{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-03-28", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission Minutes (DRAFT)\nWednesday March 28 2012\nCommissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:02 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nKathy Moehring\nThomas G. Bertken\nChristopher Miley\nMembers Absent:\nJesus Vargas\nMichele Bellows\nRajiv Sharma\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nAdrienne Heim, Administrative Assistant\n2.\nMinutes\nFebruary 22, 2012 minutes (pending)\n3.\nOral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments\nNone.\n4.\nNew Business\nCommissioner Moehring commented on a letter sent by Walt Grady regarding the traffic calming\nand Safe Routes to School project at Gibbons Drive at Northwood Drive and Southwood Drive.\nThe Commission directed staff to include the letter in the May meeting, and at that time, there\nwill be a public hearing.\n4A.\nI-880 and 23rd-29th Avenue Project Update\nStaff Khan presented an update on the I-880 and 23rd-29th Avenue Project. The project is\ncompleting its design phase and will begin construction next year.\nPage 1 of 12\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, March 28, 2012", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-03-28", "page": 2, "text": "Garrett Gritz, consultant from RBF and Alameda County Transportation Commission's Project\nManager Dale Dennis reported on the project overview which included: 1) the project purpose\nand need; 2) overview and history; 3) stage construction plans; and 4) project schedule.\nCommissioner Moehring asked for any comments to the I-880 and 23rd-29th Avenue Project.\nCommissioner Bertken asked about the westbound traffic going to Alameda on the bridge where\nit\nhas a conflict with the left turn going onto the freeway. He wanted to know how that conflict\nwould be resolved.\nGarrett Gritz replied that there is a two-phased traffic signal there. Vehicles approaching in the\nwestbound direction would stop while left-turn vehicle movements occurred, and when the left\nturn movements would stop then westbound vehicles could pass through the intersection.\nCommissioner Bertken asked if the left-turn movement is a ramp meter.\nGarrett Gritz replied it is a regular signal, where cars would go through that particular\nintersection and the metering signal would be further down the ramp.\nCommissioner Moehring called for public comment or questions.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, explained that 5 years ago he attended an\nAlameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) meeting about the proposed\nproject and he asked a lot of questions that were critical to the whole project. He was glad some\nof his objections were somewhat resolved. However, he feared that the project was initiated by\nthe Jingletown neighborhood in Oakland and the emphasis was on Jingletown's concerns and\nAlameda was just a consequence. He wished there were additional public meetings 2-3 years\nago, where concerns would have been brought up. Thus, the public's input may have affected the\nproject's design. He was mostly concerned with the Ford Street connection where there is going\nto be a new signal and the 29th Avenue traffic coming off the freeway and now heading towards\nAlameda will now create a bottleneck. At the meeting, the original project designers said that\ntraffic would increase 10-20 percent into Alameda. Currently, when drivers come across 23rd\nAvenue, there are two lanes plus an unobstructed slip onto the freeway. Now, the proposal states\nthere will be two lanes that have a stop light and drivers have to share the lane. He wanted to\nknow why the structure being rebuilt for 23rd Avenue could not include 4 or 5 lanes to\naccommodate future growth. Oakland residents coming upon 12th Avenue have one lane coming\ninto Alameda, whereas before they had 2 unobstructed lanes. He was glad to see that bicyclists'\ninput was included, especially since bicyclists like to cycle out to the Embarcadero going\nthrough 29th Avenue. Finally, he requested to see the slide presentation put on the City's website\nso the public has access to it. He also thanked Matt Naclerio from Alameda Public Works for\nanswering his questions.\nGarrett Gritz explained that this was his third or fourth time presenting in front of the\nTransportation Commission and he presented before City Council. During the environmental\nprocess, they circulated the environmental document and it was available at the library. Dale and\nhis team passed out flyers and invited the business community to comment about the project at\nPage 2 of 12\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, March 28, 2012", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-03-28", "page": 3, "text": "the public meeting. There were positive comments, and one interesting comment came from a\nbusiness owner who would tell customers to use High Street instead of 23rd or 29th Avenues to\naccess his business. This project will benefit the local community by providing a direct route. He\npointed out that this project is for the trade corridor improvements for the northbound ramps and\nthat is how staff was able to secure funds. He believed the configuration suggestions posed by\nthe speaker were analyzed to solve many of the problems that came up, but were ultimately not\nused.\nMarilyn Bowe, Alameda resident, stated that she knows Tom Straus and she wanted clarification\non whether most of the traffic would feed in and out of the street in front of Straus Carpet\nCompany.\nCommissioner Moehring said this is correct.\nMarilyn Bowe questioned whether the intersection of Ford Street and 29th Avenue would\nbecome a bottleneck.\nCommissioner Moehring replied that the meeting's purpose was to get answers to those\nquestions.\nMarilyn Bowe stated that she lives on Puddingstone Road, which is a Planned Unit\nDevelopment. The street in front of her house has now become a feeder street and creates a lot of\ntraffic.\nGarrett Gritz noted that the intersection of Ford Street and 29th Avenue would become a hub,\nwhere a traffic signal will be installed and the Park Street triangle will be restriped.\nStaff Khan mentioned that the project has been presented to the Planning Board, City Council,\nand Transportation Commission and advertised on the Alameda CTC's website. So, this is not\nthe first time that the project has been in front of the public. In terms of the impacts, the City\nrecognized those impacts and fought hard to have those concerns addressed. There were\nconcerns about traffic backing up onto Park Street, especially during the am peak hours.\nHowever, staff has analyzed that the traffic queues on Park Street will dissipate quickly. He\nstated that the City requested many improvements, including public transit improvements on\nPark Street because it will be congested by the years 2030-2035. The City asked for queue jump\nlanes on Park Street and signal coordination from Park Street and Encinal Avenue to the 23rd\nAvenue on-ramp. The proposal includes queue jump lanes for transit buses at the 23rd Avenue\non-ramp. Staff is now working with AC Transit and Caltrans to review and provide comments on\nthis proposal. The Public Works Department received a Caltrans grant for Park Street signal\ncoordination with the support of the Alameda CTC.\nGarrett Gritz replied that the project accommodated a future item as part of the area on the 23rd\nAvenue overcrossing. One of the lanes will be striped out. When the buses are equipped with\nadvance detection then the buses will be able to bypass the queue.\nCarol Gottstein, Alameda resident, asked if the street that features Bay Auto Center will become\nPage 3 of 12\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, March 28, 2012", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-03-28", "page": 4, "text": "a dead-end street.\nGarrett Gritz replied that the street would not be a dead-end street, but it will become part of the\nlocal circulation. Currently, drivers can exit the freeway and they are right in front of the\nbuilding. Under the proposed condition, drivers would be required to exit the freeway, turn left,\nand go into the Jingletown neighborhood to access the street.\nCarol Gottstein mentioned that she is concerned with trying to coordinate the traffic signals on\neither side of a working bridge.\nStaff Khan replied that the bridges have a moratorium not to open during peak hours. The signal\nfor the bridge preemption is being managed by Alameda County, which also manages the\nbridges. The County dedicates a fiber optic cable that is already on the bridge to connect to\nOakland's signals. From Alameda's side, the City has interconnect cables connected along Park\nStreet.\nCommissioner Moehring asked when does the moratorium start.\nStaff Khan explained that the moratorium is already in place.\nCommissioner Miley stated that he commutes through there almost everyday and it is a pain to\nget over to Fruitvale Avenue. He believes that the Fruitvale Bridge can handle more traffic, so\nwas there any discussion to try to direct more traffic onto Fruitvale Avenue and the bridge.\nGarrett Gritz replied yes, the fact that the Fruitvale Bridge has more capacity was clear early on\nand they wanted to figure out a way to use it. However, the objective is to improve the 23rd and\n29th Avenue bridges and produce northbound ramp improvement. Once there are funding\nopportunities to make improvements in the southbound direction then they can better utilize the\nFruitvale Bridge.\nCommissioner Miley echoed Jim Strehlow's concern with potential bottlenecks at Ford Street\nand 29th Avenue. He asked for the traffic counts on the new bridge and whether traffic would\nincrease by creating that direct route.\nGarrett Gritz explained that staff identified the existing level of service at the intersection under\nthe proposed condition looking at the year 2030. Under the congestion management agency's\nmodel, when you start to overlay the 2035 volumes, a lot of the intersections are significantly\nimpacted. He went on to say that the improvements identified include a signal at the eastbound\nand westbound approaches to take turns utilizing the Ford Street and 29th Avenue intersection.\nCurrently, there is a delay for residents trying to access onto northbound I-880 and in the future\nit will take a little longer, but the delay is due to improvements.\nCommissioner Miley said in the future, they should look at the corridor as an entire system. He\nwould like them to include the High Street and Fruitvale Bridges to find opportunities to\nalleviate some of the congestion issues that are found in the area.\nPage 4 of 12\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, March 28, 2012", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-03-28", "page": 5, "text": "Commissioner Moehring understood the complexity of the project and found it funny that all the\nimprovements cause more delays when the improvements should decrease the delays.\nGarrett Gritz replied there is only one particular movement that has an increase in delay, but\nthose drivers coming back to Alameda during the evening peak hours will have a decrease in\ndelay. Furthermore, the drivers who access the I-880 corridors from High Street currently have a\ndelay due to vehicle accidents and weaving issues. Once the project goes through, there will be a\ndecrease in delay for drivers traveling from the south to the north.\nCommissioner Moehring questioned the annual number of accidents that occurred. Also, she\nwanted to know how dangerous all of the crossings were to bicyclists, pedestrians and vehicles.\nGarrett Gritz replied that he did not have the specific number, but between 29th and 23rd\nAvenues where the merge was the problem, traffic accidents were 5-10 times more frequent than\nthe statewide average.\nCommissioner Moehring stated that she would like Alameda CTC to post an approximate\ntimeline for each phase and updates in addition to the presentation.\nGarrett Gritz explained that Caltrans has a public informational officer who is assigned to the\nproject. He mentioned that staff would begin advertising through communications channels and\nalternative outreach approximately 6 months prior to construction. Once the project is awarded,\nthe contractor will submit the construction schedule and staff will revise accordingly.\nCommissioner Moehring mentioned that Alex Nguyen could disseminate the appropriate\ninformation to the public. She urged those in attendance to sign up using their email addresses to\nreceive City updates and meeting information.\nStaff Khan stated that staff will be directly involved in distributing flyers to the Park Street\nbusinesses and it would be good to have a web link included on the City's website from the\nAlameda CTC to give residents information on the project's schedule and other information.\nJim Strehlow presented the official project website link at http://i880corridor.com/\n4B.\nWebster Street Intelligent Transportation System/Smart Corridors Project Update\nStaff Khan presented the staff report.\nCommissioner Moehring asked for any comments to the Intelligent Transportation\nSystems/Smart Corridors Project.\nCommissioner Bertken questioned whether the recording would record on a 5-minute loop.\nStaff Khan replied that the Alameda Police Department had the sole discretion to record on a 5-\nminute loop and at this time, they decided not to do it.\nPage 5 of 12\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, March 28, 2012", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-03-28", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Moehring received a letter from former Transportation Commission Chair John\nKnox White. As an Alameda resident, he wanted more information about the financial impacts\nfrom the project. She shared the letter with Staff Khan and he will provide information about the\nfinancial components and other questions for next month's meeting.\nCommissioner Moehring called for public comment and questions.\nCarol Gottstein stated that Webster Street is starting to look like Times Square west because the\nCity intends to install a lot of expensive gizmos for such a small area. She wondered what would\nhappen with the traffic-adapting devices when a bus and a fire truck crossed through the\nintersection at the same time. She would like to see what the studies are for that and she asked\nStaff Khan to define the acronyms used during the presentation.\nStaff Khan replied that the devises are expensive in terms of what she is looking at, but\nrealistically it will increase the street capacity by 18-20 percent during the peak hours. He stated\nthat it would be much more expensive for the City to add another lane to the street to provide\nadditional capacity. Moreover, in terms of the passing issues for the fire truck and the transit\nvehicles, the fire trucks supersede all other vehicle types.\nCarol Gottstein mentioned that the buses are still being operated by human beings so if the bus\ndriver is approaching the intersection, expects the fire truck to speed through and nothing occurs\nthen what should he do. Also, the City has not brought up that they are not going to widen the\ntunnels. Finally, she asked if the funding sources were set up for this project.\nStaff Khan stated the project would cost $1.6 million and is composed of four to five different\nlocal, regional, and federally funded sources.\nCarol Gottstein asked Staff Khan to publish a breakdown of the funding sources for the project\non the City's website.\nStaff Khan replied he would present a breakdown of the funding sources at next month's\nmeeting.\nCommissioner Miley asked Staff Khan about the implementation schedule.\nStaff Khan replied the project's design is 100 percent complete. Since the Alameda CTC is\nholding the various funding sources, they are managing the project. However, Alameda staff is\nfully involved and they are working on the permits and equipment. Alameda Municipal Power\nprovided the City with a fiber cable, which will be used to communication with the Police\nDepartment. In terms of the project's schedule, construction should start between May and June\nof this year. The project should be complete early next year, around January or February.\nCommissioner Miley asked for more information about the on-going costs for all the\nimprovements.\nStaff Khan replied that the estimated electronic devices (similar to LED lighting) have a span of\nPage 6 of 12\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, March 28, 2012", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-03-28", "page": 7, "text": "10-15 years and the on-going cost to manage the devices is estimated to be $5,000 to $6,000 per\nyear. Regarding on-going maintenance, funds should be available under Alameda CTC's\nMeasure B expenditure plan, Vehicle Registration Fee, and the Smart Corridor program.\nCommissioner Miley questioned whether the Smart Corridor funds would be competitive or\nallocated based on population.\nStaff Khan stated that the Alameda CTC manages the Smart Corridor program and there are a\nhandful of projects in the county. Furthermore, the City is part of the Smart Corridor\nConsortium.\nCommissioner Miley asked if the countywide agency would provide all the maintenance funds\nfor the few smart corridors in the county.\nStaff Khan confirmed that the City will work with the Alameda CTC to obtain funding for the\nmaintenance funds.\nCommissioner Moehring said she has maintained an interest in this project and she believes the\ncorner of Pacific Avenue will definitely benefit from the project. She noted that the cameras are\nnot recording personal information, but will be used for safety and emergency response\nsituations to efficiently circulate vehicles and allow emergency vehicles to pass. Since there are\n55,000 daily vehicles that go through the Webster Tube, anything the City can do to make that\ncommute safer is great.\n4C. Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans\nStaff Khan presented the quarterly report on the following activities related to transportation\npolicies and plans:\nThe Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines will be presented to the Planning Board sometime\nafter May.\nThe City received $464,000 in funding for the Shoreline Drive and Westline Drive bike\nlanes project. The project will take one of the lanes in each direction of Shoreline Drive\nand convert the lanes to parking and bike lanes. Staff has met with Bike Alameda and they\nwill help take this concept to the community. The first public meeting about the proposed\nproject will occur on May 2, and a more detailed description of the project will be\npresented at next month's meeting.\nThere are 20 bike lockers that were installed at the Fruitvale BART station some time ago,\nand they have gone over their useful life and are now a fire hazard. The City is partnering\nwith BART and Oakland to remove the lockers and replace them with new electronic\nlockers.\nStaff has ordered an additional 20 racks as part of the Park Street Streetscape Project, and\nstaff is looking at more rack locations around Park Street. The total number of new bike\nPage 7 of 12\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, March 28, 2012", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-03-28", "page": 8, "text": "racks will be at least 32. Staff also is looking at side streets for additional bike rack\nplacement.\nStaff partnered with Bike Alameda to submit a Bicycle Friendly Community application.\nStaff continues to work on the Alameda Point Transit and Access Plan funded by the\nFederal Transportation Administration. Staff hopes to bring a detailed version of the plan to\nthe Commission in May or June.\nThe TSM/TDM plan will go before the Planning Board during the April 9 meeting.\nThe Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) New Freedom Grant helps people with\ndisabilities, especially those who are blind to navigate through the intersections. Nine\nintersections will have APS installed as part of the project.\nThe Safe Routes to School project along Gibbons Drive at Northwood Drive and\nSouthwood Drive received an $184,600 grant. Staff held a meeting last month and received\npublic feedback. Staff will bring the issue to the Transportation Commission in May.\nStaff is submitting another Safe Routes to School grant application for Wood Middle\nSchool. The application will be submitted to Caltrans by March 30th.\nCommissioner Bertken asked if there is more to the Bicycle Friendly Community application\nbesides a public relations achievement.\nStaff Khan explained that the recognition is good for economic development since the City is\nfriendly towards bicyclists. The City also receives national recognition.\nCommissioner Moehring asked if staff received approval from the individual merchants to\nreplace the bike racks in front of their businesses.\nStaff Khan stated that staff met with the executive director of the Park Street Business\nAssociation and he provided input on bicycle rack locations. Once the streetscape project is\ncomplete, staff will go to each business to make sure they support the bicycle rack placement\nbefore they install the additional racks.\nCommissioner Moehring asked about the placement of the accessible pedestrian signals.\nStaff Khan replied the signals are distributed throughout the City and staff will provide a\nrendition of the pedestrian signal locations under the Staff Communications section for next\nmonth's meeting agenda. The City's goal is to provide signals when they receive community\nrequests, within proximity to bus stops and next to senior centers.\nCommissioner Moehring called for public comment and questions.\nMike Kelly resides on the corner of Fremont Drive and Fernside Boulevard. He has traversed the\nPage 8 of 12\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, March 28, 2012", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-03-28", "page": 9, "text": "Gibbons Drive intersection on foot and by bicycle for many years and he does not believe the\nintersection needs to be modified. He walks his grandchildren to and from Edison Elementary\nSchool, and he believes there is more congestion from children and parents at the Cambridge\nDrive and Northwood Drive intersection than at Gibbons Drive. Thus, he does not believe\nGibbons Drive to be a Safe Routes to School issue. He explained a new crosswalk has been\nadded at Harvard Drive and Fernside Boulevard and that will impact the route that he uses. He\nrequested that the grant funds be returned.\nWarren Vegas resides on the corner of Fernside Boulevard across from Mike Kelly and reported\nthat a lot of people do not have an issue with the intersection. When he spoke with the Alameda\nPolice Department, they found no pedestrian or vehicle accidents there. As a citizen residing in\nthe vicinity and as a parent with two children attending Edison Elementary, he does not believe\nparents and children cross at that intersection. The solution misses some key areas where people\nactually cut across and he would like to see the grant money applied to areas such as Fernside\nBoulevard and Central Avenue.\nJim Strehlow stated that there was no mention of the first meeting and how there was a 95\npercent opposition to the project in the report. Nor was there any mention to the public that a\ngrant had been awarded for the project. He felt it was unfair of staff to take quantities of the\nattendees' opinion at the first meeting when it was aimed as a fact-finding meeting. He believes a\nparticular community member acquired a number of signatures to modify the intersection and the\nCity received a grant for a project that the majority of residents surrounding Gibbons Drive do\nnot want.\nGordon McConnell, Alameda resident, echoed Jim Strehlow's sentiments. He went to the second\nmeeting where a roundabout was proposed as the traffic-calming solution. The roundabout\nwould lose 19 parking spaces; the cost was estimated at $220,000 with $600 per month\nmaintenance. The solution did not go over well with the public and there was some discussion on\nwho would bear those costs. A police officer was present at the meeting and explained that there\nwas not enough traffic to implement traffic calming measures. There were also issues regarding\ncars making donuts and conducting sideshows at the intersection, but the donuts and sideshows\nwere infrequent. Apparently, a resident who lived in the neighborhood and caused the incidents\neither moved away or discontinued the activity. Overall, the majority of the attendees did not\nwant any part of the project and they assumed the project was killed. However, when the third\npublic meeting was held in February attendees found that the project process would continue\nbecause the City was able to secure funds under the guise of a Safe Routes to Schools issue.\nUltimately, he and those who attended the meeting felt that the money should be sent back.\nMarilyn Bowe felt that the project is tearing the neighborhood apart. She believes there are a\ncouple of proponents that want to stop regular traffic from entering Gibbons Drive. In 2010, she\nattended the City's preliminary discussion about a traffic-calming proposal and comments were\npublished. By the third meeting, the street's design proposal was over engineered and the overall\nintention of the grant is not what this intersection is about. She would rather see the sidewalks\nfixed along Gibbons Drive so the children could walk safely or return the funds. Lastly, she\nexclaimed that only a select number of residents have been allowed in closed-door meetings,\nknew about the grant and have been part of the design process.\nPage 9 of 12\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, March 28, 2012", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-03-28", "page": 10, "text": "Carol Gottstein stated this traffic-calming measure has infuriated everyone she knows and she\nnever heard of any problems with this intersection. She has not heard of Edison Elementary\nSchool needing traffic calming and there are other projects in Alameda that need funding.\nPaula Kaneshiro explained the grant included misleading information such as there are eight\naccidents within less of a 0.25 of a mile of the intersection. There is a two-mile radius around\nEdison Court and Lincoln Avenue, but there has not been one accident. Regarding the donuts\nand sideshow activity that was mentioned earlier, the activity occurred during the late evening.\nThe student fatality mentioned in the report was located on Everett Street and Santa Clara\nAvenue, which is nowhere near the project's intersection. She also mentioned that the project is\nnot on the approved school route. The approved school route is near the Lincoln Avenue and\nGibbons Drive intersection.\nWarren Vegas wanted clarification on the Park Street Bicycle project. He wanted to know how\nstaff came up with the number of bicycle racks to install and he wanted to know if a lot of\nparking meters that were once used as bicycle parking would be taken out.\nStaff Khan replied that staff is not just installing 32 bicycle racks, but they are trying to get more\nracks. The number and the location depend on the needs and demands of bicyclists. Thus, staff is\ntrying to provide bicycle parking near main attractors. Regarding the parking meters issue, staff\nhad a discussion with Bike Alameda to see if there were clear counts or numbers available to\nconduct a survey to collect the necessary information to see how many bicyclists use the meters.\nStaff will continue to work with Bike Alameda and the Park Street Business Association to see\nwhat the needs and demands are.\nCommissioner Miley wanted to know if Gibbons Drive issue will come before the Commission\nin May and if public will have ample time to discuss the issue.\nStaff Khan referred to the Sunshine Ordinance since the item was not on the agenda nor was\nthere a quorum present to fully discuss the item. The issue will be discussed during the May\nmeeting.\nMike Kelly asked if the Commission would accept letters from the public.\nCommissioner Moehring stated that letters are accepted and at the May meeting, the Commission\nwill make a recommendation on the issue.\nStaff Khan stated that under Alameda's Municipal Code, the Public Works Director can make a\ndecision on certain items and their decision can be appealed to the Transportation Commission.\nThe Transportation Commission's decision can be taken to the City Council, which is the last\nstop. In this instance, the Public Works Director has the option to refer an item to the\nTransportation Commission. If the public does not agree with the Transportation Commission's\ndecision then the item can be appealed and sent to the City Council.\nMarilyn Bowe felt that it was unsettlingly to have the project addressed without the\nPage 10 of 12\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, March 28, 2012", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-03-28", "page": 11, "text": "neighborhood's input and she would not want to wait until May.\nStaff Khan assured Ms. Bowe that staff would not proceed with the project until it goes before\nthe Transportation Commission in May.\nCommissioner Bertken asked Staff Khan to send a copy of the report and the grant to the\nCommissioners.\n5.\nStaff Communications\nAlameda Paratransit Program Modification Update\nRegarding the MRTIP Program, the City will begin charging $2.50. At the last meeting, the\nCommission asked about charging $3.00, but given that the Premium Taxi service uses $2.50\ncoupons, it would be easier to implement the $2.50 charge. Staff received feedback from the\nMastick Senior Center and they preferred the $2.50 charge. Staff will take this decision for\napproval to the next City Council meeting scheduled in May.\nEstuary Crossing Shuttle Update\nStaff Khan presented a report on the Estuary Crossing Shuttle Update. Overall, ridership has\nspiked, but bicycle usage has remained steady and staff is working with Bike Alameda to\nincrease the numbers.\nSafe Routes to School Submittal Update for Grand Street at Wood Middle School\nStaff will submit the grant application on Thursday, March 29th. There is a minor tweak of the\ndesign, meaning the southbound bulb will either be eliminated or reduced. AC Transit found that\nwithout implementing the design modification, their southbound operation would be\ncompromised. Therefore, a parking space would have to be removed and if there is public\nopposition to the reduction of parking spaces, the bulb-out will be eliminated.\nAC Transit Line OX Local Restrictions\nStaff received an email in February from AC Transit regarding a new policy to limit local transit\nriders on the OX Transbay line because the local commuters were reducing space for Transbay\nCommuters. Students make up the local ridership during the peak morning hours between Park\nStreet and Encinal Avenue. In September, AC Transit will incorporate changes to the school\nroute (Line 631) to better serve students.\nFuture Meeting Agenda Items:\nIn April, staff will bring up an appeal of an all-way stop at Fourth Street and Santa Clara\nAvenue, and the proposed San Antonio Avenue closure at Franklin School. The Shoreline Drive\nand Westline Drive Bike Lane design details also will come before the Commission. The\nAlameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan will come before the Commission next month.\nPage 11 of 12\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, March 28, 2012", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-03-28", "page": 12, "text": "Commissioner Miley requested to have the Alameda CTC staff come to the April meeting to\nrespond to questions.\nStaff Khan will provide information on Webster Street SMART Corridor Project in the Staff\nCommunication section.\nIn May, there will be a continuation of the discussion of the Safe Routes to School project on\nGibbons Drive.\nCommissioner Bertken asked for the fare price difference between AC Transit Transbay and\nstudent riders.\nLinda Morris, Transportation Planner for AC Transit, found that AC Transit drivers were having\nissues with school children overwhelming the bus capacity. Transbay riders were unable to\nboard. Therefore, AC Transit drivers charged students the Transbay youth fare rather than the\nlocal fare. Ultimately, the local fare is much cheaper than the Transbay Fare.\n6.\nAnnouncements\nNone.\n7.\nAdjournment\n10:00 PM\nPage 12 of 12\nTransportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, March 28, 2012", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf"}