{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-03-22", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission Special Meeting Minutes\nWednesday March 22, 2017\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)\nChristopher Miley (Vice Chair)\nJesus Vargas\nGregory Morgado\nThomas G. Bertken\nSamantha Soules\nMichael Hans\nStaff Present:\nJennifer Ott, Base Reuse and Transportation Planning Director\nShahram Aghamir, City Engineer\nSergeant Ryan Derespini, Alameda Police Department\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\nRochelle Wheeler, Transportation Planner\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda resident, said the minutes from last month's Transportation Commission\nmeeting said that he spoke about the Posey Tube and the roadway and there was graffiti on the\npanels. He pointed out that graffiti existed on some of the panels, not all of the panels. Most\nimportantly, last month he discussed AC Transit Line 19 where he presented a diagram and\nexplained while driving that he was stopped behind the bus near the Stanton Street bus stop. He\nstated that during the meeting, Sergeant Derespini, stated that his comments were valid and\nPublic Works staff promised that the issue would be resolved. The next morning, the bus\noperator stopped in front of him and this time he was riding his bicycle. He spoke to the operator\nand was told to contact the police if he felt it was an infraction. That morning, he called the\nAlameda Police Department and was told unless they are there to cite the behavior it is under the\njurisdiction of the Sheriff's Department. He called the Sheriff's Department twice that day and\nthe following Monday without any response since. He felt the contact number for the Sherriff's\nDepartment was like a straw dog set up to exist, but not to service citizens' needs. He asked the\nTransportation Commission if anything could be done to either relocate the bus stop or have\nPage 1 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-03-22", "page": 2, "text": "Public Works repaint the street and remove the double yellow lines that motorists illegally cross.\nHe also asked the Commission if this issue was an action item or will it be left the way it is.\nCommissioner Bellows replied the Commission could place this issue on the next agenda and she\nasked staff to address it.\nStaff Payne said AC Transit will be rescheduling and shortening the route on Sunday, March 26.\nShe explained that the schedule and route change would remove the operators waiting at that\nstop. She further said the buses were stopping because the operators were running hot and that\ncaused them to wait at the time point, where Stanton Street is the designated time point.\nJim Strehlow said the officer stated that this behavior was creating a traffic hazard. Thus, Public\nWorks should remove the double yellow line, enforce traffic, or relocate the bus stop.\nCommissioner Bellows replied she would speak to staff about it.\nCommissioner Miley stated that the Commission received a letter from Nina Klem and he wanted\nto make sure that Public Works staff received the letter as well. He asked staff to forward the\nletter to the appropriate parties at Public Works to see if spot treatments could be made to\nincrease the safety of the bridge for students who ride their bicycles to and from Lincoln and Bay\nFarm Middle Schools.\n3.A. Earth Day Festival: Saturday, April 22 - 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.\n3.B. Transportation Commission Special Meeting: Wednesday, April 26 at 7 p.m.\n3.C. Correspondence to Transportation Commission (Information)\n3.D. Warm Springs Invitation (Information)\n4.A. Approve Meeting Minutes - March 22, 2017 - Special Meeting Minutes (Action)\nCommissioner Vargas followed up with Jim Strehlow's comments about the March 22, 2017\nCommission meeting minutes. He said the meeting minutes need to be reviewed for accuracy\nand grammar. He said he would leave his notes with Staff Payne to review. Therefore, he asked\nthat the Commission hold off on approving the minutes.\n5.\nNew Business\n5.A. Approve Design Concept for Cross Alameda Trail Gap Closure on Atlantic Avenue\nbetween Webster Street and Constitution Way (Action)\nStaff Wheeler, Transportation Planner for the Alameda Planning Division, presented the report.\nCommissioner Miley asked Rochelle Wheeler about the delineation between the cycle track and\nthe sidewalk.\nPage 2 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-03-22", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Wheeler replied the surfaces of the sidewalk and the protected bike lane would be different\n(concrete and asphalt, respectively), but they would be at the same grade without a vertical\nseparation. She also noted that there would be striping along the protected bike lane, so\npedestrians and bicyclists could visually see the difference.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Staff Wheeler about the vast difference between the mid-block\ncrossing cost that was estimated a year ago and the cost estimated now.\nStaff Wheeler explained that, last year, the project without the mid-block crossing was estimated\nat $200,000 to $400,000. She said the project's current cost, based on a more detailed design, is\napproximately $1 million and the mid-block crossing would cost approximately $150,000.\nCommissioner Bertken asked Staff Wheeler about the left turn movement on Constitution Way\nheading south, to eastbound Atlantic Avenue. He said there is a two-lane left turn pocket and the\ndesign concept appears to show an elimination of one of the two lanes on Atlantic Avenue. The\nresult of widening the curb at Atlantic Avenue, which took out a traffic lane, would create a two-\nlane turn pocket that merges into one lane.\nStaff Wheeler replied staff would look into this further.\nCommissioner Bertken said he travels that way often and if he has to merge in the middle of the\nintersection that will be difficult. He also asked Staff Wheeler if a sign would be installed at the\ncorner to alert cars to give way to bicyclists traveling behind them. However, he explained the\nunderlying issue would be that motorists do not see bicyclists because they are moving behind\nthem. So, he wondered if staff could address that by alerting bicyclists that cars are turning at\nthis southwest corner of Constitution and Atlantic.\nStaff Wheeler said she could include these ideas in the design concept.\nCommissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.\nJim Strehlow stated that the Commission spoke about the Cross Alameda Trail design two years\nago. He said he argued against that design because it did not include the bus stop. He said the\nCommission approved that design and he was not quite sure how that was going to work out. He\npointed out that he was relatively happy with the current design with one exception. He felt\nbicyclists would not need separated bicycle lanes. He stated that many bicyclists ride on the\nsidewalks without protected bicycle lanes, sharing the space with pedestrians along Webster by\nthe College of Alameda. He stated that he did not understand why bicycle lanes were needed on\nthis one block of Atlantic Avenue, especially when he only sees one bicyclist and maybe five or\nsix pedestrians every half hour.\nHe said the design on this one segment does not warrant taking away a traffic lane from Atlantic\nAvenue, especially a right-hand turn lane. He said as the cars move from two lanes into one\nlane, the staff report indicated that motorists would incur 1 to 7.5 seconds of delay at the\nintersection. However, he believed that was wrong and there will be over 2 minutes of delay\nbecause cars that want to make a right-hand turn onto Constitution Way would be prevented\nPage 3 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-03-22", "page": 4, "text": "from doing SO. He requested that staff provide the number of cars heading eastbound in both\nlanes.\nSusie Hufstader, Bike East Bay staff member and Alameda resident, thanked Alameda staff for\nproviding a beautiful design given all the complications and constraints surrounding the area.\nShe said when she moved to Alameda, she was impressed with the protected bike lanes on\nShoreline Drive and Fernside Avenue. She mentioned that Alameda has always been a front-\nrunner for these types of facilities and the City providing protected intersections would take it to\nthe next level. She pointed out that this design would allow all types of bicyclists to use the\nprotected bike lane. She noted that the city of Oakland's bike projects, especially on Fruitvale\nAvenue, would allow the entire Cross Alameda Trail to continue into Oakland and towards the\nFruitvale BART Station.\nDenyse Trepanier, Bike Walk Alameda representative and Alameda resident, said she would be\na big consumer of the bike facility because she resides near the project. She voiced her full\nsupport towards staff's presentation and she felt this project is very forward thinking. She\nexplained that this project would allow bicyclists to connect from Jean Sweeney Park to the\nCross Alameda Trail from the west end. She also said having bicyclists ride in the door zone is\ndangerous and a stripe of paint does not suffice. She pointed out that the plan is very forward\nthinking because it offers protected facilities at the intersections where cyclists need the most\nprotection. She thanked Alameda staff, the engineering firm and everyone who worked on the\ndesign for being creative because there were a lot of challenges to overcome. Additionally, she\nsaid the project was critical if Alameda is going to provide safe passage for bicyclists along the\nnorthern end of the island. Therefore, she asked the Commission to approve the design to close\nthe Cross Alameda Trail gap.\nBrian McGuire, Alameda resident, thanked staff and said it may seem like a small effort, but this\nwas important when connecting Seaplane Lagoon to Fruitvale BART and beyond. He stated that\nconnecting these segments was not only important, but it rebalanced the equity of the bicycle\ninfrastructure within Alameda and that is important for residents in the west end. He explained\nthat the biggest users of this path would be students going to and from Jean Sweeney Park to the\nRalph Appezzato segment. He exclaimed that the bike path would also alleviate congestion in\nand around the tube by moving users from cars to bicycles. He felt the project area was\ncomplicated, but staff got it right. Also, staff provided a safe bicycle facility without sacrificing\ntoo much from vehicles. So, he urged the Commission to approve the plan.\nCommissioner Vargas complimented staff for bringing AC Transit, and Alameda Police and Fire\nDepartments into the conversation when they were not initially engaged. He felt this is not just a\nmultimodal corridor, but also a combination of funnels that are concentrated at a couple of\npoints. He said a lot of attention should be placed on the design, so that staff do not favor one\nmode of transportation. He pointed out that the flow of freight trucks was mentioned briefly and\nhe wanted to hear more about it. He indicated that he attended a conference in the Central Valley\nand he explained that the last mile of getting freight to the destination was a constant concern. He\ntold Staff Wheeler that it was good to see the traffic lane widths were not substandard. He also\nechoed Commissioner Bertken's concerns about bicyclists' safety. He noted that the southeast\ncorner of Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way contained many opposing movements. So, he\nwondered if there's a way for staff to go beyond the standard traffic operations analysis for an\nPage 4 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-03-22", "page": 5, "text": "intersection and conduct a visual simulation for the various phases that are involved to see where\nconflicts reside. He also stated that he did not see signage planned for the driveway area.\nCommissioner Bertken replied there is a warning sign just before the driveway that says you\ncannot move ahead unless the lane is clear. He then said there is a sign that says if you are a car\nmaking a turn you have to yield to pedestrians and he felt that was overkill.\nStaff Wheeler replied that currently a stop sign is not present for cars exiting the driveway, but\nthere will be and she said there would be a warning sign, showing that bicyclists are traveling\ntwo-ways, for cars entering and exiting the driveway. The information can be found call outs #6\nand #7 of the staff report, Exhibit 5.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that when looking at the traffic operations reports, the Level of\nService (LOS) heading westbound would stay the same and he asked Staff Wheeler if anything\ncould be done to improve it, since the City would be spending approximately $1 million on this\narea. In addition, he said that since the project's costs are high, he would like to find out why\nthey have increased. He understood that the design received significant changes while remaining\ncutting edge, but he wondered if it would make sense to spend the funds on testing the design\nwith paint, rather than concrete work.\nStaff Wheeler said in regards to Commissioner Vargas' questions, firstly, truck traffic was\nanalyzed and that Public Works had been a great advocate for considering the truck routes. Staff\nalso conducted counts of the number of trucks on this block. She stated that trucks would be able\nto make all of the turns from one truck route to another. Secondly, she said when looking at the\ntraffic analysis, staff could look into that if there is more time and resources. Commissioner\nVargas clarified that it would be a visual simulation at Constitution Way and Atlantic Avenue,\nand would be useful for the right-hand turns at the southwest corner. Commissioner Vargas\nechoed the same concern that Commissioner Bertken expressed at this intersection. Lastly,\nregarding the costs, Staff Wheeler stated that the project brought to the Commission over a year\nago used the existing travel lanes and did not move the curb. She explained that the previous\nestimate did not include soft costs (i.e. construction support and management), nor did it include\na 25 percent contingency, both of which are included in the current project cost. The concrete\nwork alone, including building the facility on the south side of the street, but not including the\ndemo work or staging work, is approximately $260,000. She said that is one of the largest items,\nat a quarter of the project's total cost. She further explained that the largest cost is the signal\nwork, estimated at $270,000, because they have to install the protected left turn phases at\nConstitution, and physically move some of the traffic signal poles. She noted that both of these\nsub-costs are without the contingency added in.\nCommissioner Vargas asked why the mid-block crossing was deleted.\nStaff Wheeler replied the City did study this and was hoping to come up with a design that\ndirectly addresses the current illegal mid-block crossings. The City looked at different locations\nfor the mid-block crossing and how it would impact traffic and safety. She said there are no strict\nwarrants, so the project team looked at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and\nCalifornia Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for guidance criteria. They\nreviewed the factors such as the vehicle speed limits, collision history, visibility, pedestrian\nPage 5 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-03-22", "page": 6, "text": "volumes, and roadway width. She stated that the City's key guidance criteria were: pedestrian\nvolumes, collision history and the distance to the signalized intersections. The crossing is not too\nfar from the nearby signalized intersections and it would be safer for pedestrians to cross at one\nof them. She noted that if the City installed a rectangular rapid flashing beacon, the vehicles\nwould be required to yield to pedestrians, but they may not stop. She indicated that the pedestrian\nguidance thresholds for a marked crossing are 20 total pedestrians, or 15 senior pedestrians, in\nthe peak hour. Staff counted 12 seniors and 17 total pedestrians crossing when conducting\npedestrian counts this year, during the highest peak hour - 11:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. Thus, she\nexplained the pedestrian counts were just under the guidance thresholds. Finally, she stated that\nthere was one pedestrian-involved collision in 10 years, even though pedestrians regularly cross\nthere.\nCommissioner Bertken asked Staff Wheeler if pedestrians do not press the pedestrian push-\nbutton, then does the crosswalk not exist?\nStaff Wheeler replied no, since it would still be a marked crosswalk.\nCommissioner Bertken replied that if the rapid flashing beacon lights are not blinking, then\nAtlantic is just a throughway and it does not delay motorists. So, it's only when the pedestrian\npresses the button to cross that motorists are delayed.\nStaff Wheeler replied that the traffic impacts of the options with and without the midblock\ncrossing are about the same, since cars only need to yield to pedestrians and are not required to\nstay stopped, as at a red traffic light.\nCommissioner Miley stated that the priority tonight was to see the gap closed. Regarding the\nmid-block, he said he could take it or leave it and he questioned whether the mid-block crossing\nwould be used more. He felt Commissioners Bertken and Vargas echoed his concerns about the\nturning actions at Constitution Way. He also noted that the staff report said during the peak p.m.\nhours there were 173 vehicular turns and during the peak a.m. hours there were 110 turns from\nAtlantic Avenue onto Constitution Way. He believed when looking at the drawings and\nconceptualizing the queuing concern, a simulation would be useful. He asked Staff Wheeler if\nstaff looked at signalizing traffic so left and right turns could proceed simultaneously. He also\nwondered if there was a way to signalize the controls, like a scramble, to allow pedestrians and\nbicyclists to cross the intersection without any cars proceeding.\nStaff Wheeler replied that the City explored the simultaneous right and left turn idea but that\nbecause there is a combined through and right turn lane eastbound on Atlantic Avenue, the right\nturns cannot proceed in a turn-only phase, because they might be stopped behind a through car.\nCommissioner Bellows wondered if, rather than giving a lane to the left turns, could they use\nsome of the median and make that a left turn lane and scoot everything over, thereby maintaining\nall three existing lanes. That would provide a free right turn lane.\nStaff Wheeler said they also looked at that option, but rejected it because it increases the cost\nsince they would have to remove the center median on both sides of the street, to make room and\nto allow for the alignment of lanes across the intersection. However, she explained that the traffic\nPage 6 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-03-22", "page": 7, "text": "analysis for future years shows there could be more traffic impacts, so that is something that\ncould be considered in the future.\nCommissioner Bellows said that regarding installing the midblock crossing later, if the\nCommission chose Option 1 that wouldn't really work because the overall project design would\nchange.\nStaff Wheeler replied the Option 2, with midblock crossing, includes a small bulb-out, which\ncould be installed now, and the crossing could be installed later, if desired. She also noted that\nthe area that would need to be changed to install the midblock crossing - between the driveway\nand where the protected bikeway straightens out - is not large, so it is not out of the question that\nit could be modified in the future.\nCommissioner Bertken stated that there must be a way to have the bicycles gather and wait for a\ngreen signal, similar to when pedestrians gather and wait for the signal to change and then they\ncross the intersection. He felt installing signage there does not really solve the problem because\nmany motorists won't see bicycles coming through.\nStaff Wheeler said the turning vehicle warning signs would alert motorists that bicyclists may be\napproaching and they should proceed slowly.\nCommissioner Soules asked Staff Wheeler about the enforcement plan, which she read as part of\nthe public comment portion within the staff packet. She particularly wanted to know whether\nstaff would be working with the Alameda Police Department to make sure vehicles comply with\nthe California Vehicle Code. She also said the mid-block crossing could encourage greater use\nand that could affect traffic. She asked Staff Wheeler if the project team discussed how to\nimplement enforcement and education.\nStaff Wheeler replied they have not developed a plan yet and they would conduct public outreach\nto all of the groups using the area before, during and after construction.\nCommissioner Soules replied it would be good to have additional information sent out to the\ncommunity. She also said it would be good to understand the project's phasing and staff should\ninclude this information in the Commission's future agendas as well as update the community\nabout the construction impacts. She asked Staff Wheeler if staff determined the project's\nmaintenance costs.\nStaff Wheeler stated that they have not worked on the calculations, but they have been thinking\nabout maintenance costs as the design was being developed. Overall, there would be costs for\nlandscaping and maintenance of the facility.\nCommissioner Hans asked staff about that driveway on the southside of Atlantic Avenue. He\nasked Staff Wheeler if motorists would be able to make the left turn into this driveway.\nStaff Wheeler replied yes.\nCommissioner Hans said a similar turn exists in front of Lincoln Middle School where almost\nPage 7 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-03-22", "page": 8, "text": "every day he would see someone almost hit. He explained that it's easy for cars making a left\nturn to see the eastbound motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. However, he felt it would be\ndifficult for motorists to see the westbound bike lanes. Ultimately, motorists would be crossing\ntwo bike lanes and a sidewalk when they turn into the driveway and that's going to be difficult.\nCommissioner Miley said Commissioner Hans made an excellent point. He wondered whether\nthere was a way to prohibit this left hand turn, especially since it could be a potential safety\nissue.\nStaff Wheeler said they have been looking at those turns into the driveway. She stated that one\nreason the bicycle facility is elevated across the driveway was to make sure the cars slowed\ndown before getting to the facility. Signage was included to show motorists that the area\ncontained a two-way bicycle facility. Further, she said staff considered closing off the turn both\nin and out of the driveway, but the property owner was against the idea.\nCommissioner Vargas stated that he thought about having no left turns at certain times of the day\nand that should be analyzed and implemented in this design. Additionally, he asked Staff\nWheeler if staff looked at implementing bicycle-only signals similar to the ones implemented in\nDavis, California and a few other cities.\nStaff Wheeler replied staff looked at this idea, but they did not study it in detail. The project team\nunderstood that it would be expensive and there would be much larger vehicle impacts at both\nintersections from adding phases for bicycle and pedestrian crossings. She noted that the AC\nTransit Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project would travel down Ralph Appezzato Memorial\nParkway and possibly make a left turn onto Webster Street. This project would allow staff to\nconsider adding a bicycle signal on Webster Street in the future when they add a BRT project.\nCommissioner Miley wondered if staff had studied the cost for Commissioner Bellows' idea to\nremove the center median to add back the third eastbound travel lane at the intersection on\nAtlantic Avenue at Constitution Way.\nStaff Wheeler said staff looked at this during the project's earlier phase and before the detailed\ndesign was produced. She explained that the cost would be approximately $400,000 to remove\nthe medians on both sides of the street and to change the traffic signals.\nCommissioner Bertken asked staff to include some of the provisions such as analyzing the\nmovement of two left turn lanes coming into one lane, and including a warning for bicyclists that\nwould show an approaching auto conflict.\nCommissioner Bellows stated the Commission received nine letters of support and three letters\nthat seemed to support the project, but included design comments.\nCommissioner Miley moved to approve staff's design Option 1, but included the following\nadditions: 1. an education and enforcement piece should be included in the project; 2. staff\nattempt to limit construction impacts to motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and businesses in the\narea; 3. staff install appropriate signage to warn bicyclists about motorist conflicts; 4. staff\nevaluate including a \"no left turn\" sign at westbound Atlantic Avenue turning into the driveway\nPage 8 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-03-22", "page": 9, "text": "during the highest peak hours; and 5. staff address the two left turn lanes merging into one within\nthe intersection at Constitution Way.\nCommissioner Soules seconded the motion.\nCommissioner Vargas amended the motion for staff to consider including within the scope that\nmoves forward, whether that is preliminary engineering or final design, visual simulation to\nassist with the refinement.\nCommissioner Soules asked for clarification to the amendment.\nCommissioner Vargas said the visual simulation should be considered within the scope of the\nnext phase.\nCommissioner Soules seconded the motion.\nThe motion was approved 7-0.\n5.B. Review I-880/Broadway/Jackson Transportation Project (Information)\nCommissioner Vargas stated that the Alameda County Transportation (ACTC) manages the\nproject and will be presenting the report and update. He explained that since his firm is\ncompensated by ACTC on some of the project's work, he has a financial conflict of interest and\nmust excuse himself.\nJennifer Ott, Director of Base Reuse and Transportation Planning, introduced Trinity Nguyen,\nACTC Director of Project Delivery.\nTrinity Nguyen introduced the project team, Susan Chang, ACTC Project Manager, Chadi\nChazbek HNTB, Alice community outreach and Flora, project support.\nChadi Chazbek presented the report.\nCommissioner Bellows said she understood the concept of two-way bicycle traffic in the Posey\nTube, but she asked Chadi Chazbek if any thought has been given to placing incoming bicycle\ntraffic in the Webster Tube. Therefore, there would be one-way bicycle traffic in the Posey Tube\nand one-way bicycle traffic in the Webster Tube.\nChadi Chazbek replied the project team has not looked at this, but could.\nCommissioner Bellows referred to slide 18 \"Preliminary Traffic Analysis Results, AM Peak\nHour\" and asked Chadi Chazbek about the travel time for the Thru Tube. She asked if the Thru\nTube would be a fixed distance. Therefore, she wondered why the results were 840 seconds\nversus 180 seconds.\nPage 9 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-03-22", "page": 10, "text": "Chadi Chazbek replied the slowdown in the tube would be longer under one alternative versus\nthe other. He explained that the distance would be the same, but it would take longer to travel\nthrough the tube under one of the alternatives.\nCommissioner Bellows replied both alternatives would have 25 miles per hour (mph) limit in the\ntube.\nChadi Chazbek said that was correct and even when traveling 25 mph in the tube motorists'\ntravel time would be significantly less under alternative A1: Jackson Horseshoe.\nCommissioner Bellows opened the floor to public comment.\nJim Strehlow felt the project would take a while to get going given the existing situation with\nbicyclists and motorists leaving the Posey Tube. He said first, given the current conditions,\nvehicles coming out of the Posey Tube and into Oakland have trouble getting over to the most\nright-hand turn lane even when traveling 5 mph. He further explained that vehicles have\ndifficulty crossing a solid white line to get into the two right-hand turn lanes onto 6th Street\nbecause the paint starts way too soon out of the tubes. He wondered if the project team could\npaint dotted lines there because technically it is illegal for motorists to cross a solid white line.\nHe expressed the issue now so the project team won't make the same mistake with the new\ndesign. Second, he noted that he's a cyclist and when traveling out of the Posey tube he would\nlove to be able to go onto the roadway straight onto Harrison Street instead of being on the\nsidewalk and having to get up to the intersection and push the pedestrian crossing button. He\nsensed that it would be better for him to negotiate the traffic with the vehicles side by side then\nto wait and get to a point to push the pedestrian button and then cross the intersection. Third, he\nsaid he was happy with the project, including the way it's been put together and announced.\nFourth, he said he would be interested in knowing more about the actual elevation/slope that\nbicyclists would have to negotiate with the switchbacks. He would also like the switchback\nconcept to be presented clearly within the designs and for the project team to explain how\nbicyclists would negotiate the short distance elevation and loop-to-loop just to get through,\nbecause he's concerned that he would not be able to do it as his age. Fifth, he believed the 25\nmph limit through the Posey Tube was strange and the police could not enforce the speed when\nmotorists want to go 50 mph. Finally, he's interested to see if there will be any anti-occupy\nprotests and if the project team could slope some of the off ramp at a certain point somewhere\nbetween 9 or 10 degrees to make it harder for protestors to go up the ramps and into the freeway.\nBrian McGuire said as a Bike Walk Alameda Board member, he would normally get excited to\nsee a $10-15 million project move forward on a bicycle and pedestrian path that would open up\nthe west side of Alameda to Oakland. He stated that recently, Bike Walk Alameda completed its\n10-year anniversary of bike and pedestrian counts through the tube and over the Park Street\nBridge. Consequently, they found three reasons why people do not use the tube: 1. when\nbicyclists pass one another that requires one of the bicyclist to lift their bike up and over the rail;\n2. There is considerable noise in the tube; and 3. There is pollution and air quality issues within\nthe tube. He believed that opening the west side path seems to be a type of mitigation for the\nimpacts of the switchbacks. Therefore, he did not understand how this could be considered a\nmultimodal improvement over the current situation. He explained that he took a poll on Alameda\nPeeps, a Facebook group, to see how people would spend $10 million dollars to address\nPage 10 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-03-22", "page": 11, "text": "multimodal, pedestrian and bicycle issues. He said 55 people would like to see a down payment\nmade to build a pedestrian and bicycle bridge from Alameda to Oakland, 20 people said it would\nbe great to open the west side walkway and 17 people would like the funds to be used to\npurchase boats for water taxi service from Alameda to Jack London Square. He said most people\nwant to do something else with the multimodal funds and felt the City needs to send that\nstatement to ACTC.\nLucy Gigli, Bike Walk Alameda President, stated that this project has been around for a long\ntime with multiple iterations. She said it was Measure B and then Measure BB funds and $75\nmillion was allocated for Alameda to use on this project. She explained that Brian McGuire\nmentioned if the project funds were partially used, there would be $10-15 million left that could\nbe used for the City. Thus, she encouraged the Commission to use the remaining funds for true\nmultimodal projects that address issues that are across the Estuary.\nDenyse Trepanier said the project is multimodal in name only and she felt walking her bicycle\nthrough the tube was a horrible experience. She explained that although connections to the tube\nmight be improved, the switchbacks introduced would only make the situation worse. She\nreferenced the Bay Bridge project, which was supposed to be multimodal. However, the path\nremains randomly open on weekend days to bicyclists. She also pointed out that the off ramp\ngoing through and cutting across the bicycle and pedestrian path within the tube would reduce all\naccess across the west end of Alameda. Based on what she heard, this may be a great solution for\nvehicular traffic because they need to solve the congestion problem, but she felt the multimodal\nfunds earmarked for this project should specifically improve multimodal connections.\nCommissioner Morgado exclaimed that he was hearing a lot about the money and he wanted\nmore information about the funding allocation.\nTrinity Nguyen replied ACTC is working on the Comprehensive Investment Plan (CIP), which is\ndone every two years for a 5-year programming period. She pointed out that there are Measure\nBB funds specifically related to multimodal access from Oakland to Alameda and vice versa and\nthere are several components to that funding source. She went on to say that as cities submit\nprojects and request funding, the programming team would evaluate the requests to make sure it\nmeets the criteria such as: feasibility, the city's local match contribution and the current stage of\nthe project. Afterwards, recommendations would be made for the ACTC to review for action and\nthe next review period is scheduled for July 1, 2017 with a programming period of 5 years with a\n2-year allocation window. She said they're going to provide recommendations for the ACTC to\nreview in April and they will work with the cities that submit projects.\nCommissioner Miley asked if the project is in the CIP.\nTrinity Nguyen replied the project includes two funding components. She explained that the\nproject was included in Measure B, so there were funds dedicated for the general\nBroadway/Jackson project. The second component, Measure BB, was included as a component\nto address multimodal access between Alameda and Oakland. The funds could be used for a\nvariety of benefits, but has to fit into a certain description. Ultimately, she said the total on the\nMeasure BB side is $75 million and the Measure B is $8 million.\nPage 11 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-03-22", "page": 12, "text": "Jennifer Ott stated that the City is working with Parsons to assist with evaluating alternatives if\nfunds are available. She said they are also looking at how those remaining funds could be\nreprogrammed to fund multimodal improvement for Alameda, Oakland and potentially\nChinatown. However, she explained that ACTC was just beginning their public process and\nAlameda staff would keep their eye on potential unused funds.\nCommissioner Miley replied the way Trinity Nguyen spoke about the CIP process he felt the\nTransportation Commission would make the decision on what projects were funded. So, he\nwanted to know if this was an Alameda, Oakland or joint project.\nJennifer Ott replied Trinity Nguyen was speaking about any unused funds. However, the project\nthat was presented this evening was under ACTC, the project sponsor, and any unused funds for\nmultimodal improvements would have to go through a reprogramming process where Alameda\nwould have to meet ACTC's criteria.\nTrinity Nguyen replied the CIP process is all the funds within their measure and there are bike\nand pedestrian components as well as livable streets funding pots as well. She noted that the\nmore broad the funding pot the more competitive it is. Yet, she said she would work with\nJennifer Ott to see what project they would like to see move forward.\nCommissioner Miley seconded Trinity Nguyen's comment about staff doing a good job and he\npointed out that the public said the tube was not adequate for bicycling or walking. Nonetheless,\nhe was excited to see the presentation that evening and he wanted to see the project move\nforward with the public's questions and comments addressed.\nCommissioner Bellows replied there would be additional ACTC scoping sessions in May and\nduring different points along the line.\nCommissioner Bertken said the biggest benefit for Alameda would be to tackle the problem at\nthe Jackson Street ramp going to the freeway during the a.m. peak period because currently the\nproject does not address this issue. He explained that the project team left the conflict between\nthe Jackson Street ramp and the Interstate 980 exit and there's not enough traffic on the\nBroadway ramp to cause a problem in the a.m. peak.\nChadi Chazbek asked Commissioner Bertken if he was talking about the northbound Broadway\noff ramp.\nCommissioner Bertken said he was talking about the Broadway off ramp going to Broadway\nright alongside the Jackson Street ramp.\nChadi Chazbek replied he's heard this before and the weave is a problem. However, the real\nbottleneck is the two-lane ramp drop to one lane coming before the weave section and that's the\ncapacity constraint within the corridor. He explained that the weave is the main constraining\nelement and the project team conducted travel runs through the area with results showing\nmotorists slowing down as they come up the ramp while the two lanes merge into one lane. Yet,\nhe emphasized that the project would improve the issue.\nPage 12 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-03-22", "page": 13, "text": "Commissioner Bertken asked Chadi Chazbek if they are going to rebuild the Jackson on ramp so\nthere are two lanes onto the freeway.\nChadi Chazbek replied no.\nCommissioner Bertken asked Chadi Chazbek then what is the difference.\nChadi Chazbek replied the difference is that right now you have two lanes that come up, but the\nright lane puts motorists on Broadway and since there is a small volume of cars that go through\nthe weave section they're going to remove that from the on ramp altogether.\nCommissioner Bertken stated that it's important to understand that a good portion of the project\nhas to do with Oakland's side of the tunnel rather than Alameda's side.\nCommissioner Miley replied that Commissioner Bertken's comments were correct, but it's a\nmatter of working with our neighbor.\nJennifer Ott reminded the Commission that there would be an approximate 3-minute travel\nsavings to get to the freeway and that would be a significant amount of time saved even when the\nspeeds are reduced within the tube. However, she agreed with Commissioner Miley that there are\nbenefits for Oakland such as congestion improvements and pedestrian safety enhancements,\nespecially in Chinatown. Consequently, Oakland and Alameda would see major improvements.\nCommissioner Bellows thanked everyone for spending the evening with them and giving a\nthorough presentation.\nCommissioner Soules said the improvements proposed in Oakland would not mean Alamedans\nwouldn't benefit. She explained that Alameda residents commute through the tube and travel\nonto Interstate 880 and that would impact Alameda. In addition, she mentioned that having to\ndrive through Oakland Chinatown during peak hours can be intense because you have to watch\nout for pedestrians and bicyclists, so the improvement would also benefit Alamedans.\n6.\nStaff Communications\n6.A. BART 2017 Fact Sheet (Information)\n6.B. Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items\n1. Approve Transportation Projects in Alameda's 2017-2019 Capital Improvement Program and\nProvide Input on 2019-2027 Transportation Projects.\nStaff Payne said there is a special meeting on April 26 to approve the Transportation Projects in\nAlameda's 2017-2018 Capital Improvement Program.\n2. Accept the Annual Report on the Alameda Landing and Marina Shores Transportation\nDemand Management Program and Progress on the Citywide Transportation Management\nPage 13 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-03-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-03-22", "page": 14, "text": "Association.\n3. Review Draft Transit/Transportation Demand Management Plan.\n4. Approve the I-880/Broadway/Jackson Transportation Project.\n5. Approve the TDA Bike/Pedestrian Grant Submittal.\n7.\nAnnouncements/Public Comments\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, said he sits on the\nBART Bicycle Advisory Task Force and he invited the Commission and public to attend the next\nmeeting scheduled for Monday, April 3 from 6-8 pm at the East Bay Paratransit office. He\nexplained that the meeting would cover Project 529, a bike registration and theft deterrent\nprogram, created by J Allard, former Microsoft Xbox program manager with the assistance of\nConstable Rob Brunst from the Vancouver British Columbia police department. Under Project\n529, bicyclists can register their bicycles with their cell phone, local bike shop or police\ndepartment and the program includes superior database and social media components. He would\nlike to see a regional program spearheaded.\nCommissioner Vargas announced an event called Mobility 21, which is scheduled for April 3 in\nSacramento. He said Mobility 21 is a Southern California nonprofit that allows Metropolitan\nPlanning Organizations (MPOs) to get together and strategize about ways to obtain funding for\nSouthern California. He explained that's something that has been explored in Central and\nNorthern California.\n8.\nAdjournment\n9:40 p.m.\nPage 14 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-03-22.pdf"}