Bikes and parklets and traffic diets in Pasadena subject of press coverage

The Los Angeles Times reported on efforts in the Playhouse District to consider narrowing Colorado Boulevard and adding parklets and angled parking to the street between Hudson Avenue and Los Robles.

Here is the LA Times story:

Editorial

Pasadena looks to slow down. Will it work?

The city's traffic-calming idea could succeed in increasing pedestrian safety, local sales and a neighborly feel.

 

January 28, 2014

The city of Pasadena in the coming months will be looking at a proposal that confounds conventional wisdom in a region preoccupied with time spent in cars: close some lanes on Colorado Boulevard, the city's main thoroughfare, to slow down traffic.

The first thought that comes to mind is: Uh-oh, traffic jams — avoid downtown Pasadena. But the city might be on to something.

The proposal began with the Pasadena Playhouse District Assn., whose territory encompasses an asymmetrical area roughly between Green Street to north of Walnut Street, and from Los Robles Avenue east to Catalina Avenue. Colorado cuts east-west through the heart of the district, and the city, and is among the most traveled corridors in Pasadena.


As The Times reported last week, over the last decade the neighborhood has added some 3,000 residential units within three blocks of Colorado Boulevard. Some new hotel proposals would add to the density — and the vitality.

The proposal is still in the formative stages, but it would narrow Colorado from two fast-moving lanes in each direction to one slow-moving lane each way (preserving a center left-turn lane), with diagonal parking and curbside "parklets" taking up the reclaimed space, plus right-turn lanes at the intersections. The parklets would be removable to ensure that the annual Rose Parade would be unimpeded.

Backers believe putting Colorado Boulevard on a road diet would increase pedestrian safety, slow traffic and give the area more of a community feel. A similar project underway in nearby Eagle Rock has narrowed Colorado from three to two lanes in each direction. But the Pasadena proposal takes the concept of "calming" traffic even further.

This is an idea worth pursuing, and studying. There are legitimate concerns about what the change would mean for traffic congestion on nearby streets. But with the 210 Freeway a few blocks to the north, there are other options for those wishing to drive through — rather than to — Pasadena.

That's where the idea seems to have the most potential: crystallizing the district into a destination while diverting through-traffic around it. What would make it especially helpful, for both Pasadena and other Southern California cities, would be to build in some data-gathering to gauge the effects of these changes. Measuring street traffic — vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian — is obvious. But it also would be useful to collect sales transaction data from businesses in the area now, to measure against the post-diet transactions.

More walking, fewer cars: Pasadena could be building a better Main Street.

------------
In Sunday's Times, however, a Santa Monica resident warned that downtown urbanization could lead to identity (and comfort) loss:
 

Op-Ed

From Santa Monica, the lament of an 'urban villager'

My city may be an urban planner's dream. But for the rest of us, it's become a nightmare.

January 26, 2014

I've read recently with a sense of deja vu — and dread — about the efforts of Los Angeles and Pasadena to build denser housing in downtown areas and make their streets more friendly to pedestrians and bicyclists.

Santa Monica, where I live, was an early adopter of this "urban village" concept. The result? My beachside community's downtown core works fine for those who can afford to live there. They can walk from their $4,000-a-month studio apartments in the hip center of town to their choice of half a dozen coffee joints, and they can pick up the latest fashions on the way so they'll look good when they get there.

But for the majority of Santa Monica's 92,000 residents — those of us who cannot ride bicycles and live too far to walk to this downtown paradise — life has deteriorated.

It all sounded great when the city planners, whose salaries we pay, started talking about it. The plan was to add residents to the city core and then make the streets safer and more appealing for cyclists, so people would leave their cars behind. There would be bike lanes and bike centers with storage and showers to make biking to work possible. Who could oppose that?

Since then, even though most of the new residents drive just as the old ones did, a number of streets have been reduced from two lanes in each direction to one to accommodate bike lanes. Traffic lanes on other streets have also been narrowed to make room for the bicycles. And city streets are festooned with "sharrows" — hieroglyphic-like drawings on the asphalt that are supposed to encourage drivers to be polite to cyclists (though, from observation, the cyclists don't feel bound to show the same courtesy).

Congestion has been growing in Santa Monica for years, but today it can take 30 minutes or more on any of the major east-west routes to drive the few miles from the ocean to our eastern boundary with West Los Angeles. It's the same at 11 a.m. or 9 p.m. most days. North-south streets such as Lincoln, Fourth and Main can be even more nightmarish.

If you work or have appointments outside the city, or even if you just want to leave the beach to attend a play or concert in downtown Los Angeles, you have to brace yourself for a tortuous commute, often starting at your driveway. You might spend two hours in the car to drive the 18 miles to Disney Hall, more time than the concert itself will take. To meet friends for dinner in Beverly Hills, a mere eight miles away, you have to plan on an hour to be sure you're not late.

Constructing more hotels and high-rise multi-use buildings, and eliminating lanes for cars in favor of pedestrians and bikes, sounds great in theory. Who wouldn't want to live in an urban village? But a lot of Santa Monica residents don't take advantage of the movie theaters, restaurants and shops that were supposed to make our downtown attractive. Getting to them is just too difficult. Instead, we're sheltering in place, experimenting with dinners with friends by Skype and tearing our hair out at the thought of having to drive more than a mile or two from home.

Of course, sometimes we're forced to drive — say when we need to buy food from a nearby grocery store. Then we have to run a gantlet of empowered cyclists, who dart in and out of traffic at will, position themselves in the middle of the street going 6 miles per hour (because they can!), ride against the direction of traffic or on sidewalks (which is prohibited in Santa Monica), and slide in between two stopped cars at lights to assert their position. They nonchalantly blow through stop signs.

Bicycle riders feel entitled in Santa Monica, and for good reason. We've bent over backward to let them kick us in the rear end. The bulk of Santa Monicans have been forced to take a back seat to a few thousand smug urbanites and cyclists. They've won the war and are taking no prisoners

Is this what you want in Pasadena and in downtown Los Angeles? Just make sure you know what you're getting into. If you build it, they will come. Pasadenans may soon find themselves heading to Sierra Madre to do their errands. And those who work downtown should brace themselves for significantly longer commutes.

Go ahead with your plans, if you want, but here's some advice from someone who's already living in an urban village: The next time you get in the car to go the doctor, take your kids to school or call on a client, make sure you pack a sandwich, a toothbrush and a change of underwear.

Bruce R. Feldman is a 29-year resident of Santa Monica.

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times

------------------

That op-ed generated comments from LA Times' readers:

Mailbag

Who's to blame for Santa Monica's traffic hell? Readers weigh in.


January 28, 2014, 5:00 a.m.

Santa Monica's cyclist-friendly "urban village" planning, according to 29-year resident Bruce R. Feldman, has made the city a commuting hell for those who drive or don't live near the urban core. And by the way: Cyclists are rude, routinely break traffic laws and have a general sense of entitlement.

Understandably, Feldman's article Sunday touched a nerve. For frustrated car commuters around the region and others dismayed by high-density development, his piece confirmed their belief that it’s insanity to remove vehicle lanes while cramming more residents into smaller spaces. Some cyclists made the case that cars are still the biggest drivers of congestion and that cyclists deserve to be accommodated in transportation planning just as motorists do. Last time I read them, the comments online have come down pretty decisively on Feldman's side; the letters have been more balanced, though they tilt in Feldman's favor.


As a sometimes-cyclist (though not in Santa Monica), it goes without saying that I reacted pretty negatively to Feldman's observation-based swipes at cyclists — which, as I've written before, are often used by motorists who try to come up with excuses for why someone riding a bike might have invited serious injury.

But I also think there is a truth underlying Feldman's frustration over gridlock that sometimes goes unacknowledged when progressive planners and activists make their case for things such as "traffic calming" and road diets: Removing highly used car lanes has real impacts on the lives of decent, well-meaning people who happen to rely on their cars.

Yes, more people riding bikes means less pollution and better traffic on the whole, and cyclists deserve to be far better accommodated than they have been. But that doesn't mean the objection of a motorist whose commute has become noticeably slower — which affects all kinds of everyday chores, like making it to work on time or picking up a kid from daycare before an expensive late charges kicks in — deserves to be dismissed.

Enough with me. Here's what readers have to say (and some of these reactions may appear in the paper later this week).

San Gabriel resident Patricia Doyle says Pasadena, like Santa Monica, has turned into a traffic hell:

"Feldman was spot on in his assessment of the potential unintended consequences, including overcrowded road conditions, if Pasadena narrows Colorado Boulevard, the main drag through Old Town Pasadena. My family and I have lived in the San Gabriel Valley for 17-plus years and we frequently shopped, dined and attended movies, plays or concerts in Old Town.

"We watched in dismay and bewilderment as Pasadena approved several building projects that have resulted in a dramatic density increase near Old Town. We have spent less and less time there due to the increased crowds, lack of parking and traffic congestion. Traffic on Colorado is often at a complete standstill. I can only imagine that such a scenario would increase in frequency with fewer lanes for cars. It does not take too much imagination to envision that the traffic will back up even farther along Colorado.

"We have taken our business elsewhere and found alternative places to spend our discretionary income."

Santa Monica resident Kristina Schauer says it's not so bad in her city:

"With all due respect to Feldman, as a busy Santa Monica mom who has driven, biked and walked the city every single day for the past seven years, I don't agree with his dismal assessment of our living conditions here.  

"Yes, traffic and housing prices are terrible. But I'm excited for the Expo Line extension to downtown Los Angeles; finally I can make an evening show at the Walt Disney Concert Hall during the week. I go to the Promenade regularly. Even during rush hour, it generally takes me no longer than 20 minutes to get from one side of town to the other on surface streets.  

"As for cyclist behavior, I have flatly no idea what Feldman is talking about, and I love the new bike lanes. It's not as difficult as Feldman suggests to go about your daily business here. 

"What I do recognize in his tone is a common reaction among people who have lived here more than 15 years: a profound sense of anger and disappointment at how Santa Monica has changed, how busy and wealthy it is, how they don't feel they fit in anymore. Elected officials should listen well to the alienation and frustration their well-intended policies are producing. I'm all for reining in developers and making traffic reduction a planning priority.  

"But I'm not living in a 'nightmare' — I'm living in a well-functioning, gorgeous seaside city that is trying to grow into the future the best it can.”

Keith Johnson of Los Angeles says cyclists don't deserve most of the blame for congestion:

"Feldman's a keen observer, that's for sure — the bicycling community is growing big time. There are a lot more cyclists these days than in years past, and events such as CicLAvia are hugely popular.

"But I don't believe we pedal-pushers in general ruin anyone's commute. Instead, look to the cars ahead of you (and behind you), and there's your problem."

Santa Monica resident Bob Burket warns the denizens of Pasadena's and downtown L.A.:


"Feldman's article nearly brought tears of relief to the eyes of this 40-year resident of Santa Monica. I have the happy fortune of living exactly at the boundary of the city and can slip out of the urban planners' deadly embrace in a heartbeat. 

"I would caution the folks who today actually live in Pasadena and downtown L.A. that the forces creating these 'urban villages' are mostly the wealthy citizens who will be right at home in these compact, ultra-high-rent districts, and if they want to preserve any livability in their hometowns, they had better prepare for a formidable battle. 

"The costs of losing have been vividly and accurately described by Feldman."

Marty Wilson of Whittier agrees with Feldman's characterization of cyclists:

"Thanks to Feldman for his words on bike riders and the increasing accommodation of them.

"I believe it is unlikely that cyclists will ever make much of an impact on easing traffic. Indeed the efforts to create more bike lanes will only cause more problems.  It's going to be the racing and training bikers on the street that cars have to deal with. I'm not the only one who has had experiences with arrogant bikers who seem to think everyone else on the road (or the bike path) is in their way. 

"I'll share the road with them, but is it too much to ask that they look out for me in my car rather than assume they are guaranteed safety and that it's up to me to provide it?”

-----------------------

Many thanks to the LA Times for the stories...

This was also covered in the Star-News last spring... and was picked up by local TV news, too.