Thursday, January 19, 2017

Leucadia Streetscape's back

Apparently the draft Environmental Impact Report came out over the holidays and it ain't pretty. The public comment period is now closed.

Doug Fiske writing in the Coast News:
Few people like the Leucadia 101 corridor as it is. But the Streetscape plan described in the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) the city released in December is not a good upgrade.

Among the plan’s specifics:

[...] The plan would reduce a four-lane highway — called a major arterial — to two lanes but claim it’s still a major arterial. [...]

[...] 14 unrestricted lefts onto (Coast Highway) 101 from side streets. Where there are now two traffic lanes each way, lefts are already a hazard. Where there’s only one northbound lane, lefts are more hazardous. One traffic lane each way would make lefts even harder and more dangerous. [...]

[...] Solana Beach’s 101 corridor is a commercial success because there’s plenty of parking. To equal that corridor’s parking capacity, Leucadia Streetscape would have to add 2,700 spaces. Adding only 136 spaces over 2.5 miles would not produce the commercial boom the city and the Leucadia 101 Main Street Association have been salivating over [...]

[...] Removal of 31 heritage trees, including the iconic eucalyptus at the Leucadia Boulevard intersection. [...]

[...] Encroaching on or taking 16,545 square feet of private property.[...]

[...] In its words, “the draft EIR concludes that the project would result in significant unavoidable impacts for emergency services (fire protection and police protection) and traffic circulation.”

The project would increase emergency response times that are already far worse than the fire department’s goal. [...]
What's not to like?

123 comments:

  1. I live between 20 million dollars worth of fire stations. Two house fires, both totally destroyed. Can the fire princesses have an even slower response?

    ReplyDelete
  2. What are Doug Fiske's credentials?

    Is that the airy fairy writer that lives in a dream world?

    It seems he has no common sense. Seems he has about as much common sense as that Marr wack job.

    Bad emergencies response times from 2 fire stations less than 2 miles away? Really, maybe we need fire princess palaces every other house.

    My God, Fiske is a fool.

    -- Some of us have common sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8:30 should take a remedial reading class.

      Delete
    2. Don't you think it would be a good idea to find true information about the guy before you condemn or praise him?

      Delete
  3. Wasn't Doug Fiske the guy who wanted to re-name Beacon Beach. Shaffer once called the guy a head case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2:04 got the Beacon Beach name right. If Shaffer called Fiske a head case, he must be an OK guy.

      Delete
  4. Seems like Fiske focuses on nonsense to me. I think he is a fictional writer and doesn't have a grip on reality, common sense, and values that are good for our community.

    Beacons Beach or Beacon Beach -- Who cares? A rose is a rose, even if you call it a flower or a gift. Fiske should stick to editing the blog comments like the grammar grandma that always pipes in. Common Fiske- Please provide your suggested edits to my post.

    --Fiske is a clueless bobble head.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5:38 AM:
      Nice ad hominen attack. How about addressing the points made by Fiske? It seems you're the clueless bobble head.

      Delete
    2. 5:38am

      I suggest you change "common" Fiske to "come on" Fiske. I think that is what you intended.

      There is a need for good editors. Unfortunately that doesn't make the editors knowledgeable on designing well performing streets that adequately addresses the community needs and address serious safety issues.

      - Fiske Stay with your Strength and Let Other Address the Rest.

      Delete
    3. Is a "fictional writer" one who doesn't actually exist?

      Delete
    4. Possibly, or one that writes fiction.

      Delete
  5. Fiske is definitely a fictional writer. He doesn't have a good grasp on the issues facing our community related to the blight causing unsafe conditions of Hwy101.

    If you want to read a well written piece on the subject, I suggest you read the editorial published on January 19, 2017 in Coast News. Link provided below.

    https://www.thecoastnews.com/2017/01/19/thoughts-on-leucadia-streetscape/

    I believe this editorial represents the way the vast majority of Leucadians, and for that matter, Encinitians feel about the subject. Enjoy the well written piece and let your City Council know you support the L101 Streetscape. Naysayer will be naysayers, but lets do Encinitas right and build the streetscape.

    -- Lets Stay in Reality and Do What is Good for the Quality of Life in Encinitas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry link didn't work. Copy and paste the web address in your browser to read the good article.

      https://www.thecoastnews.com/2017/01/19/thoughts-on-leucadia-streetscape

      Delete
    2. Good piece. I agree.

      Delete
    3. Expand the 5, and shrink the 101.

      Discourage commuter traffic on our local Main Street. Make it beautiful and slower, and more friendly to walk and bike.

      Who wants to sit at a cafe, walk or shop with the noise, danger and smell of speeding traffic that should be on I-5?

      Delete
    4. This is what the coastal elites have done in Del Mar and Solana Beach making their coastal cities 'naturally exclusive.' These elitists know exactly what they are doing and despise 'we the people'...especially the carpet baggers that come here and tell people to stop drinking downtown.

      Delete
    5. OF COURSE Leucadians want their little ville turned into Disneyland for adults where you can barely drive through it since you and most that support your NIMBY view are likely retired or trustafrians. GET REAL. We moved to Encinitas so that we could easily PARJ OUR CARS close to the beach and DRIVE THROUGH TOWN without a ton of traffic. You are trying to make life PAINFUL for anyone that doesn't have to work on a sunny Wednesday afternoon you elitist *uck!

      Delete
  6. 7:39am. What we are going to get with this plan is not cars speeding by on our 101.

    What we are going to get is backed up traffic, idling and crawling along the corridor at a pace that will add to the polluting of of our air.

    Reducing this major arterial to one lane each direction is a disaster in the making.

    Real estate interests have pushed this for the most part, dollar signs in their eyes blinding them to any sense of reality.

    It has never been about keeping it crappy. This plan is just plain dumb. And shortsighted.

    Since this plan has been through so many publicly unnoticed changes over the years, the least that should be done now is take an unbiased poll of the businesses on the 101 and residents west of the 101. This was done a decade ago and couldn't have been clearer that the majority did not want this, in whatever iteration it was at that time.

    This should be put to a vote and will never be allowed.

    Another, at the very least, would be to hold another public demonstration with the story boards showing what state this ever changing plan is in now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is public infrastructure used by everyone. You don't plan an airport based on the public opinion of people who live adjacent. If we did, we'd have no airports. We'd also have no rails, no freeways, no electricity, no sewage treatment, no commercial ports, no military bases.

      The whole city should weigh in, because we all use that infrastructure.

      Delete
  7. 8:37am. Thomas Roger Ogden from down in San Diego, sounds like he has some latent tendencies he is dealing with. Why are you posting your hate here in Encinitas?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Public input changed the location of the Cardiff Rail Trail.

    When a construction project is coming to a neighborhood, residents within 500 feet are noticed and their input is invited.

    The city should poll the people most affected by Leucadia Streetscape to find out if they want it. Otherwise, it's an imposition by the city and the Leucadia 101 Main Street Association.

    Fiske's commentary in the Coast News comes straight from the draft EIR. It doesn't sound as if many of the people who commented here have read the EIR.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey, waitaminute, 12:02! People have the right to remain ignorant, biased and stupid. You can't expect people to inform themselves before broadcasting their opinions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, holdonaminute. There's actually a large number of well informed people in the Leucadia 101 corridor. Apparently you're not one of them.

      Delete
    2. So, 4:09, that means you've read the draft EIR?

      Delete
    3. Did you? I guess you missed this:

      “The draft EIR concludes that the project would result in significant unavoidable
      impacts for emergency services (fire protection and police protection) and traffic circulation.”

      Delete
    4. He missed this too:

      “These improvements would affect circulation along the Project corridor . . . resulting in further traffic congestion and slowing of emergency response times along the corridor.”

      Of course, "further traffic congestion" means cut through traffic, especially on North Vulcan.

      Delete
  10. Leucadia... keep it crappy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stay stupid, 3:43. How about getting the facts before posting your idiocy?

      Delete
    2. Hey 4:04- it's a crap heap. And you love it. Enjoy.

      Delete
    3. Nope, 4:03, most people want to make it better for everybody. But if you want to live in crap, that's your right!

      Delete
  11. 6:08 on- please move to the Mosca thread. This one is about bettering or totally unsafe murderous, ghetto highway that Encinitas is allowing to serve as Auxiliary Lanes for I5.

    Next person to get run over out there should sew Encinitas till its dry, for allowing the unsafe roadway conditions to exist for years with nothing being done to better the condition while they knew there were plenty of options to change the road, slow traffic, and make the roadway safe for all users.

    Forget about any future project Encinitas. Your ass will be paying the huge pay out for the idiots at City Hall who can't get things done.

    --Fiske and Marr are fools and The Community Knows It.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is "The Community?" If you mean Leucadians, you lie.

      Delete
    2. Ghetto highway?
      Sew Encinitas?

      Delete
  12. By Doug Fiske-

    Degher continues to peddle a theory that has no basis in reality. Where in suburbia have people switched from cars to bikes or walking for transportation in big enough numbers to have any reduction effect on traffic, parking needs and greenhouse gas emissions? The answer in nowhere because the distances are too great, and you can’t carry stuff. I’m sure Degher’s experience in Europe was terrific, but the roundabouts he loved there weren’t at T intersections and weren’t one lane and about 100 feet in diameter. They facilitated traffic flow rather than clogged it. Degher should look at the facts and abandon his pet pipe dreams.


    The problem with Fiskes's comments are they support the same bad decisions that created the unsafe crappy conditions of L101 Mainstreet.

    Its not a highway any more. Its a collector street and pedestrians and bikes have just as much right to the road as the vehicles. The commutors that are deverting off I5 to haul ass through town need to stay on I5 and the only logical way to do it is to change the roadway physical conditions.

    Roundabouts work much better than traffic signals and Fiske opposing them shows he has no common sense.

    Stay in Fiction Fiske. Its where you fit best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Historic State Highway 101 is still a highway, although no longer maintained by the State. It is still a major arterial, according to our General Plan, and is not just a "collector street."

      L101 Mainstreet has not been in existence as long as the highway. But the conditions there are part of the reason that the sale price was less for property owners purchasing business properties there, with limited parking, and historic flooding issues. These real estate/development interests want to benefit, monetarily, at the public's expense, with no corresponding increase in their taxes, due to a special tax assessment, as was applied in Solana Beach, with their Coast Highway streetscape, railtrail corridor improvements.

      In fact, in North County, Del Mar and Solana Beach both decided against roundabouts on Coast Highway, due to concerns about more cut through traffic, and issues with lack of through way cross streets along the RR Tracks.

      A few real estate interests want the City to install a $20 Million dollar project, to directly benefit them, their bottom line, while taking away from local's access/egress to our homes, local beaches. Also compromised would be our health and safety, due to more traffic back-ups, traffic cutting through our residential neighborhoods, and slower emergency response times.

      Delete
  13. Degher is right.

    Fiske is fiction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ignorant bias is not a good thing.

      Read the EIR:

      http://www.encinitasca.gov/index.aspx?page=284

      Delete
  14. Hey Crap Lovers, plenty of ponds from poor drainage on 101. Drainage that was supposed to be fixed but CRAP LOVER Cameron and crew would allow a 36" pipe....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Allow?" That undersized pipe was the "expert" work of Pasco Engineering. The words "Pasco Fiasco" ring a bell? Our engineering department not paying attention to a contractor's shoddy work strikes again.

      Delete
  15. Many of the comments above are an echo chamber. They're Degher talking to himself.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Who are Fiske & Degher? Other than a small number of extreme activist, nobody know these guys. They sound kinda groofy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More people know them than you and me cause we're anonymous and you're "groofy."

      Delete
    2. Anyone local to Beacon knows Doug Fiske as a daily swimmer (water temp dependent) and a thoughtful, considerate guy. He is a careful listener and works hard to make fact based arguments. I appreciate his interest in good governance and urban planning. This is a hard place to influence policy..the deck appears to be stacked against locals and in favor of carpet baggers like Rincon and other schlock builders.

      Delete
    3. Phffff. Leucadiatoo poo. What a joke... no response needed.

      Fiske is a joke like your comment. Try and elect someone that supports your views like Cameron or Julie G. Oh that right, 10 people will not win an election. Keep on writing friction boy.

      Delete
    4. @11:32 - Hilarious! Thank you, you made my day.

      Delete
    5. 11:32, please explain: "Keep on writing friction boy."

      Delete
  17. I agree with EU. There's not much to like about Leucadia Streetscape.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EU is a libertarian.

      The only consistency is that every decision is wrong.

      If the city decided to change it cancel 101 Streetscape, the EU headline would decry he terrible decision.

      EU is entertaining, but represents a simplistic view. The model for libertarianism is Somalia. Every man for himself. Paradise.

      Delete
    2. EU ddin't say that... it was an intro line....

      I sure wish he would have led with the logical editorial of Degher. Now he has common sense.

      Delete
    3. EU ddin't say that...

      I sure wish he would have led with the logical editorial of Degher. Now he has common sense.

      Delete
    4. 11:34/11:50 isn't bright enough to recognize sarcasm, to type or to post comments only once.

      Delete
  18. Fiske is a long-time follower of city affairs. He attends most, if not all, council meetings. He supports residents' actions to protect their neighborhoods from over development and is respectful of each area's preferences.

    Degher is an L101 groupie who follows the Barth/Shaffer party line and is never seen at city meetings.

    Neither are extreme or goofy, but Fiske is an independent thinker while Degher has drunk the Kool-Aid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed! Fiske is at a lot of meetings. Good for him!

      Delete
    2. Yes, because good ideas correlate to the number of meetings attended.

      #Undeniable

      Delete
    3. Fiske has nothing better to do than write fiction and attend meetings. From what I've read from Fiske, he has no common sense. He is part of the problem not the solution.

      Delete
  19. OK, I read the whole EIR. It took a very long time.

    I have to agree that the Streetscape is not a good idea. Parts of it are OK, but overall it's bad news.

    The EIR says the Streetscape will clog traffic and increase emergency response times that are already way too slow. Seems to me that those negatives alone would be enough for most people to be against the plan.

    Then the plan says 101 would be cut to two lanes. Thumbs down to that idea!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Not really. You clearly don't understand the issues. In Carlsbad just up the road the road has been necked down to one lane south of Palomar Airport road for nearly a year. No backups. Why?

    The congestion happens at the traffic signals.

    Fiske is the same old broken thinking that made southern CA autocentric and makes that freeway running right through our neighborhood unsafe.

    If Fiske, Marr, and Cameron had any support they would have put forward a candidate in the election like Julie G. But the didn't because they new no one agreed with their backward logic and thinking the existing hwy101 is OK as is. Sorry folks your logic and common sense fail.

    Its time to better Encinitas and make it safer and more convenient for all users.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. +1

      What 7:50 said.

      [clap clap]

      Delete
    2. 7:50 & 8:00 — Your ignorance and stupidity boggle the rational mind. Learn the facts before you post any more asinine crap.

      Delete
    3. 2:26- when the streetscape is finished it is going to be huuuuuugggge. Best streetscape of all time.

      Delete
    4. 2:26 Nice Trump comment. You too sound like a complete fool with no common sense. I suggest your goal for this year should be to try and learn about a subject before talking about it.

      Have at it grammar mom. Editing seems to be your one competence.

      --The Streetscape is Needed and will be Hugely Successful

      Delete
    5. @8:45 - tying Streetscape to Trump is appropriate. Corrupt losers...

      Delete
  21. I also just read the entire EIR. It sounds great and is long overdue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have a favorite part of the plan, Streetscape lovers?

      Is it the part about reduced emergency vehicle response times, do you? No wait, maybe it was the estimated traffic increase of 17,000
      daily car trips? Or was it the bit about increased traffic congestion?

      All are direct quotes from the EIR.

      Some business owners actually think that someone sitting in gridlock is going to be in the mood to somehow manage to reverse park, then go shopping.

      Delete
    2. 5:52 is a liar.

      Delete
    3. The EIR was poorly developed. The issues are not accurately represented. Obvouisly, reivsion to the EIR are needed.

      One thing for certain is change.

      Another thing for certain is no matter how a city improves it's infrastructure, there will always be a small vocal percentage of anti change population that will fight the improvement even if its for greater safety, aesthetics and efficiency of the roadway for all users.

      Its just the way it is. In Leucadia that small group is represented by Fiske/Marr/Keep Leucadia Crappy Club. At least they are entertaining. " I think its a huge deal to change the name of Beacons to "Beacon"..... Swamis to "Swami Beach".... blah, blah, blah..... the ski is falling the sky is falling......"

      Too funny!

      Delete
    4. How do you get "efficiency of the roadway" from "will increase traffic congestion?"

      I guess not reading the EIR makes you say a lot of wacky things, huh 11:39?

      Delete
  22. You don't have to read the EIR.

    Just observe which side the crazy people are on, and go the other way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anybody who wants to comment in an informed way must read the EIR. Ignorant opinions have no value.

      Delete
  23. The profit motivated tools pushing this plan have the loudest voices with the city.

    Criticizing a citizen for reflecting what is in the city's own produced EIR on this disaster in the making plan, is obviously all they have to work with.

    Doug didn't create this EIR. He just illuminated to the public what is in it.

    Since this will never be allowed to be voted on, an unbiased census is the least that should be done. This too, will be lambasted by the pushers, as they know the majority of businesses and residents are not aligned with whatever iteration this plan is in at the present.

    The majority do not want to keep it crappy, which, by the way, it isn't. I believe we could all join together and mitigate some of the dumb parts of their plan and make some long delayed progress, but the pushers refuse to even discuss anything that will change one iota of their scheme to turn this corridor into a generic, every other beach town look, as was shown on all those story boards presented to the public a few years ago.

    What was presented was a miles long mall, with the same store front design throughout the corridor.

    What also was presented was limiting the residents west of the 101 to having to drive south and make a u-turn to go north on some, how many I don't recall, but it was a significant number of streets.

    Needing to acquire, take away property from owners to build these roundabouts is a given. How would anyone feel if their property were being seized to satisfy profit motivated individuals with the louder voices.

    Take a census now. Make sure it isn't being done by anyone with a vested interest. That leaves out streetscape and any of the main street org's . This community's residents are the stakeholders that should be listened to, and haven't been.

    Sure, there are some supporters that aren't in the real estate trade that support this plan, but they are in the minority.

    Reverting to the so tired phrase that those opposed want to keep it crappy is as dumb and shortsighted as this plan has become over the last decade.

    The pushers, and that is what they are, cannot get past any moderating of their plan, scam, scheme. It is their intransigence that has delayed this for as long as it has.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Proving my point.

      Crazy.

      Pro Streetscape.

      Delete
    2. I hope the streetscape turns Leucadia into Newport Beach south, until then... Keep it Crappy!! Why NB?? Because it's more snooty, snobby, more nose in the air than DelMar.

      Delete
  24. Worth repeating:

    The EIR was poorly developed. The issues are not accurately represented. Obviously, revision to the EIR are needed.

    One thing for certain is change.

    Another thing for certain is no matter how a city improves it's infrastructure, there will always be a small vocal percentage of anti change population that will fight the improvement even if its for greater safety, aesthetics and efficiency of the roadway for all users.

    Its just the way it is. In Leucadia that small group is represented by Fiske/Marr/Keep Leucadia Crappy Club (KLCC). At least they are entertaining. " I think its a huge deal to change the name of Beacons to "Beacon"..... Swamis to "Swami Beach".... blah, blah, blah..... the ski is falling the sky is falling......"

    If you really think you have valid points and can better the City, get a candidate elected in the next election. Until then the KLCC are just the one percent of whiners with no clue and nothing better to do with their time. I have an idea, maybe they can write another story or something else productive.... sheeze.

    Too funny!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope, not worth repeating, 11:45.

      Swami's is Swami's and has been since the SRF and Paramahansa Yogananda owned the beach and bluff property adjacent to the then-smaller Sea Cliff County Park. That's how Swami's got its name.

      The state and the county chipped in to buy the privately owned beaches starting around 1940.

      You have it as Beacons. The sign and the city have it as Beacon's. The original, authentic, historically accurate name is Beacon. That's because there used to be an aeronautical navigation beacon on the bluff there. That was from before WW II till sometime about 1950.

      In a meeting last year, the City Council acknowledged the beacon and the authentic name Beacon but decided to keep the corrupted Beacon's name. Go figure.

      Delete
    2. 11:45 believes that their posting needs repeating because those that know him, ignore him...

      Delete
    3. Nope.

      Bacon's Beach.

      Some say old man Bacon used to live there and maintain the beacon. He also used to cook brunch on the beach every Sunday for the seals. Legend has it you can still smell old man Bacon's bacon at low tide on Sundays. Anyway, he owned the beach and was buddies with the Swami. They had a plan to corner the market on beach property, but the Swami had a gambling problem.

      Yadda, yadda, yadda.

      Bacon's beach.

      Delete
    4. 6:03: Your post's value is it confirms that 1:30's post is right.

      Delete
  25. Common sense is mentioned several times above.

    On summer weekends, hordes of people come to Encinitas and elsewhere along the San Diego County coast from up north. That slows the southbound freeway to a crawl. Drivers divert to southbound 101. The unavoidably long light at Leucadia Blvd. plugs the traffic two lanes wide often past Jupiter, sometimes past Grandview and even past La Costa Ave.

    The longest jams are now about 1.2 miles. Wait times to get past the Leucadia Blvd. light are about 30 minutes.

    Reducing those two southbound lanes to one and putting five roundabouts from Jupiter north will double the length of the plugs and lock drivers in the roundabouts. Wait times will double.

    Hundreds of cars will sit idling. Greenhouse gas emissions will spike. Emergency response times will spike. Tempers will flare. Drivers will make angry, dangerous U-turns. Locals who live in the corridor and are trying to get or leave home will get caught in the gridlock.

    This scenario happens whenever southbound I-5 plugs. Streetscape will make that already bad situation much worse. Is that common sense? Wouldn’t it be better to develop a way to relieve the problem rather than make it worse?

    Does any informed person sincerely think a plan that regularly clogs traffic in the Leucadia 101 corridor will improve business and promote visits and vacation stays there?

    Please don’t say people will switch to bikes and walking and that will improve business. Don’t be silly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's the flaw in your logic:

      Anyone who's sat in that southbound traffic knows that the 101 south is already effectively one lane at Leucadia Blvd. The left turn lane only fits about five cars and the rest all stack up and plug the east through lane. Thus, the only remaining through lane for southbound traffic is the west lane. Many cars intending to turn left on Leucadia don't realize that the backup in the east lane is to turn left, so they scoot forward on the west lane until they realize it. At that point they stop in the west lane until they can merge over into the east lane with the other turning cars. Of course, those cars are pissed that the merger didn't get into the back of the line, so they don't let 'em over.

      Meanwhile, the southbound light is green and no cars can go through it.

      It's an effing mess until they whack that stupid eucalyptus and extend the turn lane north another hundred yards. Which, by the way, is part of Streetscape.

      One effective southbound lane is better than NO effective southbound lanes.

      Delete
    2. 12:49 You're talking about a few hundred feet north of Leucadia Blvd. 12:24 is talking about one lane 1.2 miles back to La Costa Ave.

      The turn pocket to go east on Leucadia Blvd. from southbound 101 can be extended only about five or six cars long because it would interfere with the left turn pocket onto Jasper from 101.

      Destroying the iconic eucalyptus at Leucadia Blvd. for the sake of five or six cars in the turn pocket doesn't come anywhere close to solving the problems created by a one-lane traffic jam more than 1.2 miles long.

      Delete
    3. The long backup is because of what I described. The turn lane for east on Leucadia should be 200-300 yards long. Eliminate left turns on the north bound side through there.

      That would let more cars pass through each green light. The assumption that the same number of cars has to back up at that light is false.

      Delete
    4. The backup can be several blocks when a beer truck is double-parked to unload the kegs. When your only tool is a roundabout it's time to circle the wagons.

      Delete
    5. Sorry, 1:03, that's not right. You must not live in the corridor. But if you do, you must not be paying attention.

      Eliminate left turns onto Jasper? How will people who live there get home? How will customers get to the corner B&B, Coffee Coffee, Surfy Surfy, etc.?

      The current two-lane backups up to 1.2 miles long are caused by the unavoidably long light at Leucadia Blvd. It's a complex intersection that can be relieved only by tunneling the RR tracks there.

      The turn pocket to go east on Leucadia Blvd. from 101 has a minor effect on the overall problem.

      One southbound lane on 101 will back the traffic past La Costa Ave. and Ponto. It will also clog the La Costa/101 intersection and push traffic onto southbound Vulcan.

      Look at all the facts and the whole reality. To make a bad situation worse is a traffic and emergency response nightmare.

      Wouldn't it be better to develop a way to solve the problem rather than make it much worse?

      Delete
    6. 12:24 -

      Ha - the sky is falling the sky is falling.....

      you mean the iconic 140 year old big old tree with how much stabiity in its root system?

      You mean the one that is the same age as the one mentioned hear- http://www.theleucadiablog.com/

      Interesting.

      Delete
  26. Reality is not appreciated by the pushers. Profit motive is, at all costs.

    Real estate interests have pushed this plan to where it is now, if the public even knows what state this plan is in currently.

    Poll the businesses. Poll the residents west of the 101. Keep this poll true and unbiased. The truth is out there, waiting for the community at large opinions to be considered.

    We all want parts of the streetscape to be enacted. The pushers want their vision for the rest of us to not be compromised in the slightest.

    Just who is being the stick in the mud? The pushers or the majority of residents that cannot stand the complete version they are being given by streetscape?

    Some give and take from the pushers should be welcomed, if they claim to have our best interests at heart. That is not happening and never has.

    Their claim from a decade ago that this was publicly vetted is not relevant today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not profit - its all about resident wanting a safer more functional roadway to serve the community. Its currently not safe and its bad for the community. Thats why the residents totally supported the alternative when it went thru the conceptual design process. Sorry KLCC you lose again.

      Delete
    2. Residents? What residents? Ask any who live there - not those under the illusion that their businesses will boom under the plan - and they are not supportive. Who could be except those who stand to gain (not residents) when you have reduced emergency vehicle response time and increased traffic congestion in the EIR?

      What's "bad for the community," is this indefensible plan.

      Why do the naysayers fear another pass at asking the public? What is at stake for them if it doesn't pass? That includes you, Tony.

      Delete
    3. The project would increase emergency response times, not reduce them.

      Increasing response times = making them worse.

      Delete
    4. 1:43-

      not true. The EIR draft is flawed and needs revision.

      The streetscape would not increase emergency response times and would greatly reduce the accidents, injury and risk of that roadway.

      Delete
    5. Let's make it a freeway with 70 MPH speed limit. Surely that would improve response times.

      Delete
    6. 6:29

      The draft EIR accurately describes a deeply flawed Streetscape project.

      The draft EIR specifically states at least twice that the project would both congest traffic and increase emergency response times.

      If you read the doc, you might know what you're talking about.

      Delete
  27. 1:40pm-

    the planning and design is way pasted that point. Just because you cry restart, doesn't mean the people with common sense and appreciate the forthcoming change will go along with you.

    Sorry go write another fictional story. You are good at fiction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The project the draft EIR describes is not what the City Council approved on Jan 13, 2010 by a 3-1 vote. Who authorized the very substantial changes?

      Delete
    2. That 3-1 vote approved alternative #4A. Dalager recused himself because he lived in the corridor. Bond voted no. He then said, "In 20 years, we'll say, 'What were we thinking?'"

      Delete
  28. 2pm. A restart is not the issue. Many residents, if they were listened to, would approve of some of the elements, but some remain unacceptable and have been for a decade.

    It is the pushers who won't accommodate changes to their plan for us all that would bring the acceptance they dream of. It is a dream and a false one, that the critics are only a handful of the usual suspects.

    The fact is, a vast majority do not want this as presented, or was whenever it was last presented to the public with those illustrations of what the corridor will become if they got their way.

    Round and round we go. We need some unbiased adults to step up and take the reins away from this group of mostly real estate interests with a very few business owners thrown in.

    It cannot be denied, except by the pushers, that a strong majority did not want this years ago and that has not changed. They will do everything they can to never allow a vote and avoid a legitimate census ever being taken.

    That is the really crappy thing about this whole process and why it has not skated on through after so many years. It is reminescent of our housing plan that was pushed by similar development interests and keeps failing.

    Hopefully the city and the streetscape will learn something and apply it. History has not been encouraging, but hope springs eternal.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Well maybe we have alternative facts?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Unfortunately Mayor Blakespear indicated in her newsletter that she supports the Leucadia Streetscape plan. The three sycophants Tasha, Tony, and Joe will follow along. Probable vote: 4 to 1, unless Blakespear does a flip.

    Afterward we will be saying what James Bond said: What were we thinking? It might be a good idea to put in temporary roundabout, as Santa Barbara did. In SB many were found not to work very well.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 12:47pm That is a reasonable suggestion. The pushers, however are not reasonable or haven't been. Maybe someday they will. Thanks for the positive contribution to the on going discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Roundabouts measuring about 100 feet in diameter placed at T intersections don't achieve what roundabouts are designed to do.

    Those that help traffic flow are bigger in diameter and usually two or more lanes. They work well where traffic is about equal in four directions.

    The tiny, one-lane roundabouts proposed for Leucadia 101 would restrict traffic flow, lock drivers in them when traffic backs up and be dangerous for bicyclists to ride through alongside cars and trucks.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 2:07pm Exactly. The roundabout on the 101 and State St in Carlsbad, that is often referred to, is larger than any of six or seven that are planned here on OUR 101 and has separate bike lanes incorporated into it. Carlsbad had the space to do that.

    Leucadia Streetscape does not. Comparing the two is stretching reality of how ours will be able to function. The only roundabout that has the required space is at La Costa Blvd. and the 101 and that will only be built when Carlsbad decides to cough up the dough, as a compensation for their south Carlsbad developments that will greatly affect traffic flow on La Costa Blvd.

    Even then, La Costa Blvd needs to become a four lane thoroughfare and won't be.

    Not a one of Streetscapes 7 roundabouts will do anything but further restrict traffic flow. If their intent was genuine, these ill planned traffic regulators would have been placed equidistant from each other along the 2.7 mile long corridor and would have separated bike lane access to them.

    There is not enough room to do this on our 101. Does this matter to the pushers? No sign yet that it does.

    Even if they could expand these to provide all the safety that they claim these roundabouts will bring, it would mean taking more of property owners land to squeeze them in, more than they are going to do already with the current plan.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 4:54 - There are no bike lanes in the Carlsbad 101 roundabout. Bikes must fall in line with cars. On either side of the roundabout there are bike lanes but when in the circle, you're in the single lane with cars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Extremely dangerous!

      There's a pretty big roundabout at the north entry to Legoland that seems to work OK, but the mother of all roundabouts is in Borrego Springs. Now, that's a roundabout!

      The miniature roundabouts we already have and those planned are a joke. They create more problems than they solve.

      Delete
    2. I'm a cyclist.

      Cyclists get killed when there is a big speed difference between cars and bikes, and the driver "never saw" the cyclist on a narrow shoulder.

      On smaller traffic circles cars and bikes naturally travel at about the same speed. And the cyclist is in the middle of your windshield where you can't not see them.

      Pretty sure there have been zero car-bike fatalities at any traffic circle in North County. Ever.

      Delete
    3. Again, the Carlsbad roundabout on Pacific Coast Highway, at State St., also has an alternative bike/ped lane in the RR right of way, so bikes are not forced to travel through a one lane roundabout with all of the motor vehicle traffic. Bicyclists have another option. Plus, there are not hundreds and hundreds of residences west of the highway, in Carlsbad, where the SINGLE PCH roundabout was installed. Carlsbad was able to use grant money, too, for that roundabout's design and construction, because of the concurrent railtrail corridor bike/ped lane installation.

      Instead of responding to the facts presented, the bullying, crap-throwing one resorts to more and more ad hominem attacks. Instead of point and counterpoint, responding to statements that have been fact-checked again and again, he claims demonstrable facts have been fabricated. What has been fabricated is widespread community support for this expensive, dangerous plan, as presently designed.

      Since Catherine Blakespear has been all about mediation, she would be consistent, and politically savvy, to use the ongoing controversy around this project to show that mediation can achieve a workable compromise.

      Delete
    4. So much wrong here.

      First, there are no class 1 separated bike paths around the circle on 101 in Carlsbad. There are sidewalks, and crosswalks, where it is technically illegal to ride. If a cyclist wants to dismount and walk around the roundabout, they are of course welcome to do so, as they would be in Encinitas. I implore anyone who buys this crap to open Google Maps, and observe the Carlsbad 101 roundabout. Make sure the satellite imagery is turned on. Notice the sharows painted on the road surface entering the roundabout from both the north and the south. Claims that the Carlsbad roundabout is fundamentally different for cyclist safety from what is proposed here are complete made up BS.

      Next, there is a statement made that there aren't hundreds of homes west of the highway in Carlsbad. Notice that there is no clear idea why it matters. Again, use Google maps with satellite imagery, and you'll see hundreds of homes just east of the 101 circle off State St. If you prefer, rotate the image 180° to see what it would look like with homes to the west.

      Finally, there is a frequent claim that the federal DOT advises against the use of roundabouts at three way intersections, or where cross traffic is unequal. First, notice in Carlsbad, that's exactly what they have. Second, ask the bat s crazy author for an official DOT source on that claim. I've done it many times; no response. In fact, I've done my own reading, and found nothing but a gross distortion of the actual DOT information. What they found was that traffic circles outperform stops in all configurations, but they outperform by a wider margin at four-way intersections where cross traffic is roughly equal. Somehow, that information got distorted through a dosinformation campaign to mean DOT doesn't support roundabouts at 3-way intersections.

      Stop the lies. Please ask the author to show original DOT sources for claims related to safety or effectiveness of roundabouts, and read source material for yourself.

      In this day and age, facts matter. There is no such thing as alternative facts. We can no longer allow the public dialog to be polluted by the strategy of piling up lies so deep that good people give up on finding the truth.

      Delete
    5. 10:44 Only fatalities matter? What about injuries?

      What about the hit and run, for example, that seriously injured a bicyclist on Leucadia Blvd a few months ago?

      Delete
    6. The one by the golf course, a mile from the nearest roundabout?

      That one?

      Delete
    7. ---> This one?

      Maybe if there was a roundabout there, or if the car came upon the cyclist a mile downhill, the cyclist would have been okay, because they would have been traveling the same speed, and the cyclist would be directly in front of the car, where the driver would be more likely to notice.

      Delete
    8. Talk about rationalizing, wow!

      Delete
    9. I don't think you understand what rationalizing means.

      Your example of an injured cyclist in a roundabout wasn't anywhere near a roundabout.

      That's not rationalizing, it's calling you on your BS.

      Delete
    10. 1:23 said the bicyclist was victim of a hit and run on Leucadia Blvd. Nothing about a roundabout in the post.

      Delete
    11. 10:44 said:

      "Pretty sure there have been zero car-bike fatalities at any traffic circle in North County. Ever."

      1:23 said:

      "10:44 Only fatalities matter? What about injuries?

      What about the hit and run, for example, that seriously injured a bicyclist on Leucadia Blvd a few months ago?"

      The subject is clearly car-bike safety in roundabouts. If 1:23 wants to wander off topic, then start a new thread.

      Delete
    12. Traffic circles and roundabouts are not the same thing.

      Delete
  35. Typical KLCC banter.

    Go write another fictional book. You sure can make up BS.

    ReplyDelete
  36. http://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/jan/20/san-diego-presents-watered-down-redesign-el-cajon-/

    "But sharrows are only suitable for quieter residential streets with low traffic volume and were never meant to be used on major arterial streets like El Cajon Boulevard, according to Kathleen Ferrier, director of advocacy for the nonprofit Circulate San Diego. . .

    While much of the project’s design is meant to slow down traffic, that is precisely why some in the adjacent residential neighborhoods opposed earlier versions of the project. Kelly Waggonner, who lives in Talmadge and sits on the area planning group, said she and her neighbors feared slower traffic and losses to parking on El Cajon Boulevard would divert more vehicles to their residential streets.

    "It's not safe for our neighbors, our pedestrians, our bicyclists, our children, our pets, to have to be sharing what should be neighborhood streets with 20,000 to 25,000 cars a day," she said. "We expect and anticipate that this area of San Diego is going to grow substantially. With more housing and with more density come more cars, and comes the need to make sure that traffic flows properly."

    We have similar concerns, here, in Leucadia. The plan, as currently detailed in the draft EIR would slow down and clog traffic so much, deleting two lanes of our highway so that Historic State Highway 101 would essentially become walled off from other communities, and from local commuters during peak periods. Our major arterial would be taken from us. This is confirmed by the draft EIR, which states, unequivocally, that there is significant unavoidable environmental impact due to degradation in our circulation element and public health and safety, resulting from anticipated slower emergency response times.

    The draft EIR only considers "cut through traffic" coming from those motorists diverting from I-5. Sometimes, when the freeway is backed-up, that is unavoidable.

    Traffic cutting through residential neighborhoods, and a school zone, adjacent to 101 are apparently not considered, and the health and safety challenges created by that cut through traffic.

    When there was work being done on the highway, Neptune had a great deal of cut through traffic, because the highway, then, was temporarily reduced to one lane northbound. So many cars were speeding up Neptune, endangering bicyclists and pedestrians, including those walking dogs or pushing baby strollers.

    The significant environmental impacts found to be compelling in the draft EIR, could be avoided by redesign. What should be focused on is a dedicated bike lane in the railtrail corridor, safe routes to schools, and development of bike ped crossing, at a signalized intersection at El Portal, concurrent to any other public works development along Historic State Highway 101.

    ReplyDelete
  37. KLCC that keep the Leucadia freeway and surrounding areas from getting needed safety and infrastructure improvements.

    Crazy Cameron, Marrs (says it all), and Fictionman have their mission -

    Now take the oath - "I solemnly swear, that will serve the KLCC and say everything that pops into my head against any improvement to safety or aesthetics in Leucadia. Above all else, I will protect the high speed unsafe road conditions, and plant goatheads and other weeds and kill what others perceive as good plants in Leucadia like trees and flowers. Above all else Keep Leucadia Crappy and deadly "

    ReplyDelete
  38. 6:45am. is a proponent of Alternative facts. His only avenue seems to be picking on certain people and offering nothing else but crappy this and crappy that.

    What a sad, sad creature this boy/manchild is. He only sees an opportunity to profit off of this degradation scam in the making.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Child is surely most accurate. The incessant need to have the last say and put forth lame acronyms are like rings on a tree. Baby needs a change...

      Delete
  39. too funny coming from the KLCC club. Whaaaa Haa haa haa.

    Repeat after me... "above all Keep It Crappy!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What makes 9:18's comments wrong and pathetic is that nobody wants a crappy Leucadia. Everybody wants to improve it, but not in the extremely stupid ways the EIR proposes.

      Delete
  40. Good find:

    https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_7/154-3899324-3411960?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=early%27s+idaho&sprefix=early%27s%2Cstripbooks%2C441&crid=2RSI8YHGNJXGR

    ReplyDelete
  41. Sounds like a good book.

    ReplyDelete