{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT\nOctober 24, 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\nEric Schatmeier\nSrikant Subramaniam\nNielsen Tam\nMembers Absent:\nRobert McFarland\nRobb Ratto\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nSeptember 26, 2007\nChair Knox White noted that the following language be changed on page 4: \"He recommended\nthat the state street transit fare box average of 27-28% be used.\"\nChair Knox White noted that on page 6, the language reflected a double negative, and should be\nchanged as follows: \"Chair Knox White did not believe that angled parking was not appropriate\neverywhere \"\nCommissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the September 26, 2007, meeting.\nCommissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Commissioners\nMcFarland and Ratto were absent.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 2, "text": "Open public hearing.\nDeborah James wished to express concern about the behavior of students on the Line 63, and\nnoted that she had written an email to the Alameda Transit Advocates website, with a draft letter\nto the principals of the schools on Line 63. She noted that the students have become very foul-\nmouthed, to the point where the driver was required to stop the bus until they quieted down, or\nwere asked to leave the bus. One young man threatened the bus driver, who stated that she would\ncall the police. She noted that the kids had quieted down since they were informed that she\ndrafted a letter online.\nClose public hearing.\n6.\nOLD BUSINESS\n6A. Options for Rerouting AC Transit Line 63 and Locations of New Bus Stops. Outcome:\nCommission to Provide Comments.\nStaff Bergman summarized the staff report, and displayed a graphical presentation of the route.\nHe noted that this was a direct follow-up from the March 6, 2007, City Council meeting, in\nwhich an appeal of the Commission's recommendation to install bus stops at the intersection of\nOtis Drive and Pond Isle was reviewed. The Commission recommended the stop due to the gap\nbetween the existing bus stops on the intersection of Otis Drive and Grand Street, and the\nintersections of Whitehall Road and Willow Street. The distance was approximately 3,000 feet,\nwhere the City's goal was to have stops approximately 1,000 feet apart. In addition to the\nconcern about spacing, Line 63 has had significant operational problems; there is currently\ninsufficient run time in the schedule to enable the bus to remain on-time throughout the day. The\nCouncil directed the Transportation Commission to review additional bus stop alternatives, to\nevaluate the ridership potential of rerouting Line 63 from Otis Drive to Shoreline Drive between\nGrand and Willow, and to examine other routing alternatives. The Commission established a\nsubcommittee consisting of Commissioners Ratto, Schatmeier and Krueger to examine Line 63\nin more detail, working closely with staff and AC Transit. At this meeting, staff will present the\nCommission's and staff's recommendations regarding the line. He provided an overview of\nwhere the route runs, as well as its frequency and schedule.\nStaff Bergman noted that a key issue at the Council meeting was the density along the Shoreline\ncorridor, compared to Otis Drive, and whether that would attract additional ridership. He\nprovided overview of the density in that area, which was displayed on the overhead screen. He\nnoted that there were over 1,000 housing units in the vicinity of Shoreline Drive, and\napproximately 330 in the vicinity of Otis Drive. At previous meetings, public input had primarily\nbeen received from residents of Otis Drive, where the proposed stops had been. A survey was\ndistributed to collect input from riders of the bus in this area, and 128 responses were received.\nMost of the respondents overall indicated that the proposed stop locations, comparing Otis Drive\nto Shoreline Drive, would not impact their riding habits, although the proposed Shoreline stops\nwere identified by significantly more riders than the Otis Drive stops.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 2 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Bergman noted that additional input was solicited from more Shoreline Drive residents, and\nreceived a total of 38 calls and emails; 29 of those supported rerouting the bus onto Shoreline\nDrive, and 9 were against.\nSummarizing all of the input received to date, Staff Bergman noted that the following comments\nhad been received:\n1.\n65 people opposed stops at Otis Drive and Willow Street;\n2. 40 people supported the Shoreline Drive the route;\n3. 10 people were opposed to the Shoreline route;\n4.\n11 people were opposed to the proposed stops at Otis and Sandcreek;\n5.\n8 people were opposed to the stops at Pond Isle;\n6. 1 person supported the proposed stops at Otis and Sandcreek;\n7. 1 person opposed all stops in the Otis corridor;\n8.\n4 people indicated they wanted one stop somewhere along the Otis corridor;\n9. 2 people supported the Otis and Pond Isle stops;\n10. 1 person indicated they wanted to maintain the stops within Alameda Towne Centre;\n11. 2 people wanted to maintain stops at the Ferry Terminal; and\n12. 1 person opposed the removal of stops at Alameda Point on Monarch Street.\nStaff Bergman noted that scheduling was a key issue, identified by approximately 24 respondents\nin the survey; on-time performance was a major problem on the line. The key segment of the\nroute that was problematic has been between the Atlantic/Webster intersection and the end of the\nline near 12th Street BART, which had to do with Tube congestion and congestion in downtown\nOakland. For Line 62 to achieve acceptable on-time performance, approximately four minutes\nmust be eliminated from the run time.\nStaff Bergman added that funding was also discussed; four buses remain in service at any given\ntime on the 63 in order to maintain the 30-minute headways. The annual cost of adding a fifth\nbus, depending on the number of hours per day it would run, would be $300-500,000. Depending\non rerouting recommendations, it could require significant expenses on the City's part; the City\nwould be responsible for making capital expenditures at bus stops. With respect to future transit\ndemand, particularly in the West End, Alameda Landing was expected to be online fairly soon,\nwith early tenants coming in mid-2009.\nStaff Bergman noted that the subcommittee examined a number of options for modifying Line\n63, which he also displayed on the screen:\n1.\nPotential reroute at Alameda Point, which would save approximately two minutes off\nthe run times. Staff Bergman noted that of the two sets of stops eliminated on\nMonarch Street, AC Transit's data indicated there were six riders per day using all the\nstops.\n2.\nRerouting the line near Encinal High School, estimated to save 1.7 minutes in one\ndirection, and just under a minute in the other direction. The schools have indicated\nthat they would not object to the modification, as long as the students' needs would\nbe served during the peak times.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 3 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 4, "text": "3. The current route goes up Park Street, down Encinal, up High over to Fernside, and\nout to Fruitvale BART. The idea was discussed of a more direct line to Fruitvale\nBART, going up Broadway (saving considerable time); that would be implemented in\nconjunction with other modifications. AC Transit is in the process of evaluating Line\n51.\n4. It was suggested that the 63 be shifted to Shoreline Drive between Grand Street and\nWillow Street, as there is more housing density and greater ridership potential.\n5. The route by Encinal High School went to Pacific, Marshall, Lincoln, down Webster\nStreet. A more direct route would be to continue straight down Central. While a fairly\ndense corridor, and therefore it was not recommended.\n6. With respect to operations near the Ferry Terminal, the route currently ran along\nMain Street, went into the Terminal, stops, and exits to Alameda Point. The option\nwas to establish stops along Main Street, away from the Ferry Terminal, which would\nrequire a 600-foot walk to the terminal from its present location. That option would\nsave approximately one minute in each direction.\n7. They discussed maintaining the existing route along Otis Drive and relocating the\nstops to Otis Drive, removing them from Alameda Towne Centre. That was estimated\nto save approximately two minutes in one direction, one-and-a-half minutes in the\nother, and eliminates the bus having to slow down for traffic and pedestrians through\nthe route. The major disadvantage would require shoppers to take their groceries out\nto Otis Drive.\nStaff Bergman noted that subcommittee's recommendations were as follows:\n1. To eliminate the portion of the Alameda Point route along Monarch Street, saving\napproximately two minutes;\n2. To implement the reroute away from Encinal High School during the non-peak hours\nassociated with the school.\nHe noted that AC Transit indicated that if it was not possible to make sufficient cuts to reduce\nrun time that they may be obligated to add an extra bus because of their obligations to their\ndrivers. The subcommittee did not reach a consensus regarding how to proceed given this\nscenario. Two options were discussed by the subcommittee: 1) The additional bus could operate\non Line 63 on an interim basis, while the Transportation Commission would have a specified\namount of time to develop a plan to use that bus most effectively. If no plan is developed, the\nadditional bus should be removed, and more drastic cuts be implemented. 2) The additional bus\nshould not be run on an interim basis, but only if a plan is already in place for utilizing the\nadditional bus.\nIn both scenarios, the subcommittee agreed that if a satisfactory plan could not be developed to\nmake use of the additional bus, that the following additional service cuts be made to Line 63, in\nthe following order, only as necessary to provide additional run time:\nTransportation Commission\nPage 4 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 5, "text": "1. The stops be relocated away from the Ferry Terminal to Main Street;\n2. Implementing the changes at Encinal High School throughout the entire day; and\n3. To relocate the stops from the interior to the perimeter of Alameda Towne Centre.\nThe subcommittee stressed that they felt these were undesirable changes, but was necessary. He\nnoted that the initial reluctance by AC Transit to add an additional bus on the route had to do\nwith the impact it might have on farebox recovery, and whether this poor performance might\nimpact the future viability of the route. The subcommittee also recommended that Line 63 should\nbe rerouted from Otis Drive to Shoreline Drive, between Grand and Willow, once the run time is\navailable, and once the capital improvements have been made at the bus stops, particularly on the\nsouth side of Shoreline Drive. This potential service change should be part of any discussions\nregarding how an extra bus might be used.\nStaff Bergman noted that another recommendation was: Since the schedule could not currently\naccommodate the additional runtime required to serve Shoreline, bus stops should be installed at\nthe intersections of Otis and Sandcreek, as well as Otis and Willow to support the City's bus stop\nspacing guidelines. This was a change from the TC's previous recommendation to install stops at\nPond Isle. The change was in response to the shift in position by the Alameda Police\nDepartment, which determined that the Otis and Sandcreek location was the preferred bus stop\nlocation.\nStaff Bergman noted that the final recommendation from the subcommittee was that the\nwestbound bus stop at the intersection of Whitehall and Willow should be made the highest\npriority for improvements at bus stops in the City. There is not currently a sufficient landing area\nfor people to stand while boarding the bus.\nStaff Bergman noted that staff analysis addressed the farebox recovery issue that was a concern\nto the Commission, that an additional bus would reduce farebox recovery, and that the might\nimpact the future of the line. AC Transit's data indicated that the 63 currently exceeded the\nminimum standards for buses along its route; it is ranked in the middle with respect to passengers\nper service hour and farebox recovery. While the additional bus would affect the performance, it\nis not clear what the impact would be at this time.\nStaff supports the following recommendations outlined by the subcommittee: The elimination of\nthe portion of the Alameda Point route; the modified service to serve Encinal High School at\npeak school hours only. If AC Transit determines that an extra bus would be available, staff\nrecommended that this should be done on an interim basis, enabling the Transportation\nCommission to develop a plan to best utilize that bus over time. That would enable the route to\nstay on schedule and serve the existing route, as well as to enable the Transportation\nCommission to develop a longer term strategy to serve the West End's upcoming development in\nthe next few years. Also, the line would be more effective and less convoluted.\nStaff had significant concerns about some of the more severe cuts that the subcommittee\nrecommended be implemented if needed:\nTransportation Commission\nPage 5 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 6, "text": "1. The relocation of the stops away from the Ferry Terminal was not supported by City\npolicies, which encourage intermodal connections. It would also undermine the potential\nfor people to use those connections.\n2. The elimination of the direct service to Encinal High School was also problematic. The\npartial reroute away from the school during the day would enable about half the riders to\nbe served with the school times; people in the neighborhood would lose transit access as\na result of that. The school prefers to have the students board in front of the school, so the\nstaff can monitor them while they wait.\n3. Relocating the buses to the perimeter of Alameda Towne Centre would affect some very\nheavily used stops. There were over 400 boardings and alightings per weekday at those\nthree stops. Staff recommended that they not be relocated at this time.\nStaff recommended that if the new bus is available, that it be run on a pilot basis for up to 12\nmonths. If the pilot service is implemented, the Transportation Commission should continue to\nwork with City staff, AC Transit and community stakeholders to develop a recommended\nreconfiguration of the route. Alternative configurations should include, at a minimum, rerouting\nthe Line 63 onto Shoreline Drive between Grand Street and Willow Street; servicing Alameda\nLanding, and splitting the route into two separate pieces to more effectively serve the destination\npoints along the line.\nCommissioner Krueger wished to stress that with respect to staff not wanting to endorse the\noptions for the Ferry Terminal, the direct service to Encinal High, and the relocation of the stops\nat Alameda Towne Centre, from the subcommittee's perspective, these were last-resort options\nthat they did not mention lightly. They considered these to be options in the event that nothing\nelse worked, and nothing else could be done.\nChair Knox White noted that under \"Funding\" in the staff report, it was suggested that a move to\nShoreline would require the establishment of new bus stops on Shoreline. He noted that they\ncurrently had bus stops used by the W. Staff Bergman noted that was a more general reference\nregarding any route changes.\nChair Knox White inquired whether the surveys and fliers were actually posted at the bus stops\non Willow and Grand. Staff Bergman replied that he did not believe they were, and that they\nfocused more on the origin and destination points, such as Alameda Towne Center and the\nhospital.\nChair Knox White inquired whether the survey gathered address information from the\nrespondents, Staff Bergman replied that they received at least intersection information.\nChair Knox White inquired what the daytime off-peak ridership on the Encinal High School line,\nStaff Bergman replied that it was about half the total.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 6 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 7, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether interlining was considered at the bus\nstops, Sean Diest Lorgion, AC Transit, replied that they had discussed it at MLK and 12th Street\nin Oakland, where line 12 runs. They did not do much interlining at Fruitvale BART because\nthere were so many bridge lines and the congestion on the bridge. They would be able to\nexamine that possibility. He noted that interlining did play a significant role in how the service is\nrun, as it enables AC Transit to more effectively use its drivers.\nOpen public comment.\nLiz Cleves, speaking on behalf of Diane Voss, read her statement into the record:\n\"At the Transportation Commission meeting on May 24, 2006, the Alameda Police\nDepartment raised concerns about the safety of the mid-block bus stop in front of the\ncrosswalk at Lum School and Otis Drive at Sand Creek Way. Crossing guards,\nresidents and parents have repeatedly expressed their concerns regarding the safety of\nthe crosswalk. In spite of all the efforts the City has made to make that crosswalk\nsafe, it still poses safety concerns. Since the May 2006 meeting, the Police\nDepartment has changed their view, and according to the staff's current report, the\nAlameda Police Department is comfortable with the location of the bus stop at the\nOtis and Sand Creek intersection.\nComfortable. Are they comfortable with the vehicles exiting the drop-off area,\nand stopping on top of the crosswalk, and sometimes in the crosswalk? Are they\ncomfortable with the number of vehicles that do not stop behind the Yield to\nPedestrian arrows? Are they comfortable with the fact that when the bus is stopped in\nfront of the crosswalk, oncoming vehicles cannot see the pedestrians, and therefore\nwill not stop behind the arrows? Are they comfortable with the fact that the crossing\nguards will not be there all day, every day? Who will give further protection to\nchildren on weekends, holidays, school closure days, and during summer vacation?\nPlease keep in mind that the crossing guards are there only during the weekdays\nfor two hours in the morning, and three hours in the afternoon. A great deal of time\nhas been spent talking, designing surveys, posting signs, soliciting opinions, writing\nreports, etc. How much time has been spent watching the crosswalk as children\narrive, and when they leave school? How much time has been spent watching the\ncrosswalk when no crossing guards are present? The added drive-through drop-off\narea has added new safety concerns. The flashing lights in the pavements cannot be\nseen on bright, sunny days, and a bus blocking the driver's view of pedestrians will\nadd an even greater safety hazard. Many children are not going to wait for the bus to\nleave the area before they dart out in front of the bus to cross the street. There is\nprobably nothing that can make this crosswalk 100% safe, but there are things that\ncan make it less safe. A bus stop in front of the school crosswalk is one of those\nthings.\nIf you check with the Alameda Police Department, you will find that they've\nbeen citing many drivers lately for failure to yield to pedestrians at the crosswalk.\nThey are mostly present during the morning and afternoon times. They can be there\nissuing tickets all day long. City Councilmember Doug DeHaan, even after the\ninstallation of all the safety devices, remarked that he finds this crosswalk dangerous\nand is reluctant to use it with his family. A bus stop first installed on Otis and Sand\nTransportation Commission\nPage 7 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 8, "text": "Creek in June 2004 was removed shortly after doing safety concerns. Why are we\nrunning around and around, only to end up back where we started? Over and over\nagain, we have read and you've heard the fears, the complaints of Alameda Landing\nresidents, Lum School parents, crossing guards.\nAt the City Council meeting on March 2, 2007, Councilmember DeHaan was\nbefore the City Council, and he asked to answer the problems of a bus stop on Otis\nand Sandcreek. He said to put the Line 63 back on Shoreline.\"\nLiz Cleves noted that the staff report stated that the density at the Shoreline area far exceeded that\nin the Otis Drive area, and that the Shoreline area has 1,077 housing units, and the Otis Drive\narea has 330 housing units. The Shoreline corridor has three times the number of housing units\nthan the Otis area. She believed that the ridership generated in the Shoreline area would be\ngreater. She noted that of the 128 responses staff received from the survey; 23 of those responses\n(18%) stated that the Shoreline alternative would increase their ridership, compared to 8\nrespondents (6%) in the Otis area. Sixteen respondents favor a new stop at Otis and Willow. She\nnoted that with respect to rerouting Line 63 and the locations for the new bus stop, Attachment 3\nread, \"By shortening one of the Alameda Point route, this would reduce the run time by 1.8\nminutes westbound, and 2 minutes eastbound. This change would eliminate low-usage stops. The\nchange at one would require riders to walk an additional 1,350 feet.\" She noted that AC Transit\nBoard Policy 508 read, \"Bus stops or locations where bus passengers access the AC Transit\nsystem: Bus stops must therefore be convenient to the places where passengers wish to go.\nConvenience and speed will be balanced in determining appropriate bus stop placement, as too\nmany bus stops can slow down travel times. Outside the downtown areas, AC Transit generally\nseek to have bus stops 1,000 feet apart. Passenger usage of bus stops is an important factor when\nconsidering bus stop placements or removals.\" She believed the proposed increased in walking\ndistance was too far.\nJonathan Martin wished to address the reroute of Line 63 from Otis to Shoreline between Grand\nand Willow. He liked the quietness of Willow Street, and objected to the rerouting of the 63,\nwhich would put noisy buses in front of his house at all hours. He requested that Line 63's\ncurrent route be kept.\nLucy Farber noted that she lived in Berkeley but was the office manager at St. George Spirits at\n2601 Monarch Street, which was halfway between the two stops that were proposed for\nelimination. She noted that people come from all over the world to visit their tasting room, and\nencouraged people from San Francisco to take the ferry and then use Line 63. They attach a\ncoupon at the bottom of the ferry ticket to take the 63. She noted that the temp crew they hire to\nbottle the vodka frequently take the bus, and she objected to the proposed elimination of their\nbus stop. She was concerned about the cold and windy weather, which would make it\ninhospitable to require people to walk to their business. She noted that they encouraged people to\ntake the bus after drinking at the tasting room, and that the removal of the bus stop would make it\nmore difficult for them to use the bus.\nDeborah James expressed concern about the possible stoppage of the bus to the ferry terminal, as\nwell as to Alameda Towne Centre. She suggested eliminating service to the ferry terminal during\nthe times when the ferry did not operate. She did not believe that all of the drivers were aware\nTransportation Commission\nPage 8 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 9, "text": "that they should come into the ferry terminal, which has happened a number of times.\nJim McDonald spoke on behalf of his elderly mother, who lives on the corner of Willow and\nShoreline. She was very concerned about bus and passenger noise, as well as pollution,\ngenerated by the current route. She believed that rerouting the 63 line would aggravate that\ncondition, as would the litter from the passengers.\nClaudia Davison distributed her letter to the Commissioners, and spoke in opposition to the\nproposed bus stop on the northwest side of Otis and Willow. She noted that the location was\nadjacent to high-density condominium residential units, and added that there was already\ninsufficient parking at that location. She added that youths already passed through the complex\nen route to school, and she was concerned that this would add to their security, vandalism and\nparking problems. She had previously requested removal of the red curb zone on the north side\nof Otis, across from Willow Street. She did not believe that was a suitable location for a bus stop,\nwhich would add to the underutilization of that curb space. She believed that bus drivers should\nidle their buses and take their breaks in commercial, rather than residential, areas. She proposed\nthat this stop be relocated to the east side of Willow between Otis and the fire hydrant to the\nsouth, which was adjacent to commercial medical facilities with off-street parking. She believed\nthat fewer people would be adversely affected on a daily basis seven days a week, and for fewer\nhours, since it no one would be there after business hours. She believed it was important that\nAlameda be connected to the two BART stations.\nTamara Rouse noted that she and her children had problems crossing the street on the way to\nLum School, and believed that adding a bus stop at that location would be a safety hazard. She\nnoted that she was a property manager at 1901 Shoreline, and that while the residents liked\nhaving the morning and evening bus stop at that location, the off-peak buses created a lot of\nnoise, traffic and unpleasant smells. She was also concerned about vandalism and strangers\nloitering around their property during that time.\nSusan White, 1901 Shoreline Drive, echoed Ms. Rouse's comments, and objected to the diesel\nfumes in the middle of the day. She added that she suffered from asthma, which was aggravated\nby the fumes. She noted that she moved to this area to live in fresh air.\nDoug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, noted that less than half of the residents on Alameda\nPoint have cars. He believed that Line 63 was broken. He noted that their growing youth project\ndiscovered that the lack of convenient access to affordable, healthful food stores was a major\nissue leading to food insecurity in the West End. He noted that the bus line at Alameda Point was\nheavily used and relied upon by the community, including many students who attend Island High\nSchool and Bay School. He noted that the bus was a lifeline for those traveling to the food bank,\nand that the schedule should not erode at Alameda Point. He has heard stories of buses skipping\nthe Alameda Point loop altogether to regain the on-time schedule. He did not believe that moving\nthe line from Towne Centre should not be considered, even as the Towne Centre is being\nredesigned as a more upscale shopping center. They would welcome any further efficiency on\nLine 63, but did not want to see any reduction in service.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 9 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 10, "text": "Christine Toll noted that she lived at Willow and Shoreline, and expressed concern about the bus\nnoise outside her window.\nJack Bogar thanked the Transportation Commission for the special meeting regarding the ferry,\nand for their efforts to improve the bus service for the riders. He noted that it was very difficult\nto walk across the street safely to Lum School. He noted that cars trying to pass the stopped\nbuses at the crosswalks created a very unsafe situation, and had witnessed the Alameda Police\nDept. pull many violators over. He believed that a bus stop adjacent to the crosswalk was very\ndangerous, and should not be allowed to stand.\nC.J. Kingsley noted that she lived near Lincoln and Webster. She believed that it would be nice if\nthe Towne Centre-bound bus would arrive at :20 and :50, rather than 18 and :48. Riders who\ndisembark from the normal hourly ferry would be more likely to make the connection. Because\nof the erratic bus schedule, she suggested that the inbound W, except at Atlantic and Webster, be\nallowed to pick up Line 63 passengers with a transfer.\nUrsula Apel, Kitty Hawk Road, noted that she lived eight blocks away from Safeway, and added\nthat it was difficult to carry groceries that distance. She noted that it was difficult to cross\nWillow/Whitehall, and that there was no legal crosswalk at that location to reach the bus stop.\nShe noted that many families signed a petition to have a bus stop on Otis that would be safer and\ncloser to Lum School.\nGeorge Wales recalled the City Council meeting in March 2007 was meant to address\nimprovements in the bus system from the riders' perspective. He believed that the reduction of\nrun times would be beneficial to the riders.\nSusan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, believed it was very important that as many people\nas possible have access to public transit, and looked forward to seeing the gap in Line 63 filled.\nShe noted that solutions to reliability problems were critical, and that having direct access to the\nferry as well as bus stops that are close enough. She believed it would be advantageous to move\nanother bus to Shoreline, but because of its cost, she would be happy to solve the problems on\nLine 63 some other way in the short term.\nKevin Gong supported the rerouting Line 63 to Shoreline, because the Transportation\nCommission's data stated that the density along Shoreline was three times that of Otis. Also 50%\nof the survey respondents replied that it would increase their ridership if the 63 were to run on\nShoreline. He believed that AC Transit and the City had a responsibility to ensure that the public\ntransportation system was successful and accessible. He believed that a stop at in front of the\nschool on Sandcreek would be irresponsible, and that the City fought hard to make that area safe\nfor the children.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 10 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 11, "text": "Close public hearing.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the Monarch stops, Staff Bergman\nreplied that there were a total of six riders per day.\nCommissioner Schatmeier complimented staff on an outstanding staff report, particularly the\nitems for which consensus was reached, and not reached. The Transportation Commission did\nnot want to cut transit service, which they viewed as an asset to the community. He emphasized\nthat some options were a last resort, and found the arguments with respect to the Monarch stop to\nbe particularly compelling. He wished that more businesses advertised their proximity to transit,\nand encouraged their customers to use transit. He believed that show of support should be\nrewarded, not penalized. They reached the consensus that Line 63 was very unreliable, which\nwas echoed by the speakers. The subcommittee reached the conclusion that four minutes needed\nto be cut from it. He hoped that interlining could be used to achieve economies throughout the\nsystem, and he did not believe AC Transit should add a bus on an interim basis to an existing\nroute. He shared the experience expressed by a speaker regarding the bus not going into the ferry\nterminal, and noted that it happened too often. He agreed with the woman who suggested\ncarrying local passengers on the W line; he noted that was already done on the O and OX. He\nbelieved that would be a good supplement for transferring passengers, and for local passengers\nfrom Webster Street to Shoreline.\nChair Knox White inquired whether AC Transit has considered offering a free transfer within\na\nspecific geographic area.\nMr. Diest Lorgion replied that AC Transit has not been consistent about which Transbay lines\noffer local service. He noted that they examine local service on the W, and added that they were\ngenerally allowed where local service is not available.\nChair Knox White noted that he would rather see consistency in favor of allowing local transfers\non all the lines.\nMr. Diest Lorgion noted that adding local passengers while a Transbay bus is trying to get to San\nFrancisco was a concern for the Transbay passengers.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding adding another bus, Mr. Diest Lorgion\nnoted that they had to balance between offering reliable transportation versus being able to cut\nonly so much.\nChair Knox White noted that last year, the Transportation Commission made a bus stop spacing\nrecommendation to City Council that would adopt the spacing that AC Transit used, with more\nflexibility up to 1,300 feet between bus stops. He inquired about the status of that\nrecommendation.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 11 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 12, "text": "Staff Khan recalled that was an interim recommendation until the Transit Plan was developed or\nimplemented. Staff Bergman noted that the Transit Plan mentioned 1,000 feet as an\napproximation, and that it did not establish a minimum.\nChair Knox White noted that in terms of Line 63, the subcommittee seems to have recommended\nthat the current line did not work. He agreed that ridership should be the primary goal on this\nline, and that unreliability would destroy ridership on this line. He agreed that either a new bus\nshould be added, or that certain stops should be cut. He noted that City Council did not rule on\nthe appeal when they heard it in March, and asked for more information. He noted that the\nTransportation Commission would recommend that this issue return to City Council for a final\ndecision. He hoped that any decision would support ridership and reliability on Line 63.\nChair Knox White noted that a primary concern was the safety issue in front of Lum School, and\nwas not personally convinced that a bus stopping in front of the school is a major safety issue.\nHe noted that there was clearly a problem with respect to the use of the roads in front of Lum\nSchool. He did not believe there was a need for four lanes of traffic along Otis. He suggested that\nany motion sent to City Council should ask them to prioritize looking at Otis between Westline\nand Park, and to redesign the road, possibly to three lanes to shrink the crossing distance. He\nsupported moving the bus line to Shoreline, and added that it may need to happen as part of a\nlonger term plan for rerouting. He supported asking AC Transit to examine the ability to interline\nthat route. He would like to know whether run time could be found within the route.\nChair Knox White noted that eliminating the East End Loop along High Street, Encinal and\nFernside was rejected because of the ridership of 50-60 riders per day. He found the\nsubcommittee recommendation rerouting near Encinal to be problematic. He was willing to\nsupport the Monarch Loop cut, and noted that segment jeopardized ridership along the entire\nroute of the rest of the line. He described Line 63 as an ugly transit route, making frequent turns.\nHe suggested bifurcating the line, which may allow for better, more usable transit. He would be\nwilling to support a conditional motion stating that the Transportation Commission supported\nmoving the line to Shoreline if interlining will allow for an incremental increase in the cost of the\nline. He emphasized that the 63 must run on time and reliably once the changes have been made.\nCommissioner Krueger endorsed the cut to Monarch, and recalled mentioning St. George, and\nfound that to be a difficult decision. He noted that he had attended several events at St. George\nand used Line 63. He was curious about the ridership stemming from the temp work staff, and\nnoted that there was no way to fix the line without finding time and thereby cutting pieces of the\nroute off.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that he had been emphatic at the subcommittee level about not\nadding another bus. He noted that timing was a critical component, and stated that if they could\nidentify changes to the route that would make the expenditure of the additional bus worthwhile,\nrather than just adding a bus to preserve the schedule, he would like to see a chance to make the\ncase of adding another bus to serve places that are currently unserved, and gain additional riders.\nHe did not support the strategy of adding another bus to this route on an interim basis. He\ndisagreed with staff's findings in that regard, and strongly advised against adding another bus on\nTransportation Commission\nPage 12 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 13, "text": "an interim basis. He would like to try the four minutes of cuts they were originally asked to make\non an interim basis; during the evaluation period, the contingency of adding another bus by\nserving additional areas should be examined. If the four minutes did not solve the problem, then\nadditional cuts or an additional bus must be added.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether four minutes was not enough, Mr. Diest\nLorgion replied that when they originally looked at the route, the current scheduled running time\nis 50 minutes one way. He added that during peak periods of the day, the running time was 57-58\nminutes. AC Transit anticipated a reduction to about 54 minutes may work, while allowing the\ndrivers' contractually required six minutes of layover. He noted that while the contract stated a\nsix-minute layover, it has become an issue with the operators, and that additional time might be\nnecessary.\nChair Knox White requested that AC Transit speak with drivers about the layover issue, and\nadded that the City did not want to constantly change the schedule, which would lead to\nconfusion and a drop in ridership.\nCommissioner Schatmeier believed the trial cuts would enable the City to develop a way to use a\nfifth bus, or to further adjust the schedule. He was not comfortable with a trial period of adding\nanother bus on the same route.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to support the elimination of the Monarch Street stops and\nto\nimplement the school-peak service only on Central Ave., on an interim basis, to remove four\nminutes of run time. The TC would then examine and prioritize the additional two to four\nminutes, and to develop a plan for best using an extra bus should it become available.\nCommissioner McFarland seconded\nCommissioner Krueger inquired what would happen if the cuts were made, and did not work\nbefore another plan was ready. He wanted to be ready to put another bus out there, in the worst\ncase scenario. He agreed that the plan should be ready as soon as possible.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that he did not define the interim period in the motion, and\nsuggested that it be the time between signups.\nMr. Diest Lorgion replied that the earliest that any change could happen would be March, or\npossibly June 2008. He said that route changes and signups occurred every three months. He\nnoted that major changes were made every six months.\nCommissioner Schatmeier suggested that the interim period be six months. He did not believe\nthat every single cut had been explored.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the driver's union could wait that long, or whether an\nextra bus must be added sooner. Mr. Diest Lorgion replied that the Commission's\nrecommendations would still go to City Council, so if the TC provided alternative\nrecommendations, this would help any changes to be implemented more quickly.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 13 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 14, "text": "Chair Knox White wished to make several friendly amendments. He noted that a key item from\nthe City Council meeting was the move to Shoreline, and would like the motion to include that\nitem. He suggested adding language to the motion that if an additional bus was needed, the bus\nroutes would be re-examined.\nCommissioner Krueger believed that if the required time at Shoreline were to be added, further\ncuts must be made somewhere else.\nChair Knox White agreed with Commissioner Krueger's assessment. Commissioner McFarland\nnoted that as the seconder of the motion, that was agreeable to him.\nChair Knox White believed that any cuts were to be made, he believed the Transportation\nCommission should wait until they could discuss all the lines and the best way to run transit in\nAlameda.\nStaff Khan noted that if they discussed adding a bus, it would not be restricted to Line 63. He\nnoted that the time issue must be discussed before implementing any cuts.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that he would rather add the bus on an interim basis than make\ndeeper cuts.\nChair Knox White noted that the motion did not include a number of subcommittee conclusions,\nsuch as:\nThe bus schedule cannot currently accommodate additional runtime. To serve Shoreline,\na bus stop should be installed at the intersections of Sandcreek and Willow and Otis to\nsupport it;\nEliminate W. Midway/Monarch/W. Redline (at Alameda Point) portion of route\nReroute from Central/3rd to Pacific, away from Encinal HS, except at peak times for\nschool trips near the beginning and end of the school day\nThe prioritized list of additional cuts: 1) removing the bus from the Ferry Terminal; 2) if\nthat did not work, removing all direct service to Encinal High School; 3) if that did not\nwork, relocate the buses from the interior to the perimeter of Alameda Town Centre. He\npersonally did not believe the Towne Centre stops should be removed, as they were one\nof the highest use stops in the City;\nLine 63 should be rerouted to Shoreline once runtime is available and capital\nimprovements have been made at the bus stops. Since there is no available runtime, bus\nstops should be installed at Otis and Sandcreek, and Otis and Willow to support the\nCity's guidelines.\nThe westbound bus stop at Whitehall and Willow should be made the highest priority of\nimprovements at the bus stops in the City.\nLine 63 should be rerouted from Otis Drive to Shoreline Drive between Grand Street and\nWillow Street once run time is available and capital improvements have been made at bus\nTransportation Commission\nPage 14 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 15, "text": "stops. This potential service change should be included as part of any discussions\nregarding how to best use an extra bus if that becomes available.\nSince the bus schedule cannot currently accommodate the additional run time required to\nserve Shoreline Drive, bus stops should be installed at the intersections of Otis/Sandcreek\nand Otis/Willow to support the City's bus stop spacing guidelines. This change in the\nTC's previous recommendation is in response to the Alameda Police Dept. indicating that\nthey are comfortable with the location of the bus stop at the Otis/Sandcreek intersection.\nThe cuts will be on an interim basis, and if they do not work, additional cuts or rerouting\nshould be identified\nCommissioner Krueger suggested an additional amendment discussed in the subcommittee that\nwas not included in the report: The ferry terminal cut should not be made without the capital\nimprovements at the terminal.\nChair Knox White noted that there were 18 unfunded bus shelters in the City already.\nStaff Khan wished to clarify that the area on Main Street was a wetland area, and constructing a\nstop there may have some serious environmental implications. He noted that an environmental\ndocument may need to be prepared.\nWith respect to the need for more run time, Chair Knox White inquired whether the\nTransportation Commission preferred going straight to the ferry terminal and Encinal High\nSchool all day, or whether those locations would be examined after an interim period.\nCommissioner Schatmeier preferred the latter choice.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether the capital improvements could be made a priority, if\nnot a contingency, for shifting the line.\nChair Knox White noted that the installation of a new stop must meet all ADA requirements,\nwhich would prevent it from becoming a muddy swamp.\nFollowing a discussion of which items would be retained in the motion, Chair Knox White\nsummarized the Commission's consensus that Items #3 and #4 should be removed from the\ndiscussion.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the date this item would go to the City\nCouncil, Staff Khan replied that at the latest, it would be in December.\nChair Knox White noted that it would be difficult for him to support a motion that discussed\nadditional buses on an interim basis before other cuts are made.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that it was not correct that he would never support another bus;\nhe would not support another bus on the existing route to make up six minutes that were missing.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 15 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 16, "text": "Mr. Diest Lorgion replied that the line must be reviewed internally by AC Transit staff, and they\nwould determine whether they need to come up with other cuts on their own, with feedback from\nthe Transportation Commission, or add another bus.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that would work for him.\nChair Knox White suggested that the Commission not prioritize the items, and that #4 (Ferry\nTerminal) would be removed from the discussion until it was necessary. Commissioner\nSchatmeier agreed with that suggestion.\nChair Knox White believed that it would be important to look at the road design for Otis. He\nadded that Items 3 and 4 would be removed from the discussion, and the motion amended to\nexamine the Otis design. In addition, if AC Transit says that four minutes would not be enough,\nthey will come back to the TC for additional recommendations.\nCommissioner Schatmeier amended the motion to include the following:\n1. Implement the proposed route change at Alameda Point, removing stops on\nMonarch Street and rerouting the bus onto Lexington Street\n2. Implement service near Encinal HS to serve the school at peak school hours; at\nother times the bus would be rerouted off Central Avenue and 3rd Street, and would\nrun on Main Street and Pacific Avenue\n3. The two proposed cuts described above should be made on an interim basis to\nevaluate whether they are sufficient to keep the bus on schedule\n4. Line 63 should be rerouted onto Shoreline Drive between Grand and Willow once\nrun time is available and capital improvements have been made at bus stops to meet\nADA requirements\n5. Since the Line 63 schedule cannot currently accommodate the additional run time\nneeded to operate on Shoreline Drive, bus stops should be implemented at the\nintersections of Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive at Willow Street\n6. The westbound bus stop at the intersection of Whitehall Road and Willow Street\nshould be the City's top priority for bus stop improvements\n7. Evaluate Otis Drive west of Park Street to see if the street can be redesigned from\nfour travel lanes to three travel lanes with bike lanes\n8. If AC Transit indicates that the time removed from the first two recommendations\nabove is not sufficient, and/or they decide to put an extra bus on the line, they will\ncome back to the TC for recommendations regarding how to proceed\nCommissioner McFarland seconded. Motion passed 5-1 (Krueger). Commissioner Ratto was\nabsent.\n7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7A.\nProposed alignment of Mitchell Avenue Extension from Alameda Landing to Main\nStreet. Outcome: Commission to provide comments.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 16 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 17, "text": "Commissioner Schatmeier moved to extend the meeting. Commissioner Krueger seconded the\nmotion. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Ratto was absent.\nStaff Khan presented the staff report. He noted that the alignment of the new street is\npreliminary. Mitchell Avenue would be needed to support the development in the area, and to\nprovide access to the Posey and Webster Tubes. Staff examined how to place it to provide access\nto the adjacent properties by minimizing impact to existing and historical buildings. Staff took\ninto the consideration that the alignment be routed where the current sanitary sewer line as well.\nHe displayed slides to illustrate the proposed rerouting. He noted that instead of a left-turn lane,\nstaff suggested additional turn lanes into the driveway to access the property.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger regarding the travel lane, Staff Khan\nexplained that it was meant to establish a right-of-way. He added that this was not a final design,\nbut was a planning-level design. Commissioner Krueger was concerned about the width of the\nstreet.\nOpen public hearing.\nJohn Beery believed the biggest problem with the project was that it crossed private property,\nand that the property must be purchased at some point. He added that in many instances, the City\nwants to do things that are not supported by funding. He did not believe the design should begin\nuntil the purpose of the design has been determined clearly. He noted that the properties would\nbe impacted, and suggested a use such as Rossmoor on the site. He noted that this project\nwouldn't be completed for 22 years, and added that there must be practical considerations. He\ndid not believe the City should be negotiating with South Shore, but that they should listen to the\nCity's needs. If the City cannot get what is needed, then it should state that something is needed\nfrom South Shore. He emphasized that this was a business, not a charity, and added that the City\nwas not a charity as well. He believed that time was being wasted, and noted that as a property\nowner on the site, he would like to see alternatives for the road.\nDoug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, noted that they had serious concerns about the\nalignment as shown and agreed with Mr. Beery's comment that it was too early to bring this item\nforward. He was concerned that when a concept is put on paper, it becomes hard to change. The\nCollaborative's specific concern was the section of the road that crosses Main Street into\nAlameda Point, which cut off the corner of one of the housing units, and abuts the road up\nagainst it. It would also dump the traffic onto Orion Street, a residential street where a lot of\nchildren live. They had been told that alignment would not go there, but would go further up\nMain Street. He was concerned that this has been reversed. They were also concerned about the\nlarger discussion about the redevelopment of Alameda Point, which would cause a significant\nchange in the layout of the land. He believed this conceptual alignment was premature, and\nhoped that it would be withdrawn at this point. He would like it to be brought forward at a more\nappropriate time, when the entitlements at Alameda Point have been completed.\nClose public comment.\nCommissioner Krueger requested that staff address where this alignment fits with Alameda Point\nTransportation Commission\nPage 17 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 18, "text": "and the larger picture. He inquired whether other alternatives have been examined.\nStaff Khan noted that Mitchell Avenue is being designated as a truck route and a bicycle route,\nproviding access to Alameda Landing and Alameda Point. He noted that it would be an\nadditional route besides Stargell, as well as Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, and that it\naddressed the needs of the West End as identified in the General Plan.\nChair Knox White noted that the speakers made a good point that it was too early to bring this\nitem out of the conceptual phase, which tended to take a life of their own. He understood Mr.\nBeery's concern, given that the realignment went through his property. He suggested that if a\nright of way were to be preserved, he would like to see more discussions with the property\nowners. He believed this may invite another problem intersection in the City. He noted that they\ndid not know all of the traffic scenarios, and would like to see those identified more clearly\nbefore proceeding.\nCommissioner McFarland noted that developing a truck route into an intersection on a curve was\nfundamentally bad design, and added that there was a sharp curve coming into the intersection.\nHe believed that neither condition was desirable.\nNo action was taken.\n7B.\nDesignate representative to Alameda Point Advisory Task Force.\nChair Knox White described the purpose and schedule of the Task Force and invited any\ninterested Commissioners to volunteer as an alternate. He noted that he intended to attend all the\nmeetings.\nCommissioner Schatmeier volunteered to serve as an alternate on the Task Force.\n8.\nStaff Communications\nStaff Khan noted that the most recent information from the design team stated that one of the\nalternatives coming from the Posey Tube would create a hook ramp along Fifth Avenue to\nJackson Street; that alternative may not be feasible any longer. He added that there was an\nOakland-Chinatown meeting the previous week, during which that item was discussed. The\nconcerns they had heard related to pedestrian access at the intersection. They were also\nconcerned because of the elevation change and the distance between the exit from Posey and the\nintersection of 7th and Harrison. He noted that was a difficult grade change and may not be\npossible to implement.\nStaff Khan noted that they would examine an alternative to develop a 6th Street arterial corridor.\nThe design team hoped to provide better access along the Oakland side using 6th Street, and to\ndevelop some better signal coordination and improved access further to the north to 880 and 980.\nCity staff would like to address the weave that occurs on the freeway at the Jackson on-ramp,\nleading to the 24 exit, and to reduce congestion at that area.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 18 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-24", "page": 19, "text": "Future meeting agenda items\nStaff Khan would like to discuss the thresholds of significance for the environmental review of\nthe Transportation Element at an upcoming meeting. They were also looking at pedestrian,\ntransit and bicycle level of service threshold of significance. Staff has been working with the\nconsultants, Dowling Associates, to refine those items, and will bring the information back in\nNovember or December.\nStaff Khan noted that the Park and Webster Street parking studies may be brought back later. It is\ncurrently delayed, He believed it may be brought back in January.\nStaff Khan noted that a public meeting would be held November 1, 2007, regarding the Fernside\nBoulevard bike path improvements, for which the City received grant funding. The meeting\nwould be held at Lincoln Middle School at 7:30 p.m. in the Multi-purpose room.\nStaff Khan wished to address few questions that Chair Knox White posed to him regarding a\nHUD grant received by the City, as part of the Community Block Grant Program. He noted that\nas part of the 2005 audit, two concerns were raised:\n1.\nWith the money received, the City made improvements to bus stop locations, and\nthe selection criteria had been questioned. The auditors recommended that a\nprocess be developed with respect to bus stop improvement selections, particular\nwith respect to different demographics of population regarding income and\ndisabilities; and\n2.\nSome ADA features at the improved bus stops were slightly off They\nrecommended that the City be very careful in the future when making such\nimprovements. It may be necessary to remove some of the sidewalk to comply\nwith the requirements to maintain an appropriate cross-slope.\nStaff Khan noted that he had received an email from the City Attorney's office, stating that they\nwere negotiating with HUD. They were looking into the voluntary compliance agreement in\norder to address the concerns raised by HUD; the agreement has not yet been signed. Once it has\nbeen signed, the City may have 60 days to bring forth procedures to address the two issues.\n9.\nAdjournment:\n10:35 p.m.\nTransportation Commission\nPage 19 of 19", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf"}