One of the big problems I see with city staff in this community is twofold – if they do not believe in a project, (a) they tend to slow play it, and (b) they do not properly address misconceptions. It is a sort of passive-aggressive benign neglect, and I see that very scenario playing out on the 5th Street redesign.
So I see the comment with regard to the Fifth Street redesign, “Here is what I see happening…..they take Fifth down to two lanes and everyone will take the side streets to avoid it.”
It sounds plausible. But is that really what is going to happen?
First of all, I absolutely hate driving on Fifth Street between B and G with four lanes. Why? It is congested. The traffic lights at F and G, if you catch them wrong, can hold you up for two minutes. And it is dangerous with cars veering in and out of traffic, with bicyclists and pedestrians clogging things up.
So, that idea that I am not now already taking a side street to avoid Fifth Street is a non-starter for me.
The idea behind Fifth Street redesign is that, while it will reduce the lanes of traffic, the flow will be better because there will be bike lanes and turn pockets. And hopefully, the traffic lights at F and G will become less onerous.
The myth, however, of people diverting onto residential streets goes beyond the structural myth of reduction of lanes equaling the clogging of traffic.
Are people going to suddenly be veering up E Street to avoid the traffic congestion? No. They may take F Street, they may take G Street, or they may take B Street. The problem is that they are already.
When I am headed east, if I see the light at F Street turn red, I head down E Street, cutting over on 4th Street. I am simply not convinced that despite the long traffic light, that route is quicker. Even early in the morning on the way to the gym on Second Street, it just does not seem worthwhile.
Are people really going to jet up these residential streets that are not built to handle traffic? Doubtful. For one thing there is a natural equilibrium that will occur as people seek the fastest route – if an alternative route becomes congested, few people are going to take it.
Getting back to the city, I think the city could have laid out a lot of these issues and dismissed most of the concerns.
The side street issue is a non-issue. People are generally not driving in large numbers up D and E Street to head westbound on fifth or northbound into Old North Davis, unless they happen to live there. So the idea that we are going to create back up on the side streets does not make a lot of sense, because right now it’s hard to make a left turn from those streets.
If I can help it, I either go up to B Street where there is a signal or up to F Street where there is a signal.
Is that going to push more traffic onto F and G? Probably not. For one thing, there is a good deal of traffic now and for another, there is not a lot on D or E.
That all presumes that the redesign is going to clog up Fifth Street. There is always a nagging fear of change. I get that. It is unavoidable that there is anxiety when we try something new.
But the part everyone seems to be missing is that, while it may be new to us, it is not new. The idea of fewer lanes and more turn pockets and bike lanes actually easing up the flow did not start in Davis. It has been tried successfully in many communities.
A lot of this anxiety could have been alleviated if city staff had taken up the cause and worked to educate the public on this issue and how the seeming counterintuitive move of reduction of lanes easing up traffic actually can work.
Next time you drive eastbound from A Street to L Street, observe the traffic flow. What is causing delays? You need to observe the roadway carefully.
For example, heading westbound the other day, it was a simple bicyclist on Fifth Street, biking along on the side of the road – which is perfectly legal to do. Except that on Fifth Street there is no room.
So, what did the vehicle in the right lane do? He slowed down to biking speed. That caused everyone else to slow down behind him. Invariably, cars started to pass on the left. This created a traffic jam.
But there was a chain reaction here because as it backed up traffic, cars now did not make the light. They had to wait a couple of minutes for the light to change, but the back up was long enough that cars waiting at the light could not all get through the next green light.
So, now a simple bike has delayed cars by up to four minutes. Needless to say, this does not happen if you have a bike lane.
That’s just the start. How about a car attempting to make a left turn? What happens there is the reverse. You have a car waiting for a long stream of traffic to pass. You have cars stopped behind the cars. And you have cars veering into the right lane to avoid the blockage, causing potential accidents or more back up.
These problems are also easily fixed by having both left and right turn pockets.
The end result is, if this is properly designed, while you may not be able to whiz through at 35 mph anymore, you can probably most of the time drive through at 25 mph, safely, with fewer delays caused by traffic signals or diversions.
Bottomline, uncertainty is always unsettling. But the current situation is not good, it’s not good for safety and I do not believe it is good for the downtown. Better road design might actually help businesses, both along Fifth Street and in the core.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]City staff does not want this project. It was pushed on them by the community and council. And it shows. It is not a priority and city staff has failed to address critical concerns – legitimate ones that crop up in the community.[/quote]
[quote]Getting back to the city, I think the city could have laid out a lot of these issues and dismissed most of the concerns.[/quote]
Did you listen to the Planning Commission meeting on the 5th St Redesign? City staff, Steve Tracy and some other members of the public did a tremendous job defending the 5th Street Redesign very well against vigorous attack from two Commissioners who were clearly opposed to the project. To claim that city staff does not want this project flies in the face of what happened… I am at a complete loss where you are getting your information…
That’s interesting. I’ve been hearing very persistent complaints from a lot of different people on city staff’s handling of this matter.
I don’t know if the new plan will work. What I do know is that anyone cycling on 5th Street is totally nuts. It’s the most dangerous road in Davis for cyclists.
I think “staff” is too broad a generalization. Staff are people too and we should honor their individual opinions instead of stereotyping them. Shouldn’t we say “some staff”, or “those staff lacking road diet experience”, are less likely to support the 5th Street plan.
Seriously though, it would be good to know if the staff support this plan. If not, then why not?
[quote]Seriously though, it would be good to know if the staff support this plan. If not, then why not?[/quote]
The better question is what specific staff don’t support this project, because the two staffers speaking that night at the Planning Commission (Katherine Hess and I cannot for the life of me remember who the other one was – I can see his face but cannot remember his name – forgive me whoever you are – I’m having a senior moment! Someone step in if they know his name…) were very much in support. Again, are we being subjected to city hall gossip as fact, much like the courthouse gossip that was also reported as fact? I’m just completely perplexed/baffled on this one.
Jeff, you make an excellent point. The Vanguard needs to be careful about lumping all staff together and be more specific as to which particular staffer, if it knows anything, and not make sweeping generalizations unless it can back it up. In this particular case, I think the Vanguard is way off base based on what I saw at the Planning Commission that night.
David- I have to agree with Elaine on this one. As one of the Planning Commissioners who vigorously SUPPORTED the project at last Wednesday’s meeting, I was impressed with the way staff fought FOR the project.
In particular, I was appreciative of how Katherine Hess handled it…(I have disagreed with her on numerous occasions), but she was forceful in her support for the 5th St. redesign.
(Elaine- the other staffer’s name is Mike Webb…primary staff liasion for the Planning Commission)
I have been dismayed at how slooooowly this project has moved forward,and was glad to see the PC vote to proceed…even with the opposition of several of the Commissioners.
Lucas: thanks for the comments. You live close to the project, as I do, and you are using that area every day. I also want to say that Katherine Hess seems to always use her bike around town and I am sure she understands how dangerous Fifth is for bikes. I went to a community meeting at Pioneer School several years ago; it was dark; rainy; and cold that winter night. She arrived on her bike from West Davis, rain gear and all. I was impressed. I always see her around town on her bike.
Thanks to the PC’s support.
And especially thanks to Steve Tracy for the wonderful work he has done on this issue for over ten years, to the benefit of all of us who use Fifth in this area, including crossing from the downtown core into Old North.
[quote](Elaine- the other staffer’s name is Mike Webb…primary staff liasion for the Planning Commission)
I have been dismayed at how slooooowly this project has moved forward,and was glad to see the PC vote to proceed…even with the opposition of several of the Commissioners.[/quote]
Thanks Lucas for reminding me of Mike’s name. Sorry Mike, for not remembering – my penchant for not remembering a person’s name is terrible – I’m great w faces, just not the names that go with them. Please forgive…)
Yes, the project does seem to be going very, very slow – in fact it looks as if there will be a year’s delay. Do you know the reason for the additional year, Lucas? My impression it was funding…
Lucas: That is reassuring because I have had mountains of documents that I have requested over the years showing the exact opposite.
Elaine is correct, that I should not lump in all city staff together. I tend to except in extreme circumstances not single out “bad” staff members (as I did a certain finance director). However, in so doing it lumps in good staff members with bad ones. I can say, that Mike Webb has always been very professional and a good staffer. He is not one of the people I am referring to here.
[quote]The myth, however, of people diverting onto residential streets goes beyond the structural myth of reduction of lanes equaling the clogging of traffic.[/quote]If, indeed, it is a “myth”, let’s dispel it [u]by removing all [/u]language in the approvals that the city will mitigate any real/perceived traffic impacts on adjacent streets. Fair enough.
David, I have long appreciated how you have understood this redesign and supported our efforts to get it done. But from your comments that neighborhood traffic is a non-issue it is clear to me that I have failed to properly articulate the problems the neighborhoods of Old East and Old North Davis have been having for several years. They are because of the failed effort to fix the street that was implemented in February of 2005.
The change in signal timing at the F and G Street intersections caused long delays for drivers caught at red lights, who then in the best of circumstances had to wait through green light phases for TWO other streams of traffic. In the worst of circumstances, as you and others point out, they are caught at two red lights. Many drivers seeing the green light they are approaching turn orange, then red, will make a sudden and often dangerous turn and race through the residential neighborhoods to avoid the signals entirely.
What we have been experiencing over the past six years isn’t “backup” as you put it, because drivers have to stop at the stop signs and wait for cross traffic in order to produce backup. What we are seeing a still significant increase in traffic that is pre-sorted for impatient drivers. The City has documented speeds as high as 49 miles an hour on the 600 block of D Street, where I live. My own radar gun has recorded many cars traveling over 40 miles an hour on that same stretch of D Street, and several over 50 mph. In 2008 alone we saw FOUR traffic accidents in just two blocks of residential D Street within 400 feet of our house (this excludes the several accidents at D and 5th).
So what we are experiencing is an increase in impatient drivers, speeding, running stop signs, and accidents. All in the interior of strictly residential neighborhoods. What we are asking for is that staff avoid deferring addressing this hazard, and not be allowed to set a threshold where we only get relief if the already unacceptable situation gets worse. Even if 5th Street works better after the redesign, and we are confident it will, many drivers who are now set in the pattern of cutting through our neighborhoods will continue to do so. Just a few simple and cheap traffic calming devices will control that behavior.
Thanks.
Wouldn’t staggered lights at F and G be better than what we have where west turns grn first allowing lft turns then east stays grn longer. I have suggested this before to no avail but would be interested in what Steve might say.
[quote]Just a few simple and cheap traffic calming devices will control that behavior. [/quote]So, I have to assume that stracy is either a traffic engineer, and/or has some specific proposals in mind, including the costs…. perhaps we should direct staff to include these in the proposed budget for the road diet.
I am not an engineer, but have worked in transportation planning, traffic calming, and what is now called complete streets for 30 years. In my semi-retirement doing street design projects as part of a team is my primary source of income.
I will be suggesting some simple “for instance” designs for Old North Davis tomorrow evening at the Council hearing and some very specific design additions to what staff is proposing for J Street when that item comes up. In both cases I will include costs that are low enough they are more than justified given the benefits we will see.
Everyone: I used to study traffic data and analysis with Steve Tracy for hours when I was on the CC, and I can tell you that if Steve says it, you can take it to the bank. He is accurate, fair, and practical.
I think the CC could just take his plan, vote to approve it, and let the contractors build the project. The CC could be flat done with this, and should have been done well before 2004.
At the end of the day, if an engineer signs plans, their license is “on the line”. If the road diet succeeds, there is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Tracy will take credit. If it is a “push”… collision rates neither increase, nor decrease, no one has any credit nor liability… if collision rates increase and/or morbidity/mortality rates go up, there is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Tracy will blame design engineers and/or staff for the failure. As Michael says, “you can take that to the bank”.
I have to say I resent the tone of that recent comment. I am not doing this for money, or for credit, or to blame anyone for leaving an outdated street they just sort of inherited. I started asking the City to implement the two-lane with left turn pockets and bike lanes design that has been in the General Plan for 20 years for my neighbors who have been hurt in accidents on 5th Street.
I continue to do it because I believe in and have worked my whole life supporting one of the primary purposes of government: to protect people who can’t protect themselves. In the case of streets, that is people who are suffering unnecessarily because of outdated street designs that don’t provide much of anything for people who are not in the cars. In fact, these streets often don’t even do a very good job of protecting people in the cars because modern design features have not been retrofitted.
So let’s all consider this project to be in the interest of those Davis residents and visitors who WON’T be injured and suffer property loss by doing something as simple as using this public space we call 5th Street.
Once this street is rebuilt, many people will survive a trip on or across 5th Street every year unscathed, who would suffer injury or loss if we leave it as it is now. We will never know just who they are, but it is those people we are doing this for. Not the Council, not the engineers, and for sure not for me.
[quote]I have to say I resent the tone of that recent comment. [/quote]So…. bottom line… who should take responsibility if the concept fails?
“But from your comments that neighborhood traffic is a non-issue it is clear to me that I have failed to properly articulate the problems the neighborhoods of Old East and Old North Davis have been having for several years. “
To be clear, my comment was more along the lines, that I think the changes are a non-issue and my point was that people were already diverting into the side streets. If that’s not how it came across, that was the intention.
We get one of these from the UCD Vet School.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Holman_Hunt_-_The_Scapegoat.jpg
We can name it our “Escapegoat” because by blaming him we can escape the work of refining the design. That’s what our engineers in Davis did 40 years ago as they perfected the bicycle designs that became the standards for the State of California and eventually the nation.
Are we going to suggest B Street should be a 4-lane street with no bike lanes? The two lanes with turn pockets and bike lanes we have now on B Street is a failed design that has been in place a long time? It carried almost EXACTLY the same daily traffic volume as 5th Street. Same drivers, same cyclists, same town. But much safer.
Safety. That is what this design is all about. Safety for all users.
Sacramento is not considering a road diet plan for Watt Avenue even though several of the major intersections have high accident rates high danger for pedestrians and bicycles. Common sense should prevail at some point to accept the necessities – and the consequences – of auto traffic.
I support the 5th street redesign for various reasons; however, there is a flicker of concern in the back of my mind that Davis activists are driving the agenda to improve bicycle access and safety at the expense of auto travel.
[quote]I support the 5th street redesign for various reasons; however, there is a flicker of concern in the back of my mind that Davis activists are driving the agenda to improve bicycle access and safety at the expense of auto travel.[/quote]
I honestly don’t think that is the case Jeff. I am not a bicylist (used to be, not anymore for health reasons), but absolutely can’t stand the problem of bicyclists trying to get down 5th Street in the Downtown area between A and G. I am so afraid I am going to injure one of them, trying to get by them when I am driving my car. Either they are inexperienced bicyclers, who do really stupid things, or they are avid bicyclists who have decided they “own the road” and are not respectful of auto traffic and do stupid things. I was very reluctant and opposed to the road diet at first, but after listening carefully at many meetings to the rationale, I finally became convinced it is the only sensible thing to try. I think a lot of other people arrived at the same conclusion in the same way.
Steve Tracy has done a remarkable job in educating the public on the road diet, with infinite patience and restraint. It has really taken his leadership on this issue to make the public aware of why such traffic measures actually can be very effective. Will there be consequential problems? Perhaps. But if the community gets on board, at least gives it “the old college try”, and we make every effort to work out any kinks, I suspect even the downtown businesses are going to be glad we made the change.
Thanks Steve, for having the strength, expertise, and staying power to convince doubters this is a plan well worth trying… you made a convert of me, and I don’t necessarily convince easily!