Reconciling Fifth Street with Our Vision for Downtown

I was reading a letter published in yesterday’s Davis Enterprise from the owner’s of Fleet Feet Sports in Davis about the potential road diet for Fifth Street.

The gist of the letter is:

“While the safety of all who travel Fifth Street – be they pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists or skateboarders – is a concern for us all, the line must be drawn somewhere. Whatever the city decides to do, we can live with it only if further restriction of auto traffic is not part of the solution.”

They argue that reducing the number of lanes on 5th Street to one in each direction:

“It will strangle the economic vitality of the downtown.”

Furthermore:

“Downtown businesses depend on customers who drive from all parts of Davis, as well as Woodland, Dixon, Winters and points beyond. We already have a major bottleneck to downtown access for motorists on our south side with the Richards undercrossing. Adding a bottleneck to the north side will be devastating.”

I am always interested in understanding other people’s viewpoints on these things, especially when I do not have a hard and fast idea myself of how to fix a particular problem.

I understand the general view of downtown that they do not want anything that is going to prevent the public from coming into the downtown.

One of the things we were looking at during the election was the idea of having parking access before you get under the Richard’s underpass. If you could create a multilevel parking structure off of Olive Drive that goes over the railroad tracks, people could park in that facility and walk to the downtown. That would bypass the bottleneck of the Richards underpass.

People have often suggested that we simply expand the underpass to two lanes in each direction, but to many that simply shifts the bottle neck from Richards Blvd to First Street and you end up dumping multi-lanes right into downtown.

I was actually thinking the same thing with regards to Fifth Street. Why not dump a huge amount of traffic onto B Street and use that as your east bound access to downtown. You can do the same thing West bound onto G Street or even before. In terms of traffic flow we could be a little innovative in terms of how to get the traffic that is actually coming into the downtown and get them into the downtown rather than continuing on Fifth Street.

Just a thought there, I am not going to pretend to have an answer there. While I can see the concerns of Downtown business, I have concerns about safety and there is also I think a move to get people out of their cars anyway. All of these points are somewhat in conflict. The real question is how do we resolve these conflicts.

One of the problems I see is what is our overall vision for the downtown. We have talked about walkability. We have talked about alternative fuel. We have talked about putting higher density near the core so that we can get people out of their cars. We have talked about bike paths and sidewalks. We have talked about expanding the basic function of downtown and having multilevel buildings.

But do we have one vision for the downtown and how would the Fifth Street plan gibe with that vision. The problem I am starting to see is that we may in the end solve those two issues independently of each other and thus produce a plan for Fifth Street that is not compatible with the overall downtown plan.

I think the letter suggests some this problem as it closes:

“Everyone who runs for City Council in this town claims to support our unique downtown, and declares that it must be preserved and protected. They now have the opportunity to follow through by keeping Fifth Street open with four lanes for auto traffic. If the council wants the downtown to continue to thrive as a retail center, it won’t throw another obstacle to downtown access in front of the thousands of our customers who drive.”

However, it does doesn’t provide us with any resolution to this problem. Obviously downtown would love to have unencumbered traffic into it. Obviously. But they do not have that now and probably will have less of that in the future. So how can we protect the safety of people traveling on Fifth Street, work our vision for downtown, and achieve our goals of getting people out of their cars in order to protect the environment.

Again, I do not have the answers to all of these questions, but when we finally decide on the solution to Fifth Street, I hope these questions are very strongly considered.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

128 Comments

  1. Don Shor

    The letter from Jeff March, just after the Dentons’ letter, suggests moving bike traffic from Fifth to Fourth Street along with some specific suggestions for improvements along Fourth Street to make it safer.

    Those letters focused on auto access for customers. It is worth mentioning that Fifth Street is an important access road for movement of goods into the businesses in the downtown, as well as businesses such as mine and the Co-op which are not in the downtown. Several of us receive goods primarily via large trucks: pet supplies, furniture, hardware, lumber, nursery stock, tires, groceries, etc.

    Adding more traffic lights, another dedicated turn lane, protected crosswalks, and moving bikes off Fifth Street are all options to deal with safety issues. Reducing the number of lanes doesn’t solve anything. Moving the traffic to another street (which one?) just shifts it to someone else’s neighborhood, and adversely affects businesses all along that corridor as well as in the downtown.

    Expanding the underpass has been before the voters more than once, and has been rejected.

  2. Don Shor

    The letter from Jeff March, just after the Dentons’ letter, suggests moving bike traffic from Fifth to Fourth Street along with some specific suggestions for improvements along Fourth Street to make it safer.

    Those letters focused on auto access for customers. It is worth mentioning that Fifth Street is an important access road for movement of goods into the businesses in the downtown, as well as businesses such as mine and the Co-op which are not in the downtown. Several of us receive goods primarily via large trucks: pet supplies, furniture, hardware, lumber, nursery stock, tires, groceries, etc.

    Adding more traffic lights, another dedicated turn lane, protected crosswalks, and moving bikes off Fifth Street are all options to deal with safety issues. Reducing the number of lanes doesn’t solve anything. Moving the traffic to another street (which one?) just shifts it to someone else’s neighborhood, and adversely affects businesses all along that corridor as well as in the downtown.

    Expanding the underpass has been before the voters more than once, and has been rejected.

  3. Don Shor

    The letter from Jeff March, just after the Dentons’ letter, suggests moving bike traffic from Fifth to Fourth Street along with some specific suggestions for improvements along Fourth Street to make it safer.

    Those letters focused on auto access for customers. It is worth mentioning that Fifth Street is an important access road for movement of goods into the businesses in the downtown, as well as businesses such as mine and the Co-op which are not in the downtown. Several of us receive goods primarily via large trucks: pet supplies, furniture, hardware, lumber, nursery stock, tires, groceries, etc.

    Adding more traffic lights, another dedicated turn lane, protected crosswalks, and moving bikes off Fifth Street are all options to deal with safety issues. Reducing the number of lanes doesn’t solve anything. Moving the traffic to another street (which one?) just shifts it to someone else’s neighborhood, and adversely affects businesses all along that corridor as well as in the downtown.

    Expanding the underpass has been before the voters more than once, and has been rejected.

  4. Don Shor

    The letter from Jeff March, just after the Dentons’ letter, suggests moving bike traffic from Fifth to Fourth Street along with some specific suggestions for improvements along Fourth Street to make it safer.

    Those letters focused on auto access for customers. It is worth mentioning that Fifth Street is an important access road for movement of goods into the businesses in the downtown, as well as businesses such as mine and the Co-op which are not in the downtown. Several of us receive goods primarily via large trucks: pet supplies, furniture, hardware, lumber, nursery stock, tires, groceries, etc.

    Adding more traffic lights, another dedicated turn lane, protected crosswalks, and moving bikes off Fifth Street are all options to deal with safety issues. Reducing the number of lanes doesn’t solve anything. Moving the traffic to another street (which one?) just shifts it to someone else’s neighborhood, and adversely affects businesses all along that corridor as well as in the downtown.

    Expanding the underpass has been before the voters more than once, and has been rejected.

  5. Rich Rifkin

    “The letter from Jeff March, just after the Dentons’ letter, suggests moving bike traffic from Fifth to Fourth Street along with some specific suggestions for improvements along Fourth Street to make it safer.”

    Before reading Jeff March’s letter, I thought it was worth a try reconfiguring 5th — to two car lanes, two bike lanes, and a center lane, just like Anderson Road is configured from Covell to Russell. However, March changed my mind. I think his idea for 4th Street makes more sense.

  6. Rich Rifkin

    “The letter from Jeff March, just after the Dentons’ letter, suggests moving bike traffic from Fifth to Fourth Street along with some specific suggestions for improvements along Fourth Street to make it safer.”

    Before reading Jeff March’s letter, I thought it was worth a try reconfiguring 5th — to two car lanes, two bike lanes, and a center lane, just like Anderson Road is configured from Covell to Russell. However, March changed my mind. I think his idea for 4th Street makes more sense.

  7. Rich Rifkin

    “The letter from Jeff March, just after the Dentons’ letter, suggests moving bike traffic from Fifth to Fourth Street along with some specific suggestions for improvements along Fourth Street to make it safer.”

    Before reading Jeff March’s letter, I thought it was worth a try reconfiguring 5th — to two car lanes, two bike lanes, and a center lane, just like Anderson Road is configured from Covell to Russell. However, March changed my mind. I think his idea for 4th Street makes more sense.

  8. Rich Rifkin

    “The letter from Jeff March, just after the Dentons’ letter, suggests moving bike traffic from Fifth to Fourth Street along with some specific suggestions for improvements along Fourth Street to make it safer.”

    Before reading Jeff March’s letter, I thought it was worth a try reconfiguring 5th — to two car lanes, two bike lanes, and a center lane, just like Anderson Road is configured from Covell to Russell. However, March changed my mind. I think his idea for 4th Street makes more sense.

  9. Rich Rifkin

    “If you could create a multilevel parking structure off of Olive Drive that goes over the railroad tracks, people could park in that facility and walk to the downtown.”

    Realistically, there is no money for this. The next multi-level parking garage in Davis will be built in the lot north of Kinko’s between E and F. The idea has been to start this in maybe two years — however, that will likely have to be put off another 5 years, if and when the funds are there.

    “That would bypass the bottleneck of the Richards underpass.”

    The bottleneck problem at the Richards subway can be overstated. There is a bit of a wait — a couple minutes, usually less — for the morning and afternoon commute times. Otherwise, traffic through the tunnel is not a headache. Drivers simply have to have a little patience.

  10. Rich Rifkin

    “If you could create a multilevel parking structure off of Olive Drive that goes over the railroad tracks, people could park in that facility and walk to the downtown.”

    Realistically, there is no money for this. The next multi-level parking garage in Davis will be built in the lot north of Kinko’s between E and F. The idea has been to start this in maybe two years — however, that will likely have to be put off another 5 years, if and when the funds are there.

    “That would bypass the bottleneck of the Richards underpass.”

    The bottleneck problem at the Richards subway can be overstated. There is a bit of a wait — a couple minutes, usually less — for the morning and afternoon commute times. Otherwise, traffic through the tunnel is not a headache. Drivers simply have to have a little patience.

  11. Rich Rifkin

    “If you could create a multilevel parking structure off of Olive Drive that goes over the railroad tracks, people could park in that facility and walk to the downtown.”

    Realistically, there is no money for this. The next multi-level parking garage in Davis will be built in the lot north of Kinko’s between E and F. The idea has been to start this in maybe two years — however, that will likely have to be put off another 5 years, if and when the funds are there.

    “That would bypass the bottleneck of the Richards underpass.”

    The bottleneck problem at the Richards subway can be overstated. There is a bit of a wait — a couple minutes, usually less — for the morning and afternoon commute times. Otherwise, traffic through the tunnel is not a headache. Drivers simply have to have a little patience.

  12. Rich Rifkin

    “If you could create a multilevel parking structure off of Olive Drive that goes over the railroad tracks, people could park in that facility and walk to the downtown.”

    Realistically, there is no money for this. The next multi-level parking garage in Davis will be built in the lot north of Kinko’s between E and F. The idea has been to start this in maybe two years — however, that will likely have to be put off another 5 years, if and when the funds are there.

    “That would bypass the bottleneck of the Richards underpass.”

    The bottleneck problem at the Richards subway can be overstated. There is a bit of a wait — a couple minutes, usually less — for the morning and afternoon commute times. Otherwise, traffic through the tunnel is not a headache. Drivers simply have to have a little patience.

  13. Rich Rifkin

    One more point against the "over the tracks" parking garage idea, which I concede I've never heard before and haven't therefore given enough thought to: The vast majority of the traffic passing under Richards — when it is congested — is not destined for the downtown. Those cars are mostly coming or going to the university, coming or going to I-80, coming or going to Olive Drive businesses or residences, or coming or going to South Davis businesses or residences.

    Of those Richards drivers going downtown, only a few have destinations within 2 blocks of the subway. Someone who wanted to go to Bistro 33 or B&L bikes would not find it convenient to park at Olive & Richards and walk. Moreover, if a driver were going downtown to buy merchandise, he'-) want his car parked even closer.

    Thus, if you built the "over the tracks" garage, you would only be serving a small percentage of Richards Blvd drivers — not enough, I suspect, to dent the traffic at the subway or justify the cost of the garage.

  14. Rich Rifkin

    One more point against the "over the tracks" parking garage idea, which I concede I've never heard before and haven't therefore given enough thought to: The vast majority of the traffic passing under Richards — when it is congested — is not destined for the downtown. Those cars are mostly coming or going to the university, coming or going to I-80, coming or going to Olive Drive businesses or residences, or coming or going to South Davis businesses or residences.

    Of those Richards drivers going downtown, only a few have destinations within 2 blocks of the subway. Someone who wanted to go to Bistro 33 or B&L bikes would not find it convenient to park at Olive & Richards and walk. Moreover, if a driver were going downtown to buy merchandise, he'-) want his car parked even closer.

    Thus, if you built the "over the tracks" garage, you would only be serving a small percentage of Richards Blvd drivers — not enough, I suspect, to dent the traffic at the subway or justify the cost of the garage.

  15. Rich Rifkin

    One more point against the "over the tracks" parking garage idea, which I concede I've never heard before and haven't therefore given enough thought to: The vast majority of the traffic passing under Richards — when it is congested — is not destined for the downtown. Those cars are mostly coming or going to the university, coming or going to I-80, coming or going to Olive Drive businesses or residences, or coming or going to South Davis businesses or residences.

    Of those Richards drivers going downtown, only a few have destinations within 2 blocks of the subway. Someone who wanted to go to Bistro 33 or B&L bikes would not find it convenient to park at Olive & Richards and walk. Moreover, if a driver were going downtown to buy merchandise, he'-) want his car parked even closer.

    Thus, if you built the "over the tracks" garage, you would only be serving a small percentage of Richards Blvd drivers — not enough, I suspect, to dent the traffic at the subway or justify the cost of the garage.

  16. Rich Rifkin

    One more point against the "over the tracks" parking garage idea, which I concede I've never heard before and haven't therefore given enough thought to: The vast majority of the traffic passing under Richards — when it is congested — is not destined for the downtown. Those cars are mostly coming or going to the university, coming or going to I-80, coming or going to Olive Drive businesses or residences, or coming or going to South Davis businesses or residences.

    Of those Richards drivers going downtown, only a few have destinations within 2 blocks of the subway. Someone who wanted to go to Bistro 33 or B&L bikes would not find it convenient to park at Olive & Richards and walk. Moreover, if a driver were going downtown to buy merchandise, he'-) want his car parked even closer.

    Thus, if you built the "over the tracks" garage, you would only be serving a small percentage of Richards Blvd drivers — not enough, I suspect, to dent the traffic at the subway or justify the cost of the garage.

  17. Sick of Arrogant Avid Cyclists

    Let’s face it, the only reason we are suggesting a reconfiguration of 5th street, is bc it is dangerous for bikes. There is no dedicated bike lane along 5th along the downtown area between A and G Street (or a bit beyond). So what’s the big deal? Just bar bikes from 5th between A and G Street or wherever the bike path begins again. Force bikes, for their own safety, to make a slight detour around that dangerous portion of 5th Street.

    The reason this simple solution is not used is bc avid bicyclists insist on having access to all roads, no matter how dangerous. I swear they would argue traveling on the freeways if they could get away with it.

    To prove my point, one day recently I was traveling as a passenger in a car down 5th street – a part of 5th street that has a perfectly safe bike path to use (in front of fraternity row). A snippy bicyclist was using the road, and signaling us to pass him in his lane. Another car was to our left, so we would have had to pass him in the same lane he was in, running the danger of clipping him. We instead chose to ignore his hand signal to pass him, waited patiently until there was an opportunity to pass him by moving one lane over to the left.

    As we passed this colossal jerk, I rolled down my window, and yelled at him, “Why don’t you use the bike lane, it’s safer?”. He snarled back, “Because I don’t have to!”. So I shouted a response, “Then don’t be surprised if you end up getting hit by a car!”.

    What an idiot! There was a perfectly good bike lane available, yet he chose to bike down the middle of the street, holding up traffic, just because he could! It was not a student by the way, but one of those avid cyclists with the fancy bike gear on. They are some of the most obnoxious people you will ever want to meet.

    On top of that, had I heeded his hand signal to pass him in his lane, there is a very good possibility I would have accidently hit the guy. Who is he to signal drivers it is safe to pass? He doesn’t know the size of the vehicle behind him, or traffic conditions behind or beside him. Talk about stuck on stupid!

    This kind of pandering to a small group of avid cyclists is just plain ridiculous. Reroute bikes so they cannot use 5th street where there is no bicycle path, between A and however far up it is before the bike path begins again.

  18. Sick of Arrogant Avid Cyclists

    Let’s face it, the only reason we are suggesting a reconfiguration of 5th street, is bc it is dangerous for bikes. There is no dedicated bike lane along 5th along the downtown area between A and G Street (or a bit beyond). So what’s the big deal? Just bar bikes from 5th between A and G Street or wherever the bike path begins again. Force bikes, for their own safety, to make a slight detour around that dangerous portion of 5th Street.

    The reason this simple solution is not used is bc avid bicyclists insist on having access to all roads, no matter how dangerous. I swear they would argue traveling on the freeways if they could get away with it.

    To prove my point, one day recently I was traveling as a passenger in a car down 5th street – a part of 5th street that has a perfectly safe bike path to use (in front of fraternity row). A snippy bicyclist was using the road, and signaling us to pass him in his lane. Another car was to our left, so we would have had to pass him in the same lane he was in, running the danger of clipping him. We instead chose to ignore his hand signal to pass him, waited patiently until there was an opportunity to pass him by moving one lane over to the left.

    As we passed this colossal jerk, I rolled down my window, and yelled at him, “Why don’t you use the bike lane, it’s safer?”. He snarled back, “Because I don’t have to!”. So I shouted a response, “Then don’t be surprised if you end up getting hit by a car!”.

    What an idiot! There was a perfectly good bike lane available, yet he chose to bike down the middle of the street, holding up traffic, just because he could! It was not a student by the way, but one of those avid cyclists with the fancy bike gear on. They are some of the most obnoxious people you will ever want to meet.

    On top of that, had I heeded his hand signal to pass him in his lane, there is a very good possibility I would have accidently hit the guy. Who is he to signal drivers it is safe to pass? He doesn’t know the size of the vehicle behind him, or traffic conditions behind or beside him. Talk about stuck on stupid!

    This kind of pandering to a small group of avid cyclists is just plain ridiculous. Reroute bikes so they cannot use 5th street where there is no bicycle path, between A and however far up it is before the bike path begins again.

  19. Sick of Arrogant Avid Cyclists

    Let’s face it, the only reason we are suggesting a reconfiguration of 5th street, is bc it is dangerous for bikes. There is no dedicated bike lane along 5th along the downtown area between A and G Street (or a bit beyond). So what’s the big deal? Just bar bikes from 5th between A and G Street or wherever the bike path begins again. Force bikes, for their own safety, to make a slight detour around that dangerous portion of 5th Street.

    The reason this simple solution is not used is bc avid bicyclists insist on having access to all roads, no matter how dangerous. I swear they would argue traveling on the freeways if they could get away with it.

    To prove my point, one day recently I was traveling as a passenger in a car down 5th street – a part of 5th street that has a perfectly safe bike path to use (in front of fraternity row). A snippy bicyclist was using the road, and signaling us to pass him in his lane. Another car was to our left, so we would have had to pass him in the same lane he was in, running the danger of clipping him. We instead chose to ignore his hand signal to pass him, waited patiently until there was an opportunity to pass him by moving one lane over to the left.

    As we passed this colossal jerk, I rolled down my window, and yelled at him, “Why don’t you use the bike lane, it’s safer?”. He snarled back, “Because I don’t have to!”. So I shouted a response, “Then don’t be surprised if you end up getting hit by a car!”.

    What an idiot! There was a perfectly good bike lane available, yet he chose to bike down the middle of the street, holding up traffic, just because he could! It was not a student by the way, but one of those avid cyclists with the fancy bike gear on. They are some of the most obnoxious people you will ever want to meet.

    On top of that, had I heeded his hand signal to pass him in his lane, there is a very good possibility I would have accidently hit the guy. Who is he to signal drivers it is safe to pass? He doesn’t know the size of the vehicle behind him, or traffic conditions behind or beside him. Talk about stuck on stupid!

    This kind of pandering to a small group of avid cyclists is just plain ridiculous. Reroute bikes so they cannot use 5th street where there is no bicycle path, between A and however far up it is before the bike path begins again.

  20. Sick of Arrogant Avid Cyclists

    Let’s face it, the only reason we are suggesting a reconfiguration of 5th street, is bc it is dangerous for bikes. There is no dedicated bike lane along 5th along the downtown area between A and G Street (or a bit beyond). So what’s the big deal? Just bar bikes from 5th between A and G Street or wherever the bike path begins again. Force bikes, for their own safety, to make a slight detour around that dangerous portion of 5th Street.

    The reason this simple solution is not used is bc avid bicyclists insist on having access to all roads, no matter how dangerous. I swear they would argue traveling on the freeways if they could get away with it.

    To prove my point, one day recently I was traveling as a passenger in a car down 5th street – a part of 5th street that has a perfectly safe bike path to use (in front of fraternity row). A snippy bicyclist was using the road, and signaling us to pass him in his lane. Another car was to our left, so we would have had to pass him in the same lane he was in, running the danger of clipping him. We instead chose to ignore his hand signal to pass him, waited patiently until there was an opportunity to pass him by moving one lane over to the left.

    As we passed this colossal jerk, I rolled down my window, and yelled at him, “Why don’t you use the bike lane, it’s safer?”. He snarled back, “Because I don’t have to!”. So I shouted a response, “Then don’t be surprised if you end up getting hit by a car!”.

    What an idiot! There was a perfectly good bike lane available, yet he chose to bike down the middle of the street, holding up traffic, just because he could! It was not a student by the way, but one of those avid cyclists with the fancy bike gear on. They are some of the most obnoxious people you will ever want to meet.

    On top of that, had I heeded his hand signal to pass him in his lane, there is a very good possibility I would have accidently hit the guy. Who is he to signal drivers it is safe to pass? He doesn’t know the size of the vehicle behind him, or traffic conditions behind or beside him. Talk about stuck on stupid!

    This kind of pandering to a small group of avid cyclists is just plain ridiculous. Reroute bikes so they cannot use 5th street where there is no bicycle path, between A and however far up it is before the bike path begins again.

  21. Anonymous

    Personally, I like banning bikes on 5th street and routing them through 4th street, but that would be hard to enforce.

    Many cities with vital historic downtowns split the traffic into two parallel one-way streets, with the businesses in the middle. (See Old Town Pasadena, for example.) It works.

    We could make Fifth street between B and L a one-way street westbound, with plenty of room for bike and left-turn lanes.
    The East bound traffic would split from 5th by turning right (south) at B street, be funneled down B to First Street, and out through the Richards Tunnel or continue to L and 5th via 1st to G then north to 5th Street, OR or 3rd to L then left to 5th. 5th would only be one way from B to L street. It would take some adjustments to ensure a walkable downtown with the added traffic.

    No solution is perfect, but this would bring customers and deliveries downtown, keep 5th as a viable artery with bike lanes, and work with any future plans for a downtown parking structure.

    Whether we like cars or not, they are here to stay, shoppers use them (especially shoppers with larger families), and if we can’t drive to downtown we’ll drive to Target. I plan to do both. I’m not about to bike 4.5 miles from southeast Davis to buy stuff for a family of 5, but I will and do drive downtown. Please don’t make it even more difficult for families like ours to shop downtown by further limiting access and convenience.

    Go look at Pasadena – they did it. And San Luis Obispo has many one way streets to direct traffic through its downtown.

  22. Anonymous

    Personally, I like banning bikes on 5th street and routing them through 4th street, but that would be hard to enforce.

    Many cities with vital historic downtowns split the traffic into two parallel one-way streets, with the businesses in the middle. (See Old Town Pasadena, for example.) It works.

    We could make Fifth street between B and L a one-way street westbound, with plenty of room for bike and left-turn lanes.
    The East bound traffic would split from 5th by turning right (south) at B street, be funneled down B to First Street, and out through the Richards Tunnel or continue to L and 5th via 1st to G then north to 5th Street, OR or 3rd to L then left to 5th. 5th would only be one way from B to L street. It would take some adjustments to ensure a walkable downtown with the added traffic.

    No solution is perfect, but this would bring customers and deliveries downtown, keep 5th as a viable artery with bike lanes, and work with any future plans for a downtown parking structure.

    Whether we like cars or not, they are here to stay, shoppers use them (especially shoppers with larger families), and if we can’t drive to downtown we’ll drive to Target. I plan to do both. I’m not about to bike 4.5 miles from southeast Davis to buy stuff for a family of 5, but I will and do drive downtown. Please don’t make it even more difficult for families like ours to shop downtown by further limiting access and convenience.

    Go look at Pasadena – they did it. And San Luis Obispo has many one way streets to direct traffic through its downtown.

  23. Anonymous

    Personally, I like banning bikes on 5th street and routing them through 4th street, but that would be hard to enforce.

    Many cities with vital historic downtowns split the traffic into two parallel one-way streets, with the businesses in the middle. (See Old Town Pasadena, for example.) It works.

    We could make Fifth street between B and L a one-way street westbound, with plenty of room for bike and left-turn lanes.
    The East bound traffic would split from 5th by turning right (south) at B street, be funneled down B to First Street, and out through the Richards Tunnel or continue to L and 5th via 1st to G then north to 5th Street, OR or 3rd to L then left to 5th. 5th would only be one way from B to L street. It would take some adjustments to ensure a walkable downtown with the added traffic.

    No solution is perfect, but this would bring customers and deliveries downtown, keep 5th as a viable artery with bike lanes, and work with any future plans for a downtown parking structure.

    Whether we like cars or not, they are here to stay, shoppers use them (especially shoppers with larger families), and if we can’t drive to downtown we’ll drive to Target. I plan to do both. I’m not about to bike 4.5 miles from southeast Davis to buy stuff for a family of 5, but I will and do drive downtown. Please don’t make it even more difficult for families like ours to shop downtown by further limiting access and convenience.

    Go look at Pasadena – they did it. And San Luis Obispo has many one way streets to direct traffic through its downtown.

  24. Anonymous

    Personally, I like banning bikes on 5th street and routing them through 4th street, but that would be hard to enforce.

    Many cities with vital historic downtowns split the traffic into two parallel one-way streets, with the businesses in the middle. (See Old Town Pasadena, for example.) It works.

    We could make Fifth street between B and L a one-way street westbound, with plenty of room for bike and left-turn lanes.
    The East bound traffic would split from 5th by turning right (south) at B street, be funneled down B to First Street, and out through the Richards Tunnel or continue to L and 5th via 1st to G then north to 5th Street, OR or 3rd to L then left to 5th. 5th would only be one way from B to L street. It would take some adjustments to ensure a walkable downtown with the added traffic.

    No solution is perfect, but this would bring customers and deliveries downtown, keep 5th as a viable artery with bike lanes, and work with any future plans for a downtown parking structure.

    Whether we like cars or not, they are here to stay, shoppers use them (especially shoppers with larger families), and if we can’t drive to downtown we’ll drive to Target. I plan to do both. I’m not about to bike 4.5 miles from southeast Davis to buy stuff for a family of 5, but I will and do drive downtown. Please don’t make it even more difficult for families like ours to shop downtown by further limiting access and convenience.

    Go look at Pasadena – they did it. And San Luis Obispo has many one way streets to direct traffic through its downtown.

  25. FastFwed

    We could make Fifth street between B and L a one-way street westbound, with plenty of room for bike and left-turn lanes.
    The East bound traffic would split from 5th by turning right (south) at B street, be funneled down B to First Street, and out through the Richards Tunnel or continue to L and 5th via 1st to G then north to 5th Street, OR or 3rd to L then left to 5th. 5th would only be one way from B to L street. It would take some adjustments to ensure a walkable downtown with the added traffic.***********************
    ARE YOU EVEN REMOTELY SERIOUS?? DO YOU HAVE ANY CLUE HOW QUICKLY YOU’D KILL OUR(ALREADY) MEAGER DOWNTOWN?? NOT THAT I REALLY CARE ABOUT AIR QUALITY BUT THIS CONCEPT WILL FORCE MANY TO DRIVE A LONG WAY OUT OF THEIR WAY TO DO ANYTHING!!

  26. FastFwed

    We could make Fifth street between B and L a one-way street westbound, with plenty of room for bike and left-turn lanes.
    The East bound traffic would split from 5th by turning right (south) at B street, be funneled down B to First Street, and out through the Richards Tunnel or continue to L and 5th via 1st to G then north to 5th Street, OR or 3rd to L then left to 5th. 5th would only be one way from B to L street. It would take some adjustments to ensure a walkable downtown with the added traffic.***********************
    ARE YOU EVEN REMOTELY SERIOUS?? DO YOU HAVE ANY CLUE HOW QUICKLY YOU’D KILL OUR(ALREADY) MEAGER DOWNTOWN?? NOT THAT I REALLY CARE ABOUT AIR QUALITY BUT THIS CONCEPT WILL FORCE MANY TO DRIVE A LONG WAY OUT OF THEIR WAY TO DO ANYTHING!!

  27. FastFwed

    We could make Fifth street between B and L a one-way street westbound, with plenty of room for bike and left-turn lanes.
    The East bound traffic would split from 5th by turning right (south) at B street, be funneled down B to First Street, and out through the Richards Tunnel or continue to L and 5th via 1st to G then north to 5th Street, OR or 3rd to L then left to 5th. 5th would only be one way from B to L street. It would take some adjustments to ensure a walkable downtown with the added traffic.***********************
    ARE YOU EVEN REMOTELY SERIOUS?? DO YOU HAVE ANY CLUE HOW QUICKLY YOU’D KILL OUR(ALREADY) MEAGER DOWNTOWN?? NOT THAT I REALLY CARE ABOUT AIR QUALITY BUT THIS CONCEPT WILL FORCE MANY TO DRIVE A LONG WAY OUT OF THEIR WAY TO DO ANYTHING!!

  28. FastFwed

    We could make Fifth street between B and L a one-way street westbound, with plenty of room for bike and left-turn lanes.
    The East bound traffic would split from 5th by turning right (south) at B street, be funneled down B to First Street, and out through the Richards Tunnel or continue to L and 5th via 1st to G then north to 5th Street, OR or 3rd to L then left to 5th. 5th would only be one way from B to L street. It would take some adjustments to ensure a walkable downtown with the added traffic.***********************
    ARE YOU EVEN REMOTELY SERIOUS?? DO YOU HAVE ANY CLUE HOW QUICKLY YOU’D KILL OUR(ALREADY) MEAGER DOWNTOWN?? NOT THAT I REALLY CARE ABOUT AIR QUALITY BUT THIS CONCEPT WILL FORCE MANY TO DRIVE A LONG WAY OUT OF THEIR WAY TO DO ANYTHING!!

  29. Downtown shopper

    Rich said,

    “One more point against the “over the tracks” parking garage idea, which I concede I’ve never heard before and haven’t therefore given enough thought to.” Cecilia spoke about this during a DDBA forum and another forum that I attended during the last city council race.

    It sounded interesting the way it was described and if I remember correctly she made some suggestions for a trolly that would take shoppers around the core of downtown so that they would not have to carry their purchases all around with them. She also gave ideas for handicap parking and accommodating cyclists (of which I am one) so it really appealed to me.

    David would know this, but I think she may have said that there is something similar in San Luis Obispo. I think it should be looked into.

    Can you post her suggestion David?

  30. Downtown shopper

    Rich said,

    “One more point against the “over the tracks” parking garage idea, which I concede I’ve never heard before and haven’t therefore given enough thought to.” Cecilia spoke about this during a DDBA forum and another forum that I attended during the last city council race.

    It sounded interesting the way it was described and if I remember correctly she made some suggestions for a trolly that would take shoppers around the core of downtown so that they would not have to carry their purchases all around with them. She also gave ideas for handicap parking and accommodating cyclists (of which I am one) so it really appealed to me.

    David would know this, but I think she may have said that there is something similar in San Luis Obispo. I think it should be looked into.

    Can you post her suggestion David?

  31. Downtown shopper

    Rich said,

    “One more point against the “over the tracks” parking garage idea, which I concede I’ve never heard before and haven’t therefore given enough thought to.” Cecilia spoke about this during a DDBA forum and another forum that I attended during the last city council race.

    It sounded interesting the way it was described and if I remember correctly she made some suggestions for a trolly that would take shoppers around the core of downtown so that they would not have to carry their purchases all around with them. She also gave ideas for handicap parking and accommodating cyclists (of which I am one) so it really appealed to me.

    David would know this, but I think she may have said that there is something similar in San Luis Obispo. I think it should be looked into.

    Can you post her suggestion David?

  32. Downtown shopper

    Rich said,

    “One more point against the “over the tracks” parking garage idea, which I concede I’ve never heard before and haven’t therefore given enough thought to.” Cecilia spoke about this during a DDBA forum and another forum that I attended during the last city council race.

    It sounded interesting the way it was described and if I remember correctly she made some suggestions for a trolly that would take shoppers around the core of downtown so that they would not have to carry their purchases all around with them. She also gave ideas for handicap parking and accommodating cyclists (of which I am one) so it really appealed to me.

    David would know this, but I think she may have said that there is something similar in San Luis Obispo. I think it should be looked into.

    Can you post her suggestion David?

  33. David M. Greenwald

    Rich:

    I could be wrong, but I don’t remember you attending the candidate’s forums.

    Anyway, Cecilia made it a centerpiece of her campaign:

    Here’s my write up of the April second candidate’s forum

    “Escamilla-Greenwald examined the factors that impacted economic development and then picked one to explore–the problem of parking and the disadvantage that businesses face currently with reparking laws.

    She then went on to discuss her idea for dealing with the parking problem. Her proposal would be to use city redevelopment money to construct a multilevel parking structure near the Design House with an Olive Street entrance. The parking structure would only have access on the Olive Street side, however, it would have a ramp over the train tracks meeting up with the existing lot along first street. It would then have a pedestrian ramp which would put pedestrians within two or three blocks of nearly all of downtown.

    This proposal would have the advantage of encouraging people to park outside of the core area and then walk to the core. It would greatly reduce traffic flow under the Richards Overpass. And finally, it would be a regional draw as people would have easy access to parking and shopping from the highway.”

  34. David M. Greenwald

    Rich:

    I could be wrong, but I don’t remember you attending the candidate’s forums.

    Anyway, Cecilia made it a centerpiece of her campaign:

    Here’s my write up of the April second candidate’s forum

    “Escamilla-Greenwald examined the factors that impacted economic development and then picked one to explore–the problem of parking and the disadvantage that businesses face currently with reparking laws.

    She then went on to discuss her idea for dealing with the parking problem. Her proposal would be to use city redevelopment money to construct a multilevel parking structure near the Design House with an Olive Street entrance. The parking structure would only have access on the Olive Street side, however, it would have a ramp over the train tracks meeting up with the existing lot along first street. It would then have a pedestrian ramp which would put pedestrians within two or three blocks of nearly all of downtown.

    This proposal would have the advantage of encouraging people to park outside of the core area and then walk to the core. It would greatly reduce traffic flow under the Richards Overpass. And finally, it would be a regional draw as people would have easy access to parking and shopping from the highway.”

  35. David M. Greenwald

    Rich:

    I could be wrong, but I don’t remember you attending the candidate’s forums.

    Anyway, Cecilia made it a centerpiece of her campaign:

    Here’s my write up of the April second candidate’s forum

    “Escamilla-Greenwald examined the factors that impacted economic development and then picked one to explore–the problem of parking and the disadvantage that businesses face currently with reparking laws.

    She then went on to discuss her idea for dealing with the parking problem. Her proposal would be to use city redevelopment money to construct a multilevel parking structure near the Design House with an Olive Street entrance. The parking structure would only have access on the Olive Street side, however, it would have a ramp over the train tracks meeting up with the existing lot along first street. It would then have a pedestrian ramp which would put pedestrians within two or three blocks of nearly all of downtown.

    This proposal would have the advantage of encouraging people to park outside of the core area and then walk to the core. It would greatly reduce traffic flow under the Richards Overpass. And finally, it would be a regional draw as people would have easy access to parking and shopping from the highway.”

  36. David M. Greenwald

    Rich:

    I could be wrong, but I don’t remember you attending the candidate’s forums.

    Anyway, Cecilia made it a centerpiece of her campaign:

    Here’s my write up of the April second candidate’s forum

    “Escamilla-Greenwald examined the factors that impacted economic development and then picked one to explore–the problem of parking and the disadvantage that businesses face currently with reparking laws.

    She then went on to discuss her idea for dealing with the parking problem. Her proposal would be to use city redevelopment money to construct a multilevel parking structure near the Design House with an Olive Street entrance. The parking structure would only have access on the Olive Street side, however, it would have a ramp over the train tracks meeting up with the existing lot along first street. It would then have a pedestrian ramp which would put pedestrians within two or three blocks of nearly all of downtown.

    This proposal would have the advantage of encouraging people to park outside of the core area and then walk to the core. It would greatly reduce traffic flow under the Richards Overpass. And finally, it would be a regional draw as people would have easy access to parking and shopping from the highway.”

  37. David M. Greenwald

    “Let’s face it, the only reason we are suggesting a reconfiguration of 5th street, is bc it is dangerous for bikes.”

    This is incorrect. Bikes are one aspect of it. But Old North Davis has taken this up because of pedestrian concerns. There is also concern with safety from cars turning onto fifth and making left turns off of fifth. So the issue is broader than simply bikes. That said, bikes are a very important part of this city.

  38. David M. Greenwald

    “Let’s face it, the only reason we are suggesting a reconfiguration of 5th street, is bc it is dangerous for bikes.”

    This is incorrect. Bikes are one aspect of it. But Old North Davis has taken this up because of pedestrian concerns. There is also concern with safety from cars turning onto fifth and making left turns off of fifth. So the issue is broader than simply bikes. That said, bikes are a very important part of this city.

  39. David M. Greenwald

    “Let’s face it, the only reason we are suggesting a reconfiguration of 5th street, is bc it is dangerous for bikes.”

    This is incorrect. Bikes are one aspect of it. But Old North Davis has taken this up because of pedestrian concerns. There is also concern with safety from cars turning onto fifth and making left turns off of fifth. So the issue is broader than simply bikes. That said, bikes are a very important part of this city.

  40. David M. Greenwald

    “Let’s face it, the only reason we are suggesting a reconfiguration of 5th street, is bc it is dangerous for bikes.”

    This is incorrect. Bikes are one aspect of it. But Old North Davis has taken this up because of pedestrian concerns. There is also concern with safety from cars turning onto fifth and making left turns off of fifth. So the issue is broader than simply bikes. That said, bikes are a very important part of this city.

  41. Anonymous

    “She then went on to discuss her idea for dealing with the parking problem. Her proposal would be to use city redevelopment money to construct a multilevel parking structure near the Design House with an Olive Street entrance. The parking structure would only have access on the Olive Street side, however, it would have a ramp over the train tracks meeting up with the existing lot along first street. It would then have a pedestrian ramp which would put pedestrians within two or three blocks of nearly all of downtown.”

    This would have been a colossal failure and waste of redevelopment money, period. This is the best way to discourage visitors from coming to Davis. The only way it could possibly work is to encourage existing downtown *employees* to park there, thus freeing up visitor parking in the existing parking lots and structures, but CEG didn’t have the insight because she doesn’t really understand the issue.

  42. Anonymous

    “She then went on to discuss her idea for dealing with the parking problem. Her proposal would be to use city redevelopment money to construct a multilevel parking structure near the Design House with an Olive Street entrance. The parking structure would only have access on the Olive Street side, however, it would have a ramp over the train tracks meeting up with the existing lot along first street. It would then have a pedestrian ramp which would put pedestrians within two or three blocks of nearly all of downtown.”

    This would have been a colossal failure and waste of redevelopment money, period. This is the best way to discourage visitors from coming to Davis. The only way it could possibly work is to encourage existing downtown *employees* to park there, thus freeing up visitor parking in the existing parking lots and structures, but CEG didn’t have the insight because she doesn’t really understand the issue.

  43. Anonymous

    “She then went on to discuss her idea for dealing with the parking problem. Her proposal would be to use city redevelopment money to construct a multilevel parking structure near the Design House with an Olive Street entrance. The parking structure would only have access on the Olive Street side, however, it would have a ramp over the train tracks meeting up with the existing lot along first street. It would then have a pedestrian ramp which would put pedestrians within two or three blocks of nearly all of downtown.”

    This would have been a colossal failure and waste of redevelopment money, period. This is the best way to discourage visitors from coming to Davis. The only way it could possibly work is to encourage existing downtown *employees* to park there, thus freeing up visitor parking in the existing parking lots and structures, but CEG didn’t have the insight because she doesn’t really understand the issue.

  44. Anonymous

    “She then went on to discuss her idea for dealing with the parking problem. Her proposal would be to use city redevelopment money to construct a multilevel parking structure near the Design House with an Olive Street entrance. The parking structure would only have access on the Olive Street side, however, it would have a ramp over the train tracks meeting up with the existing lot along first street. It would then have a pedestrian ramp which would put pedestrians within two or three blocks of nearly all of downtown.”

    This would have been a colossal failure and waste of redevelopment money, period. This is the best way to discourage visitors from coming to Davis. The only way it could possibly work is to encourage existing downtown *employees* to park there, thus freeing up visitor parking in the existing parking lots and structures, but CEG didn’t have the insight because she doesn’t really understand the issue.

  45. Anonymous

    It was an innovative idea that was developed a couple of years ago by several downtown merchants. You’re obviously just trying to attack CEG because you don’t like her.

  46. Anonymous

    It was an innovative idea that was developed a couple of years ago by several downtown merchants. You’re obviously just trying to attack CEG because you don’t like her.

  47. Anonymous

    It was an innovative idea that was developed a couple of years ago by several downtown merchants. You’re obviously just trying to attack CEG because you don’t like her.

  48. Anonymous

    It was an innovative idea that was developed a couple of years ago by several downtown merchants. You’re obviously just trying to attack CEG because you don’t like her.

  49. Anonymous

    It’s not an innovative idea. It would have failed. People coming to downtown do not want to drive into a parking structure then, walk 3 blocks to get to the heart of downtown. It’s also not a good way to treat guests who are bringing in money from outside town. It’s like saying, “we’re going to make it as hard as possible for you to shop downtown.” And in return, they would have bypassed the structure and taken their chances with street and surface lot parking in downtown. Thus, the reason it would fail.

    Quite honestly, if business owners proposed it, then they don’t understand their customers or downtown visitors. If anything, what would make more sense is a parking structure further down on olive drive across from Amtrak for train rider parking, and then use the Amtrak lot for downtown visitor parking, which would be closer to the core than what CEG was promoting.

  50. Anonymous

    It’s not an innovative idea. It would have failed. People coming to downtown do not want to drive into a parking structure then, walk 3 blocks to get to the heart of downtown. It’s also not a good way to treat guests who are bringing in money from outside town. It’s like saying, “we’re going to make it as hard as possible for you to shop downtown.” And in return, they would have bypassed the structure and taken their chances with street and surface lot parking in downtown. Thus, the reason it would fail.

    Quite honestly, if business owners proposed it, then they don’t understand their customers or downtown visitors. If anything, what would make more sense is a parking structure further down on olive drive across from Amtrak for train rider parking, and then use the Amtrak lot for downtown visitor parking, which would be closer to the core than what CEG was promoting.

  51. Anonymous

    It’s not an innovative idea. It would have failed. People coming to downtown do not want to drive into a parking structure then, walk 3 blocks to get to the heart of downtown. It’s also not a good way to treat guests who are bringing in money from outside town. It’s like saying, “we’re going to make it as hard as possible for you to shop downtown.” And in return, they would have bypassed the structure and taken their chances with street and surface lot parking in downtown. Thus, the reason it would fail.

    Quite honestly, if business owners proposed it, then they don’t understand their customers or downtown visitors. If anything, what would make more sense is a parking structure further down on olive drive across from Amtrak for train rider parking, and then use the Amtrak lot for downtown visitor parking, which would be closer to the core than what CEG was promoting.

  52. Anonymous

    It’s not an innovative idea. It would have failed. People coming to downtown do not want to drive into a parking structure then, walk 3 blocks to get to the heart of downtown. It’s also not a good way to treat guests who are bringing in money from outside town. It’s like saying, “we’re going to make it as hard as possible for you to shop downtown.” And in return, they would have bypassed the structure and taken their chances with street and surface lot parking in downtown. Thus, the reason it would fail.

    Quite honestly, if business owners proposed it, then they don’t understand their customers or downtown visitors. If anything, what would make more sense is a parking structure further down on olive drive across from Amtrak for train rider parking, and then use the Amtrak lot for downtown visitor parking, which would be closer to the core than what CEG was promoting.

  53. Mark

    As I understand the plan as it was proposed a few years ago you’re not walking three blocks, you exit the structure at 1st and F which puts you within a block or two of most major things in downtown.

    For long term parking its ideal. Frees up the near spots for paper who are doing short term stuff around the downtown. The key is that it funnels traffic out of the underpass and also makes good use of existing space.

    I fail to understand how that would have destroyed the downtown. At worst it would be an empty parking structure like the one on G St. It is probably a better location than some of the other proposals, one which would raze F and 3 street block.

  54. Mark

    As I understand the plan as it was proposed a few years ago you’re not walking three blocks, you exit the structure at 1st and F which puts you within a block or two of most major things in downtown.

    For long term parking its ideal. Frees up the near spots for paper who are doing short term stuff around the downtown. The key is that it funnels traffic out of the underpass and also makes good use of existing space.

    I fail to understand how that would have destroyed the downtown. At worst it would be an empty parking structure like the one on G St. It is probably a better location than some of the other proposals, one which would raze F and 3 street block.

  55. Mark

    As I understand the plan as it was proposed a few years ago you’re not walking three blocks, you exit the structure at 1st and F which puts you within a block or two of most major things in downtown.

    For long term parking its ideal. Frees up the near spots for paper who are doing short term stuff around the downtown. The key is that it funnels traffic out of the underpass and also makes good use of existing space.

    I fail to understand how that would have destroyed the downtown. At worst it would be an empty parking structure like the one on G St. It is probably a better location than some of the other proposals, one which would raze F and 3 street block.

  56. Mark

    As I understand the plan as it was proposed a few years ago you’re not walking three blocks, you exit the structure at 1st and F which puts you within a block or two of most major things in downtown.

    For long term parking its ideal. Frees up the near spots for paper who are doing short term stuff around the downtown. The key is that it funnels traffic out of the underpass and also makes good use of existing space.

    I fail to understand how that would have destroyed the downtown. At worst it would be an empty parking structure like the one on G St. It is probably a better location than some of the other proposals, one which would raze F and 3 street block.

  57. Don Shor

    Parking on Olive Drive might happen someday, but Rich has identified the more likely parking addition: “The next multi-level parking garage in Davis will be built in the lot north of Kinko’s between E and F.” I believe that is a major priority of the DDBA.

    Adding 1 – 2 more traffic lights and another dedicated left-turn lane on Fifth would cost very little compared to other options. Those could be implemented pretty quickly.

    FYI: here is the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association proposal for Fifth Street

  58. Don Shor

    Parking on Olive Drive might happen someday, but Rich has identified the more likely parking addition: “The next multi-level parking garage in Davis will be built in the lot north of Kinko’s between E and F.” I believe that is a major priority of the DDBA.

    Adding 1 – 2 more traffic lights and another dedicated left-turn lane on Fifth would cost very little compared to other options. Those could be implemented pretty quickly.

    FYI: here is the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association proposal for Fifth Street

  59. Don Shor

    Parking on Olive Drive might happen someday, but Rich has identified the more likely parking addition: “The next multi-level parking garage in Davis will be built in the lot north of Kinko’s between E and F.” I believe that is a major priority of the DDBA.

    Adding 1 – 2 more traffic lights and another dedicated left-turn lane on Fifth would cost very little compared to other options. Those could be implemented pretty quickly.

    FYI: here is the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association proposal for Fifth Street

  60. Don Shor

    Parking on Olive Drive might happen someday, but Rich has identified the more likely parking addition: “The next multi-level parking garage in Davis will be built in the lot north of Kinko’s between E and F.” I believe that is a major priority of the DDBA.

    Adding 1 – 2 more traffic lights and another dedicated left-turn lane on Fifth would cost very little compared to other options. Those could be implemented pretty quickly.

    FYI: here is the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association proposal for Fifth Street

  61. Rich Rifkin

    “I don’t remember you attending the candidates’ forums.”

    You remember correctly.

    “The parking structure would only have access on the Olive Street side. However, it would have a ramp over the train tracks meeting up with the existing lot along First Street. It would then have a pedestrian ramp which would put pedestrians within two or three blocks of nearly all of downtown.”

    So the only people who would use this parking structure would be people who were driving downtown from South Davis or from I-80 and intended to visit a business quite near Richards & Olive Drive, and those people would only use that lot if they had very good reason to believe there was no parking available right next to where they wanted to go. Seems to me that wouldn't solve anything for the subway congestion and likely, because it hardly would be used, wouldn't free up much downtown parking.

    If someone who lives in South Davis, for example, were driving to the Varsity, 2.5 blocks from Olive & Richards, why wouldn't that person park in the garage at 1st & F, which is closer? Why wouldn't that person first drive to 2nd Street to see if any spots are open right by the Varsity? I think almost everyone would, unless they really wanted some exercise. And if exercise were their goal, why drive?

    “This proposal would have the advantage of encouraging people to park outside of the core area and then walk to the core.”

    I highly, highly doubt that.

    “It would greatly reduce traffic flow under the Richards Overpass.”

    It’s actually an underpass and more importantly, it would have no impact on the subway’s problem traffic.

  62. Rich Rifkin

    “I don’t remember you attending the candidates’ forums.”

    You remember correctly.

    “The parking structure would only have access on the Olive Street side. However, it would have a ramp over the train tracks meeting up with the existing lot along First Street. It would then have a pedestrian ramp which would put pedestrians within two or three blocks of nearly all of downtown.”

    So the only people who would use this parking structure would be people who were driving downtown from South Davis or from I-80 and intended to visit a business quite near Richards & Olive Drive, and those people would only use that lot if they had very good reason to believe there was no parking available right next to where they wanted to go. Seems to me that wouldn't solve anything for the subway congestion and likely, because it hardly would be used, wouldn't free up much downtown parking.

    If someone who lives in South Davis, for example, were driving to the Varsity, 2.5 blocks from Olive & Richards, why wouldn't that person park in the garage at 1st & F, which is closer? Why wouldn't that person first drive to 2nd Street to see if any spots are open right by the Varsity? I think almost everyone would, unless they really wanted some exercise. And if exercise were their goal, why drive?

    “This proposal would have the advantage of encouraging people to park outside of the core area and then walk to the core.”

    I highly, highly doubt that.

    “It would greatly reduce traffic flow under the Richards Overpass.”

    It’s actually an underpass and more importantly, it would have no impact on the subway’s problem traffic.

  63. Rich Rifkin

    “I don’t remember you attending the candidates’ forums.”

    You remember correctly.

    “The parking structure would only have access on the Olive Street side. However, it would have a ramp over the train tracks meeting up with the existing lot along First Street. It would then have a pedestrian ramp which would put pedestrians within two or three blocks of nearly all of downtown.”

    So the only people who would use this parking structure would be people who were driving downtown from South Davis or from I-80 and intended to visit a business quite near Richards & Olive Drive, and those people would only use that lot if they had very good reason to believe there was no parking available right next to where they wanted to go. Seems to me that wouldn't solve anything for the subway congestion and likely, because it hardly would be used, wouldn't free up much downtown parking.

    If someone who lives in South Davis, for example, were driving to the Varsity, 2.5 blocks from Olive & Richards, why wouldn't that person park in the garage at 1st & F, which is closer? Why wouldn't that person first drive to 2nd Street to see if any spots are open right by the Varsity? I think almost everyone would, unless they really wanted some exercise. And if exercise were their goal, why drive?

    “This proposal would have the advantage of encouraging people to park outside of the core area and then walk to the core.”

    I highly, highly doubt that.

    “It would greatly reduce traffic flow under the Richards Overpass.”

    It’s actually an underpass and more importantly, it would have no impact on the subway’s problem traffic.

  64. Rich Rifkin

    “I don’t remember you attending the candidates’ forums.”

    You remember correctly.

    “The parking structure would only have access on the Olive Street side. However, it would have a ramp over the train tracks meeting up with the existing lot along First Street. It would then have a pedestrian ramp which would put pedestrians within two or three blocks of nearly all of downtown.”

    So the only people who would use this parking structure would be people who were driving downtown from South Davis or from I-80 and intended to visit a business quite near Richards & Olive Drive, and those people would only use that lot if they had very good reason to believe there was no parking available right next to where they wanted to go. Seems to me that wouldn't solve anything for the subway congestion and likely, because it hardly would be used, wouldn't free up much downtown parking.

    If someone who lives in South Davis, for example, were driving to the Varsity, 2.5 blocks from Olive & Richards, why wouldn't that person park in the garage at 1st & F, which is closer? Why wouldn't that person first drive to 2nd Street to see if any spots are open right by the Varsity? I think almost everyone would, unless they really wanted some exercise. And if exercise were their goal, why drive?

    “This proposal would have the advantage of encouraging people to park outside of the core area and then walk to the core.”

    I highly, highly doubt that.

    “It would greatly reduce traffic flow under the Richards Overpass.”

    It’s actually an underpass and more importantly, it would have no impact on the subway’s problem traffic.

  65. Anonymous

    FYI: here is the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association proposal for Fifth Street
    Before reading the comments here, my kneejerk reaction (as a driver) to change on 5th street was to keep it 4 lanes. However, after looking at the 3 lane proposal above, I definitely think that would work because: it gives more space to bikes, increases safety for pedestrians, it leaves the middle lane for people turning into downtown which I believe is where a lot of the accidents and gridlock occur, and through traffic will be able to flow better.

    As far as parking, I prefer more parking in downtown and not in structures that are near the edge of downtown. So I would not be in favor of a large parking garage on Olive Drive unless there was a new store right next to it. I don’t believe this structure would reduce traffic from the standpoint that people would circle downtown first, clogging streets, and then go down the underpass to the parking lot as a last resort.

  66. Anonymous

    FYI: here is the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association proposal for Fifth Street
    Before reading the comments here, my kneejerk reaction (as a driver) to change on 5th street was to keep it 4 lanes. However, after looking at the 3 lane proposal above, I definitely think that would work because: it gives more space to bikes, increases safety for pedestrians, it leaves the middle lane for people turning into downtown which I believe is where a lot of the accidents and gridlock occur, and through traffic will be able to flow better.

    As far as parking, I prefer more parking in downtown and not in structures that are near the edge of downtown. So I would not be in favor of a large parking garage on Olive Drive unless there was a new store right next to it. I don’t believe this structure would reduce traffic from the standpoint that people would circle downtown first, clogging streets, and then go down the underpass to the parking lot as a last resort.

  67. Anonymous

    FYI: here is the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association proposal for Fifth Street
    Before reading the comments here, my kneejerk reaction (as a driver) to change on 5th street was to keep it 4 lanes. However, after looking at the 3 lane proposal above, I definitely think that would work because: it gives more space to bikes, increases safety for pedestrians, it leaves the middle lane for people turning into downtown which I believe is where a lot of the accidents and gridlock occur, and through traffic will be able to flow better.

    As far as parking, I prefer more parking in downtown and not in structures that are near the edge of downtown. So I would not be in favor of a large parking garage on Olive Drive unless there was a new store right next to it. I don’t believe this structure would reduce traffic from the standpoint that people would circle downtown first, clogging streets, and then go down the underpass to the parking lot as a last resort.

  68. Anonymous

    FYI: here is the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association proposal for Fifth Street
    Before reading the comments here, my kneejerk reaction (as a driver) to change on 5th street was to keep it 4 lanes. However, after looking at the 3 lane proposal above, I definitely think that would work because: it gives more space to bikes, increases safety for pedestrians, it leaves the middle lane for people turning into downtown which I believe is where a lot of the accidents and gridlock occur, and through traffic will be able to flow better.

    As far as parking, I prefer more parking in downtown and not in structures that are near the edge of downtown. So I would not be in favor of a large parking garage on Olive Drive unless there was a new store right next to it. I don’t believe this structure would reduce traffic from the standpoint that people would circle downtown first, clogging streets, and then go down the underpass to the parking lot as a last resort.

  69. Anonymous

    “As I understand the plan as it was proposed a few years ago you’re not walking three blocks, you exit the structure at 1st and F which puts you within a block or two of most major things in downtown.”

    So you concede two blocks from the real “center of downtown. Now you’re neglecting to mention the fact that the parking garage itself is on the other side of the tracks. That’s another block. Now add the fact that the pedestrian overpass needs to rise well above the tracks then come back down. Also, the structure may or may not have elevators. Likely not, since they are a maintenance and repair nightmare. So both sides will have stairs and/or ramps with several switch backs on both sides. So someone parking on the first floor of this hypothetical parking structure gets to add a substantial walking distance probably greater than three or four blocks.

    Think of it this way. When you invite guests (downtown is in fact our community living room), do you ask your guests to park at the end of the street? Or do you clear out your own driveway and the spaces in front of your house (and maybe even ask your neighbors to do so as well) so it is convenient and welcoming for your guests who are bringing gifts with them (downtown $ in this case)?

    THAT is the crux of the issue.

  70. Anonymous

    “As I understand the plan as it was proposed a few years ago you’re not walking three blocks, you exit the structure at 1st and F which puts you within a block or two of most major things in downtown.”

    So you concede two blocks from the real “center of downtown. Now you’re neglecting to mention the fact that the parking garage itself is on the other side of the tracks. That’s another block. Now add the fact that the pedestrian overpass needs to rise well above the tracks then come back down. Also, the structure may or may not have elevators. Likely not, since they are a maintenance and repair nightmare. So both sides will have stairs and/or ramps with several switch backs on both sides. So someone parking on the first floor of this hypothetical parking structure gets to add a substantial walking distance probably greater than three or four blocks.

    Think of it this way. When you invite guests (downtown is in fact our community living room), do you ask your guests to park at the end of the street? Or do you clear out your own driveway and the spaces in front of your house (and maybe even ask your neighbors to do so as well) so it is convenient and welcoming for your guests who are bringing gifts with them (downtown $ in this case)?

    THAT is the crux of the issue.

  71. Anonymous

    “As I understand the plan as it was proposed a few years ago you’re not walking three blocks, you exit the structure at 1st and F which puts you within a block or two of most major things in downtown.”

    So you concede two blocks from the real “center of downtown. Now you’re neglecting to mention the fact that the parking garage itself is on the other side of the tracks. That’s another block. Now add the fact that the pedestrian overpass needs to rise well above the tracks then come back down. Also, the structure may or may not have elevators. Likely not, since they are a maintenance and repair nightmare. So both sides will have stairs and/or ramps with several switch backs on both sides. So someone parking on the first floor of this hypothetical parking structure gets to add a substantial walking distance probably greater than three or four blocks.

    Think of it this way. When you invite guests (downtown is in fact our community living room), do you ask your guests to park at the end of the street? Or do you clear out your own driveway and the spaces in front of your house (and maybe even ask your neighbors to do so as well) so it is convenient and welcoming for your guests who are bringing gifts with them (downtown $ in this case)?

    THAT is the crux of the issue.

  72. Anonymous

    “As I understand the plan as it was proposed a few years ago you’re not walking three blocks, you exit the structure at 1st and F which puts you within a block or two of most major things in downtown.”

    So you concede two blocks from the real “center of downtown. Now you’re neglecting to mention the fact that the parking garage itself is on the other side of the tracks. That’s another block. Now add the fact that the pedestrian overpass needs to rise well above the tracks then come back down. Also, the structure may or may not have elevators. Likely not, since they are a maintenance and repair nightmare. So both sides will have stairs and/or ramps with several switch backs on both sides. So someone parking on the first floor of this hypothetical parking structure gets to add a substantial walking distance probably greater than three or four blocks.

    Think of it this way. When you invite guests (downtown is in fact our community living room), do you ask your guests to park at the end of the street? Or do you clear out your own driveway and the spaces in front of your house (and maybe even ask your neighbors to do so as well) so it is convenient and welcoming for your guests who are bringing gifts with them (downtown $ in this case)?

    THAT is the crux of the issue.

  73. Mark

    The plan was actually to have the drivers drive over the tracks and park on the downtown side of the tracks. People would simply walk out of a ramp from the inside of the tracks and be deposited on 1st Street. The car entrance is off Olive and the structure goes on both side of the tracks.

    BTW, I agree I would put some commerce there as well to help anchor the site. If it is done right it could be very good for a lot of reasons.

  74. Mark

    The plan was actually to have the drivers drive over the tracks and park on the downtown side of the tracks. People would simply walk out of a ramp from the inside of the tracks and be deposited on 1st Street. The car entrance is off Olive and the structure goes on both side of the tracks.

    BTW, I agree I would put some commerce there as well to help anchor the site. If it is done right it could be very good for a lot of reasons.

  75. Mark

    The plan was actually to have the drivers drive over the tracks and park on the downtown side of the tracks. People would simply walk out of a ramp from the inside of the tracks and be deposited on 1st Street. The car entrance is off Olive and the structure goes on both side of the tracks.

    BTW, I agree I would put some commerce there as well to help anchor the site. If it is done right it could be very good for a lot of reasons.

  76. Mark

    The plan was actually to have the drivers drive over the tracks and park on the downtown side of the tracks. People would simply walk out of a ramp from the inside of the tracks and be deposited on 1st Street. The car entrance is off Olive and the structure goes on both side of the tracks.

    BTW, I agree I would put some commerce there as well to help anchor the site. If it is done right it could be very good for a lot of reasons.

  77. Anonymous

    To: Sick of Arrogant Avid Cyclists,

    The cyclist was correct, under the law, by riding in the road. Cyclists have as much right to the roadways as a motorized vehicle. HOWEVER, the cyclist was incorrect by impeding traffic by moving at a slower rate of speed. That is obstruction of the roadway and the cyclist can be cited for it. The cyclist’s response was like any other persons response to being caught doing something stupid.
    Cyslists in this town, in general, are bad mannered and I wish the City had more funding for enforcement of vehicle code laws on cyclists. One thing that should be done is to remove the no biking signs on the South side of 5th street and allow the bikers, skateboarders, and others to ride on the sidewalk on that side of the street. That would eliminate some of the problems.

  78. Anonymous

    To: Sick of Arrogant Avid Cyclists,

    The cyclist was correct, under the law, by riding in the road. Cyclists have as much right to the roadways as a motorized vehicle. HOWEVER, the cyclist was incorrect by impeding traffic by moving at a slower rate of speed. That is obstruction of the roadway and the cyclist can be cited for it. The cyclist’s response was like any other persons response to being caught doing something stupid.
    Cyslists in this town, in general, are bad mannered and I wish the City had more funding for enforcement of vehicle code laws on cyclists. One thing that should be done is to remove the no biking signs on the South side of 5th street and allow the bikers, skateboarders, and others to ride on the sidewalk on that side of the street. That would eliminate some of the problems.

  79. Anonymous

    To: Sick of Arrogant Avid Cyclists,

    The cyclist was correct, under the law, by riding in the road. Cyclists have as much right to the roadways as a motorized vehicle. HOWEVER, the cyclist was incorrect by impeding traffic by moving at a slower rate of speed. That is obstruction of the roadway and the cyclist can be cited for it. The cyclist’s response was like any other persons response to being caught doing something stupid.
    Cyslists in this town, in general, are bad mannered and I wish the City had more funding for enforcement of vehicle code laws on cyclists. One thing that should be done is to remove the no biking signs on the South side of 5th street and allow the bikers, skateboarders, and others to ride on the sidewalk on that side of the street. That would eliminate some of the problems.

  80. Anonymous

    To: Sick of Arrogant Avid Cyclists,

    The cyclist was correct, under the law, by riding in the road. Cyclists have as much right to the roadways as a motorized vehicle. HOWEVER, the cyclist was incorrect by impeding traffic by moving at a slower rate of speed. That is obstruction of the roadway and the cyclist can be cited for it. The cyclist’s response was like any other persons response to being caught doing something stupid.
    Cyslists in this town, in general, are bad mannered and I wish the City had more funding for enforcement of vehicle code laws on cyclists. One thing that should be done is to remove the no biking signs on the South side of 5th street and allow the bikers, skateboarders, and others to ride on the sidewalk on that side of the street. That would eliminate some of the problems.

  81. Anonymous

    “People would simply walk out of a ramp from the inside of the tracks and be deposited on 1st Street.”

    You would be building a parking garage directly across first st. from the parking garage over the movie plex which is never full? That’s stupid.

    It won’t even help with the underpass congestion. The cars going through richards are not going to that part of downtown mostly. They go to ucd mostly. The rest will want to park closer to where they shop.

  82. Anonymous

    “People would simply walk out of a ramp from the inside of the tracks and be deposited on 1st Street.”

    You would be building a parking garage directly across first st. from the parking garage over the movie plex which is never full? That’s stupid.

    It won’t even help with the underpass congestion. The cars going through richards are not going to that part of downtown mostly. They go to ucd mostly. The rest will want to park closer to where they shop.

  83. Anonymous

    “People would simply walk out of a ramp from the inside of the tracks and be deposited on 1st Street.”

    You would be building a parking garage directly across first st. from the parking garage over the movie plex which is never full? That’s stupid.

    It won’t even help with the underpass congestion. The cars going through richards are not going to that part of downtown mostly. They go to ucd mostly. The rest will want to park closer to where they shop.

  84. Anonymous

    “People would simply walk out of a ramp from the inside of the tracks and be deposited on 1st Street.”

    You would be building a parking garage directly across first st. from the parking garage over the movie plex which is never full? That’s stupid.

    It won’t even help with the underpass congestion. The cars going through richards are not going to that part of downtown mostly. They go to ucd mostly. The rest will want to park closer to where they shop.

  85. Anonymous

    It seems to me the real problems with parking downtown are more like around 3rd and D. The proposed lot location would be farther than many people would want to walk unless they are going to the movie theater or the shops around 1st and E.

  86. Anonymous

    It seems to me the real problems with parking downtown are more like around 3rd and D. The proposed lot location would be farther than many people would want to walk unless they are going to the movie theater or the shops around 1st and E.

  87. Anonymous

    It seems to me the real problems with parking downtown are more like around 3rd and D. The proposed lot location would be farther than many people would want to walk unless they are going to the movie theater or the shops around 1st and E.

  88. Anonymous

    It seems to me the real problems with parking downtown are more like around 3rd and D. The proposed lot location would be farther than many people would want to walk unless they are going to the movie theater or the shops around 1st and E.

  89. Anonymous

    “unless they are going to the movie theater or the shops around 1st and E.”

    Since we have a parking garage already at first and E why would anyone use Cecilia’s $12,500,000 garage?

  90. Anonymous

    “unless they are going to the movie theater or the shops around 1st and E.”

    Since we have a parking garage already at first and E why would anyone use Cecilia’s $12,500,000 garage?

  91. Anonymous

    “unless they are going to the movie theater or the shops around 1st and E.”

    Since we have a parking garage already at first and E why would anyone use Cecilia’s $12,500,000 garage?

  92. Anonymous

    “unless they are going to the movie theater or the shops around 1st and E.”

    Since we have a parking garage already at first and E why would anyone use Cecilia’s $12,500,000 garage?

  93. Another anonymous person

    Don’t you mean on F Street? Isn’t that primarily for theater parking? You can’t find a space in there when there is a major show playing.

  94. Another anonymous person

    Don’t you mean on F Street? Isn’t that primarily for theater parking? You can’t find a space in there when there is a major show playing.

  95. Another anonymous person

    Don’t you mean on F Street? Isn’t that primarily for theater parking? You can’t find a space in there when there is a major show playing.

  96. Another anonymous person

    Don’t you mean on F Street? Isn’t that primarily for theater parking? You can’t find a space in there when there is a major show playing.

  97. Anonymous

    “You can’t find a space in there when there is a major show playing.”

    Only at 8 o’clock at night, when it’s easy to park on the streets. During the day, when folks shop, that garage is half empty.

  98. Anonymous

    “You can’t find a space in there when there is a major show playing.”

    Only at 8 o’clock at night, when it’s easy to park on the streets. During the day, when folks shop, that garage is half empty.

  99. Anonymous

    “You can’t find a space in there when there is a major show playing.”

    Only at 8 o’clock at night, when it’s easy to park on the streets. During the day, when folks shop, that garage is half empty.

  100. Anonymous

    “You can’t find a space in there when there is a major show playing.”

    Only at 8 o’clock at night, when it’s easy to park on the streets. During the day, when folks shop, that garage is half empty.

  101. Mike Adams

    It would be useful to think of some way to empirically test some of the assertions – such as how far people are willing to walk – rather than just stating them ad nauseam.

    I find it rather assuming to hear auto-philes talk as though driving is a God-given right, and then be surprised by the same attitudes in cyclists and pedestrians.

  102. Mike Adams

    It would be useful to think of some way to empirically test some of the assertions – such as how far people are willing to walk – rather than just stating them ad nauseam.

    I find it rather assuming to hear auto-philes talk as though driving is a God-given right, and then be surprised by the same attitudes in cyclists and pedestrians.

  103. Mike Adams

    It would be useful to think of some way to empirically test some of the assertions – such as how far people are willing to walk – rather than just stating them ad nauseam.

    I find it rather assuming to hear auto-philes talk as though driving is a God-given right, and then be surprised by the same attitudes in cyclists and pedestrians.

  104. Mike Adams

    It would be useful to think of some way to empirically test some of the assertions – such as how far people are willing to walk – rather than just stating them ad nauseam.

    I find it rather assuming to hear auto-philes talk as though driving is a God-given right, and then be surprised by the same attitudes in cyclists and pedestrians.

  105. Anonymous

    “It would be useful to think of some way to empirically test some of the assertions – such as how far people are willing to walk – rather than just stating them ad nauseam.”

    It has been tested. You just need to go find the information. Bottom line is it varies. In a parking lagoon such as a mega mall, people are willing to walk farther than they realize because they can see their destination. In a downtown setting, they’re unwilling to walk as far because if they have to park around the corner, they can’t see their destination and thus, they search for a closer space and conclude there is not enough parking downtown.

    Then you have to factor visitors versus employees and whether the parking is free or paid and where the free parking is versus the paid parking.

    It’s well documented. The problem with this blog is that it is assumed people are offering opinions with the same foundation of knowledge on the subject, which isn’t the case.

  106. Anonymous

    “It would be useful to think of some way to empirically test some of the assertions – such as how far people are willing to walk – rather than just stating them ad nauseam.”

    It has been tested. You just need to go find the information. Bottom line is it varies. In a parking lagoon such as a mega mall, people are willing to walk farther than they realize because they can see their destination. In a downtown setting, they’re unwilling to walk as far because if they have to park around the corner, they can’t see their destination and thus, they search for a closer space and conclude there is not enough parking downtown.

    Then you have to factor visitors versus employees and whether the parking is free or paid and where the free parking is versus the paid parking.

    It’s well documented. The problem with this blog is that it is assumed people are offering opinions with the same foundation of knowledge on the subject, which isn’t the case.

  107. Anonymous

    “It would be useful to think of some way to empirically test some of the assertions – such as how far people are willing to walk – rather than just stating them ad nauseam.”

    It has been tested. You just need to go find the information. Bottom line is it varies. In a parking lagoon such as a mega mall, people are willing to walk farther than they realize because they can see their destination. In a downtown setting, they’re unwilling to walk as far because if they have to park around the corner, they can’t see their destination and thus, they search for a closer space and conclude there is not enough parking downtown.

    Then you have to factor visitors versus employees and whether the parking is free or paid and where the free parking is versus the paid parking.

    It’s well documented. The problem with this blog is that it is assumed people are offering opinions with the same foundation of knowledge on the subject, which isn’t the case.

  108. Anonymous

    “It would be useful to think of some way to empirically test some of the assertions – such as how far people are willing to walk – rather than just stating them ad nauseam.”

    It has been tested. You just need to go find the information. Bottom line is it varies. In a parking lagoon such as a mega mall, people are willing to walk farther than they realize because they can see their destination. In a downtown setting, they’re unwilling to walk as far because if they have to park around the corner, they can’t see their destination and thus, they search for a closer space and conclude there is not enough parking downtown.

    Then you have to factor visitors versus employees and whether the parking is free or paid and where the free parking is versus the paid parking.

    It’s well documented. The problem with this blog is that it is assumed people are offering opinions with the same foundation of knowledge on the subject, which isn’t the case.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for