Orangetj, thank you for joining the discussion. And even more, thank you for expressing your appreciation for our citizen's advisory group efforts. We worked long and hard with the City in hopes of finding a solution. And like Sibley Resident, I was somewhat devastated by the outcome of the last City Council Meeting.
I live up on the Riley end of Lembi. So I watch the same cars you do, speeding around the Riley corner, rolling through the Oxborough "Stop" sign, and reaching top speeds probably as they pass by your home, before turning onto Sibley. What a racetrack! -- By the way, it has been about 2 and a half years since I first began contacting the city about the speeding on our street. As you will probably agree, the painting of the stripes did little good. And what is going to happen to traffic on Lembi, Sibley and neighboring streets when Kohls and the physical therapy offices open in a few months?
While speaking of Lembi, I would like to take the opportunity to set the record straight on the concensus of Lembi residents re the proposed closure. The "Telegraph" was incorrect in stating that it was a "victory" for Lembi residents that Sibley remains open. During these past 3 months working with the committee, I have contacted most of our neighbors, and found very few in opposition to the proposed traffic calming. Almost everyone was at least in favor of giving it a 60-day trial.
I am very proud of our group, in spite of this set-back. We became very united, painstakingly looking at the interests of residents and businesses in the targeted area. Join us, if you wish, in working for calmer streets. I believe I know where you live.....Perhaps we'll meet.
The City has assured us that they are committed to finding a solution for our traffic problems. However, I am concerned an a bit frustrated since we have not heard what the next step toward a solution will be. But we are not going to stop seeking a resolution to our problem, just because our first proposal was rejected. ---- Remember how many attempts (& failures) the Wright brothers made at getting the first plane off the ground!!
Sibley Street Closure
Started by
jake
, Jan 08 2004 09:03 AM
125 replies to this topic
#77
tony
-
- Premium Member
-
- 1,396 posts
Hall Of Famer
- Gender:Male
- Location:Historic District
Posted 04 February 2004 - 11:49 PM
Sibley Resident: Well, I thought I confirmed that city council approved the Fieldstone Meadows subdivision without opening the EVA, but it was complicated by the issue of traffic signals at Woodsmoke and at the proposed street (can’t remember the name) So, maybe it is going back to the TSC. Regardless, I think some clarification is in order. This was not an existing EVA. It is an unfinished street (complete with construction barricades) that was originally planned to be a through street (you can tell because the street section did not change at the end and there was not a cul-de-sac built). The developer of Fieldstone Meadows proposed that instead of making it a through street an EVA be put in connecting the existing and proposed neighborhoods. This was due largely to concerns of the existing neighborhood, concerns that the TSC did not find convincing.
A little more background is in order here: Terciera is already a through street via connection to Woodsmoke. Before Riley was completed to Oak Ave Parkway, cut through traffic was a problem in this neighborhood. Since Riley opened, it has not been, because there is very little benefit, if any, for people to use it as a short cut (unlike Sibley). The only impact that connecting the new neighborhood would have would be that some of the traffic from the 90 new homes would use the connection to get to Riley St. instead of having to go out onto E. Bidwell and around via Blue Ravine or Oak Ave. The benefit would be that the existing neighborhood would then have a more direct route to SB E. Bidwell instead of using Woodsmoke (this would reduce traffic on Woodsmoke). The general benefit would be less overall traffic from out-of-direction travel (due to people having to take roundabout routes to go short distances) and less pollution (better quality of life for all).
The reason traffic is so bad in Folsom (besides the obvious river and dam problems) is that there are so few roads that actually go anywhere (this is one of the key ingredients of sprawl). Consequently, people are forced to drive great distances to get to places that could be within easy walking distance, or at least a much shorter drive. For example, I used to work at the SW corner of Prairie City and Blue Ravine (by Ciro's). I had co-workers who lived across Prairie City Rd. in Prairie Oaks, about 200 yards from work as the crow flies, but unless you were a crow, the only way to get there was to go back out to Russi, down to Blue Ravine and across Prairie City (through that very busy intersection), a distance of nearly a mile. So those people never even considered walking or biking to work, but instead contributed to the traffic and pollution on a regular basis. This pattern is repeated tens of thousands of times every day in Folsom, resulting in much unnecessary traffic huge intersections to accommodate it, and consequently creating more traffic because the wide streets and heavy traffic make it even more unpleasant to walk anywhere (even if the distances weren’t already too far). That's what's wrong with "protecting neighborhoods" by closing streets: those who live on the cul-de-sacs and closed streets reap all the benefits of quiet streets while they drive many more miles on every one else's streets.
While the city of Sacramento has closed streets and used diverters to calm traffic, there are really very few parallels. 1) Sacramento has a near perfect grid of streets, so the few closures and diverters generally send people only one or two short blocks out of their way. Closing streets in Folsom potentially adds one or more miles to otherwise very short trips. 2) Sacramento employed a wide range of traffic calming devices from curb extension and traffic circles to the aforementioned diverters and closures. The diverters and closures were just the most controversial items and therefore received a lot of press. The other measures have been very successful and generally well-received. The only traffic calming Folsom has seriously tried has been the closures/diversions at Scott and Sutter, Figueroa and Mormon, which has, in my opinion, been very successful, but only because of the unique circumstances there. (More on that later). 3) Sacramento created a comprehensive traffic-calming plan for an entire quadrant of the city, and even that resulted in some unintended consequences, which further resulted in modifications to the plan. So far, Folsom has been focused on reacting to flash points. The traffic safety committee’s recommendation to pursue a traffic calming program and policy is an effort to make traffic-calming efforts more programmatic, more fair and more effective and to broaden the range of tools in the calming toolbox, as many cities around the state and country have done.
As for the successs of the S-S-C closure/diversion? First, while creating very minimal out-of direction travel for residents of that area, it has dramatically reduced traffic on all of the streets NE of Natoma and Riley. Second, along with tweaking of the Auburn-Folsom –Greenback intersection, it has improved flow of traffic over Rainbow Bridge by all but eliminating disruption of Riley St. traffic by the Scott-Riley signal. However, what it has also done is take the traffic jam that used to be well-hidden on Scott-Sutter-Coloma and put it back on Natoma and Riley. Unfortunately, the unintended consequence of these efforts has been to encourage people to seek ways around the back-up there (like bailing onto Lembi and Bidwell and, of course, using Sibley as an alternative).
So, what’s the difference between Scott-Sutter-Coloma and Sibley. For starters, about 10,000 cars per day (about 6000 versus 15,000-20,000). Furthermore, S-S-C was never anything more than a barely effective short cut, while Sibley has, for a very long time, been an important access route into the historic district, the removal of which would result in a very large amount of out-of-direction travel in and around the HD. While, in my opinion, 6000 cars is still way too many for this street, and speeding is a major problem, I believe there are a number of compromise measures that could significantly reduce traffic volumes and speed without creating more traffic. Rather than suggesting my ideas at this point, I will refer you to some excellent web sites on the subject: http://www.walkingin.....affic Calming, http://www.trafficcalming.org/, http://www.walkable....ntersection.jpg, http://www.walkable...._TCMidblock.jpg.
Finally, to Lembi Resident, I agree whole-heartedly that the Telegraph could not have botched the story much more than they did, and that the striping on Lembi has been less than effective. While I heard concerns by residents off of Lembi about the down sides of the closure, most notably being forced to make difficult left turns to get out of their neighborhood, certainly the closure would have dramatically reduced traffic on Lembi. As for the striping, it has very limited effectiveness for a number of reasons: 1) there are not enough parked cars or bike traffic to create the feel of a narrower street (the intent of the striping) without additional features, namely curb extensions at the intersection and possibly mid-block as well, probably in conjunction with traffic circles (as proposed in one of the citizen’s committee’s plans), 2) the bike lanes are too wide for the amount of bike traffic and in comparison to the traffic lanes, and therefore invite people to drive in them (they should not be more than 6 ft), and 3) the street really needs to have some horizontal curves put in to force people to slow down. You can’t build streets that look like freeways and expect people to drive 25 mph (certainly not without serious enforcement). Good traffic calming isn’t always cheap, but sometimes you get what you pay for.
A little more background is in order here: Terciera is already a through street via connection to Woodsmoke. Before Riley was completed to Oak Ave Parkway, cut through traffic was a problem in this neighborhood. Since Riley opened, it has not been, because there is very little benefit, if any, for people to use it as a short cut (unlike Sibley). The only impact that connecting the new neighborhood would have would be that some of the traffic from the 90 new homes would use the connection to get to Riley St. instead of having to go out onto E. Bidwell and around via Blue Ravine or Oak Ave. The benefit would be that the existing neighborhood would then have a more direct route to SB E. Bidwell instead of using Woodsmoke (this would reduce traffic on Woodsmoke). The general benefit would be less overall traffic from out-of-direction travel (due to people having to take roundabout routes to go short distances) and less pollution (better quality of life for all).
The reason traffic is so bad in Folsom (besides the obvious river and dam problems) is that there are so few roads that actually go anywhere (this is one of the key ingredients of sprawl). Consequently, people are forced to drive great distances to get to places that could be within easy walking distance, or at least a much shorter drive. For example, I used to work at the SW corner of Prairie City and Blue Ravine (by Ciro's). I had co-workers who lived across Prairie City Rd. in Prairie Oaks, about 200 yards from work as the crow flies, but unless you were a crow, the only way to get there was to go back out to Russi, down to Blue Ravine and across Prairie City (through that very busy intersection), a distance of nearly a mile. So those people never even considered walking or biking to work, but instead contributed to the traffic and pollution on a regular basis. This pattern is repeated tens of thousands of times every day in Folsom, resulting in much unnecessary traffic huge intersections to accommodate it, and consequently creating more traffic because the wide streets and heavy traffic make it even more unpleasant to walk anywhere (even if the distances weren’t already too far). That's what's wrong with "protecting neighborhoods" by closing streets: those who live on the cul-de-sacs and closed streets reap all the benefits of quiet streets while they drive many more miles on every one else's streets.
While the city of Sacramento has closed streets and used diverters to calm traffic, there are really very few parallels. 1) Sacramento has a near perfect grid of streets, so the few closures and diverters generally send people only one or two short blocks out of their way. Closing streets in Folsom potentially adds one or more miles to otherwise very short trips. 2) Sacramento employed a wide range of traffic calming devices from curb extension and traffic circles to the aforementioned diverters and closures. The diverters and closures were just the most controversial items and therefore received a lot of press. The other measures have been very successful and generally well-received. The only traffic calming Folsom has seriously tried has been the closures/diversions at Scott and Sutter, Figueroa and Mormon, which has, in my opinion, been very successful, but only because of the unique circumstances there. (More on that later). 3) Sacramento created a comprehensive traffic-calming plan for an entire quadrant of the city, and even that resulted in some unintended consequences, which further resulted in modifications to the plan. So far, Folsom has been focused on reacting to flash points. The traffic safety committee’s recommendation to pursue a traffic calming program and policy is an effort to make traffic-calming efforts more programmatic, more fair and more effective and to broaden the range of tools in the calming toolbox, as many cities around the state and country have done.
As for the successs of the S-S-C closure/diversion? First, while creating very minimal out-of direction travel for residents of that area, it has dramatically reduced traffic on all of the streets NE of Natoma and Riley. Second, along with tweaking of the Auburn-Folsom –Greenback intersection, it has improved flow of traffic over Rainbow Bridge by all but eliminating disruption of Riley St. traffic by the Scott-Riley signal. However, what it has also done is take the traffic jam that used to be well-hidden on Scott-Sutter-Coloma and put it back on Natoma and Riley. Unfortunately, the unintended consequence of these efforts has been to encourage people to seek ways around the back-up there (like bailing onto Lembi and Bidwell and, of course, using Sibley as an alternative).
So, what’s the difference between Scott-Sutter-Coloma and Sibley. For starters, about 10,000 cars per day (about 6000 versus 15,000-20,000). Furthermore, S-S-C was never anything more than a barely effective short cut, while Sibley has, for a very long time, been an important access route into the historic district, the removal of which would result in a very large amount of out-of-direction travel in and around the HD. While, in my opinion, 6000 cars is still way too many for this street, and speeding is a major problem, I believe there are a number of compromise measures that could significantly reduce traffic volumes and speed without creating more traffic. Rather than suggesting my ideas at this point, I will refer you to some excellent web sites on the subject: http://www.walkingin.....affic Calming, http://www.trafficcalming.org/, http://www.walkable....ntersection.jpg, http://www.walkable...._TCMidblock.jpg.
Finally, to Lembi Resident, I agree whole-heartedly that the Telegraph could not have botched the story much more than they did, and that the striping on Lembi has been less than effective. While I heard concerns by residents off of Lembi about the down sides of the closure, most notably being forced to make difficult left turns to get out of their neighborhood, certainly the closure would have dramatically reduced traffic on Lembi. As for the striping, it has very limited effectiveness for a number of reasons: 1) there are not enough parked cars or bike traffic to create the feel of a narrower street (the intent of the striping) without additional features, namely curb extensions at the intersection and possibly mid-block as well, probably in conjunction with traffic circles (as proposed in one of the citizen’s committee’s plans), 2) the bike lanes are too wide for the amount of bike traffic and in comparison to the traffic lanes, and therefore invite people to drive in them (they should not be more than 6 ft), and 3) the street really needs to have some horizontal curves put in to force people to slow down. You can’t build streets that look like freeways and expect people to drive 25 mph (certainly not without serious enforcement). Good traffic calming isn’t always cheap, but sometimes you get what you pay for.
#78
john
-
- Admin
-
- 9,841 posts
Founder
- Gender:Male
- Location:Prairie Oaks
Posted 04 February 2004 - 11:52 PM
| QUOTE |
| http://www.trafficcalming.org/ |
I designed that site way back when (about 4 years ago)! It's been redesigned since then, but it's still got a lot of my old stuff in there!
#79
tony
-
- Premium Member
-
- 1,396 posts
Hall Of Famer
- Gender:Male
- Location:Historic District
Posted 05 February 2004 - 12:22 AM
John: nice job.
#80
Sibley Resident
-
- New Members
-
- 91 posts
Netizen
Posted 05 February 2004 - 02:23 AM
I’m sorry bordercolliefan, I did really appreciate your comments and have really tried not to get upset and I'm sorry that I'm going to blow it here.
Tony, You and I will never agree on this just as we will never agree on many other issues. We are going to have to agree to disagree and as far as these other proposals, which have been looked at for this area by our committee with the cities Public Works Dept and Traffic Engineer and was agreed on that none of these would work in making this residential street so uncomfortable for people that they will not use it for there commute. These can and will work in other areas but not in this one. When the commuters are at a dead stop or driving 1 to 2 miles an hour through our neighborhood these things are irrelevant to them. They can work for speed but not volume and volume and exhaust and everything else that goes along with it, are just as much of the problem as speeders in this neighborhood. I have to wonder why hasn’t the Traffic Safety Committee suggested any of these measures addressing speed or tried them over the last 2 ½ years (this is just the amount of time that I can document, I'm sure it's been longer than that)this neighborhood was asking for help with speeding. The traffic safety committee has had 2 ½ years to come up with a Traffic Calming Plan, still hasn’t and has done nothing to help us. Matter of fact when I went to them 3/2003 with my concerns I was actually told that they new we had a problem, it’s been there forever and they were not even going to try anything to help us until they received there report from the independent consulting firm this city hired. That report was due 6/2003 and we still have not received any help. This help was needed even prior to the Dam Road being closed and is still needed. However they still haven’t come up with anything. Instead we have had to try and come up with something and we have come up with 3 different proposals but keep being told, no, and we have not even been provided by them any suggestions of what they think would work that they would be willing to try and support. Instead we keep being sent back to the drawing board just to keep being told, no. The textbook solutions that can be used in most neighborhoods, will not work here. Now our problem is speeders and volume and now everyone wants to talk about speeds and still do nothing.
I'm sorry, I don't have much faith in a traffic safety committee that when our proposals were shown to them, several individuals did not even have knowledge of basic traffic calming measures. When they do not know what a speed table is, what a chicane is, gateways etc... or even the difference between a speed bump and speed humps, I'm suppose to believe they know what is best for our neighborhood and it's issues. The 2 members of that committee that were involved did vote in our favor. Three that did not take the time to work with us did not. One did not vote and one was not there.
Sibley has between 4 to 8 thousand vehicles a day on it depending on the day of the week or when the survey was taken and is increasing, however since we have not yet reached the all important number of vehicles that are unbearable in a residential neighborhood in so many peoples opinion, I guess we should wait until we are on our death beds before anything is done instead of being proactive and preventing it. I’m so tired of being compared to Wales, Montrose or any of the others that we have been so commonly compared to. I must say there are really very few parallels considering they are not the Historic District, their road is just a little bit bigger than 22ft wide, the traffic on those streets are not commute traffic concentrated at specific points of the day that causes a mile long bumper to bumper traffic in there neighborhood. While they have to suck up the exhaust fumes and can’t even open the windows or doors to there home or be in there front yard (talk about air quality just wait until the summer months). Why is it that everything has to reach boiling point before anything is done. Sutter, Scott and Coloma had been begging for years for help and their pleas were ignored. Then when all …… broke lose they finally received the help they should have received years prior and if they had received that help they would have never had to go through what they did when the dam was closed and the city would not had to of scrambled for a solution. Like them we have been asking for help for years and like them our pleas have been ignored. I guess we will have to wait until we reach …… before some people think we deserve any help. We will have to agree to disagree about Sibley’s function considering that the majority not the minority are using this as a short cut to and from Folsom Blvd, not the Historic District (chk the traffic counts)(Not a difference to Sutter, Scott and Coloma). It is being used by commute traffic, that if it was directed down or up Glenn or Blue Ravine would be, minimal out-of direction travel one or two blocks around just like in Sac and Sutter, Scott and Coloma. The benefit to this is a safe residential neighborhood and better air quality for the residents living here. The closures put in place for Sutter, Scott and Coloma were put in place for the benefits of that neighborhood. The fact that Riley runs smoother because of it is definitely a positive side effect of the real reasons why it was done. However, we have not even been provided the opportunity to see if there are any adverse or positive effects to our proposal and have not been provided any alternatives to that plan by the Traffic Safety Committee (who could have attended our meetings). In addition the amount of violations that are going on in our neighborhood regarding this cities own General Plan can not even all be listed here. Not moving traffic from one neighborhood to another, which was done to us (and now no one wants to fix it), providing a level of service of C or above, moving through traffic away from and around residential neighborhoods etc… etc… etc….
I can’t believe I’m going to say this again. Bidwell, Lembi, Sibley are not the only residential streets in this neighborhood that is being effected by this. Our entire neighborhood is. That is why our committee consists of people from every corner of this neighborhood.
Tony, You and I will never agree on this just as we will never agree on many other issues. We are going to have to agree to disagree and as far as these other proposals, which have been looked at for this area by our committee with the cities Public Works Dept and Traffic Engineer and was agreed on that none of these would work in making this residential street so uncomfortable for people that they will not use it for there commute. These can and will work in other areas but not in this one. When the commuters are at a dead stop or driving 1 to 2 miles an hour through our neighborhood these things are irrelevant to them. They can work for speed but not volume and volume and exhaust and everything else that goes along with it, are just as much of the problem as speeders in this neighborhood. I have to wonder why hasn’t the Traffic Safety Committee suggested any of these measures addressing speed or tried them over the last 2 ½ years (this is just the amount of time that I can document, I'm sure it's been longer than that)this neighborhood was asking for help with speeding. The traffic safety committee has had 2 ½ years to come up with a Traffic Calming Plan, still hasn’t and has done nothing to help us. Matter of fact when I went to them 3/2003 with my concerns I was actually told that they new we had a problem, it’s been there forever and they were not even going to try anything to help us until they received there report from the independent consulting firm this city hired. That report was due 6/2003 and we still have not received any help. This help was needed even prior to the Dam Road being closed and is still needed. However they still haven’t come up with anything. Instead we have had to try and come up with something and we have come up with 3 different proposals but keep being told, no, and we have not even been provided by them any suggestions of what they think would work that they would be willing to try and support. Instead we keep being sent back to the drawing board just to keep being told, no. The textbook solutions that can be used in most neighborhoods, will not work here. Now our problem is speeders and volume and now everyone wants to talk about speeds and still do nothing.
I'm sorry, I don't have much faith in a traffic safety committee that when our proposals were shown to them, several individuals did not even have knowledge of basic traffic calming measures. When they do not know what a speed table is, what a chicane is, gateways etc... or even the difference between a speed bump and speed humps, I'm suppose to believe they know what is best for our neighborhood and it's issues. The 2 members of that committee that were involved did vote in our favor. Three that did not take the time to work with us did not. One did not vote and one was not there.
Sibley has between 4 to 8 thousand vehicles a day on it depending on the day of the week or when the survey was taken and is increasing, however since we have not yet reached the all important number of vehicles that are unbearable in a residential neighborhood in so many peoples opinion, I guess we should wait until we are on our death beds before anything is done instead of being proactive and preventing it. I’m so tired of being compared to Wales, Montrose or any of the others that we have been so commonly compared to. I must say there are really very few parallels considering they are not the Historic District, their road is just a little bit bigger than 22ft wide, the traffic on those streets are not commute traffic concentrated at specific points of the day that causes a mile long bumper to bumper traffic in there neighborhood. While they have to suck up the exhaust fumes and can’t even open the windows or doors to there home or be in there front yard (talk about air quality just wait until the summer months). Why is it that everything has to reach boiling point before anything is done. Sutter, Scott and Coloma had been begging for years for help and their pleas were ignored. Then when all …… broke lose they finally received the help they should have received years prior and if they had received that help they would have never had to go through what they did when the dam was closed and the city would not had to of scrambled for a solution. Like them we have been asking for help for years and like them our pleas have been ignored. I guess we will have to wait until we reach …… before some people think we deserve any help. We will have to agree to disagree about Sibley’s function considering that the majority not the minority are using this as a short cut to and from Folsom Blvd, not the Historic District (chk the traffic counts)(Not a difference to Sutter, Scott and Coloma). It is being used by commute traffic, that if it was directed down or up Glenn or Blue Ravine would be, minimal out-of direction travel one or two blocks around just like in Sac and Sutter, Scott and Coloma. The benefit to this is a safe residential neighborhood and better air quality for the residents living here. The closures put in place for Sutter, Scott and Coloma were put in place for the benefits of that neighborhood. The fact that Riley runs smoother because of it is definitely a positive side effect of the real reasons why it was done. However, we have not even been provided the opportunity to see if there are any adverse or positive effects to our proposal and have not been provided any alternatives to that plan by the Traffic Safety Committee (who could have attended our meetings). In addition the amount of violations that are going on in our neighborhood regarding this cities own General Plan can not even all be listed here. Not moving traffic from one neighborhood to another, which was done to us (and now no one wants to fix it), providing a level of service of C or above, moving through traffic away from and around residential neighborhoods etc… etc… etc….
I can’t believe I’m going to say this again. Bidwell, Lembi, Sibley are not the only residential streets in this neighborhood that is being effected by this. Our entire neighborhood is. That is why our committee consists of people from every corner of this neighborhood.
Margaret Mead wrote, "Never doubt that a few thoughtful people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
#81
Orangetj
-
- Premium Member
-
- 2,237 posts
Living Legend
Posted 05 February 2004 - 08:22 AM
Lembi Resident,
I would love to get involved in this matter. PM me.
Orangetj
I would love to get involved in this matter. PM me.
Orangetj
#82
bordercolliefan
-
- Premium Member
-
- 5,596 posts
Hopeless Addict
- Gender:Female
- Location:Natoma Station
Posted 05 February 2004 - 08:42 AM
Tony --
Interesting post. That is such an insightful point about how few roads go anywhere in Folsom.
I live on a cul de sac in Natoma Station. Practically everyone on our cul de sac works at Intel -- which is about 300 yards away as the crow flies. We have all often said that if only there was a walking path that cut behind the houses, everyone could walk to work. Instead, we have 6 separate vehicles every day going all the way down to Blue Ravine and up Prairie City. (Carpooling is not an option since Intel doesn't believe in a 9 to 5 workday -- everyone works all kinds of long hours over there).
Who plans this stuff anyway??? Or should I say "plans"?
I thought Sibley's problems were because they are an older neighborhood and planners didn't so sufficient planning when they put in those old streets -- but now I see they're not doing such a good job on the newer streets, either.
Interesting post. That is such an insightful point about how few roads go anywhere in Folsom.
I live on a cul de sac in Natoma Station. Practically everyone on our cul de sac works at Intel -- which is about 300 yards away as the crow flies. We have all often said that if only there was a walking path that cut behind the houses, everyone could walk to work. Instead, we have 6 separate vehicles every day going all the way down to Blue Ravine and up Prairie City. (Carpooling is not an option since Intel doesn't believe in a 9 to 5 workday -- everyone works all kinds of long hours over there).
Who plans this stuff anyway??? Or should I say "plans"?
I thought Sibley's problems were because they are an older neighborhood and planners didn't so sufficient planning when they put in those old streets -- but now I see they're not doing such a good job on the newer streets, either.
#83
Terry
-
- Premium Member
-
- 2,425 posts
Living Legend
Posted 05 February 2004 - 08:57 AM
Again this morning about 7:15 am I had the guilty pleasure of seeing a Folsom motorcycle officer pull over a woman in an SUV who blew the sign going southbound on Sibley at Lembi.
I have to give credit to the City. They are doing SOMETHING about this problem. I'd be curious to know the statistics on the number of tickets that have been issued in the area since the recent enforcement effort. But for now, I'm enjoying the heck out of this display of enforcement.
I have to give credit to the City. They are doing SOMETHING about this problem. I'd be curious to know the statistics on the number of tickets that have been issued in the area since the recent enforcement effort. But for now, I'm enjoying the heck out of this display of enforcement.
#84
Orangetj
-
- Premium Member
-
- 2,237 posts
Living Legend
Posted 05 February 2004 - 09:06 AM
Yep, they've definitely stepped up the enforcement. When I left for work this morning, a motorcycle officer had a Toyota Camry pulled over in front of my house. I'm very happy to see the increased presence.
#85
Sibley Resident
-
- New Members
-
- 91 posts
Netizen
Posted 05 February 2004 - 09:16 AM
bordercolliefan, These developments are designed by the developer but must go through, the cities planning dept, traffic safety committee, and City Council. The newer developments, than even yours. The ones that are in the planning phases now are being closely scrutinized by each of these areas especially by one individual on the Traffic Safety committee who is very concerned and committed in making sure these things (Pedestrian, Bicycle etc. safety and access) are not overlooked now and in the future. It’s to bad they can’t go back and fix the mistakes made in previous neighborhoods though. However, like the rest of us in life, there is a learning curve we all must go through. Traffic Safety meetings are public meetings. It is very interesting to see the different issues that are brought before them and how they are handled.
Margaret Mead wrote, "Never doubt that a few thoughtful people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
#86
tony
-
- Premium Member
-
- 1,396 posts
Hall Of Famer
- Gender:Male
- Location:Historic District
Posted 05 February 2004 - 09:58 AM
Sibley Resident: You were up later than I! The city has had a long-standing policy against traffic calming since it failed miserably (due to lack of commitment to do it right, IMHO) in Briggs Ranch about 15 years ago. I have been one of the very few voices in Folsom trying to change that over the past four or five years, and slowly it is changing. You apparently do not appreciate the significance of the TSC and council recommending adoption of a traffic-calming plan. This is a very big step in the right direction. I repeat: the city has, until the last year or two (not entirely coincidentally, about when I was appointed to the TSC) had a policy prohibiting traffic calming. If you don’t like the committee now, you should have seen it 5 years ago! I know it’s not fast enough and seems like more study on top of study, but, as a long-frustrated advocate in this city, I can tell you that things just don’t always happen at the speed they should.
As for your attacks on the committee members (especially those who voted against the closure proposal) I cannot speak for the rest of the committee and won’t try to defend them, but I am quite sure that I have spent as much time as any of you trying to figure out this problem. And while I have spent much time over the past 5 years or so learning about traffic calming, I am not an expert on it, and neither is anyone else on the committee (or on city staff, for that matter). And this problem deserves an expert – someone who has actually done this type of work more than once or twice. Our charge from staff was to comment on the proposals and make a recommendation to council on the final committee proposal, not to design traffic calming measures for the entire neighborhood in a couple of hours. That’s why the ad hoc committee was set up, but should have been set up with a traffic-calming expert to provide direction (no offense Mark).
As for attending the citizens meetings, quite frankly, we weren’t invited, and I don’t think staff’s intent was that the entire TSC participate in the ad hoc committee. Mark was there as staff (it’s his job). I attend a lot of meetings in this city (two already this week), but I happen to have a more than full time job and a growing family. Just a reminder: the TSC is made up of representatives of Public Works, Fire, Police, FCUSD and three citizens reps. One of those spots is reserved (thanks primarily to former councilwoman Dow and councilwoman Howell) for a pedestrian-bicycle advocate. I am the first and only person to have held that position. Like other commissioners, we are not paid to serve, and in fact, I have to take time off from work to attend every meeting. While the committee’s decision was not popular with some of you, I will remind you that in all the public testimony we heard from residents of the affected area, there was not a clear majority in favor of the closure. In fact, by my count, even among Sibley residents there was not a majority in favor. That said, neither the TSC nor council has indicated that they are done with the issue (although council did seem a little fixated on speed and the dam road). And while we may never agree on the best solution for your neighborhood, if I were you, I would change my focus from pushing for a closure to pushing for the city to hire a consultant with expertise in traffic calming to design a solution for the neighborhood. I think the message from council was pretty clear: they aren’t going to support closing the road. But, if done well, traffic calming can not only deal with the traffic problems (although maybe not eliminate them entirely), but also dramatically improve the attractiveness of a neighborhood (unlike the ugly, if temporary, plastic barricades and curbs used at S-S-C). I’m not sure what happened to the traffic consultant who was studying the area. I never saw a report. You might want to investigate that a little further.
PS Thanks for the plug in your latest post.
As for your attacks on the committee members (especially those who voted against the closure proposal) I cannot speak for the rest of the committee and won’t try to defend them, but I am quite sure that I have spent as much time as any of you trying to figure out this problem. And while I have spent much time over the past 5 years or so learning about traffic calming, I am not an expert on it, and neither is anyone else on the committee (or on city staff, for that matter). And this problem deserves an expert – someone who has actually done this type of work more than once or twice. Our charge from staff was to comment on the proposals and make a recommendation to council on the final committee proposal, not to design traffic calming measures for the entire neighborhood in a couple of hours. That’s why the ad hoc committee was set up, but should have been set up with a traffic-calming expert to provide direction (no offense Mark).
As for attending the citizens meetings, quite frankly, we weren’t invited, and I don’t think staff’s intent was that the entire TSC participate in the ad hoc committee. Mark was there as staff (it’s his job). I attend a lot of meetings in this city (two already this week), but I happen to have a more than full time job and a growing family. Just a reminder: the TSC is made up of representatives of Public Works, Fire, Police, FCUSD and three citizens reps. One of those spots is reserved (thanks primarily to former councilwoman Dow and councilwoman Howell) for a pedestrian-bicycle advocate. I am the first and only person to have held that position. Like other commissioners, we are not paid to serve, and in fact, I have to take time off from work to attend every meeting. While the committee’s decision was not popular with some of you, I will remind you that in all the public testimony we heard from residents of the affected area, there was not a clear majority in favor of the closure. In fact, by my count, even among Sibley residents there was not a majority in favor. That said, neither the TSC nor council has indicated that they are done with the issue (although council did seem a little fixated on speed and the dam road). And while we may never agree on the best solution for your neighborhood, if I were you, I would change my focus from pushing for a closure to pushing for the city to hire a consultant with expertise in traffic calming to design a solution for the neighborhood. I think the message from council was pretty clear: they aren’t going to support closing the road. But, if done well, traffic calming can not only deal with the traffic problems (although maybe not eliminate them entirely), but also dramatically improve the attractiveness of a neighborhood (unlike the ugly, if temporary, plastic barricades and curbs used at S-S-C). I’m not sure what happened to the traffic consultant who was studying the area. I never saw a report. You might want to investigate that a little further.
PS Thanks for the plug in your latest post.
#87
Orangetj
-
- Premium Member
-
- 2,237 posts
Living Legend
Posted 05 February 2004 - 10:21 AM
Tony,
Thanks for your service and for the additional perspective on the situation. If closure will not be considered further, we do need to move ahead with other alternatives. I, for one, would be in favor of additional stop signs along Lembi Drive at each intersection, as well as traffic circles or chicanes (if they can be done somewhat attractively) in strategic locations, such as the intersection of Sibley/Lembi and Sibley/Bidwell. While many people seem to disregard the existing stop signs, having 3 or 4 of them in close succession would probably have at least some effect. This also seems like a very inexpensive approach that could be tried. These things would at least make the roads less attractive to cut through traffic, and particularly in the case of Lembi Drive, would eliminate the resemblance to a freeway! Somebody posted earlier that you can't make a road look like a freeway and expect people to drive 25 mph on it. That is absolutely correct. The striping did basically nothing to resolve the problem, as people just drive in the bike lanes. I notice that even residents of the neighborhood speed on Lembi. Don't even get me started on the people I watch come downhill from Riley and then turn on Sibley. With nothing to force them to slow down, it is very easy for a car to get up to 40 or 50 mph coming down that hill. We have to be extremely cautious backing out of our driveway to avoid being hit by a speeding car that can come from beyond the line of sight to right in front of our house in less time than it takes to back out and get going down the street.
Thanks for your service and for the additional perspective on the situation. If closure will not be considered further, we do need to move ahead with other alternatives. I, for one, would be in favor of additional stop signs along Lembi Drive at each intersection, as well as traffic circles or chicanes (if they can be done somewhat attractively) in strategic locations, such as the intersection of Sibley/Lembi and Sibley/Bidwell. While many people seem to disregard the existing stop signs, having 3 or 4 of them in close succession would probably have at least some effect. This also seems like a very inexpensive approach that could be tried. These things would at least make the roads less attractive to cut through traffic, and particularly in the case of Lembi Drive, would eliminate the resemblance to a freeway! Somebody posted earlier that you can't make a road look like a freeway and expect people to drive 25 mph on it. That is absolutely correct. The striping did basically nothing to resolve the problem, as people just drive in the bike lanes. I notice that even residents of the neighborhood speed on Lembi. Don't even get me started on the people I watch come downhill from Riley and then turn on Sibley. With nothing to force them to slow down, it is very easy for a car to get up to 40 or 50 mph coming down that hill. We have to be extremely cautious backing out of our driveway to avoid being hit by a speeding car that can come from beyond the line of sight to right in front of our house in less time than it takes to back out and get going down the street.
#88
Sibley Resident
-
- New Members
-
- 91 posts
Netizen
Posted 05 February 2004 - 10:33 AM
Tony, we are all on a learning curve and no I'm not the least bit satisfied with our cities Traffic Safety Committee, I do appreciate the Traffic Safety Committee finally taking an interest in Traffic Calming. However, how long will it be before they come up with Traffic Calming procedures? This city cannot wait another 15, 5, 2 years to get some help. In my opinion the Traffic Safety Committee needs a complete over hall with some new fresh blood, just as you indicated you are, and now things are slowly changing. Maybe if there were more new blood it could go a little faster. In the middle of all this bickering and arguing is a neighborhood that is drowning and needs help. I actually live it, so no, the progress in this is not satisfactory. Fortunately, you made most of my points for me regarding this so I don't have to go into them and I agree we need experts and we have asked.
Maybe we should have sent a formal invent to the Traffic Safety Committee regarding Traffic Calming meetings, However, these were extensive and over a long period of time not a few hours and they could have joined anyone of them to give suggestions or recommendations on what they would or would not except so we were not spinning our wheels and wasting our precious time. The impression that we just pulled this out of our hat in a few hours is entirely incorrect and you know that.
I will not deny you are one of the few that are educated on this matter, but believe me our committee is to and we just have a different point of view. For every point you can make I'm sure I can supply the documentation countering it. Just as every point I make there is documentation countering it. It is the interpretation and we obviously see that different (and will since we are the ones living in this mess) and have a right to.
I do thank you for your efforts regarding speed but would greatly appreciate volume to be seriously considered as a real problem for this neighborhood.
Maybe we should have sent a formal invent to the Traffic Safety Committee regarding Traffic Calming meetings, However, these were extensive and over a long period of time not a few hours and they could have joined anyone of them to give suggestions or recommendations on what they would or would not except so we were not spinning our wheels and wasting our precious time. The impression that we just pulled this out of our hat in a few hours is entirely incorrect and you know that.
I will not deny you are one of the few that are educated on this matter, but believe me our committee is to and we just have a different point of view. For every point you can make I'm sure I can supply the documentation countering it. Just as every point I make there is documentation countering it. It is the interpretation and we obviously see that different (and will since we are the ones living in this mess) and have a right to.
I do thank you for your efforts regarding speed but would greatly appreciate volume to be seriously considered as a real problem for this neighborhood.
Margaret Mead wrote, "Never doubt that a few thoughtful people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
#89
Stephen
-
- New Members
-
- 24 posts
Netizen
Posted 09 February 2004 - 12:10 AM
It has been very interesting to follow this discussion. What is happening now with the traffic problem in the Sibley area? Is the City meeting with you? What about this Traffic Safety Committee?
I thought that a 60-day trial sounded reasonable. However, if the City was not in favor of that solution, they should work with you to find another. Right?
I sincerely hope the City moves forward expeditiously. This would benefit the whole city, since Folsom has numerous other spots with traffic problems. (I would think they would start with the Sibley area, since it has already been identified as a problem area.)
I am glad that your citizen's group has taken the lead in addressing our growing traffic concerns. Thanks.
I thought that a 60-day trial sounded reasonable. However, if the City was not in favor of that solution, they should work with you to find another. Right?
I sincerely hope the City moves forward expeditiously. This would benefit the whole city, since Folsom has numerous other spots with traffic problems. (I would think they would start with the Sibley area, since it has already been identified as a problem area.)
I am glad that your citizen's group has taken the lead in addressing our growing traffic concerns. Thanks.
#90
Orangetj
-
- Premium Member
-
- 2,237 posts
Living Legend
Posted 18 February 2004 - 02:43 PM
So, has anything new happened with regards to traffic calming plans for the Sibley/Bidwell/Lembi areas? It's clear that the closure isn't going to happen, but what WILL be done? I would sure hate to see the city let this issue fall by the wayside.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
