“A road diet
is a reduction in the travel lanes of an existing street, converting some of
the pavement area to other uses, such as additional parking, center turn
pockets, or sidewalks bulbs for traffic calming.
“Although
reducing travel lanes would intuitively seem to reduce traffic capacity, the
reduction can be less than expected. If
the existing lanes are unusually narrow, as is true of Petaluma Boulevard, the
current capacity may be less than indicated by the lane count. Meanwhile, the revised configuration can
improve vehicle and pedestrian safety.
“I find the
road diet to be a reasonable traffic modification for downtown Petaluma. I’m pleased that it’s proceeding. But I’m not surprised that it’s been
controversial.”
Several
weeks ago, the Petaluma City Council considered the possibility of applying for
a grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to continue the road
diet on Petaluma Boulevard South. The suggestion
by City Public Works was to continue the road diet from its current end between
D and E Streets to the vicinity of McNear Street or perhaps to the recently
completed roundabout at the new Quarry Heights subdivision.
I describe
the Public Works position as a “suggestion” because their endorsement was
tepid. They found that the extended road
diet was the best fit for the MTC grant, but were unsure if the community was
ready for a further road diet on Petaluma Boulevard.
Their caution
was justified. Both the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat and Petaluma Patch ran articles that attracted
community concern. At the hearing, further
worries were expressed on behalf of downtown merchants, who feared the effect
of ongoing construction on the boulevard.
The opposing
perspective was offered by a member of the citizens committee for the Central
Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP), who articulately described the compromises during
the CPSP process that envisioned the road diet.
She also evoked the vision of a more bicycle and pedestrian friendly
boulevard. I failed to add my voice to
hers. I regret my silence although I
couldn’t have matched her eloquence.
In any case,
her passion was insufficient. The motion
to pursue the grant for Petaluma Boulevard South failed on a 3-3 tie. Instead, the Council directed city staff to
purse the grant for other parts of the city even those the alternative
locations wouldn’t conform as well to the MTC guidelines, reducing the
probability of grant award.
In the weeks
since the decision, I’ve looked with a critical eye at the segment of Petaluma
Boulevard South that would have been affected.
It truly is pedestrian and bicycle unfriendly. Although pedestrians and bicyclists can use
the parallel local streets, many trips require crossing the boulevard and the
road diet would have helped those crossings.
Ultimately,
the City Council’s failure to pursue the grant for Petaluma Boulevard South was
symptomatic of a failure to have a vision for downtown that includes
non-vehicular transportation. Perhaps
they’re correct in thinking that pedestrians and bicyclists wouldn’t be a key element
of downtown in the future. But I think
they’re wrong. And if another grant
becomes available for a road diet extension, I’ll back it with enthusiasm.
Follow-Ups
and Schedule Notes
Petaluma
Urban Chat: December 11 was the first of two meetings at which Petaluma Urban
Chat will talk about the StrongTowns Curbside Chat booklet. The discussion was well-attended and a good
sharing of ideas. Everyone is invited to
join us on Tuesday, January 8, 5:30pm. Charles
Marohn of StrongTowns may be able to join us by Skype. Therefore, we’re looking for an alternative
location in which a video chat can be as productive as possible. More details will follow here. If you haven’t yet read the booklet, it can
be found
here.
StrongTowns:
The Curbside Chat booklet is a good introduction to the StrongTowns
philosophy. But there is much more to be
found on StrongTowns website. For anyone
looking for a supplemental reading assignment, I suggest the Rogers Interchange
links on the StrongTowns Case Studies page.
Although the
facts in the Rogers situation seem worse than in most California communities,
the case study has the most similarities to California land development
patterns.
The case
study concludes with a suggestion of a zoning code that includes more
urbanism. I agree completely with the
advice, but it’s an interesting recommendation because the StrongTowns founder
Marohn is a registered Republican and urbanism is often, although incorrectly,
equated with liberal social engineering.
But Marohn sets off on a path of financial conservatism and arrives at
urbanism.
It’s a funny
thing about urbanism. It’s the solution
to a wide range of social concerns.
Looking to accommodate the growing lifestyle preferences of the young
and the seniors? Urbanism is an
answer. Looking to apportion government
resources in a more financially conservative way? Urbanism is an answer. Worried about climate change? Urbanism is an answer. Concerned about sending petroleum dollars to
unstable regimes? Urbanism is an
answer. Prefer to preserve green space? Urbanism is an answer.
And yet
urbanism doesn’t receive the support that it often needs and often it struggles
to succeed at the ballot box. As
successful downtown Berkeley developer Patrick Kennedy says, “Urbanism solves so many problems it's like a
superhero. But a vilified one like Batman.”
And that is the problem that we must
face. Hopefully together.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment