{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, January 25, 2011\nCommissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:01 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nKathy Moehring (Chair)\nJesus Vargas\nThomas G. Bertken\nChristopher Miley\nMichele Bellows\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\nAdrienne Heim, Administrative Assistant\n2.\nMinutes\nCommissioner Vargas moved approval of the minutes for the December 14, 2011 meeting if\n\"tree\" in 4B were to be made plural. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. Motion passed\n4-0.\n3.\nOral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments\nCommissioner Vargas commented on Tom Remas, Bay Area Civil Engineer, who passed away\nrecently. He called for a moment of silence.\nCommissioner Moehring welcomed two new commissioners, Michele Bellows and Christopher\nMiley.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, wrote a letter to the editor of the Alameda\nSun at the end of 2011 regarding the I-880 project along 23rd and 29th Avenue bridges. He had\nnot heard of project updates. Apparently, others saw problems concerning the bridges, especially\nconstruction, and most issues have been resolved. The website, I-880 corridor.com at Caltrans,\nshows the status of the projects including the 23rd and 29th Avenue bridge status. Citizens\nshould know what is happening with the status and how it affects them.\nPage 1 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 2, "text": "Commissioner Moehring stated that she took the I-880 project issue to staff and staff took the\nissue to Alameda City Council.\nStaff Khan responded that the project is funded by Regional Measure 2, and has other funding\nsources, totaling $100 million. Caltrans addresses some concerns regarding traffic that goes\nthrough residential areas to and from the freeway. The project raises 29th Avenue northbound off\nramp, and creates better connections into Alameda by creating dual left turns and a signal.\nStaff's main concern was directed towards the 23rd Avenue interchange. Northbound drivers\nwill be able to enter I-880 by driving on a combined on-ramp with a signal near the ramp. Staff\nnegotiated the final design and brought their recommendations to the City Council, Alameda\nTransportation Commission and Alameda Planning Board. Staff and Caltrans addressed signal\nimpacts at Clement and Park Streets intersection. Staff recommended that Alameda CTC provide\nor help find funding to create bus queue jump lanes on Park Street, which will allow transit\npriority from Buena Vista to the bridge, and will link the signals between Oakland and Alameda\nto the bridge. The queue build up may increase on Park Street, but only for a short period. Also,\nstaff is working with Caltrans to fund signal priorities off the on-ramp at 23rd Avenue. All issues\nthat were raised with the City Council have been looked at and been negotiated to minimize any\nimpacts. If the Transportation Commissioners would like the Alameda CTC to come present\nabout construction impacts, that would be good.\nCommissioner Moehring stated that she would love to have the Alameda CTC present and to\ninclude the presentation on the next agenda. Also, she requested to have this item on a semi-\nregular basis to keep the TC and public up to date.\nStaff Khan - There are two lanes coming into Alameda on 23rd and 29th Avenues. Therefore, it\nwould be a great opportunity to have regular construction updates from the Alameda CTC and\nstaff will add this to the March agenda.\n4.\nNew Business\n4A.\nTSM/TDM Recommended Strategies\nStaff Khan summarized the staff report.\nCliff Chambers, consultant from Mobility Planners, provided further details on key findings and\nrecommendations from the staff report.\nCommissioner Vargas asked what cities have Transportation Management Associations (TMA),\nhow the TMA director would work with city staff, and what are the fiscal impacts of supporting\nimplementation. Commissioner Vargas also mentioned that staff's presentation and document\nlisting the components and subsequent strategies make sense.\nCliff Chambers responded that TMAs are like Baskin Robbins, meaning they have many flavors.\nPage 2 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 3, "text": "Some are based on a citywide level; most are developed at a very large development, like Bishop\nRanch in San Ramon, and the TMA in San Francisco's downtown. There are different levels of\nfunding so it is difficult to pinpoint an exact funding source. It makes sense to develop a TMA\nwith individual employers like Harbor Bay Landing and Alameda Point since the City does not\nhave adequate staff resources.\nStaff Khan stated there is a concern for funding a citywide TMA. Staff is looking at ways to\ngather revenues and the best approach is under the MX zone developments that require a master\nplan, and that would be the catalyst to start a TMA. For example, Alameda Landing may need to\nstart a shuttle program. Since there is already a shuttle program running, including Alameda\nLanding could be a potential funding source. The Estuary Crossing Shuttle currently operates to\nWind River and College of Alameda. Now the City needs to provide revenues to sustain staff\ntime to provide the shuttle service.\nCommissioner Moehring responded to Staff Kahn regarding targeting Webster and Park Streets,\nHarbor Bay Business Park and Harbor Bay Landing to partner and seek membership in a future\nTMA. She asked if staff contacted these groups to help expand the program or create a program\nthat benefits everyone, understanding staff time.\nStaff Khan stated this is a good idea, but the City cannot impose this plan upon any existing\nbussinesss. The key for us is to bring the employers together with a potential localized grouping\n(South Shore, Webster and Park Streets, and Harbor Landing). The main goal is to create a\nprogram to help employers encourage employees to use mass transit and other shared commute\noptions.\nCliff Chambers - Staff pulled a meeting together to see how Alameda businesses felt about such\nTDM strategies. Around 12 employers participated and gave input; however, staff needs time\nand resources to pull it together, and to create a catalyst.\nCommissioner Miley asked whether carshare programs are part of the TDM strategy.\nCliff Chambers responded that carshare is one element that is explained in the document, and the\nCity has carshare, but the carshare program is not fully utilized.\nCommissioner Vargas stated having attended a meeting at the California Transportation Forum\nrecently, he asked a question and the resulting answer was government should not add another\nlayer or commission to transportation issues. Having said that, a TMA would create another\nlayer. There should be an option where an organization resembles a public-private partnership.\nTherefore, staff should look into the TDM recommendations that benefit the City's goals, and\nonce a big funding opportunity occurs, a separate institutional entity could take on this task.\nCliff Chambers stated that many TMAs are non-profits, such as the San Luis Obispo Ride-On\nTransportation. Many TMAs have elected officials on their private non-profit boards.\nFurthermore, many TMAs are private non-profits that are member based. One commonality is\nTMAs have a champion who supports trip reduction to enhance quality of life and improve the\nenvironment.\nPage 3 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Bertken asked about the staff report's findings regarding Alameda Point. The\nreport mentioned transit availability is an important part of combating congestion, but in\nconnection to Alameda Point the ferry service should be mentioned and service is important to\nfuture development. With regards to the report's findings, there is a similarity between Alameda\nPoint and Treasure Island due to traffic congestion from drivers entering the tube heading\ntowards Alameda Point and congestion when drivers exit the Bay Bridge towards Treasure\nIsland. Therefore, that case should be looked into for similarities. Also, in regards to modeling\nthe traffic congestion for Alameda Point, he questioned what staff used to obtain the congestion\nrates.\nCliff Chambers explained that his colleagues at Dowling Associates are working with the\ncongestion modeling.\nStaff Khan stated that the data was provided by the 2000 General Plan, under the Land Use\nElement and is still current. The Land Use Section includes household and employment data for\nAlameda Point.\nCommissioner Bertken announced the new ferry service in May 2012 between South San\nFrancisco and Alameda, and staff should include this information in their report.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, stated that a TMA is wonderful idea,\nespecially given his inside view of a national transit commuter program, where an employee\ncould submit a voucher for an alternative travel subsidy of up to $220. He mentioned the\nprogram to his employer and it created a struggle for his employer to take on the plan and read\nthrough the red tape. Therefore, having a TMA to facilitate the program would be great.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated the TMA\nconcept is great; however, he questioned whether it is possible to require businesses to join a\nTMA when they seek a business license in order for the City to legally gain momentum on a\nprogram. TSM/TDM depends on external funding through state and federal appropriations and\nthey cut back the commuter benefits specifically for bicycle trips. Consequently, AC Transit\ncannot provide the initial service it once had due to lack of funds. Furthermore, transportation as\nit relates to land use policy needs to include land density and reform parking requirements.\nCommissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments to the TSM/TDM Strategies. For\nthis month's meeting, the commissioners are only required to provide comments.\nStaff Khan - This plan needs to be completed, reviewed and approved in February so we can\nreceive payment from Caltrans. Therefore, staff would like the commissioners to make the final\nrecommendations in February.\nCommissioner Moehring acknowledged the deadline.\nCommissioner Bertken questioned the strategies regarding how vehicle trips are estimated for\nnew development. He also asked about the parameters that go into the strategies such as the\nPage 4 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 5, "text": "minimum number of employees needed to begin the TDM program.\nStaff Kahn - Staff would run a model using computer software to incorporate land use density,\npeak time trips, trip generation rates based on type of land use to estimate traffic generation and\nuse TDM strategies to reduce the congestion.\nCommissioner Bertken asked how staff determines what goes into the model.\nStaff Khan explained that Institute Of Transportation Engineers trip generation rates are used in\nthe model.\nStaff Bertken responded so mitigation is based on environmental significance.\nCommissioner Moehring agreed to the deadline again and acknowledged that the next meeting\nwill be held on Wednesday, February 22.\n4B.\nBicycle Facility Design Guidelines - Summary of Comments\nStaff Khan summarized the staff report with a power point presentation and stated that he would\nlike to present the final draft to the TC in March for final recommendations.\nCommissioner Bertken stated in the staff report, specifically in Appendix A and D, there is no\ncase studies of where bicycle parking requirements and bicycle shower facilities are being\nimplemented.\nBarry Bergman stated that there are general examples of bicycle parking policies and they are\nincluded in the report. Specific Appendix D thresholds can be included in the revised report.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if an extended time of input would be helpful.\nStaff Khan stated middle of February is the deadline to make final recommendations.\nStaff Moehring commented towards a financial burden upon employers to construct bicycle\nshowers and lockers.\nBarry Bergman stated in the report, regarding Appendix D, if there is only one shower provided,\nthe shower must be marked as unisex and for persons of disabilities.\nStaff Moehring asked about national safety guidelines that the City must follow for right turn\nlanes accommodating bicycles and automobiles.\nStaff Khan - Staff has worked on such an issue for example if you were to ride on Fernside\ntoday and cross High Street going west you will see that staff did not have the space to create a\nbike lane, so they dropped a lane and included sharrows. The cities of Oakland and Berkeley\nhave made similar treatments.\nPage 5 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 6, "text": "Barry Bergman stated that it is not advisable to have bicycle lanes to the right of the turning car\nlane.\nCommissioner Moehring called for public comments or questions.\nLucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda, started off by saying thank you to staff for being so\ndiligent in answering questions and calls that have come to draft the guidelines. Since there are\nnew commissioners, it is important to re-iterate the need to implement these guidelines to make\nAlameda's streets safer and help more cyclists riding on the streets. According to well\ndocumented research reports, cycling activity increases when the city accommodates all types of\ncycling skills and creates separate facilities such as cycle tracks (Fernside Street by Lincoln\nMiddle School), Class I bike paths and buffered bike lanes. Again, she appreciates staff's efforts\nto get the best facilities for the City.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, he has been a\nbicycle advocate since 1970. This month he took a bicycle tour on a Sunday afternoon in\nOakland where he saw the bicycle lane within the right turn lane. Protection of the door zone is\nimportant, but it is not feasible to expand streets to accommodate cyclists without angering\ndrivers. Regarding Figure 13, on page 24 of 46, if you were driving a car into that intersection\nyou would not go straight through the intersection by driving through the right turn lane.\nTherefore, you should not ride your bike that way. I recommend in that intersection always take\nthe thru traffic lane. Figure 11, page 22 of 46, should be the preferred design alternative. Mr.\nSpangler commends the City of Alameda on the positioning of sharrows on the road and the City\nshould continue the tradition of positioning the point of arrow of sharrows safely outside of the\ndoor zone. Also, the City should include \"Share the Road\" signage for cyclists and drivers.\nFurthermore, the city should erect informational signs stating Alameda is a \"Bike Friendly\" city\nand educational signs for cyclists to \" Stay out of the Door Zone.\" He would also like to see a\nreduced defacto parking strip for automobile parking from 8 to 7 feet ultimately creating a\npsychological road diet for drivers to park closer to the curb. Finally, he would like the City to\ninclude a bicycle buffer (see Figure 7) next to the door zone rather than to the left side of the\ncyclist.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, would like to see signage appear once\nfunding is available. Signage is good for people who are not familiar with the bicycle landscape,\nso lets prioritize this item.\nCommissioner Bellows stated that the guidelines are incredibly comprehensive and public input\nwas great.\nCommissioner Miley also appreciated the public process, and reserved comments until the item is\nbrought back in March.\nCommissioner Moehring would like to see more signage to educate the public to share the road\nand important for everyone to be more considerate. She also recommended that Mr. Spangler\npresent a bicycle safety tip at each meeting going forward, such as bicyclists should share the\nPage 6 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 7, "text": "street with drivers and not ride on the sidewalk.\nStaff Khan clarified one item within the presentation, when he said 6 inches versus 4 inches, he\ndid not mean to reduce the bicycle lane width on the traffic side. He was thinking on the parking\nlane side. There is a requirement from Caltrans, which states that the bike lane stripe should be 6\ninches. Also, including the T's at 7 feet instead of 8 feet is intriguing and he will look into it.\nCommissioner Moehring liked the T's in the bike lane from the door zone.\nCommissioner Bertken discussed his interest in the T's within the bicycle lane and how it\nencourages better parking.\nStaff Khan will come back for a final recommendation from the TC in March.\n4C.\nTransportation Commission Bylaw Revisions\nStaff Payne summarized the staff report to revise the commission bylaws.\nCommissioner Bertken stated regarding the minutes to break the one paragraph that presents\nthree different concepts into three paragraphs.\nCommissioner Moehring called for public comments or questions.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, objected to\nremoving the monthly meetings to every other month and to the quorum definition for the rules\nof order section C, subsection M. To abandon the initial rule and to not define the quorum is\nunacceptable. In Section A, under meeting minutes, Mr. Spangler mentioned that the TC is as\nimportant as the Planning Board and this body should make its case with the City Council to\nmeet every month depending on staff and commissioners' workload.\nCommissioner Moehring stated that for a long period Alameda TC would meet every month, but\nwould cancel meetings because there was not enough on the agenda. It is stated in the bylaws\nthat the TC must define the meeting periods. The TC can schedule special meetings when\nnecessary and then publicize the meetings in a sufficient timeframe.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, did not have an objection of when meetings\noccur, but there must be list of dates publicized so the public is aware of these meetings.\nCommissioner Bertken stated the reason to meet every other month is due to staff time to prepare\nfor each meeting and should be considered the most. If there are enough items then TC members\nshould schedule a special meeting.\nCommissioner Vargas responded by suggesting on a trial basis to conduct a meeting every other\nmonth depending on the workload, and when necessary to schedule a meeting earlier to finish by\n11 p.m.\nPage 7 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 8, "text": "Staff Khan stated that all City body meetings have an end time of 11 p.m. and to create\nconsistency the bylaws included that end time. Commissioners can direct staff to look over the\nbylaws and revise as necessary.\nCommissioner Bertken asked to define the quorum.\nCommissioner Moehring stated the quorum is self-descriptive, and means four.\nCommissioner Bertken called upon the commissioners to approve the motion to have the\nAlameda TC meet bi-monthly based upon staff recommendations and considering staff time.\nSecondly, he called upon the commissioners and staff to publically advertise the exact meeting\nmonths on the City's website. Finally, he stated that the 11 p.m. end time should be set as is and\nif necessary, the meeting could be moved to an earlier start time.\nCommissioner Miley moved approval of the bylaw revisions with the revised minutes paragraph\nbroken into three sections and explicitly stating \"odd months\" for the meeting times.\nCommissioner Bertken seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.\n4D.\nAlameda Paratransit Program Modification\nStaff Payne summarized the staff report.\nCommissioner Miley asked about the total number of survey respondents.\nStaff Payne replied that 584 surveys were sent out and 142 surveys were completed.\nCommissioner Miley asked whether the $2.50 travel voucher cost, would curtail the budget\nproblems for the next fiscal year.\nStaff Payne stated most likely not.\nCommissioner Miley asked about Measure B reauthorization and increased funding to keep the\nrate flat.\nStaff Khan stated 10 percent of service revenue comes out of Measure B for the paratransit\nprogram, but the reauthorized Measure B looks to double the revenue stream. If approved in\nNovember then staff would see increased funding. To clarify the first question, in the beginning\n(before the start of the shuttle service), the Alameda CTC stated that they would take the City of\nAlameda's Paratransit surplus away if the City did not use it. So, staff asked the City Council to\napprove the initiation of a city shuttle. The shuttle is very successful, but in three to four years,\nthe service cannot be sustained financially without more funding or cuts to other services.\nCommissioner Bellows asked about the survey question regarding the $3.00 and $2.50 voucher\nfee.\nPage 8 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Payne stated both the Recreation and Park Commission and Commission on Disability\nIssues voted to increase the price up to $3.00. Also, the survey response option was changed to\n$2.50 because the premium travel voucher costs $2.50 for a $5.00 voucher.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff if the amount of revenue received from the voucher increase\nwould offset financial burdens.\nCommissioner Vargas commented on the fact that 7,000 residents are 70 years old, but only 60\nout of 584 participants are currently active. He then questioned whether the program could\nsustain fiscally if more participants were to join the program.\nStaff Payne responded that we pay operators the same amount every month so it is easy to\nbudget. For the taxi program, if participation increases, the City would have to turn them away,\nwhich is our budgetary challenge. We hope that the program remains stable.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff to explain the difference between premium taxi service and\nMRTIP service and whether staff can re-direct services from MRTIP to premium taxi service.\nStaff Payne responded that the Premium Taxi Service is a much broader service and you would\nhave to pay more because it allows for a 50 percent subsidy of taxi rides whereas MRTIP allows\nthe elderly and disabled to return home from medical appointments for free.\nStaff Payne and Khan stated that staff limited the number of taxi vouchers and the distance taxis\ncould travel to because they want to make slow changes to the service rather than eliminating it.\nUltimately, staff does not want to drop the program so staff will review the budget and will\nreport back next fiscal year on its progress.\nCommissioner Moehring explained that the next agenda item would propose a price change for\nthe Premium Taxi Service.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to charge $3.00 per MRTIP travel voucher. Commissioner Vargas\nseconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.\n4E.\nDraft Prioritized Transportation Project List\nStaff Khan summarized the staff report.\nCommissioner Bellows stated there should be a banner across the top of the project list that states\nnot sequentially prioritized, but ranked based upon upcoming grant applications. Also, staff\nshould distinguish the ranking list between bicycle, pedestrian and mass transit projects.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff about their use of the ranking system and whether that would\ninterfere with their current workload.\nPage 9 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 10, "text": "Staff Khan responded that the ranking of projects does not change current workload priorities,\nbut helps define what grant applications staff should pursue.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff whether they have a rule of priority when conducting\npreliminary research within the list of projects.\nStaff Khan gave an example of a feasibility study conducted by staff in 2008 for the Estuary\nCrossing; the next step is to create the project study report, which is the next level of planning.\nMany grants have short deadlines, such as one that came across his desk that was due in four\ndays.\nCommissioner Vargas stated there should be a cost estimated for the feasibility study and costs\nshould be included within the list, especially when staff decides to apply for a grant.\nStaff Khan - Regarding the cost issue, it is a good point. Staff purposely did not include costs\nbecause sometimes we can receive earmarks. This list is a general plan policy, but staff needs to\nwork with the community to see where the work is needed. As you look at the different funding\npots, the cost issue is where we crunch the numbers and find funding revenues. Other projects\nhave specific requirements and grants have specific criteria to dispense funds.\nCommissioner Miley explained that he is appreciative of the explanation of the ranking system,\nbut would like a more detailed report. He also stated that projects that are not already funded\ncould be leveraged by other projects being funded.\nStaff Khan - The ranking is a great start and if staff revises it ten different ways at end of the\nday staff can be flexible to go after a grant where a project fits the grant requirement.\nCommissioner Miley asked if staff adheres to a main objective when multiple projects are up for\na grant at the same.\nCommissioner Bellows stated that you could apply several projects for the same grant, which\nusually has evaluation criteria. She stated that Commissioner Miley's point is valid.\nStaff Khan stated that considerable legwork must be done if staff decides to pursue a grant for a\nspecific project to show that it is important.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff if the City Council or City Manager were looking for specific\noutcomes from the project ranking.\nStaff Khan - They are not interested in what staff is working on, they are concerned with\nprojects that should be pursued for grant funding. Leveraging funding would be important.\nStaff Khan - Staff must submit the final project list to City Council in March.\nCommissioner Bellows replied that staff should bring back the list to Alameda TC with revisions.\nPage 10 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 11, "text": "Staff Khan read a comment made by email from Lucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda,\nregarding project ranking and when paraphrased she stated there are many ranges of transit\nbenefits per project type and each project may be regionally significant or important to economic\ndevelopment. Since the City now has so many plans, this kind of a list is critical so that\neveryone can agree on how all the places and projects should be prioritized to align our plan\ngoals.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, the precedent has\nalways been in regards to categorizing projects based on opportunistic grant applications and\nstaff should take advantage of the applications whenever they become available. One project in\nparticular is the Estuary Crossing project. The list should show a project once with a\nsubcategory of two action items within the projects to simplify the list. The City Council\nunderstands this is a laundry list, but the list should also show transit benefits, or combination of\npedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit benefits, plus showing regional importance.\nCommissioner Miley made the motion to approve the list; Commissioner Bertken seconds\nmotion.\n4F.\nSafe Routes to School Draft Project Submittal - Grand Street at Wood Middle School\nStaff Payne summarized the staff report.\nCommissioner Moehring responded by asking whether staff spoke with residents surrounding the\nmid-block crossing.\nStaff Payne - Outreach was conducted to residents within a 300 feet radius of the mid-block\ncrossing, and there is an overall positive outlook to the project.\nCommissioner Bellows commented on the fact that Grand Street is a confusing area and the plan\nis heading in the right direction. She also wanted to get a total cost estimate for the project.\nStaff Payne - The total grant fund from Caltrans is a maximum of $450K and the total project\ncost is a maximum of $500K.\nCommissioner Bellows explained that she would like to see additional landscaping for the area to\nlook more attractive and to create a better pedestrian refuge area.\nStaff Payne spoke with the Alameda Park and Recreation Department and adding four trees\nwould be the biggest landscaping. Also, she talked to Wood Middle School vice principal to see\nif they would like additional landscaping adjacent to their property and the mid-block crossing.\nCommissioner Bellows suggested landscaping within the median strip, similar to Lincoln Street\nnear the nursery, and she asked about pedestrian lighting.\nStaff Payne - Since the grant is a Safe Routes to School grant and most of the students are home\nPage 11 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 12, "text": "before nightfall, staff decided to not include lighting.\nCommissioner Miley - Staff should solicit letters of support for the project to help with the grant\napplication. Staff also should encourage solicitation from Senator Hancock and Alameda County\nSupervisor, Wilma Chan.\nCommissioner Bertken - Getting rid of the left turn is a great idea, but removing the left turn\nmay cause uproar from Wood School drivers.\nStaff Payne - It is a good point. Staff conducted a survey of turning movements. Within the\nmorning peak hour, the removal of the left turn would only affect about 5 or 6 drivers.\nCommissioner Bellows stated that the school could arrange for parents to pick up their children\nfurther south on Grand Street near the staff parking lot.\nStaff Payne - In terms of landscaping, Caltrans usually limits funding for landscape\nimprovements up to ten percent of construction costs.\nCommissioner Vargas - Several of Caltrans projects are advanced and funded when there are\nsafety issues.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, stated he was a\nsafe routes to school volunteer at Franklin Elementary School. He suggested limiting or\nprohibiting cars from making left turns and prohibiting the faculty area from becoming an ad hoc\ndrop off zone. He also asked if the crosswalk would be lit. There should be lighting at the\ncrosswalk, the median crossing should be extended to control turns and implement a road diet for\nthe entire length of Grand Street.\n5.\nStaff Communications\nStaff Payne provided a summary of the Alameda CTC's update to the Countywide Bicycle and\nPedestrian Plans.\nStaff Payne discussed future meeting agenda items, which will include the TSM/TDM draft plan\nand the paratransit program discussion about premium taxi service costs.\nStaff Khan called on commissioners to vote to call a special meeting in February.\nCommissioner Bellows made the motion to schedule a special meeting for February.\nCommissioner Vargas seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.\nCommissioner Miley also called to have a presentation scheduled for the near future regarding I-\n880 updates.\nPage 12 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-01-25", "page": 13, "text": "Staff Payne stated she does have this down for the March meeting.\n6.\nAnnouncements\nNone\n7.\nAdjournment\n10:46 PM\nPage 13 of 13", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-01-25.pdf"}