98 replies to this topic

[kcrides99]

Well I guess my question is do folks on here feel strongly enough to advocate for the reduced lane width to our decision makers?

I think a voice besides the business owners needs to be heard, but if I am the only one, its not going to make it very far with the decision makers.

[Howdy]

Well I guess my question is do folks on here feel strongly enough to advocate for the reduced lane width to our decision makers?

 

 

If it is just a matter of re-striping the street that is cheap enough to see how it works. If its a matter of ripping up the streets and sidewalks and re-doing it all, I wouldn't be for that unless there was a complete plan in place for redeveloping that section of town. Tackling the street issue now and then leaving the old parking lots and buildings for a future project 10-15 years down the road doesn't make sense. By the time they take on the storefront situation in the future, they will probably realize that the street calming measures that were put in don't fit the new design plans anymore and will have to be reworked. Lets get a complete revitalization plan in place first before we start. 

[kcrides99]

Howdy:

I can appreciate the idea of doing work once and doing it right. This document and concept is wrapping up early next year. This is the first step to establish a vision for the corridor. It does not provide funding or anything beyond establishing a concept.

 

Page 31 (Section 6.2) talks more about the possibility of a rezone to help address some of what you are talking about. I think it is important to advocate for a concept of a complete street (including lane reductions) at this level but also to be clear that a specific plan of attack to revitalize the area is a key part of moving from this current vision to reality.

 

That may help with the property owners to let them know this is not the last step and that additional steps will be moving forward to address aesthetics and uses that may add value to their properties.

[Howdy]

 

 

That may help with the property owners to let them know this is not the last step and that additional steps will be moving forward to address aesthetics and uses that may add value to their properties.

 

I would imagine that the property owners and the business owners are not one in the same. I would imagine that the property owners could be closer to being on board with this if this could improve the value of the buildings and the rent that they could charge. I imagine that most of the push back would be from the business owners who are currently leasing the space. I am sure their fear would be a revitalization of the area would increase their lease which could be the breaking point to them closing their doors or having to find a cheaper rent somewhere else in town. Or even the fear knowing that once that area has been upgraded, are those the kind of businesses that are going to attract people down there? Probably not as people are going to want to see some fresh new stores and restaurants taking their place. Are we going to to make this part of town a destination or just give it a face lift and have people continue to drive through there on their way to somewhere else?

[ducky]

I rarely go to the center where the closed Jack in the Box is on Blue Ravine.  Same thing could be said for the center behind Winco.  I couldn't even tell you right now what businesses are in there.  Doesn't mean those businesses are doing something wrong. I don't do yoga.  Obviously, someone is keeping whatever is open there in business because the center isn't completely empty.  It can't have anything to do with aesthetics since those are newer developments nor the fact that there aren't bike lanes or sidewalks there, because there are, including some nice bike trails between my house and those places.  It's just easier for me to go to the salon closer to my home that takes walk-ins.  

I'm sure the surrounding neighborhoods near those centers appreciate having something to walk and/or bike to.  I just don't frequent that area.  Doesn't mean it deserves to be torn down unless the property owners decide things aren't working out for them and want to reinvest money into their properties.

 

It sounds like others don't have a problem with "using other people's money," as it was phrased at one of the meetings, to force private property owners and businesses out because government has decided they aren't new and shiny enough or residents who don't even live in the area are bored with the last new project and need a new watering hole.

 

This project is meant to only deal with the public portion and has the good intention of making things safer for the community as a whole as far as different travel modalities, but that's not what I'm hearing here.  What I'm hearing is kind of disturbing.   It's using the "shame on you" because you obviously don't understand the concept of complete streets if you aren't on board for the "pie in the sky" concept --  to borrow Howdy's phrase.  The complete streets concept, even as posted in kcrides' link, says it is not just one concept.  I would hope that the city uses taxpayers' money in the form of a grant to do what it is meant to do and not use it for redevelopment.  I don't understand why that isn't left to happen naturally as Walnut astutely pointed out.  If it can't sustain itself privately, why are taxpayers asked to finance it?

 

I think the fixes should make the best use of taxpayers' money and not be used as a back door to eminent domain.  If the Caltrans grant is meant to make streets safer, let's do that.  If there are other bike routes available, but this corridor would be better suited to enhance public transportation, then let's get the most for our money.

[tony]

those businesses seem to be doing okay, although its easy for everyone to look down on the older part of town.  the first and foremost in the lineup of people to have comments on how this area is going to be altered should be the property owners who are first and foremost going to be impacted.  not their tenant businesses, but the owners.  people who rarely venture into this area anyway may enjoy designing, but the ultimate design should be left to the real stakeholders and traffic planners.

To your first point, I tend to agree, and spoke with one of the property owners at length at the meeting. Right now, those properties are filling a need for relatively low rent spaces for small, independent businesses.  Where I disagree is the level to which the property owners should control what does or does not happen within the street right of way. Yes, they should have a  seat at the table, but no, they should not have the ability to veto safety improvements to the street. After all, that 's what this project was supposed to be about, finding a way to make the street safe for all users, which it currently is not. So, the property owners scream, "don't reduce our traffic", and the city caves, at the expense of the very customers that support them. Whether there are sidewalks or bike lanes in the road in front of your business is not your's to dictate.  They are part of the transportation system, the provision of which is the responsibility of the city.  No-one business or property owner (homeowners included) should be able to veto construction of sidewalks or bike lanes in front of their property. The street ROW is for the public good, not for the specific good of adjacent property owners. If they want to enhance the quality of the public way, that is certainly welcome, but to insist that it stay in a poor and unsafe condition is not their prerogative.

 

As callgirlz noted, most people driving that stretch are just passing through to cross the river. How many of them ever stop at the businesses? So, why cater to the through traffic at the expense of the people who actually live and work in the area?

[tony]

This is an example of putting the cart before the horse. Have they even polled the residents of Folsom to see how many are interested in walking or riding a bike down to the CBD? I would imagine very very few. Unless you live in the neighborhoods behind the CBD who is going to be walking down there? How many people are going to walk or ride from Natoma Station or Broadstone or Empire Ranch to the CBD? And when you get down there what are you going to do? Buy some paint? Liquor? Stand in line at the DMV? Purchase some western wear?  What is the draw in the CBD to bring people in to warrant spending all this money to modify 3 blocks so people can walk or ride their bikes to nowhere?

LOL...I will visit every 10 years and drive through saying "remember when...."

 

How crass can you be?  Next to Sutter Street, this stretch of E. Bidwell has the highest bicycle and pedestrian usage in the city, and it is exactly those people who live in the neighborhoods behind the CBD who walk and bike there. Do they not deserve safe facilities because it's a lower rent district?

 

Putting the cart before the horse? This was a planning study. The first step in developing a potential project. It included a series of stakeholder meetings, as well as several public meetings and an on-line survey. The people of Folsom were asked, and overwhelmingly, they responded that "completing" E. Bidwell was a priority! Business and property owners in the CBD have, at least temporarily, torpedoed any efforts to move forward in that area, but the rest of the plan, modest as it is, is likely to move forward.

 

Who will ride or walk? Besides those who already do in the CBD, the only way to find out is to make the improvements. You can make predictions based on experiences elsewhere, but the bottom line is that, unlike vehicular traffic, you can't use existing patterns to predict future bicycle and pedestrian use of new facilities, because the very lack of those facilities has up to the point of construction limited the users to only the brave or desperate. If you build it, they will come. If you don't, they won't. They will just get in their cars and drive to the shiny new businesses near the freeway.

 

Running bike lanes the length of E. Bidwell is not primarily for the benefit of cyclists who might want to ride the entire length of the street. Those recreational riders will find a far more pleasant place to ride. The importance of continuity is that it allows cyclists who may enter the street anywhere along its length to make those 1 and 2-mile trips (40% of all motor vehicle trips are shorter than 2 miles) to destinations along the corridor with the same level of safety and convenience as we currently provide to those who chose to do so in their cars. The same applies to sidewalks, only at shorter distances.

[tony]

I rarely go to the center where the closed Jack in the Box is on Blue Ravine.  Same thing could be said for the center behind Winco.  I couldn't even tell you right now what businesses are in there.  Doesn't mean those businesses are doing something wrong. I don't do yoga.  Obviously, someone is keeping whatever is open there in business because the center isn't completely empty.  It can't have anything to do with aesthetics since those are newer developments nor the fact that there aren't bike lanes or sidewalks there, because there are, including some nice bike trails between my house and those places.  It's just easier for me to go to the salon closer to my home that takes walk-ins.  

I'm sure the surrounding neighborhoods near those centers appreciate having something to walk and/or bike to.  I just don't frequent that area.  Doesn't mean it deserves to be torn down unless the property owners decide things aren't working out for them and want to reinvest money into their properties.

 

It sounds like others don't have a problem with "using other people's money," as it was phrased at one of the meetings, to force private property owners and businesses out because government has decided they aren't new and shiny enough or residents who don't even live in the area are bored with the last new project and need a new watering hole.

 

This project is meant to only deal with the public portion and has the good intention of making things safer for the community as a whole as far as different travel modalities, but that's not what I'm hearing here.  What I'm hearing is kind of disturbing.   It's using the "shame on you" because you obviously don't understand the concept of complete streets if you aren't on board for the "pie in the sky" concept --  to borrow Howdy's phrase.  The complete streets concept, even as posted in kcrides' link, says it is not just one concept.  I would hope that the city uses taxpayers' money in the form of a grant to do what it is meant to do and not use it for redevelopment.  I don't understand why that isn't left to happen naturally as Walnut astutely pointed out.  If it can't sustain itself privately, why are taxpayers asked to finance it?

 

I think the fixes should make the best use of taxpayers' money and not be used as a back door to eminent domain.  If the Caltrans grant is meant to make streets safer, let's do that.  If there are other bike routes available, but this corridor would be better suited to enhance public transportation, then let's get the most for our money.

Ducky,

 

Not to pick on you, especially because I mostly agree with you, but the reason to spend taxpayer dollars on improving struggling commercial areas (I don't like the term "re-development", because that implies pushing out the lower-performing businesses in favor of shiny new ones) is that thriving commercial districts are good for the city and, conversely, failing ones are bad, as they can easily turn from struggling to abandoned and blighted. Part of the problem, of course, is the fact that there is way too much commercial space in the city, and we keep approving more, even as many relatively new storefronts are vacant. That is not a good things for existing property owners, but always works for developers of new ones (remember, most developers don't keep the properties and manage them; they sell them to other do do that, so, since shiny new commercial areas are always attractive, even vacant space is little deterrent to the developers, as long as they will have the newest and shiniest to sell). I was disturbed to hear that property owners were opposed to providing any benches or other street furniture for pedestrians, for fear the homeless folks would use them.  It's that mentality that encourages struggling commercial areas to become blighted ones. The homeless people are an existing issue to be dealt with, not a reason to forgo any improvements that the homeless people might find attractive.

 

It's worth repeating that the goal of this project was to improve the corridor for all users, particularly bicyclists and pedestrians, who are currently without safe facilities in much of the corridor. This was based on a demonstrated need (the highest concentration of bicyclist and pedestrian crashes in the city occur in the CBD) and a recognition that when built, the entire length of the corridor was done so with little consideration for the needs of travelers not in automobiles. The city is admirably attempting to address those shortcomings, and should do so on the basis of safety and equity benefits, regardless of whether they are controversial, or under-appreciated by the majority who travel by the dominant mode.  After all, a major reason it is the dominant mode, is because we have designed our transportation system with only one mode in mind for nearly 75 years now. Smart cities have started to reverse the trend and provide more balanced transportation systems, and those start with little things like sidewalk and bike lanes. And, yes, sometimes those little safety improvements are a small inconvenience to motorists, but nothing compared to peril we routinely put pedestrians in for no other reason than the convenience of motorists (a perfect example is that cross walks are often omitted at one leg of a three- or four-legged intersection, making some pedestrians wait through three cycles of a light and cross three streets when they only wanted to cross one, and the only reason this is done is to make the signal more efficient for motorists). Here's another example: motorists (mostly Intel employees taking a short cut through the historic district) complain about traffic backing up at a new stop sign on Sibley, so the city, even though there are other signal improvements planned with that money, drops $300,000 or so on an unwarranted signal...on a street that still doesn't have sidewalks or bike lanes on most of its length, and which would be the best north-south bike route in the city if it did.

[ducky]

Ducky,

 

Not to pick on you, especially because I mostly agree with you, but the reason to spend taxpayer dollars on improving struggling commercial areas (I don't like the term "re-development", because that implies pushing out the lower-performing businesses in favor of shiny new ones) is that thriving commercial districts are good for the city and, conversely, failing ones are bad, as they can easily turn from struggling to abandoned and blighted. Part of the problem, of course, is the fact that there is way too much commercial space in the city, and we keep approving more, even as many relatively new storefronts are vacant. That is not a good things for existing property owners, but always works for developers of new ones (remember, most developers don't keep the properties and manage them; they sell them to other do do that, so, since shiny new commercial areas are always attractive, even vacant space is little deterrent to the developers, as long as they will have the newest and shiniest to sell). I was disturbed to hear that property owners were opposed to providing any benches or other street furniture for pedestrians, for fear the homeless folks would use them.  It's that mentality that encourages struggling commercial areas to become blighted ones. The homeless people are an existing issue to be dealt with, not a reason to forgo any improvements that the homeless people might find attractive.

 

It's worth repeating that the goal of this project was to improve the corridor for all users, particularly bicyclists and pedestrians, who are currently without safe facilities in much of the corridor. This was based on a demonstrated need (the highest concentration of bicyclist and pedestrian crashes in the city occur in the CBD) and a recognition that when built, the entire length of the corridor was done so with little consideration for the needs of travelers not in automobiles. The city is admirably attempting to address those shortcomings, and should do so on the basis of safety and equity benefits, regardless of whether they are controversial, or under-appreciated by the majority who travel by the dominant mode.  After all, a major reason it is the dominant mode, is because we have designed our transportation system with only one mode in mind for nearly 75 years now. Smart cities have started to reverse the trend and provide more balanced transportation systems, and those start with little things like sidewalk and bike lanes. And, yes, sometimes those little safety improvements are a small inconvenience to motorists, but nothing compared to peril we routinely put pedestrians in for no other reason than the convenience of motorists (a perfect example is that cross walks are often omitted at one leg of a three- or four-legged intersection, making some pedestrians wait through three cycles of a light and cross three streets when they only wanted to cross one, and the only reason this is done is to make the signal more efficient for motorists). Here's another example: motorists (mostly Intel employees taking a short cut through the historic district) complain about traffic backing up at a new stop sign on Sibley, so the city, even though there are other signal improvements planned with that money, drops $300,000 or so on an unwarranted signal...on a street that still doesn't have sidewalks or bike lanes on most of its length, and which would be the best north-south bike route in the city if it did.

Tony,

First, I don't think you are picking on me.  You are always respectful.  Those comments weren't directed toward anything you have said so far.  We are in agreement that building new centers when others can't keep businesses in them only helps the developers.  I too want to see the nearby businesses prosper.  I don't like the idea of them becoming empty during this process so that I will no longer have a walkable neighborhood.

 

We agree this should be about the public's use of public roadways.  We just disagree on the focus.  I am more pedestrian and public transportation oriented.  You are more bicycle oriented.  Nothing wrong with that.  I feel we already have a lot of cycling alternates, especially in this section.  Those that live in these neighborhoods can travel along residential streets until they reach the desired section of East Bidwell.  It is in fact what they already do.

 

I do agree that I was disappointed the business owners didn't even want continuous sidewalks.  I understand their concern about the benches though, but I think they were on board if the benches had dividers like they do in many cities so that they aren't amenable for sleeping on.  

 

I feel like if they put the sidewalks improvements and routing and roundabout improvements along the middle school they could leave the striping options for one lane each direction versus two for later.  It especially doesn't make sense if they will not have continuous bike lanes along the rest of East Bidwell from Blue Ravine to Wales.  Why only that section when better sidewalks would make more sense there?  We have a lot of people on scooters or motorized wheelchairs and it would be nice if they didn't have a light standard or utility pole in their way.

 

I think we both agree that traffic calming in residential sections is important.

I've been complaining about the lack of continuous sidewalks on Sibley & Prairie city for a long time.  I don't even work for Intel, but I used to use that route to get to Blue Ravine and to the freeway - hey maybe that's why I no longer know what businesses are along that stretch -- but now I just go straight down Glenn to Folsom Blvd.; or, if I'm coming down Prairie City during busy times, I go up Blue Ravine instead because that new stop sign backs things up.

[tony]

[snip]

I feel like if they put the sidewalks improvements and routing and roundabout improvements along the middle school they could leave the striping options for one lane each direction versus two for later.  It especially doesn't make sense if they will not have continuous bike lanes along the rest of East Bidwell from Blue Ravine to Wales.  Why only that section when better sidewalks would make more sense there?  We have a lot of people on scooters or motorized wheelchairs and it would be nice if they didn't have a light standard or utility pole in their way.

[snip]

 

OK, so we agree on about 95% of it all.

 

One thing you said there points up what I think was a failure in this project. You suggest that putting in the roundabouts would be OK, but not the reduction to two lanes. But if we install roundabouts, we don't need four lanes to carry the traffic. That's the beauty of roundabouts: they are safer, cheaper and more efficient than signals for ALL users. A 2-lane roundabout has approximately the same capacity as a 4-lane signalized intersection. Or, put another way, the only reason we have four lanes now is because of the traffic signals, which due to their inefficiency require more through lanes and turn lanes to work better. If you left the road with four lanes and installed roundabouts, you would either have to reduce the roadway to 2 lanes approaching and leaving the roundabouts, or construct multi-lane roundabouts that would be unwarranted for the amount of traffic and far less desirable for pedestrians and bicyclists. The only hitch with the 2-lane roundabouts is the transition from them to signals further down the line (at Montrose or Blue Ravine, the latter of which is unlikely to work with a roundabout (just like it doesn't really work now with a signal). Because of the strong anti-reduction sentiment from the business/property owners, the fact that the roundabouts were actually popular with most of the stakeholders got pushed aside, and the consultants did not make as strong a case for them as they could have, knowing how unpopular that would be with a very vocal minority.

[Howdy]

 

How crass can you be?  Next to Sutter Street, this stretch of E. Bidwell has the highest bicycle and pedestrian usage in the city, and it is exactly those people who live in the neighborhoods behind the CBD who walk and bike there. Do they not deserve safe facilities because it's a lower rent district?

 

Putting the cart before the horse? This was a planning study. The first step in developing a potential project. It included a series of stakeholder meetings, as well as several public meetings and an on-line survey. The people of Folsom were asked, and overwhelmingly, they responded that "completing" E. Bidwell was a priority! Business and property owners in the CBD have, at least temporarily, torpedoed any efforts to move forward in that area, but the rest of the plan, modest as it is, is likely to move forward.

 

Who will ride or walk? Besides those who already do in the CBD, the only way to find out is to make the improvements. You can make predictions based on experiences elsewhere, but the bottom line is that, unlike vehicular traffic, you can't use existing patterns to predict future bicycle and pedestrian use of new facilities, because the very lack of those facilities has up to the point of construction limited the users to only the brave or desperate. If you build it, they will come. If you don't, they won't. They will just get in their cars and drive to the shiny new businesses near the freeway.

 

Running bike lanes the length of E. Bidwell is not primarily for the benefit of cyclists who might want to ride the entire length of the street. Those recreational riders will find a far more pleasant place to ride. The importance of continuity is that it allows cyclists who may enter the street anywhere along its length to make those 1 and 2-mile trips (40% of all motor vehicle trips are shorter than 2 miles) to destinations along the corridor with the same level of safety and convenience as we currently provide to those who chose to do so in their cars. The same applies to sidewalks, only at shorter distances.

 

Interesting....I rarely see anyone biking down there and as far as pedestrians there might be a few. Maybe you could share the link to the study that shows what the average number of people are riding and walking down there on a daily basis, especially on the weekends and excluding the 30 minutes before and after SMS begins and ends. I see the 3 year study for bike and pedestrian accidents in the CBD was a total of 14. Thats about 1 accident every 3 months. It doesn't say whether the fault of the accident lies with the motorist, bike or pedestrian. For all we know a few could have been bike riders running over the pedestrians and not the fault of the big bad cars.

 

I am a person of Folsom. I was never asked to participate in a survey, online or otherwise. If the survey was conducted at the local bike stores and Luvmybike.com, I am sure it did overwhelmingly pass. After looking at the Smart Growth website and its coalition members I can see the greenie prints all over it. Same group of people that want to rip out the train tracks in the foothills and pave them for bikes. Cars are bad. Bikes and feet are good. Need to save the environment. Lets keep this green movement going. There is no compromising with you people. You either get what you want or you mope around complaining. 

 

"Who will ride or walk? Besides those who already do in the CBD, the only way to find out is to make the improvements.

 

Sounds like a great plan. "Lets spend the money, make the improvements and see what happens. Hope we are right!" And you wonder why the business owners are fighting you. Anyone who intends to stay in business does not depend on wishful thinking as a recipe for success. If you want them on board you might want to show them a detailed plan on how its in their benefit to be on your side. At this point your presentation is on why it would be good for you and your buddies on 2 wheel pedal power. Hate to tell you, but thats a small majority of Folsom residents. 

[cw68]

Here's another example: motorists (mostly Intel employees taking a short cut through the historic district) complain about traffic backing up at a new stop sign on Sibley, so the city, even though there are other signal improvements planned with that money, drops $300,000 or so on an unwarranted signal...on a street that still doesn't have sidewalks or bike lanes on most of its length, and which would be the best north-south bike route in the city if it did.

Are you talking about the new stop sign by the new apartments? I don't consider that a shortcut because when I'm coming home from work that is the way I would get to the CBD before that stop sign was put there.

That's the perfect place for a roundabout. Why a stop light?

[kcrides99]

Howdy:

 

How can you expect someone to walk or bike there when it is unsafe? You cannot base the demand based on the number of existing bikers/walkers. Bikers and walkers avoid this area like the plague and that is the point!

 

There are case studies all over the country that demonstrate that if you build a complete street where people feel safe it will be used. Why is Sutter Middle School such a mess at pick up and drop off times... because parents don't feel safe letting their kids walk there.

 

No one has ever said cars are bad. All (most of us) are saying is that people deserve to be treated equally whether they are walking, biking, driving, in a wheel chair, pushing a stroller or whatever... EACH person deserves to be safe on their chosen mode

[camay2327]

 

Interesting....I rarely see anyone biking down there and as far as pedestrians there might be a few. Maybe you could share the link to the study that shows what the average number of people are riding and walking down there on a daily basis, especially on the weekends and excluding the 30 minutes before and after SMS begins and ends. I see the 3 year study for bike and pedestrian accidents in the CBD was a total of 14. Thats about 1 accident every 3 months. It doesn't say whether the fault of the accident lies with the motorist, bike or pedestrian. For all we know a few could have been bike riders running over the pedestrians and not the fault of the big bad cars.

 

I am a person of Folsom. I was never asked to participate in a survey, online or otherwise. If the survey was conducted at the local bike stores and Luvmybike.com, I am sure it did overwhelmingly pass. After looking at the Smart Growth website and its coalition members I can see the greenie prints all over it. Same group of people that want to rip out the train tracks in the foothills and pave them for bikes. Cars are bad. Bikes and feet are good. Need to save the environment. Lets keep this green movement going. There is no compromising with you people. You either get what you want or you mope around complaining. 

 

"Who will ride or walk? Besides those who already do in the CBD, the only way to find out is to make the improvements.

 

Sounds like a great plan. "Lets spend the money, make the improvements and see what happens. Hope we are right!" And you wonder why the business owners are fighting you. Anyone who intends to stay in business does not depend on wishful thinking as a recipe for success. If you want them on board you might want to show them a detailed plan on how its in their benefit to be on your side. At this point your presentation is on why it would be good for you and your buddies on 2 wheel pedal power. Hate to tell you, but thats a small majority of Folsom residents. 

I never received a survey either. They must have been sent to people they knew would vote in favor of this.

 

Who sent out the survey? Was it by snail mail, email or how?

[ducky]

I never received a survey either. They must have been sent to people they knew would vote in favor of this.

 

Who sent out the survey? Was it by snail mail, email or how?

I don't know about a survey,  but they have been announcing the public meetings in the city online newsletter.

Are you talking about the new stop sign by the new apartments? I don't consider that a shortcut because when I'm coming home from work that is the way I would get to the CBD before that stop sign was put there.

That's the perfect place for a roundabout. Why a stop light?

 

I wonder if it's because of emergency vehicles.