Comment by Bruce Johnson on April 4, 2009 at 3:33pm

Prior to 1969 there were no stop lights in Coronado. They were not needed. Traffic to North Island did not go THRU Coronado. Folks traveled to NASNI via car ferry & 1st St.,- or took the nickel snatcher passenger ferry directly to the base. We did not have a traffic problem. Let me repeat that: we did not have a traffic problem. What happened? All those folks and commerce now had to travel over th bridge and THRU our town. Then the South Bay developed and exacerbated the problem. Now we had traffic and lots of it. Our traffic problem is not self-generated. The population of the island has not risen all that much since 1969. Most of the traffic clogging our streets is THRU traffic. We have never implemented a true traffic plan. The nickel snatcher ferry was outlawed when the bridge came in so there would be no competition. But the bridge was paid off early, and the tolls removed. Why is there now no passenger ferry to NASNI? Why is there no Park 'n' Ride system?? Why do all we ever seem to do is talk about this issue and never do anything about it? The predictions for bridge usage proved totally inaccurate. Bridge usage was over the top from the opening of the bridge. We do not need more round abouts and other "traffic calming" measures. We need less THRU traffic! If traffic is so many times higher than predicted - just imagine what it will be in the future! Gridlock is not that far away. We already have it at times on the bridge and the Strand. In the early days of Coronado a trolley carried visitors & folks from the Ferry Landing to the Hotel Del and points in between. I think we need a real comprehensive plan. One that includes green trolleys and jitneys. One that imagines what Coronado should be and could be. We need to have a vision. We should be the poster child for non-automobile transportation and healthy lifestyles based on all forms of alternate travel - walking, bicycles, skates, electric vehicles etc. We should have a clear mandate to keep our residents and visitors out of their cars as much as possible, including keeping the cars off the island. Believe it is possible. It all starts with folks imagining the possibilites...

Comment by Mayor Casey Tanaka on May 2, 2009 at 2:31pm

Thank you Daniel.

Comment by Nikki Whittemore on July 8, 2009 at 10:27am

I totally agree with Bruce Johnson. Thank you for your well written comment!

Comment by Paul Friedl on July 15, 2009 at 12:02pm

Thank you, Mayor Tanaka, for asking the three questions about the Tunnel. Here are my comments:

1. What do you think of a tunnel? I believe there are other more cost-effective ways to minimize NASNI commute traffic. At the 9/2008 Public Hearing sponsored by the US Navy concerning Traffic Mitigation I submitted a short paper which called for a study to be made of a potential Park&Ride alternative to the tunnel project. The Navy responded to this paper by initiating an investigation (currently in process) of the Park&Ride idea with SANDAG. If the SANDAG investigation produces results which show how a successful Park&Ride system could eliminate up to 95% of Navy commuter vehicles, I believe you would have the "comprehensive program" which you seek.

2. Do we need one (tunnel)? If a Park&Ride solution is proven feasible, there is no need for a tunnel.

3. Should we continue to pursue this type (i.e. tunnel) of a traffic solution ? I would rather see all the current dollars, time, and energy being spent on a tunnel solution be redirected to working actively with SANDAG to complete their investigation of a Park&Ride alternative strategy. Remember, a Park&Ride system would cost less than 10% of the proposed tunnel. Not only that, but we would have "green" energy-efficient buses instead of miles of air-polluting automobile traffic jams.

Comment by Mayor Casey Tanaka on July 15, 2009 at 12:15pm

I like Park and Ride solutions, but they are a lot more difficult to implement that people give them credit for. You have to find space for people to park, you have to secure these locations from breakins, you have to find places convenient enough for commuters to opt for the park and ride over the use of their own cars, and then you have to purchase enough busses or vehicles to make the park and ride convenient and efficient. A park and ride would also need to the interest/support of the Navy, which would also take some finesse. At its best, a park and ride needs to park and tranport thousands to tens of thousands of passengers. I mention these things not to poo poo park and rides, but to identify the challenges of this approach.

Comment by Jamie Edmonds on July 15, 2009 at 4:08pm

I worked in town last Saturday and Orange Ave was backed up ALL day from morning until dusk. For quite a few hours in the afternoon it was backed up all the way from the Hotel Del to Third St. and we had to take side streets to get to emergency calls. I was in town most of Sunday as well for the Firefighters Spaghetti Dinner fundraiser for the Burn Institute--the traffic on Orange was equally bad. Question: what will a BILLION DOLLAR tunnel from the Toll Plaza to Alameda Blvd. do for this problem (besides costing an additional dozen or more Coronado residents their family homes when the City is forced to take them under "Eminent Domain" to provide for the tunnel's outlet, which now--per the Navy--must daylight on City property instead of NASNI)? Answer: absolutely nothing.

The secret to Park and Rides is to keep the cars at home to begin with--hence no parking problem. Subsidize the better alternatives you want or at least incentivize those alternatives and discourage the negative ones either fiscally or by convenience so that the preferred option is more attractive.

Getting visitors to the Ferries on the San Diego side without using their cars is perhaps out of our direct control (though I'm sure SD City and SANDAG would be happy to look into options with us). For Navy commuters, someone I talked to recently was suggesting using the HUGE parking lot at the old Balboa Hospital on Park Blvd across from Presidents' Way for parking with shuttles to Coronado from there. I thought it was a GREAT idea--central location, already Navy property, hardly used. The City could buy and/or underwrite (in cooperation with the Navy?) a HECK of a lot of shuttles, ferries, bike pools, electric surries, etc. for tourists and commuters. Double or triple the ferry schedule--especially during commuter hours. Folks with bikes get free ferry rides at ANY time of day! Provide free parking for zero emission vehicles and solar powered charging stations convenient to the business districts, a discount at local restaurants/shops for showing a trolly, ferry or shuttle ticket. Then charge a very modest toll (both ways) on the bridge to discourage the commuters cutting through Coronado to get downtown (or back to South Bay), but no charge for carpools, ZERO emission vehicles/motorcycles (like all electric or true extended range, plug-in "series hybrids" that don't need to burn gasoline for short commuting trips, not this current "I'm a gasoline engine with a bigger battery" idea). Move the zipper on the bridge (or add another) and dedicate a half lane (or two) for bikes ONLY and one more for motorcycles and then one of the two car lanes remaining for carpools/busses/shuttles only. This would discourage the non-carpool cars to one lane each way and the ensuing gridlock would encourage folks to carpool, ride share, ride a bike or electric scooter as they sit and watch the others zipping by.

We also need to somehow restructure the traffic patterns in town to be MUCH more bike, tram, pedestrian friendly than just accommodating more and more cars to sit stuck on Orange Ave. with no where to park them to stroll or shop or eat. I know the electric trolley cars running down the median of Orange Ave will never come back (I guess the "Christmas trees" are sacrosanct now), but that sure did seem to work well in the old days before the bridge went in. There are MANY cities all over Europe and even in the States that have practically banned cars from their city centers that just could not accommodate them. Some have become known as "bicycle cities". We're not talking about re-inventing the wheel here--just an idea whose time has come . . . in my not so humble opinion.

http://www.bicyclingculture.com/2008/09/what-makes-a-bicycle-city/

Comment by Paul Friedl on July 16, 2009 at 4:17pm

My previous attempt at a comment on the three tunnel questions apparently did not take. Here is a second attempt.

Thank you Mayor Tanaka for posing these three questions to the eCoronado membership. Here are my comments:

1. What do you think of a tunnel? I believe there exist more cost-effective ways (such as Park&Ride systems) to relieve NASNI commuter traffic congestion. The Navy and SANDAG are currently investigating the possibility of using Park&Ride to do this very thing. Furthermore, a Park&Ride system would cost less than 10% of the cost to build a tunnel.

2. Do we need one? If a Park&Ride system is implemented, there would be no need for a tunnel.

3. Should we continue to pursue this type of a traffic solution? I believe that the resources being spent on a tunnel strategy should immediately be redirected towards helping the Navy/SANDAG investigation complete its work. A successful Park&Ride system would make Coronado the model for minimizing automobile traffic and replacing it with green energy efficient buses.

Comment by anne pilgrim on July 17, 2009 at 9:19pm

If you want to get people out of their cars you have to hit them in their pocketbook. The Navy should loo at how UCSD handles their parking/traffic issues. UCSD charges all employees for a parking permit. It was about $80 last time I knew. To encourage people to use their vanpools, they charge them less to take the vanpool, and give them a pass that lets them park for free on the campus a couple times a month for those times that they may need to drive. These van pools are all over the county,, and the fuller they are, the less they cost per person-so there's an incentive to encourage others to use the service. One designated person keeps the van at their house, and they usually have an agreement with a shopping center in the neighborhood for the rest of the commuters to park.

Comment by Mayor Casey Tanaka on July 17, 2009 at 9:29pm

I agree with your logic, but our traffic problem would have to get exponentially worse before the Navy would take measures that drastic with its own sailors. The way UCSD views traffic and how to handle its users is fundamentally different from the way the Navy cares for its own sailors.

Comment by anne pilgrim on July 17, 2009 at 10:22pm

Believe me, I understand, until the Navy fundametally changes the way it cares for its own sailors you will never solve your traffic problem, period.

Comment (keep it clean & on topic)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page