Paul Wellman
CULTURE WARS: Jim Westby (right) and Rick Feldman (to his right) will take their complaint against a bulb-out proposed for the Milpas Street speedway to the City Council next week.
Battle of the Bulb-Outs
Milpas Street Showdown Looms Before Council
Thursday, March 18, 2010
In the world of local politics, the modest bulb-out has emerged as an unlikely, if potent, dividing line. Like school prayer, gun control, or abortion, there’s no middle ground where bulb-outs—otherwise known as curb extensions—are concerned. With a new, and much more evenly split, city council, bulb-out critics wasted little time finding a test case on which to flex their newfound political muscle. Leading the charge is Jim Westby, the quietly influential political strategist behind Santa Barbara SAFE Streets. Westby also played a key role in the unsuccessful mayoral campaign of Councilmember Dale Francisco and in the successful campaigns of new councilmembers Frank Hotchkiss and Michael Self.
This Monday, Westby hosted a press conference— along with Eyeglass Factory owner Rick Feldman —to verbally eviscerate plans to install a bulb-out by the intersection of Milpas and De la Guerra streets. In general, they claim that bulb-outs are unproven, social engineering experiments that do more harm than good. More specifically, they claim this particular bulb-out is a solution desperately in search of a problem to fix. With crosswalks and a stop light already in place, they argued, this intersection is already perfectly safe. They objected that the proposed bulb-out, which would extend six feet out into Milpas and De la Guerra streets, would place bicycle riders and pedestrians in greater jeopardy by putting them closer to the path of oncoming traffic. In addition, they argued that buses, trucks, and fire engines would be hard pressed to navigate the newly engineered intersection, already a dicey affair for big rigs. The only way this can work, they maintained, would be by removing the right-hand turn lane on De la Guerra; and the loss of this lane, they argued, would cause long lines of frustrated rush-hour motorists.
By Paul Wellman
At Monday’s press event, Westby and Feldman were challenged by David Pritchett of the city’s Transportation and Circulation Committee, who pointedly wondered why they didn’t care about the safety of nearby high school and junior high school students. But when Westby and Feldman take their case to the City Council next Tuesday, they will find at least three council members—Self, Hotchkiss, and Francisco—who campaigned that bulb-outs constituted a stupid waste of money and were inflicted upon the body politic by utopian-minded urban planners intent on getting rid of the automobile. Councilmembers Grant House and Das Williams, by contrast, have spoken in defense of bulb-outs, as has Mayor Helene Schneider. New Councilmember Bendy White, more of an agnostic where bulb-outs are concerned, could be the swing vote.
This particular bulb-out was included in plans by developer Jarrett Gorin to convert an abandoned gas station site into an eight condo, mixed-use development. The intersection in question does not have a history of safety problems; other intersections down Milpas, however, do. But Gorin didn’t offer to build a bulb-out by Cota, Ortega, or Gutierrez streets; he did offer to build it at De la Guerra, after being appraised by city staff that Santa Barbara’s pedestrian master plan specifically calls for bulb-outs along the Milpas Street corridor. In addition, Gorin has offered to expand the width of the sidewalk in front of his development by four feet.
City traffic engineer Rob Dayton said bulb-outs offer “the highest quality crossing we can offer pedestrians.” Not only do bulb-outs shorten the distance pedestrians have to travel, he said, but they dramatically increase pedestrians’ ability to see oncoming cars and trucks before venturing into the crosswalk. Dayton insisted that the right-turn lane on De la Guerra Street will remain, explaining that the street will be re-striped to accommodate both the bulb-out and the turn lane. If large trucks begin executing their turns from the proper spot, Dayton said, they should be able to navigate the reconfigured intersection.
While Feldman and Westby frequently cited concern for bike riders in their critique of bulb-outs, not all bicycle advocates are eager to take their help. Ed France of BiCi Centro, located by Salsipuedes and Gutierrez Streets, objected, “What’s galling is that people who are hostile to cyclists are cloaking their arguments with concern about cyclists to come out against safety improvements that would benefit cyclists.”
Comments
Bulb outs have been around for a while. Objectively, has the traffic safety near bulb out intersections improved? I'm sure intersection safety and accident rates are constantly monitored.
If bulb outs increase safety, keep them. If not, then don't.
Can anyone enlighten us?
infomaniac (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2010 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What other City or County uses these 'Bulb-out', safety features? SF in Northern California uses the bulb-out but with other safety features to enhance bike, vehicle and pedestrian ease of access but : http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/...
Shows a different side to bulb-out corners.
dou4now
dou4now (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2010 at 12:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It seems odd that so-called "traffic engineers" have determined bulb-outs and other traffic disruption devices safety enhancements.
If one drives through Samarkand, you'll frequently find a bulb-out pointing to cars at each other, a potential headon collision. How is that safe?
These traffic disruptions narrow the roadway and, particularly in residential areas, often create a greater likelihood of accident.
One might imagine in a few years, bulbouts will begin to disappear as the negative impact is evenually appreciated.
TheEvolOne (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2010 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Chicane bulbs on Stanley Drive are not safe unless a driver slows down. That is not a problem unless speeding is the goal. Maybe drivers who do not like them should stop taking a shortcut through the Samarkand neighborhood?
Pedestrian safety is a different variable from traffic calming.
The nice outcome for the bulbouts proposed for Milpas Street is that the stoplight can be adjusted ("phased") to allow a shorter red light, because the time necessary for a pedestrian to cross Milpas Street will be shorter, because with the bulb the distance for a pedestrian will be shorter to cross the street. Therefore, this bulbout will make car traffic move FASTER along Milpas Street.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
March 19, 2010 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As a frequent downtown walker, I love the new bulbouts on West Ortega. People drive too fast around there, especially on De La Vina. It's about time we design streets for more than just cars. The "utopian-minded urban planners" should be commended.
bmac (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2010 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought the city was facing a huge budget deficit....
Why spend the money on something so ridiculous?
spacey (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2010 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Something strikes me as odd about this Rick Feldman guy. He seems to be one of those obsessive compulsive types. I've seen him hanging around that intersection on numerous occasions with measuring tape in hand, dodging traffic.
I live in the neighborhood - drive, walk, bike there all the time, play tennis at the high school, walk over to Sam's to get a sandwich. If the bulb outs are going to make that busy intersection safer, then I'm all for it. All the kids @SBJHS and SBHS who walk to/from school will benefit too.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2010 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I thought the city was facing a huge budget deficit....
Why spend the money on something so ridiculous?"
-- spacey
Read the article. The developer is paying for it.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2010 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EastBeach: I agree with you and the big word is IF in "If the bulb outs are going to make that busy intersection safer, then I'm all for it."
Before narrowing that busy street, one that I use daily - and where it seems to me bicyclists will be forced into the traffic lane - there should be facts as to the present number of accidents (and injuries) --- and the projections as to whether there will be fewer. ...Just statements that it will help (or that it won't help) don't make it for me.
citti (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2010 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey citti - from a biking viewpoint, the bulbouts already in the neighborhood have never been an issue for me. They don't "force" me into traffic because they don't stick out much more than a parked car or truck would. I drive way more than I bike, but when I'm riding, I have a lot more to worry about than bulbouts.
One more thought regarding this oft-mentioned notion of being "forced" into traffic. When I'm on my motorcycle or bicycle, I *am* part of the traffic just as if I were in my car. All must be courteous to one another and share the road according to law.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2010 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Beware of anyone proclaiming traffic and transportation solutions as "social engineering". It is proof positive of their allegiance to anti-tax extremist ideology. We've been experiencing these loonies for a while here in Minneapolis. A local anti-tax group here put up billboards with Soviet era looking art work of trains claiming that light rail proposals were "social engineering". It was hilarious, but they had big dollar contributors to finance them. Now a few locals claim that the very popular light rail system is "social engineering" to move people out of their cars into an urban utopia. Blah, blah. The transportation culture wars have arrived in SB.
Goleta_Minnesota (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2010 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The cheapest and most instantaneous way to make the roads safer is to simply change (lower) the numbers on Speed Limit signs. Instaprestosafer with a by-product of less oil and less pollution. From city streets to freeways, why does no one ever suggest this option?
andrewbaker77 (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2010 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
PS: Especially when everyone is always complaining about everyone else going too fast on "their" street.
andrewbaker77 (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2010 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Riding a bike on the streets of Santa Barbara is dangerous enough already and now we want place more "obstacles" for drivers to think about? Making it more difficult to negotiate an intersection in a car or big rig doesn't create a safer environment for bicyclists. If we're going to make it safer for pedestrians and bicyclists then we need to enforce the posted speed limits, cite texters and cell phone users when they're driving, cite the red light violaters, and put the drunk drivers in jail. Make the penalties hurt and then the behavior will change!!
commuterguy (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2010 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree, unsafe drivers on cell phones ought to be punished big time with large fines. I've almost been hit by such drivers. But sadly there are only so many cops on the roads.
I find all these felines whining about the bulbouts amusing. I suspect they have some political/idealogical agenda or are just too lame to operate a bike or motor vehicle. Or both.
I ride my bike and drive my car by the bulbouts on Quarantina & DLG and Quarantina & Canon Perdido and Canon Perdido & Milpas all the time. No big deal at all. And they do make it safer for pedestrians - I know because I walk those same intersections and drive thru them myself. Its way easier to see a pedestrian waiting to cross, and the distance to cross is shorter. It ain't rocket science. I can't wait to hear the next rationalization against bulbouts.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2010 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
East Beach, I like some bulbouts --- the Canon Perdido Street one, for example. But as for biking, Milpas is really dangerous and I've given up biking it, except sometimes on Sundays. In fact, after getting my tire caught in one of the ruts on Gutierrez a month or so ago, I've pretty much given up on biking around town and use my car instead and, aware of the 75-minute shuffle, avoid any shopping on State and adjoining streets .
As a would-be biker, I'd vote for more and longer stop lights on Milpas rather than bulbouts. I no longer ride a motorcycle - and then was part of the traffic; as a biker, I am forced to the right, in constant fear of a door opening; a narrowed street, even though there would not be a parked car at the bulb, makes it that much more tense-making.
citti (anonymous profile)
March 24, 2010 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)