Sebastopol Trail Makers needs your support for new bike trails

[Rustie]

Sorry but I don't understand what your criteria is for discerning what areas would be more appropriate to invade with a bike path. It would appear that you see fit to impose a public trail on a private road that happens to have been violated by trespassers rather than imposing this invasion of privacy through areas that currently have legitimate public access such as the cemetery and the Burbank Experimental Farm. Could this be because you would personally be negatively impacted by a trail going through the cemetery and you would prefer and advocate for this personal violation to be imposed upon others? Just curious.......

Once again, all of the discourse on this topic exemplifies my original and continual point – the evidence does not support the premise that the bike path project is in service of and beneficial to the majority of our community. The responses thus far are not to dissimilar to the sentiments expressed when talk of a homeless shelter begins to surface – Wonderful, great idea, much needed – BUT Not in my backyard. In truth some of the arguments used in opposition to a homeless shelter apply here, in fact more so. Vandalism, trash, theft, increased transient activity etc. Unless the project has budgeted for 24 hour security you can count on public paths through private property to bring an unprecedented increase of homeless and mentally ill into those neighborhoods. With that reality in mind, I personally think a homeless shelter would be more productive and consistent in the spirit of building community.....

So isn't it better to consider an already used road (albeit private) than cutting thru a senior community and bisecting the Burbank Experimental Farm and the cemetery?

[Rustie]

Regarding this topic I'm unclear as to what communal values of the Brits you are referring to. I'm guessing it's not the constraint of individual rights put into practice by surveillance cameras throughout London that you are in admiration of - yes/no? I'm going to go out on a limb here and interpret that you are probably suggesting a respect for their common land laws and structure. If so you might be interested to learn that the common lands of the UK were actually established for the purpose of securing land ownership by the lords, the elites, the privileged & the wealthy class. The common land structure in the UK was in fact the foundation of our private property land laws in the US.

While I'm never hesitant to hold up the superiority of other countrymen over Americans I fail to see the enlightenment of the Brits in this particular instance. I do however accept on your word that your intentions were not a veiled attempt at manipulation by way of guilt. Unfortunately it's a frequently used method, in fact Gregory tried it on me once already in this thread. None-the-less, sorry to have misinterpreted your comments.

nope, it's not aimed at any one idividual - it's expressing respect for the ethics of a country where they display more interest in communal values than us cowboys do, and they've embodied those ethics in their laws. Most Americans think that constraining individual rights is a weakness on their part - I don't.

[cynctysings]

Well, as someone who grew up on Robinson Road in the 50s and all decades forward, I can tell you that ALL traffic has gotten quite thick around the Robinson Road area. And that, while the owner of the private road at the end of Robinson currently allows pedestrian and bike traffic access to her property, an additional source of traffic of any sort would probably not be welcome. I get concerned when I see many of us offering our opinions so loudly about what should be done with other people's lands. There were many of us who hated to see orchards divided up and made into housing.

The Burbank land was a wonderland before Burbank Heights, the Cabral orchard (now Two Acre Woods) and my own family's orchard (now Stefenoni Court) held my entire childhood in their soil. Seeing them go was not easy and it's been a difficult transition for me on many levels. But if that hadn't happened, there are many who would never have been able to come here to live. It all just goes along... I am certain that there is a way for commerce and land to co-exist peacefully, just as there are ways for the vehicular traffic and the cycling traffic to do the same. We just need to keep minds open and the dialogue continuing...as kindly as possible. Thanks.

So isn't it better to consider an already used road (albeit private) than cutting thru a senior community and bisecting the Burbank Experimental Farm and the cemetery?

[laho]

Lots of long time residents of Sebastopol chiming in. Although it may not be the best solution, to get folks from downtown to the west all the way to Watertrough Road, I still think the Washington Avenue idea holds up well. Even though there is traffic on the street, there is only one steep hill to climb, just after Virginia Avenue. There would be no intrusion of private roads, private property, or sacred cemetery land. With proper signage and an acknowledgement of lower speeds, kids, cyclists, and walkers with pets could safely get from here to there with very little expense to the City and its citizens.

[Barry]

I was lucky enough to live 1 narrow parcel away from bike trail that goes from Analy High School to 116. Even though it was used by many high school kids, I never had a problem with it and used it often for both biking and walking.

The proposed trail heading south from downtown is also 1 parcel away from me and I would be delighted if it comes to be. In my case, I would use it alot to go downtown, instead of both driving and biking up Petaluma Ave. Sometimes this would remove a bike trip from a main highway, rather than a car trip, but this is still helpful.

The thought/hope is that biking as functional transportation will rise in the future as more people choose to be carless, or otherwise kind to the environment and their bodies. Bikes do have some impact on the traffic of a street, but not lots.

So on balance, I'd agree that the bike trails will be primarily useful as recreation opportunities rather than traffic reduction, but I do think they will be of some help in reducing both car and bike trips on congested roads.

I presume that Trail Makers will work with property owners to find some mutually agreeable route. Whereas I wouldn't be thrilled if a bike trail bisected my property, I wouldn't mind it if it ran along side my property as long as there was a reasonable set back, such as on the Analy High School trail.

So perhaps some property owners will grant/sell and easement along the edge of their property to make this possible. Adding some fencing, perhaps at the Trail Makers cost, might also be appropriate.

I still think this would be a major win for Sebastopol in terms of quality of life, recreation (including walking, and being pushed in a stroller or wheel chair, and skateboarding) and traffic reduction. I think bike trails serve a wider segment of the population many other forms of public recreation facilities.

I also appreciated the public walkways in England (where they are used fairly heavily and seemingly without issues) and would love to see them more widely used here. It also should be noted, at least the ones I saw/used, they are narrow dirt paths, rather than paved wide trails.

[Ronaldo]

I've been visiting friends in Boulder for the past 15 years and remain totally impressed with the emphasis that city places on bike paths, roads, trails, and cycling in general. They are continually improving the existing bike roads, adding new ones, and building underpasses beneath the major roads for cyclists. They even have large mirrors at the ends of these tunnels so cyclists can see the oncoming bikes. The citizens of Boulder take their cycling and cyclists very seriously and are definitely not wishy-washy about their whole hearted support of cycling unlike some communities in other States.

...
The thought/hope is that biking as functional transportation will rise in the future as more people choose to be carless, or otherwise kind to the environment and their bodies. ...

[Glia]

Then let's hold a fundraiser to relocate all of Sonoma County's bike nuts to Boulder!

I've been visiting friends in Boulder for the past 15 years and remain totally impressed with the emphasis that city places on bike paths, roads, trails, and cycling in general. They are continually improving the existing bike roads, adding new ones, and building underpasses beneath the major roads for cyclists. They even have large mirrors at the ends of these tunnels so cyclists can see the oncoming bikes. The citizens of Boulder take their cycling and cyclists very seriously and are definitely not wishy-washy about their whole hearted support of cycling unlike some communities in other States.

[nancypreb]

Population Sebastopol, CA .... 7,596 (2013). Population Boulder, CO... 103,166 (2013).

[Barry]

Lynn Deedler asked me to post this for him:

---

Concerning comments on proposed multi use trails:

Several writers dismiss the value of having multi use trails in Sebastopol. In the recent Mayor’s (Jacob) survey about making Sebastopol a better place to live the number one wish was more bikeways and trails to connect our neighborhoods and town - ahead of reducing the down town core traffic congestion. Sebastopol is a town where nearly every destination is within a comfortable bike ride. But riding a bike to school, practice, or town is rare. It is not safe. To walk or ride most places requires going along the edge of one of our highways, and consequently our “green" town has a culture of driving everywhere.

It is a nearly impossible task to create multiuse trails through a community as developed as Sebastopol. But amazingly, two safe, scenic and direct cross town routes have been found. The really amazing thing is that of the many private parcels that these trails need to cross (in Sebastopol,) all but three property owners are supportive. These trails can create quiet, attractive, off road connections from the many neighborhood areas west and south of Sebastopol to the town core and the Joe Rodota Trail.

The concerns for property rights are misplaced. There is no “taking" of property for a multi use trail. Owner support is essential. Nancy holds a key piece in a trail, and the trail will not go through without her blessing. If she allows it, we will work to make Nancy come out ahead for her cooperation.

Burbank Farm is an essential link to connect adjoining pieces. This out of the way acreage is located next to Burbank Senior Housing. Though the property is a City owned park, it is thought of as belonging to the seniors across the road - understandable, for that is kind of the way it has been. And it is natural for many to fear and resist change, and to view strangers walking through and bikers as trouble. One imagines the worst. We hope that the residents will at least allow the discussion of how to mitigate their concerns.

Surveys of the actual numbers of users, elderly people in the farm, and traffic on the road suggest the statements of the existing situation are exaggerated. No one is suggesting creating a trail unlike others already in the farm area, and certainly not creating a situation that puts elderly at risk. There are acres of space to work with to find a solution.

A favorite study of mine is a Seattle trail study done years after a controversial trail was constructed to see how real the anticipated problems actually were. Results: no increase in crime or vandalism, property values went up 1 - 6%, and some of the strongest detractors thought it is was the best thing that happened to their neighborhood. Maybe this will be true with the Burbank folks. A trail through the area may turn out to be a asset for the seniors, the Farm, and the community. When good people work together they can find answers.

Lynn Deedler Representative for Sebastopol TrailMakers
Member of the Sebastopol Complete Streets Advisory Committee

[podfish]

Several writers dismiss the value of having multi use trails in Sebastopol. In the recent Mayor’s (Jacob) survey about making Sebastopol a better place to live the number one wish was more bikeways and trails to connect our neighborhoods and town - ahead of reducing the down town core traffic congestion. Sebastopol is a town where nearly every destination is within a comfortable bike ride.

and let's not forget that the demographic on Wacco is, say, a bit skewed toward the, say, less agile and mobile parts of the population. So the appeal of bikes and their suitability for daily transport may be less obvious. But there's no denying that encouraging the use of bicycles helps limit the use of cars and is better for the community in so many ways.

[Richard Nichols]

For a full discussion on the various benefits of trails - economic, social and health - look here:

https://www.americantrails.org/resources/benefits/

[Rustie]

My first question Lynn is what stats and surveys? How were the polls taken, what exactly were the questions asked and from whom & where was the information gathered? These are not rhetorical questions that I ask. The outcome of surveys, polls and stats are easily shaped with simple techniques. If you stand in front of Community Market or Whole Foods and query about bike trails vs traffic congestion you might get very different results than if you were to stand outside the doors of Safeway or Lucky Market. The framing of the questions, the demographics of the survey and the criteria used to analyze the results are basic factors that will determine the apparent outcome. This is old school, subtle and an extremely effective manipulation of public opinion. So until I have more information about the surveys you are citing my common sense and critical thinking skills keep me alert and skeptical regarding your claims as to the perceived value that your proposed multi-use trails will have for our greater community.

I have seen your promo video, I know several of the folks in it. Some of them don't live in Sebastopol and I know for a fact that they are not going to get on their bikes and ride into town from Occidental and the other outlying communities to attend to the business that brings them here on a daily basis. This is a great example of how the appearances of public desires and community benefits can be skewed to present a particular agenda though perhaps not an accurate perspective. If we're going to spend almost a quarter of a million dollars from city coffers I would suggest that it be used on a project that directly benefits a greater number or our residents while significantly addressing the number one factor negatively impacting our environment – vehicle usage.

The contradictions raised from this issue astounds me. You too Lynn have posited conflicting concepts. On the one hand you tell us that reducing traffic congestion is not a primary concern of our community and almost in the same breath you refer to our “green” town that has a culture of driving everywhere. I would think that the primary concern of a “green” town would be to significantly reduce traffic, which of course reduces congestion which ultimately would reduce our carbon foot-print. It is disturbing to witness the citizenry of a self-proclaimed “green” town placing lovely recreational bikes paths ahead of real solutions to dramatically reduce our dirty carbon foot-print.

For less than $200,000 the city could buy 5 low speed 15 passenger electric shuttle buses fully equipped with wheelchair ramps, floor mounts and tie downs. Throw on some bike racks and now you have a small fleet of non-petrol based local transportation that can service the entire community. Increase the bus/shuttle stops throughout our neighborhoods, core town and to the Joe Rodota Trail, establish a schedule that runs in 20 minute intervals seven days a week, provide door to door service for disabled folks and stop or limit downtown traffic. Apply for some grant funding and now we can expand the proposed project and still be under the bike path's tap into city coffers. If we were to partner with Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park and our other city neighbors we could make some serious strides toward walking our talk (no pun intended) when it comes to being “green”.

Lynn Deedler asked me to post this for him:

---

...In the recent Mayor’s (Jacob) survey about making Sebastopol a better place to live the number one wish was more bikeways and trails to connect our neighborhoods and town - ahead of reducing the down town core traffic congestion. Sebastopol is a town where nearly every destination is within a comfortable bike ride. But riding a bike to school, practice, or town is rare. It is not safe. To walk or ride most places requires going along the edge of one of our highways, and consequently our “green" town has a culture of driving everywhere...

Surveys of the actual numbers of users, elderly people in the farm, and traffic on the road suggest the statements of the existing situation are exaggerated. No one is suggesting creating a trail unlike others already in the farm area, and certainly not creating a situation that puts elderly at risk. There are acres of space to work with to find a solution...

[podfish]

... If we're going to spend almost a quarter of a million dollars from city coffers I would suggest that it be used on a project that directly benefits a greater number or our residents while significantly addressing the number one factor negatively impacting our environment – vehicle usage....

For less than $200,000 the city could buy 5 low speed 15 passenger electric shuttle buses fully equipped with wheelchair ramps, floor mounts and tie downs..

that's actually a great idea. Spend the extra fifty grand on five robot drivers and it's the same price! unfortunately for the comparison, google drivers aren't ready yet so the cost of operating the vehicles will be more. Still, it would be a public service worth supporting.

The nitpicking about the quality of the survey, or the conflicting goals she expresses, is just argument to discredit the poster - it's not really challenging the essential claims. Unless you really want to say the survey is completely off base and misleading, who cares if it's literally the number one concern? Similarly, the point on whether minimizing driving is a core aim or just a nice side effect - it's not a critical factor in his post. Too many debates get bogged down by the kind of stuff high-school debaters get graded on. It's why politicians are so mealy-mouthed these days. (well, only one reason. Some are just naturally weaselly anyway, I'm sure...) But that kind of parsing is a way to avoid tackling the heart of the issue.

[Richard Nichols]

I put this out earlier on this thread. A number of studies are posted at American Trails, all of them supporting the value of trails and greenways. Not all of these are just surveys or polling of people. There is rock solid evidence that homes closer to trails increase in value over those farther away. With all that said, after spending years working in the trails community, that if a property owner doesn't want a trail built near their house, no amount of data, polls, surveys or studies will change any minds.

https://www.americantrails.org/resources/benefits/

...The nitpicking about the quality of the survey, or the conflicting goals she expresses, is just argument to discredit the poster - it's not really challenging the essential claims...

[Rustie]

Podfish please consider contributing something of value to this conversation instead of your weak attempt at under-the-radar sarcasm. You've mentioned these “google drivers” in another post on this thread and I still have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You however, obviously believe it's a clever response. I believe it goes without saying, there are operating costs associated with everything, including bike paths. However what is not associated with public bike paths but is commonly expected with public transit systems are revenues collected from passengers which help to offset operating costs. Most of us refer to this as bus fare. Are you familiar with this concept?

I'm not nitpicking the quality of any of the surveys mentioned, I'm questioning the validity of the tacit presentation that these surveys represent the desires and best interests of the majority of our community. Sorry to break the news to you Podfish but yes I am clearly challenging the essential claims and I'm not mincing words in the process. It obviously also went past you that I am in fact suggesting that the information presented is possibly misleading. I would suggest you put your “google drivers” on the back burner and read again what was written.

Apparently you also misunderstood my points about skewing survey results vs the priorities of our self-proclaimed “green” community. I thought I had clearly presented these as two distinctly separate comments, one having nothing to do with the other. I'm sorry if it was too confusing for you to discern.

I have never made the point that minimizing driving was either a core issue or a nice side effect of the bike paths. Quite the contrary Podfish, I believe the impact these proposed bike paths will have on minimizing traffic is virtually non-existent. And that my friend is the critical factor.....

that's actually a great idea. Spend the extra fifty grand on five robot drivers and it's the same price! unfortunately for the comparison, google drivers aren't ready yet so the cost of operating the vehicles will be more. Still, it would be a public service worth supporting.

The nitpicking about the quality of the survey, or the conflicting goals she expresses, is just argument to discredit the poster - it's not really challenging the essential claims. Unless you really want to say the survey is completely off base and misleading, who cares if it's literally the number one concern? Similarly, the point on whether minimizing driving is a core aim or just a nice side effect - it's not a critical factor in his post. Too many debates get bogged down by the kind of stuff high-school debaters get graded on. It's why politicians are so mealy-mouthed these days. (well, only one reason. Some are just naturally weaselly anyway, I'm sure...) But that kind of parsing is a way to avoid tackling the heart of the issue.

[BothSidesNow]

OK, I'm going to weigh in for the first time. I just moved to Santa Rosa from Boston, and I love it here (especially the kinder, gentler culture). I also knew there would be some adjustments. What I had NOT anticipated is that the biggest challenge would be trying to continue to live out a value central to me and to the planet we all share--namely, to live car-less.

I am astonished at how limited public transit is in this progressive part of the state. I am astonished when people here look at me like I'm insane when they find out I have no car. I'm speechless when I'm greeted by less-than-kind-and-gentle reactions such as: "Well, I'll drive you there this time but . . . ." and "Why don'tcha learn to drive?," said in an accusatory tone of voice. I know how to drive, I totally understand that no one wants to become my personal chauffeur, and I absolutely do not want to be a burden to people. I use my feet, an old bike, and the few available buses for transportation.

But there are SO many places out of my reach using these modes of transportation (including those lovely bike trails). I am hungry to get out and explore this new world of mine, but I find myself stymied at every turn by the lack of public transit.

Recently I came across this metaphor (in a book having nothing at all to do with carbon emissions): We are in love with our cars in this culture, but it's like a bad marriage that no one leaves because there's no alternative. (The comparison was the terrific train system in Europe.) I think Rustie's idea is great, or at least a great start! Let's put all our resources into creating alternatives. It's about the common good.

Re: my post (and those of others), I'd greatly appreciate it if responders would refrain from ad hominems.

[podfish]

Re: my post (and those of others), I'd greatly appreciate it if responders would refrain from ad hominems.

??? are you referring to that under-the-radar stuff that you're implying you have a super-low radar to spot?? Cuz, sorry, I don't see that going on in this thread. Ad hominems are pretty common on the web in general and on Wacco in particular. Just take a look at the CVS threads for example. I've yet to see any comment discrediting the standing of anyone just because they're ignorant/evil/biased/useless/male/female/elected/furrin/white etc. anywhere in this thread.

[nancypreb]

I think Rustie's idea is great, or at least a great start! Let's put all our resources into creating alternatives. It's about the common good.

I second that!! Rustie's proposal is truly emblematic of Lynn's moto, "When good people come together, good things happen." Brava Rustie!

As I watch a family of 5 ride their bike to school every day down Leland St., sometimes the mother carrying 3 up on her two-wheeled caravan (she's impressive!), and a host of other very regular bicyclists, I am reassured that bicycling through town is hardly a prohibitive act based on the lack of a trail cutting through private property, mine or anyone elses. When I ask my neighbors and the incredibly large number of visitors I have at my home on a daily basis, "Would you prefer having a bike path running through the middle of my property, or keep it as it is?" it is a resounding and unanimous "Keep it as is!" Why? Because, together with my neighbors, we have built something very unique and special, which has, in turn, both preserved a historical precedence and enhanced the general quality of life. I know this because people tell me every day. I am nothing, if not community and civic minded, and those who know me know this. So my opposition to the proposed trail is not because I lack breadth and scope in my mind-set, it is not just because I'm one of the property owners who would be directly effected (and there are more than three of us who are opposed), but genuinely I don't see the need in terms of addressing the boarder demographic of this community and the bigger issues we want to address, as so clearly stated by Rustie.

I am not remotely opposed to bike trails in general, but I am opposed to catering to a leisure class that is slowly and methodically chasing out a working middle class in this town. I have elderly friends who live in Burbank Heights who walk past my house every day, happily, without a bike trail, without a sidewalk. Traffic use to go 45 mph down Leland- now folks gladly slow down to 10. Why? Because this is the street where mothers and grandmothers stroll their children to pet and feed the goats, see a calf nurse, feed a horse a carrot. This is where the neighborhood kids get to fly a kite without the danger of hitting an electrical wire, set up a mini "cross-country" dressage course, and help bottle feed baby lambs. This is a veritable country lane where EVERYONE has learned to "share the road." Together we have outdoor Sunday Suppers, completely comprised of meat, vegetables, and dairy that we've grown ourselves, followed by a camp fire. We swap milk for eggs with our neighbors. Instead of filling a green yard waste bin for a petrol based vehicle to pick up as it idles between short trips, neighbors drag their branches or carry their rotting food to feed the pig. Kids are sent to shovel poop when they're behaving poorly at home, then their moms come and take buckets full of organic fertilizer when it comes to plant their gardens. And I'm not talking about me and my family... I have no family... they're either dead or moved far away.... this is the community's work, a quality of life that will not be enhanced by a bike path cutting through the middle of it. Here, people put up photos of their loved ones on the Dia de Los Muertos shrine along side the road, decorated by the neighborhood children, at top straw bales that will go towards ecological restoration. HERE, people of all ages can perfectly and reasonably walk, ride, stroll, and yes, even drive....

My point is, within town, you can very easily and safely get around town. If potholes, intersections, sidewalks are a problem, then the city need to use their resources to fix those problems...for everyone's benefit. NOW.... getting to/from Rohnert Park, Petaluma, or the coast? Bike trails would be very nice. But once you're in town, there are other options for "connectivity" that would serve a much broader demographic, more readily alleviate congestion, decrease the carbon footprint, and be a much more effective use of tax dollars than an "in town" bike path.

I would like to see Sebastopol Trail Makers work together with Rustie (or at least adopt her proposal) in their effort to be a more "green" and "connective" community, and as a demonstration of cooperation and compromise... because I too think that good people coming together can make good things happen. I think you would be far more impacting and garner far better support.

.... but what do I know?

[carolynlb]

OK, I'm going to weigh in for the first time. I just moved to Santa Rosa from Boston, and I love it here (especially the kinder, gentler culture). I also knew there would be some adjustments. What I had NOT anticipated is that the biggest challenge would be trying to continue to live out a value central to me and to the planet we all share--namely, to live car-less...

I appreciate your desire for better public transit. In Sonoma County a big problem to overcome is the fact that we live in a semi rural/rural area and there just aren't enough people to support a large bus system. It really takes living in a city to be able to do without a car for most activities.

That said, my children used the bus system for years, getting to and from the JC campuses in Petaluma and Santa Rosa. The bus system was cumbersome, inconsistent, unreliable, late, and sometimes, without advance notice, nonexistent. Some bus drivers were incredibly rude to my children, some riders would freely "hit on" my daughters, some riders urinated in seats sitting next to my children, and my children sometimes felt unsafe waiting for buses at bus stops. Routes can seem inefficiently designed and weekend routes are nearly nonexistent in areas. If my kids really needed to get to a job or a class on time, they would have to leave home many hours in advance. Not easy when a class starts at 8:00am. And the buses don't run late enough to get home from night classes.

While I was happy there was a bus system available, the huge waste of time and energy in taking it made it something they did only as long as they absolutely had to. Additionally, the only way for my husband to take public transit to downtown Oakland, a frequent destination for Sonoma County commuters, was to take a bus to San Francisco and then take Bart across the bay. 2.5 hours each way. It was a huge headache.

I don't think people choose cars necessarily because they want to, but rather because they need to. As to the accusatory tone taken by some people you ask for rides from, it is expensive to drive a car, with insurance and wear and tear costs, in addition to gas. Not all riders who don't drive compensate drivers with this in mind. Also, having a rider in your car affects your flexibility to run errands or stop for an impromptu activity while going to or from a destination. Driving may be the only time some people have for quiet time to think, mentally detox, listen to audiobooks, or whatever. I just think that people are overtaxed time wise and in other ways, and don't feel they can take on other responsibilities. They might be afraid that you would become too dependent upon them for rides. Don't take it personally.

[Rustie]

Sounds to me that you have already created the community that I hear everyone talking about wanting to build. Bravo & Thank You!

...together with my neighbors, we have built something very unique and special, which has, in turn, both preserved a historical precedence and enhanced the general quality of life....

[Rustie]

While I appreciate and agree with your recitation of the flaws in our public transportation system, particularly those addressing inefficient, cumbersome, inconsistent, late and unreliable service, I have to say that I find your rationale for our pathetic example of public transit completely misplaced. Logic would more aptly point to the lack of support as a resultant effect of an inefficient system as opposed to the other way around as you suggest. Certainly for a small semi rural area a large bus system is not appropriate nor was it implied that such a system be considered. Obviously the size of the system must be tailored to the population and something that is appropriate in cities such as Boston, NY, Paris etc would be overkill here in Sebastopol, Santa Rosa or the entire county of Sonoma. To be cost effective and useful a public transit system must address the needs of the population, inclusive of an adequate efficient schedule designed to encourage use of that system. For instance the current Sebastopol bus schedule seems to run in 45 minute intervals to and from any single stop as opposed to the schedules I looked at in Boston where large capacity buses run every 15 minutes. I rarely see a bus in Sebastopol and on the few occasions that I do see one it is of medium size and less than half full. Occupancy on the SR buses also appear to be very low. I believe this is a resultant effect of the factors previously mentioned.

Smaller buses, more of them, additional bus stops and dramatically improved schedules would be positive first steps toward increasing the use of our public transit system and decreasing the use of our personal vehicles. Bikes are nice, they're healthy, fun and for some folks serve as a viable means of transpiration, but “some” is not sufficient when considering realistic solutions for the environmental problems that our communities face. Why wait until we have grown beyond our traffic carrying capacity and our blue skies have blackened before implementing an effective system of public transportation? Let's create those alternatives now. Imagine the effect this would have on our carbon foot-print, not to mention the building of community by way of helping our friends like occupyboston............. Welcome to Sonoma County by the way!

...The bus system was cumbersome, inconsistent, unreliable, late, and sometimes, without advance notice, nonexistent. ....

[eeeeeeow]

These proposed bike paths are the first step in exploring the possibilities. They are ideas based in the efforts to make Sebastopol a better community. A lot of people are up in arms with a "not in my neighborhood" mentality, and that's great. But what Sebastopol Trailmakers has done is more than anyone else has brought to the table. Let's get this thing in front of the City Council. Let's hear from the community. Let's get together with our concerns, our needs and our vision to have access to downtown and beyond without using an automobile and getting a little fresh air. The traffic situation is not going to improve as this county grows and this is the best idea I've heard.

Please view these videos...

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=...fkJRIAXkSQjf_Q

[Kathryn Ackland]

Perhaps the people in that area can come up some ideas about how the trail could be rerouted.

I am optimistic that we can make wonderful trails where every legitimate issue is satisfied.

In a conversation with me, supporters of the trails last week, and representatives of Gold Ridge and Burbank Heights... suggested going around the front of the property along the highway. It looks possibly to be an answer. There is resident support for this idea. Let's insert this suggested modification for consideration to the planners. Pass conceptually, do the details later.

This is us, Sebastopol residents, not CVS. We all want what is good for the community. These trails are an improvement to life for lots of folks who live close to town. Let's relax, and make something as good as this happen for those of us wishing to breath better when out of our cars enjoying our town. Each and every concern can be addressed. And funding will still have to be found/raised.

When/if we have the draft design approved in November 18, at City Council, there will be years more to finish details for where it goes and lots more talking must occur. The greater the challenge, the more likely brilliance will occur. The full answer hasn't showed itself yet. Talk, listen, amend, talk, listen, include, talk, listen.... it goes on until it is perfect! The idea of so many generously offering egress is very encouraged.

I am also a senior living in a co-housing community on highway 116. Our community is a mixed age community. I love the interaction with all ages. If I can't join in sometime, I still enjoy watching others having fun! Change is something to take time getting our minds around.

To be successful new multiuse trails:
First, they must be safe, and I'm sure this will be true (where it goes, fencing, gates, etc). ;
Second functional ( keeping more people away from the highway is good). ;
Third aesthetic. Having all three, is a tripple win.

My own mobility has had set backs this year too. I can see how using these trails will do far more good than harm. If we keep open our minds until we figure it out, WE CAN DO THIS!

Kathryn

[eeeeeeow]

May I point out that a lot of the property owners who support this trail going though their property are long time residents. If their properties are sold at some point, there's a good chance that access would go away. Now is the time to make the important decisions to make the community a better place. I will echo what Kathryn said...

This is us, Sebastopol residents.

[Rustie]

Sorry to be so dense but I have spent some time viewing the proposed trials and I do not see where they actually provide access to our downtown without traversing some of our most heavily congested streets. It appears that the closest you get to our core town via these pedestrian & bike friendly paths is the entrance to the Joe Rodota Trail at Petaluma Ave near Hop Monk. That leaves some of the most dangerous street crossings to get to downtown. I for one would not take comfort in letting my kids bike on the new safe trail only to expect them to navigate across the Hwy 12/Petaluma Ave intersection to get an ice cream. It is difficult for me to understand Eeeeeeow, how you perceive these bike trails as the "best idea" you've heard regarding our traffic situation. I feel confident to say that bike trails, especially those focused on scenic routes and park destinations, do little to nothing in relieving traffic. While I have no disagreement with the concept of bike trails in general I would suggest that for the sake of “building community” we have honest discourse on the goals and intentions of these proposed paths. Who will benefit and how? Considering the source of some of the funding, city revenues generated via our tax dollars, I can't help but wonder if this is a wise expenditure of public funds. Is this the best we can do to improve our community for the majority of our residents?

“Trails will make our town a better place to live in many ways: a healthier population, more social connection with our town, less traffic, less use of our resources, less pollution...”. Five worthy examples of how our community will benefit. It seems however that we have already demonstrated, and this has not been denied or dis-proven by anyone on this forum, that bike trails will not effectively reduce traffic in any significant manner that will have any measurable effect on reducing our resources used or the pollution caused by the use of those resources. At the risk of being redundant, a serious, well conceived electric shuttle system would significantly reduce traffic, resource use and pollution as well as serve a greater majority of our community. That having been said, let's move on, “more social connection with our town”. But these bike paths don't actually take us into our town. Instead they leave us stranded at the edges having to cross busy intersections and dodge heavy traffic loads, cars jockeying for parking and double parked delivery trucks. That leaves us with one out of the five examples cited by the Sebastopol Trailmakers, healthier population. I guess so, for those who actually use the trails which I doubt represents the majority of our community.

The next big value mentioned is tourism. “After wine, bicycling is the number two tourist attraction in So County.” The suggestion is that bike trails will attract tourists – yes? I thought you just told us that some of the important values in our community were to decrease traffic, pollution and the use of resources. Tourism is the antithesis of these core values. Why would we want to encourage this petrol based high carbon foot-print industry? Who is benefiting from this plan? Perhaps the hotel industry, local high-end restaurants and little shops that sell crystals, jewelry, silk scarves and expensive cookies, coffee and tea. But in the end when the working class locals need to get a new pair of tennis shoes, everyday work clothes, underwear, diapers for the baby, towels for the bath, etc, they are going to get in their cars and drive to Santa Rosa.

As I study the bike trails and read the discourse here on this thread my suspicions that these paths are intended for and will benefit a small segment of our community are confirmed. No one has sufficiently demonstrated how the greater Sebastopol will be a better community to have these trails. They won't help us produce food, build cooperative working relationships with our neighbors, provide essential goods and services, or help transport us to our daily necessary activities. They will be fun for the few, great, but I'm looking at the long view. If we don't get busy now addressing real issues I see a future Sebastopol in gridlock with several more hotels and a healthy smattering of big box stores lining Hwy 116 leading into our not-so-quaint-anymore town. Sorry but it's inevitable. If we don't start producing essential goods and services locally, addressing the needs of our working class families and implementing viable public transportation we will be consumed by the obvious. Of course the other possibility is that we will have created a community of privileged white elitists busying themselves painting murals and sidewalks and talking about building community while they sip their $8 cafe latte at the Barlow just after their healthy bike ride.......

These proposed bike paths are the first step in exploring the possibilities. They are ideas based in the efforts to make Sebastopol a better community. A lot of people are up in arms with a "not in my neighborhood" mentality, and that's great. But what Sebastopol Trailmakers has done is more than anyone else has brought to the table. Let's get this thing in front of the City Council. Let's hear from the community. Let's get together with our concerns, our needs and our vision to have access to downtown and beyond without using an automobile and getting a little fresh air. The traffic situation is not going to improve as this county grows and this is the best idea I've heard.

Please view these videos...

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=...fkJRIAXkSQjf_Q

[eeeeeeow]

Boy, you sure spend a lot of time and energy saying, No.

Sorry to be so dense but ...

[podfish]

Boy, you sure spend a lot of time and energy saying, No.

at least you didn't say 'waste'. What, you'd rather there be less thought put into people's positions??

[Rustie]

Well that's an intelligent well thought out response. To bad you missed the whole point, but thanks for sharing.....

Boy, you sure spend a lot of time and energy saying, No.

[Jude Iam]

hey rustie -
i am hereby nominating you to step up and speak up in a larger forum than this here bb.
finding your knowledge base, articulateness and tone all to be top notch, i would love to see you take the 3 minutes council offers for public comments, as well as opinion columns in the bohemian and PD.
yes, i know: easy for me to tell you to get out there and do that, but really you are far more informed and considered than anyone i've heard speaking from that side of the table.
any seconds?
best, jude

Well that's an intelligent well thought out response. To bad you missed the whole point, but thanks for sharing.....

[Orm Embar]

Hi Rustie,

You bring up great questions and ideas. I have been wanting to respond for weeks, but my toddler has a tendency to get into something new and dangerous every time I approach the computer. He is currently playing with a flashlight. At least he is not climbing up to open the casement windows - as he did earlier. I am hoping he will give me 5 minutes, and my readers will forgive typos. : )

I am one of those moms who rides around town with a child (or sometimes children) on the back of my long tail bike. I know the other mom who rides down Leland and I invite anyone to talk to either of us about our experience and whether we have a need for safe walking/slow cycling/wheelchair routes into town. I have also been involved with the small group of community members who have been working on these neighborhood connectors for the last 5 years.

I have advocated for years to use different words and get away form the bike-centered imagery. But I have been very busy and have not had the time to write our PR content myself . . . so I offer gratitude to Lynn for dedicating much time to this vision AND I would like to clear up some misconceptions.

Are you willing to meet in person, preferably at a playground? That would work best for me, since I can talk while chasing a busy toddler but I cannot type on the computer while chasing him. Or on a weekend when

Nancy: I would love to meet you in person! I think we have a mutual friend. I will contact her and see if she will host us for a drink and conversation. Or, maybe you and Rustie (and anyone else interested) can find a time that works for all of us to get together.

In the mean time . . .

Please do not think of these as "bike trails". They were not conceived as recreational cycling speedways. This image has unfortunately been the first one to come to mind for a few people. Think of these as neighborhood connectors and safe(r) paths to town. These were conceived out of need and experience, not just a harebrained idea with no grounding in reality. Also, the proposal going before City Council is to ask them to adopt the concept of these connectors into the City's Master Plan. It is a vision, not a cemented blueprint. Actual alignment of the trails would be determined through a feasibility study.

Come hear my story.

Warm Regards,
Larkin

Sorry to be so dense but I have spent some time viewing the proposed trials and I do not see where they actually provide access to our downtown without traversing some of our most heavily congested streets. It appears that the closest you get to our core town via these pedestrian & bike friendly paths is the entrance to the Joe Rodota Trail at Petaluma Ave near Hop Monk....