The Associated Road Saga. An Unnecessary Conflict

If I knew what I was talking about this wouldn’t be Fullerton!

Yesterday I posted a letter from the Gingerwood HOA claiming that District 3 councilperson Shana Charles lied at a public workshop about having consulted them about the proposed re-alignments on Associated Road that are being proposed by Fullerton’s Engineering Department. That’s a pretty bad look for a novice politician.

So now, Friends, let’s explore what’s being proposed. It’s one of those ankle bone-connected-to-the leg-bone kind of things.

First, the City is proposing a sewer and water line improvements in Associated Road between Bastanchury and Imperial. When this is complete, our engineers reckon, it would be an excellent time to repave the street. And then, why not reconfigure the roadway and reduce the lanes from four to two, and add street parking that will act as a physical barrier for a “Class IV” bikeway. Here’s an example of what it would look like, courtesy of Caltrans:

They did what, now?

The City reasons that the reconfiguration is justified because the traffic “warrants” are low enough to re-designate this stretch of Associated Road to a mere “local collector” in traffic engineering terms.

The folks who live in the various condo projects along Associated, like Gingerwood, are up in arms about this, and who can blame them? They reason, among other things, that turning out into the one lane of traffic would become more hazardous as their lines of sight will be blocked by parked cars. They will also have to slow way down, in traffic, to turn into their entries. Then there’s the issue of strangers parking in their neighborhoods – overflow from nearby apartment inhabitants and visitors to Craig Park.

This entire situation smacks of social engineering on a small scale. I have no idea how many bikers use the existing bike path and if the new configuration is even safer using parked cars as a barrier. But this seems like an unnecessary battle for City Hall to fight against its citizens.

I can’t think of a convincing reason not to restripe the street the way it is and move on.

Anyhow, the discussion of this matter is on the City Council this week (Item #14) where we can expect a lively confrontation between the irate neighbors and the people, like Shana Charles, who are behind this.

27 Replies to “The Associated Road Saga. An Unnecessary Conflict”

  1. I agree. Why is this worth a fight? Why is it worth lying about?

    I wonder which idiot thought this was a good idea.

  2. The only question is whether Whitaker will pull his head out of his backside long enough to vote no. Otherwise it will keep moving ahead.

  3. Thank you Mr. Harpoon. The next question is: Is any of the funding related to requirement of a Class 4 Bike lane as opposed to the currently existing Class 2?

    1. Hard to say. The funding sources for the project come from the usual sources, including Measure M turnback. I don’t know if that money had any Class IV strings attached. But that would be a good question for our esteemed Council to address.

  4. “I can’t think of a convincing reason not to restripe the street the way it is and move on.”

    Of course you can’t! Because you don’t ride a bike, don’t like clean air, don’t like exercise, and just in general, don’t like progress. Am I right?

    1. We’re back! It’s been awhile since I commented here because our new doctor, Schwartzman said to stop going out in public. But maybe he my old doctor. I don’t know and am often confused by us.

    2. Well now we know the best reason for opposing this. Look at the intellectual caliber of the dimwits that support it. Clean air? How do you figure that, Einstein.

        1. And what on earth makes you think this is going to get a single car off the road? That’s right. Typical liberal wishful thinking: who cares if it doesn’t work. It’s the thought that counts. You are still the same moron.

          1. Actually, it’s going to INCREASE traffic and running engines by cheapskates going to the park. At least that’s what Norby said.

            BTW, don’t engage Hooger. He really is appallingly stupid.

            1. ” He really is appallingly stupid.”

              As stupid as someone who can’t grasp why anyone would want a protected bike lane? Ride a bike on a busy street, you’ll figure it out real quick. And I listed multiple blindingly obvious reasons why people like riding bicycles. Or maybe the author isn’t stupid, they’re just being deliberately obtuse. Deceit and cynicism here is the norm.

              In any event, people on a bike at any given moment aren’t in a car. I cannot say whether a lane reduction would create more traffic. I don’t actually assume it will or it won’t. Traffic on Associated is generally light, so I’m not even sure it will cause traffic to re-route.

              As to cheapskates, we already know where to park to avoid paying at Craig Park.

              The city has a bike plan that it implements opportunistically over time. That’s the only way it happens. There aren’t major bike projects in Fullerton, it happens as other maintenance is done.

              My default position is I want more bike lanes for all the reasons people like bike lanes. Which are well known. I give the plan the benefit of the doubt.

  5. I’ve never been on Associated when two lanes in either direction were being much used. Maybe I’m not there during rush hour, but I suspect traffic will not suffer by reducing the number of lanes. It’s called a “road diet.”

    Class 4 bike lanes with a minimum of 3 to 4 feet to protect riders from being “doored” have been used in other cities, but I don’t like riding in that situation because cars can still enter the bike lane by parking badly, leaving a cyclist with nowhere to go. If I lived on Associated I certainly wouldn’t like the idea of adding parking as a cheap way to provide Class 4 bike lane infrastructure. (And, if no one chooses to park there, where is the protection from traffic?) This model seems to be used in denser urban environments where the parking already exists as a way to accommodate a bike lane.

    Just reduce it to two lanes and keep a striped bike lane or put in the infrastructure barrier for a real Class 4.

    1. Just to make it clear, I meant that I didn’t like riding in Class 4 lanes where cars are the only infrastructure buffer. A “normal” Class 4 bike lane separated from traffic is just fine. More people would get out of their cars and on to their bikes, reducing vehicular traffic, if we had more actual Class 4 bike lanes.

      1. Nobody is getting out of their cars. Repeat NOBODY. On street parking is an incentive for MORE motor vehicle activity.

        1. I absolutely agree with that observation. The city allows underparked new development promising that occupants will not use cars, but then adds on street parking. Who wins? Developers, of course.

    2. “If no one chooses to park there, where is the protection from traffic?”


      Whether cars are in the parking area or not, it still adds a buffer of space to the bike lane. It seems unlikely a lot of people will be driving in the parking zone. If there’s a downside to this from a cyclist perspective it’s that you can still get doored by exiting passengers.

      “This model seems to be used in denser urban environments where the parking already exists as a way to accommodate a bike lane.”

      Probably as good as it is going to get in Fullerton. Bike lanes with a physical barrier are not politically likely, if the instant outrage around this modest proposal is any indication.

  6. The geniuses put Commonwealth on a “lane diet” both directions between St. College and Chapman a few years ago to add bike lanes. One lane each direction now instead of two. Eastbound traffic from St. College is now like drizzling diarrhea when it’s the slightest bit busy.
    I’ve only rarely seen a cyclist using either side except around 5am I see a dedicated rider many mornings (and there’s NO traffic then).
    When the traffic engineer put flashing yellow left turn arrows throughout the city I thought that was a positive turn of events but this nonsense isn’t going to improve traffic or make cyclists any safer.

    1. Just because they call an employee a “Traffic Engineer” doesn’t mean he/she knows or cares about what is good for the citizens. They are just following a formula designed by the State- a perfect reason to suspect it’s a solution without a problem.

  7. I know this area well and can attest to low traffic counts which justify the road diet. Allowing on street parking will help relieve the horrendous lack of parking in that neighborhood. Class IV lanes work best in West Hollywood and Long Beach where you have lots of bike riders around and super dense living conditions. In this area Class II bike lanes are sufficient and they won’t create line of sight issues for vehicles exiting onto Associated Road.

  8. At issue is the simple fact that Shana Charles, who proclaims herself to be a doctor of public health every single chance she gets, did not have the common sense to call the small number of neighbors impacted by this proposed diet. Maybe the good doctor doesn’t understand the meaning of the word. Or maybe she lied saying she talked to everybody.

  9. More conclusive proof that Fullerton voters are the most ignorant sheeple in Orange County! Fullertonians give the programmed troglodytes in the City of Los Angeles a run for their money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *