pages: TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2012-03-28 | 9 | Gibbons Drive intersection on foot and by bicycle for many years and he does not believe the intersection needs to be modified. He walks his grandchildren to and from Edison Elementary School, and he believes there is more congestion from children and parents at the Cambridge Drive and Northwood Drive intersection than at Gibbons Drive. Thus, he does not believe Gibbons Drive to be a Safe Routes to School issue. He explained a new crosswalk has been added at Harvard Drive and Fernside Boulevard and that will impact the route that he uses. He requested that the grant funds be returned. Warren Vegas resides on the corner of Fernside Boulevard across from Mike Kelly and reported that a lot of people do not have an issue with the intersection. When he spoke with the Alameda Police Department, they found no pedestrian or vehicle accidents there. As a citizen residing in the vicinity and as a parent with two children attending Edison Elementary, he does not believe parents and children cross at that intersection. The solution misses some key areas where people actually cut across and he would like to see the grant money applied to areas such as Fernside Boulevard and Central Avenue. Jim Strehlow stated that there was no mention of the first meeting and how there was a 95 percent opposition to the project in the report. Nor was there any mention to the public that a grant had been awarded for the project. He felt it was unfair of staff to take quantities of the attendees' opinion at the first meeting when it was aimed as a fact-finding meeting. He believes a particular community member acquired a number of signatures to modify the intersection and the City received a grant for a project that the majority of residents surrounding Gibbons Drive do not want. Gordon McConnell, Alameda resident, echoed Jim Strehlow's sentiments. He went to the second meeting where a roundabout was proposed as the traffic-calming solution. The roundabout would lose 19 parking spaces; the cost was estimated at $220,000 with $600 per month maintenance. The solution did not go over well with the public and there was some discussion on who would bear those costs. A police officer was present at the meeting and explained that there was not enough traffic to implement traffic calming measures. There were also issues regarding cars making donuts and conducting sideshows at the intersection, but the donuts and sideshows were infrequent. Apparently, a resident who lived in the neighborhood and caused the incidents either moved away or discontinued the activity. Overall, the majority of the attendees did not want any part of the project and they assumed the project was killed. However, when the third public meeting was held in February attendees found that the project process would continue because the City was able to secure funds under the guise of a Safe Routes to Schools issue. Ultimately, he and those who attended the meeting felt that the money should be sent back. Marilyn Bowe felt that the project is tearing the neighborhood apart. She believes there are a couple of proponents that want to stop regular traffic from entering Gibbons Drive. In 2010, she attended the City's preliminary discussion about a traffic-calming proposal and comments were published. By the third meeting, the street's design proposal was over engineered and the overall intention of the grant is not what this intersection is about. She would rather see the sidewalks fixed along Gibbons Drive so the children could walk safely or return the funds. Lastly, she exclaimed that only a select number of residents have been allowed in closed-door meetings, knew about the grant and have been part of the design process. Page 9 of 12 Transportation Commission Minutes Wednesday, March 28, 2012 | TransportationCommission/2012-03-28.pdf |