219 replies to this topic

[bordercolliefan]

Shadow,

You express similar concerns to those that I expressed in anticipation of the closing. (See the prior threads). I too, use Sibley to take my children to preschool (though not during the closure hours).

I was concerned about the impact of a closure on other Folsom residents (like you and me) who legitimately use Sibley not to bypass arterial routes to achieve a faster commute, but simply to get where we are going in the historic district.

We are all sympathetic to the issues raised by the Sibley residents -- as to which this forum has done much to educate us. I would like to see some relief for them, but I have always felt a closure is too drastic a solution.

The concerns of other Folsom residents are important. I would encourage you and your neighbors to let the City Council (as well as this forum) know of your experiences (good and bad) with the closure.

[tony]

QUOTE (Sibley Resident @ Apr 21 2004, 09:37 AM)

...such as the Speed Humps (Speed Bumps) which were already recommended and turned down by some city departments for what are valid reasons to them. ...That would require a brick wall (like many of the better planned new developments) with specific entry and exit points to accomplish that.

Sibley: Great choice of phrase: "for what are valid reasons to them"

However, I'm not so excited about the implication that walled subdivisions represent better planning. It is the preponderance of those walled subdivisions in the rest of the city, and the lack of an adequate system of arterials to serve them (exacerbated by geographic constraints), that is the root cause of the traffic problems in the HD. These walled subdivisions result in dramatically more traffic than the grid type development in the HD by making every trip significantly longer than necessary, as Shadow suggests, and turning many walking trips into driving trips. That said, the closure of Sibley is merely one of the many contributing factors to the excessive traffic in town, and it is certainly not reasonable to expect the HD to bear the brunt of the traffic-inducing sprawl that passed for planning in the rest of the city (some of the best looking sprawl in America, I might add).

One final comment. Would it have been too much to ask for bicyclists to be able to take advantage of the lack of traffic during the closure hours (and for pedestrians no to have to navigate barricades on the sidewalk)? Or should they be using the arterials too? I find it insulting that the city would use a barricade with a "Bike Lane Closed" sign to block the one opening large enough for bikes to pass through, especially when there isn't even a bike lane there to close. What possible benefit could there be to preventing bicyclists from using Sibley when it is closed to through traffic. The closed road should be an invitation to bicyclists to sue this suddenly safer route, not another excuse to put up barricades. This is not the action of a "Bike Friendly" city, which our council so loudly proclaims Folsom to be.

[Sibley Resident]

Tony, I will always disagree with you on opening up neighborhoods and the idea that if every car could go anywhere they want that the traffic would some how distribute evenly through them and everyone can get to where they are going faster. There will always be someone that can get to the route faster than others. Example of this theory being rebutted is Sutter/Coloma/Scott and Riley. It use to be that the people cutting through these streets may have gotten to Riley quicker (I doubt it) because they were cutting through that neighborhood to get thier. The result was the people waiting on Riley prior to those entry points had to wait longer because of them. Now that the roads have been closed and there is not an intrusion of side traffic coming off the residential streets, the traffic flow on Riley is now quicker. The people on Riley benefited from this while the others that now have to use Natoma to Riley (arterials instead of neighborhoods) may have to wait a little longer. One before had to wait longer because of the other and now, who waits for the other, maybe has been exchanged. It is however a fact that Riley runs smoother because of the closures. The benefits to this is a safe, wonderful neighborhood a significant portion of the cities HD to live in and a quicker Riley. This is just a disagreement we will always have and I'm sure we could go back and fourth forever debating it with our points.

QUOTE

Sibley is merely one of the many contributing factors to the excessive traffic in town, and it is certainly not reasonable to expect the HD to bear the brunt of the traffic-inducing sprawl

Thank you very much for this statement. Even though you have disagreed with our solution. I greatly appreciate you giving it an honest try and the fact that you don't feel, as so many I have heard, that we should take the brunt of it just as long as they are not inconvenienced.

As far as the bicycle access, that disturbs me very much. It is much, much safer for the pedestrians and bicyclists during these hours and it is very important that they have access. I somehow was under the impression that there would be access. Maybe, because of the sidewalk, which I agree is not for the bicyclists. Have you called or emailed to ask about this? I do not want to see this persist for the next 27 days. I would be more than happy to see all the bicycles and pedestrians. Our neighborhood has definitely been taking advantage of the additional safety and I have not seen so many children out during those times yesterday and some on bikes that I have never seen on their bikes in the neighborhood.

[tony]

Sibley: Yes, the importance of keeping Sibley open for bicyclists and pedestrians was made very clear prior to the closure (why else would they think to put up a "Bike Lane Closed" sign where there is no bike lane?). I have also compained since the closure went in. But I've also been complaining to no avail for 6 months about the fact that the Sutter-Coloma closure blocks bicycle access from Sutter St. to our $2 Million bike-pedestrian Historic Truss. In both cases I was assured by staff that the closures would be bicycle and pedestrian friendly.

[Sibley Resident]

Is there anything I can do to help? Other than open Sibley of course! Let me know here or PM me and I will be happy to help if I can.

[tony]

Sibley: Thanks for offering. Sure. Let your favorite staff or council member know that the neighborhood values the bike and pedestrian access, not just us crazy commuters.

[Terry]

Certainly pedestrians and bicyclists can get through the closure on the sidewalk.

At any rate, we walked down there again last night and there is room for pedestrians and bicyclists to get through. The sign simply says "Bike Lane Closed" because they had to put the gate in the area where the bike lane striping on the asphalt is (it ends anyway about 30 feet down at the end of the sidewalk anyway). So I believe the City's sign literally means that the asphalt part of the bike lane is closed, and the sign is NOT intended to prevent pedestrian or bicycle traffic. And there is no such sign prohibiting bicyclists on the other end of Sibley going south to the closure from Bidwell, so just read the sign literally - the striped asphalt bike lane is closed and you'll have to ride your bike (or walk) up on the sidewalk instead.

I think the placement of the sign and the cones are just a further deterrent to those vehicles who would insist on driving up on the sidewalk to get around the gate. And it has already happened several times - check out the black tire marks on the sidewalk/curbs to the one side of the gate (these are not bicycle tire marks!), drivers will try anything! They'll have to plow over the cones now though.

[tony]

Well, the situation for bicyclists is at least tolerable now that they have moved the barrricades off of the sidewalk. But the signage could be much, much better. The advance signs should indicate that it is open for bicyclists. There should be signs on both sides of the gate saying bikes use sidewalk (otherwise it's illegal). In a bike-friendyl world, they would have left a 5-ft gap onm either side of the gate for bicyclists (and pedestrians on the west side) to pass.

Terry:

I 'm sure the purpose of the extra barricades was to keep rogue motorists off of the sidewalk, but at some point you have to think about the impact on the law-abiding citizens. Barricading the sideawalk and teh small gap in the shoulder was teh result of thinking only about the scofflaws.

Sorry, it may be semantics in your view, but there are no bike lanes anywhere on Sibley. A paved shoulder, while useful to bicyclists, is not a bike lane unless so designated (as they are elsewhere in the city). Consequently, posting bike lane closed signs does nothing but create confusion and imply that bikes are not, indeed, allowed beyond the closure.

[Terry]

Well, then, if there are no bike lanes anywhere on Sibley, how could a bike lane be closed????

I agree it's all semantics, but I also think the confusion is that if you're coming down Lembi with its striped bike lanes, and you turn right on Sibley where the sidewalk for the new homes continues just for 30 or 40 feet or so on Sibley, I believe the striped bike lane continues to where the sidewalk ends. There are just the very short places on Sibley right at Lembi and then again in front of Diamond Glen that have sidewalks. That won't change until new development comes.

As of last night's closure, it seems things are calming down, although I still see quite a few people who don't believe the signs and try to go down Sibley between 4:00 and 7:00. I had to go out at 4:45 and found that traffic in the area and even uptown was not as bad as I had anticipated. Went Sibley to Natoma and up towards the dam direction.

[Lembi Resident]

Yesterday (Wed.) evening I also noticed that the streets seemed to be much calmer. Could it be that the eastbound traffic is using Glenn instead of Lembi Dr.? I noticed that the city moved the electronic message board south of Glenn, and added a message to direct traffic to Glenn as an alternate route. I think that is helping.

A VERY important additional note: Daytime eastbound traffic on Lembi also seems to be reduced!! I am guessing that the "no left turn" onto Riley is discouraging cut-through traffic.

[tony]

Terry: That's my point. You don't put up a sign to say that something is closed when it doesn't exist. And, no, the edge line on that 30 ft stretch of Sibley does not constitute a bike lane. A bike lane is a shoulder that says bike lane in it with a picture of a bike. It is not just semantics. And. if the sign were there because of the Lembi Bike Lanes, as you say, then why wasn't there a permanent sign? Try again.

[Terry]

Geez, Tony, lighten up...........I was agreeing with you!

[tony]

Terry: Sorry, it didn't seem like it.

[Lembi Resident]

Tony: Those "bike lanes" on Lembi in actuality do not serve as bike lanes. Few bicyclists use the bike lane. Instead, they use the space between the curb and the bike lane, and often ride on the sidewalk.

Those stripes were painted on the street about two years ago in an attempt to create the illusion of a more narrow street, and thereby help to reduce speeds on the street. It has not reduced speeding on Lembi. It has created some confusion with motorists about where they should be driving. Some drive down the street with two wheels in the bike lane, others drive down the middle of the street, nearly head-on with traffic in the other direction. There are also those motorists who seem to think that those stripes designate a right-hand passing lane. (If you drive 25 mph on Lembi you will quite frequently be passed on either the left or the right. Or, your day will be brightened with honking, flashing brights or colorful hand gestures.)

Perhaps Lembi needs a dotted line down the center of the street to guide drivers (???).

[Orangetj]

Lembi Resident is spot on in regards to people's driving habits on Lembi. I've had numerous people attempt to pass me on Lembi while I've driving 25 mph. I've also had people tailgate me and flash their high beams at me. Something needs to be done to help control the speeds of drivers on Lembi. My suggestion has been additional stop signs at the uncontrolled intersections along Lembi. If not that, perhaps speed humps in a couple of places along the road. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that people drive very fast down Lembi and that the way the street is laid out (very wide, downhill, and with only one stop sign) does nothing to promote slower driving.