I knew it was coming. The NRDC gives a little award to the City of Santa Clarita for some of its positive, green programs, and suddenly we’re like Portland, Oregon:
Heather Merenda, the city’s sustainability planner, said popular programs include energy audits, showing 748 residents how they could “tune up” their homes to boost energy efficiency; a bulb-exchange program replacing less-efficient ones with more efficient ones; and education programs for schools.
The city also has a high recycling rate, is bike- and pedestrian-friendly, and boasts a restaurant waste composting program, all of which also impressed the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Emphasis mine.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the City of Santa Clarita is great for bike riding if all you’re interested in doing is riding recreationally, tooling around on a summer evening with the fam, enjoying the outdoors.
But if you want to bicycle for transportation to enjoy all the benefits that brings (significant cost savings, health improvement, environmentally friendly), riding in the SCV frankly sucks.
It sucks because, like LA, the SCV has great weather, is relatively flat, and, unlike LA, is not that large. Cycling as transportation should be a natural fit for our city, but it’s not. It’s not because the City’s philosophy has always been that bicyclists should be segregated from other forms of traffic, pushed off onto paths so as to not inconvenience any one else, even in the slightest. And paths are expensive and difficult to build, which ultimately means they don’t connect housing centers to job & retail centers as well as regular roads do.
Which is why I’ve advocated for a year or so now the efficacy and affordability of plain old on-street bike lanes, which go where the roads go.
But our City (mostly the City Council), with a few notable exceptions, doesn’t see it that way. They’ll continue to look at cycling as a recreational, fun-time activity until someone gets elected who knows what the score is. And they’ll be touting the SCV as a “bike friendly” community thanks to the NRDC’s award in the days and weeks ahead.
And as far as pedestrian friendliness goes: sure, if you’re in Valencia, walking can’t be beat. But if you’re poor and live in Newhall, the city won’t even build you a sidewalk.
Loading ...
“And as far as pedestrian friendliness goes: sure, if you’re in Valencia, walking can’t be beat. But if you’re poor and live in Newhall, the city won’t even build you a sidewalk.”
And if you are in the new Special Standards zone the City will never give you a sidewalk because a few people didn’t want them. Personally I am happy to have mine.
and if you work in the Industrial Center, you don’t get a sidewalk either. The city encourages you to take the bus also, but you have to walk in the street to get to the bus stop
From talking with the traffic planners and looking at SC’s NMTP, they do realize that getting sidewalks in the Industrial Center is a priority, however it’s just too expensive to do right now. It’ll literally cost over a million dollars and the city is unlikely to get grant money for a sidewalk project (where as they could get it for a bike lane/path project).
I have to commute through the Industrial Center to get to the Old Road and then head North to the Commerce Center. It’s not ideal, but if you follow the concepts of vehicular cycling it’s doable.
Special standards districts are one thing, I was talking about
sidewalksrocky dirt path along Newhall Avenue near Green Thumb.Those are coming.
New York City’s City Council came out yesterday echoing the DOT’s statements on pedestrian and cyclist equality with motorists, citing studies that concluded “crashes on streets with bike lanes were 40 percent less deadly than on other streets.”
Los Angeles had a bike summit yesterday where the Mayor announced 1600 miles of bicycling infrastructure – a far cry from the current 372 miles. That’s a 4x jump.
What are we doing, Santa Clarita? The current Non-motorized transportation plan (NMTP) is a crock – the routes that are cited in the plan switch sides of the street or are sidewalks that are tagged as bike routes. Great example is the bike path on Newhall Ranch Road, which switches sides of the street three times (and in some cases, just plain ends) without any warning. How do you consider that ONE SOLID LINE on the plan?
Hire a full time, non-motorized transportation planner and give that person a budget for a few buckets of paint. Bike lanes or sharrows don’t have to reduce the number of automotive lanes we have today – as we saw with the Decoro fiasco, implementation is everything.
You’ll reduce traffic, increase the health and safety of our community, decrease bus subsidy with increased ridership and increase the desirability of our community.
I’m very happy with the special standards district in Happy Valley. Forgoing sidewalks will save many beautiful oak trees. The semi-rural nature of Happy Valley makes it great for walking/hiking with or without sidewalks.
The only problem I have with the Happy Valley Special Standards District and its lack of sidewalks is that so many people and their dogs (including me) walk in the street to avoid the uneven surface on the side of the streets. That, in turn, makes it very dangerous when there are autos going in both directions at the same time they are passing the pedestrians (and it happens all the time).
And to think, Biking is a very important element in the new Circulation Plan under OVOV (even though bike lanes will be swallowed by adding lanes). I’d like to see how that works.
Also, on the City’s award, they must not have cared about what kinds of efficiency requirements non-City buildings must comply with because the City only requires the minimum.
Jeff: I mentioned in the previous post about Newhall Ave will be getting sidewalks. Its in the City’s budget. So at least one problem is solved.
NickelDime: I did research on sharrows and you can only use them with streets with speed limits under 40MPH that allows parking on the street. This is a state-dictated law. Those restrictions leave very few streets, if any, to allow the use of sharrows in SC.
Greg:
Thanks for that clarity. I’ll drop my sharrow talk and focus on bike lanes.
Greg:
Can you cite your reference? I didn’t see that in the Caltrans planning docs.
Its under the California Manual Uniform Traffic Control Devices located here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/ca_mutcd2010.htm
Go to Part 9: Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities. Its Page 33, pic on Page 48
One of the findings in the City’s Non-Motorized Transportation Plan was the lack of bicycle facilities in the Industrial Center. The adoption of the City’s Non-Motorized Transportation Plan made it eligible to apply for state funds under the Bicycle Transportation Account Program (BTA). The City was successful in a BTA grant award of $141,723 to add bicycle lanes in the Industrial Center on Avenue Scott, Avenue Stanford, and Vanderbilt Way. This project will involve re-striping of traffic lanes that will allow for improved traffic flow and the addition of a bicycle lane component which will provide cyclists with a designated path of travel which will improve bicycle safety.
The City has recently met with the Santa Clarita Chamber of Commerce and the Valley Industry Association, and both organizations are very supportive of the project. The bike lane project will provide bicycle access to hundreds of businesses in the area, improve linkages with existing bus stops to encourage multi-modal connections, provide access to the Citywide bike and trail network, and increase bicyclist safety, comfort, and convenience.
The City is in the process of preparing a website detailing upcoming projects in the Industrial Center area where residents and businesses can get more information. Stay tuned!
This may or maynot be the place to post this, but for all who use Santa Clarita Transit.
They are currently in contract negotiations with the drivers. Nothing further on this at this time, but for those who use the system, have a backup. A strike would affect both the commuters and the local transit lines
I don’t want to be unnecessarily mean spirited in pointing out the meaningless nature of Natural Resources Defense Council’s award to the City of Santa Clarita.
Back in the 1970′s through early 1990′s NRDC was the hardball player of major environmental litigation. However, between the mid 1990′s and now, NRDC became the employer of people who were “spouses of Democrat politicians” and as a result NRDC’s bonafides as environmentalists without a shadowy political agenda was destroyed. Their cop out of opposition to real estate development of the Ballona Wetlands is legendary in environmental litigation circles.
As a result, Santa Clarita receiving a “green” award is like a Christian youth organization receiving a “promote abstinence award” from Bill Clinton. It’s a meaningless act.
Santa Clarita receiving a “green” award is as silly as Newhall Land’s receipt of “good planning” awards from organizations owned by the home building industry.
The “real” legitimate national environmental organization, in terms of meaningful lobbying, litigation and research to protect the environment, is the Center for Biological Diversity.
The NRDC, giver of the award to Santa Clarita, has been infiltrated and reduced to fuzzy sock puppet status. The giving of these silly awards is just part of a fund raising campaign, typical of the b.s. which politically compromised organizations engage in.
When the Center for Biological Diversity gives an award to the City of Santa Clarita for anything, that will be a day when Santa Claritans can be proud. I don’t see that day coming for a long, long time.