Task Force Tackles Canyon Road Blocks

1
698
The Canyon road was closed in May 2014 to investigate the death of student Nina Fitzpatrick, struck by a car at a crosswalk. City officials now are trying to improve the road's safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Photo by Jody Tiongco
The Canyon road was closed in May 2014 to investigate the death of student Nina Fitzpatrick, struck by a car at a crosswalk. City officials now are trying to improve the road’s safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Photo by Jody Tiongco

When a task force began a review of six alternatives for improving safety and access on Laguna Canyon Road last week, it became clear that they will need to clear a few hurdles before reaching a consensus.

Their goal is to evaluate the pros and cons of five road configurations, A through E, laid out by RBF Consulting, as well as a sixth alternative, F, proposed by a subgroup of task force members. Most alternatives involve a widening of Laguna Canyon Road.

“There will be a time for advocacy and that occurs at the Council stage,” said Mayor Bob Whalen, who with Council member Toni Iseman led the 20-member panel that met for the fifth time on Wednesday, March 18. “This phase is for analyzing alternatives and pointing out pros and cons.”

The panel boasts representation from the greenbelt, residents, business owners, schools, interest groups and commuters. Others present included city staff and safety personnel, the city’s urban planning and traffic consultants, and representatives from Caltrans and OC Parks.

All alternatives assume that utility poles will be buried along the canyon road and that it will span either 62 or 74 feet in width. The smaller width options fit within Caltrans’ existing right of way, while the larger road would require obtaining more right of way from property owners in certain areas.

Options A through E all include some combination of 12-foot travel lanes and either a 10-foot turning lane or a 10-foot raised median with turning pockets, and an eight-foot shoulder on each side that would be striped to serve as a bike lane.

Alternatives A and D propose one southbound lane (inbound) and two northbound lanes (outbound), but A has a turning lane and D a median.

Alternatives B and C would expand the existing road with two north and southbound lanes each, where B has a turning lane and C has a median.

Alternatives A through D all suggest a multi-use trail and roundabouts as design options, but selecting these options would require obtaining additional land.

Alternative E keeps the roadway largely as is, but ensures eight-foot shoulders throughout to bring it up to Caltrans current design standards.

As the panelists began analysis of alternatives A and B, roadblocks appeared.

The Caltrans representative noted that the roadway shoulders can serve shared use as a bike lane and emergency lane, but they are not meant for pedestrian traffic.

Thus, alternatives A through D can accommodate pedestrians only if the multi-use trail option were selected, which would require an even wider right of way. Without that option they do not qualify as complete streets, a state mandate that requires roadways be accessible to bikes and pedestrians as well as cars, and thus don’t qualify for related grants.

Neither private property owners nor open space advocates seemed amenable to ceding ground.

Right of way encroachment would depress the value of private property, said sculptor Louis Longi, representing Laguna Canyon Road homeowners.

Any option involving an encroachment on open space should not be on the table agreed Laguna Canyon Foundation’s chief executive Hallie Jones, Laguna Greenbelt’s president Elizabeth Brown and Village Laguna representative Verna Rollinger. Further, since roundabouts would require extending rights of way into open space, Jones suggested excising them now.

The Caltrans representative demurred, noting policy obliges them to analyze roundabouts at every intersection. “It is one of the best traffic calming methodologies out there,” he said.

Only the home-grown alternative by the task force subgroup provided a true complete street.

Their proposal envisions one northbound and one southbound lane, each 12 feet, with an 11-foot center turning lane that could become an extra outbound lane as needed. An eight-foot shoulder would flank one travel lane. The lane on the other side would be flanked by a mountable curb, an 11-12-foot paved two-way cycling path and a 3-5 foot pedestrian pathway in decomposed granite.

This alternative provides a physical barrier between cars and bikes and is estimated to fit within a 60-65-foot right of way. At the same time, the mountable curb, while buffering bikes from cars, nevertheless allows cars in distress to drive over it, and the bike lane can be used by emergency response vehicles.

The alternative F was presented in January by Mike Schneider from the Parking Traffic and Circulation Committee, Norm Grossman for Laguna Greenbelt, John Hamil for Laguna Canyon business owners, Carol Nilsen for Let Laguna Vote, Chris Prelitz for Transition Laguna Beach, Verna Rollinger for Village Laguna, and Aaron Talarico for the Laguna Beach Chamber of Commerce.

Assistant City Manager Christa Johnson said the technical team was still investigating the feasibility of this alternative.

The pros and cons of alternatives C through F will be discussed in two upcoming public meetings. The next is scheduled for Wednesday, April 15, at City Hall.

 

Share this:

1 COMMENT

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here