I read your City Council [David Axelson, Oct. 14] article twice today. It is still not clear to me. Are there any traffic diversion alternatives still on the table? It was thanks to your article that I learned that the P and Q possibilities existed, and were voted down.

It was because of the detail in your article that I wrote to the Mayor and Council about that vote. Thank you. 

Here is what I wrote:

“The Eagle Journal gave a nice summing up of your views. There was also an instructive and constructive article in the Eagle by Toni McGowan. It explained why commuters will continue to choose cars to get to work from off the island.

The Eagle reported that the Mayor and Council Members voted against P and Q, from what I understand. I would have supported P and Q, the two proposals regarding 3rd and 4th at Glorietta, had I known of them. I would have put a flier in my window about that!

Had we known of such sensible traffic diversion proposals many of us would have asked you to support them. I had read only of the lights proposals. I had tried to scan the alternatives on the Agenda other than lights. Evidently I missed the diversion suggestions.

Now I wonder…

• I reread the Pomona and Gateway references in the article by David Axelson. I was looking for mention of commuter traffic diversion via Pomona or Glorietta. Was it there? I hope so.

• Or…is it an unspoken given that the threat of lawyers representing Pomona and Glorietta residents have put those routes forever out of consideration by council members and the Mayor?

• Cal Trans and SANDAG will not take Coronado or any town seriously when those towns hamstring agency recommendations in advance. This is a big state and a large county. It simply does not sound reasonable to an agency to be asked to ignore consideration of the most obvious traffic diversion possibilities.

I have great respect for your responsibilities. Please allow me to remind you:

You know that Coronado has forever been tagged with an “uncooperative” preface among many across the bridge. This is what I was told when serving on Boards for planning groups in San Diego in the past. It went like this.

• Coronado did not want the bridge built so it did not have a representative on the planning group when the bridge approach was developed.

• Coronado has complained about the bridge traffic ever since.

• This is the town that has funneled additional residential (!) and rush hour traffic through residential neighborhoods and through the heart of downtown rather than allow many of the residents and commuters direct access to perimeter routes where Glorietta meets the bridge.

• For one example, a vehicle on Glorietta should not have to go from Glorietta Boulevard up to Orange and through two or three lights in order to get to First Street shopping and Hospital area destinations. And vice versa.

125 years ago…this town was well designed with ideal, wide perimeter streets for through traffic. There were collector streets too (Palm, Olive, and Orange Avenues, as I recall). First Street, Ocean Boulevard, Glorietta and Alameda were the perimeter streets with no cross-traffic. Later, in the 1950’s, Alameda was no longer a perimeter street but it has handled traffic well since.

I think the State and Regional Agencies would treat us with more respect if we did not tie their hands in advance. We should not ask them to rule out the classic traffic flow considerations that fit the geography of our town. Please, find a way to ask for their advice and to hear them out. Then talk it out again back here. 

Something good might happen.”

Respectfully.