Report from North Coast Highway 101 Streetscape Project
Posted By Sam Ollinger on October 5, 2009
Kate, our reader in Encinitas attended the North Coast Highway 101 Streetscape Project on Saturday and sent us this update:
I went with my son to the Streetscape information session yesterday. Total attendees were under 50 people (most were familiar faces) The focus was Birdrock as an example of a successful community process. I believe one of the goals was to address the phobia about roundabouts. We arrived late, in the middle of a presentation by Ken Grimes, the executive director of Walk San Diego. His presentation was very thorough and informative when describing traffic calming. I found the portion about psychological calming really intriguing. In my career in design I found environmental psychology study vitally important perspective, especially informing change. The Birdrock Community Relations speaker, Joe La Cava, emphasized the process that community went through to achieve the boulevard design that is so successful. He stressed the importance of addressing each and every concern as legitimate. When people have the answers and the respect of being taken seriously, there can be resolution. The last speaker was a developer, Paul Metcalf, who was very entertaining, explaining his being on the other side of the planning process. He was on the traffic committee. He named one of the most profound changes was the elimination of noise. Living as I do in Leucadia – next to 101 and the train – I really heard what he was saying. And, he emphasized “Try to get community back from cars.” But, alas there was an San Diego engineer , Pazagod (I missed his full name), who spoke and lost all of the spirit and enthusiasm in the room. Isn’t it dreadful how a terrible speaker can do so much damage? He droned on and on with absolutely no sense of his audience’s discomfort.
My son was there under duress, so the terrible speaker pushed it all too far. (I think of him and his friend we saw there as citizen novitiates, because being a citizen has become such a rarity in the US of A.) We left around noon in the middle of the question period. I wanted to ask for more specifics on biking – as the three presentations we’d suffered through had not given more than a passing reference. But, there were many hands in the air and the bad speaker kept taking the mic for more opportunities to suck all the oxygen from the room. I was happy to hear Peder Norby (a very important shaker and mover in Encinitas who has sustainability and localization central to his many past projects). He articulated in very simple terms the several main questions the nay-sayers always bring up. The first is the argument that reducing number of lanes and adding roundabouts will decrease traffic, slow traffic and cause drivers to use side streets. The panel of speakers were able to refute the first several points in a statistical and subjective way. The issue of auxiliary streets was one that was answered with examples of dealing with side street calming methods prior to the major 101 changes.
Despite my whining, I believe I learned something Saturday as I have at every one of these sessions. I look forward to studying the drawings better at the next scheduled event on October 8 at the Encinitas library. I spoke with Leucadia 101 activists today at the Farmers’ Market and they said it is another information workshop and next Saturday’s is the most important event for me to visit. And, I did look at the Walk San Diego brochures at the takeaway table and visited their website. I was very impressed. The 10 year Walk San Diego report included highlights on the path to Walkability. It pinpoints steps including getting critically important funding.
Kate also sent us a link to this story from the Leucadia Blog titled “Every 75 to 100 years.” The essay begins as follows:
Every 75 to 100 years communities get a chance to make a significant difference in their built environment
Read the rest of the essay here. And thank you Kate for the update on the Streetscape session.
Comments
9 Responses to “Report from North Coast Highway 101 Streetscape Project”
Join in the discussion
In discussion of North Coast Highway 101 Streetscape Project, I’ve seen mention about adding bike lanes in the new design (whereas there is not currently a bike lane on southbound 101). I’ve wondered whether the traffic calming proposals and roundabouts reduce the need to have a separate lane for bikes. What are people’s opinions about including bike lanes as compared to sharrows when planning a new design?
This was an inspirational speech. The more I learn about what goes behind the scenes in making roads unsafe for bicycles, the more I see that this is a result of people who are informed not getting involved. Here, we are finally seeing some change for the better.
This report was very informative. It’s not something you’d find in the local newspaper where they refuse to give cyclists a point of view.
I think that it’s a chicken and egg thing. If there are a lot of cyclists, drivers learn to deal with them. On the other hand, there is a lot of fear that new cyclists have of mixing with traffic.
New cyclists don’t want to mix with traffic. I can’t stress this enough. I don’t know if there’s any way around this.
I want as many people as possible to enjoy cycling so I advocate for separate bicycle paths or bicycle lanes if there’s not enough political will to get bicycle paths.
When driving and cycling, perception is quite important. Motorists and cyclists respond more to a perception of safety rather than actual safe behavior because safety is not taught enough in schools, and it’s not stressed enough.
An on-line acquaintance of mine who’s knowledgeable about this project says that momentum is building against reducing the northbound direction to just one vehicle lane. That’s why the proponents of this project really want to get a big turnout at next Saturday’s meeting to support the traffic calming and the one lane northbound. (The lane reduction is described as necessary to make room for the bike lanes, the roundabouts, the trees, and the walking path.)
I think Travis may be right about the benefit of adding sharrows, at least on the approach to the roundabouts (which are mostly one-lane, no separate bike lane going through them). Don’t know if sharrows would take the place of the bike lane on the straight stretches, though.
I’ll be riding up to the meeting on Saturday. Maybe I’ll see some of you on the road or at the meeting hall.
As a driver and a cyclist, I wouldn’t be in support of reducing the lanes on 101. It is really the only major through roadway along the coast, and gets a lot of traffic. Increasing the shoulder NB, possibly adding sharrows, with SB getting a bike lane, or sharrows, would be a better option. Narrowing the roadway will lead to the same problems you see in Del Mar. Yes, traffic is slowed, but not in a good way. US 101 has been four lanes since the late 1940′s, adjusting it to allow for easier cycling would do a lot more than reducing the capacity.
Apparently there’s no room for additional bike lanes while keeping the four vehicle lanes plus the curbside parking on the west. The land use is constrained by the railroad right of way on the east and the businesses on the west. Participants at the first workshops, most of whom I’d assume were Leucadia residents, identified “lower speeds” and “lane reduction” as high priorities.
Also, I’m not sure about this, but I believe the presence of roundabouts, rather than stoplights or stop signs, will allow a greater traffic flow than you’d expect from a three-lane road (and certainly better than what you have in Del Mar with its four lanes plus many stop signs).
Check out the maps, FAQ, and slide show at:
http://www.leucadia101.com/Streetscape%20information.htm
I’m hoping to learn more about all this at the meeting this coming Saturday.
I just did a bit more research, through the Bicycle Coalition discussion board, and discovered that cyclists have in the past recommended Travis’ suggestion of sharrows for the full length of the southbound right-hand lane. Not sure exactly why this idea was rejected in favor of the bike lane, which does encourage cyclists to ride too far to the right in many cases, and gives motorists the mistaken impression that bikes ALWAYS. Maybe sharrows are just too new in San Diego to be considered a viable option?
…have to be in the bike lane (was supposed to go after ALWAYS before I inadvertently posted the comment).
I just wanted to point out that there is a major highway that runs parallel to the 101 so if people want to drive fast they can do so. I know people have important places to be.
On the other hand, if they are interested in the coast, perhaps it would be nice for them to have a break from driving? I think it’s a great shame that so much natural beauty has been destroyed by encouraging a great deal of motor traffic. You can see this everywhere you go. This is a chance to unspoil some natural beauty so it can be enjoyed by all.
I’m not advocating a particular way to fix this road. I just think that one should keep in mind that the cities that have devoted the most land and money to moving traffic faster have some of the worst traffic jams. (Think LA).
I believe there’s much more to life than moving from place to place as rapidly as possible. I understand that people wish to do so, and this wish has been accommodated at great expense to our health, sanity, and pocketbook. We have reaped very little benefit in return for this.
I’m not arguing one way or another on how the road should be set up. I’m just relating some paradoxical results of changes that people have made in cities for over a hundred years. The way one designs an environment has a great impact on how people act and feel. I think that these two things should be taken into account rather than just blindly increasing the number of cars we can squeeze though a piece of land per hour.