There are concerns about the costs and push back from the business community on this front. According to the staff report, “The cost of restriping Second Street is incorporated into the contract and budget for the construction now underway. Changing the orientation of the stripes would require additional funds for signs and any public education efforts.”
However, there are less costly alternatives to restriping. “It is possible to stripe reverse diagonal spaces without changing surface improvements like bulb-outs and planters. This would be a less costly alternative and would have minimal impact on the construction schedule,” the report suggests.
“With the improvements as planned, the reverse diagonal spaces would result in remnant triangles at the ends of some parking 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 report continues.
The staff reports a mixed response from downtown business with more negative than positive feedback. “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,” the staff report said. “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 report cites three clear advantages.
First it increases safety. “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 become obstructed with a bicyclist or pedestrian during the maneuver.”
The staff report cites a Nelson-Nygaard study of reverse-diagonal parking, which concluded that “This context-sensitive solution demonstrates that back-in angle parking can be effectively integrated into the downtown environment and co-exist 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.”
Second, it makes loading easier. “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,” claims the staff report.
Finally, the report suggests that in replacing parallel parking with diagonal parking, the number of parking spaces would increase.
However, they are concerned about the unfamiliarity of reverse-angle parking, the volume of traffic, the business concerns regarding outdoor dining and street furniture, and the fact that Second Street may not be the priority, given the relatively small number of crashes.
Staff concludes that the concept of reverse-angle parking “has merit and should be explored.”
However, they disagree that this is the location for a pilot project. “We believe a more appropriate location for a pilot should be a street with less traffic volume and less sidewalk activity like outdoor dining and outdoor retail displays. For example, Fourth Street is heavily used by bicyclists, has minimal outdoor dining, and carries far fewer trips than Second Street. We recommend that the City initiate public and property-owner outreach for a pilot project elsewhere, focusing on Fourth Street or a street with similar characteristics.”
Commentary
I think the staff’s alternative concept is a reasonable compromise. It gives Davis residents a chance to see the concept at work in a location that has less traffic congestion and is apparently less threatening to downtown business.
Frankly, Fourth Street has some areas that I have long believed need addressing. The corner of Fourth and D has a blind two-way stop that I have pointed out time and again, with little action from the city. Maybe putting reverse-angle parking and changing the stop to a four-way stop will improve safety there.
The city and community were reluctant to engage change on Fifth Street, as well. It took a number of years for the idea of a road diet, which also is a bit counter-intuitive, to gain traction.
What I think a lot of people forget, in the issue of backing into a space, is that we have to back out of spaces all of the time. Moreover, it is a similar motion to parallel parking, which occurs on most downtown streets and requires the same sort of traffic behavior.
The question is whether it is safer to back into the sidewalk or back into traffic, particularly when there are bicycles that are difficult to spot. Anyone on a bike knows that backing cars is a huge danger that is not easily averted. Having a car pulling out frontways, with the driver having an unobstructed view, is far safer.
The crash history on Second Street is probably understated. First, the primary accident that will occur from back-outs is not car-to-bike collisions, but bike-to-ground collisions. I have talked to a few people that have hit the deck on Second Street due to backing cars. These are far less likely to be reported, but definitely a hazard.
Bottom line, the city is not ready on this issue and it is generally better to bring the community along in order to make new innovations work. Fourth Street is a good start.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Staff may have got this one right. There are also more bicyclists on 4th St. I still remain skeptical of this concept and I think the hardship on many drivers are underestimated while the benefits may be overestimated, but if it doesn’t cost much its probably worth a try.
It’s great to see two professionals, who understand traffic engineering principles and practices, allow as to how city staff (like a stopped clock), [quote]may have got this one right.[/quote]
dmg: “However, there are less costly alternatives to restriping. “It is possible to stripe reverse diagonal spaces without changing surface improvements like bulb-outs and planters. This would be a less costly alternative and would have minimal impact on the construction schedule,” the report suggests.”
It will still cost the city money, at a time when we don’t even have enough money to fix potholes, or am I missing something here (different pots of money?)
dmg: “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 report continues.”
We are going to spend all this money to gain 7 measly parking spaces?
dmg: “others felt that changing parking configuration would potentially drive away customers in an already difficult economy,”
The business community has this one right.
dmg: “First it increases safety. “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 become obstructed with a bicyclist or pedestrian during the maneuver.””
Drivers can just as easily back into a bicyclist as they back into a space as they can when backing out of a space.
dmg: “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…”
Oh it will calm traffic alright – it will slow it down to a crawl as everyone has to wait for someone to back into a space.
dmg: “…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…”
With back-in angle parking, bicycle lanes are now going to be in harmony with parking spaces because with front-in angle parking they were not? What is this, the new Zen parking? This will result in a more attractive downtown, just because the parking stripes are angled differently? Pleeeeeeze – this stretches credulity! A more intimate downtown corridor? What, because more cars are crammed into the street, making it more jam-packed? That makes it more “intimate”? This will enhance the downtown experience and lead to increased economic investment? How do you figure that if it ends up driving people away? The more I hear about this, the less likely I am to shop downtown. Who would take this ridiculous piece of nonsensical verbiage/hyperbole/bad logic seriously?
dmg: “”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.”
So this is all about the convenience of loading trucks now?
dmg: “However, they are concerned about the unfamiliarity of reverse-angle parking, the volume of traffic, the business concerns regarding outdoor dining and street furniture, and the fact that Second Street may not be the priority, given the relatively small number of crashes.”
Why are these concerns any less on 4th St, including it being harder to back in than to back out (which I explained in a previous post)?
I still believe this is a ridiculous solution desperately in search of a problem… to distract from the real issues of the budget. In fact, this “solution” will only add to our budget woes in more ways than one (will cost money; will deter people from downtown).
[iAt this time the staff is recommending that the city council not pursue reverse-angle parking on Second Street, but instead “initiate public and property owner outreach for a pilot project elsewhere, focusing on Fourth Street between C and G Streets, or a street with similar characteristics.”[/i]
This morning I parked on 4th Street between G and the railroad tracks, adjacent to the Davis Ace pet store. The parking in that section is angled, facing east. There is no street parking on the north side of 4th Street there. If there is any segment of the downtown which would be a great test spot for reverse-angle parking, I believe that is the one block where it should be tried–from the tracks to the alley entrance on the south side of 4th Street.
I think there are three great reasons:
First, it would not require any reconfiguration of the street, sidewalk or corners. The only material cost would be repainting the stripes.
Second, it is dangerous now backing up out of those spots, because very often the car on my right blocks my view of eastbound traffic. This would not be alleviated with reverse-angle parking.
And third, backing up into traffic on 4th Street makes it very tough to do what most drivers in those spots want to do: turn around and drive west on 4th Street. With reverse-angle parking it would be much safer and easier to make a U-turn. Not only would you have the room to do it, but you could see in all directions before you started your turn and know if the conditions were safe.
If I am right that reverse-angle parking is called for in this stretch and people get used to it and like it, then other sections of downtown should be considered. If it doesn’t work there, I don’t see it working anywhere else any better.
Rich… [quote]With reverse-angle parking it would be much safer and easier to make a U-turn.[/quote]. Preliminary opinions are that this would be a ‘u-turn’ which is prohibited in a “central business district” according to the California Vehicle Code.
Ms. Musser… [quote]We are going to spend all this money to gain 7 measly parking spaces? [/quote]. No. Please get facts before getting self-righteous. The project: Extends utility lines; creates bulb-outs at intersections to minimize pedestrian exposure [i.e. safety improvement] when crossing (and, for some, leads to improved aesthetics); provides an asphaltic concrete overlay to protect/improve the existing roadway.
Striping improvements, that indeed did increase parking stalls, was a valued side benefit of the project. As I understand it, the costs were heavily leveraged by stimulus money. Whether standard diagonal or reverse diagonal parking is employed, the project itself makes a lot of sense for the community. Striping is a trivial portion of the cost.
[i] Preliminary opinions are that this would be a ‘u-turn’ which is prohibited in a “central business district” according to the California Vehicle Code. [/i]
Fair point. I meant a J-turn, not a U-turn. A J-turn there would be safe, legal and kosher.
Rich… never heard of a “j-turn”… in any event, whether it is kosher/legal or not needs to be “vetted” if/when (the latter is my preference) as part of implementing a pilot project. The PD needs to be ‘on-board’ as to the rules. BTW, your suggestion as to pilot location makes sense, although I lean toward the two blocks to the west.
This was thoroughly reviewed in your prior columns on the topic. I’m pleased to see you’re coming around to Bob Dunning’s point-of-view, David. Do you have a link to the staff report?
In the midst of the earlier plus-and-minus conversions, the thing that stood out to me in your article, [u]Innovative and Needed Change or a Solution to a Nonexistent Problem?[/u], was your citation of a UCD study which found that: “There have been a total of four crashes since 2006 on the (second-street) corridor, none caused by backing of a vehicle from a parking space.”
One city’s experience (Tucson, being used to show success of the reverse angle parking concept) had about 150 bike-car accidents during a similar period. Check out Nelson-Nygaard’s Tucson photos and other example cities’ illustrations:: [url]http://lda.ucdavis.edu/LDA191/Course Handouts & Readings/05-Back_in_Diagonal_Parking.pdf[/url]
These wide expanses don’t come close to our tight situation along Second Street. Some of their bicycle lanes on reverse-angle streets are as wide as our car lanes. One of the success stories is Salt Lake City. You know the place, the city with blocks arranged on a grid pattern in 10-acre squares, separated by streets 132 feet wide — “wide enough for a team of four oxen and a covered wagon to turn around.” Or for Rich to make a U-turn or a J-turn in an intersection or ANYWHERE along the block without fear of getting cited.
Cities where the “justifications” for trying this kind of parking don’t seem to have much in common with our setting. And “benefit” of reduced auto-bike accident rates certainly doesn’t apply in this situation–our record of ZERO for the past five years only can stay the same or get worse during the next five regardless of what we do. “Dramatically improved safety” just isn’t in the cards when we’re perfect already.
So, who could argue with a UCD study? “The crash history on Second Street is probably understated,” sez David. What is your basis for such a conclusion? Do you have a different determination of the number of car-bike crashes “caused by backing of a vehicle from a parking space”? Since you don’t agree with the report of none since 1966, perhaps you can provide your data for a higher-than-zero number.
Well, we could redefine the hazard we want to fix: “not car-to-bike collisions, but bike-to-ground collisions.” Is this really a serious problem? How many of this type of non-collision bike accidents (resulting from a parked car being backed out) have been reported in the past five years, perhaps some? Is it a safety maneuver for which one trains, like a Harley rider? What kind of injuries were sustained?
David, where are your data that lead you to this out-of-the-blue conclusion that provides support for back-in parking on Second Street? “I have talked to a few people that have hit the deck on Second Street due to backing cars.” Oh.
A “reasonable compromise” shouldn’t be the objective here. We expect the Council to make sensible decisions based on the best information and community input available. The Mayor Pro Tem asked the staff “back in August” to study the possibility of reverse-angle parking on Second Street as part of the current project. The evaluation is in, although it seems pretty quick for something this significant to our downtown.
It’s the wrong place to try out the idea. It would waste money and parking spots. There’s no evidence it would improve bike-car safety where it’s proposed. In fact, it could result in a worse situation for bikers and drivers on Second Street.
Let’s not give cyclists any reasons to give up their well-founded and long-held avoidance of Second Street. Why entice them with promises of “dramatically improved safety” on Second Street when there’s no basis for such a projection? There are good reasons they’ve selected other routes through town. And it obviously has nothing to do with documented history of no accidents in recent years.
I think staff must be reading this blog which is overwhelmingly against the stupid reverse angle parking theory. It’s nice to know we have a say.
The cyclists I’ve talked to are against this. Sometimes it is better having a car backing out of your way with reverse lights on, than one accelerating into your lane from the right side. They’d rather be dependent upon their own wits, not the drivers’ who is coming into their lane.
Plus cars suddenly stopping to back up (“there’s a spot!”) doesn’t leave cyclists with any escape route should their brakes fail or the car behind them fail to stop.
This is one where practice trumps theory.
Sorry, meant to say “…backing into your way…”