Has there ever been a more benign thing to get upset about then the City Council adding to transportation goals the reduction of traffic congestion?

The post I wrote is about the many meanings and implications of "congestion relief/management". If this goal is pursued, the City Council must first direct Staff to remove any strategies from the "congestion relief/management" menu that may come into conflict with safety. These would include any road widening/extra lanes, intersections that prioritize car throughput over people trying to cross the street on bike or foot, etc. There may even be more...Staff will know what they are.

If I can get this assurance, that the pursuit of "congestion relief/management" will not compromise safety (by discussing the details, not by blanket statements), then I will not have to be so "alarmist much."

I think that challenge is that many "congestion relief" strategies are distinctly non-synergistic with our climate and safety goals. (remember vision zero? climate action plan? both adopted by Menlo Park city council!)

We might get away with synchronizing lights, adding dedicated bus lanes, and implementing congestion pricing on surface roads during peak hours (which will be the real test of how much we hate traffic! are we willing to put our money where our mouths are?) And we can double down on our commitment to full grade separation for Caltrain, and our support of the reactivation of Dumbarton Rail (which will probably do less for local streets but does support regional environmental goals and give our tired commuters some different options).

But widening roads, as the Fire Chief has urged us to do, will almost certainly yield two outcomes, neither desirable:
a) overly high speeds during non-peak hours (cf. Santa Cruz Avenue near Sand Hill Rd., almost impossible to cross safely as a pedestrian -- or El Camino Real in Palo Alto or Atherton, both of which have seen pedestrian deaths in recent years.)
b) more cars sitting in traffic during peak hours (because roads fill due to latent demand).

The first outcome compromises our safety goals. The second compromises sustainability goals. It is not alarmist to say so.

Yes to the all of the improvements that relieve the pain of congestion in ways that improve safety and sustainability.

* Dumbarton rail, and bus, and carpool improvements to give people options to avoid driving in traffic
* Safe routes to school that help kids be healthy and independent and helps some parents stay out of the school pickup/dropoff traffic jam
* Grocery store and pharmacy in Belle Haven so people can run errands with a 5 minute trip instead of a 30 minute slog across town

Hopefully city council will focus on these win win strategies, and not on the strategies that attempt to speed driving and degrade safety, like adding lanes to roads making it harder to cross the street.

One thing that would go a long way toward reducing traffic problems in the Bay Area is to make sure that people know how to drive before letting them on the road with a license. It's far too easy to get a license and there are far too many people on the roads who can't merge, are inattentive, cause accidents, block traffic, and do all kinds of crazy things.

I saw someone on 280 with the car on cruise control at 80 MPH applying toe nail polish with their bare foot on the steering wheel.

Around town you can see all kinds of poor driving too.

Failure to stop at lights and stop signs, failure to signal, failure to go when it's your turn, and more and more common, failure to move to the right when making a right turn (blocking traffic from moving forward).

Many other countries have much more stringent tests and training before letting people on the road. Along with other measures we should make sure we have better drivers out there.

Adding and improving sidewalks would be huge for pedestrians. TBC ... University Ave, Cambridge, College, widen Fremont, ECR, Roble, Oak, Florence.. it's a long list.