Carlsbad claims first roundabout on North County's historic Coast Highway.
What's the deal with roundabouts anyway? How can such an innocuous, aesthetically pleasing thing be the subject of such controversy? Is there any truth to the claim that roundabouts are a sneaky way for city planners to get around traffic service standards?
The circle game . . .
ReplyDeleteNorth bound Carlsbad Blvd and north bound State St. are a merge so it will interesting to see how a roundabout works for two streets so close together. I assume they'll try to give them more separation. Should be fun.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless roundabouts. RB haters are without any capacity to embrace the best.
ReplyDeleteOk Lynn, were waiting for you to berate this community decision by Carlsbad.
ReplyDeleteWait for it, it's coming...
Conceptually, roundabouts are not a bad thing. But to put them where they're not needed and/or to put four one-lane roundabouts in a four-lane highway, especially with three of the four bunched together in a half-mile, is a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteits called a road diet and it balances the roads to best serve all the users.
Deletethe old freeway design cutting through Leucadia has caused blight over the last 30 years.
We want a local main street that serves bicycles and pedestrians as well as vehicles.
Roundabouts are the best for intersection control. Much safer and efficient that traffic signals and all way stops.
Birdrock has 5 bunched together which also reduced 5 lanes of N/S traffic to 2. And Leucadia Blvd is planned for one more (equalling 3 bunched together) whenever if ever that happens. Where there is no opportunity for residents north of Leucadia Blvd to have a safer way of making a left onto 101, 3 roundabouts change that from currently dodging 3 lanes of 35mph traffic, to merging with one lane of 15mph traffic every time no one is to their left in the circle - most of the time not having to stop at all.
ReplyDeleteYour standard bogus argument.
DeleteThere is nothing good about five roundabouts bunched together at Bird Rock. Driving through there is a claustrophobic nightmare.
The two at Hermes and Hymettus are unnecessary. There's not enough cross traffic to justify them. Another at Hygeia would be total insanity. There are none proposed for any of the intersections on Leucadia Blvd. east of the freeway.
Between the one-lane roundabout proposed for Jupiter and the one-laner proposed for El Portal, there would be 1.2 miles of 101 pretty much as it is now. Leucadia Blvd. is about halfway between those two. That 1.2-mile distance is half the length of the proposed Streetscape project.
To get to what you claim will be a safe left at the proposed Jupiter roundabout, people west of 101 and north of Leucadia Blvd. would have to drive up to 6/10 of a mile on Neptune.
Seriously now, you're not really claiming those prospects make sense, are you?
You, Charles Marvin and Keith Harrison are for four one-lane roundabouts on 101 in what people call Leucadia. Is it just a coincidence that the three of you own a substantial amount of commercial property there?
Stop selling one-lane roundabouts and commission a professional, objective survey to find out if Leucadia residents want them. If they do, you have a point. If they don't, stop the bogus argument.
You're a smart, caring guy, but your pitch for roundabouts is silly.
I'm not seeing much here to refute Fred's argument, which he has laid out ad nauseum many times.
DeleteIf you don't like the roundabout proposal, how about some data as to why they don't work in each specific instance.
I've driven through the ones in Bird Rock in a variety of traffic conditions, and have never had any real issues with them. They're well constructed, signed and people seem to get it when they drive through.
As for Hymettus and Hermes, as someone who lives north of that location, I dig them. Before the roundabouts there, you had to be Mario Freakin' Andretti to make a left or right onto Hymettus. People came down the hill on Leucadia from anywhere between 40-60 mph with a green light. I'd say the average was 50. You truly had to risk an accident to make a turn.
So the roundabouts there are definitely an improvement there for us neighborhood folk.
Not sure what your point is on the 101 roundabout at Jupiter. I agree with Fred. Right now it's a wheel spinner to beat traffic coming north sometimes, all the while checking for southbound traffic.
Here's more info, I just drove through C-bad today. As it is, one of the hairiest lefts around going southbound..
Deletehttp://news.carlsbadca.gov/news/carlsbad-constructing-north-countys-first-coastal-roundabout
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"There is nothing good about five roundabouts bunched together at Bird Rock. Driving through there is a claustrophobic nightmare."
ReplyDeleteI couldn't find a claustrophobic Birdrock nightmare on youtube, just these kudos (save for one stubborn but lovable lady):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQki1Aecktk
"The two at Hermes and Hymettus are unnecessary."
It's was stopping your car every time at those intersections and making everyone behind you stop that was unnecessary.
Residents west of 101 and north of Leucadia blvd do not all live 6/10 of a mile from Jupiter St. But currently ALL residents north of Beacons have to dodge 3 lanes of 35mph once they get to the hwy if they ever want to go north on 101. Unless of course they get creative making rights then U-turning. Sometimes that's quicker than going straight across the hwy, but it still makes each driver navigate 3 lanes of 35mph traffic no matter how you slice it right now.
If 50' x 80' is a substantial amount of commercial property and 16' x 33' of it is actually commercial, you may group me in with the folks you mentioned.
Mr. Marvin and Mr. Harrison are also among few property owners here who instead of scraping and rebuilding 101 have cared enough to beautifully restore and enhanced their vintage buildings from the 1920's to the tune of one hell of a lot of money. What makes you think they do not want the best for Leucadia?
Not selling roundabouts here. Just defending them while I patiently wait for them to arrive. And a bit jealous Carlsbad beat us to the punch, but good for them!
Fred, go see bird rock for yourself. Just do it, already.
DeleteRoundabouts work. If the people of Coronado can drive them so can Leucadians. No excuses, make it happen.
DeletePS- I hate stop lights and stop signs. Nothing like burning fuel going nowhere.
Where are there roundabouts in Coronado?
DeleteI'll check Google Maps to see if I can find them.
I've been to Bird Rock, they work.
Deletebirdrock roundabouts work great. Encinitas roundabouts at Sante Fe and Leucadia Blvd. work great. So will the ones on Carlsbad Blvd. and our main street.
DeleteThe only thing that doesn't work well with Roundabouts is Lynn's flawed logic.
Oh look Lynn finally woke up…. here comes all her BS that makes no sense.
The 10 year traffic data for the Hermes and Leucadia Blvd. intersection didn't justify a roundabout there. The data was provided through the Traffic Commission, through our City Traffic Engineers.
ReplyDeleteFour one lane roundabouts won't work on Historic State Highway 101. Many people are not happy about the Birdrock Roundabouts. Some apparently are, but they were all pushed by developers, especially.
Notice how a big high density residential project went in on Hermes, now, after the pre-existing affordable housing was razed?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-feldman-santa-monica-bicycles-20140126,0,5387711.story#axzz2sKxBe1QI Teresa linked this L.A. Times article in her newsletter this week.
"Like" isn't really a good barometer. "Work" makes more sense. The Hermes and Hymettus roundabouts "work" because they slow people down and provide better access for all cars.
DeletePeople don't "like" that because they'd "like" to scream down to the stop sign at 50 mph.
Lynn's flawed logic.
DeleteFacts are that the roundabouts on Leucadia Blvd. make neighborhood safer and more aesthetically pleasing while calming traffic speeds.
The new densities would have and will continue to happen with or without roundabouts. No connection Lynn.
Here's a comment following the article, above:
ReplyDeleteRichard Hall2 at 9:26 AM January 28, 2014
"We are facing similar trials here in Marin County with radical plans to urbanize our small towns. People don't realize we are going through an irreversible period where Smart Growth is being powered through, this video explains our situation in Marin:
THE STORY OF HOW MARIN WAS RUINED
http://youtu.be/qu8DBPx03T8
What people may not also realize is that with the passage of Senate Bill 743 anywhere within 1/2 mile of a high frequency bus stop now qualifies as a "Transit Priority Area" or TPA(thanks for nothing Senator Steinberg - your construction campaign donors really won there!).
What does this mean? It means that the neighborhood can have hig density housing planned while disregarding impact on delaying vehicular traffic. (The EIR and citys General Plan can still consider it but it becomes more discretionary, using CEQA as a defense goes away!).
In a TPA any CEQA review can completely disregard traffic "Level of Service" which is being replaced by this methodology (draft) which focuses exlusively on impact to transit, bike and pedestrian impact:
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/PreliminaryEvaluationTransportationMetrics.pdf
So when you wonder why Santa Monica narrowed it's arteries to cause gridlock thank Senator Darrell Steinberg and Senate Bill 743."
mg6ninety at 6:16 AM January 28, 2014
Delete"Someone should sue Santa Monica for violating the circulation element by reducing the number of lanes."
Honestly, Santa Monica had gridlock before they went with one way streets up there, but it didn't make it any better.
DeleteDifferent situation, with a lot more density, shopping, and out of town visitors.
Totally irrelevant about roundabouts.
DeleteLynn's arguments speak more against high density which I also do not like.
Stay on topic!! This posting is about Carlsbad and their brilliant plan for a roundabout to slow traffic and improve safety. Not about the People Republic of Santa Monica.
DeleteThe first phasing in of the four one-lane roundabouts, according to the City's website is the "lane diet," northbound lane elimination for motorists. That was done, a year ago, despite the fact that the California Coastal Commission and City staff strongly recommended that the lines be redrawn with two lanes northbound (Sharrows could be included). The CCC denied Encinitas an exemption for a Coastal Development Permit with respect to lane elimination, changing a four lane Major Roadway Arterial, primary circulation element to a three lane configuration.
DeleteIs Carlsbad's roundabout a one-lane roundabout? Inquiring minds want to know. Notice it doesn't have four roundabouts in a row, either. There is only ONE roundabout. Also, Carlsbad is paying its fairly new City Attorney something like $237,000 per year, now. So we should follow lock-step with Carlsbad?
If you think roundabouts are needed and wanted, and supported by the taxpayers, then you should be in favor of putting the question on the ballot. The "workshops" from 2008 were run by roundabout lobbyists. Their data was incomplete and inconsistent, not well quatified and qualified, and is therefore statistically invalid. Plus, the workshops are now outdated. Let the people vote, as was allowed in Del Mar. With the exception of Fred, most of the people supporting roundabouts, were AGAINST Prop A, because most of them are pro-development.
Dave Roberts told me that Solana Beach has had Prop T for twenty years, which is similar to Prop A. And Del Mar has a similar initiative. It's great that people get to vote on projects that will have a cost of $20 Million plus, and which would require Specific and General Plan amendments. In fact, because Level of Service at intersections with roundabouts is not evaluated the same way, roundabouts are tools to allow developers to bypass Coastal Act and CEQA law, by getting mitigated negative impact declarations.
Flawed logic. Just like your rambling illogic.
DeleteBla, Blah, blah….
Deletesay something interesting or half true for once.
Santa Monica is comparable because it reduced its lanes for motorists from four lanes, just as is being proposed for Oceanside, now, on Coast Highway, down to two lanes, cutting the traffic capacity in half, increasing the time required to get from Point A to Point B, so much that during peak periods, traffic is practically at a standstill, which equals gridlock.
DeleteBy funneling traffic through four one-lane roundabouts beginning on El Portal, through Leucadia on Highway 101, the City would be forcing motorists down from four lanes on Historic State Highway 101, down to one lane northbound, and one southbound. Also, we have already had northbound lane elimination prematurely forced on us, despite the Coastal Commission's and City staff's recommendations to redraw the lines after the slurry seal with two lanes northbound and two lanes southbound, but with Sharrows allowed, both northbound AND southbound.
Please read Ken Leighton's column, Inside Oceanside, "Make your voice heard, from January 31, In the Coast News, Page A4.
Nearly his entire column, last week, and part of his column this week, is dedicated to the inadvisability of Oceanside's "Coast Highway Vision and Strategic Plan." Quoting Mr. Leighton:
"It was a well intentioned initiative [not a ballot initiative] first presented in 2009 [The economy had dumped; I think Oceanside, Encinitas, and many other cities were scrambling to boost our local economies by local make-work, public works projects] that basically says we can make your legendary 3.1-mile stretch of Coast Highway better by reducing its utility by 50 percent.
Those of us who live near it know this major thoroughfare is always packed with cars during daylight hours. It's there for locals who prefer to use Highway 101 [in Leucadia, many locals have no choice but to egress there home, using 101] rather than Interstate 5. It's always chock full of cars. And now your city controllers want to reduce its ability to carry traffic by 50 percent.
That's right. Instead of two lanes northbound and two lanes southbound, the plan is cut its primary utility in half. Instead of four lanes there will be two; one northbound, one southbound."
Ooops! Another correction:
Delete[in Leucadia, resident motorists have no choice but to egress their homes, when heading anywhere east of PCH, by traveling on 101]
9:21, specious arguments do not sell.
ReplyDeleteWe're talking about four one-lane roundabouts in a four-lane highway. Three of the four would be bunched together in a half-mile at the north end of the proposed project. The fourth would be 1.2 miles south of the southernmost of the other three.
The four one-laners would be essentially the same size as the two on Leucadia Blvd. They would cost about $1 million each to install.
Does any of that really make sense to you proponents?
7:58 said residents west of 101 and north of Leucadia Blvd. would have to drive "up to" 6/10 of a mile on Neptune to get to Jupiter. That does include everybody in that geography.
Pick up the challenge. Commission the survey. Find out if the majority of Leucadia residents want four one-lane roundabouts placed on 101 as proposed.
Logic would probably dictate that you may want to commission that survey, since right now the roundabouts are slated to go in.
DeleteAgain, "Want" and "Like" don't equal "Work". Fred's pretty much listed the points that spell out why it should happen, what are your 5 bullet points on why it shouldn't?
Yes. The roundabouts planned on Hwy 101 will work great and I look forward to seeing more signals replaced with roundabouts throughout town.
DeleteThe four one-lane roundabouts will NOT replace signals. More specious arguments.
DeleteThere is already back-up, both northbound and southbound at Highway 101 and Leucadia Blvd. during peak periods. That traffic signal at Leucadia Blvd. will NOT be eliminated with roundabouts
There is no need for a roundabout at El Portal and 101, no justification by collision statistics detailing a three year study, as presented in Staff's 7/18/12 Agenda Report. That proposed roundabout, to be installed first, WITHOUT ANY justification, other than the grading makes it easier to do so, there, would be between a stop sign at Marcheta and the traffic signal at Leucadia Blvd., which is ill advised.
There is NO GUARANTEE that the stop sign at Marcheta would be eliminated, just as the stop sign at Hygeia was never eliminated, because Phase 2 of the Leucadia Blvd roundabouts NEVER HAPPENED.
I don't see Fred's bullet points on this thread.
Here's five reasons four one-lane roundabouts aren't advisable here, through Leucadia, on 101:
1. Four one lane roundabouts would further bottleneck traffic on a Major Roadway Arterial down to one lane northbound and one lane southbound, causing gridlock during peak periods.
2. Roundabouts, nationwide, statistically have not proven to be safer for bicyclists. There are more collisions involving bicyclists in intersections with roundabouts than before roundabouts were installed at the same intersections. Roundabouts would be particularly unsafe for bicyclists since one lane northbound and one southbound would have to be shared with cars.
3. Most importantly, to the CCC, and to residents adjacent to 101, roundabouts would negatively impact coastal access/egress during peak traffic periods, including seasonal periods such as Spring Break, Summer Race Track and Fair seasons, and Winter Holidays. This coastal access/egress is negatively impacted because of the traffic congestion and the reduced level of service during peak periods.
4. Traffic congestion during peak periods would create more cut through traffic racing through residential neighborhoods. Anecdotal evidence, from my walking our dog, daily, suggests to me that there is already increased traffic since the northbound lane elimination. Cut through traffic is a health and safety issue, as Vulcan is a school zone, and Neptune and feeder streets west of Hwy 101 are used by joggers, pedestrians, dog walkers, people pushing strollers, bicyclists, skateboarders, in-line skaters, kids playing ball. Neptune is recreational, and is the primary access to Stonesteps, Beacon Beach and Grandview. People living west of 101, MUST use 101 to leave the Coast. The fact that traffic before lane elimination was ONLY monitored for the month of late September through late October 2012, shows a seemingly intentional plan by staff NOT to include peak traffic periods, thereby attempting to minimize the appearance of negative impacts of cut through traffic on Neptune and Vulcan, during peak periods.
5. More traffic congestion during peak periods would further reduce already subpar emergency response time to northwest Encinitas, that is, along the coast in Leucadia.
1.) Research has shown that roundabouts keep traffic flowing at a consistent rate, eliminating some of the backup with stop signs.
Delete2.) I'd have to see the statistics. Biking is a dangerous pursuit with our without roundabouts. Doors, left turns, bikes not stopping, it's hard to say. It would slow down traffic, which overall is a plus for bikes.
3.) Is CCC Coastal commission? Right now, traffic backed up on Leucadia Blvd. would slow down access. I'd have to see stats/percentages on how it would slow down access the beach. It's a question of time/car trips/critical mass at certain times of year, with or w/o roundabouts.
4.) There's already cutthrough traffic in Leucadia, everywhere you can cut through. Hence the signs in the Pannikin neighborhood. To me, that's an issue of freeway travellers bailing off the 5 during the summer or an accident. What we need is to let them know that the 101 is always slower, which it is now.
I think by adding the roundabouts, if the perception is that it's slower, or less of a speedway, you eliminate some car trips, not the reverse. People speed on Vulcan, Orpheus and Neptune now.
5.) What are the baseline response times in the rest of the city and/or nationwide? Where's the data detailing a slowdown in response times because of roundabouts? I know the Fire guys have said this for years, but have never seen any data backing it up.
"The four one-lane roundabouts will NOT replace signals. More specious arguments."
DeleteFour roundabouts will PREVENT signals and will remove over 20 stops. You really want to see the long list of bullet point advantages again? Let's save some electricty. But regarding five reasons Roundabouts here would be bad:
1. Your claim they'll create bottlenecking and gridlock. Contrarily, the will aid circulation. That's what happens when you kill 23 stops. Back ups have always happened on 101 at certain times at Leucadia Blvd and Marcheta. But are not and will never be ANYTHING like backups on several other arterial roads in town. The reason is because we only have 4 stops along 101. Encinitas Blvd, Leucadia Blvd and El Camino Real have many many more.
2. Not what I read from the US Dept of Transportation. And which champion of bicycle safety complains when bike paths were finally installed on 101? There are far less potential vehicle conflict points at roundabouts than there are at traditional intersections i.e.
More than 90% reduction in fatalities
76% reduction in injuries
35% reduction in all crashes
Slower speeds are generally safer for everyone
3. Contrary to your claim, Roundabouts increse the level of service for roads and will get people from point A to B in less time.
4. Neptune is not a prefered route to 101 for cut through traffic. It only goes north for one thing, and alleged "back up traffic" from the new one lane moves along just fine at peak hours. But from walking your dog on Neptune, you've already noticed increased cut-through traffic since the northbound lane elimination.? That would mean you walk your dog north of Beacons which is great for you and your dog, but I'd like a little more science than hearsay if you're going to make such a bold claim. Like, how many more cars per dog trip exactly? And by what method can you assess who's making Neptune a "shortcut". Shortcut to what - the heaviest part of alleged gridlock at Grandview? Doesn't make any sense to me.
5. We have an excellent response time for emergency vehicles compared to most places. STOPS and more STOPS are the real culprits that exacerbate response times.
The bicycle lanes installed on 101 are far different than what would happen through the four one lane roundabouts. The bicyclists would have to funnel through them, too.
DeleteYour percentages are meaningless without the raw data, and because you are comparing apples to oranges. We do not have an issue with pedestrian fatalities along North Highway 101, that I have ever seen published. The statistics through the city show that collisions with another car, bicyclists, or pedestrians, any types of collisions are LESS for the intersections where one-lane roundabouts are planned than for similar intersections, statewide. Traffic calming devices, including stop signs or signals are not needed.
During peak traffic periods, people would have to stop to turn onto 101, from the side streets, where you claim 23 stop signs would be eliminated? You cannot count eliminating the stop signs at Marcheta, until that is actually done. So what are the other stop signs you are claiming would be eliminated? I personally don't believe the traffic signal at La Costa will be eliminated, permanently.
But we are talking about four one-lane roundabouts. How can those involve elimination of 20 or more stop signs? The stop signs will be replaced by yield signs, at which people will still have to stop during peak periods, PERIOD!
People HAVE TO STOP, because during peak periods, motorists traveling north/south often would not yield to traffic coming onto the highway, particularly because we have no actual cross streets, only three way intersections where the one-lane roundabouts are proposed.
2:14, I'd like more SCIENCE too, because the City FAILED to measure during peak seasonal periods, before (and after) lane elimination. I have ridden my bike many times north of Beacons, all the way to Grandview and back. I've also walked past Beacons, as well, but not as often.
How often are you riding your bike or walking on Neptune? I only offered my observation because of the City's failure to provide meaningful data, by accurate monitoring.
Mark Muir, former Fire Chief, now Councilmember, asked that Council set a future Agenda item to put the issue of roundabouts on the ballot for the General Election in November. He tacitly recognizes that we have SUBPAR emergency response times on the Coast, in Leucadia, as can be seen through the Fire Dept.'s charts and records, and that four one-lane roundabouts would further slow emergency response time. Eliminating stop signs is irrelevant to a speeding fire truck or paramedics, or a Sheriff. They don't have to stop, anyway, except if their progress is impeded by people "frozen" in roundabouts, and also by the physical constraints of the roundabouts themselves, slowing down the emergency response teams, considerably.
12:40
DeleteAh, to have words placed in my mouth I never said. I never said 23 stop signs will be removed. I said 23 stops. Those include regular stops, left turns and U-turns. 1 stop SIGN stops traffic from flowing 3 different directions at many of these current stops. If you think I'm using gobbledygook semantics, don't stop and see what happens next time you have to make a left or a U-turn at those locations. Additionally only 8 of those stops on side streets will be removed, where also 4 opportunities will be added to make U-turns where now you cannot.
Yes, during peak periods people will have to stop from side streets as they do right now. But only until there is no one in the circle to their left. Now you must wait till there's three lanes clear to complete a left turn. In the future you will not and you'll like it better.
Actually I can count the stops at Marcheta and I have. And if you choose to believe the stop lights lights at La Costa will not be eliminated (without supplying any raw data btw), that's your right, but those lights and the signs on 101 at Marcheta are coming down according to the city and that happens to be a very good thing.
"The stop signs will be replaced by yield signs, at which people will still have to stop during peak periods, PERIOD!"
I agree. At peak periods we'll all have to stop PERIOD - until the moment the circle is clear to the left. There are always gaps and that's exactly how people get on the hwy right now. But the vast majority of the time one will not have to stop at all. Makes me wonder how much time, gas and money the two roundabouts on Leucadia Blvd have saved people to date. But that's something intangible and so obviously unappreciated by those who cannot add.
I don't walk, drive or bike much on Neptune (so you'll like that little non-cut-through traffic aspect of my life). I am fortunate enough to be able to walk many miles now without stopping since my last surgery 5 years ago and go to a gym 4 days a week. Before then I couldn't walk 50 feet. That sucked!!!! Moral of that story is exercise more, eat less junk and don't chase thieves with knives down the street. And back to the subject. The great thing about treadmills at 24 hr fitness is that they don't have to stop moving either.
So your observations are meaningful data, but you have no counts to show and won't say how you determined "more cut through traffic on Neptune since the lane elimination"? Fine.
Also sounds like you're putting words into Mr. Muirs mouth he didn't say like our response system here is "SUBPAR". Roundabouts will not "considerably" slow down response times, but prevent more backups from more signaled intersections being installed on N 101.
BTW, 12:40, Please don't address me by my time. I have a name.
Then you are being intentionally tricky. Because you know that you are trying to make it sound as though 23 stop signs will be eliminated. You cannot count each of the four way intersections as people having to stop to turn left or right or make a u-turn. You cannot expect people to buy into your concept of eliminating five stops per intersection with a one lane roundabout, especially because you cannot guarantee that those yielding would not have to come to a complete stop during peak periods.
DeleteWhen traffic is very heavy, during peak periods, all of those people would have to stop, anyway, or come almost to a dead stop, which is like a ripple in a pond, which causes stops and back-up, for motorists waiting being the person attempting to turn, or go straight forward.
The Fire Dept. has admitted, through its monitoring, and its charts, shown at several public hearings, which Mark Muir, as Chief, has acknowledged are correct, that emergency response times are below the 5 minute desired standard along parts of the Coast in Leucadia.
I didn't say Mark Muir said roundabouts would considerably slow down response times, but I feel that Mark Muir has tacitly acknowledged that by being the one to suggest a public vote. If you see how fast squad cars or ambulances now go down the highway, when there isn't a lot of traffic on the road, you would realize, they would have to slow down, considerably, to get through a few roundabouts, safely on their way to an accident victim, or on their way the hospital. You are being selfish if you can't comprehend that.
Fred, I had asked you to leave my name out of it, so I was doing the courtesy of leaving your name out of it, too. But if you like seeing your name in my comments, I'm happy to oblige.
Fred, there are always gaps, but sometimes people have to wait about five minutes for one, like the street by the Post Office. There are LESS gaps for people turning left from west of 101 since northbound lane elimination.
I have provided you with statistics and law, as well as my personal observations. It is the City that FAILED to monitor or have monitored the peak season cut through traffic on Neptune and Vulcan or the seasonal traffic on 101 from Encinitas Blvd. to La Costa BEFORE Lane Elimination, OR AFTER. The months of October 2012 and 2013 are the only months that were monitored. Actually, the end of Sept. until the end of October for both 2012 & 2013.
Don't get on me about trying to share my personal experience, that I am observing more cut through traffic. Leucadia Neighbors also monitored, and cut through traffic had increased. Talk to Bob Aronin for the specifics. The official statistics should come from City Engineers, who have provided insufficient and inconclusive data, it would seem intentionally so.
Fred, a stop is a stop, whether one is going to turn left or make a u-turn. You say, "1 stop SIGN stops traffic from flowing 3 different directions at many of these current stops. If you think I'm using gobbledygook semantics, don't stop and see what happens . . . " You ARE using gobbledygook semantics. A STOP IS A STOP, NO MATTER WHICH WAY ONE IS TURNING, and you know it.
DeleteA lot of this is really about u-turn lanes. I had proposed that some of the intersections should have a short "lane diet" for through traffic, to allow for a left had turn or u-turn lane. I honestly think adding one stop sign at Grandview, as I saw, through a CPRA request, the Board of Directors for the L101MA. in 2007, had petitioned the City for, with a u-turn lane there, would be far better than adding four one-lane roundabouts.
At Part B of the Peltz and Associate 1st workshop, on 2/23/2008, there was NOT enthusiastic support for ANY of the roundabouts except the Grandview roundabout. But every roundabout about which there was ANY conversation, was included in the "design charrette" discussion and subsequent recommendations based on an unknown number of participants who stayed to discuss locations after the roundabout "walkabout" field trip. A roundabout at Marcheta and 101 was also discussed, but that was later ruled out by Diane Langager, from Planning, who said there were grading and flooding issues there, and at A St. and 101.
In other words SEVEN roundabouts were discussed, and all were "recommended" as having "some support." Again, there was only so-called "enthusiastic support," for ONE roundabout at Grandview, although that qualification of "enthusiastic" was not quantified. How just talking about SEVEN roundabouts morphed into the City's approving five roundabouts is absurd. It WASN'T based on an actual needs assessment or logic, or quantified, verified data.
I am NOT the one who needs to present my facts in opposition. The City has FAILED to present facts to support its arguments in favor of these so-called "traffic calming devices." The City has FAILED to show they are wanted, needed, or that they would CALM TRAFFIC during peak periods.
The burden of proof is on the City, not me. They are basing a $20 Million plus project on speculation and conjecture, just like the City's arguments against Prop A were based on speculation and conjecture, which turned out to be FALSE!
12:10"A STOP IS A STOP, NO MATTER WHICH WAY ONE IS TURNING, and you know it."
DeleteThat's exactly what I've been saying. But a stop sign makes ONE stop for traffic going 3 different directions many times. EACH of those directions then count as a clog. When that ONE stop is removed, so is the requirement to stop for all of it's three options to travel. Let me spell it out...
a: I want to turn left. There's A stop sign. I have to slow down and stop
b: I want to go straight ahead. There's that same stop sign. I have to slow down and stop.
c: I want to make a U-turn. There's that same stop sign. I have to slow down and stop.
VS
d: There's a roundabout and I have to slow down. Its clear for me to go (like most other times) and I can go any direction I want to now without stopping.
Conclusion: The roundabout has eliminated mandatory stopping most of the time for 23 distincly different directions of travel. i.e. the roundabouts here will remove mandatory stops for 23 directions. Count em.
"Then you are being intentionally tricky"
Not tricky in the least. I've always maintained that there will be 13 physcal mandatory stop signs/lights removed, and that that equates to stopping for people going over 20 different directions. That's not trickery. It's indisputably true. Stops clog arteries.
the roundabouts work greatly in Birdrock, will work great on Carlsbads stretch of old Hwy101 and will work great on ours as well.
DeleteAll's good except Lynn's bogus arguments.
Many people disagree that the roundabouts are working great in Birdrock. Someone's stating over and over that they are doesn't prove a thing, especially since it's always the same anonymous poster.
DeleteWe know from your repeated posts that you are pushing roundabouts here, by how great they supposedly work in La Jolla. But those Birdrock roundabouts are NOT for three way intersections. Those are NOT roundabouts adjacent to a RR Right of Way. Those are NOT on a former four lane roadway, a Major Arterial, Historic State Highway 101, for which, according to our General and Specific Plans and our Local Coastal Programs, Amendments are required, in addition to a Coastal Development permit and Design reivew, BEFORE lane elimination or installation of any roundabouts.
Fred, you logic is all wrong, because it assumes that with roundabouts, stops will always be eliminated. Stops will NOT be eliminated during peak traffic periods, when Highway 101 becomes clogged with traffic, because people wanting to enter roundabouts from west of 101 would have to come to a complete stop, in order to yield to the traffic in the roundabout, which would be constant.
Can you understand that? Many times, now, on Leucadia Blvd., people have to come to a complete stop in order to yield to traffic in the roundabouts. Go look for yourself. And check out Highway 101, north of A street and south of Leucadia Blvd. for yourself, and read the 7/18/12 staff report for the CC Meeting agenda, to see the back-up documented, by the City, for yourself.
For all of those scenarios one would have to stop with or without roundabouts when traffic is heavy, because the roundabouts become clogged, and people do not know how to yield, or do not have the patience to yield. If motorists are already in roundabouts, they do not have to yield, the person approaching the intersection from the side street portion of the T intersection would have to STOP in order to yield.
DeleteAll of your stopping situations are based on the hypothetical that there is a stop sign in place. There are currently NO north/south stop signs at the four intersections where the one-lane roundabouts are proposed. So people wishing to turn left, or trying to make a u-turn, don't have to stop there, either, except to yield. We should not have unwanted roundabouts forced upon us because a few biased business and commercial property owners are afraid that more stop signs or stop signals "could someday be installed."
We get it that you prefer roundabouts to stop signs, but that is not our choice, here. And you have not proven that eliminating stop signs from side streets west of 101, for four one-lane roundabout intersections, would actually result in a net DECREASE in STOPS during peak periods, or that roundabouts would not result in causing MORE stop and go traffic during peak periods.
People "yielding" before turning right or left onto the highway from west of 101, would have to stop anyway, much or most of the time. Because one cannot just plow into the intersection, even at only 15 MPH, when there is oncoming traffic approaching, or within the intersection from Highway 101, either northbound or southbound.
Again, you are comparing eliminating stops as though there are already northbound/southbound stop signs on the highway, which there are not, on 101, north of A Street, to La Costa, except at Marcheta, which stop sign I would NOT want eliminated.
Marcheta and 101 is the place, because the tracks are more "at grade" and there is no drainage ditch on the east side of the RR tracks, where many people cross the tracks, and go on to cross Highway 101.
Just as the stop sign was NOT removed at Hygeia and Leucadia Blvd., because Phase Two of the Leucadia Blvd. Roundabouts was never completed, there is NO guarantee that the Marcheta stop sign would or should be removed.
Your logic is all based on what you want to believe, not on what has been and what is. There is no need for "traffic calming devices" at the intersections where four one-way roundabouts are to be installed according to the City's Crash Stats from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011, as I previously demonstrated, through the 7/18/12 Agenda Report which I before linked.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI fail to understand why you think it would be better for your daughter to make lefts onto 101 with more lanes and faster traffic than there needs to be. Much less campaign against safety for all.
ReplyDeleteI hate wasting life sitting at red lights.
ReplyDeleteI also hate seeing people slaughtered by drivers blowing through all way stops and T-boning others in the intersections.
Please install more roundabouts and let Lynn and other illogical people figure out how to yield before they drive any more.
I hate that you hate so much, 8:19. Statistically, collisions at the intersections where roundabouts are proposed on 101, through Leucadia, do not justify installation of roundabouts.
DeleteNo one likes to see people slaughtered. But the scenario you are describing "people slaughtered by drivers blowing through all way stops and T-boining others in the intersections," has never happened at the intersections where the four one-lane roundabouts are planned. For one thing, NONE of those intersections have all way stops.
More specious arguments. I know how to yield. Leave my name out of it, because that is another fallacious ad hominem attack, which only serves to demonstrate you cannot argue logically.
Because the facts don't support you, you rely on rhetoric, hyperbole, and character attack. You further defeat your own purpose with your twisted logic and mean-spirited personal attacks.
I like that you hate what I say… you have zero common sense.
DeleteBesides improving safety, efficiency and aesthetics, roundabouts are also great opportunities for more public art. check this out:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/cultural/Documents/Roundabout-Call-for-Artists-Rfq.pdf
We could have a beautiful artscape, a greenscape, while preserving and enhancing our canopy, WITHOUT four one-lane roundabouts and lane elimination on a Major Roadway arterial.
Delete8:23, are you our new Communications Specialist, trying to hype roundabouts? We can have public art alongside the highway without four one-lane roundabouts bottlenecking traffic down to one lane in each direction.
There is no evidence that here, on 101, through Leucadia, that roundabouts would improve safety or efficiency. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that they would exacerbate health and safety concerns with more cut through traffic and slower emergency response times.
Moreover, roundbouts are not necessary to improve aesthetics. Public art opportunities abound WITHOUT four one-lane roundabouts.
Traffic gridlock and increasing congestion, loss of life caused by slower emergency response times, is ugly.
I'm hoping to eliminate congestion, preserve life and cut exhaust. Car trips are only going to be added to the area, we have to have a mechanism to regulate speed and to my mind, discourage some trips. The 101 is still a bailout for the 5, everyone who's ever commuted knows this. Roundabouts are one way to discourage this...
DeleteRoundabout eliminate the gridlock. Get your facts straight Lynn.
DeleteConverting the currently dangerous roadway is a great thing.
When I-5 is slowed down, or as happens sometimes, stopped, people will continue to get off the freeway. But those people living west of 101 have to us the highway, at least temporarily for commuting.
DeleteLane elimination, such as in Santa Monica, does NOT eliminate gridlock. How would that happen? Traffic is already backing up between the stop sign at Marcheta and 101 and the traffic signal at Leucadia Blvd. Traffic is already backing up, during peak periods, turning east onto Leucadia Blvd, because of the train tracks in such close proximity to the train tracks, where they are NOT recommended by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation.
Highway 101 is not currently dangerous, because statistics show that the intersections there, including where roundabouts are planned, have less accidents than similar intersections Statewide, according to City Engineers' 7/18/12 staff report.
North Highway 101 is also less dangerous because the speed limit has already been reduced to 35 MPH.
Roundabouts would not eliminate congestion during peak periods. There is no evidence that they would reduce the number of collisions. There was one death at the roundabout on Santa Fe. Collisions at intersections with roundabouts in our city and others have increased at those intersections where roundabouts are installed.
Because congestion would increase, so would cut through traffic. Emergency response time would be further slowed. There is evidence they would be a dangerous threat to health and safety, the OPPOSITE of preserving life.
Because bottlenecking four lanes to two lanes, one lane northbound and one southbound, would absolutely increase traffic congestion during peak seasonal periods, they would NOT cut exhaust. The four one-lane roundabouts would NOT reduce stops for those travelling north/south on 101, but would add to stop and go traffic as motorists are funneled into one lane roundabouts, one after another, at 15 MPH. People stop all the time, now, for the Leucadia roundabouts. It's not just about some people not understanding how to yield; it's also about not trusting that another car is going to yield . . .
Your making unilateral statements of opinion do not make your opinions factually accurate. Quite the contrary, you don't back up your opinions with any reports or facts. Roundabouts don't eliminate gridlock. Leave my name out of it and get your facts straight, 12:50.
Stopping creates gridlock. Removing stops aids circulation. Period.
DeleteYou may be right, Fred, but you can't guarantee putting in four one lane roundabouts at three way intersections will not INCREASE stops, as four lanes are bottlenecked into two lanes, during peak periods. Look what happened in New Jersey with "bridge-gate." That was about lane elimination, too, which roundabouts would cause, permanently. Period.
DeleteHey, I meant to say, above:
Traffic is already backing up, during peak periods, turning east onto Leucadia Blvd, because of the roundabouts there in such close proximity to the train tracks, where they are NOT recommended by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation.
An earlier string explored the concept of always questioning motives, as they are the foundation in arriving at an opinion. It is clear that Lynn is opposed to roundabouts. It is also clear that Lynn is opposed to any type of development that damages or irrevocably changes community character. Since it appears that the installation of roundabouts can indirectly facilitate community development, it follows that Lynn must oppose one if she is to oppose another. Any wavering on roundabouts is a de facto wavering in allowing changes to community character. One has to wonder what Lynn's opinion of roundabouts would be if they were not linked to development. I have to assume that she would be far more open minded in considering their relative merits! I, for one, love roundabouts. I really wish they would install them on RSF Rd north of Encinitas Blvd., but there's just not enough land to pull it off.
ReplyDelete- The Sculpin
Good point, I'm trying to be respectful of opinions, but I do wonder what the real root of Lynn's personal objection is to roundabouts is. It's obviously connected to developments somewhat, but there has to be more to it.
DeleteShe is entitled to her opinion, but there is certainly a lot of information that points to the efficacy of roundabouts, whereas what we have now is unsafe and prone to bottlenecks.
I guess my question is, what about roundabouts is NOT an improvement...
Here's what's NOT an improvement about roundabouts:
DeleteMore cut through traffic through our residential/recreational neighborhoods. Some people are only worried about cut through traffic from I-5. They don't care about the inevitable cut through traffic through our residential streets adjacent to 101.
Slowing down already subpar emergency response times
More gridlock during peak traffic periods, especially when there is an accident or closure on I-5.
Roundabouts go hand in hand with "lane diets," lane eliminations for motorists. Roundabouts are not recommended near railway corridors by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, partially because they are only recommended where cross-street traffic is nearly equal to the main thoroughfare. The four one-lane roundabouts are "T" intersections with NO cross street traffic, because of the RR tracks.
Roundabouts do facilitate high density development, which is not in alignment with positive changes to community character. I am not against any changes to community character, only ones that detract from our quality of life and our community heritage. Roundabouts allow developers to more easily apply for and receive mitigated negative environmental impact declarations for their high density projects, because Level of Service (LOS) is basically "overlooked" at intersections with roundabouts.
Intersections with roundabouts, particularly one lane roundabouts, are more dangerous for bicyclists than the same intersections before roundabouts were installed.
Also, the eight foot wide bicycle lane on North 101, which is part of the lane diet phasing in of roundabouts, is not necessary. According to Sheriff Captain Haley, ALL vehicles, including bicycles, are to travel single file within their lanes, including bicycles in bicycle lanes, or sharrows, except when passing. This is also proscribed by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Moreover, because of this unnecisarily wide bike lane, which is NOT separated from the highway, as recommended, the Class One Bicycle lane, which is separated, and planned in the RR Right of Way will be stopping at G Street. There are no immediate plans to use TransNet taxes all the way to La Costa, as was planned through the Bicycle Masterplan Update on January 17, 2013, and put off, with respect to Council's approval, indefinitely, by Gus Vina, after it was placed on a CC Meeting agenda, then cancelled without explanation, after already being published in the Coast News. Bicyclists and pedestrians would benefit from the rail trail corridor lanes, but because of the premature lane elimination, northbound, lacking a mandatory Coastal Development Permit, we now aren't getting our Class One bike lane through Leucadia in the foreseeable future.
Roundabouts are not needed or wanted by the vast majority of people who live adjacent to Highway 101. You roundabout proponents got three roundabouts approved on Leucadia Blvd. One was at Hermes, where collisions did not justify a "traffic calming" device. Now there's an ugly high density development that was installed there, with no need for an EIR, with respect to added traffic. That roundabout project was also pushed as beautification. But the promised landscaping and sidewalks were to be part of Phase Two, which was to include the elimination of the stop sign at Hygeia, to be replaced by another roundabout. That never happened. Instead we have a roundabout, a stop sign, and another roundabout, at Hermes, as one travels west. Promises were not kept.
Regardless of your unverified, anonymous anecdotal evidence about people speeding on Leucadia Blvd, there were little or NO accidents at Hermes and Leucadia Blvd. in the 10 year period before roundabouts were installed on Leucadia Blvd.
In the L.A. Times link I posted, people were complaining that lanes eliminated for cars, and high density development had made it so it now takes an hour to go eight miles on those streets with "lane diets." People were avoiding the area, including the mom and pop stores.
DeleteWhen taking a road trip, North, it took us over an hour to go about six miles one time on 101 through Santa Barbara, and there was no accident!
Another reason that roundabouts would not be an improvement is because there has been no independent needs assessment. The best assessment would be a public vote, to see if LOCALS do need or want roundabouts. Forcing roundabouts on a population that doesn't want them could NOT be an improvement. We should be allowed to vote on a project that is projected to cost $20 Million plus. Direct democracy worked for Prop A, and it would work for deciding the question of the benefits, to the majority of residents, of roundabouts.
Until fairly recently, Santa Barbara had stoplights through town on the 101. In the last 10 years, they finally made it a freeway through town.
DeleteEr, but isn't there already a ton of cut through traffic to Neptune? You're correct, any time the 5 is backed up, you will have traffic on the HWY. In the summer, on a Friday, I have seen it backed up almost to La Costa from the light at Leucadia.
DeleteRoundabouts probably won't change that amount of volume in that instance, although they may deter some people just because they know they're there.
I would have to see causality on roundabouts facilitating denser development, ie somewhere in California where roundabouts have come in, followed by more density. Wouldn't local zoning still apply? I'd need a link on that one about the level of service, same goes with it being more dangerous for bikes, I'd need the data.
Again, it's already dangerous for bikes due to high speeds, so to my mind, bringing down speeds is always a plus.
I'd need to see a survey of everyone in that area described to believe people don't want roundabouts.
Actually, I never made a specific claim about accidents, and the street I was referencing was Hymettus. That's where in the old days, you had to drap strip it out into the intersection so you wouldn't get hit by someone coming west down Leucadia.
Now they have to slow down, and you can get in the circle and go East. Before, near impossible, tried it many times. Your thoughts??
Level of service, schmevel of service. The three story condos next to me were welcomed by 5 people on the Planning Commission. They have the final say so (barring appeal to council) and high density projects are decided by them, not roundabouts. We got our victory for high density with Prop A reducing it 30% by forbidding 3 stories without a public vote. Now, those still not wanting high density are blaming roundabouts for the threat. If there is adequate parking for a 2 story structure the problems associated with high density automatically dissapate. How many lots are developed that way depends on how many property owners want ot densify their land and the decisions of the Planning Commission, not roundabouts. There was no level of service issue for the developers of the 3 story condos on our corner and their buildings couldn't have been larger with a roundabout nearby. Their enormous lack of parking was waived by the Planning Commission and the project was given the green light. Their agreement to have handicapped parking was never provided either. So spare me the "roundabouts will increase high density" non-sense.
DeleteAmending part of what I just said, there are 2 condo projects on our corner. Only the corner one does not have handicapped parking.
DeleteThere is enough right of way.
ReplyDeleteRoundabouts are not tied to development. Just safer and more efficient roadways.
More of your unilateral statements, opinions not backed by facts. You are blowing hot air; cut the exhaust.
DeleteYou can spin your marketing jive till the cows come home, but you aren't convincing anyone.
Roundabouts are a form of development by public works. They are tied to development, also, because they allow developers to apply for and receive mitigated negative environmental impact declarations with respect to high density development adjacent to intersections with roundabouts.
The facts are more collisions have happened at intersections with roundabouts in Encinitas after the roundabouts were installed than before installation.
Same for Birdrock, although many of the minor collisions are not reported, as people don't want their insurance rates to go up.
Narrowing a four lane Highway, Major Roadway, primary circulation element arterial in the Coastal Zone, with Coastal access/egress issues to two lanes through four one lane roundabouts is NOT more efficient; nor is it safer, as I have set forth, in detail, above.
Right, but where is the data/facts? You can't just claim minor accidents aren't reported. They may be able to allow for that in the stats, but "I'd still have to see stats on the before and after for officer reported accidents.
DeleteI have no personal grudge here, I'm not a developer, I like the fact that roundabouts make travel possible and safer.
It used to be in the summer you could not turn left on Hermes from Leucadia, unless some kind soul left you a gap.
With the roundabout, you can always make the turn...
I never experienced not being able to make a left onto Hermes, before the roundabout. I know that traffic collision statistics did not justify one there.
DeleteI didn't say anything about unreported collisions, either. In fact there are more REPORTED collisions at intersections with roundabouts in Encinitas than at the same intersections before roundabouts were installed.
Well Lynn like may things your wrong.
DeleteSemi splits in two, leaves mess in Ashland Avenue roundabout.
ReplyDeleteSemi splits in two, leaves mess in Ashland Avenue roundabout
ReplyDeleteHate to ruin a good story but:
DeleteDE PERE - De Pere police believe alcohol was a factor in an unusual early morning crash in De Pere.
A semi trailer split in two, spilling its contents on the roadway.
It happened around 4 a.m. Friday near Ashland Avenue and Glory Road by the roundabout.
Police say the crash tied up traffic for several hours, disrupting the morning commute for many. It almost looked like piles of snow along the roundabout in De Pere early Friday morning. But those white mounds were actually shredded paper.
"A semi loaded with pulp paper was traveling southbound on Ashland, went into the western ditch, hitting an overhead light pole, shredding the trailer completely in half," said Jedd Bradley, De Pere community resource officer. Authorities say the driver continued on about 100 yards before crashing in the roundabout, spilling its contents along the way.
Several agencies had to be called in to help with the clean-up.
"It was pulp paper, which was distributed throughout Ashland Avenue and it was well over five hours to clean up the scene," said Bradley. Luckily, no one was injured. However, the crash did cause some delays.
"Like I said, we had to reroute traffic for rush hour traffic time, so a lot of people were inconvenienced this morning," said Bradley.
Police tell FOX 11 the driver was a 22-year-old man and that he was cited for an OWI, first offense. However, his name has not been released.
Lettering on the side of the truck indicated it was from GS Trucking based out of New London. The vice president of the company confirmed with FOX 11 it was one of their trucks. He told FOX 11 over the phone the company is handling the situation, but would not comment any further.
OWI = Operating While Impaired (intoxicated)
DeleteMany of the fatal collisions, which are rare, on our Highway, have involved alcohol. Just because alcohol was involved, doesn't mean that the fatality didn't happen! The one accident involving a bicyclist and a probably drunk hit and run driver, who came forward after he had sobered up, the next day, happened at 1 a.m., in April of 2011, when the driver drifted over into lane two, from lane one.
DeleteThis same accident was described over and over and over by out of area bicyclists whom had been rallied the evening before at Dudek, by L101MA to gang up against residents at the 1/30/13 CC Meeting. The bicyclists did not state their city, and did not state where and when and how the accident they kept describing too place. Council, when voting, for lane elimination for motorists, was not aware they were hearing the same accident described, repeatedly. Nor were the bicyclist club members asked to state their city of residence, as has been traditional.
Speakers don't HAVE to give this information; it's optional, but I have only seen one public speaker refuse to share, when asked, politely, PoliceWatch.org.
The death at the Santa Fe Roundabout also involved alcohol. The fact is, drunk driving can lead to fatalities, whether there are roundabouts or not.
However, when there is an emergency, you should see the Sheriff or the paramedics fly up or down Highway 101. They would not be able to do that with four one-lane roundabouts impeding their speeding to the rescue, and also impeding their trip back to the hospital. Although our emergency response time on the Coast in Leucadia is known to be subpar, according to the City's own statistics, the measurements taken are for how long it takes to arrive on scene. Not monitored is how long it takes the ambulance to get from the home, after picking up the victim, to the hospital.
11:56
DeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong. But it wasn't the next day. The driver that clipped and killed the cyclist in front of my shop didn't turn himself in for two weeks. His story was that he had heard the description of the truck that hit the man and that fragments of the headlight had identifed the year and make and they matched his truck so he reported it knowing he was also on 101 at that time. But that obviously didn't fly with the judge.
As likely at it may be, neither was there any admission or direct evidence that the man was intoxicated when he hit the cyclist on the darkest part of N. 101 where there was also NO bike lane on that part of the road designated at all when the accident occurred. No reports I've read said the man "drifted from lane one to lane two" - a claim I believe you made once before.
Prior to that event, there was no alcohol involved when a tourist had a head on collision with a local man killing him at Jason St. and 101. It was devestating to see his wife show up and kneel over over him helpless as he died. The two cars weren't even going over 40mph. But a former traffic engineer had taken down many of the One Way signs that were of course put there for good reason by County engineers. (He even said in the press after I mentioned that to a reorter: "We're not just going to have a knee-jerk reaction and put the One Way signs back up".)
The T-bone deaths/injuries incident from a driver going 85mph while southbound on 101 were caused when another driver with a car full of people attempted to make a left turn onto 101 to go north from Athena St.
If cyclists came from elsewhere and didn't mention where they were from, that wasn't their fault not knowing our tradition if it didn't get on the record. Neither was it requried for the cyclist to be an Encinitas resident to be killed. There is nothing wrong with you going to another city to complain about how dangerous their infrastructure is and not telling them where you're from. Especially if it wakes them up to change things for the better. I think you and I who were both at that council meeting both knew that Jim Swarzman was the cyclist that was killed. I think council collectively knew it as well. His name was mentioned more than once and his picture stayed up a long time.
The only emergency vehicles I've seen fly up 101 are LifeFlight helicopters and Sheriff squad cars. Larger land vehicles have to be more cautious and are harder to stop at high speeds. Next time you see an ambulance, firetruck or paramedic, don't mistake their siren for their speed. A lot of emergency vehicles flaunt the "law of due regard" and crash from speeding through red lights at intersections. (First link being the most unlikely!)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=130_1230643149
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHRVEEjSbMA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=I35EH3SC9fc&list=PLC5E9C09D6A22682E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVJu8mfszPk
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf2_1368881383
But the Fire Dept here agrees that roundabouts on 101 will barely make any difference in response times.
Sure, alcohol is probably responsible for most auto related deaths regardless how safe you try to make roads or vehicles. But while we're on the subject of roundabouts (we are?), Jim Swarzman's cycle death would probably not have been averted by roundabouts as there will be none in that location for Streetscape. Fortunately however, more streetlights and designated bike lanes ARE part of Streetscape for 101, and although that won't necessarily prevent drunks from killing people, those improvements will increase safety and be long awaited features realized. So thanks to the city for already lowering the speed limit and painting in bike lanes - so far!
In this day and age, getting to the person(s) in need is as much, if not more important, than getting them to the hospital. The priority is to get them stabilized. Here in Encinitas, because the ambulances are operated by a contractor, the ambulance shows up well after the paramedics.
DeleteSeveral days ago, walking along 101 I saw a responding fire truck heading north down Vulcan. I assumed it was a paramedic response. Several minutes later an ambulance passed by me on 101. I assumed it was responding to the same call.
It made me wonder that since the paramedics were on Vulcan and the ambulance was on 101, did they work from the same set of maps (digital)? Fire trucks have digital maps in the truck as well as GPS. What does the ambulance have?
It may be that since the ambulance was coming from south of Leucadia Blvd and the fire truck was coming from Orpheus that they were routed differently.
This is of particular concern in my neck of the woods. The addresses on Lone Jack are not very clear and for some are not a clear indication of where the house is. Some of the streets off of Lone Jack either don't show up on the GPS, or are incorrectly labeled. It's not uncommon for a resident to call 911, and then go wait at the closest clearly marked road and guide the personnel in. When the medical emergency is on a trail, then all bets are off.....
DeleteBefore the station was put in at the head of Lone Jack, this made the slow response time even worse. With the station, the personnel now drive the area more frequently and have become more familiar with the neighborhoods nuances. This is all a good thing.....thank you fellow Encinitans for sharing the burden of the costs......it's much appreciated!
- The Sculpin
Sculpin, in retrospect, don't you think it would have been better to connect Mountain Vista with 11th St with an emergency road instead of build a station? I think that block added 5 min. to Olivenhain response times.
DeleteYes. It also would have been better if they had built the station on the original land across from Little Oaks Park. If some of the development contemplated for east Fortuna or south of the water tower comes to fruition they're going to need it!!
Delete- The Sculpin
I'm not happy with the *implementation* of roundabouts in Encinitas so far, but the following data is pretty convincing w/ regard to safety.
ReplyDeleteSince the late 1990’s Carmel, IN (affluent suburb of Indianapolis) has been building and replacing signalized intersections with roundabouts. Carmel now has more than 60 roundabouts, more than any other city in the United States.
In Carmel, where roundabouts have replaced signals or stop signs at intersections, the number of injury accidents has been reduced by about 80 percent and the number of accidents overall by about 40 percent.
http://www.carmel.in.gov/index.aspx?page=123
Percentages mean nothing. Where is the raw data.
DeleteCarmel, IN
DeletePublished on Sep 15, 2013
Real Budget problem. Budget expenses Up, tax receipts down and Carmel Redevelopment Commission is out of control.
....and Gus had nothing to do with this??? Remarkable!
DeleteHe's too busy ruining Encinitas. Big changes at city hall. Achtung!
DeleteWith Mayor Teresa Barth as his aide-de-camp.
Yeah, 1:30,
DeleteI completely agree. Low signs and tall Semi's at roundabouts are a recipie for disaster. Oh yeah, everywhere else too as this youtube clip shows...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJiEjv71aec
3:38
Interesting about Carmel, IN, Rob. No idea anywhere in the US had that many R's.
I checked out the Carmel link. I wonder of Peltz and Associates and Dan Burden helped put together that marketing spin on the City's webpage? I know they admitted they went across the country lobbying for roundabouts, when I asked them, at the 2008 workshops. Oh there was one final workshop, where data was twisted in 2009, but this all happened about five years ago, or more, now, so the results of the biased workshops are outdated, in any case.
DeleteNone of the Carmel roundabouts that I could see are adjacent to a RR corridor. The demonstration the City of Carmel provides, shows a two lane roundabout, not four one lane roundabouts, and another roundabout at La Costa, where a traffic signal would probably also have to be included as part of the roundabout design. http://www.carmel.in.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=911
What is also strange about the plans for roundabouts beginning at El Portal, and on through Leucadia, on 101, is that there are so many in a row? And why are eight planned for Leucadia, and only one anywhere else in the City? Could it be that a great deal of high density development is planned for Leucadia, to Heck with our concerns about increasing gridlock or water shortages, rising water rates and rising transnet gas taxes?
Whether or not roundabouts are needed and appreciated in Carmel, they have a different situation there than Highway 101,through Leucadia, with businesses on the west side of the highway, only, and many homes west of 101, a school zone adjacent to 101, on Vulcan. This stretch of highway is adjacent to the RR, with only three way intersections, and only room for narrow, one lane roundabouts, with LESS safety features.
The railroad corridor is irrelevant. It's about slowing people down, pure and simple. The fire station is on freakin' Orpheus, it will get here. If there's traffic in the summer, there's traffic in the summer, roundabouts or not.
DeleteYou don't say why the RR corridor is irrelevant. It is very relevant because A. A railtrail corridor is planned, to be funded through TransNet taxes, which will include a dedicated bicycle lane, from Chestrerfield St. in Cardiff, to G Street, but which SHOULD extend all the way to La Costa, so that the two highway lanes could be redrawn, Northbound. The paint used to do the temporary eight foot wide bike lane is supposed to be washable, and easily removable, so that the lanes can be redrawn.
DeleteB. The TransNet Tax Money is going for this RailTrail Corridor bicycle lane, SEPARATED from the highway, and also to bridge environmental mitigation for the planned I-5 expansion, NOT for a $20 Million plus Highway 101 roundabout project through Leucadia. Transnet taxes won't pay for "beautification."
C. The RR Tracks are relevant; because of them we do NOT have actual cross-streets, only three way intersections, where the four one-lane roundabouts are planned. The U.S. Dept. of transportation recommends AGAINST roundabouts that would impact RR crossings, AND where the cross-street traffic is significantly less than the main throughway. "T intersections" are not the recommended configuration for roundabouts.
D. Sure, the fire truck or ambulance will "get there," but having to go through multiple roundabouts will absolutely slow it down and reduce already subpar emergency response times along the Coast in Leucadia. Every moment counts in an emergency, including if assistance is needed on one of our beaches, STonesteps, Beacon Beach or Grandview. Roundabouts will lead to greater loss of life, not less, partially because of backup associated with the RR Crossing and the roundabouts on Leucadia Blvd. in conjunction with those planned for Highway 101.
E. Yes, traffic is already slowed down to a crawl during peak seasonal periods. Cut through traffic is already bad during these times. Installing four one-lane roundabouts would make that situation WORSE, because it would reduce the number of lanes to one lane northbound and one lane southbound. So while there would be more traffic, roundabouts, or not, during peak seasonal periods, the traffic would be much WORSE WITH ROUNDABOUTS! Use common sense!
F. If it's all about slowing people down, then why don't you understand that the speed limit has already been reduced? Why don't you understand that the collision reports for that stretch of Highway, for those intersections where the one-lane roundabouts are planned show LESS collisions than the expected rate, derived from collision statistics for similar intersections throughout California, as verified by the 7/18/12 Traffic Engineers' staff report?
12:11 AM
DeleteThere you go again. When you encounter contrary facts you have to try to impeach the source:
"I checked out the Carmel link. I wonder of Peltz and Associates and Dan Burden helped put together that marketing spin on the City's webpage?"
SOP (standard operating procedure). That's why you lack credibility.
"You don't say why the RR corridor is irrelevant."
Delete101 Roundabouts will not interact with the railroad. What you're failing to tell in your argument is that the US Dept of Transportation's concern for the proximity of roundaobuts is that they do not INTERSECT with railways. None of ours will. Period.
A. We agree bikes would be better on the RR property. But not at that cost of painting them out before that were possible.
B. Every improvement by Streetscape is beautification. But that's in the eye of the beholder, as we know some would just as soon those improvements be sent to Disneyland. Whatever.
C: The opportunity for thousands of residents living West of 101 be afforded safe and easy access to and from 101 IS significant, not only because of the thousands of trips but for safety and quality of their lives. The USDT's reason for non-reccomendation of roundabouts is NOT because they have three legs.
E. Removing stops doesn't make traffic worse. Adding stops would.
F. Why don't you understand you and your car's chances of survival skyrocket by cutting 35mph in half? Is the report of the time I was T-boned at El Portal in the 7/18/12 Traffic report you're familiar with? If so, maybe you can tell me the date. If not, how many more go unreported?
No, it's not about the roundabout itself intersecting with the RR crossing, its about the LOS at intersections near the RR Crossing, Fred.
Deletea. Glad you agree Bikes would be BETTER at the RR property. If the CCC finds in appellants favor, the L101MA won't continue to have sway on the matter.
b. That wasn't my point. TransNet taxes cannot be used for beautification projects.
c. If you believe that thousands of residents living West of 101 would be willing to have roundabouts installed because they would supposedly be afforded easy access to and from 101, then that should come up for a public vote. First you make the access/egress to the Coast MORE DANGEROUS by taking away a lane for motorists, northbound, now you claim roundabouts because all the northbound traffic has been funneled into one lane, and there's no break in traffic for people turning left, from West of 101! You set up a compromised level of service at those intersections by doing a lane elimination without first getting a Coastal Development permit and going through required design review and General, Specific and Local Coastal Program Amendments.
D. You skipped, D, lol. But no one is proposing adding stop signs. Your E. statement is irrelevant. No one has proven that a stop sign will be eliminated at Marcheta. That's a good place for a stop sign because, by prescriptive easement, the grading is such, there, that people can safely cross the tracks, and continue on, through the crosswalk, to cross the Highway.
F. The same is true of freeways. Why can't you understand that we could cut the freeway speed limits in half and increase chances of survival?
Maybe you didn't look both ways long enough, Fred. Because you were Tboned, I am sorry for your injuries, which seem to be psychic, as well as physical. But we do not have to put a roundabout on El Portal, because someone allegedly ran a stop sign? I am sorry for your suffering. Was the perp arrested?
You will have to do your own California Public Act requests and research. The traffic report for the 7/18/12 agenda item only went through 2011, as I recall: 2008-2011, three year report.
The traffic report I saw for Leucadia Blvd. was for ten years before the two roundabouts were installed there. Because the City keeps right on top of record destruction, normally, I am not certain those records would still be available. Importantly, the stop sign at Hygeia was never removed, as promised. Nor were the sidewalks completed, and landscaping added, as promised. . . Phase Two was also left undone on the Downtown 101 Streetscape Project. Those projects should be completed, before we shut down our highway to a standstill, especially during peak periods, during and after one-lane roundabout construction.
Dan Burden and Peltz and Associates are roundabout promoters/lobbyists/production managers/workshop facilitators, whatever you want to call them. They have admitted to going across the U.S.A. giving these roundabout productions. Solana Beach almost bought their jive, but then thought better of it. No roundabouts there, or in Del Mar, on PCH.
The public owns the highway, not TransNet, not the City, not L101MA, not Peltz and Associates, not SANDAG or CALTRANS, and certainly not anonymous blog commentators, 10:16, We own it and we should get to vote on whether or not we want Historic State Highway 101 reconfigured. Most people would vote NOT!
If you attended the workshops, as I did, you would have seen the marketing. Jeff Murphy has admitted the strategic planning productions are about marketing. Peltz and Associates tacitly did, the same about the 101 roundabout/lane elimination workshops.
Someone who doesn't post his own name has no credibility other than actual facts he provides. 10:16, your standard operating procedure is to put down the messenger, someone who does share her name, by claiming I lack credibility.
DeleteYour SOP is NOT BMP. Work on your own credibility.
It's true that you do use your name and for that you deserve credit. That doesn't change the way you operate. Speculations aren't facts, pure and simple. I don't put you down, just your methods because it misleads others. It's not my blog but as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to give your opinions as much and as often as you like. Just don't try to pass them off as facts.
DeleteBy the way, trying to turn the argument around instead of answering isn't working.
I answered all of the specific questions. You are basing your assumptions that four one-lane roundabouts would work on 101, through Leucadia, on speculation and conjecture pertaining to other areas with different configurations.
DeleteHow wide will the roundabouts lanes be for the one-laners? How many feet will the diameters be? How many feet in the circumference?
I spoke to Engineering for Carlsbad, at the number provided through WC's link. That roundabout will also have a rail trail corridor SEPARATED bicycle lane, adjacent to the RR tracks.
The streets that are intersecting were already one lane streets in each direction, for that Carlsbad PCH roundabout.
Here, we would be narrowing what was a four lane Major Roadway, main arterial, to one lane in each direction through four one lane, three way intersection roundabouts, that have NOT been put to a public vote, nor received an independent needs assessment by someone other than roundabout promoters.
Have you ever drivin in Del Mar going North through town on a summer's day? It's litterally backed up from 4th/DM Heights all the way to 29th or whatever the last stop sign is before Solana Beach.
DeleteSmart commuters make that left at DM Heights and go the low road all the way through the alley by the beach.
Now that's cut through traffic, courtesy of all those stop signs. Now there's something that's not working....
3:27
DeleteMy alleged T-bone crash was indeed because of a man running the stop sign at Marcheta. It was completely paid for by his insurance. There were no injuries either psychic or physical. The police checked him for alcohol. He wasn't drinking, but was horsing around with a friend who's van also ran the stop. His parents showed up and took the guy away appolozising to me and of course hoping I wouldn't have whiplash or claim to have whiplash for some huge settlement. Did you find the date that happened? No. Am I lying about any of it? No. I do have paperwork to prove it if you'd like to stop by.
Opps, did I miss "D"? The claim that 101 will never have more signals placed on it? If anything's hard me to believe, it's that one. And I wouldn't pay the psychic who would make such a prediction when 101's gone from 2 stops for 20 miles to over 40 in 50 years.
4:24
Delete"By the way, trying to turn the argument around instead of answering isn't working."
Damn!
There is no guarnatee that the roundabout at La Costa won't have a traffic signal, nor any guarantee that if people don't yield for the four one-lane roundabouts, those wouldn't eventually have traffic signals, too. Many roundabouts are built, then don't work correctly for cross-street traffic; lights are later installed.
DeleteFred DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK. I told you about the staff report. Call engineering, call the Sheriff's department. Do public info requests, if necessary. The only traffic collision report I know of for 101 was from 2008-2011. When was your accident? Was there a police report? If there was no injury to anyone, psychic or physical, then why do you think we need to further reduce the speed limit down to only 15 MPH through four one-lane roundabouts? Why are you so concerned about a roundabout on El Portal. You don't live adjacent to this part of the highway. People can get onto the highway more easily at El Portal, because there is no median, but a center "island" pull out lane. Also the unappreciated lane elimination doesn't start until north of Leucadia Blvd. because the Traffic Engineers found reducing lanes south of Leucadia Blvd, was NOT recommended, because of the traffic back up. That too was in the 7/18/12 staff report. You can find those online.
Do a search for public documents, on the home page, then go to Agendas, then Council, then the desired date. Then click on the "paperclip" link on the agenda for Sharrows and Lane Diet.
I never said that 101 would never have more signals. But that same 7/18/12 staff report recommended against stop signs, because the collision numbers don't justify more traffic calming devices . . .
That's saying that someone eating peanut butter every day would keep elephants (traffic signals) away. And to prove it you say, I eat peanut butter every day, and there are no elephants!
More fallacious logic.
You don't need to prove anything to me. I believe you had a collision. I also know that staff found the number of collisions at that intersection are below the statewide average, the expected rate of collision at similar intersections, through 2011. You have to ask THEM if yours was counted. It certainly should have been if the person who ran the stop sign had to pay for your damages.
And, 3:27, it seems to be working for the residents who voted AGAINST roundabouts. They felt they would INCREASE cut through traffic, worse than with the stop signs, apparently.
Let the voters decide, not some lobbyists and staffers promoting more public works projects, for job security, and Council Members thinking they will be better supported, in their election campaigns by the Boards of Directors of ersatz "chambers of commerce" as city subsidiaries/sponsors.
I called and spoke to traffic engineer John Massoff (sp?) at the City of Carlsbad today. The roundabout that is the subject of WC's post was funded, in large part by TransNet taxes, partially because that section of "streetscape" includes a DEDICATED railtrail corridor, that bicyclists also have the option of using, instead of going through a one lane roundabout with motor vehicles.
DeleteHow wide will the lanes through our 101 roundabouts be? Those who are pushing roundabouts so hard should have the answer. What will their diameters be?
The twenty foot wide lane in Carlsbad will include a five foot bicycle lane, separated by a line from the rest of that part of the roadway. The railtrail corridor Class One Bicycle Lane is physically separated, and will be far safer.
I don't think the railtrail corridor is slated to hit Encinitas for another 10-20 years.
DeleteIf we could get rid of Matt Tucker up at NCTD, maybe the dialogue with NCTD could be restarted about a bike trail near the railroad tracks...
Lynn,
DeleteI'm going to start signing my posts so we can converse.
There's a lot of evidence that roundabouts save lives by slowing traffic down and eliminating the possibility of a lot of t-bone accidents.
The Left at El Portal is dangerous because you have to cars coming south at 40-50 mph and cars going the other direction picking up speed rapidly from a stop.
I almost always either go down to Juanita's to turn, or go west on El Portal and up Neptune to the light at Leucadia.
I'm not sure how the roundabout would be configured there, but it would be great if you could make a left turn there without burning out.
I take it you live in that neighborhood. What changes other than a roundabout there (traffic calming) would be effective?
I'm trying to take this out of the personal and into the problem solving arena.
The problem I have with local politics, and I am involved, is over time, everything becomes personal. Clearly this is personal for you as you live in the El Portal neighborhood.
I don't think anyone wants to harm anyone's elses direct neighborhood. I think both Roundabout supporters and opposers would agree to this.
My big reason for supporting roundabouts is the fact they slow people down. Speed kills, unfortunately. Speeding affects all of us, even though we see our neighbors do it every day on our streets, Vulcan, Neptune etc...
We all know that summer is esp. tough, with the extra traffic. w/o the funding to lower the tracks, we have to try and work with what we have.
I've been to Bird Rock many times, both before and after the roundabouts, I think they work great. There are more businesses, the area is more walkable, it's a plus.
How can we get past the personal and get onto the safety issues that roundabouts address?
-Mr Greenjeans
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDid you see the sweet deal that Carlsbad made with NRG and SDG&E regarding the Encinas Power Plant? The Alga Norte Park that just opened? and now this.
ReplyDeletepretty good stuff. I checked out the Alga Norte park last weekend with our skater son and three friends, pretty freaking amazing skate park. C-mon Encinitas!
Carlsbad is a wealthy municipality compared to Encinitas because of their huge tax base. They are able to build fields and parks, and then not (double) charge the taxpayers to use them.
DeleteIn Cardiff - waiting for planning commission approval on Feb. 6- a new beer bar in the Seaside Market property. It will complement the wine steals wine bar across the street. Where is that deemed approve ordinance? Won't do any good because the beer company will not need a liquor license.
ReplyDeleteCardiff beer bar meets the city council's Strategic Plan requirements. Jeff Murphy, planning director along with Kerry Kusiak and Todd Mierau, city planners see this new beer bar as a money maker. They recommend that planning commission approve the bar request.
ReplyDeleteRECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Planning Commission agree that the proposed ` Beer Tasting Room' with retail store as described by the applicant in Exhibit PC -1 falls under a ` Wine Bar' use classification permitted within the subject C -GC -1 zone of the Cardiff -by- the -Sea Specific Plan for the reasons specified in this Agenda Report.
All those Strategic Plan meetings held by the council is paying off by increasing economic opportunities.
The city planners emphasize how a new beer bar follows the Council's Strategic Plan Vision.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
The proposed PCIN has the potential to create economic opportunities through innovation, which could aid in strengthening the City' s strong and diverse economic strategy associated with the " Economic Development" strategy portion of the City's Strategic Planning Vision.
It sounds like a tasting room like they have at Bevmo, that's not a bar...
DeleteWait a minute! Why is Murphy quoting the Strategic Plan when the General Plan is what guides city development???
DeleteBecause if he were quoting the General Plan you would be asking why he isn't quoting the Specific Plan. Ask Audet.
DeleteIf it is in the Seaside Market center, there is not enough parking as it is. That could be a way to not let this happen, although this is the first I've heard of it. I do know the owners of Seaside Market are expanding their market. Cardiffit is gone and that's where they are adding to the store. Is this where the beer place is supposed to be?
ReplyDeleteNo more bars! Enough drunks staggering around, out of control on weekends! Bar owners were handing out free drinks New Year's Eve and we need to reel this in now!
ReplyDeletePerhaps a poll on city workers alcohol intake. I notice some very red noses at city hall.
ReplyDeleteFace it - money rules this town.
ReplyDeleteYou decide -
ReplyDeleteHere's part of the staff report -
The intent of the C -GC -1 zone is to create a primarily retail commercial district. The types of uses permitted within the C -GC -1 zone are compatible
with and complement commercial uses onsite. During the review process,
the Cardiff -by- the -Sea Specific Plan was updated based on input from a 12
member review committee made up of Planning Commissioners, business
owners and citizens ( known as the Cardiff -by- the -Sea Specific Plan
Review Committee) as part of that update. Wine Bar' was listed in the matrix
of the Cardiff -by- the -Sea Specific Plan with the intent of allowing a wine
tasting room or similar type operation. Today, Wine Steals currently operates
a facility off of San Elijo Avenue. ` Bar /Cocktail Lounge' was omitted from
the use matrix by the committee as they did not want to encourage full bar
establishments within this Specific Plan area. The use ` Beer Tasting Room'
was not specifically identified as a use type by the committee.
Sounds good to me. I'll buy the first round.
DeleteBlog alert: Derail at 8:53
ReplyDelete????
Delete8:53 changed the subject.
ReplyDeleteFred, what's the story on the new mural at the 7-11?? Is that a M Fleener project??
DeleteYES! Mary got the green light and is painting away!
ReplyDeleteGood news for Mary and the City. Her 100th Cartoon for the Coast News was great last Friday, too. Wonderful job. She dedicated that Cartoon about Saving Pacific View to Pete Seeger.
Deletehttp://archive.encinitasca.gov/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=683926&dbid=0
ReplyDeleteThat is the link to the 7/18/12 Agenda Report.
In that is a letter from the California Department of Transportation, CalTrans, with a letter allegedly from Michael Mules, Director, but signed by someone else, whose name is illegible. The signatory's first name may be Lindsey? Quoting this Caltrans letter to Bob Helper from July 16, 2010, which is Exhibit 7, Page 13 of the 7/18/12 staff report for City item #10 installation of Shared Lane Markings – Coast Highway 101:
“ When the lanes are not wide enough for safe side-by-side sharing with motorists, per CVC 21202(a)(3), then there is no restriction on the number of bicyclists who can ride side by side within a travel lane.” THAT IS PATENTLY FALSE!
Below I will quote from the ACTUAL Vehicle Code which is referenced:
21202.
(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."
Moreover Section 21200 of the California Vehicle Code states:
"(a) A person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs… except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application." [California peace officers, including those on bicycles, have an exemption]
So Sheriff Captain Haley quoted in the Coast News, and also quoting the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was correct. Bicylists, like motor vehicles, are to ride signgle file, except when passing, or when sharing a lane with motor vehicles in a Sharrow. In bicycle lanes, bicycles, LIKE CARS, are to ride single file, except when passing, and when conditions allow, over to the right of the lane. There is no need for eight foot wide bicycle lanes, because bikes are not supposed to ride in squadrons down our public highway.
Bicycles are allowed to ride down the middle of a motor vehicle lane, if they are keeping up with the speed of traffic, and especially if conditions do not allow for safe passage to the far right of the road, such as the shoulder is uneven or broken, or flooded, or the bicyclist is passing other bicyclists, or avoiding parked cars.
Also, I again looked up Exhibit 9, from the same Agenda Report, Page 15, linked above, which shows 3 year Crash Stats at Non-Signalized Intersections on N. Coast Hwy 101 between Encinitas Blvd. and La Costa Avenue.
One crash is listed for El Portal and 101, in the period monitored, which is from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2011. So that must have been your crash. The actual crash rate at El Portal per mellion vehicles entering that intersection was .05 (per mev). The Expected Crash Rate per mev for that intersection is .15. So your accident was counted, but still the crash rate for that intersection is below the statewide expected crash rate for similar intersections.
For some reason, Encinitas Blvd and La Costa is not listed. Since La Costa is to have a roundabout, I feel the City should have a report of crashes per million vehicles entering that intersection, as well.
Another typo, sorry, above should say:
DeleteSo Sheriff Captain Haley quoted in the Coast News, and also quoting the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was correct. Bicylists, like motor vehicles, are to ride single-file, except when passing, or when sharing a lane with motor vehicles in a Sharrow. In bicycle lanes, bicycles, LIKE CARS, are to ride single-file, except when passing, and when conditions allow, over to the right of the lane. There is no need for eight foot wide bicycle lanes, because bikes are not supposed to ride in squadrons down our public highway.
So what? Make N. 101 1.5 car lengths wide? But I would agree that single file is always safer if done further away from cars. I understood that Swarzman's group was 5 or 6 cyclists that traveled in a V formation - and that was before any bike lanes were designated. So it wasn't as safe for them from the get go. But they were at toward the end of a day long trek too. Extremely sad that happened. There were also 2 cyclists who broke bones being doored just in front of my shop. And when I was at Kenos one night, a man who crashed on the pot holed auxillary "bike lane" across the street at night came in to regroup and wash up. But back to roundabouts, when cars approach them at 15 mph, the drivers are far more aware of their surroundings and have more time to stop - instead of those going 35mph or more.
DeleteSorry I was wrong about the hit and run driver coming forward the next day. I knew he came forward after it was too late to tell, by a test, that he had been drunk when he hit the bicyclist. I believe the driver got six years, including probation.
DeleteI am very sorry for what happened to Swarzman. And you're right, it wasn't safe for them to be traveling in a V formation at 1 in the morning. The two cyclists who were doored, "right in front of your shop" were not going northbound, so although I am also sorry for their accidents, and the fact that you all went through that, it is irrelevant to the northbound lane elimination for motorists, or the idea that eight foot wide bicycle lanes are needed, when bicyclists are to ride single file. I have steadfastly supported Sharrows.
That's what. Or, so what?
Sew buttons.
We can't slow down traffic to 15 MPH at every intersection, and on every highway, Major Roadway Arterial, or even every freeway, because "drivers are more aware of their surroundings and have more time to stop - instead of those going 35 mph or more."
DeleteDoes your support of sharrows make a difference??
DeleteWho knows, 8:48? Why do you ask?
ReplyDeleteWe still need the roundabouts to slow people down, that's where the safety happens.
ReplyDeleteWe don't need roundabouts to slow people down according to the City Traffic Engineers' report, according to the average speed of motorists, now, and because the speed limit has already been reduced to 35 MPH. We could NARROW the lanes for motorists on the east side of the highway, northbound, put in two narrower lanes for motorists, which would slow motorists down, and STILL have room for a narrower bike lane. We DON'T NEED an eight foot wide bicycle lane when bicyclists are to ride single file in the bike lane.
DeleteThere are MUCH LESS expensive ways to slow motor vehicle traffic down than installing four one-lane roundabouts, which will reduce speeds to 15 MPH, when traffic is flowing, and down to a standstill during peak periods, when there is already back-up.
The only stand still that happens anywhere on N. 101 happens after stop lights are lit up red and the stop signs are painted. You know, unless two beer trucks are unloading next to each other.
DeleteI saw back up Highway 101 when walking to Shato's over the Winter holidays. Why is the first roundabout supposed to be at El Portal? I have seen back-up, MANY days between Leucadia Blvd (the stop light), past El Portal. Fred, you aren't monitoring the traffic further south, which isn't, technically N101.
DeleteHorse pucky! I just drove down 101 today att 11am going 40mph and was passed by several people going 50mph.
DeleteBTW, when is the city going to paint the speed on the pavement, the signs are invisible.
Don't lanes have to be a standard widths? Someone won a big lawsuit in the 90's in Malibu because the lanes weren't a standard width and someone was killer when a semi came into their lane.
The only way you guarantee that people slow down is to put in a roundabout, which also makes it easier to make a left going north on the highway.
-Mr. Greenjeans.
I call BS! Take a photo and prove it.
DeleteI have never seen either direction backed up from the light to the stop sign in 30 plus years. Not even in the summer!
Traffic backing up northbound from Leucadia to El Portal? I used to come that way every day for 10 years, I've only seen it to maybe the Roadhouse.
DeleteSouthbound I've seen it backup to Grandview during the summer or an accident. Yikes!
-Mr. Green Tuxedo...
.2:47
Delete"I have seen back-up, MANY days between Leucadia Blvd (the stop light), past El Portal. Fred, you aren't monitoring the traffic further south, which isn't, technically N101."
Technically and every thing elselly, N 101 begins at Encinitas Blvd and always has. That's why the addresses begin and ascend in both directions from EB. You're welcome to stop by my shop and pick up your free Leucadia Merchant Guide when it'll be out by this time next month and see for yourself.
But since "backup past El Portal" happens so often, show me. Just whip out your iphone next time and email me the pic. Back up does and will always occur at Leucadia Blvd as long as there are stop lights there. But six blocks of it MANY times? You'll have to back that one up for everyone with proof. Especially since another person seeking to thwart Streetscape publicly announced at a meeting that he's seen northbound traffic "back up from Marcheta to Encinitas Blvd" - when merchants who are right there this side of EB have never seen that happen.
2:47
You should have seen N 101 in 1965 before the freeway opened. The speed limit was 60 mph and It was backed up here all the way from Del Mar every day of racing season before post time.
Actually, I think the north/south address dividing line is A Street. Why I have no idea unless the Encinitas Blvd alignment years ago pointed towards A Street.
DeletePlanning commissioners Felker, Brandenburg, Shannon, and Groseclose voted yes to increase Cardiff's economic health by allowing "Beer Tasting Rooms" in the commercial area. Commissioner O'Grady voted no.
ReplyDeleteThe City Council's strategic plan for economic development depends on increased alcohol sales.
So what about the survey? Find out if the majority of people who live north of A Street, south of La Costa Avenue and west of I-5 (IOW, the people who would be most affected by four one-lane roundabouts installed erratically on 101) are for or against them. Wouldn't that be fair and democratic instead of having them imposed without public approval?
ReplyDeleteSure,
DeleteI'll even loan you a pen and piece of paper so you can do the survey. Seriously, if you want it, start slappin' the shoe leather...
-Mr. Greenjeans
Yes. It would be fair, democratic, redundant and expensive.
ReplyDeleteNot redundant because the public has never been polled. A relative few people showed up at workshops that were an orchestrated con job. The results did not represent the community as a whole.
DeleteThe City in collusion with a wolf in sheep's clothing plans to spend $20 million to impose a plan that most people don't want. In comparison to that $20 million, a professionally conducted poll would cost next to nothing.
The majority is not against a homegrown plan that would truly improve Leucadia 101. What the majority is against is having a plan they never approved shoved down their throats.
Step up to the challenge. Find out what the community wants.
There were plenty of people at the workshops, I was there. The seats were full.
DeleteShould we not count the election because only some people voted? It's people's RESPONSIBILITY in a democracy to take part in the process.
To often now, people only take part or complain when something directly affects them. There were plenty of opportunities to take part in the roundabout process, or complain about it at the time.
How long do we have to wait until we get some improvement on 101?
-Lord Green
Relative to the population affected, few people were at the workshops. Like many City-supported projects, especially those in collusion with special interests like the Main Street Associations, Streetscape was a done deal before the workshops. They were orchestrated to make it seem the public was participating in and affecting the process. They were a sham.
DeleteThe bottom line: Genuinely find out what the people most affected by the proposal want. Do a professional, objective survey in the area bordered by A Street, La Costa Avenue, I-5 and the ocean.
If the survey shows those people want four erratically placed one-lane roundabouts in our four-lane 101, 2,000 car trips per day diverted to Vulcan, greatly increased traffic on Neptune, only 29-38 new parking spaces over the 2.4-mile length of the project but zero new spaces four blocks north and south of Leucadia Blvd., then so be it.
The plan's supporters decline to survey the community because they fear the results.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete12:21
DeleteRelative to the population affected, no matter what the issue, few people even bother to vote, much less have the time, interest or moeny to become involved in making their neighborhood better. That is why when hundreds of caring residents DID show up at Streetscape workshops, it matters.
The vast majority of people at the workshops supporting:
* Restoring the canopy
* Street lighting
* Roundabouts
* Contiguous sidewalks
* Bike lanes & slower speeds
was certainly not "a sham". And 8:44 has it right. There have been YEARS of great ideas brought forth by concerned residents, councils, committees and business associations with ample notification of workshops to the public for the same great ideas. It was the RESPONSIBILTY of all concerned reseidents to participate in the process. The ones that cared enough to get off their butt, did. Now you're hunting Johnny come latelys. Hundreds of us spent a lot of our time, effort and money to attend and participate at workshops. Now you'd like to re-try all that till you're red in the face spending more public funds hoping for a different result and for reasons that shine of stubborness more than logic.
Somewhere in the world there's a handfull of intellectuals who claim that adding distance and stops to a commuter's journey will make taking Neptune Avenue an attractive fast track alternative to 101 for the destination of Carlsbad. They're not all immediate residents either and I think 12:21 hangs out with them too much. Their motive is seen by what one of them announced at a meeting: "Leucadia isn't worth it" and the sign they placed in Leucadia Roadside Park immediately after it's improvements: "Send This Junk To Disneyland". In fact, one of those influential people who is against Streetscape was also against Prop A. Why? Because that ambitious person prefers: 1. allowing 3 to 5 stoires anywhere here to promote development at the expense our our quality of life while at the same time promote themself and their developer friends, and 2. to divert long awaited Streetscape funds for selected projects in other parts of town for the same reasons as #1. No thanks.
And I have nothing against great development and great architecture but you almost have to sound that way to make a point here in town.
The workshops you put so much faith in have about as much truth and relevance, and are about as representative of the residents' views as the recent environmental "workshop" at the Community Center. All those workshops were charades orchestrated to bring about what the City staff, council and the special interests had already decided to do. Please don't be so naive to think the public's input is actually valued. People in positions of power are exercising that power, and what you and I think doesn't matter.
DeleteI guess your fellow Encinitans/Leucadians who attended those workshops are just morons. You are much too smart.
Delete2:11, you missed the point. It has nothing to do with the intelligence level of the people who attended the workshops. I was one of them. The point is that the people's input didn't matter. The power had already decided. The workshops were a charade.
Delete1:16 a.k.a. 8:26 etc.
DeleteThe public's input is not only valued, it's enormously acted upon and the city's track record for achieving the wants of the people is rather stellar. Look at the Downtown Streetscape; the Library; Cottonwood Creek Park (and many other parks); Indian Head Canyon; Leucadia Blvd; Leucadia drainage; Beach access (including Beacons because the people want it to fall apart); 101's recent repair / slurry seal / bike lanes; sidewalks the list is as long as your arm as what locals have wanted that the city has brought to pass. To say the public's input is not valued is a sweeping ungreatful generalization. The city has done an astounding job overall responded to the public. Sorry some details that didn't go your way are so upsetting to you. But you just can't please all the people all the time. And some you're lucky to please at all. Leucadia traditionally has been the ugly step-child getting attention last. Now, whoever's behind the scenes making us last in line for attention want us to get nothing at all - thowing our entire Streetscape under the bus posting a sign on their property claiming it will "Save Leucadia".
Hooey.
Only fourteen dots were placed under the Yes roundabouts category on 2/21/08, Fred. You are dead wrong that the vast majority of workshop participants supported roundabouts, in particular four one-lane roundabouts. At the last survey, people who voted for ANY roundabout were counted as favoring Plan 4A, which included five roundabouts and lane elimination for motorists.
DeleteMany of the people supporting bicycle lanes, supported them, and still support them, as I do in the RR Right of way.
You are correct about some of your other conclusions, but not that the vast majority of people at the workshops supported roundabouts.
At Workshop #1 at Oak Crest Middle School, only 14 dots were place on Yes on roundabouts. ONLY for that category were all the dots lined up in two rows, in perfect alignment. One person has admitted on this blog, that he put all his dots on the same category. We were instructed to put one dot each on each category which we support. I saw two Directors from the Board of L101MA stepping away from the YES roundabouts category on 2/21/23, after they had put all of their dots in those two lines. Also, there was NO CONTROL by the workshop facilitators whether or not participants placed more than one dot on one category, ow whether or not people got more than seven dots, each. There was no significant statistical analysis, because there was no count of the total votes cast, at seven per participant, and no count of individuals participating in the dot mapping exercise.
Peltz and Associates’ Workshop 1A was held on February 21, 2008, a Thursday, from 6-8 p.m. at City Hall. 99 participants signed the sign in sheet, as verified on Page 52 of the Staff Report for 1/13/10.
Workshop 1B was held on Saturday, February 23, 2008 from 8 am to 2 pm, as a “walking tour” of the Project Corridor, from 8:30 am – 11 am (when many citizens could not be present, and afterwards, a “design charrette” discussion with participants at City Hall from 11 a.m.- 2:00 pm) There was no separate sign in sheet or head count to determine the number of people participating in the discussion at City Hall, in the later part of the day, after the “walking audit.” The total number of people who signed the sign-in sheets for Workshop 1B was 49 people. It makes no sense that someone exaggerated the “Head Count” as being from 100 to 120 people present. When and where were heads counted? Out of the undetermined number of people participating in the afternoon design charrette, an also indeterminate number gave only ONE roundabout, the one at N101 and Grandview, "enthusiastic" support.
Fred, the City's track record is NOT "rather stellar." The MAJORITY of people did not support the plan with four one-lane roundabouts, lane elimination for motorists. It is not "stellar" to manipulate people and massage the numbers.
DeleteAt the November 13, 2008 Workshop #3, only 63 out of 163 people voted Yes, that they supported Alternative #4, or 38.6%! 61.4% of those participating either voted No, we did not and do not support Plan 4, with the same five roundabouts and lane elimination, as Plan 4A, or our votes were not counted at all, because some circled yes AND no, if they prefer only ONE roundabout at La Costa, or some circled neither, but wrote in that suggestion, to not have lane elimination, and to have LESS than a total of five roundabouts!"
All of the improvements that we have achieved, come as the result of the taxes and fees we pay, and the efforts of very well paid staff.
I am very grateful (you should learn how to spell grateful, Fred, for more credibility) for all the blessings I have. One of them is the ability to exercise my freedom to express my opinions, and to make good choices, to research and understand the information and sometimes the disinformation that is doled out, as a substitute for the truth.
We all saw this lack of veracity re the NOT impartial analysis of Prop A by our City Attorney and Council's false ballot arguments against Prop A supported by a not independent report, full of speculation and conjecture, by a pro-development law firm, Rutan and Tucker, also paid for at taxpayers' expense.
I am grateful for the many freedoms and opportunities that we all have, but I am not grateful when three members of Council lead us to believe they support the citizens' right to vote on upzoning initiative, and then after Tony and Lisa were elected, they changed their minds, including Teresa.
I am very grateful, on the otherhand, that a majority on Council can recognize that PV is an irreplaceable asset, which should be sold by EUSD at a reasonable price, so that the land donated to the public for a children's school grounds, and the Old Schoolhouse, can remain in the public domain, part of our heritage, and our character, for the greatest common good, as a true community arts and learning center. That means a great deal to me, and to so many more locals, artists of all kinds, children "of all ages," and their supporters.
Five unwanted and unneeded roundabouts at $20 Million plus would be far more redundant and expensive. You know the expression, penny wise, pound foolish?
ReplyDeleteIt's worth it to do an accurate, independent survey to see if four one-lane roundabouts, and lane elimination, so that Historic 101 through Leucadia, becomes a two lane road, one lane north, one south, down from a four lane Major Roadway Arterial, is actually a public works project that would be in the public's best interests.
You are not the arbiter of what residents and local commuters want on our highway and how we want the City to spend our tax dollars. We should either have an accurate, independent survey, or a public vote. As I recall, a public vote during the General Election would only cost about $23,000 for an additional ballot measure.
You're not the arbiter either! Although, you do come off as bitter with most of your comments and diatribes that are posted here. You don't speak for all of us nor were you elected to represent us.
DeleteYou really have no idea or know what we all want. The street scape was already vetted by the public and it is a done deal.
Stop the obstruction tactics of implementing our streetscape. You lost get over it!
What's the phrase, "Paralyzation by Analyszation"? I mean, we had the workshops and discussion on roundabouts ad nauseum, and we can argue about the fairness of the setup, Pelz and Assoc. etc until we're blue in the face.
DeleteLynn, I'm sorry you don't support the roundabouts. We can't all be winners on every issue. I don't like the golf course, or a lot of aspects of the Hall Park, but I certainly think once they're started, they have to be completed.
We can't go back to square one on the streetscapes. Roundabouts can work for us, and give us a more walkable, shopper friendly, kid friendly neighborhood.
We can't do anything about the traffic volume in the summer, but we can improve how we handle it.
What's your reservation about the roundabout at El Portal. You cite a lot of studies and numbers, but that's obviously your 'hood, so maybe there's something about it you know that we don't.
But we won't know if you don't tell us.
Otherwise, let's drop this one. A lot of people clearly support the roundabouts...
-El Senor Pantalones Verdes
Analysis by Paralysis is what I was going for.
Delete-Captain Green pajamas.
You are paralyzed by your fear of analyzing the data with accuracy and truth.
DeletePeltz and Associates Workshop #2 was held on Thursday, May 29, 2008 from 6 pm-8pm at City Hall. Please see Page 67 of the staff report for 1/13/10.
The Sign in Sheets ‘signatures totaled 66, There were 61 total handout responses. Typically there are fewer handout responses that sign in sheets. There were only 43 responses to the question of whether or not the survey participant would be “willing to accept a decreased level of service in order to achieve the project priorities established in the first public workshop. Most of the people attending workshops did not attend all of the workshops. 39 people at the second workshop answered the question and said they would accept a lower level of service. Probably most people who did not answer did not attend the first workshop.
For instance, at Workshop 4, the final workshop, on October 10, 2010, less than half the people attending that workshop stated in their survey responses, that they had attended ANY of the other workshops. The numbers were far more “dismal” for the subsequent responses accepted at City Hall (unbeknownst to most of the public) from Monday 10/12/09 through Wednesday 10/14/09. Less than 17.34% of those survey participants allowed to hand in surveys subsequent to the Saturday, 10/10/09 workshop, had attended ANY of the other workshops.
For North Coast Highway 101 Streetscape Workshop #3, the most widely attended workshop, held at City Hall on 11/13/08, from 6 pm to 8 pm, Peltz and Associates’ presentation was so long, it was not a true “back and forth” workshop. There was no time for ANY public speakers. Workshop #3 had 177 people sign the Sign In Sheets, yet, strangely, the number of respondents to the survey was only 163.
In this same section, Summary of Responses to Workshop Handout, Page 93 of the 209 page Staff Report for the 1/13/10 Agenda Item #7, http://archive.encinitasca.gov/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=653047&dbid=0 , under the question, “Do you support the project going to Council?” 60 workshop participants answered yes, 78 answered NO, 23 were counted as “Left Blank,” again including those who chose to answer neither yes or no, but who gave a short “essay- styled” text response, and only two were counted as circling both yes and no.
For both summarizing questions, the MAJORITY of participants for the most widely attended workshop, #3, at City Hall, when 163 people participated in the survey; we indicated NEITHER that we wanted to have five roundabouts, with four one-lane roundabouts and lane elimination, forced upon us, NOR that we supported the project going to Council.
On Saturday, October 10, 2009, from 9 am-12 pm, Workshop #4, was held at the Community Center. After another long Peltz and Associates presentation, handouts were distributed. Participants in the workshop that day were provided with a very limited opportunity for public comments. Most people left after they filled out the survey handouts.
DeleteThe survey handouts were also distributed at City Hall October 12-14, 2009. Peltz and Associates presentation was set up in such a way that our opportunities were very limited. If we wrote in “none of the above,” as in not supporting either five roundabouts and lane elimination, Plan 4A, OR more traffic signals on 101, for instance, we were counted as “no response.”
According to Pages 116-117 of the Agenda Report for 1/13/10, of the 211 individuals who participated in the survey at the Community Center, on Saturday October 10, and at City Hall from Monday through Wednesday, October 12-14, 2009, 183 stated that we are residents, or 86.7%%, which is good.
Of the 211 individuals participating in the surveys, 129 indicated they preferred the “scenario” of reverse angle parking with a bike lane, over front in parking with NO bike lane. Those were the only two options allowed. If one wrote in neither option is acceptable, that was counted as “no response.” There was also no option for front in parking WITH a bike lane. Because of the way the question was “stacked,” the results are statistically invalid, but 61.3% of the people who answered this either/or, as required by this survey question, responded that they did want a bike lane, as only reverse angled parking would permit, according to the constraints of the survey.
Of the 211 total individuals recorded as participating in the survey during and after Workshop #4, 128 responded that they preferred Plan 4a over 5. Again, no other options, including “none of the above,” were allowed. Those who wrote in that we preferred neither four one-lane roundabouts at three way intersections, nor more traffic signals on Highway 101, through Leucadia, were counted as NO RESPONSE.
DeleteSo also were those counted as no response who suggested the option of a stop sign at Grandview, for which the Directors of the L101MA had previously petitioned the City, in 2007, prior to the roundabout lobbyist facilitated workshops, which began on February 21, 2008.
Both this question and the previous question on back-in angled parking with a bike lane or front-in angled parking with no bike lane, were slanted, biased in such a way that the results of the survey are statistically invalid. According to Peltz and Associates January 5, 2010 report, which is part of the 1/13/10 Agenda Report, a majority answering the survey's invalid questions, indicated they would rather have roundabouts than more traffic signals; again, those were the only two choices accepted by Peltz and Associates,through the City.
The only other questions asked at Workshop #4, at at City Hall the following Monday through Wednesday, pertained to the number of people that had attended prior workshops.
At the final workshop, on October 10, 2009, (typo, previously, not 10/10/10, but 10/10/09) less than half the people attending the workshop, on that date, stated through their survey responses they had attended ANY of the other workshops.
As I said, before, numbers were far more “dismal” for subsequent responses accepted at City Hall (unbeknownst to most of the public) from Monday 10/12/09 through Wednesday 10/14/09. Less than 17.34% of those survey participants allowed to hand in surveys subsequent to the Saturday, 10/10/09 workshop, had attended ANY of the other workshops.
Peltz and Associates, staff and Council should have accepted, as FINAL, the results of the most widely attended workshop, at City Hall, on 11/13/08, from 6 pm to 8 pm. By holding a couple more open houses, where no public input was allowed, at the library, and then a final workshop where the questions were slanted and if someone wrote in she or he would be willing to consider one roundabout, that was counted as YES for roundabout/lane elimination Plan 4A, or if we said we wanted neither roundabouts nor more traffic signals, and NO angled parking, either front in or back in, then those votes were counted as "NO RESPONSES," the City, through the contractor, INVALIDATED the results for Workshop #4.
Staging another survey, a bogus one, to boot, almost one year after the survey taken in Novermber of 2008, for Workshop #3, the most widely attended workshop, would be like the City throwing out the results of the election for Prop A by staging another vote on whether or not citizens have the right to vote on upzoning.
Oh, but that's what the City, through City Manager Gus Vina is now trying to do through his Strategic Plan marketing, pushing a General Plan Update that would attempt to frighten voters into thinking they must accept either a plan to upzone by building UP or OUT. More fallacious logic through the phony Black and White Fallacy. Our choices are NOT either black and white. There are more alternatives. . . Don't be fooled into making decisions out of confusion or fear created by not understanding the facts, not using logic, not accepting simple truth, not seeing that authority, "the Emperor" wears no clothes, when authority is clothed in deceit and manipulation of data, and our quality of life, all in the name of "more money," less value.
The workshops were long because Bob kept interrupting the sessions by screaming " native species" throughout the night. Your selective memory grows more elective all the time.
DeleteIf your are so sure "a lot of people" support the roundabouts which they don't in fact, then let's all agree to put it to a vote. Any true survey will bear this out for those most affected. Everyone including many businesses I have asked do not support the 5 roundabouts or the single north bound lane with the idiotic 8' wide bike lane in spite of Marvy's bullying well known bullying behavior toward several to support what he wants. Please agree that a true accounting of those for and against needs to be made public and voted on. The reason proponents don't want this is they know there is underwhelming support by a few interests who are pushing this onto the overwhelming majority who do not. Let's all get together and do the numbers to let the sunshine break through all the misrepresentations that have manipulated this process to date. The truth is out there for both sides if it is allowed to be told. cha ching
ReplyDeleteWhich businesses? No one is ever going to agree on everything, we could go back and forth all year on who allegedly does and does not like roundabouts.
DeleteWhy did we bother to go through all the workshops, and have all those people attend?
I'm not a developer or a business owner etc., and I support roundabouts. As I recall, Marvin initially opposed the roundabouts, but changed his mind.
If you want a vote, get it on the ballot, I'd be happy to vote on it...
The number of people who attended and participated in any so-called "surveys" was not accurately documented; nor were the people attending statistically significant according to the methods of conducting valid scientific polls. Moreover the workshops and "surveys" were facilitated by Peltz and Associates, who admittedly go across the nation promoting roundabouts; they are de facto roundabout lobbyists, and admit as much. Their invalid surveys are outdated in any case, as they were taken in 2008 and 2009, without being accurately quantified and qualified.
DeleteGo talk to Captain Kangaroo, Mr. Greenjeans. We are not suffering from paralysis by analysis. There is a legal process, which has not been adhered to, before a four lane highway can be reduced to what would be two lanes, one northbound and one southbound, through four one-lane roundabouts. Part of that process is environmental review, which includes traffic impacts to adjacent neighborhoods, quality of life, and community character.
Accurate traffic monitoring before and after lane monitoring has not been done during peak seasonal periods.
If a survey is to be taken, it should include those ADJACENT to Highway 101, so that would include those on Vulcan and west of Vulcan, from Highway 101 to Neptune, and feeder streets. Unless there is a citywide vote, there is no reason to include residents east of Vulcan, where a posse of roundabout supporters lives, a few members of LTC, tied to L101MA, including Tony Kranz, a diehard roundabout supporter, who also signed the petition in favor of Prop A, then "changed his mind," and helped write ballot arguments against it, and wanted to send out "educational materials," re Prop A, at taxpayers expense, which would also not have been impartial, just as Glenn Sabine's ballot pamphlet analysis was NOT impartial and was NOT factually accurate, and the Peltz and Associate's workshops were NOT neutrally conducted, and were NOT impartial.
Residents east of Vulcan are not so directly impacted by cut through traffic as would be those living on Vulcan and streets west of Highway 101. The Leucadia Blvd. roundabouts are for streets that actually CROSS the Blvd. The four one lane roundabouts planned for Highway 101 HAVE NO CROSS-STREETS. That makes a big difference in how traffic is being affected for adjacent residents.
With the exception of Fred, most of the directors of L101MA also put out propaganda against Prop A. Roundabout supporters (NOT many of the actual businesses on the West side of 101 south of A St.), and those who own property along Highway 101, including L101MA Directors, favor maximizing their property values by the potential for high density development. Roundabouts act as mitigation so that Level of Service for those intersections where they are installed, is not scrutinized the same way, and its much easier for high density projects to get mitigated negative environmental impact declarations.
Three Council members need to put it on the ballot, to be fair to their constituents. This should not take another initiative, which is very challenging to accomplish, especially when grassroots supporters are threatened by harassing lawsuits by out-of- towners, like Ken Moser, acting as a private Attorney General, all supported by the deep pockets of building industry special interests, including real estate brokers and developers.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry, I meant to say accurate traffic monitoring before and after lane elimination has not been done, through the City, during peak seasonal periods.
DeleteThe paint used to redraw the lanes was supposedly specially selected because it is more easily removed. City staff knew the lane diet was likely to be temporary.
The lines should be redrawn with two lanes northbound, pending complete environmental review through a Coastal Development Permit, design review, and General Plan, Specific Plan and LCP Amendments for the entire N101 Streetscape Project. Redrawing the lines with two lanes northbound is also mandatory for a correct "before" lane elimination basis for comparison, during peak seasonal periods.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete4:04
DeleteIf the council misrepresented Prop A on the ballot etc. swaying many voters including board members of L-101, that's their mistake. But it's also true that our logo was used without our permission to promote the anit-Prop A (or prop-A-ganda for a latent pun), but it's also true our president at that time exposed this and publicly asked whoever was doing that to cease. But I wasn't the only board member supporting Prop A either, just probably the most dissatisfied and verbal about it's misrepresentations that were made to our group.
Density is mandated by parking requirements, but it's the Planning Commission that ignores that Specific Plan rule whenever they feel like it. THERE'S your loophole, not any Level of Service rule - especially now that Prop A passed, reducing the potential of future development by over 30%.. But that's not enough for some people, so some here want to make Roundabouts the next Boogieman. The Roundabouts in Birdrock have not ushered in building gone wild. I took someone's advice and drove through them yesterday at lunchtime coming back from business in Old Town. When youtube stops being finicky, I'll post the uneventful 5 minute round trip my passenger videoed as we rolled through all five roundabouts - where I didn't have to stop once going north or south. Not that that's scientific, but it was definately a random sampling and my first time through them. When I have time, I'll interview people there. I've invited a friend who's not sold on them to come along and make sure I don't edit bad news or introduce imposters.
"The lines should be redrawn with two lanes northbound, pending complete environmental review through a Coastal Development Permit.."
I can't believe you would want the bike lanes removed to go back to being as dangerous as they were (NO lanes at all for bikes) - and removed before a railtrail were in place on the RR right of way for safer passage. Really?
I suggested redrawing two lanes northbound, for motorists, at the minimum width allowed by the State, and a five foot bicycle lane, to the right, or two lanes, northbound, with Sharrows in the right hand lane, as have been installed all over other parts of Highway 101, both northbound and southbound, where there isn't room for a dedicated bicycle lane, and two lanes, in each direction, for motorists.
DeleteWhat time of day did you "roll through" all five of the Birdrock Roundabouts? Was it during a peak traffic period? I wonder, because that is when there would be issues with having to come to a stop in order to yield to constant traffic within or attempting to enter one lane roundabouts. Also was there traffic on the cross streets, going east and west? Was there much traffic at all, adjacent to any of the five roundabouts? How far apart are the roundabouts installed, there?
Many older apartments were eliminated and mixed use development went in adjacent to the Birdrock Roundabouts. I brought to Workshop #3, on Saturday, November 13, 2008, a friend from La Jolla who lives near the roundabouts there. He works for a firm that certifies houses as having historical significance, so that the tax base is adjusted, to facilitate correct period renovation, and preservation.
He said he has had issues with the Birdrock roundabouts, and that one mixed use development went bankrupt, just as Moonlight Lofts did, off of A St. and 101, but unrelated to roundabouts, there. Because there will be no roundabouts for Downtown, and why not?
Why is there only one other roundabout in all of Encinitas, on Santa Fe, other than the total of eight roundabouts planned north of A Street, through Leucadia, including three planned for Leucadia Blvd?
And why isn't Phase 2 of the Leucadia Blvd roundabout project completed, which phase was to include more sidewalks and landscaping on the Blvd, as well as stop sign elimination with another roundabout at Hygeia. How can you expect us to trust that the stop sign would be eliminated at Marcheta and 101, which we don't want to happen, because so many people cross the train tracks and the highway there, when the stop sign was NEVER replaced by a roundabout at Hygeia and Leucadia Blvd, as promised?
Once fooled, shame on you; twice fooled, shame on me. We shouldn't buy into the propaganda and marketing jive and be fooled again.
Sounds good to me. Thanks for agreeing a vote is the way to reach the truth of community support. If history is any indication around here workshops are tailored to reach a predetermined result and too often represent the desires of a handful of real estate and developer interests and not the majority of our citizens. They count on the public not paying attention enough so they can get what they want. Well, the sleeping lion has been awakened by all the noxious stench of a minor minority and their time of free ranging and pillaging is coming to an end. History will be the final judge and where do you want to be standing on a list of those who cared enough to engage in this fight for the best that we could be? cha ching
ReplyDeleteA public vote for everything that this city does or wants to do is what you propose? Talk about Cha ching!
DeleteInformed people who do care went to the workshops and meetigs but you claim it was skewed. I disagree. There was good public input ay all the city workshops and a fair process to vet the concepts of the peoject.
I guess with that logic we don't even need a council. We will all be council members?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJS is not relevant and good riddance.
Delete4:14 PM
DeleteI thought it was the council, staff and consultants who pulled the wool over workshop attendee's eyes. Now it's the workshop attendees who were already pro roundabout. This conspiracy is starting to get confusing.
But you don't care what I think:
"You don't give your name, so your opinion is irrelevant, in any case. "
So I guess it's pretty much just you, Fred and Dr. Lorri. Does The Sculpin count?
Many people were pro-roundabout??? Wtf does that mean ?? Hey lady, many people were anti-roundabout AND anti- streetscape. Gee, I'm sorry I placed all my dots onto making Leucadia a nicer, safer, visually prettier more walkable community. Wow, it's unreal how much you hate Leucadia. Unreal.
Delete9:13, you sound like Jerome Stocks, to me.
DeleteThere was not a good sampling of public input. Many people attending were pro-roundabouts, from the beginning, including the workshop facilitators.
What I mean is that many people who opposed and still oppose roundabouts often did not know about the workshops and do not attend City sponsored workshops. Some of them, such as those who attended the Hall Property workshops know that actual public opinion is discounted over Council's opinion and workshop facilitators' opinions.
The "process" was NOT properly vetted according to the California Coastal Commission and according to many members of the public who spoke out against being ramrodded by the improper process. Yes, some of you, Board Members of L101MA KNOW that you placed all your dots on YES, roundabouts, instead of only placing one dot on each category with which you agreed. The greatest number of dots was placed on Saving the canopy, and I placed one of my dots there, and placed a dot on improving sidewalks.
You don't give your name, so your opinion is irrelevant, in any case.
We can have a more direct democracy with a Council AND with a ballot measure to let the general public weigh in. By your logic, why have the initiative or referendum process at all? According to you, we should leave it all up to people like Jerome Stocks and Dan Dalager, because once elected, they should make all the decisions as our representatives.
JS is still relevant because he set a bad example as a Mayor and Councilmember, and because the momentum to vote him out of office helped voters decide to pass Prop A, to slow local growth, the same reason our City was incorporated on October 1, 1986, after a public vote.
Learn how to read with comprehension.
At the initial February 21, 2008 Peltz and Associates workshop, also facilitated by roundabout lobbyist Dan Burden, a total of 14 dots, only, were placed under YES roundabouts. From the way they were neatly aligned in two neat rows, of all the same colored dots, as opposed to other categories, which had more random placement with different colored dots, and from the way I saw two L101MA Directors, one of whom has admitted he placed all seven of his dots on Yes Roundabouts, standing directly in front of the white sheet taped to the white board, headed by that category's title, then I know that there was NO verified consensus then, or at any other time that the MAJORITY of those participating wanted ANY one-lane roundabouts.
DeleteThese one-lane roundabout would reduce a Major Arterial, primary circulation element, from a four lane configuration, with a speed limit now reduced to 35 MPH, down to 15 MPH, funneling traffic through one lane northbound and one lane southbound, through four closely placed one-lane obstructions, ironically labeled "traffic calming devices," which would be anything but traffic calming during peak periods.
Four one-lane roundabouts on 101 from El Portal through Leucadia, could only serve to bottleneck our Historic State Highway, eliminate parking in the dirt along the RR Right of way, and force bicycles, unsafely, to go through these one-lane roundabouts with cars.
But there are NO PLANS in the foreseeable future for a RR Corridor bicycle lane, which the 101 roundabout in Carlsbad will have, as part of its roundabout public works development project.
Again, four one-lane roundabouts would benefit a few, by adding some diagonal parking, and making negative environmental impact declarations easier to get for a few high density would-be developers, by raising projected sales prices and rental values for property owners, many of whom are paying LOW property taxes, yet charging market rate for business leases.
The majority of adjacent residents and local commuters would be harmed by increased delays for motorists and more incidents of back-up and gridlock, compromised coastal access/egress during peak seasonal periods, more traffic cutting through residential/residential and school zone neighborhoods adjacent to 101, and slower emergency response times, which are already below City accepted standards for Coastal Leucadia.
Those claiming that stops will be eliminated are not being honest with themselves or others if they cannot foresee that during peak traffic periods, cars entering an intersection with a one lane roundabout, with traffic either within or entering the circle, already, would have to STOP, in order to yield to oncoming and outgoing traffic. This would cause a further "ripple effect," with more and more cars having to stop behind the first car that is forced to stop.
The intersections where the four one-lane roundabouts are planned do not now have, northbound/southbound stop signs, nor are stop signs planned, because they are not warranted by Crash statistics. Navigating these narrower diameter roundabouts would also slow down emergency response vehicles, especially during peak traffic periods, but also during non-peak periods, because of the physical constraints of narrow roundabouts, with less safety features.
Although fire trucks may be able to drive over the curbs in these one-lane, narrow roundabouts, they will have to slow down to do so, just as they would over a speed bump. Buses would also have challenges navigating narrow, one-lane roundabouts.
Remember, Historic State Highway 101 is a primary circulation element. Bus stops would have to be eliminated or moved, and the whole one-lane roundabout plan is not amenable to bus riders, bicyclists, because the percentage of collisions involving bicyclists is greater, nationwide at intersections with roundabouts than at the same intersections before roundabouts were installed, and for motorists, some of whom are handicapped so that they could NOT walk or ride bicycles, instead of driving.
Also, pedestrians, on this part of the highway, are walking almost exclusively on the west side of 101, because that is where the businesses and homes are. They will NOT be crossing the highway through the roundabouts, except in rare instances, because there is no officially sanctioned crossing except at Leucadia Blvd., for pedestrians.
DeleteAn unofficial RR crossing is at Marcheta, where the stop sign is, on 101, and where the at grade RR tracks makes them much easier for pedestrians to transverse.
Let's not forget to count the people who were anti-roundabouts prior to attending workshops, then changed their minds after they heard about and researched the validity of how great they'll be. Not at all unlike what the U.S Dept of Transportation says on their website - how many people at first are leery of roundabouts, then after they're installed they like them. How grievous would that be?
DeleteIt's not an unofficial RR crossing at Marcheta, it's an illegal one. It was probably one of the several streets here that used to allow traffic and pedestrians to cross at grade at their own risk. Guess why they were closed?
Several bus stops will not only continue to be on the east side of N 101, they'll be a lot safer and attractive too being paved with merry "pop- ins". Although I imagine they won't have the lovely lawn furniture motif they do now. I'd like to see them have original and varied colorful mosaic tiled concrete benches. (Google that for awe!) But who am I? Arbiter of Art? But I do need to make a postcard for Leucadia with at least one of our unique bus stop benches on it. Not to mention the No Fishing sign that surfaces after it rains at the Phoebe St. puddle. Anybody see the "Beans" sign on Leucadia Blvd, btw? I like it! And while I'm off the subject, be sure and go see Mary's masterpiece on the 7-11!
Sure, crossing anywhere but at Leucadia Blvd. and La Costa is technically "illegal," Fred, but after so many years of open use, the public acquires a right of prescriptive easement to CROSS the public right of way.
DeleteThe City, and the County, before, failed to install more at grade crossings, where the public could "legally" cross the tracks, south of Downtown Encinitas, through Leucadia.
With installation of four one-lane roundabouts, several bus stops would have to be moved, and others would be eliminated. altogether, according to the City's 6/27/12 Agenda report, I believe.
But bus stops could be improved with pop outs, etc., WITHOUT installation of four one-lane roundabouts and lane elimination for motorists, before proper environmental review, including review of traffic impacts, from North of 101, to La Costa. We can have 101 beautification and improvements, without eliminating a lane or two lanes for motorists, and without installing undesired one-lane, three way intersection roundabouts, when we already have no right hand turn signs on several streets, connecting to 101, including El Portal, where the first roundabout is scheduled, without rhyme or reason.
I'm for art and keeping Leucadia funky, NOT junking it up with four one-lane roundabouts that would eliminate ANOTHER lane, brining our Major arterial down to only one lane northbound and one lane southbound.
I love Mary's work, and I'm so grateful for her wonderful editorial cartoons re saving Pacific View, as well!
The Streetscape design, including the one-lane roundabouts, looks like a product from the minds of obsessive bureaucrats who want to be part of a national club following generic trends.
DeleteMy bet is the great majority of Leucadia area residents would like to see a homegrown plan that didn't include four one-lane roundabouts, truly improved the corridor, wasn't ill-conceived to serve a few misguided merchants and property owners, and represented local thinking and orientation.
An indigenous plan created and approved by locals would be preferable to a cookie-cutter smudge produced by outsiders.
If you want to see the City Council paying no attention whatsoever to residents' opposition to Streetscape Plan 4A, watch the January 13, 2010 meeting video.
ReplyDeleteExactly, 12:52. And many of us who oppose the roundabouts and lane elimination oppose it because we do love Leucadia. The category that received the second highest number of dots at the initial February 2008 workshop was "Keep Leucadia Funky," as I recall.
DeleteMost of those supporting roundabouts and lane elimination at the 1/13/10 CC Meeting, as can be verified by watching the tape, were either city subsidaries/sponsors, like L101MA's Board of Directors, and a few members of LTC, affiliated with the Mainstreet Association (but not a subsidiary), realtors and longtime property owners adjacent to North Highway 101 who pay LOW property taxes, but want private citizen taxpayers to afford them more diagonal parking, more u-turn lanes into the T intersections where their commercial properties are located, with NO SPECIAL TAX ASSESSMENT, as Solana Beach charged for adjacent property owners when the RR was trenched, and the linear park was created, there.
These biased commercial interests want their property value to go up through increased rental value and projected sale value through potential high density development enabled by the mitigated negative impact declarations they think roundabouts will allow for properties adjacent to intersections where roundabouts are installed, because Level of Service is already considered "mitigated."
However, LOS would be worsened by reducing the motorist traffic capacity of a former four lane Major Arterial, primary circulation element, down to a two lane roadway, with gridlock during peak periods, particularly peak seasonal traffic periods, exacerbating traffic cutting through residential/recreational streets and a school zone, and reducing already subpar emergency response times in the Leucadia Coastal Zone.
These pro-development special interests do NOT represent a scientific cross section of the community, those residents living adjacent to 101 from A Street to La Costa, and those parents dropping off and picking up their children at Paul Ecke Central School, on Vulcan.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYep. I want to Keep Leucadia Funky as well. That's why I made the license plate holder. That's why I'm for Streetscape as well. Like the U.S. Dept of Transportation says, roundabouts keep a more rural feeling in a community than do their alternative of numerous electric stop light pole standards clustered.
DeleteThe pro-development special interests I've witnessed are the ones who prefer Streetscape improvement funds to go elsewhere in town for their other projects. But that's been a best kept secret until now.
My point is that the Peltz and Associates workshop data did not accurately reflect the number of people who voted, with our dots, to "Keep Leucadia Funky."
DeleteStreetscape Improvement funds are to come primarily from TransNet tax revenues, as approved through SANDAG, I believe. According to the Strategic Planning Workshop Part II, which I attended, the TransNet tax "deciders" have set their priorities on doing mitigation for the planned I-5 expansion, including a railtrail corridor for bicyclists and pedestrians, all the way from San Diego to Oceanside, and "improvements"to bridges, including RR and other bridges that transverse waterways.
Because of the premature and illegal northbound lane elimination, illegal according to Coastal Act Law referenced in our General Plan, against piecemeal development, and illegal because the City failed to get an exemption for a required Coastal Development Permit when reconfiguring a Major Arterial, primary circulation element, in the Coastal Zone, and failed to process amendments to our General and Specific Plans and our LCP, there is NO WAY that we will be awarded TransNet Tax money for our portion of the railtrail corridor.
The railtrail corridor is only planned, for the foreseeable future, to run from Chesterfield, in Cardiff, to G Street, in Encinitas. There is no funding for the railtrail corridor from G Street to La Costa, precisely BECAUSE the City jumped the gun with prematurely and unnecessarily installing an eight food wide bicycle lane, when no bicycle counts had been done, and when bicycles, except in Sharrows, are to ride single file, including in their own bike lanes. Bicycles are NOT to ride in squadrons, with several abreast, according to already quoted California Vehicle Code, also referred to by Sheriff Captain Haley, and the U.S. Dept of Transportation.
Some pro-development folks used to want money to go to Downtown, rather than to Leucadia, that's true. Perhaps some still do. But that is irrelevant to the fact that roundabouts do NOT have a rural feel to those of us who do not want to stamp a Mainstreet Association cookie cutter pattern on our funky community. One lane roundabouts at three way intersections, with NO cross-streets, would be obstacles, would create gridlock during peak traffic periods, including when I-5 is backed up or at a stand-still. These unwanted roundabouts would NOT be in keeping with our unique community character in Leucadia.
DeletePlus, we are unlikely to get TransNet tax funding grants, in any case for two more reasons. TransNet grants are NOT to fund beautification projects. All of L101MA claims that the Streetscape would be aesthetically pleasing, are not true to those of us who WANT to preserve and enhance the canopy, and would like more public art work, more flowers, less weeds, but DON"T want or need four one-lane roundabouts and lane elimination for motorists on Highway 101, through Leucadia.
Moreover, we are unlikely to get more TransNet funding, other than for the I-5 expansion mitigation already outlined, through SANDAG, because we do not yet have a certified Housing Element as part of our General Plan Update.
With our drought concerns, and the infrastructure concerns you mentioned re parking, as well as road maintenance backlog, it is unlikely that the public will vote to upzone either UP or OUT to increase density to account for more "potential" affordable housing, as mandated through the state.
Any court would balance the need for water, parking, and drivable, roads, when considering how much more affordable housing is required, should any developer sue. If the City is concerned about affordable housing advocates suing, it could easily reinstate the amnesty it had established, originally, in 1991, whereby people with pre-existing accessory units could come forward, with no penalty and no fees, to be permitted as "legal, non-conforming units," after an inspection for health and safety and a recording, by the County Recorder, of a twenty year covenant for affordable housing.
Basically, the City could help subsidize affordable housing through the amnesty, just as it subsidizes newly constructed affordable units through in lieu fees, and density bonus mandates for affordable housing, and just as it subsidized four pre-existing affordable units at the Boathouses property to the tune of more than $800K, out of in lieu City fees, from developers.
" those of us that want to preserve and enhance the canopy", please tell me specificly what YOU have done personally to P and E the canopy. Because lady... I don't see it.
DeleteWell it would be nice to see a representative democracy here where the majority rules instead of the minority who wiggles there way into positions of influence. I never proposed voting on everything. You did. I guess the quality of the results of the so called by you good public input and fair process at the city workshops if true then for some reason unclear to you it is not considered what more than a small minority wanted to end up with. Now they have to deal with the reality of a community trying to get it right and letting the voting speak the truth to all. We haven't had that process to date and those workshops results have brought us to where we are now. Wonder why? If those workshops and the results were so wonderful there would be no controversy. To think there were not undo influences with that process for their own personal gain is denying the obvious. Just because one is blind does not mean others can't see you. Let the vote speak and we can all go together happy and secure in our own minds to the polls, yea or nay. cha ching
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGood insight and vision, 12:53. Thanks for caring about justice, fair play, and the Leucadia way!
Delete9:13 hypothesizes a false dilemma, as in the public either votes on everything, or Council does.
Whenever private individuals question special interests' connections to and influence over elected officials, those same special interests (bureaucrats, politicians, developers, realtors, building industry interests) attempt to "write off" those who question authority as "conspiracy nuts," 5:02.
Your logical fallacies have become all-too predictable, 5:50.. But we can't know how many of the posts using fallacious logic are yours (although WC can and does know), including your continuing ad hominem attacks, because you are afraid to own your own venom and insult filled opinions, by posting under your name.
Apparently a few feel so powerful, so swollen up by their own bitter egos, because many people do wish to remain anonymous, or no longer choose to post on these blogs, from fear of being attacked by anonymous "operatives," attempting to stifle free speech, by driving commentators away with unkind and untrue remarks, directed at us, personally.
As far as I'm concerned, bullying tactics don't work, and only make the anonymous sockpuppets live up to their reputations. They appear to have nothing logical or relevant to add to the conversation, thereby defeating their own delusional, psychopathic purposes.
Anonymous cyber-bullies DARE NOT post their hateful comments under their own names. Which says it all.
Qween Lynn to the sock puppets...
ReplyDeleteOff with their heads!
You're suffering from delusions of grandeur lady.
It is clearly you that is the bully of this blog.
Your pathetic attemps to shout down all who disagree with you makes you the one true bully on this blog!
Careful, she'll trap your IP address and sue you.
DeleteI know, I know. I forgot the T in attempt. Just in case you wish to admonish me for that error too.
ReplyDeleteGive it up. Lynn is loved in Encinitas and even though her comments can be long she is a smart powerful force of good for all of encinitas.
ReplyDeleteNo!
ReplyDeleteShe's the one who needs to give it up.
2/3rds of all the posts on this entire blog are Lynn's. She stalks and dominates this blog like it's her own kingdom.
She's always shouting down anyone who disagrees with her own twisted, self absorbed opinions of what she claims we all really want for this community.
It's pathetic.
How cool, now she doesn't need defending because your last rant did it already.
DeleteMaybe true roundabouts — big ones that you actually drive around — do maintain a rural community feeling. But little ones the diameter of those on Leucadia Blvd. are merely obstructions in the roadway, especially when they're dropped into a four-lane highway, forcing drivers to squeeze from two lanes in both directions to one lane to get through the obstruction.
ReplyDeleteAs proposed for Streetscape, drivers will have to do that squeeze three times in a half-mile at the north end. Then, if they're heading south, they can gun it to warp speed for 6/10 of a mile to Leucadia Blvd. and, if the light is green, another 6/10 of a mile straight down to El Portal. A red light at the boulevard would stop the speedway till it turned green.
After squeezing through the El Portal one-lane obstruction, drivers can again open it up for another 6/10 mile to Encinitas Blvd.
The plan's configuration and roundabout placement makes no real sense at all. On top of that, it doesn't solve the biggest problem: nowhere near enough parking.
You proponents sound foolish. You go to great artificial lengths to defend the indefensible. No one with common sense can conclude you're knowledgeable or genuine.
If I am mistaken forgive me but roundabouts can be recommended for cross streets and we don't have that on the n.101 anywhere but at the existing light controlled Leucadia blvd. Isn't it just as simple as that? Cross streets it is feasible in some situations. Where is the evidence that it is recommended in our situation? If this has been addressed previously I apologize for missing it. Thanks to all who care enough to engage in the process to get it right and not be run over over by the few who have wielded power and influence for far too long. A vote would truly represent the will of the people more than the tailored workshops ever could. Bring it on. cha ching
ReplyDeleteThis "cha ching" fella or gal sounds like a Latino Asian. Now, there's diversity for ya! His or her point of view comes from a fair, rational mind.
Delete