pages
1,099 rows where body = "TransportationCommission"
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: page, date (date)
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2005-02-23 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES February 23, 2005 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. 1.ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded: Members Present: Jeff Knoth Patianne Parker John Knox White Michael Krueger Eric Schatmeier (arrived at 7:50) Staff Present: Barbara Hawkins - Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works Barry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works Carol Beaver - Division Manager, Development Services Andrew Thomas - Supervising Planner, Planning and Building 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Parker moved approval of the December minutes, which was seconded by Commissioner Knoth. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. 3.AGENDA CHANGES 4.COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 4A. TMP Subcommittee Appointment: Grid System and Strategies for Implementation Chair Knox White proposed that the existing subcommittee that developed the draft TMP policies remain in place for the implementation portion of the Multimodal Circulation Plan. The Commissioners supported this recommendation. 5.ORALCOMMUNICATIONS-NON-AGENDIZEDI - ITEMS None. 6.OLD BUSINESS 1 | TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2005-02-23 | 2 | 6A. Updated TMP Schedule Staff Bergman presented the staff report and described staff's recommended revisions to the previously approved TMP schedule. He noted that the bicycle plan update would be the first of the modal plans to be undertaken, and suggested that the effort be coordinated with the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) effort to update the countywide bicycle plan. He stated that CMA staff have indicated that the City's project recommendations for the countywide plan would have to be submitted by the summer, so it would not be possible to complete the City's plan update in time. Therefore, staff recommended that the bicycle plan update proceed on two tracks: 1) identify projects to be recommended for inclusion in the countywide plan, and 2) undertake the complete update of the plan. This would enable the timely submittal of the City's project recommendations for the countywide plan, which would help enhance Alameda's efforts to compete for grant funds. Chair Knox White indicated that he would appoint a subcommittee of two commissioners to oversee the development of the bicycle plan update. He also requested that staff prepare the new TMP schedule in a revised format, so that all tasks would be in chronological order. Staff Bergman responded that this would be done. Commissioner Parker moved approval of the staff recommendation to revise the TMP schedule, which was seconded by Commissioner Knoth. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 4. 6B. Task Force Recommended Draft TMP Policies Staff Bergman stated that the draft Transportation Master Plan (TMP) policies had been prepared by the TC subcommittee - consisting of Chair Knox White, Commissioner Schatmeier, and Commissioner McFarland. The subcommittee received input from the TMP Task Force and City staff. Staff comments were listed in the draft document, below the subcommittee's recommended policies. Staff Bergman stated that the draft document is now being brought to the full TC for additional input and approval of a final set of po… | TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2005-02-23 | 3 | enhanced by providing more opportunities for the public to voice its comments, rather than have it be an agenda item at a single Transportation Commission meeting. Chair Knox White stated that this issue would be addressed as part of the bicycle master plan. Public Comment Closed Commissioner Parker moved acceptance of the TMP policies as modified by the Commission. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5. 7.NEW BUSINESS 7A. Alameda Point Land Use Impacts on Transportation Staff Thomas gave a presentation on the anticipated transportation system impacts of the proposed land uses at Alameda Point. He noted that the Alameda Point Advisory Committee would be hosting two upcoming meetings: 1) on March 3, which would focus on land use issues, and 2) March 23, which would be co-hosted by the Transportation Commission and would focus on transportation issues. Both meetings will be televised. Two additional workshops will be scheduled before June. Staff Thomas noted that if the conveyance process with Navy goes smoothly, that starting in the summer of 2005, the City will enter an 18-month entitlement and environmental review process for Phase lof the project. Staff Thomas noted that the policies for Alameda Point were established in the mid-1990s in the community reuse plan. The policies were incorporated into the General Plan in 2003, but in accordance with the housing element and concerns about transportation through the tubes, a greater proportion of the project now consists of housing. The revised development concept also reflects the improvement in the residential housing market. Staff Thomas cited two major policies driving the Alameda Point project: 1) reintegrating Alameda Point into City; 2) the project would not rely on General Fund, so the development needs to pay for itself. He noted that the costs of the development would be considerable, for example, there is an estimated $300-350 million to upgrade or replace infrastructure. There will also be significant e… | TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2005-02-23 | 4 | the ultimate location of the ferry terminal has not been determined The transit center would probably be at the Main Street terminal, at least in the early phases of the project. In addition to the ferry, various transportation options are being considered: shuttle between Alameda Point and the 12th Street BART station, operating on 15-minute headways during peak hours "eco-pass": a portion of homeowners fees will go toward transportation, so people will be able to use shuttles or other services it without paying an additional charge water taxi service to Oakland queue jump/HOV lanes for bridges or tubes transit barge Commissioner Krueger asked if the shuttles would be integrated into the regional transit network, rather than being stand-alone services. Staff Thomas noted that the City has begun discussions with AC Transit, BART, the City of Oakland and the Port of Oakland to explore a range of options. Options include: BART extension from downtown Oakland to Jack London Square to Alameda Light rail across Alameda to Fruitvale BART - While alignment in Alameda is mostly available, connecting to the BART station will be a significant problem. Also, this will not serve people traveling from Alameda Point to San Francisco. Aerial tram to West Oakland BART - This may not work well, as BART trains to San Francisco are generally filled by the time they reach West Oakland. Also, if the tram connects to the BART platform, Oakland will not benefit from the project, so it may be difficult getting this option approved. Staff Thomas stated that there are currently too many options in terms of both modes and alignments. The City hopes to narrow down the list of options to one or two of the best candidates by June and study the feasibility of those options. 7B. Work/Live Regulations Commissioner Krueger asked if any data were available regarding parking and trip generation for work/live development as opposed to purely residential Staff Hawkins indicated that she was not aware of any such data. Commissioner Parker stated that … | TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf,5 | TransportationCommission | 2005-02-23 | 5 | Jon Spangler expressed his support for the work/live regulations, and urged the TC to support maintaining the current policy. Public Comment Closed 7C. Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study Staff Bergman provided an overview of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study, which was funded by a grant from the Association of Bay Area Governments. The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy received separate funding for work on this project, and has been taking the lead on the public outreach component. Staff Bergman noted that the Trail would consist almost entirely of facilities identified in the General Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan. The proposed Trail would be largely located within the corridor formerly served by the Alameda Belt Line railroad, extending from Main Street to Tilden Way, and include the following features: serve a variety of users by utilizing both on-road and off-road facilities enhance access to key destinations, including planned development at Alameda Point, former FISC (Fleet Industrial Supply Center) site, proposed development in the Northern Waterfront area, and the renovated Bridgeside Center design would permit the potential development of a rail corridor land acquired and bike lanes constructed in conjunction with extension of Clement Avenue, which the City hopes to develop as a continuous route from Tilden Way to Atlantic Avenue Commissioner Parker asked if the proposed routes would undermine the ultimate goal of shoreline route. Staff Bergman responded that the Staff Bergman noted that the City has applied for funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for funding for the first phase of the Trail, from Main Street to Webster Street. Staff Bergman stated that Lucy Gigli of BikeAlameda had expressed concerns regarding the proposed striping and lane widths on Clement Avenue. He distributed the letter from Ms. Gigli to the Commissioners. Mr. Spangler noted that there is an additional former railroad right-of-way east of Constitution Way that connects to the former FISC site, which could… | TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf,6 | TransportationCommission | 2005-02-23 | 6 | result, numerous recommendations of the Plan focused on establishing pedestrian connections through the school property and the adjoining park. The completion of these improvements would require coordination and the potential exchange of property between the City and the school district. Other improvements recommended for the area near Chipman Middle School include the realignment of the Pacific/Marshall intersection, and the re-design of the school's drop-off area and parking lot. Mr. Smiley noted that the feasibility of implementing a raised crosswalk across Pacific Avenue in front of Chipman Middle School would depend on the traffic volumes utilizing this corridor to access the planned development Alameda Point. Commissioner Knoth noted that for pedestrians there are important connections between this neighborhood and the proposed school in Bayport and to Encinal High School. He asked about the possibility of an elevated pedestrian crossing over Appezzato Memorial Parkway. Staff Hawkins responded that people tend not to use such facilities if they create a less direct route for crossing the street. Mr. Smiley noted that the Plan called for enhanced pedestrian and bicycle circulation along the northern boundary of the neighborhood (south side of Appezzato Memorial Parkway) through the establishment of a linear park. The City's Long-Range Transit Plan also identifies this route as a potential transit corridor. Chair Knox White noted that the illustrations in the Plan include marked crosswalks at several locations where crossings are currently prohibited. He recommended that the City attempt to make intersections as pedestrian-friendly as possible and look for opportunities to permit legal crossings. Commissioner Krueger agreed, and recommended installation of new crosswalks where possible. 6 | TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf,7 | TransportationCommission | 2005-02-23 | 7 | Chair Knox White Opened Public Comment Jon Spangler stated that staff had insisted that two travel lanes would be required in each direction along Pacific Avenue/Marshall Way/Lincoln Avenue. Therefore, by adding a median, the existing wide curb lane would be eliminated, making this route more difficult for bicyclists to use. He noted that an earlier version of the proposed design called for three lanes - one through lane in each direction with a shared turn lane in the center - and bike lanes. Public Comment Closed Chair Knox White and Commissioner Knoth both indicated that they supported Mr. Spangler's recommendation of one travel lane in each direction on Lincoln/Marshall/Pacific. Commissioner Parker said that the configuration recommended by staff, with four through lanes, is required to accommodate the anticipated traffic demand associated with the development at Alameda Point. Chair Knox White suggested that the three-lane configuration with striped bike lanes be implemented until the actual traffic demand warranted the additional travel lanes. Commissioner Krueger agreed, and stated that long-term needs should not limit near-term improvements. Staff Hawkins stated that Public Works had determined that two travel lanes would be required in each direction to accommodate the future traffic at Alameda Point, but that staff did not specifically preclude the installation of bike lanes. Commissioner Parker asked if the developer of the Harbor Island Apartments could be required to relocate the sidewalk so that it would no longer be behind the parking area. Staff Hawkins responded that the carports will be removed as part of the renovations. She noted that since the existing buildings are only being modified, the City cannot compel the developer to make such changes. She also noted that Poggi Street is privately owned, but there is a public easement for the sidewalks. Commissioner Krueger noted that the bus routes depicted in the Plan need to be updated. Mr. Smiley agreed that any recent changes needed to be incorp… | TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf,8 | TransportationCommission | 2005-02-23 | 8 | The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 AM. G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2005\0305\022305minutesfinal.do 8 | TransportationCommission/2005-02-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-03-23.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2005-03-23 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES March 23, 2005 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 9:40 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded: Members Present: Jeff Knoth Patianne Parker John Knox White Robb Ratto Michael Krueger Eric Schatmeier Robert McFarland Staff Present: Barbara Hawkins - Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works Barry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No action was taken. 3. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS None. 5. OLD BUSINESS 5A. Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study (continued from February 23, 2005 meeting) Chair Knox White noted that the proposed bike lanes on Clement Avenue are only five feet wide, yet the connecting bike lanes on Atlantic Avenue are six feet wide. He stated that the proposed travel lanes on Clement Avenue are 12 to14 feet wide. Chair Knox White noted that Caltrans requires lanes to be less than 12 feet wide on highways, and stated that the travel lanes on Clement Avenue could be narrower, even with the presence of a truck route. He recommended that the bike lanes be widened to six or seven feet in width along this corridor. Chair Knox White recommended that the proposed off-street paths include separate bicycle and pedestrian facilities since sufficient space appeared to be available. This should help avoid conflicts, as trail users would not have to compete for space as they currently do along the path adjacent to Shoreline Drive. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service 1 Page 1 of 2 | TransportationCommission/2005-03-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-03-23.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2005-03-23 | 2 | Commissioner Krueger also recommended that wider bike lanes be used along Clement Avenue. He noted that at times he bikes and rides along Atlantic Avenue, which has 12-foot travel lanes and six-foot bike lanes, and believes that this configuration works well. Commissioner Krueger noted that this section of Atlantic Avenue is a designated truck route, similar to the proposed Clement Avenue extension. He expressed concern that wider travel lanes would encourage speeding by motor vehicles. Commissioner Parker moved acceptance of the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study, including the recommendations from the Commission. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 7. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS None. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. i:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2005\0405\minutes032305-final.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service 2 Page 2 of 2 | TransportationCommission/2005-03-23.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2005-04-27 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES April 27, 2005 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:45 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded: Members Present: John Knox White Patianne Parker Michael Krueger Robb Ratto Robert McFarland Eric Schatmeier Absent: Jeff Knoth Staff Present: Barbara Hawkins - Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works Barry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works Jennifer Ott - Development Manager, Development Services 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Krueger asked that Chair Knox White's comments regarding the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study be amended to state that "Caltrans allows lanes to be less than 12 feet wide on highways." He also requested that the minutes be amended to state that "at times he bikes and drives along Atlantic Avenue.. " Commissioner Parker moved acceptance of the minutes, with the changes as requested. Commissioner Ratto seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 6. 3. AGENDA CHANGES None. 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS None. 6. OLD BUSINESS Transportation Commission Page 1 of 8 April 27, 2005 | TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2005-04-27 | 2 | 6A. Recommendations from other City Boards and Commissions on Draft TMP JKW: The Planning Board asked to have a visioning statement inserted before the first paragraph to define "multimodal" as including autos, transit, bicycles, walking, and needs for people with disabilities. Circulation Goal: The Commission on Disability Issues asked to add "barrier free" to the last safe and efficient transportation systems. A1.1 concern by the Planning Board that bikes and pedestrians were not specifically included, definition above takes care of that. A-1.4 Add on all streets and in all sections of the City. A-1.5 Housing Commission transit indemnities is an implementation goal covered under the transit plan. A-1.6 Commission on Disability Issues covered in the introduction A-1.8 The EDC had a comment on including smooth cross island flow in the city. Thought it was incorporated in Did add into this, "without unduly disrupting the quality of life for residents". A1.11 Planning Board was split, some wanted to minimize, others support cul de sacs A-2.5 Multi modal cross estuary travel added in "bike, pedestrian shuttles or high occupancy vehicle only crossings" are types of projects we should be looking at. A-2.6 included Planning Board's recommendation A-5.3 EDC had suggested to fixed route AC Transit system to enhance mobility for those without access to personal transportation. Prefer the word provide, enhance sounds like it's an option. A6.6 Planning Board suggested in adding this policy. Require monitoring programs to ensure TSM (JKW added "and TDM") measures mitigate impacts. Objective A-7 Add the underlying section of enhancing the viability of non-automotive transportation modes. Used Planning Board language A-7.4 Planning had a comment on the fact that they felt identifying rights of way doesn't mean results are not always the way you hope it to come out but need to try. B-1.1 PB and Rec and Parks Commission supported. Left as written B-2.5 Left as written B-3.1 Planning Board supported the language as written, left … | TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2005-04-27 | 3 | C3.4 Bike Lanes on Park Street (Remove Parking) C2 Development of Pedestrian Plan C3 Development of Bike Plan C6.2 Walking, bicycling and automobiles. Add in people with disabilities on this list D's No other comments After D5 removed, no longer in transportation. Jon Spangler's comments: A1.8 Instead of the current wording use; encourage traffic within, to and thru Alameda to use the appropriate streets in the system in providing clear and effective traffic control measures to ensure smooth flow. A2.3 Increase in Vehicle occupancy levels A7 Drop the word Modes B5.2 Chair Knox White used shared parking strategies C2.4 & C3.1 City of Alameda Plan C6.2 Pursue strategies thru reduce or eliminate conflics, increase accessibility, and faster multi model compatibility Closed Public Comment Commissioner Ratto's Comments: A1.4 Do not believe it should be changed A1.11 Planning Board's comments were concerned with trying to prohibit traffic going thru. Add physical interrupt the grid system, don't think anything wrong with it Adding on the main island. So just add the work physically. B4.1 Could incorporate the suggestion from C2.5 by just putting encouraged development patterns and land uses that encourage the use of alternate modes and reduce the rate of growth in regional wide vehicle miles traveled. B5.1 Neighborhoods chronic problems add something about new developments. Staff Hawkins recommended the comments from the different boards that appear to be implementation recommendations should be included as an appendix in back. In this way, even if they are not appropriate for the policies portion of the TMP, their comments will still be taken into account and included at a later time. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7A. Review and Comment on the Proposed Civic Center Parking Garage and Oak Street Streetscape Designs Staff Ott of the Development Services Department reviewed the proposed parking garage project. She stated that the proposed garage would be located on Oak Street between Santa Clara Avenue and Central Avenue. The current d… | TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2005-04-27 | 4 | project would be implemented through a design-build contract, so the internal circulation may change. The exterior design is scheduled to be taken to the Planning Board in June for approval. Staff Ott described several mitigation measures that were developed to address pedestrian safety at the garage entrance/exit. These include textured paving, a speed bump, lights and sound to be emitted as vehicles exit, and concave mirrors. The sidewalk would be widened by six feet on Oak Street in front of the project to help direct pedestrians away from the building and provide improved visibility for drivers exiting the garage. Six parking spaces total to be removed, and landscaping will be included. She noted that PSBA unanimously approved this design. Staff Ott noted that eight bicycle lockers (accommodating 16 bicycles) and 24 bicycle racks would be included on the first floor of the garage. Also, there will be lighting in front of the pedestrian-only entrance so pedestrians won't feel drawn to the vehicular entrance. Staff Ott stated that there was an initial study on parking and traffic impacts, which illustrated that there is going to be an insufficient supply of parking given the anticipated demand associated with the theater project as planned. The only required traffic mitigations determined to be directly associated with the project are signal timing adjustments, although there are other mitigations for required to reach a "less than significant impact" determination for 2020 as well as for the cumulative impacts of all development, including Alameda Point. Commissioner Krueger asked if access to the bicycle parking area is to be provided through the vehicular entrance as well as the side entrance. Staff Ott indicated that bicyclists would be able to use either entrance. Chair Knox White noted that in the negative declaration that impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists were not addressed. He asked if they were addressed somewhere else. Staff Ott replied that the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) had expressed… | TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf,5 | TransportationCommission | 2005-04-27 | 5 | Chair Knox White Opened Public Comment Jon Spangler asked what security would be provided for the bicycle parking, and whether this area is covered. He also requested that signage be added at the vehicular entrance to make it clear that bicycles can use this entrance. Mr. Spangler stated that the building should be designed so that it may be converted to retail space if needed in the future. He also stated that the Class II bike lanes on Oak Street are important, and indicated that he supported widening Oak Street in the future for safety purposes, but not to add more lanes. Mr. Spangler expressed his support for the views of Bike Alameda, and stated that the project should be designed to give bicyclists equivalent access to Park Street as motor vehicles. He indicated his support for the removal of diagonal parking on Central Avenue. Treya Weintraub expressed her support for restoring the bike lane on Central Avenue between Walnut Street and Oak Street and removing the angled parking. Lucy Gigli, the president of Bike Alameda, asked the Commission to address the project in terms of bicycle safety, noting that with 350 parking spaces that many more vehicles will be present at this location. She stated that improvements at this location are especially important, due to the proximity to Park Street, the main library, and City Hall. Bike Alameda recommends several mitigations: Ms. Gigli stated that currently bicyclists on Central Avenue are routed onto sidewalk and are redirected into the street in the Park Street district, where there is significant traffic. She recommended restoring the bike lanes on Central Avenue between Walnut Street and Oak Street She requested that shared roadway stencils and signs be installed along Oak Street from Lincoln Avenue to Encinal Avenue in place of the potential future bike lanes; this will help to alert both bicyclists and drivers to one another. Ms. Gigli asked for assurance that bike lanes will not be precluded on Oak Street and that 10' travel lanes will be acceptable Ms. Gigli… | TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf,6 | TransportationCommission | 2005-04-27 | 6 | Carl Babcock stated that he also lives on Oak Street and tries to ride his bike for local errands, but that it is difficult to get to many shops safely. He requested that the bike lane be restored on Central Avenue and, if possible, create a bike lane on Oak Street. Public comment closed Commissioner Schatmeier asked staff if they could respond to the bicyclists' concerns. Staff Ott stated that the project would include shared roadway stencils (sharrows) and signs on Oak Street from Encinal Avenue to Lincoln Avenue. She also noted that widening the sidewalk would increase bike safety in front of the garage. She said that the removal of diagonal parking on Central Avenue is not currently included in the project. She anticipates this will be discussed as part of the TMP. Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the garage will have bicycle parking, and asked if it is appropriate to include project elements to help bicyclists reach the facility safely. Staff Ott agreed that safe bicycle access is important, but noted that the project is attempting to meet many objectives with a limited project budget. She stated that the bike lane issues on Central Avenue should not be linked to the garage, and expressed concern that stakeholder groups not in attendance may be opposed to removing the diagonal parking on Central Avenue. Commissioner McFarland asked if the library or garage would be completed first. Staff Ott responded that the garage is scheduled to be completed first. Commissioner McFarland asked if there was a cost estimate for restriping Central Avenue. Staff Ott responded that staff is looking into this. Commissioner Ratto stated that the funding sources for the project is an important issue, and that to fund funding for striping Central Avenue would require taking money from another element of the project. He said that he and PSBA support restoring parallel parking on Central Avenue, since the 350-space parking garage should meet parking needs. He said that if there are other organizations that oppose removing the dia… | TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf,7 | TransportationCommission | 2005-04-27 | 7 | Commissioner Schatmeier asked where would revenues from the garage go to. He asked if fees could be adjusted to raise funds. Staff Ott responded that part of the funding is from a HUD Section 108 loan, which will be repaid in part with meter revenues. Schatmeier asked if the garage would be used for commuters, patrons of businesses, or both. Staff Ott indicate that both would be using the facility, and that they are considering monthly permit parking spaces, possibly with smart cards. Commissioner Parker asked if the garage will be set up to accommodate vanpooling. Staff Ott said she would look into that and respond. Commissioner Parker stated that mitigation is generally done project by project, not on a cumulative basis, and that mitigation needs to be done in context. She stated that the project shouldn't necessarily pay for all mitigations, but funding should be looked at for other related measures. Chair Knox White noted that the packet says the stenciling will be on Oak Street from Central Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, but that Staff Ott had indicated Encinal Avenue in her presentation. Staff Ott noted that Bike Alameda prefers Encinal Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, and that may be possible. Chair Knox White stated that he believes the Central Avenue bike lanes should be considered as a mitigation for the garage project. He noted that other mitigations are as far away as Santa Clara Avenue/Broadway, and that the bike lanes are close enough to the garage that it should be linked. Commissioner Ratto moved approval of the following: 1) Bicyclists and citizens deserve signage and stencils on Oak Street from Encinal Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, 2) the bike lane on Central Avenue between Walnut Street and Oak Street should be restored, 3) the diagonal parking on Central Avenue should be removed, 4) funding be found to implement these mitigations as the project progresses, and 5) signage should be included at the entrance to the parking structure indicating that bicycle parking is available. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded t… | TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf,8 | TransportationCommission | 2005-04-27 | 8 | Commissioner Schatmeier moved to recommend the following projects for inclusion in the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan: 1) Feasibility study and capital costs of estuary crossing from Alameda's west end to Oakland 2) Segments of the Bay Trail in Alameda County, including those in the City of Alameda 3) The following route through central Alameda: Along Main Street from the Main Street ferry terminal to Pacific Avenue, along Central Avenue from Pacific Avenue to Fernside Boulevard, along Fernside Boulevard to the bike bridge, the bike bridge itself, and along Doolittle Drive from the bike bridge to the city's border with Oakland. 4) Along Island Drive from Doolittle Drive to Mecartney Road, along Mecartney Road from Island Drive to the Harbor Bay ferry terminal. Commissioner Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 6. Transportation Commission Page 8 of 8 April 27, 2005 | TransportationCommission/2005-04-27.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2005-06-29 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 29, 2005 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:40 p.m. 1.ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded: Members Present: John Knox White Robert McFarland Patianne Parker Eric Schatmeier Absent: Robb Ratto Michael Krueger Jeff Knoth Staff: Barbara Hawkins - Public Works Department Barry Bergman - Public Works Department Andrew Thomas - Planning & Building Department 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Commission agreed to postpone approval of the April 27 minutes until the end of the meeting. 3.AGENDA CHANGES: None 4.COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS: None 5.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None 6.OLD BUSINESS: 6A. TMP Sub-Committees Appointments and Next Steps Commissioner Parker mentioned that it has been a long time since the last meeting and that she did not get first choice of committees to pick to be on. She wanted to know who is on the committees. Chair Knox White mentioned that there are two active sub-committees. The Bicycle Master Plan Update Committee includes Chair Knox White, and Commissioners Schatmeier and Ratto. The Circulation sub-committee is made up of Chair Knox White, and Commissioners Schatmeier and McFarland. | TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2005-06-29 | 2 | Transportation Commission Minutes June 29, 2005 Chair Knox White said that this item was brought back to the Commission because of the need to form a Pedestrian Master Plan Subcommittee. He also noted that he has limited time available and would prefer not to sit on the Pedestrian or the Bicycle Master Plan sub-committee. Chair Knox White noted that Commissioner Krueger had indicated that he is willing to serve on either the pedestrian or bicycle plan subcommittees, and that Commissioner Parker had expressed her interest in the circulation subcommittee. He also said that he would approach Commissioner Knoth about serving on the pedestrian plan subcommittee. He stated that he will send out an e-mail to the Commission the following week after speaking with the other commissioners. Chair Knox White mentioned that Commissioner Knoth would be on the Pedestrian sub- committee. He thought it would be okay to have a two person sub-committee instead of a three person one. They would be able to cancel any number of meetings. The sub-committee should be self-driven, so it is important that subcommittee members be prepared to push items forward. Commissioner Parker wanted to be on the Circulation committee but do not care to be on the Pedestrian or the Bicycle committee. Staff Bergman had a draft of the TMP schedule for each of the three plans meetings scheduled for this year, which were handed out. Chair Knox White asked that under the Commission Communications that bullets be inserted for each of the three sub-committees and have the head of that sub-committee give an update. Staff Hawkins said that Michael Schmitz was selected from the Economic Development Committee (EDC) to be on the Task Force Committee. Contacted some of the other commissions and notice that some of their members were not active. She suggested sending an action item to the chair and have the chair be responsible for selecting someone. 7.NEW BUSINESS: 7A. Alameda Point Transportation Strategy Report Commissioner Parker stated that one of the goals of th… | TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2005-06-29 | 3 | Transportation Commission Minutes June 29, 2005 Chair Knox White noted that there is a long-term goal of a transit service connecting to the east end and Fruitvale BART station, and this would connect Alameda Point to the rest of the main island. He also stated that it may not be appropriate to address citywide policies in an Alameda Point-specific document. Chair Knox White also wants the City to look at trip generation through the rest of the City as well as the tubes. He noted that the report talks about increasing BART ridership, but it would be helpful to know how many of the existing transit users drive to BART. If they are driving to BART, Alameda gets no benefit in terms of reducing congestion in Alameda. He asked how the queue jump lanes would be implemented, if there is a fund that would be reserved for this purpose. Staff Thomas stated that while listed as a mid-term project, they are hoping that queue jump lanes will hopefully be a "Day 1" strategy. He noted that Oakland neighborhoods support this strategy as well. He noted that the queue jump lanes would make the transit options much more effective, but that they will be easier to implement from the Alameda side. Commissioner Parker asked if the Broadway/Jackson project is part of this. Staff Thomas said that one of the most promising strategies that would work within the Broadway/Jackson design is to segregate buses in the left lane of the Posey Tube, with cars going to the freeway directed to the right. The latter group would turn right on 5th Street in Oakland and be able to get directly onto freeway ramps, reducing the number of vehicles traveling through the intersection of 7th Street and Harrison Street. Staff Thomas stated that splitting the 63 Bus route would enable headways to increase on both portions of the route. He also noted that this was only one option, another would be a privately funded shuttle from Alameda Point to downtown Oakland. He added noted that staff has had conversations with AC Transit regarding the EcoPass and have indic… | TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2005-06-29 | 4 | Transportation Commission Minutes June 29, 2005 Chair Knox White expressed a concern that AC Transit could start requiring contributions like the EcoPass to get additional transit service. Staff Thomas stated that this project could be a model for future development projects in Alameda. The developer working on the Oak to 9th Street project in Oakland has expressed interest in some of the ideas being explored for Alameda Point. He also suggested that other partners are possible, such as Catellus and the College of Alameda. Commissioner Parker asked if the existing west Alameda neighborhood could be included. Staff Thomas responded that this would be difficult, since residents would likely be willing to pay only for services they will use, whereas in an EcoPass program all residents of Alameda Point can be required to contribute toward transit services up front. Chair Knox White asked if there had been any discussions with City CarShare. Staff Thomas responded that they had not spoken specifically with that company, they would decide how to implement a CarShare program once the funds were in place. Chair Knox White noted that something that should be considered is that City CarShare has been removing some of their "pod" locations in suburban areas because of low usage and suggested speaking with them to learn from their experience. He also stated that even if a BART station at Jack London Square doesn't make sense, we don't want to rule out the potential for a direct BART station in Alameda at some point in the future. Staff Thomas stated that the focus was on being able to put some services in place early on. While the process included a very broad discussion of creative options for transportation, it became clear that many of the proposed solutions included elements that would require coordination with other agencies, so the City would have a limited amount of control. These items will be considered for long-term implementation. In terms of BART, he said that BART is considering a transfer station in Oakland, so… | TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf,5 | TransportationCommission | 2005-06-29 | 5 | Transportation Commission Minutes June 29, 2005 Staff Thomas indicated that it could be either or neither. He said that the main goal is to have 15- 20 minute headways for service to Alameda Point, however it is accomplished. Chair Knox White expressed concern regarding the option to pay extra to buy additional on-site residential parking spaces, he hopes the cost will be sufficient that everyone will not choose to have the additional parking space. Commissioner Parker stated that it would be harder to sell units with only a single car garage. Commissioner Schatmeier noted that on Bay Farm Island it's difficult to get people to use transit, since they moved there when the bus ran infrequently and there was no weekend service. He hoped they will market the transit options, and use that to attract buyers. Chair Knox White asked if location-efficient mortgages (LEM) had been considered. These allow people who live in areas with access to transit to qualify for larger mortgages, since presumably they would have lower transportation costs. LEMs are available in San Francisco. Staff Thomas responded that LEMs have not been considered up to this point. Chair Knox White said that he was confused by the discussion of CarSharing on p. 12, where it states that the CarShare fleet will be used for the guaranteed ride home (GRH) program, but that when vehicles are not available users could utilize the county GRH program, which operates under a voucher system. Staff Thomas responded that if the transportation coordinator could offer employees use of CarShare vehicles for GRH if the vehicles were not being used for other purposes; otherwise employees would rely on the existing county program. Chair Knox White asked that it be noted in the document that the bus rapid transit (BRT) vehicle depicted in Eugene is actually a simulation. Commissioner Parker stated that the meaning of the statement "Marketing efforts will target employees regardless of their origins" is not clear. Staff Thomas responded that the phrase was referring to… | TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf,6 | TransportationCommission | 2005-06-29 | 6 | Transportation Commission Minutes June 29, 2005 Staff Thomas confirmed that this is part of the plan. Chair Knox White stated that a service operated by AC Transit will be better than a privately operated shuttle, as it will integrate into the larger transit system. Staff Thomas said that the outcome depends on a determination of what the City will receive from each scenario. Chair Knox White recommended that the Mayor and City Council should work with the AC Transit board members to encourage an arrangement for service at Alameda Point. He stated that AC Transit may even be willing to offer Alameda a better deal just to get the program off the ground and serve as an example of what could be done in other developments. Chair Knox White expressed his strong support for the findings in the report. Staff Thomas praised the Alameda community and the Transportation Commission for helping keeping the solutions realistic. Commissioner Parker noted that the long-term solutions are really projects that affect the entire island, and asked that the language be changed to refer to travel "to and within Alameda Point and the City of Alameda" to emphasize that. Commissioner Parker said that many people will oppose light rail. Staff Thomas responded that transit technologies are improving, and that lighter weight vehicles or bus rapid transit may have similar operational characteristics to rail but be less invasive to neighborhoods. 8. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None The Minutes will be discussed at the next meeting. 9.ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. :\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2005\0605\062905minutesfinal.doc Page 6 of 6 | TransportationCommission/2005-06-29.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2005-07-20 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES July 20, 2005 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded: Members Present: John Knox White Robb Ratto Patianne Parker Robert McFarland Michael Krueger Absent: Jeff Knoth Eric Schatmeier Staff Present: Barbara Hawkins - City Engineer, Public Works Barry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Krueger had an exception to the minutes of April 27th. page 3. He requested the removal of the phrase "a grid should not be introduced where it does not currently exist." Did not say that it should never be used in an undeveloped area. He stated that while this may apply to an existing development, a grid system may be appropriate in a currently undeveloped area. Chair Knox White noted that he was identified as JKW on page 2. Hold off on the approval of the minutes until Commissioner Schatmeier arrives. 3. AGENDA CHANGES - None 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None of thesub-committees oftheTMPhave met. A meeting has been scheduled for July 27th 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 6. OLD BUSINESS 6A. Broadway/Jackson Phase 2 Feasibility Study Staff Hawkins did a presentation on the above. She showed a large drawing of the study and described the various components of each of the three alternatives being studied, and noted that she had presented an earlier version to the Transportation Commission. The first part of the study was a survey that was conducted with council members of Alameda and Oakland to determine | TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2005-07-20 | 2 | their familiarity with the original project study report and proposed improvements. The City of Alameda had some familiarity with the improvements but was not fully aware of all of them. They knew about the Martin Luther King exit and knew basically direct access to Alameda was not provided. Because Oakland and Alameda could not find a solution for direct to Alameda, a portion of the funding was set aside and it was decided that at a later time a feasibility study would be conducted to look at Alameda access. This is the study currently under way. The primary stakeholders are: the City of Alameda, City of Oakland, Caltrans and ACTIA. The secondary stakeholders were: Port of Oakland, Congestion Management Agency (CMA), Chinatown, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), and developers from Alameda (Catellus and Alameda Point Community Partners) and Oakland (Signature Properties and another developer). Staff Hawkins stated that Alameda supports going forward with a proposal so that the stakeholders would support it. Having the stakeholders support the recommended solution would be an important step in securing funding. The feasibility study is only looking at the feasibility as to which ones they can build, which ones are structural impossible and which ones impact too much on historic sites, etc. Staff Hawkins noted that currently Oakland does not support the construction of a new Harrison Street off-ramp. One possible solution that may enable the Broadway off-ramp to meet the needs of both Alameda and Oakland is a "Texas U-Turn", which would allow drivers to exist at the Broadway ramp, make a U-turn before reaching Broadway, and accessing the Webster Tube. Staff Hawkins noted that it will be expensive to build all these improvements. The Transportation Commission could help by providing recommendations regarding priorities or steps that could be taken to facilitate coordination with other agencies. Commissioner Parker asked what the life of an elevated freeway would be. She asked how any other proposed projects … | TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2005-07-20 | 3 | which would come from the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). This has been identified as a priority at the county level; the next step is to compete for funds at the state level. Alameda stakeholders have indicated that two of their high priorities are the horseshoe access ramp onto northbound I-880 and direct access onto southbound I-880. Commissioner McFarland asked if there is a weave problem at the proposed off-ramp on northbound I-880 and the existing on-ramp getting onto I-980. Staff Hawkins answered that the weave distance was evaluated and is not a problem. Staff Hawkins stated that we will need to weigh congestion relief benefits against the estimated costs, and this will impact on project phasing. Commissioner McFarland asked what environmental document is required. Staff Hawkins answered that the next step would be the environmental analysis and the project study report, if we go forward with all the project elements. Hopefully this could be done in two years. Commissioner Parker asked about the direct route from I-880 down toward the Broadway on- ramp, how that relates to the existing Jackson Street ramp, and whether it is possible to use the existing ramp to access the tubes. Staff Hawkins stated that using the Jackson Street exit would require drivers to travel through the produce district to get to the tube. They tried to have direct access from the Jackson Street ramp into the tubes, but that would have precluded access to Jack London Square or Chinatown. Commissioner Krueger asked if AC Transit is involved in any of these discussions, as the transbay buses would be impacted, as well local buses on Broadway. Staff Hawkins said that the analysis has accounted for the required turning radii of the buses, but that AC Transit has not been actively involved in discussions of the design. The study team has talked about identifying queue jump lanes to enhance access to the Webster tube. Staff Hawkins agreed that it is a good time to involve AC Transit in the project discussions. Public Comment… | TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2005-07-20 | 4 | (ACTIA), Catellus, Alameda Point Community Partners, and the Peralta Colleges, Congestion Management Agency, Ms. Marr asked that the Chamber of Commerce board members and others be given a presentation on the project in September. Ms Stieg wanted to know who actually are the representatives that are part of this committee discussion and who represents Alameda's interests. Staff Hawkins stated that they were listed on the email that is sent to them. Ms. Steig mentioned that she and some of other people on the email list are not able to attend the meetings. She indicated she would like to find out more about why the 13 of the 16 project design options were eliminated. She also asked if she could obtain a list of the proposals and the pros and cons of each before the final report is completed. Staff Hawkins said that it would be presented to the City Council and then the City Council can open it up for comments. She added that the Stakeholders meeting would be a good place to express her concerns. Ms Steig said that she was not able to make those meetings because they are on Mondays. She asked that the Commission take no actions on this feasibility study until the Alameda business community has a chance to review and comment on it. She expressed concern that some of the options would have a negative impact on Alameda. Commissioner Ratto stated that WABA was a designated stakeholder and understood some of the scheduling problems. He asked if they have been receiving the meeting packets. Staff Hawkins said that emails are sent to them along with the information from the meetings. Commissioner Ratto suggested that since WABA is unable to send a representative to the stakeholder meetings that a representative from the Chamber of Commerce be identified to represent the Alameda business community. Ms. Stieg supported this idea, and asked that the Chamber be added as a stakeholder. Staff Hawkins agreed. Public Comment Closed Commissioner Parker said that she would like to see which proposals were discarded. She added that … | TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf,5 | TransportationCommission | 2005-07-20 | 5 | Staff Hawkins said that it was a joint effort with Caltrans, Oakland and Alameda. They were not looking at local street circulation but at access to the freeways and not to preclude access to the local communities. She stated that the scope suggested by Commissioner Parker could be a second study. Chair Knox White suggested that rather than identifying a specific alternative, it would be helpful to present the Council with the Commission's priorities and concerns. He expressed concern that there are significant political issues, but that the issues are not being discussed at a political level. Staff Hawkins noted that there were two meetings left. One was with the technical group and the second with the general stakeholders. The general stakeholders meeting would be in September. There would be a discussion as to any elements that would need to be removed and then move forward. After that the next step would be the environmental review and the PSR report. Commissioner Parker said that the focus should be on doing the best job and what we want to accomplish. Staff Hawkins stated that the traffic study would include local circulation and a few blocks beyond the area bounded by 8th, Oak, and MLK. Melody Marr from the Chamber of Commerce asked to table this until the next Transportation Commission meeting so that they could have time to review it. Chair Knox White said that the Transportation Commission has no power to keep the Chamber in or out of this discussion. The Mayor had asked for the Transportation Commission to review it. Staff Hawkins said that the September meeting would be the final discussion by the stakeholders group. Commissioner Ratto moved to recommend Council that they contact whomever they need to contact to keep all the options available at this point, and that nothing be taken off the table. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5. 6B TMP SUB-COMMITTEES APPOINTMENTS AND NEXT STEPS Chair Knox White stated that he would hold off on committee appointmen… | TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf,6 | TransportationCommission | 2005-07-20 | 6 | and South Shore. This was well beyond the 1000 or 1200 feet requirement. There was no notification of this. Commissioner Krueger said that he and his wife walked the route and confirmed there was no bus stop sign posted between Grand and Whitehall. Staff Hawkins said that the stop was removed at the request of the police department, that there was a problem with the circulation of students, crossing guards and vehicles. Since it was within the distance prescribed in the Transit Plan, City and AC Transit staff agreed to remove the stop. Commissioner Parker asked if the Transportation Technical Team should make that decision. Staff Hawkins said that the Transportation Technical Team does not deal with the removal of bus stops. AC Transit deals with the removal of bus stops, not the City, and the TTT has been dealing with the bus stop issues only when it involves parking spaces. She said AC Transit should provide notification to the public if a stop is removed. Chair Knox White asked how the recommendations of the transit plan are accounted for, if AC Transit has the right to make the decision unilaterally. Commissioner Parker said that the school should have been involved in these discussions, since this affects the ability of students to take transit to school. Staff Hawkins noted that the school was involved in the discussions regarding the bus stop. Commissioner Krueger suggested that we should try to have some type of public noticing when bus stops are removed, even if it is not technically required. Commissioner Krueger said that the re-paint job of the bus shelters on Grand Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue turned out really well. The City is doing a great job on getting graffiti removed from the shelters, and praised Public Works regarding the new and existing bus shelters. Commissioner Ratto noted that PSBA would be having the annual Art and Wine Fair on July 30- 31. 9. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEESITC/2005/0705/072005-minutes-final.doo 6 | TransportationCommission/2005-07-20.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2005-09-28 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2005 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:37 PM. 1. ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded: Members Present: John Knox White Robert MacFarland Patianne Parker Robb Ratto Eric Schatmeier Absent: Jeff Knoth Michael Krueger Staff Present: Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer Barry Bergman - Program Specialist II, Public Works 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Parker moved approval of the minutes for the July 20 Transportation Commission meeting. Commissioner Ratto seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 5. 3. AGENDA CHANGES None. 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Multimodal Circulation Plan Subcommittee - The Subcommittee has been working on a revision of the City's street classification system and met with the Task Force. A follow-up Task Force meeting is scheduled for October 12. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS None. 6. OLD BUSINESS | TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2005-09-28 | 2 | 6A. Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Priorities Staff `Bergman presented the staff report. He noted that since the original timeline for the TMP was approved, that circumstances had changed; as a result, staff is recommending a revision to the planned order of some of the mode-specific plans of the TMP. Specifically, the City had received a grant for the Pedestrian Plan, and recently the Council has expressed an interest in several activities that would fit into the discussion for the Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) Plan. Since the Multimodal Circulation Plan is well under way, and would serve as the framework for the entire TMP, staff views this as the highest priority. Commissioner Parker stated that is would be easier to keep track of the progress of the TMP if staff could prepare a chart illustrating the TMP schedule. Commissioner Parker also noted that the proposed ECO Pass program is specific to employers and asked why it could not be expanded to a larger population across the City. She also noted that there is a proposed pass program for the Alameda Point development. Staff Bergman responded that AC Transit is in the process of developing a standardized formula for calculating the costs of these types of programs. Currently they only have three programs in place, all in Berkeley - for City of Berkeley employees, University of California staff, and University of California students. Because of the different characteristics of these populations, the costs for these programs need to be calculated separately. Public Comment Opened Bill Smith recommended the use of benefit assessment districts to develop funding sources for needed transportation improvements. Lucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda, stated that she was wary of further delaying the bike plan update. She noted that it has been six years since the initial plan was completed, and that there is a need for many changes to the current plan. Jon Spangler expressed his concern about the feasibility of collecting… | TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2005-09-28 | 3 | Commissioner Parker moved to accept the staff recommendation. Commissioner Ratto seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 5. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7A. I-880 Access Issues Chair Knox White noted that there are projects being undertaken in Oakland which could have a significant impact on Alameda's access to the regional transportation system, and he is concerned that there have not been sufficient opportunities for input in the early stages of project development. Specifically, he mentioned the Broadway/Jackson interchange project, and the Park Street Triangle project, both of which will impact on connections between Alameda and I-880. Chair Knox White stated that the process for providing input into a project can be confusing, and that it would be helpful for elected officials and citizens to have a better understanding of how it works. He distributed a handout suggesting the development of a task force to discuss these issues. Specifically, Chair Knox White suggested that the TC recommend a process whereby staff from the cities of Alameda and Oakland, elected officials and the public would develop an agreement which would define what projects would be of mutual concern as well as a process for soliciting input on these projects early on. He suggested that this approach would be proactive and would enable ideas to be circulated early in the process before design decisions are made. Chair Knox White emphasized that the proposed task force would have a limited life span, meeting perhaps three or four times, to develop this agreement. Commissioner Parker asked what has already been done and what is being done to coordinate efforts between the two jurisdictions. Open Public Comment Jon Spangler stated that Chair Knox White's handout does not address emergency preparedness issues, and that consideration of these issues at a regional level is important. He suggested that a task force be established for the long term, so that the cities of Alameda and Oakland could continue to coordinate their efforts on proje… | TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2005-09-28 | 4 | Chair Knox White acknowledged that the staff of both cities does communicate, but his concern is that the concerns of the public are not aired early enough in the process, and that important decisions are made before the input is solicited Commissioner Parker stated that she did not know enough about current coordination efforts between Alameda and Oakland. She moved that this item be tabled until the next meeting. Staff Hawkins stated that there are a number of ways in which the two cities currently work together. She noted that there is the ??? which meets quarterly, including staff representation from Oakland, Alameda, Caltrans, the Coast Guard, and Alameda County. She suggested that emergency response may be a good topic for this committee??? and noted that the City is currently developing an emergency response program. She also noted that several years ago, there were periodic meetings between the city managers and assistant city managers from both cities. She asked what are the most appropriate levels of government that should be getting together, since at the higher levels, the exchange is more general Staff Hawkins stated that the Park Street Triangle project was developed as part of the estuary plan, which had a significant amount of public input. The current effort is carrying forward a capital project that was identified in that plan. Staff Hawkins also noted that sometimes early input can be difficult for the public, because they are not familiar with the issues, and it is helpful to have some analysis done to give the something to respond to. She noted that the ILC is somewhat different than dealing with Alameda/Oakland issues, since AC Transit is a transit agency that operates in Alameda. Commissioner Ratto moved to accept Chair Knox White's recommendation. No one seconded the motion. Chair Knox White tabled the discussion of the proposed task force to address input into selected Oakland projects until the October meeting. 8. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS The TC had requested updates regarding the status of … | TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf,5 | TransportationCommission | 2005-09-28 | 5 | the recommendations should be presented to the Council in November or December, and that December is also the scheduled date for the final stakeholders' meeting. Alameda Point Transportation Study: Staff Hawkins stated that the Alameda Point Transportation Study would be presented to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) on October 5, but presentations are not scheduled for any City boards and commissions. She indicated that the intent is to clarify issues for the developer and that ARRA will hopefully accept, not approve, the study. Theater/parking garage: Staff Hawkins stated that a use permit hearing is scheduled for September 29. She noted that issues to be discussed include the conversion of angled parking to parallel parking on Central Avenue between Oak Street and Walnut Street and installation of a bike lane along this block once the main library building has been completed. To address the needs of bicyclists on Oak Street, the proposal is to add shared lane markings (or "sharrows") and signs. She stated that there will be discussions with the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) to address their parking needs in the area. Staff Hawkins also noted that the environmental document for the project has gone forward. Chair Knox White said that the TC recommended the installation of sharrows from Encinal Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, not just to Central Avenue. Staff Hawkins responded that this would be addressed in the implementation process. Chair Knox White suggested that when the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council, that it might be easier for the Council to review the recommendations if they were presented in a different format. Currently the Council receives a copy of the TC minutes. Chair Knox White suggested preparing and sending to the Council a brief summary of the main recommendations in addition to the minutes. Commissioner Parker supported this recommendation. 9. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM. | TransportationCommission/2005-09-28.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2005-10-26 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 2005 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded: Members Present: John Knox White Eric Schatmeier Robb Ratto Pattianne Parker Jeff Knoth (arrived at 7:45 P.M.) Robert McFarland (arrived at 7:50 P.M.) Absent: Michael Krueger Staff Present: Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works Ernest Sanchez, Ferry Manager 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Knox White noted that at the September meeting the motion for approval of the July minutes was made by Commissioner Parker and seconded by Commissioner Ratto. He also stated that above "staff communications" there was a decision to table the discussion of the proposed task force to address input into selected Oakland projects until the October meeting. With these changes, the minutes were approved unanimously. 3. AGENDA CHANGES Chair Knox White indicated that Item 7A, City of Alameda Ferry Program: Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), would be taken up once Staff Sanchez arrives. 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS The Multimodal Circulation Subcommittee will meet immediately after the Transportation Commission meeting with Staff Hawkins and Staff Bergman to discuss the comments on the draft proposal plan. On November 2, the Multimodal Circulation Task Force will meet in Room 391 starting at 7:30 p.m. The Subcommittee will then bring the draft plan to the next TC meeting on November 16th. incorporating feedback from the Task Force. The next two months the TC meetings will be held on the 3rd Wednesday of the month instead of the 4th due to the holidays. Since the December meeting is currently scheduled for December 21, which is close to the holidays, a change to December 14 will be considered at the November meeting, if there are 1 | TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2005-10-26 | 2 | issues that need to be discussed at the December meeting. Otherwise, the December meeting may be cancelled. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS None. 6. OLD BUSINESS 6A. I-880 Access Issues and Alameda/Oakland Coordination Activities Chair Knox White recommended that instead of forming a task force, as was previously discussed that the TC agenda include a quarterly update on all the Oakland projects that affect the tubes or bridge access. Staff Parker thought it was a good idea especially with the shortness of staff time and with the budget. She suggested having a quarterly update on all projects for the first six months, after which there would be a quarterly written and semi annual oral report. Chair Knox White agreed. Staff Hawkins responded that the recommendation will be brought to the City Manager, who will present it to the City Council. Commissioner Parker moved to accept the recommendation and Commissioner Knoth seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously. Commissioner Parker asked if the membership in the Chinatown committee was accurate. Staff Hawkins said that a representative of the Alameda Planning Board as well as two representatives city at large should also be included. Commissioner Parker asked that the description be modified to reflect that. Commissioner Ratto asked why PSBA is not part of the process for the Park Street Triangle project. Staff Hawkins said that Oakland was asking that Alameda take responsibility for notifying interested community members and will let us know when the meetings will be held. Staff Bergman added that he had included Commissioner Ratto's name on the list to be notified about upcoming meetings for the project. 2 | TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2005-10-26 | 3 | 7B Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) Plan Staff Bergman summarized the staff report. He noted that there are two activities associated with the TSM/TDM Plan that are currently beginning: 1) the employee sponsored transit pass, about which there have been discussions with AC Transit, which has developed some preliminary costs. The program is being looked at for City of Alameda employees, but could potentially include employees of the college and the Alameda Unified School District. 2) a study exploring the feasibility of shuttles. A demonstration on an electric bus was done earlier this year. Staff is proposing to bring a consultant in to do an evaluation on different types of technologies that are available for shuttles. Any proposed shuttle would involve connecting to the regional transportation system, such as especially BART and the ferries, but the proposed study would not include an analysis of routes. Staff Bergman passed out a general description as to what the consultant could do to help us get a handle on the pluses and minus of the different technologies and operations scenarios. Commissioner Parker mentioned that there have been studies in the past by WABA and other organizations on this. She asked if these studies had been considered. Staff Hawkins and Staff Bergman responded that they were not aware of any such studies. Commissioner Parker recommended that staff to look into any work of this type that has already been completed. Commissioner Parker asked for clarification regarding the cost of the transit pass. Staff Bergman said that the number is a preliminary number depending if the schools and college would be participating. Was discussed at the Inter Agency Liaison Committee Councilmember Matarrese suggested that we do some kind of transit pass purchase as a pilot program to see what response we would get. Commissioner Parker asked if the cost of the pass accounted for City costs to administer the pass program. Staff Bergman stated that the cost is prel… | TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2005-10-26 | 4 | Chair Knox White asked if the purpose of the consultant work would be to look at the routes or the potential technologies for the shuttle. Staff Bergman mentioned that identifying routes would come later. The council has expressed an interest in electric vehicles, so the intent of the analysis is to get a better understanding of the costs and benefits of utilizing this type of technology. Looking at the routes would be the next phase. Chair Knox White suggested that the program should be developed first, and then various types of vehicles should be analyzed in terms of how they would help meet the objectives of that program. Staff Hawkins said that the Council gave the direction to look at electric vehicles, but not at other types of vehicles. The intention of this work scope was to assess the advantages and disadvantages of electric vehicles and provide this information to the Transportation Commission. The Commission could then pass along its recommendations to the Council so that they could make an informed decision before making any commitments to buy or lease these vehicles. Commissioner Parker expressed similar concerns to Chair Knox White, and suggested that the purpose of the vehicles should be identified before trying to select an appropriate vehicle type. Chair Knox White recommended to hold off hiring a consultant until the needs and goals of the shuttle program are in place especially routing ridership capacity are known. Commissioner Parker added that it is also important to consider how vehicles could be used by the City for purposes other than operating a shuttle service. Chair Knox White moved that the Commission recommend that the City hold off on hiring a consultant to study shuttle vehicle technology until the needs and goals of the shuttle program, specifically routing and ridership capacity are known. Commissioner Knoth seconded the motion. Motion passed, 4-1 (Ratto). 7A. City of Alameda Ferry Program: Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) Staff Sanchez presented the staff report. He noted that tha… | TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf,5 | TransportationCommission | 2005-10-26 | 5 | Public Comment Closed Commissioner Parker noted that the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service is currently running at 16% occupancy, and asked why the boats are so much larger than the demand. Staff Sanchez acknowledged that the occupancy load is low, and that the reason is partially historical. The City was able to purchase the Encinal from Blue and Gold Fleet in 1997 at a very good price. The existing boat - the Bay Breeze - could carry only 250 people, so people were being left at the dock. Some runs have much higher capacity than others, especially on weekends during the summer along with certain holidays, so a decision was made to use the larger boats to accommodate these heavier used runs. The smaller boat was sent over to Harbor Bay to run that service. The Water Transit Authority just received bids today to build two 149 passenger boats, and these boats could be available to the City in two years. Commissioner Schatmeier asked if there was any difference operating a big boat to a small boat with crew and operating cost. Staff Sanchez said that the fuel consumption is the biggest cost. Fuel is $2.55 a gallon for diesel now. The Express 2 uses about 52 gallons per operational hour and the Encinal burns 65 gallons per operational hour. Staffing costs are about the same, although an additional deck hand is required if there are more than 200 passengers. Chair Knox White asked if the document is primarily a financial document. Staff Sanchez answered yes. The passenger goals come up in the discussion on maintaining the 40% farebox recovery ratio. Chair Knox White said that he felt it would be helpful to have some information about the number of people who access the ferries via AC Transit. Also, the report says that passengers should pay their "fair share" which suggests that they are not currently doing so. He noted that a goal of the plan is to achieve a significant share of trips, but asked if that goal had been identified. Staff Sanchez indicated that it has not. Chair Knox White noted that the plan states that tr… | TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf,6 | TransportationCommission | 2005-10-26 | 6 | Staff Sanchez noted that the farebox recovery rates for the Harbor Bay Ferry have increased from 32% to 49%. Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the parking lot at the Harbor Bay Ferry seems nearly full, and asked if this is a constraint on future growth. He also stated that he has noticed a significant number of people commuting to Alameda, and asked if the City has looked into marketing this service for commuters into Alameda. Staff Sanchez said that the parking limitations are not at a cap. Water transit authority has looked at the potential of providing shuttles, and they have funding from Measure 2 to finance shuttles. Reverse commute has been looked at, and a free ride was offered on the ferry for riders. The results of this promotion have not been determined. Commissioner Parker asked if the Harbor Bay recovery was money generated or if it included complimentary trips. Staff Sanchez said that it was calculated by actual revenue divided by actual operational cost. Commissioner Parker referred to Page VII. She asked why the costs varied so significantly in the base operating plan from year to year. Staff Sanchez said it may include capital costs, but that he would look at the numbers. He also noted that the City does not have money for new vessels or major facility changes, and noted that all vessels have been refurbished in the last 2 years. If fuel prices were to escalate, the City would have to determine how to raise fares or cut expenses. Chair Knox White noted that it is assumed that there will be an annual increase of 3 1/2 % in gas prices in the next 10 years. Is that low or is it a new industry standard? Staff Sanchez said this is a standard number but if there are significant changes in gas prices the City may revisit the plan. Commissioner Ratto moved to accept report as written with a copy of questions and comments attached to it. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion was unanimously approved - 5. 8. Staff Communications TMP Schedule Staff Bergman passed out the revised TMP schedule. … | TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf,7 | TransportationCommission | 2005-10-26 | 7 | Chair Knox White noted that Michael Kruger and Jeff Knoth are on the Pedestrian Plan Sub- Committee but there is one more space available if anyone is interested. Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2005\1105\102605 TC Minutes.do 7 | TransportationCommission/2005-10-26.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2005-11-16 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2005 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:40 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded: Members Present: John Knox White Robb Ratto (left at 8:20 PM) Michael Krueger Jeff Knoth Robert McFarland Eric Schatmeier Absent: Pattianne Parker Staff Present: Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Knox White made the correction on the October minutes that Commissioner McFarland was not absent but late. Commissioner Schatmeier requested a minor edit on page 8. He noted that it should say "40% farebox recovery ratio," not "40% month recovery ratio". Commissioner Ratto moved for approval of the October meeting minutes. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 5 (Commissioner Krueger abstained). 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Krueger provided an update on the activities of the Pedestrian Plan Subcommittee. The Pedestrian Plan public workshop was held on November 9th, with about 15 members of the public in attendance. The discussion was based on questions presented by the subcommittee to help guide the development of policies for the Pedestrian Plan. Topics included positive and negative characteristics what people of walking environments in Alameda, as well as tradeoffs that may be required to balance the needs of pedestrians and other modes of traffic. Commissioner Krueger stated that the next step will be compiling the input into a form that can be used to develop the draft policies for the Plan. He noted that the subcommittee will solicit | TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2005-11-16 | 2 | input from representatives of other boards and commissions at the Pedestrian Plan Task Force meeting in early December. Chair Knox White asked for the handout on the proposed Commission meeting dates for 2006 to be modified to indicate that the November and December meeting dates not be listed as "alternate" dates, and that the meetings be held on the third Wednesday of the month for both November and December to avoid conflicts with holidays. Since there were no objections from the Commissioners, Chair Knox White asked that the dates for both meetings be finalized. Commissioner Krueger noted that he has some questions about the process on providing red curb at bus stops. He presented Staff Hawkins with a list of locations that do not currently have sufficient red curb and requested an update on this process. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Non-Agenized Items None 6. OLD BUSINESS 6A. Revised Scope for Shuttle Analysis Staff Bergman stated that at the October meeting discussed a proposed work scope for a consultant to review potential technologies for use in a future shuttle service. The Commission recommended that a specific project be identified before the technologies be analyzed. Staff has revised the draft work scope to address the concerns and is bringing it back to the Commission for comment. Commissioner Schatmeier noted that the work scope mentions coordination with the ferry and BART schedules, but AC Transit should be included as well. He also asked that an analysis of the fare structure be included in the scope. Staff Bergman responded that AC Transit would be included in the study, but this was inadvertently left out of the draft. Commissioner McFarland wanted to know what level of work is being conducted in terms of estimating ridership. Staff Bergman said a technical analysis would not be possible given the size of the project. The consultant would identify key employers and other stakeholders to help develop some ridership estimates. Commissioner Krueger asked if this is an investigative study to access t… | TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2005-11-16 | 3 | Commissioner Krueger asked if the study would look at modifying existing bus routes if they could serve the same purpose as a shuttle. Staff Bergman indicated that the work scope focused on a shuttle service, but that Alameda staff and AC Transit staff have discussed this project and would continue to communicate regarding overlaps in service and ways in which the services might be coordinated. Commissioner Ratto asked if the shuttle program would focus on service to existing areas. Staff Bergman answered that the shuttle would be designed to connect BART and downtown Oakland to Alameda. Chair Knox White said the scope should define the project as addressing the west end. He also expressed his concern that there is still not an identified goal, and stated that the consultant would need to begin with a goal to determine the effectiveness of the proposed program. In addition, he asked that the scope be modified to include an assessment of the effectiveness of a limited number of stops, serving primarily longer trips, versus providing more stops and potentially serving more localized transit use. Commissioner Krueger moved that the Commission support the work scope prepared by staff, with the following modifications: 1) primary and secondary objectives need to be clarified, 2) the project is limited to the west end, 3) the service could include modification of existing routes that may travel outside of Alameda, 4) there should be consideration of bus frequency in addition to routes and hours of operation, and 5) analyze the benefits for local versus more limited stops. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 6. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7A. Bus Shelter Survey Staff Bergman noted that the draft survey was brought to the Commission on Disability Issues and that they submitted comments. They expressed concern about the canopy shelters because it has posts but no walls, which can make it difficult for a visually impaired person to navigate the sidewalk. Commissioner Schatmeier asked how the s… | TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2005-11-16 | 4 | Chair Knox White asked that staff contact AC Transit and have them email Alameda riders with a link to the survey. Commissioner Schatmeier mentioned that people who not normally use the bus stop would have to make a special trip in order to get their opinion of it. Important to survey people Staff Bergman mentioned that under number 2 we could add in none of the above or other as an option for none of the above so that we can tell which people are filling them out. Commissioner Krueger suggested that rather than listing all of the shelters that they be grouped by the shelter design, so respondents could comment on a type of shelter. The questions about the shelters could be asked about each shelter type, instead of each specific location,a nd respondents could indicate how often they use each shelter type. Commissioner McFarland asked how the survey would evaluate protection from the weather when they were just installed in April of this year. He also asked how staff would know if the shelters are adequate for people with disabilities. Staff Bergman said that the plan is to distribute the survey in December, so respondents should have some experience using the shelters in the rain. He also noted that based on feedback from the Disabilities Commission, staff was planning to include a question about whether people have a disability, and what type, to see if that perspective is reflected in the survey responses. Commissioner Ratto asked if the survey could be delayed until the first week in January. He noted that six new shelters on Park Street are about to be installed, and this would allow people the opportunity to comment on them. Staff Hawkins said that Public Works had made a commitment to the Planning Board to issue the survey in October, but had been delaying it to get input on how effective the different shelters are in the rainy season. She indicated that waiting until January should not be a problem. Public Comment Mr. Spangler supported delaying the survey until January. He suggested that the questions ab… | TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf,5 | TransportationCommission | 2005-11-16 | 5 | Chair Knox White stated that ARTS is interested in doing additional fundraising to purchase more shelters. Staff Hawkins said that six shelters from ARTS cost approximately $22,000 and maintenance has been budgeted for $40,000 for the year. This includes replacing broken glass panes and removing graffiti. A monitoring report looking at such issues will be presented to the Planning Board. Chair Knox White asked that the monitoring report be presented to the Transportation Commission, since this would address the effectiveness of the shelters. Staff Hawkins said that the Council has asked that the report be sent only to the Planning Board. 7B. Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Consultant Work Activity Staff Bergman said that on November 2nd the Circulation Task Force had their most recent meeting. Suggested to bring a consultant in to review the draft materials and bring back to the task force for review. Get input from the Commission on what should be in the work scope for the consultant work. Public Comment Irene Dieter stated Oak Street has been identified as a primary bicycle route and the proposed garage location is in direct conflict with this. She stated that in the 2002 Part Street Streetscape and Town Center Project, in which Mr. Krueger and Mr. Ratto participated, Oak Street was not a recommended traffic corridor, but instead proposed that Oak Street between Lincoln and Central be redesigned as a pedestrian plaza with no curbs and limited traffic. She also state that a parking garage was never recommended at the corner of Oak and Central. She urged the Transportation Commission to write a letter to the Development Services Department stating that this garage location is in conflict with the goals of the transportation plan. Mr. Spangler distributed his recommended revisions to the previous draft of the Circulation Plan. He stated that the Pedestrian Plan Workshop was very informative. Mr. Spangler suggested that a key idea underlying the Circulation Plan should be that every other mode should enhance and i… | TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf,6 | TransportationCommission | 2005-11-16 | 6 | Chair Knox White responded that one purpose of the classification is to help define street design. He stated that the Circulation Subcommittee chose not to identify Oak as a collector or arterial, which could encourage the expansion of lanes, and noted that the Circulation Plan includes no volume limits for streets. He said that the classification of 8th Street poses a similar issue, and the subcommittee chose to classify it as a collector to indicate that the street should not be redesigned to encourage additional through traffic. He suggested that it may be appropriate to use different terminology if that is causing confusion. He also noted that while it is not reflected on the map, that the subcommittee recommends classifying Oak as a priority pedestrian street. Commissioner Knoth asked for clarification on the pedestrian map. Chair Knox White stated that the pedestrian zones were not identified as a way to indicate pedestrian routes, but as a way to identify priority areas where funding should be targeted. He emphasized that the map is only an initial draft, and that the Pedestrian Subcommittee should hopefully use this as a starting point. Commissioner Schatmeier stated that he hoped the role of the consultant is to evaluate the Subcommittee's proposals from a technical standpoint and to look at the consequences of those decisions, and not to question the intent of the Subcommittee. Commissioner Knoth asked what staff's concerns are about the Subcommittee's recommendations, and what staff would like to see the consultant do. Staff Bergman said that staff's concerns were mostly related to some of the issues already discussed, such as the classifications of Park Street and Webster Street as minor arterials, and 8th Street, and that the definitions do not fit the standard definition of collector and local. He noted that the consultant work scope has not yet been drafted, and that staff is looking for input from the Commission. Staff Hawkins stated that part of the problem was how the process was set up, that Su… | TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf,7 | TransportationCommission | 2005-11-16 | 7 | of the unfunded projects, and 4) a sample CIP project priority ranking sheet. She noted that the upcoming CIP will include only the one-time capital projects and the annual projects will be removed. Staff Hawkins requested input on the unfunded projects and other improvements that the Commission would support including in the CIP. She noted that projects would be evaluated in December to determine if proposed projects rank high enough to move forward in the process. Chair Knox White asked if there is a description of the projects. Staff Hawkins said that if there are any questions about specific projects to contact her. Commissioner Krueger asked what was included in the Bus Stop Accessibility Improvement Phase II. Staff Hawkins stated that December 16 is the deadline for input on the projects, and that there will be three public meetings through the CIP process, one on Bay Farm Island, one on the East End, and one on the West End. Commissioner Krueger moved to continue this item on the December 14th meeting. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 5. 8. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Staff Hawkins stated that staff has been working on resolving the issue of the disputed bus stop near Lum School. She said that Public Works staff spoke with the Alameda Police Department about potentially working with the crossing guards at Lum School to not have the children cross the street while a bus is stopped. However, staff has received a number of letters from residents and the crossing guards at Lum School asking that the bus stop not be re-established. She said that this will be brought to the Technical Transportation Team (TTT), and that the Commission would be notified as to the date of that meeting. Commissioner Krueger asked if there were any alternative locations for that bus stop. Staff Hawkins said that staff did look at other sites, but there are a number of driveways in that area, so it is hard to find an area that has the length needed for the bus stop. As a result, there would be… | TransportationCommission/2005-11-16.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2005-12-14 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2005 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded: Members Present: John KnoxWhite Pattianne Parker Michael Krueger Eric Schatmeier Jeff Knoth Absent: Robb Ratto Robert McFarland Staff Present: Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Knox White moved to approve the minutes of the November meeting. All were in favor except for Commissioner Parker who abstained. 3. AGENDA CHANGES None. 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Regarding the Pedestrian Transportation Master Plan update, there was a Task Force meeting on December 7th. Rebecca Kohlstrand from the Planning Board, Nancy Gormley from the Housing Authority, and two members of the public attended the meeting. They reviewed the feedback from the first public workshop and provided input regarding key pedestrian issues and policies. Chair Knox White suggested that staff call Task Force members prior to meetings to remind them of the meeting time. Staff Hawkins said that staff had called and that some members had either indicated they would be attending but did not show up or that they left messages and could not connect directly. 1 | TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2005-12-14 | 2 | Chair Knox White suggested that it might be helpful to follow up with the staff person from each board and commission to make them aware that their representative did not make it to the meeting, and also to let them know how many more meetings there would be. Chair Knox White noted that no progress has been made on the Circulation Plan since the consultant is not yet on board. Commissioner Krueger requested an off agenda report on the status of the Bus Stop Accessibility Program at a future TC meeting. Staff Hawkins said that she would be working on that. She noted that Public Works is short staffed so it will take some additional time. The main tasks are to check to see if the requests all went through the TTT and to review the status of the work orders. Commissioner Krueger noted that he is interested in three issues: 1) Red curbing, 2) Paving for accessibility and 3) Parking restrictions. 6A. CAPITAL IIMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) CALL FOR PROJECTS Staff Hawkins stated that the CIP would be presented first in house to the Commissions and Boards who can provide input. There will then be three public meetings held in January/February or February/March Staff will prepare cost estimates for the top-ranked projects. These will be presented to the public, and will then go back to the boards and commissions prior to being sent to the Council. Chair Knox White said that this item was put on the agenda so that the Commissioners can make recommendations regarding projects that are either on the unfunded list or not on the list at all. Through the project evaluation process, some of these projects could potentially be added to the list of funded projects. Chair Knox White asked for clarification about the carryover projects, such as the $30,000 allocated for Bike and Pedestrian Operations. Staff Hawkins said that when staff deals with all bicycle and pedestrian requests, this pays for the time to conduct analysis, collect data, and other related tasks. Chair Knox White asked if all staff time is included in the CIP. Staff Ha… | TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2005-12-14 | 3 | Staff Hawkins responded that the Planning Department generally has that money dedicated to consultant activities, so it is not likely that this funding would be available for the TMP. Chair Knox White asked about the I-880 High Street improvements. Staff Hawkins responded that the project includes reinforcing the bridge for seismic purposes and possibly adding an extra lane. She noted that the City would also like to continue to work with Oakland to improve circulation on local streets in that area. This is a Caltrans project and Alameda's contribution is participating in meetings and providing our perspective. Chair Knox White noted that the list includes $176,000 for in-pavement crosswalk lights. He asked if before and after studies could be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of these devices, as opposed to other treatments such as pedestrian paddles. Staff Hawkins said that this project is for crosswalks near Lum, Chipman and Haight schools, and was funded by a Safe Routes to School grant. Therefore the only discretionary spending in the project is the $18,000 in Measure B funds. Commissioner Parker asked if the projects list is a wish list for grants. Staff Hawkins said that in the header the sheet it says "carryover" or "funded". The carryover projects are supposed to be fully funded and grant submittals that were not funded should have been eliminated. She noted that the City had submitted a grant proposal for the audible/countdown signal heads. While the grant was awarded for the countdown devices, the audible signals were not funded. Therefore, while the entire budget amount is listed in the table, the only the countdown portion of it has been funded. Staff Hawkins stated that the proposed grant amounts are included, even if funding has not been secured, because the City needs to earmark then matching funds. If the City is not awarded the grants, the matching funds can be released for something else. Commissioner Parker asked if any of these grants going to sunset if we haven't started the project. S… | TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2005-12-14 | 4 | Staff Hawkins mentioned that there are sheets that include this information, it's just not printed in the report that was distributed. Chair Knox White suggested that it would be helpful to indicate the funding status in the table, so it would be understood if the funding status is uncertain. Staff Hawkins responded that this could be indicated in the Comments section. Commissioner Parker asked if the phase of the project, e.g. design, could be indicated. Staff Hawkins stated that the way the document is compiled is that the whole project is listed as a single record. This helps with the keeping track of overall project costs. She said that the phase of the project could also be indicated in the Comments section. Commissioner Parker asked if a project falls off the carryover list if it would then be put on the unfunded list? And would it continue to be a priority? Staff Hawkins said that the Council determines which projects are the priorities. Commissioner Krueger asked if there are any other means by which operations are handled and do on going operations count under projects? Staff Hawkins replied that the purpose of some operations is to give Council the understanding of what people are working on. Work program is an annual project such as sidewalks, tree trimming as to how much money has been put into it. Commissioner Krueger asked if there is any discretion for removal of projects from the carryover/funded list or is everything on her subject to go forward no matter what. Staff Hawkins said that was her understanding. Chair Knox White asked about the pedestrian heads project with various locations for $400,000 and wanted to know what that was (page 4). Staff Hawkins stated that the Commission on Disability Issues had requested that all signals have countdowns and audible signals. Public Works then applies for grants to bring the City's costs down. The budget for this project indicates the cost for all signals in the City. Commissioner Krueger said that this sounds like another project, 1-04-96. Staff Hawkin… | TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf,5 | TransportationCommission | 2005-12-14 | 5 | Staff Hawkins said the Tinker Extension is considered the portion from 5th to Webster Street, and should be called Tinker Intersection. This will be funded by state funds and developer funds. Chair Knox White asked about the traffic signal at Fernside Boulevard and San Jose Avenue for $400,000. Staff Hawkins said that this was supported by the school district. The projects had to be included in the budget because the City was seeking grant funding, but it hadn't yet been approved by the school board at that time. The City did secure the funding but the school board voted against the project, so it will be taken off the list. Commissioner Parker asked if we could apply the funds to another project. Staff Hawkins said that it was from local streets and roads funds, but will be applied towards the bicycle and pedestrian access along with bus access. Chair Knox White suggested that a potential project might be construction of roundabouts on Fernside Boulevard to help deal with the volume of traffic. Staff Hawkins said that the TC could recommend such a project. She noted that the City is trying to work down on already requested traffic calming projects, and a petition has been submitted by residents of Fernside Boulevard, so this issue could be addressed. If it turns out that the capital portion is more than what we have budgeted, it can be brought before Council for more money. Chair Knox White suggested adding several projects to the CIP list: purchasing and installing the remaining 18 bus shelters, the top ten priorities from the bike plan, safe routes to school and safe routes to transit improvements, and the bike lanes on Central Avenue between Walnut and Oak Streets. Staff Hawkins said that some projects need some preliminary analysis so that that the general feasibility could be determined and cost estimates can be developed. She said that the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study is an example of this. Now that costs have been determined, it can be included in the CIP. Staff Hawkins suggested that the Commiss… | TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf,6 | TransportationCommission | 2005-12-14 | 6 | Staff Hawkins said that those projects have been sufficiently developed to be submitted. She noted that the bike lanes are to be included as part of the library relocation, but it still needs to be in the budget. Staff Hawkins said a safe route to schools project is less defined, and that staff is collecting data now to identify locations for improvements. Staff is also working with Jon Spangler to get more volunteers to get data, which we then can substantiate where and what we need in improvements. Commissioner Parker moved that the following three projects be added to the capital improvement budget for 2007-08: Cross Alameda Trail, purchase and installation of 18 Bus Shelters to be bought and installed, and bike lanes on Central Avenue between Walnut Street and Oak Street. Commissioner Krueger seconded and was passed unanimously. Commissioner Parker moved that the operations and annual maintenance queue be formalized and part II added to that. Feasibility studies for bike plan priority projects, safe routes to transit and schools, bus shelter maintenance and transportation Master Plan. Commissioner Krueger seconded and passed unanimously. Chair Knox White indicated that he wanted to make sure that the TMP funding matches up with what the Council has already approved. Commissioner Krueger asked if there are any rules about how gas tax funds are spent. Staff Hawkins said that it has to be spent on transportation related items and in the past gas tax was always spent on the roads but in more recent years has been directed to transit purposes. For transit purposes it's generally allocated to AC Transit and the only other given to the city is the roads money, which is generally used for resurfacing. When the City does resurfacing, it tries to update striping and bike lanes. Commissioner Krueger asked why $67,000 of gas tax money is being spend on the Underground District Conversion project. Staff Hawkins said some money is made available from the utilities to underground the overhead poles. People from the communit… | TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf,7 | TransportationCommission | 2005-12-14 | 7 | not have map holders, although most have trash cans. He recommended bringing all bus shelters up to the new standards. Staff Hawkins mentioned that we have been using the bus shelter funds to handle the existing shelters, and that it would be appropriate to use the current maintenance fund money for this purpose. 8. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Staff Bergman mentioned that the workshop at the College of Alameda collected input and got some good information for the Trail Workshop and Paratransit. The Paratransit covers almost all of Alameda except for a few exceptions like Bay Farm Island. We have not been spending our annual Paratransit allocation. We have been looking for ways to expand the current program. One way is to open up an existing Taxi program to the disabled and anyone 75 years and over. Have to figure and structure that. Short term during Christmas Season had it available to seniors for shopping. Chair Knox White asked when the consultant will be hired for the Circulation Plan. Staff Hawkins responded that this should happen in January. She noted that staff is currently working on the request for qualifications (RFQ). Chair Knox White requested the RFQ indicate that consultants need to have planning experience and that it would be two month process. Staff Hawkins would like to see the RFQ go out in January and then everything done by June. The consultant would meet with the Task Force in February or March. Staff Hawkins noted that following projects are scheduled to be presented to the TC in the coming months: Target EIR in January, Safeway gas station in February, and a request for a joint meeting in April with the TC and the Economic Development Commission to look at the new ProLogis environmental update. Chair Knox White asked if there was any idea about a joint Council and TC meeting in January. Staff Bergman has not heard anything more on it. Chair Knox White said that when the negative declaration comes to the TC it would be helpful to the Commission and Planning Board to give a 15 minute discussion on… | TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf,8 | TransportationCommission | 2005-12-14 | 8 | schools along with a number of parents to get feedback. Commissioner Knoth suggested that facilities at each school need to be surveyed to determine where there are cross walks and other facilities. Staff Hawkins said that staff is using Otis and Franklin schools as a pilot program to determine what needs to be looked at for the other schools. Commissioner Knoth said that lighted crosswalks are something that would be important at all schools. Currently some schools have them and some not. Staff Hawkins said that in-pavement lights are also going to be installed at 8th Street and Taylor Avenue. Where in-pavement lights are installed depends on if they meet the warrants. Chair Knox White mentioned that some schools have very vocal parents in getting thing done faster, and recommended finding a way to level the playing field. Commissioner Knoth said that everyone should have at least a minimum level of facilities and that there will be some cases where traffic deems other things. He asked if there was a timeline for the study. Staff Bergman stated that as far as part of the Pedestrian Plan staff would be collecting a lot of school data between now and the end of school year. Facilities have most of that already for locations such as; cross walks and signals along with crossing guards, and in pavement lights largely have not. Staff will also be looking at existing conditions and traffic patterns, such as conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. 9. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2006TC min 121405-final.doc 8 | TransportationCommission/2005-12-14.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2006-02-22 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2006 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded: Members Present: John Knox White Pattianne Parker Michael Krueger Jeff Knoth Robert McFarland Absent: Robb Ratto Eric Schatmeier Staff Present: Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works Andrew Thomas, Planning 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Parker moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Knoth seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 4 (Abstained - McFarland). Commissioner Parker stated that there were items discussed at the meeting that were not reflected in the minutes, and asked if the Chair could maintain a record of items that require responses from staff. Chair Knox White said he would discuss this with Staff Hawkins. 3. AGENDA CHANGES Staff Bergman suggested the Staff Communications be moved up before the Northern Waterfront Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), so that Andrew Thomas from the Planning Department could be present. Chair Knox White agreed. 4. COMMISSION COMUNICATIONS Chair Knox White mentioned that the only thing not on the agenda was the Pedestrian Master Plan Subcommittee. 1 | TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2006-02-22 | 2 | Commissioner Knoth said that he and Commissioner Krueger met with Staff Bergman and reviewed the comments from the last Task Force meeting, discussed the draft policies, and reviewed the schedule. A set date for the next task force has not been established yet. Chair Knox White mentioned that the ILC's next meeting is March 22nd 10:00 a.m. at AC Transit. Commissioner Parker said that she attended a recent Catellus presentation about the proposed Alameda Landing Development. She requested that the TC be given a brief presentation or white paper on transportation projects related to this project, which may also affect the Northern Waterfront project. This would help the Commission to understand what has been approved, what phases the projects are in, and how they fit together. Specifically, she referred to the construction of the Clement extension, Tinker Avenue, and Mitchell Mosley Avenue (note: most recent plans have Mitchell connecting directly with Main Street, not joining with Mosley). Chair Knox White asked when the TC is supposed to be briefed on the Alameda Landing project. Commissioner Parker said that it is her understanding that it is scheduled for April, following the Planning Board workshop on April 10. 8. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Staff Bergman presented information on the following items: A Request for Qualifications for on-call contracts has been sent out. It covered the range of Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering activities including the completion of the Multimodal Circulation Plan. A final public meeting for the Park Street Triangle project was held on February 8th in the City of Oakland. The City Attorney's office had forwarded AB1234 to the Commission. Staff Bergman noted that it is not relevant to the Commission at this time, as it only pertains to Commission members that receive compensation for Commission related activities. The Bus Shelter Survey was posted on the City's web site the week of February 20th and also fliers were put up at the 22 bus shelters for residents to take. Abou… | TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2006-02-22 | 3 | reviewed and provided some comments to the General Plan Amendment in 2004. A sub- committee was formed and put together for comments. The EIR report has just been issued and will be available thru the end of March for comments. The packet included the Transportation and Circulation sector project description based on the General Plan Amendment that was circulated before. None of the comments have been incorporated as to this date. Once the EIR is finalized it will be forwarded to the Planning Board and Council. The TC members can review the comments, which they can modify. Chair Knox White said that the members would like to review those comments. Commissioner Parker had a question. In the Project Description, Page 7, there is a discussion of scattered residential properties. She expressed concern that some of these properties might block a future transit corridor. Chair Knox White said that it should be on the next meeting for discussion. Commissioner Parker said that the DEIR, Transportation and Circulation deal with impact fees. Some new developments have had their impact fees waived or reduced. Wants to make sure the DEIR is based upon assessment of impact fees to stand firm on its policy. She also stated that the DEIR indicates that the intersection of Clement and Park will be very congested in 2010 and 2025 whether the Northern Waterfront project is approved or not. Chair Knox White responded that on Page IV.E-27, the baseline for 2025 with no project is Level Of Service B. Commissioner Parker responded that the text on Page IV.E-28 is not consistent with that. She noted that the report says "the impact of the Clement extension on the intersection of Park and Clement in 2025 is determined to be significant and unavoidable." Commissioner Krueger noted that on page 10, Line 19 runs on weekdays but also on weekends. Regarding the transit discussion on page 18, he asked if there is sufficient right of way for a future transit corridor. Staff Bergman responded that cross-sections were developed as part of the Cr… | TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2006-02-22 | 4 | Commissioner Krueger noted that this seems to be a pattern. Staff Bergman said that the curb-to-curb cross-section for the section of Clement Avenue in Marina Cove is 48 feet, the same as it is east of Grand. Commissioner Parker noted that at previous meetings, residents of Buena Vista Avenue had expressed their opposition to introducing rail service on the street. Chair Knox White asked if the transit corridor would be located along the street, and Staff Bergman responded that it would. Chair Knox White asked that the TC be given an explanation of the right of way and how it changes along the corridor at the next meeting. Commissioner McFarland stated that the data on page IV.E-6, Roadway Operations, include what seem like very high vehicle capacity numbers for the Posey/Webster Tubes. He noted that freeway lanes accommodate just over 2,000, and this is for facilities that are 12 feet wide with shy distance. Chair Knox White asked that at the March meeting that staff present the assumptions underlying the peak hour capacity numbers for the Tubes. Commissioner Parker wanted to know how "peak hour" is defined. Staff Bergman said that it was not a specified hours based on what the count was but was the highest hour on the day it was collected. Commissioner Parker asked if the Commission could look at the trend of traffic throughout the day instead of just the peak hour. This way the Commission could see how long the peak lasts. Chair Knox White had a questions regarding Section 4, page 5. He noted that the Class II bike lanes on Tilden Way exist on only some of the roadway. On page 17 the Northern Waterfront Trip Distribution has 11% for trips coming from the south to Alameda and 7% trips going south from Alameda. He stated that in the Transit Plan and at the Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept public meeting, the number used was 40%. He asked for clarification on which number is correct. Staff Bergman said that at least part of the discrepancy is due to the 40% being a percentage of off-island trips, whi… | TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf,5 | TransportationCommission | 2006-02-22 | 5 | Chair Knox White had a question on Page 19, Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. It states that the removal of the truck route from Buena Vista will improve bicycle and pedestrian safety on Buena Vista, but does not mention that the trucks are moving to Clement where the bicycle lanes will be. The EIR should note this. Chair Knox White had a question on page 22, Construction Traffic. It talks about re-routing of automobiles, bicycles, buses and emergency vehicles. He suggested that it should read that buses should only be rerouted as last resort to avoid confusion among riders. He asked if the items listed on Page 24 under the TSM/TDM Plan #7 are already in a City plan, or if they are being recommended for inclusion. Staff Bergman responded that they are in an existing plan. Chair Knox White stated that the DEIR should indicate that the elimination of the bike lanes on Atlantic and redirecting the bicyclists onto a trail through the former rail yard would be a hardship to bicyclists, as it would hinder bicycle access to, from, and within Marina Village. He also expressed concern that the language is overly aggressive in suggesting the conversion of Atlantic into a four-lane street. He asked staff to provide information on the level of service along four-lane streets throughout the City during their peak hour of usage. Staff Bergman responded that in some locations there may be excess capacity in anticipation of future development. Commissioner Krueger agreed with Chair Knox White: 's concern, and stated that he supported the off-road path, but that it should not be considered a substitute for the bike lanes. Chair Knox White asked how important the need is for additional capacity at this location. He suggested that it may be worthwhile to allow the street to be congested for a short period of time in order to maintain the bicycle facilities. Commissioner Parker suggested that rather than specifying the number of lanes, that the Commission could recommend a consistent width across the Island. Chair Knox White expre… | TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf,6 | TransportationCommission | 2006-02-22 | 6 | Commissioner Knoth moved that the TC is concerned with the consistency of the DEIR recommendations with the wording 4.1.C of the 1990 General Plan, "Do not increase through- traffic capacity on the Main Island". Commissioner Krueger seconded. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5. Commissioner Krueger moved that the TC would like the language clarified to point out that although desirable pedestrian and bicycle access through the belt line is not a substitute for pedestrian and bicycle access on Atlantic. Commissioner Parker seconded. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5. Commissioner Parker moved that the TC recommends that the Tilden-Clement connection is extremely important to assure the success of the development of the Northern Waterfront under this GPA. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5. Commissioner Krueger noticed that there was a mentioned on page 30 of using developer fees on Broadway/5th Street and Jackson, but no mention of using them to pay for the extension of Clement for Tilden. Staff Thomas said that it's not the additional traffic generated by the redevelopment of the Northern Waterfront. The issue is that much of the traffic would be shifted from other streets, so the development cannot be required to pay for the improvements. He noted that all new development in Alameda pays Citywide Development Fees (CDF). The impact fees are directed to improvements at specific locations. Public Works is doing an update of the Citywide Fees to determine the most important projects to be funded. Staff Thomas stated that since the funds are not currently in place yet for the Clement-to-Tilder connection, the DEIR recommends that it be included in the General Plan. Commissioner Krueger moved that given the importance of the Tilden/Clement connection, the TC recommends to the City Council to direct staff to prioritize the connection and to identify the funding to make it happen. Commissioner Parker seconded. Motion carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5. Chair… | TransportationCommission/2006-02-22.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2006-03-22 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 22, 2006 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded: Members Present: John Knox White Eric Schatmeier Michael Krueger Robert McFarland Absent: Robb Ratto Pattianne Parker Jeff Knoth Staff Present: Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Knox White moved the approval of the February minutes to next meeting. Commissioner Schatmeier had a question regarding the motion by Commissioner Knoth about the required capacity on Atlantic Avenue. Chair Knox White indicated that this could be clarified under item 6A on the agenda, when the Northern Waterfront DEIR is discussed. 3. AGENDA CHANGES None. 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Chair Knox White mentioned that at the ILC meeting Councilmember Matarresse asked AC Transit to come and address the TC on the 51 bus bunching issue. AC Transit will be collecting data why it's happening at certain times and will try to bring that to the TC in May. He also noted that representatives of the Alameda Point Collaborative spoke on behalf of Lifeline funding to continue operations of the 63 bus service for Alameda Point. Staff Hawkins added that the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has redirected the funding that has been used for the Alameda Point service to certain Census tracts, so AC Transit is Page 1 of 7 | TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2006-03-22 | 2 | looking for another funding source to maintain this service on the 63. She indicated that to ensure that this happens it will be helpful to make recommendations to the CMA. Chair Knox White said that only two Census tracts identified are in southwest Berkeley and Cherryland, so that in the first round the CMA will be accepting applications for other locations as well. Chair Knox White noted that the ILC also discussed concerns about buses using the High Street Bridge. Residents are opposed to the noise from the buses using the bridge, while AC Transit is concerned about the additional cost that would be incurred by redirecting them to less direct routes. AC Transit has asked the City to identify how it would like the deadhead buses to be dealt with. Councilmember Matarrese has indicated that he will ask the Council to direct this issue to the TC for recommendations. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jean Sweeney commented on the plan to convert diagonal parking to parallel parking on Central Ave. between Walnut and Oak. She stated that this will increase the difficulty in finding parking at the Veterans Building when there are evening functions, and that she has discussed this with a number of people active in veterans activities who have expressed this concern. While there is a lot in the back of the building, the Recreation and Parks Dept. keep their vehicles there. Ms. Sweeney also stated that it would be helpful to have more than one handicapped space in front of the building, as it is difficult for some people to walk a long distance to the building. She asked the Commission for its assistance with this situation. Bill Smith suggested the development of an "eco-destination resort" at Alameda Landing to minimize the number of vehicles that would use the site. 6A. Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Chair Knox White stated that the purpose of having this item on the agenda was to review the TC's original recommendations for the Northern Waterfront GPA, as well as to rev… | TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2006-03-22 | 3 | amend the Citywide Development Fee Ordinance to fund expanded Northern Waterfront transit services in corridors through and between the Northern Waterfront and the high ridership generators inside and outside the City such as Oakland BART stations, airport, transit hubs, etc." Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed passed unanimously, 4-0. Chair Knox White noted that the TC had recommended deleting the following policies: 10.6.j - Prohibit extension of north/south residential streets through the Alameda Beltline railyard site. PS-3 - Provide primary access to this site shall be from Sherman Street. Chair Knox White suggested clarification of the deletion of 10.6.j to indicate that the TC does not want to advocate for extending streets through the former Belt Line railyard, but to indicate that the intention is to not have high-capacity through streets through the site. He suggested that the GPA's recommended prohibition on extending the streets be deleted in case a new land use scenario emerges for the site. Commissioner Krueger emphasized that in support of the General Plan, the TC doesn't want to increase through traffic capacity. He stated that his primary concern is connectivity. Several suggestions were made regarding clarifying language but no motions were passed. Chair Knox White suggested leaving the recommendation to delete the policy. Commissioner Krueger moved to correct Item 5 to read: "Facilitate use of Clement Street as a major east west corridor through the City and to remove traffic volume from other east west streets such as Buena Vista and Lincoln by prioritizing efforts to extend Clement from Sherman Street to Tilden. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0. The Commission then discussed the DEIR recommendations approved at the March 22 TC meeting. Chair Knox White stated that regarding the recommendations for the DEIR, he wanted to be careful to focus on clarifications of what was approved at the previous meeting, since the current meeting had only four member… | TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2006-03-22 | 4 | Staff Hawkins said that the proposed extension would not take the funeral home but only a couple of parking spaces. In addition, she said that there is a level of service issue at Clement and Park, so there would need to be a capacity enhancement to address this. Commissioner McFarland stated that his understanding is that the capacity issues are the primary concern, not the truck route. Chair Knox White suggested removing the previously recommended language that Council should direct staff and just say that the TC recommends that the City Council prioritize the connection of Clement to Tilden. He noted that the intention of the recommendation is to help ensure the City make a commitment to this project while reviewing the impacts discussed in the EIR. Staff Hawkins said that when it goes to project level EIR, if it's not feasible that it would impact the development of a specific project. Therefore the feasibility of the proposed extension would be discussed as part of a project level EIR. Chair Knox White said that he wanted to respect the wishes of Commissioner Parker, as she raised this issue and was not in attendance, and recommended keeping this recommendation as is. Chair Knox White asked about the tube capacity, which Commissioner McFarland had raised at the March meeting. Staff Bergman said that the handouts discussed the assumptions, as well as indicating the hour by hour traffic counts in the year 2000. Chair Knox White asked if the calculated capacity takes into account the fact that there are stop lights on either end of the tube or just assumes free flow and go on forever. Staff Bergman said that he had talked to Virendra Patel on that and said that the signal on the Oakland side has a very short cycle as well as a free right turn, so there is not much impact on the capacity of the Posey Tube. He noted that on the Webster tube there is a pretty long distance between the exit from the tube and the traffic signals. There is also a split at Constitution, providing additional lanes and capacity. Commiss… | TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf,5 | TransportationCommission | 2006-03-22 | 5 | Commissioner Krueger moved to include the following explanatory text to accompany the TC's recommendation to delete policies 10.6.j and PS-3 from the GPA: "These two policies prohibit full use and/or any future extension of the Alameda grid system. Depending on the future outcome of the ballot initiatives for the Alameda Beltline property or the future development plans for the Pacific Storage property, extension of the grid may not be necessary or desirable. However, until the future uses are established for these two sites, the General Plan should not prohibit any future consideration of access to the Pacific Storage or the Beltline site from the north-south streets in the grid." Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0. Chair Knox White asked to discuss the right of way for the proposed rail transit, and referred to the cross-section drawings from the Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study. Staff Hawkins stated that staff looked at the constraints of the roadway system on both sides and looking at both the existing Clement and connecting into Atlantic. This included a look at potential cross-sections from Main to Tilden to see how the different modes of transportation could be accommodated. This also included the geometrics of a road that would be constructed between Sherman and Clement, so even though this is a preliminary proposal, it is based on pretty refined measurements. Staff Hawkins said that the original light rail study did not get to the refined level that was done in the trail feasibility study. She noted that San Francisco is currently using a rail system that has shared turning lanes with vehicles but doesn't have shared through lanes. Commissioner McFarland said that it is possible to get 15 minute headways for a rail service even if there is a mile of single tracking. Commissioner Krueger questioned whether Clement is the best right-of-way for a potential rail corridor. Commissioner McFarland also noted that space would be required for stations. He suggested th… | TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf,6 | TransportationCommission | 2006-03-22 | 6 | Commissioner McFarland stated that the TC shouldn't preclude the possibility of having the system run in the street as opposed to an exclusive right-of-way, as this may actually be more appropriate. Chair Knox White moved that the City, when accepting the General Plan Amendment, needs to be aware the transit right away that is referred to is a single track shared right of way with turn lanes and automobile traffic. The Transportation Commission is concerned that the amount of single track right of way from the Fruitvale Bridge to Sherman could possibly limit effective transit operations. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously, 4-0. Chair Knox White asked about the "scattered residential properties" referred to in the report. Staff Hawkins pointed them out on the map for clarification. 7A. Pedestrian Plan Chair Knox White asked what the timeline was and that maybe at the next TC meeting discuss them. Staff Bergman said that the Task Force meeting was held last week and overall structure was confusing to some people. The relationship between the Pedestrian and Circulation polices were confusing as to what the stand-alone Pedestrian plan document was going to look like. Maybe get feedback from the TC as to how to put the two together. Chair Knox White asked said that should talk more on the structure at the next months TC meeting as to how to put the policies together. Staff Bergman said that 4 basic goals were established as part of the Circulation Plan with objectives and polices underneath those. The question is what would a stand-alone Pedestrian Plan include. He distributed a copy of the policies previously approved by the TC which indicated policies most relevant to the Pedestrian Plan. Staff Hawkins said that the Task Force should not be relied on to develop the policy language but to provide feedback and endorse the final product. Chair Knox White said that after the next meeting their recommendations will go to the boards and commissions for approval and comments. Staff Bergm… | TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf,7 | TransportationCommission | 2006-03-22 | 7 | Staff Bergman explained that the bus shelter survey was extended a little longer than originally proposed and that about 250 responses were received. The consultant will be wrapping it up sometime next week and then will get an analysis on it to present at the next meeting. Staff Bergman noted that the Request for Qualifications did receive some proposals in the process of evaluating them and then will have a work scope put together to complete the Circulation Plan. Staff Bergman stated that the Alameda Landing project was originally going to be presented to a joint meeting of the TC and Economic Development Commission, but these will instead be handled separately. The TC will likely have the opportunity to discuss this project in April. Staff Hawkins noted that the proposed CIP is posted on the City's web site. She noted that this includes proposed projects, deferred projects, and project descriptions. She noted that the TC recommendations are not included, because CIP was broken up into annual projects and capital projects. Annual projects, such as feasibility studies, will not show up in the CIP. Commissioner Krueger asked about the bus stop/red curbs inventory. Staff Hawkins said Public Works is very short-staffed, but that Barry Bergman and Greg Stoia have developed a data sheet for the inventory and this effort will be moving forward. 9. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. i:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2006/0406/32206 tc min-FINAL. doc Page 7 of 7 | TransportationCommission/2006-03-22.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2006-04-26 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2006 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded. Members Present: John Knox White Pattianne Parker Robb Ratto Michael Krueger Robert McFarland Eric Schatmeier (arrived at 8:05 p.m.) Absent: Jeff Knoth Staff Present: Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Knox White noted that a quorum of members who attended the March meeting was not present, and recommended postponing approval of the February and March minutes until the May meeting. Commissioner Parker noted that the references in the March minutes to "March minutes" should be changed to "February minutes". 3. AGENDA CHANGES - None 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Schatmeier commended Commissioner Ratto and the Park Street Business Association on the bus shelters located on Park Street. He also commended the West Alameda Business Association for the shelters on Webster Street. Chair Knox White mentioned that A/C Transit should be reporting to the Commission in May regarding the bunching of buses on the 51 line. He also noted that the EIR for Alameda Landing would be on the May agenda. | TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2006-04-26 | 2 | 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Brian Strand spoke regarding Alameda Municipal Code subsection 8-7.8, which prohibits the parking vehicles in the same place on the street for more than 72 hours. He noted that he had received a warning on his vehicle, which was parked in front of his house. Mr. Strand stated that he is a public transportation user, and uses his car only about once a week. He assumed that the purpose is probably to prevent people from leaving non- operating vehicles on the street, but asked if there is another justification. Mr. Strand said he spoke with the Alameda Police Department, and he was told that vehicles are generally cited if they appear to be abandoned or if they receive a neighbor complaint. Chair Knox White stated that the issue is one which borders on the jurisdiction of the Transportation Commission and the Planning Board. He suggested that Public Works staff look at this and then let him know what their findings are. He suggested that if Mr. Strand is still not satisfied, he may want to contact the City Council. 6A. DRAFT POLICIES FOR PEDESTRIAN PLAN Chair Knox White suggested reviewing the supplemental goals one by one. Chair Knox White suggested that the final pedestrian plan document include the circulation plan policies relevant to the Pedestrian Plan as well as any pedestrian-specific policies. He said that if the supplemental policies do not fit under any already-approved ones, the Commission may want to go back and amend the original list. Chair Knox White suggested that the Commission come up with the general ideas regarding the policies, and the subcommittee can work out the detailed language. Commissioner Ratto suggested adding language to indicate that projects need to be prioritized, since the City has limited resources. Commissioner Krueger mentioned that at the Task Force meetings the public had brought up that we need some criteria for priorities. Staff Bergman said that most of the discussion at the Task Force meeting was focused on projects. He noted that the handout includ… | TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2006-04-26 | 3 | Chair Knox White stated regarding the use of soundwalls, he noted that there are locations at Bayport were there are no breaks in the walls to enable pedestrians to cut through. Commissioner Krueger aid that we would need to observe how people actually walk, and make the appropriate pedestrian connections. Staff Bergman explained that at Bayport there are locations where there are no connections because they were designed for use as alleys, not as streets. Chair Knox White asked if there are some places that have been identified where there are cul de sacs that the City could develop at some time. He noted that city of Kirkland, WA has a program whereby at the end of cul de sacs when a house goes up for sale, the voter gives the city the opportunity to buy a three or four-foot strip along the property line. This enables them to construct a pedestrian pathway once all of the adjacent houses have been sold. Staff Bergman suggested that the Commission could rephrase a policy to ensure that alleys would be included in the policy. Chair Knox White expressed a concern about B-4.2. He suggested that a policy be included to indicate that the Pedestrian Master Plan will be implemented. Commissioner Krueger stated that it is important to look at the layout of an entire site as to where sidewalks are to go and the crossings of the streets. Agrees that C-2.2 and C-2.3 are related but don't know if they completely cover it. Chair Knox White said that they all follow under C-2.4. Commissioner Krueger said that there should be a set of design guidelines to apply when someone is building a shopping center or a redevelopment. Commissioner Ratto said that each shopping center and development is different and it's not possible to have one set of standards. Commissioner Krueger responded that his intent is not to be overly specific, but to ensure that the spirit of a pedestrian-friendly project is carried over through project implementation, such as ensuring that there are sidewalks on both sides of the street. Chair Knox White sugg… | TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2006-04-26 | 4 | Commissioner Schatmeier also questioned whether it is appropriate to promote walking, which is mostly a public health issue. Commissioner Krueger responded that encouragement to walk could have significant impacts on traffic congestion, especially near schools. Commissioner Schatmeier agreed that this would be beneficial. Commissioner Krueger recommended that encouraging children to walk to school should be added. Commissioner Parker asked about the fourth bullet, "Establish an annual program to install curb ramps at crosswalks throughout the city." She stated that this sounds more like a capital improvement program, not an annual program. Chair Knox White said that based on what Barbara Hawkins had said, even though the curb ramps are a capital project, since it would be included in the budget every year, it would be listed as an annual program. Regarding the policy supporting use of rubber sidewalks, Chair Knox White asked if the Commission should be dictating the types of materials to be used in sidewalks, or if that should be left up to Public Works. Commissioner Ratto stated that the issue is not necessarily barriers, but the type of trees that are planted. He noted that this is more of an issue for locations where new trees would be planted, as opposed to replacing existing ones. Commissioner Krueger suggested noting that the trees should be "non-invasive". Commissioner McFarland asked if the property owner is responsible for the condition of the sidewalk across their property. Commissioner Ratto responded that the property owner is responsible unless a City tree has damaged the sidewalk. The Commission agreed to accept the draft Pedestrian Plan policies along with the Commission comments, and to have the Pedestrian Plan subcommittee incorporate this information for the May meeting. 7A. BUS SHELTER SURVEY RESULTS & MAINTENANCE COSTS Staff Bergman summarized the results of the bus shelter survey. He noted that 308 individuals responded to the survey. Since respondents could submit information on more than on… | TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf,5 | TransportationCommission | 2006-04-26 | 5 | Staff Bergman noted that appearance for all types was generally rated favorably, with the percentage of respondents who approved of the shelter designs was over 60 percent for all types. Chair Knox White stated that glass and canopy (no metal walls) - somewhat higher Commissioner Krueger noted that bus visibility received a lower score for shelter type #6. He noted that he personally has difficulty seeing the bus from this shelter. Suggested that the negative score for the shelter at Santa Clara Avenue and Willow Street (#6) may have to do with maintenance, and that the metal walls make it look less appealing. He suggested that the shelter at Stanton Street, which is the same design but with glass walls, is more attractive. Commissioner Krueger noted that respondents gave higher favorability ratings to shelters for protection from rain and wind for the shelter that have walls, as opposed to the canopy shelters. Commissioner Parker asked what was included in the maintenance program. Staff Bergman said that the contract called for trash removal in and around the shelters as well as graffiti removal, and these are done on a weekly basis. The replacement of panels were as needed, and this is considerably more expensive. Commissioner Parker asked what is the standard to look like after the maintenance is completed. It does not seem to be clean enough. Commissioner Ratto stated that dirt accumulates quickly. He stated that from what he has seen of the City-maintained shelters, they are clean immediately after the contractors have done their work, but that a daily cleaning is really required. He stated that his staff cleans the Park Street shelters every day, but he recognizes that the City does not have the resources to do this. Commissioner Schatmeier asked if there is a difference on the maintenance of the shelters as to those jurisdictions who participate in the shelter advertising program. Commissioner Krueger asked how quickly graffiti is removed once a call is put in, and how the City's maintenance program compar… | TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf,6 | TransportationCommission | 2006-04-26 | 6 | accelerated maintenance schedule; 4) ensure there is a trash receptacle at each shelter. Commissioner Parker seconded. Motion approved unanimously, 6-0. 8. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - None 9. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. :\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC/2006/0506\tc min 42606-FINAL doc 6 | TransportationCommission/2006-04-26.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2006-05-24 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 2006 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded. Members Present: John Knox White Jeff Knoth Michael Krueger Eric Schatmeier Robert McFarland Absent: Pattianne Parker Robb Ratto Staff Present: Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Schatmeier noted that his question at the last meeting what if the AC Transit advertising bus shelter program maintenance requirements are similar to the requirements of the City's maintenance contract. Commissioner Krueger requested some edits to the minutes from the April meeting: The motion regarding the bus shelter guidelines, reaffirming based on the results of the survey. In the discussion of the results, he had pointed out that scores for protection from rain and wind are higher for the shelter that have walls than for the canopies. Commissioner Schatmeier made a motion to approve the April meeting minutes with the recommended additions. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion approved unanimously, 5- 0. 3. AGENDA CHANGES Chair Knox White moved Item 7C to the top of the agenda. 1 | TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2006-05-24 | 2 | 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS The Multimodal Circulation Plan sub-committee has not met since the last TC meeting and there is nothing to report on. The Pedestrian Plan will be discussed tonight. The Bicycle Plans update has not been started as of this date. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 7C. CITY POLICY REGARDING SPACING BETWEEN BUS STOPS Staff Bergman presented the staff report. He noted that the Transportation Technical Team (TTT) had requested that the Transportation Commission provide more specific policy direction regarding bus stop location and how their benefits should be evaluated against any negative impacts. He distributed the AC Transit bus stop policy. Chair Knox White asked Staff Bergman to identify what the safety concerns were. Staff Bergman said that a representative from the Alameda Police Department would speak on that issue. Officer Craig Rodrigue said that there was a concern from the crossing guard Mr. Garlets on trying to cross the kids with the crosswalk located across Otis Drive which the location of the bus stops would hinder the safety of the children. With the amount of traffic they had to step out a little further past the end of the bus to look for oncoming traffic. There are also cars that creep up and keep going across the crosswalk without stopping. There are concerns of having a bus stop there in front of the school for both the children and the crossing guards. Officer Rodrigue indicated that he had discussed this issue with Michael Margulies of the Public Works Dept. in the past. After the concerns were raised, the bus stop was bagged and removed. PUBLIC COMMENT Peter Muzio stated that it is 900 ft to Grand and a couple of thousand feet to the Willow bus stop. The bus stop is not in the middle of the block. He recommended putting the bus stop by the walkway, about half way between the two existing stops. Barbara Nemer stated that the proposed bus stop location is hazardous. She said that the crosswalks are not observed by drivers and the location is unsafe because of parents dropp… | TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2006-05-24 | 3 | suggested moving the stop bar approaching the crosswalk to the west side of the Waterview Isle, which would direct drivers to stop further back from the crosswalk. It would also need adequate signage for the vehicles to remain behind the line when the crosswalks are occupied. He also requested that a parking stall on the west side of Sandcreek Way be reserved for the crossing guards at Lum School during school hours. Chair Knox White responded that the TC could not make any decisions on specific parking but that this could be presented to the Transportation Technical Team (TTT). Liz Cleves reiterated what was said at the TTT meeting concerning the bus stop. She suggested locating it at Pond Isle or Glenwood Isle, instead of near Sandcreek, as this would be closer to the mid-point of the existing bus stops. She noted that the crosswalk near the school is very busy with pedestrians crossing and cars going past without stopping for the pedestrians. CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT Staff Hawkins asked AC Transit staff to elaborate on their guidelines in placing bus stops. Sean Diest Lorgion from AC Transit said that currently the bus stops are 2900 feet apart. Policy 508 states that mid block stops are rare and considered only when there are no alternatives available and upon approval of the transportation project coordinator along with the municipality. The design guidelines recommend 1000 feet but the policy actually provides for a range of 800-1300 feet. There are also considerations for ADA access and where shelters are placed. Commissioner Schatmeier asked if there are any policies regarding locating bus stops near schools. Mr. Diest Lorgion responded that he was not aware of any such guideline. Staff Hawkins described a situation when the City had requested relocating a bus stop from the intersection of Encinal/Versailles to Encinal/Grove. Since the stop would have been changed from a controlled to an uncontrolled intersection, and the new location was a skewed intersection, AC Transit would have absolved themselves of al… | TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2006-05-24 | 4 | Chair Knox White moved to accept AC Transit board policy considering bus stops. Commissioner Krueger seconded. Motion was approved unanimously, 5-0. 7A. Review of Environmental Review Process Andrew Thomas of the City's Planning and Building Department described the environmental review process for the Commission. 7B. Alameda Landing (Catellus) Mixed Use Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Staff Thomas said that this document is a supplemental DEIR. He noted that the proposal is actual an amendment to the Catellus Master Plan. The original DEIR was completed in 2000 and was certified by the City Council as adequate. Prologis/Catellus has submitted a proposal to revise the approved 1.3 million square feet of office space. The proposal will be going to the Economic Development Commission on June 15th, then on June 26th back to the Planning Board concerning the project and master plan amendments. This summer all the responses and comments/revisions done to date will then be brought back to the Planning Board for their final consideration. After that it will be forwarded to the City Council for a final decision. Chair Knox White wanted to know the steps that were needed to approve the DEIR mitigations? Staff Thomas said that there are a couple of steps. When they certify the DEIR they also adopt the mitigation-monitoring program. The mitigations would then be put into a chart for approval. Dan Marcus of Catellus stated that the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan would be paid for by charging customers when they buy or rent office space or retail space, and to homebuyers when they buy their homes. He stated that once Alameda Point, which is 700 acres, is developed, significant revenue can be generated for a coordinated west end TDM program. Commissioner Krueger asked if the re-orientation of 5th Street to line up with Broadway in Oakland had accounted for a possible transit connection across the estuary. Staff Thomas said they would build a physical crossing or an aerial tram but it … | TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf,5 | TransportationCommission | 2006-05-24 | 5 | asked how people would be able get out of Alameda? The tube is very congested, and the water taxi would only get people to Jack London Square, still a significant distance from the BART station. She also asked why there is no connection from Alameda Landing directly to the Alameda ferry terminal. Lucy Gigli she stated that many of the mitigation measures would make walking and bicycling worse. Adding lanes on a street would make it more difficult to add bike lanes. She asked that the water taxi be used as a mitigation measure, which would be a good way to encourage people to get out of their cars. Ricardo Pedevilla stated that he is a resident and a new member of Bike Alameda. He indicated that he supports improvements that will treat bicycling as a serious mode of transportation. He noted that the Posey tube is a terrible option. He recommended that a water taxi be implemented early on in the project. Public Comment Closed Commissioner Krueger found some discrepancies between the document on the cities website and the document in the TC packet. The one in the packet has a date of May 11th. Concerned the mitigation at 8th and Central that one version talks about widening 8th Street. Staff Thomas said there was a draft for two potential mitigations to deal with that intersection. The Planning Board and City Council can review the options and decide what they want to do. Chair Knox White asked if the city has adopted thresholds of significance beyond those for the tubes through the Traffic Capacity Management Procedure (TCMP). Staff Thomas said there is not, but that the City tries to maintain consistency from one EIR to the next. Chair Knox White asked if these traffic projections include the Target project and the Clement extension? Staff Thomas responded that Target was included, but the Clement extension was not. Chair Knox White wanted to know how 20% of the retail trips that the site generates would come up Westline and 8th Street. Staff Thomas said that he would have to get to him on that. Chair Knox White s… | TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf,6 | TransportationCommission | 2006-05-24 | 6 | Chair Knox White said it appears that there was no analysis done on the transit, pedestrian and bikes. Staff Thomas said that there is a need to consolidate the set of concerns that need to be addressed. Need to come up with an approach to mitigate impacts of vehicle traffic on bicycles and for pedestrians. Chair Knox White asked why not specify TDM program before certifying it. Dan Marcus said the preliminary TDM will be required and would be consistent with the current entitlement, but that the final details would be approved at a later date. Staff Thomas said that the water taxi needs certain permits that are outside of the cities control to build a new landing/dock. Chair Knox White asked that on the mitigation budget for this TDM if dropping the speed limit on Atlantic along with some new signs would be a low cost solution. Staff Thomas said that it was not in the environmental document. There is a development agreement and a development disposition agreement that was approved in 2000 along with financial agreements. It needed to be amended and that they were trying to get cost estimates on these mitigations. Staff Thomas summarized the Commission's comments as follows: 1. Trip distribution numbers (east end and Fremont) 2. Transit bike and pedestrian analysis adequately considers the effect of additional congestion on these modes. 3. Would lowering of speed limits be an alternate of equally effective mitigation as sound walls? 4. Would reducing speed limits on Atlantic Avenue an alternate mitigation to signals and signal coordination suggested in the DEIR. Staff Thomas suggested that the Commission to transmit policy questions to Council separately from questions about whether the analysis is sufficient. Commissioner Krueger expressed concern that some of the mitigations for roadway level of service could have negative impacts on the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes, as well as on noise levels. Chair Knox White offered his comments: 1. The long-range transit plan doesn't appear to have been consulted.… | TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf,7 | TransportationCommission | 2006-05-24 | 7 | Chair Knox White said that in the DEIR on page III-6 talks about reducing the impacts on automobiles in the general plan goal. He suggested that it would be helpful to explain how the project would do that, since free parking would actually encourage automobile use. Commissioner Krueger moved to complete the discussion of the EIR. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion was approved unanimously, 5-0. Staff Thomas noted that he had a list of the issues raised by the Commission, and that these would be reflected in the meeting minutes and would also be submitted as a letter to be included in the final EIR. Chair Knox White said that a list of polices would be worthwhile for the City Council to look at. Look at its thresholds of significance and perhaps create a threshold of documents. The thresholds of significance could be updated to better evaluate the impacts on transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The city should not rush into it but do an analysis on it. Congestion may be preferable to the impacts of the mitigations Staff Thomas said that they would look very carefully at it. There are no real straightforward clear accepted thresholds or methodologies for looking at any of the things have been raised. Staff Hawkins asked if there are specific locations that he is concerned about. Chair Knox White asked that the analysis be done for the intersections of concern and the major bike routes. For pedestrians, the area of concern is in the area of the mitigations. Chair Knox White moved to the following: 1) To request that the City Council direct the Transportation Commission, working with staff, to create thresholds of significance to better address the impacts on bicycling, walking, and transit; and 2) To recommend that the City Council carefully evaluate mitigations that require additional lanes in terms of their negative impacts, since some level of increased congestion may be preferable to adding lanes on the west end. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.. Commissioner Schatmeier motion… | TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf,8 | TransportationCommission | 2006-05-24 | 8 | Commissioner Krueger said that D4.1C is to establish an annual program to install curb ramps at crosswalks throughout the City to comply with the ADA. D4.3A is to develop guidelines choosing appropriate street trees and avoiding species with aggressive roots that can cause sidewalk damage. Commissioner Krueger motioned to adopt the polices as presented with the three additions noted. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion approved unanimously, 5-0. 8. Staff Communications Staff Bergman mentioned the update on the bus stop inventory. He noted that it's about 3/4 of the way done and should be completed by the next TC meeting. He also noted that AC Transit staff had passed along some information on the bus bunching issue. They had a consultant look at that issue and what they are considering is lengthening the running time along those routes to account for potential bunching which would result an addition to two peak buses being added to the schedule. Would allow for an additional 8 minutes on the longest run. Staff Bergman said that if this change is approved it is scheduled to be implemented August 27th Commissioner Krueger noted that this also happens during non-peak hours, and questioned if there are other operational issues that need to be addressed. Commissioner Schatmeier also noted the problem during off-peak hours. Commissioner Krueger asked if AC Transit staff could make a presentation on this topic. Staff Bergman said he would make the request of AC Transit. Staff Hawkins said that the Economic Development Commission and the Planning Board had a meeting, which they had reviewed the scope of work of a business district Parking Study. Public Works is not leading the study but will be able to provide input regarding things like use of transportation demand management (TDM) measures free up parking spaces. She noted that it has been recommended that the report be brought to the Transportation Commission when it is 30-50% completed, and again later on in the process. Staff Bergman followed up on the discussion at… | TransportationCommission/2006-05-24.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2006-06-28 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES 6/28/2006 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded. Members Present: John Knox White Jeff Knoth Michael Krueger Robert McFarland Pattianne Parker Robb Ratto Absent: Eric Schatmeier Staff Present: Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Knoth moved approval of the May minutes. Commissioner McFarland seconded. Motion approved unanimously, 4-0 (Commissioners Ratto and Parker did not attend the May meeting and abstained). 3. AGENDA CHANGES Item 6B was moved up on the agenda. Commission Communications moved to end of meeting. 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS (moved) 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Adrienne Longley-Cook, resident and member of the Commission on Disability Issues, noted that there are difficulties for pedestrians at the Alameda Towne Centre. Staff Khan responded that Public Works had sent a letter to Harsch Investments, the developer, to express concerns about the pedestrian environment and asking for a response by the first week in July. Susan Decker, resident, stated that it is not only people with disabilities that are having difficulties, and that it is important to make sure that the City doesn't miss the opportunity to enhance the pedestrian environment at the Alameda Towne Centre. | TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2006-06-28 | 2 | Ms. Decker also inquired about the status of the City's efforts to install sufficient red curb at all bus stops throughout the City. Ms. Decker also noted that some of the more heavily used bus shelters could use additional maintenance. Commissioner Parker stated that it is important to enhance the awareness about the graffiti problem, and that the quick removal of graffiti will help to maintain the shelters at a high standard. Commissioner Krueger noted that graffiti at the shelter located at Santa Clara Avenue and Willow Street lasted for several weeks before it was removed. Chair Knox White stated that regarding the Alameda Towne Centre it would be important to look at pedestrian access throughout the entire site. 6B. Bunching of AC Transit buses on Line 51 Tony Bruzzone from AC Transit said that they had spent a $500,000 for new software to help with the bus schedules. Have hired a consultant to help look over the information on the bunching. This will include 25-30 weekday routes, 16 weekend routes and every trans bay line to make adjustments to the time in order to re-write schedules for the buses. This is especially difficult since some drivers finish their routes faster than others. They would be building the schedules from the early part of the route so that at the end of the route spread it out to ease the bunching. He said that hopefully this should help to develop a more realistic schedule and hope to get this implemented by September or early October. Chair Knox White mentioned that it looked more like the drivers operations is what is causing the bunching. Mr. Bruzzone said that by adjusting the schedules to require drivers to push in the first part of the route, the problems could be reduced. Commissioner Krueger asked how much of the problem is due to traffic, and how much to following the schedules. Mr. Bruzzone answered that more than half is due to traffic especially at University Avenue, College Avenue and especially going south bound including the tubes. Chair Know White asked if AC Transit e… | TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2006-06-28 | 3 | Mr. Bruzzone said that it could be done, but a problem is that AC Transit charges for transfers. Commissioner Parker asked if AC Transit is looking at the prior studies that have been done on it? She didn't think that AC Transit's issues are unique or that the solutions have not been addressed before. Mr. Bruzzone said that AC Transit has the ability to track every bus using GPS, but the system is not integrated into the scheduling system, so they can't relate this to where the buses are supposed to be. The on-going process of the GPS scheduling inter phrase is going on 5 years. It takes a very long time to influence schedule changes because of institutional issues - the contract has to be reviewed several times with the drivers. Chair Knox White asked how confident he was on the effectiveness of the new scheduling. Mr. Bruzzone said that it will at least work better than the current system. The schedule insures that 95% of the buses will leave the terminal on time and that is what they are aiming for. Chair Knox White asked if the new schedules are implemented and there is still an issue on bunching, would this become an operations issue? One issue is that residents do not want to wait long periods of time for a bus and if they do they will eventually want to find another mode of transportation. Mr. Bruzzone said that once the schedule improvements have been made, it would be an operations issue, and that the appropriate place to discuss any concerns at that time would be the Interagency Liaison Committee (ILC). He noted that the operations department is trying to add more supervisors, and that the new manager rides the 51 bus, so she is familiar with the problems first hand. But despite the commitment of staff, there are many constraints. Commissioner Krueger mentioned that dedicated lanes are needed for the transit in order to get reliability. Has seen bunching on Sundays when there are no games or other events that would cause the bunching. Mr. Bruzzone said that this is mostly a schedule problem and that it … | TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2006-06-28 | 4 | Commissioner Krueger stated that the problem needs to be measured. Wanted to know what type of metrics would be used to calculate this. Mr. Bruzzone indicated that AC Transit does have planning metrics, but that operations metrics have been a problem. He said that they will be going to the board with service design metrics and service delivery metrics, including headway adherence and on-time performance. He said that the AC Transit Board's Planning Committee will be holding meetings over the next 6-8 months to deal with service delivery issues, and he encouraged concerned Commissioners to participate. Information about upcoming meetings will be posted on AC Transit's web site. Mr. Bruzzone stated that AC Transit is trying to establish standards consistent with the Transportation Research Board's recommendations. He also mentioned AC Transit's efforts to streamline their environmental review process when they implement service changes. They will establish a service baseline, then if they deviate from that standard, they will hold a public hearing. Commissioner Parker asked what institutional impediments there are to coming up with standards. Mr. Bruzzone responded that it is not just an institutional problem, but believes that the new operations manager is committed to improving service delivery and breaking down the cultural barriers. 6A. Policy Discussion of Environmental Review Recommendations Chair Knox White stated that the Commission made some vague policy recommendations at the May meeting regarding the review of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), and he requested that this item be placed on the agenda to clarify the recommendations. Concerns raised at the meeting centered on the impacts of proposed mitigations from EIRs, especially on pedestrian safety. He noted that the staff recommendation was to recommend to the Council that the Commission work with staff to develop interim policies regarding the EIRs, but is concerned that this would take too long, given that projects are in the pipeline. Chair Knox … | TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf,5 | TransportationCommission | 2006-06-28 | 5 | consistency of the policies with the general plan, long-range transit plan, and the TMP. Last week discussion was increasing traffic volumes, intersection widening, and speed limits to a certain extent. Need to have an analysis done before the Council certifies it. Commissioner Knoth responded that this type of statement could hopefully prevent some problems, such as those with pedestrian access at the Alameda Towne Centre. Commissioner McFarland suggested recommending the policies to the Council for while the TMP is under development. Commissioner Parker stated that the policy statement would point out that many policies are already in place, that in some cases they are vague and not being followed, and since EIRs are coming up for approval, this could be considered as a guiding document until the TMP is in place. She suggested that at this would at least generate discussion about critical issues. She also noted that some issues may not be addressed here, so the language should be modified to acknowledge that. Mr. Ratto expressed his concern that the policies appear to be dictating to the Council how they should act. However, the policies would be useful for the TC as a guideline in reviewing EIRs. He also noted that despite various City policies which recommend reducing reliance on automobiles, that is still and will continue to be the major form of transportation in Alameda. Chair Knox White said that the TC is only making a recommendation to the Council and not attempting to tell the Council how to act or to be disrespectful. He responded that if the language used in the handout was inappropriate, he is okay with rewording it. Commissioner Ratto expressed his concern with the language, e.g. "reject any EIR " Chair Knox White said that this is so that projects won't be exempted from the policies. The City Council has ability to ignore the General Plan, TC recommendations, etc. However, if they adopt this as their policy, a discussion will have to happen regarding how a particular project does or does not confo… | TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf,6 | TransportationCommission | 2006-06-28 | 6 | Commissioner Parker stated that it is important that the Commission make clear what its priorities are. She said that these issues be discussed at the level where decisions are being made, that it is not sufficient for the Council just to be told that the TC will be using this as a guide. Chair Knox White said that the policies do not say that a particular project should not be built. Commissioner Parker said that it was important to indicate why the Commission is putting this forward. The TMP will not be ready before many of the major development proposals are presented to the Planning Board and City Council for decision. Therefore the Commission is transmitting its recommendations to the Council in advance of the TMP. Commissioner Krueger said if Alameda is including language about improving transit, bicycling, and walking just to sound good he would support removing the language and being honest about what choices the City is making. Commissioner Krueger said that we as the city have a choice as to how much public money will be spent to accommodate cars and also the amount of private money required to be spent to accommodate cars (e.g. how much to require of developers; protection of open space; impact of road widenings on neighborhood, etc.). He stated that travel choices are not fixed, but other modes may become more popular if we make them more convenient. Commissioner Ratto said it was frustrating to see lip service toward being a transit first community, referred to difficulty getting red curb zones for bus stops. Mitigations are required, but the reality is still that most people will be traveling by car, and people cannot be forced to use other modes. So the issue is really a question of if the City wants to allow more development to come in. Commissioner Krueger said it also depends on how much accommodation you want to make. If the city were to make a limited accommodation for vehicle traffic, but instead offer a bus lane, someone moving in might decide to not live there or would move there only if th… | TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf,7 | TransportationCommission | 2006-06-28 | 7 | Commissioner Parker moved that the proposal be re-worded to make it clear this is the criteria the Transportation Commission will be using regarding the evaluation and adoption of the transportation section of EIRs, and that the Commission recommend to the City Council and Planning Board they also use these criteria. Commissioner McFarland seconded. Motion approved, 5-1 (for: Krueger, McFarland, Parker and Knox White; against: Commissioner Ratto). Commissioner Krueger noted that sound walls are not addressed. Chair Knox White mentioned that there is a question about whether sound walls are a transportation issue or not, so he avoided including it. 6C. Transmittal of Commission Recommendations to City Council Chair Knox White mentioned to write a letter with staff and send it directly to Council, Planning Board, signed by the Chair. Commissioner Parker motioned that the Commission communicate its decisions by having the Chair write a letter with staff outlining Commission decisions, to be signed by the Chair, and to be sent to the City Council or the Planning Board, as appropriate. Commissioner Ratto seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Commissioner Parker suggested to the chair that he should report back to the TC on the reaction of the City Council. 4. Commission Communications Chair Knox White said that there have not been any meetings with the Sub-Committee recently. Commissioner Parker said that this would be her last meeting to attend since she is leaving. 9. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2006/0706\tc min 62806-rev.doc 7 | TransportationCommission/2006-06-28.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-08-30.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2006-08-30 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - AUGUST 30, 2006 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded. Members Present: John Knox White Jeff Knoth Michael Krueger Eric Schatmeier Robert McFarland Absent: Robb Ratto Staff Present: Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II, Public Works 2. Proposed Commission Policy Recommendations to the City Council Regarding Criteria for the Evaluation of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) Chair Knox White asked if the background information presented at the June TC meeting should be included in the recommendations to the City Council. Commissioners Knoth and Krueger both indicated that they felt this was important to help the Council understand why the TC was forwarding these recommendations at this time. Staff Khan noted that staff has identified conflicts between the TC recommendations and the existing General Plan, so that adoption of the policies by the Council would have to be preceded by an environmental review. He recommended that this be integrated into the process for evaluating the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), rather than forwarding the recommendations separately. He also noted that number four on the list of policy recommendations is already included in the CEQA process. Chair Knox White stated that while the Alameda Landing EIR included bicycle and pedestrian facilities, it did not account for the impacts of the project on bicyclists and pedestrians outside the project area. Commissioner Krueger stated that the intent of the recommendations is as an interim measure until the TMP is approved. He emphasized that he has no interest in stopping or slowing projects, but is concerned about how projects are being implemented. He stated that since there | TransportationCommission/2006-08-30.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-08-30.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2006-08-30 | 2 | are a number of projects currently moving forward, it is important to have something in place while the TMP is being completed. Chair Knox White indicated that the City Manager has said that in the future the TC will be able to get involved in project discussions at an earlier stage, along with the Planning Board, before plans have been developed. Staff Khan recommended that the TC frame its concerns as guidelines, rather than policies, to make its concerns clear to the City Council and avoid having to conduct the environmental review and go through the process of amending the General Plan. He noted that the City Attorney's office has already indicated that they see conflicts between what the Commission has proposed and the existing General Plan. Therefore, if the recommendations are made as policies, staff would be recommending the environmental review. Staff Bergman suggested that the Commission consider the current timeline for the TMP. He noted that a consultant was recently hired to complete the Multimodal Circulation Plan and the update of the functional classification system. The consultant's work is scheduled to be presented to the TC in December, and the review by other boards and commissions, environmental review, and approval by Council should be completed by June or July 2007. As a result, if the TC's current recommendations are submitted as policies prior to the rest of the TMP, it may be that they would only be adopted a few months earlier than if they were folded into the TMP process. Commissioner Knoth stated that there appears to be a fundamental conflict between the spirit of Attachment 1 and Attachment 2. Staff Bergman stated that when the Council considers the Alameda Landing EIR, they will either be looking at recommended guidelines from the TC or recommended policies. The policies will not be able to be adopted yet. Chair Knox White expressed concern that if the recommendations are made as guidelines, that the Councilmembers may in turn point to the existing policies and dismiss the guidelin… | TransportationCommission/2006-08-30.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-08-30.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2006-08-30 | 3 | Commissioner Knoth moved to forward Attachment 1, with the recommended modification to the text, to the City Council as a policy recommendation. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote - 5. 3. Selection of Transportation Commissioner for City's Climate Protection Campaign Task Force Commissioner Krueger volunteered to represent the TC on the Task Force. No other Commissioners volunteered. Chair Knox White nominated Commissioner Krueger to represent the TC on the City's Climate Protection Task Force. G:\pubworks\LT\TRANSPORTATIONICOMMITTEES\TC\2006/0906/083006min.doc | TransportationCommission/2006-08-30.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-08-30.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2006-08-30 | 4 | 3 | TransportationCommission/2006-08-30.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf,1 | TransportationCommission | 2006-09-27 | 1 | TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES September 27, 2006 Chair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded. Members Present: John Knox White Jeff Knoth Michael Krueger (arrived 7:40 p.m.) Robert McFarland Robb Ratto Eric Schatmeier Staff Present: Obaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer Barry Bergman, Program Specialist II Doug Garrison, Supervising Planner, Dept. of Planning and Building 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Ratto moved approval of the June 28, 2006 minutes. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Commissioner McFarland moved approval of the August 30, 2006 minutes. Commissioner Knoth seconded. Motion passed, 5-0 (Abstained: Ratto) 3. AGENDA CHANGES Chair Knox White moved to move Item 7B to the beginning of the meeting to accommodate AC Transit staff in attendance. 4. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Multimodal Circulation Plan is moving forward. Will be presented to go to an EIR draft guidelines to the council October 17th but a request for funding an EIR to update the transportation element of the General Plan, which will be the guiding principles of the TMP. Pedestrian Plan will be on the agenda for the next meeting. Chair Knox White noted that AC Transit has formed a task force to look at the bunching of buses on the 51 line, and thanked AC Transit for their work on this issue. Transportation Commission Page 1 of 12 9/27/06 Meeting Minutes | TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf,2 | TransportationCommission | 2006-09-27 | 2 | 7B. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING AC TRANSIT'S PROPOSED TRANSIT STREETS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ALAMEDA. Staff Bergman mentioned that this Agreement would largely formalize what already exists, since representatives from the City and AC Transit currently meet through the Interagency Liaison Committee (ILC). Chair Knox White mentioned Item 3 that it was a good job explaining what the city will provide to AC Transit. He suggested that the City and the Transportation Commission be sent the agendas or meeting packets from AC Transit's Planning and Operations Subcommittees and Boards as to the items. Chair Knox White noted that the City Council asked the TC to make a recommendation to them if the Agreement meets the needs of the City. Commissioner Ratto moved to recommend to the City Council that they adopt the Transit Streets Cooperative Agreement. Commissioner Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0. 7A. REVIEW AND COMMENT ON DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTER REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION PROJECT Staff Garrison of the Planning Department said that he was at the meeting to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Alameda Towne Center expansion project. He noted that the EIR will be brought back to the Planning Board in October, and that the Planning Board expressed an interest in hearing the Transportation Commission's comments. Commissioner Krueger asked if the Planning Board will have a second public meeting to take comments on the project. Staff Garrison answered that there would be second meeting. The public will have until October 12th to submit their comments on the EIR. The Environmental Consultant and Planning Staff will prepare the final EIR, which includes responses to those comments. Another meeting may be scheduled at the Planning Board to discuss broader project issues. If the Planning Board would like another workshop, that may be scheduled, otherwise they will schedule a hearing. Chair Knox White asked w… | TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf,3 | TransportationCommission | 2006-09-27 | 3 | Staff Garrison said that the scope of the analysis was determined by the engineering staff in the Public Works Department and based on their understanding of city traffic and existing conditions along with anticipated traffic conditions. Chair Knox White asked if traffic from existing Target stores in the area was used to estimate the trip generation. Staff Garrison responded that the analysis used the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation numbers for shopping centers. Chair Knox White asked if it is known how this compares to large general merchandise stores. Staff Garrison said no. Public Comment Jon Spangler expressed concern about the lack of some traffic data in the EIR, such as the impact on Park Street intersections and trip generation comparisons to other Target stores. He stated that there were no mitigations in the DEIR to address bicycle and pedestrian safety, such as new facilities to help pedestrians crossing the parking lot. He recommended that the project pay for its full impact on the community, and that it pay for a transportation demand management (TDM) study and mitigations. He suggested that there might be a better location in Alameda for a Target. Tim Erway stated that the EIR included faulty traffic numbers based on a 2003 study. He stated that there is only a limited number of main streets and some narrow neighborhood streets providing access to the area, and he predicted that the project will create significant congestion as a result. He stated that the mitigations do not appear to be sufficient, even if the majority of the traffic is generated on-island. Mark Irons agreed with the other two speakers on the traffic problem that the project will create, especially on Park Street. Closed Public Comment Commissioner Krueger said that buses appear to have a problem entering the center at the new entrance on Park Street. He asked if AC Transit provided input in the design and if they feel that transit operations will still work with more intensive use and the parking garag… | TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf,4 | TransportationCommission | 2006-09-27 | 4 | Commissioner Krueger_wanted to know if A/C Transit could consider a way to allow transit access to be more efficient, since the current route has conflicts with vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Adding Target and the parking garage will increase the intensity of its use. Sean Diest Lorgion from A/C Transit said he would be interested in working with City staff and the developers on this. Staff Khan responded that he had talked with AC Transit and the developer. Shifting the center line is being considered to help the buses navigate the turn. Chair Knox White had questioned Mr. Erway to clarify his comment about the 2003 transportation study on his concerns that the existing numbers are not correct. Mr Erway said that there was no way to know if the existing numbers on the graph was correct. He compared the 2003 map along with the 2025 projected map. The projected numbers came up less than the 2003 numbers. It does not seem correct. Staff Garrison said that he would not expect traffic volumes to decrease over time, but that it is possible that the level of service could improve as a result of the mitigations. He said that actual traffic counts were done in 2005, and the numbers were lower than numbers from 2002. This was attributed to construction at the shopping center or a number of vacant retail stores. He also noted that the ITE trip generation numbers have been updated, based on real-world data, and the factors are now lower than what they had been. As a result, the 2003 traffic numbers almost certainly overestimated the traffic volumes. Staff Khan agreed with Staff Garrison. He noted that the 2025 map was a draft and was not intended to be posted on the web site. The map is being updated and should be finished in a couple of weeks. Commissioner Krueger noted that South Shore is more accessible to non-motor vehicle modes than many other shopping centers, and asked if this was accounted for in the trip generation rates. Staff Khan said that the 7th Edition of the ITE trip generation book takes into account some … | TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf |
TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf,5 | TransportationCommission | 2006-09-27 | 5 | Staff Garrison stated that the signal was actually installed after the traffic counts were done, so the existing traffic should be better than what was projected in the traffic study. In the 2003 mitigation the driveway next to the new Walgreens was supposed to make it a right turn only. This one has been implemented since last month. This mitigation was not assumed in the baseline. Chair Knox White said that under the pedestrian and bike circulation, everything in the EIR was previously approved, so there are no new bike or pedestrian amenities. The EIR reads as if these accommodations are part of the new plan, but there should be mitigations over and above this. He noted that the EIR does not look at project impacts on bicyclists and pedestrians off-site. He asked about the proposed addition of stop signs, except where it would cause traffic to back up. Staff Garrison said that for vehicles entering from Otis, stop signs may result in queuing onto Otis. If an east-west sidewalk is added, this may have to be reconsidered. Chair Knox White said that we're trying to create centers on the Island. Creating more parking is not the way. There's tremendously over parking this project, this amount may only be needed 3- 4 days per year. The minimum here is 4.0 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., the same as the maximums at Alameda Landing. Staff Garrison said it would be useful for the Planning Board if there was some consensus from the TC about parking. He noted that addition of new sidewalks may required tradeoffs, such as reducing the amount of parking. Staff Garrison responded that the parking study that was done was a combination 2002 count compared to ITE's, which at the time was a little over 4 spaces per 1,000. This was applied to the additional floor area, and added 20% based on the improved selection of retailers. Chair Knox White asked if the traffic distribution is based on actual counts. Staff Khan said that distribution is based upon existing traffic patterns and future land use changes and it is determined by how th… | TransportationCommission/2006-09-27.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );