{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-05-27", "page": 1, "text": "DRAFT\nTRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES\nMay 27, 2009\nChair Knox-White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:33 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\nEric Schatmeier\nMembers Absent:\nSrikant Subramaniam\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nApril 22, 2009\nCommissioner Krueger moved approval of the minutes for the April 22, 2009 meeting.\nCommissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. (Absent: Commissioner\nSubramaniam).\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Knox White noted that the Bike Task Force and the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force\nhad not met.\nCommissioner Krueger indicated the Transit subcommittee members have prepared comments\non the scope of work to update the transit plan. A meeting will be set up to discuss this.\nStaff Bergman stated timeframe and level of staff involvement will need to be discussed given\nthe current resources.\nChair Knox White asked for a report back on how this is going to fit into upcoming grant cycles.\nPage 1 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-05-27", "page": 2, "text": "DRAFT\nStaff Khan noted that the City has applied for grant funding for the transportation system\nmanagement and transportation demand management plan. Program funding is dependent on the\nstate's budget.\nCommissioner Krueger mentioned the Transit subcommittee provided feedback on the possible\nservice cuts as well.\nStaff Khan noted that AC Transit will be bringing their proposed cuts to their Board on June 24.\nDiscussions will be brought to both the ILC and the TC meetings.\nCommissioner Lee shared that she will be retiring from AUSD at the end of the school year and\nis submitting her resignation from the TC. She thanked all for their support this year and\napplauded the Commission's work.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS\nThere were none.\n6.\nOLD BUSINESS\n6A.\nReview of the Final Draft Estuary Crossing Feasibility\nStaff Khan presented the revised draft, which was brought originally to the TC in March. The\ndraft had been modified to reflect the comments provided by the Commission at that time,\nprimarily related to the recommendations and cost estimates. There are three sets of\nrecommendations:\n1) Minor modifications to Posey Tube - This would include moving the railing on the easterly\nside of tube only to create additional space for bicyclists and pedestrians, and improving the\nsurface. The cost has been reduced from $7 million to $2.5 million.\n2)\nWater shuttle/taxi - An intermediate solution, this would improve access for those traveling\nbetween Alameda and Oakland.\n3)\nBridge, tunnel or elevated structure - This was the preferred solution. Several concerns were\nmentioned regarding this type of crossing: the need for clearance from the Coast Guard; need\nfor the bridge to remain closed during peak times for commuters; height elevation and\nvertical clearance for bridge (if a fixed bridge) and opening/closing lengths of time if a\ndrawbridge. Dialogue needs to be continued with Coast Guard, and to date no replies have\nbeen received.\nNoted that if the funding was received, staff would like to move forward with the water\ntaxi/shuttle study. The bike/ped bridge would remain as an open item. The City is also working\ntowards providing a SMART Corridor project on Webster/Constitution Way.\nThe City had applied for a $600,000 grant from ACTIA (which has been denied) and $300,000\nfrom CalTrans bicycle transportation account (BTA) to conduct a project study report equivalent.\nAwaiting news from CalTrans on the status of the BTA grant proposal.\nChair Knox White inquired as to why the City would chose the more expensive $60 million low\nmoveable bridge over the $40 million high fixed bridge.\nPage 2 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-05-27", "page": 3, "text": "DRAFT\nStaff Khan replied that the vertical elevation of the high fixed bridge would be 175'; elevator and\nramps would be necessary and that was not an attractive concept to the public.\nChair Knox White asked about the $1.5 million in bus improvements; he asked how these are\nbike related. Why was a water shuttle the preferred use over the buses?\nStaff Khan replied that congestion in the tube was not attractive to the public as well as the fare\nrequired for the trip. The water shuttle/taxi was a preferred method.\nChair Knox White discussed docking and compared what would be involved in providing 15\nminute headways for water taxis and road-based shuttles.\nStaff Khan replied that the size of the boats was not evaluated on that level. The analysis was\nqualitative at this time.\nCommissioner Krueger asked for clarification on the wording in the report, referring to\ncongestion.\nStaff Khan replied that congestion referred to how the opening and closing of the bridge in\naddition to the possible railroad gate being closed, would affect the automobile congestion when\nthese two items were in effect.\nOpen public hearing.\nJim Strehlow thanked Public Works for their handling of the suggested crossings and\nalternatives. He opposes SunCal's $1 billion monorail option, but supported special shuttles for\nbuses only. Having only one ferry is not enough, and this would be expensive. The public needs\nto realize that we need to come up with a solution.\nLucy Gigli, Bike Alameda stated that she was happy with the second draft and the preferred\nrecommendation of the water shuttle.\nClose public hearing.\nCommissioner Krueger discussed the summary of his comments regarding land uses and\ncongestion. Stated that congestion did not seem to be relevant to the land use. He requested that\nlanguage be included to ensure that the preferred option would coordinate with the construction\nof a high speed rail alignment, should that happen in this area. High speed rail could impact\ngrade separations.\nChair Knox White asked why a project study report was needed to study the water taxi project\nsince it's possibly going to cost the same as just implementing the water taxi. He asked what the\ncost of the study would be for the water taxi option.\nStaff Khan answered that the study would help obtain funding and flush out any environmental\nissues. The cost for the water shuttle would be significantly less than the actual construction, and\nwould be an estimated $300-400,000.\nPage 3 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-05-27", "page": 4, "text": "DRAFT\nChair Knox White stated that he would like to consider this study's need. He noted that the\nrecommendation seemed to be geared towards a water shuttle only, but that operational\ncharacteristics are not optimal. He suggested looking into other options further.\nStaff Khan replied that in the next level of analysis, all operational characteristics would be\nevaluated.\nChair Knox White expressed concern over spending thousands of dollars on a project study\nreport when the goals haven't been established and not sure if they will be achieved. He\nsuggested that the staff recommendation should be reworded. Not sure that the money should be\nspent on the study only to find out later the bridge cannot be built. He stated that he would\nsupport the water shuttle because the community is in favor, but wants to assure that we are\nproviding a service that meets the project goals.\nStaff Khan stated that many options were presented to the public. The public did not support\nsome options and those were eliminated.\nCommissioner Moehring made a motion to accept the report with the comments provided by\nthe Commission. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion.\nCoordinate project with alignment for high speed rail; potential grade separations.\nLong term bridge only be pursued once issues identified in report are understood.\nLand use and how project would address congestion should be clarified.\nPresentations were made at other boards and commissions, except TC\nClarify why the PSR is necessary as a next step.\nDuring the PSR, once the operational characteristics are known, look at some of the\nother options and to determine if better service could be provided for less money.\np. 23 - minimize language re: clearance of pedestrians and bicyclists and comparing to\ncongestion (55:00)\nNote that existing bridges don't open during peak because of delays on I-880; however,\neven though the bike/ped bridge won't impact 880, 12-20 minute delays to open and\nclose the bridge would have a major impact on bicyclists and pedestrians.\nThere is concern about user demand and the catchment area for the project. Analysis\nneeds to look at how the facility will fit into a larger system. If people are having to\ntransfer to another mode to get where they are going, this reduces the likelihood of\nserving a significant number of people per day\nBridge is technically feasible, not financially feasible.\nMotion passed unanimously, 6-0 (Absent: Commissioner Subramaniam).\nPage 4 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-05-27", "page": 5, "text": "DRAFT\n7B. Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Draft Community Based\nTransportation Plan\nStaff Bergman stated that the CMA undertook this project, based on a 2001 study by the\nMetropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which identified a number of communities for\nfurther study regarding transportation gaps in low-income communities. He provided staff\ncomments regarding the recommendations presented in the study: 1) Traffic calming issues\nwould have to be addressed in consultation with other departments, especially fire and police; 2)\nIt would be helpful if the report could be as specific as possible in identifying the locations\nwhere improvements were requested by residents; 3) He requested clarification regarding a\nrecommendation to improve pavement and bicycle striping for bicyclists near the Ferry\nTerminal. He also noted that sidewalk maintenance is typically the responsibility of adjacent\nproperty owners.\nBruce Brubaker, of Design Community Environment in Berkeley, the consultant on the project,\nintroduced Diane Stark of ACCMA.\nDiane Stark stated that ACCMA's studies are focused on low-income populations and where\nthere are gaps in transportation.\nBruce Brubaker discussed the project and presented a slide show. He noted that the intent of the\nplan was to recommend strategies to address needs, to set priorities and hear the communities'\npriorities, estimate the costs and to find potential funding sources to implement the\nrecommendations. He noted that the consultant team worked with a Technical Advisory\nCommittee (TAC) and City staff to identify changes since the last Census. Outreach was done by\nphone interviews and questionnaires; they received 125 back regarding transportation.\nMr. Brubaker noted that the consultant team conducted many outreach meetings with seniors,\nyouth groups, low-income residents and people with disabilities in different locations in\nAlameda. Discussed the strategies about problems that were identified by the community.\nBroken down into groups: transit strategies (AC Transit, BART, Para transit, Ferry); pedestrian\nstrategies; bicycle strategies; driving strategies. Criteria considered community, transportation,\nand implementation and financial factors.\nCommissioner Schatmeier inquired how the array of strategies was chosen.\nBruce Brubaker responded that the community identified problems. The solutions came from the\nconsultant and the TAC. The priorities were initially set by the TAC and the consultant and\nlooking for feedback on those criteria.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if the strategies that had been discussed related to development\nat Alameda Point.\nStaff Bergman replied that only the needs and gaps as they were presented now, in the present,\nwere analyzed.\nPage 5 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-05-27", "page": 6, "text": "DRAFT\nBruce Brubaker noted there were needs at Alameda Point currently; recommended bus stop and\nshelter improvements, most at Alameda Point. The plan is intended to be a fund raising tool. Will\nlist priorities for projects.\nChair Knox White asked Diane Stark if CMA is committed to following through on this.\nDiane Stark replied that the plan is used as a way to identify projects and to list the needs of the\ncommunity. When funding becomes available Alameda can compete for the funds. Lifeline\nTransportation Funds are available every 3-4 years. AC Transit applied for funds in Alameda for\nbus service. Other funds are available, such as Measure B.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if the Lifeline funding was allocated to CMAs by population of\nlow-income people.\nDiane Stark agreed and stated that Alameda County did have a higher population of low-income\npeople than most of the nine counties in the Bay Area. There is a share for the whole county.\nOnly 5 areas have been identified, Alameda being one of them. Alameda could compete well\nbecause it has a plan already.\nOpen Public Hearing\nJay Smith, member of Operation Dignity stated many people at the Alameda Collaborative have\nabsolute needs for transportation. He has been involved with meetings regarding the 63 Bus. He\nnoted the shelters have no benches; some locations have no shelters, etc. Feel these issues need\nto be addressed.\nCommissioner Schatmeier inquired if the rankings on the report were staff's or the public.\nBruce Brubaker replied that it was a staff analysis but some were from the public. He listed the\nissues: 1) bus stop and shelter improvements, 2) Shopper shuttle service on weekends at\nAlameda Point, 3) increase route 63 services on weekend and frequency, 4) implement route 51\non time performance improvements, 5) improve bus service to Alameda Hospital and schools.\nChair Knox White asked for clarification regarding the proposed shopper shuttle on the\nweekends, if it was different from AC Transit's service.\nBruce Brubaker responded that there were two different options of addressing the same issue.\nRoute 63 Service improvement is costly; the shuttle would be a lower cost improvement.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if the community requested higher frequency on the weekend\nthan on the weekdays.\nBruce Brubaker stated that the community is confused with a bus route that does one thing on\nthe weekend and another on weekdays, particularly new residents, such as at Operation Dignity.\nFor people who need to get to BART, it takes an hour to get to Fruitvale BART on a weekend,\nbut it is only 15 minutes to get to 12th St. on a weekday.\nPage 6 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-05-27", "page": 7, "text": "DRAFT\nJay Smith noted again, the significant impact of the 63 Bus' lack of service on the weekends;\nparticularly affected are those needing the Food Bank on Constitution Way and those needing to\ngo grocery shopping at Lucky's.\nBruce Brubaker continued listing items - increase and improve information regarding transit\nservices, increased education regarding Paratransit, increase transit information for seniors,\ninstall real time information at the bus stops, create a low-income fare discount, to maximize\naccessibility of existing discounts, improving accessibility to the Oakland/Alameda Ferry,\nincrease bus to BART frequency, implement route 50 frequency improvements. Pedestrian\nstrategies included expanding safe routes to schools program, improve pedestrian experience at\nAlameda Point, install in pavement crosswalk lighting, and install night lighting.\nChair Knox White noted that Staff wants to be selective as to where the in pavement lighting is\nplaced, as it is quite expensive.\nStaff Khan noted that if there are too many of the in-pavement lighting facilities, people will start\nto ignore them. Also where they are installed affects their impact.\nBruce Brubaker responded that the wording and the priority for the in pavement lighting will be\nrevised. He continued with the list of items being discussed: Pedestrian strategies: Alameda has\na good grid for bicycle/pedestrian users, but there was a need for improved pedestrian/bicycle\nsafety in the tube, install pedestrian refuge islands. For bicyclists, more bicycle lanes were\ndesired, as well as an increase in the bicycle capacity onboard buses, increased bicycle options\nfor youth and low-income residents, improve bicycling access between Alameda/Oakland,\nimprove pavement and bicycle striping near the Ferry Terminal.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that creating more bicycle lanes seems to be more significant\nfor the overall transportation in Alameda. Bike lanes serving particular origins and destinations\nthat are of interest and concern to the community we're talking about.\nChair Knox White: suggested that the bicycle strategy be consistent with the bicycle feasibility\nstudy. Noted use the term water shuttle/taxi instead of bicycle barge.\nJim Strehlow discussed the use of safest routes to Oakland and Emeryville.\nLucy Gigli addressed Commissioner Schatmeier's comments. Stated that bicycling is the best\nmode for youth and low-income people to get around and that any improvements to the citywide\nbicycle networks would help all populations.\nChair Knox White: suggested last four items on page 6-58 be removed as not relevant to meeting\nthe needs of the community we're trying to meet.\nBruce Brubaker: discussed the last strategy to institute an auto loan program for low-income\nresidents, and that car sharing was not useable by lower-income populations. He noted all\ncomments will be revised and further comments should be directed to Diane Stark. Another\npresentation will be given to the ACCMA board for review and approval on June 25; public is\nwelcome.\nPage 7 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-05-27", "page": 8, "text": "DRAFT\nChair Knox White noted that line 63 route displayed on the map is incorrect. He also noted it was\nodd that two of the top three strategies are the same, but different operators. Suggested they\ncould be the same goal. Weekend service to Alameda Point is the goal.\nStaff Bergman noted that the route and number of the 63 Bus might change in the future,\ntherefore note the report in such a manner that it would describe the route without referring to the\nbus number.\nCommissioner Moehring refers to page 6-52, C, amend to reflect the fact that the pipe in the tube\nwill not be fixed and that the capital cost would be $2.5 million.\nCommissioner Krueger referred to page 6-19, discussion regarding bus service to the hospital\nand the bus stop at Otis and Willow. Report stated the stop had been rejected. Thought the stop\nwas on hold, but not rejected.\nChair Knox White suggested wording be changed regarding the bus stop.\nStaff Khan noted that the line 63 issues will be going to Council in July.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that the staff report should cite this report in terms of the issues to\naccess to the hospital.\n7A.\nApproval Parking Restrictions at Casual Carpool Site at Santa Clara and Webster\nand Enhancement of a Casual Carpool Site on Park Avenue near Encinal Avenue\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report. Stated the casual carpool had been discussed several\ntimes in the past when there were parking, bus interferences and ticketing issues with its\nlocation. Carpoolers relocated their pickup spot, and staff conducted surveys. It was determined\nthe riders liked being near a bus stop; in case they did not get a carpool driver to pick them up, so\nthey could hop on the bus. A new location was discussed on the East side of Broadway at\nEncinal Avenue; it was next to a traffic signal and had a wide travel lane, which should benefit\npedestrians and minimize impacts on traffic circulation. Additional outreach was conducted and\nit initially seemed people were supportive of that location. Upon sending notifications out to\npeople in the vicinity, there was much opposition from residents and carpoolers. Staff responded\nby modifying the recommendation to try and improve the location where it is currently being\ndone. A comment was received from the liquor storeowner on the corner of Encinal & Park\nAvenue regarding interference in the driveway. He asked that people keep his driveway clear,\nbut did not express opposition to the carpool site. An outreach campaign will be done asking\nriders to stay clear of the driveway and not make U-turns on Encinal Avenue. In terms of Santa\nClara and Webster stop, the parking restriction to keep the free spaces clear between the hours of\n7-9 a.m., M-F, has been received favorably. The recommendation is to support the parking\nrestrictions on Santa Clara and Webster Street and to conduct the outreach campaign for the\ncasual carpool site at Encinal and Park Avenue.\nPage 8 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-05-27", "page": 9, "text": "DRAFT\nCommissioner Krueger pointed out a discrepancy on the map and asked if the project to alter the\nshape of the street at Park Avenue and Encinal Avenue would impact the casual carpool.\nStaff Khan noted that due to budget cuts, this $60,000 project was one that was cut. The idea is to\ntake the pork chop out and narrow the turn and hopefully this will happen when funding becomes\navailable.\nOpen public speaking\nJohn Avignon and Elizabeth Noak residents of Alameda of Marti Rae Court, near the casual\ncarpool site. They are affected by the carpoolers who are trashing their front yard and blocking\ntheir driveways. Concerned that this was a permanent decision and that they now have inherited\nthis problem. Inquired if City will be participating in cleanup. They noted that there was no city\ntrashcan at the site.\nStaff Khan suggested these concerns be included in the community outreach effort. Trash can\nissue will be discussed with Public Works.\nChair John Knox White asked Staff what the time frame was for the proposed removal of the\npork chop island at Encinal Avenue at Park Avenue.\nStaff Khan noted that due to the budget cuts; the earliest this project would be considered would\nbe at least 3 years away.\nChair John Knox White stated that if the speakers are unhappy with the recommendation that\nwill be going forward, they have the opportunity to appeal their decision to the City Council.\nNoted casual carpooling is a difficult issue and problems, such as these, always come up.\nCommissioner Krueger asked if there was any enforcement that could be done to those who are\nlacking respect for others' property, such as littering. Agrees to add this issue to the outreach and\nto provide a trash can for public use.\nCommissioner Moehring discussed the number of drivers performing illegal U-turns in the City,\nespecially in commercial business districts. Hopes that Staff can help mitigate any issues\nsurrounding the speakers' concerns.\nStaff Khan mentioned that Staff will be bringing this up with the Alameda Police Department;\nenforcing U-turns.\nChair John Knox White recommended coming back and looking at these issues in 6 months and\npossibly at that time a better solution will be available. Also, the proposed AC Transit service\ncuts could impact transit service in this area.\nPage 9 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-05-27", "page": 10, "text": "and appointments made prior to July's meeting.\nStated that the agreement to finalize with City Car Share to have two vehicles based in Alameda\nwas in the final process.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT: 10:15 p.m.\nPage 10 of 10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-05-27.pdf"}