained that it was not until the July
meeting that the Commission decided to rescind the approval of the meeting minutes.
Additionally, he said the revised minutes did not state that Jim Strehlow made corrections to the
minutes after the Commission approved the minutes and then the Commission decided to rescind
the minutes until further review.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied the minutes are a sense of the meeting and the Commission
does not approve a transcript.
4.B. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2015
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the minutes of May 27, 2015 with the notation that when
the Commission originally approved the minutes Jim Strehlow then spoke and made corrections.
The Commission then rescinded the vote and reviewed the minutes. Commissioner Miley also
moved to approve the minutes of November 18, 2015 and Commissioner Schatmeier seconded
the motions. The motions were approved 6-0.
5.
New Business
5.A. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
Commissioner Miley felt that the Commission recently voted around mid-last year.
Staff Patel replied he was not involved in that process.
Commissioner Bellows replied because Commissioner Vargas took more responsibility with
High Speed Rail it was around January 2015.
Commissioner Miley said he would like to nominate Commissioner Bellows as chair since she
has been doing such a great job.
Page 2 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,3,"Commissioner Vargas replied he seconded the nomination.
Commissioner Bellows asked for nominations for Vice Char.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he was happy to serve, but if someone else wanted the position he
would not mind.
Commissioner Bellows moved to approve the re-election of chair and vice chair. Commissioner
Miley seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5.B. Quarterly Report
Staff Patel presented the report.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff about the historic lights at the tubes project and wondered if
there would be changeable message signs around a week or two ahead.
Staff Patel replied yes.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff to have the Broadway/Jackson project team come to speak at
a future Commission meeting.
Commissioner Miley asked staff when the project will be presented to the Commission.
Staff Patel replied he would ask the project team, but right now the team is preparing a
hybridized version of the project.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff since the Alameda County Transportation Commission
(ACTC) would present, would the city of Oakland present as well.
Staff Patel replied only ACTC.
Commissioner Vargas stated that the report was comprehensive, but there was a need to update
the report with the status of target dates. He explained that the next steps for some did not have
target dates, for instance the Webster Street Smart Corridor Project.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that the next steps for the Transit and the Transit Demand
Management (TDM) plans were well out of date since the Request for Proposal (RFP) was
issued.
Staff Payne replied that the update on the transit plan and TDM was taken last week where the
City approved the consultant team and that it now starts out with an 18 month effort. She also
explained that the agreement was signed last week, so the first deliverables will be a near term
solution and that will require input from the Commission four different times.
Commissioner Schatmeier said in regards to the Estuary Crossing Shuttle he saw an AC Transit
Page 3 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,4,"route that was duplicative of the shuttle. So, he wanted to know the funding plan and if staff
conducts the coordination of the shuttle and AC Transit route. He requested that staff report on
that issue.
5.C. Approve City of Alameda Paratransit Program Plan for Fiscal Year 2015/2016 (Rochelle
Wheeler, Public Works)
Rochelle Wheeler, Alameda Public Works Transportation Planner, presented the report.
Commissioner Bellows asked Rochelle Wheeler about the $217,000 balance and whether there
was a use or lose it provision stated in Measure BB.
Rochelle Wheeler replied there are requirements for not having more than 50 percent of your
funds in reserves and 10 percent in unallocated reserves. She went on to say that this program
has been established to make sure they stay within those requirements. So, ultimately they could
keep the money that was not spent.
Commissioner Bellows asked for the timeline of hiring a transportation expert.
Rochelle Wheeler replied they expect this position to be advertised in the next month and then
they would conduct interviews and hire someone. Overall, she said it should be a fairly quick
process.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Rochelle Wheeler if there were one or two stops that dominate
the use of the shuttle, meaning were there places that people board on and off board consistently.
Rochelle Wheeler replied she cannot speak to the data on the top of her head. Yet, she explained
that the contractor provides ridership on people who are boarding at every stop for each shuttle
run and they will look at this closely.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Rochelle Wheeler if there was specific data or survey
information to make Fruitvale BART the right place to extend this service.
Rochelle Wheeler replied she works with the staff at the Mastick Senior Center and they
interface quite a bit, so there is a high demand for that location.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he was glad to see the graphs and data. He asked Rochelle
Wheeler if there was new data beyond January 2015 to get an idea of what occurred in the last
year. He also, inquired about the volunteer driver program, Mobility Matters, especially
regarding the insurance covered.
Rochelle Wheeler replied data was available and she could compile the information for a future
meeting. She stated that the information reported for this meeting was using data for the fiscal
year of June 2015. Regarding insurance, she explained that this was an ongoing issue which they
Page 4 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,5,"are concerned about. However, she said the standard practice when providing service within
Alameda County was to check for requirements in order to maintain driver standards. She also
mentioned that ACTC contracts with them.
Commissioner Miley referred to the budget and he wondered how much they are expecting
annually from Measures B and BB. He asked Rochelle Wheeler if the $360,000 is to remain flat
or grow or are they conservative with those estimates. He further explained that currently they
are spending $100,000 over revenues if you do not count the surplus. So, he was concerned that
the City may expand and grow the service faster than the revenues coming in.
Rochelle Wheeler replied the revenue goes up and estimates are received every year from ACTC
and go up minimally each year. She acknowledged Commissioner Miley's point and said staff
would analize this.
Commissioner Miley stated that getting to BART is important to provide connections to regional
services. He inquired about whether the program provides travel training to work or offer travel
training services.
Rochelle Wheeler said they are not conducting travel training now. Yet, that could be something
they look into or they could partner with some of the groups that are currently doing this.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor for public comment.
Arnold Brillinger stated that he uses the Thursday shuttle and most of the passengers get on and
off at the Trader Joes at South Shore Center and Mastick Senior Center.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied that the reason he asked about the data because way back
when the City considered implementing a shuttle he voted against the proposal because the
shuttle design breaks a whole lot of transportation rules. He explained that the shuttle schedule
had limited days and hours and required lots of money for service that is less than the disabled
should have. He thought the City could beef up other paratransit services, but he has been
pleasantly surprised by the ridership although they break all the rules. He felt maybe there is a
way to fix the service by looking to see if there are single destinations and origins that dominate.
He believed three different routes are not necessary if the Mastick Senior Center and Trader Joes
dominate every route. He said to send these shuttles where no one is going does not make sense
to him. He would like to see higher frequencies where the same route runs on Tuesday,
Wednesday and Thursday every 30 minutes then passengers can count on something. He thought
a consultant could look into this idea.
Arnold Brillinger replied they do have a tally that the shuttle drivers mark down when the riders
board. He said there is a stop near his home and for a year, he called Staff Payne once a month
asking when the stop become active. Staff Payne eventually said they have to change the
schedule and a few other things, but she did call him back to state that his persistence paid off
and the stop will be there.
Commissioner Miley stated that he was encouraged to hear this factored into the TDM
transportation planning process because it is important. He reiterated the questions about the
Page 5 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,6,"budget and how staff should be mindful if the economy takes a dip because the service is tied to
sales tax dollars. He said he would like to see the reserves stay as close to the allowable limit as
possible in order to have it for a rainy day. Additionally, he said he would like to see travel
training included as part of the outreach and marketing effort. He mentioned that he knows
Alameda County has an open data initiative in order for the public to view and download
information. He would like, if possible, to provide that information some how on the City's
website on a rolling basis to see how the City's programs are working.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Miley
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5.D. Cross Alameda Trail - Atlantic Segment (Rochelle Wheeler, Public Works)
Rochelle Wheeler presented the report.
Commissioner Bellows said the total traffic delay was measured in hours and she understood
that, but she wanted to know what the total delay in number of stops would be. She asked staff to
clarify.
Staff Patel replied the table that was shown in the exhibit pertains to conducting an arterial level
of service analysis. Therefore, it was looking at the average speed base Level of Service (LOS)
in the existing condition versus the delay.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff what was the delay in number of hours. She said the
information says eastbound equals one hour and with the recommended option, it increases to 2
hours, but that does not make sense.
Staff Patel replied it does not make sense in this case because staff is only looking at speed and
how the speed drops with the lane configuration.
Commissioner Bellows replied so what is the number of stops.
Staff Patel replied the number of stops is how often the traffic was stopped and what the queuing
impact was. He went on to say that staff will have to explain this more carefully. He stated that
staff has not done the detail analysis for the LOS at the intersection. However, he said staff will
come back to the Commission and report the LOS including queuing in more detail.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff if they actually made the traffic volume counts on the
movements and if that information was available.
Staff Patel said yes and staff has traffic volume, pedestrian, bicycle and transit counts.
Commissioner Bertken explained to staff that it would be helpful to review the data available in
order to review the impacts.
Commissioner Morgado asked staff if they looked at the number of people driving out of the
driveway next to Starbucks.
Page 6 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,7,"Staff Patel replied yes they did.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff about the costs, approximately $200,000, with regard to the
median barrier. The report indicated that it could be a median barrier or delineator, but he wanted
to know if there was a cost difference between the two.
Staff Patel said staff looked to make sure the drainage was not disrupted. He explained the type
of delineators they are looking at are similar to the ones at Jackson and 5th Streets, which are
mountable and close to each other so they do not get knocked down.
Commission Vargas asked staff about whether the cost was already covered in the $200,000.
Staff Patel replied yes.
Commissioner Bertken said he was concerned about the safety of the bicyclists in connection
with the right turn onto Constitution Way. He said he has seen this problem in San Francisco
where they have a through street where motorists drive fast and pedestrians get hit when they
step off the curb. He felt this was a particular problem when cyclists are traveling fast and the
driver cannot see behind him and try to turn. He wondered how the traffic control that has been
identified protects the bicyclists cycling straight across.
Staff Patel replied staff would look into erecting signage with a time limit on right turn
restrictions or possibly a right turn on red.
Commissioner Bertken replied then the bicyclists cannot go straight.
Staff Patel stated that the bicyclists could go straight if they have a non-conflicting movement.
However, he understood his point with an issue of conflict.
Commissioner Bertken felt this was an important issue because this area has a number of
problems.
Staff Patel replied the Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way intersection only has 40-50
vehicles making right turn movements per hour during peak times.
Commissioner Bertken said he would like to possibly see the bicyclists receive a straight go
through signal, which would prevent the right turn for automobiles.
Rochelle Wheeler stated that staff would look into this further and they would make sure to
reduce those conflicts. She went on to say that another option would be to bring cyclists further
up towards the intersection so they are visible to turning cars.
Staff Patel replied there are other options such as a bike box.
Commission Bellows opened the floor to public comments
Page 7 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,8,"Austin Lee, AC Transit Transportation Planner, said he would like to work with City staff to
develop an alternative to the proposal because AC Transit staff was not aware of the design
concepts until that day. He explained that although they have not fully reviewed the design, upon
initial glance the proposal presented would remove a lane of traffic and remove a bus stop. He
stated that this bus stop has the third highest boardings for this particular route. He also
exclaimed that the Estuary Crossing Shuttle stops at the bus stop on Atlantic Avenue and
Webster Street headed eastbound. Yet, he felt there are alternatives and they could look at this
further in order to ensure that everyone benefits from the project.
Jim Sweeney, representing Jim Sweeney Open Space Park Public Charitable Non profit
foundation, stated that the foundation's purpose is to raise money for the park and maintain the
park. He said he strongly endorsed staff's report and design and he believed the design met the
many challenges and complexities while creating a practical and safe trail through the Alameda
Trail gap and with the most reasonable impact on motor vehicle traffic. He looked forward to the
refinement and implementation of the details and he urged the Commission to approve the
recommendations.
Brian McGuire, Alameda resident, stated that staff made a cost affective solution to close the
Cross Alameda Trail while having a key bike facility on this block. He said this option would be
utilized by students and people headed to the ferries. He felt the presentation was a good
example of why the state has stopped using LOS to evaluate some of these impacts. He pointed
out that on this block, traffic calming on a two-way cycle track when mentioning speed not
talking about cars flowing through was a feature not a bug. He said a protective bike facility was
part of the grant application, which is part of the Jean Sweeney section of the path. So, when the
project came before the Commission that disappeared and the City owes it to the project funders
and users of the trail to do this. He exclaimed that without a dedicated bike facility here there
would be a gap with people using the sidewalks and others all over the place because the area is
not clearly defined. He ultimately felt that there are solutions to these problems and if motorists
expect bikes there, then cars will see that and this will prevent accidents. He noted that one
benefit would be once there is AC Transit service coming down that lane they could just shift
over and you could add a left queue jump lane on Webster Street. Therefore, you are not really
losing a lane here because this is not traffic going to the tube, but actually local traffic.
Lucy Gigli, President of Bike Walk Alameda, said she was pleased that staff worked with
stakeholders to find a solution to serve the neighborhood and create a safe corridor. She could
not stress the importance of this solution to connect the two pieces of the Cross Alameda Trail.
She stated that without a simple and safe solution the intersection would create chaos. Thus, she
asked the Commission to move this concept forward noting that some of the details like traffic
and bicycle signals and moving the bus stop could be analyzed later.
Michelle Ellison, said providing a safe and continuous route for those who walk and bike was
important. She explained that this plan was something that the City committed to, but the block
proved to be challenging to deal with. She felt moving forward City staff has done a great job to
quickly pull together a solution to a vexing problem by speaking to stakeholders and finding
money to fund this and maintain the landscaping that merchants really value. She went on to say
that it was not about the details of the plan, but to say to City staff that the Commission would
like to move forward. Therefore, she urged the Commission to tell staff to develop this further.
Page 8 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,9,"Jim Strehlow stated that the Alameda Transportation Commission would soon become the
Alameda Traffic Creation Congestion Commission with this type of design. He felt this was the
worse type of design he has seen. He said to put up a cycle track would give a green light for
cyclists to go faster than the vehicles that would be stopped in traffic along Atlantic Avenue. He
said the reason the data was not shown in vehicle figures per hour, per minute because they are
100:1 of vehicles to bicyclists if not 200:1 on that section. Furthermore, he said if they take away
a lane on Constitution Way there would be many vehicles making a right turn from Atlantic
Avenue to Constitution Way because they are headed to South Shore and other locations. He
explained that currently 6-7 cars back up trying to make a right turn. He said with one lane
closed to Webster Street, cars will back up all the way to the driveway next to Walgreens and
this will create a traffic nightmare. He pointed out that he uses the bus stop frequently in front of
Walgreens that would be taken away. He suggested that staff design something using paint
instead of a cycle track and staff would almost have to make a special traffic signal for bicycles
and one for cars.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, said he has been
involved in this project since he joined the Cross Alameda Trail steering committee in 1999 or
2000 and served with Lucy Gigli. He stated that he was happy to see this interim proposal come
before the Commission. He pointed to the fact that there was no law prohibiting cyclists to go
faster in a safe way than the cars stuck in traffic next to them. He explained that the intersections
of Atlantic Avenue, Webster Street and Constitution Way are already jammed up, so there would
not be a huge difference in the future. He felt more people on transit would help the situation that
is why AC Transit should be included in the discussion. As a lead cycling instructor he
understood the need for bicyclists moving at the speed of traffic to be assured access to through
traffic lanes and automobiles do not own those lanes. He noted that when the Webster Plaza was
approved by the City Council around 1998, they removed the traffic access, 11-12 feet of
easement, on the south side of Atlantic Avenue in order to provide enough parking to meet
current code. He went on to say that City Council removed a legitimate Cross Alameda Trail
right of way from the belt line railway access, which should be considered when looking at
removing the sidewalk, landscape, and parking spaces in the Webster Square development in
order to restore what was taken away. Otherwise, the City will never see a Bus Rapid Transit line
across the island of Alameda, which was envisioned from the beginning. He stated that the data
only included vehicle LOS and staff did not talk about pedestrian or bicycle speeds increasing in
the area or increased safety and must be included in the final report. He felt the mid-block
crossing was a good idea, as well as the cycle track and he suggested a lane configuration
adjustment to reduce the traffic median from 6 feet to 4 or 3 feet. He believed that would give a
12-foot traffic lane going eastbound for automobiles and consequently make the cycle track 11 or
12 feet wide, which is safer. He explained that right hand turns from Atlantic Avenue to
Constitution Way would be a legitimate issue. He felt a bike box could be a viable option or they
could prohibit right turns from Atlantic Avenue to Constitution Way because there are other
ways to get onto Constitution Way. Also, a pedestrian and bike scramble could work.
Commissioner Miley said Jon Spangler had many good ideas and he should share them with
staff. He explained that he supported a cycle track because the track would be a safe, consistent
and continuous trail all the way through. However, he was concerned with questions surrounding
the data in order to understand the situations happening within the area. He was unaware of the
Page 9 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,10,"history surrounding the easement and that should be reviewed. He explained that although
there's limited room because the community has been built out, the City has a right to the space
and that should be considered and included in the staff report. He would like to know the
limitations and concerns for the area and he felt staff would bring this back to the Commission
because there is more to understand about the data and the right turn onto Constitution Way.
Commissioner Vargas said he supported many of the comments that Commissioner Miley made.
He said in order to move this concept forward the Commission has to look at the analysis of
removing one of the eastbound traffic lanes and that removal would be replaced with an 11-foot
lane. He went on to say for the record he does not like narrow lanes for safety reasons especially
since this is a heavy truck lane and there is no shoulder. He was concerned about the fact that AC
Transit, Alameda Fire Department, or emergency responders were not brought to the table to
collaborate because this is a safety facility that needs to be maintained. He would like staff to
define the project because he heard the addition of a mid-block crossing, so would the City
attempt to solve a number of things and if that was the case then put it out on the table to let the
Commission analyze everything. However, he said the Commission was not ready to address this
tonight.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied that he does not believe the concept was ready. He noted that
staff recommendations state refine and implement the attached design concept. He said
refinement was needed before implementation would take place, so he was not prepared to vote
for both. Additionally, he was unsure when reviewing the design where the AC Transit bus stop
would be placed due to safety concerns. He explained the concept could move forward, but the
refinements were an important aspect of the plan and should be reported back to the
Commission.
Commission Bertken replied the Commission could not go forward at this point in time because
it would be a slap in the face towards AC Transit.
Commissioner Bellows stated there would be plenty of time because the two trail segments are
currently being worked on. She noted that 14 emails were sent to the City in support and one
email did not support the project. Yet, from what she has heard from the Commissioners was
there should be more refinement, including discussions with AC Transit, Estuary Crossing and
the Alameda Fire Department. She said the crosswalk concept and using some of the easement
discussed should be analyzed further. Ultimately, she would like these issues to come back to the
Commission for review.
Commissioner Morgado made a motion to approve the idea, but the Commission needs more
information to be included in the update and AC Transit and the Estuary needed to be involved
in the discussion. Commissioner Miley seconded the motion with an amendment to include staff
to review the topics that were brought up by the Commission and speakers. The vote was
approved 5-1. Commissioner Vargas voted no.
5.E. Recommend Approval of the AC Transit Service Expansion Plan Buena Vista
Avenue/Line 19 Alternative (Gail Payne, Community Development Department)
Staff Payne presented the report.
Page 10 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,11,"Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.
Jim Strehlow said he would be speaking for a couple of his coworkers who explained that their
teenagers are scolded from taking AC Transit because it is dangerous along 12th Street in
downtown Oakland. He went on to say that the area and the bus stops are dark and there are
unruly passengers on board. He exclaimed if AC Transit would like to be successful and get
people to ride, then they have to be aware of the safety factor.
Brian McGuire stated that based on the choices for the staff report this was the best option. He
said he would love nothing more than to go to Encinal and Versailles Avenues to the ferry
station. He explained that the service to get from Fruitvale BART to the waterfront was a big
winner in terms of reliability and as the developments come on line they will work to get peak
hour headways shortened to become a viable option for new residents. Ultimately, he said this
makes sense for alleviating the island crossing issue.
Jon Spangler stated that 14 years ago as member of the original Transportation Commission the
Line 19 was suggested by AC Transit as a one way to salvage service in Alameda and he was
glad to see the line coming back. He stated that the City should expand AC Transit service to
restore all the losses suffered in Alameda. He urged the Commission to work with AC Transit to
keep adding service to restore something that use to be normal. He also would like to see 8 to 10
minute headways rather than 15 or 30 minute headways.
Commissioner Schatmeier referred to the November 2015 meeting where he summarized the fact
that the transit subcommittee pointed out the following priorities that were included in their
memo and included in the staff report: 1. Funding in Alameda stay local and reallocated to some
other Alameda services; 2. Route O stays the same and that has happened with the AC Transit
Board's action and 3. Restoring free or low cost transfers for residents of Alameda. He said the
reason he brought this up because he was hoping to include this as part of the review at the City
Council and then forwarding the recommendation to AC Transit.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff and AC Transit about the current status and where is AC
Transit at based on input they received from the City, because a letter was written on November
5, 2015 to AC Transit asking for restoration of Line 19, alternative 3 and various other
recommendations.
Commissioner Bellows replied this month the AC Transit Board approved everything, but left the
Alameda part out. So, what the City recommended within the letter was still open.
Commissioner Vargas asked if AC Transit could address that.
Staff Payne replied that staff was not sure if they would have time to come before the
Commission because originally the AC Transit Board was expected to approve the service
expansion plan in December 2015. So staff provided the letter at their public hearing in
November and after going through the inter-liaison committee in October and received the transit
committee's blessing staff felt they we were all on the same page. However, she said there was a
lack of time for coming before the Commission and City Council, so staff provided the letter.
Page 11 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,12,"Now that the AC Transit Board has allowed staff more time this will allow staff to come before
the Commission this evening and then City Council meeting February 2.
Commissioner Vargas recognized that there were numerous comments provided with various
alternatives. He said a lot of students and parents supported alternative #1 and alternative #3 was
a good alternative. He wondered if there was a summary of the fiscal implications available.
Staff Payne replied that was a good point that she had not considered and the shuttle is mainly
provided by grants with local funding match and Wind River provides their TDM monies.
Therefore, that would be an additional savings of $50,000 annually.
Commissioner Bellows replied Wind River would not necessarily give them the money anymore.
Staff Payne replied what the City would end up doing would be to request to see if Wind River
would be interested in being part of a TDM Association. She said they gave the City $20,000 a
year and maybe a better way would be for all of the development monies to go into a separate
nonprofit that would be in charge of all the TDM monies in a more comprehensive way.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he was attracted to the idea to bring the Line 19 and priorities
together before the Council because the line is a concrete service proposal that the Council will
pass and adding the priorities will bring more attention than doing so later.
Commissioner Bellows stated that Commissioner Schatmeier has put together a motion with the
add-ons.
Staff Payne replied that she would provide the content of the memo including the acceptance of
Line 19.
Commissioner Schatmeier explained that the issue of transit was bigger than one line. He
applauded the City for getting involved in public transit issues and how they would like the City
to be in the future.
Staff Payne replied the only item that was not included is the Clipper card item that will be
reviewed.
Commissioner Miley agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier and said there was some weight in
the motion. He was also glad AC Transit staff was at tonight's meeting.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied he was right they did not change the Line O and the Line 21
cut away from the Oakland airport, but he explained the principal was if AC Transit plans to cut
services to the airport or ferries keep the money in the City.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the restoration of Line 19, but to also convey to the
Council the Commission's priorities for future transit action within the City. Commissioner
Miley seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5.F. Annual Report on Alameda Landing Transportation Demand Management Program and
Page 12 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,13,"a Recommended Citywide Transportation Management Association (Gail Payne,
Community Development Department)
Staff Payne presented the report. Staff Payne also introduced Steve Buster, Vice President of
Catellus Development Corporation, who spoke.
Commissioner Vargas stated there was a comment in the annual report about the feasibility of
the water shuttle. He wanted to know if the numbers shown do not support the water shuttle. He
also asked if the service will be analyzed in the future.
Steve Buster replied right now they are going through Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alameda
Landing shopping center and the TRI Pointe development, which is currently under construction.
He stated that the last phase would be the 40 acres on the waterfront, which is currently closed
off to the public. He said he is hoping that one day they will develop the area and continue the
Bay Trail. He also explained that 5th Street will extend into the waterfront and have an eight acre
park, with part of the area containing a floating dock and a water taxi that runs to Jack London
Square. However, it takes time to coordinate with Jack London and other developers on the
waterfront that may want to participate and they would have to analyze a potential funding
mechanism.
Commissioner Bertken said the waterfront development was mentioned and he has driven
towards the end of 5th Street and saw an earth filled surcharge sitting on this piece of property.
He wondered why the 10-foot surcharge was needed for what he was talking about building.
Steve Buster replied they use the mound of dirt as a surcharge for Phase 1 and Phase 3 for the
TRI Pointe plan. He said the dirt was compiled 6 feet in the area in order to compress the bay
mud under the housing units. He went on to say that the dirt was taken off and they had to find a
place for it temporarily. However, he said there is good news because the waterfront area is low
and needs to be raised to be developed and the dirt could be used to raise the grade to where it
needs to be.
Commissioner Miley moved staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the
motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5.G. Review of Potential City of Alameda Projects for a Regional Measure 3 Reauthorization
(Gail Payne, Community Development Department)
Jennifer Ott, Chief Operations Officer for Alameda Point, presented the report.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff when they were involved in the other two measures was there
a call for projects or did they unilaterally decide.
Jennifer Ott replied she was unsure. However, she said there are three major priorities that were
included in the staff report which are: 1. Regional transbay service; 2. Funding for ferry service
and bus service and 3. Developing the bay trail to create bicycle and pedestrian connections.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff what the expectations were for the Commission's input.
Page 13 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,14,"Jennifer Ott replied staff would keep the Commission updated throughout the process. However,
she did not know if the Commission would ratify or approve priorities.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he was very interested in this process, especially how
projects become included. He pointed out that there may not be a call for projects, but someone
or some public body would be responsible for projects being approved and included.
Jennifer Ott, replied that would be the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the
state legislature.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the MTC and state legislature respond to staff
recommendations or do they have pet projects.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff what is our representation on MTC.
Jennifer Ott replied she was unsure.
Commissioner Miley stated the MTC representatives are Scott Haggerty, Alameda County
District 1 representative, Tom Bates, City of Berkeley Mayor, and Libby Schaaf, City of
Oakland Mayor. So, Alameda has three seats. He said as Jennifer Ott indicated this would be a
political process and if the City is not at the table then the City is on the menu. He felt staff put
together a balanced priority list based on the existing document. He stated there has to be
something for staff to advocate for even if there is not a specific call for projects.
Commissioner Schatmeier said from his point of view one of their elected representatives,
council members or City mayor could be inspired and champion a project, which would be
important.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff if this measure was another bond issue and when will it come
up for vote. He pointed out that the tolls back the measure up, but others indicated bond
approval.
Commissioner Miley replied the tolls allow the MTC to bond in order to deliver the projects
faster. The state legislature puts this on the ballot, so MTC would draft the measure and the state
would have to approve it. So, he hoped the assembly member and senator would look at this and
advocate for it.
Jennifer Ott, said this may not happen during this election year, but they want to be ahead of the
curve.
Commissioner Vargas felt it was good to see a list of projects. He referred to the three categories
in the staff report and noted that another way to look at this would be to have the projects
separated underneath a category. He said there was a list that may have been called the project
categorization list presented to the Commission six, seven or eight months ago which contained
categories and staff could pull out projects from certain categories. Additionally, he asked staff if
the priorities would go before the MTC. He explained the MTC has a certain perspective of
Page 14 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,15,"subsidizing ferry service and he does not want to say they support a lot or a little, but looking
back at history, he suggested staff not put that as the first request.
Commissioner Bertken replied they put a lot of money into the ferry and they still are, but the
point that was being talked about was only so much would be allocated. Also, this does not get
project specific until later and it would be geographically based.
Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.
Jon Spangler stated that he was contacted by BART Board Director Robert Rayburn about this
agenda item a few days ago and he was concerned about the lack of specific access to transit
items in the plan. He said as it was originally prepared he does not know what changes were
made in the last few days. He conveyed this to Staff Payne to make sure this was known and she
responded quickly on ways to include transit connections especially the leg of the Cross
Alameda Trail, the need to replace Miller Sweeney Bridge and possibly make better transit
connections across the new lifeline span. When hearing Jennifer Ott's priorities, he liked the
ferries, but the service is much dirtier per passenger mile than other forms of transit. He
suggested they look at capital expenditures that are a lot greener such as Hydrogen Fuel Cell
powered or sail powered ferries that get off the carbon emissions conveyor belt. He explained
that access to BART is a key part of this Cross Alameda Trail, which connects Alameda Point to
Fruitvale BART. He went on to say that including pedestrian and bicycle access that feeds into
Tilden Way from downtown and the east end, Fernside as well as the northern waterfront is
Alameda's part of the pie and part of Regional Measure 3. He also noted that transbay bus
service is something to support and he will do his own work with his contact to get more
information on what is behind the green curtain in Sacramento and elsewhere.
Lucy Gigli stated that two places that critically need improvement is off island access to
Fruitvale BART, Tilden Way and Fruitvale Bridge from the east end. She explained it was
critical for bikes to be able to travel from the east end to BART, plus it is part of the Cross
Alameda Trail. She also mentioned the Estuary Crossing because the service is not a real long-
term or medium range solution because it has limited hours and is overall cumbersome. Yet, the
Estuary Crossing is number one in the biking and pedestrian plan so she urged staff to keep
looking for solutions. She heard that the Alameda Landing and shuttle is way off in the distance,
so she asked staff to keep the number one item in the forefront because the City has other
challenges that need to be fixed.
Commissioner Miley thanked staff for bringing this forward and thanked the speakers who made
great points. He said his experiences with regional measure specifics are important for the City,
but the MTC and state legislature look at the broad funding categories. He said their hope would
be that they create categories and hopefully they fund the categories to the extent that City staff
could submit a competitive application. He also felt that BART to Alameda was a real long-term
goal and solution for transit issues, but the project will be so expensive and they are not
considering this project in this measure, but do not forget BART to Alameda.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he would like to see Jon Spangler and Lucy Gigli's
recommendations for emphasis on Fruitvale BART, Tilden Way and access to the trail section of
this added to the staff presentation.
Page 15 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-01-27,16,"Jennifer Ott replied absolutely.
Commissioner Miley moved to agree with staff's document and include Commissioner
Schatmeier's comments about specific language to Fruitvale BART and the trail improvements.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
6.
Staff Communications
Commissioner Miley said there might have been some confusion on item 5D. Cross Alameda
Trail segment. He clarified the motion that Commissioner Morgado made by stating that the
Commission accepted staff's concept, but staff should include the discussion topics and points
made by the Commissioners and speakers, so when it comes back to the Commission they could
see those details and have a report on what was missing. He explained, when he stepped out of
the room there was some confusion from some members of the audience.
6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
None.
7.
Announcements/Publio Comments
Jim Strehlow said last week he heard a news item that gas revenues are down and MTC had to
notify different groups that 40 percent less will be available to fund projects. So, he wanted to
know how that would affect Alameda's budget such as public work's pothole budget.
Commissioner Bellows replied because the price of gas is low, sales tax is low. Consequently
that would affect Measure BB monies. However, she said the Commission could put this item on
the agenda.
Jon Spangler stated that the Commission might find the following information interesting. He
said since last fall he and two friends who are also League Cycling Instructors have been going
to Los Angeles for certification to teach public school teachers how to teach bicycling on the
school grounds as a physical education class. He further explained that they have been teaching
middle school students and parents in Palo Alto and they are interested in expanding the program
to cities such as Redwood City and Alameda to be able to implement at least some pilot
programs through the school districts in the next year or SO. He said this March there will be a
physical education teacher's conference in Santa Clara and the guest program will be represented
there. He explained to the Commission that there is no public funding for bike safety education
and although they have a lot going on through Bike East Bay he will be looking for a champion
and partners within the school district to get to the next step.
8.
Adjournment
9:57 p.m.
Page 16 of 16",TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-05-24,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 24, 2006
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Jeff Knoth
Michael Krueger
Eric Schatmeier
Robert McFarland
Absent:
Pattianne Parker
Robb Ratto
Staff Present:
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that his question at the last meeting what if the AC Transit
advertising bus shelter program maintenance requirements are similar to the requirements of the
City's maintenance contract.
Commissioner Krueger requested some edits to the minutes from the April meeting:
The motion regarding the bus shelter guidelines, reaffirming based on the results of the
survey.
In the discussion of the results, he had pointed out that scores for protection from rain and
wind are higher for the shelter that have walls than for the canopies.
Commissioner Schatmeier made a motion to approve the April meeting minutes with the
recommended additions. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion approved unanimously, 5-
0.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
Chair Knox White moved Item 7C to the top of the agenda.
1",TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-05-24,2,"4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
The Multimodal Circulation Plan sub-committee has not met since the last TC meeting and there
is nothing to report on. The Pedestrian Plan will be discussed tonight. The Bicycle Plans update
has not been started as of this date.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7C.
CITY POLICY REGARDING SPACING BETWEEN BUS STOPS
Staff Bergman presented the staff report. He noted that the Transportation Technical Team (TTT)
had requested that the Transportation Commission provide more specific policy direction
regarding bus stop location and how their benefits should be evaluated against any negative
impacts. He distributed the AC Transit bus stop policy.
Chair Knox White asked Staff Bergman to identify what the safety concerns were.
Staff Bergman said that a representative from the Alameda Police Department would speak on
that issue.
Officer Craig Rodrigue said that there was a concern from the crossing guard Mr. Garlets on
trying to cross the kids with the crosswalk located across Otis Drive which the location of the
bus stops would hinder the safety of the children. With the amount of traffic they had to step out
a little further past the end of the bus to look for oncoming traffic. There are also cars that creep
up and keep going across the crosswalk without stopping. There are concerns of having a bus
stop there in front of the school for both the children and the crossing guards.
Officer Rodrigue indicated that he had discussed this issue with Michael Margulies of the Public
Works Dept. in the past. After the concerns were raised, the bus stop was bagged and removed.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Peter Muzio stated that it is 900 ft to Grand and a couple of thousand feet to the Willow bus stop.
The bus stop is not in the middle of the block. He recommended putting the bus stop by the
walkway, about half way between the two existing stops.
Barbara Nemer stated that the proposed bus stop location is hazardous. She said that the
crosswalks are not observed by drivers and the location is unsafe because of parents dropping off
and picking up their children at the school.
Elmer Garlets, a crossing guard at Lum School, stated that the proposed bus stop location is
hazardous. He said that the bus stops right on top of the crosswalk, which blocks the view of the
crossing guards of oncoming traffic and that vehicles cannot stop in time for the crosswalk. He
2",TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-05-24,3,"suggested moving the stop bar approaching the crosswalk to the west side of the Waterview Isle,
which would direct drivers to stop further back from the crosswalk. It would also need adequate
signage for the vehicles to remain behind the line when the crosswalks are occupied. He also
requested that a parking stall on the west side of Sandcreek Way be reserved for the crossing
guards at Lum School during school hours.
Chair Knox White responded that the TC could not make any decisions on specific parking but
that this could be presented to the Transportation Technical Team (TTT).
Liz Cleves reiterated what was said at the TTT meeting concerning the bus stop. She suggested
locating it at Pond Isle or Glenwood Isle, instead of near Sandcreek, as this would be closer to
the mid-point of the existing bus stops. She noted that the crosswalk near the school is very busy
with pedestrians crossing and cars going past without stopping for the pedestrians.
CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT
Staff Hawkins asked AC Transit staff to elaborate on their guidelines in placing bus stops.
Sean Diest Lorgion from AC Transit said that currently the bus stops are 2900 feet apart. Policy
508 states that mid block stops are rare and considered only when there are no alternatives
available and upon approval of the transportation project coordinator along with the
municipality. The design guidelines recommend 1000 feet but the policy actually provides for a
range of 800-1300 feet. There are also considerations for ADA access and where shelters are
placed.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if there are any policies regarding locating bus stops near
schools.
Mr. Diest Lorgion responded that he was not aware of any such guideline.
Staff Hawkins described a situation when the City had requested relocating a bus stop from the
intersection of Encinal/Versailles to Encinal/Grove. Since the stop would have been changed
from a controlled to an uncontrolled intersection, and the new location was a skewed
intersection, AC Transit would have absolved themselves of all liability
Commissioner Krueger asked if there are a defined circumstances under which AC Transit would
transfer all liability to the City.
Mr. Diest Lorgion said that their traffic engineer would have to review the location for safety
concerns, and that this is done on a case by case basis.
Chair Knox White said that AC Transit's policy seems to address the Commission's concerns.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that all stops should be safe, but potential usage should be a big
factor in the stop location.
3",TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-05-24,4,"Chair Knox White moved to accept AC Transit board policy considering bus stops.
Commissioner Krueger seconded. Motion was approved unanimously, 5-0.
7A. Review of Environmental Review Process
Andrew Thomas of the City's Planning and Building Department described the environmental
review process for the Commission.
7B. Alameda Landing (Catellus) Mixed Use Development Project Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR).
Staff Thomas said that this document is a supplemental DEIR. He noted that the proposal is
actual an amendment to the Catellus Master Plan. The original DEIR was completed in 2000 and
was certified by the City Council as adequate.
Prologis/Catellus has submitted a proposal to revise the approved 1.3 million square feet of
office space. The proposal will be going to the Economic Development Commission on June
15th, then on June 26th back to the Planning Board concerning the project and master plan
amendments. This summer all the responses and comments/revisions done to date will then be
brought back to the Planning Board for their final consideration. After that it will be forwarded to
the City Council for a final decision.
Chair Knox White wanted to know the steps that were needed to approve the DEIR mitigations?
Staff Thomas said that there are a couple of steps. When they certify the DEIR they also adopt
the mitigation-monitoring program. The mitigations would then be put into a chart for approval.
Dan Marcus of Catellus stated that the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan would
be paid for by charging customers when they buy or rent office space or retail space, and to
homebuyers when they buy their homes. He stated that once Alameda Point, which is 700 acres,
is developed, significant revenue can be generated for a coordinated west end TDM program.
Commissioner Krueger asked if the re-orientation of 5th Street to line up with Broadway in
Oakland had accounted for a possible transit connection across the estuary.
Staff Thomas said they would build a physical crossing or an aerial tram but it would take time
and support from the City of Oakland. He stated that there were a lot of issues with Oakland on
the bridges/aerial tram, but that a transit crossing would likely be west of Broadway in Oakland.
Public Comment
Ani Dimusheva stated that she liked the alignment of 5th Street aligning with Broadway in
Oakland to connect the cities. She was bothered that 5th Street is the only way to get to the
recreation area along the water, and suggested extending other streets towards the water. She
4",TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-05-24,5,"asked how people would be able get out of Alameda? The tube is very congested, and the water
taxi would only get people to Jack London Square, still a significant distance from the BART
station. She also asked why there is no connection from Alameda Landing directly to the
Alameda ferry terminal.
Lucy Gigli she stated that many of the mitigation measures would make walking and bicycling
worse. Adding lanes on a street would make it more difficult to add bike lanes. She asked that
the water taxi be used as a mitigation measure, which would be a good way to encourage people
to get out of their cars.
Ricardo Pedevilla stated that he is a resident and a new member of Bike Alameda. He indicated
that he supports improvements that will treat bicycling as a serious mode of transportation. He
noted that the Posey tube is a terrible option. He recommended that a water taxi be implemented
early on in the project.
Public Comment Closed
Commissioner Krueger found some discrepancies between the document on the cities website
and the document in the TC packet. The one in the packet has a date of May 11th. Concerned the
mitigation at 8th and Central that one version talks about widening 8th Street.
Staff Thomas said there was a draft for two potential mitigations to deal with that intersection.
The Planning Board and City Council can review the options and decide what they want to do.
Chair Knox White asked if the city has adopted thresholds of significance beyond those for the
tubes through the Traffic Capacity Management Procedure (TCMP).
Staff Thomas said there is not, but that the City tries to maintain consistency from one EIR to the
next.
Chair Knox White asked if these traffic projections include the Target project and the Clement
extension?
Staff Thomas responded that Target was included, but the Clement extension was not.
Chair Knox White wanted to know how 20% of the retail trips that the site generates would come
up Westline and 8th Street.
Staff Thomas said that he would have to get to him on that.
Chair Knox White said that there were discussions that 40% of trips to the main island were
coming from the south. On IV.H-2b it shows 18% along I-880. We assume that 22% are using
city streets heading south.
Staff Thomas said that 18% of the office R&D is heading south on I-880 and 15% on Atlantic,
but a percentage of that may continue and go over the Fruitvale Bridge.
5",TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-05-24,6,"Chair Knox White said it appears that there was no analysis done on the transit, pedestrian and
bikes.
Staff Thomas said that there is a need to consolidate the set of concerns that need to be addressed.
Need to come up with an approach to mitigate impacts of vehicle traffic on bicycles and for
pedestrians.
Chair Knox White asked why not specify TDM program before certifying it.
Dan Marcus said the preliminary TDM will be required and would be consistent with the current
entitlement, but that the final details would be approved at a later date.
Staff Thomas said that the water taxi needs certain permits that are outside of the cities control to
build a new landing/dock.
Chair Knox White asked that on the mitigation budget for this TDM if dropping the speed limit
on Atlantic along with some new signs would be a low cost solution.
Staff Thomas said that it was not in the environmental document. There is a development
agreement and a development disposition agreement that was approved in 2000 along with
financial agreements. It needed to be amended and that they were trying to get cost estimates on
these mitigations.
Staff Thomas summarized the Commission's comments as follows:
1. Trip distribution numbers (east end and Fremont)
2. Transit bike and pedestrian analysis adequately considers the effect of additional
congestion on these modes.
3. Would lowering of speed limits be an alternate of equally effective mitigation as sound
walls?
4. Would reducing speed limits on Atlantic Avenue an alternate mitigation to signals and
signal coordination suggested in the DEIR.
Staff Thomas suggested that the Commission to transmit policy questions to Council separately
from questions about whether the analysis is sufficient.
Commissioner Krueger expressed concern that some of the mitigations for roadway level of
service could have negative impacts on the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes, as well as on
noise levels.
Chair Knox White offered his comments:
1. The long-range transit plan doesn't appear to have been consulted.
2. Bike plan was accepted but not adopted.
3.
He asked if the parking provided through the project is assumed to be free for users.
Staff Thomas said yes.
6",TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-05-24,7,"Chair Knox White said that in the DEIR on page III-6 talks about reducing the impacts on
automobiles in the general plan goal. He suggested that it would be helpful to explain how the
project would do that, since free parking would actually encourage automobile use.
Commissioner Krueger moved to complete the discussion of the EIR. Commissioner Knoth
seconded. Motion was approved unanimously, 5-0.
Staff Thomas noted that he had a list of the issues raised by the Commission, and that these
would be reflected in the meeting minutes and would also be submitted as a letter to be included
in the final EIR.
Chair Knox White said that a list of polices would be worthwhile for the City Council to look at.
Look at its thresholds of significance and perhaps create a threshold of documents. The
thresholds of significance could be updated to better evaluate the impacts on transit, bicyclists,
and pedestrians. The city should not rush into it but do an analysis on it.
Congestion may be preferable to the impacts of the mitigations
Staff Thomas said that they would look very carefully at it. There are no real straightforward
clear accepted thresholds or methodologies for looking at any of the things have been raised.
Staff Hawkins asked if there are specific locations that he is concerned about.
Chair Knox White asked that the analysis be done for the intersections of concern and the major
bike routes. For pedestrians, the area of concern is in the area of the mitigations.
Chair Knox White moved to the following: 1) To request that the City Council direct the
Transportation Commission, working with staff, to create thresholds of significance to better
address the impacts on bicycling, walking, and transit; and 2) To recommend that the City
Council carefully evaluate mitigations that require additional lanes in terms of their negative
impacts, since some level of increased congestion may be preferable to adding lanes on the
west end. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0..
Commissioner Schatmeier motioned to extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m. Commissioner
Knoth seconded. Motion approved unanimously, 5-0.
6A. Draft Policies for Pedestrian Plan
Chair Knox White suggested adding policy C-2.4c, that the City should work with public and
private schools to identify needs and roles in addressing infrastructure, education and
encouragement.
Commissioner Krueger mentioned that the last two polices did not make it into the document
that was in the packet. Could not find D4.1.C and D4.3A anywhere.
7",TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-05-24,8,"Commissioner Krueger said that D4.1C is to establish an annual program to install curb ramps at
crosswalks throughout the City to comply with the ADA. D4.3A is to develop guidelines
choosing appropriate street trees and avoiding species with aggressive roots that can cause
sidewalk damage.
Commissioner Krueger motioned to adopt the polices as presented with the three additions
noted. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion approved unanimously, 5-0.
8. Staff Communications
Staff Bergman mentioned the update on the bus stop inventory. He noted that it's about 3/4 of the
way done and should be completed by the next TC meeting. He also noted that AC Transit staff
had passed along some information on the bus bunching issue. They had a consultant look at
that issue and what they are considering is lengthening the running time along those routes to
account for potential bunching which would result an addition to two peak buses being added to
the schedule. Would allow for an additional 8 minutes on the longest run. Staff Bergman said
that if this change is approved it is scheduled to be implemented August 27th
Commissioner Krueger noted that this also happens during non-peak hours, and questioned if
there are other operational issues that need to be addressed. Commissioner Schatmeier also
noted the problem during off-peak hours.
Commissioner Krueger asked if AC Transit staff could make a presentation on this topic.
Staff Bergman said he would make the request of AC Transit.
Staff Hawkins said that the Economic Development Commission and the Planning Board had a
meeting, which they had reviewed the scope of work of a business district Parking Study. Public
Works is not leading the study but will be able to provide input regarding things like use of
transportation demand management (TDM) measures free up parking spaces. She noted that it
has been recommended that the report be brought to the Transportation Commission when it is
30-50% completed, and again later on in the process.
Staff Bergman followed up on the discussion at the May meeting by distributing a section of the
maintenance contract for AC Transit's bus shelter advertising program.
Chair Knox White asked to receive the complete EIR in the future.
Staff Hawkins responded that she had requested copies but that Public Works did not receive the
document. She indicated that she would ensure that copies are sent out for the Target EIR.
8. Adjournment
Meeting as adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2006\0606\TC min 51006-final.doc
8",TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-01-26,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes
January 26, 2011
Public Works Department Staff - Gail Payne - called the Transportation Commission to
order at 7:33 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Philip Tribuzio
Thomas G. Bertken
Jesus Vargas
Kathy Moehring
Kirsten Zazo
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Minutes
None
3.
Oral Communications - Non-Agenda
Transportation Commission Member Introductions
Kirsten Zazo: She is the coordinator of student services for the Alameda Unified
School District.
Tom Bertken: He is a resident of Alameda. He has been involved in transportation
projects in the Bay Area for many years. He is retired.
Jesus Vargas: He is a resident of Alameda and a parent of three. He has been
involved in transportation for several years working for the state and has his own
consulting firm.
Kathy Moehring: She is the executive director of the West Alameda Business
Association so is the representative from the business community.
Philip Tribuzio: He is a resident of Alameda, and is retired.
Page 1 of 5",TransportationCommission/2011-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-01-26,2,"4.
New Business
4A.
Presentation of December 2010 Quarterly Report on Activities Related to
Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Payne summarized the staff report, and provided details on each plan mentioned in
the report.
Open public hearing.
Commissioner Vargas asked about the timing of the bicycle design guidelines.
Staff Khan responded that the bicycle design guidelines is currently an administrative
draft, and will be in the public arena in April.
Commissioner Bertken asked whether Alameda Point is moving forward and if there is
another developer.
Staff Khan responded that the City is taking the lead on the development process for
Alameda Point.
Commissioner Bertken asked when the TSM/TDM Plan will come to the Transportation
Commission.
Staff Khan responded that the City could provide the results of efforts to date at a future
Transportation Commission meeting in February or March.
Commissioner Vargas asked about consideration for the schools and getting kids to walk
to school. He wanted to know if it had been incorporated into the Pedestrian Plan.
Staff Payne responded that Safe Routes to School is a line item in the Pedestrian Plan,
which will assist the City in obtaining Safe Routes to School funding.
Staff Khan responded that the Public Works Department works with the schools and the
District to create school route plans and maps. Parents have been asked to comment on
the existing school route maps. The Public Works Department continues to update them
each year. Staff Khan also stated that the City is working with the school district on
future school location changes and the subsequent transportation impacts.
Commissioner Bertken asked where he could find these planning documents to review
them on the City's web site.
Staff Khan responded that the Public Works Department staff will send a web site link
with that information or will provide hard copies of the plans, if requested.
Staff Payne responded that the planning documents are located on the City of Alameda's
Page 2 of 5",TransportationCommission/2011-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-01-26,3,"web site under the Public Works Department web page with the title ""Transportation.""
Close public hearing.
No action was taken.
4B.
Election of Transportation Commission Chair and Vice Chair
Staff Khan explained the work involved for a Chair and a Vice Chair.
Open public hearing.
Commissioner Moehring stated that she is not comfortable with nominating and electing
a Chair and Vice Chair at this time because there are SO many new Transportation
Commission members. She recommended having an Interim Chair and an Interim Vice
Chair until the July meeting.
Staff Khan replied that it is the call of the Transportation Commission members.
Close public hearing.
Commissioner Moehring moved to recommend electing an Interim Chair and an Interim
Vice Chair until the July meeting. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Vargas moved to elect Kathy Moehring as the Interim Chair.
Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Tribuzio moved to elect Tom Bertken as the Interim Vice Chair.
Commissioner Vargas seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
5.
Staff Communications
Additional City CarShare Pod - Public Parking Lot on Santa Clara Avenue
Staff Payne stated that a new City CarShare pod has been installed at Public Lot W,
which is at Santa Clara Avenue by Webster Street and adjacent to the farmers' market on
Tuesdays and Saturdays. The parking meter still needs to be removed at this spot.
Commissioner Moehring stated that she appreciates this work.
Additional Bus Shelters on Webster Street
Staff Payne stated that three new bus shelters have been installed on Webster Street - one
at Atlantic and the other two at Buena Vista, in both directions.
Page 3 of 5",TransportationCommission/2011-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-01-26,4,"Commissioner Moehring stated that she and the Elders Inn owner were thrilled to see the
bus shelters and that they are working as they should. For example, bus passengers no
longer sit at the gas pumps in front of the 76 station at Buena Vista Avenue.
AC Transit Service Changes - March 2011
Staff Payne stated that AC Transit service changes will occur on the last Sunday in
March. The changes are as follows:
Line 851 Extension to Fruitvale BART
Line 31 Extension to Main Street Ferry Terminal
Lines 20 and 31 Coordination
Line 21 Coordination at Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal
Countywide Transportation Plan and Transportation Expenditure Plan (CWTP/TEP)
Update (http://www.alamedactc.com/app_pages/view/795)
Staff Khan stated that the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC)
is embarking on the CWTP/TEP effort, and explained the process.
Commissioner Vargas wanted to know if the Alameda CTC has developed any
performance matrices that the Transportation Commission could review.
Staff Khan stated that he will bring the CWTP/TEP item to a future Transportation
Commission meeting either in February or March with some information on evaluation
criteria.
Commissioner Moehring wanted to know who from the City of Alameda is involved in
the community advisory committee.
Staff Khan replied that he will provide that information when he goes over the
CWTP/TEP item in a future Transportation Commission meeting.
Commissioner Vargas wanted to know how to become involved in the TEP or Measure
B3 ballot initiative campaign.
Staff Payne stated that the campaign will begin in a later stage of the process. The
Alameda CTC is at the beginning stages with developing this long-range plan, and is
requesting input on transportation needs.
Countywide
Bicycle
and
Pedestrian
Plans
Update
(http://www.actia2022.com/app pages/view/1651)
Page 4 of 5",TransportationCommission/2011-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-01-26,5,"Staff Payne explained that the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans Update will be
folded into the overarching Countywide Transportation Plan, and then incorporated into
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional Transportation Plan.
Alameda County Transportation Commission Paratransit Advisory Planning
Committee (PAPCO) Vacancy
Staff Payne stated that a PAPCO vacancy exists.
AC Transit Accessibility Advisory Committee Vacancy
Staff Payne stated that an AC Transit Accessibility Advisory Committee vacancy exists.
Future Meeting Agenda Items
Staff Payne stated that future meeting agenda items for the February meeting look to be
as follows:
The CWTP/TEP if the outreach toolbox is available from the Alameda CTC
Alameda Point Community Planning Workbooks - results of community forums -
presented by Andrew Thomas of the Community Development Department
Jon Spangler - as a charter Transportation Commission member - stated that he was
thrilled to see five Transportation Commission members after close to one year of not
being able to reach a quorum.
Elaine Kwan of UC Berkeley introduced herself as a student in a transportation planning
course who lives in the City of Alameda. She asked for a bus route between Bay Farm
Island and UC Berkeley.
Commissioner Moehring explained the recent state of transit on the island and the
inefficiencies involved in running the longer lines.
Staff Khan suggested finding the most efficient transit lines using www.511.org.
6.
Adjournment
8:16 PM
Page 5 of 5",TransportationCommission/2011-01-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT
SPECIAL MEETING
October 17, 2007
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland (arrived 7:45 p.m.)
Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier
Nielsen Tam
Members Absent:
Srikant Subramaniam
Staff Present:
Lisa Goldman, Deputy City Manager
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
2. City of Alameda Ferry Program: Discussion of Senate Bill 976. Outcomes:
Review SB 976 and receive public comment.
Lisa Goldman, Deputy City Manager, provided background information on SB 976
(Ferry legislation), which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on Friday, October
12, and was passed in the last days of the legislative session in September. It replaced the
current San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority with a new agency known as the
Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA). She noted that it would be charged
with operating a comprehensive regional water transit system, and would coordinate the
emergency activities of all water transportation and related facilities within the Bay Area.
She noted that they will coordinate the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service, the Harbor Bay
Ferry Service and the Vallejo ferries under one agency. The Golden Gate Ferry would not
be affected by this legislation. She noted that they would appoint a new five-member
board for the WETA; the WTA currently has an 11-member board, including Mayor
Johnson and the Mayor of Vallejo. The new board would include three appointees by the
Governor, one from the Senate Rules Committee, and one from the Speaker of the
Assembly. The new board would start meeting no later than April of next year, and
would have until January of 2009 to develop a transition plan for running the ferry
systems. They would have another six months to develop an emergency operations plan.
Page 1 of 8",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,2,"Ms. Goldman advised that the City Council discussed this issue at the October 2 meeting,
and noted that there would be some clean-up legislation because the bill as passed was
somewhat vague. Among the items to be presented by the City for the clean-up
legislation were:
1.
To ensure that current service levels for Alameda ferries would be
maintained or enhanced for at least seven years;
2.
Future fare increases would be consistent with historical trends for the
Alameda ferry services;
She noted that while some Measure B funding was included in the budget, Alameda was
fortunate that their boats, terminals and parking lots did not have a lot of City money in
them. The City believed that it should be able to be reimbursed the money it had put into
these assets, which would be approximately $1.2 million; in comparison, Vallejo has
approximately $150 million invested in its ferry system. She noted that the City would
ask for a seat on the new WETA board. The City would like the WETA to pick up the
quarterly rider satisfaction surveys to ensure they were providing adequate service. The
City would also like the WETA to prepare an analysis of the on-time performance of the
ferries, as well as provide reports to the City Council on how the ferry service is doing. If
there were any proposed fare or schedule changes, the City would like them to bring
those proposals forward in Alameda with a public hearing. The City would also like the
WETA to work with the master developer for Alameda Point to ensure that ferry services
would be able to serve that new development once it is operational.
She noted that the City would work with the staffs of Senators Perata and Torlakson in
the next several months to discuss the interests of the City and the ridership in the new
legislation.
Commissioner Schatmeier expressed concern about the lack of local representation in the
new legislation. He inquired whether the clean-up legislation would ensure local
representation on this new board.
Ms. Goldman noted that she did not know the timing of the new Board appointments
before the clean-up legislation has a chance to move forward. She noted that the State
legislature has recessed for the year, and that the new WETA Board must hold its first
meeting by April 2008.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the stated goal of this legislation was to merge all the
ferry services into a single agency to better address a disaster or terrorist attack. He noted
that it was strange that the Golden Gate ferry has been specifically excluded without
much explanation, and whether there was any plan to fold it into the WETA, and inquired
why that occurred.
Special Meeting of the
Page 2 of 8
10/17/07
Transportation Commission",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,3,"Ms. Goldman replied that she did not have an answer for that question, which was raised
when they read the final version of the bill.
Rachel Weinstein, District Director for Senator Perata, noted that the Golden Gate Ferry
was separate under State law because they were voter approved and created; they did not
receive any State money. She added that it would be best to have all of the ferry services
coordinated under one agency, and noted that they were still working on incorporating
that service into the plan.
Commissioner Krueger noted that in that case, the urgency of the message had not gotten
through, and he supposed that it was related to some of the negative reaction expressed
with respect to this plan.
A discussion of the legislative process with respect to this bill ensued.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked about the origin of the ferry consolidation plan.
Alicia Trost, Press Secretary to Senator Perata, summarized the sequence of events
initiated by Senator Perata's request for a report, and noted that the full report was on the
Bay Area Council's website. She noted that an extensive hearing had been held at the San
Francisco Ferry Building, and that every elected official in the Bay Area had been invited
to that hearing. She added that while the bill was amended greatly in the final days of the
legislative session, it had not been pushed through at the last minute. She noted that
copies of the proceedings at the Ferry Building can be made available to the
Commissioners, and added that experts had flown in to testify about evacuation after
Hurricane Katrina.
Commissioner McFarland inquired whether it would be possible to use the existing
system, and to develop a response plan for the time when the emergency may occur.
Ms. Trost noted that the goal was to put the services under one umbrella, and noted that
there was no legal precedent in terms of the controlling authority of the water space in the
event of an emergency. She added that identifying the legal authority was the impetus for
creating WETA.
Commissioner McFarland noted that by that logic, all the Bay Area transit agencies
should be consolidated as well.
Ms. Trost noted that the WTA, not being the direct service provider, would not be eligible
for transit monies out of Proposition 1-B, which the WETA would be.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner McFarland regarding the role of the PUC and
how they regulate the ferries after this transition, Ms. Trost replied that she did not have
that information, and would provide an answer at a later time.
Special Meeting of the
Page 3 of 8
10/17/07
Transportation Commission",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,4,"Mr. Ernest Sanchez, Ferry Manager, replied that the CPUC did not have any authority
concerning the Golden Gate ferry service because they were a transit operator. The City's
two ferry services contracted with two private operators (Blue & Gold and Harbor Bay
Maritime) were regulated by the CPUC; that was the area of oversight by the CPUC.
Chair Knox White noted that there were significant concerns regarding language changes
associated with money, as well as consolidation of services into a regional body. He
noted that the changes in the Board's makeup and distribution of monies was of more
concern than disaster readiness.
Ms. Trost noted that without the Prop 1-B money, she was concerned that the bridge tolls
would have to be raised considerably. She would ask Senator Torlakson for further
information. She noted that the Senate Rules Committee would confirm all of the
Governor's appointees, which was another opportunity for the Transportation
Commission and Senator Perata to ensure that Alameda's interests were represented.
Open public hearing.
Patrick Robles noted that he worked as a ferry deckhand, and added that both the ferry
riders and the operators had little information about the changes that were occurring. He
looked forward to receiving more direct information than what he had seen in the media.
He wished to remind everyone that the ferry service was about people who depend on the
ferries for safe passage to work or other activities. He was also concerned about the
existing crew and other employees maintaining their positions.
Janet Jones noted that she was a daily commuter on the ferry, and had been taken aback
by this proposal. She was very pleased with the ferry and used it frequently. She noted
that if there are any problems, the Coast Guard was available for disaster relief, and often
rode alongside the passengers. She understood that the staff members were trained for
disaster preparedness. She considered the ferry to be an economical, safe and
environmentally friendly mode of transportation. She was concerned about the quality of
service if the State were to take over its operation. She found BART and Muni to be
unsatisfactory modes of transportation by comparison and did not see any reason to
change the ferry operation.
Mary Ellen Smith noted that she rode the Harbor Bay Ferry frequently, and was a very
happy ferry rider. She inquired about the effects on the riders themselves, and whether
there would be any fare increases. She would like to know where the money would go.
Maxine Young noted that she rode the Harbor Bay Ferry, and in reading the legislation,
did not see a commitment to run the transit system as an integral part of the Bay Area's
transit system. She noted that the legislation generally addressed emergency situations.
She was concerned that after the new agency took over, it may decide that Alameda did
not need the ferry.
Special Meeting of the
Page 4 of 8
10/17/07
Transportation Commission",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,5,"Carrie Boger noted that she rode both ferries four times a week, and noted that it was a
crucial transportation mode for her. She inquired whether she would be able to get back
home in the event of an emergency, or whether her ferry would be diverted elsewhere.
She was also concerned about changes in schedules, as well as whether routes would be
cut to accommodate the subsidized funding. She noted that if there were major changes
with the ferry, she and her family would move back to San Francisco.
Howard Smith noted that he lived in Harbor Bay, and added that he was concerned about
the clean-up legislation. He was also concerned about enhancements, and noted that the
parking lot filled up quickly. He believed that more riders would be captured if all-day
and weekend service were to be offered.
Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, echoed the comments made by the previous
speakers. She noted that ATA recognized that ferries were an important everyday part of
the transportation system, not just for emergencies. She inquired who would be
responsible for disbursing information about the ferries.
Close public hearing.
Commissioner Schatmeier expressed concern about this legislation and the way it was
passed. He noted that it appeared to him like it was hurried through without public input,
and that the motives differed from those that were touted in the media publicity. He
would have preferred to see a more fully realized bill that had been developed by
consensus, rather than a bill that needed to be cleaned up. He was very concerned about
the consolidation proposal. He noted that since the mayor represents Alameda on the
WTA board, Alameda residents may indicate their ferry-related concerns to the mayor
and have them brought to the appropriate authorities. He was very concerned about who
would be appointed to the new board, and hoped that it would be local representation. He
noted that he had not voted for any members of the Bay Area Council. He recalled the
role the ferries played following the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, and noted that
because people pulled together, and bureaucracies did not take over, that was an effective
disaster response. He would like to see coordinated and better emergency access, which
could have been accomplished with the existing structure if properly organized.
Commissioner Ratto inquired whether the meeting at the Ferry Building was a public
meeting where public comment had been taken. Ms. Weinstein replied that it was a
public meeting, and noted that copies of the meeting notes were available. Commissioner
Ratto noted that he was disappointed that clean-up legislation had to be enacted. He
acknowledged Councilmember DeHaan and the Deputy City Manager in the audience,
and urged City Council and City staff to work as diligently as possible with the
legislators for as many years of commitments as they could get. He noted that the ferries
were an integral part of this community, and hoped that Senator Perata and the committee
members would take the ferry service seriously.
Special Meeting of the
Page 5 of 8
10/17/07
Transportation Commission",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,6,"Commissioner Tam inquired whether the Commission would receive feedback on the
legislation. Ms. Trost replied that there was legal language written into the bill that
identified a year-long open process that stated that the Authority needed to work with the
local agencies, ""specifically those that run already existing water transit systems. There
was also a 45-day public process of receiving local input. She added that it would have
several hearings through several Commissions, the State Senate and Assembly, and that
the hearings would be bi-partisan. She encouraged the Commissioners to come to the
hearings, and added that Senator Perata was very specific in stating that the local input
from Alameda and Vallejo would be vital in ensuring this program worked. She ensured
that it was not a hostile takeover, but that the goal was to make a more efficient system
for the ferry riders.
Ms. Trost noted that they had heard many concerns from the Commissioners and the
public about any cuts to service, increased fares, and staffing issues. She noted that SB
976 contained language stating, ""priorities should be given to ensuring continuity in the
program services and activities of existing public transportation ferry services."" She
believed there was also language about protecting staff, and added that the Senator's
intent was to enhance service, not cut it.
Commissioner Krueger noted that with respect to Regional Measure 2, he understood the
intent to increase service and to increase funding through Proposition 1-B, as well as to
consolidate and respond in a disaster. He noted that some of the language choices were
puzzling to him, with respect to the Alameda-Oakland and Harbor Bay Ferry was
changed to Transbay Ferries. He was disappointed that there was not an answer for that,
and inquired why the language had been changed. He did not want the Regional Measure
2 funds to be diverted away from what Alamedans voted for, which he viewed as a
betrayal. Ms. Trost noted that she did not have an answer for that question because she
had never been asked it before. She emphasized that she would be able to find that
information for Commissioner Krueger.
Ms. Weinstein noted that in response to Chair Knox White's question, the term length of
each Board member was six years.
Commissioner McFarland believed that the end users of this ferry system had not been
well-informed by the State throughout this year-long process.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether the City-owned boats would be
able to be sold for their full value, and whether the partial payment of the boats by grants
would affect that sale, Staff Sanchez replied that the City owned four boats, all of which
were acquired using public (State or federal) funds. If the boats were to be sold, the City
would be required to repay a portion of the money back to the granting agency; a portion
would return to the City as well. He added that the Encinal and the Peralta were
purchased with grants with a local match, half paid by the City of Alameda and half paid
by the Port of Oakland.
Chair Knox White noted that there was considerable disappointment with this process,
Special Meeting of the
Page 6 of 8
10/17/07
Transportation Commission",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,7,"and that it was unfortunate that the first public hearing in Alameda about taking over
these ferries occurred after the law was signed into being. He wanted to ensure that while
the clean-up legislation process was proceeding, that it is remembered that more money
had been spent than specific grants that could have been used elsewhere than the ferry,
and that the City does not lock itself into that number early on. He added that depending
on the term limits bill, Senator Perata would not be in the Senate indefinitely, and the
City did not know who would be in charge. He believed that in the event of a Tom
McClintock governorship, the ferry services may be in jeopardy; the head of the Senate
Rules Committee, the head of the Assembly, and the Governor all may come from
Orange and Riverside Counties. He did not believe that, in that case, they may not be
concerned with ferry service in Alameda. He believed that during the clean-up language
process, the two services being rolled into the new body should have seats on the Board.
He agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier's question why it needed to change, and it may
be that 11 people were too many.
Chair Knox White noted that with respect to the sustaining services, Regional Measure 2
had language for money for Alameda services, in order to increase and enhance the
services. He recalled Mr. Smith's comment that the voters of the Bay Area passed that
measure, and he believed the clean-up language and plans going forward should
acknowledge that. He noted that this was not the continuation of service until three years
afterwards, and added that this measure, passed three years ago, was being changed even
before money had been distributed. He believed there should be some agreement
regarding long-term maintenance service, and did not believe anyone expected the
service to run empty all day and all night. He believed there should be some good-faith
assurances with respect to maintaining service, which may be difficult if Alameda were
to be written out of the funding.
Chair Knox White stated that he had not heard anyone disagree with the need for a
regional emergency plan, and added that Alameda was an island city that had no lifeline-
rated links to Oakland. According to Caltrans, all the bridges and tubes connecting
Alameda to Oakland will go down in a major earthquake. He added that there was no
money to fix that, and noted that the ferry was the only lifeline to Oakland. He noted that
Alameda was the only large island community in the Bay Area, and must have a priority
for emergency service.
Chair Knox White understood that there was a public hearing at the ferry building, and
that the issues most critical to Alameda were not the focus of that meeting. He was
surprised to see the comment made by Senator Perata in the newspaper, stating that ""no
one should have been blindsided, and that they all knew it was coming. He noted that he
made a number of calls, and discovered that they didn't know these discussions were
occurring until four days before the vote. He believed the residents of Alameda deserved
a better outcome. He hoped that Senator Perata would hold a hearing in Alameda once
the clean-up language was written, so that the people affected by the change could give
input in Alameda, rather than having to travel to Sacramento.
Commissioner Ratto concurred with Chair Knox White's comments, and he understood
Special Meeting of the
Page 7 of 8
10/17/07
Transportation Commission",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-17,8,"that the hearings would be in Sacramento; he would like to have a local public forum so
residents could address these issues. He noted that it was a great imposition for the
average working person to have to go to Sacramento to participate in the process. He
suggested that the terms be staggered so there would not be a total turnover, and would
like there to be some institutional memory in that process. Ms. Weinstein noted that she
would investigate that possibility.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the items that required follow-
up, Ms. Weinstein replied that she would forward the answers to the Commission's
questions as an off-agenda item.
Commissioner Krueger agreed with the previous comments, and believed that staff's
recommendations for the clean-up language were very good. When the clean-up language
is created, he would like to see a road map for the consolidation to include the Golden
Gate Ferry. He believed it would be disingenuous to have the push for a single,
consolidated agency, and to cut Golden Gate Ferry out of it. If an exception for Alameda
could not be made, he would like an explanation for why the Golden Gate Ferry could be
excluded. He thanked the Senator's staff for attending.
Staff Khan noted that he had a communication related to a special program launched by
AC Transit and Chevron. The first meeting would be held Tuesday, October 23, at 10:00
A.M. He noted that he would be attending the meeting and recommended that one person
from the Transportation Commission attend as well.
3.
Adjournment:
8:55 P.M.
Special Meeting of the
Page 8 of 8
10/17/07
Transportation Commission",TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-11-17,1,"Approved Minutes
Transportation Commission Meeting
Wednesday, November 17, 2021
Time:
Chair Samantha Soules convened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Location:
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 codified at Government Code Section 54953,
Transportation Commissioners can attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allows public
participation via Zoom.
Legistar Link:
 ttps://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811337&GUID=55BD7254-0A79-471E-
9760-3COE243F3935&Options=info/&Search=
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Yuen and Commissioners Nachtigall, Hans, Kohlstrand and
Weitze.
Absent: Commissioner Randy Rentschler
2. Agenda Changes
None.
3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5210433&GUID=7ABD3D66-2823-
-496F-8237-1570FE110518&FullText=1.
4. Announcements/ Public Comments
Chair Soules expressed her sadness and sympathy for the recent death of Alameda County
Supervisor Wilma Chan who was killed in a vehicle-pedestrian collision. She spoke on the
important work and accomplishments done by Supervisor Chan and of the urgency of the Vision
Zero Plan.
Vice-Chair Tina Yuen also discussed the travesty of Wilma Chan's death and made a call for safety
on Alameda streets.",TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-11-17,2,"Commissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand expressed her condolences and also asked that everyone be
aware as you move about the city.
Commissioner Alysha Nachtigall also expressed her condolences and asked that everyone be safe.
Michael Sullivan discussed the pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the estuary and wanted a status
update as well as what the bridge landing options were in Oakland. He hoped there would be
funding for this project in the Infrastructure Bill that had just passed.
Denyse Trepanier, Board President for Bike Walk Alameda, discussed the sad tragic passing of
Alameda County Supervisor Wilma Chan and how she was now one of the too many people who
have died in traffic collisions. She also discussed the Memorial Ride that was planned.
5. Consent Calendar
None
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Review and Comment on School Street Safety (Discussion Item)
Lisa Foster, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The
staff report and attachments can be found at:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5210434&GUID=DABCODOF-3768-
B1E-9039-4D56689524B8&FullText=1.
Public Comments for #6A
There were no public comments.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions, Discussion, and Comments for #6A
Chair Soules asked where was the best place the public could engage on this topic.
Staff Member Foster discussed reaching out to the principal of your school or your child's school
and saying you want to see the Safe Routes to School Program at your or your child's school.",TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-11-17,3,"Rochelle Wheeler, a Senior Transportation Manager, added other information about the Safe
Routes to School Program and the importance of having schools that engage and advocate for this
program.
Commissioner Nachtigall asked about bicycle education for 5th Graders and wanted to know if
that included private and charter schools as well. She then thanked the staff for doing this important
work. She also discussed Maya Lin since some students had reached out about having more
crosswalks on Buena Vista, she thought some of those improvements could be integrated into this
effort.
Staff Member Wheeler clarified that the goal was to include all 5th Graders but they did not have
enough funding at this point, but it was for both public and private schools.
Staff Member Foster discussed what this report included and Buena Vista was outside of the area
of the study. She did note that it was an important route to Maya Lin and they were still looking to
add a crosswalk on Ninth Street when it would be resurfaced next year.
Commissioner Scott Weitze asked for clarification on what a High Visibility Crosswalk was. He
also wanted to know why some crosswalks got push-buttons for flashing beacons. He also wanted
to know more about the plan to make school drop off and pick-ups better, he was stunned that this
was something that schools could decide or not decide to opt into.
Robert Vance, a Senior Engineer with Public Works, described what a high-visibility crosswalk
was, wide bars through the center and painted with light-reflective paint. He added that they would
be installing more Rapid Flashing Beacons at intersections near schools and those were evaluated
on a case by case basis.
Staff Member Foster said that under the Vision Zero Plan, the action is to have City Transportation
Engineers support schools in developing their own pickup and drop-off policies. It will be done
on a school-by-school basis.
Staff Member Wheeler added that the city had also worked with the County-Wide Safe Route to
School Programs on improving school pickup and drop-offs.
Commissioner Michael Hans was disappointed to hear that only a few schools were participating
so far. He also discussed his role as a School Administrator at Lincoln Middle School and
applauded APD for their continued efforts to keep everyone safe.",TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-11-17,4,"Commissioner Kohlstrand thanked the school staff who had participated in this work and linked
important items back to the Vision Zero Plan. She discussed her concerns about Fernside Blvd.,
especially between Blanding and High Street, as well as her concerns about Buena Vista Avenue.
She wanted to see more opportunities for the public to have input and not just use a systematic
approach.
Commissioner Nachtigall discussed the pickup and drop-off rules at Nea Charter School.
Chair Soules expressed her concerns about Earhart School pick up and drop off; not just drivers
who need to behave properly. She also expressed her concerns about road diets and diversions to
adjacent parallel streets. She believed they needed to look into it and get a grander sense of where
traffic was being pushed.
Commissioner Weitze added that Third Street by NEA was a good example of how preserving
parking was part of the problem. If the parking were removed then there would be more places to
pick up and drop off.
Commissioner Hans asked if there was a plan to bring back Crossing Guards for Secondary
Schools. Funding now only allowed for Crossing Guards at elementary schools.
Staff Member Wheeler had heard more interest and conversation about having crossing guards at
secondary schools but had not heard about funding. She discussed the growing costs of having
Crossing Guards.
Commissioner Kohlstrand discussed protocols of pick up and drop off at San Francisco Schools
and expressed interest in bringing those protocols to Alameda.
Staff Member Wheeler discussed the 17 schools that had signed up and what grant funding they
had received.
Commissioner Weitze asked about the School Route Map. He pointed out that Nea had many roads
marked as routes but he preferred funneling kids into fewer streets.
Staff Member Wheeler explained that this map had not been updated yet and then discussed what
that process entailed.
Chair Soules praised city staff for their work and said she would take on a personal role to get the
word out about this program.",TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-11-17,5,"Vice-Chair Yuen asked if the new Infrastructure Bill could help with funding for this project.
Staff Member Vance explained what was budgeted for this project and what projects could be
supplemented.
6B. Review and Comment on the Draft Smart City Master Plan Recommendations
(Discussion Item)
Gail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The
staff report and attachments can be found at
ps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5198417&GUID=0D6FDA4C-7B68-
)FA-898A-D30B6EOOD7B4&FullText=1
David Huynh and Monique Fuhrman from Iteris also presented and made themselves available for
questions.
Public Comments for #6B
There were no public comments.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions, Discussion, and Comments for #6B
Commissioner Weitze asked for clarification on the Deploy Public WiFi Map. He also wanted to
know more about Traffic Signal Priority and how that would work in school areas.
Staff Member Payne explained the thought process and criteria behind the map. She also explained
how the priority worked for the traffic signals.
Mr. Huynh added that pedestrian safety was always the top priority with traffic signal timing.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked about equity for internet access and wanted to know how the
homeless would be included. She also wanted to know how this new system would be integrated
with all the overhead wires, and if there was a plan to move more underground. She thought this
was a really good job and important to think about these things for the future.
Staff Member Payne discussed the facilities that would have resources available, and those
facilities would have access to public wifi. She then discussed the undergrounding project lists that
Alameda Municipal Power was working on.",TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-11-17,6,"Mr. Huynh added that the plan for all the fiber optic cables was to put them underground.
Commissioner Kohlstrand wanted to see a policy that showed they were working toward
undergrounding all wires in the city.
Chair Soules also wanted to see a more documented policy on undergrounding all utilities in
Alameda. She believed for the unhoused, cell phones were lifelines and cell phone dependence
skews towards less education levels and equity priority communities so it is important to have
public wifi, especially due to lack of an address. Data plans also are expensive so it is important.
She discussed the importance of establishing the relationship between the ISP (Internet Service
Provider) - owning the asset and leasing it out is better so as to leverage the investment for the
long term. She did not want to turn over to the private sector and wanted the city to retain those
rights. She then discussed how deliberate policies could help with cyber security with how this
data was used. She did not want to see a misuse of data.
7.
Announcements / Public Comments
Chair Soules reminded everyone to be safe out there with the sun setting earlier and encouraged
everyone to check out a reflective vest. She also wished everyone Happy Holidays since this was
the last Transportation Commission Meeting of the year.
8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.",TransportationCommission/2021-11-17.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,1,"Transportation Commission
April 24, 2013
Item 4A
Action
Transportation Commission Minutes: Wednesday, January 23, 2013
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:
Jesus Vargas, Chair
Michele Bellows
Thomas G. Bertken
Eric Schatmeier
Sandy Wong, Alameda Unified School District Representative
Members Absent:
Christopher Miley, Vice Chair
Staff Present:
Staff Naclerio, Public Works Director
Staff Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
Commissioner Bertken proposed the Bay Fair Island Loop Trail Brochure item under ""Staff
Communications"" should be brought up before the Consent Calendar because Kelly Hosokawa
-
who created the brochure - is in attendance.
Commissioner Vargas made a motion to move the item up. Commissioner Bellows seconded the
motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Commissioner Vargas commented that he was listening to the news regarding the most recent
fire near the Webster/Posey Tubes, which reminded him of Alameda's connection with the City
of Oakland. All listeners were notified not to anticipate free flow traffic out of Alameda through
the Posey Tube due to a fire at 7th Street and Harrison Street. Thus, it is just a further reminder
how we are living close to a neighbor that we rely on for access.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,2,"Bay Farm Island Loop Trail Brochure
Commissioner Vargas read from a certification of appreciation stating that the City of Alameda
Public Works Department awards this certificate to Kelly Hosokawa in recognition of her
contribution to the Bay Farm Island Loop Trail. He thanked Ms. Hosokawa for her efforts to
make the City of Alameda a better place to walk and bicycle. He was able to use the map while
riding a new bicycle purchased just a few weeks ago, and stated that the map is a great way to log
exercise. Along with the creation of the document, publication and distribution, he wanted to
acknowledge Kelly Hosokawa and presented her with the certification of appreciation by the City
of Alameda Public Works Department.
4.
Consent Calendar
4A.
Meeting Minutes - November 28, 2012
4B.
Proposed Neptune Park Path Conceptual Layout
4C.
Additional Proposed City CarShare Pod on Santa Clara Avenue at Webster Street and
Removal of One Metered Parking Space
4D. Review Proposed Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-7.15a,
Related to Bicycle Parking Space Requirements to Comply with the City's Bicycle Facility
Design Standards
Commissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Bertken moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
5.
New Business
5A. Traffic Calming Improvements on Otis Drive between Mound Street and High Street
Staff Naclerio presented the staff report.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comment. Additionally, he acknowledged an
email comment sent to the Commission from Board member John Knox White of the Alameda
Planning Board.
Susan Davis, Bayview resident, had children who went to Frank Otis Elementary and she walked
her children to school almost everyday. She remembered that crossing Otis Drive was a
terrifying feat. The cars traveled too fast and since it is a four lane state highway, many drivers
do not obey the rules such as when one lane stops then the other lanes should stop. She pointed
out that glare is a major problem during the morning commute hours (approximately 8 am) when
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,3,"cars are traveling east and it is hard to see pedestrians attempting to cross. She is one of the
parents who worked with Public Works staff on this project and she wanted to thank the Public
Works Department for reaching out extensively with the public and concerned residents. She
mentioned that the department conducted a public meeting in July 2012 and had unanimous
support for the project. There has been a bit of community concern, but she urged the
Commission to support the project because it is a viable, low cost solution.
Michael Karp, Bayview resident and President of the Bayview Estates Home Owners
Association, appreciated Public Works staff outreach on the issue. He mentioned traffic is
dangerous at Court and the traffic is close to Ms. Davis' house. Moreover, there is a tree
blocking the path, which was addressed. He explained that Otis Drive is almost directly east and
west, so early hours of the day drivers traveling from the west to the east are hampered by the sun
rising and the exact opposite occurs in the afternoon. The association and Public Works
addressed the issues while acknowledging the fact that it is a state highway. They support the
measures drafted and they hope the Commission will implement them.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked what comments were included in Board member Knox's email.
Commissioner Vargas replied he would send Commissioner Schatmeier the entire email since it
is quite extensive.
Commissioner Schatmeier was curious about the elimination of the crosswalks within the staff
report and how the community feels about that since there was some opposition stated within the
documents. His experience in the area goes back to when his son used to play ball at Krusi Park
located at 900 Mound Street and at times there was a lot of parking and a lot of uncontrolled
street crossings. So, the idea of eliminating crosswalks seems interesting, especially around the
area.
Staff Naclerio explained that a petition with 19 signatures was handed to Public Works staff at
the first community meeting. The person who handed the petition was asked to stay to discuss
the pros and cons and the person did not stay. Public Works staff brought up the petition at the
meeting. The Mound Street intersection should be enhanced due to the bus stops located there
and the area has the most pedestrian crossings. Usually staff reviews warrants for crosswalks by
observing the number of individuals crossing. The standard includes 20 individuals or 15
children minimum, and none of those crosswalks had that kind of volume. The staff report also
indicates that at Fountain Street and Court Street problems occur with wheelchair ramps. For
example, one crosswalk leads into a loading and unloading zone. Ultimately, he felt the safest
alternative was to consolidate the crosswalks.
Commissioner Bellows explained that the crosswalk to be eliminated is 250 feet from another
marked crosswalk in one case and 240 feet for the other one. Regarding visibility, she felt that
the recommendation was much safer. Pedestrians are not walking much further to get to the
remaining marked crosswalks. She appreciated the consensus in the neighborhood and although
the result may not be a perfect solution, it is a good solution for now and could be tweaked.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he is in favor of what the community wants, but he
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,4,"wondered how Public Works staff could market or visibly guide pedestrians to the remaining
crosswalks.
Staff Naclerio explained that they developed a Safe Route to School maps for all the schools.
They would enhance those maps to direct students to the existing marked crosswalks. He
mentioned that Caltrans would have to approve the removal of the crosswalks as well as any
other improvements that they are recommending. Also, he mentioned that the Bayview Home
Owners Association could promote the use of the crosswalks through their newsletter.
Commissioner Bertken stated that all indications of the original crosswalks would be removed to
indicate to pedestrians that they should not cross there. He brought up that a barricade could be
included to prevent pedestrians from crossing. Ultimately, he wondered how staff would handle
the process.
Staff Naclerio explained that they would remove and black out the crosswalks and remove the
signs. He did not recommend installing barricades.
Commissioner Bellows moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
5B.
Resident Appeal of Public Works Staff's Decision to Not Install an All-Way Stop
Control at the Intersection of Robert Davey Junior Drive and Channing Way
Staff Naclerio presented an overview of the staff report.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if they received public input about the proposed mitigation of
extending the bike lane stripes.
Staff Naclerio replied that staff has not and they would use this meeting for community input
about the proposal.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comment.
Red Wetherhill, Harbor Bay Resident, veteran architect, felt that the City of Alameda and the
state were using the wrong criteria, which moves vehicles first and foremost. He felt vehicles
travel way too fast when exiting off of Channing Way with a blind corner and vehicles go
quickly around the bend on Robert Davey Junior Drive. He wanted staff to continuously observe
the area because it is a problem for pedestrians. He mentioned that 15 to 20 years ago, residents
submitted a request for a stop sign for this same intersection. They received a run down from a
""technocrat"" that the average speed was 32 miles per hour (mph), and the street did not qualify
for a four-way stop. He then asked if the maximum speed limit was posted as 25 mph, then how
could the City count it as an average of 32 mph. Ultimately, he felt that staff was bandaging the
problem by modifying the crosswalks instead of policing more stringently along Robert Davey
Junior Drive.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,5,"Mary Andersen, President of Clipper Cove, stated 204 families reside in Clipper Cove. She had
many residents explain to her that they never try to exit off of Channing Way onto Robert Davey
Jr. Drive. The residents always drive to Oyster Pond Road, which brings more traffic into
Clipper Cove because they are afraid to exit at Channing Way. She has experienced this
situation herself because there have been too many close calls. She commented on the visibility
issue and the proposal to sneak up to the bike lane. She referred to Figure 2 (the little red car) of
the staff report and that the car represented her car recently. She sneaked up to the bike lane and
suddenly coming from her right a car approached at high speed to make the turn onto Channing
Way. The vehicle did not expect a car to be where she was and nearly clipped the front end of
her car. To advise drivers to sneak up and wait at the edge of the bike lane is an invitation for
trouble. She recalled when she took her vehicle license test, she did something very similar to
the previous incident where she stopped at the crosswalk and sneaked forward. The examiner
cited her for making an illegal rolling stop. She questioned the legality of the procedure listed in
the staff report. Thus, she recommended that the Commission adopt the stop signs. If they
cannot then extend the bike lane lines and cut the concealing bushes on the left side of the street.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, explained he was glad to see that not every
stop sign is being erected at residents' requests. He was glad to see analysis conducted before
implementation.
Commissioner Vargas stated he biked over to the intersection and tried to see what the sight
distance limitation was.
Sergeant Ron Simmons, Alameda Police Traffic Section Supervisor, responded to Ms.
Andersen's inquiries and explained that although vehicles are supposed to stop at the first line
before the crosswalk, vehicles are allowed to creep up through the crosswalks and into the bike
lanes if visibility is an issue and they are legally allowed to creep forward safely into the
intersection. When Ms. Andersen occupied that portion of the roadway and if she did so safely,
she had a legal right to be there. In addition, when that vehicle was coming down and turning
left and if they were to hit Ms. Andersen they would be found at fault. The rules also would
apply for bicycles as well and the bicycle has to yield to the vehicle in that case.
Commissioner Bertken explained that he was glad the question was brought up because there are
a number of intersections around town where the cross traffic is heavy and there is no way to
cross the intersection safely without moving your car forward a bit.
Commissioner Vargas asked Sergeant Simmons if reports were filed about near collisions around
that intersection.
Sergeant Simmons replied he received many field calls so he does not know.
Cindy Lum initiated the appeal request and felt a lot of near collisions are not reported. She
reviewed reports in the last three years at the Police Department, and she could not find anything.
When she gathered signatures and talked to neighbors she again felt collisions were not reported.
She observed that vehicles passing the Speed Trailer do not travel under 34 mph, and she has
taken pictures of some vehicles go as far as 45 mph. She felt physical observations need to be
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,6,"taken into account for pedestrian spikes before and after school hours. When she went out to
receive signatures, many residents were supportive of the stop sign. She would like to have an
alternative such as speed bumps brought up if they cannot erect a stop sign.
Staff Naclerio replied that speed bumps are not an approved traffic control measure. However,
there are speed lumps found on Bayview Drive, which allows wide axle vehicles to pass. The
installation would require Police and Fire Department approval. In the past, the Fire Department
staff has said if there is a major route they use for emergency access, they cannot have speed
lumps installed. Robert Davey Jr. Drive would be considered an emergency access route.
Commissioner Vargas asked Ms. Lum if she needed additional briefing from the City to
understand the bike lane lines that are being proposed instead of the stop signs.
Cindy Lum replied she would like more information from the City.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if that is something that could be scheduled offline.
Staff Naclerio replied he would schedule a meeting in the next week or SO.
Commissioner Wong stated that speed lumps could not be installed unless approved by the Fire
Department. She wanted to know what could be done to reduce vehicle speeds.
Staff Naclerio replied that from an engineering standpoint there are not many alternatives
available. Otherwise, staff has been working with the Police Department because it becomes an
enforcement issue. They are working with Police staff to monitor speed during commute hours
based on Police staffing levels. Alternatively, Public Works staff could look at the entire
intersection to see if they could conduct narrowing at all of the lanes. There are studies that show
narrower lanes make drivers feel constricted and reduce their traveling speeds.
Commissioner Bellows asked about curb bulb outs and if that would help narrow the road since it
is a pedestrian-oriented concern.
Staff Naclerio replied the option would be possible, but there is a bike lane in the way.
Commissioner Bellows explained that staff could put a slice of a bulb out and since there is no
parking and include a slice for the bikes to get through and then carry the paint through.
Staff Naclerio said he would look into the option, but it could become costly. He felt that by
narrowing the lanes, you are moving the vehicles away from the people who are trying to make
the turns and that would create a bit of increased visibility and comfort. Ultimately, staff's goals
are to allow vehicles traveling along Robert Davey Jr. Drive to stop or slow in enough time to
allow approaching cars to make the turn.
Commissioner Vargas asked a public speaker - Red Wetherhill - to come to the podium to have
his comments recorded.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,7,"Red Wetherhill stated if he cannot see the driver coming around the corner, it stands to reason
that the driver cannot see him either.
Commissioner Schatmeier explained that he lives in the area and used the road frequently. He
wanted to know about the appeal process. He wondered if this is the first line of appeal or the
last line.
Staff Naclerio stated there was a $100 fee to appeal the decision to the Transportation
Commission and if the appeal is not upheld, they could appeal it to the City Council.
Commissioner Vargas called for the Commission to make a motion.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Bellows
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Wong asked if she opposed the motion due to the need for staff to observe the
intersection in terms of speed and safety how would she proceed or would she include an
amendment.
Staff Naclerio asked if she agreed that the stop sign is not warranted.
Commissioner Wong replied she is in agreement with that, but she wanted staff to observe the
area and monitor the speed levels for safety.
Staff Naclerio asked Commissioner Schatmeier to possibly accept an amendment that states the
Commission does not approve the appeal, but staff would continue to look at ways to improve
the intersection by reducing speeds through installing bulb outs, striping and narrowing lanes.
Commissioner Schatmeier explained that he would be open to amending the motion to include
staff's additional recommendations.
Commissioner Vargas called for the Commission to make a motion and include Staff Naclerio's
recommendations.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Bellows
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
5C.
Encinal High School Interim Pedestrian Improvements
Staff Payne presented a summary of the report.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comment.
Roxanne Brown Garcia, Principal of Encinal High School, was there on behalf of several
stakeholders groups including: PTSA, the Athletic Booster Club and the future Junior Jets, which
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,8,"will accommodate 6th through 8th graders. She recently has taken on the principal position at
Encinal High School, but she is not new to administration. Her goal as an instructional leader is
to keep students, staff and families safe. There are 1,100 students and they share the campus
with a charter school. Whenever possible, she is outside to help youth cross the street along with
two other administrators. At this point, her community needs help and there is an active parent
and the Police Department has stepped up to support the cause. Yet, there is only one resource
officer that is assigned to the youth and the officer has other duties within the City. She
explained that Mr. Juhala has a very clear plan, and she would like the Commission to consider
his thoughts. She also explained that she has worked with Staff Payne and corresponded
frequently with her by email. Since starting at Encinal High School, what worries her is the fact
that she has sent three electronic alerts to families about students being struck by vehicles.
Commissioner Vargas explained that staff received a ten-page document proposal authored by
Mr. Juhala.
Jerry Juhala is the parent of an Encinal High School student and since October 2012 he
volunteers as a crossing guard. He felt that the biggest issue was the congestion caused by cars
entering into the school and the backup of vehicles trying to turn left onto Third Street from the
east and westbound directions of Central Avenue. He mentioned that the City's plans to include
an additional painted line in the crosswalks and the street divider was a good idea. However, the
City's plan to include wheel stops and paint on the southwest corner will only increase
congestion in the area since cars will not be able to get around a driver who wants to turn left
onto Third Street. Additionally, he believed the City's decision to include a painted island near
Taylor Avenue will back up cars heading towards the school as westbound drivers now have less
space when trying to turn left or right onto Third Street. Thus, he came up with five alternative
options which include: 1) make a dedicated left turn lane from westbound Central Avenue onto
Third Street; 2) create a permanent barrier to block traffic from entering and exiting Taylor
Avenue; 3) combine alternative 1 and alternative 2; 4) do not allow left hand turns onto Third
Street going north from Central Avenue, which would be coming from the school; and 5) create a
right turn only lane on Taylor Avenue.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if they looked into Mr. Juhala's suggestions.
Staff Naclerio replied he reviewed his comments and suggestions. At this point, staff is trying to
create a quick interim solution to address the current problem. He believed the solutions
proposed are viable and the next steps would be to meet with the community at large and the
school. He suggested the Commission move ahead with staff recommendations because traffic
must be calmed within the intersection and staff's goal was to queue vehicles to slow them down.
Commissioner Vargas asked Principal Brown Garcia if the City's proposal might create
additional safety issues or changes to the drop off locations.
Roxanne Brown Garcia replied the options made by Jerry are the most viable for them. She
understands the City has limitations, but she would like City staff to meet with her stakeholder
groups and discuss options that work for everyone involved.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,9,"Commissioner Bellows wondered if they went forward with the staff proposition how long would
it take to execute the recommendation and if a documented monitoring program could be put into
place. She felt it would be best to implement staff's recommendations and improve the
recommendations over the summer and have a monitoring program in place by fall to see if
staff's recommendations address a few of the issues.
Staff Naclerio replied that the striping is not done in house so they would have to bid for a
contractor. The process will take 30 days or longer. They wanted to use the wheel stops because
they could be installed in house; however, he was not sure if they want to install them before the
striping.
Commissioner Bellows replied that from her understanding the project could be partially up by
late February and school ends June 7 so that would be roughly three months.
Staff Naclerio replied even with the solutions proposed by Mr. Juhala it would be the same time
limit because the City would need to bid out for a contractor.
Jerry Juhala asked if the City were to put the wheel stops in and they turn out to make the
congestion worse how hard would it be to take them out and keep the striping.
Staff Naclerio replied it would be very simple to take the wheel stops out.
Commissioner Wong understood that this is an interim solution, but she wanted a clear
understanding of the project's timeline for public outreach to quickly move forward.
Staff Naclerio said public outreach would occur over the next couple of months. By September,
the proposal would ideally be in place. Also, Public Works staff would need the Commission's
approval at the July 2013 Transportation Commission meeting.
Commissioner Schatmeier explained the project needs the support of the community. However,
in the previous item, staff accessed the impacts of putting in a stop sign and assessed that step
against warrants. He then asked if staff have applied particular warrants to this proposal.
Staff Naclerio replied that unfortunately there are no warrants and they are putting on their
thinking caps to develop creative solutions while working with the community.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if one of staff's goals is to install a proposal with solid
community input and then when unanticipated results occur withdraw the action.
Staff Naclerio explained that it is the idea to implement the recommendations within the interim
and that is why they want to begin working quickly on community outreach.
Commissioner Wong asked Sergeant Simmons in terms of crossing guards is the department
limited based upon funding.
Sergeant Simmons replied there are designated crossing guards for the Safe Routes to School
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,10,"routes, which are predominately for elementary campuses. Also, they have the School Resource
Officer to assist on the crossing guard duty. Overall, there are 24 crossing guards and they can
only afford 24 within their budget.
Commissioner Wong stated that the Police Department has volunteers and, besides solely having
Mr. Juhala oversee Encinal High School, could volunteer or rotate to other schools.
Staff Naclerio said that he would arrange to meet with the volunteer and policing coordinator to
see if that is a viable option.
Staff Payne acknowledged staff person Allen Ta who walked the area several times. She
mentioned he is eager to work on the project and he took many pictures.
Commissioner Bertken agreed with the motion to approve, but he asked staff to come back to the
next meeting with specific issues addressed by the public and bring an accompanying timetable
to implement the recommended actions.
Commissioner Wong moved to accept staff recommendations with Commissioner Bertken's
amendments. Commissioner Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
5D. Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Payne presented a summary of the report.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked about the actions taken to implement the International Walk and
Roll to School Day in Alameda as part of the Safe Routes to School because he administered
Marin County's Safe Routes to School. He wondered whether there were routes maps and fact
sheets to promote the event.
Staff Payne replied that staff works with the lead project administrator - the Countywide Safe
Routes to School Program. She mentioned that the City of Alameda has one of the oldest Walk
and Roll to School events and all Alameda middle and elementary schools participate throughout
the City. She explained that Public Works staff revise school route maps and distribute a copy of
the map for each student before the event.
5E.
Alameda Paratransit Program Annual Review
Staff Payne presented a summary of the report.
Commissioner Bellows said she was very excited to see that the public could ride the shuttle. Yet,
there is no charge for typical shuttle passengers. She questioned what the resistance would be in
asking the public to pay for the shuttle service if they do not qualify for Paratransit benefits. Her
main concern was that it would be hard to have people pay later when they can start paying now.
Staff Payne explained that charging is a whole other system and they do not have the components
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,11,"in place to accept and process money. The returns would not be very high given the costs
involved in getting the system started.
Commissioner Bellows replied you have to do it at some point.
Staff Payne said they were not expecting to charge passengers, but the idea is on the table and
they may consider it at some point.
Commissioner Bellows reiterated Staff Payne's comments by stating the shuttle has extra
capacity at this time and so why not let other people ride too.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if the shuttle shared stops with Alameda County Transportation
District (AC Transit).
Staff Payne explained that yes, in some cases, they do.
Commissioner Schatmeier believed including benches at the stops should be a priority for City
staff. Additionally, he stated that staff should bid for specific Paratransit-related features and
staff should examine the cost of owning the vehicle.
Staff Payne replied they wanted to own their vehicle because there is $160,000 coming into the
coffers while $170,000 or more is spent each year. The City was requested to spend down
reserves faster and that is why they initiated the shuttle service in the first place. If the City had
their own vehicle, the operating cost per hour would be less and would reduce the overall
expenditures. Furthermore, the Parks and Recreational Department owns their vehicles. A City-
owned Alameda Paratransit Shuttle vehicle could be used for Parks and Recreation programs and
other City purposes. They are in the process of issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the
Alameda Paratransit Shuttle and a low floor, alternative fuel vehicle is within the proposal.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated the bidders should present staff with a price for both vehicles
and staff could then compare the price difference.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff to describe the dark circle on Clinton and Grand on the map
within the staff report.
Staff Payne said that may have been a Google Map error and she is not sure why that it is there.
Commissioner Vargas asked a fiscal and operational question about the purchase of the shuttle.
He felt the idea of owning or leasing versus hiring would create a fiscal commitment because the
operator would become a City employee and would burden the City's payroll.
Staff Payne replied that there are different ways to hire drivers for the shuttle routes. The Parks
and Recreation Department has a part-time City employee. Alternatively, there are agencies out
there that provide drivers.
Staff Payne explained that every year staff applies for pass through monies to the Alameda
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,12,"County Transportation Commission (CTC). Staff takes the list of expenditures to the various
commissions/boards and the City Council approves a resolution, which then goes to Alameda
CTC. The Transportation Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if opening the service to the public justified the continued
operation of the shuttle. He then asked if staff had specific general public ridership goals and if
they do not attain those goals does that mean service is in jeopardy.
Staff Payne explained that the service is fine with or without the public riding the shuttle.
Although it is not a full shuttle, there are transit needs in the City so staff feels that they need to
create more transit options for residents. She said that they have about 500 riders per month and
the operation is deemed cost effective for now.
Commissioner Vargas called for the Commission to make a motion.
Commissioner Bellows moved to accept staff's report. Commissioner Wong seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0.
5F.
Proposed Grant Submittals
Staff Payne presented an update on staff actions.
Commissioner Vargas asked about the outcome of the Priority Development Areas (PDAs) that
did not meet the Alameda CTC requirements. He wondered whether it was because we did not
have enough units constructed.
Staff Payne explained that the PDAs are required to have constructed a certain threshold of units
or have them in the pipeline. Also, staff was not done with the planning and the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for Alameda Point.
Commissioner Vargas asked in regards to the grants that are community oriented do we have the
potential to partner with a non-profit organization so the City can work in partnership with
others.
Staff Payne replied she would look into it. She explained that staff used the transportation project
priority list to select the projects for grant submittal. It was a nice way to see the list coming
together and actually being used.
Commissioner Vargas called for the Commission to make a motion.
Commissioner Wong moved to accept staff's report. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the
motion. The motion was approved 4-0; 1 abstention.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,13,"6.
Staff Communications
AC Transit Line OX- Reconsider Opening to Local Riders
-
Right now local riders are restricted to board during the morning and they will allow
local riders to board during the morning runs beginning in March.
-
Commissioner Schatmeier explained that the Interagency Liaison Committee (ILC)
meeting had the item on the agenda that morning and AC Transit reported they are
working on modifications on the Line 631 local school trip service to adjust the
schedule so school kids will naturally gravitate to that bus line rather than board the
Line OX. This change will allow AC Transit to implement local boardings on Line
OX in the mornings.
Community Input for the Alameda Beltline Design Needed
-
There is going to be two community meetings on Saturday, February 9, 10 am and
Wednesday, February 13, 7 pm, City Hall.
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
-
Residential Appeal of Public Works Staff's Decision to Not Install Street Sweeping
Signs on La Jolla Drive
-
Draft Regional Transit Access Study (RTAS): Overview of Study Corridors, Transit
Demand, and Service Examples, Part II
-
Traffic Control and Contingency Plan during Construction for I-880/29th Ave./23rd
Ave. Interchange Improvement Project in Oakland: Public Information Program and
Transit Impacts.
-
Encinal High School Timeline
-
Transportation-related Capital Improvement Program
-
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Bicycle/Pedestrian Funds
Commissioner Vargas asked staff if they could include discussing next steps on the Measure B2
decision for the March meeting.
Staff Payne replied she has not heard much about next steps so that is why she did not include the
item in the agenda.
Commissioner Bellows exclaimed that from her understanding there was a countywide cap. If
staff could bring any legislative breakthroughs that would be helpful to understand.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-01-23,14,"Commissioner Schatmeier asked what portion of Measure B2 was controversial.
Staff Payne replied the current Measure B ends in year 2022 and Measure B2, which was voted
on last November, did not have a sunset clause. A news article mentioned that some voters felt
that part was controversial.
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
None.
8.
Adjournment
9:10 pm
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 14 of 14",TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-11-16,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 16, 2005
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:40 P.M.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
John Knox White
Robb Ratto (left at 8:20 PM)
Michael Krueger
Jeff Knoth
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier
Absent:
Pattianne Parker
Staff Present:
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Knox White made the correction on the October minutes that Commissioner McFarland
was not absent but late.
Commissioner Schatmeier requested a minor edit on page 8. He noted that it should say ""40%
farebox recovery ratio,"" not ""40% month recovery ratio"".
Commissioner Ratto moved for approval of the October meeting minutes. Commissioner
Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 5 (Commissioner
Krueger abstained).
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Krueger provided an update on the activities of the Pedestrian Plan
Subcommittee. The Pedestrian Plan public workshop was held on November 9th, with about 15
members of the public in attendance. The discussion was based on questions presented by the
subcommittee to help guide the development of policies for the Pedestrian Plan. Topics included
positive and negative characteristics what people of walking environments in Alameda, as well
as tradeoffs that may be required to balance the needs of pedestrians and other modes of traffic.
Commissioner Krueger stated that the next step will be compiling the input into a form that can
be used to develop the draft policies for the Plan. He noted that the subcommittee will solicit",TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-11-16,2,"input from representatives of other boards and commissions at the Pedestrian Plan Task Force
meeting in early December.
Chair Knox White asked for the handout on the proposed Commission meeting dates for 2006 to
be modified to indicate that the November and December meeting dates not be listed as
""alternate"" dates, and that the meetings be held on the third Wednesday of the month for both
November and December to avoid conflicts with holidays. Since there were no objections from
the Commissioners, Chair Knox White asked that the dates for both meetings be finalized.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he has some questions about the process on providing red curb
at bus stops. He presented Staff Hawkins with a list of locations that do not currently have
sufficient red curb and requested an update on this process.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Non-Agenized Items
None
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A. Revised Scope for Shuttle Analysis
Staff Bergman stated that at the October meeting discussed a proposed work scope for
a
consultant to review potential technologies for use in a future shuttle service. The Commission
recommended that a specific project be identified before the technologies be analyzed. Staff has
revised the draft work scope to address the concerns and is bringing it back to the Commission
for comment.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the work scope mentions coordination with the ferry and
BART schedules, but AC Transit should be included as well. He also asked that an analysis of
the fare structure be included in the scope.
Staff Bergman responded that AC Transit would be included in the study, but this was
inadvertently left out of the draft.
Commissioner McFarland wanted to know what level of work is being conducted in terms of
estimating ridership.
Staff Bergman said a technical analysis would not be possible given the size of the project. The
consultant would identify key employers and other stakeholders to help develop some ridership
estimates.
Commissioner Krueger asked if this is an investigative study to access the feasibility of a shuttle
or if a decision has already been made to begin a shuttle program.
Staff Bergman stated that nothing specific has been planned up to this point.",TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-11-16,3,"Commissioner Krueger asked if the study would look at modifying existing bus routes if they
could serve the same purpose as a shuttle.
Staff Bergman indicated that the work scope focused on a shuttle service, but that Alameda staff
and AC Transit staff have discussed this project and would continue to communicate regarding
overlaps in service and ways in which the services might be coordinated.
Commissioner Ratto asked if the shuttle program would focus on service to existing areas.
Staff Bergman answered that the shuttle would be designed to connect BART and downtown
Oakland to Alameda.
Chair Knox White said the scope should define the project as addressing the west end. He also
expressed his concern that there is still not an identified goal, and stated that the consultant
would need to begin with a goal to determine the effectiveness of the proposed program. In
addition, he asked that the scope be modified to include an assessment of the effectiveness of a
limited number of stops, serving primarily longer trips, versus providing more stops and
potentially serving more localized transit use.
Commissioner Krueger moved that the Commission support the work scope prepared by staff,
with the following modifications: 1) primary and secondary objectives need to be clarified, 2)
the project is limited to the west end, 3) the service could include modification of existing
routes that may travel outside of Alameda, 4) there should be consideration of bus frequency in
addition to routes and hours of operation, and 5) analyze the benefits for local versus more
limited stops.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 6.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Bus Shelter Survey
Staff Bergman noted that the draft survey was brought to the Commission on Disability Issues
and that they submitted comments. They expressed concern about the canopy shelters because it
has posts but no walls, which can make it difficult for a visually impaired person to navigate the
sidewalk.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked how the survey would be conducted.
Staff Bergman said would get input from riders, people who live adjacent to the bus stops, and
the group Alamedans for Responsible Transit Shelters (ARTS), which funded some of the
shelters. He stated that the survey would also be posted on the city web site to receive comment
from the larger community. For riders the surveys would have to be distributed and collected at
the shelters.",TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-11-16,4,"Chair Knox White asked that staff contact AC Transit and have them email Alameda riders with
a
link to the survey.
Commissioner Schatmeier mentioned that people who not normally use the bus stop would have
to make a special trip in order to get their opinion of it. Important to survey people
Staff Bergman mentioned that under number 2 we could add in none of the above or other as
an
option for none of the above so that we can tell which people are filling them out.
Commissioner Krueger suggested that rather than listing all of the shelters that they be grouped
by the shelter design, so respondents could comment on a type of shelter. The questions about
the shelters could be asked about each shelter type, instead of each specific location,a nd
respondents could indicate how often they use each shelter type.
Commissioner McFarland asked how the survey would evaluate protection from the weather
when they were just installed in April of this year. He also asked how staff would know if the
shelters are adequate for people with disabilities.
Staff Bergman said that the plan is to distribute the survey in December, so respondents should
have some experience using the shelters in the rain. He also noted that based on feedback from
the Disabilities Commission, staff was planning to include a question about whether people have
a disability, and what type, to see if that perspective is reflected in the survey responses.
Commissioner Ratto asked if the survey could be delayed until the first week in January. He
noted that six new shelters on Park Street are about to be installed, and this would allow people
the opportunity to comment on them.
Staff Hawkins said that Public Works had made a commitment to the Planning Board to issue the
survey in October, but had been delaying it to get input on how effective the different shelters are
in the rainy season. She indicated that waiting until January should not be a problem.
Public Comment
Mr. Spangler supported delaying the survey until January. He suggested that the questions about
the color and style be separated from the usage of the shelter. He also recommended that the
survey enable people to better describe likes and dislikes, and to evaluate other amenities at the
stops, such as trash cans.
Close Public Comment
Chair Knox White recommended that questions be divided into ridership questions and
community questions, as this would help to separate the issues of how well the shelters meet the
needs of transit riders and the impacts that different shelter designs have on the neighborhood.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that the survey should help with the decision about how many
more shelters would be purchased and how to pay for them.",TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-11-16,5,"Chair Knox White stated that ARTS is interested in doing additional fundraising to purchase
more shelters.
Staff Hawkins said that six shelters from ARTS cost approximately $22,000 and maintenance has
been budgeted for $40,000 for the year. This includes replacing broken glass panes and
removing graffiti. A monitoring report looking at such issues will be presented to the Planning
Board.
Chair Knox White asked that the monitoring report be presented to the Transportation
Commission, since this would address the effectiveness of the shelters.
Staff Hawkins said that the Council has asked that the report be sent only to the Planning Board.
7B.
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Consultant Work Activity
Staff Bergman said that on November 2nd the Circulation Task Force had their most recent
meeting. Suggested to bring a consultant in to review the draft materials and bring back to the
task force for review. Get input from the Commission on what should be in the work scope for
the consultant work.
Public Comment
Irene Dieter stated Oak Street has been identified as a primary bicycle route and the proposed
garage location is in direct conflict with this. She stated that in the 2002 Part Street Streetscape
and Town Center Project, in which Mr. Krueger and Mr. Ratto participated, Oak Street was not a
recommended traffic corridor, but instead proposed that Oak Street between Lincoln and Central
be redesigned as a pedestrian plaza with no curbs and limited traffic. She also state that a
parking garage was never recommended at the corner of Oak and Central. She urged the
Transportation Commission to write a letter to the Development Services Department stating that
this garage location is in conflict with the goals of the transportation plan.
Mr. Spangler distributed his recommended revisions to the previous draft of the Circulation Plan.
He stated that the Pedestrian Plan Workshop was very informative. Mr. Spangler suggested that
a key idea underlying the Circulation Plan should be that every other mode should enhance and
improve pedestrian transportation and safety, including disability access and connectivity. He
also expressed his support for Ms. Dieter's comments regarding the recommended uses for Oak
Street, and noted that several participants at the Pedestrian Plan workshop advocated for
pedestrian plazas.
Close Public Comment
Commission Krueger asked if the Circulation Subcommittee considered how the parking garage
would impact on the street classifications.",TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-11-16,6,"Chair Knox White responded that one purpose of the classification is to help define street design.
He stated that the Circulation Subcommittee chose not to identify Oak as a collector or arterial,
which could encourage the expansion of lanes, and noted that the Circulation Plan includes no
volume limits for streets. He said that the classification of 8th Street poses a similar issue, and the
subcommittee chose to classify it as a collector to indicate that the street should not be
redesigned to encourage additional through traffic. He suggested that it may be appropriate to
use different terminology if that is causing confusion. He also noted that while it is not reflected
on the map, that the subcommittee recommends classifying Oak as a priority pedestrian street.
Commissioner Knoth asked for clarification on the pedestrian map.
Chair Knox White stated that the pedestrian zones were not identified as a way to indicate
pedestrian routes, but as a way to identify priority areas where funding should be targeted. He
emphasized that the map is only an initial draft, and that the Pedestrian Subcommittee should
hopefully use this as a starting point.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he hoped the role of the consultant is to evaluate the
Subcommittee's proposals from a technical standpoint and to look at the consequences of those
decisions, and not to question the intent of the Subcommittee.
Commissioner Knoth asked what staff's concerns are about the Subcommittee's
recommendations, and what staff would like to see the consultant do.
Staff Bergman said that staff's concerns were mostly related to some of the issues already
discussed, such as the classifications of Park Street and Webster Street as minor arterials, and 8th
Street, and that the definitions do not fit the standard definition of collector and local. He noted
that the consultant work scope has not yet been drafted, and that staff is looking for input from
the Commission.
Staff Hawkins stated that part of the problem was how the process was set up, that Subcommittee
and the task force would meet but other department would not have a chance to comment until
after it went through all the boards and commissions.
Chair Knox White disagreed, stating said that in the first part of the Circulation Plan, the draft
material was routed to staff for comment prior to being presented to the other boards and
commissions. What are the goals of the consultant.
Staff Hawkins said that the goals are to look at the work. Lots of it was based on the personal
experience and living in the city, whereas the consultant can draw upon on work they have done
in other areas. They can look at the concerns raised by the Subcommittee and staff and draw on
their experience resolving similar issues elsewhere.
7C.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Call For Projects
Staff Hawkins referred to four handouts that had been distributed: 1) the calendar on how to
proceed with the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), 2) a list of the carry over projects, 3) a list",TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-11-16,7,"of the unfunded projects, and 4) a sample CIP project priority ranking sheet. She noted that the
upcoming CIP will include only the one-time capital projects and the annual projects will be
removed. Staff Hawkins requested input on the unfunded projects and other improvements that
the Commission would support including in the CIP. She noted that projects would be evaluated
in December to determine if proposed projects rank high enough to move forward in the process.
Chair Knox White asked if there is a description of the projects.
Staff Hawkins said that if there are any questions about specific projects to contact her.
Commissioner Krueger asked what was included in the Bus Stop Accessibility Improvement
Phase II.
Staff Hawkins stated that December 16 is the deadline for input on the projects, and that there
will be three public meetings through the CIP process, one on Bay Farm Island, one on the East
End, and one on the West End.
Commissioner Krueger moved to continue this item on the December 14th meeting.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 5.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Hawkins stated that staff has been working on resolving the issue of the disputed bus stop
near Lum School. She said that Public Works staff spoke with the Alameda Police Department
about potentially working with the crossing guards at Lum School to not have the children cross
the street while a bus is stopped. However, staff has received a number of letters from residents
and the crossing guards at Lum School asking that the bus stop not be re-established. She said
that this will be brought to the Technical Transportation Team (TTT), and that the Commission
would be notified as to the date of that meeting.
Commissioner Krueger asked if there were any alternative locations for that bus stop.
Staff Hawkins said that staff did look at other sites, but there are a number of driveways in that
area, so it is hard to find an area that has the length needed for the bus stop. As a result, there
would be a potential loss of on-street parking if an alternative site is chosen.
Chair Knox White had talked with the mayor and requested to have a joint Transportation
Commission/City Council meeting for sometime before the end of January. He said that the
purpose would be to receive some feedback from the Council on their work to date and guidance
on future directions for the Commission.
Staff Bergman mentioned that Tuesday, December 13, the Cross Alameda Trail Steering
Committee will be holding a public workshop from 6-8:30 p.m. at the College of Alameda in the
library.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM.",TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf
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
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
TransportationCommission,2014-04-23,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes:
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
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:
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Thomas G. Bertken
Michele Bellows
Gregory Morgado
Members Absent:
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Eric Schatmeier
Staff Present:
Staff Haun, Public Works Director
Staff Patel, Transportation Engineer
Staff Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
Commissioner Vargas said the Commission had not reached a quorum. So, they would vote on
the Consent Calendar items in May. He also requested a moment of silence for the pedestrian
killed by an auto on Otis Drive a few weeks ago. Moreover, he said he attended the National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NATCO) meeting in Oakland and found that
Caltrans embraced the organization's mission. Additionally, he reported that they were the third
state to adopt the NATCO policies for transportation, bikeways and all modes.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow, Alameda Resident, referred to the last Commission meeting and the presentation
on the I-880 project. He exclaimed that the project manager's only goal was to move people into
Alameda. However, his goal was to ask the Commission to search for funds to assist the
overlooked needs of Alameda commuters. Thus, he requested that the Commission ask for a
Traffic Study along the 23rd and 29th at Fruitvale Avenue and High Street intersections. He felt
the Commission should request a formal traffic study to consider movements into and out of
Alameda. If Alameda County Transportation Commission decides against it then the City should
fund it for their own purposes. Ultimately, he would like this topic included as a future agenda
item.
Commissioner Vargas asked Jim Strehlow if he wanted the study to review the changes during",TransportationCommission/2014-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-04-23,2,"Page 2 of 7
construction or after construction.
Jim Strehlow said if the study could happen soon and the numbers found after construction are
worth acknowledging, then the City could ask for the problems to be rectified.
Commissioner Vargas replied that the Commission could look into inserting this topic into a
future agenda item when they arrive at Item 6A.
Staff Payne stated that the Alameda Police Department will hold a pedestrian safety walk event
on Saturday, May 3 from the two Alameda ferry terminals and ending at City Hall. She said that
interested parties should register at the following link: http://www.eventbrite.com/o/alameda
police-department-6132421551?s=22507629
4.
Consent Calendar
4A.
Meeting Minutes - Special Meeting - Wednesday, December 11, 2013
4B.
Meeting Minutes - Wednesday, January 22, 2014
4C.
Meeting Minutes - March 26, 2014
5.
New Business
5A. Draft Transportation Demand Management Plan for Alameda Point
Andrew Thomas, Alameda City Planner, presented and requested that the Commission provide
recommendations for the plan.
Commissioner Vargas stated that a draft went before the Planning Commission recently. He
wanted to know the draft's revisions and highlights since going before the board.
Andrew Thomas replied that the document was reorganized to show a clear and concise
perspective as well as clarifying how the City would require new development to comply with
the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policy. He noted that the TDM policy was
neither optional nor negotiable.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Jim Strehlow said he attended the Planning Board meeting and one of the board members said
the contribution for the TDM did not seem to add up. He concluded that the average household
would spend $90 to travel from Alameda Point to Oakland or Berkeley via public transit each
month. Thus, they should reach for the $90 figure as a TDM tax. Moreover, he felt the
alternative travel mode wish list was quite aggressive. Staff should think of residents' minimal
needs for the plan to be justifiable.
Commissioner Bellows referred to page 4 of the memo, where a residence averaging $370,000",TransportationCommission/2014-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-04-23,3,"Page 3 of 7
market value would be required to pay $3,000 a year plus $200 a year. She felt the tax was fairly
high and she wanted to know the foundation for choosing the value.
Andrew Thomas stated that the tax could be adjusted over time as they would do for any project.
However, staff's challenge was balancing major operation and capital costs for Alameda Point.
The easiest way to cover this heavy burden was to distribute the cost the best way possible.
Commissioner Bellows replied that she understood the need to pay for operation and capital
costs. However, if a resident has a $300,000 house and must pay the property tax and special
TDM tax, there is no mechanism on how to cap the costs. Additionally, she found no
information on how the fee was derived.
Andrew Thomas replied that the amount was derived from taking the total burden that the City
would expect on a residential unit and each residential unit would pay for transportation and
municipal expenses.
Commissioner Bellows replied so that is the gross burden for all public needs.
Andrew Thomas stated yes. The annual taxes are $200 for the TDM plan and $3,000 for
municipal expenses for a residential unit totaling $370,000.
Commissioner Bellows replied so instead of paying a 1 percent tax, residents would pay a 2
percent tax. Additionally, she remembered that there was an issue with the structure of the
school tax, which was levied differently between businesses and homes. She wondered if the
issue was relevant in this case.
Andrew Thomas stated that there is no legal issue because the City owns the land. Therefore,
from a Planning perspective the City is the owner of the land and the City can impose certain
conditions and requirements when selling the land to individuals who are aware of the proposed
tax.
Commissioner Bellows wondered if there would be a tax cap on the TDM plan.
Andrew Thomas replied that the cap would work similar to a negotiation and the developer
would agree to an assessment. He said once the special district is established, the City could
reassess the area to see if the tax worked.
Commissioner Bellows asked if the assessed value decreased would the rates decrease as well.
Andrew Thomas said staff discussed this issue and Commissioner Bellows is correct.
Commissioner Bertken asked if the document becomes part of the environmental document.
Andrew Thomas replied yes, the plan becomes part of it.
Commissioner Bertken referred to the number of different policies for reducing vehicle miles",TransportationCommission/2014-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-04-23,4,"Page 4 of 7
traveled and one is using the ferry. He viewed the importance of the ferry based on the current
increase to ferry patronage and that has caused parking issues.
Andrew Thomas said that the ferry system was an important component to Alameda Point. The
capital improvements to extend BART and the freeway system are more costly than extending
the ferry service from Alameda to areas such as San Francisco and South San Francisco.
Commissioner Morgado asked about the timeframe for the total build out.
Andrew Thomas stated that the build out estimate is 20-30 years, but it depends on the economy
and commercial development, which generally takes longer.
Commissioner Bertken wondered if the 80-acre development discussed earlier would be phased
as each developer acquires land.
Andrew Thomas replied yes.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the specific infrastructure tax that is being levied on the
taxpayer.
Andrew Thomas replied there are a lot of infrastructure needs such as the sea level rise perimeter,
open space system and fire building. The City will have the developers pay their share for this
detailed infrastructure.
Commissioner Vargas said he wanted to know the timing of the plan relative to the guidelines to
be consistent with the plan's performance measures. He also encouraged the easiest and most
effective options to be implemented to reduce vehicle trips. He also wondered if the plan does
not meet the intended reductions could staff implement the plan citywide. The TDM plan should
list the regional agencies that are included in the TMA, and should clarify it.
Commissioner Vargas called for a motion.
Commissioner Bertken made a motion to approve the item. Commissioner Morgado
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.",TransportationCommission/2014-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-04-23,5,"Page 5 of 7
5B. Next Steps of the Federal Transportation Administration Grant Funds for Improving
Transit Access to and from Alameda Point
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Bertken said last spring he was using AC Transit's Line W two days a week and
he was annoyed by the lack of a queue lane along Webster Street north of Atlantic Avenue.
Commissioner Bellows asked if the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) monies had an
expiration date.
Staff Payne replied yes there is expiration and they requested an extension. Staff Payne also
explained that BART allowed an extension until December 31, 2015.
Commissioner Bellows asked if the queue jump design was currently under design.
Staff Payne replied yes it is under design and they have at least 65 percent of the construction
drawn out.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if the project would be fully funded.
Staff Payne replied yes. Also, she explained that Commissioner Vargas presented an idea which
would give the queue jump lane the first in line for construction.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff about the Cross Alameda Trail and the timing of the
construction.
Staff Payne replied the funds have to be used by December 31, 2015.
Commissioner Bellows stated that measure B monies typically are used within a couple of years.
She wanted to know if the plan is fully funded or easily phased because the ultimate goal is to
get the trail to Alameda Point.
Staff Payne replied yes.
Commissioner Vargas called for a motion.
Commissioner Bellows made a motion to approve the item. Commissioner Morgado
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.",TransportationCommission/2014-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-04-23,6,"Page 6 of 7
5C.
Transportation Grant Applications: Transportation Development Act, Active
Transportation Program and TIGER
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff if the budgeted amount for the Transportation Development
Act (TDA) monies is not fully used for the project would the monies go back into the City's
reserve.
Staff Payne replied yes.
Commissioner Morgado asked if the bicycle parking was in the form of boxes.
Staff Payne replied yes as well as bicycle racks.
Commissioner Vargas asked about the bicycle counts and wondered if the counts would be
conducted by electronic devices or human counters.
Staff Payne replied that the project would go out to bid with a contractor and traditionally they
have multiple individuals conducting the bicycle counts at each intersection for the turning
movements.
Commissioner Vargas called for a motion.
Commissioner Bertken made a motion to approve the TDA item. Commissioner
Morgado seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.
Staff Payne presented the remaining portions of the report.
Commissioner Vargas asked about the dollar amount for constructing the trail along the Jean
Sweeney Open Space.
Staff Payne replied that they are in the middle of developing the detailed cost estimate, but the
cost may go up to $2 million for the total stretch. Furthermore, the cost includes the section near
the Starbucks, which is tricky because it is a constrained space.
Commissioner Vargas asked if the funds are for studies or construction.
Staff Payne replied that the grant is for construction.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff if construction along the intersection is the next phase from
what the Commission voted on regarding pedestrian safety and crosswalks.
Staff Payne replied that this would be the long-term solution of construction.",TransportationCommission/2014-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-04-23,7,"Page 7 of 7
Commissioner Vargas asked staff and the Commission what could be done to increase the
chances of receiving the funds. He acknowledged that if staff received letters of support from
public agencies or other supporters that would help.
Staff Payne stated that they received support letters from Congresswoman Barbara Lee and
various assembly members.
Commissioner Bellows felt staff should have a better chance of receiving funds because the
application was submitted at a previous time and the grantors like to see persistence.
6.
Staff Communications
6A.
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
- Next Transportation Commission meeting will be held Wednesday, May 28
- Presentation on Line W by AC Transit
- Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA)
- Quarterly report
- Pedestrian Safety Program
- Voting on all Meeting Minutes
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Jim Strehlow asked for funding to repair the bikeways and walkways approaching Bay Farm
Island. Also, he announced the annual Bike to Work Day on Thursday, May 8 and Bike Walk
Alameda will have Energizer Stations at various locations from 6:30 am to 9:30 am.
8.
Adjournment
8:30 pm",TransportationCommission/2014-04-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
May 23, 2007
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier
Srikant Subramaniam
Absent:
Jeff Knoth
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
April 25, 2007
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that his intent was to ask if the garage could be used as a park
and ride lot.
Commissioner Krueger noted that on page 12, his intent was for staff to contact the appellant to
make better use of existing off-street parking.
b.
March 28, 2007
Staff Khan noted that staff would review the tapes, and if there was a difference between the
tapes and the stated intent of the Commissioners, they would bring the minutes back to the
Commission.
Commissioner Ratto advised that the unanimous vote was indicated to be 4-0, and that it should
be 5-0.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved approval of the minutes for the March and April meeting
minutes. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 with Commissioner
McFarland abstaining.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 1 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,2,"4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
a. Multimodal Circulation Plan
b. Pedestrian Plan
c. TSM/TDM Plan
Chair Knox White requested that CalTrans report on the I-880 projects.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
There were none.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Review and Provide Comment on Harbor Bay Village VI Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) Outcome: Review DEIR and provide comments to be
forwarded to Planning Board.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report and summarized the scope and layout of this project.
Staff developed a list of concerns regarding the project:
1. Page 3.12-17: The DEIR notes that the City's adopted Bicycle Master Plan includes a
proposed trail connection from Catalina Avenue to North Loop Road at the end of
Island Drive. This connection is not being recommended for inclusion in the project.
2. Impacts on transit service are addressed by the EIR only in terms of whether the
existing transit service could accommodate the anticipated riders from the project.
They did not consider what kind of demand could be generated from whether the
transit service should be modified to directly serve the project, with over 100 units
there. The nearest existing bus stops to the transit service would be approximately
2000 feet from the development.
3. Page 2-8: The DEIR incorrectly refers to the lines that are serving the area.
4. Page 3.12-18: Discusses impacts on traffic capacity, and the DEIR states that there
would not be significant traffic capacity impacts based on the data presented in the
DEIR.
5. The report was not accurate with regard to the intersection of Harbor Bay Parkway
and South Loop Road. The intersection is currently at Level of Service F during the
AM and PM peaks. The City's threshold of significance at intersections operating at
LOS E or F in the baseline scenario is an increase in delay of four or more seconds.
6. The DEIR indicates that to mitigate the impacts, the proposed project would
contribute toward the Harbor Bay Business Park Traffic Impact Fund, which in turn
would fund the signals when they are determined to be needed. However, the TIF
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 2 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,3,"monies would not cover the developer's pro rata share for any new signals. This
would be funded separately and independently as project impact mitigations.
7. Table 3.12-6: There is a projected increase in delay from 280.9 seconds to 328.2
seconds during the AM peak, although there is no increase expected during the PM
peak. According to 3.1207, delay during the AM peak is projected to increase from
648.3 seconds to 747.6 seconds. Delay during the PM peak is projected to increase
from 431.5 seconds to 912.1 seconds, which exceeds the City's threshold of
significance.
8. Page 3.12-16 (TR-2): The DEIR indicates that if the intersections of Harbor Bay
Parkway at North Loop Road and South Loop Road, and at Harbor Bay Parkway at
South Loop Road and B Street, it is expected that traffic signals would eventually be
required should further development occur. The DEIR states that the project would
pay towards these signals as part of the TIF, but it should be more specific that this
will be a pro rata share based on the project impacts. The TIF monies would not
cover the developer's pro rata share for any new signals, and they would need to be
funded independently as project impact mitigations.
9.
Mitigation Measure TR-2.1: This discusses only the signal at the intersection of
Harbor Bay Parkway and North Loop and South Loop.
10. Table S-1: Summarizes the mitigation measures also does not mention the signal at
Harbor Bay Parkway and South Loop and B.
11. The developer must pay the Citywide Developer Fee to mitigate for cumulative
impacts associated with the project.
Staff recommends that the Transportation Commission review the DEIR for the Harbor Bay
Village VI, and provide comments, which will be forwarded to the Planning Board. Staff
Bergman projected the project map on the overhead screen.
Chair Knox White invited comment from the AC Transit representatives. They had no comment.
Chair Knox White recommended that because this change would require a General Plan
Amendment, from commercial-business to residential, and that as such it represented a
significant change in policy, which is the purview of the Transportation Commission to make
recommendations on. Before the DEIR moves forward, he requested that policy change for the
General Plan be brought to the Transportation Commission for comments on the transportation
issues.
Commissioner Krueger noted that would presuppose a change to the General Plan.
Commissioner Ratto requested that because Item 7A would entail a lengthy discussion, that the
Transportation Commission hear Item 7B first, and then return to Item 7A.
Chair Knox White agreed with Commissioner Ratto's suggestion, and postponed the discussion
until Item 7A has been heard.
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 3 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,4,"7B.
AC Transit Line 51 Task Force. Outcome: Review Line 51 data and provide
comments to staff.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and noted that bus bunching along the 51 Line is being
addressed by the task force assembled by AC Transit. He described the route of Line 51 and
noted that it had the highest patronage in the AC Transit system, with approximately 22,000
boardings daily. Headways were generally eight to 10 minutes, and running time changes would
be implemented in June, which would add nine minutes of running time during the afternoon
peak period in the southbound direction, and eight minutes in the northbound direction. The
operating speed would be approximately nine miles per hour, which is 25% slower than the
district system average. The additional running time would require an additional two vehicles to
meet the scheduled service frequency. He described the makeup of the task force, and noted that
several variables were examined, including running time, boardings, service deployment
policies, AC Transit service policies, using the TRB Transit Capacity and Quality of Service
Manual. The staff report indicated what tasks had been completed to date, as well as the future
items to be examined. The statistical baseline would be developed; service delivery options
would be identified; and service design options would be examined. He detailed the attachments
distributed to the Commission.
Tony Bruzzone, AC Transit, noted that their Board requested that they look into this problem,
and added that it was not a new problem. He noted that they were engaged in new data
collection. They intended to have AC Transit staff ride the buses with a laptop, inputting every
delay that occurs to identify the specific causes. He noted that was an intensive effort that would
take about two months, and that they will collect the data after Labor Day. This will allow the
new schedule to be implemented, and avoid data collection during the summer when ridership is
lower.
Chair Knox White noted that the Task Force was a staff body, not a public body. He noticed that
the plan did not identify a deliverable, which was the identification of existing problems.
Mr. Bruzzone confirmed that was part of the statistical baseline, and noted that the formal work
plan included deliverables that were not included in the summary.
Commissioner Krueger noted that since 1998, there had been a brief improvement before it slid
back. He believed there should be some permanent monitoring, and inquired about AC Transit's
commitment to ongoing monitoring.
Mr. Bruzzone replied that the section on service delivery addressed that issue, and noted that the
Board was very interested in getting good data on a consistent basis. He added that there was an
ongoing discussion about what the benchmarks should be.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the discussion about running time under ""Measurable
Objectives"" read, ""While in motion, the average speed of the bus is 9.9 miles an hour."" He
inquired whether it discounted dwell time. He inquired what the average speed was, including
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 4 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,5,"stops. Mr. Bruzzone noted that the average speed does not include dwell time, but does include
stops for traffic signals and other stops not associated with loading and unloading passengers.
Commissioner Krueger noted that Exhibit 1 discussed magnetic stripe payment systems, and
inquired about the comparison between Translink reader systems and the magnetic stripes. Mr.
Bruzzone noted that when they work, the Translink reader systems were faster, and added that
magnetic stripes were extremely slow. He noted that on Spare the Air Day, when fares were not
collected, an MCI bus took 3.2 seconds per passenger to board; paying passengers increased the
time to 8 seconds per passenger.
Chair Knox White inquired about the percent of on-time performance (OTP) under ""Line 51 Best
Practices."" He was surprised at how well the 51 seemed to be doing at 67.8%, and noted that as a
regular rider of the line, he did not perceive that to be the case. Mr. Bruzzone noted that on-time
performance consisted of being within five minutes of the scheduled time. Chair Knox White
inquired whether OTP included stops at the early part of the route.
Puja Sarna of AC Transit replied that it was for the full day. He inquired whether OTP was
measured at some key spots such as 12th and Broadway during certain times of the day. He did
not perceive that OTP figure as being representative of the performance at the key spots. He
noted that he frequently hears complaining about the route in downtown Oakland. Ms. Sarna
noted the OTP averaged the data from the entire day. She noted that they could make a range of
OTP at the same points, and noted that during the next data collection effort, they would have
traffic checkers at certain points along the route, checking to see how far apart the headways
would be, as well as what the lead times would be. They could match the OTP to those same
points during different times of the day. She noted that the data was skewed with the 6 - 8 a.m.
data, and 10 p.m. to midnight data, which would be much more on-time than peak times.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that when he used the 51, he would ride into Oakland in mid-
morning, and return to Alameda about 7:30-8:00 p.m. and found the service to be reliable at that
time. He acknowledged that the traffic congestion at that time was not as bad, and crush loads
were not being carried.
Mr. Bruzzone noted that the measure of on-time performance was minus 1/plus 5, and that a bus
on a 10-minute headway drops back five minutes, that would create a big gap. If the follower bus
was up one minute, there would be only four minutes between buses, leading to bunching. They
would also examine headway adherence, as well as running times.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the fact that the line was being observed would have an
impact on the on-time performance. Mr. Bruzzone noted that was a good point, but they did not
observe that. He noted that performance does change with manual traffic checkers, but not with
an APC unit. He noted that some traffic checkers board with tickets so they would not be
apparent to the driver as a traffic checker.
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 5 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,6,"Public Comment
Kathi Young noted that she has ridden transit in locations such as Seattle, Florida, New Orleans
and Hawaii, and with the exception of Orange County, she had not seen a route as bad as the 51.
She noted that she had recently seen four 51 buses sitting at the Berkeley Amtrak station, which
all left together. She would like to know what AC Transit planned to do to change the situation.
Closed Public Comment
Chair Knox White believed the plan would be effective in identifying the problems and creating
a plan to mitigate them. He complimented those involved in creating the plan. He believed the
data should clearly illustrate the extent of the problem. He inquired whether the satcomm data
could be used to calculate on-time performance in a meaningful way. He suggested that UC
Berkeley be contacted to see whether students could perform that work.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the data did not tell the Commission why the problems
exist.
Mr. Bruzzone acknowledged that both were needed, and that understanding the problem and
having a way to collect the data in the present and in the future were both very important
components. He noted that after problems are resolved or eased, they often backslide because of
a lack of monitoring in the future.
In response to an inquiry by Staff Khan whether AC Transit was examining a correlation with
congestion, Mr. Bruzzone confirmed that was the case. In the last five years, they had added five
vehicles to the afternoon peak to meet schedule and to reduce headway.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier whether a Rapid bus could be added, Mr.
Bruzzone replied that there were several options:
1.
Rapid, which would be difficult to run on College and Broadway. The City of
Berkeley has told them they would be interested in implementing a peak period
towaway lane in the right lane, which would be similar to the diamond lanes used on
San Francisco city streets. He believed that would make a big difference on
University Avenue.
2. Limited, for which the bus would stop at a reduced number of locations, and
3. A/B stop buses, for which some buses would be designated ""A"" or ""B"", and stops
would be designated, for A buses, B buses, or both.
Chair Knox White inquired whether it would make sense to extend the 51 to Fruitvale. Mr.
Bruzzone noted that the line is currently very long, and they were originally going to cut it at
Berkeley Amtrak and combine it with the Shattuck bus. They also considered cutting it off at
other points.
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 6 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,7,"Commissioner Krueger noted that he would like to see the ridership potential to Fruitvale
examined.
Mr. Bruzzone noted that there was concern about the impact of the opening and closing of the
bridges on operations.
No action was taken.
Public Comment
There were no speakers.
Close public comment.
Item 7A (continued)
Chair Knox White noted that the Transportation Commission was limited in its comments as to
the adequacy of this DEIR.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the Commission would be able to comment on the
transportation design and impacts of this project.
Chair Knox White noted that the DEIR addressed the impacts. He added that the future plan and
the design of the project were not part of this item, and inquired whether the TC will be able to
comment on the improvement plans once they are prepared.
Staff Khan noted that was not usually done, but if the Commission requested it, he would be
amenable to providing that.
A discussion of the baselines and their time horizons ensued.
Commissioner Ratto inquired why the proposed bike connection described in the Bicycle Master
Plan would not be implemented. He strongly supported the bike connection. Staff Khan replied
that was also a major comment made by staff, and that they would like to push for it as well.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto whether any appeals had been filed by
neighbors, Staff Khan replied that staff submitted the comments in September/October 2006,
they received the administrative draft, made comments and found that those comments were not
incorporated in the revised DEIR. He noted that staff is working with the consultant to resolve
these concerns; they should be addressed by early June.
With respect to level of service, Commissioner Ratto noted that the second paragraph of TR-1
(page 3.12-16) stated, ""Because the proposed project would not affect existing level of service at
any of the 13 intersections in the study area, the impact to intersection level of service would be
less than significant."" He noted that when an intersection has an existing level of service of F,
and it was slightly changed, he supposed that would be somewhat true. He believed that a 15-
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 7 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,8,"minute wait, more than double the existing wait time, at an intersection was definitely a
significant impact even though the starting point is LOS F; he believed that kind of analysis did
not make sense.
Chair Knox White noted that he was very pleased with the staff comments.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he found it difficult to believe that the intersection of South
Loop Road and Harbor Bay Parkway could be LOS F. He had spoken at the City Council
meeting about the peak hour traffic congestion as a result of Amelia Earhart School, which
impacted intersections 9, 10, 11 and 12. He noted that those intersections were close to gridlock
during peak hours, sometimes taking 15 minutes to clear.
Commissioner Ratto noted that he questioned the validity of all the tables, and did not know
where all the numbers came from. He referred to the baseline chart, which stated that intersection
#10 (Island Drive/Maitland Drive) would not be affected by the project. He found that very
difficult to believe, and inquired how the drivers would get to the main island.
Staff Khan noted that Table 3.12-5 defined the trip distribution, and that staff would ask the
applicants to include a map or sketch showing trip distribution by location instead of just a list.
Commissioner Ratto remarked that he was very concerned about the data, as well as the bicycle
issue and not having any access to Island Drive. He cited the paragraph under TR-4 (3-12.17),
which read, ""The proposed project would not have a significant adverse effect on pedestrian,
bicycle or transit facilities.
However, due to the sensitive nature of this proposal, this
connection has not been included in this analysis and would not be required as mitigation."" He
was very concerned about that language, and did not believe it was meaningful; he requested
staff to address that issue as a primary concern.
Commissioner Krueger noted the section on transit, bicycle and pedestrian impacts read, ""A
project would result in a significant transit, bicycle and/or pedestrian impact if its
implementation would conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs."" It continued to say in
TR-4 that they would knowingly conflict with the Bicycle Master Plan. He believed they were
producing a significant impact by blatantly conflicting with an existing policy, and stressed that
it was not consistent.
Chair Knox White noted that he was surprised that there was only a 30.9 second wait in the
morning peak. In response to his inquiry regarding the peak hours, Commissioner McFarland
stated that the data were collected in June 2006, which was after the school year had concluded.
Chair Knox White believed that was a significant methodological flaw, and added that data from
the school year should be included. He suggested that 9 through 12 were not correct.
Commissioner Ratto believed the methodology should be examined, and believed that an average
of school times and nonschool times would be misleading.
Commissioner Subramaniam noted that 3.12-5 stated ""when school was in session.""
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 8 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,9,"Chair Knox White believed the numbers were incorrect.
Staff Khan noted that the city had no intersection counts, and that it will be collecting that data as
part of the TMP project.
Chair Knox White believed the motion should include all staff comments. Commissioner Ratto
concurred with that statement.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the report referred to long-discontinued lines 43 and 69. He
added that there was also a passage on 3.12-17 that stated, ""AC Transit is planning additional bus
service along North Loop Road."" He did not believe that was accurate, and that the report should
be modified to reflect this.
Staff Khan noted that the reason for the staff comment was related to pedestrian access to transit,
and that staff wanted connectivity to the bus stop.
With respect to the cumulative level of service in the AM peak hours of 13.8 seconds, and the
cumulative plus the project was 13.7, Commissioner Ratto inquired how the project would
decrease the delay at that intersection.
Commissioner Ratto noted that with respect to TR-5 regarding parking, it appeared that there
would be 208 covered spaces for the units. He inquired whether there would be any garages.
Staff Khan replied that the project would provide off-street parking, which would include garages
or other parking schemes off the street. Each house would have two parking spaces, which was
the genesis of the 208 number.
Commissioner Ratto noted that the City had requested 0.5 guest spaces per unit to be provided.
He believed that adequate guest parking was very important, and that if it was not provided,
guests would park in areas that could impede emergency vehicle response times. He believed
that was a reprehensible recommendation.
Chair Knox White suggested that comment be included in its own motion.
Chair Knox White noted that with respect to trip distribution, he was surprised that Ron Cowan
Parkway was assumed to be the key road, given that it currently is so lightly used.
Chair Knox White noted that 3.12-17 read, ""Also, any proposed sound walls would need to be
properly designed so as not to restrict visibility."" He believed that discussion about sound walls
should be removed, and added that the Planning Board and City Council had determined that
sound walls would not be utilized. He recommended that the discussion of sound walls be
removed from the document.
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 9 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,10,"Chair Knox White discussed the project in terms of the seven EIR policies recommended by the
TC and accepted by City Council. He noted that the project did not conflict with first three EIR
policies (no extra lanes, no widening of intersections, and speed limits not above 25 mph). Policy
4 stated that all EIRs need to analyze bike, ped and transit. He noted that this DEIR did not do
that, and it specifically stated that the effects on levels of service and the ability to use would
conflict with adopted policies. He noted that there was no analysis, and that it was completely
inadequate on that level. Regarding Policy 5, he noted that the only place the mitigations could
get in the way is transit, but that cutting down the level of service problems at some of the
intersections would benefit transit in this case.
Chair Knox White noted that EIR Policy 6 addressed the use of TDM to mitigate, and that there
was no discussion of TDM in this proposal whatsoever. He believed that if this project were to
move forward it must include, as part of the mitigation to the actual traffic it would create, some
kind of ferry passes or transit accommodations. He noted that the bike/pedestrian connection
between North Loop Road and Catalina was not included despite it being part of an adopted City
plan. He believed the project should also be required to include a transit connection between the
two streets. He believed the recommendation should include some mitigation looking at the
buses between Catalina and North Loop, along with bikes and pedestrians. He noted that any
road built for emergency vehicle access should be able accommodate transit as well.
Commissioner Ratto noted that the return trips at Intersection 5 indicated that the people using
the inbound route would not be returning. He did not believe those numbers made sense, and
wondered if the rest of the numbers should be questioned as well.
Chair Knox White believed from a transportation perspective, and in particular from
a
pedestrian/bike/transit perspective, this was about the worst project that could have been
developed. He was concerned that if the project was built, everyone would drive because the
alternative modes of transportation would not be feasible to use.
Staff Khan believed that number was the result of a Synchro software that analyzed the
intersection LOS, and believed if they subtracted the volume for #5 instead of adding them.
Commissioner Krueger believed that if the project were to go forward, the only way it would
make sense would be to completely reorient it so that everything was connected to Catalina. He
believed they should try to integrate it into the existing neighborhood of residential homes, as
well as improve the connectivity. He had serious concerns about the project design.
Chair Knox White called the question.
Commissioner Krueger believed it could be stated that the Transportation Commission had
serious concerns about the project design, and requests that since it requires a General Plan
Amendment to exist, that the Master Plan be brought before the Transportation Commission for
full comment.
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 10 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,11,"Staff Khan noted that the Master Plan had not been developed yet, which would be completed at
that time.
Commissioner Ratto moved that the Transportation Commission recommend that the
transportation portion of the project EIR is wholly inadequate, would drive residents to using
automobiles, and did not deal with the reality of trying to encourage people to use alternate
forms of transportation. The project EIR should be significantly rethought and rewritten. He
added that all comments from staff report and all Transportation Commission comments from
this discussion should be included, minus the parking issue. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded
the motion. Motion passed 6-0.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that Bay Farm Island was never designed for public
transportation, and noted that most of the housing was too far from transit. He noted that the Bay
Farm Island development had many cul de sacs and paths. He did not disagree that this
development would be contrary to Alameda's plans, but believed it seemed unfair to single out
this particular project among others on Bay Farm Island.
Staff Khan noted that staff would create a memo that could be brought before the Planning Board
stating the Transportation Commission's concerns about this document.
Chair Knox White stated that if the parking were to be restricted, it would not substantively
increase usage of the bus line.
Commissioner Krueger believed the number one driver of automobile usage was the availability
of parking. He believed the requirement of 2.5 spaces per unit was over and above what was
required by other houses in Alameda.
Commissioner Ratto noted that while the business associations were trying to eliminate the
parking requirement for the individual developers, because it was not up to the developers to
provide parking; it was up to the City and Business Association to provide parking. He believed
the needs of residential parking versus business parking were completely different.
Commissioner Krueger believed the addition of 2.5 spaces per unit was counter to the City's goal
of reducing automobile traffic and increasing use of alternative transportation. He believed the
developer should be required to not build more parking.
Staff Khan noted that the City's concern was to avoid impacts on City infrastructure when
residents and guests may have to park on City streets that did not have parking.
Commissioner Krueger moved that the Transportation Commission recommend that the City
drop the additional guest parking requirement because the houses already met the two parking
spaces per dwelling unit requirement, as it is contrary to the General Plan's goal of de-
emphasizing the automobile. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-1
(Commissioner Ratto opposing).
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 11 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-05-23,12,"8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Khan noted that a special meeting was held between City Council and the Transportation
Commission. The City Council members requested that the Transportation Commission examine
several projects related to the Bay Farm Island Bridge and the Posey and Webster Tube
locations. They wished to address single occupant vehicles using these access points, and how
the SOVs could be reduced. Chair Knox White had requested introduction of delay numbers.
Staff Khan brought the Alameda Landing EIR that had been approved in 2006, as well as LOS
and delay numbers for that study. Staff suggested working on that by using the MMC
Subcommittee to chart out an action plan to bring back to a full Commission in order to tackle
both projects. Staff was somewhat concerned about the impact on staff resources. Staff would
also bring back the pedestrian plan implementation policies and goals being developed at this
time. Completion of the TSM/TDM plan would be the next goal to complete by the end of 2007.
Commissioner Ratto requested a daily volume count for the Tubes, currently, and when the Base
was open. Chair Knox White noted that Staff Khan had provided that information, and that it was
17% less than when the Base was open.
Staff Khan noted that the peak traffic hours were different for Base operations than current work
travel patterns.
Staff Bergman noted that staff received an email from a resident, who requested that their
comments be forwarded to the Transportation Commission dealing with the proposed parking
restrictions on Central Avenue and Fifth. The resident expressed concern, and the email was
distributed amongst the Commissioners.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC/2007/072507/052307minutes-draft.doc
Transportation Commission
May 23, 2007
Page 12 of 12",TransportationCommission/2007-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-05-27,1,"Transportation Commission
November 18, 2015
Item 4B
Action
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Wednesday July 22, 2015
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)
Christopher Miley
Thomas G. Bertken
Michael Hans
Members Absent:
Gregory Morgado
Jesus Vargas
Staff Present:
Staff Patel, Transportation Engineer
Bob Haun, Interim Assistant City Manager
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Commission Bellows asked for a moment of silence for Dennis Harry Stone who passed
away on July 8 and owned Stone Cyclery.
Bob Haun stated that the changes of staffing to the Commission include Gail Payne
moving to take the initial lead on the City's transportation study. He explained that the
study was requested by the City Council to look at Transportation Demand Associations
(TDA) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs around the island. He
went on to say that there will eventually be one TDM program for the entire island.
Direction was given to staff in January to begin the study but it languished for about six
months. Gail Payne is on loan to the Planning Department and will be there for at least
Page 1 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-05-27,2,"the next six months to get the study off the ground. He anticipates that the study will last
for a couple of years and the results will be reported back to the City Council. He said
Gail Payne will attend almost every single Commission meeting to present the tasks
that she is working on, which is developing the scope of work and the RFP for the
consultant which he anticipates will be able to be presented at the September 23rd
meeting. Moreover, the Commission will be able to weigh in on the information
presented. He said he will support Staff Patel who came back to staff the Commission.
However, he mentioned that given the lack of staffing for the next six months and
depending on where Gail Payne will be placed permanently staff will be fairly restricted
on what they can do and what they can staff. Yet, staff will support the Commission and
the Interagency Liaison Committee (ILC) with AC Transit.
Commissioner Miley said he looked forward to having Gail Payne present to the
Commission as the process moves forward.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Bob Haun how he saw this fitting into or
supplementing the Transportation Element (TE) of the General Plan.
Bob Haun replied that was yet to be determined and he was not sure if the study would
drive changes to the TE. However, the City Council will be very involved in the study.
He also said they will generally try to change Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) travel,
review the ingress and egress of the island and try to improve those routes.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the role the Commission would play in the study
and what would be the ultimate relationship with the Planning Board.
Bob Haun replied the Planning Board would have a lot less input than the Commission
and although Gail Payne was assigned to the Planning Department, this is not a
planning function necessarily. He said they have not discussed who Gail Payne will
report to although she will probably report to the Planning Board. He explained that the
general feeling within the City is that the Planning Department started this because
there was a large report on transportation that began with Jennifer Ott and Andrew
Thomas. Therefore, since they initiated and have ownership of the study then the
natural direction would be for the Planning Department to complete the study.
Commissioner Miley stated that it would be useful to have the chair of the
Transportation Commission speak with the chair of the Planning Board to schedule a
joint meeting at some point about this issue.
Bob Haun said he suspected that at some point there will be a joint meeting because
there will be a development portion of the study including how to handle the additional
traffic from the developments.
Commissioner Bertken stated that if the development was a given as a supposed to
constrained by transportation, then part of the study will be dealt with where the TDM
approach would be worked out along with the development.
Page 2 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-05-27,3,"Bob Haun replied that development was not a given because they do have some
options on the future of development. He explained that some things do not have
options, but with the development parcels on the books now they have somewhat of an
option. Therefore, he said that may come back up for discussion about where they want
to insert instances of having discretionary approval.
Louie Krevnovski, Alameda resident, stated that he lives on Central Avenue and Ballena
Boulevard and he felt reducing Central Avenue from four lanes to two lanes will cause
congestion and accidents because vehicles stop at the right-hand lane quite frequently
and there is high turning activity from Central Avenue onto Webster Street. He also
explained that vehicles will have to pass the stopped cars on the left turn lane and that
will cause congestion and accidents. He suggested that the City conduct a one day
traffic study by closing the two center lanes with left turns allowed. This will show you
the effect it would have on traffic.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Louie Krevnovski if he lives near Central and
Webster.
Louie Krevnovski replied he lives on Central Avenue and Ballena Boulevard and passes
that area often. He said when he drives west on Central Avenue and turns onto Webster
Street there is always congestion because motorists are trying to turn right, but cannot
because pedestrians constantly enter the crosswalk. He went on to say that currently
cars can get around stopped vehicles in the left turn lane, but if there is only one lane
traffic will back up a long way. His concern is that there will be a lot of congestion that is
not foreseen by discussion.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda Resident, stated that while riding his bicycle around the city of
Oakland from Alameda he noticed the following activities that could affect the city of
Alameda: 1. A four to five story development is being built at Park Street right across
the bridge and he did not remember the project or potential traffic implications being
discussed at past Transportation Commission meetings. So, he wanted to know if that
was included in past traffic studies.
Commissioner Bellows asked Jim Strehlow if he was speaking about the study for the
Caltrans 23rd/29th Avenue Overcrossing Project.
Jim Strehlow replied he did not remember the project being discussed and he would like
to know if that development was included in any previous study and if the city of
Oakland had to conduct an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with Alameda.
Commissioner Hans replied he did not think so because the project will be a senior
living area and was advertised at the Alameda Theater.
Commissioner Bellows replied that the project was advertised at the theater, but she did
not remember discussing the project. However, she would look into it.
Jim Strehlow referred to the High Street on ramp going from High Street to the on ramp
Page 3 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-05-27,4,"at
I-880 headed northbound and westbound. He said there use to be a left-hand turn
signal and once the signal was done and motorists were stopped at the light they could
still make a left-hand turn. However, with the new signal it is a left-hand only turn, so
when the signal is green motorists cannot make a left hand turn. He felt vehicles are
trapped at the left-hand turn and he wondered who made that decision.
Commissioner Bellows replied Caltrans operates those signals if it relates to the
freeway.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied Jim Strehlow's comment was well taken because the
interchange is a disaster since it has been reconstructed.
Commissioner Bellows replied she would talk to the staff at Caltrans to see what could
happen.
Commissioner Miley seconded Jim Strehlow's comment and said the interchange never
really worked and may be worse now.
Commissioner Bellows felt the interchange was broader now.
Commissioner Miley said constructing two left turn lanes or a split left may have been
brought up at a previous Commission meeting to push more traffic through. However,
he felt something should be done to improve the functionality of the interchange and he
hoped that staff will continue to push Caltrans to improve the functionality of the
interchange.
Jim Strehlow stated that the last issue he noticed was at San Leandro Boulevard when
turning left onto High Street and into Alameda on the northwest corner. He saw a sign
that reads City of Alameda, and it is in bad shape. He wondered who is responsible for
the sign's condition.
3. A. Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 7
p.m.
4.
Consent Calendar
4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - March 25,
2015
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the minutes of March 25, 2015. Commissioner
Bertken seconded the minutes. The motion was approved 5-0.
4.B. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - May 27,
2015
Page 4 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-05-27,5,"Commissioner Miley stated that within the minutes Commissioner Hans was shown to
be present and absent. Since, Commissioner Miley could not remember if
Commissioner Hans was present he called for the minutes to be postponed.
Commissioner Bellows made a motion to postpone the approval of the May 27, 2015
minutes until further review.
5.
New Business
5.A. Review AC Transit's Draft Comprehensive Operations Analysis Study
Staff Patel introduced Robert Del Rosario, AC Transit Director of Service Development,
to present the report.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Robert Del Rosario about the proposed route that
would increase service on Otis Drive and Shoreline Boulevard and is currently served
by Route 20 with 30-minute headways. He wanted to know if the proposed route would
be staggered with the Route 20, so one or most of them would create 15-minute
headways.
Robert Del Rosario replied yes. He explained that the area on Otis Drive, from Park
Street to Webster Street, would contain two routes that are 30 minutes staggered
against each other creating 15 minute headways.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Robert Del Rosario would there still be 15-minute
service along Park Street provided by the Routes 20 and 21. However, the half hour
headways would be along High Street.
Robert Del Rosario replied yes.
Commissioner Miley asked Robert Del Rosario for the total number of double decker
buses purchased by AC Transit.
Robert Del Rosario replied 20 buses to start with.
Commissioner Hans asked Robert Del Rosario if the buses would fit in the tube.
Robert Del Rosario replied yes.
Commissioner Bertken asked Robert Del Rosario if there would be any problems with
the double decker buses in the tunnel.
Robert Del Rosario replied there should be no problems and the bus should fit in the
tube where the bus height is 13 feet and six inches.
Commissioner Bertken stated that there is also a limit on the side road at the Yerba
Page 5 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-05-27,6,"Buena Tunnel.
Robert Del Rosario replied AC Transit staff tested the limit and brought a bus over there
in February and reviewed the buffer.
Commissioner Bertken asked Robert Del Rosario about providing weekend service
since everyone is trying to get people out of their cars.
Robert Del Rosario stated that staff is looking at the cost and pacing themselves to see
what ridership demand looks like. He explained that if funding became available staff
could look at weekend service.
Commissioner Bertken replied access off the island on the weekend was important.
Robert Del Rosario stated that the goal was for staff to review weekday service, but
weekends are just as important.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Robert Del Rosario about the bus circulator concept
and whether the buses would go in clockwise and counterclockwise directions.
Robert Del Rosario replied that staff created the cost out for both directions.
Commissioner Bellows referred to the fact that 85 percent of Measure BB goes for
operations and that translates to $20 million a year and she asked if those funds go
through the entire AC Transit service district.
Robert Del Rosario replied that was correct, although only in Alameda County.
Commissioner Bellows asked Robert Del Rosario how much did the city of Alameda
receive.
Robert Del Rosario replied he would have to review the numbers, but he estimated $2
million.
Commissioner Bellows replied then none of the service proposals would really work.
Robert Del Rosario referred to 3A of the staff report or 3C in the PowerPoint
presentation and stated that the route that would work would be along Buena Vista
Avenue. He further explained that if AC Transit partnered up with the Estuary Shuttle
they could probably make it happen. However, he felt AC Transit was committed to
adding a new route with the Measure BB funds and it would be at 30-minute headways.
Commissioner Bellows replied so the City would receive one new route with 30-minute
headways and everything else would be implemented later.
Robert Del Rosario replied AC Transit would also fix Route 31, which would serve
Alameda Landing.
Page 6 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-05-27,7,"Commissioner Hans stated that one issue that his neighbors have asked him to discuss
was to relieve the pressure on the Route 51 because they have to stand all the time.
So, he wondered if AC Transit staff has considered that issue.
Robert Del Rosario replied staff added more runtime to the Route 51 and although the
route has 10-minute headways, which is good, they felt the service does not run on the
even spacing. So, staff is trying to improve the route's on time performance and
reliability. Furthermore, he said the capital project for the Route 51 included relocating
and removing some bus stops and looking at signal priority along Webster Street, which
should relieve pressure.
Commissioner Miley asked Robert Del Rosario going forward to bring handouts for the
Commissioners to follow along to if the staff report changes at the last minute, otherwise
he appreciated the presentation. He pointed out that staff handed out comments from
John Knox White and he wanted to present the comments to Robert Del Rosario. He
felt Robert Del Rosario answered some of John Knox White's questions such as bus to
ferry connections. Also, John Knox White proposed a two-year pilot program for the bus
to ferry connections, which he seconded the idea. He also said that Commissioner
Schatmeier proposed having an ad hoc committee consisting of Transportation
Commission and Planning Board members to meet with AC Transit and City staff to
discuss the City's long-term and short-term priorities and he felt it would be useful to
have those meetings. He also suggested that a future ILC meeting could include an
agenda item that allowed the ad hoc committee to address some of the items they have
discussed.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he has had conversations with Bob Haun about this and
Bob Haun ensured him that it was not too late to submit ideas and comments. He put
some ideas out there, but his hope was at the end of the subcommittee process that the
ad hoc committee would come back to the Transportation Commission and recommend
some priorities that the plan could address. He went on to say that the Commission has
already created the committee and they have to decide when to meet. He also
explained that his goal was to have a list of 3-5 priorities that the City would like AC
Transit to address.
Commissioner Bellows replied logistically there was an issue because the public
comment period closes on July 31.
Robert Del Rosario stated that the purpose of the comment period date allowed AC
Transit to start the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process.
Commissioner Bellows replied so this was part of the scoping of the CEQA.
Robert Del Rosario replied yes.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that AC Transit's proposal contains some interesting
ideas, but this may reallocate resources to something else and that may be a discussion
Page 7 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-05-27,8,"outside of this process. He understood that AC Transit Boardmember Pebbles has
expressed interest in reviewing the Route 21 service at the next ILC meeting and he
had no problem with that, but he suspected that Boardmember Pebbles was doing that
to save some resources.
Commissioner Miley stated that one priority would be that resources already expended
in Alameda stay in Alameda. He felt it was important to have different government
agencies' perspectives such as the Planning Board and City staff, so if there was a way
to get a meeting accomplished by using existing infrastructure that would be ideal.
Bob Haun explained that neither he nor Staff Patel could staff an ad hoc committee at
this time due to short-term staffing constraints. He went on to say that Route 21 is on
the agenda for the next ILC meeting scheduled on October 7 and that would be the
appropriate time to speak to that item. He said if the Commission would like to have an
informal committee they could do that without staff support, but the priority items would
have to come back to the Transportation Commission for endorsement before it went
out.
Commissioner Bellows replied so the ad hoc committee could present their findings to
the Commission and the Commissioners could discuss the items and agendize them for
the September meeting.
Bob Haun said that would be within the appropriate window because the next public
hearing is November 8. He further explained that from the City's perspective they are
interested in Route 19 for the Northern Waterfront because Marina Cove Il housing will
be available as of spring 2016. Furthermore, he mentioned that the Estuary Crossing
Shuttle was only funded for half a year and the City would like to keep that going. So,
shifting the Route 19 service at Sherman to go up through Atlantic Avenue would
basically pick up all the stops for the Estuary Crossing Shuttle. He pointed out that
Route 31 touching Alameda Landing may have some synergy with the Alameda
Landing Shuttle because there are significant contributions from Marina Cove II, Del
Monte, Wind River and Marina Village who either subsidize the Estuary Shuttle or
operate their own shuttle and they may want to jump on the boat too if Route 19 goes
through Marina Village.
Commissioner Bellows noted that Robert Del Rosario mentioned that there would be a
line going down Buena Vista that would ultimately shift to Clement Avenue.
Robert Del Rosario replied that staff talked about this in the very long-term and they
would have to consider a number of factors such as bus stop placement and how the
service would interact with the bicycle proposal along Clement Avenue.
Commissioner Bellows asked Robert Del Rosario why the service would be placed on
Clement Avenue.
Robert Del Rosario replied to get closer to developments.
Page 8 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-05-27,9,"Bob Haun stated that the potential development at Boatworks would contain 182 units
sooner rather than later since it has been approved by the City. Therefore, he felt the
ideal time even when thinking of shifting the route to Clement Avenue would be to
somehow acquire the Pennzoil property that would extend Clement Avenue.
Commissioner Bertken mentioned one of the comments from John Knox White's memo.
He felt that the coordination with bus service to the ferry schedule is important because
within the next 20 years there will not be additional capacity across the bay except what
you could do with ferry boats.
Bob Haun replied that was on their radar and he currently sits on the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) Core Capacity Study Technical Advisory Group.
Thus, he explained they are looking at a number of options such as the opening of a
ferry terminal at Seaplane Lagoon and charging for parking at the ferry.
Commissioner Bellows asked Bob Haun do drivers have to pay for parking at the Jack
London Square terminal.
Bob Haun replied he did not believe riders have to pay for parking, but they have to
obtain a parking validation on the ferry.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied he is a bus and ferry rider, but his experience with
bus service to the ferry terminal is similar to bus service to the airport. He said bus
service along the Harbor Bay end are running empty and they are timed to meet the
ferry, but they do not have a tremendous on time performance record. He gave an
example of when he worked in Marin County and the Golden Gate Transit bus to ferry
service was not in heavy demand, so when John Knox White proposed to conduct a
pilot program there should not be empty buses to the ferry terminal.
Commissioner Bertken replied he has not seen a real survey conducted that showed
where in Alameda ferry riders are coming from.
Commissioner Bellows replied that Kevin Connolly, Water Emergency Transportation
Agency (WETA) Planning and Development, provided a map of where riders come from
when he presented to the Commission last time.
Robert Del Rosario replied the bulk of riders live between Webster Street and Park
Street. Residents living east of Park Street use the Harbor Bay ferry. He explained that
all three proposals have their merits, but scarcity of resources forced them to prioritize.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that one of the proposals labeled Service
Enhancement Proposal # 2 for the Route O has the service truncated on the island and
does not go to Fruitvale BART Station anymore. So, he wanted to know if the change
would save resources.
Robert Del Rosario replied that they could do both, but what is hurting the Route O is
reliability with the traffic they face when crossing into the Fruitvale BART Station.
Page 9 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-05-27,10,"capture revenue and reduce fraud with the transfer policy. However, he said Clipper
does reduce the fraud, but when getting a paper transfer from the farebox that is when
fraud comes into place.
6.
Staff Communications
6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
-
C. K. Myers letter regarding Central Avenue Complete Street proposal
-
IDrive Alameda letter regarding Central Avenue Complete Street proposal
Bob Haun stated that the letters were forwarded at the direction of the mayor to provide
to the Commission, and the Commission could comment on the letters if they would like.
However, he stated that the IDrive Alameda letter was different because the letter
requested a response from the Commission. From his knowledge, the Commission
does not typically respond to a letter. However, if a representative from the group would
like to attend the next Commission meeting and appear before the Commission, then
the Commissioners would reply back to the comment. Therefore, he recommended that
staff could get back to IDrive Alameda to explain that the Commission would hear ideas
at a future meeting, but the Commission does not respond to letters to specific people,
and the letter was sent anonymously.
Commissioners Bellows and Miley agreed with staff recommendations.
Commissioner Miley stated that the Central Avenue Complete Street Proposal was part
of the future meeting agenda items, so he assumed that staff would come back to
provide an update.
Page 10 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-05-27,11,"Bob Haun replied the next meeting for the Central Avenue Complete Street Proposal
will be held on September 17. He said he will update the Commission and he
encouraged the Commissioners to attend. Afterwards, staff will gather the data and
public input received and develop a recommendation with the Commission and City
Council.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the future agenda items and whether the items are
programmed, scheduled, or just discussed for the future.
1. Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
2. Proposed I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation and Circulation
Improvements
3. Main Street Ferry Terminal Improvements
4. Central Avenue Complete Street Concept Proposal
5. Improving Service to Spirits Alley and Other Base Businesses
6. Ferry Terminals' Connectivity Improvements
7. Promote Increasing Ridership from Alameda High School and Middle Schools
8. What are Key Cross Island Lines, Ranked in Order of Priority or Ridership
9. Any Planned New Stops Based on Approved Development
Commissioner Bellows replied nothing was scheduled yet, so as things happen they will
be presented to the Commission.
Bob Haun stated that if any of the Commissioners need a briefing on item 2, I-
880/Broadway/Jackson he could give individual briefings. He stated that this was an
Oakland project and Oakland was still going through their downtown circulation plan. He
said Oakland wanted to complete the plan in conjunction with the Broadway/Jackson
Committee meetings and Alameda was not participating in those meetings. However,
the City is waiting for the end of this year to take a pulse of the project's stage and then
they will decide where to land.
Commissioner Bertken replied on this particular project, this was a portion of Measure B
funding. Thus, he wanted to know where the allocation of Measure B funds comes from.
Bob Haun replied that the funding comes from Alameda County Transportation
Commission, through the expenditure plan.
Commissioner Bertken replied that part of the Measure B funds, when looking at it, will
give a set amount of funding for this project.
Commissioner Bellows replied Broadway/Jackson is a capital project, not a program.
Commissioner Miley stated that ACTC tries to ensure geographic equity in the
allocations for the capital program, so there was a percentage for each geographic
region in the county.
Page 11 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-05-27,12,"Commissioner Bellows said the voters actually voted on the expenditure plan that listed
Broadway/Jackson amongst other projects from different cities within Alameda County
and those projects are set.
7.
Announcements/Public Comments
John Bidorg, resident of Alameda County, explained that he is currently homeless living
in the city of Berkeley. He wanted to touch base about AC Transit and how the bond
was first created to raise funds for public transportation and assist people who heavily
rely on public transportation.
8.
Adjournment
7:33 p.m.
Page 12 of 12",TransportationCommission/2015-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-01-23,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT
January 23, 2008
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Robert McFarland
Robb Ratto
Eric Schatmeier (arrived 8:00 p.m.)
Nielsen Tam
Members Absent:
Michael Krueger
Srikant Subramaniam
Staff Present:
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
December 19, 2007
Chair Knox White noted that a full quorum was not present to consider the minutes, and that they
would be addressed at the next meeting if a quorum was present.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Ratto noted that the Commissioners were invited to attend the grand opening of
the downtown parking garage on January 31, 2008, at noon.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Open public hearing.
There were no speakers.
Close public hearing.
1",TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-01-23,2,"7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Overview of Car Sharing and Potential Applications in the City of Alameda
Staff Bergman presented the staff report. He noted that the City of Berkeley has implemented a
program with City CarShare whereby the cars were available exclusively for City employees
during the day, and for the general public on evenings and weekends, and that staff is looking at
whether a similar arrangement might be desirable for Alameda. He noted that it could play a role
in the Transportation Systems Management/ Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM)
Plan. He noted that several for-profit car sharing companies, including Zipcar and U-Haul, have
begun offering similar services, in addition to the non-profit City CarShare.
Bryce Nesbitt, City CarShare, noted that the company was a non-profit company that was begun
for environmental reasons in 2002, in order to provide alternatives to the exclusive ownership of
a vehicle. He noted that cars were parked at 150 locations throughout the Bay Area, and that the
members were given an access token to enable them to access the cars. They have recently
expanded to Fruitvale BART, and are considering adding sites in Alameda. He noted that
density was one factor that enables car sharing to be successful, but was not the exclusive reason.
He noted that car sharing worked well in neighborhoods where people would be willing to walk
several blocks to pick up a car. He noted that an example of a neighborhood where car sharing
would not work well was Jack London Square, which was quite dense, but people typically drive
to destinations there. He noted that the sidewalks were not as active in that neighborhood. He
noted that Library Gardens in Berkeley, a shared public-private parking garage, worked well.
The amount of public parking depended on a computer projection of the parking demand.
Mr. Nesbitt described semi-private fleets, such as the City of Berkeley program, and added that
the leased cars were readily available, but must be leased for the entire day or for months at a
time. City CarShare could lease a car to an organization for part of the day. He noted that the
cars would be otherwise available for the rest of the day. The primary demand for car sharing,
since it was not used for commuting, was on evenings and weekends. He noted that was ideal for
City use. He described the Berkeley model, which had been improved since the advent of online
reservations, and had been active for two years. The City of Oakland has a similar program, and
the cities of Albany and Richmond were considering it as well. He noted that in some instances,
the City CarShare served as a person's one car, while for others it could take the place of a
second car. They had noticed a dramatic reduction in the need for parking spaces, and a moderate
reduction in the amount of driving. Mr. Nesbitt displayed a map, which described where the
members were located.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto regarding the cost, Mr. Nesbitt replied that the
monthly membership fee was $10 monthly, with an hourly fee of $5 and 40 cents per mile,
similar to a taxi. He noted that some competitors charged $8 or $9 per hour, but that mileage was
free. As an environmentally based non-profit, they chose to charge for mileage.
2",TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-01-23,3,"In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto regarding the length of time a car could be
kept, Mr. Nesbitt replied that it could be kept as long as someone was willing to pay for it. He
noted that it was not economical to keep for long periods of time. He noted that cars could be
kept up to three days, but that back to back reservations could be made.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto regarding the kinds of cars that were available,
Mr. Nesbitt replied that they offered both large and small cars, depending on the kind of trip. He
added that they had a number of Toyota Prius hybrids, MiniCoopers, and pickup trucks. He
noted that by offering a number of vehicle types, that City CarShare enabled members to use
different types of vehicles depending on their needs for a particular trip.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether a pod had been placed in a purely
residential area such as Alameda's East End, Mr. Nesbitt replied that was similar to the North
Berkeley BART station and El Cerrito BART station. He noted that they planned to move down
the Third Street corridor in San Francisco, which was planned to be dense but was currently not
dense. He noted that generally 40 members were required to support a car.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto regarding contracts, Mr. Nesbitt replied that the
contract was month to month, with no further obligation beyond that.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto whether several members wished to use the car
at the same time, Mr. Nesbitt replied that it was first-come, first-served. If a member's favorite
car was not available, they would be able to use their next choice. Generally, one-third of people
reserve well in advance, one-third the night before, and one-third reserve just before driving. He
noted that 10% took the bus to the car, 10% took a train, 7% biked to the car, and that most
people walked to the car.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner McFarland about the decision-making process in
where to place cars, Mr. Nesbitt replied that they looked at the displayed map and looked for
early adopters, transit lines, and neighborhood characteristics such as walkability.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the integration of car sharing with new
developments, Mr. Nesbitt replied that they had done just that, and had mixed results with that
strategy. They had strong developer interest, some compelled by City ordinance such as in San
Francisco and some driven by a desire to add a green feature to the development. He noted that
the fact that car sharing was compelled by an ordinance did not mean it was a good location. The
developers tended to try to make the cars available exclusively for the residents of the
development. While that has some cachet, the vehicle was not part of the larger network of
vehicles, which was an important factor in the success of the network.
Chair Knox White noted that the use of car sharing in senior housing had been brought up at a
City Council meeting. Mr. Nesbitt responded that such a location was a good opportunity. He
noted that seniors may not want the hassle of maintaining the car, and part of the service
provided by City CarShare is to wash and maintain the cars. He believed that would be a good
3",TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-01-23,4,"match for senior communities, but noted that seniors were often conservative in adopting new
ideas, and that a car was often part of their identity. He suggested that this should be examined
carefully, because cars were an emotional component to people's lives, even though it may be
the most practical solution. They had a program in St. Paul's Towers, a vibrant senior
community on the north end of Lake Merritt; the program had met with mixed success in that
location. The hourly rate for City CarShare included gas, maintenance, roadside assistance and
$1 million of insurance.
Commissioner Schatmeier arrived at this time.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto regarding the practical meaning of leaving
""sufficient gas for the next member,"" Mr. Nesbitt replied that should read a half tank; their
competitors require a quarter tank of gas. He noted that the cost of gas is included in the price,
and that members have access to a gas card. The cars were unattended, which allowed City
CarShare to park a single car in a location. They operated 24 hours a day, the car is returned to
its original location, and if the gas was left below half a tank, the driver would fill the car up on
the way back.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner McFarland regarding the maintenance schedule, Mr.
Nesbitt replied that a maintenance crew cleans and checks the cars every two weeks. They often
service the cars in place in order to minimize downtime. He noted that cars were retired after
two to three years, depending on the model.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding a cost analysis, Mr. Nesbitt replied that
had been performed, although comparing a fully maintained, clean vehicle versus a private car
owner's vehicle was a complex analysis. He noted that a driver who did not use a vehicle
frequently would save money with City CarShare, although heavy users with daily commutes
should own their own cars. He noted that they tried to place at least two cars, but not more than
five cars, at any location, which they called ""pods."" He noted that they had also spoken to Bike
Alameda regarding potential locations.
No action was taken.
7-B. Review and Comment on Proposed Harbor Bay Business Park Esplanade
Development
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and noted that the Planning Department had made the
determination that the project was within the scope of the existing City-approved CEQA
document, and therefore, no additional CEQA was required.
Joe Ernst, SRM Associates, project developer, described the scope and layout of the proposed
project, and displayed an overview of the project on the overhead screen. He described the
project amenities, including public seating, the lagoon and the improvement of private access
road through the site; he noted that the access road through the project site to the ferry terminal
was currently in poor shape. He displayed and described the architectural features of the site. He
noted that the project would be designed as a LEED-certified site, and that there would be no
4",TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-01-23,5,"new grass in the project in order to save water usage. He displayed the circulation diagram,
which showed existing bike paths, proposed AC Transit stops and shuttle stops.
Staff Bergman noted that there is an awkward sidewalk connection at the northwest corner of the
intersection of the access road and Bay Edge Road, and that staff had discussed with Mr. Ernst
the possibility of improving this. Mr. Ernst responded that they would examine the two-foot
grade change with Public Works to see what options were available.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding public parking, Mr. Ernst replied that if
a café were to be placed there, the public would be able to park there. He noted that they did not
plan to install gates and fences at the site.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the applicant's request for a variance,
Mr. Ernst replied that technically, a variance would be required, and he hoped it would not be an
issue. Planning staff requested that they find ways to reduce the number of parking spaces in
order to promote fewer cars. He noted that when AC Transit discontinued its shuttle to BART,
the business park introduced a private shuttle, which had been moved to a larger bus. He added
that a second bus may be added because of the growth of the program. Chair Knox White
suggested that the developer ensure the business park tenants be made aware of the
transportation alternatives to driving. Mr. Ernst replied that was part of their TDM, and added
that the Ferry Terminal was a great benefit to the park.
Open public hearing.
There were no speakers.
Close public hearing.
No action was taken.
8.
Staff Communications
Staff Bergman noted that the Transportation Commission decision regarding bus stops along
Encinal Avenue between Broadway and High Street had been appealed to City Council and was
scheduled for February.
Staff Bergman noted that the City Council requested a report from staff regarding a proposed
facility near the Posey Tube between Webster and Mariner Square Drive, and directed staff to
look for funding for a Park-and-Ride facility or a transit hub. Staff has developed some
preliminary designs, but the anticipated funding of $1.3 million was not available. In response to
a question by Chair Knox White, Staff Bergman stated that he believed the cost estimate included
at least some of the drainage issues on the site that need to be addressed.
5",TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-01-23,6,"Commissioner Schatmeier expressed concern that that project would delay the running time of
the buses, and asked that the design for the project attempt to minimize this extra time. Staff
Bergman responded that staff would work closely with AC Transit on this.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether the Estuary Feasibility Study was
awarded at the City Council meeting, Staff Bergman replied that was correct.
a.
Broadway/Jackson Project
Staff Bergman noted that the consultant team was working on the traffic analysis and forecast.
The initial review indicated that the use of 6th Street in Oakland as a major arterial corridor
seemed to be viable. The off-ramp would come down at Webster Street from northbound I-880.
Staff would provide updates when they were available.
b.
Update on City Council action regarding Line 63
Staff Bergman noted that the Line 63 issue was discussed at the January 15 City Council
meeting, and that all of the Transportation Commission's recommendations were approved, with
the exception of the location of bus stops. City Council directed staff to seek funding to redirect
Line 63 onto Shoreline from Otis Drive onto Grand and Shoreline.
Commissioner Ratto expressed strong concern about the need for funding to make these route
changes.
Staff Bergman noted that about $50,000 was available for improvements, but the additional
amount for Shoreline ($112,000) was not yet available.
Chair Knox White requested that staff maintain an item on the agenda under Staff
Communications to follow up on this item.
c.
Update on parking restrictions at bus stops
Staff Bergman indicated that the City Council had approved the resolution to implement parking
restrictions at bus stops on Encinal Ave. and Central Ave., and that this would take care of
implementing parking restrictions at most of the remaining bus stops. He indicated that
including these 10 stops, there are about 15-16 stops that need to be addressed, out of a total of
approximately 300 stop locations citywide.
d.
Grant applications
Staff Bergman noted that three grant applications were submitted for the State's Safe Routes to
School program, administered by Caltrans. They were submitted for curb extensions at the
intersection at Grand and San Jose, and for the addition of a school crosswalk at the intersection
of Benton and Central; for the purchase of radar speed signs on Grand Street and Central
6",TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-01-23,7,"Avenue; and for in-pavement lights at the crosswalk in front of Wood Middle School on Grand
between Otis and Shoreline. Applications were also submitted to the Caltrans Community-based
Transportation Planning Grant program for the Long-Range Transit Plan update, and to the
Transit Technical Planning Assistance Program for the Citywide TSM/TDM program. The City
has also submitted an application to fund signal coordination on Webster Street.
e.
Future meeting agenda items
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
7",TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-04-22,1,"DRAFT
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
April 22, 2009
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Kathy Moehring
Eric Schatmeier
Members Absent:
Jane Lee
Srikant Subramaniam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
March 25, 2009
Chair Knox White noted that on page 6, the minutes read, ""I did not know where the 170%
increase in rider ship came from."" He noted that he actually did know where the 170% increase
came from, that that was made very clear. He did not understand why they were using a 200%
increase after explaining their methodology.
He then asked for a clarification as well regarding his comment before the motion on page 8. He
suggested that the water shuttle be the primary area to be studied and recommended the City
Council to direct staff to begin the planning process. He recalled that that comment was part of
the motion but did not see it noted in the motion. He asked that the tape be reviewed. He inquired
if anyone had any comments and clarified that this was on the bike bridge. His thoughts were
that the water shuttle should be the primary area.
Commissioner Krueger seemed to recall that it was part of the motion.
Staff Khan concurred and stated he would review the tape.
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the March 25, 2009 meeting and
minutes as amended. Commissioner Moehring seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
(Abstain: Commissioner McFarland. Absent: Commissioner Lee, Commissioner Subramaniam).
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
Page 1 of 15",TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-04-22,2,"DRAFT
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White asked about activities of the Transit Plan Subcommittee.
Commissioner Krueger indicated that he had started to review the work scope for Transit Plan.
Commissioner Krueger stated that Commissioner Schatmeier and he will have their comments to
staff by April 29 in order to schedule another subcommittee meeting.
Chair Knox White stated that at the ILC meeting today there was talk about looking at the Long
Range Transit Plan update. Both the City and AC Transit expressed strong interest in this
activity especially in regards to Alameda Point and its development.
Commissioner Schatmeier indicated that he had not heard about the ILC meeting and asked how
he could be informed of upcoming meeting.
Staff Bergman assured Commissioner Schatmeier that he would sign up all Commission
members to the TMP email list and this would assure notification of upcoming meetings.
Chair Knox White requested that staff provide an update at the end of the meeting on the ILC
meeting under Staff Communications.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
There were none.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A.
Development of Multimodal Thresholds of Significance and Methods for Resolving
Conflicts on Street Segments with Multiple Modal Preferences
Chair Knox White asked if someone from Dowling Associates would be present tonight.
Staff Khan replied that there was a miscommunication on their part and that they would not be
present as they were in Washington, DC.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report. He stated that this was a very complex topic and a
challenge to write a report for people who were not immersed in this subject matter. He
apologized for any confusion and appreciated any questions if clarification was needed. The
reason for this report was to see how the City would address its anticipated growth. Because
certain projects have been approved and others are on the horizon, growth will happen in
Alameda. The thresholds of significance will help guide the City on how to make decisions. For
the traffic analysis, future projects are taken into consideration such as those at Alameda Point
(Measure A compliant alternative). The challenge was finding the balance between accepting
severe impacts to the transportation system because of growth versus being too strict, so that
small impacts could preclude growth.
In response to the Commission's request from the March meeting, Staff Bergman discussed the
methods used to calculate the level of service (LOS) for each mode. He noted that the bicycle
LOS was easiest to illustrate as they describe the physical conditions for bicyclists. The others
primarily measure delay or travel time.
Page 2 of 15",TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-04-22,3,"DRAFT
Santa Clara Avenue was used as an example; for the entire corridor, from west of Webster Street
to Broadway it had a bicycle LOS D (3.65). Variables in the LOS calculation included the
amount of space, presence of a bike lane, traffic volume, vehicle speed, pavement conditions and
truck traffic. He described the conditions on different sections of the corridor:
Webster Street to Grand Street - bike lane; the LOS score has improved to 2.4, LOS B, due
to the bike lane and more space for the bicyclist.
East of Grand Street, between Grand Street and Oak Street - 3.32, LOS C, the LOS
degraded because there is no bike lane.
East of Oak Street between Oak Street and Park Street - 3.83, the LOS further increased
because the street narrows.
East of Park Street, between Park Street and Broadway - 4.01. The travel lanes are
narrower, and there is no bike lane.
Chair Knox White asked about vehicle volumes.
Staff Bergman stated that for bicycle LOS, vehicle volumes did not have as much of an impact as
the lack of space.
Chair Knox White stated that the bicycle LOS did not take into account off road paths.
Staff Bergman agreed that this was only for on-street environments.
Chair Knox White asked if the bicycle route on Oak Street would impact the LOS score.
Staff Bergman replied that it would be counted in only if, for example, vehicle speeds were
slowed. He also pointed out also that intersections with turn pockets could affect the results
within a segment. If that were to be done, the portion of the segment with the turn pocket would
be evaluated separately.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if bicycle usage had anything to do with this.
Staff Bergman replied that it did not. The model is based on the user perception and comfort.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if the bicycle LOS was relevant if the formula does not account
for demand.
Staff Bergman commented that if the conditions were good, it could attract more riders.
Staff Bergman discussed how the thresholds were analyzed. Two different alternatives for
resolving conflicts between preferred modes: looking for auto mode of LOS D as threshold of
significance, although intersection LOS F would be acceptable if LOS D could be maintained
along the segment. Regarding transit, staff proposed the recommendation from the staff report
following discussions with AC Transit. Staff report said LOS D would be a threshold for a
segment, but that the segment would be allowed to degrade below LOS D if LOS C could be
maintained for the route across the entire City. Staff revised this to recommend a threshold of
LOS C for the segment; if the corridor is already below LOS C, than the impact would be
significant if the transit's vehicle average speed decreased by 10% or more. A corridor is
defined by the impacted bus stop and taking two bus stops further ahead and behind, a total of
Page 3 of 15",TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-04-22,4,"DRAFT
five stops, within the city boundaries. Transit needs to be emphasized as the primary mode,
dealing with long distance trips, as this is the best opportunity to substitute for vehicle trips.
Staff Khan clarified that the change was made after talking with AC Transit and the City
Attorney's office. AC Transit expressed concerns about the impact LOS D would have on their
service. The City Attorney was concerned that if the City asked a developer or a project
applicant to improve a corridor to LOS C, above the threshold of LOS D, that may not be legally
viable. The City Attorney asked that the threshold be raised for transit higher than other modes,
making it LOS C, to avoid this conflict. AC Transit was pleased with this change as well.
Chair Knox White inquired if the impacted transit stop would have to be within the project. He
asked how it would be decided if a bus stop was impacted.
Staff Khan replied that the location would be based on the trips coming out of the development.
Chair Knox White asked for clarification on how the determination of a corridor was made. How
is it different than looking at the route?
Staff Khan replied that according to AC Transit, 3/4 mile to one mile makes up a corridor, which
is approximately five bus stops.
Chair Knox White stated that Alameda Towne Centre wanted to expand and one of the traffic
impacts is at Central Avenue and Eighth Street. He noted that two stops from Alameda Towne
Centre would bring you to Willow Street and Otis Drive. He asked if under this threshold,
would it be possible to fix the impact at Central Avenue and Eighth Street?
Staff Khan replied it would be addressed only if the transit corridor was impacted in the
resolution of conflicts. If not, impacts could not be mitigated at Central Avenue and Eighth
Street.
Chair Knox White inquired if the way mitigations were being done for autos at intersections is
illegal and questionable. He noted that impacts to auto intersection LOS is considered throughout
the City; but whenever discussion is about bicycles, transit, or pedestrians, that impact has to be
on the property or next to it or we're too far away to have a nexus.
Staff Khan clarified that the City Attorney's office stated the nexus needed to be shown and
explained as how far the corridor really was. If five stops were not the right length of the
corridor, the corridor would be extended.
Chair Knox White agreed.
Staff Bergman continued explaining Alternative 1 for the pedestrian mode. The threshold would
be LOS D; if the location of the intersection were below that threshold, impacts would be
considered significant if there is a 10% increase in delay. For bicycle LOS, the recommended
threshold is LOS D and if the segment were already below that threshold, a 3% increase in the
score would be significant.
Alternative 2 was discussed for the auto mode. The initial proposal was for a threshold of LOS
D; for intersections below D, increase in vehicle to capacity ratio of 3%. It was noted, that at the
Page 4 of 15",TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-04-22,5,"DRAFT
last Commission meeting, that this would be put on hold pending further discussion of the
relationship of intersection to segment analysis.
Staff Khan stated there was a question at the last meeting as to why intersection LOS for autos be
maintained and having urban street LOS also be provided. Dowling & Associates' response was
when looking at intersections it was very critical to have an understanding of what was
happening at the intersections in terms of turning movements. When the urban street LOS was
calculated, it only looked at autos going straight. When intersection LOS is considered, left turns
had to be reduced significantly to provide more time for pedestrians to cross, this caused the
queues spilling out from the left turn pockets that were impacting the through movement. The
Police and Fire departments indicated their concern about the impacts to emergency response
times. He wanted to clarify that by having this intersection level of service allowed us
understanding not just about autos, but pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements.
Staff Khan explained control delay. The operational aspect of the delay is not translated into the
model. The model could track how long it took a car to go through an intersection and wait at
the signal. But the spill over effect would not show up in the urban street LOS. That would be
critical for autos and transit.
Commissioner Krueger inquired if the model allowed for spillover traffic. He asked if riders
may take alternate routes or if the model is preprogrammed to take certain streets.
Staff Khan replied that it depends If using imTraffic, a micro-simulation model, the queues are
simulated along with the spill over effect and if you have coded all the streets in the area it will
show that there is a spillover effect and some traffic may get diverted. It all depends on how
much information is put into the model.
Staff Bergman finished up with Alternative 2; transit threshold. Stated that the Commission had
asked for additional feedback from AC Transit; that was presented. Regarding pedestrian LOS
for both modes, the Commission had asked that it be set at B.
In Dowling & Associates' analysis, there were ten corridors and 14 intersections; bicycle and
transit mode used segment as the unit of analysis; pedestrians and autos looked at intersections
and compared the 2007 data to the anticipated 2030 conditions; determined which modes had the
most significant impacts; identified some mitigations; looked at the impacts of implementing
mitigations on other modes.
Question about pedestrian LOS B at intersections was raised at last meeting. This was tested at a
few intersections; relatively few intersections in the City where there are significant problems;
Dowling tried to achieve LOS B for pedestrians at intersections of Ralph Appezzato Memorial
Parkway/Atlantic Avenue with Webster Street and the intersection of Atlantic Avenue at
Constitution Way. It was found that LOS B for pedestrians was not feasible at these locations
because of the queues being so long that the model could not analyze them.
Chair Knox White stated that it was never the Commission' S intention to suggest that locations
currently at LOS C or D would be brought up to B.
Chair Knox White stated that the Commission had asked for the study to be done with the LOS
B. He stated that their intent was to say that if an intersection is already at D, the threshold
Page 5 of 15",TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-04-22,6,"DRAFT
would be a 10% reduction in the wait time; they were not suggesting taking it back to a level it
was decades ago.
Staff Khan stated staff's understanding that the Commission had asked to see what happens if the
intersection was brought to LOS B.
Commissioner Krueger referred to page 24 under mitigation 3.6, stating that mitigations 3.1 to
3.6 suggested that pedestrian LOS D was more feasible to maintain at all intersections.
Chair Knox White noted the report stated LOS D for pedestrians would prevent mitigations.
Seemed that the City's goals were to have something so low that we would never have to
mitigate it; D was the way to go.
Staff Khan referred Chair Knox White to Mitigation 4.4.
Chair Knox White responded that if D was chosen, there would be no problems for pedestrians.
Staff Khan agreed.
Staff Bergman mentioned the Commission's comments from the last meeting, that the removal of
marked crosswalks should be considered to be a significant impact. Staff agreed and supports
that the inclusion of that in the thresholds.
Chair Knox White asked Nathan Landau from AC Transit if the recommendation suited the LOS
AC Transit wanted.
Mr. Landau replied AC Transit asked to try and maintain LOS C to maintain a reasonable speed,
and define a segment by the five bus stops. Stated that the off-site impact was worth addressing,
looking at a place where there is an auto impact and 10% degradation in speed. Ideally, the
threshold would be a 10% reduction in speed even if it were operating at LOS B.
Chair Knox White referred to the report stating the need to keep average speed up along the
routes. The Dowling study mentioned corridor #10, Robert Davy Jr. Drive had a LOS B, as well
as Island Drive; 3/4 of the analysis was LOS B. Inquired if a decrease in travel speed from 23
mph to 13 mph before it was considered an impact would be acceptable to AC Transit.
Mr. Landau recommended previously that any transit average travel speed over the effected
segment would be reduced by 10% or more. That was recommended to staff irrespective of the
existing level of service; he noted that Line 51 is currently not doing better than C.
Chair Knox White inquired if AC Transit would ever have its own policy on this matter.
Mr. Landau replied possibly; planning on revising their guidelines within the next 18-24 months.
Chair Knox White inquired if in two years we may end up with a 10% degradation.
Mr. Landau replied that the average travel speed had dropped system wide to 11 mph, so it costs
more to operate same service; also passengers don't want slow buses. AC Transit is working on
bus rapid transit, queue jumps, signal timing to protect travel times.
Page 6 of 15",TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-04-22,7,"DRAFT
Commissioner Krueger questioned segment LOS VS. intersection LOS in the summary on pg. 26
of the Dowling report.
Staff Khan indicated that Dowling stated that it is not wise to bring all intersections to F or E. If
all were F, maintaining a LOS of D for the urban streets would not be possible. If some
intersections were below LOS D, others would likely have to be above D to maintain LOS D for
the corridor.
Commissioner Krueger stated he thought this was used to argue against the idea of using the
urban street criteria as was proposed in Alternative 2.
Staff Khan clarified that Alternative 2 was not an urban street LOS it's the vehicle-to-capacity
(v/c) ratio, a completely different analysis.
Chair Knox White stated he had three comments on transit. He stated that the nexus boundaries
for each mode should be consistent for auto traffic, pedestrians, transit and bikes.
Commissioner Krueger stated that if the City Attorney felt the distance from the project is too
great, the radius should shrink for all modes.
Staff Khan stated this had not been discussed with the City Attorney.
Commissioners Moehring and Krueger both agreed on consistency across modes.
Staff Khan stated that going into Oakland to implement mitigation for a project would be
difficult, since Oakland has its own thresholds of significance.
Chair Knox White mentioned this was a corridor; should look at impact. He stated that the
mitigation could be done anywhere along the line as long as the time is made up.
Staff Khan stated that depended. If the intersection was in Oakland and the segment goes below
a D, it would be implemented; if impact were great in Oakland, it would be difficult to
implement anything on the other side. The second concern - what goes on inside the tube or on
the bridges and how to address it? He stated that in the model an artificial signal could be
created to account for the delay that is caused inside the tube.
Chair Knox White commented on Alameda Point's EIR; traffic thru the tube; creating a fake is
not realistic for mitigation purposes.
Commissioner Krueger inquired if mitigation outside the city limits was ever asked for.
Staff Khan replied in the affirmative; the developer pays the other city for this.
Commissioner Krueger stated he wasn't aware of that. Commented that was not right; if
mitigations were done outside the city for one mode, should be the same for all modes.
Staff Khan stated this could be discussed with the City Attorney's office.
Page 7 of 15",TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-04-22,8,"DRAFT
Chair Knox White reiterated Mr. Landau's comments regarding the 10% reduction, no matter
what the LOS said.
Commissioner Krueger stated transit had fixed routes; made sense to have that 10% degradation
standard for transit; automobile drivers have a choice of multiple routes.
Staff Khan stated staff had raised the bar for transit to LOS C. Alameda will be growing; if travel
speeds are not allowed to drop by 10%, you cannot have growth in the city.
Commissioner Krueger asked if the objection was to any differential standard or to the 10%.
Staff Khan stated that in the future, many of the corridors will be going from C to D or E, so staff
wanted to address this for the future SO that it won't go to something too bad; if this was locked
in at 10% in 2030, all corridors will fail.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that if the LOS for automobiles deteriorated, the demand would
be higher. With transit, it would mean that speeds have gone lower and demand would go with it;
want more people using transit and fewer people using automobiles.
Staff Khan agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier; city is keeping the transit above everything;
balancing of all different modes.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated it would be ideal if growth occurred and was absorbed by the
mode that could handle it the best. Transit has the capacity to handle it; if people are diverted to
autos, the LOS will decline.
Staff Khan discussed significant impact. Example was given: If a bus was traveling at 13 mph on
Webster Street, and a project comes along and reduces that speed to 1.3 mph from 13 mph that
would be a significant impact.
Chair Knox White stated that example was not a good one; it's also an impact because of going
from C to D.
Staff Khan noted that staff was proposing a range of speed between LOS C to LOS D. LOS C is
between 13 mph to 19 mph; lights are running at LOS C; trying to maintain it and looking ahead
to 2030 - if nothing is done, many of those lights will be going to E or F; want to give transit the
highest priority; autos will be given the lowest priority, that is why some intersections will be
LOS F.
Chair Knox White noted differences in two approaches. 1) buses traveling 25mph could go down
to 13 mph and the developer or development would have to do nothing to fix that issue- level C.
The 10% says that at 23 mph it loses 2.3, the developer would need to do something to bring it
back up so it doesn't lose. 2) The development looks at what it is currently and what it would be
in 2030. Transit is going to slow down just because of background growth and whatever else.
Staff Bergman asked Mr. Landau about travel speed measurements; how much variability is
there between measurements and can this be reliably detected.
Mr. Landau replied a standard would have to be established; either p.m.or a.m. peak times; bus
Page 8 of 15",TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-04-22,9,"DRAFT
speeds VS. cars or bikes; need to stop for passengers. Noted Dowling's passenger counts were
not the same as AC Transit's; will not accept a future where speeds go down.
Staff Bergman spoke about the degradation of transit and the increase of transit time; real
differential is between transit and motor vehicles as far as attracting riders.
Commissioner Krueger referred to mitigation 4.1 on page 21, for autos and pedestrians; reducing
the transit LOS. He inquired if transit signal priority was considered.
Staff Khan answered in the affirmative; but not considered in this mitigation.
Commissioner Krueger acknowledged. Discussed growth vs. no growth; what mitigations would
do or not do; no impact, no mitigation.
Staff Khan agreed that mitigations can fix anything but they are very expensive.
Chair Knox White noted the Commission had made a recommendation at the last meeting
regarding LOS and that staff had responded. Need to address those comments and make a
decision on transit LOS tonight. For autos, the question is should intersections or just corridors
be included. For bikes and pedestrians, if LOS is set at D, there would be no mitigations and no
impacts. The City can decide to make sure there are no impacts so the developer doesn't have to
fix some of the issues that come with their development; or to maintain what we have.
Chair Knox White noted he was surprised to find that the urban street LOS didn't deal with
intersection turning movements. He stated that staff made a good and valid argument for keeping
the intersection LOS; any delays at the intersection will be factored into the corridor as well.
Staff Khan stated that including the intersection is important because it also gave an idea about
pedestrian timing for the signal timing, which was critical.
Commissioner Krueger asked if staff was proposing using both methodologies.
Chair Knox White answered in the affirmative.
Chair Knox White requested adding in the language that says if it's below LOS B, which is what
we recommended, that it would be an incremental change, a 10% reduction in the wait time, bike
score, etc. that would cause the triggering of a threshold. Clarified that it would not be saying
that it's at LOS D now and you have to pay to bring it back up to B. He added that the score
went down 9%, nothing needed to be done; down 11%, would have to be brought up to 10%.
Commissioner Moehring asked if a new facility would need to be at least at LOS B.
Commissioner Krueger asked if 10% was the differential used for automobiles.
Chair Knox White replied auto was 3% but that was an increase in traffic volume, not delay.
Staff Khan stated that is what currently existed.
Chair Knox White made a suggestion for a motion that the nexus area be equal in size for all
Page 9 of 15",TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-04-22,10,"DRAFT
modes; with transit, if auto intersection LOS outside of Alameda and Oakland was looked at that
the first stop outside of Alameda be looked at as well, as a corridor that crosses the city
boundary. He also suggested that the transit threshold be a 10% degradation no matter the level
of service. For auto LOS, the current city threshold for intersections be used; use staff
recommendations for arterial segments. Under bike/pedestrian, recommended adding that when
below LOS B a finding of significance would be found when there is a 10% degradation. He
stated that this proposed motion would allow for the bicycle and pedestrians modes could go
down to B with no impact. Transit could be LOS A and if there were a 10% reduction in travel
speed, it would be an impact.
Commissioner Krueger asked for a clarifying question on the proposed motion. Asked if the
requirement for the same radius when looking at a nexus, would cover looking at a stop on the
Oakland side; if the radius extends into Oakland, then that's how many stops on the Oakland side
one might consider.
Chair Knox White thought there should be clarification.
Commissioner Krueger asked why limited to the first stop.
Chair Knox White stated half the corridor in Oakland did not need to be looked at.
Commissioner Krueger noted it was being done for cars.
Staff Khan stated there was a difference. He explained that a developer's trips from a
development could impact an intersection in another jurisdiction. The other jurisdiction doesn't
have the same thresholds and we meet their thresholds when we cross the City boundary.
Chair Knox White noted it was a corridor; would be one stop in; looking at a corridor which
would be the majority of Alameda.
Staff Khan stated the need to keep it on the side of Alameda.
Chair Knox White agreed.
The Commission made the following recommendation: 1) the nexus area be equal in size for all
modes; with transit, if auto intersection LOS outside of Alameda and Oakland was looked at that
the first stop outside of Alameda be looked at as well. 2) The transit threshold would be a 10%
degradation in travel speed, no matter the level of service. 3) For auto LOS, the current city
threshold for intersections would be used, and use the staff recommendations for arterial
segments; and 4) for the bicycle and pedestrian modes, when LOS is below B, a finding of
significance would be found when there is a 10% degradation in the delay (for pedestrians) and
the LOS score (for bicycles).
Moved to Conflict Resolution.
Staff Bergman discussed the two alternatives in terms of resolving conflicts and the
recommended thresholds. Referred to the sample corridor on page 4 of the staff report;
summarized the tables, looked at the segment of Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway and
Atlantic Avenue extending from Main Street to Constitution Way; described as a regional
Page 10 of 15",TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-04-22,11,"DRAFT
arterial for the entire length. The modal priorities for Main Street to Third Street, Third Street to
Poggi Street, and Poggi Street to Webster Street, were discussed; exclusive transit right of way
identified for that corridor and a bicycle priority. Segment of Webster Street to Constitution
Way was identified as a secondary transit route. The land use classification was residential, from
Main Street to Third Street, a school and recreational zone between Third Street and Poggi
Street, residential from Poggi Street to Webster Street, and industrial/general commercial from
Webster Street to Constitution Way.
Bicycle and transit were evaluated by segment level; segment treated as a whole. Bicycle LOS
for the eastbound was D; westbound was LOS E. Transit was LOS D in the eastbound direction;
and LOS C in the westbound direction. Pedestrian/auto mode at the intersections of Atlantic
Avenue/Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue/Constitution Way. The only mode not projected to
achieve the recommended minimum LOS D was the bicycle mode; projected at E. Ways were
noted on how to make the bicycle LOS go back to D; re-striping, improving the pavement
condition or eliminating a travel lane; turn pockets are problems. Ways to implement these
mitigations without negatively impacting on the other modes. The vehicle LOS and the transit
LOS would not be negatively impacted.
If Alternative 2 was applied, the modal priorities begin with automobiles as the first, second
would be transit exclusive right of way, third bicycle and fourth pedestrian. There is a mode
priority adjustment since it's a transit exclusive right of way and a bicycle priority, then that
changes to transit exclusive being number one, bicycle number 2, auto 3 and pedestrian 4, and
then the next adjustment is based on land use. There are multiple land uses along this corridor;
analyzed each segment. For the Main Street to Third Street (residential), used transit exclusive
#1, pedestrian #2, auto #3, and bicycle #4. The next segment, Third Street to Poggi Street
(school/residential) used transit exclusive 1st, pedestrian 2nd. bicycle 3rd and auto 4th, so bicycle
and auto have been flipped. Poggi Street to Webster Street, (residential) same priority as in the
first segment; Webster Street to Constitution Street, transit exclusive, then bicycle, then auto,
then pedestrian. Transit exclusive remained the highest priority; some discontinuities on some of
the other modes based on the way it was analyzed; focused on maintaining the integrity of those
modes throughout the corridor; critical for transit to maintain transit time throughout entire line.
Noted a concern regarding Alternative #2 and the bicycle mode; while specified as a priority for
that corridor; on two of the four segments shows it became the lowest priority mode. Alternative
#1 allows for adjustments to be made between modes that allow for a degradation of each of the
modes in the event of competing priorities.
Staff Khan stated adjusting the threshold was a viable approach that could work; testing was
done at certain corridors and intersections. If LOS B for auto/bikes was maintained at a certain
location that would conflict with pedestrians at the same location and if an EIR found that there
was no feasible way to mitigate that, the Council would have to approve a Statement of
Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA. This means that the City would
acknowledge that significant impacts would occur but that they were acceptable in this situation.
He noted the flexibility permitted under Alternative 1 would enable the City to reduce the
number of EIRs that would be required. EIRs generally cost a minimum of $50,000. He
recommended that the Commission to approve Alternative 1 that is listed in Exhibit 3.
Chair Knox White agreed but noted that the thresholds could be written to specifically say that
something is not an impact.
Page 11 of 15",TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-04-22,12,"DRAFT
Staff Bergman noted that he would like to add to the staff recommendation that if a segment had
a Class I bikeway and had not been recommended for a future bicycle lane, the degradation of
the bicycle LOS would be allowed to go to E and would not be considered a significant impact.
Since the bicycle LOS does not account for off-street paths, this would allow a street with a
Class I facility to degrade lower than one where bicyclists must ride in the street.
Chair Knox White agreed. Discussed Alternatives 1 and 2. He stated that it was strange that a
bicycle priority street is a priority where it came in last on the analysis, and that pedestrians
should be better taken care of in this process.
Commissioner Moehring thanked staff for creating a report that a non-transportation professional
could read.
Chair Knox White stated that he hoped there would have been more analysis comparing the two
different proposals and how they would work out; would have been good to look at Park or
Webster Streets or Central as it comes down through the center of the island.
Staff Khan explained that the study was conducted this way because segments with potential
concerns for pedestrians were selected.
Chair Knox White stated he did not have a problem with what was chosen.
Commissioner Krueger noted his that there was a slight difference between his understanding
and what was written up. He thought that the bicycle mode was the number 3 priority for the
residential land use regardless of whether it was a bike route or not. But it states that bikes were
only prioritized if it was in the bike network. To address this situation where it is a residential
land use and a regional arterial, he suggested slot bicycle in after pedestrian but only if it's a bike
route.
Chair Knox White stated the intent was to say that bike is only prioritized here if it's on a bike
network.
Commissioner Krueger stated he thought his thinking on the matter may not have been correct
and would like to hear from others.
Chair Knox White stated autos being the bottom priority on a regional arterial seemed odd.
Commissioner Krueger stated the land use shifted the priorities.
Chair Knox White noted that when he developed Alternative 2 that he left the bikes off
purposefully.
Commissioner Krueger stated the residential land use changed it.
Chair Knox White stated the only difference between a regional arterial and non-regional arterial
would be that primary transit was not prioritized in a residential area; bikes would be before
transit in that area.
Commissioner Krueger stated that residential elevates bike, whether it's a bike route or not; same
Page 12 of 15",TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-04-22,13,"DRAFT
thought for school & recreation; not conditional on the street type.
Staff Khan noted that if land use changed, the modes would be segmented.
Commissioner Krueger noted that may be more of an operational issue; it was a conflict
resolution; if land use changes, the conflict would be treated differently.
Staff Khan noted the models could not be broken down into very small segments; two
intersections are needed to do an urban street analysis; when segments are broken into small
pieces it becomes impossible to see the impact.
Commissioner Moehring asked if staff was recommending Alternative 1 because there is more
room for mitigation.
Staff Khan replied that the recommendation was made because with this approach transit could
be kept a priority, even in a conflict.
Commissioner Krueger stated that in both alternatives, transit maintained a priority.
Staff Khan stated the pedestrian was a local impact at an intersection; wanted to maintain transit
as a constant.
Commissioner Krueger asked if that was also the case in Alternative 2.
Staff Khan replied that a primary transit route would not have the highest priority because of
exclusive right of way.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the inversion of pedestrian and transit in a commercial district
on a regional arterial was the crux of the issue.
Staff Bergman stated that part of the issue with Alternative 2 was the sequence in which the
overlays were placed; land use is the final one; under Alternative 1, land use is considered first,
the modal overlay would be done last.
The Commission made the following recommendation to accept Alternative 1 for resolving
conflicts. Chair Knox White noted the vote would be prioritizing transit over pedestrian at all
times.
Chair Knox White mentioned that some items were not voted on at the last meeting; 4 thresholds
plus the off street path exemption, LOS E for bikes. Page 1, Exhibit 4, Alternative 2, the items
not discussed were bullets 1, 3 and last 2.
Commissioner Krueger stated he liked staff's recommendation.
Staff Khan stated the edits were made; listed as Alternative 1, page 2 of 4, the last bullet.
Chair Knox White noted the removal of the third bullet in Alternative 2; did not vote on short-
term construction impact and safety impact.
Page 13 of 15",TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-04-22,14,"DRAFT
Chair Knox White noted the threshold of significance for Alternative 1 was taken.
Commissioner Krueger stated he didn't realize there had been a split.
Chair Knox White indicated this should have been an action item. The Commission made its
recommendation, so if needed it could be brought back at the next meeting for a vote.
Chair Knox White noted there were thresholds of significance that had not been voted on yet;
taking no action on those. Referred to Alternative 2, page 1, 1 bullet, last 2 bullets, and staff
recommendation about including removal of crosswalks. He suggested recommending those
four points.
The Commission recommended approval of the staff recommendation.
The Commission recommended the addition of the following to the thresholds of significance:
""if a segment has a Class I facility and has not been recommended for future bike lane, the
degradation of LOS to E would be not considered a significant impact"".
Commissioner Krueger stated the presentation was very well done, especially the charts.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Broadway/Jackson Update
Staff Khan noted had received responses from Caltrans in terms of PSR. Noted ACTIA was
about to issue an RFP for the analysis of the ""horseshoe"".
Chair Knox White inquired if Caltrans was allowing it to move forward.
Staff Khan noted that staff's approach was to use them to do the analysis.
Upcoming development-related traffic studies and plans
Staff Khan noted that Boatworks' Project has been slowed down.
Future meeting agenda items
Staff Khan stated casual carpool will be coming to the May meeting, including a presentation on
what has been done, and a recommendation.
Chair Knox White stated hopefully the long-range transit plan update will be agendized.
Staff Khan stated it could be brought forward for discussion but not sure how it would be funded.
Staff Khan noted a final recommendation would be presented.
Staff Bergman noted the CMA was interested in brining in a draft of its Community Based
Transportation Plan for input.
ILC Update
Staff Khan noted several issues were discussed; Line 51 & performance measures from AC
Transit; when those are received they will be shared with the Commission; Line 63 - AC Transit
Page 14 of 15",TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2009-04-22,15,"DRAFT
said moving to Shoreline Drive was not a viable option from their recommendation; from Otis
Drive they are proposing to establish a bus stop at Sandcreek Way on Otis Drive, where it used
to exist before. Councilmember Matarrese had asked that this go to City Council for their final
decision. Staff will be preparing a report and taking it to council in next few weeks.
Alameda EasyPass program for full-time City employees- all the photos have been taken; passes
should be received May 1st.
Discussed Santa Clara and Chestnut item regarding the request to relocate the bus stop; there was
no appeal of the TC decision The bench for that location should be installed this week; shelter
issue still under discussion, and the City is applying for funding for 16 shelters through the
federal stimulus package.
Commissioner Krueger remembered they been prioritized by ridership.
Commissioner Krueger stated the recommendation had included trashcans as well as benches.
Staff Bergman replied he wasn't sure of the status, and he would follow up with solid waste staff.
Staff Khan discussed Suncal and AC Transit in terms of service in the city; could get funding.
AC Transit cuts were discussed due to the budget crisis; there will be a public workshop in mid-
May to seek input on key transit priorities from the public
Commissioner Schatmeier noted there were alternate ways of dealing with this.
Chair Knox White noted AC Transit was asked to come speak to the TC as part of its process.
Staff Bergman mentioned a memo had been received from the Alameda Youth Advisory
Commission staffed by our Recreation and Parks Department; they had transportation issues;
requested a copy of their memo be distributed.
Also, a letter addressed to Chair Knox White from Jeff Cambra, Estuary Crossing Committee for
Bike Alameda; asked that this be shared with the Commission.
9.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:00 p.m.
Page 15 of 15",TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,1,"Transportation Commission
July 24, 2013
Item 4A
Action
Transportation Commission Minutes: Wednesday, June 26, 2013
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:
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Michele Bellows
Eric Schatmeier
Thomas G. Bertken
Members Absent:
Sandy Wong
Staff Present:
Staff Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Staff Naclerio, Public Works Director
2.
Agenda Changes
Commissioner Vargas explained that moderate modifications may be made to the consent
calendar.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Commissioner Vargas conducted transportation research with his family in the city of Orlando
and rode the city's monorail.
4.
Consent Calendar
4A.
Meeting Minutes - April 24, 2013
No comments.
Page 1 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,2,"4B.
Alameda Paratransit Shuttle - Thursday Central Loop Stop Changes
Staff Payne stated she received one email from a community member supporting the removal of
the shuttle stop on Broadway at Lincoln Avenue. However, she explained the supporter would
like to see space made available to view pedestrians and have general visibility. Overall, she
said there is about 50 feet reserved at the bus stop. Staff wants to add one space and that is
included in the staff report in Exhibit 2. Additionally, staff would reserve 20 feet for visibility,
and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standard is 10 feet.
Commissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Bertken seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 4-0; 1 abstention.
5.
New Business
5A. Posey and Webster Tube Rehabilitation Project
Commissioner Vargas said there has been discussion and letters written by the City Manager and
Mayor.
Staff Payne introduced Michael Nguyen, Caltrans' Posey Webster Tube Retrofit Project
Manager, who presented. She explained that public comments to date focus on three different
areas: the retrofit project, ongoing maintenance issues and long range planning of the area.
Michael Nguyen presented information about the retrofit project. Also, Elizabeth McKee, the
cultural resources representative for Caltrans, added information to the presentation.
Elizabeth McKee, Caltrans Office Chief of Cultural Resource Studies of the Environmental
Division, stated she is part of a functional group that supports the office's engineers. She
explained to the Transportation Commission that they evaluate the potential effects of projects
on historical resources, especially when federal funds are involved. She presented a synopsis of
the types of evaluations that are conducted.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked about the signs slide within the presentation and he asked if
overhead lights would be removed on both sides of the tube.
Michael Nguyen replied that overhead lights would be removed on the Alameda side as well.
Commissioner Bellows asked about the closed-circuit television (CCTV) and whether that would
translate to changeable message signs so there is warning in the tube.
Michael Nguyen replied that he is not sure, but Caltrans plans to connect them to the CCTV.
Commissioner Bellows asked if they monitor the CCTV on Grand Street.
Page 2 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,3,"Michael Nguyen replied yes.
Commissioner Bellows asked if someone had to physically type a message to show on the
message board.
Michael Nguyen replied yes.
Commissioner Miley wondered when the signs are removed, where are they going to be
positioned because it was not clearly outlined in the staff report.
Michael Nguyen replied that they are looking to combine the 45 mph speed limit sign and several
other signs in the background. Additionally, they may combine them and mount them on the left
because the 45 mph speed limit slightly blocks the building. Moreover, the two Emergency
Message Signs (EMS) are proposed to move closer to the intersection to better serve motorists.
Commissioner Miley said he understood the intent, but he wondered at what intersection would
the signs be located. He asked if they would be at the intersection at Constitution Way and
Marina Village Parkway, because currently the signs warn drivers of a problem, but when drivers
are at that point it is too late.
Michael Nguyen replied the signs are moving closer to the intersection by Marina Village
Parkway by the shopping center.
Commissioner Miley asked in what direction would the lights on the towers would be
illuminated.
Michael Nguyen stated the lights would be shining onto the building itself to illuminate the
building.
Commissioner Miley asked about the building and its relation to the ventilation process.
Michael Nguyen stated that is more or less a question for the maintenance engineers, but he
would relay the message to staff and get back to the Transportation Commission.
Commissioner Bertken explained to the Commission that there are big intake fans in the building
and big channels go below the runway where fresh air comes in and there is an exhaust channel
in the ceiling. So, essentially it is pushing air from the bottom and it is going up and getting a
cross flow of air up and down the tube.
Commissioner Schatmeier wondered if the project included improvements to the ventilation
system.
Michael Nguyen replied the fans are not in the scope of the project.
Commissioner Miley asked if it was possible to improve the ventilation system.
Michael Nguyen said the tube's fans are turned on at certain times, but rehabilitation of the vents
Page 3 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,4,"Then they changed the access to a gate and people can open it from the roadway. Overall, the
gate provides a safety measure and it protects kids from falling through the gap in the guardrail.
Commissioner Bellows asked since the project is a yearlong construction project if Caltrans
would have to close traffic in the tube.
Michael Nguyen replied yes they would have to close traffic in the tube and staff is discussing
whether to close the lane adjacent to the sidewalk or close two lanes. He also said, they are
looking at the traffic impacts and would have the lane closure reviewed by the City.
Commissioner Bertken said there was a letter addressed by the City Manager about the screening
issues at the entrance on the Oakland side of the tube. He went on to say that in the late
afternoon, it is difficult to see when entering and the Caldecott tunnel has a screening affect just
before drivers enter the tunnel.
Michael Nguyen replied Caltrans received comments regarding visibility and they are reviewing
it with staff.
Commissioner Bertken asked if the issue was included in the project.
Michael Nguyen replied that they do not know if the issue would cause minimal impact to the
project especially since the funding is set. So, if funding allowed a screen for enhanced visibility
then it would be added to the project.
Commissioner Bertken exclaimed visibility is a safety issue.
Staff Naclerio said the topic was addressed in the meeting with Caltrans earlier that day and
Page 4 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,5,"Caltrans indicated that they would look into it. He understood that it is not part of the project, but
he asked if they could look into it as a subsequent project. Consequently, Caltrans mentioned that
historic impacts would stem from the request.
Commissioner Vargas asked if Caltrans and Alameda have a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) or Project Charter that highlights the communications of the project.
Michael Nguyen replied since he is the new project manager, he would have to look at the history
of dialogue revolving around the project.
Staff Naclerio replied he is not aware of any agreement.
Commissioner Vargas asked Michael Nguyen to check with staff and come back to the
Commission with an answer. Additionally, he understood there are funding limits of around $8
million from the SHOPP fund. Yet, he wanted general background of the greatest expenses.
Michael Nguyen said the ballpark costs would be $5 million with the tube's rail and two
walkways, minor repair of the sidewalk and $2 million for the Posey buildings.
Commissioner Bellows asked if work would be conducted on the building near the city of
Oakland.
Michael Nguyen replied there would be work conducted on the Oakland and Alameda side.
Commissioner Vargas called for public comments.
John Knox White, City of Alameda Planning Board member, spoke as a citizen and felt the
project will look great once it is done. However, he had a concern with the solid railing because
it is at handle bar height and that may cause bicyclists to run their handlebars into it. He noted
that around the year 2000, there was a major retrofit project underway for the tube. BikeAlameda
went to Caltrans to request improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians in the tube and Caltrans
replied that the design and construction process is already underway. In 2007, Caltrans decided
to conduct additional work on the paths and BikeAlameda went to Caltrans to request the path be
fixed. Again, Caltrans said it is designed and already underway. In 2013, Caltrans presented a
previous version of the presentation at Alameda's Planning Board and Historical Advisory Board
meeting and when the organization approached Caltrans they said sorry it is too late and we have
moved forward. Overall, he felt Caltrans refused to work with the local community until
Assemblymember Rob Bonta, City Manager John Russo, Mayor Marie Gilmore, City of
Oakland, Alameda and Oakland bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups wrote letters to
highlight the outreach and communication issues. Overall, he asked the Transportation
Commission to make a motion to ask the City Council to send a letter to Caltrans asking Caltrans
to partner with the community at the beginning of a project.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, said he sat in on
the last couple of rounds when Caltrans was working on the tube and he endorsed Mr. White's
comments. He felt Caltrans turns a blind eye to bicyclists and pedestrians, but he appreciated the
historical aspects and the restorations of the project. Also, he would like to see the lighting on
Page 5 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,6,"the building directed downward due to visual pollution issues. Moreover, back in 2000, he
talked to the Caltrans engineers at a public meeting and suggested they place a driveway to have
an emergency egress out of the Posey Tube for any last minute bail outs. During the
presentation, a Caltrans representative said the sidewalk/bike lane could not be widened because
the roadway was already too narrow. Yet, he did not hear any reference of the California
Legislation that requires Complete Streets approaches to every project that Caltrans undertakes
or a reference to the possibility that pedestrians and bicyclists could have equal rights to
automobiles.
Commissioner Vargas called for public outreach by Caltrans on all aspects of any project. He
also wanted to review the comments sought from the City's community meetings by
organizations such as the bicycle coalition.
Michael Nguyen replied during the environmental process that they worked with Alameda staff
to post the project's description on their website and receive feedback about the project. Since
the current project is programmed under SHOPP, Caltrans does not normally host the public
meeting, but have the cities involved to take comments.
Commissioner Miley stated that Caltrans staff could involve the community during the scoping
process and before the project is programmed.
Michael Nguyen replied that is correct.
Commissioner Miley emphasized to Caltrans that the underlining message is to involve the
community early on before the environmental review.
Commissioner Bellows said under the project's schedule, there is ample time to have a public
meeting to gain input. Also, she felt regardless of the funding source, this is a public project and
although the environmental document typically dictates what type of outreach the sponsor does
they can always conduct outreach.
Commissioner Schatmeier agreed with the need for public outreach, but outreach must be done at
a
point when change is possible. He also felt the Transportation Commission should be able to
have input early in the process.
Commissioner Miley stated this happens a lot and has historically been an issue with projects and
he knew the City was working on it. He agreed with the comments by the Commissioners and
felt that with limited transportation dollars, it is critically important to be smart with investments.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked the Transportation Commission if they would like to make a
motion to inform the City Council of the Commission's desire to be informed and have
community involvement by Caltrans early on in the project process.
Commissioner Bertken asked Staff Naclerio how could the Transportation Commission get
involved early enough to insert comments.
Staff Naclerio replied that once a preliminary plan is developed, staff would go to the public to
Page 6 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,7,"conduct a public meeting for input. Then staff would work with Caltrans to implement the public
input as much as they could. Staff would then decide if additional public meetings are necessary
and if not, the item would be brought to the Transportation Commission.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he would like to see the public input process happen along the
way when the project sponsor and City are defining the project. Overall, he felt there must be a
point that the Transportation Commission could comment on a range of improvements and other
input.
Commissioner Miley replied he would like public input and the Commission's input conducted
during the scoping process. He said in terms of making the motion, if the Commission was
willing to incorporate language from Staff Naclerio's comments about involving the community
and public process during the scoping phase, he would be willing to second the motion.
Staff Naclerio replied it is easier for the community to respond to a proposal compared to a
nebulous idea of what may be happening. However, he does think part of the issue with this
project is the funding source.
Commissioner Schatmeier made a motion for the Transportation Commission to request the City
Council to communicate with Caltrans to conduct public input earlier on in the project process
and especially at a time when public input can influence what is included in the project and the
project's scope. Commissioner Miley seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
Staff Naclerio replied it might be effective to have that message relayed to the City Manager by
staff and the City Manager would work with the Mayor to send the letter.
Commissioner Schatmeier made an amendment to the motion for staff to work with the City
Manager and the Mayor who would draft a letter of intent to the City Councilmembers.
Commissioner Miley seconded the motion moved to accept staff recommendations. The motion
was approved 5-0.
5B. Draft Regional Transit Access Study (RTAS)
Staff Naclerio presented the background for the study.
Commissioner Bertken asked Staff Naclerio if only comments from the Transportation
Commission were required after the presentation and public comment.
Staff Naclerio replied yes.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked what was the action.
Staff Naclerio replied staff was accepting comments and then they would forward those
comments to the Planning Board and the Planning Board would review the document in light of
those comments before forwarding their motion to the City Council for acceptance.
Page 7 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,8,"input incorporated into the final document. He introduced staff Colin Burgett from Nelson
Nygaard Transportation Consulting Associates and subcontractor John Atkinson who are
working on the study.
John Atkinson discussed his work with the grant proposal and Regional Transit Access Study
(RTAS).
Colin Burgett, Principal at Nelson Nygaard Transportation Consulting Associates, presented the
details of the RTAS.
Commissioner Vargas bequeathed the chair to Commissioner Miley because he is involved with
AC Transit Line #51 project. He asked AC Transit representative Linda Morris to comment on
the presentation and Commissioner Miley would facilitate the discussion.
Linda Morris, AC Transit Senior Planner, stated she was not there to comment on the draft report
because it was her first time reviewing the report. However, AC Transit has been collaborating
with the consultants prior to the draft report and they sent them a letter with their comments on
the 1st draft in January 2013 and they will respond to the new draft soon.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff if the Transportation Commission received the comments
made by AC Transit on the first draft report.
Linda Morris replied the letter went to City staff and the consultant.
Staff Naclerio replied the comments would be forwarded to the Commission for review.
Commissioner Schatmeier explained that he was asked by staff to comment on an earlier version
of the report. He told the Commissioners that he and AC Transit provided comments and some
of the comments were incorporated in the latest draft and others were not.
Commissioner Miley called for public comments.
Page 8 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,9,"Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling said he is glad that regional
transit is getting attention in this study and BART acted as the pass through agency to get the
money for the City. However, when he reviewed the study and heard the presentation, he heard
nothing about Alameda's Housing Element and the Multifamily Housing overlay that was
adopted last year. Nor did he hear a reference to them in the draft of study results in terms of trip
generation. Furthermore, he did not see in the draft or presentation any reference of the scoping
of the environmental impact statement for Alameda Point because there is an estimated 1,700 to
4,500 housing units up for development. So, he felt those issues needed to be accounted for in
the final version of the study. In a procedural standpoint, he believed there was no mention of
community meetings set for the study although this is technical study. Also, if the City is moving
towards a longtime transit corridor, the community needs to be involved in evaluating that
change in the beginning. Finally, he could not help but find misplaced quotation marks and
commas in the first few pages of the report beginning on page two and the corrections should be
taken care of when the report is presented to the City Council.
John Knox White, City of Alameda Planning Board member, speaking as a citizen said when he
sat on the Transportation Commission with Commissioner Schatmeier, they conducted the
Transportation Element and identified Lincoln and Clement Avenues as the two exclusive transit
streets. So, he understood that the Transportation Element may be the driving factor of why they
chose that location. Specifically, he noted the RTAS' analysis does not review the various
alternatives that are identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Alameda Point. He
believes this is a problem because land use and transportation planning should be conducted
together. Also, he points out that there is not analysis on how the plan will serve commercial
areas that are not at the Seaplane Lagoon. He goes on to say this will be a driving plan for
transportation solutions at Alameda Point and there should be some discussion on transportation
integration of the various housing, mixed-use and commercial areas.
Commissioner Bertken said the presentation made him think that the Lincoln Avenue corridor
would replace the AC Transit Line # 51 on Santa Clara Avenue. So, he wanted to know what
would the City gain from this change. Based on the consultant's illustrations, the corridor was
not serving Alameda Point based on the distance and travel to Fruitvale versus going directly to
downtown Oakland. So, the corridor would take longer to travel and would not service Fruitvale
BART Station. He noted the result would take the highest use transit corridor for AC Transit
Line #51A and move it down a block without indicating how that would affect the patronage.
Staff Naclerio replied the purpose of the study was to enhance all transit access for all future
developed areas. Colin Burgett presented the bubble illustrations that showed access to the
Northern Waterfront site and the current location at Santa Clara Avenue does not catch it.
Colin Burgett explained the value would relate to the future development at the Northern
Waterfront. If the City made the transit change and there is no change to development at the
Northern Waterfront, the City would serve a similar ridership market, but not as centralized. Yet,
with proposed residential development and job sites closer to the waterfront, that would be a
value from a ridership perspective. Additionally, AC Transit would reduce travel time and costs.
He was aware that AC Transit was conducting its own study on the Line #51 so there was no
interest on the RTAS to say the line would be relocated. However, the expectation was that AC
Page 9 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,10,"Transit would conduct a focus study, so that would be the appropriate place for the discussion to
occur.
Commissioner Bertken said it would be redundant to have both lines, so, which one is more
viable.
Colin Burgett replied if AC Transit preferred the Lines #51A and O to operate on Santa Clara
Avenue, then investing in rapid bus improvements on Lincoln Avenue become questionable.
Commissioner Bertken said based on the presentation illustration, moving the Line #51 down a
block showed the influence lines for various transit. He exclaimed there was still a small island
of no transit usage down the middle. So, if AC Transit moved the Line # 51 that would not be a
little island anymore, but a large number of residents who would not be able to access the line.
Commissioner Schatmeier addressed the corridor concerns and said he understood the review of
looking at Lincoln, Clement and other potential transit corridors. Yet, he pointed out the City
would still establish an east and west transit corridor policy and that is an issue that was not
settled by the report. He asked if the Transportation Commission adopted the report would that
become City policy. He referenced the presentation's bubble illustration and how all transit lines
are equal to each other (e.g. Line #51 operates throughout the day and with higher frequencies
compared to Line #20). He also questioned the point of moving a transit line close to an
employment center unless there were other reasons for justifying the line. He went on to say the
initial transit study conducted by the City with AC Transit recommended a second trunk line for
the City down the Buena Vista corridor, through west Berkeley and El Cerrito and on to the
Oakland International Airport. Consequently, he exclaimed the City got the now defunct Line
#19, which was not a trunk line, nor did it run everyday and had 30-minute headways.
Colin Burgett presumed the line did not survive because there was too much overlap with the
Line #51 catchment area and it was essentially too close.
Commissioner Schatmeier said overall the report was reviewing the transit policy of the east and
west corridor in Alameda and he hoped that passing on any information or endorsing anything
going forward would not endorse policy for the City to move the main corridor.
Commissioner Bertken felt the report contained a lot of information and he would like to have
time review the document again and make notes. Thus, he would like to delay the comment
process.
Alex Nguyen, Alameda City Manager, replied that the outcome is contingent on AC Transit's
response. So, he does not want the City to get so far into the planning process and at the end of
the day AC Transit does not agree with the plan. He recommended staff have another study
session with the Transportation Commission, community members and key members of AC
Transit.
Commissioner Miley replied that based on John Knox White's comments, it might be useful to
have a joint Transportation Commission and Planning Board meeting on items that deal with
land use and transportation planning and this might be that item. He also asked the consultant if
Page 10 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,11,"they analyzed the inclusion of a BART Station at Alameda Point.
Colin Burgett said there were different ideas about constructing a second BART tube crossing,
but realistically that would take a long time to be fully realized.
Commissioner Miley stated the study showed how the City would address transportation
throughout the island, but the constraining point is the tube. So he felt queue jump lanes should
be analyzed for the tunnel because when the tunnel is congested, it defeats the point of rapid bus
service.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied he endorsed the idea of a joint meeting between the
Transportation Commission and Planning Board because he would like the City to aim for higher
transit usage.
Colin Burgett said if the City decided to go for an aggressive Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan, the system would have the capacity to accommodate double the
ridership.
Staff Naclerio suggested to the Commission that staff meet with AC Transit to discuss the
preferences on Santa Clara and Lincoln Avenues and staff would bring the comments back to the
next Transportation Commission meeting. Additionally, staff would schedule a joint meeting
with the Planning Board and Transportation Commission to discuss the results of the meeting
with AC Transit.
5C. Guidelines for Installation of Parklets
Staff Naclerio presented the report.
Commissioner Vargas called for public comment.
Donna Eyestone, Alameda Resident, assisted with the Park(ing) Day installation on September
21, 2012. She saw a lot of people come by and create a community building experience.
Furthermore, she believed it would be good to have this public gathering space so residents and
visitors could see what businesses are along Park Street and talk with their neighbors. She also
thanked Staff Naclerio, Board member Knox White, and Board member Burton for their support.
David Burton, President of the Alameda Planning Board and President for Community Action
for a Sustainable Alameda, spoke as a citizen and resident architect to encourage the
Commission to adopt the guidelines so one or two parklets could build around town as quickly as
possible. He mentioned that parklets provide great opportunities for community building and
casual encounters in the public realm. He thanked Board member Knox White and Donna
Eyestone for their support. During Park(ing) Day, the installation setup began at 8 am and ended
at 8pm and over 300 people came by to view the installation.
John Knox White endorsed the change that Staff Nacliero mentioned in terms of the approval
because there was some concern that parklets would sprout up like tulips and parking would
diminish. He noted the guidelines would create market forces that would prevent an
Page 11 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,12,"overwhelming construction of parklets.
John Spangler believed the guidelines make sense and thanked Donna Eyestone and the Park
Street Business Association for their support. He also noticed the top floor of the parking
structure does not have a lot of pedestrian access, SO it would create a great opportunity for a
parklet and downtown park. Additionally, he would like to see some in street bike parking as the
next logical step.
Commissioner Miley said one of the speakers addressed the temporary and permanent type builds
of the parklets. He asked if there is any expectation on the length of time that they would be up
and running.
Staff Naclerio replied it would be reviewed annually and parklet sponsors would apply through a
temporary encroachment permit plus administrative and planning fees. Also, staff anticipated an
average cost of $500 for administrative and planning fees.
Commissioner Miley asked about the approval process and whether the policy would be in place
after the Commission approved the guidelines or would it go to the City Council for review.
Staff Naclerio replied the City Charter gave the Planning Board the right for decisions involving
landscape and public right of way. So, staff would work with the Transportation Commission for
their recommendations and the recommendations would go to the Planning Staff and Planning
Board would make an approval.
Commissioner Miley asked Staff Naclerio to incorporate all outcomes or next steps in future staff
reports when the Commission is asked to make an approval. Overall, he supported the concept of
parklets.
Staff Bellows asked if the parklets could be built in residential areas.
Staff Naclerio replied it is not prohibited, but it is unlikely.
Staff Bellows said that becomes an unintended consequence and if someone wanted to build a
parklet then they could.
Staff Naclerio replied they would still need to fill out an application; staff would put out a notice
of intent to approve and post the notice for 10 days and allow for public comment. He said if the
Commission preferred, staff could limit the parklets to commercial areas.
Staff Bellows asked if there is a maximum length designated for the parklets.
Staff Naclerio replied the minimum length is one parking space and there is no maximum.
However, the adjacent businesses that are fronting the parklet have to approve the construction.
Commissioner Vargas said he liked the parklet concept. However, based on other cities'
financial challenges, he wondered if the parking permit fees increase to accommodate the loss of
revenue generated from the parking space.
Page 12 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,13,"Staff Naclerio replied no and staff felt overall that would be nominal and the benefits of the
public space would outweigh the costs. Also, the encroachment permit fee is in addition to the
$500 administrative and planning fee after the notice of intent has been approved.
Commissioner Bertken said if the parking meters have to be removed would that be part of the
cost levied on the property owner.
Staff Naclerio replied the removal of the parking meters would be the responsibility of the
sponsor of the parklet.
Commissioner Miley asked Staff Naclerio what is the process if the guidelines need to be revised
in the future.
Staff Naclerio replied the process would be the same as they are following now. Staff would go
to the Transportation Commission with a recommendation to the Planning Board for their
approval.
Commissioner Miley stated he is willing to move forward while incorporating Commissioner
Bellow's concerns regarding residential restriction on parklet construction.
Staff Bellows seconded the statement.
Commissioner Bertken agreed with the original motion, but wanted to include Staff Naclerio 's
comments about the 3/4 or 75% response rate.
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the guidelines with two amendments, which are the
restriction of parklets in residential areas and the language Staff Naclerio provided regarding 75
percent response rate on either side. The motion was approved 4-0; 1 abstention.
6.
Staff Communications
Local Rider Issues on AC Transit Transbay Routes
City and AC Transit staff are working together to provide reminders about the procedures
that local riders can ride on Transbay buses, with the exception of Line OX, which they
are working to eliminate in late September 2013.
Status of AC Transit Lines 314 and 356 (Midday Shopper Shuttles)
The lines will be eliminated at some point because they are under utilized and in
September, there will be some additional studies.
Linda Morris, AC Transit Senior Planner, the lines are part of the restructuring plan that
are going through the AC Transit Board right now, because they are the two lowest
performers in the district. They are no longer in the restructuring plan going forward in
Page 13 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,14,"December 2013; however, they are in the Comprehensive Operations Analysis reports
and have gone to the board earlier this month and in September. The lines are proposed to
be eliminated in that report, but they don't have a timeline yet.
AC Transit Line 51A Performance Initiative Project (Community Workshop on
Tuesday, July 9th at 7 p.m.)
AC Transit is the lead on the project and City staff is working with AC Transit on the
first community workshop on July 9th. Staff sent out notifications about that and received
comments, but AC Transit is the lead and they are receiving most of the comments. Staff
has a web page about the project for more information and the meeting results will come
to the Commission in September.
Intersection Improvements at Central Avenue/Third Street/Taylor Avenue - Phase
II (Community Workshop Comment Summaries)
Staff Payne said City staff has been working at the intersection in front of Encinal High
School and had a couple of community workshops there. So, the item will come to the
Transportation Commission next month.
Bikes on BART
Staff gave the Commission the information on BART's analysis on the pilot studies that
have been conducted. BART board approved another bikes on board pilot study for 5
months from July 1st to December 1st of 2013. The pilot study allows bikes at all times
with the exception of the first three cars during peak commute hours and bikes are never
allowed in the first car and on escalators.
Commissioner Miley asked the Commissioners if they are on board with the Bikes on
Board policy could they ask the City to send a letter of support.
Staff Payne replied the Commission should wait and see how the current pilot study plays
out before they send a letter.
Commissioner Schatmeier wondered what BART's criteria for success was because the
material showed that around 85% to 90% had no problem with bikes on board. So, he
wanted to what is BART's reaction to the 10% to 15% of riders who either do not like the
policy or are neutral.
Pedestrian Safety Campaign
Staff Payne said a $8,900 was awarded for the creation of pedestrian safety videos
graphics with the City Public Works logo. They are creating four different videos that are
15 seconds long and would play before the start of a movie at the Alameda Theatre. The
videos would appear later this summer or into the fall and will be played for 5 months.
Page 14 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,15,"Grant Submittal Update
The City was awarded $631,000 to resurface Pacific and Main to 3rd and Otis Park to
Broadway. Staff would find out tomorrow (June 27th) if their recommendations to fund
the Cross Alameda Trail were approved. The project ranked second under Measure B
Bike/Pedestrian Discretionary fund. In addition, the Estuary Crossing Shuttle will
increase in frequency and service would begin at 6:30 am to 7 pm with 30-minute
frequencies for the next two years. Staff will also hear from Caltrans about the planning
grant in August and staff submitted a TIGER grant for the San Francisco Bay Trail.
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
-
AC Transit OX- Opening to Local Riders
-
Resident Appeal of Public Works Staff's Decision to Not Install Street Sweeping
Signs on La Jolla Drive
-
Traffic Control and Contingency Plan during Construction for I-880/29th
Avenue/23rd Avenue Interchange Improvement Project in Oakland: Public
Information Program and Transit Impacts
-
Robert Davey Jr. Dr. at Channing Drive Traffic Calming - Phase II
-
AC Transit Line 51A Performance Initiative Project
-
Port of Oakland's Ron Cowan Parkway Proposed Class I Path
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Jon Spangler wanted to address some issues regarding the Bikes on BART pilot since he is a
member of the BART Bike Advisory Task Force. He was at the meeting on May 23rd and BART
staff recommended that the pilot change be a permanent change, but the board was more
conservative. He also understood that the operations managers of BART felt the bike pilot was a
non-event and it is exactly what those people want everyday. He urged the Commission to write
a letter or recommend the City to write a letter supporting bikes on board BART as a permanent
policy change because the BART board will hold a meeting again in October to reconsider the
pilot.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that all through downtown San Francisco there were repeat
examples of bikes getting on and off the wrong cars. He urged Jon Spangler to let the bicycle
community know that they have to observe the rules whenever they can so they don't wreck the
pilot.
Jon Spangler replied they do that and there are people that don't obey the rules in every aspect of
our lives and bicyclist seem to be a lighting rod on BART in particular because they are an easy
target, but rules are disobeyed and it's not always willful sometimes it just happens.
John Knox White spoke about a developed project coming before the Planning Board on Monday
on the corner of Willie Stargell Avenue and Webster Street, which has significant access issues.
He was concerned that the In and Out Burger development was moving in such a pace that the
Transportation Commission may miss their window of opportunity to set necessary mitigation
conditions to enhance access to Neptune Park.
Page 15 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,16,"Lucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda, stated Neptune Park pathway is the alignment that was
already approved by the Commission in January, but she felt the Commission has not looked at
the access points at Marina Village Parkway and Constitution on the eastside and Stargell
Avenue and Webster Street on the Westside. She said there could be an accessible throughway
for bicycles and pedestrians between Marina Village, developed housing, the college, and
Alameda Landing. However, the City is not improving those intersections so the path could be
accessed safely. Three of the streets Stargell Avenue, Webster Street and Marina Village
Parkway have double left turns or double right turns and there are four and five lane
intersections, which are horrible for pedestrians and bicyclists to go through. Webster Street and
Stargell Avenue only have one crosswalk and Marina Village and Constitution Way only have
two crosswalks. She requested a big public meeting be held to discuss safe access to Neptune
Park.
Commissioner Bellows asked if Webster Street is a state route because that would be an issue
with Caltrans.
Lucy Gigli replied one of the intersections is a Caltrans intersection. However, they agreed that
they would work better with them in the future and this is an opportunity to test this process.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if there are any plans to conduct public outreach on this access
issues or was the intent to bring the topic to the Planning Board or the Transportation
Commission for comment.
Staff Naclerio replied that the In and Out development is a project designated for the Planning
Board and the Community Development Department is ushering that through. He knew that
there was a presentation at the Planning Board that included comments and staff was trying to
address those comments. He reminded the Commission that the Neptune Park has not been
designed, but there was a review and approval of the preliminary alignment by the Commission.
He said staff anticipated working on this project in the fall and staff would follow the standard
process of presenting a preliminary design and then have a public meeting to elicit public
comments. However, he was happy to make the first public meeting at the Transportation
Commission meeting if the Commission desired.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff for bicycle route continuity to denote where there is a route or
path and highlight a few participating projects underway so there is some education to the
Commission about access issues.
Staff Naclerio replied within that location or throughout the City.
Commissioner Vargas stated throughout the City.
Staff Naclerio replied the Bicycle Master Plan shows the gaps and there is a map in the Bicycle
Master Plan so maybe that is something to start with.
Commissioner Bertken highlighted the lack of adequate of pedestrian crossings coming out of the
Webster Street on the side of the tunnel and the Wiley Stargell Avenue intersection that connect
Page 16 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-06-26,17,"with the Neptune Park pathway.
John Knox White explained that he hoped there are upcoming path improvements through
Neptune Park because there are some real configuration issues.
Staff Naclerio replied if the nexus is with the In and Out Burger development that is not coming
to the Transportation Commission it should be discussed at the Planning Board because the
Commission does not have the authority to look over those permits.
Lucy Gigli replied the reason she felt the urgency to bring the topic up because the City is
reviewing the design of the Neptune Park pathway after they approve the IN and Out Burger
development.
Commissioner Miley made a recommendation to have this topic on the agenda for the next
meeting to have an understanding with visuals of the proposal of In and Out Burger and how that
relates to Marina Village Parkway and Neptune Park because that is a transportation issue.
Staff Naclerio replied the Planning Board will make a decision on the In and Out Burger
development, which also includes a Safeway gas station and a Chase Bank on July 22nd. The
Planning Board's meeting is two days before the Transportation Commission's meeting.
Alex Nguyen recommended that staff plan to bring the topic back to the Transportation
Commission at the next meeting because there is no certainty that the Planning Board will make
an approval at the next meeting. So, the timing would give the Transportation Commission time
to make comments.
Staff Vargas replied that the Commission should leave it to staff to bring the topic to the
Commission as a potential agenda item.
Staff Naclerio said staff will present what they know at the time of the packet about the In and
Out Burger development and that would include the approved alignment for Neptune Park. Then
staff will update the Commission on whether the Planning Board approved or continued that item
again.
8.
Adjournment
10:04 pm
Page 17 of 17",TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-05-27,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 2020
*This meeting was held via Zoom*
Chair Soules convened the meeting at 7:00pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Soules, Commissioners Kohlstrand, Nachtigall, Hans, Johnson, Yuen,
Weitze.
Absent: None.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
None.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
3A. Transportation Commission Meeting: Wed, July 22
3B. Alameda Active Transportation Plan: Latest info at www.ActiveAlameda.org
3C. Alameda County Safe Routes to Schools online resources, activities and webinars
during coronavirus pandemic: http://alamedacountysr2s.org/covid-19/
3D. Alameda Slow Streets program web page: http://www.SlowStreetsAlameda.org
3E.
Community
Emergency
Response
Team
(CERT)
2020
Trainings:
https://www.alamedaca.gov/Departments/Fire-Department/Alameda-CERT
3F. Emergency Alerts for Alameda - Subscribe at AC Alert web page:
https://www.acgov.org/emergencysite/
3G.
Regional
Emergency
Transportation
Alerts
-
Subscribe:
https://511.org/alerts/emergencies/511Alert
3H. Clipper Card (adults) - order on line or at Walgreens or set up Autoload to add value
automatically: https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/getTranslink.de
3I. Clipper Card Discounts for youth, seniors and people with disabilities
-
https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/discounts/index.do
1",TransportationCommission/2020-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-05-27,2,"3J. FasTrak or new toll tag for upcoming I-880 Express Lanes scheduled to open late
summer 2020: on line or at Walgreens (except not Park Street location) and then register
on line: https://www.bayareafastrak.org/en/signup/signUp.shtn
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4-A 2020-7983
Approve Meeting Minutes - February 26, 2020
Commissioner Nachtigall made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner
Kohlstrand seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
4-B 2020-7984
Approve Meeting Minutes - January 22, 2020
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner
Nachtigall seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
5. NEW BUSINESS
5-A 2020-7985
Recommendation to Approve the Updated Clement Avenue Safety Improvement Project
Concept.
Andrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director, gave a presentation. The
staff
report
and
attachments
can
be
found
at:
 ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4541945&GUID=6AD344D4-
CC4B-4286-A626-32E7B35CCDFB&FullText=1.
Gail Payne, Senior Transportation Coordinator, reviewed the feedback received by the
public and explained staff's position related to each.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked for clarification about which portions would be resurfaced
or rebuilt.
Jake Gunther, CDM Smith, said they are planning to widen sidewalks around power poles
and fix driveways and intersections as necessary.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked what criteria was being used for having the elevated
cycle tracks.
Brian McGuire, Transportation Planner explained that the cycletrack would be raised in
two places to in front of the Alameda Marina project in order to access the Bay Trail and
one other access point into the new development.
Chair Soules opened the public comment:
2",TransportationCommission/2020-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-05-27,3,"Pat Potter said Bike Walk Alameda supports the recommended design.
Chair Soules closed the public comment.
Commissioner Nachtigall made a motion to approve the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Hans seconded the motion.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked how the design would address the safety of the two way
cycletrack conflicting with the many driveways.
Mr. Gunther said they would apply green paint at driveways as a visual cue and will
consider elevated bikeways in some sections.
Chair Soules suggested that the construction notices include educational outreach about
the safety issues related to the new design.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the concerns about turning lanes at Park Street had been
addressed.
Staff Member Payne said they included a right turn lane to accommodate people heading
towards the bridge in the morning, which is the busiest turning movement.
Commissioner Weitze asked if the buffer details would come back to the Commission
given previous discussions surrounding bollards.
Staff Member Payne said they do not typically bring that type of detail back to the
Commission, but that request can be made given the circumstances and changing design.
Commissioner Johnson said he would prefer the bollards be minimized as much as
possible.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked if the buffer would be a raised, physical buffer, or if it
might be only paint.
Staff Member Payne said that if there was parking adjacent to the bikeway there would
not be more physical elements and that where there was not parking, more physical
elements would be included.
The motion passed 7-0.
5-B 2020-7986
Recommendation to Approve Transportation Commission Bylaw Revisions
3",TransportationCommission/2020-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-05-27,4,"Staff Member Payne gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4541999&GUID=E57A81D1-
-
3B8-4BB3-97F0-2C24685CC7B6&FullText=1.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Yuen seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A 2020-7987
Status Report on Transportation
Staff Members Payne, Wheeler, Wikstrom and Vance gave a presentation. The staff report
and
presentation
can
be
found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4542015&GUID=E4D178D6-
767-4024-9339-2657B73F9149.
Commissioner Johnson expressed support for reworking the business districts to provide
space for outdoor dining and pushing even further.
Commissioner Weitze asked what the plan would be for when traffic returns to higher
levels.
Staff Member Wikstrom explained that the traffic volumes in the business districts can be
supported by the reduced number of lanes if turn pockets are included.
Commissioner Weitze asked what can be done for restaurants not on the main corridors.
Staff Member Wheeler said the parklet ordinance is being streamlined to allow parking to
be removed for dining where a lane reduction is not planned.
Commissioner Weitze asked if the shelter in place is showing how beneficial it can be to
have more people working from home and if we are looking at ways to incentivize that
behavior.
Staff Member Payne said one project the City is working on is utilizing our past as a
telecom provider to develop internet infrastructure for residents.
Commissioner Yuen noted that some of the drop in traffic is related to the large numbers
of people furloughed and laid off and we should be sensitive to that. She asked how the
expanded pedestrian zones on commercial streets would be demarcated. She also asked
how we would be allowing public input on such large changes to these streets.
Staff Member Wikstrom said they would restripe the streets in phases in a relatively
permanent fashion rather than have any temporary treatments.
4",TransportationCommission/2020-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-05-27,5,"Staff Member Wheeler said the public did have an opportunity to hear the plan and provide
input when the item went to City Council. She added that staff is working intimately with
the business community as plans are developed.
Commissioner Kohlstrand expressed concern that retaining parking along on Park Street
could lead to delays, including for buses, as people try to park. She asked if there would
be expansion of Slow Streets on the East End to connect into the rest of the network.
Staff Member Wheeler showed the proposed network and how Versailles would connect
via San Jose. She said connecting the northern section to Pacific is challenging given the
intersections in the area.
Commissioner Nachtigall asked if preserving parking on Park Street was necessary given
the competing priorities of expanding parklets and maintaining traffic and transit
throughput.
Staff Member Wikstrom explained that the existing parking lanes are narrow and would
not provide much space on their own without removing the second travel lane.
Chair Soules said the Transportation Research Bureau puts out lots of useful information
that Commissioners could benefit from. She noted we are in new territory and priorities
may be changing and she looks forward to seeing what projects become more attractive
in the current environment.
Commissioner Yuen asked how Covid is impacting the Active Transportation Plan process
and priorities.
Staff Member Wheeler said the emergency measures are an opportunity to test out
aspects under consideration in the Active Transportation Plan.
Staff Member Payne added that the 10 year CIP would be coming as soon as September
and would be an opportunity to take a fresh look at how projects are prioritized.
Chair Soules opened the public comment.
Kristy Cannon said the CASA transportation group would be supportive of working on
options to incentivize teleworking.
Ashley Lorden said the Park Street plans should have more of the parking lane used for
pick up and drop off instead of having so much regular parking.
Staff Member Wheeler said the enclosed diagram was an early draft and staff would be
looking closely at the need for more drop off zones.
5",TransportationCommission/2020-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2020-05-27,6,"6-B Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. General Plan Updates
2. Active Transportation Plan Updates
3. Central Avenue Concept Approval
4. Ten-year Capital Improvement Program
5. Traffic Signal Policy
6. Oakland Alameda Access Project Update
7. Election of Transportation Commission Chair and Vice Chair
6-C Future Meeting Dates for 2020
1. Wednesday, July 22
2. Wednesday, September 23
3. Wednesday, November 18
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
6",TransportationCommission/2020-05-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
March 28, 2007
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Jeff Knoth
Michael Krueger
Eric Schatmeier
Absent:
Robert McFarland
Robb Ratto
Srikat Subramaniam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Schatmeier requested a change in the February minutes. He is quoted as saying
that if the shuttle loop were bidirectional that the headways would be cut in half, when it should
be doubled. The same error is in the support material for the shuttle item and should be changed.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved approval of the minutes with the requested change.
Commissioner Knoth seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
Chair Knox White suggested that the Alameda Landing TDM item be heard before the shuttle
study.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Claire Yeaden Risley noted that on March 12 and March 13, she had requested in writing the
Transportation Commission minutes from Alameda Access and the City Clerk, and she had not
yet received a response to either request. She noted that she had previously requested them in
person starting in the Spring of 2006. She added that the City Clerk had referred her to Public
Works, which was not fruitful. She noted that they should be available to the public, and
Page 1 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,2,"requested that the Transportation Commission minutes for the last two years be available to the
public.
Chair Knox White noted that the minutes that have been approved are now available on the
City's website.
Commissioner Krueger believed that hard copies of the minutes should also be available.
Chair Knox White agreed with the Commissioners that the minutes should be available to the
public, and apologized to Ms. Risley for her request not being fulfilled.
Liz Cleves noted that at the City Council meeting of March 6, 2007, Councilmember Doug
DeHaan addressed an AC Transit engineer and said, ""At this point, Shoreline is strictly for the
express, the W to San Francisco. At any point in time did we have bus stop service going down
there, and I believe we did, and why would that be the area that you would most likely have a
higher likelihood of ridership? Because that's where you placed the W Knowing that this route
is known for high usage and high ridership when you go that route."" She noted that AC Transit
engineer was unable to answer the question, and turned the question over to an AC Transit
transportation planner, who stated, ""There used to be a bus that used to go down Shoreline. I
believe in 2003, December, due to service cuts, I believe it was sent down Otis Drive to save
running time. Currently, the bus schedule is about 50 minutes of running time, and I guess, in our
business, the more running time, the more, the higher the cost. Taking it down Grand to
Shoreline would add running time to the route.""
Ms. Cleves noted that Mr. DeHaan then asked, ""What is more important, running time or
ridership?"" The AC Transit planner replied, ""I know there was limited resource for the City of
Alameda."" Mr. DeHaan interjected, ""The reason I ask, and I think anyone in the audience
understands, that Shoreline itself is adjacent to the heavier density of residents, and that's why
you route the W there. I just can't see that run time becomes more important than ridership, but
I'm a taxpayer, and I would like to preferably have the 63 bus line on Shoreline."" The AC Transit
planner responded, ""We could cut a different part of the route, and reroute it via Shoreline, if that
would be something that the City would want to do."" She noted that in the past, she understood
that the City must do what AC Transit wants, but noted that AC Transit had made it very clear
that they would do what the City wants. She noted that as a taxpayer, she would prefer that the
63 line be back on Shoreline, where there was greater density and no schools. She believed that
route would be more profitable for AC Transit, and safer for the children, the crossing guards and
other pedestrians in Alameda. She noted that Councilmember DeHaan's question about the
relative importance of running time versus ridership was very important, and further asked
whether running time or the safety and peace of mind of Alameda taxpayers was more important.
Diane Voss noted that she had also attended the March 6, 2007, City Council meeting, and
concurred with Ms. Cleves' statements. She noted that the issue of AC Transit Line 63 on Otis
Drive has been a source of disagreement since 2003, taking considerable time of Public Works,
City Council, the Transportation Commission and the Transportation Technical Team. She
believed it had pitted neighbor against neighbor, angered many parents of Lum School students,
caused problems for the crossing guards, been a taxpayer burden, and harassed many residents
Page 2 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,3,"that live on Otis Drive. She noted that Councilmember DeHaan's suggestion for putting the 63
back on Shoreline was correct, where the residents of apartments and condominiums could use it.
She added that the Hall of Justice was also on the route, which would serve those who have lost
their drivers licenses.
6A.
SHUTTLE SERVICES AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS - FINAL
PRESENTATION.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and detailed the background of this item, including
comments made at the last meeting. The consultant has tried to address those concerns in the
report, and requested feedback. One point was that the incremental costs of increasing AC
Transit service was in the context of Alameda Landing, and the cost of serving the new site may
not be comparable to the introduction of a new route. Staff conducted discussions with AC
Transit to analyze potential modifications of their existing routes to serve that site. AC Transit
indicated that in terms of Alameda Landing, that there is enough time available in the existing
Line 19 schedule to reroute it through the site at no additional cost. The 63 could be routed
through the Alameda Landing site, although that would require an additional bus. He described
and demonstrated the proposed changes.
John Atkinson noted that he was in continual discussion with AC Transit, and received an email
from one of their planners regarding the 63 and the 19 lines. He noted that the end goal was to
have the public transit provider of Alameda County be the primary transit provider at Alameda
Landing. He noted that it may be a two-pronged approach, where shuttles come in the initial
phases, since such as service could be implemented quickly, and they may not meet the
minimium ridership thresholds AC Transit would need. He noted that they could get ridership
built up, and then look at AC Transit as a solution for the long-term.
Public Comment.
There were no speakers.
Close public comment.
Chair Knox White complimented staff on its report, and noted that it answered most of their
concerns. He noted that they could add the 19 line at no additional cost, and while it was not a
short-term cost, it would not answer the short-term run.
Staff Bergman described the cost factors.
Chair Knox White noted that he would feel comfortable forwarding this to City Council, but
wanted to clarify any issues with respect to costs that were not reflective of what was proposed
according to the staff report.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he was studying the costs on page 14, and requested further
clarification on the map. He noted that the costs did not work out, and that there seemed to be a
Page 3 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,4,"discrepancy between the calculation above which talked about 16 hours for two buses, but the
mileage was the same at 120.
Mr. Atkinson replied that was with respect to route miles, and that it may not have been changed
in the report when the language regarding two buses was added.
Commissioner Krueger wanted to make sure that the report contained apples-to-apples
comparisons.
Mr. Atkinson responded that he would fine-tune the numbers.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the Shuttle Services and Operations Analysis, to
include the adjustment of the AC Transit operational cost analysis to conform with the AC
Transit proposed routing of one bus; to include Commissioner Krueger's comment regarding
the map on page 14. Commissioner Krueger seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
6B.
ALAMEDA LANDING TDM GOALS AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT -
FINAL PRESENTATION.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report and noted that Catellus has revised the plan submitted
previously based on the Commission's comments. Staff's additional comments were that the
program relied exclusively on surveys, and recommended that some traffic counts be performed
to bolster the survey data. Second, the trip reduction for the commercial retail portion was
discussed only in terms of employees, and that trips associated with retail customers that
contribute to congestion should be included. Staff agreed that the ITE trip generation rates should
be used at the baseline to measure the reduction, but that some traffic counts should be conducted
to help verify that those rates are valid for this particular site. The draft report indicates that the
shuttle be provided at 30-minute headways, and staff would like to see a proposed route, with the
possibility of providing more frequent service. Assuming that transit service is provided by AC
Transit for the site, the TMA should consider reallocating all shuttle related expenses toward
other TDM-related program elements, such as an Eco-Pass or other programs. There was also the
discussion of the difficulty of ensuring the high resident response, and staff suggested that
participation might be encouraged and enhanced by offering incentives such as completing the
survey to receive the Eco-Pass. The cost of the AC Transit service was also discussed, given the
available time in the route, which made the cost more competitive with a shuttle. AC Transit
discussed examining the 19 line, as well as peak hour service-only on the 63.
Staff Bergman noted that the TDM discussed what would be provided on ""Day One"", and staff
had inquired how the number of bike racks based on demand would work. Staff also inquired
about the phasing beyond day one. Staff suggested that the shuttle not be limited to Alameda
Landing, and that the West End and Northern Waterfront be considered as well. Under Section
4.2 (Monitoring), the program endeavored to reach a 40% response rate, which was considered
to be statistically significant, and inquired what confidence level that referred to. Under Section
4.3, staff requested clarification on the number of trips reduced.
Page 4 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,5,"Bruce Knopf, Catellus Development Group, noted that they were pleased with the latest draft,
which they believed was cleaner and simpler. He thanked staff for their comments, and noted that
trip counts was one of the mitigations that they were obligated to address in the most effective
way. They intended to operate a shuttle as successful as the Emeryville Shuttle, and would
service shopper needs as well. With respect to reducing trips under the project approvals, he
noted that the budget could potentially be increased by 15% if specified conditions are met. He
noted that ITE trip rates would be the basis for trip reduction estimates, and noted that it was
important to use the surveys to understand the actual trip reductions so they would be consistent.
He noted that Bay Area Air Quality Management District and MTC use surveys in order to
evaluate success and ridership, and he believed that was appropriate to use the same measure.
Regarding the Route 19 proposal, he wondered how long it took for a rider to actually get to
BART; they continued to discuss this matter with AC Transit. They expect Eco-Pass to become a
program component over the next few months, and for AC Transit to be a provider that serves the
site; he noted that there was a lot of work to be done over the next few months.
Public comment.
There were no speakers.
Close public comment.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the Eco-Pass would be available for residents of
Alameda Point through homeowners dues.
Mr. Knopf noted that AC Transit had been candid in stating the Alameda Landing posed
challenges to them with respect to the Eco-Pass, and that they hoped to enact it for residents. He
noted that a residential EcoPass program had never been implemented by AC Transit.
Commissioner Krueger noted that they were trying to make it more consistent with a citywide
approach, although they were not asking Alameda Landing to support the rest of the City.
Commissioner Krueger noted that staff's comments on page 2 referred to relocating shuttle
resources if AC Transit picked up the slack, and inquired whether that was an either/or situation.
He envisioned that they may be in a situation where AC Transit provides some baseline level of
service, the TDM program provides some additional funding that would allow them to put some
additional service hours out there in lieu of a privately operated shuttle.
Staff Khan noted that the Transportation Commission had previously discussed not compensating
AC Transit for providing baseline service.
Mr. Knopf noted that during his meetings with AC Transit, he gleaned that the Eco-Pass was their
way of providing a convenience and a benefit to a rider, but it did not necessarily result in
enhanced levels of service.
Page 5 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,6,"Commissioner Krueger noted that on page 9, in the budget section, there was a discussion of the
water shuttle. He recalled discussing whether the water shuttle should be funded as an amenity,
rather than as a TDM item.
Mr. Knopf responded that the water shuttle was mandated by the DDA between the City and the
developer as part of the TDM program.
Commissioner Krueger referenced page 10, Section 4.1 (Annual Report), and added that on page
15, the only parking management options listed were division of specially assigned, optimally
located spaces reserved for carpools and ride share vehicles. He was concerned that that was a
short list considering the language on page 10 seemed to rule out anything not explicitly
mentioned.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he would not vote for anything that prohibited City Council
from doing anything, unless it was specifically stated in the DDA.
Mr. Knopf noted the language was so boldly worded was to have clarity, and added that if it is
approved by the Planning Board, it could still be overruled by the City Council. He described the
procedures going forward if that were to occur. He was inclined to remove the optional section at
the end, which he did not believe accomplished anything. He noted that the development
agreement for the Alameda Landing project specifically stated that there would not be any
financial penalties to property owners, tenants or the operation of the program for failure to meet
any numerical thresholds or criteria, except for the 15% as specifically stated. He understood the
Commissioners' reaction to the language, and noted that it was important for the language to be
clear. He suggested that the Transportation Commission approach City Council about additional
language in the TDM.
Margo Bradish, Counsel for ProLogis on the project, noted that the development agreement
contained very specific language that was approved by City Council, which provided funding for
monitoring equipment that was recommended by Public Works staff. The DDA also contained
specific language regarding the Year 5 15% adjustment. She noted that the language in the
development agreement was very clear in saying that other than the 15% adjustment, there are no
consequences to the project, financially or otherwise, if it does not meet any goals. She noted
that was intended to give certainty to the developer with respect to their financial obligations.
She noted that the cashout can be encouraged, but not mandated.
Commissioner Krueger noted that his specific concern was with respect to the cashout. He did
not have any problems with the statement made by Ms. Bradish. However, he noted that if the
money was used to provide the money for the parking cashout, that seemed like a TDM measure.
Chair Knox White suggested removing the language, and did not believe it needed to be in the
policy. He added that the policy would not override the plan.
Commissioner Krueger agreed with staff with respect to page 3 regarding the bike racks. He
suggested clarifying that language that there would be enough to meet demand.
Page 6 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,7,"Mr. Knopf noted that their intent was to have enough bike racks to meet demand. He noted that
their intent was to serve their obligations to Bike Alameda as much as possible, including the
water shuttle.
Chair Knox White noted that with respect to page 8, he was concerned that about the TMA
should state that at the end of the day, the Alameda City Council would have ultimate say; the
TMA was a mitigation plan rather than an amenity plan for the site. He wanted to clarify where
the TMA fit into the larger picture.
Mr. Knopf noted that they could not make any financial changes over a certain dollar threshold
without Council approval.
Chair Knox White requested clarity with respect to the possibility of the TDM not working. He
believed there should be provisions for the possibility of City Council being able to say that
changes should be made as part of the working budget.
Staff Khan suggested that could occur in the annual report that goes to City Council.
Chair Knox White would like the TMA to be directly answerable to the City Council, for
definitive accountability.
Mr. Knopf noted that presentation of an annual report to City Council had been negotiated with
Council. Their intent was to run the best possible TDM program, ground shuttle and water
shuttle, as they do in Mission Bay and Emeryville.
Chair Knox White asked for an explanation of the difference between the provisions regarding
the success of the project and the internal rate of return (IRR).
Ms. Bradish noted that (iii) was the result of comments from a particular Councilmember stating
that if a lot of money is made on the project, the City wants some of it back. The IRR was a rate
of return on the land. The 18% is a benchmark for City participation in land profits. The other
two criteria came out of concerns expressed by other Councilmembers that if the project was
building out very quickly, and therefore there were more cars on the road than anticipated, there
was a need to do more TDM; (ii) and (iii) came out of that discussion.
A discussion of funding details ensued.
Chair Knox White was believed that the trip counts would not ever happen. He did not want to
recommend to City Council how they would be paid for, and he would like to remove that
sentence so City Council made that decision.
Staff Khan agreed with Chair Knox White's comments, and that the referenced sentence on page
12 should come out.
Chair Knox White suggested the following language: ""City Council has the option to request the
collection of peak hour traffic count data to validate the survey.""
Page 7 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,8,"Chair Knox White supported private shuttles, but believed that the language on page 14 reading
""shuttle service to transit providers"" clearly said that the overall plan is not to prioritize AC
Transit. He noted that occurred on page 8 referred to a ""BART commuter shuttle"", which is more
of a point-to-point service rather than one which would pick up additional passengers along the
way. He suggested inserting the language ""implement and administer any shuttle services""
rather than ""BART commuter shuttle"", and that it should state that the service should connect to
the existing public transit systems.
Chair Knox White noted that part of his thinking in making his comments is that this document
will be used as a template for Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront, and that it was
important to release as accurate and solid a document as possible in order to best protect the
City's interests.
Mr. Knopf suggested using ""intermodal shuttle"" instead of BART commuter shuttle. Chair Knox
White and Commissioner Krueger supported this language.
Commissioner Knoth moved to accept the Alameda Landing TDM Goals and Program
Development with the following changes:
Adding residences or HOAs to the Eco-Pass language (in two places);
The TMA should fit into the Citywide strategy of the TDM policies on pages 3 and 8;
Page 10: remove the last half of the sentence referring to the City Council
Page 3: Rephrase (iii) to reflect that there will be sufficient bike racks;
Clarifying in 4.3 that the target numbers for Year 5 will use the same statistical methods so as
to correlate with the ITE methodology of the EIR;
On the same page, remove ""at City cost to require Public Works staff"" and replace it with ""to
request the collection of actual peak hour""; and
Under the section about the annual report (p. 8), add: ""Present to the City of Alameda
Transportation Commission and send with Commission recommendations to the Alameda City
Council for approval.""
Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously, 4-0.
Chair Knox White believed this kind of document should be part of any development before it is
approved. He noted that this was the first time the City had undertaken something like this, and
this could be a learning opportunity. He suggested perhaps communicating the Commission's
recommendations regarding future agreement to the Council.
Staff Khan noted that when the TSM/TDM plan is in place, that should address some of the
Commission's concerns. He noted that it would be helpful for developers to have an
understanding up front of what would be expected of them.
Staff Bergman responded that he could draft something based on the discussion at tonight's
meeting and prepare it in a form for Chair Knox White to sign.
Page 8 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,9,"recommended approval of this item.
Chair Knox White believed the draft Transportation Element generally looked good, and inquired
why the document needs to go back to all the Boards and Commissions. Staff Khan replied that
while the Multimodal Circulation Plan policies have been to the other boards and commissions,
the pedestrian policies, street functional classification system, and TSM/TDM policies have not
yet been circulated.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that there was a segment in the City that was opposed to bus
service. However, he stated that the General Plan should state that transit was an asset to the
community, rather than a perceived liability. He believed there should be more bus service, not
less.
Chair Knox White suggested adding a new policy, 4.3.1.c, with the following language:
""Actively encourage increases in public transit, including frequency and geographic coverage.
Chair Knox White also suggested including support for a biking or walking estuary crossing. He
also recommended that serious study be given to adding transit to bike and pedestrian bridges;
since they are required to support maximum loads, there would not be a great increase in cost.
Commissioner Krueger stated that the policy should note that this should not be an automobile
crossing, but would accommodate transit, walking and bicycling only.
Chair Knox White also asked that language be inserted to indicate support for the Cross Alameda
Trail and for implementation for enhanced transit service, including but not limited to bus rapid
transit and an exclusive transit right-of-way.
Commissioner Krueger stated that unless specified in an existing plan, the route for the transit
service shouldn't be specified, as this might preclude looking at alternatives, although there
should be language referencing the use of the bridge. He believed that Lincoln may have been
referenced in the transit plan as a potential route for future rail service, and asked that staff check
this.
Commissioner Schatmeier suggested citing support for the Cross Alameda Trail, and support for
implementation, as well as enhanced transit service without exclusive right of way, including but
not limited to bus rapid transit and right of way rail.
Page 9 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,10,"Commissioner Krueger suggested mentioning the Lincoln Avenue corridor on page 35, with
respect to the transit plan, as an alternate route.
Commissioner Krueger suggested leaving the bridge in the document, but not to set the route in
stone in the General Plan.
Chair Knox White requested that staff work with Commissioner Krueger to fine tune the
wording.
Chair Knox White noted that in the TSM/TDM, B-3.3 should be changed to read: ""Support the
use of alternative fuel vehicles for all or alternative-transportatio modes.""
Chair Knox White supported Objective D-8, and noted that D-8.1 reads, ""Explore funding
possibilities to provide new revenues to AUSD to implement a school bus program for
elementary and middle school students."" He noted that they could look into it, but was unsure
how much demand there was for an elementary school bus, which had previously been cut for
lack of ridership. He noted that with the neighborhood school system, not many people live that
far away from their schools. He noted that a middle school bus program may be more open to
examination.
Commissioner Knoth opposed referring to modifications in the curriculum, and requested that the
language be modified.
A discussion about bicycle and transportation use classes in schools ensued.
Staff Khan summarized the suggested revision: ""Work with the AUSD to include transportation
choice awareness in education in the schools.'
Regarding support for school buses, Chair Knox White believed that ""provide new revenues""
sounded as if the City might be providing monies to the school district to fund buses.
Commissioner Knoth stated that the issue of providing school buses has not been raised as a
concern.
It was agreed to remove the recommended policy D-8.1, regarding the City working with AUSD
to pursue funding for school buses.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he was totally opposed to casual carpooling in any form.
He used to live in Oakland near the biggest casual carpooling stop, and that most carpoolers were
taken off high-occupancy vehicles such as buses to low-occupancy vehicles (cars) at a
tremendous economic impact, costing AC Transit and BART over $1 million annually.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the draft Transportation Element, incorporating
the comments provided. Commissioner Knoth seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously, 4-0.
Page 10 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-03-28,11,"The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
i:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2007/052307/032807minutes-final.doc
Page 11 of 11",TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-03,1,"Special Transportation Commission Minutes
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Commissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:02 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Kathy Moehring
Thomas G. Bertken
Jesus Vargas
Sandy Wong
Michele Bellows
Christopher Miley
Members Absent:
Rajiv Sharma
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Matthew Naclerio, Public Works Director
2.
Oral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments
Matthew Fitzgerald announced that the Disability Capital Action Day would be held on
Wednesday, May 30 from 10 am- 3 pm in Sacramento. Buses would leave from Hayward to
Fremont to Livermore and onto Sacramento. The day contains free activities and for more
information, the public should call Christina at (510) 881-5743.
3.
New Business
3A.
Gibbons Drive/Northwood Drive/Southwood Drive Improvement Project -
Recommendation to not proceed with the proposed project.
Matthew Naclerio presented the staff report for the Gibbons Drive/Northwood Drive/Southwood
Drive Improvement project.
Commissioner Vargas asked if the funds identified by Caltrans were fixed to the specific
improvements or if there are any options for other improvements.
Matthew Naclerio stated the funding is linked to the specific improvements outlined in the
application. However, there may be alternatives that are in compliance and Caltrans may have
Page 1 of 5",TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-03,2,"some flexibility. Ultimately, the changes would have to be approved by Caltrans and any
additional cost will have to be paid for by the City.
Commissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments from the public.
Gary Oda lives down the street from the proposed project and opposes the project because of the
number of parking spaces being taking away and the limitation to emergency vehicles that could
enter the street. He was not at the previous meetings, but heard that maintenance costs involving
the landscaping of trees and grass would have to be paid for by the neighborhood. Finally, he
mentioned when he drives up to High Street and Gibbons Drive, he notices that the road is
narrow. So, any large vehicle must maneuver carefully up to the bridge.
Walt Grady applauded the recommendation to take no action on this item. He wrote a letter to
the board shortly after the meeting, but heard no response from the Commission about his letter.
He referred to an article by the local Alameda Sun newspaper and he questioned whether the
grant was activated because the language was never clear.
Mike Kelly presented 275 petitions of signatures that say not to make changes to the Gibbons
Drive/Northwood Drive/Southwood Drive intersection. He wants the City to continue to
encourage kids to use the Alameda Safe School routes. He mentioned this is the second time he
has been here and he disagreed with the director at Lincoln School that there was little interest in
the project. On July 15, 2011, the City applied for the grant and this is the beginning of
Alameda's bridge to nowhere. He felt there were three secret meetings held between September
2011 and February 2012 to discuss going forward with the project. Ultimately, he believes an
informed public is essential to democracy, but the only thing that this project has produced is
distrust for government and bitterness.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, stated this is a City not in touch with its
citizens. He has lived on Gibbons Drive next to High Street for over 55 years and Gibbons Drive
is a beautiful tree lined street that is welcoming to Alameda visitors. He considered the
intersection beautiful as is and because of its strange design, drivers are more cautious than
normal. About seven years ago, a Gibbons Drive resident approached the Fernside Homeowner
Association about her concerns for the Gibbons Drive circle and the attendees said it was not
needed. Again, she voiced her opinion, and the attendees voiced against it again. Alameda Public
Works should have noticed the proposal to the public first before continuing with the project
because the project seems to be a ""Berkeleynization"" of the neighborhood. Ultimately, he would
like the City to return the grant money and keep the intersection as is.
Jay Seaton has lived within proximity to the Gibbons Drive intersection for over 12 years. He
was a supporter of the original petition that the staff mentioned with some calming of the area.
Although initially it was for a roundabout, he found that there was no community consensus
around the design. He is in now in favor of the recommendation to not proceed with the
proposal.
Ruben Ramirez has resided overlooking the intersection for over 29 years. Initially, when he was
approached about the center of the intersection he found it interesting. When the City came back
Page 2 of 5",TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-03,3,"with the design, he found that it was overkill; he did not see the safety hazards there. He hopes
the Commission supports the recommendation of the staff. However, he is dumbfounded to see
that this project had legs and he does not understand it.
Gordon McConnell, Fairview Avenue resident, stated he attended two out of the three public
meetings. Public Works were not responsive to the residents' views, and the overall public
consensus of the second meeting was to do nothing. He called into question the integrity of the
City Manager and the grant application. He stated there was an initial meeting with residents to
develop minor traffic calming measures but not to the extent that the Public Works Department
proposed.
Paula Kaneshiro explained that she did collect signatures to end the project and one of the things
that she appreciated was the fact that residents wanted some type of traffic calming on their
street. She also questioned why Public Works continued with the project when the public stated
they did not want the project to continue. Finally, she said it started as a traffic calming effort
and she does not understand why the City went out for a Safe Routes to School grant.
James Tham stated this project is doing the wrong thing. The intersection is already safe and he
has traveled through the intersection by bike, foot and car for the last 40 years. He felt the City
should have been frugal with their money and not waste with staff work hours. Thus, he believes
the project is wasteful and other projects should require much more attention than this one. He
encouraged the Commission to look at the Public Works Department and review their business
plan.
Jim Anglom has lived near the project for more than 30 years and he does not want to see the
project proceed. The project would bring reduce property values and parking spaces.
Furthermore, he believes additional improvements to the intersection would create complications
and a liability to the City.
Commissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments or questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Bertken stated he believes the public provided plenty of information for the
Commission to proceed with a decision. However, there was one question about a public
statement regarding secret meetings between City staff and a select number of individuals.
Matthew Naclerio replied that staff is prohibited by the Sunshine Ordinance to conduct meetings
involving a decision to proceed with a project without public notice. However, initial meetings
were conducted with residents who brought forth the petition, which is standard procedure.
Staff Khan replied City staff does this for other projects when they receive a petition and they
talk to the petitioners and then they go to the community about everything staff is proposing.
Commissioner Miley applauded the public for coming out to speak about the project and it is
important to receive public opinion. He questioned how the City prioritized its projects and he
knows that staff is working on the list currently. He asked if this type of project falls within the
priority list and if not, then why not.
Page 3 of 5",TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-03,4,"Matthew Naclerio stated this project would fit in a general Safe Routes to School or traffic
calming projects under the general category. The difficulty is the department does not have
specific projects so it is hard to rank a general category. Thus, staff relies on residents to bring
concerns to City staff. Per traffic calming and procedure policies, they are asked to go out and
try to build public consensus.
Commissioner Miley replied so with traffic calming policies and procedures the Commission
views it as the final stages rather than up front.
Matthew Naclerio stated for traffic calming, yes but there are still opportunities for an applicant
or petitioners to appeal the decision.
Commissioner Miley said in terms of the number of petitions for traffic calming, what is the
general number received by Public Works.
Matthew Naclerio stated that there are several that staff is currently working on right now. They
are working on Fernside Drive between High Street and Tilden Way, Otis Drive and Franklin
School. Again, the public came to the department and staff worked with the smaller group before
bringing the issue to the larger community to build consensus.
Commissioner Miley asked how long does the consensus building and proposal processes
normally take from the submission of the petition, until the Commission receives the final
proposal.
Matthew Naclerio replied that it took a little longer than normal for the Gibbons Drive project
and that was based on the complications of the project where staff had to familiarize themselves
with roundabouts. Other projects are typically standard such as adding crosswalks, speed
advisory signs and partial street closures. So, it depends on the actual project.
Staff Khan replied if they have to hold public meetings, which they normally do, it takes a couple
of months for each community meeting. Overall, a typical traffic calming project takes 6 to 8
months to complete if there are no other priorities on traffic calming are present.
Commissioner Vargas said that he received Walt Grady's letters and he thanked the public for
sending in comments regarding the project. Government transparency is important and given
public comment tonight, he hopes the Commission will make a quick decision.
Commissioner Moehring commented about the public outreach on this and she does understand
when staff is presented with a lot of signatures regarding an issue they have to do a feasibility
study and this is public government at work. She appreciated that staff spent a lot of time on this
and it may not have been to the public's liking, but they did come to the ultimate decision to not
move forward on the project.
Commissioner Miley made a motion for the Commission to accept staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Page 4 of 5",TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-03,5,"4.
Announcements / Public Comments
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, explained that on
Saturday, May 5, everyone is welcome and anyone who wants to take a class can register at
www.ebbc.org./safety. He would like to offer feedback about what he knows about the Gibbons
Drive intersection while being on the Transportation Commission. He felt that Safe Routes to
School and traffic calming issues need to be in the transportation priority list and need to be
discussed often and citywide. When he was on the Commission, they talked about traffic
calming on a neighborhood in Bayview and knew a citywide policy was needed. Part of the
problem that he sees is meetings were held in the neighborhood and the rest of the City was cut
off. So, the place to have meetings is at the Transportation Commission meetings. At that time,
the Commission had been decimated, but Commissioner Moehring continued with public
comments despite the fact. Now with a fully functioning Commission, he would like them to
discuss traffic calming issues more often. Furthermore, he continued to be disturbed about the
ambiguity of Gibbons Drive intersection whether by bike, foot and driving.
Commissioner Miley asked with the East Bay Bicycle Coalition is it going to be just people who
cannot ride bikes, or will there be safety training class for people who commute by bicycle and
do not know how to ride in traffic.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, explained they
will also offer a 1-hour commuter workshop session on how to commute by bicycle, and conduct
the second half of their on the road session about how to handle bikes.
Commissioner Vargas stated that the East Bay Bicycle Coalition will have an activity on
Thursday, May 10 at the Old Oakland Area, it is called a Bike Happy Hour Party.
5.
Adjournment
7:55 pm
Page 5 of 5",TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-03-23,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes
March 23, 2011
Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Philip Tribuzio
Thomas G. Bertken- late
Jesus Vargas
Kathy Moehring
Kirsten Zazo- absent (AUSD Spring break)
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Daraja Wagner, Administrative Assistant
2.
Minutes
Two revisions to the draft meeting minutes were requested:
1) To spell Straehlo correctly; and
2) To correct the bicycle parking annual expenditures to $5,000.
Commissioner Jesus Vargas moved approval of the revised minutes for the February 26, 2011
meeting. Commissioner Philip Tribuzio seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-0.
3.
Oral Communications - Non-Agenda
Commissioner Vargas cautioned everyone to drive safely in the rain.
Page 1 of 5",TransportationCommission/2011-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-03-23,2,"4.
New Business
4A.
Presentation of Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transpiration Policies and
Plans.
Outcome: Commission to provide comments.
Staff Payne summarized the staff report.
Open public hearing.
Commissioner Moehring stated that the long-range transit plan update should be a work in
progress. The plan will need to constantly evolve to fit the needs of the city. The plan needs to be
flexible and a constantly evolving process.
Staff Khan responded that he agreed that this plan should be supported in phases. Alameda Point
will grow in phases, and so will the transit plan. Maybe shuttle systems should be in place first,
then the shuttles would transition to buses. It will be a growing transit system that grows with
the development project. A Highway Safety Improvement Program grant was received for signal
coordination on Park Street totaling $964,000 with $733,000 from the federal government and
$231,000 as the local match.
Close public hearing.
No action was taken.
4B.
Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan Update / Transportation Expenditure Plan
Development
Outcome: Commission members to complete the questionnaire.
Staff Khan summarized the staff report.
Commissioner Bertken asked if presentation was on the internet.
Staff Khan responded that he did not know why it was not on the Alameda CTC website and that
he would look into it.
Staff Payne responded that she would send the document via e-mail in PDF format.
Staff Khan expressed that he did not want to place it in a public forum if they had not placed it on
their own web site.
Commissioner Moehring responded that it would be great if they could have access to it.
Staff Khan asked if the commissioners could take the time to complete the surveys so that they
could be submitted to the Alameda CTC. He stated that it would be greatly appreciated.
Page 2 of 5",TransportationCommission/2011-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-03-23,3,"Staff Khan asked what specific projects and plans would the commissioners like to see be
prioritized in the upcoming projects/plans.
Commissioner Bertken asked if there were any projects related to the ferry system.
Staff Khan responded that the ferry was under the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and
that was out of the city's jurisdiction. He also stated that MTC is looking into it, but he did not
know what projects they would be proposing. In terms of the discussion, the ferries were listed as
one of the transit modes.
Commissioner Bertken asked if Measure B could support the ferries.
Staff Khan responded that the money for the ferries had been shifted to MTC.
Commissioner Vargas stated that it was good to see the pie chart with the percentages and
questioned if there was any intent to find more capital for a lifeline project. Vargas also asked
Staff Khan if he could recall if there were any projects that were put on the wish list from the city
that were being considered but did not end up getting included.
Staff Khan responded that one project that was included in the current Measure B is the
Broadway-Jackson project. He did not have more project information at this time yet will
provide them with that information. Khan also stated that city sponsored projects like fixing the
sidewalks and streetlights are being funded from Measure B. This program is funded based on
the population of each jurisdiction. The county collects the sales tax, and then divides it up to
each jurisdiction based on its population formula.
Commissioner Moehring asked that with the Webster Street SMART corridor being completed
this summer, which means new stop lights being installed, did this project include streetscape
improvements on Webster Street between Atlantic Avenue and Pacific Avenue?
Staff Khan responded that the CWTP/TEP projects need to be regionally significant and have
regional support due to limited funding. They have applied for different streetscape types of
funding, but not for Measure B.
Commissioner Tribuzio stated that the bike lane on Shoreline Drive and Westline Drive being put
on the street would take up lots of room and make it difficult for parking and also would be
hazardous for the drivers and to the bike riders. Tribuzio proposed expanding the existing bike
path on the bayside property. The land belongs to the city or the state, and it can be made flat.
This idea would get bikes off the street and would give people a walkway. Commissioner
Tribuzio stated that he sees a lot of traffic and thinks it would be easier and cheaper to do this
path concept.
Staff Khan responded that several issues were raised; one is bicyclists' needs in the street verses
off the street, how to address the parking and circulation, and also the park area and connecting
that system. In terms of bicyclist needs, the corridor provides beautiful views. One of the things
in the long-term plan is to enhance the path in which Commissioner Tribuzio was referring to but
Page 3 of 5",TransportationCommission/2011-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-03-23,4,"it is actually a very expensive project. All the street light fixtures will have to be fixed and
drainage is also a big issue. This project gets very expensive, but the City may apply for it under
Measure B because it does go over $5 million. In terms of Commissioner Tribuzio's question of
why reduce the lanes, it does make it better for bicyclists because they now have a defined path
of travel, and it will also take into account the opening of car doors. This project also will help
open up parking. The travel lanes will be reduced to two instead of four, and will create parking
lanes with bike lanes. Then bicyclists will have a separate track. Right now, bicyclists are
running into pedestrians because the path is not very wide. We are also very limited with land
because we cannot just go and ask the state to give us the land. It will be a lot of coordination
with the East Bay Regional Park District to see what they can do as well as what we can do. It is
in the process but nothing can be assured until funding is given.
Commissioner Tribuzio asked if they were going to put in a bike lane and take the parking off of
Westline Drive.
Staff Khan responded that the travel lane would be taken out making the street more pedestrian
and bicycle friendly. It is also very important to look at transit, and to see how buses are able to
stop. So this project also would make it better for transit on Shoreline Drive.
Commissioner Tribuzio stated that the only way for him to leave out of his residence is to drive
out onto Westline Drive, and if it was reduced down to two lanes that he would be affected.
Staff Khan responded that they would work with the community and it is required by state law
under CEQA that all impacts need to be documented.
Commissioner Moehring asked if Staff Khan had any desire to get the questions out to more
people?
Staff Khan responded that people should go to the Alameda CTC website, and also stated that the
meeting was a public meeting and hopes that people who are watching at home will log onto the
website. Staff Khan also suggested to e-blast the Transportation Commission email list about the
website and how to provide comments.
Commissioner Vargas asked if it would be any benefit to send the surveys to some of the schools
and get their input?
Staff Khan stated that follow up could be done with Commissioner Zazo to get that information.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he had three concepts to share about all of the projects. One is
an electric car charging station. As vehicles become more electric friendly that is something that
will be compatible with land uses. Secondly, to look for funding on removal of the railroad
tracks that are in the city. Lastly, working with the transit orientated development theme, develop
a transit terminal that has housing and employment whether for the buses or ferry. It's a good
start with some density to get the ball rolling to start exploring compatibilities with AB32 and
SP375.
Page 4 of 5",TransportationCommission/2011-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-03-23,5,"Staff Khan responded that one bill aims to reduce greenhouse gases and the other states how to
do it and has specific targets that we would have to meet as a state. In terms of the projects
proposed by Commissioner Vargas, Staff Khan stated that in terms of the electric car charging
stations, that is something that is on the land use side and we are looking at the transportation
side for moving people. However, he does not take the suggestion lightly and thinks that it is a
good suggestion. It is being looked at by staff as a sustainable infrastructure. In regards to the
railroad tracks, there are some legal issues and the City is working on it. In terms of the TOD,
you have to be in a PDA, which are areas defined by MTC. Alameda Landing and Alameda
Point are the PDAs in the City, so money will be attracted to those areas. The transit center idea
also will be part of the application.
Close public hearing.
No action was taken.
5.
Staff Communications
Updated AC Transit Announcements for Potential June and September 2011 Transit Service
Changes.
Staff Payne stated that the minor changes to be made in March have been postponed until June
2011 and that cuts are expected to take place in September 2011. Staff Payne will continue to
update the TC.
Future Meeting Agenda Items
Staff Payne stated that future meeting agenda items for the April meeting look to be as follows:
TSM/TDM preliminary measures
AC Transit service cuts/changes
6.
Announcements
Commissioner Bertken apologized for being late.
7.
Adjournment
8:09 PM
 G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC)2011)Mar2011)TC_Minutes_Mar2011_Draft.doc
Page 5 of 5",TransportationCommission/2011-03-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-23,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes
Thursday, May 23, 2012
Commissioner Tom Bertken called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Michele Bellows
Thomas G. Bertken
Christopher Miley (arrived for New Business item)
Jesus Vargas
Sandy Wong
Members Absent:
Kathy Moehring
Rajiv Sharma
Staff Present:
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Minutes
Commissioner Vargas called for approval of the April 25, 2012 and May 3, 2012 meeting
minutes. Commissioner Bellows seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
3.
Oral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, stated that the Fernside Homeowners
Association in the May 3 minutes should not state ""Drive."" He also stated that the meeting
minutes did not reflect that he noticed a decline in vehicle trips per day on Gibbons Drive since
he was a child. He did not like that the Public Works Department spent Measure B monies on
the Gibbons Drive project without anyone knowing about it. He requested that
the
Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council a policy requiring that Public Works
Department projects appear as a non-consent agenda item to ensure public awareness. He also
mentioned that there is confusion about which meetings are special Transportation Commission
meetings and which ones are regular meetings.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident, stated that participation in Bike to Work Day increased by 29
Page 1 of 6",TransportationCommission/2012-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-23,2,"percent from the previous year's estimate totaling over 1,000 bicyclists at the bike stations in the
City of Alameda. He stated that Measure B reauthorization that is on the ballot is already
outdated, and needs more maintenance monies and more for bicycle projects. May 27 is the
BART deadline to review the draft Bicycle Access Plan Update.
4.
New Business
4A.
Draft Capital Improvement Program: Fiscal Year 2012-2013
Staff Hawkins presented an overview of the draft Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for this
upcoming fiscal year.
Commissioner Vargas asked how frequently the draft CIP is updated, how environmental justice
fits in to it and if staff considers projects that minimize maintenance costs.
Staff Hawkins stated that the CIP is updated one time per year. Staff works with AC Transit to
ensure environmental justice is considered when restructuring bus lines. The City is installing
audible pedestrian signals to ensure individuals with disabilities have equal access to facilities.
The City constructs projects in ways that are easy to maintain.
Commissioner Bellows asked how the projects are ranked and if some are rolled over to the next
year.
Staff Hawkins replied that the projects are ranked using the criteria provided in the staff report
and ranking sheets. If the project is not recommended for funding this upcoming fiscal year then
staff places it on an unfunded project list. Staff will send the ranking sheets and the unfunded
project list to the Transportation Commission members.
Carol Gottstein, Alameda resident, asked what the grand total cost is for the draft CIP, and asked
for clarification about the Measure C reference.
Staff Hawkins replied that the grand total cost is $17.8 million for capital projects and $4 million
for annual projects, which totals $22 million. The Measure C projects only will apply if Measure
C is passed by the voters.
Dave Campbell, representing the East Bay Bicycle Coalition, stated that Measure B is founded
on the principal of ""Complete Streets"" meaning that streets should be designed for all
transportation modes. The projects in the Measure B reauthorization need to be ready to go, and
then will more likely be funded.
Jon Spangler stated that the Estuary Crossing Shuttle marketing is an important item in the draft
CIP. Improved signage with schedules at the shuttle stops is needed. He also mentioned the
importance of the Neptune Park Path project, which will link Webster Street/Willie Stargell
Avenue with the Marina Village area.
Page 2 of 6",TransportationCommission/2012-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-23,3,"Commissioner Miley asked about the unfunded list.
Staff Hawkins replied that it lists the unfunded projects and references potential funding sources.
Commissioner Bellows asked about undergrounding utilities.
Staff Hawkins explained the procedure that the Alameda Municipal Power department goes
through to underground utilities. The costs are shared by the adjacent neighborhood.
Commissioner Vargas requested that staff reports include page numbers.
Staff Hawkins acknowledged the request.
Commissioner Bertken made a motion for the Commission to accept staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Miley seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
4B.
I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation and Circulation Improvements
for Alameda Point, Oakland Chinatown, Downtown Oakland and Jack London Square
Postponed until the June 27 Transportation Commission meeting.
4C.
Highway Safety Improvement Program Call for Projects: Clement Avenue or Blanding
Avenue Bike Lane/Sidewalk Projects
Staff Payne provided an overview of the staff report.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident, stated that he supports this project.
Lucy Gigli, representing BikeAlameda, stated that she supports the project. It is in the Bike Plan
Update as part of the Cross Alameda Trail, which includes the former Beltline railroad between
Main Street and Fruitvale Avenue in Oakland. She requested that staff consider a cycle track
along Clement Avenue between Grand Street and Oak Street. She also would like staff to
consider sharrow stencils on the Class III bike routes along with signs.
Commissioner Vargas recommended to remove as much railroad track as possible as Phase I of
the project. The cycle track idea could be a Phase II or long-term project if it is not as cost
effective.
Commissioner Miley asked about the Caltrans submittal process and when staff would
recommend design features to Caltrans.
Staff Payne explained that staff would include a preliminary design with detailed cost estimates
in the Caltrans grant submittal.
Page 3 of 6",TransportationCommission/2012-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-23,4,"Commissioner Bellows asked if the City is likely to obtain the HSIP funds since Alameda was
successful in obtaining them for the Shoreline/Westline bike lane project.
Staff Payne replied that she does not think that previous successful grants will be a Caltrans
consideration in that the project ranking system is based on a quantitative cost/benefit formula.
Commissioner Bellows made a motion for the Commission to proceed with the grant application.
Commissioner Vargas seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.
5.
Staff Communications
Park Street Streetscape Update
The City is expecting the Park Street Streetscape project to be completed by the end of May.
This phase of the streetscape project is between San Jose Avenue and Alameda Avenue. The
major accomplishments of this project include the installation of:
Parking kiosks: 11 total
Trees: 60 total; 3 types (Brisbane Box, October Glory Red Maple and Sterling Silver
Linden)
Street lights: 38 total
Bike racks: 32 total with continuing refinements in process
Bus shelters: 2 total
Sidewalk repairs
Curb ramp repairs
Estuary Crossing Shuttle Update
The Estuary Crossing Shuttle currently has on average close to 180 boardings per day, which
includes about 20 boardings per day with bicycles. The City was successful at receiving Lifeline
Program funding totaling $187,957, which provides almost 50 percent funding to extend the
service for two years beyond August 2013 to August 2015. The City will apply for Air District
Transportation for Clean Air (TFCA) Regional Funds later this summer to help close the funding
gap for this service extension.
Commissioner Wang asked for clarification on the extent of funding that is secured for the
Estuary Crossing Shuttle.
Staff Payne explained that the shuttle service is fully funded through the Air District's TFCA
regional funds and a City local match through the TSM/TDM Fund until August 14, 2013. The
Lifeline Program will help extend the service beyond August 2013 to August 2015 by providing
almost 50 percent funding for these additional two years of service.
On-going Traffic Calming Projects
The City has three on-going traffic calming projects:
1)
Otis Drive between Mound Street and High Street: Community members are
concerned about speeding and pedestrian circulation. Public Works Department staff
Page 4 of 6",TransportationCommission/2012-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-23,5,"has updated school signage along Otis Drive and removed a parking space at Otis
Drive/Court Street. Staff is working with Caltrans to consider yield markings in the
pavement similar to Otis Drive at Lum School.
2)
Fernside Blvd between Tilden Way and High Street: Community members provided a
petition to Public Works Department in June 2011. Staff held a community meeting
on January 2012. The community members raised concerns about speeding, in
particular by AC Transit buses, lack of crosswalks and sideswipe collisions. Public
Works Department staff installed a crosswalk on Fernside Blvd. at Harvard Drive,
worked with AC Transit staff to reduce bus speeds and installed a right edge line on
Fernside Blvd. going westbound between High Street and Cornell Drive. Police
enforcement and neighborhood watch programs also are being considered.
3)
Franklin School: Parents of Franklin School students have raised concerns in early
2012 about pedestrian-involved motor vehicle conflicts. Public Works Department
staff improved the striping of the Grand Street and Encinal Avenue intersection
making it a school crossing with the orange striping, an advanced stop sign and signs
stating ""Turning vehicles must yield to pedestrians."" Franklin School parents are
interested in pursuing a midblock crossing on San Antonio Avenue between Franklin
School and Franklin Park. The Transportation Commission members will have the
opportunity to review this item at a future meeting.
Shoreline Drive/ Westline Drive Bike Lane Proposed Project
Staff held a community meeting on Thursday, May 10 where almost 100 individuals attended.
The next community workshop is going to be held on Thursday, June 28 to discuss ideas on how
to move forward. The majority of the comments received stated that they were in favor of the
project; however, a vocal opposition does exist.
Commissioner Bertken stated that he attended, felt it was valuable to go and urges other TC
members to attend the next workshop. He stated that there is opposition to enhanced beach side
parking and that left-turn lanes are important. He requested a design layout be included at the
next workshop that would show a typical cross section or intersection concept.
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
Staff Payne listed the potential items for the next special meeting on June 27 as follows:
Amend bylaws to create a consent calendar
Quarterly report on transportation policies and plans
Shoreline Drive/Westline Drive status update
I-880/Broadway/Jackson multi-modal project
Webster Street Intelligent Transportation System/Smart corridors project
At the July 25 meeting, AC Transit will come to discuss a potential reconsideration of the
restriction for local trips on Line OX and the Speed Protection and Restoration Project.
A
discussion on the Transportation Expenditure Plan projects also is expected to occur.
6.
Announcements / Public Comments
Page 5 of 6",TransportationCommission/2012-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-05-23,6,"Jim Strehlow stated that the Estuary Crossing Shuttle is not working for him because he needs it
during the midday and later in the evenings.
7.
Adjournment
8:48 pm
Page 6 of 6",TransportationCommission/2012-05-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-07-20,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
July 20, 2005
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 P.M.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
John Knox White
Robb Ratto
Patianne Parker
Robert McFarland
Michael Krueger
Absent:
Jeff Knoth
Eric Schatmeier
Staff Present:
Barbara Hawkins - City Engineer, Public Works
Barry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Krueger had an exception to the minutes of April 27th. page 3. He requested the
removal of the phrase ""a grid should not be introduced where it does not currently exist."" Did
not say that it should never be used in an undeveloped area. He stated that while this may apply
to an existing development, a grid system may be appropriate in a currently undeveloped area.
Chair Knox White noted that he was identified as JKW on page 2.
Hold off on the approval of the minutes until Commissioner Schatmeier arrives.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES - None
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None of thesub-committees oftheTMPhave met. A meeting has been scheduled for July 27th
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A.
Broadway/Jackson Phase 2 Feasibility Study
Staff Hawkins did a presentation on the above. She showed a large drawing of the study and
described the various components of each of the three alternatives being studied, and noted that
she had presented an earlier version to the Transportation Commission. The first part of the study
was a survey that was conducted with council members of Alameda and Oakland to determine",TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-07-20,2,"their familiarity with the original project study report and proposed improvements. The City of
Alameda had some familiarity with the improvements but was not fully aware of all of them.
They knew about the Martin Luther King exit and knew basically direct access to Alameda was
not provided.
Because Oakland and Alameda could not find a solution for direct to Alameda, a portion of the
funding was set aside and it was decided that at a later time a feasibility study would be
conducted to look at Alameda access. This is the study currently under way. The primary
stakeholders are: the City of Alameda, City of Oakland, Caltrans and ACTIA. The secondary
stakeholders were: Port of Oakland, Congestion Management Agency (CMA), Chinatown, West
Alameda Business Association (WABA), and developers from Alameda (Catellus and Alameda
Point Community Partners) and Oakland (Signature Properties and another developer).
Staff Hawkins stated that Alameda supports going forward with a proposal so that the
stakeholders would support it. Having the stakeholders support the recommended solution
would be an important step in securing funding. The feasibility study is only looking at the
feasibility as to which ones they can build, which ones are structural impossible and which ones
impact too much on historic sites, etc.
Staff Hawkins noted that currently Oakland does not support the construction of a new Harrison
Street off-ramp. One possible solution that may enable the Broadway off-ramp to meet the needs
of both Alameda and Oakland is a ""Texas U-Turn"", which would allow drivers to exist at the
Broadway ramp, make a U-turn before reaching Broadway, and accessing the Webster Tube.
Staff Hawkins noted that it will be expensive to build all these improvements. The
Transportation Commission could help by providing recommendations regarding priorities or
steps that could be taken to facilitate coordination with other agencies.
Commissioner Parker asked what the life of an elevated freeway would be. She asked how any
other proposed projects could relate to potential phasing of the Broadway-Jackson
improvements.
Staff Hawkins said that Caltrans is currently working on a seismic retrofit down by Oak Street.
Otherwise, Caltrans does not see any additional safety project needs within the next 50 years.
Chair Knox White asked what options have been already eliminated from consideration.
Staff Hawkins said that she couldn't detail all 13 alternatives, but a number of them included
superstructures.
Commissioner Parker asked about project timing. Would it be phased? How would the timing
match up with development in the area?
Staff Hawkins said in terms of funding we have approximately $12 million is allocated to the
project. But in the countywide transportation plan we could get up to $28 million, much of
2",TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-07-20,3,"which would come from the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). This has been
identified as a priority at the county level; the next step is to compete for funds at the state level.
Alameda stakeholders have indicated that two of their high priorities are the horseshoe access
ramp onto northbound I-880 and direct access onto southbound I-880.
Commissioner McFarland asked if there is a weave problem at the proposed off-ramp on
northbound I-880 and the existing on-ramp getting onto I-980.
Staff Hawkins answered that the weave distance was evaluated and is not a problem.
Staff Hawkins stated that we will need to weigh congestion relief benefits against the estimated
costs, and this will impact on project phasing.
Commissioner McFarland asked what environmental document is required.
Staff Hawkins answered that the next step would be the environmental analysis and the project
study report, if we go forward with all the project elements. Hopefully this could be done in two
years.
Commissioner Parker asked about the direct route from I-880 down toward the Broadway on-
ramp, how that relates to the existing Jackson Street ramp, and whether it is possible to use the
existing ramp to access the tubes.
Staff Hawkins stated that using the Jackson Street exit would require drivers to travel through the
produce district to get to the tube. They tried to have direct access from the Jackson Street ramp
into the tubes, but that would have precluded access to Jack London Square or Chinatown.
Commissioner Krueger asked if AC Transit is involved in any of these discussions, as the
transbay buses would be impacted, as well local buses on Broadway.
Staff Hawkins said that the analysis has accounted for the required turning radii of the buses, but
that AC Transit has not been actively involved in discussions of the design. The study team has
talked about identifying queue jump lanes to enhance access to the Webster tube.
Staff Hawkins agreed that it is a good time to involve AC Transit in the project discussions.
Public Comment Opened
Melody Marr from the Alameda Chamber of Commerce asked who the stakeholders are for the
project.
Staff Hawkins responded that the stakeholders included City of Alameda, City of Oakland,
Caltrans, Port of Oakland, Chinatown, West Alameda Business Association, Signature Properties
(which has a project in Oakland), Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority
3",TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-07-20,4,"(ACTIA), Catellus, Alameda Point Community Partners, and the Peralta Colleges, Congestion
Management Agency,
Ms. Marr asked that the Chamber of Commerce board members and others be given a
presentation on the project in September.
Ms Stieg wanted to know who actually are the representatives that are part of this committee
discussion and who represents Alameda's interests.
Staff Hawkins stated that they were listed on the email that is sent to them.
Ms. Steig mentioned that she and some of other people on the email list are not able to attend the
meetings. She indicated she would like to find out more about why the 13 of the 16 project
design options were eliminated. She also asked if she could obtain a list of the proposals and the
pros and cons of each before the final report is completed.
Staff Hawkins said that it would be presented to the City Council and then the City Council can
open it up for comments. She added that the Stakeholders meeting would be a good place to
express her concerns.
Ms Steig said that she was not able to make those meetings because they are on Mondays. She
asked that the Commission take no actions on this feasibility study until the Alameda business
community has a chance to review and comment on it. She expressed concern that some of the
options would have a negative impact on Alameda.
Commissioner Ratto stated that WABA was a designated stakeholder and understood some of the
scheduling problems. He asked if they have been receiving the meeting packets.
Staff Hawkins said that emails are sent to them along with the information from the meetings.
Commissioner Ratto suggested that since WABA is unable to send a representative to the
stakeholder meetings that a representative from the Chamber of Commerce be identified to
represent the Alameda business community.
Ms. Stieg supported this idea, and asked that the Chamber be added as a stakeholder.
Staff Hawkins agreed.
Public Comment Closed
Commissioner Parker said that she would like to see which proposals were discarded. She added
that the project's scope of work looks at freeway access from Alameda but does not address other
issues Alameda is concerned with, such as connectivity from Alameda to Chinatown or Jack
London Square.
4",TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-07-20,5,"Staff Hawkins said that it was a joint effort with Caltrans, Oakland and Alameda. They were not
looking at local street circulation but at access to the freeways and not to preclude access to the
local communities. She stated that the scope suggested by Commissioner Parker could be a
second study.
Chair Knox White suggested that rather than identifying a specific alternative, it would be
helpful to present the Council with the Commission's priorities and concerns. He expressed
concern that there are significant political issues, but that the issues are not being discussed at a
political level.
Staff Hawkins noted that there were two meetings left. One was with the technical group and the
second with the general stakeholders. The general stakeholders meeting would be in September.
There would be a discussion as to any elements that would need to be removed and then move
forward. After that the next step would be the environmental review and the PSR report.
Commissioner Parker said that the focus should be on doing the best job and what we want to
accomplish.
Staff Hawkins stated that the traffic study would include local circulation and a few blocks
beyond the area bounded by 8th, Oak, and MLK.
Melody Marr from the Chamber of Commerce asked to table this until the next Transportation
Commission meeting so that they could have time to review it.
Chair Knox White said that the Transportation Commission has no power to keep the Chamber in
or out of this discussion. The Mayor had asked for the Transportation Commission to review it.
Staff Hawkins said that the September meeting would be the final discussion by the stakeholders
group.
Commissioner Ratto moved to recommend Council that they contact whomever they need to
contact to keep all the options available at this point, and that nothing be taken off the table.
Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5.
6B
TMP SUB-COMMITTEES APPOINTMENTS AND NEXT STEPS
Chair Knox White stated that he would hold off on committee appointments since Commissioner
Knoth was not present.
Staff Bergman said that the sub-committee would be meeting on July 27th
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White mentioned that the bus stop by Lum School on Otis Drive was removed and
not replaced by an alternative. As a result, there are no bus stops on Otis Drive between Grand
5",TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-07-20,6,"and South Shore. This was well beyond the 1000 or 1200 feet requirement. There was no
notification of this.
Commissioner Krueger said that he and his wife walked the route and confirmed there was no
bus stop sign posted between Grand and Whitehall.
Staff Hawkins said that the stop was removed at the request of the police department, that there
was a problem with the circulation of students, crossing guards and vehicles. Since it was within
the distance prescribed in the Transit Plan, City and AC Transit staff agreed to remove the stop.
Commissioner Parker asked if the Transportation Technical Team should make that decision.
Staff Hawkins said that the Transportation Technical Team does not deal with the removal of bus
stops. AC Transit deals with the removal of bus stops, not the City, and the TTT has been
dealing with the bus stop issues only when it involves parking spaces. She said AC Transit
should provide notification to the public if a stop is removed.
Chair Knox White asked how the recommendations of the transit plan are accounted for, if AC
Transit has the right to make the decision unilaterally.
Commissioner Parker said that the school should have been involved in these discussions, since
this affects the ability of students to take transit to school.
Staff Hawkins noted that the school was involved in the discussions regarding the bus stop.
Commissioner Krueger suggested that we should try to have some type of public noticing when
bus stops are removed, even if it is not technically required.
Commissioner Krueger said that the re-paint job of the bus shelters on Grand Avenue and Santa
Clara Avenue turned out really well. The City is doing a great job on getting graffiti removed
from the shelters, and praised Public Works regarding the new and existing bus shelters.
Commissioner Ratto noted that PSBA would be having the annual Art and Wine Fair on July 30-
31.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
 G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEESITC/2005/0705/072005-minutes-final.doo
6",TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-09-24,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
September 24, 2008
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier
Members Absent:
Kathy Moehring (arrived 7:45 PM)
Srikant Subramaniam
Jane Lee
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
July 23, 2008
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the comment reading ""What does this mean?""
should be deleted from the final text of the minutes.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved approval of the minutes for the July 23, 2008,
meeting and minutes as presented. Commissioner McFarland seconded the motion.
Motion passed 4-0.
3.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Schatmeier hoped a representative from AC Transit would be in
attendance. He noted that last year, he took the ferry home from a Giants game, and had
made the connection to the 63 bus, and then the 50 bus, each within five minutes of the
connection. He added that he attended a Saturday afternoon Giants game, stayed in the
City for dinner, and found that the ferry arrived at Alameda terminal at 10:15 p.m., and
the bus left Alameda terminal at 10:14 p.m. He noted that four of nine ferry runs on
weekends missed connections with AC Transit buses by one minute, and another bus
arrives six minutes before the bus. He noted that the connections were very important to
maintain multi-modalism, and that if the bus did not connect to the ferry, there was no
point in running it into the parking lot. He would like to talk to AC Transit about those
missed connections, and whether there was any flexibility in the ferry schedule.
1",TransportationCommission/2008-09-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-09-24,2,"Commissioner Krueger asked if there might also be flexibility in the ferry schedules.
Staff Bergman noted that he would look into both the weekend and weekday schedules.
Chair Knox White wished to discuss the multimodal thresholds of significance policies,
and suggested that a scope of work be presented at the next meeting, which broke down
the timelines and costs in order to bring something back for recommendation to the
Planning Board by the end of the year. This should include examining issues that were
not addressed in the Draft EIR for the TMP. He inquired whether the Transportation
Commission concurred with his request.
Commissioner Moehring arrived at 7:45 p.m.
Commissioner Krueger agreed with Chair Knox White's comments and believed that
further clarification would be beneficial.
Staff Khan noted that staff was working on that item diligently, and had brought forth the
methods by which the threshold of significance can be calculated. Staff was also working
with the City Attorney's office, City Manager's office and the Planning Department to
find funding. He noted that it may be funded internally. He noted that the most significant
concern was looking at the street function classification matrix, and providing
implementation guidelines moving forward.
a.
Pedestrian Plan
b.
Bicycle Plan Update Group
c.
Alameda Point Advisory Task Force
Chair Knox White noted that none of the meetings had been held since the last meeting.
He noted that SunCal's preliminary development concept was submitted the previous
Friday, and was available at www.alameda-point.com.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
There were none.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
a.
North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business District
Eric Fonstein, Development Manager, Development Services Department, noted that his
department had worked closely with Doug Garrison of the Planning Department, as well
as Staff Khan from Public Works. He presented the staff report, and detailed the
2",TransportationCommission/2008-09-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-09-24,3,"background of this item and the history of the City's development. He displayed a
PowerPoint presentation on the overhead screen, and noted that this was one step of a
multiphase plan.
Mr. Fonstein emphasized that the concepts could be applied as opportunities
materialized, and that this plan did not force change. He noted that this presentation was
brought before other boards and commissions, and comments were received which
mentioned that new development should adequately address transportation concerns,
provide TDM strategies and services, address the gaps between pedestrian/bicycle
networks, take into account traffic level of service standards, and instead of considering
one multilevel parking structure, that multiple smaller parking lots be considered. He
noted that the plan would be brought before City Council on October 7, and that the
Planning Department will amend the zoning regulations to ensure they are consistent with
the direction and vision laid out in the plan.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the document discussed pedestrian-friendly
practices, and transit-oriented development, but that there was no discussion of transit
and the role of transit in supporting the proposed type of development. He noted that the
Park Street corridor is well-served by transit, and this service has improved over the
years. He asked that additional attention be paid to the supportive relationship and
coordination needed between the land use type and transit service in the study area.
Commissioner Moehring agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier's comments, and noted
that while the Transportation Element accommodated public parking, Park Street was
more pedestrian-friendly but she would like to see a way to decrease the amount of
driving needed to reach pedestrian-friendly sites. She would like to hear comments from
Robb Ratto of the Park St. Business Association.
Commissioner Krueger agreed with the comments regarding transit, and noted that this
would be especially important if Lincoln is selected as a route for Bus Rapid Transit, and
this may be the point where people He also recommended that the section on parking to
be tied in with the ongoing parking study. He believed the parking standards will become
even more important in the future because many of the Park Street businesses have been
able to succeed with less parking than would be provided in a typical suburban setting.
Mr. Fonstein replied that the parking plan will be presented within the next few months.
Chair Knox White noted that he found the numbering to be confusing, as in each section
the strategies reset to number 1. He was surprised to see how parking-heavy the plan was,
given the goals of the plan. He suggested that in-lieu parking fees could be used for
shuttle service or bicycle and pedestrian improvements, not just for parking at an
alternative location. He noted that Vision 12 was meant to enliven the waterfront, but
that the illustrative sketch seemed to hide the waterfront from view and surrounded it by
a large parking lot. He agreed with the ultimate policies, but was concerned that transit
was not discussed on Alameda's heaviest corridor. He would like staff to solicit
comments not only from WABA and PSBA, but also from the bicycle, transit and
3",TransportationCommission/2008-09-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-09-24,4,"pedestrian stakeholder groups. He would like the parking policies to be examined more
thoroughly before the plan went to the CIC. He also noted that on p. 16 screened parking
was included, but that this was not consistent with what was being proposed; he asked
whether this was intended to be only for the short-term. He suggested removing
language associated with parking minimums and maximums, and instead indicate that the
plan should be consistent with other policies, such as what would be ultimately
recommended in the parking study.
Open public hearing.
There were no speakers.
Close public hearing.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to incorporate the comments made into the
document. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
7B.
Election of Transportation Commission Chair and Vice Chair
Staff Bergman noted that staff was unable to contact Commissioners Lee and
Subramaniam regarding their interest in being appointed as chair or vice-chair.
Chair Knox White inquired whether the Transportation Commission would like to move
forward with the election. The Commission concurred.
Commissioner Moehring moved to nominate Chair Knox White as Chair.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
Chair Knox White noted that since Mr. Ratto had stepped down, the Vice-Chair position
was vacant.
Commissioner McFarland moved to nominate Commissioner Krueger as Vice-Chair.
Commissioner
seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Estuary Crossing
Staff Khan noted that the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study was moving forward, and
that the consultant team was in the process of finalizing the concepts. Two community
meetings will be held in October: one in Alameda and one in Oakland. Short-, medium-
and long-term solutions for crossings at the west end would be discussed. The final
recommendations will be brought to the Transportation Commission.
b.
Broadway/Jackson
4",TransportationCommission/2008-09-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-09-24,5,"Staff Khan noted that the Project Study Report has been submitted to Caltrans. The
proposal includes improving the 6th Street corridor in Oakland. He noted that the
environmental phase would be the next step.
c.
Monitoring of Oak Street/Central Avenue
Staff Khan noted that City Council directed staff to conduct traffic monitoring at the
Oak/Central intersection, and that the 90-day monitoring was completed at the end of
August. Staff will present the findings to the Transportation Commission at the October
meeting.
d.
Future Projects
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier about any assessment of the
traffic impacts of the bike path adjacent to Fernside Blvd., Staff Khan replied that it was
too new to assess. Commissoner Schatmeier suggested that additional signage for
southbound bicyclists on Fernside would be helpful to direct riders to the bridge. Chair
Knox White suggested a stencil. Staff Khan said that there is a concern about installing
too many signs, but that a stencil may be appropriate.
Chair Knox White noted that the TMP EIR will go to the Planning Board at the end of
November, and City Council in December. He noted that there would be time during the
Transportation Commission's November meeting to make further comments. He inquired
whether it would be possible to move the meeting to the second Wednesday in
November. The Transportation Commission concurred.
9.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:55 p.m.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2008\102208-ARRA)092408minutes.doc
5",TransportationCommission/2008-09-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-03-28,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes (DRAFT)
Wednesday March 28 2012
Commissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:02 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Kathy Moehring
Thomas G. Bertken
Christopher Miley
Members Absent:
Jesus Vargas
Michele Bellows
Rajiv Sharma
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Adrienne Heim, Administrative Assistant
2.
Minutes
February 22, 2012 minutes (pending)
3.
Oral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments
None.
4.
New Business
Commissioner Moehring commented on a letter sent by Walt Grady regarding the traffic calming
and Safe Routes to School project at Gibbons Drive at Northwood Drive and Southwood Drive.
The Commission directed staff to include the letter in the May meeting, and at that time, there
will be a public hearing.
4A.
I-880 and 23rd-29th Avenue Project Update
Staff Khan presented an update on the I-880 and 23rd-29th Avenue Project. The project is
completing its design phase and will begin construction next year.
Page 1 of 12
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, March 28, 2012",TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-03-28,2,"Garrett Gritz, consultant from RBF and Alameda County Transportation Commission's Project
Manager Dale Dennis reported on the project overview which included: 1) the project purpose
and need; 2) overview and history; 3) stage construction plans; and 4) project schedule.
Commissioner Moehring asked for any comments to the I-880 and 23rd-29th Avenue Project.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the westbound traffic going to Alameda on the bridge where
it
has a conflict with the left turn going onto the freeway. He wanted to know how that conflict
would be resolved.
Garrett Gritz replied that there is a two-phased traffic signal there. Vehicles approaching in the
westbound direction would stop while left-turn vehicle movements occurred, and when the left
turn movements would stop then westbound vehicles could pass through the intersection.
Commissioner Bertken asked if the left-turn movement is a ramp meter.
Garrett Gritz replied it is a regular signal, where cars would go through that particular
intersection and the metering signal would be further down the ramp.
Commissioner Moehring called for public comment or questions.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, explained that 5 years ago he attended an
Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) meeting about the proposed
project and he asked a lot of questions that were critical to the whole project. He was glad some
of his objections were somewhat resolved. However, he feared that the project was initiated by
the Jingletown neighborhood in Oakland and the emphasis was on Jingletown's concerns and
Alameda was just a consequence. He wished there were additional public meetings 2-3 years
ago, where concerns would have been brought up. Thus, the public's input may have affected the
project's design. He was mostly concerned with the Ford Street connection where there is going
to be a new signal and the 29th Avenue traffic coming off the freeway and now heading towards
Alameda will now create a bottleneck. At the meeting, the original project designers said that
traffic would increase 10-20 percent into Alameda. Currently, when drivers come across 23rd
Avenue, there are two lanes plus an unobstructed slip onto the freeway. Now, the proposal states
there will be two lanes that have a stop light and drivers have to share the lane. He wanted to
know why the structure being rebuilt for 23rd Avenue could not include 4 or 5 lanes to
accommodate future growth. Oakland residents coming upon 12th Avenue have one lane coming
into Alameda, whereas before they had 2 unobstructed lanes. He was glad to see that bicyclists'
input was included, especially since bicyclists like to cycle out to the Embarcadero going
through 29th Avenue. Finally, he requested to see the slide presentation put on the City's website
so the public has access to it. He also thanked Matt Naclerio from Alameda Public Works for
answering his questions.
Garrett Gritz explained that this was his third or fourth time presenting in front of the
Transportation Commission and he presented before City Council. During the environmental
process, they circulated the environmental document and it was available at the library. Dale and
his team passed out flyers and invited the business community to comment about the project at
Page 2 of 12
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, March 28, 2012",TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-03-28,3,"the public meeting. There were positive comments, and one interesting comment came from a
business owner who would tell customers to use High Street instead of 23rd or 29th Avenues to
access his business. This project will benefit the local community by providing a direct route. He
pointed out that this project is for the trade corridor improvements for the northbound ramps and
that is how staff was able to secure funds. He believed the configuration suggestions posed by
the speaker were analyzed to solve many of the problems that came up, but were ultimately not
used.
Marilyn Bowe, Alameda resident, stated that she knows Tom Straus and she wanted clarification
on whether most of the traffic would feed in and out of the street in front of Straus Carpet
Company.
Commissioner Moehring said this is correct.
Marilyn Bowe questioned whether the intersection of Ford Street and 29th Avenue would
become a bottleneck.
Commissioner Moehring replied that the meeting's purpose was to get answers to those
questions.
Marilyn Bowe stated that she lives on Puddingstone Road, which is a Planned Unit
Development. The street in front of her house has now become a feeder street and creates a lot of
traffic.
Garrett Gritz noted that the intersection of Ford Street and 29th Avenue would become a hub,
where a traffic signal will be installed and the Park Street triangle will be restriped.
Staff Khan mentioned that the project has been presented to the Planning Board, City Council,
and Transportation Commission and advertised on the Alameda CTC's website. So, this is not
the first time that the project has been in front of the public. In terms of the impacts, the City
recognized those impacts and fought hard to have those concerns addressed. There were
concerns about traffic backing up onto Park Street, especially during the am peak hours.
However, staff has analyzed that the traffic queues on Park Street will dissipate quickly. He
stated that the City requested many improvements, including public transit improvements on
Park Street because it will be congested by the years 2030-2035. The City asked for queue jump
lanes on Park Street and signal coordination from Park Street and Encinal Avenue to the 23rd
Avenue on-ramp. The proposal includes queue jump lanes for transit buses at the 23rd Avenue
on-ramp. Staff is now working with AC Transit and Caltrans to review and provide comments on
this proposal. The Public Works Department received a Caltrans grant for Park Street signal
coordination with the support of the Alameda CTC.
Garrett Gritz replied that the project accommodated a future item as part of the area on the 23rd
Avenue overcrossing. One of the lanes will be striped out. When the buses are equipped with
advance detection then the buses will be able to bypass the queue.
Carol Gottstein, Alameda resident, asked if the street that features Bay Auto Center will become
Page 3 of 12
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, March 28, 2012",TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-03-28,4,"a dead-end street.
Garrett Gritz replied that the street would not be a dead-end street, but it will become part of the
local circulation. Currently, drivers can exit the freeway and they are right in front of the
building. Under the proposed condition, drivers would be required to exit the freeway, turn left,
and go into the Jingletown neighborhood to access the street.
Carol Gottstein mentioned that she is concerned with trying to coordinate the traffic signals on
either side of a working bridge.
Staff Khan replied that the bridges have a moratorium not to open during peak hours. The signal
for the bridge preemption is being managed by Alameda County, which also manages the
bridges. The County dedicates a fiber optic cable that is already on the bridge to connect to
Oakland's signals. From Alameda's side, the City has interconnect cables connected along Park
Street.
Commissioner Moehring asked when does the moratorium start.
Staff Khan explained that the moratorium is already in place.
Commissioner Miley stated that he commutes through there almost everyday and it is a pain to
get over to Fruitvale Avenue. He believes that the Fruitvale Bridge can handle more traffic, so
was there any discussion to try to direct more traffic onto Fruitvale Avenue and the bridge.
Garrett Gritz replied yes, the fact that the Fruitvale Bridge has more capacity was clear early on
and they wanted to figure out a way to use it. However, the objective is to improve the 23rd and
29th Avenue bridges and produce northbound ramp improvement. Once there are funding
opportunities to make improvements in the southbound direction then they can better utilize the
Fruitvale Bridge.
Commissioner Miley echoed Jim Strehlow's concern with potential bottlenecks at Ford Street
and 29th Avenue. He asked for the traffic counts on the new bridge and whether traffic would
increase by creating that direct route.
Garrett Gritz explained that staff identified the existing level of service at the intersection under
the proposed condition looking at the year 2030. Under the congestion management agency's
model, when you start to overlay the 2035 volumes, a lot of the intersections are significantly
impacted. He went on to say that the improvements identified include a signal at the eastbound
and westbound approaches to take turns utilizing the Ford Street and 29th Avenue intersection.
Currently, there is a delay for residents trying to access onto northbound I-880 and in the future
it will take a little longer, but the delay is due to improvements.
Commissioner Miley said in the future, they should look at the corridor as an entire system. He
would like them to include the High Street and Fruitvale Bridges to find opportunities to
alleviate some of the congestion issues that are found in the area.
Page 4 of 12
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, March 28, 2012",TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-03-28,5,"Commissioner Moehring understood the complexity of the project and found it funny that all the
improvements cause more delays when the improvements should decrease the delays.
Garrett Gritz replied there is only one particular movement that has an increase in delay, but
those drivers coming back to Alameda during the evening peak hours will have a decrease in
delay. Furthermore, the drivers who access the I-880 corridors from High Street currently have a
delay due to vehicle accidents and weaving issues. Once the project goes through, there will be a
decrease in delay for drivers traveling from the south to the north.
Commissioner Moehring questioned the annual number of accidents that occurred. Also, she
wanted to know how dangerous all of the crossings were to bicyclists, pedestrians and vehicles.
Garrett Gritz replied that he did not have the specific number, but between 29th and 23rd
Avenues where the merge was the problem, traffic accidents were 5-10 times more frequent than
the statewide average.
Commissioner Moehring stated that she would like Alameda CTC to post an approximate
timeline for each phase and updates in addition to the presentation.
Garrett Gritz explained that Caltrans has a public informational officer who is assigned to the
project. He mentioned that staff would begin advertising through communications channels and
alternative outreach approximately 6 months prior to construction. Once the project is awarded,
the contractor will submit the construction schedule and staff will revise accordingly.
Commissioner Moehring mentioned that Alex Nguyen could disseminate the appropriate
information to the public. She urged those in attendance to sign up using their email addresses to
receive City updates and meeting information.
Staff Khan stated that staff will be directly involved in distributing flyers to the Park Street
businesses and it would be good to have a web link included on the City's website from the
Alameda CTC to give residents information on the project's schedule and other information.
Jim Strehlow presented the official project website link at http://i880corridor.com/
4B.
Webster Street Intelligent Transportation System/Smart Corridors Project Update
Staff Khan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Moehring asked for any comments to the Intelligent Transportation
Systems/Smart Corridors Project.
Commissioner Bertken questioned whether the recording would record on a 5-minute loop.
Staff Khan replied that the Alameda Police Department had the sole discretion to record on a 5-
minute loop and at this time, they decided not to do it.
Page 5 of 12
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, March 28, 2012",TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-03-28,6,"Commissioner Moehring received a letter from former Transportation Commission Chair John
Knox White. As an Alameda resident, he wanted more information about the financial impacts
from the project. She shared the letter with Staff Khan and he will provide information about the
financial components and other questions for next month's meeting.
Commissioner Moehring called for public comment and questions.
Carol Gottstein stated that Webster Street is starting to look like Times Square west because the
City intends to install a lot of expensive gizmos for such a small area. She wondered what would
happen with the traffic-adapting devices when a bus and a fire truck crossed through the
intersection at the same time. She would like to see what the studies are for that and she asked
Staff Khan to define the acronyms used during the presentation.
Staff Khan replied that the devises are expensive in terms of what she is looking at, but
realistically it will increase the street capacity by 18-20 percent during the peak hours. He stated
that it would be much more expensive for the City to add another lane to the street to provide
additional capacity. Moreover, in terms of the passing issues for the fire truck and the transit
vehicles, the fire trucks supersede all other vehicle types.
Carol Gottstein mentioned that the buses are still being operated by human beings so if the bus
driver is approaching the intersection, expects the fire truck to speed through and nothing occurs
then what should he do. Also, the City has not brought up that they are not going to widen the
tunnels. Finally, she asked if the funding sources were set up for this project.
Staff Khan stated the project would cost $1.6 million and is composed of four to five different
local, regional, and federally funded sources.
Carol Gottstein asked Staff Khan to publish a breakdown of the funding sources for the project
on the City's website.
Staff Khan replied he would present a breakdown of the funding sources at next month's
meeting.
Commissioner Miley asked Staff Khan about the implementation schedule.
Staff Khan replied the project's design is 100 percent complete. Since the Alameda CTC is
holding the various funding sources, they are managing the project. However, Alameda staff is
fully involved and they are working on the permits and equipment. Alameda Municipal Power
provided the City with a fiber cable, which will be used to communication with the Police
Department. In terms of the project's schedule, construction should start between May and June
of this year. The project should be complete early next year, around January or February.
Commissioner Miley asked for more information about the on-going costs for all the
improvements.
Staff Khan replied that the estimated electronic devices (similar to LED lighting) have a span of
Page 6 of 12
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, March 28, 2012",TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-03-28,7,"10-15 years and the on-going cost to manage the devices is estimated to be $5,000 to $6,000 per
year. Regarding on-going maintenance, funds should be available under Alameda CTC's
Measure B expenditure plan, Vehicle Registration Fee, and the Smart Corridor program.
Commissioner Miley questioned whether the Smart Corridor funds would be competitive or
allocated based on population.
Staff Khan stated that the Alameda CTC manages the Smart Corridor program and there are a
handful of projects in the county. Furthermore, the City is part of the Smart Corridor
Consortium.
Commissioner Miley asked if the countywide agency would provide all the maintenance funds
for the few smart corridors in the county.
Staff Khan confirmed that the City will work with the Alameda CTC to obtain funding for the
maintenance funds.
Commissioner Moehring said she has maintained an interest in this project and she believes the
corner of Pacific Avenue will definitely benefit from the project. She noted that the cameras are
not recording personal information, but will be used for safety and emergency response
situations to efficiently circulate vehicles and allow emergency vehicles to pass. Since there are
55,000 daily vehicles that go through the Webster Tube, anything the City can do to make that
commute safer is great.
4C. Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Khan presented the quarterly report on the following activities related to transportation
policies and plans:
The Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines will be presented to the Planning Board sometime
after May.
The City received $464,000 in funding for the Shoreline Drive and Westline Drive bike
lanes project. The project will take one of the lanes in each direction of Shoreline Drive
and convert the lanes to parking and bike lanes. Staff has met with Bike Alameda and they
will help take this concept to the community. The first public meeting about the proposed
project will occur on May 2, and a more detailed description of the project will be
presented at next month's meeting.
There are 20 bike lockers that were installed at the Fruitvale BART station some time ago,
and they have gone over their useful life and are now a fire hazard. The City is partnering
with BART and Oakland to remove the lockers and replace them with new electronic
lockers.
Staff has ordered an additional 20 racks as part of the Park Street Streetscape Project, and
staff is looking at more rack locations around Park Street. The total number of new bike
Page 7 of 12
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, March 28, 2012",TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-03-28,8,"racks will be at least 32. Staff also is looking at side streets for additional bike rack
placement.
Staff partnered with Bike Alameda to submit a Bicycle Friendly Community application.
Staff continues to work on the Alameda Point Transit and Access Plan funded by the
Federal Transportation Administration. Staff hopes to bring a detailed version of the plan to
the Commission in May or June.
The TSM/TDM plan will go before the Planning Board during the April 9 meeting.
The Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) New Freedom Grant helps people with
disabilities, especially those who are blind to navigate through the intersections. Nine
intersections will have APS installed as part of the project.
The Safe Routes to School project along Gibbons Drive at Northwood Drive and
Southwood Drive received an $184,600 grant. Staff held a meeting last month and received
public feedback. Staff will bring the issue to the Transportation Commission in May.
Staff is submitting another Safe Routes to School grant application for Wood Middle
School. The application will be submitted to Caltrans by March 30th.
Commissioner Bertken asked if there is more to the Bicycle Friendly Community application
besides a public relations achievement.
Staff Khan explained that the recognition is good for economic development since the City is
friendly towards bicyclists. The City also receives national recognition.
Commissioner Moehring asked if staff received approval from the individual merchants to
replace the bike racks in front of their businesses.
Staff Khan stated that staff met with the executive director of the Park Street Business
Association and he provided input on bicycle rack locations. Once the streetscape project is
complete, staff will go to each business to make sure they support the bicycle rack placement
before they install the additional racks.
Commissioner Moehring asked about the placement of the accessible pedestrian signals.
Staff Khan replied the signals are distributed throughout the City and staff will provide a
rendition of the pedestrian signal locations under the Staff Communications section for next
month's meeting agenda. The City's goal is to provide signals when they receive community
requests, within proximity to bus stops and next to senior centers.
Commissioner Moehring called for public comment and questions.
Mike Kelly resides on the corner of Fremont Drive and Fernside Boulevard. He has traversed the
Page 8 of 12
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, March 28, 2012",TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-03-28,9,"Gibbons Drive intersection on foot and by bicycle for many years and he does not believe the
intersection needs to be modified. He walks his grandchildren to and from Edison Elementary
School, and he believes there is more congestion from children and parents at the Cambridge
Drive and Northwood Drive intersection than at Gibbons Drive. Thus, he does not believe
Gibbons Drive to be a Safe Routes to School issue. He explained a new crosswalk has been
added at Harvard Drive and Fernside Boulevard and that will impact the route that he uses. He
requested that the grant funds be returned.
Warren Vegas resides on the corner of Fernside Boulevard across from Mike Kelly and reported
that a lot of people do not have an issue with the intersection. When he spoke with the Alameda
Police Department, they found no pedestrian or vehicle accidents there. As a citizen residing in
the vicinity and as a parent with two children attending Edison Elementary, he does not believe
parents and children cross at that intersection. The solution misses some key areas where people
actually cut across and he would like to see the grant money applied to areas such as Fernside
Boulevard and Central Avenue.
Jim Strehlow stated that there was no mention of the first meeting and how there was a 95
percent opposition to the project in the report. Nor was there any mention to the public that a
grant had been awarded for the project. He felt it was unfair of staff to take quantities of the
attendees' opinion at the first meeting when it was aimed as a fact-finding meeting. He believes a
particular community member acquired a number of signatures to modify the intersection and the
City received a grant for a project that the majority of residents surrounding Gibbons Drive do
not want.
Gordon McConnell, Alameda resident, echoed Jim Strehlow's sentiments. He went to the second
meeting where a roundabout was proposed as the traffic-calming solution. The roundabout
would lose 19 parking spaces; the cost was estimated at $220,000 with $600 per month
maintenance. The solution did not go over well with the public and there was some discussion on
who would bear those costs. A police officer was present at the meeting and explained that there
was not enough traffic to implement traffic calming measures. There were also issues regarding
cars making donuts and conducting sideshows at the intersection, but the donuts and sideshows
were infrequent. Apparently, a resident who lived in the neighborhood and caused the incidents
either moved away or discontinued the activity. Overall, the majority of the attendees did not
want any part of the project and they assumed the project was killed. However, when the third
public meeting was held in February attendees found that the project process would continue
because the City was able to secure funds under the guise of a Safe Routes to Schools issue.
Ultimately, he and those who attended the meeting felt that the money should be sent back.
Marilyn Bowe felt that the project is tearing the neighborhood apart. She believes there are a
couple of proponents that want to stop regular traffic from entering Gibbons Drive. In 2010, she
attended the City's preliminary discussion about a traffic-calming proposal and comments were
published. By the third meeting, the street's design proposal was over engineered and the overall
intention of the grant is not what this intersection is about. She would rather see the sidewalks
fixed along Gibbons Drive so the children could walk safely or return the funds. Lastly, she
exclaimed that only a select number of residents have been allowed in closed-door meetings,
knew about the grant and have been part of the design process.
Page 9 of 12
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, March 28, 2012",TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-03-28,10,"Carol Gottstein stated this traffic-calming measure has infuriated everyone she knows and she
never heard of any problems with this intersection. She has not heard of Edison Elementary
School needing traffic calming and there are other projects in Alameda that need funding.
Paula Kaneshiro explained the grant included misleading information such as there are eight
accidents within less of a 0.25 of a mile of the intersection. There is a two-mile radius around
Edison Court and Lincoln Avenue, but there has not been one accident. Regarding the donuts
and sideshow activity that was mentioned earlier, the activity occurred during the late evening.
The student fatality mentioned in the report was located on Everett Street and Santa Clara
Avenue, which is nowhere near the project's intersection. She also mentioned that the project is
not on the approved school route. The approved school route is near the Lincoln Avenue and
Gibbons Drive intersection.
Warren Vegas wanted clarification on the Park Street Bicycle project. He wanted to know how
staff came up with the number of bicycle racks to install and he wanted to know if a lot of
parking meters that were once used as bicycle parking would be taken out.
Staff Khan replied that staff is not just installing 32 bicycle racks, but they are trying to get more
racks. The number and the location depend on the needs and demands of bicyclists. Thus, staff is
trying to provide bicycle parking near main attractors. Regarding the parking meters issue, staff
had a discussion with Bike Alameda to see if there were clear counts or numbers available to
conduct a survey to collect the necessary information to see how many bicyclists use the meters.
Staff will continue to work with Bike Alameda and the Park Street Business Association to see
what the needs and demands are.
Commissioner Miley wanted to know if Gibbons Drive issue will come before the Commission
in May and if public will have ample time to discuss the issue.
Staff Khan referred to the Sunshine Ordinance since the item was not on the agenda nor was
there a quorum present to fully discuss the item. The issue will be discussed during the May
meeting.
Mike Kelly asked if the Commission would accept letters from the public.
Commissioner Moehring stated that letters are accepted and at the May meeting, the Commission
will make a recommendation on the issue.
Staff Khan stated that under Alameda's Municipal Code, the Public Works Director can make a
decision on certain items and their decision can be appealed to the Transportation Commission.
The Transportation Commission's decision can be taken to the City Council, which is the last
stop. In this instance, the Public Works Director has the option to refer an item to the
Transportation Commission. If the public does not agree with the Transportation Commission's
decision then the item can be appealed and sent to the City Council.
Marilyn Bowe felt that it was unsettlingly to have the project addressed without the
Page 10 of 12
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, March 28, 2012",TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-03-28,11,"neighborhood's input and she would not want to wait until May.
Staff Khan assured Ms. Bowe that staff would not proceed with the project until it goes before
the Transportation Commission in May.
Commissioner Bertken asked Staff Khan to send a copy of the report and the grant to the
Commissioners.
5.
Staff Communications
Alameda Paratransit Program Modification Update
Regarding the MRTIP Program, the City will begin charging $2.50. At the last meeting, the
Commission asked about charging $3.00, but given that the Premium Taxi service uses $2.50
coupons, it would be easier to implement the $2.50 charge. Staff received feedback from the
Mastick Senior Center and they preferred the $2.50 charge. Staff will take this decision for
approval to the next City Council meeting scheduled in May.
Estuary Crossing Shuttle Update
Staff Khan presented a report on the Estuary Crossing Shuttle Update. Overall, ridership has
spiked, but bicycle usage has remained steady and staff is working with Bike Alameda to
increase the numbers.
Safe Routes to School Submittal Update for Grand Street at Wood Middle School
Staff will submit the grant application on Thursday, March 29th. There is a minor tweak of the
design, meaning the southbound bulb will either be eliminated or reduced. AC Transit found that
without implementing the design modification, their southbound operation would be
compromised. Therefore, a parking space would have to be removed and if there is public
opposition to the reduction of parking spaces, the bulb-out will be eliminated.
AC Transit Line OX Local Restrictions
Staff received an email in February from AC Transit regarding a new policy to limit local transit
riders on the OX Transbay line because the local commuters were reducing space for Transbay
Commuters. Students make up the local ridership during the peak morning hours between Park
Street and Encinal Avenue. In September, AC Transit will incorporate changes to the school
route (Line 631) to better serve students.
Future Meeting Agenda Items:
In April, staff will bring up an appeal of an all-way stop at Fourth Street and Santa Clara
Avenue, and the proposed San Antonio Avenue closure at Franklin School. The Shoreline Drive
and Westline Drive Bike Lane design details also will come before the Commission. The
Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan will come before the Commission next month.
Page 11 of 12
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, March 28, 2012",TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-03-28,12,"Commissioner Miley requested to have the Alameda CTC staff come to the April meeting to
respond to questions.
Staff Khan will provide information on Webster Street SMART Corridor Project in the Staff
Communication section.
In May, there will be a continuation of the discussion of the Safe Routes to School project on
Gibbons Drive.
Commissioner Bertken asked for the fare price difference between AC Transit Transbay and
student riders.
Linda Morris, Transportation Planner for AC Transit, found that AC Transit drivers were having
issues with school children overwhelming the bus capacity. Transbay riders were unable to
board. Therefore, AC Transit drivers charged students the Transbay youth fare rather than the
local fare. Ultimately, the local fare is much cheaper than the Transbay Fare.
6.
Announcements
None.
7.
Adjournment
10:00 PM
Page 12 of 12
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, March 28, 2012",TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-06-22,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes
June 22, 2011
Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Philip Tribuzio
Thomas G. Bertken
Jesus Vargas
Kathy Moehring
Kirsten Zazo
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Alan Ta, Junior Engineer
Daraja Wagner, Administrative Assistant
2.
Minutes
Commissioner Kathy Moehring moved approval of the minutes for the March 23, 2011, meeting
and minutes as presented. Commissioner Jesus Vargas seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
3.
Oral Communications - Non-Agenda
John Spangler stated that he was pleased to see the commissioners, and informed everyone that
he was now one of two representatives for the Alameda County BART Bicycle Accessibility
Task Force. Spangler stated that he is seeking information on how BART affected them.
Commissioner Vargas extended a congratulations to Spangler.
Commissioner Moehring stated that she was happy to have one of our own serve as a
representative.
Page 1 of 6",TransportationCommission/2011-06-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-06-22,2,"4.
New Business
4A.
Presentation of Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and
Plans.
Staff Khan summarized the staff report.
Open public hearing.
Commissioner Bertken stated that it will be a work in progress for a long time. We will need to
constantly grow to fit the needs of the city.
Staff Khan responded that he agreed that Alameda Point will grow in phases, so the
transportation system will too. Maybe shuttle systems should be in place first, then transition
into buses. It will be a growing system that grows with the project. A grant was received from
the Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program for $964,000 with $733,000 from the state
and $231,000 as the local match to coordinate Park Street lights.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he thought Staff should read the article on Alameda Patch on
the Estuary Crossing Shuttle. Commissioner Vargas also asked about the locations of bike
storage.
Staff Khan responded that they were negotiating with Oakland as well as AC Transit. Staff is
trying to find out if there is space on the street for a bus stop as well as amenities for bicyclists
and pedestrians. There is no conclusion yet staff is still developing the plan.
Commissioner Vargas asked if the plan was adjustable.
Staff Khan responded that it was absolutely adjustable. Staff Khan stated that we have to respond
to the users so that they will continue to use the system because if they do not we will lose
funding. The Estuary Crossing Shuttle is only funded for one year.
Commissioner Moehring asked what it would cost the businesses for extra bike racks.
Staff Khan responded that if businesses need them to provide bike racks then the city would
provide the racks through funding from Measure B and city maintenance workers would install
them on public street right-of-way.
Commissioner Moehring stated that she thought that this shuttle was fabulous. Commissioner
Moehring asked if staff was talking with WABA. Commissioner Moehring stated that Dr.
Jackson was now the permanent president for College of Alameda, which will be great moving
forward because she is aware of the community and its challenges. Commissioner Moehring
asked under the pedestrian plan in August 2010 if there is any way for the commission to obtain
the old report so that when they see the new report they will be able to have a reference.
Staff Khan stated that he would have to think of the best process.
Page 2 of 6",TransportationCommission/2011-06-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-06-22,3,"Commissioner Moehring stated that four out of the five commissioners had not seen the report
and asked Staff Khan if he could send it via e-mail. Commissioner Moehring stated that she
thought staff had done a great job!
Commissioner Zazo asked when were the pick-up and drop-off times for the Estuary Crossing
Shuttle.
Staff Khan stated that they would be during the two peak hours with one in the morning between
7 a.m. - 11:30 a.m., and in the evening between 3:30 p.m. - 7 p.m.
Commissioner Zazo stated that she was concerned since things change constantly and stated that
she thought staff should look into the class schedules for the times when they have the most
traffic to accommodate the schedule.
Staff Khan stated that College of Alameda was a partner, and would keep the shuttle parked
overnight on their property. Staff Khan also stated that the shuttle would be fueled up in west
Oakland.
Close public hearing.
No action was taken.
4B.
Appeal of Public Works Director' Decision to Remove of Red Curb on San Jose
Avenue at Jackson Park to Increase Parking
Staff Khan summarized report.
Karen Larson, a resident of Park Avenue for three years, asked on behalf of the residents of Park
Street, to please reconsider. Larson stated that she was concerned because many accidents occur
on that street and go unreported. There have been two collisions this year and more will come
because the sight lines are hard to see.
Larson presented a petition with 30 signatures on it; 20 from homes in the area and the rest from
people who frequent the area. Larson also presented a google map that showed the corner where
most of the accidents are. Larson stated that six have occurred in four years. Larson showed
photos she took standing North looking East (photo 1A), and also West (1B). In photo 1C, three
cars were added into the photo to show how crowded it looks.
2A, 2B, and 2C all show the opposite view of the original photos taken. In the last photo, Larson
shows the proposed parking space. Larson acknowledged that she was aware that parking is a
premium in that neighborhood; however, it was her community. Larson stated that there were
138 unrestricted parking spots around the park and an additional 35 totaling 173 altogether. On
Thursdays, there are only 100 to 110 parking spots available due to street sweeping.
Larson stated that people must be encouraged to take the bus. Larson lastly stated that this was a
daytime issue not a residential one and she did not want residents to be jeopardized over it.
Page 3 of 6",TransportationCommission/2011-06-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-06-22,4,"Amy, who is a resident mom of two kids, stated that it is hard for her to see when using the
crosswalk because there is low visibility due to all the parked cars. Amy also stated that most
cars do not adhere to the speed limit.
Betsy Malconism stated that she has lived on Park Avenue for ten years. Malconism states that
double parking occurs on both sides of the street because there are no cuts for driveways.
Malconism stated that the park was the oldest park in Alameda and not a parking lot. Malconism
asked the commission to please change their mind about adding the parking.
Commissioners' comments:
Staff Khan read a letter in support of the parking being added asking if there could be a
compromise of adding only four parking spaces instead of six.
Commissioner Moehring thanked everyone for the information. Commissioner Moehring stated
that in regards to the accidents, they occur because people break the law.
Commissioner Vargas asked for clarification in light of being in the community, Commissioner
Vargas asked what did the local businesses think. Commissioner Vargas asked what was the
time when the accidents occurred. Commissioner Vargas also asked if adding speed bumps
would help make the area safer.
Staff Khan stated that everyone must look at what a change in the street will create and or
trigger. In regards to the pedestrian crossing issue, Staff Khan stated that we must work with the
community. Staff Khan also stated that letters were sent out within 300 feet of the impacted area.
Commissioner Tribuzio stated that speed bumps can be looked at as a consideration either way
whether the parking spots were added or not. Commissioner Tribuzio commented that speed
bumps would help slow down the traffic and accidents.
Staff Khan stated that the issue with inserting speed bumps is the response time for emergency
vehicles. Staff Khan also stated that it was a traffic calming suggestion, and the discussion right
now was about parking; however, the comment would be taken into consideration.
Commissioner Moehring stated that she was sympathetic with the issues around the poor
visibility; however, these were all traffic calming related issues. Commissioner Moehring stated
that the city must look at which order they must place things. Commissioner Moehring stated
that when she first read the memo she thought that adding six parking spaces was great. The area
was nicely scoped out in a business area close to the park where traffic moved through quickly,
not realizing that the daytime parking was not the residents own. Commissioner Moehring stated
that traffic calming solutions in this area need to be looked into such as the crosswalks being
painted brighter, or maybe striped crosswalks that give the illusion of it being a speed bump. At
this time, she was confused of the compromise that could be reached with the pedestrian safety
issues. Maybe awareness about the issue should be raised. Commissioner Moehring stated that
the work that everyone did as far as bringing in documents and pictures was tremendous.
Page 4 of 6",TransportationCommission/2011-06-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-06-22,5,"Commissioner Moehring hoped that in regards to the parking she hoped that maybe a solution
could be reached like maybe only four parking spots being added instead of six.
Staff Khan reminded the commission to focus on the purpose of the appeal, and not to take
unrelated concerns into account. Staff Khan stated that parking would create calming on the
street. With the parking being added, the street would become narrower and in turn, cars would
slow down to drive on the narrower street.
Commissioner Moehring reminded everyone that the reason why the parking came into
suggestion in the first place was because someone saw that the street had a red zone that was not
being used. There were no complaints made from residents that there was not enough parking,
someone just simply saw that the space was being unused and that it could be used as extra space
for parking. Commissioner Moehring extended an appreciation to the staff for all of their hard
work.
Commissioner Vargas stated that in the event that the appeal did not get accepted that the other
issues were taken into account to be discussed.
Commissioner Moehring stated that the other issues were a separate request, and asked for a yay
or nay in regard to the motion at hand.
Commissioner Bertken moved to approve the appeal. Commissioner Tribuzio seconded the
motion. Motion passed 4-1. Commissioner Vargas opposed.
Commissioner Zazo stated that a lot of things that happen go undocumented. Commissioner Zazo
suggested that more than just the written documents should be looked up, other things like the
history of the park and its trolley. Commissioner Zazo stated that she felt that staff should come
back with a clear vision and a benefit analysis.
Staff Khan stated that the Historic Advisory Board did look into things and were not able to find
more information. Staff will forward the concerns to the appropriate bodies.
Commissioner Moehring thanked staff again, and apologized for not going with their
recommendation.
Close public hearing.
5.
Staff Communications
Alameda County Transportation Commission Paratransit Advisory Committee (PAPCO) is
looking for a new member representing the City of Alameda. Staff Khan asked if anyone had
someone in mind for the position.
Commissioner Vargas asked how frequent were the meetings.
Page 5 of 6",TransportationCommission/2011-06-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-06-22,6,"Staff Khan stated that the meetings were on a monthly basis, but he was not sure of the details
and would follow up.
Information was passed out for New Paratransit Shuttle routes, a lot of good feedback was given
from the city council.
The Guaranteed Ride Home Program is a benefit from the county for every employer and
employee. In the event of an emergency, employees could get a ride home. It is paid for by tax
monies.
Fruitvale Bridge Seismic work means an impact to the water will occur, not the streets.
Status of Boards and Commissions Restructuring has no new news at this time
Future Meeting Agenda Items
Staff will present TSM/TDM strategies at a future meeting. Staff will work with the Chair on
items.
Commissioner Bertken asked what percentage of funds to work with the commission was
covered by Measure B.
Staff Khan replied that all of it was, stating that there was no general fund monies involved with
the Transportation Commission.
Commissioner Vargas asked in regards to the last two agenda items if it was possible to get
updates at every meeting or every other meeting.
Staff Khan replied that the committee has not restarted, that they were in the process of getting
appointments.
6.
Announcements
7.
Adjournment
8:21 PM
Page 6 of 6",TransportationCommission/2011-06-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-09-28,1,"Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes
Wednesday September 28, 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)
Michael Hans
Gregory Morgado
Thomas G. Bertken
Samantha Soules
Christopher Miley
Members Absent:
Jesus Vargas
Staff Present:
Jennifer Ott, Base Reuse and Transportation Planning Director
Shahram Aghamir, City Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Rochelle Wheeler, Transportation Planner
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements. / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, stated that he attended the Pleasanton Transportation
Commission meeting and they have 70 miles of bicycle lanes and more in progress that is being
discussed and he gave them three suggestions on three different corridors. So, he's not just
giving Alameda TC suggestions. He noticed frequently that pedestrians and walking dogs when
they are coming to corners, they are not stopping and looking at intersections he wondered what
kind of education campaign that is needed. He is seeing this almost daily and he is wondering if
that is creating angst amongst everyone like motorists and bicyclists alike.
Commissioner Bellows asked Jim Strehlow is talking about uncontrolled intersections.
Page 1 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-09-28,2,"Jim Strehlow replied ones that where there are stop signs and pedestrians are supposed to stop
and look at both ways. Even at controlled intersections, they have to look at both ways.
3.A. Commissioner Schatmeier Appreciation of Service Resolution
Commissioner Bellows stated Commissioner Schatmeier was a wonderful asset to the
transportation Commission. She read the appreciation of service resolution.
Commissioner Miley replied that he feels it will be a lost to the Commission and he hopes the TC
hears from him especially about issues that he is passionate about.
3.B. Samantha Soules - New Commissioner Introduction
Commissioner Soules stated that she is excited to serve on the Transportation Commission
resident of 4 years in Alameda and 12 years professional experience in transportation field
experience consultant called Atkins based in San Francisco and she has worked with a number of
Department of Transportation agencies across the United States including transportation mobility
and civil infrastructure.
3.C. Shahram Aghamir - New City Engineer Introduction
Shahram Aghamir, Alameda City Engineer, stated that he has been here for 5 months now and
it's an honor to be here for a debut presence at the TC and he has 30 years of experience in civil
engineering and used to work for Caltrans, City and County of San Francisco and Oakland and
main background is the public sector. He looks forward to working on the challenges facing the
city.
3.D. Walk and Roll to School Day: Wednesday, October 5
3.E. Transit/TDM Plan Community Workshop: Wednesday, October 19, 6:30 pm, Mastick
Senior Center
3.F. Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday November 16, 7 pm
4.
Consent Calendar
4.A. Approve Revised Meeting Minutes - March 23, 2016
4.B. Approve Meeting Minutes - May 25, 2016
Commissioner Miley moved to approve the revised March 23, 2016 and May 25, 2016 minutes.
Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Page 2 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-09-28,3,"5.
New Business
5.A. Election of Vice Chair
Commissioner Bertkens moved to vote for Commissioner Miley as Vice Chair. Commissioner
Hans seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
5.B. Review Formation of Citywide Transportation Planning Division
Jennifer Ott, Director of Base Reuse and Transportation Planning, presented the report.
Commissioner Bellows stated that it was a linear thinking move to her and it makes sense.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the staff transportation vision
Jennifer Ott stated that she will be the director of transportation planning and there will be an
administrative assistant, Ashley Ziba, Gail Payne full-time employee as a Transportation
Coordinator and Rochelle Wheeler who is a part-time employee and consultants. As we move
into the 2-year budget cycle there will be more discussion on what our work load entails and how
that coordinates with the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) with Public Works and that will be
a very public and open discussion.
Commissioner Bellows replied it is great to see the list of projects they are working on.
Commissioner Miley replied that is a great move for the City staff in terms of coordination and
larger cities they link land use and transportation planning. He wants to see the collaboration
with the other departments and when the 2 year CIP overview comes up we have both planning
and implementation side come in.
5.C. Approve the Draft Project List for the Alameda County Transportation Commission Call
for Projects
Staff Payne presented the report.
Jennifer Ott replied that there has been correspondence about the bicycle and pedestrian bridge
and they have been working with Bike Walk Alameda.
Commissioner Bellows replied in her professional opinion, it is an egregious waste of money to
think about a bridge crossing amongst a major ship channel.
Commissioner Miley stated that the grant application that is being submitted would fund projects
that are ready to go or are advancing along.
Jennifer Ott replied it is not to add this project as a construction project to the grant application,
but add the project as a feasibility study and that does not mean they are recommending that to
Page 3 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-09-28,4,"Commissioner Bellows replied this is in the CIP.
Staff Payne replied it's in Exhibit 1.
Commissioner Bellows replied it's in the CIP in it's raw form.
Page 4 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-09-28,5,"Staff Payne replied yes we not at the design staff so we will have a comprehensive outreach
process.
Commissioner Miley stated that going over the Miller Sweeney Bridge during peak hours. The
constraint is on Oakland's side we go to four lanes on the bridge to two lanes because of the turn
lane and there's all of that right of way because of the rail corridor. Are we looking at that piece
as well. If we're going to make improvements, it should be looked at more broadly.
Staff Payne replied we are not looking at the Oakland side.
Lucy Gigli, President of Bike Walk Alameda, item 5.C. was to approve of the draft project list
and they are speaking that the estuary crossing bridge is as important if not as important as the
listed projects and it's pertinent to the discussion. As you know from the communication last
week and the communication this week we have been working closely with Alameda staff about
preferred long term solutions for the pedestrian bike plan. This is the most feasible out of many
things that were studied. After many years there hasn't been any progress. Throwing up our
hands because there were too many obstacles in our way, but now is the time to seek funding.
She asked the Commission direct city staff to direct to formally ask Caltrans to submit a formal
application and act as the lead as part of this funding cycle due to the extreme time sensitivity,
which is October 31. Work in consultation with Bike Walk Alameda to create clear steps that
will guide measurable efforts for a bike pedestrian bridge and find and locate resources for staff
time and dollars to advance the preferred solution and work with stakeholders.
Commissioner Bellows asked if Measure BB effectively number 9 as a named project or is it
independent.
Staff Payne replied the main project is not being ranked and it is independent. So, 1-8 is what we
are talking about.
Commissioner Miley asked about the Bus Rapid Transit project-funding gap.
Staff Payne replied that Measure BB it's the transit expenditure plan and the Alameda Point BRT
project is named for $9m in the TEP.
Commissioner Bellows that is why they are calling it a separate name in the list.
Staff Payne replied July 1 2017 that's when funds become available and they can start outreach
and design and construction of the project.
Commissioner Morgado stated that the estuary water shuttle should be moved up.
Commissioner Soules stated the list has to compete with other projects for funding. So, that the
priority was already considered to ensure that Alameda has competitive projects for funding and
staff has considered this.
Commissioner Bellows replied that is correct.
Page 5 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-09-28,6,"Staff Payne replied we should be thinking about the fact that this list of projects is competing
with other projects countywide.
Commissioner Bellows asked staff how much funding is available and how many jurisdictions.
Staff Payne replied $161 million and 14 jurisdictions including the county as well as BART, AC
Transit and LAFTA that would be submitting as well.
Commissioner Bellows would like to see the Central Avenue project moved up because that has
been reviewed.
Staff Payne replied that at the end of October they would see if they get the active transportation
grant.
Commissioner Bellows replied Caltrans supported the Central Avenue Complete Streets projects
and if there are letters of commitment from others that creates a very strong argument. She
explained that she would also like to see Alameda Bay Point Trail is a huge thing with MTC to
finish the Bay Trail and that would be an attractive project and it's only $10 million with an ask
for $8 million. The new ferry terminal at Seaplane Lagoon is critical as well, but it should be
reviewed one by one.
Commissioner Miley stated that he was slightly uncomfortable with shifting things around
without having a full picture of how staff prioritized the list.
Jennifer Ott replied given what they heard of interest of the bike pedestrian bridge and the
Estuary Crossing staff feels comfortable at moving the Estuary Shuttle up and it's a small
amount and other considerations that were reviewed is whether they have matching funds
available one reason ferry terminal is there because there is a $10 m contribution from the
developer as well as the Bay trail have Measure WW from the park district and we can leverage.
Also spread this around geographically and look at other parts of the island. Also looking at the
crossing issues Clement Avenue and east extension. They are open to their suggestions and one
reason central avenue is lower on list because of the other funding sources they could qualify for
they could have ATP funding that may come through but they will look to the TC for direction.
Commission Bellows replied if in fact October 31 due when is their estimated timeline to make a
decision.
Jennifer Ott replied the ATP grant for Central Avenue is due in October 28, so Staff Payne has to
do the work no matter what.
Commissioner Bellows replied so when are they going to make their decision.
Jennifer Ott replied they would make the decision October 28 right before this is due.
Commissioner Bellows replied they are going to submit these grants in October, so when will
ACTC say you have the funds.
Page 6 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-09-28,7,"Jennifer Ott replied ACTC would probably make their decision sometime early next year since
funds will not be available for use until July 1, 2017.
Commissioner Bellows replied if in fact you receive the grant from ATP it's only a small part of
it so you would still need money.
Jennifer Ott replied that's correct and they are all great project and staff is open to the TC's
suggestions. Given the interest of the Estuary Crossing, they could leverage match funds from
developers along the northern waterfront for the shuttle so there could be other funds to leverage
and open to moving that up.
Commissioner Bellows replied she would like to open the discussion of to the Commissioners
about the list and prioritizing.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the ferry terminal. Staff indicated there is a 50 percent match.
Commissioner Bellows replied not for this one.
Commissioner Bertken replied he thought initially there was a fixed amount as part of the
development agreement.
Jennifer Ott replied it is $10 million and that's about 50 and they hope that it's more of a match
and the overall expense is less.
Commissioner Miley replied that his concern is getting a lifeline crossing for the city of alameda
whether it's a new tube or Fruitvale, which is probably more feasible. I know county of public
works included in the TEP what is the gap for the project.
Staff Payne replied it is included in the TEP as a named project in a category under $75 million
for bridges and names several projects.
Commissioner Bellows replied that it's in a pool for the bridges and the county runs the bridges.
Commissioner Miley replied so that's their responsibility so they need the City partner and make
them prioritize this. He use to bike to Oakland City Hall and biking through the tube is not an
option and being on the west end he would had to go across the Park Street Bridge or Fruitvale
Bridge and take Embarcadero and the Fruitvale Bridge is not bike friendly, but has the capacity
to be so, so he would like to see this project advanced since we don't have a lifeline crossing
especially in the event of an earthquake. He saw that the Fruitvale Miller Sweeney Bridge
Lifeline City match was not even included in the red box and he doesn't know how competitive
that would be right now, but that should be made a priority and the last comment made is that
appreciate Lucy Gigli comments for the City to request that Caltrans advance a feasibility study
and he would go one further to not only look at the pedestrian bike bridge, but a tube
replacement. Caltrans was ready to spend tens of millions in Niles Canyon when people didn't
want to see improved. So our island doesn't have a lifeline crossing then the tube has outlived its
life and Caltrans should take responsibility to replace it. He would like to have this request
Page 7 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-09-28,8,"reaching out to Caltrans included in the motion.
Commissioner Bellows replied the bridge option is way too much money for not enough benefits,
but the tube is the way to go.
Commissioner Bertken said he agreed and he has been involved over the years in this type of
work and the crossings and bridges and the cost that comes about with bringing another crossing
at this stage of the game there is too many impediments to really consider.
Commissioner Hans replied he would take any way to get on and off the island, meaning
improved access. When talking about the Miller Sweeney Bridge lifeline, part of his training is
in emergency management and if something does happen there is Doolittle, Webster, Park Street,
High Street and you need heavy equipment to come through he would put that as first priority.
To have an emergency operation center and making thinking about disaster relief.
Commissioner Soules said she would agree with the tube having worked with federal regulations
and coast guard the amount of cost to handle regulations and even circumventing and time
involved the budgets involved before breaking ground would be very high and would continue to
climb.
Commissioner Bellows replied is there a motion to change the staff recommendation or do you
want to add. The water shuttle is #8 on the list, but that is for a ferry service that is not the
feasibility study requested. The feasibility study would build off the 2009 feasibility study that
would recommend working with the coast guard for the bridge.
Jennifer Ott replied that the planning project doesn't compete directly with the construction
project. So, if you want to move the water shuttle feasibility study up to second or third that
would not adversely affect staff's ability to keep priorities for their construction projects.
Commissioner Bertken moved to move the estuary crossing shuttle up higher and approve the
staff recommendation.
Commissioner Bellows asked about including the Miller Sweeny Bridge project. The project is a
county project and the local match would have to come from the City not from Measure BB.
Staff Payne replied these projects are the ones we are leading and we are in charge of, but staff
can get into what we can match with this project.
Commissioner Bellows replied maybe staff needs to approach the county and explain this is
important to us can we help you write the grant.
Jennifer Ott replied staff could write a letter to Alameda County expressing their interest and
encourage similar to Caltrans.
Commissioner Miley seonded Commissioner Bertken's motion with the amendment that staff
approach or write a letter to Alameda County to express the need to prioritize improvements to
Miller Sweeny Bridge and approach Caltrans about taking on the reasonability of an additional
Page 8 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2016-09-28,9,"tube on the west end that meets lifeline requirements and that meets multimodal transit access
through that tube.
Commissioner Bertken made a personal comment that explained that the tube was originally
designed in 1967 as part of the southern crossing and it probably still exists somewhere in
Caltrans 6 lane double boxed tube was part of the connection of alameda and what is currently
980 which would have opened up Alameda.
Commissioner Hans seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
6.
Staff Communications
6.A. Quarterly Report September 2016
Jennifer Ott replied there isn't a report, staff was updating the TC of all of the projects and staff
is happy to answer any questions. Staff will be updating this every meeting with the latest status.
6.B. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Cross Alameda Trail - Atlantic Avenue Gap Closure
2. I-880/Broadway/Jacksor Multimodal Transportation Project
3. Preliminary Strategies of the Transit/TDM Plan
4. Alameda Point Bus Rapid Transit Dedicated Bus Lanes Concept
5. Paratransit Annual Review
6. Transportation Management Association Annual Report
Commissioner Bellows asked to see an update on the 23rd Street/I-880 since that is going very
slowly.
7.
Announcements/Public Comments
Jim Strehlow asked about the Caltrans public outreach about the rail.
that direction directions and have a bike going over the rail and now it's higher. What is the
process of that facility? He thanked the City for hiring Sharam.
Staff Payne replied that the Posey Tube is a historic renovation and around 2013 or 2014 there is
a project page on the city site there is outreach noted on the project page. Staff did participate on
this effort and she was impressed with Caltrans and they bring all their statewide experts and
they tackle this altogether in one room. They added 4 inches to that path and the railing is the
new railing that is compliant with safety measures.
8.
Adjournment
8:17 pm
Page 9 of 9",TransportationCommission/2016-09-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-01-27,1,"Approved Minutes
Transportation Commission Meeting
Wednesday, January 27, 2021
Time:
6:30 p.m.
Location:
Due to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners was able to attend
the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom. City Hall was NOT open to
the public during the meeting.
Legistar Link:
https://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811332&GUID=173EF9EF-7A08-48E9-AD93-
5B2FOBD42357&Options=info/&Search=
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Nachtigall and Commissioners Yuen, Kohlstrand and Weitze.
Absent: Commissioner Hans
2. Agenda Changes
Chair Soules requested to switch 6A and 6B to accommodate schedules.
3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4758231&GUID=BE96F602-9092-4789-A529-
8D29AA900855&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
4. Announcements/ Public Comments
Walter Jacobs in Harbor Bay stated that he has a problem with a roundabout or a traffic signal at Island Drive
and Mecartney Road. He prefers a flashing beacon. He has not seen a car crash here. He has a concern about
this proposal.
Jim Strehlow stated that he wants a status on the water taxi. The Fernside area HOA feels that Moreland Drive
has more speeding due to the Slow Streets program on Versailles Street, and other adjacent streets to Slow
Streets program has similar speeding problems.
Michael Robles-Wong stated that he had served on the board of Harbor Bay but is speaking as a 25-year resident
of Bay Farm Island. He agrees with Mr. Jacobs. A traffic guard was hit a few years ago at this Island/Mecartney
intersection. There is a concern about how pedestrians will cross this street.
Anthony Lewis stated that he is blind. Gail Payne had a meeting about a roundabout with the blind community
because it is something new for the blind community. He recommended that a tactile map be created, and to
have a mobility specialist assist with educating blind people how to use roundabouts. The Sherman/Encinal
intersection is complicated even for people who can see. There are approximately 20 people in Alameda who
are blind.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021
1",TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-01-27,2,"Morgan Bellinger stated that he hopes that everyone listens to the educational presentation on roundabouts, and
respects science and then will make decisions based on science.
Steve Barrett stated that he is a resident of Park Street, and cars speed on this street. He is thrilled to see that
Council is considering roundabouts because drivers will be forced to drive more safely.
Chair Soules read an email from Cheryl Chi, who was unable to come to the meeting, requesting that City staff
look into the trees that were planted along the Cross Alameda Trail because of the round balls that are dropped
by one of the species.
Steven Jones stated that he is a lifelong resident. About the Island/Mecartney intersection, he feels it runs
smoothly and people are courteous. He worked for the City of Alameda Fire Department for 30 years, and he
does not recall ever responding to a collision at that intersection. He worked with a former Public Works
Department Director who concluded that a traffic signal is not needed. He thinks the intersection works fine.
5. Consent Calendar
5A. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, November 18, 2020 (Action
Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4758232&GUID=9172809E-8E90-4634-8A56-
238C4C3B26CC&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
No changes proposed. Vice Chair Nachtigall moved to approve as is. Commission Yuen seconded. The
motion passed 4-0 and Commissioner Kohlstrand abstained since she was not at the meeting.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6B. Review Educational Presentation on Roundabouts (Discussion Item)
Gail Payne, Senior Transportation Coordinator introduced Kittelson staff - Erin Ferguson, Lawrence Lewis
and Mike Alston, who gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4758234&GUID=2345B774-9EAA-4A94-9A51-
BFC236809F5E&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
At the end of the presentation, Staff Payne added that the City had presented the roundabouts topic to a
group of people with visual impairments, and are preparing tactile maps of a typical roundabout, which will
be shared with the blind community.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B
Vice Chair Nachtigall asked in relation to pedestrian safety and the Central Avenue project, if a traffic
signal provides priority for pedestrians so that vehicles stop when they get a green, how roundabouts are
safer for pedestrians and if vehicles stop.
Ms. Ferguson responded that drivers can easily see pedestrians and yield to them at roundabouts.
Pedestrians look for a gap in traffic and proceed. There are ways to encourage auto yielding behavior, such
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021
2",TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-01-27,3,"as using Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons. Research has found that the yielding rate is good for single
lane roundabouts. The rates do go down with multiple lane roundabouts.
Vice Chair Nachtigall asked if landscaping of roundabouts and the splitter islands might reduce the visibility
of pedestrians.
Ms. Ferguson responded that, as part of the roundabout design process, sight distances are measured to
determine a landscaping plan including planting heights, or if no landscaping should be installed, to retain
visibility.
Commissioner Yuen asked if traffic circles have the same benefits as roundabouts, particularly since many
Alameda intersections could not accommodate a modern roundabout.
Ms. Ferguson responded that mini-roundabouts are encouraged by the Federal Highway Administration for
safety. And, they can be safer than other intersection controls. The important design considerations are to
slow vehicle speeds, and to make clear how bicyclists and pedestrians will navigate the mini-roundabout.
The reduced number of conflict points still are realized with mini-roundabouts.
Commissioner Weitze asked for information on the different types of accidents that occur at one lane, versus
two lane roundabouts.
Ms. Ferguson responded that both eliminate fatal and severe collisions. However, more side swipe
collisions occur with multi-lane roundabouts as drivers change lanes in the roundabout.
Commissioner Weitze asked if this increase in minor accidents is this more or less than one would see at
an intersection with a traffic signal.
Ms. Ferguson stated that it varies depending upon context and the design of the roundabout such as which
lane the vehicles are in as they enter the intersection.
Commissioner Weitze stated that he has heard people say that because roundabouts are unfamiliar to the
public, they will be dangerous. He asked if this is true, and if the collisions reduce over time, as the
community gets used to them.
Ms. Ferguson stated that single-lane roundabouts are consistently safe over time, even if the road users are
unfamiliar with them. Multi-lane roundabouts perform better when drivers are familiar with them. For
example, in Bend, Oregon, they used many single-lane roundabouts successfully for many years. Then,
with growth, they planned multi-lane roundabouts, and for this they did an extensive outreach and education
effort. There is no research on changing collision rates as familiarity increases, however, anecdotally, if
collisions start out higher, they reduce with familiarity.
Commissioner Weitze asked if the City has accident history for the Bayport roundabouts.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021
3",TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-01-27,4,"Staff Payne responded that these are not modern roundabouts, and that staff would have to look up what
data we have.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked if the City would use traffic circles to meet some traffic management
needs, where there is less space for a full roundabout.
Ms. Ferguson said that mini-roundabouts are another option when right-of-way is constrained, particularly
to remove two- or four-way stops. The key is that there needs to be enough space to manage vehicle speeds
and the direction of travel. Mini-roundabouts still use central islands and splitter islands, but they are
traversable by larger vehicles.
Chair Soules asked staff to clarify the process on determining the locations for roundabouts, and the
language in the slides. The City should not be trying to find out where they could work. This is just one
possible option for intersections, part of the tool box. She would like staff to solve issues, rather than just
respond and analyze the community's specific request for a specific device, like a stop sign.
Staff Payne clarified that this roundabout effort is part of City's Vision Zero effort. This analysis with
Kittelson is being used to determine the top five intersections for roundabouts in the City, based on safety,
looking at the High Injury Network.
Chair Soules encouraged community involvement in these types of decisions with new treatments.
Public Comments for #6B
Michael Robles-Wong stated that they learned to use roundabouts in the United Kingdom, and knows they
are safer, especially for very wide intersections. His primary concern is for pedestrians and children. They
notice that the crosswalks are further from each other. They encouraged the City to talk to the Police
Department, since they pay the crossing guards. They wondered if the Island/Mecartney intersection would
need four crossing guards, instead of the one or two it has now if a roundabout were installed due to the
spacing of the crosswalks and the lack of visibility between them. Thank you for the great informational
presentation.
William Pai, Board President of Harbor Bay Isle, sees advantages of roundabouts. He is curious about the
Island/Mecartney intersection and if it were to be done how long would it take to implement. He has
concerns about the construction period.
Staff Amiri, City Traffic Engineer, clarified that Public Works hired a consultant in 2019 to perform an
Intersection Control Evaluation, which compared three options (existing, traffic signal and roundabout),
and recommended a roundabout as the best for traffic control. She offered to present it at a future meeting.
A typical construction period could be as long as a year.
Chair Soules asked staff to explore the construction period needed, and the neighborhood disruption, and
bring to future meeting.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021
4",TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-01-27,5,"Jennifer Rakowski asked: (1) how roundabouts impact emergency response vehicles and response times,
and (2) if there is any data on the number of police stops at roundabouts versus a traffic signal.
For (1), Ms. Ferguson replied that the roundabout design always accounts for emergency vehicles to be able
to maneuver through the intersection. The slowing through a roundabout would be similar to the slowing
emergency vehicles do as they pass through a signalized intersection to check for cross traffic.
Staff Amiri added that typically the Fire Department is one of the loudest voices in the design of
roundabouts.
For (2), Ms. Ferguson stated there is only anecdotal information, and no research, regarding police stops.
In Bend, the City found they could shift their enforcement focus to other parts of the city, since roundabouts
have a natural traffic calming benefit. So, there was less enforcement needed at roundabouts than at
signalized intersections.
Anthony Lewis thanked the City for the presentation and appreciated Staff Payne for following through on
the tactile maps. There are 20 blind people who want to be able to understand how roundabouts work. It
would be helpful if blind people and people with disabilities could do a ""walk through"" of a typical
roundabout to understand it further, and asks that staff set this up. Also, they wondered how people in a
wheelchair, who are lower to the ground, would be visible if there is landscaping at the roundabout.
Staff Payne stated that she likes the idea of doing a field visit to Lafayette, which has a modern roundabout,
and will try to set up a field trip, post-COVID.
Geoffrey Burnaford, who lives on Central Avenue at McKay Street, asked if there is a roundabout proposed
at Encinal High School. They can imagine traffic gridlock as students walk across the street, which would
happen at any high pedestrian intersection. Recently, they saw some very heavy large vehicles on Central
Avenue, and he hopes the concrete of a roundabout can accommodate this weight at the Sherman
Street/Encinal Avenue proposed roundabout.
Staff Payne stated that City staff is proposing, and the Transportation Commission approved, roundabouts
along Central Ave at these two intersections. Central Avenue is a truck route so the roundabouts are being
designed to accommodate large trucks with the biggest being 100 feet long and 15 feet. Today, the high
school students take over the intersection, and this condition still would be expected for ten minutes before
school starts. The consultant did some research and found that roundabouts work quite well in front of
schools.
Ms. Ferguson stated that at schools, with their peak periods of student crossings, there will be delays, but
the benefit is that as soon as that peak is past, traffic can flow steadily through the intersection. At a
signalized or stop sign controlled intersection, it would take much longer for the traffic to clear, through
several signal cycles or many cars stopping.
Jim Strehlow commented that there were no diagrams in the presentation that show the closure of Sherman
Street for the Central Avenue project. He also asked if the cost of installing and then removing roundabouts,
after complaints are made, has been considered. Pleasanton is now removing some roundabouts due to
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021
5",TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-01-27,6,"community complaints. And, how much more property damage occurs at intersections with roundabouts,
due to cars hitting houses/property, as they round the turn at high speeds.
Ms. Ferguson responded that there is no data on the number of communities that have put in and then
removed roundabouts. Conversations with the public are important, and a thoughtful process on where,
and how they are designed is essential. As for property damage, the data shows that rear-end crashes, which
are lower severity, are the most common at all roundabouts, and also side swipes, at multiple lane
roundabouts. With signage and the right geometry, they do not see overly aggressive and fast driving
through intersections. It is just not feasible.
Denyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda Board member, appreciates staff bringing this item up. She strongly
encourages everyone to view the NHTSA website, which has great case studies and some write ups from
conservative places, where roundabouts have been installed with opposition and then later were embraced
by the community. In the Bay Area, there are mini-roundabouts implemented inconsistently, which makes
it difficult for the community. In Berkeley, some have no stops, others have two-way stops and others have
four-way stops. It is unclear how to use them. She hopes that Alameda will have consistency with their
implementation and that stop signs would be pulled out where mini-roundabouts are installed. Combining
the two devices is confusing.
Steven Jones appreciates the education from the consultants. A roundabout at Central/Encinal/Sherman
makes sense since there have been bad accidents there, which he knows as a past Fire Department employee.
At Island/Mecartney, however, conflicts are extremely low. If it ain't broke then don't fix it.
Chair Soules, based on the Zoom chat, asked for staff to respond to a question about roundabouts and stop
signs.
Ms. Ferguson stated that stop signs should not be used at roundabouts. Either stops signs or roundabouts
are installed, not both.
Mr. Alston stated that there are many types of circular intersections. In Berkeley and Oakland, these are
not modern roundabouts.
Michelle Wan, via the Zoom chat, asked three questions: (1) In the presentation, there was a slide for Safety
Performance. I would like a clarification on what is the set up that is compared to, and whether the set up
is similar to the spots (including Bay Farm) that we are considering putting roundabouts.
Ms. Ferguson stated that statistics are from studies of roundabouts from the United States. They compared
intersections that were converted from signalized to roundabouts at intersections, and looked at before and
after data, usually with 3-5 years of data for both. There were many locations and they were urban or
suburban.
Michelle Wan asked what the cons are of roundabouts.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021
6",TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-01-27,7,"Ms. Ferguson stated that roundabouts may not perform as well as a traffic signal because of delays. In some
situations, they are a good solution, and in others they are not. There are situations that are not as
advantageous - like a series of signalized intersections, where roundabouts would decrease the efficiency
of signals.
Michelle Wan asked about statistics on the Bay farm location that can be shared.
Staff Payne provided a link in the Zoom chat:
Page
10: https://www.alamedaca.gov/files/assets/public/departments/alameda/transportation/vision-
zero/alamedavisionzerocrashreport-update.pdf
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked about the five high priority intersections and if the Commission will get a
comprehensive presentation on these locations and if Island/Mecartney is part of the five.
Staff Payne stated that the five have not yet been selected. Staff are doing roundabout education first. The
goal is to try to select up to five, and this can be brought up as an agenda item, possibly in May.
Island/Mecartney is not part of this study; it is a separate process.
Staff Amiri responded that when a development project was done, they set aside funds to address this
intersection of Island/Mecartney. To date, staff have only done the evaluation of intersection control types.
No decisions have been made, and no community outreach has been done. Traffic volumes do warrant
some type of control.
Vice Chair Nachtigall asked if the increase in rear-end collisions is due to cars stopping for pedestrians.
And, she wondered if there are increases in pedestrian collisions at roundabouts.
Ms. Ferguson stated that there have been 15 years of thorough research, but there is not great data on
bicycle/pedestrian collisions, since there are so few collisions and the sample size is so small. This topic
continues to be an area of study.
Staff Amiri added that speed is the biggest factor in the severity of collision. Since roundabouts slow
vehicles, it is logical that they would reduce pedestrian fatalities.
Chair Soules stated that she appreciated the presentation, and she would like elevated transparency in the
process, since this is a novel treatment. Please keep the public and community informed, and provide
forums for them to ask questions and provide input.
Chair Soules requested to change the agenda to better accommodate schedules to 6D, 6C and then 6A.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion and Yuen seconded the motion.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021
7",TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-01-27,8,"6D. Community-Led Committee on Police Reform & Racial Justice Draft Recommendation to
Review Traffic and Parking Citation Fines (Discussion Item)
Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner introduced the Steering Committee and the following individuals were
present:
Christine Chilcott, Al Mance, Cheryl Taylor, and Jolene Wright as well as community volunteers Heather
Reed, Hannah Grose, Beth Kenny, Lynn Cunninghas, Melodye Montgomery and Jennifer Rakowski
Cheryl Taylor made a presentation. Lynn Cunningham also provided comments. Jolene Wright provided
the webpage that is listed in the staff report: :https://www.alamedaca.gov/RESIDENTS/Police-Reform-and-
Racial-Equity
The staff report and attachments can be found at:
  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4758236&GUID=985566B1-9A05-405B-BE8D-
20B72B6989D6&Options=&Search=&FullText
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6D
Chair Soules asked about who provides the parking enforcement and about automatic license reading.
Staff Foster responded that the parking enforcement is done by non-sworn, civilian staff.
Chair Soules asked about automatic license reading with parking.
Staff Foster responded about the technology to automatically read license plates to see if the car has been
there past the time limit or if they have paid. Speed cameras are more of an equity concern and not parking
since people usually are not at the car when ticketed.
Heather Reed discussed a walk through at Alameda Point. Hannah Grose reported about issues with drag
racing, speeding, sidewalks in disrepair, lighting, lack of striping and lack of speed humps/dips. Additional
signage on the speed limit and enforcement would be helpful. Heather Reed is working with Madlen Saddik
of the Chamber of Commerce and businesses on signage to make people aware of the residential business
area. There is a drunk driving concern. It is extremely expensive to be poor.
Commissioner Kohlstrand stated that the most equitable way to ticket is by camera and asked if they want
to keep it in the Police Department. She also asked about neighborhood policing to ensure more positive
interactions with the community.
Hannah Grose said that the Alameda Point does have a great relationship with one police officer. They also
have said that calls have gone unanswered. They are interested in having more positive interactions with
police. They would prefer not to have drunk driving in their neighborhood.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021
8",TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-01-27,9,"Beth Kenny stated that one of the recommendations will be for the City to advocate to allow for automated
speed enforcement. Police should focus on responding to crimes and not on abandoned vehicles. The
number one way people interact with police is through traffic violations, and we want to reduce this
interaction. We want to look at taking it out of the Police Department.
Commissioner Kohlstrand stated that San Francisco has shifted to traffic control officers and not sworn
officers.
Chair Soules mentioned a number of equity studies in the Bay Area to spur economic justice reform.
Commissioner Yuen stated that she appreciates all the work from the steering committee and community
volunteers. She would like to see more information on the scale of the problem in Alameda such as what
were the violations and who was involved to better understand the gravity of the problem related to traffic
stops. She also would like to know the scale of the fines and fees such as costs and numbers. She
encourages more studies on the matter, especially on how to use enforcement as a strategy.
Cheryl Taylor responded that a crime analyst position could help better understand ticketing and traffic
stops by demographics. An article was written by Rasheed Shabazz about the west end being over ticketed:
https://m.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/towing-for-dollars-in-
alameda/Content?oid=22699785&showFullText=true
Jennifer Rakowski responded that larger cities are required to count ticketing by demographics, and
Alameda will begin with citations moving forward. Data shows that minorities are more likely to have
traffic stops in Alameda based on Census data such as Black community members are five to six times more
likely to be stopped for traffic citations compared to White community members.
Lynn Cunningham responded that automated technology will be more objective than a police officer.
Public Comments for #6D
Rasheed Shabazz stated that he appreciates that there is a Transportation Commission. He wants to have
non-police methods of police enforcement such as creative artwork for traffic calming. He questions the
use of technology because facial recognition is biased. He is grateful that the Alameda Police Department
will report this data that has been available since 1998. He mentioned about a young child who was hit by
Chipman School yet no speed humps were installed because of where it occurred. He related that he was
towed and his white neighbor's car was not towed at the same parking spot. He wants to see fee forgiveness
for people who are disproportionately impacted.
Morgan Bellinger wants to echo Rasheed Shabazz about cameras and facial recognition. He states that free
parking is inequitable since wealthier people park more cars on the street. Roads can be used by anyone
including bus riders. A citywide parking permit program would be more equitable.
Jim Strehlow stated that the laws only allow sworn officers to see license plate information to protect
privacy.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021
9",TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-01-27,10,"Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6D
Commissioner Nachtigall commented about Alameda Point, and there are a number of long-range plans for
Alameda Point and realizes that these improvements are not helping now. She stated that the Slow Street
initiative is looking to expand to Alameda Point.
Commissioner Weitze stated appreciation for the presentation by the steering committee. The infrastructure
is neglected in Alameda Point, and it should be upsetting to all of us.
Heather Reed responded that she is speaking about Orion Street, and would like it to be a Slow Street. It
needs permanent traffic calming solutions. Facial recognition is problematic in that it is racially biased.
Beth Kenny stated that they do not want storage of personal information, and wants to move forward in a
way that addresses these issues.
Staff Amiri is new to Alameda, and is surprised about the condition of Alameda Point. The striping is faded
in Alameda Point, and Public Works staff will be installing high visibility crosswalks, increased visibility
at intersections and signage. The City is closing Oriskany Avenue at Central Avenue.
Chair Soules mentioned that there are signs/fees/penalties and partnerships with other cities that could be
created. About Alameda Point, she mentioned how difficult it is to transform federal land and that it is very
complex. She would be interested to understand more about temporary solutions for immediate relief such
as to alert the police about high speeds. She wants to tackle equity and mobility, and would like to sort it
out in the different areas with City staff.
6C. Endorse Council Approval of Grant Applications to Alameda County Transportation
Commission for the 2022 Comprehensive Investment Plan Call for Projects (Action Item)
Rochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments
can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4758235&GUID=5EB01FE9-69E6-43D2-A061-
6CEF2AA5BD55&Options=&Search=&FullText=1
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6C
Vice Chair Nachtigall asked about the trail submittal and potentially not submitting it.
Staff Wheeler responded that the City would try to submit both with the bridge being the higher priority yet
it would be difficult to cover both potentially due to the funds needed.
Commissioner Weitze asked about the gates at Jean Sweeney Park and if they are open.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021
10",TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-01-27,11,"Staff McGuire responded that the public can access the park at Eighth Street.
Commissioner Weitze asked if the City looked to open gates without the pathways.
Staff McGuire stated that it needs to be accessible if the gates are opened.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked about St. Charles Street in that the path does not go through there.
Staff Wheeler stated that it is Housing Authority roadway so the path would connect to it.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to endorse the Jean Sweeney trail grant application, and then
Commissioner Yuen seconded the motion. The motion passes 5-0.
Chair Soules recused herself for the vote on the bike/ped bridge grant application.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the bike/ped bridge grant application, and
Commissioner Weitze seconded the motion. The motion passes 4-0.
6A. Endorse the Annual Report on the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan and the Annual Report
on Transportation (Action Item)
Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, gave an overview of Climate Action and Resiliency Plan
(CARP) work. The staff report and attachments regarding the Annual Report on the Climate Action and
Resiliency Plan and the Annual Report on Transportation can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4758233&GUID=ED785EAD-B7EB-4471-
A03B-1E1375D9B441&Options=&Search=&FullText=
Commissioner Weitze praised the report and said resilience is important. He asked how much staff time is
put towards resilience versus mitigation.
Staff Beaudin said that they do not quantify the breakdown but can think about that as a metric in the future.
He spoke about neighborhood-based resilience hubs and said that Alameda's Emergent Groundwater study
caught a lot of attention regionally and other cities are doing similar studies. Alameda has a new
Sustainability and Resilience Manager: Danielle Mieler.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked about the evaluation of the Commercial Streets program, which said there
were no significant traffic delays, but she read that there were AC Transit delays. She expressed concern
that the City is not putting enough focus on transit outside of ferry terminals. For instance, the
improvements on Encinal Avenue, which is a Caltrans project, include bike lanes, but she said Encinal
Avenue is designated as a transit priority street, not a bicycle priority street.
Commissioner Yuen is concerned about changes that will impact the transportation system, and the cuts
that AC Transit is planning to make. She asked how those cuts impact our ability to meet CARP goals.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021
11",TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-01-27,12,"Transportation Department on a traffic analysis policy for new developments. She also is working on a
traffic signal operations policy to look at prioritization including transit. Installing the right equipment at
intersections to service transit will require investment.
Chair Soules said she hopes that the Bay Area can receive federal funding to bring transit back post-
pandemic. We need to continue showing the relationship between land use and transportation, which is
important for sustainability. She encouraged Gerry Beaudin to come back and talk about metrics.
Commissioner Weitze moved to endorse the Annual Report on the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan and
the Annual Report on Transportation. Commissioner Yuen seconded. The motion passes 5-0.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021
12",TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-01-27,13,"7. Announcements/ Public Comments
Jim Strehlow stated that double parked delivery vehicles block the street with the most courteous drivers
being from the U.S. Postal Service. He suggested creating a new class of parking spaces for delivery during
the day in residential streets if residents request it.
8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes - January 27, 2021
13",TransportationCommission/2021-01-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-01-23,1,"FINAL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2019
Chair Miley convened the meeting at 7:14pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Miley, Commissioners Hans, Johnson, Soules.
Absent: Commissioners Nachtigall and Palmer.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
*None*
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow said he is finding many Lime bikes being left in inappropriate locations
such as blocking sidewalks. He said the September minutes were not approved at the
December meeting and are not on the current agenda.
Chair Miley announced that the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan workshop would be
held at Alameda High School on the upcoming Saturday morning at 9am.
Staff Member Payne read the announcements listed in the Agenda.
3-D Upcoming Grant-Funded Bicycle Safety Education Classes
Jim Strehlow said he is seeing an influx of foreigners in Alameda and he wonders if
there is an education gap regarding rules of the road for bicyclists. He said the more
diversity there is the more difficult it will be to educate the public about basic traffic laws
because of language barriers.
Commissioner Soules congratulated the City for the rollout of their new website. (*Note-
Due to a wiring issue, Commissioner Soules microphone was not working.)
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4-A 2019-6461
Draft Meeting Minutes - July 25, 2018
4-B 2019-6462
Draft Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2018
Commissioner Hans made a motion to accept the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Soules seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
1",TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-01-23,2,"5. NEW BUSINESS
5-A 2019-6463
Approve the Central Avenue Webster Street Options for Further Analysis
and the Two-way Bikeway Extension between Paden School and McKay
Avenue
Staff Member Payne introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3836629&GUID=E9A72FB1
ADF9-4D58-8CFF-3637BA660926&FullText=1
Thaddeus Wozniak, CDM Smith, gave a presentation.
Chair Miley asked how the transition from the two way bikeway to bike lanes at 8th st.
would work.
Mr. Wozniak said that the transition would have a two stage turning movement for the
westbound bikes and eastbound riders would continue straight. He said they would
coordinate the signal timing to make that turning movement consecutively.
Staff Member Payne summarized the outreach to this point and outlined the next steps
(detailed in the staff report.)
Commissioner Johnson asked whether the two right hand turn lanes from Central to
Webster in the Continuous Bike Lane option would have the bike lane going straight
through the turning vehicles.
Mr. Wozniak explained how the peak hour turn lane would work. He said the intent
would be to have turns coming from one lane or the other depending on time of day, but
not both.
Chair Miley opened the public hearing.
Brian McGuire introduced a video of what the current City Council members had to say
about the plan and what to do at the Webster and Central intersection.
Hazel McGuire said kids should be safe and that the bike lane should be closer to the
sidewalk and the parked cars should be closer to the moving cars. She said she loves
biking and walking to school and parks.
Linda Asbury, Executive Director of WABA, said the plan that was approved in 2016 was
not the compromise that they agreed to before the meeting. She said meetings need to
be had at the intersection in question to understand the problem. She said the
businesses cannot afford to lose street parking. She said we need traffic calming. She
2",TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-01-23,3,"said we need to be fair to the businesses that put their investments and jobs on the line
daily.
J. Lucey said he supports the four lane with traffic calming proposals. He said staff
appears to have a clear bias against the business owners. He said the elimination of
parking would be hard on the businesses. He said recent construction by PG&E
illustrated the traffic that may occur with lane reduction.
Jim Strehlow said this area is not comparable to Shoreline or Fernside. He said Castro
Valley completed its main street design two years ago and favored business needs over
the wants of bicyclists. He said trucks serving Neptune Plaza must use Central Ave and
any road diet proposal would prohibit this. He said bicycle safety should mean avoiding
truck routes like Central Ave.
Jon Spangler said bicyclists on Castro Valley Blvd are taking their lives in their own
hands. He said backing up traffic is an acceptable price to pay to keep pedestrians from
getting hit. He said the continuous bike lane and two way protected bike lanes are the
only options that provide any safety to cyclists. He said the Page crosswalk needs to be
taken care of. He said safety is the primary responsibility.
Marie RiccoBene, representing the Park Webster Condominium HOA, said safety is very
important. She said evacuation is a large concern for residents. She said they support
better pedestrian crossings and calming measures. She said they support the four lane
option with traffic calming.
Bonnie Wehmann, Easy Street Cycling, said she fully supports the protected bike lanes.
She said sharrows are confusing and do not always help. She said people are often
double parking in traditional bike lanes which forces kids on bikes into traffic. She said
the data shows that when you bring bikes into an area you bring more business.
Chair Miley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnson pointed out that they are not selecting any one design tonight
and only choosing the four options to study further.
Chair Miley said the Webster and Central intersection was a major issue when this was
before the commission previously. He said all the speakers tonight gave good feedback
about issues to review when studying the four options. He said sharrows are not an ideal
bicycle facility and do not seem like a good solution for a segmented corridor.
Commissioner Soules said it would be nice to have a real compromise solution between
the business district and cyclists' preferences. She said she would like to see the
intersection during peak travel times. She said she is concerned about vehicles diverting
to other streets. She said she would like to see what the answer is for getting people off
3",TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-01-23,4,"the island in an emergency. She asked what the process would be in regards to coming
back to this body before it goes to City Council for a decision.
Staff Member Payne said they would come back to the Transportation Commission with
a preferred option later in the year before proceeding to Council.
Commissioner Soules asked if the parking was going to remain in all options.
Staff Member Payne said parking will remain on both sides of the street. She said the
more detailed design may remove some spaces in the corridor for daylighting purposes.
She said there is also the option of using the parking near Croll's for a peak hour turn
lane.
Chair Miley said the analysis should look at where it may be appropriate to add loading
zones.
Commissioner Johnson asked what the rules were for delivery trucks blocking the bike
lane.
Alameda PD Sgt. Foster said at no point are you legally allowed to block a bike lane. He
said that it is not something that frequently enforced unless there is an immediate safety
issue or ongoing complaints.
Commissioner Hans said he was okay approving the study of the four options and will
look to see how much parking is lost under each option.
Chair Miley relayed a message from Commissioner Nachtigall that she supports moving
forward with studying the four options.
Commissioner Hans made a motion to approve the staff recommendation to study
the four proposed alternatives. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.
Chair Miley asked that staff include all the comments as items to consider when studying
the options.
Staff Member Payne reminded the commission that there are two actions required,
adding the recommendation to extend the protected bikeway from Paden School to
McKay Ave.
Commissioner Hans added the staff recommendation to extend the two way
protected bikeway from Paden to McKay to his motion. Commissioner Johnson
confirmed his second of the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
4",TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-01-23,5,"5-B 2019-6464
Recommendation to Adopt the Street Sections associated with the City's
Adaptive Reuse Infrastructure Project within Alameda Point
Staff Member Wikstrom gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3836630&GUID=AD849568-
98D3-4162-B696-A05E6F647303&FullText=1
Chair Miley opened the public hearing.
Brian McGuire said we have an opportunity to design a street network from scratch. He
said that the design on Tower should match the design on Pan Am where the bike lanes
are next to the sidewalk to match up with the bike lanes east of Pan Am.
Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a reason why the new design for Tower did
not use one way protected bike lanes.
Staff Member Wikstrom said they just went with the simplest idea which is to mirror the
already approved design for Tower east of Pan Am. He said that conceptually they may
be able to achieve the suggested one way protected lanes, depending upon the need to
place utilities within the already defined right of way. He said they can pursue the idea
but cannot guarantee the execution.
Chair Miley asked if the final plan would come back to this body and Council before
completion.
Staff Member Wikstrom said their intention was to approve the street sections and they
would go to 100% design and the construction without coming back to the commission.
He said he could come back with this section in a few months with an update or the
commission could just give direction to pursue the idea if possible. He said there is no
reason on the surface why they would not pursue a one way cycle track unless there
was a physical constraint with the utilities that prevented it from being possible.
Jon Spangler said he agreed with the suggestion to pursue one way protected bike
lanes. He said that if that is not possible, consistent one way buffered bike lanes would
be preferable to switching from a two way cycle track to one way bike lanes.
Chair Miley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Soules said she was glad that these refinements are being addressed
early on. She said she is happy to examine the possibility of making a good faith effort to
implement the one way protected lanes on W. Tower Ave, pending any serious fiscal
impact or delay in the project.
5",TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-01-23,6,"Commissioner Soules made a motion to approve the item. Commissioner Hans
seconded the motion.
Chair Miley relayed Commissioner Nachtigall's support for the staff recommendation.
The motion passed 4-0.
5-C 2019-6465
Approve the City of Alameda Transportation Program Plan for Seniors
and People with Disabilities for Fiscal Year 2019/2020
Staff Member Payne gave a presentation. The staff report can be found at:
Ittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3836631&GUID=A4C4061C-
02EA-4E64-BF8E-477856E96851&FullText=1
Commissioner Hans made a motion to accept the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6-A 2019-6466
Oakland-Alameda Access Project - Request Transportation Commission
Member on Advisory Group
Staff Member Payne said they are hoping to find a member of the Transportation
Commission to be a member of the OAAP Advisory Group.
Chair Miley asked what they time commitment would be.
Staff Member Wheeler said the group has had two meetings to date. She said there will
be 2-4 more meetings.
Chair Miley said he could work with staff to identify a commissioner, noting that some
members were not present.
Commissioner Johnson asked if this project is examining the other bridges across the
estuary and not just the tubes.
Staff Member Wheeler said the project is focused on the tubes and their connections to
880.
Commissioner Johnson asked if anyone is working on the other connections like the
Fruitvale Bridge.
6",TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2019-01-23,7,"Staff Member Wheeler said they are working with Alameda County on a grant
application to replace or retrofit the Fruitvale Bridge to become a multimodal lifeline
structure.
6-B Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Transportation Choices Plan and Housing Element Update and Next
Steps
2. Transportation Management Association Annual Reports
3. Alameda County Transportation Commission Capital Improvement
Program Grant Submittals
4. West End Ferry Terminal Service and Access
Commissioner Johnson asked if the issue of the bike paths on Harbor Bay can be
evaluated by and hopefully improved.
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Strehlow asked if there was any follow up regarding Commissioner Miley's previous
request to pursue improvements to vehicular circulation in Oakland near High St.,
Alameda Ave, and 880. He said there were originally plans to connect Alameda Ave to
42nd Ave which would alleviate the current congestion. He apologized for his
interruption during item 5-A. He said allowing someone more than three minutes without
announcing the decision publicly gives the appearance of bias.
Chair Miley asked staff to pursue an update to the High Street issue. He said he should
have announced that the video shown in item 5-A would be longer than three minutes.
Jon Spangler announced that Changing Gears Bike Shop would be closing in about a
month due to development at Alameda Point. He said the owner would stay open if he
could find an appropriate space on the West End.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Miley adjourned the meeting at 9:03pm.
7",TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,1,"Approved Minutes
Transportation Commission Meeting
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Time:
6:30 p.m.
Location:
Due to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners were
able to attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom.
City Hall was NOT open to the public during the meeting.
Legistar Link:
  https://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811333&GUID=861FEF9A-1D51-4AD8-
8E6C-EB2F878B1A64&Options=info/&Search=.
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules and Commissioners Yuen, Kohlstrand, Hans, Rentschler and Weitze.
Absent: Vice Chair Nachtigall
This was Commissioner Rentschler's first meeting and everyone welcomed him.
2. Agenda Changes
None.
3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855384&GUID=13BD4EBF-0DC4-
 4FD9-B3A1-B123E9507062&FullText=1.
Gail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, discussed the tentative upcoming joint meeting
with the Planning Board on May 10 and other scheduled meetings.
4. Announcements / Public Comments
No public comments.
Chair Soules congratulated Commissioner Kohlstrand for her Lifetime Achievement Award with
WTS, they had honored her for all her hard work in the Transportation field.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
1",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,2,"5. Consent Calendar
5A. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, July 22, 2020
(Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855385&GUID=AF4ED835-78EE-
40E7-AAEA-EOF5814FD2F8&FullText=1.
Commissioner Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Yuen
seconded. A hand raise vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
5B. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, January 27,
2021 (Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855386&GUID=A5B2B626-D69B-
43BE-AC28-53D36B14D68E&FullText=1.
Commissioner Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Yuen
seconded. A hand raise vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Discuss Water Emergency Transportation Authority's Pandemic Recovery Program
(Discussion Item)
Kevin Connolly, from WETA (Water Emergency Transportation Authority), introduced this item
and gave a presentation. The report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855387&GUID=ABA17FD9-653F-
4496-88DF-C941A16FDBD8&FullText=1.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions #6A.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to know what kind of hop through ridership was normal, the short
hop from Alameda to Oakland.
Mr. Connolly said it was less than 10 per day. That's also because the only option was Oakland to
Alameda, not the reverse.
Commissioner Kohlstrand had concerns about the connecting transit service and making sure there
were enough parking facilities. She also wanted to know what was the status of the 96 Bus. She
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
2",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,3,"wanted to make sure they were not hampering people using the ferry either because there weren't
enough public transit options or parking places.
Mr. Connolly said WETA has had an effective partnership with the City of Alameda and a good
partnership with AC Transit. AC Transit was working on a proposal to serve the new Main Street
Terminal. He spoke on the drawbacks of the 96 Bus and that the option AC Transit was developing
would be better. He did not want to go into much detail, he did not want to ""steal their thunder""
He was very optimistic and grateful for the work done by AC Transit.
Staff Member Payne discussed how AC Transit was ""moving mountains"" to make this happen,
and they had been under a lot of pressure due to the Pandemic. There is an upcoming meeting
where it would be discussed further. For parking, she discussed the new parking lot at Seaplane
Lagoon has 400 spaces and that there was more work to do.
Commissioner Weitze asked if the plan was to charge for parking or had it been pushed off.
Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, said she didn't have a timeline to share. There were plans for
paid parking at Alameda Point but as for now, there was no parking fee. It had been put on hold
with the Pandemic, but they would move forward with that in the future.
Commissioner Weitze asked if it was unlikely that they would start charging for parking in August.
Staff Member Foster said that would be fair to say.
Commissioner Rentschler thanked Mr. Connolly for his presentation and commended WETA for
embracing change since now with the Pandemic it was a great time to do it. He urged WETA and
the commission to keep an open mind on what the possibilities could be. He thought the bike
access at Seaplane Lagoon was better and safer and encouraged the same bike structure that was
at the Main Street Ferry terminal. He was not optimistic about the bus but was happy they were
trying it. He did not want to see an experiment that doesn't work to become permanent.
Commissioner Yuen discussed the decision to potentially cut AC Transit services and wondered
if the influx of Federal dollars from the new stimulus bill earmarked for local transit would
translate into support for this new route.
Chair Soules said that was a great question and reminded everyone that AC Transit was not on the
call and she did not want to get too far off the agenda topic of WETA service.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
3",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,4,"Staff Member Payne said that was the trade-off, these types of Federal Stimulus Packages can't
provide operations money long term into the future. She discussed how the services have to equal
out with the other local jurisdictions serviced by AC Transit.
Chari Soules said that could have discussions at other meetings about how that stimulus money
would be used.
Public Comments #6A
Cyndy Johnson, with Bike Walk Alameda, believed the proposed Alameda Main Street to Oakland
Short Hop Ferry Service would be a fantastic option for Central and Western Alameda Commuters.
She thought this would greatly benefit cyclists who wouldn't have to run the risk of getting bumped
off the bus due to lack of bike racks and would encourage more bike commuters. She saw this plan
as a win, win, win. She did share some concerns from fares to what services would be offered at
certain times. She ended by saying all of Bike Walk Alameda was excited by this proposed plan.
Jim Strehlow discussed a few issues. First, he thought it was a hike to get from Webster Street to
the ferry to get to Oakland, therefore riding the ferry would not be an option for him. Secondly, he
told about 150 people how he rode the Alameda to San Francisco Ferry to get to the Moscone
Center to get his vaccine and he found it to be a very pleasant and fun trip. Thirdly, he was
concerned about how WETA tied into the water taxi program of Alameda. He had asked many
times for a status report of the water taxi program from Rochelle Wheeler.
Staff Member Payne gave a reminder about the water taxis that the Alameda Landing Waterfront
Project was currently in construction and they were required to build the infrastructure for it. That's
why it hadn't happened, that project is still in construction.
Rochelle Wheeler, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, said she was able to share more
information with Mr. Strehlow. City staff is constantly discussing water taxi options and other
matters around water taxis, mainly operating costs.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A
Commissioner Weitze asked if the city had any plans to look at the intersection of Main Street and
Appezzato due to a potential increase in traffic. He also urged WETA, in the interest of going big,
to initially drop the short hop fare to just a dollar and advertise the hell out of it. He believed it
would be a good campaign to ""get off the island for just a buck"".
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
4",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,5,"Staff Member Payne discussed the funds (Measure BB) for improving bus services, and one of the
projects was improving Appezzato Parkway for buses. They were waiting to see what AC Transit
does first before starting on that project. That intersection had also been noted as a potentially good
location for a roundabout.
Donya Amiri, Principal Engineer with Public Works, discussed how they would be improving
signal timing and what adjustments they had already done to that intersection and others. They
would also be revisiting the intersections along Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway (RAMP) to
improve signal timing and for bicycle operations.
Commissioner Kohlstrand was supportive of the proposed reintroduction of the ferry service that
was proposed here. She wanted to see a mid-year review to see what the ridership was like and
encouraged to have someone from AC Transit present. She believed they needed to take a
comprehensive look at how they would provide transit services on the island. She agreed with
Commissioner Rentschler's point about it being a ""zero-sum game"" if they gain something in one
area and lose it in another. She continued to be concerned about having limited parking and thought
that should be monitored.
Chair Soules talked about her own experiences with being a Bay Farm Ferry user and why driving
is easier and more appealing She was glad they were adding a midday service. She thought a
quarterly review would be beneficial to see how the stimulus was being used and she was curious
to see the uptake on the Clipper START. Often equity programs are offered but rarely used. She
also found the Hop Through App to be very convenient.
Mr. Connolly thanked the commission and also shared that he had skepticism about the bus transfer
to the ferry. He believed that now was the time to test it and was happy to come back and share
whatever data they needed. They were open to experimenting and trying new things to see what
worked best. He also clarified to Ms. Johnson (public speaker) about the service start, they
proposed to start in July for Harbor Bay and deferring the start for Seaplane and Main Street until
August to line up with AC Transit. For South San Francisco they were looking to start in October.
6B. Endorse the 10-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the Two-year CIP
Budget (Action Item)
Robert Vance, Supervising Civil Engineer with Public Works, introduced this item and gave a
presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855388&GUID=BB1D41D2-D58B-
488F-88F3-CBBB28D144FE&FullText=1.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
5",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,6,"Public Comments for #6B.
Jim Strehlow said in regards to Vision Zero he described what he saw daily as he rides his bike
around. He saw people ignorant of the laws and people crossing in front of him even though he
had the right away. He also described people crossing when he had the green light. He wanted to
see more education included in Vision Zero for pedestrians for their damn safety and his safety.
Chair Soules thanked Mr. Strehlow and clarified that Vision Zero did have a good outreach
component.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions, Comments, and Discussions for #6B.
Commissioner Weitze wanted clarification on why Urban Forest and Landscape Maintenance was
recommended even though it had a low score.
Staff Member Payne reminded everyone that the map was out of date, this had been mentioned in
the Staff Report.
Staff Member Vance described why Urban Forest and Landscape Maintenance was included, it
was because it does share funding with some of the Transportation projects. It has to be funded
somehow, there are street trees that need to be maintained for safety and aesthetic reasons.
Commissioner Weitze was curious about the equity of paving management. This was a very broad
category and with equity in mind, certain parts of Alameda were in desperate need of being
repaved, and certain parts of Alameda were doing well.
Staff Member Vance discussed the equity score of the projects and how they could use similar
criteria that Oakland used to put more of an equity focus on how they spend pavement funds. It
was something that could be incorporated into these projects since they were citywide.
Commissioner Weitze said he hoped they would be more focused on parts that had not been paved
in a while.
Staff Member Vance said these projects had traditionally been condition-based, the pavement
management in the past had typically followed the sewer replacement program. The funding
available for pavement was almost a 1:1 with sewer, the city would rehab 3 miles of sewer per
year and then pave 3 miles of sewer per year. That limited the choice for pavement, but if there
were more funding for pavement there would be more choices where it could go.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
6",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,7,"Chair Soules recommended a past Transportation Commission meeting to Commissioner Weitze
where pavement funding was further discussed. She agreed that looking at this through an equity
lens was important but the timing and conditions of when pavement needs to be replaced was a
big deal for the Capital Budget.
Commissioner Weitze said what he was worried about the new Main Street neighborhood, on the
estuary side of Site A, would be overlooked since developers keep backing out.
Commissioner Kolhstrand asked about the dedicated grant funding column and that it didn't fit
with the ""123"" criteria. She pointed out where he had stepped out of the form.
Staff Member Vance said she was correct and that he would have to take a look at that.
Chair Soules explained what they had been trying to achieve and explain the rating system.
Commissioner Kohlstrand believed they had come a long way in terms of a more rigorous system
of evaluation. She wanted to see feasibility included, really thinking about is this something that
could be implemented right now. She also observed that with Urban Forest and Landscape
Maintenance and other maintenance projects and wondered if there should be some sort of split of
funds. She saw that there was not a lot of differentiation among the scores and wondered if they
were capturing all the right goals. She noted that the recommendations for moving ahead do not
align with the scores and thought that needed to be rethought. She pointed out ways they could
improve transit services, she felt that it was being pushed to the bottom of the list.
Staff Member Payne described how the ranking process worked and how they had had this problem
before. She pointed out an oversight that paratransit money funds benches and bus shelters and
bus stops in general.
Staff Member Vance said some of the planning projects are and aren't included in the Capital
Budget. He explained the criteria for the different categories.
Chair Soules said that tweaking the actual criteria to make them more appropriate for capital VS
maintenance would be worth looking at. She explained how these criteria worked great but many
other factors need to be recognized. It was a very nuanced system that could always be refined.
Commissioner Yuen agreed with what Commissioner Kohlstrand had said in terms of considering
the feasibility and that some of the scorings do not align with projects that were moving ahead.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
7",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,8,"She wondered if the scoring was discerning enough and suggested having a 1-5 scoring instead.
She thought the table was very clear but wanted more clarity for scoring and the recommendations.
Staff Member Vance said that version was included in the staff report.
Chair Soules suggested having a few slides where it clearly shows what the process will look like
since it will morph over time, which would help the city understand it more.
Commissioner Rentschler acknowledged the great work by Public Works and how they were
constantly being asked to do more with money they don't have, there would always be tradeoffs.
He saw policies like safety and complete streets with the same projects. He discussed all the
benefits of roundabouts and how that can be beneficial for different policies. He encouraged how
good design was important and didn't want to see the same cookie-cutter mistakes made.
Chair Soules said that the staff had come a long way in developing these tools and they were not
perfect or easy and continual feedback was expected.
Commissioner Kohlstrand gave a thought on the tradeoff of roundabouts and traffic signals. She
clarified that the staff was not recommending putting anything about roundabouts in the capital
budget, it got a no recommendation, and traffic signal systems got a yes. She wondered if there
was any room for modification so that in the traffic system they could find the ability to introduce
roundabouts. She wanted to see a study to learn where the roundabouts would be most appropriate.
Staff Member Vance said roundabouts were being considered within funded capital projects so
they don't have to wait for everything else. He said the roundabout study was continuing and as
that developed it was something that could be funded later under future capital budgets. For traffic
signals there were two categories, one was rehabilitation and maintenance and the other is for
traffic signal modifications/modernization. Roundabouts would be more equivalent to
modernization and part of the study is to help coordinate those future investments.
Commissioner Rentschler said solving a problem with a problem is the problem, the traffic signals
were the problem. He discussed how traffic signals have always caused these issues and how the
rest of the state and the country were moving towards roundabouts. He urged creative thinking on
the part of Public Works to stop chasing high maintenance, high-cost signals. He pointed out that
Caltrans's website had a page dedicated to education about the benefits of roundabouts.
Chair Soules checked if there were any other public comments and asked if anyone was ready to
make a motion.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
8",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,9,"Commissioner Kohlstrand said she was prepared to make a motion to endorse the program with a
caveat that there would be a greater investment in roundabouts. She wanted the commission to
express its interest in a different way of thinking without completely disrupting the improvement
process.
Commissioner Rentschler said he would second that with the knowledge that his fellow
commissioners had already put a lot of work into this. He wanted to support something that
acknowledged the situation they were in but also to have a citizen's voice be heard on this subject.
Chair Soules said the last meeting was very educational on roundabouts and not public review on
any particular intersection. She asked Staff Member Payne if this was one path forward, in the 10-
year CIP to revisit mobility elements and goals related to specific intersections to identify where
roundabouts or traffic signals would be most beneficial.
Staff Member Payne said that was something they were already in the process of doing. They were
doing a city-wide roundabout analysis. She then discussed the last meeting where roundabouts had
been heavily discussed to inform Commissioner Rentschler and explained the next step in the
process.
Staff Member Vance said this information helps as they start refining the 10-year CIP and to see
what is important.
Chair Soules wanted to know if this would lead to an assessment of whether or not a signal vs a
roundabout would be more appropriate. She did not want to take on each roundabout separately or
project by project. She discussed how the study would help them with that decision.
Commissioner Kohlstand made a motion to endorse the 2-year CIP with the caveat that the
Transportation Commission recommends greater investment in roundabouts compared to
traffic signals. Commissioner Rentschler seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and
the motion passed 6-0.
6C. Discuss Smart City Master Plan Overview (Discussion Item).
Staff Member Payne introduced this item and gave a presentation, Staff Member Amiri also
presented. Attachments and staff report can be found at
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855389&GUID=C2EE96F5-1065-
42FC-891B-2D68855AC1E6&FullText=1.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
9",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,10,"Board Clarifying questions and comments #6C.
Commissioner Weitz asked if the theory behind this was that the structure would get put in but
then private companies would then run the actual access. He wondered how that would work for
equitable internet access since private companies could charge whatever they wanted.
Staff Member Payne said that was correct, the city does not plan on being a service provider. The
asset as a city would be the infrastructure and to be able to put this super-fast fiber into the ground
the city could then leverage that asset to lower rates or public wifi access.
Commissioner Yuen wanted to know more about the impact on transportation infrastructure. She
wanted to hear about changes and benefits that could be seen as part of this.
Staff Member Payne said that they could have a better emergency response for the Fire Department
and with the same technology AC Transit could use their signal detection, all of this would be
wrapped into what the fiber could provide. She also noted that driverless cars were just around the
corner and they would also use this type of technology.
Staff Member Amiri also discussed how this would all tie together and the process of updating the
conduits.
Chair Soules discussed the frustration and expense of trying to deploy new technology on old
infrastructure. She was excited that Alameda was doing this and saw it as a public agency function
to invest in this type of infrastructure.
Commissioner Kohlstrand thanked Chair Soules for her insight and wanted to make sure they
captured the equity part of this. She asked about overhead wires that are currently going through
backyards and wanted to know if there were opportunities for undergrounding utilities at the same
time as they were installing this fiber.
Staff Member Payne said that was a project for Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) and they were
currently in the process of undergrounding different corridors. They would be working with AMP
because it is all related.
Commissioner Yuen brought up the comment about the lack of knowledge around Smart Cites and
new mobility options and how in the future this could be an educational item for the commission.
She said she would love to learn more about this and the importance of new technologies.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
10",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,11,"Staff Member Payne said she could look into when someone from Iteris could come. She added
that fiber would be the backbone part of the infrastructure and this would be the expensive part
and it won't be completed overnight.
Chair Soules compared this to the electrical on your home, which is the heaviest investment but
you are better off in the long run. She saw this as helping the community to embrace new
technology. She also seconded getting an information item on the agenda for a future meeting to
learn more about what the fiber cables will do for Alameda.
Staff Member Amiri added that with the CIP that they discussed earlier the fiber cables will tie
into that as well.
Public Comments for #6C.
Jim Strehlow said that with technology improvements in the city there is also an increase in remote
computer hacking opportunities into the city's services. He wanted to see security reviews on all
such projects. He also discouraged putting everything into electrical cabinets due to accidents. He
believed that roundabouts would slow down police, fire, and ambulance services. He wanted to
hear from those parties on their opinion on roundabouts. He believed that the solution was to better
educate people and not waste money on roundabouts.
6D. Review and Comment on the General Plan Schedule of Planning Board Public Hearings
(Discussion Item).
Staff Member Payne introduced this item on behalf of Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning
Building and Transportation. The staff report can be found at
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4855390&GUID=6F196672-B114-
463B-9E5D-7984C3E15500&FullText=1.
Chair Soules thanked everyone for their time on this.
There was no discussion or comments on the schedule.
7. Announcements / Public Comments
Jim Strehlow had three issues. First, he wanted a residential loading zone for each street so that
Amazon and other delivery trucks don't block traffic as they do every day. Secondly, Orion Street
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
11",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-03-24,12,"has different demographics, North was residential and South was commercial, when changes for
Orion Street were discussed he wanted this difference noted. Lastly, he wanted the commission to
promote ""Bike to Wherever Day,"" which would be on May 21st.
Chair Soules promoted the website alameda2040.org to get people excited and involved with the
General Plan.
8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m.
Approved Minutes - Transportation Commission
March 24, 2021
12",TransportationCommission/2021-03-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-04-22,1,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item 4B
Action
Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
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)
Christopher Miley
Thomas G. Bertken
Gregory Morgado
Members Absent:
Michael Hans
Jesus Vargas
Staff Present:
Virendra Patel, Transportation Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Alan Ta, Assistant Engineer
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Staff Payne said this year's Earth Day Celebration would be held on Saturday, April 25 from 10
am to 3 pm and Bike to Work Day would be held on Thursday, May 14.",TransportationCommission/2015-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-04-22,2,"Transportation Commission
May 27, , 2015
Item #4B
Page 2 of 8
4.
Consent Calendar
4A. Approve Meeting Minutes - March 25, 2015
Staff Payne stated that Commissioner Vargas wanted to add an additional statement under item
5C. at the bottom of page 6. He referenced the City documents and NACTO guidelines relative to
placing a cycle track in an industrial area and he expressed concern over the quality of the technical
document supporting the recommendation.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda Resident, stated that he would like the Commission to read page 11
concerning the motion made by Commissioner Miley. He said that what was in the minutes was
not what occurred in the meeting. The minutes stated that Commissioner Miley requested to
consider removing parking from the north side of Clement Avenue and that did not happen. He
said the Commission could view the motion on the video starting at the second hour and forty-
three minute mark. Furthermore, he said that Commissioner Schatmeier spoke about the fact that
he did not want to vote without having a parking study involved and he wanted to at least have
parking studies included with the application. There was nothing in the motion about removing
parking on the north side of Clement Avenue.
Commissioner Bellows replied that she would rescind the motion for the April 22 meeting minutes
and listen to the video where the statement took place.
Commissioner Miley stated that from his recollection, there was a discussion on parking data and
the lack of data, but he does not recall making a case of that in the motion.
Jim Strehlow replied also in the minutes Commissioner Bellows replied that the truck radius should
be considered and that was part of the motion.
Commissioner Schatmaier moved to approve the minutes pending a review of the correction and
then bring the correction back to the Commission. Commissioner Miley seconded the motion. The
motion was approved 5-0.",TransportationCommission/2015-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-04-22,3,"Transportation Commission
May 27, , 2015
Item #4B
Page 3 of 8
5.
New Business
5A. Approve Harbor Bay Ferry Area Parking Recommendations
Staff Payne presented an update and introduced Alan Ta, Engineer with Alameda Public Works,
and Kevin Connolly of Water Emergency Transportation Agency (WETA) who then presented.
Commissioner Miley asked how many parking spaces are located at the ferry building.
Kevin Connolly replied 208 parking spaces.
Commissioner Schatmeier said when the Commission looked at Adelphian Way they were looking
at the land side and shying away from the bay side because it was more difficult to get permission
from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Nevertheless,
the current proposal showed parking not on the land side, but on the bay side. He wanted to know
if that would be difficult to pass when the City asks for permission from BCDC.
Staff Ta said he was not aware of BCDC's stance on Adelphian Way, but the street configuration
is 36 feet wide and has a curve. This street does not contain enough room to provide parking on
the bay side. Regarding Harbor Bay Parkway, he explained the business side was in support of it
and there already was parking on the bay side just after the driveway. Therefore, if BCDC was
consistent with their thought process, he did not believe they would have a problem with placing
parking on the bay side.
Commissioner Bertken reaffirmed with staff that the width of the street precluded the City from
providing parking on the bay side of Adelphian Way.
Staff Ta showed the curvature of the street through the PowerPoint slide and explained that it was
impossible to provide two travel lanes and two parking lanes on Adelphian Way.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he understood that we were considering parking on one side of the
street. However, he felt that placing parking on the bay side would create fewer impacts along
Adelphian Way. BCDC would be less likely to approve a change with view impacts so we favored
the land side of Adelphian Way for parking additions.
Staff Payne replied the parked cars could not obstruct views of the park so it is specific to the park.
In regards to Harbor Bay Parkway, she said parking along the bay side is already available in that
location so when extending the parking spaces BCDC would be consistent.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff if they approached the neighbors.
Staff Ta replied that the Harbor Bay Parkway was developed after the March Transportation
Commission meeting.
Chair Bellows confirmed that the question was about Adelphian Way and if we ever investigated",TransportationCommission/2015-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-04-22,4,"implementing the temporary solution will not change the status quo appreciably because it is
insufficient to meet the capacity needs. We are willing to stay with the status quo until a long-
term solution is considered.
Commissioner Bellows asked Bill Pai if he had a long-term suggestion in mind.
Bill Pai replied that creating another parking lot could be an option. He was not sure of the
feasibility of the parking structure, but there is land available so should have discussions for it.
Commissioner Bertken asked Bill Pai if he had a suggestion of where available funds would come
from to build a parking structure.
Bill Pai replied a parking structure may not be necessary, but a parking lot could be feasible. Yet,
he does not know how to acquire funds to build the parking lot.
Staff Ta replied the recommendation for Harbor Bay Parkway is not a temporary solution, nor did",TransportationCommission/2015-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-04-22,5,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item #4B
Page 5 of 8
they say it is temporary in the report.
Jim Strehlow thanked Alan Ta for his presentation and found that City staff was listening to the
community. He asked for clarification on why the Commission is having this meeting. He said
for some reason there was some sort of delay and he does not understand why there was a delay
due to someone living within a certain area. Furthermore, he said the item was pulled from last
month's agenda and he wanted to understand the rationale because if one of the Commissioners
had a vested interest in the land then they should recuse themselves.
Commissioner Bellows replied the California Fair Political Practices Commission's (FPPC) rules
are if a Commissioner lives within 500 feet of an action item he or she may not participate or be
present in the discussion. She said the rule came up very close to the meeting time and the
Commission did not understand the rules. So, the City Attorney was pulled in and was clear about
the fact that the item had to be pulled until clarification was given.
Jed Otton, Board of Director for Creedon Circle Headlands Association, said he wanted to make
the Commission aware that another ferry trip from San Francisco to Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal
was being added at 6 pm starting May 1. He explained that it means more and more people are
coming and he was unaware that there was another ferry being added. He felt that what was
proposed was possibly a temporary solution, but the parking problem would only get worse and
be more impactful to the neighborhoods. He urged the Commission to walk the area and be aware
of the problem before they decide on the solution. We need to look at acquiring the adjacent land
for a long-term solution and not parking on Adelphian Way or Harbor Bay Parkway.
Daniel Reidy, Corporate Secretary and Consul for the Harbor Bay Business Park Association, said
a committee of the board met with Alan Ta and he clarified the proposal. He stated that his
organization polled their board members and learned that they were in support of staff's plans, but
there was a concern about overflow parking in the private parking spaces owned by the property
owners who reside closer to the ferry terminal. Additionally, he said there is a master agreement
between Harbor Bay Isle Associates and BCDC that states there will be no additional permits
required around Harbor Bay Parkway except at the ferry terminal. He attended the meetings
between HBIA and BCDC in 1989 and 1990 when the agreements were handled before the ferry
was begun. So, HBIA would be willing to amend the agreement if staff receives static from BCDC.
Also, he stated that the organization agreed that the long-term solution should be a parking lot. He
noted that the adjacent lot is owned by SRM Ernst and WETA could appropriate funding and
purchase the additional land. Moreover, he encouraged the City and homeowner associations to
consider an additional shuttle to pick up people since Harbor Bay Business Park Association
provides a free shuttle that goes to BART and meets the ferry.
Commissioner Miley asked Daniel Reidy how frequently does the shuttle run.
Daniel Reidy said he was not sure, but the shuttle runs during commute hours to meet BART and
then to meet the ferry, and there are people who reverse commute from San Francisco.
Commissioner Bertken stated that the discussions and reading material presented does not show",TransportationCommission/2015-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-04-22,6,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item #4B
Page 6 of 8
how an increase in ferry patronage will ever solve the problem with the neighborhood and that has
caused negativity with the public. He felt they needed a plan or commitment that looks for a long-
term solution because funding is not immediately available. He also brought up the fact that there
was no commitment to a long-term solution for a viable ferry service in the Bay Farm Island area.
Commissioner Schatmeier thanked the community for coming out and thanked staff for their
report. He said that he lives within a seven minute walk of the Harbor Bay Ferry, so he has an
interest in how this comes out. He said he was excited by the staff proposal and he believed they
deserved credit for listening to the community and coming up with a proposal that represented a
positive look at all points of view. He was prepared to offer a motion to approve the staff
recommendation. However, he wanted to include in the motion the issues presented by the
Commission and they would be in three parts: (1) The Commission support the maintenance of
the ridership increases that have taken place and the enhancement of ridership overtime for the
health of the Harbor Bay Ferry. (2) The City needed to identify adequate parking in the short term
and the long term. (3) The City must minimize the disruption to the surrounding residential
neighborhoods by monitoring parking in the neighborhoods both before the short-term solution is
implemented and afterwards.
Commissioner Miley thanked the community and staff. He stated that he lives within a ten minute
walk from the ferry terminal. He asked Kevin Connolly about the parking demand projections.
Kevin Connolly replied WETA has experienced growth averaging nine percent annually for four
years. He expected parking demand to grow between five and seven percent, if they keep the same
mode split.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Kevin Connolly about the additional 6 pm ferry trip.
Kevin Connolly replied that WETA planned the service expansion for a while ago because the 5:30
pm boat typically goes over capacity and the overage has been happening 30 percent of the time.
Also, WETA would be considering an additional morning trip.
Commissioner Bellows replied the evening ferry addition will most probably not add to the parking
load because those people are just picking up their cars at another time. However, the morning
ferry addition could possibly increase parking demand.
Kevin Connolly replied the 208 space parking lot is generally at capacity before the 8:30 am
departure.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that Kevin Connolly cited that although ridership has gone up the
percentage of customers driving alone has gone down. As he remembered, the statistics showed a
percentage increase of people walking to the ferry and bicycling, which means the ridership
increase was from people living close to the terminal.
Kevin Connolly replied that was correct, roughly 93-98% of their riders are within a three-mile
radius.",TransportationCommission/2015-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-04-22,7,"Transportation Commission
May 27, 2015
Item #4B
Page 7 of 8
Commissioner Bertken asked Kevin Connolly what it would take to get a study going to forecast
ridership demand further down the line and to acquire funding for it. He asked if WETA has any
funds to do that type of planning.
Kevin Connolly replied that they do have the analysis for future ridership demand and he can come
back to the Commission to present the information. He said they have been successful with adding
more bike racks, which have many funding programs, but there was no funding to a build parking
structure or parking lot.
Commissioner Bertken replied that this is an integral part of the ferry transportation system.
Commissioner Miley said the City was looking at conducting a broader study of traffic and transit
and looking at a citywide shuttle. He proposed that staff look at the service that exists on Harbor
Bay Parkway and what type of improvements and connections could be made with the existing
shuttle service and AC Transit service. He asked staff about potential interim solutions on
Adelphian Way particularly between Harbor Bay Parkway and McCartney Road next to the dirt
lot. He said Alan Ta mentioned that parking could not be added due to the width of the street, but
he felt Adelphian Way would not work as a one-way street because issues would be created on
McCartney Road and other streets. He asked Alan Ta if there was a possibility of widening the
road because it contained a dirt lot.
Staff Ta replied the property is private and staff would have to review that when it becomes
developed.
Commissioner Miley said if the parking lot were to be developed in the future the area should be
conditioned to make the road adequate width with two lanes of travel, parking and bike lanes.
Commissioner Morgado said he lives on Thompson Avenue and he berates motorists who park in
front of his house. He said the City cannot fix the issue tonight, so they need to find the best thing
to do right now.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to endorse the staff recommendation and include in the
endorsement a sense of the Commission resolution, which comes in three parts: (1) The continued
maintenance and enhancement of ferry ridership. (2) The provision for adequate parking in the
short term and long term. (3) The City should seek to minimize the disruption to the surrounding
residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Miley seconded the motion. The motion was approved
5-0.
Staff Payne said moving forward with the Ad Hoc Committee regarding ferry terminal access there
will be a similar process for the Main Street Ferry Terminal because they also have high ferry
demand and parking issues. She explained that staff will continue to meet again with the Ad Hoc
Committee about ferry terminal access and then will have public outreach for that ferry terminal.
She said staff would also continue the discussion of the Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal.",TransportationCommission/2015-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2015-04-22,8,"Transportation Commission
May 27, , 2015
Item #4B
Page 8 of 8
6.
Staff Communications
6A. Update on Ad Hoc Transit Committee
Staff Payne stated that they are working with AC Transit to schedule the Ad Hoc Transit
Committee meeting.
6B. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. On May 27, staff will bring back the Clement Avenue bike lane proposal
2. Review Central Avenue Complete Street Project
7.
Announcements/Public Comments
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he got off the Fruitvale BART Station and took the bus into
the meeting. He noticed that there were changes to the bus stop configuration that particularly
affect Alameda and he was disturbed by them because he does not remember seeing public notices
posted or mailed and that change was particularly disruptive. He said there are four lines that serve
residents and the routes #20 and #21 are no longer close to the BART station.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor said the
Commission was cordially invited to League of Women Voters event ""Meet the City's Public
Officials"" next Thursday from 5:30 to 7:30 pm at the Harbor Bay Isle Community Center.
8.
Adjournment
8:15 pm",TransportationCommission/2015-04-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-09-30,1,"Transportation Commission and Planning Board Minutes:
Monday, September 30, 2013
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:
Transportation Commission Members Present:
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Michele Bellows
Thomas G. Bertken
Eric Schatmeier
Absent:
Sandy Wong
Gregory Morgado
Planning Board Members Present:
David Burton (President)
Dania Alvarez-Morroni
Stanley Tang
Mike Henneberry
John Knox White
Lorre Zuppan
Kristoffer Köster
Staff Present:
Alex Nguyen, Assistant City Manager
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Virendra Patel, Transportation Engineer
Andrew Thomas, Alameda City Planner
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments for Item 3. He also stated that he met
with Brian Kelly, the California Transportation Secretary. He said one of Mr. Kelly's goals is to
enhance Caltrans and make the organization more efficient.
Page 1 of 11",TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-09-30,2,"Denis Carole, Marina Village resident, said he was concerned with vehicular access to the island
through the tubes. He thought the bike and vehicle access by the estuary should be planned for
the long term. Also, he felt the approaches coming in and out of the City are bottlenecks.
Additionally, he pointed out there are a lot of alternatives working around those issues, but the
nature of the infrastructure needs to be reviewed. Moreover, he felt the City had a patchwork
system in place and he resents the amount of pressure that is being put on development within
the City.
4.
Draft Regional Transit Access Study
Staff Payne presented an overview of the study.
Colin Burgett, Nelson Nygaard Consulting Principal and John Atkinson (subconsultant)
presented the outcome of the study.
Nathan Landau, AC Transit Project Manager, appreciated the City and consultants' work. He
supported the consultants and staff's choice to not move the route from Santa Clara Avenue to
Lincoln Avenue because Lincoln Avenue has a mixture of business and residential traffic. In
terms of Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, he was glad that the city is looking at dedicated
bus lanes, but the options should include two-way lanes. He felt two-way lanes were needed in
both directions because Alameda Point would be developing further. He cautioned the Board
and Commission on the use of shuttles, especially as Alameda Point builds out over time.
Commissioner Vargas asked Nathan Landau if he was referring to the letter attached to the
exhibit dated September 13th He then opened the floor to public comments.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, said he was
happy to see the Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway corridor being reviewed and he was happy
to see Nathan Landau responding to the study. He believed access to the island was a big draw
for businesses looking at locating to Alameda Point. Furthermore, he was glad staff
recommended to stay with Santa Clara Avenue.
Commissioner Bellows stated that when reading the West end Corridor Comparison and the
preliminary cost estimate if it includes the cost of buying the right-of-way and she was curious to
know if the City did include eastbound and westbound bus only lanes would there be room to do
it.
Colin Burgett replied the cost estimate is based on current right-of-way and there is room for a
westbound bus only lane along with the eastbound lane. The original concept was a median way,
but that is very expensive. He said that the cheaper option is carving out a westbound lane closer
to the sidewalk. The trickier question posed was related to the bike lane if they can fit both a bike
lane and bus lane. Overall, he felt the reason of focusing on a bus lane in that direction is related
to how the traffic operates.
Commissioner Bellows asked about the right-of-way costs.
Colin Burgett replied that the right-of-way is currently public. He explained further west on
Page 2 of 11",TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-09-30,3,"Atlantic Avenue closer to Main Street there could be a future need for a bus lane; there is a right
turn lane that could be converted to a bus lane.
Commissioner Bellows asked if the common thing to do was to have a long eastbound bus lane
and start the westbound lane later.
Colin Burgett replied that this is somewhat usual because it is essentially a very long queue jump
lane. The flip side is that it is less than a mile between Webster Street and Main Street so it
would not be a long median transit way. Furthermore, he said this Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is
not the typical system that we would see in other cities.
Commissioner Bellows asked if there is a way to further study the westbound phase. She was not
interested in piece-mealing, but if there is a plan, the City should not exclude it for later
particularly when we expect development.
Colin Burgett replied that they could incorporate some elements that would keep the cost down
later.
Boardmember Alvarez-Morroni pointed to the schematic illustrative shown on the screen and
referred to the bicycle lanes on the street and to the right another bicycle lane. She was not quite
clear as to why there is redundancy within the space. Also, she wanted to know if there would
be a bicycle connection from Jean Sweeney Park to Alameda Point.
Colin Burgett replied the bicycle lanes were Class 2 lanes on the street and then a facility
proposed off the street also is proposed. The idea was to separate the more experienced cyclists
from the less experienced ones.
Staff Payne replied that the path shown is part of the Cross Alameda Trail, which is also
proposed to go through the Jean Sweeney Park.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he had some objections to relocating the east and west
transit corridor across the island from Santa Clara Avenue to Lincoln Avenue and he is relieved
to see that the staff recommendation is not to make the change. Overall, he would like staff to
continue to be cognizant of proposed trunk lines and service demand.
Director Knox White asked if the Lincoln Avenue Rapid Bus proposal is in addition to the
current bus system running on Santa Clara Avenue.
Colin Burgett replied that the original idea was a new service on Lincoln Avenue and that would
be a rapid service from Alameda Point to Fruitvale BART Station, but that new service would be
too close to the AC Transit Line 51. AC Transit staff members did not want to see redundancy if
the Line 51 was running along Santa Clara Avenue. Thus, the recommendation was if the City
wanted to make Lincoln Avenue a transit corridor, it should be in conjunction with AC Transit
service.
Boardmember Knox White asked why is there a financial discrepancy of the proposed shared
travel lane between the Clement Street corridor, which is $10 million and the Santa Clara
Page 3 of 11",TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-09-30,4,"Avenue corridor, which is $3 million.
Colin Burgett replied Clement Avenue has narrow sidewalks and tracks in the middle of the
street whereas Santa Clara Avenue has finished curb and the improvements can be within the
existing curb line.
Director Knox White asked if transit were to be placed on Clement Avenue it would need to be
widened.
Colin Burgett replied yes including other improvements such as lane restriping, changes to the
middle tracks, sidewalk widening and pedestrian crossing improvements.
Director Knox White said AC Transit voiced concerns of running a line parallel to Lincoln
Avenue next to its existing Santa Clara Avenue line. Yet, staff did not consider Clement Avenue.
Colin Burgett replied that AC Transit had similar concerns of duplicating service along Clement
Avenue.
Boardmember Knox White referred to page 115 of the staff report and noted projected ridership
goals by full build out including Alameda Point and Alameda Landing would be roughly 160
passengers per day, per bus or 75% vehicle capacity. However, that does not line up and he
cannot figure out what it is saying.
Colin Burgett said that could be related to the separate shuttle line, but the estimate was 4,000
passengers daily and when you factor in the Northern Waterfront that could potentially be 6,000
passengers per day.
Commissioner Bellows referred to page 114 and said that the statistics refer to the Alameda
Landing Shuttle.
Boardmember Knox White said if these were short-term operation parameters, he would suggest
re-writing that part because it suggested that Alameda Point and Alameda Landing are fully built
out. He also referred to page 125 of the report regarding short-term shuttle service. The
statistics show a cost of $4,000 annually for peak period only, but operational costs showed
short-term costs of 16 hours a day for 252 days a year for two buses at $266,000. He wondered
why it jumped 62 percent.
John Atkinson explained that there were two scenarios and the information is related to shuttle
acquisition meaning if the City owned and operated the shuttles or if they decided on turnkey
operations. However, he would look at the exact information and get back to Boardmember
Knox White.
Boardmember Knox White referred to page 47 and said the report outlined 6 percent of daily
person trips would be to and from Alameda to San Francisco. He wondered if the percentage
was for all the internal trips as oppose to commute trips.
Colin Burgett replied if you have a job intensive development like Alameda Point, the people
Page 4 of 11",TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-09-30,5,"commuting would not be City residents going to work, but people coming in.
Director Knox White mentioned the study highlighted 15 percent of commuters to Alameda jobs
were made by residents of San Francisco.
Colin Burgett replied that is 15 percent of San Franciscans commuting by transit to Alameda.
People to and from San Francisco have a higher rate of public transit usage.
Commissioner Miley said he would like to see a BART station in Alameda addressed or
mentioned in this study.
Andrew Thomas, Alameda City Planner, explained that the study was focused on public transit
and shuttles. However, they are in constant dialogue about a proposed BART Station.
Specifically, BART was at a recent Planning Board meeting and they are involved in this
conversation. However, he pointed out that this requires many years of planning. Additionally,
he and his staff are having regional transit conversations with the Water Emergency Transit
Authority (WETA), which is the ferry service provider. He explained that the department would
do a better job to give up-to-date information to both commissions regarding conversations.
Director Burton said transit placed along Clement Avenue needs to be wrapped in some how
with the development along the Northern Waterfront, especially within 5 to 10 years. He
referred to the map shown on Figure 2.2 regarding the walking distance to transit lines and the
illustration showed the Northern Waterfront is poorly served. He urged staff to evaluate the
regional access needs and how new developments are served. Also, he pointed out that regional
serving retail at Alameda Point has a different transit need than jobs and housing. Staff should
study what is needed for that corridor. He supported option 2b, which is the line along the edge
rather than along the median of Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway. Yet, he felt staff should
study the option more to know how we can include the plan in the existing right-of-way and then
make sure that it can happen.
Commissioner Vargas asked staff when the report would be revised and what actions are
required from the Commission.
Staff Payne replied staff would like feedback from the Commission on how to proceed with
Phase II with the construction monies and staff is hoping to focus on west Alameda. She said
one option is beginning the bus only lane at Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue. She also wants
opinion from the Commission on whether staff is on the right track with Phase I. Staff will come
back to the Transportation Commission for an action.
Commissioner Bertken said that the current study hits on the issues of concern to the
Commission. He also explained that Plan B focused on the serious issues that are facing the
City. He mentioned that the study is a good starting point for access in the Northern Waterfront
without disturbing the existing transit patterns that are working well.
Commissioner Schatmeier wanted to know what kind of modifications to transit service do they
envision.
Page 5 of 11",TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-09-30,6,"Nathan Landau said that there are possibilities of modifying existing routes. Alameda Point will
need a whole new route and it is clear there will be a need for operating dollars to start it.
Alameda Point properties may be able to generate dollars, but the City needs a robust transit
service to make it work.
Andrew Thomas said from the City's perspective would be for AC Transit to modify their
services and expand to Alameda Point, but the game plan is to require all Alameda Point housing
and businesses to fund additional transit services annually. So, if AC Transit does not provide
service then they will be running additional supplementary services from Alameda Point. We
have a 70-foot public right-of-way that we are not using south of Ralph Appezzato Memorial
Parkway. As Alameda Point develops out, then we could have a dedicated lane or queue jumps
and phase in a single transit lane. Alternatively, we could be planning a good 20-30 feet of the
70 feet to provide lanes going both ways.
Commissioner Bellows said on page 79 it showed a construction cost comparison in the west end
only. She thought the Commission was planning to talk about an option to pursue in the future.
Commissioner Vargas said staff is not looking for an action, but only consensus and comments.
Boardmember Henneberry asked staff what funds are used to build the Bus Rapid Transit on
International Boulevard in Oakland.
Nathan Landau replied there is a mix of capital funds. He explained there is a large percent of
federal funds and some Measure B funds. However, the funds are not coming from the city of
Oakland or San Leandro. Also, when the last Measure B3 was proposed, Alameda said some of
those funds would be used for the BRT system and unfortunately that measure failed narrowly.
Boardmember Henneberry said the City is headed in the right direction in general, but we need
to keep the right-of-way flexible and make the system user friendly to get people out of their cars
and onto public transit.
Boardmember Knox White said when he was part of the Transportation Commission and helped
write the Transportation Master Plan that became part of the Transportation Element, they
identified two corridors on the island. He said the idea was not for the corridors to be exclusively
used for public transit, but available for whenever there was a time then those corridors could be
used. He was concerned that the City would take Lincoln Avenue off the plan if they decided
not to run BRT. His opinion is the fact that Lincoln Avenue is a historical exclusive right-of-
way and the corridor has never been fully discussed for public transit development. Moreover,
he felt the Clement Avenue alignment for BRT would be four minutes shorter and cheaper
operations than the alternative alignments. He went on to say there are a lot of North Shore
transit needs that are coming through the pipeline and a transit element that ties all of them
together can help leverage the planning at Alameda Point and provide better service to Alameda.
In addition, he worried that the work being done is serving Alameda Point and then down the
Webster tubes is a missed opportunity and serves hardly anyone. He mentioned that the City
could use the money for proposals on park-and-rides and ferry terminals that are not being done
and he proposed to use the monies to look at the Clement Avenue and Town Center
implementations. Finally, he believed the multimodal redesign of Broadway and Jackson Streets
Page 6 of 11",TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-09-30,7,"would have to coincide with the BRT proposal and it now seems the proposal will get done
whether the redesign gets done or not. He proposed that the plan be its own separate priority
project, especially since it is a huge priority for moving people around the west end.
Boardmember Burton said he seconded Boardmember Knox White's comments about Lincoln
Avenue. He felt we do not know what is going to happen 20 to 30 years out. Also, he asked
about the $1.5 million dollars used for the proposal and wondered how it should it be spent. He
felt the report did not refer to great projects of that scale and it is not fair for the Commission and
the Board to ask for direction when they had not received concise options for projects that would
fit within that framework. He would like to see more work done there.
Boardmember Zuppan referred to the illustration and neighborhoods that are within the outer
boarders of the City that have no transit service. She said the Clement Avenue option should be
considered more and staff should look at pockets where the City is developing. Moreover, she
was concerned about the lack of examples shown for the money that would be used. Lastly, she
agreed with AC Transit's opinion to reserve or set aside lanes in both directions and it is hard for
her to believe that there would not be a need, especially at major intersections.
Boardmember Tang said he was concerned with the bus only lane and wondered if the City
would implement limited service hours within the BRT lanes.
Colin Burgett replied the BRT lanes would be open 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.
Nathan Landau replied limiting the hours of bus only lanes, similar to San Francisco would
create tremendous enforcement problems.
Boardmember Alvarez-Morroni said she was concerned with the funding deadline.
John Atkinson replied that the remaining section of the grant is being passed through by BART
and consolidated until November 2014. It should go through the construction process by that
time, but they could go to the federal agencies to extend the deadline. He explained that Phase I
was extended twice, so there is a possibility.
Page 7 of 11",TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-09-30,8,"5.
Transportation Demand Management Plan
Jennifer Ott, Alameda Point Chief Operating Officer, presented an introduction of the plan at
Alameda Point.
Jim Daisa, Kimley-Horn and Associates, presented the plan.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Ethan Cliffton lives on the Annex and presented the Alley Cat Project before the panel.
Jon Spangler said he appreciated the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan;
however, the plan depends on the land use planning that precedes it. Firstly, he explained the
TDM would work if there is high density housing built along the Ralph Appezzato corridor and
the Town Center area. Secondly, he said single-family housing could not be built until the TDM
is in place and works. Lastly, he felt the City needed to implement the TDM policy Citywide.
Lucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda, explained that there are a couple of TDM plans within the
City and she wondered how do we factor them all in so that they are not duplicating programs
and implementing shuttles that overlap each other. Regarding public input, she heard comments
made at the annual reporting to the City Council, but she wondered if that is the only opportunity
for public input. Additionally, she wanted to know if the programs would benefit everyone
living and traveling within the City. Moreover, she wanted to see biking and walking
opportunities similar to the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study in the TDM plan.
Boardmember Alvarez-Morroni asked if the study was a collaborative effort with other groups
working on transit plans within Alameda.
Jennifer Ott explained that Jim Daisa has reviewed all the plans and documents for the City.
Boardmember Alvarez-Morroni said she was happy to see that parking was brought up because
she is on the Waterfront Subcommittee and the topic was brought up.
Commissioner Miley asked how would the TDM plan work if we were just looking to do this on
one section and not citywide. He also wanted to know if there are other examples of TDM plans
that focus on one district. He felt if we do not focus citywide then other districts will have a
competitive advantage.
Jim Daisa replied that the City has a TDM plan that is robust and comprehensive. He was not
sure how it is being implemented on a regular basis, but he is just taking aspects of that
framework and applying it to the development area.
Commissioner Miley asked staff how effective is the City's TDM plan.
Andrew Thomas replied the vast majority of traffic is generated in the morning from residents
driving through the tubes. The Bayport development added a little traffic back in the year 1999
Page 8 of 11",TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-09-30,9,"when the project was approved and essentially the City had no real transit strategy for that
project. He said since then every residential project approved has some form of a TDM program
and the key is paying for transit. He said it is handled in a number of different ways such as
having shuttles or buying Easy Passes from AC Transit in perpetuity. Moreover, the City
requires that the Home Owner Association (HOA) cannot vote the TDM policy out. He
explained based on the long-term strategy for the west end that Alameda Landing would go first.
They have to setup a Transportation Management Association (TMA) and Target is paying
annually towards public transit services. He went on to say that eventually it might make sense
for Alameda Landing and Alameda Point to merge as one TMA. Also, he said part of the
strategy is to insert businesses and HOA members into the TMA board and they can adjust the
program as necessary. Essentially, they are building a citywide TDM through each project that
they approve. Regarding parking around businesses, he felt as a community, we could decide to
adjust because business parks at Alameda Point have to pay for parking, whereas older
developments do not.
Jennifer Ott stated that there are examples of area TDM plans such as Stanford University and
Bay Meadows and Joe Daisa could provide more examples.
Staff Payne explained that the City has a preliminary TDM/TSM plan in place and the City has
an abundant supply of free parking making it difficult to implement the measures.
Boardmember Köster asked how much population is needed to support a true TDM plan.
Jim Daisa replied there is not a rule of thumb because the program would be tailored towards the
population. However, the employment is just as important as the residents. He said Jon Spangler
made a good point on how high density residential attracts self-selective people who want to
move towards public transit services.
Boardmember Köster asked who is responsible for educating the public about the transit
services.
Jim Daisa replied that the TMA deals with the promotion.
Boardmember Zuppan said she is concerned with the economic impact of the plan. Since there
would be 1,425 units and 25 percent of them are low-income, plus three housing collaboratives
at most 1,000 people would fund the TMA. Yet, the City would be looking for a catalyst project
driving development and limiting or providing costs for parking is not an attraction. Ultimately,
she felt parking is a component, but since the City has low traffic and high street parking, it is
not smart to outline the parking component. Also, she mentioned the City needed a balanced
perspective to create an effective and friendly TDM plan for visitors and pet owners.
Boardmember Knox White said he agreed with all three recommendations and appreciated the
idea of not trying to design the perfect TDM plan and requiring everyone to do it. He suggested
that staff look at adding a trip cap and a way to gauge the early capacity issues. He highlighted
the city of Cambridge as an example and mentioned that unbundling parking is a good
mechanism to reduce the hidden costs of parking.
Page 9 of 11",TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-09-30,10,"Boardmember Henneberry referred to Andrew Thomas' statement regarding the policy of
charging employers parking through the TDM plan and the disadvantage for Alameda Point, but
not for Harbor Bay and Southshore. He wondered how could that be if the City was
implementing a policy that would apply for everybody.
Andrew Thomas replied that based on the development of parts of Alameda Landing, the City
required certain conditions based on the entitlements and it is very difficult to go back to the
Harbor Bay Business Park Association and change the rules.
Boardmember Burton said in terms of the three discussion questions posed, the Environmental
Impact Report used as a base line makes sense. What struck him was that the strategy in both
cases focused on employers and residents. He did not see the City focusing on the retail
component with varying transit choices that would need to be integrated in the strategy.
Joe Daisa replied that there are strategies applied to retail and they are developing a retail
component.
Boardmember Alvarez-Morroni asked who oversees the Citywide TDM/TSM ordinance.
Virendra Patel, Alameda Public Works, replied the TSM ordinance is in flux, as part of the
Lewis Bill and the City cannot go after the employer on some stringent requirements. They are
waiting for the next assembly bill to be finalized and they will institute the ordinance. He noted
that the City does have parking in-lieu fees and the fees go towards up keep of bus shelters and
parking meters.
Boardmember Alvarez-Morroni asked if that falls under Alameda Public Works department.
Virendra Patel replied yes.
Boardmember Tang wondered if there are any studies conducted to see if running a smaller,
agile, and frequent shuttle rather than a standard bus would benefit the City. Also, he noted there
is a big parking lot near Jackson and 12th Streets that has never been opened to the public and it
seemed like a waste.
Commissioner Miley replied that parking lot is used for the Alameda County building around the
area such as the courthouse and administrative building.
Boardmember Tang stated that it would be good to utilize this space, but a parking garage would
help to withstand leakage.
Commissioner Vargas said Boardmember Tang's first question would be passed over to staff
from AC Transit.
Commissioner Vargas said staff should be careful when moving forward with parking policies.
Commissioner Bertken said the City has to consider the aggressiveness of the TDM to the
environmental document based upon the forecast of traffic reduction that it is going to be
Page 10 of 11",TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2013-09-30,11,"achieved by the TDM.
6.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Carol Gottstein, 3rd Generation Alameda resident, said that one way of decreasing car usage is
to restripe the parking lots more like Mastick Senior Center along Santa Clara Avenue, which are
wide and diagonal. Also, she made a plea for a formal disabled parking space in the City Hall
parking lot and striping wider spaces so fewer cars are accommodated. Additionally, she went to
the library to obtain the documents for the meeting and the library staff could not open the links.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he has been using the Harbor Bay Ferry since it was created and
he noticed a spike in ferry demand and the loss of representation of Alameda within the
governing board. He proposed this topic should be placed onto the next agenda.
7.
Adjournment
10:15 pm
Page 11 of 11",TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT
October 24, 2007
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:40 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Eric Schatmeier
Srikant Subramaniam
Nielsen Tam
Members Absent:
Robert McFarland
Robb Ratto
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
September 26, 2007
Chair Knox White noted that the following language be changed on page 4: ""He recommended
that the state street transit fare box average of 27-28% be used.""
Chair Knox White noted that on page 6, the language reflected a double negative, and should be
changed as follows: ""Chair Knox White did not believe that angled parking was not appropriate
everywhere ""
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the September 26, 2007, meeting.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Commissioners
McFarland and Ratto were absent.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,2,"Open public hearing.
Deborah James wished to express concern about the behavior of students on the Line 63, and
noted that she had written an email to the Alameda Transit Advocates website, with a draft letter
to the principals of the schools on Line 63. She noted that the students have become very foul-
mouthed, to the point where the driver was required to stop the bus until they quieted down, or
were asked to leave the bus. One young man threatened the bus driver, who stated that she would
call the police. She noted that the kids had quieted down since they were informed that she
drafted a letter online.
Close public hearing.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A. Options for Rerouting AC Transit Line 63 and Locations of New Bus Stops. Outcome:
Commission to Provide Comments.
Staff Bergman summarized the staff report, and displayed a graphical presentation of the route.
He noted that this was a direct follow-up from the March 6, 2007, City Council meeting, in
which an appeal of the Commission's recommendation to install bus stops at the intersection of
Otis Drive and Pond Isle was reviewed. The Commission recommended the stop due to the gap
between the existing bus stops on the intersection of Otis Drive and Grand Street, and the
intersections of Whitehall Road and Willow Street. The distance was approximately 3,000 feet,
where the City's goal was to have stops approximately 1,000 feet apart. In addition to the
concern about spacing, Line 63 has had significant operational problems; there is currently
insufficient run time in the schedule to enable the bus to remain on-time throughout the day. The
Council directed the Transportation Commission to review additional bus stop alternatives, to
evaluate the ridership potential of rerouting Line 63 from Otis Drive to Shoreline Drive between
Grand and Willow, and to examine other routing alternatives. The Commission established a
subcommittee consisting of Commissioners Ratto, Schatmeier and Krueger to examine Line 63
in more detail, working closely with staff and AC Transit. At this meeting, staff will present the
Commission's and staff's recommendations regarding the line. He provided an overview of
where the route runs, as well as its frequency and schedule.
Staff Bergman noted that a key issue at the Council meeting was the density along the Shoreline
corridor, compared to Otis Drive, and whether that would attract additional ridership. He
provided overview of the density in that area, which was displayed on the overhead screen. He
noted that there were over 1,000 housing units in the vicinity of Shoreline Drive, and
approximately 330 in the vicinity of Otis Drive. At previous meetings, public input had primarily
been received from residents of Otis Drive, where the proposed stops had been. A survey was
distributed to collect input from riders of the bus in this area, and 128 responses were received.
Most of the respondents overall indicated that the proposed stop locations, comparing Otis Drive
to Shoreline Drive, would not impact their riding habits, although the proposed Shoreline stops
were identified by significantly more riders than the Otis Drive stops.
Transportation Commission
Page 2 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,3,"Staff Bergman noted that additional input was solicited from more Shoreline Drive residents, and
received a total of 38 calls and emails; 29 of those supported rerouting the bus onto Shoreline
Drive, and 9 were against.
Summarizing all of the input received to date, Staff Bergman noted that the following comments
had been received:
1.
65 people opposed stops at Otis Drive and Willow Street;
2. 40 people supported the Shoreline Drive the route;
3. 10 people were opposed to the Shoreline route;
4.
11 people were opposed to the proposed stops at Otis and Sandcreek;
5.
8 people were opposed to the stops at Pond Isle;
6. 1 person supported the proposed stops at Otis and Sandcreek;
7. 1 person opposed all stops in the Otis corridor;
8.
4 people indicated they wanted one stop somewhere along the Otis corridor;
9. 2 people supported the Otis and Pond Isle stops;
10. 1 person indicated they wanted to maintain the stops within Alameda Towne Centre;
11. 2 people wanted to maintain stops at the Ferry Terminal; and
12. 1 person opposed the removal of stops at Alameda Point on Monarch Street.
Staff Bergman noted that scheduling was a key issue, identified by approximately 24 respondents
in the survey; on-time performance was a major problem on the line. The key segment of the
route that was problematic has been between the Atlantic/Webster intersection and the end of the
line near 12th Street BART, which had to do with Tube congestion and congestion in downtown
Oakland. For Line 62 to achieve acceptable on-time performance, approximately four minutes
must be eliminated from the run time.
Staff Bergman added that funding was also discussed; four buses remain in service at any given
time on the 63 in order to maintain the 30-minute headways. The annual cost of adding a fifth
bus, depending on the number of hours per day it would run, would be $300-500,000. Depending
on rerouting recommendations, it could require significant expenses on the City's part; the City
would be responsible for making capital expenditures at bus stops. With respect to future transit
demand, particularly in the West End, Alameda Landing was expected to be online fairly soon,
with early tenants coming in mid-2009.
Staff Bergman noted that the subcommittee examined a number of options for modifying Line
63, which he also displayed on the screen:
1.
Potential reroute at Alameda Point, which would save approximately two minutes off
the run times. Staff Bergman noted that of the two sets of stops eliminated on
Monarch Street, AC Transit's data indicated there were six riders per day using all the
stops.
2.
Rerouting the line near Encinal High School, estimated to save 1.7 minutes in one
direction, and just under a minute in the other direction. The schools have indicated
that they would not object to the modification, as long as the students' needs would
be served during the peak times.
Transportation Commission
Page 3 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,18,"and the larger picture. He inquired whether other alternatives have been examined.
Staff Khan noted that Mitchell Avenue is being designated as a truck route and a bicycle route,
providing access to Alameda Landing and Alameda Point. He noted that it would be an
additional route besides Stargell, as well as Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, and that it
addressed the needs of the West End as identified in the General Plan.
Chair Knox White noted that the speakers made a good point that it was too early to bring this
item out of the conceptual phase, which tended to take a life of their own. He understood Mr.
Beery's concern, given that the realignment went through his property. He suggested that if a
right of way were to be preserved, he would like to see more discussions with the property
owners. He believed this may invite another problem intersection in the City. He noted that they
did not know all of the traffic scenarios, and would like to see those identified more clearly
before proceeding.
Commissioner McFarland noted that developing a truck route into an intersection on a curve was
fundamentally bad design, and added that there was a sharp curve coming into the intersection.
He believed that neither condition was desirable.
No action was taken.
7B.
Designate representative to Alameda Point Advisory Task Force.
Chair Knox White described the purpose and schedule of the Task Force and invited any
interested Commissioners to volunteer as an alternate. He noted that he intended to attend all the
meetings.
Commissioner Schatmeier volunteered to serve as an alternate on the Task Force.
8.
Staff Communications
Staff Khan noted that the most recent information from the design team stated that one of the
alternatives coming from the Posey Tube would create a hook ramp along Fifth Avenue to
Jackson Street; that alternative may not be feasible any longer. He added that there was an
Oakland-Chinatown meeting the previous week, during which that item was discussed. The
concerns they had heard related to pedestrian access at the intersection. They were also
concerned because of the elevation change and the distance between the exit from Posey and the
intersection of 7th and Harrison. He noted that was a difficult grade change and may not be
possible to implement.
Staff Khan noted that they would examine an alternative to develop a 6th Street arterial corridor.
The design team hoped to provide better access along the Oakland side using 6th Street, and to
develop some better signal coordination and improved access further to the north to 880 and 980.
City staff would like to address the weave that occurs on the freeway at the Jackson on-ramp,
leading to the 24 exit, and to reduce congestion at that area.
Transportation Commission
Page 18 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,19,"Future meeting agenda items
Staff Khan would like to discuss the thresholds of significance for the environmental review of
the Transportation Element at an upcoming meeting. They were also looking at pedestrian,
transit and bicycle level of service threshold of significance. Staff has been working with the
consultants, Dowling Associates, to refine those items, and will bring the information back in
November or December.
Staff Khan noted that the Park and Webster Street parking studies may be brought back later. It is
currently delayed, He believed it may be brought back in January.
Staff Khan noted that a public meeting would be held November 1, 2007, regarding the Fernside
Boulevard bike path improvements, for which the City received grant funding. The meeting
would be held at Lincoln Middle School at 7:30 p.m. in the Multi-purpose room.
Staff Khan wished to address few questions that Chair Knox White posed to him regarding a
HUD grant received by the City, as part of the Community Block Grant Program. He noted that
as part of the 2005 audit, two concerns were raised:
1.
With the money received, the City made improvements to bus stop locations, and
the selection criteria had been questioned. The auditors recommended that a
process be developed with respect to bus stop improvement selections, particular
with respect to different demographics of population regarding income and
disabilities; and
2.
Some ADA features at the improved bus stops were slightly off They
recommended that the City be very careful in the future when making such
improvements. It may be necessary to remove some of the sidewalk to comply
with the requirements to maintain an appropriate cross-slope.
Staff Khan noted that he had received an email from the City Attorney's office, stating that they
were negotiating with HUD. They were looking into the voluntary compliance agreement in
order to address the concerns raised by HUD; the agreement has not yet been signed. Once it has
been signed, the City may have 60 days to bring forth procedures to address the two issues.
9.
Adjournment:
10:35 p.m.
Transportation Commission
Page 19 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,4,"3. The current route goes up Park Street, down Encinal, up High over to Fernside, and
out to Fruitvale BART. The idea was discussed of a more direct line to Fruitvale
BART, going up Broadway (saving considerable time); that would be implemented in
conjunction with other modifications. AC Transit is in the process of evaluating Line
51.
4. It was suggested that the 63 be shifted to Shoreline Drive between Grand Street and
Willow Street, as there is more housing density and greater ridership potential.
5. The route by Encinal High School went to Pacific, Marshall, Lincoln, down Webster
Street. A more direct route would be to continue straight down Central. While a fairly
dense corridor, and therefore it was not recommended.
6. With respect to operations near the Ferry Terminal, the route currently ran along
Main Street, went into the Terminal, stops, and exits to Alameda Point. The option
was to establish stops along Main Street, away from the Ferry Terminal, which would
require a 600-foot walk to the terminal from its present location. That option would
save approximately one minute in each direction.
7. They discussed maintaining the existing route along Otis Drive and relocating the
stops to Otis Drive, removing them from Alameda Towne Centre. That was estimated
to save approximately two minutes in one direction, one-and-a-half minutes in the
other, and eliminates the bus having to slow down for traffic and pedestrians through
the route. The major disadvantage would require shoppers to take their groceries out
to Otis Drive.
Staff Bergman noted that subcommittee's recommendations were as follows:
1. To eliminate the portion of the Alameda Point route along Monarch Street, saving
approximately two minutes;
2. To implement the reroute away from Encinal High School during the non-peak hours
associated with the school.
He noted that AC Transit indicated that if it was not possible to make sufficient cuts to reduce
run time that they may be obligated to add an extra bus because of their obligations to their
drivers. The subcommittee did not reach a consensus regarding how to proceed given this
scenario. Two options were discussed by the subcommittee: 1) The additional bus could operate
on Line 63 on an interim basis, while the Transportation Commission would have a specified
amount of time to develop a plan to use that bus most effectively. If no plan is developed, the
additional bus should be removed, and more drastic cuts be implemented. 2) The additional bus
should not be run on an interim basis, but only if a plan is already in place for utilizing the
additional bus.
In both scenarios, the subcommittee agreed that if a satisfactory plan could not be developed to
make use of the additional bus, that the following additional service cuts be made to Line 63, in
the following order, only as necessary to provide additional run time:
Transportation Commission
Page 4 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,5,"1. The stops be relocated away from the Ferry Terminal to Main Street;
2. Implementing the changes at Encinal High School throughout the entire day; and
3. To relocate the stops from the interior to the perimeter of Alameda Towne Centre.
The subcommittee stressed that they felt these were undesirable changes, but was necessary. He
noted that the initial reluctance by AC Transit to add an additional bus on the route had to do
with the impact it might have on farebox recovery, and whether this poor performance might
impact the future viability of the route. The subcommittee also recommended that Line 63 should
be rerouted from Otis Drive to Shoreline Drive, between Grand and Willow, once the run time is
available, and once the capital improvements have been made at the bus stops, particularly on the
south side of Shoreline Drive. This potential service change should be part of any discussions
regarding how an extra bus might be used.
Staff Bergman noted that another recommendation was: Since the schedule could not currently
accommodate the additional runtime required to serve Shoreline, bus stops should be installed at
the intersections of Otis and Sandcreek, as well as Otis and Willow to support the City's bus stop
spacing guidelines. This was a change from the TC's previous recommendation to install stops at
Pond Isle. The change was in response to the shift in position by the Alameda Police
Department, which determined that the Otis and Sandcreek location was the preferred bus stop
location.
Staff Bergman noted that the final recommendation from the subcommittee was that the
westbound bus stop at the intersection of Whitehall and Willow should be made the highest
priority for improvements at bus stops in the City. There is not currently a sufficient landing area
for people to stand while boarding the bus.
Staff Bergman noted that staff analysis addressed the farebox recovery issue that was a concern
to the Commission, that an additional bus would reduce farebox recovery, and that the might
impact the future of the line. AC Transit's data indicated that the 63 currently exceeded the
minimum standards for buses along its route; it is ranked in the middle with respect to passengers
per service hour and farebox recovery. While the additional bus would affect the performance, it
is not clear what the impact would be at this time.
Staff supports the following recommendations outlined by the subcommittee: The elimination of
the portion of the Alameda Point route; the modified service to serve Encinal High School at
peak school hours only. If AC Transit determines that an extra bus would be available, staff
recommended that this should be done on an interim basis, enabling the Transportation
Commission to develop a plan to best utilize that bus over time. That would enable the route to
stay on schedule and serve the existing route, as well as to enable the Transportation
Commission to develop a longer term strategy to serve the West End's upcoming development in
the next few years. Also, the line would be more effective and less convoluted.
Staff had significant concerns about some of the more severe cuts that the subcommittee
recommended be implemented if needed:
Transportation Commission
Page 5 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,6,"1. The relocation of the stops away from the Ferry Terminal was not supported by City
policies, which encourage intermodal connections. It would also undermine the potential
for people to use those connections.
2. The elimination of the direct service to Encinal High School was also problematic. The
partial reroute away from the school during the day would enable about half the riders to
be served with the school times; people in the neighborhood would lose transit access as
a result of that. The school prefers to have the students board in front of the school, so the
staff can monitor them while they wait.
3. Relocating the buses to the perimeter of Alameda Towne Centre would affect some very
heavily used stops. There were over 400 boardings and alightings per weekday at those
three stops. Staff recommended that they not be relocated at this time.
Staff recommended that if the new bus is available, that it be run on a pilot basis for up to 12
months. If the pilot service is implemented, the Transportation Commission should continue to
work with City staff, AC Transit and community stakeholders to develop a recommended
reconfiguration of the route. Alternative configurations should include, at a minimum, rerouting
the Line 63 onto Shoreline Drive between Grand Street and Willow Street; servicing Alameda
Landing, and splitting the route into two separate pieces to more effectively serve the destination
points along the line.
Commissioner Krueger wished to stress that with respect to staff not wanting to endorse the
options for the Ferry Terminal, the direct service to Encinal High, and the relocation of the stops
at Alameda Towne Centre, from the subcommittee's perspective, these were last-resort options
that they did not mention lightly. They considered these to be options in the event that nothing
else worked, and nothing else could be done.
Chair Knox White noted that under ""Funding"" in the staff report, it was suggested that a move to
Shoreline would require the establishment of new bus stops on Shoreline. He noted that they
currently had bus stops used by the W. Staff Bergman noted that was a more general reference
regarding any route changes.
Chair Knox White inquired whether the surveys and fliers were actually posted at the bus stops
on Willow and Grand. Staff Bergman replied that he did not believe they were, and that they
focused more on the origin and destination points, such as Alameda Towne Center and the
hospital.
Chair Knox White inquired whether the survey gathered address information from the
respondents, Staff Bergman replied that they received at least intersection information.
Chair Knox White inquired what the daytime off-peak ridership on the Encinal High School line,
Staff Bergman replied that it was about half the total.
Transportation Commission
Page 6 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,7,"In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether interlining was considered at the bus
stops, Sean Diest Lorgion, AC Transit, replied that they had discussed it at MLK and 12th Street
in Oakland, where line 12 runs. They did not do much interlining at Fruitvale BART because
there were so many bridge lines and the congestion on the bridge. They would be able to
examine that possibility. He noted that interlining did play a significant role in how the service is
run, as it enables AC Transit to more effectively use its drivers.
Open public comment.
Liz Cleves, speaking on behalf of Diane Voss, read her statement into the record:
""At the Transportation Commission meeting on May 24, 2006, the Alameda Police
Department raised concerns about the safety of the mid-block bus stop in front of the
crosswalk at Lum School and Otis Drive at Sand Creek Way. Crossing guards,
residents and parents have repeatedly expressed their concerns regarding the safety of
the crosswalk. In spite of all the efforts the City has made to make that crosswalk
safe, it still poses safety concerns. Since the May 2006 meeting, the Police
Department has changed their view, and according to the staff's current report, the
Alameda Police Department is comfortable with the location of the bus stop at the
Otis and Sand Creek intersection.
Comfortable. Are they comfortable with the vehicles exiting the drop-off area,
and stopping on top of the crosswalk, and sometimes in the crosswalk? Are they
comfortable with the number of vehicles that do not stop behind the Yield to
Pedestrian arrows? Are they comfortable with the fact that when the bus is stopped in
front of the crosswalk, oncoming vehicles cannot see the pedestrians, and therefore
will not stop behind the arrows? Are they comfortable with the fact that the crossing
guards will not be there all day, every day? Who will give further protection to
children on weekends, holidays, school closure days, and during summer vacation?
Please keep in mind that the crossing guards are there only during the weekdays
for two hours in the morning, and three hours in the afternoon. A great deal of time
has been spent talking, designing surveys, posting signs, soliciting opinions, writing
reports, etc. How much time has been spent watching the crosswalk as children
arrive, and when they leave school? How much time has been spent watching the
crosswalk when no crossing guards are present? The added drive-through drop-off
area has added new safety concerns. The flashing lights in the pavements cannot be
seen on bright, sunny days, and a bus blocking the driver's view of pedestrians will
add an even greater safety hazard. Many children are not going to wait for the bus to
leave the area before they dart out in front of the bus to cross the street. There is
probably nothing that can make this crosswalk 100% safe, but there are things that
can make it less safe. A bus stop in front of the school crosswalk is one of those
things.
If you check with the Alameda Police Department, you will find that they've
been citing many drivers lately for failure to yield to pedestrians at the crosswalk.
They are mostly present during the morning and afternoon times. They can be there
issuing tickets all day long. City Councilmember Doug DeHaan, even after the
installation of all the safety devices, remarked that he finds this crosswalk dangerous
and is reluctant to use it with his family. A bus stop first installed on Otis and Sand
Transportation Commission
Page 7 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,8,"Creek in June 2004 was removed shortly after doing safety concerns. Why are we
running around and around, only to end up back where we started? Over and over
again, we have read and you've heard the fears, the complaints of Alameda Landing
residents, Lum School parents, crossing guards.
At the City Council meeting on March 2, 2007, Councilmember DeHaan was
before the City Council, and he asked to answer the problems of a bus stop on Otis
and Sandcreek. He said to put the Line 63 back on Shoreline.""
Liz Cleves noted that the staff report stated that the density at the Shoreline area far exceeded that
in the Otis Drive area, and that the Shoreline area has 1,077 housing units, and the Otis Drive
area has 330 housing units. The Shoreline corridor has three times the number of housing units
than the Otis area. She believed that the ridership generated in the Shoreline area would be
greater. She noted that of the 128 responses staff received from the survey; 23 of those responses
(18%) stated that the Shoreline alternative would increase their ridership, compared to 8
respondents (6%) in the Otis area. Sixteen respondents favor a new stop at Otis and Willow. She
noted that with respect to rerouting Line 63 and the locations for the new bus stop, Attachment 3
read, ""By shortening one of the Alameda Point route, this would reduce the run time by 1.8
minutes westbound, and 2 minutes eastbound. This change would eliminate low-usage stops. The
change at one would require riders to walk an additional 1,350 feet."" She noted that AC Transit
Board Policy 508 read, ""Bus stops or locations where bus passengers access the AC Transit
system: Bus stops must therefore be convenient to the places where passengers wish to go.
Convenience and speed will be balanced in determining appropriate bus stop placement, as too
many bus stops can slow down travel times. Outside the downtown areas, AC Transit generally
seek to have bus stops 1,000 feet apart. Passenger usage of bus stops is an important factor when
considering bus stop placements or removals."" She believed the proposed increased in walking
distance was too far.
Jonathan Martin wished to address the reroute of Line 63 from Otis to Shoreline between Grand
and Willow. He liked the quietness of Willow Street, and objected to the rerouting of the 63,
which would put noisy buses in front of his house at all hours. He requested that Line 63's
current route be kept.
Lucy Farber noted that she lived in Berkeley but was the office manager at St. George Spirits at
2601 Monarch Street, which was halfway between the two stops that were proposed for
elimination. She noted that people come from all over the world to visit their tasting room, and
encouraged people from San Francisco to take the ferry and then use Line 63. They attach a
coupon at the bottom of the ferry ticket to take the 63. She noted that the temp crew they hire to
bottle the vodka frequently take the bus, and she objected to the proposed elimination of their
bus stop. She was concerned about the cold and windy weather, which would make it
inhospitable to require people to walk to their business. She noted that they encouraged people to
take the bus after drinking at the tasting room, and that the removal of the bus stop would make it
more difficult for them to use the bus.
Deborah James expressed concern about the possible stoppage of the bus to the ferry terminal, as
well as to Alameda Towne Centre. She suggested eliminating service to the ferry terminal during
the times when the ferry did not operate. She did not believe that all of the drivers were aware
Transportation Commission
Page 8 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,9,"that they should come into the ferry terminal, which has happened a number of times.
Jim McDonald spoke on behalf of his elderly mother, who lives on the corner of Willow and
Shoreline. She was very concerned about bus and passenger noise, as well as pollution,
generated by the current route. She believed that rerouting the 63 line would aggravate that
condition, as would the litter from the passengers.
Claudia Davison distributed her letter to the Commissioners, and spoke in opposition to the
proposed bus stop on the northwest side of Otis and Willow. She noted that the location was
adjacent to high-density condominium residential units, and added that there was already
insufficient parking at that location. She added that youths already passed through the complex
en route to school, and she was concerned that this would add to their security, vandalism and
parking problems. She had previously requested removal of the red curb zone on the north side
of Otis, across from Willow Street. She did not believe that was a suitable location for a bus stop,
which would add to the underutilization of that curb space. She believed that bus drivers should
idle their buses and take their breaks in commercial, rather than residential, areas. She proposed
that this stop be relocated to the east side of Willow between Otis and the fire hydrant to the
south, which was adjacent to commercial medical facilities with off-street parking. She believed
that fewer people would be adversely affected on a daily basis seven days a week, and for fewer
hours, since it no one would be there after business hours. She believed it was important that
Alameda be connected to the two BART stations.
Tamara Rouse noted that she and her children had problems crossing the street on the way to
Lum School, and believed that adding a bus stop at that location would be a safety hazard. She
noted that she was a property manager at 1901 Shoreline, and that while the residents liked
having the morning and evening bus stop at that location, the off-peak buses created a lot of
noise, traffic and unpleasant smells. She was also concerned about vandalism and strangers
loitering around their property during that time.
Susan White, 1901 Shoreline Drive, echoed Ms. Rouse's comments, and objected to the diesel
fumes in the middle of the day. She added that she suffered from asthma, which was aggravated
by the fumes. She noted that she moved to this area to live in fresh air.
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, noted that less than half of the residents on Alameda
Point have cars. He believed that Line 63 was broken. He noted that their growing youth project
discovered that the lack of convenient access to affordable, healthful food stores was a major
issue leading to food insecurity in the West End. He noted that the bus line at Alameda Point was
heavily used and relied upon by the community, including many students who attend Island High
School and Bay School. He noted that the bus was a lifeline for those traveling to the food bank,
and that the schedule should not erode at Alameda Point. He has heard stories of buses skipping
the Alameda Point loop altogether to regain the on-time schedule. He did not believe that moving
the line from Towne Centre should not be considered, even as the Towne Centre is being
redesigned as a more upscale shopping center. They would welcome any further efficiency on
Line 63, but did not want to see any reduction in service.
Transportation Commission
Page 9 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,10,"Christine Toll noted that she lived at Willow and Shoreline, and expressed concern about the bus
noise outside her window.
Jack Bogar thanked the Transportation Commission for the special meeting regarding the ferry,
and for their efforts to improve the bus service for the riders. He noted that it was very difficult
to walk across the street safely to Lum School. He noted that cars trying to pass the stopped
buses at the crosswalks created a very unsafe situation, and had witnessed the Alameda Police
Dept. pull many violators over. He believed that a bus stop adjacent to the crosswalk was very
dangerous, and should not be allowed to stand.
C.J. Kingsley noted that she lived near Lincoln and Webster. She believed that it would be nice if
the Towne Centre-bound bus would arrive at :20 and :50, rather than 18 and :48. Riders who
disembark from the normal hourly ferry would be more likely to make the connection. Because
of the erratic bus schedule, she suggested that the inbound W, except at Atlantic and Webster, be
allowed to pick up Line 63 passengers with a transfer.
Ursula Apel, Kitty Hawk Road, noted that she lived eight blocks away from Safeway, and added
that it was difficult to carry groceries that distance. She noted that it was difficult to cross
Willow/Whitehall, and that there was no legal crosswalk at that location to reach the bus stop.
She noted that many families signed a petition to have a bus stop on Otis that would be safer and
closer to Lum School.
George Wales recalled the City Council meeting in March 2007 was meant to address
improvements in the bus system from the riders' perspective. He believed that the reduction of
run times would be beneficial to the riders.
Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, believed it was very important that as many people
as possible have access to public transit, and looked forward to seeing the gap in Line 63 filled.
She noted that solutions to reliability problems were critical, and that having direct access to the
ferry as well as bus stops that are close enough. She believed it would be advantageous to move
another bus to Shoreline, but because of its cost, she would be happy to solve the problems on
Line 63 some other way in the short term.
Kevin Gong supported the rerouting Line 63 to Shoreline, because the Transportation
Commission's data stated that the density along Shoreline was three times that of Otis. Also 50%
of the survey respondents replied that it would increase their ridership if the 63 were to run on
Shoreline. He believed that AC Transit and the City had a responsibility to ensure that the public
transportation system was successful and accessible. He believed that a stop at in front of the
school on Sandcreek would be irresponsible, and that the City fought hard to make that area safe
for the children.
Transportation Commission
Page 10 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,11,"Close public hearing.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the Monarch stops, Staff Bergman
replied that there were a total of six riders per day.
Commissioner Schatmeier complimented staff on an outstanding staff report, particularly the
items for which consensus was reached, and not reached. The Transportation Commission did
not want to cut transit service, which they viewed as an asset to the community. He emphasized
that some options were a last resort, and found the arguments with respect to the Monarch stop to
be particularly compelling. He wished that more businesses advertised their proximity to transit,
and encouraged their customers to use transit. He believed that show of support should be
rewarded, not penalized. They reached the consensus that Line 63 was very unreliable, which
was echoed by the speakers. The subcommittee reached the conclusion that four minutes needed
to be cut from it. He hoped that interlining could be used to achieve economies throughout the
system, and he did not believe AC Transit should add a bus on an interim basis to an existing
route. He shared the experience expressed by a speaker regarding the bus not going into the ferry
terminal, and noted that it happened too often. He agreed with the woman who suggested
carrying local passengers on the W line; he noted that was already done on the O and OX. He
believed that would be a good supplement for transferring passengers, and for local passengers
from Webster Street to Shoreline.
Chair Knox White inquired whether AC Transit has considered offering a free transfer within
a
specific geographic area.
Mr. Diest Lorgion replied that AC Transit has not been consistent about which Transbay lines
offer local service. He noted that they examine local service on the W, and added that they were
generally allowed where local service is not available.
Chair Knox White noted that he would rather see consistency in favor of allowing local transfers
on all the lines.
Mr. Diest Lorgion noted that adding local passengers while a Transbay bus is trying to get to San
Francisco was a concern for the Transbay passengers.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding adding another bus, Mr. Diest Lorgion
noted that they had to balance between offering reliable transportation versus being able to cut
only so much.
Chair Knox White noted that last year, the Transportation Commission made a bus stop spacing
recommendation to City Council that would adopt the spacing that AC Transit used, with more
flexibility up to 1,300 feet between bus stops. He inquired about the status of that
recommendation.
Transportation Commission
Page 11 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,12,"Staff Khan recalled that was an interim recommendation until the Transit Plan was developed or
implemented. Staff Bergman noted that the Transit Plan mentioned 1,000 feet as an
approximation, and that it did not establish a minimum.
Chair Knox White noted that in terms of Line 63, the subcommittee seems to have recommended
that the current line did not work. He agreed that ridership should be the primary goal on this
line, and that unreliability would destroy ridership on this line. He agreed that either a new bus
should be added, or that certain stops should be cut. He noted that City Council did not rule on
the appeal when they heard it in March, and asked for more information. He noted that the
Transportation Commission would recommend that this issue return to City Council for a final
decision. He hoped that any decision would support ridership and reliability on Line 63.
Chair Knox White noted that a primary concern was the safety issue in front of Lum School, and
was not personally convinced that a bus stopping in front of the school is a major safety issue.
He noted that there was clearly a problem with respect to the use of the roads in front of Lum
School. He did not believe there was a need for four lanes of traffic along Otis. He suggested that
any motion sent to City Council should ask them to prioritize looking at Otis between Westline
and Park, and to redesign the road, possibly to three lanes to shrink the crossing distance. He
supported moving the bus line to Shoreline, and added that it may need to happen as part of a
longer term plan for rerouting. He supported asking AC Transit to examine the ability to interline
that route. He would like to know whether run time could be found within the route.
Chair Knox White noted that eliminating the East End Loop along High Street, Encinal and
Fernside was rejected because of the ridership of 50-60 riders per day. He found the
subcommittee recommendation rerouting near Encinal to be problematic. He was willing to
support the Monarch Loop cut, and noted that segment jeopardized ridership along the entire
route of the rest of the line. He described Line 63 as an ugly transit route, making frequent turns.
He suggested bifurcating the line, which may allow for better, more usable transit. He would be
willing to support a conditional motion stating that the Transportation Commission supported
moving the line to Shoreline if interlining will allow for an incremental increase in the cost of the
line. He emphasized that the 63 must run on time and reliably once the changes have been made.
Commissioner Krueger endorsed the cut to Monarch, and recalled mentioning St. George, and
found that to be a difficult decision. He noted that he had attended several events at St. George
and used Line 63. He was curious about the ridership stemming from the temp work staff, and
noted that there was no way to fix the line without finding time and thereby cutting pieces of the
route off.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he had been emphatic at the subcommittee level about not
adding another bus. He noted that timing was a critical component, and stated that if they could
identify changes to the route that would make the expenditure of the additional bus worthwhile,
rather than just adding a bus to preserve the schedule, he would like to see a chance to make the
case of adding another bus to serve places that are currently unserved, and gain additional riders.
He did not support the strategy of adding another bus to this route on an interim basis. He
disagreed with staff's findings in that regard, and strongly advised against adding another bus on
Transportation Commission
Page 12 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,13,"an interim basis. He would like to try the four minutes of cuts they were originally asked to make
on an interim basis; during the evaluation period, the contingency of adding another bus by
serving additional areas should be examined. If the four minutes did not solve the problem, then
additional cuts or an additional bus must be added.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether four minutes was not enough, Mr. Diest
Lorgion replied that when they originally looked at the route, the current scheduled running time
is 50 minutes one way. He added that during peak periods of the day, the running time was 57-58
minutes. AC Transit anticipated a reduction to about 54 minutes may work, while allowing the
drivers' contractually required six minutes of layover. He noted that while the contract stated a
six-minute layover, it has become an issue with the operators, and that additional time might be
necessary.
Chair Knox White requested that AC Transit speak with drivers about the layover issue, and
added that the City did not want to constantly change the schedule, which would lead to
confusion and a drop in ridership.
Commissioner Schatmeier believed the trial cuts would enable the City to develop a way to use a
fifth bus, or to further adjust the schedule. He was not comfortable with a trial period of adding
another bus on the same route.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to support the elimination of the Monarch Street stops and
to
implement the school-peak service only on Central Ave., on an interim basis, to remove four
minutes of run time. The TC would then examine and prioritize the additional two to four
minutes, and to develop a plan for best using an extra bus should it become available.
Commissioner McFarland seconded
Commissioner Krueger inquired what would happen if the cuts were made, and did not work
before another plan was ready. He wanted to be ready to put another bus out there, in the worst
case scenario. He agreed that the plan should be ready as soon as possible.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he did not define the interim period in the motion, and
suggested that it be the time between signups.
Mr. Diest Lorgion replied that the earliest that any change could happen would be March, or
possibly June 2008. He said that route changes and signups occurred every three months. He
noted that major changes were made every six months.
Commissioner Schatmeier suggested that the interim period be six months. He did not believe
that every single cut had been explored.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the driver's union could wait that long, or whether an
extra bus must be added sooner. Mr. Diest Lorgion replied that the Commission's
recommendations would still go to City Council, so if the TC provided alternative
recommendations, this would help any changes to be implemented more quickly.
Transportation Commission
Page 13 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,14,"Chair Knox White wished to make several friendly amendments. He noted that a key item from
the City Council meeting was the move to Shoreline, and would like the motion to include that
item. He suggested adding language to the motion that if an additional bus was needed, the bus
routes would be re-examined.
Commissioner Krueger believed that if the required time at Shoreline were to be added, further
cuts must be made somewhere else.
Chair Knox White agreed with Commissioner Krueger's assessment. Commissioner McFarland
noted that as the seconder of the motion, that was agreeable to him.
Chair Knox White believed that any cuts were to be made, he believed the Transportation
Commission should wait until they could discuss all the lines and the best way to run transit in
Alameda.
Staff Khan noted that if they discussed adding a bus, it would not be restricted to Line 63. He
noted that the time issue must be discussed before implementing any cuts.
Commissioner Krueger noted that he would rather add the bus on an interim basis than make
deeper cuts.
Chair Knox White noted that the motion did not include a number of subcommittee conclusions,
such as:
The bus schedule cannot currently accommodate additional runtime. To serve Shoreline,
a bus stop should be installed at the intersections of Sandcreek and Willow and Otis to
support it;
Eliminate W. Midway/Monarch/W. Redline (at Alameda Point) portion of route
Reroute from Central/3rd to Pacific, away from Encinal HS, except at peak times for
school trips near the beginning and end of the school day
The prioritized list of additional cuts: 1) removing the bus from the Ferry Terminal; 2) if
that did not work, removing all direct service to Encinal High School; 3) if that did not
work, relocate the buses from the interior to the perimeter of Alameda Town Centre. He
personally did not believe the Towne Centre stops should be removed, as they were one
of the highest use stops in the City;
Line 63 should be rerouted to Shoreline once runtime is available and capital
improvements have been made at the bus stops. Since there is no available runtime, bus
stops should be installed at Otis and Sandcreek, and Otis and Willow to support the
City's guidelines.
The westbound bus stop at Whitehall and Willow should be made the highest priority of
improvements at the bus stops in the City.
Line 63 should be rerouted from Otis Drive to Shoreline Drive between Grand Street and
Willow Street once run time is available and capital improvements have been made at bus
Transportation Commission
Page 14 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,15,"stops. This potential service change should be included as part of any discussions
regarding how to best use an extra bus if that becomes available.
Since the bus schedule cannot currently accommodate the additional run time required to
serve Shoreline Drive, bus stops should be installed at the intersections of Otis/Sandcreek
and Otis/Willow to support the City's bus stop spacing guidelines. This change in the
TC's previous recommendation is in response to the Alameda Police Dept. indicating that
they are comfortable with the location of the bus stop at the Otis/Sandcreek intersection.
The cuts will be on an interim basis, and if they do not work, additional cuts or rerouting
should be identified
Commissioner Krueger suggested an additional amendment discussed in the subcommittee that
was not included in the report: The ferry terminal cut should not be made without the capital
improvements at the terminal.
Chair Knox White noted that there were 18 unfunded bus shelters in the City already.
Staff Khan wished to clarify that the area on Main Street was a wetland area, and constructing a
stop there may have some serious environmental implications. He noted that an environmental
document may need to be prepared.
With respect to the need for more run time, Chair Knox White inquired whether the
Transportation Commission preferred going straight to the ferry terminal and Encinal High
School all day, or whether those locations would be examined after an interim period.
Commissioner Schatmeier preferred the latter choice.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the capital improvements could be made a priority, if
not a contingency, for shifting the line.
Chair Knox White noted that the installation of a new stop must meet all ADA requirements,
which would prevent it from becoming a muddy swamp.
Following a discussion of which items would be retained in the motion, Chair Knox White
summarized the Commission's consensus that Items #3 and #4 should be removed from the
discussion.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the date this item would go to the City
Council, Staff Khan replied that at the latest, it would be in December.
Chair Knox White noted that it would be difficult for him to support a motion that discussed
additional buses on an interim basis before other cuts are made.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that it was not correct that he would never support another bus;
he would not support another bus on the existing route to make up six minutes that were missing.
Transportation Commission
Page 15 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,16,"Mr. Diest Lorgion replied that the line must be reviewed internally by AC Transit staff, and they
would determine whether they need to come up with other cuts on their own, with feedback from
the Transportation Commission, or add another bus.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that would work for him.
Chair Knox White suggested that the Commission not prioritize the items, and that #4 (Ferry
Terminal) would be removed from the discussion until it was necessary. Commissioner
Schatmeier agreed with that suggestion.
Chair Knox White believed that it would be important to look at the road design for Otis. He
added that Items 3 and 4 would be removed from the discussion, and the motion amended to
examine the Otis design. In addition, if AC Transit says that four minutes would not be enough,
they will come back to the TC for additional recommendations.
Commissioner Schatmeier amended the motion to include the following:
1. Implement the proposed route change at Alameda Point, removing stops on
Monarch Street and rerouting the bus onto Lexington Street
2. Implement service near Encinal HS to serve the school at peak school hours; at
other times the bus would be rerouted off Central Avenue and 3rd Street, and would
run on Main Street and Pacific Avenue
3. The two proposed cuts described above should be made on an interim basis to
evaluate whether they are sufficient to keep the bus on schedule
4. Line 63 should be rerouted onto Shoreline Drive between Grand and Willow once
run time is available and capital improvements have been made at bus stops to meet
ADA requirements
5. Since the Line 63 schedule cannot currently accommodate the additional run time
needed to operate on Shoreline Drive, bus stops should be implemented at the
intersections of Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive at Willow Street
6. The westbound bus stop at the intersection of Whitehall Road and Willow Street
should be the City's top priority for bus stop improvements
7. Evaluate Otis Drive west of Park Street to see if the street can be redesigned from
four travel lanes to three travel lanes with bike lanes
8. If AC Transit indicates that the time removed from the first two recommendations
above is not sufficient, and/or they decide to put an extra bus on the line, they will
come back to the TC for recommendations regarding how to proceed
Commissioner McFarland seconded. Motion passed 5-1 (Krueger). Commissioner Ratto was
absent.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Proposed alignment of Mitchell Avenue Extension from Alameda Landing to Main
Street. Outcome: Commission to provide comments.
Transportation Commission
Page 16 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-10-24,17,"Commissioner Schatmeier moved to extend the meeting. Commissioner Krueger seconded the
motion. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Ratto was absent.
Staff Khan presented the staff report. He noted that the alignment of the new street is
preliminary. Mitchell Avenue would be needed to support the development in the area, and to
provide access to the Posey and Webster Tubes. Staff examined how to place it to provide access
to the adjacent properties by minimizing impact to existing and historical buildings. Staff took
into the consideration that the alignment be routed where the current sanitary sewer line as well.
He displayed slides to illustrate the proposed rerouting. He noted that instead of a left-turn lane,
staff suggested additional turn lanes into the driveway to access the property.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger regarding the travel lane, Staff Khan
explained that it was meant to establish a right-of-way. He added that this was not a final design,
but was a planning-level design. Commissioner Krueger was concerned about the width of the
street.
Open public hearing.
John Beery believed the biggest problem with the project was that it crossed private property,
and that the property must be purchased at some point. He added that in many instances, the City
wants to do things that are not supported by funding. He did not believe the design should begin
until the purpose of the design has been determined clearly. He noted that the properties would
be impacted, and suggested a use such as Rossmoor on the site. He noted that this project
wouldn't be completed for 22 years, and added that there must be practical considerations. He
did not believe the City should be negotiating with South Shore, but that they should listen to the
City's needs. If the City cannot get what is needed, then it should state that something is needed
from South Shore. He emphasized that this was a business, not a charity, and added that the City
was not a charity as well. He believed that time was being wasted, and noted that as a property
owner on the site, he would like to see alternatives for the road.
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, noted that they had serious concerns about the
alignment as shown and agreed with Mr. Beery's comment that it was too early to bring this item
forward. He was concerned that when a concept is put on paper, it becomes hard to change. The
Collaborative's specific concern was the section of the road that crosses Main Street into
Alameda Point, which cut off the corner of one of the housing units, and abuts the road up
against it. It would also dump the traffic onto Orion Street, a residential street where a lot of
children live. They had been told that alignment would not go there, but would go further up
Main Street. He was concerned that this has been reversed. They were also concerned about the
larger discussion about the redevelopment of Alameda Point, which would cause a significant
change in the layout of the land. He believed this conceptual alignment was premature, and
hoped that it would be withdrawn at this point. He would like it to be brought forward at a more
appropriate time, when the entitlements at Alameda Point have been completed.
Close public comment.
Commissioner Krueger requested that staff address where this alignment fits with Alameda Point
Transportation Commission
Page 17 of 19",TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
May 28, 2008
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier
Srikant Subramaniam
Neilson Tam
Members Absent:
Robb Ratto
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
April 23, 2008
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the April 23, 2008, meeting and
minutes as presented. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0.
Absent: Commissioner Ratto.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
a.
Multimodal Circulation Plan
Chair Knox White requested that the Multimodal Circulation Plan be removed from the agenda
since it no longer met.
Staff Khan noted that would be done.
1",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,2,"b.
Pedestrian Plan
Chair Knox White noted that the Pedestrian Plan Task Force had not met since the last meeting.
c.
Bicycle Plan Update Group
Staff Bergman noted that this group would meet June 16, 2008.
d.
Alameda Point Advisory Task Force
Chair Knox White noted that the meeting was to present a report from WRT Solomon regarding
the MTC Station Area Planning Grant. The first meeting was in March 2007, and they brought
forth a study that determined three development plans, one of which mimicked the PDC accepted
by City Council. They also looked at a scenario with higher density than the second plan, which
would zero out the net traffic gains from the second plan. He noted that report stated the higher
densities would lead to less traffic and more dependence on transit.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
There were none.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A.
Review and Approval of the Draft Pedestrian Plan.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and noted that there had been no changes since the last
presentation of this plan. He noted that it had been brought to the other Boards and Commissions,
and that it would be brought to City Council.
Staff Khan noted that the Pedestrian Plan would be brought to City Council for acceptance in
early July 2008, following the recommendations from the Transportation Commission and the
Planning Board. It would not be adopted by the City Council until the Transportation Master
Plan policies completed the CEQA process, which would be in the September/October
timeframe.
Staff Bergman noted that the report detailed the high-, medium- and low-priority projects, and
that the report would support future grant applications, as well as guide the Capital Improvement
Program in future years. The policies would be adopted as part of the Transportation Master
Plan, which would then be rolled into the General Plan.
Chair Knox White noted that there had been an issue about the maps, which showed a street and
pedestrian walkway, which went through somebody's house. Staff Khan noted that had been
corrected.
2",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,3,"Open public hearing.
Ms. Ani Dimusheva believed the Pedestrian Plan was a very impressive document. She had
noticed the phrase ""put more distance between the car and the pedestrian,"" particularly with
respect to bulbouts. She believed that bulbouts were necessary in some places in Alameda, but
she did not feel in danger when on the sidewalk. She did not believe that bulbouts improved her
safety when she crossed the street, but as a driver, she believed that bulbouts were distracting to
her and made things more difficult when turning. She believed that flashing crosswalks were a
distraction, and did not flash predictably when a pedestrian was in the crosswalk. She believed
that drivers responded to lights rather than people, and that the flashing lights took her attention
away from the pedestrians in the street. She believed at the Island/Doolittle intersection, the walk
from the east side of the golf course was pedestrian-unfriendly unless they jaywalked; a
pedestrian could not cross to the east without going down to Island. She believed that an
improvement was necessary there. She believed that the trails behind Bayview were beautiful
and should be left as is, and did not want them to be paved.
Close public hearing.
Chair Knox White noted that he had some concern about approving the Plan without the
Transportation Commission seeing the final version, that the document that would go to City
Council for approval had not yet been printed, and that the current document had an incorrect
map in it.
Staff Khan noted that the approval could be conditioned that the changes would be made.
Chair Knox White noted that some issues that trod the line between policy and design guidelines,
such as not putting up ""no-crossing"" signs at bus stops, such as on Atlantic Avenue. He believed
that was a policy, and should be in the policy document. He was surprised to find that the design
guidelines, originally intended as a companion document, would not be ready to go to City
Council at the same time. He noted that would be his preference, which showed buy-in from the
City's policy-makers.
Commissioner Krueger inquired about the Island/Doolittle intersection, and noted that there was
no sign stating ""no crossing,"" but that there was no crosswalk, and almost no sidewalk.
Staff Khan noted that the signal operations were an issue, and that there may be a conflict with
pedestrian crossing. He noted that intersection could be added to be addressed in the plan.
Commissioner Krueger suggested that a second category be created, where intersections simply
had no facilities, such as Island/Doolittle, where pedestrian facilities were not in place, rather
than pedestrian crossings being prohibited.
Chair Knox White noted that this plan was not the appropriate vehicle to pick and choose specific
actions, and that he would like to have a discussion about the valid use of the in-pavement lights.
3",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,4,"He believed they were flashy, and seemed as if they would work well; he noted that the current
body of work did not support that the $50-75,000 cost would do a proportionately better job than
a yellow pedestrian-caution sign in the middle of the street.
Staff Khan noted that staff would prepare a presentation by July to address lighted crosswalks as
part of the design guidelines. He understood that they were feasible and effective in some
locations, such as Walnut Creek or San Leandro, generally when visibility was good with no sun
glare issue, such as on Otis Drive. He suggested that the orientation of the street be considered
when evaluating locations for lighted crosswalks.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether any lower-cost interim solutions could be used for
lower priority projects, such as signage at Island and Doolittle. He suggested that a sign
identifying the last chance to cross the street before getting to the bridge. He added that such a
sign could be used near the Posey Tube, and that some sidewalks go to the Tube and that some
sidewalks dead-end.
Staff Khan believed that was a very good suggestion, and that this could be implemented as part
of the City's existing maintenance budget.
Commissioner Krueger shared Chair Knox White's concern about approving a document unseen,
but trusted that staff would make the appropriate changes as requested.
Chair Knox White noted that his comment only regarded the map, which staff stated had been
corrected, and that nothing else in the document had been changed.
Staff Khan noted that there were other changes, such as placement of punctuation, but that there
were no substantive changes.
Commissioner Krueger moved to approve the Draft Pedestrian Plan. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded the motion.
Chair Knox White requested that Commissioner Krueger amend his motion to state that staff
should look at the Island/Doolittle intersection. He noted that it would be hard to fund
everything.
Commissioner Krueger suggested that it be tied into the crosswalk lights, and he shared the same
concerns about the cost-effectiveness of those lights. He shared the concerns about the crosswalk
lights and the associated costs.
Commissioner Krueger amended his motion to approve the draft Pedestrian Plan, but with the
additional recommendation that the cost-effectiveness of the crossing lights be examined, and
to objectively confirm the prioritization of the Island/Doolittle intersection from the standpoint
of closing a gap in the pedestrian network, and whether funding could be shifted to accomplish
that. Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the amendment was acceptable to him, and seconded
the amended motion. Motion passed 6-0. Absent: Commissioner Ratto.
4",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,5,"Chair Knox White noted that he would entertain a motion asking that the design guidelines be
sent to City Council.
Commissioner Krueger moved to direct that the design guidelines be sent to City Council after
presentation before the Transportation Commission. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the
motion. Motion passed 6-0. Absent: Commissioner Ratto.
Staff Bergman noted that the estimated cost of crosswalk lights of $50-75,000 were generally
correct, and wished to clarify that those projects had been funded by grants. City funds
comprised between 10-20% of those funds.
Chair Knox White inquired whether that grant money could be used for other projects. Staff
Bergman replied that the funding depended on the priorities of the funding agencies, and how
they ranked various projects.
Staff Khan noted that was a good point, and that in this case, the lighted crosswalks came from
Safe Routes to School funding, and that the funding contained that restriction. He added that
further discussion could take place in July.
6B.
Review of Multimodal Evaluation Methods to Determine a Project's Potential
Impact on Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Modes.
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and noted that there must be an EIR document to identify
the impacts and clearly disclose them to the public. He noted that one of the existing significance
criteria was the Level of Service D for vehicles at an intersection, which translates to an average
delay of 35-55 seconds. Staff had worked with the City Attorney's office and Planning
Department staff, and have gotten feedback from them to ensure the report is complete in
developing the criteria. He noted that this information would be used to create quantitative
methods to evaluate impacts for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit. He described the various
methodologies used in the report, particularly in determining future conditions on Webster
Street, Park Street and Central Avenue.
Staff Khan noted that staff was struggling with how to resolve conflicts, particularly between
modes. He noted that in addressing transit impacts, they could add a queue jump lane at an
intersection to improve transit service, but at the same time, that would mean the pedestrian
crossing time and pedestrian delay would be impacted. He noted that they must choose between
two modes for the higher priority. He noted that the City Council has the option not to mitigate
significant impacts, if they approve a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and that an EIR
must be in place to be able to make that decision. He noted that depending on how significant
impacts are defined, even small changes such as striping a bike lane could require a full-blown
EIR, which could be very expensive for the City.
Staff hoped that when the street functional classification system was examined as recommended
by the Transportation Commission, that classification system could guide the City in resolving
some conflicts. Staff hoped to identify the streets by a specific mode and their priorities. He
noted that some districts faced similar challenges, such as the commercial districts of Park Street
5",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,6,"and Webster Street, where pedestrians were a high priority. Staff requested the Transportation
Commission's input in how to resolve these conflicts, as well as continuing the dialogue with the
City Attorney's office and the Planning Department to ensure no avenues were missed. Staff
suggested that the City move forward with the policy in the Transportation Master Plan, but
continue with the criteria development on a slower timeline to allow for additional feedback
from the public and the development community.
Staff Khan noted that the third approach could be a network approach, which had been used in the
environmental community for wetlands. In that case, the impact to one location could be mitigated
by similarly improving another location. Staff considered that kind of mitigation, by considering
bicycle, pedestrian or transit as a network. If impacts occurred at one location, staff would consider
going beyond a certain distance to fix a problem in the network. Staff asked the Transportation
Commission to extend the timeline for adoption of these criteria by nine to twelve months. Staff
requested feedback on the proposed threshold of LOS D for pedestrians, as well as any suggestion
of preference on those issues, as well as how to resolve conflicts based upon the three listed
methods.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired how LOS for transit was different than LOS for vehicles.
Staff Khan explained that the vehicle LOS looks at the whole intersection and all approaches, and
that transit LOS looked at the impact on legs with transit. He noted that transit signal priority on
some locations would be examined.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier whether delays caused by passengers
were taken into account, Staff Khan replied that only delays caused by vehicles were examined.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding corridor LOS for vehicles, Staff Khan
replied they were looking into it, and that the intersection may be improved, but the corridor
LOS would go down.
Commissioner Krueger noted that Table 13 had a typo, and should read ""optimized."" He added
that Table 14 should read ""mitigated."" He inquired why the mitigated plan numbers for the 2030
TMP for southbound Buena Vista and Lincoln were higher than the number for the 2030
optimized plan. Staff Khan replied that the TMP policy was meant to reduce the classification for
Buena Vista by shifting traffic onto other streets.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the model accounted for crossing
two legs of an intersection, such as Encinal and Park, Staff Khan replied that he would check
with Dowling and return with that information.
Open public hearing.
Jay Davis suggested the use of diagonal crosswalks (scramble phase) for streets like Park or
Webster Street.
6",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,7,"Close public hearing.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger, Staff Khan noted that the Planning Board
wanted to be sure this was as easy and consistent as possible. The possibility of using headways
to define major transit corridors was an option, as opposed to the previously discussed option
based on having three bus lines in that corridor.
Commissioner Krueger believed that the number of routes was not as important than the number
of buses traveling the routes. He believed that headway was better than number of lines.
Commissioner Schatmeier believed that transit delays were caused by a number of factors, and
that speed was caused by a number of factors.
Chair Knox White believed that the reason to separate the two was to put in queue jump lanes for
the buses to jump around the congestion, and mitigate the LOS for transit without mitigating the
LOS for the cars. He did not believe it made sense to put something together to mitigate all the
congestion at Atlantic and Webster by adding a couple of lanes, when all the traffic moved
quickly to the Tube, only to sit in traffic at that point. He acknowledged that there was no perfect
system, and suggested that the Commission may not need to factor in stops.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he still struggled with the LOS definition, and what it got
the City. He agreed that defining LOS for corridors or intersections was a method for defining
traffic problems. He noted that transit delay and transit speeds were determined by many factors,
and inquired whether it would identify traffic impacts from a particular development.
Staff Khan confirmed that was correct, and noted that they came from the policies that the
Transportation Commission recommended last year. He noted that they attempted to address
degraded travel time on a corridor, which would impact the transit. He noted that this addressed
relative change. He noted that the City could examine the intersections on the corridors, or make
some of the transit stops more efficient, and that there were many ways to improve service
delivery of transit.
Staff Bergman noted that as part of the work done by Florida DOT in developing their bicycle
LOS and pedestrian LOS, they also did a transit LOS, which was very data-intensive and
complex. Staff noted that they attempted to strike a balance in something that the development
community could use without going through the very labor intensive exercise that would put a
burden on the City to analyze, and would be difficult for the public to understand. Staff wished
to show an impact in a way that was easy to quantify.
Chair Knox White noted that he especially liked the real-world analysis that shows what
pedestrian LOS A, B, C and D look like. He was concerned that LOS D might be too optimistic,
and thought that B might be too stringent. He suggested that LOS C might be a level to look at;
he noted that most of the intersections operating in the business districts operate at LOS B. He
appreciated the Central Avenue bike lanes from Pearl to Oak, shown as operating at LOS B. He
7",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,8,"noted that Webster and Park were examples of streets that he would not ride with his children,
but did not believe that Webster and Park must come up to LOS B. He suggested looking at two
different LOS ratings: one for regional arterial streets, and one for the rest of the streets.
Commissioner Krueger echoed Chair Knox White's comments, and understood the desire to have
the consistency, one reason why LOS D was proposed for all modes. Rather than change the
methodologies, he suggested considering a different significance threshold for bicyclists and for
pedestrians. He noted that pedestrians were much more delay-sensitive than drivers, given that
they were exposed to the elements.
Process for Resolving Conflicts between Modes
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether Chair Knox White was suggesting
that instead of headways and number of routes, that the City should look at street classifications,
Chair Knox White confirmed that was the case.
Chair Knox White inquired whether there was a plan in place to ensure this would be completed
within nine to twelve months.
Staff Khan noted that three departments were working on this issue, and that the City Attorney's
office and the Planning Department must be satisfied. He noted that meetings had taken place
among these departments, and they had determined that nine to twelve months was a reasonable
time to go back to the public on this issue and discuss it with the development community. Their
intention was to complete this is nine months, not to put it off for nine months.
A discussion of the street classification system and its goals ensued.
Chair Knox White did not see the network approach as a mitigation of the problems. He
suggested returning in June, and that this should be done as part of the EIR. He believed this
specific issue of how the functional classification maps interacted with each other should go
forward with the final EIR for adoption by the City Council. He suggested that in June, that the
Commission return with several scenarios to be prioritized, with the goals of simplicity and
being easy to understand.
Staff Khan noted that they had discussed how to create a system that did not require discretionary
approval for each mitigation. The development community wanted to know what to expect with
respect to levels of service and kinds of mitigations to expect before coming into a city.
Chair Knox White understood that the concerns were less for very large projects, which would do
an EIR anyway; the concerns generally surrounded the much smaller projects.
Commissioner Krueger shared the concern about the network approach, and believed that was his
least favorite option. He believed that the pedestrian, bicycle, transit and car environments were
not so much like wetlands, and that doing a mitigation in another location was not sufficient or
effective. He noted that they ran the risk of making one intersection completely impassable for
8",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,9,"bikes, and building a beautiful bike path on the other end of town. He noted that he could see
positives and negatives with the functional classification and the protected intersection methods.
He believed the functional classification might be the most practical choice.
Chair Knox White inquired whether the Transportation Commission would be comfortable with
moving forward using the street functional classification, and whether staff would be
comfortable as well.
Staff Khan noted that the administrative draft of the schedule would be delivered on June 4,
2008, as promised by Dowling. The delay was due to staff's request to include some of the
intersections in Alameda Point that were not included in the regional network. Staff intended to
have the administrative draft reviewed, and the draft EIR would be available in July, in
preparation to going to City Council in October.
Chair Knox White noted that August would be a difficult month due to vacations, and requested
that the EIR be released for longer than 40 days. He requested that it be presented after the
August meeting. He requested that something be brought back in June. He requested that the
maps be explained very clearly in the document.
Staff Khan noted that he would talk with the Planning Department and the City Attorney's office
to make sure they would be on board with the prioritization. He noted that the policy would be
adopted which stated it was a City policy, but the remainder would be held off until the criteria
for the nine to twelve month schedule came in. He will talk with the Planning Department and
report back in June.
Chair Knox White expressed concern that with the number of meetings left, that the discussions
may be rushed. He believed that a discussion of the preliminary draft in June would be valuable.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether it would be possible to implement a hybrid approach.
He noted that there were some aspects of the protected intersection idea that that he liked, and
that he believed they were consistent with the City's stated policy regarding certain intersections
where congestion was inevitable. He noted that approach addressed the concern staff expressed
about developers wanting to know how they mitigated.
Chair Knox White believed that was another layer of confusion in dealing with corridors, when
one used the street functional classification, and another was a protected intersection.
Staff Khan noted that staff would examine that idea.
No action was taken.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
9",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,10,"7A.
Webster Street Intelligent System/Smart Corridors Project
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and detailed the background and issues of this matter. Staff
had been working with Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, AC Transit and the
City of Oakland. The City will get some funding from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air,
from the air district, and the funding will be distributed by the congestion management agency.
He noted that staff was working with AC Transit, and understood that the San Pablo corridor had
seen substantial benefit of having the signal priority implemented along the corridor. The signal
would detect the bus up to a certain distance, and depending upon the speed and where the bus
was, it would extend the green time depending upon the operation at that signal. In addition to
benefiting transit riders, it could reduce the overall delay at that intersection for other vehicles.
Staff Khan noted that the second element of the project was the signal coordination along the
Webster Street corridor. He noted that was taken into account in giving the City funding. He
noted that the third element was to provide better monitoring at intersections and at key
locations, and also to have better data collection for vehicle speed and volume along the corridor.
He noted that the advantage of having the cameras monitoring information available is that it
could be available via internet to travelers, such as www.511.org or the Smart Corridors website.
That would also help staff address the concerns of the Webster and Posey Tubes, at the points
where backed up traffic would also impact other crossings in the City. He noted that was also a
safety concern for the City to have better incident management.
Staff Khan noted that the fourth element was to provide this information openly to the public as
he described, and that it would give staff the opportunity to make changes as a result of
monitoring intersections in real-time. Staff would be able to see such things as lane utilization
and saturation flow rates. He noted that Webster Street was a key fire department access route to
the medical center in Oakland. He noted that federal earmark money will be available through
CMA for this project as well. He anticipated that ground will be broken in July 2008.
Chair Knox White noted that bike and pedestrian funding generally came out of grants, as
opposed to stable funding, and inquired whether this funding was considered a grant as well.
Staff Khan replied that it was a grant, based on the population calculation.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether there would be money for
installation of displays at bus stops, Staff Khan confirmed that there would be funds for displays.
Chair Knox White inquired what the City would be getting for $800,000 that could be spent
elsewhere.
Staff Khan replied that incident management was critical for the Tubes, and that the Police
Department has stated that in the last 10 years, over 4,000 calls had been received related to
incidents in the Tubes. He noted that from the time saved in clearing an incident, there would be
10",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,11,"a $6 million savings in increased improvement in productivity costs, and making sure that people
get to where they were going. Staff wished to provide better information to travelers, and was
very concerned to ensure that motorists were informed before getting in their cars and could
choose an alternate route. He noted that this was an unfunded project in CIP.
Commissioner Schatmeier hoped that the 51 Line would be a candidate for bus rapid transit
throughout its length. If the City had this signal treatment on Webster Street, it might prove itself
to be a positive thing.
Chair Knox White believed that Caltrans should provide the funds to maintain their own roads,
such as the tubes. Staff Khan believed that Caltrans may provide some money for this project as
well.
No action was taken.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Broadway/Jackson Update
Staff Khan noted that staff planned to have a presentation made by Dowling and Kimley-Horn at
the June 25 Transportation Commission meeting. They will present the results of the models they
developed. He noted that the option allowing for a left turn coming out of the Posey Tube is
gaining support, and one potential obstacle is that a proposal has been submitted for a
development project in that area.
Estuary Crossing/Feasibility Study
Staff Khan noted that a second set of public meetings had been held this month. The public has
expressed a desire to see timely results. He requested Commission feedback.
Monitoring of Oak Street/Central Avenue intersection
City Council has directed staff to monitor this location based on concern about potentially
creating a de facto right turn lane on westbound Central Avenue at the intersection with Oak
Street. Staff is continuing to monitor this and will report back to the TC with the results of this
monitoring prior to reporting back to Council. A camera used to monitor the construction will be
reoriented toward the intersection, and staff will be conducting volume and turning movement
counts. Chair Knox White expressed an interest in having pedestrian right-of-way violations
monitored.
Future plans
Staff Khan noted that the Shipways project in Marina Village is expected to come forward for a
review shortly.
11",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-05-28,12,"WETA legislation update
Staff will report back once additional information is available. Chair Knox White expressed
concern that there would be no opportunity for people in Alameda to provide input until after
something had been approved.
Future meeting agenda items
Items for June include the Broadway/Jackson presentation, schedule for the LOS criteria, and an
appeal regarding the installation of street sweeping signs.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
12",TransportationCommission/2008-05-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-11-19,1,"Transportation Commission
January 28, 2015
Item 4A
Action
Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
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:
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Michele Bellows
Thomas G. Bertken
Michael Hans
Gregory Morgado
Eric Schatmeier
Staff Present:
Virendra Patel, Transportation Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Andrew Thomas, City Planner
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Staff Payne stated that the Bike Mobile was coming to the Main Library on November 22, 2014.
She also explained that the Clement Avenue Complete Street Workshop will be held on
Wednesday, January 21st and the next Transportation Commission will be held on Wednesday
January 28th She then introduced the newest police officer liaison Sergeant Ryan Derespini.
Sergeant Derespini introduced himself to the Commission.
Page 1 of 6",TransportationCommission/2014-11-19.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-11-19,2,"4.
Consent Calendar
4A.
Approve Meeting Minutes - July 30, 2014
Commissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the meeting minutes for July 30, 2014.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Bertken
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.
4B.
Approve Meeting Minutes - September 24, 2014
Commissioner Vargas called for a motion to approve the meeting minutes for September 24,
2014.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Bertken
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.
5.
New Business
5A. Review Alameda New Development and Potential Transit Opportunities (Andrew
Thomas, Community Development and Becca Homa, AC Transit)
Staff Payne introduced Andrew Thomas, Community Development and Becca Homa, AC
Transit.
Andrew Thomas and Becca Homa presented.
Commissioner Bertken asked Becca Homa if the proposed routes mentioned would serve the
ferry and others would serve the school during peak hours.
Becca Homa replied that the routes would be for both school and ferry connections.
Commissioner Miley asked Becca Homa about the cost constraints prior to Measure BB and
since the measure passed, would routes or headways increase.
Becca Homa stated that the current plan was ambitious and AC Transit would not be able to
cover the operating expenses without developer contributions.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Doug Biggs, Executive Director of Alameda Point Collaborative, stated that AC Transit has
spoken with the group and he felt that AC Transit proposed a service enhancement, but proposed
a degradation of service to residents who live in Alameda Point. He said his organization fought
hard to get Line 31 out to Alameda Point and as a result, people were able to access jobs,
appointments and improve their quality of life. He also pointed out that the transfer fee was a
revenue enhancement program for AC Transit and his organization strongly opposed the change.
Moreover, he heard discussions about transit passes becoming available to low income and
Page 2 of 6",TransportationCommission/2014-11-19.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-11-19,3,"senior residents, but he wanted to see that happen before routes become discontinued.
Staff Payne stated that staff agreed with the transfer issue and although a number of points within
the proposal were great, the transfer round trip is expensive and time consuming. She said that
she spoke with Alameda County Transportation Commission to look at paratransit monies that
could be passed through their scholarship program as a way to partially cover a subsidized transit
pass for Alameda Point Collaborative participants. She will speak with her counterparts at the
Mastick Senior Center about potential pilot programs.
Kevin Connolly, Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) Manager of Planning and
Development, thanked staff at AC Transit for addressing the City's needs. He said that WETA's
service last year has doubled during the peak hours and three years ago the organization saw a 38
percent increase in ridership. He said they are optimistic about growth and the proposed line that
travels to the ferry terminal would be a great benefit. He mentioned that as a father of a middle
school student, increasing service reliability will help kids who travel from the east end and west
end of the island.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he was excited to evaluate the lines and service expected in the
City. AC Transit also had a community workshop in the City and that it was gratifying to see
improved transit expected in the future. He felt the Commission should establish priorities for
deployment of services that are important to stakeholders. He also was concerned about the
transfer issue that was raised.
Commissioner Miley replied that Kevin Connolly mentioned students and student transit passes
was an important point because the City encouraged students to use public transit, so the
transportation system must be reliable. He echoed Commission Schatmeier's comments and he
would like to see more data about trip origin, destinations and the costs associated with the
services. As he reviewed the proposed lines, the Magenta line seemed a bit long to him.
Regarding Andrew Thomas' comments about development, Commissioner Miley stated that it
was a must to plan and encourage transit ridership. He was happy to see AC Transit engaged
with the community, but he wondered how the city of Oakland fit into the plan. He wanted to
know if Oakland was invited to the table as it relates to the changes. He pointed out in the staff
report that Jack London Square and Lake Merritt BART will see substantial development that
will impact Alameda's network and reliability. There needs to be a reliable way on/off the
island.
Commissioner Bertken asked Andrew Thomas about congestion concerns and he referred to the
staff report regarding supplemental mitigated negative declaration for the Del Monte Project. He
then asked staff for the traffic numbers during peak hours generated from the project.
Andrew Thomas replied the proposed development would create 400 units at full build out, but
he does not have the traffic numbers on hand. The project has an aggressive transit plan and the
City hired independent consultant firm Nelson Nygaard to review the impact of the project. The
analysis was done and stated that they would reduce the trips by 34 percent because of the way
the project was designed.
Commissioner Bertken identified the area as the Northern Waterfront Priority Development Area
and he asked Andrew Thomas if they had to go through the CEQA process.
Page 3 of 6",TransportationCommission/2014-11-19.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-11-19,4,"Andrew Thomas replied that cities were asked by the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) to identify areas that development was anticipated over the next 20 years. ABAG
placed these developments in their plan and conducted their regional CEQA analysis. Regarding
traffic, he said the City was becoming an urban area and that was the future. Also, increased
traffic congestion stems from a boost in the economy and more people are working.
Commissioner Bertken said that there was a cumulative effect and wondered if that was taken
into consideration.
Commissioner Bellows replied that each development within each Priority Development Area
(PDA) has its own CEQA clearance and each project as they come up evaluates the cumulative
effects of the next project.
Andrew Thomas said they isolate the fair share contribution towards the cumulative impact.
However, there will always be more congestion as the population grows.
Commissioner Vargas referred to the staff report that described the development itself and he
asked staff if a line could be proposed near the Veterans Affairs (VA) Hospital.
Becca Homa replied that the VA Hospital will run a shuttle system to each VA facility, but AC
Transit will see if a route that travels near the hospital would fit. Regarding transfers, she said
they designed a network that works well. The day pass would be $5, which would be an increase
of $0.30 from the old fare. Also, AC Transit was looking at extending all the routes, but they
would have to analyze the operating costs. Additionally, she has a longer draft plan that
contained more data and costs, and she will provide that document to staff and the Commission.
She stated that AC Transit will be working on another planning effort - the Comprehensive
Operations Analysis - and that plan will go over how the transit system could be more reliable
and could increase ridership in the short term.
H.E. Christian Peeples, AC Transit Board Director at Large, said he led a contract on
Wednesday to improve the situation near the Fruitvale BART Station. He explained that the area
with the most traffic issues was at Fruitvale Avenue after 10th Street. To begin remedying the
issue, they bought part of the parking lot of the Guadalajara Restaurant and began concrete work
to reconfigure Fruitvale Avenue from14th to 10th Streets, which should clean up the issue.
Commissioner Bellows replied there was still a gap between Alameda at the turn to Home Depot
and 10th Street in Oakland and the gap contained a wide right-of-way from the bridge to 10th
Street.
H.E. Christian Peeples suggested that the Commission write a letter outlining their needs to
Oakland mayor-elect.
Commissioner Hans asked staff if there was a bus for the community learning schools.
Becca Homa, replied they have not added new service for these charter schools, but have
received requests. She said that the different bell times do not match up and that was part of the
reason for having a more robust transit network.
Page 4 of 6",TransportationCommission/2014-11-19.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-11-19,5,"Commissioner Vargas asked whether the two organizations Alameda Unified School District and
AC Transit have met to coordinate transit service.
Becca Homa said AC Transit has a Senior Transit Planner who frequently communicates and
manages the Supplement Transit Service for the schools and deals directly with each school's
principal.
Commissioner Vargas recognized Councilmember Tony Daysog who recently advocated for
performance measures to the Alameda Point development at the last City Council meeting.
Councilmember Tony Daysog said the idea was to make sure the language of traffic and
transportation issues was solidified. He explained that development is in the context of the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and mitigations that come out of the EIR. The
Transportation Demand Management Plan raised concerns because what if the plan does not
work the way it was intended to work. The idea is to have fail-safe language to deal with issues
that arise.
Commissioner Miley explained that an interagency liaison committee between AC Transit and
Alameda exists and he wondered if Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) was part of the
group.
Staff Payne replied that the AUSD representative is Commissioner Hans and she invited
Commissioner Hans and all Commissioners to attend the quarterly committee meetings.
Commissioner Schatmeier replied that a process should be established to express City transit
priorities and he brought up the idea of creating a subcommittee to tackle the priority list.
Commissioner Miley seconded that idea and he suggested that the subcommittee idea be put on
the next agenda.
Staff Payne explained to the Commission that they could take an action to form an ad hoc
committee at any time since there is a quorum.
Commissioner Vargas asked the Commission to submit an interest on sitting on the committee to
Staff Payne.
Page 5 of 6",TransportationCommission/2014-11-19.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-11-19,6,"5B. Review Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
(Gail Payne, Public Works)
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that within the staff report, construction began this summer on
Line 51 and continues but he has not seen construction take place within the City.
Staff Payne said construction was centered on bus stops improvements, meaning changing stops
from the near side to the far side. Also, the work involves extending the bus queue jump lane
along Webster Street south from Stargell Avenue to Atlantic Avenue.
6.
Staff Communications
A. Measure BB Passes - Transportation Sales Tax Increase Recap
B. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Point-to-Point Car Sharing Policy
2. Charter Bus Protocol
3. Update on Ferry Terminal Access (from Ad Hoc Committee)
4. Proposed I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation and Circulation
Improvements - Project Update
5. Bay Farm Traffic Calming
6. AC Transit's Alameda Service Plan
Staff Payne also brought up the idea of having a joint Transportation Commission and Planning
Board meeting on the fourth Wednesday in February with potential topics as follows:
Cross Alameda Trail
Clement Avenue Complete Street Plan
Central Avenue Complete Street Plan
Commissioner Vargas asked staff when the last joint Planning Board and Transportation
Commission meeting took place and would like the joint meeting to occur regularly.
Staff Payne replied the last meeting was over a year ago about Alameda Point.
Commissioner Miley replied that it would be a good idea, but he asked that staff speak with the
two Chairs to set the agenda.
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Commissioner Vargas said he attended a conference called Focus on the Future and the highlight
was Alameda County's passage of Measure BB. He felt other counties such as Stanislaus
County would like to pass a similar measure.
8.
Adjournment
8:20 pm
Page 6 of 6",TransportationCommission/2014-11-19.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-03-28,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2018
Chair Bellows convened the meeting at 7:01pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Bellows, Commissioners Vargas, Bertken, Soules. Commissioner Miley
arrived at 7:03pm. Commissioner Hans arrived before 7:22pm (during the presentation
for item 4-A.)
Absent: Commissioner Palmer
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Chair Bellows said they would table the consent calendar until the late commissioners
arrived.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
3A Special Joint Meeting with Transportation Commission and Planning Board: Monday,
April 9, 2018 at 7:00 p.m.
3B Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 7:00 p.m.
3C Upcoming Grant-Funded Bicycle Safety Education Classes:
https://bikeeastbay.org/alamedabikeed
3D Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) 2018 Schedule:
https://alamedaca.gov/emergency-info/cer
3E Earth Day - Washington Park - Saturday, April 21, 2018
3F Bike-to-Work Day - Thursday, May 10, 2018
3G Alameda Bike Festival & Rodeo - Saturday, May 12, 2018, 12:00-4:00 p.m. at Ruby
Bridges Elementary School
4. CONSENT CALENDAR ***heard after 5-C*
4A 2018-5379
Approve Meeting Minutes - November 15, 2017 (Action)
Commissioner Miley made a motion to approve the item. Commissioner Bertken
seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
4B 2018-5380
1",TransportationCommission/2018-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-03-28,2,"Approve Meeting Minutes - January 24, 2018 (Action)
Commissioner Vargas made a motion to approve the item. Commissioner Bertken
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Miley abstained.)
4C 2018-5031
Approve Support for Regional Measure 3 and Proposition 69 (Action)
Commissioner Miley made a motion to approve the item.
Chair Bellows said this measure is very important to Alameda.
Commissioner Soules seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
5. NEW BUSINESS
5A 2018-5382 *Taken ahead of Consent Calendar***
Recommend Approval to the City Council for the Continuation of the Dockless
Bike Share Program with Refinements and with a Single Bike Share Company
(Action)
Staff Member Wheeler gave a presentation. The staff report and presentation can be
found at:
 ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3428055&GUID=C8D63008
7029-431A-9BF1-D3E25F4A9A18&FullText=1
Commissioner Vargas asked whether the plan was to continue the pilot or move to
formal implementation.
Staff Member Wheeler said they are looking at implementation. She said the idea is to
continue with bikeshare in Alameda and do an RFP and decide who would be the longer
term provider.
Commissioner Soules suggested that we clearly lay out the City's data privacy concerns
in the RFP solicitation.
Commissioner Miley asked about the staff costs for the program.
Staff Member Wheeler said they believe that they have gone through one of the major
periods of devoting staff resources with the launch and monitoring of the pilot program.
She said that after they go through the RFP process and set the procedures, staff time
needed to monitor the program should be reduced.
Commissioner Hans apologized for arriving late and asked if the presentation addressed
children riding without helmets.
2",TransportationCommission/2018-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-03-28,3,"Staff Member Wheeler briefly reviewed the issue, listing their expectations that the
provider would continue to do helmet giveaways, education, app refinement, and making
clear that helmets are required.
Chair Bellows opened the public hearing.
Jim Strehlow said he has spoken against this. He said the 300 bikes are taking up lots of
space around town. He said he sees mis-parked bikes and youth riding without helmets
everywhere. He said people are treating the bikes poorly, creating blight. He said the
program discriminates against him because he does not have a smartphone. He said he
would like to use the program when his bike breaks down.
Denyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda, said that we need to encourage active
transportation for many reasons, including climate change. She said we need to
encourage people to not use cars. She said every street is lined with cars and a few
bikes do not compare. She said the health effects are beneficial and noted that this is
also a transportation equity issue.
Brian McGuire said the presentation makes clear that Alameda loves LimeBike. He said
he wished as many people complained about cars and discarded furniture blocking
sidewalks as they do about LimeBikes. He said we need to pair the program with
experimentation of new ways of increasing bicycle parking in the business districts. He
said we should also embrace electric bikes and scooters. He said forcing people to wear
helmets dramatically decreases ridership which reduces the ""safety in numbers"" effect.
Chair Bellows closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Miley said we should look at strategically opening up some parking
spaces for bike parking. He said he supports moving forward. He said a two year
contract might be too short, suggesting options for one year renewals be included.
Commissioner Vargas said he is glad there is an RFP. He said education on parking and
youth helmet usage are important. He suggested a performance bond be included in the
contract.
Chair Bellows asked about flip phone users and taking bikes out of Alameda.
Staff Member Wheeler said they have been encouraging LimeBike to allow cash-based
users.
A representative from LimeBike said they are pushing to develop a cash payment
system, with discounts for low income residents and a text to unlock feature for folks
without smartphones.
3",TransportationCommission/2018-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-03-28,4,"Staff Member Wheeler said the City does not worry too much about where the bikes go.
She said LimeBike is required to have 300 bikes in Alameda, which is what staff focuses
on, not how that happens.
Commissioner Soules asked staff to clarify responsibility for damage and maintenance
for the bikes.
Staff Member Wheeler said they have a no-cost agreement with LimeBike and the
company is responsible for dealing with damaged or misplaced bikes.
Commissioner Bertken asked what the elements of the RFP will be.
Staff Member Wheeler said they will ask for many specific details about the proposed
operations in the RFP. She said the experience of the provider will be an important
factor to consider in the RFP.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to approve the staff recommendation with the
additions that a performance bond and options for one year extensions be
considered. Commissioner Soules said she would second the motion if her
request to address data use and ownership is included in the RFP. Commissioner
Miley accepted the amendment. The motion passed 6-0.
5B 2018-5383
Recommend Approval to the City Council to Allow for the City to Engage With
Gig Car Share to Initiate a Point-to-Point Carshare Pilot Program (Action)
Staff Member Payne gave a presentation The staff report and attachments can be found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3428056&GUID=5015C817-
1EEE-478D-81CE-E4C4E87A0048&FullText=1
Commissioner Soules asked how the pricing would work.
Dermot from Gig Car Share said it is based on usage, either $2.50/mile, $15/hour, or
$85/day, whichever is cheapest.
Commissioner Miley asked about the restriction on Bay Farm.
Staff Member Payne said the restrictions would disallow usage on the entirety of Bay
Farm Island. She said they did confirm with the umbrella HOA that they did not want the
cars there.
Commissioner Miley said excluding Bay Farm would be limiting the opportunities for
pilot.
Staff Member Payne said they deferred to the HOA.
4",TransportationCommission/2018-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-03-28,5,"Commissioner Vargas said he wants the program on Bay Farm. He asked how the
parking meter issue is being addressed.
Staff Member Payne said that you could use a meter during your trip but you could not
end your trip there. She said the operator can geofence metered spaces to alert the user
to not end their trip there.
Dermot said he agreed with Commissioner Vargas that having consistent rules across
jurisdictions is beneficial for the program. He said they are interested in Bay Farm, but
are okay going slow at the moment.
Commissioner Soules suggested that commercial users in Bay Farm may desire and be
able to accommodate the service.
Commissioner Bellows opened the public hearing.
Pat Potter, CASA and Bike Walk Alameda, listed some of the benefits of car share found
in a UC Berkeley study.
Jim Strehlow said these cars will take up parking spaces from residents. He suggested
partnering with shopping centers or other businesses to park vehicles in spaces that are
available and not in people's neighborhoods.
Brian McGuire, Bike Walk Alameda, said the program is a no-brainer. He expressed
disappointment that we are instinctively excluding Bay Farm from the pilot. He said we
should recommend that City Council include Bay Farm in the pilot. He said this program
will help reduce car ownership and free up parking in the city.
Chair Bellows closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Miley said he supports including Bay Farm. He said public roads are for
everyone.
Staff Member Payne said she understands the desire to include Bay Farm. She said the
umbrella HOA covers about half of Bay Farm and is concerned about their parking
restrictions.
Staff Member Ott suggested that the commission include in their recommendation that
staff do some work on how to address Bay Farm for consideration by City Council.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to accept the staff recommendation and
include Bay Farm in the program while allowing staff to present options for City
Council to consider.
5",TransportationCommission/2018-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-03-28,6,"Commissioner Vargas suggested an amendment limiting the number of vehicles on Bay
Farm to seven.
Commissioner Miley said he would add a consideration to limit the amount of
vehicles on Bay Farm. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion
passed 6-0.
5C 2018-5384
Approve AC Transit's Transbay Tomorrow Cost Neutral Proposal for Alameda
(Action)
Staff Member Payne gave a brief report. The staff report and attachments can be found
at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3454838&GUID=DEE2E87F-
DBF-4651-8034-ACDB7242744D&FullText=1
Commissioner Bellows opened the public hearing.
Jim Strehlow said he is concerned about not allowing local riders at the local fare on the
O bus.
Commissioner Bellows closed the public hearing.
Staff Member Payne said the restrictions on local passengers would not affect Line O.
Linda Morris, AC Transit, said the OX and W would restrict local passengers.
Commissioner Vargas made a motion to approve the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Miley seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0.
6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
6A Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
1. Approve the Main Street Ferry Terminal Access Approach
2. Approve the AC Transit Line 96 Route Adjustment Proposal
3. 2014 Parking Occupancy Goal Update
4. Traffic Calming Draft Policy and Prioritized List
5. Approve Alameda Transportation Demand Management Annual Report
6. Housing / Transportation Workshop with Planning Board
7. Quarterly Report
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Commissioner Vargas said we need to defeat the repeal of SB1. He said we need to
support RM3 to help provide funds for projects that are good for Alameda.
6",TransportationCommission/2018-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-03-28,7,"Jim Strehlow asked if LimeBikes are easily identifiable in order to aid in reporting
problems.
Staff Member Wheeler said there are identifying numbers on each bike, but not visible
from far away.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bellows adjourned the meeting at 8:39pm.
7",TransportationCommission/2018-03-28.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-03-22,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 22, 2006
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
John Knox White
Eric Schatmeier
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Absent:
Robb Ratto
Pattianne Parker
Jeff Knoth
Staff Present:
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Knox White moved the approval of the February minutes to next meeting.
Commissioner Schatmeier had a question regarding the motion by Commissioner Knoth
about the required capacity on Atlantic Avenue.
Chair Knox White indicated that this could be clarified under item 6A on the agenda,
when the Northern Waterfront DEIR is discussed.
3. AGENDA CHANGES
None.
4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White mentioned that at the ILC meeting Councilmember Matarresse
asked AC Transit to come and address the TC on the 51 bus bunching issue. AC Transit will be
collecting data why it's happening at certain times and will try to bring that to the TC in May.
He also noted that representatives of the Alameda Point Collaborative spoke on behalf of Lifeline
funding to continue operations of the 63 bus service for Alameda Point.
Staff Hawkins added that the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has redirected the funding
that has been used for the Alameda Point service to certain Census tracts, so AC Transit is
Page 1 of 7",TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-03-22,2,"looking for another funding source to maintain this service on the 63. She indicated that to
ensure that this happens it will be helpful to make recommendations to the CMA.
Chair Knox White said that only two Census tracts identified are in southwest Berkeley and
Cherryland, so that in the first round the CMA will be accepting applications for other locations
as well.
Chair Knox White noted that the ILC also discussed concerns about buses using the High Street
Bridge. Residents are opposed to the noise from the buses using the bridge, while AC Transit is
concerned about the additional cost that would be incurred by redirecting them to less direct
routes. AC Transit has asked the City to identify how it would like the deadhead buses to be
dealt with. Councilmember Matarrese has indicated that he will ask the Council to direct this
issue to the TC for recommendations.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jean Sweeney commented on the plan to convert diagonal parking to parallel parking on Central
Ave. between Walnut and Oak. She stated that this will increase the difficulty in finding parking
at
the Veterans Building when there are evening functions, and that she has discussed this with a
number of people active in veterans activities who have expressed this concern. While there is a
lot in the back of the building, the Recreation and Parks Dept. keep their vehicles there. Ms.
Sweeney also stated that it would be helpful to have more than one handicapped space in front of
the building, as it is difficult for some people to walk a long distance to the building. She asked
the Commission for its assistance with this situation.
Bill Smith suggested the development of an ""eco-destination resort"" at Alameda Landing to
minimize the number of vehicles that would use the site.
6A. Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR)
Chair Knox White stated that the purpose of having this item on the agenda was to review the
TC's original recommendations for the Northern Waterfront GPA, as well as to review the
recommendations made regarding the DEIR at the March meeting.
Public Comment
Jean asked if the TC was proposing to extend any streets through the Beltline property.
Chair Knox White had said that the TC was not proposing the construction of any streets.
Close Public Comment
Commissioner Kruger moved to adopt a clarification regarding item 1, so that the
recommendation would read: ""Establish a Northern Waterfront District Transit District or
Page 2 of 7",TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-03-22,3,"amend the Citywide Development Fee Ordinance to fund expanded Northern Waterfront transit
services in corridors through and between the Northern Waterfront and the high ridership
generators inside and outside the City such as Oakland BART stations, airport, transit hubs,
etc."" Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed passed unanimously, 4-0.
Chair Knox White noted that the TC had recommended deleting the following policies:
10.6.j - Prohibit extension of north/south residential streets through the Alameda Beltline
railyard site.
PS-3 - Provide primary access to this site shall be from Sherman Street.
Chair Knox White suggested clarification of the deletion of 10.6.j to indicate that the TC does not
want to advocate for extending streets through the former Belt Line railyard, but to indicate that
the intention is to not have high-capacity through streets through the site. He suggested that the
GPA's recommended prohibition on extending the streets be deleted in case a new land use
scenario emerges for the site.
Commissioner Krueger emphasized that in support of the General Plan, the TC doesn't want to
increase through traffic capacity. He stated that his primary concern is connectivity.
Several suggestions were made regarding clarifying language but no motions were passed.
Chair Knox White suggested leaving the recommendation to delete the policy.
Commissioner Krueger moved to correct Item 5 to read: ""Facilitate use of Clement Street as a
major east west corridor through the City and to remove traffic volume from other east west
streets such as Buena Vista and Lincoln by prioritizing efforts to extend Clement from
Sherman Street to Tilden. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed unanimously,
4-0.
The Commission then discussed the DEIR recommendations approved at the March 22 TC
meeting. Chair Knox White stated that regarding the recommendations for the DEIR, he wanted
to be careful to focus on clarifications of what was approved at the previous meeting, since the
current meeting had only four members in attendance.
Chair Knox White moved that that the previously approved motion 1 regarding the EIR report be
clarified as follows: With the EIR's proposal to convert Atlantic to four lanes, the TC feels that
the recommendation is not consistent with General Plan policy 4.1.c of the City's General Plan,
""Do not increase through-traffic capacity on the Main Island."" Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
Chair Knox White said that regarding the proposed extension of Clement, the issue is the turning
radius from Park onto Clement and its impact on truck traffic. The City would need to take two
houses and a funeral home, and the feasibility of this is unknown. Therefore, it's not a fixable
solution. The TC wanted to highlight the ability to mitigate this. He stated that the Council may
want staff to look at other truck route options to make avoid this problem.
Page 3 of 7",TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-03-22,4,"Staff Hawkins said that the proposed extension would not take the funeral home but only a
couple of parking spaces. In addition, she said that there is a level of service issue at Clement
and Park, so there would need to be a capacity enhancement to address this.
Commissioner McFarland stated that his understanding is that the capacity issues are the primary
concern, not the truck route.
Chair Knox White suggested removing the previously recommended language that Council
should direct staff and just say that the TC recommends that the City Council prioritize the
connection of Clement to Tilden. He noted that the intention of the recommendation is to help
ensure the City make a commitment to this project while reviewing the impacts discussed in the
EIR.
Staff Hawkins said that when it goes to project level EIR, if it's not feasible that it would impact
the development of a specific project. Therefore the feasibility of the proposed extension would
be discussed as part of a project level EIR.
Chair Knox White said that he wanted to respect the wishes of Commissioner Parker, as she
raised this issue and was not in attendance, and recommended keeping this recommendation as
is.
Chair Knox White asked about the tube capacity, which Commissioner McFarland had raised at
the March meeting.
Staff Bergman said that the handouts discussed the assumptions, as well as indicating the hour by
hour traffic counts in the year 2000.
Chair Knox White asked if the calculated capacity takes into account the fact that there are stop
lights on either end of the tube or just assumes free flow and go on forever.
Staff Bergman said that he had talked to Virendra Patel on that and said that the signal on the
Oakland side has a very short cycle as well as a free right turn, so there is not much impact on
the capacity of the Posey Tube. He noted that on the Webster tube there is a pretty long distance
between the exit from the tube and the traffic signals. There is also a split at Constitution,
providing additional lanes and capacity.
Commissioner Schatmeier said that he was confused about the traffic volume and trip generation.
The supporting material chart shows trips and vehicle capacity in the tubes but that it doesn't
necessarily correlate to trip generation. He asked if the materials could be clarified to indicate
where we are talking about person trips and where we are talking about vehicle trips.
Commissioner Krueger agreed, stating that the focus should be on maximizing mobility for
people, not just vehicles.
Commissioner Krueger suggested adding a clarifying statement to be submitted along with the
TC's recommendation about policies to be deleted, which was discussed earlier.
Page 4 of 7",TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-03-22,5,"Commissioner Krueger moved to include the following explanatory text to accompany the
TC's recommendation to delete policies 10.6.j and PS-3 from the GPA: ""These two policies
prohibit full use and/or any future extension of the Alameda grid system. Depending on the
future outcome of the ballot initiatives for the Alameda Beltline property or the future
development plans for the Pacific Storage property, extension of the grid may not be necessary
or desirable. However, until the future uses are established for these two sites, the General
Plan should not prohibit any future consideration of access to the Pacific Storage or the
Beltline site from the north-south streets in the grid."" Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the
motion. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
Chair Knox White asked to discuss the right of way for the proposed rail transit, and referred to
the cross-section drawings from the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study.
Staff Hawkins stated that staff looked at the constraints of the roadway system on both sides and
looking at both the existing Clement and connecting into Atlantic. This included a look at
potential cross-sections from Main to Tilden to see how the different modes of transportation
could be accommodated. This also included the geometrics of a road that would be constructed
between Sherman and Clement, so even though this is a preliminary proposal, it is based on
pretty refined measurements.
Staff Hawkins said that the original light rail study did not get to the refined level that was done
in the trail feasibility study. She noted that San Francisco is currently using a rail system that has
shared turning lanes with vehicles but doesn't have shared through lanes.
Commissioner McFarland said that it is possible to get 15 minute headways for a rail service
even if there is a mile of single tracking.
Commissioner Krueger questioned whether Clement is the best right-of-way for a potential rail
corridor.
Commissioner McFarland also noted that space would be required for stations. He suggested
that if rail were implemented in this corridor, it should probably be operated in the street, shared
with vehicle traffic.
Chair Knox White said that the TC has a concern that the right of way that is being discussed in
this plan could have operational issues. He suggested that another route for the rail might have
to be considered. Commissioner Krueger agreed.
Staff Hawkins said that it is difficult to protect right-of-way because of the various competing
needs for things such as development, transportation, parking, and shoreline access. She noted
that there is a pinch point between the developer's property and a retaining wall near the water
by the Encinal Terminals site. It is difficult to determine how much space should be set aside
without knowing the operational demands, and it could be costly. She stated that additional
analysis would be needed to provide some of this information.
Page 5 of 7",TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-03-22,6,"Commissioner McFarland stated that the TC shouldn't preclude the possibility of having the
system run in the street as opposed to an exclusive right-of-way, as this may actually be more
appropriate.
Chair Knox White moved that the City, when accepting the General Plan Amendment, needs to
be aware the transit right away that is referred to is a single track shared right of way with turn
lanes and automobile traffic. The Transportation Commission is concerned that the amount of
single track right of way from the Fruitvale Bridge to Sherman could possibly limit effective
transit operations. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously, 4-0.
Chair Knox White asked about the ""scattered residential properties"" referred to in the report.
Staff Hawkins pointed them out on the map for clarification.
7A.
Pedestrian Plan
Chair Knox White asked what the timeline was and that maybe at the next TC meeting discuss
them.
Staff Bergman said that the Task Force meeting was held last week and overall structure was
confusing to some people. The relationship between the Pedestrian and Circulation polices were
confusing as to what the stand-alone Pedestrian plan document was going to look like. Maybe
get feedback from the TC as to how to put the two together.
Chair Knox White asked said that should talk more on the structure at the next months TC
meeting as to how to put the policies together.
Staff Bergman said that 4 basic goals were established as part of the Circulation Plan with
objectives and polices underneath those. The question is what would a stand-alone Pedestrian
Plan include. He distributed a copy of the policies previously approved by the TC which
indicated policies most relevant to the Pedestrian Plan.
Staff Hawkins said that the Task Force should not be relied on to develop the policy language but
to provide feedback and endorse the final product.
Chair Knox White said that after the next meeting their recommendations will go to the boards
and commissions for approval and comments.
Staff Bergman said that it maybe May or June to bring the project before the TC committee.
8. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Page 6 of 7",TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-03-22,7,"Staff Bergman explained that the bus shelter survey was extended a little longer than originally
proposed and that about 250 responses were received. The consultant will be wrapping it up
sometime next week and then will get an analysis on it to present at the next meeting.
Staff Bergman noted that the Request for Qualifications did receive some proposals in the
process of evaluating them and then will have a work scope put together to complete the
Circulation Plan.
Staff Bergman stated that the Alameda Landing project was originally going to be presented to a
joint meeting of the TC and Economic Development Commission, but these will instead be
handled separately. The TC will likely have the opportunity to discuss this project in April.
Staff Hawkins noted that the proposed CIP is posted on the City's web site. She noted that this
includes proposed projects, deferred projects, and project descriptions. She noted that the TC
recommendations are not included, because CIP was broken up into annual projects and capital
projects. Annual projects, such as feasibility studies, will not show up in the CIP.
Commissioner Krueger asked about the bus stop/red curbs inventory. Staff Hawkins said Public
Works is very short-staffed, but that Barry Bergman and Greg Stoia have developed a data sheet
for the inventory and this effort will be moving forward.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
i:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2006/0406/32206 tc min-FINAL. doc
Page 7 of 7",TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-08-22,1,"DRAFT TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
August 22, 2007
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robb Ratto
Robert McFarland
Absent:
Eric Schatmeier
Srikant Subramanium
Neilson Tam
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
3.
APPROVAL OF JULY 25, 2007 MINUTES
Commissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the July 25, 2007, meeting minutes.
Commissioner Ratto seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Krueger advised that the Line 63 subcommittee met, and went over the short-
medium- and long-term options for the line. City staff and AC Transit would follow up on some
of the details, with a full explanation of the alternatives and how they were narrowed down. That
report would be brought forward in September.
Chair Knox White attended the previous City Council meeting, and the item regarding the
changes to the Alameda Municipal Code was continued. The actual language changes of the
Code would probably be brought before the Transportation Commission in September.
Commissioner Krueger inquired why the item was continued. Chair Knox White believed the
City Manager wanted the Transportation Commission to look at the specific language in the
proposed changes before it went to the City Council.
Transportation Commission
Page 1 of 6
August 22, 2007",TransportationCommission/2007-08-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-08-22,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Project Update: I-880 Operational and Safety Improvements at 29th Avenue and
23rd Avenue
Staff Khan presented the staff report, and noted that the Alameda County Transportation
Improvement Authority (ACTIA) and the project consultant (Kimley-Horn) were present in the
audience.
Matt Todd, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, made a presentation and
summarized the background and scope of this program. He detailed the funding sources and
plans for this program for the Park Street Triangle. He noted that they would detail the life of the
project and the project study report.
Garrett Wright, RBF Engineering, detailed the CalTrans development process and the actions
that would be taken in Phases I, II and III. He noted that the team was transitioning from Phase I
to II, and would embark upon more in-depth environment technical and engineering studies. He
noted that the purpose of the project was mobility on I-880. He added that there was
identification of a bottleneck in the northbound direction, and that there were many accidents in
the area; he added that there were geometric constraints. The project's basis was to examine
those existing conditions; he added that there was non-standard interchange spacing, particularly
at 29th and 23rd He noted that two structures at 23rd and one at 29th did not meet current CalTrans
design standards for vertical clearance. The structure at 23rd has been hit three times in the last
three years by oversized vehicles. He displayed the map of the area and described the specifics of
the traffic flows and challenges. He noted that there were many accidents in the area, occurring
at roughly seven times the statewide average for similar configurations; the majority were rear-
end accidents. The auxiliary lane by the Shell gas station near Lisbon Avenue is very short,
which does not allow much time or distance to accelerate in the fast-moving traffic. He noted
that part of the freeway was a horizontal curve, with very little distance to merge; this area had
an accident rate of 10 times the state average. He noted that they were roughly half sideswipes
and rear-end accidents.
Mr. Wright described the two on-ramps entering I-880 at 23rd Avenue, and noted that they were
relatively close to each other on a horizontal curve. The accident rate in this area was nine times
the statewide average. He noted that the three areas he described were their main targets for the
project. They intended to solve the merging problems, improve sight distance and the
entrance/exit to the freeway, which would increase the mobility of the main line. He noted that
the southbound direction had operational and safety problems, featuring a short auxiliary lane for
Transportation Commission
Page 2 of 6
August 22, 2007",TransportationCommission/2007-08-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-08-22,3,"entrance and exit. He noted that the project did not encompass that direction due to funding and
right of way complications. He noted that they would accommodate future widening that would
occur along the southbound lanes. He noted that each phase is capable of being constructed
independently of the other phases. Their goal was to construct all four phases at the same time,
however, with the funding constraints, subsets of the project will be constructed in a way that
would be complementary to the entire project.
Mr. Wright displayed and described each phase in detail.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether there was any current access to the Park Street Bridge
from northbound I-880 at 29th Mr. Wright indicated that there is no direct access. He displayed
the legal movement of cars in that direction, and noted some of the shortcuts that people used,
and noted that signage and striping attempted to stop the illegal turns.
Commissioner McFarland asked how many people exiting I-880 at 29th were using the Miller-
Sweeney (Fruitvale) Bridge. Mr. Wright replied that they did a license plate survey, logging all
of the people who exited from 29th, as well as those prior to getting onto the Fruitvale Bridge. He
noted that less than 10%, a total of 24 vehicles, was the maximum that made that movement
during the times that were studied.
Commissioner Ratto noted that he was concerned about anything that would push traffic to the
Park Street Bridge, which he believed is currently over utilized, and away from the Miller-
Sweeney Bridge, which he believed was the most underused entrance to Alameda. He liked the
plan and believed it was well-engineered, but did not like the ability to come off the off-ramp
and go onto the new structure, making the left-hand turn to go directly into Alameda via Park
Street.
Open public hearing.
Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that he rode his bike regularly from his home to Fruitvale
BART, and had done that many times over the 29th Street and Park Street Bridges. He inquired
whether either overpass will improve bicycle access on I-880 to and from Alameda and Oakland.
He believed it was ludicrous to embark on this amount of work without having real access for
pedestrians and bicyclists, and did not see any provisions for them in the updates. He was very
concerned for the congestion on the Park Street Bridge mentioned by Commissioner Ratto. He
believed the traffic should be directed more equitably and more directly at the same time into and
out of Alameda. He noted that since the Park Street Triangle was already at LOS ""F"". he
believed some of this would be prohibitive, and would like further clarification.
Mike McMahon noted that he was a West End resident who traveled on northbound I-880
frequently. He described his route to City Hall via I-880 to Broadway, and noted that he
generally got off the freeway as soon as he encountered traffic. He believed that an alternative on
29th Street would not increase frequency for him, and would appreciate an easier way to use High
Transportation Commission
Page 3 of 6
August 22, 2007",TransportationCommission/2007-08-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-08-22,4,"Street to Miller-Sweeney Bridge. With respect to Phase 4, he inquired how people going over
23rd Street passing east would be able to get into Oakland. He believed that getting off 23rd Street
was a scary scenario.
Close public hearing.
Commissioner Ratto expressed concern about cars exiting from 29th, and funneling toward the
Park Street Bridge into the Park Street Triangle, basically abandoning the Miller-Sweeney
Bridge from northbound I-880.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger regarding other access option from
northbound I-880 to Fruitvale, Mr. Wright replied that there were no current plans to increase
access on Fruitvale from northbound I-880.
Staff Khan noted that regarding Commissioner Ratto's concerns about the 23rd exit, this was part
of the concerns that staff was addressing with CMA, Oakland, ACTIA and CalTrans. He noted
that the changes in access to Alameda will be included as part of the traffic analysis.
Mr. Wright noted that of the people exiting the northbound ramp at 23rd, about 75% of them
continue in the eastbound direction, and 25% go westbound on 23rd He noted that the proposal
of the hook off-ramp was intended to accommodate easy access, and described the balance of
pros and cons of the hook ramp, versus the length of the auxiliary lane.
Commissioner Krueger inquired how much of the issues with respect to the capacity of the Park
Street Bridge access was due to congestion on Park Street itself, on the bridge, and in the
Triangle area. He believed the congestion was largely on the Oakland side. Mr. Wright noted
that the intersections sometimes operated at LOS ""F"" during the day, and that there was traffic
breakdown occurring, largely to do with traffic weaving on Ford from the bridge to 23rd, as well
as cars from 29th competing for the same piece of pavement.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether the freeway was at grade for this segment. Mr. Wright
replied that there were no underpasses. He noted that there would be bike lanes and sidewalks in
both directions on 29th. and described the pedestrian, bike and car access improvements for each
site, particularly children being brought to school in the Jingletown neighborhood.
Chair Knox White inquired about the public hearing process going forward, as well as what
environmental document would be created. Mr. Wright replied that it would be an EIR, and
noted that technical studies would be done, including noise, air and traffic. He noted that a public
hearing would be held for people to listen to a similar presentation as this, and for them to
provide their comments. Formal comments would then be accepted after that.
Chair Knox White requested that Phases 2, 3 and 4, as well as the 29th Street on-ramp, include a
public comment period before the Transportation Commission or some other entity in Alameda.
He inquired how the numbering of the phases would be related to the funding process. Mr. Todd
Transportation Commission
Page 4 of 6
August 22, 2007",TransportationCommission/2007-08-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-08-22,5,"noted that there was a ""down payment"" of $17 million, and that the allocation of the monies had
not yet been determined. He was unsure whether the money for Phase 1 would be available to
begin the work.
Mr. Todd noted that accidents were the cause of approximately 40-60% of most congestion, and
that they planned to ease the choke points to the West End and the Posey/Webster Tubes.
Chair Knox White believed that the phases should not be treated as a single project, and that
there should be coordination in the project, particularly regarding Phases 2 and 3.
Chair Knox White believed that this project would disrupt normal commute patterns into
Alameda, and noted that if the project is to move forward, he would like to see CMA make a
commitment to invest in improving access to the Mitchell-Sweeney Bridge.
Commissioner Ratto requested a copy of the presentation, and while he liked the project, he
wished to make his concern about the 29th Avenue ramp known.
No action was taken.
7B.
Election
of
Transportation
Commission
Chair
and
Vice
Chair
Outcome: Election of Chair and Vice Chair
Commissioner Ratto moved to nominate John Knox White as Chair of the Transportation
Commission. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner McFarland moved to nominate Robb Ratto as Vice-Chair of the Transportation
Commission. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Khan advised that the September meeting would have a very full agenda, and noted that the
Line 63 recommendation would be brought forward at that meeting. There will also be a
presentation about the annual Alameda Ferry transit plan. Staff expected the parking study to
come before the Commission. The cooperative agreement with AC Transit has moved forward,
and staff should be able to finalize their comments shortly.
Staff Khan proposed that a permanent item regarding the Broadway-Jackson project be created
under Staff Communications.
Staff Khan advised that the changes to the Alameda Municipal Code would be heard during the
September meeting.
Transportation Commission
Page 5 of 6
August 22,2007",TransportationCommission/2007-08-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-08-22,6,"Staff Bergman advised that on September 10, 2007, Supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker would hold a
presentation at the Alameda Library to address the Webster Street Tube lighting issue, from 7 to
9 PM.
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 PM.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC/2007/092607/082207minutes-draft.odt
Transportation Commission
Page 6 of 6
August 22,2007",TransportationCommission/2007-08-22.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-10-26,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 26, 2005
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 P.M.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
John Knox White
Eric Schatmeier
Robb Ratto
Pattianne Parker
Jeff Knoth (arrived at 7:45 P.M.)
Robert McFarland (arrived at 7:50 P.M.)
Absent:
Michael Krueger
Staff Present:
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works
Ernest Sanchez, Ferry Manager
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Knox White noted that at the September meeting the motion for approval of the July
minutes was made by Commissioner Parker and seconded by Commissioner Ratto. He also
stated that above ""staff communications"" there was a decision to table the discussion of the
proposed task force to address input into selected Oakland projects until the October meeting.
With these changes, the minutes were approved unanimously.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
Chair Knox White indicated that Item 7A, City of Alameda Ferry Program: Short Range Transit
Plan (SRTP), would be taken up once Staff Sanchez arrives.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
The Multimodal Circulation Subcommittee will meet immediately after the Transportation
Commission meeting with Staff Hawkins and Staff Bergman to discuss the comments on the draft
proposal plan. On November 2, the Multimodal Circulation Task Force will meet in Room 391
starting at 7:30 p.m. The Subcommittee will then bring the draft plan to the next TC meeting on
November 16th. incorporating feedback from the Task Force. The next two months the TC
meetings will be held on the 3rd Wednesday of the month instead of the 4th due to the holidays.
Since the December meeting is currently scheduled for December 21, which is close to the
holidays, a change to December 14 will be considered at the November meeting, if there are
1",TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-10-26,2,"issues that need to be discussed at the December meeting. Otherwise, the December meeting
may be cancelled.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
None.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
6A.
I-880 Access Issues and Alameda/Oakland Coordination Activities
Chair Knox White recommended that instead of forming a task force, as was previously
discussed that the TC agenda include a quarterly update on all the Oakland projects that affect
the tubes or bridge access.
Staff Parker thought it was a good idea especially with the shortness of staff time and with the
budget. She suggested having a quarterly update on all projects for the first six months, after
which there would be a quarterly written and semi annual oral report.
Chair Knox White agreed.
Staff Hawkins responded that the recommendation will be brought to the City Manager, who will
present it to the City Council.
Commissioner Parker moved to accept the recommendation and Commissioner Knoth
seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously.
Commissioner Parker asked if the membership in the Chinatown committee was accurate.
Staff Hawkins said that a representative of the Alameda Planning Board as well as two
representatives city at large should also be included.
Commissioner Parker asked that the description be modified to reflect that.
Commissioner Ratto asked why PSBA is not part of the process for the Park Street Triangle
project.
Staff Hawkins said that Oakland was asking that Alameda take responsibility for notifying
interested community members and will let us know when the meetings will be held.
Staff Bergman added that he had included Commissioner Ratto's name on the list to be notified
about upcoming meetings for the project.
2",TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-10-26,3,"7B Transportation
Systems
Management/Transportation Demand Management
(TSM/TDM) Plan
Staff Bergman summarized the staff report. He noted that there are two activities associated with
the TSM/TDM Plan that are currently beginning: 1) the employee sponsored transit pass, about
which there have been discussions with AC Transit, which has developed some preliminary
costs. The program is being looked at for City of Alameda employees, but could potentially
include employees of the college and the Alameda Unified School District. 2) a study exploring
the feasibility of shuttles. A demonstration on an electric bus was done earlier this year. Staff is
proposing to bring a consultant in to do an evaluation on different types of technologies that are
available for shuttles. Any proposed shuttle would involve connecting to the regional
transportation system, such as especially BART and the ferries, but the proposed study would not
include an analysis of routes. Staff Bergman passed out a general description as to what the
consultant could do to help us get a handle on the pluses and minus of the different technologies
and operations scenarios.
Commissioner Parker mentioned that there have been studies in the past by WABA and other
organizations on this. She asked if these studies had been considered.
Staff Hawkins and Staff Bergman responded that they were not aware of any such studies.
Commissioner Parker recommended that staff to look into any work of this type that has already
been completed.
Commissioner Parker asked for clarification regarding the cost of the transit pass.
Staff Bergman said that the number is a preliminary number depending if the schools and college
would be participating. Was discussed at the Inter Agency Liaison Committee Councilmember
Matarrese suggested that we do some kind of transit pass purchase as a pilot program to see what
response we would get.
Commissioner Parker asked if the cost of the pass accounted for City costs to administer the pass
program.
Staff Bergman stated that the cost is preliminary. It could change if the College of Alameda and
the Alameda Unified School District decide to participate. He noted that at the October 12
Interagency Liaison Committee meeting, Councilmember Matarresse suggested that before
entering into a program for all City staff we could try purchasing transit passes on a trial basis for
staff to see what kind of response there would be.
Commissioner Parker mentioned that there are members of City boards, commissions and
committees that might be interested in participating in the program and could help to boost the
number of participants if that would help to bring the cost down.
Staff Bergman said that they were only looking at full time employees but this could be discussed
with AC Transit to see how it would affect the analysis.
3",TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-10-26,4,"Chair Knox White asked if the purpose of the consultant work would be to look at the routes or
the potential technologies for the shuttle.
Staff Bergman mentioned that identifying routes would come later. The council has expressed an
interest in electric vehicles, so the intent of the analysis is to get a better understanding of the
costs and benefits of utilizing this type of technology. Looking at the routes would be the next
phase.
Chair Knox White suggested that the program should be developed first, and then various types
of vehicles should be analyzed in terms of how they would help meet the objectives of that
program.
Staff Hawkins said that the Council gave the direction to look at electric vehicles, but not at other
types of vehicles. The intention of this work scope was to assess the advantages and
disadvantages of electric vehicles and provide this information to the Transportation
Commission. The Commission could then pass along its recommendations to the Council so that
they could make an informed decision before making any commitments to buy or lease these
vehicles.
Commissioner Parker expressed similar concerns to Chair Knox White, and suggested that the
purpose of the vehicles should be identified before trying to select an appropriate vehicle type.
Chair Knox White recommended to hold off hiring a consultant until the needs and goals of the
shuttle program are in place especially routing ridership capacity are known.
Commissioner Parker added that it is also important to consider how vehicles could be used by
the City for purposes other than operating a shuttle service.
Chair Knox White moved that the Commission recommend that the City hold off on hiring a
consultant to study shuttle vehicle technology until the needs and goals of the shuttle program,
specifically routing and ridership capacity are known. Commissioner Knoth seconded the
motion. Motion passed, 4-1 (Ratto).
7A. City of Alameda Ferry Program: Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP)
Staff Sanchez presented the staff report. He noted that that the plan assumes that the base level of
operations would continue, that the Main Street ferry terminal would continue to remain the base
of operations in Alameda, and that the City would continue to operate the service.
Public Comment Open
Bill Smith stated that CalStart did a study and a conference on Last Mile Served. He
recommended the development of a bus rapid transit service on the north side of the island and
an associated feeder system.
4",TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-10-26,5,"Public Comment Closed
Commissioner Parker noted that the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service is currently running at 16%
occupancy, and asked why the boats are so much larger than the demand.
Staff Sanchez acknowledged that the occupancy load is low, and that the reason is partially
historical. The City was able to purchase the Encinal from Blue and Gold Fleet in 1997 at a very
good price. The existing boat - the Bay Breeze - could carry only 250 people, so people were
being left at the dock. Some runs have much higher capacity than others, especially on
weekends during the summer along with certain holidays, so a decision was made to use the
larger boats to accommodate these heavier used runs. The smaller boat was sent over to Harbor
Bay to run that service. The Water Transit Authority just received bids today to build two 149
passenger boats, and these boats could be available to the City in two years.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if there was any difference operating a big boat to a small boat
with crew and operating cost.
Staff Sanchez said that the fuel consumption is the biggest cost. Fuel is $2.55 a gallon for diesel
now. The Express 2 uses about 52 gallons per operational hour and the Encinal burns 65 gallons
per operational hour. Staffing costs are about the same, although an additional deck hand is
required if there are more than 200 passengers.
Chair Knox White asked if the document is primarily a financial document.
Staff Sanchez answered yes. The passenger goals come up in the discussion on maintaining the
40% farebox recovery ratio.
Chair Knox White said that he felt it would be helpful to have some information about the
number of people who access the ferries via AC Transit. Also, the report says that passengers
should pay their ""fair share"" which suggests that they are not currently doing so. He noted that a
goal of the plan is to achieve a significant share of trips, but asked if that goal had been
identified.
Staff Sanchez indicated that it has not.
Chair Knox White noted that the plan states that transit times for ferries should be comparable to
other modes, and asked if this is door-to-door or for the transit trip. He said that if it is for the
transit trip only, it would also be helpful to include information about door-to-door times.
Staff Sanchez responded that this was for the transit trip only.
Chair Knox White also noted that the Alameda Oakland Ferry has a significantly higher farebox
recovery rate than other ferry services in the region.
5",TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-10-26,6,"Staff Sanchez noted that the farebox recovery rates for the Harbor Bay Ferry have increased from
32% to 49%.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the parking lot at the Harbor Bay Ferry seems nearly full,
and asked if this is a constraint on future growth. He also stated that he has noticed a significant
number of people commuting to Alameda, and asked if the City has looked into marketing this
service for commuters into Alameda.
Staff Sanchez said that the parking limitations are not at a cap. Water transit authority has looked
at the potential of providing shuttles, and they have funding from Measure 2 to finance shuttles.
Reverse commute has been looked at, and a free ride was offered on the ferry for riders. The
results of this promotion have not been determined.
Commissioner Parker asked if the Harbor Bay recovery was money generated or if it included
complimentary trips.
Staff Sanchez said that it was calculated by actual revenue divided by actual operational cost.
Commissioner Parker referred to Page VII. She asked why the costs varied so significantly in
the base operating plan from year to year.
Staff Sanchez said it may include capital costs, but that he would look at the numbers. He also
noted that the City does not have money for new vessels or major facility changes, and noted that
all vessels have been refurbished in the last 2 years. If fuel prices were to escalate, the City
would have to determine how to raise fares or cut expenses.
Chair Knox White noted that it is assumed that there will be an annual increase of 3 1/2 % in gas
prices in the next 10 years. Is that low or is it a new industry standard?
Staff Sanchez said this is a standard number but if there are significant changes in gas prices the
City may revisit the plan.
Commissioner Ratto moved to accept report as written with a copy of questions and comments
attached to it. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion was unanimously
approved - 5.
8.
Staff Communications
TMP Schedule
Staff Bergman passed out the revised TMP schedule. He noted that this includes the remaining
part of the circulation plan, pedestrian plan and the TSM/TDM plan.
Staff Bergman reminded the Commission that Wednesday November 2 is the Task Multimodal
Circulation Task Force Meeting, and the following Wednesday November 9th is the Public
Workshop for the Pedestrian Plan.
6",TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-10-26,7,"Chair Knox White noted that Michael Kruger and Jeff Knoth are on the Pedestrian Plan Sub-
Committee but there is one more space available if anyone is interested.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2005\1105\102605 TC Minutes.do
7",TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-12-14,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Commissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Philip Tribuzio
Jesus Vargas
Kathy Moehring
Thomas G. Bertken
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Barry Bergman, Transportation Consultant
2.
Minutes
Commissioner Vargas moved approval of the minutes for the June 22, 2011 meeting.
Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Tribuzio moved approval of the minutes for the September 28, 2011 meeting.
Commissioner Vargas seconded the motion. Commissioner Bertken abstained. Motion passed 3-
0.
3.
Oral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments
Jon Spangler gave a report on the west span of the Bay Bridge where paths are being planned on
both the north and south sides. The cost is expected to be $550 million, and is expected to be
constructed in ten years. At a recent public outreach meeting for the project, 75 people attended.
Mr. Spangler will forward more information.
Page 1 of 9",TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-12-14,2,"4.
New Business
4A.
Presentation of Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and
Plans.
Staff Payne summarized the staff report.
Commissioner Vargas requested a briefing about the Safe Routes to Transit application.
Staff Payne responded that the funding source originates from bridge tolls in the Bay Area. The
goal of the grant is to divert drivers across the bridges to become transbay bus passengers.
TransForm staff stated that the funding cycle was really competitive. They liked the grant
application, and stated it was well written and a beneficial project.
Commissioner Moehring asked if the communities that received the grant application were closer
to the bridge.
Staff Payne responded that it was difficult to compete against projects that focused on higher-
density areas. There is a feeling that suburban communities tend not to win as many Safe Routes
to Transit grant applications.
Commissioner Moehring asked if there will be public meetings for the Shoreline Dr/Westline Dr
bike lane project.
Staff Khan emphasized that the Shoreline Dr/Westline Dr bike lane project is going to have quite
a bit of outreach starting in March 2012. Staff is waiting for Caltrans to authorize expenditures.
Staff will bring this item to the Transportation Commission.
Commissioner Vargas wanted to know what the TSM/TDM measures are as a prelude to the
upcoming Transportation Commission meeting.
Staff Payne stated that the measures are in five broad categories.
Staff Khan provided an overview of the TSM/TDM Plan purpose. The idea is that developers
will be able to address trips generated by a development using a menu of TSM/TDM measures.
The intention is to mitigate peak hour trips using the TSM/TDM measures.
Commissioner Moehring was pleased about obtaining the Gibbons Drive Safe Routes to School
grant application.
Commissioner Moehring stated that the Mecartney/Island intersection is enormous and was
interested to know if the City could improve it without grant monies. She admires how much
effort staff puts into grant efforts. She wanted to know how much it would cost for traffic lights.
Staff Khan stated that this intersection has two lanes in each direction. This intersection could be
signalized. If it is signalized then it could make a big difference. The City could use internal
Page 2 of 9",TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-12-14,3,"funds for this project or could tap into developer funds on the basis of the new development in
the area. He felt that it needs to be signalized.
Commissioner Vargas stated that he is interested in helping staff with brainstorming on this
intersection improvement.
Staff Payne stated that local funds usually are used to leverage outside funds as the local match
to help stretch the limited funds farther so that more areas of the city benefit from the limited
funds.
Lucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda, was impressed with the quarterly report and how it is
shown. It makes everything clear. About the Shoreline Dr/Westline Dr bike lane project,
BikeAlameda is hoping to have a lot of public input. They are hoping for a cycle track
configuration - one that is similar to Fernside Blvd. She hopes that some of the analysis from
this bike lane project could go into a cycle track concept.
Lucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda, for the Mecartney/Island project, she urged the group to
think outside the box in terms of traffic calming such as roundabouts or other kinds of things to
help out huge intersections.
4B.
Proposed Bus Stops at Maitland Avenue and Harbor Bay Parkway.
Staff Payne summarized the staff report.
Commissioner Vargas asked if there any ADA issues with the concrete pad broken by the tree on
the north side.
Staff Payne responded that the concrete bus pad corresponds with AC Transit's template.
Commissioner Vargas asked if there are any maintenance issues pertaining to the tree.
Staff Payne stated that the tree well provided should be sufficient space for the tree to thrive.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the debris on the sidewalk in the photo.
Commissioner Moehring and Gail Payne answered that the debris are leaves.
Commissioner Moehring: It is nice to see that the City is installing bus stops. She stated that it
would be nice if this item came as a recommendation to the City Council as opposed to already
having been approved by the City Council and in the CIP.
Page 3 of 9",TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-12-14,4,"what Lucy said. Alameda has every pre-qualification to be a world famous bicycle-friendly
community yet the City needs infrastructure to match it. He had three points:
1) On the class I bike paths on page 4 - He would like to see 12 feet as the recommended
minimum because these paths become multi-use paths. Twelve feet accommodates
multiple conflicts, users, directions and speeds. Twelve feet should be the floor and
should be the minimum for each side of the west span of the Bay Bridge. Golden Gate
Bridge is ten feet and seems too narrow.
2) On Page 34 regarding in-street bike corrals, earlier in the year we had conversations
about having them in front of businesses such as Stones Cyclery even on a trial basis.
Park Street is going to need more bike parking due to the elimination of the parking
meters along Park Street totaling about 100 de-facto bike parking spaces.
3) Class II bike lanes - such as Central Avenue between Willow Street and Oak Street is 5.5
feet - if you recommend an effective door zone of five feet between the bicycle tire and
the parked car to allow for sudden doors to be opened, then need to place bicycle tire on
the bike lane line on the Central Avenue bike lane. It says something about the current
practice as three feet yet they are talking about changing it nationally because the average
door on an SUV is four feet when open. Bicyclists need one foot between the door and
the bicycle to ensure that the bicyclist is predictable and safe. He recommends an
increase in the width of bike lanes and at least a four-foot door zone.
Commissioner Tribuzio asked about loop detectors and if they are the same as the ones at
intersections for vehicles.
Staff Khan replied that loop detectors detect the metal of a car and staff increases the sensitivity
to detect bicyclists. Cameras are becoming more common such as on Webster Street and
eventually on Park Street to ensure better detection of bicyclists.
Commissioner Tribuzio asked about bicycle racks. The guidelines showed two kinds - U shaped
and the ring kind. He questioned if it would be cheaper to use the ring kind for construction.
Page 4 of 9",TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-12-14,5,"Staff Khan replied that the key is that the bicycle should be attached at two points.
Barry Bergman stated that the inverted U has become the national standard. It provides more
support for bicyclists at two points. The labor is not that much greater than with the ring type.
The City is recommending the inverted U as the standard; however, both types are considered
acceptable.
Commissioner Vargas - The dialogue between BikeAlameda and the City is great to see. The
goal is to make it a more bike friendly city. Developers can use it as the opportunities come up
and SO he likes the concept of the guidelines. In Spain, he saw some loaner bikes where
individuals can borrow bicycles. Perhaps the City can include this item in the next revision. He
has minor comments that he will share later. He asked about the timing of the revisions.
Staff Khan responded that January 6 is the deadline for responses; however, this time has been
extended since staff will take this item to the January 19 Economic Development Commission
meeting and to the Planning Board in February so comments are open. Staff will take the item to
the City Council in March or April.
Staff Payne stated that staff is in contact with the Air District, which has a loaner bike pilot
project. Unfortunately, Alameda is not a pilot study city yet possibly could be at future stages so
staff is monitoring the project.
Commissioner Moehring - It would be amazing to have loaner bikes at the ferry terminals for the
America Cup. Loaner bikes would open up the City for tourists.
Commissioner Bertken - It looks to be a commercial enterprise in Paris.
Commissioner Moehring - In Amsterdam, they are looking for a basic bike and they just need
access.
Staff Khan discusses that the design guidelines addresses how to design a facility. It does not
address how to design a program so the loaner bike program would not be appropriate in the
design guidelines.
Commissioner Moehring - When it comes to the width of the bike lane, the City needs to look at
the width of the street. We are limited by the width of the street. The bike lanes should be as
wide as possible.
Commissioner Vargas asked if looking at the volumes could justify widening the facility.
Staff Khan - It is a good point, which Barry tried to capture. Around the waterfront, the City
also would want a jogging path. We tried to find information from the United States. For
vehicles, local streets could have 10-foot wide travel lanes. For collectors, we may want to have
wider lanes with 11-foot lanes. Arterials should have 12-foot lanes. The speed of the car also
should play a role because we do not want the drag of trucks to pull the bicyclist under the
wheels. Barry and he looked at Harbor Bay Parkway with faster speeds. The street would need
Page 5 of 9",TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-12-14,6,"wider travel lanes. Fernside Blvd. has seven to eight foot bike lanes since it has the space. It
depends on the user and needs of the road. It is why we call these guidelines because staff needs
to use judgment based on the street conditions. We do not allow less than eight feet for parking
lanes. The streets are mostly 36 feet, which means two ten feet travel lanes and two eight foot
parking lanes. We want to maintain at least eight feet of parking lane and see where we can
increase the bike lane width.
Commissioner Bertken questioned if the guidelines will go to the Planning Board. He asked
about having a public hearing on the guidelines. Once the City Council adopts the guidelines,
then the staff follows the guidelines. Some items affect properties and developers.
Staff Khan replied that the entire document will go to the Planning Board. The TC is a public
hearing because this meeting is following all the rules of a public meeting.
Commissioner Bertken - Usually the usual routine is to announce it as a public hearing.
Commissioner Moehring - BikeAlameda has discussed this document as a larger group even
though only a few representatives are attending the meeting this evening. Obaid said that he
would take the TC member recommendations to the next level.
Commissioner Bertken - He expressed concern that the meeting does not quite cover the
ordinance details.
Staff Khan replied that some portions of the guidelines will become an ordinance such as parking
ratios and those items would be separately dealt with at the Planning Board or the City Council.
Commissioner Bertken - He wanted to know which pieces would be subject to the City Council
and would have more detailed review.
Staff Khan will announce the date of the Planning Board meeting. Two different actions will be
taken by the City Council - to approve the guidelines and to adopt City ordinances on specific
items in the guidelines for parking and shower requirements.
Commissioner Moehring - She wanted to know if the TC members will be making a
recommendation to accept the guidelines.
Commissioner Vargas - He is fine with providing input over the next few months.
Commissioner Bertken - He wanted to know if this document will come back to the TC in a
revised form.
Staff Khan - He stated that staff could bring it back as a second draft.
Commissioner Moehring - She stated that staff should bring back a second draft redlined copy at
the January meeting.
Page 6 of 9",TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-12-14,7,"Commissioner Bertken - TC is supposed to adopt policies.
Staff Khan - The TC member comments are captured in the meeting minutes. The TC comments
will be used as the TC recommendations and then it will go to the Planning Board. Staff could
keep the TC comments separate if desired. Staff is hearing that the TC will start meeting every
other month starting next year.
Staff Payne confirmed that there will be a January meeting.
Commissioner Bertken made the motion to bring a draft redlined copy at the January meeting;
Commissioner Vargas seconded the motion.
4D. Additional Bicycle Racks for Park Street
Staff Khan summarized the staff report.
Commissioner Bertken - asked a question about the legend.
Staff Khan replied that the drawings are meant for the detailed engineering design. The details to
focus on are the bike rack symbols. The bus stations at Encinal Avenue and other locations may
be able to have more bike parking.
Lucy Gigli - President of Bike Alameda - BikeAlameda did rush to walk down Park Street to see
where to place additional bike racks. It ends up that potentially 35 to 40 bike racks along that
corridor would be installed. BikeAlameda still is concerned about losing 100 parking meters and
going down to 35 to 40 bike racks. BikeAlameda is not sure how the new bike racks are going to
accommodate the bike parking. BikeAlameda would like the city to consider an in-street bike
parking pilot program at some location that is convenient. It would take away one parking space
for about ten bike parking spaces. Instead of plenty of bike parking, BikeAlameda is seeing a
streetscape with less bike parking. BikeAlameda would like to see one or two of these in-street
facilities in place along Park Street.
Jon Spangler - The net lose is about 100 bike parking spaces when considering the parking
meters eliminated and the original 12 bike racks installed. The new 35 to 40 bike spaces would
close about one half the gap. He made the same request to look at in-street bike parking. One of
the locations is Stone Cyclery and the owner of the bar next door. The idea of the shared
supervision would work in that location. He hopes that it will be looked at on Webster Street
and Alameda Landing on its next round to the Planning Board.
Bonnie Wehmann of BoardMemeber BikeAlameda, EBBC and League Instructor Certified - She
expressed her concern about the bike racks. It seems so minimal. It would be great to convert
parking spaces to in-street bike parking.
Commissioner Moehring - She asked if this issue has gone to PSBA.
Staff Khan - It is not impacting anything on the sidewalk or parking so it has not gone to PSBA.
Page 7 of 9",TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-12-14,8,"Staff will take the item to PSBA if it impacts parking. If there is a high demand for bicycle
parking, staff will work with Bike Alameda to define those peak demand times and then staff
could do the analysis to provide appropriate supply of bike parking. Staff could report back
from the fieldwork to determine what is needed. The concern is that the street sweepers cannot
clean the in-street bike parking areas. The adjacent businesses would need to come to an
agreement to maintain it.
Commissioner Moehring - She asked if there could be stickers redirecting bicyclists to
additional bike parking around the corner by the Alameda Theatre.
Staff Khan - He has not seen this bike parking fully utilized.
Lucy Gigli stated that this parking is on Central Avenue, which is 1.5 blocks away and is
inadequate bike parking unless it is for a more secure bike parking.
Commissioner Moehring - Most people only leave their bike for short-term bike parking needs.
The City would need to talk to the individual businesses to get their buy-in on the front end. We
know it benefits everyone; however, we want to have buy-in from the businesses.
Staff Khan - He agreed to have buy-in from the businesses.
Jon Spangler - The issue of bike theft has been on the rise in Alameda. One of the things that
needs to happen is a public education campaign on the need to use a serious U lock and not a
cable lock. He has a neighbor who has lost three bikes along Park Street within three months.
He hopes that this is something that the Police Department, businesses and BikeAlameda could
help with this effort.
Commissioner Moehring - Inverted U bike racks support the heavy duty bike locks because they
allow bicyclists to use better locks. The old style of bike racks such as at Mastick Senior Center
make it difficult to use the U lock.
Commissioner Tribuzio - I have not noticed bike racks at Mastick Senior Center. It would be
advantageous to park bikes in a more secure location when leaving it for a full day. The problem
is where to set up more secure bike parking. It could be a commercial enterprise. Revenues
exist from parked cars yet the City is not receiving revenue from parked bicycles.
Commissioner Vargas - He had a question about the bike corral and if there is precedent in
Alameda.
Staff Khan - Staff has proposed a bike corral in the guidelines. In-street bike parking exist in
Berkeley. Staff looks for adequate visibility and adjacent businesses need to agree to keep it
clean and maintained.
Commissioner Moehring - She likes what they do in New York where they extend the bus
shelter for covered bike parking.
Page 8 of 9",TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2011-12-14,9,"Pam Cargill of BikeAlameda - She mentioned the need for additional bike parking along
Redwood Square near the post office. Another location for additional bike racks is by the Bank
of Alameda in the alley. It would be better with inverted U bike racks. The current bike parking
at this alley does not function well.
Commissioner Moehring - She questioned the safety in that alley.
Pam Cargill - She is not concerned about safety in that area because it is close to a well traveled
area of Park Street.
Commissioner Moehring - She agreed about the need to look at these two locations for
additional bicycle parking.
Staff Khan - He stated that he has discussed Redwood Square with Gail Payne and Lucy Gigli,
and that we will see additional bike racks in the future at these locations.
4E.
Estuary Crossing Shuttle Extension to Wind River.
Staff Payne summarized the staff report.
Commissioner Moehring - She stated that she feels it is a fabulous program.
5.
Staff Communications
Staff Khan explained the Sunshine Ordinance. It will take effect in February 2012. There will
be specific language that will be inserted onto the Transportation Commission agenda. Some of
the key provisions include public access to information. Staff will be receiving training on it.
In January, staff will present Transportation Commission Bylaws Revisions, Revised Draft
Bicycle Design Guidelines and the Alameda Paratransit Program. Commissioner Tribuzio has
submitted his resignation. He has worked hard and staff appreciates his efforts.
Staff Payne stated that a new Alameda Unified School District representative will begin
attending the Transportation Commission meetings.
6.
Announcements
Commissioner Moehring stated thank you to Commissioner Tribuzio for all his hard work and
thank you to the staff.
7.
Adjournment
8:50 PM
Page 9 of 9",TransportationCommission/2011-12-14.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-04-27,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
April 27, 2005
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:45 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded:
Members Present:
John Knox White
Patianne Parker
Michael Krueger
Robb Ratto
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier
Absent:
Jeff Knoth
Staff Present:
Barbara Hawkins - Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works
Barry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works
Jennifer Ott - Development Manager, Development Services
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Krueger asked that Chair Knox White's comments regarding the Cross Alameda
Trail Feasibility Study be amended to state that ""Caltrans allows lanes to be less than 12 feet
wide on highways."" He also requested that the minutes be amended to state that ""at times he
bikes and drives along Atlantic Avenue..
""
Commissioner Parker moved acceptance of the minutes, with the changes as requested.
Commissioner Ratto seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 6.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
None.
6.
OLD BUSINESS
Transportation Commission
Page 1 of 8
April 27, 2005",TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-04-27,2,"6A.
Recommendations from other City Boards and Commissions on Draft TMP
JKW: The Planning Board asked to have a visioning statement inserted before the first paragraph
to define ""multimodal"" as including autos, transit, bicycles, walking, and needs for people with
disabilities.
Circulation Goal: The Commission on Disability Issues asked to add ""barrier free"" to the last
safe and efficient transportation systems.
A1.1 concern by the Planning Board that bikes and pedestrians were not specifically
included, definition above takes care of that.
A-1.4 Add on all streets and in all sections of the City.
A-1.5 Housing Commission transit indemnities is an implementation goal covered under
the transit plan.
A-1.6 Commission on Disability Issues covered in the introduction
A-1.8 The EDC had a comment on including smooth cross island flow in the city.
Thought it was incorporated in Did add into this, ""without unduly disrupting the quality of life
for residents"".
A1.11 Planning Board was split, some wanted to minimize, others support cul de sacs
A-2.5 Multi modal cross estuary travel added in ""bike, pedestrian shuttles or high occupancy
vehicle only crossings"" are types of projects we should be looking at.
A-2.6 included Planning Board's recommendation
A-5.3 EDC had suggested to fixed route AC Transit system to enhance mobility for those
without access to personal transportation. Prefer the word provide, enhance sounds like it's
an option.
A6.6 Planning Board suggested in adding this policy. Require monitoring programs to
ensure TSM (JKW added ""and TDM"") measures mitigate impacts.
Objective A-7 Add the underlying section of enhancing the viability of non-automotive
transportation modes.
Used Planning Board language
A-7.4 Planning had a comment on the fact that they felt identifying rights of way doesn't
mean results are not always the way you hope it to come out but need to try.
B-1.1 PB and Rec and Parks Commission supported. Left as written
B-2.5 Left as written
B-3.1 Planning Board supported the language as written, left as written
B-4.2 CDI Recommendation including people with disabilities.
B-5.1 The Parks Department indicated the permit program should be designed so that they
would not impact on adjacent neighbors and homeowners use their garages for parking
instead of storage.
B-5.2 Included the Planning Board's recommendation of shared parking in mixed used areas.
1.2 Stays the same
2.2 did not include disability to better serve pedistrian needs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Not a citywide circulation goal. To be dwelt with on construction projects.
C2.5 The Planning Board added in to promote land use that would encourage alternate
modes of transportation and enable agencies to procure grant funding.
C3 The Planning Board recommended more bike related polices so added two more.
C3.2 and C3.3
Transportation Commission
Page 2 of 8
April 27, 2005",TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-04-27,3,"C3.4 Bike Lanes on Park Street (Remove Parking)
C2 Development of Pedestrian Plan
C3 Development of Bike Plan
C6.2 Walking, bicycling and automobiles. Add in people with disabilities on this list
D's No other comments
After D5 removed, no longer in transportation.
Jon Spangler's comments:
A1.8 Instead of the current wording use; encourage traffic within, to and thru Alameda to use the
appropriate streets in the system in providing clear and effective traffic control measures to
ensure smooth flow.
A2.3 Increase in Vehicle occupancy levels
A7 Drop the word Modes
B5.2 Chair Knox White used shared parking strategies
C2.4 & C3.1 City of Alameda Plan
C6.2 Pursue strategies thru reduce or eliminate conflics, increase accessibility, and faster multi
model compatibility
Closed Public Comment
Commissioner Ratto's Comments:
A1.4 Do not believe it should be changed
A1.11 Planning Board's comments were concerned with trying to prohibit traffic going thru.
Add physical interrupt the grid system, don't think anything wrong with it Adding on the main
island. So just add the work physically.
B4.1 Could incorporate the suggestion from C2.5 by just putting encouraged development
patterns and land uses that encourage the use of alternate modes and reduce the rate of growth in
regional wide vehicle miles traveled.
B5.1 Neighborhoods chronic problems add something about new developments.
Staff Hawkins recommended the comments from the different boards that appear to be
implementation recommendations should be included as an appendix in back. In this way, even
if they are not appropriate for the policies portion of the TMP, their comments will still be taken
into account and included at a later time.
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Review and Comment on the Proposed Civic Center Parking Garage and Oak
Street Streetscape Designs
Staff Ott of the Development Services Department reviewed the proposed parking garage project.
She stated that the proposed garage would be located on Oak Street between Santa Clara Avenue
and Central Avenue. The current design includes six levels and 352 spaces. She noted that the
Transportation Commission
Page 3 of 8
April 27, 2005",TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-04-27,4,"project would be implemented through a design-build contract, so the internal circulation may
change. The exterior design is scheduled to be taken to the Planning Board in June for approval.
Staff Ott described several mitigation measures that were developed to address pedestrian safety
at the garage entrance/exit. These include textured paving, a speed bump, lights and sound to be
emitted as vehicles exit, and concave mirrors. The sidewalk would be widened by six feet on
Oak Street in front of the project to help direct pedestrians away from the building and provide
improved visibility for drivers exiting the garage. Six parking spaces total to be removed, and
landscaping will be included. She noted that PSBA unanimously approved this design.
Staff Ott noted that eight bicycle lockers (accommodating 16 bicycles) and 24 bicycle racks
would be included on the first floor of the garage. Also, there will be lighting in front of the
pedestrian-only entrance so pedestrians won't feel drawn to the vehicular entrance.
Staff Ott stated that there was an initial study on parking and traffic impacts, which illustrated
that there is going to be an insufficient supply of parking given the anticipated demand
associated with the theater project as planned.
The only required traffic mitigations determined to be directly associated with the project are
signal timing adjustments, although there are other mitigations for required to reach a ""less than
significant impact"" determination for 2020 as well as for the cumulative impacts of all
development, including Alameda Point.
Commissioner Krueger asked if access to the bicycle parking area is to be provided through the
vehicular entrance as well as the side entrance. Staff Ott indicated that bicyclists would be able
to use either entrance.
Chair Knox White noted that in the negative declaration that impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists
were not addressed. He asked if they were addressed somewhere else. Staff Ott replied that the
Community Improvement Commission (CIC) had expressed concerns about these issues, and
that these concerns were addressed internally, working with the Public Works Department.
Chair Knox White stated that after accounting for the landscaping, if the sidewalk along Oak
Street would actually be narrower after the proposed widening. Staff Ott indicated that the
sidewalk would be wider than what is currently there.
Commissioner McFarland asked if the intention is to have both bicyclists and pedestrians utilize
the widened sidewalk area. Staff Ott responded that this was not the intention, but that the
removal of the on-street parking should help to enhance safety for bicyclists along the block.
She noted that the proposal would not preclude Class II bike lanes along Oak Street in the future.
Commissioner Krueger stated that this assumes that a 10' lane width would be sufficient for
motor vehicle traffic. He asked if there are other scenarios that would require wider traffic lanes.
Staff Hawkins responded that the only reason would be if Oak Street were to be designated a
truck route. She noted that if volume were the issue, an additional lane would be necessary,
wider lanes would not be helpful.
Transportation Commission
Page 4 of 8
April 27, 2005",TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-04-27,5,"Chair Knox White Opened Public Comment
Jon Spangler asked what security would be provided for the bicycle parking, and whether this
area is covered. He also requested that signage be added at the vehicular entrance to make it
clear that bicycles can use this entrance. Mr. Spangler stated that the building should be
designed so that it may be converted to retail space if needed in the future. He also stated that
the Class II bike lanes on Oak Street are important, and indicated that he supported widening
Oak Street in the future for safety purposes, but not to add more lanes.
Mr. Spangler expressed his support for the views of Bike Alameda, and stated that the project
should be designed to give bicyclists equivalent access to Park Street as motor vehicles. He
indicated his support for the removal of diagonal parking on Central Avenue.
Treya Weintraub expressed her support for restoring the bike lane on Central Avenue between
Walnut Street and Oak Street and removing the angled parking.
Lucy Gigli, the president of Bike Alameda, asked the Commission to address the project in terms
of bicycle safety, noting that with 350 parking spaces that many more vehicles will be present at
this location. She stated that improvements at this location are especially important, due to the
proximity to Park Street, the main library, and City Hall. Bike Alameda recommends several
mitigations:
Ms. Gigli stated that currently bicyclists on Central Avenue are routed onto sidewalk and
are redirected into the street in the Park Street district, where there is significant traffic.
She recommended restoring the bike lanes on Central Avenue between Walnut Street and
Oak Street
She requested that shared roadway stencils and signs be installed along Oak Street from
Lincoln Avenue to Encinal Avenue in place of the potential future bike lanes; this will
help to alert both bicyclists and drivers to one another.
Ms. Gigli asked for assurance that bike lanes will not be precluded on Oak Street and that
10' travel lanes will be acceptable
Ms. Gigli requested that these improvements be implemented as part of the garage
project.
Andy Cutright stated that one reason he and his family decided to move to Alameda was because
of the bike lanes, and that the community and economy will be enhanced by maintaining safe
access for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. He stated that bike lanes are preferable to
signage only, but that signs are preferable to no bicycle designation.
Cheri Galan stated that she prefers to use her bike rather than a car, and that she feels unsafe
when riding with her children on streets without bike lanes. She stated that it is important to
have a north-south bicycle facility near Park Street, Grand Avenue is too far away, and that it is
important to address issue now, not in planning off in the future.
Rochelle Reed stated that she lives on south end of Oak Street and works on Blanding, that she
commutes by bike, but doesn't use Oak Street. She expressed concerns that Oak Street currently
feels unsafe to bike, and the parking garage will make it less safe.
Transportation Commission
Page 5 of 8
April 27, 2005",TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-04-27,6,"Carl Babcock stated that he also lives on Oak Street and tries to ride his bike for local errands,
but that it is difficult to get to many shops safely. He requested that the bike lane be restored on
Central Avenue and, if possible, create a bike lane on Oak Street.
Public comment closed
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if they could respond to the bicyclists' concerns. Staff Ott
stated that the project would include shared roadway stencils (sharrows) and signs on Oak Street
from Encinal Avenue to Lincoln Avenue. She also noted that widening the sidewalk would
increase bike safety in front of the garage. She said that the removal of diagonal parking on
Central Avenue is not currently included in the project. She anticipates this will be discussed as
part of the TMP.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the garage will have bicycle parking, and asked if it
is
appropriate to include project elements to help bicyclists reach the facility safely. Staff Ott
agreed that safe bicycle access is important, but noted that the project is attempting to meet many
objectives with a limited project budget. She stated that the bike lane issues on Central Avenue
should not be linked to the garage, and expressed concern that stakeholder groups not in
attendance may be opposed to removing the diagonal parking on Central Avenue.
Commissioner McFarland asked if the library or garage would be completed first. Staff Ott
responded that the garage is scheduled to be completed first.
Commissioner McFarland asked if there was a cost estimate for restriping Central Avenue. Staff
Ott responded that staff is looking into this.
Commissioner Ratto stated that the funding sources for the project is an important issue, and that
to fund funding for striping Central Avenue would require taking money from another element of
the project. He said that he and PSBA support restoring parallel parking on Central Avenue,
since the 350-space parking garage should meet parking needs. He said that if there are other
organizations that oppose removing the diagonal parking, which would bring the General Plan
into compliance, they should state their case to Council. Commissioner Ratto stated that
bicyclists should not be diverted onto the sidewalk on that block. He also stated that he doesn't
believe the restriping should be considered as a mitigation for the parking structure, but other
funding should be available.
Commissioner Krueger asked how the mitigation measures would be funded. Staff Ott
responded that only the signal timing adjustments would be funded through the project
Commissioner Krueger asked if it would be possible to find other funding for the signal timing
as well as the bike lanes, since they both seem related to the project. Staff Ott said they are
concerned that the project bid will come in higher than the funding that's available
Commissioner Ratto stated that it is up to the City Council to determine the funding decisions,
and that members of the community can bring these issues to the Council.
Transportation Commission
Page 6 of 8
April 27, 2005",TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-04-27,7,"Commissioner Schatmeier asked where would revenues from the garage go to. He asked if fees
could be adjusted to raise funds. Staff Ott responded that part of the funding is from a HUD
Section 108 loan, which will be repaid in part with meter revenues.
Schatmeier asked if the garage would be used for commuters, patrons of
businesses, or both. Staff Ott indicate that both would be using the facility, and that they are
considering monthly permit parking spaces, possibly with smart cards.
Commissioner Parker asked if the garage will be set up to accommodate vanpooling. Staff Ott
said she would look into that and respond.
Commissioner Parker stated that mitigation is generally done project by project, not on a
cumulative basis, and that mitigation needs to be done in context. She stated that the project
shouldn't necessarily pay for all mitigations, but funding should be looked at for other related
measures.
Chair Knox White noted that the packet says the stenciling will be on Oak Street from Central
Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, but that Staff Ott had indicated Encinal Avenue in her presentation.
Staff Ott noted that Bike Alameda prefers Encinal Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, and that may be
possible.
Chair Knox White stated that he believes the Central Avenue bike lanes should be considered as a
mitigation for the garage project. He noted that other mitigations are as far away as Santa Clara
Avenue/Broadway, and that the bike lanes are close enough to the garage that it should be linked.
Commissioner Ratto moved approval of the following: 1) Bicyclists and citizens deserve
signage and stencils on Oak Street from Encinal Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, 2) the bike lane on
Central Avenue between Walnut Street and Oak Street should be restored, 3) the diagonal
parking on Central Avenue should be removed, 4) funding be found to implement these
mitigations as the project progresses, and 5) signage should be included at the entrance to the
parking structure indicating that bicycle parking is available. Commissioner Schatmeier
seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 6.
7B.
Recommendations for Countywide Bike Plan
Staff Bergman presented the staff report. He noted that the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency is beginning its bicycle plan update process before the City of Alameda has
had the chance to update its plan. Following discussions with CMA staff, project
recommendations for the countywide plan were developed with input from the Transportation
Commission's Bicycle Plan Subcommittee and members of the public. Recommendations from
the full TC will in turn be forwarded to the City Council, which will forward its
recommendations to the CMA.
Transportation Commission
Page 7 of 8
April 27, 2005",TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2005-04-27,8,"Commissioner Schatmeier moved to recommend the following projects for inclusion in the
Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan:
1) Feasibility study and capital costs of estuary crossing from Alameda's west end to
Oakland
2) Segments of the Bay Trail in Alameda County, including those in the City of Alameda
3) The following route through central Alameda: Along Main Street from the Main Street
ferry terminal to Pacific Avenue, along Central Avenue from Pacific Avenue to Fernside
Boulevard, along Fernside Boulevard to the bike bridge, the bike bridge itself, and
along Doolittle Drive from the bike bridge to the city's border with Oakland.
4) Along Island Drive from Doolittle Drive to Mecartney Road, along Mecartney Road
from Island Drive to the Harbor Bay ferry terminal.
Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote -
6.
Transportation Commission
Page 8 of 8
April 27, 2005",TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-05-26,1,"Approved Minutes
Transportation Commission Meeting
Wednesday, May 26, 2021
Time:
6:30 p.m.
Location:
Due to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners were
able to attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom.
City Hall was NOT open to the public during the meeting.
Legistar Link:
https://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=811334&GUID=929D18C0-4EF7-433D-
83B3-574DE7818372&Options=info/&Search=
1. Roll Call
Present: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Nachtigall and Commissioners Yuen, Kohlstrand, Hans and
Weitze.
Absent: Commissioner Randy Rentschler
2. Agenda Changes
None.
3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957779&GUID=CF0A5B93-1B33
4C37-B39B-6855036CD070&FullText=1
Vice-Chair Alysha Nachtigall addressed the upcoming election for Chair and Vice-Chair. While
she had valued and appreciated her time as Vice-Chair she would not be throwing her hat in the
ring and would be stepping back for the next year.
4. Announcements / Public Comments
None.
Approved Transportation Minutes
1
May 26, 2021",TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-05-26,2,"5. Consent Calendar
5A. Draft Minutes - Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, September 23,
2020 (Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957780&GUID=A3EDAE6D-7EAB-
53E-8949-A3C1522365AD&FullText=1.
5B. Draft Minutes - Transportation Commission Meeting from March 24, 2021 (Action Item)
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957781&GUID=0F801557-03F6-
4328-9695-12B963C5E801&FullText=1.
Commissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand made a motion to approve both sets of minutes and
Commissioner Tina Yuen seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the
motion passed.
6. Regular Agenda Items
6A. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Policies on
Intersection Access Equity and Pedestrian Timing and Detection to Improve Safety at
Intersections (Action)
Russ Thompson, Interim City Engineer, introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff
report and attachments can be found at:
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957782&GUID=45694D62-1596-
4907-982E-A627F75C67DA&FullText=1.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked if there was a specific deadline that this needed to go back to City
Council.
Staff Member Thompson said it was currently scheduled for the second week of July.
Erin Smith, Director of Public Works, said there was no specific deadline but that the referral was
from September 2019. There was some pressure to be responsive.
Commissioner Scott Weitze wanted to know the thinking behind the removal of the pedestrian
barriers and what the data had shown.
Approved Transportation Minutes
2
May 26, 2021",TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-05-26,3,"Staff Member Thompson said he didn't want to give the impression that there was a rush to do it.
The overarching goal was to make intersections have crosswalks on all sides. That's assuming
there was Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) money available to extend sidewalks to create the
infrastructure that was needed. He discussed the expenses that would go into making intersections
fully functional on all legs.
Commissioner Weitze asked if there were any intersections where it didn't make sense to put a
crosswalk.
Staff Member Thompson said each intersection had to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Certainly, if it would cost $300,000 to do all the improvements, it would have to compete with
other intersections. Some things were cost prohibitive and if no real traffic or pedestrian safety
was being solved that would be a factor as well.
Ryan Dole, Traffic Engineer with Kimley Horn, added that the photo in the staff presentation was
at Packet Landing on Bay Farm Island. It was a good example of where sometimes barricades were
used to funnel people to a specific crosswalk, sometimes done for efficiency and not just safety.
He also explained the reasoning behind another intersection and why barricades could still be
warranted and useful in some intersections.
Commissioner Weitze asked if there was actual data that backed up faster cycle times at
intersections. He felt that drivers would get more frustrated if only a few cars made it through the
intersection at a time.
Staff Member Thompson said the thought was they were trying to avoid allocating time to a
movement in an intersection when nobody needed it. The frustration comes in when the cars are
stacked up North/South and no pedestrians crossing East/West. That was a simplified version of
what they were trying to do, to allocate time to those most in need.
Chair Soules asked about when the commission makes these endorsements and the council adopts
these resolutions she wanted to know more about how they were used. She wanted to know how
the resolution would be used going forward and what is established.
Director Smith acknowledged there had been inconsistency in how pedestrian detection had been
used in the city and this policy intended to provide that consistency. She pointed out areas on the
map that would be impacted and also discussed what projects would be started depending on the
budget.
Approved Transportation Minutes
3
May 26, 2021",TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-05-26,4,"Public Comments for #6A
Denyse Trepanier, from Bike Walk Alameda, thanked staff for putting this policy out for the public
to respond to. She thought it was very important they discussed how much of a burden they wanted
to put on people who move around public spaces not in a car. However, Bike Walk Alameda was
hoping that this policy would address the inequities there were in the burden right now in terms of
how they move about. She discussed all the inequities around the city and felt that this policy
didn't deal with the inequity of burden.
Cyndy Johnsen appreciated the effort so far on this important issue but she thought that the
resolution still needed work. She believed it fell short of the Council's direction and she hoped
that it could be improved. She called out the Council's first request about how if access is given to
the car then the pedestrian way should be granted too, and in the policy, it had been watered down
to only happen in certain circumstances. She brought up cities like Berkeley and Seattle that were
making bolder commitments to pedestrian safety and equity. She hoped they could work a little
harder to get it right.
Jim Strehlow said he agreed with the staff's recommendations that were against the Council's
referrals. He was happy to see a Civil Engineer finally providing input into these much-needed
discussions since without one it had lead to bad decisions historically. He agreed long and
unnecessary wait times lead to delays in transit and adds to greenhouse emissions and gave the
example of Sixth Street and Pacific Avenue and others. He agreed with Commissioner Weitze that
dangerous intersections exist that do not need crosswalks and gave the example of High Street and
Marina Drive.
Commissioner Comments and Discussion for #6A
Commissioner Kohlstrand agreed with many of what the public speakers had said and commended
the staff for moving this issue forward. She was also pleased to see many new crosswalks painted
around the city at intersections that had pedestrian safety issues. She generally agreed with the
staff recommendations as they related to signalized intersections but in response to the first two
speakers thought they should take things further, she gave examples of intersections and advised
to get rid of the beg buttons if they were not doing anything. She was concerned that this policy
exclusively focused on signalized intersections as a means of addressing intersection equitable
access for the city. She also addressed there was virtually no discussion about roundabouts and
how they treat stop-controlled intersections. She felt that they should be moving away from
signalized intersections and felt that was a primary way this resolution fell short. She thought that
the staff should take more time to really delve into this and get creative. She wanted to see that
happen before they took any action on this resolution and then refer it to the City Council. She also
Approved Transportation Minutes
4
May 26, 2021",TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-05-26,5,"asked about Transit Priorities and when the Mobility Element Technical Appendix would come
back for a review. She believed it was important that they review that appendix since the
Transportation Element itself did not address transit or bicycle priority, that information was in
the appendix.
Staff Member Payne did not believe the status on the Transit Priorities Streets would change much
because it tended to be where AC Transit was operating. She saw that as a stable situation.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said she disagreed with that. She had looked at it again and she did not
believe it reflected where AC Transit services are. She gave the example of how Clement Ave was
listed and it was not up to date.
Chair Soules recalled that they were going to get an updated version of the appendix because they
knew it needed a revision. Going forward they were going to want that to serve as a baseline as
other projects came forward for approval. She offered to follow up with Staff Member Payne to
see what the status was. She added that when she read the resolution, if and when there was a
traffic signal this is how they would operate. She felt that this captured that one piece where it
didn't need to contemplate everything else because it was only where it applied to an operation of
traffic signals.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said she appreciated what Chair Soules said and as it related to the
management of traffic signals she did not have an issue with what staff recommended. It was that
the definition of intersection equitable access was focused solely on signalized intersections and
that was where they had made a misstep, it should not just be focused on that.
Director Smith appreciated the comments and said it had been a difficult one to frame. She agreed
with Chair Soules that this was more of a traffic signal operation policy but perhaps there should
be better framing around that. She also agreed that when they defined intersection access equity
they had been thinking about how it would apply to signalized intersections in response to this
referral. She added that there needs to be a definition to happen for all intersections regardless of
what the control was.
Chair Soules was fine with it since it was trying to answer this one specific issue with traffic signals
on the recall. Her biggest issue was for transit corridors to have that reliability.
Commissioner Kohlstrand said she understood that this was very focused on signalized
intersections but still had issues with the definition of intersection access equity in the staff report.
This was a new term to her and brought up ways they should broaden that definition.
Approved Transportation Minutes
5
May 26, 2021",TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-05-26,6,"Director Smith clarified that intersection access equity was not an industry term, and it came out
of the Council's referrals. She thought of ways they could broaden that term or clear up the
language. She also thought about not defining it and just moving forward with the Council's
referrals.
Commissioner Yuen said she was challenged by what the goal of the policy was trying to achieve.
She wondered if there needed to be some articulation of principals around what was guiding the
effort.
Director Smith clarified the crux of what they had been going for was to serve the needed time to
the users when they were there. This was about detection and actuation in setting signal timing.
They did not want to put an undue burden on the people who were actually at the intersection.
Commissioner Weitze said he read this document as an allocation of time document as opposed to
a safety document. He thought it did a good job of balancing multiple needs as well as
acknowledging the requirements for changes. While he did normally agree with Bike Walk
Alameda and Oakland on a lot of issues he did, however, not agree with them on the evils of beg
buttons. He thought they were good, solved many problems, and were not an undue burden in the
majority of cases for pedestrians and bikes who use them.
Commissioner Kolhstrand said she tried to understand the Council's specific questions about
signal timing and tried to reconcile that with the staff report and the statement that intersection
equitable access had to do with signal timing. She thought if they cleaned that up, it would be
better.
Director Smith asked if it would help if they renamed it or coined a different term. She discussed
the different programs they had that did address safety to various other intersections.
Rochelle Wheeler, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, believed that changing the title of that
definition would have it go in the right direction since they have many policies and documents that
had looked at intersections of all types. She added that staff should and did look at existing policies
when they implement new ones.
Vice-Chair Nachtigall understood how hard this was to frame. She too would appreciate the
definition being clarified. She echoed Commissioner Weitze's comment about the benefits of beg
buttons, and it is better when they work consistently, however.
Approved Transportation Minutes
6
May 26, 2021",TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-05-26,7,"Commissioner Kohlstrand asked that there be more explanation around the term intersection
access equity. Even with all her experience in the transportation field, she had never heard that
term.
Chair Soules made a motion to bring this agenda item back at the July meeting or according to the
schedule that the city staff set with the time needed for revisions before it went to Council, and
wanted to reference ""signalized"" intersection access equity. Commissioner Weitze seconded and
a vote was taken by a raise of hands, the motion passed 6-0.
6B. Recommend that the City Council Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute
Documents Necessary to Accept and Allocate $1,555,000 in Grant Funds from the Alameda
County Transportation Commission to Complete a Project Initiation Document for the
Alameda-Oakland Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge Project (Action)
Chair Soules recused herself from this agenda item.
Staff Member Wheeler introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and
attachments can be found at
 https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957783&GUID=809FF584-BBD0-
49BD-8E4C-6F4A45F057E2&FullText=1.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B
Commissioner Weitze asked for clarification on the initial and annual costs of the water taxi.
Staff Member Wheeler pointed out that was part of the feasibility study page. She added that it
would depend on how frequently the boats were used, who owned the boats, and many other factors
that the study did not go into. In general, the potential cost would be around $1 million to initiate
the water services and $2 million to operate and maintain it annually.
Commissioner Weitze said that he was baffled by the numbers, and he did not understand why
those numbers were what they were. Why not just buy the boat tomorrow?
Staff Member Payne explained they would have the boat in July, WETA would be starting water
shuttle services from the Alameda Main Street ferry terminal for commuters going to Oakland.
Commissioner Weitze asked if that was the short hop that was part of the regular route or was it
just a short hop frequently.
Approved Transportation Minutes
7
May 26, 2021",TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-05-26,8,"Staff Member Payne said it was during commute time at this point and it was part of the Sea Plane
Shift.
Commissioner Weitze said that was helpful information but it did not answer his question. He did
not understand how the boat cost $1 million and $2 million a year to operate but the bridge cost
$200 million in 25 years when they build it. He did not understand why there wasn't a new boat
out of Alameda Landing 6 months from now and they just don't run it.
Staff Member Wheeler said the medium term option was the water shuttle. She discussed all the
effort going into getting a water shuttle and getting a boat in the first place. She also discussed all
the ways they had looked into bringing the cost down.
Commissioner Weitze asked if this project were to be funded, what kind of population
requirements were there for the island.
Staff Member Wheeler said they had looked at the projected population based on current zoning
and planned projects. She believed they would be looking at the number of people who use the
boat, which is also based on employment. She did not anticipate that Alameda had to grow by a
certain amount.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked about the first forecast for the Pedestrian and Bicycle Demand
from 2009 and wanted to know if they would look at that again when it came in for environmental
review.
Staff Member Wheeler said they had done the Traffic Demand Model with the study they had
published this year.
Commissioner Kohlstrand asked if the bridge was high enough that it would not have to be raised
for the sailboats but just the Coast Guard Cutters.
Staff Member Wheeler said when the bridge would be down, the height would be about 65-70 feet
above the water and that would allow about 90 percent of sailboats to go underneath it.
Public Comments for #6B
Denyse Trepanier, with Bike Walk Alameda, gave her support for the staff recommendation that
they accept $1.5 million from the county. She also wanted to acknowledge all the work done by
Approved Transportation Minutes
8
May 26, 2021",TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-05-26,9,"Staff Member Wheeler. She believed that this should not be a city lead project but a regional
project and felt that Staff Member Wheeler had done the lion's share of this project. She
acknowledged that getting a new transit service up and running was really hard and time-
consuming. She discussed all the difficulties in getting the water shuttle services up and running
and it was the short-term solution. She thought they were in a really good place to move forward
with this project.
Susie Hufstader echoed what Ms. Trepanier had said about Staff Member Wheeler and her team
for all the work she had done shepherding this project forward. This project was overwhelming
and it took a lot of work from the city staff. She discussed the importance of really thinking
differently about infrastructure and what other cities were doing. She believed this project would
be transformative for Alameda. She encouraged the commissioners to speak up about this project
to make it a high priority.
Cyndy Johnsen also thanked Staff Member Wheeler and staff for working on this gigantic project.
She wanted everyone to think about how big and impossible it seemed at one time to have
highways across America, and now it's just part of life. The price might seem high but there was
no bike infrastructure or the West End that connected to Oakland. She gave other ideas on how to
think about bike equity and discussed all the different requirements this bridge had to meet. She
hoped there were ways they could work with the Coast Guard and look at design elements to bring
the cost down. She was very excited about this project.
Jim Strehlow wanted to discuss the Feasibility Study from 2009 that had been a priority for 7 years.
He had asked repeatedly for a year now for a project status update from Staff Member Wheeler.
He wanted to know how much income had been brought in since Alameda Landing was supposed
to contribute $175,000 and he wasn't sure if that was yearly or not. He thought that going from the
Main Street ferry terminal to Webster Street was too far, Alameda Landing was a better option.
He liked that WETA was involved. He wanted to know what lies had been put into the Travel
Demand Model estimate of the daily bike trips. He talked about past bridges in the area that boats
had crashed into and the plan had no disaster backup plan.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B
Commissioner Yuen said she was very much in support of moving this forward. She did not see
this as an either-or situation, bridge vs. other modes of access across the estuary. She mentioned
she lived on the West End and she was excited for the water shuttle and this bridge. She saw this
as an important critical next step in moving this project forward and fully supported it.
Approved Transportation Minutes
9
May 26, 2021",TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-05-26,10,"Vice-Chair Nachtigall believed this was very notable especially with the research that showed that
over 40,000 fewer auto trips per week were possible. She was in full support.
Commissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the staff recommendation that the City
Council Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Documents Necessary to Accept
and Allocate $1,555,000 in Grant Funds from the Alameda County Transportation Commission to
Complete a Project Initiation Document for the Alameda-Oakland Bicycle-Pedestriar Bridge
Project. Commissioner Michael Hans seconded the motion, a vote was taken by a raise of hands
and the motion passed 5-0 with Chair Soules having recused herself.
6C. Update on Vision Zero Action Plan Development and Crash Data Analysis (Discussion)
Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report
and attachments can be found at
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957784&GUID=CC342571-9648-
4854-9EF6-C939AA16557F&FullText=1.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6C
Commissioner Weitze asked if the recent work done at Alameda Point had conformed to all the
Vision Zero recommendations.
Staff Member Wheeler said they were focusing on as much state-of-the-art infrastructure as they
could.
Public Comments for #6C
Jim Strehlow said that this study did not publish counts of who was at fault, such as poor lighting
or someone distracted by their phone. He said with all the different cultures on the island, he
wanted to know in what different languages they had created safety information for.
Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6C
Chair Soules said this was a lot of data but thought it had been put forward in a great graphic way.
Approved Transportation Minutes
10
May 26, 2021",TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-05-26,11,"Commissioner Yuen thanked Staff Member Foster and city staff for all their work on the Vision
Zero Plan and was really pleased with the progress. She asked what city staff had learned from a
recent fatality and two severe injuries that happened in the first quarter of 2021.
Staff Member Foster said the fatality had been a cyclist and they had done a Post-Collison Site
Visit. She discussed the ways they were planning on making the intersection safer and the entire
corridor was slated for improvements. The other two collisions still needed to have their Post-
Collison Site Visit.
Commissioner Yuen said since the data went until 2018 was there any plan to continue to update
the crash data and high injury corridors.
Staff Member Foster said the plan was to do a full high injury corridor every 5 years. She also
discussed other information that would improve and help her studies.
Vice-Chair Nachtigall appreciated the data-driven analysis and commended Staff Member Foster,
staff, and the consultant team. She found the information easy to read and understand. She stated
as the parent of a third-grader the findings in the study were very challenging and unfortunate. She
appreciated the new high visibility crosswalks and safety measures, and she was looking forward
to seeing the full Vision Zero Action Plan.
Commissioner Weitze asked about the crash data in the report and wanted to know specifics about
the 33 percent of drivers hitting pedestrians in crosswalks. He wanted to know if that included
straight-on collisions and right turns.
Staff Member Foster said that was drivers traveling straight, not turning.
Commissioner Weitze asked if they had the information about crashes where drivers were turning.
Staff Member Foster said she could get that information for him.
Commissioner Kohlstrand echoed her fellow commissioners in that this was great work so far. She
asked when the Socially Vulnerable Map would be updated.
Staff Member Payne said it was happening with the Hazard Mitigation Plan update that was
beginning now.
Approved Transportation Minutes
11
May 26, 2021",TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-05-26,12,"Commissioner Kohlstrand asked if it was based on Census Data or some other data.
Staff Member Payne said that it was mainly based on Census Data and a combination of various
factors.
6D. Status Report on Transportation - May 2021 (Discussion)
Staff Member Payne introduced the item and gave a brief presentation with Staff Member Wheeler.
The staff report and presentation can be found at
http://alameda.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=792bf795-7f1d-41b8-a994-
14e7b34ce277.pdf and
http://alameda.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=e03c16e4-945d-47c1-bf9d-
07656ad6a5a7.pdf.
Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6D
Chair Soules said the graphics and the layout had come a long way. She commended the extra
effort the staff did to make this more readable.
Vice-Chair Nachtigall asked if they were going to be charging for parking right away at the Sea
Plane Lagoon ferry terminal.
Staff Member Foster said they would not have paid parking in place for when the ferry started but
they would be getting it implemented soon. Pay stations will be installed in the coming months.
Commissioner Weitze wanted to know what the staff thought about traffic being bad and backed
up everywhere except getting on and off the island on the West End. How could they keep that
going forward?
Staff Member Payne said much of that had to do with the demographics of Alameda, people tend
to have jobs where they can telecommute, and schools were not in session.
Commissioner Weitze asked if city staff was projecting that to continue since demographics were
going in the direction of telecommuting.
Staff Member Payne said that was hard to predict but it did present an opportunity to help with
congestion on and off the island.
Approved Transportation Minutes
12
May 26, 2021",TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2021-05-26,13,"Commissioner Yuen had also thought about the VMT returning to almost 100 percent in parts of
the Bay Area. She wondered what that meant for the future VMT for Alameda and how to keep it
low. She saw transit as a way to do that and a way to alleviate fears with Covid measures.
Public Comments for #6D
Jim Strehlow said they completely ignored the Alameda Oakland Access project. This was a major
project over the last 6-8 years. It will highly affect the multimodal travel patterns. He asked that
they also identity Orion Street's endpoints.
Commissioner Comments and Discussion #6D
There were no other comments on this item.
7. Announcements / Public Comments
Commissioner Kohlstrand discussed a recent story she heard on NPR about the potential removal
of the I-980 Freeway in Downtown Oakland and that it was gaining some interest in moving that
project ahead. She wanted to know if Alameda had been involved in that discussion, she believed
it would be wise to do SO.
Staff Member Wheeler said she had not heard that story but they could reach out to Oakland City
Staff.
Staff Member Payne agreed they could and should look into that.
Jim Strehlow also discussed the potential closure of the I-980 Freeway in Oakland. He could not
believe that was a good idea and was going backward.
Chair Soules discussed the morning's tragedy at the Santa Clara VTA rail yard in San Jose. She
sent her thoughts to the victim's families and everyone in the industry.
8. Adjournment
Chair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
Approved Transportation Minutes
13
May 26, 2021",TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-04-09,1,"APPROVED MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2018
1. CONVENE
President Mitchell convened the meeting at 9:13pm
2. FLAG SALUTE
3. ROLL CALL
Present: President Mitchell, Board Members Cavanaugh, Curtis, Köster, Sullivan,
Teague.
Absent: Board Member Burton.
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION
*None*
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
*None*
7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
7-A 2018-5419
Approve Final Design Review Details for Block 9 Site A at Alameda Point
Staff Member Thomas introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be
found at:
ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3464715&GUID=5D2CB5C3-
47D-4D5B-8AFB-1C6F3A8983A2&FullText=
Kevin Markarian, Pyatok Architects, gave a presentation on changes to the final design.
The landscape architect gave a presentation on the updated landscape plan.
Board Member Teague said he reviewed the previous meeting where this item was
discussed, which he was not present for.
Board Member Sullivan said they chose trees that are very slow growing. She asked how
they selected the coast live oak, which requires a large space to grow into.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 3
April 9, 2018",TransportationCommission/2018-04-09.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-04-09,2,"The landscape architect said the Master Infrastructure Plan prescribes the larger street
tree choices and that they do not have control over that.
Board Member Sullivan asked if we need to have so many colors on the building elevation.
She referenced the Del Monte senior housing building as a recent example of poor color
choices and execution.
Board Member Köster said that the board gave feedback previously that the building was
too flat and would benefit from increased color.
President Mitchell said the use of color in this project is more muted and said he and his
wife both approve of the palette.
Board Member Cavanaugh asked if the rooftop would be available for public use or only
for the residents of the building.
Mr. Markarian said that it would be a resident only amenity.
President Mitchell asked for information on the lighting of the project.
Mr. Markarian said the marquee sign may or may not be lit from below. He said they would
be relying on street lighting to light the building.
The landscape architect said that the bird safe guidelines dictate no uplighting on the
trees.
Board Member Curtis said it was a good design that addressed the concerns raised by
the board in the previous meeting.
Board Member Köster said he met with the applicant and appreciated all the attention paid
with the changes to the design.
Board Member Köster made a motion to approve the staff recommendation. Board
Member Teague seconded the motion.
Board Member Teague said the pops of color were attractive.
The motion passed 6-0.
8. MINUTES
*None*
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 3
April 9, 2018",TransportationCommission/2018-04-09.pdf
TransportationCommission,2018-04-09,3,"9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A 2018-5417
Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions
Staff Member Thomas gave a brief report. The staff report and plans can be found at:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3464713&GUID=1CE86FAD-
IE7E-46BE-B551-29D301C72780&FullText=1
9-B 2018-5418
Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Community Development
Department Projects
The schedule preview can be found at:
ittps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3464714&GUID=79700CF9-
E701-45D1-84FF-26DE33E1FB45
10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Board Member Teague said he met with Save Alameda's Working Waterfront regarding
Alameda Marina. He asked if he needed to share the documents given to him at the
meeting.
Staff Member Thomas said it was up to his discretion whether to share information given
to him by a member of the public.
Board Member Köster pointed out that the public can provide written comment on the
agenda items which gets included in the public record.
Board Member Teague raised privacy concerns about including personal contact
information in online permit postings. He said the board should agendize a discussion
about potential changes to how their meetings are conducted, referencing the League of
Cities conference.
President Mitchell also suggested including the Open Government Commission
recommendations.
12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
*None*
13. ADJOURNMENT
President Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 9:54pm.
Approved Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 3
April 9, 2018",TransportationCommission/2018-04-09.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-03-26,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes:
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
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:
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Thomas G. Bertken
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Eric Schatmeier
Members Absent:
Michele Bellows
Gregory Morgado
Staff Present:
Liam Garland, Deputy Public Works Director
Virendra Patel, Public Works Transportation Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Sergeant Ron Simmons, Police Department
2.
Agenda Changes
None.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Commissioner Vargas said he spoke with Will Kempton, Executive Director of Transportation
California, and he may not go forward with this year's ballot measure to raise funds for
transportation. The consequence of it will now put pressure on cities, counties and transportation
agencies. He explained that this issue will be addressed through the Alameda County
Transportation Commission seeking more funding through Measure B reauthorization.
Nevertheless, there are projects that are funded from existing Measure B and prior Measure B
monies.",TransportationCommission/2014-03-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-03-26,2,"Page 2 of 12
4.
Consent Calendar
A quorum was not met to approve the minutes. So, the minutes will be carried over to the next
Transportation Commission meeting.
4A.
Meeting Minutes - Wednesday, December 11, 2013
4B.
Meeting Minutes - Wednesday, January 22, 2014
5.
New Business
5A. Update on I-880/23rd Avenue/29th Avenue Interchange Project (Alameda County
Transportation Commission)
Staff Patel gave an update on the project and introduced the speakers.
Stefan Garcia, Alameda County Transportation Commission, presented the report.
Garrett Gritz, Design Manager and Consultant for Environmental Planning and Final
Engineering Phase, presented the existing conditions and the intended changes.
Val Ignacio, Caltrans Project Manager, presented Scott McCrank, Caltrans Senior Project
Corridor Manager and RocQuel Johnson, Caltrans Public Information Officer, to explain more
about the project.
Commissioner Vargas asked if the information on the website included the rerouting of traffic.
RocQuel Johnson replied yes.
Scott McCrank presented the stages of the project and projected reroutes.
Commissioner Miley asked if any of the stages would overlap.
Stefan Garcia said this project is designed linearly, but because of the area's uniqueness of
traffic and demand, the stages would be followed very clearly. There are phases within each
stage, but there should not be much overlap.
Commissioner Bertken said when staff spoke of the stages, he assumed they were talking about
traffic stages and there could be construction stages that overlap.
Stefan Garcia stated that there are only minor portions that will have overlapping.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, explained that the city of Alameda would suffer for five years,
Alameda businesses would suffer for the next 20 years and the project was based on the city of
Page 2 of 12",TransportationCommission/2014-03-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-03-26,3,"Page 3 of 12
Oakland's needs. Additionally, he stated that the bridges for San Leandro would become wider
and Ford Street at 29th Street would become a major choke point. Moreover, he felt that there
was not a mitigation plan for Alameda. Fruitvale Avenue and High Street should contain extra
lanes. Overall, he felt Alameda has been totally neglected in this plan.
Commissioner Miley said his comments echoed Jim Strehlow's and felt that the Fruitvale and
High Street traffic counts are not as high as Park Street. Moreover, he felt Fruitvale Avenue has
enough traffic capacity that is not being used. He also believed the light at Elm Avenue is a
hindrance and he would like to see something done about the light cycle. He also recommended
that there should be a second northbound to I-880 lane at High Street and if there will be a lot of
detours he would like staff to look at how to improve traffic flow on Fruitvale Avenue and High
Street bridges. He was concerned about the amount of outreach conducted for the project and
the fact that mailers were only sent to residents around the corridor rather than throughout the
island. However, he commended staff that a committee was put together and the initial outreach
was made. Moreover, he wanted to know if signage would be erected to alert commuters about
the traffic conditions.
Scott McCrank replied that the overhead signage on the freeway would display the changes, but
for local traffic changes, they would have changeable message signage such as ""This Bridge
closed use 23rd Avenue"".
Commissioner Miley replied that traffic was light on the Fruitvale Avenue bridge. At Elm Street,
they should restripe to allow two lanes going northbound to improve capacity.
Scott McCrank replied that they would have to work with both cities to see if changes could be
made.
Commissioner Bertken replied that having a seven-day period to see what happens is a very
reactive approach and he wanted to know what staff was doing to locate the traffic patterns now
to know what will occur.
Garrett Gritz said analysis was conducted for the intersections of Oakland and Alameda. He
explained that staff incorporated the detours and used the numbers from the traffic analysis and
everything worked and a contingency plan was in place if changes occur such as from the
economic improvement.
Commissioner Vargas wondered if the new CTMP group met regularly.
Scott McCrank said they met during the design phase and they are at a lull right now because the
contract was going through the bidding process and more meetings will occur as the schedule is
defined. All project information including changes would be presented to Staff Patel.
Commissioner Vargas explained that when accessing I-880 southbound from Park Street, there is
deteriorating pavement and he wondered who would rehabilitate that now.
Stefan Garcia replied there was not much they could do until they get the contractor on board.
Page 3 of 12",TransportationCommission/2014-03-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-03-26,4,"Page 4 of 12
The responsibility would be directed to the city's maintenance department depending on the
jurisdiction.
Commissioner Vargas asked if the TMP document could be made available to the Commission.
Stefan Garcia replied that the document has been circulating since 2012 and the addendum has
been circulating since last year.
Commissioner Vargas requested that staff send the documents to the Commission.
Commissioner Vargas asked if more money were made available for the project would there be
more enhancements that could benefit Alameda.
Stefan Garcia replied that the project is coming from a state bond specifically from the
infrastructure corridors fund. So, they are limited in construction from that funding source and
the project was under tight scrutiny from the state-bonding program.
Garrett Gritz explained that they looked at a number of alternatives and they were told by the
Alameda business community that they tell their customers to use High Street. Thus, this project
will allow customers to exit off of 29th Avenue and arrive at the Park Street triangle. He
communicated this project to the business community and they felt that it was a positive change.
Additionally, he explained that some of the components that were not implemented were for AC
Transit bus queue jumps within the corridor. He said that it was talked about in the early
planning stages but these transit components were not part of the funding source.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if there was a post project evaluation that would take place
to see if they had accomplished what they set out to do because the High Street project made the
queues longer and the signal timing is worse.
Stefan Garcia explained that the concern was concentrated on the movements on the local streets
and street light timing. There will be scrutiny during and after the construction by the two cities.
Commissioner Miley seconded Commissioner Schatmeier's comments and asked about the
metering lights, which he felt was an Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC)
function. He also asked if anyone reviewed the function of the metering lights near I-880 and the
fact that they may not be necessary at 98th Avenue, Davis or Marina, particularly because the
lanes are narrow and the delays are difficult.
Stefan Garcia said that the 98th Avenue corridor was under construction and generally the ramp
metering lights and intersections nearby are controlled by Caltrans. However, the metering
lights have to be coordinated with the city lights and that is not always a perfect fit. They would
have to coordinate with local jurisdictions to persuade them that a change would be needed.
Scott McCrank replied that he communicates with the ramp metering groups often and he could
go back and talk with them to see if adjustments could be made.
Page 4 of 12",TransportationCommission/2014-03-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-03-26,5,"Page 5 of 12
Commissioner Miley stated that the project's website address is hard to remember and suggested
the URL be shortened.
RocQuel Johnson explained that the website www.dot.ca.gov was a state website and brought the
public to all the projects listed within District 4. It was not feasible to shorten the website
address. She also suggested that people can enter ""I-880 overcrossing"" into Google and the
project would pop up.
Commissioner Bertken replied that Caltrans' project reports should not only identify what is
under construction, but report the public benefits so the project could be monitored after
completion.
Stefan Garcia said that there are detailed summaries and reviews by the operations staff to meet
the end goal.
Staff Patel stated Caltrans would present their report to the City Council, but the date has not
been set.
5B. Park Street Pedestrian Safety Project
Staff Patel explained that they conducted a series of community meetings with the business
district and residents around the location between Lincoln Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue. He
also introduced the project consultants Joy Bhattacharya from Stantec Consultants and David
Mahama from DKS Associates to present.
Joy Bhattacharya, Stantec Consultants, presented.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked how the bulb-outs proposed compare to the existing bulb-outs
on Park Street near Santa Clara Avenue.
Joy Bhattacharya replied that the protrusion of the bulb-out remains the same.
Commissioner Miley asked staff if they needed approval from the Commission to move the
project forward.
Staff Patel replied that they are in the conceptual design stage, but they would like the
Commission to approve the concept so they can move to the construction phase.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association Executive Director, thanked staff and the
consultants for conducting a raucous public meeting at the library on October 2013. He
explained that he was in support of the project and appreciated that parking spots were spared,
which is important to the small businesses on Lincoln Avenue and Park Street. He said his board
looked at the project design and supported the project. Additionally, he looked forward to the
corner where the Chevron Station is located becoming a real corner.
Page 5 of 12",TransportationCommission/2014-03-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-03-26,6,"Page 6 of 12
David Burton of the Planning Board spoke before the Commission as a local resident and
architect. He thanked staff for the public process, but was not completely happy with the design.
The Buena Vista Avenue intersection is an improvement and created pedestrian access. The
biggest concern is at the Lincoln Avenue and Tilden Way intersection. Although it is a modest
improvement, the design does not go far enough to create a pedestrian friendly environment.
The Planning Board rezoned the area north of Lincoln Avenue with the intent to revitalize the
area and make it a pedestrian friendly environment. The intersection was crucial to making a
successful bridge with the southern stretch of Park Street and the northern stretch. The
alternatives studied were much more favorable because they narrowed the intersections and
slowed traffic. Moreover, he referred to the General Plan, which states that biking and transit
have priority over vehicles and this design ignores the directive. He encouraged the Commission
to approve a plan that is consistent with the General Plan and that this intersection needs further
development.
Commissioner Vargas asked David Burton which area he wanted to narrow.
David Burton replied all four sides of the intersection specifically travelling along the Park Street
direction because it is not a comfortable environment for pedestrians.
Lucy Gigli, President of BikeWalk Alameda, thanked staff for working diligently on the project
and organizing the outreach meetings. The proposal indicated that it would be the final part of
the Park Street Streetscape Plan, which confused her because she thought they would continue to
improve the streetscape north of Lincoln Boulevard. The changes at Buena Vista Avenue and
Pacific Avenue are good because the intersection reduced the crossing distances. She is
disappointed with the north end of Lincoln Avenue because of the lack of improvements. She
also explained that the Walgreens and the Marketplace area will have a new parking lot and that
parking lot should be shared by all modes of travel. The Mayor recently stated that the City
needs to make bold and daring decisions, which is not shown here with the Lincoln Avenue/Park
Street proposal.
Audrey Lord-Hausman, pedestrian advocate and member of the Commission on Disability
Issues, said overall there are a lot of good concepts in the project. She also felt the Walgreens
and Marketplace parking lot works well for those who need to make multiple trips to different
stores in the area. She has been working with Staff Patel on placing the light signal push buttons
in an accessible place for elderly and disabled pedestrians on Webster Street, which also is
needed here on Park Street. Additionally, she suggested having upright flashing lights placed at
the pedestrian crossings for motorists to see pedestrians and not the recommended in-pavement
lights as recommended at Park Street/Pacific Avenue.
Commissioner Miley asked staff about the funding source and time constraints for the funds.
Staff Patel replied that the funding was part of the transportation, community, safety and
preservation funds. He also explained that staff started the process in 2012 and when staff
received the funding for the preliminary engineering they have two years to complete the project.
Page 6 of 12",TransportationCommission/2014-03-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-03-26,7,"Page 7 of 12
Commissioner Miley asked staff if the funds have to be allocated or spent at a certain date.
Staff Patel replied within 2-3 years.
Commissioner Schatmeier referred to the Lincoln Avenue and Tilden Way interchange and the
five alternatives that were considered. He wondered if any of the alternatives addressed the
north side of the intersection in terms of bulb-outs and modifications.
Staff Patel replied that staff reviewed the north side of the intersection and construction of the
Walgreens store was underway. He said the store planned to improve the light standards and the
poles, which are getting hit by trucks making right-hand turns. He said the area would be safer
with the changes, but there are challenges with the area because it was not laid out on a true 90-
degree angle.
Commissioner Schatmeier said staff made several safety improvements, but nothing similar
to
the north side and based on staff's response that was due to the Walgreens project. He wanted to
know if they could look at the north side. He felt a review was important because the area
encouraged vehicles to make fast turns from Park Street onto Lincoln Avenue.
Staff Patel said staff would review the area.
Commissioner Bertken said he looked at the diagram (westbound) and he is familiar with the
intersection going up Tilden Way crossing Park Street. He explained that motorists have to
merge in and they effectively lose a lane when crossing over, but the diagram showed the
following three lanes: a straight lane, a turn lane and an unknown lane near the curb.
Joy Bhattacharya replied that the unknown lane is a continuous bike lane. He said staff
reviewed the options for bulb-outs on the north side, but the lanes on Lincoln Avenue and Tilden
Way, plus the left turn movements prohibit staff from creating a bulb-out at that location. He
explained that Park Street on the north and south sides do not have a left turn lane, so that allows
staff more space to work.
Commissioner Miley referred to Lincoln Avenue and asked staff if the two lanes headed
westbound could merge onto Tilden Way and become one lane on Lincoln Avenue. He also
wanted to know if the traffic counts would prohibit this type of configuration.
Joy Bhattacharya replied that they reviewed that option, but the traffic counts were too high.
Also, one of the lanes becomes a left turn lane at the next intersection.
Commissioner Vargas asked Sergeant Simmons to talk about accident and fatality counts on Park
Street.
Sergeant Simmons, City of Alameda Police Department and Traffic, stated that within his 22
years with the Alameda Police Department he does not know of any fatality collisions at these
intersections along Park Street. However, he said there were pedestrian collisions, but he does
not have the data available.
Page 7 of 12",TransportationCommission/2014-03-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-03-26,8,"Page 8 of 12
Commission Bertken said they talked about the markings on the pavement for pedestrian
crossings for example near Lum Elementary School. Yet, he wanted to know how well motorists
understood the markings and actually stopped for pedestrians.
Sergeant Simmons said drivers do adhere to the limit lines or markings and they have crossing
guards to make sure motorists yield to pedestrians at Lum School.
Commissioner Berkten would like to see more public information on traffic control devices
presented to the public.
Sergeant Simmons said that as they become more apparent within the City, then community
outreach will increase.
Joy Bhattacharya replied staff reviewed data at the intersections of Buena Vista Avenue and
Park Street as well as Lincoln Avenue and Park Street over the last five years. They concluded
that four injuries involving pedestrian collisions occurred and along Tilden Way, five accidents
occurred.
Commissioner Miley asked what cross time improvements were made at Lincoln Avenue at Park
Street, specifically where the bulb-out is implemented on the west side.
Joy Bhattacharya replied that there is a 5.6 feet reduction, so pedestrians walking at 3 feet per
second or an elderly person walking at 2.5 feet per second would gain 2-3 seconds. He also
stated that the opposite direction would be 12-feet with a 4 second reduction. Moreover, the
signal light would include longer countdown times.
Commissioner Schatmeier referred to the north side on Tilden Way and found conflicting
responses from staff. First staff said they would look at the area once the Walgreens project was
complete and then staff said the area was impractical for aggressive enhancements. So, he felt
there are two conflicting answers to his question. Also, he did not hear staff address the same
issue on the north west side, where the automobile lanes are merging into one. Ultimately, he
wanted to know if staff was still looking at the area to make further enhancements to pedestrian
safety.
David Mahama replied staff conducted a template analysis to place bulb-outs in the area, but
they had to figure out how vehicles and pedestrians would navigate the intersections safely. He
pointed out that a few delivery trucks use the area during the daytime hours and it is not feasible
to put a bulb-out at the two corners.
Joy Bhattacharya replied what came out of the community meetings was a concern for lost
parking spaces. Staff could revisit the north west corner and draw a bulb-out and then provide
the information of how many parking spaces would be lost.
Commissioner Schatmeier said he would like to see the analysis of the area.
Page 8 of 12",TransportationCommission/2014-03-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-03-26,9,"Page 9 of 12
Staff Patel said that staff would come back to the Commission and report their findings.
Commissioner Bertken made a motion to approve the intersections presented, with
the exception of the Tilden Way and Lincoln Avenue intersection, which would be
reviewed later. Commissioner Miley seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 4-0.
5C. Informational Report on Parking Meter Study
Liam Garland, City of Alameda Deputy Public Works Director, presented the report.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.
Robb Ratto said Liam Garland presented at their board meeting and felt the extra signage to
drive people to the parking lot was a great idea. However, he stated that the metered equipment
ties into the rates and Liam Garland said the rate of $1.50 was too high for Park Street. Yet, he
felt the biggest complaints that come to him were the inconvenience of carrying so much change
to park. He believed that smart meters using credit cards are needed, especially within the 1400-
1600 block of Park Street and the side streets. He also stated that he would meet with Sergeant
Simmons to request for more aggressive enforcement because many motorists stay at one meter
and feed it throughout the day.
Commissioner Miley asked what is the cost differential between the smart meters and kiosks.
Liam Garland replied that the smart meters are less costly than the kiosks. However, staff must
conduct an analysis on how many meters per kiosk are needed and then establish the fee
structure. He pointed out that one company dominates the smart meter market and they are
offering a competitive per credit card meter rate.
Commissioner Miley asked staff since one company dominates the market would they be locked
down into a contract where the rates could possibly change.
Liam Garland said staff was concerned about this issue. The company is working with a number
of cities such as Berkeley, Los Angeles and Santa Monica. Additionally, the company can
provide this competitive cost because they come from the telecommunications sector and they
are currently entering the parking sector.
Commissioner Miley asked in the short term what will be done.
Liam Garland replied on Park Street that there are kiosks and they are exploring to expand them,
but they need public input. Also, he stated that it is not just about the costs, but also street
aesthetics.
Commissioner Miley said bicyclists tend to park their bikes at the meters and he would like to see
more bike parking if the City removes the meters. He also pointed out that if people are parking
all day then the parking rates are not high enough.
Page 9 of 12",TransportationCommission/2014-03-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-03-26,10,"Page 10 of 12
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that when he reviewed the study he wondered if staff looked at
a demand-based parking strategy and referred to city of San Rafael's success at implementing
such a strategy. He stated that if the parking spaces are filled then the City needs to charge more
for them.
Liam Garland explained that the City of San Francisco has implemented a demand-based
parking strategy (SFPark) and many parts of the city have different rates and the rates vary based
on the time period. Regular meters require a lot of labor to change the rates, but the kiosks and
smart meters could be easily changed.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff if they have reviewed whether people would avoid the meters
if the parking rates increased.
Liam Garland said that he has some data from the cities of Berkeley and San Francisco
suggesting that it took a year or two for the price signal to sink in so the City will not see
people's behavior change until that time.
Commissioner Bertken asked staff if they reviewed whether people would shift their shopping
behavior due to the parking increase to South Shore Center where parking is free.
Liam Garland said staff was concerned about the potential loss of business from Park Street to
the South Shore shopping center because they have free parking. Yet, staff had evidence from
the City's sales tax receipts that both locations have done well year after year and each location
was vastly different.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that if you raised rates too high then people would go away, but
the key is to price it to have available parking and keep the demand there.
Commissioner Vargas wanted to know if there is a maintenance component to the smart meters
versus the kiosks.
Liam Garland said the City would have to contract out to troubleshoot and repair the kiosks, but
the City's maintenance team could be trained to switch out the top of the smart meters.
Commissioner Vargas asked about the implementation.
Liam Garland explained that staff is waiting for data from the parking occupancy survey. Once
they receive data, they will begin the implementation process.
5D. Grand Street at Wood School Intersection Improvement Project - Final Design
Staff Payne presented the report.
Commissioner Vargas asked if the plants are native or low water plants.
Page 10 of 12",TransportationCommission/2014-03-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-03-26,11,"Page 11 of 12
Staff Payne replied both and she asked the Commission to approve the design. Also, the next
steps were to put together the specifications and bring the plan before City Council in order for
the project to go out to bid for construction. Once staff selects the contractor, they would go
back to the City Council and then begin construction. She estimated that the project would be
completed by December of this year.
Commissioner Bertken questioned the purpose of the bulb-out on the west side as opposed to the
two bulb-outs on the east side.
Staff Payne replied that the purpose was to constrain vehicle movements because motorists are
passing other motorists in the bike lane.
Commissioner Vargas called for a motion.
Commissioner Bertken made a motion to approve the item. Commissioner Miley
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.
6.
Staff Communications
6A.
Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items
- Special Transportation Commission meeting will be held Wednesday, April 23rd
- Draft Transportation Demand Management for Alameda Point
- Transportation Grant Applications
- Regional Transit Access Study / Federal Transit Administration Project Next Steps
Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he would like a representative from Water Emergency
Transportation Authority (WETA) to present to the Commission and speak about the increase in
demand on Harbor Bay and Oakland/Alameda ferries.
Commissioner Miley replied that he would like the topic to be included in the May
Transportation Commission meeting's agenda.
Staff Payne replied that staff would bring back the meeting minutes for approval and the parking
study would be brought back in May. She also will contact WETA staff requesting a
presentation at the May meeting.
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Staff Payne made an announcement about two events taking place in April. The citywide Earth
Day event will take place on Saturday, April 26 at Washington Park and the next day on Sunday,
April 27, will be the Alameda Bike Festival from 12:30-4:00 pm at Henry Haight Elementary
School.
8.
Adjournment
Page 11 of 12",TransportationCommission/2014-03-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2014-03-26,12,"Page 12 of 12
9:29 pm
Page 12 of 12",TransportationCommission/2014-03-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,1,"Transportation Commission Minutes
Wednesday, June 27 2012
Commissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Kathy Moehring
Thomas G. Bertken
Michele Bellows
Christopher Miley
Members Absent:
Jesus Vargas
Sandy Wong
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
Staff Khan asked the Commission to move item 4E up, because there was a consultant that would
speak on behalf of the project.
Staff Payne stated that Sergeant Ron Simmons would have to be contacted so that he could join
the meeting earlier than scheduled.
Commissioner Moehring replied staff should contact Sergeant Ron Simmons and as soon as he
joins the meeting, the commission would move the item forward.
2.
Minutes
Approval of Minutes - May 23, 2012
Commissioner Miley made a motion to approve the May 23, 2012 minutes. The motion was
approved 3-0; 1 abstention.
3.
Oral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments
None.
Page 1 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,2,"4.
New Business
4A.
Transportation Commission Bylaws - Order of Business Revisions
Staff Payne presented the staff report.
Commissioner Miley replied the presentation was helpful and the suggestions would allow the
meetings to precede a little smoother. He asked if one speaker could speak at both public
comment periods.
Staff Payne replied yes and that each person has a three-minute time limit at each of the public
comment periods.
Staff Khan explained that the intention was to allow the public to comment and that is why it is
agendized twice.
Commissioner Moehring also explained that public comment was originally scheduled at the end
of the meeting. So, the public had to sit through the entire meeting, which at times could be
lengthy. So, as a courtesy to the public, the agenda included two comment periods.
Commissioner Bertken asked if the Commission would have the written copies of all the
information in the consent calendar. He was concerned that a percentage of the public would not
be able to obtain the reports online. So, he asked staff if there is a way for the public to have
copies of the reports.
Staff Payne said that the standard procedure is to have all hard copies available at the City
Clerk's office and available at the City libraries.
Commissioner Bertken asked if it would be onerous to have a few copies at the meetings.
Staff Payne said that per the Sunshine Ordinance staff is required to supply one copy at the
meeting. So, they do have materials present.
Commissioner Bertken replied that people coming to the meeting and viewing the consent
calendar might want to see the reports that coincide to the subject of the consent calendar.
Therefore, there should be two or three copies at the meetings. He also explained to staff that, at
some point, staff should announce that the documents are available on the web.
Staff Payne said the city's website link is available on the second page of the Transportation
Commission's meeting agenda.
Commissioner Berktken made a motion that the Commission should adopt the new bylaws.
Commissioner Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.
Page 2 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,3,"4B.
Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Payne presented the staff report.
Staff Khan presented the Access Plan for Alameda Point, the Miller Sweeney Bridge
Replacement project, and current and upcoming traffic calming projects.
Commissioner Bellows wanted clarification on the Island Drive/Robert Davey Jr. Drive traffic-
calming project could use a pedestrian scramble where everyone would stop and let everyone off
might help during the morning hours.
Staff Khan replied that the scramble phases are viable; however, they impact the overall traffic
signal operation. Additionally, the traffic volumes at Island Drive, Robert Davey Jr. and Packet
Landing would greatly impact pedestrian activity. Also, when a scramble is installed, they would
have to change the signal heads and that is quite expensive.
Commissioner Moehring announced that item 4E. would be presented next.
4E.
Webster Street Intelligent Transportation Systems/Smart Corridors Project and
Community Meeting Update
Staff Khan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Miley asked Staff Khan if he could describe in more detail Phase II of the project
and if it would include cameras in the tubes.
Staff Khan responded that Phase II would continue the communication connection through the
Webster and Posey Tubes. The City contacted Caltrans in regards to the cameras in the Webster
and Posey Tubes. Caltrans explained that the cameras were for Homeland Security and could not
be used for other purposes. Staff is trying to see if there is enough space to hang the camera in
the Posey and Webster Tubes. Alameda staff also is working with Oakland staff to look at a
Smart Corridor on Harrison Street. Staff is also interested in looking into the connection
between 6th Street and Jackson Street on ramp.
Joy Bhattacharya, PE, PTOE, TJKM Transportation Consultants, worked on the signal
coordination portion and presented a visual simulation of the intersection.
Staff Khan responded that they have increased the crossing times for pedestrians. The current
system uses a 4 feet per second walking speed for pedestrians, which is faster for older
pedestrians. The new standard is 3.5 feet per second.
Commissioner Moehring stated that the simulation was useful and she opened the floor to public
comment.
Page 3 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,4,"the department should only install the system at Webster Street. He felt that instead of spending
money on electric signs that display traffic information, the City should build a public website or
iPhone application so the public can see the intersections and traffic conditions. He wanted to
thank Joy Bhattacharya for producing the simulation because the simulation is a 2012 solution,
which community members need.
Commissioner Moehring stated that Webster Street has been looking for something like this for a
long time. She thought about the community feedback that she received and one of their
concerns was that the traffic coordination would reduce people visiting the nearby shops. She
wholeheartedly disagreed with that concern and she believes that it will improve the streetscape
and increase shopping activity. She stated that as soon as Constitution Way was built, 80 percent
of the traffic was diverted from Webster Street to Constitution Way. Additionally, she hopes that
the coordination system will bring some of the traffic back at a nice pace. Furthermore, she felt
the signal coordination prevents speeding.
Sergeant Simmons, Alameda Police, agreed and said that the coordinated traffic light system
would prevent drivers from speeding to beat the light changes. If drivers had an understanding of
the flow of lights during the commute hours, they would stop and visit the stores and then
continue through the corridor.
Commissioner Moehring mentioned that the Fire Department station is right off of Webster
Street on Pacific Avenue. The traffic signal would make life easier for the department, and
would allow trucks to more easily travel through the intersection.
Rick Zombeck, Division Chief for Alameda Fire Department, supported the solution and felt the
system is good for the community. His station responds up and down the Webster Street corridor
often and Station # 2 is the second busiest station in the City.
Commissioner Moehring stated that it is a very busy pedestrian corner. She questioned whether
the electric signs going up could be used for other purposes such as when the City conducts the
festival on Webster Street and there are street closures.
Staff Khan replied he would work with the West Alameda Business Association; however, the
City cannot use the signs for advertisements. The signs could be used when the City supports a
fair or festival. He would take up the suggestion to the City Manager for approval.
Commissioner Miley stated that he is happy to see the corridor modernized. He believes that the
system would provide the City with a lot of flexibility in terms of managing the flow of traffic.
He asked staff to explain the project's relationship to the Broadway/Jackson project. As a
commuter through that area, he felt the electric signs would be helpful, especially when the tube
gets backed up. He wanted to know how the City planned to work with Oakland to further
relieve the congestion.
Page 4 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,5,"Staff Khan stated that the Commission's action would be to either accept or reject staff's
recommendation to move the project towards the construction phase and then to vote to prioritize
the following two items: Central Avenue and Webster Street crosswalk and Pacific Avenue and
Webster Street traffic signal.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to accept staff's recommendation to allow the project to
move to the construction phase and to prioritize the Central Avenue and Webster Street
crosswalk and the Pacific Avenue and Webster Street traffic signal. Commissioner Bellows
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.
4C.
Proposed Shoreline Drive/Westline Drive Bike Lane Project Community Meeting
Update
Staff Payne presented the staff report.
Commissioner Bertken asked Staff Payne if the Commission saw the grant application to
Caltrans.
Staff Payne replied that she could provide it to him if he was interested.
Commissioner Bertken replied that since it was the basis of where they received the money, it
would be interesting to see it.
Staff Payne replied that one of the seven variations is the Caltrans grant application placeholder
and the Commission will see the variation tomorrow night along with the other six project
concept ideas.
Commissioner Moehring asked whether staff had a breakdown of attendees' residences and what
were the pros and cons. She wanted to see a break down of people who live right along
Shoreline Drive.
Staff Payne replied that staff did not ask attendees where they lived, but she knew how staff
reached out to attendees. They conducted an outreach encompassing a 300-foot radius around
Westline and Shoreline Drives. Thus, an estimated 15,000 people were informed and that
included the condominium and apartment units. Also, Bike Alameda reached out to bicyclists,
and the Public Works Department issued a press release and placed barricades in the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Moehring said that staff did a great job reaching out to residents and she was
curious about the statistics of the attendees because in addition to all users of the road giving
input the residents also should participate.
Page 5 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,6,"Staff Payne replied that they heard more from the neighborhood and bicyclists more than from
residents throughout the entire City of Alameda. She also mentioned that the document displays
broad range of opinions.
Commissioner Miley asked if staff conducted outreach through the Alameda Unified School
District.
Staff Payne replied that she tried to get the meeting included in the Lum School newsletter, but
they did not publish it. Ultimately, she emailed the information to the Lum and Wood school
administration and the PTAs, but she does not know how they distributed the news.
4D.
Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines
Staff Khan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Moehring stated that she and Commissioner Bellows noticed on page 25 that staff
might want to edit the pictures.
Staff Khan replied staff would correct the issue.
Commissioner Moehring replied staff did a terrific job incorporating the comments and working
with the community including Bike Alameda and all concerned parties.
Commissioner Miley believed that staff conducted an extensive outreach effort, which is
wonderful.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the issue regarding right turn lanes. He referred to the
diagram on page 23 and it showed the cyclists moving straight through and there is a crossover
on the right turn traffic, which looks very abrupt.
Staff Khan replied that on page 23, Figure 10, it was a standard treatment for all bicycle lanes
when they get to the intersection.
Commissioner Bertken stated that he was not arguing that point, but there were no dimensions on
the diagram and it appeared that there was just one lane of traffic coming in. Thus, the diagram
was a bit ambiguous.
Staff Khan replied the diagram is a bit misleading and when staff looked at standards around 200
feet in advance. They dropped the bike lane and included the dashed line to guide the motorists
and bicyclists.
Commissioner Miley made a motion to accept the draft guidelines as presented and request that
they be presented to the Planning Board. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The
motion was approved 4-0.
Page 6 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,7,"4F. I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation and Circulation Improvements
for Alameda Point, Oakland, Chinatown, Downtown Oakland and Jack London Square
Staff Khan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Miley asked about the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) portion and whether staff
considered any other stop locations. He also questioned whether conceptual stop plans were
being developed and would staff look at specifics in the next coming months.
Staff Khan stated that is exactly right. Their rule of thumb is a bus stop located within every one-
half mile. This is just a planning document for now and nothing will continue until staff works
with the community and local transit operators.
Commissioner Moehring opened the floor to public comment.
Jim Strehlow stated that there are many laudable designs of the project, but the project fails the
goal of the deficiency plan. The plan would improve the traffic at Harrison Street and 6th Street.
He referred to slide 6 or page 11 in the original documents. He viewed Webster Street and 6th
Street as a new choke point with more vehicles entering per hour. The shorter off ramp was a
convenience not a necessity for Alameda residents at the expense of the Chinatown
neighborhood and hits the intersection of Webster Street and 6th Street. He then referred to slide
9 and explained, as designed, 6th Street is a walkway to nowhere given there are no businesses
and traffic will increase. He suggested the following modifications: 1) close Webster Street from
going into Alameda and route traffic around Chinatown, 2) change the bus routes to go down 6th
Street instead of 7th Street, 3) staff should consider a long-term, ten year plan for the tube that
would shift vehicles away from the off ramp at Broadway and 5th Street and turn the area as a
cyclist and pedestrian way, and 4) when referring to slide 4 on the Alameda side, staff should
remove the dedicated right-hand bus lane because vehicles could no longer make right-hand
turns. He suggested keeping the right-hand turn lane because there will be traffic that would want
to make a right turn onto Webster Street, so the City should allow that lane to be shared.
Commissioner Miley stated that since it is a conceptual design for future BRT stops, he would
like staff to consider a stop at 14th Street and Harrison Street looking at the employment centers
in downtown Oakland. When mentioning the Octavia Boulevard corridor of San Francisco, it
would be good for staff to include pictures of that segment. Regarding I-880, he felt the area is a
dark passage, and it is not a friendly location. Thus, he suggested that the city of Oakland
consider some type of art and light installation or CBS might be interested in installing billboards
with backlighting. Furthermore, he asked what are the city of Oakland's efforts for the project
and especially what are they doing to create consensus around the project.
Staff Khan replied that the project is a joint effort so both cities are working together. At this
moment, Alameda is looking towards starting a community outreach effort in the Chinatown
neighborhood. Given that the City is the sponsor, but most of the land is located in Oakland,
staff has looked at developing the scope of work to work cooperatively with Oakland.
Page 7 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,8,"Commissioner Miley replied that he understood that idea, but his concern was that Alameda
would look like the only ones pushing for this project. He felt that many of the City's
development projects coming down the pipeline are going to create more traffic coming in and
out of the City. The City of Oakland also has development plans close to the Chinatown
neighborhood and Alameda.
Staff Khan replied that Alameda officials want the City to work in coordination with the city of
Oakland.
Commissioner Miley replied he agreed with Mr. Strehlow and staff should look into the
suggestions that he brought up. He felt the outreach plan sounds like a similar process to
Shoreline Drive and there should be a process for presenting concepts and receiving community
input.
Staff Khan replied that both cities have to remind themselves that the region has recognized the
area as an important project. Whenever staff presents to the community, they have to take a step
back to let them know that revitalization would occur as more funding comes in and if they do
not reach consensus then the funding would go to other parts of the County.
Commissioner Bellows stated that she worked on the project some time ago, and she drives the
Market Street and Octavia Blvd. intersection frequently. She suggested that staff should include
traffic counts when speaking about the Market Street and Octavia Blvd. intersection. She also
questioned staff's backup plan if they do not receive Measure B funds and if staff be able to
execute an environmental review.
Staff Khan replied that the project is a Tier 1 project regardless if Measure B passes. He
explained that not having the Measure B authorized in November may slow the project
implementation, but the project is prioritized in the Countywide Transportation Plan and would
get the regional support to move forward. Regarding the environmental document, he does not
want to jump to that because there was a lot of community concern about the Alameda County
Transportation Commission jumping too fast to the environmental document.
Commissioner Bertken asked about the arrangement of the roadway between Harrison Street and
Broadway. He stated that two blocks of traffic from the freeway to Broadway weave against the
traffic and within the two ramps on the opposite side of the street attempting to get over to
Broadway.
Staff Khan replied that staff has looked into it. He explained that there would be a two-phased
signal for Webster Street going towards Alameda and as the ramp touches down. There would
be a left-turn lane going towards Alameda. He further explained that the lane heading towards
Oakland is located on the right side and there would not be a huge weave there, but there is some
friction.
Commissioner Moehring explained that she was happy to see that all parties are highly motivated
to do something. She mentioned that the letter received by the Commission from the Chinatown
neighborhood a several months ago did not include solutions.
Page 8 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,9,"Commissioner Bellows replied the letter was written some time ago and staff has made some
progress with the objections of the letter.
Staff Khan replied the concerns from the Chinatown community were directed towards the
project study report (PSR), and the current concepts came after the PSR. He further explained
that the staff for the city of Oakland was aware of the concerns.
5.
Staff Communications
The League of American Bicyclists awarded the City of Alameda with a bronze award.
There is a new ferry service between South San Francisco and Alameda/Oakland.
The service began Monday, June 4th and it is a 40-50 minute ride. The ferry system runs
Monday through Friday with three morning departures and two evening departures and fits 149
passengers and over 30 bicycles. Additionally, there are some shuttles at the South San
Francisco end.
Complete Street Policy requirement for the City.
Staff will bring information about the Complete Street Policy to the Commission in September.
The policy requirement is coming from the following two different sources: 1) the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) recently approved the One Bay Area Grant and the funding is
coming from federal sources. Every jurisdiction should have a complete street policy adopted by
early 2013, and 2) the Alameda County Transportation Commission has a Complete Street
requirement in their funding agreement that the City signed and must adhere to it by June 30,
2013 to receive Measure B funds. One advantage for the City is that they recently updated their
Transportation Element in the General Plan.
Future Meeting Agenda Items:
Regular scheduled meeting Wednesday, July 25th
Election of the Transportation Commission Chair and Vice Chair
Franklin School mid-block crossing proposal
Traffic Plan during construction of I-880 between 29th Avenue and 23rd Avenue
Draft Alameda Point Transit Access Plan
Proposed Neptune Park Path Conceptual Layout
An update on the Draft Prioritized Transportation Project List
Regular scheduled meeting Wednesday, September 26th
Quarterly Report
An update on the Shoreline Drive proposed bike lane project
An update on the accessible pedestrian signals grant
Page 9 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-06-27,10,"Complete Street Policy
Commissioner Moehring mentioned that the City Carshare parking space at Webster Street and
Santa Clara Avenue was a success and staff is looking to create an additional carshare space.
Staff Payne replied that staff is coordinating the efforts now.
Commissioner Miley asked would the consent calendar take affect at the July meeting.
Staff Payne replied yes.
Commissioner Moehring stated that staff and her fellow commissioners have been wonderful to
work with and have done an excellent job.
6.
Announcements/ Public Comments
None.
7.
Adjournment
Commissioner Miley made a motion to adjourn in honor of Chair Moehring and for her
distinguished service for the City of Alameda.
9:40 pm
Page 10 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-06-27.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,1,"DRAFT
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
October 25, 2006
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:38 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Robb Ratto
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier
Members Absent:
Jeff Knoth
Michael Krueger
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II
Chair Knox White requested that Item 6A be addressed immediately because of the number of
public speakers.
6A.
REVIEW ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMEND BUS STOP LOCATION ON
OTIS DRIVE AND REVISIT COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
CUNCIL TO ADPT AC TRANSIT BOARD'S BUS STOP POLICY.
Staff Bergman presented the staff report.
Bus Stop Location - Otis Drive. At the last meeting in May, the Commission made a
recommendation that the City Council adopt AC Transit's bus stop policy, but did not comment
on the merits of specific bus stop locations on Otis Drive. Because of the public interest in this
issue, the PW Director has since requested that the Commission make a recommendation about a
specific location for the stop. Staff Bergman reviewed the background of the issue, and noted that
some of the major considerations were the impacts on the neighborhood such as removal of on-
street parking, street trees, opposition from adjacent property owners, sign clutter, potential
conflict with street furniture, the need for new crosswalks, availability of lighting, presence of
traffic control devices, availability of ramps, etc.
Staff assessed the possible locations in that area and assumed that bus stops would be in position
at Otis and Willow, which had not gone through the process yet. He described the spacing,
signage, street furniture, crosswalk, striping, visibility and tree removal issues at the
intersections. Staff requested that the Commission recommend a location for a bus stop at one of
the listed locations.",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,2,"Chair Knox White inquired whether the neighboring property owners had been notified of this
discussion meeting.
Staff Bergman noted that at this time, there was no proposal to actually install anything at those
locations, and that the standard noticing procedure had been followed.
Chair Knox White did not feel comfortable moving forward with this item without hearing from
the residents at these locations. He suggested that the discussion be refocused on Otis Drive at
Sandcreek Way, and whether or not there were other, better options; the discussion may be
rescheduled for November after taking public comment.
Commissioner Ratto inquired when and why the bus stop was abandoned.
Audience member responded that it was abandoned in February 2005 because of safety issues.
Public Comment
Elmer Garlitz, 1511 Pacific, noted that he has worked as a crossing guard at Otis and Sandcreek
Way for Lum School, and that he was totally opposed to a bus stop anywhere near Sandcreek
Way and Otis Drive. He believed it would create a safety problem for the crossing guards in
getting the children across the street, and noted that it would be very difficult to hold the children
until the bus went by. He believed the bus should be held to allow the children to cross. He
believed the bus stop as proposed would create a safety hazard because the bus stop sign was
placed in such a position that the bus stops right on top of the crosswalk, thereby blocking the
view of oncoming traffic from either direction from behind the bus, requiring the crossing guard
to step into the path of oncoming traffic without being seen until he or she clears the body of the
bus. Since the average traffic speed is about 30 mph, this would mean that a driver could not
safely stop the vehicle in time to avoid striking a pedestrian using the crosswalk. He would like
to see changes in the current signage.
Barbara Nemer suggested that this bus stop would be a mistake, and noted that two children had
been hit at Franklin Elementary the previous week. She did not understand why a bus stop that
had been removed for safety purposes would be reconsidered. She noticed that there were no red
curbs in other areas of Alameda where bus stops were located.
Diane Voss cited an article in the Alameda Journal of September 5 2006, which referred to the
crossing guards as ""sentinels of safety."" She urged the Commission to listen carefully to the
opinions of the crossing guards, who had been consistent in their opinion that a bus stop at Otis
Drive and Sandcreek Way would be unsafe. She had been told the red curb was to prevent people
from parking or stopping there to keep the visibility at the crosswalk open, not so a bus stop
could be placed there. She believed that the spreadsheet's statement that no additional signage
was required at Otis and Sandcreek was incorrect, and that it would have to be put up for the bus
alone. She noted that the sheet did not mention the children who use the crosswalk at Otis and
Sandcreek. She believed that a bus stop at either location would not have children crossing every
day at their respective locations. She noted that the children would be at Otis and Sandcreek, not
2",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,3,"at Otis and Pond or Otis and Sandalwood. She believed that a bus stop at this location would
have a far great potential for a pedestrian accident than the other two listed on the spreadsheet.
She believed that safety should be the primary issue, and urged the Commission not to allow the
bus stop to be reinstalled at Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way.
Marilyn Teploe agreed with the previous speakers' statements, and noted that her driveway was
located right at the crosswalk. She noted that the red curb was there when she moved in six years
ago, and that it was not put there because of the bus. She believed it was put there for the safety
of the schoolchildren, and added that she also did not have parking in front of her house. She
would be in favor of a bus stop in the vicinity of Pond Isle.
Liz Cleves noted that there were skid marks at the crosswalk at Otis and Sandcreek, which was of
concern to her. She agreed with the other speakers that it was a very dangerous crosswalk, and
was extremely concerned that a bus would block a driver's view of children in the crosswalk.
Shannon Nicholson, 2122 Santa Clara Avenue, noted that she had also seen the skid marks and
uses extreme caution in that area. She agreed with the previous speakers, and cited AC Transit's
Board Policy #508 that ""the ultimate decision for placement of a bus stop is made by the
jurisdiction in which the stop is located. The bus stop must also be convenient to the places
where passengers wish to go."" She questioned how many passengers wish to go to the area near
Otis and Sandcreek Way. She believed that a midblock bus stop directly in front of a crosswalk
used primarily by children would not be in the best interest of AC Transit or the City of
Alameda, and would definitely not be in the best interest of the children and other pedestrians.
Closed Public Comment
Chair Knox White inquired how many buses travel through the area during school; at what times
were they scheduled to go through; and what was the usage of the stop.
Nathan Landau, AC Transit noted that with the number of buses going through the area, that bus
ran every 30 minutes, with one in each direction.
Staff Bergman noted that the stop was in usage for a very short time, and data from AC Transit
on that stop was not available. The stop had been there for one year or less.
Commissioner Ratto inquired whether the Police Department had changed their opinion on the
bus stop's safety issue.
Staff Bergman replied that they had not heard anything.
Chair Knox White was glad to hear the public's comments on this issue, and noted that the
question was not whether there should be a bus stop, but where it should be located. He noted
that if safety was a compelling issue at this stop, as the residents believe, he believed the other
two should be examined more closely. He would like to hear staff's assessment of the safety
issues, and whether a crosswalk at one of the other two alternatives would have adequate
3",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,4,"visibility. He would entertain a motion to bring this item back in November in order to discuss
the validity of selecting another site for this stop.
Commissioner Schatmeier would support a bus stop located somewhere, but did not want the
conclusion to be that there would be no bus stop located anywhere.
Staff Khan expressed concern about the proximity of establishing additional crosswalks at
adjacent intersections, and recommended channelizing pedestrians toward the existing crosswalk
at Sandcreek Way. He indicated that the concerns of the crossing guards could be addressed by
working with staff and AC Transit.
Commissioner Ratto moved to eliminate the possibility of putting a bus stop at Otis Drive and
Sandcreek Way, to agendize looking at Sandalwood Isle and Pond Isle at the November meeting,
and to instruct staff to do the appropriate noticing. Commissioner McFarland seconded. Motion
passed unanimously, [4-0].
Revisit Commission Recommendation to City Council to Adopt AC Transit Board's Bus Stop
Policy
Staff Bergman summarized the staff report, and noted that bus stop spacing recommendations
were fairly consistent within the City's current transit plan, which was a range of 800-1300 feet
for local routes. He noted that the 63 was considered a local route. Staff was concerned that there
were some provisions in the policy that were not applicable to the City, and this might be better
handled as part of the Transit Plan Update through the TMP. Staff recommended that in terms of
spacing, until the TMP is amended, that the City use the existing Transit Plan's guidelines of
approximately 1000 feet.
Staff Khan noted that AC Transit policy was more focused on a service-oriented approach, in
terms of how to provide and improve service. He noted that the examination of crosswalks and
pedestrian ramps were not addressed in the AC Transit policy; that was another reason that staff
recommended that when the TMP was looked at as a whole, all those concerns could be
addressed to be more consistent with the rest of the TMP policy.
Public Comment
There were no speakers.
Closed Public Comment
Chair Knox White noted that the long-range transit plan for the TMP would probably be worked
on within two to three years, and agreed with staff that this would be a great time to work on
these issues. He believed there may have been a lack of clarity regarding the current City plan
regarding the guidelines.
Staff Khan inquired whether the Chair was recommending that this be taken to the Planning
Board and City Council to be adopted as a policy; at this time, it is a recommended policy.
4",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,5,"APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to accept the approval of the September 27, 2006 minutes.
Commissioner Ratto seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Knox White noted that he had attended the previous City Council meeting, and that they
had supported the Transportation Commission's seven recommended policies. Staff Khan would
present the details of that meeting.
7A.
REVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON DRAFT FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONCEPTS.
Staff Khan presented the staff report on this item, and noted that it would be part of the
Transportation Master Plan and the Multimodal Circulation Plan.
5",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,6,"Mark Spencer, Principal, DKS Associates, Oakland, made the presentation on this item, and
described the scope and goals of the Draft Functional Classification System. He noted that the
three main classifications were arterial, collector and local streets. He noted that Caltrans follows
the functional classification system put forth by the FHWA, and that any municipality must
follow that system to qualify for federal funding. He noted that Denver used a multimodal
approach based on surrounding street context and land use, and they created five new street
types: residential, main, mixed use, commercial and industrial. He displayed those street types on
the overhead screen and described their functions. Austin, Texas, used a ""great streets plan,""
which promoted streets as public places, and they accepted congestion as part of success. He
noted that most cities were not trying to achieve every one of their objectives with every kind of
street concept; some streets will accept more congestion and lower service levels in exchange for
a vibrant, multimodal, multifunctional, pedestrian-dominant street. They instituted several new
street types: pedestrian-dominant, bike and local access, mixed mode, commuter, rapid transit
(with no on-street parking). He noted that a mixed mode street was designed to serve slow-
moving vehicles accessing the street frontage uses, and discouraged any kind of through traffic
by design. A four-foot safe zone for parking access and bicycle room was also included, similar
to the bike lane on Santa Clara Street. He noted that pavement treatment was also used for
crosswalks, parking and safe zones.
He noted that the 25 mph concept was used in Denver and Austin, and that Austin used narrow
lanes, on-street parking and ""commuter streets."" Palo Alto used landscaped medians, curbs,
narrow travel lanes, curb extensions and 25 mph limits; they used physical changes to the street
to force the slow speed. Santa Cruz was the only city using the term ""enforcement"" with respect
to the speed limit. Traffic calming is consistent with the bulbouts and curb extensions. Santa
Cruz has gateway issues from Highways 1, 9 and 17. Portland did not specifically address
gateway issues in their street classifications. He requested input and direction from the
Commission.
Public Comment
There were no speakers.
Closed Public Comment
Chair Knox White wanted more clarification on where they were in the process, and what the
next step would be. He also thought that the Commission would start from the work done by the
Circulation Task Force as a base going forward; he was surprised to find that was not mentioned
in this report. He believed that they had already laid out what they were looking for, and noted
that he liked the grids and believed they were easy to understand.
Commissioner Schatmeier was gratified to learn that the City was not tied into the arterial
format, and that other cities had also used unorthodox ways of defining their streets without
jeopardizing funding. He was surprised to find that was not mentioned in the report.
6",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,7,"Staff Khan noted that this was an initial draft item, and would come back to the Commission in
November or December with more detail.
Mark Spencer noted that they did not want to bring a finished product to the Commission before
it was able to comment on it.
Chair Knox White hoped that at the next meeting, they would be able to go back to the work they
have already done, and to see how the report mirrors that. He liked the comments regarding
landscaping.
Mark Spencer noted that information from a subcommittee of the Transportation Commission
was used as a starting point for developing the City's street classification system.
Chair Knox White noted that even Alameda's commercial streets were residential in character,
and that he believed the classifications identified those characteristics. He liked the goals stated
by the City of Austin.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that with respect to the classification exercise, he felt somewhat
constrained because they did not have extensive knowledge about what could be done, without
jeopardizing funding for improvements. Having seen this document, he was relieved that there
would be a variety of ways of treating classification systems that did not jeopardize funding; if
he had known they had that flexibility at the time, perhaps they would have been able to exercise
more imagination in that regard.
Chair Knox White noted that he would entertain a motion to accept the findings and use the
previously defined Task Force classifications as a guideline for the type of plan the Commission
would like to see.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to accept the findings and use the previously defined Task
Force classifications as a guideline for the type of plan for the multimodal plan, including the
Santa Cruz street classification names, and the type of information contained in the Denver plan
in terms of how the classifications and overlays affect the streets as a whole. Commissioner Ratto
seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
Chair Knox White suggested that the Commission address the Shuttle Study next to
accommodate the public speakers.
7C.
REVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON INITIAL FINDINGS OF
WEST END SHUTTLE STUDY
Staff Bergman noted that the consultant, John Atkinson, would present his preliminary findings
to date, and added that this would be rolled into the TSM/TDM plan and Transit Plan within the
TMP. He noted that Mr. Atkinson had considerable experience operating local shuttle systems,
and would bring real-world experience to this matter.
7",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,8,"John Atkinson noted that the tasks had not followed in a chronological order and that they used a
generic, multimodal method to look at the hubbing from the 12th Street BART station to the
Ferry Terminal, and in looking at services within a 10-12 mile perimeter of those hubs. They also
looked at various vehicle types and scenarios of operation. His recommendation to staff was that
the City not become involved directly in transportation operations, and that they look at some
type of turnkey method for logistic, legal and operational concerns. He added that it would be
better to hire a contract for that service. He noted that he could see the City initially needing to
close the gap until the second or third phase was underway.
Chair Knox White inquired what the initial goal was. John Atkinson replied that it was to look at
establishing a viable multimodal link between BART and the Ferry to the areas of development
out on the West End.
A discussion of ridership in other cities and City funding ensued.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired whether the City had a policy about contracting for services
of this type. He recalled that AC Transit used to have a policy about not contracting out for
services. John Atkinson replied that there were private shuttles not operated under AC Transit.
He noted that historically, AC Transit has not used a private contractor, with the exception of the
East Bay Paratransit Consortium. He described the low-fare and no-fare zones, and noted that it
was postulated that there would be service sufficient to allow people to live in the development
without an automobile; that service would be more frequent than every 30 minutes.
Chair Knox White noted that the Commission would provide a range of scenarios to City
Council. He was surprised to see AC Transit not mentioned as a possible operator, and he agreed
with Commissioner Krueger's idea of adding new transit systems that not only compete, but are
another system for people to use. He believed that part of the plan needs to address how it fits
into any perceived West End transit service that exists, or will exist, as the development goes
forward.
John Atkinson noted that they should coordinate whatever service would be proposed with what
AC Transit currently proposes so they did not compete for ridership and detract from each
other's services. He added that if AC Transit was interested in bidding on the project, they
should be included as one of the potential operators.
Commissioner Ratto noted that following the discussion between the City and AC Transit, it may
be that the City's service may best serve the West End.
John Atkinson noted that this would tie in with the TSM/TDM plan, and that it would incorporate
other programs in the West End.
No action was taken.
8",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,9,"7B.
RECONCILING OF TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDED
POLICIES FOR REVIEWING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS (EIRs)
WITH THE PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION MASTER
PLAN (TMP) POLICIES.
Staff Khan presented the staff report and summarized the discussion from the City Council
meeting. Staff recommends to the Transportation Commission to assign the task of examining
the seven policies, and to provide a recommendation during the November meeting. The City
Council had approved the process for a General Plan Amendment, and for staff to move forward
with the updating of the Transportation Element of the General Plan. During the discussion on
October 17, the Council raised issues relating to the seven new policies, particularly Policy 7
regarding the congestion that could be acceptable within the City at certain locations and
intersections. City Council comments related to this policy were very specific, and that it may
need some language revisions. According to the City Council minutes, Council directed that
Policy 7 be rewritten. Staff prepared some discussion points to be considered by the
Transportation Commission, and that if Policy 7 were to be expanded in terms of providing
guidance regarding how the City would address acceptable congestion levels. Also, the
implementation of the policy during the review process and the threshold would be considered.
Staff Khan noted that staff also recommended allowable impacts to pedestrians, bicycles and
transit be verified due to increasing congestion. Staff also recommends accepting increasing
queues at intersections, as a result of increasing congestion. He noted that the next item was to
establish quantifiable impacts to the emergency response times. Increasing congestion may
increase the emergency response times, so there may be some kind of a threshold that should be
established for policy guidance. He stated that the last item was a quantifiable level of service for
different modes of transportation that are required at congested locations and intersections. City
Council also approved that policies 1 through 6 be used as guidelines until the General Plan is
amended. Council also indicated that if those guidelines were to be followed, there may be some
conflicts with the existing General Plan. City Council has asked the Transportation Commission
to examine and address any potential conflicts so the guidelines may be used until the General
Plan policies are adopted. He distributed a list of items prepared by staff to the Commissioners.
Chair Knox White noted that he would look at the items, and would suggest that the
subcommittee do the same, but did not believe that the City Council asked the Transportation
Commission to develop a list of conflicts and their solutions. He noted that they said they would
use the guidelines, and noted that staff may identify where they conflicted directly with the
General Plan. He noted that if the City Council minutes stated that, they did not reflect the
discussion that was held at the end of that hour the previous week. He would review the video to
confirm his assessment. He noted that it would not be practical for him to read through the
General Plan to identify conflicts, and that if staff found conflicts, he would be willing to discuss
it further at the November meeting. He stated that he respectfully believed that staff is attempting
to fight the EIR policies.
Staff Khan stated that it was not the intention to ask the Commissioners to create or provide the
thresholds to staff. Staff was attempting to follow City Council's direction with respect to
clarifying language.
9",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-10-25,10,"8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
A discussion of the packet preparation timeline and meeting schedules ensued. It was decided
that the Circulation Subcommittee would meet by November 8 to follow up on Item 7B, and to
allow it to fit into the Alameda Landing schedule.
Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
10",TransportationCommission/2006-10-25.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,1,"DRAFT
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
January 31, 2007
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier
Srikat Subramaniam
Absent:
Jeff Knoth
Robb Ratto
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were none.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Knox White advised that there was not a quorum to vote on the minutes of October 25,
2006, and November 15, 2006.
Chair Knox White invited a motion to approve the minutes of December 13, 2006.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Krueger seconded the
motion. Motion passed (4-0 McFarland abstained).
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
6A.
REVIEW AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON FINAL DRAFT
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONCEPTS - FINAL.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,2,"Staff Khan presented the staff report and noted that two previous presentations had been made.
The first recommendation from the Multimodal Circulation Subcommittee was to divide the
arterials into two categories: regional arterials and island arterials. The regional arterials would
carry regionally significant traffic in and out of the City, and island arterials would carry traffic
across the City and within City limits. The second recommendation would be to examine those
roadways that would be reduced in their current classification. They are currently classified as
transitional arterials or collectors. The Subcommittee recommended that Bayview Drive be
classified as a local street, however, staff recommended that it be classified as transitional
collector, like Buena Vista Avenue or Gibbons Drive because of traffic volumes, connectivity
and land use. Staff had previously recommended that an implementation policy be developed to
examine the design guidelines development as part of the transportation master plan. It would
address some conflicts and concerns raised by the consultant, and would remove the conflicts in
the future during implementation.
Mark Spencer of DKS Consultants, displayed a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the
points covered in previous meetings. The defined objective was to meet the needs of all street
users and the surrounding community while promoting the multimodal transportation system in
Alameda. Concerns raised included how street classifications could help guide the City towards
its future goals in terms of where and how the streets would operate, as well as whether it could
be achieved in conjunction with other transportation policies. Modal priority streets, bike priority
streets and transit priority streets were discussed, as well as truck routes. He noted that the land
use and modal classification overlays needed to be balanced with the auto needs. The street types
were defined according to the types of trips served and network connectivity. The street function
would be defined by the existing uses; those design and operational needs would need to be
addressed. The terms arterial, collector and local were retained, which would provide
consistency with FHWA terminology and CalTrans definitions, and would facilitate applying for
funding and dealing with other regional programs. He described the characteristics of each type
of street and their functionality in detail, especially in relation to transit, bicycles and pedestrians.
Mr. Spencer described the implementation strategy as a firm and flexible application, and noted
that the modal priorities must be followed to ensure connectivity of the bike, transit and truck
networks. He believed it was important to be firm on what was a bike street, emphasizing the
bike amenities, and the same with the transit streets, etc. He noted that it was important to be
flexible in balancing what happens within the limited right of way. He noted that most of
Alameda has a built-out network. He noted that they recommended integrating the street
classification system and an implementation policy into the TMP. He noted that design
standards, block lengths, cross-sections, and congestion standards all affected and
counterbalanced each other.
Public Comment
Jim Strehlow complimented the consultant on the PowerPoint presentation and requested a copy.
He was satisfied with the designation of Gibbons Drive as a transitional collector. He inquired
how new development would be added to the plan in the future, and how traffic volumes would
be measured and updated.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,3,"Bill Smith expressed concern about traffic in the Tube, and noted that as a frequent bicyclist, he
was concerned about the condition of the roads. He believed new technology would help the
efficiency and safety of auto/bicycle traffic. He would like to see new signage that would
enhance traffic safety.
Scott Brady asked the Commission to remember that every street in Alameda was residential
when considering the street designations. He noted that people backing out of their driveways
severely limited the traffic flow. He noted that traffic on those streets will not be able to go faster
because of the designation change.
Closed Public Comment
Chair Knox White noted that the specific planning issues would be dealt with during the planning
of the specific sites. He noted that with respect to traffic counts, the guiding policies of the
Transportation Master Plan, traffic counts and volume counts were part of monitoring. He
inquired whether the types of streets had been specifically stated.
Staff Khan replied that under the County Congestion Management Agency, regular traffic
volumes were collected on the streets in the system on either a two- or five-year cycle. He would
report that information to the Commission at a future date. He noted that trend counts would be
collected to show how the traffic volumes change in certain areas of the City. Staff would be
amenable to that being either a policy or guideline.
Commissioner Schatmeier objected to the characterization of the modal overlay governing transit
as a ""transit priority."" He noted that he was a member of the Subcommittee, and recalled that
they were defining candidates for transit service, not priorities. He stated that there were three
main purposes in identifying these streets: 1) to identify streets that are candidates for physical
improvements, 2) assist the policymakers, and 3) predictability about possible locations for
transit. The last two were the factors given the greatest consideration by the Subcommittee.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether it would help to add language stating whether the street
currently carries transit. He noted that if there are existing or planned transit services on any
particular street, the associated physical improvements could be included in the design of any
project.
Chair Knox White suggested replacing ""can assist in prioritizing"" with ""prioritized.""
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that they had shied away once from addressing transit streets as
anything more than candidates because of the potential uproar it would create by defining them
as priority transit streets. He noted that was something they had tried to avoid before. He
suggested that the wording be changed to acknowledge that many streets labeled as transit streets
that either don't have transit, and probably won't in the foreseeable future without changes in
budget realities. He did not believe there was a reason to create an uproar by changing what they
had intended by classifying those streets as transit streets in the first place. He suggested labeling
them as transit candidates.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,4,"Commissioner Krueger noted that he would not want to water the language down to the point
where it downplayed the physical improvements. He indicated that it is important to say that the
modal overlay will determine the priority, not just suggest it.
Chair Knox White suggested changing the language under ""Modal Overlays"" to read, ""The
modal overlay classifications prioritize operational elements within the constraints of the right of
way."" Commission Schatmeier noted that would be acceptable.
Commissioner Krueger asked why the exclusive transit right-of-way along Clement Ave. does
not extend all the way to the Fruitvale Bridge. This would mean that there would be a shared
right-of-way at the most congested point in the corridor.
Staff Khan noted that both High Street and Park Street currently function almost at capacity, and
as a result, staff was examining Fruitvale Bridge to absorb additional capacity. Also, lower level
of transit priorities intersect at Tilden, so this could serve as a transfer point.
Commissioner Krueger noted that future plans depended on whether the City was serious about
the mode shift and emissions reductions or not. He inquired whether the language on page 27
could be strengthened, stating that the modal overlays will be used to establish the priorities, not
just that they can assist. He also asked that on page 30, the language referring to ""enhanced bus
stops"" be changed to ""enhanced bus stops/stations"" because that could go beyond a mere bus
stop, and might involve a different mode.
Commissioner Krueger noted that the reference to a commercial main street on page 20 seemed
somewhat weak in stating that bike racks might not be feasible on some streets. He noted that in
his submitted comments, he inquired about the language about sidewalks on both sides of the
street, which had been originally mentioned in the matrix beginning on page 34. It appeared that
that language was dropped, but he could not find any language addressing it. He inquired
whether it was delegated to the pedestrian plan.
Mr. Spencer noted that the pedestrian aspects had been taken out in several places, because they
anticipated it would be included in the pedestrian planning activity; there was a certain amount
of redundancy assumption built in to it. He noted that sidewalks on both sides of the street was
not necessarily a given, and there could be right of way tradeoff decisions could be made as well.
Commissioner Krueger felt that the strong emphasis on pedestrian access in the General Plan, as
related to the strong support for walkability in the community, that he believed that having
sidewalks on both sides of the streets would be very important. Chair Knox White suggested
deferring this discussion to the pedestrian plan. Commissioner Krueger agreed.
Chair Knox White also noted that on page 2, under ""Objectives of the Alameda Classification
System,"" a key issue to address is cut-through traffic. He believed the wording should be
changed to ""residential traffic impacts."" On page 7, under ""Numbers of Lanes,"" it read, ""This
should be determined through operational evaluation; it should be tied to threshold LOS, which
are being developed as part of the TMP, and should also be weighed against neighborhood",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,5,"livability issues."" He observed that throughout the text, a lot of decisions made seemed to be
based on LOS. Also, under ""Congestion Tolerance - Congestion Should Be Reduced,"" it was
also determined through threshold LOS for different modes of transportation and balanced
against livability issues.
Chair Knox White noted that with respect to Bayview, the subcommittee had suggested that it be
a local street; it is currently in the plan as a transitional collector. He invited the Commissioners'
feelings on that issue.
Commissioner Schatmeier believed that was reasonable, and believed it should be a local street.
Commissioner Krueger stated that the transitional designation seems appropriate, as it
acknowledges the street's current volumes.
Commissioner McFarland agreed with Commissioner Krueger's assessment.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger whether the traffic counts had been affected
by the traffic calming measures, Staff Khan believed that 30% of traffic volume on Bayview
Drive had been reduced. Staff supports the transitional designation, as it would give the City the
power to make changes in the future to reduce traffic volumes.
Chair Knox White noted that under Land Use Overlays (General section), it read, ""All unmarked
local streets are designated residential corridor streets,"" but a map indicated highlighted
residential corridor streets. He noted that the markings should be consistent. He believed it was
odd to highlight a few key streets.
Chair Knox White noted that page 19, under Residential Corridor Streets (Adequate Travel
Lanes), read, ""Provide sufficient lanes for adequate capacity to minimize queuing impacts at
residential driveways "" but this did not seem to be a residential-oriented goal. He stated that
livability issues should be more of a goal than ensuring that traffic proceeded so that there was
no queuing.
Chair Knox White invited Commission comment under Commercial, with respect to keeping
building frontages at a common setback to maintain a pedestrian-friendly environment. Also,
building entrances should face the street. Also, he suggested that would be a design feature of the
streets under Commercial Main Street. Commissioner Krueger supported that view, and
believed it was very important for the pedestrian environment.
Chair Knox White wished to add to the language, ""Marked pedestrian crosswalks are to be
frequent and should be based upon pedestrian activity and activity generators."" He noted that
sometimes there was no pedestrian activity because people were scared to cross the street. He
concurred with Commissioner Krueger about the bike racks; if operationally and physically
feasible, he believed there should be bike racks on each block, and if there was no place to fit
them, the Commission could address the issue in that event.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,6,"Chair Knox White noted that on page 22, he was reluctant to reduce the parking requirements in
the City. He noted that the language ""if sufficient off-street parking is provided"" indicated that
on one hand, the City planned to reduce that need, and on the other hand, a plan was being put
together that requires additional parking capacity. He noted that while ""sufficient"" was not
defined there, but that it could be worded, ""off-street provided as called out in the parking plan.""
Staff Khan suggested referencing the General Plan, since the parking plan will probably modify
the General Plan. Chair Knox White agreed.
Chair Knox White made several additional comments:
that under ""Sidewalks"" under Commercial Street, wished to add the language ""can be
narrower than residential corridor, an exception for designated corridors like the Cross
Alameda Trail.'
the language under ""Regional Arterial"" read, ""Three to four lanes as determined by
capacity needs and modal constraints' or ""modal priority maps.
On page 38, ""Island Arterial Overlays"" (Bicycle, School Zone and Recreation), read,
""
.ideal for bicycle network, bike lanes, wind safety network, connectivity are provided,
provide intersection amenities pedestrian comfort and access are highest priorities
in
conjunction with other street functions, appropriate lighting and suggested route signs,
prioritize amenities against lane width and on-street parking."" He believed that the
language under the pedestrian aspect should appear under the bicycle aspects as well.
on page 40, ""Number of Lanes"" (Island Arterial), it should read, ""two to three lanes,""
removing ""typical, but may have four lanes.""
under ""Island Collector,"" the grid under Number of Lanes did not agree with the text,
which read ""two to three lanes""; the grid read ""no more than two lanes."" He was
agreeable with either one.
On page 44, under ""Local Street Overlays"" (Bicycles), read, ""Local streets will likely not
require bicycle treatments""; he believed that the bike overlay and the determination of the
bike plan should decided whether or not there were bicycle treatments.
under ""Recommendations for the City of Alameda Implementation Plan,"" there did not
appear to be an actual recommendation. He inquired whether DKS had a
recommendation for an implementation plan that they believed would be a good fit for
Alameda. Mr. Spencer noted that they tried to create a unique presentation for Alameda,
and that an individual implementation plan must be created to work for the City.
on all of the maps, particularly the bike map, the Clement Extension was drawn
incorrectly; it was drawn to indicate that it connected directly into Eagle. He noted that it
should connect further up into Atlantic. He would like to add the connection of the bike
path through the Beltline.
Chair Knox White suggested adding a path connection between the end of Portola and
Ninth Street. This may be possible in the future.
Commissioner Krueger would like to see a dedicated right of way off the Island, and believed the
Clement Extension and Fernside acted as alternate routes to the other bridges.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,7,"Chair Knox White stated that Fernside is okay as an island arterial, but that Clement should be
classified as a regional arterial. Commissioner Krueger noted that this would be predicated on
the completion of the Clement extension.
Staff Khan stated that once the Clement extension is completed, and it becomes an arterial, that
the hope is to downgrade the classification of Blanding.
Commissioner Krueger moved that the designation for Clement from Tilden to Ohlone Street
should be Regional Arterial. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously, 5-0.
Commissioner Krueger moved that the entire length of Tilden from Park Street to the Miller-
Sweeney Bridge be classified as a potential exclusive transit right-of-way. Commissioner
McFarland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
Chair Knox White suggested that Encinal at Sherman should be considered a commercial main
street. He also asked why Oak Street was classified as a collector, and did not understand what it
collected, as it was only two blocks long. Staff Khan noted that it collected traffic from side
streets, as represented by traffic volumes, and that provided connectivity between two arterials.
Mr. Spencer noted that it acted as a bypass for Park Street in the area.
Commissioner Krueger asked that the school and recreation map be modified to reflect the
relocation of Island High School.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to accept the consultant's report with the comments made by
the Commissioners. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously,
5-0.
Chair Knox White complimented the consultant on a job well done.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to continue the meeting after a five minute break.
Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
7A.
ALAMEDA LANDING TDM GOALS AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT - 1ST
OF 2 PRESENTATIONS.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,8,"Bruce Knopf, of Catellus, noted that his presentation was intended to engender Commission
feedback and comments, and will be brought before the Commission again in February. Their
objective was operate a successful Transportation Demand Management program, and reduce
single-occupancy vehicle trips, as well as to produce a draft TDM plan that will go to the
Planning Board in March. The program would be operational on ""day one"" - defined as
occupation of 100,000 square feet of the commercial development, or 150 housing units. He
noted that in the project's EIR, they did not take credit for any anticipated benefits from a TDM
program. The use was intended to be pedestrian-friendly and bike-friendly, as well as transit-
oriented.
The program's financing mechanism will be permanent, with resources to be provided by the
tenants and residents of the development. He stated that the primary feature of the program
would be a supplementary ground shuttle system that, when viewed in conjunction with AC
Transit, can provide 15-minute headways, based on their hope that AC Transit will provide
service to and within the site.
Mr. Knopf noted that the program also included a water shuttle, operating for a minimum of one
year, and providing service between the project and Jack London Square. The water shuttle
feasibility study would be completed by day one. ProLogis has been working with Bike
Alameda to identify a window when that shuttle would begin operation, and they are proposing
to start no later than completion of the second phase of development.
Mr. Knopf invited Commission feedback on a process for monitoring the elements of the TDM
program, and what criteria should be used to evaluate the program. He noted that the working
draft has not been reviewed by Public Works or the Planning staff. He noted that the parking
pricing and parking cashing out options had been removed from the TDM draft, because they
would not be viable given the demand for parking in Alameda.
Mr. Knopf noted that the next steps would be to received the Commission's feedback and
comments, and return with a draft plan in late February. They planned to present that to the
Planning Board at their March 12, 2007, meeting. He introduced the TDM plan manager, John
Atkinson, who had been active in this area for almost 20 years. He had previously run the
systems in Santa Clara, Berkeley and Downtown Walnut Creek.
Staff Bergman noted that he received a communication from Nathan Landau at AC Transit
earlier in the day, and wished to present it. He believed Mr. Knopf covered the major points
involved in the program, and wished to ensure there was a clear understanding about the baseline
for measuring the trip reductions. He noted that he received the letter from AC Transit too late to
circulate to the Commission, and read it into the record:
AC Transit has concerns about the way the Draft Alameda Landing Transportation
Demand Management agreement is structured. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the
Commission meeting tonight to address the issue. AC Transit is pleased that a
commitment to TDM policies and implementation measures is being made for this
important project. We have not yet had an opportunity to discuss the proposed agreement
with City staff, or to review it fully, having seen it for the first time yesterday. The",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,9,"agreement is structured around rerouting of an AC Transit line and addition of a
supplemental shuttle. We are concerned that this combination is not necessarily the best
approach to providing transit service to the site. This divided duplicative service nay
undercut the use of AC Transit service to the site, particularly if the shuttle is free to the
passenger. Divided service does not necessarily advance the goal of encouraging the
residents and employees of Alameda Landing to use the regular transit system.
AC Transit would also appreciate the opportunity to consider routes in this area in the
context of our evolving plans for West Alameda and Alameda Point. We recognize the
importance of providing frequent service, especially in the peak hour, to encourage
ridership.
AC Transit is developing ecopass programs, which provide systemwide bus passes to
employees and residents of a given development. We would like to discuss ecopass
opportunities, which in some cases can raise funds for additional service in this context.
Therefore, we would request the opportunity to meet with Planning and Public Works
staff, and with the developer to discuss this TDM plan before it is finalized. I would
stress that AC Transit does not have a preconceived plan at this time, but instead wishes
to explore and resolve the issues involved in a timely manner.""
Mr. Knopf noted that they had not begun to consider pricing, and added that they want to work
with AC Transit as much as possible. They would entertain contracts with them, and did not wish
to duplicate service.
Commissioner Schatmeier requested further information from staff regarding dropping the two
most effective strategies. Mr. Knopf noted that one of the staff reports reported that 71% of the
Alameda residents who commuted to San Francisco took transit. He noted that reflected the cost
for parking in San Francisco, and that because that was not a reality in San Francisco, it did not
seem to be a feasible strategy to put on the table as an effective tool.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether transit passes had been considered. Mr. Knopf noted
that it was included in the conceptual plan a year before, and noted that its omission was
unintentional, and that they would explore it.
Public Comment
Bill Smith noted that Mr. Knopf had previously been a City employee, and that Don Parker had
helped develop Marina Village. He understood that Marina Village was an assessment district,
and that this property was next to Marina Village with respect to impacts. He inquired whether
there should be an assessment district on this property.
Mr. Knopf noted that there were districts for both the residential and the commercial retail that
would pay for the TDM program on an ongoing basis.
Jon Spangler noted that he had long been interested in improving the Estuary crossing, and noted
that he had served on the Estuary Water Shuttle Task Force with Mr. Knopf and other Catellus",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,10,"staff. He commended Catellus for being on the leading edge with a TDM, which he viewed as an
unfolding work in progress. He believed it was important to integrate AC Transit's views as
expressed in the memo, and that best practices should be implemented with other organizations.
He believed the City should be careful in evaluating the TDM plan and the impact of Catellus at
Alameda Landing overall, not just in terms of shoppers, workers and business owners, but also
the potential costs and benefits realized by the entire community from the TDM options that
would be funded by residents of Alameda and Oakland. He hoped that as the City evaluates the
TDM, that it will be able to examine tourism funding, funding through the Port of Oakland and
Chamber of Commerce, or other economic development sources normally used in Alameda. He
was encouraged by this progressive approach.
Jeff Cambra, Board member of Bike Alameda, spoke on behalf of the Estuary Crossing
Coalition, agreed with Mr. Spangler's comments. He noted that the Coalition's interests include:
1) Establishing criteria for the earliest possible initiation of the Estuary water shuttle
service, taking into account that there is sufficient project improvements and occupancy
to create ridership;
2) Such criteria should include
a. extra Alameda Landing west end demand, as determined by non-developer-
funded surveys and City-sponsored feasibility studies;
b. operational effectiveness as determined by the use of Estuary water shuttle
ridership surveys and other TDM surveys proposed by Catellus to determine
regional impact;
c.
any disagreement regarding initiation of the Estuary water shuttle should be
addressed as part of the TDM annual report submitted to the Council.
Mr. Cambra noted that it was the Coalition's understanding that the Coalition and Catellus agree
in principle on these interests, and that the Coalition supports this draft document as it relates to
the Estuary water shuttle. Due to the short time between the release of the draft TDM document
and this meeting, the Coalition will continue to meet with Catellus to provide additional
comments for the next TC meeting in February.
Closed Public Comment
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he was interested in the shuttle service, and that
Commission as a whole was interested in reducing single-occupant automobile trips, rather than
trips in general. He wished to echo the AC Transit comments and concerns about how a shuttle
service can be overlaid with AC Transit service. He understood that the details had not been
worked out yet. He believed that 30-minute headways are not sufficient. He added that pricing
needs to be further investigated, and that the AC Transit fare from the development into
downtown Oakland of $1.75, plus $0.25 for a transfer, when piggybacked on top of a BART fare
would be a deterrent to ridership. He stated that free shuttles such as those operated MacArthur
BART to the Kaiser facility also detracts from AC Transit ridership. He suggested subsidizing
the AC Transit fare on the 19 line in coordination with a free shuttle.
Commissioner Krueger stated that the utility of transit increases when integrated into a larger
network. For this reason, that he was not generally a fan of small, limited shuttle services, and",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,11,"that there was more benefit being part of a larger system. In lieu of a shuttle, he suggested
providing an Ecopass, or a combination of an Ecopass and contracting with AC Transit for
additional service to get people onto regular AC Transit buses.
John Atkinson, consultant to Catellus, noted that the shuttle was the cornerstone of the program,
and added that they intended to apply a systemic approach to reduce SOV traffic. He noted that
they were exploring ride-matching systems with carpools and possibly van pools. He stated that
AC Transit has indicated that not all of their buses are equipped for handling an Ecopass
program. Also, in trying to price services, AC Transit was $130-140 an hour to run shuttles,
approximately double the cost of a private operator; an economically feasible situation should be
found. Catellus' goal is to coordinate not just with AC Transit, but also with BART and the ferry,
and that they want to work with AC Transit as much as possible.
Staff Bergman noted that the Interagency Liaison Committee had addressed the possibility of
using an Ecopass. AC Transit had not been ready to implement that concept yet, and that they
had three programs that had been individually negotiated. They are currently trying to
standardize that process, and would will an update at the next ILC meeting within the next
month.
A discussion of integrating the service into the Island grid followed.
Commissioner Krueger was surprised to see that the monitoring would be done only through
surveys.
Mr. Knopf noted that Catellus has proposed taking the ITE trip generation rates that such a
development was expected to generate in the outlying and surrounding area, and to take those
numbers and examine the level of reduction in SOV trips expected to accomplish. Through direct
surveys, the level of usage would be compared against the survey results.
Commissioner Schatmeier suggested measuring at the key access points of the actual car trips,
and running the numbers from that.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Department, noted that Mr. Knopf and staff had done a good job in
introducing the major issues. He noted that the Planning Department saw this as the beginning of
a much larger West End TDM program. He believed that although he was very happy that
Catellus had stepped forward in committing the $425,000 per year at buildout, it would take a lot
more money to run an effective transportation program. The Planning Department believed that
Catellus should create an organization so that future projects may be built in the West End. He
noted that Alameda Point could have 1400-1500 market-rate units, which could potentially
provide a major financial contribution to this program. The Planning Department believed that a
major source of annual operating funding should be generated which should be turned over to
AC Transit when it became big enough so they could provide the levels of services needed in the
West End. If an Ecopass program is initiated, everyone who pays the annual fee may participate.
He believed it was important to get this organization started now. He noted that they needed to
be able to adjust to changing system requirements.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,12,"Commissioner Krueger believed the most significant goal was the reduction of the total number
of SOV trips generated by the project. He noted that while emissions were important, the trips
had the most impact on the neighborhoods.
Chair Knox White believed there could be benefits of a TDM program that reduced West End
trips that did not come out of carbon trading for commute trading, and there could be a benefit
for the rides that the project could get credit for. He felt he did not have enough information to
make a determination about whether an 8-10% trip reduction is appropriate. He noted that the
goal was to mitigate traffic, and that the Commission's EIR policy is not to expand roadways to
mitigate the traffic, and to mitigate traffic aggressively through TDM. He stated that the TDM
program should be as aggressive as possible within the project budget, and that the TDM
program should not take credit for ridership on AC Transit's 19 bus line. He suggested using a
biennial survey of the HOAs to get trip information. He noted that he supports the development
of a TMA, but he believes it should be connected to the City, rather than be an independent
agency. He believed the TMA should focus on the West End, not just the project participants. He
would like the use of AC Transit to be the preferred agency when possible, but understood that
AC Transit recognized the use of private shuttles when needed.
Chair Knox White noted that
the first bullet point under Administration (Key Administration Goals, page 9), read
""represent Alameda Landing""; he believed the TMA should represent a broader scope
and should represent the City.
He was surprised to see costs associated with a guaranteed ride home and ride matching,
since those were both regional project programs that were free to appropriately sized
businesses.
Under ""Evaluation of Success,"" the language talked about ""participation rate of Alameda
Landing employees in the program.' He was concerned that a private shuttle and AC
Transit, it would be beneficial to the TDM program to draw riders away from some other
form so they could get credit for success. For that reason, he believed it was important to
count cars and use surveys, as opposed to asking whether they were using the services.
Page 12 discussed ""During Phase A, trip reduction target is 2 to 3 percent""; the original
memo said ""5%."" He understood there would be a ramp-up, but 2 to 3% seemed very low
to him. He believed that if there would be a lower percentage goal for the first five years,
he believed the project should be re-evaluated when the real goal was met.
He recommended evaluating the TDM program based on cost per rider, and nothing else,
due to the limited funding for this program.
He noted that RIDES no longer exists, and that the program is currently called 511
Rideshare.
He said that he would email his comments on the surveys.
Staff Bergman noted that traffic congestion in the tubes is primarily an issue heading out of
Alameda during the AM peak hour, and heading into Alameda during the PM peak hour.
However, TDM programs are generally more successful when applied to employment sites, so
the potential for the TDM program proposed by ProLogis to reduce traffic congestion is greater
in the direction opposite that of the major congestion problems. He requested feedback from the
Commission regarding how this issue should relate to the program's goals.",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2007-01-31,13,"Chair Knox White suggested that those trips causing the congestion should be targeted, such as
the City-outbound trips. He noted that while the specific percentage could not be determined
now, both an overall trip reduction goal and a peak-hour trans-Island trip reduction goal should
be identified.
Staff Khan noted that the Congestion Management Agencies created goals for the County, and
assigned trips in a mode split, which could be looked as a base trip generation.
Chair Knox White did not wish to penalize the developer with a baseline, but believed they
should be aggressive in their goals to mitigate the traffic to as high a level as possible.
Commissioner Krueger wished to raise the issue of parking fees and parking cashout, and there
may be a fear that would reduce the attractiveness of the development to businesses.
Chair Knox White noted that most of Alameda had free parking, compared to San Francisco, and
that companies may decide to locate across the Estuary where there would be free parking.
Mr. Knopf noted that they wished to be treated equally as compared to other property owners.
No action was taken.
8.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 PM.
G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2007/022807\January 31 TC Minutes - Final-rev.doc",TransportationCommission/2007-01-31.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-09-26,1,"Transportation Commission
November 28, 2012
Item 4A
Action
Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes:
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Commissioner Jesus Vargas called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.
1.
Roll Call
Roll was called and the following was recorded:
Members Present:
Thomas G. Bertken
Christopher Miley (Vice Chair)
Sandy Wong
Jesus Vargas (Chair)
Eric Schatmeier
Members Absent:
Michele Bellows
Staff Present:
Gail Payne, Transportation Coordinator
2.
Agenda Changes
Commissioner Vargas made a motion to add an item before item 8 ""Adjournment"" that discussed
the next meeting.
Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.
3.
Announcements / Public Comments
Matthew Fitzgerald announced that Alameda Bicycle opened for operation in 1969 and his
family took over in 1987. His family business is a good small business, which contributes to the
community. If anyone has any questions, please contact him at Alameda Bicycle Sales, Repairs,
and Rentals at (510) 522-0070 or pay a visit at 1522 Park Street Alameda, CA.
Commissioner Vargas acknowledged that Alameda Transportation Engineer Obaid Khan was
departing and he wanted to thank him for his services.
Page 1 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-09-26,2,"4.
Consent Calendar
4.A.
Draft Meeting Minutes - July 25, 2012
Commissioner Vargas asked the Commission to make comments to the July 25 minutes.
Commissioner Bertken made a motion to approve the July 25, 2012 minutes. Commissioner
Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0.
4.B.
2012 Transportation Expenditure Plan Fact Sheet
Commissioner Vargas reviewed the 2012 Transportation Expenditure Plan Fact Sheet. He
acknowledged that it would be a good thing to vote the right way for Measure B1.
5.
New Business
5.A. Traffic Control and Contingency Plan during Construction for I-880/29th Ave./23rd Ave.
Interchange Improvement Project in Oakland
Virendra Patel from Alameda Public Works introduced Garrett Gritz from RBF Consulting who
presented an update on the project.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comment.
Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, explained that he was okay with everything
else about the project except at 23rd Avenue where the lanes should be four or five lanes. His
main concern was that the project is under funded and it is not the right size for the needs of
Alameda. He said the entirety of the project would increase greenhouse gas emissions since there
are three lanes instead of four lanes on 23rd Avenue. The three lanes would cause backups and,
according to the project, there would be an additional 10 percent of traffic in Alameda after the
project is completed. This project, therefore, should not proceed and Alameda should file suit to
require that the project be properly funded.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked about phase II of the project. He wanted to find out about the
impact on transit service from Park Street to the Fruitvale BART Station, especially since the
project would close the corridor for up to a year. He asked Mr. Gritz if they discussed
contingency plans regarding the routing with AC Transit.
Garrett Gritz explained that they had conversations with AC Transit and the agency has
commented throughout the entire process. They have the stage construction plans and are in the
process of developing additional actions that the consultants can do. He mentioned that the key
piece to the project is to hire the contractor and then to complete their construction schedule.
Once the schedule is known, they can give more details.
Commissioner Bertken felt that the whole program for taking care of traffic during construction
Page 2 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-09-26,3,"is well thought out and impressive.
Commissioner Wong asked about the triangle potion near the 7-11 convenience store and Nikko's
Cafe where the signal light would be. She wanted to know how the traffic signal would impact
vehicles driving over the Park Street Bridge and specifically traffic feeding into 29th Avenue to
the roundabout and around the Park Street Bridge.
Garrett Gritz said the existing conditions at Ford Street is a stop sign. This movement would not
allow vehicles to turn left here. Also, under the proposal, this intersection would be signalized
and would have crosswalks and pedestrian signal phases. Moreover, there would be durations
where vehicles coming off the bridge would want to turn left that currently have a free movement
that would get a red light and stop. He noted that the most challenging part of the intersection is
the pedestrian movement, which ends up taking up a lot of time. To combat the problem, they
would implement a refuge area, which would allow the green time to be reduced for the
pedestrian crossing.
Commissioner Wong asked about the type of signals proposed on 29th Avenue. She mentioned
that in terms of the bridge being up and potential traffic exiting on 29th Avenue versus 23rd
Avenue what is the potential backup and study of the back up.
Garrett Gritz explained that all of the signals on the 23rd Avenue corridor are interconnected and
equipped with wiring to allow AC Transit to be able to have the capability when the technology
comes to trigger the lights with signal actuation. He mentioned that AC Transit does not have
enough resources to equip all AC Transit buses with that technology and AC Transit is in the
process of eventually receiving green prioritization. Additionally, they are coordinating with
Alameda Public Works on the rail project, which was one of the mitigation measures. They also
plan to have communications under the Estuary between Alameda and Oakland.
Commissioner Wong asked about the Ford Street and 29th Avenue intersection and what studies
were conducted on Alameda's side. She inquired about the study because occasionally when the
bridge goes down and depending on the time of day vehicles driving over the Park Street Bridge
could wait up to 15 minutes because it is backed up to Central Avenue. She wondered whether
the signal timing could be extended on the Alameda side so vehicles could get on the on-ramp
SB I-880 without having to wait.
Garrett Gritz replied that the signalization at Ford Street and 29th Avenue would not impact that
condition because when the bridge goes up the vehicles cannot come through there. So, the
intersection would not be impacted. Thus, it is more about when the bridge comes down and
when vehicles are approaching I-880.
Commissioner Wong replied that she was referring to after the bridge goes down and the
potential traffic impact.
Garrett Gritz explained that when the intersection becomes signalized there will be an increase
delay regardless of whether bridge is up or not.
Page 3 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-09-26,4,"Commissioner Wong asked when they remove the 29th Avenue overcrossing, would southbound
I-880 be accessible.
Garrett Gritz explained that during the day it would be open. However, there would be some
nighttime closures and they would realign the on-ramp to accommodate the construction and that
would happen late at night. Furthermore, there would be a period of time that they would close
the freeway in both directions, but not at the same time.
Commissioner Vargas asked Garrett Gritz whether the County of Alameda was included in the
coordination list and whether he could talk about any coordination with potential bridge
improvements that might happen during the construction to alleviate any concerns that
Commissioner Wong had.
Garrett Gritz explained the County does have a retrofit project schedule during the four-year
construction period and they have participated in the coordination meetings. The seismic project
along with several others are all part of the traffic management plan.
Commissioner Vargas referred to Jim Strehlow's comments about the funding and whether that
impacted the side of the structures and if there were any comments on the Environmental Impact
Report on air quality impacts in terms of the traffic perspective in Alameda.
Garrett Gritz explained that the environmental document was circulated in early 2010 and they
had a meeting at the Alameda Transportation Commission to let the public know that the
document was circulating. Regarding the greenhouse gas emissions, the project is an operational
and safety improvement project. Thus, the implementation of the project would decrease the
travel time for northbound I-880, which would increase travel flow for northbound I-880 and
decrease greenhouse gas emissions. He exclaimed that all funding is in place (a total of $75
million) because they maintained a specific project schedule and the project is schedule driven.
He has personally been working on the project for several years and he has let the public know
about what they are trying to accomplish.
Commissioner Vargas asked Alameda staff if they had a public awareness campaign in place to
promote awareness of the construction changes and various detours.
Garrett Gritz replied Staff Khan was instrumental in implementing the contingency plan. The
contingency plan is set up where there is a committee that meets at least a once a month and the
members include a representative from the City of Alameda, City of Oakland, and Caltrans
Traffic Management Plan Coordinator. Caltrans administers the contract and Staff Khan
advocated a mechanism to where everyone can communicate. So, any member of the committee
would be able to call a meeting whether in person or by conference call and the meeting would
have to happen within 12 hours. Additionally, the Caltrans Public Information Officer is required
to attend public meetings and would answer questions from the community directed towards
Caltrans. Ultimately, Staff Khan accomplished a lot in order to make sure communication was
there and the document was circulated amongst the agencies (Alameda, Caltrans and Oakland).
Commissioner Bertken felt Commissioner Vargas was talking about putting together a public
Page 4 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-09-26,5,"information program, meaning a detailed program about what is going to happen with the
project. This program would include how project representatives reach out to the community and
media so that the public is up to speed on the project.
Garrett Gritz said he would follow up and give more specifics in the near future. He also
mentioned that they have a public information meeting scheduled this year in Oakland and
Alameda and they have a public information meeting scheduled for February 2013 just as the
project goes out to bid to keep the public informed.
Commissioner Bertken made a motion to approve staff recommendations in addition to a public
information program.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked that the Commission include public transit in the contingency
plan.
Commissioner Bertken re-amended the motion to include public transit correspondence with AC
Transit in the Commission's comments in addition to a public information program.
Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 4-0.
5.B.
AC Transit Line OX - Reconsider Opening to Local Riders
Staff Payne presented a summary of the report and recognized AC Transit staff - Linda Morris
and Wil Buller - at the meeting.
Linda Morris, AC Transit Transportation Planner, explained that AC Transit could analyze the
lines and implement a potential change in spring 2013 because they typically conduct service
changes quarterly. AC Transit staff is looking at Line 631 along with Line OX, to replicate the
Line OX on Bay Farm so that the Line 631 timing works better for the students. The agency
analyzed extending the last Line 631 trip, but making that four-minute connection typically will
not work. She emphasized that they want to re-route Line 631 to accommodate all the students
and reinstate the local service on Line OX while monitoring the service to avoid additional
issues.
Commissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comment.
Jon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, explained that he
took the AC Transit Line 51A for meetings recently and he has taken a lot of Transbay rides. So,
based on that he felt the City is less well served out of economic necessity than what was offered
over 15 years ago. He felt one of the reasons was the capacity of the system as it exists is not in
line with current demand. Ultimately, he wanted AC Transit to look at increasing the capacity of
the system rather than shifting a bit of a bus line here and there. Additionally, once the service
change is implemented next spring, he hopes local riders would be allowed to board Line OX as
long as the local service is adequate. He also encouraged members of the Commission along with
Page 5 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-09-26,6,"AC Transit and Alameda City Council to talk about increasing transit service to the community.
Commissioner Schatmeier said that he lives on Bay Farm Island and was a regular user of Line
OX before the policy change. He mentioned that Line 21 was the underlying local service and
used to serve Bay Farm from Park Street every 15 minutes. However, a couple of years ago, AC
Transit cut the frequency in half. Yet, the Line OX service made the service cut more palatable
because it was available during peak periods. AC Transit made a 75 percent service cut without
input from the public - it is a significant service cut. Moreover, there are around 23 frequencies
of Line OX buses in combination of morning and afternoon and when referring to the memo
presented by staff, there were 41 student passengers and 12 local passengers. Ultimately, the 41
student passengers could be spread amongst those 23 buses, but what AC Transit is probably
telling us is that they are not spread out and are concentrated amongst a few buses in the
morning. Thus, it seemed to be a morning issue. He explained that one solution would be that
AC Transit rescind the policy for the afternoon and evening buses and possibly create an interim
step to restore local service in the evening. This step would require only one change to the
Clipper card in the evening after leaving the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco. The result
would lead to multiple uses for the line that potentially would attract additional riders. The riders
boarding in downtown Alameda towards Bay Farm in the afternoon/evening would be filling
vacated seats from Transbay riders. He advised that the Commission envision a complete
picture, which includes some of these possibilities beyond what the staff has recommended.
Commissioner Wong asked whether the first Line 631 was available to students at 6:52 am. She
explained that originally, there were a lot of students boarding Line OX and she wanted to know
which Line OX bus they were boarding since there were 7 am classes scheduled.
Commissioner Vargas mentioned that AC Transit staff should review the school's class schedule
to see what matches well for bus service. Furthermore, he mentioned that Commissioner
Schatmeier's concerns regarding the frequency of Line 21 and evening policy modifications for
Line OX were worth noting.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated his past conversations with Cory Lavigne concluded that
restoring the local Line OX policy in the afternoon would be feasible. He asked Mr. Lavigne if
the policy restoration would have to wait until the next driver sign up and Mr. Lavigne stated that
this change would not require coordination with the quarterly service changes. Since he could not
confirm or deny that conclusion, he asked AC Transit staff to relay the message to Mr. Lavigne's
successor.
Linda Morris replied that originally the agency wanted to wait for the service change because it
is a big change and the agency wants to ensure that passengers are notified. Regarding
Commissioner Schatmeier's conversation with Mr. Lavigne, she would have to speak with the
operations department and Robert del Rosario, Mr. Lavigne's successor.
Commissioner Schatmeier assumed that Mr. Lavigne was uncomfortable with doing something
different in the morning than in the afternoon because it might be confusing to the public or
drivers. However, he seemed receptive because of the special nature of the case. Ultimately,
Commissioner Schatmeier did not want to wait until the spring to make the changes.
Page 6 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-09-26,7,"Commissioner Bertken asked for more detail from Commissioner Wong regarding students
attending 7 am classes. He then asked AC Transit staff if an additional Line 631 bus would be
needed to accommodate students attending 7 am classes and whether that was practical.
Commissioner Wong replied a 7 am class depends on the year in terms of the number of classes.
Currently, there are at least three 7 am classes of 35 students and not all of the students take the
bus, but there are quite a few that do.
Linda Morris replied that the passenger loads analyzed were not around 7 am, but the problem
was centered on students arriving before the 8 am bell time.
Commissioner Bertken said by looking at the provision to Line 631 schedule, arriving to school
by 7 am would not be an issue.
Linda Morris replied that they would have to look into that, but it may consist of additional
service.
Commissioner Bertken said potentially a number of riders would need to arrive by 7 am.
Linda Morris explained her point was that AC Transit's analysis found that there was an
overflow on Line OX around 7:30 am in order to reach school by 8 am.
Commissioner Bertken said that looking at the situation now, and since there are a number of
classes that begin at 7 am would it be possible for AC Transit to let students onto Line OX before
7:30 am.
Linda Morris explained that since they are looking at the entire line as a policy decision, she
would take the Commission's comments back to the agency and review and implement the final
decisions in the spring. Ultimately, they would not modify the policy on a trip-by-trip level.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff what are the next steps once the Commission makes a
recommendation.
Staff Payne replied the Commission's recommendation would be directed to AC Transit staff to
see how they would like to move forward.
Commissioner Schatmeier stated the goal of his motion was to recognize the growth potential of
ridership and to pursue a policy that meets everyone's needs.
Commissioner Schatmeier made a motion to include an interim period that would be worked out
by staff to explore restoring local service on the evening Line OX buses as quickly as possible in
addition to staff recommendations. Commissioner Miley seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 5-0.
Page 7 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-09-26,8,"5.C.
AC Transit's Performance Initiative Grant - Line 51A
Staff Payne presented a summary of the report and asked AC Transit staff to make further
comments.
Commissioner Vargas asked AC Transit staff to discuss their role in the project.
Wil Buller explained that the way the entire project would be rolled out was that AC Transit
would oversee the development and the preliminary engineering and oversight through design.
Upon completion of design and Memorandum Of Understanding agreements, the cities
(Berkeley, Oakland and Alameda) would receive portions of the grant to complete construction
based upon the design plans. AC Transit's project manager would coordinate with each city with
construction management oversight, but it would be up to the cities to complete the construction,
procure a contractor and close out the improvements. Construction is expected in late 2014.
5.D. Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans
Staff Payne presented the following updates regarding the quarterly report on activities related to
transportation policies and plans:
Estuary Crossing Shuttle - The first year had an average of 150 boardings per day and the
beginning of the second year is averaging 220 boarding per day. The operation is now
running with a low-floor bus.
Shoreline Drive/Westline Drive Bikeway Project - The third community meeting will take
place on Thursday, October 18 and the meeting's results would be presented to the
Transportation Commission for action on Wednesday, November 28.
Park Street Streetscape Project - The project has been completed, and they have installed 6
additional bike racks, resulting in 30 total bicycle racks from Central Avenue to San Jose
Avenue.
TSM/TDM Plan - Staff is completing the Environmental Review.
Accessible pedestrian signals under the Pedestrian Plan - Staff received a new Freedom
Grant and there will be a public hearing for that on Monday, October 29 in combination
with the Commission on Disability Issues.
Safe Routes to School - Staff won the grant to improve the midblock crossing on Grand
Street at Wood School and more details will be provided later.
New Park Street Pedestrian Safety Improvement Program will be presented at the next
meeting.
Countywide Transportation Projects will be reported after the November 2012 election.
Page 8 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-09-26,9,"Traffic Calming Projects regarding the Fernside Boulevard Project - Staff scheduled a
meeting at Edison School on Thursday, September 27th at 7pm for the Fernside traffic
calming.
At the last meeting, the Commission approved a midblock crossing between Franklin
School and Franklin Park, and staff installed the crossing with help from Alameda Unified
School District staff.
Commissioner Schatmeier mentioned that he met with Staff Payne about the Shore Line project
to talk about the bus stop treatments along Shore Line Drive. He wanted Staff Payne to update
the Commission on any discussions between her and AC Transit staff.
Staff Payne replied that they do have a recommended plan along Shore Line and Westline Drives
because transit service exists between Grand Street and Willow Street. She has discussed with
AC Transit to eliminate the midblock stop eastbound towards Broadway because a safety issue
exists. AC Transit is fine to move the westbound bus stop on Shore Line Drive at Kitty Hawk
Road from the near side to the far side. Staff is recommending to not doing anything with the
westbound bus stop on Willow Street at Shore Line Drive. Additionally, there were some
challenges with distances between stops because they are taking away the eastbound midblock
stop, but since a safety issue exists, that would be the best way to proceed.
Commissioner Miley mentioned that since they were talking about safety issues with AC Transit,
he noticed that on Otis Drive at High Street, the bus has a noticeably tight turn and cars have to
reverse to get out of the way of the bus. So, he wanted to know if the City has looked into that
issue.
Staff Payne explained that she has noticed that herself and she would take that up with AC
Transit staff. Additionally, she explained that the Shore Line/Westline Drive update would be
brought before the public on October 18 and brought to the Transportation Commission meeting
in November.
6.
Staff Communications
7.
Announcements/ Public Comments
Jon Spangler stated that he is on the BART Bike Advisory Task Force and member of the East
Bay Bicycle Coalition. He has been involved in getting the bike pilot on board BART in the
month of August. At this time, there has not been a lot of news from BART since the pilot ended
on August 31. However, there was a meeting that afternoon to make sure BART continued an
evaluation to implement what they could from the pilot. They are looking at reconfiguring the
older cars that have a little windscreen inside the door that completely wipes out wheelchair and
bicycle access and looking at adding some flexibility in San Francisco during the blackout
periods because there is more room at Montgomery Station then Embarcadero Station in terms of
vertical access and platform size. Furthermore, BART is looking at 12th and 19th Street Stations
to allow bicycles on the platforms and avoid conflict with patrons. He explained that protocols
for pedestrians, bicyclists, skateboarders and strollers would need to be communicated with
Page 9 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2012-09-26,10,"everyone. He exclaimed that additional signage throughout the BART system including up above
the platform to let people know when the train was coming and letting people know the load
factor would be essential. Lastly, an evaluation on the pilot program would be presented to the
BART Board in November and he wanted the Commission to know that a lot of groups,
including bike advocacy groups, BART Accessibility and Bike Task Forces are working hard on
this issue.
Matthew Fitzgerald announced that he was in an accident while riding the AC Transit Line 75
and the incident will be reported on the news. He also mentioned the commission on disability
issues.
Commissioner Schatmeier commended Bike Alameda's Riding the Rails activity. He felt the trip
and historical presentations were very interesting and Bike Alameda used the activity as an
opportunity to promote Measure B1. Thus, they should be congratulated and recognized for the
effort.
Commissioner Miley stated that he recently learned that Staff Khan was leaving and he wanted to
thank him for his service. He also wanted to know if the City put out a job announcement.
Matthew Naclerio, Alameda Public Works Director, said that he is working with Human
Resources to make sure that this is a priority recruitment. The job announcement has not been
published yet.
Staff Payne explained that the Complete Street's Policy item initially proposed as a special
meeting in October should be presented in November. The Alameda County Transportation
Commission's Board will be adopting their Complete Street's Policy at the end of October. She
would rather dovetail off of what they have done and not have to repeat something at a later date.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked Staff Payne to include an update on the Line OX policy issue.
Staff Payne explained that she added an item for 5a that would include the public information
program with public transit added to the contingency plan for the I-880/29th Ave./23rd Ave.
Interchange Improvement Project.
8.
Adjournment
9:39 pm
Page 10 of 10",TransportationCommission/2012-09-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-04-26,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 26, 2006
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Pattianne Parker
Robb Ratto
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier (arrived at 8:05 p.m.)
Absent:
Jeff Knoth
Staff Present:
Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Knox White noted that a quorum of members who attended the March meeting was
not present, and recommended postponing approval of the February and March minutes
until the May meeting.
Commissioner Parker noted that the references in the March minutes to ""March minutes""
should be changed to ""February minutes"".
3.
AGENDA CHANGES - None
4.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Schatmeier commended Commissioner Ratto and the Park Street Business
Association on the bus shelters located on Park Street. He also commended the West
Alameda Business Association for the shelters on Webster Street.
Chair Knox White mentioned that A/C Transit should be reporting to the Commission in
May regarding the bunching of buses on the 51 line. He also noted that the EIR for
Alameda Landing would be on the May agenda.",TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-04-26,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Brian Strand spoke regarding Alameda Municipal Code subsection 8-7.8, which prohibits
the parking vehicles in the same place on the street for more than 72 hours. He noted that
he had received a warning on his vehicle, which was parked in front of his house. Mr.
Strand stated that he is a public transportation user, and uses his car only about once a
week. He assumed that the purpose is probably to prevent people from leaving non-
operating vehicles on the street, but asked if there is another justification. Mr. Strand said
he spoke with the Alameda Police Department, and he was told that vehicles are
generally cited if they appear to be abandoned or if they receive a neighbor complaint.
Chair Knox White stated that the issue is one which borders on the jurisdiction of the
Transportation Commission and the Planning Board. He suggested that Public Works
staff look at this and then let him know what their findings are. He suggested that if Mr.
Strand is still not satisfied, he may want to contact the City Council.
6A.
DRAFT POLICIES FOR PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Chair Knox White suggested reviewing the supplemental goals one by one.
Chair Knox White suggested that the final pedestrian plan document include the
circulation plan policies relevant to the Pedestrian Plan as well as any pedestrian-specific
policies. He said that if the supplemental policies do not fit under any already-approved
ones, the Commission may want to go back and amend the original list.
Chair Knox White suggested that the Commission come up with the general ideas
regarding the policies, and the subcommittee can work out the detailed language.
Commissioner Ratto suggested adding language to indicate that projects need to be
prioritized, since the City has limited resources.
Commissioner Krueger mentioned that at the Task Force meetings the public had brought
up that we need some criteria for priorities.
Staff Bergman said that most of the discussion at the Task Force meeting was focused on
projects. He noted that the handout included the policies previously approved by the
Commission for the Circulation Plan, and that the ones that are most relevant to the
Pedestrian Plan have been underlined. He reviewed the supplemental policies and noted
that some are similar to the previously approved ones.
Commissioner Krueger noted that Task Force suggested investigating locations where it
might be feasible to provide pedestrians more of a priority when crossing at signalized
intersections, perhaps criteria could be developed to determine where this would work.
This would enable the pedestrian signal to change without waiting until the next cycle.
The Task Force noted need to balance pedestrian needs against those for traffic flow.
2",TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-04-26,3,"Chair Knox White stated regarding the use of soundwalls, he noted that there are
locations at Bayport were there are no breaks in the walls to enable pedestrians to cut
through.
Commissioner Krueger aid that we would need to observe how people actually walk, and
make the appropriate pedestrian connections.
Staff Bergman explained that at Bayport there are locations where there are no
connections because they were designed for use as alleys, not as streets.
Chair Knox White asked if there are some places that have been identified where there
are cul de sacs that the City could develop at some time. He noted that city of Kirkland,
WA has a program whereby at the end of cul de sacs when a house goes up for sale, the
voter gives the city the opportunity to buy a three or four-foot strip along the property
line. This enables them to construct a pedestrian pathway once all of the adjacent houses
have been sold.
Staff Bergman suggested that the Commission could rephrase a policy to ensure that
alleys would be included in the policy.
Chair Knox White expressed a concern about B-4.2. He suggested that a policy be
included to indicate that the Pedestrian Master Plan will be implemented.
Commissioner Krueger stated that it is important to look at the layout of an entire site as
to where sidewalks are to go and the crossings of the streets. Agrees that C-2.2 and C-2.3
are related but don't know if they completely cover it.
Chair Knox White said that they all follow under C-2.4.
Commissioner Krueger said that there should be a set of design guidelines to apply when
someone is building a shopping center or a redevelopment.
Commissioner Ratto said that each shopping center and development is different and it's
not possible to have one set of standards.
Commissioner Krueger responded that his intent is not to be overly specific, but to ensure
that the spirit of a pedestrian-friendly project is carried over through project
implementation, such as ensuring that there are sidewalks on both sides of the street.
Chair Knox White suggested changing adding encouragement to the policy regarding
educating residents on walking safely.
Commissioner Ratto said that he believes that it's not the government's role to try and
promote people to walk. He indicated that he supports promoting safety, but that he feels
that promotion is beyond the role of the City.
3",TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-04-26,4,"Commissioner Schatmeier also questioned whether it is appropriate to promote walking,
which is mostly a public health issue.
Commissioner Krueger responded that encouragement to walk could have significant
impacts on traffic congestion, especially near schools. Commissioner Schatmeier agreed
that this would be beneficial. Commissioner Krueger recommended that encouraging
children to walk to school should be added.
Commissioner Parker asked about the fourth bullet, ""Establish an annual program to
install curb ramps at crosswalks throughout the city."" She stated that this sounds more
like a capital improvement program, not an annual program.
Chair Knox White said that based on what Barbara Hawkins had said, even though the
curb ramps are a capital project, since it would be included in the budget every year, it
would be listed as an annual program.
Regarding the policy supporting use of rubber sidewalks, Chair Knox White asked if the
Commission should be dictating the types of materials to be used in sidewalks, or if that
should be left up to Public Works.
Commissioner Ratto stated that the issue is not necessarily barriers, but the type of trees
that are planted. He noted that this is more of an issue for locations where new trees
would be planted, as opposed to replacing existing ones.
Commissioner Krueger suggested noting that the trees should be ""non-invasive"".
Commissioner McFarland asked if the property owner is responsible for the condition of
the sidewalk across their property.
Commissioner Ratto responded that the property owner is responsible unless a City tree
has damaged the sidewalk.
The Commission agreed to accept the draft Pedestrian Plan policies along with the
Commission comments, and to have the Pedestrian Plan subcommittee incorporate this
information for the May meeting.
7A. BUS SHELTER SURVEY RESULTS & MAINTENANCE COSTS
Staff Bergman summarized the results of the bus shelter survey. He noted that 308
individuals responded to the survey. Since respondents could submit information on
more than one shelter location, a total of 812 surveys were collected. The shelters were
clustered based on their characteristics, so that the 22 shelters surveyed were consolidated
into 7 groups. He noted that even after grouping the shelters together, some shelter types
had relatively few responses, with the total ranging from 16 up to 315. He cautioned the
Commission to keep this in mind when interpreting the data.
4",TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-04-26,5,"Staff Bergman noted that appearance for all types was generally rated favorably, with the
percentage of respondents who approved of the shelter designs was over 60 percent for
all types.
Chair Knox White stated that glass and canopy (no metal walls) - somewhat higher
Commissioner Krueger noted that bus visibility received a lower score for shelter type
#6. He noted that he personally has difficulty seeing the bus from this shelter.
Suggested that the negative score for the shelter at Santa Clara Avenue and Willow Street
(#6) may have to do with maintenance, and that the metal walls make it look less
appealing. He suggested that the shelter at Stanton Street, which is the same design but
with glass walls, is more attractive.
Commissioner Krueger noted that respondents gave higher favorability ratings to shelters
for protection from rain and wind for the shelter that have walls, as opposed to the
canopy shelters.
Commissioner Parker asked what was included in the maintenance program.
Staff Bergman said that the contract called for trash removal in and around the shelters as
well as graffiti removal, and these are done on a weekly basis. The replacement of panels
were as needed, and this is considerably more expensive.
Commissioner Parker asked what is the standard to look like after the maintenance is
completed. It does not seem to be clean enough.
Commissioner Ratto stated that dirt accumulates quickly. He stated that from what he has
seen of the City-maintained shelters, they are clean immediately after the contractors
have done their work, but that a daily cleaning is really required. He stated that his staff
cleans the Park Street shelters every day, but he recognizes that the City does not have the
resources to do this.
Commissioner Schatmeier asked if there is a difference on the maintenance of the shelters
as to those jurisdictions who participate in the shelter advertising program.
Commissioner Krueger asked how quickly graffiti is removed once a call is put in, and
how the City's maintenance program compared to the advertising program.
Staff Bergman said he would check into that.
Public Comment
Susan Decker said that some of the shelters have not been maintained to a high standard
and presented some pictures of the ones at Santa Clara Avenue/Walnut Street and Santa
5",TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2006-04-26,6,"accelerated maintenance schedule; 4) ensure there is a trash receptacle at each
shelter. Commissioner Parker seconded. Motion approved unanimously, 6-0.
8. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - None
9. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC/2006/0506\tc min 42606-FINAL doc
6",TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-07-23,1,"TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES
July 23, 2008
Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.
ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.
Members Present:
John Knox White
Michael Krueger
Robert McFarland
Eric Schatmeier
Srikant Subramaniam
Members Absent:
Kathy Moehring
Staff Present:
Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer
Barry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
June 25, 2008
Chair Knox White noted that page 6 discussed the 100 block of Regent Street, and believed it
should be the 1000 or 1100 block.
Commissioner Krueger noted that page 7 should be changed to read, ""Commissioner Krueger
asked about Mr. Rabin' 's claim stated that he heard there was street sweeping.""
Commissioner Schatmeier moved approval of the minutes for the June 25, 2008, meeting and
minutes as presented. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0.
Abstain: Commissioner Subramaniam.
3.
AGENDA CHANGES
Chair Knox White noted that Item 7A would be heard at the beginning of the meeting, followed
by Item 6A. He added that the appellant for Item 7A has offered to withdraw his appeal after a
discussion with Public Works staff during which he suggested that instead of weekly sweeping,
that a biweekly sweeping schedule would be amenable. Public Works has indicated that this
solution would be acceptable. However, because the time for filing an appeal has passed, and
because people were in attendance for this item, he suggested that the appeal be heard.
Page 1 of 14",TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-07-23,2,"7.
NEW BUSINESS
7A.
Resident Appeal of the Public Works Director's Approval of the Installation of ""NO
PARKING"" Street Sweeping Signs on the 3000 and 3100 blocks of Catalina Avenue,
Odd Side Only
Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and detailed the background of this item. Staff
conducted a field analysis and solicited input from the residents. In April 2008, the Public Works
Director approved the installation of the No Parking Street Sweeping signs on the odd side of the
3000 and 3100 blocks of Catalina Avenue. He noted that Mr. Alan Thompson appealed the
decision to the Transportation Commission. He noted that earlier in the day, Mr. Thompson
approached the Public Works Department and suggested that the street sweeping be done
biweekly, rather than weekly, as a compromise. The Public Works Director was amenable to that
idea. Staff Bergman distributed the document submitted by Mr. Thompson. He described the
orientation and configuration of Catalina Avenue, as well as staff's determination of the impact
on parking of the street sweeping. The Public Works Director approved the proposed parking
restrictions in April 2008, and the notification was distributed to residents at that time.
Staff Bergman noted that the installation of the street sweeping signs was being proposed with
the cooperation of the homeowners association. There was a question of whether the
homeowners association would adequately represent the wishes of the residents. Given that the
homeowners association was an elected body, Public Works felt that was sufficient
representation of the neighborhood to provide that kind of input.
Staff noted that a minority of residents had signed the petition supporting the appeal. He noted
that the street was only 32 feet wide, the standard width of a parking lane was 8 feet, and the
minimum width for a travel lane was 10 feet. He stated that if two parking lanes were provided
there would be insufficient space for two vehicle lanes on the street. He noted that the street-
sweeping prohibitions were in effect for only three hours at a time, and were required as part of
the countywide Clean Water Program and the Federal Clean Water Act.
Staff Bergman noted that the third basis for the appeal was that Verdemar and Fontana were
swept on Tuesday and Wednesday, and that the residents had to move their cars on those days,
and park on Catalina. Since parking was only permitted on one side of Catalina, the options for
alternative parking locations were limited. Staff conducted a survey during the proposed hours of
the parking restrictions, and found that the number of vacant spaces in the immediate vicinity
was approximately equivalent to the number of vehicles that were parked on Catalina at that time.
In addition, according to the homeowners association, each of the properties in the association
did have a two-car garage; given the available on-street and off-street parking, staff felt that the
parking could be accommodated during those times. In response to the point raised in the appeal
about the creation of additional emissions due to the movement of automobiles, he noted that the
Municipal Code already required that vehicles cannot remain in the same place for more than 72
hours; as a result, they would have to be moved regardless of the parking restrictions.
Page 2 of 14",TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-07-23,3,"Staff Bergman noted that the original staff recommendation was to support the Public Works
Director's decision to implement the no-parking street sweeping signs. Mr. Thompson's
recommended compromise solution of biweekly instead of weekly parking restrictions was
amenable to the Public Works Department.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier regarding the original complaint of the
appellant, Staff Bergman replied that it had to do with the extra debris accumulating in the street.
Commissioner Krueger recalled that during the last appeal, it was noted that the City typically
implements biweekly street sweeping if the demand for on-street parking is above 70%. He
believed the demand here was 58% for the 3000 block, and 33% for the 3100 block, and inquired
whether it was common to make such an exception to this policy. Staff Bergman stated that
given the limited parking on Catalina, staff felt that this was an appropriate place to make an
exception to this rule. Staff Khan noted that the Public Works Department felt that biweekly
sweeping would still provide sufficient cleaning, addressing the debris accumulation, so this was
an appropriate compromise for the neighborhood.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier whether parking could be allowed on the
other side of the street while the street sweeping parking restrictions were in effect, Staff Khan
replied that staff felt that would create additional confusion.
Commissioner Krueger believed there would be an issue of creating a fire access concern with
cars parked on both sides of the street. Staff Khan confirmed that was a concern.
Open public hearing.
Mr. Thompson, appellant, wished to speak later.
Charles Obenchain noted that he supported the appeal, and did not believe it was mentioned that
42 signatures were gathered from people who did not support the signs. He did not know when
the parking occupancy survey was taken, and displayed photos of every space on Catalina being
occupied by a car. He noted that a streetsweeper he observed left more dirt than it picked up, and
that he had called the Public Works Department to reclean it. He noted that when water came
down from the Sierras, many cubic yards of silt per minute was incorporated in the water as well.
He expressed concern about the cleanliness of the water. He noted that some of the people who
lived at the properties who signed the petition for the signage did not live on Catalina, and were
not affected by the traffic issues on the street.
Staff Khan noted that Public Works typically solicits input from residents who live within 300
feet of the impacted area for these types of decisions. In reviewing the signatures, staff totaled
the number of households represented, rather than the number of individuals.
Chuck Bianchi, president, Casitas Homeowners Association, supported the original
recommendation as stated in the staff report. He noted that every home in the development had a
two-car garage, and that it was not the business of the association whether it was used for two
Page 3 of 14",TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-07-23,4,"cars or one car and storage. He noted that the landscape committee hired a landscaping company
to work on the association's grounds. He noted that the properties on the north side of the
3000/3100 block of Catalina did not have a sidewalk, and that the cars parked in that area
prevented the landscapers from doing an efficient job in picking up debris.
Norm Brasel noted that he was a member at large of the Casitas Homeowners Association. He
supported the weekly sweeping plan. He noted that offering an exception to one neighborhood
with respect to street sweeping was divisive. He added that they believed in keeping their streets
clean. He complimented staff on the thoroughness of the staff report.
Bob Perata, landscape chairman, Casitas Homeowners Association, noted that the landscape
company had complained for more than two years that they have not been able to edge, clean or
access the area, although they have damaged cars. As a result, they will not do it; he noted that it
was very important for them to do the work. He added that greenery was already growing in the
gutter because they could not clean the gutters.
Alan Thompson noted that he filed the original appeal, and did not believe it was necessarily the
City's responsibility to oversee maintenance problems for the association as far as the gardening.
He understood it was important to keep the gutters clean, and that he had done so in the past. He
had experience with a street sweeper leaving more debris in the gutter after it had passed. He
noted that the homes had two-car garages, and added that more than two drivers in the house
created the need for additional parking.
Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that although his neighborhood was not close to this one,
they dealt with the same problem every week as well. He noted that because the City had legal
and moral obligations with respect to the environmental issues of keeping the Bay clean, he
hoped that the original staff recommendation would be upheld. He noted that the homes had two-
car garages and driveways, and that too many vehicles could be a problem.
Close public hearing.
Commissioner Krueger inquired whether there had been additional checks made on the parking
occupancy. Staff Khan replied that staff had made several field visits, and that they looked at the
site between 12 and 3 p.m., the times when the restrictions would be in effect. He noted that the
table on page 4 indicated that the number of spaces represented an average value calculated from
these field reviews.
Chair Knox White believed it was important for the City to be flexible when the situation called
for it. He commended the City for its flexibility in finding a solution for the area. He noted that
the appeal addressed a situation governed by City guidelines, and that it was the Transportation
Commission's role to assess whether the guidelines were followed. He believed the HOA needed
to figure out the landscaping for their property independent of the parking situation. He would
Page 4 of 14",TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-07-23,5,"recommendations.
Commissioner McFarland moved to uphold staff's original recommendation of sweeping
weekly. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1 (Schatmeier).
Page 5 of 14",TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-07-23,6,"6A.
Update on Completing Analysis of Thresholds of Significance
Staff Bergman summarized the staff report, and detailed the background of this item. Staff
received comment from the Commission was that the recently developed street functional
classification system may be used to help resolve the conflicts between modes. The schedule
presented in June included the following major steps:
1.
The final selection of the method of evaluation and level of service to be provided
for each transportation mode;
2.
Development of draft implementation policies to address conflicts among the
different transportation modes when the mitigation for one mode created a
significant impact for another mode based on the threshold selected;
3.
Run the transportation model to determine where the impacts to the transportation
mode will occur;
4.
Modify the draft policies as appropriate; and
5.
Process the necessary environmental document for the Council approval.
Staff Bergman noted that in order to follow up on the Commission's recommendation to apply
the street functional classification system to resolve the conflict, staff prepared a table to identify
the potential conflicts more concretely. For the majority of street segments in the City, the
functional classification system worked fairly well, and several were identified in the attached
table that illustrate the potential difficulties. He noted that all the streets that had more than one
classification were examined, and described the methodologies used to examine the traffic
models on the 70 segments. He presented the following examples of guidelines to resolve the
conflicts; these guidelines are examples, for discussion purposes:
The top transportation priority for regional arterials would be the motor vehicle,
followed by transit; the alternative modes would be accommodated along regional
arterials as long as the vehicular Level Of Service (LOS) D was maintained.
The top transportation priority for island collectors could be defined as bicycles,
followed by transit; the acceptable LOS for bicycles would be accommodated
along an island collector, followed by transit. The LOS for the intersection along
the island collector could degrade to LOS E.
Commissioner Schatmeier inquired if this policy would have impacted the Park Street
reconstruction, as buses now stop in the traffic lane. Staff Khan replied that Park Street was
already a regional arterial and part of the congestion management program network. If there
were concerns about LOS, it would have already been discussed or evaluated.
Page 6 of 14",TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf
TransportationCommission,2008-07-23,7,"Open public hearing.
Nathan Landau, AC Transit, thanked staff for performing this analysis, which he believed could
be a model for the rest of AC Transit's service area; only Emeryville, which is smaller, had
performed a similar analysis. He noted that transit was involved in 44 of the segments with
conflicts. He noted that a wide street with a conflict could be resolved; a narrow street with a
conflict could be tougher.
Jon Spangler commended the City for taking the initiative in performing this analysis, and added
that many cities would not do it. With respect to the conflicts, he suggested thinking about the
number of people moved per segment of roadway. He noted that it could easily be balanced in
favor of transit, pedestrians or bicycles. He would like to see the analysis fleshed out more fully,
and noted there was a column for school districts. He suggested balancing it more in favor of the
Safe Routes to School process and priorities is the streets would be safe for kids to walk to
school. He believed it was very important not to automatically default to the automobile.
Close public hearing.
Chair Knox White believed this matrix should be more useful if it is to be used going forward,
and he believed the conflicts should be shown more clearly. He believed using LOS C from 2030
projected data to examine potential conflicts was overkill. He believed it was important to look at
what the matrix data meant, and wanted to more clearly identify the conflicts. He noted that the
entire High Street section jumped out at him because it was an arterial and a school zone, and
inquired about the conflict. He believed that whether the number of conflicting segments was 72
or 52, it still seemed very high. He was surprised by the proposed levels of threshold, which went
against the EIR policies.
Chair Knox White inquired whether staff was prepared to take a recommendation to a joint
meeting with the Planning Board in August. Staff Khan noted that staff would continue to work
on the document, and get the feedback from the Transportation Commission. He noted that staff
was only moving forward with the Transportation Master Plan EIR at this time, not the
recommended thresholds.
Chair Knox White believed that was a different outcome than what staff had previously stated.
He believed the staff proposal should be there in August.
Staff Khan noted that staff was looking into how to resolve conflicts, and both Planning and the
City Attorney's office agreed that the thresholds of significance should be kept on a separate
track. The TMP EIR would be delayed if staff were to implement all five of the listed steps
required to develop the thresholds of significance.
Chair Knox White recalled that the direction of the Transportation Commission was to use the
maps and their overlays as the way to work out the thresholds of significance. He suggested that
a significant impact would be ""any project that negatively impacted transit, bicycle, pedestrian
Page 7 of 14",TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf