As We Kill Reverse-Angled Parking, We Need to Find Ways To Change the Way We Conduct Our Lives –
This is an idea whose time has clearly not arrived yet. That is fine. That is why we live in a democracy and we have a process by which we can bring forward ideas, discuss them, and possibly ultimately reject them. I will remind people, however, that the idea of a road diet was seen as preposterous a few years ago. In fact, some people probably still feel that way. However, it is going to be an idea that will be implemented in the very near future.
Regardless, I want to talk about new ideas today. New ideas are inherently shot down. But in these times of declining revenues, stagnating budgets, economic downturns, climate change and other changes we cannot afford to have people thinking the same way as we always have.
Davis once was at the forefront of innovation, whether it was through the incorporation of bike lanes, smoking ordinances, environmental design such as Village Homes, and many more. I have argued for four years that we have become too conservative, too staid, too willing to rest on our laurels.
We want to build a bike museum that people cannot bike to because the main street has no bike lanes.
We have fallen into the rut that the idea of curbing wood burning is ludicrous, even as the rest of the state is being forced to make the same sorts of changes.
We have built recent subdivisions with the same old design features that every other subdivision in the region is using.
We justify our poor budgeting, and out of proportion wages and benefits, by looking to other neighboring communities. And when all of these cities fall off the cliff or drop from the sky, we will be there too, because we followed them right into the precipice.
Where is our innovation? Where is our uniqueness?
We are facing huge change in these times from finances, to budget, to the economy and to the global climate.
We cannot do business the way we have for most of our lives. We have to make serious choice.
I am not saying that we need to enact every new hair-brained scheme that comes our way. But the time has come to throw out the old book and write a new one.
What I like about Joe Krovoza’s proposal is that it interlocks two key themes, it connects a funding scheme – through grant money received to redesign Second Street – to a multimodal thinking on transportation. We need to do more, rather than less, of that sort of thinking. And to my mind, Mr. Krovoza should be applauded for bringing that proposal forward.
To me the council overcomplicated its goals. Our goals should be threefold in this community.
First, we need to figure out how to continue to provide a good level of service to this community in an affordable and sustainable fashion. To do that, we need to figure out how to reduce our current cost obligations, anticipate future problems with finances, figure out which services to provide and how to provide them in the most cost-effective and efficient manner.
Second, we need to transform this town from an automobile-driven community that likes to bike, to a true multimodal transportation community. Right now we design everything with the fossil fuel burning vehicle as the primary transportation mode, with everything else secondary at best.
Part of that is changing the way we develop. Sprawl on the periphery leads to more need for automobiles. Redesigning the core and putting new population closer to the university and to modes of transportation for commuting is essential.
We talk about biking and public transit, but we have not integrated all forms of transportation into a single unit.
Third, we need to figure out what Davis’ business and economic community is going to look like. We have heard talk about retail, high tech, green tech, etc. We need to plan our core around that economy and implement practices that will encourage it.
The bottom line here is that in five years, in ten years we will be living in a very different world from the one we live in now. The council needs to figure out a way to fix our finances or face very dire consequences there. This community needs to, along with other communities, fix our climate or we will all face very dire consequences in that as well.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
In order to limit spending we need to limit salaries and benefits. I do not know the exact % of the City budget that goes to labor but labor is about 2/3 of our economy overall and is likely a higher percentage for the City since services are labor intensive.
I have proposed a proposition limiting wages and salaries several times which has fallen on deaf ears on this blog. I guess its not a sexy “innovative” idea. Except of course for the fact that its not done anywhere else that I know of in California and it might actually work. Our CC has shown us they cannot be fiscally responsible. Indeed we are moving backward since we now only have one CC member who seems to care (Sue) whereas before we had two (Sue and Lamar). THis is not progress it is the opposite (regress?).
As far as transportation, again I’d favor a realistic approach as opposed to gimmicks. The critical issue here is to create more housing/work close to downtown Davis or to create spaces where people can live in work (again closer to downtown). THat is why CV and WHR were bad ideas.
Building a sports complex on the periphery of Davis will also make matters worse. You are not going to change most people’s behavior. Davis is already far more bike friendly that most towns/cities and the US and we should continue to build on that, but most people will take the easiest route which unfortunately in our society means using a car. If more people live within walking distance or services, more people will walk. If they live farther away most will drive (a few will bike). This is not rocket science. Reverse angle parking changes little. Maybe some people feel better, but I don’t. At best its a very very modest improvement. At worst its a gimmick–or maybe we should call it faux innovation.
Green technology is a growth industry (unfortunately its growing much faster in Germany, Holland and Denmark and even in China than in the US). What are we doing about that?
I don’t want gimmicks. I want good government. We have good services and a great town but our fiscal house is not in order.
Global warming is killing our planet. I don’t want gimmicks that make people feel better.
I don’t want Davis to be known as the center of faux innovation.
In order to limit spending we need to limit salaries and benefits. I do not know the exact % of the City budget that goes to labor but labor is about 2/3 of our economy overall and is likely a higher percentage for the City since services are labor intensive.
I have proposed a proposition limiting wages and salaries several times which has fallen on deaf ears on this blog. I guess its not a sexy “innovative” idea. Except of course for the fact that its not done anywhere else that I know of in California and it might actually work. Our CC has shown us they cannot be fiscally responsible. Indeed we are moving backward since we now only have one CC member who seems to care (Sue) whereas before we had two (Sue and Lamar). THis is not progress it is the opposite (regress?).
As far as transportation, again I’d favor a realistic approach as opposed to gimmicks. The critical issue here is to create more housing/work close to downtown Davis or to create spaces where people can live in work (again closer to downtown). THat is why CV and WHR were bad ideas.
Building a sports complex on the periphery of Davis will also make matters worse. You are not going to change most people’s behavior. Davis is already far more bike friendly that most towns/cities and the US and we should continue to build on that, but most people will take the easiest route which unfortunately in our society means using a car. If more people live within walking distance or services, more people will walk. If they live farther away most will drive (a few will bike). This is not rocket science. Reverse angle parking changes little. Maybe some people feel better, but I don’t. At best its a very very modest improvement. At worst its a gimmick–or maybe we should call it faux innovation.
Green technology is a growth industry (unfortunately its growing much faster in Germany, Holland and Denmark and even in China than in the US). What are we doing about that?
I don’t want gimmicks. I want good government. We have good services and a great town but our fiscal house is not in order.
Global warming is killing our planet. I don’t want gimmicks that make people feel better.
I don’t want Davis to be known as the center of faux innovation.
Last I check the cost of labor is 71 percent of our general fund. That’s a low figure because it doesn’t factor in future liabilities.
I’m with you on a sports complex on the periphery. I think we need to re-think that.
I disagree on reverse angle parking, I think we need to fundamentally change the way out streets are structured, one of those structures is incursions into bike space. I’d add to that green waste dumping in the middle of bike lanes which is a huge hazard for bicyclists. I should have put that into my original column. The research on reverse angle parking is solid, it’s not something new. A lot of other countries are way ahead of this country in terms of roads.
Ok lets suppose we move to reverse ange parking on 4th street and make these other “innovation” As I’ve blogged earlier I’m not opposed as long as the cost is low, but I have a more basic question?
So what?
What have we changed? What have we really innovated. How many more people will bike? My first order approximation is zero. Is that the best we can do?
The problems is that the ideas do not go far enough. Reverse-angle parking? Is that revolutionary or something? I think not.
How about Bob Dunnings idea about making Second Street a pedestrian / biking parkway and close it to cars? He’s mentioned it in his column before, and he brought it up again when he talked about reverse angle parking. I realize it isn’t his idea alone, but no other public figure champions it.
Why is Bob Dunning bringing forth the more creative, ground-breaking, lifestyle changing idea?
And Zipcars? I mean come on- that only furthers the car-dependent culture. How about bike sharing programs?
The kneejerk reactions I see are because these ideas are touted as something special or grounbreaking but the really are not. The reaction is one of irritation: “is this supposedly great idea really worth debating?”
Perhaps we should send our Council members on a junket to a city where reverse angle parking is already working and let them try it. I think they would be very impressed with it’s ease of operation and increased safety. It’s a shame to see true innovation being seen as a gimmick. It’s time for real change. It’s time for Plan B.
I have never understood why reverse angle parking is such a solution? Who wants car and truck exhausts streaming out onto the sidewalk, people passing by, and sidewalk cafes and store entrances. Car exhaust is poison and from studies I have read can sit at building level and be trapped.
For all the benefits discussed, this huge negative has not had the attention it deserves. I would vote no for this redesign.
David Greenwald,
My concerns about reverse angle parking actually have to do with my advocacy of change. With reverse-angled parking, the cars’ tailpipes abut the sidewalk, which means that the exhaust and the noise are pointed directly at pedestrians. And people sitting at the sidewalk café tables could have the tailpipes a foot or two from their noses.
I don’t even like walking in shopping mall parking lots behind cars with their engines running, let alone down the streets of our downtown, and I suspect that many people would react the same way. I am happy that Joe brought the topic up, and I think it might work when we have enough quiet, exhaust-free electric vehicles on the road to reserve such parking for them. But for now, we have gone to great lengths to make our downtown pedestrian-friendly. To me, that is real change.
Green technology is a growth industry (unfortunately its growing much faster in Germany, Holland and Denmark and even in China than in the US). What are we doing about that?
I don’t want gimmicks. I want good government. We have good services and a great town but our fiscal house is not in order.
Global warming is killing our planet. I don’t want gimmicks that make people feel better.
It’s interesting that you mention Germany, Holland, and Denmark, maybe even China, too. I am certain that the first three countries require a bigger tax burden on its citizens. Yet in the U.S. there are general complaints that the current tax burden is too high. By several measures that are supposed to indicate happiness and satisfaction in the general population, as well as overall economic strength and resilience, those same countries frequently rank higher than the U.S. I have the distinct impression that our expectations are not in line with the appropriate effort and mindset to get there.
Nancy Price: Amazing. Our posts were simultaneous — 9:12 A.M. — and we said the exactly the same thing. Oh, well. I guess all us anti-change types think alike!
Reverse-angle parking is worth a shot, but as many others have said, it’s at best a half measure. On the other hand, even from my position of extreme bike/ped advocacy and anti-car sentiment, I think closing 2nd to cars would be both a non-starter politically and probably bad for downtown.
But what about widening the sidewalks substantially, thus narrowing the street and limiting it to parallel parking? This would have at least three benefits: (1) allow for greater use of the sidewalks for outdoor seating, enlivening downtown; (2) dramatically improve bicycling safety by allowing for creating of a bike lane; (3) improve driver safety by eliminating the blind back-out.
I can only think of one drawback (other than the cost) — slightly reduced parking capacity. That could be alleviated by building a paying garage at the Amtrak lot, which would have its own benefits.
[quote]With reverse-angled parking, the cars’ tailpipes abut the sidewalk, which means that the exhaust and the noise are pointed directly at pedestrians. And people sitting at the sidewalk café tables could have the tailpipes a foot or two from their noses. [/quote]
Like it’s really different from having the exhaust 8-10 feet away?
I agree with Danthelawyer. I have made similar suggestions on a more limited basis a number of times.
When the tank house was under discussion and the 3nd and E Street bulb-out was being planned, I suggested taking out a parking space or two in front of the Hunt-Boyer, and perhaps on it’s E Street side as well, in order to expand the bulb-out into a larger yard space with which to better showcase the Hunt-Boyer and compensate for the loss of space on its other side.
The owner of an adjacent property adamantly opposed even this small decrease in the number of parking spaces.
It has never been easy to balance the merchants’ need for parking with the desire for more outdoor dining spaces and pedestrian amenities.
From the merchants’ point of view, they are dealing with the reality that most people drive automobiles whether we like it or not, and they have to compete with malls and shopping centers that have almost unlimited parking, so I understand their point of view.
[quote]Like it’s really different from having the exhaust 8-10 feet away? [/quote]As a chronic pedestrian, I would say yes.
I’m not buying the “increased safety” claim of reverse-angle parking, and here is why:
1) When a car stops to back in, the cars/bikes behind have no idea what the car that stopped is going to do. It could be stopped bc of a car in front, or may be backing up to park (either parallel or reverse-angle parking) Yet when a car backs out of a space, it is very clear to everyone what the car backing out is doing. A car stopping in the middle of the road to parallel park or to back up to reverse-angle park is a hazard to other cars and to bikes who don’t know what it is going to do.
2) Cars stopped to back up to either parallel park or reverse-angle park will stop traffic and slow down the overall traffic flow.
3) Cars that are backing into a reverse-angle parking space are just as likely to hit a bike as the car that backs out of the space. In both cases, the driver has difficulty seeing an oncoming bike.
4) The difficulty of backing into a parking space is much higher than backing. Why? Because when backing out, the danger is in hitting the car on either side of you. But the driver is closer to the front end of the car and can see better whether the car will hit the cars on either side. When backing into the space, the back end of the car is much farther away from the driver, which makes it much more difficult to miss hitting the car on either side of the space.
As Sue Greenwald has pointed out, there is the issue of tail pipe exhaust flooding the sidewalks for pedestrians and diners if there is reverse-angle parking.
In addition, there is the added cost of restriping, and any other changes that may be required to implement reverse-angle parking.
Having parallel parking, reverse-angle parking, front-angle parking all in the same town becomes very confusing, in a city that is already overcrowded with cars/bikes/pedestrians/Unitrans buses. Do we really need more confusion added to the mix?
Many who choose not to parallel park (especially seniors with limited neck mobility), bc they find it too difficult, will not use reverse-angle parking either. If you keep decreasing the easy to park spaces, less people are going to shop downtown. Less shoppers downtown could spell doom for its economic health and vitality.
The negatives of this idea so outweigh any positives (and I can’t see any positives), it was wise to table this idea, and hopefully shelve it permanently.
I have no problem with Joe Krovoza suggesting innovative ideas, but I think it is wise to think through thoroughly the ramifications of any novel approaches first. Was there any opportunity for meaningful public input before the matter was brought to City Council? If there was, I never heard of it or just plain missed it. What I did hear the night this issue was decided was “we don’t know if this will work or not, but let’s just give it a try, you never know…”. We don’t need to try every new idea that comes down the road (pun intended) to know if it is a good one or not. And we certainly should not be spending any money on new ideas we are not very sure will even work.
I applaud Rochelle’s concern that this idea would cost money and her “no” vote; as well as Sue’s “no” vote because of the exhaust issue. And I applaud city staff’s hesitation to institute this experimental idea in light of the many doubts raised of its efficacy. The city staff was absolutely correct on this one…
dmg:”First, we need to figure out how to continue to provide a good level of service to this community in an affordable and sustainable fashion. To do that, we need to figure out how to reduce our current cost obligations, anticipate future problems with finances, figure out which services to provide and how to provide them in the most cost-effective and efficient manner.”
AMEN!
dmg: “Second, we need to transform this town from an automobile-driven community that likes to bike, to a true multimodal transportation community. Right now we design everything with the fossil fuel burning vehicle as the primary transportation mode, with everything else secondary at best.”
There are many good reasons why people use their cars. Bikes are heavily used in this town. And Unitrans is one of the best public transit systems in the country, and completely student run to boot. I’m not quite sure where you are going with this idea of trying to force a “true multimodal transportation system”. For instance, how often do you use your bike to travel in a week? Let’s suppose you use your bike a lot. Why do I have to subscribe to riding a bike, when it may not suit my particular needs, even if it happens to suit yours? If you truly are in favor of eliminating cars altogether, then what you want is much like what some isolated Great Lakes island town in Michigan(?) has (the name escapes me) where no cars are allowed period – only horses and wagons. A similar idea has been floated like that for Davis – close off downtown Davis to cars, with outlying parking areas with shuttles from the outlying parking lots to downtown. No one went for it. I like my car. I don’t want the gov’t telling me I can’t have it when I feel the need to use it. You’ll need to have faith that I generally only use my car when I need to. However, drive the cost of gas high enough, and everyone will only use cars only when they absolutely have to.
dmg: “Third, we need to figure out what Davis’ business and economic community is going to look like. We have heard talk about retail, high tech, green tech, etc. We need to plan our core around that economy and implement practices that will encourage it.”
AMEN! And I believe we shouldn’t severely limit our choices of types of businesses or where they will go. We also need to develop a more business friendly climate. The City Council just brought to task Paul Navazio for outsourcing banking business to Wells Fargo, instead of choosing one of our local banks. This issue will be brought back to the City Council. Very interesting conundrum…cost vs using local businesses. This is something that has plagued the Davis business community for years – everything seems to cost more here in Davis, which drives customers to other communties to shop. One exception – Davis restaurants, most of which are reasonably priced bc there is so much competition.
[quote]…
Like it’s really different from having the exhaust 8-10 feet away?
As a chronic pedestrian, I would say yes.
[/quote]
As a consulting atmospheric scientist, I would also say yes.
It’s not just the distance from the source to the receptor (which is, in itself, a big difference). (Most cars are significantly longer than 8-10 feet, BTW.) It’s also the physical presence of one or more cars between the source and receptor, as well as the sometimes poorly-ventilated region between the curb and the storefronts (especially near the taller buidings, or those with overhanging awnings). For the same reasons, back-in parking would probably also increase the concentrations of auto exhaust inside the storefront businesses.
Consider eating at one of the outside tables along one of our downtown streets. Some of them are very close to the curb. Now imagine a motorist returns to his/her car, starts it, and remains in the parking space long enough to belt in, select a playlist on his/her iPod, answer a text message or two, and then exits the space. Which direction would you like that car to be pointed?
Thoughtless driver, you say. True, and there are plenty of those around. Sometimes maybe s/he is just distracted. In any event, the driver will be more likely to forget about the sidewalk diners s/he is fumigating when they are behind her/him.
Some of the physical safety arguments advanced by reverse-angle parking advocates may have merit, but there is no doubt that the exposure of pedestrians and sidewalk diners to automobile exhaust would be increased with reverse-angle parking.
BTW – Due to the predominant wind directions in Davis, north-south oriented streets tend to be better ventilated than east-west oriented streets. Note that 2nd and 4th Streets – both suggested for reverse-angle parking – run east-west.
I’m not sure about the premise for this piece. Krovoza asked for evaluation of whether the back-in concept should be added as part as the current Second Street project. His proposal wasn’t postponed; it was carried out in a very timely fashion. It was part of what the council weighed when deciding that converting to back-in parking doesn’t make sense now for this project.
It’s fine to “thank him for bringing the idea forward” since our elected officials probably don’t enough public appreciation. But, it seems as though you feel you need to correct some unfair history by doing it and by suggesting that “Krovoza should be applauded for bringing that proposal forward….”
I don’t remember anybody criticizing [u]him[/u] for bringing up the idea. (Although, it was coming a little late in the project.) The “criticism” actually was discussion on the merits of the concept and costs, not on Joe’s act of bringing it forward for evaluation.
[quote]”It triggered some knee-jerk reactions which are surprising, once you evaluate the mechanics of the change.”[/quote] Sure don’t buy this one. Just because people don’t come to the same conclusion as you do doesn’t justify blowing off their observations as “knee-jerk.” Those who agree with you and who disagree with you reflect The Vanguard’s equal-opportunity knee-jerkiness. You shouldn’t criticize this for it helps with the unique quirkiness and appeal of your blog.
Your list of goals for the council and the community seems worthy to me. Not that Second Street reverse parking fits into any but the first (better decisions on how we spend money). Also, wouldn’t you agree that there are valid questions about whether the Second Street stretch has adequate girth to start a road diet with much benefit without first banning parking or switching to parallel parking?
None of your examples is a “new idea.” Most simply are proposals to bring to Davis old ideas that already have been tried in other places.
Turning down an idea–even one that’s not hare-brained–isn’t a bad thing if it might not import successfully to Davis. The narrow, congested Second Street configuration, for example, probably would mean reverse-angled failure here even though it’s been effective in places with wide streets and roads.
I’m just sure that you support debate on whether any given idea has more positive or more negative potential (or if higher benefits would be worth the cost to implement or if our money should be spent on some higher-priority idea). Don’t read too much into the opposition you’ve seen to the Second Street parking and wood-burning prohibitions. And dumb decisions don’t necessarily mean innovation is dead, just that poor decisions are as commonplace as hair-brained schemes.
To Elaine’s comments (with all due respect)
[quote]1) When a car stops to back in, the cars/bikes behind have no idea what the car that stopped is going to do. It could be stopped bc of a car in front, or may be backing up to park (either parallel or reverse-angle parking) Yet when a car backs out of a space, it is very clear to everyone what the car backing out is doing.[/quote]
Most if not all cyclists should recognize “backup lights”, which should go on when a car is put in reverse. The cyclists would see these clearly as they are travel ling perpendicular to the safety lights. When a car backs out of a parking spot, the reverse lights are at an angle and are not as obvious.
[quote]2) Cars stopped to back up to either parallel park or reverse-angle park will stop traffic and slow down the overall traffic flow. [/quote]
Once a car has gotten to the point that they are visible to on-coming traffic (the driver is “blind” at this point), traffic will either stop or there will be a collision.
[quote]3) Cars that are backing into a reverse-angle parking space are just as likely to hit a bike as the car that backs out of the space. In both cases, the driver has difficulty seeing an oncoming bike. [/quote]
Just as likely? I hope not… when I back up I am either looking in my rear-view mirror and/or turning my head to see where I am going. Drivers backing out of a standard space have a much smaller field of vision. If an elderly driver has trouble turning their head to do the reverse parking, they are even more ‘impaired’ in backing out of a stall. If this is the case, they should not go downtown &/or turn in their keys.
[quote]4) The difficulty of backing into a parking space is much higher than backing. Why? Because when backing out, the danger is in hitting the car on either side of you. [/quote]
No, the primary danger is colliding with a bike or another moving vehicle… parked car collisions are generally property damage, not injuries. I rank injuries as more important than property damage. You make my point when you say: [quote]When backing [s]into[/s] [u]out of[/u] the space, the back end of the car is much farther away from the driver, which makes it much more difficult to miss hitting the car [u]and/or bicycle[/u] on [s]either side of the space[/s] the street being backed into.
[/quote]
To clarify… reverse diagonal parking is NOT a panacea… neither is it ludicrous… it may be the best application, based on all of the circumstances, or it may be inappropriate… time, place, manner (for attorneys)…
Years ago, sitting in an East Berlin coffee house, I noticed an interesting road use. The bike lane was actually next to the sidewalk and the parking (parallel in this case) was to the exterior of the bike lane. I am not a street engineer but I liked what I saw. The bikes were streaming along in a safe set aside corridor. The bikers did not have to worry about competing with cars in their set aside corridor. Bikers no longer had to worry about cars pulling in or out into their path. Bikers no longer had to worry about the driver opening the door right into their path. How much safer for families with kids to ride bikes in the downtown.
As a sidewalk cafe enthusiast (joining Sue and others in this vocation) I enjoyed the fact that bikes were streaming by and I could actually have eye contact with the cyclists. It was quite attractive that there were no cars doing anything adjacent to where I sat and that I actually had a lot more visual space unimpeded by the mass of a car.
I definitely feel that we should give a priority to safe bike traffic on second street to pull university bike traffic through the downtown.
Second street should be looked at from the point of view of increasing bike and pedestrian use.
David J. Thompson
A small point but an important request — please run spell-check. It can’t be that much of a bother to do, can it? It should be embarrassing to use the non-word “hair-brained” when what you meant was “hare-brained”. It’s just the latest example in a too-long string of malapropisms, misspelled words and mangled syntax. Writing with clarity and with respect for the mother tongue is as important as fixing budgets and paving streets. I’m a huge fan of the important service you provide the community by reporting and opining and providing this forum for the exchange of ideas. But, please run spell-check.
I think the exhaust issue a reasonable but fixable point. I’d like to see the use of legitimate concerns to improve upon rather than kill some of these ideas. In fairness, I do think that introducing the idea after the fact makes it more difficult but that gets to the conventional approach we took with the original plans for a redesign. This column wasn’t about trying to single anyone out negatively.
Westof: spellcheck didn’t work for that particular word and apparently the person I have asked to edit these did not catch it.
Upon hearing about the reverse parking idea, I thought it was a swell idea and indeed would accomplish the goal of safer streets. Having now read the articles and all the Comments, I have changed my mind about the desirability of that type of parking on Second Street. Increased exhaust fumes on sidewalks and inside stores and restaurants is an unacceptable tradeoff.
One thing that could be done to increase traffic safety would be for the city to make a concerted effort at bicycle rider education and specific bicycle traffic law enforcement. Far too many bicyclists pretty much do what they please, ignoring traffic laws. If you stand on any given downtown corner for more than two minutes any day of the week you will see several examples of risky bicycle traffic violations. If Davis is indeed “the City of Bicycles”, why are bicyclists so oblivious to following the law?
David: Continue to work on it — you are getting better.
Should I add that I’m getting to the age where sometimes my brain just farts on words I should know how to spell (or I can’t think of the words altogether)?
David Thompson is exactly right. The bike lane should be next to the sidewalk, with the car traffic (and parking) next in line: sidewalk -> bike lane -> cars. With curbs in between. From much reporting that I’ve seen on the issue, this is the model in such bicycling centers as Copenhagen and Amsterdam.
[quote]Should I add that I’m getting to the age where sometimes my brain just farts on words I should know how to spell (or I can’t think of the words altogether)? [/quote]
You’re too [damn] young to claim “old-timers” affliction… at least your proofreader caught the missing “not” from the post you originally had this morning. [context: the “hair-brained” sentence….]
LOL
113 (Okay if I address you by just your last name?):
Thank you for today’s lesson. However, I can understand how David might have made this error.
As you’ll note, I started out correctly. But, I wasn’t allowed to “Add Comment” when I finished drafting my response because the site insisted that I log in AGAIN. Since I already was logged in, I had to log out before I could log in again. (In case anybody’s listening, this happens here A LOT! By the time I got through several pages to accomplish this task, I was a little irritated and decided to get over it by making a slight addition to my note. Probably a mistake on my part.
Irritable, fast typing can result in errors that spell-checking just won’t find. Like “hair-brained.” On the other hand, if it was good enough for Sir Walter Scott (The Monastery, 1820), shouldn’t it be good enough for David (Time for a Change, 2010)? Let’s give him a break on this one, all right?
Dear All,
I found an image of the buffered Berlin bike lane on google but do not know how to place a photo on the blog. Any suggstions as to how?
David J. Thompson
westof113 et altera, I have found it used “hair” as well as “hare,” so did not even think of it at the time…sorry if that offended…sorry,hpierce, that i did not get that “not” in before you read the article!
Danthelawyer: “David Thompson is exactly right. The bike lane should be next to the sidewalk, with the car traffic (and parking) next in line: sidewalk -> bike lane -> cars. With curbs in between. From much reporting that I’ve seen on the issue, this is the model in such bicycling centers as Copenhagen and Amsterdam.”
I love this idea, but I don’t think our streets are wide enough to accomplish it, are they?
hpierce: “To Elaine’s comments (with all due respect)…”
I appreciate the “with all due respect”, but it’s not necessary! Feel free to disagree with me with all due disrespect! LOL
hpierce: “Most if not all cyclists should recognize “backup lights”, which should go on when a car is put in reverse. The cyclists would see these clearly as they are travel ling perpendicular to the safety lights. When a car backs out of a parking spot, the reverse lights are at an angle and are not as obvious.”
When the car first stops, all it does is put on the brake lights. If it stops short, a bike/car behind it will rear-end the car in front that suddenly stopped. Many times I’ve had problems with cars that are going to parallel park, stop suddenly when they see an available space, and I don’t know what the heck they are going to do as they sit there assuming I understand I am supposed to somehow pass them. Then traffic is backed up in back of me, and I can’t get around them if there is oncoming traffic. The back-up lights don’t come on until the car is actually backing up. When backing out of a front angle space, the back-up lights come on immediately, and should be very visible once the rear end of the car is out past the bumper of the car next to it.
hpierce: “If an elderly driver has trouble turning their head to do the reverse parking, they are even more ‘impaired’ in backing out of a stall. If this is the case, they should not go downtown &/or turn in their keys.”
Many elderly drivers self-limit their driving if they have impairments (or the DMV places limits on their driving), which is permitted by the DMV. An older driver’s car represents independence, not something that should be taken away just because a driver has some limitations but can still be a good driver. Younger drivers have more accidents than older drivers by the way. Senior citizens will be comfortable with front angle parking, but not reverse angle parking bc they are not used to it. Not to mention the confusion that will be caused by having three different types of parking downtown. I suspect seniors will choose to shop elsewhere, and seniors tend to be the shoppers with money.
Hi David,
You can put the link to the image in between these tags (remove the spaces between m and g):
[im g] [/im g]
In the “Add a comment” box that is the second tool from the right above the box where you type your reply.
Don
dmg: “Should I add that I’m getting to the age where sometimes my brain just farts on words I should know how to spell (or I can’t think of the words altogether)?”
No, no, no, your fingers just type faster than your brain can process! Hey, we forgive ya! You do a great job with this blog and a tremendous amount of work…
Don: How do we post a jpg file? Thanks.
There is no way to upload a jpg file to this site. You can upload it to [url]http://photobucket.com[/url] or Flickr and post the link to that.
Absolutely none of you people ride bikes, do you? I’d certainly like to know which of you does, because then maybe we could have an intelligent conversation. I know that Sue Greenwald does not ride a bike, and Joe Krovoza is the first Council member in years who is a regular cyclist.
When the car first stops, all it does is put on the brake lights. If it stops short, a bike/car behind it will rear-end the car in front that suddenly stopped. Only if they are violating the Vehicle Code… unless they are backing up, the driver hit from behind is assumed to be innocent, and the vehicle/device that hits them is presumed to be at fault
Many times I’ve had problems with cars that are going to parallel park, stop suddenly when they see an available space, and I don’t know what the heck they are going to do as they sit there assuming I understand I am supposed to somehow pass them. The driver is supposed to turn on their signal (as a turning movement), and if there is a no-passing line in the road you are supposed to wait. If either/neither of you get this, I can’t help.
Then traffic is backed up in back of me, and I can’t get around them if there is oncoming traffic. This is true. Deal with it.The back-up lights don’t come on until the car is actually backing up. TrueWhen backing out of a front angle space, the back-up lights come on immediately, and should be very visible once the rear end of the car is out past the bumper of the car next to it. OK.. with 45 degree parking, and assuming the reverse lights both work, they are only 70% as visible as when they are stopped and backing up for reverse angle parking. In regular diagonal parking, once a car backing up is in motion, ONLY the bicycle or main road driver has a chance to avoid a collision, as opposed to both ‘drivers’ with reverse angle parking [both parking and exiting].
I think you have arrived at a ‘position’ without thinking it through.
My attempt to follow Don’s instructions.
David Thompson
[img]http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/acLw4uViQtJi8bWO7B3zXQ[/img]
Sorry first attempt failed
Here’s the link
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/acLw4uViQtJi8bWO7B3zXQ
Dear Don:
Sorry, still need help with linking to a photo.
David Thompson[img]http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/acLw4uViQtJi8bWO7B3zXQ[/img]
[quote]I think the exhaust issue a reasonable but fixable point. I’d like to see the use of legitimate concerns to improve upon rather than kill some of these ideas. In fairness, I do think that introducing the idea after the fact makes it more difficult but that gets to the conventional approach we took with the original plans for a redesign. This column wasn’t about trying to single anyone out negatively — David Greenwald
[/quote]What in the world does this paragraph mean?
What I was trying to say, is I would like to have seen solutions proposed for the exhaust issue which is a legitimate concern rather than using the issue to kill what I think was a good idea to improve overall safety for bicyclists.
jberg…. I ride a bicycle, less than I did in the past… for over 20 years, it was a mode of choice… I believe I have the credentials (beyond the bicycle use) for the intelligent discussion… what do you think?
Mr. Musser: The streets seem plenty wide enough — if we eliminate angled parking. In an earlier comment, I acknowledged that this would reduce on-street parking, though insubstantially, I think. But I proposed a way to compensate for that loss because, Like Sue, I also recognize that many people do drive and want to park downtown.
hpierce: “I think you have arrived at a ‘position’ without thinking it through.”
Huh? You conceded almost every one of my points! How is that not “thinking it through”? By the way, an argument you missed in favor of reverse-angle parking is the fact that bigger vehicles stick out and impede traffic (in places this phenomenon can make the street only one lane wide), whereas if the large car/truck had to back in, the back end would overhang the curb and not stick out so much in the front 🙂
dmg: “What I was trying to say, is I would like to have seen solutions proposed for the exhaust issue which is a legitimate concern rather than using the issue to kill what I think was a good idea to improve overall safety for bicyclists.”
Why so wedded to this idea, despite legitimate concerns? Why not try something different like David Thompson suggested?
Danthelawyer: “Mr. Musser: The streets seem plenty wide enough — if we eliminate angled parking. In an earlier comment, I acknowledged that this would reduce on-street parking, though insubstantially, I think. But I proposed a way to compensate for that loss because, Like Sue, I also recognize that many people do drive and want to park downtown.”
Good point about street width (assuming of course it will be wide enough if only parallel parking is allowed) – but if we eliminate angled parking, it will eliminate some parking spaces as you note. However, if a new garage were built as I think is planned, then incorporating bicycle lanes between a parking lane and sidewalk would be an excellent solution. Hope the city considers this idea…
I’m not so much wedded to the idea as unwilling to dismiss it based on the rather solvable objections. Having read the UC Davis report and reports from other communities, I think it is worth a shot. One of the biggest hazards for both cars and bikes is backing cars out of a parking space. You don’t have any visibility until you are at least halfway into traffic. As a result you a resorting to blindly backing until you block traffic or hear a horn blare. In a parking lot, that is a reasonable risk as most people drive slowly. On an open road, it’s a decided danger.
[quote]Huh? You conceded almost every one of my points! How is that not “thinking it through”?[/quote] Did you really read my post? Look for the strikeout/revisions…
Ooops… the post I was referring to apparently didn’t get into the system…
Interesting that most of this blog was about reverse angle parking (consensus–not a good idea) when Dav’d;s blog was about how we need new ideas. I proposed one that once again got no traction. I am worried that we are a tired old city with few new ideas. Please prove me wrong!
How are tailpipe emissions solvable on streets that aren’t wide enough to implement the kind of solution David Thompson posted?
Don Shor: “How are tailpipe emissions solvable on streets that aren’t wide enough to implement the kind of solution David Thompson posted?”
That’s what I want to know…especially in light of what one commenter said about overhangs of buildings venting the exhaust toward the interior of businesses. This is no small issue…
[quote]In order to limit spending we need to limit salaries and benefits. [/quote]
[quote]I have proposed a proposition limiting wages and salaries several times which has fallen on deaf ears on this blog.[/quote]
So… you have an idea and expect someone else to “run with it”…. nice.
I think you identified yourself as a public employee… and if you are honest, and have convictions, you will move your proposition forward in the way of a petition, to effect those changes both for municipal workers and for those in the government sector in which you work.
Otherwise, with all due respect, put up or …
Re: Mr. Greenwald’s comment: “One of the biggest hazards for both cars and bikes is backing cars out of a parking space. You don’t have any visibility until you are at least halfway into traffic. As a result you a resorting to blindly backing until you block traffic or hear a horn blare. In a parking lot, that is a reasonable risk as most people drive slowly. On an open road, it’s a decided danger.”
This “biggest hazard” presumes that bikers and drivers on the road aren’t watching where they are going or on the lookout for white backup lights. Alert bikers and drivers have always been the solution to the “non-existent problem” Bob Dunning mentioned. Passing a law and making people back into parking spaces is ridiculous if you stop and think about the logistics; it is a lot harder to back into a narrow angled parking space than to drive forward in. There would be mayhem or backed up traffic all along 2nd Street if this silly law were to pass. Already when drivers try to parallel park backwards into slots downtown, traffic backs up while they try to inch their way in.
Just disagree Brian, I can’t tell you how many times, I’m backing out next to a big truck, can’t see a thing so I have to try to inch out and some car wizzes by, all I have to do is time it poorly and bam.
I saw it happen at Farmer’s market, car started backing out, car wizzed around corner, nailed five cars including mine, the only one not totaled. And I was not in the car fortunately.
And the car that hit the 5 others… DUI? Poor design of roadway?
It was at Farmer’s Market, just some girl driving too fast and a car backing out meeting.
[quote]I think the exhaust issue a reasonable but fixable point. I’d like to see the use of legitimate concerns to improve upon rather than kill some of these ideas. In fairness, I do think that introducing the idea after the fact makes it more difficult but that gets to the conventional approach we took with the original plans for a redesign. This column wasn’t about trying to single anyone out negatively — David Greenwald[/quote][quote]What I was trying to say, is I would like to have seen solutions proposed for the exhaust issue which is a legitimate concern rather than using the issue to kill what I think was a good idea to improve overall safety for bicyclists. —- David Greenwald[/quote]
The second boxed quote is your response to my request for clarification of the first boxed quote. Although you have not really explained the convoluted prose of the first paragraph, I now see that you seem to be accusing me of trying to “use” the “issue of exhaust” to “kill a good idea”.
This insinuation of nefarious motive is uncalled for. I thought about the idea of reverse angled parking, and saw that there were pros and cons. Pros: Safer for bicycles and easier to exit. Cons: More difficult to enter, not usually used on such busy streets because of probability of increased traffic back-up, potentially more difficult for senior citizens, decrease in number of parking spaces accommodated in same stretch of street.
But the problem of exhaust and the resultant degradation of the pedestrian and sidewalk cafe experience is only soluble when reverse angled parking can be restricted to electric vehicles. Hopefully, that time will come.
Sue: It was not aimed at you in particular but rather the overall tone of the thread. Not everything is intended as a shot. When it is, you’ll know it.
[quote]Not everything is intended as a shot. When it is, you’ll know it. [/quote]Threats are unbecoming.
[quote]Sue: It was not aimed at you in particular [/quote]I concluded that it was an insinuation about my position since the comment was about “exhaust” and, up to the time you wrote this article, I was the only person to have brought up the issue of exhaust if the orientation of the tilepipe is changed to point toward the sidewalk.
Sue: I fail to understand your need to try to make this about you. I have a screaming baby here as I am trying to type this, so forgive me if I miss someone’s post here.
NPrice: “Who wants car and truck exhausts streaming out onto the sidewalk…”
Sue Greenwald: “, the cars’ tailpipes abut the sidewalk, which means that the exhaust and the noise are pointed directly at pedestrians.”
HPIERCE: “Like it’s really different from having the exhaust 8-10 feet away? “
Elaine: “there is the issue of tail pipe exhaust flooding the sidewalks for pedestrians and diners if there is reverse-angle parking. “
David Suder: “As a consulting atmospheric scientist, I would also say yes. It’s not just the distance from the source to the receptor (which is, in itself, a big difference)… For the same reasons, back-in parking would probably also increase the concentrations of auto exhaust inside the storefront businesses. “
Those comments were made before my original comment. Several other people were weighing in on it since. I was making a GENERAL comment about the nature of this conversation and suggesting that those commenting offer possible solutions to the problem. It was not a shot at you, but rather an attempt to try to direct conversation on this thread.
Okay David,
Maybe you didn’t watch the council meeting. I focused my discussion at the council meeting on concerns over the effect of the exhaust and noise on pedestrians and sidewalk diners. It was hardly “after the fact”, as you asserted.
I watched the council meeting, don’t you remember the baby throwing her ball down the aisle most of the night?
Again, my comment was about what happened at the council meeting, it was about people’s comments on here.
So then what does: [quote]What I was trying to say, is I would like to have seen solutions proposed for the exhaust issue which is a legitimate concern rather than using the issue to kill what I think was a good idea to improve overall safety for bicyclists. [/quote]mean? I brought the issue up, explained it, and you characterize it as “using the issue to kill what I think is a good idea…”.
“Using the issue to kill a good idea” is a negative characterization of a legitimate concern, whether you are referring to my initial analysis or to statements made my myself, Nancy Price and David Suder. Why impute hostile motives to reasonable analysis?
I’ve explained my comment.
Maybe this is why the council never seems to take care of the important issues like the budget, we’re wasting too much time on stupid dead on arrival ideas like reverse angle parking.
I agree with Sue that the phrase “using the issue to kill what I think was a good idea” is disparaging to those of us who feel that reverse-angle parking is not appropriate to Second Street. You also described opposition to it as “knee-jerk,” which is derogatory. The whole tone of this commentary, frankly, is that people who oppose the recent proposals you happen to support are somehow impeding great progress and diminishing the character of Davis. I disagree with that assessment. I think that some of the ideas being proposed are based on mistaken assumptions about how people are likely to be willing to change their behavior.
When a change is proposed it is important to involve all the stakeholders in the process. If people feel they don’t have input, they are more likely to oppose something.
Mr. Greenwald:
Glad to hear you were not hurt in the accident. A very rare, fortunately, occurrence hopefully few of us will have to share–a five car smashup in downtown Davis.
But, really, to get back to your main point: if you think about it, the same problem of “cars whizzing by” presents itself if you back in to a parking slot. You still have to lean your head and crane your neck over the steering wheel to see past your hood and then the car parked next to you to get a truncated view of the street. The passenger compartment of most cars being centered in the frame. Thank goodness most drivers and bikers are observant and wary of cars backing or pulling out into the flow of traffic.
However, there’s no one stopping you now from taking preventive measures as you see fit and backing in to parking spaces yourself. You could try it, see how you like that maneuver and get back to us with your observations on the experience.
Its funny that everyone wants to talk about the issue of the moment instead of addressing the bigger question David raises, Where is the innovation? What is Davis doing that is unique from anywhere else in the region?
I have three ideas on this, the first is that the extreme opposition to new housing has been the biggest difference between Davis and the rest of the region with both good and bad consequences. As a result home prices in Davis have come down more slowly because Davis did not over build during the bubble resulting in fewer foreclosures than in the nearby communities. Of course this opposition to building housing has caused young people to not be able to afford to live in Davis or stressed them out trying to make their payments on their overpriced homes. Remember high housing prices are only good for those with lots of equity.
Housing policy also has effected our schools that have only been able to keep population steady by allowing inter-district transfers and employment steady with massive subsidy at the local level.
Housing policy has also effected our tax base hurting our ability to fund our local government something this blog seems to be fixated upon.
The second innovation of Davis is density. This has occurred as a result of a self imposed desire to not build on class one soils. Again this is an area where the landed are demanding that others not live on the type of soil they live on. To their defense the landed probably bought their homes in a secondary market. However infill also occurs on class one soil. At any rate the real issue is that Davis has become more densely populated and I don’t really think people have considered the consequences. When David writes about our lack of innovation in housing he fails to recognize that Davis essentially stopped building before other communities and that the reason developers are using the same model here as in other communities is that is what people want to buy and this is one of the last places where they can make money on their projects. When someone wants to innovate they are hampered by measure J that allows every voter to evaluate every innovation on their own terms. So since peripheral growth is off the table because nobody is going to pay for an election with an 0-2 record, infill is the only answer. The consequences are many but I think the most telling thing about infill is that the neighbors almost always oppose it. This shows that it is better in theory than in practice.
Finally, the third thing that has hurt Davis’ creativity is the brain drain of fabulous people who have left the community because they couldn’t afford a home here. The list seems endless. UC Davis educates some of the world’s most brilliant people and then has a housing policy that drives them away. No wonder we lack imagination our best dreamers can not afford to dream about staying.
“Housing policy also has effected our schools that have only been able to keep population steady by allowing inter-district transfers…”
That is not true, though it is a popular belief. Davis school population trends are right in line with the rest of California.
Don Shor: “I agree with Sue that the phrase “using the issue to kill what I think was a good idea” is disparaging to those of us who feel that reverse-angle parking is not appropriate to Second Street. You also described opposition to it as “knee-jerk,” which is derogatory. The whole tone of this commentary, frankly, is that people who oppose the recent proposals you happen to support are somehow impeding great progress and diminishing the character of Davis. I disagree with that assessment. I think that some of the ideas being proposed are based on mistaken assumptions about how people are likely to be willing to change their behavior.
When a change is proposed it is important to involve all the stakeholders in the process. If people feel they don’t have input, they are more likely to oppose something.”
Nicely said…
“Its funny that everyone wants to talk about the issue of the moment instead of addressing the bigger question David raises….”
Mr. Toad–Step away a minute, and you’ll see why this conversation keeps turning back:
1. David’s “hair-brain scale” if different than others’ “hare-brain” ratings.
2. He tried to use the “(a past) issue of the moment” to justify his bigger issue when it did not support his claim.
3. He disrespected contributors by calling their dissent “knee-jerk reactions” when they had legitimate points he has yet to acknowledge or respond to. And, in his overdrawn conclusion, he suggested this failure is part of an larger, undesirable community character where “new ideas are inherently shot down.”
4. Instead of guiding the discussion to the his larger issue, David returned again and again to bring back the parking issue in order to reargue (and re-reargue) his views on the parking issue.
5. He didn’t acknowledge misunderstandings, errors and viewpoints or apologize when even the casual observer could tell he was wrong.
6. But, worst of all, he forgot the First Rule of Holes!
Hope that helps, Frog.
Sorry, I always get you two confused.