{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-01-27", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission\nMarch 23, 2016\nItem 4A\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes\nWednesday January 27, 2016\nCommissioner Michele Bellows called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nMichele Bellows (Chair)\nEric Schatmeier (Vice Chair)\nJesus Vargas\nChristopher Miley\nGregory Morgado\nThomas G. Bertken\nMembers Absent:\nMichael Hans\nStaff Present:\nStaff Patel, Transportation Engineer\nStaff Payne, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\nArnold Brillinger, Alameda Resident, said he was recently appointed to the Commission on\nDisability Issues (CDI) and he wanted to introduce himself. He explained that the CDI wanted\nmembers of the Commission to attend other Alameda Commissions and Boards in order to\nnetwork. He went on to say that he will be attending the Transportation Commission meetings\nfrom now on and another member, Tony Lewis, would also like to attend.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident, said last year he highlighted the fact that a sign on High Street\nand San Leandro Boulevard was in disrepair and he wanted to publically thank Staff Patel for\nreplacing the sign. He also explained that there was an unfinished business item at the stretch\nbetween Webster Street along Atlantic and Willie Stargell Avenues. He said the section where\nPage 1 of 16", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-01-27", "page": 2, "text": "there is a bus only lane and two 45 mph traffic lanes creates discomfort for bicyclists who are\ncomfortable on Webster Street because there is no other safe place to go when riding down\ntowards the tube. He suggested that AC Transit consider sharing the bus only lane with cyclists\nand there are other places in Alameda that share the lane with cyclists.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff if that could be reviewed and eventually brought back as a\nfuture agenda item. He also asked staff if Alameda Public Works controls the striping.\nStaff Patel replied that the bus only lane would be Caltrans, SO he would have to approach them.\nNext Transportation Commission meeting would be Wednesday, March 23, 2015\n4.\nConsent Calendar\n4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - May 27, 2015\nJim Strehlow referred to the May 27, 2015 minutes. He explained that it was not until the July\nmeeting that the Commission decided to rescind the approval of the meeting minutes.\nAdditionally, he said the revised minutes did not state that Jim Strehlow made corrections to the\nminutes after the Commission approved the minutes and then the Commission decided to rescind\nthe minutes until further review.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied the minutes are a sense of the meeting and the Commission\ndoes not approve a transcript.\n4.B. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - November 18, 2015\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve the minutes of May 27, 2015 with the notation that when\nthe Commission originally approved the minutes Jim Strehlow then spoke and made corrections.\nThe Commission then rescinded the vote and reviewed the minutes. Commissioner Miley also\nmoved to approve the minutes of November 18, 2015 and Commissioner Schatmeier seconded\nthe motions. The motions were approved 6-0.\n5.\nNew Business\n5.A. Election of Chair and Vice Chair\nCommissioner Miley felt that the Commission recently voted around mid-last year.\nStaff Patel replied he was not involved in that process.\nCommissioner Bellows replied because Commissioner Vargas took more responsibility with\nHigh Speed Rail it was around January 2015.\nCommissioner Miley said he would like to nominate Commissioner Bellows as chair since she\nhas been doing such a great job.\nPage 2 of 16", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-01-27", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner Vargas replied he seconded the nomination.\nCommissioner Bellows asked for nominations for Vice Char.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said he was happy to serve, but if someone else wanted the position he\nwould not mind.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to approve the re-election of chair and vice chair. Commissioner\nMiley seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n5.B. Quarterly Report\nStaff Patel presented the report.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff about the historic lights at the tubes project and wondered if\nthere would be changeable message signs around a week or two ahead.\nStaff Patel replied yes.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff to have the Broadway/Jackson project team come to speak at\na future Commission meeting.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff when the project will be presented to the Commission.\nStaff Patel replied he would ask the project team, but right now the team is preparing a\nhybridized version of the project.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff since the Alameda County Transportation Commission\n(ACTC) would present, would the city of Oakland present as well.\nStaff Patel replied only ACTC.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that the report was comprehensive, but there was a need to update\nthe report with the status of target dates. He explained that the next steps for some did not have\ntarget dates, for instance the Webster Street Smart Corridor Project.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that the next steps for the Transit and the Transit Demand\nManagement (TDM) plans were well out of date since the Request for Proposal (RFP) was\nissued.\nStaff Payne replied that the update on the transit plan and TDM was taken last week where the\nCity approved the consultant team and that it now starts out with an 18 month effort. She also\nexplained that the agreement was signed last week, so the first deliverables will be a near term\nsolution and that will require input from the Commission four different times.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said in regards to the Estuary Crossing Shuttle he saw an AC Transit\nPage 3 of 16", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-01-27", "page": 4, "text": "route that was duplicative of the shuttle. So, he wanted to know the funding plan and if staff\nconducts the coordination of the shuttle and AC Transit route. He requested that staff report on\nthat issue.\n5.C. Approve City of Alameda Paratransit Program Plan for Fiscal Year 2015/2016 (Rochelle\nWheeler, Public Works)\nRochelle Wheeler, Alameda Public Works Transportation Planner, presented the report.\nCommissioner Bellows asked Rochelle Wheeler about the $217,000 balance and whether there\nwas a use or lose it provision stated in Measure BB.\nRochelle Wheeler replied there are requirements for not having more than 50 percent of your\nfunds in reserves and 10 percent in unallocated reserves. She went on to say that this program\nhas been established to make sure they stay within those requirements. So, ultimately they could\nkeep the money that was not spent.\nCommissioner Bellows asked for the timeline of hiring a transportation expert.\nRochelle Wheeler replied they expect this position to be advertised in the next month and then\nthey would conduct interviews and hire someone. Overall, she said it should be a fairly quick\nprocess.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked Rochelle Wheeler if there were one or two stops that dominate\nthe use of the shuttle, meaning were there places that people board on and off board consistently.\nRochelle Wheeler replied she cannot speak to the data on the top of her head. Yet, she explained\nthat the contractor provides ridership on people who are boarding at every stop for each shuttle\nrun and they will look at this closely.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked Rochelle Wheeler if there was specific data or survey\ninformation to make Fruitvale BART the right place to extend this service.\nRochelle Wheeler replied she works with the staff at the Mastick Senior Center and they\ninterface quite a bit, so there is a high demand for that location.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that he was glad to see the graphs and data. He asked Rochelle\nWheeler if there was new data beyond January 2015 to get an idea of what occurred in the last\nyear. He also, inquired about the volunteer driver program, Mobility Matters, especially\nregarding the insurance covered.\nRochelle Wheeler replied data was available and she could compile the information for a future\nmeeting. She stated that the information reported for this meeting was using data for the fiscal\nyear of June 2015. Regarding insurance, she explained that this was an ongoing issue which they\nPage 4 of 16", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-01-27", "page": 5, "text": "are concerned about. However, she said the standard practice when providing service within\nAlameda County was to check for requirements in order to maintain driver standards. She also\nmentioned that ACTC contracts with them.\nCommissioner Miley referred to the budget and he wondered how much they are expecting\nannually from Measures B and BB. He asked Rochelle Wheeler if the $360,000 is to remain flat\nor grow or are they conservative with those estimates. He further explained that currently they\nare spending $100,000 over revenues if you do not count the surplus. So, he was concerned that\nthe City may expand and grow the service faster than the revenues coming in.\nRochelle Wheeler replied the revenue goes up and estimates are received every year from ACTC\nand go up minimally each year. She acknowledged Commissioner Miley's point and said staff\nwould analize this.\nCommissioner Miley stated that getting to BART is important to provide connections to regional\nservices. He inquired about whether the program provides travel training to work or offer travel\ntraining services.\nRochelle Wheeler said they are not conducting travel training now. Yet, that could be something\nthey look into or they could partner with some of the groups that are currently doing this.\nCommissioner Bellows opened the floor for public comment.\nArnold Brillinger stated that he uses the Thursday shuttle and most of the passengers get on and\noff at the Trader Joes at South Shore Center and Mastick Senior Center.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied that the reason he asked about the data because way back\nwhen the City considered implementing a shuttle he voted against the proposal because the\nshuttle design breaks a whole lot of transportation rules. He explained that the shuttle schedule\nhad limited days and hours and required lots of money for service that is less than the disabled\nshould have. He thought the City could beef up other paratransit services, but he has been\npleasantly surprised by the ridership although they break all the rules. He felt maybe there is a\nway to fix the service by looking to see if there are single destinations and origins that dominate.\nHe believed three different routes are not necessary if the Mastick Senior Center and Trader Joes\ndominate every route. He said to send these shuttles where no one is going does not make sense\nto him. He would like to see higher frequencies where the same route runs on Tuesday,\nWednesday and Thursday every 30 minutes then passengers can count on something. He thought\na consultant could look into this idea.\nArnold Brillinger replied they do have a tally that the shuttle drivers mark down when the riders\nboard. He said there is a stop near his home and for a year, he called Staff Payne once a month\nasking when the stop become active. Staff Payne eventually said they have to change the\nschedule and a few other things, but she did call him back to state that his persistence paid off\nand the stop will be there.\nCommissioner Miley stated that he was encouraged to hear this factored into the TDM\ntransportation planning process because it is important. He reiterated the questions about the\nPage 5 of 16", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-01-27", "page": 6, "text": "budget and how staff should be mindful if the economy takes a dip because the service is tied to\nsales tax dollars. He said he would like to see the reserves stay as close to the allowable limit as\npossible in order to have it for a rainy day. Additionally, he said he would like to see travel\ntraining included as part of the outreach and marketing effort. He mentioned that he knows\nAlameda County has an open data initiative in order for the public to view and download\ninformation. He would like, if possible, to provide that information some how on the City's\nwebsite on a rolling basis to see how the City's programs are working.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Miley\nseconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n5.D. Cross Alameda Trail - Atlantic Segment (Rochelle Wheeler, Public Works)\nRochelle Wheeler presented the report.\nCommissioner Bellows said the total traffic delay was measured in hours and she understood\nthat, but she wanted to know what the total delay in number of stops would be. She asked staff to\nclarify.\nStaff Patel replied the table that was shown in the exhibit pertains to conducting an arterial level\nof service analysis. Therefore, it was looking at the average speed base Level of Service (LOS)\nin the existing condition versus the delay.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff what was the delay in number of hours. She said the\ninformation says eastbound equals one hour and with the recommended option, it increases to 2\nhours, but that does not make sense.\nStaff Patel replied it does not make sense in this case because staff is only looking at speed and\nhow the speed drops with the lane configuration.\nCommissioner Bellows replied so what is the number of stops.\nStaff Patel replied the number of stops is how often the traffic was stopped and what the queuing\nimpact was. He went on to say that staff will have to explain this more carefully. He stated that\nstaff has not done the detail analysis for the LOS at the intersection. However, he said staff will\ncome back to the Commission and report the LOS including queuing in more detail.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff if they actually made the traffic volume counts on the\nmovements and if that information was available.\nStaff Patel said yes and staff has traffic volume, pedestrian, bicycle and transit counts.\nCommissioner Bertken explained to staff that it would be helpful to review the data available in\norder to review the impacts.\nCommissioner Morgado asked staff if they looked at the number of people driving out of the\ndriveway next to Starbucks.\nPage 6 of 16", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-01-27", "page": 7, "text": "Staff Patel replied yes they did.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff about the costs, approximately $200,000, with regard to the\nmedian barrier. The report indicated that it could be a median barrier or delineator, but he wanted\nto know if there was a cost difference between the two.\nStaff Patel said staff looked to make sure the drainage was not disrupted. He explained the type\nof delineators they are looking at are similar to the ones at Jackson and 5th Streets, which are\nmountable and close to each other so they do not get knocked down.\nCommission Vargas asked staff about whether the cost was already covered in the $200,000.\nStaff Patel replied yes.\nCommissioner Bertken said he was concerned about the safety of the bicyclists in connection\nwith the right turn onto Constitution Way. He said he has seen this problem in San Francisco\nwhere they have a through street where motorists drive fast and pedestrians get hit when they\nstep off the curb. He felt this was a particular problem when cyclists are traveling fast and the\ndriver cannot see behind him and try to turn. He wondered how the traffic control that has been\nidentified protects the bicyclists cycling straight across.\nStaff Patel replied staff would look into erecting signage with a time limit on right turn\nrestrictions or possibly a right turn on red.\nCommissioner Bertken replied then the bicyclists cannot go straight.\nStaff Patel stated that the bicyclists could go straight if they have a non-conflicting movement.\nHowever, he understood his point with an issue of conflict.\nCommissioner Bertken felt this was an important issue because this area has a number of\nproblems.\nStaff Patel replied the Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way intersection only has 40-50\nvehicles making right turn movements per hour during peak times.\nCommissioner Bertken said he would like to possibly see the bicyclists receive a straight go\nthrough signal, which would prevent the right turn for automobiles.\nRochelle Wheeler stated that staff would look into this further and they would make sure to\nreduce those conflicts. She went on to say that another option would be to bring cyclists further\nup towards the intersection so they are visible to turning cars.\nStaff Patel replied there are other options such as a bike box.\nCommission Bellows opened the floor to public comments\nPage 7 of 16", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-01-27", "page": 8, "text": "Austin Lee, AC Transit Transportation Planner, said he would like to work with City staff to\ndevelop an alternative to the proposal because AC Transit staff was not aware of the design\nconcepts until that day. He explained that although they have not fully reviewed the design, upon\ninitial glance the proposal presented would remove a lane of traffic and remove a bus stop. He\nstated that this bus stop has the third highest boardings for this particular route. He also\nexclaimed that the Estuary Crossing Shuttle stops at the bus stop on Atlantic Avenue and\nWebster Street headed eastbound. Yet, he felt there are alternatives and they could look at this\nfurther in order to ensure that everyone benefits from the project.\nJim Sweeney, representing Jim Sweeney Open Space Park Public Charitable Non profit\nfoundation, stated that the foundation's purpose is to raise money for the park and maintain the\npark. He said he strongly endorsed staff's report and design and he believed the design met the\nmany challenges and complexities while creating a practical and safe trail through the Alameda\nTrail gap and with the most reasonable impact on motor vehicle traffic. He looked forward to the\nrefinement and implementation of the details and he urged the Commission to approve the\nrecommendations.\nBrian McGuire, Alameda resident, stated that staff made a cost affective solution to close the\nCross Alameda Trail while having a key bike facility on this block. He said this option would be\nutilized by students and people headed to the ferries. He felt the presentation was a good\nexample of why the state has stopped using LOS to evaluate some of these impacts. He pointed\nout that on this block, traffic calming on a two-way cycle track when mentioning speed not\ntalking about cars flowing through was a feature not a bug. He said a protective bike facility was\npart of the grant application, which is part of the Jean Sweeney section of the path. So, when the\nproject came before the Commission that disappeared and the City owes it to the project funders\nand users of the trail to do this. He exclaimed that without a dedicated bike facility here there\nwould be a gap with people using the sidewalks and others all over the place because the area is\nnot clearly defined. He ultimately felt that there are solutions to these problems and if motorists\nexpect bikes there, then cars will see that and this will prevent accidents. He noted that one\nbenefit would be once there is AC Transit service coming down that lane they could just shift\nover and you could add a left queue jump lane on Webster Street. Therefore, you are not really\nlosing a lane here because this is not traffic going to the tube, but actually local traffic.\nLucy Gigli, President of Bike Walk Alameda, said she was pleased that staff worked with\nstakeholders to find a solution to serve the neighborhood and create a safe corridor. She could\nnot stress the importance of this solution to connect the two pieces of the Cross Alameda Trail.\nShe stated that without a simple and safe solution the intersection would create chaos. Thus, she\nasked the Commission to move this concept forward noting that some of the details like traffic\nand bicycle signals and moving the bus stop could be analyzed later.\nMichelle Ellison, said providing a safe and continuous route for those who walk and bike was\nimportant. She explained that this plan was something that the City committed to, but the block\nproved to be challenging to deal with. She felt moving forward City staff has done a great job to\nquickly pull together a solution to a vexing problem by speaking to stakeholders and finding\nmoney to fund this and maintain the landscaping that merchants really value. She went on to say\nthat it was not about the details of the plan, but to say to City staff that the Commission would\nlike to move forward. Therefore, she urged the Commission to tell staff to develop this further.\nPage 8 of 16", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-01-27", "page": 9, "text": "Jim Strehlow stated that the Alameda Transportation Commission would soon become the\nAlameda Traffic Creation Congestion Commission with this type of design. He felt this was the\nworse type of design he has seen. He said to put up a cycle track would give a green light for\ncyclists to go faster than the vehicles that would be stopped in traffic along Atlantic Avenue. He\nsaid the reason the data was not shown in vehicle figures per hour, per minute because they are\n100:1 of vehicles to bicyclists if not 200:1 on that section. Furthermore, he said if they take away\na lane on Constitution Way there would be many vehicles making a right turn from Atlantic\nAvenue to Constitution Way because they are headed to South Shore and other locations. He\nexplained that currently 6-7 cars back up trying to make a right turn. He said with one lane\nclosed to Webster Street, cars will back up all the way to the driveway next to Walgreens and\nthis will create a traffic nightmare. He pointed out that he uses the bus stop frequently in front of\nWalgreens that would be taken away. He suggested that staff design something using paint\ninstead of a cycle track and staff would almost have to make a special traffic signal for bicycles\nand one for cars.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, said he has been\ninvolved in this project since he joined the Cross Alameda Trail steering committee in 1999 or\n2000 and served with Lucy Gigli. He stated that he was happy to see this interim proposal come\nbefore the Commission. He pointed to the fact that there was no law prohibiting cyclists to go\nfaster in a safe way than the cars stuck in traffic next to them. He explained that the intersections\nof Atlantic Avenue, Webster Street and Constitution Way are already jammed up, so there would\nnot be a huge difference in the future. He felt more people on transit would help the situation that\nis why AC Transit should be included in the discussion. As a lead cycling instructor he\nunderstood the need for bicyclists moving at the speed of traffic to be assured access to through\ntraffic lanes and automobiles do not own those lanes. He noted that when the Webster Plaza was\napproved by the City Council around 1998, they removed the traffic access, 11-12 feet of\neasement, on the south side of Atlantic Avenue in order to provide enough parking to meet\ncurrent code. He went on to say that City Council removed a legitimate Cross Alameda Trail\nright of way from the belt line railway access, which should be considered when looking at\nremoving the sidewalk, landscape, and parking spaces in the Webster Square development in\norder to restore what was taken away. Otherwise, the City will never see a Bus Rapid Transit line\nacross the island of Alameda, which was envisioned from the beginning. He stated that the data\nonly included vehicle LOS and staff did not talk about pedestrian or bicycle speeds increasing in\nthe area or increased safety and must be included in the final report. He felt the mid-block\ncrossing was a good idea, as well as the cycle track and he suggested a lane configuration\nadjustment to reduce the traffic median from 6 feet to 4 or 3 feet. He believed that would give a\n12-foot traffic lane going eastbound for automobiles and consequently make the cycle track 11 or\n12 feet wide, which is safer. He explained that right hand turns from Atlantic Avenue to\nConstitution Way would be a legitimate issue. He felt a bike box could be a viable option or they\ncould prohibit right turns from Atlantic Avenue to Constitution Way because there are other\nways to get onto Constitution Way. Also, a pedestrian and bike scramble could work.\nCommissioner Miley said Jon Spangler had many good ideas and he should share them with\nstaff. He explained that he supported a cycle track because the track would be a safe, consistent\nand continuous trail all the way through. However, he was concerned with questions surrounding\nthe data in order to understand the situations happening within the area. He was unaware of the\nPage 9 of 16", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-01-27", "page": 10, "text": "history surrounding the easement and that should be reviewed. He explained that although\nthere's limited room because the community has been built out, the City has a right to the space\nand that should be considered and included in the staff report. He would like to know the\nlimitations and concerns for the area and he felt staff would bring this back to the Commission\nbecause there is more to understand about the data and the right turn onto Constitution Way.\nCommissioner Vargas said he supported many of the comments that Commissioner Miley made.\nHe said in order to move this concept forward the Commission has to look at the analysis of\nremoving one of the eastbound traffic lanes and that removal would be replaced with an 11-foot\nlane. He went on to say for the record he does not like narrow lanes for safety reasons especially\nsince this is a heavy truck lane and there is no shoulder. He was concerned about the fact that AC\nTransit, Alameda Fire Department, or emergency responders were not brought to the table to\ncollaborate because this is a safety facility that needs to be maintained. He would like staff to\ndefine the project because he heard the addition of a mid-block crossing, so would the City\nattempt to solve a number of things and if that was the case then put it out on the table to let the\nCommission analyze everything. However, he said the Commission was not ready to address this\ntonight.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied that he does not believe the concept was ready. He noted that\nstaff recommendations state refine and implement the attached design concept. He said\nrefinement was needed before implementation would take place, so he was not prepared to vote\nfor both. Additionally, he was unsure when reviewing the design where the AC Transit bus stop\nwould be placed due to safety concerns. He explained the concept could move forward, but the\nrefinements were an important aspect of the plan and should be reported back to the\nCommission.\nCommission Bertken replied the Commission could not go forward at this point in time because\nit would be a slap in the face towards AC Transit.\nCommissioner Bellows stated there would be plenty of time because the two trail segments are\ncurrently being worked on. She noted that 14 emails were sent to the City in support and one\nemail did not support the project. Yet, from what she has heard from the Commissioners was\nthere should be more refinement, including discussions with AC Transit, Estuary Crossing and\nthe Alameda Fire Department. She said the crosswalk concept and using some of the easement\ndiscussed should be analyzed further. Ultimately, she would like these issues to come back to the\nCommission for review.\nCommissioner Morgado made a motion to approve the idea, but the Commission needs more\ninformation to be included in the update and AC Transit and the Estuary needed to be involved\nin the discussion. Commissioner Miley seconded the motion with an amendment to include staff\nto review the topics that were brought up by the Commission and speakers. The vote was\napproved 5-1. Commissioner Vargas voted no.\n5.E. Recommend Approval of the AC Transit Service Expansion Plan Buena Vista\nAvenue/Line 19 Alternative (Gail Payne, Community Development Department)\nStaff Payne presented the report.\nPage 10 of 16", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-01-27", "page": 11, "text": "Commissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.\nJim Strehlow said he would be speaking for a couple of his coworkers who explained that their\nteenagers are scolded from taking AC Transit because it is dangerous along 12th Street in\ndowntown Oakland. He went on to say that the area and the bus stops are dark and there are\nunruly passengers on board. He exclaimed if AC Transit would like to be successful and get\npeople to ride, then they have to be aware of the safety factor.\nBrian McGuire stated that based on the choices for the staff report this was the best option. He\nsaid he would love nothing more than to go to Encinal and Versailles Avenues to the ferry\nstation. He explained that the service to get from Fruitvale BART to the waterfront was a big\nwinner in terms of reliability and as the developments come on line they will work to get peak\nhour headways shortened to become a viable option for new residents. Ultimately, he said this\nmakes sense for alleviating the island crossing issue.\nJon Spangler stated that 14 years ago as member of the original Transportation Commission the\nLine 19 was suggested by AC Transit as a one way to salvage service in Alameda and he was\nglad to see the line coming back. He stated that the City should expand AC Transit service to\nrestore all the losses suffered in Alameda. He urged the Commission to work with AC Transit to\nkeep adding service to restore something that use to be normal. He also would like to see 8 to 10\nminute headways rather than 15 or 30 minute headways.\nCommissioner Schatmeier referred to the November 2015 meeting where he summarized the fact\nthat the transit subcommittee pointed out the following priorities that were included in their\nmemo and included in the staff report: 1. Funding in Alameda stay local and reallocated to some\nother Alameda services; 2. Route O stays the same and that has happened with the AC Transit\nBoard's action and 3. Restoring free or low cost transfers for residents of Alameda. He said the\nreason he brought this up because he was hoping to include this as part of the review at the City\nCouncil and then forwarding the recommendation to AC Transit.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff and AC Transit about the current status and where is AC\nTransit at based on input they received from the City, because a letter was written on November\n5, 2015 to AC Transit asking for restoration of Line 19, alternative 3 and various other\nrecommendations.\nCommissioner Bellows replied this month the AC Transit Board approved everything, but left the\nAlameda part out. So, what the City recommended within the letter was still open.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if AC Transit could address that.\nStaff Payne replied that staff was not sure if they would have time to come before the\nCommission because originally the AC Transit Board was expected to approve the service\nexpansion plan in December 2015. So staff provided the letter at their public hearing in\nNovember and after going through the inter-liaison committee in October and received the transit\ncommittee's blessing staff felt they we were all on the same page. However, she said there was a\nlack of time for coming before the Commission and City Council, so staff provided the letter.\nPage 11 of 16", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-01-27", "page": 12, "text": "Now that the AC Transit Board has allowed staff more time this will allow staff to come before\nthe Commission this evening and then City Council meeting February 2.\nCommissioner Vargas recognized that there were numerous comments provided with various\nalternatives. He said a lot of students and parents supported alternative #1 and alternative #3 was\na good alternative. He wondered if there was a summary of the fiscal implications available.\nStaff Payne replied that was a good point that she had not considered and the shuttle is mainly\nprovided by grants with local funding match and Wind River provides their TDM monies.\nTherefore, that would be an additional savings of $50,000 annually.\nCommissioner Bellows replied Wind River would not necessarily give them the money anymore.\nStaff Payne replied what the City would end up doing would be to request to see if Wind River\nwould be interested in being part of a TDM Association. She said they gave the City $20,000 a\nyear and maybe a better way would be for all of the development monies to go into a separate\nnonprofit that would be in charge of all the TDM monies in a more comprehensive way.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said he was attracted to the idea to bring the Line 19 and priorities\ntogether before the Council because the line is a concrete service proposal that the Council will\npass and adding the priorities will bring more attention than doing so later.\nCommissioner Bellows stated that Commissioner Schatmeier has put together a motion with the\nadd-ons.\nStaff Payne replied that she would provide the content of the memo including the acceptance of\nLine 19.\nCommissioner Schatmeier explained that the issue of transit was bigger than one line. He\napplauded the City for getting involved in public transit issues and how they would like the City\nto be in the future.\nStaff Payne replied the only item that was not included is the Clipper card item that will be\nreviewed.\nCommissioner Miley agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier and said there was some weight in\nthe motion. He was also glad AC Transit staff was at tonight's meeting.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied he was right they did not change the Line O and the Line 21\ncut away from the Oakland airport, but he explained the principal was if AC Transit plans to cut\nservices to the airport or ferries keep the money in the City.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the restoration of Line 19, but to also convey to the\nCouncil the Commission's priorities for future transit action within the City. Commissioner\nMiley seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n5.F. Annual Report on Alameda Landing Transportation Demand Management Program and\nPage 12 of 16", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-01-27", "page": 13, "text": "a Recommended Citywide Transportation Management Association (Gail Payne,\nCommunity Development Department)\nStaff Payne presented the report. Staff Payne also introduced Steve Buster, Vice President of\nCatellus Development Corporation, who spoke.\nCommissioner Vargas stated there was a comment in the annual report about the feasibility of\nthe water shuttle. He wanted to know if the numbers shown do not support the water shuttle. He\nalso asked if the service will be analyzed in the future.\nSteve Buster replied right now they are going through Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alameda\nLanding shopping center and the TRI Pointe development, which is currently under construction.\nHe stated that the last phase would be the 40 acres on the waterfront, which is currently closed\noff to the public. He said he is hoping that one day they will develop the area and continue the\nBay Trail. He also explained that 5th Street will extend into the waterfront and have an eight acre\npark, with part of the area containing a floating dock and a water taxi that runs to Jack London\nSquare. However, it takes time to coordinate with Jack London and other developers on the\nwaterfront that may want to participate and they would have to analyze a potential funding\nmechanism.\nCommissioner Bertken said the waterfront development was mentioned and he has driven\ntowards the end of 5th Street and saw an earth filled surcharge sitting on this piece of property.\nHe wondered why the 10-foot surcharge was needed for what he was talking about building.\nSteve Buster replied they use the mound of dirt as a surcharge for Phase 1 and Phase 3 for the\nTRI Pointe plan. He said the dirt was compiled 6 feet in the area in order to compress the bay\nmud under the housing units. He went on to say that the dirt was taken off and they had to find a\nplace for it temporarily. However, he said there is good news because the waterfront area is low\nand needs to be raised to be developed and the dirt could be used to raise the grade to where it\nneeds to be.\nCommissioner Miley moved staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the\nmotion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n5.G. Review of Potential City of Alameda Projects for a Regional Measure 3 Reauthorization\n(Gail Payne, Community Development Department)\nJennifer Ott, Chief Operations Officer for Alameda Point, presented the report.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff when they were involved in the other two measures was there\na call for projects or did they unilaterally decide.\nJennifer Ott replied she was unsure. However, she said there are three major priorities that were\nincluded in the staff report which are: 1. Regional transbay service; 2. Funding for ferry service\nand bus service and 3. Developing the bay trail to create bicycle and pedestrian connections.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff what the expectations were for the Commission's input.\nPage 13 of 16", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-01-27", "page": 14, "text": "Jennifer Ott replied staff would keep the Commission updated throughout the process. However,\nshe did not know if the Commission would ratify or approve priorities.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that he was very interested in this process, especially how\nprojects become included. He pointed out that there may not be a call for projects, but someone\nor some public body would be responsible for projects being approved and included.\nJennifer Ott, replied that would be the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the\nstate legislature.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked staff if the MTC and state legislature respond to staff\nrecommendations or do they have pet projects.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff what is our representation on MTC.\nJennifer Ott replied she was unsure.\nCommissioner Miley stated the MTC representatives are Scott Haggerty, Alameda County\nDistrict 1 representative, Tom Bates, City of Berkeley Mayor, and Libby Schaaf, City of\nOakland Mayor. So, Alameda has three seats. He said as Jennifer Ott indicated this would be a\npolitical process and if the City is not at the table then the City is on the menu. He felt staff put\ntogether a balanced priority list based on the existing document. He stated there has to be\nsomething for staff to advocate for even if there is not a specific call for projects.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said from his point of view one of their elected representatives,\ncouncil members or City mayor could be inspired and champion a project, which would be\nimportant.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff if this measure was another bond issue and when will it come\nup for vote. He pointed out that the tolls back the measure up, but others indicated bond\napproval.\nCommissioner Miley replied the tolls allow the MTC to bond in order to deliver the projects\nfaster. The state legislature puts this on the ballot, so MTC would draft the measure and the state\nwould have to approve it. So, he hoped the assembly member and senator would look at this and\nadvocate for it.\nJennifer Ott, said this may not happen during this election year, but they want to be ahead of the\ncurve.\nCommissioner Vargas felt it was good to see a list of projects. He referred to the three categories\nin the staff report and noted that another way to look at this would be to have the projects\nseparated underneath a category. He said there was a list that may have been called the project\ncategorization list presented to the Commission six, seven or eight months ago which contained\ncategories and staff could pull out projects from certain categories. Additionally, he asked staff if\nthe priorities would go before the MTC. He explained the MTC has a certain perspective of\nPage 14 of 16", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-01-27", "page": 15, "text": "subsidizing ferry service and he does not want to say they support a lot or a little, but looking\nback at history, he suggested staff not put that as the first request.\nCommissioner Bertken replied they put a lot of money into the ferry and they still are, but the\npoint that was being talked about was only so much would be allocated. Also, this does not get\nproject specific until later and it would be geographically based.\nCommissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.\nJon Spangler stated that he was contacted by BART Board Director Robert Rayburn about this\nagenda item a few days ago and he was concerned about the lack of specific access to transit\nitems in the plan. He said as it was originally prepared he does not know what changes were\nmade in the last few days. He conveyed this to Staff Payne to make sure this was known and she\nresponded quickly on ways to include transit connections especially the leg of the Cross\nAlameda Trail, the need to replace Miller Sweeney Bridge and possibly make better transit\nconnections across the new lifeline span. When hearing Jennifer Ott's priorities, he liked the\nferries, but the service is much dirtier per passenger mile than other forms of transit. He\nsuggested they look at capital expenditures that are a lot greener such as Hydrogen Fuel Cell\npowered or sail powered ferries that get off the carbon emissions conveyor belt. He explained\nthat access to BART is a key part of this Cross Alameda Trail, which connects Alameda Point to\nFruitvale BART. He went on to say that including pedestrian and bicycle access that feeds into\nTilden Way from downtown and the east end, Fernside as well as the northern waterfront is\nAlameda's part of the pie and part of Regional Measure 3. He also noted that transbay bus\nservice is something to support and he will do his own work with his contact to get more\ninformation on what is behind the green curtain in Sacramento and elsewhere.\nLucy Gigli stated that two places that critically need improvement is off island access to\nFruitvale BART, Tilden Way and Fruitvale Bridge from the east end. She explained it was\ncritical for bikes to be able to travel from the east end to BART, plus it is part of the Cross\nAlameda Trail. She also mentioned the Estuary Crossing because the service is not a real long-\nterm or medium range solution because it has limited hours and is overall cumbersome. Yet, the\nEstuary Crossing is number one in the biking and pedestrian plan so she urged staff to keep\nlooking for solutions. She heard that the Alameda Landing and shuttle is way off in the distance,\nso she asked staff to keep the number one item in the forefront because the City has other\nchallenges that need to be fixed.\nCommissioner Miley thanked staff for bringing this forward and thanked the speakers who made\ngreat points. He said his experiences with regional measure specifics are important for the City,\nbut the MTC and state legislature look at the broad funding categories. He said their hope would\nbe that they create categories and hopefully they fund the categories to the extent that City staff\ncould submit a competitive application. He also felt that BART to Alameda was a real long-term\ngoal and solution for transit issues, but the project will be so expensive and they are not\nconsidering this project in this measure, but do not forget BART to Alameda.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that he would like to see Jon Spangler and Lucy Gigli's\nrecommendations for emphasis on Fruitvale BART, Tilden Way and access to the trail section of\nthis added to the staff presentation.\nPage 15 of 16", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-01-27", "page": 16, "text": "Jennifer Ott replied absolutely.\nCommissioner Miley moved to agree with staff's document and include Commissioner\nSchatmeier's comments about specific language to Fruitvale BART and the trail improvements.\nCommissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0.\n6.\nStaff Communications\nCommissioner Miley said there might have been some confusion on item 5D. Cross Alameda\nTrail segment. He clarified the motion that Commissioner Morgado made by stating that the\nCommission accepted staff's concept, but staff should include the discussion topics and points\nmade by the Commissioners and speakers, so when it comes back to the Commission they could\nsee those details and have a report on what was missing. He explained, when he stepped out of\nthe room there was some confusion from some members of the audience.\n6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items\nNone.\n7.\nAnnouncements/Publio Comments\nJim Strehlow said last week he heard a news item that gas revenues are down and MTC had to\nnotify different groups that 40 percent less will be available to fund projects. So, he wanted to\nknow how that would affect Alameda's budget such as public work's pothole budget.\nCommissioner Bellows replied because the price of gas is low, sales tax is low. Consequently\nthat would affect Measure BB monies. However, she said the Commission could put this item on\nthe agenda.\nJon Spangler stated that the Commission might find the following information interesting. He\nsaid since last fall he and two friends who are also League Cycling Instructors have been going\nto Los Angeles for certification to teach public school teachers how to teach bicycling on the\nschool grounds as a physical education class. He further explained that they have been teaching\nmiddle school students and parents in Palo Alto and they are interested in expanding the program\nto cities such as Redwood City and Alameda to be able to implement at least some pilot\nprograms through the school districts in the next year or SO. He said this March there will be a\nphysical education teacher's conference in Santa Clara and the guest program will be represented\nthere. He explained to the Commission that there is no public funding for bike safety education\nand although they have a lot going on through Bike East Bay he will be looking for a champion\nand partners within the school district to get to the next step.\n8.\nAdjournment\n9:57 p.m.\nPage 16 of 16", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-01-27.pdf"}