{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-06-28", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\n6/28/2006\nChair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.\nMembers Present:\nJohn Knox White\nJeff Knoth\nMichael Krueger\nRobert McFarland\nPattianne Parker\nRobb Ratto\nAbsent:\nEric Schatmeier\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Program Specialist II\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nCommissioner Knoth moved approval of the May minutes. Commissioner McFarland\nseconded. Motion approved unanimously, 4-0 (Commissioners Ratto and Parker did not\nattend the May meeting and abstained).\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nItem 6B was moved up on the agenda. Commission Communications moved to end of\nmeeting.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS (moved)\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nAdrienne Longley-Cook, resident and member of the Commission on Disability Issues,\nnoted that there are difficulties for pedestrians at the Alameda Towne Centre.\nStaff Khan responded that Public Works had sent a letter to Harsch Investments, the\ndeveloper, to express concerns about the pedestrian environment and asking for a\nresponse by the first week in July.\nSusan Decker, resident, stated that it is not only people with disabilities that are having\ndifficulties, and that it is important to make sure that the City doesn't miss the\nopportunity to enhance the pedestrian environment at the Alameda Towne Centre.", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-06-28", "page": 2, "text": "Ms. Decker also inquired about the status of the City's efforts to install sufficient red curb\nat all bus stops throughout the City.\nMs. Decker also noted that some of the more heavily used bus shelters could use\nadditional maintenance.\nCommissioner Parker stated that it is important to enhance the awareness about the\ngraffiti problem, and that the quick removal of graffiti will help to maintain the shelters at\na high standard.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that graffiti at the shelter located at Santa Clara Avenue and\nWillow Street lasted for several weeks before it was removed.\nChair Knox White stated that regarding the Alameda Towne Centre it would be important\nto look at pedestrian access throughout the entire site.\n6B.\nBunching of AC Transit buses on Line 51\nTony Bruzzone from AC Transit said that they had spent a $500,000 for new software to\nhelp with the bus schedules. Have hired a consultant to help look over the information on\nthe bunching. This will include 25-30 weekday routes, 16 weekend routes and every\ntrans bay line to make adjustments to the time in order to re-write schedules for the buses.\nThis is especially difficult since some drivers finish their routes faster than others. They\nwould be building the schedules from the early part of the route so that at the end of the\nroute spread it out to ease the bunching. He said that hopefully this should help to\ndevelop a more realistic schedule and hope to get this implemented by September or early\nOctober.\nChair Knox White mentioned that it looked more like the drivers operations is what is\ncausing the bunching.\nMr. Bruzzone said that by adjusting the schedules to require drivers to push in the first\npart of the route, the problems could be reduced.\nCommissioner Krueger asked how much of the problem is due to traffic, and how much\nto following the schedules.\nMr. Bruzzone answered that more than half is due to traffic especially at University\nAvenue, College Avenue and especially going south bound including the tubes.\nChair Know White asked if AC Transit ever considered having buses turn express in mid-\nroute to avoid the bunching problem, passengers could be asked to change to the next\nbus.\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-06-28", "page": 3, "text": "Mr. Bruzzone said that it could be done, but a problem is that AC Transit charges for\ntransfers.\nCommissioner Parker asked if AC Transit is looking at the prior studies that have been\ndone on it? She didn't think that AC Transit's issues are unique or that the solutions have\nnot been addressed before.\nMr. Bruzzone said that AC Transit has the ability to track every bus using GPS, but the\nsystem is not integrated into the scheduling system, so they can't relate this to where the\nbuses are supposed to be. The on-going process of the GPS scheduling inter phrase is\ngoing on 5 years. It takes a very long time to influence schedule changes because of\ninstitutional issues - the contract has to be reviewed several times with the drivers.\nChair Knox White asked how confident he was on the effectiveness of the new\nscheduling.\nMr. Bruzzone said that it will at least work better than the current system. The schedule\ninsures that 95% of the buses will leave the terminal on time and that is what they are\naiming for.\nChair Knox White asked if the new schedules are implemented and there is still an issue\non bunching, would this become an operations issue? One issue is that residents do not\nwant to wait long periods of time for a bus and if they do they will eventually want to\nfind another mode of transportation.\nMr. Bruzzone said that once the schedule improvements have been made, it would be an\noperations issue, and that the appropriate place to discuss any concerns at that time would\nbe the Interagency Liaison Committee (ILC). He noted that the operations department is\ntrying to add more supervisors, and that the new manager rides the 51 bus, so she is\nfamiliar with the problems first hand. But despite the commitment of staff, there are\nmany constraints.\nCommissioner Krueger mentioned that dedicated lanes are needed for the transit in order\nto get reliability. Has seen bunching on Sundays when there are no games or other events\nthat would cause the bunching.\nMr. Bruzzone said that this is mostly a schedule problem and that it would be fixed with\nthe proposed changes.\nCommissioner Krueger said that he noticed buses bunching at the beginning of the route\nand asked what percentage are leaving on time.\nMr. Bruzzone said that it is difficult to get this information because the way the data\nis\nrecorded it doesn't indicate if the buses are arriving or leaving. However, AC Transit is\nworking on improving this system.\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-06-28", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Krueger stated that the problem needs to be measured. Wanted to know\nwhat type of metrics would be used to calculate this.\nMr. Bruzzone indicated that AC Transit does have planning metrics, but that operations\nmetrics have been a problem. He said that they will be going to the board with service\ndesign metrics and service delivery metrics, including headway adherence and on-time\nperformance. He said that the AC Transit Board's Planning Committee will be holding\nmeetings over the next 6-8 months to deal with service delivery issues, and he\nencouraged concerned Commissioners to participate. Information about upcoming\nmeetings will be posted on AC Transit's web site.\nMr. Bruzzone stated that AC Transit is trying to establish standards consistent with the\nTransportation Research Board's recommendations. He also mentioned AC Transit's\nefforts to streamline their environmental review process when they implement service\nchanges. They will establish a service baseline, then if they deviate from that standard,\nthey will hold a public hearing.\nCommissioner Parker asked what institutional impediments there are to coming up with\nstandards.\nMr. Bruzzone responded that it is not just an institutional problem, but believes that the\nnew operations manager is committed to improving service delivery and breaking down\nthe cultural barriers.\n6A. Policy Discussion of Environmental Review Recommendations\nChair Knox White stated that the Commission made some vague policy recommendations\nat the May meeting regarding the review of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), and he\nrequested that this item be placed on the agenda to clarify the recommendations.\nConcerns raised at the meeting centered on the impacts of proposed mitigations from\nEIRs, especially on pedestrian safety. He noted that the staff recommendation was to\nrecommend to the Council that the Commission work with staff to develop interim\npolicies regarding the EIRs, but is concerned that this would take too long, given that\nprojects are in the pipeline.\nChair Knox White suggested taking some recommendations from the draft Transportation\nMaster Plan policies approved by the Commission and use them as criteria that EIRs\nshould meet. He suggested that since the TMP has not been approved yet, and major\ndevelopment projects are moving forward, the Transportation Commission should\nrecommend that the City Council not certify EIRs that do not meet the criteria.\nChair Knox White distributed his recommendations so the full Commission could discuss\nthem. The first page included City policies, including the General Plan, the\nTransportation Master Plan (TMP) policies adopted by the Transportation Commission,\nBicycle Master Plan, the City Council resolution naming Alameda as a \"transit first\" city,\nand the long range transit plan. The second page had six suggestions that would make\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-06-28", "page": 5, "text": "consistency of the policies with the general plan, long-range transit plan, and the TMP.\nLast week discussion was increasing traffic volumes, intersection widening, and speed\nlimits to a certain extent. Need to have an analysis done before the Council certifies it.\nCommissioner Knoth responded that this type of statement could hopefully prevent some\nproblems, such as those with pedestrian access at the Alameda Towne Centre.\nCommissioner McFarland suggested recommending the policies to the Council for while\nthe TMP is under development.\nCommissioner Parker stated that the policy statement would point out that many policies\nare already in place, that in some cases they are vague and not being followed, and since\nEIRs are coming up for approval, this could be considered as a guiding document until\nthe TMP is in place. She suggested that at this would at least generate discussion about\ncritical issues. She also noted that some issues may not be addressed here, so the\nlanguage should be modified to acknowledge that.\nMr. Ratto expressed his concern that the policies appear to be dictating to the Council\nhow they should act. However, the policies would be useful for the TC as a guideline in\nreviewing EIRs. He also noted that despite various City policies which recommend\nreducing reliance on automobiles, that is still and will continue to be the major form of\ntransportation in Alameda.\nChair Knox White said that the TC is only making a recommendation to the Council and\nnot attempting to tell the Council how to act or to be disrespectful. He responded that if\nthe language used in the handout was inappropriate, he is okay with rewording it.\nCommissioner Ratto expressed his concern with the language, e.g. \"reject any EIR\n\"\nChair Knox White said that this is so that projects won't be exempted from the policies.\nThe City Council has ability to ignore the General Plan, TC recommendations, etc.\nHowever, if they adopt this as their policy, a discussion will have to happen regarding\nhow a particular project does or does not conform to established policies.\nCommissioner McFarland recommended that the proposed policies be used as a guide for\nthe TC.\nCommissioner Krueger stated that while some generalities in policy are useful to allow\nfor flexibility, if they have too much flexibility they don't achieve the desired result.\nThese policies would help make clear what things are unacceptable to the City, so that\nprojects will be more consistent with the goals.\nChair Knox White suggested modifying the policy statement to indicate that this is what\nthe TC would be using to guide its recommendations.\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-06-28", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Parker stated that it is important that the Commission make clear what its\npriorities are. She said that these issues be discussed at the level where decisions are\nbeing made, that it is not sufficient for the Council just to be told that the TC will be\nusing this as a guide.\nChair Knox White said that the policies do not say that a particular project should not be\nbuilt.\nCommissioner Parker said that it was important to indicate why the Commission is\nputting this forward. The TMP will not be ready before many of the major development\nproposals are presented to the Planning Board and City Council for decision. Therefore\nthe Commission is transmitting its recommendations to the Council in advance of the\nTMP.\nCommissioner Krueger said if Alameda is including language about improving transit,\nbicycling, and walking just to sound good he would support removing the language and\nbeing honest about what choices the City is making.\nCommissioner Krueger said that we as the city have a choice as to how much public\nmoney will be spent to accommodate cars and also the amount of private money required\nto be spent to accommodate cars (e.g. how much to require of developers; protection of\nopen space; impact of road widenings on neighborhood, etc.). He stated that travel\nchoices are not fixed, but other modes may become more popular if we make them more\nconvenient.\nCommissioner Ratto said it was frustrating to see lip service toward being a transit first\ncommunity, referred to difficulty getting red curb zones for bus stops. Mitigations are\nrequired, but the reality is still that most people will be traveling by car, and people\ncannot be forced to use other modes. So the issue is really a question of if the City wants\nto allow more development to come in.\nCommissioner Krueger said it also depends on how much accommodation you want to\nmake. If the city were to make a limited accommodation for vehicle traffic, but instead\noffer a bus lane, someone moving in might decide to not live there or would move there\nonly if they were willing to take the bus.\nChair Knox White: look at wording and bring it back for additional discussion.\nCommissioner Parker suggested turning the text of the policies to the chair to modify the\nwording.\nCommissioner Ratto said it would be helpful if the Commission could meet with the\nCouncil so the TC could have a better understanding of the Council's expectations.\nStaff Bergman said that the City Manager's Office has been contacted and are following\nup on their schedules as to when they would meet.\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2006-06-28", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Parker moved that the proposal be re-worded to make it clear this is the\ncriteria the Transportation Commission will be using regarding the evaluation and\nadoption of the transportation section of EIRs, and that the Commission recommend to\nthe City Council and Planning Board they also use these criteria. Commissioner\nMcFarland seconded. Motion approved, 5-1 (for: Krueger, McFarland, Parker and Knox\nWhite; against: Commissioner Ratto).\nCommissioner Krueger noted that sound walls are not addressed.\nChair Knox White mentioned that there is a question about whether sound walls are a\ntransportation issue or not, so he avoided including it.\n6C. Transmittal of Commission Recommendations to City Council\nChair Knox White mentioned to write a letter with staff and send it directly to Council,\nPlanning Board, signed by the Chair.\nCommissioner Parker motioned that the Commission communicate its decisions by having\nthe Chair write a letter with staff outlining Commission decisions, to be signed by the\nChair, and to be sent to the City Council or the Planning Board, as appropriate.\nCommissioner Ratto seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0.\nCommissioner Parker suggested to the chair that he should report back to the TC on the\nreaction of the City Council.\n4. Commission Communications\nChair Knox White said that there have not been any meetings with the Sub-Committee\nrecently.\nCommissioner Parker said that this would be her last meeting to attend since she is\nleaving.\n9. Adjournment\nMeeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\\TC\\2006/0706\\tc min 62806-rev.doc\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf"}