Id like to add an addendum to my previous comment.

The main reason for shoving us onto the sidewalk is so no parking spot is left behind.
This is a crock.

What’s up with this quote from Fey?: “Market (Street) and Broadway are sufficient for most people who are really serious about riding their bicycles.” Someone who wanted to make their city bike-friendly would respect the views expressed by bike commuters. Safe access to St. Helens is not literally essential, but it’s the best route for many bike commuters. Why does council member Fey want to make non-polluting commuting harder? Does he hate America?

Bummed I was unable to make the council meeting. Not that it would have made any difference…

I agree with others that this was somewhat of a cop-out. I was already somewhat skeptical of a bike lane in general, and the sidewalk idea just seems silly. Is there really room on the sidewalk? Will businesses be explicitly prohibited from (and fined for) putting sandwich boards, garbage cans, etc., in that right-of-way? If a pedestrian unexpectedly runs into the right of way and is accidentally hit by a bicyclist, who will be at fault? Will there be speed limits for bicyclists? It just doesn’t seem well thought out.

I also don’t think this adequately addresses some of the concerns raised by DavidS both online and at last weeks Council meeting about general safety (vehicle and pedestrian) at the 9th Street intersection, which now will have 5 directions feeding in and only 4 leaving.

And maybe it came up last night, but it certainly doesn’t seem like ANY time was spent even considering the parallel parking + two-way option on St. Helens (no bike lane needed).

I’m just rambling, so I’ll shut up now.

It was an interesting issue as there were three different options.

I could have lived with two of the options (two way or one way south).

It was also one of the most coherent discussion of urban planning the council has engaged in. Two way is generally preferable to one way.

Yet, it is a judgement call whether St. Helens is one of the rare exceptions. In the end, the street will be laid out and function in a similar manner as it does now as most people take it southbound and the retention of the double angled parking will keep the street narrow.

There was also discussion as to the best method for parking cars. Surface parking lots are usually considered urban blight and parking garages are but a necessary and expensive evil at best. (some can be designed ok, but Tacomas have created huge dead zones). However, on-street parking is by far the best method for parking, supports a good urban form, they are popular with visitors and the best of downtowns have them.

Sorry for the double post, but it is also worth pointing out that drizell’s article even gets a jab in at Tacoma being “especially ill-fitted for bicycling at present”. And they’re not even talking about the hills…

I think I’ll take my chances getting ticketed for riding against traffic then going on the sidewalk.

Maybe this never should have been approached as an economic development issue???

Apologies for the rant that follows.

Personally i think approaching things from an economic development angle almost always leaves out important considerations and is almost always proximal in nature – dependent on the immediate perceived cause and effect.

A few years ago having a cutting edge economic development department in city government was flavor of the month. economic development now seems to drive planning, instead of being what it should be: a strategic component of planning.

The difference between these approaches is that economic development is even more reactive to local politics and influence peddling because it is not beholden to legally required public process, and because its mission by nature is much narrower than that of planning (improve quality of life for everyone). Planning processes also attempt (sometimes successfully) to engage different interested groups equitably. So in a way, the structure Tacoma has created short circuits the public in favor of certain privately held agendas, both by city staff and the business community.

Add to this that Public Works manages and designs so many projects while holding their cards so close, and there you go.

To be fair, this isn’t malfeasance. It is a cultural thing: people who are trained and experienced with Chambers of Commerce, real estate development, and so on, will think this way naturally. Engineers aren’t trained to reach out to the public; they’re trained to meet project requirements on time and within budget.

Tacoma’s community processes aren’t very good mostly because the city leadership for many years has clearly forsaken public process through lack of funding and political support for community based planning. Unfortunately this situation has also created a public which is not really well informed about city processes and regulations. We’ve been disenfranchised.

The LID has had so much public attention because owner consent was required by state law to finance the project with tax revenues. If it wasn’t a requirement, you’d be biking to work one day and find St Helens completely torn up with no notice. Like Pacific Avenue a couple of years ago.

Parking is not a problem in Tacoma, if you are willing to gasp walk a half block. Two things I see as being major issues: day long car shuffling done by city employees, construction workers, etc., that aren’t patronizing the businesses here, and then in some cases, businesses that (excuse me) suck and don’t give you much reason to walk a half block.

Transportation planning should not be driven by business concerns any more than other constituent groups, nor any more than urban design should be done by engineers.

Oops, that’s how we do it here, isn’t it.

I still cannot believe there are no parking meters downtown (smart park, anyone?).

The majority of the City Council has already prioritized parked cars over moving cars. Now as an afterthought they are talking about placing bikes above pedestrians on one of the streets with the most filled small storefronts.

While I am all for encouraging bicyclists, I think maintaining good pedestrian facilities in our downtown is more important than creating one bike lane for one block as a token gesture.

If the Lonergan Amendment goes through the effective prioritization of the St. Helens will be completed as follows:

1) Parked cars
2) Cars heading to I-705
3) Bicycles
4) Pedestrians

Kind of seems like the opposite of what it should be in the downtown. (Note the lack of transit as well.)

(As a side note, I’m glad the City is finally looking at a bike lane separated from traffic lanes. Unfortunately once you combine it with angled parking it would consume a huge amount of space due to car overhangs. If the Council had kept it two-way and gave up the 20 stalls, they would have still had room to add a separated bike and not reduce the sidewalk widths. Ah, the high cost of free parking.)

Downtown Portland’s priorities (as professed by the mayor and City Council)

1) Pedestrians
2) Bicyclists
3) Public Transit (buses, light rail, streetcars)
4) Cars

Downtown Tacoma’s priorities as expressed the City Council and their actions:

1) Cars
2) Cars
3) Free Parking
4) Transit
...........
99) Bicyclists
100) Pedestrians

When are Tacoma’s elected officials going to wake up? THE SOLUTION has been demonstrated 133 miles south for nearly 40 years!

THE SOLUTION has been demonstrated 133 miles south for nearly 40 years!

Yes, although I think last night’s decision was agreeable, Tacoma’s building code is basically still car centric in many ways.

This is a pretty good list I found from Merits and Principles of New Urbanism from WalkableCities.com

It would be nice to have these qualities implemented downtown and in Tacoma’s mixed use centers. We keep hearing about a desire to create “urban villages” like Portland, yet we don’t have a building or urban design code to accomplish this.

Here is how it is done, component by component to have Tacoma grow in a walkable pedestrian friendly manner rather than a sprawlish car centric one. The article itself discusses each factor in more detail.

Some Principles of New Urbanism:

*Build-To Line

*Building Height of At Least Two Stories

*Parking Located at the Rear or Side of Building Instead of in Front

Parking areas located in front of buildings are inconvenient and unpleasant for pedestrians. They are inconvenient because they significantly increase walking distances from the public sidewalk. They are unpleasant because they often make for hot expanses of areas to walk in, prevent the pedestrian on the public sidewalk from enjoying the building details and the activity within the building, and increase safety problems since pedestrians must dodge cars in the parking area. In addition, they prevent the building from contributing to an intimate, pleasant, comfortable street wall, which harms the sense of place and makes the pedestrian feel as if she or he is in “no man’s land.” Buildings pulled up to the street without intervening motor vehicle parking have more of a human scale.

*Hidden Trash and Recycling Receptacles and Loading Docks

*Building Oriented to the Street, Instead of Turning Its Back to It

*Facade Treatment Creates Interest for Pedestrians

*Hidden Outdoor Mechanical Equipment

*Formal Landscaping

*Properly Scaled Lighting

*Alleys

*Narrow Streets

*Mixed Housing Types

*Transit Links

On-Street Parking

Buffers pedestrians from vehicle travel. Narrows the street in order to slow traffic to a safer, more livable speed. Provides convenient parking locations for nearby businesses. Allows businesses and residences to reduce the amount of off-street, on-site parking, which reduces the “heat island” effect and enhances urban vibrancy by improving the public realm.

*Mixed Use

*Resessed Garages

*Livable, higher densities

*Streets and sidewalks straight, not curvilinear

*Ground-floor retail.

*Offices and residential above.

*Eyes on the street.

*Citizen surveillance

*Square street curbs

*Modest curb radius

Bicycles, walking, and what people think about you.

I believe that here in Tacoma we have suburban views on bicyclists and pedestrians. In the suburbs people on bikes or who are walking (between the ages of 18 and 70) are viewed with suspicion by the community. Heck, when I lived in Centralia, bicyclists were considered to be Communists bent on destroying he American way of life. Without a doubt no accomodations are made for walkers or cyclists in the suburbs.

There is something of a status thing going on as well. I lived near Sacramento for a while. There are two adjacent communities there, Woodland and Davis (home of University). In Davis the town’s symbol is a bicycle. In Davis you see bicycles everywhere and people with money riding bicycles. Very few beater bicycles in Davis. In Woodland you only see poor people on bicycles. Poor people riding some pretty sad looking bicycles. In my time there Davis was hugely over priced compared to Woodland just a short distance away. The commitment to cycles added to the livability of he community and thus the value of the property. In Woodland cycles were considered road hazards or used for target practice. (Woodland’s version of immigration reform).

Cars are considered as symbols of wealth and status. Look at what is happening in China. What was a nation of cyclists is starting to embrace cars. If people don’t have to ride a bicycle in China they will not. At any rate, riding a bicycle is considered a lower class activity that should be avoided if you have the means to do otherwise.

Davis made the bicycle their town symbol and a status symbol. True, you don’t see very many poor people in Davis, but you get the sense that a trendy bike is a good in their book as a BMW.

Tacoma really should have a city office devoted to non-automotive transportation. Bicycles have to acheive some status here in Tacoma, along with walking and public transit. A department needs to be created to ensure the City moves in this direction. Cars can no longer be a priority in Tacoma. We need some very creative and sensible people to help Tacoma make this change.Check out the official city of Davis web site at: http://www.city.davis.ca.us/

notice even the flavicon for the site is a bicycle. We need not become Davis, but we need to become a Tacoma that does not rely on the automobile. All planning should be done to insure this.

Brief article on Davis, CA in the latest issue of “Planning.” It can be found here:

https://www.planning.org/planning/member/2007may/research.htm

(It might require a free login to access.)

“Davis has a uniquely high bicycle mode share, about 15 percent of all trips to work…It is the only city on the peer list with no pedestrian or bicycle fatalities for a five-year period, and an extraordinarily low rate of pedestrian and bicycle injuries.”

...

“Through various amendments, [the general plan] has always favored the downtown by focusing growth inward. Its mobility section calls for bicycle lanes on all arterials and collectors, and shared-use paths along arterials where feasible.”

...

“Davis’s success, Garrick boldly asserts, ‘is due in no small part to the fact that, from a planning and design perspective, Davis has worked to integrate bicycle use as a fundamental element of its mobility program and its land-use planning.’”