A sign in the middle of the Santa Fe roundabout was mangled, apparently by an eastbound driver, during a vibrant Labor Day weekend downtown.
The more we think about it, the more roundabouts make a lot of sense as drunk traps. Far better for late night 101 drunks to get into single-car accidents crashing into the middle of a roundabout than to T-bone somebody running a red light or kill someone on the freeway.
Exactly and they're much more efficient.
ReplyDeleteAnotheroundabout ..... for everyone! Here's to vibrancy!
ReplyDeletewe need them on Hwy101 to help manage the drunks.
ReplyDeleteI love them. No more stopping only slowing at intersections.
Brain dead people love shitting there staring at red lights. I say lets tear them out and put in roundabouts. More efficient, save precious time, save money, save energy, lower pollution, safer intersections!
Life is good with roundabouts.
Life will be gooder with the La Costa roundabout on next week's council agenda.
Delete4 sure
DeleteWell done, Grasshopper.
ReplyDeleteI just ate at Kotija Jr. There was a near miss accident at the intersection with tires screeching, horns blaring and explitives echoing. And that was just me. (bah dom bam). But seriously folks. I had to ask Juan "How often do accidents happen at this intersection each year?" He thought a few seconds and said "At least twice a month." And those are the accidents - not the near misses. I'd venture to say there's almost as much traffic on Leucadia Blvd as there is 101. It is the busiest 7-11 on the planet, ya know.
I know, Fred. You believe staff when someone tells you that the stop sign at Marchetta would be removed. But, look at Leucadia Blvd. Sidewalks and landscaping were to be installed, along with one more roundabout at Hygeia, and the REMOVAL OF THE STOP SIGN, there, with Phase2.
DeleteBut Phase 2 never happened for Leucadia Blvd. Why doesn't LTC get on that? The money for Phase 2 of the Leucadia Blvd roundabout project was diverted to the N101 Streetscape project, according to what I was also told by staff. We don't need a roundabout at El Portal, at all, much less BEGINNING the project with design of that roundabout.
Also, Phase 2 of the Downtown Encinitas streetscape project never happened either. The businesses on the west side of the highway on N101 have been subsidized, through the city, by a $30,000 per year grant to L101MA, by Peder Norby's facilitating a contract whereby L101MA gets a share of the monies, along with the PTO, for vendor rents at Sunday farmers markets at Paul Ecke Central School. My Calif. Public Records Act requests to Peder Norby re L101MA subsidies and spending, including lobbying, went unanswered by him. Instead, he resigned, took a job with Carlsbad, the city in which he actually resides.
I'm sure L101MA also collects monies from vendors at the Artwalk. We think it's great that the businesses are helped out through the facade grant program, and in many other ways, as well. Most importantly, probably most of the business is generated through local patrons.
Why would you want to destroy people's ability to cruise up and down the Coast during the summer months, or to use 101 as the main arterial and major roadway circulation element that it is? Jim Bond talked about the bottlenecking he was concerned would happen, when he voted no after midnight, on 1/13/10. He said people often look back, after they push through these kind of major plans, and say, "What the hell were we thinking?"
Something similar happened with the General Plan Update reboot. We paid over $1 million to MIG for workshops with invalid statistics. The last "workshop" held by Peltz and Associates only had two questions on the survey that people in attendance could answer. Do you want drive in, forward, or back in angled parking? Do you want five roundabouts and lane elimination (and for the four one lane roundabouts Hwy 101 would effectively be changed to a two lane road, one lane northbound and one lane southbound) or do you want Stop LIghts?
For those of who wrote in "none of the above," and wrote in a couple of sentences what we did want, we were counted as "did not answer!"
This "final survey" was done merely to dismiss and disregard the previous, valid survey taken at City Hall, approximately one year earlier, through which questionnaire, with more options, and more valid questions, almost 2/3 of us answering voted no on roundabouts and lane elimination as part of the North 101 Streetscape Project. We do want the flowers and trees to be watered, the weeds to be removed.
Fred, when you compare statistics, you compare them during "optimal" conditions, when people wouldn't be required to stop at the roundabouts, in order to yield, as often already happens during peak periods for the roundabouts on Leucadia Blvd.
Eliminating stop signs does not necessarily mean you will be eliminating all those stops. While traffic may keep flowing during optimal periods, with low traffic counts, it is already backed up during peak periods, during summer months, and when the freeway is significantly slowed.
I knew she would sober up, wake up and post some spew......
DeleteSet a limit on the length of responses. I have no idea what she thinks because here rumblings are to long to read on a blog.
Delete-the shark
shark, there's already a limit on the length of responses.
DeleteFred, maybe Juan, misunderstood you, since you said you and he had just witnessed a "near miss?" Maybe Juan was guessing there have been "near misses" a couple of times per month?
If there were a couple of collisions per month in REPORTED accidents, that would have shown up in the July 18, 2012 staff report for the City Council Meeting, which I have referred to several times, already. That "survey" quoted by City Engineers, states that intersections on North 101 have had few collisions than similar intersections in California, over the previous 3 year period.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete9:18, shut the hell up if you can't make a point without resorting to non-arguments such as commenting on one's appearance. Now who sounds stupid? Wait for it...wait for it...you do.
DeleteWow... how original... let me guess, you eat tons of meat and sugar.
Deletethe anger is predictable......
Yawn......
Jesus WC- U R becoming quit the Lword loving pansy.
DeleteL words:
Deletelink,
like,
love,
Leucadia,
lesson;
look,
listen,
learn,
laugh,
live!
Roundabouts suck.
ReplyDeletestupid fat people suck sugar and carbs, and massive meat proteins..... all leading to heart decease, stroke, Alzheimer's, cancer.... warts and eweeeeeiii........
ReplyDeleteIts not the roundabout fault.... blame the stupidity on heredity and one diet.
Roundabouts are for those who appreciate living and love efficiency and safe forms of intersections of transportation....
grab another Slim Jim and Slurppy pilgrim........
DeleteRoundabouts have been in use for many years in Europe and are very successful you people should get out more.Go some where do some thing GET A LIFE
ReplyDeleteI love roundabout. I hate waiting at red lights.
ReplyDeleteI have nothing against roundabouts other than the cost versus a stop sign, however, based on some of the sophmoric vitrol from some folks here I've come to the conclusion that a specific crony has been promised the contracts to build them.\The Cabezon
DeleteThe costs are said to be cheaper in the long run for roundabouts. But they way the city pays top dollar for improvements (like the $3000 per sapling in the medain recently) the long run may further in the future than we'd like. But considering Carlsbad has given us $3.5 million dollars toward the La Costa Ave improvements, that could happily speed up the process.
DeleteThe choice isn't between roundabouts and stop signals or stop signs. It's between roundabouts or no roundabouts, or one roundabout at La Costa, and a total of five roundabouts, including four one lane roundabouts south of La Costa and 101, narrow diameter roundabouts for three way intersection with no actual throughway crossstreets, because of the RR tracks.
DeleteNone of the other roundabouts in this city are for three way intersections, adjacent to a railway corridor. Rather than spending over $1.1 million on design, the city should spend $17,000 to $23,000 and put this issue on the ballot. When the people of Del Mar and Cotati (in northern California) got to vote, they voted no on roundabouts. This campaign for roundabouts is driven by special interests, including developers and a few long time business owners who imagine their property will be worth much more, and who aren't willing to pay a special property tax assessment to help defray the enormous costs.
Solana Beach, while Dave Roberts was on Council, there, decided against them, after public concerns. If we re-directed the money that would go into building five more roundabouts, and also three or four more pedestrian "underpasses," we would have enough, or nearly enough to underground the train, as Solana Beach did! What is on the agenda for this coming agenda is a new contract to be awarded, not to exceed $1,125,472, just for DESIGN, with engineered plans, for the entire Streetscape beginning at A Street, north to La Costa, on Historic Highway 101.
Neighbors WANT to enhance and preserve the canopy. We would LOVE to have a railtrail corridor, as Solana Beach and Carlsbad, San Clemente, and many other cities have. If the train were trenched, as it already is at La Costa, we could have so many more at grade crossings, for pedestrians.
Adjacent neighbors have not been counted as "stakeholders" in this "symbiotic partnership, where the Board of Directors of L101MA, in cooperation with a few people who comprise Leucadia Town Council, and who, with the exception of Fred, live east of the tracks, and who are NOT adjacent to the 101 Corridor, are the inside "influencers," pushing Council to do something adjacent residents and local commuters do not want.
A drunk driver was killed in the Santa Fe Roundabout. You could put a roundabout at every intersection in the city, and there would still be some deaths caused by drunk drivers. Taxpayers should not have to foot the enormous expense, for something we don't want or need! Why do we have to listen to bureacrats and fat cat power brokers telling us what is good for us.
Fred, you anecdotal evidence goes against what was said in the 7/18/12 traffic analysis in the staff report for the City Council Meeting held that night. According to a three year study, intersections along the N101 Corridor are safer, with less collisions, than at similar intersections in California. We already have slowed down traffic by reducing the speed limit to 35 MPH. We don't need roundabouts to make 101 more walkable. A railtrail would help with that, but mostly, pedestrians are walking on the new sidewalks, which should be completed, and improved, on the west side of Highway 101.
Statistics show there are more accidents at the intersections in Encinitas with existing roundabouts, than before they were installed. And installing roundabouts is no guarantee that a stop sign or traffic light would not be installed at the intersections with these alleged "traffic calming" devices, as they have in many other roundabout intersections throughout the country. Traffic got backed up, worse than it had been, and roundabouts were either removed, or more frequently, traffic signals are added to roundabouts.
Pure lies.... post your facts Lword. Your posts are pure fiction.
Delete"A drunk driver was killed in the Santa Fe Roundabout."
DeleteFace it Lynn. This guy was blind drunk. If the roundabout didn't stop him, he likely would have killed some innocent victim.
I could by your daughter who gets smeared by one if these irresponsible people driving drunk or reckless.
Less not forget the death of our local son killed by a reckless speeding driver near the Panican.
We get it Lynn.... we know you don't like change.... but sorry sometimes change is necessary and we wont to improve things.
We know you will never get it.... so no you trying.
IMHO- you Suck!!!!
Nope. All contracts are publicly bid and city is required to select lowest bid.
ReplyDeleteReally? How did that work for the tree trimming contract?
Deletehttps://thecoastnews.com/2010/06/contract-for-tree-service-has-some-crying-foul/
WCV
MIG was not the lowest bid for the General Plan Update, but they were the only bidder that alluded to previous legal issues in addition to a disclosure that they were in a lawsuit at the time that they were applying.
DeleteWouldn't this normally disqualify a bidder or at least foreshadow that this contract might become the disaster that it proved to be?
Should have been bid ... Ask parks.
ReplyDeleteCapital projects are always bid.
WCV
ReplyDeleteThis was apporoved at council,supported by STOCKS! BOND AND DALAGAR very legal maybe you should get out more often. MORE F WORK. We may have to keep you behind a grade if you don't improve.
What does being approved by the council have to do with whether it was put out for competitive bids?
DeleteWCV
2:31, if you're saying the roundabouts in Leucadia Streetscape were approved by Stocks, Bond and Dalager, you're 1/3 correct. Dalager recused himself, Bond voted no, Stocks voted yes, along with Houlihan and Barth. Plan 4A, which includes five roundabouts, passed by a 3-1 vote on January 13, 2010. You can watch the video or read the minutes.
ReplyDeleteSept 12 2012
ReplyDeleteYes an open bid ,you poor man talk talk talk and it appears you know so little .Get out more often.Look it up for your self. F WORK
Hey angry dude,
DeleteThe Coast News story I linked was 2010, not 2012. Look it up.
But I'm told that competitors think there was corruption and backroom dealing in the 2012 deal as well.
WCV
According to the staff report, there was a request for proposals put out in June, with proposals due in July. I don't recall seeing anything on a previous Council Agenda about the RFP being put out?
ReplyDeleteBut for this engineered plan design contract, it was an open bidding process. We were told that Peltz and Associates would design the first phase, but we were later informed, they only provided "cartoon drawings."
Now staff is giving Council only two alternatives, either approve a design proposal for so-called "refined" Phase 1, including (still) from A Street to North Court AND the roundabout at La Costa, or approve a proposal to design the ENTIRE N101 Streetscape, with all five roundabouts. Staff recommends the latter, at a cost up to $1.25 MIllion dollars!
The problem with this is that staff NEVER REFINED Phase 1, as far as I can tell. Maggie Houlihan, before she passed, and Teresa, as well as public speakers, called for starting Phase 1 with the roundabout at La Costa, NOT at El Portal. A roundabout at El Portal is between the stop sign at Marchetta and the traffic light at Leucadia Blvd. and 101.
Staff could and should have offered the option of an alternative design for N101 WITHOUT roundabouts, but with improved sidewalks, a railtrail corridor, and some u-turn lanes, and one for design to include these improvements and a roundabout at La Costa, for which Carlsbad, after being sued by Encinitas, agreed to "pitch in" because that roundabout will count as environmental (traffic) impact mitigation for the development planned adjacent to and at Ponto Beach, by KSL.
U sound drunk
ReplyDeleteThe 1/13/10 Council Meeting was a "done deal," although one can see from reviewing the video that there was significant opposition from members of the public. Oh, for sure, the "stakeholders" including members of the Board of Directors of L101MA and their allies on this, LTC, but the "little guy," the average Encinitas resident who doesn't follow Council Meetings and isn't informed of what is going on was never represented as a "stakeholder," although we all are!
ReplyDeleteA public vote would help to rectify an unfair, misrepresented situation, where numbers have been tweaked, and influence has been leveraged by "symbiotic partners," who are both "sponsors" and subsidiaries at the same time.
Roundabouts should be on the ballot in November of 2014, BEFORE any award for design is granted. It's never too late to do the right thing.
I meant to say: Oh, for sure, the "stakeholders" including members of the Board of Directors of L101MA and their allies on this, LTC, were very well noticed and out "in force" but the "little guys," the average Encinitas residents who don't follow Council Meetings and aren't well informed of what is going on, because they never see the posted agendas, were NEVER represented at the N101 Streetscape workshops or at Council Meetings about the 101 streetscape, as "stakeholders," although we ALL are!
DeleteEven without the kind of organization that City subsidization will buy, those OPPOSING roundabouts and lane elimination were many, and well spoken on 1/13/10, and thereafter. Council has had the habit of listening to staff and consultants' recommendations, and more or less ignoring members of the public, including community experts, who disagree with those recommendations.
Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association is allowed to campaign or lobby for causes, not candidates, but it is opening itself up to FPPC and IRS violations when it does not report ALL of its lobbying activities, including, but not limited to when L101MA paid employees or members of its Board of Directors attend Council Meetings to promote roundabouts and lane elimination, when the City sponsors and is sponsored by L101MA, along with the other Encinitas Mainstreet Associations.
"Fred, you anecdotal evidence goes against what was said in the 7/18/12 traffic analysis in the staff report for the City Council Meeting held that night. According to a three year study, intersections along the N101 Corridor are safer, with less collisions, than at similar intersections in California."
ReplyDeleteJuan has a front row seat. If an eye and ear witness to 2 collisions per month next to your business is anecdotal evidence, I prefer it far above some vague report claiming we have the "safest intersections anywhere".
Drunks are about as relevent to roundabouts or intersections as are meteors. They're going to cause an uncontrolled impact no matter where they go. Are you saying roads should be straight so drunks can drive better?
That was Juan's "guestimate," not backed up by verified collision reports.
DeleteI don't doubt that you would prefer that kind of "front row seat" hearsay to actual accident reports to support your theories, Fred.
I was referring to WCV's initiating post, on this thread, Fred, when I said what I did about drunks and roundabouts. But you're right, drunk driving is not relevant to whether roundabouts are worth the cost in money, and in terms of slower emergency response time, and more traffic cutting through the neighborhoods, during peak periods. We already see more, now, on Neptune, with the northbound lane elimination, and I am walking on Neptune everyday, so "front row feet."
Is the new excess cut through traffic on Neptune in some report somewhere? Or is that a guestimate?
DeleteThe City SHOULD be monitoring the increased cut through traffic during summer months and peak periods.
DeleteIt is my own direct, personal observation, from walking our dog on Neptune almost daily, also, riding our bikes on Neptune and 101.
It's not hearsay from a taco stand service person, relayed, from Juan, to you, to this blog. However, I would also like to see my personal observations verified, as I said, through further traffic analysis apparently still to be performed, by the City, as part of perfecting the Coastal Development permit, for which the City applied on 3/15/10, still "pending."
I still don't understand how you can discern a cut through car from someone living or visitng down the street. Do you talk with each one personally? And just how is the city supposed to prove all this new cut-through traffic? And since you live near the south end where there are still two lanes of traffic on 101 going north, are you saying that because one of those lanes now has a dual purpose that it has forced drivers to make a left at A street or El Portal to go 3 blocks west to take Neptune as a short cut for going north - not to mention slowing down to 25 mph as part of their plan? Neptune only goes north.
DeleteI don't need to ask Juan the science behind HOW he knew there were "at least two collisions a month at Leucadia Blvd." It's certainly a guesimate, but when he says "at least" I believe he's making a conservative guess. I do need to ask you how you know a dual purpose lane on N. 101 in your area has created a tremendous amount of northbound cut through traffic on Neptune compared to last year. And since we're on that subject. What exactly is the percentage of traffic that would not have been had 101 remained as it was? I suppose that would be a guestimate as well. But if it's straight from you and not through a third party (as my "questionable" sources reveal) it won't be hearsay.
Fred, the City, presumably, but you would have to check with staff, would measure typical counts from PEAK periods before the northbound lane was eliminate, and would compare that to Neptune traffic AFTER the lane elimination, but again, during PEAK traffic periods.
DeleteI don't know Juan and have no idea if he is making an accurate or a conservative guess.
There were some black "lines" thick cords, that were used to record the number of motor vehicles traveling on Neptune, in the past. I am not sure if the data was compiled relative to peak traffic periods, however, only "average" traffic. So, obviously, we should have had an accurate "before" using peak period info, in order to compare it to "after," northbound lane elimination.
Some one has to tell you,how sad you go know where you do nothing and yet you have this forum to spew this uninformed crap.And I am not angry yes and I think you posed a question and had the answer..Are you working for fox news,you tea BAGGERS You don't want to pay or do the hard work.
ReplyDeleteTEA
DeleteTaxed Enough already
california 13% state income tax, federal 39% income tax, 8% sales tax = 60%
The communists and sociliast who want to take from private workers to pay elitist goverment pensions like Mark Muirs 170K a year and gross salaries like Gus Vina's 225K a year must be voted out of office.
Jerome Stocks voted for that 35% increase in pension rates in 2004. Now THERE was a commie if I ever saw one, you betcha. And so did Maggie Houlihan.
DeleteI think we need a "syn tax" on syntax!
ReplyDeleteRoundabouts at every intersection in Encinitas. Let's get dizzy!
ReplyDeleteLets not stare at red lights. No need to get dizzy unless you like doing 360s in an intersection.
ReplyDeleteI pass through 4 each day every day and love them. What I hate is the traffic signals that make me wait over one minute at each intersections.
Brain dead people with nothing on their plate of life to do might not mind watching red lights..... I have a lot going on in my life and I value time. I love roundabouts because they reduce wasted time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe bad news about roundabouts:
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgX6qlJEMc
VS
The bad news about intersections:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e10_1281368409
Can you guess which link is fiction?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI love people who share facts and don't anonymously label anyone who disagrees with their version of the truth as "brain dead."
DeleteRoundabouts don't save time during peak periods, because motorists all too often are forced to stop, in order to yield, and having four one lane roundabouts would have a repeating bottleneck effect, whereby both northbound and southbound traffic on Historic Highway 101 would be reduced to one lane in each direction, instead of the four described in our General Plan, our LCP and our N101 Specific Plan. Again, traffic has already been slowed down to 35MPH, which could be better enforced!
You are using false logic. We don't have to choose between roundabouts and stop signals. We can choose between roundabouts, four one lane roundabouts with narrow diameters in a row, at three way intersections, where they are NOT recommended by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, along a RR corridor, and at intersections where the traffic is significantly less at the "cross street," or NO roundabouts.
We don't need roundabouts or lane elimination to slow traffic down and make Leucadia more walkable. There are other ways of accomplishing that, far less expensive in dollars and in the cost of degrading health and safety through slower emergency response times and more cut through traffic through our residential neighborhoods and our school zone.
Or we could choose between five roundabouts and lane elimination and only ONE roundabout, at La Costa, which would be a two lane roundabout, and for which the City of Carlsbad has agreed, after a lawsuit, by Encinitas, to pitch in on, to help mitigate the development planned adjacent to La Costa and 101, the "Contels." But even the La Costa Roundabout could end up having traffic signals, at some point. There is no guarantee that wouldn't happen in the future, as it has at many other roundabout locations, nationwide.
So, no, it's not a choice between roundabouts and traffic signals. In logic, that's called the black and white fallacy. It's either this, or that, either black, or white, which confuses the matter, and distorts the issue, by the arguer's failing (purposefully, or through ignorance) to consider ALL the actual alternatives
yes, you did, anon 11:28
DeleteA new design for roundabouts is being used in New Zealand. the roundabout is in the shape of an oblong - a deviled egg shape. The C-roundabout.
ReplyDeleteExcellant!
ReplyDeleteAnd they are safer and look much better then a bunch of lights telling me when to go...
while people that follow the lights get slaughtered. By drunks and other people that can't "see" the red lights.
Lynn - Wake up! Traffic signals and all way stops kill people. Roundabouts are much safer. If you have any self worth take on the point that roundabouts are much safer than signalized intersections or all way stops. Lets see what you have L.....
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe roundabouts that you want will not replace all way stop signs at four way intersections, or traffic signals.
DeleteDrunk drivers kill people, guns kill people, but we don't put in roundabouts at every intersection, and we don't take away guns from every citizen, because cars, and guns, can be instruments of destruction.
You forgot meat is murder.
Deleteand those with closed minds remained defiantly ignorant.
ReplyDeleteit must be true.... ignorance is bliss...... sigh.....
False choice: Roundabouts or more stop signs/traffic signals on 101. The original and still primary motivation for either being installed on 101 was traffic calming. All that's needed to achieve traffic calming is to enforce the speed limit. That works very well in Carlsbad.
ReplyDeleteGrasping for another justification, roundabout proponents added that roundabouts would make left turns from side streets onto 101 easier and safer.
Google maps shows 19 side streets between La Costa Ave. and A Street where lefts onto 101 are possible and there's now no signal or stop sign on 101. The one-lane roundabouts in the plan are predicted to make lefts safer at four of those 19. Three of the four are bunched in a half mile at the north end. The fourth is 1.1 miles south at El Portal. The facts pretty much dissolve the proponents' argument, don't you think?
Not disputable: Two northbound lanes are safer than one northbound lane for left turns onto 101 from side streets.
So here's the far more rational, much more effective and way cheaper plan for 101 from Encinitas Blvd. to La Costa Ave.: Enforce the 35 mph speed limit, keep the two northbound lanes between Encinitas and Leucadia Blvds., restore two northbound lanes between Leucadia Blvd. and La Costa Ave.
For rabid roundabouters: OK, install the two-lane roundabout at La Costa Ave. and 101. Carlsbad has to pay half, so that helps. But note this: Roundabouts work only where traffic is lightish and intermittent. If you don't believe that, go watch the intersection of Encinitas Blvd. and El Cam Real from 4 to 6 on any weekday afternoon. A no-signals roundabout there and any other busy, three-or-four-way intersection is impossible.
So, if traffic at La Costa Ave. and 101 gets consistent and heavier — oh, say, when the bluff hotel and NE corner are built — signals will become necessary at one of the highly vaunted roundabouts that are portrayed as the solution to everybody's traffic problems.
Ye clearly knows not what the is talking about..... yawn
DeleteExcellent analysis, 11:05!
ReplyDeleteGranted, turning left onto 101 would physically be easier to do with four lanes rather than three. But far easier to merge with one lane of 15 mph traffic in a roundabout than to navigate 3 lanes of 35 mph traffic.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone with a little honest foresight, more stop lights and stop signs would be the future alternative roundabouts on 101. Not a false choice at all. (Look at the two new stops the last few years added to downtown AND the 3 or 4 brand new signaled intersections in Solana Beach. Additionally, roundabouts on El Camino Real will facilitate more safety, efficiency and beauty not to mention pull down the red light cameras.
"So, if traffic at La Costa Ave. and 101 gets consistent and heavier — oh, say, when the bluff hotel and NE corner are built — signals will become necessary at one of the highly vaunted roundabouts that are portrayed as the solution to everybody's traffic problems."
Complete speculative scare tactic with no statistics. Just what is this science that leads you to this conclusion? At what number of cars accessing the La Costa roundabout have you been told is the melting point requiring a stop light? Hmmm?
First you say there isn't enough side traffic at three way roundabouts to warrant them. Then you say stop lights will be needed because there will be too much traffic at them. Geesh.
But at least we agree that enforcing the 35 mph speed limit is a good idea.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFred, it would be just as likely, or MORE likely that traffic signals could and would be installed, eventually, at roundabouts, particularly the one proposed for La Costa, as detailed by anon 11:05, than the likelihood that signals would be added to the highway, "willy-nilly."
DeleteThe most recent traffic analysis, published by City Council on 7/18/12, as part of its staff report, demonstrates that intersections on North 101, over the last three year period (up to July, last year, apparently) had FEWER COLLISIONS AND A LOWER ACCIDENT RATE than similar intersections in other California locations.
So your speculation that there COULD be signals added along N101 is mere conjecture, not supported by verified facts. The traffic signal recently added near Swami's and the extension of lane elimination, along south Highway 101, through part of Cardiff, was done because of the railway underpassing for bicycles and pedestrians, there. I don't know if that lane elimination was approved through the Coastal Commission, either, but it should have been according to Coastal Act Law and our own General Plan, which disallows "piecemeal development," without a prior EIR or mitigated negative impact declaration.
A better option, as I've said, would be to trench the train between El Portal and La Costa, where it is already trenched. Doing so would save about $6.4 MILLION for each "underpass," crossing, and aren't there three more planned? So we could save up to $20 million on the underpasses, and another $20 million on not designing and installing five roundabouts, which would force Highway 101 into only one lane north and one lane south for motorists going in circles through four one lane roundabouts at only 15 MPH!
This $40 Million in savings, should be enough to trench the train from El Portal to where it's already trenched, before La Costa and 101. If we are to get TransNet Tax grants through SANDAG, we'd like that money to go to trenching the train, not in forcing roundabouts on the general public, the vast majority of whom don't want or need them!
"So your speculation that there COULD be signals added along N101 is mere conjecture, not supported by verified facts."
DeleteLynn darlin', 100 years ago there were no stops on 101 throughout Encinitas. Now there are 12 with a few people who want more including the city. 4 more undercrossings are planned to go under the tracks. A new light IS planned to go at every one. Stop lights and stop signs ARE the fare of the day when there are no roundabouts in the oven.
Where are these accident rates you're talking about? I'll bet you five bucks those reports do not include the date I was T-boned at El Portal.
Yes, enforcing the 35 mph limit is a good idea, and it would much more easily and cheaply achieve the traffic-calming goal than four misplaced one-lane roundabouts would.
DeleteYou seriously think a roundabout at El Cam Real and Encinitas Blvd. is workable? If so, do you have statistics or examples to back that opinion?
Left turns onto 101 would be easier and safer at four roundabouted T-intersections. What about the other 19? Actually, it would become 20 because the Hwy 101 stop signs at Marcheta would disappear.
Three new undercrossings are planned, not four: Montgomery in Cardiff, El Portal and Hillcrest up Leucadia way. Average price tag: $6.4 million each. Looks as if those locations were chosen, as was Santa Fe, for beach access. Montgomery to Pipes vicinity, Santa Fe to Swami's, El Portal to Stone Steps, Hillcrest to Grandview.
Comparing Leucadia 101 with downtown Encinitas is apples and oranges.
Two constraints in the L101 business corridor: narrowness and nowhere near enough parking. Roundabouts help neither. In fact, four one-lane roundabouts in a three- or four-lane highway add another constraint.
"You seriously think a roundabout at El Cam Real and Encinitas Blvd. is workable? If so, do you have statistics or examples to back that opinion?"
DeleteI'm not a traffic engineer so I'm not certain how well a roundabout at El Camino Real / Encinitas Blvd would work. But I certainly don't doubt they do work well for many high capacity intersections. And of course this example below is one of those "cartoons" you so enjoy, but it's the best I could do right now.
The intersection this proposal was for has 5700 cars per hour. I doubt we have any that heavy. Do you know the capcity of ECR / EB?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0H2URY7BX0
Here's what the U.S. Dept of Transportation's first sentence concludes about roundabouts. Nuff said.
ReplyDelete"Roundabouts are circular intersections. Roundabouts reduce traffic conflicts (for example, left turns) that are frequent causes of crashes at traditional intersections. Unlike a traffic circle or a rotary, a roundabout's incoming traffic yields to the circulating traffic."
Also, Fred, many times there is a chain reaction, when motorists, during peak periods, are forced to come to A COMPLETE STOP, in order to yield. This stop and go action, creates the likelihood of even more collisions. In fact there have been more collisions at the existing roundabouts in Encinitas than the average rate of collision at the same intersections before roundabout installation.
DeleteOur three way intersections, along a railway corridor, are not "traditional" intersections, as you quote, through the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, above, Fred.
DeleteIt's okay to compare apples to oranges, but it's important to realize what makes them unique.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLeft turns happen at our "non-traditional" intersections as well, Lynn. The USDT did not exclude them by saying "4 way intersections".
DeleteIt's not enough said, Fred. The U.S. Dept of Transportation recommends against roundabouts where the cross street traffic is significantly less than that of the main thoroughfare. Historic Highway 101 is a major roadway, primary circulation element and a main arterial. Due to the RR tracks, we do not have actual cross-streets for the four one-lane roundabouts proposed; these are planned at three way intersections. No other roundabouts in Encinitas, or North County, of which we've been made aware, are planned on a highway, adjacent to a RR track, with only three way intersections allegedly to be "calmed"
ReplyDeleteThe U. S. Dept. of Transportation also recommends against roundabouts adjacent to a railway corridor. Traffic backup is already problematic at Leucadia Blvd and 101 because of the roundabouts on the Blvd, and the fact of the RR crossing, which back up has caused significant delay, and has already resulted in slowed response times, and a recent near death. Every moment counts in an emergency.
Yes, thanks 11:05, for your excellent analysis.
"Traffic backup is already problematic at Leucadia Blvd and 101 because of the roundabouts on the Blvd, and the fact of the RR crossing, which back up has caused significant delay, and has already resulted in slowed response times, and a recent near death."
DeleteThis sentence shows how clueless you are Lynn. The traffic backs up because of the signals not the roundabouts.
You are one clueless person. I have no idea how you get by in life. I bet your sucking Social Security right?
You look like a tick to me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat's the problem Lynn. You see the thousands of cars needing to access our hwy each day as insignificant. And for some reason I cannot fathom, you want people to think the U.S. Dept. of Transportation states that if there was A LOT MORE side street traffic, these roundabouts would work better. That's nonsense.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the proximity of a roundabout near a railroad has no effect on travel at all if those two entities do not INTERSECT with each other. None of our roundabouts interact with the railroad. Are you pretending not to understand what the Department means by repeating that word ADJACENT as though it can only mean parallel? Why don't you share that portion of what the U.S. Dept of Transportation actually says?
Adjacent can adjoin
Parallel never converges.
ad·ja·cent
1. lying near, close, or contiguous; adjoining; neighboring: a motel adjacent to the highway.
par·al·lel
1. extending in the same direction, equidistant at all points, and never converging or diverging: parallel rows of trees.
Fred, "thousands" of PEOPLE in cars are not insignificant. But all the people I know, adjacent residents, who do need to access North 101 from streets west of the highway, are more concerned about the slower emergency response time and the increase in cut through traffic, than about the difficulty in turning north. How many of those thousands are turning north? Roundabouts won't make it much easier for those making a right, turning south.
DeleteI don't think my neighbors are "insignificant!" That's another false conclusion. I think that what has made it harder, too, for those wanting to turn left, is the northbound lane elimination, which should be rectified by the Coastal Commission, since the City doesn't seem to care about residents west of N101, when it comes to increasingly slow emergency response times, more cut through traffic on a "recreational" residential street, Neptune, and cross-streets, OR when it comes to motorists trying to make a left, going north, onto 101.
Without roundabouts there will be more emergency responses.
DeleteAnother unsupported statement, another false conclusion, Fred.
DeleteStats don't lie. Well, some do.
DeleteFred,
ReplyDeleteDon't waste your time.
She is brain dead and will never understand common sense and logic.
Sadly, some people just don't have common sense. Its weird but true.
Dear Fred and Lynn, Please argue with each other over the phone or get real jobs. Your jerk circle is killing this blog.
DeleteThe Cabezon
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCabezon, you and Fred can go jerk yourselves.
DeleteYou're not my dad. The only "circle" we're talking about here, is the roundabouts. I am willing to discuss it with Fred, because although he often uses false logic, he doesn't resort to name calling, or try to get others to "dismiss" my comments by constant attempts at degradation, rather than adding some facts, or logic, to the discussion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnd the only jerks we're talking about are the ones your car and/or body makes at stop lights, stop signs and T-bone collisions at intersections.
DeleteNot true, Fred. Cabezon was talking about a circle jerk, and that's not something I'm interested in, nor something for which I'm equipped.
DeleteThose accident causing jerks are a tragic fact of life. Five roundabouts won't eliminate the small minority who drive like maniacs, without consideration, oblivious to anything but their own need to speed.
Those factual tragic jerks of life are exactly what roundabouts diminish, in a big way.
DeleteTake a hard look at this video every day until you believe roundabouts would have prevented most of these accidents.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e10_1281368409
Cabezon,
DeleteYou knew this road wasn't paved when you clicked on the picutre.
agreed.
ReplyDeleteWe get it. Fred understands logic and likes roundabouts.
Lynn- The opposite.
Fred sees roundabouts as a solution to traffic issues in his neighborhood. Lynn sees roundabouts as a tool developers will use to increase densities in her neighborhood. These 2 perspectives will never be reconciled.
ReplyDelete- The Sculpin
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRight you are. But one position has needful benefits verifiable online, while the negative claim is fear based without any evidence
DeleteSculpin, it's not only that; it's also that I and my neighbors see roundabouts as causing much more harm than good, in slowing emergency response times, eliminating the dirt parking along the RR right of way, and also, increasing cut through traffic, during peak periods through our residential neighborhoods, also "recreational access/egress" to the beaches, would be affected.
DeleteMy perspective is from that of a homeowner and neighbor. Fred's is that of a business owner, but also a neighbor, as he lives behind his business? Other than Fred, I know of no one on the Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Ass. Board of Directors, or Leucadia Town Council, who lives west of 101, adjacent to where the planned roundabouts would be.
Both L101MA and LTC were "stakeholders" in the workshops, where a private contractor, a roundabout lobbyist who travels the country, showing Disney styled audio visual presentations about the Autopia, which any city could have, if it's willing to begin by paying beaucoup consultant fees, thus creating new opportunities for private gain through public works development projects, directly benefiting private development interests.
The fact that the roundabout at La Costa is necessary to "mitigate" the traffic that will be created when the Contel KSL (or is it KLS?) development is finally done, demonstrates that roundabouts ARE used for mitigated negative environmental impact reports. However, even if a full EIR is required, roundabouts would serve as mitigation.
In the case of the La Costa roundabout, the train is trenched, there, already; the intersection at 101 and La Costa isn't a RR crossing. It is therefore planned as a two lane roundabout because there's room for a wider diameter circle, with more safety features, there.
But there is NO GUARANTEE that stop signals would not be someday added to the roundabout design, which has happened at other busy intersections, with roundabouts, throughout the nation.
L101MA started a bicycle and pedestrian committee, after the fact of Council's "approval," by three votes, only, with Dalager recusing himself, and Bond voting NO.
Council has consistently gone along with staff and insider interests, "leveraging influence" in their symbiotic partnerships, as their advertising script goes . . . The majority of council has consistently overlooked the public's concerns, and haven't counted the actual adjacent neighbors as "stakeholders," in the City's decisions.
Council like to think it knows what is best for us. Too often they are blinded by their own egos.
Fred, again you are mischaracterizing the "debate." You have not "verified" your claims with your Google searches. When you verify through quoting the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, the quote is talking about "traditional roundabouts."
DeleteThree way intersection roundabouts on a major roadway, Historic Higway 101, adjacent to a railroad, with no cross traffic due to the tracks, are NOT traditional roundabouts. Traditionally roundabouts, as referred to by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation have wider diameters, although they need not be two lanes. The RR tracks disallow wider, traditional roundabouts, which allow for more safety features.
It seems as all your "verifiable" facts are comparing apples to oranges, Fred. Maybe roundabouts are good in some situations. You are too "stuck" to see that four one-lane roundabouts and northbound lane elimination is not what the residents, here, and local commuters, want or need.
The fact that we don't want or need them would be VERIFIABLE by Council's putting the question of having a total of five roundabouts and lane elimination on a city wide ballot. The DESIGN for the N101 Streetscape is going to be contracted out, at next Wednesday's Council Meeting, if some get there way, and according to staff's prejudiced recommendation, at $1.125 Million. To put the question on next year's ballot would only cost from $17,000 to $23,000, because we are having a General Election the first Tuesday of November, 2014.
Your saying something is "verified online," doesn't make it true, Fred. You know that.
The overwhelming information gathered about the nature of roundabouts is very very positive. Especially by the U. S. Dept of Transportation. The few complaints about them are usually from people like yourself on a comment section somewhere. But I have to admit, Encinitas is pioneering the high density myth - so waytago!
DeleteThe "overwhelming information" about the nature of roundabouts may be positive, but my point has been all along, Fred, that you are comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing "traditional" roundabouts, with cross streets which have a volume not significantly less than the main thoroughfare, and almost always with at least four way intersections, with stop signs or traffic signals, being replaced by wider diameter roundabouts, which allow for more safety features. The situation here, with businesses along the west side of the highway only, and three way intersections, is completely different than the "traditional" roundabout scenario.
DeleteSo while roundabouts may be great for replacing all way stop signs, or as an alternative to traffic signals, that is not the case here, through Leucadia, on Hwy. 101, which is also adjacent to a RR, in which right of way, many cars have parked, for as long as I've lived in Encinitas (since 1978). That dirt parking would be eliminated according to the "cartoon plans" designed by Peltz and Associates.
Draw your own conclusions. I'm not complaining, simply stating the facts as I see them. The City has admitted that cut through traffic would increase, were the five roundabouts to be installed. It is undeniable that emergency response times would be further slowed in an area that is already subpar according to City standards.
It is undeniable that roundabouts, and the La Costa Roundabout, in particular, is to be used for Environmental (traffic) Impact Mitigation for the development planned at La Costa. That fact is in the staff report for Agenda Item 10A for Sept. 11.
All a few of you do on this blog is to complain about my so-called complaining. You don't cite facts or actual opinions other than your negative opinion of me. Funky does not equal crappy.
We could have a beautiful streetscape which encourages walkability and bicycle ride-ability without having four unwanted three way intersection, one-lane roundabouts forced on us. They would do far more harm than good, and would be tremendously expensive to the taxpayers, whom also pay Transnet Taxes, every time we purchase gas.
"So while roundabouts may be great for replacing all way stop signs, or as an alternative to traffic signals, that is not the case here"
DeleteSo eloquent, yet so wrong. Marcheta and La Costa.
I'm pro roundabout, but can anyone tell me why most of the proposed locations are all down on the north end of 101 and placed so close together?
ReplyDeleteThe northern most one of the three at Bishops Gate serves over 200 homes at Sea Bluff that has no other access out of their neihborhood. The residents I've talked to are happy to learn they'll be able to make safe left turns onto the hwy, finally. The one at Grandview is the last exit for Neptune Ave flow and last chance for a safe left onto 101 as well. Not sure why they wanted the Jupiter roundabout, but it will also make driving more convenient and safe for anyone using it and will spare anyone who wants to go north on 101 from having to go all the way up Neptune (from Leucadia Blvd) from doing so.
DeleteTrue, there are 3 planned for the northern portion and only one for the southern. But there is Leucadia Blvd in between where one also can make a left turn safer than at the side stops.
Bishop's Gate is the private entry to a condo complex. Sure, it's nice for those folks to have their own roundabout, but what about the immediately adjacent Pacifica condo complex? To turn north, they would drive about 1,000 feet south to the proposed Grandview roundabout. BG folks could do the same.
DeleteFrom the proposed BG roundabout, proceed 2/10 mile south to the next proposed roundabout at Grandview. From there, it's 3/10 mile south to the next proposed roundabout at Jupiter. From there, it's 6/10 mile south to Leucadia Blvd. From there, it's another 6/10 mile south to El Portal.
If roundabouts work so wonderfully well, why bunch them together and leave long stretches of the same highway without them?
For Fred, who seems to lack the ability to connect the dots and see past his own bias: If one-lane roundabouts in a three- or four-lane highway really do solve problems (they don't, but just for the sake of exposing your lack of logic and objectivity), the BG and Jupiter locations should be scratched. One of those two should be about halfway between Grandview and Leucadia Blvd., and the other about halfway between the boulevard and El Portal. Within the illogic of having roundabouts at all, those locations make a lot more sense.
Every residence is private. Pacific has never had an access point crossing 101. Bishops Gate always has. It's more than nice up to 1000 cars per day there will enjoy a roundabout. I connect dots. Big round ones. You connect stops.
DeleteSorry, Fred, even your cherry-picked arguments don't stand up.
DeleteYou argue that residents north of Leucadia Blvd. and west of 101 will drive Neptune north to Jupiter or Grandview to circle a roundabout so they can go north on 101 more safely than from any T-intersection in that stretch.
If that's true, it would mean that residents north of Marcheta and west of 101 now drive Neptune north to Leucadia Blvd. so they can turn safely left at the signal. I don't see that happening. I do see them driving to the nearest T intersection and turning left there.
I do see them driving to the nearest T intersection and turning left there.
DeleteSure they do. But the ones that don't want to wait forever make rights then U-turns. Roundabouts greatly diminish that space and time and add saftey at slower speed to the equation, making them more atrractive to folks who want to go north. But I understand your desire to keep it a dangerous hassle for all 19 points. Without that you couldn't be a control freak.
No control freak here and not an illogical roundabout obsessive either. The point you continue to ignore because it destroys your argument: Three one-lane roundabouts crammed in a half mile at the north end of the corridor. Six tenths of a mile south is Leucadia Blvd. Another six tenths mile south is a one-lane roundabout at El Portal. That placement makes no sense at all. If roundabouts are so great, which they're really not, spread them out evenly through the corridor!
DeleteIn Leucadia, if they're "cramming" 3 roundabouts in a half mile area, imagine the insane engineers who dared cram 5 roundabouts in just a 5 block distance. Watch the video and learn the miserable results.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9nAWbZxgv4
The four one lane roundabouts planned for three way intersections will not make living on streets west of N101 more safe and convenient, for the vast majority of residents, nor for the majority of local commuters.
ReplyDeleteGive us back our second northbound lane, for motorists, put in a DEDICATED bicycle lane, Class ONE, in the RR rights of way, water the plants, stop removing trees, keep improving the sidewalks, stop plopping boulders in our park and taking up even more space with "decorative fencing," which most people don't appreciate.
Please, City of Encinitas, and all your "operatives," subsidiaries, and "sponsors," just leave us alone. We had an artwalk long before there was ever a mainstreet association. We HAD a roadside park with a picnic table and benches.
We HAD historic Cypress trees that were NOT diseased, when they were removed. ALL older trees get hollows. Those trees were not dying as could be confirmed by looking at them after they were lying on the flatbed truck, killed, after being here for over a hundred years. No botanist ever confirmed our historic trees, our heritage, were dead or dying.
Some people just like to try to rewrite history. This project is being driven by a self-interested minority, but I guess that's usually the case when our cities become machines.
I keep dreaming about a new vision, a new council, that actually represents what the people want and need, who listens to EVERYONE, with objectivity and compassion, who doesn't cater to special interests and an ego blinded by a self-centered need for control, confounded and compounded by a self righteous sense of authority and political ambition.
some people just like to make shit up... right Lynn?
DeleteLynn- I've been gone for two weeks on holiday, but one thing has remained the same... Your delusions.
DeleteYou want us to return to 1965 when Andy and Barney were our law enforcement officers and Otis was our only town drunk. Well it's 2013 and we have drug addled morons shooting at cops, kids driving at 85 mph on 101 killing innocent people and it's a constant battle with homeless losers that shit and piss all over town.
Shall we return the park to its previous state?? Of homeless occupancy, with the picnic tables and falling trees. And flooding in all dirrections. Is that your idea of Leucadia ?? Your talk of burying the train is pure folly. You and KLCC will fight that at all costs. $40 M to bury the train..... Delusional. Simple quackery.
Good luck finding a therapist willing to take on your case.
PS- I've never seen you plant one flower or tree on 101. Never seen you use the park at any time for any reason. Never seen you contribute to Leucadia I any way shape or form. I have seen you deride others, push your agenda of obstruction and bully those with an opposing point of view.
I do not think the City should have defunded the flooding monies. I am glad for any drainage "fixes" that have happened, including the drainage ditch across from the tracks, in front of Paul Ecke Central.
DeleteYou do not provide any facts supporting your assumptions on how much trenching, NOT burying, the train might cost. $40 Million should go a long way. Since no one bothers to solicit any proposals or estimates, then you are just blowing hot air, when there are estimates on the total costs for the N101 Streetscape and the three underpasses for pedestrians and bicyclists, on the books, still to be built, at $6.4 Million each.
It's not my job to plant flowers or trees on 101. That is the city's job. However, I have planted plenty of flowers and trees adjacent to Highway 101, although I don't own businesses or business properties there. When business owners plant flowers and trees, that's greatly appreciated. The majority of residents who don't have a direct, commercial connection to N101 need not be chastised for not planting flowers and trees.
DeleteI am not high profile when I am in Leucadia Roadside Park. Usually, except during special events, few people hang out there. I've been to Orpheus Park many more times. I don't care for the boulders, in Roadside Park, which are a poor replacement for the Cypress trees; the boulders and the cattle style fencing take up much space that could be used by people, during special events. I'm glad the flooding is not as bad lately, although we do need rain, again. It's only a challenge during rainy seasons.
Although you say you've "seen me bully" you don't cite a single instance of my doing so. I apologize if I ever came off like that, to anyone, as that has never been my intention. I try to always provide facts to back up my opinions, and not jump to conclusions and false assumptions.
I really appreciate that WCV has provided this forum and has been a hands on moderator. The "bullying" and "stalking" comments that are deleted, are not my own.
"We had an artwalk long before there was ever a mainstreet association."
ReplyDeleteThe first artwalk was the brainstorm of Morgan Mallory. He is also a founding member of L-101 and dutifully carries on to this day.
"We HAD historic Cypress trees that were NOT diseased, when they were removed. ALL older trees get hollows"
Rotten hollows so deep in the two at the park, Mark Wisnewski could bury a golf club in them. Were you there the evening we said goodbye to them? No one loves trees more than Mark - former president of People for Trees which Leucadia Merchants Association helped plant 101 of them in 1992. Mark knows when a tree is about to fall over from decay and is the last person to cut one down - but ours had to go. They were in that swamp of a park for too long. One of the heritage Eucalyptus fell over. Had a little boy been standing in the wrong place, tons of pressure would have crushed him. Fortunately he walked away with scratches as his mother witnessed the whole thing. Ask Gary M. I think the other Eucalyptus fell as well? I know two of the newer trees did later on. Thankfully, the city has made sure the park no longer serves canoes when it rains.
Mark W. inserted a long screw driver, when I was present, at the pre tree cutting down "ceremony," not a golf club. A hollow in a 100+ year old tree does not make it dead or dying.
DeleteI tremendously respect Mark W., but he is not a botanist. Those trees were historic. I feel a botanist's opinion should have been sought, not only "arborists'" opinions. As I said, I respect Mark very much, but the City's contracted "arborist" is primarily just in the business of cutting down trees. There used to be an old light post that our former neighbor had let become covered with ivy. It was shaped like a giant mushroom, so neighbors thought of it as a landmark, and called it the "mushroom tree."
The "arborist," came along and posted a sign that it would be cutting down the dead tree. That "arborist," didn't bother to actually inspect closely enough to realize that there was a cement light standard beneath the ivy. After I informed the City of the light standard, the arborist's sign was removed and the City allowed a developer to remove the light post, which could have been preserved. It wasn't. It was cut into pieces and hauled away, without notice to neighbors, or an opportunity to object.
Remind me not to go tree climbing with you. And yes, there's certainly been a lot of trees needlessly destroyed by the city, billboard companies and drunk drivers. There were 10 trees in bloom in front of city hall which they had planted 10 years earlier that were all cut down and replaced with palm trees. I took pics during their removal 10 years ago. Likewise, many healthy eucalptus and cypress have been removed as well along 101. A few dieased ones like the one across from L-101 kept dropping big branches so it had to comeo out. Sure makes the area look barren without them, but I think there used to be staff at city hall who's aim was to plant only trees that got 30' tall - like the ones they put in front of the post office. Less maintenance is probably the objective, but it only take a few giants mixed in with them to fill out our canopy. The ones Mark & Co planted in 1992 are looking awesome and some are 40' tall now. Most didn't make it largely due to the reasons listed above. One thing I did learn is that if anyone catches someone cutting down a tree in the public right of way without a permit, it is a $10,000 fine. So keep your cameras handy. The billboard co. used to come on Sundays until they had all 6 of our torrey pines in the median on the 1200 block cut down for better visibility of their damn billboard. So every time I hear a chainsaw, I bounce out the door with my camera. Thankfully, the Leucadia Streetscape brings in a thousand more trees to 101. 100 of which were already planted at the north end. If that's gentrification, bring it.
DeleteLynn- is the healthy tree you're talki g about the one in the park with the africanized bee nest in the trunk hollow?? Sorry lady, it doesn't take a botanist to know that tree is/was finished. Your additude of the tree must fall and kill someone before something gets done is the same city additude that allowed the SDA student to be killed on Santa Fe several years ago. The city did nothing to make that underpass safe until someone died. Same additude they use on the Enc blvd and I-5 underpass today. Pretty sick, waiting for someone to die...
DeleteThanks for the info, Fred.
DeleteI love hearing Mark W's presentations during Oral Communications at City Council Meetings. I love all the work he's done for our community to preserve and enhance our canopy.
After seeing the cut down Cypress trees on the flatbed truck, I sure didn't see that they looked "rotten" or that they appeared to be dying. Branches of healthy trees naturally fall. The branches do need to be maintained, trimmed. Falling branches is one way that trees multiply.
The way the City pays our contracted arborist is by the job. The contractor makes more if it's a tree removal job, rather than a tree trimming job. I feel that many on staff think it's more "cost effective," and less work, to cut down on maintenance costs by removing trees. The 101 trees that were planted are only saplings. That's not what we expected. The Solana Beach Streetscape, planted some great, mature, specimen trees, which are a wonderful addition to that community's character. However, the ones I saw were mature palm trees.
Those Cypress Trees taken from Roadside Park, without a scientist's (botanist's) opinion, were an irreplaceable part of our community's character and heritage.
People who oppose putting four one-lane roundabouts on Highway 101 are not responsible for homelessness. Parks everywhere, especially in warmer climates, can have challenges with homeless people trying to camp out in them, or "loitering." That is irrelevant to the roundabout discussion.
Community character and acknowledging those who want to keep Leucadia funky, while maintaining our community's charm and "laid back atmosphere, IS relevant to this roundabout conversation, and relevant to the exact roundabouts proposed here, not "generic roundabouts" existing in other localities with much different geographic characteristics.
Half of it's base was dry rot - a disease that travels. That's not a good foundation for a 10 ton giant. Most of the tree was healthy. The entire giant Eucalptus that fell was healty. But that over saturated park was only slightly more dense than quicksand.
DeleteAnd if I had to choose, roundabouts make for a more cruisin' "laid back atmosphere" than stop lights and signs creating more of a "held back, dangerous, polluted atmosphere." But to each their own definition of funky.
Lynn- do us a favor, cut down the dead oleander bushes, thanks.
ReplyDeleteLynn may not be your cup of tea but she has done plenty as a council watchdog and her GOOD far outweighs most residents. I don't agree with everything she wants but show me one council member doing more good for encinitas than Lynn.
ReplyDeleteAll I asked is that she cut down the dead oleanders. The council has shown over the past 26 years to not give a damn, so I'm asking someone that does care. Lynn, cut down the dead oleanders.
DeleteI apperciate Lynn's tenacity. Especially when she's right. But far be it from most previous council members to participate in Encinitas' future by attending meetings. What kind of message is that about them? Eat it and beat it.
DeleteJust eat it...eat it ....take your bloated pension and beat it!
DeleteThe NCTD has removed some of the dead oleanders, now. It takes up to five years for those infected by the Sharpshooter bacterium to die.
DeleteMeanwhile, some of the oleander mature bushes, which may or may not already be infected, were shaped, and are in bloom. Mostly white blossoms, but I did see some pink, too. And yes, they are shaped to look like trees.
Thanks for doing that, too, NCTD! And thanks to Tony Kranz for keeping his promise, as our Encinitas NCTD rep, to prompt these improvements, if he has been. I hope we can make some progress on a railtrail corridor for bicyclists, too.
How did the Sharpshooters miss all the ones on the freeway?
DeleteLynn- the oleanders die from lack of water! Bug shmug!! Do us a favor and go out tonight and cut down the dead ones.
DeleteEvery council member Does more.
ReplyDeleteLynn does nothing but complain.
Does more for tax payer waste. I'd agree with that.
DeleteLword wastes huge amounts of tax dollars with senseless records request from staff and ongoing ramblings at meeting are a huge waste of everyone time. Time = Money.
DeleteWe appreciate that Morgan Mallory helped spearhead the initial artwalks, which took place long before he became a "founding director" of L101MA. The artists deserve most of the credit.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the artwalks, over the years, have helped the artists' to promote their work and helped Mallory to promote his framing business.
It's wonderful when artists can support themselves through their art. And art is something that helps to keep Leucadia funky.
Nice to see Lynn attacking the decent honest hard working people of Leucadia like Morgan Mallory and not just the ocean front millionaires she normally goes after. I'm sure Morgan feels special.
DeleteLynn-
Delete~ Illegitimi non carborundum ~
Lynn can't help herself. As every one has told her, Lynn is "special"
DeleteMorgan deserves most of the credit for the inception and ressurection of Leucadiart walk. The artists deserve thanks for the quality of their talent, enormously helping to make the event successful. And God deserves thanks for the weatherman being wrong about rain that Sunday.
ReplyDeleteI didn't attack Morgan. On the contrary. The artwalk, to me, is primarily a creation of the artists' cooperative, creative spirit, but Morgan has been a wonderful facilitator, no doubt.
ReplyDeleteMorgan can read for himself what I said, before. I didn't go after him by simply stating that "the artwalks, over the years, have helped the artists to promote their work and helped Mallory to promote his framing business."
If you see that as an attack, you are truly paranoid. But think what you want, and as you are.
Most artists can't get out of their own way let alone organize any art festival. Your attack of Morgan Mallory was unnecessary and uncalled for but somehow suits your demeanor. To think he would put in hundreds of hours of work to organize the Artwalk so he might frame an extra photo or two is nonsense. I suggest your volunteer next year as see what it takes, but you won't. Has anyone at KLCC stepped up to help at the Artwalk ?? Seems to me I see the same faces year after year.... But never yours.
DeleteEnjoy your put downs , your time on this earth is limited, if you choose to be angry and bitter somehow it suits you.
I didn't attack Morgan by saying that the artwalk is a good promotion for both the artists and him. Creative people often do have a challenge promoting themselves, so Morgan's efforts as a facilitator have been welcomed, as I said.
DeleteThere is no such thing as KLCC. That is a figment of someone's paranoid imagination.
Interested business owners, property owners and artists put on the artwalk, for which we, who patronize it year after year, are grateful.
L101MA undoubtedly gets a portion of rental fees paid by vendors' displaying their wares at the artwalks. It is not necessary to try to put down those who participate by attending.
You are really only putting yourself down and revealing your own anger. Hate is a mask that fear wears. You, by your repeated "targeted" attacks of me, never providing opinions supported by facts, appear to be consumed with obsessive fear of my comments, with my opinions, which I do support with facts, sharing links, or quoting sources.
Your attempts to polarize our community are not working; they only reveal the divided workings of a twisted, bitter mind.
Lynn- people are sick of you playing the victim when you get called out for your nonsense. YOUR repeated and targeted attacks against hard working Leucadians somehow makes YOU the victim ??? Simply put you are not salvageable. You shoot yourself in the foot and complain that someone else loaded the gun.
DeleteLet me help you. You are being used. Used by the obstructionista of Leucadia. They sit back and tell you how they support you and defend you but hey... You take all the heat. They tell you how evil force conspire against you , they lie. They lie to your face. Don't believe them, don't believe anything they tell you, they are not your friends. The obstructionista of Leucadia are NOT good for you. Avoid them.
More Lynn favoritism from WC....
ReplyDeleteWhy not strike Lynn's crappy comments about nice folks working for the betterment of Leucsdia?
Well, it may not be an attack, but it's certainly a statement that's not complimentary. The Artwalk is a positive, so is L101, where people in the community who care volunteer to make Leucadia better. My hat is off to Fred et al and all the work they have done over the years.
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with artists or business owners promoting their art and their businesses? The community has supported Morgan Mallory, or he wouldn't still be in business. Same thing with Fred, although it becomes more challenging when the City keeps raising fees, including business license fees. I have spoken against that, just as I spoke, originally, in FAVOR of Charley Marvin's request that the City would give L101MA a direct subsidy. I spoke in Charley's favor, because, at the time. DEMA and the Chamber of Commerce were being subsidized, and I thought Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association should be too. Dan Dalager opposed it, but the motion passed.
DeleteI now feel these business association subsidies have been abused. Lobbying isn't being accurately reported, including lobbying against Prop A or for roundabouts and lane elimination for motorists. Now I feel all non-profits should have to apply and compete for Community Grants.
But why would my comments be "non complimentary" or considered to be an insult? It sounds as though a few here have chips on their shoulders.
Those who come to the artwalks, and we do, know that promotion, or profit, is not a bad thing, just as those who go to the street fairs know that. A creative, entrepreneurial spirit is great!
We support a thriving business community that shows true consideration and cares about ALL its neighbors, and wouldn't want to pit the business owners against adjacent residents by marginalizing us and our concerns about community character, public safety, and quality of life!
No one is in agreement all the time; but we can be kind, even when we disagree. You don't have to "gang up" on me or anyone else with whom you do disagree. Your connections and leverage, your imagined "might" don't make you right.
Connections and leverage ??? What C and L?? If I had C and L I'd have a comfy job as an Enc firefighter or better yet ... Marine safety captain.
DeleteThanks, WCV for providing this forum, and for not allowing your blog to be overrun by one or two sockpuppets or meatpuppets who attempt to drive me and anyone else away, anyone who may want to discuss issues civilly, when the poster's comments in any way disagree with the anon sockpuppet's self-interested, conflicted "agenda."
ReplyDeleteI tried, before, posting anonymously, but then even more people were being targeted. if other anonymous posters disagreed with the sock/meatpuppets, they were lambasted, bullied, and accused, harshly and repeatedly, of being me.
I decided it was better, for me, like WCV, Kevin, JP and Fred to only have one online identity, to avoid confusion or charges of deception. Also, I stopped posting on Leucadia Blog: it became too toxic, for me to participate.
Many other people have stopped posting and/or reading on LB. For me, doing so became something I dreaded. "Sharing" was no longer constructive or fun; cyberbully trolls got their way, there. They knew they could dominate LB about Prop A, roundabouts, and anything else through their bullying tactics. Hate posts appeared to be working for them. But driving away people who disagree, or allowing the meanspirited tactics by others that encourage this chain of events, is like cutting off your nose to spite your face . . .
And yes, roundabouts have always been the most reactionary blog topic, but it got to the point where one meatpuppet, aka RSPB, who admitted he had a severe drinking problem, on LB, was reactive to ANYTHING I posted or that he IMAGINED I had posted.
Encinitas Undercover is now being read and shared by many more people, although I believe Teresa has stopped linking it on her newsletter, now. She's changed.
According to Wiki:
"A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term—a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock—originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about, himself while pretending to be another person.[1] The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization,[2] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Many online communities have a policy of blocking sockpuppets . . .
The term "meatpuppet" is used as a pejorative description of various online behaviors. The term was current before the Internet, including references in Ursula Le Guin's science fiction story "The Diary of the Rose" (1976), the alternative rock band Meat Puppets, and the cyberpunk novelist William Gibson's Neuromancer (1984). Editors of Wikipedia use the term to label contributions of new community members if suspected of having been recruited by an existing member to support their position. Such a recruited member is considered analogous to a sockpuppet even though he is actually a separate individual (i.e. "meat") rather than a fictitious creation. Wired columnist Lore Sjöberg put "meat puppet" first on a satirical list of "common terms used at Wikipedia," defining the term as `a person who disagrees with you.'"
???? It must all get lost in the translation......
DeleteWC. Please delete Lynn's comment she's calling us names. I am not a meat Anything
ReplyDelete"Sock puppet" is benign; "meat puppet" is more apt
ReplyDeleteThis blog is losing it's credibility.
ReplyDeleteIt should now be called... Lynn Overandover.
It's becoming like the Council meetings, we just have to listen to Lynn's jilted opinion and flawed analysis over and over and it's so boring and petty.
Your blog is now one sided Lynn rant.
WC. You sir, have lost the plot!
agreed.... lynn is boring and states false garbage all the time with WC letting it stand..... the blog is losing credibility for sure.
ReplyDeleteWhy does he let Lynn slam Charlie Marvin and Morgan all day long but when someone points out some fact about Lynn, WC deletes the comment?
Bull. City people obviously posting again.
ReplyDeleteNope...just tired of the same false rants.
ReplyDeleteIn brighter news, the City Council unanimously voted to design phase 1 of the streetscape and the La Costa Roundabout. They also directed staff to bring back a report so City Council can have a discussion about parking on the East side and pedestrian crossing of the railroad. The City Council acted perfectly. It was a good night for Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteThe City Council acted perfectly - what? perfectly asinine? perfectly uncaring? perfectly ignorant?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you really afraid of Fred? A public vote?
DeleteAre you afraid because of your accident? I would be too. Glad you weren't seriously injured. But that accident wasn't caused by roundabouts or lack of roundabouts.
Makes no sense to have the first roundabout at El Portal in any case, because of the traffic signal at Leucadia and 101, which causes backup, both directions, as it is, with or without the stop sign at Marcheta. Staff was inconsistent last night, with the facts stated in the previous staff report for the 7/18/12 Council Meeting re lane elimination.
When I was 5, I was afraid of quicksand, the Russians taking over and lockjaw - until I got older. Since then I've learned if someone wants to be afraid, there's thousands of other things to choose from and a few more that come out of the blue. I suppose making life better and less worrisome for everyone is pretty high on my list. So I dwell and/or act on hope more than worry. 2000 deaths at intersections each year in the US for example is one problem that's preventable. Pretty simple too. Mr. Crash, the guy who invented signaled intersections last century is running out of places to put knotches on his gun, thanks to Ms. Roundabout. The "accident" at El Portal was caused because there is currently room for TWO cars exiting that street, and two there were. One was a large van at 101 about to turn left. The other vehicle, a small car driven by a friend of his was in a car to his right. The van obscured the car drivers vision of me coming south on 101. Still, he ran the stop blindly and T-boned my van, totalling both vehicles. His friend looped back to see if his buddy and his passengers who were screaming were OK, then he fled the scene. The event didn't scare me half as much as the Russians, lockjaw, or quicksand, but thanks for expressing your concern.
DeleteHad there already been the roundabout at El Portal, there would have been room for only one car entering the roundabout from El Portal and more visibility for everyone. I too would have been going slower and been able and ready to see any idiot not going to stop. Consequently, a roundabout at El Portal most certainly would have made a T-bone crash totalling 2 cars highly unlikely. One of your friends sent me a traffic study of N. 101 crashes at the 19 exits onto 101. About 200 vehicles collided here in 6 years many with injuires, at least one death. I think that number is conservative and could only give credibility to those statistics if you or anyone else could show me what day my crash happened as per any actual recorded account.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFred, do the math. In that sample survey, if it's correct that only 17% of the 200 people heard of the 101 Streetscape, then over 81% of those 34 would equal 28 people who, having heard of the N101 streetscape plans, were AGAINST five roundabouts and lane elimination.
DeleteIf you honestly believe the true needs of the entire community, including, but not limited to the neighbors, are reflected in L101MA's version of what's best for us, or Peltz and Associate's version, or City staff's version, then we should ALL support putting this question on the General Election ballot next year. A public vote is the truest needs assessment, and the most direct form of democracy.
Fred, do the math. In that sample survey, if it's correct that only 17% of the 200 people heard of the 101 Streetscape, then over 81% of those 34 would equal 28 people who, having heard of the N101 streetscape plans, were AGAINST five roundabouts and lane elimination.
DeleteLynn, do the math. Any amount of people who sign a petition because they're misled by its misstatements is not a good representation of the public opinion.
Turns out according to Lisa Shaffer (if I heard her acurately last night), Of 200 neighbors who were asked if they ever heard about Streetscape, only 18% of them had. Of that 18%, 81% were against Streetscape."
ReplyDeleteThat's classic poll skewing. Especially with a survey blazed with misleading bullet points for it's introduction.
Where were those 81% of furious neighbors last night?
Perfectly asinine are stubborn folk who refuse to accept the proven benefits ALL aspects of the Leucadia Streetscape will bring to both the business district and adjacent neighborhoods. Makes me wonder what their REAL reasons are. They're certainly not grounded in facts but misleading fears.
In their defense I'm glad they brought up the parking issues east of 101 AND their love for our heritage trees.
Fred, those 81% against streetscape favor more bums in the park. Like the guy there this am, passed out with half his body in the park but his legs in the road. Although someone placed a street cone near his feet so he wouldn't get hit by surfers headed to beacons . Nice job81%.
DeleteWhen a couple of business owners submitted petitions against 5 roundabouts and lane elimination, they turned in over 1,000 signatures!
DeleteThe City also needs to look at the survey which a marketing firm took, whereby out of 200 residents only 17% said they had heard of any 101 streetscape plans. Although Lisa Shaffer seemed incapable of figuring it out, that amounts to 34 people out of 200 ever having heard of it! She seemed to dismiss that survey's importance, because she can't comprehend its significance.
If only 17% of 200 people surveyed had heard anything about the Streetscape, that fact should be important to the city in being able to understand that the workshops held by Peltz and Associates, who are roundabout lobbyist consultants, were NOT objective, and were not well noticed to all adjacent residents.
Those who did get notice and who could and did attend, were NOT counted as stakeholders at the workshops, which had divided results. Staff member Ed Dean twisted the data when he answered Council's questions. Only two "official" surveys were taken. The survey most widely noticed and most widely attended had nearly two thirds of those answering saying no to 5 roundabouts and lane elimination. The next survey did not allow for a NO alternative,. The only two questions were for a choice between 5 roundabouts and lane elimination roundabouts OR traffic signals, and front in OR back in angled parking, period.
Initially, at the first day of the first workshop, at the Community Center, roundabouts were brought up by a member of the audience who said as a category he would like to suggest NO ROUNDABOUTS.
The facilitator, Dan Burdon, said what about yes roudabouts? So both of those were put up on the white board, where big white sheets were taped up with different category headings for each sheet.
Keep Leucadia Funky got the most dots on its white sheet. Next was Save the Canopy. At that first meeting, as I recall, only 14 dots were put on yes roundabouts. They were neatly lined up in two rows.
Although we had been instructed to put one dot on each category that we favored (we were given seven dots, each to distribute under the white sheet categories), when two members of the Board of Directors of Leucadia Mainstreet stepped away from the board, they had used all seven of their dots, on yes roundabouts, accounting for all 14 dots.
In reality, roundabouts were the focus of the workshops, all along, from the start, and no matter how well those not in favor tried to get the word out, and to express our concerns, we were marginalized, bullied or dismissed, to the point of being stalked, by personal insults and attacks, online.
In fact, the workshops were most noticed to and most attended by the same Leucadia Mainstreet directors, employees, and associates, the same "stakeholders," which have never included the neighbors!
The "marketing" of this redevelopment project has mainly been to staff and council, because they have control. The "little guy" has had far less influence and input. When we do bring up valid concerns, we've been dismissed and disregarded.
Tony Kranz linked the results to me, before, 209 pages of official feedback for the City, from the workshops. That is where I'm getting the figure of 14 dots being placed on the yes roundabouts category. I'm not making this up. I only missed the second portion of the first workshop, the walkabout, because that was my daughter's birthday.
After that Saturday walkabout meeting, in February of 2008, I believe, for the first time the plan was dreamed up (by only about 30 participants or less) for four one lane three way intersection roundabouts and one two lane roundabout at La Costa. The narrower diameter one lane roundabouts are all that can fit because of the RR tracks, and would slow traffic to 15MPH on Historic Highway 101 through the roundabouts, reducing northbound and southbound traffic, through the roundabouts, to one lane in each direction.
Were you at the Streetscape meeting at Oak Crest?
DeleteI'm glad all our council understands the benefits of roundabouts. It shows they have intelligence and can see when things work well.
ReplyDeleteYou can play "teachers' pet" all you want, and kiss up to Council all you want.
DeleteCheaters never prosper. We will get a referendum to qualify for the General Election, if we have to. Just as Solana Beach made the right choice, after public input to their council, just as the citizens of Del Mar and Cotati voted no on roundabouts at the last election, just as we were able to pass Prop A, we will defeat installation of these instruments of ill gotten gain.
Roundabouts would cause slower emergency response times, create more cut through traffic through residential neighborhoods and our school zone on Vulcan. These roundabouts would be tools of developers to "mitigate" more traffic created by higher density development, when, in fact, they would create bottlenecks and traffic jams during peak periods, including when I-5 becomes clogged.
You are the epitome of evil. That you would Keep Leucadia Crappy for your own benefit is despicable. I know of no one dying snd making you the Queen of Leucadia to decide the future of the community. Your falsehoods, twisting of facts will not go unreported. Vile, sick, twisted. Thankfully the council( as shitty as they are) choose to go forward even in the face of your lies and deceit. You keep Leucadia ugly, unsafe and a shithole.
DeleteFornicate the penguin on your television.
Charlie Marvin was rude at the 9/11 Council Meeting last night.
DeleteI think he intentionally sat where he knew he would be filmed. In his prominent on camera seat in the audience, Marvin kept distracting from the public speakers at the dais, shaking his head, rolling his eyes, covering his eyes, wiggling his fingers on the side of his face, talking to people next to him, all of which was clearly visible, "stage right," on TV, and which is documented on the webcast.
When I was speaking, he got up and walked out. But Marvin appeared to me to be purposefully rude to anyone who spoke in opposition to the City's funding of N101 Streetscape, as planned, with 5 roundabouts and lane elimination we don't want or need, at taxpayer expense. His discourteous demeanor contrasted with his fawning attitude toward Council, which was all caught on camera,
While watching the webcast at home, this morning, I finally had to put a post it note on my computer monitor screen to cover Charles Marvin's antics; they seemed designed to aggravate, purposefully distracting, akin to someone's deviously holding up two fingers like "devil's horns," behind the public speakers' heads.
Marvin appears to be disproportionately immature, perhaps his advanced age has something to do with his inappropriate behavior, as with Bob Filner?
Again, Marvin seemed to do his best to be intentionally aggravating, while prominently "displaying" his attitude of disdain as a member of the audience, seemingly with full awareness he was on camera. He tossed out one of his favorite words, "crappy," when he spoke, at the dais, with contempt, for those who don't agree with his self-interested redevelopment agenda.
Although he was very reactive to those who oppose 4 one-lane roundabouts and lane elimination, Marvin showed no reaction to and no apparent compassion for Bob Aronin's frightening tale of his near death experience, exacerbated by traffic on and near 101, as a result of already existing roundabouts. Every moment counts when someone's heart is failing.
Whether he was aware of his misbehavior, or not, whether it was intentional or not, Marvin shows a lack of decorum, which reflects badly on L101MA, the City's webcast, and the City, in general.
Yawn......
DeleteSkip
Lynn,
DeleteIt was the STOP signs and lights causing any delays in Bob Aronin's emergency response times - not roundabouts. He said his wait at Jasper St (one block from Leucadia Blvd) was 2 minutes. Thats because of the stop light and the usual amount of traffic that backs up there. Without Streetscape the future of N 101 is more and more stops - just like Solana Beach and Del Mar and other parts of our 101 in Encinitas and Cardiff. Roundabouts aid circulation not inhibit it. Its the anti-roundabout crowd who would pave the way for longer emergency response times by the ever increasing installation of stop signs and lights. You guys are cursing a blessing.
Fred, the roundabouts on Leucadia Blvd add to the challenges at Leucadia Blvd and 101, as well as to the challenges of those motorists, including emergency response vehicles, attempting to turn east onto Leucadia Blvd, or North onto 101 (to get to Bob's house on their way to the emergency call, in this instance).
DeleteThe point isn't that roundabouts, during peak traffic periods, in particular, cause delay, Fred, although roundabouts, including roundabouts on Leucadia Blvd. are NOT recommended near RR tracks, and Leucadia Blvd. IS a RR crossing; the point is that if there were additional one lane roundabouts on Highway 101, each of those roundabouts could FURTHER bottleneck traffic, especially during peak periods, and would cause FURTHER delays in already subpar emergency response times in Leucadia, along the Coast.
Just as the General Plan Update was, before, through MIG, a huge boondoggle, a big mistake, so that Council realized it must do a reboot, after wasting over $1 MILLION, the so-called N101 Streetscape (that section of the Highway from A Street to El Portal is NOT considered North Highway 101) would also be an expensive mistake, financially, politically, and most of all, an expensive mistake with respect to public health and safety, a mistake that could and would COST LIVES.
No, more stops cost lives.
DeleteDuring peak traffic periods, one lane roundabouts would cause more stops, as already happens at the roundabouts on Leucadia Blvd. How often do you drive those during peak traffic periods, Fred?
DeleteMore delay would cost lives. People have to stop in order to yield. I have seen and people have repeatedly reported that during peak traffic periods, people get confused and stop WITHIN roundabouts, causing more delay, more collisions.
Because you got Tboned at El Portal and 101 Fred, does not mean a roundabout is advisable there.
Those who cannot understand , don't want to comprehend, because they are disregarding logic and intentionally ignoring the facts are members of MLMDBC!
You're wrong.
DeleteLynn is not capable of listening or learning.
ReplyDeleteMost people get that after 1 minute of listening to her none sense .....
Yawn. Her ramblings are so boring. I just skip them.
Only clueless people give her any attention.
lol, at you paying attention enough to post 6 sentences, yawner.
DeleteIf I'm the teachers pet, you are in the "special student" club....
ReplyDeleteMore prejudice on display. You are handicapped because you seem incapable of showing compassion or kindness. Integrity challenged. I guess a sociopath is also considered "special?"
DeleteYou are part of the Make Leucaida Mainsteet Directors the Boss Club = MLMDBC.
MLMDBC, kinda of rolls off the keyboard. lol
Not everyone who is part of L101MA agrees with your bullying tactics, designed to degrade, drive away and demoralize.
Your tactics aren't working.
So who pays for the maintenance on the roundabouts? The Bird Rock community formed an assessment district. Not all that cheap. Commercial property pays the most then single family residential. Why isn't this assessment district given as an example along with the Bird Rock roundabouts?
ReplyDeleteBird Rock:
The community formally approved the formation of the MAD via mail-in ballot in July 2005. The approval included the stipulation that the MAD be managed by the BRCC, under contract to the City, rather than be managed by City staff. The ballot also included approval of an initial maximum assessment of $90 per year per single family home, about $63 per year per condominium, and $460 per year per typical-sized commercial property. The maximum allowable assessment rate increases yearly, is determined by the City, and is tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSomeone is always trying to Marr Lynn's reputation. Everyone knows what a valuable asset she is to our community. Thanks Lynn, keep on council, they need to be watched at every turn!
DeleteCity.
ReplyDeleteThat was simple. Who do you think should pay for the maintenance of the trees?
We Also need a statue of a Neptune/ Fred Cadwell figure in the La Costa Roundabout.
Who is paying for that? I think KLS will pay.
Fred is the man!!!!
I am also open to an an Assessment District.
DeleteBring it!
The Bird Rock MAD is also the hardscape - drainage, crossings.
DeleteWe'll let 3:45 pay for that statue of me.
ReplyDeleteEvery moment does count, as we all well know, in an emergency situation. Even though the fire dept. may only be delayed two or three minutes, and a particular emergency call may be within allowable parameters, if there were ADDITIONAL roundabouts on 101, a person "in trouble," may not make it. Someone could die.
ReplyDeleteThat was the main point of Barb Yost's and David Smith's public comments at the 9/11 Council Meeting: ADDITIONAL one lane roundabouts WOULD FURTHER SLOW DOWN down what, on the average, have been substandard emergency response times for parts of Leucadia, near the coast.
Barb Yost was an EMT. David Smith is a fireman and a paramedic. They are more expert in this than Counci and the prejudiced in favor of redevelopment Board of Directors of L101MA. Not all the business owners on 101 are in favor of additional one lane roundabouts on 101.
When a Chamber of Commerce survey was taken, and published in "Encinitas First" in 2008, over 50% of the business owners were not in favor of additional one lane roundabouts and lane elimination. They were concerned about loss of business during construction, about people avoiding the area because of traffic jams, about slower emergency response times for adjacent residents and for them and their patrons, as well as loss of business because motorists, including tourists, would be less inclined to tour up and down Pacific Coast Highway if they know that they are going to get stuck in traffic, through Leucadia, particular, during peak periods, such as when I-5 is backed up.
We would reach gridlock! With four one lane roundabouts with a speed limit of only 15MPH through each roundabout, motorists traveling both NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND would be reduced down to ONE LANE ONLY in each direction, so what was designated as a four lane major roadway, main arterial, primary circulation element, Historic State Highway 101, would be reduced to two lanes, at 15 MPH, through four roundabouts, essentially "in a row," which speed limit is LOWER than that required behind the gates in gated communities, where speed limits usually are 20 to 25 MPH.
"if there were ADDITIONAL roundabouts on 101, a person "in trouble," may not make it. Someone could die."
ReplyDeleteBetter a few slower moving roundabouts than more completely cloged up stops like Del Mar and Solana Beach. And anyone is kidding themselves to think there wouldn't be many more installed on 101.
Gridlock is the son of Mr. Intersection.
More "false dilemma" or black and white fallacy logic, Fred. Yes, better slower moving roundabouts than clogged up stop signs and traffic signals, but better to have NO additional one lane roundabouts at intersections that don't ALREADY have stop lights or stop signs!
DeleteYou are saying, better this alternative than that alternative, but you are leaving out the alternative that we could accept, which is only one two lane roundabout at La Costa!
It is NOT either your black or white, scenario, either roundabouts or clogged up stop sign intersections or traffic signal intersections "such as in Del Mar and Solana Beach."
But even in Del Mar and Solana Beach, the majority of the public did not want roundabouts. They were voted down in Del Mar at the last general election. Why would you want to force what you keep insisting is "best" on the people of Encinitas, whom do not agree with your false logic, Fred?
"You are saying, better this alternative than that alternative, but you are leaving out the alternative that we could accept, which is only one two lane roundabout at La Costa!"
DeleteSo then you prefer the folks west of 101 continue to dodge 3 lanes of 35 mph traffic rather than 1 lane of 15 mph traffic to make their left turns? That's not nice.
It was easier to turn left before the northbound lane elimination.
DeleteWe want bicyclists to be able to bicycle. Captain Haley in the Sheriff's Dept. in the Coast News article says bicyclists should go single file, even in bicycle lanes. Why do we need an eight foot bicycle lane northbound? Why was there not a bicycle count done, northbound and southbound, on 101, and one, Northbound, on Neptune?
Why was motorist traffic never measured during peak summer periods?
I would like a bicycle lane in the RR corridor, a dedicated bicycle lane.
There are breaks in traffic from the stop light at Leucadia Blvd. People have more of a challenge turning left from west of the highway, now, because of the lane elimination, simple fact.
All your arguments Fred, are passive-aggressive. You don't answer the question, Fred, why wouldn't you support a ballot measure and a public vote if you are so certain that four one lane roundabouts and lane elimination would be supported by the business community and the residents, local commuters?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt was easier to turn left before the northbound lane elimination."
DeleteA little easier perhaps from Glaucus north where the lane becomes one. But you're avoiding the facts Lynn. Left turns with 1 lane of 15 mph traffic are far easier and safer than dodging ANY other amount of lanes of traffic going 35 mph. That's simple logic you should be able to grasp. You don't want residents west of 101 to have that option. I do. And the ones who will be made aware of that benefit should as well. But you're not going to be the one giving them the opportunity to learn of that option.
What would not be supported in our community is if we already had 4 safe left turns at 15 mph, and you wanted that safety feature removed; stops installed and the speed limit at those points raised back up to 35 mph.
I want more safety, efficiency and beauty for all who encounter 101.
You want people to believe:
* shaving 9000 minutes off the time it takes cars to travel through 101 each day is insignificant.
* making the hwy 4 lanes again will make left turns safe at 35 mph.
* replacing roundabouts on Leucadia Blvd with stop signs will improve emergency response times as well as magically alleviate the backup of traffic at the 2 min stop light at Leucadia Blvd.
* more stop lights/signs will never come to N 101 for the simple reason "none are planned right now".
* the beautification project at Roadside Park is JUNK, should not continue in Leucadia and should be sent to Disneyland.
Not me.
Now think outside the box for a minute and ask yourself: If people only had to stop at Leucadia Blvd when trains went by, what would THAT do to speed up emergency response times?
God forbid a gas guzzling, money wasting, time robbing, air polluting and dangerous vision of the future for Leucadia to masquerade as helping neighbors on a petition be circulated. What a waste at every level. On that note, the INTERSECTION OF THE WEEK AWARD goes to two people.
1. The person who invented signaled intersections.
2. The person who drove this semi truck through a stop light.
But instead of diverting everyone from the truth, save some time and let me do it for you:
* "That the video is a 4 way intersection, not 3 way like all of ours"
* "The accident happened in another state"
* "More stop signs/lights on 101 will never happen."
* "the guy's brakes failed."
* "The same out of control truck could have killed 22 people were that a roundabout".
Did I miss any?
Warning: GRAPHIC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdZsVOAcK_k
So drive safely everyone, and "watch out for the other guy".
These final two are going to be the last times I answer you, Fred, on this roundabout thread. But rave on.
DeleteAs you implied, above, you are again comparing "apples to oranges."
Because accidents that happen at 15 MPH cause less damage than accidents at 35 MPH, we cannot force every intersection in our city to have a speed limit of 15 MPH.
Because bicycling is great, is no reason to eliminate people's ability to cruise Highway 101 from A St., through Leucadia, to La Costa, without having to slow down again and again through four one lane, three way intersections roundabouts placed where they are not recommended by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, and when they are further not recommended because the RR tracks prevent through way cross street traffic. No other roundabouts in Encinitas are for three way intersections directly adjacent to the RR tracks.
If an underpass goes in at El Portal, a stop light would be likely there, just as one was installed by Swami's for that now completed underpass for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Many roundabouts, nationwide, and in Tijuana have traffic signals installed, because of the girdlock that is created by excessive traffic, when people entering roundabouts do not yield to cross street traffic. There is every likelihood that a traffic signal also would eventually be added to any roundabout at La Costa, for instance.
I'm not watching any of your graphic images or checking out any of your you-tubes for other parts of the country that aren't relevant to the situation we have here, through Leucadia.
I didn't say more stop signs or lights would ever happen, but installing roundabouts would not prevent them, either.
Sometimes intersection control is needed.
ReplyDeleteSolana beach blew it and put in two traffic signals.
Roundabouts are better.
The Bird Rock yearly maintenance district budget for those roundabouts is about $200,000 a year. Private property is assessed to pay the costs.
ReplyDeleteAre the thousand of homeowners and commercial property owners in Leucadia ready to pay additional money per year for the maintenance of the roundabouts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQki1Aecktk
ReplyDeleteThank you for the youtube link to the Seth Torma, planner at KOA corporation, of his video of Bird Rock. Torma didn't ask people if they are part of the Bird Rock assessment district.
ReplyDelete11:25am is more mistruths from the KLCC.
ReplyDeleteKLCC members speak with folk tongue consistently.
11:25, My pleasure.
ReplyDelete