Checking for Support on the Flanks – Part One

Writing about urbanism, and presumably about most subjects with practical community application, can require a careful husbanding of time and resources.  There are so many worthy ideas to be pursued that a writer can spread himself too thin trying to champion all of them.  It’s a battle I fight with myself every week.

Some idea people respond by choosing to serve only as a source of ideas.  If no one picks up on a proffered idea, the possibility dies, but the writer can rationalize that it wasn’t his fault.  Personally, I find that approach bloodless.  Offering ideas is an essential step, but never committing more of one’s self seems to show a lack of community commitment.

Others respond by jumping into every possible campaign.  Never saying no is a fine way to make friends, but it also dilutes effectiveness such that no good cause gets sufficient attention.

I try to find a happy medium.  Sometimes I’ll write about an idea and then let it go, hoping it does well in the future, but with no further commitment from me.

Other times I’ll jump in and devote my time and effort to further promote a concept which I’ve offered.  But I only take this course if it’s an idea that really moves me and if others will work with me in the effort.  It’s more fun to tilt at windmills if they’re worthy targets and if one has compatriots in the tilting.

However, I haven’t always been good about checking for support before charging off toward the windmills.  I’ve been too willing to hear what I want to hear in fuzzy comments of support, only to find myself alone in the lane approaching the windmill.

This isn’t going to be one of those times.  In this post and the next, I’ll lay out an opportunity and ask for support.  If it isn’t forthcoming, that’s fine.  I can save myself for another battle.  But if support is offered, then we can begin having fun.

The subject is a possibility has recently arisen in Petaluma.  I initially mentioned it casually, almost dismissively, because the barriers before it seemed too large to overcome.  But then several folks through different channels told me that they found the idea intriguing.  And the more I pondered the idea, the more it seemed to provide a great solution to multiple challenges.  Today, the barriers seemed as high or even higher than when I’d first assessed them, but the advantages and support seemed greater.  So, today I’ll begin a check to see if the support is real.

The issue is the second SMART station in Petaluma.   I’ve recently written at length on the situation.  I’ll give a summary and update below, but if you want my full bore approach, which wandered into a rumination about the best function of urban growth boundaries, you can read the four blog posts here, here, here, and here.

Summarizing and slightly updating the situation, SMART formulated their rail plan based on a second Petaluma station at the intersection of N. McDowell Boulevard and Corona Road.  (For those not in the North Bay, SMART is the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District.  They’re implementing a voter-approved plan to return commuter rail service to the Sonoma Marin corridor, with revenue service expected to begin in late 2016.)

The first SMART station in Petaluma is downtown, near the historic train station, and has never been in question.  But the location of the second station has become a problem.

Presumably because of budget concerns from the recession, SMART held back from acquiring the initially intended site at the northeast corner of McDowell and Corona.  (The triangular parcel in the photo.)  The site subsequently went through a foreclosure and a sale, and is now back at the market, but at a price in which SMART seems uninterested.

Behind the first site is the Brody parcel, which would work for a train station but, being set back from McDowell, wouldn’t be as convenient for bus or private car access as the first parcel.  Plus, the Brody parcel would seem better reserved for later transit-oriented development (TOD).

Across Corona is the current U.S. Post Office site.  Many of the mail processing tasks have recently been moved away from the site, but the process to release a portion of the site for a train station is unknown and likely complex.

Behind the Post Office is the largest Corona alternative, the Scott parcel (bisected by Peterson Lane in the photo).  But the parcel is outside of the urban growth boundary, requiring a significant land-use action to make it available for the parking and/or TOD that should complement a train station.  Also, the Scott parcel may have wetland issues that would require mitigation.  Lastly, the Scott parcel would the same access concerns as the Brody parcel.

Perhaps influenced by the challenges at the four parcels surrounding the originally intended station location, SMART identified a possible trade of other land rights for a fifth station location, about a mile to the northwest on Old Redwood Highway, about a quarter-mile north of McDowell.  The station would be closer to office parks, but further from the housing that it was intended to serve.  Also it is tightly bounded by the urban growth boundary and a Community Separator, limiting the TOD potential around the site.   And the bus and car access concerns would be worse than for any of the sites near Corona.

And there we are, with five possible sites, all imperfect in one way or another.

Except that there’s a sixth site that, while it also has significant imperfections, offers rather remarkable benefits.

A short distance north of Corona on McDowell is a vacant industrial parcel.  It lies between a FedEx distribution center and a warehouse with multiple tenants.  As can be seen in the photo, it also backs on the rail tracks.  Lagunitas Brewery, which is on the far side of the warehouse, owns development rights to the parcel, recently secured approvals to build a parking lot to serve their on-site brewpub, and has begun clearing and grubbing the site.

But the site could also serve as a train station.  Indeed, it could solve a number of issues in the vicinity of Lagunitas and the other brewpubs that are popping up near McDowell.

A full explanation of the benefits and challenges of converting the site into a train station can be best addressed through a pro and con assessment.   That assessment, plus a check to see if any folks are interesting in making the argument, is what I’ll write about in my next post.  Please join me for the discussion.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

In Springtime, a Middle-Aged Man's Fancies Turn to Sidewalk Cafes, Brew Pubs, and Block Parties

With spring having sprung (not that we had a real winter in the North Bay), it’s time to check in on a few old favorites, both places and subjects.

Ray’s Deli: I’ve previously written about the role that Ray’s Deli and Tavern plays in the life of my Petaluma neighborhood.  Recently, a local architect suggested meeting at Ray’s to discuss the relationship between urbanism and climate change, a suggestion to which I quickly acceded because of both the subject and the meeting place.

However, the architect was late for our Friday afternoon meeting, so I ended up sitting at a community table, sipping on a bottle of water and observing the springtime angst of junior high school students newly freed for the weekend. 

It was a mind-numbing swirl of apprehension over who had said what to whom, who was fighting with whom, and who might have a secret crush on whom.  The drama, amped up by a Friday afternoon in springtime, was enough to make my head spin.  And to make me decide that being a junior high teacher must be in one of Dante’s circles of hell.

But the key urbanist point is that we were all occupying the same space.  Me awaiting a climate change conversation and the hormone-charged mass of teenage tragicomedy were both considering the same assortment of deli sandwiches, chips, and beverages.

And we’d all walked there.

It was an uncommon combination for a largely auto-oriented small city.  It was also pretty darned cool.

McDowell Brew Pub District: A few months back, I noted a brewing (pun intended) pedestrian problem along North McDowell Boulevard.  With the Lagunitas Brewery putting down ever deeper roots on the east side of McDowell and upstart breweries such as Petaluma Hills getting underway on the west side, there was an increasing problem with pedestrians crossing the 40 mph McDowell without the benefit of traffic aids.

Right now, the problem is exacerbated because most of the available parking is on the west side of McDowell and most of the patronage is heading to Lagunitas on the east side.  A parking lot proposed by Lagunitas on the east side will alleviate some of the concern, but there would still be a problem with pedestrians engaging in an evening of brew pub hopping.

In my earlier post, I debunked the idea that a painted crosswalk would be a solution, noting that drivers tend to overlook crosswalks when driving at higher speeds.  Also, the stripes give pedestrians a false sense of security.  The paradoxical result is that car/pedestrian accidents tend to increase after crosswalks are painted on high-speed streets.

The only solution I could conceive at the time was a full signal, but cost was neither affordable for a financially-strapped City nor justified by the few financial benefits that would flow to the City.

I still stand by my previous conclusions, as unhelpful as they may have been, but was recently forced to take another look at the situation.

I’d been unexpectedly lucky in my previous visits to Lagunitas, often snagging one of the few current parking places on the east side of McDowell.  So when an urbanist friend recently suggested meeting at Lagunitas for urban conversation at 2:30pm on a Thursday, I readily agreed.  How much beer drinkers could possible start imbibing that early in the week or the day?

As it turns out, there were a lot of early beer drinkers.  I eventually parked two blocks away on the east side of McDowell.  And as I walked back toward McDowell, my friend called.  She was at McDowell and ready to cross, but was dismayed by the number of cars and their unwillingness to stop.  So she would await my arrival.

We eventually worked our way across the street and had a pleasant and enlightening discussion, but the experience of crossing McDowell stayed with me.  So I now have another solution to offer.

And it’s the obvious solution, building off the work of Twenty is Plenty, Vision Zero, New York City, and even my own thoughts on traffic calming in my neighborhood.

Here’s the comprehensive plan.  We reduce the lane widths on McDowell from 12 feet to 11 feet or even 10 feet, add bulb outs at intersections, and perhaps adjust the lane alignments with slight angle points, all of which would encourage lower speeds.  As drivers respond to the more constrained conditions and new reduced car speeds are observed, the speed limit could be set at the lower speed, perhaps 25 mph.  Now we paint the crosswalk across McDowell and the drivers would respect it.

I’m sure that many are shocked with the idea of reducing the speed limit on a major arterial, but it’s the likely way of the future, with many communities going this direction to encourage alternative modes of transportation and to save the lives of pedestrians.

Besides, the length of McDowell between the major cross streets either direction from the breweries, Penngrove Highway and Corona Road, is a little less than a mile.  The additional time to drive that distance at 25 mph instead of 40 mph is only 50 seconds.

I know that the total extra time is that 50 seconds multiplied by the many people who drive McDowell over course of a day.  But that still leaves the question of whether many people multiplied by 50 seconds each is worth more or less than the reduced stress levels of the brewery district pedestrians and the reduced risk of pedestrian injuries or fatalities.  It’s not an easy balance to judge, but I come down in favor of the pedestrians.

Also, if pedestrians can cross McDowell safely and the businesses east of McDowell aren’t adversely impacted by the street parking for the breweries, then Lagunitas needn’t build the new parking lot and the lot can instead be used for new industrial uses.  Wow, economic development through lower speed streets!  What a concept!

I have no expectation that a lower speed McDowell will be implemented anytime soon.  But I think it’s the way of the future.  I hope to live long enough to write “I told you so.”

Block Parties: To conclude, I’ll touch on block parties.  When I last mentioned the subject, the Petaluma City Council has apparently given their approval to City staff to update and to clarify the block party rules, including a green light for block parties in more locations.  Since that update, I’ve sent my thoughts to City staff on how the rules might be updated, including ideas I’d gleaned from other North Bay cities and from observing block parties during the summer of 2014.

However, there has been no resulting action.  I know that City staff has a number of high priorities.  I also know that I could have been more diligent with my follow-up.  Nonetheless, it seems a shame that we’re facing another summer of legal limbo for what should be a rite of summer, simple neighborly block parties.

If you’ve been thinking of hosting a block party, but have been awaiting clarification on the rules, here are my thoughts: 

• ·         Proceed with your party planning.  Block parties are great ways to build communities and the City seems supportive even if the Municipal Code is lagging behind.
• ·         Go ahead and check with the Police Department.  (Email me if you need help with contact information.)  But don’t be deterred if the response seems ambivalent or vague.  Their hands are also tied.
• ·         When configuring your use of the street, remember that passage of emergency vehicles can quickly become an urgent need.  Leave a travel lane of at least 16 feet in which the only impediments are items such as chairs which can be whisked away quickly as needed.  (Last year, I attended a party where a bounce house blocked the emergency vehicle lane.   The organizer told me that eight men could move the bounce house quickly if needed.  Relying on eight men to be immediately available during an emergency seemed a bad plan.)
• ·         Although the City doesn’t yet have an insurance requirement, they may soon.  And an insurance rider may be good protection for a party organizer in the event of a bounce house accident.  I’d recommend at least checking with one’s agent.

But above all, have fun.  And if you want to invite me to the party, I’m always willing to enjoy some neighborhood camaraderie.

Next time, I’ll mount my soapbox to complain about flawed thinking behind sidewalk and bike path alignments.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)