Blogging Bayport Alameda

September 7, 2016

When the daylighting comes

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:07 am

Yesterday I mentioned an intersection that was supposed to get some much needed visibility improvements aka “daylighting” but the improvements were quashed because of concerns over the loss of parking spaces.

The intersection?  Clinton at Park.

The collision? Kid on bike vs car.

The outcome? Kid is apparently okay according to parent.

The original January 26, 2016 proposal was designed to increase red curbing to add visibility at the corner.

By February 25, 2016, those red curbs had been severely limited.  Check out the strikethroughs:


By the crosswalk 11 feet of red curb was reduced to a measly 5 feet.

Let me know when the City of Alameda actually takes pedestrian and bicycle safety more seriously than preserving on street car storage.



  1. That 14 year old girl got very lucky last week. Almost as lucky as the City’s coffers. This would be exhibit A in the wrongful death suit against the City.
    Even if you are the type of City Council Member that does not prioritize the safety of kids going to school over storage of private property on public land, you are probably the kind that calls themselves fiscally conservative. But that might only apply when it comes to paying for the health benefits of the people you send into burning buildings.

    Comment by BMac — September 7, 2016 @ 7:52 am

  2. Is there a crossing guard typically stationed at that intersection? If not, perhaps it’s a good candidate for that. Lincoln & Broadway is another place that could use one, I’m sure there are many others throughout town.

    Glad the kid is OK.

    Comment by dave — September 7, 2016 @ 8:01 am

    • As far as I know, children live on every single block in Alameda, so every single intersection needs to be safe. Not just a few chosen for cross the guards.

      Comment by alamedawestendxing — September 8, 2016 @ 9:11 am

  3. Grand Street needs police monitoring in the morning. The speeds of vehicles on Grand Street are far too high. The cars speed by Wood School as though the drivers have no idea that there is a school there. Cars that run through the Stop Sign on Grand Street and Shoreline is incredible. Death for someone is simply a matter of time there.

    Comment by Bill2 — September 7, 2016 @ 8:22 am

    • It *seems* to my eyes that speeding has gotten much worse around town the last couple of years. It also *seems* that there are fewer speed traps & other enforcement methods.

      Do my eyes deceive or is that true? And if it is, why?

      Comment by dave — September 7, 2016 @ 8:30 am

      • People rocket down Lincoln Ave 50+ MPH every day, mostly in the afternoon around 5-6 PM. We’ve had, for a while, at least two Motorcycle cops in the morning who had a pretty good fund raiser until they move on. I overheard a lady (pedestrian) talking to one of the MCs and asked him what the speed limit was. Twenty five he said but we don’t ticket them until we radar them at or above 37 MPH. So the speed limit is not a limit at all, just a recommendation.

        Comment by jack — September 7, 2016 @ 9:37 am

  4. dave, the intersection of Oak and Clinton does not warrant a crossing guard.

    The above text is completely confusing and I’m not certain what it means. Oak street is the official bike lane, though it isn’t marked. Cyclists seem to know about the pedestrian link at Otis because it gets high usage. Oak is very narrow, especially in the block between Clinton and San Jose. Visibility is terrible due to parked cars and this has resulted in at least one bad car accident in the last couple years. People exceed the speed limit regularly, especially coming north bound off Park onto Clinton. I was not in a state to come to chambers last night and won’t be indefinitely. We’re at the far end of the block and I’m not aware of notification. South bound on Oak visibility would be improved by removing a parking space at the northwest corner, but just barely. The bad one is the south west corner for northbound on Oak trying to cross Clinton, while avoiding getting hit by east bound on Clinton. With the large SUV with tinted windows which is often parked there one has to put the entire front end of one’s car in the lane before one can see anything. It’s dicey to hang back and look for signs of movement through the windows of all the other parked cars. I hate heavily tinted windows… there ought to be a law, or enforcement of existing law.

    Comment by MI — September 7, 2016 @ 9:12 am

  5. From tinting-laws,com:

    Window tint darkness in California
    The percent of visible light allowed through your car windows is called VLT: Visible Light Transmission.

    Windshield: Non-reflective tint is allowed on the top 4 inches of the windshield.
    Front Side windows: Must allow more than 70% of light in.
    Back Side windows: Any darkness can be used.
    Rear Window: Any darkness can be used.

    Good article about how it is enforced:

    Comment by Denise Shelton — September 7, 2016 @ 10:13 am

  6. Was looking for one of my previous posts about my bike’s kiss with a car in Alameda and found this post which is more relevant.

    I remember meeting with the City Manager about this post, on Good Friday, so he could tell me about the slander litigation I faced and how he was a deacon in his church.

    March 1999

    Practicing for the War on the Poor
    Urban Warriors Attack West End Again

    Alameda City Manager Jim Flint has likened his West End gentrification plan to a Tsunami which will dislocate blue collar workers and repeople the area with affluent professionals. Flint has invited the “gansta’s of capitalism” to the West End to prepare for the US Marine Corp’s future role in fighting domestic battles on behalf of the rich against the poor. On March 15, 6,000 marines will wash over a toxic waste site at the Alameda Point Naval Air Station in an urban warfare exercise. Military strategist believe this training is necessary to support unsustainable economic policies, such as those promoted locally by Flint.

    “The future urban center will contain a mixed population, ranging from the rich elite to the poor and disenfranchised,” writes Major General Scales in Armed Forces Journal. “Day-to-day existence for most of the urban poor will be balanced tenuously on the edge collapse. Moreover, the proximity of the disenfranchised to the ruling elite provides the spark for further unrest and sporadic violence.”

    Flint has no authority to approve a military training exercise on Alameda Point. In September 1997 in response to community outrage over a similar military training exercise conducted at Alameda Point by Special Forces from Fort Bragg, defense regulations were developed requiring the approval of the base reuse authority before any civilian or military training could be conducted at a closed base.

    In 1997, the City Manager’s office was briefed about the training exercise and approved it. In other words, the regulation was developed to ensure that the decision maker in future military training exercises was someone other than the City Manager of Alameda. The reuse authority for Alameda Point never agendized or voted to approve the Urban Warrior exercise. Such a vote would require compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

    What next Flint? Martial Law?

    Comment by Gerard L. — September 7, 2016 @ 4:40 pm

  7. Shout out to the VIP who passed me on the right on Friday by using the bus loading zone as we were both making a left onto Central from 8th St. If I hadn’t noticed you and slammed on the breaks to let you cut back into the lane that you should have been in all along, your choices would have been to rear end the car parked at the curb or to side swipe me. Next time, just Tweet that you’re going somewhere really important and we’ll pull aside.

    Comment by MP — September 7, 2016 @ 9:13 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at