{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes\nWednesday May 25, 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\nMichael Hans\nThomas G. Bertken\nMembers Absent:\nChristopher Miley\nGregory Morgado\nStaff Present:\nStaff Patel, Transportation Engineer\nStaff Payne, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\nArnold Billinger, Vice Chair of the Commission for Disabled Issues (CDI), stated that the CDI is\ntrying to setup greater visibility for the Estuary Crossing Shuttle and amongst the things that they\nare talking about is trying to get the shuttle to be part of the Alameda Fourth of July parade and\nat the various street festivals in Alameda like the Island Jam at Neptune Beach. The organization\nwould like to have a backdrop and booth for the festivals and they would like to invite members\nof the Commission to ride the shuttle in the parade and man the tables in order to introduce\npeople to the shuttle service. He hoped members of the Mastick Senior Center would come and\nshare the booth as well. He asked if members of the Commission have handouts to provide at the\nevent table. He also said he would keep the Commission updated when they are ready to\nproceed.\nCommissioner Bellows said Arnold Billinger should let Staff Patel know and he will inform the\nCommission.\nPage 1 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 2, "text": "Jim Strehlow, Alameda resident, explained that he wanted to know the Caltrans notification\nprocess regarding the Posey Tube. He said the reason being was that he has attended past\nCommission meetings and he did not remember a discussion about the exact date of when the\npedestrian and bicycle path would be closed down, especially since the path is used by people\ncommuting to work. He has been on the bike forums the previous week and members of the\nforum did not know about the closure either. He went on to say that in the Alameda Sun\nnewspaper, there was a short notice about the closure. He noted that this closure affects how\nmuch earlier people have to leave their homes in order to get to their destinations. Asked how\ncan Caltrans give more advance notice and how was this information getting out to the people.\nStaff Patel replied usually when Caltrans has a project they post construction activity one week\nin advance. He said there was advance notification near the tube and the press release was sent to\nthe City and was on their website. However, he explained that there was some confusion about\nthe construction timeframe and whether it would be done at night or daytime. So, staff included\nthe information about the shuttle service once that was cleared up. He stated that the police\ndepartment found some bicyclists riding in the tube on the roadway surface.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if that was legal\nStaff Patel replied that it is not legal because the signs were already posted at the mouth of the\ntube.\nCommissioner Bellows replied that the City works with Caltrans' public information officers and\nit would be nice to know when that area will be reopened.\nStaff Patel replied the project manager estimated that it would take a month or by the end of June\ndepending on the railing items, meaning if they are going to fabricate the rails offsite.\n3.A. Next Transportation Commission meeting would be Wednesday, July 27, 2016, 7 pm\n3.B. Briefing by the Public Works Director\nLiam Garland, Deputy Director of Alameda Public Works, said he was standing in for Bob\nHaun, Alameda Public Works Director, in order to brief the Commission about the three\nquestions that came up at the last Transportation Commission meeting. The first question was\nabout the Broadway/Jackson Project and Bob Haun reported that he was in negotiations with\nboth the City of Oakland and Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and he will\nshare a status report in July. He said the second question raised was about staffing within the\nCity's Public Works Department. He stated that the department is short staffed for a few reasons,\nsuch as staff member Gail Payne is being lent over to assist with the Citywide Transportation\nStudy and Rochelle Wheeler is back filling some of the work that Gail Payne was doing for\nPublic Works. He went on to say that they are still short in terms of being able to respond to a lot\nof transportation issues but as the study and process moves forward they will have a sense of\nhow the City is heading regarding transportation issues. Furthermore, he explained that a new\n2-year budget is coming out in 2017, so that will be the time when they can assess the staffing\nneeds within their unit and what they are going to need in the next two years. He noted that the\nPage 2 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 3, "text": "City charter requires new staffing to be approved by City Council.\nCommissioner Bertken said funding is tight and having to wait until the next budget process is a\nnatural occurrence. However, he was bothered about the fact that there isn't anything more\nimportant to this City at this particular time than solving a lot the transportation issues especially\naround the Cross Estuary transportation issue. So, he felt not having a full court press in doing so\nas soon as possible was troublesome.\nLiam Garland replied staff is putting the pieces into place. He also explained that they just hired\na city engineer and the new hire will help shape where the transportation unit heads and he will\nbe instrumental on how the City is staffed on transportation issues.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that follow up on these issues would be good since Bob Haun could\nnot be attend this meeting. Additionally, he asked Liam Garland to invite the new hire to the\nnext Commission meeting for an introduction.\n4.\nConsent Calendar\n4.A. Transportation Commission Minutes - Approve Meeting Minutes - March 23, 2016\nCommissioner Schatmeier made a change to the minutes that was attributed to him. He said the\nchange can be found on page 5, third line from the top \"He explained that the Commission\nlistened to a lot of public comments that were relative and caused some concerns.\" The word\nrelative should be changed to relevant.\nCommissioner Schatmeier moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Hans seconded the\nmotion. The motion was approved 5-0.\n5.\nNew Business\n5.A. Approve Proposed Bus Stop Locations for the New Line 19\nRochelle Wheeler presented the report.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff if AC Transit was looped in about the last minute modification\non Item 3 of the staff report.\nRochelle Wheeler replied yes, they reviewed the designs and felt it would work.\nCommissioner Bellows opened the floor for public comment.\nRob Ratto, Executive Director of the Downtown Alameda Business Association, said as a charter\nmember of the Commission many years ago he commended the Commission on the hard work\nthey do. He also said that staff made his job very easy that night because he was present on\nbehalf of the Downtown Alameda Business Association board of directors to endorse 4C and he\nwas going to implore the Commission, AC Transit and staff to endorse 4c and now the plan has\nPage 3 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 4, "text": "changed to 3C. Therefore, he wholeheartedly endorsed 3C.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident, stated that he was trying to envision this layout because he rides\nhis bicycle in the area all the time. He explained that usually a visual such as a cross section\naccompanies the presentation and staff report to show the curb footage, travel lane width and bus\nwidth before they set a barrier because it looks like staff is going to be carving out from the curb\nto be able make that turn. He said he was also trying to envision this because it was not included\nin the packet, thus the public was not aware of 3C and how this option would affect traffic. He\nexplained that he may be in favor of 3C, but he was looking at 3B. He said it made sense to\nmove it on the other side because there is a lot of parking on the near side of Park Street, SO a bus\ncould be placed there. He said when travelling through the section he knows the very narrow part\nnear the driveway and when there are cars parked at that very narrow part it is often hard for\nbicycles to go along Buena Vista Avenue.\nCommissioner Bellows asked Jim Strehlow if he was talking about traveling west.\nJim Strehlow replied yes, while traveling westbound it is very narrow and cars often have to look\nat him and he looks at them in order to go through because it is very narrow between the car and\nstripe. He felt it would have been beneficial for the public to view photos and see the cross\nsection in advance because he was having some difficulty visualizing the new design.\nCommissioner Bellows replied her sense is that it was recently developed.\nRochelle Wheeler replied this project has been in the works to square off that particular corner\nand this was from the packet that the Commission approved in March 2014. The project was put\nout to bid to make those improvements and last week the City Council approved the contractor to\nmake this improvement. So, staff is now proposing a bus stop at this corner.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff when they were analyzing the placement of the bus stop were\nthe dimensions calculated to have enough bus passing space.\nRochelle Wheeler replied staff looked at the widths and with a bus stopped there to pick up\npassengers vehicles cannot pass a stopped bus.\nStaff Patel stated that staff checked with AC Transit's Traffic Engineering Department about the\nwidths. He also explained that currently this is a concept approval and staff will be looking at\nsome modification of stripping for the east bound approach right in front of the Chevron Gas\nStation. He noted that the bus stop would be very similar to the Buena Vista Avenue and\nWebster Street stop for the Line 51 changes that occurred and a similar setup was created there.\nLaura Thomas, resident near Buena Vista Avenue and Chestnut Street, stated that she has lived\nin the neighborhood for 32 years and she was excited to see the Line 19 comeback. She said in\nthe past she used the bus a lot and it will be a benefit for the entire neighborhood especially as\nmore housing is built in that area. She said she's in favor of affordable housing and the City\nneeds alternatives to car travel. She concluded that the bus must run regularly and be dependable.\nShe hoped that in this case when the Line 19 comes back that it has 20-minute headways during\npeak hours to get to and from work and downtown Oakland.\nPage 4 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 5, "text": "an AC Transit bus you are many times out in the open and this has been that way for many\nlocations in Alameda and along the AC Transit system. He noticed in one picture in the staff\nreport, where they now rejected 3B, one bus stop has awnings line on the Walgreens store. He\nfelt the awnings were life savers for users and although not intended to be shelters they are. He\nrecognized the same for the visual in 4A, which was rejected, there were awnings over the\nsidewalk. He was not sure what could be done about this, but he would like to see a commitment\nmade by the City and others to figure out a way to finance and add bus shelters whenever they do\nsomething like this because it is a vital part of running a transit system.\nCommissioner Vargas said he was glad to hear the homeowner have no questions or issues with\nthe potential parking loss. He asked staff with the loss of parking are there any parking meters\nthat would be potentially removed and a subsequent loss of revenue.\nRochelle Wheeler replied no.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that this plan was restoring the operations of a line that had\nprevious parking displacements, so there wouldn't be a net loss.\nRochelle Wheeler replied that is what they believe, but they do not have the exact stops from\nbefore.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff if there was an anticipated ridership projection for this line.\nAustin Lee, AC Transit Planner, replied he does not have exact ridership projections or numbers\nto provide. However, he felt the line restoration would definitely alleviate crowding on the Line\n51A and the Line 20 that go through Webster Street and provides an alternative to the Estuary\nShuttle. On the east end it would help alleviate the crowding on the Line 20 and Line 21 to get to\nFruitvale BART.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if AC Transit will be able to report the distribution once the Line 19\nis operating in order to get an idea of how everything else is coming through.\nAustin Lee replied yes.\nCommissioner Vargas moved to approve the modification of 3C in place of 3B. Commissioner\nPage 5 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 6, "text": "Bellows seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.\n5.B. Adopt the Proposed Plan for Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal Parking\nJennifer Ott, Alameda Point Chief Operating Officer, presented the first half of the report.\nLiam Garland presented the second half of the presentation.\nCommissioner Hans asked if staff have communicated with Alameda Police Department to see if\nthey actually have the staffing to enforce this plan.\nJennifer Ott replied staff had a number of conversations with the Alameda Chief of Police and he\nevaluated the plan and felt this could be enforced with current staff levels. She explained the\ndepartment would have additional revenues available from tickets to cover incremental increases,\nbut he was comfortable with the plan. She pointed out that the plan was not to take patrol officers\noff their beats, but to utilize parking technicians who typically work part time.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff who has the authority to issue tickets on the private streets.\nJennifer Ott replied for the public streets the City has the authority to ticket vehicles and within\nthe private streets the Homeowners Association (HOA) do not have authority to issue tickets, but\ncan tow vehicles. However, the HOAs could create a relationship with the Alameda Police\nDepartment so when they call the police, parking technicians can go out and ticket. Therefore, if\na relationship is established the City can issue tickets on private streets. She went on to say staff\nand the HOAs have talked about the implementation, but it would ultimately be up to the HOA's\npreference.\nCommissioner Bertken asked who owns the big piece of property adjacent because it would be\nan obvious benefit to the ferry system.\nJennifer Ott replied SRMErnst, a commercial real estate development company.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff if the property has already been sold.\nJennifer Ott replied she does not think the property has been sold because the property is\nwaterfront commercial land and extremely expensive. She pointed out that this option was\nreviewed by the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) in order to find out how\nmuch it would cost to lease the property, but the cost was outside WETA's budget. Also,\nproviding that much parking would only create the same problem in a year or two, so that would\nbe a short term solution for a long-term issue. She explained that staff is exploring the idea of\nhaving satellite parking areas along a shuttle route if they decide to go with a shuttle service.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff based upon the plan and the approach taken has anyone made\nan estimate on how the plan would impact the ferry patronage in the long run.\nJennifer Ott said from her standpoint in terms of ferry ridership they have discussed what if there\nis a decrease in ridership would parking charges be there as a contingency, but there are no\nPage 6 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 7, "text": "concrete estimates of that. She stated that their hope is that the demand has been so strong and\npeople are already using alternative modes of transportation that ridership will not dip\ndramatically, but WETA is rightfully cautious about what happens if ridership decreases, so they\nhave talked about those issues.\nCommissioner Vargas said he was excited about the solutions to the challenges. He explained\nthey may not be perfect yet, but they are getting a lot better. He said he met Kevin Connolly,\nPlanning and Development for WETA, two years ago at the WETA Board meeting and invited\nhim to continue this dialogue. He was excited to see WETA's board meeting was held at\nAlameda City Hall and there is more inter-activity between the two agencies. He stated that he\nwould hold off comments on the ordinance until the public hearing because it is very detailed.\nHe explained that it was good to see the three step solutions regarding the residential parking\nstickers, parking charges, and shuttle service as Jennifer Ott described. He went on to say that\nover the weekend, he spoke with a resident of Orange County who has a sticker program in their\nwaterfront neighborhood. The Orange County resident said the program benefitted their family\nstructure and if the policy was not implemented they would have moved out of the community.\nSo, he explained although staff and WETA are working not to lose ferry riders they should also\nbe cognizant to not lose members of the community.\nCommissioner Bellows opened the floor for public comment.\nGeorge K, Executive Director of the Community of Harbor Bay Isle, said he represents 20\nHomeowner Associations. He explained that he totally supports the ferry service, but\nunfortunately too much of a good thing has created a problem and this is a practical solution that\nwill work. He felt in his opinion, the framework and the subsequent detailed plan must be\nimplemented in its entirety. He pointed out that the master association has agreed to administer\nthe program and if they do choose to tow, his security department will do SO. However, they do\nnot want to choose until they see the entire plan in place. He said they are created under the\nDavis- Stirling Common Act and they are essentially quasigovernment institutions that speak for\nmembers of their community. They have worked closely with the City, WETA and the residents\nand this solution will help everyone involved.\nCharles Hodgkins, Chairman of the Board Community of Harbor Bay Isle Homeowners\nAssociation, stated that they pertain to the board side of the discussion. He explained that they\nhave had good meetings with Jennifer Ott, Liam Garland and the Alameda Police Department.\nHe pointed out that the visual in the presentation showing the land near the ferry terminal was\nnot accurate because there is already development on the corner where Adelphian Way makes a\nturn onto Harbor Bay and there is not development next to it. So, he said what looks like a large\nchunk of land is about half of that. He believed a proposal exists to build a senior citizen center\non the remaining land. He believed the solution presented was a long-term, rational and\nrelatively well thought out plan that will in the long-term improve the viability of the ferry\nservice. He said the ferry is a resource to the community and the people on the east end and if the\nCity could get the shuttle sorted out with AC Transit or a private entity that would allow the\ncommunity to feel they are not being imposed upon. He stated that from one of the community\nmeetings one resident commented that motorists drive like lunatics to the ferry terminal and\nwhen they come around the corner, they cause potential collisions. He said the Columbia\nHeadlines HOA would like to have a plan in place, but they reside on public streets. So, once this\nPage 7 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 8, "text": "whole framework comes into place they would be able to provide a solution for everyone.\nEric Schatmeier spoke as an Alameda resident and said he was in opposition to the staff proposal\nfor three reasons: 1. The plan is inconsistent with the three elements the Commission specified\nshould be a requirement for approval for any future plan; 2. The plan is technically flawed and\nincomplete and 3. He felt the plan was developed in a vacuum. He explained that in the proposal\nstaff focused on one of the three elements included in endorsing the last plan and he wanted to\nemphasis the other two, which are maintenance and growth of ferry ridership and the provision\nof adequate parking at the ferry terminal. He felt if the plan is implemented in January 2017 as\nproposed there is a real danger of reversing ridership gains the ferry has achieved and pushing\nusage down that would result in eliminating 100 daily parking opportunities and then charging a\nfee for the few scarce spaces that would be left. He said the fee represents $40 to $80 per month\nadded to regular ferry fares that are already higher than comparable BART and AC Transbay bus\nfares. He explained that he did not know of any demand modeling that would not predict the loss\nof ridership because of raising the fare 20-40%. The staff report explained that parking charges\nencouraged customers to look for alternative ways to get to the ferry station, but analysis,\nridership surveys or demand modeling did not back up this assertion. Also, he said the plan does\ninclude what ferry customers who do drive would be willing to pay to park, what will result\nwhen various fee levels are implemented, or if there is a contingency plan to determine what the\nCity and WETA would do to get ferry riders back if the program is scrapped because it failed.\nHe stated that the Commission did not approve a principal that said provide adequate parking or\nshuttle services. The Commission focused on parking because the unfortunate reality is that\nshuttle services are not adequate alternatives. He provided a press release from Marin County\nwhere Golden Gate Transit under pressure of exploding ferry ridership implemented the Wave\nShuttle service to meet peak period boats. The article said two of the three routes were being\ndiscontinued because of low ridership. He pointed out that the Golden Gate Ferry boats are\ndouble the size of Alameda's boats and run almost triple of the frequency, so how could the\nshuttle service work in Alameda. He said as a user of transportation he would love to get people\nto use public transit for their entire work trip, but many will not and if commuters opt to give half\ntheir trip to public transit than he called that a win. He felt the plan was devoid of details\nregarding the number of shuttle vehicles that would be deployed, how many motorists could park\nat the satellite parking areas, what capital resources would be available and how the parking\ncharges would cover parts of the plan's costs. Furthermore, he said with the issue of planning in\na vacuum the plan involves multiple constituencies, but the plan ignores ferry riders who should\nbe part of the conversation. He believed the riders may react negatively and vent their anger at a\npublic meeting or they will quit riding the ferry altogether. Ultimately, he felt the plan as\nimplemented and written would be counterproductive to the City and state's transportation goals\nand the Commission should insist on something better.\nKevin Connolly thanked Jennifer Ott and Liam Garland for their hard work on this piece of\nplanning. He emphasized that this plan is currently in the concept phase and the devil is in the\ndetails and he acknowledged the HOAs and their work. He explained that ridership is booming\nand a person not getting in their car to commute is a positive thing. He expected initially that\nridership may flatten or reduce and there will be some short-term pain, but the activity is not\nsustainable and impacts the surrounding neighborhoods. He said alternative options are\nnecessary and building structure garages is not an option, but satellite parking is potentially an\noption that must be paired with shuttle service. He explained that WETA ferry service operates\nPage 8 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 9, "text": "on a farebox recovery performance criteria. He said for years the Harbor Bay service found it\nhard to reach the farebox recovery requirement and was always on the chopping block, but it is\nnow at a healthy percent. He pointed out that the board is sensitive to overcharging for ferry\nservice, SO they are looking carefully from a policy standpoint about the fare charges over the\nentire system. Also, he said how the revenues are being used will be carefully analyzed by the\nboard. He appreciated the work that has occurred and it is the community's right to define how\nthey interact with the ferry terminal and they do not want to impose their particular will if it is\nnot satisfactory.\nCommissioner Bellows asked Kevin Connolly if the WETA Board thought about imposing\nparking charges at Main Street or the new terminal.\nKevin Connolly replied they are approaching parking charges as a system wide policy, but first\nintroducing the policy at Harbor Bay. He explained that Harbor Bay and Main Street terminals\nhave different characteristics, so it is not easy to place a parking permit program at Main Street.\nTherefore, they would have to work with the City and that is a future prospect further down the\nline.\nJennifer Ott replied she agreed from the City's perspective Harbor Bay is more immediate due to\nconcerns from the neighborhood. She said staff would conduct the same process of working with\nAC Transit and WETA.\nCommissioner Vargas referred to the presentation and particularly the parking charge range of\n$2.00 to $4.00. He asked if WETA has implemented parking charges in another location within\ntheir system or could they talk about the $2.00 versus $4.00 charge.\nKevin Connolly replied City staff requested that the WETA Board consider parking charges\nrather than having the Commission adopt charges. WETA has parking charges in the city of\nVallejo, but the City owns the parking lots and they charge on a monthly basis or $5 for a daily\nrate. The policy direction is to keep the parking fees lower to make it accessible for public\ntransit.\nCommissioner Bertken asked about the funding and the fact that WETA has a 40 percent farebox\nrecovery requirement, but what happens if it is not there.\nKevin Connolly replied the bulk of WETA's operational funding are fares and bridge tolls and\nthe 40 percent threshold was created because of Harbor Bay and their struggle, but Harbor Bay\nhas been a big surprise. He said their last ridership survey was in 2015 and they have grown 50\npercent since that time and 94 percent of riders were from Harbor Bay and the east end of\nAlameda. So, he felt the key part of implementation is informing the riders and allowing them\nthe opportunity to provide input. He explained that when they held their board meeting a month\nago they heard from a lot of Harbor Bay residents who would be impacted. He also said people\nwho drive and ride the ferry have no choice but to drive because they have children and need to\nbring them to school, so that aspect must be addressed carefully.\nCommissioner Bellows replied so everyone who lives in a HOA is going to have to pay some\namount of money for a residential parking permit sticker.\nPage 9 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 10, "text": "George K. replied the homeowners do not have to pay for the sticker because with their existing\nstaff they would administer the sticker program for both public and private streets to make this as\npainless as possible on the City and their administrative workload. He said to make this as\npalatable as possible in order to get the all of the HOAs on board they would make this cost free\nfor them and they can absorb the fees in their existing cost structure. He stated that currently they\nhave 40 employees composed of security and administration and they can do this.\nCommissioner Vargas asked about the ordinance and the map that was presented earlier. He said\ntwo HOAs have public streets and three HOAs have private streets. So, he wanted to know if the\naddition that is proposed within the ordinance applies to the three HOAs that have the private\nstreets or does that apply to both.\nKevin Connolly replied the way the amended ordinance is written that would only apply to\nHOAs Headlines and Columbia because they are public streets within those two HOAs. So, the\nordinance does not affect the HOAs with private streets.\nCommissioner Vargas said a homeowner brought to his attention the seat clarification in Item C\nof the ordinance, which highlights that a 55 percent vote was required by the residents to make\nchanges to the parking and with the new addition in blue and red text that the voting would be\ndone by the HOAs. Thus, he wanted to know if that one vote now trumps the other vote.\nKevin Connolly replied there is a proposed amendment that does not require the petition, but\nrequires the HOA boards' approval. So, he highlighted that the next step is not residential\nparking permit implementation, but having Public Works evaluate the ability to implement\npermit parking and then make its own recommendations on whether residential parking permits\nshould be issued. He explained the next step is a triggering mechanism and the best\nrepresentatives of the neighborhood is the HOA board who has legal authority.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that since this is a new element in the ordinance could this be\nevaluated after one year or so after implementation to see how the program is working.\nKevin Connolly replied he and Jennifer Ott discussed this and evaluating the program makes\nsense to them.\nCommissioner Bertken was looking at the three components of the plan and the element of\nreliable transit service and improved AC Transit service line means staff should have more\noutreach meetings with AC Transit before January 2017. He also explained that staff should also\nreview opportunities for remote parking and shuttle services. He felt it would be nice to have the\ninformation during this period to show that losing patronage has been observed and taken into\nconsideration.\nKevin Connolly said the current approval is for the concept to move forward and Jennifer Ott is\nin constant contact with AC Transit on this issue.\nCommissioner Bertken replied the concept does not say a lot regarding outreach.\nJennifer Ott replied they have had a number of conversations with AC Transit and WETA about\nPage 10 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 11, "text": "these issues. She said if the vote moves forward they would continue the conversation with AC\nTransit and the Commission.\nCommissioner Bellows stated that staff and WETA have done a lot of outreach already and the\nHOA are on board. She explained that the concept is not ideal, but it is better than the status quo.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff if they would see this plan again before it goes before the City\nCouncil.\nCommissioner Bellows replied the concept would go before the City Council.\nJennifer Ott replied if the Commission approved the plan it would move forward to the City\nCouncil on June 7. She explained that in the fall, they would provide the Commission with an\nupdate on how the plan is going and answer questions and receive comments about the details of\nthe plan.\nCommissioner Vargas recommended to place on the top of the list to look at keeping the parking\ncharges at the minimum or close to the $2.00 range, similar to the Fruitvale BART and Vallejo\nFerry parking models. Regarding the residential parking permit program, he would look to the\nHOAs to come up with a plan and he hoped to not scare motorists away with parking ticket\nprices, but maybe with a first offense issue a warning.\nCommissioner Hans moved to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Vargas seconded\nthe motion. The motion was approved 4-0; 1 abstention by Commission Schatmeier who could\nnot take part in the Commission discussion or vote.\n5.C. Discuss the Citywide Transit and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans\nExisting Conditions and Goals/Objectives\nJennifer Ott introduced the presentation.\nBrian Sullen and Bill Hurl, CDM Smith, were hired to prepare the plan and they presented the\nreport.\nStaff Payne replied they were comparing apples and oranges a little bit when speaking about the\n\"Travel within Alameda\" slide. She said ultimately, staff is attempting to show the magnitude of\nthe magnate schools and charter schools in the west end, but it became a little convoluted.\nHowever, she said the main point is Alameda Unified School District enrollment has been stable,\nbut there has been an increase in student enrollment citywide because of this 1,500 students who\nare charter school students.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if density was then the main indicator for success for the bike\nshare stations.\nBrian Sullen explained that he was referring to the bike share station density and how many\nstations there are in the area.\nPage 11 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 12, "text": "Commission Schatmeier said Bay Farm Island has extensive bicycle facilities, therefore creating\na lot of opportunities to use bikes. He asked if a station would have more use then the population\ndensity would indicate because of the opportunities to use bikes.\nBrian Sullen replied absolutely, but he would caution against just adding one bike share station,\nbut including maybe three stations because when adding bike share stations you have to cluster a\nfew out there to make it more viable.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if the existing conditions includes Harbor Bay.\nBrian Sullen replied they do.\nCommissioner Bellows said she occasionally takes BART and the trains are more crowded than\never before. She asked if the crowding was due to less trains or increased ridership.\nBrian Sullen replied BART boardings are not down. However, few Alameda residents are taking\nBART.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked about ridership from Alameda (note - inaudible dialogue)\nBrian Sullen said he would provide the data to the Commission.\nJennifer Ott continued with the presentation's goals, objectives, and feedback.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that the \"Origins and destinations\" slide was a useful slide and in\nthe future he wanted staff to provide a slide about where people come from when they travel to\nAlameda. He also wanted to know at a future time why carpool levels dropped from 2000 to\n2005. Furthermore, he said the additional bike share slides were not available in the previous\npacket, so having that included before the presentation would be good.\nCommissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.\nDenise Tropadea, Alameda resident, said safety is near and dear to my heart as it relates to the\nTDM. She explained that she recently moved into a Victorian home in Alameda and when she is\nnot having to haul building material around than she is biking, walking or using public transit.\nShe stated that she supported all the work that the City is doing to get people out of their cars.\nHowever, she explained as Alameda continues to grow the City needs to mitigate the number of\ncars on the street because it does not add to the quality of life. Therefore, the City needs to\nprovide more options to get people out of their cars and those options are not in place. She is\nasked the Commission to add both the objectives to the TDM as well as the evaluation criteria to\nmake sure safety and specifically bicycle, pedestrian and vehicle collisions are within the plan.\nShe asked the Commission to adopt a goal similar to the Vision Zero policy in San Francisco to\nreduce deaths and serious injuries as part of the transportation goals. Additionally, she asked for\nthe City to work on more or some egress off of the west end of the island for people who are not\nin a car. She pointed out that the extra four inches of sidewalk within the tube is good, but it's\nnot a long-term solution and the City needs to plan for another way off the west end of the island.\nShe felt the shuttles are good, but when riders have to put their bicycles on the back of the shuttle\nPage 12 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 13, "text": "going into Oakland and they are not able to lock it, well no one is going to do that.\nHeather Little stated that six months ago she started speaking with key people around the City\nsuch as the City Council, Planning Board and Bike Walk Alameda about safety issues such as\nthe lack of infrastructure for bikes linking one end of the island to the other and vehicles\nspeeding. She said she was pleased about Central Avenue and the Bay Trail, but in the meantime\nsomething must be done about safety. She explained to the Commission that her husband was\nbicycling home from the ferry terminal and while traveling home, a car failed to yield to him and\nhe was pushed off the road at Main Street. She said he now has a pretty serious collar bone\nfracture. She asked the Commission to make sure this plan is not just piecemealed together, but\ntake into account all modes of transportation along with a policy such as Vision Zero. She\nbrought up the fact that two fatalities occurred with a car involved in the past eight months. Also,\nwhen she quoted the last statistics on record from 2013 when comparing Alameda to 103 other\ncities similar to its population size, Alameda was rated eighth worse for injuries in car related\nversus pedestrian accidents. She liked the fact that this was being addressed before new\ndevelopment gets underway. Yet, the City is struggling because people want to get out of their\ncars, but the City needs to set the infrastructure and not have cars parked right on the\nintersections. She said this is not just on the Commission, but Alameda Police Department, Bike\nWalk Alameda, Planning Board and City Council.\nLucy Gigli, President of Bike Walk Alameda, said the plan was off to a great start and she has\nbeen part of the presentations in the past months. She said there is great stuff to move the City\nforward in active transportation. However, she has provided recommendations 1. Safety must be\nimplemented on our streets and placing goals and objectives on how to encourage people to walk\nand bike in Alameda and get them there safely is paramount and 2. One of the largest\nimpediments in encouraging people to bike and walk off the island on the west end is the Estuary\nCrossing. She said a feasibility study was conducted 8-10 years ago that talked about some of the\nalternative transit options to get people off the island. Consequently, the City implemented the\nEstuary Shuttle that fills a small niche during its run times, but that's it. She said the City needs\nto fix that critical link to get people off the island on the west end without having driving.\nJim Strehlow stated that you cannot just rubber-stamp the people because this plan is not one size\nfits all. He explained that his coworker has to drive his daughter to north Oakland to high school\nfrom South. He said she will not ride the AC Transit system or BART to 19th or 12th Stations\nbecause she feels uncomfortable and unsafe. So, he felt more consideration should be taken to\nthe people who are using this infrastructure. He said he rides his bike daily and during the\nweekends, but four times a month, he is one of those evil single-occupant drivers leaving the\nisland. He went on to say the reason being because he picks up three people, which includes two\nyouths to go to a youth group meeting. Yet, he stated that he is one of the statistics that says he is\ndriving alone, but he is actually transporting other people, bags of food and other supplies. He\npointed out that visitors coming from other states to visit families will not want to spend their\ntime taking public transportation all the time. He said he has a friend who goes to Napa and\nspends 8 hours on public transportation and that is horrible. The plan should also consider the\nelderly who need to get to medical appointments and need assistance. He noted that\ninfrastructure is important, but do not forget about the people you are trying to serve and make it\nsafe for all of them.\nPage 13 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 14, "text": "Commissioner Schatmeier said regarding the goals and objectives for public transit, he would\nlike to see public become a multi-purpose and multi-destination phenomenon that serves a\nvariety of destinations. He would also like to see transit attract choice riders, meaning people\nwho choose to take public transit, because they think public transit is better for many trips. He\nsaid on the main island the Lines 51 and 851 service Santa Clara Avenue 24 hours a day. So, it is\npossible, but may not be as convenient to live on the corridor and now own a vehicle. He\nexplained that planning is being done on Alameda Point in the hope that some people will move\nin without relying on cars for most of their trips. In order to do this, he said a structure must be\nput into place on day one that serves people for a variety of trips. As a result, he wanted to see\nthat versatility reflected in the Commission's discussion on what they intend to do in the future\nbecause currently it is not explicitly laid out.\nCommissioner Hans said he would like staff to review the transportation of children. He\nunderstood the fact that there is large number of interisland transportation of children to schools\nand as a crossing guard at Lincoln Middle School on Fernside Boulevard there are many\npotential vehicle caused collisions. He explained that a number of single-occupant drivers are\ncommuting back and forth particularly from Bay Farm to the main island in order to transport\ntheir children to school. Also, he said that different youth organizations and events require\nfamilies to do a number of back and forth commutes including on the weekends. He wondered if\na kid's shuttle could be implemented to bring children to destinations or take kids to youth events\nor schools. He also stated safety is paramount and he has seen a number of incidents and that\ncontinues to increase with near fatalities almost every single day on Fernside Boulevard.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that there was ditto between Goal 1 and 2 of the staff report except\nchanging the last part, so take the comment mildly. He said looking at the creativity side, which\nwas found on the back side of each of the goals there is more meat and inspiration. Regarding\nsafety, he suggested that Goal 2 be amended to end with the word \"safely\" or \"safety\" and then\nadding the word \"safely\" to Goal 2F and possibly elsewhere. He went on to say that Item 1\naddresses carpooling and staff should include the idea of promoting casual carpool or other\nelements such as online or smartphone app solutions because he personally had challenges with\none of his sons trying to get to San Luis Obispo two weeks ago.\nCommissioner Bertken asked about the feasibility study for the commercial bike rental and how\nwas the level of detail placed into where they are today.\nStaff Payne replied that was a last minute decision because staff has a deadline due June 15 or 17\nfor a Letter of Interest (LOI) to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and they\nwanted to get some kind of feedback. She said if they are selected in the fall there will be some\ntime for outreach, but the LOI is due soon.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff about the car sharing discussion they had a while ago and\nwhatever happened with that.\nStaff Payne replied that was a point to point car share and staff decided that they could come\nwithout their involvement because that was the easiest way to proceed. She stated that since the\nCity has so few parking meters that they would not be involved to truing up parking spaces.\nPage 14 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 15, "text": "Commissioner Bellows said regarding the objectives and goals, she was fully committed to\nmultimodal travel, but the fact of life is present and will be interconnected, autonomous and\ndriverless. Therefore, the goals and objectives should include accommodating for this because\nthey are coming and it helps people particularly on the west end to get off the island because you\ncan get a lot of capacity from those vehicles. She felt that was an aspect that the Commission\nshould think about as well including other technologies such as ride sharing smart phone apps.\nShe also explained that including safety into the plan is a primary goal.\nCommissioner Vargas said that feedback on the bikes was way over his head, but he felt this\ntopic was out of place and should be discussed separately.\nStaff Payne replied Commissioner Vargas could provide input to staff at a later time.\nCommissioner Bellows felt the bike share was a separate topic.\nStaff Payne said the bike share portion was part of the consultant's work scope to do a conduct\nbike share feasibility study. Staff timed bike share portion to be prepared for MTC's LOI.\nCommissioner Bellows asked staff if the intent was to say that the Commission supports a bike\nfeasibility study.\nStaff Payne replied the intent is to be considered for the MTC capital grant to help fund the\nmajority of the capital costs in order to have bike share in Alameda.\nCommissioner Bellows and Commissioner Vargas replied they did not pick up on the intent from\nthe staff report.\nStaff Payne replied staff would like to know what the Commission thinks about the LOI and\nwhat is needed.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff who will manage the bike share program.\nJennifer Ott replied the grant is a two-step process, meaning staff would put something forward\nas a proposal which is preliminary. She explained there wasn't time given the scope to have a\nfull community process on bike share like staff normally would, so staff made a judgement call\nto submit the LOI or lose the opportunity.\nCommissioner Bellows replied the LOI states that the City is interested in applying for a grant to\ninvestigate bike sharing in Alameda.\nJennifer Ott replied the LOI allows the City to be considered receiving funding for capital in\norder to implement the bike share program. She went on to say there are a lot of questions that\nstaff has and they do not have many of the answers for implementation or operations yet.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that he moved to exclude the bike share element so the Commission\ncan at least comment on the goals and objectives.\nPage 15 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 16, "text": "Commissioner Bellows asked about the schedule for bike share plan.\nJennifer Ott replied bike share plan is due at the end of this month.\nCommissioner Bellows asked about the due date for the LOI.\nJennifer Ott stated that the LOI is due in June and in the fall staff will apply for the grant. She\nsaid there was plenty of time to come back to the Commission and answer questions.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff if they receive the grant does that preclude the bike share\nprogram from being a commercial operation.\nCommissioner Bellows replied there are different types of models, however, this bike share\nprogram needs to be more thought out.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied whether or not to submit the LOI is not on the agenda.\nCommissioner Bellows replied the Commission would have to make the LOI a separate motion.\nHowever, right now she felt Commissioner Vargas was correct the bike share plan was not part\nof the goals and objectives. Thus, she proposed to have a new motion to consider the LOI.\nCommissioner Schatmeier replied this is not an action item, so staff could submit the LOI with or\nwithout the Commission's approval.\nJennifer Ott said that was correct, staff would need a letter from the City manager, but they\nwould like the Commission's feedback and staff would come back to the Commission with more\ndetailed analysis about the bike share program.\nCommissioner Bertken replied that he would feel better if they separate the feasibility study,\nwhich creates more confusion.\nJennifer Ott said if MTC accepts the LOI, staff would come back to the Commission as a\nseparate agenda item potentially named the bike share feasibility study.\n6.\nStaff Communications\n6.A. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items\n1. AC Transit Major Corridor Study Analysis\n2. Shoreline Bikeway Analysis\n3. Broadway/Jackson Update\n4. Cross Alameda Trail Preliminary Design between Webster Street and Constitution Way\n5. Cross Alameda Trail, Atlantic Segment\nCommissioner Vargas asked Staff Patel about item 3 of 6.A. and does he know when that will\nhappen.\nPage 16 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2016-05-25", "page": 17, "text": "Staff Patel replied Liam Garland said they are continuing.\nCommissioner Bertken asked about item 2 of 6.A.\nStaff Patel replied this is an analysis looking at the results after implementation and staff has not\ncompleted the analysis yet. He said staff is in the process of gathering accident, ridership, crash\nand traffic data on Shoreline Boulevard.\n7.\nAnnouncements/Publio Comments\n8.\nAdjournment\n9:54 pm\nPage 17 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2016-05-25.pdf"}