Anyone else notice that in the recent discussion on traffic reduction not one of the proffered explanations was that we tore down housing and therefore there was less traffic?
Anyone else notice that in the recent discussion on traffic reduction not one of the proffered explanations was that we tore down housing and therefore there was less traffic?
Whenever concern is raised about the traffic generated by a future Alameda Point development. Those screaming “stop” rely on the false premise that not building at Alameda Point will remove all traffic impacts to Alamedans.
With the discussion of Alameda Point heating back up, I checked out this recent interview with UC Berkeley Professor Robert Cervero and thought it highlighted a lot of the issues being discussed around Alameda Point.
Tomorrow, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) will be voting on how to spend the stimulus money approved last week by President Obama. It's not often a government or we have a chance to see the actions of the highest office in America translate so quickly and action in our local community. Based on the MTC…
The City Council is set to approve the city's new Transportation Master Plan. A new RAND study finds that Transportion Demand Management and Transit are as effective in reducing congestion as adding more capacity.
After a spirited discussion in May, city staff returns with a report back on traffic and public safety that skirts the major issue of discussion...bike safety
After a city council meeting that wended it’s way through weirdness, the ARRA (city council in another guise) gave comments on SunCal’s Alameda Point plan…and guess what...
Why does the traffic light at Park and Blanding go red in all directions for 7-8 seconds?
Apparently while houses in Northern California create traffic, therefore we should only build commercial properties, in Southern California, commercial development brings traffic.