58 replies to this topic

[chris v]

I just find the bicycle hatred up here so funny/crazy. I was staying at my brothers place in Long Beach this weekend. We went cycling on Saturday down through Belmont Shores. The right lane on the main road through town is the bike lane. It is shared 100% with the cars. There are literally hundreds of riders on the street at the same time as cars, and no one has issues with it. Honestly, traffic flows fine and it felt pretty safe to me. Then we rode down Hwy 1 to Newport Beach and then back to Long Beach and we shared the road half the time. No issues. Drivers up here would freak out if there were that many bikes in the road.

[tony]

before streetscape started, there were roughly 280 parking spaces on Sutter Street. That number is below 200 when its done. Add the construction of new buildings with infill and you lose more spaces while gaining more users (apartment and lofts on railroad block, two floors of office space and one of restaurant and retail in the new Scalzi building). There is inadequate parking for cars in the district. There has been and it will be worse in the future. Cars equal shoppers. Sorry, but its the world we live in. You may call the merchants short-sighted, but it seems to me like you are being selfish and one-sided. It's a business district, not a park. I don't see a ton of bike racks up near CostCo or Sams or the Broadstone mall or Target or Walmart.

we all love the historic district. some people's livelihoods depend on it. Bike parking has been addressed and while it may not be ideal or exactly what you want, please learn to share.

There is not a lack of car parking in the district, there is a lack of convenient parking. The simple solution to that is parking management, aka paid parking. If that on-street parking in front of stores is so valuable, then we should charge for it. Not a lot. Just enough to keep 15% of the spaces open at any given time. Then, there is always a space when you need one near where you need it. And if you don't want to pay, then you can park farther away where the parking is cheaper or free. Yes, I know, suggesting charging for parking around here is like suggesting higher gas taxes. But if we based our parking policies more on policies that are proven to work (refer to "The High Cost of Free Parking", Donald Shoup) than on what local merchants believe is best, the district and merchants would be better off and would have more income for those special events, too.

There is (supposed to be) bike parking at all of the big box stores you mentioned. And it gets used, although mostly by employees. Because those places are mostly in such hostile environments for bicycling, most cyclists avoid them. That's why they like the HD, because it's a good destination for access by bike and it has, at least a few, businesses that are very bike-friendly.

So, how is it that you know that cars = customers but bikes do not? Has someone done a study? How many of those cars on Sutter Street belong to employees and are there all day? Look a the bikes parked on Sutter Street on a typical day - they do not belong to teens hanging out (they ride skate boards). They belong to adults who are there to spend money. Only the vehicles that brought them require far less space to park than a car. People = customers. Cars are just cars.

[Steve Heard]

I am not a regular biker, but I do have one and love to ride the trails.

I think the reason there is animosity toward bicyclists is the almost militant attitude so many take about their right to the road. They say they have an equal right, but many seem to want a superior right.

I have been on the trails and seen bikers yell at people as the ride past, because they are taking up too much of the trail, are in the way, are going to slow, etc.

They say 'share the road', but some seem to mean 'we own the road'.

If I am biking and I feel I'm holding up traffic, I pull over, or I take another route. I have a few friends who bike in groups on weekends, and their attitude is, 'too bad!, we have just as much right to the road. We can't move as fast as cars. Let THEM take another route.'

Of course there are also those who claim the protection of the law and their right to the roads, while at the same time, disobeying laws such as speed, stop signs, direction and yielding the right of way.

I also know that riding on the roadway can be dangerous and scary, and that a lot of motorists don't watch where they're going and there are quite a few near misses.

If everyone approaches this subject with mutual respect for each other and for each other's rights, we'd see a lot fewer problems.

Here's an old poem they used to teach us in Driver's Ed. It came from someone's tombstone:

Here lies the body of Thaddeus Jay
He died defending his right of way.
He was right--dead right--as he sped along,
but he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong

[tony]

Steve: I really can't argue with anything you said. Bicyclists who flaunt the law and go out of their way to annoy motorists are the bane of those of us who are working for better conditions for bicycling. I do, however, resent the fact that every discussion of anything to do with bicycling (with the possible exception of the "favorite trails" thread) deteriorates into an attack on the bad behavior of (some) bicyclists (followed quickly by an indictment of bad motorists).

The problem, as I see it, is that, although Folsom claims to be (and has been recognized as) a Bicycle Friendly city, our collective view of that is pretty narrow. Most folks in town (including most of our elected leaders and many of the cyclists) think of bicycling in purely recreational terms. We advocates see it as the cleanest, cheapest, most environmentally sound, often most convenient and healthiest form of transportation. While not for every person or every trip, we have barely scratched the surface of the potential for bicycling as a transportation mode in places like Folsom, where the mode share is less than 1%. In other industrialized nations like Davis nearly 20% of all trips are made by bike (oh, and they have a thriving downtown, too).

In some cities in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, over 35% of all trips are made by bike. How did they do it? They made a commitment to promoting bicycling, walking and transit and de-emphasizing automobile travel. Why? Because a complete mono-culture of automobile travel is unsustainable, bad for our health (both from pollution and lack of exercise to the 40,000 people per year it kills directly) and full of unaccounted for costs (like the huge amount of our cities dedicated to housing parked cars and the expense of propping up middle eastern countries that supply our oil). So, yes, I do believe that bicycling is a superior form of travel. And as an advocate, all I demand is accommodation that is both safe and convenient. If we get that, then many others will see and enjoy the benefits (those happy bicyclists you are all so familiar with!).

One final example: 4th Gen mentioned bike parking at Walmart, Costco, etc. The city's zoning code requires a certain amount of bike parking at all new businesses (based on a percentage of the car parking requirement, typically). The problem is that when it is actually provided, it is usually off in some distant corner of the shopping center where it never will be used, or when it is placed conveniently, the businesses (Target and OSH, for example) end up using them as shopping cart corrals or block them in with sidewalk displays. So we advocates are forced to always be the bad guys, complaining about the fact that bike parking is almost always done as an afterthought, resulting in useless bike racks.

And then there are the majority of traffic signals that won't stay green long enough to safely get through an intersection (I've dealt with this every day for the past half dozen years when leaving my office; only extreme vigilance, strong legs and a little luck have kept me from being hit by cross traffic proceeding on a green light). There are good reasons why bicycle advocates are pushy; as Steve mentioned, it's often a matter of life and death. We would like the ability to be both right and safe. (Not incidentally, at teh behest of bicycle advocates, the city has re-timed 10 signals over the past couple of years to provide adequate timing for cyclists. And it's now state law that signals both detect and provide adequate timing for bicyclists (and motorcyclists), but only when the signals get modified).

[mylo]

Sadly, my view is heavily tainted by the "bad" bikers.

There are A LOT of bad drivers out there, but per-group, bicyclists seem (IMHO) to have much higher rates.

It's also, as Steve said, the militant-ism. It's one thing to get cut-off by a bad driver when on the road, and entirely another to have some road-rage event. It seems that more often than not, the bad bicyclists go postal instantly or tout "share the road" when they really mean "we have higher priority".

This in turn creates an equal and opposite reaction in my part. "Screw you!"

If all I get is a large percentage of bad bicyclists going off all the time, that seriously impacts my negative view of the group as a whole.

I'm sure it's one of those "bad apple spoils the bananas" or whatever, but it also appears I'm not the only one with such an unfavorable opinion of (the majority of) regional bicyclists.

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

And while bikes have their place, most bikers are not shopping on the street. They typically frequent the coffee shops, restaurants, candy store, etc. and come for the events, but they aren't buying in the stores. People may argue that they will come back later and shop, but giving up a car space for bike riders means one less person who may be actually shopping and buying that very day.

Are you arguing that the money bicyclists spend in restaurants, coffee shops, candy stores is less meaningful to merchants than people who drive (many of whom come only to window shop)? I think those merchants would beg to differ. And it is a leap to assume bicyclists don't purchase items other than food or drink.

One parking spot for 12 bike spots sounds like a reasonable trade-off to me.

[4thgenFolsomite]

Are you arguing that the money bicyclists spend in restaurants, coffee shops, candy stores is less meaningful to merchants than people who drive (many of whom come only to window shop)? I think those merchants would beg to differ. And it is a leap to assume bicyclists don't purchase items other than food or drink.

One parking spot for 12 bike spots sounds like a reasonable trade-off to me.

whooo..... I never said not to have bike racks. the current plan calls for 54 bike racks on Sutter Street. that's a lot of racks! There is even more in the parking garage. I'm saying that we need every car space we can get on the street and we should not give up a car space for bike parking spots. Remember many people can come in a car too. You can easily get 8 in a van. I have talked to many merchants in the district and they find that bike riders want to stay close to their bikes and don't buy objects because they can't take them home with them. I'm not saying not to have bike parking, people. please read what I wrote with a clear mind. I said don't give up precious space for car parking to add to the bike parking.

[Folsom_Blues]

I do find the hostility strange in a "Bicycle Friendly City". Riding through Austin, you can take an entire land of traffic and nobody will honk at you or think twice. In Folsom, people will yell at you to, "Get out of the road!".

Then throw in idiots like Tony Kornheiser that tell motorists to run over cyclists, and you can see how cyclists can get on edge. No other transportation mode has to deal with such hostility.

We have a world class bicycle greenway that conveniently goes right into the heart of our Historic District. They aren't contributing to the car traffic in the HD, they don't require a $15 million dollar parking garage, they don't belch out nasty air that we all breathe. All they need is a small, defined area for their bikes so they don't block the sidewalks or ADA ramps. Nobody is asking for the Taj Mahal here.

So, where do LRT passengers fit in the customer preference hierarchy? Are they below cyclists? They are taking the most historically accurate mode of transportation from 1856.

If parking truly is the limiting factor in the HD, then we should be encouraging others to walk, bike, LRT, pogo stick or lambada down there. Many people have a choice in getting there, we should make it preferable to choose a bike. But considering the #1 land use in the HD *IS* parking, we know that simply is not true.

[4thgenFolsomite]

If parking truly is the limiting factor in the HD, then we should be encouraging others to walk, bike, LRT, pogo stick or lambada down there. Many people have a choice in getting there, we should make it preferable to choose a bike. But considering the #1 land use in the HD *IS* parking, we know that simply is not true.

please remember that the historic district is not a city park. it is a business district. there is going to be plenty of parking for bikes. please learn to share it with cars too. bikes and bike riders are not superior to cars or car people.

[tony]

please remember that the historic district is not a city park. it is a business district. there is going to be plenty of parking for bikes. please learn to share it with cars too. bikes and bike riders are not superior to cars or car people.

Who said anything about a park? A big car park, maybe. This continued reference to the HD not being a park seems to imply that those arriving by bike or walking (residents like me) are somehow less serious than those arriving by car.

There are currently 600 some car parking spaces in the commercial district. Prior to the start of construction, there were seven bike racks in the commercial district and only three of them are on Sutter St. (at the SW corner of Wool and Sutter, at the Hacienda (hidden under stairs) and at the Whiskey Row lofts. That's less than one per block. The other four are at the LRT station, the Lakes shopping center (really cool racks that are often mistaken as art), at the Chamber of Commerce and on Trader’s lane behind the gaslight building. There is currently no bike parking in the garage. When it opens, there will be significant space there, but it is long-term parking. That is an important distinction, as the long term parking is not available to all (although technology may change that).

As I mentioned before, the current plan provides 54 bike racks in the project, but not on Sutter Street as you say. Location matters. 54 may be an adequate number for Sutter St. but not if they are not on Sutter Street. But who's to know? To my knowledge, no-one made an effort to ascertain the amount needed. And the only reason anyone is suggesting removing car parking spaces for bike parking, is because the proposed bike parking does not meet a clear current need (the 700 and 800 blocks in particular).

No, bike people are not superior to car people (most bike people I know, myself included, also own and occasionally drive cars), but when trying to get as many customers into a small area as possible, yes, the bike is a superior form of transportation to the typically single-occupant car. It is therefore beneficial to the merchants in the district to encourage, not just tolerate, bicyclists.

[4thgenFolsomite]

And the only reason anyone is suggesting removing car parking spaces for bike parking, is because the proposed bike parking does not meet a clear current need (the 700 and 800 blocks in particular).

I guess we can agree to disagree. I don't think there is a clear current need presently and I'll wait to see how it is after the street scape is done.

[Folsom_Blues]

If I take your position logically, that cyclists don't shop, they just eat or drink. Then, you are also not for people driving down there just to eat or drink. Everything being equal.

Well, many people have several options for getting into the HD. (Drive, walk, bike, LRT) Don't we want them to pick a mode that doesn't require using a parking spot if they don't need one?

And, you are right, the HD isn't a park, you have to pay to park at the park! (State parks anyway, but only if you drive.)

And be careful what you ask for, creating vast amounts of car parking often has many negative consequences. http://streetsblog.n.../parking-bombs/

[4thgenFolsomite]

If I take your position logically, that cyclists don't shop, they just eat or drink. Then, you are also not for people driving down there just to eat or drink. Everything being equal.

Well, many people have several options for getting into the HD. (Drive, walk, bike, LRT) Don't we want them to pick a mode that doesn't require using a parking spot if they don't need one?

And, you are right, the HD isn't a park, you have to pay to park at the park! (State parks anyway, but only if you drive.)

And be careful what you ask for, creating vast amounts of car parking often has many negative consequences. http://streetsblog.n.../parking-bombs/

first of all, it is impossible for there to be vast amounts of car parking in the HD. we don't even have room for basic car parking. secondly, we can't force people to use different forms of transportation. there are many different places for people to shop for gifts, etc., that have far more convenient parking. they'll just go elsewhere if they want to buy something. that's not good for the merchants in the HD. also, what have I possibly said that makes you think I don't want people riding bikes there? I don't get it! I have repeatedly said that bikes have a place there, that its good there will be 54 racks, etc. I will say nothing else on this matter because it seems to be useless. My points are being overblown and are apparently falling on deaf ears.

[tony]

first of all, it is impossible for there to be vast amounts of car parking in the HD. we don't even have room for basic car parking. secondly, we can't force people to use different forms of transportation. there are many different places for people to shop for gifts, etc., that have far more convenient parking. they'll just go elsewhere if they want to buy something. that's not good for the merchants in the HD. also, what have I possibly said that makes you think I don't want people riding bikes there? I don't get it! I have repeatedly said that bikes have a place there, that its good there will be 54 racks, etc. I will say nothing else on this matter because it seems to be useless. My points are being overblown and are apparently falling on deaf ears.

If parking convenience is the determining factor on whether people shop in the HD, then we've already ruined it. As long as Sutter Street merchants are trying to compete with strip mall retailers on price or convenience, they will fail. The ones that are most successful are the ones that provide something different and take advantage of the ambiance and history of the district.

If you look at an aerial view of the commercial part of the HD, it is mostly parking. All that land dedicated to parking is neither generating income for merchants nor tax dollars for the district/city. All desirable downtowns have "parking problems". It's a sign of their popularity. As Yogi would say: nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded.

[Redone]

If parking convenience is the determining factor on whether people shop in the HD, then we've already ruined it.

LOL, your perspective if that of a bike rider

( not one who wants to travel less distance, but to travel more )