KCrides - yes, there are others out there that care and have been involved. I did make the meeting last night. I don't have much to say right now, other than that a few business and land owners have effectively sunk any chance at making any significant changes in the CBD portion of the corridor any time soon. The draft report, including everything that was presented at the open house, is available on the city's web site. The traffic reduction argument is really a red herring, because if you listened to the consultants carefully (or read the report), you would have heard that the 2-lane option from Wales to Riley, with the roundabouts, would function just fine, with an assumed diversion of traffic of about 20% (mostly to Riley). I would note that a 3-lane (with center left turn lane) road with roundabouts has the essentially the same capacity as a 5-lane road with traffic signals. The extra lanes are only required to get cars through the traffic lights after they stack up at the red lights. It's good to remember that at traffic lights, at any given moment, three fourths of the vehicles are STOPPED, whereas at roundabouts, most vehicles get through without stopping, ore after only a brief stop. Other benefits of the road diet option are that it makes it much easier for vehicles to get out of businesses and onto the road because they have less lanes of traffic to deal with and it is slows all traffic to a safer speed by eliminating passing, a decided benefit in a business district.
You'll note that all that had no mention of bicyclists or pedestrians. Certainly, the pedestrian environment leaves a lot to be desired, and I would only add to what other have said that a major problem in the CBD, and especially in the newer parts closer to Blue Ravine, is that there are no connections between the sidewalk (where it exists) and the businesses (try to get to Carl's Jr. or La Fiesta from the sidewalk -- there is 15 ft of nice landscaping making sure you can't). We built a pedestrian hell, and then wonder why no-one walks anywhere.
As for bicyclists, the attitude expressed by Camay's comment about having lots of bike paths to ride on is exactly why, even with all those bike paths, Folsom has some of the lowest bike commuting levels in the region. As CW pointed out, the whole point of this planning process was to come up with a complete streets plan, a plan that would provide access for all modes in the corridor. But the recommended plan in the CBD (actually, the report shows no recommendation at all, just a bunch of considered but rejected options) offers a street that will remain indefinitely as off-limits to all but what is called in the industry the "strong and fearless", or roughly 1% of the people who rides bikes (I make a point to ride down E. Bidwell on occasion, just to prove that it can be done safely if you know what you're doing). The plan, unfortunately, punts by suggesting that bicyclists should be directed to School and Riley. While these are both much better streets on which to ride, they do not provide access to destinations on E. Bidwell, which is the whole point of complete streets. So, basically, the proposal to keep the status quo in the CBD is a commitment to keep the corridor as a one-dimensional travel corridor dedicated to moving cars as quickly as possible THROUGH the district, rather than making it more attractive for those who want to go TO location IN the district.
There are a couple of positive notes. I think the idea of extending Riley to E. Bidwell is great and should be pursued. I also was told at the meeting that the city will be looking into doing a specific plan for the CBD, which would consider zoning changes that could prompt redevelopment of the older parts and slowly evolve the development into something more compatible with complete streets-- i.e., mixed-use developments that will develop into a walkable area, which can only happen with higher density and storefronts at the back of sidewalk (this is where maestro chirps in about the illegal zoning changes). In the mean time, those who do walk and bike in the corridor, will continue to be out of luck. The other parts that we may see happen in the shorter term are minor improvements to Glenn and Wales between Riley and E. Bidwell, and conversion of School St. into a bike boulevard (which has been in the Bikeway Master Plan for about 15 years). If done right, this would address the concerns about cut-thru traffic on School, and ideally Duchow as well. But, given the city's current effective ban on any effective traffic calming, I'll believe it when I see it, because you can't create a viable bike boulevard without real traffic calming.
As long as we think of our streets as nothing more than conduits to efficiently move cars, we will continue to have streets that people just want to get through as fast as possible, instead of places that people want to go. I fear we are a long way from any change in that direction beyond Sutter Street.
OK, so I did have a few words to say...
