While there are multiple transportation improvements visibly underway across major "corridors" around Alameda — such as the new cycletrack now under construction along Clement Ave., the unprotected bike lanes and new traffic signals installed along Encinal Ave. as part of a "road diet" by Caltrans, and the unprotected bike lanes recently striped on four blocks of Webster St. and soon to be painted along more blocks along Park St. — important initiatives to improve traffic safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and responsible motorists on many less prominent streets have been de-prioritized.

When City Councilmembers previously inquired about these delays upon delivery of the annual transportation report for 2023, staff said they'd use the upcoming mid-cycle budget process to provide Council with an update and with options for how to proceed.

The proposed mid-cycle budget has been distributed to City Council members and posted for the public and, to be frank, it's insufficient to actually get the city's adopted transportation plans back on track.

It's time to actually enact our plans

The Neighborhood Greenways program (to upgrade Slow Streets and a few similar streets into a network of quieter and calmer streets that are comfortable for kids, seniors, and everyone else), the Safe Streets to Schools program (to increase safety particularly along the sidewalks where students walk and the roadways where small students are biking in between parents' giant SUVs), "daylighting" of intersections (with red paint to increase visibility and decrease the likelihood of drivers failing to notice pedestrians approaching crosswalks), and related programs all need stronger action and more resources if they are to succeed as originally planned.

This isn't just a matter of sticking to plans for the sake of sticking to the dates and priorities on a piece of paper (or a giant PDF). This is about delivering results for the wider public that so many were involved in shaping.

The Active Transportation Plan website still advertises how many public events, presentations, tablings, emails, and survey responses were collected over three phases of work. That plan took three years to complete! What's the point of all this lengthy, systematic, and collaborative effort if the carefully made plans aren't actually going to be turned into results? Or are going to be arbitrarily divvied up and deferred based on internal constraints, rather than informed by overall strategic decisions?

There are likely detailed reasons why each of this programs is being delayed. (I do have one partial theory that I will offer later on in this post.) Regardless, it's now incumbent on City Council to set overall priorities and to provide resources to deliver results:

• If this means more staff to manage projects in parallel, then the city can allocate more staff positions or increase the budget for the city's standing contracts with relevant consulting teams.
• If this means more capital budget to cover cost increases in bids coming back from contractors, then the city can allocate more from general funds.
• Money isn't necessarily the main constraint: The City of Alameda has that residual fund balance of $29 million. And the city can apply for more external grant opportunities. And the City Council can discuss how to use this as input into the infrastructure funding measure that is currently being considered.

But what's proposed by staff in the current draft of the mid-cycle budget – zero new staff positions and $250k to do some spot projects as requested by Bike Walk Alameda and by SeeClickFix users – is neither sufficient as a retrospective explanation for the delays and deferrals nor is it sufficient as a proposal for how to proactively re-balance and shore up priorities for traffic safety and transportation improvements going forward.

A balanced "portfolio" of projects across the entire city — including residential streets

If you think of traffic safety and transportation improvements in Alameda as entire portfolio of projects, it's a lopsided and unbalanced portfolio at the moment. Many of what could be called "major corridor" projects along arterial roads. Not so much happening "in" neighborhoods.

Adults like myself may see noticeable improvements as we drive (or confidently bike) down larger arterials — but without programs like the Neighborhood Greenways, Safe Routes to Schools, and "daylighting" of intersections in the portfolio, we don't feel any improvements as we walk around our neighborhoods — or as our kids or their grandparents try to go on leisurely bike rides.

I do wonder if part of these reason these programs are being downsized and delayed is that city staff are scared of actually implementing them as originally planned.

Not scared in an emotional or personal sense. Rather, scared in that city staff saw what happened with the "rethink" of Grand Street — and so they logically figure that any future traffic safety improvements in residential areas of Alameda will have to stand up against extreme scrutiny from residents, from City Councilmembers, from unfounded but distracting lawsuits, and from second guessing from any and all sources. So, these sorts of projects should only be attempted when there's sufficient time to do a top-to-bottom, head-to-toe, start-to-finish public engagement process and a 110% strategic rollout of the project to electeds, appointeds, residents, neighbors, etc.

I mention this because I think it's part — although not all — of the problem with the delays for these program.

No, I'm not suggesting that this upcoming budget workshop is a good opportunity to discuss such a complicated and fraught matter as what is the right amount of public engagement for a quick-build project that might remove a parking spot in front of a resident's house and may involve materials such as a black piece of plastic being epoxied to the street in visual proximity to a multi-million dollar house?

But what I am suggesting is that the re-think of Grand Street changed the internal expectations for staff — and therefore it implicitly changed the timelines, the staffing levels, the budgets, and an entire range of details on all of these projects in residential areas.

Is this a good thing? I'm not going to argue one way or the other at this moment. And I don't actually think we need to actually agree on the "right" amount of public engagement in order to agree on the pressing issue: Staff need more resources – both in terms of person-hours and in terms of funds for construction – to implement the projects and programs that have already been discussed, refined, and included in the Active Transportation Plan and the Vision Zero Action Plan.

This attention to detail within the city's traffic safety and transportation improvement plans is a lot to ask of the three responsible members of City Council. There are many other topics of importance in this budget process as well. That said, I do strongly believe this is a worthwhile opportunity for the city's elected leaders to both thank staff for all of the progress that is being made on major corridors throughout the city and to firmly ask exactly what additional staffing and budgetary resources are needed to get projects for neighborhoods back on track.

Finally, if it's not already apparently, please note that my comments are not a critique of city staff's skills or their dedication – this is a critique of the city's overall delivery of results as an organization and a request for the city's elected leadership to provide clear strategic direction and to allocate appropriate resources.