{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes\nTransportation Commission Meeting\nWednesday, September 22, 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=811336&GUID=3E8F230B-9CBC-47B0-\n8633-082B444CD1D6&Options=info/&Search=.\n1. Roll Call\nPresent: Chair Soules, Vice Chair Yuen and Commissioners Kohlstrand*, Weitze*, Rentschler.\nAbsent: Commissioner Michael Hans and Alysha Nachtigall.\n*Kohlstrand and Weitze arrived after the initial roll call.\n2. Agenda Changes\nChair Samantha Soules said they would delay item 5 until they had a quorum.\n3.\nStaff Communications are as shown in the web link here:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137019&GUID=B567D985-136F-\n4FC9-B85D-073F5DCFEFDC&FullText=1.\n4. Announcements / Public Comments\nChair Soules thanked Vice Chair Tina Yuen for stepping into the role of Vice Chair. She then\nexpressed her deepest condolences to the family of the man who was killed recently in a traffic\nfatality on Fernside. She discussed the important work that staff was doing with the Vision Zero\nPlan.\nHannah Green expressed her safety concerns about crossing the street on Buena Vista with her\nchildren near Chapin Street. She asked that crosswalks be painted at the intersection of Chapin,\nTC Minutes\n1\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 2, "text": "Wood, 9th, and Buena Vista. She added that it was hard to cross there and that cars drove by\nwithout stopping and at high speeds.\nJill Staten discussed the slow street on Versailles and thought that this street was not well chosen\nfor the program. She explained the many issues with the traffic that she had noted and that drivers\nwould become frustrated.\n5. Consent Calendar\n5A. Draft Minutes Transportation Commission Meeting from Wednesday, July 28, 2021\n(Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137020&GUID=EE3E1FEB-85D0-\n3AF-985C-5744F51CD6B4&FullText=1.\nGail Payne, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, corrected that Commissioner Hans had been\npresent at the meeting.\nCommissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand made a motion to approve the minutes with the correction and\nChair Soules seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 4-\n0, Vice-Chair Yuen abstained since she had been absent at the meeting.\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Discuss Link21: New Regional Rail/Transbay Rail Crossing Project Update\n(Discussion Item)\nStaff Member Payne introduced Nicole Franklin with BART and Alex Evans of HNTB who gave\nthe presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137021&GUID=8186601E-EB9D-\n4ED2-8402-B67366E4B6C5&FullText=1\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A\nCommissioner Kohlstrand wanted more information on the vehicle types that would be used. She\nwanted to know how the technology would link together and what would need to be electrified.\nMr. Evans explained about the new generation electric vehicles they were working on and how\nCaltrans would adopt that technology. He explained what was being electrified and what systems\ncould use both diesel and electricity.\nTC Minutes\n2\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 3, "text": "Commissioner Weitze wanted to know how this project would be different from the High-Speed\nRail project that California had been developing, which in his opinion had been a disaster. He\nwanted to know what lessons they had learned from that project. He also wanted to know how\nmuch faster this would be if they just focused on one thing and then worried about the connections.\nMr. Evans said they had learned a lot from that situation. He explained how and why this project\nwas different. He saw their analysis as using existing highly functional systems and making\nimprovements to these existing systems. He then explained what their findings had discovered, to\nserve the megaregion this project would likely start in the inner Bay Area but it would still serve\nthe larger area.\nVice Chair Yuen wanted to know more about potential impacts to the City of Alameda, such as\npotential service stops. She also wanted to know what information they should be gathering about\npotential stops and the best way to share that information.\nMr. Evans said they would rely on the involvement of city staff and this commission to know\nwhere they thought service stops should be. Then they could match that up with their findings.\nStaff Member Payne discussed the work and research staff had done to best locate and decide on\npotential service stops. She discussed other ways they could gather information and was open to\nother suggestions.\nMs. Franklin discussed the community engagement that BART had done to better understand\nservice needs and aspirations. She would alert staff about their next survey and would share those\nfindings.\nChair Soules brought up the RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) and the changing\npopulation that would be happening and wanted to make sure those demographic changes were\ncaptured.\nMr. Evans discussed how the Transbay Crossing was the centerpiece of this project and how this\nproject would enable so much more. It was not just a way to get to and from San Francisco and he\nfurther discussed how this would serve different needs.\nChair Soules appreciated the big bold vision and was happy to see the outer communities\nconsidered. She wanted to know what assurances they had that once they had the Transbay\nTC Minutes\n3\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 4, "text": "Crossing that the rest of the project would not fizzle. What planning and forethought had been\ngiven to funding and future support.\nMr. Evans wasn't sure if there was a great answer other than planning for the years ahead and\nraising expectations, which they were doing. He discussed the other agencies that were involved\nand believed this was a Golden Age in rail improvement. Each improvement would inspire people\nand groups to want the next one.\nCommissioner Randy Rentschler wanted to know if there was any other city that had the same\npotential as Alameda to get another potential station.\nMr. Evans stated the reasons why Alameda was a good choice.\nPublic Comments for #6A\nJim Strehlow discussed how he liked the studies that showed the differences between East and\nWest Bay. He then discussed his history of living and working in the Bay Area and how\ntransportation and commuting around was difficult and that sometimes a personal vehicle was the\nbest option.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6A\nCommissioner Kohlstrand discussed some of the limitations for high-speed rail in the area, the\nmain one being no dedicated funding source. For this project, she believed everyone in Northern\nCalifornia needed to come together to identify how to get these things done. Also, they would need\nto work with the federal government for potential funding.\n6B. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Signalized\nIntersection Equity Policy (Action Item)\nErin Smith, Public Works Director, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report\nand attachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137022&GUID=61E66B31-15AE-\n49F5-A8F2-793575E7CCDE&FullText=1.\nDirector Smith introduced Russ Thompson, Interim City Engineer, Robert Vance, Public Works\nSenior Engineer, and Ryan Dole, a Transportation Engineer with Kimley Horn who were available\nfor questions and input.\nTC Minutes\n4\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 5, "text": "Commissioner Clarifying Questions for #6B\nCommissioner Rentschler wanted staff to be able to maximize use of available tools for optimizing\nsignal timing. He also made note that despite the City's goal for mode shift, most people currently\ndrive. He understood there was pressure on Public Works to reach the mode shift goals but he was\nopposed to creating needless wait time for drivers as a means to get there. He believed that actuated\npedestrian signal use was most efficient. He discussed other ways they could improve the system\nas it was now.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand generally agreed with the revisions that had been made. She then asked\nfor a clarification on the wording in the redline resolution.\nDirector Smith clarified that the staff report and the presentation were correct, and that the intent\nis to use land use designation for community/commercial She apologized for the mistake and\nnoted that the resolution would be updated for Council's consideration.\nPublic Comments for #6B\nAlexis Kreig strongly opposed prioritizing cars' convenience over allowing pedestrians to be able\nto cross when the light is green. She thought that since it was car emissions that were causing the\nclimate crisis it was unconscionable to be prioritizing driver convenience over pedestrian safety\nand access.\nJim Strehlow highly commended the rewording of this resolution and thought it was very\nworkable. He also endorsed Commissioner Rentschler's words as well and appreciated the work\ndone by Russ Thompson.\nDenyse Trepanier, Board President for Bike Walk Alameda, wanted to have a larger conversation\nabout how they would want their intersections to behave since there were so many competing\nvoices. She thought that they had already established in the Vision Zero plan that they would not\nprioritize driver convenience so she was surprised to see that as a priority in this policy. She was\nnot opposed to this policy but believed it did not get to the conversation they should be having.\nTC Minutes\n5\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Comments and Discussions for #6B\nCommissioner Rentschler wanted to know if this was something that should be revisited. He did\nnot want to create friction between modes and have people angry needlessly. He also wanted to\nknow if this didn't work, what was the plan.\nDirector Smith explained how recall was already implemented on Park and Webster currently and\nthat this policy would allow for the implementation of the time of day component, which is the\nfunctional change of this policy. They would only revisit it if they were directed to do so.\nCommissioner Weitze first endorsed Bike Walk Alameda's statement and letter about signal\nimprovements for bikes on Appezzato Parkway; he thought that was way overdue. He explained\nhis concerns with the \"sometimes this and sometimes that\" signals, especially in locations where\nthey are teaching walking signals to children. He thought it should be, you push a button, and then\nit's safe to walk. He worried that having recall different at different times could be confusing and\npossibly dangerous. He was against the time of day recall.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand agreed with Commissioner Weitze's observations and was also\nstruggling with the time of day concept. She thought that having recall all the time along Park and\nWebster would be good. She also wanted to know why the intersection of Park and Otis was left\noff the pedestrian map, she pointed out what a busy pedestrian intersection that was. Other than\nthat she was supportive of the staff recommendation.\nDirector Smith explained what decisions and criteria had gone into the pedestrian map.\n*Commissioner Rentschler had to leave the meeting. He had originally made a motion to approve\nthis resolution but since he had to leave Commissioner Kohlstrand made the motion instead.\nChair Soules appreciated the red-line and she liked the time of day technology. She discussed how\nif the lights were not timed right, you would see drivers trying to \"beat the light\". She also believed\nthis would allow balance for the different modes better. She also pointed out that the data would\nallow them to make adjustments to make this work better. She also agreed with and endorsed\nCommissioner Kohlstrand's clarification.\nVice Chair Yuen endorsed this policy and felt that she better understood it after the revisions. She\nagreed that the policy was nuanced, adaptive, and could balance everyone's needs. She discussed\nwhy some people were hesitant to support push buttons.\nTC Minutes\n6\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 7, "text": "Commissioner Weitze stated that he would vote against this resolution strictly on the idea that he\ndid not believe that an on/off again pedestrian recall was safer. He saw Vision Zero as important\nand believed this resolution was the opposite of that.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand made a motion to approve/endorse the staff's recommendation with the\namendment that the wording change to \"community mixed-use/Commercial\" to be consistent with\nthe staff report. Chair Soules seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the\nmotion passed 3-1 with Commissioner Weitze voting against and Commissioner Rentschler being\nabsent.\n6C. Status Report on Transportation - September 2021 (Discussion Item)\nStaff Member Payne gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be found at:\nttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5137023&GUID=F0B7864D-20DE-\n402B-AC24-FFFFC8AF4048.\nRochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator, Lisa Foster, Transportation Planner, and\nStaff Member Vance also gave updates on projects.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6C\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked about the repaving and repainting along Buena Vista and if it\nwould include restriping near Maya Lin School. Would they be establishing crosswalks near that\nlocation? She also wanted to know the timeframe for that project.\nStaff Member Vance said the project that just wrapped up was not a resurfacing project so they\ndid not add crosswalks at that time. The next phase would include a designer who would evaluate\naccessible curb ramps, pavement markings, and that is when they would look at that intersection.\nThis will take place sometime next year, in the fall and the winter.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked staff to respond to the public comment who was concerned for\nthat intersection and give them an update on the timing of that project.\nCommissioner Weitze asked for a completion date for the evaluation (bike lane, road diet) of the\nLincoln/Pacific corridor.\nStaff Member Payne discussed how the project had been expanded and that a more comprehensive\nlook had been planned for the corridor. It would now include a larger area and it needed more\nTC Minutes\n7\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 8, "text": "outreach. Public outreach would start late this year or early next year and she then laid out the\nphases and what that entailed. This was a major effort and they would be applying for grant funding\nto complete and construct. She also explained what information they look for and gather during\nthe evaluation.\nChair Soules asked with the investment in bike infrastructure, were they collecting data on bike\ncounts. Had they been doing surveys, travel diaries, or counts in mode shift?\nStaff Member Wheeler answered that they had done a statistically significant survey asking about\nmode choice. She did acknowledge that a travel diary would be the best survey and they could do\nthose in the future. She also pointed out the bike counter on the Cross Alameda Trail but due to\nthe pandemic, those numbers aren't a true reflection. She discussed other surveys and numbers\nthey had been looking at for future comparisons.\nStaff Member Payne added that working on better data collection with new technologies was\nsomething they would be working on as part of the Smart City Master Plan effort.\nChair Soules discussed how data collected intersected with their equity issues. She wanted to see\nif there was actual uptake in what they were offering as the transportation options to a larger\npopulation.\nStaff Member Wheeler discussed how the statistically significant surveys would consider the\npopulation diversity. She also added that after projects were done they collected data as well.\nPublic Comments for #6C\nJill Staten discussed how important before and after data was, you needed to have good baseline\ndata. She did not believe that survey data was good data, what really mattered was the\nobservational data. She encouraged more observational data and fewer survey data.\nJim Strehlow wanted more clarification on where the work on Orion Street would take place. He\nalso had concerns about safety on the new bike lane on Clement. He also wanted an update on\nwhen the Oakland/Alameda Access Project would begin. He also agreed with the previous speaker\nabout having fewer survey data, he considered them hearsay and could be easily manipulated. He\nalso pointed out that there was no chat window available for the meeting.\nTC Minutes\n8\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 9, "text": "Staff Member Payne pointed out where the update for the Oakland/Alameda Access Project was\nlocated, page 23, and then discussed that project and timeline. She also clarified that the before\nand after data for Otis was based on quantitative analysis.\nChair Soules added that she would follow up with Staff Member Payne about Orion St.\nCommissioner Comments and Discussions for #6C\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to know what success for Line 78 would be. He felt that it was a\ndifficult time to be starting a bus line during a pandemic, and he expressed concerned that people\nwere hesitating to get on a bus right now.\nStaff Member Payne answered that she had not seen any of the parameters on what was needed\nfor that bus line to be successful. She added that there is a good faith effort to keep it beyond the\nfirst year.\nCommissioner Weitze wanted to further discuss the Slow Streets map from the presentation. He\ndiscussed what he had observed about slow streets near where he lived, Woodstock, and felt that\nat the end of slow streets they did not create safe pedestrian behavior. He wanted to know if staff\nhad looked at what happens when slow streets end and what people do.\nStaff Member Wheeler said that was something that could be incorporated into their work. She\nadded that a common response they had received on the survey was that people wanted a network\nof slow streets created. She discussed how that could address the issue of slow street endpoints.\n7. Announcements / Public Comments\nCommissioner Kohlstrand wanted to know if there was a date set up to initiate the sub-committee\ndiscussions on the technical report for the Mobility Element.\nStaff Payne stated that was being delayed until next year until after the AC Transit Recovery Plan\nand the Active Transportation Plan approval. She explained what other input was needed since it\nall would build on each other.\nStaff Member Payne pointed out that it was National Roundabout Week.\nChair Soules pointed out that it was Walk and Roll to school on 10/6 and reminded everyone that\nthe Special Commission Meeting was 10/27.\nTC Minutes\n9\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-09-22", "page": 10, "text": "8. Adjournment\nChair Soules adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.\n10\nTC Minutes\n9/22/21", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-09-22.pdf"}