{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-07-23", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nJuly 23, 2008\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\nMichael Krueger\nRobert McFarland\nEric Schatmeier\nSrikant Subramaniam\nMembers Absent:\nKathy Moehring\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nJune 25, 2008\nChair Knox White noted that page 6 discussed the 100 block of Regent Street, and believed it\nshould be the 1000 or 1100 block.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that page 7 should be changed to read, \"Commissioner Krueger\nasked about Mr. Rabin' 's claim stated that he heard there was street sweeping.\"\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved approval of the minutes for the June 25, 2008, meeting and\nminutes as presented. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0.\nAbstain: Commissioner Subramaniam.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nChair Knox White noted that Item 7A would be heard at the beginning of the meeting, followed\nby Item 6A. He added that the appellant for Item 7A has offered to withdraw his appeal after a\ndiscussion with Public Works staff during which he suggested that instead of weekly sweeping,\nthat a biweekly sweeping schedule would be amenable. Public Works has indicated that this\nsolution would be acceptable. However, because the time for filing an appeal has passed, and\nbecause people were in attendance for this item, he suggested that the appeal be heard.\nPage 1 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-07-23", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7A.\nResident Appeal of the Public Works Director's Approval of the Installation of \"NO\nPARKING\" Street Sweeping Signs on the 3000 and 3100 blocks of Catalina Avenue,\nOdd Side Only\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report, and detailed the background of this item. Staff\nconducted a field analysis and solicited input from the residents. In April 2008, the Public Works\nDirector approved the installation of the No Parking Street Sweeping signs on the odd side of the\n3000 and 3100 blocks of Catalina Avenue. He noted that Mr. Alan Thompson appealed the\ndecision to the Transportation Commission. He noted that earlier in the day, Mr. Thompson\napproached the Public Works Department and suggested that the street sweeping be done\nbiweekly, rather than weekly, as a compromise. The Public Works Director was amenable to that\nidea. Staff Bergman distributed the document submitted by Mr. Thompson. He described the\norientation and configuration of Catalina Avenue, as well as staff's determination of the impact\non parking of the street sweeping. The Public Works Director approved the proposed parking\nrestrictions in April 2008, and the notification was distributed to residents at that time.\nStaff Bergman noted that the installation of the street sweeping signs was being proposed with\nthe cooperation of the homeowners association. There was a question of whether the\nhomeowners association would adequately represent the wishes of the residents. Given that the\nhomeowners association was an elected body, Public Works felt that was sufficient\nrepresentation of the neighborhood to provide that kind of input.\nStaff noted that a minority of residents had signed the petition supporting the appeal. He noted\nthat the street was only 32 feet wide, the standard width of a parking lane was 8 feet, and the\nminimum width for a travel lane was 10 feet. He stated that if two parking lanes were provided\nthere would be insufficient space for two vehicle lanes on the street. He noted that the street-\nsweeping prohibitions were in effect for only three hours at a time, and were required as part of\nthe countywide Clean Water Program and the Federal Clean Water Act.\nStaff Bergman noted that the third basis for the appeal was that Verdemar and Fontana were\nswept on Tuesday and Wednesday, and that the residents had to move their cars on those days,\nand park on Catalina. Since parking was only permitted on one side of Catalina, the options for\nalternative parking locations were limited. Staff conducted a survey during the proposed hours of\nthe parking restrictions, and found that the number of vacant spaces in the immediate vicinity\nwas approximately equivalent to the number of vehicles that were parked on Catalina at that time.\nIn addition, according to the homeowners association, each of the properties in the association\ndid have a two-car garage; given the available on-street and off-street parking, staff felt that the\nparking could be accommodated during those times. In response to the point raised in the appeal\nabout the creation of additional emissions due to the movement of automobiles, he noted that the\nMunicipal Code already required that vehicles cannot remain in the same place for more than 72\nhours; as a result, they would have to be moved regardless of the parking restrictions.\nPage 2 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-07-23", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Bergman noted that the original staff recommendation was to support the Public Works\nDirector's decision to implement the no-parking street sweeping signs. Mr. Thompson's\nrecommended compromise solution of biweekly instead of weekly parking restrictions was\namenable to the Public Works Department.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier regarding the original complaint of the\nappellant, Staff Bergman replied that it had to do with the extra debris accumulating in the street.\nCommissioner Krueger recalled that during the last appeal, it was noted that the City typically\nimplements biweekly street sweeping if the demand for on-street parking is above 70%. He\nbelieved the demand here was 58% for the 3000 block, and 33% for the 3100 block, and inquired\nwhether it was common to make such an exception to this policy. Staff Bergman stated that\ngiven the limited parking on Catalina, staff felt that this was an appropriate place to make an\nexception to this rule. Staff Khan noted that the Public Works Department felt that biweekly\nsweeping would still provide sufficient cleaning, addressing the debris accumulation, so this was\nan appropriate compromise for the neighborhood.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Schatmeier whether parking could be allowed on the\nother side of the street while the street sweeping parking restrictions were in effect, Staff Khan\nreplied that staff felt that would create additional confusion.\nCommissioner Krueger believed there would be an issue of creating a fire access concern with\ncars parked on both sides of the street. Staff Khan confirmed that was a concern.\nOpen public hearing.\nMr. Thompson, appellant, wished to speak later.\nCharles Obenchain noted that he supported the appeal, and did not believe it was mentioned that\n42 signatures were gathered from people who did not support the signs. He did not know when\nthe parking occupancy survey was taken, and displayed photos of every space on Catalina being\noccupied by a car. He noted that a streetsweeper he observed left more dirt than it picked up, and\nthat he had called the Public Works Department to reclean it. He noted that when water came\ndown from the Sierras, many cubic yards of silt per minute was incorporated in the water as well.\nHe expressed concern about the cleanliness of the water. He noted that some of the people who\nlived at the properties who signed the petition for the signage did not live on Catalina, and were\nnot affected by the traffic issues on the street.\nStaff Khan noted that Public Works typically solicits input from residents who live within 300\nfeet of the impacted area for these types of decisions. In reviewing the signatures, staff totaled\nthe number of households represented, rather than the number of individuals.\nChuck Bianchi, president, Casitas Homeowners Association, supported the original\nrecommendation as stated in the staff report. He noted that every home in the development had a\ntwo-car garage, and that it was not the business of the association whether it was used for two\nPage 3 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-07-23", "page": 4, "text": "cars or one car and storage. He noted that the landscape committee hired a landscaping company\nto work on the association's grounds. He noted that the properties on the north side of the\n3000/3100 block of Catalina did not have a sidewalk, and that the cars parked in that area\nprevented the landscapers from doing an efficient job in picking up debris.\nNorm Brasel noted that he was a member at large of the Casitas Homeowners Association. He\nsupported the weekly sweeping plan. He noted that offering an exception to one neighborhood\nwith respect to street sweeping was divisive. He added that they believed in keeping their streets\nclean. He complimented staff on the thoroughness of the staff report.\nBob Perata, landscape chairman, Casitas Homeowners Association, noted that the landscape\ncompany had complained for more than two years that they have not been able to edge, clean or\naccess the area, although they have damaged cars. As a result, they will not do it; he noted that it\nwas very important for them to do the work. He added that greenery was already growing in the\ngutter because they could not clean the gutters.\nAlan Thompson noted that he filed the original appeal, and did not believe it was necessarily the\nCity's responsibility to oversee maintenance problems for the association as far as the gardening.\nHe understood it was important to keep the gutters clean, and that he had done so in the past. He\nhad experience with a street sweeper leaving more debris in the gutter after it had passed. He\nnoted that the homes had two-car garages, and added that more than two drivers in the house\ncreated the need for additional parking.\nJon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that although his neighborhood was not close to this one,\nthey dealt with the same problem every week as well. He noted that because the City had legal\nand moral obligations with respect to the environmental issues of keeping the Bay clean, he\nhoped that the original staff recommendation would be upheld. He noted that the homes had two-\ncar garages and driveways, and that too many vehicles could be a problem.\nClose public hearing.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether there had been additional checks made on the parking\noccupancy. Staff Khan replied that staff had made several field visits, and that they looked at the\nsite between 12 and 3 p.m., the times when the restrictions would be in effect. He noted that the\ntable on page 4 indicated that the number of spaces represented an average value calculated from\nthese field reviews.\nChair Knox White believed it was important for the City to be flexible when the situation called\nfor it. He commended the City for its flexibility in finding a solution for the area. He noted that\nthe appeal addressed a situation governed by City guidelines, and that it was the Transportation\nCommission's role to assess whether the guidelines were followed. He believed the HOA needed\nto figure out the landscaping for their property independent of the parking situation. He would\nPage 4 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-07-23", "page": 5, "text": "recommendations.\nCommissioner McFarland moved to uphold staff's original recommendation of sweeping\nweekly. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1 (Schatmeier).\nPage 5 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-07-23", "page": 6, "text": "6A.\nUpdate on Completing Analysis of Thresholds of Significance\nStaff Bergman summarized the staff report, and detailed the background of this item. Staff\nreceived comment from the Commission was that the recently developed street functional\nclassification system may be used to help resolve the conflicts between modes. The schedule\npresented in June included the following major steps:\n1.\nThe final selection of the method of evaluation and level of service to be provided\nfor each transportation mode;\n2.\nDevelopment of draft implementation policies to address conflicts among the\ndifferent transportation modes when the mitigation for one mode created a\nsignificant impact for another mode based on the threshold selected;\n3.\nRun the transportation model to determine where the impacts to the transportation\nmode will occur;\n4.\nModify the draft policies as appropriate; and\n5.\nProcess the necessary environmental document for the Council approval.\nStaff Bergman noted that in order to follow up on the Commission's recommendation to apply\nthe street functional classification system to resolve the conflict, staff prepared a table to identify\nthe potential conflicts more concretely. For the majority of street segments in the City, the\nfunctional classification system worked fairly well, and several were identified in the attached\ntable that illustrate the potential difficulties. He noted that all the streets that had more than one\nclassification were examined, and described the methodologies used to examine the traffic\nmodels on the 70 segments. He presented the following examples of guidelines to resolve the\nconflicts; these guidelines are examples, for discussion purposes:\nThe top transportation priority for regional arterials would be the motor vehicle,\nfollowed by transit; the alternative modes would be accommodated along regional\narterials as long as the vehicular Level Of Service (LOS) D was maintained.\nThe top transportation priority for island collectors could be defined as bicycles,\nfollowed by transit; the acceptable LOS for bicycles would be accommodated\nalong an island collector, followed by transit. The LOS for the intersection along\nthe island collector could degrade to LOS E.\nCommissioner Schatmeier inquired if this policy would have impacted the Park Street\nreconstruction, as buses now stop in the traffic lane. Staff Khan replied that Park Street was\nalready a regional arterial and part of the congestion management program network. If there\nwere concerns about LOS, it would have already been discussed or evaluated.\nPage 6 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-07-23", "page": 7, "text": "Open public hearing.\nNathan Landau, AC Transit, thanked staff for performing this analysis, which he believed could\nbe a model for the rest of AC Transit's service area; only Emeryville, which is smaller, had\nperformed a similar analysis. He noted that transit was involved in 44 of the segments with\nconflicts. He noted that a wide street with a conflict could be resolved; a narrow street with a\nconflict could be tougher.\nJon Spangler commended the City for taking the initiative in performing this analysis, and added\nthat many cities would not do it. With respect to the conflicts, he suggested thinking about the\nnumber of people moved per segment of roadway. He noted that it could easily be balanced in\nfavor of transit, pedestrians or bicycles. He would like to see the analysis fleshed out more fully,\nand noted there was a column for school districts. He suggested balancing it more in favor of the\nSafe Routes to School process and priorities is the streets would be safe for kids to walk to\nschool. He believed it was very important not to automatically default to the automobile.\nClose public hearing.\nChair Knox White believed this matrix should be more useful if it is to be used going forward,\nand he believed the conflicts should be shown more clearly. He believed using LOS C from 2030\nprojected data to examine potential conflicts was overkill. He believed it was important to look at\nwhat the matrix data meant, and wanted to more clearly identify the conflicts. He noted that the\nentire High Street section jumped out at him because it was an arterial and a school zone, and\ninquired about the conflict. He believed that whether the number of conflicting segments was 72\nor 52, it still seemed very high. He was surprised by the proposed levels of threshold, which went\nagainst the EIR policies.\nChair Knox White inquired whether staff was prepared to take a recommendation to a joint\nmeeting with the Planning Board in August. Staff Khan noted that staff would continue to work\non the document, and get the feedback from the Transportation Commission. He noted that staff\nwas only moving forward with the Transportation Master Plan EIR at this time, not the\nrecommended thresholds.\nChair Knox White believed that was a different outcome than what staff had previously stated.\nHe believed the staff proposal should be there in August.\nStaff Khan noted that staff was looking into how to resolve conflicts, and both Planning and the\nCity Attorney's office agreed that the thresholds of significance should be kept on a separate\ntrack. The TMP EIR would be delayed if staff were to implement all five of the listed steps\nrequired to develop the thresholds of significance.\nChair Knox White recalled that the direction of the Transportation Commission was to use the\nmaps and their overlays as the way to work out the thresholds of significance. He suggested that\na significant impact would be \"any project that negatively impacted transit, bicycle, pedestrian\nPage 7 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-07-23", "page": 8, "text": "facilities, or reduces the LOS for these modes.' He believed that the modes had been given short\nshrift in past EIRs, and believed that statement should be placed in the beginning to identify the\nkey impact. He suggested that a significant impact be anything that increased the average\npedestrian delay to more than 25 seconds in various zones where pedestrians walk. He noted that\nthe light at Encinal at Park was one of the longest lights in the City at 25 seconds. He believed\nthere should be clarifying statements in the documents as well, including LOS impacts for\nbicycles caused by pedestrian improvements that would not be considered a significant impact.\nHe added that pedestrians had the right of way, and that there should be a clarifying statement\nindicating that a decrease of automobile LOS created by accommodating one of the alternative\nmodes not be considered significant. He noted that would be an acceptable impact if\naccompanied by some kind of TDM. He suggested that the gateway street classification could be\nuseful to ensure that transit service would remain a priority at these locations.\nCommissioner Krueger recalled another city, perhaps Portland, that had ranked its transportation\nmodes - pedestrian, bike, bus, automobile. Staff Bergman noted that may have been for a\nlimited, probably not citywide. Commissioner Krueger indicated that he believes that the\nexample he was referring to was for planning purposes, not to resolve conflicts regarding the\nenvironmental impacts.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that the regional arterials were important for transit and other\nmodes, and was concerned that if the vehicle LOS trumped everything else, that the City would\nbe in trouble as it continued to rely more on transit in the future, not to mention pedestrians and\nbikes. He believed there should be another means of resolving the conflicts.\nCommissioner Schatmeier shared Commissioner Krueger's concerns, and did not agree that\ntransit should always come in second when there was a conflict. He viewed transit as a method\nof relieving congestion.\nStaff Khan noted that if the City were to maintain a certain level of service for automobiles, the\ntransit LOS would automatically be associated with the automobile LOS. In rare circumstances\nwhere a queue jump lane would be provided, where the transit would bypass the backup at an\nintersection that would trigger that concern. In general, a good LOS for automobiles would be a\ngood LOS for transit.\nCommissioner Krueger believed that Mr. Spangler's idea of measuring persons moved per\nsegment was an interesting idea, although it may short-shrift pedestrians and bicyclists.\nCommissioner Schatmeier believed there was value in looking at transit as high-occupancy\nvehicles.\nChair Knox White noted that the Planning Board was the body that would approve the EIR, and\nthat the Transportation Commission did not generally have that authority. He noted that the\nTransportation Commission and the Planning Board would be able to discuss the core key issues\nduring the joint meeting.\nPage 8 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-07-23", "page": 9, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Staff Khan whether Monday, August 25, 2008, would be a good date\nfor the joint meeting, the Commissioners concurred.\nNo action was taken.\nPage 9 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-07-23", "page": 10, "text": "7B.\nReview of Current Research of the Effectiveness of In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report, and noted that the Transportation Commission had\nrequested a discussion of the in-pavement lights, and to discuss whether they were the best use of\nCity resources. He noted that the major factors considered in determining whether the lights are\nappropriate for a given location included an engineering evaluation, the location of the\ncrosswalk, the volumes of pedestrians, the volume and speed of vehicular traffic, and sight\ndistance for drivers approaching the crosswalk. He noted that considerable research had been\ndone, and that there was an improvement in the devices' capabilities since their initial\ninstallation in Alameda in 2002. He summarized the variables studied in other cities as presented\nin the tables, such as driver yielding behavior; there was an increase in yielding since the\ncrosswalks' installation; there was also one location where the yielding decreased. The second\nvariable examined in the study was the braking distance of drivers as they approached the\ncrosswalk; there was an increase during the daytime, and a more marked increase at night. The\nthird variable addressed vehicle speed. Several studies also addressed the pedestrian waiting time\nbefore entering the intersection and crossing the street, with the idea that the lights would alert\nthe drivers to the presence of pedestrians, enabling them to yield more quickly. The study found\nthat pedestrians had an easier time crossing once the lights were in place.\nStaff Bergman noted that Attachment 3 summarized the results of several agencies that installed\nthe lights, and added that it was a more qualitative evaluation. The vast majority believed the\ndevices were effective, although concerns were expressed that no guidelines were in place. He\nadded that was measured before guidelines had been developed. The studies consistently\nconcluded that the devices were positively received by the public.\nStaff Bergman noted that a study in San Jose compared in-pavement lights with alternative\ndevices, and added that they looked at an overhead flashing beacon, as described in Tables 5 and\n6. The City has also used \"Yield to Pedestrian\" signs (or \"paddles\") in 29 locations, a less\nexpensive device, which have been effective based on anecdotal evidence and feedback from the\npolice. He noted that the in-pavement lights illuminated only when pedestrians were present, as\nopposed to the general warning about the presence of pedestrians provided by the paddles. He\nnoted that the devices were 80-90% funded through grants, and that given the acceptability by\nthe community and generally positive feedback received by staff, they anticipated continuing to\npursue funding in this area.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger regarding studies from other cities, Staff\nBergman replied that there was a small amount of research, but there were no head-to-head\ncomparisons. There were several studies regarding the effectiveness of the paddles; a study\nperformed in Iowa found there was somewhat of an increase in yielding behavior, although it\nwasn't dramatic. Before the paddles were installed, 70% of drivers stopped for pedestrians, and\nafter the installation, the percentage increased to 84%.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether there had been any public education for\ndrivers or pedestrians regarding the in-pavement lighting, Staff Khan replied that staff was\nlooking into the creation of some in-house guidelines, as well as safe stopping distances,\nPage 10 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-07-23", "page": 11, "text": "visibility of lights, sun glare with respect to east-west orientation, and shadow of trees or\nbuildings. He noted those were site-specific considerations, and added that the draft would be\ncompleted to be accepted by the Public Works Director.\nOpen public hearing.\nAudrey Lord-Hausman, Pedestrian Friendly Alameda, noted that the group had been a strong\nadvocate for the in-pavement crosswalk lights, and was impressed that Alameda had 10 such\ncrosswalks. She expressed concern about the false sense of security, and that such amenities\nwere only as good as the education. She believed that was an area that needed a great deal more\nwork. She noted they were very effective at night and in inclement weather, but that during a\nbright, sunny day, it was difficult for motorists to see them right away. She suggested that an\neducation program be enacted, including the use of newspaper articles, pamphlets, and items on\nthe City's website. She noted that because motorists' memories were short, and to address new\nresidents coming into the City, that there be an ongoing education effort.\nJon Spangler agreed with the previous speaker's comments, and added that enforcement was at\nleast as important as education. He noted that enforcement was very effective, and that it would\nalso be remunerative to the City. He liked the effectiveness of the in-pavement lights during bad\nweather and nighttime hours, but that they were almost useless on a sunny day at Webster and\nTaylor. Shaded locations worked better than lighted locations. He noted that a Yield to\nPedestrians sign would work well in conjunction with other measures, particularly at schools. He\ncommended the funding method of using grants.\nClose public hearing.\nCommissioner McFarland noted that he liked the in-pavement lights.\nChair Knox White noted that these devices had a time and a place, and added that they were very\nexpensive. He echoed Mr. Spangler's comment about the grants used to pay for them, and added\nthat the grants came from competitive money that could be used for other things. He did not\nbelieve that was a good rationale to install them just for that reason. He believed they should be\nused very sparingly. He was concerned that drivers disregarded measures to protect pedestrians.\nHe suggested a special paint scheme such as those used in school zones that would indicate\npedestrian crossings more clearly. He supported an education campaign as well.\nStaff Khan noted that was a good point, and complimented Staff Bergman on the research and\nevaluation of the studies he performed in compiling the staff report. He noted that each study\ncautioned against overuse of these devices, which may render them ineffective. He hoped that\nsafety committees or local committees at schools could be formed to increase education with\nrespect to pedestrians and bicyclists.\nPage 11 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-07-23", "page": 12, "text": "Commissioner Krueger inquired about the maintenance costs of the lights versus the paddles.\nStaff Khan replied that the kind of device drove the maintenance costs. He noted that the pressure\npads were expensive to replace, approximately $6-7,000. The initial cost for the paddles was\nabout $400, although they are vulnerable to graffiti. He added that in some locations, they must\nbe replaced every other month.\nStaff Bergman noted that one maintenance issue for the hard-wired in-pavement lights is the\nincreased cost when the street is resurfaced. He noted that the newer solar technology allowed\nfor individual lights to be removed out for replacement, but that it was only appropriate for\ncertain locations.\nCommissioner Krueger suggested that those costs be considered when considering installations.\nNo action was taken.\n7C.\nElection of Transportation Commission Chair and Vice Chair\nStaff Bergman noted that Chair Knox White had served as the Chair of the Transportation\nCommission since its inception in 2002, and noted that Vice Chair Ratto's seat must be filled\nsince his departure from the Commission.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether Commissioner Tam actually resigned,\nStaff Bergman replied that the term he was completing had ended.\nChair Knox White noted that until a full Commission was seated, the election could not take\nplace.\n8.\nStaff Communications\nStaff Khan noted that the City was moving forward with the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study,\nand that it was on track. The Technical Advisory Committee meeting and Advisory Policy\nCommittee meeting would be held in August. A public meeting would be held in September or\nOctober. At that time, more concrete alternatives would be presented, followed by a presentation\nbefore the Transportation Commission. It would be brought to City Council in early 2009.\nStaff Khan noted that with respect to Broadway/Jackson, the operational analysis had been\ncompleted and forwarded to Caltrans, the City of Oakland and the City of Alameda. The Project\nStudy Report will be delivered to Caltrans in the second week of August; an answer would be\nexpected from them in approximately two months. The environmental phase would begin at the\nend of 2008 or early 2009.\nPage 12 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-07-23", "page": 13, "text": "Staff Khan noted that the monitoring of the intersection of Oak Street and Central Avenue was\nrequested by City Council. The midpoint of the monitoring had been passed, and meetings were\nbeing held on a weekly basis to address concerns such as bicycle parking. He noted that signage\nto guide people would be needed, and the parking must be fully utilized before satisfying an\nadditional need.\nStaff Khan noted that staff was working with the theatre operator regarding any impacts resulting\nfrom queuing of pedestrians and loading/unloading of people from cars. They are examining how\nthe operator can better manage the queuing in front of the theater. The 24-hour camera is\ncurrently pointed at the intersection for police to monitor.\nStaff Khan noted that a joint meeting would be held between the Transportation Commission and\nthe Planning Board, and that the agenda would address the TMP and the EIR, as well as parking\nreduction requirements for the Park Street and Webster Street business districts.\nChair Knox White encouraged the City to get the bike racks to be as fully utilized as possible. He\nnoted that he would never park his own bike in the lower ramp, in the far reaches of the parking\nlot. He inquired whether a traffic count had been performed. Staff Khan replied that would occur\nwhen the traffic pattern has been established, and cited a 90-day timeline.\nChair Knox White noted that he did not often advocate midblock crossings, but that this might be\nan appropriate place for such a crossing. He requested that the option be considered. Staff Khan\nnoted that suggestion had been made, and would be part of the final evaluation report.\nChair Knox White commented that the flier was nice, but that failure to yield to a pedestrian in\nan unmarked crosswalk was also a violation of California law. He believed there was a lot of\ngood information, although it was hard to read. He suggested the City consider the message it\nwants to convey to drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians. He noted that unmarked crosswalks were\nlegal crosswalks, and that it was important for people to realize that.\n9.\nCommission Communications\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that construction was well underway for the bike path along\nFernside, and added that the Commission had previously discussed bicyclist behavior going\nsouthbound on Fernside.\nStaff Khan noted that staff reviewed the sight distance, and there were concerns about visibility\nfor motorists coming from the bridge. A small left-turn pocket had been created at Washington\nCourt.\nPage 13 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-07-23", "page": 14, "text": "Commissioner Krueger thanked staff for red-curbing the bus stops on Encinal, and wondered\nwhether the stop at Fernside and Versailles would be red curbed. Staff Bergman noted that he\nwould meet with AC Transit the following day to discuss the locations around the City to be red\ncurbed.\n9.\nAdjournment: 9:06 p.m.\nPage 14 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-07-23.pdf"}