Editor,
In a report to the Laguna Canyon Task Force the recommended action to improve the Laguna Canyon corridor is to move more traffic faster as illustrated by five roadway design alternatives A-E. The consultant justifies these alternatives by the traffic analysis on page 24 of their report. The single measure for success is to increase the speed (reduce travel time) and volume of more motor vehicles.
When addressing traffic congestion, traffic engineers and the design rules they follow are grounded in the 1940s. In their analysis, they count only motor vehicles, not pedestrians, not bicycles, not buses. A train full of people is not counted in their analysis. Since vehicle speed (travel time) is the defining criteria, consultants at RBF have responded to the city manager’s request for a “corridor improvement” in kind.
Today there are better design rules. Caltrans should follow their own directive (Deputy Directive 64) and count the movement of people, not just motor vehicles. When looking for corridor improvements, RBF should base their analysis on the new Caltrans criteria.
Has CANDO, Village Laguna or any other LB civic group challenged the RBF Improvement Assessment, the design rules they follow or their criteria for success?
I raised this question during the canyon workshop public meeting again in December and May emails with no response, so forgive me for trying again. The complete consultant’s report can be found on the LB city website.
Les Miklosy, Laguna Beach
