Traffic Diverters in the Triangle Neighborhood Overdue
-by former Emeryville City Councilman John Fricke
Last night, an SUV driver, traveling at a high rate of speed down my residential street in the Triangle neighborhood, struck a traffic circle, lost control of the vehicle, and struck a utility pole and a parked car. The parked car, in turn, struck another parked car behind it, which then struck a third car.
I was not at home at the time, but my neighbor told me that the force of the collision shook his house. The Emeryville Police Department responded. The SUV driver struck the wooden utility pole with such force that PG&E was summoned to inspect the integrity of the pole.
This incident would not have occurred had the City of Emeryville permanently installed the traffic diverters that were tested over ten years ago. The policymaking process was exemplary, up until my colleagues on the City Council made the snap decision to deviate from the orderly process:
- A number of neighbors and I drew attention to the problem of a large volume of cut-through traffic on the east-west streets (41st, 43rd, 45th, and 47th).
- The City Council convened a series of widely-advertised community meetings to solicit input from Triangle neighbors.
- At these well-attended community meetings, we discussed various solutions, including speed bumps, traffic circles, and traffic diverters, ultimately reaching consensus on the need for traffic diverters.
- The City Council directed the city staff to install temporary traffic diverters for a six-month trial period, data would be collected before and during the trial period.
- The preliminary data showed that the traffic diverters were effective in reducing the volume and speed of vehicle traffic.
- At two city council meetings during the test period, a vocal minority of Triangle neighbors complained about the traffic diverters.
- At a meeting in October, 2007, the vocal minority prevailed over the orderly process. A City Council majority consisting of Ruth Atkin, Ken Bukowski, Nora Davis, and Dick Kassis, made a snap decision to halt the data collection, ordered the city staff to remove the diverters, and replace them with temporary traffic circles (a permanent version of one of these circles was struck by the speeding SUV last night).
- I voted 'NO' to the snap decision to prematurely end the trial period.
- Why was the original traffic diverter on 47th Street spared from the City Council majority’s impetuous decision? Because none of the vocal minority complained about 47th Street.
This series of events took place before and after my election to the city council. Indeed, it was one of the issues that I ran on, including advocating for traffic diverters during my campaign.
The City Council majority’s decision to ignore the process that it established was a slap in the face of the numerous Triangle residents who attended the community meetings, who listened to the consultant describe alternatives, who listened to their fellow neighbors’ input regarding the possible solutions, and who ultimately reached consensus around traffic diverters. Their fault lies in the fact that they had confidence that a majority of their elected representatives would engage in evidence-based policymaking, namely test a proposed solution by collecting and comparing baseline data against data collected during the test period. They did not anticipate that the decision would be governed by a few loud voices.
The legacy of this process is failure. The traffic circles have failed to solve the problem. Over the years, I have observed an increase in the volume of cars. The number of speeding cars remains high. As I type this opinion piece on a Saturday afternoon from my home computer with a view of the traffic circle at 43rd and Salem streets, I have counted thirteen cars that have not slowed their speed at all as they drive through the stop sign. This traffic circle is right next to the entrance of the playground of the elementary school, the gate to which is opened each weekend day for the neighborhood’s use (shout out to School Board member Barbara Inch for getting this done). These residential streets should include traffic calming that places the safety of residents above the convenience of cut-through traffic.
I believe that traffic diverters are the best solution. I will send this column to each of our five elected representatives on the new City Council (John Bauters, Scott Donahue, Dianne Martinez, Ally Medina, and Christian Patz). I will ask them to decide whether there is a problem that needs to be addressed, if so, to collect data, and then to implement an evidenced-based solution.
Photos courtesy John Fricke
Links:
-->
Photos courtesy John Fricke
-->
During data (partial):
-->
John Fricke moved to Emeryville in 1994 and was an Emeryville City Council member from 2005-2009. An attorney, he worked for the Alameda County public defenders office before setting up a private practice in Emeryville. After having lived abroad and in San Francisco for several years following his Council stint, Mr Fricke calls Emeryville his home once again.
I heard this happen from a block away. It sounded like a bomb going off. Scary.
ReplyDeleteJohn Fricke's return to Emeryville is an event to celebrate!
ReplyDeleteThere's a general problem of speeding in this city, and we need more measures to slow drivers down. As it happens, there's currently a bill in the Assembly that would help agencies lower speed limits. More info here: http://www.calbike.org/speed_limit_reform_petition
The law they are trying to amend is the anti-speed trap law. It stopped local jurisdictions from creating speed traps to increase local revenue.
DeleteIn other words, a revenue poor city can't set a 4 lane divided road where everyone drives 50 to a 25mph zone in order to give out more tickets. This used to be a common practice until California stepped in to prevent it.
The posted speeds in the area are not the problem. The problem is a lack of enforcement. We need more officers.
DeleteA police officer costs the City about $150,000 per year (starting). Rational public policy that's evidence-based would be cheaper and more effective. Emeryville City Council: imagine measurability.
I live on 47th and even with the plastic traffic posts that are there, people blow right over them. I've seen Emeryville Public
ReplyDeleteWork trucks blow right over them too. They are constantly broken.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNote: The comment I deleted was almost verbatim the second one I left up (from Ken Bukowski below). The second comment contained a little more info, so that's why I saved the second comment.
DeleteThis looks like censorship to me.
DeleteYou should look up the word: censorship involves censoring.
DeleteIf traffic diverters were in place how would that have prevented this accident? I think there was more than a few vocal residents who were opposed to the diverters. . We also had a large contingent from Oakland complaining. There were residents who complained about the 47th St diverters. two people on 48th and one on Salem, but there were outnumbered by people on 47th street. Mr. Fricke's recollection of the situation is different than mine. There was more than a few vocal residents. Every issue is like that. The people who don't show up at meetings must not think it is important enough. I attempted to close traffic access to San Pablo Ave, except for emergency vehicles. and thereby eliminating all through traffic in the Triangle. Access would only be provided on Adeline. An extra few minutes to drive but worth the sacrifice The whole neighborhood would be more peacefulI and safe. We wouldn't be pushing the traffic from one street to the another. I tried to get a two week pilot, but the council didn't agree. I still think that is the best solution, and much simpler to implement. Once you have any through traffic, violators come with the territory. I think the whole area is too dark and unsafe.
ReplyDeleteThere is no information in this letter from Mr. Fricke explaining how traffic diverters would have prevented this accident. More than likely, the accident would have happened on a block that the traffic was diverted to as opposed to a street that had less traffic due to the diverter. Plan and simple- traffic diverters make some streets safer at the cost of making another streets dangerous. I was living on Essex Street (Emeryville) in 2007 and was partly responsible for the installation of the existing traffic circles. My memory of this time is also different from Mr. Fricke's. I went door to door collecting signatures on the streets that were negatively impacted (meaning more traffic) by diverters. I presented over 50 signatures (taken in a 4 block area) to the then city council. The council reversed it's decision to install diverters as there was so much vocal (and written) opposition to the plan. If there is a traffic problem in the triangle neighborhood then additional solutions should be explored. Diverters takes the problem from one street and gives it to your neighbor living on the next street.
DeleteI'm not sure I get your logic, Gary. It seems like you're arguing that arrant behavior is finite and immutable, that law cannot have a deterrent affect on behavior. This is the argument presented by the NRA: 'gun free zones' don't work they say because it helps murderers identify areas where they'll not get vigilantism. Better to not have laws the argument posits. This is the extreme side of the anti-deterrence argument; speeders will speed and no amount of law making or in this case street design will affect the bad behavior. We must throw up our hands apparently. I see hunting and gathering as the logical extention of this.
DeleteIt's hard to get up to the speeds necessary to do this kind of damage with diverters around. Slower speeds means less damage.
DeletePlease City Council, let's address this issue. As i remember the unveiling of the Triangle traffic calming is that they rolled it out on the first week of school causing unprecedented traffic and confusion. I am sure that more time would have brought a learning curve to the drivers and that real traffic calming would have been acheived.
ReplyDeleteThere are problems on 45th street also. I have seen multiple serious accidents on the corner of 45th and san pablo due to the bad design of the intersecion. It is a matter of time before a pedestrian will be killed there. It is not safe, even though all that money was spent installing the crosswalk pedestrian lights. I see cars speeding down 45th all the time and do not stop at the round about, they swerve, somtimes into the crosswalk. Maybe the city should hire a unbiased traffic professional to design the flow of traffic to meet the desired needs of the neghborhood and to also comply with the designated traffic boulevards and lower the traffic counts.
ReplyDeleteI think you meant to say ‘bike boulevards’ instead of ‘traffic boulevards’.
DeleteI think Anonymous is on to something- "meeting the needs of the neighborhood". Mr. Fricke's- my way or the highway, while well intended I'm sure, reminds me of the way the Emeryville City Council ran things back in the old days when Mr. LaCoste? was police chief/mayor.
DeleteGary, I'm not seeing your point about 'my way or the highway' public policy from John Fricke, either as Council member or now. What is evident is the antithesis of that; Mr Frick is advocating for rational cogent and democratic policy making. That's not anything the former City Council was interested in and it seems to me he is still hopeful this heretofore unexamined polity can become extant in Emeryville: a new day and a new way of doing things. Further, what Mr Fricke did by insisting the people's democratically vetted solution be given a chance to work and the fact he was willing to face an angry crowd not interested in measurability or democracy and go down on principle, was the epitome of political courage. That by the way is leadership...something lacking in the political cowardice displayed by the other four Council members. The easiest thing in the world for a politician to do is to fold in the face of a hostile crowd.
DeleteHow precisely do you see Mr Fricke's actions on this issue, then and now as being anything other than meritorious civic virtue?
In response to Ken Bukowski's question regarding a diverter preventing the accident, traffic diverters typically include landscaping (trees, drought-tolerant bushes, etc.), that in the intervening 10+ years would have become quite mature and dense. The 47th Street diverter does not incorporate this design. In other words, the access for emergency vehicles is not designed in such a way to deter non-emergency vehicles from ignoring the prohibition. It should be re-designed.
ReplyDeleteKen participated in the numerous community meetings where he proposed that each street dead end at San Pablo. The consensus reached as a result of these meetings was to pursue a different configuration of diverters and bulb-outs. The city council then authorized a six-month trial of that solution. Ken and three of our colleagues voted to terminate this trial prematurely, without reconvening the community meetings.
For Ken, it's not enough that neighbors attended the neighborhood meetings. They should have known that they also needed to attend Tuesday night city council meetings to defend their consensus decision; they should have known that absent their attendance at the city council meeting, Ken and most of his city council colleagues would forsake the deliberative process in the face of opposition from people who did not attend the neighborhood meetings.
In response to Gary's comment, Gary was given notice of the neighborhood meetings to discuss the problem of the volume and speed of cut-through traffic. As I recall, he did not attend. I assume this is because he was living on Essex, a street not impacted by the problem. Why was Gary opposed to the diverters? Because the diverters increased by one block his vehicle travel accessing San Pablo Avenue. (His access to Adeline Street remained the same.) The diverters did not increase vehicle traffic on the street that Gary lived on (Essex) because the diverters were at both ends of Salem Street. It was presumed that traffic volume would increase on Salem, and eventually return to baseline once drivers became aware of the change. During the six-month trial period, traffic data were to be collected on Salem (as well as the other streets) to find out if this proved to be true. The city council's snap decision prevented us from finding out. In advocating for traffic circles, Gary asserted that they would be effective at addressing the problem, and not be as disruptive of vehicle traffic (i.e., no one-block detour). My observation is that they have not been effective. But unlike the city council majority which made its snap decision in the absence of data, I am asking our current councilmembers to collect traffic data (volume and speed), gather community input, make an evidenced-based policy decision, and honor the residents whose input they solicit. I believe the data will bear out that the problem has only gotten worse.
There is nothing wrong with John's idea about evaluating the traffic situation in the Triangle Neighborhood (assuming The City has the finances for the evaluation and there is an actual problem ie: more accidents, speeding tickets etc) and then deciding on which traffic calming methods will work best. The problem is and has always been John's forcefulness in wanting to implementing diverters. That is just a bad idea- it shifts the problem from one block to another block and Brian-that is what is known as "my way or the highway. John- you need some fresh ideas..If you remember correctly my original idea was to install calming circles as a first phase and then make adjustments as (if) needed- speed bumps, bulb-outs etc.
DeleteGary, did you read John Fricke’s letter? He made it very clear: official City sanctioned meetings were called, neighbors attended and a consensus was reached. And that consensus was for diverters. You may not like diverters and Mr Fricke may like them but that’s immaterial; the democratically vetted process determined diverters were the way to go. Mr Fricke may have been happy the majority liked the diverters but that cannot be construed as “my way or the highway”. The only place where that epithet could be applied was afterwards when the neighbors that couldn’t be bothered to engage in the democratically vetted community outreach later started their screaming and yelling and caused the weak-willed City Council members to cave. The mob wanted it their way….their way or the highway.
DeleteIf this issue is taken up by the current City Council, it is my opinion they probably won’t give in to the mob yellers and screamers but will listen instead to those neighbors who place their faith in a democratically vetted process. This is a better City Council and likely more prone to using evidence-based solutions to public policy. If you still live in Emeryville, especially the Triangle neighborhood, I think you should voice your opinions about what you think is prudent.
Always good to hear your opinion Brian. Reminds me of the good ole days in Emeryville. I live in Contra Costa now where we are still trying to establish a "democratically vetted process". Note to John- my position on the diverters had nothing to do with my access to San Pablo Ave. It was all about the folks on Salem Street who were mostly unaware of Brian's "vetting process" and who stood to have decreased property values and lots more traffic as happened in Berkeley when they installed diverters. Lots of property owners had no idea that the city council was even considering diverters back in '07. "Vetted democracy" did not reach the owner of the house I was living in and that is also true of many home owners on Salem Street. Once they were made aware of the situation they were angry and wanted the city council to "un-vet" their decision.
DeleteWell Gary, what you’re advocating for isn’t illegal but it is an appeal to stop the idea of planning in Emeryville (or presumably Contra Costa County). Your way of public policy throws the process over to the vocal minority and turns a blind eye towards evidence based policy. Interestingly, the former City Council, in power while you lived here, agreed with you; they listened to the johnny-come-lately minority screamers (out of cowardice I say).
DeleteYour way rewards bullies in the minority and opens a space for policy that serves the elected officials at the expense of the majority. You should have waited to see the results of the orderly process the majority of your neighbors signed on for. You should be open to evidence based policy being really the only rational way for public policy to be conducted. Otherwise I could have my own idea and just yell louder than you against your idea in this case of the traffic circles that brought us this terrible pile of twisted metal.
Bullies in the minority? Evidence based policy? Why didn't someone research who actually owned the properties affected and send them letters? That would have allowed everyone to get involved in the process to help determine the best solutions.
DeleteLetters to owners would be a good way to notify owners. Renters would be out of luck though. I think the way the City notified the neighbors was good; letters to each occupant at each address.
DeleteRegarding shifting traffic volume, studies have shown that traffic calming is not a zero-sum conflict. Some traffic is shifted to arterial streets. But the total traffic volume on residential and arterial streets decreases. It's called dissuaded traffic demand. An analogous misconception is the idea that one can address freeway traffic congestion by adding travel lanes. This approach actually increases traffic congestion. It's called induced traffic demand.
DeleteRegarding notifying residents in 2006, every residential address in the Triangle neighborhood received a flyer informing them of the future community meetings.