Innovative and Needed Change or a Solution to a Nonexistent Problem?
While Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning was quick to call it a solution to a “nonexistent problem,” fortunately we already have many examples and studies already available to show the safety is actually improved.
Perhaps if Mr. Dunning knew the idea came from his leveled-headed councilmember, Joe Krovoza, he would give it a second thought. Or perhaps not.
According to the staff report prepared by Katherine Hess and Roxanne Namazi, “Implementing reverse diagonal parking would reverse the angle of the parked cars. Changing the construction contract to shift the design of the bulb-outs and drainage inlets would require an expensive change order and likely significant delays in project completion.”
They continue, “With the improvements as planned, the reverse diagonal spaces would result in triangles at the ends of some rows, rather than full parking spaces. Staff estimates that the total number of spaces on Second Street would be seven higher than existing, but thirteen fewer than under the proposed design. The triangle areas might be used for on-street bicycle parking, or to increase loading options for “H” accessible spaces.”
Or perhaps it could be used for the zip cars to park?
As just mentioned, the response from the business community was described as “mixed.” “Overall, there have been more negative comments than positive. Some business owners felt the concept was worth trying; others felt that changing parking configuration would potentially drive away customers in an already difficult economy. Business owners were careful to say that they supported bicycles and bicyclists and recognize that the downtown should be welcoming for visitors using multiple modes of travel.”
The city staff apparently attempted to contact some other areas that use reverse parking, and here are there results.
Perhaps they should have talked to some of the places cited in the UC Davis report. Such as, “Several cities where back-in angle parking has been implemented have seen a reduction in number of accidents compared to the number of accidents at regular parallel parking schemes. Matt Zoll at Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee says that after implementing the backin/ head-out angle parking scheme in Tucson they “went from an average of 3-4 bike/car accidents per month to no reported accidents for 4 years following implementation.”
Despite this failing by the staff report, they do report potential advantages.
First, safety. They write, “Drivers have better visibility when leaving the parking space, because they are pulling forward rather than backing. The backing movement is into the parking space, which is less likely to have a bicyclist or pedestrian.”
Citing a study, they write, A Nelson-Nygaard study of reverse-diagonal parking concluded that “This context-sensitive solution demonstrates that back-in angle parking can be effectively integrated into the downtown environment and coexist along an arterial highway employing current, minimum design standards. In addition to creating more parking over traditional parallel parking, back-in angle parking can also be used as a traffic calming/street narrowing tool, can enhance pedestrian functionality and walk-ability within the downtown area and can work harmoniously with bicycle lanes, all resulting in a more attractive and intimate downtown corridor enhancing the downtown experience and leading to increased economic investment.”
There is also an advantage in loading the vehicle. “Vehicles have their trunks and truck beds adjacent to the sidewalk, so loading purchases or other objects does not require the driver to walk into the street. In addition, for most vehicles, the car door is between the street and the passenger area, providing a barrier and directing children or pets toward the sidewalk.”
Again, they believe the number of places can be increased.
They also have a number of concerns.
First, “Second Street is in the heart of the downtown Core Area. We encourage visitors from other communities, and we have regular turnover of UC Davis students and their families. Visitors may be unfamiliar with how to park in reverse-diagonal spaces, resulting in confusion or unsafe movements (like crossing the street to park head-in).”
Second, along similar lines, they argue that second street is heavily traveled. “The Police Department estimates that there are up to 300 vehicles per hour, with approximately 15 feet between vehicles. Vehicles backing out of a parking space are frequently provided screening by a driver who wishes to use the space. With reverse-diagonal parking, the following driver may be following too closely to allow the first vehicle to back into the space.”
The problem I have with this concern is I am not sure how that is different from attempting to parallel park with other cars around. You simply signal when you get the space, slow down and make sure they understand you are attempting to back into a spot.
As mentioned, the business community has some concerns. “The construction downtown will provide benefits but there will continue to be temporary disruption. Response from the business community has been mixed, but business owners opposed to the concept generally had much stronger opinions than those supportive or neutral.”
Next they cite, “The City and business interests have worked to increase outdoor dining opportunities in Davis, particularly in the Core Area. Reverse-diagonal parking results in vehicle tailpipes being placed adjacent to the curb, rather than in the middle of the street. Vehicles are getting cleaner, and there may be opportunities to screen outdoor dining areas.”
I cannot think of outdoor dining areas on Second Street other than Mishkas.
Finally, they suggest a relatively low accident rate on the corridor. There have been a total of four crashes since 2006 on the corridor, none caused by backing of a vehicle from a parking space. Of the concerns, that is probably the one that resonates the most with me.
Nevertheless, if this city is to become the biking-friendly community, if we truly want to strive to get more people out of their cars and onto their bikes, making these kinds of changes are imperative. The more I hear the idea, the more I like. We tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to these kinds of changes, led by the Davis Enterprise columnist himself.
Here, we have allowed our main east-west route through the core to not have bike lanes and have attempted to rationalize it for years. Now that we have the opportunity to create innovative bike and pedestrian-friendly parking arrangements, we need to seize the moment.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I feel it would cause alot more problems then any good that might come out of it. It’s much harder for most drivers to maneuver their car when having to turn while backing into a parking space. Since we have so many out-of-town visitors I can’t imagine the chaos that this would create. If it aint broke don’t fix it.
Can you explain how that’s really different than parallel parking?
I didn’t know this was a comparison with parallel parking. It’s the difference of regular angle parking vrs. reverse angle parking and I feel the regular way is still the best.
“Changing the construction contract to shift the design of the bulb-outs and drainage inlets would require an expensive change order and likely significant delays in project completion.”
That is sufficient reason to abandon this idea at this time.
“Problems with people unfamiliar with area parking the wrong way.”
We have several thousand people unfamiliar with the area arriving every September.
None of the seven areas mentioned is a congested business district. Do you have any examples of areas with tight retail and narrow streets that have implemented this?
“I cannot think of outdoor dining areas on Second Street other than Mishkas.”
Where dozens of people sit and eat outdoors every day. Would you advocate regular angle parking there instead to protect those customers from tailpipe emissions?
“…relatively low accident rate on the corridor.”
That is why this is accurately described as a solution is search of a problem.
Reverse-angle parking is unnecessary on Second Street, accomplishes nothing that I can see, and should be dropped from this project. It might be appropriate elsewhere, perhaps on a wider street that has less retail.
A dangerous proposal which makes motorists BACKUP into pedestrian areas (sidewalks and others getting into and out of cars).
It also points the tailpipe at the sidewalk so pedestrians get a lungful of crap when the operator starts the car.
This “solution” (to what problem?) is touted as “safer”. Perhaps the additional safety claimed came from a decrease in traffic because people avoid using back-in angle parking and go elsewhere to shop. How is that going to benefit downtown businesses, especially those along the corridor that has the back-in angle parking?
If this project will incur any cost, it should be DOA in the current economic climate. It is amazing to me that there would be any support for this project if it will have any significant cost associated with it.
And now we are going to ticket people for parking head-in in a back-in angle parking space? Now that should really encourage people to want to shop downtown.
This is a solution in search of a problem…
Like many things, reverse angle parking (and ‘road diets) can be “boons” or “banes”. “Salvation” or “perdition”. IMHO, this traffic treatment should be considered, reviewed (not rejected out of hand), and IF APPROPRIATE, implemented. It should NOT be be implemented, again IMHO, in haste, without comparing apples & oranges to where it was a success or a failure. Stall widths should be investigated, at a minimum.
David has a basic concept very correct… overall the parking of a car, whether parallel, diagonal or reverse angle diagonal, requires backing a vehicle (usually having a mass of a ton or more), while making a turning movement. It also involves going towards a space, where a vulnerable mode (choose pedestrian on sidewalk, bicyclist on road) will have to deal with risk (as MUST the driver of the hunk of steel). Except for cyclists (hopefully) wearing a helmet, there’s not much real difference of consequences of a human body colliding with a ton + mass of metal, be they cyclist or pedestrian.
One difference that should be part of an investigation as to whether Davis should implement RAP in the appropriate circumstances (or not), is that the distance from front bumper to front wheel (usually at curb) does not vary much for any given vehicle. The same is not true regarding distance from back wheel to back bumper (Civic vs. long-bed truck). Our Core Area sidewalks have street furniture, signs, bike racks, pedestrian, street trees, etc. all vying for limited space. There are many objects in the Core area within 1 to 4 feet from the curb.
Concept has merit, to be investigated (IMO), but implementation absent thoughtful review will, IMHO, be foolhardy at BEST.
Also, watch out for crash (“accident”) records… in the Core, most bike/car crashes that occur are ‘minor’… low speed due to nature of the maneuver, seldom resulting in injury of any significance, nor serious property damage. Therefore, very seldom reported. I’ve heard that maybe as much as 10% of such crashes are reported, and based on my personal experience and observations, I believe that is on the “high” side.
[quote]“Innovative and Needed Change or a Solution to a Nonexistent Problem?” “There have been a total of four crashes since 2006 on the corridor, none caused by backing of a vehicle from a parking space.”[/quote] Asked…and answered!
During a similar period in the UCD study, Tucson had about 150 bike-car accidents–certainly a problem in search of a solution. And one worth spending tax money to fix.
This proposal no longer is “innovative”; see all the examples with data on where it has worked and where it’s problematic. The change surely isn’t “needed”; we have a four-year backup/car-bike rate of [u]zero[/u] to fix.
Just how could “dramatically improved safety” follow? Worse yet, how would we feel after making the changes and have the first pullout/car-bike accident? (You know it’s bound to happen sometime, next week or years down the road.)
Even if it were a free change to make the more I hear of the idea, the more I dislike it. You have to give Dunning credit for being right about wasting Davis tax dollars twice recently (including in today’s extra-long Zipcar diatribe).
I can see it now, the council pushes this through then six months down the road after everyone is complaining about the increased backup in the downtown core due to drivers trying to back into these spaces it’ll get reversed with the ugly repainting of stripes and the lost revenue of implementing the idea in the first place.
rusty… you forget a couple of important points… CC & community (at least some members) will blame staff for being reluctant to implement right away, CC will implement right away, and when(if?) it needs to be redone, CC & community (at least some members) will blame staff for doing it in the first place.
hp: You’re right that the city staff has gotten unfair blame for some poor choices by the CC in the past. But, why in the world do you think the CC ever again will implement an idea as dumb, costly and unneeded as this? (Or the Zipcar giveaway scheme?) [u]We have a New City Council dedicated to making each of its decisions based on sound business practices![/u]
There isn’t any money available for new projects or proposals. How much deferred maintenance of roads is currently backlogged? If any proposal comes before the council that requires new funding, it is incumbent on the council members to explain why it is a higher priority than the other things that need to be funded from a shrinking revenue stream. If there is no urgent need, it should be rejected and no staff or commission time should be wasted on it.
This is not an urgent need. There is no money for it. The council needs to recognize that this is an era of fiscal crisis, and one key to solving that is to set priorities.
Just: [quote]why in the world do you think the CC ever again will implement an idea as dumb, costly and unneeded as this?[/quote] think deeply… you have answered your own question…
[quote]We have a New City Council dedicated to making each of its decisions based on sound business practices![/quote] That remains to be seen…
Don:[quote]The council needs to recognize that this is an era of fiscal crisis, and one key to solving that is to set priorities. [/quote] Hell yes!
[i]”How much deferred maintenance of roads is currently backlogged?”[/i]
For roads + sidewalks the total is now about $6 million. (I suspect, though, if the city had competitive bidding*, it would be less than half that.)
This does seem like a solution in search of a problem. Nonetheless, if it were costless, I would not oppose giving it a try. But, alas, it is apparently not costless …
———
*The labor unions which own the Democratic Party have made this aspect of California governance dysfunctional, too. They have passed a “prevailing wage law” which means that the only interest which counts when the state or local governments spend money is the union interest. It’s yet one more reason our state is broke. That rip-off law ([url]http://www.cashnet.org/resource-center/resourcefiles/339.pdf[/url]) requires “contractors on public works projects to pay the prevailing rate of hourly wages and fringe benefits as specified by the State Department of Industrial Relations for the area where the project is located.”
§16001. (a) (1) (f) ([url]http://www.dir.ca.gov/t8/16001.html[/url]) maintenance. “Public works contracts for maintenance are subject to prevailing wage rate payment as set forth in Section 1771 of the Labor Code.”
Does anyone have any data on how many accidents there are reported on second street or any of the areas under consideration?
Thanks DMG for providing data on other cities. Maybe our City staff can provide us with data on how many accidents we have in Davis. If there are very few accidents now then there isn’t much reason to change. If there are then it may bear looking into. In my experience, most bicyclists in Davis know better than to go down 2nd street. Third street has far more cyclists.
This does seem like a solution in search of a problem. If staff has indeed provided some actual data from the City of Davis, not somewhere else, please let me know. This is certainly part of their job, imho.
This is REVOLUNARY! It’s the best idea anybody has come up with in years to simplify parking downtown, and increase safety for bicyclists.
I drive two different trucks in Davis, one a small half ton and the other a large three quarter ton, each equipped with a camper shell. For those who don’t drive trucks it’s important to note that the window views of the real estate behind the driver that are available to car drivers, are obscured in a truck. That’s why pickup trucks have large rear view mirrors and why skilled truck drivers use them constantly, while driving. When you back your truck out of a pull in diagonal space, into oncoming traffic, it’s a total crap shoot. You back out very slowly, crane your neck to get the earliest possible view of oncoming traffic, and pray like hell that some drunk is not talking with his girlfriend in the passenger seat instead of watching for a vehicle attempting to back into traffic.
Truck drivers will always opt for a parking space where they can back in so that they can see oncoming traffic when pulling back into the traffic lane.
For those concerned about having to learn to back in, relax, it’s actually easier to judge the distance between your vehicle and the ones on either side while backing than while pulling in, front end first. And you can open the driver’s side door to observe the parking line for confirmation of your spacing. Backing in to a diagonal space is way easier than parallel parking. Because the only consideration is spacing between already parked vehicles, the wait for the person behind the parker is reduced considerably.
And for those who drive sedans with a plastic air dam under the front bumper, you can stop worrying about curb clearance when you back in.
Congratulations Joe Krovosa for asking staff to reconsider this no-brainer improvement to our downtown! Lets get this brilliant idea instituted as soon as possible ! Drivers and bicyclists will love it !
rb: “For those concerned about having to learn to back in, relax, it’s actually easier to judge the distance between your vehicle and the ones on either side while backing than while pulling in, front end first.”
Ask a little old lady if she thinks it is easier to pull her car in front ways, or to back into an angled space.
Feedback request: I have always wanted to encourage more sidewalk cafe style seating downtown. How would the exhaust from starting the car and from the engine idling while waiting for passengers affect people sitting at sidewalk cafe tables? How would it affect the pedestrian experience? Do people think this is an important consideration?
Sue Greenwald: “Feedback request: I have always wanted to encourage more sidewalk cafe style seating downtown. How would the exhaust from starting the car and from the engine idling while waiting for passengers affect people sitting at sidewalk cafe tables? How would it affect the pedestrian experience? Do people think this is an important consideration?”
I would avoid second street cafes for that reason alone…
ERM:”Ask a little old lady if she thinks it is easier to pull her car in front ways, or to back into an angled space.”
Fiscal implications of this idea aside, this rebuttal doesn’t add up… either you pull forward into a space and have to back out, or you back into the space and pull forward out of it. Backing up can’t, and shouldn’t have to be, avoided. If someone doesn’t have the capability to back their car up in a controlled manner then they shouldn’t be driving in the first place.
AeroDeo: “Fiscal implications of this idea aside, this rebuttal doesn’t add up… either you pull forward into a space and have to back out, or you back into the space and pull forward out of it. Backing up can’t, and shouldn’t have to be, avoided. If someone doesn’t have the capability to back their car up in a controlled manner then they shouldn’t be driving in the first place.”
You really made me think about this one! When you back out of a front-in space, the nearest end of the car that will hit the cars on either side of you is at the front end, where you are seated the closest to and can see better. When you back into a space, the nearest end of the car that will hit the cars on either side of you is at the back end, which is much farther from your line of sight. Does that make sense? Intuitively I know it is much harder to back in than to back out, but explaining it is much more difficult!
Actually, when senior citizens are given driving tests, they are not necessarily put through the same rigors as a younger driver. A senior can be given a provisional license to drive only in the daylight hours, or not on freeways, or just to go to the grocery store or doctor. The DMV recognizes that the elderly may have sight or mobility issues that can to some degree impair their abilities, but that is made up for in years of driving experience and a willingness to be more safe than a lot of younger drivers. Nor does the DMV want to take away an older driver’s ability to remain independent. And the DMV wants an older driver to self limit on their own when it is time, rather than remain as a holdout of driving privileges.
[quote]The backing movement is into the parking space, which is less likely to have a bicyclist or pedestrian.
[/quote]
But…to back into a parking space, a car has to start from outside the space, generally traversing the bike lane in the process. When leaving a reverse-angled space, the car is pointed away from oncoming traffic.
(Notice that these characteristics are similar to parallel parking. However, parallel parking usually requires a relatively slow exit from the space, while reverse-diagonal parking would permit a car to pull out rapidly from a space – which might well happen if the driver sees a small opening in oncoming traffic.)
Diagonal parking – in either direction – eliminates the hazard to bicyclists of unexpected car door openings. However, it also creates the potential hazards associated with extraordinarily long or poorly-parked vehciles that extend far beyond the other vehicles, “pinching” the bicycle traffic into the middle of the road and impairing visibility. (We’ve all seen how far a large crew cab pickup sticks out when parked in a diagonal space.)
It would seem that this scheme doesn’t eliminate or diminish any hazards, it merely rearranges the order of them and trades some hazards for others.
Epparto installed some back-in diagonal parking along Yolo Avenue within the last year or so. Word is that folks don’t like it. I think it was a Caltrans thing.
Esparto, not Epparto, sorry.
It does seem like a radical difference, but with the way the crown on the road hikes the rear of your vehicle up in the air, I try not to use street parking in Davis. It might be safer for people to load their purchases without being in traffic as well. Backing into the street without proper visibility is scary, for anyone who cares.
If the Council is so intent on rebuilding the curbs and trees every time they make a change it of course would be costly. The last dumb change made the curbs stick way out into the intersections, with ramps to the street. These are barely wide enough for one person let alone wheelchairs and people walking in opposite direction. Who the hell designed that as better than a sidewalk without barriers?