|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
| Letter Date | 2006-06-26 |
|---|---|
| Recipient | Rancho Cordova City Council |
| Subject | Street standards |
Rancho Cordova City Council
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Re: Street standards
Dear Council members,
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed revised street standards before you take final action on them.
The Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates is pleased the city is acting on its interest in increased bicycle and pedestrian safety. Overall, we believe the proposed standards are a step in the right direction. We appreciate the city's consideration of Dan Burden's ideas. We look forward to working with the city as future proposals are developed regarding making the city a great place for cyclists and pedestrians.
We do believe the proposed standards can be improved. Many cities, including Portland, Phoenix, Orlando, Missoula, Madison and Sacramento have standards for narrower streets. Portland's standards are 26' wide local streets. We believe it is very important not just to make our streets bicycle and pedestrian friendly, but bicycle and pedestrian seductive.
In order to increase bicycle and pedestrian safety, and encourage more cycling and walking, we offer four recommendations.
1. Reduce proposed curb to curb width on minor residential streets from 31 to 26 feet. Reduce the curb to curb width on standard residential streets from 33 to 26 feet.
Rationale: Narrower streets are recommended by Dan Burden to reduce speeds by making streets "yield streets" so automotive traffic must slow down to pass. Burden points out the 24 foot wide streets are the safest. Narrower streets reduce walking and crossing distances and trip lengths.
The Local Government Commission also recommends narrower streets. In addition to the safety benefits, narrower, tree-shaded streets are up to 10 degrees cooler than wide unshaded streets. Narrower streets result in a 5 to 20 percent reduction in impervious area for a typical subdivision and an associated reduction in urban runoff. Narrower streets cost less to build and maintain than wider streets.
2. Reduce gutter pan width from 3 feet to 1.5 feet, a width which should be adequate for water conveyance.
Rationale: Gutter pan seams present a problem for cyclists. The seams that parallel a cyclist's direction of travel can cause diverting type falls. Even when such seams are built smoothly, over time the difference between the elevation of the gutter pan and the roadway surface can build help and create problems for cyclists using narrow, high pressure tires. In addition, the seams between gutter pan sections (perpendicular to cyclists' travel direction) can buckle over time, causing an unsafe or jarring ride.
Wide gutter pans greatly reduce the usable space in bike lanes. The city of Sacramento, though it has some 3 foot wide gutter pans now has standard two foot wide gutter pans. Many locations in the city of Sacramento and elsewhere operate satisfactorily with one foot wide gutter pans. 18" gutter pans would be far better for cyclists than 3 foot gutter pans, especially on streets where there are neither bike lanes nor on-street parking.
3. Add bike lanes to non-residential local streets if traffic volume exceeds 3,000 ADT.
Rationale: The proposed standards of travel lanes 10 feet wide with 7 foot parking lanes on commercial local streets and travel lanes 12 feet wide with 8 foot parking lanes on industrial streets will result in virtually no space for cyclists. Cars and trucks will be able to move at relatively high speeds on these streets. The existence of parking lanes and no bike lanes means cyclists will be squeezed between moving traffic and parked cars. The higher the traffic volumes, the more difficult these streets will be for cyclists to use.
4. Limit arterials to a maximum of 4 lanes.
Rationale: It is very difficult to make a six lane street an attractive, safe or convenient place to bike or walk. It is difficult for cyclists to make left turns since they have to move across three lanes of traffic. It is difficult for pedestrians to cross 6 lanes because of the distance, even without the 1-4 additional turn lanes that are present at most intersections. Traffic noise, volume and speed generally make these large, auto-dominated streets unpleasant and less safe places to be.
It’s better to have more, bike and pedestrian friendly arterials—built on a human scale—that are closer together than fewer and larger bike and pedestrian unfriendly arterials that are more widely separated. The four-lane limit is a policy in place in the city of Davis.
Yours truly,
Walt Seifert
Cc: Paul Junker, Planning
Cyrus Abhar, Public Works
Return to list of letters