Charles,
It isn't that I was unaware, as you put it, of the requirement. I was responding to your last
suggestion as I included below, precisely because I was responding to it, that a "No Left
Turn" sign be posted at the intersection of Melrose and Evergreen to funnel the traffic up to
La Verne instead. As I stated, that would just push the traffic pattern to another place, where it would be no less problematic.
Bob Cogswell
--- On Sat, 1/8/11, Charlessands <charlessands@aol.com> wrote:
From: Charlessands <charlessands@aol.com>
Subject: Fwd: [madroneparkcircle] Re: It's Turning Into A Regular Bureaucracy On Evergreen Avenue! "The Never Ending Expirements For Safety Committee"
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
Date: Saturday, January 8, 2011, 11:49 AM
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 < sunauto@pacbell.net> 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
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment