Planning Board meeting tonight, first one of the year and it’s a doozy of one. Smaller, but still an item of interest is the cross Stargell crosswalk at Webster street which will (hopefully) keep pedestrians from darting across Stargell to access the remnant lot (aka the In N Out parcel). Given that you can’t pull up a web page without reading about some pedestrian getting plowed down by a car these days, hopefully this crosswalk will help pedestrians not get hurt while crossing the street.
I guess I should add that if you are still interested in killing the In N Out project this really would be your last chance if you can somehow muster up enough votes on the Planning Board to vote against it since the approval of the In N Out (and other businesses) in the remnant parcel is contingent on getting this crosswalk approved.
The big item on this agenda will be the vote to recommend to the City Council that they adopt the EIR for Alameda Point. For those interested in going the City of Oakland route and insisting that Alameda solve a problem that Oakland has deemed completely unsolvable you may be interested in coming up with rebuttals to these arguments which Alameda has already offered in response to Oakland’s traffic contentions.
Or maybe you want to go the Oakland sea wall route where the concern from the City of Oakland is that if Alameda builds a sea wall to protect against sea level rise that the wall might then flood Oakland:
Or you can just run up, yell “omgtraffic” really loudly into the mike and leave. I’m sure any these options will be acceptable.
I’ll just point out for people really worried about all those homes and all those people in those homes making traffic that you have to sit in, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I’m pretty sure the current City Administration is not that keen on building houses either — as evidenced by the lack of pushing on the housing cap from the Navy — and the majority of the closed session discussion on Alameda Point have been with development companies to build a lot of non-residential type things, like shopping malls, and outlet malls, you know that sort of thing. The other company is looking to possibly bring pet food operations? development? production? something like that. Not houses either.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
Is the suggestion that people with traffic concerns about Alameda Point just limit their public comments to “omgtraffic” inspired by something a Chris Christie staffer might have suggested to people in Ft. Lee, New Jersey upset about the lane closures there?
Comment by Comment on EIR — January 13, 2014 @ 6:28 am
Or perhaps those people with traffic concerns that dismiss traffic counts, modeling, and conclusions based on those practices because they “feel” like traffic will be worse are more like climate change deniers who dismiss decades of scientific research because of super cold weather.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 13, 2014 @ 7:32 am
The folks running the mortgage industry and a big part of the financial industry also used “counts, modeling and conclusions based on practices” as well as “decades of research.” That didn’t turn out too well in 2008. Some of us see a lot of uncertainty and risk and negatives for all of us that would be associated with the traffic impacts that may come if thousands more residents come to west Alameda when there is still only one tube each way in and out. Others seems certain this will all work out well and seem annoyed when we say we fear it might not. Since the political momentum behind this project seems unstoppable let’s hope the particular traffic experts Alameda’s leaders are relying on are correct.
Comment by Comment on EIR — January 13, 2014 @ 8:12 am
Don’t worry. Surely now that Don Perata is no longer tied up with being one of the most powerful political figures in Sacramento where he had no time to improve the Oakland Chinatown traffic situation with state dollars, he can devote himself to working his new consulting gig on behalf our city manager who was powerless to institute any changes while serving in Oakland public office. If nothing else comes of it, at least Mr. Perata will have purpose to his new life as a consultant – sensitive negotiations with important stakeholders, roundtable discussions, visioning sessions, breakfast meetings with Caltrans officials and Chinatown residents, just like old times.
Comment by Richard Bangert — January 13, 2014 @ 10:32 am
Excellent! Strawmen, red herrings and leftist catechism all mulling around a crosswalk.
This place is so entertaining!
Comment by lavage1o — January 13, 2014 @ 11:38 am
Perhaps, if the tube traffic gets too bad, some of the east end denizens will consider an alternative to goosing their Belchfire V-8 through the tube several times a day. Or, heaven forbid, our little city can plan (that socialist word!) neighborhoods with sufficient services so that it will not be necessary to take the Belchfire out of the barn just to buy a can of vienna sausages.
Comment by Tom Schweich — January 13, 2014 @ 2:17 pm
#6 Tom I live on the East End and I think in 34 years I have driven through the Tube less than 20 times total. It is a lot of work to get to the West End. I’ve gone through on AC Transit more than I have driven. Really if you are in China Town and want to come back to Park St area it is easier to drive along Embarcadero till you hit the Bridge.
Comment by frank — January 13, 2014 @ 3:46 pm
From Paul Vigness’ 1952 Alameda Community Book: “In 1871, the State Legislature enacted a bill authorizing the city of Oakland & the Township of Alameda to build a drawbridge & roadway from the foot of Webster Street to the land on the Alameda side of San Antonio Creek…
“This unfortunate structure”, laments the ENCINAL [8 Sep 1877], “has given rise to more acrimonious feeling between the people of Oakland & Alameda than all the public structures in the county put together”.. Even though the Posey Tube replaced the drawbridge in 1928, so the “lively contest between the two towns” continues today. It’s a Tradition, which I do not think will end until we all drive Flying Cars.
Comment by vigi — January 13, 2014 @ 6:13 pm
8. Vigi that is great. I hate to break with Tradition, but it might be in everybody’s best interest if we didn’t perpetuate the acrimony.
5. “leftist catechism”? WTF?
Comment by MI — January 13, 2014 @ 6:55 pm
After returning home from the above referenced PB meeting [before it was over], I discovered it wasn’t playing on Comcast Ch. 15. Was it televised at all?
Comment by vigi — January 14, 2014 @ 11:39 am