pages: CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-12-07 | 10 | 622 Urged the issue be on the forefront with future City Councils through to 2035 to ensure funding and support; stated traffic safety around schools is important; stated those who have lost their lives is a tragedy the City cannot afford anymore: Bill Garvine, Alameda. Expressed concern about statistics not representing reality; discussed accidents and safety measures; stated most people think increased traffic enforcement is desirable: Jim Strehlow, Alameda. Expressed support for the program; stated moving forward is essential; nothing will guarantee zero deaths, but systemic changes can reduce the probabilty: Bill Pai, Alameda. Expressed concern about drivers looking at cellphones and support for ticketing the drivers; urged enforcement: Michael Devine, Alameda. Councilmember Daysog inquired the methodology that resulted in Goal 4.14 of 15 to 20 Miles Per Hour (MPH) speeds around schools. The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded the item is in the medium term section to be achieved in 3 to 5 years, rather than the short term of 1 to 2 years; stated there are a number of items to be accomplished in the short term period that were high priority; the lower speed limits around schools will take staff time to complete engineering and speed studies; Council could instruct staff to make move up the priority, but there would be an opportunity cost; staff thinks changing the infrastructure around the schools is probably more effective than making new speed limits. Councilmember Daysog stated the Plan is well balanced between engineering, education and enforcement; discussed traffic enforcement data; a recent change in State law allows cities to use video, which should be taken into consideration; discussed traffic fatalities and showed a slide; expressed appreciation for looking at all enforcement and engineering options; stated that he supports the recommendation. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the resolutions]. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated the Plan is fabulous; regarding Actions 1.3 and 3.1, messaging should focus on actions that cause harm, not self-protection; the City has the data now and can identify where the hard is coming from and where to direct the majority of communications; communication does not change behavior; it helps people understand increased enforcement around speeding and redesigning streets; sharing the road is not an actionable statement; people need to be asked to do specific things, which requires talking about actions that are causing harm; spending $200,000 on education annually is a lot of money; only $10,000 to $15,000 should be spent on what people should do to protect themselves; the Plan should direct the City to focus on actions that result in harm; 15 and 20 MPH was discussed two years ago and COVID got in the way; one resolution encourages using money for additional staff resources; he hopes one of the first things done is to identify slower speed school zones; kids are even more vulnerable; discussed fatality rates of pedestrians hit differing speeds. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 7, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf |