{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-07-22", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nTransportation Commission Meeting\nWednesday, July 22, 2020\nTime:\n6:30 p.m.\nLocation:\nDue to Governor Executive Order N-29-20, Transportation Commissioners were\nable to attend the meeting via teleconference. The City allowed public participation via Zoom.\nCity Hall was NOT open to the public during the meeting.\nLegistar Link:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=760089&GUID=A99C9591-DCEB-46B5-\nSE9E-A8C47FDCE07E&Options=info/&Search=\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Nachtigall and Commissioners Yuen, Kohlstrand, Hans,\nJohnson and Weitze.\nAbsent: None.\n2. Agenda Changes\nNone.\n3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4593184&GUID=DB9DC6E5-62EE-\n41E5-A423-1EDDF584B964.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand wanted clarification that the O line was going to be eliminated.\nGail Payne, Senior Transportation Coordinator, said yes that was correct as a temporary COVID\nmeasure that AC Transit is considering.\n4. Announcements / Public Comments\nA recorded message - Jim Strehlow from the Fernside Homeowners Association wanted to thank\nPublic Works for removing an unwanted sign on southbound High St.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nJuly 22, 2020\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-07-22", "page": 2, "text": "5. Consent Calendar\n5A. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, May 27, 2020\n(Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4593101&GUID=9299F04F-AE62-\n4707-AA00-96A00687406B&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand clarified her comments on page 5 second paragraph, her concern was\nthat retaining parking along Park St was going to contribute to congestion on the street.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes as corrected and Vice-Chair\nNachtigall seconded. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Elect Chair and Vice-Chair of the Transportation Commission\nCommissioner Weitze made a motion to reelect Samantha Soules as Chair and Alysha\nNachtigall as Vice-Chair and Commissioner Kohlstrand seconded both motions. A roll call\nvote was taken and both motions passed 7-0.\n6B. Discuss the New Transbay Rail Crossing - BART to Alameda\nChair Soules recused herself from this agenda item.\nStaff Member Payne introduced this item and introduced Sadie Graham from BART and Camille\nTsao from Capitol Corridor who gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4593186&GUID=692D3207-694B-\n  41C6-B7C4-18C42E061513&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked if Capitol Corridor would be using the same criteria as BART for\ntheir system expansion and if the employment consideration was going to factor in the density for\nthe potential around future stations.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nJuly 22, 2020\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-07-22", "page": 3, "text": "Ms. Graham said she saw this program as more infill in terms of growth than exurban growth. She\nacknowledged the importance of the balance of employment and housing and that is something\nthey will need to take into consideration.\nMs. Tao said that the Capitol Corridor team would do more work on policy for station\ndevelopment.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to know if they would be using data that had already been collected\nfor the best places to put a station and other useful information that was already available. Would\nthey be integrating that data into their reports?\nMs. Tao said that her team had already been reviewing existing reports and studies. She explained\nin further detail the information they had already gathered and the data her team would be\ncollecting.\nCommissioner Johnson asked how BART and Regional Rail would share tracks.\nMs. Tao discussed the options but said it came down to what would be most beneficial.\nCommissioner Johnson asked if the crossings would be under or above the water.\nMs. Graham said that is information they just don't have right now. They are focusing now on\nwhat best serves the needs of the network and the region. It could be a BART crossing or a standard\ngauge crossing or even both.\nStaff Member Payne asked if they had already determined if the plan was to have both BART and\nRegional Rail.\nMs. Graham said that had not been decided, both plans or a combination of the two would be\nconsidered.\nPublic Comments for #6B.\nThere were no public speakers.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nJuly 22, 2020\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-07-22", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Weitze wanted to know if this commission had any role in picking future stations\nin Alameda.\nMs. Graham said that was to be determined, they would want to build relationships with the cities\nthey are coming to but there were many technical elements that needed to be considered.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand wanted to know how they planned to analyze and assess the data to see\nthe need for a station in Alameda. Also, how can they get the information about what a station in\nAlameda would generate in terms of ridership?\nMs. Tao said they had not developed that methodology yet but once they have their teams on board\nearly next year that is what they will be working on.\nMs. Graham added that the teams would specifically be helping them build their ridership models.\nThey also would be using market analysis as well.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand hoped there would be opportunities for the commission to be a part of\nthose discussions and add their input.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to know if there was anything that could be done to speed up the\ntimeline by 5 years since some Alameda residents might be shocked or concerned by the 2040\ntimeframe.\nMs. Graham said there were many factors that could speed up development such as private/public\npartnership. Parts of the Environmental Review Process could hold up development. She said\nhaving political champions who raise awareness and funding would be beneficial.\nMs. Tao added there were many projects in the works and not enough funding to go around.\nGetting everyone to support a master plan and support the same projects could have the potential\nto speed up development.\nCommissioner Yuen agreed that if there was any way to prioritize this project to speed up\ndevelopment that would be great. She hoped Ms. Graham and Ms. Tao would come back to keep\nthe conversation going.\nStaff Member Payne wanted to add her support and offered whatever Alameda could do to\nchampion this project.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nJuly 22, 2020\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-07-22", "page": 5, "text": "Vice-Chair Nachtigall was excited by this project and understood this would be a long-term\nproject. She was pleased by all the positive feedback.\nMayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcroft wanted to say how much she enjoyed the presentation, what a well-\nrun meeting this was, and that she was a huge proponent of this project.\nVice-Chair Nachtigall welcomed Chair Soules back to the meeting.\n6C. Alameda Active Transportation Plan Draft Recommendations\nRochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced this item and gave a\npresentation. Attachments and staff report can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4593220&GUID=83995912-734B-\n4C48-802B-D5C127AB4F27&FullText=1.\nStaff Member Wheeler also introduced Megan Wooley-Ousdahl, Project Manager with Toole\nDesign, and Jessica Zdeb, Portland Office Director with Toole Design, who also presented parts\nof the presentation.\nChair Soules thanked the staff for their excellent presentation.\nPublic Comments for #6C\nRecorded comment - Jim Strehlow addressed that it was wrong to summarize that 80% of the\nresidents in Alameda wanted more biking and walking unless there were over 70,000 results in the\nsurvey. He found the percentages presented to be wrong, offensive, and misleading to the public.\nHe urged that Lincoln Avenue should be for trucks since there were already other streets\ndesignated for bikes. He wanted no bicycle enhancements on Lincoln Avenue and said that\nbicyclists already use Lincoln Avenue as it is at their own risk.\nCommissioner clarifying questions and comments #6C (Goals and Visions)\nCommissioner Weitze asked if intra-island car trips and getting off-the-island car trips were\nincluded in the goals.\nStaff Member Wheeler said that was not directly incorporated into the mode shift goal, it's seen as\na subset of it. It could be made into an action item under the goal of increasing walking and biking\ntrips off the island.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nJuly 22, 2020\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-07-22", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Hans said that he would prefer separated bike lanes whenever possible. He also\nstressed that safe access to schools and shops should be the priority right now.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand wanted to better understand how this bicycle and pedestrian plan fits\ninto the overall circulation plan for the city, and felt that it hadn't been given that context. She was\nin full support of making safe bicycle routes but believed the solutions needed to be multimodal.\nShe also asked if there was an additional reference made to connecting with transit stops.\nStaff Member Wheeler said that improving access to destinations including transit was included\nin the vision statement, although it's not explicit in the goals.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand reiterated that the tendency was to look at each of the modes\nindividually and when they are all put together it needed to make sense for everyone.\nStaff Member Wheeler said that more analysis was needed. The main goal was increasing safety,\nshe also reminded the Commission that at their next meeting they would be able to review the\nrevised General Plan, which would look at the big picture.\nCommissioner Johnson also wanted to look at all the modes together, not just the bicycle mode,\nand to strongly endorse the liberal use of bike boulevards. It is best to separate out the modes of\ntransportation keeping the cars on the busier streets and putting the bikes on the slower\nneighborhood streets.\nChair Soules agreed and that their job was to look at projects comprehensively, in a balanced way\nfor all and not look at mode to mode solutions.\nVice-Chair Nachtigall said she appreciated that safety had become a primary goal. She added that\nthe online map and survey showing where pedestrians and cyclists were nearly hit really did\nsupport a strong safety goal.\nMs. Wooley-Ousdahl said along with the bicycle network they have recommendations for the\npedestrian facilities. She also added that not every bicycle facility would require them to take away\nan auto lane.\nMs. Zdeb discussed how bike boulevards worked as a shorter-term implementation opportunity\nsince they generally had fewer political barriers. As for diverters, it was something they had in\ntheir \"toolkit\" but as of now, where they would go is not determined.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nJuly 22, 2020\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-07-22", "page": 7, "text": "Vice-Chair Nachtigall asked if the overlays for truck and transit routes were current or had been\nchanged.\nStaff Member Wheeler said what they were using now for truck routes was what was in the General\nPlan. She was not aware of any discussion on changing those and what was in the General Plan\nwere the official truck routes.\nChair Soules said she was bothered by the transit mode connection not really having a tangible\npiece in this work. Her concerns with the goals were that it seemed there was a missing piece on\nthe importance of people getting to transit points. She believed it was worth monitoring the routes\nthat they had to choose and hold themselves to a high level of accountability. She liked the link\nbetween goals and objectives - this was going to be important.\nCommissioner Yuen suggested creating a goal percentage for mode shift and for safety. She added\nthat one of the objectives or actions should be to create a set of performance measures in regards\nto the goals to see how well they were achieving these goals. She also agreed with finding a\nbalance between different modes of transportation.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand agreed there needed to be measures of effectiveness. She said that these\nissues had been brought up in the past and she was concerned that they would be forgotten at the\npoint of implementation. She also stressed that the items they invest in needed to be the most cost-\neffective.\nStaff Member Wheeler said that performance measures and metrics would be the next steps in the\nplan, and also making goals more specific. The goal, for now, was figuring out the\nrecommendations, then they would look at prioritization criteria that would include cost-\neffectiveness and mode shift potential. She added that at the September meeting they would be\nevaluating the 10-year capital improvement project list that would focus on criteria and prioritizing\nprojects for the next 10 years.\nChair Soules added that benchmarking was a really important step in this process. Her concern\nwith asking what people wanted was that they would not be able to meet those expectations. She\nwanted to see a mix of different ways to get people to shift modes and she thought the framework\nof what could be done and measured was there. She also wanted to recognize the work done by\nthe staff, setting goals and benchmarks was difficult. She challenged everyone to define the goals.\nShe said she would rather have a goal set and missed but make progress, than have nothing to\ntarget.\nCommissioner clarifying questions and comments #6C (Proposed Bike Network)\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nJuly 22, 2020\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-07-22", "page": 8, "text": "Chair Soules addressed the concerns over mixed mode streets and how to make sure there was\nparity between the modes. She thought an overlay of a transit line for the map in a PDF was helpful.\nShe did have some concerns for AC Transit and other areas.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if the land to the east of Constitution Way was city land.\nStaff Member Wheeler said that most of that land was still owned by Union Pacific (UP) and that\nsome of it further north was owned by the City.\nCommissioner Weitze clarified that the way it was shown on the proposed Bike Network map is\nthat it would be a potential bike path toward the estuary. However, since it was not owned by the\ncity that would be a long time in the future.\nStaff Member Wheeler said that was correct but that the sidewalk was owned by the city. They\ncould potentially widen the sidewalk.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if the city had been talking to Union Pacific about the land.\nStaff Member Wheeler said the city had not prioritized that area given the other UP land (in Jean\nSweeney Park and adjacent to Tilden Way) that they were interested in.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand wanted to know if they as Commissioners would have an opportunity\nto give input and if they could do that through the staff.\nStaff Member Wheeler said yes as individuals they could do that.\nChair Soules pointed out that they could review the online maps and that through August they\ncould leave online comments. She encouraged everyone to take a look at the maps and leave\ncomments.\nCommissioner Weitze brought up the interest in the continuation of a bike lane on Pacific Avenue,\nto be able to bike to the new Ferry Terminal. He said that it wasn't a safe area as it is now. He\nwanted to know if there was any work planned due to the public's interest.\nStaff Member Wheeler said that her understanding was that the short-term plan was to use\nOriskany to connect out to the future Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal. She added that due to\nconflicting land uses and a dead-end street there were no plans to focus on Pacific Avenue.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nJuly 22, 2020\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-07-22", "page": 9, "text": "Chair Soules wanted clarification on where the Commissioners could send any other comments.\nStaff Member Wheeler explained all the online tools they could use from the online Bikeways\nMap to all the surveys that were available under each element. She also provided the project email:\nactivealameda@alamedaca.gov\nCommissioner clarifying questions and comments #6C (Park, Webster and Lincoln Streets)\nChair Soules wanted to know how the Commission felt about the reconfiguration that Park Street\nand Webster Street had undergone already. She wanted to know more about how businesses felt\nand if the public was still going out and enjoying these areas.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to know if the protected bike lanes would preclude parklets because\nthat was how it was drawn. If the parklets prove to be a success, it would be something to consider.\nStaff Member Wheeler believed that was a downside of the separated bike lanes. She said that they\ncould do a combination of two but that wasn't ideal. She explained that all of the concept plans\nwould also make a lot of pedestrian improvements and further explained where those would be.\nShe said there were many iterations of what they could do and that with expanded sidewalk space\nthey could have room for sidewalk dining.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to clarify that the determination of which side of the street on which\nto widen the sidewalk was ultimately the city's decision, but that businesses could petition to get\ntheir side expanded.\nStaff Member Wheeler said that was correct, all the transportation options were the city's decisions\nwith input from the community and that the City Council would make that decision.\nChair Soules said it ties into the concept of complete streets. They were looking at it through the\nlens of a particular mode and they need to think of it with the concept of a complete street. They\nneed to make sure they have enough information and data that correlates to make an informed\nrecommendation.\nCommissioner Nachtigall addressed how they could learn from current events and get real-time\ndata. So much of what they are doing now is where they want to possibly be in the future.\nChair Soules said that there are commuter and utilitarian trips vs. recreational trips that have\ndifferent bodies of stakeholders. She was glad that in the planning stage they had not precluded\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nJuly 22, 2020\n9", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-07-22", "page": 10, "text": "looking at more than one option because of what looked good. She also found the street typology\ninteresting and a useful tool.\nCommissioner clarifying questions and comments #6C (Pedestrian Infrastructure)\nCommissioner Kohlstrand addressed the street typology map they had been given and gave some\nrecommendations on places where it could be improved. She also made recommendations on how\nto make the bike/ped paths around the island a complete network and pointed out gaps she found.\nShe addressed the pedestrian overlays and noted that the Northeast area of Alameda was lacking\nin these areas.\nStaff Member Wheeler clarified the areas that Commissioner Kohlstrand had recommended. She\nsaid that the gaps that were mentioned were filled, and said that all the information hadn't made it\nto the pedestrian map.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked Commissioner Hans to comment about the pathway through\nLincoln Middle School that was often used in that the access was blocked by a locked gate.\nCommissioner Hans explained on the map where it should be opened and where it got locked. He\nfurther explained on the map the area that was secured and that it was an agreement with BCDC\n(Bay Conservation and Development Commission) and the school district.\nChair Soules encouraged everyone to think about where commercial and industrial traffic would\ntravel. Trucks bring in goods and services and for safety and other concerns they needed to\naccommodate commercial traffic.\nShe also addressed the public comment about data slicing and how information is skewed to the\nindividuals who have the luxury and time to send in public comments and fill out the surveys. She\nwanted to make sure the City understood who was answering, this is why equity and outreach were\nso important. She also stressed that staff be mindful that they don't become myopic, that they need\nto look at comprehensive solutions and find the best ways to deliver them.\nStaff Member Wheeler addressed the concern about data slicing, stating that from the beginning,\nwith this project they had been trying to hear from the whole community. She spoke on the\nchallenge of doing that but they had been reaching out to underrepresented groups such as those\nliving at Alameda Point Collaborative, homeless individuals, high school students, and seniors.\nShe spoke more on all of their outreach methods and what they were learning from their surveys.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nJuly 22, 2020\n10", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2020-07-22", "page": 11, "text": "Commissioner clarifying questions and comments #6C (Priorities)\nStaff Member Wheeler said right now they are taking the opportunity to focus on high-level input\nfrom the community on priorities. She added that the goal now was checking in with the general\npublic on it.\nMs. Wooley-Ousdahl said that was correct and that the next phase would be to prioritize the\nprojects. They wanted to give people the opportunity to weigh in from the beginning.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to know about maintenance and the pedestrian infrastructure and if\nit would be considered in the context of slow streets that had been implemented and if it would be\nconsidered with current infrastructure or a separate category.\nStaff Member Wheeler explained that maintenance with current infrastructure was just barricading\non the slow streets. As of now, not much maintenance was needed.\nCommissioner Weitze clarified his question. Is maintaining the current slow streets a concept\nwithin Alameda? Should we keep the streets as they are now and expand them?\nStaff Member Wheeler said yes, they could see that as a program to potentially keep slow streets\nor to turn them into bike boulevards. It could be an evolution of the project.\nChair Soules encouraged everyone to tell friends and family about the surveys, and that there was\nan open house next Wednesday.\n7. Announcements / Public Comments\nJim Strehlow wanted the maps to educate the public about the beautiful views of Alameda from\nOakland with beautiful walking and biking paths that are public. He urged to keep bicycle\nenhancements on potential bike boulevards and side streets, not Lincoln Avenue, Webster Street,\nCentral Avenue or Park Street, which are transit routes. He pleaded to make the plan a multi-modal\nplan.\n8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:31 p.m.\nApproved Minutes - Transportation Commission\nJuly 22, 2020\n11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2020-07-22.pdf"}