In a little less than four weeks, AC Transit will be going through major service changes in Alameda and throughout the East Bay. One of the problems with reading maps that show all the lines, and much of AC Transit’s service area, is that figuring out which line goes where becomes more work than it should be. So I threw together some very low-tech graphics of what the new transit system will look like in four weeks:
There’s only one problem. There’s no stop on Main Street at Midway (see map for location…hint: it’s where the bullseye is). It turns out that after the community and schools came out and asked for the bus to run on Midway, AC Transit made the change and requested that the stops be put in. So far, so good. But it turns out that the City (Public Works in this case) refused because they had to be ADA compliant and therefore there was a cost associated with placing the new stop.
Did I miss the memo that the City Council had decided to disband the Transportation Commission last year? There hasn’t been a meeting since the special meeting in Mid-August, which wasn’t really a meeting either. And staff isn’t even bothering to list it on the City Calendar anymore.
To me, Measure B is a choice between moving forward to develop a very good, sustainable (environmentally and economically) vision for Alameda Point. The question before us is, will we (the city) be able to see this vision come to fruition, and after much research and thought, I’ve decided that yes, it does.
For folks who have been following the BART/Oakland Airport Connector saga–whereby a half-billion glorified ski-lift keeps receiving more and more regional transportation money even as it is repeatedly shown that BART project and executive staff are presenting incorrect information about the projects benefits and are remarkably unaware of how out of date their information is–Wednesday [...]
I wanted to talk about the conversation around the leases, especially with Darcy Morrison running around claiming that Alameda Point has generated $126 million in net income over 12 years. As proof, she points to David “Action Alameda” Howard’s “analysis” of the ARRA’s cash flow analysis (wonky terms, but stick with it for a second). That should have been her first tip off that she should check her math.
I really think that when the dust settles and the lawsuits begin (those filed by SunCal for breach of contract and not negotiating in good faith), last Tuesday’s meeting will be included in the list of places where City Staff stepped away from their legally required neutrality and fell head first into advocacy by presenting inaccurate (or more specifically, incomplete) information to the City Council, the School Board and the citizens of Alameda.
At that moment, City Manager Ann Marie Gallant summed up the difference as “the problem is the intent and the initiative language are two different things, and we opted to go with what the initiative language says.”
Two of the things I’m hoping will be discussed at tonight’s council meeting are Fiscal Neutrality and Public Benefits. A lot has been made of a supposed “$500 million dollar shortfall” despite the fact that it’s a made up number that doesn’t withstand the smell test.
A while back, I wrote about how the City posted a press release on their website in a manner that was incredibly inappropriate. And it’s fair to suggest that my characterization of the incident leaned towards it being a purposeful act on the part of the City (read: staff).
Alameda news and opinion
Mindfulness in the face of challenge.
