Cognitive Dissonance at City Hall

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

When the City Council, City manager, and the traffic engineers say they want Santa Clarita to be a cycling friendly community, I really want to believe them. I like the work they have done- building paths along new roads, restriping major thoroughfares like Decoro and Rockwell Canyon with bike lanes, and thinking ahead in their Non-Motorized Traffic Plan.

Indeed, as recently as this week, Ken Pulskamp and Bob Kellar were touting Santa Clarita’s bike friendliness as they accepted a donation of one “Valencia” bike from Trek.

Unfortunately, the City’s good intentions and their high-minded talk about cycling being an integral part of Santa Clarita transportation fall flat when you realize what they are doing elsewhere in town.

Take for instance Lyons Avenue. Lyons Avenue is the main east-west corridor for traffic in Newhall. For cyclists, it’s really the only way to go from one end of Newhall to the other. There are no paseos or bike paths servicing hilly areas south of Lyons and the single paseo in Old Orchard I is heavily trafficked by pedestrians. What’s more, on parts of Lyons there isn’t even a sidewalk to ride your bike on.

If you want to ride from east to west in Newhall, Lyons is really the only way to go. So what did the City’s bike friendly traffic engineers do recently to encourage that behavior?

They added a third traffic lane on westbound Lyons from Wiley to Peachland, instantly making it much more dangerous to ride on Lyons. Whereas before cyclists had a good four to five feet of shoulder space, now we have none. Motorist speeds are increasing as drivers realize Lyons is now as wide as Soledad, and we are squeezed off a major thoroughfare.

Even worse, the city is currently adding a third traffic lane to another moderately-trafficked road in Canyon Country: Whites Canyon. This steep road is used by scores of recreational and transportation cyclists as a shortcut from Canyon Country to Saugus. Due to the grade on Whites, cyclists can only ride between 5-10 mph up the hill; after the restripe, they will be forced to take up the entire third lane for their own safety. The end result will force cyclists to either risk their lives riding up Whites or take a much longer route to get to/from Saugus.

When I spoke about these changes before the City Council back in August, the remarks from Ken Pulskamp sounded nothing like what he said in the video above. He said that the demand for cars on both roads had increased, and that’s just the way it was. Unfortunately for cyclists in Santa Clarita, the city’s bike-friendly rhetoric just isn’t adding up.

Comments (27)

The Hill PeopleOctober 21, 2009 at 9:33 am

I drive Whites Canyon twice a day, everyday and several times a day on the weekends. I rarely see cyclists let alone scores of them.

mikeOctober 21, 2009 at 9:56 am

I travel both streets a lot and I really don’t see why the third lanes are needed. I’ve never been in acutal gridlock going up or down Whites Canyon. The steep incline of the hill has a natural way of spreading cars. Adding a third lane there and on Lyons will make turns in and out of the side streets all the more dangerous. I think the real effect of this will just be increased speeds, nothing more. This is one of the more perplexing calls in a while.

JeffOctober 21, 2009 at 9:59 am

Anecdotal data. I never saw the need for a third traffic lane on Lyons either and I drive it almost every day.

David GaunyOctober 21, 2009 at 10:00 am

Jeff, how do you expect the city to deal with the high-density building that you also support in your many writings here? Eventually, the only way to fix the bike path problem on many roads will be to take private property and then widen the roadway. And that ain’t gonna happen! When we’re told we must accept 500,000 people here (a tripling of population), do you also believe the city will triple the amount of roadway in this time? No! They will restripe lanes, minimize or eliminate bike paths, and forver be reacting to a problem that can never be solved. Our topography and existing development simply won’t allow it. There aren’t many bike paths in SFV.

mikeOctober 21, 2009 at 10:14 am

So, Mr. candidate, what do you propose?

lvogelOctober 21, 2009 at 10:26 am

Jeff, I saw you this morning (on Lyons) leaving the Starbucks parking lot. I have to say that my first thought was you have a lot of ‘chutzpah’ to cut through traffic like that. Do you feel any fear while doing so? I’m not asking in a sarcastic manner, really, just out of concern for your safety. I immediately pictured you in a big city (NY) as a currier. Though we are not a big city, we do love and NEED our cars. This is a wide spread valley (like the SFV) and to bike as you do, is just not something that most of this population can do. Typically, the only times I see a lot of bikers is on the weekends, in groups with their biking ‘clothing’ on. Honestly, I think you and other serious, daily bikers are rare. But back to being fearful; seriously, aren’t you ever afraid of pissing off one of those disgruntled drivers we often hear about? I’m glad you got to your destination safely. I worry about you just as I do when my own ride their bikes to and from home! Be SAFE!

Kevin D. KorenthalOctober 21, 2009 at 10:28 am

First of all Mr. Gauny , I take umbrage with your assertion that Jeff is pro-growth. Jeff has spoken out loudly against over-growth here in Santa Clarita. Next, Whites Canyon clearly does not need a 3rd lane. There is never jams or slowing (other than that created by the very bright, setting sun) and recent cancellations of growth in the Plum Canyon area has insured that growth in this region will be minimal for some time to come. 3rd. You, I and Jeff have made a contentious decision not to live in the SFV. I work in the SFV and have ridden to work a couple of times. Once onto Foothill Blvd., it is a perilous and nerve-racking journey. We deserve better here in the SCV.

Kevin D. KorenthalOctober 21, 2009 at 10:37 am

Ivogal: One way that you keep serious cyclists from pissing off motorists is to make sure that each has their own space. If motorists are going to continue to demand that more lanes be made for them at the expense of lanes for cyclists, indeed, someone is going to get hurt. And it is worth reminding those that are building up road rage against cyclists to consider the fact that killing someone on a bicycle, regardless of whether or not the cyclist instigated the situation, is something most human beings are going to have a hard time living with.

David GaunyOctober 21, 2009 at 10:42 am

From http://www.electdavidgauny.com Smarter Development, Higher Paying Jobs. For the medium- and long-term, David Gauny supports better quality development, including a major civic auditorium, a convention center, and the establishment of a premier corporate center. Such efforts require thoughtful, involved planning but the result is higher paying jobs and real options for more of our residents to live and work locally. Our demographic supports a strong cultural center. Santa Clarita’s crown jewels should be thriving companies and premium venues, not the urban sprawl that has consumed greater Los Angeles. Less Density, Protected Neighborhoods. More than just high paying jobs, smart development brings greater tax revenues and more local investment without the traffic and density problems created by poorly planned strip malls and similar high-density mixed-use projects where low wages are commonplace. David Gauny is committed to minimizing sprawl and the reckless development that cheapens neighborhoods, destroys home values, makes traffic immitigable, and ruins our quality of life. Santa Clarita enjoys has the best master-planned community in Los Angeles County – we must protect it! The high density idea being sold to us is that we can have a “valley of villages” where we can all work or ride bikes to work. To do so, we’re told, we must increase densities 3x and 4x and create large mixed retail/apartment centers, etc. A good recent example is The Avenues, which included a 12-story hotel, retail outlets, and a cinema. As I’ve asked many times here, what’s the typical wage people at such centers earn? The answer is close to minimum wage. This is why more than 60% of the Hyatt’s employees come from Antelope Valley and SFV – it’s simply too expensive to live here with that income… so, does this support bike riding or more vehicle traffic? The root of the argument for high density building comes from developers and land owners, not environmentalists and bicyclists – as soon as we change our zoning to allow such projects, you better believe that every developer will build the max allowable for max dollar. Our roadways will not keep up with this, as neither developers nor tax dollars will pay for what is truly needed. We already see our infrastructure beggining to buckle… will higher density help this? One Valley, One Vision includes such major zoning changes and -to answer your queston- I suggest we get some new ideas and a fresh approach from our City Council. The public needs less hype and more facts about the risk/reward of what’s being proposed here. There are many good aspects but also many questions. Without this, you will hear many more conflicting remarks from our city. We simply cannot accommodate reckless planning AND quality of life. We need to do much better – and we can with the proper checks and balances from our council members.

David GaunyOctober 21, 2009 at 10:55 am

Mr. Korenthal: sorry about your umbrage. I never said Jeff was pro growth. I said he has supported high-density projects many times in his posts here. I argue about this in my second post on this topic. As for third lane on Whites Canyon, the city looks at traffic flow both now and as part of the many approved projets (including those on the yet-to-be-completed cross valley connector). Their traffic models demonstrate the need for three lanes which is why we’re getting them. Again, not saying I like it, but that’s the reasoning. Which brings up the most pressing point: overgrowth is usually realized far too late. Once traffic flow increases dramatically on these roads, just try to come to the city and complain about it… they’ll tell you those projects were approved many years earlier and nothing can be done. I am merely suggesting a proactive vs reactive strategy from our public and council. Burdens for fix will fall to bond measures which taxpyers won’t support and so you won’t get bike lanes and we’ll all have gridlock. Again, SFV has countless examples of this routine. For what it’s worth, I was a very serious cyclist for many years before a neck injury took me out of the sport. I don’t disagree that we deserve better, I just don’t believe that we can do better with the current approach we are taking to many planning issues.

lvogelOctober 21, 2009 at 10:57 am

Don’t get me wrong Kevin. I’m all for bike lanes, if there is room to do so. My concern with what I saw Jeff doing, is the same concern I felt last year when I almost hit a car in front of me on Orchard who had to break HARD for a cyclist cutting across the center median, trying to get to the wash (south fork?). I was not only scared, I was pissed. He could have not only gotten hit himself, but I almost hit the car in front of me….by INCHES. A lack of a bike lane (on Orchard) was not the reason for this cyclists actions that morning!

mikeOctober 21, 2009 at 10:57 am

Enough with the red herrings. If and when our population doubles, you can re-stripe. What would a councilman David Gauny say about the restriping of Whites and Lyons? Yes or no? Kevin, I completely agree. That’s my part of town and there is never any congestion. Probably too little, if anything. People drive super fast on that hill as the frequent speed traps can attest.

JeffOctober 21, 2009 at 11:07 am

lvogel I’m really surprised you saw & recognized me. How cool is that? Small world! I ride that area daily and it’s a difficult intersection. From my point of view, I could wait for the lights to turn green and all the cars to move out of the intersection, then try to hustle over to the turn lane. But that carries its own special risk. Right at Orchard & Lyons it goes to three lanes with a right turn lane. Cars are high speed in that area. It’s difficult to judge which way motorists are going. Everyone drives fast to make it through the big intersection. And this was rush hour. So I decided to dart through stopped traffic because it was safest for me. I made eye contact with each stopped drive as I cut through to the turn lane, then I executed a safe U-Turn with the green arrow.

Kevin D. KorenthalOctober 21, 2009 at 11:10 am

Whites Canyon should not be re-striped because current and forecast growth will be minimal. The re-stripe will put vehicles right up against the curb. Not an inch will be spared for cyclists. Consider also that the layout of the sidewalk going up which is such that it is too narrow (when factoring in the trees and bus benches) to accommodate a slow climbing cyclist. So what would you have us do Candidate Gauny, eat cake? The re-stripe is unnecessary and flies directly in the face of the City’s claims that it wants to be bike friendly. I’ll tell you what cyclists are going to do. Those that are easily intimidated by aggressive motorists are going to stop riding in the area (or in the case of those that live in upper Canyon Country, they will have to drive their bikes down the hill). Those of us that have good life insurance polices are are not afraid to use them, will simply take control of the 3rd lane when we are climbing Whites Canyon. Think about what that will do to harmony between motorists and cyclists in the Valley. I will also note that another reason that Whites should not get a 3rd lane is because the wide second lane offers a right-turn zone for motorists turning right onto Canyon Crest, Wildwind and Steinway.

lvogelOctober 21, 2009 at 11:17 am

I know you made eye contact….LOL, so did I! Yes, you did it the way it should be done; while traffic is stopped and I applaud you for it, but there are many (like my example) that feel they don’t need to take the responsibility, the drivers do. I have a question, something I observe a lot: When approaching a 4 way stop, do you feel as if the cyclist should stop? Should the cyclist have the same laws applied to them? I have often witnessed cyclists that go through stop signs. If they were in automobiles they would be ticketed for the infraction, yet all to often I see the biker while approaching a stop sign, looking just to make sure everyone else has stopped and continuing at the speed they were going. Obviously this isn’t the case with lights on some of our bigger thorough fares, but on residential areas, like Newhall avenue and 13th street.

lvogelOctober 21, 2009 at 11:19 am

Oh, by the way….anyone know where Cash is? This subject is one he could really get into. Haven’t read any postings from him lately.

David GaunyOctober 21, 2009 at 11:21 am

Mike – I need to sign off and get to work but I have no opinion on the Whites Canyon restriping because I don’t drive there and I have no facts in front of me. I won’t commit myself to any vote on the matter and I hope you respect that. I will say that, aside from the Decoro bike lanes, Newhall’s back-in parking fiasco, and a few others, the city doesn’t generally do things at random. If they’re adding a third lane, there is probably a reason. I can commit to you that I will find out about this and you will hear an opinion from me prior to vote time. But keep in mind that issues like these are staff responsibilities, not council decisions. My decisions will be based on facts and they will also avoid micro-management when appropriate. Lastly, just to clarify, I am not against growth or landowner rights. Landowners have the right to build on their land but our local government needs to protect the values of neighboring businesses and homeowners as well. As is the case with restriping roads for traffic that doesn’t seem to exist, we need to look at the complete picture of our community as we make decisions and plan forward.

IHeartSCVOctober 21, 2009 at 11:47 am

…wrote David Gauny: “Mr. Korenthal: sorry about your umbrage.” LOL! (I know, not the most productive comment).

townbeetOctober 21, 2009 at 11:56 am

This whole thing is an image problem. Imho bicycling in this city is viewed as something mostly done for recreation and mostly in nylon-clad wear. The people who bicycle home after washing cars , the single- speed-bike riding youths or the other occasional white collar bike commuters do not figure in our collective definition of bicycling in SCV. Unless the city and all bike afficionatos clearly care to frame or address the need to accept bicyling as a way of transport in SCV why would the regular taxpayer really care?

mike cOctober 21, 2009 at 12:19 pm

Rememember Pardee is going to punch a road that connects Sierra Highway (just north of Soledad) to Whites/Plums Canyon…it is part of their proposed development. They gave a presentation at the Canyon Country Advisory Comm. meeting

Need for Involved CitizenryOctober 21, 2009 at 12:20 pm

The regular joe should care about what the City is doing (or says they are doing) with bike lanes because between biking, increased use of public transportation, a whole slew of new roads and restriping (which often times will wipe out the bike lanes) will solve all the traffic problems arising from the OVOV population growth. Oh – and by the way, OVOV won’t address the Newhall Pass because all the new folks will work in the SCV and the Pass is out of the “Planning” area. As Gauney says – the folks who work at the Hyatt (or the mall or much of the industrial center) don’t live in the SCV but instead commute from the SFV or AV. The only way this could work would be for all the new residential units to be low income (which the City does not have the balls to require from their developer friends).

navigatorOctober 21, 2009 at 12:23 pm

How about a motorcycle lane???

Valencia JoeOctober 21, 2009 at 12:46 pm

I think that instead of spending money on restriping to create bike lanes where they are not needed (DECORO!), the City ought to spend that money to educate the motorist and the cyclist with respect to sharing the road. I have witnessed on many occasions the instance where the sole bike rider is taking up a lane of traffic on a major street (McBean) where there is a dedicated bike lane on the sidewalk to his left. The arrogance that this one cyclist had that morning just infuriated the drivers trying to avoid him while driving to work. Education needs to be for both sides. ’nuff said.

spineflower2October 21, 2009 at 4:31 pm

Tell me how OVOV is going to create businesses paying salaries in excess of $100K and then we can start to talk about “villages.” Until then, it’s just a planner’s wet dream.

townbeetOctober 21, 2009 at 6:00 pm

Valencia Joe: You mean they were delayed for school and work by the car drivers that wouldn’t pass the bicyclist? The McBean I have riden on has side walks not bike lanes northbound from Granary Square.The sidewalk by target and on the bridge is pretty narrow and the one on Bridgeport is full of pedestrians and makes bicycling impossible. West of Granary Mcbean there is a skinny side walk around HMNMH and after that there is no space for bicyclists since the space where a sidewalk should be is a grassy strip, and thick protruding tree roots make riding anything other than a mountain bike impossible. Cars drive 45-to 55 mpr even though by law bicyclists can ride on the street albeit close to the curb. Here is a link to that law. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

Jim FarleyOctober 21, 2009 at 6:44 pm

When KK said he ‘took umbrage’ I imediately went to check to make sure he didn’t get mine. Fortunately I found it so I will be able to rest comfortably in the shade in the future.

Madam_SOctober 22, 2009 at 8:47 am

Mixed use has many benefits, and each project or location doesn’t have to provide all of them to be valuable. The idea is to have homes, stores, and other work places spread around. This reduces driving distances and therefore reduces traffic in general. Every time you can walk from one point to the next (bakery to wine store, for example), you are reducing traffic. Saying that mixed use is a failure if everyone can’t walk to work is ridiculous. That’s like saying don’t wear seatbelts because they won’t always save your life. We have to do ALL these things: bring high-paying jobs, flesh out our “villages”, support alternatives to one-person-one-car transportation, and improve our roads.

The Hill PeopleOctober 21, 2009 at 9:33 am
I drive Whites Canyon twice a day, everyday and several times a day on the weekends. I rarely see cyclists let alone scores of them.
mikeOctober 21, 2009 at 9:56 am
I travel both streets a lot and I really don’t see why the third lanes are needed. I’ve never been in acutal gridlock going up or down Whites Canyon. The steep incline of the hill has a natural way of spreading cars. Adding a third lane there and on Lyons will make turns in and out of the side streets all the more dangerous. I think the real effect of this will just be increased speeds, nothing more. This is one of the more perplexing calls in a while.
JeffOctober 21, 2009 at 9:59 am
Anecdotal data. I never saw the need for a third traffic lane on Lyons either and I drive it almost every day.
David GaunyOctober 21, 2009 at 10:00 am
Jeff, how do you expect the city to deal with the high-density building that you also support in your many writings here? Eventually, the only way to fix the bike path problem on many roads will be to take private property and then widen the roadway. And that ain’t gonna happen! When we’re told we must accept 500,000 people here (a tripling of population), do you also believe the city will triple the amount of roadway in this time? No! They will restripe lanes, minimize or eliminate bike paths, and forver be reacting to a problem that can never be solved. Our topography and existing development simply won’t allow it. There aren’t many bike paths in SFV.
mikeOctober 21, 2009 at 10:14 am
So, Mr. candidate, what do you propose?
lvogelOctober 21, 2009 at 10:26 am
Jeff, I saw you this morning (on Lyons) leaving the Starbucks parking lot. I have to say that my first thought was you have a lot of ‘chutzpah’ to cut through traffic like that. Do you feel any fear while doing so? I’m not asking in a sarcastic manner, really, just out of concern for your safety. I immediately pictured you in a big city (NY) as a currier. Though we are not a big city, we do love and NEED our cars. This is a wide spread valley (like the SFV) and to bike as you do, is just not something that most of this population can do. Typically, the only times I see a lot of bikers is on the weekends, in groups with their biking ‘clothing’ on. Honestly, I think you and other serious, daily bikers are rare. But back to being fearful; seriously, aren’t you ever afraid of pissing off one of those disgruntled drivers we often hear about? I’m glad you got to your destination safely. I worry about you just as I do when my own ride their bikes to and from home! Be SAFE!
Kevin D. KorenthalOctober 21, 2009 at 10:28 am
First of all Mr. Gauny , I take umbrage with your assertion that Jeff is pro-growth. Jeff has spoken out loudly against over-growth here in Santa Clarita. Next, Whites Canyon clearly does not need a 3rd lane. There is never jams or slowing (other than that created by the very bright, setting sun) and recent cancellations of growth in the Plum Canyon area has insured that growth in this region will be minimal for some time to come. 3rd. You, I and Jeff have made a contentious decision not to live in the SFV. I work in the SFV and have ridden to work a couple of times. Once onto Foothill Blvd., it is a perilous and nerve-racking journey. We deserve better here in the SCV.
Kevin D. KorenthalOctober 21, 2009 at 10:37 am
Ivogal: One way that you keep serious cyclists from pissing off motorists is to make sure that each has their own space. If motorists are going to continue to demand that more lanes be made for them at the expense of lanes for cyclists, indeed, someone is going to get hurt. And it is worth reminding those that are building up road rage against cyclists to consider the fact that killing someone on a bicycle, regardless of whether or not the cyclist instigated the situation, is something most human beings are going to have a hard time living with.
David GaunyOctober 21, 2009 at 10:42 am
From http://www.electdavidgauny.com Smarter Development, Higher Paying Jobs. For the medium- and long-term, David Gauny supports better quality development, including a major civic auditorium, a convention center, and the establishment of a premier corporate center. Such efforts require thoughtful, involved planning but the result is higher paying jobs and real options for more of our residents to live and work locally. Our demographic supports a strong cultural center. Santa Clarita’s crown jewels should be thriving companies and premium venues, not the urban sprawl that has consumed greater Los Angeles. Less Density, Protected Neighborhoods. More than just high paying jobs, smart development brings greater tax revenues and more local investment without the traffic and density problems created by poorly planned strip malls and similar high-density mixed-use projects where low wages are commonplace. David Gauny is committed to minimizing sprawl and the reckless development that cheapens neighborhoods, destroys home values, makes traffic immitigable, and ruins our quality of life. Santa Clarita enjoys has the best master-planned community in Los Angeles County – we must protect it! The high density idea being sold to us is that we can have a “valley of villages” where we can all work or ride bikes to work. To do so, we’re told, we must increase densities 3x and 4x and create large mixed retail/apartment centers, etc. A good recent example is The Avenues, which included a 12-story hotel, retail outlets, and a cinema. As I’ve asked many times here, what’s the typical wage people at such centers earn? The answer is close to minimum wage. This is why more than 60% of the Hyatt’s employees come from Antelope Valley and SFV – it’s simply too expensive to live here with that income… so, does this support bike riding or more vehicle traffic? The root of the argument for high density building comes from developers and land owners, not environmentalists and bicyclists – as soon as we change our zoning to allow such projects, you better believe that every developer will build the max allowable for max dollar. Our roadways will not keep up with this, as neither developers nor tax dollars will pay for what is truly needed. We already see our infrastructure beggining to buckle… will higher density help this? One Valley, One Vision includes such major zoning changes and -to answer your queston- I suggest we get some new ideas and a fresh approach from our City Council. The public needs less hype and more facts about the risk/reward of what’s being proposed here. There are many good aspects but also many questions. Without this, you will hear many more conflicting remarks from our city. We simply cannot accommodate reckless planning AND quality of life. We need to do much better – and we can with the proper checks and balances from our council members.
David GaunyOctober 21, 2009 at 10:55 am
Mr. Korenthal: sorry about your umbrage. I never said Jeff was pro growth. I said he has supported high-density projects many times in his posts here. I argue about this in my second post on this topic. As for third lane on Whites Canyon, the city looks at traffic flow both now and as part of the many approved projets (including those on the yet-to-be-completed cross valley connector). Their traffic models demonstrate the need for three lanes which is why we’re getting them. Again, not saying I like it, but that’s the reasoning. Which brings up the most pressing point: overgrowth is usually realized far too late. Once traffic flow increases dramatically on these roads, just try to come to the city and complain about it… they’ll tell you those projects were approved many years earlier and nothing can be done. I am merely suggesting a proactive vs reactive strategy from our public and council. Burdens for fix will fall to bond measures which taxpyers won’t support and so you won’t get bike lanes and we’ll all have gridlock. Again, SFV has countless examples of this routine. For what it’s worth, I was a very serious cyclist for many years before a neck injury took me out of the sport. I don’t disagree that we deserve better, I just don’t believe that we can do better with the current approach we are taking to many planning issues.
lvogelOctober 21, 2009 at 10:57 am
Don’t get me wrong Kevin. I’m all for bike lanes, if there is room to do so. My concern with what I saw Jeff doing, is the same concern I felt last year when I almost hit a car in front of me on Orchard who had to break HARD for a cyclist cutting across the center median, trying to get to the wash (south fork?). I was not only scared, I was pissed. He could have not only gotten hit himself, but I almost hit the car in front of me….by INCHES. A lack of a bike lane (on Orchard) was not the reason for this cyclists actions that morning!
mikeOctober 21, 2009 at 10:57 am
Enough with the red herrings. If and when our population doubles, you can re-stripe. What would a councilman David Gauny say about the restriping of Whites and Lyons? Yes or no? Kevin, I completely agree. That’s my part of town and there is never any congestion. Probably too little, if anything. People drive super fast on that hill as the frequent speed traps can attest.
JeffOctober 21, 2009 at 11:07 am
lvogel I’m really surprised you saw & recognized me. How cool is that? Small world! I ride that area daily and it’s a difficult intersection. From my point of view, I could wait for the lights to turn green and all the cars to move out of the intersection, then try to hustle over to the turn lane. But that carries its own special risk. Right at Orchard & Lyons it goes to three lanes with a right turn lane. Cars are high speed in that area. It’s difficult to judge which way motorists are going. Everyone drives fast to make it through the big intersection. And this was rush hour. So I decided to dart through stopped traffic because it was safest for me. I made eye contact with each stopped drive as I cut through to the turn lane, then I executed a safe U-Turn with the green arrow.
Kevin D. KorenthalOctober 21, 2009 at 11:10 am
Whites Canyon should not be re-striped because current and forecast growth will be minimal. The re-stripe will put vehicles right up against the curb. Not an inch will be spared for cyclists. Consider also that the layout of the sidewalk going up which is such that it is too narrow (when factoring in the trees and bus benches) to accommodate a slow climbing cyclist. So what would you have us do Candidate Gauny, eat cake? The re-stripe is unnecessary and flies directly in the face of the City’s claims that it wants to be bike friendly. I’ll tell you what cyclists are going to do. Those that are easily intimidated by aggressive motorists are going to stop riding in the area (or in the case of those that live in upper Canyon Country, they will have to drive their bikes down the hill). Those of us that have good life insurance polices are are not afraid to use them, will simply take control of the 3rd lane when we are climbing Whites Canyon. Think about what that will do to harmony between motorists and cyclists in the Valley. I will also note that another reason that Whites should not get a 3rd lane is because the wide second lane offers a right-turn zone for motorists turning right onto Canyon Crest, Wildwind and Steinway.
lvogelOctober 21, 2009 at 11:17 am
I know you made eye contact….LOL, so did I! Yes, you did it the way it should be done; while traffic is stopped and I applaud you for it, but there are many (like my example) that feel they don’t need to take the responsibility, the drivers do. I have a question, something I observe a lot: When approaching a 4 way stop, do you feel as if the cyclist should stop? Should the cyclist have the same laws applied to them? I have often witnessed cyclists that go through stop signs. If they were in automobiles they would be ticketed for the infraction, yet all to often I see the biker while approaching a stop sign, looking just to make sure everyone else has stopped and continuing at the speed they were going. Obviously this isn’t the case with lights on some of our bigger thorough fares, but on residential areas, like Newhall avenue and 13th street.
lvogelOctober 21, 2009 at 11:19 am
Oh, by the way….anyone know where Cash is? This subject is one he could really get into. Haven’t read any postings from him lately.
David GaunyOctober 21, 2009 at 11:21 am
Mike – I need to sign off and get to work but I have no opinion on the Whites Canyon restriping because I don’t drive there and I have no facts in front of me. I won’t commit myself to any vote on the matter and I hope you respect that. I will say that, aside from the Decoro bike lanes, Newhall’s back-in parking fiasco, and a few others, the city doesn’t generally do things at random. If they’re adding a third lane, there is probably a reason. I can commit to you that I will find out about this and you will hear an opinion from me prior to vote time. But keep in mind that issues like these are staff responsibilities, not council decisions. My decisions will be based on facts and they will also avoid micro-management when appropriate. Lastly, just to clarify, I am not against growth or landowner rights. Landowners have the right to build on their land but our local government needs to protect the values of neighboring businesses and homeowners as well. As is the case with restriping roads for traffic that doesn’t seem to exist, we need to look at the complete picture of our community as we make decisions and plan forward.
IHeartSCVOctober 21, 2009 at 11:47 am
…wrote David Gauny: “Mr. Korenthal: sorry about your umbrage.” LOL! (I know, not the most productive comment).
townbeetOctober 21, 2009 at 11:56 am
This whole thing is an image problem. Imho bicycling in this city is viewed as something mostly done for recreation and mostly in nylon-clad wear. The people who bicycle home after washing cars , the single- speed-bike riding youths or the other occasional white collar bike commuters do not figure in our collective definition of bicycling in SCV. Unless the city and all bike afficionatos clearly care to frame or address the need to accept bicyling as a way of transport in SCV why would the regular taxpayer really care?
mike cOctober 21, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Rememember Pardee is going to punch a road that connects Sierra Highway (just north of Soledad) to Whites/Plums Canyon…it is part of their proposed development. They gave a presentation at the Canyon Country Advisory Comm. meeting
Need for Involved CitizenryOctober 21, 2009 at 12:20 pm
The regular joe should care about what the City is doing (or says they are doing) with bike lanes because between biking, increased use of public transportation, a whole slew of new roads and restriping (which often times will wipe out the bike lanes) will solve all the traffic problems arising from the OVOV population growth. Oh – and by the way, OVOV won’t address the Newhall Pass because all the new folks will work in the SCV and the Pass is out of the “Planning” area. As Gauney says – the folks who work at the Hyatt (or the mall or much of the industrial center) don’t live in the SCV but instead commute from the SFV or AV. The only way this could work would be for all the new residential units to be low income (which the City does not have the balls to require from their developer friends).
navigatorOctober 21, 2009 at 12:23 pm
How about a motorcycle lane???
Valencia JoeOctober 21, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I think that instead of spending money on restriping to create bike lanes where they are not needed (DECORO!), the City ought to spend that money to educate the motorist and the cyclist with respect to sharing the road. I have witnessed on many occasions the instance where the sole bike rider is taking up a lane of traffic on a major street (McBean) where there is a dedicated bike lane on the sidewalk to his left. The arrogance that this one cyclist had that morning just infuriated the drivers trying to avoid him while driving to work. Education needs to be for both sides. ’nuff said.
spineflower2October 21, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Tell me how OVOV is going to create businesses paying salaries in excess of $100K and then we can start to talk about “villages.” Until then, it’s just a planner’s wet dream.
townbeetOctober 21, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Valencia Joe: You mean they were delayed for school and work by the car drivers that wouldn’t pass the bicyclist? The McBean I have riden on has side walks not bike lanes northbound from Granary Square.The sidewalk by target and on the bridge is pretty narrow and the one on Bridgeport is full of pedestrians and makes bicycling impossible. West of Granary Mcbean there is a skinny side walk around HMNMH and after that there is no space for bicyclists since the space where a sidewalk should be is a grassy strip, and thick protruding tree roots make riding anything other than a mountain bike impossible. Cars drive 45-to 55 mpr even though by law bicyclists can ride on the street albeit close to the curb. Here is a link to that law. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
Jim FarleyOctober 21, 2009 at 6:44 pm
When KK said he ‘took umbrage’ I imediately went to check to make sure he didn’t get mine. Fortunately I found it so I will be able to rest comfortably in the shade in the future.
Madam_SOctober 22, 2009 at 8:47 am
Mixed use has many benefits, and each project or location doesn’t have to provide all of them to be valuable. The idea is to have homes, stores, and other work places spread around. This reduces driving distances and therefore reduces traffic in general. Every time you can walk from one point to the next (bakery to wine store, for example), you are reducing traffic. Saying that mixed use is a failure if everyone can’t walk to work is ridiculous. That’s like saying don’t wear seatbelts because they won’t always save your life. We have to do ALL these things: bring high-paying jobs, flesh out our “villages”, support alternatives to one-person-one-car transportation, and improve our roads.