Like a persistent dog, today I’ll give one more good chew
to the bone that is Petaluma’s Rainier Connector and then bury it for
awhile. I’ll surely return to the bone
again in the future. After all, the
public notices on the Rainier Connector, a proposed arterial in the northwest
quadrant of town, have been a fifty-year skein of birth announcements and
obituary notices; I don’t see that pattern changing any time soon. But after today, I’ll let the bone age for
awhile.
This will be the fourth in the current series of posts on
the Rainier Connector. I began by
bemoaning the yes/no question recently posed to the City Council on the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Connector. I argued that the binary decision failed to capture the nuances of
either the process or the project alternatives.
Next, I presented the urbanist argument why Rainier might be a good
project for the future of Petaluma, but not yet.
Then, I suggested an idea for what urbanism could instead offer for the $90
million cost of the roadway project.
Today, I’ll button up with a look at what urbanism can
offer in the shorter-term. Too much of
Petaluma is configured in the drivable suburban mold for extensive urbanism to
have a place anytime soon. But perhaps
there are urbanist strategies that can be implemented to alleviate some the
pains of drivable suburbia.
As an example, I’ll resurrect a topic on which I’ve written
before, a new sports complex on the east side of Petaluma. (The complex, unnamed when I last wrote about
it, is now the Petaluma Community Sports Fields.)
When I last wrote about the sports fields, I was castigating
myself, as a member of the Petaluma Park and Rec Commission, for failing to more
quickly call out the drivable suburban mindset behind siting a six-field
athletic complex where many users would reach the site by passing through the
busiest intersection in Petaluma.
I acknowledged that I had as much chance of changing the siting
decision as of stopping a locomotive with a flyswatter, but still thought I
should have been quicker to note the looming traffic issues. I even predicted that some would soon call
for a traffic fix to alleviate the difficulties in reaching the sports fields.
Sure enough, one of the pro-Rainier arguments tossed about
during the run-up to the City Council hearing on the FEIR was the need to
provide better access to the sports fields.
Never mind that building a $90 million roadway to improve access to a $6
million sports complex is roughly akin to buying a $500 carpet shampooer to
remove a stain from a $30 rug or to buying a $10 grabber to retrieve a quarter
from under a car seat, induced traffic would have undermined the traffic relief
anyway.
Grandparents who had previously skipped sporting events
because of the expected congestion enroute to the sports fields would begin
making the trip, soon returning congestion to its former level. Perhaps the new constraint on driving could
have been parking at the sports complex.
During a recent visit, I noted that there are already signs posted directing
drivers to overflow parking on the far side of the fronting arterial, an
arterial without crosswalks. But I expect
that ideas for more parking would soon have begun floating, perhaps suggesting elimination
of one of the future fields in favor of a parking lot.
That path is obviously going in an unacceptable direction,
so let’s look to urbanism for different ideas.
The possible urbanist strategies fall into two categories, facilities located
closer to users and encouragement of non-automobile access options.
In a chat with a fellow Park and Rec Commissioner, I noted
that the community might have been served, from a traffic congestion
perspective, by building fields at multiple locations rather than clustering
them. He responded, reasonably enough,
that the multi-field complex allows weekend tournaments for out-of-towners, which
benefits the local economy.
I’m happy to have others enjoy Petaluma, although I wonder
how many years of sales and transient occupancy taxes will be required to pay
for the sports fields. Or for the
Rainier Connector. Unless that number is
reasonable, the argument is only another example of using public dollars to
create private revenue.
But I’m willing to stipulate that having a multi-field
sports complex is a good thing for a community as long as that stipulation
doesn’t preclude parallel provision for fields that require less driving. And there is some hope on that front.
All three Petaluma high schools have or will soon have turf
fields and have expressed a tentative willingness to allow community use of
those fields when not in conflict with school activities. Having no current involvement in youth sports,
I don’t know to what extent youth leagues can be jiggered to have more play at
fields to which non-automotive access, or at least shorter drives, is possible,
but these are topics which I’ll push in my role on the Park and Rec Commission.
But there is another sports field where an opportunity was
missed. The River Front project will be
in a central location, readily accessible to much of the community by
transit. The proposed development will have
a sports field, but the developer’s plan calls for grass, not the turf that
would better support intensive use for community sports.
The community interest in a turf field became evident
during the entitlement process when there was an effort to make the turf a
further, and in my opinion unreasonable, exaction from the developer. The debate became mired in the question of how much a
developer should fund in order to receive entitlements and a pro-developer perspective
on the City Council quickly quashed the idea of turf. My belief that the community should have
funded the incremental cost between the grass and turf field wasn’t raised. It was a missed opportunity.
And that brings us to the question of non-automobile access
to the Petaluma Community Sports Fields.
There’s also some good news on that front, with a bicycle/pedestrian path
currently under construction. However,
the path won’t be ready for use until about six months after play began on the sports
fields, six months during which access habits, such as relying on parental
transport, were formed.
I know there were easement issues to be resolved before the
path construction could be commenced and that staff made a good faith effort to
resolve those issues quickly. But let me
ask a pair of questions. Does anyone know
of a park that opened with the route of car access still pending? Or is a bicycle/pedestrian path somehow considered
less worthy of a timely solution?
The question of transit to the site is also interesting. There is currently little use of transit to
access any sports fields in Petaluma.
However, Petaluma Transit and the Transit Advisory Committee, on which I
sit, are trying to increase that use.
Accordingly, the Committee reviewed the construction plans
for the Petaluma Community Sports Fields, identified a possible transit turnaround
and suggested a change that would allow the turnaround at a later date. To be clear, we weren’t asking for the turnaround,
which would have been premature, but only for a change to accommodate the turnaround
at a future date. And the change would
have actually reduced the sports fields construction cost.
The suggested change was conveyed to the team managing the construction,
which readily agreed to the revision.
And then forgot to implement it.
I don’t think there was any ill will in the forgetfulness. I expect the change was simply overlooked in the
fog of construction. Plus, as someone
recently noted to me, we’re still dealing with a generation of engineers who
have been forced to think about bicycle and pedestrian issues, but for whom
transit is still not automatic to them.
Plus, the oversight may have been partially the result of the
Transit Committee still not having, despite well over two years of requesting, the official
power to comment on land use matters. (I’ve
recently been advised that this issue may again be moving ahead.)
The turnaround remains a future possibility, but demolition
of recently installed improvements may be necessary to accommodate it, which would
be unfortunate for all.
The overall report card on the efforts to incorporate
urbanist strategies to improve access to the Petaluma Community Sports Fields,
without spending $90 million on the Rainier Connector, is a mixed but mostly
disappointing bag. If I squint really
hard, I can see giving a C to the bicycle/pedestrian path. But otherwise I see only Ds and Incompletes. As always, urbanism is whispering good
solutions in our ears and we’re not listening.
And now, it’s truly time to move along and to bury the Rainier
Connector bone for awhile. There’s
nothing further to be seen here.
A recent vacation took me to a part of the country that was
largely new to me. As I crossed into
each new state, I crossed out another line on my mental tally of states still
unvisited. In this record keeping, I
suspect I was like many travelers. But
then it dawned on me that maintaining a log of states visited was a silly task
for an urbanist. I’ll explain why in my
next post.
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