Thanks, you too.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.