Laserfiche WebLink
If safety were the real concern, the islands would need to be where the crossings are. <br />One thing pedestrians and safety experts like to see these days are crossing islands, also called Pedestrian Safety Islands. No pedestrian should be required to <br />cross more than one or two lanes; after that, it gets dicey, especially for people with various disabilities. This project creates about 12 new islands, but not one is <br />crossable. Not one makes things safer for pedestrians. These islands don't seem to help with flooding resiliency either. The question of who could have benefited, <br />who should have benefited or who did benefit from this project is still up in the air. <br />Did cars and drivers win or lose here? <br />medians communicate safety, and drivers feeling safe will go faster <br />lane widths of 11-14ft shout 45 mph <br />a new "invitation lane" on Alameda de Las Pulgas increases the volume <br />left turn pockets to many side streets encourage higher volumes <br />no parking spots removed for bike buffers or day-lighting <br />two pedestrian beacons around Stafford Park render other crosswalks 'unimportant' <br />Car-centric is winning again: <br />Cars hardly give up anything in this project, not speed, capacity, space, and time; there is no additional cost to driving. Research shows that right before a speed <br />hump, average speed goes down. However, right after the speed hump, drivers accelerate more. So, right around Stafford Park might be where cars go the fastest. <br />In the end, neither traffic calming nor traffic safety were achieved. <br />Missing are features that would be people-centric and would encourage more walking: <br />no safe pedestrian lights <br />no pedestrian islands <br />no raised crosswalks <br />no fixed sidewalks <br />7/21/24, 5:24 PM Blog: Pedestrians still drowning on Hopkins Avenue - Redwood City Pulse <br />https://www.rwcpulse.com/blogs/peeking-at-plans/2023/11/13/hopkins-2/2/5