Tonight the Transportation Commission will be getting a first look at proposed street improvements around Encinal High School at the corner of the intersection of death, you know the intersection I’m referring to right? It’s on Central and is a funky convergence of four streets.
The improvements will remove two parking spaces and lay down a whole lot of paint so that cars racing through the area don’t feel inclined to run over pedestrians.
So this is just a first step, the City is considering on doing more public outreach to come up with a better permanent solution.
And in more pedestrian stuff, the issue of the safety of Otis between Mound and High Streets is also on the Transportation Commission agenda tonight as well. It appears that there have been a number of accidents in that area and the staff has recommended that the solution to reducing accidents is to remove pedestrian crossings. What they are proposing is to reduce the number of crosswalks in the area to concentrate and advocate that pedestrians use the Mound Street crossing and install a bunch of those flashing lights.
So, here’s the thing, while in theory removing crosswalks should work if we lived in a world where folks followed every single rule to the letter. But given that the shortest distance between two places is a straight line and no one likes to double back and there used to be a crosswalk where the City is removing it, I’m going to say that there will be a lot of jaywalking across that street until people “learn” that they are supposed to only cross where marked.
Edited to add: this graphic, because I realized that this discussion is missing photos:
The removal of marked crosswalks is a terrible safety measure and essentially the City throwing up its hands and saying “we aren’t going to do anything, but we’ll pretend we are.”
There are two problems with this. First, marked, or not, the crosswalks exist and pedestrians still have the same rights in either case. So in essence all the city is recommending be done is remove the visual cues that tell drivers to be alert.
Second, the issue here isn’t the pedestrians, yet the solution aims to reduce their options by tricking them into thinking that there are less options than there are. While Otis isn’t going to see a huge reduction in vehicle volumes, there’s nothing that says that they have to speed through a residential area without paying attention, which is what that street is designed for, and what these changes will reinforce.
The City Council defined the removal of a crosswalk as an environmental impact a while back as a part of it’s EIR analysis amendments. I wonder if that triggers the need for environmental review of this decision. Especially since it is the City’s direct intent to limit mobility options for people.
Comment by jkw — January 23, 2013 @ 7:35 am
There are a number of reasons why removing the crosswalk at Court Street makes sense, even though, yes, it will make some pedestrians have to walk a little further to get across.
First, it will concentrate pedestrians at one intersection (Mound and Otis), which will make it easier to for drivers to both anticipate where pedestrians will be crossing and actually see the pedestrians when they are there. (I.e., a group is easier to spot than an individual, especially on a street where there is a horrific amount of sun glare at 8:15 in the morning, which is when students are trying to cross this 4-way state road to get to Otis Elementary School).
Second, the city is recommending more than “removing visual cues” to alert drivers to potential pedestrians. They are also proposing installing very high visibility flashing lights at Mound and Otis to enhance the alerts. I’ve seen these lights in other towns and they show up even in glare, which not all lights do.
Third, Mound Street has a bus stop and Cal Trans tends to prefer enhancing crosswalks where there are bus stops (because they tend to have more pedestrians).
Fourth, the Court/Otis intersection includes an odd pull out for workers servicing a small utility station there. This also creates traffic confusion and blocks the views of pedestrians.
If you’re interested in learning more about this topic (a group of us in the neighborhood have been working on this for more than a year), I recommend reading the report submitted to the TC. You can see it here: http://www.cityofalamedaca.gov/City-Hall/Calendar-of-Events?id=1955&a=20130123.
Comment by Susan Davis — January 23, 2013 @ 8:22 am
I have to side with jkw on this one. Even though the crosswalks at Fountain and Court Sts. may be removed, they are still intersections and per CVC 21950(a), pedestrians still have right of way when crossing Otis. I say leave the crosswalk markings in place at Fountain and Court as they will give drivers some extra notice that pedestrians may be present. The lights at Mound St. are a fine idea; put them in.
Comment by John Busby — January 23, 2013 @ 9:19 am
Anyone who is familiar with the situation on Otis realizes knows those crosswalks being removed are death traps. The traffic on Otis barely stops for the light at High St., and routinely ignores the crosswalks oddly located only a short distance away at Fountain and next at Court. I invite everyone to try it for themselves. It won’t give you faith in humanity. Better yet, bring your kids and see what it’s like for us taking our kids back and forth from Otis school and Krusi park. If you had attended the public meeting you would have heard the horror stories from residents living on both sides of Otis. The proposal would make the crosswalk at Mound a real crosswalk with lights, far enough away from the Otis/High intersection to give drivers time to react. The City is responding to a real and urgent danger.
Comment by Zachary Davis — January 23, 2013 @ 9:38 am
Another vote for leaving the crosswalks alone. Since it will cost real money [$4000] to remove what wear & time will obliterate anyway, & pedestrians have the right of way regardless of markings, why spend the time & money? Crosswalks should only be removed if pedestrians will actually be prohibited [with signs/barriers] from crossing there [a la Central/Webster].
You folks complaining about “horror stories” & “death traps” should remember that that part of Otis Drive is California State Route 61. State Highways were never intended to be suitable for pedestrians to be crossing them at frequent intervals. State Highways are primarily for vehicle traffic. Not every street in Alameda can be held to the same standards as residential ones.
Comment by vigi — January 23, 2013 @ 10:43 am
So I guess that includes Central, Encinal and lower Broadway also.
Comment by frank — January 23, 2013 @ 11:46 am
The identification of Otis as a state hwy does not mean that this is a cars-only roadway. The road can provide access to all the cars that are there now, but our community can (and should) identify the street as a residential-ly focused street that serves as a conduit for thru-traffic as a secondary service. There’s a park, a school and a ton of homes on this road, why would our community want to cut all of that off from each other? Otis, like others, will always carry high vehicle traffic, but we can strive to ensure that it does safely and in a manner that respects residents and users of this area.
The discussion on this topic needs to focus around Otis and what it should be. There’s a concept called the Stroad (http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2013/1/9/do-stroads-cause-more-accidents.html), essentially a street creates value by providing access to land-use (residential, business, etc) and a road is connection between points whose role is to move traffice from point a to b. A stroad is a hybrid that does neither well. (stealing from Strong Towns, a futon is a bed and a couch that does neither well, a stroad is the futon of roadways).
Should Otis be a street or a road at this point? Personally, I think it’s a street. This doesn’t mean no cars, or make life difficult for drivers, but it does mean that it’s going to be designed to meet the needs of the neighborhood first, even if that means that traffic’s a little slower along that section. With that in mind, I’d like the city to more proactively look at designs that prioritize the neighborhood and provide true safety improvements to residents (esp. children and seniors) living nearby.
I agree with Zachary that there is a real and present danger, I’m just more than a little dubious that what is proposed will add significantly to solving it.
The City has done a lot of outreach and the neighborhood apparently supports these improvements. Given there’s been an outreach process and the small budget for the proposals implementation, it probably makes sense for it to move forward, but I think it’s likely we’ll be back here continuing the conversation before too long.
Comment by jkw — January 23, 2013 @ 11:46 am
Otis is a nightmare to cross at these locations with minimal consideration by motorists of pedestrians. It is wide and scary to step out because maybe, just maybe, one person will stop but others will zip around that car totally oblivious to pedestrians. Many people cross with children and, in my mind, a few extra steps to High or Mound gives me peace of mind. Motorists are focused on two things depending on which way they are traveling: Southshore shopping or getting out of town! When traffic happens to be quiet, yes, people will still cross mid-block but overall I think that this redesign with visible flashing lights, in the long run, is a greater safety.
Comment by Audrey Lord-Hausman — January 23, 2013 @ 11:58 am
I live at the corner of Otis and Mound on the South side of Otis Drive and have for the last 15 years. I have a 4th grader at Frank Otis Elementary School which means that we have to cross at that intersection twice a day at a minumum every day during the school year . He’s 10-years old and I still will not let him cross the street by himself because of all the close calls I have witnessed and been a part of. Any change to make this crossing safer (including removing other cross walks) will be an improvement over the current situation.
The city has put a lot of time and effort into working with the community to come up with a solution that will be both safer and cost effective and to see the opposition on this blog to improvements to our street and the increased safety that these improvements will provide is slightly disturbing.
The idea that I am to be told that I should not cross my street at “frequent intervals” because it is not intended to be is unreasonable. Until they put an elementary school on the South side of Otis drive in my district, I believe it is not only reasonable, but assumed that adults and children alike will be crossing it at incredibly “frequent intervals” and, because of that, the city should do whatever it can to make it safer.
The further statement that this part of Otis Drive, because it is a State Route, is not residential is further distressing. There is not a single business (commercial or retail) on Otis Drive for the entire length of it that is State Route 61, so it is not only a residential street, it is entirely a residential street. Complete with homes, a park and a playground where kids like to play. There is also an adjacent school. All of this requires crossing this residential streeet at frequent intervals.
I applaud the city for taking the steps to work with the community to come with this viable solution to making Otis Drive safer to cross.
Comment by cps — January 23, 2013 @ 12:37 pm
There are two things that attracted my attention in the PowerPoint charts: (1) the 85% percentile of speed on Otis is 33 mph, and (2) twelve of thirteen accidents did not involve a pedestrian. That strongly suggests that the primary safety concern on Otis should be a matter of vehicles and their speeds.
I didn’t know what the speed limit was on Otis, so I drove the street and learned that it is well-signed for 25 mph. You can play with the numbers any way you want, but here’s one way: one out of seven cars on Otis is exceeding the speed limit by at least one-third. Kind of makes me wonder if anyone is driving at or below the limit.
So increased enforcement looks like a good thing to me, as long as we’re not playing enforcement Whack-A-Mole and letting things get out of hand somewhere else in the city.
But, I noticed something else while driving. Fountain Street is a small cul-de-sac that exists only on the south side of the street. When westbound on Otis from High Street, the Fountain St. crosswalk comes up suddenly, and the only visual cue is the yellow paint in the road. There are no visual cues on the right (north) side of the road to the presence of a crosswalk. And, when I went by, it was obscured a car parked right up to the edge of the crosswalk.
By the time I got to Court Street, I was expecting something similar, so it wasn’t a surprise. But I could see how removing the crosswalks, and *strongly* encouraging people to cross at either High Street or Mound Street would be a safer situation for pedestrians.
Comment by Tom Schweich — January 23, 2013 @ 2:19 pm
I like more of the flashing crosswalk lights. I would also like to see flashing amber lights on each side of the road to alert for pedestrians.
In other pedestrian safety issues, is there any news on a reconfiguration of Lincoln, Park and Tilden for pedestrian safety? Someone told me about a proposed solution and I would like to find out more.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — January 23, 2013 @ 6:40 pm
I cross Park Street at Webb a couple of times a week. It is a flashing lights in the street crosswalk. It is anything but safe, especially from at least 6 am to 8 am. Most sleepy people don’t even see the lights, let alone stop. I try to wear white when it is dark, wave my arms, etc. and still there are some who just drive on through. Part of the problem is the lights continue to flash after the crosswalk is cleared. I’ve seen motion sensitive ones elsewhere that stop as soon as people get to the other side. I think having a street light, like the one at Alameda Ave, would be safer. The best I’ve seen had both. Was great in the fog.
Comment by Li_ — January 23, 2013 @ 10:41 pm
Kevis, there was a meeting about that intersection, issues adn possible solutions were tossed out (it was open ended, not a presentation of a proposal). Staff is taking the feedback and will put together a proposal for comment which will likely go to the TC.
lights seem to work when they are new, but once people get used to them, there efficacy likely drops. This is something that needs to be looked at in more detail over time. Same is true for flashing speed signs etc.
Flashing lights are a popular tool because they don’t require anyone to be inconvenienced or change their behavior in a meaningful way. I personally worry that it’s a cost that has declining benefits and that our continued reliance on them is leading us to increased ongoing maintenance costs with little lasting benefit (I will be interested to see the neighbors reaction to the beacons once they are installed (and if they are used at night). There’s one in Berkeley at College at the campus and at night, the light reflects off signs and buildings for blocks (it looks like a police car has parked at the intersection with its lights on by way of comparison).
As we install new technologies, we should also do our due diligence on their ongoing efficacy. One way to see if they are working is to see if there’s an increase in pedestrians in this area. Since the pedestrian collisions are low, a lack of collisions will not be a meaningful measure. But if people feel safer crossing, then more people will start doing so.
Comment by jkw — January 24, 2013 @ 10:45 am
I support taking the crosswalk out if the one at Mound is improved.
I walk my dog across Otis at Court at least once a day. In the early morning and late evening, it is easy to cross there. During the day, especially during morning and evening rush hours, I find I often need to wait as long as 5 minutes to cross safely there.
During the day, if the lights at the Mound crosswalk stop the traffic, I won’t lose any time and I’ll get more exercise in once I get used to ALWAYS (I sometimes do now) use the crosswalk at Mound. Early in the morning or late in the evening when I tend to be in a hurry, I can still cross safely at Court without a marked cross walk. The absence of a marked crosswalk here will make it easier for parents to instruct their children to CROSS ONLY AT THE MARKED CROSS WALKS. Children’s safety is a compelling reason to take out the crosswalk at Court.
Comment by William Smith — January 24, 2013 @ 8:54 pm
Streets–and state highways–are for people, not just cars. The causes of pedestrian endangerment
in Alameda are:
1 ) too many cars going too fast,
2) too many drivers not paying attention, and
3) too many drivers not obeying the law. (California law–CVC sec. 21950–says that you “shall” (must) yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk, painted or not. Period. Read it for yourself here: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21950.htm.)
“21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection….his or her safety…
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.
(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
Amended Sec. 8, Ch. 833, Stats. 2000. Effective January 1, 2001.”
The removal of crosswalks is a form of “blaming the victim for the crime.”
And blaming the victim is a backassward way to make public policy.
The City of Alameda needs to take measures–with Caltrans, in the case of State Route 61–to slow down auto traffic and
ensure that local residents can safely reach their destinations whether on foot, on a bike, on a bus, or in a car.
Comment by Jon Spangler — January 25, 2013 @ 11:02 am
#15: You forgot:
too many pedestrians not looking both ways before/while they cross the street,
too many pedestrians wearing dark/non-reflective clothing at night so they cannot be seen against the asphalt.
And don’t gas taxes pay for our highways? How do cyclists contribute? http://www.caltax.org/research/calrank.html
Sometimes it’s hard to believe you’re a Californian, Jon.
Comment by vigi — January 25, 2013 @ 12:51 pm
#16 — Parents walking children to school look both ways over and over and over again before and while crossing Otis. Believe me, we are cautious/responsible pedestrians. But I have witnessed more close calls at this intersection than I can count.
#15 — I don’t think the city is trying to “punish the victims” by taking out the Court Street crosswalk. The city is responding to a clear request from residents in the neighborhood who are willing to walk a little further to cross safely. I appreciate the work of Public Works staff on this one — we have been meeting with them for more than a year and we discussed the pro’s and con’s of quite a few options.
#14 — I agree entirely with your comment that this will reinforce the lesson that kids should only cross at marked intersections.
The Traffic Commission approved the proposal 4-0 on Tuesday night.
Comment by Susan Davis — January 25, 2013 @ 1:22 pm