I’m Back and I Want to Talk About a Road Diet

Petaluma Boulevard South
(note truck using both 10-foot lanes)

Let me start by apologizing for my long absence from this soapbox.  It wasn't a planned absence, although in retrospect it does feel as if it were inevitable.

In my next post, I’ll talk about the reasons for my temporary disappearance after nearly five years of thrice weekly posts.  But today I have a subject of more immediate importance.

I’ve previously written about road diets, modifications to existing streets to readjust the balance between cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

The most common version of a road diet, one that has been implemented in communities across the country, converts two lanes of traffic in each direction into single travel lanes, a center turn lane, and, depending on the geometry of the existing street, added accommodation for bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and/or street beautification.  As long as the traffic doesn’t exceed 20,000 daily trips, these “four-to-three” road diets have been found to have little to no impact on traffic capacity.

Wikipedia provides a summary of road diets in the U.S., although the list of completed projects is deficient.

In Petaluma where I live, a road diet was implemented a few years back on Petaluma Boulevard through the heart of downtown and continuing a little further north.  As I described in the post linked above, the project was controversial.  There was significant opposition before construction and many were willing to decry the road diet as a failure immediately after completion.

The debate has largely died away, although occasional pockets of obstreperousness remain.  But by most objective and subjective measures, the downtown road diet has been a success.  Traffic counts are higher now than they were before the road diet, showing that capacity wasn’t harmed.  Traffic accidents are reduced.  Pedestrians generally report a more comfortable experience.  And bicyclists, although still bemoaning the lack of bike lanes which weren’t possible because of the narrowness of the road, admit that the riding experience is better than before. 

Encouraged by that success and motivated by the availability of grant funds that can repave deteriorating streets as a part of implementing road diets, city staff has been alert to the possibility of more road diets.

They identified South Petaluma Boulevard as a suitable project.  The work would begin at the southern end of the previous road diet and continue another mile south.  Indeed, they found that it was the road section in Petaluma that best fit the criteria for a newly announced grant program.  With staff having identified the opportunity, a City Council hearing is scheduled for December 19 to consider giving direction to city staff to apply for the grant.

As a long-time user and observer of Petaluma Boulevard South, I’m pleased with the progress.  The street needs a change.  The roadway segment nearest to downtown has four 10-foot travel lanes and two six-foot parking lanes.  Although there are places where 10-foot lanes can work, and may even be desirable, four 10-foot lanes bracketed by narrow parking isn’t one of those places.  And six-foot parking lanes, compared to more common widths of seven or eight feet, often induce drivers to park with two wheel s on the curb, diminishing the pedestrian experience.

Adding in the aging and heavily patched pavement, the street is an uncomfortable drive for motorists.  It’s even worse for bicyclists and pedestrians, especially for walkers trying to cross the boulevard from the residential neighborhoods south of the boulevard to the restaurants and riverside parks to the north.

Also, Petaluma Boulevard South is the designated multi-use path (MUP) for the SMART train that is coming soon to the North Bay.  The MUP, which was essential to voter approval of SMART, is the route by which bicyclists are directed to reach SMART stations or to tour the North Bay.  It’s an embarrassment to both SMART and Petaluma to have the MUP aligned along a road that is so unwelcoming to bikes.

Despite the logic for the Petaluma Boulevard South road diet, some opposition nonetheless arose, offering many of the same arguments that were used against the downtown road diet, largely focusing around traffic capacity.  And there were indications that some Councilmembers might pay heed to the opposition.

Anticipating this resistance, a group, to which I belong, came together to argue for the road diet.  We’re currently walking door-to-door in the neighborhoods that are most likely to be benefited by the road diet, educating the residents about the benefits of the road diet and asking for their support.

This is where the readers come in, at least those readers who remain here after my three- month sabbatical.  If you live in or near Petaluma and believe a road diet on Petaluma Boulevard South might be a great idea, I have three suggestions for you.

1) You can attend a question-and-answer session at the Aqus Café, 2nd and H Streets in Petaluma at 5:00pm on Wednesday, December 7.  Thus far, city staff hasn’t committed to participate, but others can hopefully answer any questions you might have.

2) If a road diet still sounds like a good idea, you can visit flutterby.net/roaddiet/ to share your opinion with whichever Councilmembers you select.

3)  Lastly, you can attend the Council meeting on Monday, December 19 to express your views.  Or at least to show a common purpose with those who will be attending to support the road diet.     

This isn’t the last time I’ll write about road diets between now and the Council hearing.  In particular, I’ll let a friend, professional planner, and bicycling advocate use this space next week to more fully explain road diets.

But this introduction will hopefully suffice for now.  And if it triggered any questions, let me know.  I’ll be happy to answer as best I can.

When I next write, it will be to explain a little about where I’ve been for the last three months.

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

Taking the Next Step - Opportunities to Get Involved during the Week of August 28

Last week, I wrote that the number of public meetings with urbanist overtones seemed to be increasing as Labor Day approached.  I may have reached that conclusion too soon, with next week coming up nearly dry.  But perhaps fifth weeks of months are always deficient on meetings that are scheduled on a monthly basis.  And there are still a couple of meetings by which to get involved, along with some longer term opportunities on the horizon.

Meetings this Week

Cotati Design Review Committee, Monday, August 29, 4:30pm, Cotati City Hall, 201 West Sierra Avenue – With much of the surrounding land already occupied by medium-density single family homes and industrial land uses, Cotati will have little opportunity for transit-oriented development around the its new station on SMART rail line.  The Cotati Station Lofts and Apartments, about 1,000 feet away, will be the only TOD, at least in the near term.  (My first foray into home ownership, four decades ago, was a condo about 2,000 feet from a BART station.  I rarely used my car from Monday through Friday, so 1,000 feet isn’t far at all.)

Much of the project is already constructed, but some details are still being finalized, including consideration at this week’s Cotati Design Review Committee meeting.  The agenda is sketchy on details, but it might be interesting meeting for some to attend.

Windsor City Council and Planning Commission, Thursday, September 1, 6:00pm, Windsor Civic Center Council Chambers, 9291 Old Redwood Highway, Building 400 – As I first noted last week, the Windsor City Council and Planning Commission are conducting joint sessions to continue their consideration of the draft 2040 General Plan.  This week, they’ll focus on the transportation and mobility elements.  In the one meeting I attended, I found the discussion high-level and engaging, so encourage others to partake.

Meetings in the Weeks and Months to Follow

Petaluma City Council, Monday, September 12, 7:00pm, Petaluma City Hall, 111 English Street – The Petaluma Planning Commission recently rejected the site design for the proposed Marina Apartments on Lakeville Highway east of Highway 101.  The reasons cited were concerns over building massing and architecture, but disappointments were also expressed about the recent Council decision to relieve the applicant of a requirement to build a segment of multi-use path.

The applicant appealed the Planning Commission rejection.  The appeal will be heard by the City Council on September 12.  Although the primary focus will be the design of the building, it’s likely that the multi-use path will also be a subject of public comment.  Legally, the City Council could re-impose the multi-use path condition, although it’s unlikely barring a public outcry in support of the path.

Petaluma City Council, Monday, September 19, 7:00pm, Petaluma City Hall, 111 English Street – Petaluma staff will return to the Council for approval to submit a grant application for street improvements.  To best conform to the standards of the granting agency, staff initially proposed a road diet for Petaluma Boulevard South.  The Council, in asking that the item be removed from the Council agenda back in June, asked staff to look at other possible street projects as possible subjects for the grant application.

The Petaluma Boulevard South road diet reportedly remains the preferred project for City staff, setting up a potentially interesting discussion when the matter returns to the Council agenda.

I’ve been working with a group of citizens who are passionate supporters of the Petaluma Boulevard South road diet and have been working toward ensuring that the road diet returns to the Council with a strong public endorsement.  If you wish to help with the effort, please email me.  There is a role for additional helping hands.

Joe Minicozzi Digs into the Municipal Finances of Urbanism, Week of September 26 (note date change), Multiple locations - Many readers attended three evening of talks by Chuck Marohn of StrongTowns and Joe Minicozzi of Urban3 this past January in Santa Rosa.  The two spoke about the theory of why suburbia often fails and the data that supports the theory.  Plans are being firmed up for a return visit by Minicozzi about a month from now.

Meetings will be held in Santa Rosa and Windsor, with the possibility of a further meeting elsewhere in Sonoma County.  Details will be noted here as soon as available.

I encourage everyone to block out as much time as possible for Monday, September 26 through Wednesday, September 28, both to listen to Minicozzi and to build relationships with other North Bay urbanists.

Rail~Volution, October 10-12, Hyatt Regency, San Francisco – The leading conference on the use of rail for community building is coming to San Francisco this fall.  The coming role of SMART in the North Bay will surely be discussed, as will the increasing density around BART stations.

Lots of opportunities to get involved.  Please grab at least one and hopefully more.

When I next write, I won’t write.  Instead, I’ll turn this space over to an urban planner trained in bicycle transportation who will write about road diets and bicycles.  I had the same expectation a week ago, but I’ve been assured that it’ll work out this time.

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

Taking the Next Step - Opportunities to Get Involved during the Week of August 21

The number of North Bay public meetings with urbanist overtones seems to be increasing as we approach Labor Day.  Hopefully this will portend a winter of paradigm shifting.  It’s time to get onboard and to begin making your voice heard.  Also, with issues such as municipal elections and the road diet in Petaluma looming, there are also chances for neighborhood outreach.  If you want to make a difference in the world, there are opportunities to do so.

Meetings this Week

Cotati Planning Commission and Rohnert Park Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Monday August 22, 5:30pm, City Council Chamber, Rohnert Park City Hall,  130 Avram Avenue – A few weeks back, I puzzled in this space about a joint meeting that had been scheduled and then cancelled involving public bodies of the adjoining cities of Cotati and Rohnert Park.  I couldn’t imagine what topic could have been of joint interest.  I now have my answer.  They would have assembled for a study session of the “Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Adjacent/Interconnected Facilities.”

And the previously canceled meeting has now been rescheduled for Monday.

Given the adjoining boundaries of the two cities and the moderately continuous land-use pattern, I think a joint study session is a great idea, applaud the two cities for their foresight, and encourage the interested members of the two communities to participate.

Petaluma Planning Commission, Tuesday, August 23, 7:00pm, Petaluma City Hall, 11 English Street – I’m not sure I can truly characterize this as an urbanism issue, but I’m also not sure that it isn’t.  To buttress attendance, the downtown Petaluma movie theatre is asking permission to begin selling beer and wine to moviegoers.

The land-use entitlement angle is sufficiently complex that the Petaluma planning staff had to discourse at length before recommending approval.

But I find the urbanist issues even more complex.  On one hand, I want the theatre to thrive because theatres can be important elements of downtowns, adding to sidewalk vitality.  On the other hand, I remain unconvinced that the ability to buy a beer will attract more patrons.  Also, movie theatres are a great place for youth to learn socialization away from parental oversight and I fear that adding alcohol to the mix, even if the youth aren’t the ones consuming, could be counterproductive to those learning experiences.

And on a personal level, I’m not eager to have more people climbing over me mid-movie to visit the restroom.

I’ll likely attend this meeting to see if I can find personal clarity.

Windsor City Council and Planning Commission, Tuesday, August 23, 5:30pm, Windsor Civic Center Council Chambers, 9291 Old Redwood Highway, Building 400 – Windsor, in a joint session of the City Council and Planning Commission, will continue their consideration of the draft 2040 General Plan.  This week, they’ll focus on the economic development and public facilities elements.

General plan study sessions will never be riveting experiences, but I attended the study session earlier this week on land use and community design and found it unexpectedly compelling.  Windsor has been more aggressive in adopting urbanist concepts than many North Bay cities and it shows in both the urban fabric around the civic complex and in the general discussion.

To be sure, there are still folks asking for down-zonings because they claim the market won’t support higher densities, but the down-zonings for which they’re asking are less extreme than similar requests in other communities and the tenor of the discussion seems more urban, and urbane, in tone.

This doesn’t mean that Windsor has reached financial stability through urbanism.  As a local urbanist assured me as I was taking my leave, Windsor still has a long ways to go.  But they’ve already reached a higher level of urbanism and a higher level of debate, both of which were enjoyable to observe.

I won’t make the meeting this coming week, but encourage others to attend who may need to have flagging urbanist spirits raised.

Meetings in the Weeks and Months to Follow

Petaluma City Council, Monday, September 12, 7:00pm, Petaluma City Hall, 111 English Street – The Petaluma Planning Commission recently rejected the site design for the proposed Marina Apartments on Lakeville Highway east of Highway 101.  The reason was concern over the building massing and architecture, but disappointments were also expressed about the recent Council decision to relieve the applicant of a requirement to build a segment of multi-use path.

The applicant appealed the Planning Commission rejection.  The appeal will be heard by the City Council on September 12.  Although the primary focus will be the design of the building, it’s likely that the multi-use path will also be a subject of public comment.  Legally, the City Council could re-impose the multi-use path condition, although it’s unlikely barring a public outcry in support of the path.

Petaluma City Council, Monday, September 19, 7:00pm, Petaluma City Hall, 111 English Street – Petaluma staff will return to the Council for approval to submit a grant application for street improvements.  To best conform to the standards of the granting agency, staff initially proposed a road diet for Petaluma Boulevard South.  The Council, by directing that the item be removed from the Council agenda, effectively asked staff to look at other possible street projects as subjects for the possible grant application.

The Petaluma Boulevard South road diet reportedly remains the preferred project for City staff, setting up a potentially interesting discussion when the matter returns to the Council agenda on September 19.

I’ve been working with a group of citizens who are passionate supporters of the Petaluma Boulevard South road diet and have been working toward ensuring that the road diet returns to the Council with a strong public endorsement.  If you wish to help with the effort, please email me.  There is a role for additional helping hands.

Joe Minicozzi Digs into the Municipal Finances of Urbanism, Week of September 19, Multiple locations - Many readers attended three evening of talks by Chuck Marohn of StrongTowns and Joe Minicozzi of Urban3 this past January in Santa Rosa.  The two spoke about the theory of why suburbia often fails and the data that supports the theory.  Conversations are underway for a return visit by Minicozzi to the North Bay later this year.

Exact dates and meeting locations are still being developed, but I encourage everyone to block out much of the week.  Minicozzi’s message could have profound consequences for North Bay cities.

Rail~Volution, October 10-12, Hyatt Regency, San Francisco – The leading conference on the use of rail for community building is coming to San Francisco this fall.  The coming role of SMART in the North Bay will surely be discussed, as will the increasing density around BART stations.

Fun stuff coming up, with lots of opportunities to get involved.  Please grab at least one and hopefully more.

When I next write, I won’t write.  Instead, I’ll turn this space over to an urban planner trained in bicycle transportation who will write about road diets and bicycles.

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

Taking the Next Step - Opportunities to Get Involved during the Week of August 14

As we move into the heart of August, the near-term opportunities for urbanist involvement at public meetings remain scarce, but the September calendar remains promising.  Also, with issues such as municipal elections and the road diet in Petaluma looming, there are chances for neighborhood outreach.  If you want to make a difference in the world, there are always opportunities to do so.

Meetings this Week

Friends of SMART, Wednesday, August 17, 11:30am – Friends of SMART is a citizens group that was instrumental in getting the SMART Train ballot measure passed and continues to fill an oversight role as SMART moves toward revenue service.  I’ve been involved with FoS for more than a year and find them a passionate group, focused on the role SMART can play in the North Bay and on what the next SMART-type rail expansion should be.

If anyone is interested in attending the FoS  Board meeting, let me know and I’ll arrange an invitation.

Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit Board, Wednesday, August 17, 1:30pm, 5401 Old Redwood Highway, Petaluma – The agenda for the SMART Board meeting still hasn’t been announced, but with the testing of the full schedule looming ever closer, to be closely followed by revenue service, the agenda will likely include items of urbanist interest.

Petaluma Recreation Music and Park Commission, Wednesday, August 17, 7:00pm, Petaluma Community Center, 320 N. McDowell Boulevard (Note: Not City Hall!) - Sunset Park is an odd little park, hiding in plain sight between the historic Silk Mill and Lakeville Street.  I suspect that many Petalumans don’t even realize that it’s a city park, but they’re wrong.

Furthermore, the park has an upcoming opportunity to take a bigger role in civic life.  As a part of the retasking of the Silk Mill into a hotel, the developer is proposing revisions to Sunset Park.  Should the park serve as the frontyard of the hotel, as a neighborhood park for the children living in the nearby homes, as a waystation for bicyclists traveling Lakeville, or as some combination of the three?

That will be the question in front of the Recreation Music and Park Commission Wednesday evening.  If you have an opinion, please come and share.

Meetings in the Weeks and Months to Follow

Petaluma City Council, Monday, September 12, 7:00pm, Petaluma City Hall, 111 English Street – The Petaluma Planning Commission recently rejected the site design for the proposed Marina Apartments on Lakeville Highway east of Highway 101.  The reason was concern over the building massing and architecture, but disappointments were also expressed about the recent Council decision to relieve the applicant of a requirement to build a segment of multi-use path.

The applicant appealed the Planning Commission rejection.  The appeal will be heard by the City Council on September 12.  Although the primary focus will be the design of the building, it’s likely that the multi-use path will also be a subject of public comment.  Legally, the City Council could re-impose the multi-use path condition, although it’s unlikely barring a major public outcry in support of the path.

Petaluma City Council, Monday, September 19, 7:00pm, Petaluma City Hall, 111 English Street – Petaluma staff will return to the Council for approval to submit a grant application for street improvements.  To best conform to the standards of the granting agency, staff initially proposed a road diet for Petaluma Boulevard South.  The Council, by directing that the item be removed from the Council agenda, effectively asked staff to look at other possible street projects as subjects for the possible grant application.

The Petaluma Boulevard South road diet reportedly remains the preferred project for City staff, setting up a potentially interesting discussion when the matter returns to the Council agenda on September 19.

I’ve been working with a group of citizens who are passionate supporters of the Petaluma Boulevard South road diet and have been working toward ensuring that the road diet returns to the Council with a strong public endorsement.

Joe Minicozzi Digs into the Municipal Finances of Urbanism, Week of September 19, Multiple locations - Many readers attended three evening of talks by Chuck Marohn of StrongTowns and Joe Minicozzi of Urban3 this past January in Santa Rosa.  The two spoke about the theory of why suburbia often fails and the data that supports the theory.  Conversations are underway for a return visit by Minicozzi to the North Bay later this year.

Exact dates and meeting locations are still being developed, but I encourage everyone to block out much of the week.  Minicozzi’s message could have profound consequences for North Bay cities.

Rail~Volution, October 10-12, Hyatt Regency, San Francisco – The leading conference on the use of rail for community building is coming to San Francisco this fall.  The coming role of SMART in the North Bay will surely be discussed, as will the increasing density around BART stations.

Even with the paucity of opportunities in the coming week, there are still lots of opportunities to get involved.  Please grab at least one and hopefully more.

When I next write, I’ll revisit the connection between suspended drivers’ licenses and urbanism.  It may seem an odd link, but it’s very real.

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

Taking the Next Step - Opportunities to Get Involved during the Week of August 7

I returned yesterday from two weeks of travel, filled with enthusiasm to repopulate the event calendar below and to resume my efforts to create an ever larger cadre of urbanist advocates.

And then I checked the civic calendars for the North Bay cities near my town.  I found exactly zero meetings of urbanist interest next week.  Perhaps it’s the nature of early August, but it was disheartening.

Luckily, Petaluma Urban Chat is scheduled for next week.  Otherwise the near-term prospects are bleak, although there is a hope for more meetings as the month progresses.

Also, there are some intriguing September meetings to anticipate.

Meetings this Week

Petaluma Urban Chat, Wednesday, August 10, 7:00pm, Aqus Café, 2nd and H Streets, Petaluma - Petaluma Urban Chat meets monthly to discuss land use activities in Petaluma and to consider  strategies to make North Bay cities resilient, environmentally sustainable, and financially stable.  At the upcoming meeting, ongoing urbanist issues in Petaluma will be discussed, such as the road diet that has been proposed for Petaluma Boulevard South.

Meetings in the Weeks and Months to Follow

Petaluma City Council, Monday, September 12, 7:00pm, Petaluma City Hall, 111 English Street – The Petaluma Planning Commission recently rejected the site design for the proposed Marina Apartments on Lakeville Highway east of Highway 101.  The reason was concern over the building massing and architecture, but disappointments were also expressed about the recent Council decision to relieve the applicant of a condition of approval to build a segment of multi-use path.

The applicant appealed the Planning Commission rejection.  The appeal will be heard by the City Council on September 12.  Although the primary focus will be the design of the building, it’s likely that the multi-use path will be the subject of public comment.  Legally, the City Council could re-impose the multi-use path condition, but I consider that unlikely.

Petaluma City Council, Monday, September 19, 7:00pm, Petaluma City Hall, 111 English Street –

Petaluma staff will soon return to the Council for approval to submit a grant application for street improvements.  To best conform to the standards of the granting agency, staff initially proposed a road diet for Petaluma Boulevard South.  The Council, by directing that the item be removed from the Council agenda, effectively asked staff to look at other possible street projects as targets for the possible grant application.

The Petaluma Boulevard South road diet reportedly remains the preferred project for City staff, setting up a potentially interesting discussion when the subject returns to the Council agenda on September 19.

I’ve been working with a group of citizens who are passionate supporters of the Petaluma Boulevard South road diet and have been working toward ensuring that the road diet returns to the Council with a strong public endorsement.

Joe Minicozzi Digs into the Municipal Finances of Urbanism, Week of September 19, Multiple locations - Many readers attended three evening of talks by Chuck Marohn of StrongTowns and Joe Minicozzi of Urban3 this past January in Santa Rosa.  The two spoke about the theory of why suburbia often fails and the data that supports the theory.  Conversations are underway for a return visit by Minicozzi to the North Bay later this year.

Exact dates and meeting locations are still being developed, but I encourage everyone to block out much of the week.  Minicozzi’s message could have profound consequences for North Bay cities.

Rail~Volution, October 10-12, Hyatt Regency, San Francisco – The leading conference on the use of rail for community building is coming to San Francisco this fall.  The coming role of SMART in the North Bay will surely be discussed, as will the increasing density around BART stations.

Even with the paucity of opportunities in the coming week, there are still lots of opportunities to get involved.  Please grab at least one and hopefully more.

Next time, I’ll share some thoughts about the physical size and presence of city halls.  While traveling, I came across a city hall that I need to share.

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

Two Old Subjects and One New

Even on a day when my only intention was to check back on past stories, a new story still popped into view.  Such is what happens when one looks at the world through urbanist glasses.  So I’ll touch upon the Popsicle Index, the Petaluma Boulevard road diet, and how urbanism affects job creation.

Popsicle Index: I’ll tackle the easiest topic first.  In my last post, I wrote about the Popsicle Index, a simple but reasonable measure of neighborhood urbanism.  During my research, my initial impression was that Catherine Austin Fitts had borrowed the idea from a Vancouver urban planner.

But the more I looked, the less sure I was.  When I published the post, the earliest internet reference still belonged to the urban planner, but the time gap was closing.  So I acknowledged the possibility that either or both had invented the index.

It seems that I was trending in the right direction, but stopped too soon.  Fitts herself emailed me with a link to a 1998 paper in which she described the Popsicle Index.  The 1998 date was five years before the first reference to the urban planner.  My job here is urbanist, not fact-checker, so I won’t dig any deeper.  But it does appear that Fitts was truly the inventor of the Popsicle Index, with others borrowing her idea since 1998.  My apologies to Ms. Fitts.

However, my original point still stands.  It’s a grand thing when people in other walks of life, such as international finance, think and speak in terms that are decidedly urbanist.

Petaluma Boulevard Road Diet: The Petaluma City Council met a few days ago to review the results of the Petaluma Boulevard road diet.

Despite the rhetoric around town since the road diet was complete, the City Council session was sedate.  At the start of the evening, the chamber was overflowing, but most were there either for recognition of the local American Legion ballclub or for a land use hearing later on the agenda.  Only a few folks seemed to have attended for the road diet discussion.

The City Engineer made a dispassionate, fact-based presentation showing that traffic along the Boulevard seemed to have increased since the road diet.  He also noted that traffic accidents were down, although the sample size was small.

There were reports of stores seeing declining sales, but other factors, such as nearby construction and the opening of a new mall, were noted as other possible causes.  Nor is there is an apparent way to unravel the multiple factors.  (As sales tax reports come available in a few months, a more complete picture of the financial changes in downtown will become available.)

Perhaps the most insightful comments of the night dealt with the mid-block crosswalks, pedestrian-activated flashing-light crossings that interfere with the carefully regulated automobile flow from the downtown traffic signals.  If pedestrians arrive at the crosswalks sufficiently staggered that the cycle of flashing lights is repeatedly restarted, traffic backups become inevitable.  It’s akin to having a finely-tuned candy-making machine at one corner and a finely-tuned candy-packing machine at the next, with Lucy Ricardo doing quality control in between.

Obviously, I’m a big proponent of walkability.  But I’m also a big proponent of downtowns, which require a careful balance of vehicles and pedestrians.  And the crosswalks are disrupting that balance.  The mid-block crossings are essential to the pedestrian health of downtown, but perhaps an alternative solution is needed whereby permission to cross is delayed until it fits with the traffic flow.

Overall, the road received a good report card.  There are areas that still need work, but Petaluma seems to have successfully adjusted the downtown modal balance.

Attracting Businesses/Employees: Also during the Petaluma City Council, the Economic Development Director spoke about a newly-started effort to attract business to Petaluma.  Overall, the approach was graphically interesting and creatively clever, although largely focused on traditional concepts of business attraction.

But there was a small point that piqued my interest.  The Economic Development spoke about the campaign having two audiences, business owners and potential employees.  It was said only once and her focus quickly returned to business owners, but it may have been a glimpse of the future.

A growing number of young adults are selecting the place where they want to live and then reviewing employment opportunities.  When I was a young adult, I declined an employment opportunity or two because I didn’t want to live in the city where the job was located, but I certainly didn’t make location my primary filter.  But young people are looking at the world differently today which is probably a good thing.

And where do more and more young people want to begin their adult lives?  In walkable urban settings.  The furor about high-tech employee buses clogging up the streets of San Francisco shows that many high-tech employees would rather live in San Francisco than Silicon Valley.

With the U.S. economy increasingly reliant on innovation and innovation largely the domain of the young, economic health of communities may depend on providing walkable urban locations that attract the young.

And perhaps the best way to attract business is to have a pool of attractive employees.

The Petaluma Economic Development Director may not have connected all those dots for the City Council, but her comment about having two audiences was the first step toward dot connection.

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

Putting the Automobile in Its Place

Urbanists don’t dislike cars.  Despite the accusations of those who fear challenges to the status quo, urbanists believe the automobile to be a remarkable innovation, essential for many human activities.

But urbanists also believe that our communities have been excessively shaped to accommodate cars.  We’ve widened streets to more easily remove people and vitality from urban cores, the concept that Jeff Speck calls “car sewers”.  We allowed so much parking that the few remaining pedestrians have little at which to gaze except bumpers.  We’ve reconfigured our homes so that garage doors are often the dominant feature.  And we’ve made it impossible for many to buy a gallon of milk without using an ignition key.

Urbanists believe that we need to rebalance our approach to cars so that cars appear to be serving us, not the reverse. 

There are a number of tools available for this task, including providing housing within walkable distance of shopping and transit, widening sidewalks to create places conducive to gathering, and placing parking in less obtrusive locations. Another tool is road diets.

About a year ago, while writing about a related topic, I offered an introduction to road diets.  From that post, “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, … the current capacity may be less than indicated by the lane count.  Meanwhile, the revised configuration can improve vehicle and pedestrian safety.”

I was writing about a proposed road diet in Petaluma that was under design at the time.  Since then, the project has been completed.  Combined with an earlier road diet phase, much of Petaluma Boulevard through downtown Petaluma has been converted from four lanes to two.

The Petaluma Boulevard road diet was controversial.  Many didn’t believe that road capacity could be maintained despite the fewer lanes.  Others were quick to find fault with the traffic in the first days after the road diet was complete.  As a result, the City Council asked for a report on the road diet results.  The City Engineer is scheduled to present preliminary findings at the October 21 council meeting.

I suspect that much of the response to the road diet has been comprised of auto-confirmations (pun intended), with those who expected the road diet to fail now finding that it has failed and those who believed it would succeed are also finding confirmation.  It will be good for the discussion to have actual data.

At a meeting I attended last week, the City Engineer described some of his initial data.  I won’t undercut his presentation by repeating his comments here, but I’ll suggest that anyone interested in the Petaluma road diet and in the hopes of reassessing our relationship with the automobile should attend the October 21 meeting.

In the meantime, readers are encouraged to post their own comments on the road diet below.  If the conversation is good, particularly if it is data-based, I’ll pass the comments along to the City Engineer.

Which opens the door for my own thoughts.  I was hopeful that the road diet would work, making Petaluma Boulevard a safer place for bicyclists and a more comfortable place for pedestrians.  And I thought the previous traffic capacity, with four reduced-width lanes, might not be significantly different than the new traffic capacity with two normal-width lanes.

Therefore, my initial reaction upon completion of the road diet was consternation.  Congestion, particularly queuing at signals, seemed noticeably worse.

An often-overlooked fact of traffic engineering is that lanes do more than allow the movement of cars.  They also provide a place for stopped traffic to wait for a signal change.  Assuming the same number of stopped vehicles, the queue on a two-lane street will extend twice as far as on a four-lane street, making traffic signal timing crucial.

(Traffic storage is the same reason many single-lane freeway off-ramps quickly widen to two or more lanes.  The extra lanes provide a place for vehicles to wait before joining the surface street, preventing a potentially disastrous backup onto the freeway of stopped vehicles.)

To their credit, City Public Works anticipated that traffic signal timing might need tweaking.  Computer models are great, but sometimes real world data, with us drivers as the guinea pigs, is required.  Public Works had set aside funds to make adjustments.  Over the first few weeks of the road diet operation, fine-tuning was done and the road diet seemed to move closer to success.

But there are still occasional hiccups.  A local architect astutely observed that congestion can quickly build up, and only slowly dissipate, when a driver does a poor job of parallel parking.  If two or three passes are required to successfully park, the congestion can linger for several minutes afterward.  But drivers are unwilling to pass on a scarce parking place, so continue to maneuver despite a growing line of cars.

Thus, it’s possible that a parking management program will be required before the road diet can achieve its full potential.  Parking management could mean many things, from increased enforcement of prohibitions on employee parking to parking meters.  Either way, the typical goal of a parking management plans is to ensure that there are always a few parking spaces available, making drivers more willing to pass on the undersized space where parking may be difficult and slow.

Those are my thoughts on the road diet.  I’ll await yours.  And I remain hopeful that we can find a way to coexist with cars more comfortably.

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

Road Diets Lose a Round in Petaluma

In a blog post of five months ago, I wrote about road diets.  In particular, I was writing about a pending road diet revision in downtown Petaluma.  From that post:

“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)