The Prop A folks showed that a citizen initiative can be done in Encinitas, so let's get to it, roundabout haters!
And over at the Coast News, two roundabouts proposed for Birmingham.
The usual policy of no roundabout comments obviously won't apply to this post.
Circle game.
ReplyDeletePaging Fred Caldwell! Sounds like some downtown biz owners don't want the disruption. Most of the other civic groups support it. Hard to compare a town like Cotati of 7,500 people with a big city like Encinitas that has huge traffic impacts all summer..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM4Z8Q-CwMI
Mr Green Circle.
Why is it hard to compare, Mr. Biased Jeans? But you're right, most biz owners don't want the disruption.
DeleteBy "most of the other civic groups support it," do you actually mean you believe most of the other 101 Mainstreet Associations support roundabouts?
The boards of directors for the Leucadia and Encinitas 101 Mainstreet Associations do not represent the opinion of the totality of business owners that are members, nor do they represent a consensus of residents in the communities that would be affected.
There are no plans for roundabouts anywhere along 101, downtown, where Encinitas 101 Mainstreet Assocation, formerly known as DEMA has jurisdiction.
I don't think the generic rebranding to "Mainstreet USA" has helped our individual communities maintain our individual, unique, small town, feel, our cherished diversity. The rebranding was supposedly done so that Encinitas' various Maintstreet Associations could get more statewide or national grants. Do you know, Mr. Biased Jeans, if any such grants have been received, outside of the subsidies that the L101, E101 and C101 already annually receive, directly and indirectly, through the City of Encinitas?
Peter Norby's "vision" for Encinitas included numerous roundabouts "as a unifying theme." It's hard to imagine residents asking for, wanting, or feeling the need for a "theme" or for unification.
DeleteI am biased, I support roundabouts, they work as speed control and to keep traffic flowing.
DeleteThe civic groups in Cotati were the following:
s/ Pat Gilardi
Vice Mayor, City of Cotati
s/ Michael McCullaugh
Owner, Redwood Cafe
s/ Prudence K. Draper
Downtown Cotati Property Owner
s/ Jay West
Owner, Gardens West
SONOMA COUNTY BICYCLE COALITION
s/ Gary Helfrich, Executive Director
So a fairly diverse group. I'm not part of any of the civic groups you mention, so you'll have to check with some of the members, one of whom may or may not post here on a regular basis.
I live in Leucadia and have/will support existing roundabouts and future roundabouts.
-Mr Green Retort
I don't come from a developer's perspective, as I'm not a developer and I've always supported slow growth candidates. However, I agree that roundabouts in place of or as a replacement to traffic studies is scary.
DeleteWe will have to vigilant as to the developers using Roundabouts to increase density. Not sure how they'd do it, but it bears watching.
Not sure about the roundabout on Birmingham, I have to look at it more closely...
-Green Genie
Glad you admit you are biased, Mr. Biased Jeans.
DeleteGlad you admit that roundabouts could work to increase density, and exacerbate growth, which is especially being pushed "along transportation corridors," already.
4:42
DeleteRidiculous.
Dang tootin' I'm biased. I love being able to make turns off of Leucadia Blvd, whereas before the speed of east or west traffic prevented that.
DeleteDensity is coming, no matter what we do. That's a sad fact. Developers will ram as much as they can onto any given property, and they've been doing it the last 15 years...
-Greenus Roundaboutus
That doesn't means we don't need roundabouts, I don't think you can show a direct link between development and roundabouts, that's a huge stretch...
Delete-Greenus
The link between development and roundabouts has already been demonstrated, here, and elsewhere. They would encourage more development along the 101 corridor, as they can be used by developers to get mitigated negative environmental impact declarations. That's not ridiculous; it's a proven fact.
DeleteThe Desert Rose final ruling was a huge victory, because the City had granted a mitigated neg dec on that density bonus project, which was was overruled by the Court. Roundabouts didn't come into play out in Olivenhain, but if they do, it would be one more reason that developers could maintain the environmental effects of increased traffic caused by greater densification would allegedly be mitigated.
Mr. Green Jeans, what was your position on Prop A? Most of those who favor roundabouts on 101 through Leucadia, disfavored Prop A, although I can think of about three exceptions. All of them have been swayed by their associations with certain individuals on the Board of Directors of Leucadia 101 Main Street Association.
Leucadia-Encinitas Town Council, as it now exists, and how many actual participating members are there? . . . seems to have swallowed the roundabout "bait," hook, line and sinker. Of course no one who participates on L-ETC, except Fred, whose opinion is is also prejudiced by an accident he had, lives directly adjacent to 101. All the LTC roundabout supporters, live east of the 101 corridor.
Tony Kranz, who told me he was going to resign from LTC, if he was elected, was right there, at the forum, advocating against Prop A; he has never made his support of roundabouts secret. And he still voted at the meeting, before the Prop A forum, at the library, where Steve Shakleton and Bruce Ehlers debated, with Shakleton overwhelmingly losing the debate, misstating facts, including that no three story structures would be built next to one story structures, which wasn't what happened to Caldwell Antiques. Fred tried to correct the record, but he never got called upon, although many others in the audience were allowed to ask questions. Right until the end, Kranz insisted, along with the rest of Council, that the public had been allowed to vote on changes to the L101 and Downtown Encinitas specific plans. Blatant lies were told, and repeated in the ballot arguments, all by supporters of roundabouts on 101, through Leucadia.
So. Does the developer on Fulvia St. think he can get away with building 10 homes where 5 should be exclusively because of his proximity to the roundabout on Hymettus? No. He'd try to build the same thing anywhere else in town with the same square footage. There's no get out of jail free card because of the Hymettus roundabout. Neither did the pregnant palaces next to me need one.
DeleteWere the City to consider the requested density bonus, on Fulvia St., you can bet the roundabouts on Leucadia Blvd. would by used in attempts to get a mitigated negative EIR.
DeleteBecause the mixed use development next to you, on 101, did not need to utilize roundabouts to achieve its mixed use status and height (that was thanks to changes in the N101 Specific Plan, pushed through by Council WITHOUT a public vote), doesn't mean that the mixed use project was a density bonus project, or that more development projects, adjacent to 101 wouldn't use roundabouts in an attempt to get more mitigated negative environmental impact declarations.
You can continue to use false logic, if you wish. But you could learn from your mistakes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
"Faulty generalizations – reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.
Accident – an exception to a generalization is ignored.
No true Scotsman – when a generalization is made true only when a counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds.
Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. [This is what you are doing at 2:07]
False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.
Inductive fallacy – A more general name to some fallacies, such as hasty generalization. It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that lightly support it.
Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
Overwhelming exception – an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications that eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.
Thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point."
Hard to ignore the fact that roundabouts have no assigned traffic standards according to the US traffic board manual. They thus are exempt from traffic studies, as there is no established methodology for measurement.
ReplyDeleteAside from whether they work/don't work, are safe/unsafe, it's surprising how few warning bells this raises for people. Roundabouts are the developers' dream: imagine a density bonus world where no traffic studies are required. And in a town that's as short on revenue as Encinitas is, what's good for the developer is good for Vina and city hall.
If the old farts in Coronado can drive a roundabout so can you.
DeleteRoundabouts work.
Not the point....
DeleteExcellent point.
DeleteStaff already tried to cut traffic service standards in the general plan update to accommodate their pro-development agenda.
I have no doubt they have similar nefarious plans with roundabouts.
Where are the roundabouts in Coronado? A few months ago, there were no roundabouts on Orange Ave., which is the busy main drag.
DeleteThe issue is not whether people can drive them. It's the effect they have on the traffic flow. One-lane roundabouts in a four-lane highway will choke traffic flow. When traffic is heavy, three one-lane roundabouts in a half-mile will gridlock traffic.
Actually Coronado has TWO roundabouts. Go there and look for them and enjoy what a real median should look like... Orange avenue- trees, grass and flowers. The crap lovers will never allow that on 101....they love it crappy.
DeleteKeep Leucadia's Communications Considerate.
Delete10:24 Are you saying there are two roundabouts on Orange Ave. in Coronado? Google Maps doesn't show that. It does show, and I've seen, that the median there is super-wide with two traffic lanes on each side.
DeleteThe Leucadia 101 roadway has nowhere near that width, making a comparison to Coronado's Orange Ave. silly.
I am not aware of any roundabouts on Orange Ave. or anywhere in Coronado and I go there often. What streets are the roundabouts on as I must be blind?
DeleteThe best comparison for roundabouts to Leucadia is Bird Rock, or Del Mar, where the lack of roundabouts stacks up traffic from 26th to 4th street every day in the summer.
Delete-Mr Green Jeans
Bird Rock's roundabouts are a claustrophobic nightmare.
DeleteDel Mar citizens voted AGAINST roundabouts. There are no roundabouts on 101 in Del Mar, so how can that be a good comparison?
DeleteI never had a problem getting through them. What's your rational reason for disliking them?
Delete-Mr GreenJeans
There are two roundabouts in Coronado , go find them. I've driven both . Oh btw, they work.
DeleteIt would be nice if you would tell us where they are located in Coronado. Parking lots don't count by the way.
DeleteActual residents along 101 and Vulcan, were never treated as "stakeholders," when the invalid previous surveys were taken, the last one five years ago, administered through Peltz and Associates, roundabout lobbyists.
DeleteHowever, the survey done at City Hall, the year before that was valid, as it had as an option for those participating to vote for no roundabouts, and an option for Council to take NO further action in planning roundabouts on 101, through Leucadia Over 60% of those people who took the most widely attended "workshop" put on by roundabout lobbyists, in October of 2008, said no to roundabouts and lane elimination on 101 through Leucadia.
We said and continue to say yes to preserving the canopy, continuing to improve the sidewalks, improving walkability and bicycle ride-ability. Had there been no premature lane elimination, for motorists, perhaps the railtrail corridor lane could have gone through all the way to La Costa, as planned in the Bicycle Masterplan Update (BMPU), approved by the Planning Commission, on 1/17/13, then scheduled for a Council Meeting at the end of the following month, February, 2013, but suddenly pulled, without explanation, by Gus Vina, never to be rescheduled, as promised.
What was discussed at the Transit Strategic Planning Session wasn't in the context of a public workshop. We were unilaterally informed by Mayor Barth that there was a "typo," and rather than the railtrail corridor, to include a bike/pedestrian lane, extending from Chesterfield to E Street, as stated in the Power Point presentation, that night, it would only go from Chesterfield to G Street.
Cardiff already has a bike/ped lane on the west side of 101. Individuals have come to Council Meetings, bringing photo documentation, showing how the railtrail corridor is not needed nor wanted in Cardiff, especially because needed parking would be eliminated.
Peder Norby and Charles Marvin, who favor roundabouts wanted to blight Leucadia. They were allegedly jumping at the bit to be on the Board of the Redevelopment Agency that they wanted the City to form, to give developers more incentives, and to take more property tax monies away from the State and County.
Fortunately, Governor Jerry Brown put the Kibosh on RDAs, which were a big failure in San Diego, and statewide. Many roundabouts installed, nationwide, and in other countries, have had to add traffic signals, or have removed roundabouts completely, as they have proved to be failures, as well.
Roundabout Deaths in the U.S.:
Jerrett Baker, Encinitas, CA 10/8/07
Diane Jensen, Billing, MT 6/4/12
Jaqueline Badomski, Detroit, MT 6/21/12
Keena K. Green, Milwaukee, WI 12/19/12
Fernando Hernandez-Lopez, Carmel, CA 10/1/07
Carlos Herndandez-Sanchez, Carmel, CA 10/1/07
Fernando Santiago, Long Beach, CA 12/21/12
Samantha V. Smith, Appleton, WI 1/10/12
Too funny Lynn. Sorry to see those dead people. However thousands have died at traffic signals throughout the USA in one year.
DeleteFor you not to acknowledge the safety and efficiency of modern-day roundabouts shows your complete ignorance on the subject.
11:39 PM
Delete"Fortunately, Governor Jerry Brown put the Kibosh on RDAs, which were a big failure in San Diego, and statewide."
Are you nuts? RDAs were too successful as Brown was well aware. They were cutting into the property tax revenue of the state, cities, counties and school districts. The development of downtown San Diego was made possible by an RDA.
Now if you think the revenue structure of an RDA was in the long run unwise, that's one thing, but to say they were a statewide failure is just ignorance.
Red herring fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Delete"A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion …
Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.
Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says…
Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument…
Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality…
Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same.…
Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it…
Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion…
Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning…
Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side…
Appeal to flattery – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support…
Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – an argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents…
Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.…
Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party…
Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason…
Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer…
Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis/antiquitatis) – where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern…
Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)…
Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true…
Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor)…(Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
Genetic fallacy – where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context…
Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment…
Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy,…naturalistic fallacy…– claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is…
Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position…"
11:36,
DeleteLet's take a closer look at those 8 US roundabout fatalities over several years, shall we?
4 of them were caused by drunks, (2 killing themselves, 2 innocents killed at the same time by 1 drunk)
1 of them was a bike in a traffic circle, not a roundabout
1 of them was from a head on collision with an older man who lost consciousness before the crash.
1 of them was a passenger on a motorcycle who's best friend was puzzled why the woman died at 15 mph with a helmet on while the driver of the bike had no injuries. (Looks as if she suspects foul play or less than stellar investigation.)
And the last one happened after a woman drove 5 miles on a flat tire when she crashed into a roundabout and rolled.
There were 277 cyclists killed in 2011 at intersections.
There were 12,396 total fatalities 2010 at US intersections.
I doubt many of those happened at 15mph.
The National Safety Council says "The fatalities from these crashes remind us that we have much more to do. Each of us should consider these statistics and the measures we can take to protect ourselves, our families and our communities.”
What are the inscribed diameters of the proposed Birmingham roundabouts at the I-5 access? What are the diameters of the inner circles? Traffic lanes in any direction are single, as are the roundabout lanes.
ReplyDeleteRoundabouts with the same number of lanes as the greatest number of lanes in any traffic direction entering or exiting the roundabout work under some circumstances.
However, common sense says roundabouts that choke traffic from two lanes to one will cause jams in anything but light traffic, especially when that choke happens three times in a half-mile of roadway.
Disagreeing with that fact is ignoring reality.
Not only common sense but math itself should tell us that removing 22 mandatory stops on and adjacent to a Major Arterial does not choke traffic. Common sense tells us the more stops you have the longer your trip is. Stops are not only choke points but give the illusion of being safe, "More than 50 percent of the combined fatal and injury crashes occur at intersections." - American Safety Council
DeleteAnd sure there are plenty of differences in topography between Encinitas and Cotati. Their population is about 1/15th the size of Encinitas and they have approximately 72 times the square miles we do. I watched a cute video of their downtown as a Realtor rolled through through their downtown. The only edit occurred while the lady had to stop at a stop light. Wonder why?
22 stops is a highly exaggerated number. One can't honestly count "the number of stops," to equal 22, when you are looking at only a total of 4 intersections where one-lane roundabouts would be installed, and there's no guarantee that the La Costa two lane roundabout wouldn't have a traffic signal.
DeleteThe engineered plans haven't been completed. There's no guarantee through engineered plans, that the stop sign at Marcheta and 101 would be eliminated.
There's also no guarantee that when traffic is heavy, motorists attempting to enter one-lane roundabouts from either direction, wouldn't have to come to a complete stop, in order to yield, when there's a high probability there could already two cars within that roundabout.
What Cotati citizens and Del Mar citizens have in common with people living in Encinitas is that they didn't want roundabouts, and neither do we, not on Highway 101.
Delete5:36
Delete"22 stops is a highly exaggerated number."
Currently, the sum of stops that will be forever removed with Streetscape are for cars going in 22 separate directions. 1 stop sign can stop cars from going straight, right, left or making a U-turn. ALL of those will no longer make everyone stop every time. But people who can't add will call that an exaggeration. Tell someone you care about that they don't have to stop at Marcheta St next time they have to make a turn and see how long it takes them realize you're not giving sound advice.
I'll take them. Try driving through DM on a summer's day. Once you wait 20-30 minutes to crawl from 4th to 15th street and you might change your mind...
Delete9:58 You mean like on Leucadia Blvd heading west through Hymettus or Sante Fe heading west through Rubenstein….
DeleteI never see backups at those roundabouts. I am always sitting in traffic at the Traffic Signals wishing they would replace them with Roundabouts.
Oh yeah, I forgot you don't base your thoughts on reality. Only hype. 3% will always hate roundabouts. Its just the facts. 30% hate traffic signals, so roundabouts win by a landslide.
Don't mind Fred. He's been posting his misleading stop-sign counts for months.
DeleteHe's desperate to come up with something to falsely justify putting one-lane roundabouts in a four-lane highway. Anybody with an ounce of common sense knows they'll back traffic up when it's heavy.
If the roundabouts were two lanes and spread evenly through the corridor, they might make sense. But there's not enough room for two-laners, and three of the one-laners are ridiculously bunched in a half-mile at the north end, leaving 1.2 miles of 101 as it is now between Jupiter and El Portal and another half-mile as it is now south of El Portal.
Fred and other proponents ignore those facts because they're embarrassed by them. So they come up with silly things like misleading stop-sign counts to obscure the real issues and make their dumb advocacy seem reasonable.
When Fred responds to my comments, he won't address the points I've raised. He'll avoid them and post more obfuscation.
Nothing to respond to, roundabouts work.
DeleteRoundabouts on 101, four one laners, practically in a row, wouldn't work, starting at El Portal. City engineers recommended against lane elimination for northbound motorists south of Leucadia Blvd, so why would the first roundabout be planned for El Portal and 101?
DeleteUse commons sense. Because some roundabouts work, doesn't mean that all roundabouts work well, or that they would work well here, on 101. They wouldn't.
Tautology:https://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies
Delete"Tautology in formal logic refers to a statement that must be true in every interpretation by its very construction (such as the statement: "Roundabouts work.]
In rhetorical logic, it is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise.
Typically the premise is simply restated in the conclusion, without adding additional information or clarification. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such."
I wouldn't characterize people who disapprove of particular roundabouts as haters. Trendy doesn't always mean good.
ReplyDeleteSome people like to push any public works projects because a few people believe they stand to benefit at the expense of taxpayers, in general.
As far as Cotati and Del Mar, where citizens in both cities voted no in 2012, the Del Mar vote was just no for the Specific Plan changes that included roundabouts on 101; one can compare any two cities, even if their populations are dissimilar.
We've probably all been in traffic jams traveling through some very small cities, because smaller towns have less arterials which more cars must funnel through.
Before any plans are made, there should be a case by case needs assessment of the locals, especially residents living adjacent to where roundabouts are planned. More weight should be given to nearby neighbors, as is to be the case for proposed sound walls that will be part of the I-5 expansion mitigation.
That's what the newly proposed Birmingham roundabouts are, more mitigation, by CalTrans and SANDAG, because two Birmingham roundabouts are now being discussed at the freeway onramp and off-ramp, there.
I agree with this method, and btw, good points and good discussion. The problem with Del Mar is the sheer volume, and the arterial traffic through the alleys. Surely some level of roundabouts would be an improvement on the 3 month gridlock and the fumes all those cars generate..
DeleteThe roadway isn't wide enough for two-lane roundabouts, and Del Martians aren't dumb enough to put one-lane roundabouts in a four-lane road.
DeleteI also disagree with roundabouts that are narrow, with only one lane, on 101, in Leucadia, or Del Mar.
DeleteIt doesn't really matter what people living in Encinitas think about whether roundabouts would be better than the stop signs in Del Mar. The people living in Del Mar voted and said no. According to the Coast News, they were concerned about more cut through traffic, for one thing, that would come with roundabouts.
Those people pushing roundabouts on 101, didn't get their way in Del Mar. I also agree that there should be a needs assessment so adjacent residents and actual business owners can be surveyed, not mainly "stakeholder" business groups or the committees and off-shoots they support/subsidize, through their civic partnerships, aka special interests.
Just because Cotati and Del Mar are smaller cities, doesn't mean that those votes against roundabouts should be dismissed. When surveys are done, a smaller, random sampling is used to determine public opinion. The vote against roundabouts in Del Mar is a good indicator of what would likely happen in Encinitas, if roundabouts, on 101, anyway, were put to a citywide vote.
Right, you can say you don't like roundabouts that are narrow, but what's your actual issue with them? Obviously they work, 1000's of cars pass through them every day.
DeleteWe're talking apples and oranges when we talk about business groups lobbying for Rbts and they're reasons for lobbying and they effectiveness of Rbts in calming traffic and creating a better flow.
Hey, I'll agree DM voted, and they voted no. I'm fine with that, and maybe the way they were proposed was flawed. But no one has rebutted the absolute traffic nightmare that DM is faced with during those summer months.
I have no business or other entanglements for why I support them other than their effectiveness...
They voted no because if their backup up land zoning change. If they would have separated the items, the roundabouts would have passed. There loss. We will not make the same mistake.
DeleteSolana Beach just wasted their money. They will be replacing those crapy traffic signals with Roundabouts in about 10 years.
4:32-
DeleteGet educated on the matter before you speak. Your showing your ignorance.
7:39
DeleteFirst, you apparently don't know the difference between "you're" and "your."
Second, if you have proof that 101 through Del Mar is wide enough for two-lane roundabouts, let's see it.
4:32-
DeleteYour comment shows your ignorant on what controls the capacity of the roadway. Its the efficiency of the intersections and not the number of lanes of the roadway. The roundabout is much more efficient and safer than the others.
Don't worry, we know you will not get it considering your stuck the the past. Go have a Marlboro Red and enjoy your fresh perspective.
9:13
DeleteNicely put.
4:32
"Del Martians aren't dumb enough to put one-lane roundabouts in a four-lane road."
Tell that to the thousands of US cities who have sensibly turned congested multiple lanes with stops into smooth moving one lane roundabouts. It appears as though more than one person is claiming our 5 intersections "turn a four lane hwy into a one lane roundabout", when in fact 4 of our 5 roundabouts momentarily reduce what are 3 lanes, not 4. El Portal is the only one with 4 N/S lanes which will temporarily converge.
4:36
In what year / month / day of week and time of day did you have your gridlock nightmare in Birdrock for example? I would like to challenge the time it took you to drive through those 5 blocks against the time it takes to drive through any 5 blocks of Camino Del Mar. How does 5pm grab you? I'll do Birdrock and you do Del Mar. It'll take you 15 min. just to get through the first light at Carmel Valley Road if you're northbound and quite lucky. 4 blocks of Del Mar will take you tons more time than me, but at least the 15 min. ocean breeze will make you less claustrophobic.
7:47
"When Fred responds to my comments, he won't address the points I've raised. He'll avoid them and post more obfuscation."
And which comment of yours in particular am I avoiding? I'll tell you the one you're avoiding. It has to do with honesty and caring about yourself, your family, our visitors and neighbors.
Would you prefer safely entering one lane of 15 mph traffic to make a left onto N 101, or choose to dodge 3 lanes of 35mph traffic to make the same turn? Cat got your tongue?
That's wrong, 1:12. People who care about honesty and our family and visitors and neighbors don't want roundabouts on 101, here, because of more cut through traffic and slower emergency response times.
DeleteYou are obfuscating about the number of "stops" that you claim will be avoided. In stead of counting the number of stop signs, you are counting right, left, straight ahead, and u-turns for each intersection. That is not being honest. Non of the intersections where the one lane roundabouts are planned have cross-streets, or current stop signs. Therefore, no "straight ahead" stops will be eliminated.
If Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association Board of Directors hadn't bullied the other public speakers, including by using out of Encinitas public speakers, which you rallied on 1/29 and 1/30/13, to illegally eliminate a lane for motorists, without a Coastal Development Permit, when an exemption had been denied, then people wouldn't be subjected to the issues turning left so that one is now forced "to dodge 3 lanes of 35mph traffic to make the left turn.
Why is that? Try to use common sense, for once. There is less break in traffic when all the northbound traffic has been funneled down to one lane on N101. Because cars are traveling closer together, including during peak traffic, when the speed is less than 35 MPH, there is less of an opportunity to make the left hand turn, now, since you were part of the special interest team that forced a premature and unwanted, by adjacent residents, on us.
The Coastal Commission directed the City not to eliminate the lane and denied a CDP exemption. City staff, also recommended to draw the traffic lanes with two lanes northbound, and two lanes southbound, with Sharrows northbound and southbound, pending the CDP process, design review, and Amendments to our General, Specific Plans, and our Local Coastal Program (LCP).
People get tired of arguing with someone who cannot understand logic, someone who keeps citing Birdrock, which has a configuration dissimilar to ours, with actual cross-streets, not three way intersections, created by the RR tracks on the east of the highway.
Birdrock can be a nightmare, but those roundabouts sparked more mixed use development in La Jolla. The City of San Diego has a much larger population that the City of Encinitas. So why do you object to comparing Cotati to Encinitas, but it's fine to compare San Diego to Encinitas?
Why don't you apply for a job with Peltz and Associates? You sound like you'd be a fine roundabout lobbyist. Roundabouts may work in some cities, in some configurations. They wouldn't work on 101, through Leucadia. Read the links I've provided. Some cities are removing roundabouts. More often, traffic signals are installed in roundabouts, because there is no way that people aren't forced to stop in order to yield.
Same rambling garbage. Go educate yourself.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete2:18
Delete"In stead of counting the number of stop signs, you are counting right, left, straight ahead, and u-turns for each intersection. That is not being honest."
Really? Only one direction for traffic counts for each stop sign? I'm convinced some people may mean well but don't comprehend physics at the worst possible time.
"No cross streets on 101". All adjacent streets cross 101. That's why left and right turns are possible (not to mention deadly T-bones). But I see what you're trying to do. Make an intersection less worthy because streets do not cross the railroad. Sorry, that effort miserably fails.
" but those roundabouts sparked more mixed use development in La Jolla."
Name one place that wouldn't have been built, then prove it.
Agree. It is tougher to merge with 3 lanes of traffic than 4 at 35mph. But that's what we have here and you still haven't answered my left turn question but dance around it.
You use common sense. Does El Portal cross N 101? Yes or No?
An actual cross-street is defined as a street that completely crosses the intersection. On 101, this would involve a street that crosses the highway, with people being able to cross El Portal, from west to east, crossing the train tracks. The RR tracks creates three way, instead of four way intersections where the four one-lane roundabouts are planned.
DeleteTurning left, and crossing a lane of traffic from streets west of Highway 101, does NOT make El Portal an actual cross street, and you can understand that. You are again "cherry picking," trying to make your "facts" prove erroneous conclusions.
Three way T intersections on Highway 101, by definition have NO cross streets.
Straw Man: https://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies
"A straw man argument attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position – usually one that is easier to counter. The arguer invents a caricature of his opponent’s position – a “straw man” – that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Straw Man-an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Definist fallacy – involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other.
5:56 a.m.: You get up early every morning to spout your bitterness and derision . . .
More from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side …
Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.…
Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party…
Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)…
Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment…"
"An actual cross-street is defined as a street that completely crosses the intersection."
DeleteYes, that's very good for one definition of a cross street. But it is not exclusive to 4 legged intersections. It's simply two streets that intersect and neither have to continue. And WHERE they intersect, they cross. That's why cross street signs are also on the east side of 101. You MUST cross lanes to enter 101. If that function can be made safer, I'm all for it.
A cross street is also defined by a short street connecting two longer streets A short street connecting two roads has two "T" intersections, like Jupiter that connects 101 and Neptune Ave as a cross street.
In geometry, an intersection is simply the point where two lines meet, irregardless if they continue or not. (Oh I couldn't wait to use that word!)
As a general rule, the more often you hear the words "mitigation" and "improvements" coming from bureaucrats' mouths, the more suspicious you should be.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Anything that divorces development from traffic studies needs closer examination. Ironic that roundabouts can alleviate traffic jam issues while allowing unchecked density increases traffic tremendously. Why are we not questioning and discussing that before we get into how prettily they can be landscaped?
ReplyDeleteYou mean the outdated traffic analysis that widen roads and give us LA style of road design? Yeah- NO thanks Hater.
DeleteHuh? To whom are you replying?
DeleteEU Thanks for posting that very hilarious video. That was a great movie and is sure to lighten someone's day --- it did mine. Not sure about the roundabouts as of yet. I think they will probably work in some areas, but not all. If we make our wishes known to the council, I'm sure they will do the opposite. I always thought it was strange to have a roundabout, then within a few yards have to stop at a stop sign. I don't see how that keeps traffic flowing.
ReplyDeleteThat's because the idiots at the city don't complete anything they start. Complete the 3 rd roundabout on Leucadian blvd .
DeleteAnd the Sidewalk from i5 to beacon beach.
DeleteAnd a porta- pottie at Beacons.
DeleteYou really want three roundabouts three blocks in a row within about a quarter mile on "Leucadian blvd."?
DeleteHey, I know, why not put another one where Fulvia comes into "Leucadian blvd."? Would that satisfy your obsession?
If you enjoy sitting in traffic move to LA........
DeleteI've sat waiting to get through the Hymettus roundabout heading west, I've sat waiting to get through the Hermes roundabout heading west, and I've stopped momentarily at the Hygeia stop sign going both east and west.
DeleteConsequently, will I be required to move to LA?
I'd like 3 roundabouts all with 3 block of each. It would mean less waiting at an all way stop.
DeleteRoundabouts are much more efficient than Stop Signs or Traffic Signals.
Some people are dumber than a box of rocks and can not figure out how to yield. They really need to turn in they're keys before they kill some innocent bystander.
No soup for you!! Next!
Delete7:26-
DeleteYes. There was no one in the roundabout the coast was clear. You are one if the ones that doesn't know how to yield.
Sell your house and move to LA. You'll be more happy sitting behind all those red lights.
Roundabouts are good. It's not the roundabouts fault that most people are stupid and can't navigate their SUV through a 15 mph turn.
DeleteNo restrooms at Beacons! If you really want some built it would be better to put them at Grandview.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete7:26
DeleteGotta look at the cause of the clog. It's not because of what offers free circulation. I too have been backed up going west through both roundabouts on Leucadia Blvd. But the backup has nothing to do with the roundabout or its function but stop signs and stop lights. But also, no one should ever stop in a roundabout when traffic backs up. That keeps other directions moving freely. Just like you should never stop in any other intersection (unless briefly to avoid hitting the oblivious).
The back-up at roundabouts on Leucadia Blvd. is also affected the fact that the boulevard is a RR crossings. Roundabouts are not recommended by the U.S. Department of Transportation when they affect traffic crossing a railroad.
DeleteThe stop light at Leucadia Blvd. is NOT going to be eliminated, because of the RR and because of coastal access to Beacon Beach. There is already back-up, both northbound and southbound on 101, due to the traffic signal at Leucadia Blvd. and 101.
So would you claim, were four one-lane roundabouts to be installed on 101, through Leucadia (they won't be) "the backup has nothing to do with the roundabout or its function but stop signs and stop lights?" Because, as I've said, there is NO guarantee that the stop sign at Marcheta would be removed, just as the stop sign at Hygeia, which was to be removed, on Leucadia Blvd, never was.
Someone's (7:28 and 7:30) crazy to say "I'd like 3 roundabouts all with 3 block of each. It would mean less waiting at an all way stop." or "You'll be more happy sitting behind all those red lights."
DeleteThose three roundabouts have no all way stops, now. So you wouldn't be avoiding any such thing. You are proving only that your mind is closed.
Also, none of the one lane roundabouts will prevent waiting at the traffic signal at Leucadia Blvd. That stop light won't be eliminated, so motorists and bicyclists, during peak traffic periods, would be waiting behind longer lines, stuck in more backed up traffic, created by the roundabouts bottlenecking all vehicles, northbound and southbound, into one lane in each direction, on our former four lane Historic State Highway 101.
Lynn 11:59,
DeleteWrong.
Posting a link does not absolve you of copyright infringement for copying and pasting the whole article. Please stop.
These links, WC, are made for copying and pasting. I am usually NOT posting the entire article. Furthermore, when one copies and pastes the link, as is intended by the authors of those links not "blocked," then what is automatically included is a "see more" addition, which INCLUDES THE LINK. These authors WANT their material to be shared. That's why they are including it on the internet without a block.
Delete"Roundabouts are not recommended by the U.S. Department of Transportation when they affect traffic crossing a railroad."
DeletePlease help me understand how removing the roundabouts on Leucadia Blvd will make left turns easier and stop traffic from backing up there. I'd really like to know.
Roundabouts? Is it ratings week? :-) EU needs clicks!
ReplyDeleteKLCC gets stuck in them all the time. They quit seem to figure out how to yield.
ReplyDeleteThe Rocky Roundabout: Part Two
Deleteby Cheri Rae on August 8, 2013 in Cheri Rae, News
"And as the news of the garden raid circulated in a swirl of e-mails blasting the action the neighbors were not happy.
There was speculation about who instigated the action, and anger about it. There was a suggestion of bombarding City Council members with a barrage of e-mails protesting the action. There was a renewed call for the roundabout to be removed.
Aesthetics aside, let’s focus on function: As everyone who regularly uses that particular intersection knows, the “traffic calming device” creates its own anxieties and potential for danger. Drivers approaching on Sola Street—unless they have a death wish—must simply stop and wait for the drivers on Olive—who typically do not slow down a bit—to negotiate the curves around the devices and into the deep gutter, requiring several steering maneuvers. Often, drivers traveling south on Olive run right into the roundabout, crushing and stunting the plants situated on that side of it.
As one neighbor recounted, “And it is true that most of the damage to the roundabouts come from speeders coming down the Olive Street hill. One Sunday when I was weeding, a big jacked-up truck came barreling down, deliberately disregarded the roundabout and my presence in it, rolled over the plants, and as I gaped, opened mouthed as he proceeded loudly down the street, he looked back and shot me ‘the Bird’.”
Pedestrians, especially those pushing baby strollers or walking their dogs, are alarmed when they see autos aimed right at them, then very close to them, as they try to cross safely in the crosswalk. Drivers who encounter pedestrians in this spot—including this one—often simply wait for walkers to get safely to the curb—instead of continuing around in this pinched, squeezed space."
- See more at: http://www.santabarbaraview.com/the-rocky-roundabout766474746/#sthash.q4S6imED.dpuf
"and shot me ‘the Bird’.” Sounds like he's part of the Haters KLCC .
DeleteYou are a hater for characterizing all of us, as haters, who want to keep Leucadia Funky.
DeleteRed herring fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
[I am quoting only a small portion of the formal and informal fallacies listed, for reasons of research and public comments; Wiki encourages this kind of sharing]
Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.
Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says…
Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument…
Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning…
Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side…
Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.…
Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party…
Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)…
Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment.
Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position…"
and Hater says what?
DeleteThe Youtube with Chevy Chase from "European Vacation" is hilarious; but I've never been stuck in a roundabout, fortunately.
ReplyDelete☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Community Character ~♥~☚
☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Creative Consensus ~♥~☚
☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Common Cohesiveness ~♥~☚
☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Colorful Charm ~♥~☚
☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Collective Consciousness ~♥~☚
☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Copacetic Comfort ~♥~☚
☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Courage Credible ~♥~☚
☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Cool Chops ~♥~☚
☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Contemporary Casualness ~♥~☚
☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Calm Centeredness ~♥~☚
☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Contours Congruent ~♥~☚
☛~♥~Keep Leucadia's Consumers Compassionate ~♥~☚
Rambling Man…..
DeleteLinda has never been stuck in a roundabout. She is afraid to enter them.
DeleteShe never learned how to yield
http://www.brighthubengineering.com/structural-engineering/121476-rise-of-the-roundabouts/
ReplyDeleteModern Roundabouts - The Drawbacks
"Roundabouts are popping up like mushrooms in the US. Old traffic circles are disappearing at an alarming rate and people are made to believe that modern roundabouts are the best thing that ever happened to humankind, which will not only channelize traffic, but also avoid intersection crashes and ensure the safety of non-motorists. However, there are certain drawbacks associated with modern roundabouts. What are the major disadvantages of having roundabouts in your city?
1) One important factor in the case against roundabouts is that they are, by design, slow. When you have a roundabout every mile or two, you might end up spending more time on the road and less time with your family. As compared to traffic circles, roundabouts increase the travel time by a huge margin.
2) In case of traffic congestion, the gap between vehicles becomes less. This can result in low-speed crashes and fender benders. Queue development can cause long lines at the entry points.
3) Higher maintenance costs make modern roundabouts an expensive solution for traffic control. Like traffic circles, very large roundabouts require huge land mass and long splitter islands further increase the cost.
4) Very large roundabouts eat up a lot of public space. Temporary widening and outside diameter space requirement increase the running cost of construction as well.
5) Roundabouts are not at all friendly for handicapped people, especially for visually impaired pedestrians. Additional pedestrian signals need to be installed to safe-guard them.
6) Cyclists suffer the most because of blind spots on a roundabout. Traffic rules allow inside lane turn-outs. In America this means that a vehicle in the inside lane- closest to the island- can turn right across the outside lane in order to exit. This can be unexpected to a bicyclist approaching behind the turning vehicle, and the bicycle can, at the same time, be in the motorist's blind spot at an unexpected angle (neither behind, beside, or ahead).
7) Alternative pathways have to be designed to avoid roundabout exit accidents and that increases the cost of construction.
8) Roundabouts are not suitable for "platooned" traffic flow. Emergency vehicles like ambulances cannot make it through roundabouts easily.
The need of the hour is bringing forward an effective traffic management system that not only takes care of complex traffic conditions, but also costs less to manage. Cost effectiveness and optimum use of land are two key requirements of building an effective traffic navigation system, and unfortunately roundabouts do not fulfill both these conditions. Traffic circles are in use across the world and have been for quite some time. Many people are used to them. Roundabouts require educating people about navigation and crossing methods, which is a stressful exercise.
In America, roundabouts and traffic circles must go hand-in-hand. Major cities can easily accommodate roundabouts, but for the smaller cities, traffic circles can serve the purpose without waste of money or land. Even the traffic circles need to be improved because the traffic density and traffic behavior has changed a lot in recent years."
References
State of Winscosin Department of Transportation, Facilities Development Manual, http://www.k-state.edu/roundabouts/research/WIS1.pdf
Roundabouts in the United States, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_572.pdf
Cyclists and Roundabouts, http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/cdg-chapter8.pdf
Images
Roundabout Signal by Kittikun Atsawintarangkul, Freedigitalphotos.net
Traffic Circle, Wikicommons
Lynn, your idiocy knows no limits. Your 1st point against roundabouts is that they are slow.... Versus .... Coming to a complete stop and waiting for a green light??? Really?? How moronic can you be?? On a different topic on the blog you state you were a co-leader for Campfire girls, those poor girls!! How many ran from those meeting trying to hold any logical or rational thinking in their heads after an hour with you. God help them, please.
DeleteI didn't bother with any more of your points, my life is to important.
Question- do you remember the day and were you watching as your brains spilled out of your head??
That is not my point about slowing. If you bother to read, with comprehension, and an open mind, you can clearly see that I put the entire article, from Bright Hub engineering, which references its sources, in quotes. I also provide the link so you can read the article for yourself. The points are all written by an engineer or engineers who have studied roundabouts.
DeleteStop with your abusive comments directed against me, personally.
None of the intersections where the four one lane roundabouts are planned, on 101, have traffic lights; nor do they have all way stops. The traffic signal at Leucadia Blvd., and 101 is NOT going to be removed. We are not looking at an alternative between roundabouts or all way stop signs or traffic signals.
DeleteThe article was comparing traffic circles to roundabouts, in some respects. On 101, through Leucadia, we are discussing installing roundabouts versus not installing roundabouts at intersections that don't have traffic signals or all way stop signs. I repeat this, because you keep trying to compare slowing created by traffic signals with slowing caused by four one-lane roundabouts installed, practically in a row. The combined effect of traffic that already backs-up, in both directions, at the existing traffic signal, and roundabouts on either side of it, choking Highway 101 down to one lane in each direction, permanently, would be horrendous to business interests, to adjacent residents, who are concerned about more cut through traffic and slower emergency response times, and to local commuters, who, when possible, would avoid "taking the Coast" on a beautiful summer afternoon, for example, to avoid traffic snarls and gridlock, comparable to when a lane has been closed, in the past, during peak traffic periods, for traffic investigations, flooding, etc.
Wrong again Lynn wrong again
DeleteThank you, WC, for not deleting my post at 12:22.. This is only a portion of the article, which includes two other sections, beginning with "Rise of the Roundabouts," and continues with, "Are Roundabouts and Traffic Circles the Same Thing?" before coming to the third section, but not final section, "Modern Roundabouts - The Drawbacks."
DeleteI apologize if you feel that I quoted too much of the article, and I will try to quote shorter passages of articles, in the future. In fact, I had thought to leave out some of the enumerated items about large roundabouts, but I thought it would be better to honor the author's intent, and context, by keeping those in.
By the way, the author of the entire article, referenced by the above link,http://www.brighthubengineering.com/structural-engineering/121476-rise-of-the-roundabouts/ , published through Bright Hub Engineering, was written by: Tarun Goel • edited by: Lamar Stonecypher • updated: 7/15/2011
According to what I looked up concerning copyright infringement,
According to Tech Stylish, one of the most common mistakes about copyright infringement on the internet is: "Thinking that since you credit the author or where it comes from it is not stealing."
http://www.techstylish.com/2013/10/copy-paste-download-and-infringe/
"This is by far the most common mistake people make. While “fair use” doctrine does mean you can quote in short amounts, quoting an entire article . . . will not qualify as fair use."
So, again, I will make every attempt not to quote entire articles, although I haven't done so. But I'll keep my excerpts down, in length, from this point forward. When I'm quoting Wiki sources, I'm also not quoting either all or most of the entire articles. But those articles are created by authors whom understand their material is likely to be used, and quoted, as a source reference.
Also, I incorrectly stated above, at 12:00 "you can clearly see that I put the entire article, from Bright Hub engineering, which references its sources, in quotes."
DeleteI misstated that I put the entire article in quotes, as I didn't include the entire article in my quoted material. I apologize for any misunderstanding; I'll be more careful, in the future, to quote less extensively.
Lynn
DeleteDo you really have to be the psuedo expert on everything? Now your trying to school the Blog Administrator for rules on editing. This is why alot of us can't take you seriously anymore. You've become Cartman who's always telling everyone to Respect my Authority
"Roundabouts require educating people about navigation and crossing methods, which is a stressful exercise."
ReplyDeleteThats a fact. We have our 3% of haters here that will probably never learn to yield. They need to turn in their keys.
Slow is a relevant term. I go through the four roundabouts on Leucadia at 20mph easy and then speed up to 30 to 35 mph between the blocks. I think that is the perfect speed for our Mainstreet. At Signals people are either sitting or racing. I see speeds on Sunday afternoon in excess of 70mph on our main street! Crazy.
Given a choice between Traffic Signals, All-way Stops, and Roundabouts; Roundabouts win every time in my book.
Sorry Haters, what do you think? Are you ready to turn in your keys?
You are and have been a hater. I didn't write that article, but I agree with its points, which have referenced scientific sources to back them up.
DeleteThrough Leucadia, we aren't talking about a choice between Traffic Signals, All-way Stops, and Roundabouts.
We are comparing and discussing enforcing a reduced speed limit, lowered to 35 MPH and NO one-lane roundabouts, to installing one-lane three way T intersection roundabouts at four intersections, with NO streets crossing 101, with RR tracks on the east, and thousands of residents and three beach accesses on the west side of the highway.
We are comparing installing NO one-lane roundabouts to forcing four of these one-lane roundabouts, practically in a row, on our community; the two southernmost 101 roundabouts are planned by a biased and confused Council, catering to special development interests, to be installed on either side of a traffic signal, at Leucadia Blvd, a stop light already causing back-up during peak traffic periods, and which signal will NOT be removed.
What part of that comparison can't you understand? The comparison, the public's choice ISN"T between traffic signals and roundabouts, which was the only option on the last bogus survey Peltz and Associates "redesigned" after an overwhelming percentage of those attending the October 2008 workshop at City Hall voted NO on roundabouts and NO to having Council proceed with further action toward planning or installing them.
The following year, less than 12 months later, a subsequent survey was taken, in an attempt to overrule those who had voted at the most widely attended workshop. For the bogus 2009 survey, there was only the choice of installing five roundabouts, four of them one-laners, or installing traffic signals. The only other item we could vote on was would we want front in diagonal parking for those businesses that would receive additional parking spaces, or back in diagonal parking.
With the Leucadia 101 streetscape, as planned, there would be a NET reduction in parking, because much parking along the west side of the RR tracks, the east side of the highway, would be lost.
Because there were only two choices for each of the two questions upon which we could vote on the 2009 survey, those two questions were illegitimate in terms of a valid survey.
For the survey to be valid, there MUST have been an option for "none of the above," that is NO additional traffic signals, and NO one-lane roundabouts, also NO diagonal parking, either back-in, or front-in. That last survey was invalid for many reasons, already presented, here, and to Council.
Sorry, hater, can you think or reason? Are you ready to turn off your computer, turn in the keys to your Jaguar?
Lynn,
DeleteWould it be fair to see your opposition to roundabouts on 101 stems from more than an unbiased opposition based on rational discovery of what roundabouts do on major roadway?
Just wondering if there's another reason you might oppose them. I'm treading lightly here to play nice, but after all this time, I think we could end a lot of this discourse if you'd come clean.
Fred has come clean on his reason for liking roundabouts, what they would and wouldn't do for Leucadia etc. relative to where he resides and works. It's kind of the elephant in the room at this point on your side in terms of your opposition. I'm thinking it's more of a personal thing than a safety thing, a traffic thing, a business people thing etc...
The surveys have been taken, the past is the past. Let's move on. I guess we will have to since we're not talking roundabouts anywhere else but on this thread..
The roundabouts on Leucadia work, what else is there to discuss?
By the way Lynne no one read your rant
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Roundabouts require educating people about navigation and crossing methods, which is a stressful exercise."
ReplyDeleteYes, learning to slow down to 15mph and yielding to people in the circle can be very hard for some people like Chevy Chase. But its time to grow up. The same thing happened in the early 1900's when people suddenly had to learn to STOP at stop signs and stop lights. Originally, there were no traffic signals. It disturbed a lot of people when stops showed up, but it was the right thing to do for safety's sake.
Why don't you contact the author of the article, the engineers, themselves, to offer your two bits, such you fancy yourself such an expert.
DeleteIt's time for you to grow up and realize that there is already back-up, the stop signal at Leucadia Blvd. and 101 won't be removed, and the majority of residents, businesses and commuters don't want to be bottlenecked down to one lane northbound and one lane southbound. We are capable of learning to drive safely at 35 MPH.
Anyone's attempting to educate you is a stressful exercise, 11:37, because on this issue, at least, you are self-interested, prejudiced and close-minded.
And no matter how much someone is educated, a motorist attempting to enter a one lane roundabout with two cars already in it, or in the process of entering it, northbound and southbound, during peak traffic periods, will have to come to a complete stop in order to yield. During peak traffic periods, when there is already traffic backing up northbound and southbound, on either side of the traffic signal, which will NOT be removed, stopping and starting will NOT be eliminated. This is not Disneyland's Autopia.
We can be trusted to educate ourselves to drive at more than 15 MPH on Historic State Highway 101, a major arterial. But, as I've said, I give up on attempting to educate you.
Your comment at 2:08 is illogical and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion:
DeleteFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Argument from authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which may give rise to a logical fallacy when misused.[1]
In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says says something about that topic
A is probably correct
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[2][3][4][5] as, while authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts."
Also, please see Wikipedia's lists of red herring fallacies, which include:
"Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says…
Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument…"
1:03
DeleteIt doesn't take an expert to calculate how much time is saved by 9000 cars not having to stop each day for one minute each within a 2 mile stretch. A fourth grade education should work fine. But it does take a lot of stubborn and illogical denial to claim that removing all those stops here will create gridlock instead of increase circulation, safety, aesthetic ambiance, convenience and air quality. Creating more back-ups and cut through traffic than there is now is simple. Just install more stops on a major arterial like they have in Solana Beach and Del Mar. No thanks.
The winner and still champeen of the land of roundaboutus, Lord Caldwell of the Roundabout!
DeleteNow, let's move on until they put them in....
Show more respect to Fred. He has earned it..
DeleteWe get it Lynn. Your part of the 3% that don't like Roundabouts. The rest of us do, so accept it. Roundabouts work better than Traffic Signals.
ReplyDeleteRoundabouts may work better than traffic signals. I don't see anyone debating that.
DeleteLocals should have the option of sharing with the City, through individual neighborhood needs assessments or a citywide public vote, that most of us don't want more traffic signals on 101, and we also don't want roundabouts.
When it comes to traffic signals and roundabouts, instead of either/or, most would vote neither/nor.
I'd lay odds that a lot more than 3% don't like roundabouts for 101.
ReplyDeleteWC Varones began his post, "Round and round," with the following link: http://www.smartvoter.org/2012/11/06/ca/sn/meas/U/, suggesting a ballot initiative banning roundabouts is a possibility for Encinitas.
Sounds like a good idea, to me. Some people are getting caught up in the N101 Streetscape argument, which is separate from the roundabouts being proposed on Birmingham.
But if 9:13 feels certain only 3% of people in Encinitas, described in pro-roundabout comments, as "haters," would oppose roundabouts, then that person should welcome a public citywide vote. Stands to reason.
It would probably be wiser to do independent needs assessments for the separate neighborhoods where roundabouts are proposed. But my guess is, if it went to a public vote, citywide, roundabouts would fail, as they did in Cotati and Del Mar.
Thats it the point its your guess as a roundabout hater. My guess is it would pass. Shut your trap and take action. Bring the initiative and lets vote on it. Encinitas Citizens experience the value of Roundabouts over time wasting inefficient traffic signals and we like them. Del Mar did not vote down the Roundabouts only the increased land zoning tied to the issue. Encinitas residents are more educated than Cotati. See you at the polls, Hater!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOnly if we vote on it during a regular election, anything else is a waste of money, unless the prop backers want to pay for a special election.
ReplyDeleteCouncil could schedule the vote; there's still time for Council to but a roundabout measure on the ballot for the General Election.
DeleteIf Council puts the measure on the ballot, it would cost the City only $17-23K. That's a good investment for a $20 Million plus project that the City has already spent at least $1 Million on paying consultants and contractors to conduct workshops and to create engineered plans for part of the project.
Stupid idea Lynn..... Get your initiative going... Ps good morning . Nice u woke up before noon again.
DeleteMost people on this blog like Lynn and are glad she posts. She could be more effective through shorter comments.
DeleteWC brought up the idea of a public vote. It's not Lynn's initiative.
Why don't you stop obsessing about Lynn and stop making personal comments about her, by name, when you never give your own name? And stop assuming that every anonymous comment that you disagree with is also by Lynn. They're not.
I agree with what Lynn before posted. You're showing a pattern of abuse, which has reached the level of harassment on this blog.
I'm glad Lynn has posted that she's saved all your abusive comments and your IP address, although WC, thankfully, has deleted the worst ones. But not before a lot of us read those bullying remarks you posted, anonymously. It's a well known fact that bullies are cowards.
I hope Lynn follows through and reports you, or sues you, or both.
Roundabouts were a major feature of the changes to the Del Mar Specific Plan that led to a public vote. Roundabouts were a major reason those changes were voted down. Roundabouts were voted down in Del Mar.
ReplyDeleteI see no hate in 11:19, only hate coming from 5:46 am. What a cranky way to start a beautiful day.
Not true 11:28 Lynn- Good morning!
DeleteThe roundabouts proposal was tied to increased density. like prop A, the del martians didn't want the higher density. Without the density portion of the proposal, the street and roundabouts would have passed.
See Lynn is easy to post Anon…. plus you don't make yourself look so bad.
I don't agree with your opinion I think it's completely flawed.
ReplyDeleteIf you like LA Roads,move to LA.
We don't want your deadly ugly and time wasting roads.
I don't just like and appreciate roundabouts, I abhor streets and roads punctuated by 2 and 4 way stops and traffic lights when traffic is moderate to non-existent. Stop signs and lights waste time, gas, and brake pads, and are less safe for pedestrians and cyclists.
ReplyDeleteI do take issue with the way roundabouts are installed in Encinitas, though - they are over-designed with excessive hardscape and landscape materials (too expensive and distracting). Less is more, and just as functional, IMO. Spend less on them, but install more is my position.
Roundabouts won't solve every one of our traffic problems, namely, too many cars maxing out a street or road's capacity at certain times of the day, but the current system does an extremely poor job at the many relatively simple intersections all over town when the traffic is normal or light. Roundabouts calm traffic while at the same time reducing the stop & go (sometimes stop & step on it) nonsense. Do people really prefer to waste time & gas at stop signs and lights instead of slowing down and steering around while continuing to move so much that they'll oppose all roundabouts, or is just fear of the unfamiliar fueling the bias? The development argument is a distraction.
I experienced first-hand the positive impact of roundabouts during a recent four month stay in Christchurch, NZ, a larger city, but similar in many ways, too. Christchurch residents do LOVE to drive their cars, just like in Encinitas, but they also like to cycle, walk, run, and be outdoors in general.
While in NZ, we drove now and then or rode in other people's cars, but mostly we got around town by walking, cycling, and taking the bus (I'll spare you my rant about how bad NCTD bus service is). Getting around without a car actually gave me a lot of time to make it a point to observe the traffic patterns and traffic management systems. Whether driving, walking, or cycling simple roundabouts smoothed journeys for everyone trying to go somewhere in moderate to light traffic, esp in residential and mixed-use zones.
The problem, on 101, is that during peak traffic periods, the stopping and going wouldn't be reduced. In theory stops are reduced, but in practice, when traffic is heavy, people have to stop in order to yield to traffic already in small one lane roundabouts.
DeleteTraffic during peak periods is already going very slowly, and is often backed-up.
Roundabouts may work better than traffic signals, but four of the roundabouts planned on 101 are planned where there are intersections without stop signs, traffic lights, or even cross streets.
Roundabouts are good in theory, and they may work well in NZ, but most people living near where they are planned, and most business owners that I've spoken with, don't think they would be a good fit here. Did the NZ roundabouts have thee way intersections, T intersections, with no cross streets?
What is the problem that roundabouts, here, are the solution to? I do remember that Council Meeting in July of 2012, it was the one after the meeting at the Community Center when monies were raided by Stocks and the rest of Council, from the Open Space and Habitat Fund, and the chronic flooding fund, to pay for construction of the Hall Property park, and Moonlight Beach Improvements, which Gus Vina said must be tied together, to get another lease revenue bond. Later, they were "disassociated," and Lisa Shaffer objected to the subterfuge, on that.
Anyhow, at that meeting, on July 18, 2012, we were presented by Engineering Staff with a three year survey and statistical analysis of those intersections where roundabouts are now planned, well, all the intersections from A St. to just before La Costa on 101. I don't remember La Costa and 101 being included in the stats. But that analysis showed that traffic calming isn't needed, because statistically, all the intersections being contemplated had less collisions than similar intersections statewide.
11:58
DeleteWhenever traffic gets heavy on N 101, it's nothing like when it gets heavy on Encinitas Blvd with its numerous stop lights. The light at Leucadia Blvd and stops at Marcheta St are what back up the traffic. But even when the light is red at Leucadia Blvd for southbound traffic in the mornings, the green light quickly relieves nearly all of the 2 lanes of stopped traffic. Cars simply don't back up to the first roundabout at Jupiter (where you claim people will have a hard time getting onto 101), let alone the other roundabouts north of that one. Likewise, backup traffic in both morning and afternoon at Marcheta St. will no longer happen when those stops are forever removed.
"What is the problem that roundabouts, here, are the solution to?"
* Slowing down traffic making it safer for everyone.
* Preventing Del Marification - more future stop signs and lights clogging traffic flow.
* Allowing residents west of N 101 to make easier lefts onto 101 with one lane of 15mph traffic instead of 3 lanes of 35 mph.
* Introducing U-turns where none were possible.
* Saving gas
* Saving time
* Saving brake pads
* Improving air quality.
Stuff like that you may have missed in previous posts....
"statistically, all the intersections being contemplated had less collisions than similar intersections statewide."
Wanna post those other "T" intersection statics for us? I didn't think so.
Blah, blah, blah... Same old KLCC crap....
ReplyDeleteThe plan was well vetted. 3% don't like roundabouts. The rest of us do.
Some people can't learn to yield, others prefer it over needlessly stopping all the time and senselessly staring at red lights.
Nothing new . Now if the city would get off its ass and build the dam thing we would all benefit.
oh oh oh crappy marvy 3% don't want them! Now there is real bs. This deserves to be on the ballot which this vocal minority will never allow. We have to do it without them somehow and get it on the november ballot. Give a true vote of the public and let the sun shine upon our fair community. The only crap comes from the same old same old and not from those who don't have a vested interest in not having a public vote on the redesigning of this arterial in our town. Round and round we go, just not on our 101!
ReplyDeleteAt least your posts are getting shorter Lynn
ReplyDeleteHOly Crap. 4:32-
ReplyDeleteWhat ever your taken - Oxi this Oxi that …. I'm all on board.
Everything else you said was BS. Go educate yourself and figure out what you want to do with your life and why are you sitting there day after day staring at red lights.
4:32,
ReplyDeleteI am going to talk with the Masters of Blogspot and HLS and report your IP address. You will pay for your bullying! Prepare for your doom!
-Crappy Marvy
I wasn't going to post on this thread anymore, but someone told me that "Crappy Mavy" just publicly identified himself. He did it once before on Leucadia Blog, although he has insisted he doesn't participate on blogs.
DeleteOn other threads, where I have been posting, and here, and before, on Leucadia Blog, "Crappy Marvy" has stalked me, claiming every post by anyone who disagrees with him, particularly about roundabouts, is by me. They are not. I didn't write 4:32, and nothing out of context was said there, as you have said about me, falsely claiming I'm on welfare, or disability, or all of the other lies and defaming posts you have written to bully and drive me away.
Crappy Marvy, the cat is out of the bag, now. You have stated to me, "if you don't want to be called out by your name, don't post under your name, " and "you are only posting under your name for attention." Both of those are wrong. Even when I don't post under my name, you assume it's me, many times, such as on this thread, when I am NOT the one anonymously commenting.
Keep Leucadia's Cool Chops
Keep Leucadia Funky
Keep Leucadia's Colorful Charm
Keep Leucadia's Collective Consciousness
OMG…. go see Dr. Lorri
DeleteOne-lane roundabouts on four-lane 101 will back the traffic up both north and south. Whichever direction has heavier traffic will back up more.
ReplyDeleteOn the north end where three one-lane roundabouts are planned in a half-mile of four-lane 101, heavy southbound traffic will gridlock.
After those gridlocked southbound drivers make it through the third one-lane roundabout at Jupiter, they will vent their anger and frustration at the utter stupidity of three one-lane roundabouts in a half-mile of four-lane roadway by going pedal to the metal for 6/10 mile to the light at Leucadia Blvd.
If that light is green, those drivers will continue speeding for 6/10 mile till they hit the next one-lane roundabout at El Portal. After they squeeze through that one, they will again open it up and roar for another half-mile to Encinitas Blvd.
So much for the alleged "traffic calming" the one-lane roundabouts are supposed to achieve.
If the planned roundabouts were two lanes and evenly spaced through the corridor, they might make sense. But there's not enough room for two-lane roundabouts anywhere but at La Costa Avenue.
The rational thing to do is to abandon the extremely stupid idea of unevenly placed one-lane roundabouts in four-lane 101, and come up with a better way to achieve the "traffic calming" that the planned one-lane roundabouts cannot and will not achieve.
Same old KLCC comments. over and over again.
DeleteThe one thing they are afraid of is change. Even change for the better.
They are scared of their own shadow. and many are borderline phyco….
Good posts 4:32 yesterday, and 4:39 today. They are good because they state facts, give evidence, don't just repeat generalizations, which aren't specific to 101, through Leucadia, and mindless platitudes supporting narrow self-interests. WC's initial posts spoke to a public vote. That would be great here, and Council could easily put the question on the ballot for a fraction of the $20 Million plus price tag for the so-called N101 Corridor Streetscape Project. There aren't enough TransNet tax monies available, now, anyway, due to all the mitigation that must be done for the I-5 expansion to get that through environmental review. TransNet taxes, unfortunately, cannot go toward beautification, either.
ReplyDeleteIt hasn't been shown that traffic calming is needed, through Leucadia, on 101, according to a statewide collision statistical survey comparing our intersections, south of La Costa, to A St, to similar intersections in California. The reduced 35 MPH speed limit should be enforced.
However, another alternative, to further slowing traffic, could include narrowing the two inside lanes, both northbound and southbound, to the minimum, and having the outside lanes, with Sharrows, wider in diameter. Both installing Sharrows and narrowing lanes would be traffic calming, for those who tend to exceed the speed limit.
The majority don't want more traffic signals, either. What part don't you get about that? What part don't you get about the solution you are trying to force on us, on 101, won't work here? Your panacea of narrow one lane roundabouts aren't wanted or needed. You should be delighted to encourage a public vote if you honestly feel that those who don't want them are in a 3% minority. Would you like to bet that spread? LOL! That's not what the survey showed at City Hall when the option of no roundabouts was given. Well over 60% of those answering said no to roundabouts and lane elimination on 101, through Leucadia.
Again, we aren't talking about a choice between more traffic lights OR roundabouts, but NO roundabouts AND NO more traffic signals. The choice is between four narrow, three way T intersection roundabouts, nearly in a row, and on either side of a traffic signal at Leucadia Blvd. and 101 that WON"T be removed and NO ONE LANE ROUNDABOUTS ON 101 through Leucadia and NO MORE TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
I am repeating, because you are repeatedly giving the false dilemma that the choice is between roundabouts and traffic signals. That's not our choice. Also because roundabouts work in some places, doesn't make them a good idea on a major arterial between thousands of residences and the RR tracks. Every time you repeat your generalizations, platitudes, or false dilemma posts, you are only reenforcing that you can't debate the facts of our specific situation, here, on 101, from A St. to La Costa.
Wow… someone woke up after a 2 day sleep fest.
Deletetoo bad its the same old garbage.
Your points are wrong on too many levels to even respond to. You are hopeless. Definitely in the 3%.
The inscribed diameter (the outer circle) for the two-lane roundabout planned for La Costa Ave. is 165 feet. The diameter of the inner circle (the middle island) is 105 feet. That leaves 50 feet for the traffic lanes. Since there will be two, that means each will be 25 feet. That's really wide.
ReplyDeleteLa Costa Ave. and 101 is a now a T-intersection. La Costa Ave. is one lane in each direction, 101 is two lanes in each direction. As proposed, that roundabout will have one or more extra entry-exit points to accommodate adjacent planned developments.
A one-lane roundabout at Jupiter is in the plans. When Plan 4A was approved, Keith Harrison owned the northwest corner parcel at Jupiter. Charles Marvin owns a motel a very short distance south of Jupiter. Could those ownership facts possibly have something to do with Jupiter being chosen for a roundabout?
Otherwise, a one-lane roundabout there makes about as much sense as putting one at the private driveway into a condo complex (Sea Bluff), which means no sense at all.
Streetscape as approved in January 2010 added no new parking spaces four blocks north or south of Leucadia Blvd. Phoebe St. is four blocks north of Leucadia Blvd. The plan adds a few new parking spaces starting north of Phoebe.
Caldwell's Antiques is just north of Phoebe and closer to it than to Jason, the next street north. Could Fred's avid support of Streetscape have something to do with gaining a few parking spaces near his shop?
Gee, I'd hate to think that self-interest on the part of Harrison, Marvin and Caldwell could possibly be behind their support of a project that the City nor the welfare org, L101MSA, has the guts nor honesty to ask the whole community if it really wants.
7:56,
DeleteIf you ever learn to read a map, you'll see that Caldwell's Antiques keeps the same ONE parking space in front of the shop with Streetscape. So you can scratch that reason off your sorry list. What wouldn't make sense is relying on your suspicions and hatred of local business owners instead of relying on the logic of the many proven benefits coming that are endorsed by many traffic engineers locally and abroad. You'll see.
The map shows six reverse angle diagonal parking spaces in from of your shop and the building adjacent to yours on the north side. Then there are six parallel parking spaces between your place and Phoebe.
DeleteHow does that total of 12 parallel parking spaces compare to what's in the same distance now?
The traffic engineer who analyzed the plan concluded it would divert up to 7,100 car trips per day off 101. So your generalizations about the successes of roundabouts elsewhere — which, incidentally, don't duplicate those proposed on 101 — don't hold water.
No dislike of local business owners here, but when they and their welfare organization force their will on the public without finding out if the public wants what they're forcing, a lot of people who are negatively affected will object.
You haven't been upfront, and your workshops were a sham. You want to lay your trip on people without their approval.
The fact is, Fred, you and your welfare org have been caught trying to perpetrate a selfish scam. You have no legitimate defense, so you're scratching about for lame justifications that don't fit our Highway 101 circumstances.
The best thing for you to do now is admit you've been wrong all along, apologize for your errors, and to proceed to work with the majority to create a corridor revision that nearly everybody will be happy with and proud of.
Truth is 10:49, you defy common sense, physics and charm.
Delete... and refuse to answer my left turn question!
Delete"The inscribed diameter (the outer circle) for the two-lane roundabout planned for La Costa Ave. is 165 feet. The diameter of the inner circle (the middle island) is 105 feet. That leaves 50 feet for the traffic lanes. Since there will be two, that means each will be 25 feet. That's really wide."
ReplyDeleteWhere did you see that?
the rest of your post was pure KLCC garbage.
Maybe you should do your homework and study the Streetscape plans on the City website. Every foot is diagrammed in great detail. If you have questions, you can ask City staffers to answer them.
DeleteBut, geez, if you did that you'd have to learn what the facts really are, which would mean you could no longer post your garbage propaganda.
Oh, wait, I momentarily overlooked the fact that you're a pathological liar, so you ^could^ continue posting garbage propaganda.
ZZZZ….
DeleteAt least your posting anon. good job. and your length was perfect. remember less is more.
12:08
DeleteThat wasn't Tweedledee, but Tweedledumb.
Fred got it right about 12:08 — dumb, not worthy of debate cause he/she is clueless.
DeleteJust where does crappy bully get off on threatening a poster who called for a vote on the roundabout question to be personally threatened? The height of hubris is alive and well with this too vocal extreme minority. History will have its say and which side do you want to become known for supporting? Pretty simple for most that have a semblance of reality available. For those others, not so much. Too bad for them.They will be known for their positions down the line. Where would anyone want to be on that choice when history is written? Posterity will reign the final decision and we will forever honor those who chose to side with true community ideals and not for personal profit. Dreaming of a better future in spite of the daily attacks by an extreme minority supported by the developer interests too long inserted into our local body of politic. By the people , for the people, of the people. Now where is that in our current environment? Answer that and the way forward will become clear enough. Distraction is the tactic of the moment and has been for far too long. Our truest local heroes are daily castigated with attempts to distract direct attention to those most responsible. Don't buy into it as our council members have so willingly given their power over to those well healed monied interests. Please consider where you want to be known for when all this is comes down. History will prevail all can be assured. Short sighted personal profit mongers will be destined for the trash heap. The usual suspects are our saviors and from them our better future resides. I predict an overwhelming support will quickly follow when one or preferably two of OUR OWN chooses to step into the quagmire and to clean up this body politic to make real inroads into a better way forward. Idealistic, sure and why not? We have such a special and unique community here and have the caring individuals willing to subject themselves and their names to criticism of which there is no short on attacks on them personally. More later to come as I am assured these monied interests will keep on trying to subvert the will of the people. Currently this will does not in any way represent the majority but rather the very vocal minority of city hall sponsored and funded misdirection. Wait for it. Here comes more disinformation coming up next.
ReplyDeleteall that text and not one clear point. What a waste of life.
Delete"Only the weak are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the strong."
DeleteLeo Buscaglia
10:38
ReplyDeleteWeren't you finished?
Cute Fredo. I am sure you and your few fellow roundabout enthusiasts will continue to try to deprive this community of a true say on this matter of OUR 101. It is not your 101 to do with as you wish. It should be voted on like Del Mar and other jurisdictions. We are not against the plan in totality but only the roundabout part of streetscape and the single north bound lane illegally implemented.
ReplyDelete11:40
ReplyDeleteEndeavoring to paint the existing bike lanes out may be one of your current crusades, but its hardly a humane thing to do, returning most of OUR 101 into its deadlier configuration where there were zero bike lanes. Maybe you don't like cyclists that much. You go to great lengths just to win an argument even if it means putting other's lives in danger. Sad your idea of a safer hwy is so backward and your thoughts on traffic circulation so constipated.
I never said anything about removing the sharrows and bike lanes. You did. I like the sharrows on the southbound 101 and feel they have made biking considerably safer, that and the reduced speed limit to 35mph. Why couldn't the same work on the northbound without a lane reduction? You sure seem to go off on a tangent that I never raised. A little reasonableness please. To let our community vote on this particular part of streetscape is beyond reason for the few who will do all they can to not let us have a say. There would be no controversy on the streetscape plan if we were given a voice on these two issues, lane reduction when there is room to do the same that was done on the southbound and the roundabouts. Sorry if this sounds like I am being unreasonable. And don't claim this was vetted in the past. We all know those meetings had preordained results supported by a vocal minority. Just what is wrong with having a true consensus? We have never had that yet. We will not be changing any minds until this is on the ballot and voted on if even then but at least a true representation of support will become known.
ReplyDeleteWe did have true consensus and vote on it. The Streetscape passed and with a smart City Council will be implemented.
DeleteYou are wacked about all your not vetted talk. This has been proven time and time again you are the opposite of facts.
KLCC are liars, and losers. Most of all Haters. Just because you would hate Leucadia become more safe, efficient, and beautiful, you try and re-write history. Sorry Haters don't prosper. Now its time to go to bed, the sun is rising!
For the rest of you, I wish you a happy and peaceful day!
1:59
ReplyDeleteThe northbound 101 lane reduction works well, even during the acid test of summer and daily peak hours of traffic. It will work even better when the first roundabout at La Costa Ave is built because most of the time cars won't have to stop. Glad you like the sharrows. Others leery of change do not and would just as soon paint them out with every other intention of Streetscape.
There are too many variables to put this issue to a vote and those few folks who say it should, would like to micro-manage Streetscape - even though they don't agree amongst themselves. From removing and shipping improvement elements at Roadside Park to Disneyland; to those who aren't sure if there should be 0; 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 roundabouts or no Streetscape at all. . So also would a public vote have to be dissected. The other fact is there was little opposition to Streetscape either at workshops or final decisions leading up to the selection of 4a. Votes like Del Mar's are all or nothing at all, and their decision included zoning changes which of course killed both plans - throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Votes for Streetscape were not cast by a vocal minority. People that cared showed up and voted. People who didn't found what they felt to be better things to do with their time. There was very little opposition and some of the opposition didn't make very good points. Like the "Leucadia's not worth it" argument (Yes it is worth improving.), and "Traffic already backs up northbound from Marcheta St. to Encinitas Blvd." (No it does not and what back-up does happen is because of traffic having to stop at the Marcheta St. stop signs). But Streetscape is not the culmination of just workshops but over 20 years of concerned locals wanting the best for our area which traditionally was last in line to receive infrastructural benefits from the city. "Barbwire it and sell it to Carlsbad" as a Can Do committee members suggested in 1993 and was the sentiment of most councilmembers of our local not so ancient history.
The $5million infrastructural improvement of our storm drain system that Sheila, I and others made happen was not put to a vote of the people, but has vastly improved storm water circulation. Now engineering says roundabouts will vastly improve traffic circulation here and you show no mechanical reason to disqualify their recommendation. Just empty claims of gridlock and not being able to realize how sparing people 9000 minutes per day of stopping could possibly make travel more efficient. Who could believe that making left turns against 3 lanes of 35mph traffic is as safe and easy as entering one lane of 15mph traffic? Some majority of residents?
OK, show the data specific to what's proposed. Show your proof that four one-lane roundabouts in a four-lane highway will improve traffic flow and safety.
DeleteInclude the fact that three of the four are bunched in a half-mile at one end of the project, while the other is 1.2 miles south.
All you've done is claimed generalities that apply to other circumstances apply here.
Be specific. Show the proof that what you claim applies to Highway 101 through Leucadia.
4:18
DeleteI believe I already asked for you to show everyone why our roundabouts would not work. But turning the table on someone makes for pretty good diversion. All you can do is say they won't work. Engineers have already said and have shown us how they will work well here. Do you have an engineering degree? Or are you relying on an emotional hunch that roundabouts are strictly developer's tools that will usher in high density? I'm guessing the latter. It's clear you will say anything (instead of show anything) to thwart that from happening. They've already been approved after much consideration. The burden is on you. Physics is pretty universal and our hwy here can only handle 18,000 cars per day in their current configuration but we only have 9000 right now. There are always gaps in traffic and even for a rare event of a roundabout being clogged (because some dope blocks the interior), it will only be momentary. You know, unless they drop the big one 20 miles away. In that event, I'll eat my words and wish 101 had 10 lanes and two cottages businesses as I desperately lament with: "WHY didn't I listen to 4:18?".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RNdAaRYD3Y
crappy, the only hate around here comes from your posts. Grow up why don't you? You are well past the age of such juvenile behavior. Well, obviously that isn't true.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Fred's posts are crappy.
ReplyDeletePlease post relevant truthful content.
City's bird's-eye view rendering allows 23 feet per parallel parking space. Not counting red curb areas now painted between Phoebe and Jupiter, there's enough length for 9.5 spaces, so let's say 10.
ReplyDeleteIf Streetscape is implemented as now diagrammed, there will be six parallel spaces and nine diagonal spaces between Phoebe and Jupiter. That's a total of 15 and a net gain of five.
Since there are no new parking spaces added in the four blocks between Leucadia Blvd. and Phoebe, but there is a net gain of five between Phoebe and Jason, it sure makes it look as if anybody who has a business fronting on 101 in that block has something to gain personally by pushing for Streetscape.
Many aspects of Streetscape make sense, but one-lane roundabouts that plug traffic and divert up to 7,100 car trips per day to I-5, Vulcan and Neptune don't make sense. And no amount of misleading rationalizations changes that.
Now, really, you don't honestly think four one-lane roundabouts imposed on a four-lane highway are a good idea, do you? If they were two lanes and evenly spread through the corridor — say, two north and two south of Leucadia Blvd. — they could make sense. But three one-lane roundabouts jammed at the north end with the fourth 1.2 miles south make no sense whatsoever.
Disingenuous, ignorant comments don't change those facts.
1:00.
ReplyDeleteYou do not have the ability to understand traffic flow . Your a KLCC moron.
The rest of us know roundabouts are more efficient then signals so the flow may slow between 25 and 35 mph, but will only back up at the existing traffic signals.
See KLCC you have zero logic and zero brains.
1:58, stop posting. You're too stupid, are not well-informed and have nothing of value to add. During your time off, take a course in remedial English.
DeleteRight . Whatever KLCC . We know who the moron haters are.
DeleteYes, we all know who hates morons.
DeleteGet yourself to a remedial English class.
KLCC Hater.
DeleteI'll get myself some English class, after you go back to preschool to learn some common sense. How do you make it in life?
My two year old granddaughter has twice the intelligence and common sense as you. You should feel lucky your still alive. I hate to use the word retard, but it seems to fit with your thoughts.
12:58 I don't think Fred's posts are crappy either and it was never directed toward Fred. We all know who crappy hater is and it isn't Fred and has never been. I thank Fred for his decades of citizenship but we agree to disagree on roundabouts and what their effect will be. That is why I call for this sole issue to be on the ballot. We will not be throwing the baby out with bathwater at all. There is no reason a ballot measure can't be drawn to address specific parts of the streetscape plan. Simply stating the vote will be on the roundabout issue and the single north bound lane reduction issue would suffice thus saving all the hard work and dedication that folks like Fred have generously contributed to in the past. Thanks Fred. You are appreciated and well liked in spite of your current opinion on roundabouts. Crappy hater not so much. I would never and I hope no one else will ever confuse you with crappy hater, crappy pappy, crappy bully, and so many other deserving monikers he seems to enjoy taking on daily.
ReplyDeleteHow did you get to be such a stupid Hater? The project has been vetted and voted on already. Remember you lost again. You are always a loser.
DeleteTry and post some facts and not garbage non truths.
Keep it shorter Lynn .... Boring!!!!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1:00 is right about 15 parking spots coming to the west side of N101's 1200 block. However:
ReplyDelete* She is wrong stating there is currently room for up to 10 cars. Up to 15 utilize it at once presently, as markings for 23' lengths do not exist.
* There is also a no parking red zone that is for emergency vehicles only in the center of the block. It is reserved for pump station activation / repairs. The 4a drawing errs by including that space as a public parking spot.
* The 4a drawing may also err if the south end requires an ADA space as well as the north. (Encinitas had to retro-fit them in the downtown Streetscape and there may have been a lawsuit prior to that.)
* There are 40 new parking spaces added to the west side of N101 with Leucadia Streetscape that are needed ADA spots. There are a few hundred spots lost on the east side of 101 if a happy medium cannot be reached with NCTD. So your net gain is way off the charts, but the biggest err of all is thinking I "just want Streetscape for parking for my business". And your biggest slam of all is saying I'm disingenuous. Inflammatory sometimes. But no hidden agenda here, no ulterior motive or partnership with land rapists, not even promoting Agenda 21.
1:00 used the City's standard 23 feet per parallel parking space to calculate how many spaces are there now. 1:00 also accommodated the red curb areas now there.
DeleteNet gain of five using the City's standards doesn't qualify for "off the charts." If the City goofed by drawing a parking space where utility boxes don't permit, then the net gain is four.
The City's diagram says one ADA parking place per block. The City's docs say that 29 to 38 new spaces will be added on the west side of 101 for the 2.4 miles between La Costa Ave. and A St. No new spaces four blocks south or north of Leucadia Blvd. Odd thing: That's where most of the busy businesses are.
And, incidentally, the southbound lanes will each be shrunk to 10 feet wide. A big truck and a bus will barely fit side by side. Two big fire trucks will smack mirrors if they go southbound in parallel.
Unless parking is allowed in the railroad right of way and ped-activated, lights-in-the-pavement crosswalks are placed throughout the corridor, the dreams of revitalized commerce will not be realized.
As it is now, it's just a matter of time until a pedestrian is hit and killed. Then all hell will break loose. Will it take sacrificing a life for sanity to prevail?
If not being disingenuous means you've convinced yourself that your misleading generalizations are real, then you're not disingenuous.
Eventually, you'll have to admit that four one-lane roundabouts imposed on a four-lane highway do not make sense, especially since three are bunched in a half-mile at one end, and the fourth is 1.2 miles away.
Astute people in our neighboring cities of Del Mar and Solana Beach decided against one-lane roundabouts in their stretches of 101.
Please don't crow about the claustrophobic nightmare at Bird Rock. Man, I'm really glad I don't live anywhere near that idiocy.
10:45-
DeleteYou are too stupid to even have a conversation. Birdrock improvement are known to have improved quality of life and property values. But we know-
All you care about is keeping your tailer rent down. You could give a shit about the safety and efficiency of the roadway. Your a KLCC Loser. Y always will be a Hater.
Get to that remedial English class!
Delete10:45
ReplyDelete"1:00 used the City's standard 23 feet per parallel parking space to calculate how many spaces are there now."
That's why she was wrong. 15 cars park there now. And no, she did not accomodate the red curb in the center of he block. In fact, there will be less red curb with Streetscape, but no more parking than there is now on this block.
10:45
ReplyDelete"If the City goofed by drawing a parking space where utility boxes don't permit, then the net gain is four."
How could there be a net gain of even 4 cars in the future, when 15 actual cars already physically park here today?
What I meant by off the charts is the notion that we gain 40 spaces with 4a. Seeing that we could lose hundreds on the other side of the street kind of cuts into that boast. But especially makes the ladie's claim that I "just want more parking for my business" way off. And yes, we do have to keep those spaces somehow. Otherwise, it would follow the guidelines of Agenda 21 to "get people out of their cars an onto bikes" like the fella who wanted to close down El Camino Real to make it more "shopping friendly".
The city's diagram of 1 ADA per block on the 4a map was probably drawn either before downtown had to make 2 on each block, or before anyone realized there should be 2 here as well. Especially since the 3 story condos on our south corner somehow managed to supply no ADA at all.
"Unless parking is allowed in the railroad right of way and ped-activated, lights-in-the-pavement crosswalks are placed throughout the corridor, the dreams of revitalized commerce will not be realized. "
Agree. Crossings are in the plans and we're hopefully seeing what can be arranged with NCTD.
Birdrock went from an entry of a defunct gas station closed for decades in disrepair with tumbleweeds on an occasional drag-strip straightaway, to an easy passage with nice landscaping walkways, pedestrian crossings and many fine businesses. Definitely needs more trees there!! And not real fond of their 3 story designs periodically, but we don't have to worry about ones that wouldn't fit here.
See "Bird Rock San Diego Driving Tour on youtube.com
A random video with no agenda, but the man does remark "deadly killer roundabouts" after his initial title where there's a sill pic of the way it used to be with 5 lanes when it was "68 feet wide and took 18 seconds to cross the street". El Portal St. comes to mind - and not because of the guy who T-boned me, but as a pedestrian its always a drag dodging turners there because its so friggin wide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRBtXTJS0I
There were three comments in the last year. The first one is:
"This is extremely well designed and safety has been increased. The central reservation helps reduce head-ons and good job for re-painting the yellow line. Pedestrian crossings have been moved to not be right at the 4-way intersection (reducing chances of someone being clipped by a turning vehicle and delays waiting for someone to cross) plus they also fenced off the 4-corners of intersection and introduced pedestrian island in central reservation. Well done!"
Notice too, the driver never had to come to a full stop.
"If not being disingenuous means you've convinced yourself that your misleading generalizations are real, then you're not disingenuous."
I'll take that as a left handed apology.
10:45 has been to Bird Rock. It's a claustrophobic nightmare. The stretch of road north of it is far more pleasant and easier to drive. It also doesn't make drivers feel trapped in a goddamn canyon.
DeleteThe net gain of four or five spaces represents what's between Phoebe and Jason now compared with what would be there if Streetscape is implemented, using the standards on the City diagram.
If in fact the number of spaces would decline, you should be upset rather than pushing Streetscape.
The City diagram shows one ADA spot per block, and that standard is hand-written on the diagram itself.
And what do you think about the back-in diagonal parking planned for your storefront?
The larger issues are the paucity of parking now and if Streetscape is implemented, and the diversion of up to 7,100 car trips per day from 101 to I-5, Vulcan and Neptune.
That diversion would be caused by the traffic-clogging one-lane roundabouts and narrowing each southbound lane to 10 feet wide.
The bottom line is the Coastal Commission will not approve any project that pushes people away from the coast, which is exactly what Streetscape explicitly does.
The CC has already declared the one-laning north of Leucadia Blvd. illegal. That feature, which is planned for the entire length of the project, also restricts coastal access, so the CC will disallow it.
When you get past the stubborn position you took before you were informed of the true, on-the-ground, unworkable features of Streetscape, you'll change your mind. And since you're basically a decent guy, you'll be forgiven your grievous mistake.
Then you might want to encourage the welfare L101MSA to commission a professional survey to find out what the community really wants for the Leucadia 101 corridor.
It takes an incalculable amount of arrogance and presumption for a welfare org that represents barely more than one-third of the businesses and institutions listed on its website to impose its self-serving will on the community.
If that's not bad enough, an L101MSA goon visited non-compliant merchants to strong-arm them into agreement.
How's that for community spirit?
Learn how to write....
DeleteRanting does not count.
Simply convey a message
This string is way down in the stack, so a lot of people must be missing it.
DeleteHowever, I read 9:51 and my impression is the poster is knowledgeable, states his/her points well and makes them easy to understand.
On the other hand, 10:14 posts ignorant sound bites. If 9:51 is too deep for you, the length is beyond your attention span, and you have nothing worthwhile to add, don't.
"an L101MSA goon visited non-compliant merchants to strong-arm them into agreement."
DeleteLOL. As if assault was how the majority chose 4a. How dramatic.
The "majority" in attendance at the 2009 workshop at the Community Center, were only given a choice between 4a and traffic signals. The majority for that sham workshop was composed of far fewer people than the 60% plus majority who said no to roundabouts and lane elimination on 101, beginning at El Portal, to La Costa, at the previous workshop in October of 2008, at City Hall. That was the most widely publicized and well-attended workshop.
DeleteAt that 2008 workshop, the survey included an option for NO ROUNDABOUTS through Leucadia. These are facts, not lies. You are relying on manipulation of data. Can you not see that the subsequent survey data was massaged and tweaked to meet pre-formed conclusions to comport with special interests?
For the subsequent 2009 survey, a few less trees would be eliminated, for 4a, than had been planned for 4. There were no options 1 through 3, only 4a or more traffic signals.
There were no options other than choosing between back in or front in angled parking, and choosing between a total of five roundabouts, four of them narrow one lane roundabouts, or more traffic signals, which no one wants.
So, because there were not legitimate options at the last survey, such as no angled parking, and no roundabouts and lane diet, you wrongly conclude "the majority chose 4a." How ignorant. What the majority actually chose, was simply overlooked. That's comparable to having an election, then saying, well, we don't like who the people selected, so we'll just keep holding more elections, controlling the options in such a way that the citizens have less choice, until we, the bureaucracy, gets what we want, not what we, the people, want or need.
There was a goon who visited non-compliant merchants. The majority of merchants and the majority of the public would vote against roundabouts and a lane diet. That's why there should be a public vote at a general election.
Tony Kranz argued that Prop A would throw out all the work that went into creating the N101 Specific Plan. That didn't happen. Improvements that Leucadians support, including continuing to improve and maintain the sidewalks, preserving and enhancing the canopy, more public art, won't be eliminated.
We have a better chance of increasing parking on the west side of the tracks, in the RR right of way, without the roundabouts, which would eliminate more parking there, than the few added angled parking spaces being touted, to benefit a few, at the expense of many.
The difference between the most widely attended workshop in 2008 and the one in 2009, was that the option of no angled parking and no roundabouts was eliminated, in 2009. If someone wrote in "neither," his vote wasn't counted. If someone wrote in, I would be interested in exploring the idea of a roundabout on La Costa and 101, only, that was counted as yes for 4a, roundabouts and lane diet.
You keep assuming you know what the majority wants. The best way to find out would be a public vote. Now that's a true needs assessment. If you doubt any of this, look up the Agenda Report for January 13, 2010. All the numbers are there.
Just because some hater keeps calling those of us who do love Leucadia, who do want to keep Leucadia's community character, liars, doesn't make his self-interested opinions true. Notice he never provides facts, only insulting those who disagree with him. Only in this constant poster's demented mind is KLCC an insult.
And it is dramatic when someone bullies other shop owners, ripping petitions against roundabouts and the lane diet, which got well over a thousand signatures, off the counters, and making threats that their businesses would be boycotted, and closed down, calling the wife of one of the owners a prostitute, on Leucadia Blog.
This goon knows who he is and what he did. Don't defend him, when you've never been a victim of his abuse and coercion.
9:51am- you are delusional.
ReplyDeleteI hope the DMV take your license and you quit driving.
If u think bird rock is a failure, I fear for others when you are behind the wheel.
You sound like the kind of driver subject to road rage.
It's embarrancing if you live in Leucadia.
10:14 "Embarrancing"
DeleteIs that a new dance step?
No it's a new slang word in text for:
DeleteEmbarrassing that such ignorant people live in our community.
It's what we now expect from the KLCC group of 5.
2:55
DeleteA new dance step for the shy.
"The net gain of four or five spaces represents what's between Phoebe and Jason now compared with what would be there if Streetscape is implemented, using the standards on the City diagram."
ReplyDeleteI've explained twice why that is not so, but I'll give it another shot. Today, 15 cars park on this block when its crowded. Tomorrow, 15 parking spots are planned. 15 minus 15 equals zero net gain.
"If in fact the number of spaces would decline, you should be upset rather than pushing Streetscape."
Again, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so I am optimistic the east side will retain a lot of parking. It surely can.
The city has spent many years and lots of money educating Leucadians about Streetscape. To put part of the Leucadia Streetscape plan 4a to a public vote where the 4 other communities are mostly in the dark about the whole plan, would not be an equitable way to decide our fate in my opinion, irregardless of the outcome of that vote. From being closely involved with merchants and residents here most of my life, I can say that most of them in the past wanted safer intersections on 101. In years past before anyone (including myself) learned about the benefits of roundabouts, just about everyone near a cross street wanted a stop sign. Imagine 20 stops for 2 miles and how much longer that trip would take you (then drive through Del Mar's 10 to savor how half of that would taste. THAT was the mindset of many and still is of some who don't value time or cannot comprehend how removing 2 dozen stops could make travel more efficient. . And more stops along N 101 would obviously increase had not better ideas for roads come to light. 50 years ago there were two stops between Carlsbad and Del Mar on 101. They were on D and E St in Encinitas. Plain and simple, dangerous signaled intersections breed. We're fortunate to live to see more sensible, more appealing and safer infrastructure coming to town and the fall of the traditional wasteful and dangerous layout and operation of intersections.
Fred, you're not reading well. Go back and read what 9:51 wrote. You're arguing points that have already been settled.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, you're misleading with the stop signs vs. roundabouts as alternatives. We're talking present day here not history.
Address the salient points that you conveniently ignore.
One-lane roundabouts in a four-lane highway are not a sensible solution, especially so weirdly placed.
"Survey the community" means between Enc Blvd. and La Costa Ave. and west of the freeway = the people most affected by the bad plan the L101MSA welfare org wants to impose.
Obfuscation doesn't become you, and there's no such word as "irregardless."
I glad you know more about English and grammar than u do about quality of life and road safety.
ReplyDelete2:24
ReplyDelete1, Yes, irregardless is a legitimate word.
2. Public input has already been taken.
3. The locations for roundabouts are not weird but extremely helpful.
4. If we don't learn from mistakes we repeat them.
5. I'm reading just fine. You cannot calculate net gain.
"Irregardless" is a double negative. It contradicts itself.
DeleteSham workshops don't make legitimate public input. That's like saying the strategic planning sessions the City has been conducting are public input.
Three roundabouts in a half-mile, with the fourth 1.2 miles south are the opposite of helpful.
You haven't addressed the salient points. They are the glaring faults of Streetscape that make it a community joke and will be its downfall.
2:24 used the City's standard measurements for parking spaces. If there's no net gain between Phoebe and Jupiter, you shouldn't be bragging about it. You should be protesting.
I didn't say "irregardless" didn't contradict itself. Its still a word that can be used for emphasis. If it wasn't, dictionary.com would display no results for its search.
Delete5:03 Neither you nor your 4 friends haven't answered my left turn question. Obviously, either answer to it would expose your fallacy. But I don't require much from people who think 15 is 10.
There's no question there is no net gain and I have raised the issue, but thanks for the advice.
As usual, KLCC comments are lies. Pure lies... Proves the point- birds of a feather.
DeleteThe left hand turn question has been answered, repeatedly. Give back the lane for motorists illegally subtracted, taken away without required review; narrow the inside lane, lane one, have a wider lane two (right hand lane) with Sharrows, northbound, as well as southbound.
DeleteMotorists had much less problem turning left before the northbound outside lane was eliminated and an eight foot wide Class II bike lane was installed, right on the highway. A Class I bike lane, in the RR right of way, would be separated from the highway.
With two lanes, northbound, it's easier for residents to turn left, because there are more breaks in traffic. Why do you refuse to address the answer given to your question?
First you subtract a lane, making left hand turns from points west of 101 more challenging, then you say we need roundabouts to fix the problems we've created. The other big issue is that the current eight foot wide Class II bicycle lane has eliminated the possibility for a Class I bicycle lane in the railtrail corridor anytime in the foreseeable future.
Sure 3:37, 10-foot wide southbound lanes, four weirdly placed one-lane roundabouts in a four-lane highway, and 80% of the 2.5 miles of roadway stays the same open speedway as it is now. Sixteen of 20 left turns aren't affected. How does that improve quality of life and road safety? Are you actually paying attention?
ReplyDeleteI know exactly what design includes. I also know that you know nothing about road design red safety and road efficiency
ReplyDeleteKLCC supports crappy LA style road design which leads to blght. Smarter people Support Main St., Road design
ReplyDelete5:34 & 5:36, are you typing in the dark with your thumbs?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA lot of it is just a 3 lane hwy now, and the sharrows encourage it to be more of a 2 lane hwy. They really do. Its easiest to just use the left lane through most of a journey through town than to maybe have to change lanes for cyclists repeatedly.
ReplyDeleteLocations are not weird.
Open speedway? Yeah, now. But breaking the speed limit is what we pay Sheriffs to correct and speed limits can be broken almost anywhere. (Except for Autopia at Disneyland where they've made that impossible.)
4 locations for left turns where now its not as safe, are 4 locations for left turns were now its not as safe and gives all residents the option to use them whenever they need. That's one major aspect of the 4 roundabouts. And it will be light years safer for pedestrians to cross El Portal for example. Not to mention all the crosswalks for bus stops on the other side of 101. But bring your oxygen bottle along if slowing down periodically makes you feel claustrophobic. Are you actually avoiding my one question when I've answered all of yours?
Why would pedestrians be crossing at El Portal, when it's illegal to cross the tracks there?
DeleteThere are no pedestrians crossing at El Portal and 101, because the tracks have been raised, and it's too hard to climb over all the sliding gravel, and to go over the drainage ditch between Vulcan and the east side of the tracks, to get to Paul Ecke Central.
If you think that Hwy. 101 is effectively only two lanes, now, then it's not a "speedway." You can't have it both ways. Or may you think you can.
Well, no, you haven't answered many of the posted questions. Your specialty is avoiding the hard questions that point out the glaring faults of the plan. Your other specialty is citing generalizations that don't apply to our specifics.
ReplyDeleteA very funny and revealing aspect of this debate is that the people who agree with Fred appear to be developmentally impaired.
Did you ask a left turn question somewhere?
Here's the entry for "irregardless" in the AP Stylebook:
"A double negative. 'Regardless' is correct."
Here's the entry for "irregardless" in the American Heritage Dictionary:
"Nonstandard. Usage: Irregardless, a double negative, is never acceptable except when the intent is clearly humorous."
"Clearly humorous" means when used to mock people of low literacy.