158 replies to this topic

[tony]

(Threadjack in progress... Tony, what road diet is being proposed for East Bidwell? Do you have a link?)

 

E Bidwell Corridor Complete Streets Study

This won't tell you much, but ONE of the plans being considered is a reduction in lanes along parts of E. Bidwell (CBD in particular), along with streetscape improvements. Several of the businesses along that stretch (Folsom Lake Bowl for one) are adamantly opposed to anything that might slow traffic. Public meeting coming up to review the draft plan soon.

[cw68]

 
E Bidwell Corridor Complete Streets Study
This won't tell you much, but ONE of the plans being considered is a reduction in lanes along parts of E. Bidwell (CBD in particular), along with streetscape improvements. Several of the businesses along that stretch (Folsom Lake Bowl for one) are adamantly opposed to anything that might slow traffic. Public meeting coming up to review the draft plan soon.

Thanks. Will it still have a center turn lane if they cut down the number of lanes?

[ducky]

 

E Bidwell Corridor Complete Streets Study

This won't tell you much, but ONE of the plans being considered is a reduction in lanes along parts of E. Bidwell (CBD in particular), along with streetscape improvements. Several of the businesses along that stretch (Folsom Lake Bowl for one) are adamantly opposed to anything that might slow traffic. Public meeting coming up to review the draft plan soon.

 

 

E Bidwell Corridor Complete Streets Study

This won't tell you much, but ONE of the plans being considered is a reduction in lanes along parts of E. Bidwell (CBD in particular), along with streetscape improvements. Several of the businesses along that stretch (Folsom Lake Bowl for one) are adamantly opposed to anything that might slow traffic. Public meeting coming up to review the draft plan soon.

Tony, they aren't opposed to slowing traffic.   They are opposed to bottlenecks that would divert traffic to other streets.  I have to agree if what is proposed diverts more traffic onto residential streets.   They had wanted to bring East Bidwell St. down to one lane each direction from Blue Ravine to where East Bidwell ends at Sutter Middle School.

[tony]

Thanks. Will it still have a center turn lane if they cut down the number of lanes?

Yes.

[New Girl]

Where is the traffic supposed to go if they close to one lane?  It would certainly drive traffic into the residential area.  

[tony]

 

Tony, they aren't opposed to slowing traffic.   They are opposed to bottlenecks that would divert traffic to other streets.  I have to agree if what is proposed diverts more traffic onto residential streets.   They had wanted to bring East Bidwell St. down to one lane each direction from Blue Ravine to where East Bidwell ends at Sutter Middle School.

Yes, slowing was the wrong term. But the businesses aren't worried about the traffic in the residential neighborhoods. They're worried that it will get diverted anywhere (like Riley Street). The problem, of course, it that to limit the diversion into the residential neighborhoods, we would have to do some traffic calming to discourage it.  Our current city council refuses to consider any real traffic calming,  so it will never get done. BTW the lane reduction option also includes at least one roundabout, which would help the congestion issue (one wouldn't make much difference, but more than one would.  In general, the only reason you need four lanes is to get cars through the traffic signals efficiently.  Roundabouts are generally much more efficient than traffic signals, so you don't need as many lanes.

[ducky]

Where is the traffic supposed to go if they close to one lane?  It would certainly drive traffic into the residential area.  

 

Right.  I wish they could do what they want, but unless they are willing to do things like they had to do with downtown Sacramento and put in roundabouts or not allow through traffic I don't see how.  

 

The businesses don't want to lose customers driving by and residents certainly don't want more traffic on streets, especially ones that children walk to school on.

[4thgenFolsomite]

if they are going to reduce lanes on East Bidwell it should only be between Wales and the old high school (now Sutter Middle).  That is the old historic part of E. Bidwell.  from Glenn east its all big boxes, but between there and the school its smaller businesses and strips, plus residential very close by.  in the section between Wales and the school, they should also put a stop sign or some other sort of crossing at Market Street.  It already stops at Glenn, but its a big stretch between Glenn and the school.  I often see people trying to cross. 

 

it would be appropriate if they did a retro landscape architecture design in this short segment too, reflecting that 1950s-1960s design. 

[ducky]

if they are going to reduce lanes on East Bidwell it should only be between Wales and the old high school (now Sutter Middle).  That is the old historic part of E. Bidwell.  from Glenn east its all big boxes, but between there and the school its smaller businesses and strips, plus residential very close by.  in the section between Wales and the school, they should also put a stop sign or some other sort of crossing at Market Street.  It already stops at Glenn, but its a big stretch between Glenn and the school.  I often see people trying to cross. 

 

it would be appropriate if they did a retro landscape architecture design in this short segment too, reflecting that 1950s-1960s design. 

 

I definitely agree there needs to be another crossing.  If there is some way to make the other crossings safer, they should do that also, especially at Glenn & East Bidwell.

 

Sorry, Chad.  this really is hijacking this thread.  Maybe the mods could split it off.

[Chad Vander Veen]

 

I definitely agree there needs to be another crossing.  If there is some way to make the other crossings safer, they should do that also, especially at Glenn & East Bidwell.

 

Sorry, Chad.  this really is hijacking this thread.  Maybe the mods could split it off.

Not at all, this is great! I glad there's a conversation about traffic going on. The complete streets idea is noble in spirit but I fear potentially disastrous in reality. For whatever reason our current council thinks that by doing certain things - this project, Transit-Oriented Development down by the river, building 10,000 homes, etc. - then the benefits will naturally follow. But they seem incapable of understanding the secondary measures have to be taken to make these things work. Yes, it's nice to think about a "complete street" but that means providing other means to get around (such as a streetcar and greatly increased bus service) to help offset the shift. Same with the TOD-type plans. You have to have the transportation infrastructure FIRST before people will live a less car-dependent life (light rail that goes one direction very slowly isn't enough). Doing it the opposite way won't work. 

[Howdy]

 

Tony, they aren't opposed to slowing traffic.   They are opposed to bottlenecks that would divert traffic to other streets.  I have to agree if what is proposed diverts more traffic onto residential streets.   They had wanted to bring East Bidwell St. down to one lane each direction from Blue Ravine to where East Bidwell ends at Sutter Middle School.

Who comes up with this craziness?  Along East Bidwell from Blue Ravine to Glenn can be a mess especially around noon. Traffic can be backed up into the intersection at Blue Ravine. Making it go down to one lane at that point would back it to Oak Ave Parkway. The average person would never go down there and deal with that headache. I can see why the businesses would be worried about people avoiding the area. I try and avoid that area from 11:30am on because of the lunch traffic. If I do go down that way I am taking the back roads like Montrose to cut up into Lowes. Riley will double in the traffic is sees now. 

[nomad]

Who comes up with this craziness?  Along East Bidwell from Blue Ravine to Glenn can be a mess especially around noon. Traffic can be backed up into the intersection at Blue Ravine. Making it go down to one lane at that point would back it to Oak Ave Parkway. The average person would never go down there and deal with that headache. I can see why the businesses would be worried about people avoiding the area. I try and avoid that area from 11:30am on because of the lunch traffic. If I do go down that way I am taking the back roads like Montrose to cut up into Lowes. Riley will double in the traffic is sees now. 

 

However, there is usually a parade of Folsom PD motorcycles up and down E. Bidwell during this crumple time you mention and they gather a lot of revenue from people making rash decisions from being stuck in the muck of cars that plug this area so we don't want to lose that no matter what!

[tony]

Not at all, this is great! I glad there's a conversation about traffic going on. The complete streets idea is noble in spirit but I fear potentially disastrous in reality. For whatever reason our current council thinks that by doing certain things - this project, Transit-Oriented Development down by the river, building 10,000 homes, etc. - then the benefits will naturally follow. But they seem incapable of understanding the secondary measures have to be taken to make these things work. Yes, it's nice to think about a "complete street" but that means providing other means to get around (such as a streetcar and greatly increased bus service) to help offset the shift. Same with the TOD-type plans. You have to have the transportation infrastructure FIRST before people will live a less car-dependent life (light rail that goes one direction very slowly isn't enough). Doing it the opposite way won't work. 

 

Yes, but part of providing that infrastructure is providing safe places to walk and bicycle.  Currently, the E. Bidwell corridor provides neither, even though it is the area of town that sees the highest level of bicycling and walking for transportation, and the highest number of bike and pedestrian injuries. Complete streets and this project is about a lot more than reducing lanes, but reducing lanes is one way to reallocate limited space so that the street works for all users. But it is important to note that this planning study (it is a long way from being a project) is looking at a lot of improvements to the corridor. Reducing lanes is ONE part of ONE of the alternatives being considered. The businesses have focused entirely on this one feature, and this discussion is heading the same way. There are a lot of good things that could come from this process, but we risk having the baby thrown out with the bathwater because people can't see past their windshields.

 

That said, I would agree with 4th gen that there is a big difference between the stretch between the middle school and  Wales and between Wales and Blue Ravine.

 

I would encourage you all to go to the Public Open House (with an open mind) Thursday, November 13^th from 5:30 to 7:30 pm at the Folsom Public Library (411 Stafford Street, Folsom).  Which brings up another complaint about the way our city is currently run. For a supposedly hi-tech city, we have a terrible web site. Try finding out about this meeting.  You might go to the project web page, but that has only cursory information about the project, and no schedule and no documents to review.  This is typical. For example, go to the "Current Projects" page under Planning Services and you get an announcement for a housing element meeting in May of 2013.

[ducky]

I still think if you reduce it to one lane between Wales & the Sutter Middle you will create problems for Duchow & School St. if it creates a backup.  If the city does something to discourage cut-through traffic onto residential streets, then it would probably work.

 

As noted in Howdy's post, people already duck out at Montrose and/or Wales or Glenn and race up School St./Wales/Glenn to avoid the mess.

 

The complete streets concept is worth looking at, but the area is already walkable so what are we trying to fix?  I tend to walk as the crow flies, through parking lots and along storefronts.   The biggest problem is crossing East Bidwell at the intersections.  In fact, I believe those bicycle/ped accidents were at crossings and those statistics didn't say who was at fault.  (There were two bike/vehicle accidents recently in the crime log and I believe both were in areas that have bike lanes: Oak Ave. Parkway/Folsom Auburn and Blue Ravine/Turnpike).

 

I do agree East Bidwell isn't very bike-friendly between Blue Ravine & Coloma, but Riley is a very viable alternative, as well as is School St. or Duchow and are already used by cyclists very frequently.  In fact, a majority of the cyclists also ride as the crow flies through parking lots, and, frankly, most of them are carrying large bags of recyclables and are just going down Glenn (also not bike friendly but isn't being addressed)  to get to the Walmart parking lot. 

 

I don't think any of the businesses oppose a roundabout at the end of EB Street where it meets up with the middle school, but then what happens when it meets up with Riley?  That's already a problem area.  How is this going to work with whatever the school district has planned for a reconfigured pick-up and drop-off for buses and parents?

[Chad Vander Veen]

 

Yes, but part of providing that infrastructure is providing safe places to walk and bicycle.  Currently, the E. Bidwell corridor provides neither,

 

Absolutely agree. It's a problem most suburbs face. 

 

As civil engineer Charles Mahron wrote in his essay “Confessions of a Recovering Engineer” suburbs are rife with “wider, faster, treeless roads that ruin our public places and wind up killing people.”

 

He also notes that suburban planning such as the council has been engaged in over the decades is wholly unsustainable. The only way to survive is take on more debt and continue sprawling. It’s a ridiculously unproductive system, he says, and one that we can see at work right now in Folsom – ever wider and more dangerous roads, more expensive water and sewer, and reduced emergency response time.

 

A study by the CDC found that while we make less than 6 percent of our trips on foot, pedestrian fatalities account for 13 percent of all traffic fatalities, with the most dangerous areas for walking being the newer, sprawling southern and western communities where transportation systems are more focused on the automobile. In addition, every mile of arterial roadway added to a city increases a community’s fatal crashes by 20 percent.

 

Imagine walking from Old Town to Palladio. It would take hours and you’d be taking your life in your hands.