{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-07-22", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission\nNovember 18, 2015\nItem 4B\nAction\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes\nWednesday July 22, 2015\nCommissioner Michele Bellows called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00\np.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nMichele Bellows (Chair)\nEric Schatmeier (Vice Chair)\nChristopher Miley\nThomas G. Bertken\nMichael Hans\nMembers Absent:\nGregory Morgado\nJesus Vargas\nStaff Present:\nStaff Patel, Transportation Engineer\nBob Haun, Interim Assistant City Manager\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\nCommission Bellows asked for a moment of silence for Dennis Harry Stone who passed\naway on July 8 and owned Stone Cyclery.\nBob Haun stated that the changes of staffing to the Commission include Gail Payne\nmoving to take the initial lead on the City's transportation study. He explained that the\nstudy was requested by the City Council to look at Transportation Demand Associations\n(TDA) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs around the island. He\nwent on to say that there will eventually be one TDM program for the entire island.\nDirection was given to staff in January to begin the study but it languished for about six\nmonths. Gail Payne is on loan to the Planning Department and will be there for at least\nPage 1 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-07-22", "page": 2, "text": "the next six months to get the study off the ground. He anticipates that the study will last\nfor a couple of years and the results will be reported back to the City Council. He said\nGail Payne will attend almost every single Commission meeting to present the tasks\nthat she is working on, which is developing the scope of work and the RFP for the\nconsultant which he anticipates will be able to be presented at the September 23rd\nmeeting. Moreover, the Commission will be able to weigh in on the information\npresented. He said he will support Staff Patel who came back to staff the Commission.\nHowever, he mentioned that given the lack of staffing for the next six months and\ndepending on where Gail Payne will be placed permanently staff will be fairly restricted\non what they can do and what they can staff. Yet, staff will support the Commission and\nthe Interagency Liaison Committee (ILC) with AC Transit.\nCommissioner Miley said he looked forward to having Gail Payne present to the\nCommission as the process moves forward.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked Bob Haun how he saw this fitting into or\nsupplementing the Transportation Element (TE) of the General Plan.\nBob Haun replied that was yet to be determined and he was not sure if the study would\ndrive changes to the TE. However, the City Council will be very involved in the study.\nHe also said they will generally try to change Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) travel,\nreview the ingress and egress of the island and try to improve those routes.\nCommissioner Bertken asked about the role the Commission would play in the study\nand what would be the ultimate relationship with the Planning Board.\nBob Haun replied the Planning Board would have a lot less input than the Commission\nand although Gail Payne was assigned to the Planning Department, this is not a\nplanning function necessarily. He said they have not discussed who Gail Payne will\nreport to although she will probably report to the Planning Board. He explained that the\ngeneral feeling within the City is that the Planning Department started this because\nthere was a large report on transportation that began with Jennifer Ott and Andrew\nThomas. Therefore, since they initiated and have ownership of the study then the\nnatural direction would be for the Planning Department to complete the study.\nCommissioner Miley stated that it would be useful to have the chair of the\nTransportation Commission speak with the chair of the Planning Board to schedule a\njoint meeting at some point about this issue.\nBob Haun said he suspected that at some point there will be a joint meeting because\nthere will be a development portion of the study including how to handle the additional\ntraffic from the developments.\nCommissioner Bertken stated that if the development was a given as a supposed to\nconstrained by transportation, then part of the study will be dealt with where the TDM\napproach would be worked out along with the development.\nPage 2 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-07-22", "page": 3, "text": "Bob Haun replied that development was not a given because they do have some\noptions on the future of development. He explained that some things do not have\noptions, but with the development parcels on the books now they have somewhat of an\noption. Therefore, he said that may come back up for discussion about where they want\nto insert instances of having discretionary approval.\nLouie Krevnovski, Alameda resident, stated that he lives on Central Avenue and Ballena\nBoulevard and he felt reducing Central Avenue from four lanes to two lanes will cause\ncongestion and accidents because vehicles stop at the right-hand lane quite frequently\nand there is high turning activity from Central Avenue onto Webster Street. He also\nexplained that vehicles will have to pass the stopped cars on the left turn lane and that\nwill cause congestion and accidents. He suggested that the City conduct a one day\ntraffic study by closing the two center lanes with left turns allowed. This will show you\nthe effect it would have on traffic.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked Louie Krevnovski if he lives near Central and\nWebster.\nLouie Krevnovski replied he lives on Central Avenue and Ballena Boulevard and passes\nthat area often. He said when he drives west on Central Avenue and turns onto Webster\nStreet there is always congestion because motorists are trying to turn right, but cannot\nbecause pedestrians constantly enter the crosswalk. He went on to say that currently\ncars can get around stopped vehicles in the left turn lane, but if there is only one lane\ntraffic will back up a long way. His concern is that there will be a lot of congestion that is\nnot foreseen by discussion.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda Resident, stated that while riding his bicycle around the city of\nOakland from Alameda he noticed the following activities that could affect the city of\nAlameda: 1. A four to five story development is being built at Park Street right across\nthe bridge and he did not remember the project or potential traffic implications being\ndiscussed at past Transportation Commission meetings. So, he wanted to know if that\nwas included in past traffic studies.\nCommissioner Bellows asked Jim Strehlow if he was speaking about the study for the\nCaltrans 23rd/29th Avenue Overcrossing Project.\nJim Strehlow replied he did not remember the project being discussed and he would like\nto know if that development was included in any previous study and if the city of\nOakland had to conduct an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with Alameda.\nCommissioner Hans replied he did not think so because the project will be a senior\nliving area and was advertised at the Alameda Theater.\nCommissioner Bellows replied that the project was advertised at the theater, but she did\nnot remember discussing the project. However, she would look into it.\nJim Strehlow referred to the High Street on ramp going from High Street to the on ramp\nPage 3 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-07-22", "page": 4, "text": "at\nI-880 headed northbound and westbound. He said there use to be a left-hand turn\nsignal and once the signal was done and motorists were stopped at the light they could\nstill make a left-hand turn. However, with the new signal it is a left-hand only turn, so\nwhen the signal is green motorists cannot make a left hand turn. He felt vehicles are\ntrapped at the left-hand turn and he wondered who made that decision.\nCommissioner Bellows replied Caltrans operates those signals if it relates to the\nfreeway.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied Jim Strehlow's comment was well taken because the\ninterchange is a disaster since it has been reconstructed.\nCommissioner Bellows replied she would talk to the staff at Caltrans to see what could\nhappen.\nCommissioner Miley seconded Jim Strehlow's comment and said the interchange never\nreally worked and may be worse now.\nCommissioner Bellows felt the interchange was broader now.\nCommissioner Miley said constructing two left turn lanes or a split left may have been\nbrought up at a previous Commission meeting to push more traffic through. However,\nhe felt something should be done to improve the functionality of the interchange and he\nhoped that staff will continue to push Caltrans to improve the functionality of the\ninterchange.\nJim Strehlow stated that the last issue he noticed was at San Leandro Boulevard when\nturning left onto High Street and into Alameda on the northwest corner. He saw a sign\nthat reads City of Alameda, and it is in bad shape. He wondered who is responsible for\nthe sign's condition.\n3. A. Transportation Commission Meeting: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 7\np.m.\n4.\nConsent Calendar\n4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - March 25,\n2015\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve the minutes of March 25, 2015. Commissioner\nBertken seconded the minutes. The motion was approved 5-0.\n4.B. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - May 27,\n2015\nPage 4 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-07-22", "page": 5, "text": "Commissioner Miley stated that within the minutes Commissioner Hans was shown to\nbe present and absent. Since, Commissioner Miley could not remember if\nCommissioner Hans was present he called for the minutes to be postponed.\nCommissioner Bellows made a motion to postpone the approval of the May 27, 2015\nminutes until further review.\n5.\nNew Business\n5.A. Review AC Transit's Draft Comprehensive Operations Analysis Study\nStaff Patel introduced Robert Del Rosario, AC Transit Director of Service Development,\nto present the report.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked Robert Del Rosario about the proposed route that\nwould increase service on Otis Drive and Shoreline Boulevard and is currently served\nby Route 20 with 30-minute headways. He wanted to know if the proposed route would\nbe staggered with the Route 20, so one or most of them would create 15-minute\nheadways.\nRobert Del Rosario replied yes. He explained that the area on Otis Drive, from Park\nStreet to Webster Street, would contain two routes that are 30 minutes staggered\nagainst each other creating 15 minute headways.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked Robert Del Rosario would there still be 15-minute\nservice along Park Street provided by the Routes 20 and 21. However, the half hour\nheadways would be along High Street.\nRobert Del Rosario replied yes.\nCommissioner Miley asked Robert Del Rosario for the total number of double decker\nbuses purchased by AC Transit.\nRobert Del Rosario replied 20 buses to start with.\nCommissioner Hans asked Robert Del Rosario if the buses would fit in the tube.\nRobert Del Rosario replied yes.\nCommissioner Bertken asked Robert Del Rosario if there would be any problems with\nthe double decker buses in the tunnel.\nRobert Del Rosario replied there should be no problems and the bus should fit in the\ntube where the bus height is 13 feet and six inches.\nCommissioner Bertken stated that there is also a limit on the side road at the Yerba\nPage 5 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-07-22", "page": 6, "text": "Buena Tunnel.\nRobert Del Rosario replied AC Transit staff tested the limit and brought a bus over there\nin February and reviewed the buffer.\nCommissioner Bertken asked Robert Del Rosario about providing weekend service\nsince everyone is trying to get people out of their cars.\nRobert Del Rosario stated that staff is looking at the cost and pacing themselves to see\nwhat ridership demand looks like. He explained that if funding became available staff\ncould look at weekend service.\nCommissioner Bertken replied access off the island on the weekend was important.\nRobert Del Rosario stated that the goal was for staff to review weekday service, but\nweekends are just as important.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked Robert Del Rosario about the bus circulator concept\nand whether the buses would go in clockwise and counterclockwise directions.\nRobert Del Rosario replied that staff created the cost out for both directions.\nCommissioner Bellows referred to the fact that 85 percent of Measure BB goes for\noperations and that translates to $20 million a year and she asked if those funds go\nthrough the entire AC Transit service district.\nRobert Del Rosario replied that was correct, although only in Alameda County.\nCommissioner Bellows asked Robert Del Rosario how much did the city of Alameda\nreceive.\nRobert Del Rosario replied he would have to review the numbers, but he estimated $2\nmillion.\nCommissioner Bellows replied then none of the service proposals would really work.\nRobert Del Rosario referred to 3A of the staff report or 3C in the PowerPoint\npresentation and stated that the route that would work would be along Buena Vista\nAvenue. He further explained that if AC Transit partnered up with the Estuary Shuttle\nthey could probably make it happen. However, he felt AC Transit was committed to\nadding a new route with the Measure BB funds and it would be at 30-minute headways.\nCommissioner Bellows replied so the City would receive one new route with 30-minute\nheadways and everything else would be implemented later.\nRobert Del Rosario replied AC Transit would also fix Route 31, which would serve\nAlameda Landing.\nPage 6 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-07-22", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Hans stated that one issue that his neighbors have asked him to discuss\nwas to relieve the pressure on the Route 51 because they have to stand all the time.\nSo, he wondered if AC Transit staff has considered that issue.\nRobert Del Rosario replied staff added more runtime to the Route 51 and although the\nroute has 10-minute headways, which is good, they felt the service does not run on the\neven spacing. So, staff is trying to improve the route's on time performance and\nreliability. Furthermore, he said the capital project for the Route 51 included relocating\nand removing some bus stops and looking at signal priority along Webster Street, which\nshould relieve pressure.\nCommissioner Miley asked Robert Del Rosario going forward to bring handouts for the\nCommissioners to follow along to if the staff report changes at the last minute, otherwise\nhe appreciated the presentation. He pointed out that staff handed out comments from\nJohn Knox White and he wanted to present the comments to Robert Del Rosario. He\nfelt Robert Del Rosario answered some of John Knox White's questions such as bus to\nferry connections. Also, John Knox White proposed a two-year pilot program for the bus\nto ferry connections, which he seconded the idea. He also said that Commissioner\nSchatmeier proposed having an ad hoc committee consisting of Transportation\nCommission and Planning Board members to meet with AC Transit and City staff to\ndiscuss the City's long-term and short-term priorities and he felt it would be useful to\nhave those meetings. He also suggested that a future ILC meeting could include an\nagenda item that allowed the ad hoc committee to address some of the items they have\ndiscussed.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said he has had conversations with Bob Haun about this and\nBob Haun ensured him that it was not too late to submit ideas and comments. He put\nsome ideas out there, but his hope was at the end of the subcommittee process that the\nad hoc committee would come back to the Transportation Commission and recommend\nsome priorities that the plan could address. He went on to say that the Commission has\nalready created the committee and they have to decide when to meet. He also\nexplained that his goal was to have a list of 3-5 priorities that the City would like AC\nTransit to address.\nCommissioner Bellows replied logistically there was an issue because the public\ncomment period closes on July 31.\nRobert Del Rosario stated that the purpose of the comment period date allowed AC\nTransit to start the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process.\nCommissioner Bellows replied so this was part of the scoping of the CEQA.\nRobert Del Rosario replied yes.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that AC Transit's proposal contains some interesting\nideas, but this may reallocate resources to something else and that may be a discussion\nPage 7 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-07-22", "page": 8, "text": "outside of this process. He understood that AC Transit Boardmember Pebbles has\nexpressed interest in reviewing the Route 21 service at the next ILC meeting and he\nhad no problem with that, but he suspected that Boardmember Pebbles was doing that\nto save some resources.\nCommissioner Miley stated that one priority would be that resources already expended\nin Alameda stay in Alameda. He felt it was important to have different government\nagencies' perspectives such as the Planning Board and City staff, so if there was a way\nto get a meeting accomplished by using existing infrastructure that would be ideal.\nBob Haun explained that neither he nor Staff Patel could staff an ad hoc committee at\nthis time due to short-term staffing constraints. He went on to say that Route 21 is on\nthe agenda for the next ILC meeting scheduled on October 7 and that would be the\nappropriate time to speak to that item. He said if the Commission would like to have an\ninformal committee they could do that without staff support, but the priority items would\nhave to come back to the Transportation Commission for endorsement before it went\nout.\nCommissioner Bellows replied so the ad hoc committee could present their findings to\nthe Commission and the Commissioners could discuss the items and agendize them for\nthe September meeting.\nBob Haun said that would be within the appropriate window because the next public\nhearing is November 8. He further explained that from the City's perspective they are\ninterested in Route 19 for the Northern Waterfront because Marina Cove Il housing will\nbe available as of spring 2016. Furthermore, he mentioned that the Estuary Crossing\nShuttle was only funded for half a year and the City would like to keep that going. So,\nshifting the Route 19 service at Sherman to go up through Atlantic Avenue would\nbasically pick up all the stops for the Estuary Crossing Shuttle. He pointed out that\nRoute 31 touching Alameda Landing may have some synergy with the Alameda\nLanding Shuttle because there are significant contributions from Marina Cove II, Del\nMonte, Wind River and Marina Village who either subsidize the Estuary Shuttle or\noperate their own shuttle and they may want to jump on the boat too if Route 19 goes\nthrough Marina Village.\nCommissioner Bellows noted that Robert Del Rosario mentioned that there would be a\nline going down Buena Vista that would ultimately shift to Clement Avenue.\nRobert Del Rosario replied that staff talked about this in the very long-term and they\nwould have to consider a number of factors such as bus stop placement and how the\nservice would interact with the bicycle proposal along Clement Avenue.\nCommissioner Bellows asked Robert Del Rosario why the service would be placed on\nClement Avenue.\nRobert Del Rosario replied to get closer to developments.\nPage 8 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-07-22", "page": 9, "text": "Bob Haun stated that the potential development at Boatworks would contain 182 units\nsooner rather than later since it has been approved by the City. Therefore, he felt the\nideal time even when thinking of shifting the route to Clement Avenue would be to\nsomehow acquire the Pennzoil property that would extend Clement Avenue.\nCommissioner Bertken mentioned one of the comments from John Knox White's memo.\nHe felt that the coordination with bus service to the ferry schedule is important because\nwithin the next 20 years there will not be additional capacity across the bay except what\nyou could do with ferry boats.\nBob Haun replied that was on their radar and he currently sits on the Metropolitan\nTransportation Commission (MTC) Core Capacity Study Technical Advisory Group.\nThus, he explained they are looking at a number of options such as the opening of a\nferry terminal at Seaplane Lagoon and charging for parking at the ferry.\nCommissioner Bellows asked Bob Haun do drivers have to pay for parking at the Jack\nLondon Square terminal.\nBob Haun replied he did not believe riders have to pay for parking, but they have to\nobtain a parking validation on the ferry.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied he is a bus and ferry rider, but his experience with\nbus service to the ferry terminal is similar to bus service to the airport. He said bus\nservice along the Harbor Bay end are running empty and they are timed to meet the\nferry, but they do not have a tremendous on time performance record. He gave an\nexample of when he worked in Marin County and the Golden Gate Transit bus to ferry\nservice was not in heavy demand, so when John Knox White proposed to conduct a\npilot program there should not be empty buses to the ferry terminal.\nCommissioner Bertken replied he has not seen a real survey conducted that showed\nwhere in Alameda ferry riders are coming from.\nCommissioner Bellows replied that Kevin Connolly, Water Emergency Transportation\nAgency (WETA) Planning and Development, provided a map of where riders come from\nwhen he presented to the Commission last time.\nRobert Del Rosario replied the bulk of riders live between Webster Street and Park\nStreet. Residents living east of Park Street use the Harbor Bay ferry. He explained that\nall three proposals have their merits, but scarcity of resources forced them to prioritize.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that one of the proposals labeled Service\nEnhancement Proposal # 2 for the Route O has the service truncated on the island and\ndoes not go to Fruitvale BART Station anymore. So, he wanted to know if the change\nwould save resources.\nRobert Del Rosario replied that they could do both, but what is hurting the Route O is\nreliability with the traffic they face when crossing into the Fruitvale BART Station.\nPage 9 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-07-22", "page": 10, "text": "capture revenue and reduce fraud with the transfer policy. However, he said Clipper\ndoes reduce the fraud, but when getting a paper transfer from the farebox that is when\nfraud comes into place.\n6.\nStaff Communications\n6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items\n-\nC. K. Myers letter regarding Central Avenue Complete Street proposal\n-\nIDrive Alameda letter regarding Central Avenue Complete Street proposal\nBob Haun stated that the letters were forwarded at the direction of the mayor to provide\nto the Commission, and the Commission could comment on the letters if they would like.\nHowever, he stated that the IDrive Alameda letter was different because the letter\nrequested a response from the Commission. From his knowledge, the Commission\ndoes not typically respond to a letter. However, if a representative from the group would\nlike to attend the next Commission meeting and appear before the Commission, then\nthe Commissioners would reply back to the comment. Therefore, he recommended that\nstaff could get back to IDrive Alameda to explain that the Commission would hear ideas\nat a future meeting, but the Commission does not respond to letters to specific people,\nand the letter was sent anonymously.\nCommissioners Bellows and Miley agreed with staff recommendations.\nCommissioner Miley stated that the Central Avenue Complete Street Proposal was part\nof the future meeting agenda items, so he assumed that staff would come back to\nprovide an update.\nPage 10 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-07-22", "page": 11, "text": "Bob Haun replied the next meeting for the Central Avenue Complete Street Proposal\nwill be held on September 17. He said he will update the Commission and he\nencouraged the Commissioners to attend. Afterwards, staff will gather the data and\npublic input received and develop a recommendation with the Commission and City\nCouncil.\nCommissioner Bertken asked about the future agenda items and whether the items are\nprogrammed, scheduled, or just discussed for the future.\n1. Quarterly Report on Activities Related to Transportation Policies and Plans\n2. Proposed I-880/Broadway/Jackson Multimodal Transportation and Circulation\nImprovements\n3. Main Street Ferry Terminal Improvements\n4. Central Avenue Complete Street Concept Proposal\n5. Improving Service to Spirits Alley and Other Base Businesses\n6. Ferry Terminals' Connectivity Improvements\n7. Promote Increasing Ridership from Alameda High School and Middle Schools\n8. What are Key Cross Island Lines, Ranked in Order of Priority or Ridership\n9. Any Planned New Stops Based on Approved Development\nCommissioner Bellows replied nothing was scheduled yet, so as things happen they will\nbe presented to the Commission.\nBob Haun stated that if any of the Commissioners need a briefing on item 2, I-\n880/Broadway/Jackson he could give individual briefings. He stated that this was an\nOakland project and Oakland was still going through their downtown circulation plan. He\nsaid Oakland wanted to complete the plan in conjunction with the Broadway/Jackson\nCommittee meetings and Alameda was not participating in those meetings. However,\nthe City is waiting for the end of this year to take a pulse of the project's stage and then\nthey will decide where to land.\nCommissioner Bertken replied on this particular project, this was a portion of Measure B\nfunding. Thus, he wanted to know where the allocation of Measure B funds comes from.\nBob Haun replied that the funding comes from Alameda County Transportation\nCommission, through the expenditure plan.\nCommissioner Bertken replied that part of the Measure B funds, when looking at it, will\ngive a set amount of funding for this project.\nCommissioner Bellows replied Broadway/Jackson is a capital project, not a program.\nCommissioner Miley stated that ACTC tries to ensure geographic equity in the\nallocations for the capital program, so there was a percentage for each geographic\nregion in the county.\nPage 11 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2015-07-22", "page": 12, "text": "Commissioner Bellows said the voters actually voted on the expenditure plan that listed\nBroadway/Jackson amongst other projects from different cities within Alameda County\nand those projects are set.\n7.\nAnnouncements/Public Comments\nJohn Bidorg, resident of Alameda County, explained that he is currently homeless living\nin the city of Berkeley. He wanted to touch base about AC Transit and how the bond\nwas first created to raise funds for public transportation and assist people who heavily\nrely on public transportation.\n8.\nAdjournment\n7:33 p.m.\nPage 12 of 12", "path": "TransportationCommission/2015-07-22.pdf"}