Traffic safety concerns
City should reconsider ineffective, dangerous traffic circles
To the Editor:
A woman riding a one-wheel device was struck by a car at Pacific Avenue and Paru Street on Wednesday, December 17, reigniting debate over Alameda’s proposed Greenway street redesign. The rider ran a stop sign while the driver failed to slow or check for cross traffic. Emergency responders transported her to the hospital emergency room. Surveillance footage registered with Alameda police shows the impact and the rider flipping before hitting the pavement.
This incident follows a near-miss weeks earlier involving two teenagers at the same intersection, and several repeated instances of cars not slowing or looking left and right at the intersection.
Neighbors overwhelmingly prefer a simple four-way stop at Paru and Pacific, like the one at Willow. When cars clear Lincoln Avenue, they race up Paru without slowing until Buena Vista. Stop signs force drivers to pause and look both ways. Traffic circles do not.
Opposition to the plan is not new. A neighborhood petition submitted earlier this year showed 85% of respondents opposed the proposed traffic circle at Paru and Pacific, favoring a four-way stop instead. Residents argue that mini traffic circles confuse drivers, fail to sufficiently slow speeding cars, and create visibility issues. They point to Berkeley’s experience, where similar circles ultimately required additional stop signs. Multiple studies in historic residential neighborhoods have shown that four-way stops are safer where pedestrian and cyclist presence is more common.
The prototype circle at Chestnut and Pacific has drawn criticism for its appearance and effectiveness. They are visually gaudy in historic type residential neighborhoods. Residents question whether meaningful traffic studies were conducted that address the Paru Street issues.
The crash occurred less than 24 hours after another Alameda City Transportation Commission meeting on the Pacific Avenue Greenway project. Community members were limited to three-minute comments, with no opportunity for rebuttal, dialogue, or compromise.
The “Greenway” design favors uninterrupted cycling through intersections, leaving drivers, pedestrians, and neighbors with severely compromised safety. Committee members dismissed concerns, and were generally condescending toward drivers, suggesting they would simply have to “adapt” to the new traffic circles. The argument for reducing emissions to combat climate change collapses when weighed against the immediate need for community safety and the protection of human lives!
The City should have installed a four-way stop at this intersection years ago. Mini-circles will not prevent drivers from speeding through as if navigating a slalom course. Most drivers today have a “me first” attitude. Stop signs, not circles, force drivers to pause and look both ways.
The city bears responsibility for these accidents. It has the ability and obligation to make intersections safer for everyone, not just “easier” for cyclists. Yet the city continues to push forward with pro-cyclist Greenway plans at the expense of broader community safety. It’s time to halt another ineffective traffic circle at Paru and Pacific.
Katharine Untch
Lighting in the tube
To the Editor:
I’m a soon-to-be 74-year-old lady who had a frightening experience in the Webster Tube. It was a bright sunny day when I drove into the tube. For me, it was pitch black inside except for the taillights in front of me. Apparently my eye pupils didn’t dilate fast enough to adjust to the dim light inside the tube. I didn’t dare to look away from the taillights, following them to the end of the tube.
My husband, who is five years older, experienced the same phenomenon. It felt like an accident waiting to happen. Both of us are scared to drive in the dimly lit tubes.
I believe the experience is common among many geriatric people who are driving. As a precaution it’s high time to brighten the tubes at the same level as many other tunnels. I imagine that other age groups would be grateful as well.
A long time resident of Alameda,
Judith Fruge
Editorials and Letters to the Editor
All opinions expressed on this page are the author's alone and do not reflect those of the Alameda Post, nor does our organization endorse any views the author may present. Our objective as an independent news source is to fully reflect our community's varied opinions without giving preference to a particular viewpoint.
If you disagree with an opinion that we have published, please submit a rebuttal or differing opinion in a letter to the Editor for publication. Review our policies page for more information.
