Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Nov 30, 2012
OK, I'm baffled. Of 27 collisions, only 18 were preventable? So the other 9 were pre-destined? Please explain how ANY collision could not have been prevented.
Solution: "preventing access across the middle of El Camino Real"
El Camino doesn't need any more stop lights, it is already a night mare, and that intersection is so close to the light at Escuela and then again at El Monte.
Just stop allowing left turns there.
Wouldn't it be nice if these were all this easy? Don't allow lefts from Clark to El Camino. Simple. That's a difficult left anyway, and those folks can instead go up to Escuela and U-Turn.
"That could hurt businesses along El Camino Real". Are you kidding me?
Another traffic light would be brutal and would create a painful bottleneck in that area.
There are several businesses there that I have visited for many years. Banning left turns onto El Camino with some type of sign or barrier would make sense, but you also need a way to make an easier transition back to northbound El Camino.
This is bewildering.
"Council members want more information about how the broadsides were occurring...." The council does not need to spend taxpayer dollars for a consultant to announce that broadsides occur because drivers attempting a left turn onto El Camino mistakenly believe they have enough time to turn left in front of oncoming traffic. Duh!
Spending a 1/2 million dollars to add another traffic signal when there are already traffic signals a few blocks in either direction?
I'm actually agreeing with Tom Means (that's a first!) on this one: Put up a "No Left Turn" sign on both El Camino and Clark. Use the same easy strategy that was used at Levin and Grant. Allow right turns only both into and out of Clark, and install the same roadway divider that allows emergency vehicle access.
Why is this such a big deal when they've already solved this problem elsewhere?
And why is the Voice adding to the mentality that every molehill must be made into a mountain by falsely proclaiming in their headline that there is "no quick fix?"
Of course there is a quick fix. Mr Means and Mr Kasperzak have perfectly well thought out (although both solutions just popped into my head after reading the first few sentences) and inexpensive solutions. Why would Caltrans and Mr Saleh immediately jump to the conclusion that we need to spend $500,000 of our money? The "process" (I think the process is called ad hoc bureaucracy) that led to that conclusion is ridiculous if not corrupt.
I also vote for LET THEM MAKE A U TURN at the next light. It not that far and lot less risk.
I frequent that area and the ONLY thing that will work is to extend the curbing to eliminate any turns into/out of Clark across the center divider. The traffic is moving deceptively fast and even making a left INTO Clark can be hair-raising. El Monte has several entries into the neighborhhood and traffic would actually be lessened. Traffic does NOT need another signal. It is already a gauntlet from Castro to San Antonio.
I live a couple blocks from this intersection, and can personally verify it's one of the most dangerous, congested, terrible intersections in this city. I've wondered for 10 years why there is not a light here, it's well nigh impossible to cross at rush hour, and is dangerous at all other times of the day. As much as I will hate to have to sit through ANOTHER light on this small section of El Camino, PUT A GODDAMNED LIGHT IN so people stop being slaughtered!
How the he'll does a traffic signal cost half a million dollars?
JWubbs: Finally someone who cares more about people living than whether there are a few more cars in the neighborhood or another light on El Camino. Thank you for restoring my faith in at least a small part of humanity.
Does anybody know how to petition City Council to put in a traffic light at the intersection of Cuesta and Springer? Right now, it's an 8-way stop sign and nobody knows when it's their turn to go. I saw 2 accidents there and witnessed many more near-accidents. Plus, lots of honking because people take their turn when it's not their turn.
Maybe it's a good idea. I don't live in the neighborhood, so I don't really know. But I do drive through it to get to the Post Office.
I've observed that making eye contact with other drivers helps cue who goes when. Seems like a good habit. I rather like the idea of people being more communicative in their driving habits.
Re: "How [...] does a traffic signal cost half a million dollars?"
From Web Link
6. How much does a traffic signal cost?
A signal can cost form a quarter million to half a million dollars to install. Over half of that cost is labor.
A signal controller and cabinet costs about $15000. A mast arm costs almost that much. Signal heads are about $1000 per signal face.
Maintenance is about $8000 per year per signal. This includes parts and labor. Relamping is the primary expense.
I raised small children while living on Clark Ave and walked them frequently to Castro School and downtown. Crossing El Camino was nearly fatal but walking along sidewalks past the driveways of the strip mall up to the Escuela light and crossing at that light was often a near death experience for all. Cars are out of control there and have way too many driveways and feeder streets too close together at a very wide crossing. Not safe for peds and walking bikes across.
Traffic on El Camino needs to slow down. If drivers 'won't stand for another light' on El Camino they should keep their cars parked until they figure out how to respect others. Businesses, car and bike traffic, and the sustainable behavior of people walking require careful attention, slow speed, and predictable stops. Grow up drivers or surrender your licenses.
Accidents at this location are forcing Cal Tran (not city council) to make a change. They could either put a light in or close the divider.
A center divider would solve the car accident issue, but not the Pedestrians crossing without a cross walk issue. I guess that would require a fence on the meridian.
Our government leaders electing to add a signal will help make cars less comfortable to drive, and walking more comfortable. This will help displace those residents that refuse to give up their car centric way of life, and turn Mountain View over to the next wave of residents whose lifestyle choices conform to beliefs that do not use so much energy to save their personal time and effort.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.
Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?
- Bailey Park
- Blossom Valley
- Castro City
- Cuesta Park
- Jackson Park
- Monta Loma
- North Bayshore
- North Whisman
- Old Mountain View
- Rengstorff Park
- Rex Manor
- Shoreline West
- St. Francis Acres
- Stierlin Estates
- Sylvan Park
- The Crossings
- Waverly Park
- Whisman Station
- another community
Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.
Freebirds Palo Alto shutters, Pieology to move in
By Elena Kadvany | 14 comments | 3,593 views
A Glimpse into local HS Suicide
By Chandrama Anderson | 14 comments | 2,737 views
Deny the 429 Univ Ave Project Appeal
By Steve Levy | 11 comments | 1,792 views
Now Playing - Your Dinner!
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,021 views
Teens and Cutting, What's Going On?
By Caroline Fleck | 0 comments | 302 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Mountain View
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
Palo Alto Online
© 2015 Mountain View Online
All rights reserved.