Fwd: [madroneparkcircle] Re: It's Turning Into...

From: Charlessands 

Date: January 8, 2011 11:49:03 AM PST

To: sadams@co.marin.ca.us, jarnold@co.marin.ca.us, hbrown@co.marin.ca.us, skinsey@co.marin.ca.us, cmcglashan@co.marin.ca.us

Subject: Fwd: [madroneparkcircle] Re: It's Turning Into A Regular Bureaucracy On Evergreen Avenue! "The Never Ending Expirements For Safety Committee"

Bcc: Madrone Park Circle, HVCC, SaveEvergreen, Hearus and HVBeat

 

FYI

 

In his below email Bob Cogswell has many good points including moving the traffic around doesn't solve the issue of the traffic caused by MHS. Requiring MHS to van all its 1-8 grade commuting students would reduce the traffic by +/- 50% per an Oct.2010 9 day morning and evening independent traffic study.

 

Bob however apparently is unaware that all MHS 1-8 grade commuting students are  required to enter Homestead Valley via Montford and leave via Evergreen  or Laverne per Board of Supervisors resolutions 2005 -104 and 105 MHS' Traffic Management Plan and revised 2010 MHS' Traffic Management Plan .

 

Charles  

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Cogswell 
To: saveevergreenave <saveevergreenave@gmail.com>; madroneparkcircle <madroneparkcircle@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: sadams <sadams@co.marin.ca.us>; jarnold <jarnold@co.marin.ca.us>; hbrown <hbrown@co.marin.ca.us>; skinsey <skinsey@co.marin.ca.us>; cmcglashan <cmcglashan@co.marin.ca.us>; fmansourian <fmansourian@co.marin.ca.us>; bbeaumont <bbeaumont@co.marin.ca.us>
Sent: Sat, Jan 8, 2011 9:44 am
Subject: Re: [madroneparkcircle] Re: It's Turning Into A Regular Bureaucracy On Evergreen Avenue! "The Never Ending Expirements For Safety Committee"

 

I am going to weigh in in a sort of support for Charles Sands' POV as expressed in so many emails from him to a veritable plethora of people to such an extent that many have commented that they hurt more than help in the issues at hand. First, I am going to assert as given all the points that have been raised by Mr. Sands re the MHS presence and impact, and the failures to enforce on the county's part and the failure to execute on MHS' part, because I have never seen one response from any of the county staff or elected officials that disputes his points. That, to me, is remarkable. It is not sufficient to leave all with the implication that Mr. Sands is so far off the mark here that he doesn't even deserve a cogent reply. No deliberative process would ever succeed on such a basis. Now, my point. All the ideas that move the traffic flow around to reduce the burden on Evergreen Ave. just relocate the problem, but don't solve it. If all the MHS traffic were to use Montford to enter Melrose and La Verne to exit, there would be problems on Montford due to the narrow and windy nature of the last stretch just before the left turn onto Melrose. Leaving Melrose by turning left onto La Verne just impacts the difficult 4-way intersection at La Verne & Reed, and the Reed connector segment leading to Miller is also dangerously narrow and has its share of morning walkers., Then, you get to the stop sign at Miller and have a potential back-up there with a difficult to enter right turn onto Miller when the traffic is heavy on Miller. In sum, there is no satisfactory way to handle so much extra traffic twice a day but to reduce that traffic. That said, there are mechanisms included in the language of the variance granted to MHS for their expansion that could and should be used to effect this traffic reduction. In the reduced traffic scenario, the consideration of the major change of adding a sidewalk of any size, located on either or both sides of Evergreen, with or without marked bike path(s), etc. could take place without the unnatural addition of the MHS traffic impact. A little about my position: I am opposed to the sidewalk in its present form. I am opposed to going forward with any sidewalk until the plan has been through a community process so that ALL the concerns have been addressed in that process. I am opposed to the position that has been created by the process that lead to the grant because what we have now is a situation where ANY dissent is countered by the implicit and stated argument that we cannot afford to let this $900,000.00 windfall plus the $200,00.00 the county will add go. This is effectively blackmail. The money is held as a club over the heads of all who object to the process and its result. There may be more to say to elucidate my position, but I don't want to use any more words here. I'm also not open to debate. Agree or disagree is all I ask, no debate. I also don't live on Evergreen, so I defer to all who do as the most affected and therefore the ones with the greatest leverage in the decision making process as their homes are directly impacted, for better or worse. Bob Cogswell --- On Sat, 1/8/11, Charlessands <charlessands@aol.com> wrote: From: Charlessands <charlessands@aol.com> Subject: [madroneparkcircle] Re: It's Turning Into A Regular Bureaucracy On Evergreen Avenue! "The Never Ending Expirements For Safety Committee" To: saveevergreenave@gmail.com Cc: sadams@co.marin.ca.us, jarnold@co.marin.ca.us, hbrown@co.marin.ca.us, skinsey@co.marin.ca.us, cmcglashan@co.marin.ca.us, fmansourian@co.marin.ca.us, bbeaumont@co.marin.ca.us Date: Saturday, January 8, 2011, 8:25 AM   Bcc:  Madrone Park Circle, HVCC, Hearus and HVBeat   Keith,   Why do you ignore the root cause of the traffic issues on Evergreen ? Is our 1,000 lb. gorilla sacrosanct ?  Why not eliminate the cause of all concerns about traffic by eliminating the cause  for these  concerns ?   Your idea of having a traffic study made is a good one.  Barton Ashman, an internationally recognized San Francisco pedestrian, bike and traffic safety engineer, could provide an impartial environmentally sustainable solution.    In the meantime:   o Why  not just demand that the County require MHS to van all its commuting students ???  An Oct. 2010 independent traffic survey showed that MHS vehicles increase traffic on Evergreen by +/- 100 %.    o Why not not just demand that the County require MHS to comply with its March 2010 revised Traffic Management Plan by requiring all MHS traffic to enter Homestead Valley on Montford ?   o Why not not just demand that the County require MHS to comply with its March 2010 revised Traffic Management Plan by requiring all MHS traffic to not use Lilian Lane to enter/leave Homestead Valley ?   o Why not not just demand that the County require MHS vehicles to leave Homestead Valley on Laverne by placing a "no left turn" sign at Melrose  and Evergreen ?     Charles

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (2)

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___