{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-04-22", "page": 1, "text": "DRAFT\nTRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nApril 22, 2009\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\nKathy Moehring\nEric Schatmeier\nMembers Absent:\nJane Lee\nSrikant Subramaniam\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nMarch 25, 2009\nChair Knox White noted that on page 6, the minutes read, \"I did not know where the 170%\nincrease in rider ship came from.\" He noted that he actually did know where the 170% increase\ncame from, that that was made very clear. He did not understand why they were using a 200%\nincrease after explaining their methodology.\nHe then asked for a clarification as well regarding his comment before the motion on page 8. He\nsuggested that the water shuttle be the primary area to be studied and recommended the City\nCouncil to direct staff to begin the planning process. He recalled that that comment was part of\nthe motion but did not see it noted in the motion. He asked that the tape be reviewed. He inquired\nif anyone had any comments and clarified that this was on the bike bridge. His thoughts were\nthat the water shuttle should be the primary area.\nCommissioner Krueger seemed to recall that it was part of the motion.\nStaff Khan concurred and stated he would review the tape.\nCommissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the March 25, 2009 meeting and\nminutes as amended. Commissioner Moehring seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.\n(Abstain: Commissioner McFarland. Absent: Commissioner Lee, Commissioner Subramaniam).\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPage 1 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-04-22", "page": 2, "text": "DRAFT\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Knox White asked about activities of the Transit Plan Subcommittee.\nCommissioner Krueger indicated that he had started to review the work scope for Transit Plan.\nCommissioner Krueger stated that Commissioner Schatmeier and he will have their comments to\nstaff by April 29 in order to schedule another subcommittee meeting.\nChair Knox White stated that at the ILC meeting today there was talk about looking at the Long\nRange Transit Plan update. Both the City and AC Transit expressed strong interest in this\nactivity especially in regards to Alameda Point and its development.\nCommissioner Schatmeier indicated that he had not heard about the ILC meeting and asked how\nhe could be informed of upcoming meeting.\nStaff Bergman assured Commissioner Schatmeier that he would sign up all Commission\nmembers to the TMP email list and this would assure notification of upcoming meetings.\nChair Knox White requested that staff provide an update at the end of the meeting on the ILC\nmeeting under Staff Communications.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS\nThere were none.\n6.\nOLD BUSINESS\n6A.\nDevelopment of Multimodal Thresholds of Significance and Methods for Resolving\nConflicts on Street Segments with Multiple Modal Preferences\nChair Knox White asked if someone from Dowling Associates would be present tonight.\nStaff Khan replied that there was a miscommunication on their part and that they would not be\npresent as they were in Washington, DC.\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report. He stated that this was a very complex topic and a\nchallenge to write a report for people who were not immersed in this subject matter. He\napologized for any confusion and appreciated any questions if clarification was needed. The\nreason for this report was to see how the City would address its anticipated growth. Because\ncertain projects have been approved and others are on the horizon, growth will happen in\nAlameda. The thresholds of significance will help guide the City on how to make decisions. For\nthe traffic analysis, future projects are taken into consideration such as those at Alameda Point\n(Measure A compliant alternative). The challenge was finding the balance between accepting\nsevere impacts to the transportation system because of growth versus being too strict, so that\nsmall impacts could preclude growth.\nIn response to the Commission's request from the March meeting, Staff Bergman discussed the\nmethods used to calculate the level of service (LOS) for each mode. He noted that the bicycle\nLOS was easiest to illustrate as they describe the physical conditions for bicyclists. The others\nprimarily measure delay or travel time.\nPage 2 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-04-22", "page": 3, "text": "DRAFT\nSanta Clara Avenue was used as an example; for the entire corridor, from west of Webster Street\nto Broadway it had a bicycle LOS D (3.65). Variables in the LOS calculation included the\namount of space, presence of a bike lane, traffic volume, vehicle speed, pavement conditions and\ntruck traffic. He described the conditions on different sections of the corridor:\nWebster Street to Grand Street - bike lane; the LOS score has improved to 2.4, LOS B, due\nto the bike lane and more space for the bicyclist.\nEast of Grand Street, between Grand Street and Oak Street - 3.32, LOS C, the LOS\ndegraded because there is no bike lane.\nEast of Oak Street between Oak Street and Park Street - 3.83, the LOS further increased\nbecause the street narrows.\nEast of Park Street, between Park Street and Broadway - 4.01. The travel lanes are\nnarrower, and there is no bike lane.\nChair Knox White asked about vehicle volumes.\nStaff Bergman stated that for bicycle LOS, vehicle volumes did not have as much of an impact as\nthe lack of space.\nChair Knox White stated that the bicycle LOS did not take into account off road paths.\nStaff Bergman agreed that this was only for on-street environments.\nChair Knox White asked if the bicycle route on Oak Street would impact the LOS score.\nStaff Bergman replied that it would be counted in only if, for example, vehicle speeds were\nslowed. He also pointed out also that intersections with turn pockets could affect the results\nwithin a segment. If that were to be done, the portion of the segment with the turn pocket would\nbe evaluated separately.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if bicycle usage had anything to do with this.\nStaff Bergman replied that it did not. The model is based on the user perception and comfort.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if the bicycle LOS was relevant if the formula does not account\nfor demand.\nStaff Bergman commented that if the conditions were good, it could attract more riders.\nStaff Bergman discussed how the thresholds were analyzed. Two different alternatives for\nresolving conflicts between preferred modes: looking for auto mode of LOS D as threshold of\nsignificance, although intersection LOS F would be acceptable if LOS D could be maintained\nalong the segment. Regarding transit, staff proposed the recommendation from the staff report\nfollowing discussions with AC Transit. Staff report said LOS D would be a threshold for a\nsegment, but that the segment would be allowed to degrade below LOS D if LOS C could be\nmaintained for the route across the entire City. Staff revised this to recommend a threshold of\nLOS C for the segment; if the corridor is already below LOS C, than the impact would be\nsignificant if the transit's vehicle average speed decreased by 10% or more. A corridor is\ndefined by the impacted bus stop and taking two bus stops further ahead and behind, a total of\nPage 3 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-04-22", "page": 4, "text": "DRAFT\nfive stops, within the city boundaries. Transit needs to be emphasized as the primary mode,\ndealing with long distance trips, as this is the best opportunity to substitute for vehicle trips.\nStaff Khan clarified that the change was made after talking with AC Transit and the City\nAttorney's office. AC Transit expressed concerns about the impact LOS D would have on their\nservice. The City Attorney was concerned that if the City asked a developer or a project\napplicant to improve a corridor to LOS C, above the threshold of LOS D, that may not be legally\nviable. The City Attorney asked that the threshold be raised for transit higher than other modes,\nmaking it LOS C, to avoid this conflict. AC Transit was pleased with this change as well.\nChair Knox White inquired if the impacted transit stop would have to be within the project. He\nasked how it would be decided if a bus stop was impacted.\nStaff Khan replied that the location would be based on the trips coming out of the development.\nChair Knox White asked for clarification on how the determination of a corridor was made. How\nis it different than looking at the route?\nStaff Khan replied that according to AC Transit, 3/4 mile to one mile makes up a corridor, which\nis approximately five bus stops.\nChair Knox White stated that Alameda Towne Centre wanted to expand and one of the traffic\nimpacts is at Central Avenue and Eighth Street. He noted that two stops from Alameda Towne\nCentre would bring you to Willow Street and Otis Drive. He asked if under this threshold,\nwould it be possible to fix the impact at Central Avenue and Eighth Street?\nStaff Khan replied it would be addressed only if the transit corridor was impacted in the\nresolution of conflicts. If not, impacts could not be mitigated at Central Avenue and Eighth\nStreet.\nChair Knox White inquired if the way mitigations were being done for autos at intersections is\nillegal and questionable. He noted that impacts to auto intersection LOS is considered throughout\nthe City; but whenever discussion is about bicycles, transit, or pedestrians, that impact has to be\non the property or next to it or we're too far away to have a nexus.\nStaff Khan clarified that the City Attorney's office stated the nexus needed to be shown and\nexplained as how far the corridor really was. If five stops were not the right length of the\ncorridor, the corridor would be extended.\nChair Knox White agreed.\nStaff Bergman continued explaining Alternative 1 for the pedestrian mode. The threshold would\nbe LOS D; if the location of the intersection were below that threshold, impacts would be\nconsidered significant if there is a 10% increase in delay. For bicycle LOS, the recommended\nthreshold is LOS D and if the segment were already below that threshold, a 3% increase in the\nscore would be significant.\nAlternative 2 was discussed for the auto mode. The initial proposal was for a threshold of LOS\nD; for intersections below D, increase in vehicle to capacity ratio of 3%. It was noted, that at the\nPage 4 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-04-22", "page": 5, "text": "DRAFT\nlast Commission meeting, that this would be put on hold pending further discussion of the\nrelationship of intersection to segment analysis.\nStaff Khan stated there was a question at the last meeting as to why intersection LOS for autos be\nmaintained and having urban street LOS also be provided. Dowling & Associates' response was\nwhen looking at intersections it was very critical to have an understanding of what was\nhappening at the intersections in terms of turning movements. When the urban street LOS was\ncalculated, it only looked at autos going straight. When intersection LOS is considered, left turns\nhad to be reduced significantly to provide more time for pedestrians to cross, this caused the\nqueues spilling out from the left turn pockets that were impacting the through movement. The\nPolice and Fire departments indicated their concern about the impacts to emergency response\ntimes. He wanted to clarify that by having this intersection level of service allowed us\nunderstanding not just about autos, but pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements.\nStaff Khan explained control delay. The operational aspect of the delay is not translated into the\nmodel. The model could track how long it took a car to go through an intersection and wait at\nthe signal. But the spill over effect would not show up in the urban street LOS. That would be\ncritical for autos and transit.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired if the model allowed for spillover traffic. He asked if riders\nmay take alternate routes or if the model is preprogrammed to take certain streets.\nStaff Khan replied that it depends If using imTraffic, a micro-simulation model, the queues are\nsimulated along with the spill over effect and if you have coded all the streets in the area it will\nshow that there is a spillover effect and some traffic may get diverted. It all depends on how\nmuch information is put into the model.\nStaff Bergman finished up with Alternative 2; transit threshold. Stated that the Commission had\nasked for additional feedback from AC Transit; that was presented. Regarding pedestrian LOS\nfor both modes, the Commission had asked that it be set at B.\nIn Dowling & Associates' analysis, there were ten corridors and 14 intersections; bicycle and\ntransit mode used segment as the unit of analysis; pedestrians and autos looked at intersections\nand compared the 2007 data to the anticipated 2030 conditions; determined which modes had the\nmost significant impacts; identified some mitigations; looked at the impacts of implementing\nmitigations on other modes.\nQuestion about pedestrian LOS B at intersections was raised at last meeting. This was tested at a\nfew intersections; relatively few intersections in the City where there are significant problems;\nDowling tried to achieve LOS B for pedestrians at intersections of Ralph Appezzato Memorial\nParkway/Atlantic Avenue with Webster Street and the intersection of Atlantic Avenue at\nConstitution Way. It was found that LOS B for pedestrians was not feasible at these locations\nbecause of the queues being so long that the model could not analyze them.\nChair Knox White stated that it was never the Commission' S intention to suggest that locations\ncurrently at LOS C or D would be brought up to B.\nChair Knox White stated that the Commission had asked for the study to be done with the LOS\nB. He stated that their intent was to say that if an intersection is already at D, the threshold\nPage 5 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-04-22", "page": 6, "text": "DRAFT\nwould be a 10% reduction in the wait time; they were not suggesting taking it back to a level it\nwas decades ago.\nStaff Khan stated staff's understanding that the Commission had asked to see what happens if the\nintersection was brought to LOS B.\nCommissioner Krueger referred to page 24 under mitigation 3.6, stating that mitigations 3.1 to\n3.6 suggested that pedestrian LOS D was more feasible to maintain at all intersections.\nChair Knox White noted the report stated LOS D for pedestrians would prevent mitigations.\nSeemed that the City's goals were to have something so low that we would never have to\nmitigate it; D was the way to go.\nStaff Khan referred Chair Knox White to Mitigation 4.4.\nChair Knox White responded that if D was chosen, there would be no problems for pedestrians.\nStaff Khan agreed.\nStaff Bergman mentioned the Commission's comments from the last meeting, that the removal of\nmarked crosswalks should be considered to be a significant impact. Staff agreed and supports\nthat the inclusion of that in the thresholds.\nChair Knox White asked Nathan Landau from AC Transit if the recommendation suited the LOS\nAC Transit wanted.\nMr. Landau replied AC Transit asked to try and maintain LOS C to maintain a reasonable speed,\nand define a segment by the five bus stops. Stated that the off-site impact was worth addressing,\nlooking at a place where there is an auto impact and 10% degradation in speed. Ideally, the\nthreshold would be a 10% reduction in speed even if it were operating at LOS B.\nChair Knox White referred to the report stating the need to keep average speed up along the\nroutes. The Dowling study mentioned corridor #10, Robert Davy Jr. Drive had a LOS B, as well\nas Island Drive; 3/4 of the analysis was LOS B. Inquired if a decrease in travel speed from 23\nmph to 13 mph before it was considered an impact would be acceptable to AC Transit.\nMr. Landau recommended previously that any transit average travel speed over the effected\nsegment would be reduced by 10% or more. That was recommended to staff irrespective of the\nexisting level of service; he noted that Line 51 is currently not doing better than C.\nChair Knox White inquired if AC Transit would ever have its own policy on this matter.\nMr. Landau replied possibly; planning on revising their guidelines within the next 18-24 months.\nChair Knox White inquired if in two years we may end up with a 10% degradation.\nMr. Landau replied that the average travel speed had dropped system wide to 11 mph, so it costs\nmore to operate same service; also passengers don't want slow buses. AC Transit is working on\nbus rapid transit, queue jumps, signal timing to protect travel times.\nPage 6 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-04-22", "page": 7, "text": "DRAFT\nCommissioner Krueger questioned segment LOS VS. intersection LOS in the summary on pg. 26\nof the Dowling report.\nStaff Khan indicated that Dowling stated that it is not wise to bring all intersections to F or E. If\nall were F, maintaining a LOS of D for the urban streets would not be possible. If some\nintersections were below LOS D, others would likely have to be above D to maintain LOS D for\nthe corridor.\nCommissioner Krueger stated he thought this was used to argue against the idea of using the\nurban street criteria as was proposed in Alternative 2.\nStaff Khan clarified that Alternative 2 was not an urban street LOS it's the vehicle-to-capacity\n(v/c) ratio, a completely different analysis.\nChair Knox White stated he had three comments on transit. He stated that the nexus boundaries\nfor each mode should be consistent for auto traffic, pedestrians, transit and bikes.\nCommissioner Krueger stated that if the City Attorney felt the distance from the project is too\ngreat, the radius should shrink for all modes.\nStaff Khan stated this had not been discussed with the City Attorney.\nCommissioners Moehring and Krueger both agreed on consistency across modes.\nStaff Khan stated that going into Oakland to implement mitigation for a project would be\ndifficult, since Oakland has its own thresholds of significance.\nChair Knox White mentioned this was a corridor; should look at impact. He stated that the\nmitigation could be done anywhere along the line as long as the time is made up.\nStaff Khan stated that depended. If the intersection was in Oakland and the segment goes below\na D, it would be implemented; if impact were great in Oakland, it would be difficult to\nimplement anything on the other side. The second concern - what goes on inside the tube or on\nthe bridges and how to address it? He stated that in the model an artificial signal could be\ncreated to account for the delay that is caused inside the tube.\nChair Knox White commented on Alameda Point's EIR; traffic thru the tube; creating a fake is\nnot realistic for mitigation purposes.\nCommissioner Krueger inquired if mitigation outside the city limits was ever asked for.\nStaff Khan replied in the affirmative; the developer pays the other city for this.\nCommissioner Krueger stated he wasn't aware of that. Commented that was not right; if\nmitigations were done outside the city for one mode, should be the same for all modes.\nStaff Khan stated this could be discussed with the City Attorney's office.\nPage 7 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-04-22", "page": 8, "text": "DRAFT\nChair Knox White reiterated Mr. Landau's comments regarding the 10% reduction, no matter\nwhat the LOS said.\nCommissioner Krueger stated transit had fixed routes; made sense to have that 10% degradation\nstandard for transit; automobile drivers have a choice of multiple routes.\nStaff Khan stated staff had raised the bar for transit to LOS C. Alameda will be growing; if travel\nspeeds are not allowed to drop by 10%, you cannot have growth in the city.\nCommissioner Krueger asked if the objection was to any differential standard or to the 10%.\nStaff Khan stated that in the future, many of the corridors will be going from C to D or E, so staff\nwanted to address this for the future SO that it won't go to something too bad; if this was locked\nin at 10% in 2030, all corridors will fail.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that if the LOS for automobiles deteriorated, the demand would\nbe higher. With transit, it would mean that speeds have gone lower and demand would go with it;\nwant more people using transit and fewer people using automobiles.\nStaff Khan agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier; city is keeping the transit above everything;\nbalancing of all different modes.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated it would be ideal if growth occurred and was absorbed by the\nmode that could handle it the best. Transit has the capacity to handle it; if people are diverted to\nautos, the LOS will decline.\nStaff Khan discussed significant impact. Example was given: If a bus was traveling at 13 mph on\nWebster Street, and a project comes along and reduces that speed to 1.3 mph from 13 mph that\nwould be a significant impact.\nChair Knox White stated that example was not a good one; it's also an impact because of going\nfrom C to D.\nStaff Khan noted that staff was proposing a range of speed between LOS C to LOS D. LOS C is\nbetween 13 mph to 19 mph; lights are running at LOS C; trying to maintain it and looking ahead\nto 2030 - if nothing is done, many of those lights will be going to E or F; want to give transit the\nhighest priority; autos will be given the lowest priority, that is why some intersections will be\nLOS F.\nChair Knox White noted differences in two approaches. 1) buses traveling 25mph could go down\nto 13 mph and the developer or development would have to do nothing to fix that issue- level C.\nThe 10% says that at 23 mph it loses 2.3, the developer would need to do something to bring it\nback up so it doesn't lose. 2) The development looks at what it is currently and what it would be\nin 2030. Transit is going to slow down just because of background growth and whatever else.\nStaff Bergman asked Mr. Landau about travel speed measurements; how much variability is\nthere between measurements and can this be reliably detected.\nMr. Landau replied a standard would have to be established; either p.m.or a.m. peak times; bus\nPage 8 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-04-22", "page": 9, "text": "DRAFT\nspeeds VS. cars or bikes; need to stop for passengers. Noted Dowling's passenger counts were\nnot the same as AC Transit's; will not accept a future where speeds go down.\nStaff Bergman spoke about the degradation of transit and the increase of transit time; real\ndifferential is between transit and motor vehicles as far as attracting riders.\nCommissioner Krueger referred to mitigation 4.1 on page 21, for autos and pedestrians; reducing\nthe transit LOS. He inquired if transit signal priority was considered.\nStaff Khan answered in the affirmative; but not considered in this mitigation.\nCommissioner Krueger acknowledged. Discussed growth vs. no growth; what mitigations would\ndo or not do; no impact, no mitigation.\nStaff Khan agreed that mitigations can fix anything but they are very expensive.\nChair Knox White noted the Commission had made a recommendation at the last meeting\nregarding LOS and that staff had responded. Need to address those comments and make a\ndecision on transit LOS tonight. For autos, the question is should intersections or just corridors\nbe included. For bikes and pedestrians, if LOS is set at D, there would be no mitigations and no\nimpacts. The City can decide to make sure there are no impacts so the developer doesn't have to\nfix some of the issues that come with their development; or to maintain what we have.\nChair Knox White noted he was surprised to find that the urban street LOS didn't deal with\nintersection turning movements. He stated that staff made a good and valid argument for keeping\nthe intersection LOS; any delays at the intersection will be factored into the corridor as well.\nStaff Khan stated that including the intersection is important because it also gave an idea about\npedestrian timing for the signal timing, which was critical.\nCommissioner Krueger asked if staff was proposing using both methodologies.\nChair Knox White answered in the affirmative.\nChair Knox White requested adding in the language that says if it's below LOS B, which is what\nwe recommended, that it would be an incremental change, a 10% reduction in the wait time, bike\nscore, etc. that would cause the triggering of a threshold. Clarified that it would not be saying\nthat it's at LOS D now and you have to pay to bring it back up to B. He added that the score\nwent down 9%, nothing needed to be done; down 11%, would have to be brought up to 10%.\nCommissioner Moehring asked if a new facility would need to be at least at LOS B.\nCommissioner Krueger asked if 10% was the differential used for automobiles.\nChair Knox White replied auto was 3% but that was an increase in traffic volume, not delay.\nStaff Khan stated that is what currently existed.\nChair Knox White made a suggestion for a motion that the nexus area be equal in size for all\nPage 9 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-04-22", "page": 10, "text": "DRAFT\nmodes; with transit, if auto intersection LOS outside of Alameda and Oakland was looked at that\nthe first stop outside of Alameda be looked at as well, as a corridor that crosses the city\nboundary. He also suggested that the transit threshold be a 10% degradation no matter the level\nof service. For auto LOS, the current city threshold for intersections be used; use staff\nrecommendations for arterial segments. Under bike/pedestrian, recommended adding that when\nbelow LOS B a finding of significance would be found when there is a 10% degradation. He\nstated that this proposed motion would allow for the bicycle and pedestrians modes could go\ndown to B with no impact. Transit could be LOS A and if there were a 10% reduction in travel\nspeed, it would be an impact.\nCommissioner Krueger asked for a clarifying question on the proposed motion. Asked if the\nrequirement for the same radius when looking at a nexus, would cover looking at a stop on the\nOakland side; if the radius extends into Oakland, then that's how many stops on the Oakland side\none might consider.\nChair Knox White thought there should be clarification.\nCommissioner Krueger asked why limited to the first stop.\nChair Knox White stated half the corridor in Oakland did not need to be looked at.\nCommissioner Krueger noted it was being done for cars.\nStaff Khan stated there was a difference. He explained that a developer's trips from a\ndevelopment could impact an intersection in another jurisdiction. The other jurisdiction doesn't\nhave the same thresholds and we meet their thresholds when we cross the City boundary.\nChair Knox White noted it was a corridor; would be one stop in; looking at a corridor which\nwould be the majority of Alameda.\nStaff Khan stated the need to keep it on the side of Alameda.\nChair Knox White agreed.\nThe Commission made the following recommendation: 1) the nexus area be equal in size for all\nmodes; with transit, if auto intersection LOS outside of Alameda and Oakland was looked at that\nthe first stop outside of Alameda be looked at as well. 2) The transit threshold would be a 10%\ndegradation in travel speed, no matter the level of service. 3) For auto LOS, the current city\nthreshold for intersections would be used, and use the staff recommendations for arterial\nsegments; and 4) for the bicycle and pedestrian modes, when LOS is below B, a finding of\nsignificance would be found when there is a 10% degradation in the delay (for pedestrians) and\nthe LOS score (for bicycles).\nMoved to Conflict Resolution.\nStaff Bergman discussed the two alternatives in terms of resolving conflicts and the\nrecommended thresholds. Referred to the sample corridor on page 4 of the staff report;\nsummarized the tables, looked at the segment of Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway and\nAtlantic Avenue extending from Main Street to Constitution Way; described as a regional\nPage 10 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-04-22", "page": 11, "text": "DRAFT\narterial for the entire length. The modal priorities for Main Street to Third Street, Third Street to\nPoggi Street, and Poggi Street to Webster Street, were discussed; exclusive transit right of way\nidentified for that corridor and a bicycle priority. Segment of Webster Street to Constitution\nWay was identified as a secondary transit route. The land use classification was residential, from\nMain Street to Third Street, a school and recreational zone between Third Street and Poggi\nStreet, residential from Poggi Street to Webster Street, and industrial/general commercial from\nWebster Street to Constitution Way.\nBicycle and transit were evaluated by segment level; segment treated as a whole. Bicycle LOS\nfor the eastbound was D; westbound was LOS E. Transit was LOS D in the eastbound direction;\nand LOS C in the westbound direction. Pedestrian/auto mode at the intersections of Atlantic\nAvenue/Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue/Constitution Way. The only mode not projected to\nachieve the recommended minimum LOS D was the bicycle mode; projected at E. Ways were\nnoted on how to make the bicycle LOS go back to D; re-striping, improving the pavement\ncondition or eliminating a travel lane; turn pockets are problems. Ways to implement these\nmitigations without negatively impacting on the other modes. The vehicle LOS and the transit\nLOS would not be negatively impacted.\nIf Alternative 2 was applied, the modal priorities begin with automobiles as the first, second\nwould be transit exclusive right of way, third bicycle and fourth pedestrian. There is a mode\npriority adjustment since it's a transit exclusive right of way and a bicycle priority, then that\nchanges to transit exclusive being number one, bicycle number 2, auto 3 and pedestrian 4, and\nthen the next adjustment is based on land use. There are multiple land uses along this corridor;\nanalyzed each segment. For the Main Street to Third Street (residential), used transit exclusive\n#1, pedestrian #2, auto #3, and bicycle #4. The next segment, Third Street to Poggi Street\n(school/residential) used transit exclusive 1st, pedestrian 2nd. bicycle 3rd and auto 4th, so bicycle\nand auto have been flipped. Poggi Street to Webster Street, (residential) same priority as in the\nfirst segment; Webster Street to Constitution Street, transit exclusive, then bicycle, then auto,\nthen pedestrian. Transit exclusive remained the highest priority; some discontinuities on some of\nthe other modes based on the way it was analyzed; focused on maintaining the integrity of those\nmodes throughout the corridor; critical for transit to maintain transit time throughout entire line.\nNoted a concern regarding Alternative #2 and the bicycle mode; while specified as a priority for\nthat corridor; on two of the four segments shows it became the lowest priority mode. Alternative\n#1 allows for adjustments to be made between modes that allow for a degradation of each of the\nmodes in the event of competing priorities.\nStaff Khan stated adjusting the threshold was a viable approach that could work; testing was\ndone at certain corridors and intersections. If LOS B for auto/bikes was maintained at a certain\nlocation that would conflict with pedestrians at the same location and if an EIR found that there\nwas no feasible way to mitigate that, the Council would have to approve a Statement of\nOverriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA. This means that the City would\nacknowledge that significant impacts would occur but that they were acceptable in this situation.\nHe noted the flexibility permitted under Alternative 1 would enable the City to reduce the\nnumber of EIRs that would be required. EIRs generally cost a minimum of $50,000. He\nrecommended that the Commission to approve Alternative 1 that is listed in Exhibit 3.\nChair Knox White agreed but noted that the thresholds could be written to specifically say that\nsomething is not an impact.\nPage 11 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-04-22", "page": 12, "text": "DRAFT\nStaff Bergman noted that he would like to add to the staff recommendation that if a segment had\na Class I bikeway and had not been recommended for a future bicycle lane, the degradation of\nthe bicycle LOS would be allowed to go to E and would not be considered a significant impact.\nSince the bicycle LOS does not account for off-street paths, this would allow a street with a\nClass I facility to degrade lower than one where bicyclists must ride in the street.\nChair Knox White agreed. Discussed Alternatives 1 and 2. He stated that it was strange that a\nbicycle priority street is a priority where it came in last on the analysis, and that pedestrians\nshould be better taken care of in this process.\nCommissioner Moehring thanked staff for creating a report that a non-transportation professional\ncould read.\nChair Knox White stated that he hoped there would have been more analysis comparing the two\ndifferent proposals and how they would work out; would have been good to look at Park or\nWebster Streets or Central as it comes down through the center of the island.\nStaff Khan explained that the study was conducted this way because segments with potential\nconcerns for pedestrians were selected.\nChair Knox White stated he did not have a problem with what was chosen.\nCommissioner Krueger noted his that there was a slight difference between his understanding\nand what was written up. He thought that the bicycle mode was the number 3 priority for the\nresidential land use regardless of whether it was a bike route or not. But it states that bikes were\nonly prioritized if it was in the bike network. To address this situation where it is a residential\nland use and a regional arterial, he suggested slot bicycle in after pedestrian but only if it's a bike\nroute.\nChair Knox White stated the intent was to say that bike is only prioritized here if it's on a bike\nnetwork.\nCommissioner Krueger stated he thought his thinking on the matter may not have been correct\nand would like to hear from others.\nChair Knox White stated autos being the bottom priority on a regional arterial seemed odd.\nCommissioner Krueger stated the land use shifted the priorities.\nChair Knox White noted that when he developed Alternative 2 that he left the bikes off\npurposefully.\nCommissioner Krueger stated the residential land use changed it.\nChair Knox White stated the only difference between a regional arterial and non-regional arterial\nwould be that primary transit was not prioritized in a residential area; bikes would be before\ntransit in that area.\nCommissioner Krueger stated that residential elevates bike, whether it's a bike route or not; same\nPage 12 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-04-22", "page": 13, "text": "DRAFT\nthought for school & recreation; not conditional on the street type.\nStaff Khan noted that if land use changed, the modes would be segmented.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that may be more of an operational issue; it was a conflict\nresolution; if land use changes, the conflict would be treated differently.\nStaff Khan noted the models could not be broken down into very small segments; two\nintersections are needed to do an urban street analysis; when segments are broken into small\npieces it becomes impossible to see the impact.\nCommissioner Moehring asked if staff was recommending Alternative 1 because there is more\nroom for mitigation.\nStaff Khan replied that the recommendation was made because with this approach transit could\nbe kept a priority, even in a conflict.\nCommissioner Krueger stated that in both alternatives, transit maintained a priority.\nStaff Khan stated the pedestrian was a local impact at an intersection; wanted to maintain transit\nas a constant.\nCommissioner Krueger asked if that was also the case in Alternative 2.\nStaff Khan replied that a primary transit route would not have the highest priority because of\nexclusive right of way.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that the inversion of pedestrian and transit in a commercial district\non a regional arterial was the crux of the issue.\nStaff Bergman stated that part of the issue with Alternative 2 was the sequence in which the\noverlays were placed; land use is the final one; under Alternative 1, land use is considered first,\nthe modal overlay would be done last.\nThe Commission made the following recommendation to accept Alternative 1 for resolving\nconflicts. Chair Knox White noted the vote would be prioritizing transit over pedestrian at all\ntimes.\nChair Knox White mentioned that some items were not voted on at the last meeting; 4 thresholds\nplus the off street path exemption, LOS E for bikes. Page 1, Exhibit 4, Alternative 2, the items\nnot discussed were bullets 1, 3 and last 2.\nCommissioner Krueger stated he liked staff's recommendation.\nStaff Khan stated the edits were made; listed as Alternative 1, page 2 of 4, the last bullet.\nChair Knox White noted the removal of the third bullet in Alternative 2; did not vote on short-\nterm construction impact and safety impact.\nPage 13 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-04-22", "page": 14, "text": "DRAFT\nChair Knox White noted the threshold of significance for Alternative 1 was taken.\nCommissioner Krueger stated he didn't realize there had been a split.\nChair Knox White indicated this should have been an action item. The Commission made its\nrecommendation, so if needed it could be brought back at the next meeting for a vote.\nChair Knox White noted there were thresholds of significance that had not been voted on yet;\ntaking no action on those. Referred to Alternative 2, page 1, 1 bullet, last 2 bullets, and staff\nrecommendation about including removal of crosswalks. He suggested recommending those\nfour points.\nThe Commission recommended approval of the staff recommendation.\nThe Commission recommended the addition of the following to the thresholds of significance:\n\"if a segment has a Class I facility and has not been recommended for future bike lane, the\ndegradation of LOS to E would be not considered a significant impact\".\nCommissioner Krueger stated the presentation was very well done, especially the charts.\n8.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nBroadway/Jackson Update\nStaff Khan noted had received responses from Caltrans in terms of PSR. Noted ACTIA was\nabout to issue an RFP for the analysis of the \"horseshoe\".\nChair Knox White inquired if Caltrans was allowing it to move forward.\nStaff Khan noted that staff's approach was to use them to do the analysis.\nUpcoming development-related traffic studies and plans\nStaff Khan noted that Boatworks' Project has been slowed down.\nFuture meeting agenda items\nStaff Khan stated casual carpool will be coming to the May meeting, including a presentation on\nwhat has been done, and a recommendation.\nChair Knox White stated hopefully the long-range transit plan update will be agendized.\nStaff Khan stated it could be brought forward for discussion but not sure how it would be funded.\nStaff Khan noted a final recommendation would be presented.\nStaff Bergman noted the CMA was interested in brining in a draft of its Community Based\nTransportation Plan for input.\nILC Update\nStaff Khan noted several issues were discussed; Line 51 & performance measures from AC\nTransit; when those are received they will be shared with the Commission; Line 63 - AC Transit\nPage 14 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-04-22", "page": 15, "text": "DRAFT\nsaid moving to Shoreline Drive was not a viable option from their recommendation; from Otis\nDrive they are proposing to establish a bus stop at Sandcreek Way on Otis Drive, where it used\nto exist before. Councilmember Matarrese had asked that this go to City Council for their final\ndecision. Staff will be preparing a report and taking it to council in next few weeks.\nAlameda EasyPass program for full-time City employees- all the photos have been taken; passes\nshould be received May 1st.\nDiscussed Santa Clara and Chestnut item regarding the request to relocate the bus stop; there was\nno appeal of the TC decision The bench for that location should be installed this week; shelter\nissue still under discussion, and the City is applying for funding for 16 shelters through the\nfederal stimulus package.\nCommissioner Krueger remembered they been prioritized by ridership.\nCommissioner Krueger stated the recommendation had included trashcans as well as benches.\nStaff Bergman replied he wasn't sure of the status, and he would follow up with solid waste staff.\nStaff Khan discussed Suncal and AC Transit in terms of service in the city; could get funding.\nAC Transit cuts were discussed due to the budget crisis; there will be a public workshop in mid-\nMay to seek input on key transit priorities from the public\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted there were alternate ways of dealing with this.\nChair Knox White noted AC Transit was asked to come speak to the TC as part of its process.\nStaff Bergman mentioned a memo had been received from the Alameda Youth Advisory\nCommission staffed by our Recreation and Parks Department; they had transportation issues;\nrequested a copy of their memo be distributed.\nAlso, a letter addressed to Chair Knox White from Jeff Cambra, Estuary Crossing Committee for\nBike Alameda; asked that this be shared with the Commission.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT: 10:00 p.m.\nPage 15 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-04-22.pdf"}