{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-04-25", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, April 25 2012\nCommissioner Kathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nKathy Moehring\nThomas G. Bertken\nJesus Vargas\nSandy Wong\nRajiv Sharma\nMichele Bellows\nChristopher Miley\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nMinutes\nFebruary 22, 2012 minutes\nCommissioner Bertken made a motion to approve the February 22 minutes. Commissioner\nBellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0; 2 abstentions.\nMarch 28, 2012 minutes\nCommissioner Bertken made a motion to approve the March 28 minutes. Commissioner\nMoehring seconded the minutes. The motion was approved 2-0; 4 abstentions.\n3.\nOral Communications - Non-Agendized Items / Public Comments\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, asked a question about the Gibbons Drive\npublic meeting scheduled for May 3. He did not see the meeting posted on the upcoming items\nor the future agenda items and the public should know in advance.\nStaff Khan replied that the upcoming planned meeting agendas items would be included in the\nfuture meeting agendas. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 3 at 7 p.m. where the\nTransportation Commission meetings are normally held.\nPage 1 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-04-25", "page": 2, "text": "Jim Strehlow replied that the meeting should be included on the current agenda.\nStaff Payne replied it is not standard procedure to include the meeting and that is why it is just a\nbulleted item. She explained that the meeting would be discussed in the future agenda items.\nFurthermore, they conducted significant outreach with neighborhood barricades, City web site\nevent calendar, an email to members of the Transportation Commission email list and a\nnotification via regular mail to the adjacent neighborhood.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, explained that on\nSaturday, May 5 Bike Alameda will be offering a two-hour how to ride a bike classes to adults at\nthe South Shore Center. They also will offer a one-hour commuter workshop session on how to\ncommute by bicycle. The second half of the session will be on the road focusing on how to\nhandle bikes better. Everyone is welcome and anyone who wants to take a class can register at\nwww.ebbc.org./safety. Also, on Thursday, May 10 at Lum Elementary School, there will be a\ndiscussion to install bike lanes on Westline Drive and Shoreline Drive.\n4.\nNew Business\n4A.\nAlameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan\nStaff Khan presented the Transportation Expenditure Plan process and introduced Tess Lengyel\nto present the plan in further detail.\nTess Lengyel, Deputy Director of Policy, Public Affairs and Legislation for the Alameda County\nTransportation Commission (ACTC), presented the Transportation Expenditure Plan's\ndevelopment, outreach efforts, and direct allocations to Alameda. The ACTC will come back to\nthe City of Alameda on Monday, May 14 for the Planning Board's approval and on Tuesday,\nMay 15 for the City Council's endorsement.\nCommissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments from the Commission about the\nTransportation Expenditure Plan. For this month's meeting, the commissioners were asked to\nprovide comments.\nCommissioner Miley stated in all his years working with government agencies, he has found\nACTC to be the most responsive government agency. He explained that she mentioned 11 cities\nendorsed the plan, but he wondered about the transit agencies, meaning BART and AC Transit.\nTess Lengyel replied AC Transit has unanimously supported the plan and ACTC staff is going to\nmeet with BART tomorrow morning.\nCommissioner Miley commented about BART operating funds and asked if their county sales tax\ndollars go to fund BART operations or projects in other counties. If that is the case he asked if\nthere is anything in the plan that states the funding must stay in Alameda County.\nPage 2 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-04-25", "page": 3, "text": "Tess Lengyel replied it specifically is written in the plan that all funding in the plan must serve\nAlameda County. So, they are going to work with BART to ensure that they use the funds to\nserve the county.\nCommissioner Bellows stated the plan is comprehensive and very ambitious. She wanted to\nknow what were the projections or assumptions used for the revenue stream. She knew\npreviously that revenues dropped down due to the economy, so what types of assumptions were\nmade.\nTess Lengyel replied they looked at different level of projections each year with a 2-3 percent\nincrease so it is conservative.\nCommissioner Bellows stated over time because previously it was 4 percent.\nTess Lengyel replied they were year-by-year projections. Also, it is cumulative, but it is a\npercentage point above and stepped increases are used and follow the local indices.\nCommissioner Vargas asked as a small business owner what kind of small business goals does\nthis program have. He mentioned various advisory committees, but will there be one for this\nelement.\nTess Lengyel explained they have a strong Local Business Contract Equity program. This\nprogram has a 70 percent requirement when using only Measure B funds and 30 percent for all\nlocal business enterprise. ACTC has exceeded their goals and continue to do SO. If they have\nstate or federal funds, the local contracting requirements are trumped by the state or federal\nrequirements.\nCommissioner Vargas referred to slide 13 and specifically public transit operations. Ms. Lengyel\nmentioned that 24 percent of the funds go to transit operations, but she did not mention the dollar\namount.\nTess Lengyel replied 48 percent of transit operations investment would go to transit, including\noperations and capital investment, and 34 percent would go to operations. She went on to say\nthat it includes AC Transit, Altamont Commuter Express, BART maintenance, Wheels, Union\nCity Transit and other East Bay transit operators and the Student Transit Pass Program equaling\n$1.85 billon. Additionally, specialized transit for seniors and the disabled would equal $747\nmillion.\nCommissioner Vargas said he missed the meeting where the consultants spoke about the 23rd\nand 29th I-880 project. However, there was a question about the Park Street triangle and whether\nor not it was included in the TEP. So, he wanted to know if there are funds for the project within\nthis program?\nTess Lengyel replied the project is not specifically called out.\nPage 3 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-04-25", "page": 4, "text": "Staff Khan stated there is no current funding source for the Park Street triangle. The I-880 project\nwill make some improvements by installing a signal at Ford Street and 29th Avenue, but\nultimately the city of Oakland and Alameda will reshape the triangle and they are looking at the\nlong-term needs. However, there are programs from Measure B that staff can work with the\nACTC and the city of Oakland staff to get funding.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if it is for a 30-year projection.\nTess Lengyel replied yes.\nCommissioner Miley asked how does the City determine whether to submit a project to the\nCountywide Transportation Plan.\nStaff Khan stated that the City looks at the list of current plans and the General Plan policies\nsupporting them and then staff brings the list to ACTC. He went on to explain that plans already\nexisted for the Broadway and Jackson project and the rapid bus service have been in the station\narea plan for Alameda Point since 2008. Also, staff comes before the Commission to see if they\nwant to add projects. Currently, the Fruitvale Bridge lifeline structure is one of the highest\npriority to the City. The term lifeline structure means after a major earthquake or disaster the\nstructure would continue operating. They also applied for a $50 million local street and road\nfunding grant as a separate source just for the City and $15 million bike and pedestrian\nimprovements grant as part of the Countywide Transportation Plan. Finally, he hopes that\nputting the list of requests in the plan will allow the City to go after maintenance revenue and\nmore.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff to revise a technical glitch found on page 2 of the staff\nreport's summary. On page 2, they specifically name all of the transit agencies, but they do not\nname WETA and he would like the name included.\nStaff Khan stated he would correct that glitch before they present the staff report to the Planning\nBoard.\nCommissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments from the public about the\nTransportation Expenditure Plan.\nJim Strehlow mentioned that the Miller Sweeny Bridge is no longer called the Fruitvale Bridge.\nHe rides across the bridge and on the street side occasionally, but normally bicyclists ride near\nthe pedestrian lane. So, adding a bicycle lane makes no sense and he would hate to see a\ndedicated lane not get used. He explained if staff wants to get people off the island and into\nOakland, there should be three lanes not the proposed two-lane bicycle and transit lane that takes\nup space and causes congestion. He wants to know if this is the conceptual design or if this\nconcept is being submitted for approval, and where does public input come into play.\nStaff Khan replied that the lifeline project is a conceptual design. He discussed the proposed\nproject with Bike Alameda and they want this corridor to be improved as well. However, the\nconceptual design was developed to receive a cost estimate and once funding is available, their\nPage 4 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-04-25", "page": 5, "text": "goal is refine the design. They are also working with the city of Oakland to make sure it is usable\non both sides.\nJon Spangler explained that he has strong misgivings with the 3rd iteration of Measure B. He\nwas looking for more than 1/3 of the funds going to public transit operations. He stated that he\nwas one of the people to advocate for an increase, but this plan is still capital project heavy and\nunderfunds transit operations. He may ultimately decide to vote for Measure B3, but there was\nno outreach conducted in Alameda or a hearing before this body and he feels this is why the\nCouncil pushed it forward to May 15.\nCommissioner Miley replied the plan has a lot in it and he believes everyone should understand\nthat the county has a lot of needs. He does have concerns that no meeting was held in Alameda\nabout this plan. Yet, there was extensive public outreach done, AC Transit has endorsed the plan\nand it is light years ahead compared to other jurisdictions in the country. So, he will vote yes on\nMeasure B3.\nCommissioner Moehring stated Vice Mayor Bonta and Obaid Khan were on the committee so\nthere was representation from Alameda. She is glad that certain ideas are in the plan, but it is not\nall done and they still have time to bring ideas up to the Commission and receive public input.\nCommissioner Vargas explained that Los Angeles County has been able to revive their economy\nand build for transit purposes. Ultimately, he felt the numbers were big and ACTC's plan is\ngood. If counties such as Los Angeles have done a lot to create and sustain jobs, he believes this\nplan will do it.\nCommissioner Bertken said it is a well-done plan and he supports the Council to accept it.\nCommissioner Miley stated since the state has removed redevelopment, it is hard for cities to\ncreate jobs and conduct the type of improvements needed. Therefore, this plan improves transit\nand money going to the port and more. He asked staff about the Project Priority List status and\nthe process for developing the list.\nStaff Khan replied the City Council directed staff to not move forward on any projects even in\nplans and on the books without working with the community, Planning Board and Transportation\nCommissions. The City Council reviewed the priority list in the last meeting and asked staff to\ncontinue working with the Transportation Commission and Planning Board. The Transportation\nCommission will see a revised priority list on the agenda in July. Right now, the priority list is\nmoving forward and staff is categorizing the list to refine the priorities and more.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff to look at best practices made by other cities going through the\nsame process. He would like to see examples to benefit the discussion in July.\nCommissioner Moehring stated she is happy to see students getting bus passes and anything\nencouraging public transit use is to be commended. She then asked the Commission to make a\nrecommendation.\nPage 5 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-04-25", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Miley made a motion that the Commission recommends the City Council to\nendorse this transportation expenditure plan for Measure B. Commissioner Vargas seconded the\nmotion. The recommendation was approved 7-0.\nStaff Khan spoke about the Miller Sweeney Bridge and the challenges. Measure B, supports the\n$94 million application for the super structure and they along with their cosponsor Alameda\nCounty will continue to develop this project. He also stated that Alameda County submitted\napplications for the Park Street and High Street Bridges.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff to define replacing the Park and High Street Bridges.\nStaff Khan replied the plan is to take down and replace the bridges because the Park and High\nStreet bridges are reaching their life cycle and will need more maintenance when looking at a 20-\n30 year period.\nCommissioner Miley said staff is looking to replace the High Street and Park Street bridges. Yet,\nthe full replacement and steel structures overtop may prevent them from being called lifeline\nstructures. But once they are replaced, they can be considered lifelines.\nStaff Khan stated he does not have the full details yet, but they may be potential lifeline\nstructures once replaced.\nCommissioner Bertken explained that once the bridges are replaced they would be in accordance\nwith seismic standards and they should be lifeline structures.\nStaff Khan replied that should be true. He mentioned the multimodal circulation project at\nBroadway and Jackson Street and presented a brief overview of the project. He wanted to\nquickly describe the project since it was mentioned.\n4B.\nAppeal of All-Way Stop Control at Fourth Street/Santa Clara Avenue\nStaff Khan presented the staff report.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if crosswalks are located all the way around the intersection. She\nthen asked if there are advance-warning signs that say \"Slow School Crossing\" anywhere on\nSanta Clara Avenue.\nStaff Khan replied when they installed the two crosswalks, the intersection is only for the white\ncrosswalks since the distance is far away from the school. The yellow school crosswalks do not\nqualify for this location.\nCommissioner Bellows said she was thinking of a volunteer crossing guard plan, so she was\nhappy that Staff Khan mentioned the Adopt-a-Crosswalk Program. She mentioned when making\na midblock crossing on Park Street there is a flashing warning that pedestrians can hit to alert\napproaching vehicles. So, maybe the Safe Routes to School program could adopt something like\nthat since it is on a Safe Routes to School route.\nPage 6 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-04-25", "page": 7, "text": "Staff Khan stated yes the Rectangular-shaped Rapid Flash Beacons are used in many places like\nBerkeley. Staff is considering one on Fernside Boulevard, which is carrying 9,000 vehicles per\nday. His only concern is if the beacons were implemented on Santa Clara Avenue and 4th Street,\nthe bright lights would disturb homes in the residential neighborhood.\nCommissioner Bellows replied the lights would only be on during the day since that is when they\nwould have the most use.\nStaff Khan stated they would look into this.\nCommissioner Moehring mentioned that she loved the pedestrian signal lights and since it is a\nnarrower street it would require fewer lights.\nStaff Khan told the Commission that they could see the lights in action in Berkeley on Martin\nLuther King near Alcatraz. Overall, studies found a compliance rate of 95 percent of motorists\nstop for the beacons compared to the lighted crosswalk at 75-80 percent compliance.\nCommissioner Moehring said she understood everything that cannot be done and she wanted to\nknow what could be done.\nStaff Khan replied that staff could make the crosswalk more visible by installing crosshatching\nand they have done that in other places. The current signs are up to standard for color, visibility\nand reflection. Also, they can work with the police to install a Speed Traffic Trailer, which\nadvertizes motorists' speeds.\nCommissioner Vargas stated if stop signs cannot be erected what is possible without breaking\npolicy or law.\nStaff Khan stated that staff would look at the Rapid Flash Beacons because lighted crosswalks\nare quite expensive. The Rapid Flash Beacon has lower energy usage and could cost anywhere\nfrom $14,000-15,000. He would work with the school district and community to pursue grants to\nfund it, if the community wants it. He also mentioned that rumble strips receive noise complaints\nat night by the community and he does not recommend them placed in residential areas.\nCommissioner Miley mentioned that drivers often ignore feedback signs and enforcement is an\nimportant component. He wanted to know what is the City's liability if they install an\nunwarranted stop sign.\nStaff Khan stated there are certain things in state law that you cannot do. When installing stop\nsigns, the review analysis states five collisions must occur in the past 12 months that are\ncorrectable by a stop sign. He explained the presence of too many traffic controls without it\nbeing warranted, will eventually foster bad driving behavior by drivers ignoring stop signs.\nCommissioner Miley explained it was good to see the traffic counts in the staff report and he\nwanted to get a sense of the pedestrian volume.\nPage 7 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-04-25", "page": 8, "text": "Staff Khan replied the pedestrian counts are listed on page 2 on the 4th paragraph. When they\ncounted, there were 70 pedestrians and bicyclists in the morning and 79 pedestrians and bikes in\nthe afternoon.\nCommissioner Miley asked if the Safe Routes to School funding had enough funds to hire\ncrossing guards.\nStaff Khan replied the crossing guards are paid for by the police department. However, in the\nSafe Routes to School Plan, there is a Walking School Bus Program.\nCommissioner Miley asked what are the criteria for placing a crossing guard at the intersection.\nSergeant Simmons, Alameda Supervisor of Traffic Unit, explained the only requirement for\nlocating a crossing guard is that they be used for elementary school students only. Regarding the\nbudget, there are 24 crossing guards and that maximizes his budget. The guards are distributed to\n17 locations throughout the City and he does not think they have enough guards. If he were to\ndeploy a crossing guard at this location, that would take a guard away from one of his double\nstaffed positions. There are two Speed Traffic Trailers that were obtained through grant money\nand they are moving them throughout the City to make motorists aware. As for enforcement,\nthere is only one traffic officer. They have five police officers and because the situation of the\njails within the county they have to have the prisoners at North County Jail at 8 am, which means\ngetting them ready for transport at 7:30 am and that is the time most kids are going to school.\nUltimately, they are doing the best they can with what they have and they have seven officers on\nduty in the evening.\nCommissioner Moehring called for public comment.\nLisa Shannon, Haight Avenue resident, she has three children 5,8 and 11 years old who attend\nPatton Elementary and walk everyday. They cross Santa Clara Avenue and 4th Street in the\nmorning and the evening. Parents and children already walk together so a walking school bus is\nalready occurring. It seems that a City representative was able to survey the intersection for only\none day. However, the other days paint a picture that is quite different because there are\naccidents and near misses that commonly occur. First, two young girls were nearly struck by\na\nvehicle when crossing Santa Clara Avenue on their way to school. Secondly, on two occasions\nher children were nearly hit when crossing 4th Street. She understands that City costs play into\nthe decision, but having a potential lawsuit is worse.\nMary Jo Casey, Santa Clara Avenue resident, she wanted a stop sign to make the community\nsafer and prevent accidents. Since she lives so close to the intersection, she is able to see cars\ncross the intersection. She has lived in the house for nine months, works from home, and has\nwitnessed two accidents.\nLiz Warmerdam, Haight Avenue resident, has three children 15, 10 and 8 years old and they\ncross the intersection frequently in the morning. She presented a document outlining pictures of\nthe intersection to the Commission and spoke about the dangers of the street approach to the\nPage 8 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-04-25", "page": 9, "text": "intersection. She wanted staff to consider more actions then just a stop sign. She read the City's\nguidelines for a multi-way stop sign, located on the very last item # 4. The City guidelines are\nthe catchall and the City engineer can recommend and implement the best alternatives.\nCommissioner Moehring asked if the last picture was taken at 5th or 6th Street.\nLiz Warmerdam replied that it was taken at 6th Street and she took that because of the paddle\nand the yellow ladder markings because it is within 600 feet of a school and they draw white\nladder markings.\nLinda Preisendore, Santa Clara Avenue resident, she does not want the stop sign in front of her\nhouse because the sign would create noise and air pollution from the cars. Also, there use to be a\nbus stop near her house and the buses would stop to let people off and that made her window\nshake. She does not want Rapid Flash Beacons or any light control near the intersection because\nthat would cause a disturbance to her. On hot days, she likes to open her bay window and let in\nfresh air and with the stop sign, she would not be able to do it.\nSusan Campbell, 4th Street resident, she has a 7 and 9 year old. One day, her 9-year old\ndaughter and friend were walking behind her and they were almost hit by a car. Melanie\nShannon also witnessed the incident. Consequently, they do not walk to school anymore. So, she\nis asking for a stop sign.\nNoel Wise, Alameda resident, she has three children, but does not live in the West end. She has\nspent a lot of time on that street in the last 10 years and attempts to avoid the street because of its\nvisibility issue. She agreed with the mention of the City's guidelines because every City has such\nguidelines. She is not aware of any liability for erecting a stop sign if all the criteria were not\nmet. Finally, she believes if a stop sign cannot be erected, then remove the area as a school safe\nzone.\nMelanie Shannon, Appellant for this decision and part of the 300 residential block of Haight\nAvenue, stated this is a unique intersection because there are seven schools located around this\nintersection. She believes the sun glare causes dangerous driving and many people speed up\nbetween stop signs. Since a stop sign is located on 5th and 3rd Streets, 4th Street is the speed up\nzone. Finally, she wanted to ask about the process for next steps.\nCommissioner Moehring replied they are voting on the recommendation tonight.\nMelanie Shannon replied if the Commission votes against the stop sign, what could they do to\nensure the intersection is safe for their children.\nCommissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments from the Commission.\nCommissioner Miley asked if the Commission makes a recommendation based on staff's\nrecommendation and if the recommendation is negative what is the next step for the appellant.\nStaff Khan replied any person can appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council and the\nPage 9 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-04-25", "page": 10, "text": "City Council's decision could be appealed in court. There is a 10-day limit after the\nCommission's decision.\nCommissioner Bertken stated the crosswalks are along Santa Clara Avenue so there are no\ncrosswalks on 4th Street. He commented about the side distance and visibility issues.\nStaff Khan replied the City removed some parking when concerns were brought up in 2008 and\nthey installed a pedestrian crossing sign and improved the red curb where the bus stop was\nmentioned. Regarding visibility, if there is an additional need to remove more parking, than they\nare happy to work with the community.\nCommissioner Bertken stated he is raising the question because one of the public comments\nindicated that parked cars are so close to the intersection that the visibility is not adequate.\nAdditionally, one public comment said there were two accidents in the last 9 months. So, were\nthose incidents recorded.\nStaff Khan replied they use police recorded data and if the accident is not reported, it is not\nshown in the records.\nCommissioner Moehring commented on the sight distances. She lives in west Alameda and\ndrives on that street. The houses in west Alameda and at the corner are closer to the curb, so it\ndoes create a visibility issue because drivers cannot see around the house. She understands when\na stop sign is installed it creates more pollution, but her greatest concern is for safety. She\nbelieves if they have to construct white crosshatching and crosswalks then that should be done\nimmediately.\nCommissioner Sharma stated that the Commission might want to take the time to study the\noptions, instead of installing a stop sign right away.\nCommissioner Bertken said the Commission is supposed to act on the appeal and it would be\neasy if the department gave them specific actions to take that would show an increased level of\nsafety.\nStaff Khan replied staff will mark a ladder crosswalk that includes white lines to make it more\nvisible and instead of using the \"Slow School Xing\" on the street, they could mark it as\n\"Pedestrian Crossing.\" Also, they could remove on street parking, but that would require a notice\nsent to the community to solicit a response. Finally, the Speed Traffic Trailer also can be placed\nin the area.\nCommissioner Bellows stated that protected bulb outs would project pedestrians out more, while\nkeeping them safe.\nStaff Khan replied that bulb outs are great and they could look into it, but funding is an issue.\nCommissioner Bellows explained that she had reservations about the bulb outs unless bollards or\nsome type of safety mechanism protects pedestrians.\nPage 10 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-04-25", "page": 11, "text": "Staff Khan replied staff could look into painted bulb outs as well.\nCommissioner Vargas explained that the reminder of the number of schools around the\nintersection and the fact that there are several parks is important. Therefore, the Commission\nshould think about a four way stop because it is a unique intersection.\nCommissioner Moehring mentioned that the distance between 4th and 6th Streets bring up safety\nissues. Personally, she believes the solutions are inexpensive.\nStaff Khan replied when you make a change to the environment you might impact bicyclists\nbecause they do not like to see too many stops signs and Santa Clara Avenue is a bike route.\nCommissioner Bellows stated that bicyclists should also watch out for pedestrians so the stop\ncontrol could help as well.\nCommissioner Miley stated that he walked down that street almost everyday when in high school\nand understands the safety concerns. He hears a lot of consensus for a stepped approach. The\nstop sign would seem like a logical first step, but his concern is for the people who live on Santa\nClara Avenue and he does not know if the Commission is hearing from them about this route and\nintersection.\nStaff Khan replied staff noticed this appeal via USPS mail service.\nCommissioner Miley explained he would like a stepped approach and he is looking at the ladder\ncrosswalk and increasing the visibility and they can take if from there. He also mentioned that\nthe Commission could receive an update on traffic improvements or concerns to see if the stop\nsign is the next logical step.\nCommissioner Moehring asked if there is a particular time line to receive an update.\nStaff Khan replied there could be a 1-year review.\nCommissioner Moehring said a 3-month review would be better and she asked for Sergeant\nSimmons' opinion on whether crosshatching is an effective safety measure.\nSergeant Simmons replied anything that the City can do to paint warning signs on the street and\nprotect children is a benefit. The controls are just like signs so drivers who cross the path daily\ndo not see the signs after a while. The crosshatching does make it more visible, but the signage\nends up becoming commonplace.\nCommissioner Bertken mentioned by the time they do the painting it would be good to install\nSpeed Traffic Trailer as well.\nStaff Khan replied staff would coordinate with Sergeant Simmons.\nPage 11 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-04-25", "page": 12, "text": "Commissioner Miley said there seems to be a very active community in the neighborhood. Since\nstaff mentioned a volunteer crossing guard, he asked the public if someone was interested in\nreceiving training as a volunteer.\nMelanie Shannon asked the Commission to vote on the stop sign first and if the vote does not go\nthrough then present alternative options.\nCommissioner Miley recommended that the Commission conduct a stepped approach looking at\ninstalling the ladder crossing, pedestrian signage and Speed Traffic Trailer. However, he asked\nthe community if they would like to have a volunteer cross guard.\nMelanie Shannon replied the community is very active and there are 21 kids on their 300 Haight\nAvenue block. They like the idea of a crossing guard with a stop sign, but to commit parents to\nvolunteer everyday is difficult.\nSergeant Simmons stated that he is not opposed to a volunteer cross guard, but if the police train\ncivilian staff on City streets, then the City could incur a liability.\nStaff Khan replied there is a liability waiver that parents would sign off, but parents feel they are\npicking up the liability. The Safe Routes to School Program offers other effective programs such\nas the Walking School Bus.\nStaff Payne explained that Melanie Shannon spoke about already doing a Walking School Bus.\nThe Walking School Bus is a group of kids walking with families and families take turns doing\nit. It is safer because they are a big visible group. She works with the Countywide Safe Routes to\nSchool Program. There are four schools regularly involved in the program, but Patton School is\nnot one of them. So, she urged the public to gather the Patton School's community to work\ntogether to receive support from the Countywide Safe Routes to School Program.\nCommissioner Bellows stated that an 85th percentile of traffic is high and there is a long stopping\ndistance when vehicles are moving above 25 mph. Her inclination is vote for the stop sign.\nCommissioner Bellows moved the Commission to approve the appeal and deny the Public Works\nDirector's decision. Commissioner Vargas seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.\n5.\nStaff Communications\nBike to Work Day - Thursday, May 10, 2012\nThe City is working with Bike Alameda to erect five energizer stations around town. The month\nof May is also Bike Month. This year the Public Works Department has a team of peddlers\ncalled the Public Works Pedalers so she invites other teams to join them. Also, on Thursday,\nMay 10 is the Shoreline Drive/Westline Drive Proposed Bike Lane Project Public Meeting at\nLum School at 7 p.m.\nPage 12 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-04-25", "page": 13, "text": "Estuary Crossing Shuttle Updated\nStaff applied for funding, but they have not heard about the outcome yet. They applied for 80\npercent funding for the years 2013-2016. The good news is that they are still in the running for\n50 percent, but not for 80 percent.\nChange of Southbound Bus Stop on Park Street at Clement Avenue\nA big tree is getting in the way of the bus stop. The City will not cut down the tree, but will\nmove the bus stop from the near side to the far side of the intersection to avoid the tree. They\nnotified all parties concerned and their response was positive. So, staff hopes to make the change\nin May.\nNew Freedom Grant - Accessible Pedestrian Signal Locations\nStaff included the exact nine locations in the Transportation Commission's packet. They\nreceived federal funding and they are waiting for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission\nto sign the necessary documents. Once the documents are signed, staff will conduct public\noutreach and bring the topic to the Commission.\nMonday, May 28, 2012 College of Alameda 7 p.m. on the Webster Street SMART Corridor\nProject Public Meeting\nStaff Khan explained there were questions asked about the project from Planning Board member\nJohn Knox White and the answers are included in the Commission's staff report.\nFuture Meeting Agenda Items:\nThere is a special Meeting scheduled on Thursday, May 3rd at 7 pm about the Gibbons\nDrive/Northwood and Southwood Drives Intersection at City Hall.\nRegular scheduled May 23rd meeting:\nBroadway Jackson Project\nCapital Improvement Program before it goes to the City Council for their approval\nCall for Projects: Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program\nGoing to have Transportation Commission meetings every other month after May\nThe July 25 meeting will include: the Miller Sweeney Bridge project, Alameda Point\nTransit Plan Review, the Shoreline/Westline public meeting update, Draft Prioritized\nTransportation List, and the Quarterly report.\nCommissioner Bellows asked Staff Payne if the City has received funding for the Shoreline\nproject.\nStaff Payne replied yes they have.\nPage 13 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-04-25", "page": 14, "text": "Commissioner Miley asked if they are still waiting to hear back on the grant from the Grand\nStreet Mid-block Crossing at Wood School Safe Routes to School.\nStaff Payne replied yes it would take about three months or SO.\nCommissioner Miley asked if it is possible to get a list of the future agenda in their packet.\nStaff Payne replied that she would talk to Staff Khan about that because sometimes things\nchange and it would be good to have flexibility.\nCommissioner Miley stated that it would be good to see the potential future agenda items.\nStaff Khan replied that they would incorporate it into the next meeting\n6.\nAnnouncements\nNone.\n7.\nAdjournment\n10:13 pm\nPage 14 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-04-25.pdf"}