{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-01-28", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT\nJanuary 28, 2009\nActing Chair Krueger 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\nJane Lee\nRobert McFarland\nKathy Moehring\nSrikant Subramaniam\nMembers Absent:\nEric Schatmeier (arrived at 7:55 p.m.)\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nDecember 10, 2008\nStaff Bergman noted that the December 10, 2008, minutes would be presented at the next\nmeeting.\nb.\nNovember 12, 2008\nCommissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the November 12, 2008, meeting and\nminutes as presented. Commissioner Moehring seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Absent:\nCommissioner Schatmeier.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nThere were none.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\na.\nTransit Plan Subcommittee\nCommissioner Krueger noted that the Transit Plan Subcommittee met in early January, attended\nby Commissioner Schatmeier, Staff Bergman and himself. They discussed the scope of work for\nthe Transit Plan based on the grant application made to CalTrans. While the City did not receive\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-01-28", "page": 2, "text": "the grant, they used the application as a starting point to review the existing transit plan and\nidentifying the sections that needed to be updated. They considered the idea of prioritizing the\nscope of work because of possible funding constraints.\nb.\nBicycle Plan Subcommittee\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White, Staff Bergman noted that the consultant contract\nwas being finalized, and staff was working on preparing the document to be addressed by the\nconsultant. A public meeting would be held in the near future.\nChair Knox White requested that the plan come before the Transportation Commission. Staff\nBergman noted that a preliminary product could be brought before the Transportation\nCommission, and Staff Khan agreed that the policies issues should be brought before the\nTransportation Commission.\nChair Knox White noted that he had wanted such items to before the Transportation\nCommission, and inquired why this was not brought forth. Staff Khan noted that during the\nDecember 10, 2008, the City Attorney's office had recommended that not every item be brought\nforth as an action item, similar to the Planning Board's Consent Calendar.\nChair Knox White noted that he would like further clarification on this item. He believed the\nEstuary Crossing Funding Study should be discussed before being publicly reviewed, and he did\nnot want to indicate support without seeing it. Staff Khan described the items in the study:\n1.\nFixing the Posey Tube Pathway (short term)\n2.\nIntelligent Transportation Systems: increased throughput for transit through the\nTubes;\n3.\nMovable bridge near the Tubes, possibly near Pasta Pelican or Alameda Landing.\nChair Knox White inquired whether that included transit. Staff Khan replied that the agencies\nincluded AC Transit, but that did not appear viable at that location.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired whether this could be tied in with the Jack London Square\nStreetcar study, or with high-speed rail. Staff Khan replied that the opposition was to the\nBroadway connection, not to transit itself.\nChair Knox White would like to see a working group formed between the Transportation\nCommission and the Planning Board to address the draft policies.\nc.\nPedestrian Plan\nStaff Khan noted that the plan was adopted by the City Council, and that the design guidelines\nare currently under review by staff. He noted that staff has been occupied filling out paperwork\nfor the Stimulus Package, and believed that Alameda County would receive $40 million from the\nfederal government. He described some of the items on the list included in the federal package.\nChair Knox White hoped that the City would look at adding bus shelters to the grant packages.\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-01-28", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner Schatmeier arrived.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS\nThere were none.\n6.\nOLD BUSINESS\n6A. Preliminary Proposed Thresholds of Significance and Implementation Policies\nStaff Khan presented the staff report, and explained the meaning of the thresholds of\nsignificance.\nStaff Khan detailed the background of this item, and the ideas developed by staff. He noted that\nDowling Associates, the transportation consultants, developed LOS standards that would be\ndiscussed. LOS D was the level proposed to be established for all transportation modes. He\ndiscussed the methodologies employed, which was based on previous input from the TC. He\ndescribed the methods by which conflicts would be resolved for street segments on which the\nTransportation Element has identified multiple modal priorities.\nBased on the City's transit-first policy, staff recommends that transit generally be given\npreference, followed by the pedestrian mode, followed by the bicycle mode.\nStaff Khan noted that LOS below D would always be a significant impact on street segments\nwhere only a single modal priority was identified. Where multiple modal priorities were\nidentified, lower LOS would be acceptable to resolve conflicts as indicated in the staff report.\nHe noted that at intersections, automobiles could go to LOS F if an arterial LOS D could be\nmaintained. This level of flexibility was not permitted for any other mode.\nA discussion of the selection of LOS D ensued.\nStaff Khan noted that public input and discussion would be very important.\nCommissioner Moehring complimented staff on a job well done with such a large task, and that\nshe was pleased that this was not written in stone. With respect to Table 1, she inquired why\nLOS E for bikes, schools and recreational areas was acceptable for regional arterials, and why a\nhigher level of service was not required. She was very concerned about safety issues regarding\nthe most vulnerable modes: bicycle and pedestrian. Staff Khan replied that it was only triggered\nby conflicts, due to the identification of multiple priorities. He emphasized that in other\ncircumstances, the City did not want to degrade any of the modes below LOS D. He noted that a\nhierarchy must be identified.\nCommissioner Moehring inquired about bicycle detection at traffic signals.\nStaff Bergman noted that they were installed at Sherman and Buena Vista. Staff Khan added that\nthe City was working on that item.\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-01-28", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Bergman noted that in some locations, there were bike stencils on the ground that indicate\nwhere the bike should be lined up to trigger the signal. He noted that there were other areas in\ntown where the capability was enabled, but that there were no stencils painted yet. He noted that\nthe bicycle LOS only addressed bicycling conditions in a shared traffic environment; it did not\napply to trails, which was LOS A all the time.\nCommissioner Lee requested a clarification of LOS D. Staff Khan replied that the pedestrian\nLOS for each leg of an intersection would not experience a delay greater than an average of 40\nseconds. He noted that for autos, each leg was not taken into consideration, and that the entire\nintersection was considered to determine the LOS.\nChair Knox White noted that past EIRs, including the TMP, included staff reports stating that\nthey were as conservative as possible. He believed that the traffic study for the new theater\nconfirmed that.\nStaff Khan noted that each analysis was different, and that the theater assumed increasing traffic\nusing a certain percentage of growth. Currently, the TMP model will be used for all the projects\nin the City, and that actual land use for each area will be used, providing much better\ninformation.\nOpen Public Comment\nJon Spangler believed this effort was a wonderful step beyond what had been in the 1991\nGeneral Plan. He inquired whether the transit LOS would be degraded if something happened to\nthe Tube, such as more concrete falling in, closing the Tube. He inquired whether the number of\nwheelchair passengers on the Line 51 bus would create a further delay. He noted that\nbike/pedestrian conflicts on paths need to be addressed, and that a solution should be identified.\nHe believed that there should be more emphasis on school and bike/pedestrian priority, as\nmentioned by Commissioner Moehring. He believed the bicycle LOS was somewhat fuzzy. He\nwould like to know what intersections were being considered where there could potentially be\nconflict between transit queue jump lanes with a Class II bike lane. He believed the City was\nexploring new territory with this item, and looked forward to further refinement.\nRicardo Pedevilla noted that he usually got around town by biking, walking or taking public\ntransit. He requested documentation for the Florida Department of Transportation methodology\nwith respect to the bicycle LOS calculations. He inquired why that method was selected.\nStaff Khan replied that the method was selected from different sources brought before the\nTransportation Commission in 2007, including the Highway Capacity Manual, blending the\nrecommended methods into this report. He noted that many methods were very complicated and\nrequired substantial amounts of data collection. He noted that one consideration in selecting this\nmethod, in addition to its wide use around the country, was that it is easy to calculate, resulting\nin good data.\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-01-28", "page": 5, "text": "Nathan Landau, AC Transit, noted that he was sorry that he could not bring an official AC\nTransit answer or position at this meeting, and that he appreciated the work done by the staff,\nconsultants and Transportation Commission. He believed that there was only one other City in\nthe district that was close to this step. He noted that a bus traveling at approximately 12 mph, it\nwould travel through that segment in 150- to 225 seconds. He noted that slowing the buses down\nwould be more of an issue when they already moved slowly. He added that buses were mainly\nimpacted by autos and occasionally bikes; in general they prefer to keep transit and bicycles on\nseparate routes.\nClose public comment\nCommissioner McFarland left the meeting at 8:50 p.m.\nChair Knox White identified the two main issues for discussion as resolution of conflicts between\nmodes and the values selected for the thresholds. He noted that the discussion of prioritization\nwould use LOS D as the starting point. He noted that the TMP was just adopted the previous\nweek, and that it has several core policies and principles. He noted that Policy 4.4.2.E stated that\n\"mitigations will not significantly degrade the levels of service for bikes, pedestrians and\ntransit.\"\nCommissioner Moehring reiterated that while public transit should take a huge priority, she\nbelieved the safety issues of the more vulnerable users, especially bikes and pedestrians, should\nbe considered.\nCommissioner Krueger was surprised to see that pedestrians were rarely, if ever, the number one\npriority. He believed that everybody in the City was a pedestrian at one time or another.\nCommissioner Lee noted that the school pedestrians were especially vulnerable, and that she was\nalso concerned with the bicyclists.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that the transit-first policy was referenced, and whether that was\nwith respect to vehicular traffic, not over pedestrians.\nStaff Khan noted that the feedback from the public regarding the Pedestrian Plan identified the\nprimary issue as intersections and crossings. He noted that along segments, pedestrians were\ngenerally on the sidewalk, and did not interact directly with traffic.\nCommissioner Schatmeier believed the pedestrians should have a high priority, and added that\nthere were many more conflicts between pedestrians and autos than with the buses. He added\nthat the Line 51 bus only went by every 10 minutes.\nStaff Khan noted that delays for pedestrians at intersections could occur with the addition of a\nqueue jump lane. He noted that research has shown that when the delays increase, there is also an\nincrease in in appropriate crossings.\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-01-28", "page": 6, "text": "Chair Knox White noted that he was not convinced that putting in a queue jump lane would have\nan assured negative impact on the pedestrians as defined by the pedestrian plan. He believed\nthere were places where the limited capacity leaving the Island made it necessary to identify the\nmost efficient means to do so. He believed that corridors should be identified where transit\nshould be allowed to trump pedestrians. He noted that there were very few roads with bike and\ntransit priority. He believed that Clement, Tilden, Santa Clara, and certain parts of Central were\nthe streets in which that conflict might exist. He believed that there were too many exceptions\nusing the method proposed by staff, and that bicyclists on a bike street should receive priority.\nHe had difficulty with the table, which was a visual representation of the policies, and that the\nTransportation Commission did not have the policies at this time. He expressed concern about\nthe impact if a crosswalk or sidewalk were to be removed.\nStaff Khan replied that he intended to include that issue in the report, and added that a crosswalk\nremoval was being performed on Poggi Street, where a school used to be located. He noted that\nthe yellow midblock crosswalk at this location no longer had any function, need or use, therefore\nit was being removed. He noted that a policy identifying removal of a crosswalk as a significant\nenvironmental impact could potentially trigger the need to prepare an environmental document.\nCommissioner Moehring noted that Webster Street was a traffic hub, particularly at the corner\nnear Santa Clara; many buses, pedestrians and transportation used that street in the commercial\ndistrict. She would like to separate that item from the schools and recreation because the\ntransportation in a commercial district was extremely important; pedestrians were an integral part\nof that equation.\nChair Knox White did not like the idea of treating Class II and Class III bike routes differently,\nand that he understood that they had a different hierarchy. He noted that the only reason Oak\nStreet was a Class III route was because it had not yet been made a Class II route; he believed it\nwas a key cross-island roadway and that it should not be allowed to get worse.\nStaff Khan recapped the comments that he heard:\n1. The Transportation Commission would like to see safety issues to be examined, and\nfor bike and pedestrian safety to be considered a priority;\n2. Pedestrians and bikes should be given preference in school and recreation zones; and\n3. Transit in the commercial zones should be prioritized.\nChair Knox White noted that pedestrians should be prioritized throughout the city, with the\nexception of gateways and commercial zones, where transit would be prioritized.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that the whole point of building an exclusive lane was to give\ntransit priority.\nStaff Khan added that the transit should be given preference where it had the exclusive right of\nway.\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-01-28", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Krueger agreed with that assessment, and liked that gateway suggestion because\nit addressed the queue jump issue. He believed that queue jumps could be included as part of the\ntransit exclusive right-of-way corridors.\nStaff Khan noted that crosswalk removal issues had been addressed, as was sidewalk removal.\nHowever, he stated that staff supports giving higher priority to maintaining LOS on Class II\nbicycle lanes than on Class III bicycle routes.\nChair Knox White noted that believed this would lend itself to a developer or staff to push for\nClass III, because the Class II mitigation to a higher threshold would not be needed.\nStaff Khan noted that the Commission's concern was the throughput of moving people through\ngateways. He noted that they were very short segments through the bridges and the tubes. He\nnoted that in order to take people out of single-occupant vehicles, and if they were going to San\nFrancisco, he believed that transit throughput should be provided to accomplish that. He stated\nthat it would be critical to maintain the safety of intersections and crossings, because that was\nwhere they interacted with automobiles and other modes. He suggested that staff be given a\nchance to re-examine this issue and return to the Transportation Commission.\nChair Knox White suggested that on exclusive and primary transit streets; transit should be\nprioritized.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that the Transportation Commission did not discuss automobiles,\nand inquired why they were being put on the bottom.\nChair Knox White believed that the TMP already did that, where there was a conflict. He\nbelieved there was consensus on the comments regarding the resolution of conflicts, and wished\nto address the thresholds. He suggested that instead of identifying a specific number, an impact\ncould be defined as any time the LOS degraded from C to D, or D to E, instead of assigning a\nbottom. He noted that any degradation or significant movement would be identified as an impact.\nCommissioner Krueger suggested that a hybrid system may be used to identify the floor and the\ndelta, or change. He was not in favor of making it so sensitive that an EIR would be required for\nminor occurrences.\nStaff Khan noted that staff had no intention of moving in that direction. He noted that most of the\nstreets in Alameda would function very well for bikes, pedestrians, transit and automobiles. Staff\nwas concerned about the issue of degrading the impact on automobiles so much that it could\ncreate secondary impacts for other modes.\nChair Knox White found the staff recommendation of LOS D for all modes to be perplexing. He\ndid not believe it was equitable, and that one intersection in Alameda operated at D; no\nintersections were below 40 seconds. Staff Khan noted that Webster and Atlantic also failed at\nthat time. Chair Knox White noted that came from Dowling's documentation, and he did not\nknow how the City Council, boards and commissions could consider themselves good stewards\nof the community by not finding any impacts to the pedestrian environment until it became\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-01-28", "page": 8, "text": "worse than the conditions in front of the College of Alameda. He noted that Otis and Park was\nalso a difficult intersection for pedestrians, even though it was an LOS C. He noted that Encinal\nand Park, which was a busy intersection and was not a good place to park, which was an LOS B.\nHe believed that the City should step away from LOS D. He understood where the transit\nnumbers came from, and suggested that a percent change along a segment would be more\nmeaningful. He believed it would be difficult to come up with a specific number, and that change\nin the current level of service would be more meaningful in keeping the transit schedule.\nCommissioner Schatmeier requested further clarification on how a level of service could be\nassigned to transit, and noted that length of the corridors were an issue. He did not know what\nthe baseline was, and noted that a bus could travel through Alameda at midnight than during the\npeak hour because there were not as many passengers, and not as many cars on the streets.\nStaff Khan noted that staff would examine peak period conditions, and noted that any ADA delay\nof the bus was not part of the discussion; that discussion meant travel time, and subtracting dwell\ntime from the transit travel time. If a project increased the travel time with more cars, and if LOS\nwas already E or F, staff would examine what else could be considered.\nCommissioner Krueger believed the length of the corridor had to be considered, and that the\nautomobile arterial segments discussed the average travel speed, which must take the length of\nthe corridor into account. He believed that should be taken into account for transit as well, and\nthat the effect on the travel speed should be considered.\nStaff Khan stated that was correct, and that staff was looking at segments of approximately one-\nhalf to three-quarters of a mile.\nStaff Khan noted that when staff examined it, they had not run the arterial analysis at that point.\nHe noted that it looked at signalized intersections, and that they inquired whether the model\ncould be run on a street without signals. He noted that they may want to resort to the intersection,\nand that they were discussing the issue with Dowling.\nCommissioner Schatmeier inquired why the City would be tolerant of degradation of the LOS for\nautomobiles, and believed there were impacts that should be described and responded to.\nChair Knox White agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier's comment, and noted that he would\nlike to identify the impacts.\nStaff Khan noted that the Commission would like to examine:\n1. Degradation for pedestrians, bikes and transit by a letter grade; look into how the\nthresholds were set, particularly D versus C, as well as for pedestrians and bikes;\n2. The baseline for transit LOS D should be defined and addressed;\n3. Travel speed is a better measure for transit than delay;\n4.\nThe intersection LOS should be evaluated for automobiles; and\n5. Why the degradation of the automobile LOS should be allowed to degrade.\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-01-28", "page": 9, "text": "Chair Knox White noted that LOS D was standard for automobiles, and inquired whether the\npedestrian, bike and transit threshold should be defended. He noted that the ability to define the\nthreshold should be based on what was happening in the City.\nNo action was taken.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\na.\nEstuary Crossing Feasibility Study\nChair Knox White noted that during the Estuary Crossing study discussion, AC Transit stated\nthey were not interested in a transit-only crossing across the Estuary. He requested clarification\nfrom staff.\nStaff Khan replied that in context with the delays caused by raising and lowering the bridge, and\nin context with crossing train tracks in Oakland, those two issues could seriously impact\nheadways.\nNathan Landau of AC Transit noted that was consistent with what he understood, and what made\nsense regarding the existing problems. He noted that a drawbridge over the Estuary could be\nopen for as much as 30 minutes, which would ruin the effect of any transit. He noted that it had\nbeen an ongoing issue at the Embarcadero with the main line buses getting stuck. He noted there\nwas considerable Tube congestion, and that they desperately needed queue jumps to get in there.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether he was aware of any proposed grade\nseparations for the railroad tracks at Jack London Square, Mr. Landau replied that there were\nnone in a serious way. He noted that it had come up regularly, and that it would be a very\nexpensive project.\nb.\nBroadway-Jackson Update\nStaff Khan noted that Caltrans stated that comments could be expected on the PSR by mid-\nMarch. He noted that funding must be obligated in 90 days, and that it would be brought down to\n60 days due to the stimulus funding.\nc.\nLine 63 update\nStaff Khan noted that staff prepared an off-agenda report for City Council, and distributed copies\nto the Transportation Commissioners.\nStaff Bergman noted that AC Transit was still performing further analysis, particularly the\npossibility of interlining with another line to be more efficient. He added that the possibility of\nrelocating the terminus on that end to bring it closer to the 12th Street BART station. The\npossibility of shifting to Lake Merritt was considered and discarded, as most of the Line 63\nriders did not appear to be transferring to BART, but traveling to other destinations in Oakland.\n9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-01-28", "page": 10, "text": "d.\nCasual Carpool/Park and Ride Analysis\nStaff Bergman noted that there was discussion about designating a casual carpool area to\nfacilitate pickups without drivers getting tickets. Staff observed and surveyed the major existing\ncasual carpool site at Encinal and Park Avenue; 97 survey responses were collected in about an\nhour. He noted that there were a lot of users, and that 75 of the respondents used the casual\ncarpool at least four days a week. 55% of the respondents walked to the casual carpool site, and\n40% indicated that they drove to the site. Staff was looking at designated areas to facilitate\nboarding and were working with AC Transit to ensure it coordinated with the location of OX bus\nstops.\ne.\nUpcoming development-related traffic studies and plans\nStaff Khan noted that the Boatworks EIR was moving forward, near Blanding and Oak Street;\nthere was a proposal for 42 housing units. Staff would bring more information when it became\navailable. He noted that the Planning Board held a public hearing on that project in its most\nrecent meeting.\nf.\nFuture meeting agenda items\nStaff Khan noted that Line 51 would be discussed at the February TC meeting.\nStaff Khan noted that the Water Emergency Transit Authority wished to hold a public hearing in\nMarch, immediately preceding the Transportation Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. He added\nthat the threshold significance issue would return to the Transportation Commission.\nADJOURNMENT:\n10:30 p.m.\nG:\\pubworks\\LT\\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEESTC\\2009\\022509/012809minutes-draft.doc\n10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf"}