From: Mitch B
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Written Copy of Comment for 7B of 9/15/26 City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 10:51:19 AM
Attachments: tofrom.heic
Hello,
I will be making a public comment on item 7B for the 9/15/26 City Council Meeting and wanted to share a written copy with linked citations.
Hi, so first I’d like to explain my outfit. This sign and this hat are what I wore when collecting signatures for the ballot initiative to save AC Transit and fund public transit across the bay.
Out of the 186,000 signatures required to collect, we collected over 300,000, 77,000 of which were collected by volunteers such as myself
(https://www.seamlessbayarea.org/blog/2026/5/30/campaign-to-save-bay-area-public-transit- smashes-signature-gathering-goal-fueled-by-grassroots-transit-rider-organizing). The signature collection was so successful that we were asked to stop early so I am very hopeful that we will pass this ballot initiative. While I think it should be quite clear to you and our representatives from AC Transit that I certainly don’t want us to have to follow through with the contingency plan, there is one part of it that I think should be implemented regardless, and that is eliminating line 19 to free up resources elsewhere.
AC Transit needs to increase its ridership, not only because it improves funding but also because it means that it is providing more service to the community. While AC Transit gets reliable ridership from people who don’t own cars like myself, new ridership can only come from people who have cars as an option. This new ridership can be obtained by competing to provide better service than cars which AC Transit already does with many of its lines. Public transit routes that circumvent traffic congestion by rail or bus lane, offer more direct travel by water, or save time that could be wasted searching for parking in a high density area provide a value proposition for potential riders to leave their cars behind. The transit services that provide this to Alamedans are BART, any bus that uses the Webster bus lane, the bay ferries, and anything that connects you to downtown Oakland, downtown San Francisco, or our two commercial districts, Webster and Park St. However, whenever buses come infrequently, lack transfers to other transit services like the bay ferries, or travel along long circuitous routes, this time saved is lost and the ridership is lost as well. Long circuitous routes are also doubly bad because they take up more resources to bring riders the same distance.
So why eliminate line 19? Line 19 uniquely has less than half the passengers per bus service hour of the next lowest used route in Alameda because it’s infrequent and very windy and indirect, especially near the Point (https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx? ID=8057777&GUID=B3F585E5-A8C3-473E-B618-FA3C981AFF4A&Options=&Search=).
It doesn’t compete with cars but even more importantly, it doesn’t even compete with other buses. Its entire length along Buena Vista is only 3 blocks away from Alameda’s most used bus route, the 51A. My workplace sits at a line 19 stop but my coworkers avoid it to wait for the 96 or walk to a different bus stop. Instead, I would like to suggest that in place of line 19, line 30 gets extended from Webster along Lincoln to the Point where it can offer connections to both the Seaplane and Main St ferry terminals, and then cover Alameda Landing and Marina Village before heading into the tube. This would additionally allow line 96 to become more direct by getting rid of the needless loop around Alameda Landing and use Ralph Appezzato rather than Lincoln to get to the Point more directly. This of course, is only a suggestion, but any change that makes bus routes more frequent and direct, including eliminating seldom used lines, is something AC Transit should be pursuing to improve service and recover additional revenue.
In summary:
“Untangle Alameda Point”
Thank you,
-Mitch Ball