TMP going to the city council next Tuesday
Grist had an interesting post on a new RAND study which finds that:
[traffic] flow improves for a short while when new lanes are added to a freeway but usually returns to former levels of congestion within just a few years.
The council is set to discuss the Transportation Master Plan on Tuesday night. The sole major issue (as defined as the issue that has come up during the multitude of public meetings over the past couple of years and was the only point of departure for the Planning Board’s recommendation) was specifically, should Alameda continue to add lanes to streets like High Street, Fernside, 8th Street, Central Ave, etc.
The graph, included in the Grist post, shows that TDM and Transit are as effective in reducing congestion as adding more capacity.
This study would suggest that this is not the best way to spend our transportation dollars if our goal is to preserve our quality of life and reduce traffic in our community.
Popularity: 11% [?]
AD
January 16th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Are you serious John? “Continue to add lanes”? When have we added lanes to High, 8th, Fernside and Central? Both Central and Fernside have been NARROWED–is your clock running backwards? How could we possibly add lanes to 8th and High?–there are houses in the way, last time I looked.
Note on Fernside (for the sane): the south bound bike lane is so narrow and the cars so sqeezed because of the “street diet” (choke-cough-choke), I almost got taken out by one yesterday. Remove the median to make more room?
Andy Currid
January 16th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Why do you think the conclusions of the RAND study – which looks like it examined arterial freeways in the LA basin – are directly applicable to Alameda’s roadways?
Lauren Do
January 16th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Andy: I believe the RAND study examines more than just arterial freeways in LA County. Some of their short-term congestion reducing recommendations include variable parking charges a la Donald Shoup and regional biking networks.
AD: I believe that JKW is pointing to this study as direct criticism of City Staff’s efforts to add to the Transportation Master Plan the ability to continue to add more lanes (this is different than physically widening lanes) to certain streets determined to be arterials. 8th and High could possibly have another lane added if the City really wanted to. They would just need to remove the parking.
Residents on and around these two streets should be concerned if the language is kept in the Transportation Master Plan as suggested by staff who want to allow for “traffic capacity enhancements” i.e. street widening (not to be confused with lane widening) that could be “accomplished through the removal of on-street parking.”
David Kirwin
January 16th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Who gives a crap anymore what the citizens say and say and keep repeating at the public meetings?
Certainly not CC, unless the speakers agree with what city staff wants, and of course city staff will ‘want’ whatever they are told to recommend by city management and members of CC, and that seems to fall in line with what is best for the developers and their friends who contribute to election campaigns. Far be from me to say there is anything like the appearance of impropriety – how could anyone possibly surmise a cause – effect relationship?
CC is going to do as they damned well please on Tuesday night, screw whatever the people say.
Fortunately it also seems to not matter at all what goes into the TMP or the CGP because CC can override it at whim, -ain’t it so? Look at how the developer’s plans contradict the City General Plan!
So expect business as usual, and our neighborhood roads will be considered feeders, arterials, major arterials, and someday we’ll hear that these new titles mean whatever they want to do to them is appropriate regardless of the families and children – what makes up the ‘neighborhood character’ of Alameda.
The changing of the nomenclature is likely to make Alameda eligible for more tax dollars to support development, with or without which the increased development will then force us to add lanes by removing parking from neighborhood streets, and make them more city-like, regardless of the antics being played now.
Think I’m joking? I can hear JKW already… “While we don’t approve of widening roadways per say, we support the addition of these lanes in the hopes they will become bus-only lanes, and with recognition that the removal of some of the residential parking is inconvenient for a few, but in the long view the absence of some of our over-abundant parking on city streets will further encourage bus (he’ll say ‘transit’) ridership, which is good for the entire region as it will allow us to further consider the increased vertical infill development to support the new residential thresholds that ABAG has requested we plan for…It’s all supported by studies and people ‘we’ talk to agree with us, and after many public meetings which nobody but us attended, we determined that these are the streets which must carry the traffic and transit load. Since it is human nature to try to find alternate routes in high traffic areas, we suggest Public Works consider “traffic calming” measures to barricade drivers from certain deviating from the roads we prefer they drive. Well really we prefer they take the bus, so it makes sense to not let them drive around the traffic jams because studies show that just allows more traffic farther down the line. Conversely the Transportation Commission have seen studies proving if we continue to add more density to the island the traffic will decrease because the number of cars will increase, but more people will ride the bus, leading to less traffic”.
– That’s the prayer Alameda is banking on with JKW’s philosophy.
I was over at Bridgeside center today, do you realize how much of that retail space has never been leased? I counted 5 still vacant ground floor storefronts, and there are upstairs office spaces too. It still looks like the new SouthShore mall which has an incredible number of vacancies. I started walking down the main central axis of South Shore Mall last weekend from the Park Street side and was just dumbfounded. It’s pretty though, just that most people prefer to stroll a mall to see merchandise they don’t need rather than empty stores they don’t need.
Am I beginning to sound cynical? None of this even begins to compare to the amount of empty commercial space at the other end of town. What the heck are the PB & CC approving? I’m sorry so many property owners are not making money, but I think if we did not have all those vacancies the island would be much closer to a gridlock. I hear the complaints about leaving the island on the West end, and today I learned the folly of trying to make a left out of the Bridgeside lot by the gas station – better to drive to the 4-way stop signs at the NobHill exit unless you are just turning right out of that lane next to the gas station driveway.
AD
January 17th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Lauren, the man clearly said “continue to add lanes.” I still don’t know what he’s talking about.
In response to your explanation of what he might have meant, if preventing the ability to add more lanes in the future means adding bulbouts at corners now, I am adamantly against that. Bulbouts are impediments to traffic; they create artificial traffic jams by allowing just one car at a time to maneuver, whether going straight or turning. These kinds of artificially created obstacles do nothing for pedestrian or bike safety. On the contrary, there main effect is to frustrate drivers, and a frustrated driver is more dangerous than a calm one. The worst example I have is the “islands” installed around Sain Joe’s. Whenever I turn there, I pay more attention to not hitting my car on the curb than to any pedestrian. I’ve also had a situation where the car going opposite had to back up so we both have room to turn. This is definitely not safe; it’s silliness is beyond words. I don’t know how the people who live there tolerate it.
Streets need to be free and clear of obstacles to drivers. Sidewalks need to be broad and well maintained. Singnals need to be thoughfully placed, and signage clear and sparse. That’s all there is to it. The traffic calming gimmicks are a fad, and a dangerous one. Look at Fernside–the most f…ed-up street project in recent history. I’ll bet my bottom dollar cars go just as fact there as they ever did, and you need a manual to use the bike lanes. I do not want to see more of this madness, not on Central, not on High, not anywhere.
AD
January 17th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Correction end of post above: “cars go just as FAST as they ever did…”
Lauren Do
January 18th, 2009 at 8:44 am
AD: I would suggest that you read the staff report for the City Council regarding the TMP if you are still confused by the clarification.
Adding more lanes (aka “street widening”) is a separate and distinct issue from street calming and the various tools for street calming: bulb outs, etc. However, I would imagine that it is on these wider (more laned) streets where traffic calming is more necessary. So if you want to ensure that an area is bulb out free in order for you to better manuver your car, you would be supportive of the efforts to keep in the TMP language that says that “traffic capacity enhancements” for the sole purpose of making more room for cars shouldn’t be allowed.
John Knox White
January 18th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Have been away from the computer, apologies for the delay in responding:
AD, staff just finished (within the last 8 weeks) adding a new lane at Atlantic and Webster that has done nothing to decrease Tube congestion, but has resulted in complaints and concerns from the College of Alameda because of the increased crossing distance for pedestrians. They added a new lane in front of the Alameda Theater in May of last year.
Staff has proposed in the TMP adding lanes at high, eighth, fernside, etc. They are proposing doubling the width of Stargell from 2 lanes to 4.
It is to these actions and proposals that I am referring.
You have already lost your bet on Fernside, staff reported on traffic speeds after the traffic calming in front of Lincoln, the average speed was reduced nearly 10%.
Lauren is correct in her assertion that limiting lane widening and bulbouts/traffic calming are not connected.
Andy, I offered the Rand study because it deals with more than highways, but also arterials and is yet another study that looks at induced traffic and concludes that adding roadway capacity to clear congestion does not lead to less congestion. I put it up for discussion, it seems you disagree, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
AD
January 18th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
John, you are probably referring to the drop off lane in front of the theater. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) This is not a driving lane. I don’t understand how a drop off lane is a problem, unless any convenience to a driver (or their passengers) is by default a problem for you. I don’t subscribe to this philosophy at all. I resent having things presented the way you do, implying that more traffic lanes for moving more cars are being added, when they are really not. (I take a pass on commenting on the Atlantic/Webster situation until I look at it. But quickly, how could anyone hope an extra lane outside the Tube would decrease Tube congestion in any way? The Tube is still two lanes, no?)
Staff’s proposal for adding more lanes on High, Fernside etc would not be necessary if these streets are not designated arterials. First you designate certain streets as throroughfares, then you complain that staff may try to accommodate the increase in traffic by adding lanes (turning lanes most likely). I argued, in my letter to the TC, against street designations, precisely because of the physical changes we’ll need to make to accommodate the changed traffic patterns. Alameda has a fine grid of streets usable to most transportation modes–leave them alone and let people move as they choose.
The almost 10% reduction in speed on Fernside, if true, is laughable. So now cars go 36 mph instead of 40 in a 25 mile zone? I’m so proud. Or is that just in front of Lincoln school? But that’s because of the crosswalk at San Jose, isn’t it? The rest is the same old, same old. You cannot slow cars down when you’ve essentially given them a green light all the way from Otis to San Jose, no matter how narrow the lane is. I argued for opening up the cul-de sacs on the west side and letting cross traffic on Fernside. But no, skinny lanes is the fad of the day, like the mini mac at McDonalds. That is until a bicyclist gets snagged one of these days, when we will realize that people actually need room to drive, when they drive, and yes they do drive, unfortunately, because few other choices exist.
John Knox White
January 18th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
AD, I’m sorry that you hate that I don’t present things the way you want me to.
That being said, 270 feet of street parking was removed in front of the theater specifically to create a long right turn lane as well as a few drop off spots. I argued FOR the drop off zones before their creation, but against the right turn lane, so I’d politely suggest you understand what you’re talking about before launching into accusations about what I am for or against. The post-project traffic study showed the right-turn lane to be utterly unnecessary.
The new lane at Atlantic and Webster is an EIR mitigation for Bayport Housing to mitigate congestion, it’s specifically about getting rid of congestion. That’s why it was proposed and why it was built. So you and I agree that it makes no sense to build turn lanes at intersections as a solution to speed traffic along at our congested gateways if they are just going to it in the congestion 150 feet up the road.
Unfortunately, many of the traffic proposals include these turn lanes which falsely lead the community to believe that congestion (as measured in wasted time) will be mitigated.
The staff’s proposals for intersection widening have nothing to do with the proposed new classifications. Zero. It’s unfortunate you didn’t attend the TC meeting on the EIR, there was discussion on your letter and these issues. You might have a better understanding of the issues you care so deeply about.
Alameda’s streets are already hierarchical and classified in the General Plan, all that’s changing is the terminology, the proposed use of Alameda’s streets in terms of traffic loads is not changing with the exception of Bayview, Gibbons and Eighth St (if the council adopts them) and then only slowly over time, not immediately.
The proposals for intersection wideing will move forward one way or another, many of them are already in the conceptual phases for “when we need to do them.” The TMP EIR actually showed that the TMP’s policies result in less traffic at these intersections, not more, thus “leaving things as they are” will more likely result in these “improvements.”
AD
January 19th, 2009 at 9:45 am
JOhn,
which specific language in the report would you like to remove and is there any specific wording you’d like to add?
AD
January 19th, 2009 at 10:05 am
“The staff’s proposals for intersection widening have nothing to do with the proposed new classifications. Zero.”
Oh brother.
Read page 4 of the satff report: “Traffc capacity enhancements, such as adding a right turn pocket, would only be allowed if the following conditions were met:
[...]
3. The improvement is accomplished through the removal of on-street parking, or is located on a regional or island arterial identified in the Transportation Element
Street Classification System. Regional and island arterials are identified in the
Transportation Element as roads whose primary function is for the efficient
movement of people and goods and improved transit operation.”
John Knox White
January 19th, 2009 at 11:29 am
AD, I’m not clear on your point. But I think you’re trying to claim that the bits you cut and pasted prove your point. They don’t. First, the language re: road widening, is staff’s, not the TC’s. It was unanimously not recommended by the TC on multiple occasions.
Second, the existing TE already contains both a hierarchy and allows for such things. You appear to be reading a lot of things into the proposal that are simply not there. The city already has arterials, they are called “Major” streets. and the General Plan specifically requires plans to use these streets to move the most cars.
AD
January 19th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
John:
Not to pick nits, but how do you now the “bits and pieces” don’t prove my point if you say you don’t know what my point is?
My point was: Adding lanes at intersections does have to do with street classification, as stated in the bit pasted above. The connection is not “zero.”
Do answer this: What is the pressing need for reclassifying streets from major and minor to island arterials, regional aretrials, island collectors, transitional and local? Is it funding? What are the conditions that come with this funding? For example, would the funding be used for applying “traffic-calming measures” to an arterial? What else? Give specific examples if possible. Thank you.
John Knox White
January 19th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
AD, As I said “…I think you’re trying to claim” and it turns out I guessed correctly.
As to your latest questions, they’ve been answered, discussed, etc. ad naseum in public meetings and online chats and I’m going to pass as I have other things to work on. I’m sure city staff would be happy to discuss the funding issues with you.
Hope you have a nice rest of your MLK day.
AD
January 19th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Ah, the expected exit. Brightly labeled “ad naseum.”
Thanks, you too.