It looks like the Stop signs are where they are because people making the turns (left or right) are crossing the tracks. The straight through lane isn't/doesn't affect the trains.

Right Tom, I understand that. There's also a swing arm that comes down and lights that come on for that lane when the train is passing, too.

The problem with the current configuration happens when there is no train, due to the confusion caused by having a stop sign for one lane but not the other, as cross traffic on Webster turning onto Embarcadero often can't know whether to yield or take the right of way until the last second. An all-way stop would make a lot more sense at this location.

There's also regular cross-traffic, making left/right turns. And isn't there also a "STOP" sign on s/b Webster?

Maybe ask someone from Traffic Engineering to look into putting in traffic lights?

There isn't enough traffic at this intersection to warrant a signal, which would cost upwards of $100k and would never be approved by UPRR anyway.

This is a T-intersection which currently has stop signs for two and a half out of three directions, which is highly unusual and causing confusion. Simply updating it to a normal 3-way stop for all directions is inexpensive, simple, and a pretty obvious fix.

That intersection has had that setup for like the last 30 years. As for number of accidents, probably fewer than most regular intersections.

The stop sign for the left turn lane from Embarcadero W onto Webster was added within just the past few weeks. Before that the only stops at this T-intersection were for Webster and NW-bound Embarcadero W.

Having stops at only 2 out of 3 legs of a T-intersection was already problematic, but changing it to 2 and a half out of 3 is even more confusing, especially at a location with regular bus, truck, train, pedestrian, and bike traffic. Turning it into a true 3-way stop as I suggested is a very reasonable fix, I'm not sure why you seem so opposed to it Tom. The high volume of pedestrian traffic here alone seems to warrant it, regardless of the potential vehicle conflicts.

FYI: Under California Law (ref. Ca. Driver's Handbook), ALL vehicle traffic must yield to pedestrians where no traffic light controls traffic. I've been through this area, literally, thousands of times, and never had issues with other traffic. To add a STOP sign where you're suggesting, would actually create more problems with traffic, since technically, there are 2 lanes of E/B traffic on Embarcadero. One goes left (N/B Webster), there other continues traffic flow towards Oak Street. No need for STOP sign, unless there's been an unusual amount of accidents at that location. You may also want to check with the OPD area commander for that area, or the OPD Traffic Division.

Tom--I might agree with you that no additional stop sign is needed if (and only if) the two EB lanes on Embarcadero west were much longer and possibly divided so it was obvious to cars on Webster what driver on Embarcadero planned to do. Not so obvious at present.

As I mentioned previously, you should probably call the City of Oakland Traffic Engineering Division directly. They might be able to give you an immediate answer as to why there are STOP signs only for w/b Embarcadero, s/b Webster, and left turn from e/b Embarcadero to n/b Webster.