North BCLASS1901 HeBerkele

A. PRE1. C2. R3. P4. A5. A6. U7. A

B. DISC * W ** W *** W

The 1. P

SDgS

2. R

3. A

C. INFO

Infor1. S

ta

D. COM

SuppItem B-1

1. M2. D3. L

T

Pu

Berkeley SeSROOM Aearst Ave. ey, CA 9470

LIMINARYCall to OrdeRoll Call Public CommApproval of Approval anUpdate on AAnnouncem

CUSSION/Aritten materia

Written materialWritten materialpublic may

Pedestrian Staff report aDiscussion ageneral fundStaff (Ander

Review of 2

Adoption of

ORMATIONmation item

Subcommitaken)

• Bicycl• Pedes• Trans• Parkin

MMUNICATplemental C1: Propose

Michael KatzDan Johnso

ynn Komar

TRANSP

A

blic Works TranspTel: 51

enior CenteA-B (at MLK) 09 

Y BUSINESr

ment on iteDraft Actiod Order of

Administratients

ACTION ITal included in l to be deliverel previously maspeak at thand Bicycand brief prand possibld to advancrson)

2011 Comm

f 2012 Reg

N ITEMS ANms can be mttee Repor

le strian

sit ng TDM

TIONS Communicaed Lane Rez

on romi

PORTAREGUL

AGENDDecem

portation Division 10.981-7010 TDD

er

SS

ms not on tn Minutes oAgenda on/Staff

TEMS packet

ed at meeting ailed he beginnin

cle Master Presentationle recommece pedestria

mission go

gular Meet

ND SUBCOmoved to Drts. Genera

ations receieconfigura

ATION CLAR MEET

DA-Revmber 15, 2

1947 Center StreeD: 510-981-6345

the Agendaof October

ng of any itePlans

n on status oendation to an safety im

oals and ac

ting Sched

OMMITTEEiscussion ol oral repor

ived at Octoation of The

COMMISTING vised2011

et, 3rd Floor, BerkeFax: 510.981-706

a 20, 2011*

em.

of PedestriaCouncil re

mprovemen

ctivities**

dule*

E REPORTSor Action byrts and disc

ober 20 mee Alameda

SSION

eley, CA 94704 0

Dec

an and Bikegarding allo

nts identified

S y majority vocussion (No

eeting: a (“Road D

Thucember 15

7:

e Plans ocation fromd in Ped Pla

ote of the To action will

iet”)*

ursday 5, 2011 00 PM

 

m an

TC. be

Transportation Commission Agenda Thursday, December 15, 2011

2

4. Ken McCroskey 5. DRAFT MAPS: The Alameda from Solano to Hopkins (Existing and proposed)

Item B-2: West Street Bicycle Path*

6. Virginia Browning 7. Daniel Borgstrom

E. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Better Streets Parking Downtown, Citywide, RPP Caldecott Project Subcommittee Assignments (Jan) Center Street Garage Design Sustainable Transit Election of Chair and Vice-Chair (Feb) Traffic Safety Issues (Jan, Feb?)

F. ADJOURNMENT RevAgenda Posted: December 12, 2011 A complete agenda packet is available for public review at the Main Branch Library and at the Transportation Division front desk. ADA Disclaimer

“This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location. To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at 981-6342 (V) or 981-6345 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date. Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting.”  Communications Disclaimer Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to a City board, commission or committee, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service or in person to the secretary of the relevant board, commission or committee. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the secretary to the relevant board, commission or committee for further information. Commission Secretary: Farid Javandel, Transportation Division Manager, 1947 Center St., 3rd Floor, Berkeley, CA, 94704, Telephone (510) 981-7061, Fax: (510) 981-7060 TDD: (510) 981-6345 email: Fjavandel@ci.berkeley.ca.us

B-3

2012 Commission Meeting Dates Please complete this form and email it to the

Commission Inbox by: Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Name of Commission: ___Transportation Commission__________________

Commission Secretary:____Farid Javandel__________________________

Please Note the Commission Meeting Dates for 2012 Below

Please fill in meeting date below. If no meeting for the month is scheduled please note as “No Meeting.”

“Example”

Month Meeting Day and Date Time Month Meeting Day and Date Time January 2012 Thursday 1/6/11 7:00 pm July 2012 No Meeting

2012 Meeting Dates

Month Meeting Day and Date Time Month Meeting Day and Date Time January 2012 Thursday 1/19/12 July 2012 Thursday 7/19/12 February 2012 Thursday 2/16/12 August 2012 No Meeting March 2012 Thursday 3/15/12 September 2012 Thursday 9/20/12 April 2012 Thursday 4/19/12 October 2012 Thursday 10/18/12 May 2012 Thursday 5/17/12 November 2012 Thursday 11/15/12 June 2012 Thursday 6/21/12 December 2012 No Meeting

Please Return via Email to: The Commission Inbox-City Clerk Department

Email: Commission@CityofBerkeley.info Please contact Sheila Soo at x6916 with questions.

Holiday Date DayNew Year's Day (Observed) January 2 MondayMartin Luther King Jr. Birthday January 16 MondayMawlid al Nabi February 4* SaturdayLincoln's Birthday February 13 FridayPresidents Day February 20 MondayPassover (1st night) April 6 FridayEaster April 8 SundayMalcolm X Day (Observed) May 18 FridayMemorial Day May 28 MondayIndependence Day July 4 WednesdayRamadan (1st day) July 20* FridayEid al-Fitr August 19 SundayLabor Day September 3 MondayRosh Hashanah September 16 SundayYom Kippur September 25 TuesdayIndigenous People's Day October 8 MondayEid al-Adha October 26* FridayVeteran's Day November 11 FridayDiwali (New Year) November 13 TuesdayThanksgiving Holiday November 22-23 Thursday - FridayAshura (Shia') November 24* SaturdayHanukkah (1st night) December 8 SaturdayChristmas Day December 25 TuesdayKwanzaa (1st day) December 26 Wednesday

* Approximate dates. Actual dates depend on lunar crescent sightings.

2012 Holidays and Celebration Dates

G:\CLERK\COMMISSIONS\Admin\Attendance\Excused Absence Form for Religious & Cultural Holidays.doc

Commissioner Request for Excused Absence: Religious and Cultural Holidays

(Must Be Requested in Advance of Scheduled Board/Commission Meeting)

I, _____________________________________, respectfully ask to be excused (Name of Commissioner to be excused) from the __________________________________________________meeting (Name of Board/Commission) scheduled for _________________________________ due to a conflict with the (date of Board/Commission meeting) following religious or cultural holiday which is of great personal significance and important for me to observe: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Note: the following may be considered an illustrative but not exclusive list of religious and cultural holidays: Al Hijrah New Year, Ash Wednesday, Chinese New Year, Diwali, Easter Sunday, Eid Al Fitr, Eid Al Adha, Good Friday, Hanukkah, Holi, Kwanzaa, Palm Sunday, Passover, Rosh Hashanah, St. Patrick’s Day and Yom Kippur. __________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Secretaries: Pursuant to BMC § 3.02.030, dates of absence requested above shall not be counted against the attendance record of the Commissioner. The request shall not be subject to the approval of the Commission but shall be accepted upon request. The definition of a religious or cultural holiday is to be left to the individual Commissioner. Section 3.02.030 is retroactive to October 24, 2000.

Item D. Transportation Commission 12/15/2011

SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS for

Transportation Commission

Regular Meeting

October 20, 2011

Item B-1: Proposed Lane Reconfiguration of The Alameda (“Road Diet”) 1. Michael Katz 2. Dan Johnson 3. Lynn Komaromi 4. Ken McCroskey 5. DRAFT MAPS: The Alameda from Solano to Hopkins (Existing and

proposed)

Item B-2: West Street Bicycle Path 6. Virginia Browning 7. Daniel Borgstrom

-----Original Message----- From: Michael Katz [mailto:way.new@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:31 PM To: Javandel, Farid Subject: Transp. Comm. Oct. 20, item B1: Proposed lane reconfiguration of The Alameda ("Road Diet") Dear Transportation Commission Members and Staff, On my parked bicycle (and on several other nearby bikes), I found a printed flyer urging me to contact you about the proposal to remove two lanes from The Alameda. After examining your Oct. 20 packet's documents on this issue, I urge you to reject the proposal. My first reason for this is a process issue: These pre-printed flyers make it clear that cyclists have been notified about this proposal. Indeed, your packet contains a few brief, cookie-cutter e-mails of support from cyclists, indicating an organized campaign that has distributed talking points to people who ride bikes. However, I've seen no evidence that other users of The Alameda -- pedestrians, motorists, transit riders, or nearby merchants -- have been similarly notified that you are considering this proposal. The Alameda is a significant transportation link between Berkeley and Kensington, Albany, and El Cerrito. So stakeholders extend far beyond the few blocks for which the project is proposed. To avoid a costly future lawsuit, broad public notification is essential before any action. The second reason is my own experience, as a nearly full-time bicyclist. I've never had any problem riding the four-lane stretch of The Alameda. In fact, I find The Alameda's four-lane stretch much more convenient to bicycle than the street's two-lane sections, where congestion seems to make motorists much more impatient and unpredictable. The third reason is the 2006 evaluation (in your packet) of the similar lane reduction that Berkeley and Albany undertook in 2005 on Marin Ave. In brief, here's what removing mixed-flow lanes from Marin Ave. seems to have accomplished: * Vehicles speeds went up, not down, at most intersections (Attachment 3, page 10). * Traffic volume decreased (Attachment 2, page 9). This indicates that motorists are diverting onto adjacent residential streets -- just as critics warned would happen.

* This evaluation does not cover air pollutants. But the project's own advance environmental filing predicted that lane reduction would worsen pollutant emissions (an ironic result for a project funded by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District). So we can assume that pollution indeed got slightly worse. * This 2006 evaluation also does not cover safety impacts: In 2007-08, two pedestrians were killed while crossing Marin Ave.'s reconfigured section. There had not been a fatal pedestrian collision on Marin Ave. since 2003. My final reason is my own experience with this Marin Ave. reconfiguration. I have never seen a cyclist using the bike lanes that were added in 2005. That is, no one but me -- I periodically ride Marin for a few blocks, between The Alameda and Colusa, just to verify that no one else is biking there. Nope. Just me. This also tends to validate critics of the 2005 project, who called the addition of bike lanes on Marin a smokescreen. Those critics said that the lane reduction was really about enhancing Marin Ave. homeowners' convenience and property values. And that the cyclists who spoke up for Marin Ave. bike lanes in 2004 had no real intention of riding on Marin -- they just relished inconveniencing motorists, by removing mixed-use lanes wherever the opportunity arose. Indeed, before Marin Ave. was striped with bike lanes, I biked that street just as often as I do now: not very often. And I found the broad street at least as convenient and safe before restriping, as I find it now. So the City seems to have spent a significant amount of money striping bike lanes that are basically going unused. I suspect exactly the same phenomenon in the trickle of comments you are now receiving from cyclists who've dutifully obliged those pre-printed flyers on their handlebars: You're hearing support for bike lanes from cyclists who have no intention of ever using them. For ideological reasons, they want to tweak motorists. Put this all together, and I can only paraphrase a portion of the message you received from Pamela Webster: With urgent needs for cyclist and pedestrian safety measures elsewhere, it makes zero sense for the City to invest any effort in removing traffic capacity within this affluent area.

Especially using a canned "Road Diet" recipe whose effects (judging from the Marin Ave. example) apparently range from inconsequential to negative. And especially when bike lanes on these few bocks of The Alameda are likely to receive little use. Even if "free money" is available from regional agencies for projects like this, it's time the City started prioritizing those funds toward interventions that have clearly positive safety impacts, and that spread those effects more equitably. Thank you for considering these arguments for rejecting any removal of mixed-flow lanes from The Alameda. Respectfully yours, Michael Katz 2117 Rose St., #9, Berkeley 94709

From: Dan Johnson [mailto:danjoh99@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:42 AM To: Javandel, Farid Subject: I support bike lanes and traffic calming on The Alameda between Hopkins and Kensington Hello, I live in Albany and ride on The Alameda frequently to get to stores in North Berkeley. The Alameda is also one of the key bike arterials into Central Berkeley and even into Oakland via MLK. I also cross the Alameda frequently on foot with my family to walk up to Indian Rock and walk in the hills. The street needs to be modernized with bike lanes and traffic calming measures. The driving lanes need to be narrower and drivers need to be more aware of pedestrians and cyclists. We need to modernize the East Bay for bicycle and pedestrian travel, especially for neighborhood trips. Cars were useful in the past but they can no longer contribute to our quality of life and economy the way walking and biking can. Most people recognize this. We need to put most of our transportation resources into walking, biking, and transit facilities. Investing in these facilities shows that a City is forward thinking and has self-respect. I prefer to ride into Berkeley rather than El Cerrito to do my shopping because Berkeley has more trees and is prettier to look at. However, I will take the route with the best protection and convenience for pedestrians and bicyclists. Thank you, Dan Johnson 907 Ramona Ave Albany CA

-----Original Message----- From: Lynn Eve Komaromi [mailto:logginschlager@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:14 PM To: Javandel, Farid Subject: Restriping The Alameda Dear Mr. Javandel, I am unable to attend the traffic commission meeting on Thursday evening, but want to voice my support for striping a bike lane as part of The Alameda repaving project. As a bike commuter from Albany to downtown Berkeley, I frequently cycle on The Alameda - particularly when I want to shop Solano Avenue after work. Striping the road would enhance pedestrian and cyclist safety and would help calm some of the speeding cars on that section of roadway. In May 2010, I donated my car to charity in order to become a full-time cycle/bus/ped commuter. In the last year, I've noticed a greater number of bike commuters on the roads. With rising concerns over commute and environmental costs, I would anticipate the number of cyclists on the road will only grow. Providing measures of safety for cyclists in turn makes the roads safer for drivers. I hope the commission will include bike striping in the plans for your upcoming project. Sincerely, Lynn Eve Komaromi Albany, CA Sent from my mobile device...forgive the errors!

-----Original Message----- From: Ken McCroskey Wait [mailto:kenwait@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 5:50 PM To: Javandel, Farid Subject: Road Diet for The Alameda Dear Mr. Javandel- I'm a life-long resident of the East Bay and twelve-year resident of Albany. I fully support a "road diet" for The Alameda that is similar to that on Marin. As an automobile driver on The Alameda, I am constantly shifting lanes to avoid getting stuck behind a car turning left. Eliminating a lane and adding a turn lane would make this stretch much calmer and more straightforward. As a cyclist, I'd love to be able to ride The Alameda when traveling between Albany and downtown Berkeley. Currently, I take Marin and use Colusa to connect South of Marin. Using The Alameda would allow me to replace two of the stop signs I encounter with stoplights, and perhaps eliminate some climbing. A bike lane all the way North to Solano would encourage me to ride my bike to and from the stores there. Thanks for taking comments, Ken Ken McCroskey Albany Resident Member, Albany Traffic & Safety Commission

ztan

Draft

ztan

Draft

ztan

Draft

ztan

Draft

ztan

Draft

-----Original Message----- From: daniel41@trip.net [mailto:daniel41@trip.net] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 2:50 PM To: Bright, Tamlyn Subject: Destruction of trees in the Santa Fe ROW Dear Tamlyn Bright, I live on the Santa Fe ROW (West Street). From my window I enjoy the view of three large trees, two cypress and a pine. They're quite old, stand over 50 feet tall, and are located in the ROW between Virginia and Francisco streets. I love these trees and hope to save them. In talking with my neighbors, I find that all of us feel the same, we love these beautiful trees and wish to preserve them. Unfortunately, a broad concrete bike freeway is about to be built in the ROW, and the plan is to cut these trees down. Would you help save these three beautiful trees? Sincerely, Daniel Borgstrom DANIEL BORGSTROM 1330 Virginia Street Berkeley, CA 94702 (510) 559-9391 daniel41@trip.net

From: Virginia Browning [mailto:vexxie@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:57 PM To: Bright, Tamlyn Subject: Commission Agenda Item: Santa Fe ROW Trees (Delaware- Virginia) West Street (Santa Fe Right of Way) Item (Delaware to Virginia) for Transportation Commission meeting Thursday, October 20, 2011 Dear Tamlyn Bright: Many of us neighbors started a petition to save the large evergreens at Francisco and West Street (the Santa Fe Right of Way) when the commuter bicycle "path" goes in soon. We gave up as we were told there was no hope to save these trees, at least 50 feet tall from their looks, -- beautiful, cooling, noise-muting, shading, providing value to the apartment next door as well as to numerous path-users. We do have a petition, and certainly could collect 100 or more signatures in support of these trees. We were given reasons for their removal that we now learn may, with proper mitigation, not be good enough reasons to remove them. When Farid Javandel (transportation commissioner who IS on the project) realized the value of slowing the whizzing bicycle commuters farther north on this same path, he supported a curve in the path and a bench. He is on the city council in Albany himself, and knows that the reason they have a beautiful path there is because neighbors all agreed on it. Would not he himself enjoy and support a curve around the trees here if enough people say they want it? A curve around the trees could surely save the roots. As for the top soil removal, it does not make sense to have to remove soil that will be UNDER the concrete. It does not make sense, unless there is a hidden agenda or simply a tragic lack of imagination behind this, to do that soil removal UNDER the path and remove these living, valuable trees. I have learned since our first firm "no" from the city that trees this large will almost certainly not buckle any sidewalk they have not already buckled AND that a fix to that sidewalk would be much less expensive and much more beneficial than destroying these trees. We would love a coast live oak of course. What about saving at least one of these mature trees, which will likely outlive even the children who now play beneath them, and also plant a coast live oak? As for the clay under the soil: the roots have already made holes in that, so it likely WOULD be beneficial to have some permeable substance or "pavers" here, and a curve around the trees, or at least one of the trees, makes sense to slow the commuter freeway. The trees both cool and will quiet the loud concrete. While a coast live oak could also be planted, at least one of the current trees could remain as well. Worried about falling cones? Neighbors could have meetings once a month to check in "under the tree" and pick up cones. Seriously, removing these incredible trees for such a reason seems insane. There are evergreens all the way up the path to the north. Is it possible that a straight path would yield some sort of future plan for more development on this path, which Councilmember Maio assured me when I bought this was NOT in the works? I would not have bought this house knowing a roadway was planned for this "bike path." Please let's get in writing a commitment NOT to use this as an excuse for more specious "green" (not -- for many reasons) "dense" development here. Thank you for considering something other than what seems a very incomplete vision now. Virginia Browning neighbor next to the current much-loved path 1330 Virginia Street Berkeley