By the time we got to the Q&A session during our June 6 annual meeting, time had run out. As much as we would have liked to answer all of the questions then and there, many questions deserved more thoughtful and complete answers. And here they are. Enjoy.
If you have additional questions, send them to: president@wpra.net or vicepresident@wpra.net.
Q1: We should conduct a competition to officially give a new name to the area. We can’t keep calling it the “stub.” Winner gets a prize?
A: WPRA President Pete Ewing: Great idea! The WPRA Board will discuss it.
Q2: Can we put the A Line Metro light-rail tracks under Green Street and Del Mar?
A: WPRA President Pete Ewing: Earlier plans to underground the light-rail tracks at only California were scrapped due to an exorbitant estimated cost. Instead, Metro allocated funds to enhance other modes of transportation in Pasadena. However, since these intersections are crucial for access to, for example, the hospital emergency room, it may be in everyone’s best interest to reconsider running the tracks under Green Street and through California Boulevard to improve traffic flow.
Q3: The sale of non-profit homes by Caltrans is a major concern to those living in the Arlington Street area, east of Pasadena Avenue. Specifically, the Cottage Nursery (40 students) has disrupted the peaceful enjoyment of residences with traffic, noise and parking congestion. It is too large of an operation to be surrounded by single-family homes. Can something be done?
A: WPRA Vice President Rick Madden: We suggest you first raise these issues with the Cottage Nursery’s administration. If the school is unwilling to help, contact Council District 6 Liaison Justin Chapman by email at jchapman@cityofpasadena.net, or call (626) 744-4739; or contact the City’s Planning and Community Development department at (626) 744-8633.
Q4: Will the WPRA advocate for bringing back the sidewalk on the east side of Pasadena Avenue from Bellefontaine to Columbia?
A: WPRA Vice President Rick Madden: Yes, the WPRA is advocating for the return of Pasadena Avenue to a normal residential street with sidewalks and with scale and traffic appropriate for this use. As noted in our annual meeting, a return to a fine-grain block structure would allow current traffic to be dispersed among several streets. This should reduce the burden of traffic that any particular street has to bear.
Q5: Why is the City reluctant to eliminate the homeless encampment along Columbia Place and Fair Oaks Avenue? All it needs is fence reinforcement to prevent access.
A: Pasadena Police Department Sgt. Jacob Carey and WPRA Board member Carlos Javelera: The homeless encampment under the bridge at Fair Oaks Avenue and Columbia Place has plagued residents of Pasadena for over 10 years. These large homeless encampments produce excessive amounts of trash and human waste. Every time the Police Department removes subjects and trash (at a high City cost), the service-resistant individuals are back within a week or even days. A chain-link fence that had been erected there has been cut each and every time after being repaired by Public Works. It was only recently that the chain-link fence on the east side of Fair Oaks Avenue (near the Raymond Restaurant) was replaced by a sturdy fence, which has yet to be breached. But we need your help to find a permanent solution to this problem. The Police Department will be conducting walk-throughs of the location. During those walk-throughs the Police will discuss crime statistics and identify what each of us can do to help resolve this problem. If you’d like to join a walk-through, leave a message at cityofpasadena.net/police/contact.
Q6: What’s being done to implement fiber optic signal cable in Pasadena for the internet? We are stuck with outdated coaxial cable from Charter Spectrum; it’s very slow.
A: WPRA President Pete Ewing: The WPRA has not yet taken this subject on; however, we will discuss it during our July 10 Board meeting.
Q7: Did any newer cities, such as Brasilia, or California suburbs, get the traffic/car culture issue right? What lessons have we learned from newer cities?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: Coincidentally, years ago, during a graduate class about street networks, we studied Brasilia’s street network and those of many other cities. Interestingly, Brazil’s capital city, Brasilia, was built from scratch in a lightly populated area, away from the coast. In 1960, the capital was moved there from Rio de Janeiro. There was no historic or geographical reason for the new city to be developed in that specific location. Other cities began because they were located at natural places for social and economic exchange such as the junctions of rivers, railways or ports.
Brasilia is a modernist place that was planned and built quickly. As a new city, it could have been designed to be walkable, multimodal and equitable, but it was not. It was designed instead to be car-oriented, favoring the middle and upper classes. It’s very much like the modern American suburbs. Unlike other large capitals, such as London, Paris, the U.S. District of Columbia and Madrid, Brasilia lacks effective transit in the human scale, walkability, and urbanism. Its blocks tend to be too large, creating circuitous routing and other problems. American suburbs tend to suffer from the same problems.
For large from-scratch developments to be sustainable and livable, they need to embody traditional values, because cities are fundamentally about people, not cars. Cities (and city streets) have been around for 10,000 years and, over that time, a lot of city-making lessons were learned through trial and error, including the effective patterns for street network/block structures. The modernists, who built Brasilia and most of the American suburbs, discarded most of those traditional lessons due to the car, lot-yield, ease of planning, and profit being the center of their design universe, and not walkability or city-making.
Pasadena is not a new city. With the exception of the highways, its ramps, and design effects on some streets, Pasadena does not have an experimental street network and is not a suburb. Pasadena was, and is, a traditionally designed city, with a very nice traditional block structure, in areas where it has not been destroyed, or partially destroyed, by highways. The harm that has occurred to Pasadena, over the last 80 years, was at the hands of modernists who championed highways in cities, faster speeds, large blocks, one-way streets, throughput, and car-use, while dismantling most of the rail infrastructure and minimizing the importance of access, walking, and cycling. The 210, 710, and 134 freeways did tremendous damage to the structure of the city.
If Pasadena wishes to approach its remaining potential, then it will need to embrace its traditional roots and values by pushing back against car dependency with its policies, plans and projects. Stopping the 710 was already a great step in that direction. Removing the 710 stub and building something much better is a great opportunity to advance Pasadena at a large scale.
Q8: Does “walkability” work with hillsides and steep areas?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: There are likely very few highly walkable places in steep areas. However, there are plenty of walkable alpine and hilly places. Planning and designing are more challenging in hilly areas, especially as these places expand, compared to flat places.
Q9: In your experience, what are the most effective ways for citizens to influence “reconnecting”?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: The best way for you to influence “reconnecting” and advance other traditional values, is to vote people into office who understand urbanism. They, in turn, will hire planners who lean toward the traditional, and employ metrics and design guidance that results in connectivity, slower speeds and walkability.
Second, you should (1) read books on urbanism to become informed about what matters to Pasadena’s future in terms of urban design, (2) become familiar with the transportation/infrastructure history of Pasadena, and then (3) lend those books to your friends to spread the word.
The next step would be to (4) identify what the best traditional cities around the world are doing, (5) borrow some of their ideas, and then (6) help encourage policies, plans, and projects to align with traditional values. You should also study cities that already have removed highways and how these cities succeeded.
And, lastly, you should look at patterns of destruction and renewal. For example, identify urban places that embraced suburban/modernist values and compare them with suburban places that urbanized. See how those places got worse or better. At the end of the day, you’ll find that the modernist, suburban theories paradigm was popular (and still are in many places), but flawed. The modernists’ optimistic promises were never kept, and could never have been kept.
The good news is that the ideas, above, are not a leap for Pasadena. A lot of those skill sets were employed in stopping the 710. So, they are already happening. The key is to avoid complacency and continue advancing the cause. Even Paris is still pushing to be a better city.
Pasadena still has a lot of work to do to replace the stub with contributing infrastructure. After that, there will be more related work to do, city-wide. It will never stop. Cities continually change and, ideally for the better. Reconnecting is part of a package of changes that are needed for Pasadena and many other cities to approach their potentials.
Q10: What is the mechanism for addressing severe congestion in South Pasadena on Fair Oaks and Fremont avenues? How can South Pasadena be included? Can any steps be implemented within three or four years?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: Congestion in Pasadena and in the L.A. area is not the problem. Rather it is a symptom of a bigger problem (poor land use and poor transportation planning) and car dependency due to 80 years of modernist transportation metrics, theories and practices.
The mechanism for addressing it is to focus on the real problems and not the symptoms. Conventional transportation professionals have been trying to solve congestion for many decades, via conventional means, and they and their models have continuously failed. The solution is to move away from the modernist paradigm (something that does not work) toward a more traditional paradigm (something that works) at every level of government.
Adopting a universal equation for land use and transportation planning” would be a good step for Pasadena. Then, use that equation as a litmus test for your land use and transportation policies, practices, plans and projects. If something does not advance the four fundamental metrics in the equation in the desirable directions, then don’t do it. If it advances the equation, then do it. See figure 1.
Specifically, the challenges facing Fair Oaks and Freemont, in South Pasadena, are similar to the challenges facing Fair Oaks and Pasadena avenues, in Pasadena. In South Pasadena, that city recently undertook a study of Fair Oaks, Fremont, and Huntington, with an eye to reduce their current problems and make the city better. The study was expanded to consider all the arterials in South Pasadena. It became clear that the conventional paradigm, that has dominated for 80 years, in South Pasadena, delivered undesirable outcomes. The traffic problems had incrementally worsened. The conclusion was that the conventional paradigm did not, does not, and likely will never work in accordance with the community’s values. See figure 2
During the public involvement process, the collective epiphany was that there was simply too much traffic. So, the community consensus was to employ traditional values, the traditional paradigm, and the universal equation to reduce traffic (not traffic congestion) and, simultaneously, achieve a set of pro-city outcomes. The big idea was to undertake a city-wide VMT (vehicle miles traveled) reduction strategy to right-size/diet the overly wide arterial streets, use slower design speeds, and use the reclaimed space to create bike facilities, wider sidewalks, beautiful public realms, safer and more comfortable conditions for people (e.g., via street trees, better crossings, etc.). The proposed changes purposefully did not get vetted through a conventional, computerized, traffic demand forecast model because such models helped to create the current problems. Instead, South Pasadena looked at model cities for guidance on how to achieve their economic sustainability, and livability goals (i.e., cities that have already done it successfully).
Steps can begin sooner than in three or four years. The City of Pasadena ought to get a copy of the write-up on South Pasadena’s project (and maybe some of the presentations) and consider doing something similar in Pasadena. In fact, every city in L.A. County that suffers from car dependency problems should consider similar changes. Then, Pasadena could have a community-wide discussion to arrive at a consensus to take a similarly sustainable VMT-reduction path, and then move ahead with related policies, practices, plans, and projects accordingly.
An early step would be to adjust some of Pasadena’s ongoing projects. For example, the Pasadena Avenue complete street project could be altered so that the outcomes would include significantly reducing its role as a north-south car conduit. Of course, the 710 stub removal project, a much larger project, should also aspire to be aligned with an urban, sustainable, livable and multimodal future. As a southern component of that effort, the stub removal project could help ensure that Pasadena Avenue will become a comfortable neighborhood street again.
Q11: Is it realistic to think that families and the elderly can manage shopping without cars?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: The assembly line, to mass produce cars, is just over a century old. Yet, cities were invented about 10,000 years ago. So, for about 99% of the history of cities (i.e., about 400 generations of families, including the elderly), residents in cities managed to do normal things like shop and go to school or work – without cars! Not having cars was normal.
There is a collective amnesia in car-dependent places, about how people managed without being car dependent. To them, it seems unimaginable or even impossible. Consequently, it is natural for them to feel that significant changes are infeasible. The best way to understand the answer to the question is to go to well-planned places that did not cause their people to become car dependent or places that weaned their populations off car dependency. How did they do it and how do the residents manage? And are they happy? Why don’t these residents abandon such places and move to car-dependent cities where they must drive?
Realistically, Pasadena cannot manage without cars and trucks, now or in the future. Fortunately, nobody is suggesting that. To suggest there is a conspiracy to get rid of cars is unhelpful. However, it is realistic, healthy, and necessary for families, the elderly, children, and society in general to manage with less car-use, with less VMT, with less car dependency, and with more viable modal choices.
Today, there is only one choice for most people, the car. Having only one choice is not really a choice. It is a requirement, monopoly, dependency, vulnerability, or some other term for an undesirable predicament for a city to be in. Pasadena used to have choices. It still has some, but ought to have more for a wider breath of the population.
Q12: Many of the other city examples that were described for reducing car traffic have good subway systems. In Paris, the Metro built in the 1800s, has stations that are only a 7 minute walk from anywhere in the city. How can Pasadena achieve that vision without an efficient subway or train system?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: Starting in 1884, nine years before the City of Pasadena was founded (1893), rail service began in Pasadena. In 1895, when the City was two years old, trolleys began. Subways did not occur because they may not be the best choice for rail-based transit in a place that is prone to earthquakes. However, Pasadena grew at least partially because of its rail and trolley systems. That is, Pasadena prospered as transit-oriented community and was as walkable as any equivalent place in Europe … until the mid-1940s.
Modernists and conventional transportation professionals convinced decision-makers to destroy most of that rail-based transit options and infrastructure, and replace it with an untested automobile-based paradigm/model. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but it turned out to be an inefficient, ineffective, expensive, inequitable, polluting and, generally speaking, a dangerous system. Cities that stayed with their transit systems in the western world, seem to have made the better choice. As I mentioned, some cities tried car-centric models for a while and then switched back to traditional ways, and are doing better again. Other cities have doubled down on highways and other conventional theories and have done even worse.
Q13: How will traffic be directed at the new end of the freeway? To what street/streets will it be directed?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: I hope to be working on this question in more detail soon. Freeways and cities do not mix well. The transitions from highway ramps to city streets are just one of the problems with highways in cities.
Typically, the highway ramps, to and from various directions, are concentrated together at an “interchange.” That places a large traffic volume burden on the street, at the city-end of the ramps. Consequently, those locations are designed to process high traffic volumes and do not lend themselves to land uses that are sensitive to high traffic volumes. This is the opposite of Pasadena’s historic grid of streets, which shared traffic loads, provided a human scale, and provided routing options. In other words, highways concentrate traffic and make places unlivable, while networks disperse traffic and create livable places. Very few residents want highway ramps concentrating traffic through their neighborhood or along their street. So, perhaps more thought needs to be applied to the future ends of the ramps so that the problematic outcomes are reduced or eliminated.
Q14: How do you deal with hillside residential areas without cars?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: I doubt that such an extreme scenario (i.e., no cars) is realistic in California. However, car use can be reduced with better land use and better transportation planning. Obviously, topography creates challenges, but it is not an excuse for bad planning. It just requires planning that better deals with the topography.
Q15: What about views?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: Views are very important. Sweeping views of landmarks, mountains and iconic buildings are important. Limited views that a person would encounter along streets and in public spaces are important, too. A variety of views make for engaging environments, walkability, beauty and character. They also help make those places more memorable.
When the stub project gets into the planning and the design of the street network, parks, squares, building placement, and form, the range of views should be considered. That is, views should be part of the “story” of the design because they are a big part of how people will experience the place every day. The sites and locations that provide the best views should be identified and planned such that wonderful views are maximized.
Q16: What about balance issues and bikes?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: Good point! Presently, there is little balance in Pasadena. Most of the public realm is dominated by cars. For land use and transportation planning following World War II, the car was the priority throughout the city. Cars have become a prosthetic, even for many otherwise abled-bodied people, to get around for their daily needs (i.e., they can’t function without it).
Practically every building, street and place in Pasadena can be comfortably accessed by car. Ironically, a similar standard of comfortable access is not afforded to the most vulnerable and sustainable users of the streets, specifically pedestrians, cyclists and transit users.
People using bikes are the least well accommodated. There are several complete streets in Pasadena, but there is not a robust network of them yet. A balance ought to be created so that people can walk, cycle, and use public transit more safely, comfortably, frequently and effectively to meet their daily needs.
Conventional transportation experts took 80 years and many billions of dollars to swing the balance from multimodal to car oriented. It will take a long time and many investments to restore a balance. The keys are to: 1. Do no more harm, and 2. start restoring the balance through better policies, metrics, plans and projects.
Q17: What about hot days (heat stroke), rainy days for (non-car) transportation?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: Undoubtedly cars make travel comfortable. Cars insulate the occupants from noise, weather, sunshine and other people. They overcome hills and distances. Plus, the car can carry a lot of stuff, just in case you ever need it. Walking or riding a bike requires more physical effort and planning, such as dressing for rain or hot weather, and figuring out what you want to bring with you.
These concerns are real to many people and make using a car the easy choice. The decision-making process is personal and rather disconnected from the consequences. When choosing to drive instead of bike, do people consider the effects on the planet’s climate, such as the carbon-induced tipping point for melting the ice caps and flooding coastal cities? What about 4,000 people being killed and 200,000 being injured every year in car crashes in California? What about contributing to the dirty air that causes diseases in some children? What about the loss of agricultural land and habitats due to car-induced sprawl? What about large percentages of valuable land in downtowns and cities being dedicated to storing people’s private cars while parked? What about equity by contributing to the traffic volumes that justify street widenings, making it difficult for pedestrians to cross the street? There are definitely some downsides to car dependency. However, some trips are very difficult or impossible to do on foot or by bike. So, the idea, from a sustainable city perspective, is to focus on the potential feasible trips, where using a car is just marginally easier than walking or cycling.
Better land-use planning and infrastructure can help make the sustainable choices more appealing. Examples include providing destinations that people use routinely nearby; building housing near jobs and services; building sidewalks with shade; and building separated bike facilities. Adding benches, nice crossings, adequate lighting, convenient and secure bike parking can help too. Every change, like these, moves the margins so that an increasing percentage of the population can make different choices.
When people decide to give walking, cycling and public transit a try, they will need to make some commonsense adjustments for hot or rainy days, like using an umbrella, avoiding strenuously walking between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. on hot days. Fortunately, the weather is very good in Pasadena and L.A. County for active transportation. Every year, there are about 35 days during which LA receives a measurable amount of rain (i.e., not much rain) and the average annual temperature is 65 degrees. Seattle has about 152 days with rain, and an average annual temperature of 53 degrees. Yet, more people ride bikes in Seattle than in Pasadena. Copenhagen has 157 rainy days per year, and an average annual temperature of about 48 degrees. Yet, more people ride bikes in Copenhagen than in Seattle. So, the weather is not the key obstacle to walking and riding. Two big obstacles are a lack of comfortable bike infrastructure and poor land-use planning. The City cannot control the weather, but it can help create an environment in which sustainable travel choices are increasingly viable.
There are lots of real and imagined obstacles to walking and bike riding. E-bikes will increasingly be an obstacle-remover. They make hills feel relatively flat. Less leg effort is needed on an e-bike, compared to walking, which is helpful during warmer weather. E-bikes can carry moderate loads. Compared to walking and riding regular bikes, e-bikes easily increase one’s range to 5 to 6 miles, and up to 10 to 12 miles for some people. East-west, the city is only about 7 miles wide, and north-south, it is about 4 miles.
So, the entire city would be within an easy e-bike ride for many people, especially if the city had complete streets. Furthermore, compared to gas-powered cars or EVs, e-bikes use little energy, cost less to own and maintain, generate less pollution, require inexpensive infrastructure, are easy to park, and take little space to park.
Q18: If we reduce the number of lanes, from four to two, what happens to all the traffic on there now?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: If the traffic volumes are low and all else is equal, then very little will happen to traffic from a motorist’s perspective. However, the speeds will drop to be closer to the speed limit due to less aggressive driving, and the street will become safer.
It will be easier to cross the street on foot. Space will be freed up for planting street trees, building wider sidewalks, adding bike facilities, and increasing permeable surfaces for storm water. There will be less of a heat island and impervious surfaces. If there is a medium amount of traffic, then you’d likely not go to two lanes and, instead, go to three lanes (i.e., one each way and left-turn lanes). Again, very little would happen in terms of car-carrying capacity, and you’d get about the same benefits as the two-lane street. However, if these changes were part of a city-wide VMT (vehicle miles traveled)-reduction plan, then lots of changes would occur. These could range from attracting more investment to the city, enhancing the quality of life, reducing carbon footprints and car dependency, and improving community health.
Less VMT is a technical way for saying “less traffic.” The process of systematically reducing traffic volumes city-wide is called “traffic reduction. In North America and in some parts of Europe it is called “traffic evaporation” (English translation).
The VMT is lowered in cities because the city uses the universal equation (or something equivalent to it) for its land use and transportation planning and decisions. For the families and individuals living in the city, they will respond to the evolving city by making rational decisions that are in their self-interest, using their private capabilities (e.g., walk, bike, e-bike, scooter, car, motorbike, etc.) and capabilities provided publicly (e.g., streets, sidewalks, transit, trails, etc.). Some people will continue to drive.
However, many of them will drive shorter distances and less often. The balance of the people will do one of more other things that are shown in the third attachment. Two outcomes are less traffic and a better city. There usually plenty of collateral benefits, ranging from less pollution to better community health. See figure 3
Q19: Do roundabouts reduce delays and Trip time? How?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: Good question. Years ago, at a typical set of traffic signals, two lines of traffic were stopped and two were moving. However, with the invention of protected phasing for left turns, all-red phases, pedestrian phases, and increasingly, bike phases, increases waiting/stopping at traffic signals. When the intersection spacing works out and with better detection technologies, some synchronization can occur that reduces waiting times at signals.
Roundabouts are self-regulating and designed to reduce stopping. Instead, drivers typically yield. Yielding is made simple by only having to yield on your way into the roundabout. As a result, there are fewer “conflict points” at roundabouts, compared to an intersection with signals. However, drivers must yield to pedestrians and cyclists who are using the crossings at roundabouts. But because these crossing points are typically located one or two car lengths back from the yield line the operational effects on the motorists are minimized.
The cumulative effects of the ideas, above, means that, on a street with roundabouts the top speeds will be lower, the speed profile will be steadier, and there will be less stopping. On an equivalent street, with traffic signals, the top speeds and speed profile will be higher, and there will be more stopping. From a travel time perspective, the street with the roundabouts will have the edge. Furthermore, the energy consumed on the streets with roundabouts will be lower, due to less accelerating and decelerating. There will be less noisy for the same reasons, and there will be less frequent and less serious crashes. Obviously, there are lots of exceptions to these general patterns.
Q20: How do we get there from here?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: The first thing to know is, “What does ‘there’ mean?” Usually, “there” is expressed as a “vision” that qualitatively describes what the place ought to be like in the future. The vision is accompanied by a series of goals, objectives and principles. Then, the paradigm can shift, and policies, planning, practices and projects can change.
The policy and planning parts can happen fairly quickly. However, it takes time to physically evolve a city, due to budgets, staff time, staging needs, approvals, and coordination with stakeholders and other agencies. A fast, wholesale, physical change is rare. The changes are made street by street, development by development, and involve a few projects at a time. However, the exception in Pasadena is the area in, and around, the 710 stub, where huge advancements are feasible in a relatively short period of time.
Q21: Are you talking about highways or streets? What is the difference?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: The words “road” and “street” are often used as synonyms. However, they are not synonyms, and making the distinction, in policy and practice, will help the city and community advance their values in the design and operations of the streets in Pasadena.
A “road,” within a “functional classification system of roads,” connotes a rural or natural context. Roads have minimal land use relationships along their sides and are primarily for travelling relatively long distances from A to B (i.e., usually through rural or natural areas, between cities or towns) and for farm-to-market purposes. Roads typically do not have transit services, buildings, or sidewalks along them, and operate at higher speeds. Access controlled highways are the most extreme type of road and are the least compatible type of road in a city.
A street, within a “functional classification system of streets,” in a city has connotations that differ from those of a road. Typically, collector and arterial streets are the busiest and most economically important streets, in cities. They serve as the major transit routes, provide access to other streets, and provide access to the broadest mixes and densities of stores, services, homes, jobs sites, entertainment locations and schools. They connect and are part of neighborhoods, districts, centers, and the city. Long streets contribute to various “character areas” along their lengths. Collector and arterial streets ought to be parts of the places, where they are located, and greatly influence the identity and character of the areas that they support and serve. The design, of each street, reflects the values of the community. Consequently, the sum of all the streets contributes greatly to the image of the city.
Compared to roads, streets have slow design speeds and have strong relationships with the land uses along them. Local streets are the least busy streets and provide access to mostly residential land uses. The roles of collector streets are between that of local streets and arterial streets. They provide access to a greater mix and densities of land uses, compared to local streets, but less than that of arterial streets. Ideally, there should be no roads in Pasadena. Every street should be contributing to the positive qualities of the place.
There is a relatively new, but related term, “stroad,” which is a street that has been altered to reduce its access role to accommodate higher motor vehicle speeds and volumes, and longer motor vehicle trip lengths, like a road. Stroads are not best practice and tend to be the most dangerous type of road. They do not do their street or road roles well. Pasadena needs to be careful to avoid stroads or two stroads, from replacing the 710 stub.
Q22: Does Caltrans mandate that the 210 and 134 still get to discharge into the 710 area? And do the on ramps to 210N and 210E and 134W start at the north end of the ditch?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: My understanding is that the City of Pasadena and Caltrans agreed, during the relinquishment of the land, that there would still be access, via highway ramps, between the remaining highways and the city, once the 710 stub is removed. However, they do not require that the access be conventionally designed (which would miss the point of stopping the 710). So, some creativity could occur.
Three interchange options were developed and floated during the relinquishment discussions. However, in my opinion, they all are lacking for a few reasons, which I won’t go into in depth in this answer.
However, in my view, the highway ramps should not begin/end at the end of the ditch, as was implied by the three diagrams. They have the potential to be rolled back further and be handled in a manner that does not concentrate the highway traffic at the end of the ditch, like the 710 did.
Replicating the concentration of traffic would be a missed opportunity for connectivity and traffic dispersion. In other words, Pasadena should not replace one hostile piece of infrastructure (i.e., the 710 highway) with a less hostile option, like a conventional arterial street or a major one-way pair of streets.
The restorations should include respecting the traditional street network and values that the city had prior to the highways. The 1940’s idea of having a major north-south car-conduit through this area was a modernist construct to increase long distance travel by cars. That idea should be rejected, out-of-hand, by Pasadena. The City and the community ought to decouple the two ideas. Access to the highways does not require a substitute north-south car conduit. The goal should be a better city. What that looks like will depend on the community vision. However, it is a good bet that the community vision will lean very traditional which, in my view, will be the best outcome. Traditional values are what has created a wonderful quality of life in Pasadena historically. They were damaged due the highways. And they will help restore the city in and around the stub to the highest extent feasible.
Q23: How far is considered “walkable”? How close do businesses need to be?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: A better metric than distance, for walkability, is the “walk score,” which is an index (0 to 100) which indicates “convenience,” (i.e., how easy it is to walk to a typical set of destinations). The variables include distances to typical destinations (e.g., grocery stores, parks, banks, schools, etc.), intersection density, residential density, block lengths. A score of 25 to 49 means most errands require a car. A score of 50 to 69 means some typical destinations are within a walking distance. A score of 70 to 89 means most destinations can be accessed on foot. You can look up any address in Pasadena and find its walk score at https://www.walkscore.com/score/. If the walk score is low (i.e., below 70 in a city), then the city should be concerned. See figure 4
The acceptable distance for walking varies, depending on many factors (e.g., the trip-purpose, the person doing the walking, topography, block structure, presence of sidewalks, pollution level, comfort of crossings, etc.) Some naïve (because context matters) rules-of-thumb include:
- For access to a transit stop, the guideline is between 0.25 to 0.5 miles.
- The distance to an elementary school is usually between 0.25 to 0.5 miles.
- The distance to a neighborhood park should be less than 0.25 miles.
- Block perimeters should be about 0.25 miles.
- Ideally, a neighborhood should be scaled such that basic daily needs can be found within about 0.5 miles.
Distance is part of “convenience.” The other attributes of a walkable city include: comfort, engagement, accessibility, connectedness, safety, legibility and equitable design.
Q24: What do you think about the concept of “covering” the ditch?
A: Ian Lockwood, PE: The trench devalues the area and the potential to restore the street network, block structure, human scale and walkability. I cannot think of a scenario in which keeping all or part of the trench helps the area or the city.
I think the trench should be filled to result in a level grade. The bridges over the trench should be surface streets. The utilities should be altered accordingly. The restoration of the ground plane and connectivity should extend much further north than the recent diagrams imply, to help reduce the barrier effect of the remaining 210/134 interchange.
When considering the costs and usable space, it is good to think long term. The decisions that will be made, regarding the grades and street network, will influence the value of the area for well over a century. This is not an exaggeration. Much of today’s street network, street alignments, and rights-of-way (not damaged by the highways) are the same as they were in 1904. They’ll likely still be the same in another 120 years. During the restoration of the block structure of the stub area, the structure will be set for the next 120 years and beyond.
Any compromise or diminishment in the urbanism, street network, and grading (i.e., flatness of the blocks) will cost the city every year and into the long run. So, the idea is to get these fundamentals correct now. The best way to get it right for the future is to use the time-tested-principles that have worked in Pasadena and in the best cities in the world.
