Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:12:47 -0800 
From: Howard Rosenberg <howardrr@pacbell.net> 
Subject: re: "Broken promises and nonfeasance" 
To: Jed Donnelley <jed@webstart.com> 
Cc: PHillier@ci.berkeley.ca.us, RChen@ci.berkeley.ca.us, 
 KWorthington@ci.berkeley.ca.us, 
 "Steven Wheeler c/o C. Chaicharn" <CChaicharn@ci.berkeley.ca.us>, 
 oregonregent@yahoogroups.com 

Jed,

Thanks for the TACTC memo today that contains your comments, a copy of Sedge Thompson's
message to city staff and elected officials, and a copy of Reh-Lin Chen's message to
"ladies and gentlemen."  I think that if you you had attended the public TC meeting
last week, you would have a better basis for understanding what the Commission advised,
what the Assistant City Manager decided, and why.  Many neighbors concerned about
pedestrian, cyclist, and auto safety offered insightful comments and constructive
ideas.  Too bad they weren't brought into planning discussions months ago. 

Perhaps, as you say, a forced right turn structure at Benvenue and Ashby would have
cut recently recorded accidents there by more than half.  But perhaps alternative
measures would have been equally effective or better without increasing risks and
causing other problems elsewhere in Willard/Bateman.  Of course, what's advertised
as a safety measure in one place can impose significant costs in others.  Last week
TC Chair Steven Wheeler identified two broad classes of traffic calming mechanisms:
(1) those that move the traffic from one place to another, and (2) those that make
the traffic go more slowly and carefully along its current route.  Pointing out
that the latter usually causes less collateral trouble, and apparently restating
a previous recommendation, he urged staff to look harder for solutions of type #2.

It is a shame that Mr. Chen proceeded to develop Project A (as it is labelled in
the 2/13/02 report from Mr. Rucker to City Council) apart from the obviously
related Project B, and in consultation with so small and unrepresentative a
group of residents affected.  If there has been nonfeasance by city officials,
it was the failure to notify and hear from the public, not the decision to spare
residents and travelers alike the consequences of ill-advised projects. It
should have happened earlier, but the Commission and staff now clearly recognize
and are moving to meet the need for a careful, balanced forecast of effects
from any measures seriously contemplated.  Mr. Hillier's plan to systematically
gather intelligence through surveys of area residents is a valuable, overdue
step in the right direction.

I can fill you in on some points that you and Sedge have touched on:


1.  The objections were not to measures at the Ashby and Benvenue intersection
where the accident rate is so horrific, but at Ashby and Hillegass and to a
lesser extent at Ashby and Regent

While some speakers at the meeting took note of the unacceptably high accident
rate at Benvenue and Ashby, there indeed were objections to forced turns and
entry restrictions as means of addressing them at that intersection, and to
flow restrictions in general at any intersection.


2.  The term "most residents" is used in a loose and to me somewhat incomprehensible way.

Without presuming to read Mr. Chen's mind, I'd say the term is used in cautious
understatement.  Not a single resident at the TC meeting spoke in favor of RTO
measures.  A teacher from Willard Middle School stressed the importance of a
light at Stuart and Telegraph, and he may have been implying support for RTO there.


3.  safety to our streets.  We have met in organized and well-noticed task forces . . .
...semi-diverters worked out by a task force whose meetings and plans are fully
noticed to the neighborhoods over the past several months.


Please.  Well-noticed to whom?  You can check out what share of residents to be
affected by Project A had any knowledge before this month (or even now) about
these meetings or the plan that emerged from them.  Some of my neighbors in the
western part of Willard did check that out, spending many hours to canvass
residents, most of whom wouldn't have known of the scheme if not for the visit.
One result was that several Derby St. neighbors who had been in the dark came
to the TC meeting with less than two hours notice to provide their knowledge
and views.  Even having subscribed to the TACTC list in summer 2000, I have
received no advance notice of the meetings.  Two other neighbors in my area
have not received notices despite having the impression that they signed up
for same at the one TACTC meeting each that they had learned of and attended last Fall.


4.  You affirmed to our most recent traffic safety task force that you will
proceed with these temporary right-turn experiments despite the opinion of
the Traffic Commission.


Mr. Chen stated to those of us at the February meeting that he was going
to proceed -- unless directed otherwise by the City Manager.


5.  Now, in view of your department's apparent buckling to mob-rule by a
few residents drummed-up to object this specific safety plan at a solitary
commission meeting . . .


Whatever name one may call the large array of residents who objected to
Plans A and B at the meeting and in writing, the "few" is quite a stretch.
With adequate public notice of what City staff had in store, a still larger
mob would have objected.


It's interesting that Mr. Chen's brief report after last week's TC meeting
reached me only as a forward from you.  We can only hope that City staff
will direct all future communications about traffic engineering in this
area to every resident at interest, including but not limited to those of
us who have already registered concerns.


-Howard Rosenberg