Do these crosswalks make my lanes look big?

The alternate title for this post was: “Beating around the bus” 

I’m a little bit disappointed in the City Council’s decision to not make a decision on the bus stop issue on Otis.   A case where the squeaky wheel got the appropriate amount of grease it needed to make it happy…for now.  The decision was basically to shunt it back to the Transportation Commission and a few options are on the table to (a) see if there is a possible third location and (b) if the bus can be re-routed to run on Shoreline instead of Otis.  There were some more, but I’m trying to do this from memory and sometimes it fails me.   Both the Alameda Journal and Alameda Sun report on the issue.

But I think some of the council people, while trying to be sensitive to the concerns of the community, both the neighbors and the Lum Elementary families, understood that the process of moving a “Transit First” policy is a difficult one.  And that even though some speakers suggested that since no one has asked for the bus stop, it is not needed, that is not necessarily the way that the city can move forward our “Transit First” policy.  I believe it was Councilmember Gilmore who pointed out as an example that Alameda Landing is expected to have transit options in place prior to the first resident moving in and that the process of placing bus stops is not request driven. 

With one of the main concerns of Alamedans being traffic the least we could be doing is promoting bus usage by putting buses so that people who are already walking to the bus, don’t need to trek out thousands of yards further because people don’t want to relinquish on-street parking spaces.  It’s much easier to conside taking the bus if it is made convenient, and by convenient, I don’t mean a bus stop right in front of both your pick up and drop off location, because bus riders are generally okay with walking a bit to catch the bus.  Remember that bus riders have to both walk to the bus stop to catch it and more than likely walk to their destination once they get off the bus.  If both those combined distances start becoming a hardship, they are less likely to take the bus.  Also regardless of whether taking the bus is a choice or a necessity, we should consider what is in the best interest of these citizens that have done their part to take one less car off the road.  

The most practical solution I heard all night was from Jon Spangler, who suggested that stretch of Otis be put on a “road diet.”  The wide wide streets on that stretch of Otis promote speeding, if perhaps the roadway was given a little bit of an overhaul, vehicles would actually adhere to the posted speed limit of 25 mph.   From Wikipedia:

A typical road diet technique is to reduce the number of lanes on a roadway cross-section. One of the most common applications of a road diet is to convert a 4-lane section, with two travel lanes in each direction, into a 3-lane section with one travel lane in each direction and a two-way turn lane in the middle. The two-way turn lane can be transitioned into dedicated left turn lanes at intersections. The additional space that is freed up by removing a vehicular lane can be converted into two bike lanes on either side of the roadway.

If it really is a safety issue, then let’s try to solve the problem at its root: the speeding cars.   Why is there a speeding problem on this stretch of Otis and not the stretch east of Park?  Because the wide lanes and openness of the road urge you to tap on the gas just a little bit harder.  I know I have been lured by the siren call of the open road to push the car just a little faster, but then I just settle into “hybrid foot” mode at that easy 25 mph and try to bump up my gas consumption numbers.   So, who is with me on putting this part of Otis on a “road diet” and making it safer for pedestrians and bicycles? 

Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?   Bueller?