# Pasadena Council to Hear New Rose Bowl Plan 2/22



## MTBMaven (Dec 17, 2005)

"[Pasadena] city planners are proposing to expand the existing 8-foot walking lane of the Rose Bowl loop into a 13-foot lane that will be more visibly marked with bright paint. The plan will come before the City Council on February 22." Pasadena Star News

Biker/Walker issues have been a hot button issue have been on the rise in Pasadena culminating in a ban on the famous peloton in the summer of 2007. 

*If this issue is important to you, please come out to the City Council meeting on Monday, February 22nd to express your views on safety issues at the Rose Bowl.*

The meeting is in Council Chamber located on the second floor in the southeast corner of City Hall (100 N. Garfield Ave). Council meetings start at 6:30 PM. The agenda will be posted here so you can read the agenda report and staff recommendations prior to the meeting. Additionally get an idea when the agenda items will come before Council. If you think you might want to speak make sure to fill out a speaker card at the beginning of the meeting (you can always decline to speak later)!


----------



## MTBMaven (Dec 17, 2005)

The proposed staff plan (pdf) and attachments A-C and D (all PDFs) were approved by Council tonight. What does this mean? 

In short:


The current 8' counter-clockwise pedestrian walkway with 4' buffer will be widened to a 13' bi-directional pedestrian zone with a painted 1' stripe with raised barrier. The proposed barrier shown to Council are 30" plastic tube with reflective top (not sure the spacing).
All streets will be re-surfaced.
The Washington Blvd and Park Dr. intersection (north west corner will be re-engineered to remove the raised median.
The intersection of Rose Bowl Dr and Rosemont (by club house) will be re-engineered.
The intersection of Seco and Arroyo Dr (near river) will be re-engineered.
Parking lot K will get either a gate or raised curb.
Parking around the club house will be reduced, U Turns will no longer be allowed, and no parking during peak periods.
 Councilman Haderlein (District 7) objected stating that the plan does too little for recreational users given the cost and does not meet the vision of the South Arroyo Seco Master Plan - which calls for a larger pedestrian area and designated bike lane as well as bi-directional traffic, but required around 52' of roadway where only around 40' exists.

As I understood it the plan will come back before Council 6 or so months after completion to review the effectiveness of the changes and review the possibility of reducing traffic to one way. Additionally I understand that at some point the necessary studies to review making traffic one way will be added as an unfunded capital improvement project and reviewed for funding during the next fiscal budget cycle.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

MTBMaven, what is your analysis of these changes? Will the barrier/curb provide the necessary safety buffer between peds and cyclists? Will the traffic flow work for motor vehicles vs cyclists?

JSR


----------



## MTBMaven (Dec 17, 2005)

JSR, I think the changes are a step in the right direction. And the work will not be a waste if the City decides to move forward with plans to implement a one way solution, i.e. the new pedestrian area will stay the same no matter what. My hope is the funds are allocated to conduct the study and that the study supports a one way solution. As a homeowner in Pasadena, member of the Pasadena Bicycle Master Plan citizen advisory committee, and frequent user of the Rose Bowl (mainly cyclist but sometimes walker and runner) I will be lobbying my council member to support funding the study. 

Will the changes make things safer for pedestrian and cyclist? Hard to say for certain but I think they will. In my opinion they will as it relates to pedestrian and cyclists. The key here are the barriers. I think they are the necessary divider that will keep the two groups separated. 

As for cyclist/auto issues I think there is room for some concern. How much? Time will tell. I think cyclists will be forced to take up more of the road way to ensure safety, which _may _lead to an increase in cyclist/auto conflicts. However, in my experience most autos drive far more cautiously around the Rose Bowl than they do on other roads. Maybe they think we cyclists actually have the right to share the road in that magical area.


----------



## MTBMaven (Dec 17, 2005)

I should mention there is a public meeting to discuss the Bicycle Master Plan draft tonight at 6:30 in Council Chambers. I will be in attendance. I suspect the decision last night will be discussed. I plan to bring forth the issue of cyclist/auto conflicts at the meeting. My hope is that the City will consider sharrows as a means of mitigating this issue.


----------



## fast ferd (Jan 30, 2009)

pedestrians already walk/run outside that nuetral zone. And likely will continue to do so with a wider space. You might mention that pedestrians often (one-third of them) travel the wrong direction, going clockwise with the flow of traffic. I think this disrupts the flow and creates a slight hazard. If anything, it may be the reason to widen the walkway portion.


----------



## MTBMaven (Dec 17, 2005)

The changes will allow pedestrians to: 
- Walk in both directions, 
- Increase the area for pedestrians, and 
- Put 30" tubular plastic barriers in an attempt to keep the pedestrians inside the area designated for pedestrians. 

Time will tell how successful this will be. I fully agree that walkers going the wrong way and outside the pedestrian zone was a major source of the danger. I feel this new plan is a step in the right direction towards resolving this issue.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Thanks for the update. I don't live in that area, but I know it's a popular place for a variety recreation, including cyclists. I hope the changes are helpful in keeping the peace..

Thanks for committing your time and energy to the cause, MTBMaven. 

JSR


----------



## MTBMaven (Dec 17, 2005)

JSR said:


> Thanks for committing your time and energy to the cause, MTBMaven.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

fast ferd said:


> pedestrians already walk/run outside that nuetral zone. And likely will continue to do so with a wider space. You might mention that pedestrians often (one-third of them) travel the wrong direction, going clockwise with the flow of traffic. I think this disrupts the flow and creates a slight hazard. If anything, it may be the reason to widen the walkway portion.



I've also noticed that with the addition of the hashed out neutral/buffer zone pedestrians have spread out more, not necessarily leaving more space between them and the cyclists and cars. Not all that surprising. A raised curb in between as physical barrier would work and fresh asphalt sure would be nice too.


----------

