{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nTransportation Commission Meeting\nWednesday, May 26, 2021\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=811334&GUID=929D18C0-4EF7-433D-\n83B3-574DE7818372&Options=info/&Search=\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Nachtigall and Commissioners Yuen, Kohlstrand, Hans and\nWeitze.\nAbsent: Commissioner Randy Rentschler\n2. Agenda Changes\nNone.\n3. Staff Communications are as shown in the web link here:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957779&GUID=CF0A5B93-1B33\n4C37-B39B-6855036CD070&FullText=1\nVice-Chair Alysha Nachtigall addressed the upcoming election for Chair and Vice-Chair. While\nshe had valued and appreciated her time as Vice-Chair she would not be throwing her hat in the\nring and would be stepping back for the next year.\n4. Announcements / Public Comments\nNone.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n1\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 2, "text": "5. Consent Calendar\n5A. Draft Minutes - Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, September 23,\n2020 (Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957780&GUID=A3EDAE6D-7EAB-\n53E-8949-A3C1522365AD&FullText=1.\n5B. Draft Minutes - Transportation Commission Meeting from March 24, 2021 (Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957781&GUID=0F801557-03F6-\n4328-9695-12B963C5E801&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand made a motion to approve both sets of minutes and\nCommissioner Tina Yuen seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the\nmotion passed.\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Policies on\nIntersection Access Equity and Pedestrian Timing and Detection to Improve Safety at\nIntersections (Action)\nRuss Thompson, Interim City Engineer, introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff\nreport and attachments can be found at:\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957782&GUID=45694D62-1596-\n4907-982E-A627F75C67DA&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked if there was a specific deadline that this needed to go back to City\nCouncil.\nStaff Member Thompson said it was currently scheduled for the second week of July.\nErin Smith, Director of Public Works, said there was no specific deadline but that the referral was\nfrom September 2019. There was some pressure to be responsive.\nCommissioner Scott Weitze wanted to know the thinking behind the removal of the pedestrian\nbarriers and what the data had shown.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n2\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Member Thompson said he didn't want to give the impression that there was a rush to do it.\nThe overarching goal was to make intersections have crosswalks on all sides. That's assuming\nthere was Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) money available to extend sidewalks to create the\ninfrastructure that was needed. He discussed the expenses that would go into making intersections\nfully functional on all legs.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if there were any intersections where it didn't make sense to put a\ncrosswalk.\nStaff Member Thompson said each intersection had to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.\nCertainly, if it would cost $300,000 to do all the improvements, it would have to compete with\nother intersections. Some things were cost prohibitive and if no real traffic or pedestrian safety\nwas being solved that would be a factor as well.\nRyan Dole, Traffic Engineer with Kimley Horn, added that the photo in the staff presentation was\nat Packet Landing on Bay Farm Island. It was a good example of where sometimes barricades were\nused to funnel people to a specific crosswalk, sometimes done for efficiency and not just safety.\nHe also explained the reasoning behind another intersection and why barricades could still be\nwarranted and useful in some intersections.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if there was actual data that backed up faster cycle times at\nintersections. He felt that drivers would get more frustrated if only a few cars made it through the\nintersection at a time.\nStaff Member Thompson said the thought was they were trying to avoid allocating time to a\nmovement in an intersection when nobody needed it. The frustration comes in when the cars are\nstacked up North/South and no pedestrians crossing East/West. That was a simplified version of\nwhat they were trying to do, to allocate time to those most in need.\nChair Soules asked about when the commission makes these endorsements and the council adopts\nthese resolutions she wanted to know more about how they were used. She wanted to know how\nthe resolution would be used going forward and what is established.\nDirector Smith acknowledged there had been inconsistency in how pedestrian detection had been\nused in the city and this policy intended to provide that consistency. She pointed out areas on the\nmap that would be impacted and also discussed what projects would be started depending on the\nbudget.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n3\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 4, "text": "Public Comments for #6A\nDenyse Trepanier, from Bike Walk Alameda, thanked staff for putting this policy out for the public\nto respond to. She thought it was very important they discussed how much of a burden they wanted\nto put on people who move around public spaces not in a car. However, Bike Walk Alameda was\nhoping that this policy would address the inequities there were in the burden right now in terms of\nhow they move about. She discussed all the inequities around the city and felt that this policy\ndidn't deal with the inequity of burden.\nCyndy Johnsen appreciated the effort so far on this important issue but she thought that the\nresolution still needed work. She believed it fell short of the Council's direction and she hoped\nthat it could be improved. She called out the Council's first request about how if access is given to\nthe car then the pedestrian way should be granted too, and in the policy, it had been watered down\nto only happen in certain circumstances. She brought up cities like Berkeley and Seattle that were\nmaking bolder commitments to pedestrian safety and equity. She hoped they could work a little\nharder to get it right.\nJim Strehlow said he agreed with the staff's recommendations that were against the Council's\nreferrals. He was happy to see a Civil Engineer finally providing input into these much-needed\ndiscussions since without one it had lead to bad decisions historically. He agreed long and\nunnecessary wait times lead to delays in transit and adds to greenhouse emissions and gave the\nexample of Sixth Street and Pacific Avenue and others. He agreed with Commissioner Weitze that\ndangerous intersections exist that do not need crosswalks and gave the example of High Street and\nMarina Drive.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussion for #6A\nCommissioner Kohlstrand agreed with many of what the public speakers had said and commended\nthe staff for moving this issue forward. She was also pleased to see many new crosswalks painted\naround the city at intersections that had pedestrian safety issues. She generally agreed with the\nstaff recommendations as they related to signalized intersections but in response to the first two\nspeakers thought they should take things further, she gave examples of intersections and advised\nto get rid of the beg buttons if they were not doing anything. She was concerned that this policy\nexclusively focused on signalized intersections as a means of addressing intersection equitable\naccess for the city. She also addressed there was virtually no discussion about roundabouts and\nhow they treat stop-controlled intersections. She felt that they should be moving away from\nsignalized intersections and felt that was a primary way this resolution fell short. She thought that\nthe staff should take more time to really delve into this and get creative. She wanted to see that\nhappen before they took any action on this resolution and then refer it to the City Council. She also\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n4\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 5, "text": "asked about Transit Priorities and when the Mobility Element Technical Appendix would come\nback for a review. She believed it was important that they review that appendix since the\nTransportation Element itself did not address transit or bicycle priority, that information was in\nthe appendix.\nStaff Member Payne did not believe the status on the Transit Priorities Streets would change much\nbecause it tended to be where AC Transit was operating. She saw that as a stable situation.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said she disagreed with that. She had looked at it again and she did not\nbelieve it reflected where AC Transit services are. She gave the example of how Clement Ave was\nlisted and it was not up to date.\nChair Soules recalled that they were going to get an updated version of the appendix because they\nknew it needed a revision. Going forward they were going to want that to serve as a baseline as\nother projects came forward for approval. She offered to follow up with Staff Member Payne to\nsee what the status was. She added that when she read the resolution, if and when there was a\ntraffic signal this is how they would operate. She felt that this captured that one piece where it\ndidn't need to contemplate everything else because it was only where it applied to an operation of\ntraffic signals.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said she appreciated what Chair Soules said and as it related to the\nmanagement of traffic signals she did not have an issue with what staff recommended. It was that\nthe definition of intersection equitable access was focused solely on signalized intersections and\nthat was where they had made a misstep, it should not just be focused on that.\nDirector Smith appreciated the comments and said it had been a difficult one to frame. She agreed\nwith Chair Soules that this was more of a traffic signal operation policy but perhaps there should\nbe better framing around that. She also agreed that when they defined intersection access equity\nthey had been thinking about how it would apply to signalized intersections in response to this\nreferral. She added that there needs to be a definition to happen for all intersections regardless of\nwhat the control was.\nChair Soules was fine with it since it was trying to answer this one specific issue with traffic signals\non the recall. Her biggest issue was for transit corridors to have that reliability.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said she understood that this was very focused on signalized\nintersections but still had issues with the definition of intersection access equity in the staff report.\nThis was a new term to her and brought up ways they should broaden that definition.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n5\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 6, "text": "Director Smith clarified that intersection access equity was not an industry term, and it came out\nof the Council's referrals. She thought of ways they could broaden that term or clear up the\nlanguage. She also thought about not defining it and just moving forward with the Council's\nreferrals.\nCommissioner Yuen said she was challenged by what the goal of the policy was trying to achieve.\nShe wondered if there needed to be some articulation of principals around what was guiding the\neffort.\nDirector Smith clarified the crux of what they had been going for was to serve the needed time to\nthe users when they were there. This was about detection and actuation in setting signal timing.\nThey did not want to put an undue burden on the people who were actually at the intersection.\nCommissioner Weitze said he read this document as an allocation of time document as opposed to\na safety document. He thought it did a good job of balancing multiple needs as well as\nacknowledging the requirements for changes. While he did normally agree with Bike Walk\nAlameda and Oakland on a lot of issues he did, however, not agree with them on the evils of beg\nbuttons. He thought they were good, solved many problems, and were not an undue burden in the\nmajority of cases for pedestrians and bikes who use them.\nCommissioner Kolhstrand said she tried to understand the Council's specific questions about\nsignal timing and tried to reconcile that with the staff report and the statement that intersection\nequitable access had to do with signal timing. She thought if they cleaned that up, it would be\nbetter.\nDirector Smith asked if it would help if they renamed it or coined a different term. She discussed\nthe different programs they had that did address safety to various other intersections.\nRochelle Wheeler, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, believed that changing the title of that\ndefinition would have it go in the right direction since they have many policies and documents that\nhad looked at intersections of all types. She added that staff should and did look at existing policies\nwhen they implement new ones.\nVice-Chair Nachtigall understood how hard this was to frame. She too would appreciate the\ndefinition being clarified. She echoed Commissioner Weitze's comment about the benefits of beg\nbuttons, and it is better when they work consistently, however.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n6\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Kohlstrand asked that there be more explanation around the term intersection\naccess equity. Even with all her experience in the transportation field, she had never heard that\nterm.\nChair Soules made a motion to bring this agenda item back at the July meeting or according to the\nschedule that the city staff set with the time needed for revisions before it went to Council, and\nwanted to reference \"signalized\" intersection access equity. Commissioner Weitze seconded and\na vote was taken by a raise of hands, the motion passed 6-0.\n6B. Recommend that the City Council Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute\nDocuments Necessary to Accept and Allocate $1,555,000 in Grant Funds from the Alameda\nCounty Transportation Commission to Complete a Project Initiation Document for the\nAlameda-Oakland Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge Project (Action)\nChair Soules recused herself from this agenda item.\nStaff Member Wheeler introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\n https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957783&GUID=809FF584-BBD0-\n49BD-8E4C-6F4A45F057E2&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B\nCommissioner Weitze asked for clarification on the initial and annual costs of the water taxi.\nStaff Member Wheeler pointed out that was part of the feasibility study page. She added that it\nwould depend on how frequently the boats were used, who owned the boats, and many other factors\nthat the study did not go into. In general, the potential cost would be around $1 million to initiate\nthe water services and $2 million to operate and maintain it annually.\nCommissioner Weitze said that he was baffled by the numbers, and he did not understand why\nthose numbers were what they were. Why not just buy the boat tomorrow?\nStaff Member Payne explained they would have the boat in July, WETA would be starting water\nshuttle services from the Alameda Main Street ferry terminal for commuters going to Oakland.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if that was the short hop that was part of the regular route or was it\njust a short hop frequently.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n7\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 8, "text": "Staff Member Payne said it was during commute time at this point and it was part of the Sea Plane\nShift.\nCommissioner Weitze said that was helpful information but it did not answer his question. He did\nnot understand how the boat cost $1 million and $2 million a year to operate but the bridge cost\n$200 million in 25 years when they build it. He did not understand why there wasn't a new boat\nout of Alameda Landing 6 months from now and they just don't run it.\nStaff Member Wheeler said the medium term option was the water shuttle. She discussed all the\neffort going into getting a water shuttle and getting a boat in the first place. She also discussed all\nthe ways they had looked into bringing the cost down.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if this project were to be funded, what kind of population\nrequirements were there for the island.\nStaff Member Wheeler said they had looked at the projected population based on current zoning\nand planned projects. She believed they would be looking at the number of people who use the\nboat, which is also based on employment. She did not anticipate that Alameda had to grow by a\ncertain amount.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked about the first forecast for the Pedestrian and Bicycle Demand\nfrom 2009 and wanted to know if they would look at that again when it came in for environmental\nreview.\nStaff Member Wheeler said they had done the Traffic Demand Model with the study they had\npublished this year.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked if the bridge was high enough that it would not have to be raised\nfor the sailboats but just the Coast Guard Cutters.\nStaff Member Wheeler said when the bridge would be down, the height would be about 65-70 feet\nabove the water and that would allow about 90 percent of sailboats to go underneath it.\nPublic Comments for #6B\nDenyse Trepanier, with Bike Walk Alameda, gave her support for the staff recommendation that\nthey accept $1.5 million from the county. She also wanted to acknowledge all the work done by\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n8\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Member Wheeler. She believed that this should not be a city lead project but a regional\nproject and felt that Staff Member Wheeler had done the lion's share of this project. She\nacknowledged that getting a new transit service up and running was really hard and time-\nconsuming. She discussed all the difficulties in getting the water shuttle services up and running\nand it was the short-term solution. She thought they were in a really good place to move forward\nwith this project.\nSusie Hufstader echoed what Ms. Trepanier had said about Staff Member Wheeler and her team\nfor all the work she had done shepherding this project forward. This project was overwhelming\nand it took a lot of work from the city staff. She discussed the importance of really thinking\ndifferently about infrastructure and what other cities were doing. She believed this project would\nbe transformative for Alameda. She encouraged the commissioners to speak up about this project\nto make it a high priority.\nCyndy Johnsen also thanked Staff Member Wheeler and staff for working on this gigantic project.\nShe wanted everyone to think about how big and impossible it seemed at one time to have\nhighways across America, and now it's just part of life. The price might seem high but there was\nno bike infrastructure or the West End that connected to Oakland. She gave other ideas on how to\nthink about bike equity and discussed all the different requirements this bridge had to meet. She\nhoped there were ways they could work with the Coast Guard and look at design elements to bring\nthe cost down. She was very excited about this project.\nJim Strehlow wanted to discuss the Feasibility Study from 2009 that had been a priority for 7 years.\nHe had asked repeatedly for a year now for a project status update from Staff Member Wheeler.\nHe wanted to know how much income had been brought in since Alameda Landing was supposed\nto contribute $175,000 and he wasn't sure if that was yearly or not. He thought that going from the\nMain Street ferry terminal to Webster Street was too far, Alameda Landing was a better option.\nHe liked that WETA was involved. He wanted to know what lies had been put into the Travel\nDemand Model estimate of the daily bike trips. He talked about past bridges in the area that boats\nhad crashed into and the plan had no disaster backup plan.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B\nCommissioner Yuen said she was very much in support of moving this forward. She did not see\nthis as an either-or situation, bridge vs. other modes of access across the estuary. She mentioned\nshe lived on the West End and she was excited for the water shuttle and this bridge. She saw this\nas an important critical next step in moving this project forward and fully supported it.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n9\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 10, "text": "Vice-Chair Nachtigall believed this was very notable especially with the research that showed that\nover 40,000 fewer auto trips per week were possible. She was in full support.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the staff recommendation that the City\nCouncil Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Documents Necessary to Accept\nand Allocate $1,555,000 in Grant Funds from the Alameda County Transportation Commission to\nComplete a Project Initiation Document for the Alameda-Oakland Bicycle-Pedestriar Bridge\nProject. Commissioner Michael Hans seconded the motion, a vote was taken by a raise of hands\nand the motion passed 5-0 with Chair Soules having recused herself.\n6C. Update on Vision Zero Action Plan Development and Crash Data Analysis (Discussion)\nLisa Foster, Transportation Planner, introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report\nand attachments can be found at\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4957784&GUID=CC342571-9648-\n4854-9EF6-C939AA16557F&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6C\nCommissioner Weitze asked if the recent work done at Alameda Point had conformed to all the\nVision Zero recommendations.\nStaff Member Wheeler said they were focusing on as much state-of-the-art infrastructure as they\ncould.\nPublic Comments for #6C\nJim Strehlow said that this study did not publish counts of who was at fault, such as poor lighting\nor someone distracted by their phone. He said with all the different cultures on the island, he\nwanted to know in what different languages they had created safety information for.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6C\nChair Soules said this was a lot of data but thought it had been put forward in a great graphic way.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n10\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 11, "text": "Commissioner Yuen thanked Staff Member Foster and city staff for all their work on the Vision\nZero Plan and was really pleased with the progress. She asked what city staff had learned from a\nrecent fatality and two severe injuries that happened in the first quarter of 2021.\nStaff Member Foster said the fatality had been a cyclist and they had done a Post-Collison Site\nVisit. She discussed the ways they were planning on making the intersection safer and the entire\ncorridor was slated for improvements. The other two collisions still needed to have their Post-\nCollison Site Visit.\nCommissioner Yuen said since the data went until 2018 was there any plan to continue to update\nthe crash data and high injury corridors.\nStaff Member Foster said the plan was to do a full high injury corridor every 5 years. She also\ndiscussed other information that would improve and help her studies.\nVice-Chair Nachtigall appreciated the data-driven analysis and commended Staff Member Foster,\nstaff, and the consultant team. She found the information easy to read and understand. She stated\nas the parent of a third-grader the findings in the study were very challenging and unfortunate. She\nappreciated the new high visibility crosswalks and safety measures, and she was looking forward\nto seeing the full Vision Zero Action Plan.\nCommissioner Weitze asked about the crash data in the report and wanted to know specifics about\nthe 33 percent of drivers hitting pedestrians in crosswalks. He wanted to know if that included\nstraight-on collisions and right turns.\nStaff Member Foster said that was drivers traveling straight, not turning.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if they had the information about crashes where drivers were turning.\nStaff Member Foster said she could get that information for him.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand echoed her fellow commissioners in that this was great work so far. She\nasked when the Socially Vulnerable Map would be updated.\nStaff Member Payne said it was happening with the Hazard Mitigation Plan update that was\nbeginning now.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n11\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 12, "text": "Commissioner Kohlstrand asked if it was based on Census Data or some other data.\nStaff Member Payne said that it was mainly based on Census Data and a combination of various\nfactors.\n6D. Status Report on Transportation - May 2021 (Discussion)\nStaff Member Payne introduced the item and gave a brief presentation with Staff Member Wheeler.\nThe staff report and presentation can be found at\nhttp://alameda.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=792bf795-7f1d-41b8-a994-\n14e7b34ce277.pdf and\nhttp://alameda.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=e03c16e4-945d-47c1-bf9d-\n07656ad6a5a7.pdf.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6D\nChair Soules said the graphics and the layout had come a long way. She commended the extra\neffort the staff did to make this more readable.\nVice-Chair Nachtigall asked if they were going to be charging for parking right away at the Sea\nPlane Lagoon ferry terminal.\nStaff Member Foster said they would not have paid parking in place for when the ferry started but\nthey would be getting it implemented soon. Pay stations will be installed in the coming months.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to know what the staff thought about traffic being bad and backed\nup everywhere except getting on and off the island on the West End. How could they keep that\ngoing forward?\nStaff Member Payne said much of that had to do with the demographics of Alameda, people tend\nto have jobs where they can telecommute, and schools were not in session.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if city staff was projecting that to continue since demographics were\ngoing in the direction of telecommuting.\nStaff Member Payne said that was hard to predict but it did present an opportunity to help with\ncongestion on and off the island.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n12\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-05-26", "page": 13, "text": "Commissioner Yuen had also thought about the VMT returning to almost 100 percent in parts of\nthe Bay Area. She wondered what that meant for the future VMT for Alameda and how to keep it\nlow. She saw transit as a way to do that and a way to alleviate fears with Covid measures.\nPublic Comments for #6D\nJim Strehlow said they completely ignored the Alameda Oakland Access project. This was a major\nproject over the last 6-8 years. It will highly affect the multimodal travel patterns. He asked that\nthey also identity Orion Street's endpoints.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussion #6D\nThere were no other comments on this item.\n7. Announcements / Public Comments\nCommissioner Kohlstrand discussed a recent story she heard on NPR about the potential removal\nof the I-980 Freeway in Downtown Oakland and that it was gaining some interest in moving that\nproject ahead. She wanted to know if Alameda had been involved in that discussion, she believed\nit would be wise to do SO.\nStaff Member Wheeler said she had not heard that story but they could reach out to Oakland City\nStaff.\nStaff Member Payne agreed they could and should look into that.\nJim Strehlow also discussed the potential closure of the I-980 Freeway in Oakland. He could not\nbelieve that was a good idea and was going backward.\nChair Soules discussed the morning's tragedy at the Santa Clara VTA rail yard in San Jose. She\nsent her thoughts to the victim's families and everyone in the industry.\n8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.\nApproved Transportation Minutes\n13\nMay 26, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-05-26.pdf"}