98 replies to this topic

[tony]

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?

It was an on-line survey in July/August 2013. The July 12, 2013 City Newsletter had a story and a link to the survey.

 

Here's what the report says about the public outreach that was done. Please note that only one of the stakeholder groups involved people interested in active transportation, and that included the RR folks, too.  There were lots of opportunities for input. I would encourage you all to read the report. That said, they didn't make it easy to find the report, as it is not on the City's web site, and i could not find a link.

 

"Consistent with the Community Engagement Strategy, the project team has conducted multiple stakeholder and public meetings to discuss the project and to obtain valuable input, feedback, and recommendations. Based on input from the City, four Focus Groups were established, through invitation, to enable the project team to collaborate and interact with representatives from the following four general groups: Active Transportation, Business & Commerce, Municipal, and Service. To date, the following community engagement activities have been undertaken:

 

▪ February 2013:     Project Kick‐Off Meeting

▪ June 2013:            Focus Group Meetings

▪ July 2013:              Community Meeting #1

▪ August 2013:        Online Survey

▪ June/July 2014:    City Council Briefings

▪ July 2014:              Combined Focus Group Meeting

▪ August 2014:        Community Meeting #2

▪ November 2014:  Community Meeting #3 (upcoming)"

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

Said much better than I.

[tony]

 

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.[snip]

 

Unfortunately, since cities (and Folsom is no exception) rarely count bicyclists and pedestrians, the crash data are the best information we have, although they confirm my observations (I pay attention to these things; it's an occupational hazard).  But then, crash data are the primary basis for many traffic engineering expenditures, as safety is the first and most important concern of traffic engineers and planners.

 

Interesting that you say that you doubt there are many cyclists or pedestrians in the are except for the hours around drop-off and pick-up at FMS.  Why are those peaks not important? The "peak hour" is a key determinant in how many lanes we put on our roads (and where traffic signals are installed).  Why would we not use the same for determining the need for sidewalks or bike lanes?  Isn't the safety of our children coming and going from school at least as important as the safety of adults heading to work or shop?

 

It is a well known fact that people (particularly motorists) see what they are looking for. They are riding on the sidewalk where motorists are not looking, even though the sidewalks are not a particularly safe place to ride (people think they are). See the "dancing bear" video on youtube.  That's why in our bicycle safety classes, we teach bicyclists riding in traffic to assume that motorists do not see you, even if they are looking right at you (while at the same time doing everything possible to make yourself more visible).

 

One accident every three months is way too many! Bicycling and walking are not inherently dangerous activities. They only become so when bicyclists and pedestrians are forced to mix with motor vehicles with inadequate facilities or poorly behaving people (yes, that does include the bicyclists and pedestrians, but behavior is heavily influenced by facilities, or lack thereof). And, yep, some of the peds might have been run over by bicyclists, but highly unlikely, given that somewhere less than a handful of pedestrians are killed by bicyclists nationwide each year, as opposed to the several thousand killed by motor vehicles. 

[tony]

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?

Yes, but it's probably not perfect for a couple of reasons: 1) there may not be enough room, and 2) roundabouts don't work as well if traffic is heavy AND one of the movements is dominant (Sibley), because people on the minor legs may not be able to find gaps to get in, 3) Levy come in at a pretty steep grade and 3) it's in Folsom, where our leaders are afraid to try this proven technology (although not as afraid as the folks in Placerville, who effectively outlawed them by initiative in the recent election because they are a conspiracy to either promote development or take away property rights -- no, I'm not making that up!).

[camay2327]

 

It was an on-line survey in July/August 2013. The July 12, 2013 City Newsletter had a story and a link to the survey.

 

Here's what the report says about the public outreach that was done. Please note that only one of the stakeholder groups involved people interested in active transportation, and that included the RR folks, too.  There were lots of opportunities for input. I would encourage you all to read the report. That said, they didn't make it easy to find the report, as it is not on the City's web site, and i could not find a link.

 

"Consistent with the Community Engagement Strategy, the project team has conducted multiple stakeholder and public meetings to discuss the project and to obtain valuable input, feedback, and recommendations. Based on input from the City, four Focus Groups were established, through invitation, to enable the project team to collaborate and interact with representatives from the following four general groups: Active Transportation, Business & Commerce, Municipal, and Service. To date, the following community engagement activities have been undertaken:

 

▪ February 2013:     Project Kick‐Off Meeting

▪ June 2013:            Focus Group Meetings

▪ July 2013:              Community Meeting #1

▪ August 2013:        Online Survey

▪ June/July 2014:    City Council Briefings

▪ July 2014:              Combined Focus Group Meeting

▪ August 2014:        Community Meeting #2

▪ November 2014:  Community Meeting #3 (upcoming)"

Said much better than I.

 

Tony, thanks for the information. I will look at it within the next few days. 

I wish I had a print out of all of that. It is just to much to print on my

printer here at home. To much ink...

 

Thanks...

[john]

Einstein was quoted as saying the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It definitely needs help.

A reasonable compromise, instead of 5 lanes to 2, is a median with landscaping in the suicide lane. Sidewalks in front of the Gold Miner and BJ Cinnamon. Re-do existing sidewalks in disrepair.
Something, maybe a small art installation, in the dead area in front of Dimple. Maybe a Dutch Bros kiosk?
Heck, maybe something unique in the dead zone behind B of A.
A roundabout is a great idea at the curve. Safer for all and could be attractive once landscaped.
And of course a remodel, maybe go for an 1850s theme, or turn of the century.

[caligirlz]

Actually, reducing the width of the lanes can decrease the speeds a lot. People drive faster on wider streets, but more importantly, there are certain provisions in the CVC (California Vehicle Code) that don't allow for streets under a certain width to have low speed limits. I have forgotten what the width is that triggers this provision, but if a road is XXX wide, even if it's in a strictly residential area, even surrounding a neighborhood park, the legal speed limit can't be under 35 MPH. Cities can post lower speed limits, but if a driver is cited and ticketed, it does not hold up in traffic court.

Yes, I realize there is the potential for decreased speeds and the proposed amount is from 12 to 11 feet, so it's not that bad. I've had a different experience when I lived in East Sac on Folsom Blvd. Despite the 4 lanes being very narrow, people still drove faster than the speed limit. I lived on Folsom Blvd & it was very hard pull out of the driveway. My roommate also go hit by a car on her bicycle on the same road due to excessive speed. So, narrow lanes do not always have the desired effect.

 

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?

I do shop a little in that area. I've been to a couple of the stores near El Dorado Savings, once, but I have had no need to return. Many of those type of stores are located closer to my neighborhood or job. I've never been to the shopping center across the street. I routinely go to Trader Joes, the post office and Meissners, but not much else over there. There is soo much traffic...which would be a lot worse if the road was narrowed. I plan my shopping trips to avoid the traffic as much as possible.

[Howdy]

 

 

One accident every three months is way too many! Bicycling and walking are not inherently dangerous activities. They only become so when bicyclists and pedestrians are forced to mix with motor vehicles with inadequate facilities or poorly behaving people (yes, that does include the bicyclists and pedestrians, but behavior is heavily influenced by facilities, or lack thereof). And, yep, some of the peds might have been run over by bicyclists, but highly unlikely, given that somewhere less than a handful of pedestrians are killed by bicyclists nationwide each year, as opposed to the several thousand killed by motor vehicles. 

 

Who said anything about the 14 accidents occurring on that street were fatalities? Again you are reading into these statistics too much. We have no idea if the bike and peds were minding their own business and ended up getting hit by cars pulling out of parking lots or if they were jaywalking or riding their bike from the pub under the influence and they darted out in front of a car.  

[tony]

 

Who said anything about the 14 accidents occurring on that street were fatalities? Again you are reading into these statistics too much. We have no idea if the bike and peds were minding their own business and ended up getting hit by cars pulling out of parking lots or if they were jaywalking or riding their bike from the pub under the influence and they darted out in front of a car.  

I didn't. Yes, it's true that they could have all been the cyclists or pedestrians fault, but that doesn't matter. Most "accidents" involving motor vehicles are the result of someone doing something stupid, too. Very few of them are true "accidents", in the sense that they could not have easily been prevented by one or the other of those involved.  The point was that the CBD has the highest incidence of bike and ped crashes in the city, which is a strong indication that there are a fair number of folks walking and biking in the area (since no-one actually counts cyclists and pedestrians until they get hit). The jump to fatality stats was merely to make the point that bicyclists are not a significant threat to pedestrians compared to motorists (which should be obvious), and because the fatality numbers are a available, whereas injury stats for bicyclists and pedestrians are not typically kept unless they involved a motor vehicle.

[tony]

Yes, I realize there is the potential for decreased speeds and the proposed amount is from 12 to 11 feet, so it's not that bad...

No, eleven foot lanes are not that bad. In fact the studies done back in 1944 on which the 12-foot lane standard are based actually showed that 11-foot lanes were safer that 12-foot (there was very little difference in the range between 10 and 12 feet, so they rather arbitrarily went with 12 as the standard -- engineers being conservative types, they figured bigger must be better, even if the data didn't show it). But that was for high speed rural roads and freeways. Adopting the 12-foot standard for urban arterials was, at best, unnecessary (unless there is heavy truck or transit traffic, neither of which E. Bidwell has), and more likely, a very bad idea as it has resulted in much higher speeds in urban areas. Consider that if a 12-foot lane is safe at 70 mph, does it make sense that the same width would be required at 35 mph? That's what happened, but then, since the lanes were so wide, people just drove faster, and since our speed law requires that the speed limit be set at the 85th percentile speed of traffic, now all our urban arterials have 45 or 50 or 55 mph speed limits.

 

But, the speed law is a whole other rant. In short, the principal is that traffic is safest when cars are traveling at nearly the same speed, so if you set the speed limit at the speed at which 85% of motorists (the "reasonable person" standard) drive at or below, you minimize the speed differential. Ironically, the place where this makes most sense -- freeways -- is where we ignore it and set the limit at what is considered a "safe" speed, whereas on urban (non-residential) roads where it doesn't make sense because motorists drive at a speed that seems reasonable for them, not for those outside the car, the law requires that we set the speed limit at the speed people drive, rather than what is considered safe. Apparently, all because some legislators got caught in speed traps in small towns 50 years ago.  

[cw68]

Pretty apropos post on Folsom Watch's FB page today. Please read this from an actual cyclist/commuter who rides the street, not just someone who views it from a car.

 

 

"This is something that needs attention, seeing as how we're all just residents of Folsom. I'm a working class, minimum wage receiving, going to school part time, citizen. That being said it is impossible to afford a car. The choice is a roof or a car. I chose the roof. THAT being said I ride a bike everywhere. Its alarming the amount of times that I have been cut off and almost hit riding down East Bidwell. Its not like I'm not following any of the bike laws either. I'm in the damn bike lane, with lights. I don't weave in and out of traffic. I'm just trying to get from point a to point b like the rest of you. Please be courteous of your fellow bicyclists.:

[ducky]

Pretty apropos post on Folsom Watch's FB page today. Please read this from an actual cyclist/commuter who rides the street, not just someone who views it from a car.

 

 

"This is something that needs attention, seeing as how we're all just residents of Folsom. I'm a working class, minimum wage receiving, going to school part time, citizen. That being said it is impossible to afford a car. The choice is a roof or a car. I chose the roof. THAT being said I ride a bike everywhere. Its alarming the amount of times that I have been cut off and almost hit riding down East Bidwell. Its not like I'm not following any of the bike laws either. I'm in the damn bike lane, with lights. I don't weave in and out of traffic. I'm just trying to get from point a to point b like the rest of you. Please be courteous of your fellow bicyclists.:

 

He's right.  People need to pay better attention and slow down.  But even he says he was doing everything right in the bike lane. 

People do ride on the sidewalk because they don't feel safe in the bike lanes.  I see it all the time, but not just on East Bidwell St.  Blue Ravine and Riley has bike lanes and there are always people riding on the sidewalk there.

[Howdy]

I didn't. Yes, it's true that they could have all been the cyclists or pedestrians fault, but that doesn't matter. Most "accidents" involving motor vehicles are the result of someone doing something stupid, too. Very few of them are true "accidents", in the sense that they could not have easily been prevented by one or the other of those involved.  The point was that the CBD has the highest incidence of bike and ped crashes in the city, which is a strong indication that there are a fair number of folks walking and biking in the area (since no-one actually counts cyclists and pedestrians until they get hit). The jump to fatality stats was merely to make the point that bicyclists are not a significant threat to pedestrians compared to motorists (which should be obvious), and because the fatality numbers are a available, whereas injury stats for bicyclists and pedestrians are not typically kept unless they involved a motor vehicle.

 

Love your definition of accidents Tony. You just keep twisting your reasoning and logic until it fits your desired point. I have libxxxx on my crew who do the same thing. The rest of us just have to smile and keep our mouths shut because they always have a never ending argument. They are always right according to them, so the best thing to do is just end the discussion. Hope you enjoy your 3 block bike playground Tony. 

[Howdy]

Pretty apropos post on Folsom Watch's FB page today. Please read this from an actual cyclist/commuter who rides the street, not just someone who views it from a car.

 

 

"This is something that needs attention, seeing as how we're all just residents of Folsom. I'm a working class, minimum wage receiving, going to school part time, citizen. That being said it is impossible to afford a car. The choice is a roof or a car. I chose the roof. THAT being said I ride a bike everywhere. Its alarming the amount of times that I have been cut off and almost hit riding down East Bidwell. Its not like I'm not following any of the bike laws either. I'm in the damn bike lane, with lights. I don't weave in and out of traffic. I'm just trying to get from point a to point b like the rest of you. Please be courteous of your fellow bicyclists.:

 

The guy is right. He is getting an education for free. If he hasn't learned to get off East Bidwell and find another route he is the prime definition of Albert Einstein's insanity quote. "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." Does he not value his life? He needs to learn to start taking side streets to get to his destination. He is risking his life by not finding alternative routes. I wouldn't ride my bike nor allow my kids to ride a bike on any fast street in Folsom(or any other community) whether there is a bike lane or not. Nor would I be riding a motorcycle. Well all know there are too many distractions for drivers in this day and age. Furthermore studies have proven that automobile drivers are not looking for people on motorcycles. The motorcycle can be travelling right next to a car and another diver might not even see them. How many times have you heard a person involved in an accident say "I never saw them" The same goes for bicycle riders. It won't matter if the bike lane is 8' wide. Some guy can still find you and plow you over. I am not naive enough to put my life in other peoples hands and ride down the street hoping that today isn't my day. Hopefully that young man will learn and not the hard way.

[kcrides99]

Not sure how Tony is twisting anything. If a single person is hurt by an vehicle and it is attributed to poor planning and design, wouldn't it  be prudent for the City to investigate the issue, develop a plan to resolve the issue, and then implement the plan accordingly?

 

As I see it the City has done just that:

 

The Issue: Unsafe conditions for bikes/peds/vehicles. As documented by accidents, current engineering and planning standards, and anecdotal evidence.

The Plan:  Create a complete street that accommodates all users.

The Implementation: The part that happens next - hopefully construction and redevelopment of this area

 

Howdy is evidently OK with the status quo and that is his right. But when his right interferes with the safety of those who choose (or have no other choice) to walk or ride then it is time to make a change.

[Sandman]

Why not rip out the stupid unutilized RR tracks that create horrible road conditions (example: crossing heading up Costco hill from E Bidwell) and convert it to a bike/pedestrian path?  Kill two birds with one stone

 

If the city really feels the need to keep these tracks at least do something with them...