{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-07-25", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission Minutes\nWednesday, July 25, 2012\nCommissioner Thomas Bertken called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nThomas G. Bertken\nMichele Bellows\nChristopher Miley\nSandy Wong\nJesus Vargas\nEric Schatmeier\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nCommissioner Vargas made a motion to pull item 4B from the consent calendar and to present\nthis item first under \"New Business\" since there are members of the public that would like to talk\nabout that item. Commissioner Miley seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\nMatthew Fitzgerald announced that the Alameda Bicycle opened for operation in 1969 and his\nfamily took over in 1987. His family business is good small business, which contributes to the\ncommunity. If anyone has any questions, please contact him at Alameda Bicycle Sales, Repairs,\nand Rentals at (510) 522-0070 or pay a visit at 1522 Park Street Alameda, CA.\n4.\nConsent Calendar\n4A.\nDraft Meeting Minutes - June 27, 2012\nCommissioner Miley made a correction on page 7(10) under \"Commissioner Miley's comments\"\nit should be corrected to say CBS, such as Outdoor Clear Channel.\nCommissioner Bellows made a correction on page 3(10) under \"Commissioner Bellows suggested\nthat the Island Drive/Robert Davey Jr. Drive traffic-calming project could use a pedestrian\nPage 1 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-07-25", "page": 2, "text": "scramble.\" She actually only asked if that was possible and wanted clarification.\nStaff Payne explained the structure of the Consent Calendar. The chair would ask if anyone\nwould like to move an item from the consent portion of the agenda. The chair then would make a\nmotion to approve the consent calendar. Afterwards, the chair opens the floor for any questions\nor discussions on items remaining on the calendar. After reviewing the remaining items, the chair\nwould ask for any objections. If none are offered, the remaining items are considered passed.\n4D.\n2012 Transportation Expenditure Plan Fact Sheet\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked about the transportation expenditure plan and he wanted to\nknow more about the status of it. He felt if the transportation expenditure plan appears to\nincrease operating funds, he would like to know how that would affect the City of Alameda.\nThus, he wanted to know more about it.\nStaff Khan said the transportation expenditure plan has been finalized and approved by the\nCounty Board of Supervisors, and will go to voters for approval in November. AC Transit will\nreceive a significant amount of money for operations and maintenance. Currently, not much has\nbeen done about how they will use that money. He did explain that Commissioner Schatmeier's\npoint was valid, and he would talk about the next steps and that should be discussed with the\nInteragency Liaison Committee.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied that he was most interested in the transportation expenditure's\nplan to increase AC Transit's operating funding by 100% to increase and restore services. He felt\nthat increasing the operating subsidy means essentially doubling transit service or buses running\nevery 30 minutes will be increased to every 15 minutes. He hopes for a process in which the City\ncould participate so they get their share of expansion money even if it is not specifically\nidentified for Alameda.\nStaff Khan stated that if the Measure B passes that will bring other money to the City. The City\nestimates that the plan will bring $240 million of potential project funding to Alameda.\nCommissioner Bertken made a motion to approve the consent calendar. Commissioner Vargas\nseconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0; 3 abstentions.\n5.\nNew Business\n5A.1 Shoreline Drive / Westline Drive Proposed Bike Lane Project - Community Meeting #2\nSummary of Comments\nStaff Payne presented a summary of the report.\nCarol Gottstein, an Alameda resident, stated that she grew up near Shoreline Drive and is a third\ngeneration Alamedan. She could not attend the first meeting, but was interested in attending the\nsecond meeting. She noticed in the Transportation Commission minutes that Staff Payne heard\nPage 2 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-07-25", "page": 3, "text": "more from the neighborhood and bicyclists than other residents. Additionally, she thought there\nwould be break-out sessions, but when she came, she was handed a nametag and sat in an\nassigned seat. She also was unable to elect her group's spokeperson. The group had to select one\nout of six alternatives for the plan and every table, which seemed odd, selected the same\nalternative. She also found that someone at her table lived in Oakland. She felt that the\nparticipants were manipulated to respond in a particular way. Ultimately, she wanted to make\nsure that cyclists from out of town are not planning routes for their benefit and that all group\nattendees understand the meaning of cycle tracks and what that entails.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, explained that he\ndoes not live on Shoreline Drive, but lives in the mid island area. He has driven, bicycled and\ntaught bicycle safety along Shoreline Drive since 1977. He tried to ease Ms. Gottstein's concerns\nby letting her know that there were not people stacked outside or inside Alameda to respond in\nparticular way. He felt the reason the cycle track was chosen was because anyone who is\nconcerned with children and new cyclists riding along the street could clearly see that the cycle\ntrack was the safest option for providing bicyclists with access to the shoreline. He personally\ndoes not like cycle tracks, but allowing cyclists to ride safely on the street is crucial. Furthermore,\nhe noted that Crown Beach is a regional resource and not the property of the City.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff if the information that was just reviewed and commented on\nbe included in the final input. Additionally, he wanted to know if there would be later public\nmeetings in the fall and if so is a schedule available on how this will play out.\nStaff Payne replied that staff is taking what they learned from this meeting in late June and they\nare coming up with a draft plan for this route. Staff will present the draft alternative to the\nparticipants in the fall. The meeting date is not scheduled at this time. The draft plan will go to\nthe Transportation Commission after the public meeting in the fall, and also will go to the\nPlanning Board and then the City Council.\nStaff Khan replied from staff's perspective is to work with the community to find the\ncommunity's needs and priorities. So, no decisions will be made about the project design until\nconsensus is made.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied that he attended the meeting. He was impressed by how the\ncommunity received all the comments and was engaged in the process. The community members\nwere collegial, and the meeting was well run. He was told by an acquaintance that Shoreline\nDrive was a faster alternative than Otis Drive because there are fewer traffic lights and stop\nsigns. He questioned whether the community around Shoreline Drive wants this street to be a\nthrough street to avoid Otis Drive or do they want to divert people to Otis Drive. So, the main\ndiscussion should be how does the community want Shoreline Drive to operate and that should\nbe a central goal for this process.\nCommissioner Miley stated that he also attended the meeting and as someone who grew up in\nAlameda his group was well run. Regarding the cycle track, the group came to a consensus that\nthe cycle track was the superior alternative. He would be interested to see how staff interprets the\ncomments and refines the alternatives and plan.\nPage 3 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-07-25", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Wong asked staff how many people attended the last meeting.\nStaff Payne stated that close to 100 attendees were present at both the first and second public\nmeetings.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if the meeting summary reflected the attendees and if it is possible\nin the next meeting to see where attendees reside. Also, he would like to know if attendees are\njoggers, bicyclists or both.\nStaff Khan replied from staff's perspective, they do not want to separate the community by\ngeography, especially as the last speaker noted, it is a regional beach and part of the countywide\nbicycle plan not just the city bicycle plan.\n5A.\nElection of Transportation Commission Chair and Vice Chair\nStaff Payne presented the summary of election conditions.\nCommissioner Bertken opened the discussion for nomination of the new Chair and Vice Chair.\nCommissioner Miley nominated Commissioner Vargas as the Chair. Commission Bellows\nseconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\nCommissioner Bellows nominated Commissioner Miley as Vice Chair. Commissioner Vargas\nseconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\nCommissioner Vargas introduced Commissioner Schatmeier, and asked him to give a brief\nsummary of his experience.\nCommissioner Schatmeier explained that he was one of the original Transportation Commission\nmembers and served for 11 years. He worked as the Planning Manager for Caltrain from 1980 to\n1992. He then went on to work at Caltrans Headquarters in Sacramento as a director in the\nRailroad Division. In 2006, he became the program manager for the Transportation Authority of\nMarin, and he is now retired. He recently got involved with the Commission because he was\ninterested in the AC Transit Transbay OX Line and the fact that AC Transit disallowed local\nservice to passengers on the bus. The agency made the change without coming to the Interagency\nLiaison Committee and the Transportation Commission first, and he thought that process was\nassumed as a standard operating procedure.\nPage 4 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-07-25", "page": 5, "text": "5B.\nProposed Yellow Crosswalk on San Antonio Avenue in Front of Franklin Elementary\nSchool\nStaff Khan presented the staff report.\nCommissioner Vargas explained that Alameda resident Alan Ta submitted a letter giving\nsuggestions on the location of the crosswalk. He then called for public comment.\nPage Tomblin, parent of a student at Franklin Elementary School, thanked the Public Works and\nParks and Recreations Department staff, nearby residents and Alameda School District for\nworking with the PTA and parents to develop ways to access the park safely. The Franklin\nElementary School recreational space is small SO better access to the park would be helpful.\nKen Carvalho, Alameda resident and Franklin Elementary School PTA, has worked with the\nFranklin community to address the access and safety issues for two years. The organization\nworked with the City to produce a written statement to have the City partner with them to make\nthe park accessible. He explained that a Joint Use Agreement was established between the City\nand the school district. He said that there used to be a mid-block crosswalk at this same location,\nand he would like to see it restored. Since there is no grass on the school's playground, the kids\nneed the park to play their sports. He hoped that the Transportation Commission would approve\nthe project.\nJon Spangler explained that he became a volunteer at Franklin Elementary School while serving\non the original Transportation Commission. He became the crowd control supervisor for\nkindergarten to fifth graders. This effort led to developing one of two Safe Routes to School\nmaps in the City of Alameda. He also found out that San Antonio Avenue was quite busy with\ntraffic since it did not have stop signs compared to Encinal Avenue. He would like the crosswalk\nrestored, and recommends that the Commission approve the project.\nCarol Gottstein, lives on Grand Street, and she went to the community meeting. She does not\nbelieve a particular direction was taken at the meeting. She sees the new plan has cluttered signs\nand painted striping. She read what Mr. Ta wrote, and she believes that he has a lot of good\npoints. The amount of time that is being saved is seconds and does not change access. When she\nwas a kid, she was taught to cross at the corners, which still should be applicable today.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the discussion to the Commission.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if staff wants the Commission to approve the staff\nrecommendation tonight.\nStaff Khan replied that they are asking for an action on the staff recommendation.\nCommissioner Bellows said that she was happy to see such a collaborative effort between the\nschool, Public Works Department staff, the school district and the PTA. She lives a block away\nfrom the area, and watches the kids go to the park. She also reflected on wheelchair bound people\nand the fact that they have to go all the way around to access the park. So, she supported the\nPage 5 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-07-25", "page": 6, "text": "project.\nCommissioner Bertken asked if the crosswalk design includes a handicap portion of the sidewalk.\nStaff Khan replied yes.\nCommissioner Wong questioned whether there were plans to include a crossing guard at the\ncrosswalk during the daytime or after school.\nStaff Khan replied no, there were no plans for a crossing guard. The intention of the crosswalk is\nto enhance pedestrian crossings. The school is taking the lead to improve pick up and drop off\noperations. Staff recommended to the school that the crosswalk should be addressed in\nconjunction with the drop off and pickup. He mentioned that there is a crossing guard at the Paru\nStreet and Encinal Avenue intersection.\nCommissioner Miley asked if staff had a chance to review the letter by Alan Ta, and if staff could\nexplain some of the points made in the letter such as line spacing and letter heights on the street.\nHe also asked staff to explain why they are moving forward with the proposal.\nStaff Khan replied that he read the letter and when the department decides to install traffic\ncontrols on a street the City must adhere to the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control\nDevices (MUTCD). There are different criteria for different items to be installed. If the manual\nsays \"shall,\" then the City cannot deviate because it is the state law.\nCommissioner Miley understood that not every street is the same and so the MUTCD provides\nsome discretion to accommodate particular circumstances and thus improving access to students\nin the park.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Staff Khan if the recommendations section of the staff memo should\nbe amended to include \"and watch for one year\" or is the project a permanent implementation.\nStaff Khan replied even if the street is later closed, the crosswalk will still be valid and\npedestrians could continue to use it.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Staff Khan if the placement of the paddles was something that the\nCity would monitor.\nStaff Khan explained that the City staff could not go out every morning SO it is a partnership. He\nthen stated that having the school involved makes a big difference because education to improve\npedestrian access is crucial for all school zones.\nCommissioner Wong made a motion to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Bertken\nseconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\nPage 6 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-07-25", "page": 7, "text": "5C.\nDraft Regional Transit Access Study (RTAS) - Overview of Study Corridors, Transit\nDemand, and Service Examples\nStaff Khan presented the staff report.\nCommissioner Vargas called for public comment.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident and local employee, was confused about the public comment\nformat because during Commission Moehring's term, the Commission discussed the item before\nthe public would comment. Therefore, he was unable to comment on the Commission's thoughts\nbefore coming up to speak. He asked the staff to change the spelling of \"corridors\" on the top of\nevery page of the report. Additionally, he disliked the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) plan because it is\nnot a good fit for the city. He explained that Eugene, Oregon may have extra space for a\ndedicated lane, but Alameda is not able to dedicate a lane on Atlantic Avenue because it has two\nlanes. He also did not believe that the proposed fare collection system would speed up the\nservice. He felt that the gains are not what the residents want. He would rather have a well-\norganized bus system, not a bus rapid transit system. He wants City staff to clarify the gains of\nthe bus rapid transit system.\nCommissioner Vargas called for the Commission to comment.\nCommissioner Miley asked about the timeline and when staff would present the final draft report\nto the Commission. He also wanted to know if this draft plan would go to the Planning Board\nand City Council.\nStaff Khan responded that staff's intention is to create two to three more documents to go through\nthe Transportation Commission. The plan would include a detailed analysis. The grant has an\nOctober 2014 deadline, so they have some leeway. The goal is to process the study, and move\nforward especially since the Alameda Point is moving forward. Staff may go to the Planning\nBoard in the meantime to move the process concurrently with the Transportation Commission\nand then present the report to the City Council sometime in summer or fall of 2013.\nCommissioner Miley understood that the plan was in the early process, but he was interested to\nsee how the Bay Area's first BRT will function in the east bay. Thus, he wanted to know what\nthe timeline was for implementation and service.\nStaff Khan explained that in terms of the timing, the East Bay BRT is a little bit ahead of them\nbecause Oakland is in the Environmental Impact Report phase. He also mentioned that the\nproject should link into Oakland.\nCommissioner Miley said the East Bay BRT had federal funds identified for the project. He\nexplained the proposed plan does have some natural synergies there. So, he questioned how the\nidea of BRT would work when he understood it as a system with dedicated lanes. Lastly, he\ncommented on some of the travel modes in place of work numbers where you see big numbers\nfor Oakland, San Francisco, Alameda and a lump for Alameda County. He would like to know if\nstaff has data that shows that the dispersion throughout central and southern Alameda County. He\nPage 7 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-07-25", "page": 8, "text": "wondered if there were any other natural synergies in terms of job centers throughout the county.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked about the corridors (one in red and blue) depicted for BRT and\nRapid Bus. He was curious about beginning the line at Alameda Point and going to Fruitvale\nBART station for both cases. On the aerial shot, there is a red line going through the tube to\nOakland and another aerial shot of the blue line showing that as well. He wanted clarification on\nwhat was being depicted there and if it was intended to work in conjunction.\nStaff Khan explained that the BRT would be brought before the Commission in September after\nfurther analysis. Staff reviewed the two corridors because the General Plan included the need to\nconnect Alameda Point with the 12th Street BART and another connection to the Fruitvale\nBART Station.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that when he was originally presented with this information,\nthere was a study on the AC Transit Line 51 and how that line could be sped up. He does not\nknow what happened to that presentation, but there was talk to convert Line 51 to a rapid bus.\nSo, he wondered if the two corridors would supplement Line 51 or replace it.\nStaff Khan responded that they have been talking about Line 51 for both Berkeley and Alameda.\nAC Transit received $10 million from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) three\nmonths ago from their Transit Performance Initiative Program funded from federal sources.\nAlameda is analyzing Line 51 to see how to reduce delays along the corridor. Also, AC Transit is\ninterested in analyzing whether the corridor should continue on Santa Clara Avenue or move to\nLincoln Avenue, but the analysis will be discussed in September.\nCommissioner Schatmeier commented that the BRT is further away from the center part of the\nisland and essentially located on the north end of the island along the Beltway and Clement\nAvenue. He felt that should be acknowledged and discussed later. Furthermore, an analysis of the\ncost and benefits from each alternative should be discussed.\nStaff Khan responded that the red and blue lines presented in the report are just the corridors and\nthey do not represent identified BRT or Rapid Bus service.\nCommissioner Schatmeier explained that staff has a lot of statistics on ridership and behavior in\nthe City and they make decisions on deploying transportation not on transit demand, but by\nfunding availability. So, when analyzing the cost and benefits, he would like staff to be cautious\nand recognize the limitations of the travel model so that they recognize the benefits that may not\nbe measured numerically or by the travel model.\nStaff Khan responded that inclusion of Transportation Demand Management and enhanced\ntransit service measures could double the base line numbers based on the data.\nCommissioner Schatmeier exclaimed that the numbers are standardized and they do not\nrecognize the ideas that he was talking about.\nCommissioner Vargas said the plan does not point out Bay Farm since it is a City of Alameda\nPage 8 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-07-25", "page": 9, "text": "study. He does not know if it needed to be included and that is a question for staff. He felt that a\nbackground of the General Plan and Senate Bill SB 375 should be addressed and land use\npolicies should be discussed in conjunction with the Planning Board. He also addressed the need\nto reference other BRT projects in regards to number of miles, cost and ridership in future\ndocuments.\nStaff Khan spoke about the Bay Farm area. The funding that the City received was intended to\nconnect Alameda Point to the BART station. However, the analysis could lead staff and the\nCommission to discussions on the Long Range Transit Plan.\nCommissioner Bertken commented that it was worthwhile to bring up that staff had a diagram of\nthe route, which includes the ferry terminal, but the corridor stopped at the edge of the base. He\nmentioned that there is discussion to have a transit center at the terminal. So, as a matter of\npresentation, the corridors should end where the new terminal will be placed. Also, he pointed\nout that there would be 300 new ferry passengers due to Alameda Point development. Yet, there\nis no place within the report to show that there are close to 700 trips today across the Bay to San\nFrancisco. Lastly, he asked staff if the consultants that were used would be on board for the entire\nstudy.\nStaff Khan explained that Nelson Nygaard would be on board for the entire plan.\nCommissioner Bertken said Nelson Nygaard did a wonderful job putting the information together\nas an introduction to where we stand today, but further discussion is needed. He mentioned that\nthe lines that are shown in the report are not where the population lies. They might be good\nstreets from a physical standpoint, but for attracting riders who may want a relatively short\nwalking distance, they may not be.\n6.\nStaff Communications\nOn-going Traffic Calming Projects\nStaff Khan mentioned that staff held a community meeting at Fernside Blvd about the traffic-\ncalming project at the end of June, but the meeting was not well attended given that it was a\nholiday season.\nComplete Streets Policy Requirement\nStaff will bring information about a proposed Complete Street Policy to the Commission at the\nSeptember meeting. The policy requirement is coming from the following two different sources:\n1) the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) recently approved the One Bay Area\nGrant and the funding is coming from federal sources. So every jurisdiction should have a\ncomplete street policy adopted by early 2013, and 2) the Alameda County Transportation\nCommission (ACTC) has a Complete Street requirement in their funding agreement that the City\nsigned and must adhere to in order to receive Measure B funds by June 30, 2013. One advantage\nfor the City is that they recently updated their Transportation Element in the General Plan.\nPage 9 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-07-25", "page": 10, "text": "Draft Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans\nStaff Payne explained that ACTC has issued the Draft Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans\nand they are on their website at www.alamedactc.org. The deadline for public comment is this\nFriday, July 27th, but they should be flexible about receiving comments after the deadline.\nAlameda CTC Planning and Programming Update\nStaff Khan explained that schedules for funding were made available, and the City must adhere to\nthe deadlines. Staff will continually inform the Commission about what is happening at the\nACTC.\nPotential Future Meeting Agenda Items\nStaff Payne explained that the next meeting will take place Wednesday, September 26th and\nshould include the following:\n-\nThe Quarterly Report\n-\nComplete Streets Policy\n-\nDraft Prioritized Transportation List\n-\nRegional Transit Access Study\n7.\nAnnouncements/ Public Comments\nCommissioner Schatmeier commented about the AC Transbay Line OX and that the item was not\non this agenda. He wanted to acknowledge the passing of Cory LaVigne, Director of Service\nDevelopment and Planning at AC Transit. He knew him professionally, and he thought he was a\nfine man. He hoped that the Line OX item would be on the September meeting agenda.\nStaff Khan acknowledged that Cory LaVigne's sudden passing and it impacted City's transit\ntimeline for the Line OX item.\nJim Strehlow wanted to speak after the Commissioners' comments about agenda item 5C. He\nunderstood that there was a discussion of having a circulator bus traverse through Alameda Point.\nHe would like to know when they are going to discuss the Beltline because the property would be\nused instead of Atlantic Avenue or Pacific Avenue. Moreover, he would like to know when will\nthe area be developed and when will they have access to it.\nStaff Khan responded that the Beltline property has been transferred to the City and a portion of\nthe property is going to be used for the BRT.\nJon Spangler explained that the BRT proposal looked good to him and since he once lived in\nEugene, he was glad to see that area increase their transit service. His reason for speaking was to\nremind the Commission that Saturday, August 18th from 11 am to 8 pm the East Bay Bicycle\nCoalition would hold Pedal Fest at Jack London Square. More information can be found at\nhttp://pedalfestjacklondon.com/. Also, he mentioned during the month of August, BART will\nPage 10 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-07-25", "page": 11, "text": "have its first pilot project to eliminate the bicycle blackout periods. For the five Fridays in\nAugust, bicyclists can take their bicycle on any BART train at anytime of the day.\nMatthew Fitzgerald announced a Pancake Breakfast on Sunday, July 29 from 9 am to 12 noon at\nFire Station #1, 2401 Encinal Drive.\nMichael John Torrey, representing The People of the City, explained that a lot of people are\nlooking for the bus circulator at Alameda Point, especially for people who want to visit the USS\nHornet. Also, many elderly residents live in Alameda and he would like a circulator to pick up\npassengers between Webster Street and the ferry terminal. Line 31 only stops at Ranger Street\nand not at the ferry terminal.\n8.\nAdjournment\n9:19 pm\nPage 11 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf"}