Calm It On Down
On Wednesday, August 6th, the city of Alameda will be holding a meeting to discuss changes on Fernside that may result in additional traffic on Sterling, Central, Liberty, Garfield, and Thompson.
Over the past couple of months, the city has held discussions with residents on Fernside Blvd. regarding proposed changes to their street as part of the Fernside Traffic-Calming Project.
Calming traffic on Fernside is a much-needed and worthwhile project. However, the proposals heavily favored by Fernside residents at these two meetings—for a center turn lane to be installed the length of Fernside (like on Broadway)—will not only lead to continued or increased traffic speeds on Fernside, but also a greater incidence of cut-through traffic on streets between Fernside and High. Nobody wins.
City staff has created alternative proposals that include islands (painted or raised, and possibly even planted) in the middle of Fernside, which would slow traffic AND minimize the cut-through traffic on cross-streets.
At the meeting this Wednesday, all proposals will be presented and residents will be given the opportunity to give their input in order to find a consensus plan to move forward with.
As this is the third meeting regarding this issue, it is important that residents with concerns about cut-through traffic attend the August 6th meeting at the Edison Elementary Multipurpose Room at 6:30 pm and speak up about their ideas for this project and how it should, or shouldn’t, impact their own neighborhood.
Edmundo Delmundo
August 5th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Not that I’m against center left-hand turn lanes per se, but what will one do to calm traffic on any street? And why would it have an impact on cut-through traffic?
You can already peel off of Fernside onto Sterling, etc even without a turn lane. Wouldn’t a center left lane make it a bit safer since cars tend to weave around into the bike lane when you go left now?
There is a center left-hand turn lane on Fernside between High St and Tilden. Cars continue to bomb down that stretch of the street and the cut-through traffic is primarily local traffic cutting through to its houses.
Does traffic calming really work? Have there been any analyses done on earlier traffic calming investments?
Jill
August 5th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
I have to echo Edmundo’s comment regarding the center left-hand turn lane on Fernside between high and Tilden. I’m not sure why anyone would think that would slow traffic down, and this particular stretch of Fernside proves that the opposite may be true.
Also, those center lanes are inherently dangerous because people turning left from opposite directions are using the same lane. That’s a head-on collision waiting to happen. Imagine how that would work at the point where Fernside curves and visibility is poor.
I was wondering how a median planting bed would help slow down traffic, but then I realized it would result in narrower paved sections of the street. For some reason, people do tend to drive more slowly when the streets are narrow than when they perceive there is a wide boulevard at their disposal (I don’t have data to prove that, just my own observation). Also, of course, planted medians have the added benefit of looking nice. So that sounds like the best solution to me.
By the way, stop signs should never be used merely to slow traffic down, because they result in the needless acceleration required to bring 2 tons of steel (our cars) from a state of rest back up to speed. Think of the gas that sucks up. If they’re needed for safety, that’s a different matter - but just to slow traffic down? No.
Lisa S.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Well, as a Fernside resident nestled snugly between Central and Sterling streets, anything that boosts traffic down either of those is not a welcome development as far as I’m concerned. And honestly, inserting a turn lane anywhere on the stretch between Encinal and, say, High, would be nightmarish.
Thanks for the heads-up on the meeting. I’m definitely heading over tomorrow to make sure my voice is behind the planted medians.
dave
August 6th, 2008 at 5:43 am
I have a hard time seeing why a turn lane would add traffic to the side streets (though I agree that more traffic on Streling would be a negative). Is there data or explanation for why this would hapen? It doesn’t seem intuitive to me.
John Knox White
August 6th, 2008 at 9:06 am
To the “cut through” issue. There are stop signs at both Central and Garfield which during the morning commute back up traffic. Some industrious/impatient drivers decide to use Sterling, Central, Liberty and Garfield (mostly Sterling and Liberty) to avoid the back up at the stop signs and to cut up to high street (where they then sit in traffic.
The proposed center turn lane becomes a way to pull into the lane and by-pass the traffic at the stop signs and turn left at the block with the stop sign, or the block before.
The reason it doesn’t result in cut-through on Fernside West of High street is that A) there are no stop signs, so you would actually be slowing yourself down, and even more importantly, the side streets don’t connect easily into a parallel route (the parallel routes have a ton of stop signs).
With both High and Fernside being Major/Arterial roads and being a single block apart, there is more incentive to try and avoid the stop signs.
Personally, I’d support removing the stop signs and putting in round-abouts in their place to slow traffic, but not stop it. But that’s a whole other story.
Jack B.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
John, I have a question about round-abouts… how do they work pertaining to pedestrians? Where do they cross?
John Knox White
August 7th, 2008 at 9:09 am
It really depends on how big the roundabouts are. On small residential streets, which does not describe Fernside, they can come close to sitting in the middle of the intersection and don’t change ped crossings at all.
If, as Public Works is wont to do, they are created to accomodate trucks and higher speed cars, then the corners are carved back and the crossing moves to the edge of where the traffic lane is. It’s a little less direct for peds.
The city of Seattle has put in nearly 1000 of them in neighborhoods, they have some great info on their website.
Lauren Do
August 7th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Hi Jack:
We have two roundabouts in Bayport one on Mosley and one on Coral Sea. There are cross walks at what would be the “intersection” closest to the circle. However those are relatively quiet streets so I assume that if it was on a busier street like Fernside, you would want to place the ped crossing a bit farther away.
Jack B.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Thanks… I was looking this up in the meantime. Roundabouts seem pretty cool depending on the speeds of the traffic, from what I could gather. One thing I did find in my googling was issues for blind people, but there must be a way around that.
Jill
August 7th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I’m getting way off topic here, but a roundabout would be perfect at Gibbons/Southwood near Lincoln. There is plenty of room, and it would make a tricky intersection much easier. With a planting bed in the middle, it would eliminate the donut problem too.
Stop, Drop and Roll » A meeting about nothing
August 15th, 2008 at 6:40 am
[...] week, I mentioned the Fernside Traffic Calming meeting. In the end, the Two Way Left Turn Lanes (TWLTL) were rejected by staff and the community, which is [...]