Posted by Oxymo Ron, a resident of another community, on Feb 1, 2008 at 7:45 am
We have foolishly avoided that answer to dangerous traffic in Alamo, but we have always known the ANSWER. Simply remove Danville Blvd in the Alamo Business District and make access through the MALL a matter of access lanes among the stores and parking.
Posted by Chris Romo, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Feb 2, 2008 at 8:39 am
Is Shiu kidding?
"In general, Public Works takes into account areas it considers hazardous and acts quickly - by putting in signs or speed bumps - in those places, Shiu said. But Danville Boulevard hasn't proved to be hazardous in the eyes of the county, he said."
This stretch of roadway has seen more accidents, auto vs. bike and auto vs. auto, far beyond the averages anywhere in the county - check the numbers as performed years ago when the roundabout was proposed. It's only gotten worse. Let Shiu cross this stretch of roadway at 5:00pm or better yet, in the dark with no immediate street lights.
Posted by Evelyn, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Feb 2, 2008 at 8:46 am
Posted by request of the author
Supervisor Piepho is circulating a letter that was received by my neighbor. The letter assumes that a change of speed limit on Danville Blvd at the Alamo Plaza will somehow make the road safer. It is not an issue of speed and it is an issue of stopping for pedestrians and safe access for drivers to and from the plaza. It simply does not matter how fast someone hits you!
Changes of the name, speed limit or any effort to maintain or increase the volume of traffic through the plaza will provide no safety for pedestrians or our local drivers. The only solution is to restrict traffic access in the plaza area so that plaza becomes a destination and not a commuter corridor.
Making access to and through the plaza part of the overall access lanes within the plaza will discourage commute traffic and provide additional property for shops and parking. With pedestrians having to only cross one access lane at a time in any access to the plaza, their safety would be more secured.
Posted by Hal Bailey, a resident of another community, on Feb 3, 2008 at 7:59 am
Thank you, Neighbors, for sharing your thoughts on Danville Blvd traffic in Alamo. In the many responses I received, you have concluded that speed is not the issue and the volume of traffic is clearly the issue for the entire length of Danville Blvd in Alamo.
Your conclusions were to make Danville Blvd's only purpose be access to our business district and our neighborhoods and to eliminate its role as a commute route. Clearly, the preferred solution is to remove Danville Blvd in the Alamo business district and use Mall access lanes to route drivers to various entrances and exits north, south, east and west. You want stop lights on the access lanes for safe crossing by pedestrians.
Many of you also addressed the Hemme Avenue/Lewis Lane traffic issues created by SRV YMCA's attempt to build commercial operations within the neighborhoods, a new proposed fire station, and Rancho Romero School and it lack of effective student transportation.
It is our agreed first step to "uninvite" commuters from using Danville Blvd in Alamo and removal of Danville Blvd in the business district is a rational and immediate solution. Please post your further comments to this Town Square Forum.
Posted by Jenny Wilson, a resident of another community, on Feb 3, 2008 at 11:29 am
Posted by request of the author
I believe the recent changes on Danville Blvd at the Alamo Plaza have increased traffic and traffic problems. We should now fully rethink how Danville Blvd is configured and for what purpose. The county considered Danville Blvd a north/south traffic corridor and Alamo considers the Blvd our access to Alamo Plaza and our neighborhoods.
Traffic is the reality we must solve and inviting more traffic has proven not to be the answer.
Posted by Askidoo, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Feb 7, 2008 at 8:14 pm
It is amazing to me that some make light of the injuries suffered at this location re your article "Will It Take A Death".
Your article illustrated that 14 driveways with a chicken lane and much outside rush hour traffic mean perilous crossing for citizens. After many years of debate with a simple solution of a light (allowing pedestrians time to cross the street) but held up by the 'rural' crowd who hate lights - accidents of auto/pedestrian/bike contine.
The business owners didn't want to limit the 14 driveways to turn right only which if done on a portion of them, would have tremendously helped the problem( as that limitation they believe might mean fewer come to their stores - faulty greedy reasoning that the exits to a parking lot have a limitation on store purchases but, unfortunately, which several supervisors have noted).
The 'semi-rural crowd' didn't want a stoplight but realized the danger and so proposed a roundabout - a roundabout at 3 times the cost of a light, with eminent domain of property, and with a 15 mile an hour max speed limit and with pedestrians only able to cross in the gaps of traffic - which would be none given the flow concept of roundabouts - which might enable pedestrians to cross halfway at best but still with only a paint stripe between them and the car.
Without a town council to decide, with a long distance supervisor in charge, the problem will continue as it has for the last 15+ years.
This is not the first accident of pedestrian/bike/auto nor will it be the last -unfortunately - particularly when a simple solution exists of a stoplight which would allow a gap in traffic and protection for any bike or pedestrian to cross and which is doable within county public works budget and expertise.
Posted by Oxymo Ron, a resident of another community, on Feb 8, 2008 at 8:51 am
Our neighbor, Askidoo, very appropriately points to issues that avoid solutions for traffic along the length of Danville Blvd in the Alamo region. Every remedy so far has dealt with the affects of the problem and therefore increases traffic on Danville Blvd. The problem is the traffic and the only solution is removal of access to Danville Blvd for through-traffic usage.
Establishing a MALL in Alamo's business center provides access through the MALL in multiple, designated single lanes with crossing lights creates a safer environment for pedestrians and "uninvites" through-traffic.
All remedies proposed or accomplished have only invited more traffic and more danger to the length of Danville Blvd. More and more, we are trapped in our neighborhoods by increases in traffic invited by increased access proposed or completed.
No government in any form will resolve this issue until the focus is on removal of access for through-traffic on Danville Blvd.