By Mary O’KEEFE

After several outreach meetings by the City, the Glendale City Council will vote on Sept. 13 between two alternatives for the La Crescenta Avenue Rehabilitation project.

Alternative 1. Alternative 1 includes a “dedicated and protected colored bicycle lane – ‘Bike Lane.’”

The Bike Lane option would reduce driving lanes to one lane per direction of travel on La Crescenta Avenue from Montrose Avenue to North Verdugo. In addition there would be a bike lane on each side of La Crescenta Avenue with protective barriers and the addition of a center two-way left turn lane, according to the City.

Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would be a class III bike route with shared roadway markings called “Sharrows.” The Sharrows proposal would include wider travel lanes to accommodate cyclists and drivers; there would be shared lane markings to alert drivers of bicyclists. The basic change would be to the lane closest to the sidewalks, or outside lane, that would be marked as a bike lane that would be shared with vehicles, according to the City.

There have been definite sides taken by residents between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Here are some opinions by those who have taken a stand on their choice:

Pro Alternative 1. Alek Bartrosouf is a resident in the Citrus Grove area of Glendale, which is farther south of the La Crescenta Avenue Rehab project. He was on the City of Glendale’s Transportation and Parking Commission, the City’s Sustainability Commission and has a degree in urban planning.

Bartrosouf takes issue with the [La Crescenta Rehabilitation] project being characterized as purely a bike project.

“It is to improve safety of the corridor for people walking and biking,” he said.

It is also to improve safety for vehicles, he added.

 “There has been a pattern of collisions – 83 collisions in the last five years,” he said.

He added that several of those accidents are either rear-end collisions or broadside accidents. He said that these types of collisions are common when there are no center turn lanes, which La Crescenta Avenue does not have.

Alternative 2, he said, is “keeping it the way it is.”

“Alternative 2 is [keeping the road] in the status quo and accepting the existing condition,” he said.

His argument for Alternative 1, at its foundation, is safety stating this choice will slow down traffic, something he has seen when these types of lane configurations are done.

“As transportation planners [we see] direct benefits,” he said, adding that in theory there will be at least a 30% reduction in car crashes.

And that 30% estimate is low.

With speeding an issue in the City and the cause of numerous accidents, he feels Alternative 1 would reduce drivers’ speed because all vehicular traffic will be in one lane instead of two.

Bartrosouf added he understands the concerns of those who oppose Alternative 1, including cut-through traffic into nearby neighborhoods, but feels there are options that can be used to reduce this risk.

“You can put in right turn restrictions for morning [traffic],” he said.

He added that speed bumps are also an option.

He said he has spoken to residents who park along La Crescenta Avenue near Oakmont Drive who have had their vehicles broadsided – and worse – due to speeding traffic.

Joaquin Siques agrees with Bartrosouf in support of Alternative 1. He is a resident of Sparr Heights, two houses in from La Crescenta Avenue, and is a registered traffic engineer in Pasadena.

“Overall, Alternative 1 provides a greater level of safety for pedestrians,” he said.

He added that presently southbound vehicles weave in and out of traffic as each tries to find the fastest route down the street. Siques said the sidewalks in the area are narrow so when two pedestrians meet when walking in opposite directions, many times one person has to walk into the street to get past the other. That is a safety issue, he said, as cars are traveling so fast along La Crescenta Avenue. This is especially a concern near Fremont Elementary School.

He, too, understands the concern about cut-through traffic.

“No one wants additional traffic on their street like Sycamore [Avenue],” he said. But he feels the cut-through traffic will be no greater with Alternative 1 than it is now.

“Alternative 2 doesn’t change anything. There are basically the same number of lanes and bikes will still travel in the same lane as cars,” he said. “I looked at [this [project] as a complete safety project rather than a bike safety project.”

Pro Alternative 2. Patrick Murphy has attended several of the outreach meetings concerning the La Crescenta Rehabilitation project and is a resident of Sycamore Woods on Sycamore Avenue. He supports Alternative 2.

“There are several reasons [Alternative] 2 is better. First, it keeps the two lanes and avoids cut-through traffic into neighborhoods with very limited lighting and no sidewalks [as in Sycamore Woods] and Sparr Heights. Secondly, it provides for ease of egress in the event of an emergency to the north or west,” Murphy said.

His main concern regarding Alternative 1 is cut-through traffic. Area residents say they have seen drivers cut through Sycamore Avenue in the past to avoid traffic congestion.

“The project calls for a bike lane that is 1.6 miles long and does not connect with a bike lane on Verdugo or Cañada Boulevard. This feels like a bike lane to nowhere,” he added. “La Crescenta Avenue needs to have improvements that slow traffic for the safety of everyone. For example, speed limits should be reduced to 25 mph due to the downhill topography. Speed monitors should be installed and enforcement should be enhanced, at least at the beginning.”

At outreach meetings, City officials had told residents of mitigation measures to help with cut-through traffic if it becomes an issue; however, Murphy said they have not been contacted by the City about implementing specific measures.

Murphy attended a recent Transportation and Parking Commission meeting.

“I was there and spoke and listened to the concerns of both parents and students from [Fremont] Elementary School,” he said. “There is no doubt they are worried; however, reducing down to one lane is not the only design that will slow traffic and actually may not stop the speeding.”

Julia Leeper is a resident of Sycamore Woods. She has been a longtime neighborhood activist, including as a lead for her Neighborhood Watch. Her concern also focuses on cut-through traffic.

It is important to note that Sycamore Avenue and other streets in the area do not have sidewalks or streetlights.

“The City acknowledges Sycamore Woods can expect increased traffic as drivers seek to avoid congestion at Honolulu and La Crescenta avenues and will be guided by the app Waze to turn on Cloud, Ramsdell, Glenwood, Oakendale and Invale,” she said.

Waze is a driving application that provides driving directions based on live traffic updates. The app has often led drivers through small neighborhoods to avoid congestion.

“As the Neighborhood Watch block captain for Sycamore Woods, I consider this a serious safety issue for pedestrians since we do not have sidewalks and very little lighting. Many neighbors walk in the evening with their pets and children, and when it gets dark early there is an increased safety concern. In addition, neighbors often report cars driving much too fast – so the increased traffic would also increase the risk to safety. I remember all too well a terrible situation years back when a family was struck by a car while out for a walk after dinner. The driver did not see them due to poor lighting,” Leeper added. “This could happen in our neighborhood.”

She added that Alternative 1 would increase traffic in Sycamore Woods.

She has contacted the City about what would need to happen if Alternative 1 were implemented and that City officials would need to provide solutions to mitigate the traffic through Sycamore Woods.

“I have suggested speed bumps, making Cloud a cul-de-sac, add signs restricting access during certain hours and adding four-way stops to all cross streets [currently Ramsdell has a two-way stop that cars frequently breeze through. I have avoided numerous accidents myself],” she said. “To date I have not heard from anyone in the City indicating they are considering any of the suggestions to mitigate the traffic.”

The Glendale City Council is scheduled to vote for Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 on Sept. 13 at their regular Council meeting.