I disagree with Adam Peller’s comments in his Aug. 8 letter regarding the design of the Daniel/Jackson Street project. The placement of the proposed bumpout, which has not yet been fully tested by the city, has been designed in a manner that deflects westbound Jackson Street traffic southbound rather than allowing it to continue through to Parker Street. If the purpose of the bumpout is for slowing down traffic, maybe traffic-calming measures should be instituted along a bigger section of Jackson Street rather than building a dangerous obstruction at the bottom of a long hill.
As Mr. Bergman knows, the City has responded to his and others' criticisms about the adequacy of previous trials by agreeing to do another, more complete round of testing after school begins. It's ironic that while Mr. Bergman has demanded—and will receive—further testing to validate the City's assumption that the Daniel/Jackson intersection redesign will not materially deflect traffic, he continues to press his hypothesis that, by his own standard, is also untested. Mr. Bergman makes a similar deflection point in his comment to my response to his first letter to the TAB (fourth letter on the page).
The planned trial is going to answer the deflection question. If there's material, unacceptable deflection down lower Jackson and onto Walter Street, then it seems pretty clear we'll be back to the drawing board.
I addressed in detail Mr. Bergman's concern that the bumpout, at the bottom of the hill, constitutes a danger. To summarize: the beauty of the bumpout is that every motorist is going to share Mr. Bergman's concern about the danger of going too fast through the intersection and slow down. Slower traffic is safer traffic!
Finally, Mr. Bergman is absolutely right about the need for traffic calming at other locations along the Daniel/Jackson cut-through. There should be something on Daniel to address eastbound traffic that goes too fast. There should be a raised intersection at the corner of Cypress and Jackson. There should be other measures to address other spots of concern. (While not strictly on the Daniel/Jackson cut-through, but in the near neighborhood, the corner on Cypress near the school merits some immediate attention.)
The need for other traffic calming, however, doesn't reduce the need for traffic calming at the Daniel/Jackson Street intersection to address very serious problems that are specifically attributable to the intersection's current design.
Let the trial begin!
Previously: Daniel Street Stop Sign
Yup. After years of careful study, traffic engineers agreed that this is the one most effective and safe place to put such a device. Following on with a speed table, like the new one at Woodland, was specifically suggested in the report as an excellent follow up, and Sean and I have been lobbying for such measures.
ReplyDeleteMr. Bergman doesn't suggest alternate devices or placement. Ineffective measures, like stop signs and posted speed limits, have been the only "improvements" that I have heard from my Walter Street neighbors. Hurtful comments at the last public meeting suggested that many area residents do not care about calming aggressive traffic along someone else's street, only keeping it where it is. That's not very neighborly. I can assure everyone that Sean and I, as well as city staff have no intentions to reverse the situation.