Should Cliff Drive be reduced from 4 lanes to 3?

Yes. Safer. 59% 222 votes
No, this 'solution' will cause more problems. 40% 154 votes
376 total votes


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Cliff Drive May Lose a Lane, by Nick Welsh:

webadmin (webadmin)
June 22, 2011 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Better quash this proposal now, cuz if not then everyone will start riding their bikes and relieving traffic congestion everywhere else as a result.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2011 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, the proposal would not reduce the number of lanes from 4 to 3; it would increase the number of lanes from 4 to 5 (there will be two designated bike lanes). Bikes are traffic, too!

Nockamixon (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2011 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with the Stepford Proposal in principal but no one has explained the business traffic at Cliff and Meigs Road. It is not a problem East of Meigs.

With only one lane of traffic, someone has to stop on the roadway turning right into a business driveway to yield to a pedestrian or bicycle rider, what happens then, gridlock?

I can't see the business block west of Meigs without an additional signal eastbound to allow cars to go in/out of the parking areas. All the businesses have cramped parking and poor traffic flow. Ever seen the cars backed up on to Cliff when trying to enter the Mesa Center from the corner of Meigs and Cliff? The layout of the Mesa Center parking causes this condition.

Some more work needs to go into Los Positas, will a roundabout really clear all those left turn cars from Los Positas to Cliff during rush hour?

It's a good start but needs hard data. The Mesa Architect Site does not provide data, just pretty pictures.

How about first dropping the speed down and studying what happens. How about 35mph or even better 30mph from Mesa Lane eastbound, with a motorcycle Cop to enforce it. I am tired of hearing crotch rockets wound out to 8,000 rpm flying by on Cliff.

According to the Mesa Architect Site we have 10,000 residents and 16,000 SBCC, did not state how many of the 16,000 commute, but Cliff Drive has a large volume of traffic that needs to flow.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2011 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Randy Rowse, who lives on the Mesa less than 1000 feet from Cliff Drive, must, per State law, recuse himself from voting on this matter as he owns property which will have it's property value increased by this project so therefore has a financial conflict of interest, as such financial gain is reasonably foreseeable.

The story has an error. The true fact is that Caltrans did not instigate this, the City did, and Caltrans only informed the city that in the event that the city instigated this project then Caltrans would consider it. They informed the City that the City would have to provide plans for the re-striping, which city Transportation staff is working on as we speak. Therefore, even though Caltrans is doing the work and paying for it this re-striping is actually a City project. Therefore this re-striping to remove lanes is a project under CEQA law and has to go through environmental review, with a traffic study to show the significant adverse environmental effects, before the City Council can vote on this matter.

Lastly, removing lanes will cause diversion of traffic onto other streets in the neighborhood, such as Shoreline Drive, and the removal of lanes which will cause such diversion is illegal under State law to do.

buffalo (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2011 at 11:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Buffalo, you mis-read the article, which did not say Caltrans started this. What it did say:

"Caltrans's suggestion came in response to last week's Mesa community meeting, attended by nearly 200 people, about the traffic problems posed by Cliff Drive. Caltrans representatives said if they got the council's seal of approval, they could fold the re-striping into slurry seal work that's scheduled to begin next week."

webadmin (webadmin)
June 22, 2011 at 11:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

response to WEBADMIN:
WEBADMIN, it is you, as well as this story who have your facts wrong!

This re-striping project to remove lanes was going on for 2 weeks prior to the Mesa meeting. I called the director of district 5 ( our district) CalTrans in San luis the day before the mesa meeting. He informed me that CalTrans had already decided on a project that included a slurry seal and re-striping to 4 lanes and have already let a contract for such work to be done in July. He informed me that he was contact with residents and city staff and the city requested that Cal Trans remove two lanes when they re-striped. He informed me that CalTrans would never instigate such lane removal and it had to be a city request and that then CalTrans would take it under consideration and that CalTrans then may decide to do it or not based on its merits. He went on to inform me Mesa meeting that the city would have to provide plans and its a fact that the City staff started preparing such plans BEFORE the mesa meeting.

Therefore the story is wrong when it said CalTrans suggested removal of lanes in response to last weeks mesa meeting. nothing could be further from the truth.

Please get your facts straight before you respond to someone much better informed than you are on this issue, and who happens to know the real behind the scene facts.

buffalo (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2011 at 11:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a frequent bike rider in the Mesa area, I would LOVE to have a bike lane on Cliff Drive. As a frequent car driver on the Mesa, I still think all of the proposed improvements would be beneficial. Any effort to slow down cars on Cliff would be a plus. Cliff Drive is NOT a freeway.

Karen_Feeney (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2011 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the proposal is a great idea and should move forward! The speed and size of that street are unnecessary and it would serve the community much better to have bike lanes, slower cars, and SB feel to it -- instead of a highway.

mobius (anonymous profile)
June 24, 2011 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wish there were a way to get a left turn lane without eliminating other lanes. But the left turn lane seems essential.

jimstoic (anonymous profile)
June 24, 2011 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So...3 lanes. Is the traffic on Cliff asymetric? Do our traffic planner and opioniators know what asymetric means? Or how it applies to traffic flow?

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 25, 2011 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

... asymmetric ...

God (anonymous profile)
June 25, 2011 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This poll and these comments are interesting, but they don't mean much without hearing the testimony of the people who live on the Mesa and use Cliff Drive every day.

At a June 14 neighborhood meeting, 100 people attended and 30 spoke about the dangers of Cliff Drive and the need for safety improvements. We heard stories from seniors at SHIFCO who can't cross the street to get a bus, from parents who will never let their children cross the street to go to the beach or school, from people who might bike instead of driving if it were safer, from people who have been rear-ended while waiting to turn left off of Cliff, from people who have had cars end up in their yards and houses. There have been at least two fatal accidents since I've lived here.

The truth is people drive way over the speed limit because Cliff feels like a freeway and invites high speeds. The proposal is to go from 2 car lanes in each direction to 1 car lane in each direction, with a safe left-turn lane and 2 bike lanes. Cars will naturally drive a bit slower and closer together, bikes will have their own lanes, and pedestrians will have a shorter distance to cross.

Driving from Las Positas to Castillo might take 30 seconds longer if speeds were reduced by 5 miles per hour. I'll take safety over speed and convenience any day.

Come on down to the Tuesday City Council meeting and listen to the people who have suffered from this street long enough.

dennist (anonymous profile)
June 25, 2011 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The current situation is symmetric because there are 2 uni-directional lanes in each direction.

But 3 lanes is symmetric too because the proposed middle lane for left turns is bi-directional.

Spatially inclined individuals should be pleased.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 25, 2011 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Because there aren't ENOUGH traffic jams in this incredibly poorly-planned city, let's make more by pinching off lanes! What a GREAT IDEA! Drivers pay for these roads with their fuel taxes and their registrations, yet they are treated like unwanted stepchildren when it comes to these types of decisions.

I have some fairly debilitating health issues which make riding a bike impossible, but I do love to walk and I do of course drive my little old 4 cylinder car. It DOES seem that SB is becoming more bike-centric by the day, leaving out pedestrians and those who drive cars in decision-making processes. They get the extras, we get the bill and of course, increasing inability to get anywhere without sitting in staggering amounts of traffic. How can this be healthy for anyone?

The goal should be the smooth and safe movement of ALL traffic, cars, pedestrians, and bikes...NOT the catering to a vocal, militant special-interest group.

The reason people are flocking to Cliff Drive is because of the horrific traffic everywhere else. Fix this mess and there won't be these situations, the traffic will be more spread out and diluted, people will safely get where they are going, and SB might actually become a model of excellent traffic engineering.

Dare we hope?

Holly (anonymous profile)
June 25, 2011 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry to hear about your debilitating health problems Holly. If you ever need to get somewhere quick, give me a call and I'll let you ride on my handlebars.

Chato (anonymous profile)
June 26, 2011 at 12:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Your kind offer is no doubt appreciated Chato, but this entertaining video will cast a whole new light on this issue:

billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 26, 2011 at 1:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, eastbeach. Makes sense to me.

And thanks to God for correcting my egregious spelling error. I knew it looked wrong but was too lazy to look it up. Keep focused on the important stuff!

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 26, 2011 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Holly is wrong. The seven core supporters of Michael Self indeed may be a vocal special interest group, but I would not consider them to be "militant" like you claim.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2011 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

'Seven core supporters' and she was elected to Council AND running high in the current polls? Where'd you get your data?

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 29, 2011 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Got a link for that poll?

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 29, 2011 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But Schwartz and Falcone have entered the top three in the past week, displacing Rouse and Francisco. The Demachine must have turned its bloggers loose.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 2, 2011 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Community associations consisting of a very small percentage of residents and that claim to represent the opinion of the majority in their respective neighborhoods are a recent and dangerous local phenomena - a new form of disenfranchisement to add to newspaper censorship and government disinformation.
I've lived on a street that intersects Cliff since 1976, have 3 kids, oldest now 31, who crossed Cliff to Monroe with many others, and the only incident any experienced was caused by a driver who ran the red light at Flora Vista and almost hit my youngest. I don't want emergency vehicle response time increased to accommodate bikes and make architects happy.
I've noticed most supporters are recent Mesa residents. I stopped attending Mesa neighborhood meetings due to the organization's non-representative position on marijuana dispensaries, the personal opinion of the newspaper editor, not Mesa residents, and I think current opinions expressed by the "Mesa neighborhood association" represent, maximum, the 1/3 of residents who voted for Measure T.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2011 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: