So after the huge outcry over the street classification system update and the contention that this was all a huge ruse in order to start running buses down Grand Street, the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is finally making its way to the City Council tonight. It should be a rather interesting meeting tonight since I understand that the Mayor is out of town and so our newly seated Vice Mayor will be taking on the mayoral duties. It will be one-night view into what Alameda would have been like had the Slate pulled off an upset three years ago, but I digress.
Everything appears to be on the up and up and then you find that staff, using the Planning Board as protective cover, has hijacked one key issue about street widening (not to be confused with lane widening). Here’s the cliff notes version.
The Transportation Commission included language that said that street widening (aka adding more lanes) would not be allowed under the TMP if the sole reason was to add capacity for cars. Apparently staff (using the term very generally because I imagine that it is some staff and not all City staff) didn’t like that because they wanted to reserve the option to expand some streets, I think Stargell (aka Tinker) was probably at the forefront of their minds, but other streets could include 8th, High and Fernside. Of course when you think about these three streets the first question to ask is, how the heck would they do that, there are houses in the way! Well, staff has determined that removing parking (p.4) would be the solution if “traffic capacity enhancements” are necessary.
So after many many hours of discussion and work on the part of the Transportation Commission to help devise policy in order to mitigate future transportation and congestion issues staff, in their infinite wisdom, decided that they would amend the language of this section in such a way to practically render the section toothless. What is the point of policy if you can amend it to the point where it no longer exists as a policy and is just meaningless words on a page. The point of the section was to state, definitively, that no street widening will happen for the sole purpose of making more room for cars. Period. At this point, adding “flexibility for future decision makers” in this case, staff should have just taken out the whole section to better suit their purposes.
Thank you for presenting the issue in a vastly clearer way than JKW could. I do give you that, you know.
Isn’t the best way to avoid congestion to divert traffic to other streets? I know it’s not popular with most people who live on to-be-designated “local” streets but it’s fair and makes sense. On the east end, High, Fernside and Encinal and Central do not have to be the only thoroughfares. Gibbons, Santa Clara, Lincoln, all can take a share of the load. I use these streets myself often. To allow this to happen we need to make sure we don’t mark up arterials with striping differently from non-arterials. I don’t know why High needs a centerline, for example, when Central does perfectly without it. The centerline presents it as a thoroughfare and invites faster speeds. We don’t have speed limit distinctions, then why the different striping? I need to hear a good explanation for this.
We also need to stop making changes in lanes that would facilitate traffic down some streets exclusively. I’m still waiting for someone to address the issue of the exclusive right turn lane from Otis onto Broadway. It causes an uninterrupted flow onto Broadway that used to be intermittent, with breaks for other crosstraffic to get on Broadway when the lane was marked for both forward and right. I’m afraid this uninterrupted flow was the desired effect of that change but I disagree with it strongly. I think the lane needs to go back to what it was, when the flow “self regulated” with cars picking alternative directions from that lane. This would solve the long waits for onto Broadway from the Local cross streets.
Also on the east end, it’s about time to open the cul-de-sacs that come against Fernside and Otis. I believe they are Calhoun, Washington, Peach. (I have to go look.) This will alleviate the Otis and Fernside “speed ramps” from Harbor bay bridge. This will be a hard sell, I know it, but I see it as the best way to restore the grid. Don’t we like the grid? Then lets do that before complicating things further.
I think staff is working withing the constraints of the new street designations. If the designations are abandoned, other solutions can be used, such as the suggestions above. Again, what is the reason for the designations?
Comment by AD — January 20, 2009 @ 10:53 am
AD: The subject of the street classification system has come up once before and while I know it is easy to be suspcious of changes such like this, I don’t think that it’s a huge leap from the current classifications that exist.
Right now all streets are designated as either “major” or “minor.” Which may work for keys but I think do a disservice for street designations. If nothing were to change regarding the street classification system, the issue mentioned above would impact — working within the constraints of the old street designations — all streets designated as “major.” Which are a lot.
I believe the designations help clarify what is the intended use of a particular road. While ideally all roads should be built equally, they are not. Otis is not the same as Minturn. Grand is not the same as Weber. Some streets can handle truck traffic some are better for neighborhood traffic.
Center line striping is, of course, an issue of safety. I don’t think it is indicative of whether a street is supposed to be viewed as a faster or slower street.
Also Central has center line striping when you get to the “busier” part of Central past Broadway heading west.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 20, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
“Center line striping is, of course, an issue of safety.”
PERCEIVED safety. And when people FEEL safe, they drive faster. But of course, there’s nothing in a line to prevent an accident. So then you have increased DANGER due to higher speed. And of course, the more lines you have painted the busier a street LOOKS, so it’s a chicken and egg sometimes whether a street needs striping because it’s busy or it gets “busy” because of the striping (look and increased speed combined).
I did not invent this argument. It’s part of the shared space/naked streets concept which I have brought up several times before. Which I believe is more applicable to Alameda than tightly classifying streets by function. Because of the residential nature of 90% of our streets and the uniform speed limit, the tendency should be towards LESS regimentation of usege, not more.
Comment by AD — January 20, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
AD: I think the issue of shared spaces/naked streets is a secondary issue in light of the TMP. Nothing in the TMP prevents visiting the issue of shared spaces in the future. While I think shared spaces is an interesting concept and one that has worked successfully in many cities, I don’t think it is a solution to be applied Island-wide nor is it a solution to deal with congestion issues.
From my limited knowledge about shared spaces they are not applied city-wide, but rather in certain areas designated to be shared spaces. It would appear that shared spaces tend to be placed in city centers, in Alameda’s case I would imagine that the are around Park and Central would probably be a good candidate.
Additionally, there have been criticisms by advocacy groups for the blind and disabled that some of the tools used for shared spaces make it dangerous for folks who rely on these standardized cues to get around safely, but I think those criticisms have mostly been in Europe and not critiques of US versions of shared spaces.
And, shared space is not just about taking down signs and removing street striping, according to this article from Urbanite Magazine:
Comment by Lauren Do — January 20, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
Street widening
http://tinyurl.com/7wpxk4
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — January 20, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
It looks like staff expects a large increase in traffic in Alameda. They wouldn’t be asking for road widening if they didn’t believe that it would probably be necessary. Staff runs the city, so they know what’s up.
I doubt if they will start grabbing front lawns, but removing parking makes a neighborhood less desirable. Not just because parking is reduced, but because parking acts as a sound buffer as well as a buffer for people sitting on their front porches, working in their yards and walking down the street. In building new neighborhoods, the city will destroy older ones.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — January 20, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
#6
Duh
No kidding?
Comment by AllTogetherNow_123 — January 20, 2009 @ 8:39 pm