Click this link to optimize Open Forum for screen readers Skip to Content
Open Forum
Open Town Hall

Subscribe to Registered Statements From Forum Participants

Info Hide

Get registered statements in your RSS reader or emailed to you as a daily digest.

A statement is registered if it is claimed, verified and civil:

  1. It is claimed if its author has claimed the statement by signing in before or shortly after submitting the statement.
  2. It is verified if it is claimed and its author has provided their street address in their registration and verified their email address by clicking the verification link emailed by Open Town Hall.
  3. It is civil if it is verified and it meets the guidelines for civility.

If any of these conditions are not met, then the statement is unregistered.

You can subscribe to unregistered statements here.

Statements are emailed at most once per day (in the morning).

Subscribe

Manage your subscription in your RSS feed reader

Check out some recent Registered Statements from forum participants

Name not shown inside ALAMEDA CITY June 12, 2019, 9:12 PM

There shouldn't be a terminus at Grand. Please complete Clement, get rid of the Pennzoil station and work out property rights adjacent to Wind River.

Name not shown inside ALAMEDA CITY June 12, 2019, 1:33 PM

The traditional bike lanes provide the maximum with of the street, which is preferred based on the many uses the street provides. There are many existing businesses that require access to their driveways and loading docks. The wider street provides the safest possible access for drivers and employees of our neighborhood businesses.

Name not shown inside ALAMEDA CITY June 12, 2019, 11:25 AM

No two-way cycle track. I love the concept, but the City is kidding itself thinking this design protect cyclists crossing Oak, Park, Everett and Broadway, to say nothing of the many driveways and businesses along Clement, including future development in the Alameda Marina. Cyclists traveling in the non-conforming direction are at the greatest risk. I am cyclist and would never ride in this track. The design works at Shoreline as there are no obstructions. This style is completely inappropriate here.

Clement is a heavily traveled street and serves a myriad of uses. It is a truck route. AC Transit and the City prefer to relocate the bus line there. We are asking too much of this street already. Businesses in some older buildings have loading docks where trucks protrude out into the street under current conditions. Narrowing the street with a cycle track only make these dangerous conditions worse. Does the City have safety concerns for those employees and truck drivers? I appreciate the concern for cyclists, but not at the expense of everyone else’s safety.

Name not available inside ALAMEDA CITY June 12, 2019, 7:35 AM

Great!

Name not available inside ALAMEDA CITY June 11, 2019, 3:06 PM

No to two-way bikeway. Want wide bike lanes on either side of street.
Argument: bike lanes on either side of street is much more intuitive, hence more safe than this proposal. Auto drivers and pedestrians don't expect nor know how to react to cyclists traveling and/or turning on same side of street. Two-way bike lane will cause more auto-bike and ped-bike accidents because peds will step out without looking both ways, and cars won't see bikes coming in both directions while turning. Two-way bike lanes are a bad idea that no-one will understand.

Name not available June 11, 2019, 2:29 PM

I agree this is the better option as long as there’s adequate space for vehicles with wide loads and industrial commerce.

Name not available inside ALAMEDA CITY June 11, 2019, 2:26 PM

Having adequate space for vehicles is important along this road. The street is used for wide loads to transport goods, boats, and conduct business. The minimum width for vehicles as stated by CA code, does not mean that is adequate for this street. If one sidewalk could be reduced or eliminated, it might ensure adequate space for all the planned transportation methods. Something has to give in order to balance all needs adequately.

Name not available inside ALAMEDA CITY June 11, 2019, 2:15 PM

No. Clement is not wide enough to add a full 2 way bike way. As seen by the excessively narrow Shoreline Drive, Clement cannot safely conduct all the transportation methods envisioned (pedestrian, industrial traffic (wide load trucks/boats), commuters, cyclists). Something or someone will be short changed. Getting mad at your fellow citizens for pointing this out doesn’t change the fact that the recommended plan cramps everyone. Something has to give. You cannot put the proverbial square peg into a round hole. Why isn’t the cross Alameda bicycle path being routed through the new Alameda Marina Area? Isn’t that sufficient?

Although many think Shoreline Drive is a success, it is not. Again, it is too narrow for vehicles and the bicycle lanes are underutilized for the amount of money spent.

Name not available June 11, 2019, 12:40 PM

I am concerned about the loss of parking. I own a house on the 2200 block of Clement. According to this drawing there is no longer parking allowed in front of my own house and I don't have a driveway. There are 7 houses on this block and 4 don't have driveways. The drawing shows only 5 parking spots for the entire block. Parking is already tight especially when Thompson field is being used for soccer and football practices and games. You need to consider the home owners daily life trying to unload groceries when parked blocks away and not just a few bicyclist that might use this path.

Name not shown inside ALAMEDA CITY June 8, 2019, 7:44 PM

I think the two-way bike lane on one side is the way to go if there is a change in this direction. (i.e., not hybrid or one lane on each side). However, I disagree with the goal of reducing speeding. There are no passageways through the island that allow a greater speed, and I think Clement is a great choice for creating a 35-mile per hour through-way. It is a largely industrial area and a great option to allow cars to enter the island via Park St. bridge and "scoot" up to Grand St. without dealing with the mess of lights and congestion on Park St. The reason why we have a problem with speeding is too many people in Alameda and no one road where people can go a little faster legally and safely. So then we have lunatics speeding on all our streets, including those with schools, shops, and residential areas. The 35-mile-per-hour zone on Lincoln/Tilden between the Fruitvale Bridge and Park St. is IMO successful - let commuters scoot through and keep speeding off other streets.