But this wasn’t a one-time occurrence, it’s a part of a large pattern that kicked into high gear about three years ago and continues unabated. One only need to look at the ongoing canceling of the Transportation Commission and what staff feel is necessary to agendize for them, to see that there is virtually no proactive outreach on transportation planning in this city.

Case in point, the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan (CWTP or “CountyPlan”), which is the long range planning document for Alameda County. It is updated once every four years and ends up prioritizing regional funding for the county. If you’re not in the County Plan, your project’s going to have a hard time getting funding.

This year’s County Plan is extremely important. The Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC, pronounced Acka Tacka in Australian) is looking to extend the Measure B sales tax and double it. Which means that the current ½ cent sales tax will become a 1-cent sales tax and it will be collected for longer. The County Plan is the document that is being used to decide which projects are specifically called out for funding in this tax measure.

On February 25, ACTC released a call for projects to include in the CountyPlan, these were due on April 12. This process was not a surprise, the development of the County Plan is a quadrennial event, and there had been a lot of discussion at the County ACTAC (a staff advisory group that Alameda(City) Public Works employees sit on). Specifically, the proposed Call for Projects was in the ACTAC’s December 2010 update, and their January 2011 update. Meaning there was nearly five months of notification about issue.

Despite the knowledge that this call for projects was coming and that it was going to have a tight turn time, and that it was a significant event, Public Works put together a list of projects worth nearly $200 million that never saw the light of day until after it was submitted and the deadline for submittal had passed.

So you might think that this list would be a kitchen sink of projects culled from the high priority lists of the City’s transportation plans. Say, $125 million for a West End bike/ped/transit bridge as identified in the Estuary Crossing feasibility study. But you’d be wrong. While there are some priority projects on the list, the submittals include projects that come out of nowhere, including a $90+ million to upgrade the Fruitvale Bridge to Lifeline status AND rehab the rail bridge for some reason at an additional cost of $50 million, and a $4 million park-and-ride project that highlights bus routes that no longer exist as a reason for being built. The park-and-ride was a project that the Transportation Commission, years ago, suggested was not a great transit project with tiny transportation benefits, and that was before the Line 19 disappeared.

No community transportation groups were consulted on whether or not the proposed projects met the needs of pedestrians, cyclists or transit riders. The lack of discussion at the Transportation Commission or the City Council meant that City Staff made significant financial policy decisions that will affect Alameda transportation funding for the next 25 years (the length of the Measure B reauthorization). And now it’s too late.

It’s time to insist on transparency in the planning of public projects and put the public back in public works. Sign the tree petition and support the call for public involvement and accountability.

Boards, of which there are six,  are codified in the charter, meaning that any changes must be made by the voters, but commissions, of which there are ten, are merely defined in the municipal code, and so staff is, wisely, recommending that the council focus on efforts here.

Alameda has a problem with boards and commissions, namely, they work in isolation and the council is often in the dark about what they are doing. Commissions raison d’etre is to advise the council on issues, so if the council is unaware of the work that’s being done, you’re quickly into “if a tree falls in a forest…” territory.

Which brings us to the problem with the ongoing process to adjust the commissions in our town. While an improvement, the city has yet to hold one meeting to discuss commissions, what their role is, and how best they can meet the needs of the city and public. Look at tonight’s agenda, staff is bringing an item on reducing the number of commissioners and commissions to the council as a City Manager Communication, so that the council can give comments before staff draws up an ordinance. This is where updates are given, not substantive discussions of import.

Commission’s are not just “staff time-sucks,” however that is what this process has reduced them to. The entire goal is how little can the boards meet and how much staff time can be saved? Yes, that’s an important piece, but absent a discussion of what are the commissions goals, are they meeting them, and what do we need to do to make sure that they produce something worthwhile (it’s a post for another day, but the Transportation Commission has been so neutered that one wonders why staff would think six monthly meetings are necessary).

Staff’s recommendation is to rush an ordinance to the council by June 7, meaning zero public meetings until the decisions have been made. A highly ironic end-run around the public input process for determining the public input process. Here’s a suggestion for a slower process:

1. Put a hold on all new commission appointments, allowing, as the municipal code already does, people’s whose terms are runnign out to keep serving until a new appointment is made.
2. Direct staff to put together a policy, to be adopted by the council, on how public input processes should be designed
   1. Early input on the overall direction of a project of policy in the form of a workshop or scoping meeting
   2. Staff to design a recommendation
   3. Recommendation has a public hearing at the appropriate board/commission
   4. Council asked to adopt recommendation of the board/commission, with staff providing their own recommendation
3. Identify, based on the public input policy, what boards and commissions are needed, and what is the appropriate number of meetings for that board commission. (e.g. TC may only need to meet quarterly, but reserve the right to hold special meetings when projects come up that need comment)
4. Identify the proper number of members for a commission based on the input needed (The Transportation Commission should have a bike seat, a transit seat, a pedestrian seat, and a disabled seat, if you reduce it to five members, you’re basically limiting your input)
5. Bring to the council, a meaningful recommendation, that will probably have fewer commissions and less staff time than currently proposed, but that will result in actual work being accomplished and a more informed City Council.

Lastly, Exhibit two in the packet lists the hours currently spent in a year, and the hours that will be saved under the new plan. The council needs to be aware that the hours listed for the Transportation Commission appear to have some really odd assumptions in them, and that the actual time savings, based on the last two years of meetings, will be significantly less.

Over the past year, the City has held 8 TC meetings for a total of 9.2 hours, in order for City Staff to have spent 126 hours on the meeting (not counting the reported 398 prepartion hours),  14 public works staffers would have had to attend each meeting and that PW staff would have spent 50 hours per meeting. Anyone who’s looked at a TC agenda will also question how 400 hours could have been spent preparing for those meetings, very little of substance is presented. I think the assumptions are based on something else.

Even if the TC met 12 times in a year (I don’t believe that has ever happened) and each meeting was three hours long, you’d still need 3.5 staffers per meeting. and thirty hours of preparation per meeting (essentially one person working for an entire week). It’s a stretch.

Hopefully, the council will “provide direction” to staff to take a little more time and to come back with a proposal that is more fleshed out and agendized for a real discussion (prior to bringing forth an ordinance).

As I mentioned back in September:

The school district was out in force, and was able to hook up with the planners of the school routes to make sure that everything works to the benefit of the students. One of the concerns that came up was regarding Island High and its non-standard school hours

And indeed it was. AC Transit’s school buses will run to Main and Singleton during “normal” school hours AND planners moved their proposed Line 31 to run on Midway (from Main street) in stead of Atlantic,  so that it could stop and pick up students from Island High School at non-standard times. And beyond serving the schools, this would benefit the Northwest side of Bayport as well.

There’s only one problem. There’s no stop on Main Street at Midway (see map for location…hint: it’s where the bullseye is). It turns out that after the community and schools came out and asked for the bus to run on Midway, AC Transit made the change and requested that the stops be put in. So far, so good. But it turns out that the City (Public Works in this case) refused. Apparently the stop location needed to be upgraded and there was a cost to do that work, so they just said “no.”

Had there been a TC meeting, there could have been a public discussion about how transit lines need stops in order to be useful to riders. I mean if you think about it, this isn’t just putting in a single stop-something that always gets sent to the TC anyway. but planning the entire  infrastructure for new routes.

The result? West End transit riders, students at that, are getting the shaft and yet again, Alameda’s transit ends up running past, instead of stopping and serving a whole mess of households.

Did I miss the memo that the City Council had decided to disband the Transportation Commission last year? There hasn’t been a meeting since the special meeting in Mid-August, which wasn’t really a meeting either. And staff isn’t even bothering to list it on the City Calendar anymore (See January or February).

And it’s not like there isn’t work that needs to be completed, unfinished is the Pedestrian Plan, which was suppose to come before the TC last April, the Bicycle Master Plan update which should have been before the TC last summer, the city’s Transportation Demand Management plan and the update to the City’s Long Range Transit Plan (LRTP).

All of these were approved for work by the city council which granted staff the ability to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for the preliminary work for these documents. In fact, all of them (except the LRTP) were scheduled to move forward well over a year ago, many of them have had countless hours of staff and volunteer time. You might be saying, “but staff cuts have made it difficult to staff boards and commissions!” And in fact, that’s what I heard last summer/fall when I inquired, but then I looked at all of the other commissions in the city:

(quick note, above data is from July 1 to Jaunary 31 and does not include December when many commissions/boards do not hold meetings).

Only the Historic Advisory Board, which has a very limited purview and the Public Arts Commission, which has no money to spend on Public Art have seen their meetings cancelled like the TC.

Heck, even the Commission on Disability Issues, which is staffed by the same department as the Transportation Commission, managed to hold meetings.

More telling that this is purposeful, not just work overload is that when it the TC Chair recommended that staff bring the Measure B Election Report on traffic for presentation, staff’s apparently responded that the council had not directed them to do so and so they would not. Yet the traffic report, sans council direction, was presented to the Economic Development Commission last October?

Which brings us back to the initial question. Did the City Council take a vote to eliminate this commission mid-work? And if not, who’s running the show here?

Updated: 7:28 – added note about meeting info.

• Remove and replace the 23^rd Ave and 29^th Ave. overcrossings
• Reconstruct the northbound 29^th Ave. off ramp – directly connecting to the new 29^th Ave.  bridge giving a more direct Northbound connection to Alameda via Park Street.
• Consolidate the two northbound 23^rd Ave. on ramps – consolidating two on ramps into one

Right now, people coming North have to either get off on the High Street Bridge and then head up Fernside, Gibbons or Central to Park Street, or they can get off at 29^th Ave. and drive backwards to the Fruitvale or do a u-turn on 29^th Ave. in order to cross the Park Street Bridge.

The new Northbound exit will connect directly to 29^th Ave keeping this traffic off residential streets and getting it to Park Street and areas West, much easier.

The negative? The changes don’t do anything for connecting I-880 to the Fruitvale Bridge, and in fact make it more difficult to use from a Northbound direction. The current 180-degree exit along 9^th Street (as seen in the above image) will be eliminated making the Fruitvale Bridge effectively inaccessible for folks heading North on I-880. This means more traffic on High Street (though it will likely be a net loss because of the Park Street Bridge access).

The proposal looks like this:

Bicycle access will be provided (via new bike lanes) over both new bridges which will better connect Alameda and the Fruitvale/San Antonio district in Oakland. Bike and pedestrian access looks like this:

Per the staff report, the completed project will include the following (select highlights, my comments in italics):

• The project will increase traffic and change traffic circulation in the Park Street Triangle area– bordered by 23^rd Avenue, 29^th Avenue, and Ford Street in Oakland, north of the Park Street Bridge. The CMA has funded a separate study to address the traffic circulation in this area. The goal of this study is to develop preferred alternatives that could be used in pursuing local and regional funding for the improvements in this area. {Ed. Comment: Read this as traffic will be problematic, but they (the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency) will look for funding to fix it some day}
• Staff is concerned about increased delays along Park Street during the morning peak hour due to the consolidation of the existing two on-ramps at 23^rd Avenue for northbound I-880 access. In addition, the project will add a traffic signal at the new consolidated on-ramp, creating additional delays for motorists attempting to take northbound I-880 from the cities of Alameda and Oakland. Presently it is estimated that if the project is constructed that the queue at the northbound Park Street Bridge approach would increase by 1,000 feet during the AM peak hour. To address these concerns, the project team is working on incorporating transit system improvements including a queue jump lane at the new signalized intersection at northbound I-880/23^rd Avenue on-ramp that would allow the busses to bypass the vehicle queues to enter northbound I-880. Additionally, the CMA has agreed to work with the City in securing funding for the implementation of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) in this area and along Park Street to gain capacity benefits without increasing the physical capacity of the streets. However, considering the significant impacts associated with this project, implementation of ITS elements and transit queue jump should be included as part of the project. {Ed. Comment: Queue jump lanes will be useful for the OX Bus line especially if I880 ever gets HOV lanes in this section which would allow express buses to really cover ground during commute time. “Gain[ing] capacity” on Park Street means pumping more traffic through the area, something that won’t be beneficial to the business district or people shopping in it. I don’t believe I have ever heard someone say “You know, Park Street just isn’t busy enough, if only more cars could fly down the street without stopping, THEN it’ll be perfect. Hopefully, staff will provide more data on the daily window of time when this will be needed (all-day vs. one-hour-a-day.
• The signalized intersections of Blanding Avenue and Clement Avenue will have significant impacts due to the project, and mitigations will be required per the City requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act. The mitigations proposed in the CMA’s draft environmental analysis include eastbound and westbound turn restrictions for Clement Avenue, which is not acceptable to the City. {Ed. Comment: These are especially ridiculous since the City’s long term transportation plans highlight Clement as the main East/West roadway for the Northside of the Island}

Now’s the time to show and and give comments. Wednesday night (8/26) at 7:30pm in the city council chambers.

Bay Farm has been very lucky in terms for the bus service that it has had for the past few years. It was scheduled to have 30-minute headways, but AC Transit combined the 15-minute service on Park Street, with the 15-minutes service between Coliseum BART and Bayfair BART and Bay Farm ended up in the middle with 15-minute headways. That’s going to change, as the proposal recommends removing the Harbor Bay Business Park from the route and terminating the route at Harbor Bay Landing shopping center.

Service returns to Aughinbaugh, increasing the number of households with connections to the Harbor Bay Ferry and semi-direct service to Fruitvale BART and Park Street.

Bay Farm Bus Service Changes

The business Park has fewer than 60 riders a day, and decided to use their required shuttle mitigation money to start their own service, instead of working with AC Transit. Therefore, they already have duplicative service and will be able to take up the slack (word is they have been looking at starting a lunch time shuttle to Towne Centre based on the success of their shuttle). 28 people get off the bus at the Airport from Alameda and 30 get on heading to Alameda. (Maybe someday BART and the Airport will spend half  a billion dollars sending a slow people mover to Alameda! If there’s one thing Alameda is missing, it’s a long, overhead concrete track running through it that doesn’t stop anywhere. oh to dream!)

Bay Farm Island has about 300-320 bus riders between the residents and ferry riders (not including the business park). Service will be cut in half, but coverage will increase. It will be interesting to see how this changes ridership over the coming year.

For today’s post, the Northern Waterfront will be included in the east end of the island. Significant changes include:

1. Line 19 no longer running along Buena Vista (households North of Buena Vista will be more than 1200 feet from the nearest bus line). About 150 get (heading to Oakland) and 90 get off (coming from Fruitvale) and the same in the opposite directions for about 550 daily trips.
2. Line 63 will no longer serve east of Park Street, so no local service along High Street or Encinal Ave.  The Line O (Transbay) is proposed to take over this part of the ride, and technically you can pay a local fare for a local ride. The frequency is irregular and long, so it’s a stopgap at best and represents the largest loss of service in the city. About 125 people use this loop each day. Mostly to West Alameda/Towne Centre and back. Though 45 or so use it to get to Fruitvale BART.
3. Line 63 moves from Otis to Shoreline and get actual stops. Riders along here will have an actual usable bus service that travels directly to 12th Street BART along Webster St. This should increase ridership from this part of the island beyond the project 20 additional riders being picked up on Shoreline Dr.
4. Line 51 is extended to Fruitvale BART. This  significantly increases service from Fruitvale BART to Park Street AND provides real, useable connection to Fruitvale for those living within a couple of blocks of Santa Clara. The possibility of large ridership gains is big. It could also help redeuce some overcrowding on the Line 51, since some riders may choose to start riding in the eastbound direction instead of to BART in Downtown Oakland.
5. Line 51 will be split at Rockridge BART, this is good, it increases the frequency of Line 51 for Alameda riders, AND it gets rid of much of the part of the line that is responsible for the bunching, meaning that afternoon service could likely see bus service every 9 minutes, instead of 2-3 buses every 20 minutes.

One of the big recommendations at the public workshop should be that AC Transit needs to seriously look at some commute hour service (as existed before the Line 19 was created) to capture the 500 daily trips being lost on the Line 19.

The issue of coverage comes up, so I also created an animation of the changes in coverage for the whole city. The city has a goal of 80% of households being within 1200 feet of a bus stop, so I mapped 1200 feet off of each line. It’s an approximation. It looks like the changes maintain the minimum 80% coverage. I did not include the Line O as local coverage, because it runs less than 30 minute headways (except during peak hour when it’s 12-20 minutes, but running to Oakland (7th and Harrison) but no further into town) and using transbay buses for local services is a pain in the neck, especially with a TransLink card, which AC Transit and MTC are trying to get riders to move to.

Changes in AC Transit Local Service Coverage

It’s easy to see that the East End is losing the most coverage, though they will have Line O service running every 40-60 minutes. The North Shore, North of Buena Vista loses out, and the West End, South of Lincoln/West of Linden.

Both Shoreline, between Grand and Willow, and Bay Farm Island, along Auginbaugh, gain coverage, though some of the coverage gains on Shoreline are due to the lack of stops on Otis in the same area. Alameda Hospital and the homes along Otis lose planned coverage, but the apartments gain it, which is consistent with the past recommendations of the Transportation Commission.

In terms of coverage, these cuts represent far less than 15%. The cuts come in terms of service hours–Line 50 goes to 30 minute service (from 15 minutes)–and the loss of the 19 and half the 63-Alameda Point Loop and 63-East End Loop. With the extension of the Line 51 to Fruitvale, it will be interesting to see what the overall ridership for Alameda becomes.

Updated to correct statement about Line O service

So for the next three days, I’ve put together some maps and info on the changes to local service that are being proposed (West End, East End and Bay Farm). Lack of time has kept me from putting together the TransBay information and the North Shore, which is seeing a complete loss of the Line 19, can be discussed on tomorrow’s posting. I’ll also have a map of Alameda’s coverage, so that it will be easy to identify which areas are losing (or gaining) coverage.

The gain here is that Alameda Point will now have a direct connection to downtown Oakland and Marina Village shopping on the weekend. This has been a major sticking point with the existing service, especially with the transit dependent populations at the Alameda Point Collaborative, who make up most of the West End loop ridership. This could, with some likelihood, result in increased ridership from the West End.

The other major West End change is the loss of the Line 63 loop, which is a 22 minute loop through Alameda Point and serves Encinal High School and the Lincoln/Pacific corridor. From the city staff report on the proposed service changes:

Main Street/Pacific Avenue/Central Avenue/Lincoln Avenue – Currently served by Line 63. There are an estimated 241 boardings and 285 alightings per day on this portion of the route, a large portion of which is associated with Encinal High School, the Alameda Community Learning Center, and Island High School. The nearest transit service to this area would be on Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway and Webster Street. AC Transit staff has indicated that modifications to the school service (Lines 631 and 632) could potentially address the needs in this area.

The high school comment is key here, the boarding alighting info show that only 29 people get on the Line 63 between Webster/Lincoln and Main/Atlantic. These would be the folks heading into Oakland or the ferry (only 14 people get off at the ferry, and 11 people get on, heading to Webster/Marina Village/College of Alameda). And interestingly, most of the activity is the morning arrival at the middle and high schools and the return trip from same which suggests that the school bus (line 631)  could easily be modified (if necessary) to cover the majority of this ridership.

Here’s the passenger loading info on all the stops that are proposed to be removed (heading into Oakland):

And the information from the return trip from Oakland/Ferry terminal (ferry ridership is 33 on, 12 off) with 44 People getting off between Atlantic and Webster (the part of the line proposed to disappear).

The Ferry ridership continues to be small. Even when there was a dedicated ferry shuttle, the number of people using it was small. Ample free parking most likely makes the bus seem uncompetitive. Before finalizing this proposal, AC Transit should lay out specifically what it would like to do with the school service. This should probably include some ridership surveys once school starts in the Fall to determine the needs of these students.

In the end, we’re probably looking at the loss of about 30-40 riders from about 330 boarding (Oakland Bound) and about 60-70 riders from about 300 riders (East End bound). By rerouting this line, and making changes to the Line 63 which make the line significantly more direct to downtown Oakland (eliminating a meandering 22 minute ride through the Point). It’s possible that this change will result in a net positive (or at least a very small reduction in ridership). It also increases the useful connections for all Points West of Webster and North of Lincoln which will remain within 1200 feet of a stop. (Map tomorrow).

The study recommends as feasible, a vertical lift bridge for bikes and peds that would be the longest moveable span in the world—600 feet. The current honors go to the Arthur Kill Vertical Lift Bridge in NJ at 588 feet. It would also be one of the tallest vertical lift bridge in the world. I was unable to dig up “tallest in the world” information, but did come across “tallest in Europe,” which is the Pont Gustave Flaubert at 55m (180 feet) is the same height as the proposed Estuary Crossing.

The report mentions that bicyclists and pedestrians would have to wait “less than 15 minutes for each water vessel passage.” for the bridge to open and close. However, this is based on how long the Park Street bridge openings can take to clear the decks, open and close.

The Pont Gustave Flaubert takes 12 minutes to raise, and 12 minutes to lower. Add in time to wait for a pedestrian to walk the 2 football fields across the deck, time for double-checking that there are no joyriders, etc. and you’re at 30+ minutes easily.

And even more surprising, after all these discussions, the Coast Guard has refused to make a determination as to whether they will commit to keeping the bridge closed (except in emergencies) during commute hours. Meaning bicyclists and pedestrians could be waiting for 30 minutes to get to work during their 30-40 minute commute.

The Transportation Commission recommended against pursuing this option until such a commitment could be found, and the $55 million in funding better identified. (Apparently “cost is no hurdle” when looking at feasibility”

Way back in March 2008, Alameda city staff, decided that all the traffic planning surrounding the new Alameda Theater was off-base and that chaos was going to ensue.

The plans had some good ideas, but they also created a potential new safety hazard for cyclists by encouraging drivers to pass left turning vehicles on the right, using the bike lanes.

From the California Driver Handbook (which is supported by the CA vehicle code):

The white line will usually be broken near the corner and the words “BIKE LANE” will be painted in the lane. When you are making a right turn and are within 200 feet of the corner or other driveway entrance, you must enter the bike lane for the turn. Do not drive in the bike lane at any other time.

Long story short, the Transportation Commission voted against supporting the proposal (5-2). The item was called for review and ultimately approved 3-2 with Council members Tam and Gilmore dissenting.

At the time, there were late-breaking concerns that increased traffic in front of the theater, combined with pick-up/drop-off double parking, would lead to a veritable traffic loony toons. The crazy traffic would then lead to safety issues for pedestrians and bicyclists and cause traffic to back up across Park Street.

In the end the council opted for the nuclear option (do everything we can, don’t wait, do it now!) and study it later. Tonight that report will come back to the council, (it’s online now) but what’s interesting is what’s glaringly missing.

During the council meeting, no fewer than four council members discussed bicycle safety issues and yet it isn’t mentioned once in either the original staff report (which came to the TC for comment last month) or the revised one.

Check out this short video (and please excuse the terrible editing job, I have no good excuse for it, I just stink):

[google -1726167266350319180]

As you can see from the video, Councilmember Gilmore raised concerns about the new street design encouraging people to pass on the right at the intersection of Oak and Central, using the bike lane in a violation of the California Vehicle Code.

In response to these concerns, staff specifically says that officers would be out writing tickets and giving verbal warnings to halt the behavior (this isn’t creative editing, she asks specifically about this situation, staff answers is equally specific, “since we are creting a design that will encourage this dangerous behavior, we will have to enforce for a while to keep it to a minimum”).

The original staff report made no mention of this enforcement, and at the TC they were asked whether any tickets, warnings, etc. were issued. The answer was clear cut: “No.” When it was suggested that this be included in the staff report, an addendum was added, it reads:

…while the California Vehicle Code prohibits overtaking a left turning vehicle by utilizing a bicycle lane, traffic enforcement is discretionary in nature, and minor violations that do not result in safety concerns are either handled with a warning or citation. In the situations where a vehicle crosses a bicycle lane and a bicyclist’s travel is impeded, enforcement action would be taken, and the driver may be cited. If the vehicle does not interfere with the bicyclist’s travel or if no bicyclist is present in the bicycle lane, a citation would not be automatically issued.

I’m not clear on who wrote this, despite the Chief’s signature. In a conversation with the Chief yesterday, he indicated that it was not written accurately. However, the end result is the same, no enforcement (including verbal warnings). So see, it doesn’t matter that this enforcement was a part of the council’s motion, or a part of the proposal that was presented to the council. All traffic enforcement is discretionary, so I’m not clear on the point. We enforce a lot of safety laws when the action is not immediately threatening another person (think red light running late at night, speeding on an empty street, etc).

The idea that you would only enforce (verbal or citation) the law if you see it directly affecting someone is troublesome. The case being made here (again, I’m not sure it’s the Police’s case) is that there is no role for prevention in Alameda’s law enforcement, at least in cases of bicycle safety. Did the council pass a policy that we didn’t hear about?

We obviously have to prioritize, and personally, I don’t want to live in the city that tickets for every minor violation of every law, but I’m willing to put money on the fact that the council walked away from the discussion on May 6^th feeling that enforcement was going to take place as a mitigation to the increased safety concerns.

Almost more troubling is that the report talks about all the research done into these issues, and yet not one word is written about bike lane violations. The response from the City Manager’s office is that “a lot of things were studied” which I don’t doubt, but the more I hear, the more unclear I become on what was actually done. According to the Chief, no person was out on the street watching conditions, and officers were not assigned to enforce that intersection.

There was at least one collision between a pedestrian and auto, but that’s not included in the report because the driver was a disabled person using a modified vehicle. I’m unclear on whether the collision happened during the reporting period (though the fact that it came up in a conversation about the reporting makes me feel it did), but if it did, it completely debunks the reports conclusion about the area being safe because nobody was hit. (I’m happy to accept that these things happen, but if the report is going to rely almost solely on reported collisions as its sole backup for safety, and the data says nobody was hit during the same period in the report in the three years prior to the theater opening, then I would submit that an infinite increase (from 0 in nine months, to 1 in three months) in pedestrian collisions is equally as meaningful).

While in a perfect world, the council would ask staff to prepare a report that addressed the major issues of discussion back in May. I’m not holding my breath, the issue isn’t that big. But, since recommendations that were made in May regarding maintaining bicycle safety in the area were dismissed because of traffic concerns, and since the traffic volumes in the area are lower than before the theater was built and therefore the congestion concerns did not come to pass. (There is nothing in the report that suggests that the changes in front of the theater were necessary, only that now there’s lots of room in front of the theater to build bulb-outs and bike parking)

So on Tuesday, hopefully the council will ask staff the following related questions/requests:

• Since the possible congestion never arose, and the enforcement that was previously suggested did not take place, are there plans that can be put in place to return the intersection of Central and Oak to its lower-risk geometry? (Painted bulbouts at the corner that do not inhibit emergency vehicles perhaps). There are definite solutions that do not require a tradeoff between auto congestion and bicycle safety. We should pursue them.
• Why did staff not measure bicycle safety impacts, despite their being a large part of the council discussion at May’s Council meeting? Or if they were studied, why were they not included? Does staff feel that only reporting that no tickets were handed out is a sufficient response?
• Traffic enforcement is discretionary; does staff’s response indicate that APD has no role in collision prevention? How is that done if citations and warnings are only handed out when “a bicyclist’s travel is impeded?”
• A proposal for a city-wide policy on limiting the removal of street parking at corners with bike lanes to one car length, and the implementation of some mitigations to prohibit the use improper of the bicycle lane as a de facto through-lane.

At its core, this is an issue beyond bike lanes. It is about responsiveness to council requests and direction. It is about reflecting and reporting on the success of a project, which can only be meaningful when compared to the goal of the project. In the case of this project, the stated goal was congestion reduction and related safety improvements from the reduction.

Which begs the question, can a mitigation project be successful if the impact never would have existed? Whatever the answer, one certainly can’t claim “it worked!”

***After watching the May 6th meeting on video, it is incumbent on me to state that I respect the Alameda PD and do not in any way feel that they do not care about the safety of Alamedans. I do not believe that this means that their every decision is perfect or beyond criticism. We are all human after all.