Transportation Commission - Regular Meeting

Hello. Good evening, everyone. We will wait for a minute or two for we are waiting for at least one other commissioner to join. Thank you for being here. This is welcome to City of Alameda Transportation Commission meeting.

Today is October 22 and it is 06:32 p. M. And we will start

with the roll call. Commissioner Dara Abrams. Here. Commissioner Kim.

Present.

Commissioner Gloyn?

Present.

Vice Chair Suthan Thira? Present. Commissioner Johnson is absent. Commissioner Nochtegall is absent. And Chair Whitesey is also absent.

So I'm going to be facilitating the meeting today. I'm moving on to item two on the agenda. Any agenda changes? Alright, seeing none. Item three is staff communications. Lisa.

Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. This is Lisa Foster, transportation planning manager for the city of Alameda. I just have some brief staff communications today.

We don't have any major city council actions on items reviewed by the Transportation Commission since our last meeting. Our next meeting will be November 19. And I want to note for the record that we've just been joined by commissioner Johnson. Thank you. Good to see And potential agenda topics for upcoming meetings include the AC Transit's transit signal priority project update for Park Street, the city wide shoreline adaptation project update, the next year's the next year's meeting schedule, and potentially Lincoln Ave Walnut Street planning.

And then public events on November 7, there will be a transportation one hundred one and clipper cards for seniors event at the Mastic Senior Center. For updates, the Oakland Allameter water shuttle continues to do well. In September, it carried over 12,000 passengers and over 3,000 bicycles. This is 12% higher than the previous September and over a third overall increase in ridership, thanks to the expanded schedule. That expanded schedule started in July and will be in place through November 2.

After that, the Tuesday service will remain, but the longer weekend hours will be reduced through the winter months. And then the Alameda CTC recently announced a staff recommendation to award 931,000 for the water shuttle to bring full expanded schedule back in the spring and continue it during for nineteen months during the Oakland Alameda Access Project construction. So the full commission will consider approving this pretty soon. And then for neighborhood greenways, construction is expected to begin by November on our first full segment of a neighborhood greenway on Pacific Ave between Lafayette And Oak Streets. This project will pilot a neighborhood greenway using a combination of new and previously used traffic calming treatments along a continuous corridor.

And lessons learned from that pilot will begin incorporated into the designs for the remaining slow street segments of Pacific, Versailles, and San Jose Ave, which would be constructed by fall twenty twenty six. Another construction coming up soon is the Clement Tilden project construction is going to be starting very soon. And that concludes my communications.

Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. Moving on to item four, non agenda public comment. Do we have any public comment on non agenda items?

Yes, we have four speakers in house. If you are online and would like to make a comment for a non agenda item, please raise your hand now. And, we have one speaker online. So, first we can start with Jim Strelow.

Hi, Jim.

Good evening commissioners, staff. The city is becoming a greenhouse gas emission grower when Fernside Boulevard is soon shut down at Tilden Way for about five months, maybe longer, your traffic diversions of past Edison Elementary will generate lots of additional greenhouse gas. Also along High Street in Oakland, it may be bumper to bumper all the business hours of the day. I commented a year ago that the success or failure of the Tilden Way roundabout would depend upon how you will construct it. The current design got an F minus.

You should have abandoned the project once you saw the negative impact it would generate around the island. When the Safeway on Bay Farm Island is gonna be shut down and demolished for a housing project, Bay Farm Island residents will have to drive further for groceries, thus generating even more greenhouse gas. The city appears to have a staff at its city council who have not familiarized themselves with the computer simulation SimCity. That simulator helps players to see what will happen if you do X before doing Y or considering option Z. This commission and city staff often ignore my warnings of cause and effect.

Most of all, because of new housing projects and adding more people to the island, I often ask for the emergency operations center report for the Alameda City evacuation plan. How many people can safely evacuate from Alameda in the first thirty minutes? Each hour thereafter, the number of people per hour will decrease because of traffic congestion. Some of what you will hear later today will increase the danger, reducing the number of people who can safely evacuate Alameda. You decry safety and yet the city's plans decrease the safety of the people of Alameda when a water surge flood or fire or earthquake emergency happens. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have William B. Morrison.

Commissioners and staff, I would like to start off by first of all recalling an incident associated with the COVID nineteen epidemic. I think you will recall the fact that when things went into quarantine, we had a situation where emergency medical mask and other surgical items used for safety ended up being in not short supply, but almost nonexistent. This was mainly due to what was basically at that time an inventory procedure called just in time. They replaced what used before, which was an inventory procedure of just in case. I bring this up because right now, one of the things that I think is being looked at from a just in time as opposed to just in case is the traffic circle as Clement.

What will happen with that is that we're going to lose, access for rail service. Now right now, you would say we don't need it because it's not in time. We don't really need to rail service. Surface. But if you get rid of it, what what will happen when you need it just in case?

I would like for you to, if at all possible, look at whatever alternatives can be made to remain the or retain the ability for a real connection into Alameda. At one point in time, Alameda had the status of not only dealing with modes of transportation such as rail and cars and buses, but actually aircraft as well. If you know, the Pan Am had their flying boat service out of the Alameda, California. Now I I state that because at one point in time, I can remember seeing rail cars go down Clement as far as and and actually servicing the naval air station. Now and I I just think that one of the things that you might wanna continue to retain is the rail capability.

I've talked with people from DPW on various occasions. They talk about how terribly expensive it is to remove rail. Well, I can tell you from an economics viewpoint and being someone that's done it in the past, building rail is even more expensive. And the basic point is that I would think and would like to see the commission maintain the ability to have rail service into Alameda. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment.

We can go to, the two on Zoom. Baratsin?

It's Bay Farm Island, and I have a request of the commission that they ask the transportation planning department to provide an explainer of how the proposed projects on the Safeway site would be assessed in terms of traffic impact assessment. As I understand it, there won't be a CEQA requirement since it's a housing project and it's a housing element sub.

Thank you for your comment.

Evaluate the traffic It impacts would be nice to hear how that would be addressed in a public forum so that the community at large understands how that assessment would be done. Thank you.

Thank you.

And next we have on Zoom the guest whose phone is ending in 271.

Hi, my name is Kelly Becker. I live at 3004 Fairview Avenue, and I'm calling in regarding the traffic circle that is proposed in that intersection of Southwood, Bayview and Fairview. I'm not really sure how something can be proposed when there's been no studies done.

Is on the agenda later.

Okay. So I'll be able to speak later?

Yes.

Okay.

Is for non agenda items. So thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Christy Cannon.

Hi. Evening.

Yeah, I'm Christy Cannon. I'm on the CASA Transportation Committee. In response to some very recent complaints, I've heard from residents of housing on and adjacent to Bolina Boulevard on the West End. I made a point today of driving down there. I don't drive in the city much, but I drove down there, and I went through many times first roundabout that's at Ballina, 4th, and Central.

I'm very concerned, as I know you are as well, about safety. And there are some problems there that I noticed. I just wanted to share with you what I observed. Okay, so first, if you're heading west on Central going towards that roundabout, what I observed was about one in five drivers who were driving straight through so in other words, they are both entering and exiting on Central appear to maintain their speed. They don't slow down at all.

And in two instances that I observed, they actually speeded up to try to beat the car that was already in the roundabout when they should have been yielding. Okay, so when I compared it to the next roundabout, it seems like the curve in that roundabout, you go from central to central in the first roundabout, is not nearly as round as the one in the next roundabout. In the next roundabout, you definitely have to slow down to do that straight through. Okay, so all of those drivers, again, in the same direction, entering the roundabout from from central going west, have a somewhat obstructed view to the left of any car that's approaching the roundabout from Bolina Boulevard. And that is only a temporary situation, I hope, in that there are three of those large orange construction objects.

And I could see the cars plainly that were in the roundabout. But if they were coming from Bolina Boulevard, it was difficult to see them. And if you're a driver that's focused on trying to get through that roundabout as fast as possible, it becomes even more dangerous, I think. There is a yield sign for the drivers coming into the roundabout from central, but right now it is placed kind of low to the ground and it's very close to the entry point of the roundabout. I wouldn't think you'd want to move it, but I do think it could be missed by a driver and maybe it would be good to have another one a little bit further back that's higher, emphasizing the need for those people to yield.

And then, due to the continuing construction and I understand that's temporary access for pedestrian and bike crossing on the south side, so the Bolina Boulevard side you have

three minutes

Is that of my time?

Yeah. Shoot.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

I just want to say for the previous caller, thank you for participating. I'm sorry if we're a little quick, but this is the non agenda public comment period and we will be getting to that agenda item later.

And the last in person speaker we have for a non agenda item is Mary Anne Keeley.

I'm nervous having So done this good evening, and I want to say thank you to the Commission for your focus on the health and safety of all the residents and guests of Alameda. I've lived in the Bolena Bay neighborhood for over twenty one years now and so it's just kind of funny that I'm succeeding Christy and her comments. But I'd like to bring to a concern about the roundabout. At 4th And Central, I feel that it really presents driving challenges that could result in harm to our kids. And when they're walking or biking or even if they're older kids driving through the roundabout.

The key issue here is that there's very poor visibility at this roundabout, at this intersection. The reason being is that the buildings and the trees come right up to the sidewalks, which are then right at the intersection. So, and Christy alluded to this, but to illustrate, when you're driving on one street, the approaching car traffic and pedestrians on the intersecting streets are not clearly visible to the driver on the 1st Street. And then particularly, the drivers on Central, when they're coming from 5th Street, cannot easily see that there's actually an intersection at 4th Street, or that there's a roundabout, or more importantly, that they do not have an automatic right of way. Now generally, when you're driving on Central through town, if you're on Central, you've got an automatic right of way.

The side streets all generally stop. But when you're now at this new for us roundabout at 4th And Central, everybody is supposed to yield to whosoever is in the roundabout. But it's very difficult. And so I've spent time, like Christy did, but independently, going through as many directions as I could and trying to figure out, is this a visual impairment issue? Or is this just a I'm playing a chicken and I want to beat the other guy in the roundabout?

And it's some of both that I've observed. So because of time, I just want to ask that I'd like very visible signage to be installed so that all drivers approaching the intersection understand that they must yield or stop, whether they're on Central or on 4th Street or on Bolina Bay, to allow the traffic and pedestrians with the true right of way to proceed. So I'm asking for really big yield signs or really big stop signs. I just want to prevent accidents. I've nearly been hit twice.

I've been in the roundabout and approaching the entryway from Central coming from 5th Street. And I've actually had a stop to allow the cars coming from Central because they weren't going to stop. And that's kind of scary, twice. So thank you for your time. Thank you for your comment.

And we have one more on Zoom. Travis Morgan.

Hello, thank you Transportation Committee for your continued efforts

I mean, an item on the agenda. Right now, we are on non agenda item because you are talking about item that's on the agenda, probably you can wait and then talk about it at that time.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, it's gonna be about the overall Fernside roundabouts in support of those.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have no more non agenda item speakers.

All right, Thank you. Moving on. Item number five is consent calendar and five a is approved draft minutes of the 09/24/2025 Transportation Commission meeting. I think I was absent, so I'm going to excuse myself. So one of you have to move the item.

Sure. I can say I had no issues with minutes. Does anyone else want to propose any edits? Okay, then I'll make a motion to approve. All

right. I second.

Okay. All right. That's good. So everyone.

All in favor say aye.

All in

favor

Aye. Any say opposed? Thank you.

Obstention. Now moving on to regular agenda items item number six. 6A is receive an update from Caltrans on Interstate 580 truck access study. It's a discussion item.

Yes. Just we are very glad to have Caltrans joining us to speak about this truck access study. The city is serving on the technical advisory committee for this because it will influence, the lives of people in Alameda accessing August potentially. So thank you so much, both of you, being here. And I'll let you guys get started. Hi, John.

Hi, Vice Chair. It's very nice to see you again.

Yes, likewise, likewise. You

for Yes, being

thank you. Let me get started. Good evening. My name is John Xu. I'm the Office Chief for Multimodal System Planning at Caltrans sixty four Bay Area. Also attending this meeting virtually with me is Kelsey Rodriguez on my team. Kelsey is the Branch Chief for the Systems and Freight Planning Branch, and she's also the Contract Manager for this study. So today, we're going to present the five eighty truck access study or the TAS. Next slide. So for today's presentation, I'm going to cover the following topics.

I'm going to provide a study overview, then talk about study goals, existing conditions, as well as public and stakeholder engagement, and then wrap up with upcoming work events. Next slide. So in terms of the origin of the study, the Bay Area Air District developed the West Oakland Community Action Plan or WOCCAP. WOCCAP recommends number of strategies. One of those strategies is to study the effects of removing the truck ban on five eighty.

So after World Cup was completed, the Air District and Caltrans had a discussion and was decided that Caltrans would take the lead on this study. So the study is really trying to tackle this question, how would removal of the truck ban affect safety, efficiency, reliability, velocity and throughput of the eight eighty and five eighty corridors and achieve equitable public health for nearby populations. The study scope of scope of this study is divided into four components or four buckets: traffic studies, air quality and noise impact assessments, a racial equity assessment as well as a comprehensive community engagement strategy, which will guide our engagement activities. So this study represents a close partnership between Caltrans, the Air District and the City of Oakland. The Air District will be responsible for the air quality assessment And the racial equity assessment will be modeled after something similar the city of Oakland has done before.

This is to ensure that the study will look beyond just traffic study and forecasting. Next slide. So this map shows the study area. Highlighted in orange on the map is the existing truck ban starting from Foothill Boulevard in San Leandro and ending at Grand Avenue in Oakland. So the study will include the 580 Corridor, the 880 Corridor, other state highways within the study area as well as major arterials that connect 880 and 580.

Additional areas of Piedmont, Berkeley, Emeryville, San Leandro and unincorporated Alameda County are also included. Next slide. So this is a very technical focused study. So for technical analysis, first, there will be numerous freight technical memos, including existing conditions, future conditions, which will include no truck ban scenario as well as wet truck ban scenario. And also, we will be recommending strategies For the air quality and noise impact assessments, as I mentioned before, the air quality assessment will be completed by the air district and the noise impact assessment will be completed by the study consultant.

Next slide. This is the overall timeline for the study. The study was officially kicked off back in March and will wrap up in late twenty twenty sixearly twenty twenty seven. So throughout the study, we are planning for seven technical advisory committee meetings as well as three rounds of public engagement. Next slide.

So working closely with the tech, we have established the study goals. There are several of them. First, reduce exposure to air and noise pollution from trucks. Second, reduce truck traffic on local streets. Third, reduce the frequency and the severity of truck collisions number four, reduce roadway degradation and maintenance costs number five, identify potential strategies and lead agencies to support reduced local truck traffic exposure number six, balance travel conditions and safety between eight eighty and five eighty corridors and number seven, improve efficiency of goods movement throughout the study area.

As you can see here, we have equity focus and that's reflected in many of the corridor or study goals. Next slide. So we are currently finishing up the existing conditions. We are looking at the study area from multiple angles. We are looking at socioeconomic factors, freight factors and environmental factors.

For each of these factor groups, we are looking into different performance measures or metrics. So shown on the screen here are just a few examples. The goal of the existing conditions work is to get a really good understanding of what's happening within the study area right now. This will serve as the basis for our forecasting work. Next slide.

So now I want to pivot and talk about public and stakeholder engagement. For public engagement, we are planning for three rounds of engagement, which will include these activities: community workshops, surveys, informational presentations as well as social media and constant contact e blasting. For stakeholder engagement, this is really how we work with different subject matter experts in the area. And as I mentioned, we are going to have seven TAC meetings. Next slide.

So I'd like to quickly go over the TAC membership. So for public agency TAC members at the state and regional levels, we have the Air District, the Port Of Oakland, CHP as well as MTC. At the county level, we have the Alameda County Planning Department, Alameda County Public Health, Alameda CTC as well as AC Transit. We are also including all the cities along the study corridors as well as cities that may be affected by the study. Next slide.

So for industry TAC members, we have two trucking associations on the TAC. They are the California Trucking Association and the Harbor Trucking Association. Next slide. There are also three community based organizations on the TAC, including the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project or WOAP, Communities for a Better Environment or CBE, and San Leandro two thousand and fifty. In addition to these three tech member CBOs, we're also keeping Tubercio Vasquez health center informed throughout the study.

This is because when we reached out to them to invite them to be a TAC member, they responded by saying that they unfortunately do not have the staff resource to be a full TAC member. Next slide. So now we are gearing up for the first round of public engagement, which will be a virtual public meeting on Zoom. This will happen on Wednesday, November 12 at 06:30. I should note there's a typo on this slide.

The duration of the meeting is actually one hour and thirty minutes, not one hour. The goal of the first meeting is twofold. We want to introduce the study and then explain the purpose and the importance of the study to the public. During the meeting, we will start with a presentation where we will explain the study scope, timeline as well

as

existing conditions. This will take roughly thirty minutes. And after that, there will be a facilitated Q and A session where we try to answer as many questions as we can. The meeting will also be recorded. So after the meeting, we will be posting the recording on the study website.

In terms of our promotion plan for this first meeting, we will be sending out e blast to our mailing list. And we will also be posting the meeting information on our social media platforms. We will be asking our tech members to do the same through their communications channels. Caltrans staff are also attending different pop ins, making presentations to different committees, city councils, like what we're doing here tonight. We will also pass out flyers.

And more recently, we're looking at tabling opportunities where we can meet people where they are. Next slide. So for upcoming work, as I said, we are planning for the first public meeting on November 12. We will also be working on traffic analysis as well as air quality analysis. Next slide.

So this is my last slide. We have set up a constant contact page. This is where people can sign up to receive study updates. We have also developed a study website as well as a story map. If anyone has any questions, they're more than welcome to send an email to the Bay Area Freight general e mail address or reach out to Kelsey Rodriguez, the Contract Manager. So that concludes my presentation. We'd be happy to take questions.

Thank you, John for the presentation and I'm so glad to see this study happening again. The last time I heard was ten years ago. And thank you, Kelsey for being here. First, let's open it to the commissioners for any clarifying questions. Okay. We are opening for public comment on this? Any public comment on this item?

I have no speaker slips filled out. If anyone would like to speak on this on Zoom, please raise your hand now. And there are no public speakers on this.

All right. So, back to the commissioners for any questions or comments. Go ahead, Commissioner Dara Abrams.

Thank you. And, thank you to Kaltry and staff for attending. I'm really glad this project is getting attention. For folks who haven't followed it, that KQED News article that was in a screenshot is an excellent article that kicked off a lot of this work. My understanding is science class of middle schoolers in Oakland were asking, well, why does five eighty up in the Oakland Hills have been my understanding is it's the only leg of interstate that bans semi trucks, while the flat lands of Oakland have increased asthma rates, increased pollution from August.

Obviously, no one wants this pollution, but it's a it's a really valid question to ask of, you know, can these impacts be better spread out? So I really highly recommend that article from KQED, and I'm glad that those middle schoolers are they're probably now in high school or hopefully not college, but are kicking off their work kicked off this process. I'm also really glad that Alameda, I hope, can provide its own support to our neighbors for spreading impacts a bit more broadly and maybe making we can't make 880 a lovely freeway, but hopefully spreading out the impacts of all of that concentrated semi truck some more. So, I don't I just want to share these positive comments, and I hope the city staff and city leaders from the Alameda side can continue to participate and be a voice to support the residents of the Oakland neighborhoods pursuing this. You.

Thank you. And this is a discussion item. So any other comments? Right. I understand.

Lisa Foster is on the TAC from the Citi side, so which is really nice to be at the table. And I'm really pleased to see that the study is happening again and it was opened about ten years ago to see whether the truck ban on May can be removed and the truck trip can be distributed between August and May, but that didn't go anywhere then. But now it seems to be much more thought out and detailed approach you have, John. So this is really nice. And it definitely will benefit the city.

And we look forward to hearing back from you when the studies wrapped up or even in the middle, if you if there is a milestone point with some outcomes. And just looking at Lisa, I'm sure she will identify the right point in time to bring it back to

the

commission so we can hear it. So with that, since no other comments, thank you, John and Kelsey. Thank you for representing it here, and good luck with the study.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Now we are moving on to Item 6b on the agenda, which is the major focus item today, I guess. And consider endorsing quick build traffic calming in the neighborhood around Gibbons Drive followed by long term data collection and planning for the Fernside Boulevard traffic calming and bike waste project. It is an action item and I understand Lisa will kick it off and parametric staff will join too.

Thank you, Vice Chair Sukumthira. Good evening. Commissioners, Lisa Foster again here to talk to you about the Gibbons High Fernside intersection in the neighborhood around Gibbons Drive as part of the Fernside Boulevard traffic calming and bikeways project. So, the vice chair just read out the staff recommendation. I'll get back to it to remind you at the end.

Our current recommendation starts with neighborhood traffic calming in the neighborhood. So Phase one has, quick build traffic calming and intersection improvements in the next couple of years. I'll go into more detail on this later in the presentation. And then, our current recommendation then conducts further study of the Gibbons High Fernside intersection after that traffic calming is in place. So phase two, includes a pilot, a temporary pilot of this turn restriction at Gibbons Fernside High with data collection and evaluation and then along with that long term planning for the Fernside traffic calming and bikeways project.

For the project background, this project did start with a Fernside project which began study and outreach in 2023 and then came to the city council in 2025 at which point they did make direction to, conduct a traffic study of this intersection related to a proposal there. And then at their direction, we contracted with consultants, parametrics who are here tonight to gather data in the spring and then complete the traffic study over the summer. We conducted public engagement last month in September and now we are in the public hearing phase with updated recommendations. The implementation of these recommendations would start next year and go through February. So the Fernside project was looking at the corridor as a whole to reduce speeds, increase pedestrian safety and implement the separated bike lanes called for in the City Council adopted Active Transportation Plan.

In, November, we came to you all, to the Transportation Commission, and you endorsed the near and long term design concepts for the Fernside project with a request that staff return with a concept for the Gibbons High Fernside intersection. And then in March, the city council approved the, design concepts for Fernside, with direction related to this intersection that I'll show later. And the design that was approved in the long term is pedestrian median islands with a two way protected bikeway. This will achieve the goals to manage speeds, enhance pedestrian safety and create a low stress bikeway. The Gibbons High Fernside Intersection will need to be updated at least in the long term to incorporate these changes.

So as we were working on the Fernside project, we identified safety issues at the Gibbons High Fernside Intersection. If it's not hard, could we switch over to the PDF? It will show up a little better. So, you can see a heat map here of collisions on Fernside from 2017 to 2021 and that this intersection is the hotspot. During that time, we had 22 collisions here, six that caused injury and then since then, from 2022 to present, we had eight collisions that four caused injury.

So the intersection, it's got five legs. It has a very atypical design. It's confusing for people who aren't used to it, and it has very long pedestrian crossings. David will give more detail. So Fernside Boulevard is a high entry corridor, so this is a hot spot on a high entry corridor.

Relatedly, the general plan first directed Gibbons Drive to become a local street in 2009. As as you all know, street classifications are in our general plan and they they guide roadway design broadly. They are adopted by the city council after a series of public meetings. And then in 2009, the street classifications that were adopted included Gibbons as what was called a transitional collector. And it was designed defined as a street that needed to transition from being a collector street to a local street.

So then the next, street classifications that were adopted were in 2023. And at that point, the classifications didn't use transitional categories and set target goals instead of reflecting current uses. So all that was done to simplify the classifications. They were a little complicated in 2009. So with that background, you can see that the 2023 classifications were consistent with and continued the City Council direction from 2009.

So here is what city council reviewed for the long term at Gibbons High Fernside. It includes removal of the right turn slip lane on the Northeast Corner, which is crucial to protect cyclists in the two way cycle track as well as pedestrians who otherwise face a long crossing of an uncontrolled and high speed turning movement. City council also reviewed changes at the Gibbons leg on the Southwest Corner which would include restricting northbound drivers on Gibbons to drive to right turn only. On its own, this change at the Southwest corner could have benefits at the intersection even before the Fernside project goes into effect in the long term. These include simpler intersection layout.

You can see that the crosswalks are shorter now. It would be easier to navigate for people who aren't used to the complicated intersection, would encourage slower vehicle speeds and actually have shorter signal wait times as well. You know, last fall and spring, we did hear a lot of concern about rerouting vehicles from Gibbons onto nearby streets. And so city council's direction in March was to evaluate the Southwest corner changes in the near term as well as the long term with a study looking at how traffic circulation would change, reach out to the community, which we did last month, and then return to City Council with transportation as a step along the way. Commission, I mean.

And now, I'm going to pass to David Parisi, Principal Consultant at Parametrics, to talk about that traffic study.

You Lisa. I am David Creasy, civil engineer and traffic engineer with Parametrics. I'm joined here tonight by Jimmy Jessup, also a transportation engineer in case there's any questions that we would answer. Next slide please. So this slide is showing many of the issues at the five legged intersection of High, Fernside and Gibbons starting at the top right.

As Lisa mentioned, it is a very complicated layout. There's a lot of conflict points, including free movements across pedestrian crosswalks and bikeways. Crosswalks are also quite long, some of them up to 70 feet in length. There is some confusion and we've observed it with some of the traffic movements. For instance, coming out of Gibbons, we've seen people making left turns out of the right turn lane and left turns into the left turns from high into the right turn lane also.

There is no walk, don't walk signal light for pedestrians across the Gibbons leg here. So it can be kind of challenging and confusing for drivers and motorists. Next slide, please. And speaking of the intersections, operations and traffic signal phasing, Lisa mentioned the two way cycle track in the future will require a dedicated traffic signal phase for East West cyclists through the intersections, so that will be a brand new signal phase. The existing intersection as a five legged intersection is kind of complicated to operate today.

And as I mentioned previously, there is no pedestrian signal across the Gibbons leg of the intersection. Next slide, please. So we were asked to do a two step process. First, to analyze the intersection and some different alternatives that could be considered here. And then secondly, for any alternatives that could reroute traffic to assess the impacts, potential impacts of those intersections.

Next slide, please. With the key question being how well do the alternatives that have been developed improve safety and potentially simplify traffic operations at the intersection. And as Lisa mentioned, all of these for the long term take into account the proposed two way cycle track along the Fernsight Corridor. Next slide, please. There's three alternatives we looked at.

Lisa briefly showed alternative A, which is an alternative that would realign Gibbons at High Street as shown here. It would restrict the outbound movement for Gibbons to right turns only so that left turns would not be allowed any longer. It would shorten those long pedestrian crossings that are up to 70 feet long today and reduce speeds of traffic coming in from High Street onto Gibbons. We know today there's vehicles that can come in very fast. The study findings that we determined were several.

Number one, again, it would shorten pedestrian crossings. It would slow the vehicle speeds not just coming into Gibbons but also out when drivers see the green light, they tend to often accelerate to get through the intersection. Certainly, we simplified the intersections layout, make a little bit more standard at the High Street Fernside intersection, like a more typical four legged intersection. From an operational standpoint, it would definitely signalize or simplify the intersection, particularly in regards to traffic signal operations. We no longer have the signal phase coming out of Gibbons, which is causing extra phase.

But in the near term, it certainly would reduce traffic congestion and allow for the additional addition of the bikeway in the future, really providing good traffic operations, very similar to what we see today at the intersection. Next slide, please. We also came up with a couple of additional alternatives after listening to some of the public input. Alternative B is very similar at the intersection of High and first side. But at Gibbons, the intent here was to continue to allow the left turnout and channelize everybody into a single lane that is shared with left and right turns.

But it will be signalized and that signal will be tied with the signal at High And Fernside. Many of the same benefits at the Fernside And High Intersection as described previously. From a safety aspect, again, we'd offer shorter pedestrian crossings, slowed vehicular speeds coming in and out of Gibbons and through many of the turns, including the free right turn that goes from firm side on to high and also offer a very simplified intersection layout. However, we were pretty bummed, to be honest, to determine that from a signal operation standpoint, it would cause a lot of congestion because that extra signal, supplemental signal would really add a lot of phases, create more delays, more congestion and potentially some safety issues associated with that as well, particularly when the two way bikeway is in place. This is a brand new additional signal phase that we don't have today, a couple of signal phases, frankly.

So this would be quite an impact from a traffic standpoint. Next slide, please. And finally, we looked at a whoops, one slide back, please. Thank you. Great.

And we also looked at kind of a lower cost, shorter term type of improvement, which would be with paint and posts perhaps as shown here. There would be really no changes to the Gibbons alignment. There would be traffic light or phase added at that location to compare to what there is today. In the longer term, we would add a signal phase for pedestrians crossing Gibbons, which isn't there now. And it would reduce that turn radius you can see from eastbound first side onto Gibbons with some paint and posts.

Certainly would offer some safety benefits, but in the long term would increase traffic congestion because of the additional signal phasing, particularly for the East West cycle track added on to the entire intersection. So those are the three alternatives we looked at. One alternative, alternative A, is the alternative that would restrict the left turnout. And so we took that to another level of analysis. Next slide, please. Which I'll get to in a second, I forgot to mention. We also did look at a roundabout. It's a very peculiar intersection. We wouldn't be able to fit in a circular roundabout. It'd have to be regularly shaped, somewhat similar to what you're seeing here right here.

But at the same time, it'd be very, very difficult to tie Gibbons into it And it may require some right away takes. So we were able to quickly dismiss the idea of roundabout dislocation. Next slide, please. So now I'll jump to the alternative A, which is the option that would restrict left turns out of Gibbons. Next slide, please. And I want to mention that we did this deeper level of analysis only for alternative bay because that's the only option that would affect traffic patterns, right? It's the only option that would restrict the left turns out. And the question here is what would that what would the effects be if we restricted those turns out? Obviously, traffic would probably go to other streets. How much?

What would the impacts be? And what are some of the improvement measures that could be associated with that? So that was our mission to try to take a look at that. And we really focused on traffic circulation within the area shown in the yellow highlight. Next slide, please.

We do know a couple of things. We did measure traffic speeds in both directions on Gibbons, just southwest of the intersection. And the eighty fifth percentile speed, that's the speed that 85% of people drive at or below, is 31 miles an hour, which is much faster than we'd like to see on Gibbons. And this is in both directions. Not only are folks in some cases speeding up to get that green light, but the people coming in off a high and turning right from that very fast right turn lane are going fast into the neighborhood.

We also know during the peak hour, and that's during the AM peak when the traffic is the highest, about 55% of the traffic on Gibbons, particularly going toward the bridge, is cut through traffic. This is traffic that does not originate in that area that is shown in the yellow highlight. And we know this because we tracked vehicles from one end to the other. And so we're very confident about that level of cut through traffic. That's a cut through traffic that exists now.

We would expect that, as Lisa mentioned, with traffic calming, that number would actually go down quite a bit. But that's the assessment we did looking at that level of traffic on to understand the potential impacts. Next slide, please. We also looked at traffic counts on various streets. And there's two different color coded streets here.

The blue streets are connectors and the white streets are local streets shown here. And you'll see that the traffic volumes on Gibbons or I'll start with Fernside, about 8,600 vehicles a day on Fernside and then on the local streets that we studied vary from about 2,200 on Gibbons and then some of the streets that are closest to Gibbons that would take some of the potential diverted traffic, Cornell, Valle Vista, about 150 to 160 vehicles per day on these streets. I do want to mention that neighborhood local traffic streets carry between about 1,000 expected to carry about between 1,004 cars today per day. So Gibbons is already on the low end, Cornell and BioVista at the very, very, very low end of what we'd expect on similar streets through the city of Alameda. Next slide, please.

Again, looking at the peak times, which we studied and we did additional counts, about 88 cars during the AM peak hour are currently driving up Gibbons and making that left turn. That's during the AM peak. And that's 55% of those are cut through trips. So 88 cars, it's about one car every forty seconds is making a left turn, again with about 55% of those being cut through trips. We did assess and estimate what we thought the diverted traffic, where it would go if the left turns are no longer allowed.

We think the bulk of it would go on Southwood Valle Vista and Cornell Drive with Southwood Valle Vista carrying about 45 to 50 vehicles an hour, which is about a little less than one car a minute added to those streets. In Cornell, about between thirty and thirty five cars an hour, which is about one car every two minutes. Of course, drivers may use other streets too including Broadway, Tilton, Burnside, Cambridge and other streets too, but we think to a lesser degree. So that was our estimate. Again, if no traffic calming is done in the same amount of cut through traffic that exists today were to divert to the other streets in the neighborhood.

Next slide, please. And to give a comparison and stepping back at a vehicles per day perspective, how that could change things. Again, we think Gibbons Drive today, as I showed you before, is carrying about 2,200 cars on a daily basis just south of the intersection. We believe it would decrease to about 1,400 cars per day. BioVista would reduce to, let's see, where's it before at BioVista?

Okay, yes. So BioVista, about 150 cars today, it would increase about 600 cars a day. And Cornell, from 160 to about 400 vehicles per day. Again, to note that those volumes are still really low compared to local streets, other local streets throughout Alameda. But still, there will be an increase of three to four times on those streets on a daily basis. Next slide please. With that, I think I'm turning it back to you Lisa. Thank you.

Thank you David. So in September we shared that traffic study with the community and sought input on a three stage implementation that was aimed to balance safety needs with neighborhood traffic management. So this is what we showed the community last month. We showed them step one would be doing a little quick build improvement at the Gibbons leg of Gibbons Frontside High in 2026 and also at that point assessing adding speed humps on Gibbons. And then in 2028, we talked about doing the Southwest corner of Alternative A with concurrent neighborhood traffic calming along the streets that would see increased traffic to make sure to manage volume, manage speeds and bring down volumes.

And then, the third step would be to look at Alternative A at the full intersection, so adding the the northern section of it with the long term Fernside project. We received extensive public input. We had about a hundred twenty one hundred twenty people come to the community open house. Oh. 33 people at our virtual workshop.

We had an online survey with three seventy three responses. And we got the word out in many, many ways, but one of them was postal mail notices and we sent that to over 1,200 addresses in the neighborhood. Next slide. Are we, okay. Many people emphasized the need to address safety in the neighborhood.

We had a sheet here you can see pictured of roll plot of streets in the neighborhood. Lots and lots of people putting their sticky notes with their requests for traffic safety improvements. Some of them saying that's needed whether or not we do alternative A. You know, a lot of people concerned about Gibbons Northwood Southwood. A lot of people asking for design changes, a few saying, you know, just enforce to address speeding in the neighborhood.

And we did hear about the worries about impacts on school routes kids who are walking to Edison particularly through the neighborhood. Many thought that more study was needed. We heard that a lot. And some people were saying, let's do traffic calming first before we think about the closure recommendation, the turn restriction for northbound traffic on Gibbons. One person said, how about we accelerate neighborhood traffic calming then reassess the decrease in cut through traffic may take care of the biggest concerns.

The residents on the nearby streets had serious concerns about spillover and safety with alternative A. The majority of the residents on the nearby streets in our survey said that alternative A would not improve intersection safety and they would prefer maintaining left turn even if it causes more congestion. And really commonly talking about how diverting traffic to smaller streets concerned them for safety. We heard more support and fewer concerns from those living on Gibbons Drive and those reporting living elsewhere in Alameda. Some people saying that 2028 was too far.

So a variety of input but a lot of concern. So based on that input, we want to show we heard the community. You all saw the public input summary and compendium that was attached to this, agenda item. It's quite lengthy and a lot of worries from the community. So our current updated recommendations for Phase one, we have quick build traffic calming expedited for this neighborhood for next year, and then bleeding into 2027.

We're showing four speed humps, two on Gibbons, one on Cambridge and one on Southwood. Two quick build roundabouts and a new paint and post bulb out at Gibbons High Fernside. I'll show you some more details on that. So here's the interim interim safety measure at Gibbons High Fernside. The bulb out is made out of paint and bollards so it is not as effective at decreasing the pedestrian crossing as concrete would be, but it's something.

You can see that this decreases the length of the southern leg crossing of, High Street. And it will also decrease the speeds for drivers coming south on High and entering Gibbons because they'll have to navigate a somewhat tighter entrance. This update is consistent with our Vision Zero Action Plan because Fernside is a high injury corridor and with our general plan similarly. Here's what Gibbons Northwood Southwood could look like with a quick build roundabout and new pedestrian crossings. This would be consistent with the ADA transition plans because we do not have, curb ramps at crosswalks.

We don't have crosswalks here right now because we don't have curb ramps. And it's also consistent with a recommendation from the Safe Routes to Schools safety assessment that was done. And then here is Southwood, Bayo Vista and Fairview with another quick build roundabout and with new pedestrian crossings. This is also consistent with the ADA transition plan for the same reasons. I wanted to mention that roundabouts were proposed at both these intersections in 2012 due to traffic safety concerns and they weren't pursued in the end because there was some community resistance to the idea.

However, our public input last month, many people were requesting just this change. So it could attitudes have changed. We're going a little further with, roundabout design, getting better at it. The ones on central, that input is really helpful to us for design. I also want to mention they are not fully constructed.

So they should improve. Really hard to judge a project before it's fully constructed. So here are some examples of the kinds of quick build materials we're talking about for those roundabouts and also the bulb out. This is meant to make improvements quickly before we resurface these streets, which, won't happen for another couple of years at fastest. It might be longer.

And to test out what works before investing large amounts of money. So we're looking at temporary ADA curb ramps, also great for strollers. And the circles could be created with rubber curb or plastic paneling. We're very familiar with bollards and paint in our community. And then we could introduce decorative paint if it could be coordinated.

Speed humps, this is what speed humps look like for the four locations that I showed you guys earlier. These are proven to manage speeds. These recommendations are in addition to an existing construction project that we're working toward getting constructed this year for the Safe Routes to School infrastructure project for Edison School, which includes a high visibility yellow crosswalk marking on the southern leg of Buena Vista and Northwood, and then a no U-turn sign at Buena Vista and Versailles, and high visibility yellow crosswalks and advanced stop bars on all the legs of Lincoln And Pearl. So that is happening in addition. And then phase two of our updated recommendations are looking at data collection and planning for the long term, including monitoring traffic conditions to see what kind of effects the neighborhood traffic calming is having.

You know, as we move forward, we will want to implement permanent accessibility and safety upgrades. So at least upgrade the curb ramps to permanent installations and upgrade those roundabouts to permanent design as funding allows and as, you know, is accepted by the community. Let's see if it's working out. And then to test a turn restriction at Gibbons with a temporary pilot with data collection and evaluation to find out what really happens, rather than having to make projections based on assumptions, and to do this after we have done the traffic calming. And then report the findings, figure out a funding strategy, and then make the plan for the long term Fernside project, which I think I might not have mentioned is not currently funded.

And so the timing is quite uncertain. It's at least 2030. It might be later. So the temporary turn restriction pilot concept is really quite simple. We wouldn't attempt to create the whole intersection improvement but just to test what happens with this term restriction for a, defined period of time with data collection and evaluation and temporary materials and find out what happens.

We will be with this recommendation, we would be asking the City Council for some general fund support for the quick build neighborhood traffic calming because we don't have a project for that to fund it. So we would need extra support for that. And then for phase two, we'll be looking at a combination of funds for that data collection, the temporary pilot and then the long term planning. We can be seeking grant funding. We have another biennial budget coming by that point.

And then strategic uses of our paving program and Measure BB funds. So our staff recommendation is that the Transportation Commission take action to endorse doing quick build traffic calming in the neighborhood around Gibbons Drive, followed by long term data collection and planning for the Fernside Boulevard traffic calming and bikeways project. Thank you.

Thank you, Lisa, the and David for the thorough work on the presentation.

For the Q and A, I'm also joined David and I are also joined by the city engineer and by Scott Wickstrom and by Jimmy Jessup from Parametrics.

You have a crew with you. Okay. Now to the commissioners. Do you have any clarifying questions? Yes, commissioner.

Couple of quick clarifying questions. The map shown earlier with the high collision corridors, is that or high collision hotspots, is that auto auto collisions or auto pedestrian collisions?

Thanks. The map with the hotspots show all collisions between all modes of travel between 2017 and 2021, and that was performed as part of the Fernside Boulevard Trafficking and Bikeways Project existing conditions assessment. Okay.

A couple of other ones. And the alternatives that show the severe congestion in the future or that's it's not really solving the congestion, but I think as alternative c kind of keeps all the different all the existing kind of turn movements, but it says there's high congestion in the future. Is that what does that do to if we're just not kind of modifying the intersection very much?

Well, all the three alternatives would include the two way bikeway along Fernside, which requires its own traffic signal phase for bikes in both directions. So it's a new phase. So the alternative C would include that. And so the additional congestion would primarily be related to that additional phase in that project, which has already been approved.

Got it. So maybe a different way of asking. If we did nothing to that intersection, we would see severe congestion?

No, not necessarily because if you're adding additional if you did nothing to the intersection but added the bikeway, correct.

Got it.

Yeah. So there's a lot of phases at a five legged intersection. So we're looking at means to not only improve safety but traffic operations.

Okay. Thanks.

I have to follow actually Commissioner Kim's point. I thought in B and C you have the signals for the Gibbons added and that's adding to the congestion. There is a signal, new signal you're proposing in B and C.

In B.

In B. Yes, C is a pedestrian signal. Yes. So that's adding to the congestion as well.

As well, yes. So the again A, B and C would all add two way bikeway which

has

been adopted, right? Which is a brand new signal phase. Alternative B, which again we were

thinking

man, this is a great idea. But we'd add that new signal to allow traffic to come out. That has another complication with another signal phase. So we have to stage traffic through kind of two successive closely spaced signals, which unfortunately doesn't work.

Commissioner Blair Abrams.

Go ahead. Okay. Thank you all. I saw in the the staff report mentioned there's a street tree program underway and I wonder if staff could speak least excuse me, quickly speak to that. Yes.

So one of our timing considerations is that these public works department's undertaking a Gibbons Drive sidewalks and trees study right now. I wish we could have Scott speak to that. And that is underway and could inform design for Gibbons Drive.

I'll just add on that we're early on in that process. We did have an arborist go out and evaluate the trees and found that the vast majority of the trees are in good condition with a fair amount of lifespan still left in them. That still does bring the question that's been surrounding the trees for a while is they're exceeding their planting space and affecting both the sidewalk and the roadway. So we're working with the arborist closely to figure out what are some options to best preserve the health of the tree with minimizing impacts to infrastructure. If we are to rebuild the infrastructure that would have it, we'll say it last as long as it possibly can. And there's different alternatives for that, but I don't want to jump ahead of ourselves with any conclusions yet.

Well, know the kind of questions I always like asking. So if you could speak at a very high level, is this mainly about sidewalk extending out beyond the curb for what may be on the table?

Yes. It's really both sides. So if anybody who walks down Gibbons and sees the root balls of these trees or the crown of these trees at the bottom, the flare I should say, it's wider than the four and a half foot gap, the parkway strip that's there. So the street trees are actually pushing into the sidewalk and in many cases are pushing out into the roadway as well and have lifted up the gutter pan. There's a lot of drainage issues and ponding problems that we have on the roadway during the wintertime. We need room on both sides. How that room is achieved, there's many different options for that and I don't want to jump ahead of that. Yes, there is both a roadway side problem and a sidewalk side problem.

Okay. Thank you for the context, Scott. Another context question maybe, I don't know if this is for Scott or Lisa, is the city has been working on some planned changes at Central And Gibbons, correct? If you could.

Thank

you, Rochelle.

Hi, I'm Rochelle Wheeler, Senior Transportation Coordinator. Good evening commissioners. Hi Rochelle. Hi, so yeah, can you repeat the question?

So down at Gibbons And Central, right? Where currently is, are there just A frames there from what I'm remembering? Changes are on the table, correct? Is that something city staff are able to speak to or is this

Yes, not yes. Yeah, it's the intersection of Gibbons, Versailles, and Central. And so Versailles is currently in that section a slow street and it is becoming a neighborhood greenway and we did outreach on that, our design plan this spring. We're still refining the exact design but what we're looking to do there is to there are basically at that intersection three ways on and off of Gibbons there and so we're looking to close the one that where Gibbons comes into Central. It would still allow all of the same movements on and off of Gibbons so you would not lose any ability to come onto or come off of Gibbons in either direction, but it would close that middle opening onto Gibbons that comes directly off of Central.

That is also a high injury intersection.

Okay, thank you for the context. Just to confirm my understanding, that will benefit a number of streets there. It's maybe not relevant to the questions at hand tonight though, given that movements to Gibbons are.

Yes, I think we can call it a traffic calming measure at that point of Gibbons as well as being a part of the neighborhood Greenway project.

Okay, thank you, Lisa. Okay. The only other clarifying question I wanted to ask is if Scott could speak to just when in the normal cycle of repaving this whole neighborhood may be up? You're speaking to potentially leveraging repaving cycles in the future.

Yes. We have broken up the city into areas and we focus on one area at a time. We will next be in what we consider the Eastern end of the island, which we consider Grand To High Street in 2028. We have not gone through the process of identifying what are the priority streets for repaving. But I can say that a lot of these streets in this area are within the area that is ready for a surface treatment, most likely a slurry seal.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Commissioner Royn.

Thank you. I have a few questions. The first one is, I noticed in the materials that a lot of the collisions at that intersection were due to what was termed improper turning. Someone explain what we mean by improper turning in the context of that intersection?

It's a good question. Thank you. Collision analysis takes data that has been submitted to the state highway patrol database, and so that's what we based our analysis off of. And there are a number of primary collision factors that, if indicated on the police report, that then gets rolled up into the state data, gets categorized into a certain number of measures. And I'll also mention that doesn't mean that's the only collision factor, but that's the primary collision factor.

And so one of those categories is improper turning and that can encapsulate a number of different ways in which the collision can, you know, be seen in the field. And so it oftentimes is, say, for an unprotected left turn, maybe a vehicle trying to turn left against traffic would be one example. And another example might be a vehicle turning, at making a right turn as through traffic is coming on. So if you're trying to make a right turn on red, that would be an improper turn at the incorrect moment. But really, the level of detail for a number of collisions is also not discernible from what is available in the state database.

So it's a little bit of a database exercise and some art to understand.

Thank you. That's helpful. In the traffic evaluation study, did we count the vehicles that are traveling up given towards that intersection? I noted that we talked about 55% of it being cut through traffic. Of that regardless where they've come from, how many of those vehicles are turning left versus turning right when they reach the end of Givens? Do we know that even approximately?

Yeah. Thanks for asking again because I apologize for flipping through my notes. So we collected data in May on two common weekdays when schools were in session. And in the AM period for that northbound movement, we discerned on average 88 cars are approaching the intersection and six make a right turn through that right turn slip lane going southbound onto High. Zero make a sharp left turn on to Fernside going westbound.

And then the rest make either easy left going across the High Street Bridge, that's about two thirds, and then about one third makes the easy right on the Fern side going toward Bay Farm.

Got it. Thank you. That's helpful. We talked about traffic calming enforcement. Am I correct in my understanding that we cannot install speed cameras due to state law at the current time? I know there's currently a pilot in San Francisco and a couple of other places, but what's the

Yeah, you're correct. You're speaking about automated speed enforcement cameras and that is correct. That's currently legal in California in a few pilot cities. So it would be an act of state law to expand that. The city is we are working toward a small automated red light running enforcement camera program with at two intersections coming up next year. So that is legal, the speed enforcement cameras are not currently legal.

Thank you. Is this intersection one of those two? Is this intersection in question, is it one of the two that's going to get around the light camera?

No, it's not. Okay. Thanks.

And one final question, which is I noted in the various design concepts that were considered, I noted that the roundabout was a very strange shape and was dismissed. Did we look into whether it was possible with the geometry to have two roundabouts, a slightly larger one at the Fernside High intersection and a smaller one at the intersection of Givens and High. Is that something we considered?

Yes, it was. We actually considered a number of different alternatives and I was just sharing one tonight and they all ran into the same problems. We'd have to eliminate some other movements to make them work And it just became very, very challenging. The most promising one would require some right of way take to function.

Got it. Thank you. That's all for me.

One quick clarifying question I have is for the public outreach, three events you had, in terms of the traffic calming measures that you presented, so whatever you have now with the speed humps and the traffic circleroundabouts you're proposing now, were they in the presentation for the public outreach?

They were not. We mentioned the kinds of options that people could have and we asked for their input on where they would like to see traffic calming measures and what kinds of things they would like to see. So we had a table at the in person workshop for that and then we had some places in the survey where people could give a free form response and provide their input.

Did you select the location based on the input you received? The locations of the speakers?

Yeah, a combination of the input we received and then also transition plan and our expert judgment on where we think speeds need to be managed and intersections need to be improved.

One other question is David mentioned like 55% is through traffic or cut through traffic going through the neighborhood. And were there any measures considered to prevent that cut through traffic from happening?

We haven't considered prevention. We're looking at calming and sort of discouraging, but we haven't considered prevention at this point.

Okay. We can talk in the comments. Thank you. With this, we will move into the public comment. Sorry.

May I ask one more clarifying?

Sure. Comment data.

I just realized given the amount of you seem to be previewing a lot of thoughts on yield flow streets. I happen to live on one myself, but I won't comment on it. I want I was curious to know from maybe Scott could speak to roadway with our in terms of these various side streets. I'm not familiar with them myself, but if you could just speak to, is it two through lanes or are there actual yield flow situations under current conditions?

Yes, address that I think. Given this is 40 feet wide between the curves of parking on both sides of the street, some of the that some of the other streets that are parallel are narrower, 35 feet or 30 feet. As we predicted, if there is some cut through diversion to some of the other streets, the numbers would be quite low. I mean, one every two minutes or one a minute, primarily one direction, right, because the most of the cut through traffic or the movement that would be restricted is that northbound movement. So there is again, it's a low number. The streets are

Oh, if I may rephrase just I'm just wondering just clearance for vehicles traveling in opposite directions. Are these roadway with such that it will behave as a yield flow street or where cars have to take turns or for for typical passenger cars would it be two way?

It'd be very similar to what they are today, particularly on some of the narrower streets with a little bit more traffic volumes on them. But there's enough room for them to clear in both directions. But I want to reiterate that the volumes we assumed was what's out there today, right, without any traffic calming and without any reduction in cut through trips. So we looked at a worst case scenario. To address part of the previous question. We think with traffic calming and with term restrictions, whatnot, there'd actually be less traffic cut through than there is today. And that would be monitored, as Lisa mentioned, as part of the program.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Moving on to the public comments session. Jennifer, how many public comments requests

We we have 11 on, we have 11 in person so far. If you are on Zoom and would like to speak, please raise your hand now so that I can get an accurate head, hand count.

I'm sure there'll be at least one. So the reason I'm asking for the number is that if it passes eleven, then the public comment time for each comment is two minutes.

Yes, we are past eleven.

So, let's start with Yes. The in

First we have Amanda Newme.

Hi, Amanda. Hello. Thank you for making it today.

Hi, thank you guys so much for having this and I live on Bayo Vista Avenue. I moved here just three years ago with my three children and it's been a really great neighborhood. Wanted to say that I am against having the closure for Gibbons onto the High Street Bridge and I don't think that this should be passed today. There's a lot of phases to this project. It seems that we are rushing to get all of these done in order to improve safety.

But I believe that they're lacking in really looking into the other much, much narrower roads. I use that as an example because I get out of Bayo Vista. When I

take

my car out of my street, it

takes me six

turns to actually efficiently get on Villa Vista to either go to High or to go to Cornell onto Gibbons. It's very, very narrow. I don't think people are taking that into consideration because we have a lot of people who live on that street and a lot of parked cars. And they're large cars. And they add to narrowing that street down.

It sounds like a small number. They say 40 or 50 cars an hour. But when you consider all of the Amazon trucks that are stopped on our street, the FedEx trucks, they all add to heavy, heavy congestion. It's not a two way road when there are people parked. So when I try to get onto my street, I wait in line until the people are stopped delivering packages and then I wait patiently to get into my driveway. So please think about these small neighboring streets because we didn't study them. Adding that congestion sounds very stressful. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next we have Adam Garfinkel.

Hi Adam.

Hello. Hey commissioners. I live in the neighborhood. I've been there for ten years. I bought in this neighborhood because I like the neighborhood. I like the way it looks. I like the way it functions. It's a great place to be. I was thoroughly impressed with many of the questions that you guys asked. However, I've been extremely disappointed with the process of how we got to where we are.

The main thing that bothered me was that people who want change got three votes and the people who like it the way it is only got one vote. So they've misrepresented the data by giving people up to three options to choose. But if you think it's safe and you think it's fine the way it is, you only get one vote. So everything else is inflated, is misrepresented. And I think the vast majority of people in the neighborhood don't feel that there's a problem.

There might be some minor safety problems that could be addressed with speed hump. Maybe you could add if it really is an issue crossing Gibbons at High Street, which it's not an issue, you could add whatever was the crosswalk sign if you want. But I don't think that there's really an issue. We've heard from others that the roundabouts are terrible. The pictures that you've shown would really make our neighborhood a disgusting place.

You take all the charm out of it. It's inappropriate. The pass through traffic, we want them getting out of town so that we can get our kids to school or so we can drive around. It's a good thing that it's passed through and it's getting people out. So if it's not broke, don't fix it. Don't trust the information from these people that are lying to your face. All the traffic, all the accidents are caused.

Well, a

little enforcement is all that's needed.

Thank you. Thank you for your comment.

Next we have Gordon Williams.

I'll try to pick it up from there. Hey, thanks. I just wanna start out with saying thanks for listening to us about, not just closing Gibbons off from the get go to the city staff and changing the recommendations to at least defer the decision to more data. And thank you guys for asking great questions. I wanna say that the what is it?

The the the inappropriate turning, like that question that you're asking and you're just trying to clarify. Or what that really means, and we've seen it, is that it's cars coming on High Street and they are taking a left on the Fernside and they get hit by another car coming off the bridge too fast. The reason why that intersection shows up as that bright circle on that safety map is because it's High Street and Fernside. It's two major roads and High Street has way more traffic. It's two major roads intersect, you're gonna have more accidents.

It is not Gibbons and what they're not telling you and what people you asked it but it's not getting answered is how many accidents would if we closed off the left turn from Gibbons on the High Street, how many accidents would that prevent? And I'm not seeing any. And so if this is really about safety, why is shutting off that left turn and pushing the traffic elsewhere gonna make anything safer? And what I really don't like is this concept of let's I like the traffic coming measures and for that, but why, say now that in 2030, we'll do a temporary pilot? Why not just do the traffic calming now and see if that takes care of it?

It it's the the thing that they're getting at the thing that they're not telling you is that with the Fernside project, I think somebody messed up and they didn't really think about the congestion that was gonna cause and they're trying to create, correct that by closing off Gibbons and that's creating a safety issue. It's less safe for pedestrians, it's less safe for bikers. I'm an avid biker. It's less safe for the cars in the neighborhood. And so closing that off, pushing the traffic elsewhere is going to push the problem elsewhere. And it's not just the places with the traffic calming measures, it's everywhere in the neighborhood making it less safe. So please just reject the phase 2C.

Thank you, thank you for your comment.

Next we have Ruben Ramirez.

Hello. I live on Northwood Drive and my wife and I, we we look out onto that main intersection there. And first off, I appreciate that the city and all of you listened to the concerns we had about the calming measures at the main intersection. But I have some concerns about how quickly they came up with the roundabout or the traffic circle. About fourteen years ago, think it was mentioned earlier this came up.

And at the time we pushed back bigly because it was going to eliminate I can't remember. It was like 13 to 16 on street parking spaces in front of people's homes. And that's significant. And some of that so I asked the question. I sent an email in. And I don't know if this is the forum to get the answer. But I'm not against roundabouts. Maybe the decorative painting doesn't sound so great, but will it eliminate on street parking for the homes in the immediate area for both roundabouts that are being proposed. So that's a big concern for me and my neighbors. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have William B. Morrison.

Hi William.

Thank you again. I really appreciate the question and answer session that I just went through because I learned a few things. But first of all, I would like to thank Scott for telling me why the little tags are on the trees on Gibbons. I've got a two and a half year old grandson and we count tags every time we walk there. So that's that right there.

Another thing I really appreciate that I just learned tonight is this is really the first time you have seen this. They talked to you about turn side traffic calming in November. Everything that we are talking about now, as best I understand, happened after they got your approval for everything associated with traffic calming. So from that perspective, I you know, this is something that I'm glad you get the opportunity to at least make a statement, but this was a last minute increase in scope and I think Gordon is right to handle a problem that they didn't know they had. And the big problem is actually bicycle light systems.

As best I know, looking at what happens on Fernside and Gibbons is people cross High Street and they keep going straight. And you know they can do that on a traffic light. They don't have to have a special light for them. Right? That's that's that.

And just bringing that up. Two other items that I'd like to see is or or talk about is, one, no right turn on red for southbound traffic on High Street. That increases congestion there. The other thing is the crosswalk on the South Side Of Fernside, that was an addition that was not there until recently. I think it is a self inflicted ruin of the city at this time.

There we are.

Thank you. Thank you for your comment.

We're gonna move.

Let's move on to the online.

First we have Cindy Johnson.

Good evening commissioners. We'll be coming back. Sorry. Go ahead Cindy. Hi.

Thank you. Good evening commissioners. I'm calling on behalf of Bike Walk Alameda mostly to reiterate points we made in our letter. We're supportive of staff's recommendation, but think the pilot of the turn prohibition should happen in 2028 as part of the paving plan. Setting a time and funding source for the pilot would ensure meaningful progress towards fixing the problems of the intersection, which is the primary objective of this project.

The intersection is part of our 2,030 low stress network, which means that over the next five years, our city should be taking what few opportunities there are to make it safe for people of all ages and abilities to navigate. Committing to the pilot in 2028 is one of those opportunities, and we urge you to recommend it. We also hope you will consider some traffic calming and signage at Santa Clara where much of the cut through traffic starts. We believe that all these pieces working together, the traffic calming, the signage and the turn prohibition will move us towards the greater vision of the area where there's little to no cut through or diverted traffic on neighborhood streets at all and the intersection is much safer and functional for all users. Thanks to staff for all their hard hard work on this and to you for your consideration tonight.

Thank you, Cindy. Next we

have Alex Chang, Chiang.

Hi,

Hi. I've been in my in the neighborhood for about twenty, twenty five years. And I do remember the last time that the roundabouts were proposed, and it did get a lot of neighborhood not rejection, but negative sentiments on it. I'm here to kind of reinforce that and also to discuss bring up the fact that the three corner on Northwood, Southwood and Kevin's, it's not a regular 90 degree cross street. So, lot of cars that are heading towards the same direction into that narrow area are not going to be able to see each other.

And the right turns are going to be very narrow, it's going be a wide turn. So, that's going to be a problem for a lot of people to navigate through that area. The other part that I want to bring up is the garbage collections are going to be going to have a really difficult time collecting garbage around that area once the turn around about are put in. And I also agree with some of the previous commenters that the original proposal, the way that when was because people are doing donuts around the neighborhood. And I haven't seen that anymore since since the cops started enforcing the law.

And I don't understand if there is no problem, why are we doing this again? I'll leave it at this.

Thank you.

Next we have Eileen Dubois. Eileen, you need to unmute. I believe they've lowered their hands. Next we have Ida King. Ada, you need to unmute.

Okay, next we have phone ending in 271, I believe Kelly Beaker.

Hi. Hi Kelly. Hi. Sorry for jumping the gun earlier. I'm on the East Coast and I thought I missed the time on the meeting. I just wanted to I kind of agree with all the speakers that have spoken so far. I feel like we are looking

at

a problem that doesn't exist. I live right at the intersection of Fairview Southwood where Bayo Vista comes in, and I am also opposed to the closure of Gibbons as it's going to cause a lot of unnecessary traffic under the small neighboring streets, even with the traffic calming measures put in place that are suggested. You cannot drive down the street without having to pull over and letting other traffic flow through. I reviewed the proposed traffic circle, and I believe that this particular implementation could have several negative consequences for our neighborhood. The streets are so narrow that we would lose several parking spaces all the way down the streets because you'd have to allow for other traffic.

I would personally lose it in front of my house because it's at the edge of the circle, with my driveway being part of the traffic circle. And I've done research where it shows it's extremely unsafe to have driveways with direct access into a traffic circle. There's reduced visibility, conflicts with traffic flow, complex maneuvers. We've also, you know, people have discussed garbage trucks, there's emergency vehicles, all of that. And it lowers the value of our homes if we remove such things as parking.

It also concerns me that, as others have mentioned, that these major, major decisions affecting our beautiful neighborhoods are being fast tracked and they will greatly affect our community. So I would urge you also, I appreciate all the questions you've asked, but I'd urge you to really take a look at this and not fast track these items. Thank you.

Thank you, Kelly. Can we move back to the in person?

Can you hear me now?

I'm sorry. Ada King is able

to speak. Yeah.

Thank you. I have heard a lot about traffic coming on the entire intersection leading to High Street Bridge, except what about High Street itself? Saw nothing on the maps, nothing on the bullet points. High Street right now already, the the speed of travel is too high, of course. And there is a temporary digital speed monitor there now, which is great, which I called in and asked to be put on the wait list for that.

But none of the studies have shown have mentioned High Street, Upper High Street. People come on and off the bridge at very high speeds going down high. And I I don't understand, why. I think there should be the the traffic calming should be extended to High Street as well from Lincoln Park up through the bridge entrance. And that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next back in house, we have Christine Huddleston.

Hi,

Hi, thank you for your consideration, good questions and discussions tonight. You know, I've even learned from this discussion and the discussions about the roundabouts on Central that, you know, while I support calming of the traffic in the neighborhood, and I live in the neighborhood, I don't think the roundabout option should be part of any quick fix or rush plan. Certainly, many of these neighbors agree with me on that point as well. I think the second key takeaway is that so much of this seems to go back to the change that was already approved in March, the bikeway on Fernside, that whole redesign. And now I want to go back and see.

It seems like by approving that bike lane, now we're faced with either the option of severe congestion or the requirement that we restrict turns from Gibbons on the High Street. I don't recall that being part of the discussions and the communications when we were asked, do we approve that bike lane? That we would be presented with this either or situation. I think if that was known at the time, shame on me for not seeing it. If it was not known at the time.

I think that is reason to reconsider that bike lane design. We didn't know it was gonna be this either or. Either you have to restrict turns or live with the congestion. Are there other options for that bike lane? Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Jim Strelow.

Hi Jim.

Good evening. The city's Gibbons Drive project history slide is conveniently incorrect. In November 22, the city made Gibbons a neighborhood greenway, not on the slide. In 2023, Gibbons is a local Street. Did the city notify the homeowners? Not that I heard. The timeline was mostly the Fernside Boulevard project for two years, cut off those first two years off the timeline. None of tonight's projects changes were ever discussed before tonight. So tonight is our first real workshop yet you are finalizing without fair public input. You insist on six month studies on closing Gibbons Drive at High Street but no study for speeding tickets.

There are many alternatives that could be designed changing the intersection programming. If there's speeding, ticket those who are speeding. Do not change and ruin Gibbons Drive for those who live here. The residents are not the problem. The city in 1968 reduced accidents by its design on that map there and slowed down traffic then. Speed bumps will divert traffic to other neighborhood streets. You will install many ugly signs in order to install those speed bumps. Why not just install stop signs at Cornell Drive? You don't even discuss that along Gibbons Drive. You'd have a bulb out for the pedestrian Southern Crossing at the intersection at High Street.

Only that was recently installed without any public notice and gets maybe one person an hour using it. Just remove it. Your collision statistics do not mention Gibbons Drive was ever a factor. You the city are pitting neighbor against neighbor neighborhood against neighborhood with such urgent actions. I suggest that you have more workshops and discussions on this without finalizing tonight. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Mitch Ball.

Hi. I don't live in Fernside. I live on 9th Street near Lincoln Ave and Wilma Chan Way Intersection, which at one point used to be a five way intersection. The north side of 8th Street was cut off and it is now a four way intersection. Is my street 9th Street, a busy traffic congested dystopia?

No. It's a very nice quiet street and all the traffic is on the arterial streets of Lincoln Street and Wilmel Chin Way as intended. There are plenty of examples of other dangerous five way intersections that have been converted, such as many on Tilden Way, and Tilden Way is better for it. The Fernside And Gibbons Intersection is dangerous and should be converted so that there isn't such a long unsignaled crosswalk. Gibbons Drive should be treated as a residential street so kids can walk to school safely, and Ferdside And High should be treated as arterials.

Unfortunately, because Gibbons Drive is a diagonal on the grid, people see it as a shortcut despite it having a lower speed limit and not actually being any quicker. If we restrict one end of Gibbons, less people will see it as a shortcut, which is great. However, Bayo Vista is one other diagonal street that is uniquely parallel with Gibbons Drive and unlike all the other streets on the superblock, might appear faster on a map than the arterials that are actually faster. Rather than just a roundabout at the West end of Bayo Vista, I would like to suggest that the intersection get cut in half. Cut southward in half and disconnect Bayo Vista from Fairview.

This is one, if not the largest residential intersections on the island and encourages speeding in its current state. However, if cut into two streets, it would instead actually provide more parking and eliminate drivers from using Bay Of Vista as a through street. Best yet, because it is right down the center of the superblock, it will not prevent local traffic, only through traffic. I always find it funny that people have complaints about proposed projects or recently competed projects, but see existing development as perfectly fine. You've gotten a lot of comments on this topic this year, I haven't bet you haven't got a single comment about asking you to reconnect 8th Street with Lincoln Street and Wilma Chan Way. Both five way intersections and confirmation bias are dangerous, and I hope you oppose both of them.

Thank you.

Thank you

for your comments.

Next, have Glenn Yacow.

Good evening, commissioners, and thank you for your time. My name is Glenn Yacow, and I'm a resident of Bahia Vista. I want to express my support in phase of the traffic calming measures listed in Item 6B. Efforts to slow speeds, improve crossings and enhance safety are truly needed in this area. Measures like speed cushions, mini roundabouts, visibility enhancements are effective ways to protect everyone who walks, bikes and drives in our neighborhood.

I understand the concerns about roundabouts in our neighborhood, and I understand their concerns. But I also think that perhaps the one that's most needed is the Northwood, Southwood, Gibbons intersection. In addition, I also strongly urge you to reject Phase 2C, the proposed six month no left test turn restriction on Gibbons. A turn restriction doesn't calm traffic and reroutes it to surrounding streets, creating new issues rather than solving the problem. And the traffic study confirmed that.

And while it may be labeled temporary, we have seen with Alameda's slow streets that temporary measures can linger much longer than planned. While we have the tools that slow cars down, reduce speeding and improve safety without shifting the burden, let's focus on those things first and keep our community safe and connected. Thank you for your time and commitment to the safer streets and neighborhoods in Alameda.

Thank you.

Next we have Rebecca Kolstrand.

Hey Rebecca.

Hello, it's nice to see everyone. Thank you members of the Transportation Commission for taking the time to hear testimony tonight. I live on Cornell Drive between Thompson and Fairview Avenue, and I support some of the interim traffic improvements. I actually think that traffic circles can be an effective way of improving safety at these intersections. But I say that with some reservations because you've heard tonight and I also heard today as I was walking through the neighborhood and talking to people along the way that there's a lot of concern about the design of those traffic circles because of the driveways that are would have to people would have to back out into the traffic circles from their driveways.

And also, I know there's a concern about loss of parking intersections. But I do think the traffic circles could lead to a reduction of, as someone mentioned before, there are people that do donuts in those intersections, and I still see tread marks there periodically. So particularly at Northwood, Southwood and Gibbons Drive, every couple of months you see tire treads in the intersection. I understand the concern about traffic safety at the High Fernside And Gibbons Intersection and the desire perhaps for residents to slow traffic, but I have a lot of concern about restricting the traffic movements on Gibbons to High Street and vice versa. When I was a member of the Transportation Commission in 2023 and we adopted the general plan including the street classification system, I was against the downgrading of Gibbons Avenue.

Okay. Thank you.

We can move back online. Next we have Travis Morgan.

Thank you. Hello. I'm a resident of Gibbons Drive, and I'm a co chair of the Edison Elementary Walk and Roll Committee. I appreciate the city staffs and your deliberate nature of the studies, the community outreach, the hearings, the mailers. I disagree with some of the other speakers. I think this has felt very drawn out. As a resident of Burnside, I am supportive of your efforts to increase safety in the neighborhood. I support city staff's revised recommendation for quick build traffic calming measures in 2026, and I recognize that it attempts to balance project goals with resident concerns regarding cut through traffic. I'd like to suggest a roundabout design and placements for ease of pedestrian access. That's going be helpful for our kids, people with mobility devices to actually use those intersections more safely.

I am concerned that foregoing the traffic calming will mean that we can never get a pilot investigating the impact of closing Gibbons on the other streets. If roundabouts aren't added there, we can't do a pilot, and neighborhood street neighbors will return to the argument that we don't know what the impact will be. So it's circular logic that stops any safety improvements from happening. I don't think their arguments are disingenuous, but I do think that would be a byproduct of not doing anything. Further, I would ask you to firmly commit to the term prohibition pilot and find funding as quickly as possible. I would love to know what the impact really is. Again, thank you for your hard work. Have a wonderful night.

Thank you very much.

Next we have Caroline Ting.

Hi, hello.

Hi.

Can you hear me? Yep,

can hear you. Okay,

My name is Caroline Shain. I'm a resident of Cornell Drive, very close to Gibbons Drive. I'm a mom of two kids. And in a past life, I was actually an urban designer. So I'm definitely a proponent of bikeable and walkable streets.

So I do support the Phase one and traffic calming measures. I think it's a good idea to split things into phases. But I do not support the pilot that would block the left turn from givens to high because it feels like there just doesn't seem to be any benefit in rushing this decision on Phase two right now when Phase one hasn't even been completed and studied. At the last public workshop, I talked to Lisa Foster, and I really appreciated the conversation with her. But one thing that I learned was that the Gibbons And High Intersection may be high crash when you're just looking at Ferdside Boulevard, but when you zoom out, it's not actually in the even in the top 20 of high crash intersections in Alameda.

And I was really shocked to hear this. And so I'm confused as to why this intersection improvement continues to be marketed as a way to solve key safety issues when, you know, according to the city itself, this intersection is not actually where the greatest safety issues actually exist in Alameda. So it just feels like the communications around this project are not being fully forthright then, and that, you know, city funds could be better used on truly dangerous intersections rather than this one just that just happens to be part of another project. I also want to urge you to reconsider, like, the past decision to change the designation of Gibbons to a local street. I just wish there was more community outreach around that decision.

So please do consider reengaging. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Next we have Brian Fowler.

Hello, commissioners. Nice I to meet moved to Johnson Avenue in 2007. We raised our family here. We've been walking around the neighborhood for since then. We you know, especially to Edison Elementary with our kid and our kids' friends and and everything. And, you know, I wanna thank you all for spending the time to to calm down the traffic in the neighborhood because especially on Gibbons, it is really fast through there. And it's you'll see it if you come out this for Halloween weekend because it is nuts. Especially in both of these places, you'll be thinking, gosh. We've gotta slow down. You know, how many help people come through here?

But on a on a typical day, Gibbons is is seen as a through street, and people treat it as a as a as a great place to you know, it's it's an attractive place to drive. So, you know, I can see why people wanna be on it, but it we've gotta slow down that traffic there. And and I appreciate the efforts there, especially hearing tonight that you're gonna be doing things down on Central because down there actually, at at Santa Clara, and and they feed the feed in Santa Clara and and Gibbons right there, we could really use some attention. If we don't want people using this as a through street, that's a great place to put a sign that says this is a local street. If you go into the highway, go down go down Santa Clara.

It's you know, stop feeding people through this area. So thank you for all that. I would also voice my support for the prohibition pilot in '28. Put it on the calendar so that we have a plan to do it and we can test it out and we'll know then. But thank you all for all the work you do to calm things down here. I'll let everybody else talk. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have the caller whose phone is ending in 878. You need to unmute.

Hi, can you hear me? Yes,

we can hear you.

Okay, great. Hi, my name is Frank Tang, and I live in the Fernside neighborhood on VioVista. Thanks for all your time today and for all the thorough study and discussion. I'm I have two young children going to elementary school and other preschools in the area, And I'm an avid cyclist and pedestrianer in the neighborhood as well. I am supportive of the traffic calming measures as an interim step and aligned with some of the other speakers in terms of questioning the outcome of or the perceived outcome of the benefits from restricting the left turn off Gibbons and the proponent of doing a more thorough study of wider spread impacts of that.

Some of my concerns are mostly around where the through traffic that would proceed through the neighborhood would get out onto the other streets, like High Street or Fernside. For example, no protected left turns onto High Street from a lot of the feeder streets like Bial Vista and Fairview. And particularly during commute times because these are yield flow streets where typically traffic is one way, any time there's a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction, things really get stopped up. So I think a more broad study is really needed to help identify all these impacts. The other impact is during pool times and a lot of the pedestrians walking around.

Travis, we spoke earlier, and I work on the walk and roll committee, and we're actively trying to get people to walk to school and bike to school and understanding that there would be more traffic impacts on all of the streets around as traffic is diverted around rather than concentrated around one main you corridor would be very much.

Next, we have Aileen Duoitte again. So I'm going to allow to talk. Aileen, if you want to speak, you have to unmute. And in that case, we'll go to the last speaker on Zoom, Jay Garfinkel.

Good evening. My family has lived four generations of my family have lived on Northwood Drive since first moving there in 1949. We appreciate the current ambiance of the whole neighborhood and believe that the project that's been proposed is akin to dropping a 500 pound bomb to kill a ground squirrel. The staff and the consultants are recommending this project because they put months and thousands of dollars into it. The consultant definitely has an interest in having you approve this.

Looking at the data, there is no significant justification for any of the changes proposed. Like I say, the staff and the consultant have a conflict here, and I would suggest submitting the data to an unbiased entity. Eliminating the turn slip from Fernsight onto the bridge will only force more traffic into the actual main intersection, and makes absolutely no sense. Also, having two bike, two direction bike lanes on one side of the street is a dangerous situation. You know, traffic has been calmed on Fernside Drive Fernside Boulevard, excuse me, over the years by the intermittent presence of police hiding on, I think it's the Bayo Vista.

Similar activities would be very helpful on High Street. And if Givens is a problem, they could be on Givens also. But we don't need these big changes that have been proposed. Thank you.

Thank you. We are going back to in house now?

We are. We're going back to in person. Jake Olson.

Thank you. My name is Jake Olson. I've lived in Bayo Vista for twelve years now, about a 100 yards from the intersection, so I'm very familiar with the neighborhood. I'm also a licensed civil engineer in the State of California. While I am not currently practicing traffic conditions, I have worked on some major highways and roadway projects in my career. I am just going to restate the obvious here tonight. Our neighborhood is a collection of small, narrow streets. Streets that don't have signage, stop signs, crossing, many don't even have yields. In fact, one of the largest intersections in that whole neighborhood doesn't even have a crosswalk. Yet, every day, hundreds of kids navigate the school on these small streets safely because of the low volume of traffic we currently have on these streets.

There's another reason why these kids are safe on these streets. We are fortunate to have a unique street in our neighborhood designed 30 to 40% wider than any other street, including four way stops, marked crosswalks, and a convenient signal allowing people to exit that street. Not only that, it cuts diagonally on and off the island. In the engineering world, we would call this a collector, despite whatever we may try to rename this as, as the city. This collector is wide enough to serve the volume of traffic to get people through the neighborhood, not pushing them onto the smaller streets.

Our small streets, two cars cannot pass. Anybody who lives in this neighborhood, who may work for the city and lives on the street, and would propose that closing the collector with a signal, I can only think it's for self serving interest, not neighborhood safety. I encourage the city to proceed with traffic calming studies. I believe it is in your best interest to explain to the neighborhood what these proposals are, where we are proposing roundabouts, humps. I think that is done in haste and I strongly oppose any closure or attempts to make Gibbons a cul de sac. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Vicky Tang.

Hi there. Thank you for your time. As an Alameda resident, parent of elementary kids and a frequent cyclist, I've been very active in this discussion. At the open house, this room was packed and over 300 people and residents have signed a petition to be against the closure. I appreciate that the city has somewhat heard us and changed the recommendation from alternative A to more of a phased approach, but I still think that it's not fully thought through, making recommendations to increase traffic even for six months by 400% on these small streets that are 30% narrower without a full analysis.

The study doesn't show that the comparison of BioVista to streets like Pacific were cherry picked to justify the increase in traffic when it really shouldn't be compared to streets like that that are smaller. It also doesn't show the safety issues that would be caused from moving 500 cars from a protected left turn onto unprotected left turns onto High Street from these smaller streets. So getting that check mark from alternative A doesn't feel like it's really thorough because it hasn't really factored in any of these things. And while I'm aligned with speed bumps to slow traffic on Gibbons and potentially better signage in signaling at Gibbons and high, I strongly urge you to reject the test turn at Gibbons for six months. The data doesn't show that the intersection is actually unsafe enough to warrant this change like somebody else mentioned.

It was looked at a very narrow view of the Fernside Corridor not within all of Alameda. That was cherry picked data as well. And I worry that this test is just about getting it approved now in hopes that the opposition will die down in the future, and it will become a permanent change like some of the slow streets have really been, become now. And finally, wanna raise concerns about the 2023 reclassification of Gibbons Drive as a local neighborhood street and a neighborhood greenway and would like to officially open this designation up for discussion or get a more solid rationale for why it is that way. It feels like it's partly justifying this change in Gibbons when the current conditions don't really justify it. The tree roots, the actual traffic, it just doesn't feel like it should be a green way. Appreciate your time. Thank you.

And last in person, we have Sera Hussain.

Hi. Thank you for your time tonight. I'll make this short. I've lived on Gibbons Drive for the past eight years with my three small children. Believe it or not, children also live on Gibbons Drive. Despite what others have said, the way things are currently is not Okay. It just does not work. The speed and haphazard driving by confused drivers coming off the bridge and going on to the High Street Bridge is frankly out of control. There is zero enforcement. On top of that, there are no crosswalks for us to safely walk in our own neighborhood.

We need speed humps and roundabouts to bring order and safety to a chaotic intersection more than one that prioritizes pedestrians and bicyclists. You've heard excuses or reasons why the proposal won't work and request study after study after study. But how many more studies need to be done until a decision is made? The bottom line is that the current neighborhood configuration prioritizes vehicles. However, I asked the city to take this opportunity to protect pedestrians, bicyclists, and promote safe driving in a neighborhood full of small children. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have one more on Zoom and I think Chris Dubois.

Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, great. Thanks for giving me the time. I'm an avid cyclist that lives about one house from Gibbons. So I'm very familiar with the problems on Gibbons in terms of the speed. So I'm all for traffic calming. I think that makes sense. But I don't see any point to this prohibition at this point.

It seems like we're trying to solve for an issue, that just doesn't seem to be there, or we don't have the stats to see if there's an issue there. All we're told is that there are certain number of collisions. Nobody says what those collisions are due to. Nobody says, is that a lot of collisions for this type of high volume intersection, and would any of the traffic rerouting change that? So what are we what are our goals?

Before we start changing the neighborhood and putting traffic onto streets, frankly, that you can barely get one bicycle by a car, much less two cars, What are the actual goals in terms of safety that we're trying to achieve? I think we need to look at what those goals are before we try try to think about doing anything beyond traffic calming. And I haven't heard anything about any of those goals. And I think it's dangerous to keep to move forward with something that is going to be very hard to back out of later on. So, that's it. Thank you.

Thank you.

We have no more speakers on Zoom. Let me check. And none in house.

Vice Chair Suthan Thira, I have, staff made a mistake and we didn't post one of the written public comments that we received. So, I would like to, if if you're okay with that, if we could invite Gordon Williams to have another two minute chunk to speak to those.

Certainly. Let's go that.

Hey, thanks so much. I appreciate it. This is a letter not just from me but from a lot of people, I think it's important to be read. Dear Transportation Commission members, we write on behalf of the more than 100 neighbors in the Keep Gibbons Open coalition to express our strong opposition to phase 2C of agenda item 6B. The proposed six month temporary pilot closure of the Gibbons Drive left turn to the High Street Bridge.

As concerned residents, we believe this closure is unwarranted and harmful. The city's own data do not justify such a disruptive measure and modeling shows the closure would push traffic on the narrower, less equipped neighborhood streets, worsening safety rather than improving it. Over 300 Alameda residents signed a petition opposing this closure. I have it attached, I'll read it real quickly. These signatures reflect a broad cross section of neighbors across the Fernside and East End communities, including many who live directly on or near Gibbons.

The message from the community is clear, keep Gibbons should remain open. We respectfully urge you to listen to the neighborhood voice and reject the proposed turn restriction pilot. Sincerely, myself, Jake Olson, Vicki Chan, organizers of the Keep Gibbons Open Coalition. And the petition says, oh god, I need reading glasses. We are deeply concerned about the city's proposal.

I'll I'll summarize it. The narrow streets like Cornell, Bayo Vista, Southwood, Fairview, Thompson, Northwood, Cambridge, Fremont, Harvard, and Yale would see sharp increases in traffic and are not equipped to handle traffic like this during the morning and evening commutes. The city's own traffic data shows a 400% increase. Gibbons is the only traffic light controlled exit from the Fernside neighborhood to the High Street Bridge. Removing it would force drivers to exit at uncontrolled intersections, delay emergency response time, and increase congestion and confusion throughout our neighborhood.

The proposal puts the safety of our entire community at risk to benefit a single block. We call the city to reject this shortsighted plan and pursue safer, more balanced alternatives. And there's, as of today, there's three forty three signatures.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank

you for all the robust comment and then robust engagement during the three public outreach events and also showing up now and providing your comments. Turning to the commissioners, if you like, I know it's been two and a half hours. If you like a brief four minute recess, are we if you're ready? Oh, okay.

That's, yes, a recess would be lovely.

Thank

Okay, we will be back in four minutes. I think we are back. Okay. Thank you for your patience. We are back in session.

Thank you, commissioners. So, we are starting with commissioners deliberation now. Any who wants to go first? Actually, know everybody has comments.

I can go.

Okay. All right. Commissioner Deploying.

Thank you. Well, first I just wanted to say thank you to staff and to everyone who's contributed to the a lot of thought has gone into this project over multiple phases. And so thank you for all the materials and all the work that's been done to also gather public feedback. And thank you, of course, to everyone who's shown up or who has contributed to in many ways over a period of time to this discussion, which is clearly an important one that everyone has a, you know, thoughtful input on. This is an attractive part of the city and I can understand why people have strong feelings around safety and traffic.

So it seems to me that we are, as regards the left turn from Gibbons onto High Street at the intersection, Looking at the data and reading the public comment, it seems that people who live on Gibbons would like the left turn to be prohibited at least as a pilot and people who live in surrounding streets would prefer the opposite because nobody ultimately wants additional traffic on their street which is perfectly understandable. Unfortunately, the only way to actually solve that for both parties would be for us to reduce traffic significantly. Unfortunately, I don't haven't seen any comments suggesting that we stop driving, stop walking, biking and taking transit more. So I don't realistically think that's something that's going to happen. And so I think our role here is really to balance the concerns of the different groups in this discussion whilst also addressing the safety concerns which I based on the data seem very real, particularly traffic coming off the High Street Bridge turning onto Gibbons and arguably going in the other direction as well at different times of day.

I think there are a couple of thoughts I have on the phase one which is the quick build that has been proposed. I think trying to address the speed of traffic coming from High Street turning onto Gibbons going south is something that is clearly important to do. And in fact, as I look at the diagram of what has been proposed with the quick build paint and post bulb out, I actually wonder whether we could extend and I don't know if we can pull this up on the slide. I think it's slide, I don't have the numbers here, but this is alternative C. Yes.

That one. I would like to know if it's possible for that bulb out to actually go further to the east, maybe another 10 or 15 feet because as I look at this diagram, the turning radius from High Street onto Gibbons has not changed a great deal in this version as opposed to the existing situation. I recognize that the entrance to Givens is now narrower, which will presumably slow the traffic down. But is it feasible to extend the build out further into the intersection basically to as I say 10 or 15 feet to the east of where it is proposed right now? And I guess that's a question for the, I don't know who that's a question for, Scott or I don't know.

I think what you're asking is on the Southwest corner?

Correct. On the Southwest Can that bulb

be extended a little further to the East? Is a schematic diagram. So it hasn't been particularly designed yet, but certainly we'd have to look at vehicular turning movements and the design, different type of design vehicles to see what the best design would be. So that could certainly be taken into account and see if we can shift things over a bit. The nice thing is about quick build kind of designs, they can be tested and adjusted to be more, to be as optimal as possible.

Understood. Thank you. That's helpful.

I would just like to add on to that. One of the considerations by pushing it out is we're looking at these are plastic bollards that if they get hit they will cause a little bit of damage but they really won't damage a car. If we push them out too far, our maintenance crews would be out there regularly replacing these things. So there is a trade off by the farther you push them out, the more maintenance we'll end up doing on these things because it takes a bit for the behavior to change and there will be maintenance expenses.

Understood. That's helpful. Thank you. So that's my first thought on this. As we think about continuing to think about the speed of traffic on Gibbons, which I think is probably one of our primary concerns here.

I think the quick build roundabouts could help with that a little bit. I noticed there are speed humps suggested for traffic calming. The reason I asked the question about speed cameras is because I like to think that speed humps are sort of a last resort in terms of slowing down traffic. There are reasons why they're not ideal. But we live in this sort of strange world where we can have speed limits and traffic laws but it's very difficult for those to be enforced without employing a large number of police to monitor and hand out tickets and that is not really feasible.

So acknowledging that enforcement is a significant challenge, I wonder if there are other ways to slow down the traffic without necessarily always resorting to speed humps, which as I say are not ideal for a number of reasons and I would like to think are more of a last resort. And then finally, think thinking about the left turn from Gibbons onto High Street as in going in the opposite direction, this is not something that we could do in the short term as part of the pilot. But again, the reason I asked the question about how many vehicles are turning right there is because there are currently two lanes. There's a lane to turn left and there's the lane to turn right. I wonder if we need both of those lanes for turning.

If almost nobody is turning right, which makes sense because it's a you probably wouldn't go that way if you were going to turn right. Do we even need that right turn lane? And if we don't need that right turn lane in the longer term, then perhaps there's a way to design the intersection such that you can maintain the, you can have both the traffic calming elements that slow the traffic turning into gibbons whilst potentially maintaining access, how

do I

put this, access to the signal for the overall intersection for the traffic coming out of Gibbons going northbound. I don't know if I'm explaining that very well. But as I say, I'm just thinking whether it's possible to by having fewer lanes for traffic coming out of Gibbons, maybe there's a way to design it such that the signal can still function for people wanting to turn left. All of that said, if we move ahead with the, if we agree to move ahead with the pilot for the restricting the left turn, I would like to think about what we can do at the other end of Gibbons At Lincoln, Santa Clara Central to discourage that road being used as a cut through. Because it strikes me that that's really the problem that we're trying to solve.

It isn't necessarily the left turn that's the issue. It's the amount of traffic and the speed of that traffic. So I wonder if there's a way, and I don't know what the answer is, but I wonder if there's a way to discourage Gibbons being used as a cut through that would address some of those concerns? And as I said, I don't know what the answer is or if anyone from the city or the planners have any thoughts on that, but those are my thoughts.

With the chair's permission, we can make this more of a discussion if that's is desired here.

I figured this There one warrants

are two things that you talked about with the questions. One is about eliminating the right turn, I'll say northbound Gibbons making the right turn on the high. It's a very small count. We said six vehicles during the peak hour. Unfortunately, eliminating that movement and realigning the intersection to get the benefit of increased bulb out, you're effectively describing alternative b without that right turn movement. So that's we would still end up with the issue that the intersection then functions inefficiently and leads to a slower case.

Sorry to clarify, I don't mean to eliminate the option to turn right. I just mean we probably don't need two lanes to accomplish that. And yes, you're right. That is largely what is described in alternative B. But I'm also just thinking in terms of the geometry, can the in alternative B, could the intersection of Gibbons and High be moved further north as in closer to the intersection with Fernside, and would that allow it to be included in that one signal rather than having a separate signal?

It is functionally one signal, but there's multiple lights and multiple stopping points. So it all functions as one unified signal. It's not two completely independently operating signals. It's just the fact when you create that space, creates the delay, it creates the inefficiencies. Pushing the whole thing further to the north, well then we start we haven't looked at that in detail, I think we run into right of way issues pretty quickly.

Okay.

And to your point, discouraging cut through traffic on the South End whether it be Santa Clara, whether it be Central, that is it's gonna be functionally a byproduct of the neighborhood greenway discussion that Rochelle talked about with Versailles. So Versailles, Central and Gibbons. Gibbons basically starts kind of at that three way intersection on southbound leg. And we are looking at doing some changes there to minimize the number of access points to Gibbons. Right now you have three access points in.

The movements will still be there but most likely whatever we do, we'll just use the term, increase the friction a little bit so that you can't go quickly down central and make a flying left onto Gibbons which you can do now. That that encourages a faster car movement and we wanna maintain the vehicular movements. We just don't want that to happen quite so quick. So we're we're still workshopping what those design looks like and and how that would function, but that will that will have that same effect. We haven't really talked about it specifically with this project because it's really going to be a component of the Neighborhood Greenway project.

Got it. Thank you. That's helpful.

Commissioner Kemp.

Thanks. Yes, I want also reiterate the comments. I wanna thank staff for presentation. Also, thank the public for coming out and voicing your concerns and thoughts about the project. I want to actually add on to what commissioner Glenn was saying about the the cut through traffic.

I know in the presentation it was mentioned that a lot of the traffic on Gibbons is cut through traffic. And I think that would that needs to be considered as part of this as a whole. Right? Because if we eliminate a lot of the cut through traffic going to Gibbons, then major modifications at Gibbons may have less of an impact, right? And so we do want to understand kind of where those cars are coming from and what, I guess, kind of like adjacent projects in the city that are going to help divert traffic to, let's say, high straight sooner than Givens, right?

So just better understanding what those projects are and how those are going to work in concert with what happens at this intersection would be very important. Kind of also related, I I am concerned about the kind of the cut through traffic that we're potentially seeing into some of these smaller side streets. The you know, I think, you know, the Bay Of Vista and Cornell, like some of the streets that are the closest. I know there's been a lot of concerns about cut through traffic. While it seems like it's only, you know, about, you know, car a minute and peak hour, it still seems a lot for those smaller streets.

So I am But but I would like to better understand like what other things have been looked at to prevent cut through traffic on the smaller streets, if any. Like has there been considerations for eliminating left turn access from Villa Vista to High Street to prevent some of those potential cut prevent that cut through traffic. I guess my biggest concern is I don't want to just take the accidents that are happening at this one intersection and distribute them to a bunch of other intersections around that intersection. So I do want to better understand like how do we prevent cut through traffic to some of these smaller streets.

I think these are interesting ideas of thinking about downstream. So I think that can be considered and discussed. So far what we've been talking about are the traffic calming measures that we brought to you all to both make drivers slow down and make it less convenient and fast for people to get through the neighborhood which has been shown to encourage people to take other routes. I don't know if anybody wants to

Chris, would it be helpful to bring that slide up? Because there's a lot going on. If you want to. Sure.

Yeah, sure.

Yeah, appreciate the other ideas. I do just want to mention that this isn't reflected in the figures that have been presented in terms of number of redirected trips because those numbers were calculated on the assumption that there is no neighborhood traffic calming present. Federal We Highway

are looking at different looking for a different slide or this is the one.

I thought Commissioner Kim might want the treatment, the quick build treatment slide. But here, go ahead.

Yeah, think maybe a slide of the traffic diversion.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Yeah, forgot which slide number that Maybe. Is, Two

slides before maybe?

Two slides after.

It's 22 of 23. This

one also works I think. Is fine.

Well I just wanted to mention that the Federal Highway Administration and Institute of Transportation Engineers do have published literature that has summarized a number of studies trying to measure the effects of traffic calming on both speeds and volumes. And off the top of my head, I can remember that on average and of course, studies are all over the map and vary greatly on number of inputs, alternative routes, but on the whole, speed humps are shown to reduce traffic volumes by approximately 20%, also depending on the speed hump design. So it's not that just the existence of speed humps themselves would eliminate cut through traffic, but it we would forecast that it would have around that type of an impact. And often we think of speedhunts as the last kind of application measure, but it would have impact on both speeds and volumes through the neighborhood.

Okay. And I do have I guess maybe this is more of a procedural question. I'm trying to understand the recommendation we're actually voting on today. So it sounds like we're voting on the recommendation for kind of the interim safety improvements at the intersection as well as the quick bill treatments for the roundabouts and speed humps. Are we taking any kind of action related to the pilot to eliminate the the right turns?

Yes. The recommendation is that you would also endorse the long term data collection and planning, which would include the pilot. You know, you all obviously can take the action that you choose to take, but that was the staff recommendation.

And then so I guess follow-up question on that. With the data collection slated to start in 2028, how typical is it for this commission to vote on things like this that are that far out?

We you all have many times approved design concepts that then didn't get implemented until many years later. Central Ave started coming to the Transportation Commission maybe a dozen years ago and is now under construction. So, you know, this is a, I would say, you know, a temporary pilot is a somewhat different project than the design concepts that we then end up constructing many years later. But no, it's quite common.

Okay. Thank you.

I do have to follow-up on Commissioner Kim's point, last point in terms of the timing. If 2028 is going to be the data collection time and then you're proposing or recommending the quick build approach to go now or in next year, when is the turn restriction pilot is going to be looked at or implemented and looked at because then there is a long gap and the turn restriction is proposed for six months in the staff report.

Yeah. We have 2028 in mind for that because we think we can get the quick build traffic calming done by sometime early mid twenty twenty seven, then you get give some time for them to settle in, get some time for Oakland Alameda Access Project to, you know, stop making our traffic patterns strange, and and then we would be able to start thinking about a test with evaluation.

So basically there will be a gap in time with implementing the traffic calming measures within the neighborhood and then to implement the pilot?

Yes. I mean, you guys can make recommendations to us, but that is how we've conceived it. Yeah.

Okay. Maybe we'd end up

with a six, nine month gap between the quick build neighborhood traffic calming and the pilot of the turn restriction.

Anybody

wants to go after?

Sure. Will.

So

I'll echo the thanks from the commissioners to staff to residents and consulting team who have been working on this. Let's just say, if it would be great if the city could give this level of attention to every neighborhood. I mean that genuinely. I I mean that genuinely that the city has engaged this in a multi layered fashion traffic studies potential traffic calming a lot of resident engagement Unfortunately, the city does not have the resources to do this. I mentioned that first because I think this is a good example of how the city genuinely needs more resources to maintain and improve its infrastructure.

I know City Council is studying that now. But I just want to put this into context that ideally we can do more of this, but the city is constrained. I do also want to highlight that there is a process and equity issue here where time spent in one single neighborhood means time that is not spent on the rest of the city and that does affect some of the the thinking I bring to this too of when staff are focused on this project, what are they not able to do elsewhere? I think our last meeting on the speed hump policy was trying to zoom out and just say like, can we give staff a toolkit that can scale and that can kind of be more adaptive, be more efficient? This project is very much at the other end of the spectrum in terms of being bespoke.

But I do want to speak to that at a very high level first. Within the context of this project, I'm going to echo points. I've heard that I think this is a really multilayered treatment that's being proposed here. You see, we learned a lot about speed humps at the last meeting. It's helpful to have that 20% figure in mind.

We've had a couple different meetings on roundabouts. And this type am I correct in saying in figuring this is similar to the kind that's going into Bay Farm? The alright, Scott. I can never you got a modern roundabout at one end of the spectrum. You've got a mini neighborhood traffic circle. This is in between Roundabouts

can come in many flavors. Yeah. What we're doing on Central, what we're doing at Tilda And Clement, those are arterial streets. Those are what they refer to as modern roundabouts, full concrete construction, approach ramps, all that. What we are doing over on Bay Farm Island, it should be installed hopefully in the next month, is what's known as a it's a durable material, but it's it's a recycled plastic material that we put down that's far less expensive than a concrete roundabout.

But it does have a life expectancy of at least twenty plus design years. So it's a a solid, we'll say, permanent installation with using less expensive materials. What we're proposing about here for these roundabouts are called quick build. And it's really we're gonna be doing mostly paint, maybe some post. You saw the rubberized curves during the roundabouts. We recognize those are not necessarily the ideal desire of what the community would want in the long term. That's very clear. That's very recognizable. But it's something we can commit to do because as as Lisa showed, the the the ask for the city council is a relatively small number. It takes, you know, what we're doing out on Bay Farm Island is is about three or four or five times more expensive than that.

So this would be a quick build. If it's accepted by the community, then we'd be looking for other sources of revenue to upgrade those to a more durable solution.

Okay, great. Thank you for that context. Did, Scott, can I ask one more on the roundabout front? One of the presenters spoke to the intersection up Northwood, Cambridge, Buena Vista getting paint treatments. Have staff considered the similar type of of quick build roundabout for that intersection?

The geometry of that intersection is a little much more elongated. So it's not quite as, I'll say, compact in like a circular format. So it doesn't lend itself to a roundabout. If we would go back to the 2012 study that was very similar to what we're talking about now about traffic calming within the entire neighborhood, they did have some painted lane reconfigure options that we could look at that would be in the same manner as what we're talking about for the roundabouts, a quick build, basically post and paint predominantly. That is something we could certainly evaluate moving forward.

Okay. And can I ask just are there any other spots where staff are seeing potential for similar types of treatments?

These were the most obvious ones. And I know callers were talking about High Street and there's also, you know, we're doing work on Fernside. Those, you know, this goes back to the question you were almost alluding to where we could keep peeling back and we zoom out just a little further and there's a little bit more we could do in the next neighborhood, a little bit more we can do in the next neighborhood, we know there's plenty of work that we have throughout the entirety of the city for traffic calming. And so we're trying to be both thoughtful in addressing concerns that the neighbors have brought forward about the cut through traffic and putting in both countermeasures to both slow the traffic and as Jimmy had mentioned, potentially increase diversion. People don't like going over speed humps.

They will look to take alternate routes. So we were looking to be a little bit focused to address the issue that was related to intersection up here. I mean, very first slide I was kind of pointing out to Lisa, don't forget this whole start up with whole Fernside two way cycle track and we're trying to look at appropriate level of traffic calming measures within the vicinity of the neighborhood.

Okay, thanks. And just to bring it back up to, if I can characterize that, it's saying, given the traffic study, what are the treatments that, and we're being presented with treatments chosen strategically in order to both fit what can fit into the space as well as what can potentially mitigate some of the shifts.

Correct. We did stop short of, I'll say, potentially even a little more drastic options where maybe we would prevent the left turnout of Iowa Vista so that everybody would go up either Cambridge, Fremont, Harvard, Yale, make a right and then all the way back. There are other more substantial kind of traffic restrictions that we could put in place that would really kind of, I'll say, redirect traffic through this localized neighborhood. We wanted to stop short of that. I think our goal in presenting the layered approach that we have is to recognize what the community said about, hey, there's more than just the intersection of Fernside, Gibbons and High.

We have some neighborhood concerns, and we're really concerned about the cut through traffic. So our attempt here was to to come forward with some degree of neighborhood traffic calming layered on with the pilot study to really get an understanding of once these traffic calming measures are in place, what are the movements that we observe and then if we close down on a pilot process for about six months to take another observation and say where does that traffic that is diverted, where does it go? We've heard a lot of things from a lot of people, both our consultants, the neighbors, but frankly a lot of it, nearly all of it is conjecture at this point. We really don't know how humans are very complex species and behaviorally. Once we add these things in there and change that, we almost have to just observe to see what happens.

And that's really kind of taking a step back why we are proposing this layered approach. I think the recognition is that we did not want to go forward and invest a huge amount of money in concrete in what we had shown as alternative A right now and then recognize, hey, we have a problem. We are willing because we think it's the right thing to do is to do the traffic calming within the neighborhood, but then layer it on with the pilot study to really factually understand what happens with that traffic. I know there's concern, but we don't know until we actually observe it. That's I think why we're proposing the recommendation that we have about the multilayered approach.

Okay. And if I may just add one more layer here. I see the width of the side streets as a feature, not a bug, if you will. Narrower streets lead to slower auto speeds. I I think it's important and I don't and I say this.

So, before I was asking about about Roadway With that that again, that the narrower streets that some commenters have been concerned about, I think, will drive behavior in the right direction here. It will disincentivize people who want to move efficiently on side streets with caveats. Like I'll ask, you know, like there needs to be sufficient daylighting here, like, and that's like getting back to like this intersection you've spoken about up at Cambridge, Narrower streets with parked cars do slow traffic, but there needs to be visibility there. And if there's anything you want to add on that, go ahead. But I just want to add that as a layer of the width of the side streets.

It certainly is a layer. And I'll say from a traffic basic traffic textbook perspective, wider roads can accept higher volumes of traffic at basically at faster speeds and narrower roads. The converse is true. We have fewer traffic and typically at slower speeds. We typically look for our standards as a 36 foot roadway face to curb to face to curb as kind of a, I'll say, the normal local street, which has two ten foot travel lanes and eight foot parking on both sides, adds up to 36.

I don't know the exact number on Bahia Vista, but I believe it's 32, so we're missing 32, 33, maybe 34. It's short. It's than that, but it does what it means is not all cars are eight feet wide, many are smaller, but some of the larger SUVs and stuff can be. It does create that friction which then by nature does tend to slow traffic but it also makes people feel very uncomfortable as you're driving very closely to other cars. And so there's a perceived kind of safety concern because you have to be much closer to other cars. I'll leave it at that because if that's

helpful.

I just wanted to add that for the traffic study, every traffic study is based on assumptions when you're projecting out like this one did. And those assumptions are based on best practices, you know, data, lots of factors and we did that. But we did make a conscious decision to make sure we didn't underestimate the spillover within the neighborhood. If anything, our assumptions are a little bit worst case scenario because we wanted the neighborhood to you know, we knew they had big concerns and we didn't want to come with a study that looked like we were underestimating the issues. So, it is entirely possible that the narrowness of those streets will discourage more people from using them.

They might try it once. It'll be deeply uncomfortable when they try to pass another vehicle. And then they might take a different route the next time. And then also, of course, we'll have the neighborhood traffic calming in place.

So I'd just like to share my thoughts with with the others on the commission. I'm seeing well first we've been seeing this this project in this area over over many months and in accordance with quite a lot of well planned city plans, active transportation plan, Vision Zero plan, on and on. I'm seeing multiple layers of protection proposed here. My own read of the assessment also was that it is a very conservative assessment. I feel like we have the confidence to recommend this to council.

I honestly also think that should come with firmer ask. I think we I think it would be reasonable to to recommend to council this this combination of traffic calming as proposed by by staff and that there be an actual timeline for making the changes intersection. I'm very welcome to hearing others' thoughts on this and what form that takes. But I don't think we should kick the can down the road on decisions and that we've been presented with really thorough research, lots of thoughts as well, but that all are valid, but that based on the work that's gone into this, I think we're being presented with a multilayered plan that and I would like to if others are open to it, you know, hear of course, hear all the thoughts and hear maybe a form that's agreeable of a stronger recommendation than the staff has recommended to us tonight.

Commissioner Blown, do you want to go or Ms. Jones?

Okay. Commissioner Ebrams, could you please clarify what you're proposing?

Sure. I mean, I'll put some options on the table, but you know, I I think first, endorsing the quick build traffic calming. That's the first half of the staff recommendation. And as part of that, recommending that staff go to council and request general, just to confirm. This is a request for general funds from the residual fund balance.

The most precious fund of the city to put unplanned improvements. I'm saying that's a good, it's a good thing but so that's the the first half. Endorse the quick build traffic calming combined together with a firmer recommendation for an option we've been presented with that goes beyond just a commitment. I mean, I think there are ways that it can be framed that provide some flexibility. Maybe this could be pegged against the 2028 paving work plan for here and open to staff input here but I and I I I I think I think it think if we can give a recommendation to counsel that combines the investments together with the intersection improvements, I think that will be the best long term outcome.

Okay. Let me go with my comments, my thoughts.

Yes, please. Please, Chir.

And then I will open it up so that we can kind of work towards a recommendation that we can endorse and decide how we want to approach. So just in thinking through the process, thinking aloud on the process how we have where we have come to and how we have come to. So like it started, I very clearly remember the Fernside Boulevard improvement, long term improvement last year when staff presented it, when the commission approved it or endorsed it for the council action, one of the element is to see or study the intersection because of the unique nature of this, the five legged intersection and the High Street, Fernside and the Gibbons and the need to take or connect the two way protected bike lane through it. And it really adds to the complexity or challenge of the operation of the intersection. The recommendation was to study that separately.

And that's how I see this focused study has started. And then, of course, all these overlaying plans were looked at by the staff. And I can see you started the public outreach process. I developed the recommendation with the help of work from parametrics and you went to the public with the study proposal or study outcomes and then took their input. And when you started the recommendation development, I'm just again thinking aloud, the alternative 1A was to eliminate the left turn and then you had the with the safety of the neighborhood in mind, operations in terms of operational safety improvement perspective, you proposed the traffic coming with two measures.

One is the speed come, the other one is roundabout. And then for the intersection, you proposed a couple of variation. One is the curbing the restricting the left turn and which was the A and then the B had the signal and C had the pedestrian signal. And with that, the neighborhood came back with more comment, robust comments. Thank you for letting your views very clearly heard.

And then staff took that into consideration and amended or updated the recommendation with the pilot version so you can study, so you can make the data based decision making. I'm just trying to walk us through the milestones and then the process. Is there any change you say in this, Lisa? Okay. Thank you.

I mean, it's the thoughtful, the thorough process, the staff and then the consultant team, how they help the staff to come to this and also how the public outreach or public input have been taken into account to reflect that. So I just want us to acknowledge that in terms of where we are. But then comes the nuances in the recommendation. I do see broad support overall for the traffic calming within the neighborhood for the neighborhood safety. But when I say the traffic calming, it's only I can see the quick speed hump being the more favored one.

And then the roundabout has some questions. And it's in the design aspect or the aesthetics, parking lots, so all that. I mean, if we are recommending that, including the roundabout in the if we endorse the recommendation to move forward, including the roundabout, then we need to kind include those elements and how that needs to be looked at so it doesn't impact the neighbors, the issue that we heard about backing the car into the roundabout and things like that. Then we clearly heard about the operation at the intersection of High Street, Gibbons and Fernside. There is one thing that caught my attention was the density in the map that you showed, the accident map you showed, someone mentioned about the location of the accidents being different from the actual high end given intersection?

Is it just the mapping error or the way it is just located on the map? Or how is that are you looking at the entire the broader intersection as one and then mapped all of the collisions in that location?

Did you want an answer or are you continuing on?

Let me finish my thoughts. That's one question I have. But in terms of the intersection improvement, that's one thing that were asked to address it. And I think you have done a good job in locating I mean looking at the options and especially from David what he mentioned like there are some that are not presented were also considered and eliminated upfront. But then one other bottom line issue that's driving all this is the cut through traffic, which is which seems very significant portion, which is 55%.

And I mean that's one thing that's missed out in terms of how it's addressed. I mean you do say Jimmy did mention that the speed hump reduces 20%. It's like we are encouraging people not to kind of drive through or but then there could be other measures like, I mean, one I can think of is like how we are doing at Central And Park Intersection. Do not no left turn during peak time, peak hour period, right, peak periods, something like that along Santa Clara and Givens. I mean, I'm just throwing it out there.

I mean, you will probably you may be able to think more options. So something to prevent them coming in. Of course, the school traffic will be there, so people will be coming from all of the attendance areas. So you may not be able to fully control that moment, but there is something you can think about. So all this is happening and we need to really move forward as well.

One thing we did here is a strong opinion on the left turn pilot. And one other question I have related to that is why is it six months? And there is also time gap. So if we approve it now and then the safety measures are the traffic calming is implemented and then you have a gap and then so how will it be tied together and studied later? If you implement the turning moment restriction even for a pilot period much with long gap, so the effect of this and then the restriction may be how will it correlate.

So are you going to do a study two time periods? I mean, there are all these questions. I'm sure I threw many different fragmented questions. But if you're able to remember and respond, and I can help you.

The first question I heard was about on street parking lots and driveway access and the roundabout designs.

Yes.

Scott, would you want to speak to that?

Sure. So as we talked about the roundabouts, what you saw today was a very crude sketch, something I drew in Bluebeam quite simply. These roundabouts would need to be properly designed. Speed humps we can put in the ground pretty quickly. Those are relatively easy. That's a known quantity. A roundabout needs a design and a couple of comments that were brought up tonight were about driveways, driveway accesses and something we definitely have to look at. The one on Gibbons, Northwood, Southwoods, there are no driveways right there, which is convenient. I think there might be one on Northwoods. But I think we have a lot of flexibility to work around that.

BioVista, we might have to be a little more thoughtful about how that would work. So that would require design. It's also one of the reasons why the speed humps potentially could come in 2026. We're giving ourselves the time to do the design properly for these roundabouts. Even if they're quick build, still need to kind of lay them up and make sure they all function. As it relates to parking loss, it's pretty clear to say that we would the crosswalks get pulled back from the intersection. It's a much shorter crosswalk. It's a much safer crosswalk. We would definitely daylight immediately in advance of the crosswalk for each of the advancing directions. So you would lose definitely one parking stall there.

So you'd definitely lose four parking stalls at BioVista, at least three at Gibbons, potentially a fourth. What we haven't looked at when we look at the design, a lot of the designs that were proposed in 2012 had a much more, we'll say, involved kind of layout and significant amount of landscaping. There's a likelihood we may be able to maintain some parking within portions of the roundabouts. And there's also another thing to consider that's different than 2012 is we now have state law that basically requires daylighting at intersections. That's very easy to kind of, I'll say, understand at an orthogonal 90 degree intersection.

It's rather hard to really appreciate at either one of these two intersections. Certainly at the very tighter radius ones, it's argument that it's illegal to park there now based on the current daylighting law. So we are only doing a nominal additional parking loss. Okay. So yeah, we definitely need a lot of design.

I would like to add about these roundabouts. This is a sort of different project than we usually do because we are using truly quick build, materials that we're testing this out. If it doesn't quite work, we can change it. We're not even putting in permanent curb ramps until we know that it works. That gives us a chance to iterate on the designs. So the second question I heard is Can

I just add to that? Yes. I mean, this is definitely the most beautiful neighborhood we have in the city, right? And I have driven through it just to get a feel for it too, you know, when I picked my daughter from high school. So even though I don't live there. So, we don't want to implement something that really spoils the aesthetics of it too, so in terms of the design part.

Okay. The second question I heard was about the heat map and whether The

collisions, yeah.

Those collisions were related to the glarguing leg. And I would say, yeah, the heat map is just about collisions at that intersection, irrespective of which legs contributed to it. And what I can contribute to that conversation is that we've been trying to take this complicated five leg intersection and turn it into something that has shorter crosswalks and a more simple layout, something that people will not speed as quickly through, something that people will make fewer strange turning movements in. The way we found to do that was that turn restriction from Gibbons. The goal was not restricting Gibbons.

The goal was fixing that intersection. It just that is what makes all of that possible. So we think that crashes at the intersection in general, even if they're just high in Fernside, could be diminished by this change because it makes the intersection smaller, it can reduce speeds, it can simplify the intersection. So I think they're all relevant even if they're not related specifically to the Gibbons leg. The third I heard you ask why the pilot is six months. Did you want to speak to that recommendation?

That's also a very good question. We do a lot of pilot tests on programs such as this and we've determined that it takes about six months, maybe a little less, but for traffic patterns to get adjusted, people to change their behaviors. And it also allows you to do before and after studies and really track what's going on and make adjustments if necessary. So we feel pretty strongly about six months makes sense for doing a trial period.

Okay. That's kind of a standard practice. Yes. That's what you say. And then the cut through traffic, how are we doing? I mean, are there any other options or measures to reduce them?

Some other ideas about upstream traffic, traffic that's coming into the neighborhood. You know, we've looked at what we think makes the most amount of sense for an initial program. And I think what we do is after monitoring and seeing what really happens, then step back and see if there are other remedies that should be tested. We want to be careful not to cause additional diversion or start making people backtrack on other routes as well. So it's always we like to start a little small and simple, monitor and then come back and maybe make some adjustments without restricting other turns and creating other diversions.

One thing I didn't hear from the commissioners too is like how pedestrian signal and then alternative C. And you did say it increases congestion, but it definitely improves safety for people to cross. I was hoping that that will get better traction, but somehow it didn't.

So I believe your question relates to Gibbons. There is on the three little segments that cross Gibbons, there's a crosswalk but there is no pedestrian signal for that. So pedestrians at this time really have no indication when it's safe to cross. And that is the current configuration. To fix that would require a decent amount of investment, a nontrivial investment, but we have to do it in the traffic signal, add some additional signal heads, run some additional conduits, some additional wiring.

And while that is a potential, if alternative C is the direction we go in the long term, we would definitely make that investment. If we're looking at other alternatives, alternative A as we're recommending in a multi phased approach to get there, it wouldn't necessarily make sense to make that investment now if it's not going to be needed short order, if that's helpful.

Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, your public comment period is over and unfortunately we have heard all of your comments. Do you have any follow-up comments?

I'm happy to answer the question about testing or what a testing program could look like, if that would help. We haven't really fleshed out the evaluation method for a pilot project, but one of the great things about where we are now is we have taken a great deal of data on the before existing conditions phase. One of the ideas of taking a bit of a pause after implementing neighborhood traffic calming is that we could take that same level of data and then have another tranche of data plan to conduct after a pilot is in place. And on other pilot projects that we have implemented, we've taken two tranches of data collection, one directly after implementation and then another four, five, six months out so that we understand the difference between the first several months weeks of implementation and how behavior normalizes over time. But we haven't got to that level of thinking through what an evaluation for a pilot project would look like for this project.

In that note, actually, is it possible to conduct testing or data collection after the neighborhood calming is done, traffic calming is done? And then one after, if need I mean based on the data you see and then if it's really warranted to do the left turn pilot, then can you do one after? So it will be like in two parts.

I think we are saying the same thing.

Oh, we would take

another round of collection after the neighborhood traffic calming. Oh, So that we could understand just eliminating to that as the changed variable what difference does the neighborhood traffic calming make. And that would allow for another point of comparison with the

potential Okay. That helps.

Something else I can add process wise is that you guys can direct that this is, the direction we want to go. But certainly once we're designing that pilot, we would come back to the Transportation Commission and tell you what kind of before data, what kind of pilot, what kind of after data we want to do and kind of get your input on that specific plan. So we don't have to have all of this stuff figured out, but we do need to know that that's the general direction in order to really actively pursue the near term traffic calming so that we know that it's all kind of related to each other. So yeah, we will come back.

All right. You're good? You're good. Okay.

I can't add anything else. Okay. So can I ask the maybe clear Sure? I I can't, like, hung up on, the recommendation and timing, things like that. And so it sounds like the idea is we're gonna put in these traffic calming improvements, the quick build ones. There's gonna be some time where we collect data We're going to do the pilot restriction for six months. We'll collect more data. And then sometime after that, we figure out what to do as a permanent solution. Is that the kind of the process we're going through?