For several years now the state has been looking to create a funds package to deal with the billions in deferred roads maintenance on highways and local streets across the state. While Davis is not alone on a roads crunch, Yolo County is worse than most counties in the state in its roads situations – and Davis is worse than the other cities in the county.
The question is whether we can count on the state and outside funding to help bail us out of this situation – which I would still argue is largely of our own doing.
On Thursday, the governor along with the assembly speaker and senate leader announced “a landmark transportation investment to fix our roads, freeways and bridges in communities across California and put more dollars toward transit and safety. The $5 billion-a-year program will cost most drivers less than $10 a month and comes with strict new accountability provisions to ensure funds can only be spent on transportation.”
“California has a massive backlog of broken infrastructure that has been neglected far too long,” said Governor Jerry Brown. “Fixing the roads will not get cheaper by waiting – or ignoring the problem. This is a smart plan that will improve the quality of life in California.”
“We can’t afford to keep kicking the can down the road. Californians are tired of the constant traffic jams and crumbling roads, and they expect us to find solutions,” said Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León. “These critical investments will keep our state moving and economy growing. I look forward to getting this deal through the Legislature and onto the Governor’s desk next week.”
“We have a solution before us and we have a choice before us,” said Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon. “We can choose to do nothing, and see more deterioration, more time lost in traffic, and more damage to cars, or we can choose to advance this compromise solution that fixes California’s broken transportation system in a way where drivers will actually end up paying less for a better quality of life.”
While Davis for years relied on state and federal transportation money – that money largely dried up in the last decade with a brief exception from 2009 to 2010 in terms of the stimulus plan. However, even in those years, the amount of money Davis has received is less than $1 million.
By 2009 and 2010, city staffers like Bob Clarke were warning council that the city needed $3 million. By 2011, council added $1 million to the budget – which was ultimately unfunded and unspent. Finally, following a revised roads study which showed hundreds of millions in backlog – and a consultant recommended $10 million or more a year in funding – the city council managed to carve out about $4 million in the 2015-16 budget.
Meanwhile, at the state level, California has not increased its gas tax since 1994. Since then, California’s population has grown by eight million, with millions more cars and trucks on our roads. Californians also drive more than 350 billion miles a year – more than any other state – yet road and transit investments have not kept pace with this growth.
According to a release from the governor’s office, each California driver spends approximately $700 per year in extra vehicle repairs caused by rough roads. If California does not make investments to fix the roads now, it will cost eight times more to replace later.
The legislation, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, SB 1 (Beall), invests $52.4 billion over the next decade – split equally between state and local investments:
Fix Local Streets and Transportation Infrastructure (50 percent):
– $15 billion in “Fix-It-First” local road repairs, including fixing potholes
– $7.5 billion to improve local public transportation
– $2 billion to support local “self-help” communities that are making their own investments in transportation improvements
– $1 billion to improve infrastructure that promotes walking and bicycling
– $825 million for the State Transportation Improvement Program local contribution
– $250 million in local transportation planning grants.
Fix State Highways and Transportation Infrastructure (50 percent):
– $15 billion in “Fix-it-First” highway repairs, including smoother pavement
– $4 billion in bridge and culvert repairs
– $3 billion to improve trade corridors
– $2.5 billion to reduce congestion on major commute corridors
– $1.4 billion in other transportation investments, including $275 million for highway and intercity-transit improvements.
Ensure Taxpayer Dollars Are Spent Properly with Strong Accountability Measures:
– Constitutional amendment to prohibit spending the funds on anything but transportation
– Inspector General to ensure Caltrans and any entities receiving state transportation funds spend taxpayer dollars efficiently, effectively and in compliance with state and federal requirements
– Provision that empowers the California Transportation Commission to hold state and local government accountable for making the transportation improvements they commit to delivering
– Authorization for the California Transportation Commission to review and allocate Caltrans funding and staffing for highway maintenance to ensure those levels are reasonable and responsible
– Authorization for Caltrans to complete earlier mitigation of environmental impacts from construction, a policy that will reduce costs and delays while protecting natural resources.
Guided by the principles set forth by President Ronald Reagan when he increased the federal gas tax in 1982, this transportation investment package is funded by everyone who uses our roads and highways:
– $7.3 billion by increasing diesel excise tax 20 cents
– $3.5 billion by increasing diesel sales tax to 5.75 percent
– $24.4 billion by increasing gasoline excise tax 12 cents
– $16.3 billion from an annual transportation improvement fee based on a vehicle’s value
– $200 million from an annual $100 Zero Emission Vehicle fee commencing in 2020.
– $706 million in General Fund loan repayments.
Leadership in both the senate and the assembly expect the measure to be voted on by Thursday, April 6, 2017.
Will that be enough to help Davis? For sure. Will it save us from ourselves on this issue? Unlikely. We will see how much Davis gets, but even $3 million a year would be helpful as it would close the gap – from the $4 million we are spending to the $10 million or so we need – down to a level that might be fixable.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Ironic, given the posting date…
Absent any factual contribution to the contrary (none in the piece), any expectation that Davis, or even the cities in Yolo County, or Yolo County itself will get more than a ‘token’ amount towards local roads, not on the State system, is truly an April FOOL.
Unlike someone who posts here and wants us to wait for State/Federal $’s before we address the issue locally, will bet strongly “that’s not a happening thing” as to outside resources… I could be wrong, but look what districts of the State have the most representation, most ‘power’ as to disbursements.
I’d be surprised if the local increases in the tax increase will come close to disbursements locally. At this point, there is nothing in the article to suggest otherwise. Have not drilled down into the legislation, so might be proportional… not likely…
Like water, suspect it will flow to SoCal and large cities, except for token disbursements… yes, am a tad cynical on this, based on past experience… would be happy to be proven wrong…
Yesterday, Matt stated this (before encouraging me to follow a “wild goose chase”, regarding a different topic):
I challenged that statement, and no one responded. It’s in the article titled “Commentary: Davis’ Economic Death Spiral”. (Also, one can arrive at their own conclusions, regarding the choice of words for that title.)
Readers can also arrive at their own conclusions, regarding the “not-so-hidden agendas” by some on (and others associated with) the Vanguard.
Ron, if you go to the City’s 2015 PCI Listing Report – Sorted by Street Name (see http://cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=5223), you will find that there are 1,046 street segments in the City. Rather than get into a subjective back-and-forth discussion with you, I have asked Mike Mitchell, the City’s Principal Civil Engineer for Transportation to provide us with an official sliced and diced look at those 1,046 street segments. Mike has forgotten more about road engineering than either you or I will ever know … more than both of us put together.
Right. Took me all of about 2 seconds to see that the chart doesn’t support your “blanket” statement. (Something I already knew from common sense, as well as previous Vanguard articles.)
Are you planning to suggest that I look for something that isn’t there, again?
Ron, in your opinion, or from your knowledge, what is the PCI score for an individual road that equates to arriving at the final bar on the Chuck Mahron graphic? How does your PCI value compare to the accepted “industry standard”?
You first, Matt. You’re the one who made the statement (quoted above).
Do all the roads in Davis require immediate “replacement”? Of those that do, are some basically “alleyways”?
Ron said . . . “You first, Matt. You’re the one who made the statement (quoted above). Do all the roads in Davis require immediate “replacement”? Of those that do, are some basically “alleyways”?
Your question is an easy one to answer because of your unilateral insertion of the absolute words “all” and “immediate” into the question. Virtually nothing in life is absolute. Death isn’t even absolute. That is especially true of something that has at least 1,046 distinct and complex components. So the simple answer to your question is “No, ALL (100%) of the roads in Davis do not require IMMEDIATE replacement.
Since your second question above gives clear indication that you don’t need 6 hours to accurately read this PCI table, the answer to that second question is “Yes, of those that do, some are classified by the the City’s professional highway engineers as “alleyways.”
You now have my simple, direct, unambiguous answers to your two questions (in compliance with your “You first … “), so it’s now your turn. Here’s the “you second” question for you to answer … In your opinion, or from your knowledge, what is the PCI score for an individual road that equates to arriving at the final bar on the Chuck Mahron graphic? How does your PCI value compare to the accepted “industry standard”?
Matt:
To be honest, I don’t remember the number which equates to requiring “replacement”, and don’t feel like looking it up. (I don’t have my own “personal” number. However, if it’s an alleyway, it might be able to stay at the “needs replacement” level virtually forever.)
Just thought your statement was misleading, without clarifying it. (I believe I pasted it just as it was, including the ellipsis in the middle.)
Ron, the statement was clearly qualified … and sourced, “As has been shown by the Pavement Plan presentations by City Staff to Council …” (see http://www.davisvanguard.org/2017/03/commentary-davis-economic-death-spiral/#comment-355803).
The 12/1/2015 Staff presentation to Council can be accessed at http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20151201/08-Pavement-Management-2016-Update-Presentation.pdf
Mike Mitchell and Nichols Engineering have individually and collectively forgotten more about road engineering than either you or I will ever know … more than both of us put together. I defer to their expertise. You appear to be saying that you know more about pavement than they do, and that their report to Council is misleading.
The thing that’s important to know is that you never know. You’re always sort of feeling your way.
Matt: “You appear to be saying that you know more about pavement than they do, and that their report to Council is misleading.”
Yeah, that must be it. Nice piece of logical deduction. 🙂
Ron, thank you for making that clarification. I’m glad to see you now agree that the quote of mine you objected to was indeed properly qualified, and not at all misleading.
We are making progress.
The quote had no useful information, in and of itself. Still don’t know how many roads (other than alleyways) require “immediate replacement”. Your quote (and the graph you pasted, in the other article) implied that (all?) roads required replacement. (However, I suspect that Vanguard readers would know better, regardless.)
Here’s your quote, again:
” . . . we have gotten to the final bar on the right side of the graphic … the point where the pavement has reached the end of its useful life and needs to be replaced … said another way, our “balloon payment” is due, and we don’t currently have the cash to pay it.”
“No, I don’t think we’re making any “progress”.
Nor do we know how many of the non-alleyway streets (which might / might not require significant repairs) already have plans/funding in place.
Normally, when I paste a link to another source, I try to provide a brief statement describing important highlights from that source. (The statement and graph you included was of no use, and was misleading.)
I’m not going to play games all day (regarding nonsense) with you, again. Not worth it, and have other things to do.
Ron said . . . “The quote had no useful information, in and of itself. Still don’t know how many roads (other than alleyways) require “immediate replacement”.
Of course you don’t know Ron. That is a question that should be answered by the City, not by amateurs. As I said in my 1:52pm comment yesterday “Rather than get into a subjective back-and-forth discussion with you, I have asked Mike Mitchell, the City’s Principal Civil Engineer for Transportation to provide us with an official sliced and diced look at those 1,046 street segments. Mike has forgotten more about road engineering than either you or I will ever know … more than both of us put together.” When Mike responds you will know, Until then have patience Grasshopper.
With that said, only you can explain why you consciously, willfully, [edited] choose to reproduce only a portion of the quote.
Here’s the whole quote, and nothing but the quote, so help me God.
“As has been shown by the Pavement Plan presentations by City Staff to Council, we have gotten to the final bar on the right side of the graphic … the point where the pavement has reached the end of its useful life and needs to be replaced … said another way, our “balloon payment” is due, and we don’t currently have the cash to pay it.”
I will be interested in what the city engineers say. But this might be a good guide to where they’re likely to start: http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/ripped-up-roads-check-out-the-top-10-worst-streets-in-davis/
This is four years old now, but most of the failing streets on here have not been repaired: http://www.davisvanguard.org/2013/03/street-level-view-shows-city-roadways-failing-at-alarming-numbers/
This issue has been discussed at City Council meetings and decisions about what street segments are prioritized is based on a variety of factors: length of the segment, resources available, PCI, location, etc. PCI alone does not determine priority and staff uses its discretion to determine which segments rise to the top each year. This is why we employ professionals.
Good answer!
I see opportunities to leverage the state funds (e.g., by combining them with local funds, as needed), if the state approves the proposed legislation discussed in the article. Timing, and the type of (allowable) improvement/maintenance will probably dictate the ability to leverage state funds.
Yeah, you are correct… City staff have been doing that for ~ 45 years… welcome to the party!
I am glad, however, that David is finally acknowledging state involvement in addressing the challenges regarding roads. (I did so multiple times, before this “elephant in the room” was finally acknowledged.)
Unfortunately, the title that David chose is still somewhat “loaded”. No one (myself included) believes that the state will entirely or immediately address road conditions, throughout the state.
Make no mistake about it. The Vanguard is repeatedly using “road conditions” and “pension concerns”, etc., as a justification to push more development, including large-scale developments outside the city, which we’re “told” must also include housing to be “viable”. Pretty much every day, there’s an article regarding some apocalyptic “need” that must be solved by development.
[moderator] edited. No personal attacks.
Ron, I agree with much of what you wrote here but you seem to have woke up this morning looking for a fight.
The problem with Ron’s “insight” is that he came into the movie halfway through and thinks he knows the plot. Had he been around a few years longer he would have better recognized where my views came from and that my limited support for develop is actually a function of my analysis of the budget situation and not the other way around. He could gain this insight by reading some older articles to see the evaluation of thinking.
David:
It’s pretty tough to know what my “insight” is, when my comments are deleted.
Your comment above is somewhat condescending, in several ways. First, you’re assuming that “information” is the exclusive purview of the Vanguard. But more importantly, having information does not mean that someone would arrive at the same conclusions as you have. There are many in the community with years of involvement in such issues, no doubt longer than you have been involved.
Personally, I’ve noticed that you downplay the statewide nature of challenges regarding road conditions, pensions, and even concerns regarding renters (who are facing challenges, everywhere – partly as a remnant result of the housing crash). And yet, your entire effort (at least lately) creates the impression that Davis is essentially an island, and not part of a larger system. Since you start from that viewpoint, almost all of your advocacy is focused on how Davis must “solve” these challenges, alone.
In addition, you rarely focus on the ramifications of the solutions that you propose. For example, your focus almost exclusively on the vacancy rate (as a reason to change existing plans and zoning) virtually ensures that other significant concerns associated with that approach will not be adequately considered.
At times, misinformation (to support the Vanguard’s advocacy) sometimes seems to be put forward (at least by some commenters). For example, there’s this quote from Matt, yesterday:
” . . . we have gotten to the final bar on the right side of the graphic … the point where the pavement has reached the end of its useful life and needs to be replaced …”
It’s in your article titled “Commentary – Davis’ Economic Death Spiral”. (By the way, that’s not a hyperbolic title, is it?)
Argh! “A Mac is not a typewriter!”
It’s not tough when I read it.
No assumption that information is exclusive purview of anything – where did I say that.
I don’t downplay the statewide nature of thing – I was privy to observing specific decisions that were made regarding roads funding in Davis going back several years that would have made a difference in terms of current quality
With regards to economic development, I still have only advocated for a single concept – a peripheral innovation park. Are there consequences for it? Yes, but I also believe with the approval of that, we can forestall future peripheral development for decades which is one of my goals here.
The commentary title came from Richard McCann’s comment. Thogght it was thought provoking.
David: Well, one of my comments has survived, at least. You’re right – it’s not tough to read, when your moderator doesn’t delete it.
With regard to a peripheral innovation development, you’ve already repeated comments from developers who apparently told you that (for some reason – lack of demand?) it’s not viable, without housing. You’re now stating that you’re “for” peripheral development, to “avoid” peripheral development. (Makes sense, to me!)
By the way, one thing that Matt touched on yesterday is that development fees for apartment complexes are apparently significantly inadequate, based on his suggested changes. (In that case, he might have actually provided accurate information.) You might want to address that, before continuing to advocate for development of apartment complexes that will put us “further in the hole”. His comments (and charts) are shown in the same article in which he provided misleading information, regarding the condition of the roads. (“Commentary – Davis’ Economic Death Spiral”.) (By the way, I kind of like that title, at this point. Perhaps I’ll see if I can come up with something even more “apocalyptic”.)
Oh – and thanks to Keith, for sticking up for me, when my comments were deleted. (Oh, wait – we’re not allowed to comment on the Vanguard’s moderation policies, right?) (Good-bye, to this comment.)
Item 1: “After years of debate over the Transportation Funding Package, state leaders have announced a deal to “Fix California’s Roads” with $5 billion a year in new funding for transportation infrastructure. […] But a last-minute deal with the trucking industry has created a giant loophole that would exempt large, dirty Diesel trucks from vital air pollution regulations set by the Air Resources Board….” Read more here and here.
Item 2: I have full respect for the hard work by the huge coalition – mentioned in the links to Item 1 – that worked hard for a much better Funding Package – i.e. more funds for transit, for active modes, limiting road expansion – but “$10” is teeny-tiny! (I am not arguing for higher Federal, state and local taxes in general until we get our priorities right, and e.g. throw out insane plans to complete and build about three Ford-class carriers over the next ten years at a total cost of $37,000,000,000 – and that’s not counting the aircraft complement of e.g. $200,000,000 per F-35 or support and escort vessels.)
And then – and in regards to Davis and other towns which we forced to compete for money – what exactly is the criteria going to be for funding support for the lion’s share of the Package designed to perpetuate automobilization via road repair? Are all Davis residents going to – for example – demand that all our neighborhood streets are repaved or repaired at their existing width, even though that perpetuates design speeds well in excess of neighborhood streets in other countries which feel more safe, cause less stress, way fewer injuries and almost no deaths in some places? Will we consider paving/repair-priority based on efficiency of the street or road in moving people? Will potholes that affect the most vulnerable street users – people on bikes – be prioritized? Can “Fix-it-First” be interpreted in a way that will fund road narrowing (removing asphalt, installing greenery & sustainable water mitigation, etc.)?
Sorry, but I think we’ll need to amputate.
Yes.
No.
Probably not, see below.
No.
My guess would be that roads in the worst condition will be repaired first, in the manner in which they are currently configured with respect to width etc. Bike paths are also in need of repair, and may get some level of priority.
Also, any funds from the state would only partially cover the needed repairs that Davis has fallen behind on.
Don…most likely strategy, depending on funding, would be a combination of…
“Stopping arterial bleeding”
“preventative maintenance”
“curing warts”
“restoring avulsed limbs”
Not necessarily in that order…
Suspect we’ll not have funds for “cosmetic surgery”, “aesthetic enhancement”, “lifestyle reversals” or “roadway re-assignment surgery”… just a guess, though…
Howard P, Thanks for additional allegory or whatever.
You’re very welcome…
Thanks, Don… and I assume that you’re just stating the most likely outcome, rather than your opinion, yes?
Also, there are not really very many “bikepaths” in Davis.
Wow, imagine how much money could be saved if we narrow the local streets and thus have to repair less of them, and then spend that money on more expensive things like higher-tech quiet pavement surfaces for arterial streets….
Todd:
It seems to me that Tia has made statements (somewhat) similar to yours, regarding roads (and society’s “over-emphasis” on them, as well as private automobiles). I suspect that the general “gist” of what you’re saying is shared by some others as well, to some degree. (Even if some of your suggestions may not be viable, or would have other consequences.) Not sure exactly what you mean by “narrowing streets” for example. Nor am I sure that this would be a popular idea, from those living (and parking) on those streets. In general, I’m not convinced that Davis is willing to almost entirely abandon the use of private autos (to say the least).
I think you’re relatively new to posting, so I hope you don’t let others discourage you from continuing to post. (The Vanguard can be a tough place to vet “brainstorming” ideas.)
Go to run, now.
And, not to mention bicyclists who would then be forced to share “narrowed streets” with autos (unless you’re proposing to somehow ban autos, which doesn’t seem likely).
O.K. – signing off, for the moment.
Guess you mean off-street paths for bicycles only… no peds…
You’re right, there are only about 110 miles of what some call bikepaths, but apparently don’t meet your criteria… they allow peds… so, if you use the requirement of “no peds”, believe there are no “bikepaths” in Davis… whatever…
Ron… actually, the concept of bicycles and MV’s sharing the street is a good idea… and also public policy and the law…
Retro-fitting existing streets, “ala” Todd, to force that, and cutting off drainage from curbs/gutters, is well… [self moderated]
Just wanted to clarify that there’s no argument, there. (Not sure how that would work on “narrowed” streets, though.)
Yeah – I hadn’t even started thinking about things like drainage, which would probably be impacted by Todd’s ideas. (Your background is valuable, when it comes to “details” such as that.) Seems like Todd’s ideas are in the realm of “brainstorming”, at this point. (Nothing wrong with that.)
O.K. – REALLY signing off, this time. 🙂
It would work exactly the same, Ron… might take some behavioral mods…
Woah, okay. I am more than pleased to discuss the merits of various ideas with respectful and ideally referenced disagreement, as well as sarcasm… and I hope some satire is appreciated… and, for example, things like where in another thread I wanted everyone to sign off on prioritizing private vehicle storage over housing.
But I don’t think that there’s any room here in the forum for patronizing people. I will leave it at that.
****
And about what something which I would normally consider a straw man argument but is probably just a misunderstanding, I’ll be gracious. Thus:
I’m not suggesting that the citizens of Davis abandon the private car. I’m trying to offer alternatives to private car use and storage in an environment with a teeny-tiny vacancy rate and economic displacement of fully-employed people and students that itself increases use of private cars.
This is a city which brands itself with an antique bike, where the mayor is respected by many for being carfree, and where primary and secondary school students ride more than elsewhere. But the rise in bicycle modal share has been stagnant for awhile. For example the goal for this year is that 40% of those school kids ride bikes, but it’s 27%. At best in some places like University Mall or Downtown the 25% goal – for all ages – for shopping, going out and getting to the workplace etc. by bike is not so far off. The problem is that this is a citywide goal, and it ain’t close to that if on typical sunny day out of perhaps 1,500 cars total parked in various large parking lots like the one at the hospital, the “Pig” mall, Oaktree Plaza and Nugget Fields there are about 25 bikes. This City takes the bike seriously, and of course goals are by their very nature not supposed to be easy to reach, but what is our political or media leadership saying about that 1.75% modal share? Not much.
So, in lieu of solutions for the terrible housing situation and our failure to meet recently-established goals for the state of cycling in our nation’s “Cycling Capitol” near its state’s capitol, I’m suggesting that not adding more private vehicle storage in town is absolutely the right idea. That it’s a right idea to not repave the full width of a 25 mph street if there’s a desire to decrease its design speed to about 15 mph, so that people riding bikes, drivers and cars – parked and not – and people simply playing in the space between buildings can share it with very little risk, and hopefully increasing joy. And there’s no problem with drainage. That it’s better for everyone committed to being a good neighbor if we don’t call mixed-use paths “bikepaths” and that we stop our current archaic design for streets with a paint-only bike lane on an arterial street – where cars are going over 40 mph – parallel to a mixed-use path, because it’s fake compromise masquerading as “Complete Streets”: In this design if someone wants to ride a bike fast they have to believe that paint defies physics and if they want to be safe they have to ride slow and share a space with pedestrians, and then pretend to not annoy the pedestrians as the pedestrians just grin and bear it. Successful cycling cities don’t do things like this. Have some perspective, people! Many of the main routes for MV’s in this town have two lanes in the same direction! There’s an express route for cars from West Davis to the east end of Davis that’s so easy (when there’s no congestion on 113 and 80). Cyclists don’t have that, relative to their own typical use-distance.
Finally, yes: I am definitely guilty of brainstorming! But I don’t do this as I write these comments. I would not waste anyone’s time with anything I have not thoughtfully considered, though – as I have mentioned repeatedly – almost all of it is best practice somewhere else.
I’m not new to things but I am new in town, and there’s a lot of even recent history to catch up on, and underground pipes I don’t know about. I appreciate very much info on things like development fees, because – I admit – what I’m talking about is not cheap to implement, except in the long run, because it’s ultimately so much cheaper for society to build bicycle paths and electrified train lines, and carshare pods and full bus service… then to build for cars.
You raise a lot of interesting points that merit discussion. But I think I’ll start with this one. If this is in fact the goal for the city, it’s completely unrealistic and should either be ignored — or revisited, if it is, in fact, going to be the basis for any kind of policies. We have a graying city. With no new housing being built, the population is getting both older and younger — it is skewing to the 18 – 24 demographic because of UC enrollment, and the rest is skewing to the senior citizen end of the age spectrum. What’s being squeezed out by home prices and scarcity is the middle class and the families. Those old folks aren’t going to be riding bikes more, they’re going to be riding them less. And I don’t see that demographic spread changing anytime in the next decade or so.
The overwhelming majority of Davis residents prefer to drive for their daily errands and their daily commutes. Making the streets narrower to make it more uncomfortable and try to force them out of their cars seems like an exercise in collective frustration. We need our roads wide enough for cars, delivery trucks, and transit vehicles, as well as emergency vehicles, along with separately striped lanes for bikes. I doubt you’ll get much traction trying to intentionally slow people down in order to try to change how they choose to travel.
In prioritizing funds for repairs, I feel the money should go to fix the worst streets and bike lanes and bring them up to acceptable levels of service, then go to deferred maintenance on the other roadways and bike paths. These funds will likely need to be combined with a parcel tax that the council will surely be discussing soon. I suggest that we focus on pragmatic uses of that money, rather than try to do any social engineering in the context of a tax increase. It’s not easy to get to the majority vote needed for raising taxes.
I pretty much agree with Don’s statement.
It should also be noted that businesses (including Don’s) depend upon vehicles and roads to function (including deliveries, etc.). Bicycles cannot replace motor vehicles, for such needs.
Don:
Now that I think about it, I have an honest question for you.
Do businesses (such as yours) pay a higher rate than a “typical” homeowner, for road maintenance? (I am not asking this to criticize, and I realize that businesses make a contribution to the local economy via sales taxes (in contrast to homeowners, who don’t). Still, it’s something I always wondered about (not necessarily “advocating”).
I believe that heavy trucks (which make deliveries all over the place) pay “extra” fees, to help maintain roads (which they definitely damage, not to mention my windshield – more than once). (A separate topic really, but just thought of it.) I’m thinking of the trucks you see on freeways, not the smaller ones that probably serve businesses such as yours. (Not your problem, regardless.)
We pay a business license fee, and of course we pay property taxes. Downtown property owners pay parking fees, but I’m not in the downtown. But as you know, thanks to Prop 13 there is no correlation between property taxes and actual property value, much less any relationship to the city’s budget for road maintenance. And as long as Davis is a general law city, rather than a charter city, it would be very difficult to make any other method of taxation.
The trucks that deliver to us do pay significant fees and taxes. They are mostly large semi-trailer or flatbed trucks. I do pay separate delivery fees to various vendors, in a variety of ways. Some do it on a per-unit basis, others charge a flat fee, and when gas prices go up we often get fuel surcharges. Since that is part of the landed cost of the items I sell, it’s reflected in the retail price that the customer pays.
But, that is a question I have. Do heavy trucks (that you see on freeways/roadways everywhere) pay a sufficient “fee” (statewide), to help maintain roads? (Howard, can you perhaps enlighten me, regarding how that works, and whether or not the fees are sufficient?) Just wondering. Not too many really large trucks, driving around Davis. They sure damage freeways and roads wherever they travel, though.
Don:
Just wanted to say that despite our differences, I do hope that your business stays put, for a long time to come. It’s nice to see a small nursery like yours in town (in a unique building, as well). It’s one of the first things I noticed, when I arrived years ago. It’s sort of unexpected, in that spot.
Somehow, I always think of plants and undeveloped land, together. (Even a yard might be considered “undeveloped”, in a way.) Nurseries are such a positive, peaceful place to visit.
Thanks, I appreciate the comment. Interesting to note that when we opened 35 years ago, we were on the edge of town. “Look For The Barn At The East End of Fifth Street!” was our motto.
At some point I may write the story of how we came to open the nursery there. The short story is that three couples, each bringing different resources, came together to buy the lot, buy a barn kit, build the building ourselves with help from friends, spread out some gravel and start selling plants. It was a pretty unusual thing to do even then, much less now. But there are some lessons that carry forward about what the city can do to help or hinder entrepreneurial activities like ours. For all the focus on big business parks, it’s worth noting that ten or so businesses like mine along Fifth Street would generate a reasonable amount of sales tax and property tax for the city. Certainly they would generate more revenue than is arising from a city corporation yard and school district buildings.
Hi, Don. What are the other “interesting points”?
Anyway, I will respond to your most recent comments:
First of all, about what elders are not going to do: Consider replacing “bicycle” or “cycling” etc. with “smoking” and “cancer” and appropriate helper words to keep things logical. But a simpler answer is that good things take hard work! The only thing’s that’s predestined is that if we want to help our elders stay as healthy, safe and independent as possible using bicycles, we need to build much, much better infrastructure, in the holistic sense, for all users of the spaces between buildings. The concept is simple; the solution takes money and good ideas. AARP has been encouraging it both recently and going back a few years. Of course these links show that it’s really about all the alternatives to a private car: That’s good.
Not so brief technical note: Bike lanes are no longer seen by experts as a good solution, especially where motor vehicles are travelling faster than 20 mph or so, and the slow streets are not meant to “squeeze” – please! – they’re meant to hug! When vehicles go slow there’s no need for separation. When motor vehicles move fast, e.g. on arteries, you separate. To repeat: This is how successful cycling cities do it. (Above I mentioned “defying physics” — this applies to Dutch as well as Californian bodies.) You’re not being helping by dumping on the straw man arguments: Did I imply at all that emergency vehicles would be prevented from entering the spaces I’m proposing? Do you realize that people in parts of cities with little private automobile use and with delivery vehicles restricted by size do not starve to death? I’m sure you’ll agree that in a journey from one end of Davis to Downtown, the few hundred yards near the start and end points where the design speed is reduced to 15 mph will add a negligible amount of journey time. It also seems that a 15 mph zone with intersection priority – again, this is how they do it in places in northern Europe that millions of Americans visit every year – is faster than a 25 mph zone with absolute stopping-requirements near the start and end points. As getting hit at 25 mph is exponentially more dangerous than getting hit at 15 mph, it’s safer, too. Stopping when necessary from a speed of 15 mph in a motor vehicle takes much less time than a when the speed is 25 mph. Bonus: Less pollution in non-electric cars if there are no stop signs!
So… near the top you ask “If this is in fact a goal for the city…”. Yes, it’s part of the Beyond Platinum Bicycle Action Plan from 2014, which is even briefly mentioned here on the Yolo County website, and of course in complete form on the City of Davis website. The section dealing with modal share goal starts on pg. 74 and the most user-friendly graphic is on the top of pg. 77. (There’s also something – not too much – on pages 36-37 about seniors/elders.) I would also like to see a non-private car modal share goal for Davis, as it would be inclusive of everything from the bus, to ride hailing services, to walking. Also a multi-modal goal would be useful (i.e. bike to the train).
To your consideration of essentially throwing away City Council’s formally-supported goals, shouldn’t this be at least as difficult as tearing down the development projects that don’t support those goals?
Don:
I appreciate learning about the history. Had no idea it was there for 35 years. Are you the sole/remaining founder?
I actually wish that you had an ongoing forum (something like the Vanguard), for “plant talk”, for ongoing communications with, and advice, for customers. I usually have some question, and it’s difficult to find expertise regarding plants, these days.
Of course, this is all off-topic, but I wanted to mention this, somewhere.
I like my car, I like driving my car, I like having a place to park my car when I go downtown and other destinations. I think the majority of people in Davis do too. I ride my bike once in a while for recreation, but otherwise I depend on my car. I feel we need to get the opinions of people who like their cars and like driving their cars in Davis about what they feel would be the best solutions for better driving experiences in town.
I second Keith’s sentiments.
I have to admit that I like having a vehicle, as well. Without a vehicle, the places that you can travel (and the items you can carry) are pretty limited. It also provides protection from weather, as well as a degree of safety when moving about. Perhaps someday, vehicles will be powered by energy that’s not dependent upon fossil fuels. (We’re starting to move in that direction, now.)
From my perspective (learned to drive in a much more urbanized area, long ago), driving and parking is still relatively easy/convenient, in Davis (and beyond).
Part of my point is that we need more car not bicycle advocates giving their opinions on what might make Davis better for auto driving, parking and traffic.
I can understand this line of thinking. I drive many places and do many things that are only practical using a car. Unfortunately, as our population has grown the road and parking infrastructure has not grown to accommodate all the additional traffic that the increased population generates. Additionally, the city streets and access points were never designed to handle the population we have now and can not be easily modified to do so (the Richards underpass is a prime example).
There are things that the citizens can do to help alleviate the traffic and parking situation. I would suggest the following:
Have the School District strongly encouraging children to walk or bike to school rather than having their parents drive them. Perhaps the “Cool Davis” folks could get involved wit a PR campaign to encourage the kids to tell their parents that they want to walk or bike to school.
Have the City and/or University promote use of Unitrans by citizens for their routine trips around town. We could see a PR campaign promoting use of Unitrans including the fact that seniors can obtain a free bus pass. Once again, I would think that this is an area that the “Cool Davis” folks could help out with.
The City could look at the possibility of converting some of the streets in the downtown grid to pedestrian only. I’ve seen many cities in Europe and some in the US where this has been done successfully.
I agree with your first two points, but how is closing off streets going to alleviate our downtown parking problem and improve driving conditions? I would think if anything it would make conditions worse by putting that many more cars on fewer roads.
I’ve travelled Europe quite extensively, former airline employee that flys free with military family that was stationed in Germany. It was my experience that the closed off pedestrian only roads were usually in the older parts of towns and were too narrow to accomodate much traffic so in those cases closing the streets off to traffic made sense.
Good comments, but some “notes”…
The Richards overhead was designed and built for “Model T’s” as part of the first transcontinental highway (Lincoln/US 40).
Main danger to elementary/JH students walking or biking to school are the parents who drive them, because there is “too much car traffic”.
Unitrans, like most ‘public transit’ systems, is heavily subsidized, and if “fare-box” only funding, would VERY likely fail. Saying that, there is a societal benefit, to subsidize it… more use of Unitrans by other than students and “seniors” would probably require expansion of the fleet, more trips, and as I pointed out previously, more very significant damage to the street network pavement… fares/subsidies should be set to also direct money to fund roadway repair/maintenance…
The ped only thing, downtown, might well have “unintended consequences”/”collateral damages”… including to bicycle circulation… not sure if that should be too actively pursued…
Yes, converting one or more streets would have to be done carefully to avoid bike problems. Perhaps a pedestrian street with a dedicated bike lane might work?
What the City needs in order to alleviate traffic and parking problems is to convince people to use alternate transportation methods to get downtown rather than driving.
A “thought” that I’ve been mulling, for some time. (Not something that I’m “advocating”.)
If the state ultimately disburses increased funds for roadway maintenance based on “need”, might communities with poor roadways receive a greater share of state funding? Might communities that “tax themselves” to maintain roadways in a responsible manner ultimately receive less state funding, in such a scenario?
Again, not advocating this – just a thought. For one thing, I wouldn’t count on that scenario occurring, or being sufficient if it did occur. And, “waiting” would probably ensure that costs (for whoever ultimately pays for it) would increase.
Still, it’s something that crossed my mind.
Just noticed this in the article, as well. Might negate my earlier thought, assuming that the legislation passes, and depending upon how it works (e.g., regarding the “timing” of the local improvements):
In any case, I hope the legislation passes, and that our leaders are able to maximize the benefit to the community. Seems like something to pay close attention to (and perhaps, to coordinate with).
Also – from article:
Hopefully, Davis will be able to gain access to some portion of this, if the legislation passes. (I hope that “improve” might also mean “repaving” existing walking/bike paths, perhaps reducing any local portion of funds needed.)
Ron… your 7:32 post…
Will not opine as to sufficiency of truck ‘weight fees’, if any, or what local agencies may get from that… just don’t know.
But, you ask the wrong question, related to Davis streets… believe it or not, buses create (far) more roadway damage to local arterials/collectors than do the “big-rigs” using those streets… and neither YoloBus nor UniTrans contribute even 1 cent to Davis roadway maintenance. Can elaborate (but not tonight) but has to do with their suspensions, not total weight…
Ron… what do you mean by “an alleyway street”? [How do you define that term?] Would help us to address that question… I know what an “alley” is, both from a legal and practical standpoint… but my working definitions may not match yours…
If you want an answer from me, I need to know your ‘referent’, so that I may understand…
Meant as a friendly question… not my “ususal trolling”…
Howard:
I had previously looked up the term on the Internet, and found that alleys are “narrow passageways between or behind buildings”. (Pretty much what one would think of, regarding that term.) I would add that the pavement on such passageways often appears to be in a permanent state of “failure” (at least visually, if not technically), and that adjacent homeowners might even prefer it that way.
OK, gave you the opprtunity to get “real-life” as to Davis… you actually went more abstract… assume you are not interested in a cogent answer… if you enjoy playing ‘word games’, find other playmates… I have better things to do…
“Narrow”… without context/measure, is a meaningless term… “passageway” again, passage for who/what? Necessary surface quality? How ‘measured’?
Ah, the “eye of the beholder” thing… hard to respond to that in a meaningful way.
G’day…
Howard:
You’re misunderstanding my response.
You asked me for a definition, and I provided it. Yes, those terms are ambigous, of course. I can think of specific examples (don’t know the names of those alleys), but I don’t have a lot of time at the moment to research and discuss this.
G’day…