Carbon Canyon Traffic Study Underway

This blog once had a post that cited a 1969 (yes, 47 years ago) article about concerns of traffic on Carbon Canyon Road.  So, this is hardly a new issue, yet little, really, has been done about planning for the future of a road that is no wider and has no more built capacity today than it did a half-century ago.  But . . .

Today's Champion has an article by Marianne Napoles on a traffic study for Carbon Canyon Road that is, evidently, in the planning stages and being coordinated by the City of Chino Hills in partnership with the City of Brea and CalTrans, of which two districts (8 in San Bernardino County and 12 in Orange County) have jurisdictions in the canyon.

According to Chino Hills city manager Rad Bartlam, proposals were sought from give traffic engineering consulting companies with one so far received, about two weeks ago.  The estimate for the length of the study is about six months once the contract is signed.  Details on what the study would involve were not given, but, presumably, would be once the announcement of selection is made.

Interestingly, Bartlam told the city council about ten days ago, that previous conversations with Brea and CalTrans did not lead anywhere, but now they "have become fruitful and have shed light onthe 'monumental challenges' ahead."  According to the city manager, road capacity, traffic operations and truck traffic are the "three major factors."

What's curious is that missing among the "major factors" is basic urban planning principles relating to residential and commercial development and transportation networks.  Is it really believed that these are unrelated to the factors Bartlam identified?

Given the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin's astounding editorial conclusion that the "best of all solutions" for regional traffic is a "mature" economy bringing jobs closer to Inland Empire residents, whatever that means, this is a central issue that planners and leaders need to be asked.

A prime opportunity to do this would be at dedicated public meetings/workshops, if these are going to be offered either during or after the traffic study.

A late August grind up the S-curve heading west on Carbon Canyon Road towards Orange County.  Lines have gotten very noticeably longer in and outside of the canyon in recent months.

Notably, the article identified where the worse problems are along the state highway on the Brea side, principally at the intersection with Santa Fe Road, and also pointed out that there is some reconsideration of the signals placed at Olinda Village several years back in terms of having them "modified to make it [sic--them] better."

Nothing, however, was said about the Chino Hills side.  This observer has noted two major periods of increased volume.  The first was in 2013 and the other within the last several months.  In recent weeks and months, lines of cars waiting to enter the canyon, which were very common on west/north-bound Chino Hills Parkway coming from the 71 Freeway, now include a caravan of vehicles backing up to Eucayptus Avenue and even a little beyond on Chino Hills Parkway and on Eucalyptus, as well.

A Carbon Canyon resident was quoted in the article as suggesting that "the signals [at Olinda] cause daily havoc and are the primary reason the afternoon traffic gridlock in Brea is so bad."

Without disagreeing that the signals did not help traffic flow at all, though their implementation is routinely cited in planning documents and in testimony and statements before commissions and councils as reflecting "traffic improvements" and as "traffic mitigation," it seems that the local focus belies the regional scale and scope of this problem.

Again, the biggest contributor to local traffic tie-ups and gridlock is not the signals, nor is it the volume of trucks, or road capacity, or traffic operations (which, by the way, went undefined).

Simply put, it is volume.

Huge numbers of new homes are being (and will be) built in south Chino, in south Ontario, in Eastvale, in Corona and in other places inland.  Many of the workers living in these places, because they are more affordable, are driving west.  Until that glorious era comes as the IE's economy "matures" (whatever that means), this will continue.

The second biggest factor is that this volume is overwhelmingly driven (literally) be single-passenger commuting.  That is, people are driving themselves to work, school and wherever they're going.

It's not just Carbon Canyon Road, obviously--this is Grand Avenue during a morning commute in October.

As has been said here before, this has got to change.  Period.  We can't accommodate 15 million or so people in the metropolitan area with all of the cars driven and occupied by one person, spewing all of the pollution (which is on the rise despite efforts to drive it down), and wasting all of that key productive time.

We can't expect there to be realistic, productive and transformative solutions without confronting this basic problem.

Yet, here again is a lack of recognition by planners, staff and elected officials that the only way to have the population we have in this region and then to responsibly transport them to where they need to go is to recalibrate our thinking about single-passenger commuting and the vastly pollutive internal combusion engine powered by fossil fuels.

Mass transit, be it large-scale carpooling, a wider and more coordinate network of buses (think dedicated roads solely for buses), as well as trains and subways has to be the major effort undertaken to deal with this problem.

The article indicated that, among the cited components of the study, are: limiting truck access and volume, roadway capacity (which is, actually, fixed and that's been known for decades already), collision history (which this blog used to focus heavily on), side street access and delay, and . . . wait for it . . . "potential traffic signals at some intersections".

So, yes, look forward to those signals going in at Fairway Drive and Canyon Hills Road, because this will be a traffic improvement and mitigation solution coming soon.

But, to beat a dead car (seems a better metaphor than the poor equines), where's the mention of regional planning for development, for the way people drive themselves around solo, for mass transit, and other related components that, if left out, make these studies largely irrelevant.

The Chino Hills portion of Carbon Canyon has 76 in-process homes here at Hillcrest, 28 more appoved at Stonecrest, and 100+ pending in an application at Hidden Oaks across from Hillcrest.  The larger problem are the tens of thousands of homes in the Inland Empire feeding much of the volume on Carbon Canyon Road.

A article-cited victory was the placing of signs along and near Carbon Canyon Road "advising" vehicles over 50 feet in length not to use the road.  Not to belittle those who took the time from their busy lives to work for that, but this observer has seen very little actual effect of this.  Big rigs and longer vehicles still routinely make use of Carbon Canyon Road.

The one publicized and concerted effort a few months ago by Chino Hills sheriff's deputies to ticket truckers for crossing the double-yellow line yielded a number of citations, but it has not stopped the problem and it won't.  As long as Carbon Canyon Road is State Highway 142, trucks cannot be prevented from using the road.

This blog had a post almost 6 years ago asking the question "Why is Carbon Canyon Road Still a State Highway?"  The same resident quoted above about the biggest factor in slow traffic on the Brea side of that road mentioned that "its classification as a state highway may not longer be appropriate."

Indeed, in this blog's post of 17 January 2011, the example was given of State Highway 39 on Hacienda Road through La Habra Heights.  The designation was, in fact, removed, and no longer applies to that two-lane winding road that goes through small canyons and ascends to a summit (sound familiar?).

Finally, the article concluded by noting that both Chino Hills and Brea are working to increase police patrolling, more frequently enforce traffic laws, and use electronic message boards as part of their efforts to deal with the problem.  There's nothing wrong with these and, if they could be done, when most dangerous driving and accidents occur, which is actually outside of commute times during late weekend hours (Friday and Saturday nights, for example,) that would be welcomed.

But, as Chino Hills is poised to approve another large housing project--the 100+ unit Hidden Oaks, across from the in-process 76-unit Hillcrest (and down the street from the approved 28-unit Stonecrest) and then claim that these volumes of residences (over 200, meaning probably 800-1000 people and many car trips from them) are insignficant because most traffic in Carbon Canyon is from outside the canyon, therein lies the rub, right?

A traffic study is fine and is probably needed.  But, if the expectation is that installing more traffic signals, targeting truck traffic, and implementing more acceleration/deacceleration lanes is going to do anything but replace the pinky with the ring finger as the hole in the dike widens because the water behind the dike represents massive traffic volume from unabated inland development--well, then what?

The big, big picture (the one that looks at climate change, population volume, outdated transportation methods, etc.) would seem to dictate that we have to fundamentally change many aspects of how we live if sustainability is achievable.

It is understandable, to a degree, that local analysis looks at the immediate situation in and around that area.  The problem, though, is that solutions really have to be bigger and broader than that.  Otherwise, whatever is done is either marginal, distractive, or insufficient.

We can't afford any of those.

For a society that put humans on the moon, mobilized an all-out war effort on two massive fronts during World War II, built the great educational system in the world, completed a huge interstate highway network, and so much more, the ability to improve regional planning for residential and commercial uses and for transportation to serve those is not impossible, though it's difficult.

As said here recently, it's a matter, fundamentally and substantially, of political, social and economic will.

Inland Valley Daily Bulletin's "Best of All Solutions" on Traffic

On Thursday, the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin's editorial board offered its endorsement of incumbents Art Bennett and Cynthia Moran for the upcoming election, recommending readers choose them rather than challengers Paul Molinaro, James Gallagher and Roseanna Mitchell-Arrieta.

This post is not to address the merits of the board's recommendations, but, rather, its interesting statements concerning a major campaign issue raised by the challengers.  Actually, there are two that are intertwined--these being development and traffic.

On the first point, the paper stated that Molinaro, Gallagher and Mitchell-Arrieta were arguing "for pulling up the drawbridge and saying, 'I got to town before you did, so sorry, you can't come in.'"  The board then opined that "youn gamilies—our children—[have] to be able to establish themselves in our cities, not to have to move 'way out' somewhere while Inland Valley cities get grayer and grayer."

This seems to be conflating several separate development issues in one argument.  First, it is true that Molinaro and Mitchell-Arrieta, both practicing attorneys, actually suggested in the sole candidate debate that the city deliberately delay development project process to slow down building.  This is, as Bennett and Moran both quickly replied, extraordinarily problematic from an ethical, if not a legal, standpoint.

However, there is the question of what cities can reasonably do within their discretion to halt development if the effects on the environment are such that the projects do more harm than good.  In Carbon Canyon, for example, the risk of wildfire exposure, as an upcoming post will address, is growing; traffic is becoming a greater problem, and our long-term drought involves water scarcity.  These matters aren't going away and to ignore them is not prudent public policy.

The "I got to town before you did, so sorry, you can't come in" canard is an old one.  I don't know if any of the challengers have said or suggested that, so to toss that one out as if they did is questionable, at best.  Limiting development in sensitive areas is definitely not a matter of keeping people out just because.  It's because of the long-term effects such development has, given changing conditions.  Carbon Canyon, as an example, is not the same place it was ten, twenty, or thirty years ago, but to keep applying the same development philosophy as existed then is something that needs to be questioned and challenged.

As to encouraging "young families—our children—to be able to establish themselves in our cities" rather than in Moreno Valley, Hesperia or Menifee, that's hardly a matter of city policy so much as it is basic market forces.   Unless you've got a very healthy six-figure income and higher, affording to buy in Chino Hills is just not going to be feasible.  How many "young families" can pay market rates for homes is the real question, not whether current residents want them to live in Chino Hills.

The "graying" of our society is another matter, but, again, doesn't seem, to this observer, to be connected to the argument about limiting development in sensitive areas.  This is especially, again, if the effects on the environement, not to mention the long-term net expense of maintaining residential neighborhoods which don't pay for themselves, are serious issues.

Where the editorial board's logic gets really interesting, though, is with traffic matters.  Firstly, the piece actually offers that "when 'Hills' is part of your city's name, it means there are limited routes of egress and ingress—that's what hills do."  First off, from a purely grammatical perspective, hills actually don't do anything, people do.  Secondly, to act as if traffic matters are determined purely by geography and topography is astoundingly illogical.

Why not offer the argument that, if the hills area prohibits ingress and egress then you limit development so that the residences built there are appropriate for the geography and topography?

But, here's another befuddling logical exercise:

too many residents work in Orange County or L.A. County, and there are too few ways to get to and back from those places.  We're not saying some improvements can't be made, but the best of all solutions is for the Inland Empire's economy to mature to the point that more people find good jobs close to home, so that fewer people have to drive south or west to get to work.

The line of reasoning is that a "mature" economy in the Inland Valley will bring jobs there from Orange and Los Angeles counties.  But, how is "mature" defined in that context?  That goes unexplained.  And, then, how would companies be drawn to the "mature" Inland Valley economy exactly?  Finally, how would housing affordability factor into this?  Again, not explained.

Beyond this, though, is the highly troubling lack of consideration for the nature of traffic congestion, which is the badly outmoded concept of the single passenger vehicle and the equally outdated dinosaur (literally, in terms of fossil fuel consumption) of the internal combustion engine.

We had electric and natural gas vehicles in the 1920s and a Model T that got 25 miles to the gallon.  Admittedly, the first two were inefficient, but innovation and increased technological advancement could have brought better quality to them decades ago.  Fuel economy could have been dramatically increased decades ago.  Mass transit options, used in many places because of physical space limitations, have successfully operated, but not in enough places and could have decades ago.

The reason we took the path of wasteful consumption of fossil fuels for cars, trucks and other vehicles is because we could.  No one thought about the long-term supply, much less the environmental effects until relatively recently and, even now, the concern is half-hearted for way too many people.

For the Daily Bulletin to suggest that "the best of all solutions" is to have jobs closer to home leaves out the growing problem of traffic congestion on weekends when most people are not working.  How does this "best of all solutions" deal with that?  Finally, fundamental congestion of too many people in a given area driving themselves around solo too often is not addressed by this "best of all solutions."

This post hasn't even touched rising pollution levels in recent years when we should be radically reducing it; the continuing strength of the climate change deniers; the financial and environmental costs of maintaining an aging and inefficient car-based transportation network; and more.

We cannot continue to add to our regional population of roughly 10 million people, consuming resources at rates far higher than other parts of the world and emitting pollution at rates far higher than other parts of the world, without a dramatic change in how we live.  This includes water use, pollution creation, disposing of waste, processing waste, funding schools and public works, repairing and replacing aging infrastructure.

And, it includes transportation.  The single passenger vehicle model is not only extremely wasteful, it is destructive in the aggregate.  For a nation that sent astronauts to the moon, built the world's greatest educational system, and, yes, built a comprehensive national highway system, coming up with mass transit solutions that address our transportation problems should not be anywhere near impossible.

It wouldn't, certainly, be easy, but we don't really have many choices here.  Mass transit (buses, trains, streetcars, larger group ridesharing) is basically the "best of all solutions," especially if incentivized.  That means stringent "use fees" on people who choose more polluting methods and financially rewarding those who go the route of reducing carbon footprints.

Speaking of carbon, Carbon Canyon Road's traffic volume has increased significantly just in the last several months, following another spike in 2013.   This means more wasted time and more pollution emitted in the canyon and generally.  We need forward-thinking solutions, not ones rooted in old ideas no longer applicable to changing times and circumstances like those advocated by the Daily Bulletin's editorial board.

Fundamentally, it's not a technological problem, it a matter of political, economic and social will.  The Daily Bulletin's antiquated views on traffic and development as related to it are, unfortunately, still very orthodox.  The problem is: we can't afford for those views to be the mainstream, because that philosophy is just not sustainable.

Carbon Canyon Commuting Crisis Context Carefully Considered (?)

It's been a hot topic on Next Door (click here) for a few months now--what should be done about all of those frustrated, short-cut seeking afternoon and evening commuters who, instead of enjoying the long wait to turn on to Carbon Canyon Road from Valencia Avenue or to continue as the road transitions from Lambert, are wending their way through the Olinda Ranch subdivision to turn left onto the state highway from Santa Fe Road, even though this is expressly prohibited by signage?

There have been a lot of ideas advanced, some sensible, others not so much, and the City of Brea has been conducting a study to determine what to do.  As reported in today's Orange County Register (click here), one suggestion is to turn the intersection of Santa Fe and Carbon Canyon into a right-turn only from Santa Fe to Carbon Canyon, using what, evidently, is called a "porkchop" island that forces vehicles into a right turn lane.  As for folks who live in the distinctly separate little "pocket" residential area further east at Brea Hills Road, there is talk of creating a very long left turn lane to allow those who live there to more easily access their part of Olinda Ranch.

Regular drivers through the canyon have certainly noticed a demonstrable uptick in volume since 2013.  As the Register piece states, more housing built in the Inland Empire, from which more and more commuters head to and from work in Orange County and Los Angeles County, means far more volume on Carbon Canyon Road as an alternative to the 91, 57, and 60 freeways.

There has been a noticeable increase in traffic on Carbon Canyon Road since 2013.  This is an example of the morning commute in May westbound at the La Vida Mineral Springs property east of Olinda Village.

Readers of this blog might recall a reference to a newspaper article in 1969 (almost a half century ago) about how congested Carbon Canyon Road was then--it was a mere pittance compared to what it is now.  Maybe in ten or twenty of thirty years, when commute times through the canyon are two hours or whatever, future residents will laugh at our complaining!

Extending this line of discussion beyond the scope of the article, however, when cities like Brea and Chino Hills continue to approve housing projects in the Carbon Canyon area, the thinking tends to gravitate towards the idea that, because more people are commuting through the canyon from points east than within the canyon, that means building more homes in the canyon becomes more justifiable.

This is not including the equally concerning issues of water supply, pollution generation, fire risk and the fact that housing developments are, in the long term, net drains on a city's finances, despite claims to the contrary.

Finally, as is usual, most of the discussion about traffic woes like those in Carbon Canyon don't look much beyond the immediate and narrowed focus on the place and the time.

In an era of accelerating climate change and a strain on resources, including, of course, water, general talk of moving ourselves away from not just the outmoded internal combustion engine using fossil fuels for power, but from the idea of single-passenger commuting is usually bypassed.

Also outdated is our overall planning method for development that, while some small examples of change have occurred, still utilized methods and philosophies that have not adequately accounted for and adjusted to the transformations that have taken place in recent years.

A little further west and a couple of minutes later on the climb up the hill towards Olinda Village.

The growing reality is that our society has to fundamentally change how we live (and drive) if we're going to make any reasonable progress towards addressing the issues that become more intractable and harder to address with each passing year.

It is totally understandable that Olinda Ranch residents and others who live in Carbon Canyon are frustrated by worsening volume on Carbon Canyon Road.  Those who have approached their city staff and electeds are to be congratulated for taking the time to try to do something.

There is, however, a larger context that local, regional and state officials seem to continue to underappreciate and under-recognize concerning applying outdated standards of development to rapidly changing circumstances.  These big-picture issues require large-scale fixes and adaptations and we're just not hearing enough about these.