{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-09-26", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT\nSeptember 26, 2007\nChair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:40 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.\nMembers Present:\nJohn Knox White\nMichael Krueger\nRobb Ratto\nRobert McFarland\nEric Schatmeier\nSrikant Subramaniam\nNeilson Tam\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\nChair Knox White welcomed Commissioner Tam to the Transportation Commission.\n3.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nAugust 22, 2007\nCommissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the August 22, 2007,\nmeeting minutes. Commissioner Ratto seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0-1.\nCommissioner Schatmeier abstained.\n2.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nChair Knox White suggested hearing Item 7B first.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the Water Transportation Authority and the new\nlegislation would be included in discussion of the ferry. Chair Knox White replied that\nthey may discuss it, but no action may be taken.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Knox White noted that the Multimodal Circulation Subcommittee, Pedestrian Plan,\nnot the TSM/TDM Subcommittees had not met. He noted that the Line 63 Subcommittee\nmet earlier in the evening.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that the Line 63 Subcommittee reviewed the options that\nhad been discussed in the previous meeting, and confirmed some of the choices that had\nTransportation Commission\nPage 1 of 9\nSeptember 26, 2007", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-09-26", "page": 2, "text": "been made. The City staff/AC Transit staff report had been received, responding to the\nSubcommittee's questions. They were able to narrow their recommendations in\npreparation for bringing it back to the Transportation Commission in October.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the release of the report, Staff\nBergman replied that the Subcommittee was expected to meet with affected residents\nprior to the Transportation Commission meeting, and that would be incorporated into the\nstaff report.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nOpen public hearing.\nThere were no speakers.\nClose public hearing.\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7B.\nCity of Alameda Ferry Program: Short Range Transit Plan FY 2008-2018\n(SRTP). Outcome: TC to comment and endorse the Ferry Program's Short\nRange Transit Plan\nErnest Sanchez, Ferry Manager, City of Alameda, presented the staff report, as required to\nmaintain the program funding. He noted that the SRTP covered a period of approximately\n11 years, and described the expected financial environment for the Alameda-Oakland and\nAlameda-Harbor Bay Ferries. He noted that both ferry services were doing very well,\nwith strong ridership; the Alameda-Oakland Ferry carried 440,000 riders annually, and\nthe Alameda-Harbor Bay Ferry carried 134,000 riders per year. He discussed recent\nlegislation, and added that SB976 was recently passed by the California State Legislature.\nIt would establish a new agency, the Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation\nAuthority (WETA), which would replace the existing Bay Area Water Transit Authority.\nStaff Khan understood that staff would bring a report to City Council on October 2, 2007,\nregarding this issue, as directed by the City Manager. He noted that a letter to Sacramento\nmay be drafted. He suggested that the Transportation Commissioners attend the City\nCouncil meeting to express their concerns.\nCommissioner Schatmeier expressed concern about the change in governance structure,\nand inquired about the status of the legislation.\nMr. Sanchez replied that it had been passed by both houses of the Legislature, and is on\nGovernor Schwarzenegger's desk for signature.\nCommissioner Schatmeier was still concerned about the changes of the structure, and\nnoted that Alameda's Mayor was currently on the Board; he understood that the new\nTransportation Commission\nPage 2 of 9\nSeptember 26, 2007", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-09-26", "page": 3, "text": "Board would be composed of individuals appointed by the Legislature and the Governor.\nMr. Sanchez confirmed that was correct, and that the current Water Transit Authority had\n11 Board members, to be replaced by a new Board consisting of five members, three\nappointed by the Governor and two appointed by the Legislature.\nCommissioner Schatmeier expressed concern that that change may result in some loss of\nlocal influence and control over what happened in the future, and hoped that the\nGovernor may reappoint existing Board members. He was concerned that the change may\nwork against Alameda's interest.\nChair Knox White suggested that the City Council send a strong letter to the Governor's\noffice, and noted that he tended not to sign items without the input of the people involved\nin setting them up.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto regarding the impetus for the legislators\nto make this change, Mr. Sanchez replied that the legislation cited the need to develop a\ncomprehensive and effected emergency water transit response in the event of a region-\nwide emergency. It argued that in order to effectively develop and implement such a\nprogram, the transfer of Alameda's and Vallejo's ferries would be needed.\nCommissioner Ratto noted that the Alameda and Vallejo ferries were instrumental in the\nemergency aid after the portion of the Bay Bridge collapsed following the 1989\nearthquake. He suggested that the Transportation Commissioners attend the City Council\nmeeting.\nOpen public hearing.\nThere were no speakers.\nClose public hearing.\nChair Knox White inquired whether the 500 passenger per day on the Alameda-Harbor\nBay ferry indicated one-way or round-trip. Mr. Sanchez replied that was the total count.\nChair Knox White cited the paragraph explaining the difficulties with the 65-minute ferry\nmeeting the transit service, and inquired whether a table could be included to clarify the\ndifficult language. He noted that on page 13 (Fare Structure) read, \"Alameda-Oakland\nproposed fare and inquired whether another fare hike was being proposed. Mr.\nSanchez noted that the fare hike approved by City Council approximately two months\nago must go to the CPUC for approval; that process in not yet complete, and he hoped\nthat a decision would be made soon. He confirmed that was not another fare hike.\nChair Knox White noted that the language on page 15 (Objective 2) read, \"\nprovide\ncomfortable, reliable and frequent ferry service.\" He noted that Measure 1 discussed a\nminimum fare box recovery, and pointed out that in several places, different numbers\nTransportation Commission\nPage 3 of 9\nSeptember 26, 2007", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-09-26", "page": 4, "text": "were used, including comparisons to different non-ferry modes of transportation. He\nrecommended that the street transit fare box average of 27-28% be used, as well as the\nrecovery ratio for the highway system by CalTrans.\nChair Knox White inquired whether Objective 3 on page 16 (Integrated Ticketing)\nincluded any discussion between the City and Translink. Mr. Sanchez noted that it had\nbeen discussed with MTC, but there was no current implementation schedule or funding\navailable at this time. Chair Knox White suggested adding that as a goal, stating that the\nregion should start moving to a single fare card.\nChair Knox White noted that Objective 3 on page 16 (Measure 2) read, \"Transit\nschedules should be coordinated to allow easy, convenient transfers between ferries and\nland-side transit.\" He noted that it mentioned that the ferries ran at a 65-minute headway,\nand inquired whether that was because it was the shortest possible headway.\nChair Knox White noted that Objective 5 on page 16 read, \"The ferry system should\nprovide ample reserve capacity in case of disruptions to land-based transportation\nsystems.\" He believed that seemed to run counter to the cost-efficiency argument. He\nbelieved it would be interesting if the plan discussed that issue. Mr. Sanchez replied that\nthe City has participated in the Spare the Air program, and cited the recent closure of the\nBay Bridge and other heavy service days. They used additional carrying capacity from\nthe contractor, Blue and Gold Fleet, which would meet that goal without having the\nadditional carrying capacity on their books.\nChair Knox White noted that on page 18, Service and System Evaluations, the total City\nexpenses between FY2002-03 and FY2006-07 nearly tripled for the Alameda-Oakland\nFerry Service; at the same time, the Alameda-Harbor Bay service decreased significantly.\nHe inquired whether that was the City's portion of the fuel increases, and inquired\nwhether the City would take on more expense for the Alameda-Oakland Ferry. Mr.\nSanchez confirmed that the two contractors operated on different contract structures. The\nAlameda-Oakland Ferry was contracted with Blue and Gold Fleet, which was a cost-plus-\nfixed-fee arrangement. He added that the City paid Blue and Gold Fleet approximately\n$280,000 in annual fixed fees for overhead, profit, etc. He noted that the other ferry\nexpenses (fuel, labor, insurance) were passed through to the City for payment by the City.\nThe Alameda-Harbor Bay Ferry service was operated under a fixed subsidy agreement,\nwhereby they agree to the operating subsidy at the beginning of the year, and the ferry\noperator, Harbor Bay Maritime, would be required to operate and provide the required\nservice at that level of funding. He noted that it used a modified fixed subsidy agreement\nbecause the fuel was paid for on a direct pass-through basis.\nChair Knox White noted that it was a significant surprise when the dollar bridge toll was\npassed under Regional Measure 2, including language to pass that money onto the\nAlameda ferry system, and other area regional systems, going to the WTA. He inquired\nwhether there was any way to tap into those funds under Regional Measure 2. Mr.\nSanchez replied that there was no way to access Regional Measure 2 funds. Chair Knox\nWhite requested that staff look into that possibility under the WETA arrangement. He\nTransportation Commission\nPage 4 of 9\nSeptember 26, 2007", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-09-26", "page": 5, "text": "noted that overall, the report looked good with strong metrics in ridership, fare box\nrecovery, and fee reduction, especially in comparison to other regional transit.\nCommissioner Schatmeier inquired whether the ticket structures for the two services\ncould be linked. Mr. Sanchez noted that under the Harbor Bay Maritime operating\nagreement for the Alameda-Harbor Bay Ferry, Harbor Bay Maritime retained all fare box\nrevenue. Fare box revenue for the Alameda-Oakland Ferry is collected by Blue and Gold\nFleet, but is credited to the City to offset operating expenses. He added that last year,\nthere was almost a dollar difference in round-trip fares between the two ferry services.\nWith the new proposed fare increase, they would become closer, but would still be\ndifferent. He noted that both contracts will expire June 30, 2009. They intended to ask if\nthere would be one operator willing to operate both ferry services. Under one contractual\nstructure, he expected that a unified fare structure would be possible for both services.\nCommissioner Ratto moved to endorse the SRTP as presented. Commissioner Krueger\nseconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0.\n6.\nOLD BUSINESS\n6A.\nProposed Revisions to Alameda Municipal Code Regarding Reassignment of\nTechnical Transportation Team Responsibilities, Modification of\nTransportation Commission Responsibilities and Appeal Process for\nTransportation Operational Decisions. Outcome: TC to comment and endorse\nthe proposed revisions to Alameda Municipal Code.\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report, and noted that the Transportation Commission\nhad supported the concept of the initial changes, and the final language was being\nbrought back for inclusion in the Municipal Code. He noted that the TTT, which is\ncurrently responsible for many of the operational issues in the City, and that the primary\nchange would be a streamlined process. At this time, residents appealing decisions may\nhave to attend multiple meetings going through the TTT, as well as the TC and the City\nCouncil. The recommended change would be to transfer the TTT's responsibilities to the\nPublic Works Director, with the TC acting as the preliminary appeal body, and the City\nCouncil acting as the final appeal body.\nStaff Bergman noted that the TC's responsibilities were modified so that the TC may\ncomment on specific projects, as opposed to only plans, at the request of the City\nCouncil. The TC would also provide comments and recommendations regarding various\ntransportation-related documents.\nOpen public hearing.\nThere were no speakers.\nClose public hearing.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 5 of 9\nSeptember 26, 2007", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-09-26", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner McFarland inquired whether 8-2.5, which discussed traffic marking,\nsignage and striping, also addressed the visibility of traffic signs and keeping them clear\nof obstruction by vegetation. Staff Khan confirmed that was correct. Commissioner\nMcFarland noted that has become a problem in some areas.\nCommissioner McFarland noted that 8-7.1 addressed prohibited parking at red curbs, and\ninquired about instances where someone has painted the curb red by their property. Staff\nKhan noted that is dealt with through the Police Department, who enforces the red curbs.\nIf a property owner paints the curb in front of their home, the City maintenance staff\nwould be able to tell the difference because the City uses a specific color for curb\npainting. In those instances, the City would contact the property owner to have them\nremove it; otherwise, the City would remove the paint and charge the owner.\nCommissioner McFarland inquired what part of the Municipal Code addressed the\nmaximum length of time for on-street vehicle parking in an otherwise legal parking spot.\nStaff Khan replied that the maximum length of time was 72 hours, as described in the\nVehicle Code; another section of the Municipal Code referred to the Vehicle Code.\nCommissioner McFarland noted that 8-8.1 addressed angled parking, and inquired\nwhether the Transportation Commission had responsibility for the removal of angled\nparking. He noted that he was referred to the angled parking on Central. Staff Khan\nunderstood that the responsibility was currently with City Council, but would be assigned\nto the Transportation Commission. He noted that while the responsibility for the removal\nmay not be clearly stated, he understood that it would be brought back to the\nTransportation Commission. He would be open to any recommendations to enhance the\nlanguage.\nCommissioner McFarland expressed concern about safety for cyclists. Staff Khan noted\nthat was a good point, and suggested enhancing the language to cover the removal of\nangled parking.\nChair Knox White did not believe that angled parking was not appropriate everywhere,\nbut that parallel parking was generally considered appropriate.\nCommissioner McFarland inquired whether 8-11 (Loading Zones) addressed the hours\nthat a loading zone was in effect. Staff Khan replied that loading zone time restrictions\nwere established by the Public Works Director.\nCommissioner McFarland inquired whether only commercial vehicles were allowed to\nuse loading zones. Staff Khan replied that it would be any vehicle if they were in the\nprocess of loading or unloading passenger or commercial goods.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired about 8-11.1(b)(2), addressing bus stops without a red\ncurb. Staff Khan confirmed that it addressed bus stops without a red curb, but with a time\nlimitation. Commissioner Krueger inquired whether a school bus stop was considered to\nTransportation Commission\nPage 6 of 9\nSeptember 26, 2007", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-09-26", "page": 7, "text": "be a loading zone. Staff Khan confirmed that it was for passenger loading and unloading.\nIf a red curb is installed, they are also used for bus layovers. A discussion of the curb\ncolors and time restrictions ensued.\nChair Knox White noted that if the Transportation Commission wished to make a policy\nrecommendation, it could request that the item come back at a future meeting.\nChair Knox White noted that 2-8.1 cited the additional language that \"The Transportation\nCommission may, at the discretion of the City Manager\n\"\nto ensure that future\ncommissions did not ask to examine every stoplight and stop sign. He believed it could\nbe read in future years that the City Manager may decide whether the Transportation\nCommission could discuss an issue or not. He added that the Transportation Commission\nanswered directly to the City Council, and acted at the City Council's discretion. He\nquestioned whether the language referencing the City Manager should be included.\nChair Knox White noted that many City projects that would need to move forward would\nnever come to the Transportation Commission for comment because of the potential\ndelay in receiving City Council recommendations; he believed the Planning Board would\nalready have approved the item by that time. He suggested that the word \"major\" be\ninserted before \"transportation plans,\" as well as removing the two caveats. He believed\nthe language missing from the Ordinance was the Council's ability to call for a review.\nHe suggested the addition of the following language: \"The Transportation Commission\nmay review major transportation plans, including projects and documents.\" Staff Khan\nnoted that staff would be amenable to that change.\nChair Knox White noted that Section 8-8.1A was deleted, with respect to parallel parking,\nand inquired about the reason why parallel parking was not included in that section. Staff\nKhan did not believe it had ever been included in the Municipal Code. He noted that\nparallel parking was provided as part of the design or function of the street, and was\nassumed to be available unless explicitly prohibited.\nChair Knox White noted that 8-5.1 addressed speed limits and car pool parking, and noted\nthat several plans, including the General Plan, that already addressed street speed limits\nin the City. He inquired whether it was necessary to mention the fact that City policy on\nthose issues already existed. Staff Khan clarified that the Public Works Director may not\ntake action that was against any plans or policies, and should establish the process. With\nrespect to the enforcement of speed limits, he noted that if a radar gun is to be used, a\nspeed survey must be used as back-up. He noted that it was important to work with the\nPolice Department with respect to Code requirements.\nChair Knox White noted that several items would be removed from the Municipal Code,\nincluding streetsweeping, specifics about off-street parking lots and official parking lots,\nremoving the authority for placement of stop signs from the City Council and giving it to\nthe Public Works Director.\nStaff Khan summarized the changes as described by the Commissioners.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 7 of 9\nSeptember 26, 2007", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-09-26", "page": 8, "text": "Commissioner Ratto moved to accept the suggested changes as presented.\nCommissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0.\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7A.\nAgreement between AC Transit and the City on Formalizing Collaboration\non Projects of Mutual Interest. Outcome: TC to comment and endorse draft\nagreement\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and described the background of this matter, and\nlanguage in the draft agreement. The City wanted to ensure that there was no transfer of\nliability. He added that the formatting had been improved, and that exhibits with contact\ninformation and responsibilities had been included.\nOpen public hearing.\nThere were no speakers.\nClose public hearing.\nChair Knox White noted that on page 4, Section 3.3, read, \"The City will include AC\nTransit on the mailing for agendas and staff reports for the Transportation Commission\nand Transportation Technical Team meetings.\" He suggested removing mention of the\nTTT in that language, and that the Planning Board agendas be sent to AC Transit as well.\nChair Knox White wanted to ensure that riders would be notified with respect to potential\nbus stop removal.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that in the Recitals section, a passage discussed the City\nand AC Transit working together on expanding transit service for redeveloping areas\nwithin the City. He did not object to that in principle, but if there was expansion of\nservice to be contemplated, he believed it should be considered Citywide.\nCommissioner Ratto moved to accept the Agreement between AC Transit and the City\non Formalizing Collaboration on Projects of Mutual Interest and the suggested changes\nas presented. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0.\n8.\nStaff Communications\nStaff Bergman noted that Jim Gleich, the Deputy General Manager of AC Transit,\nsuffered a massive heart attack on Sunday evening, and went into surgery earlier in the\nday. He added that he had worked with him for some time, and that he has been very\nsupportive of transit in Alameda, and requested that everyone keep Jim in their thoughts.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 8 of 9\nSeptember 26, 2007", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-09-26", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Khan requested that the Broadway-Jackson project be kept as a standing item in the\nagenda, and noted that a meeting had been held earlier in the day regarding initial\nanalyses that the consultant had conducted on this project. He added that they were\nexamining some alternatives that address the ramps from the Posey Tube to Jackson,\nusing the intersection of 7th and Harrison, addressing the right turn and bicycle crossings.\nStaff Khan noted that in the October meeting, staff would bring forward the Line 63 item,\nand that the parking study would probably be presented. He noted that on October 3,\nduring the Walking School Bus event, Public Works, the Police Department and the\nUnified School District would collaborate substantially. He noted that at least three\nschools would participate that day, and hoped that participation would continue beyond\nthat day. He noted that it was driven by PTAs and parents.\nStaff Bergman advised that the Interagency Liaison Committee with the City was held on\nSeptember 4. He noted that the Ecopass program was discussed, and that AC Transit has\nbeen developing a standardized methodology to broaden the use of pass programs among\nthe various agencies and employment sites. He added that on September 5, the AC\nTransit Board approved the pricing matrix. The City is considering implementing such a\nprogram for City employees, and that it could potentially include other employers in the\nCity. He noted that the next meeting of the ILC was tentatively scheduled for December\n4, 2007.\nChair Knox White noted that there was a community meeting on September 10 regarding\nthe lighting in the tubes. He noted that last night, the bike path was closed, and some\nemployees who work in Alameda but use the Tube to commute home were met by CHP\nofficers and told they could not use the Tube to get home. He added that Union Pacific\nproposed the increased use of a railroad crossing on the Oakland side of the Park Street\nBridge. He noted that this resulted from Union Pacific's loss of an easement due to\nwidening of I-880. He described the new route, and added that construction equipment\nshowed up the previous day without discussing it with Oakland. He was concerned that\nCalTrans did not include Alameda and Oakland in these significant decisions.\nStaff Khan noted that the City's major concern was the potential impact on the operation\nof the bridge, as well as having rail go through the intersection of Ford and 23rd, and then\ncrossing to Glascock, and then next to Fruitvale. He noted that staff was working through\ntheir legal channels, and that a legal challenge was one option.\nMeeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 9 of 9\nSeptember 26, 2007", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-09-26.pdf"}