By Maria Contreras Tebbutt
Did you know that the City of Davis has considered applying for Bicycle Friendly Business status, a National Certification from the League of American Bicyclists? What does this mean to you? Do you know where the bike racks are at your place of work? Would you leave your bike there all day? Have you ever visited the bike racks at your children’s schools?
We are Platinum Award Winning Bike Friendly City and University Campus, let’s start acting like it.
Consider this. You are leaving your workplace at the end of the day and walk out to the parking lot and find your car missing. Stolen.
Imagine how employees and students feel when they’re ready to go home at the end of the day, only to find that their bikes have been stolen or vandalized.
The Bike Campaign has heard hundreds of these stories and yet business owners, managers, school administrators and yes, apartment complex owners have ignored the need for secure (and preferably covered) bikes racks for decades, leaving bikes vulnerable to theft and the elements.
As a bike rider and advocate I am dismayed at dismal bike parking provided to residents at most apartment complexes in Davis. Many of these racks must have been installed in the 1960-70’s before anyone thought of locking up their bikes. Times have changed and for every antiquated bike rack that leaves bikes vulnerable to theft, vandalism and the elements, thousands of car parking spaces have been maintained costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Whether you’re a citizen who finds it extremely difficult to do business because of limited convenient car parking, or low-income (UCD student) whose only transportation is a bike – secure and preferably covered bike parking is needed everywhere in Davis and would alleviate daily obstacles and improve quality of life for everyone in our community.
Car parking lots and road maintenance is expensive and poses a high liability risk.
Secure bike racks are inexpensive and encourage employees and students to stay healthy, benefit the environment and the bottom line.
The Bike Campaign’s #1 goal is to reduce car traffic to schools while increasing safe cycling.
We want to help and have the knowledge and resources to do so. Let’s work together to rectify this ongoing problem.
Point of information: The city of Davis was awarded Silver level recognition as a Bike Friendly Business by the League of American Bicyclists a few years back.
It’s nice to see how many bike racks have been installed near store fronts in the downtown core recently. Two things on my wish list would be an over or under passing for bikes along busy intersections, or where kids frequently have to cross the street to school or activities (e.g., Davis baseball park along F and Covell) or street bumps to help segregate the bike lanes on 5th St and 2nd St. If we did this, Davis would be the ultimate bike friendly town.
Separated grade crossings (over or under) for cyclists and pedestrians cost in the millions.
State roadway design standards do not allow bike lanes to be delineated by any type of raised markers. They are deemed to be a potential hazard to cyclists (and they are). What you’d probably want would be a Class IV facility (“cycle track”) along those streets which comes with its own set of issues.
Good to know. Thanks.
Of course each mile of a freeway like HWY 80 costs “in the millions” as well. It’s less about money than it is about priorities. (well, and the reality of who has to write the check).
And they did that while the community was still plagued by our town shame, the Fifth Street Corridor. So what the frig good is their designation?
None of the commenters has said anything about Maria’s primary point – secure bike parking at trip destinations, in particular, schools. School bike parking has been inadequate for years, but so has shopping center bike parking and other destinations. Downtown finally began replacing a few car parking spots with bike parking a few years ago, and the merchants next to that parking have benefited greatly. If other business owners could extrapolate those benefits to their own parking lots, they too would benefit. In particular, I’m looking at you, Marketplace.
But back to schools…parents must put pressure on the school board to bring their bicycle parking into the 21st century. I personally would support paid parking for automobiles at the high school to finance modern bicycle facilities. This would both benefit students who wish to ride their bikes, and provide a disincentive for polluting vehicles. Why not?
Another great idea. Tax on group to support another group that you prefer. This is an antiquated thought process where you impose a cost on one group that you disfavor for one that you favor. Why not charge the bikes for the privilege of parking and use those funds to purchase the bike racks. That way the individuals using the bike racks finance the improvements. That is a more equitable solution.
Totally agree with Zaqzaq.
“Tax on group to support another group that you prefer. ”
You mean like those who do not drive cars pay taxes that go towards the maintenance of the roads and freeways for those who do ?
Tia, so how do bikers and walkers get to their destinations if they aren’t using the roads and sidewalks?
They mooch off those that do.
The driving cars *requires* the huge, durable infrastructure that we build for them at enormous expense. Walking and biking does not require this level of infrastructure… but it’s all cyclists and peds have available to use to get places in many cases.
That the non-drivers pay almost as much for these facilities as the drivers who DO require this level of facilities is almost criminal. Yet… we have people who still think that non-drivers are the freeloaders.
If you think that motorists pay some outsized portion of the road expenses, you may be surprised at the reality. You’ll notice that the cost of our local road maintenance is NOT being funded by our motorists today. Not by a long, long shot. We’re desperately trying to figure out how to raise many millions per year with across-the-board taxes on all citizens… regardless of their transportation choices.
Our roads are considered “commons” and are used by all citizens for transportation – either directly or indirectly. We do not have a “pay as you go” system. Just like we don’t have a pay as you go system for clean air and water. We all pay for it equally regardless of how much we pollute it. We all pay roughly the same for the roads no matter how much we use them.
Guess what Darrell, we all pay taxes and we all don’t use everything that we pay taxes on. The streets are there for bikers to use either with their bikes or cars. I don’t use bike paths but I still have to pay taxes for them. Do you want everyone to pay a user tax for every public asset that they use?
>> Guess what Darrell, we all pay taxes and we all don’t use everything that we pay taxes on. The streets are there for bikers to use either with their bikes or cars
Would it shock you to learn that this was a big part of the point I was making? It could well be that I can’t figure out what point *you* were making. Tia wasn’t saying that bikes and peds don’t use roads. Only that they pay more for them than their usage would suggest. This is in contrast to those who feel that people who aren’t driving are using facilities without paying their share.
>> Do you want everyone to pay a user tax for every public asset that they use?
Of course not. It seemed that may have been Frankly’s desire, however. And well, I thought it was your point too! I was pointing out that we *don’t* do this. I’m not sure where the disconnect is.
Clearly this was what Zaqzaq was bringing up. If cycilsts wish to park their bikes in a quality rack, then they should pay for it. I was refuting that notion.
Is it your understanding that the people who drive cars and park at high school are somehow paying for those parking spaces above and beyond the general public expenditure? Should we also charge for the air, water and noise pollution? I mean if you’re looking for “equitable.”
What jberg said… totally agree.
In the 70’s, the HS lot was maybe as large as 33% as it is now. Parking was reserved for DJUSD employees, and some students who had PT jobs, on a case-by-case basis. VMC users were ‘catch as catch can’.
Too many students have ‘parking’, either there or surrounding streets, as a “want”, not a true “need”.
DJUSD and the City would be well advised to turning back that tide.
Darell has made a number of excellent points this afternoon/evening. Agree at about a 95% level.
[the five % exception has to do with the staff time expended to get the cert]
>> [the five % exception has to do with the staff time expended to get the cert]
Fair enough. I’m fine with a 95% batting average. 🙂
The part about some students being allowed to park cars on a case-by-case basis is a fascinating and enlightening bit of history. That we now provide “free” subsidized parking to all comers really is amazing. New students at UCD can’t drive to school, but our high-schoolers sure can!
Especially at school sites, I’m amazed at how solar panels are installed next to the ground while bike (and even car) parking is uncovered. Covered bike parking with solar panels on top seems like a no-brainer if the decision is made to install solar panels at all. I understand putting up a structure adds to the cost but you get the two-fer and achieve more than one goal.
Have a look at Davis Senior High. PV covered bike and car parking.
I agree that facilities such as what Harper has is a waste of resources that could have been applied WAY the heck better. They even have to cut the weeds down regularly to keep from shading the panels on the ground!
I could care less if this city has some certificate from some group about the city being bike friendly. What a waste of money. It only strokes the egos of the politicians.
>> What a waste of money.
The certificate doesn’t cost the city anything. The effect of promoting non-motorized transportation saves us time and money, and reduces congestion, pollution, injuries and deaths.
>> It only strokes the egos of the politicians.
Who sometimes forget to prioritize the very transportation mode that they’re so proud of receiving the award for.
Bicyclists have no legal obligation to be qualified/licensed or insured. There are no codified age restrictions. We provide special lanes and public transit provides racks on buses, yet they seek further accommodation?
;>)/
As a vehicular cyclist, I have no need for further accommodations. I was also very comfortable cycling in Davis in 1974, when I moved here. In fact, at that time I generally stayed out of the bike lanes. But I’d like to see answers to the following questions:
Would you and your neighbors benefit with improvements that encourage children to ride to school, rather than create the gridlock caused by parents’ vehicles?
Why does the University charge so much for parking? What would happen if the University provided free parking?
Should your taxes subsidize oil companies? Should your taxes subsidize “free” parking? Do you know what one parking space costs to build?
Crickets.
Nah, was busy most of the afternoon… I agree with your first paragraphs, I do not opine on the last. Just a hint of “overkill”, there.
I’m pretty sure I heard croaking toads. But then I live quite near the toad tunnel, and things sometimes get crazy over here.
You would rather our children be driven everywhere in town via private automobile? I’ve never understood the rational of wanting to withhold non-motorized infrastructure while at the same time complaining about the (fully subsidized) car parking shortage and gridlock that we have in (and especially entering) town.
No transportation option in this town is accommodated further than is the private automobile. How much street surface and paved parking surface does this town have? In town… in residential neighborhoods? We continue to spend millions on furthering it every year. And because drivers are licensed and insured and “old” – this makes a difference? We should endeavor to license and insure more people and get them into cars for the benefit of us all?
” And because drivers are licensed and insured and “old” – this makes a difference?”
Because bicyclists are universally unlicensed and uninsured and many are demonstrably unqualified and/or socially as well as financially irresponsible, it makes a difference. The fact that you default to the ageist attack speaks volumes.
;>)/
Ageist attack? Nice. I was only talking about the “codified age restriction” of driving. Meaning we had to be “old” enough to drive, though we can cycle when very young. That you consider what I said an ageist attack only speaks “volumes” about your preconceptions.
In fact, cyclists are NOT universally unlicensed and uninsured. I am a both licensed and insured. And I’m a driver and a cyclist. I had to pass the same driving test that all drivers did. And I even know the CVC better than your average license holder. If I were to break the law, and if I were to injure somebody while cycling – I can, should and would be held responsible the same as if I were driving my car.
Fact of the matter is, I can’t do NEARLY as much damage with my 20 pound bike as I can with my 3-4,000 pound car. So insuring the damage that the car can do is far more important… and expensive. As is the responsibility of driving it safely. And right there is why we don’t let kids drive. If responsibility of driving and riding were all equal, then a kid with a slingshot and a bag of nuts should have the same responsibilities as somebody carrying a semi-automatic rifle.
Is now a good time to mention how many licensed and insured drivers are demonstrably unqualified to drive on our roads?
Thank you Darell… I would have been less eloquent (and probably ‘moderated’) than you were. I fully agree on that post.
To expound, you do not have to be licensed/insured to operate a motorized wheelchair.
We have a few concepts out there… ADA, CA Vehicle Code, and the “whole streets” concept built into those. They are “not just a good idea, they are the law”. Kinda like ‘gravity’.
I think the reason that the roads were constructed with the 3-4000 pound car in mind is also because of the damage those vehicles can do not only to the road but also in a collision. I think the idea for many years was to make the roads safe for the motor vehicles and the bikes would benefit from the infrastructure. That infrastructure was also funded by the gasoline taxes. At some point, at least locally, we recognized that we need better infrastructure for bike safety than simply piggybacking on auto infrastructure. But I think if you are going to talk about the impact to the roads made by cars over bikes you can’t also argue that our roads shouldn’t be designed with that same priority in mind. Also another factor is that of gas taxes on road construction. Bikes and electric cars don’t pay gas taxes, hybrids also use less gas per pound of vehicle. How these uses impact the availability of funding for road infrastructure is going to become an interesting political football in the near future. Of course the general solution might focus on a heavy carbon tax incentivizing less CO2 generation while pricing carbon ever more steeply to generate the funding needed for the infrastructure. Sadly the thinking seems to be going the other way to a general use tax paid with your vehicle registration.
>> That infrastructure was also funded by the gasoline taxes.
A common misperception. Our local roads hardly benefit from fuel taxes. They are supported by general funds – paid by everybody regardless of how much fuel they use and how much pollution they generate. (The transportation portion of fuel taxes mostly goes to freeways… where you’ll pretty much ONLY find cars. That’s another battle for EVs and such. But at the same time – if we’re going to charge more for EVs to use roads, should we also charge more for gas cars to be polluting our air and water? Something they’ve forever been able to do for free? But I digress….)
>> But I think if you are going to talk about the impact to the roads made by cars over bikes you can’t also argue that our roads shouldn’t be designed with that same priority in mind. <<
I’m not sure anybody did that. If we want cars on our roads, the roads need to support the cars. We also need to big intersections and all the signal lights at $100k per. This stuff is EXPENSIVE. And it is needed for cars. There are people here who believe that cyclists and peds should somehow have an equal share in paying for all that expensive stuff that’s only needed for the cars…because the non-motorized forms of transportation *gasp* use the infrastructure even when they don’t need it to be built this way for the non-car uses. And in the end, the cyclists and peds do pay… far more than their share. (Again, because it is not fuel taxes that pay for this stuff nearly as much as general funds paid by everybody).
Neither do pedestrians.
Why have the underline function if it doesn’t?
;>)/
UNDERLINE
Seems to work here, unless it disappears when I post….
(And sure enough, the underline went away during posting).
Looks ok at my end.
BP
“Tia, so how do bikers and walkers get to their destinations if they aren’t using the roads and sidewalks?”
And which do you think costs us more to maintain based on the amount of use and the weight of the vehicles vs that of a human walking ? Are you really equating the infrastructure cost of the surfaces used by automobiles with those used by out feet ?
Actually, Tia, bus and semi-truck uses are #1 and #2, respectively, damaging the street (pavement) the most, big time, and trees are #1 as to sidewalks.
Water/weather also affects both (probably a #3 for road pavement, #2 for sidewalks), and solar radiation/oxidation is # 4 for streets, no real factor for sidewalks. #3 for sidewalks are due generally to “stupids” by motor vehicles, trucks and buses.
So, #1 & 2 for sidewalks are, essentially ‘nature’… good luck taxing that… same for #3 for sidewalks. Public transit is #1 for streets. Guess we should get public transit and ‘nature’ to pay more for the damage they cause.
hpierce
I do not doubt your stats. But your comment discounts the benefit of affecting what we can positively. I doubt we are doing to stop heaving trucking deliveries and I know we are not going to affect adverse consequences of nature. But each of us does have the option of reducing our vehicular trips and thereby doing our small part in minimizing the damage.
I think the argument goes easier by using the immense cost of designing and building the infrastructure in the first place. We build for the cars, and the non-drivers are “allowed” to use the infrastructure, though it is wild overkill (in size and durability and paint and signs and traffic signals) for any use other than motor vehicles. And we all pay just about equally regardless of what transportation we use.
But I’m repeating myself.
Heavy vehicles do cause more wear than light vehicles. And what hpierce says here coincides with my knowledge on the subject as well.
This is an odd article. Useful info would be what it might cost to install the preferred bike parking systems, who might pay for them, how that might be enacted. Instead we get ‘bikes get stolen, cars get parking spaces’ and the implied assertion — fully developed in the comments section — that cars are bad and bikes are good.
This is not really the way to go about getting what you want, I’d say.
The City staff has been trying, for ~ 20 years to get good bicycle parking into conditions of approval for new projects. PW actually pushed for that more than “Planning” most of that time. Some developers completely embraced it… particularly Mori Seki’s affiliate. Bike lockers and inside bike storage for employees, plus racks for visitors.
Retrofitting is a procedural nightmare (for most businesses and apt. projects), and the WORST employer/”business” has been DJUSD. Personal opinion, based on experience.
DJUSD is not subject to City policies.
>> DJUSD is not subject to City policies.
Yet another nugget that I’d overlooked. So the High School parking bit really is a matter of the school board, and not the city. I’d been thinking about this a bit wrong.
(and in the meantime, if anybody cares – my daughter’s bike was stolen from the racks at DHS today. Filing a police report for the theft of her transportation as “property” seemed reasonable. Until it became obvious that a stolen car (of any value) is a MUCH bigger deal to report. So basically it is about the same as if her iPod had been stolen, instead of her daily transportation.)
When we consider building a $15M parking garage, isn’t it just assumed that we’ll all pay for it equally? Just as we pay for all the existing parking today? Wouldn’t that be the same for the astonishingly less expensive bike parking facilities? (Offered as one reason why we really don’t need to discuss that aspect just yet).
Cars are not “bad”. They’re merely big, heavy, expensive, dangerous, polluting and impractical for most intra-city travel. They certainly have their practical “good” uses though.
Problem is, I still don’t know what it is you or the author of this piece want.
No, that isn’t assumed. Parking garages are financed by a variety of mechanisms and the costs aren’t all equally shared by all of us. Parking downtown is not paid for equally by all of us. Business owners pay fees for downtown parking, for example. Or in lieu fees. If the parking garage had been paid for by the RDA funds, one could readily argue that residents of South Davis and downtown would have essentially been paying for it — since the RDA funds came from their taxes. There are any number of ways your assumption is incorrect. And since I still don’t really know what it is you want us/them/everyone to pay for with respect to bike parking or storage or security, or where, or on what properties, I don’t know how to compare these things.
For the record, I don’t mind paying for things that other people use. But whether it’s libraries, bike paths and parking, parks and open space, somebody’s sports park — I want to know how much, whether it will have ongoing costs that are likely to cause my taxes to increase further, and wish to be able to judge whether it’s a reasonable priority in competition with all the other things people want me to fund. So telling me that my car is dangerous, polluting, and impractical probably isn’t the best way to make your case.
I very much like this comment, Don. And I appreciate that you’re one of the folks who pays attention and thinks about these things so much more thoroughly than most. Sure, you and I don’t agree on all the details, but all I really ask of anybody is that they pay attention. when I make my comments, I often simplify them for several reasons, and your right to call me out on lazy, generalized contentions.
>>So telling me that my car is dangerous, polluting, and impractical probably isn’t the best way to make your case. <<
Clearly I’m not the only one making assumptions. 🙂
I was not telling you that YOUR car was all these things. And I wasn’t using the “cars are bad” fact to make my case.
Cars ARE all of these things. And if we blindly use them as if they do us no harm… or pretend that cycling does us MORE harm (not coming from you, but from other comments), we inflict significant damage on our society. I own cars too. And I use them with the full awareness of the harm I am causing.
You like to compare all options for various amenities – is the idea worth the money? Who pays? What are the consequences? And I appreciate that about you. Until it comes to automobile use. We MUST perform this same scrutiny on our transportation options as well. And I’ll likely keep taking you to task each time it seems as if you wish to sweep the idea under the rug by complaining about or trying to minimize those who understand and care.
“RDA funds, one could readily argue that residents of South Davis and downtown would have essentially been paying for it”. Probably one of the most-ill-informed statements you have ever made. Taxes did not go up with RDA, nor did they go down when it was dissolved.
RDA funds were derived from the taxes on the increased property values of homes and business properties in the RDA district: the tax increment. I know that, you know that, so don’t call me “ill-informed” when I am not. My statement was correct. People who didn’t live in the RDA assessment district were not paying into RDA funds. People who did live in the RDA assessment district were paying into the RDA funds.
>> Instead we get ‘bikes get stolen, cars get parking spaces’ and the implied assertion — fully developed in the comments section — that cars are bad and bikes are good.
This is not really the way to go about getting what you want, I’d say.<<
I have to come back to this because I’m curious about your contention that pointing out the negatives of car use, and the benefits of bike use is such a bad idea.
If somebody wished to point out that we wanted more friendship and less rape, wouldn’t it be a good idea to point out the positives and negatives? If somebody decided that hiking in nature was good, and that strip mining mountains was bad, wouldn’t it be a good idea to point out the positives and negatives?
Arrive at 14th and B Street at 7:40 am on any weekday. Or ANY Davis school a few minutes before the first bell. Is this what we want? How do we go about getting what we want? Do we get there by ignoring what’s wrong with it?
As long as bicyclists continue to deny the thousands of accidents they cause each year, injuring pedestrians and other cyclists and causing enormous property damage and eschew financial and personal responsibility, I call bs.
;>)/
Wait… Don told us that this thread was about cars being bad and bicycles being good. You must have missed it.
I would be curious to see the supporting docs on your contention about this *enormous* amount of injury and damage.
Instead, it would be far easier to turn up the reality:
Motorists kill about 35,000 people every year in the US. And injure many millions more.
Cyclists kill about three people a year in the US.
If your math is rusty… that is a LOT of orders of magnitude difference. And an order of magnitude is “enormous.”
And if I understand your argument, you are saying that we should call BS on people who ride bikes? Like the hundreds and hundreds of Davis children who ride their bikes to school every day and don’t have secure places to park? And I wonder – why do you claim that cyclists eschew financial and personal responsibility? That has not been my experience.
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/communications/repository/files/Pedestrian%20Cyclist%20Accidents_3.pdf
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars
A fast cyclist can hit you with almost 5000 lbs. of force. That can and does kill people. According to transport correspondent Phillip Pank, analysis of the 2012 road accident figures published by the UK Department for Transport reveals: “When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers.”
There is no good accounting of the property damage done by cyclists, almost none of whom have liability insurance. I personally had to track down a doctor who slammed into my Mustang, causing over a grand in damage to the front fender and hood and get the UCD police involved, just to get the vandal’s true name, then he paid, only after being served a summons. San Francisco’s China Town has become a deadly pinball game, with pedestrians dodging the Lycra clad terrorists on two-wheels. in New York’s Central Park, seniors have started using special alloy canes, invulnerable to bicycles, for self defense.
“On your right.”
THWACK
“Thanks for the heads up, mate.”
Pedestrians and drivers, alike, are weary of the the tyranny of irresponsible, self-righteous two wheelers.
Get licensed, get insured, then you’ve earned a seat at the table.
;>)/
Biddlin
If I primarily walk when not going to work, have I earned “a seat at the table” ?
Last I checked, my bicycle did not register any feelings about it. Neither did my car.
As I like to say: If we’re “friendly” to bicycles, we are having mad, passionate sex with the automobile.
(and thanks for giving me an opportunity to trot that one out).
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars
Here’s the link, again, awaiting moderation, no doubt.
;>)/